The Collected Works of Porphyry [1 ed.] 9781801701402

Citation preview

The Collected Works of PORPHYRY (c. 234 - c. 305 AD) Contents The Translations Life of Plotinus Life of Pythagoras Isagoge On the Faculties of the Soul Against the Christians On the Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey On the Abstinence of Eating Animals Aids to the Study of the Intelligibles Letter to Marcella Letter to the Egyptian Anebo The Greek Texts List of Greek Texts The Dual Texts Dual Greek and English Texts The Biography Brief Biography: Porphyry The Delphi Classics Catalogue

© Delphi Classics 2023 Version 1

[1]

The Collected Works of PORPHYRY OF TYRE

By Delphi Classics, 2023

[2]

COPYRIGHT Collected Works of Porphyry First published in the United Kingdom in 2023 by Delphi Classics. © Delphi Classics, 2023. All rights reserved.  No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher, nor be otherwise circulated in any form other than that in which it is published. ISBN: 978 1 80170 140 2 Delphi Classics is an imprint of Delphi Publishing Ltd Hastings, East Sussex United Kingdom Contact: [email protected]

www.delphiclassics.com

[3]

The Translations

Tyre, Lebanon, one of the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world — Porphyry’s birthplace

[4]

Archaeological ruins at Tyre

[5]

Life of Plotinus Translated by Stephen MacKenna, 1917 The Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry was born in c. 234 in Tyre, Roman Phoenicia. He wrote original works in Greek on a variety of topics, ranging from music theory to Homer to vegetarianism. His parents named him Malkos (Old Aramaic for ‘king’) though he later changed it to “Basileus” (Ancient Greek for ‘king’). In later days he earned the sobriquet “Porphyrius” (Ancient Greek for ‘clad in purple’). As a youth he travelled to Athens, where he studied grammar and rhetoric under Cassius Longinus, while becoming acquainted with Middle Platonism. In 262 he went to Rome, intrigued by the reputation of Plotinus (c. 204-270 AD), a Hellenistic Platonist philosopher, born and raised in Roman Egypt. Plotinus is regarded by modern scholarship as the founder of Neoplatonism. Historians of the nineteenth century invented the term “neoplatonism”, applying it to Plotinus and his philosophy, which was vastly influential during late antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. In his metaphysical writings, Plotinus describes three fundamental principles: the One, the Intellect, and the Soul. The term “neoplatonism” does not encapsulate a set of ideas as much as a series of thinkers. Among the common ideas it maintains is monism, the doctrine that all of reality can be derived from a single principle — “the One”. For six years Porphyry devoted himself to the practice of Neoplatonism, during which time he severely modified his diet. At one point he became suicidal and on the advice of Plotinus he went to live in Sicily for five years to recover his mental wellbeing. On returning to Rome, he lectured on philosophy and completed an edition of the writings of Plotinus, who had died in the meantime, together with the following biography on his teacher. It remains our chief source of biographical information on Plotinus.

[6]

Ruins at Mendes, Egypt — near Plotinus’ birthplace, Lycopolis, an ancient town in the Sebennytic nome in Lower Egypt, originally founded by a colony of Osirian priests

[7]

CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

[8]

Head in white marble attrinuted to be a depiction of Plotinus, Ostia Antica

[9]

1. PLOT I N U S , T H E P H I LO S O P H E R our contemporary, seemed ashamed of being in the body. So deeply-rooted was this feeling that he could never be induced to tell of his ancestry, his parentage or his birthplace. He showed, too, an unconquerable reluctance to sit to a painter or a sculptor, and when Amelius persisted in urging him to allow of a portrait being made he asked him, “Is it not enough to carry about this image in which nature has enclosed us? Do you really think I must also consent to leave, as a desirable spectacle to posterity, an image of the image?” In view of this determined refusal Amelius brought his friend Carterius, the best artist of the day, to the Conferences, which were open to every comer, and saw to it that by long observation of the philosopher he caught his most striking personal traits. From the impressions thus stored in mind the artist drew a first sketch; Amelius made various suggestions towards bringing out the resemblance, and in this way, without the knowledge of Plotinus, the genius of Carterius gave us a life-like portrait.

[ 10 ]

2. PLOT I N U S WA S O F T E N distressed by an intestinal complaint, but declined clysters, pronouncing the use of such remedies unbecoming in an elderly man: in the same way he refused such medicaments as contain  any substance taken from wild beasts or reptiles: all the more, he remarked, since he could not approve of eating the flesh of animals reared for the table. He abstained from the use of the bath, contenting himself with a daily massage at home: when the terrible epidemic carried off his masseurs he renounced all such treatment: in a short while he contracted malign diphtheria. During the time I was about him there was no sign of any such malady, but after I sailed for Sicily the condition grew acute: his intimate, Eustochius, who was with him till his death, told me, on my return to Rome, that he became hoarse, so that his voice quite lost its clear sonorous note, his sight grew dim and ulcers formed on his hands and feet. As he still insisted on addressing everyone by word of mouth, his condition prompted his friends to withdraw from his society: he therefore left Rome for Campania, retiring to a property which had belonged to Zethos, an old friend of his at this time dead. His wants were provided in part out of Zethos’ estate, and for the rest were furnished from Minturnæ, where Castricius’ property lay. Of Plotinus’ last moments Eustochius has given me an account. He himself was staying at Puteoli and was late in arriving: when he at last came, Plotinus said: “I have been a long time waiting for you; I am striving to give back the Divine in myself to the Divine in the All.” As he spoke a snake crept under the bed on which he lay and slipped away into a hole in the wall: at the same moment Plotinus died. This was at the end of the second year of the reign of Claudius, and, as Eustochius tells me, Plotinus was then sixty-six. I myself was at Lilybæum at the time, Amelius at Apamea in Syria, Castricius at Rome; only Eustochius was by his side. Counting sixty-six years back from the second year of Claudius, we can fix Plotinus’ birth at the thirteenth year of Severus; but he never disclosed the month or day. This was because he did not desire any birthday sacrifice or feast; yet he himself sacrificed on the traditional birthdays of Plato and of Socrates, afterwards giving a banquet at which  every member of the circle who was able was expected to deliver an address.

[ 11 ]

3. DE S P I T E H I S G E N E R A L reluctance to talk of his own life, some few details he did often relate to us in the course of conversation. Thus he told how, at the age of eight, when he was already going to school, he still clung about his nurse and loved to bare her breasts and take suck: one day he was told he was a “perverted imp,” and so was shamed out of the trick. At twenty he was caught by the passion for philosophy: he was directed to the most highly reputed professors to be found at Alexandria; but he used to come from their lectures saddened and discouraged. A friend to whom he opened his heart divined his temperamental craving and suggested Ammonius, whom he had not yet tried. Plotinus went, heard a lecture, and exclaimed to his comrade: “This was the man I was looking for.” From that day he followed Ammonius continuously, and under his guidance made such progress in philosophy that he became eager to investigate the Persian methods and the system adopted among the Indians. It happened that the Emperor Gordian was at that time preparing his campaign against Persia; Plotinus joined the army and went on the expedition. He was then thirty-nine, for he had passed eleven entire years under Ammonius. When Gordian was killed in Mesopotamia, it was only with great difficulty that Plotinus came off safe to Antioch. At forty, in the reign of Philip, he settled in Rome. Erennius, Origen and Plotinus had made a compact not to disclose any of the doctrines which Ammonius had revealed to them. Plotinus kept faith, and in all his intercourse with his associates divulged nothing of Ammonius’ system. But the compact was broken, first by Erennius and then by Origen following suit: Origen, it is true, put in writing nothing but the treatise On the Spirit-Beings, and in Galienus’ reign that entitled The King the Sole Creator. Plotinus himself remained a  long time without writing, but he began to base his Conferences on what he had gathered from his studies under Ammonius. In this way, writing nothing but constantly conferring with a certain group of associates, he passed ten years. He used to encourage his hearers to put questions, a liberty which, as Amelius told me, led to a great deal of wandering and futile talk. Amelius had entered the circle in the third year of Philip’s reign, the third, too, of Plotinus’ residence in Rome, and remained about him until the first year of Claudius, twenty-four years in all. He had come to Plotinus after an efficient training under [ 12 ]

Lysimachus: in laborious diligence he surpassed all his associates; for example, he transcribed and arranged nearly all the works of Numenius, and was not far from having most of them off by heart. He also took notes of the Conferences and wrote them out in something like a hundred treatises which he has since presented to Hostilianus of Apamea, his adopted son.

[ 13 ]

4. I M Y S E L F A R R I V E D from Greece in the tenth year of Galienus’ reign, accompanied by Antonius of Rhodes, and found Amelius an eighteen-years’ associate of Plotinus, but still lacking the courage to write anything except for the notebooks, which had not reached their century. Plotinus, in this tenth year of Galienus, was about fiftynine: when I first met him I was thirty. From about the first year of Galienus Plotinus had begun to write upon such subjects as had arisen at the Conferences: when I first came to know him in this tenth year of the reign he had composed twenty-one treatises. These I procured though they were by no means given about freely. In fact the distribution was grudging and secret; those that obtained them had passed the strictest scrutiny. Plotinus had given no titles to these treatises; everybody headed them for himself: I cite them here under the titles which finally prevailed, quoting the first words of each to facilitate identification. 1. On Beauty (I. 6). 2. On the Immortality of the Soul (IV. 7). 3. On Fate (III. 1). 4. On the Essence of the Soul (IV. 1). 5. On the Intellectual-Principle, the Ideas, and the Authentic-Existent (V. 9). 6. On the Descent of the Soul into the Body (IV. 8). 7. On the Emanation of the Non-Primal from the Primal-Being; and on The One (V. 4). 8. Whether all the Souls constitute One Soul (IV. 9). 9. On the Good or the One (VI. 9). 10. On the Three First Hypostases (V. 1). 11. On the Generation and Order of the Post-Primals (V. 2). 12. On the Two Orders of Matter (II. 4). 13. Diverse Questions (III. 9). 14. On the Circular Movement (II. 2). 15. On our Tutelary Spirit (II. 2). 16. On the Reasoned Dismissal (I. 9). 17. On Quality (II. 6). [ 14 ]

18. Whether there exist Ideas of Particulars (V. 7). 19. On the Virtues (I. 2). 20. On Dialectic (I. 3). 21. Why the Soul is described as Intermediate between the Existent having parts and the undisparted Existent (IV. 1). These are the twenty-one treatises which, as I have said, Plotinus had already written, by his fifty-ninth year, when I first came to him.

[ 15 ]

5. I H A D B E E N , it is true, in Rome a little before this tenth year of Galienus, but at that time Plotinus was taking a summer holiday, engaging merely in conversation with his friends. After coming to know him I passed six years in close relation with him. Many questions were threshed out in the Conferences of those six years and, under persuasion from Amelius and myself, he composed two treatises to establish: — 22, 23. That the Authentic-Existent is universally an integral, self-identical Unity (II. 4, 5). In immediate succession to these he composed two more: one is entitled: — 24. On the Absence of the Intellectual-Act in the Transcendental; and on What Existent has the Intellectual-Act Primarily and What Existent has the Intellectual-Act Secondarily (V. 6); The other deals with — 25. Existence, Potential and Actual (II. 5). After these come the following twenty: — 26. On the Impassibility of the Bodiless (III. 5). 27. On the Soul, First (IV. 3). 28. On the Soul, Second (IV. 4). 29. On the Soul, Third; or, How We See (IV. 5). 30. On Contemplation (III. 8). 31. On the Intellectual-Beauty (V. 8). 32. That the Intelligibles are Not Outside of the Intellectual-Principle and On the Good (V. 5). 33. Against the Gnostics (II. 9). 34. On Numbers (VI. 6). 35. Why Distant Objects Appear Small (II. 8). 36. Whether Happiness depends upon Extension of Time (I. 5). 37. On Coalescence (II. 7). 38. How the Multitude of Ideas came into Being; and on the Good (VI. 7). 39. On Free-Will (VI. 8). 40. On the World (II. 1). 41. On Sensation and Memory (IV. 6).

[ 16 ]

42. On the Kinds of Being, First (VI. 1). 43. On the Kinds of Being, Second (VI. 2). 44. On the Kinds of Being, Third (VI. 3). 45. On Eternity and Time (III. 7). Thus we have twenty-four treatises composed during the six years of my association with him and dealing, as the titles indicate, with such problems as happened to arise at the Conferences; add the twenty-one composed before my arrival, and we have accounted for forty-five treatises.

[ 17 ]

6. TH E FO L LOW I N G F I V E more Plotinus wrote and sent to me while I was living in Sicily, where I had gone about the fifteenth year of Galienus: — 46. On Happiness (I. 4). 47. On Providence, First (III. 2). 48. On Providence, Second (III. 3). 49. On the Conscious Hypostases and the Transcendental (V. 3). 50. On Love (III. 5). These five he sent me in the first year of Claudius: in the early months of the second year, shortly before his death, I received the following four: — 51. On Evil (I. 8). 52. Whether the Stars have Causal Operation (II. 3). 53. On the Animate and the Man (I. 1). 54. On the First Good; or, On Happiness (I. 8). Adding these nine to the forty-five of the first and second sets we have a total of fifty-four treatises. According to the time of writing — early manhood, vigorous prime, worn-out constitution — so the tractates vary in power. The first twenty-one pieces manifest a slighter capacity, the talent being not yet matured to the fulness of nervous strength. The twenty-four produced in the mid-period display the utmost reach of the powers and, except for the short treatises among them, attain the highest perfection. The last nine were written when the mental strength was already waning, and of these the last four show less vigour even than the five preceding.

[ 18 ]

7. PLOT I N U S H A D A large following. Notable among the more zealous students, really devoted to philosophy, was Amelius of Tuscany, whose family name was Gentilianus. Amelius preferred to call himself Amerius, changing L for R, because, as he explained, it suited him better to be named from Amereia, Unification, than from Ameleia, Indifference. The group included also one Paulinus, a doctor of Scythopolis, whom Amelius used to call Mikkalos in allusion to his blundering habit of mind. Among closer personal friends was Eustochius of Alexandria, also a doctor, who came to know Plotinus towards the end of his life, and attended him until his death: Eustochius consecrated himself exclusively to Plotinus’ system and became a veritable philosopher. Then there was Zoticus, at once critic and poet, who has amended the text of Antimachus’ works and is the author of an exquisite poem upon the Atlantis story: his sight failed, and he died a little before Plotinus, as also did Paulinus. Another friend was Zethos, an Arabian by descent, who married a daughter of Ammonius’ friend Theodosius. Zethos, too, was a doctor: Plotinus was deeply attached to him and was always trying to divert him from the political career in which he stood high. Plotinus was on the most familiar terms with him, and used to stay with him at his country place, six miles from Minturnæ, a property which had formerly belonged to Castricius Firmus. Castricius was excelled by none of the group in appreciation of the finer side of life: he venerated Plotinus; he devoted himself in the most faithful comradeship to Amelius in every need, and was in all matters as loyal to myself as though I were his own brother. This was another example of a politician venerating the philosopher. There were also among Plotinus’ hearers not a few members of the Senate, amongst whom Marcellus Orontius and Sabinillus showed the greatest assiduity in philosophical studies. Another Senator, Rogatianus, advanced to such detachment from political ambitions that he gave up all his property, dismissed all his  slaves, renounced every dignity, and, on the point of taking up his prætorship, the lictors already at the door, refused to come out or to have anything to do with the office. He even abandoned his own house, spending his time here and there at his friends’ and acquaintances’, sleeping and eating with them and taking, at that, only one meal a day. He had been a victim of [ 19 ]

gout, carried in a chair, but this new regime of abstinence and abnegation restored his health: he had been unable to stretch out his hands; he came to use them as freely as men living by manual labour. Plotinus took a great liking to Rogatianus and frequently praised him very highly, holding him up as a model to those aiming at the philosophical life. Then there was Serapion, an Alexandrian, who began life as a professional orator and later took to the study of philosophy, but was never able to conquer the vices of avarice and usury. I myself, Porphyry of Tyre, was one of Plotinus’ very closest friends, and it was to me he entrusted the task of revising his writings.

[ 20 ]

8. SU C H R E V I S I O N WA S necessary: Plotinus could not bear to go back on his work even for one re-reading; and indeed the condition of his sight would scarcely allow it: his handwriting was slovenly; he misjoined his words; he cared nothing about spelling; his one concern was for the idea: in these habits, to our general surprise, he remained unchanged to the very end. He used to work out his design mentally from first to last: when he came to set down his ideas; he wrote out at one jet all he had stored in mind as though he were copying from a book. Interrupted, perhaps, by someone entering on business, he never lost hold of his plan; he was able to meet all the demands of the conversation and still keep his own train of thought clearly before him; when he was free again, he never looked over what he had previously written — his sight, it has been mentioned, did not allow of such rereading — but he linked on what was to follow as if no distraction had occurred. Thus he was able to live at once within himself and for others; he never relaxed from his interior attention unless in sleep; and even his sleep was kept light by an abstemiousness that often prevented him taking as much as a piece of bread, and by this unbroken concentration upon his own highest nature.

[ 21 ]

9. SE V E R A L WO M E N W E R E greatly attached to him, amongst them Gemina, in whose house he lived, and her daughter, called Gemina, too, after the mother, and Amphiclea, the wife of Ariston, son of Iamblichus; all three devoted themselves assiduously to philosophy. Not a few men and women of position, on the approach of death, had left their boys and girls, with all their property, in his care, feeling that with Plotinus for guardian the children would be in holy hands. His house therefore was filled with lads and lasses, amongst them Polemon, in whose education he took such interest as often to hear the boy recite verses of his own composition. He always found time for those that came to submit returns of the childrens’ property, and he looked closely to the accuracy of the accounts: “Until the young people take to philosophy,” he used to say, “their fortunes and revenues must be kept intact for them.” And yet all this labour and thought over the worldly interests of so many people never interrupted, during waking hours, his intention towards the Supreme. He was gentle, and always at the call of those having the slightest acquaintance with him. After spending twenty-six entire years in Rome, acting, too, as arbiter in many differences, he had never made an enemy of any citizen.

[ 22 ]

10. AM O N G T H O S E M A K I N G profession of Philosophy at Rome was one Olympius, an Alexandrian, who had been for a little while a pupil of Ammonius. This man’s jealous envy showed itself in continual insolence, and  finally he grew so bitter that he even ventured sorcery, seeking to crush Plotinus by star-spells. But he found his experiments recoiling upon himself, and he confessed to his associates that Plotinus possessed “a mighty soul, so powerful as to be able to hurl every assault back upon those that sought his ruin.” Plotinus had felt the operation and declared that at that moment Olympius’ “limbs were convulsed and his body shrivelling like a moneybag pulled tight.” Olympius, perceiving on several attempts that he was endangering himself rather than Plotinus, desisted. In fact Plotinus possessed by birth something more than is accorded to other men. An Egyptian priest who had arrived in Rome and, through some friend, had been presented to the philosopher, became desirous of displaying his powers to him, and he offered to evoke a visible manifestation of Plotinus’ presiding spirit. Plotinus readily consented and the evocation was made in the Temple of Isis, the only place, they say, which the Egyptian could find pure in Rome. At the summons a Divinity appeared, not a being of the spirit-ranks, and the Egyptian exclaimed: “You are singularly graced; the guiding-spirit within you is none of the lower degree but a God.” It was not possible, however, to interrogate or even to contemplate this God any further, for the priest’s assistant, who had been holding the birds to prevent them flying away, strangled them, whether through jealousy or in terror. Thus Plotinus had for indwelling spirit a Being of the more divine degree, and he kept his own divine spirit unceasingly intent upon that inner presence. It was this preoccupation that led him to write his treatise upon Our Tutelary Spirit, an essay in the explanation of the differences among spirit-guides. Amelius was scrupulous in observing the day of the New-Moon and other holy-days, and once asked Plotinus to join in some such celebration: Plotinus refused: “It is for those Beings to come to me, not for me to go to them.” What was in his mind in so lofty an utterance we could not explain to ourselves and we dared not ask him.

[ 23 ]

11. HE H A D A remarkable penetration into character. Once a valuable necklace was stolen from Chione, who was living in honourable widowhood with her children in the same house as Plotinus: the servants were called before him: he scrutinised them all, then indicated one: “This man is the thief.” The man was whipped but for some time persisted in denial: finally, however, he confessed, and restored the necklace. Plotinus foretold also the future of each of the children in the household: for instance, when questioned as to Polemon’s character and destiny he said: “He will be amorous and short-lived”; and so it proved. I myself at one period had formed the intention of ending my life; Plotinus discerned my purpose; he came unexpectedly to my house where I had secluded myself, told me that my decision sprang not from reason but from mere melancholy and advised me to leave Rome. I obeyed and left for Sicily, which I chose because I heard that one Probus, a man of scholarly repute, was living there not far from Lilybæum. Thus I was induced to abandon my first intention but was prevented from being with Plotinus between that time and his death.

[ 24 ]

12. TH E EM P E RO R GA L I E N U S and his wife Salonina greatly honoured and venerated Plotinus, who thought to turn their friendly feeling to some good purpose. In Campania there had once stood, according to tradition, a City of Philosophers, a ruin now; Plotinus asked the Emperor to rebuild this city and to make over the surrounding district to the new-founded state; the population was to live under Plato’s laws: the city was to be called Platonopolis; and Plotinus undertook to settle down there with his associates. He would have had his way without more ado but that opposition at court, prompted by jealousy, spite, or some such paltry motive, put an end to the plan.

[ 25 ]

13. AT T H E CO N F E R E N C E S he showed the most remarkable power of going to the heart of a subject, whether in exposition or in explanation, and his phrasing was apt; but he made mistakes in certain words; for example, he said “anamnemisketai” for “anamimnesketai” — just such errors as he committed in his writing. When he was speaking his intellect visibly illuminated his face: always of winning presence, he became at these times still more engaging: a slight moisture gathered on his forehead; he radiated benignity. He was always as ready to entertain objections as he was powerful in meeting them. At one time I myself kept interrogating him during three days as to how the soul is associated with the body, and he continued explaining; a man called Thomasius entered in the midst of our discussions; the visitor was more interested in the general drift of the system than in particular points, and said he wished to hear Plotinus expounding some theory as he would in a set treatise, but that he could not endure Porphyry’s questions and answers: Plotinus asked, “But if we cannot first solve the difficulties Porphyry raises what could go into the treatise?”

[ 26 ]

14. IN ST Y L E PLOT I N U S is concise, dense with thought, terse, more lavish of ideas than of words, most often expressing himself with a fervid inspiration. He followed his own path rather than that of tradition, but in his writings both the Stoic and Peripatetic doctrines are sunk; Aristotle’s Metaphysic, especially, is condensed in them, all but entire. He had a thorough theoretical knowledge of Geometry, Mechanics, Optics and Music, though it was not in his temperament to go practically into these subjects. At the Conferences he used to have treatises by various authors read aloud — among the Platonists it might be Severus or Cronius, Numenius, Caius or Atticus; and — among the Peripatetics Aspasius, Alexander, Adrastus or some such writer, at the call of the moment. But it was far from his way to follow any of these authors blindly; he took  a personal, original view, applying Ammonius’ method to the investigation of every problem. He was quick to absorb; a few words sufficed him to make clear the significance of some profound theory and so to pass on. After hearing Longinus’ work On Causes, and his Philarchaios, he remarked: “Longinus is a man of letters, but in no sense a philosopher.” One day Origen came to the conference-room; Plotinus blushed deeply and was on the point of bringing his lecture to an end; when Origen begged him to continue, he said: “The zest dies down when the speaker feels that his hearers have nothing to learn from him.”

[ 27 ]

15. ON C E O N PL ATO ’S feast I read a poem, “The Sacred Marriage”; my piece abounded in mystic doctrine conveyed in veiled words and was couched in terms of enthusiasm; someone exclaimed: “Porphyry has gone mad”; Plotinus said to me so that all might hear: “You have shown yourself at once poet, philosopher and hierophant.” The orator Diophanes one day read a justification of the Alcibiades of Plato’s Banquet and maintained that the pupil, for the sake of advancement in virtue, should submit to the teacher without reserve, even to the extent of carnal commerce: Plotinus started up several times to leave the room but forced himself to remain; on the breaking up of the company he directed me to write a refutation. Diophanes refused to lend me his address and I had to depend on my recollection of his argument; but my refutation, delivered before the same audience, delighted Plotinus so much that during the very reading he repeatedly quoted: “So strike and be a light to men.” When Eubulus, the Platonic Successor, wrote from Athens, sending treatises on some questions in Platonism, Plotinus had the writings put into my hands with instructions to examine them and report to him upon them. He paid some attention to the principles of Astronomy, though he did not study the subject very deeply on the mathematical side. He went more searchingly into Horoscopy; when once he was convinced  that its results were not to be trusted he had no hesitation in attacking the system frequently both at the Conferences and in his writings.

[ 28 ]

16. MA N Y CH R I ST I A N S O F this period — amongst them sectaries who had abandoned the old philosophy, men of the schools of Adelphius and Aquilinus — had possessed themselves of works by Alexander of Lydia, by Philocomus, by Demostratus and by Lydus, and exhibited also Revelations bearing the names of Zoroaster, Zostrianus, Nikotheus, Allogenes, Mesus and others of that order. Thus they fooled many, themselves fooled first; Plato, according to them, had failed to penetrate into the depth of Intellectual Being. Plotinus frequently attacked their position at the Conferences and finally wrote the treatise which I have headed Against the Gnostics: he left to us of the circle the task of examining what he himself passed over. Amelius proceeded as far as a fortieth treatise in refutation of the book of Zostrianus: I myself have shown on many counts that the Zoroastrian volume is spurious and modern, concocted by the sectaries in order to pretend that the doctrines they had embraced were those of the ancient sage.

[ 29 ]

17. SO M E O F T H E Greeks began to accuse Plotinus of appropriating the ideas of Numenius. Amelius being informed of this charge by the Stoic and Platonist Trupho, challenged it in a treatise which he entitled The Difference between the Doctrines of Plotinus and Numenius. He dedicated the work to me, under the name of Basileus (or King). This really is my name; it is equivalent to Porphyry (Purple-robed) and translates the name I bear in my own tongue; for I am called Malchos, like my father, and “Malchos” would give “Basileus” in Greek. Longinus, in dedicating his work On Impulse to Cleodamus and myself, addressed us as “Cleodamus and Malchus,” just as Numenius translated the Latin “Maximus” into its Greek equivalent “Megalos.” Here follows Amelius’ letter: Amelius to Basileus, with all good wishes. You have been, in your own phrase, pestered by the persistent assertion that our friend’s doctrine is to be traced to Numenius of Apamea. Now, if it were merely for those illustrious personages who spread this charge, you may be very sure I would never utter a word in reply. It is sufficiently clear that they are actuated solely by that famous and astonishing facility of speech of theirs when they assert, at one moment, that he is an idle babbler, next that he is a plagiarist, and finally that he bases the universe on the meanest of existents. Clearly in all this we have nothing but scoffing and abuse. But your judgement has persuaded me that we should profit by this occasion firstly to provide ourselves with a useful memorandum of the doctrines that have won our adhesion, and secondly to bring about a more complete knowledge of the system — long celebrated though it be — to the glory of our friend, a man so great as Plotinus. Hence I now bring you the promised Reply, executed, as you yourself know, in three days. You must judge it with reasonable indulgence; this is no orderly and elaborate defence composed in step by step correspondence with the written indictment: I have simply set down, as they occurred to me, my recollections of our frequent discussions. You will admit, also, that it is by no means easy to grasp the meaning of a writer who, like Plotinus, now arraigned for the opinion we also hold, varies in the terms he uses to express the one idea. If I have falsified any essential of the doctrine, I trust to your good nature to set me right: I am reminded of the phrase in the tragedy: A busy man and far from the [ 30 ]

teachings of our master I must needs correct and recant. Judge how much I wish to give you pleasure. Good health.

[ 31 ]

18. TH I S L ET T E R S E E M E D worth insertion as showing, not merely that some contemporary judgement pronounced Plotinus to be parading on the strength of Numenius’ ideas, but that he was even despised as a word-spinner. The fact is that these people did not understand his teaching: he was entirely free from all the inflated pomp of the professor: his lectures had the air of conversation, and he never forced upon his hearers the severely logical substructure of his thesis. I myself, when I first heard him, had the same experience. It led me to combat his doctrine in a paper in which I tried to show that The Intelligibles exist outside of the Intellectual-Principle. He had my work read to him by Amelius: at the end he smiled and said: “You must clear up these difficulties, Amelius: Porphyry doesn’t understand our position.” Amelius wrote a tract of considerable length, “In Answer to Porphyry’s Objections”; I wrote a reply to the reply: Amelius replied to my reply; at my third attempt I came, though even so with difficulty, to grasp the doctrine: then only, I was converted, wrote a recantation and read it before the circle. From that time on I put faith in Plotinus’ writings and sought to stir in the master himself the ambition of organising his doctrine and setting it down in more extended form. Amelius, too, under my prompting, was encouraged in composition.

[ 32 ]

19. LO N G I N U S ’ E ST I M AT E O F Plotinus, formed largely upon indications I myself had given him in my letters, will be gathered from the following extract from one of his to me. He is asking me to leave Sicily and join him in Phœnicia, and to bring Plotinus’ works with me. He says: “And send them at your convenience or, better, bring them; for I can never cease urging you to give the road towards us the preference over any other. If there is no better reason — and what intellectual gain can you anticipate from a visit to us? — at least there are old acquaintances and the mild climate which would do you good in the weak state of health you report. Whatever else you may be expecting, do not hope for anything new of my own, or even for the earlier works which you tell me you have lost; for there is a sad dearth of copyists here. I assure you it has taken me all this time to complete my set of Plotinus, and it was done only by calling off my scribe from all his routine work, and keeping him steadily to this one task. I think that now, with what you have sent me, I have everything, though in a very imperfect state, for the manuscript is exceeding faulty. I had expected our friend Amelius to correct the scribal errors, but he evidently had something better to do. The copies are quite useless to me; I have been especially eager to examine the treatises on the Soul and on The Authentic-Existent, and these are precisely the most corrupted. It would be a great satisfaction to me if you would send me faithful transcripts for collation and return — though again I suggest to you not to send but to come in person, bringing me the correct copies of these treatises and of any that Amelius may have passed over. All that have reached me I have been careful to make my own: how could I be content not to possess myself of all the writings of a man so worthy of the deepest veneration? I repeat, what I have often said in your presence and in your absence, as on that occasion when you were at Tyre, that while much of the theory does not convince me, yet I am filled with admiration and delight over the general character of the work, the massive thinking of the man, the philosophic handling of problems; in my judgement investigators must class Plotinus’ work with that holding the very highest rank.”

[ 33 ]

20. TH I S E X T E N D E D Q U OTAT I O N from the most acute of the critics of our day — a writer who has passed judgement on nearly all his contemporaries — serves to show the estimate he came to set upon Plotinus of whom, at first, misled by ignorant talk, he had held a poor opinion. His notion, by the way, that the transcripts Amelius sent him were faulty sprang from his misunderstanding of Plotinus’ style and phraseology; if there were ever any accurate copies, these were they, faithful reproductions from the author’s own manuscript. Another passage from a work of Longinus, dealing with Amelius, Plotinus and other metaphysicians of the day, must be inserted here to give a complete view of the opinion formed upon these philosophers by the most authoritative and most searching of critics. The work was  entitled On the End: in Answer to Plotinus and Gentilianus Amelius. It opens with the following preface: In our time, Marcellus, there have been many philosophers — especially in our youth — for there is a strange scarcity at present. When I was a boy, my parents’ long journeys gave me the opportunity of seeing all the better-known teachers; and in later life those that still lived became known to me as my visits to this and that city and people brought me where they happened to live. Some of these undertook the labour of developing their theories in formal works and so have bequeathed to the future the means of profiting by their services. Others thought they had done enough when they had convinced their own immediate hearers of the truth of their theories. First of those that have written. Among the Platonists there are Euclides, Democritus, Proclinus the philosopher of the Troad, and the two who still profess philosophy at Rome, Plotinus and his friend Gentilianus Amelius. Among the Stoics there are Themistocles and Phoibion and the two who flourished only a little while ago, Annius and Medius. And there is the Peripatetic, Heliodorus of Alexandria. For those that have not written, there are among the Platonists Ammonius and Origen, two teachers whose lectures I myself attended during a long period, men greatly surpassing their contemporaries in mental power; and there are the Platonic Successors at Athens, Theodorus and Eubulus.

[ 34 ]

No doubt some writing of a metaphysical order stands to the credit of this group: Origen wrote on Spirit-Beings; Eubulus commented on both the Philebus and Gorgias, and examined the objections urged by Aristotle to Plato’s Republic; but this is not enough to class either of them with systematic authors. This was side-play; authorship was not in the main plan of their careers. Among Stoic teachers that refrained from writing we have Herminus and Lysimachus, and the two living at Athens, Musonius and Athenæus; among Peripatetics, Ammonius and Ptolemæus. The two last were the most accomplished scholars of their time, Ammonius especially being unapproached in breadth of learning; but neither produced any systematic work; we have from them merely verses and duty-speeches; and these I cannot think to have been preserved with their consent; they did not concern themselves about formal statement of their doctrine, and it is not likely they would wish to be known in after times by compositions of so trivial a nature. To return to the writers; some of them, like Euclides, Democritus and Proclinus, confined themselves to the mere compilation and transcription of passages from earlier authorities. Others diligently worked over various minor points in the investigations of the ancients, and put together books dealing with the same subjects. Such were Annius, Medius and Phoibion, the last especially choosing to be distinguished for style rather than for systematic thinking. In the same class must be ranked Heliodorus; his writings contribute nothing to the organisation of the thought which he found to his hand in the teaching of earlier workers. Plotinus and Gentilianus Amelius alone display the true spirit of authorship; they treat of a great number of questions and they bring a method of their own to the treatment. Plotinus, it would seem, set the principles of Pythagoras and of Plato in a clearer light than anyone before him; on the same subjects, Numenius, Cronius, Moderatus and Thrasyllus fall far short of him in precision and fulness. Amelius set himself to walk in Plotinus’ steps and adopted most of Plotinus’ opinions; his method, however, was diffuse and, unlike his friend, he indulges in an extravagance of explanation. Only these two seem to me worth study. What profit can anyone expect from troubling the works of any of the others to the neglect of the originals on which they drew? Content with setting side by side the most generally adopted theories and marking off the better from the worse, they bring us nothing of their own, not even a novel argument, much less a leading idea. My own method has been different; as for example when I replied to Gentilianus upon Plato’s treatment of Justice and in a review I undertook  of Plotinus’ theory of the [ 35 ]

Idea. This latter was in the form of a reply to Basileus of Tyre, my friend as theirs. He had preferred Plotinus’ system to mine and had written several works in the manner of his master, amongst them a treatise supporting Plotinus’ theory of the Idea against that which I taught. I endeavoured, not, I think, unsuccessfully, to show that his change of mind was mistaken. In these two essays I have ranged widely over the doctrines of this school, as also in my Letter to Amelius which, despite the simple title with which I contented myself, has the dimensions of a book, being a reply to a treatise he addressed to me from Rome under the title “On Plotinus’ Philosophic Method.”

[ 36 ]

21. TH I S PR E FAC E L E AV E S no doubt of Longinus’ final verdict: he ranks Plotinus and Amelius above all authors of his time in the multitude of questions they discuss; he credits them with an original method of investigation: in his judgement they by no means took their system from Numenius or gave a first place to his opinions, but followed the Pythagorean and Platonic schools; finally he declares the writings of Numenius, Cronius, Moderatus and Thrasyllus greatly inferior in precision and fulness to those of Plotinus. Notice, by the way, that while Amelius is described as following in Plotinus’ footsteps, it is indicated that his temperamental prolixity led him to delight in an extravagance of explanation foreign to his master: in the reference to myself, though I was then only at the beginning of my association with Plotinus— “Basileus of Tyre, my friend as theirs, who has written a good deal, has taken Plotinus as his model” — Longinus recognises that I entirely avoided Amelius’ unphilosophical prolixity and made Plotinus’ manner my standard. Such a pronouncement upon the value of Plotinus’ work, coming from so great an authority, the first of critics then as now, must certainly carry weight, and I may remark that if I had been able to confer with him, during such a visit as he proposed, he would not have written to combat doctrines which he had not thoroughly penetrated.

[ 37 ]

22. BU T W H Y TA L K , to use Hesiod’s phrase, “About Oak and Rock”? If we are to accept the evidence of the wise — who could be wiser than a God? And here the witness is the same God that said with truth: “I have numbered the sands and taken the measure of the sea; I understand the dumb and hear where there has been no speech.” Apollo was consulted by Amelius, who desired to learn where Plotinus’ soul had gone. And Apollo, who uttered of Socrates that great praise, “Of all men, Socrates the wisest” — you shall hear what a full and lofty oracle Apollo rendered upon Plotinus. I raise an undying song, to the memory of a gentle friend, a hymn of praise woven to the honey-sweet tones of my lyre under the touch of the golden plectrum. The Muses, too, I call to lift the voice with me in strains of many-toned exultation, in passion ranging over all the modes of song: even as of old they raised the famous chant to the glory of Aeakides in the immortal ardours of the Homeric line. Come, then, Sacred Chorus, let us intone with one great sound the utmost of all song, I Phoebus, Bathychaites, singing in the midst. Celestial! Man at first but now nearing the diviner ranks! the bonds of human necessity are loosed for you and, strong of heart, you beat your eager way from out the roaring tumult of the fleshly life to the shores of that wave-washed coast free from the thronging of the guilty, thence to take the grateful path of the sinless soul: where glows the splendour of God, where Right is throned in the stainless place, far from the wrong that mocks at law. Oft-times as you strove to rise above the bitter waves of this blood-drenched life, above the sickening whirl, toiling in the mid-most of the rushing flood and the unimaginable turmoil, oft-times,  from the Ever-Blessed, there was shown to you the Term still close at hand: Oft-times, when your mind thrust out awry and was like to be rapt down unsanctioned paths, the Immortals themselves prevented, guiding you on the straightgoing way to the celestial spheres, pouring down before you a dense shaft of light that your eyes might see from amid the mournful gloom. Sleep never closed those eyes: high above the heavy murk of the mist you held them; tossed in the welter, you still had vision; still you saw sights many and fair not granted to all that labour in wisdom’s quest. [ 38 ]

But now that you have cast the screen aside, quitted the tomb that held your lofty soul, you enter at once the heavenly consort: where fragrant breezes play, where all is unison and winning tenderness and guileless joy, and the place is lavish of the nectar-streams the unfailing Gods bestow, with the blandishments of the Loves, and delicious airs, and tranquil sky: where Minos and Rhadamanthus dwell, great brethren of the golden race of mighty Zeus; where dwells the just Aeacus, and Plato, consecrated power, and stately Pythagoras and all else that form the Choir of Immortal Love, there where the heart is ever lifted in joyous festival. O Blessed One, you have fought your many fights; now, crowned with unfading life, your days are with the Ever-Holy. Rejoicing Muses, let us stay our song and the subtle windings of our dance; thus much I could but tell, to my golden lyre, of Plotinus, the hallowed soul.

[ 39 ]

23. GO O D A N D K I N D LY , singularly gentle and engaging: thus the oracle presents him, and so in fact we found him. Sleeplessly alert — Apollo tells — pure of soul, ever striving towards the divine which he loved with all his being, he laboured strenuously to free himself and rise above the bitter waves of this blood-drenched life: and this is why to Plotinus — God-like  and lifting himself often, by the ways of meditation and by the methods Plato teaches in the Banquet, to the first and all-transcendent God — that God appeared, the God throned above the Intellectual-Principle and all the IntellectualSphere. “There was shown to Plotinus the Term ever near”: for the Term, the one end, of his life was to become Uniate, to approach to the God over all: and four times, during the period I passed with him, he achieved this Term, by no mere latent fitness but by the ineffable Act. To this God, I also declare, I Porphyry, that in my sixty-eighth year I too was once admitted and entered into Union. We are told that often when he was leaving the way, the Gods set him on the true path again, pouring down before him a dense shaft of light; here we are to understand that in his writing he was overlooked and guided by the divine powers. “In this sleepless vision within and without,” — the oracle says,— “your eyes have beheld sights many and fair not vouchsafed to all that take the philosophic path”: contemplation in man may sometimes be more than human, but compare it with the True-Knowing of the Gods and, wonderful though it be, it can never plunge into the depths their divine vision fathoms. Thus far the Oracle recounts what Plotinus accomplished and to what heights he attained while still in the body: emancipated from the body, we are told how he entered the celestial circle where all is friendship, tender delight, happiness and loving union with God, where Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, the sons of God, are enthroned as judges of souls — not, however, to hold him to judgement but as welcoming him to their consort to which are bidden spirits pleasing to the Gods — Plato, Pythagoras and all the people of the Choir of Immortal Love, there where the blessed spirits have their birth-home and live in days made happy by the Gods.

[ 40 ]

24. I H AV E R E L AT E D Plotinus’ life; something remains to tell of my revision and arrangement of his writings. This task he himself had  imposed upon me during his lifetime and I had pledged myself to him and to the circle to carry it out. I judged that in the case of treatises which, like these, had been issued without consideration of logical sequence it was best to disregard the time-order. Apollodorus, the Athenian, edited in ten volumes the collected works of Epicharmus, the comedy writer; Andronicus, the Peripatetic, classified the works of Aristotle and of Theophrastus according to subject, bringing together the discussions of related topics: I have adopted a similar plan. I had fifty-four treatises before me: I divided them into six sets of nine, an arrangement which pleased me by the happy combination of the perfect number six with the nines: to each such ennead I assigned matter of one general nature, leading off with the themes presenting the least difficulty. The First Ennead, on this method, contains the treatises of a more ethical tendency: — 1. On the Animate and the Man. 2. On the Virtues. 3. On Dialectic. 4. On Happiness. 5. Whether Happiness depends on Extension of Time. 6. On Beauty. 7. On the Primal Good and Secondary forms of Good. 8. On Evil. 9. On the Reasoned Withdrawal from Life. The Second Ennead, following the more strictly ethical First, is physical, containing the disquisitions on the world and all that belongs to the world: — 1. On the World. 2. On the Circular Movement. 3. On the Stars. 4. On the Two Orders of Matter. 5. On Potentiality and Actuality.

[ 41 ]

6. On Quality and Form. 7. On Coalescence. 8. Why Distant Objects appear Small. 9. Against those Declaring the Creator of the World, and the World itself, to be Evil. The Third Ennead, still keeping to the World, discusses the philosophical implications of some of its features: — 1. On Fate. 2. The First Treatise on Providence. 3. The Second Treatise on Providence. 4. On Our Tutelary Spirit. 5. On Love. 6. On the Impassibility of the Bodiless. 7. On Eternity and Time. 8. On Nature, Contemplation and The One. 9. Various Questions.

[ 42 ]

25. TH E S E F I R ST T H R E E Enneads constitute in my arrangement one self-contained section. The treatise on Our Tutelary Spirit is placed in the Third Ennead because this Spirit is not discussed as it is in itself, and the essay by its main content falls into the class dealing with the origin of man. Similar reasons determined the inclusion in this set of the treatise on Love. That on Time and Eternity is placed in this Third Ennead in virtue of its treatment of Time: that On Nature, Contemplation and The One, because of the discussion of Nature contained in it. Next to the two dealing with the world comes the Fourth Ennead containing the treatises dealing with the Soul: — 1. On the Essence of the Soul (I.). 2. On the Essence of the Soul (II.). 3. Questions referring to the Soul (I.). 4. Questions referring to the Soul (II.). 5. Questions referring to the Soul (III.); or, On Vision. 6. On Sensation and Memory. 7. On the Immortality of the Soul. 8. On the Descent of the Soul into Bodies. 9. Whether all Souls are One. The Fifth Ennead — following upon that dealing with the Soul — contains the treatises upon the Intellectual-Principle, each of which has also some reference to the All-Transcending and to the Intellectual-Principle in the Soul, and to the Ideas: — 1. On the three Primal Hypostases. 2. On the Origin and Order of the Post-Primals. 3. On the Conscious Hypostases and the All-Transcending. 4. How the Post-Primal derives from the Primal, and On the One. 5. That the Intelligibles are not outside the Intellectual-Principle and on the Good. 6. That there is no Intellectual Act in the Principle which transcends the Authentic-Existent; and On the Nature that has the Intellectual Act Primally and that which has it Secondarily. 7. Whether there are Ideas even of Particulars.

[ 43 ]

8. On Intellectual Beauty. 9. On the Intellectual-Principle, on the Ideas and on the AuthenticExistent.

[ 44 ]

26. TH E S E FO U RT H A N D Fifth Enneads, again, I have arranged in the form of one distinct section. The Last Ennead, the Sixth, constitutes one other section, so that we have the entire work of Plotinus in three sections, the first containing three Enneads, the second two, the third one Ennead. The content of the third section, that is of the Sixth Ennead, is as follows: — 1, 2, 3. On the Kinds of the Authentic-Existent. 4, 5. That the Authentic-Existent, one and identical, is everywhere present, integrally. 6. On Numbers. 7. How the Multitude of Ideas Exists; and On the Good. 8. On Free-Will and the Will of The One. 9. On The Good, or The One. Thus, in sum, I have arranged the fifty-four treatises, constituting Plotinus’ entire work, into six sets of nine: to some of the treatises I have further added commentaries — irregularly, as friends asked for enlightenment on this or that point — finally for all the treatises, except that on Beauty, which was not to hand, I have written Summaries which follow the chronological order: in this department of my work besides the Summaries will be found Developments; the numbering of these also adopts the chronological order. Now I have only to go once more through the entire work, see to the punctuation and correct any verbal errors; what else has solicited my attention, the reader will discover for himself.

[ 45 ]

Life of Pythagoras Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, 1920 1. Many think that Pythagoras was the son of Mnesarchus, but they differ as to the latter’s race; some thinking him a Samian, while Neanthes, in the fifth book of his Fables states he was a Syrian, from the city of Tyre. As a famine had arisen in Samos, Mnesarchus went thither to trade, and was naturalized there. There also was born his son Pythagoras, who early manifested studiousness, but was later taken to Tyre, and there entrusted to the Chaldeans, whose doctrines he imbibed. Thence he returned to Ionia, where he first studied under the Syrian Pherecydes, then also under Hermodamas the Creophylian who at that time was an old man residing in Samos. 2. Neanthes says that others hold that his father was a Tyrrhenian, of those who inhabit Lemnos, and that while on a trading trip to Samos was there naturalized. On sailing to Italy, Mnesarchus took the youth Pythagoras with him. Just at this time this country was greatly flourishing. Neanthes adds that Pythagoras had two older brothers, Eunostus and Tyrrhenus. But Apollonius, in his book about Pythagoras, affirms that his mother was Pythais, a descendant, of Ancaeus, the founder of Samos. Apollonius adds that he was said to be the off-spring of Apollo and Pythais, on the authority of Mnesarchus; and a Samian poet sings: “Pythais, of all Samians the most fair; Jove-loved Pythagoras to Phoebus bare!” This poet says that Pythagoras studied not only under Pherecydes and Hermodamas, but also under Anaximander. 3. The Samian Duris, in the second book of his “Hours,” writes that his son was named Arimnestus, that he was the teacher of Democritus, and that on returning from banishment, he suspended a brazen tablet in the temple of Hera, a tablet two feet square, bearing this inscription: “Me, Arimnestus, who much learning traced, Pythagoras’s beloved son here placed.” This tablet was removed by Simus, a musician, who claimed the canon graven thereon, and published it as his own. Seven arts were engraved, but when Simus took away one, the others were destroyed.

[ 46 ]

4. It is said that by Theano, a Cretan, the daughter of Pythonax, he had a son, Thelauges and a daughter, Myia; to whom some add Arignota, whose Pythagorean writings are still extant. Timaeus relates that Pythagoras’s daughter, while a maiden, took precedence among the maidens in Crotona, and when a wife, among married men. The Crotonians made her house a temple of Demeter, and the neighboring street they called a museum. 5. Lycus, in the fourth book of his Histories, noting different opinions about his country, says, “Unless you happen to know the country and the city which Pythagoras was a citizen, will remain a mere matter of conjecture. Some say he was a Samian, others, a Phliasian, others a Metapontine. 6. As to his knowledge, it is said that he learned the mathematical sciences from the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Phoenicians; for of’ old the Egyptians excelled, in geometry, the Phoenicians in numbers and proportions, and the Chaldeans of astronomical theorems, divine rites, and worship of the Gods; other secrets concerning the course of life he received and learned from the Magi. 7. These accomplishments are the more generally known, but the rest are less celebrated. Moreover Eudoxus, in the second book of his Description of the Earth, writes that Pythagoras used the greatest purity, and was shocked at all bloodshed and killing; that he not only abstained from animal food, but never in any way approached butchers or hunters. Antiphon, in his book on illustrious Virtuous Men praises his perseverance while he was in Egypt, saying, “Pythagoras, desiring to become acquainted with the institutions of Egyptian priests, and diligently endeavoring to participate therein, requested the Tyrant Polycrates to write to Amasis, the King of Egypt, his friend and former host, to procure him initiation. Coming to Amasis, he was given letters to the priests; of Heliopolis, who sent him on to those of Memphis, on the pretense that the were the more ancient. On the same pretense, he was sent on from Memphis to Diospolis. 8. From fear of the King the latter priests dared not make excuses; but thinking that he would desist from his purpose as result of great difficulties, enjoined on him very hard precepts, entirely different from the institutions of the Greeks. These he performed so readily that he won their admiration, and they permitted him to sacrifice to the Gods, and to acquaint himself with all their sciences, a favor theretofore never granted to a foreigner. 9. Returning to Ionia, he opened in his own country, a school, which is even now called Pythagoras’s Semicircles, in which the Samians meet to deliberate about matters of common interest. Outside the city he made a cave adapted to the study of his philosophy, in which he abode day and night, discoursing with a few of his associates. [ 47 ]

He was now forty years old, says Aristoxenus. Seeing that Polycrates’s government was becoming so violent that soon a free man would become a victim of his tyranny, he journeyed towards Italy. 10. Diogenes, in his treatise about the Incredible Things Beyond Thule, has treated Pythagoras’s affairs so carefully, that I think his account should not be omitted. He says that the Tyrrhenian Mnesarchus was of the race of the inhabitants of Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros and that he departed thence to visit many cities and various lands. During his journeys he found an infant lying under a large, tall poplar tree. On approaching, he observed it lay on its back, looking steadily without winking at the sun. In its mouth was a little slender reed, like a pipe; through which the child was being nourished by the dew-drops that distilled from the tree. This great wonder prevailed upon him to take the child, believing it to be of a divine origin. The child was fostered by a native of that country, named Androcles, who later on adopted him, and entrusted to him the management of affairs. On becoming wealthy, Mnesarchus educated the boy, naming him Astrasus, and rearing him with his own three sons, Eunestus, Tyrrhenus, and Pythagoras; which boy, as I have said, Androcles adopted. 11. He sent the boy to a lute-player, a wrestler and a painter. Later he sent him to Anaximander at Miletus, to learn geometry and astronomy. Then Pythagoras visited the Egyptians, the Arabians, the Chaldeans and the Hebrews, from whom he acquired expertery in the interpretation of dreams, and he was the first to use frankincense in the worship of divinities. 12. In Egypt he lived with the priests, and learned the language and wisdom of the Egyptians, and three kinds of letters, the epistolic, the hieroglyphic, and symbolic, whereof one imitates the common way of speaking, while the others express the sense by allegory and parable. In Arabia he conferred with the King. In Babylon he associated with the other Chaldeans, especially attaching himself to Zabratus, by whom he was purified from the pollutions of this past life, and taught the things which a virtuous man ought to be free. Likewise he heard lectures about Nature, and the principles of wholes. It was from his stay among these foreigners that Pythagoras acquired the greater part of his wisdom. 13. Astraeus was by Mnesarchus entrusted to Pythagoras, who received him, and after studying his physiognomy and the emotions of his body, instructed him. First he accurately investigated the science about the nature of man, discerning the disposition of everyone he met. None was allowed to become his friend or associate without being examined in facial expression and disposition. 14. Pythagoras had another youthful disciple from Thrace. Zamolxis was he named because he was born wrapped in a bear’s skin, in Thracian called Zalmus. Pythagoras [ 48 ]

loved him, and instructed him in sublime speculations concerning sacred rites, and the nature of the Gods. Some say this youth was named Thales, and that the barbarians worshipped him as Hercules. 15. Dionysiphanes says that he was a servant of Pythagoras, who fell into the hands of thieves and by them was branded. Then when Pythagoras was persecuted and banished, (he followed him) binding up his forehead on account of the scars. Others say that, the name Zamolxis signifies a stranger or foreigner. Pherecydes, in Delos fell sick; and Pythagoras attended him until he died, and performed his funeral rites. Pythagoras then, longing to be with Hermodamas the Creophylian, returned to Samos. After enjoying his society, Pythagoras trained the Samian athlete Eurymenes, who though he was of small stature, conquered at Olympia through his surpassing knowledge of Pythagoras’ wisdom. While according to ancient custom the other athletes fed on cheese and figs, Eurymenes, by the advice of Pythagoras, fed daily on flesh, which endued his body with great strength. Pythagoras imbued him with his wisdom, exhorting him to go into the struggle, not for the sake of victory, but the exercise; that he should gain by the training, avoiding the envy resulting from victory. For the victors, are not always pure, though decked with leafy crowns. 16. Later, when the Samians were oppressed with the tyranny of Polycrates, Pythagoras saw that life in such a state was unsuitable for a philosopher, and so planned to travel to Italy. At Delphi he inscribed an elegy on the tomb of Apollo, declaring that Apollo was the son of Silenus, but was slain by Pytho, and buried in the place called Triops, so named from the local mourning for Apollo by the three daughters of Triopas. 17. Going to Crete, Pythagoras besought initiation from the priests of Morgos, one of the Idaean Dactyli, by whom he was purified with the meteoritic thunder-stone. In the morning he lay stretched upon his face by the seaside; at night, he lay beside a river, crowned with a black lamb’s woolen wreath. Descending into the Idaean cave, wrapped in black wool, he stayed there twenty-seven days, according to custom; he sacrificed to Zeus, and saw the throne which there is yearly made for him. On Zeus’s tomb, Pythagoras inscribed an epigram, “Pythagoras to Zeus,” which begins: “Zeus deceased here lies, whom men call Jove.” 18. When he reached Italy he stopped at Crotona. His presence was that of a free man, tall, graceful in speech and gesture, and in all things else. Dicaearchus relates that the arrival of this great traveler, endowed with all the advantages of nature, and prosperously guided by fortune, produced on the Crotonians so great an impression, that he won the esteem of the elder magistrates, by his many and excellent discourses. They ordered him to exhort the young men, and then to the boys who flocked out of the school to hear him; and lastly to the women, who came together on purpose. [ 49 ]

19. Through this he achieved great reputation, he drew great audiences from the city, not only of men, but also of women, among whom was a specially illustrious person named Theano. He also drew audiences from among the neighboring barbarians, among whom were magnates and kings. What he told his audiences cannot be said with certainty, for he enjoined silence upon his hearers. But the following is a matter of general information. He taught that the soul was immortal and that after death it transmigrated into other animated bodies. After certain specified periods, the same events occur again; that nothing was entirely new; that all animated beings were kin, and should be considered as belonging to one great family. Pythagoras was the first one to introduce these teachings into Greece. 20. His speech was so persuasive that, according to Nicomachus, in one address made on first landing in Italy he made more than two thousand adherents. Out of desire to live with him, [………] , to which both women and built a large auditorium, to which both women and boys were admitted. (Foreign visitors were so many that) they built whole cities, settling that whole region of Italy now known as Magna Grecia. His ordinances and laws were by them received as divine precepts, and without them would do nothing. Indeed they ranked him among the divinities. They held all property in common. They ranked him among the divinities, and whenever they communicated to each other some choice bit of his philosophy, from which physical truths could always be deduced, they would swear by the Tetractys, adjuring Pythagoras as a divine witness, in the words. “I call to witness him who to our souls expressed The Tetractys, eternal Nature’s fountain-spring.” 21. During his travels in Italy and Sicily he founded various cities subjected one to another, both of long standing, and recently. By his disciples, some of whom were found in every city, he infused into them an aspiration for liberty; thus restoring to freedom Crotona, Sybaris, Catana, Rhegium, Himera, Agrigentum, Tauromenium, and others, on whom he imposed laws through Charondas the Catanean, and Zaleucus the Locrian, which resulted in a long era of good government, emulated by all their neighbors. Simichus the tyrant of the Centorupini, on hearing Pythagoras’s discourse, abdicated his rule and divided his property between his sister and the citizens. 22. According to Aristoxenus, some Lucanians, Messapians, Picentinians and Romans came to him. He rooted out all dissensions, not only among his disciples and their successors, for many ages, but among all the cities of Italy and Sicily, both internally and externally. He was continuously harping on the maxim, “We ought, to the best of our ability avoid, and even with fire and sword extirpate from the body, sickness;

[ 50 ]

from the soul, ignorance; from the belly, luxury; from a city, sedition; from a family, discord; and from all things excess.” 23. If we may credit what ancient and trustworthy writers have related of him, he exerted an influence even over irrational animals. The Daunian bear, who had committed extensive depredations in the neighborhood, he seized; and after having patted her for awhile, and given her barley and fruits, he made her swear never again to touch a living creature, and then released her. She immediately hid herself in the woods and the hills, and from that time on never attacked any irrational animal. 24. At Tarentum, in a pasture, seeing an ox [reaping] beans, he went to the herdsman, and advised him to tell the ox to abstain from beans. The countryman mocked him, proclaiming his ignorance of the ox-language. So Pythagoras himself went and whispered in the ox’s ear. Not only did the bovine at once desist from his diet of beans, but would never touch any thenceforward, though he survived many years near Hera’s temple at Tarentum, until very old; being called the sacred ox, and eating any food given him. 25. While at the Olympic games, he was discoursing with his friends about auguries, omens, and divine signs, and how men of true piety do receive messages from the Gods. Flying over his head was an eagle, who stopped, and came down to Pythagoras. After stroking her awhile, he released her. Meeting with some fishermen who were drawing in their nets heavily laden with fishes from the deep, he predicted the exact number of fish they had caught. The fishermen said that if his estimate was accurate they would do whatever he commanded. They counted them accurately, and found the number correct. He then bade them return the fish alive into the sea; and, what is more wonderful, not one of them died, although they had been out of the water a considerable time. He paid them and left. 26. Many of his associates he reminded of the lives lived by their souls before it was bound to the body, and by irrefutable arguments demonstrated that he had bean Euphorbus, the son of Panthus. He specially praised the following verses about himself, and sang them to the lyre most elegantly: “The shining circlets of his golden hair; Which even the Graces might be proud to wear, Instarred with gems and gold, bestrew the shore, With dust dishonored, and deformed with gore. As the young olive, in some sylvan scene, Crowned by fresh fountains with celestial green, Lifts the gay head, in snowy flowerets fair, And plays and dances to the gentle air, [ 51 ]

When lo, a whirlwind from high heaven invades, The tender plant, and withers all its shades; It lies uprooted from its genial head, A lovely ruin now defaced and dead. Thus young, thus beautiful, Euphorbus lay, While the fierce Spartan tore his arms away.” (Pope, Homer’s Iliad, Book 17). 27. The stories about the shield of this Phrygian Euphorbus being at Mycenae dedicated to Argive Hera, along with other Trojan spoils, shall here be omitted as being of too popular a nature. It is said that the river Caicasus, while he with many of his associates was passing over it, spoke to him very clearly, “Hail, Pythagoras!” Almost unanimous is the report that on one and the same day he was present at Metapontum in Italy, and at Tauromenium in Sicily, in each place conversing with his friends, though the places are separated by many miles, both at sea and land, demanding many days’ journey. 28. It is well known that he showed his golden thigh to Abaris the Hyperborean, to confirm him in the opinion that he was the Hyperborean Apollo, whose priest Abaris was. A ship was coming into the harbor, and his friends expressed the wish to own the goods it contained. “Then,” said Pythagoras, “you would own a corpse!” On the ship’s arrival, this was found to be the true state of affairs. Of Pythagoras many other more wonderful and divine things are persistently and unanimously related, so that we have no hesitation in saying never was more attributed to any man, nor was any more eminent. 29. Verified predictions of earthquakes are handed down, also that he immediately chased a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, calmed storms both on rivers and on seas, for the comfort and safe passage of his friends. As their poems attest, the like was often performed by Empedocles, Epimenides and Abaris, who had learned the art of doing these things from him. Empedocles, indeed, was surnamed Alexanemos, as the chaser of winds; Epimenides, Cathartes, the lustrator. Abaris was called Aethrobates, the walker in air; for he was carried in the air on an arrow of the Hyperborean Apollo, over rivers, seas and inaccessible places. It is believed that this was the method employed by Pythagoras when on the same day he discoursed with his friends at Metapontum and Tauromenium. 30. He soothed the passions of the soul and body by rhythms, songs and incantations. These he adapted and applied to his friends. He himself could hear the harmony of the Universe, and understood the universal music of the spheres, and of the stars which move in concert with them, and which we cannot hear because of the [ 52 ]

limitations of our weak nature. This is testified to by these characteristic verses of Empedocles: “Amongst these was one in things sublimest skilled, His mind with all the wealth of learning filled, Whatever sages did invent, he sought; And whilst his thoughts were on this work intent, All things existent, easily he viewed, Through ten or twenty ages making search.” 31. Indicating by sublimest things, and, he surveyed all existent things, and the wealth of the mind, and the like, Pythagoras ‘s constitution of body, mind, seeing, hearing and understanding, which was exquisite, and surpassingly accurate, Pythagoras affirmed that the nine Muses were constituted by the sounds made by the seven planets, the sphere of the fixed stars, and that which is opposed to our earth, called “anti-earth.” He called Mnemosyne, or Memory, the composition, symphony and connexion of then all, which is eternal and unbegotten as being composed of all of them. 32. Diogenes, setting forth his daily routine of living, relates that he advised all men to avoid ambition and vain-glory, which chiefly excite envy, and to shun the presences of crowds. He himself held morning conferences at his residence, composing his soul with the music of the lute, and singing certain old paeans of Thales. He also sang verses of Homer and Hesiod, which seemed to soothe the mind. He danced certain dances which he conceived conferred on the body agility and health. Walks he took not promiscuously, but only in company of one or two companions, in temples or sacred groves, selecting the quietest and pleasantest places. 33. His friends he loved exceedingly, being the first to declare that the goods of friends are common, and that a friend was another self. While they were in good health he always conversed with them; if they were sick, he nursed them; if they were afflicted in mind, he solaced them, some by incantations and magic charms, others by music. He had prepared songs for the diseases of the body, by the singing of which he cured the sick. He had also some that caused oblivion of sorrow, mitigation of anger and destruction of lust. 34. As to food, his breakfast was chiefly of honey; at dinner he used bread made of millet, barley or herbs, raw and boiled. Only rarely did he eat the flesh of victims; nor did he take this from every part of the anatomy. When he intended to sojourn in the sanctuaries of the divinities, he would eat no more than was necessary to still hunger and thirst. To quiet hunger, he made a mixture of poppy seed and sesame, the skin of a sea-onion, well washed, till entirely drained of the outward juice; of the flower of the daffodil, and the leaves of mallows, of paste of barley and pea; taking an equal weight of [ 53 ]

which, and chopping it small, with Hymettian honey he made it into mass. Against thirst he took the seed of cucumbers, and the best dried raisins, extracting the seeds, and the flower of coriander, and the seeds of mallows, purselain, scraped cheese, meal and cream; these he made up with wild honey. 35. He claimed that this diet had, by Demeter, been taught to Hercules, when he was sent into the Libyan deserts. This preserved his body in an unchanging condition; not at one time well, and at another time sick, nor at one time fat, and at another lean. Pythagoras’s countenance showed the same constancy was in his soul also. For he was neither more elated by pleasure, nor dejected by grief, and no one ever saw him either rejoicing or mourning. 36. When Pythagoras sacrificed to the Gods, he did not use offensive profusion, but offered no more than barley bread, cakes and myrrh; least of all, animals, unless perhaps cocks and pigs. When he discovered the proposition that the square on the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle was equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle, he is said to have sacrificed an ox, although the more accurate say that this ox was made of flour. 37. His utterances were of two kinds, plain or symbolical. His teaching was twofold: of his disciples some were called Students, and others Hearers. The Students learned the fuller and more exactly elaborate reasons of science, while the Hearers heard only the chief heads of learning, without more detailed explanations. 38. He ordained that his disciples should speak well and think reverently of the Gods, muses and heroes, and likewise of parents and benefactors; that they should obey the laws; that they should not relegate the worship of the Gods to a secondary position, performing it eagerly, even at home; that to the celestial divinities they should sacrifice uncommon offerings; and ordinary ones to the inferior deities. (The world he Divided into) opposite powers; the “one” was a better monad, light, right, equal, stable and straight; while the “other” was an inferior duad, darkness, left, unequal, unstable and movable. 39. Moreover, he enjoined the following. A cultivated and fruit-bearing plant, harmless to man and beast, should be neither injured nor destroyed. A deposit of money or of teachings should be faithfully preserved by the trustee. There are three kinds of things that deserve to be pursued and acquired; honorable and virtuous things, those that conduce to the use of life, and those that bring pleasures of the blameless, solid and grave kind, of course not the vulgar intoxicating kinds. Of pleasures there were two kinds; one that indulges the bellies and lusts by a profusion of wealth, which he compared to the murderous songs of the Sirens; the other kind consists of things

[ 54 ]

honest, just, and necessary to life, which are just as sweet as the first, without being followed by repentance; and these pleasures he compared to the harmony of the Muses. 40. He advised special regard to two times; that when we go to sleep, and that when we awake. At each of these we should consider our past actions, and those that are to come. We ought to require of ourselves an account of our past deeds, while of the future we should have a providential care. Therefore he advised everybody to repeat to himself the following verses before he fell asleep: “Nor suffer sleep to close thine eyes Till thrice thy acts that day thou hast run o’er; How slipt? What deeds? What duty left undone?” On rising: “As soon as ere thou wakest, in order lay The actions to be done that following day” 41. Such things taught he, though advising above all things to speak the truth, for this alone deifies men. For as he had learned from the Magi, who call God Oremasdes, God’s body is light, and his soul is truth. He taught much else, which he claimed to have learned from Aristoclea at Delphi. Certain things he declared mystically, symbolically, most of which were collected by Aristotle, as when he called the sea a tear of Saturn; the two bear (constellations) the hand of Rhea; the Pleiades, the lyre of the Muses; the Planets, the dogs of Persephone; and he called be sound caused by striking on brass the voice of a genius enclosed in the brass. 42. He had also another kind of symbol, such as, pass not over a balance; that is, Shun avarice. Poke not the fire with a sword, that is, we ought not to excite a man full of fire and anger with sharp language. Pluck not a crown, meant not to violate the laws, which are the crowns of cities. Eat not the heart, signified not to afflict ourselves with sorrows. Do not sit upon a [pack]-measure, meant, do not live ignobly. On starting a journey, do not turn back, meant, that this life should not be regretted, when near the bourne of death. Do not walk in the public way, meant, to avoid the opinions of the multitude, adopting those of the learned and the few. Receive not swallows into your house, meant, not to admit under the same roof garrulous and intemperate men. Help a man to take up a burden, but not to lay it down, meant, to encourage no one to be indolent, but to apply oneself to labor and virtue. Do not carry the images of the Gods in rings, signified that one should not at once to the vulgar reveal one’s opinions about the Gods, or discourse about them. Offer libations to the Gods, just to the ears of the cup, meant, that we ought to worship and celebrate the Gods with music, for that penetrates through the ears. Do not eat those things that are unlawful, sexual or increase, beginning nor end, nor the first basis of all things. [ 55 ]

43. He taught abstention from the loins, testicle, pudenda, marrow, feet and heads of victims. The loins he called basis, because on them as foundations living beings are settled. Testicles and pudenda he called generation, for no one is engendered without the help of these. Marrow he called increase as it is the cause of growth in living beings. The beginning was the feet, and the head the end; which have the most power in the government of the body. He likewise advised abstention from beans, as from human flesh. 44. Beans were interdicted, it is said, because the particular plants grow and individualize only after (the earth) which is the principle and origin of things, is mixed together, so that many things underground are confused, and coalesce; after which everything rots together. Then living creatures were produced together with plants, so that both men and beans arose out of putrefaction whereof he alleged many manifest arguments. For if anyone should chew a bean, and having ground it to a pulp with his teeth, and should expose that pulp to the warm sun, for a short while, and then return to it, he will perceive the scent of human blood. Moreover, if at the time when beans bloom, one should take a little of the flower, which then is black, and should put it into an earthen vessel, and cover it closely, and bury in the ground for ninety days, and at the end thereof take it up, and uncover it, instead of the bean he will find either the head of an infant, or the pudenda of a woman. 45. He also wished men to abstain from other things, such as a swine’s paunch, a mullet, and a sea-fish called a “nettle,” and from nearly all other marine animals. He referred his origin to those of past ages, affirming that he was first Euphorbus, then Aethalides, then Hermotimus, then Pyrrhus, and last, Pythagoras. He showed to his disciples that the soul is immortal, and to those who were rightly purified he brought back the memory of the acts of their former lives. 46. He cultivated philosophy, the scope of which is to free the mind implanted within us from the impediments and fetters within which it is confined; without whose freedom none can learn anything sound or true, or perceive the unsoundedness in the operation of sense. Pythagoras thought that mind alone sees and hears, while all the rest are blind and deaf. The purified mind should be applied to the discovery of beneficial things, which can be effected by, certain artificial ways, which by degrees induce it to the contemplation of eternal and incorporeal things, which never vary. This orderliness of perception should begin from consideration of the most minute things, lest by any change the mind should be jarred and withdraw itself, through the failure of continuousness in its subject-matter. 47. That is the reason he made so much use of the mathematical disciplines and speculations, which are intermediate between the physical and the incorporeal realm, [ 56 ]

for the reason that like bodies they have a threefold dimension, and yet share the impassibility of incorporeals; as degrees of preparation to the contemplation of the really existent things; by an artificial reason diverting the eyes of the mind from corporeal things, whose manner and state never remain in the same condition, to a desire for true (spiritual) food. By means of these mathematical sciences therefore, Pythagoras rendered men truly happy, by this artistic introduction of truly [consistent] things. 48. Among others, Moderatus of Gades, who [learnedly] treated of the qualities of numbers in seven books, states that the Pythagoreans specialized in the study of numbers to explain their teachings symbolically, as do geometricians, inasmuch as the primary forms and principles are hard to understand and express, otherwise, in plain discourse. A similar case is the representation of sounds by letters, which are known by marks, which are called the first elements of learning; later, they inform us these are not the true elements, which they only signify. 49. As the geometricians cannot express incorporeal forms in words, and have recourse to the descriptions of figures, as that is a triangle, and yet do not mean that the actually seen lines are the triangle, but only what they represent, the knowledge in the mind, so the Pythagoreans used the same objective method in respect to first reasons and forms. As these incorporeal forms and first principles could not be expressed in words, they had recourse to demonstration by numbers. Number one denoted to them the reason of Unity, Identity, Equality, the purpose of friendship, sympathy, and conservation of the Universe, which results from persistence in Sameness. For unity in the details harmonizes all the parts of a whole, as by the participation of the First Cause. . 50. Number two, or Duad, signifies the two-fold reason of diversity and inequality, of everything that is divisible, or mutable, existing at one time in one way, and at another time in another way. After all these methods were not confined to the Pythagoreans, being used by other philosophers to denote unitive powers, which contain all things in the universe, among which are certain reasons of equality, dissimilitude and diversity. These reasons are what they meant by the terms Monad and Duad, or by the words uniform, biform, or diversiform. 51. The same reasons apply to their use of other numbers, which were ranked according to certain powers. Things that had a beginning, middle and end, they denoted by the number Three, saying that anything that has a middle is triform, which was applied to every perfect thing. They said that if anything was perfect it would make use of this principle and be adorned, according to it; and as they had no other name for it, they invented the form Triad; and whenever they tried to bring us to the knowledge of [ 57 ]

what is perfect they led us to that by the form of this Triad. So also with the other numbers, which were ranked according to the same reasons. 52. All other things were comprehended under a single form and power which they called Decad, explaining it by a pun as decad, meaning comprehension. That is why they called Ten a perfect number, the most perfect of all as comprehending all difference of numbers, reasons, species and proportions. For if the nature of the universe be defined according to the reasons and proportions of members, and if that which is produced, increased and perfected, proceed according to the reason of numbers; and since the Decad comprehends every reason of numbers, every proportion, and every species, why should Nature herself not be denoted by the most perfect number, Ten? Such was the use of numbers among the Pythagoreans. 53. This primary philosophy of the Pythagoreans finally died out first, because it was enigmatical, and then because their commentaries were written in Doric, which dialect itself is somewhat obscure, so that Doric teachings were not fully understood, and they became misapprehended, and finally spurious, and later, they who published them no longer were Pythagoreans. The Pythagoreans affirm that Plato, Aristotle, Speusippus, Aristoxenus and Xenocrates; appropriated the best of them, making but minor changes (to distract attention from this their theft), they later collected and delivered as characteristic Pythagorean doctrines whatever therein was most trivial, and vulgar, and whatever had been invented by envious and calumnious persons, to cast contempt on Pythagoreanism. 54. Pythagoras and his associates were long held in such admiration in Italy, that many cities invited them to undertake their administration. At last, however, they incurred envy, and a conspiracy was formed against them as follows. Cylon, a Crotonian, who in race, nobility and wealth was the most preeminent, was of a severe, violent and tyrannical disposition, and did not scruple to use the multitude of his followers to compass his ends. As he esteemed himself worthy of whatever was best, he considered it his right to be admitted to Pythagorean fellowship. He therefore went to Pythagoras extolled himself, and desired his conversation. Pythagoras, however, who was accustomed to read in human bodies’ nature and manners the disposition of the man, bade him depart, and go about his business. Cylon, being of a rough and violent disposition, took it as a great affront, and became furious. 55. He therefore assembled his friends, began to accuse Pythagoras, and conspired against him and his disciples. Pythagoras then went to Delos, to visit the Syrian Pherecydes, formerly his teacher, who was dangerously sick, to nurse him. Pythagoras’s friends then gathered together in the house of Milo the wrestler; and were all stoned and burned when Cylo’s followers set the house on fire. Only two escaped, Archippus [ 58 ]

and Lysis, according to the account of Neanthes. Lysis took refuge in Greece, with Epaminondas, whose teacher he had formerly been. 56. But Dicaearchus and other more accurate historians relate that Pythagoras himself was present when this conspiracy bore fruit, for Pherecydes had died before he left Samos. Of his friends, forty who were gathered together in a house were attacked and slain; while others were gradually slain as they came to the city. As his friends were taken, Pythagoras himself first escaped to the Caulonian haven, and thence visited the Locrians. Hearing of his coming, the Locrians sent some old men to their frontiers to intercept him. They said, “Pythagoras, you are wise and of great worth; but as our laws retain nothing reprehensible, we will preserve them intact. Go to some other place, and we will furnish you with any needed necessaries of travel.” Pythagoras turned back, and sailed to Tarentum, where, receiving the same treatment as at Crotona, he went to Metapontum. Everywhere arose great mobs against him, of which even now the inhabitants make mention, calling them the Pythagorean riots, as his followers were called Pythagoreans. 57. Pythagoras fled to the temple of the Muses, in Metapontum. There he abode forty days, and starving, died. Others however state that his death was due to grief at the loss of all his friends who, when the house in which they were gathered was burned, in order to make a way for their master, they threw themselves into the flames, to make a bridge of safety for him, whereby indeed he escaped. When died the Pythagoreans, with them also died their knowledge, which till then than they had kept secret, except for a few obscure things which were commonly repeated by those who did not understand them. Pythagoras himself left no book; but some little sparks of his philosophy, obscure and difficult, were preserved by the few who were preserved by being scattered, as were Lysis and Archippus. 58. The Pythagoreans now avoided human society, being lonely, saddened and dispersed. Fearing nevertheless that among men the name of philosophy would be entirely extinguished, and that therefore the Gods would be angry with them, they made abstracts and commentaries. Each man made his own collection of written authorities and his own memories, leaving them wherever he happened to die, charging their wives, sons and daughters to preserve them within their families. This mandate of transmission within each family was obeyed for a long time. 59. Nichomacus says that this was the reason why the Pythagoreans studiously avoided friendship with strangers, preserving a constant friendship among each other. Aristoxenus, in his book on the Life of Pythagoras, says he heard many things from Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, who, after his abdication, taught letters at Corinth.

[ 59 ]

Among these were that they abstained from lamentations and grieving and tears; also from adulation, entreaty, supplication and the like. 60. It is said that Dionysius at one time wanted to test their mutual fidelity under imprisonment. He contrived this plan. Phintias was arrested, and taken before the tyrant, and charged with plotting against the tyrant, convicted, and condemned to death. Phintias, accepting the situation, asked to be given the rest of the day to arrange his own affairs, and those of Damon, his friend and associate, who now would have to assume the management. He therefore asked for a temporary release, leaving Damon as security for his appearance. Dionysius granted the request, and they sent for Damon, who agreed to remain until Phintias should return. 61. The novelty of this deed astonished Dionysius; but those who had first suggested the experiment, scoffed at Damon, saying he was in danger of losing his life. But to the general surprise, near sunset Phintias came to die. Dionysius then expressed his admiration, embraced them both, and asked to be received as a third in their friendship. Though he earnestly besought this, they refused this, though assigning no reason therefore. Aristoxenus states he heard this from Dionysius himself. [Hippobotus] and Neanthes relate about Myllia and Timycha…

[ 60 ]

Isagoge Translated by Octavius Freire Owen, 1853 Also known as Introduction to Aristotle’s ‘Categories’, this short treatise was written by Porphyry in Greek and translated into Latin by Boethius. Serving as the standard textbook on logic for at least a millennium after its first publication, Isagoge was composed by Porphyry in Sicily during the years 268-270, and sent to Chrysaorium, according to ancient commentators. It includes the highly influential hierarchical classification of genera and species from substance in general down to individuals, known as the Tree of Porphyry, and an introduction that mentions the problem of universals. Boethius’ Latin translation became a standard medieval textbook in European scholastic universities, setting the stage for medieval philosophicaltheological developments of logic and the problem of universals. According to Porphyry, the predicables of scholastic logic is a term applied to a classification of the possible relations in which a predicate may stand to its subject. The list given by the schoolmen and generally adopted by modern logicians is based on the original fourfold classification given by Aristotle (Topics, a iv. 101 b 17-25): definition (horos), genus (genos), property (idion), accident (sumbebekos). The scholastic classification, obtained from Boëthius’s version of the Isagoge, modified Aristotle’s by substituting differentia (diaphora) and species (eidos) for definition (horos). The method of definition by diairesis, or differentiation, was known and practiced by Aristotle. Isagoge is celebrated for prompting the medieval debate over the status of universals. Although he does not mention the problem further, Porphyry’s formulation constitutes the most influential part of the treatise, since it was these questions that formed the basis of medieval debates about the status of universals. Do universals exist in the mind, or in reality? If in reality, are they physical things, or not? If physical, do they have a separate existence from physical bodies, or are they part of them?

[ 61 ]

Portrait bust of Aristotle, an Imperial Roman (c. 2nd century AD) copy of a lost bronze sculpture made by Lysippos

[ 62 ]

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION OF PORPHYRY.1 Chap. I. Object of the writer, in the present Introduction. Chap. II. Of the Nature of Genus and Species 6 Chap. III. Of Difference. Chap. IV. Of Property. Chap. V. Of Accident. Chap. VI. Of Things common and peculiar to the Five Predicates. Chap. VII. Of the Community and Distinction of Genus and Difference. Chap. VIII. Of Community and Difference of Genus and Species. Chap. IX. Of Community and Difference of Genus and Property. Chap. X. Of Community and Difference of Genus and Accident. Chap. XI. Of Community and Difference of Species and Difference. Chap. XII. The same subject continued. Chap. XIII. Of Community and Difference of Property and Difference.22 Chap. XIV. Of Community and Difference of Accident and Difference. Chap. XV. Of Community and Difference of Species and Property. Chap. XVI. Of Community and Difference of Species and Accident. Chap. XVII. Of Community and Difference of Property and Accident.24 ENDNOTES.

[ 63 ]

Iluminure from the Hunayn ibn-Ishaq al-’Ibadi manuscript of the ‘Isagoge’

[ 64 ]

INTRODUCTION OF PORPHYRY.1 Chap. I. Object of the writer, in the present Introduction. SI N C E I T I S necessary, Chrysaorius, both to the doctrine of Aristotle’s Categories, to know what genus, difference, species, property, and accident are, and also to the assignments of definitions, in short, since the investigation of these is useful for those things which belong to division and demonstration,2 I will endeavour by a summary briefly to discuss to you, as in the form of introduction, what on this subject has been delivered by the ancients, abstaining, indeed, from more profound questions, yet directing attention in a fitting manner, to such as are more simple. For instance, I shall omit to speak about genera and species, as to whether they subsist (in the nature of things) or in mere conceptions only; whether also if subsistent, they are bodies or incorporeal, and whether they are separate from, or in, sensibles,3 and subsist about these,4 for such a treatise is most profound, and requires another more extensive investigation.5 Nevertheless, how the ancients, and especially the Peripatetics, discussed these and the other proposed subjects, in a more logical manner, I will now endeavour to point out to you.

[ 65 ]

Chap. II. Of the Nature of Genus and Species 6 NE I T H E R G E N U S N O R species appear to be simply denominated, for that is called genus which is a collection of certain things, subsisting in a certain respect relatively to one thing, and to each other, according to which signification the genus of the Heraclidae is denominated from the habitude from one, I mean Hercules, and from the multitude of those who have alliance to each other from him, denominated according to separation from other genera. Again, after another manner also, the principle of the generation of every one is called genus, whether from the generator or from the place in which a person is generated, for thus we say that Orestes had his genus from Tantalus, Hyllus from Hercules, and again, that Pindar was by genus a Theban, but Plato an Athenian, for country is a certain principle of each man’s generation, in the same manner as a father. Still, this signification appears to be most ready,7 for they are called Heraclidae who derive their origin from the genus of Hercules, and Cecropidae who are from Cecrops; also their next of kin. The first genus, moreover, is so called, which is the principle of each man’s generation, but afterwards the number of those who are from one principle, e. g. from Hercules, which defining and separating from others, we call the whole collected multitude the genus of the Heraclidse. Again, in another way that is denominated genus to which the species is subject, called perhaps from the similitude of these; for such a genus is a certain principle of things under it, and seems also to comprehend all the multitude under itself. As then, genus is predicated triply, the consideration by philosophers is concerning the third, which also they explain by description, when they say that genus is that which is predicated of many things differing in species, in answer to what a thing is, e. g. animal. For of predicates some are predicated of one thing alone, as individuals, for instance, “Socrates,” and “this man,” and “this thing;” but others are predicated of many, as genera, species, differences, properties, and accidents, predicated in common, but not peculiarly to any one. Now genus is such as “animal,” species as “man,” difference as “ rational,” property as “ risible,” accident as “white,” “black,” “to sit.” From such things then, as are predicated of one thing only, genera differ in that they are predicated of many, but on the other hand, from those which are predicated of many and from species, (they differ) because those species are predicated of many things, yet not of those which differ in species, but in number only, for man being a species, is predicated of Socrates and Plato, who do not differ from each other in species, but in number, while

[ 66 ]

animal being a genus is predicated of man, and ox, and horse, which differ also in species from each other, and not in number only. From property, moreover, genus differs because property is predicated of one species alone of which it is the property, and of the individuals under the species, as “risible” of man alone, and of men particularly, for genus is not predicated of one species, but of many things, which are also different in species. Besides, genus differs from difference and from accidents in common, because though differences and accidents in common are predicated of many things, different also in species, yet they are not so in reply to what a thing is, but (what kind of a thing) it is. For when some persons ask what that is of which these are predicated, we reply, that it is genus; but we do not assign in answer differences and accidents, since they are not predicated of a subject, as to what a thing is, but rather as to what kind of a thing it is. For in reply to the question, what kind of a thing man is, we say, that he is rational, and in answer to what kind of a thing a crow is, we say that it is black, yet rational is difference, but black is accident. When however we are asked what man is, we answer, an animal, but animal is the genus of man, so that from genus being predicated of many, it is diverse from individuals which are predicated of one thing only, but from being predicated of things different in species, it is distinguished from such as are predicated as species or as properties. Moreover, because it is predicated in reply to what a thing is, it is distinguished from differences and from accidents commonly, which are severally predicated of what they are predicated, not in reply to what a thing is, but what kind of a thing it is, or in what manner it subsists: the description therefore of the conception of genus, which has been enunciated, contains nothing superfluous, nothing deficient.8 Species indeed is predicated of every form, according to which it is said, “form is first worthy of imperial sway;”9 still that is called species also, which is under the genus stated, according to which we are accustomed to call man a species of animal, animal being genus, but white a species of colour, and triangle of figure. Nevertheless, if when we assign the genus, we make mention of species, saying that which is predicated of many things differing in species, in reply to what a thing is, and call species that which is under the assigned genus, we ought to know that, since genus is the genus of something, and species the species of something, each of each, we must necessarily use both in the definitions of both. They assign, therefore, species thus: species is what is arranged under genus, and of which genus is predicated in reply to what a thing is: moreover, thus species is what is predicated of many things differing in number, in reply to what a thing is. This explanation, however, belongs to the most special, and which is species only, but no longer genus also,10 but the other (descriptions) will pertain to such as are not the most special. Now, what we have stated will be evident in this way: in each [ 67 ]

category there are certain things most generic, and again, others most special, and between the most generic and the most special, others which are alike called both genera and species, but the most generic is that above which there cannot be another superior genus, and the most special that below which there cannot be another inferior species. Between the most generic and the most special, there are others which are alike both genera and species, referred, nevertheless, to different things, but what is stated may become clear in one category. Substance indeed, is itself genus, under this is body, under body animated body, under which is animal, under animal rational animal, under which is man, under man Socrates, Plato, and men particularly. Still, of these, substance is the most generic, and that which alone is genus; but man is most specific, and that which alone is species; yet body is a species of substance, but a genus of animated body, also animated body is a species of body, but a genus of animal; again, animal is a species of animated body, but a genus of rational animal, and rational animal is a species of animal, but a genus of man, and man is a species of rational animal, but is no longer the genus of particular men, but is species only, and every thing prior to individuals being proximately predicated of them, will be species only, and no longer genus also. As then, substance being in the highest place, is most generic, from there being no genus prior to it, so also man being a species, after which there is no other species, nor any thing capable of division into species, but individuals, (for Socrates, Plato, Alcibiades, and this white thing, I call individual,) will be species alone, and the last species, and as we say the most specific. Yet the media will be the species of such as are before them, but the genera of things after them, so that these have two conditions, one as to things prior to them, according to which they are said to be their species, the other to things after them, according to which they are said to be their genera. The extremes on the other hand, have one condition, for the most generic has indeed a condition as to the things under it, since it is the highest genus of all, but has no longer one as to those before it, being supreme, and the first principle, and, as we have said, that above which there cannot be another higher genus. Also, the most specific has one condition, as to the things prior to it, of which it is the species, yet it has not a different one, as to things posterior to it, but is called the species of individuals, so termed as comprehending them, and again, the species of things prior to it, as comprehended by them, wherefore the most generic genus is thus defined to be that which being genus is not species, and again, above which there cannot be another higher genus; but the most specific species, that, which being species is not genus, and which being species we can no longer divide into species; moreover, which is predicated of many things differing in number, in reply to what a thing is.11

[ 68 ]

Now, the media of the extremes they call subaltern species and genera, and admit each of them to be species and genus, when referred indeed to different things, for those which are prior to the most specific, ascending up to the most generic, are called subaltern genera and species. Thus, Agamemnon is Atrides, Pelopides, Tantalides, and lastly, (the son) of Jupiter, yet in genealogies they refer generally to one origin, for instance, to Jupiter; but this is not the case in genera and species, since being is not the common genus of all things, nor, as Aristotle says, are all things of the same genus with respect to one summum genus. Still, let the first ten genera be arranged, as in the Categories, as ten first principles, and even if a person should call all things beings, yet he will call them, so he says, equivocally, but not synonymously, for if being were the one common genus of all things, all things would be synonymously styled beings, but the first principles being ten, the community is in name only, yet not in the definition also belonging to the name: there are then ten most generic genera. On the other hand, the most specific they place in a certain number, yet not in an infinite one, but individuals which are after the most specific are infinite; wherefore, when we have come down to the most specific from the most generic, Plato exhorts us to rest,12 but to descend through those things which are in the middle, dividing by specific differences; he tells us however to leave infinites alone, as there cannot be science of these. In descending then, to the most specific, it is necessary to proceed by division through multitude, but in ascending to the most generic, we must collect multitude into one, for species is collective of the many into one nature, and genus yet more so; but particulars and singulars, on the contrary, always divide the one into multitude, for by the participation of species, many men become one man; but in particulars and singulars, the one, and what is common, becomes many; for the singular is always divisive, but what is common is collective and reductive to one.13 Genus then, and species, being each of them explained as to what it is, since also genus is one, but species many, (for there is always a division of genus into many species,) genus indeed is always predicated of species, and all superior of inferior, but species is neither predicated of its proximate genus, nor of those superior, since it does not reciprocate. For it is necessary that either equals should be predicated of equals, as neighing of a horse, or that the greater should be predicated of the less, as animal of man, but the less no longer of the greater, for you can no longer say that animal is man, as you can say that man is animal. Of those things however whereof species is predicated, that genus of the species will also be necessarily predicated, also that genus of the genus up to the most generic; for if it is true to say that Socrates is a man, but man an animal, and animal substance, it is also true to say that Socrates is animal and

[ 69 ]

substance. At least, since the superior are always predicated of the inferior, species indeed will always be predicated of the individual, but the genus both of the species and of the individual, but the most generic both of the genus or the genera, (if the media and subaltern be many,) and of the species, and of the individual. For the most generic is predicated of all the genera, species, and individuals under it, but the genus which is prior to the most specific (species), is predicated of all the most specific species and individuals; but what is species alone of all the individuals (of it), but the individual of one particular alone.14 Now, an individual is called Socrates, this white thing, this man who approaches the son of Sophroniscus, if Socrates alone is his son, and such things are called individuals, because each consists of properties of which the combination can never be the same in any other, for the properties of Socrates can never be the same in any other particular person;15 the properties of man indeed, (I mean of him as common,) may be the same in many, or rather in all particular men, so far as they are men. Wherefore the individual is comprehended in the species, but the species by the genus, for genus is a certain whole, but the individual is a part, and species both a whole and a part; part indeed of something else, but a whole not of another, but in other things, for the whole is in its parts. Concerning genus then, and species, we have shown what is the most generic, and the most specific, also what the same things are genera and species, what also are individuals, and in how many ways genus and species are taken.

[ 70 ]

Chap. III. Of Difference. DI F F E R E N C E M AY B E predicated commonly, properly, and most properly: for one thing is said to differ from another in common from its differing in some respect in diversity of nature, either from itself, or from something else; for Socrates differs from Plato in diversity of nature, and himself from himself when a boy, and when become a man, also when he does any thing, or ceases to do it, and it is always perceived in the different ways in which a thing is somehow effected. Again, one thing is said to differ properly from another, when one differs from another by an inseparable accident; but an inseparable accident is such as blueness, or crookedness, or a scar become scirrhous from a wound. Moreover, one is most properly said to differ from another, when it varies by specific difference, as man differs from horse by specific difference, i. e. by the quality of rational. Universally then every difference acceding to a thing renders it different, but differences common and proper render it different in quality, and the most proper render it another thing. Hence, those which render it another thing are called specific, but those, which make it different in quality, are simply (called) differences, for the difference of rational being added to animal, makes it another thing, (and makes a species of animal,) but difference of being moved makes it different in quality only from what is at rest, so that the one renders it another thing, but the other only of another quality.16 According then, to the differences which produce another thing do the divisions of genera into species arise, and the definitions arising from genus and such differences are assigned. On the other hand, as to those which only make a thing different in quality, diversities alone consist, and the changes of subsistence of a thing; beginning then, again, from the first, we must say that of differences some are separable, others inseparable, thus to be moved, and to be at rest, to be ill, and to be well, and such as resemble these, are separable, but to have a crooked, or a flat nose, to be rational, or irrational, are inseparable differences. Again, of the inseparable, some exist per se, others by accident, for rational, mortal, to be susceptible of science, are inherent in man per se, but to have a crooked or flat nose, accidentally, and not per se. Wherefore, such as are present per se, are assumed in the definition of substance, and effect a different thing, but what are accidental arc neither taken in the definition of substance, nor render a thing another, but of another quality. Those too, which are per se, do not admit of the more and less, but the accidental, even if they be inseparable, admit of intention

[ 71 ]

and remission, for neither is genus more and less predicated of that of which it is the genus, nor the differences of genus according to which it is divided. For these are such as complete the definition of each thing, but the essence of each is one and the same, and neither admits of intention, nor remission; to have however a crooked or a flat nose, or to be in some way coloured, admits both of intension and remission. Since then, there are three species of difference considered, some indeed separable, but others inseparable, again, of the inseparable, some are per se, but others accidental, moreover of differences per se, some are those according to which we divide genera into species, but others according to which the things divided become specific: thus of all such differences per se of animal as these, animated and sensitive, rational and irrational, mortal and. immortal, the difference of animated and sensitive is constitutive of the essence of animal, for animal is an animated substance, endued with sense, but the difference of mortal and immortal, and that of rational and irrational, are the divisive differences of animal, for through these we divide genera into species: yet these very differences which divide the genera are constitutive and completive of species. For animal is divided by the difference of rational and irrational, and again, by the difference of mortal and immortal; but the differences of rational and mortal are constitutive of man, but those of rational and immortal of God, those again, of mortal and irrational, of irrational animals.17 Thus also, since the differences of animate and inanimate, sensitive and void of sense, divide the highest substance, animate and sensitive added to substance, complete animal, but animate and deprived of sense, form plant; since then, the same differences taken in one way become constitutive, but in another divisive, they are all called specific. These indeed are especially useful for divisions of genera, and for definitions, yet not with regard to those which are inseparable accidentally, nor still more with such as are separable.18 And indeed defining these, they say that difference is that by which species exceeds genus, e. g. man exceeds animal in being rational and mortal, for animal is neither any one of these, (since whence would species have differences?) nor has it all the opposite differences, (since otherwise the same thing would at the same time have opposites,) but (as they allege) it contains all the differences which are under it in capacity, but not one of them in energy, and so neither is any thing produced from nonentities, nor will opposites at the same time subsist about the same thing. Again, they define it (difference) also thus: difference is that which is predicated of many things differing in species in answer to the question, of what kind a thing is,19 for rational and mortal being predicated of man, are spoken in reply to what kind of thing man is, and not as to the question what is he. For when we are asked what is man, we [ 72 ]

properly answer, an animal, but when men inquire what kind of animal, we say properly, that he is rational and mortal. For since things consist of matter and form, or have a constitution analogous to matter and form, as a statue is composed of brass, matter, but of figure, form, so also man, both common and specific, consists of matter analogous to genus, and of form analogous to difference, but the whole of this, animal, rational, mortal, is man, in the same manner as the statue there. They also describe it thus, difference is what is naturally adapted to separate things which are under the same genus, as rational and irrational separate man and horse, which are under the same genus, animal. Again, they give it in this way: difference is that by which each singular thing differs, for man and horse do not differ as to genus, for both we and horses are animals, but the addition of rational separates us from them; again, both we and the gods 20 are rational, but the addition of mortal separates us from them. They however who more nicely discuss what pertains to difference, say that it is not any casual thing dividing those under the same genus, but such as contributes to the essence, and to the definition of the essence of a thing, and which is part of the thing. For to be naturally adapted to sail is not the difference, though it is the property of man, since we may say that of animals, some are naturally adapted to sail, but others not, separating man from other animals; yet a natural ability to sail does not complete the essence, neither is a part of it, but only an aptitude of it, because it is not such a difference as those which are called specific differences. Wherefore specific differences will be such as produce another species, and which are assumed in explaining the very nature of a thing: and concerning difference this is sufficient.

[ 73 ]

Chap. IV. Of Property. PRO P E RT Y T H E Y D I V I D E in four ways: for it is that which happens to some one species alone, though not to every (individual of that species), as to a man to heal, or to geometrize: that also which happens to a whole species, though not to that alone, as to man to be a biped: that again, which happens to a species alone, and to every (individual of it), and at a certain time, as to every man to become grey in old age: in the fourth place, it is that in which it concurs (to happen) to one species alone, and to every (individual of it), and always, as risibility to a man; for though he does not always laugh, yet he is said to be risible, not from his always laughing, but from being naturally adapted to laugh, and this is always inherent in him, in the same way as neighing in a horse. They say also that these are validly properties, because they reciprocate, since if any thing be a horse it is capable of neighing, and if any thing be capable of neighing it is a horse.

[ 74 ]

Chap. V. Of Accident. ACC I D E N T I S T H AT which is present and absent without the destruction of its subject. It receives a two-fold division, for one kind of it is separable, but the other inseparable, e. g. to sleep is a separable accident, but to be black happens inseparably to a crow and an Ethiopian; we may possibly indeed conceive a white crow, and an Ethiopian casting his colour, without destruction of the subject. They also define it thus; accident is that which may be present and not present to the same thing; also that which is neither genus, nor difference, nor species, nor property, yet is always inherent in a subject.

[ 75 ]

Chap. VI. Of Things common and peculiar to the Five Predicates. HAV I N G D I S C U S S E D A L L that were proposed, I mean, genus, species, difference, property, accident, we must declare what things are common, and what peculiar to them. Now it is common to them all to be predicated, as we have said, of many things, but genus (is predicated) of the species and individuals under it, and difference in like manner; but species, of the individuals under it; and property, both of the species, of which it is the property, and of the individuals under that species; again, accident (is predicated) both of species, and individuals. For animal is predicated of horse and ox, being species, also of this particular horse and ox, which are individuals, but irrational is predicated of horse and ox, and of particulars. Species however, as man, is predicated of particulars alone, but property both of the species, of which it is the property, and of the individuals under that species; as risibility both of man, and of particular men, but blackness of the species of crows, and of particulars, being an inseparable accident; and to be moved, of man and horse, being a separable accident. Notwithstanding, it is pre-eminently (predicated) of individuals, but secondarily of those things which comprehend individuals.

[ 76 ]

Chap. VII. Of the Community and Distinction of Genus and Difference. IT I S CO M M O N to genus and difference to be comprehensive of species, for difference also comprehends species, though not all such as the genera; for rational, though, it does not comprehend irrational, as animal does, yet it comprehends man and divinity, which are species. Whatever things also are predicated of genus as genus, are predicated of the species under it, and whatever are predicated of difference as difference, will be also of the species formed from it. For animal being a genus, substance is predicated of it as of a genus, also animated, and sensible, but these are predicated of all the species under animal, as far as to individuals. As moreover, rational is difference, the use of reason is predicated of it, as of difference, yet the use of reason will not be predicated of rational only, but also of the species under rational. This too is common, that when genus or difference is subverted, the things under them are also subverted, for as when animal is not, horse is not, nor man, thus also, when rational is not, there will be no animal which uses reason. Now, it is the property of genus to be predicated of more things than difference, species, property, and accident are, for animal (is predicated) of man and horse, bird and snake, but quadruped of animals alone, which have four feet; again, man of individuals alone, and capacity of neighing of horse alone, and of particulars. Likewise, accident of fewer things: yet we must assume the differences by which the genus is divided, not those which complete, but which divide the essence of genus. Moreover, genus comprehends difference in capacity, for of animal one kind is rational, but another irrational, but differences do not comprehend genera. Besides, genera are prior to the differences under them, wherefore they subvert them, but are not co-subverted with them. For animal being subverted, rational and irrational are cosubverted, but differences no longer co-subvert genus, for even if all of them should be subverted, yet we may form a conception of animated, sensible substance, which is animal. Yet more, genus is predicated in reference to what a thing is, but difference in reference to what kind of a thing it is, as was observed before; besides there is one genus according to every species; e. g. of man, animal (is the genus), but there are many differences, as rational, mortal, capable of intellect and science, by which he differs from other animals. Genus also is similar to matter, but difference to form: however

[ 77 ]

since there are other things common and peculiar to genus and difference, these will suffice.

[ 78 ]

Chap. VIII. Of Community and Difference of Genus and Species. GE N U S A N D S P EC I E S possess in common, (as we have said,) the being predicated of many things, but species must be taken as species only, and not as genus, if the same thing be both species and genus. Moreover, it is common to them both to be prior to what they are predicated of, and to be each a certain whole; but they differ, because genus indeed comprehends species, but species are comprehended by, and do not comprehend genera, for genus is predicated of more than species. Besides, it is necessary that genera should be presupposed, and when formed by specific differences, that they should consummate species, whence also genera are by nature prior. They also co-subvert, but are not co-subverted, for species existing, genus also entirely exists, but genus existing there is not altogether species; genera too, are indeed univocally predicated of species under them, but not species of genera. Moreover, genera exceed, from comprehending the species which are under them, but species exceed genera by their proper differences; besides, neither can species become most generic, nor genus most specific.

[ 79 ]

Chap. IX. Of Community and Difference of Genus and Property. BOT H TO G E N U S and to property it is common to follow species, for if any thing be man, it is animal, and if any thing be man, it is risible. Likewise to genus, to be equally predicated of species, and to property, (to be equally predicated) of the individuals which participate it; thus man and ox are equally animal, and Anytus and Melitus risible.21 It is also common that genus should be univocally predicated of its proper species, and property of the things of which it is the property; still they differ, because genus is prior, but property posterior, for animal must first necessarily exist, afterwards be divided by differences and properties. Also genus indeed is predicated of many species, but property of one certain species of which it is the property. Besides property is reciprocally predicated of that of which it is the property, but genus is not reciprocally predicated of any thing, for neither if any thing is an animal, is it a man, nor if a thing be animal is it risible, but if any thing is a man it is risible, and vice versa. Moreover, property is inherent in the whole species, of which it is the property, in it alone, and always, but genus in the whole species indeed of which it is the genus, and always, yet not in it alone; once more, properties being subverted do not co-subvert genera, but genera being subverted, co-subvert species, to which properties belong; wherefore, also those things of which there are properties, being subverted, the properties themselves also, are co-subverted.

[ 80 ]

Chap. X. Of Community and Difference of Genus and Accident. IT I S CO M M O N to genus and accident to be predicated, as we have said, of many things, whether they (the accidents) be separable or inseparable, for to be moved is predicated of many things, and blackness of crows, and of Ethiopians, and of certain inanimate things. Genus however differs from accident, in that genus is prior, but accident posterior to species, for though an inseparable accident be assumed, yet that of which it is the accident is prior to the accident. Also the participants of genus participate it equally, but those of accident do not equally; for the participation of accidents accepts intension and remission, but not that of genera. Besides, accidents primarily subsist about individuals, but genera and species are by nature prior to individual substances. Moreover, genera are predicated of the things under them, in respect to what a thing is, but accidents in respect to what kind of a thing it is, or how each thing subsists; for being asked, what kind of man an Ethiopian is, you say that he is black; or how Socrates is, you reply that he is sick or well.

[ 81 ]

Chap. XI. Of Community and Difference of Species and Difference. WE H AV E S H OW N then, wherein genus differs from the other four, but each of the other four happens also to differ from the rest, so that as there are five, and each one of the four differs from the rest, the five being four times (taken), all the differences would appear to be twenty. Nevertheless, such is not the case, but always those successive being enumerated, and two being deficient by one difference, from having been already assumed, and the three by two differences, the four by three, the five by four; all the differences are ten, namely, four, three, two, one. For in what genus differs from difference, species, property, and accident, we have shown, wherefore, there are four differences; also we explained in what respect difference differs from genus, when we declared in what genus differs from it. What remains then, viz. in what respect it differs from species, property, and accident, shall be told, and three (differences) arise. Again, we declared how species differs from difference, when we showed how difference differs from species; also we showed how species differs from genus, when we explained how genus differs from species; what remains then, viz. in what species differs from property and from accident, shall be told: these, then, are two differences. But in what respect property differs from accident, shall be discovered, for how it differs from species, difference, and genus, was explained before in the difference of those from these. Wherefore, as four differences of genus with respect to the rest, are assumed, but three of difference, two of species, and one of property with regard to accident, there will be ten (differences altogether), of which, four we have already demonstrated, viz. those of genus, with respect to the rest.

[ 82 ]

Chap. XII. The same subject continued. IT I S CO M M O N then to difference and species to be equally participated, for particular men partake equally of man, and of the difference of rational. It is also common always to be present to their participants, for Socrates is always rational, and always man, but it is the property of difference indeed to be predicated in respect to what kind a thing is of, but of species in respect to what a thing is, for though man should be assumed as a certain kind of thing, yet he will not be simply so, but in as far as differences according to genus constitute him. Besides, difference is often seen in many species, as quadruped in many animals, different in species, but species is in the individuals alone, which are tinder the species. Moreover, difference is prior to the species which subsists according to it, for rational being subverted, co-subverts man, but man being subverted, does not co-subvert rational, since there is still divinity. Further, difference is joined with another difference, (for rational and mortal are joined for the subsistence of man,) but species is not joined with species, so as to produce some other species; for indeed a certain horse is joined with a certain ass, for the production of a mule, but horse simply joined with ass will not produce a mule.

[ 83 ]

Chap. XIII. Of Community and Difference of Property and Difference.22 DI F F E R E N C E A L S O A N D property have it in common to be equally shared by their participants, for rational are equally rational, and risible (equally) risible (animals). Also it is common to both to be always present, and to every one, for though a biped should be mutilated, yet (the term biped) is always predicated with reference to what is naturally adapted, since also risible has the “always” from natural adaptation, but not from always laughing. Now, it is the property of difference, that it is frequently predicated of many species, as rational of divinity and man, but property (is predicated) of one species, of which it is the property. Difference moreover follows those things of which it is the difference, yet does not also reciprocate, but properties are reciprocally predicated of those of which they are the properties, in consequence of reciprocating.

[ 84 ]

Chap. XIV. Of Community and Difference of Accident and Difference. TO D I F F E R E N C E A N D accident it is common to be predicated of many things, but it is common (to the former) with inseparable accidents to be present always and with every one, for biped is always present to man, and likewise blackness to all crows. Still they differ in that difference indeed comprehends but is not comprehended by species; for rational comprehends divinity and man, but accidents after a certain manner comprehend from their being in many things, yet in a certain manner are comprehended from the subjects not being the recipients of one accident, but of many. Besides, difference indeed docs not admit of intension and remission, but accidents accept the more and less; moreover contrary differences cannot be mingled, but contrary accidents may sometimes be mingled. So many then are the points common and peculiar to difference and the others.

[ 85 ]

Chap. XV. Of Community and Difference of Species and Property. IN W H AT R E S P EC T species differs from genus and difference, was explained in our enunciation of the way in which genus, and also difference, differ from the rest; it now remains that we should point out how it (species) differs from property and accident. It is common then to species and property, to be reciprocally predicated of each other, since if any thing be man, it is risible, also if it be risible, it is man, still we have frequently declared that risible must be assumed according to natural adaptation to risibility. It is also common (to them) to be equally present, for species are equally present to their participants, and properties to the things of which they are properties, but species differs from property, in that species indeed may be the genus of other things, but property cannot possibly be the property of other things. Again, species subsists prior to property, but property accedes to species, for man must exist, in order that risible may: besides, species is always present in energy with its subject, but property sometimes also in capacity, for Socrates is a man always in energy, but he does not always laugh, though he is always naturally adapted to be risible. Once more, things of which the definitions are different, are themselves also different, but it is (the definition) of species to be under genus, and to be predicated of many things, also differing in number, in respect to what a thing is, and things of this kind, but of property it is to be present to a thing alone, and to every individual and always.

[ 86 ]

Chap. XVI. Of Community and Difference of Species and Accident. TO S P EC I E S A N D accident it is common to be predicated of many, but other points of community are rare, from the circumstance of accident, and that to which it is accidental, differing very much from each other. Now, the properties of each are these: of species, to be predicated of those of which it is the species, in respect to what a thing is, but of accident, in reference to what kind a thing is of, or how it subsists.23 Likewise, that each substance partakes of one species, but of many accidents, both separable and inseparable: moreover, species are conceived prior to accidents, even if they be inseparable, (for there must be subject, in order that something should happen to it,) but accidents are naturally adapted to be of posterior origin, and possess a nature adjunctive to substance. Again, of species the participation is equal, but of accident, even if it be inseparable, it is not equal; for an Ethiopian may have a colour intense, or remitted, according to blackness, with reference to an(other) Ethiopian.

[ 87 ]

Chap. XVII. Of Community and Difference of Property and Accident.24 IT R E M A I N S TO speak of property and accident, for how property differs from species, difference, and genus, has been stated. It is common then to property and inseparable accident not to subsist without those things in which they are beheld, for as man does not subsist without risible,25 so neither can Ethiopian subsist without blackness, and as property is present to every, and always, so also is inseparable accident. Nevertheless, they differ, in that property is present to one species alone, as the being risible to man, but inseparable accident, as black, is present not only to an Ethiopian, but also to a crow, to a coal, to ebony, and to certain other things. Moreover, property is reciprocally predicated of that of which it is the property, and is equally (present), but inseparable accident is not reciprocally predicated, besides, the participation of properties is equal, but of accidents one (subject partakes) more, but another less. There are indeed other points of community, and peculiarity of the abovementioned (predicables), but these are sufficient for their distinction, and the setting forth of their agreement.

[ 88 ]

ENDNOTES. 1 At the request of Chrysaorius, his pupil, who had recently met with the Categories of Aristotle, Porphyry wrote this introduction, in order to his comprehension of that treatise: nearly the whole of it is composed from the writings, and often almost in the very words of Plato. As philosophers reduced all things under ten common natures, as grammarians also, with respect to eight words, so Porphyry has comprehended every significant word, except such as are significant of individuals, under five terms. The five heads of predicables therefore, taken from this Isagoge, which was written in the third century, are an addition to the Aristotelian Logic, in part of which, (the Topics,) the doctrine laid down differs from that enunciated here, in several points, as Porphyry’s view also differs from that of Aldrich. Upon the subject generally, the reader may compare Albertus Magnus de Praedicab. Aquinas. Occam Logica. Abelard de Gen. et Spec. ed Cousin. Trendelenb. Elem. Crakanthorpe’s, Whately’s, Hill’s, and Wallis’ Logics, also Boethius de Divisione. 2 Dialectic, according to Plato, consists of four parts, division, definition, demonstration, and analysis; hence a treatise adapted to the formation of these, will be evidently useful to the dialectic of Plato. The difference between the dialectic of Plato and that of Aristotle, is noticed in the subsequent notes upon the Organon, and the reader will find the subject ably discussed in the introduction to Mansel’s Logic; here we need only observe that Aristotle in the Topics, looks to opinion (in his treatment of dialectic), while Plato disregards it, and the former delivers many arguments about one problem, but the latter, the same method about many problems. Cf. Proclus. MSS. commentary on the Parmenides, Philip., Schol. p. 143, ch, 4; Waitz, vol. ii. p. 137. 3 On the metaphysical part of this question, the opinions of philosophers are as vague as (I may add) they are unprofitable, hence the term “universals,” is the best to be employed, as least liable to commit the logician to any metaphysical hypothesis; since the realist may interpret it of “substances,” the nominalist of “names,” the conceptualist of “notions.” Cf. Occam, Log. p. 1, Albertus Magnus, Abelard. The agreement between the first and last, proves that there is no real difference between nominalism and conceptualism, since they were both. Vide also Mansel, Appendix A, where the authorities upon each side will be found quoted. 4 Genus and species, in short all forms, have a triple subsistence, for they are either prior to the many, or in the many, or posterior to the many. Taylor. Philoponus, in his [ 89 ]

extracts from Ammonius, illustrates this as follows: Let a seal-ring be conceived, having the image of Achilles upon it, from which seal let there be many impressions taken in pieces of wax, afterwards let a man perceiving the pieces of wax to have all the impression of one seal, retain such impression in his mind: then the seal in the ring is said to be prior to the many; the impression in the wax to be in the many, and the image remaining in the conception of the spectator, after the many, and of posterior origin. This he applies to genus and species. 5 Viz. metaphysics; it is, in fact, psychological. Cf. Leibnitz Meditat. de Cognit. Ver. opera. ed Erdmann. and Mansel’s Prolegomena Logica. 6 With this chapter compare ch. 5, of the Categories, and Top. i. 5 and 8, whence the discrepancies between the account of the predicables given by Arist. and this by Porphyry will appear, upon which see Mansel’s comment. Log. App. A, p. 9. Cf. also Albertus Mag. de Predicab. Trac. 11, cap. 1, Metap. iv. 28. 7 Ammonius remarks that, “It is worth while to doubt why Porphyry says that the first signification of genus appears to be the one easily adopted, and not the second signification, which is the habitude of one thing to one; since this nature first knows, for she first produces one thing from one, and thus many from many.” But as Taylor observes, the second signification of genus, which is second with reference to us, is first to nature; for from Hercules, one man is first produced, and thus afterwards the multitude of the Heraclidae. Universally, whatever is first to nature is second to us, and vice versa, e. g. she begins with form and matter, then flesh and bone; we begin from man, so that things prior to nature are posterior to our knowledge, wherefore the first signification is clearer than the second. 8 Porphyry does not recognise the distinction between “quale quid” and “quale,” (cf. Aldrich, Abelard de Gen. et Spe. ed. Cousin,) but makes difference, property, and accident to be all predicated ἐϝ τῷ ὁποῖόν τὶ ἐστιν: Boethius distinguishes quale in substantia, from quale non in substantia. Moreover, Porphyry makes difference to be always predicated de specie differentibus; upon his consideration of property, vide note to ch. 4, Isagog. 9 Athenaeus attributes this verse to Euripides. Vide Ath. lib. xiii. ch. 7. 10 An infima species can be maintained by none consistently but a Realist. Vide Mansel, p. 21 11 For the exemplification of the above, see the “Arbor Porphyriana,” (sometimes called by the Greek logicians, the “ladder,” κλίμαξ,) given at page 7, ch. 5, of the

[ 90 ]

Categories, with the note. [Note to the online text: vol. 1 can be found online at books.google.com] 12 See notes to pp. 6 and 8, Categor. An infima species implies a notion so complex as to be incapable of further accessions, the Realist maintains it to be the whole essence of the individuals of which it is predicated. Cf. Boethius; also Wallis, lib. i. 13, et seq.; Whately, b. ii. ch. 5, sect. 3 and 5. 13 Cf. Mansel, pp. 18 and 21, note; Whately, p. 52, 138; Outline of Laws of Thought, p. 44; Stewart, Philo. of Human Mind, part i. ch. 4. 14 Properly speaking, there cannot be more than one highest genus, which is a cognate term to every substance and quality supposed to exist; yet a subaltern genus may be relatively considered as a highest genus. Species, when resolved into its component parts, is found to be combined of genus and difference, and in different points of view, may be referred to different genera, also many species have no appropriate name, but are expressed by the combination of their constituent parts, genus and difference, e. g. “rectilinear-figure,” “ water-fowl;” indeed, some are denoted by the difference alone, as “ repeater” (a watch which strikes the hour). Cf. ch. 3, Cat. note; Crakanthorpe, Log. lib. ii. Any singular term (denoting one individual) implies, (vide Whately, b. ii. ch. 5, 5,) not only the whole of what is understood by the species it belongs to, but also more, namely, whatever distinguishes that single object from others of the same species, as London implies all that is denoted by the term “ city,” and also all that distinguishes that individual city. Cf. Wallis, ch. 2. 15 Hence, in describing an individual, we do not employ properties (which belong to a whole species), but generally, inseparable accidents, i. e. such as can be predicated of their subject at all times. 16 According to Porphyry, difference is always predicated “de specie differentibus,” and he recognises only a relative difference between two given species; thus “rational” is not the difference of man per se, but of man as distinguished from brutes. … 17 Porphyry’s definition of man, “animal rationale mortale,” was adopted by Abelard, Albertus Magnus, and Petrus Hispanus, though sometimes with the saving clause, that it must be understood with reference to the Stoical notions of the gods. Aquinas first removed the genus animal rationale from the Arbor Porphy., and limited rationality to man, distinguishing angels as intellectuales. Cf. Summa, p. 1; Qu. lviii. 3; Opusc. xlviii. Tract 1. In the Aristotelian definition of man, ζῷον πέζον δίπουν, the last would be regarded by him as a difference.

[ 91 ]

18 Boethius agrees with Porphyry, that accidents, properly so called, are useless in definition, (vide Opera, p. 3,) accidental definition is, in fact, merely a description. Cf. Albert. 1. c. Occam, pt. i. ch. 27. The only proper definition is by genus and differentiae, hence all definable notions will be species. The definition here given of difference, as to its being the excess of species over genus, is clear, from a reference to what was stated in the last note of the preceding chapter. 19 “Ratione ejus, quale quid est predicatur.” Buhle; so Aldrich. There is no warranty, as we have observed, by Porphyry, for distinction between “quale quid” and “quale.” 20 “Rationales enim sumus et nos et Dii,” vetus interpres Latinus. Commonly the word ἄγγελοι was substituted here, probably, as Casaubon conjectures, from the emendation of some Christian: Ammonius and Boethius (Comment, v.) attest that Porphyry wrote θεοὶ. 21 The property of a subaltern genus is predicated of all the species comprehended in that genus; that of a lowest species is predicated of all the individuals which partake of the nature of that species: thus, “Shape is the generic property of body, Growth is the generic property of living body, Voluntary motion is the generic property of animal, Risibility, the specific property of man.” Vide Hill’s Logic. 22 Whately observes, “It is often hard to distinguish certain properties from differentia, but whatever you consider as the most essential to the nature of a species, with respect to the matter you are engaged in, you must call the differentia, as rationality to man, and whatever you consider as rather an accompaniment (or result) of that difference, you must call the property, as the use of speech seems to be a result of rationality. He adds also, that the difference is not always one quality, but is frequently compounded of several together, no one of which would alone suffice.” Vide also Huyshe’s Log., pp. 33, 34. 23 Buhle retains the distinction here, between quid and quale quid, upon which, see notes on ch. 2 and 3. The reading is that of Julius Pacius, whom all later editors have followed: the Latin interpretation renders it, “accidentis vero in eo, quod quale quiddam, vel quomodo se habens.” 24 Accidents may be distinguished from properties by the very definitions given of them. The latter belong necessarily, and therefore universally, to an essence, whereas the former are those qualities which do not of necessity belong to any essence, but are [ 92 ]

mere contingencies. Huyshe. Vide also note ch. 4, and cf. Albert de Predicab. Tract, vi. cap. I. 25 Risibility is considered to be so dependent upon rationality, as that the latter could not exist without the former, and if this were not so, the term risible would not be a property of man, but only an inseparable accident. Cf. Whately and Mansel.

[ 93 ]

On the Faculties of the Soul Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, 1920 Object of the Book1 We propose to describe the faculties of the soul, and to set forth the various opinions of the subject held by both ancient and modern thinkers. Difference between Sensation and Intelligence Aristo [there were two philosophers by this name, one a Stoic, the other an Aristotelian] attributes to the soul a perceptive faculty, which he divides into two parts. According to him, the first, called sensibility, the principle and origin of sensations, is usually kept active by one of the sense-organs. The other, which subsists by itself, and without; organs, does not bear any special name in beings devoid of reason, in whom reason does not manifest, or ac least manifests only in a feeble or obscure manner; however, it is called intelligence in beings endowed with reason, among whom done it manifests clearly. Aristo holds that sensibility acts only with the help of the senseorgans, and that intelligence does not need them, to enter into activity. Why then does he subordinate both of these to a single genus, called the perceptive faculty? Both doubtless perceive, but the one perceives the sense-form of beings, while the other perceives their essence. Indeed, sensibility does not perceive the essence, but the senseform, and the figure; it is intelligence that perceives whether the object be a man or a horse. There are, therefore, two kinds of perception that are very different from each other: sense-perception receives an impression, and applies itself to an exterior object, while intellectual perception does not receive an impression. There have been philosophers who separated these two parts. They called intelligence or discursive reason the understanding which is exercised without imagination and sensation; and they called opinion the understanding which is exercised with imagination and sensation. Others, on the contrary, considered rational being, or nature, a simple essence, and attributed to it operations whose nature is entirely different. Now it is unreasonable to refer to the same essence faculties which differ completely in nature; for thought and sensation could not depend on the same essential principle, and if we were to call the operation of intelligence a perception, we would only be juggling with words. We must, therefore, establish a perfectly clear distinction between these two entities, intelligence and sensibility. On the one hand, intelligence possesses a quite peculiar nature, as is also the case with discursive reason, [ 94 ]

which is next below it. The function of the former is intuitive thought, while that of the latter is discursive thought. On the other hand, sensibility differs entirely from intelligence, acting with or without the help of organs; in the former case, it is called sensation, in the latter, imagination. Nevertheless, sensation and imagination belong to the same genus. In understanding, intuitive intelligence is superior to opinion, which applies to sensation or imagination; this latter kind or thought, whether called discursive thought, or anything else [such as opinion], is superior to sensation and imagination, but inferior to intuitive thought. On the Parts of the Soul. It is not only about the faculties that the ancient philosophers disagree… They are also in radical disagreement about the following questions: What are the parts of the soul? What is a part? What is a faculty? What difference is there between a part and a faculty? The Stoics divide the soul into eight parts: the five senses, speech, sex-power, and the directing [predominating] principle, which is served by the other faculties, so that the soul is composed of a faculty that commands, and faculties that obey. In their writing about ethics, Plato and Aristotle divide the soul into three parts. This division has been adopted by the greater part of later philosophers; but these have not understood that the object of this definition was to classify and define the virtues (Plato: reason, anger and appetite; Aristotle: locomotion, appetite and understanding). Indeed, if this classification be carefully scrutinized, it will be seen that it fails to account for all the faculties of the soul; it neglects imagination, sensibility, intelligence, and the natural faculties (the generative and nutritive powers). Other philosophers, such as Numenius, do not teach one soul in three parts, like the preceding, nor in two, such as the rational and irrational parts. They believe that we have two souls, one rational, the other irrational. Some among them attribute immortality to both of the souls; others attribute it only to the rational soul, and think that death not only suspends the exercise of the faculties that belong to the irrational soul, but even dissolves its being or essence. Last, some believe that, by virtue of the union of the two souls, their movements are double, because each of them feels the passions of the other. On the Difference of the Parts, and on the Faculties of the Soul We shall now explain the difference between a part and a faculty of the soul. One part differs from another by the characteristics of its genus (or kind), while different faculties may relate to a common genus. That is why Aristotle did not allow that the soul contained parts, though granting that it contained faculties. Indeed, the introduction of a new part changes the nature of the subject, while the diversity of faculties does not [ 95 ]

alter its unity. Longinus did not allow in the animal [or, living being] for several parts, but only for several faculties. In this respect, he followed the doctrine of Plato, according to whom the soul, in herself indivisible, is divided within bodies. Besides, that the soul does not have several parts does not necessarily imply that she has only a single faculty; for that which has no parts may still possess several faculties. To conclude this confused discussion, we shall have to lay down a principle of definition which will help to determine the essential differences and resemblances that exist either between the parts of the same subject, or between its faculties, or between its parts and its faculties. This will clearly reveal whether in the organism the soul really has several parts, or merely several faculties, and what opinion about them should be adopted. [For there are two special types of these.] The one attributes to man a single soul, genuinely composed of several parts, either by itself, or in relation to the body. The other one sees in man a union of several souls, looking on the man as on a choir, the harmony of whose parts constitutes its unity, so that we find several essentially different parts contributing to the formation of a single being. First we shall have to study within the soul the differentials between the part, the faculty and the disposition. A part always differs from another by the substrate, the genus and the function. A disposition is a special aptitude of some one part to carry out the part assigned to it by nature. A faculty is the habit of a disposition, the power inherent in some part to do the thing for which it has a disposition. There was no great inconvenience in confusing faculty and disposition; but there is an essential difference between part and faculty. Whatever the number of faculties, they can exist within a single “being,” or nature, without occupying any particular point in the extension of the substrate, while the parts somewhat participate in its extension, occupying therein a particular point. Thus all the properties of an apple are gathered within a single substrate, but the different parts that compose it are separate from each other. The notion of a part implies the idea of quantity in respect to the totality of the subject. On the contrary, the notion of a faculty implies the idea of totality. That is why the faculties remain indivisible, because they penetrate the whole substrate, while the parts are separate from each other because they have a quantity. How then may we say that a soul is indivisible, while having three parts? For when we hear it asserted that she contains three parts in respect to quantity, it is reasonable to ask how the soul can simultaneously be indivisible, and yet have three parts. This difficulty may be solved as follows: the soul is indivisible insofar as she is considered within her “being,” and in herself; and that she has three parts insofar as she is united to a divisible body, and that she exercises her different faculties in the different parts of the body. Indeed, it is not the same faculty that resides in the head, in the breast, or in the [ 96 ]

liver2 [the seats of reason, of anger and appetite]. Therefore, when the soul has been divided into several parts, it is in this sense that her different functions are exercised within different parts of the body. Nicholas [of Damascus],3 in his book On the Soul, used to say that the division of the soul was not founded on quantity, but on quality, like the division of an art or a science. Indeed, when we consider an extension, we see that the whole is a sum of its parts, and that it increases or diminishes according as a part is added or subtracted. Now it is not in this sense that we attribute parts to the soul; she is not the sum of her parts, because she is neither an extension nor a multitude. The parts of the soul resemble those of an art. There is, however, this difference, that an art is incomplete or imperfect if it lacks some part, while every soul is perfect, and while every organism that has not achieved the goal of its nature is an imperfect being. Thus by parts of the soul Nicholas means the different faculties of the organism. Indeed, the organism and, in general, the animated being, by the mere fact of possessing a soul, possesses several faculties, such as life, feeling, movement, thought, desire, and the cause and principle of all of them is the soul. Those, therefore, who distinguish parts in the soul thereby mean the faculties by which the animated being can produce actualizations or experience affections. While the soul herself is said to be indivisible, nothing hinders her function from being divided. The organism, therefore, is divisible, if we introduce within the notion of the soul that of the body; for the vital functions communicated by the soul to the body must necessarily be divided by the diversity of the organs, and it is this division of vital functions that has caused parts to be ascribed to the soul herself. As the soul can be conceived of in two different conditions, according as she lives within herself, or as she declines towards the body,4 it is only when she declines towards the body that she splits up into parts. When a seed of corn is sowed and produces an ear, we see in this ear of corn the appearance of parts, though the whole it forms is indivisible,5 and these indivisible parts themselves later return to an indivisible unity; likewise, when the soul, which by herself is indivisible, finds herself united to the body, parts are seen to appear. We must still examine the faculties that the soul develops by herself [intelligence and discursive reason], and which the soul develops by the animal [sensation]. This will be the true means of illustrating the difference between these two natures, and the necessity of reducing to the soul herself those parts of her being which have been enclosed within the parts of the body.6 ENDNOTES.

[ 97 ]

1 Stobaeus, Eclogae Physicae, 1.52, ed. Heeren. 2 See Ennead IV.3.23. 3 In his book On the Soul. 4 See Ennead 1.1.12. 5 See Ennead II.6.1. 6 See Ennead 1.1.

[ 98 ]

Against the Christians Anonymous translation, 2004 Against the Christians criticised the writings of Christian philosophers and theologians. Due to widespread censorship by Christian imperial authorities, no known copies of the book have survived. Only through references to the text in Christian writings can its contents be reconstructed. During his retirement in Sicily, Porphyry wrote the treatise, which consisted of fifteen books. Numerous Christian apologists, including Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, Augustine and Jerome responded to his challenge. Indeed, everything known about Porphyry’s arguments is found in these refutations, largely because Theodosius II ordered every copy of the work to be burned in 435 and again in 448. Jerome tells us that in Against the Christians Porphyry mocked Paul and the early Christians, suggesting that the ‘magical arts’ performed by Jesus of Nazareth and his followers were nothing special, done similarly by other figures of Greco-Roman history. Porphyry particularly attacked the prophecy of Daniel, because Jews and Christians pointed to the historical fulfilment of its prophecies as a decisive argument. These prophecies, he argued, were written not by Daniel but by a Jew in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (d. 164 BC), who gathered up the traditions of Daniel’s life and wrote a history of recent past events, but in the future tense, falsely dating them back to Daniel’s time.

[ 99 ]

Imaginary debate between Averroes (1126–1198) and Porphyry (234–c. 305). Monfredo de Monte Imperiali Liber de herbis, fourteenth century

[ 100 ]

CONTENTS PART I. Fragments probably from the Foreword PART II. Attacks on the characters and intelligence of the Evangelists and Apostle as a pretext to attack Christianity PART III. Attacks on the Old Testament PART IV. Attacks on the works and sayings of Jesus PART V. Theological objections PART VI. On Christian belief

[ 101 ]

PART I. Fragments probably from the Foreword 1. Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, I.2.1ff: FO R I N T H E first place any one might naturally want to know who we are that have come forward to write. Are we Greeks or Barbarians? Or what can there be intermediate to these? And what do we claim to be, not in regard to the name, because this is manifest to all, but in the manner and purpose of our life? For they would see that we agree neither with the opinions of the Greeks, nor with the customs of the Barbarians. Preparation I.5.10: But to understand the sum of the first and greatest benefit of the word of salvation, you must take into consideration the superstitious delusion of the ancient idolatry, whereby the whole human race in times long past was ground down by the constraint of daemons: but from that most gloomy darkness, as it were, the word by its divine power delivered both Greeks and Barbarians alike, and translated them all into the bright intellectual daylight of the true worship of God the universal King. But why need I spend time in endeavouring to show that we have not devoted ourselves to an unreasoning faith, but to wise and profitable doctrines which contain the way of true religion? As the present work is to be a complete treatise on this very subject, we exhort and beseech those who are fitly qualified to follow demonstrative arguments, that they give heed to sound sense, and receive the proofs of our doctrines more reasonably, and ‘be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh us the reason of the hope that is in us.’ But since all are not so qualified, and the word is kind and benevolent, and rejects no one at all, but heals every man by remedies suitable to him, and invites the unlearned and simple to the amendment of their ways, naturally in the introductory teaching of those who are beginning with the simpler elements, women and children and the common herd, we lead them on gently to the religious life, and adopt the sound faith to serve as a remedy, and ractic into them right opinions of God’s providence, and the immortality of the soul, and the life of virtue. Is it not in this way that we also see men scientifically curing those who are suffering from bodily diseases, the physicians themselves having by much practice and education acquired the doctrines of the healing art, and conducting all their operations according to reason, while those who come to them to be cured give themselves up to faith and

[ 102 ]

the hope of better health, though they understand not accurately any of the scientific theories, but depend only on their good hope and faith? And when the best of the physicians has come upon the scene, he prescribes with full knowledge both what must be avoided and what must be done, just like a ruler and master; and the patient obeys him as a king and lawgiver, believing that what has been prescribed will be beneficial to him. Thus scholars also accept the words of instruction from their teachers, because they believe that the lesson will be good for them: philosophy, moreover, a man would not touch before he is persuaded that the profession of it will be useful to him: and so one man straightway chooses the doctrines of Epicurus, and another emulates the Cynic mode of life, another follows the philosophy of Plato, another that of Aristotle, and yet another prefers the Stoic philosophy to all, each of them having embraced his opinion with a better hope and faith that it will be beneficial to him. Thus also men pursue the ordinary professions, and some adopt the military and others the mercantile life, having: assumed again by faith that the pursuit will supply them with a living. In marriages also the first approaches and unions formed in the hope of begetting children had their beginnings from a good faith. Again, a man sails forth on an uncertain voyage, without having cast out any other anchor of safety for himself than faith and good hope alone: and, again, another takes to husbandry, and after casting his seed into the earth sits waiting for the turn of the season, believing that what decayed upon the ground, and was hidden by floods of rains, will spring up again as it were from the dead to life: and, again, any one setting out from his own land on a long journey in a foreign country takes with him as good guides his hope and his faith. And when you cannot but perceive that man’s whole life depends on these two things — hope and faith — why do you wonder if also the things that are better for the soul are imparted by faith to some, who have not leisure to be taught the particulars in a more logical way, while others have opportunity to pursue the actual arguments, and to learn the proofs of the doctrines advocated? But now that we have made this short introduction, which will not be without advantage, let us go back to the first indictment, and give an answer to those who inquire who we are and whence we come. Well then, that being Greeks by race, and Greeks by sentiment, and gathered out of all sorts of nations, like the chosen men of a newly enlisted army, we have become deserters from the superstition of our ancestors, — this even we ourselves should never deny. But also that, though adhering to the Jewish books and collecting out of their prophecies the greater part of our doctrine, we no longer think it agreeable to live in like manner with those of the Circumcision, — this too we should at once acknowledge. [ 103 ]

It is time, therefore, to submit our explanation of these matters. In what other way then can it appear that we have done well in forsaking the customs of our forefathers, except by first setting them forth publicly and bringing them under the view of our readers? For in this way the divine power of the demonstration of the Gospel will become manifest, if it be plainly shown to all men what are the evils that it promises to cure, and of what kind they are. And how can the reasonableness of our pursuing the study of the Jewish Scriptures appear, unless their excellence also be proved? It will be right also to state fully for what reason, though gladly accepting their Scriptures, we decline to follow their mode of life: and, in conclusion, to state what is our own account of the Gospel argument, and what Christianity should properly be called, since it is neither Hellenism nor Judaism, but a new and true kind of divine philosophy, bringing evidence of its novelty from its very name. First of all then let us carefully survey the most ancient theologies, and especially those of our own forefathers, celebrated even till now in every city, and the solemn decisions of noble philosophers concerning the constitution of the world and concerning the gods, that we may learn whether we did right or not in departing from them. And in the clear statement of what is to be proved I shall not set down my own words, but those of the very persons who have taken the deepest interest in the worship of those whom they call gods, that so the argument may stand clear of all suspicion of being invented by us.”

[ 104 ]

PART II. Attacks on the characters and intelligence of the Evangelists and Apostle as a pretext to attack Christianity 2. Jerome, Epistle 57:8-9: I R E F E R TO these [passages], not to convict the evangelists of falsification — a charge worthy only of impious men like Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian…. 3. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew (on 21:21): The pagan dogs bark against us in their volumes, which they left behind them in memory of their own impiety, asserting that the apostles did not have faith, since they weren’t able to move mountains. 4. Jerome, Tract on Psalm 81: Paul conquered the whole world, from the Ocean to the Red Sea. Let some say, “He did it all for money”; for this Porphyry says, “(They were) poor and country-dwelling men, seeing that they used to have nothing; certain wonders were worked with magical arts. Not that it is unusual however to do wonders; for the magicians in Egypt also did wonders against Moses, Apollonius also did them, Apuleius also did them, and any number have done wonders.” I concede, Porphyry, that they did wonders by magical arts, “so that they might receive riches from rich and impressionable women, whom they had led astray.” For you say this — (yet) why were they killed? why were they crucified? 5. Jerome, Commentary on Joel (on 2:28ff ): (The apostles) sifted whatever was useful to those who heard them, and did not rebuff those present, (whom) they reinforced with testimonies of other times, so that they did not abuse the simplicity and inexperience of those listening, as the impious Porphyry misrepresents. 6. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew (on 9:9): Porphyry and the emperor Julian argue in this place that (this shows) either the inexperience of the lying historians or the stupidity of those who immediately followed the saviour, as if they had followed irrationally any man calling. 7. Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, III, 5, 95ff: Translation not available 8. Cod. Lawr. [Athos] 184. B. 64. saec. X. fol. 17r. (Scholion on Act. 15, 20). Translation not available [ 105 ]

9. Jerome, On the beginning of Mark. This passage that impious man Porphyry, who wrote against us and vomited out his madness in many books, discusses in his 14th book and says: ‘The evangelists were such unskilled men, not only in worldly matters, but also in the divine scriptures, that they attributed the testimony, which had been written elsewhere, to the wrong prophet.’ This he jeers at. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew (on 3:3): Porphyry highlights this passage at the start of the evangelist Mark, in which is written, ‘The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ… Make his paths straight.’ For since the testimony of Malachi and Isaiah has been intertwined, he asks, in what way can we imagine that the example has been taken from Isaiah only. To which men of the church have responded very fully. 10. Jerome, Tract on Psalm LXXVII Translation not available 11. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (on 1:1): And it is for this reason that in the Gospel according to Matthew there seems to be a generation missing, because the second group of fourteen, (A) extending to the time of Jehoiakim, ends with a son of Josiah, and the third group begins with Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim. Being ignorant of this factor, Porphyry formulated a slander against the Church which only revealed his own ignorance, as he tried to prove the evangelist Matthew guilty of error. 12. Epiphanius, Panarion (Against Heresies) 51:8: Translation not available 13. Macarius, Apocriticus IV:3: We must mention also that saying which Matthew gave us, in the spirit of a slave who is made to bend himself in a mill-house, when he said, “And the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, and then shall the end come.” For lo, every quarter of the inhabited world has experience of the Gospel, and all the bounds and ends of the earth possess it complete, and nowhere is there an end, nor will it ever come. So let this saying only be spoken in a corner! 14. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 27:45: Those that wrote against the gospels suspect that an eclipse of the sun, which regularly happens at certain times and places, was interpreted by the disciples on account of their unworldliness as the resurrection of the Lord. 15. Macarius, Apocriticus II:12: But he with bitterness, and with very grim look, bent forward and declared to us yet more savagely that the Evangelists were inventors and not historians of the events [ 106 ]

concerning Jesus. For each of them wrote an account of the Passion which was not harmonious but as contradictory as could be. For one records that, when he was crucified, a certain man filled a sponge with vinegar and brought it to him (Mark xv. 36). But another says in a different way, “When they had come to the place Golgotha, they gave him to drink wine mingled with gall, and when he had tasted it, he would not drink” (Matt. Xxvii. 33). And a little further, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eloim, Eloim, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This is Matthew(v. 46). And another says, “Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar. Having therefore bound a vessel full of the vinegar with a reed, they offered it to his mouth. When therefore he had taken the vinegar, Jesus said, It is finished, and having bowed his head, he gave up the ghost” (John xix. 29). But another says, “And he cried out with a loud voice and said, Father, into thy hands I will commend my spirit.” This happens to be Luke (Luke xxiii. 46). From this out-of-date and contradictory record, one can receive it as the statement of the suffering, not of one man, but of many. For if one says “Into thy hands I will commend my spirit,” and another “ It is finished,” and another “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and another “ My God, my God, why didst thou reproach me?” it is plain that this is a discordant invention, and either points to many who were crucified, or one who died hard and did not give a clear view of his passion to those who were present. But if these men were not able to tell the manner of his death in a truthful way, and simply repeated it by rote, neither did they leave any clear record concerning the rest of the narrative. 16. Macarius, Apocriticus, II:13: It will be proved from another passage that the accounts of his death were all a matter of guess-work. For John writes : “But when they came to Jesus, when they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs; but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.” For only John has said this, and none of the others. Wherefore he is desirous of bearing witness to himself when he says: “And he that saw it hath borne witness, and his witness is true” (v. 35). This is haply, as it seems to me, the statement of a simpleton. For how is the witness true when its object has no existence? For a man witnesses to something real; but how can witness be spoken of concerning a thing which is not real? 17. (Lost fragment) In a manuscript in Paris, in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin collection, shelfmark Graecus 205, on folio 41r, there is a half-lost marginal scholion on 12 lines on Acts 1 with the heading “From Macarius Magnetes on Judas”. This seems to be a fragment from the lost portion of Macarius Magnes, and it therefore suggests that the Apocriticus did

[ 107 ]

contain an attack on the story of the death of Judas (recorded differently in Acts 1 and Matth. 27:3). 18. Macarius, Apocriticus, lost fragments from Book V. Turrianus had the complete text of the Apocriticus. In his work attacking the Magdeburg Centuries, (Florence, 1572, ff.), he writes as follows about book 5 of the Apocriticus. “He adds to this exemplar of the evangelists, books 2 and 5 of the ancient ecclesiastical writer who wrongly in the opinion of some, but otherwise generally is known as Magnetes, which he wrote against the pagan Theosthenes who jeered at the discrepancies of the gospels and other things in our gospel.” This indicates the book 5 also contained material which belongs with the other quotations. 19. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1:1: Translation not available 20. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1:16: Translation not available 21. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, Prologue (on the stay of Peter and Paul in Antioch): Translation not available Jerome, Epistle 112 to Augustine, 6:11: Translation not available Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 2:11ff: Translation not available Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah XV:54: Translation not available 22. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 5:10: Translation not available 23. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 19: It is only natural that there is much that is unseemly in all this long-winded talk thus poured out. The words, one might say, provoke a battle of inconsistency against each other. How would some man in the street be inclined to explain that Gospel saying, which Jesus addresses to Peter when He says, “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me, for thou mindest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men” (Matt. 16:23), and then in another place, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”? For if He so condemned Peter as to call him Satan, and thought of him as cast behind Him, and an offence, and one who had received no thought of what was divine in his mind; and if He so rejected him as having committed mortal sin, that He was not prepared to have him in His sight any more, but thrust him behind Him into the throng of the outcast and vanished; how is it right to find this sentence of exclusion against the [ 108 ]

leader and “chief of the disciples? At any rate, if any one who is in his sober senses ruminates over this, and then hears Christ say (as though He had forgotten the words He had uttered against Peter), “ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” and “ To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” — will he not laugh aloud till he nearly bursts his mouth? Will he not open it wide as he might from his seat in the theatre? Will he not speak with a sneer and hiss loudly? Will he not cry aloud to those who are near him? Either when He called Peter Satan He was drunk and overcome with wine, and He spoke as though in a fit; or else, when He gave this same disciple the keys of the kingdom of heaven, He was painting dreams, in the imagination of His sleep. For pray how was Peter able to support the foundation of the Church, seeing that thousands of times he was readily shaken from his judgment? What sort of firm reasoning can be detected in him, or where did he show any unshaken mental power, seeing that, though he heard what Jesus had said to him, he was terribly frightened because of a sorry maidservant, and three times foreswore himself, although no great necessity was laid upon him? We conclude then that, if He was right in taking him up and calling him Satan, as having failed of the very essence of godliness, He was inconsistent, as though not knowing what He had done, in giving him the authority of leadership. 24. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 20: It is also plain that Peter is condemned of many falls, from the statement in that passage where Jesus said to him, “I say not unto thee until seven times, but until seventy times seven shalt thou forgive the sin of him that does wrong.” But though he received this commandment and injunction, he cut off the ear of the high-priest’s servant who had done no wrong, and did him harm although he had not sinned at all. For how did he sin, if he went at the command of his master to the attack which was then made on Christ? 25. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 21: “This Peter is convicted of doing wrong in other cases also. For in the case of a certain man called Ananias, and his wife Sapphira, because they did not deposit the whole price of their land, but kept back a little for their own necessary use, Peter put them to death, although they had done no wrong. For how did they do wrong, if they did not wish to make a present of all that was their own? But even if he did consider their act to be one of wrongdoing, he ought to have remembered the commands of Jesus, who had taught him to endure as many as four hundred and ninety sins against him ; he would then at least have pardoned one, if indeed what had occurred could really in any sense be called a sin. And there is another thing which he ought to have borne in mind in dealing with others — namely, how he himself, by swearing that he

[ 109 ]

did not know Jesus, had not only told a lie, but had foresworn himself, in contempt of the judgment and resurrection to come. Jerome, Epistle 130:14: In fact the apostle Peter by no means called down death upon them as Porphyry foolishly says. 26. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 22: This man who stood first in the band of the disciples, taught as he had been by God to despise death, but escaping when seized by Herod, became a cause of punishment to those who guarded him. For after he had escaped during the night, when day came there was a stir among the soldiers as to how Peter had got out. And Herod, when he had sought for him and failed to find him, examined the guards, and ordered them to be “led away,” that is to say, put to death. So it is astonishing how Jesus gave the keys of heaven to Peter, if he were a man such as this; and how to one who was disturbed with such agitation and overcome by such experiences did He say “Feed my lambs”? For I suppose the sheep are the faithful who have advanced to the mystery of perfection, while the lambs stand for the throng of those who are still catechumens, fed so far on the gentle milk of teaching. Nevertheless, Peter is recorded to have been crucified after feeding the lambs not even for a few months, although Jesus had said that the gates of Hades should not prevail against him. Again, Paul condemned Peter when he said, “For before certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles, but when they came he separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision; and many Jews joined with him in his hypocrisy” (Gal. ii. 12). In this likewise there is abundant and important condemnation, that a man who had become interpreter of the divine mouth should live in hypocrisy, and behave himself with a view to pleasing men. Moreover, the same is true of his taking about a wife, for this is what Paul says : “ Have we not power to take about a sister, a wife, as also the rest of the apostles, and Peter?” (1 Cor. ix. 5). And then he adds (2 Cor. xi. 13), “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers.” If then Peter is related to have been involved in so many base things, is it not enough to make one shudder to imagine that he holds the keys of heaven, and looses and binds, although he is fast bound, so to speak, in countless inconsistencies. 27. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 30: He remained a little while in deep and solemn thought, and then said: “You seem to me very much like inexperienced captains, who, while still afloat on the voyage that lies before them, look on themselves as afloat on another sea. Even thus are you seeking for other passages to be laid down by us, although you have not completed the vital points in the questions which you still have on hand.”

[ 110 ]

If you are really filled with boldness about the questions, and the points of difficulty have become clear to you, tell us how it was that Paul said, “Being free, I made myself the slave of all, in order that I might gain all” (1 Cor. ix. 19), and how, although he called circumcision “concision,” he himself circumcised a certain Timothy, as we are taught in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts xvi. 3). Oh, the downright stupidity of it all! It is such a stage as this that the scenes in the theatre portray, as a means of raising laughter. Such indeed is the exhibition which jugglers give. For how could the man be free who is a slave of all? And how can the man gain all who apes all? For if he is without law to those who are without law, as he himself says, and he went with the Jews as a Jew and with others in like manner, truly he was the slave of manifold baseness, and a stranger to freedom and an alien from it; truly he is a servant and minister of other people’s wrong doings, and a notable zealot for unseemly things, if he spends his time on each occasion in the baseness of those without law, and appropriates their doings to himself. These things cannot be the teachings of a sound mind, nor the setting forth of reasoning that is free. But the words imply some one who is somewhat crippled in mind, and weak in his reasoning. For if he lives with those who are without law, and also in his writings accepts the Jews’ religion gladly, having a share in each, he is confused with each, mingling with the falls of those who are base, and subscribing himself as their companion. For he who draws such a line through circumcision as to remove those who wish to fulfil it, and then performs circumcision himself, stands as the weightiest of all accusers of himself when he says: “If I build again those things which I loosed, I establish myself as a transgressor.” 28. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 31: This same Paul, who often when he speaks seems to forget his own words, tells the chief captain that he is not a Jew but a Roman, although he had previously said, “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, and brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the exact teaching of the law of my fathers.” But he who said, “I am a Jew,” and “I am a Roman,” is neither thing, although he attaches himself to both. For he who plays the hypocrite and speaks of what he is not, lays the foundation of his deeds in guile, and by putting round him a mask of deceit, he cheats the clear issue and steals the truth, laying siege in different ways to the soul’s understanding, and enslaving by the juggler’s art those who are easily influenced. The man who welcomes in his life such a principle as this, differs not at all from an implacable and bitter foe, who enslaving by his hypocrisy the minds of those beyond his own borders, takes them all captive in inhuman fashion. So if Paul is in pretence at one time a Jew, at another a Roman, at one time without law, and at another a Greek, and whenever he wishes is a stranger and an

[ 111 ]

enemy to each thing, by stealing into each, he has made each useless, robbing each of its scope by his flattery. We conclude then that he is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying. And it is beside the point for him to say : “I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not” (Rom. ix. 1). For the man who has just now conformed to the law, and to-day to the Gospel, is rightly regarded as knavish and hollow both in private and in public life. 29. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 32: That he dissembles the Gospel for the sake of vainglory, and the law for the sake of covetousness, is plain from his words, “Who ever goeth to war at his own charges? Who shepherdeth the flock and doth not eat of the milk of the flock?” (1 Cor. ix. 7). And, in his desire to get hold of these things, he calls in the law as a supporter of his covetousness, saying, “Or doth not the law say these things? For in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shall not muzzle an ox that is treading out the corn “ (v. 9). Then he adds a statement which is obscure and full of nonsense, by way of cutting off the divine forethought from the brute beasts, saying, “Doth God take care of the oxen, or doth he say it on our account? On our account it was written” (v. 10). It seems to me that in saying this he is mocking the wisdom of the Creator, as if it contained no forethought for the things that had long ago been brought into being. For if God does not take care of oxen, pray, why is it written, “He hath subjected all things, sheep and oxen and beasts and birds and the fishes” (Ps. viii. 8-9)? If He takes account of fishes, much more of oxen which plough and labour. Wherefore I am amazed at such an impostor, who pays such solemn respect to the law because he is insatiable, for the sake of getting a sufficient contribution from those who are subject to him. 30. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 33: Then he suddenly turns like a man who jumps up from sleep scared by a dream, with the cry, “I Paul bear witness that if any man do one thing of the law, he is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. v. 3). This is instead of saying simply that it is not right to give heed to those things that are spoken by the law. This fine fellow, sound in mind and understanding, instructed in the accuracy of the law of his fathers, who had so often cleverly recalled Moses to mind, appears to be soaked with wine and drunkenness; for he makes an assertion which removes the ordinance of the law, saying to the Galatians, “Who bewitched you that ye should not obey the truth,” that is, the Gospel? (Gal. iii. 1). Then, exaggerating, and making it horrible for a man to obey the law, he says, “As many as are under the law are under a curse” (Gal. iii. 10). The man who writes to the Romans “The law is spiritual” (vii. 14), and again, “The law is holy and the commandment holy and just,” places under a curse those who obey that which is holy! Then, completely confusing the nature of the question, he confounds the whole matter and makes it [ 112 ]

obscure, so that he who listens to him almost grows dizzy, and dashes against the two things as though in the darkness of the night, stumbling over the law, and knocking against the Gospel in confusion, owing to the ignorance of the man who leads him by the hand. 31. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 34: “For see here, look at this clever fellow’s record. After countless utterances which he took from the law in order to get support from it, he made void the judgment of his own words by saying, “For the law entered that the offence might abound”; and before these words, “The goad of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor. xv. 56). He practically sharpens his own tongue like a sword, and cuts the law to pieces without mercy limb by limb. And this is the man who in many ways inclines to obey the law, and says it is praiseworthy to live according to it. And by taking hold of this ignorant opinion, which he does as though by habit, he has overthrown his own judgments on all other occasions.” 32. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 35: “When he speaks again of the eating of things sacrificed to idols, he simply teaches that these matters are indifferent, telling them not to be inquisitive nor to ask questions, but to eat things even though they be sacrificed to idols, provided only that no one speaks to them in warning. Wherein he is represented as saying, “ The things which they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, but I would not that you should have fellowship with demons” (1 Cor. x. 20). Thus he speaks and writes : and again he writes with indifference about such eating, “We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one” (1 Cor. viii. 4), and a little after this, “Meat will not commend us to God, neither, if we eat, are we the better, neither, if we eat not, are we the worse” (v. 8). Then, after all this prating of quackery, he ruminated, like a man lying in bed, and said, “Eat all that is sold in the shambles, asking no questions for conscience’ sake, for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof” (1 Cor. x. 25-26). Oh, what a stage farce, got from no one ! Oh, the monstrous inconsistency of his utterance ! A saying which destroys itself with its own sword! Oh, novel kind of archery, which turns against him who drew the bow, and strikes him!” 33. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 36: In his epistles we find another saying like these, where he praises virginity, and then turns round and writes, “In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats” (1 Tim. iv. 1 and 3). And in the Epistle to the Corinthians he says, “But concerning virgins I have

[ 113 ]

no commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. vii. 25). Therefore he that remains single does not do well, nor will he that refrains from marriage as from an evil thing lead the way in obedience, since they have not a command from Jesus concerning virginity. And how is it that certain people boast of their virginity as if it were some great thing, and say that they are filled with the Holy Ghost similarly to her who was the mother of Jesus? But we will now cease our attack on Paul, knowing what a battle of the giants he arms against him by his language. But if you are possessed of any resources for replying to these questions, answer without delay. 34. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 1: What does Paul mean by saying that the fashion of the world passes away? And how is it possible for them that have to be as though they had not, and they that rejoice as though they rejoiced not, and how can the other old-wives’ talk be credible? For how is it possible for him that has to become as though he had not? And how is it credible that he who rejoices should be as though he rejoiced not? Or how can the fashion of this world pass away? What is it that passes away, and why does it do so? For if the Creator were to make it pass away He would incur the charge of moving and altering that which was securely founded. Even if He were to change the fashion into something better, in this again He stands condemned, as not having realised at the time of creation a fitting and suitable fashion for the world, but having created it incomplete, and lacking the better arrangement. In any case, how is one to know that it is into what is good that the world would change if it came to an end late in time? And what benefit is there in the order of phenomena being changed? And if the condition of the visible world is gloomy and a cause for grief, in this, too, the Creator hears the sound of protest, being reduced to silence by the sound of reasonable charges against Him, in that He contrived the parts of the earth in grievous fashion, and in violation of the reasonableness of nature, and afterwards repented, and decided to change the whole. Perchance Paul by this saying teaches him that has, to be minded as though he had not, in the sense that the Creator, having the world, makes the fashion of it pass away, as though He had it not. And he says that he that rejoices does not rejoice, in the sense that the Creator is not pleased when He looks upon the fair and beautiful thing He has created, but, as being much grieved over it, He formed the plan of transferring and altering it. So then let us pass over this trivial saying with mild laughter. 35. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 2: Let us consider another wise remark of his, astounding and perverted, wherein he says, “We which are alive and remain, shall not go before them that are asleep unto the coming of the Lord, for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise [ 114 ]

first: then we which are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. iv. 15-17). Here is a thing that indeed rises in the air and shoots up to heaven, an enormous and far-reaching lie. This, when recited to the beasts without understanding, causes even them to bellow and croak out their sounding din in reply, when they hear of men in the flesh flying like birds in the air, or carried on a cloud. For this boast is a mighty piece of quackery, that living things, pressed down by the burden of physical bulk, should receive the nature of winged birds, and cross the wide air like some sea, using the cloud as a chariot. Even if such a thing is possible, it is monstrous, and apart from all that is suitable. For nature which created all things from the beginning appointed places befitting the things which were brought into being, and ordained that each should have its proper sphere, the sea for the water creatures, the land for those of the dry ground, the air for winged creatures, and the higher atmosphere for heavenly bodies. If one of these were moved from its proper abode, it would disappear on arrival in a strange condition and abode. For instance, if you wanted to take a creature of the water and force it to live on the dry land, it is readily destroyed and dies. Again, if you throw a land animal of a dry kind into the water, it will be drowned. And if you cut off a bird from the air, it will not endure it, and if you remove a heavenly body from the upper atmosphere, it will not stand it. Neither has the divine and active Word of God done this, nor ever will do it, although He is able to change the lot of the things that come into being. For He does not do and purpose anything according to His own ability, but according to its suitability He preserves things, and keeps the law of good order. So, even if He is able to do so, He does not make the earth to be sailed over, nor again does He make the sea to be ploughed or tilled; nor does He use His power in making virtue into wickedness nor wickedness into virtue, nor does He adapt a man to become a winged creature, nor does He place the stars below and the earth above. Wherefore we may reasonably declare that it is full of twaddle to say that men will ever be caught up into the air. And Paul’s lie becomes very plain when he says, “We which are alive.” For it is three hundred years since he said this, and no body has anywhere been caught up, either Paul’s or any one else’s. So it is time this saying of Paul became silent, for it is driven away in confusion. 36. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 4: Let us look at what was said to Paul, “The Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee” (Acts xviii. 9-10). And yet no sooner was he seized in Rome than this fine fellow, who said that we should judge angels, had his head cut off. And Peter again, who received [ 115 ]

authority to feed the lambs, was nailed to a cross and impaled on it. And countless others, who held opinions like theirs, were either burnt, or put to death by receiving some kind of punishment or maltreatment. This is not worthy of the will of God, nor even of a godly man, that a multitude of men should be cruelly punished through their relation to His own grace and faith, while the expected resurrection and coming remains unknown. 37. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 5:12: Translation not available

[ 116 ]

PART III. Attacks on the Old Testament 38. Theodoret, Graec. Affect. Cur. VII, 36: Translation not available 39. Eusebius, History of the Church, VI, 19:1-12: The Greek philosophers of his age are witnesses to his proficiency in these subjects. We find frequent mention of him in their writings. Sometimes they dedicated their own works to him; again, they submitted their labors to him as a teacher for his judgment. Why need we say these things when even Porphyry, who lived in Sicily in our own times and wrote books against us, attempting to traduce the Divine Scriptures by them, mentions those who have interpreted them; and being unable in any way to find a base accusation against the doctrines, for lack of arguments turns to reviling and calumniating their interpreters, attempting especially to slander Origen, whom he says he knew in his youth. But truly, without knowing it, he commends the man; telling the truth about him in some cases where he could not do otherwise; but uttering falsehoods where he thinks he will not be detected. Sometimes he accuses him as a Christian; again he describes his proficiency in philosophic learning. But hear his own words: “Some persons, desiring to find a solution of the baseness of the Jewish Scriptures rather than abandon them, have had recourse to explanations inconsistent and incongruous with the words written, which explanations, instead of supplying a defense of the foreigners, contain rather approval and praise of themselves. For they boast that the plain words of Moses are enigmas, and regard them as oracles full of hidden mysteries; and having bewildered the mental judgment by folly, they make their explanations.” Farther on he says: “As an example of this absurdity take a man whom I met when I was young, and who was then greatly celebrated and still is, on account of the writings which he has left. I refer to Origen, who is highly honored by the teachers of these doctrines. For this man, having been a hearer of Ammonius, who had attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day, derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the sciences; but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course opposite to his. For Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightway conformed to the life required by the laws. But Origen, having been educated as a Greek in Greek literature, went over to the barbarian recklessness. And carrying over the learning which he had obtained, he hawked it about, in his life conducting himself as a Christian and contrary to the laws, [ 117 ]

but in his opinions of material things and of the Deity being like a Greek, and mingling Grecian teachings with foreign fables. For he was continually studying Plato, and he busied himself with the writings of Numenius and Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, Moderatus, and Nicomachus, and those famous among the Pythagoreans. And he used the books of Chaeremon the Stoic, and of Cornutus. Becoming acquainted through them with the figurative interpretation of the Grecian mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish Scriptures.” These things are said by Porphyry in the third book of his work against the Christians. He speaks truly of the industry and learning of the man, but plainly utters a falsehood (for what will not an opposer of Christians do?) when he says that he went over from the Greeks, and that Ammonius fell from a life of piety into heathen customs. For the doctrine of Christ was taught to Origen by his parents, as we have shown above. And Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken and unadulterated to the end of his life. His works yet extant show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he has left. Jerome, On Illustrious Men 55: Porphyry falsely accused him [Ammonius] of having become a heathen again, after being a Christian, but it is certain that he continued a Christian until the very end of his life. 40. Eusebius, Chronicle, Preface by Jerome: Indeed from among the pagans, that impious man Porphyry in the fourth book of his work which he with pointless labour concocted against us, affirms that Semiramis, who reigned over the Assyrians 150 years before Inachus, lived after Moses. And so, according to him, Moses is discovered to be older than the Trojan War by almost 850 years. 41. Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, I: 9: 20ff: In fact the polytheistic error of all the nations is only seen long ages afterwards, having taken its beginning from the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and passed over from them to the other nations, and even to the Greeks themselves. For this again is affirmed by the history of the earliest ages; which history itself it is now time for us to review, beginning from the Phoenician records. Now the historian of this subject is Sanchuniathon, an author of great antiquity, and older, as they say, than the Trojan times, one whom they testify to have been approved for the accuracy and truth of his Phoenician History. Philo of Byblos, not the Hebrew, translated his whole work from the Phoenician language into the Greek, and published it. The author in our own day of the compilation against us mentions these things in the

[ 118 ]

fourth book of his treatise Against the Christians, where he bears the following testimony to Sanchuniathon, word for word: [PORPHYRY] ‘Of the affairs of the Jews the truest history, because the most in accordance with their places and names, is that of Sanchuniathon of Berytus, who received the records from Hierombalus the priest of the god Ieuo; he dedicated his history to Abibalus king of Berytus, and was approved by him and by the investigators of truth in his time. Now the times of these men fall even before the date of the Trojan war, and approach nearly to the times of Moses, as is shown by the successions of the kings of Phoenicia. And Sanchuniathon, who made a complete collection of ancient history from the records in the various cities and from the registers in the temples, and wrote in the Phoenician language with a love of truth, lived in the reign of Semiramis, the queen of the Assyrians, who is recorded to have lived before the Trojan war or in those very times. And the works of Sanchuniathon were translated into the Greek tongue by Philo of Byblos.’ So wrote the author before mentioned, bearing witness at once to the truthfulness and antiquity of the so-called theologian. But he, as he goes forward, treats as divine not the God who is over all, nor yet the gods in the heaven, but mortal men and women, not even refined in character, such as it would be right to approve for their virtue, or emulate for their love of wisdom, but involved in the dishonour of every kind of vileness and wickedness. He testifies also that these are the very same who are still regarded as gods by all both in the cities and in country districts. But let me give you the proofs of this out of his writings.” 42. Severianus Gabal., de Mundi Creatione, Orat. VI (PG 56, col. 487): Translation not available 43. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel: A. (Prologue) Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, denying that it was composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of the Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes. He furthermore alleged that “Daniel” did not foretell the future so much as he related the past, and lastly that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, made a most able reply to these allegations in three volumes, that is, the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth. Appollinarius did likewise, in a single large book, namely his twenty-sixth. Prior to these authors Methodius made a partial reply. But inasmuch as it is not our purpose to make answer to the false accusations of an [ 119 ]

adversary, a task requiring lengthy discussion, … And because Porphyry saw that all these things [the prophecies about Christ, kings and years] had been fulfilled and could not deny that they had taken place, he overcame this evidence of historical accuracy by taking refuge in this evasion, contending that whatever is foretold concerning Antichrist at the end of the world was actually fulfilled in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, because of certain similarities to things which took place at his time. But this very attack testifies to Daniel’s accuracy. For so striking was the reliability of what the prophet foretold, that he could not appear to unbelievers as a predicter of the future, but rather a narrator of things already past. And so wherever occasion arises in the course of explaining this volume, I shall attempt briefly to answer his malicious charge, and to controvert by simple explanation the philosophical skill, or rather the worldly malice, by which he strives to subvert the truth and by specious legerdemain to remove that which is so apparent to our eyes. B. (Prologue) But among other things we should recognize that Porphyry makes this objection to us concerning the Book of Daniel, that it is clearly a forgery not to be considered as belonging to the Hebrew Scriptures but an invention composed in Greek. This he deduces from the fact that in the story of Susanna, where Daniel is speaking to the elders, we find the expressions, “To split from the mastic tree” (apo tou skhinou skhisai) and to saw from the evergreen oak (kai apo tou prinou prisai), a wordplay appropriate to Greek rather than to Hebrew. But both Eusebius and Apollinarius have answered him after the same tenor, that the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew, but rather they constitute a part of the prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi. … After all, both Origen, Eusebius and Apollinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and that therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture. (Cf. Jerome, Comm. in Libr. Daniel. et Susan.) C. (Prologue) And yet to understand the final portions of Daniel a detailed investigation of Greek history is necessary, that is to say, such authorities as Sutorius, Callinicus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius, Claudius, Theon, and Andronycus surnamed Alipius, historians whom Porphyry claims to have followed, Josephus also and those whom he cites, and especially our own historian, Livy, and Pompeius Trogus, and Justinus. All these men narrate the history involved in Daniel’s final vision… D. (On 2.40) “…He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.” This last the Jews and the impious Porphyry apply to the people of Israel, who they insist will be the strongest power at the end of the ages, and will crush all realms and will rule forever. [ 120 ]

E. (On 2.46) Porphyry falsely impugns this passage on the ground that a very proud king would never worship a mere captive… F. (On 2.48) In this matter also the slanderous critic of the Church has ventured to castigate the prophet because he did not reject the gifts and because he willingly accepted honor of the Babylonians. G. (On 3.98) The epistle of Nebuchadnezzar was inserted in the volume of the prophet, in order that the book might not afterwards be thought to have been manufactured by some other author, as the accuser falsely asserts, but the product of Daniel himself. H. (On 5:1) [The genealogical chronology is taken by Jerome from Josephus: it is very likely that Porphyry wrote something against this]. J. (On 5:10) ‘Queen’ — Josephus says she was Belshazzar’s grandmother, whereas Origen says she was his mother. She therefore knew about previous events of which the king was ignorant. So much for Porphyry’s far-fetched objection [lit.: “Therefore let Porphyry stay awake nights” —— evigilet], who fancies that she was the king’s wife, and makes fun of the fact that she knows more than her husband does. K. (On 7:5) [The details about Persian kings comes from Porphyry] L. (On 7:7) Porphyry assigned the last two beasts, that of the Macedonians and that of the Romans, to the one realm of the Macedonians and divided them up as follows. He claimed that the leopard was Alexander himself, and that the beast which was dissimilar to the others represented the four successors of Alexander, and then he enumerates ten kings up to the time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, and who were very cruel. And he did not assign the kings themselves to separate kingdoms, for example Macedon, Syria, Asia, or Egypt, but rather he made out the various kingdoms a single realm consisting of a series. This he did of course in order that the words which were written: “.. .a mouth uttering overweening boasts” might be considered as spoken about Antiochus instead of about Antichrist. M. (On 7, 8.14) Porphyry vainly surmises that the little horn which rose up after the ten horns is Antiochus Epiphanes, and that the three uprooted horns out of the ten are Ptolemy VI surnamed Philometer, Ptolemy VII Euergetes, and Artaraxias, King of Armenia. The first two of these kings died long before Antiochus was born. … Let Porphyry answer the query of whom out of all mankind this language might apply to, or who this person might be who was so powerful as to break and smash to pieces the little horn, whom he interprets to be Antiochus? If he replies that the princes of Antiochus were defeated by Judas Maccabaeus, then he must explain how Judas could be said to come with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man, and to be brought unto the Ancient of days, and how it could be said that authority and royal power was bestowed [ 121 ]

upon him, and that all peoples and tribes and language-groups served him, and that his power is eternal and not terminated by any conclusion. N. (On 9:1) This is the Darius who in cooperation with Cyrus conquered the Chaldeans and Babylonians. We are not to think of that other Darius in the second year of whose reign the Temple was built, as Porphyry supposes in making out a late date for Daniel; nor are we to think of the Darius who was vanquished by Alexander, the king of the Macedonians. O. (On 11, 20) The reference is to the Seleucus surnamed Philopator, the son of Antiochus the Great, who during his reign performed no deeds worthy of Syria or of his father, but perished ingloriously without fighting a single battle. Porphyry, however, claims that it was not this Seleucus who is referred to, but rather Ptolemy Epiphanes, who contrived a plot against Seleucus and prepared an army to fight against him, with the result that Seleucus was poisoned by his own generals. They did this because when someone asked Seleucus where he was going to get the financial resources for the great enterprises he was planning, he answered that his financial resources consisted in his friends. When this remark was publicly noised abroad, the generals became apprehensive that he would deprive them of their property and for that reason did him to death by nefarious means. Yet how could Ptolemy be said to rise up in the place of Antiochus the Great, since he did nothing of the sort? P. (On 11, 21 f.) Up to this point the historical order has been followed, and there has been no point of controversy between Porphyry and those of our side (variant: and us). But the rest of the text from here on to the end of the book he interprets as applying to the person of the Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes, the brother of Seleucus and the son of Antiochus the Great. He reigned in Syria for eleven years after Seleucus, and he seized Judaea, and it is under his reign that the persecution of God’s Law is related, and also the wars of the Maccabees. But those of our persuasion believe … Q. (On 11, 21 f.) Our opponents say that the one who was to “stand up in the place of” Seleucus was his brother, Antiochus Epiphanes. The party in Syria who favored Ptolemy would not at first grant him the kingly honor, but he later secured the rule of Syria by a pretense of clemency. And as Ptolemy fought and laid everything waste, his arms were overcome and broken before the face of Antiochus. Now the word arms implies the idea of strength, and therefore also the host of any army is known as a hand [i.e. manus, “hand,” may also signify a “band of armed men”]. And not only does the text say that he conquered Ptolemy by fraud, but also the prince of the covenant he overcame by treachery, that is, Judas Maccabaeus. Or else this is what is referred to, that after he had secured peace with Ptolemy and he had become the prince of the covenant, he afterwards devised a plot against him. Now the Ptolemy meant here was not Epiphanes, [ 122 ]

who was the fifth Ptolemy to reign in Egypt, but Ptolemy Philometor, the son of Antiochus’ sister, Cleopatra; and so Antiochus was his maternal uncle. And when after Cleopatra’s death Egypt was ruled by Eulaius, the eunuch who was Philometor’s tutor, and by Leneus, and they were attempting to regain Syria, which Antiochus had fraudulently seized, warfare broke out between the boy Ptolemy and his uncle. And when they joined battle between Pelusium and Mt. Casius, Ptolemy’s generals were defeated. But then Antiochus showed leniency towards the boy, and making a pretense of friendship, he went up to Memphis and there received the crown after the Egyptian manner. Declaring that he was looking out for the lad’s interests, he subjected all Egypt to himself with only a small force of men, and he entered into rich and prosperous cities. And so he did things which his father had never done, nor his fathers’ fathers. For none of the kings of Syria had ever laid Egypt waste after this fashion and scattered all their wealth. Moreover he was so shrewd that he even overcame by his deceit the welllaid plans of those who were the boy-king’s generals. This is the line of interpretation which Porphyry followed, pursuing the lead of Sutorius with much redundancy, discoursing of matters which we have summarized within a brief compass. R. (On 11, 25 f.) Porphyry interprets this as applying to Antiochus, who set forth with a great army on a campaign against his sister’s son. But the king of the South, that is the generals of Ptolemy, were also roused to war with many and very powerful auxiliary forces, but they could not stand against the fraudulent schemes of Antiochus. For he pretended to be at peace with his sister’s son and ate bread with him, and afterwards he took possession of Egypt. S. (On 11, 27 f.) There is no doubt but what Antiochus did conclude a peace with Ptolemy and ate at the same table with him and devised plots against him, and yet without attaining any success thereby, since he did not obtain his kingdom but was driven out by Ptolemy’s soldiers. T. (On 11, 29 f.) Both the Greek and the Roman historians relate that after Antiochus had been expelled from Egypt and had gone back once more, he came to Judaea, that is, against the holy covenant, and that he despoiled the Temple and removed a huge amount of gold; and then, having stationed a garrison in the citadel, he returned to his own land. And then two years later he gathered an army against Ptolemy and came to the South. And while he was besieging his two nephews, the brothers of Ptolemy and sons of Cleopatra, at Alexandria, some Roman envoys arrived on the scene, one of whom was Marcus Popilius Laenas. And when he had found Antiochus standing on the shore and had conveyed the senatorial decree to him by which he was ordered to withdraw from those who were friends of the Roman people and to content himself with his own domain, then Antiochus delayed his reply in order to consult with his [ 123 ]

friends. But Laenas is said to have made a circle in the sand with the staff which he held in his hand, and to have drawn it around the king, saying, “The senate and people of Rome give order for you to make answer in this very spot as to what your decision is.” At these words Antiochus was greatly alarmed and said, “If this is the good pleasure of the senate and people of Rome, then I must withdraw.” And so he immediately set his army in motion. But he is said to have been dealt a heavy blow, not that he was killed but that he lost all of his proud prestige. … We read of these matters at greater length in the exploits of the Maccabees [I Macc. 1], where we learn that after the Romans expelled him from Egypt, he came in anger against the covenant of the sanctuary and was welcomed by those who had forsaken the law of God and taken part in the religious rites of the Gentiles. U. (On 11, 31-43) But those of the other viewpoint claim that the persons mentioned are those who were sent by Antiochus two years after he had plundered the Temple in order to exact tribute from the Jews, and also to eliminate the worship of God, setting up an image of Jupiter Olympius in the Temple at Jerusalem, and also statues of Antiochus himself. These are described as the abomination of desolation, having been set up when the burnt offering and continual sacrifice were taken away. (32) And in Maccabees we read that there were some who, to be sure, pretended that they were custodians of God’s law, and later they came to terms with the Gentiles; yet the others adhered to their religion. (33) The books of Maccabees relate the great sufferings the Jews endured at the hands of Antiochus and they stand as a testimony of their triumph; for they endured fire and sword, slavery and rapine, and even the ultimate penalty of death itself for the sake of guarding the law of God. (34 f.) Porphyry thinks that the “little help” was Mattathias of the village of (variant: mountain of) Modin, for he rebelled against the generals of Antiochus and attempted to preserve the worship of the true God [I Macc. 2]. He says he is called a little help because Mattathias was slain in battle; and later on his son Judas, who was called Maccabaeus, also fell in the struggle; and the rest of his brothers were likewise taken in by the deceit of their adversaries. (36) Porphyry and the others who follow his lead suppose the reference to be to Antiochus Epiphanes, pointing out that he did raise himself up against the worship of God, and pushed his arrogance so far as to command his own statue to be set up in the Temple in Jerusalem. And as for the subsequent statement, “And he shall manage successfully until the wrath be accomplished, for the consummation shall be in him,” they understand it to mean that his power will endure until such time as God becomes angry at him and orders him to be killed. For indeed Polybius and Diodorus, who [ 124 ]

composed the histories of the Bibliothecae (Libraries), relate that Antiochus not only took measures against the God of Judaea, but also was impelled by an all-consuming avarice to attempt the plunder of the temple of Diana in Elymais, because it was so wealthy. But he was so beset by the temple guard and the neighboring populace, and also by certain fearful apparitions, that he became demented and finally died of illness. And the historians record that this befell him because he had attempted to plunder the temple of Diana. (37 ff.) But if we read it in this fashion: “And occupied with lust for women,” understanding, “…he shall be,” then it is more appropriate to the character of Antiochus. For he is said to have been an egregious voluptuary, and to have become such a disgrace to the dignity of kingship through his lewdness and seductions, that he publicly had intercourse with actresses and harlots, and satisfied his sexual passions in the presence of the people. As for the god Maozim, Porphyry has offered an absurd explanation, asserting that Antiochus’s generals set up a statue of Jupiter in the village of Modin, from which came Mattathias and his sons; moreover they compelled the Jews to offer blood-sacrifices to it, that is, to the god of Modin. … (‘garrisons’) Porphyry explained this as meaning that the man is going to fortify the citadel in Jerusalem and will station garrisons in the rest of the cities, and will instruct the Jews to worship a strange god, which doubtless means Jupiter. And displaying the idol to them, he will persuade them that they should worship it. Then he will bestow upon the deluded both honor and very great glory, and he shall deal with the rest who have borne rule in Judaea, and apportion estates unto them in return for their falsehood, and shall distribute gifts. (40 f.) This too is referred by Porphyry to Antiochus, on the ground that in the eleventh year of his reign he warred for a second time against his nephew, Ptolemy Philometor. For when the latter heard that Antiochus had come, he gathered many thousands of soldiery. But Antiochus invaded many lands like a mighty tempest, with his chariots and horsemen and large navy, and laid everything waste as he passed through. And he came to the glorious land, that is, Judaea, … And Antiochus used the ruins of the wall of the city to fortify the citadel, and thus he continued on his way to Egypt. … They say that in his haste to fight Ptolemy, the king of the South, Antiochus left untouched the Idumaeans, Moabites, and Ammonites, who dwelt to the side of Judaea, lest he should make Ptolemy the stronger by engaging in some other campaign. V. (On 11:44-45) Even for this passage Porphyry has some nebulous application to Antiochus, asserting that in his conflict with the Egyptians, Libyans, and Ethiopians, passing through them he was to hear of wars which had been stirred up against him in the North and the East. Thence he was to turn back and overcome the resistance of the Aradians, and lay waste the entire province along the coastline of Phoenicia. And then [ 125 ]

he was to proceed without delay against Artaxias, the king of Armenia, who was moving down from the regions of the East, and having slain a large number of his troops, he would pitch his tent in the place called Apedno which is located between the two broadest rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. But it is impossible to state upon what famous and holy mountain he took his seat, after he had proceeded to that point. After all, it cannot be shown that he took up his seat between two seas, and it would be foolish to interpret the two seas as being the two rivers of Mesopotamia. But Porphyry gets around this famous mountain by following the rendering of Theodotion, who said: “…upon the sacred Mount Saba between the two seas.” And even though he supposes that Saba was the name of a mountain in Armenia or Mesopotamia, he cannot explain why it was holy. To be sure, if we assume the right of making things up, we can add the detail which Porphyry fails to mention, that the mountain, forsooth, was called holy, because it was consecrated to idols in conformity with the superstition of the Armenians. The account then says: “And he shall come even unto the summit of that same mountain,” —— supposedly in the province of Elam, which is the easternmost Persian area. And there when he purposed to plunder the temple of Diana, which contained countless sums of money, he was routed by the barbarians, for they honored that shrine with a remarkable veneration. And Antiochus, being overcome with grief, died in Tabes, a town in Persia. By use of a most artificial line of argument Porphyry has concocted these details as an affront to us; but even though he were able to prove that these statements applied to Antiochus instead of the Antichrist, what does that matter to us? For do we not on the basis of all the passages of Scripture prove the coming of Christ and the falsehood of the Antichrist? … Porphyry ignores these things which are so very clear and maintains that the prophecy refers to the Jews, although we are well aware that they are to this very day in a state of bondage. And he claims that the person who composed the book under the name of Daniel made it all up in order to revive the hopes of his countrymen. Not that he was able to foreknow all of future history, but rather he records events that had already taken place. Thus Porphyry confines himself to false claims in regard to the final vision, substituting rivers for the sea, and positing a famous and holy mountain, Apedno even though he is unable to furnish any historical source in which he has read about it. W. (On 12, 1 ff.) Up until this point Porphyry somehow managed to maintain his position and impose upon the credulity of the naive among our adherents as well as the poorly educated among his own. But what can he say of this chapter, in which is described the resurrection of the dead, with one group being revived for eternal life and the other group for eternal disgrace? He cannot even specify who the people were under Antiochus who shone like the brightness of the firmament, and those others who shone [ 126 ]

like the stars for all eternity. But what will pigheadedness not resort to? Like some bruised serpent, he lifts up his head as he is about to die, and pours forth his venom upon those who are themselves at the point of death. This too, he declares, was written with reference to Antiochus, for after he had invaded Persia, he left his army with Lysias, who was in charge of Antioch and Phoenicia, for the purpose of warring against the Jews and destroying their city of Jerusalem. All these details are related by Josephus, the author of the history of the Hebrews. Porphyry contends that the tribulation was such as had never previously occurred, and that a time came along such as had never been from the time that races began to exist even unto that time. But when victory was bestowed upon them, and the generals of Antiochus had been slain, and Antiochus himself had died in Persia, the people of Israel experienced salvation, even all who had been written down in the book of God, that is, those who defended the law with great bravery. Contrasted with them were those who proved to be transgressors of the Law and sided with the party of Antiochus. Then it was, he asserts, that these guardians of the Law, who had been, as it were, slumbering in the dust of the earth and were cumbered with a load of afflictions, and even hidden away, as it were, in the tombs of wretchedness, rose up once more from the dust of the earth to a victory unhoped for, and lifted up their heads, rising up to everlasting life, even as the transgressors rose up to everlasting disgrace. But those masters and teachers who possessed a knowledge of the Law shall shine like the heaven, and those who have exhorted the more backward peoples to observe the rites of God shall blaze forth after the fashion of the stars for all eternity. He also adduces the historical account concerning the Maccabees, in which it is said that many Jews under the leadership of Mattathias and Judas Maccabaeus fled to the desert and hid in caves and holes in the rocks, and came forth again after the victory. [I Macc. 2.] These things, then, were foretold in metaphorical language as if it concerned a resurrection of the dead. (5 f.) Porphyry, of course, assigns this time to the period of Antiochus, after his usual fashion… (7) Porphyry interprets a time and times and half a time to mean three and a half years; and we for our part do not deny that this accords with the idiom of Sacred Scripture. … If therefore the earlier references which were plainly written concerning the Antichrist are assigned by Porphyry to Antiochus and to the three and a half years during which he asserts the Temple was deserted, then he is under obligation to prove that the next statement, “His kingdom is eternal, and all kings shall serve and obey him,” likewise pertains to Antiochus, or else, as he himself conjectures, to the people of the Jews. … When it is stated that the people of God shall have been scattered —— either

[ 127 ]

under the persecution of Antiochus, as Porphyry claims, or of Antichrist, which we deem to be closer to fact —— at that time shall all these things be fulfilled. (11) Porphyry asserts that these one thousand two hundred and ninety days were fulfilled in the desolation of the Temple in the time of Antiochus… (12) Porphyry explains this passage in the following way, that the forty-five days beyond the one thousand two hundred and ninety signify the interval of victory over the generals of Antiochus, or the period when Judas Maccabaeus fought with bravery and cleansed the Temple and broke the idol to pieces, offering blood-sacrifices in the Temple of God. (13) And it is vain for Porphyry to claim that all these things which were spoken concerning the Antichrist under the type of Antiochus actually refer to Antiochus alone. As we have already mentioned, these false claims have been answered at greater length by Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinarius of Laodicea, and partially also by that very able writer, the martyr Methodius; and anyone who knows of these things can look them up in their writings. X. (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah IX, 30) Translation not available 44. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 24: 16ff: Translation not available 45. Jerome, Commentary on Hosea, 1:2: Now if some mischief-maker, and especially a pagan, refuses to accept that it was said figuratively, and jeers at a prophet in bed with a whore, we oppose to him… Jerome, Commentary on Hosea, 1:8ff: Now if some mischief-making interpreter refuses to accept the one which we have said, but understood it to mean that a prostitute named Gomer daughter of Deblaim, gave birth firstly and thirdly to male children, secondly, in the middle, to a female child, here wishing the scripture say what is read [literally], let him respond in this way… 46. Augustine, Epistle 102: 30 (To Deogratias; 6 questions against the pagans): Question VI. The last question proposed is concerning Jonah, and it is put as if it were not from Porphyry, but as being a standing subject of ridicule among the Pagans; for his words are: “In the next place, what are we to believe concerning Jonah, who is said to have been three days in a whale’s belly? The thing is utterly improbable and incredible, that a man swallowed with his clothes on should have existed in the inside of a fish. If, however, the story is figurative, be pleased to explain it. Again, what is meant by the story that a gourd sprang up above the head of Jonah after he was vomited by the fish? What was the cause of this gourd’s growth?” Questions such as these I have seen discussed by Pagans amidst loud laughter, and with great scorn. [ 128 ]

Jerome, Commentary on Jonah 2: 1ff: Translation not available 47. Eusebius, Demonstratio, VI: 18: 11: from Now if any one supposes that this was fulfilled in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, let him inquire if the rest of the prophecy can be referred to the times of Antiochus —— I mean the captivity undergone by the people, the standing of the Lord’s feet on the Mount of Olives, and whether the Lord became King of all the earth in that day, and whether the name of the Lord encircled the whole earth and the desert during the reign of Antiochus. ….

[ 129 ]

PART IV. Attacks on the works and sayings of Jesus 48. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 18: CO M E N OW , L ET us here mention another saying to you. Why is it that when the tempter tells Jesus “Cast thyself down from the temple,”, He does not do it, but says to him, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God,” whereby it seems to me that He spoke in fear of the danger from the fall? For if, as you declare, He not only did various other miracles, but even raised up dead men by His word alone, He ought to have shown forthwith that He was capable of delivering others from danger by hurling Himself down from the height, and not receiving any bodily harm thereby. And the more so, because there is a passage of Scripture somewhere which says with regard to Him, “In their hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.” So the really fair thing to do, was to demonstrate to those who were present in the temple that He was God’s Son, and was able to deliver from danger both Himself and those who were His. 49. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 4: And if we would speak of this record likewise, it will appear to be really a piece of knavish nonsense, since Matthew says that two demons from the tombs met with Christ, and then that in fear of Him they went into the swine, and many were killed. But Mark did not shrink from making up an enormous number of swine, for he puts it thus: “He said unto him, Go forth, thou unclean spirit, from the man. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, Many. And he besought him that he would not cast him out of the country. And there was there a herd of swine feeding. And the demons besought him that he would suffer them to depart into the swine. And when they had departed into the swine, they rushed down the steep into the sea, about two thousand, and were choked; and they that fed them fled !” (Mark v. 8, etc.). What a myth ! What humbug ! What flat mockery ! A herd of two thousand swine ran into the sea, and were choked and perished! And when one hears how the demons besought Him that they might not be sent into the abyss, and how Christ was prevailed on and did not do so, but sent them into the swine, will not one say : “Alas, what ignorance ! Alas, what foolish knavery, that He should take account of murderous spirits, which were working much harm in the world, and that He should grant them what they wished.” What the demons wished was to dance through life, and make the world a perpetual plaything. They wanted to stir up the sea, and fill the world’s whole theatre with sorrow. They wanted to trouble the [ 130 ]

elements by their disturbance, and to crush the whole creation by their hurtfulness. So at all events it was not right that, instead of casting these originators of evil, who had treated mankind so ill, into that region of the abyss which they prayed to be delivered from, He should be softened by their entreaty and suffer them to work another calamity. If the incident is really true, and not a fiction (as we explain it), Christ’s saying convicts Him of much baseness, that He should drive the demons from one man, and send them into helpless swine; also that He should terrify with panic those who kept them, making them fly breathless and excited, and agitate the city with the disturbance which resulted. For was it not just to heal the harm not merely of one man or two or three or thirteen, but of everybody, especially as it was for this purpose that He was testified to have come into this life? But to merely loose one man from bonds which were invisible, and to inflict similar bonds upon others; to free certain men happily from their fears, but to surround others with fears without reason — this should rightfully be called not right action but rascality. And again, in taking account of enemies and allowing them to take up their abode in another place and dwell there, He is acting like a king who ruins the region that is subject to him. For the latter, being unable to drive the barbarians out of every country, sends them from one place to another to abide, delivering one country from the evil and handing another over to it. If therefore Christ in like manner, unable to drive the demon from His borders, sent him into the herd of swine, he does indeed work something racticed which cau catch the ear, but it is also full of the suspicion of baseness. For when a right-thinking man hears this, he passes a judgment at once, forms his opinion on the narrative, and gives his vote in accordance with the matter. This is the way he will speak : “If he does not free from hurt everything beneath the sun, but pursues those that do the harm into different countries, and if he takes care of some, but has no heed of others, it is not safe to flee to this man and be saved. For he who is saved spoils the condition of him who is not, while he who is not saved becomes the accuser of him who is. Wherefore, according to my judgment, the record contained in this narrative is a fiction.” Once more, if you regard it as not fiction, but bearing some relation to truth, there is really plenty to laugh at for those who like to open their mouths. For come now, here is a point we must carefully inquire into : how was it that so large a herd of swine was being kept at that time in the land of Judsea, seeing that they were to the Jews from the beginning the most unclean and hated form of beast? And, again, how were all those swine choked, when it was a lake and not a deep sea? It may be left to babes to make a decision about all this.” Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 10: [ 131 ]

You will hardly follow the heathen and impious Porphyry and Eunomius, and pretend that these are the tricks of the demons, and that they do not really cry out, but feign their torments. 50. Macarius, Apocriticus, Book I. Nicephorus in the Antirhetica quotes from the lost book 1 of this work. (Translation not available) 51. Macarius, Apocriticus II: 7: The text contains only the words of Macarius, but an objection must have existed here. (Translation not available) 52. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 9: If indeed it was necessary to express that other utterance, as Jesus says, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes,” and as it is written in Deuteronomy [xxix. 29], “The hidden things for the Lord our God, and the manifest things for us,” therefore the things that are written for the babes and the ignorant ought to be clearer and not wrapped in riddles. For if the mysteries have been hidden from the wise, and unreasonably poured out to babes and those that give suck, it is better to be desirous of senselessness and ignorance, and this is the great achievement of the wisdom of Him who came to earth, to hide the rays of knowledge from the wise, and to reveal them to fools and babes. 53. Macarius, Apocriticus II: 8: The text contains only the words of Macarius, but an objection must have existed here. (Translation not available) 54. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 8: Let us touch on another piece of teaching even more fabulous than this, and obscure as night, contained in the words, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed” ; and again, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven”; and once more, “It is like unto a merchant seeking goodly pearls.” These imaginings do not come from (real) men, nor even from women who put their trust in dreams. For when any one has a message to give concerning great and divine matters, he is obliged to make use of common things which pertain to men, in order to make his meaning clear, but not such degraded and unintelligible things as these. These sayings, besides being base and unsuitable to such matters, have in themselves no intelligent meaning or clearness. And yet it was fitting that they should be very clear indeed, because they were not written for the wise or understanding, but for babes. 55. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 6:

[ 132 ]

Come, let us unfold for you another saying from the Gospel which is absurdly written without any credibility, and has a still more absurd narrative attached to it. It was when Jesus, after sending on the disciples to cross the sea after a feast, Himself came upon them at the fourth watch of the night when they were terribly troubled by the surging of the storm, for they were toiling all night against the force of the waves. Now the fourth watch is the tenth hour of the night, after which three further hours are left. But those who relate the truth about that locality say that there is not a sea there, but a small lake coming from a river under the hill in the country of Galilee, beside the city of Tiberias; this is easy for small boats to sail across in not more than two hours, nor can it admit of either wave or storm. So Mark goes very wide of the truth when he very absurdly gives the fabulous record that, when nine hours of the night had passed, Jesus proceeded at the tenth, namely the fourth watch of the night, and found the disciples sailing on the pond. Then he calls it a sea, and not merely that, but a stormy sea, and a terribly angry one, causing them fear with the tossing of the waves. He does this in order that he may thereupon introduce Christ as working some mighty miracle in having caused a great and fearful storm to cease, and saved the disciples in their danger from the deep, and from the sea. From such childish records we know the Gospel to be a sort of cunningly woven curtain. Wherefore we investigate each point the more carefully. Jerome, Quaest. In Genesim. 1:10: It must be noted that every gathering together of waters, whether salt or sweet, according to the idiom of the Hebrew language is called ‘sea’. In vain, therefore, does Porphyry calumniate the evangelists as making up a miracle for the ignorant, the one when the Lord walked on the sea, saying ‘sea’ for lake Genezareth, when every lake and gathering of waters is called a sea. 56. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 15: 17ff: Translation not available 57. Macarius, Apocriticus II: 10: (once again it seems that the words of the objection are lost, this is Macarius’ answer) Answer to an objection based on S. Matt, xvii. 15: “Have pity on my son, for he is lunatic,” although it was not the effect of the moon, but of a demon. [In answering this question, we will also consider the apparently uncalled-for rebuke which Christ adds to the multitude, in the words “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you?” The dragon or demon was cunning enough to attack the boy at the changes of the moon, so that men might think that his sufferings were due to its influence. Thus by one

[ 133 ]

act he accomplished two objects, for he both tortured the boy’s body, and suggested blasphemy to the minds of those who saw it, for if they ascribed it to the moon’s action, they would naturally blame Him who created the moon. Christ perceives that they likewise have been affected by the demon, and so calls them a “faithless generation,” because of their ideas about the moon. By expelling the demon, He shows them their error. S. Matthew does not prove, by saying that “a lunatic boy” was brought to Christ, that he really was under the moon’s influence. Like a good historian, he recorded things as he heard them, not as they actually were.] 58. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 5: Let us examine another saying even more baffling than these, when He says, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” If it be indeed the case that any one who is rich is not brought into the so-called kingdom of heaven though he have kept himself from the sins of life, such as murder, theft, adultery, cheating, impious oaths, body-snatching, and the wickedness of sacrilege, of what use is just dealing to righteous men, if they happen to be rich? And what harm is there for poor men in doing every unholy deed of baseness? For it is not virtue that takes a man up to heaven, but lack of possessions. For if his wealth shuts out the rich man from heaven, by way of contrast his poverty brings a poor man into it. And so it becomes lawful, when a man has learnt this lesson, to pay no regard to virtue, but without let or hindrance to cling to poverty alone, and the things that are most base. This follows from poverty being able to save the poor man, while riches shut out the rich man from the undefiled abode. Wherefore it seems to me that these cannot be the words of Christ, if indeed He handed down the rule of truth, but of some poor men who wished, as a result of such vain talking, to deprive the rich of their substance. At any rate, no longer ago than yesterday, reading these words to women of noble birth, “Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven,” they persuaded them to distribute to poor men all the substance and possession which they had, and, themselves entering into a state of want, to gather by begging, turning from a position of freedom to unseemly asking, and from prosperity to a pitiable character, and in the end, being compelled to go to the houses of the rich (which is the first thing, or rather the last thing, in disgrace and misfortune), and thus to lose their own belongings under the pretext of godliness, and to covet those of others under the force of want. Accordingly, it seems to me that these are the words of some woman in distress. 59. Macarius, Apocriticus II: 9: (the objection of the pagan is lost) [ 134 ]

[An objection based on S. Mark x. 18 and S. Matt. xii. 35. Come now, let us also make clear the question of those two sayings: “None is good save God,” and “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good.”] 60. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 5: And there is another dubious little saying which one may manifestly take hold of, when Christ says : “Take heed that no man deceive you; for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.” And behold! Three hundred years have passed by, and even more, and no one of the kind has anywhere appeared. Unless indeed you are going to adduce Apollonius of Tyana, a man who was adorned with all philosophy. But you would not find another. Yet it is not concerning one but concerning many that He says that such shall arise. 61. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 7: Moreover, as we have found another inconsequent little utterance spoken by Christ to His disciples, we have decided not to remain silent about this either. It is where He says, “The poor ye have always, but me ye have not always.” The reason for this statement is as follows : A certain woman brought an alabaster box of ointment and poured it on His head. And when they saw it, and complained of the unseasonableness of the action, He said, “Why do ye trouble the woman? She hath wrought a good work on me. The poor ye have always, but me ye have not always.” For they raised no small murmuring, that the ointment was not rather sold for a great price, and given to the poor for expenditure on their hunger. Apparently as the result of this inopportune conversation, He uttered this nonsensical saying, declaring that He was not always with them, although elsewhere He confidently affirmed and said to them, “I shall be with you until the end of the world” [Matt, xxviii. 20]. But when He was disturbed about the ointment, He denied that He was always with them. 62. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 2: Moreover, there is another saying which is full of obscurity and full of stupidity, which was spoken by |58 Jesus to His disciples. He said, “Fear not them that kill the body,” and yet He Himself being in an agony and keeping watch in the expectation of terrible things, besought in prayer that His passion should pass from Him, and said to His intimate friends, “Watch and pray, that the temptation may not pass by you.” For these sayings are not worthy of God’s Son, nor even of a wise man who despises death. 63. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 1: Why did not Christ utter anything worthy of one who was wise and divine, when brought either before the high-priest or before the governor? He might have given instruction to His judge and those who stood by and made them better men. But He

[ 135 ]

endured to be smitten with a reed and spat on and crowned with thorns, unlike Apollonius, who, after speaking boldly to the Emperor Domitian, disappeared from the royal court, and after not many hours was plainly seen in the city then called Dicaearchia, but now Puteoli. But even if Christ had to suffer according to God’s commands, and was obliged to endure punishment, yet at least He should have endured His Passion with some boldness, and uttered words of force and wisdom to Pilate His judge, instead of being mocked like any gutter-snipe. 64. Macarius, Apocriticus II: 14: There is also another argument whereby this corrupt opinion can be refuted. I mean the argument about that Resurrection of His which is such common talk everywhere, as to why Jesus, after His suffering and rising again (according to your story), did not appear to Pilate who punished Him and said He had done nothing worthy of death, or to Herod King of the Jews, or to the High-priest of the Jewish race, or to many men at the same time and to such as were worthy of credit, and more particularly among Romans both in the Senate and among the people. The purpose would be that, by their wonder at “the things concerning Him, they might not pass a vote of death against Him by common consent, which implied the impiety of those who were obedient to Him. But He appeared to Mary Magdalene, a coarse woman who came from some wretched little village, and had once been possessed by seven demons, and with her another utterly obscure Mary, who was herself a peasant woman, and a few other people who were not at all well known. And that, although He said: “Henceforth shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds.” For if He had shown Himself to men of note, all would believe through them,and no judge would punish them as fabricating monstrous stories. For surely it is neither pleasing to God nor to anysensible man that many should be subjected on His account to punishments of the gravest kind. 65. Anastasius Sinaita, Hodegos 13: (PG 89, col. 233) Translation not available 66. Fragment from Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans, (cited by Arethas of Casarea): Translation not available 67. Macarius, Apocriticus II: 11: (the actual objection of the pagan is lost, this is Macarius’ answer) Answer to an objection based on S. John v. 31: How is it that Christ said, “If I bear witness to myself, my witness is not true,” and yet He did bear witness to Himself, as He was accused of doing when He said, “I am the light of the world”? ( John viii. 12, 13).

[ 136 ]

[Such witness is not true in man’s case, but it is in God’s. The Jews thought Christ was only man, but it would have been a sad thing for the world if He had accepted their judgment and sought man’s witness for His divine acts. So He speaks as man when He does not bear witness to Himself, but seeks it from God. But it is as God that He says He is the Light, the Truth, etc., disdaining witness from his inferiors. He therefore simply allows that if, in their erroneous judgment, He is merely man, His witness is not true. Thus He contradicts, not His own statement, but their opinion about Him.] 68. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 3: Again the following saying appears to be full of stupidity : “If ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote concerning me.” He said it, but all the same nothing which Moses wrote has been preserved. For all his writings are said to have been burnt along with the temple. All that bears the name of Moses was written 1180 years afterwards, by Ezra and those of his time. And even if one were to concede that the writing is that of Moses, it cannot be shown that Christ was anywhere called God, or God the Word, or Creator. And pray who has spoken of Christ as crucified? 69. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 15: But he, with a smile on his face, made reply in a fresh attack on us, saying: You are like the more audacious among those who run in a race, and proclaim their victory until the contest comes, challenging many to run in the course; for you have taken up the same attitude, in your desire to bring in another inquiry from the starting-point, as one might say. Speak to us therefore, my friend, beginning from the following point: — That saying of the Teacher is a far-famed one, which says, “Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye have no life in yourselves.” Truly this saying is not merely beastlike and absurd, but is more absurd than any absurdity, and more beast-like than any fashion of a beast, that a man should taste human flesh, and drink the blood of members of the same tribe and race, and that by doing this he should have eternal life. For, tell, me, if you do this, what excess of savagery do you introduce into life? Rumour does not record — I do not say, this action, but even the mention of this strange and novel deed of impiety. The phantoms of the Furies never revealed this to those who lived in strange ways, nor would the Potidasans have accepted it unless they had been reduced by a savage hunger. Once the banquet of Thyestes became such, owing to a sister’s grief, and the Thracian Tereus took his fill of such food unwillingly. Harpagus was deceived by Astyages when he feasted on the flesh of his dearest, and it was against their desire that all these underwent such a pollution. But no one living in a state of peace prepared such a table in his life; no one learnt from a teacher any knowledge so

[ 137 ]

foul. If you look up Scythia in the records, and go through the Macrobian Ethiopians, and if you career through the ocean girdle round about, you will find men who eat, live, and devour roots; you will hear of men who eat reptiles and feed on mice, but they refrain altogether from human flesh. What then does this saying mean? [Even if there is a mystical meaning hidden in it, yet that does not pardon the outward significance, which places men lower than the beasts. Men have made up strange tales, but nothing so pernicious as this, with which to gull the simple.] Wherefore it seems to me that neither Mark nor Luke nor even Matthew recorded this, because they regarded the saying as not a comely one, but strange and discordant, and far removed from practiced life. Even you yourself could scarcely be pleased at reading it, and far less any man who has had the advantage of a liberal education. 70. Jerome, Dialogue Against the Pelagians II: 17: Translation not available 71. Macarius, Apocriticus II: 16: Come now, let us listen to that shadowy saying also which was directed against the Jews, when He said, “Ye cannot hear my word, because ye are of your father the devil (Slanderer), and ye wish to do the lusts of your father,” Explain to us then who the Slanderer is, who is the father of the Jews. For those who do the lusts of their father, do so fittingly, as yielding to the desire of their father, and out of respect for him. And if the father is evil, the charge of evil must not be fastened on the children. Who then is that father, by doing whose lusts they did not hearken to Christ? For when the Jews said, “We have one father, even |49 God,” He sets aside this statement by saying, “Ye are of your father the Slanderer” (that is, Ye are of the Slanderer). Who then is that Slanderer, and where does he chance to be? And by slandering whom did he obtain this epithet? For he does not seem to have this name as an original one, but as the result of something that happened. (Whatever we learn, we shall understand as we ought.) For if it is from a slander that he is called Slanderer, among whom did he appear and work the forbidden action? Even in this, it is he who accepts the slander who will appear unscrupulous, while he that is slandered is most wronged. And it will be seen that it was not the Slanderer himself who did any wrong, but he who showed him the excuse for the slander. It is the man who places a stake on the road at night who is responsible, and not the man who walks along and stumbles over it. It is the man who fixed it there who receives the blame. Just so, it is he who places an occasion of slander in the way who does the greater wrong, not he who takes hold of it or he who receives it.

[ 138 ]

And tell me another thing. Is the Slanderer subject to human affections or not? If he is not, he would never have slandered. But if he is subject, he ought to meet with forgiveness; for no one who is troubled by bodily ailments is judged as a wrongdoer, but receives pity from all as being sorely tried. 72. Macarius, Apocriticus II: 15: Any one will feel quite sure that the records are mere fairy tales, if he reads another piece of clap-trap that is written in the Gospel, where Christ says: “Now is the judgment of the world, now the ruler of this world shall be cast outside” (John xii. 31). For tell me, in the name of God, what is this judgment which then takes place, and who is the ruler of the world who is cast outside? If indeed you intend to say it is the Emperor, I answer that there is no sole ruler (for many rule the world), nor was he cast down. But if you mean some one who is abstract and incorporeal, he cannot be cast outside. For where should he be cast, to whom it fell to be the ruler of the world? If you are going to reply that there exists another world somewhere, into which the ruler will be cast, pray tell us this from a record which can convince us. But if there is not another (and it is impossible that two worlds should exist) where should the ruler be cast, if it be not in that world in which he happens to be already? And how is a man cast down in that world in which he is? Unless it is like the case of an earthenware vessel, which, if it and its contents are broken, a man causes to be cast outside, not into the void, but into another body of air or earth, or perhaps of something else. If then in like manner, when the world is broken (which is impossible), he that is in it will be cast outside, what sort of place is there outside into which he will be cast? And what is there peculiar in that place in the way of quantity and quality, height and depth, length or breadth? For if it is possessed of these things, then it follows that it is a world. And what is the cause of the ruler of the world being cast out, as if he were a stranger to the world? If he be a stranger, how did he rule it? And how is he cast out? By his own will, or against it? Clearly against it. That is plain from the language, for that which is “cast out,” is cast out unwillingly. But the wrong-doer is not he that endures force, but he that uses it. All this obscure nonsense in the Gospels ought to be offered to silly women, not to men. For if we were prepared to investigate such points more closely, we should discover thousands of obscure stories which do not contain a single word worth finding.

[ 139 ]

PART V. Theological objections 73. Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel I: 1: 8-11: (Harnack says it is I: 1: 12, but that is not in chapter one, I have changed it to chapter 1, 8-11, since that seems to be more about the Demonstration (or Proof ) being against Gentile accusations, which probably would have included Porphyry). Translation not available Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel I: 3: 1: Translation not available 74. Macarius, Apocriticus Book V fragment: [Fragment of Macarius quoted in Greek by F. Turrianus (De la Torre), Dogmaticus de Justificatione, ad Germanos adversus Luteranos, Romae, 1557, . On Rom. 4:3] 75. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 20: But let us make a thorough investigation concerning the single rule of the only God and the manifold rule of those who are worshipped as gods. You do not know how to expound the doctrine even of the single rule. For a monarch is not one who is alone in his existence, but who is alone in his rule. Clearly he rules over those who are his fellowtribesmen, men like himself, just as the Emperor Hadrian was a monarch, not because he existed alone, nor because he ruled over oxen and sheep (over which herdsmen or shepherds rule), but because he ruled over men who shared his race and possessed the same nature. Likewise God would not properly be called a monarch, unless He ruled over other gods; for this would befit His divine greatness and His heavenly and abundant honour. 76. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 21: At any rate, if you say that angels stand before God, who are not subject to feeling and death, and immortal in their nature, whom we ourselves speak of as gods, because they are close to the Godhead, why do we dispute about a name? And are we to consider it only a difference of nomenclature? For she who is called by the Greeks Athene is called by the Romans Minerva; and the Egyptians, Syrians, and Thracians address her by some other name. But I suppose nothing in the invocation of the goddess is changed or lost by the difference of the names. The difference therefore is not great, whether a man calls them gods or angels, since their divine nature bears witness to them, as when Matthew writes thus: “And Jesus answered and said, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God; for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven” (Matt. xxii. 29-30). Since [ 140 ]

therefore He confesses that the angels have a share in the divine nature, those who make a suitable object of reverence for the gods, do not think that the god is in the wood or stone or bronze from which the image is manufactured, nor do they consider that, if any part of the statue is cut off, it detracts from the power of the god. For the images of living creatures and the temples were set up by the ancients for the sake of remembrance, in order that those who approach thither might come to the knowledge of the god when they go; or, that, as they observe a special time and purify themselves generally, they may make use of prayers and supplications, asking from them the things of which each has need. For if a man makes an image of a friend, of course he does not think that the friend is in it, or that the limbs of his body are included in the various parts of the representation ; but honour is shown towards the friend by means of the image. But in the case of the sacrifices that are brought to the gods, these are hot so much a bringing of honour to them as a proof of the inclination of the worshippers, to show that they are not without a sense of gratitude. It is reasonable that the form of the statues should be the fashion of a man, since man is reckoned to be the fairest of living creatures and an image of God. It is possible to get hold of this doctrine from another saying, which asserts positively that God has fingers, with which He writes, saying, “And he gave to Moses the two tables which were written by the finger of God” (Exod. xxxi. 18). Moreover, the Christians also, imitating the erection of the temples, build very large houses, into which they go together and pray, although there is nothing to prevent them from doing this in their own houses, since the Lord certainly hears from every place. 77. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 22: But even supposing any one of the Greeks were so light-minded as to think that the gods dwell within the statues, his idea would be a much purer one than that of the man who believes that the Divine entered into the womb of the Virgin Mary, and became her unborn child, before being born and swaddled in due course, for it is a place full of blood and gall, and things more unseemly still. 78. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 23: I could also give proof to you of that insidious name of “gods” from the law, when it cries out and admonishes the hearer with much reverence, “Thou, shalt not revile gods, and thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” For it does not speak to us of other gods than those already within our reckoning, from what we know in the words, “Thou shalt not go after gods” (Jer. vii. 6); and again, “If ye go and worship other gods” (Deut. xii. 28). It is not men, but the gods who are held in honour by us, that are meant, not only by Moses, but by his successor Joshua. For he says to the people, “And now fear him and serve him alone, and put away the gods whom your fathers served” (Josh. xxiv.

[ 141 ]

14). And it is not concerning men, but incorporeal beings that Paul says, “For though there be that are called gods, whether on earth or in heaven, yet to us there is but one God and Father, of whom are all things” (1 Cor. viii. 5). Therefore you make a great mistake in thinking that God is angry if any other is called a god, and obtains the same title as Himself. For even rulers do not object to the title from their subjects, nor masters from slaves. And it is not right to think that God is more petty-minded than men. Enough then about the fact that gods exist, and ought to receive honour. 79. Augustine, Epistle 102: 16 (to Deogratias, 6 questions against the pagans): Question III. Let us now look to the question which comes next in order. “They find fault,” he says, “with the sacred ceremonies, the sacrificial victims, the burning of incense, and all the other parts of worship in our temples; and yet the same kind of worship had its origin in antiquity with themselves, or from the God whom they worship, for He is represented by them as having been in need of the first-fruits.” 80. Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel V: 1: 9ff: But with regard to the fact that the evil daemons no longer have any power to prevail since our Saviour’s advent among men, the very same author who is the advocate of the daemons in our time, in his compilation against us, bears witness by speaking in the following manner: [PORPHYRY] ‘And now they wonder that for so many years the plague has attacked the city, Asclepius and the other gods being no longer resident among us. For since Jesus began to be honoured, no one ever heard of any public assistance from the gods.’ 81. Augustine, Epistle 102: 8 (to Deogratias, 6 questions against the pagans): Question II. Concerning the epoch of the Christian religion, they have advanced, moreover, some other things, which they might call a selection of the more weighty arguments of Porphyry against the Christians: “If Christ,” they say, “declares Himself to be the Way of salvation, the Grace and the Truth, and affirms that in Him alone, and only to souls believing in Him, is the way of return to God, what has become of men who lived in the many centuries before Christ came? To pass over the time,” he adds, “which preceded the rounding of the kingdom of Latium, let us take the beginning of that power as if it were the beginning of the human race. In Latium itself gods were worshipped before Alba was built; in Alba, also, religious rites and forms of worship in the temples were maintained. Rome itself was for a period of not less duration, even for a long succession of centuries, unacquainted with Christian doctrine. What, then, has become of such an innumerable multitude of souls, who were in no wise blameworthy, seeing that He in whom alone saving faith can be exercised had not yet favoured men with His advent? The whole world, moreover, was not less zealous than Rome itself in the worship racticed in the temples of the gods. Why, then,” he asks, “did He who is [ 142 ]

called the Saviour withhold Himself for so many centuries of the world? And let it not be said,” he adds, “that provision had been made for the human race by the old Jewish law. It was only after a long time that the Jewish law appeared and flourished within the narrow limits of Syria, and after that, it gradually crept onwards to the coasts of Italy; but this was not earlier than the end of the reign of Caius, or, at the earliest, while he was on the throne. What, then, became of the souls of men in Rome and Latium who lived before the time of the Caesars, and were destitute of the grace of Christ, because He had not then come?” 82. Jerome, Epistle 133: 9 (To Ctesiph.): Or lastly make your own the favorite cavil of your associate Porphyry, and ask how God can be described as pitiful and of great mercy when from Adam to Moses and from Moses to the coming of Christ He has suffered all nations to die in ignorance of the Law and of His commandments. For Britain, that province so fertile in despots, the Scottish tribes, and all the barbarians round about as far as the ocean were alike without knowledge of Moses and the prophets. Why should Christ’s coming have been delayed to the last times? Why should He not have come before so vast a number had perished? 83. Fragment from Methodius, Against Porphyry: Translation not available 84. Another fragment from Methodius, Against Porphyry: Translation not available 85. Augustine, Epistle 102: 28: (to Deogratias, 6 questions against the pagans): Question V. The objector who has brought forward these questions from Porphyry has added this one in the next place: Will you have the goodness to instruct me as to whether Solomon said truly or not that God has no Son? 86. Theophylakt, Enarr. In Joh.: (PG 123, col. 1141) Translation not available 87. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 10: It is right to examine another matter of a much more reasonable kind (I say this by way of contrast), “They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.” Christ unravels these things to the multitude about His own coming to earth. If then it was on account of those who are weak, as He Himself says, that He faced sins, were not our forefathers weak, and were not Our ancestors diseased with sin? And if indeed those who are whole need not a physician, and He came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance, so that Paul speaks thus : “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. I. 15); if then this is so, and he that has gone astray is called, and he that is diseased is healed, and the unrighteous is called, but the righteous is not, it follows that he who was neither called nor in need of the healing of [ 143 ]

the Christians would be a righteous man who had not gone astray. For he who has no need of healing is the man who turns away from the word which is among the faithful, and the more he turns away from it, the more righteous and whole he is, and the less he goes astray. 88. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 19: He, as though roused from some condition of detachment from the earth, directed against us a saying from Homer, speaking thus with no little laughter: “Rightly did Homer order the manly Greeks to be silent, as they had been trained: he published abroad the wavering sentiment of Hector, addressing the Greeks in measured language, saying, ‘Stay, ye Argives; smite not, ye Achaean youths; for Hector of the waving plume is resolved to speak a word.’” Even so we now all sit in quietness here; for the interpreter of the Christian doctrines promises us and surely affirms that he will unravel the dark passages of the Scriptures. Tell therefore, my good sir, to us who are following what you have to say, what the Apostle means when he says, “But such were some of you” (plainly something base), “but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. vi. 11). For we are surprised and truly perplexed in mind at such things, if a man, when once he is washed from so many defilements and pollutions, shows himself to be pure ; if by wiping off the stains of so much weakness in his life, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, theft, unnatural vice, poisoning, and countless base and disgusting things, and simply by being baptised and calling on the name of Christ, he is quite easily freed from them, and puts off the whole of his guilt just as a snake puts off his old slough. Who is there who would not, on the strength of these, venture on evil deeds, some mentionable and others not, and do such things as are neither to be uttered in speech nor endured in deeds, in the knowledge that he will receive remission from so many criminal actions only by believing and being baptised, and in the hope that he will after this receive pardon from Him who is about to judge the quick and the dead? These things incline the man who hears them to commit sin, and in each particular he is thus taught to practise what is unlawful. These things have the power to set aside the training of the law, and cause righteousness itself to be of no avail against the unrighteous. They introduce into the world a form of society which is without law, and teach men to have no fear of ungodliness ; when a man sets aside a pile of countless wrongdoings simply by being baptised. Such then is the boastful fiction of the saying. 89. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 6: By way of giving plenty of such sayings, let me quote also what was said in the Apocalypse of Peter. He thus introduces the statement that the heaven will be judged [ 144 ]

together with the earth. “The earth shall present all men to God in the day of judgment, itself too being about to be judged, together with the heaven which contains it.” No one is so uneducated or so stupid as not to know that the things which have to do with earth are subject to disturbance, and are not naturally such as to preserve their order, but are uneven; whereas the things in heaven have an order which remains perpetually alike, and always goes on in the same way, and never suffers alteration, nor indeed will it ever do so. For it stands as God’s most exact piece of workmanship. Wherefore it is impossible that the things should be undone which are worthy of a better fate, as being fixed by a divine ordinance which cannot be touched. And why will heaven be judged? Will it some day be shown to have committed some sin, though it preserves the order which from the beginning was approved by God, and abides in sameness always? Unless indeed some one will address the Creator, slanderously asserting that heaven is deserving of judgment, as having allowed the judge to speak any portents against it which are so wondrous and so great. 90a. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 7: And it makes this statement again, which is full of impiety, saying : “And all the might of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heaven shall be rolled together as a scroll, and all the stars shall fall as leaves from a vine, and as leaves fall from a fig tree.” And another boast is made in portentous falsehood and monstrous quackery : “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away “ (Matt. xxiv. 35). For, pray, how could any one say that the words of Jesus would stand, if heaven and earth no longer existed? Moreover, if Christ were to do this and bring heaven down, He would be imitating the most impious of men, even those who destroy their own children. For it is acknowledged by the Son that God is Father of heaven and earth when He says : “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt. xi. 25). And John the Baptist magnifies heaven and declares that the divine gifts of grace are sent from it, when he says : “A man can do nothing, except it be given him from heaven” (John iii. 27). And the prophets say that neaven is the holy habitation of God, in the words : “look down from thy holy habitation, and bless thy people Israel” (Deut. xxvi. 15). If heaven, which is so great and of such importance in the witness borne to it, shall pass away, what shall be the seat thereafter of Him who rules over it? And if the element of earth perishes, what shall be the footstool of Him who sits there, for He says: “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is the footstool of my feet.” So much for the passing away of heaven and earth. 90b. Nemesius, De Natura hom. 38: Translation not available 91. Augustine, Epistle 102: 22: (to Deogratias, 6 questions against the pagans): [ 145 ]

Question IV. Let us, in the next place, consider what he has laid down concerning the proportion between sin and punishment when, misrepresenting the gospel, he says: “Christ threatens eternal punishment to those who do not believe in Him;” and yet He says in another place, “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” “Here,” he remarks, “is something sufficiently absurd and contradictory; for if He is to award punishment according to measure, and all measure is limited by the end of time, what mean these threats of eternal punishment? 92. Augustine, Epistle 102: 2: (to Deogratias, 6 questions against the pagans): Question I. Concerning the resurrection. This question perplexes some, and they ask, Which of two kinds of resurrection corresponds to that which is promised to us? Is it that of Christ, or that of Lazarus? They say, “If the former, how can this correspond with the resurrection of those who have been born by ordinary generations, seeing that He was not thus born? If, on the other hand, the resurrection of Lazarus is said to correspond to ours, here also there seems to be a discrepancy, since the resurrection of Lazarus was accomplished in the case of a body not yet dissolved, but the same body in which he was known by the name of Lazarus; whereas ours is to be rescued after many centuries from the mass in which it has ceased to be distinguishable from other things. Again, if our state after the resurrection is one of blessedness, in which the body shall be exempt from every kind of wound, and from the pain of hunger, what is meant by the statement that Christ took food, and showed his wounds after His resurrection? For if He did it to convince the doubting, when the wounds were not real, He racticed on them a deception; whereas, if He showed them what was real, it follows that wounds received by the body shall remain in the state which is to ensue after resurrection. 93. Pseudo-Justin Martyr (possibly Diodorus of Tarsus, or Theodoret of Cyr) Quaestiones XIV and XV Gentilium ad Christianos: Translation not available 94. Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 24: Let us once again discuss the question of the resurrection of the dead. For what is the reason that God should act thus, and upset in this random way the succession of events that has held good until now, whereby He ordained that races should be preserved and not come to an end, though from the beginning He has laid down these laws and framed things thus? The things which have once been determined by God, and preserved through such long ages, ought to be everlasting, and ought not to be condemned by Him who wrought them, and destroyed as if they had been made by some mere man, and arranged as mortal things by one who is himself a mortal. Wherefore it is ridiculous if, when the whole is destroyed, the resurrection shall follow, and if He shall raise — shall we say? — the man who died three years before the [ 146 ]

resurrection, and along with him Priam and Nestor who died a thousand years before, and others who lived before them from the beginning of the human race. And if any one is prepared to grasp even this, he will find that the question of the resurrection is one full of silliness. For many have often perished in the sea, and their bodies have been consumed by fishes, while many have been eaten by wild beasts and birds. How then is it possible for their bodies to rise up? Come then, and let us put to the test this statement which is so lightly made. Let us take an example. A man was shipwrecked, the mullets devoured his body, next these were caught and eaten by some fishermen, who were killed and devoured by dogs; when the dogs died ravens and vultures feasted on them and entirely consumed them. How then will the body of the shipwrecked man be brought together, seeing that it was absorbed by so many creatures? Again, suppose another body to have been consumed by fire, and another to have come in the end to the worms, how is it possible for it to return to the essence which was there from the beginning? You will tell me that this is possible with God, but this is not true. For all things are not possible with Him ; He simply cannot bring it about that Homer should not have become a poet, or that Troy should not be taken. Nor indeed can He make twice two, which make the number four, to be reckoned as a hundred, even though this may seem good to Him. Nor can God ever become evil, even though He wishes; nor would He be able to sin, as being good by nature. If then He is unable to sin or to become evil, this does not befall Him through His weakness. In the case of those who have a disposition and fitness for a certain thing, and then are prevented from doing it, it is clear that it is by their weakness that they are prevented. But God is by nature good, and is not prevented from being evil; nevertheless, even though He is not prevented, he cannot become bad. And pray consider a further point. How unreasonable it is if the Creator shall stand by and see the heaven melting, though no one ever conceived anything more wonderful than its beauty, and the stars falling, and the earth perishing ; and yet He will raise up the rotten and corrupt bodies of men, some of them, it is true, belonging to admirable men, but others without charm or symmetry before they died, and affording a most unpleasant sight. Again, even if He could easily make them rise in a comely form, it would be impossible for the earth to hold all those who had died from the beginning of the world, if they were to rise again.

[ 147 ]

PART VI. On Christian belief 95. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 17: LO O K AT A similar saying,which is naturally suggested by it, “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, verily I say unto you, ye shall say to this mountain, Be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea, and it shall not be impossible for you.” It is obvious therefore that any one who is unable to remove a mountain in accordance with this bidding, is not worthy to be reckoned one of the family of the faithful. So you are plainly refuted, for not only are the rest of Christians not reckoned among the faithful, but not even are any of your bishops or priests worthy of this saying. 96. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 16: Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, “Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them.” So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said. For if it is a peculiarity of the faith to overcome the evil of a poison and to remove the pain of a sick man, the believer who does not do these things either has not become a genuine |86 believer, or else, though his belief is genuine, the thing that he believes in is not potent but feeble. 97. Jerome, Comm. in Isaiah. 3: 2: Let us — ourselves — therefore also take care lest we be tax-collectors from the people; lest — as the impious Porphyry says — matrons and women be our senate, ruling in the churches and where the favour of women decides the steps [of promotion] of the priesthood.

[ 148 ]

On the Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey Translated by Thomas Taylor, 1812 This work is a commentary on eleven verses from Book XIII of Homer’s Odyssey.  In these verses, Homer describes the cave of the water-nymphs or Naiads on the island of Ithaca.  The commentary treats this as an allegory of the way in which the souls of men originate in each generation.  Porphyry draws upon an eclectic mix of sources to illustrate his theme, including Plato, Zoroaster, Heraclitus, the Bible and several references from Egyptian and Chaldaean oracles.

[ 149 ]

CONTENTS ON THE CAVE OF THE NYMPHS IN THE THIRTEENTH BOOK OF THE ODYSSEY ENDNOTES

[ 150 ]

ON THE CAVE OF THE NYMPHS IN THE THIRTEENTH BOOK OF THE ODYSSEY 1. WH AT D O E S Homer obscurely signify by the cave in Ithaca, which he describes in the following verses ? High at the head a branching olive grows And crowns the pointed cliffs with shady boughs. A cavern pleasant, though involved in night, Beneath it lies, the Naiades delight: Where bowls and urns of workmanship divine And massy beams in native marble shine; On which the Nymphs amazing webs display, Of purple hue and exquisite array, The busy bees within the urns secure Honey delicious, and like nectar pure. Perpetual waters through the grotto glide, A lofty gate unfolds on either side; That to the north is pervious to mankind: The sacred south t’immortals is consign’d.” That the poet, indeed, does not narrate these particulars from historical information, is evident from this, that those who have given us a description of the island, have, as Cronius 1 says, made no mention of such a cave being found in it. This likewise, says he, is manifest, that it would be absurd for Homer to expect, that in describing a cave fabricated merely by poetical license and thus artificially opening a path to Gods and men in the region of Ithaca, he should gain the belief of mankind. And it is equally absurd to suppose, that nature herself should point out, in this place, one path for the descent of all mankind, and again another path for all the Gods. For, indeed, the whole world is full of Gods and men; but it is impossible to be persuaded, that in the Ithacensian cave men descend, and Gods ascend. Cronius therefore, having premised this much, says, that it is evident, not only to the wise but also to the vulgar, that the poet, under the veil of allegory, conceals some mysterious signification; thus compelling others to explore what the gate of men is and also what is the gate of the Gods: what he means by asserting that this cave of the Nymphs has two gates; and why it is both pleasant and obscure, since darkness is by no means delightful, but is rather

[ 151 ]

productive of aversion and horror. Likewise, what is the reason why it is not simply said to be the cave of the Nymphs, but it is accurately added, of the Nymphs which are called Naiades? Why also, is the cave represented as containing bowls and amphorae, when no mention is made of their receiving any liquor, but bees are said to deposit their honey in these vessels as in hives? Then, again, why are oblong beams adapted to weaving placed here for the Nymphs; and these not formed from wood, or any other pliable matter, but from stone, as well as the amphorae and bowls? Which last circumstance is, indeed, less obscure; but that, on these stony beams, the Nymphs should weave purple garments, is not only wonderful to the sight, but also to the auditory sense. For who would believe that Goddesses weave garments in a cave involved in darkness, and on stony beams; especially while he hears the poet asserting, that the purple webs of the Goddesses were visible. In addition to these things likewise, this is admirable, that the cave should have a twofold entrance; one made for the descent of men, but the other for the ascent of Gods. And again that the gate, which is pervious by men, should be said to be turned against the north wind, but the portal of the Gods to the south; and why the poet did not rather make use of the west and the east for this purpose, since nearly all temples have their statues and entrances turned towards the east; but those who enter them look towards the west, when standing with their faces turned towards the statues they honour and worship the Gods. Hence, since this narration is full of such obscurities it can neither be a fiction casually devised for the purpose of procuring delight, nor an exposition of a topical history; but something allegorical must be indicated in it by the poet who likewise mystically places an olive near the cave. All which particulars the ancients thought very laborious to investigate and unfold; and we, with their assistance, shall now endeavour to develop the secret meaning of the allegory. Those persons, therefore, appear to have written very negligently about the situation of the place, who think that the cave, and what is narrated concerning it, are nothing more than a notion of the poet. But the best and most accurate writers of geography, and among these Artemidorus the Ephesian, in the fifth book of his work, which consists of eleven books, thus writes: “The island of Ithaca, containing an extent of eighty-five stadia 2, is distant from Panormus, a port of Cephalenia, about twelve stadia. It has a port named Phorcys, in which there is a shore, and on that shore a cave, in which the Phaeacians are reported to have placed Ulysses.” This cave, therefore, will not be entirely an Homeric fiction. But whether the poet describes it as it really is, or whether he has added something to it of his own invention, nevertheless the same inquiries remain; whether the intention of the poet is investigated, or of those who founded the cave. For, neither did the ancients establish temples without fabulous symbols, nor does Homer rashly narrate the

[ 152 ]

particulars pertaining to things of this kind. But how much the more anyone endeavours to show that this description of the cave is not an Homeric fiction, but prior to Homer was consecrated to the Gods, by so much the more will this consecrated cave be found to be full of ancient wisdom. And on this account it deserves to be investigated, and it is requisite that its symbolical consecration should be amply unfolded into light. 2. The ancients, indeed, very properly consecrated a cave to the world, whether assumed collectively, according to the whole of itself, or separately, according to its parts. Hence they considered earth as a symbol of that matter of which the world consists; on which account some thought that matter and earth are the same; through the cave indicating the world, which was generated from matter. For caves are, for the most part, spontaneous productions, and connascent with the earth, being comprehended by one uniform mass of stone; the interior parts of which are concave, but the exterior parts are extended over an indefinite portion of land. And the world being spontaneously produced (i.e., being produced by no external, but from an internal cause), and being also self-adherent, is allied to matter; which, according to a secret signification, is denominated a stone and a rock, on account of its sluggish and repercussive nature with respect to form; the ancients, at the same time, asserting that matter is infinite through its privation of form. Since, however, it is continually flowing, and is of itself destitute of the supervening investments of form, through which it participates of morphe 3, and becomes visible, the flowing waters, darkness, or, as the poet says, obscurity of the cavern. were considered by the ancients as apt symbols of what the world contains, on account of the matter with which it is connected. Through matter, therefore, the world is obscure and dark; but through the connecting power, and orderly distribution of form, from which also it is called world, it is beautiful and delightful. Hence it may very properly be denominated a cave; as being lovely, indeed, to him who first enters into it, through its participation of forms, but obscure to him who surveys its foundation and examines it with an intellectual eye. So that its exterior and superficial parts, indeed, are pleasant, but its interior and profound parts are obscure (and its very bottomis darkness itself). Thus also the Persians, mystically signifying the descent of the soul into the sublunary regions, and its regression from it, initiate the mystic (or him who is admitted to the arcane sacred rites) in a place which they denominate a cavern. For, as Eubulus says, Zoroaster was the first who consecrated in the neighbouring mountains of Persia, a spontaneously produced cave, florid, and having fountains, in honour of Mithra, the maker and father of all things; a cave, according to Zoroaster, bearing a resemblance of the world, which was fabricated by

[ 153 ]

Mithra. But the things contained in the cavern being arranged according to commensurate intervals, were symbols of the mundane elements and climates. 3. After this Zoroaster likewise, it was usual with others to perform the rites pertaining to the mysteries in caverns and dens, whether spontaneously produced, or made by the hands. For as they established temples, groves, and altars to the celestial Gods, but to the terrestrial Gods, and to heroes, altars alone, and to the subterranean divinities pits and cells; so to the world they dedicated caves and dens; as likewise to Nymphs 4, on account of the water which trickles, or is diffused in caverns, over which the Naiades, as we shall shortly observe, preside. Not only, however, did the ancients make a cavern,as we have.said, to be a symbol of the world, or of a generated and sensible nature: but they also assumed it as a symbol of all invisible powers; because as caverns are obscure and dark, so the essence of these powers is occult. Hence Saturn fabricated a cavern in the ocean itself and concealed in it his children. Thus, too, Ceres educated Proserpine with her Nymphs in a cave; and many other particulars of this kind may be found in the writings of theologists. But that the ancients dedicated caverns to Nymphs and especially to Naiades, who dwell, near fountains, and who are called Naiades from the streams over which they preside, is manifest from the hymn to Apollo, in which it is said: “ The Nymphs residing in caves shall deduce fountains of intellectual waters to thee (according to the divine voice of the Muses), which are the progeny of a terrene spirit. Hence waters, bursting through every river, shall exhibit to mankind perpetual effusions of sweet streams” 5. From hence, as it appears to me. the Pythagoreans. and after them Plato, showed that the world is a cavern and a den. For the powers which are the leaders of souls, thus speak in a verse of Empedocles: “Now at this secret cavern we’re arrived.” And by Plato, in the seventh book of his Republic, it is said, Behold men as if dwelling in a subterraneous cavern, and in a denlike habitation, whose entrance is widely expanded to the admission of the light through the whole cave.” But when the other person in the dialogue says: You adduce an unusual and wonderful similitude,” he replies, “The whole of this image, friend Glauco, must be adapted to what has been before said, assimilating this receptacle, which is visible through the sight to the habitation of a prison; but the light of the fire which is in it to the power of the sun. 4. That theologists therefore considered caverns as symbols of the world, and of mundane powers, is through this, maiifest. And it has been already observed by us, that they also considered a cave as a symbol of the intelligible essence; being impelled to do so by different and not the same conceptions. For they were of opinion that a cave is a symbol of the sensible world because caverns are dark, stony, and humid; and they

[ 154 ]

asserted that the world is a thing of this kind, through the matter of which it consists, and through its repercussive and flowing nature. But they thought it to be a symbol of the intelligible world, because that world is invisible to sensible perception, and possesses a firm and stable essence. Thus, also, partial powers are unapparent, and especially those which are inherent in matter. For they formed these symbols, from surveying the spontaneous production of caves, and their nocturnal, dark, and stony nature; and not entirely, as some suspect, from directing their attention to the figure of a cavern. For every cave is not spherical, as is evident from this Homeric cave with a twofold entrance. But since a cavern has a twofold similitude, the present cave must not be assumed as an image of the intelligible but of the sensible essence. For in consequence of containing perpetually flowing streams of water, it will not be a symbol of an intelligible hypostasis, but of a material essence. On this account also it is sacred to Nymphs, not the mountain or rural Nymphs, or others of the like kind, but to the Naiades, who are thus denominated from streams of water. For we peculiarly call the Naiades, and the powers that preside over waters, Nymphs; and this term also, is commonly applied to all souls descending into generation. For the ancients thought that these souls are incumbent on water which is inspired by divinity, as Numenius says, who adds, that on this account, a prophet asserts, that the Spirit of God moved on the waters. The Egyptians likewise, on this account, represent all daemons and also the sun, and, in short, all the planets 6, not standing on anything solid, but on a sailing vessel; for souls descending into generation fly to moisture. Hence also, Heraclitus says, that moisture appears delightful and not deadly to souls; but the lapse into generation is delightful to them. And in another place (speaking of unembodied souls), he says, “We live their death, and we die their life.” Hence the poet calls those that are in generation humid, because they have souls which are profoundly steeped in moisture. On this account, such souls delight in blood and humid seed; but water is the nutriment of the souls of plants. Some likewise are of opinion, that the bodies in the air, and in the heavens, are nourished by vapours from fountains and rivers, and other exhalations. But the Stoics assert, that the sun is nourished by the exhalation from the sea; the moon from the vapours of fountains and river; and the stars from the exhalation of the earth. Hence, according to them, the sun is an intellectual composition formed from the sea; the moon from the river waters and the stars from terrene exhalations. 5. It is necessary, therefore, that souls, whether they are corporeal or incorporeal, while they attract to themselves body, and especially such as are about to be bound to blood and moist bodies, should verge to humidity, and be corporalised, in consequence of being drenched in moisture. Hence the souls of the dead are evocated by the effusion

[ 155 ]

of bile and blood; and souls that are lovers of body, by attracting a moist spirit, condense this humid vehicle like a cloud. For moisture condensed in the air constitutes a cloud. But the pneumatic vehicle being condensed in these souls, becomes visible through an excess of moisture. And among the number of these we must reckon those apparitions of images, which, from a spirit coloured by the influence of imagination, present themselves to mankind. But pure souls are averse from generation; so that, as Heraclitus says, “a dry soul is the wisest.” Hence, here also the spirit becomes moist and more aqueous through the desire of generation, the soul thus attracting a humid vapour from verging to generation. Souls, therefore, proceeding into generation are the nymphs called naiades. Hence it is usual to call those that are married nymphs, as being conjoined to generation, and to pour water into baths from fountains, or rivers, or perpetual rills. 6. This world, then, is sacred and pleasant to souls wno nave now proceeded into nature, and to natal daemons, though it is essentially dark and obscure; from which some have suspected that souls also are of an obscure nature and essentially consist of air. Hence a cavern, which is both pleasant and dark, will be appropriately consecrated to souls on the earth, conformably to its similitude to the world, in which, as in the greatest of all temples, souls reside. To the nymphs likewise, who preside over waters, a cavern, in which there are perpetually flowing streams, is adapted. Let, therefore, this present cavern be consecrated to souls, and among the more partial powers, to nymphs that preside over streams and fountains, and who, on this account, are called fontal and naiades. Waat, therefore, are the different symbols, some of which are adapted to souls, but others to the aquatic powers, in order that we may apprehend that this cavern is consecrated in common to both? Let the stony bowls, then, and the amphorae be symbols of the aquatic nymphs. For these are, indeed, the symbols of Bacchus, but their composition is fictile, i.e., consists of baked earth, and these are friendly to the vine, the gift of God; since the fruit of the vine is brought to a proper maturity by the celestial fire of the sun. But the stony bowls and amphorae are in the most eminent degree adapted to the nymphs who preside over the water that flows from rocks. And to souls that descend into generation and are occupied in corporeal energies, what symbol can be more appropriate than those instruments pertaining to weaving? Hence, also, the poet ventures to say, “that on these, the nymphs weave purple webs, admirable to the view.” For the formation of the flesh is on and about the bones, which in the bodies of animals resemble stones. Hence these instruments of weaving consist of stone, and not of any other matter. But the purple webs will evidently be the flesh which is woven from the blood. For purple woollen garments are tinged from blood. and wool is dyed from

[ 156 ]

animal juice. The generation of flesh, also, is through and from blood. Add, too, that the body is a garment with which the soul is invested, a thing wonderful to the sight, whether this refers to the composition of the soul, or contributes to the colligation of the soul (to the whole of a visible essence). Thus, also, Proserpine, who is the inspective guardian of everything produced from seed, is represented by Orpheus as weaving a web 7, and the heavens are called by the ancients a veil, in consequence of being,as it were, the vestment of the celestial Gods. 7. Why, therefore, are the amphorae said not to be filled with water, but with honeycombs? For in these, Homer says, the bees deposit their honey, which signifies to deposit aliment. And honey is the nutriment of bees. Theologists also have made honey subservient to many and different symbols because it consists of many powers; since it is both cathartic and preservative. Hence, through honey, bodies are preserved from putrefaction, and inveterate ulcers are purified. Farther still, it is also sweet to the taste, and is collected by bees, who are ox-begotten from flowers. When, therefore, those who are initiated in the Leontic sacred rites, pour honey instead of water on their hands; they are ordered (by the initiator) to have their hands pure from everything productive of molestation, and from everything noxious and detestable. Other initiators {into the same mysteries) employ fire, which is of a cathartic nature, as an appropriate punncation. And they likewise purify the tongue from all defilement of evil with honey. But the Persians, when they offer honey to the guardian of fruits, consider it as the symbol of a preserving and defending power. Hence some persons have thought that the nectar and ambrosia 8, which the poet pours into the nostrils of the dead, for the purpose of preventing putrefaction, is honey; since honey is the food of the Gods. On this account also, the same poet somewhere calls nectar golden; for such is the colour of honey (viz., it is a deep yellow). But whether or not honey is to be taken for nectar, we shall elsewhere more accurately examine. In Orpheus, likewise, Saturn is ensnared by Jupiter through honey. For Saturn, being filled with honey, is intoxicated, his senses are darkened, as if from the effects of wine, and he sleeps; just as Porus, in the banquet of Plato, is filled with nectar; for wine was not (says he) yet known. The Goddess Night, too, in Orpheus, advises Jupiter to make use of honey as an artifice. For she says to him: — “When stretch’d beneath the lofty oaks you view Saturn, with honey by the bees produc’d Sunk in ebriety 9, fast bind the God.” This therefore, takes place, and Saturn being bound is emasculated in the same manner as Heaven; the theologist obscurely signifying by this that divine natures become through pleasure bound, and drawn down into the realms of generation; and [ 157 ]

also that, when dissolved in pleasure they emit certain seminal powers. Hence Saturn emasculates Heaven, when descending to earth through a desire of generation 10. But the sweetness of honey signifies, with theologists, the same thing as the pleasure arising from generation, by which Saturn, being ensnared, was castrated. For Saturn, and his sphere, are the first of the orbs that move contrary to the course of Coelum or the heavens. Certain powers, however, descend both from Heaven (or the inerratic sphere) and the planets. But Saturn receives the powers of Heaven and Jupiter the powers of Saturn. Since, therefore, honey is assumed in purgations, and as an antidote to putrefaction, and is indicative of the pleasure which draws souls downward to generation; it is a symbol well adapted to aquatic Nymphs, on account of the unputrescent nature of the waters over which they preside, their purifying power, and their co-operation with generation. For water co-operates in the work of generation. On this account the bees are said, by the poet, to deposit their honey in bowls and amphorae; the bowls being a symbol of fountains, and therefore a bowl is placed near to Mithra, instead of a fountain; but the amphorae are symbols of the vessels with which we draw water from fountains. And fountains and streams are adapted to aquatic Nymphs, and still more so to the Nymphs that are souls, which the ancient peculiarly called bees, as the efficient causes of sweetness. Hence Sophocles does not speak unappropriately when he says of souls: — “In swarms while wandering, from the dead, A humming sound is heard.” 8. The priestesses of Ceres, also, as being initiated into the mysteries of the terrene Goddess, were called by the ancients bees; and Proserpine herself was denominated by them honied. The moon, likewise, who presides over generation, was called by them a bee, and also a bull. And Taurus is the exaltation of the moon. But bees are ox-begotten. And this application is also given to souls proceeding into generation. The God, likewise, who is occultly connected with generation, is a stealer of oxen. To which may be added, that honey is considered as a symbol of death, and on this account it is usual to offer libations of honey to the terrestrial Gods; but gall is considered as a symbol of life; whether it is obscurely signined by this, that the life of the soul dies through pleasure, but through bitterness the soul resumes its life, whence, also, bile is sacrificed to the Gods; or whether it is, because death liberates from molestation, but the present life is laborious and bitter. All souls, however, proceeding into generation, are not simply called bees, but those who will live in it justly and who, after having performed such things as are acceptable to the Gods, will again return (to their kindred stars). For this insect loves to return to the place from whence it first came, and is eminently just and

[ 158 ]

sober. Whence, also, the libations which are made with honey are called sober. Bees, likewise, do not sit on beans, which were considered by the ancients as a symbol of generation proceeding in a right line, and without flexure; because this leguminous vegetable is almost the only seed-bearing plant whose stalk is perforated throughout without any intervening knots 11. We must therefore admit, that honeycombs and bees are appropriate and common symbols of the aquatic nymphs, and of souls that are married (as it were) to (the humid and fluctuating nature of) generation. 9. Caves, therefore, in the most remote periods of antiquity were consecrated to the Gods, before temples were erected to them. Hence, the Curetes in Crete dedicated a cavern to Jupiter; in Arcadia, a cave was sacred to the Moon, and to Lycean Pan; and in Naxus, to Bacchus. But wherever Mithra was known, they propitiated the God in a cavern. With respect, however, to the Ithacensian cave, Homer was not satisfied with saying that it had two gates, but adds that one of the gates was turned towards the north, but the other which was more divine, to the south. He also says that the northern gate was pervious to descent, but does not indicate whether this was also the case with the southern gate. For of this, he only says, “It is inaccessible to men, but it is the path of the immortals.” 10. It remains, therefore, to investigate what is indicated by this narration; whether the poet describes a cavern which was in reality consecrated by others, or whether it is an enigma of his own invention. Since, however, a cavern is an image and symbol of the world, as Numenius and his familiar Cronius assert, there are two extremities in the heavens, viz., the winter tropic, than which nothing is more southern, and the summer tropic, than which nothing is more northern. But the summer tropic is in Cancer, and the winter tropic in Capricorn. And since Cancer is nearest to us, it is very properly attributed to the Moon, which is the nearest of all the heavenly bodies to the earth. But as the southern pole by its great distance is invisible to us, hence Capricorn is attributed to Saturn, the highest and most remote of all the planets. Again, the signs from Cancer to Capricorn are situated in the following order: and the first of these is Leo, which is the house of the Sun; afterwards Virgo, which is the house of Mercury; Libra, the house of Venus; Scorpio, of Mars; Sagittarius, of Jupiter; and Capricorn, of Saturn. But from Capricorn in an inverse order Aquarius is attributed to Saturn; Pisces to Jupiter; Aries to Mars; Taurus to Venus; Gemini to Mercury; and in the last place Cancer to the Moon. 11. Theologists therefore assert, thatthese two gates are Cancer and Capricorn; but Plato calls them entrances. And of these, theologists say, that Cancer is the gate through which souls descend; but Capricorn that through which they ascend. Cancer is indeed northern, and adapted to descent; but Capricorn is southern, and adapted to ascent 12.

[ 159 ]

The northern parts, likewise, pertain to souls descending into generation. And the gates of the cavern which are turned to the north are rightly said to be pervious to the descent of men; but the southern gates are not the avenues of the Gods, but of souls ascending to the Gods. On this account, the poet does not say that they are the avenues of the Gods, but of immortals; this appellation being also common to our souls, which are per se, or essentially, immortal. It is said that Parmenides mentions these two gates in his treatise “On the Nature of Things”, as likewise that they are not unknown to the Romans and Egyptians. For the Romans celebrate their Saturnalia when the Sun is in Capricorn, and during this festivity, slaves wear the shoes of those that are free, and all things are distributed among them in common; the legislator obscurely signifying by this ceremony that through this gate of the heavens, those who are now born slaves will be liberated through the Saturnian festival, and the house attributed to Saturn, i.e., Capricorn, when they live again and return to the fountain of life. Since, however, the path from Capricorn is adapted to ascent, hence the Romans denominate that month in which the Sun, turning from Capricorn to the east, directs his course to the north, Januanus, or January, from janua, a gate. But with the Egyptians, the beginning of the year is not Aquarius, as with the Romans, but Cancer. For the star Sothis, which the Greeks call the Dog, is near to Cancer. And the rising of Sothis is the new moon with them, this being the principle of generation to the world. On this account, the gates of the Homeric cavern are not dedicated to the east and west, nor to the equinoctial signs, Aries and Libra, but to the north and south, and to those celestial signs which towards the south are most southerly, and, towards the north are most northerly; because this cave was sacred to souis and aquatic nymphsT But these places are adapted to souls descending into generation, and afterwards separating themselves from it. Hence, a place near to the equinoctial circle was assigned to Mithra as an appropriate seat. And on this account he bears the sword of Aries, which is a martial sign. He is likewise carried in the Bull, which is the sign of Venus. For Mithra. as well as the Bull, is the Demiurgus and lord of generation 13. But he is placed near the equinoctial circle, having the northern parts on his right hand, and the southern on his left. They likewise arranged towards the south the southern hemisphere because it is hot; but the northern hemisphere towards the north, through the coldness of the north wind. 12. The ancients, likewise, very reasonably connected winds with souls proceeding into generation, and again separating themselves from it, because, as some think, souls attract a spirit, and have a pneumatic essence. But the north wind is adapted to souls falling into generation; and, on this account, the northern blasts refresh those who are dying, and when they can scarcely draw their breath. On the contrary the southern gales

[ 160 ]

dissolve life. For the north wind, indeed, from its superior coldness, congeals (as it were the animal life), and retains it in the frigidity of terrene generation. But the south wind, being hot, dissolves this life, and sends it upward to the heat of a divine nature. Since, however, our terrene habitation is more northern, it is proper that souls which are born in it should be familiar with the north wind; but those that exchange this life for a better, with the south wind. This also is the cause why the north wind is, at its commencement, great; but the south wind, at its termination. For the former is situated directly over the inhabitants of the northern part of the globe, but the latter is at a great distance from them; and the blast from places very remote, is more tardy than from such as are near. But when it is coacervated, then it blows abundantly and with vigour. Since, however, souls proceed into generation through the northern gate, hence this wind is said to be amatory. For, as the poet says, “Boreas, enamour’d of the sprightly train, Conceal’d his godhead in a flowing mane. With voice dissembled to his loves he neighed, And coursed the dappled beauties o’er the mead; Hence sprung twelve others of unrivalled kind, Swift as their mother mares, and father wind” 14. It is also said, that Boreas ravished Orithya 15, from whom he begot Zetis and Calais. But as the south is attributed to the Gods, hence, when the Sun is at its meridian, the curtains in temples are drawn before the statues of the Gods; in consequence of observing the Homeric precept: “That it is not lawful for men to enter temples when the Sun is inclined to the south, for this is the path of the immortals. Hence, when the God is at his meridian altitude, the ancients placed a symbol of midday and of the south in the gates of the temples, and on this account, in other gates also, it was not lawful to speak at all times, because gates were considered as sacred. Hence, too, the Pythagoreans, and the wise men among the Egyptians, forbade speaking while passing through doors or gates; for then they venerated in silence that God who is the principle of wholes (and, therefore, of all things). 13. Homer, likewise, knew that gates are sacred, as is evident from his representing Oeneus, when supplicating, shaking the gate: “The gates he shakes, and supplicates the son” 16. He also knew the gates of the heavens which are committed to the guardianship of the hours; which gates originate in cloudy places, and are opened and shut by the clouds. For he says:

[ 161 ]

“Whether dense clouds they close, or wide unfold” 17. And on this account these gates omit a bellowing sound, because thunders roar through the clouds: “Heaven’s gates spontaneous open to the powers; Heaven’s bellowing portals, guarded by the Hours” 18. He likewise elsewhere speaks of the gates of the Sun, signifying by these Cancer and Capricorn, for the Sun proceeds as far as to these signs, when he descends from the north to the south, and from thence ascends again to the northern parts. But Capricorn and Cancer are situated about the galaxy, being allotted the extremities of this circle; Cancer indeed the northern, but Capricorn the southern extremity of it. According to Pythagoras, also, the people of dreams 19. are the souls which are said to be collected in the galaxy, this circle being so called from the milk with which souls are nourished when they fall into generation. Hence, those who evocate departed souls, sacrifice to them by a libation of milk mingled with honey; because, through the allurements of sweetness they will proceed into generation: with the birth of man, milk being naturally produced. Farther still, the southern regions produce small bodies; for it is usual with heat to attenuate them in the greatest degree. But all bodies generated in the north are large, as is evident in the Celtae, the Thracians and the Scythians; and these regions are humid, and abound with pastures. For the word Boreas is derived from Βορα, which signifies nutriment. Hence, also, the wind which blows from a land abounding in nutriment, is called Βορρας, as being of a nutritive nature. From these causes, therefore, the northern parts are adapted to the mortal tribe, and to souls that fail into the realms of generation. But the southern parts are adapted to that which is immortal 20, just as the eastern parts of the world are attributed to the Gods, but the western to daemons. For, in consequence of nature originating from diversity, the ancients everywhere made that which has a twofold entrance to be a symbol of the nature of things. For the progression is either through that which is intelligible or through that which is sensible. And if through that which is sensible, it is either through the sphere of the fixed stars, or through the sphere of the planets. And again, it is either through an immortal, or through a mortal progression. One centre likewise is above, but the other beneath the earth; and the one is eastern, but the other western. Thus, too, some parts of the world are situated on the left, but others on the right hand; and night is opposed to day. On this account, also, harmony consists of and proceeds through contraries. Plato also says that there are two openings 21 one of which affords a passage to souls ascending to the heavens, but the other to souls descending to the earth. And according to theologists,

[ 162 ]

the Sun and Moon are the gates of souls, which ascend through the Sun, and descend through the Moon. With Homer likewise, there are two tubs, “From which the lot of every one he fills Blessings to these, to those distributes ills” 22. But Plato in the Gorgias by tubs intends to signify souls, some of which are malefic, but others beneficent; and some which are rational, but others irrational 23. Souls, however, are (analogous to,) tubs, because they contain in themselves energies and habits, as in a vessel. In Hesiod, too, we find one tub closed, but the other opened by Pleasure, who scatters its contents everywhere, Hope alone remaining behind. For in those things in which a depraved soul, being dispersed about matter, deserts the proper order of its essence, in all these it is accustomed to feed itself with (the pleasing prospects of) auspicious hope. 14. Since, therefore, every twofold entrance is a symbol of nature, this Homeric cavern has, very properly, not one portal only, but two gates, which differ from each other conformably to things themselves; of which one pertains to Gods and good (daemons), but the other to mortals and depraved natures. Hence Plato took occasion to speak of bowls, and assumes tubs instead of amphorae, and two openings, as we have already observed, instead of two gates. Pherecydes Syrus also mentions recesses and trenches, caverns, doors and gates: and through these obscurely indicates the generations of souls, and their separation from these material realms.) And thus much for an explanation of the Homeric cave, which we think we have sufficiently unfolded without adducing any further testimonies from ancient philosophers and theologists, which would give a needless extent to our discourse. 15. One particular, however, remains to be explained, and that is the symbol of the olive planted at the top of the cavern, since Homer appears to indicate something very admirable by giving it such a position. For he does not merely say that an olive grows in this place, but that it flourishes on the summit of the cavern. “High at the head a branching olive grows, Beneath, a gloomy grotto s cool recess..” But the growth of the olive in such a situation is not fortuitous, as some one may suspect, but contains the enigma of the cavern. For since the world was not produced rashly and casually, but is the work of divine wisdom and an intellectual nature; hence an olive, the symbol of this wisdom flourishes near the presentcavern, which is an image of the world. For the olive is the plant of Minerva, and Minerva is wisdom. But this Goddess being produced from the head of Jupiter, the theologist has discovered an appropriate place for the olive by consecrating it at the summit of the port; signifying by

[ 163 ]

this that the universe is not the effect of a casual event and the work of irrational fortune, but that it is the offspring of an intellectual nature and divine wisdom, which is separated indeed from it (by a difference of essence), but yet is near to it, through being established on the summit of the whole port (i.e., from the dignity and excellence of its nature governing the whole with consummate wisdom). Since, however, an olive is everflourishing, it possesses a certain peculiarity in the highest degree adapted to the revolutions of souls in the world, for to such souls this cave (as we have said) is sacred. For in summer the white leaves of the olive tend upwards, but in winter the whiter leaves are bent downward. On this account also in prayers and supplications, men extend the branches of an olive, ominating from this that they shall exchange the sorrowful darkness of danger for the fair light of security and peace. The olive, therefore being naturally ever-flourishing, bears fruit which is the auxiliary of labour (by being its reward , it is sacred to Minerva; supplies the victors in athletic labours with crowns and affords a friendly branch to the suppliant petitioner. Thus, too, the world is governed by an intellectual nature, and is conducted by a wisdom eternal and ever-flourishing; by which the rewards of victory are conferred on the conquerors in the athletic race of life, as the reward of severe toil and patient perseverance. And the Demiurgus who connects and contains the world (in ineffable comprehensions) invigorates miserable and suppliant souls. 16. In this cave, therefore, says Homer, all external possessions must be deposited. Here, naked, and assuming a suppliant habit, afflicted in body, casting aside everything superfluous, and being averse to the energies of sense, it is requisite to sit at the foot of the olive and consult with Minerva by what means we may most effectually destroy that hostile rout of passions which insidiously lurk in the secret recesses of the soul. Indeed, as it appears to me, it was not without reason that Numenius and his followers thought the person of Ulysses in the Odyssey represented to us a man who passes in a reguIar manner over the dark and stormy sea of generation, and thus at length arrives at that region where tempests and seas are unknown, and finds a nation “Who ne’er knew salt, or heard the billows roar.” 17. Again, according to Plato, the deep, the sea, and a tempest are images of a material nature. And on this account I think the poet called the port by the name of Phorcys. For he says, “It is the port of the ancient marine Phorcys” 24. T he daughter likewise of this God is mentioned in the beginning of the Odyssey. But from Thoosa the Cyclops was born, whom Ulysses deprived of sight. And this deed of Ulysses became the occasion of reminding him of his errors, till he was safely landed in his native country. On this account, too, a seat under the olive is proper to Ulysses, as to one who implores

[ 164 ]

divinity and would appease his natal daemon with a suppliant branch. For it will not be simply, and in a concise way, possible for anyone to be liberated from this sensible life, who blinds this daemon, and renders his energies inefficacious; but he who dares to do this, will be pursued by the anger 25 of the marine and material Gods, whom it is first requisite to appease by sacrifices, labours, and patient endurance; at one time, indeed, contending with the passions, and at another employing enchantments and deceptions, and by these, transforming himself in an all-various manner; in order that, being at length divested of the torn garments (by which his true person was concealed) he may recover the ruined empire of his soul. Nor will he even then be liberated from labours; but this will be effected when he has entirely passed over the raging sea, and, though still living, becomes so ignorant of marine and material works (through deep attention to intelligible concern) as to mistake an oar for a corn-van. 18. It must not, however, be thought that interpretations of this kind are forced, and nothing more than the conjectures of ingenious men; but when we consider the great wisdom of antiquity and how much Homer excelled in intellectual prudence, and in an accurate knowledge of every virtue, it must not be denied that he has obscurely indicated the images of things of a more divine nature in the fiction of a fable. For it would not have been possible to devise the whole of this hypothesis unless the figment had been transferred (to an appropriate meaning) from certain established truths. But reserving the discussion of this for another treatise, we shall here finish our explanation of the present Cave of the Nymphs.

[ 165 ]

ENDNOTES 1 This Cronius, the Pythagorean, is also mentioned by Porphyry in his life of Plotinus. 2 I.e., rather more than ten Italian miles and a half, eight stadia making an Italian mile. 3 But morphe, as we are informed by Simpicius, pertains to the colour, figure, and magnitude of supefficies. 4 “Nymphs,” says Hermias in his Scholia on the Phaedrus of Plato, “ are Goddesses who preside over regeneration, and are ministrant to Bacchus, the offspring of Semele. Hence they dwell near water, that is, they are conversant with generation. But this Bacchus supplies the regeneration of the whole sensible world. 5 These lines are not to be found in any of the hymns now extant, ascribed to Homer. 6 Martianus Capella in lib. ii. De Nuptiis Philologiae, speaking of the sun, says: “Ibi quandam navim, totius naturae cursibus diversa cupiditate moderantem, cunctaque flammarum congestione plenissimam, beatis circumactum mercibus conspicatur. Cui nautae septem germani, tamen suique consimiles praesidebant, etc. In this passage the seven sailors are evidently the seven planets. 7 The theological meaning of this Orphic fiction is beautifully unfolded by Proclus as follows: “Orpheus says that the vivific cause of partible natures (i.e. Proserpine), while she remained on high, weaving the order of celestials, was a nymph, as being undefiled; and in consequence of this connected with Jupiter and abiding in her appropriate manners; but that, proceeding from her proper habitation, she left her webs unfinished, was ravished; having been ravished, was married; and that being married, she generated in order that she might animate things which have an adventitious life. For the unfinished state of her web indicates, I think, that the universe is imperfect or unfinished, as far as to perpetual animals (i.e., the universe would be imperfect if nothing inferior to the celestial Gods was produced). Hence Plato says, that the one Demiurgus calls on the many Demiurgi to weave together the mortal and immortal natures; after a manner reminding us, that the addition of the mortal genera is the perfection of the textorial life of the universe, and also exciting our recollection of the

[ 166 ]

divine Orphic fable, and affording us interpretative causes of the unfinished webs of Proserpine.” — See Vol. II., p. 356, of my translation of Proclus on the Timaeus. The unfinished webs of Proserpine are also alluded to by Claudian in his poem “De Raptu Proserpinae”, in the following verse: “Sensit adesse Deas, imperfectumque laborem Deserit.” I only add, that, by ancient theologists, the shuttle was considered as a signature of separating, a cup of vivifio, a sceptre of ruling, and a key of guardian power. 8 The theological meaning of nectar and ambrosia is beautifully unfolded by Hermias, in his Scholia on the Phaedrus of Plato, published by Ast, Lips., 1810, p. 145, where he informs us, that ambrosia is analogous to dry nutriment, and that on this account it signifies an establishment in causes: but that nectar is analogous to moist food, and that it signifies the providential attention of the Gods to secondary natures; the former being denominated, according to a privation of the mortal and corruptible; but the latter, according to a privation of the funeral and sepulchral. And when the Gods are represented as energising; providentially, they are said to drink nectar. Thus Homer in the beginning of the 4th Book of the Iliad; — “Now with each other, on the golden floor, Seated near Jove, the Gods converse; to whom The venerable Hebe nectar bears In golden goblets; and as these flow round Th’ immortals turn their careful eyes on Troy.” For then they providentially attend to the Trojans. The possession, therefore, of immutable providence by the Gods is signified by their drinking nectar; the exertion of this providence, by their beholding Troy, and their communicating with each other in providential energies, by receiving the goblets from each other. 9 Ebriety, when ascribed to divine natures by ancient theologists, signifies a deific superessential energy, or an energy superior to intellect. Hence, when Saturn is said by Orpheus to have been intoxicated with honey or nectar, the meaning is, that he then energised providentially, in a deific and super-intellectual manner. 10 Porphyry, though he excelled in philosophical, was deficient in theological knowledge; of which what he now says of the castrations of Saturn and Heaven is a remarkable instance. For ancient theologists, by things preternatural, adumbrated the transcendent nature of the Gods; by such as are irrational, a power more divine than all reason; and by things apparently base, incorporeal beauty. Hence in the fabulous narrations to which Porphyry now alludes, the genital parts must be considered as [ 167 ]

symbols of prolific power; and the castration of these parts as signifying the progression of this power into a subject order. So that the fable means that the prolific powers of Saturn are called forth into progression by Jupiter, and those of Heaven by Saturn; Jupiter being inferior to Saturn, and Saturn to Heaven. — See the “Apology for the Fables of Homer” in Vol. I. of my translation of Plato. 11 Hence, when Pythagoras exhorted his disciples to abstain from beans, he intended to signify, that they should beware of a continued and perpetual descent into the realms of generation. 12 Macrobius, in the twelfth chapter of his Commentary on “Scipio’s Dream,” has derived some of the ancient arcana which it contains from what is here said by Porphyry. A part of what he has farther added, I shall translate on account of its excellence and connexion with the above passage: “Pythagoras thought that the empire of Pluto began downwards from the milky way, because souls falling from thence appear to have already receded from the Gods. Hence he asserts that the nutriment of milk is first offered to infants, because their first motion commences from the galaxy, when they begin to fall into terrene bodies. On this account, since those who are about to descend are yet in Cancer, and have not left the milky way, they rank in the order of the Gods. But when, by falling, they arrive at the Lion, in this constellation they enter on the exordium of their future condition. And because, in the Lion, the rudiments of birth and certain primary exercises of human nature, commence; but Aquarius is opposite to the and presently sets after the Lion rises; hence, when the sun is in Aquarius, funeral rites are performed to departed souls, because he is then carried in a sign which is contrary or adverse to human life. From the confine, therefore, in which the zodiac and galaxy touch each other, the soul, descending from a round figure, which is the only divine form, is produced into a cone by its denuxion. And as a line is generated from a point and proceeds into length from an indivisible, so the soul, from its own point, which is a monad, passes into the duad, which is the first extension. And this is the essence which Plato, in the Timaeus, calls impartible and at the same time partible, when he speaks of the nature of the mundane soul. For as the soul of the world, so likewise that of man, will be found to be in one respect without division, if the simplicity of a. divine nature is considered; and in another respect partible, if we regard the diffusion of the former through the world, and of the latter through the members of the body. “As soon, therefore, as the soul gravitates towards body in this nrst production of herself, she begins to experience a material tumult, that is, matter flowing into her essence. And this is what Plato remarks in the Phaedo, that the soul is drawn into body staggering with recent intoxication; signifying by this the new drink of matter s

[ 168 ]

impetuous flood, through which the soul, becoming denied and heavy, is drawn into a terrene situation. But the starry cup placed between Cancer and the Lion is a symbol of this mystic truth, signifying that descending souls nrst experience intoxication in that part of the heavens throught the influx of matter. Hence oblivion, the companion of intoxication, there begins silently to creep into the recesses of the soul. For if souls retained in their descent to bodies the memory of divine concerns, of which they were conscious in the heavens, there would be no dissension among men about divinity. But all, indeed, in descending, drink of oblivion; though some more, and others less. On this account, though truth is not apparent to all men on the earth, yet all exercise their opinions about it; because a defect of memory is the origin of opinion. But those discover most who have drunk least of oblivion, because they easily remember what they had known before in the heavens. “The soul, therefore, falling with this first weight from the zodiac and milky way into each of the subject spheres, is not only clothed with the accession of a luminous body, but produces the particular motions which it is to exercise in the respective orbs. Thus in Saturn it energises according to a ratiocinative and intellective power; in the sphere of Jove, according to a practic power; in the orb of the Sun, according to a sensitive and imaginative nature; but according to the motion of desire in the planet of Venus; of pronouncing and interpreting what it perceives in the orb of Mercury; and according to a plantal or vegetable nature and a power of acting on body, when it enters into the lunar globe. And this sphere, as it is the last among the divine orders, so it is the first in our terrene situation. For this body, as it is the dregs of divine natures, so it is the first animal substance. And this is the difference between terrene and supernal bodies (under the latter of which I comprehend the heavens, the stars, and the more elevated elements), that the latter are called upwards to be the seat of the soul, and merit immortality from the very nature of the region and an imitation of sublimity; but the soul is drawn down to these terrene bodies, and is on this account said to die when it is enclosed in this fallen region, and the seat of mortality. Nor ought it to cause any disturbance that we have so often mentioned the death of the soul, which we have pronounced to be immortal. For the soul is not extinguished by its own proper death, but is only overwhelmed for a time. Nor does it lose the benefit of perpetuity by its temporal demersion. Since, when it deserves to be purified from the contagion of vice, through its entire refinement from body, it will be restored to the light of perennial life, and will return to its pristine integrity and perfection.” The powers, however, of the planets, which are the causes of the energies of the soul in the several planetary spheres, are more accurately described by Proclus in p. 260 of his admirable Commentary on the Timaeus, as follows: “It you are willing, also, you may [ 169 ]

say that of the beneficent planets the Moon is the cause to Mortals of nature, being herself the visible statue of fontal nature. But the Sun is the Demiurgus of everything sensible, in consequence of being the cause of sight and visibility. Mercury is the cause of the motions of the phantasy; for of the imaginative essence itself, so far as sense and phantasy are one, the Sun is the producing cause. But Venus is the cause of epithymetic appetites (or of the appetites pertaining to desire), and Mars of the irascible motions which are conformable to nature. Of all vital powers, however, Jupiter is the common cause; but of all gnostic powers, Saturn. For all the irrational forms are divided into these.” 13 Hence Phanes, or Protogonus, who is the paradigm of the universe, and who was absorbed by Jupiter, the Demiurgus, is represented by Orpheus as having the head of a bull among other heads with which he is adorned. And in the Orphic hymn to him he is called bull-roarer. 14 Iliad, lib. xx., v. 223, etc. 15 This fable is mentioned by Plato in the Phaedrus, and is beautifully unfolded as follows by Hermias, in his Scholia on that Dialogue: “A twofold solution may be given of this fable: one from history, more ethical; but the other, transferring us (from parts) to wholes. And the former of these is as follows: Orithya was the daughter of Erectheus, and the priestess of Boreas; for each of the winds has a presiding deity, which the telestic art, or the art pertaining to sacred mysteries, religiously cultivates. To this Orithya, then, the God was so very propitipus, that he sent the north wind for the safety of the country; and besides this, he is said to have assisted the Athenians in their naval battles. Orithya, therefore, becoming enthusiastic, being possessed by her proper God Boreas, and no longer energising as a human being (for animals cease to energise according to their own peculiarities, when possessed by superior causes, died under the inspiring innuence, and thus was said to have been ravished by Boreas. And this is the more ethical explanation of the fable. “But the second, which transfers the narration to wholes, and does not entirely subvert the former, is the following, for divine fables often employ transactions and histories, in subserviency to the discipline of wholes. It is said, then, that Erectheus is the God that rules over the three elements, air, water, and earth. Sometimes, however, he is considered as alone the ruler of the earth, and sometimes as the presiding deity of Attica alone. Of this deity Orithya is the daughter; and she is the prolific power of the earth, which is, indeed, co-extended with the word Erectheus, as the unfolding of the name signifies. For it is the prolific power of the earth, flourishing and restored, according to the seasons. But Boreas is the providence of the Gods, supernally illuminating’ [ 170 ]

secondary natures. For the providence of the Gods in the world is signified by Boreas, because this divinity blows from lofty places. And the elevating power of the Gods is signified by the south wind, because this wind blows from low to lofty places; and besides this, things situated towards the south are more divine. The providence of the Gods, therefore, causes the prolific power of the earth, or of the Attic land, to ascend, and become visible. “Orithya also may be said to be a soul aspiring after things above. Such a soul, therefore, is ravished by Boreas supernally blowing. But if Orithya was hurled from a precipice, this also is appropriate, for such a soul dies a philosophic, not receiving a physical death, and abandons a life pertaining to her own deliberate choice at the same time that she lives a physical life. And philosophy, according to Socrates in the Phcedo, is nothing else than a meditation of death.” 16 Iliad, lib. xi. v. 579. 17 Iliad, lib. viii. v. 395. 18 Iliad, lib. viii. v. 393. 19 The souls of the suitors are said by Homer in the 24th book of the Odyssey (v. 11) to have passed, in their descent to the region of spirits, beyond the people of dreams. 20 Hence, the southern have always been more favourable to genius, than the northern parts of the earth. 21 See my translation of the tenth book of his Republic. 22 Iliad, xiv. v. 528. 23 The passage in the Gorgias of Plato, to which Porphyry here alludes, is as follows: — “Soc.: But, indeed, as you also say, life is a grievous thing. For I should not wonder if Euripides spoke the truth when he says: ‘ Who knows whether to live is not to die, and to die is not to live?’ And we perhaps are in reality dead. For I have heard from one of the wise that we are now dead, and that the body is our sepulchre; but that the part of the soul in which the desires are contained, is of such a nature that it can be persuaded and hurled upwards and downwards. Hence a certain elegant man, perhaps a Sicilian, or an Italian, denominated, mythologising, this part of the soul a tub, by a derivation from the probable and persuasive; and, likewise he called those that are stupid or deprived of intellect, uninitiated. He further said that the intemperate and uncovered nature of that part of the soul in which the desires are contained, was like a pierced tub, through its insatiable greediness.”

[ 171 ]

What is here said by Plato is beautifully unfolded by Olympiodorus in his MS. Commentary on the Gorgias, as follows:— “Euripides (in Phryxo) says, that to live is to die, and to die to live. For the soul coming hither as she imparts life to the body, so she partakes (through this) of a certain privation of life, because the body becomes the source of evils. And hence, it is necessary to subdue the body. “But the meaning of the Pythagoric fable which is here introduced by Plato, is this: We are said to be dead, because, as we have before observed, we partake of a privation of life. The sepulchre which we carry about with us is, as Plato himself explains it, the body. But Hades is the unapparent, because we are situated in obscurity, the soul being in a state of servitude to the body. The tubs are the desires; whether they are so called from our hastening to fill them as if they were tubs, or from desire persuading us that it is beauiiful. The initiated, therefore, i.e., those that have a perfect knowledge, pour into the entire tub, for these have their tub full; or in other words, have perfect virtue. But the uninitiated, viz., those that possess nothing perfect, have perforated tubs. For those that are in a state of servitude to desire always wish to fill it, and are more inflamed, and on this account they have perforated tubs, as being never full. But the sieve is the rational soul mingled with the irrational. For the (rational) soul is called a circle, because it seeks itself, and is itself sought, finds itself and is itself found. But the irrational soul imitates a right line, since it does not revert to itself like a circle. So far, therefore, as the sieve is circular, it is an image of the rational soul; but, as it is placed under the right lines formed from the holes, it is assumed for the irrational soul. Right lines, therefore, are in the middle of the cavities. Hence, by the sieve, Plato signifies the rational in subjection to the irrational soul. But the water is the flux of Nature; for as Heraclitus says, moisture is the death of the soul.” In this extract the intelligent reader will easily perceive that the occult signification of the tubs is more scientifically unfolded by Olympiodorus than by Porphyry. 24 Phorcys is one among the ennead of Gods who, according to Plato in the Timaeus, fabricate generation. Of this deity Proclus observes, “ that as the Jupiter in this ennead causes the unapparent divisions and separations of forms made by Saturn to become apparent, and as Rhea calls them forth into motion and generation, so Phorcys inserts them in matter, produces sensible natures, and adorns the visible essence in order that there may not only be divisions of productive principles (or forms) in natures and in souls, and in intellectual essences prior to these, but likewise in sensibles. For this is the peculiarity of fabrication.” 25 “The anger of the Gods”, says Proclus, “is not an indication of any passion in them, but demonstrates our inaptitude to participate of their illuminations.”

[ 172 ]

On the Abstinence of Eating Animals Translated by Thomas Taylor, 1812 Like Pythagoras, Porphyry was a keen advocate of vegetarianism on spiritual and ethical grounds. Both philosophers are perhaps the most famous vegetarians of classical antiquity. Porphyry’s treatise On the Abstinence of Eating Animals recommends against the consumption of animals, in which he posits that everything was created for mutual advantage and argues that vegetarianism is a way to preserve universal harmony of nature. The work is still cited with approval in vegetarian literature up to the present day.

[ 173 ]

Porphyry, a detail of the ‘Tree of Jesse’, 1535, Sucevița Monastery

[ 174 ]

CONTENTS BOOK ONE ENDNOTES. BOOK TWO ENDNOTES. BOOK THREE ENDNOTES. BOOK FOUR ENDNOTES.

[ 175 ]

BOOK ONE 1. HE A R I N G F RO M some of our acquaintance, O Firmus 1, that you, having rejected a fleshless diet, have again returned to animal food, at first I did not credit the report, when I considered your temperance, and the reverence which you have been taught to pay to those ancient and pious men from whom we have received the precepts of philosophy. But when others who came after these confirmed this report, it appeared to me that it would be too rustic and remote from the rational method of persuasion to reprehend you, who neither, according to the proverb, flying from evil have found something better, nor according to Empedocles, having lamented your former life, have converted yourself to one that is more excellent. I have therefore thought it worthy of the friendship which subsists between us, and also adapted to those who have arranged their life conformably to truth, to disclose your errors through a confutation derived from an argumentative discussion. 2. For when I considered with myself what could be the cause of this alteration in your diet, I could by no means suppose that it was for the sake of health and strength, as the vulgar and idiots would say; since, on the contrary, you yourself, when you were with us, confessed that a fleshless diet contributed both to health and to the proper endurance of philosophic labours; and experience testifies, that in saying this you spoke the truth. It appears, therefore, that you have returned to your former illegitimate 2 conduct, either through deception,3 because you think it makes no difference with respect to the acquisition of wisdom whether you use this or that diet; or perhaps through some other cause of which I am ignorant, which excited in you a greater fear than that which could be produced by the impiety of transgression. For I should not say that you have despised the philosophic laws which we derived from our ancestors, and which you have so much admired, through intemperance, or for the sake of voracious gluttony; or that you are naturally inferior to some of the vulgar, who, when they have assented to laws, though contrary to those under which they formerly lived, will suffer amputation [rather than violate them], and will abstain from certain animals on which they before fed, more than they would from human flesh. 3. But when I was also informed by certain persons that you even employed arguments against those who abstained from animal food, I not only pitied, but was indignant with you, that, being persuaded by certain frigid and very corrupt sophisms, you have deceived yourself, and have endeavoured to subvert a dogma which is both

[ 176 ]

ancient and dear to the Gods. Hence it appeared to me to be requisite not only to show what our own opinion is on this subject, but also to collect and dissolve the arguments of our opponents, which are much stronger than those adduced by you in multitude and power, and every other apparatus; and thus to demonstrate, that truth is not vanquished even by those arguments which seem to be weighty, and much less by superficial sophisms. For you are perhaps ignorant, that not a few philosophers are adverse to abstinence from animal food, but that this is the case with those of the Peripatetic and Stoic sects, and with most of the Epicureans; the last of whom have written in opposition to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Empedocles, of which you once were studiously emulous. To this abstinence, likewise, many philologists are adverse, among whom Clodius the Neapolitan wrote a treatise against those who abstain from flesh. Of these men I shall adduce the disquisitions and common arguments against this dogma, at the same time omitting those reasons which are peculiarly employed by them against the demonstrations of Empedocles. The Arguments of the Peripatetics and Stoics from Heraclides Ponticus 4 4. Our opponents therefore say, in the first place, that justice will be confounded, and things immoveable be moved, if we extend what is just, not only to the rational, but also to the irrational nature; conceiving that not only Gods and men pertain to us, but that there is likewise an alliance between us and brutes, who [in reality] have no conjunction with us. Nor shall we employ some of them in laborious works, and use others for food, from a conviction that the association which is between us and them, in the same manner as that of some foreign polity, pertains to a tribe different from ours, and is dishonourable. For he who uses these as if they were men, sparing and not injuring them, thus endeavouring to adapt to justice that which it cannot bear, both destroys its power, and corrupts that which is appropriate, by the introduction of what is foreign. For it necessarily follows, either that we act unjustly by sparing them, or if we spare, and do not employ them, that it will be impossible for us to live. We shall also, after a manner, live the life of brutes, if we reject the use of which they are capable of affording. 5. For I shall omit to mention the innumerable multitude of Nomades and Troglodyte, who know of no other nutriment than that of flesh; but to us who appear to live mildly and philanthropically, what work would be left for us on the earth or in the sea, what illustrious art, what ornament of our food would remain, if we conducted ourselves innoxiously and reverentially towards brutes, as if they were of a kindred nature with us? For it would be impossible to assign any work, any medicine, or any

[ 177 ]

remedy for the want which is destructive of life, or that we can act justly, unless we preserve the ancient boundary and law. To fishes, savage beasts, and birds, devoid Of justice, Jove to devour each other Granted; but justice to mankind he gave.5 i.e. towards each other. 6. But it is not possible for us to act unjustly towards those to whom we are not obliged to act justly. Hence, for those who reject this reasoning, no other road of justice is left, either broad or narrow, into which they can enter. For, as we have already observed, our nature, not being sufficient to itself, but indigent of many things, would be entirely destroyed, and enclosed in a life involved in difficulties, unorganic, and deprived of necessaries, if excluded from the assistance derived from animals. It is likewise said, that those first men did not live prosperously; for this superstition did not stop at animals, but compelled its votaries even to spare plants. For, indeed, what greater injury does he do, who cuts the throat of an ox or a sheep, than he who cuts down a fir tree or an oak? Since, from the doctrine of transmigration, a soul is also implanted in these. These therefore are the principal arguments of the Stoics and Peripatetics. The Arguments of the Epicureans, from Hermachus 6 7. The Epicureans, however, narrating, as it were, a long genealogy, say, that the ancient legislators, looking to the association of life, and the mutual actions of men, proclaimed that manslaughter was unholy, and punished it with no casual disgrace. Perhaps, indeed, a certain natural alliance which exists in men towards each other, though the similitude of form and soul, is the reason why they do not so readily destroy an animal of this kind, as some of the other animals which are conceded to our use. Nevertheless, the greatest cause why manslaughter was considered as a thing grievous to be borne, and impious, was the opinion that it did not contribute to the whole nature and condition of human life. For, from a principle of this kind, those who are capable of perceiving the advantage arising from this decree, require no other cause of being restrained from a deed so dire. But those who are not able to have a sufficient perception of this, being terrified by the magnitude of the punishment, will abstain from readily destroying each other. For those, indeed, who survey the utility of the before-mentioned ordinance, will promptly observe it; but those who are not able to perceive the benefit with which it is attended, will obey the mandate, in consequence of fearing the threatenings of the laws; which threatenings certain persons ordained for

[ 178 ]

the sake of those who could not, by a reasoning process, infer the beneficial tendency of the decree, at the same time that most would admit this to be evident. 8. For none of those legal institutes which were established from the first, whether written or unwritten, and which still remain, and are adapted to be transmitted, [from one generation to another] became lawful through violence, but through the consent of those that used them. For those who introduced things of this kind to the multitude, excelled in wisdom, and not in strength of body, and the power which subjugates the rabble. Hence, through this, some were led to a rational consideration of utility, of which they had only an irrational sensation, and which they had frequently forgotten; but others were terrified by the magnitude of the punishments. For it was not possible to use any other remedy for the ignorance of what is beneficial than the dread of the punishment ordained by law. For this alone even now keeps the vulgar in awe, and prevents them from doing any thing, either publicly or privately, which is not beneficial [to the community]. But if all men were similarly capable of surveying and recollecting what is advantageous, there would be no need of laws, but men would spontaneously avoid such things as are prohibited, and perform such as they were ordered to do. For a survey of what is useful and detrimental, is a sufficient incentive to the avoidance of the one and the choice of the other. But the infliction of punishment has a reference to those who do not foresee what is beneficial. For impendent punishment forcibly compels such as these to subdue those impulses which lead them to useless actions, and to do that which is right. 9. Hence also, legislators ordained, that even involuntary manslaughter should not be entirely void of punishment; in order that they might not only afford no pretext for the voluntary imitation of those deeds which were involuntarily performed, but also that they might prevent many things of this kind from taking place, which happen, in reality, involuntarily. For neither is this advantageous through the same causes, by which men were forbidden voluntarily to destroy each other. Since, therefore, of involuntary deeds, some proceed from a cause which is unstable, and which cannot be guarded against by human nature; but others are produced by our negligence and inattention to different circumstances; hence legislators, wishing to restrain that indolence which is injurious to our neighbours, did not even leave an involuntary noxious deed without punishment, but, through the fear of penalties, prevented the commission of numerous offences of this kind. I also am of opinion, that the slaughters which are allowed by law, and which receive their accustomed expiations through certain purifications, were introduced by those ancient legislators, who first very properly instituted these things for no other reason than that they wished to prevent men as much as possible from voluntary slaughter. For the vulgar everywhere require [ 179 ]

something which may impede them from promptly performing what is not advantageous [to the community]. Hence those who first perceived this to be the case, not only ordained the punishment of fines, but also excited a certain other irrational dread, though proclaiming those not to be pure who in any way whatever had slain a man, unless they used purifications after the commission of the deed. For that part of the soul which is void of intellect, being variously disciplined, acquired a becoming mildness, certain taming arts having been from the first invented for the purpose of subduing the irrational impulses of desire, by those who governed the people. And one of the precepts promulgated on this occasion was, that men should not destroy each other without discrimination. 10. Those, however, who first defined what we ought to do, and what we ought not, very properly did not forbid us to kill other animals. For the advantage arising from these is effected by a contrary practice, since it is not possible that men could be preserved, unless they endeavoured to defend those who are nurtured with themselves from the attacks of other animals. At that time, therefore, some of those, of the most elegant manners, recollecting that they abstained from slaughter because it was useful to the public safety, they also reminded the rest of the people in their mutual associations of what was the consequence of this abstinence; in order that, by refraining from the slaughter of their kindred, they might preserve that communion which greatly contributes to the peculiar safety of each individual. But it was not only found to be useful for men not to separate from each other, and not to do any thing injurious to those who were collected together in the same place, for the purpose of repelling the attacks of animals of another species; but also for defence against men whose design was to act nefariously. To a certain extent, therefore, they abstained from the slaughter of men, for these reasons, viz. in order that there might be a communion among them in things that are necessary, and that a certain utility might be afforded in each of the above-mentioned incommodities. In the course of time, however, when the offspring of mankind, through their intercourse with each other, became more widely extended, and animals of a different species were expelled, certain persons directed their attention in a rational way to what was useful to men in their mutual nutriment, and did not alone recall this to their memory in an irrational manner. 11. Hence they endeavoured still more firmly to restrain those who readily destroyed each other, and who, through an oblivion of past transactions, prepared a more imbecile defence. But in attempting to effect this, they introduced those legal institutes which still remain in cities and nations; the multitude spontaneously assenting to them, in consequence of now perceiving, in a greater degree, the advantage arising from an association with each other. For the destruction of every thing noxious, and the [ 180 ]

preservation of that which is subservient to its extermination, similarly contribute to a fearless life. And hence it is reasonable to suppose, that one of the above-mentioned particulars was forbidden, but that the other was not prohibited. Nor must it be said, that the law allows us to destroy some animals which are not corruptive of human nature, and which are not in any other way injurious to our life. For as I may say, no animal among those which the law permits us to kill is of this kind; since, if we suffered them to increase excessively, they would become injurious to us. But through the number of them which is now preserved, certain advantages are imparted to human life. For sheep and oxen, and every such like animal, when the number of them is moderate, are beneficial to our necessary wants; but if they become redundant in the extreme, and far exceed the number which is sufficient, they then become detrimental to our life; the latter by employing their strength, in consequence of participating of this through an innate power of nature, and the former, by consuming the nutriment which springs up from the earth for our benefit alone. Hence, through this cause, the slaughter of animals of this kind is not prohibited, in order that as many of them as are sufficient for our use, and which we may be able easily to subdue, may be left. For it is not with horses, oxen, and sheep, and with all tame animals, as it is with lions and wolves, and, in short, with all such as are called savage animals, that, whether the number of them is small or great, no multitude of them can be assumed, which, if left, would alleviate the necessity of our life. And on this account, indeed, we utterly destroy some of them; but of others, we take away as many as are found to be more than commensurate to our use. 12. On this account, from the above-mentioned causes, it is similarly requisite to think, that what pertains to the eating of animals, was ordained by those who from the first established the laws; and that the advantageous and the disadvantageous were the causes why some animals were permitted to be eaten and others not. So that those who assert, that every thing beautiful and just subsists conformably to the peculiar opinions of men respecting those who establish the laws, are full of a certain most profound stupidity. For it is not possible that this thing can take place in any other way than that in which the other utilities of life subsist, such as those that are salubrious, and an innumerable multitude of others. Erroneous opinions, however, are entertained in many particulars, both of a public and private nature. For certain persons do not perceive those legal institutes, which are similarly adapted to all men; but some, conceiving them to rank among things of an indifferent nature, omit them; while others, who are of a contrary opinion, think that such things as are not universally profitable, are every where advantageous. Hence, through this cause, they adhere to things which are unappropriate; though in certain particulars they discover what is advantageous to themselves, and what contributes to general utility. And among these [ 181 ]

are to be enumerated the eating of animals, and the legally ordained destructions which are instituted by most nations on account of the peculiarity of the region. It is not necessary, however, that these institutes should be preserved by us, because we do not dwell in the same place as those did by whom they were made. If, therefore, it was possible to make a certain compact with other animals in the same manner as with men, that we should not kill them, nor they us, and that they should not be indiscriminately destroyed by us, it would be well to extend justice as far as to this; for this extent of it would be attended with security. But since it is among things impossible, that animals which are not recipients of reason should participate with us of law, on this account, utility cannot be in a greater degree procured by security from other animals, than from inanimate natures. But we can alone obtain security from the liberty which we now possess of putting them to death. And such are the arguments of the Epicureans. The Arguments of Claudius the Neapolitan who published a Treatise against Abstinence from Animal Food. 13. It now remains, that we should adduce what plebeians and the vulgar are accustomed to say on this subject. For they say, that the ancients abstained from animals, not through piety, but because they did not yet know the use of fire; but that as soon as they became acquainted with its utility, they then conceived it to be most honourable and sacred. They likewise called it Vesta, and from this the appellation of convestals or companions was derived; and afterwards they began to use animals. For it is natural to man to eat flesh, but contrary to his nature to eat it raw. Fire, therefore, being discovered, they embraced what is natural, and admitted the eating of boiled and masted flesh. Hence lynxes are [said by Homer 7 to be] crudivorous, or eaters of raw flesh; and of Priam, also, he says, as a disgraceful circumstance, Raw flesh by you, O Priam, is devoured 8. And, Raw flesh, dilacerating, he devoured 9. And this is said, as if the eating of raw flesh pertained to the impious. Telemachus, also, when Minerva was his guest, placed before her not raw, but roasted flesh. At first, therefore, men did not eat animals, for man is not [naturally] a devourer of raw flesh. But when the use of fire was discovered, fire was employed not only for the cooking of flesh, but also for most other eatables. For that man is not [naturally] adapted to eat raw flesh, is evident from certain nations that feed on fishes. For these they roast, some upon stones that are very much heated by the sun; but others roast them in the sand. That man, however, is adapted to feed on flesh, is evident from this, that no nation [ 182 ]

abstains from animal food. Nor is this adopted by the Greeks through depravity, since the same custom is admitted by the barbarians. 14. But he who forbids men to feed on animals, and thinks it is unjust, will also say that it is not just to kill them, and deprive them of life. Nevertheless, an innate and just war is implanted in us against brutes. For some of them voluntarily attack men, as, for instance, wolves and lions; others not voluntarily, as serpents, since they bite not, except they are trampled on. And some, indeed, attack men; but others destroy the fruits of the earth. From all these causes, therefore, we do not spare the life of brutes; but we destroy those who commence hostilities against us, as also those who do not, lest we should suffer any evil from them. For there is no one who, if he sees a serpent, will not, if he is able, destroy it, in order that neither it, nor any other serpent, may bite a man. And this arises, not only from our hatred of those that are the destroyers of our race, but likewise from that kindness which subsists between one man and another. But though the war against brutes is just, yet we abstain from many which associate with men. Hence, the Greeks do not feed either on dogs, or horses, or asses, because of these, those that are tame are of the same species as the wild. Nevertheless, they eat swine and birds. For a hog is not useful for anything but food. The Phoenicians, however, and Jews, abstain from it, because, in short, it is not produced in those places. For it is said, that this animal is not seen in Ethiopia even at present. As, therefore, no Greek sacrifices a camel or an elephant to the Gods, because Greece does not produce these animals, so neither is a hog sacrificed to the Gods in Cyprus or Phoenicia, because it is not indigenous in those places. And, for the same reason, neither do the Egyptians sacrifice this animal to the Gods. In short, that some nations abstain from a hog, is similar to our being unwilling to eat the flesh of camels. 15. But why should any one abstain from animals? Is it because feeding on them makes the soul or the body worse? It is, however, evident, that neither of these is deteriorated by it. For those animals that feed on flesh are more sagacious than others, as they are venatic, and possess an art by which they supply themselves with food, and acquire power and strength; as is evident in lions and wolves. So that the eating of flesh neither injures the soul nor the body. This likewise is manifest, both from the athletae, whose bodies become stronger by feeding on flesh, and from physicians, who restore bodies to health by the use of animal food. For this is no small indication that Pythagoras did not think sanely, that none of the wise men embraced his opinion; since neither any one of the seven wise men, nor any of the physiologists who lived after them, nor even the most wise Socrates, or his followers, adopted it. 16. Let it, however, be admitted that all men are persuaded of the truth of this dogma, respecting abstinence from animals. But what will be the boundary of the [ 183 ]

propagation of animals? For no one is ignorant how numerous the progeny is of the swine and the hare. And to these add all other animals. Whence, therefore, will they be supplied with pasture? And what will husbandmen do? For they will not destroy those who destroy the fruits of the earth. And the earth will not be able to bear the multitude of animals. Corruption also will be produced from the putridity of those that will die. And thus, from pestilence taking place, no refuge will be left. For the sea, and rivers, and marshes, will be filled with fishes, and the air with birds, but the earth will be full of reptiles of every kind. 17. How many likewise will be prevented from having their diseases cured, if animals are abstained from? For we see that those who are blind recover their sight by eating a viper. A servant of Craterus, the physician, happening to be seized with a new kind of disease, in which the flesh fell away from the bones, derived no benefit from medicines; but by eating a viper prepared after the manner of a fish, the flesh became conglutinated to the bones, and he was restored to health. Many other animals also, and their several parts, cure diseases when they are properly used for that purpose; of all which remedies he will be frustrated who rejects animal food. 18. But, if as they say, plants also have a soul, what will become of our life if we neither destroy animals nor plants? If, however, he is not impious who cuts off plants, neither will he be who kills animals. 19. But some one may, perhaps, say it is not proper to destroy that which belongs to the same tribe with ourselves; if the souls of animals are of the same essence with ourselves. If, however, it should be granted that souls are inserted in bodies voluntarily, it must be said that it is through a love of juvenility: for in the season of youth there is an enjoyment of all things. Why, therefore, do they not again enter into the nature of man? But if they enter voluntarily, and for the sake of juvenility, and pass through every species of animals, they will be much gratified by being destroyed. For thus their return to the human form will be more rapid. The bodies also which are eaten will not produce any pain in the souls of those bodies, in consequence of the souls being liberated from them; and they will love to be implanted in the nature of man. Hence, as much as they are pained on leaving the human form, so much will they rejoice when they leave other bodies. For thus they will more swiftly become man again, who predominates over all irrational animals, in the same manner as God does over men. There is, therefore, a sufficient cause for destroying other animals, viz. their acting unjustly in destroying men. But if the souls of men are immortal, but those of irrational animals mortal, men will not act unjustly by destroying irrational animals. And if the souls of brutes are immortal, we shall benefit them by liberating them from their bodies. For, by killing them, we shall cause them to return to the human nature. [ 184 ]

20. If, however, we [only] defend ourselves [in putting animals to death], we do not act unjustly, but we take vengeance on those that injure us. Hence, if the souls of brutes are indeed immortal, we benefit them by destroying them. But if their souls are mortal, we do nothing impious in putting them to death. And if we defend ourselves against them, how is it possible that in so doing we should not act justly. For we destroy, indeed, a serpent and a scorpion, though they do not attack us, in order that some other person may not be injured by them; and in so doing we defend the human race in general. But shall we not act justly in putting those animals to death, which either attack men, or those that associate with men, or injure the fruits of the earth? 21. If, however, some one should, nevertheless, think it is unjust to destroy brutes, such a one should neither use milk, nor wool, nor sheep, nor honey. For, as you injure a man by taking from him his garments, thus, also, you injure a sheep by shearing it. For the wool which you take from it is its vestment. Milk, likewise, was not produced for you, but for the young of the animal that has it. The bee also collects honey as food for itself; which you, by taking away, administer to your own pleasure. I pass over in silence the opinion of the Egyptians, that we act unjustly by meddling with plants. But if these things were produced for our sake, then the bee, being ministrant to us, elaborates honey, and the wool grows on the back of sheep, that it may be an ornament to us, and afford us a bland heat. 22. Co-operating also with the Gods themselves in what contributes to piety, we sacrifice animals: for, of the Gods, Apollo, indeed, is called the λυκοκτονος, slayer of wolves; and Diana, θηροκτονος, the destroyer of wild beasts. Demi-gods likewise, and all the heroes who excel us both in origin and virtue, have so much approved of the slaughter of animals, that they have sacrificed to the Gods Dodeceides 10 and Hecatombs. But Hercules, among other things, is celebrated for being an ox-devourer. 23. It is, however, stupid to say that Pythagoras exhorted men to abstain from animals, in order that he might, in the greatest possible degree, prevent them from eating each other. For, if all men at the time of Pythagoras were anthropophagites, he must be delirious who drew men away from other animals, in order that they might abstain from devouring each other. For, on this account, he ought rather to have extorted them to become anthropophagites, by showing them that it was an equal crime to devour each other, and to eat the flesh of oxen and swine. But if men at that time did not eat each other, what occasion was there for this dogma? And if he established this law for himself and his associates, the supposition that he did so is disgraceful. For it demonstrates that those who lived with Pythagoras were anthropophagites.

[ 185 ]

24. For we say that the very contrary of what he conjectured would happen. For, if we abstained from animals, we should not only be deprived of pleasure and riches of this kind, but we should also lose our fields, which would be destroyed by wild beasts; since the whole earth would be occupied by serpents and birds, so that it would be difficult to plough the land; the scattered seeds would immediately he gathered by the birds; and all such fruits as had arrived at perfection, would be consumed by quadrupeds. But men being oppressed by such a want of food, would be compelled, by bitter necessity, to attack each other. 25. Moreover, the Gods themselves, for the sake of a remedy, have delivered mandates to many persons about sacrificing animals. For history is full of instances of the Gods having ordered certain persons to sacrifice animals, and, when sacrificed, to eat them. For, in the return of the Heraclidae, those who engaged in war against Lacedsemon, in conjunction with Eurysthenes and Proscles, through a want of necessaries, were compelled to eat serpents, which the land at that time afforded for the nutriment of the army. In Libya, also, a cloud of locusts fell for the relief of another army that was oppressed by hunger. The same thing likewise happened at Gades. Bogus was a king of the Mauritanians, who was slain by Agrippa in Mothone. He in that place attacked the temple of Hercules, which was most rich. But it was the custom of the priests daily to sprinkle the altar with blood. That this, however, was not effected by the decision of men, but by that of divinity, the occasion at that time demonstrated. For, the seige being continued for a long time, victims were wanting. But the priest being dubious how he should act, had the following vision in a dream. He seemed to himself to be standing in the middle of the pillars of the temple of Hercules, and afterwards to see a bird sitting opposite to the altar, and endeavouring to fly to it, but which at length flew into his hands. He also saw that the altar was sprinkled with its blood. Seeing this, he rose as soon as it was day, and went to the altar, and standing on the turret, as he thought he did in his dream, he looked round, and saw the very bird which he had seen in his sleep. Hoping, therefore, that his dream would be fulfilled, he stood still, saw the bird fly to the altar and sit upon it, and deliver itself into the hands of the high priest. Thus the bird was sacrificed, and the altar sprinkled with blood. That, however, which happened at Cyzicus, is still more celebrated than this event. For Mithridates having besieged this city, the festival of Proserpine was then celebrated, in which it was requisite to sacrifice an ox. But the sacred herds, from which it was necessary the victim should be taken, fed opposite to the city, on the continent 11: and one of them was already marked for this purpose. When, therefore, the hour demanded the sacrifice, the ox lowed, and swam over the sea, and the guards of the city opened the gates to it. Then

[ 186 ]

the ox directly ran into the city, and stood at the altar, and was sacrificed to the Goddess. Not unreasonably, therefore, was it thought to be most pious to sacrifice many animals, since it appeared that the sacrifice of them was pleasing to the Gods. 26. But what would be the condition of a city, if all the citizens were of this opinion, [viz. that they should abstain from destroying animals?] For how would they repel their enemies, when they were attacked by them, if they were careful in the extreme not to kill any one of them? In this case, indeed, they must be immediately destroyed. And it would be too prolix to narrate other difficulties and inconveniences, which would necessarily take place. That it is not, however, impious to slay and feed on animals, is evident from this, that Pythagoras himself, though those prior to him permitted the athletae to drink milk, and to eat cheese, irrigated with water; but others, posterior to him, rejecting this diet, fed them with dry figs; yet he, abrogating the ancient custom, allowed them to feed on flesh, and found that such a diet greatly increased their strength. Some also relate, that the Pythagoreans themselves did not spare animals when they sacrificed to the gods. Such, therefore, are the arguments of Clodius, Heraclides Ponticus, Hermachus the Epicurean, and the Stoics and Peripatetics [against abstinence from animal food] among which also are comprehended the arguments which were sent to us by you, O Castricius. As, however, I intend to oppose these opinions, and those of the multitude, I may reasonably premise what follows. 27. In the first place, therefore, it must be known that my discourse does not bring with it an exhortation to every description of men. For it 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. 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. For, neither in this common life can there be one and the same exhortation to the sleeper, who endeavours to obtain sleep through the whole of life, and who, for this purpose, procures from all places things of a soporiferous nature, as there is to him who is anxious to repel sleep, and to dispose everything about him to a vigilant condition. But to the former it is necessary to recommend intoxication, surfeiting, and satiety, and to exhort him to choose a dark house, and A bed, luxuriant, broad, and soft, — as the poets say; and that he should procure for himself all such things as are of a soporiferous nature, and which are effective of sluggishness and oblivion, whether they are odours, or ointments, or are liquid or solid medicines. And to the latter it is requisite [ 187 ]

to advise the use of a drink sober and without wine, food of an attenuated nature, and almost approaching to fasting; a house lucid, and participating of a subtle air and wind, and to urge him to be strenuously excited by solicitude and thought, and to prepare for himself a small and hard bed. But, whether we are naturally adapted to this, I mean to a vigilant life, so as to grant as little as possible to sleep, since we do not dwell among those who are perpetually vigilant, or whether we are designed to be in a soporiferous state of existence, is the business of another discussion, and is a subject which requires very extended demonstrations. 28. To the man, however, who once suspects the enchantments attending our journey through the present life, and belonging to the place in which we dwell; who also perceives himself to be naturally vigilant, and considers the somniferous nature of the region which he inhabits; — to this man addressing ourselves, we prescribe food consentaneous to his suspicion and knowledge of this terrene abode, and exhort him to suffer the somnolent to be stretched on their beds, dissolved in sleep. For it is requisite to be cautious, lest as those who look on the blear-eyed contract on ophthalmy, and as we gape when present with those who are gaping, so we should be filled with drowsiness and sleep, when the region which we inhabit is cold, and adapted to fill the eyes with rheum, as being of a marshy nature, and drawing down all those that dwell in it to a somniferous and oblivious condition. If, therefore, legislators had ordained laws for cities, with a view to a contemplative and intellectual life, it would certainly be requisite to be obedient to those laws, and to comply with what they instituted concerning food. But if they established their laws, looking to a life according to nature, and which is said to rank as a medium, [between the irrational and the intellectual life,] and to what the vulgar admit, who conceive externals, and things which pertain to the body to be good or evil, why should anyone, adducing their laws, endeavour to subvert a life, which is more excellent than every law which is written and ordained for the multitude, and which is especially conformable to an unwritten and divine law? For such is the truth of the case. 29. The contemplation which procures for us felicity, does not consist, as some one may think it does, in a multitude of discussions and disciplines; nor does it receive any increase by a quantity of words. For if this were the case, nothing would prevent those from being happy by whom all disciplines are collected together [and comprehended]. Now, however, every discipline by no means gives completion to this contemplation, nor even the disciplines which pertain to truly existing beings, unless there is a conformity to them of our nature 12 and life. For since there are, as it is said, in every purpose three 13 ends, the end with us is to obtain the contemplation of real being, the

[ 188 ]

attainment of it procuring, as much as it is possible for us, a conjunction of the contemplator with the object of contemplation. For the reascent of the soul is not to anything else than true being itself, nor is its conjunction with any other thing. But intellect is truly-existing being; so that the end is to live according to intellect. Hence such discussions and exoteric disciplines as impede our purification, do not give completion to our felicity. If, therefore, felicity consisted in literary attainments, this end might be obtained by those who pay no attention to their food and their actions. But since for this purpose it is requisite to exchange the life which the multitude lead for another, and to become purified both in words and deeds, let us consider what reasonings and what works will enable us to obtain this end. 30. Shall we say, therefore, that they will be such as separate us from sensibles, and the passions which pertain to them, and which elevate us as much as possible to an intellectual, unimaginative, and impassive life; but that the contraries to these are foreign, and deserve to be rejected? And this by so much the more, as they separate us from a life according to intellect. But, I think, it must be admitted, that we should follow the object to which intellect attracts us. For we resemble those who enter into, or depart from a foreign region, not only because we are banished from our intimate associates, but in consequence of dwelling in a foreign land, we are filled with barbaric passions, and manners, and legal institutes, and to all these have a great propensity. Hence, he who wishes to return to his proper kindred and associates, should not only with alacrity begin the journey, but, in order that he may be properly-received, should meditate how he may divest himself of everything of a foreign nature which he has assumed, and should recall to his memory such things as he has forgotten, and without which he cannot be admitted by his kindred and friends. After the same manner, also, it is necessary, if we intend to return to things which are truly our own, that we should divest ourselves of every thing of a mortal nature which we have assumed, together with an adhering affection towards it, and which is the cause of our descent [into this terrestrial region;] and that we should excite our recollection of that blessed and eternal essence, and should hasten our return to the nature which is without colour and without quality, earnestly endeavouring to accomplish two things; one, that we may cast aside every thing material and mortal; but the other, that we may properly return, and be again conversant with our true kindred, ascending to them in a way contrary to that in which we descended hither. For we were intellectual natures, and we still are essences purified from all sense and irrationality; but we are complicated with sensibles, through our incapability of eternally associating with the intelligible, and through the power of being conversant with terrestrial concerns. For all the powers which energize in conjunction with sense and body, are injured, in consequence of the soul not abiding in [ 189 ]

the intelligible; (just as the earth, when in a bad condition, though it frequently receives the seed of wheat, yet produces nothing but tares), and this is through a certain depravity of the soul, which does not indeed destroy its essence from the generation of irrationality, but through this is conjoined with a mortal nature, and is drawn down from its own proper to a foreign condition of being. 31. So that, if we are desirous of returning to those natures with which we formerly associated, we must endeavour to the utmost of our power to withdraw ourselves from sense and imagination, and the irrationality with which they are attended, and also from the passions which subsist about them, as far as the necessity of our condition in this life will permit. But such things as pertain to intellect should be distinctly arranged, procuring for it peace and quiet from the war with the irrational part; that we may not only be auditors of intellect and intelligibles, but may as much as possible enjoy the contemplation of them, and, being established in an incorporeal nature, may truly live through intellect; and not falsely in conjunction with things allied to bodies. We must therefore divest ourselves of our manifold garments, both of this visible and fleshly vestment, and of those with which we are internally clothed, and which are proximate to our cutaneous habiliments; and we must enter the stadium naked and unclothed, striving for [the most glorious of all prizes] the Olympia of the soul. The first thing, however, and without which we cannot contend, is to divest ourselves of our garments. But since of these some are external and others internal, thus also with respect to the denudation, one kind is through things which are apparent, but another through such as are more unapparent. Thus, for instance, not to eat, or not to receive what is offered to us, belongs to things which are immediately obvious; but not to desire is a thing more obscure; so that, together with deeds, we must also withdraw ourselves from an adhering affection and passion towards them. For what benefit shall we derive by abstaining from deeds, when at the same time we tenaciously adhere to the causes from which the deeds proceed? 32. But this departure [from sense, imagination, and irrationality,] may be effected by violence, and also by persuasion and by reason, through the wasting away, and, as it may be said, oblivion and death of the passions; which, indeed, is the best kind of departure, since it is accomplished without oppressing that from which we are divulsed. For, in sensibles, a divulsion by force is not effected without either a laceration of a part, or a vestige of avulsion. But this separation is introduced by a continual negligence of the passions. And this negligence is produced by an abstinence from those sensible perceptions which excite the passions, and by a persevering attention to intelligibles. And among these passions or perturbations, those which arise from food are to be enumerated. [ 190 ]

33. We should therefore abstain, no less than from other things, from certain food, viz., such as is naturally adapted to excite the passive part of our soul, concerning which it will be requisite to consider as follows: There are two fountains whose streams irrigate the bond by which the soul is bound to the body; and from which the soul being filled as with deadly potions, becomes oblivious of the proper objects of her contemplation. These fountains are pleasure and pain; of which sense indeed is preparative, and the perception which is according to sense, together with the imaginations, opinions, and recollections which accompany the senses. But from these, the passions being excited, and the whole of the irrational nature becoming fattened, the soul is drawn downward, and abandons its proper love of true being. As much as possible, therefore, we must separate ourselves from these. But the separation must be effected by an avoidance of the passions which subsist through the senses and the irrational part. But the senses are employed either on objects of the sight, or of the hearing, or of the taste, or the smell, or the touch; for sense is as it were the metropolis of that foreign colony of passions which we contain. Let us, therefore, consider how much fuel of the passions enters into us through each of the senses. For this is effected partly by the view of the contests of horses and the athletae, or those whose bodies are contorted in dancing; and partly from the survey of beautiful women. For these, ensnaring the irrational nature, attack and subjugate it by all-various deceptions. 34. For the soul, being agitated with Bacchic fury through all these by the irrational part, is made to leap, to exclaim and vociferate, the external tumult being inflamed by the internal, and which was first enkindled by sense. But the excitations through the ears, and which are of a passive nature, are produced by certain noises and sounds, by indecent language and defamation, so that many through these being exiled from reason, are furiously agitated, and some, becoming effeminate, exhibit all-various convolutions of the body. And who is ignorant how much the use of fumigations, and the exhalations of sweet odours, with which lovers supply the objects of their love, fatten the irrational part of the soul? But what occasion is there to speak of the passions produced through the taste? For here, especially, there is a complication of a twofold bond; one which is fattened by the passions excited by the taste; and the other, which we render heavy and powerful, by the introduction of foreign bodies [i.e. of bodies different from our own]. For, as a certain physician said, those are not the only poisons which are prepared by the medical art; but those likewise which we daily assume for food, both in what we eat, and what we drink, and a thing of a much more deadly nature is imparted to the soul through these, than from the poisons which are compounded for the purpose of destroying the body. And as to the touch, it does all but transmute the soul into the body, and produces in it certain inarticulate sounds, such as [ 191 ]

frequently take place in inanimate bodies. And from all these, recollections, imaginations, and opinions being collected together, excite a swarm of passions, viz. of fear, desire, anger, love, voluptuousness,14 pain, emolation, solicitude, and disease, and cause the soul to be full of similar perturbations. 35. Hence, to be purified from all these is most difficult, and requires a great contest, and we must bestow much labour both by night and by day to be liberated from an attention to them, and this, because we are necessarily complicated with sense. Whence, also, as much as possible, we should withdraw ourselves from those places in which we may, though unwillingly, meet with this hostile crowd. From experience, also, we should avoid a contest with it, and even a victory over it, and the want of exercise from inexperience. 36. For we learn, that this conduct was adopted by some of the celebrated ancient Pythagoreans and wise men; some of whom dwelt in the most solitary places; but others in temples and sacred groves, from which, though they were in cities, all tumult and the multitude were expelled. But Plato chose to reside in the Academy, a place not only solitary and remote from the city, but which was also said to be insalubrious. Others have not spared even their eyes, through a desire of not being divulsed from the inward contemplation [of reality]. If some one, however, at the same time that he is conversant with men, and while he is filling his senses with the passions pertaining to them, should fancy that he can remain impassive, he is ignorant that he both deceives himself and those who are persuaded by him, nor does he see that we are enslaved to many passions, through not alienating ourselves from the multitude. For he did not speak vainly, and in such a way as to falsify the nature of [the Coryphaean] philosophers, who said of them, “These, therefore, from their youth, neither know the way to the forum, nor where the court of justice or senate-house is situated, or any common place of assembly belonging to the city. They likewise neither hear nor see laws, or decrees, whether orally promulgated or written. And as to the ardent endeavours of their companions to obtain magistracies, the associations of these, their banquets and wanton feastings, accompanied by pipers, these they do not even dream of accomplishing. But whether any thing in the city has happened well or ill, or what evil has befallen any one from his progenitors, whether male or female, these are more concealed from such a one, than, as it is said, how many measures called choes the sea contains. And besides this, he is even ignorant that he is ignorant 15 of all these particulars. For he does not abstain from them for the sake of renown, but, in reality, his body only dwells, and is conversant in the city; but his reasoning power considering all these as trifling and of no value, “he is

[ 192 ]

borne away”, according to Pindar, “on all sides, and does not apply himself to anything which is near.” 37. In what is here said, Plato asserts, that the Coryphaean philosopher, by not at all mingling himself with the above-mentioned particulars, remains impassive to them. Hence, he neither knows the way to the court of justice nor the senate-house, nor any thing else which has been before enumerated. He does not say, indeed, that he knows and is conversant with these particulars, and that, being conversant, and filling his senses with them, yet does not know anything about them; but, on the contrary, he says, that abstaining from them, he is ignorant that he is ignorant of them. He also adds, that this philosopher does not even dream of betaking himself to banquets. Much less, therefore, would he be indignant, if deprived of broth, or pieces of flesh; nor, in short, will he admit things of this kind. And will he not rather consider the abstinence from all these as trifling, and a thing of no consequence, but the assumption of them to be a thing of great importance and noxious? For since there are two paradigms in the order of things, one of a divine nature, which is most happy, the other of that which is destitute of divinity, and which is most miserable 16; the Coryphaean philosopher will assimilate himself to the one, but will render himself dissimilar to the other, and will lead a life conformable to the paradigm to which he is assimilated, viz. a life satisfied with slender food, and sufficient to itself, and in the smallest degree replete with mortal natures. 38. Hence, as long as any one is discordant about food, and contends that this or that thing should be eaten, but does not conceive that, if it were possible, we should abstain from all food, assenting by this contention to his passions, such a one forms a vain opinion, as if the subjects of his dissension were things of no consequence. He, therefore, who philosophizes, will not separate himself [from his terrestrial bonds] by violence; for he who is compelled to do this, nevertheless remains there from whence he was forced to depart. Nor must it be thought, that he who strengthens these bonds, effects a thing of small importance. So that only granting to nature what is necessary, and this of a light quality, and through more slender food, he will reject whatever exceeds this, as only contributing to pleasure. For he will be persuaded of the truth of what Plato says, that sense is a nail by which the soul is fastened to bodies 17, through the agglutination of the passions, and the enjoyment of corporeal delight. For if sensible perceptions were no impediment to the pure energy of the soul, why would it be a thing of a dire nature to be in body, while at the same time the soul remained impassive to the motions of the body?

[ 193 ]

39. How is it, also, that you have decided and said, that you are not passive to things which you suffer, and that you are not present with things by which you are passively affected? For intellect, indeed, is present with itself, though we are not present with it. But he who departs from intellect, is in that place to which he departs; and when, by discursive energies, he applies himself upwards and downwards by his apprehension of things, he is there where his apprehension is. But it is one thing not to attend to sensibles, in consequence of being present with other things, and another for a man to think, that though he attends to sensibles yet he is not present with them. Nor can any one show that Plato admits this, without at the same time demonstrating himself to be deceived. He, therefore, who submits to the assumption of [every kind of] food, and voluntarily betakes himself to [alluring] spectacles, to conversation with the multitude, and laughter; such a one, by thus acting, is there where the passion is which he sustains. But he who abstains from these in consequence of being present with other things, he it is who, through his unskilfulness, not only excites laughter in Thracian maid-servants, but in the rest of the vulgar, and when he sits at a banquet, falls into the greatest perplexity, not from any defect of sensation, or from a superior accuracy of sensible perception, and energizing with the irrational part of the soul alone; for Plato does not venture to assert this; but because, in slanderous conversation, he has nothing reproachful to say of anyone, as not knowing any evil of anyone, because he has not made individuals the subject of his meditation. Being in such perplexity, therefore, he appears, says Plato, to be ridiculous; and in the praises and boastings of others, as he is manifestly seen to laugh, not dissembling, but, in reality, he appears to be delirious. 40. So that, through ignorance of, and abstaining from sensible concerns, he is unacquainted with them. But it is by no means to be admitted, that though he should be familiar with sensibles, and should energize through the irrational part, yet it is possible for him [at the same time] genuinely to survey the objects of intellect. For neither do they who assert that we have two souls, admit that we can attend at one and the same time to two different things. For thus they would make a conjunction of two animals, which being employed in different energies, the one would not be able to perceive the operations of the other. 41. But why should it be requisite that the passions should waste away, that we should die with respect to them, and that this should be daily the subject of our meditation, if it was possible for us, as some assert, to energize according to intellect, though we are at the same time intimately connected with mortal concerns, and this without the intuition of intellect? For intellect sees, and intellect hears [as Epicharmus says]. But if while eating luxuriously, and drinking the sweetest wine, it were possible to be present with immaterial natures, why may not this be frequently effected while you [ 194 ]

are present with, and are performing things which it is not becoming even to mention? For these passions every where proceed from the boy 18 which is in us. And you certainly will admit that the baser these passions are, the more we are drawn down towards them. For what will be the distinction which ought here to be made, if you admit that to some things it is not possible to be passive, without being present with them, but that you may accomplish other things, at the same time that you are surveying intelligibles? For it is not because some things are apprehended to be base by the multitude, but others not. For all the above mentioned passions are base. So that to the attainment of a life according to intellect, it is requisite to abstain from all these, in the same manner as from venereal concerns. To nature, therefore, but little food must be granted, through the necessity of generation [or of our connexion with a flowing condition of being.] For, where sense and sensible apprehension are, there a departure and separation from the intelligible take place; and by how much stronger the excitation is of the irrational part, by so much the greater is the departure from intellection. For it is not possible for us to he borne along to this place and to that, while we are here, and yet be there, [i.e. be present with an intelligible essence.] For our attentions to things are not effected with a part, but with the whole of ourselves. 42. But to fancy that he who is passively affected according to sense, may, nevertheless, energize about intelligibles, has precipitated many of the Barbarians to destruction; who arrogantly assert, that though they indulge in every kind of pleasure, yet they are able to convert themselves to things of a different nature from sensibles, at the same time that they are energizing with the irrational part. For I have heard some persons patronizing their infelicity after the following manner. “We are not,” say they, “defiled by food, as neither is the sea by the filth of rivers. For we have dominion over all eatables, in the same manner as the sea over all humidity. But if the sea should shut up its mouth, so as not to receive the streams that now flow into it, it would be indeed, with respect to itself, great; but, with respect to the world, small, as not being able to receive dirt and corruption. If, however, it was afraid of being defiled, it would not receive these streams; but knowing its own magnitude, it receives all things, and is not averse to anything which proceeds into it. In like manner, say they, we also, if we were afraid of food, should be enslaved by the conception of fear. But it is requisite that all things should be obedient to us. For, if we collect a little water, indeed, which has received any filth, it becomes immediately defiled and oppressed by the filth; but this is not the case with the profound sea. Thus, also, aliments vanquish the pusillanimous; but where there is an immense liberty with respect to food, all things are received for nutriment, and no defilement is produced.” These men, therefore, deceiving themselves by arguments of

[ 195 ]

this kind, act in a manner conformable to their deception. But, instead of obtaining liberty, being precipitated into an abyss of infelicity, they are suffocated. This, also, induced some of the Cynics to be desirous of eating every kind of food, in consequence of their pertinaciously adhering to the cause of errors, which we are accustomed to call a thing of an indifferent nature. 43. The man, however, who is cautious, and is suspicious of the enchantments of nature, who has surveyed the essential properties of body, and knows that it was adapted as an instrument to the powers of the soul, will also know how readily passion is prepared to accord with the body, whether we are willing or not, when anything external strikes it, and the pulsation at length arrives at perception. For perception is, as it were, an answer to [that which causes the perception.] But the soul cannot answer unless she wholly converts herself to the sound, and transfers her animadversive eye to the pulsation. In short, the irrational part not being able to judge to what extent, how, whence, and what thing ought to be the object of attention, but of itself being inconsiderate, like horses without a charioteer 19; whither it verges downward, thither it is borne along, without any power of governing itself in things external. Nor does it know the fit time or the measure of the food which should be taken, unless the eye of the charioteer is attentive to it, which regulates and governs the motions of irrationality, this part of the soul being essentially blind. But he who takes away from reason its dominion over the irrational part, and permits it to be borne along, conformably to its proper nature: such a one, yielding to desire and anger, will suffer them to proceed to whatever extent they please. On the contrary, the worthy man will so act that his deeds may be conformable to presiding reason, even in the energies of the irrational part. 44. And in this the worthy appears to differ from the depraved man, that the former has every where reason present, governing and guiding, like a charioteer, the irrational part; but the latter performs many things without reason for his guide. Hence the latter is said to be most irrational, and is borne along in a disorderly manner by irrationality; but the former is obedient to reason, and superior to every irrational desire. This, therefore, is the cause why the multitude err in words and deeds, in desire and anger, and why, on the contrary, good men act with rectitude, viz. that the former suffer the boy within them to do whatever it pleases; but the latter give themselves up to the guidance of the tutor of the boy, [i.e. to reason] and govern what pertains to themselves in conjunction with it. Hence in food, and in other corporeal energies and enjoyments, the charioteer being present, defines what is commensurate and opportune. But when the charioteer is absent, and, as some say, is occupied in his own concerns, then, if he also has with him our attention, he does not permit it to be disturbed, or at all to

[ 196 ]

energize with the irrational power. If, however, he should permit our attention to be directed to the boy, unaccompanied by himself, he would destroy the man, who would be precipitately borne along by the folly of the irrational part. 45. Hence, to worthy men, abstinence in food, and in corporeal enjoyments and actions, is more appropriate than abstinence in what pertains to the touch; because though, while we touch bodies, it is necessary we should descend from our proper manners to the instruction of that which is most irrational in us; yet this is still more necessary in the assumption of food. For the irrational nature is incapable of considering what will be the effect of it, because this part of the soul is essentially ignorant of that which is absent. But, with respect to food, if it were possible to be liberated from it, in the same manner as from visible objects, when they are removed from the view; for we can attend to other things when the imagination is withdrawn from them; — if this were possible, it would be no great undertaking to be immediately emancipated from the necessity of the mortal nature, by yielding, in a small degree, to it. Since, however, a prolongation of time in cooking and digesting food, and together with this the co-operation of sleep and rest, are requisite, and, after these, a certain temperament from digestion, and a separation of excrements, it is necessary that the tutor of the boy within us should be present, who, selecting things of a light nature, and which will be no impediment to him, may concede these to nature, in consequence of foreseeing the future, and the impediment which will be produced by his permitting the desires to introduce to us a burden not easily to be borne, through the trifling pleasure arising from the deglutition of food. 46. Reason, therefore, very properly rejecting the much and the superfluous, will circumscribe what is necessary in narrow boundaries, in order that it may not be molested in procuring what the wants of the body demand, through many things being requisite; nor being attentive to elegance, will it need a multitude of servants; nor endeavour to receive much pleasure in eating, nor, through satiety, to be filled with much indolence; nor by rendering its burden [the body] more gross, to become somnolent; nor through the body being replete with things of a fattening nature, to render the bond more strong, but himself more sluggish and imbecile in the performance of his proper works. For, let any man show us who endeavours as much as possible to live according to intellect, and not to be attracted by the passions of the body, that animal food is more easily procured than the food from fruits and herbs; or that the preparation of the former is more simple than that of the latter, and, in short, that it does not require cooks, but, when compared with inanimate nutriment, is unattended by pleasure, is lighter in concoction, and is more rapidly digested, excites in

[ 197 ]

a less degree the desires, and contributes less to the strength of the body than a vegetable diet. 47. If, however, neither any physician, nor philosopher, nor wrestler, nor any one of the vulgar has dared to assert this, why should we not willingly abstain from this corporeal burden? Why should we not, at the same time, liberate ourselves from many inconveniences by abandoning a fleshly diet? For we should not be liberated from one only, but from myriads of evils, by accustoming ourselves to be satisfied with things of the smallest nature; viz. we should be freed from a superabundance of riches, from numerous servants, a multitude of utensils, a somnolent condition, from many and vehement diseases, from medical assistance, incentives to venery, more gross exhalations, an abundance of excrements, the crassitude of the corporeal bond, from the strength which excites to [base] actions, and, in short, from an Iliad of evils. But from all these, inanimate and slender food, and which is easily obtained, will liberate us, and will procure for us peace, by imparting salvation to our reasoning power. For, as Diogenes says, thieves and enemies are not found among those that feed on maize 20, but sycophants and tyrants are produced from those who feed on flesh. The cause, however, of our being in want of many things being taken away, together with the multitude of nutriment introduced into the body, and also the weight of digestibles being lightened, the eye of the soul will become free, and will be established as in a port beyond the smoke and the waves of the corporeal nature. 48. And this neither requires monition, nor demonstration, on account of the evidence with which it is immediately attended. Hence, not only those who endeavour to live according to intellect, and who establish for themselves an intellectual life, as the end of their pursuits, have perceived that this abstinence was necessary to the attainment of this end; but, as it appears to me, nearly every philosopher, preferring frugality to luxury, has rather embraced a life which is satisfied with a little, than one that requires a multitude of things. And, what will seem paradoxical to many, we shall find that this is asserted and praised by men who thought that pleasure is the end of those that philosophize. For most of the Epicureans, beginning from the Corypheus and their sect, appear to have been satisfied with maize and fruits, and have filled their writings with showing how little nature requires, and that its necessities may be sufficiently remedied by slender and easily procured food. 49. For the wealth, say they, of nature is definite, and easily obtained; but that which proceeds from vain opinions, is indefinite, and procured with difficulty. For things which may be readily obtained, remove in a beautiful and abundantly sufficient manner that which, through indigence, is the cause of molestation to the flesh; and these are

[ 198 ]

such as have the simple nature of moist and dry aliments. But every thing else, say they, which terminates in luxury, is not attended with a necessary appetition, nor is it necessarily produced from a certain something which is in pain; but partly arises from the molestation and pungency solely proceeding from something not being present; partly from joy; and partly from vain and false dogmas, which neither pertain to any natural defect, nor to the dissolution of the human frame, those not being present. For things which may every where be obtained, are sufficient for those purposes which nature necessarily requires. But these, through their simplicity and paucity, may be easily procured. And he, indeed, who feeds on flesh, requires also inanimate natures; but he who is satisfied with things inanimate, is easily supplied from the half of what the other wants, and needs but a small expense for the preparation of his food. 50. They likewise say, it is requisite that he who prepares the necessaries of life, should not afterwards make use of philosophy as an accession; but, having obtained it, should, with a confident mind, thus genuinely endure 21 the events of the day. For we shall commit what pertains to ourselves to a bad counsellor, if we measure and procure what is necessary to nature, without philosophy. Hence it is necessary that those who philosophize should provide things of this kind, and strenuously attend to them as much as possible. But, so far as there is a dereliction from thence, [i.e. from philosophizing], which is not capable of effecting a perfect purification,22 so far we should not endeavour to procure either riches or nutriment. In conjunction, therefore, with philosophy, we should engage in things of this kind, and be immediately persuaded that it is much better to pursue what is the least, the most simple, and light in nutriment. For that which is least, and is unattended with molestation, is derived from that which is least.23 51. The preparation also of these things, draws along with it many impediments, either from the weight of the body, [which they are adapted to increase,] or from the difficulty of procuring them, or from their preventing the continuity of the energy of our most principal reasonings 24, or from some other cause. For this energy then becomes immediately useless, and does not remain unchanged by the concomitant perturbations. It is necessary, however, that a philosopher should hope that he may not be in want of anything through the whole of life. But this hope will be sufficiently preserved by things which are easily procured; while, on the other hand, this hope is frustrated by things of a sumptuous nature. The multitude, therefore, on this account, though their possessions are abundant, incessantly labour to obtain more, as if they were in want. But the recollection that the greatest possible wealth has no power worth

[ 199 ]

mentioning of dissolving the perturbations of the soul, will cause us to be satisfied with things easily obtained, and of the most simple nature. Things also, which are very moderate and obvious, and which may be procured with the greatest facility, remove the tumult occasioned by the flesh. But the deficiency of things of a luxurious nature will not disturb him who meditates on death. Farther still, the pain arising from indigence is much milder than that which is produced by repletion, and will be considered to be so by him who does not deceive himself with vain opinions. Variety also of food not only does not dissolve the perturbations of the soul, but does not even increase the pleasure which is felt by the flesh. For this is terminated as soon as pain is removed 25. So that the feeding on flesh does not remove any thing which is troublesome to nature, nor effect any thing which, unless it is accomplished, will end in pain. But the pleasantness with which it is attended is violent, and, perhaps, mingled with the contrary. For it does not contribute to the duration of life, but to the variety of pleasure; and in this respect resembles venereal enjoyments, and the drinking of foreign wines, without which nature is able to remain. For those things, without which nature cannot last, are very few, and may be procured easily, and in conjunction with justice, liberty, quiet, and abundant leisure. 52. Again, neither does animal food contribute, but is rather an impediment to health. For health is preserved through those things by which it is recovered. But it is recovered through a most slender and fleshless diet; so that by this also it is preserved. If, however, vegetable food does not contribute to the strength of Milo, nor, in short, to an increase of strength, neither does a philosopher require strength, or an increase of it, if he intends to give himself up to contemplation, and not to an active and intemperate life. But it is not at all wonderful, that the vulgar should fancy that animal food contributes to health; for they also think that sensual enjoyments and venery are preservative of health, none of which benefit anyone; and those that engage in them must be thankful if they are not injured by them. And if many are not of this opinion, it is nothing to us. For neither is any fidelity and constancy in friendship and benevolence to be found among the vulgar; nor are they capable of receiving these, nor of participating of wisdom, or any portion of it which deserves to be mentioned. Neither do they understand what is privately or publicly advantageous; nor are they capable of forming a judgment of depraved and elegant manners, so as to distinguish the one from the other. And, in addition to these things, they are full of insolence and intemperance. On this account, there is no occasion to fear that there will not be those who will feed on animals.

[ 200 ]

53. For if all men conceived rightly, there would be no need of fowlers, or hunters, or fishermen, or swineherds. But animals governing themselves, and having no guardian and ruler, would quickly perish, and be destroyed by others, who would attack them and diminish their multitude, as is found to be the case with myriads of animals on which men do not feed. But all-various folly incessantly dwelling with mankind, there will be an innumerable multitude of those who will voraciously feed on flesh. It is necessary however to preserve health; not by the fear of death, but for the sake of not being impeded in the attainment of the good which is derived from contemplation. But that which is especially preservative of health, is an undisturbed state of the soul, and a tendency of the reasoning power towards truly existing being. For much benefit is from hence derived to the body, as our associates have demonstrated from experience. Hence some who have been afflicted with the gout in the feet and hands, to such a degree as to be infested with it for eight entire years, have expelled it through abandoning wealth, and betaking themselves to the contemplation of divinity 26. At the same time, therefore, that they have abandoned riches, and a solicitude about human concerns, they have also been liberated from bodily disease. So that a certain state of the soul greatly contributes both to health and to the good of the whole body. And to this also, for the most part, a diminution of nutriment contributes. In short, as Epicurus likewise has rightly said, that food is to be avoided, the enjoyment of which we desire and pursue, but which, after we have enjoyed, we rank among things of an unacceptable nature. But of this kind is every thing luxuriant and gross. And in this manner those are affected, who are vehemently desirous of such nutriment, and through it are involved either in great expense, or in disease, or repletion, or the privation of leisure 27. 54. Hence also, in simple and slender food, repletion is to be avoided, and every where we should consider what will be the consequence of the possession or enjoyment of it, what the magnitude of it is, and what molestation of the flesh or of the soul it is capable of dissolving. For we ought never to act indefinitely, but in things of this kind we should employ a boundary and measure; and infer by a reasoning process, that he who fears to abstain from animal food, if he suffers himself to feed on flesh through pleasure, is afraid of death. For immediately, together with a privation of such food, he conceives that something indefinitely dreadful will be present, the consequence of which will be death. But from these and similar causes, an insatiable desire is produced of riches, possessions, and renown, together with an opinion that every good is increased with these in a greater extent of time, and the dread of death as of an infinite evil. The pleasure however which is produced through luxury, does not even approach to that which is experienced by him who lives with frugality. For such a one has great

[ 201 ]

pleasure in thinking how little he requires. For luxury, astonishment about venereal occupations, and ambition about external concerns, being taken away, what remaining use can there be of idle wealth, which will be of no advantage to us whatever, but will only become a burden, no otherwise than repletion? - while, on the other hand, the pleasure arising from frugality is genuine and pure. It is also necessary to accustom the body to become alienated, as much as possible, from the pleasure of the satiety arising from luxurious food, but not from the fullness produced by a slender diet, in order that moderation may proceed through all things, and that what is necessary, or what is most excellent, may fix a boundary to our diet. For he who thus mortifies his body will receive every possible good, through being sufficient to himself, and an assimilation to divinity. And thus also, he will not desire a greater extent of time, as if it would bring with it an augmentation of good. He will likewise thus be truly rich, measuring wealth by a natural bound, and not by vain opinions. Thus too, he will not depend on the hope of the greatest pleasure, the existence of which is incredible, since this would be most troublesome. But he will remain satisfied with his present condition, and will not be anxious to live for a longer period of time. 55. Besides this also, is it not absurd, that he who is in great affliction, or, is in some grievous external calamity, or is bound with chains, does not even think of food, nor concern himself about the means of obtaining it; but when it is placed before him, refuses what is necessary to his subsistence; and that the man who is truly in bonds, and is tormented by inward calamities, should endeavour to procure a variety of eatables, paying attention to things through which he will strengthen his bonds? And how is it possible that this should be the conduct of men who know what they suffer, and not rather of those who are delighted with their calamities, and who are ignorant of the evils which they endure? For these are affected in a way contrary to those who are in chains, and who are conscious of their miserable condition; since these, experiencing no gratification in the present life, and being full of immense perturbation, insatiably aspire after another life. For no one who can easily liberate himself from all perturbations, will desire to possess silver tables and couches, and to have ointments and cooks, splendid vessels and garments, and suppers remarkable for their sumptuousness and variety; but such a desire arises from a perfect uselessness to every purpose of the present life, from an indefinite generation of good, and from immense perturbation. Hence some do not remember the past, the recollection of it being expelled by the present; but others do not inquire about the present, because they are not gratified with existing circumstances. 56. The contemplative philosopher, however will invariably adopt a slender diet. For he knows the particulars in which his bond consists, so that he is not capable of desiring [ 202 ]

luxuries. Hence, being delighted with simple food, he will not seek for animal nutriment, as if he was not satisfied with a vegetable diet. But if the nature of the body in a philosopher was not such as we have supposed it to be, and was not so tractable, and so adapted to have its wants satisfied through things easily procured, and it was requisite to endure some pains and molestations for the sake of true salvation, ought we not [willingly] to endure them? For when it is requisite that we should be liberated from disease, do we not voluntarily sustain many pains, viz., while we are cut, covered with blood, burnt, drink bitter medicines, and are purged through the belly, through emetics, and through the nostrils, and do we not also reward those who cause us to suffer in this manner? And this being the case, ought we not to sustain every thing, though of the most afflictive nature, with equanimity, for the sake of being purified from internal disease, since our contest is for immortality, and an association with divinity, from which we are prevented through an association with the body? By no means, therefore, ought we to follow the laws of the body, which are violent and adverse to the laws of intellect, and to the paths which lead to salvation. Since, however, we do not now philosophize about the endurance of pain, but about the rejection of pleasures which are not necessary, what apology can remain for those, who impudently endeavour to defend their own intemperance? 57. For if it is requisite not to dissemble any thing through fear, but to speak freely, it is not otherwise possible to obtain the end [of a contemplative life], than by adhering to God, as if fastened by a nail, being divulsed from body, and those pleasures of the soul which subsist through it; since our salvation is effected by deeds, and not by a mere attention to words. But as it is not possible with any kind of diet, and, in short, by feeding on flesh, to become adapted to an union with even some partial deity, much less is this possible with that God who is beyond all things, and is above a nature simply incorporeal; but after all-various purifications, both of soul and body, he who is naturally of an excellent disposition, and lives with piety and purity, will scarcely be thought worthy to perceive him. So that, by how much more the Father of all things excels in simplicity, purity, and sufficiency to himself, as being established far beyond all material representation, by so much the more is it requisite, that he who approaches to him should be in every respect pure and holy, beginning from his body, and ending internally, and distributing to each of the parts, and in short to every thing which is present with him a purity adapted to the nature of each. Perhaps, however, these things will not be contradicted by any one. But it may be doubted, why we admit abstinence from animal food to pertain to purity, though in sacrifices we slay sheep and oxen, and conceive that these immolations are pure and acceptable to the Gods. Hence, since the

[ 203 ]

solution of this requires a long discussion, the consideration of sacrifices must be assumed from another principle.

[ 204 ]

ENDNOTES. 1 Porphyry elsewhere calls this Firmus Castricius his friend and fellow disciple. See more concerning him in Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus. 2 παρανομηματα. Porphyry calls the conduct of Firmus illegitimate, because the feeding on flesh is for the most part contrary to the laws of genuine philosophy. 3 The original in this place is ἤ δι απατην ουν, ἤ το μηδεν διαφερειν ηγεισθαι προς φρονησιν, κ.τ.λ.; but, for ἤ το μηδεν διαφερειν, I read δια το μηδεν διαφερειν. And this appears to be the reading which Felicianus found in his MS.; for his version of the passage is, “Vel igitur deceptione inductus, quod sive hoc sive ιλλο modo vescaris, &c.” 4 The philosopher was an auditor of Plato and Speusippus. 5 Hesiod. Op. et Di. lib. I. v. 275, &c. 6 This philosopher was a Mitylenaean, and is said to have been an auditor of, and also the successor of, Epicurus. 7 Iliad, XI. v. 479. 8 Iliad, IV. v 35. 9 Iliad, XXII. v. 347. 10 i.e Sacrifices from twelve animals. 11 For Cyzicus was situated in an island. 12 In the original εαν μη προση και̕ η κατ̕ αυτα φυσιωσις και ζων; but it is obviously necessary for φυσιωσις to read φησις. 13 viz. As it appears to me, a pleasurable, a profitable, and a virtuous end, which last is a truly beautiful and good end. 14 For φιλτρων here, I read φιληδονιων. 15 The multitude are ignorant that they are ignorant with respect to objects of all others the most splendid and real: but the Coryphaean philosopher is ignorant that he is ignorant with respect to objects most unsubstantial and obscure. The former ignorance is the consequence of a defect, but the latter of a transcendency of gnostic energy. What Porphyry here says of the Coryphaean philosopher, is derived from the Theaetus of Plato.

[ 205 ]

16 See p. 52 of my translation of the Theaetetus of Plato, from which Dialogue, what Porphyry here says, as well as what he a little before said, is derived. 17 See the Phaedo of Plato, where this is asserted. 18 Sense, and that which is beautiful in the energies of sense, are thus denominated by Plato. 19 The rational part of the soul is assimilated by Plato, in the Phaedrus, to a charioteer, and the two irrational parts, desire and anger, to two horses. See my translation of that Dialogue. 20 A kind of bread made of milk and flour. 21 In the original αλλα παρασκευασαμενον το θαρρειν τῃ φυχῃ γνησιως ουτως αντεχεσθαι των καθ̕ ημεραν. But the editor of the quarto edition of this work, who appears to have been nothing more than a mere verbal critic, says, on a note on this passage, that the word αντεχεσθαι, signifies pertinacissime illis inhaerere, nihil ultra studere; whereas it must be obvious to any man who understands what is here said, that in this place it signifies to endure. 22 In the original, ο μη κυριευσι της τελειας εκθαρρησεως; but for εκθαρρησεως I read with Felicianus εκκαθαρσεως. 23 In the original, ελαχιστον γαρ και το οχληρον εκ του αλαχιστου. But it is obviously necessary for οχληρον to read ανοχληρον, and yet this was not perceived by the German editor of this work, Jacob Rhoer. 24 i.e. Of our reasonings about intelligible objects. 25 Conformable to this, it is beautifully observed by Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, that corporeal pleasures are the remedies of pain, and that they fill up the indigence of nature, but do not perfect any energy of the [rational] soul. 26 This is said by Porphyry, in his Life of Plotinus, to have been the case with the senator Rogatianus. 27 And leisure, to those who know how rightly to employ it, is, as Socrates said, καλλιστον κτηματων, “the most beautiful of possessions.”

[ 206 ]

BOOK TWO 1. PU R S U I N G T H E R E FO R E the inquiries pertaining to simplicity and purity of diet, we have now arrived, O Castracius, at the discussion of sacrifices; the consideration of which is difficult, and at the same time requires much explanation, if we intend to decide concerning it in such a way as will be acceptable to the Gods. Hence, as this is the proper place for such a discussion, we shall now unfold what appears to us to be the truth on this subject, and what is capable of being narrated, correcting what was overlooked in the hypothesis proposed from the beginning. 2. In the first place therefore we say, it does not follow because animals are slain that it is necessary to eat them. Nor does he who admits the one, I mean that they should be slain, entirely prove that they should be eaten. For the laws permit us to defend ourselves against enemies who attack us [by killing them]; but it did not seem proper to these laws to grant that we should eat them, as being a thing contrary to the nature of man. In the second place, it does not follow, that because it is proper to sacrifice certain animals to daemons, or Gods, or certain powers, through causes either known or unknown to men, it is therefore necessary to feed on animals. For it may be shown, that men assumed animals in sacrifices, which no one even of those who are accustomed to feed on flesh, would endure to taste. Moreover, in the slaying of animals, the same error is overlooked. For it does not follow, that if it is requisite to kill some, it is therefore necessary to slay all animals, as neither must it be granted, that if irrational animals, therefore men also may be slain. 3. Besides, abstinence from animal food, as we have said in the first book, is not simply recommended to all men, but to philosophers, and to those especially, who suspend their felicity from God, and the imitation of him. For neither in the political life do legislators ordain that the same things shall be performed by private individuals and the priests, but conceding certain things to the multitude, pertaining to food and other necessaries of life, they forbid the priests to use them, punishing the transgression of their mandates by death, or some great fine. 4. For these things not being confused, but distinguished in a proper manner, most of the opposing arguments will be found to be vain. For the greater part of them endeavour to show, either that it is necessary to slay animals, on account of the injuries sustained from them, and it is assumed as a thing consequent, that it is proper to eat them; or because animals are slain in sacrifices, it is inferred that therefore they may be eaten by men. And again, if it is requisite to destroy certain animals, on account of their ferocity, it is conceived, that it must follow, that tame animals likewise ought to be slain. [ 207 ]

If, also, some persons may be allowed to eat them, such as those who engage in athletic exercises, soldiers, and those who are employed in bodily labour, therefore this may likewise be permitted to philosophers; and if to some, therefore to all of them; though all these inferences are bad, and are incapable of exhibiting any necessity for their adoption. And, indeed, that all of them are bad, will be immediately evident to men that are not contentious. But some of these inferences we have already confuted, and we shall show the fallacy of others as we proceed. Now, however, we shall discuss what pertains to the consideration of sacrifices, unfolding the principles from which they originated, what the first sacrifices were, and of what kind they were; how they came to be changed, and whence the change arose; whether all things ought to be sacrificed by a philosopher, and from what animals sacrifices are made. In short, we shall unfold every thing pertaining to the proposed subject, discovering some things ourselves, but receiving others from the ancients, and as much as possible directing our attention to what is commensurate and adapted to the hypothesis, [or thing intended to be investigated.] 5. It seems that the period is of immense antiquity, from which a nation the most learned of all others 1 as Theophrastus says, and who inhabit the most sacred region made by the Nile, began first, from the vestal hearth, to sacrifice to the celestial Gods, not myrrh, or cassia, nor the first-fruits of things mingled with the crocus of frankincense; for these were assumed many generations afterwards, in consequence of error gradually increasing, when men, wanting the necessaries of life, offered, with great labour and many tears, some drops of these, as first-fruits to the Gods. Hence, they did not at first sacrifice these, but grass, which, as a certain soft wool of prolific nature, they plucked with their hands. For the earth produced trees prior to animals; and long before trees grass, which germinates annually. Hence, gathering the blades and roots, and all the germs of this herb, they committed them to the flames, as a sacrifice to the visible celestial Gods, to whom they paid immortal honour through fire. For to these, also, we preserve in temples an immortal fire, because it is especially most similar to these divinities. But from the exhalation or smoke (εκ δε της θυμιασεως) of things produced in the earth, they called the offerings θυμιατηρια, thumiateria; to sacrifice, they called θυειν, thuein, and the sacrifices, θυσιαι, thusiai; all which, as if unfolding the error which was afterwards introduced, we do not rightly interpret; since we call the worship of the Gods through the immolation of animals thusia. But so careful were the ancients not to transgress this custom, that against those who, neglecting the pristine, introduced novel modes of sacrificing, they employed execrations 2 and therefore they now denominate the substances which are used for fumigations αρωματα, aromata, i.e. aromatics, [or

[ 208 ]

things of an execrable nature.] The antiquity, however, of the before-mentioned fumigations may be perceived by him who considers that many now also sacrifice certain portions of odoriferous wood. Hence, when after grass, the earth produced trees, and men at first fed on the fruits of the oak; they offered to the Gods but few of the fruits on account of their rarity, but in sacrifices they burnt many of its leaves. After this, however, when human life proceeded to a milder nutriment, and sacrifices from nuts were introduced, they said enough of the oak. 6. But as barley first appeared after leguminous substances, the race of men used it in primitive sacrifices, moistening it for this purpose with water. Afterwards, when they had broken and bruised it, so as to render it eatable, as the instruments of this operation afforded a divine assistance to human life, they concealed them in an arcane place, and approached them as things of a sacred nature. But esteeming the food produced from it when bruised to be blessed, when compared with their former nutriment, they offered, in fine, the first-fruits of it to the Gods. Hence also now, at the end of the sacrifices, we use fruits that are bruised or ground; testifying by this how much fumigations have departed from their ancient simplicity; at the same time not perceiving on what account we perform each of these. Proceeding, however, from hence, and being more abundantly supplied, both with other fruits and wheat, the first-fruits of cakes, made of the fine flour of wheat, and of everything else, were offered in sacrifices to the Gods; many flowers being collected for this purpose, and with these all that was conceived to be beautiful, and adapted, by its odour, to a divine sense, being mingled. From these, also, some were used for garlands, and others were given to the fire. But when they had discovered the use of the divine drops of wine, and honey, and likewise of oil, for the purposes of human life, then they sacrificed these to their causes, the Gods. 7. And these things appear to be testified by the splendid procession in honour of the Sun and the Hours, which is even now performed at Athens, and in which there were other herbs besides grass, and also acorns, the fruit of the crab-tree, barley, wheat, a heap of dried figs, cakes made of wheaten and barley flour; and, in the last place, an earthen pot. This mode, however, of offering first-fruits in sacrifices, having, at length, proceeded to great illegality, the assumption of immolations, most dire and full of cruelty, was introduced; so that it would seem that the execrations, which were formerly uttered against us, have now received their consummation, in consequence of men slaughtering animals, and defiling altars with blood; and this commenced from that period in which mankind tasted of blood, through having experienced the evils of famine and war. Divinity, therefore, as Theophrastus says, being indignant, appears to have inflicted a punishment adapted to the crime. Hence some men became atheists; but others, in consequence of forming erroneous conceptions of a divine nature, may [ 209 ]

be more justly called κακοφρονες, kakophrones, than κακοθεοι, kakotbeoi 3, because they think that the Gods are depraved, and in no respect naturally more excellent than we are. Thus, therefore, some were seen to live without sacrificing any thing, and without offering the first-fruits of their possessions to the Gods; but others sacrificed improperly, and made use of illegal oblations. 8. Hence the Thoes 4, who dwell in the confines of Thrace, as they neither offered any first-fruits, nor sacrificed to the Gods, were at that time suddenly taken away from the rest of mankind; so that neither the inhabitants, nor the city, nor the foundations of the houses, could by any one be found. “Men prone to ill, denied the Gods their due, And by their follies made their days but few. The altars of the bless’d neglected stand, Without the offerings which the laws demand; But angry Jove in dust this people laid, Because no honours to the Gods they paid.” Hesiod. Op. et Di. lib. i. v. 133. Nor did they offer first-fruits to the Gods, as it was just that they should. But with respect to the Bassarians, who formerly were not only emulous of sacrificing bulls, but also ate the flesh of slaughtered men, in the same manner as we now do with other animals; for we offer to the Gods some parts of them as first-fruits; and eat the rest; — with respect to these men, who has not heard, that insanely rushing on and biting each other, and in reality feeding on blood, they did not cease to act in this manner till the whole race was destroyed of those who use sacrifices of this kind? 9. The sacrifice, therefore, through animals is posterior and most recent, and originated from a cause which is not of a pleasing nature, like that of the sacrifice from fruits, but received its commencement either from famine, or some other unfortunate circumstance. The causes, indeed, of the peculiar mactations among the Athenians, had their beginning, either in ignorance, or anger, or fear. For the slaughter of swine is attributed to an involuntary error of Clymene, who, by unintentionally striking, slew the animal. Hence her husband, being terrified as if he had perpetrated an illegal deed, consulted the oracle of the Pythian God about it. But as the God did not condemn what had happened, the slaughter of animals was afterwards considered as a thing of an indifferent nature. The inspector, however, of sacred rites, who was the offspring of prophets, wishing to make an offering of first-fruits from sheep, was permitted to do so, it is said, by an oracle, but with much caution and fear. For the oracle was as follows: —

[ 210 ]

“Offspring of prophets, sheep by force to slay, The Gods permit not thee: but with wash’d hands For thee ’tis lawful any sheep to kill, That dies a voluntary death.” 10. But a goat was first slain in Icarus, a mountain of Attica, because it had cropped a vine. And Diomus, who was a priest of Jupiter Polieus, was the first that slew an ox; because, when the festival sacred to Jupiter, and called Diipolia, was celebrated, and fruits were prepared after the ancient manner, an ox approaching tasted the sacred cake. But the priest, being aided by others who were present, slew the ox. And these are the causes, indeed, which are assigned by the Athenians for this deed; but by others, other causes are narrated. All of them however, are full of explanations that are not holy. But most of them assign famine, and the injustice with which it is attended, as the cause. Hence men having tasted of animals, they offered them in sacrifice, as first-fruits, to the Gods; but prior to this, they were accustomed to abstain from animal food. Whence, since the sacrifice of animals is not more ancient than necessary food, it may be determined from this circumstance what ought to be the nutriment of men. But it does not follow, because men have tasted of and offered animals in sacrifices as firstfruits, that it must necessarily be admitted to be pious to eat that which was not piously offered to the Gods. 11. But what especially proves that every thing of this kind originated from injustice, is this, that the same things are neither sacrificed nor eaten in every nation, but that they conjecture what it is fit for them to do from what they find to be useful to themselves. With the Egyptians, therefore, and Phoenicians, any one would sooner taste human flesh than the flesh of a cow. The cause, however, is that this animal being useful, is also rare among them. Hence, though they eat bulls, and offer them in sacrifice as first-fruits, yet they spare cows for the sake of their progeny, and ordain that, if any one kill them, it shall be considered as an expiation. And thus, for the sake of utility in one and the same genus of animals, they distinguish what is pious, and what is impious. So that these particulars subsisting after this manner, Theophrastus reasonably forbids those to sacrifice animals who wish to be truly pious; employing these, and other similar arguments, such as the following. 12. In the first place, indeed, because we sacrificed animals through the occurrence, as we have said, of a greater necessity. For pestilence and war were the causes that introduced the necessity of eating them. Since, therefore, we are supplied with fruits, what occasion is there to use the sacrifice of necessity? In the next place, the remunerations of, and thanks for benefits, are to be given differently to different persons, according to the worth of the benefit conferred; so that the greatest [ 211 ]

remunerations, and from things of the most honourable nature, are to be given to those who have benefited us in the greatest degree, and especially if they are the causes of these gifts. But the most beautiful and honourable of those things, by which the Gods benefit us, are the fruits of the earth. For through these they preserve us, and enable us to live legitimately; so that, from these we ought to venerate them. Besides, it is requisite to sacrifice those things by the sacrifice of which we shall not injure any one. For nothing ought to be so inoxious to all things as sacrifice. But if someone should say, that God gave animals for our use, no less than the fruits of the earth, yet it does not follow that they are, therefore, to be sacrificed, because in so doing they are injured, through being deprived of life. For sacrifice is, as the name implies, something holy.5 But no one is holy who requites a benefit from things which are the property of another, whether he takes fruits or plants from one who is unwilling to be deprived of them. For how can this be holy, when those are injured from whom they are taken? If, however, he who takes away fruit from others does not sacrifice with sanctity, it cannot be holy to sacrifice things taken from others, which are in every respect more honourable than the fruits of the earth. For a more dire deed is thus perpetrated. But soul is much more honourable than the vegetable productions of the earth, which it is not fit, by sacrificing animals, that we should take away. 13. Some one, however, perhaps may say, that we also take away something from plants [when we eat, and sacrifice them to the Gods]. But the ablation is not similar; since we do not take this away from those who are unwilling that we should. For, if we omitted to gather them, they would spontaneously drop their fruits. The gathering of the fruits, also, is not attended with the destruction of the plants, as it is when animals lose their animating principle. And, with respect to the fruit which we receive from bees, since this is obtained by our labour, it is fit that we should derive a common benefit from it. For bees collect their honey from plants; but we carefully attend to them. On which account it is requisite that such a division should be made [of our attention and their labour] that they may suffer no injury. But that which is useless to them, and beneficial to us, will be the reward which we receive from them [of our attention to their concerns]. In sacrifices, therefore, we should abstain from animals. For, though all things are in reality the property of the Gods, yet plants appear to be our property; since we sow and cultivate them, and nourish them by other attentions which we pay to them. We ought to sacrifice, therefore, from our own property, and not from the property of others; since that which may be procured at a small expense, and which may easily be obtained, is more holy, more acceptable to the Gods, and better adapted to the purposes of sacrifice, and to the exercise of continual piety. Hence, that which is

[ 212 ]

neither holy, nor to be obtained at a small expense, is not to be offered in sacrifice, even though it should be present. 14. But that animals do not rank among things which may be procured easily, and at a small expense, may be seen by directing our view to the greater part of our race: for we are not now to consider that some men abound in sheep, and others in oxen. In the first place, therefore, there are many nations that do not possess any of those animals which are offered in sacrifice, some ignoble animals, perhaps, excepted. And, in the second place, most of those that dwell in cities themselves, possess these but rarely. But if some one should say that the inhabitants of cities have not mild fruits in abundance; yet, though this should be admitted, they are not in want of the other vegetable productions of the earth; nor is it so difficult to procure fruits as it is to procure animals. Hence an abundance of fruits, and other vegetables, is more easily obtained than that of animals. But that which is obtained with facility, and at a small expense, contributes to incessant and universal deity. 15. Experience also testifies that the Gods rejoice in this more than in sumptuous offerings. For when that Thessalian sacrificed to the Pythian deity oxen with gilt horns, and hecatombs, Apollo said, that the offering of Hermioneus was more gratifying to him, though he had only sacrificed as much meal as he could take with his three fingers out of a sack. But when the Thessalian, on hearing this, placed all the rest of his offerings on the altar the God again said, that by so doing his present was doubly more unacceptable to him than his former offering. Hence the sacrifice which is attended with a small expense is pleasing to the Gods, and divinity looks more to the disposition and manners of those that sacrifice, than to the multitude of the things which are sacrificed. 16. Theopompus likewise narrates things similar to these, viz. that a certain Magnesian came from Asia to Delphi; a man very rich, and abounding in cattle, and that he was accustomed every year to make many and magnificent sacrifices to the Gods, partly through the abundance of his possessions, and partly through piety and wishing to please the Gods. But being thus disposed, he came to the divinity at Delphi, bringing with him a hecatomb for the God, and magnificently honouring Apollo, he consulted his oracle. Conceiving also that he worshipped the Gods in a manner more beautiful than that of all other men, he asked the Pythian deity who the man was that, with the greatest promptitude, and in the best manner, venerated divinity, and made the most acceptable sacrifices, conceiving that on this occasion the God would deem him to be pre-eminent. The Pythian deity however answered, that Clearchus, who dwelt in Methydrium, a town of Arcadia, worshipped the Gods in a way surpassing that of all other men. But the Magnesian being astonished, was desirous of seeing Clearchus, and [ 213 ]

of learning from him the manner in which he performed his sacrifices. Swiftly, therefore, betaking himself to Methydrium, in the first place, indeed, he despised the smallness and vileness of the town, conceiving that neither any private person, nor even the whole city, could honour the Gods more magnificently and more beautifully than he did. Meeting, however, with the man, he thought fit to ask him after what manner he reverenced the Gods. But Clearchus answered him, that he diligently sacrificed to them at proper times in every month at the new moon, crowning and adorning the statues of Hermes and Hecate, and the other sacred images which were left to us by our ancestors, and that he also honoured the Gods with frankincense, and sacred wafers and cakes. He likewise said, that he performed public sacrifices annually, omitting no festive day; and that in these festivals he worshipped the Gods, not by slaying oxen, nor by cutting victims into fragments, but that he sacrificed whatever he might casually meet with, sedulously offering the first-fruits to the Gods of all the vegetable productions of the seasons, and of all the fruits with which he was supplied. He added, that some of these he placed before the [statues of the] Gods,6 but that he burnt others on their altars; and that, being studious of frugality, he avoided the sacrificing of oxen. 17. By some writers, also, it is related, that certain tyrants, after the Carthaginians were conquered, having, with great strife among themselves, placed hetacombs before Apollo. Afterwards inquired of the God with which of the offerings he was most delighted; and that he answered, contrary to all their expectation, that he was most pleased with the cakes of Docimus. But this Docimus was an inhabitant of Delphi, and cultivated some rugged and stony land. Docimus, therefore, coming on that day from the place which he cultivated, took from a bag which was fastened round him a few handfuls of meal, and sacrificed them to the God, who was more delighted with his offering than with the magnificent sacrifices of the tyrants. Hence, also a certain poet, because the affair was known, appears to have asserted things of a similar kind, as we are informed by Antiphanes in his Mystics: In simple offerings most the Gods delight: For though before them hecatombs are placed, Yet frankincense is burnt the last of all. An indication this that all the rest, Preceding, was a vain expense, bestowed Through ostentation, for the sake of men; But a small offering gratifies the Gods. Menander likewise, in the comedy called the Morose, says,

[ 214 ]

Pious th’oblation which with frankincense And Popanum7 is made; for in the fire Both these, when placed, divinity accepts. 18. On this account also, earthen, wooden, and wicker vessels were formerly used, and especially in public sacrifices, the ancients being persuaded that divinity is delighted with things of this kind. Whence, even now, the most ancient vessels, and which are made of wood, are thought to be more divine, both on account of the matter and the simplicity of the art by which they were fashioned. It is said, therefore, that Aeschylus, on his brother’s asking him to write a Paean in honour of Apollo, replied, that the best Paean was written by Tynnichus8; and that if his composition were to be compared with that of Tynnichus, the same thing would take place as if new were compared with ancient statues. For the latter, though they are simple in their formation, are conceived to be divine; but the former, though they are most accurately elaborated, produce indeed admiration, but are not believed to possess so much of a divine nature. Hence Hesiod, praising the law of ancient sacrifices, very properly says, Your country’s rites in sacrifice observe: [In pious works] the ancient law is best 9. 19. But those who have written concerning sacred operations and sacrifices, admonish us to be accurate in preserving what pertains to the popana, because these are more acceptable to the Gods than the sacrifice which is performed through the mactation of animals. Sophocles also, in describing a sacrifice which is pleasing to divinity, says in his Polyidus: The skins of sheep in sacrifice were used, Libations too of wine, grapes well preserved, And fruits collected in a heap of every kind; The olive’s pinguid juice, and waxen work Most variegated, of the yellow bee. Formerly, also, there were venerable monuments in Delos of those who came from the Hyperboreans, bearing handfuls [of fruits]. It is necessary, therefore, that, being purified in our manners, we should make oblations, offering to the Gods those sacrifices which are pleasing to them, and not such as are attended with great expense. Now, however, if a man’s body is not pure and invested with a splendid garment, he does not think it is qualified for the sanctity of sacrifice. But when he has rendered his body splendid, together with his garment, though his soul at the same time is not, purified from vice, yet he betakes himself to sacrifice, and thinks that it is a thing of no consequence; as if divinity did not especially rejoice in that which is most divine in our [ 215 ]

nature, when it is in a pure condition, as being allied to his essence. In Epidaurus, therefore, there was the following inscription on the doors of the temple: Into an odorous temple, he who goes Should pure and holy be; but to be wise In what to sanctity pertains, is to be pure. 20. But that God is not delighted with the amplitude of sacrifices, but with any casual offering, is evident from this, that of our daily food, whatever it may be that is placed before us, we all of us make an offering to the Gods, before we have tasted it ourselves; this offering being small indeed, but the greatest testimony of honour to divinity. Moreover, Theophrastus shows, by enumerating many of the rites of different countries, that the sacrifices of the ancients were from fruits, and he narrates what pertains to libations in the following manner: “Ancient sacrifices were for the most part performed with sobriety. But those sacrifices are sober in which the libations are made with water. Afterwards, however, libations were made with honey. For we first received this liquid fruit prepared for us by the bees. In the third place, libations were made with oil; and in the fourth and last place with wine.” 21. These things, however, are testified not only by the pillars which are preserved in Cyrbe 10, and which contain, as it were, certain true descriptions of the Cretan sacred rites of the Corybantes; but also by Empedocles, who, in discussing what pertains to sacrifices and theogony, or the generation of the Gods, says: With them nor Mars nor tumult dire was found, Nor Saturn, Neptune, or the sovereign Jove, But Venus [beauty’s] queen. And Venus is friendship. Afterwards he adds, With painted animals, and statues once Of sacred form, with unguents sweet of smell, The fume of frankincense and genuine myrrh, And with libations poured upon the ground Of yellow honey, Venus was propitious made. Which ancient custom is still even now preserved by some persons as a certain vestige of the truth. And in the last place, Empedocles says, Nor then were altars wet with blood of bulls Irrationally slain. 22. For, as it appears to me, when friendship and a proper sense of the duties pertaining to kindred natures, was possessed by all men, no one slaughtered any living being, in consequence of thinking that other animals were allied to him. But when

[ 216 ]

strife, and tumult, every kind of contention, and the principle of war, invaded mankind, then, for the first time, no one in reality spared any one of his kindred natures. The following particulars, likewise, ought to be considered: For, as though there is an affinity between us and noxious men, who, as it were, by a certain impetus of their own nature and depravity, are incited to injure anyone they may happen to meet, yet we think it requisite that all of them should be punished and destroyed; thus also, with respect to those irrational animals that are naturally malefic and unjust, and who are impelled to injure those that approach them, it is perhaps fit that they should be destroyed. But with respect to other animals who do not at all act unjustly, and are not naturally impelled to injure us, it is certainly unjust to destroy and murder them, no otherwise than it would be to slay men who are not iniquitous. And this seems to evince that the justice between us and other animals does not arise from some of them being naturally noxious and malefic, but others not, as is also the case with respect to men. 23. Are therefore those animals to be sacrificed to the Gods which are thought to be deserving of death? But how can this be possible, if they are naturally depraved? For it is no more proper to sacrifice such as these, than it would be to sacrifice mutilated animals. For thus, indeed, we shall offer the first-fruits of things of an evil nature, but we shall not sacrifice for the sake of honouring the Gods. Hence, if animals are to be sacrificed to the Gods, we should sacrifice those that are perfectly innoxious. It is however acknowledged, that those animals are not to be destroyed who do not at all injure us, so that neither are they to be sacrificed to the Gods. If, therefore, neither these, nor those that are noxious, are to be sacrificed, is it not evident that we should abstain from them more than from any thing else, and that we should not sacrifice any one of them, though it is fit that some of them should be destroyed? 24. To which may be added, that we should sacrifice to the Gods for the sake of three things, viz. either for the sake of honouring them, or of testifying our gratitude, or through our want of good. For, as we offer first-fruits to good men, thus also we think it is necessary that we should offer them to the Gods. But we honour the Gods, either exploring the means of averting evils, and obtaining good, or when we have been previously benefited, or in order that we may obtain some present advantage and assistance, or merely for the purpose of venerating the goodness of their nature. So that if the first-fruits of animals are to be offered to the Gods, some of them for the sake of this are to be sacrificed. For whatever we sacrifice, we sacrifice for the sake of some one of the above mentioned particulars. Is it therefore to be thought that God is honoured by us, when we are directly seen to act unjustly through the first-fruits which we offer to him? Or will he not rather think that he is dishonoured by such a sacrifice, in which, by immolating animals that have not at all injured us, we acknowledge that we have acted [ 217 ]

unjustly. So that no one of other animals is to be sacrificed for the sake of honouring divinity. Nor yet are they to be sacrificed for the purpose of testifying our gratitude to the Gods. For he who makes a just retribution for the benefits he has received, ought not to make it by doing an injury to certain other animals. For he will no more appear to make a retribution than he who, plundering his neighbour of his property, should bestow it on another person for the sake of honour. Neither are animals to be sacrificed for the sake of obtaining a certain good of which we are in want. For he who endeavours to be benefited by acting unjustly, is to be suspected as one who would not be grateful even when he is benefited. So that animals are not to be sacrificed to the Gods through the expectation of deriving advantage from the sacrifice. For he who does this, may perhaps elude men, but it is impossible that he can elude divinity. If, therefore, we ought to sacrifice for the sake of a certain thing, but this is not to be done for the sake of any of the before mentioned particulars, it is evident that animals ought not to be sacrificed. 25. For, by endeavouring to obliterate the truth of these things through the pleasures which we derive from sacrifices, we deceive ourselves, but cannot deceive divinity. Of those animals, therefore, which are of an ignoble nature, which do not impart to our life any superior utility, and which do not afford us any pleasure, we do not sacrifice any one to the Gods. For who ever sacrificed serpents, scorpions, and apes, or any one of such like animals? But we do not abstain from any one of those animals which afford a certain utility to our life, or which have something in them that contributes to our enjoyments; since we, in reality, cut their throats, and excoriate them, under the patronage of divinity 11. For we sacrifice to the Gods oxen and sheep, and besides these, stags and birds, and fat hogs, though they do not at all participate of purity, but afford us delight. And of these animals, indeed, some, by co-operating with our labours, afford assistance to our life, but others supply us with food, or administer to our other wants. But those which effect neither of these, yet, through the enjoyment which is derived from them, are slain by men in sacrifices similarly with those who afford us utility. We do not, however, sacrifice asses or elephants, or any other of those animals that cooperate with us in our labours, but are not subservient to our pleasure; though, sacrificing being excepted, we do not abstain from such like animals, but we cut their throats on account of the delight with which the deglutition of them is attended; and of those which are fit to be sacrificed, we do not sacrifice such as are acceptable to the Gods, but such as in a greater degree gratify the desires of men; thus testifying against ourselves, that we persist in sacrificing to the Gods, for the sake of our own pleasure, and not for the sake of gratifying the Gods.

[ 218 ]

26. But of the Syrians, the Jews indeed, through the sacrifice which they first made, even now, says Theophrastus, sacrifice animals, and if we were persuaded by them to sacrifice in the same way that they do, we should abstain from the deed. For they do not feast on the flesh of the sacrificed animals, but having thrown the whole of the victims into the fire, and poured much honey and wine on them during the night, they swiftly consume the sacrifice, in order that the all-seeing sun may not become a spectator of it. And they do this, fasting during all the intermediate days, and through the whole of this time, as belonging to the class of philosophers, and also discourse with each other about the divinity 12. But in the night, they apply themselves to the theory of the stars, surveying them, and through prayers invoking God. For these make offerings both of other animals and themselves, doing this from necessity, and not from their own will. The truth of this, however, may be learnt by any one who directs his attention to the Egyptians, the most learned of all men; who are so far from slaying other animals, that they make the images of these to be imitations of the Gods; so adapted and allied do they conceive these to be both to Gods and men. 27. For at first, indeed, sacrifices of fruits were made to the Gods; but, in the course of time, men becoming negligent of sanctity, in consequence of fruits being scarce, and through the want of legitimate nutriment, being impelled to eat each other, then supplicating divinity with many prayers, they first began to make oblations of themselves to the Gods, not only consecrating to the divinities whatever among their possessions was most beautiful, but, proceeding beyond this, they sacrificed those of their own species. Hence, even to the present time, not only in Arcadia, in the Lupercal festivals, and in Carthage, men are sacrificed in common to Saturn, but periodically, also, for the sake of remembering the legal institute, they sprinkle the altars of those of the same tribe with blood, although the rites of their sacrifices exclude, by the voice of the crier, him from engaging in them who is accused of human slaughter. Proceeding therefore from hence, they made the bodies of other animals supply the place of their own in sacrifices, and again, through a satiety of legitimate nutriment, becoming oblivious of piety, they were induced by voracity to leave nothing untasted, nothing undevoured. And this is what now happens to all men with respect to the aliment from fruits. For when, by the assumption of them, they have alleviated their necessary indigence, then searching for a superfluity of satiety, they labour to procure many things for food which are placed beyond the limits of temperance. Hence, as if they had made no ignoble sacrifices to the Gods, they proceeded also to taste the animals which they immolated; and from this, as a principle of the deed, the eating of animals became an addition to men to the nutriment derived from fruits. As, therefore, antiquity offered the

[ 219 ]

first produce of fruits to the Gods, and gladly, after their pious sacrifice, tasted what they offered, thus also, when they sacrificed the firstlings of animals to the divinities, they thought that the same thing ought to be done by them, though ancient piety did not ordain these particulars after this manner, but venerated each of the Gods from fruits. For with such oblations, both nature, and every sense of the human soul, are delighted. No altar then was wet with blood of bulls Irrationally slain; but this was thought To be of every impious deed the worst, Limbs to devour of brutes deprived of life. 28. The truth of this may also be perceived from the altar which is even now preserved about Delos, which, because no animal is brought to, or is sacrificed upon it, is called the altar of the pious. So that the inhabitants not only abstain from sacrificing animals, but they likewise conceive, that those who established, are similarly pious with those who use the altar. Hence, the Pythagoreans having adopted this mode of sacrifice, abstained from animal food through the whole of life. But when they distributed to the Gods a certain animal instead of themselves, they merely tasted of it, living in reality without touching other animals. We, however, do not act after this manner; but being filled with animal diet, we have arrived at this manifold illegality in our life by slaughtering animals, and using them for food. For neither is it proper that the altars of the Gods should be defiled with murder, nor that food of this kind should be touched by men, as neither is it fit that men should eat one another; but the precept which is still preserved at Athens, should be obeyed through the whole of life. 29. For formerly, as we have before observed, when men sacrificed to the Gods fruits and not animals, and did not assume the latter for food, it is said, that a common sacrifice being celebrated at Athens, one Diomus, or Sopater, who was not a native, but cultivated some land in Attica, seizing a sharp axe which was near to him, and being excessively indignant, struck with it an ox, who, coming from his labour, approached to a table, on which were openly placed cakes and other offerings which were to be burnt as a sacrifice to the Gods, and ate some, but trampled on the rest of the offerings. The ox, therefore, being killed, Diomus, whose anger was now appeased, at the same time perceived what kind of deed he had perpetrated. And the ox, indeed, he buried. But embracing a voluntary banishment, as if he had been accused of impiety, he fled to Crete. A great dryness, however, taking place in the Attic land from vehement heat, and a dreadful sterility of fruit, and the Pythian deity being in consequence of it consulted by the general consent, the God answered, that the Cretan exile must expiate the crime; and that, if the murderer was punished, and the statue of the slain ox was erected in the place in which it fell, this would be beneficial both to those who had and those who had [ 220 ]

not tasted its flesh. An inquiry therefore being made into the affair, and Sopater, together with the deed, having been discovered, he, thinking that he should be liberated from the difficulty in which he was now involved, through the accusation of impiety, if the same thing was done by all men in common, said to those who came to him, that it was necessary an ox should be slain by the city. But, on their being dubious who should strike the ox, he said that he would undertake to do it, if they would make him a citizen, and would be partakers with him of the slaughter. This, therefore, being granted, they returned to the city, and ordered the deed to be accomplished in such a way as it is performed by them at present, [and which was as follows:] 30. They selected virgins who were drawers of water; but these brought water for the purpose of sharpening an axe and a knife. And these being sharpened, one person gave the axe, another struck with it the ox, and a third person cut the throat of the ox. But after this, having excoriated the animal, all that were present ate of its flesh. These things therefore being performed, they sewed up the hide of the ox, and having stuffed it with straw, raised it upright in the same form which it had when alive, and yoked it to a plough, as if it was about to work with it. Instituting also a judicial process, respecting the slaughter of the ox, they cited all those who were partakers of the deed, to defend their conduct. But as the drawers of water accused those who sharpened the axe and the knife, as more culpable than themselves, and those who sharpened these instruments accused him who gave the axe, and he accused him who cut the throat of the ox, and this last person accused the knife, — hence, as the knife could not speak, they condemned it as the cause of the slaughter. From that time also, even till now, during the festival sacred to Jupiter, in the Acropolis, at Athens, the sacrifice of an ox is performed after the same manner. For, placing cakes on a brazen table, they drive oxen round it, and the ox that tastes of the cakes that are distributed on the table, is slain. The race likewise of those who perform this, still remains. And all those, indeed, who derive their origin from Sopater are called boutupoi [i.e. slayers of oxen]; but those who are descended from him that drove the ox round the table, are called kentriadai, [or stimulators.] And those who originate from him that cut the throat of the ox, are denominated daitroi, [or dividers,] on account of the banquet which takes place from the distribution of flesh. But when they have filled the hide, and the judicial process is ended, they throw the knife into the sea. 31. Hence, neither did the ancients conceive it to be holy to slay animals that cooperated with us in works beneficial to our life, and we should avoid doing this even now. And as formerly it was not pious for men to injure these animals, so now it should be considered as unholy to slay them for the sake of food. If, however, this is to be done from motives of religious reference of the Gods, yet every passion or affection which is [ 221 ]

essentially produced from bodies is to be rejected, in order that we may not procure food from improper substances, and thus have an incentive to violence as the intimate associate of our life. For by such a rejection we shall, at least, all of us derive great benefit in what pertains to be our mutual security, if we do not in anything else. For those whose sense is averse to the destruction of animals of a species different from their own, will evidently abstain from injuring those of their own kind. Hence it would perhaps have been best, if men in after-times had immediately abstained from slaughtering these animals; but since no one is free from error, it remains for posterity to take away by purifications the crime of their ancestors, respecting nutriment. This, however, will be effected, if, placing before our eyes, the dire nature of such conduct, we exclaim with Empedocles: Ah me, while yet exempt from such a crime, Why was I not destroyed by cruel Time, Before these lips began the guilty deed, On the dire nutriment of flesh to feed? For in those only the appropriate sense sympathetically grieves for errors that have been committed, who endeavour to find a remedy for the evils with which they are afflicted; so that every one, by offering pure and holy sacrifices to the divinity, may through sanctity obtain the greatest benefits from the Gods. 32. But the benefit derived from fruits is the first and the greatest of all others, and which, as soon as they are matured, should alone be offered to the Gods, and to Earth, by whom they are produced. For she is the common Vesta of Gods and men; and it is requisite that all of us, reclining on her surface, as on the bosom of our mother and nurse, should celebrate her divinity, and love her with a parental affection, as the source of our existence. For thus, when we exchange this life for another, we shall again be thought worthy of a residence in the heavens, and of associating with all the celestial Gods, whom, now beholding 13, we ought to venerate with those fruits of which they are the causes, sacrificing indeed to them from all these, when they have arrived at maturity, but not conceiving all of us to be sufficiently worthy to sacrifice to the Gods. For as all things are not to be sacrificed to the Gods, so neither perhaps are the Gods gratified by the sacrifice of everyone. This, therefore, is the substance of the arguments adduced by Theophrastus, to show that animals ought not to be sacrificed; exclusive of the interspersed fabulous narrations, and a few things which we have added to what he has said. 33. I, however, shall not attempt to dissolve the legal institutes which the several nations have established. For it is not my design at present to speak about a polity. But

[ 222 ]

as the laws by which we are governed permit us to venerate divinity by things of the most simple, and of an inanimate nature, hence, selecting that which is the least costly, let us sacrifice according to the law of the city, and endeavour to offer an appropriate sacrifice, approaching with consummate purity to the Gods. In short, if the oblation of first-fruits is of any value, and is an acknowledgment of thanks for the benefits which we receive, it will be most irrational to abstain ourselves from animals, and yet offer the first-fruits of these to the Gods. For neither are the Gods worse than we are, so as to be in want of those things of which we are not indigent, nor is it holy to offer the first-fruits of that nutriment from which we ourselves abstain. For we find it is usual with men, that, when they refrain from animal food, they do not make oblations of animals; but that they offer to the Gods the first-fruits of what they themselves eat. Hence also it is now fit, that he who abstains from animals should offer the first-fruits of things which he touches [for the purpose of food]. 34. Let us therefore also sacrifice, but let us sacrifice in such a manner as is fit, offering different sacrifices to different powers;14 to the God indeed who is above all things, as a certain wise man said, neither sacrificing with incense, nor consecrating any thing sensible. For there is nothing material, which is not immediately impure to an immaterial nature. Hence, neither is vocal language, nor internal speech, adapted to the highest God, when it is defiled by any passion of the soul; but we should venerate him in profound silence with a pure soul, and with pure conceptions about him. It is necessary, therefore, that being conjoined with and assimilated to him, we should offer to him, as a sacred sacrifice, the elevation of our intellect, which offering will be both a hymn and our salvation. In an impassive contemplation, therefore, of this divinity by the soul, the sacrifice to him is effected in perfection; but to his progeny, the intelligible Gods, hymns, orally enunciated, are to be offered. For to each of the divinities, a sacrifice is to be made of the first-fruits of the things which he bestows, and through which he nourishes and preserves us. As therefore, the husbandman offers handfuls of the fruits and berries which the season first produces; thus also we should offer to the divinities the first-fruits of our conceptions of their transcendent excellence, giving them thanks for the contemplation which they impart to us, and for truly nourishing us through the vision of themselves, which they afford us, associating with, appearing to, and shining upon us, for our salvation. 35. Now, however, many of those who apply themselves to philosophy are unwilling to do this; and, pursuing renown rather than honouring divinity, they are busily employed about statues, neither considering whether they are to be reverenced or not, nor endeavouring to learn from those who are divinely wise, to what extent, and to what

[ 223 ]

degree, it is requisite to proceed in this affair. We, however, shall by no means contend with these, nor are we very desirous of being well instructed in a thing of this kind; but imitating holy and ancient men, we offer to the Gods, more than anything else, the firstfruits of contemplation, which they have imparted to us, and by the use of which we become partakers of true salvation. 36. The Pythagoreans, therefore, diligently applying themselves to the study of numbers and lines, sacrificed for the most part from these to the Gods, denominating, indeed, a certain number Minerva, but another Diana, and another Apollo: and again, they called one number justice, but another temperance 15. In diagrams also they adopted a similar mode. And thus, by offerings of this kind, they rendered the Gods propitious to them, so as to obtain of them the object of their wishes, by the things which they dedicated to, and the names by which they invoked them. They likewise frequently employed their aid in divination, and if they were in want of a certain thing for the purpose of some investigation. In order, therefore to affect this, they made use of the Gods within the heavens, both the erratic and non-erratic, of all of whom it is requisite to consider the sun as the leader; but to rank the moon in the second place; and we should conjoin with these fire, in the third place, from its alliance to them, as the theologist 16 says. He also says that no animal is to be sacrificed; but that first-fruits are to be offered from meal and honey, and the vegetable productions of the earth. He adds, that fire is not to be enkindled on a hearth defiled with gore; and asserts other things of the like kind. For what occasion is there to transcribe all he says? For he who is studious of piety knows, indeed, that to the Gods no animal is to be sacrificed, but that a sacrifice of this kind pertains to daemons, and other powers, whether they are beneficent, or depraved. He likewise knows who those are that ought to sacrifice to these, and to what extent they ought to proceed in the sacrifices which they make. Other things, however, will be passed over by me in silence. But what some Platonists have divulged, I shall lay before the reader, in order that the things proposed to be discussed, may become manifest to the intelligent. What they have unfolded, therefore, is as follows: 37. The first God being incorporeal, immoveable, and impartible, and neither subsisting in any thing, nor restrained in his energies, is not, as has been before observed, in want of any thing external to himself, as neither is the soul of the world; but this latter, containing in itself the principle of that which is triply divisible, and being naturally self-motive, is adapted to be moved in a beautiful and orderly manner, and also to move the body of the world, according to the most excellent reasons [i.e. productive principles or powers]. It is, however, connected with and comprehends body,

[ 224 ]

though it is itself incorporeal, and liberated from the participation of any passion. To the remaining Gods, therefore, to the world, to the inerratic and erratic stars, who are visible Gods, consisting of soul and body, thanks are to be returned after the abovementioned manner, through sacrifices from inanimate natures. The multitude, therefore, of those invisible beings remains for us, whom Plato indiscriminately calls daemons 17; but of these, some being denominated by men, obtain from them honours, and other religious observances, similar to those which are paid to the Gods; but others, who for the most part are not explicitly denominated, receive an occult religious reverence and appellation from certain persons in villages and certain cities; and the remaining multitude is called in common by the name of daemons. The general persuasion, however, respecting all these invisible beings, is this, that if they become angry through being neglected, and deprived of the religious reverence which is due to them, they are noxious to those by whom they are thus neglected, and that they again become beneficent, if they are appeased by prayers, supplications, and sacrifices, and other similar rites. 38. But the confused notion which is formed of these beings, and which has proceeded to great crimination, necessarily requires that the nature of them should be distinguished according to reason. For perhaps it will be said, that it is requisite to show whence the error concerning them originated among men. The distinction, therefore, must be made after the following manner. Such souls as are the progeny of the whole soul of the universe, and who govern the great parts of the region under the moon, these, being incumbent on a pneumatic substance or spirit, and ruling over it conformably to reason, are to be considered as good daemons, who are diligently employed in causing every thing to be beneficial to the subjects of their government, whether they preside over certain animals, or fruits, which are arranged under their inspective care, or over things which subsist for the sake of these, such as showers of rain, moderate winds, serene weather, and other things which co-operate with these, such as the good temperament of the seasons of the year. They are also our leaders in the attainment of music, and the whole of erudition, and likewise of medicine and gymnastic, and of every thing else similar to these. For it is impossible that these daemons should impart utility, and yet become, in the very same things, the causes of what is detrimental. Among these two, those transporters, as Plato calls them, [in his Banquet] are to be enumerated, who announce the affairs of men to the Gods, and the will of the Gods to men; carrying our prayers, indeed, to the Gods as judges, but oracularly unfolding to us the exhortations and admonitions of the Gods. But such souls as do not rule over the pneumatic substance with which they are connected, but for the

[ 225 ]

most part are vanquished by it; these are vehemently agitated and borne along [in a disorderly manner,] when the irascible motions and the desires of the pneumatic substance, received an impetus. These souls, therefore, are indeed daemons, but are deservedly called malefic daemons. 39. All these being, likewise, and those who possess a contrary power, are invisible, and perfectly imperceptible by human senses; for they are not surrounded with a solid body, nor are all of them of one form, but they are fashioned in numerous figures. The forms, however, which characterize their pneumatic substance, at one time become apparent, but at another are invisible. Sometimes also those that are malefic, change their forms; but the pneumatic substance, so far as it is corporeal, is passive and corruptible: and though, because it is thus bound by the souls [that are incumbent on it,] the form of it remains for a long time, yet it is not eternal. For it is probable that something continually flows from it, and also that it is nourished. The pneumatic substance, therefore, of good daemons, possesses symmetry, in the same manner as the bodies of the visible Gods; but the spirit of malefic dsemons is deprived of symmetry, and in consequence of its abounding in passivity, they are distributed about the terrestrial region. Hence, there is no evil which they do not attempt to effect; for, in short, being violent and fraudulent in their manners, and being also deprived of the guardian care of more excellent dsemons, they make, for the most part, vehement and sudden attacks; sometimes endeavouring to conceal their incursions, but at other times assaulting openly. Hence the molestations which are produced by them are rapid; but the remedies and corrections which proceed from more excellent dsemons, appear to be more slowly effected: for every thing which is good being tractable and equable, proceeds in an orderly manner, and does not pass beyond what is fit. By forming this opinion, therefore, you will never fall into that most absurd notion, that evil may be expected from the good, or good from the evil. For this notion is not truly attended with absurdity, but the multitude, receiving through it the most erroneous conceptions of the Gods, disseminate them among the rest of mankind. 40. It must be admitted, therefore, that one of the greatest injuries occasioned by malefic dsemons is this, that though they are the causes of the calamities which take place upon the earth, such as pestilence, sterility, earthquakes, excessive dryness, and the like, yet they endeavour to persuade us, that they are the causes of things the most contrary to these, viz. of fertility, [salubrity, and elementary peace.] Hence, they exonerate themselves from blame, and, in the first place, endeavour to avoid being detected as the sources of injury; and, in the next place, they convert us to supplications and sacrifices to the beneficent Gods, as if they were angry. But they effect these, and things of a similar nature, in consequence of wishing to turn us from right conceptions [ 226 ]

of the Gods, and convert us to themselves; for they are delighted with all such as act thus incongruously and discordantly, and, as it were, assuming the persons of other Gods, they enjoy the effects of our imprudence and folly; conciliating to themselves the good opinion of the vulgar, by inflaming the minds of men with the love of riches, power, and pleasure, and fulling them with the desire of vain glory, from which sedition, and war, and other things allied to these, are produced. But that which is the most dire of all things, they proceed still farther, and persuade men that similar things are effected by the greatest Gods, and do not stop till they even subject the most excellent of the divinities to these calumnies, through whom they say every thing is in perfect confusion. And not only the vulgar are affected in this manner, but not a few also of those who are conversant with philosophy. The cause of this, however, extends equally to philosophers, and the vulgar; for of philosophers, those who do not depart from the prevailing notions, fall into the same error with the multitude; and again, the multitude, on hearing assertions from celebrated men conformable to their own opinions, are in a greater degree corroborated in conceiving things of this kind of the Gods. 41. For poetry also inflames the opinions of men, by employing a diction adapted to produce astonishment and enchantment, and not only allures the ears, but is also capable of procuring belief in things that are most impossible. At the same time, however, it is requisite to be firmly persuaded, that what is good can never injure, or what is evil can never be beneficial; for, as Plato says, it is not the province of heat to refrigerate, but of that which is contrary to heat; and, in like manner, neither is it the province of that which is just to injure. But divinity is naturally the most just of all things; since otherwise he would not be divinity. Hence this power and portion of good is not to be abscinded from beneficent daemons; for the power which is naturally adapted, and wishes to injure, is contrary to the power which is beneficent: but contraries can never subsist about the same thing. As malefic daemons, therefore, injure the mortal race in many respects, and sometimes in things of the greatest consequence, good daemons not only never cease to act conformably to their office, but also, as much as possible, presignify to us the dangers which are impendent from malefic daemons, unfolding these through dreams, through a divinely inspired soul, and through many other things; so that he who is capable of explaining what is signified, may know and avoid all the perils with which he is threatened. For they indicate [future events] to all men, but every one cannot understand what they indicate nor is every one able to read what is written by them; but he alone is able to do this, who has learnt their letters. All enchantment, however, [or witchcraft,] is effected through daemons of a contrary nature; for those who perpetrate evil through enchantments, especially venerate these malefic beings, and the power that presides over them. [ 227 ]

42. For they are full of every kind of imagination, and are sufficiently qualified to deceive, through effects of a prodigious nature; and through these, unhappy men procure philtres, and amatory allurements. For all intemperance, and hope of possessing wealth and renown, and especially deception, exist through these, since falsehood is allied to these malevolent beings; for they wish to he considered as Gods, and the power which presides over them is ambitious to appear to be the greatest God. These are they that rejoice in libations, and the savour of sacrifices, through which their pneumatic vehicle is fattened; for this vehicle lives through vapours and exhalations, and the life of it is various through various exhalations. It is likewise corroborated by the savour of blood and flesh. 43. On this account, a wise and temperate man will be religiously afraid to use sacrifices of this kind, through which he will attract to himself such-like daemons; but he will endeavour in all possible ways to purify his soul. For these malefic beings do not attack a pure soul, because it is dissimilar to them; but if it is necessary to cities to render them propitious, this is nothing to us. For by these riches, and things external and corporeal, are thought to be good, and their contraries evil; but the smallest attention is paid by them to the good of the soul. We however, to the utmost of our ability, endeavour not to be in want of those things which they impart; but all our endeavour is to become similar to God, and to the [divine] powers with which he is surrounded both from what pertains to the soul, and from externals; and this is effected through an entire liberation from the dominion of the passions, an evolved perception of truly existing beings, and a vital tendency towards them. On the other hand, we strive to become dissimilar to depraved men and evil daemons, and, in short, to every being that rejoices in a mortal and material nature. So that, conformably to what is said by Theophrastus, we also shall sacrifice from those things which theologists permit us to use for this purpose; as well knowing, that by how much the more we neglect to exempt ourselves from the passions of the soul, by so much the more we connect ourselves with a depraved power, and render it necessary that he should become propitious to us. For, as theologists say, it is necessary for those who are bound 18 to things external, and have not yet vanquished their passions, should avert the anger of this [malefic] power; since, if they do not, there will be no end to their labours. 44. Thus far what pertains to sacrifices has been elucidated. As we said, however, at first, as it is not entirely necessary, if animals are to be sacrificed, that they are also to be eaten, we shall now show that it is necessary we should not eat them, though it may be sometimes necessary that they should be sacrificed. For all theologists agree in this that in sacrifices, which are made for the purpose of averting some evil, the immolated

[ 228 ]

animals are not to be tasted, but are to be used as expiations. For, say they, no one should go into the city, nor into his own house, till he has first purified his garments, and his body, in rivers, or some fountain. So that they order those whom they permit to sacrifice, to abstain from the victims, and to purify themselves before they sacrifice by fasting, and especially by abstaining from animals. They add, that purity is the guardian of piety; and is, as it were, a symbol or divine seal, which secures its possessor from the attacks and allurements of evil daemons. For such a one, being contrarily disposed to, and more divine in his operations than those by whom he is attacked, because he is more pure both in his body and in the passions of his soul, remains uninjured, in consequence of being surrounded with purity as with a bulwark. 45. Hence a defence of this kind has appeared to be necessary even to enchanters; though it is not efficacious with them on all occasions. For they invoke evil daemons for lascivious purposes. So that purity does not belong to enchanters, but to divine men, and such as are divinely wise; since it everywhere becomes a guard to those that use it, and conciliates them with a divine nature. I wish, therefore, that enchanters would make use of purity continually, for then they would not employ themselves in incantations, because, through this, they would be: deprived of the enjoyment of those things, for the sake of which they act impiously. Whence becoming full of passions, and abstaining for a short time from impure food, they are notwithstanding replete with impurity, and suffer the punishment of their illegal conduct towards the whole of things, partly from those whom they irritate, and partly from Justice, who perceives all mortal deeds and conceptions. Both inward, therefore, and external purity pertain to a divine man, who earnestly endeavours to be liberated from the passions of the soul, and who abstains from such food as excites the passions, and is fed with divine wisdom; and by right conceptions of, is assimilated to divinity himself. For such a man being consecrated by an intellectual sacrifice, approaches to God in a white garment, and with a truly pure impassivity of soul, and levity of body, and is not burdened with foreign and external juices, and the passions of the soul. 46. For, indeed, it must not be admitted as necessary in temples, which are consecrated by men to the Gods, that those who enter into them should have their feet pure, and their shoes free from every stain, but that in the temple of the father [of all], which is this world, it is not proper to preserve our ultimate and cutaneous vestment pure, and to dwell in this temple with an undefiled garment. For if the danger consisted only in the defilement of the body, it might, perhaps, be lawful to neglect it. But now, since every sensible body is attended with an efflux of material daemons, hence, together with the impurity produced from flesh and blood, the power which is friendly

[ 229 ]

to, and familiar with, this impurity, is at the same time present through similitude and alliance. 47. Hence theologists have rightly paid attention to abstinence. And these things were indicated to us by a certain Egyptian 19, who also assigned a most natural cause of them, which was verified by experience. For, since a depraved and irrational soul, when it leaves the body, is still compelled to adhere to it, since the souls also of those men who die by violence, are detained about the body; this circumstance should prevent a man from forcibly expelling his soul from the body. The violent slaughter, therefore, of animals, compels souls to be delighted with the bodies which they have left, but the soul is by no means prevented from being there, where it is attracted by a kindred nature; whence many souls are seen to lament, and some remain about the bodies that are unburied; which souls are improperly used by enchanters, as subservient to their designs, being compelled by them to occupy the body, or a part of the body, which they have left. Since, therefore, these things were well known to theologists, and they also perceived the nature of a depraved soul, and its alliance to the bodies from which it was divulsed, and the pleasure which it received from a union with them, they very properly avoided animal food, in order that they might not be disturbed by alien souls, violently separated from the body and impure, and which are attracted to things of a kindred nature, and likewise that they might not be impeded by the presence of evil daemons, in approaching alone [or without being burdened with things of a foreign nature] to the highest God 20. 48. For that the nature of a kindred body is attractive of soul, experience abundantly taught these theologists. Hence those who wish to receive into themselves the souls of prophetic animals, swallow the most principal parts of them, such as the hearts of crows, or of moles, or of hawks. For thus they have soul present with, and predicting to them like a God, and entering into them together with the intromission of the body. 49. Very properly, therefore, will the philosopher, and who is also the priest of the God that is above all things, abstain from all animal food, in consequence of earnestly endeavouring to approach through himself alone to the alone God 21, without being disturbed by any attendants. Such a one likewise is cautious, as being well acquainted with the necessities of nature. For he who is truly a philosopher, is skilled in, and an observer of many things, understands the works of nature, is sagacious, temperate and modest, and is in every respect the saviour of himself. And as he who is the priest of a certain particular God, is skilled in placing the statues of that divinity, and in his orgies, mysteries and the like, thus also he who is the priest of the highest God, is skilled in the

[ 230 ]

manner in which his statue ought to be fashioned, and in purifications, and other things, through which he is conjoined to this divinity. 50. But if in the sacred rites which are here, those that are priests and diviners order both themselves and others to abstain from sepulchres, from impious men, from menstrual purgations, and from venereal congress, and likewise from base and mournful spectacles, and from those auditions which excite the passions, (because frequently, through those that are present being impure, something appears which disturbs the diviner; on which account it is said, that to sacrifice inopportunely, is attended with greater detriment than gain); — if this, therefore, is the case, will he, who is the priest of the father of all things, suffer himself to become the sepulchre of dead bodies? And will such a one, being full of defilement, endeavour to associate with the transcendent God? It is sufficient, indeed, that in fruits we assume parts of death, for the support of our present life. This, however, is not yet the place for such a discussion. We must, therefore, still farther investigate what pertains to sacrifices. 51. For some one may say that we shall subvert a great part of divination, viz. that which is effected through an inspection of the viscera, if we abstain from destroying animals. He, therefore, who makes this objection, should also destroy men: for it is said that future events are more apparent in the viscera of men than in those of brutes; and many of the Barbarians exercise the art of divination through the entrails of men. As, however, it would be an indication of great injustice, and inexhaustible avidity, to destroy those of our own species for the sake of divination, thus also it is unjust for the sake of this to slay an irrational animal. But it does not belong to the present discussion to investigate whether God, or daemons, or soul liberated from the animal [with which it had been connected], exhibit signs of future events to those who explore such signs, through the indications which the viscera afford. 52. Nevertheless, we permit those whose life is rolled about externals, having once acted impiously towards themselves, to be borne along to that which they tend; but we rightly say, that the man who we designate as a philosopher, and who is separated from externals, will not be disturbed by daemons, nor be in want of diviners, nor of the viscera of animals. For he earnestly endeavours to be separated from those things for the sake of which divinations are effected. For he does not betake himself to nuptials, in order that he may molest the diviner about wedlock, or merchandise, or inquiries about a servant, or an increase of property, or any other object of vulgar pursuit. For the subjects of his investigation are not clearly indicated by any diviner or viscera of animals. But he, as we have said, approaching through himself to the [supreme] God, who is established in the true inward parts of himself, receives from thence the precepts

[ 231 ]

of eternal life, tending thither by a conflux of the whole of himself, and instead of a diviner praying that he may become a confabulator of the mighty Jupiter. 53. For if such a one is impelled by some necessary circumstance, there are good daemons, who, to the man living after this manner, and who is a domestic of divinity, will indicate and prevent, through dreams and symbols, and omens, what may come to pass, and what is necessarily to be avoided. For it is only requisite to depart from evil, and to know what is most honourable in the whole of things, and every thing which in the universe is good, friendly, and familiar. But vice, and an ignorance of divine concerns, are dire, through which a man is led to despise and defame things of which he has no knowledge; since nature does not proclaim these particulars with a voice which can be heard by the ears, but being herself intellectual 22, she initiates through intellect those who venerate her. And even though some one should admit the art of divination for the sake of predicting what is future, yet it does not from thence necessarily follow that the flesh of animals is to be eaten; as neither does it follow, that because it is proper to sacrifice to Gods or daemons, food from animals is therefore to be introduced. For, not only the history which is related by Theophrastus, but also many other narrations inform us, that in ancient times men were sacrificed, yet it must not be inferred that on this account men are to be eaten. 54. And that we do not carelessly assert these things, but that what we have said is abundantly confirmed by history, the following narrations sufficiently testify. For in Rhodes, on the sixth day of June, a man was sacrificed to Saturn; which custom having prevailed for a long time, was afterwards changed [into a more human mode of sacrificing]. For one of those men who, by the public decision, had been sentenced to death, was kept in prison till the Saturnalia commenced; but as soon as this festival began, they brought the man out of the gates of the city, opposite to the temple of Aristobulus, and giving him wine to drink, they cut his throat. But in the island which is now called Salamis, but was formerly denominated Coronis, in the month according to the Cyprians Aphrodisius, a man was sacrificed to Agraule, the daughter of Cecrops, and the nymph Agraulis. And this custom continued till the time of Diomed. Afterwards it was changed, so that a man was sacrificed to Diomed. But the temples of Minerva, of Agraule, and Diomed, were contained in one and the same enclosure. The man who was also about to be slain, was first led by young men thrice round the altar, afterwards the priest pierced him with a lance in the stomach, and thus being thrown on the pyre, he was entirely consumed. 55. This sacred institute was, however, abolished by Diphilus, the king of Cyprus, who flourished about the time of Seleucus, the theologist. But Daemon substituted an

[ 232 ]

ox for a man; thus causing the latter sacrifice to be of equal worth with the former. Amosis also abolished the law of sacrificing men in the Egyptian city Heliopolis; the truth of which is testified by Manetho in his treatise on Antiquity and Piety. But the sacrifice was made to Juno, and an investigation took place, as if they were endeavouring to find pure calves, and such as were marked by the impression of a seal. Three men also were sacrificed on the day appointed for this purpose, in the place of whom Amosis ordered them to substitute three waxen images. In Chios likewise, they sacrificed a man to Omadius Bacchus 23, the man being for this purpose torn in pieces; and the same custom, as Eulpis Carystius says, was adopted in Tenedos. To which may be added, that the Lacedaemonians, as Apollodorus says, sacrificed a man to Mars. 56. Moreover the Phoenicians, in great calamities, either of war, or excessive dryness, or pestilence, sacrificed some one of their dearest friends, who was selected by votes for this purpose. The Phoenician history also is replete with instances of men being sacrificed, which history was written by Sanchoniatho in the Phoenician tongue, and was interpreted into Greek in eight books, by Philo Byblius. But Ister, in his collection of the Cretan sacrifices, says that the Curetes formerly sacrificed children to Saturn. And Pallas, who is the best of those who have collected what pertains to the mysteries of Mithras, says, that under the Emperor Adrian the sacrificing of men was nearly totally abolished. For, prior to his time, in Laodicea, which is in Syria, they anciently sacrificed a virgin to Minerva, but now they sacrifice a stag. The Carthaginians too, who dwell in Libya, formerly sacrificed men; but this custom was abolished by Iphicrates. And the Dumatii, a people of Arabia, annually sacrificed a boy, whom they buried under the altar, which was used by them as a statue. But Phylarchus narrates, that it was the general custom of all the Greeks, before they went to war, to immolate men. I omit to mention the Thracians and Scythians, and also the Athenians, who slew the daughter of Erechtheus and Praxithea. And even at present, who is ignorant that in the great city of Rome, in the festival of Jupiter Latialis, they cut the throat of a man? Human flesh, however, is not on this account to be eaten; though, through a certain necessity, a man should be sacrificed. For, when a famine takes place during a siege some of the besieged feed on each other, yet at the same time those who do so are deemed execrable and the deed is thought to be impious. 57. After the first war, likewise, waged by the Romans against the Carthaginians, in order to obtain Sicily, when the mercenary soldiers of the Phoenicians revolted, and, together with them, those of Africa deserted, Hamilcar, who was surnamed Barkas, in attacking the Romans, was reduced to such a scarcity of food, that at first his men ate those that fell in battle; but afterwards, these failing, they ate their captives; in the third

[ 233 ]

place, their servants; and in the last place, they attacked each other, and devoured their fellow-soldiers, who were led to be slaughtered for this purpose by lot. But Hamilcar, taking those men that were in his power, caused his elephants to trample on such of the soldiers as had acted in this manner, conceiving that it was not holy to suffer them to be any longer mingled with other men; and neither did he admit that men should be eaten because certain persons had dared to do this; nor his son Hannibal, who, when he was leading his army into Italy, was advised by a certain person to accustom his troops to feed on human flesh, in order that they might never be in want of food. It does not follow, therefore, that because famine and war have been the causes of eating other animals, it is also requisite to feed on them for the sake of pleasure; as neither must we admit, that on this account men are to be eaten. Nor does it follow, that because animals are sacrificed to certain powers, it is also requisite to eat them. For neither do those who sacrifice men, on this account, feed on human flesh. Through what has been said, therefore, it is demonstrated, that it does not entirely follow that animals are to be eaten because they are sacrificed. 58. But that those who had learnt what the nature is of the powers in the universe, offered sacrifices through blood, not to Gods, but to daemons, is confirmed by theologists themselves. For they also assert, that of daemons, some are malefic, but others beneficent, who will not molest us, if we offer to them the first-fruits of those things alone which we eat, and by which we nourish either the soul or the body. After, therefore, we have added a few observations more, in order to show that the unperverted conceptions of the multitude accord with a right opinion respecting the Gods, we shall conclude this book. Those poets, therefore, who are wise, though but in a small degree, say, What man so credulous and void of mind, What man so ignorant, as to think the Gods In fiery bile and fleshless bones rejoice, For hungry dogs a nutriment not fit; Or that such offerers they will e’er reward? But another poet says, My offerings to the Gods from cakes alone And frankincense shall be; for not to friends But deities my sacrifice I make. 59. Apollo also, when he orders men to sacrifice according to paternal institutes, appears to refer every thing to ancient custom. But the ancient custom of sacrificing was, as we have before shown, with cakes and fruits. Hence also, sacrifices were called θυσιαι thusiai, and θυηλαι thuelai, and θυμελαι thumelai, and αυτο το θυειν auto to thuein, [ 234 ]

i.e. the act of sacrificing, signified the same thing as του θυμιαν ton thumian, i.e. to offer incense, and which is now called by us, επιθυειν epithuein, i.e. to sacrifice something more. For what we now call θυειν thuein, i.e. to sacrifice, the ancients denominated ερδειν erdein, i.e. to perform or make. They perfect hecatombs of bulls, or goats, Made to Apollo. 60. But those who introduced costliness into sacrifices, were ignorant that, in conjunction with this, they also introduced a swarm of evils, viz., superstition, luxury, an opinion that a divine nature may be corrupted by gifts, and that a compensation may be made by sacrifices for injustice. Or whence do some make an oblation of three animals with gilded horns, but others of hecatombs? And whence did Olympias, the mother of Alexander [the Great,] sacrifice a thousand of each species of animals, unless sumptuousness had at length proceeded to superstition? But when the young man was informed that the Gods rejoiced in magnificent sacrifices, and, as they say, in solemn banquets of oxen and other animals, how, though he was willing to act wisely, was it possible that he could? How also, when he conceived that these sacrifices were acceptable to the Gods, was it possible he should not fancy that he was permitted to act unjustly, when he might exonerate himself from erroneous conduct through sacrifices? But if he had been persuaded that the Gods have no need of these things, and that they look to the manners of those who approach to them, and conceive that a right opinion of them, and of things themselves, is the greatest sacrifice, how is it possible that he should not have been temperate, holy, and just? 61. To the Gods, indeed, the most excellent offering is a pure intellect and an impassive soul, and also a moderate oblation of our own property and of other things, and this not negligently, but with the greatest alacrity. For the honours which we pay to the Gods should be accompanied by the same promptitude as that with which we give the first seat to worthy men, and with which we rise to salute them, and not by the promptitude with which we pay a tribute. For man must not use such language as the following to God: If, O Philinus, you recall to mind, And love me for, the benefits which I On you conferr’d, ’tis well, since for the sake Of these alone my bounty was bestow’d. For divinity is not satisfied with such assertions as these. And hence Plato says [in his Laws], that it pertains to a good man to sacrifice, and to be always conversant with the Gods by prayers, votive offerings, sacrifices, and every kind of religious worship; but that to the bad man, much labour about the Gods is inefficacious and vain. For the good [ 235 ]

man knows what ought to be sacrificed, and from what it is requisite to abstain; what things are to be offered to divinity; and of what the first-fruits are to be sacrificed; but the bad man exhibiting honours to the Gods from his own disposition and his own pursuits, acts in so doing more impiously than piously. Hence Plato thought, that a philosopher ought not to be conversant with men of depraved habits; for this is neither pleasing to the Gods, nor useful to men; but the philosopher should endeavour to change such men to a better condition, and if he cannot effect this, he should be careful that he does not himself become changed into their depravity. He adds, that having entered into the right path, he should proceed in it, neither fearing danger from the multitude nor any other blasphemy which may happen to take place. For it would be a thing of a dire nature, that the Syrians indeed will not taste fish, nor the Hebrews swine nor most of the Phoenicians and Egyptians cows; and though many kings have endeavoured to change these customs, yet those that adopt them would rather suffer death, than a transgression of the law [which forbids them to eat these animals]; and yet that we should choose to transgress the laws of nature and divine precepts through the fear of men, or of a certain denunciation of evil from them. For the divine choir of Gods, and divine men, may justly be greatly indignant with us, if it perceives us directing our attention to the opinions of depraved men, and idly looking to the terror with which they are attended, though we daily meditate how we may become [philosophically] dead to other things in the present life.

[ 236 ]

ENDNOTES. 1 i.e. The Egyptians 2 In the original αρασαμενους, which is derived from the verb αραομαι, imprecor, maledico; and from hence, according to Porphyry, came the word αραματα. 3 i.e. May be rather called malevolent than unhappy. 4 Fabricius is of opinion that these Thoes are the same with the Acrothoitae, mentioned by Simplicius in his Comment. in Epictet. from Theophrastus. 5 In the original, η γαρ θησια, οσια τις εστιν κατα τουνομα. 6 In the original, και τα μεν παρατιθεναι, which Felicianus very erroneously renders, “alius sequidem mihi ad vescendum sumo;” but Valentinus rightly , “et horum aliqua coram illis apponere.” 7 A round, broad, and thin cake, which was offered in sacrifice to the Gods. 8 Tynnichus, the Chalcidensian, is mentioned by Plato in his Io. 9 Vid. Hesiod. Fragm. v. 169. 10 A city of Crete. 11 i.e. Under the pretext of being patronized by divinity in so doing. 12 Porphyry, in what he here says of the Jews, alludes to that sect of them called Essenes; concerning whom, see the 4th book of this work. 13 In the original, ους νυν ορωντας τιμαν τουτους, κ.τ.λ., instead of which, Reisk proposes to read, ους νυν ουχ ορωντας τιμαν δει ̔˜ϝελ χρἦ τουτοις, κ.τ.λ. But the insertion of ουχ is most absurd: for the celestial are called the visible Gods. Thus Plato, in the Timaeus, in the speech of the Demiurgus to the junior or mundane Gods, who consist of the celestial and sublunary deities, calls the celestial Gods those that visibly revolve, and the sublunary, those that become apparent when they please: Επει ουν παντες οσοι τε περιπολουσι φανερως, και οσοι φαινονται καθ̕ οσον αν εθελωσι θεοι, γενεσιν εσχον, κ.τ.λ. conformably, therefore, to the above translation, I read, ους νυν ορωντας τιμαν δει τουτοις, κ.τ.λ. To which may be added, that our author, in paragraph 37, expressly calls the stars visible Gods. 14 In the original, θυσομον τοινυν κα ημεις· αλλα θυσομεν, ως προσηκει, διαφορους τας θυσιας, ως αν διαφοροις δυναμεσι πρασαγοντες. This Valentinus erroneously translates as [ 237 ]

follows: “Sacrificabimus igitur etiam et nos, sed prout decet, victimas scilicet eximias potestatibus eximiis adducentes.” For διαφορους and διαφοροις, in this passage, evidently mean different, and not excellent. 15 Concerning the appellations which the Pythagoreans gave to numbers, see my Theoretic Arithmetic, in which also the occult meaning of these appellations is unfolded. 16 “Plotinus ni fallor, aut Plato, sed ille potius”, says Reisk; but everyone who is at all conversant with Platonic writers, will immediately see that by the theologist, Porphyry means Orpheus. 17 For a more theological account of daemons, I refer the reader to my translation of the before-mentioned admirable treatise of Iamblichus On the Mysteries. 18 In the original, ως γαρ φασιν οι θεολογοι τοις δεομενοις υπο των εκτος και μηδεπω κρατουσιν των παθων, κ.τ.λ. But for δεομενοις, it is necessary to read δεδεμενοις; and it is evident that both the Latin translators of the work found δεδεμενοις in their manuscripts. For Felicianus has “qui devincti externus rebus sunt,” and Valentinus, “qui rebus externis illigantur.” Reisk, however, has taken no notice of this error on the printed text. 19 Reisk, with his usual stupidity, where merely verbal emendations are not concerned, says that this Egyptian is Plotinus, whose country was Lycopolis, in Egypt. But what instance can be adduced, in all antiquity, of the disciple of a philosopher speaking of his preceptor in this indefinite manner? Is it not much more probable that this Egyptian is the priest mentioned by Porphyry in his Life of Plotinus, who, at the request of a certain friend of Plotinus, (which friend was, perhaps, Porphyry himself,) exhibited to Plotinus, in the temple of Isis, at Rome, the familiar daemon, or, in modern language, the guardian angel of that philosopher? 20 Conformably to this, the Pythagorean Demophilus beautifully observes, Γυμνος αποσταλεις σοφος, γυμνιτευων καλεσει τον πεμψαντα· μονου γαρ του μη τοις αλλοτριοις πεφορτισμενου επικοος ο θεος. i.e. “The wise man being sent hither naked, should naked invoke him by whom he was sent. For he alone is heard by divinity, who is not burdened with things of a foreign nature.” 21 This expression of “approaching alone to the alone God,” Porphyry derived from his master, the great Plotinus, who divinely concludes his Enneads as follows: και ουτω θεων και ανθρωπων θειων και ευδαιμονων βιος, απαλλαγη των αλλων των τῃδε, ανηδονος των τῃδε, φυγη μονου προς μονον — i.e. “This, therefore, is the life of the Gods, and of divine

[ 238 ]

and happy men, a liberation from all terrene concerns, a life unaccompanied by human pleasures, and a flight of the alone to the alone. 22 Nature, considered as the last of the causes which fabricate this corporeal and sensible world, “bounds (says Proclus in Tim.) the progressions of incorporeal essences, and is full of forms and powers, through which she governs mundane affairs. And she is a Goddess, indeed, considered as deified; but not according to the primary signification of the word. By her summit likewise she comprehends the heavens, but through these rules over the fluctuating empire of generation; and she every where weaves together partial natures in admirable conjunction with wholes.” See more on this subject in my translation of that work. 23 This epithet is used in two of the Orphic hymns, viz. in Hymn LI. 7., and Hymn XXIX. 5. But the following appears to be the reason why Bacchus is so called. Bacchus is the intellect, and Ippa the soul of the world, according to the Orphic Theology; and the former is said by Orpheus to be carried on the head of the latter. For so we are informed by Proclus, in Tim. p. 124. Jacob de Rhoer, therefore, the editor of this work, was grossly mistaken in saying, “Non dubito, quin ωμαδιος Διονυσος, aedem sit qui ωμηστης, crudivorus.” Scaliger in his version of the Hymns, very improperly translates ωμαδιος; bajulus, a porter. For Bacchus is carried on, but does not carry ιρρα.

[ 239 ]

BOOK THREE 1. IN T H E two preceding books, O Firmus Castricius, we have demonstrated that animal food does not contribute either to temperance and frugality, or to the piety which especially gives completion to the theoretic life, but is rather hostile to it. Since, however, the most beautiful part of justice consists in piety to the Gods, and this is principally acquired through abstinence, there is no occasion to fear that we shall violate justice towards men, while we preserve piety towards the Gods. Socrates therefore says, in opposition to those who contend that pleasure is the supreme good, that though all swine and goats should accord in this opinion, yet he should never be persuaded that our felicity was placed in the enjoyment of corporeal delight, as long as intellect has dominion over all things. And we also say, that though all wolves and vultures should praise the eating of flesh, we should not admit that they spoke justly, as long as man is by nature innoxious, and ought to abstain from procuring pleasure for himself by injuring others. We shall pass on, therefore, to the discussion of justice; and since our opponents say that this ought only to be extended to those of similar species, and on this account deny that irrational animals can be injured by men, let us exhibit the true, and at the same time Pythagoric opinion, and demonstrate that every soul which participates of sense and memory is rational. For this being demonstrated, we may extend, as our opponents will also admit, justice to every animal. But we shall epitomize what has been said by the ancients on this subject. 2. Since, however, with respect to reason, one kind, according to the doctrine of the Stoics, is internal, but the other external 1, and again, one kind being right, but the other erroneous, it is requisite to explain of which of these two, animals, according to them, are deprived. Are they therefore deprived of right reason alone? or are they entirely destitute both of internal and externally proceeding reason? They appear, indeed, to ascribe to brutes an entire privation of reason, and not a privation of right reason alone. For if they merely denied that brutes possess right reason, animals would not be irrational, but rational beings, in the same manner as nearly all men are according to them. For, according to their opinion, one or two wise men may be found in whom alone right reason prevails, but all the rest of mankind are depraved; though some of these make a certain proficiency, but others are profoundly depraved, and yet, at the same time, all of them are similarly rational. Through the influence, therefore, of selflove, they say, that all other animals are irrational; wishing to indicate by irrationality, an entire privation of reason. If, however, it be requisite to speak the truth, not only reason

[ 240 ]

may plainly be perceived in all animals, but in many of them it is so great as to approximate to perfection. 3. Since, therefore, reason is two-fold, one kind consisting in external speech, but the other in the disposition of the soul, we shall begin from that which is external, and which is arranged according to the voice. But if external reason is voice, which through the tongue is significant of the internal passions of the soul (for this is the most common definition of it, and is not adopted by one sect [of philosophers] only, and if it is alone indicative of the conception of [internal] reason) - if this be the case, in what pertaining to this are such animals as have a voice deficient? Do they not discursively perceive the manner in which they are inwardly affected, before it is vocally enunciated by them? By a discursive perception, however, I mean the perception produced by the silent discourse which takes place in the soul. Since, therefore, that which is vocally expressed by the tongue is reason, in whatever manner it may be expressed, whether in a barbarous or a Grecian, a canine or a bovine mode, other animals also participate of it that are vocal; men, indeed, speaking conformably to the human laws [of speech], but other animals conformably to the laws which they received from the Gods and nature. But if we do not understand what they say, what is this to the purpose? For the Greeks do not understand what is said by the Indians, nor those who are educated in Attica the language of the Scythians, or Thracians, or Syrians; but the sound of the one falls on the ears of the other like the clangor of cranes, though by others their vocal sounds can be written and articulated, in the same manner as ours can by us. Nevertheless, the vocal sounds of the Syrians, for instance, or the Persians, are to us inarticulate, and cannot be expressed by writing, just as the speech of animals is unintelligible to all men. For as we, when we hear the Scythians speak, apprehend, by the auditory sense, a noise only and a sound, but are ignorant of the meaning of what they say, because their language appears to us to be nothing but a clangor, to have no articulation, and to employ only one sound either longer or shorter, the variety of which is not at all significant to us, but to them the vocal sounds are intelligible, and have a great difference, in the same manner as our language has to us; the like also takes place in the vocal sounds of other animals. For the several species of these understand the language which is adapted to them, but we only hear a sound, of the signification of which we are ignorant, because no one who has learnt our language, is able to teach us through ours the meaning of what is said by brutes. If, however, it is requisite to believe in the ancients, and also in those who have lived in our times, and the times of our fathers, there are some among these who are said to have heard and to have understood the speech of animals. Thus, for instance, this is narrated of Melampus and Tiresias, and others of the like kind; and the same thing, not much prior to our time, is related of Apollonius Tyanaeus. For it is [ 241 ]

narrated of him, that once, when he was with his associates, a swallow, happening to be present, and twittering, he said, that the swallow indicated to other birds, that an ass laden with corn had fallen down before the city, and that in consequence of the fall of the ass, the corn was spread on the ground 2. An associate, also, of mine informed me, that he once had a boy for a servant, who understood the meaning of all the sounds of birds, and who said, that all of them were prophetic, and declarative of what would shortly happen. He added, that he was deprived of this knowledge through his mother, who, fearing that he would be sent to the Emperor as a gift, poured urine into his ear when he was asleep. 4. Omitting, however, these things, through the passion of incredulity, which is connascent with us, I think there is no one who is ignorant, that there are some nations even now who understand the sounds of certain animals, through an alliance to those animals. Thus, the Arabians understand the language of crows, and the Tyrrhenians of eagles. And, perhaps, all men would understand the language of all animals, if a dragon were to lick their ears. Indeed, the variety and difference in the vocal sounds of animals, indicate that they are significant. Hence, we hear one sound when they are terrified, but another, of a different kind, when they call their associates, another when they summon their young to food, another when they lovingly embrace each other, and another when they incite to battle. And so great is the difference in their vocal sounds, that, even by those who have spent their whole life in the observation of them, it is found to be extremely difficult to ascertain their meaning, on account of their multitude. Diviners, therefore, who predict from ravens and crows, when they have noted the difference of the sounds, as far as to a certain multitude, omit the rest, as not easily to be apprehended by man. But when animals speak to each other, these sounds are manifest and significant to them, though they are not known to all of us. If, however, it appears that they imitate us, that they learn the Greek tongue, and understand their keepers, what man is so impudent as not to grant that they are rational, because he does not understand what they say? Crows, therefore, and magpies, the robin redbreast, and the parrot, imitate men, recollect what they have heard, are obedient to their preceptor while he is teaching them; and many of them, through what they have learnt, point out those that have acted wrong in the house. But the Indian hyaena, which the natives call crocotta, speaks in a manner so human, and this without a teacher, as to go to houses, and call that person whom he knows he can easily vanquish. He also imitates the voice of him who is most dear, and would most readily attend to the person whom he calls; so that, though the Indians know this, yet being deceived through the similitude, and obeying the call, they come forth, and are destroyed. If, however, all animals do not

[ 242 ]

imitate, and all of them are not adapted to lean our language, what is this to the purpose? For neither is every man docile or imitative, I will not say of the vocal sounds of animals, but of the five dialects of the Greek tongue. To which may be added, that some animals, perhaps, do not speak, because they have not been taught, or because they are impeded by the ill conformation of the instruments of speech. We, therefore, when we were at Carthage, nurtured a tame partridge, which we caught flying, and which, in process of time, and by associating with us, became so exceedingly mild, that it was not only sedulously attentive to us, caressed and sported with us, but uttered a sound corresponding to the sound of our voice, and, as far as it was capable, answered us; and this in a manner different from that by which partridges are accustomed to call each other. For it did not utter a corresponding sound when we were silent, but when we spoke to it. 5. It is also narrated, that some dumb animals obey their masters with more readiness than any domestic servants. Hence, a lamprey was so accustomed to the Roman Crassus, as to come to him when he called it by its name; on which account Crassus was so affectionately disposed towards it, that he exceedingly lamented its death, though, prior to this, he had borne the loss of three of his children with moderation. Many likewise relate that the eels in Arethusa, and the shell-fish denominated saperdae, about Maeander, are obedient to those that call them. Is not the imagination, therefore, of an animal that speaks, the same, whether it proceeds as far as to the tongue, or does not? And if this be the case, is it not absurd to call the voice of man alone [external] reason, but refuse thus to denominate the voice of other animals? For this is just as if crows should think that their voice alone is external reason, but that we are irrational animals, because the meaning of the sounds which we utter is not obvious to them; or as if the inhabitants of Attica should thus denominate their speech alone, and should think that those are irrational who are ignorant of the Attic tongue, though the inhabitants of Attica would sooner understand the croaking of a crow, than the language of a Syrian or a Persian. But is it not absurd to judge of rationality and irrationality from apprehending or not apprehending the meaning of vocal sounds, or from silence and speech? For thus some one might say, that the God who is above all things, and likewise the other Gods are not rational, because they do not speak. The Gods, however, silently indicate their will, and birds apprehend their will more rapidly than men, and when they have apprehended it, they narrate it to men as much as they are able and different birds are the messengers to men of different Gods. Thus, the eagle is the messenger of Jupiter, the hawk and the crow of Apollo, the stork of Juno, the crex and the bird of night of Minerva, the crane of Ceres, and some other bird is the messenger of some other deity. Moreover, those among us that observe animals, and are [ 243 ]

nurtured together with them, know the meaning of their vocal sounds. The hunter, therefore, from the barking of his dog, perceives at one time, indeed, that the dog explores a hare, but at another, that the dog has found it; at one time, that he pursues the game, at another that he has caught it, and at another that he is in the wrong track, through having lost the scent of it. Thus, too, the cowherd knows, at one time, indeed, that a cow is hungry, or thirsty, or weary, and at another, that she is incited to venery, or seeks her calf, [from her different lowings 3]. A lion also manifests by his roaring that he threatens, a wolf by his howling that he is in a bad condition, and shepherds, from the bleating of sheep, know what the sheep want. 6. Neither, therefore, are animals ignorant of the meaning of the voice of men, when they are angry, or speak kindly to, or call them, or pursue them, or ask them to do something, or give something to them; nor, in short, are they ignorant of any thing that is usually said to them, but are aptly obedient to it; which it would be impossible for them to do, unless that which is similar to intellection energized, in consequence of being excited by its similar. The immoderation of their passions, also, is suppressed by certain modulations, and stags, bulls, and other animals, from being wild become tame. Those, too, who are decidedly of opinion that brutes are deprived of reason, yet admit that dogs have a knowledge of dialectic, and make use of the syllogism which consists of many disjunctive propositions, when, in searching for their game, they happen to come to a place where there are three roads. For they thus reason, the beast has either fled through this road, or through that, or through the remaining road; but it has not fled either through this, or through that, and therefore it must have fled through the remaining third of these roads 4. After which syllogistic process, they resume their pursuit in that road. It may, however, be readily said, that animals do these things naturally, because they were not taught by any one to do them; as if we also were not allotted reason by nature, though we likewise give names to things, because we are naturally adapted to do so. Besides, if it be requisite to believe in Aristotle, animals are seen to teach their offspring, not only something pertaining to other things, but also to utter vocal sounds; as the nightingale, for instance, teaches her young to sing. And as he likewise says, animals learn many things from each other, and many from men; and the truth of what he asserts is testified by all the tamers of colts, by every jockey, horseman, and charioteer, and by all hunters, herdsmen, keepers of elephants, and masters of wild beasts and birds. He, therefore, who estimates things rightly, will be led, from these instances, to ascribe intelligence to brutes; but he who is inconsiderate, and is ignorant of these things, will be induced to act rashly, through his inexhaustible avidity co operating with him against them. For how is it possible that he should not defame and

[ 244 ]

calumniate animals, who has determined to cut them in pieces, as if they were stones? Aristotle, however, Plato, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Democritus, and all such as endeavoured to discover the truth concerning animals, have acknowledged that they participate of reason. 7. But it is now requisite to show that brutes have internal reason. The difference, indeed, between our reason and theirs, appears to consist, as Aristotle somewhere says, not in essence, but in the more and the less; just as many are of opinion, that the difference between the Gods and us is not essential, but consists in this, that in them there is a greater, and in us a less accuracy, of the reasoning power 5. And, indeed, so far as pertains to sense and the remaining organization, according to the sensoria and the flesh, every one nearly will grant that these are similarly disposed in us, as they are in brutes. For they not only similarly participate with us of natural passions, and the motions produced through these, but we may also survey in them such affections as are preternatural and morbid. No one, however, of a sound mind, will say that brutes are unreceptive of the reasoning power, on account of the difference between their habit of body and ours, when he sees that there is a great variety of habit in men, according to their race, and the nations to which they belong and yet, at the same time, it is granted that all of them are rational. An ass, therefore, is afflicted with a catarrh, and if the disease flows to his lungs, he dies in the same manner as a man. A horse, too, is subject to purulence, and wastes away through it, like a man. He is likewise attacked with rigour, the gout, fever, and fury, in which case he is also said to have a depressed countenance. A mare, when pregnant, if she happens to smell a lamp when it is just extinguished, becomes abortive, in the same manner as a woman. An ox, and likewise a camel, are subject to fever and insanity; a raven becomes scabby, and has the leprosy; and also a dog, who, besides this, is afflicted with the gout, and madness: but a hog is subject to hoarseness, and in a still greater degree a dog; whence this disease in a man is denominated from the dog, cynanche. And these things are known to us, because we are familiar with these animals; but of the diseases of other animals, we are ignorant, because we do not associate with them. Castrated animals also became more effeminate. Hence cocks, when they are castrated, no longer crow; but their voice becomes effeminate, like that of men who lose their testicles. It is not possible, likewise, to distinguish the bellowing and horns of a bull, when he is castrated, from those of a cow. But stags, when they are castrated, no longer cast off their horns, but retain them in the same manner as eunuchs do their hairs; and if, when they are castrated, they are without horns, they do not afterwards produce them, just as it happens to those who, before they have a beard, are made eunuchs. So that nearly the bodies of all animals are

[ 245 ]

similarly affected with ours, with respect to the bodily calamities to which they are subject. 8. See, however, whether all the passions of the soul in brutes, are not similar to ours; for it is not the province of man alone to apprehend juices by the taste, colours by the sight, odours by the smell, sounds by the hearing, cold or heat, or other tangible objects, by the touch; but the senses of brutes are capable of the same perceptions. Nor are brutes deprived of sense because they are not men, as neither are we to be deprived of reason, because the Gods, if they possess it, are rational beings. With respect to the senses, however, other animals appear greatly to surpass us; for what man can see so acutely as a dragon? (for this is not the fabulous Lynceus). And hence the poets denominate to see δρακειν, drakein: but an eagle, from a great height, sees a hare. What man hears more acutely than cranes, who are able to hear from an interval so great, as to be beyond the reach of human sight? And as to smell, almost all animals so much surpass us in this sense, that things which fall on it, and are obvious to them, are concealed from us; so that they know and smell the several kinds of animals by their footsteps. Hence, men employ dogs as their leaders, for the purpose of discovering the retreat of a boar, or a stag. And we, indeed, are slowly sensible of the constitution of the air; but this is immediately perceived by other animals, so that from them we derive indications of the future state of the weather. With respect to juices also, they so accurately know the distinction between them, that their knowledge of what are morbific, salubrious, and deleterious among these, surpasses that of physicians. But Aristotle says, that animals whose sensitive powers are more exquisite, are more prudent. And the diversities, indeed, of bodies are capable of producing a facility or difficulty of being passively affected, and of having reason, more or less prompt in its energies; but they are not capable of changing the essence of the soul, since neither are they able to change the senses, nor to alter the passions, nor to make them entirely abandon their proper nature. It must be granted, therefore, that animals participate more or less of reason, but not that they are perfectly deprived of it; as neither must it be admitted that one animal has reason, but another not. As, however, in one and the same species of animals, one body is more, but another less healthy; and, in a similar manner, in diseases, in a naturally good, and a naturally bad, disposition, there is a great difference; thus also in souls, one is naturally good, but another depraved: and of souls that are depraved, one has more, but another less, of depravity. In good men, likewise, there is not the same equality; for Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, are not similarly good. Nor is there sameness in a concordance of opinions. Hence it does not follow, if we have more intelligence than other animals, that on this account they are to be deprived of intelligence; as neither must it be said, that partridges do not fly, because hawks fly [ 246 ]

higher; nor that other hawks do not fly, because the bird called phassophonos 6 flies higher than these, and than all other birds. Some one, therefore, may admit that the soul is co-passive with the body, and that the former suffers something from the latter, when the latter is well or ill affected, but in this case it by no means changes its nature: but if the soul is only co-passive to, and uses the body as an instrument, she may be able to effect many things through it, which we cannot, even when it is organized differently from ours, and when it is affected in a certain manner, may sympathize with it, and yet may not change its proper nature. 9. It must be demonstrated, therefore, that there is a rational power in animals, and that they are not deprived of prudence. And in the first place, indeed, each of them knows whether it is imbecile or strong, and, in consequence of this, it defends some parts of itself, but attacks with others. Thus the panther uses its teeth, the lion its nails and teeth, the horse its hoofs, the ox its horns, the cock its spurs, and the scorpion its sting; but the serpents in Egypt use their spittle (whence also they are called ptuades, i.e. spitters,) and with this they blind the eyes of those that approach them: and thus a different animal uses a different part of itself for attack, in order to save itself. Again, some animals, viz. such as are robust, feed [and live] remote from men; but others, who are of an ignoble nature, live remote from stronger animals, and, on the contrary, dwell nearer men. And of these, some dwell at a greater distance from more robust animals, as sparrows and swallows, who build their nests in the roofs of houses; but others associate with men, as, for instance, dogs. They likewise change their places of abode at certain times, and know every thing which contributes to their advantage. In a similar manner, in fishes and in birds, a reasoning energy of this kind may be perceived; all which particulars are abundantly collected by the ancients, in their writings concerning the prudence of animals; and they are copiously discussed by Aristotle, who says, that by all animals an habitation subservient to their subsistence and their safety, is most exquisitely contrived. 10. But he who says that these things are naturally present with animals, is ignorant in asserting this, that they are by nature rational; or if this is not admitted, neither does reason subsist in us naturally, nor with the perfection of it receive an increase, so far as we are naturally adapted to receive it. A divine nature, indeed, does not become rational 7 through learning, for there never was a time in which he was irrational; but rationality is consubsistent with his existence, and he is not prevented from being rational, because he did not receive reason through discipline: though, with respect to other animals, in the same manner as with respect to men, many things are taught them by nature, and some things are imparted by discipline. Brutes, however, learn some things from each

[ 247 ]

other, but are taught others, as we have said, by men. They also have memory, which is a most principal thing in the resumption of reasoning and prudence. They likewise have vices, and are envious; though their bad qualities are not so widely extended as in men: for their vices are of a lighter nature than those of men: This, indeed, is evident; for the builder of a house will never be able to lay the foundation of it, unless he is sober; nor can a shipwright properly place the keel of a ship, unless he is in health; nor a husbandman plant a vine, unless he applies his mind to it; yet nearly all men, when they are intoxicated, can beget children. This, however, is not the case with other animals; for they propagate for the sake of offspring, and for the most part, when the males have made the female pregnant, they no longer attempt to be connected with her; nor, if they should attempt it, would the female permit them. But the magnitude of the lascivious insolence and intemperance of men in these things, is evident. In other animals, however, the male is conscious of the parturient throes of the female, and, for the most part, partakes of the same pains; as is evident in cocks. But others incubate together with the females; as the males of doves. They likewise provide a proper place for the delivery of their offspring; and after they have brought forth their offspring, they both purify them and themselves. And he who properly observes, will see that every thing proceeds with them in an orderly manner; that they fawn on him who nourishes them, and that they know their master, and give indications of him who acts insidiously. 11. Who likewise is ignorant how much gregarious animals preserve justice towards each other? for this is preserved by ants, by bees, and by other animals of the like kind. And who is ignorant of the chastity of female ringdoves towards the males with whom they associate? for they destroy those who are found by them to have committed adultery. Or who has not heard of the justice of storks towards their parents? For in the several species of animals, a peculiar virtue is eminent, to which each species is naturally adapted; nor because this virtue is natural and stable, is it fit to deny that they are rational? For it might be requisite to deprive them of rationality, if their works were not the proper effects of virtue and rational sagacity; but if we do not understand how these works are effected, because we are unable to penetrate into the reasoning which they use, we are not on this account to accuse them of irrationality; for neither is any one able to penetrate into the intellect of that divinity the sun, but from his works we assent to those who demonstrate him to be an intellectual and rational essence. 12. But some one may very properly wonder at those who admit that justice derives its subsistence from the rational part, and who call those animals that have no association with men, savage and unjust, and yet do not extend justice as far as to those that do associate with us; and which, in the same manner as men, would be deprived of life, if they were deprived of human society. Birds, therefore, and dogs, and many [ 248 ]

quadrupeds, such as goats, horses, sheep, asses, and mules, would perish, if deprived of an association with mankind. Nature, also, the fabricator of their frame, constituted them so as to be in want of men, and fashioned men so as to require their assistance; thus producing an innate justice in them towards us, and in us towards them. But it is not at all wonderful, if some of them are savage towards men; for what Aristotle says is true, that if all animals had an abundance of nutriment, they would not act ferociously, either towards each other, or towards men. For on account of food, though necessary and slender, enmities and friendships are produced among animals, and also on account of the places which they occupy; but if men were reduced to such straits as brutes are [with respect to food,] how much more savage would they become than those animals that appear to be wild? War and famine are indications of the truth of this; for then men do not abstain from eating each other; and even without war and famine, they eat animals that are nurtured with them, and are perfectly tame. 13. Some one, however, may say, that brutes are indeed rational animals, but have not a certain habitude, proximity, or alliance to us; but he who asserts this will, in the first place, make them to be irrational animals, in consequence of depriving them of an alliance to our nature. And, in the next place, he will make their association with us to depend on the utility which we derive from them, and not on the participation of reason. The thing proposed by us, however, is to show that brutes are rational animals, and not to inquire whether there is any compact between them and us. For, with respect to men, all of them do not league with us, and yet no one would say, that he who does not enter into a league with us is irrational. But many brutes are slaves to men, and, as someone rightly says, though they are in a state of servitude themselves, through the improbity of men, yet, at the same time, by wisdom and justice, they cause their masters to be their servants and curators. Moreover, the vices of brutes are manifest, from which especially their rationality is demonstrated. For they are envious, and the males are rivals of each other with respect to the favour of the females, and the females with respect to the regard of the males. There is one vice, however, which is not inherent in them, viz., acting insidiously towards their benefactors, but they are perfectly benevolent to those who are kind to them, and place so much confidence in them, as to follow wherever they may lead them, though it should even be to slaughter and manifest danger. And though some one should nourish them, not for their sake, but for his own, yet they will be benevolently disposed towards their possessor. But men [on the contrary] do not act with such hostility towards any one, as towards him who has nourished them; nor do they so much pray for the death of any one, as for his death.

[ 249 ]

14. Indeed, the operations of brutes are attended with so much consideration,8 that they frequently perceive, that the food which is placed for them is nothing else than a snare, though, either through intemperance or hunger, they approach to it. And some of them, indeed, do not approach to it immediately, but others slowly accede to it. They also try whether it is possible to take the food without falling into danger, and frequently in consequence of rationality vanquishing passion, they depart without being injured. Some of them too revile at, and discharge their urine on the stratagem of men; but others, through voracity, though they know that they shall be captured, yet no less than the associates of Ulysses, suffer themselves to die rather than not eat. Some persons, likewise, have not badly endeavoured to show from the places which animals are allotted, that they are far more prudent than we are. For as those beings that dwell in aether are rational, so also, say they, are the animals which occupy the region proximate to aether, viz. the air; afterwards aquatic animals differ from these, and in the last place, the terrestrial differ from the aquatic [in degrees of rationality]. And we belong to the class of terrene animals dwelling in the sediment of the universe. For in the Gods, we must not infer that they possess a greater degree of excellence from the places [which they illuminate], though in mortal natures this may be admitted. 15. Since, also, brutes acquire a knowledge of the arts, and these such as are human, and learn to dance, to drive a chariot, to fight a duel, to walk on ropes, to write and read, to play on the pipe and the harp, to discharge arrows, and to ride, - this being the case, can you any longer doubt whether they possess that power which is receptive of art, since the recipient of these arts may be seen to exist in them? For where will they receive them, unless reason is inherent in them in which the arts subsist? For they do not hear our voice as if it was a mere sound only, but they also perceive the difference in the meaning of the words, which is the effect of rational intelligence. But our opponents say, that animals perform badly what is done by men. To this we reply, that neither do men perform all things well. For if this be not admitted, some men would be in vain victors in a contest, and others vanquished. They add, that brutes do not consult, nor form assemblies, nor act in a judicial capacity. But tell me whether all men do this? Do not actions in the multitude precede consultation? And whence can anyone demonstrate that brutes do not consult? For no one can adduce an argument sufficient to prove that they do not. For those show the contrary to this, who have written minutely about animals. As to other objections, which are adduced by our adversaries in a declamatory way, they are perfectly frivolous; such, for instance, as that brutes have no cities of their own. For neither have the Scythians, who live in carts, nor the Gods. Our opponents add, that neither have brutes any written laws. To this we reply, that neither

[ 250 ]

had men while they were happy. For Apis is said to have been the first that promulgated laws for the Greeks, when they were in want of them. 16. To men, therefore, on account of their voracity, brutes do not appear to possess reason; but by the Gods and divine men, they are honoured equally with sacred suppliants. Hence, the God 9 said to Aristodicus, the Cumean, that sparrows were his suppliants. Socrates also, and prior to him, Rhadamanthus, swore by animals. But the Egyptians conceive them to be Gods, whether they, in reality, thought them to be so, or whether they intentionally represented the Gods in the forms of oxen, birds, and other animals, in order that these animals might be no less abstained from than from men, or whether they did this through other more mystical causes 10. Thus also the Greeks united a ram to the statue of Jupiter, but the horns of a bull to that of Bacchus. They likewise fashioned the statue of Pan from the form of a man and a goat; but they represented the Muses and the Sirens winged, and also Victory, Iris, Love, and Hermes. Pindar too, in his hymns, represents the Gods, when they were expelled by Typhon, not resembling men, but other animals. And Jupiter, when in love with Pasiphae, is said to have become a bull; but at another time, he is said to have been changed into an eagle and a swan; through all which the ancients indicated the honour which they paid to animals, and this in a still greater degree when they assert that Jupiter was nursed by a goat. The Cretans, from a law established by Rhadamanthus, swore by all animals. Nor was Socrates in jest when he swore by the dog and the goose; but in so doing, he swore conformably to the just son of Jupiter [Rhadamanthus] nor did he sportfully say that swans were his fellow-servants. But fables obscurely signify, that animals have souls similar to ours, when they say that the Gods in their anger changed men into brutes, and that, when they were so changed, they afterwards pitied and loved them. For things of this kind are asserted of Dolphins and halcyons, of nightingales and swallows. 17. Each of the ancients, likewise, who had been prosperously nursed by animals, boasted more of this than of their parents and educators. Thus, one boasted of having been nursed by a she-wolf, another by a hind, another by a she-goat another by a bee. But Semiramis gloried in having been brought up by doves, Cyrus in being nursed by a dog, and a Thracian in having a swan for his nurse, who likewise bore the name of his nurse. Hence also, the Gods obtained their surnames, as Bacchus that of Hinnuleus, Apollo that of Lyceus, and, likewise, Delphinius, Neptune and Minerva that of Equestris. But Hecate, when invoked by the names of a bull, a dog, and a lioness, is more propitious. If, however, those who sacrifice animals and eat them, assert that they are irrational, in order that they may mitigate the crime of so doing, the Scythians also, who eat their parents, may in like manner say that their parents are destitute of reason.

[ 251 ]

18. Through these arguments, therefore, and others which we shall afterwards mention, in narrating the opinions of the ancients, it is demonstrated that brutes are rational animals, reason in most of them being indeed imperfect, of which, nevertheless, they are not entirely deprived. Since, however, justice pertains to rational beings, as our opponents say, how is it possible not to admit, that we should also act justly towards brutes? For we do not extend justice to plants, because there appears to be much in them which is unconnected with reason; though of these, we are accustomed to use the fruits, but not together with the fruits to cut off the trunks. We collect however, corn and leguminous substances, when, being efflorescent, they have fallen on the earth, and are dead. But no one uses for food the flesh of dead animals, that of fish being excepted, unless they have been destroyed by violence. So that in these things there is much injustice. As Plutarch also says 11, it does not follow that because our nature is indigent of certain things, and we use these, we should therefore act unjustly towards all things. For we are allowed to injure other things to a certain extent, in order to procure the necessary means of subsistence (if to take any thing from plants, even while they are living, is an injury to them); but to destroy other things through luxury, and for the enjoyment of pleasure, is perfectly savage and unjust. And the abstinence from these neither diminishes our life nor our living happily. For if, indeed, the destruction of animals and the eating of flesh were as requisite as air and water, plants and fruits, without which it is impossible to live, this injustice would be necessarily connected with our nature. But if many priests of the Gods, and many kings of the barbarians, being attentive to purity, and if, likewise, infinite species of animals never taste food of this kind, yet live, and obtain their proper end according to nature, is not he absurd who orders us, because we are compelled to wage war with certain animals, not to live peaceably with those with whom it is possible to do so, but thinks, either that we ought to live without exercising justice towards any thing, or that, by exercising it towards all things, we should not continue in existence? As, therefore, among men, he who, for the sake of his own safety, or that of his children or country, either seizes the wealth of certain persons, or oppresses some region or city, has necessity for the pretext of his injustice; but he who acts in this manner through the acquisition of wealth, or through satiety or luxurious pleasure, and for the purpose of satisfying desires which are not necessary, appears to be inhospitable, intemperate, and depraved; -thus too, divinity pardons the injuries which are done to plants, the consumption of fire and water, the shearing of sheep, the milking of cows, and the taming of oxen, and subjugating them to the yoke, for the safety and continuance in life of those that use them. But to deliver animals to be slaughtered and cooked, and thus be

[ 252 ]

filled with murder, not for the sake of nutriment and satisfying the wants of nature, but making pleasure and gluttony the end of such conduct, is transcendently iniquitous and dire. For it is sufficient that we use, for laborious purposes, though they have no occasion to labour themselves, the progeny of horses, and asses, and bulls, as Aeschylus says, as our substitutes, who, by being tamed and subjugated to the yoke, alleviate our toil. 19. But with respect to him who thinks that we should not use an ox for food, nor destroying and corrupting spirit and life, place things on the table which are only the allurements and elegances of satiety, of what does he deprive our life, which is either necessary to our safety, or subservient to virtue? To compare plants, however, with animals, is doing violence to the order of things. For the latter are naturally sensitive, and adapted to feel pain, to be terrified and hurt; on which account also they may be injured. But the former are entirely destitute of sensation, and in consequence of this, nothing foreign, or evil, or hurtful, or injurious, can befall them. For sensation is the principle of all alliance, and of every thing of a foreign nature. But Zeno and his followers assert, that alliance is the principle of justice. And is it not absurd, since we see that many of our own species live from sense alone, but do not possess intellect and reason, and since we also see, that many of them surpass the most terrible of wild beasts in cruelty, anger, and rapine, being murderous of their children and their parents, and also being tyrants, and the tools of kings [is it not, I say, absurd,] to fancy that we ought to act justly towards these, but that no justice is due from us to the ox that ploughs, the dog that is fed with us, and the animals that nourish us with their milk, and adorn our bodies with their wool? Is it not such an opinion most irrational and absurd? 20. But, by Jupiter, the assertion of Chrysippus is considered by our opponents to be very probable, that the Gods made us for the sake of themselves, and for the sake of each other, and that they made animals for the sake of us; horses, indeed, in order that they might assist us in battle, dogs, that they might hunt with us, and leopards, bears, and lions, for the sake of exercising our fortitude. But the hog (for here the pleasantry of Chrysippus is most delightful) was not made for any other purpose than to be sacrificed; and God mingled soul, as if it were salt, with the flesh of this animal, that he might procure for us excellent food. In order, likewise, that we might have an abundance of broth, and luxurious suppers, divinity provided for us all-various kinds of shell-fish, the fishes called purples, sea-nettles, and the various kinds of winged animals; and this not from a certain other cause, but only that he might supply man with an exuberance of pleasure; in so doing, surpassing all nurses [in kindness], and thickly filling with pleasures and enjoyments the terrestrial place. Let him, however, to whom these assertions appear to possess a certain probability, and to participate of something [ 253 ]

worthy of deity, consider what he will reply to the saying of Carneades, that every thing which is produced by nature, is benefited when it obtains the end to which it is adapted, and for which it was generated. But benefit is to be understood in a more general way, as signifying what the Stoics call useful. The hog, however, [says he] was produced by nature for the purpose of being slaughtered and used for food; and when it suffers this, it obtains the end for which it is adapted, and is benefited. But if God fashioned animals for the use of men, in what do we use flies, lice, bats, beetles, scorpions, and vipers? of which some are odious to the sight, defile the touch, are intolerable to the smell, and in their voice dire and unpleasant; and others, on the contrary, are destructive to those that meet with them. And with respect to the balance, pistrices, and other species of whales, an infinite number of which, as Homer says 12, the loud-sounding Amphitrite nourishes, does not the Demiurgus teach us, that they were generated for the utility of the nature of things? 13 And if our opponents should admit that all things were not generated for us, and with a view to our advantage, in addition to the distinction which they make being very confused and obscure, we shall not avoid acting unjustly, in attacking and noxiously using those animals which were not produced for our sake, but according to nature [i.e. for the sake of the universe], as we were. I omit to mention, that if we define, by utility, things which pertain to us, we shall not be prevented from admitting, that we were generated for the sake of the most destructive animals, such as crocodiles, balaenae, and dragons. For we are not in the least benefited by them; but they seize and destroy men that fall in their way, and use them for food; in so doing acting not at all more cruelly than we do, excepting that they commit this injustice through want and hunger, but we through insolent wantonness, and for the sake of luxury, frequently sporting in theatres, and in hunting slaughter the greater part of animals. And by thus acting, indeed, a murderous disposition and a brutal nature become strengthened in us, and render us insensible to pity: to which we may add, that those who first dared to do this, blunted the greatest part of lenity, and rendered it inefficacious. The Pythagoreans, however, made lenity towards beasts to be an exercise of philanthropy and commiseration. So that, how is it possible they should not in a greater degree excite us to justice, than those who assert that, by not slaughtering animals, the justice which is usually exercised towards men will be corrupted? For custom is most powerful in increasing those passions in man which were gradually introduced into his nature. 21. It is so, say our antagonists; but as the immortal is opposed to the mortal, the incorruptible to the corruptible, and the incorporeal to the corporeal, so to the rational essence which has an existence in the nature of things, the irrational essence must be

[ 254 ]

opposed, which has a subsistence contrary to it; nor in so many conjugations of things, is this alone to be left imperfect and mutilated. [Our opponents, however, thus speak], as if we did not grant this, or as if we had not shown that there is much of the irrational among beings. For there is an abundance of it in all the natures that are destitute of soul, nor do we require any other opposition to that which is rational; but immediately every thing which is deprived of soul, being irrational and without intellect, is opposed to that which possesses reason and dianoia 14. If, however, some one should think fit to assert that not nature in common, but the animated nature, is divided into that which possess and that which is without imagination, and into that which is sensitive, and that which is deprived of sensation, in order that these oppositions of habits and privations may subsist about the same genus, as being equiponderant; - he who says this speaks absurdly. For it would be absurd to investigate in the animated nature that which is sensitive, and that which is without sensation, that which employs, and that which is without imagination, because every thing animated is immediately adapted to be sensitive and imaginative. So that neither thus will he justly require, that one part of the animated nature should be rational, but another irrational, when he is speaking to men, who think that nothing participates of sense which does not also participate of intelligence, and that nothing is an animal in which opinion and reasoning are not inherent, in the same manner as with animals every sense and impulse are naturally present. For nature, which they rightly assert produced all things for the sake of a certain thing, and with reference to a certain end, did not make an animal sensitive merely that it might be passively affected, and possess sensible perception; but as there are many things which are allied and appropriate, and many which are foreign to it, it would not be able to exist for the shortest space of time, unless it learnt how to avoid some things, and to pursue others. The knowledge, therefore, of both these, sense similarly imparts to every animal; but the apprehension and pursuit of what is useful, and the depulsion and avoidance of what is destructive and painful, can by no possible contrivance be present with those animals that are incapable of reasoning, judging, and remembering, and that do not naturally possess an animadvertise power. For to those animals from whom you entirely take away expectation, memory, design, preparation, hope, fear, desire, and indignation, neither the eyes when present, nor the ears, nor sense, nor phantasy, will be beneficial, since they will be of no use; and it will be better to be deprived of them than to labour, be in pain, and be afflicted, without possessing the power of repelling these molestations. There is, however, a treatise of Strato, the physiologist, in which it is demonstrated, that it is not possible to have a sensible perception of anything without the energy of intellection. For frequently the letters of a

[ 255 ]

book, which we cursorily consider by the sight, and words which fall on the auditory sense, are concealed from and escape us, when our intellect is attentive to other things; but afterwards, when it returns to the thing to which it was before inattentive, then, by recollection, it runs through and pursues each of the before-mentioned particulars. Hence also it is said [by Epicharmus], — ’Tis mind alone that sees and hears, And all besides is deaf and blind. For the objects which fall on the eyes and the ears do not produce a sensible perception of themselves, unless that which is intellective is present. On which account, also, king Cleomenes, when something that was recited was applauded, being asked, if it did not also appear to him to be excellent, left this to the decision of those that asked him the question; for he said, that his intellect was at the time in Peloponnesus. Hence it is necessary that intellect should be present with ail those with whom sensible perception is present. 22. Let us, however, admit that sense does not require intellect for the accomplishment of its proper work, yet, when energizing about what is appropriate and what is foreign, it discerns the difference between the two, it must then exercise the power of memory, and must dread that which will produce pain, desire that which will be beneficial, and contrive, if it is absent, how it may be present, and will procure methods of pursuing and investigating what is advantageous, and of avoiding and flying from hostile occurrences. Indeed, our opponents, in their Introductions, [as they call them], every where inculcate these things with a tedious prolixity, defining design to be an indication of perfection; the tendency of intellect to the object of its perception, an impulse prior to impulse; preparation, an action prior to action; and memory, the comprehension of some past thing,15 the perception of which, when present, was obtained through sense. For there is not any one of these which is not rational, and all of them are present with all animals. Thus, too, with respect to intellections, those which are reposited in the mind, are called by them εννοιαι, notions; but when they are in motion [through a discursive energy] they denominate them διανοησεις, or perceptions obtained by a reasoning process. But with respect to all the passions, as they are in common acknowledged to be depraved natures and opinions, it is wonderful that our opponents should overlook the operations and motions of brutes, many of which are the effects of anger, many of fear, and, by Jupiter, of envy also and emulation. Our opponents, too, themselves punish dogs and horses when they do wrong; and this not in vain, but in order to make them better, producing in them, through the pain, a sorrow which we denominate repentance. But the name of the pleasure which is received

[ 256 ]

through the ears is κηλησις, i.e. an ear-alluring sweetness; and the delight which is received through the eyes is denominated γοητεια, i.e. enchantment. Each of these, however, is used towards brutes. Hence stags and horses are allured by the harmony produced from reeds and flutes; and the crabs, called παγουροι, paguri, are evocated from their caverns by the melody of reeds. The fish thrissa, likewise, is said through harmony to come forth from its retreats. Those, however, who speak stupidly about these things, assert that animals are neither delighted, nor enraged, nor terrified, nor make any provision for what is necessary, nor remember; but they say that the bee as it were remembers, that the swallow as it were, provides what is requisite, that the lion is as it were angry, and that the stag is as it were afraid. And I know not what answer to give to those who say that animals neither see nor hear, but see as it were, and as it were hear; that they do not utter vocal sounds, but as it were utter them; and that, in short, they do not live, but as it were live. For he who is truly intelligent, will readily admit that these assertions are no more sane than the former, and are similarly destitute of evidence. When, however, on comparing with human manners and lives, actions and modes of living, those of animals, I see much depravity in the latter, and no manifest tendency to virtue as to the principal end, nor any proficiency, or appetition of proficiency, I am dubious why nature gave the beginning of perfection to those that are never able to arrive at the end of it 16. But this to our opponents does not appear to be at all absurd. For as they admit that the love of parents towards their offspring is the principle in us of association and justice; yet, though they perceive that this affection is abundant and strong in animals, they nevertheless deny that they participate of justice; which assertion is similarly defective with the nature of mules, who, though they are not in want of any generative member, since they have a penis and vulva, and receive pleasure from employing these parts, yet they are not able to accomplish the end of generation. Consider the thing, too, in another way: Is it not ridiculous to say that such men as Socrates, Plato and Zeno, were not less vicious than any slave, but resembled slaves in stupidity, intemperance, and injustice, and afterwards blame the nature of brutes, as neither pure, nor formed with sufficient accuracy for the attainment of virtue; thus attributing to them a privation, and not a depravity and imbecility of reason? Especially since they acknowledge that there is a vice of the rational part of the soul, with which every brute is replete. For we may perceive that timidity, intemperance, injustice, and malevolence, are inherent in many brutes. 23. But he who thinks that the nature which is not adapted to receive rectitude of reason, does not at all receive reason, he, in the first place, does not differ from one who fancies that an ape does not naturally participate of deformity, nor a tortoise of tardity;

[ 257 ]

because the former is not receptive of beauty, nor the latter of celerity. And, in the next place, this is the opinion of one who does not perceive the obvious difference of things. For reason, indeed, is ingenerated by nature; but right and perfect reason is acquired by study and discipline. Hence all animated beings participate of reason, but our opponents cannot mention any man who possesses rectitude of reason and wisdom [naturally], though the multitude of men is innumerable. But as the sight of one animal differs from that of another, and the flying of one bird from that of another, (for hawks and grasshoppers do not similarly see, nor eagles and partridges); thus, also, neither does every thing which participates of reason possess genius and acuteness in the highest perfection. Indeed there are many indications in brutes of association, fortitude, and craft, in procuring what is necessary, and in economical conduct; as, on the contrary, there are also indications in them of injustice, timidity, and fatuity. Hence it is a question with some, which are the more excellent, terrestrial or aquatic animals 17? And that there are these indications, is evident from comparing storks with river horses: for the former nourish, but the latter destroy their fathers, in order that they may have connexion with their mothers. This is likewise seen on comparing doves with partridges: for the latter conceal and destroy their eggs, if the female, during her incubation, refuses to be connected with the male. But doves successively relieve each other in incubation, alternately cherishing the eggs; and first, indeed, they feed the young, and afterwards the male strikes the female with his beak, and drives her to the eggs and her young, if she has for a long time wandered from them. Antipater, however, when he blames asses and sheep for the neglect of purity, overlooks, I know not how, lynxes and swallows; of which, the former remove and entirely conceal and bury their excrement, but the latter teach their young to throw it out of their nest. Moreover, we do not say that one tree is more ignorant than another, as we say that a sheep is more stupid than a dog. Nor do we say that one herb is more timid than another, as we do that a stag is more timid than a lion. For, as in things which are immoveable, one is not slower than another, and in things which are not vocal, one is not less vocal than another: thus, too, in all things in which the power of intellection is wanting, one thing cannot be said to be more timid, more dull, or more intemperate than another. For, as these qualities are present differently in their different participants, they produce in animals the diversities which we perceive. Nor is it wonderful that man should so much excel other animals in docility, sagacity, justice and association. For many brutes surpass all men in magnitude of body, and celerity of foot, and likewise in strength of sight, and accuracy of hearing; yet man is not on this account either deaf, or blind, or powerless. But we run, though slower than stags, and we see, though not so accurately as hawks;

[ 258 ]

and nature has not deprived us of strength and magnitude, though our possession of these is nothing, when compared with the strength and bulk of the elephant and the camel. Hence, in a similar manner, we must not say that brutes, because their intellection is more dull than ours, and because they reason worse than we do, neither energize discursively, nor, in short, possess intellection and reason; but it must be admitted that they possess these, though in an imbecile and turbid manner, just as a dull and disordered eye participates of sight. 24. Innumerable instances, however, might be adduced in proof of this natural sagacity of animals, if many things of this kind had not by many persons been collected and narrated. But this subject must be still further considered. For it appears that it belongs to the same thing, whether it be a part or a power, which is naturally adapted to receive a certain thing, to be also disposed to fall into a preternatural mode of subsistence, when it becomes mutilated or diseased. Thus, the eye is adapted to fall into blindness, the leg into lameness, and the tongue into stammering; but nothing else is subject to such defects. For blindness does not befall that which is not naturally adapted to see, nor lameness that which is not adapted to walk; nor is that which is deprived of a tongue fitted to stammer, or lisp, or be dumb. Hence, neither can that animal be delirious, or stupid, or insane, in which intellection, and the discursive energy of reason, are not naturally inherent. For it is not possible for any thing to be passively affected which does not possess the power, the passion of which is either privation, or mutilation, or some other deprivation. Moreover, I have met with mad dogs, and also rabid horses; and some persons assert that oxen and foxes become mad. The example of dogs, however, is sufficient for our purpose: for it is a thing indubitable, and testifies that the animal possesses no despicable portion of reason and discursive energy, the passion of which, when disturbed and confounded, is fury and madness. For, when they are thus affected, we do not see that there is any change in the quality of their sight or hearing. But as he is absurd who denies that a man is beside himself, and that his intellectual, reasoning, and recollective powers, are corrupted, when he is afflicted with melancholy or delirium, (for it is usually said of those that are insane, that they are not themselves, but have fallen off from reason): thus also, he who thinks that mad dogs suffer any thing else than that of having the power, which is naturally intellective, and is adapted to reason and recollect, full of tumult and distortion, so as to cause them to be ignorant of persons most dear to them, and abandon their accustomed mode of living; he who thus thinks, appears either to overlook what is obvious; or, if he really perceives what takes place, voluntarily contends against the truth. And such are the arguments adduced by Plutarch in many of his treatises against the Stoics and Peripatetics.

[ 259 ]

25. But Theophrastus employs the following reasoning:- those that are generated from the same sources, I mean from the same father and mother, are said by us to be naturally allied to each other. And moreover, we likewise conceive that those who derive their origin from the same ancestors that we do, are allied to us, and also that this is the case with our fellow-citizens, because they participate with us of the same land, and are united to us by the bonds of association. For we do not think that the latter are allied to each other, and to us, through deriving their origin from the same ancestors, unless it should so happen that the first progenitors of these were the sources of our race, or were derived from the same ancestors. Hence, I think we should say, that Greek is allied and has an affinity to Greek, and Barbarian to Barbarian, and all men to each other; for one of these two reasons, either because they originate from the same ancestors, or because they participate of the same food, manners and genus. Thus also we must admit that all men have an affinity, and are allied to each other. And, moreover, the principles of the bodies of all animals are naturally the same. I do not say this with reference to the first elements of their bodies; for plants also consist of these; but I mean the seed, the flesh, and the conascent genus of humours which is inherent in animals. But animals are much more allied to each other, through naturally possessing souls, which are not different from each other, I mean in desire and anger; and besides these, in the reasoning faculty, and, above all, in the senses. But as with respect to bodies, so likewise with respect to souls, some animals have them more, but others less perfect, yet all of them have naturally the same principles. And this is evident from the affinity of their passions. If, however, what we have said is true, viz. that such is the generation of the manners of animals, all the tribes of them are indeed intellective, but they differ in their modes of living, and in the temperature of the first elements of which they consist. And if this be admitted, the genus of other animals has an affinity, and is allied to us. For, as Euripides says, they have all of them the same food and the same spirit, the same purple streams; and they likewise demonstrate that the common parents of all of them are Heaven and Earth. 26. Hence, since animals are allied to us, if it should appear, according to Pythagoras, that they are allotted the same soul that we are, he may justly be considered as impious who does not abstain from acting unjustly towards his kindred. Nor because some animals are savage, is their alliance to us to be on this account abscinded. For some men may be found who are no less, and even more malefic than savage animals to their neighbours, and who are impelled to injure any one they may meet with, as if they were driven by a certain blast of their own nature and depravity. Hence, also, we destroy such men; yet we do not cut them off from an alliance to animals of a mild nature. Thus, therefore, if likewise some animals are savage, these, as such, are to be destroyed, in the [ 260 ]

same manner as men that are savage; but our habitude or alliance to other and wilder animals is not on this account to be abandoned. But neither tame nor savage animals are to be eaten; as neither are unjust men. Now, however, we act most unjustly, destroying, indeed tame animals, because some brutes are savage and unjust, and feeding on such as are tame. With respect to tame animals, however, we act with a twofold injustice, because though they are tame, we slay them, and also, because we eat them. And, in short, the death of these has a reference to the assumption of them for food. To these, also, such arguments as the following may be added. For he who says that the man who extends the just as far as to brutes, corrupts the just, is ignorant that he does not himself preserve justice, but increases pleasure, which is hostile to justice. By admitting, therefore, that pleasure is the end [of our actions] justice is evidently destroyed. For to whom is it not manifest that justice is increased through abstinence? For he who abstains from every thing animated, though he may abstain from such animals as do not contribute to the benefit of society, will be much more careful not to injure those of his own species. For he who loves the genus, will not hate any species of animals; and by how much the greater his love of the genus is,* by so much the more will he preserve justice towards a part of the genus, and that to which he is allied. He, therefore, who admits that he is allied to all animals, will not injure any animal. But he who confines justice to man alone, is prepared, like one enclosed in a narrow space, to hurl from him the prohibition of injustice. So that the Pythagorean is more pleasing than the Socratic banquet. For Socrates said, that hunger is the sauce of food; but Pythagoras said, that to injure no one, and to be exhilarated with justice, is the sweetest sauce; as the avoidance of animal food, will also be the avoidance of unjust conduct with respect to food. For God has not so constituted things, that we cannot preserve ourselves without injuring others; since, if this were the case, he would have connected us with a nature which is the principal of injustice. Do not they, however, appear to be ignorant of the peculiarity of justice, who think that it was introduced from the alliance of men to each other? For this will be nothing more than a certain philanthropy; but justice consists in abstaining from injuring any thing which is not noxious. And our conception of the just man must be formed according to the latter, and not according to the former mode. Hence, therefore, since justice consists in not injuring any thing, it must be extended as far as to every animated nature. On this account, also, the essence of justice consists in the rational ruling over the irrational, and in the irrational being obedient to the rational part. For when reason governs, and the irrational part is obedient to its mandates, it follows, by the greatest necessity, that man will be innoxious towards every thing. For the passions being restrained, and desire and anger wasting [ 261 ]

away, but reason possessing its proper empire, a similitude to a more excellent nature [and to deity] immediately follows. But the more excellent nature in the universe is entirely innoxious, and, through possessing a power which preserves and benefits all things, is itself not in want of any thing. We, however, through justice [when we exercise it], are innoxious towards all things, but, through being connected with mortality, are indigent of things of a necessary nature. But the assumption of what is necessary, does not injure even plants, when we take what they cast off; nor fruits, when we use such of them as are dead; nor sheep, when through shearing we rather benefit than injure them, and by partaking of their milk, we in return afford them every proper attention. Hence, the just man appears to be one who deprives himself of things pertaining to the body; yet he does not [in reality] injure himself. For, by this management of his body, and continence, he increases his inward good, i.e., his similitude to God. 27. By making pleasure, therefore, the end of life, that which is truly justice cannot be preserved; since neither such things as are primarily useful according to nature, nor all such as are easily attainable, give completion to felicity. For, in many instances, the motions of the irrational nature, and utility and indigence, have been, and still are the sources of injustice. For men became indigent [as they pretended] of animal food, in order that they might preserve, as they said, the corporeal frame free from molestation, and without being in want of those things after which the animal nature aspires. But if an assimilation to divinity is the end of life, an innoxious conduct towards all things will be in the most eminent degree preserved. As, therefore, he who is led by his passions is innoxious only towards his children and his wife, but despises and acts fraudulently towards other persons, since in consequence of the irrational part predominating in him, he is excited to, and astonished about mortal concerns; but he who is led by reason, preserves an innoxious conduct towards his fellow-citizens, and still more so towards strangers, and towards all men, through having the irrational part in subjection, and is therefore more rational and divine than the former character; - thus also, he who does not confine harmless conduct to men alone, but extends it to other animals, is more similar to divinity; and if it was possible to extend it even to plants, he would preserve this image in a still greater degree. As, however, this is not possible, we may in this respect lament, with the ancients 18, the defect of our nature, that we consist of such adverse and discordant principles, so that we are unable to preserve our divine part incorruptible, and in all respects innoxious. For we are not unindigent in all things: the cause of which is generation, and our becoming needy through the abundant corporeal efflux which we sustain. But want procures safety and ornament from things of a foreign nature, which are necessary to the existence of our mortal part. He,

[ 262 ]

therefore, who is indigent of a greater number of externals, is in a greater degree agglutinated to penury; and by how much his wants increase, by so much is he destitute of divinity, and an associate of penury. For that which is similar to deity, through this assimilation immediately possesses true wealth. But no one who is [truly] rich and perfectly unindigent injures any thing. For as long as any one injures another, though he should possess the greatest wealth, and all the acres of land which the earth contains, he is still poor, and has want for his intimate associate. On this account, also, he is unjust, without God, and impious, and enslaved to every kind of depravity, which is produced by the lapse of the soul into matter, through the privation of good. Every thing, therefore, is nugatory to any one, as long as he wanders from the principle of the universe; and he is indigent of all things, while he does not direct his attention to Porus [or the source of true abundance]. He likewise yields to the mortal part of his nature, while he remains ignorant of his real self. But Injustice is powerful in persuading and corrupting those that belong to her empire, because she associates with her votaries in conjunction with Pleasure. As, however, in the choice of lives, he is the more accurate judge who has obtained an experience of both [the better and the worse kind of life], than he who has only experienced one of them; thus also, in the choice and avoidance of what is proper, he is a safer judge who, from that which is more, judges of that which is less excellent, than he who from the less, judges of the more excellent. Hence, he who lives according to intellect, will more accurately define what is eligible and what is not, than he who lives under the dominion of irrationality. For the former has passed through the irrational life, as having from the first associated with it; but the latter, having had no experience of an intellectual life, persuades those that resemble himself, and acts with nugacity, like a child among children. If, however, say our opponents, all men were persuaded by these arguments, what would become of us? Is it not evident that we should be happy, injustice, indeed, being exterminated from men, and justice being conversant with us, in the same manner as it is in the heavens? But now this question is just the same as if men should be dubious what the life of the Danaids would be, if they were liberated from the employment of drawing water in a sieve, and attempting to fill a perforated vessel. For they are dubious what would be the consequence if we should cease to replenish our passions and desires, the whole of which replenishing continually flows away through the want of real good; since this fills up the ruinous clefts of the soul more than the greatest of external necessaries. Do you therefore ask, O man, what we should do? We should imitate those that lived in the golden age, we should imitate those of that period who were [truly] free. For with them modesty, Nemesis, and Justice associated, because they were satisfied with the fruits of the earth. [ 263 ]

The fertile earth for them spontaneous yields Abundantly her fruits 19. But those who are liberated from slavery, obtain for themselves what they before procured for their masters. In like manner, also, do you, when liberated from the servitude of the body, and a slavish attention to the passions produced through the body, as, prior to this, you nourished them in an all-various manner with externals, so now nourish yourself all-variously with internal good, justly assuming things which are [properly] your own, and no longer by violence taking away things which are foreign [to your true nature and real good].

[ 264 ]

ENDNOTES. 1 This external reason (λογος προφορικος) is speech. 2 Philostratus relates this of Apollonius, in his Life of him. 3 The words within the brackets are added from the version of Felicianus. Hence it appears, that the words εκ των διαφορων μυκηματων are wanting in the original, after the word ζητει. But the defect is not noticed by any of the editors. 4 Porphyry derived this from the treatise of Plutarch, in which it is investigated whether land are more sagacious than aquatic animals. 5 This was the opinion of the Stoics; but is most erroneous. For the supreme divinity, being superessential, transcends even intellect itself, and much more reason, which is an evolved perception of things; and this is also the case with every other deity, according to the Platonic theology, when considered according to his hyparxis, or summit. See my translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato. 6 A musket, or male hawk of a small kind. This bird is mentioned by Homer, Iliad, XIV. v. 233. 7 Reason in a divine intellect subsists causally, or in a way better than reason, and therefore is not a discursive energy (διεξοδικη ενεργεια), but an evolved cause of things. And though, in a divine soul, it is discursive, or transitive, yet it differs from our reason in this, that it perceives the whole of one form at once, and not by degrees, as we do when we reason. 8 In the original, ουτω δ̕ εστι λογιστικα ων δρᾳ, κ.τ.λ. But for λογιστικα, Lipsius proposes to read, λογικα, and Meerman λογικη. There is, however, no occasion whatever to substitute any other word for λογιστικα, as, with Platonic writers, το λογιστικον is equivalent to to λογιζομενον. 9 See the first book of Herodotus, chap. 159. 10 The more mystical cause why the Egyptians worshipped animals, appears to me to be this, that they conceived a living to be preferable to an inanimate image of divinity. Hence, they reverenced animals as visible and living resemblances of certain invisible powers of the Gods. See Plutarch’s Treatise on Isis and Osiris. 11 See the Symposiacs of Plutarch, lib. ix. 8.

[ 265 ]

12 Odyss. XII. v. 96. 13 The latter part of this sentence, which in the original is τι ουκ εδιδαξεν μηας ο δημιουργος οπη χρησιμα τη φυσει γεγονε; Valentinus most erroneously translates, “quare nos rerum opifex non edocuit, quomodo a natura in nostros usus facta fuerint?” 14 i.e. The discursive energy of reason. 15 In the original, μυημην δε καταληψις αξιωματος παρεληλυθος, οὐ το παρον εξ αισθησεως κατεληφθη; but for αξιωματος, I read πραγματος. Felicianus also appears to have found this reading in his manuscript copy of the work; for his version of the passage is, “vel memoriam rei praeteriae comprehensionem, quem praesentem sensus perciperat.” 16 This doubt may, perhaps, be solved, by admitting that brutes have an imperfect rationality, or the very dregs of the rational faculty, by which they form a link between men and zoophytes, just as zoophytes are a link between brutes and merely vegetable substances. Brutes, therefore, having an imperfect reason, possess only the beginning of perfection. 17 Plutarch has written a most ingenious treatise on this subject. 18 In the original, οσῳ μειζον το γενος το των ζωων, τυο ουτῳ και ωρος το μερος και το οικειον ταυτην διασωσει. On this passage, Reisk observes, “Forte οσῳ μειζων ῃ οικειωσις ωρος το γενος το των ζωων, τοσουτῳ (scilicet μαλλον) και προς το μερός, κ.τ.λ.” But, instead of η οικειωσις, it appears to me that η φιλια should be substituted. 19 Porphyry here particularly alludes to Empedocles.

[ 266 ]

BOOK FOUR 1. IN T H E preceding books, O Castricius, we have nearly answered all the arguments which in reality defend the feeding on flesh, for the sake of incontinence and intemperance, and which adduce impudent apologies for so doing by ascribing a greater indigence to our nature than is fit. Two particular inquiries, however, still remain; in one of which the promise of advantage especially deceives those who are corrupted by pleasure. And, moreover, we shall confute the assertion of our opponents, that no wise man, nor any nation, has rejected animal food, as it leads those that hear it to great injustice, through the ignorance of true history; and we shall also endeavour to give the solutions of the question concerning advantage, and to reply to other inquiries. 2. But we shall begin from the abstinence of certain nations, in the narration of which, what is asserted of the Greeks will first claim our attention, as being the most allied to us, and the most appropriate of all the witnesses that can be adduced. Among those, therefore, that have concisely, and at the same time accurately collected an account of the affairs of the Greeks, is the Peripatetic Dicaearchus 1, who, in narrating the pristine life of the Greeks, says, the ancients, being generated with an alliance to the Gods, were naturally most excellent, and led the best life; so that, when compared to us of the present day, who consist of an adulterated and most vile matter, they were thought to be a golden race; and they slew no animal whatever. The truth of this, he also says, is testified by the poets, who denominate these ancients the golden race, and assert that every good was present with them. The fertile earth for them spontaneous bore Of fruits a copious and unenvy’d store; In blissful quiet then, unknown to strife, The worthy with the worthy passed their life 2. Which assertions, indeed Dicaearchus explaining, says, that a life of this kind was under Saturn; if it is proper to consider it as a thing that once existed, and that it is a life which has not been celebrated in vain, and if, laying aside what is extremely fabulous, we may refer it to a physical narration. All things, therefore, are very properly said to have been then spontaneously produced; for men did not procure any thing by labour, because they were unacquainted with the agricultural art, and, in short, had no knowledge of any other art. This very thing, likewise, was the cause of their leading a life of leisure, free from labours and care; and if it is proper to assent to the decision of the most skilful and elegant of physicians, it was also the cause of their being liberated from disease. For there is not any precept of physicians which more contributes to health, than that which exhorts us not to make an abundance of excrement, from which those pristine Greeks

[ 267 ]

always preserved their bodies pure. For they neither assumed such food as was stronger than the nature of the body could bear, but such as could be vanquished by the corporeal nature, nor more than was moderate, on account of the facility of procuring it, but for the most part less than was sufficient, on account of its paucity. Moreover, there were neither any wars among them, nor seditions with each other. For no reward of contention worth mentioning was proposed as an incentive, for the sake of which some one might be induced to engage in such dissensions. So that the principal thing in that life was leisure and rest from necessary occupations, together with health, peace, and friendship. But to those in after times, who, through aspiring after things which greatly exceeded mediocrity, fell into many evils, this pristine life became, as it was reasonable to suppose it would, desirable. The slender and extemporaneous food, however, of these first men, is manifested by the saying which was afterwards proverbially used, enough of the oak; this adage being probably introduced by him who first changed the ancient mode of living. A pastoral life succeeded to this, in which men procured for themselves superfluous possessions, and meddled with animals. For, perceiving that some of them were innoxious, but others malefic and savage, they tamed the former, but attacked the latter. At the same time, together with this life, war was introduced. And these things, says Dicaearchus, are not asserted by us, but by those who have historically discussed a multitude of particulars. For, as possessions were now of such a magnitude as to merit attention, some ambitiously endeavoured to obtain them, by collecting them [for their own use], and calling on others to do the same, but others directed their attention to the preservation of them when collected. Time, therefore, thus gradually proceeding, and men always directing their attention to what appeared to be useful, they at length became conversant with the third, and agricultural form of life. And this is what is said by Dicaearchus, in his narration of the manners of the ancient Greeks, and the blessed life which they then led, to which abstinence from animal food contributed, no less than other things. Hence, at that period there was no war, because injustice was exterminated. But afterwards, together with injustice towards animals, war was introduced among men, and the endeavour to surpass each other in amplitude of possessions. On which account also, the audacity of those is wonderful, who say that abstinence from animals is the mother of injustice, since both history and experience testify, that together with the slaughter of animals, war and injustice were introduced. 3. Hence, this being afterwards perceived by the Lacedaemonian Lycurgus, though the eating of animals then prevailed, yet he so arranged his polity, as to render food of this kind requisite in the smallest degree. For the allotted property of each individual did not consist in herds of oxen, flocks of sheep, or an abundance of goats, horses, and [ 268 ]

money, but in the possession of land, which might produce for a man seventy medimni 3 of barley, and for a woman twelve, and the quantity of liquid fruits in the same proportion. For he thought that this quantity of nutriment was sufficient to procure a good habit of body and health, nothing else to obtain these being requisite. Whence also it is said, that on returning to his country, after he had been for some time absent from it, and perceiving, as he passed through the fields, that the corn had just been reaped, and that the threshing-floors and the heaps were parallel and equable, he laughed, and said to those that were present, that all Laconia seemed to belong to many brothers, who had just divided the land among themselves. He added, that as he had therefore expelled luxury from Sparta, it would be requisite also to annul the use of money, both golden and silver, and to introduce iron alone, as its substitute, and this of a great bulk and weight, and of little value; so that as much of it as should be worth ten minae should require a large receptacle to hold it, and a cart drawn by two oxen to carry it. But this being ordained, many species of injustice were exterminated from Lacedaemon. For who would attempt to thieve, or suffer himself to be corrupted by gifts, or defraud or plunder another, when it was not possible for him to conceal what he had taken, nor possess it so as to be envied by others, nor derive any advantage from coining it? Together with money also, the useless arts were expelled, the works of the Lacedaemonians not being saleable. For iron money could not be exported to the other Greeks, nor was it esteemed by them, but ridiculed. Hence, neither was it lawful to buy any thing foreign, and which was intrinsically of no worth, nor did ships laden with merchandise sail into their ports, nor was any verbal sophist, or futile diviner, or bawd, or artificer of golden and silver ornaments, permitted to come to Laconia, because there money was of no use. And thus luxury, being gradually deprived of its incitements and nourishment, wasted away of itself. Those likewise who possessed much derived no greater advantage from it, than those who did not, as no egress was afforded to abundance, since it was so obstructed by impediments, that it was forced to remain in indolent rest. Hence such household furniture as was in constant use, and was necessary, such as beds, chairs, and tables, these were made by them in the best manner; and the Laconic cup, which was called Cothon, was, as Critias says, especially celebrated in military expeditions. For in these expeditions, the water which they drank, and which was unpleasant to the sight, was concealed by the colour of the cup; and the turbid part of the water falling against the lips, through their prominency, that part of it which was drank, was received in a purer condition by the mouth. As we are informed, however, by Plutarch, the legislator was the cause of these things. For the artificers being liberated from useless works, exhibited the beauty of art in things of a necessary nature.

[ 269 ]

4. That he might also in a still greater degree oppose luxury, and take away the ardent endeavour to obtain wealth, he introduced a third, and most beautiful political institution, viz. that of the citizens eating and drinking together publicly; so that they might partake of the same prescribed food in common, and might not be fed at home, reclining on sumptuous couches, and placed before elegant tables, through the hands of artificers and cooks, being fattened in darkness, like voracious animals, and corrupting their bodies, together with their morals, by falling into every kind of luxury and repletion; as such a mode of living would require much sleep, hot baths, and abundant quiet, and such attentions as are paid to the diseased. This indeed was a great thing; but still greater than this, that, as Theophrastus says, he caused wealth to be neglected, and to be of no value through the citizens eating at common tables, and the frugality of their food. For there was no use, nor enjoyment of riches; nor, in short, was there any thing to gratify the sight, or any ostentatious display in the whole apparatus, because both the poor and the rich sat at the same table. Hence it was universally said, that in Sparta alone, Plutus was seen to be blind, and lying like an inanimate and immoveable picture. For it was not possible for the citizens, having previously feasted at home, to go to the common tables with appetites already satiated with food. For the rest carefully observed him who did not eat and drink with them, and reviled him, as an intemperate person, and as one who conducted himself effeminately with respect to the common food. Hence these common tables were called phiditia; either as being the causes of friendship and benevolence, as if they were philitia, assuming δ for λ; or as accustoming men (προς ευτελειαν και φειδω) to frugality and a slender diet. But the number of those that assembled at the common table was fifteen, more or less. And each person brought every month, for the purpose of furnishing the table, a medimnus of flour, eight choas 4 of wine, five pounds of cheese, two and a half pounds of figs, and, besides all these, a very little quantity of money. 5. Hence the children of those who ate thus sparingly and temperately, came to these common tables, as to schools of temperance, where they also heard political discourses, and were spectators of liberal sports. Here, likewise, they learnt to jest acrimoniously, without scurrility, and to receive, without being indignant, the biting jests of others. For this appeared to be extremely Laconic, to be able to endure acrimonious jests; though he who could not endure was permitted to refuse hearing them, and the scoffer was immediately silent. Such, therefore, was the frugality of the Lacedaemonians, with respect to diet, though it was legally instituted for the sake of the multitude. Hence those who came from this polity are said to have been more brave and temperate, and paid more attention to rectitude, than those who came from other

[ 270 ]

communities, which are corrupted both in souls and bodies. And it is evident that perfect abstinence is adapted to such a polity as this, but to corrupt communities luxurious food.5 If, likewise, we direct our attention to such other nations as regarded equity, mildness and piety to the Gods, it will be evident that abstinence was ordained by them, with a view to the safety and advantage, if not of all, yet at least of some of the citizens, who, sacrificing to, and worshipping the Gods, on account of the city, might expiate the sins of the multitude. For, in the mysteries, what the boy who attends the altar accomplishes, by performing accurately what he is commanded to do, in order to render the Gods propitious to all those who have been initiated, as far as to muesis 6 (αντι παντων των μυουμενων), that, in nations and cities, priests are able to effect, by sacrificing for all the people, and through piety inducing the Gods to be attentive to the welfare of those that belong to them. With respect to priests, therefore, the eating of all animals is prohibited to some, but of certain animals to others, whether you consider the customs of the Greeks or of the barbarians, which are different in different nations. So that all of them, collectively considered, or existing as one, being assumed, it will be found that they abstain from all animals. If, therefore, those who preside over the safety of cities, and to whose care piety to the Gods is committed, abstain from animals, how can any one dare to accuse this abstinence as disadvantageous to cities? 6. Chaeremon the Stoic, therefore, in his narration of the Egyptian priests, who, he says, were considered by the Egyptians as philosophers, informs us, that they chose temples, as the places in which they might philosophize. For to dwell with the statues of the Gods is a thing allied to the whole desire, by which the soul tends to the contemplation of their divinities. And from the divine veneration indeed, which was paid to them through dwelling in temples, they obtained security, all men honouring these philosophers, as if they were certain sacred animals. They also led a solitary life, as they only mingled with other men in solemn sacrifices and festivals. But at other times the priests were almost inaccessible to any one who wished to converse with them. For it was requisite that he who approached to them should be first purified, and abstain from many things; and this is as it were a common sacred law respecting the Egyptian priests. But these [philosophic priests], having relinquished every other employment, and human labours,7 gave up the whole of their life to the contemplation and worship of divine natures and to divine inspiration; through the latter, indeed, procuring for themselves, honour, security, and piety; but through contemplation, science; and through both, a certain occult exercise of manners, worthy of antiquity8. For to be always conversant with divine knowledge and inspiration, removes those who are so

[ 271 ]

from all avarice, suppresses the passions, and excites to an intellectual life. But they were studious of frugality in their diet and apparel, and also of continence and endurance, and in all things were attentive to justice and equity. They likewise were rendered venerable, through rarely mingling with other men. For during the time of what are called purifications, they scarcely mingled with their nearest kindred, and those of their own order, nor were they to be seen by anyone, unless it was requisite for the necessary purposes of purification. For the sanctuary was inaccessible to those who were not purified, and they dwelt in holy places for the purpose of performing divine works; but at all other times they associated more freely with those who lived like themselves. They did not, however, associate with any one who was not a religious character. But they were always seen near to the Gods, or the statues of the Gods, the latter of which they were beheld either carrying, or preceding in a sacred procession, or disposing in an orderly manner, with modesty and gravity; each of which operations was not the effect of pride, but an indication of some physical reason. Their venerable gravity also was apparent from their manners. For their walking was orderly, and their aspect sedate; and they were so studious of preserving this gravity of countenance, that they did not even wink, when at any time they were unwilling to do so; and they seldom laughed, and when they did, their laughter proceeded no farther than to a smile. But they always kept their hands within their garments. Each likewise bore about him a symbol indicative of the order which he was allotted in sacred concerns; for there were many orders of priests. Their diet also was slender and simple. For, with respect to wine, some of them did not at all drink it, but others drank very little of it, on account of its being injurious to the nerves, oppressive to the head, an impediment to invention, and an incentive to venereal desires. In many other things also they conducted themselves with caution; neither using bread at all in purifications, and at those times in which they were not employed in purifying themselves, they were accustomed to eat bread with hyssop, cut into small pieces. For it is said, that hyssop very much purifies the power of bread. But they, for the most part, abstained from oil, the greater number of them entirely; and if at any time they used it with pot-herbs, they took very little of it, and only as much as was sufficient to mitigate the taste of the herbs. 7. It was not lawful for them therefore to meddle with the esculent and potable substances, which were produced out of Egypt, and this contributed much to the exclusion of luxury from these priests. But they abstained from all the fish that was caught in Egypt, and from such quadrupeds as had solid, or many-fissured hoofs, and from such as were not horned; and likewise from all such birds as were carnivorous. Many of them, however, entirely abstained from all animals; and in purifications this abstinence was adopted by all of them, for then they did not even eat an egg. Moreover, [ 272 ]

they also rejected other things, without being calumniated for so doing. Thus, for instance, of oxen, they rejected the females, and also such of the males as were twins, or were speckled, or of a different colour, or alternately varied in their form, or which were now tamed, as having been already consecrated to labours, and resembled animals that are honoured, or which were the images of any thing [that is divine], or those that had but one eye, or those that verged to a similitude of the human form. There are also innumerable other observations pertaining to the art of those who are called mosxofragistai, or who stamp calves with a seal, and of which books have been composed. But these observations are still more curious respecting birds; as, for instance, that a turtle should not be eaten; for it is said that a hawk frequently dismisses this bird after he has seized it, and preserves its life, as a reward for having had connexion with it. The Egyptian priests, therefore, that they might not ignorantly meddle with a turtle of this kind, avoided the whole species of those birds. And these indeed were certain common religious ceremonies; but there were different ceremonies, which varied according to the class of the priests that used them, and were adapted to the several divinities. But chastity and purifications were common to all the priests. When also the time arrived in which they were to perform something pertaining to the sacred rites of religion, they spent some days in preparatory ceremonies, some indeed forty-two, but others a greater, and others a less number of days; yet never less than seven days; and during this time they abstained from all animals, and likewise from all pot-herbs and leguminous substances, and, above all, from a venereal connexion with women; for they never at any time had connexion with males. They likewise washed themselves with cold water thrice every day; viz. when they rose from their bed, before dinner, and when they betook themselves to sleep. But if they happened to be polluted in their sleep by the emission of the seed, they immediately purified their body in a bath. They also used cold bathing at other times, but not so frequently as on the above occasion. Their bed was woven from the branches of the palm tree, which they call bais; and their bolster was a smooth semi-cylindric piece of wood. But they exercised themselves in the endurance of hunger and thirst, and were accustomed to paucity of food through the whole of their life. 8. This also is a testimony of their continence, that, though they neither exercised themselves in walking or riding, yet they lived free from disease, and were sufficiently strong for the endurance of modern labours. They bore therefore many burdens in the performance of sacred operations, and accomplished many ministrant works, which required more than common strength. But they divided the night into the observation of the celestial bodies, and sometimes devoted a part of it to offices of purification; and they distributed the day into the worship of the Gods, according to which they [ 273 ]

celebrated them with hymns thrice or four times, viz. in the morning and evening, when the sun is at his meridian altitude, and when he is declining to the west. The rest of their time they devoted to arithmetical and geometrical speculations, always labouring to effect something, and to make some new discovery, and, in short, continually exercising their skill. In winter nights also they were occupied in the same employments, being vigilantly engaged in literary pursuits, as paying no attention to the acquisition of externals, and being liberated from the servitude of that bad master, excessive expense. Hence their unwearied and incessant labour testifies their endurance, but their continence is manifested by their liberation from the desire of external good. To sail from Egypt likewise, [i.e. to quit Egypt,] was considered by them to be one of the most unholy things, in consequence of their being careful to avoid foreign luxury and pursuits; for this appeared to them to be alone lawful to those who were compelled to do so by regal necessities. Indeed, they were very anxious to continue in the observance of the institutes of their country, and those who were found to have violated them, though but in a small degree were expelled [from the college of the priests]. The true method of philosophizing, likewise, was preserved by the prophets, by the hierostolistae 9, and the sacred scribes, and also by the horologi, or calculators of nativities. But the rest of the priests, and of the pastophori 10, curators of temples, and ministers of the Gods, were similarly studious of purity, yet not so accurately, and with such great continence, as the priests of whom we have been speaking. And such are the particulars which are narrated of the Egyptians, by a man who was a lover of truth, and an accurate writer, and who among the Stoics strenuously and solidly philosophized. 9. But the Egyptian priests, through the proficiency which they made by this exercise, and similitude to divinity, knew that divinity does not pervade through man alone, and that soul is not enshrined in man alone on the earth, but that it nearly passes through all animals. On this account, in fashioning the images of the Gods, they assumed every animal, and for this purpose mixed together the human form and the forms of wild beasts, and again the bodies of birds with the body of a man. For a certain deity was represented by them in a human shape as far as to the neck, but the face was that of a bird, or a lion, or of some other animal. And again, another divine resemblance had a human head, but the other parts were those of certain other animals, some of which had an inferior, but others a superior position; through which they manifested, that these [i.e. brutes and men], through the decision of the Gods, communicated with each other, and that tame and savage animals are nurtured together with us, not without the concurrence of a certain divine will. Hence also, a lion is worshipped as a God, and a certain part of Egypt, which is called Nomos, has the surname of Leontopolis

[ 274 ]

[or the city of the lion], and another is denominated Busiris [from an ox], and another Lycopolis [or the city of the wolf]. For they venerated the power of God which extends to all things through animals which are nurtured together, and which each of the Gods imparts. They also reverenced water and fire the most of all the elements, as being the principal causes of our safety. And these things are exhibited by them in temples; for even now, on opening the sanctuary of Serapis, the worship is performed through fire and water; he who sings the hymns making a libation with water, and exhibiting fire, when, standing on the threshold of the temple, he invokes the God in the language of the Egyptians. Venerating, therefore, these elements, they especially reverence those things which largely participate of them, as partaking more abundantly of what is sacred. But after these, they venerate all animals, and in the village Anubis they worship a man, in which place also they sacrifice to him, and victims are there burnt in honour of him on an altar; but he shortly after only eats that which was procured for him as a man. Hence, as it is requisite to abstain from man, so likewise, from other animals. And farther still, the Egyptian priests, from their transcendent wisdom and association with divinity, discovered what animals are more acceptable to the Gods [when dedicated to them] than man. Thus they found that a hawk is dear to the sun, since the whole of its nature consists of blood and spirit. It also commiserates man, and laments over his dead body, and scatters earth on his eyes, in which these priests believe a solar light is resident. They likewise discovered that a hawk lives many years, and that, after it leaves the present life, it possesses a divining power, is most rational and prescient when liberated from the body, and gives perfection to statues, and moves temples. A beetle will be detested by one who is ignorant of and unskilled in divine concerns, but the Egyptians venerate it, as an animated image of the sun. For every beetle is a male, and emitting its genital seed in a muddy place, and having made it spherical, it turns round the seminal sphere in a way similar to that of the sun in the heavens. It likewise receives a period of twenty-eight days, which is a lunar period. In a similar manner, the Egyptians philosophise about the ram, the crocodile, the vulture, and the ibis, and, in short, about every animal; so that, from their wisdom and transcendent knowledge of divine concerns, they came at length to venerate all animals 11. An unlearned man, however, does not even suspect that they, not being borne along with the stream of the vulgar who know nothing, and not walking in the path of ignorance, but passing beyond the illiterate multitude, and that want of knowledge which befalls every one at first, were led to reverence things which are thought by the vulgar to be of no worth. 10. This also, no less than the above-mentioned particulars, induced them to believe, that animals should be reverenced [as images of the Gods], viz. that the soul of every

[ 275 ]

animal, when liberated from the body, was discovered by them to be rational, to be prescient of futurity, to possess an oracular power, and to be effective of every thing which man is capable of accomplishing when separated from the body. Hence they very properly honoured them, and abstained from them as much as possible. Since, however, the cause through which the Egyptians venerated the Gods through animals requires a copious discussion, and which would exceed the limits of the present treatise, what has been unfolded respecting this particular is sufficient for our purpose. Nevertheless, this is not to be omitted, that the Egyptians, when they buried those that were of noble birth, privately took away the belly and placed it in a chest, and together with other things which they performed for the sake of the dead body, they elevated the chest towards the sun, whom they invoked as a witness; an oration for the deceased being at the same time made by one of those to whose care the funeral was committed. But the oration which Euphantus 12 has interpreted from the Egyptian tongue was as follows: “O Sovereign Sun, and all ye Gods who impart life to men, receive me, and deliver me to the eternal Gods as a cohabitant. For I have always piously worshipped those divinities which were pointed out to me by my parents as long as I lived in this age, and have likewise always honoured those who procreated my body. And, with respect to other men, I have never slain any one, nor defrauded any one of what he deposited with me, nor have I committed any other atrocious deed. If, therefore, during my life I have acted erroneously, by eating or drinking things which it is unlawful to eat or drink, I have not erred through myself, but through these,” pointing to the chest in which the belly was contained. And having thus spoken, he threw the chest into the river [Nile]; but buried the rest of the body as being pure. After this manner, they thought an apology ought to be made to divinity for what they had eaten and drank, and for the insolent conduct which they had been led to through the belly. 11. But among those who are known by us, the Jews, before they first suffered the subversion of their legal institutes under Antiochus, and afterwards under the Romans, when also the temple in Jerusalem was captured, and became accessible to all men to whom, prior to this event, it was inaccessible, and the city itself was destroyed; - before this took place, the Jews always abstained from many animals, but peculiarly, which they even now do, from swine. At that period, therefore, there were three kinds of philosophers among them. And of one kind, indeed, the Pharisees were the leaders, but of another, the Sadducees, and of the third, which appears to have been the most venerable, the Essenes. The mode of life, therefore, of these third was as follows, as Josephus frequently testifies in many of his writings. For in the second book of his Judaic History, which he has completed in seven books, and in the eighteenth of his

[ 276 ]

Antiquities, which consists of twenty books, and likewise in the second of the two books which he wrote against the Greeks, he speaks of these Essenes, and says, that they are of the race of the Jews, and are in a greater degree than others friendly to one another. They are averse to pleasures, conceiving them to be vicious, but they are of opinion that continence and the not yielding to the passions, constitute virtue. And they despise, indeed, wedlock, but receiving the children of other persons, and instructing them in disciplines while they are yet of a tender age, they consider them as their kindred, and form them to their own manners. And they act in this manner, not for the purpose of subverting marriage, and the succession arising from it, but in order to avoid the lasciviousness of women. They are likewise, despisers of wealth, and the participation of external possessions among them in common is wonderful; nor is any one to be found among them who is richer than the rest. For it is a law with them, that those who wish to belong to their sect, must give up their property to it in common; so that among all of them, there is not to be seen either the abjectness of poverty, or the insolence of wealth; but the possessions of each being mingled with those of the rest, there was one property with all of them, as if they had been brothers. They likewise conceived oil to be a stain to the body, and that if any one, though unwillingly, was anointed, he should [immediately] wipe his body. For it was considered by them as beautiful to be squalid 13, and to be always clothed in white garments. But curators of the common property were elected by votes, indistinctly for the use of all. They have not, however, one city, but in each city many of them dwell together, and those who come among them from other places, if they are of their sect, equally partake with them of their possessions, as if they were their own. Those, likewise, who first perceive these strangers, behave to them as if they were their intimate acquaintance. Hence, when they travel, they take nothing with them for the sake of expenditure. But they neither change their garments nor their shoes, till they are entirely torn, or destroyed by time. They neither buy nor sell anything, but each of them giving what he possesses to him that is in want, receives in return for it what will be useful to him. Nevertheless, each of them freely imparts to others of their sect what they may be in want of, without any remuneration. 12. Moreover, they are peculiarly pious to divinity. For before the sun rises they speak nothing profane, but they pour forth certain prayers to him which they had received from their ancestors, as if beseeching him to rise. Afterwards, they are sent by their curators to the exercise of the several arts in which they are skilled, and having till the fifth hour strenuously laboured in these arts, they are afterwards collected together in one place; and there, being begirt with linen teguments, they wash their bodies with

[ 277 ]

cold water. After this purification, they enter into their own proper habitation, into which no heterodox person is permitted to enter. But they being pure, betake themselves to the dining room, as into a certain sacred fane. In this place, when all of them are seated in silence, the baker places the bread in order, and the cook distributes to each of them one vessel containing one kind of eatables. Prior, however, to their taking the food which is pure and sacred, a priest prays, and it is unlawful for any one prior to the prayer to taste of the food. After dinner, likewise, the priest again prays; so that both when they begin, and when they cease to eat, they venerate divinity. Afterwards, divesting themselves of these garments as sacred, they again betake themselves to their work till the evening; and, returning from thence, they eat and drink in the same manner as before, strangers sitting with them, if they should happen at that time to be present. No clamour or tumult ever defiles the house in which they dwell; but their conversation with each other is performed in an orderly manner; and to those that are out of the house, the silence of those within it appears as if it was some terrific mystery. The cause, however, of this quietness is their constant sobriety, and that with them their meat and drink is measured by what is sufficient [to the wants of nature]. But those who are very desirous of belonging to their sect, are not immediately admitted into it, but they must remain out of it for a year, adopting the same diet, the Essenes giving them a rake, a girdle, and a white garment. And if, during that time, they have given a sufficient proof of their continence, they proceed to a still greater conformity to the institutes of the sect, and use purer water for the purpose of sanctity; though they are not yet permitted to live with the Essenes. For after this exhibition of endurance, their manners are tried for two years more, and he who after this period appears to deserve to associate with them, is admitted into their society. 13. Before, however, he who is admitted touches his common food, he takes a terrible oath, in the first place, that he will piously worship divinity; in the next place, that he will preserve justice towards men, and that he will neither designedly, nor when commanded, injure any one; in the third place; that he will always hate the unjust, but strenuously assist the just; and in the fourth place, that he will act faithfully towards all men, but especially towards the rulers of the land, since no one becomes a ruler without the permission of God; in the fifth place, that if he should be a ruler, he will never employ his power to insolently iniquitous purposes, nor will surpass those that are in subjection to him in his dress, or any other more splendid ornament; in the sixth place, that he will always love the truth, and be hostile to liars; in the seventh place, that he will preserve his hands from theft, and his soul pure from unholy gain 14; and, in the eighth place, that he will conceal nothing from those of his sect, nor divulge any thing to

[ 278 ]

others pertaining to the sect, though some one, in order to compel him, should threaten him with death. In addition to these things, also, they swear, that they will not impart the dogmas of the sect to any one in any other way than that in which they received them; that they will likewise abstain from robbery 15, and preserve the books of their sect with the same care as the names of the angels. Such, therefore, are their oaths. But those among them that act criminally, and are ejected, perish by an evil destiny. For, being bound by their oaths and their customs, they are not capable of receiving food from others; but feeding on herbs, and having their body emaciated by hunger, they perish. Hence the Essenes, commiserating many of these unfortunate men, receive them in their last extremities into their society, thinking that they have suffered sufficiently for their offences in having been punished for them till they were on the brink of the grave. But they give a rake to those who intend to belong to their sect, in order that, when they sit for the purpose of exonerating the belly, they make a trench a foot in depth, and completely cover themselves by their garment, in order that they may not act contumeliously towards the sun by polluting the rays of the God. And so great, indeed, is their simplicity and frugality with respect to diet, that they do not require evacuation till the seventh day after the assumption of food, which day they spend in singing hymns to God, and in resting from labour. But from this exercise they acquire the power of such great endurance, that even when tortured and burnt, and suffering every kind of excruciating pain, they cannot be induced either to blaspheme their legislator, or to eat what they have not been accustomed to. And the truth of this was demonstrated in their war with the Romans. For then they neither flattered their tormentors, nor shed any tears, but smiled in the midst of their torments, and derided those that inflicted them, and cheerfully emitted their souls, as knowing that they should possess them again. For this opinion was firmly established among them, that their bodies were indeed corruptible, and that the matter of which they consisted was not stable, but that their souls were immortal, and would endure for ever, and that, proceeding from the most subtle ether, they were drawn down by a natural flux, and complicated with bodies; but that, when they are no longer detained by the bonds of the flesh, then, as if liberated from a long slavery, they will rejoice, and ascend to the celestial regions. But from this mode of living, and from being thus exercised in truth and piety, there were many among them, as it is reasonable to suppose there would be, who had aforeknowledge of future events, as being conversant from their youth with sacred books, different purifications, and the declarations of the prophets. And such is the order [or sect] of the Essenes among the Jews.

[ 279 ]

14. All of them, however, were forbidden to eat the flesh of swine, or fish without scales, which the Greeks call cartilaginous; or to eat any animal that has solid hoofs. They were likewise forbidden not only to refrain from eating, but also from killing animals that fled to their houses as supplicants. Nor did the legislator permit them to slay such animals as were parents together with their young; but ordered them to spare, even in a hostile land, and not put to death brutes that assist us in our labours. Nor was the legislator afraid that the race of animals which are not sacrificed, would, through being spared from slaughter, be so increased in multitude as to produce famine among men; for he knew, in the first place, that multiparous animals live but for a short time; and in the next place, that many of them perish, unless attention is paid to them by men. Moreover, he likewise knew that other animals would attack those that increased excessively; of which this is an indication, that we abstain from many animals, such as lizards, worms, flies, serpents, and dogs, and yet, at the same time, we are not afraid of perishing through hunger by abstaining from them, though their increase is abundant. And in the next place, it is not the same thing to eat and to slay an animal. For we destroy many of the above-mentioned animals, but we do not eat any of them. 15. Farther still, it is likewise related that the Syrians formerly abstained from animals, and, on this account, did not sacrifice them to the Gods; but that afterwards they sacrificed them, for the purpose of averting certain evils; yet they did not at all admit of a fleshly diet. In process of time, however, as Neanthes the Cyzicenean and Asclepiades the Cyprian say, about the era of Pygmalion, who was by birth a Phoenician, but reigned over the Cyprians, the eating of flesh was admitted, from an illegality of the following kind, which Asclepiades, in his treatise concerning Cyprus and Phoenicia, relates as follows: — In the first place, they did not sacrifice anything animated to the Gods; but neither was there any law pertaining to a thing of this kind, because it was prohibited by natural law. They are said, however, on a certain occasion, in which one soul was required for another, to have, for the first time, sacrificed a victim; and this taking place, the whole of the victim was then consumed by fire. But afterwards, when the victim was burnt, a portion of the flesh fell on the earth, which was taken by the priest, who, in so doing, having burnt his fingers, involuntarily moved them to his mouth, as a remedy for the pain which the burning produced. Having, therefore, thus tasted of the roasted flesh, he also desired to eat abundantly of it, and could not refrain from giving some of it to his wife. Pygmalion, however, becoming acquainted with this circumstance, ordered both the priest and his wife to be hurled headlong from a steep rock, and gave the priesthood to another person, who not long after performing the same sacrifice and eating the flesh of the victim, fell into the same calamities as his predecessor. The thing, however, proceeding still farther, and men using the same kind [ 280 ]

of sacrifice, and through yielding to desire, not abstaining from, but feeding on flesh, the deed was no longer punished. Nevertheless abstinence from fish continued among the Syrians till the time of Menander: for he says: The Syrians for example take, since these When by intemperance led of fish they eat, Swoln in their belly and their feet become. With sack then cover’d, in the public way They on a dunghill sit, that by their lowly state, The Goddess may, appeas’d, the crime forgive. 16. Among the Persians, indeed, those who are wise in divine concerns, and worship divinity, are called Magi; for this is the signification of Magus, in the Persian tongue. But so great and so venerable are these men thought to be by the Persians, that Darius, the son of Hystaspes, had among other things this engraved on his tomb, that he had been the master of the Magi. They are likewise divided into three genera, as we are informed by Eubulus, who wrote the history of Mithra, in a treatise consisting of many books. In this work he says, that the first and most learned class of the Magi neither eat nor slay any thing animated, but adhere to the ancient abstinence from animals. The second class use some animals indeed [for food], but do not slay any that are tame. Nor do those of the third class, similarly with other men, lay their hands on all animals. For the dogma with all of them which ranks as the first is this, that there is a transmigration of souls; and this they also appear to indicate in the mysteries of Mithra. For in these mysteries, obscurely signifying our having something in common with brutes, they are accustomed to call us by the names of different animals. Thus they denominate the males who participate in the same mysteries lions, but the females lionesses, and those who are ministrant to these rites crows. With respect to their fathers also, they adopt the same mode. For these are denominated by them eagles and hawks. And he who is initiated in the Leontic mysteries, is invested with all-various forms of animals 16; of which particulars, Pallas, in his treatise concerning Mithra, assigning the cause, says, that it is the common opinion that these things are to be referred to the circle of the zodiac, but that truly and accurately speaking, they obscurely signify some thing pertaining to human souls, which, according to the Persians, are invested with bodies of all-various forms. For the Latins also, says Eubulus, call some men, in their tongue, boars and scorpions, lizards, and blackbirds. After the same manner likewise the Persians denominate the Gods the demiurgic causes of these: for they call Diana a she-wolf; but the sun, a bull, a lion, a dragon, and a hawk; and Hecate, a horse, a bull, a lioness, and a dog. But most theologists say that the name of Proserpine (της φερεφαττης) is derived

[ 281 ]

from nourishing a ringdove, (παρα το φερβειν την φατταν) for the ringdove is sacred to this Goddess. Hence, also the priests of Maia dedicate to her a ringdove. And Maia is the same with Proserpine, as being obstetric, and a nurse 17. For this Goddess is terrestrial, and so likewise is Ceres. To this Goddess, also a cock is consecrated; and on this account those that are initiated in her mysteries abstain from domestic birds. In the Eleusinian mysteries, likewise, the initiated are ordered to abstain from domestic birds, from fishes and beans, pomegranates and apples; which fruits are as equally defiling to the touch, as a woman recently delivered, and a dead body. But whoever is acquainted with the nature of divinely-luminous appearances knows also on what account it is requisite to abstain from all birds, and especially for him who hastens to be liberated from terrestrial concerns, and to be established with the celestial Gods. Vice, however, as we have frequently said, is sufficiently able to patronize itself, and especially when it pleads its cause among the ignorant. Hence, among those that are moderately vicious, some think that a dehortation of this kind is vain babbling, and, according to the proverb, the nugacity of old women; and others are of opinion that it is superstition. But those who have made greater advances in improbity, are prepared, not only to blaspheme those who exhort to, and demonstrate the propriety of this abstinence, but calumniate purity itself as enchantment and pride. They, however, suffering the punishment of their sins, both from Gods and men, are, in the first place, sufficiently punished by a disposition [i.e. by a depravity] of this kind. We shall, therefore, still farther make mention of another foreign nation, renowned and just, and believed to be pious in divine concerns, and then pass on to other particulars. 17. For the polity of the Indians being distributed into many parts, there is one tribe among them of men divinely wise, whom the Greeks are accustomed to call Gymnosophists 18. But of these there are two sects, over one of which the Bramins preside, but over the other the Samanaeans. The race of the Bramins, however, receive divine wisdom of this kind by succession, in the same manner as the priesthood. But the Samanaeans are elected, and consist of those who wish to possess divine knowledge. And the particulars respecting them are the following, as the Babylonian Bardesanes 19 narrates, who lived in the times of our fathers, and was familiar with those Indians who, together with Damadamis, were sent to Caesar. All the Bramins originate from one stock; for all of them are derived from one father and one mother. But the Samanaeans are not the offspring of one family, being, as we have said, collected from every nation of Indians. A Bramin, however, is not a subject of any government, nor does he contribute any thing together with others to government. And with respect to those that are philosophers, among these some dwell on mountains, and others [ 282 ]

about the river Ganges. And those that live on mountains feed on autumnal fruits, and on cows’ milk coagulated with herbs. But those that reside near the Ganges, live also on autumnal fruits, which are produced in abundance about that river. The land likewise nearly always bears new fruit, together with much rice, which grows spontaneously, and which they use when there is a deficiency of autumnal fruits. But to taste of any other nutriment, or, in short, to touch animal food, is considered by them as equivalent to extreme impurity and impiety. And this is one of their dogmas. They also worship divinity with piety and purity. They spend the day, and the greater part of the night, in hymns and prayers to the Gods; each of them having a cottage to himself, and living, as much as possible, alone. For the Bramins cannot endure to remain with others, nor to speak much; but when this happens to take place, they afterwards withdraw themselves, and do not speak for many days. They likewise frequently fast. But the Samanaeans are, as we have said, elected. When, however, any one is desirous of being enrolled in their order, he proceeds to the rulers of the city; but abandons the city or village that he inhabited, and the wealth and all the other property that he possessed. Having likewise the superfluities of his body cut off, he receives a garment, and departs to the Samanaeans, but does not return either to his wife or children, if he happens to have any, nor does he pay any attention to them, or think that they at all pertain to him. And, with respect to his children indeed, the king provides what is necessary for them, and the relatives provide for the wife. And such is the life of the Samanaeans. But they live out of the city, and spend the whole day in conversation pertaining to divinity. They have also houses and temples, built by the king, in which they are stewards, who receive a certain emolument from the king, for the purpose of supplying those that dwell in them with nutriment. But their food consists of rice, bread, autumnal fruits, and potherbs. And when they enter into their house, the sound of a bell being the signal of their entrance, those that are not Samanaeans depart from it, and the Samanaeans begin immediately to pray. But having prayed, again, on the bell sounding as a signal, the servants give to each Samanaean a platter, (for two of them do not eat out of the same dish,) and feed them with rice. And to him who is in want of a variety of food, a potherb is added, or some autumnal fruit. But having eaten as much as is requisite, without any delay they proceed to their accustomed employments. All of them likewise are unmarried, and have no possessions: and so much are both these and the Bramins venerated by the other Indians, that the king also visits them, and requests them to pray to and supplicate the Gods, when any calamity befalls the country, or to advise him how to act. 18. But they are so disposed with respect to death, that they unwillingly endure the whole time of the present life, as a certain servitude to nature, and therefore they [ 283 ]

hasten to liberate their souls from the bodies [with which they are connected]. Hence, frequently, when they are seen to be well, and are neither oppressed, nor driven to desperation by any evil, they depart from life. And though they previously announce to others that it is their intention to commit suicide, yet no one impedes them; but, proclaiming all those to be happy who thus quit the present life, they enjoin certain things to the domestics and kindred of the dead: so stable and true do they, and also the multitude, believe the assertion to be, that souls [in another life] associate with each other. But as soon as those to whom they have proclaimed that this is their intention, have heard the mandates given to them, they deliver the body to fire, in order that they may separate the soul from the body in the purest manner, and thus they die celebrated by all the Samanaeans. For these men dismiss their dearest friends to death more easily than others part with their fellow-citizens when going the longest journeys. And they lament themselves, indeed, as still continuing in life; but they proclaim those that are dead to be blessed, in consequence of having now obtained an immortal allotment. Nor is there any sophist, such as there is now amongst the Greeks, either among these Samanaeans, or the above-mentioned Bramins, who would be seen to doubt and to say, if all men should imitate you [i.e. should imitate those Samanaeans who commit suicide] what would become of us? Nor through these are human affairs confused. For neither do all men imitate them, and those who have, may be said to have been rather the causes of equitable legislation, than of confusion to the different nations of men. Moreover, the law did not compel the Samanaeans and Bramins to eat animal food, but, permitting others to feed on flesh, it suffered these to be a law to themselves, and venerated them as being superior to law. Nor did the law subject these men to the punishment which it inflicts, as if they were the primary perpetrators of injustice, but it reserved this for others. Hence, to those who ask, what would be the consequence if all men imitated such characters as these, the saying of Pythagoras must be the answer; that if all men were kings, the passage through life would be difficult, yet regal government is not on this account to be avoided. And [we likewise say] that if all men were worthy, no administration of a polity would be found in which the dignity that probity merits would be preserved. Nevertheless, no one would be so insane as not to think that all men should earnestly endeavour to become worthy characters. Indeed, the law grants to the vulgar many other things [besides a fleshly diet], which, nevertheless, it does not grant to a philosopher, nor even to one who conducts the affairs of government in a proper manner. For it does not receive every artist into the administration, though it does not forbid the exercise of any art, nor yet men of every pursuit. But it excludes those who are occupied in vile and illiberal arts,20 and, in short,

[ 284 ]

all those who are destitute of justice and the other virtues, from having any thing to do with the management of public affairs. Thus, likewise, the law does not forbid the vulgar from associating with harlots, on whom at the same time it imposes a fine; but thinks that it is disgraceful and base for men that are moderately good to have any connexion with them. Moreover, the law does not prohibit a man from spending the whole of his life in a tavern, yet at the same time this is most disgraceful even to a man of moderate worth. It appears, therefore, that the same thing must also be said with respect to diet. For that which is permitted to the multitude, must not likewise be granted to the best of men. For the man who is a philosopher, should especially ordain for himself those sacred laws which the Gods, and men who are followers of the Gods, have instituted. But the sacred laws of nations and cities appear to have ordained for sacred men purity, and to have interdicted them animal food. They have also forbidden the multitude to eat certain animals, either from motives of piety, or on account of some injury which would be produced by the food. So that it is requisite either to imitate priests, or to be obedient to the mandates of all legislators; but, in either way, he who is perfectly legal and pious ought to abstain from all animals. For if some who are only partially pious abstain from certain animals, he who is in every respect pious will abstain from all animals. 19. I had almost, however, forgotten to adduce what is said by Euripides, who asserts, that the prophets of Jupiter in Crete abstained from animals. But what is said by the chorus to Minos on this subject, is as follows: Sprung from Phoenicia’s royal line, Son of Europa, nymph divine, And mighty Jove, thy envy’d reign O’er Crete extending, whose domain Is with a hundred cities crown’d I leave yon consecrated ground, Yon fane, whose beams the artist’s toil With cypress, rooted from the soil, Hath fashion’d. In the mystic rites Initiated, life’s best delights I place in chastity alone, Midst Night’s dread orgies wont to rove, The priest of Zagreus 21 and of Jove; Feasts of crude flesh I now decline, And wave aloof the blazing pine

[ 285 ]

To Cybele, nor fear to claim Her own Curete’s hallow’d name; Clad in a snowy vest I fly Far from the throes of pregnancy, Never amidst the tombs intrude, And slay no animal for food. 20. For holy men were of opinion that purity consisted in a thing not being mingled with its contrary, and that mixture is defilement. Hence, they thought that nutriment should be assumed from fruits, and not from dead bodies, and that we should not, by introducing that which is animated to our nature, defile what is administered by nature. But they conceived, that the slaughter of animals, as they are sensitive, and the depriving them of their souls, is a defilement to the living; and that the pollution is much greater, to mingle a body which was once sensitive, but is now deprived of sense, with a sensitive and living being. Hence, universally, the purity pertaining to piety consists in rejecting and abstaining from many things, and in an abandonment of such as are of a contrary nature, and the assumption of such as are appropriate and concordant. On this account, venereal connexions are attended with defilement. For in these, a conjunction takes place of the female with the male; and the seed, when retained by the woman, and causing her to be pregnant, defiles the soul, through its association with the body; but when it does not produce conception, it pollutes, in consequence of becoming a lifeless mass. The connexion also of males with males defiles, because it is an emission of seed as it were into a dead body, and because it is contrary to nature. And, in short, all venery, and emissions of the seed in sleep, pollute, because the soul becomes mingled with the body, and is drawn down to pleasure. The passions of the soul likewise defile, through the complication of the irrational and effeminate part with reason, the internal masculine part. For, in a certain respect, defilement and pollution manifest the mixture of things of an heterogeneous nature, and especially when the abstersion of this mixture is attended with difficulty. Whence, also, in tinctures which are produced through mixture, one species being complicated with another, this mixture is denominated a defilement. As when some woman with a lively red Stains the pure iv’ry — says Homer 22. And again painters call the mixtures of colours, corruptions. It is usual, likewise to denominate that which is unmingled and pure, incorruptible, and to call that which is genuine, unpolluted. For water, when mingled with earth, is corrupted,

[ 286 ]

and is not genuine. But water, which is diffluent, and runs with tumultuous rapidity, leaves behind in its course the earth which it carries in its stream. When from a limpid and perennial fount It defluous runs — as Hesiod says 23. For such water is salubrious, because it is uncorrupted and unmixed. The female, likewise, that does not receive into herself the exhalation of seed, is said to be uncorrupted. So that the mixture of contraries is corruption and defilement. For the mixture of dead with living bodies, and the insertion of beings that were once living and sentient into animals, and of dead into living flesh, may be reasonably supposed to introduce defilement and stains to our nature; just, again, as the soul is polluted when it is invested with the body. Hence, he who is born, is polluted by the mixture of his soul with body; and he who dies, defiles his body, through leaving it a corpse, different and foreign from that which possesses life. The soul, likewise, is polluted by anger and desire, and the multitude of passions of which in a certain respect diet is a co-operating cause. But as water which flows through a rock is more uncorrupted than that which runs through marshes, because it does not bring with it much mud; thus, also, the soul which administers its own affairs in a body that is dry, and is not moistened by the juices of foreign flesh, is in a more excellent condition, is more uncorrupted, and is more prompt for intellectual energy. Thus too, it is said, that the thyme which is the driest and the sharpest to the taste, affords the best honey to bees. The dianoetic, therefore, or discursive power of the soul, is polluted; or rather, he who energizes dianoetically, when this energy is mingled with the energies of either the imaginative or doxastic power. But purification consists in a separation from all these, and the wisdom which is adapted to divine concerns, is a desertion of every thing of this kind. The proper nutriment likewise, of each thing, is that which essentially preserves it. Thus you may say, that the nutriment of a stone is the cause of its continuing to be a stone, and of firmly remaining in a lapideous form; but the nutriment of a plant is that which preserves it in increase and fructification; and of an animated body, that which preserves its composition. It is one thing, however, to nourish, and another to fatten; and one thing to impart what is necessary, and another to procure what is luxurious. Various, therefore, are the kinds of nutriment, and various also is the nature of the things that are nourished. And it is necessary, indeed, that all things should be nourished, but we should earnestly endeavour to fatten our most principal parts. Hence, the nutriment of the rational soul is that which preserves it in a rational state. But this is intellect; so that it is to be nourished by intellect; and we should earnestly endeavour that it may be fattened through this, rather than that the flesh may become pinguid

[ 287 ]

through esculent substances. For intellect preserves for us eternal life, but the body when fattened causes the soul to be famished, through its hunger after a blessed life not being satisfied, increases our mortal part, since it is of itself insane, and impedes our attainment of an immortal condition of being. It likewise defiles by corporifying the soul, and drawing her down to that which is foreign to her nature. And the magnet, indeed, imparts, as it were, a soul to the iron which is placed near it; and the iron, though most heavy, is elevated, and runs to the spirit of the stone. Should he, therefore, who is suspended from incorporeal and intellectual deity, be anxiously busied in procuring food which fattens the body, that is an impediment to intellectual perception? Ought he not rather, by contracting hat is necessary to the flesh into that which is little and easily procured, he himself nourished, by adhering to God more closely than the iron to the magnet? I wish, indeed, that our nature was not so corruptible, and that it were possible we could live free from molestation, even without the nutriment derived from fruits. O that, as Homer 24 says, we were not in want either of meat or drink, that we might be truly immortal! — the poet in thus speaking beautifully signifying, that food is the auxiliary not only of life, but also of death. If therefore, we were not in want even of vegetable aliment, we should be by so much the more blessed, in proportion as we should be more immortal. But now, being in a mortal condition, we render ourselves, if it be proper so to speak, still more mortal, through becoming ignorant that, by the addition of this mortality, the soul, as Theophrastus says, does not only confer a great benefit on the body by being its inhabitant, but gives herself wholly to it. 25 Hence, it is much to be wished that we could easily obtain the life celebrated in fables, in which hunger and thirst are unknown; so that, by stopping the everyway-flowing river of the body, we might in a very little time be present with the most excellent natures, to which he who accedes, since deity is there, is himself a God. But how is it possible not to lament the condition of the generality of mankind, who are so involved in darkness as to cherish their own evil, and who, in the first place, hate themselves, and him who truly begot them, and afterwards, those who admonish them, and call on them to return from ebriety to a sober condition of being? Hence, dismissing things of this kind, will it not be requisite to pass on to what remains to be discussed? 21. Those then who oppose the Nomades, or Troglodytae 26, or Ichthyophagi, to the legal institutes of the nations which we have adduced, are ignorant that these people were brought to the necessity of eating animals through the infecundity of the region they inhabit, which is so barren, that it does not even produce herbs, but only shores and sands. And this necessity is indicated by their not being able to make use of fire, [ 288 ]

through the want of combustible materials; but they dry their fish on rocks, or on the shore. And these indeed live after this manner from necessity. There are, however, certain nations whose manners are rustic, and who are naturally savage; but it is not fit that those who are equitable judges should, from such instances as these, calumniate human nature: For thus we should not only be dubious whether it is proper to eat animals, but also, whether we may not eat men, and adopt all other savage manners. It is related, therefore, that the Massagetas and the Derbices consider those of their kindred to be most miserable who die spontaneously. Hence, preventing their dearest friends from dying naturally, they slay them when they are old, and eat them. The Tibareni hurl from rocks their nearest relatives, even while living, when they are old. And with respect to the Hyrcani and Caspii, the one exposed the living, but the other the dead, to be devoured by birds and dogs. But the Scythians bury the living with the dead, and cut their throats on the pyres of the dead by whom they were especially beloved. The Bactrii likewise cast those among them that are old, even while living, to the dogs. And Stasanor, who was one of Alexander’s prefects, nearly lost his government through endeavouring to destroy this custom. As, however, we do not on account of these examples subvert mildness of conduct towards men, so neither should we imitate those nations that feed on flesh through necessity, but we should rather imitate the pious, and those who consecrate themselves to the Gods. For Democrates 27 says, that to live badly, and not prudently, temperately, and piously, is not to live in reality,28 but to die for a long time. 22. It now remains that we should adduce a few examples of certain individuals, as testimonies in favour of abstinence from animal food. For the want of these was one of the accusations which were urged against us. We learn, therefore, that Triptolemus was the most ancient of the Athenian legislators; of whom Hermippus 29, in the second book of his treatise on Legislators, writes as follows: “It is said, that Triptolemus established laws for the Athenians. And the philosopher Xenocrates asserts, that three of his laws still remain in Eleusis, which are these, Honour your parents; Sacrifice to the Gods from the fruits of the earth; Injure not animals.” Two of these, therefore, he says, are properly instituted. For it is necessary that we should as much as possible recompense our parents for the benefits which they have conferred on us; and that we should offer to the Gods the first-fruits of the things useful to our life, which they have imparted to us. But with respect to the third law, he is dubious as to the intention of Triptolemus, in ordering the Athenians to abstain from animals. Was it, says he, because he thought it was a dire thing to slay kindred natures, or because he perceived it would happen, that the most useful animals would be destroyed by men for food? Wishing, [ 289 ]

therefore to make our life as mild as possible, he endeavoured to preserve those animals that associate with men, and which are especially tame. Unless, indeed, because having ordained that men should honour the Gods by offering to them first-fruits, he therefore added this third law, conceiving that this mode of worship would continue for a longer time, if sacrifices through animals were not made to the Gods. But as many other causes, though not very accurate, of the promulgation of these laws, are assigned by Xenocrates, thus much from what has been said is sufficient for our purpose, that abstinence from animals was one of the legal institutes of Triptolemus. Hence, those who afterwards violated this law, being compelled by great necessity, and involuntary errors, fell, as we have shown, into this custom of slaughtering and eating animals. The following, also, is mentioned as a law of Draco: “Let this be an eternal sacred law 30 to the inhabitants of Attica, and let its authority be predominant for ever; viz. that the Gods, and indigenous Heroes, be worshipped publicly, conformably to the laws of the country, delivered by our ancestors; and also, that they be worshipped privately, according to the ability of each individual, in conjunction with auspicious words, the firstlings of fruits, and annual cakes. So that this law ordains, that divinity should be venerated by the first offerings of fruit which are used by men, and cakes, made of the fine flour of wheat 31.”

[ 290 ]

ENDNOTES. 1 There were many celebrated men of this name among the ancients, concerning which vid. Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. L. HI. c. 11. 2 These lines are from Hesiod. Oper. 116. See also endnote 2. 3 The medimnus was a measure containing six bushels. 4 An Attic measure, containing six Attic pints. 5 In the original και δηλου ως ταιυτῃ πολιτεια οικειον, το της αποχης της παντελους, ταις δε διεφθαρμεναις, το της βρωσευς. But the latter part of this sentence is evidently defective, though the defect is not noticed either by Valentinus, or Reisk, or Rhoer. It appears therefore to me, that της τρυφης is wanting; so that for το της βρωσεως, we should read το της τρυφης της βρωσεως. And my conjecture is justified by the version of Felicianus, which is “Huic autum abstinentiam, coeteris luxuriant victus fuisse peculiarem perspicuum est.” 6 Those who, in being initiated, closed the eyes, which muesis signifies, no longer (says Hermias in Phaedrum) received by sense those divine mysteries, but with the pure soul itself. See my Dissertation on the Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries. 7 In the original, και πορους ανθρωπινους; but for πορους I read πονους, and Feicianus appears to have found the same reading in his manuscript; for his version is, “laboribusque humerus.” neither Reisk, however, nor Rhoer, have at all noticed the word πορους as improper in this place. 8 Much is related about the Egyptian priests by Herodotus, lib. ii. 37. With respect to Chaeremon, the decisions of the ancients concerning him are very discordant. 9 i.e. Those to whose care the sacred vestments were committed. 10 These were so denominated from carrying the little receptacles in which the images of the Gods were contained. 11 See on this subject Plutarch’s excellent treatise of Isis and Osiris. 12 Fabricius is of opinion, that this Euphantus is the same with the Ecphantus mentioned by Iamblichus (in Vit. Pyth.) as one of the Pythagoreans. Vid. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. ii. c. 13.

[ 291 ]

13 This is not wonderful; for the Jews appear to have been always negligent of cleanliness. The intelligent reader will easily perceive that there is some similitude between these Essenes and the ancient Pythagoreans, but that the latter were infinitely superior to the former. See my translation of Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras. 14 This was a very necessary oath for these Essenes to take; as the Jews in general, if we may believe Tacitus and other ancient historians, were always a people immoderately addicted to gain. 15 As the Essenes appear to have been an exception to the rest of the Jews, the reason is obvious why they took this oath. 16 Similar to this was the garment with which Apuleius was invested after his initiation into the mysteries of Isis, and which he describes as follows:-”There [i.e. on a wooden throne] I sat conspicuous, in a garment which was indeed linen, but was elegantly painted. A precious cloak also depended from my shoulders behind my back, as far as to my heels. Nevertheless, to whatever part of me you directed your view, you might see that I was remarkable by the animals which were painted round my vestment, in various colours. Here were Indian dragons, there Hyperborean griffins, which the other hemisphere generates in the form of a winged animal. Men devoted to the service of divinity, call this cloak the Olympic garment.” - See Book II. of my translation of the Metamorphosis of Apuleius. 17 The first subsistence of Maia, who, according to the Orphic theology, is the same with the Goddess Night, is at the summit of the intelligible and at the same time intellectual order, and is wholly absorbed in the intelligible. As we are also informed by Proclus (in Cratylum), “She is the paradigm of Ceres. For immortal Night is the nurse of the Gods [according to Orpheus]. Night, however, is the cause of aliment intelligibly: for the intelligible is, as the Chaldean Oracle says, the aliment of the intellectual orders of Gods. But Ceres, first of all separates the two kinds of aliment [nectar and ambrosia] in the Gods.” He adds, “Hence our sovereign mistress Ceres, not only generates life, but that which gives perfection to life; and this from supernal natures, to such as are last. For virtue is the perfection of souls.” 18 Concerning the Indian philosophers, see the second Book of Diodortus Siculus. 19 This is the Bardesanes who lived in the time of Marcus Antoninus, and who wrote a treatise on the Lake of Probation in India, which is mentioned by Porphyry in his fragment de Styge, preserved by Stobaeus.

[ 292 ]

20 βαναυσοι, i.e. dirty mechanists and bellows-blowers, an appellation by which Plato in his Rivals designates the experimentalists. 21 Ζαγρευς (Zagreus) is an epithet of Bacchus. Wodhull, however, from whose translation of Euripides the above lines are taken, is greatly mistaken in saying, that “it is evident from the hymns of Orpheus that Zagreus was a name given to Bacchus at his sacred rites.” For the word Zagreus is not to be found either in the hymns of Orpheus, or in any other of the Orphic writings that are extant. 22 Iliad, IV. v. 141. 23 Oper. et. Dies, 595 24 Iliad, V. v. 341. 25 In the original, ου πολυ το ενοικιον, ως φησι. που θεοφραστος, τῳ σωματι διδουσης της ψυχης, κ.τ.λ. But for ου πολυ το ενοικιον, it appears to me to be necessary to read, ου μονον πολυ το ενοικιον, κ.τ.λ. 26 Vid. Diod. Sic. lib. iii 32 27 Reisk says, that he does not know who this Democrates is; but there can, I think, be no doubt of its being the Pythagorean of that name, whose Golden Sentences are extant in the Opuscula Mythologica of Gale, of which see Mr. Bridgman’s translation. 28 In the original, ου κακως ζην ειναι. But for ου κακως, I read, ουκ οντως. For without this emendation, Democrates will contradict himself. 29 This Hermippus is also cited by Diogenes Laertius in Pyth. 30 In the original, θεσμος, which, as we are informed by Proclus, signifies divine order, and a uniform boundary. 31 This book is evidently imperfect, because there are wanting at the end examples of illustrious Greeks and Romans, who, from the most remote antiquity, abstained from animal food. And this was also obvious to Reisk.

[ 293 ]

Aids to the Study of the Intelligibles Translated by Thomas Taylor, 1812

CONTENTS SECTION ONE SECTION TWO SECTION THREE

[ 294 ]

Portrait of Thomas Taylor by Sir Thomas Lawrence, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, c. 1812. Thomas Taylor (1758-1835) was an English translator and Neoplatonist, the first to translate into English the complete works of Aristotle and of Plato, as well as the Orphic fragments.

[ 295 ]

SECTION ONE 1. EV E RY B O DY is in place; but nothing essentially incorporeal, or any thing of this kind, has any locality. 2. Things essentially incorporeal, because they are more excellent than all body and place, are every where, not with interval, but impartibly. 3. Things essentially incorporeal are not locally present with bodies but are present with them when they please; by verging towards them so far as they are naturally adapted so to verge. They are not, however, present with them locally, but through habitude, proximity, and alliance. 4. Things essentially incorporeal, are not present with bodies, by hypostasis and essence; for they are not mingled with bodies. But they impart a certain power which is proximate to bodies, through verging towards them. For tendency constitutes a certain secondary power proximate to bodies. 5. Soul, indeed, is a certain medium between an impartible essence, and an essence which is divisible about bodies. But intellect is an impartible essence alone. And qualities and material forms are divisible about bodies. 6. Not everything 1 which acts on another, effects that which it does effect by approximation and contact; but those natures which effect any thing by approximation and contact, use approximation accidentally. 7. The soul is bound to the body by a conversion to the corporeal passions; and again liberated by becoming impassive to the body. 8. That which nature binds, nature also dissolves: and that which the soul binds, the soul likewise dissolves. Nature, indeed, bound the body to the soul; but the soul binds herself to the body. Nature, therefore, liberates the body from the soul; but the soul liberates herself from the body. 9. Hence there is a twofold death; the one, indeed, universally known, in which the body is liberated from the soul; but the other peculiar to philosophers, in which the soul is liberated from the body. Nor does the one 2 entirely follow the other. 10. We do not understand similarly in all things, but in a manner adapted to the essence of each. For intellectual objects we understand intellectually; but those that pertain to soul rationally. We apprehend plants spermatically; but bodies idolically (i.e., as images); and that which is above all these, super-intellectually and super-essentially. 3

[ 296 ]

11. Incorporeal hypostases, in descending, are distributed into parts, and multiplied about individuals with a diminution of power; but when they ascend by their energies beyond bodies, they become united, and proceed into a simultaneous subsistence, through exuberance of power. 12. The homonymous is not in bodies only, but life also is among the number of things which have a multifarious subsistence. For the life of a plant is different from that of an animated being; the life of an intellectual essence differs from that of the nature which is beyond intellect; and the psychical differs from the intellectual life. For these natures live, though nothing which proceeds from them possesses a life similar to them. 13. Everything which generates by its very essence, generates that which is inferior to itself 4; and every thing generated is naturally converted to its generator. Of generating natures, however, some are not at all converted to the beings which they generate; but others are partly converted to them, and partly not; and others are only converted to their progeny, but are not converted to themselves. 14. Everything generated, possesses from that which is different from itself the cause of its generation, since nothing is produced without a cause. Such generated natures, however, as have their existence through composition, these are on this account corruptible. But such as, being simple and incomposite, possess their existence in a simplicity of hypostasis, these being indissoluble, are indeed, incorruptible; yet they are said to be generated, not as if they were composites, but as being suspended from a certain cause. Bodies, therefore, are in a twofold respect generated; as being suspended from a certain producing cause; and as being composites. But soul and intellect are only generated as being suspended from a cause, and not as composites. Hence bodies are generated, dissoluble and corruptible; but soul and intellect are unbegotten, as being without composition, and on this account indissoluble and incorruptible; yet they are generated so far as they are suspended from a cause. 15. Intellect is not the principle of all things; for intellect is many things; but, prior to the many, it is necessary that there should be The One. It is evident, however, that intellect is many things. For it always understands its conceptions, which are not one, but many; and which are not any thing else than itself. If, therefore, it is the same with its conceptions, but they are many, intellect also will be many things. But that it is the same with intelligibles (or the objects of its intellection), may thus be demonstrated. For, if there is any thing which intellect surveys, it will either survey this thing as contained in itself, or as placed in something else. And that intellect, indeed, contemplates or surveys, is evident. For in conjunction with intellection, or intellectual perception, it will be intellect; but if you deprive it of intellection, you will destroy its

[ 297 ]

essence. It is necessary, therefore, that, directing our attention to the properties of knowledge, we should investigate the perception of intellect. All the gnostic powers, then, which we contain, are universally sense, imagination, and intellect.5 The power, however, which employs sense, surveys by projecting itself to externals, not being united to the objects which it surveys, but only receiving an impression of them by exerting its energies upon them. When, therefore, the eye sees a visible object, it is impossible that it should become the same with that which it perceives: for it would not see if there was not an interval between it and the object of its perception. And, after the same manner, that which is touched, if it was the same with that by which it is touched, would perish. From which it is evident that sense, and that which employs sense, must always tend to an external object, in order to apprehend something sensible. In like manner also, the phantasy, or imagination, always tends to something external, and by this extension of itself, gives subsistence to, or prepares an image; its extension to what is external, indicating that the object of its perception is a resemblance of something external. And such, indeed, is the apprehension of these two powers; neither of which verging to, and being collected into itself, perceives either a sensible or insensible form. In intellect, however, the apprehension of its objects does not subsist after this manner, but is effected by converging to, and surveying itself. For by departing from itself, in order to survey its own energies and become the eye of them, and the sight of essences, it will not understand any thing. Hence, as sense is to that which is sensible, so is intellect to that which is intelligible. Sense, however, by extending itself to externals, finds that which is sensible situated in matter; but intellect surveys the intelligible, by being collected into itself, and not extended outwardly.6 On this account some are of the opinion that the hypostasis of intellect differs from that of phantasy only in name. For the phantasy, in the rational animal, appeared to them to be intelligence. As these men, however, suspended all things from matter and a corporeal nature, it follows that they should also suspend from these intellect. But our intellect surveys both bodies and other essences. Hence it apprehends them situated somewhere. But as the proper objects of intellect have a subsistence out of matter, they will be no where [locally.]7 It is evident, therefore, that intellectual natures are to be conjoined with intelligence. But if intellectual natures are in intellect, it follows that intellect, when it understands intelligibles, surveys both the intelligible and itself; and that proceeding into itself, it perceives intellectually, because it proceeds into intelligibles. If, however, intellect understands many things, and not one thing only, intellect also will necessarily be many.

[ 298 ]

But The One subsists prior to the many; so that it is necessary that The One should be prior to intellect. 16. Memory is not the conservation of imaginations, but the power of calling forth de novo those conceptions which had previously occupied the attention of the mind.8 17. Soul, indeed, contains the reasons (or forms) of all things, but energizes according to them, either being called forth to this energy by something else, or converting itself to them inwardly. And when called forth by something else, it introduces, as it were, the senses to externals, but when it enters into itself, it becomes occupied with intellectual conceptions. Hence some one may say, that neither the senses, nor intellectual perceptions, are without the phantasy; so that, as in the animal, the senses are not without the passive affection of the sensitive organs, in like manner intellections are not without the phantasy. Perhaps, however, it may be said, in answer to this, that, as an impression in the sensitive organ is the concomitant of the sensitive animal, so analogously a phantasm is the concomitant of the intellection of the soul in man, considered as an animal.9 18. Soul is an essence without magnitude, immaterial, incorruptible, possessing its existence in life, and having life from itself. 19. The passivity of bodies is different from that of incorporeal natures. For the passivity of bodies is attended with mutation; but the adaptations and passions of the soul are energies; yet they are by no means similar to the calefactions and frigefactions of bodies. Hence, if the passivity of bodies is accompanied by mutation, it must be said that all incorporeal natures are impassive. For the essences which are separated from matter and bodies, are what they are in energy. But those things which approximate to matter and bodies, are themselves, indeed, impassive; but the natures in which they are surveyed are passive. For when the animal perceives sensibly, the soul (i.e. the rational soul) appears to be similar to separate harmony,10 of itself moving the chords adapted to harmony; but the body is similar to the inseparable harmony in the chords (i.e. to the harmony which cannot exist separate from the chords). But the animal is the cause of the motion because it is an animated being. It is, however, analogous to a musician, because it is harmonic; but the bodies which are struck through sensitive passion, are analogous to the harmonized chords of a musical instrument. For in this instance also, separate harmony is not passively affected, but the chords. And the musician, indeed, moves according to the harmony which is in him; yet the chords would not be musically moved, even though the musician wished that they should, unless harmony ordered this to take place.

[ 299 ]

20. Incorporeal natures are not denominated like bodies, according to a participation in common of one and the same genus; but they derive their appellation from a mere privation with respect to bodies. Hence, nothing hinders some of them from having a subsistence as beings, but others as non-beings; some of them, from being prior to, and others posterior to bodies; some, from being separate, and others inseparable from bodies; some, from having a subsistence by themselves, but others from being indigent of things different from themselves, to their existence; some, from being the same through energies and self-motive lives, but others from subsisting together with lives, and energies of a certain quality. For they subsist according to a negation of the things which they are not, and not according to the affirmation of the things which they are. 21. The properties of matter, according to the ancients, are the following: It is incorporeal; for it is different from bodies. It is without life; for it is neither intellect nor soul, nor vital from itself (i.e. essentially). It is also formless, variable, infinite, and powerless. Hence, it is neither being, nor yet non-being; that is, it is not non-being like motion, but it is true non-being, the image and phantasm of bulk, because it is that which bulk primarily contains. It is likewise powerless, and the desire of subsistence, has stability, but not in permanency, and always appears in itself to be contrary. Hence, it is both small and great, more and less, deficient and exceeding. It is always becoming to be, or rising into existence; abides not, and yet is unable to fly away; and is the defect of all being. Hence in whatever it announces itself to be, it deceives; and though it should appear to be great, it is nevertheless small. For it resembles a flying mockery, eluding all pursuit, and vanishing into non-entity. For its flight is not in place, but is effected by its desertion of real being. Hence, also, the images which are in it are in an image more unreal than themselves; just as in a mirror, where the thing represented is in one place and the representation of it in another. It likewise appears to be full, yet contains nothing, though it seems to possess all things.11 22. All passions subsist about the same thing as that about which corruption subsists; for the reception of passion is the path to corruption. And the thing that is the subject of passivity, is also the subject of corruption. Nothing incorporeal, however, is corrupted. But some of them either exist, or do not exist; so that they are not at all passive. For that which is passive, ought not to be a thing of this kind, but such as may be changed in quality, and corrupted by the properties of the things that enter into it, and cause it to be passive. For the change in quality of that which is inherent, is not causally effected. Neither, therefore, does matter suffer; for it is of itself without quality. Nor do the forms which enter into and depart from it, suffer; but the passion subsists

[ 300 ]

about the composite from matter and form, the very being of which consists in the union of the two. For this, in the contrary powers and qualities of the things which enter and produce passion, is seen to be the subject of them. On which account, also, those things, the life of which is externally derived, and does not subsist from themselves, are capable of suffering both the participation and the privation of life. But those beings whose existence consists in an impassive life, must necessarily possess a permanent life; just as a privation of life, so far as it is a privation of it, is attended with impassivity. As, therefore, to be changed and to suffer pertain to the composite from matter and form, and this is body, but matter is exempt from this; thus also, to live and to die, and to suffer through the participation of life and death, is beheld in the composite from soul and body. Nevertheless, this does not happen to the soul, because it is not a thing which consists of life and the privation of life, but consists of life alone. And it possesses this, because its essence is simple, and the reason (or form) of the soul is self-motive.12 23. An intellectual Essence is so similar in its parts, that the same 13 things exist both in a partial and an all-perfect intellect. In a universal intellect, however, partial natures subsist universally; but in a partial intellect, both universals and particulars subsist partially. 24. Of that essence, the existence of which is in life, and the passions of which are lives, the death also consists in a certain life, and not in a total privation of life; because, neither is the deprivation of life in this essence a passion, or a path which entirely leads to a non-vital subsistence. 25. In incorporeal lives, the progressions are effected while the lives themselves remain firm and stable, nothing pertaining to them being corrupted, or changed into the hypostasis of things subordinate to them. Hence, neither are the things to which they give subsistence produced with a certain corruption or mutation. Nor do these incorporeal lives subsist like generation, which participates of corruption and mutation. Hence, they are unbegotten and incorruptible, and on this account are unfolded into light without generation and incorruptibly. 26. Of that nature which is beyond intellect, many things are asserted through intellection, but it is surveyed by a cessation of intellectual energy better than with it 14; just as with respect to one who is asleep, many things are asserted of him while he is in that state by those who are awake; but the proper knowledge and apprehension of his dormant condition, is only to be obtained through sleep. For the similar is known by the similar; because all knowledge is an assimilation to the object of knowledge. 27. With respect to that which is non-being, we either produce it, being ourselves separated from real being, or we have a preconception of it, as adhering to being. Hence, [ 301 ]

if we are separated from being, we have not an antecedent conception of the non-being which is above being, but our knowledge in this case is only that of a false passion, such as that which happens to a man when he departs from himself. For as a man may himself, and through himself, be truly elevated to the non-being which is above being, so, by departing from being, he is led to the non-being which is a falling off from being. 28. The hypostasis of body is no impediment whatever to that which is essentially incorporeal, so as to prevent it from being where, and in such a way, as it wishes to be. For as that which is without bulk is incomprehensible by body, and does not at all pertain to it, so that which has bulk cannot impede or obscure an incorporeal nature, but lies before it like a non-entity. Nor does that which is incorporeal pervade locally when it wishes to pass from one thing to another; for place is consubsistent with bulk. Nor is it compressed by bodies. For that which in any way whatever is connected with bulk, may be compressed, and effect a transition locally; but that which is entirely without bulk and without magnitude, cannot be restrained by that which has bulk, and does not participate of local motion. Hence, by a certain disposition, it is found to be there, where it is inclined to be, being with respect to place every where and yet no where.15 By a certain disposition, therefore, it is either above the heavens, or is contained in a certain part of the world. When, however, it is contained in a certain part of the world, it is not visible to the eyes, but the presence of it becomes manifest from its works. 29. It is necessary that an incorporeal nature, if it is contained in body, should not be enclosed in it like a wild beast in a den; (for no body is able thus to enclose and comprehend it), nor is it contained in body in the same way as a bladder contains something liquid, or wind; but it is requisite that it should give subsistence to certain powers which verge to what is external, through its union with body; by which powers, when it descends, it becomes complicated with body. Its conjunction, therefore, with body, is effected through an ineffable extension. Hence, nothing else binds it, but itself binds itself to body. Neither, therefore, is it liberated from the body, when the body is (mortally) wounded and corrupted, but it liberates itself, by turning itself from an adhering affection to the body. 30. None of the hypostases which rank as wholes, and are perfect, is converted to its own progeny; but all perfect hypostases are elevated to their generators as far as to the mundane body (or the body of the world). For this body, being perfect, is elevated to its soul, which is intellectual: and on this account it is moved in a circle. But the soul of this body is elevated to intellect; and intellect to the first principle of all things. All beings, therefore, proceed to this principle as much as possible, beginning from the last of

[ 302 ]

things. The elevation, however, to that which is first, is either proximate or remote. Hence, these natures may not only be said to aspire after the highest God, but also to enjoy him to the utmost of their power. But in partial 16 hypostases, and which are able to verge to many things, there is also a desire of being converted to their progeny. Hence, likewise, in these there is error, in these there is reprehensible incredulity. These, therefore, matter injures, because they are capable of being converted to it, being at the same time able to be converted to divinity. Hence, perfection gives subsistence to secondary from primary natures, preserving them converted to the first of things; but imperfection converts primary 17 to posterior natures, and causes them to love the beings which have departed from Divinity prior to themselves. 31. God is every where because he is no where: and this is also true of intellect and soul: for each of these is every where because each is no where. But God indeed is every where and no where, and no where with respect to all things which are posterior to him; and he 18 alone is such as he is, and such as he wills himself to be. intellect is in God, but is every where and no where, with respect to the natures posterior to it. And soul is in God and intellect, and is every where and no where, in (or with respect to) body.19 But body is in soul, and in intellect,20 and in God. And as all beings and non-beings are from and in God, hence, he is neither beings nor non-beings, nor subsists in them. For if, indeed, he was alone every where, he would be all things and in all, but since he is also no where, all things are produced through him, and are contained in him because he is every where. They are, however, different from him because he is no where. Thus, likewise, intellect being every where and no where is the cause of souls, and of the natures posterior to souls; yet intellect is not soul, nor the natures posterior to soul, nor subsists in them; because it is not only every where, but is also no where, with respect to the natures posterior to it. And soul is neither body, nor in body, but is the cause of body; because being every where, it is also no where with respect to body. And this progression of things in the universe extends as far as to that which is neither able to be at once every where, nor at once no where, but partially participates of each of these.21 32. The soul does not exist on the earth (when it is conversant with terrene natures), in the same manner as bodies accede to the earth; but a subsistence of the soul on the earth, signifies its presiding over terrene bodies. Thus, also, the soul is said to be in Hades, when it presides over its image,22 which is naturally adapted to be in place, but possesses its hypostasis in darkness. So that if Hades is a subterranean dark place, the soul, though not divulsed from being, will exist in Hades, by attracting to itself its image. For when the soul departs from the solid body, the spirit accompanies it which it had [ 303 ]

collected from the starry spheres. But as from its adhering affection to the body, it exerts a partial reason, through which it possesses an habitude to a body of a certain quality, in performing the energies of life; - hence, from this adhesion to body, the form of the phantasy is impressed in the spirit, and thus the image is attracted by the soul. The soul, however, is said to be in Hades, because the spirit obtains a formless and obscure nature. And as a heavy and moist spirit pervades as far as to subterranean places, hence the soul is said to proceed under the earth. Not that this essence of the soul changes one place for another, and subsists in place, but it receives the habitudes of bodies which are naturally adapted to change their places, and to be allotted a subsistence in place; suchlike bodies receiving it according to aptitudes, from being disposed after a certain manner towards it. For the soul, conformably to the manner in which it is disposed, finds an appropriate body. Hence, when it is disposed in a purer manner, it has a connascent body which approximates to an etherial nature, and this is an etherial body. But when it proceeds from reason to the energies of the phantasy, then its connascent body is of a solar-form nature. And when it becomes effeminate and vehemently excited by corporeal form, then it is connected with a lunar-form body. When, however, it falls into bodies which consist of humid vapours, then a perfect ignorance of real being follows, together with darkness and infancy. Moreover, in its egress from the body, if it still possesses a spirit turbid from humid exhalations, it then attracts to itself a shadow, and becomes heavy; a spirit of this kind naturally striving to penetrate into the recesses of the earth, unless a certain other cause draws it in a contrary direction. As, therefore, the soul, when surrounded with this testaceous and terrene vestment, necessarily lives on the earth; so likewise when it attracts a moist spirit, it is necessarily surrounded with the image. But it attracts moisture when it continually endeavours to associate with nature, whose operations are effected in moisture, and which are rather under than upon the earth. When, however, the soul earnestly endeavours to depart from nature, then she becomes a dry splendour, without a shadow and without a cloud, or mist. For moisture gives subsistence to a mist in the air; but dryness constitutes a dry splendour from exhalation. 33. The things which are truly predicated of a sensible and material nature, are these: that it has, in every respect, a diffused and dispersed subsistence; that it is mutable; that it has existence in difference; that it is a composite; that it subsists by itself (as the subject or recipient of other things); that it is beheld in place, and in bulk: and other properties similar to these are asserted of it. But the following particulars are predicated of truly existing Being, and which itself subsists from itself; viz. that it is always established in itself; that it has an existence perpetually similar and the same; that it is essen-tialized in sameness; that it is immutable according to essence, is [ 304 ]

uncompounded, is neither dissoluble, nor in place, nor is dispersed into bulk; and is neither generated, nor capable of being destroyed: and other properties are asserted of it similar to these. To which predications adhering, we should neither ourselves assert any thing repugnant to them, concerning the different nature of sensible and trulyexisting beings, nor assent to those who do.

[ 305 ]

SECTION TWO 34. TH E R E I S one kind of virtues pertaining to the political character, and another to the man who tends to contemplation, and who on this account is called theoretic, and is now a beholder (of intellectual and intelligible natures). And there are also other virtues pertaining to intellect, so far as it is intellect, and separate from soul. The virtues indeed of the political character, and which consist in the moderation of the passions, are characterized by following and being obedient to the reasoning about that which is becoming in actions. Hence, looking to an innoxious converse with neighbours, these virtues are denominated, from the aggregation of fellowship, political. And here prudence indeed subsists about the reasoning part; fortitude about the irascible part; temperance in the consent and symphony of the epithymetic 23 with the reasoning part; and justice, in each of these performing its proper employment with respect to governing and being governed. But the virtues of him who proceeds to the contemplative life, consist in a departure from terrestrial concerns. Hence, also, they are called purifications, being surveyed in the refraining from corporeal actions, and avoiding sympathies with the body. For these are the virtues of the soul elevating itself to true being. The political virtues therefore adorn the mortal man, and are the forerunners of purifications. For it is necessary that he who is adorned by the cathartic virtues, should abstain from doing any thing precedaneously in conjunction with body. Hence, in these purifications, not to opine with body, but to energize alone, gives subsistence to prudence; which derives its perfection through energizing intellectually with purity. But not to be similarly passive with the body, constitutes temperance. Not to fear a departure from body, as into something void, and non-entity, gives subsistence to fortitude. But when reason and intellect are the leaders, and there is no resistance (from the irrational part), justice is produced. The disposition therefore, according to the political virtues, is surveyed in the moderation of the passions; having for its end to live as man conformable to nature. But the disposition, according to the theoretic virtues, is beheld in apathy,24 the end of which is a similitude to God. Since, however, of purification, one kind consists in purifying, but another pertains to those that are purified, the cathartic virtues are surveyed according to both these significations of purification. For the end of purification is to become pure. But since purification, and the being purified are an ablation of everything foreign, the good resulting from them will be different from that which purifies; so, that if that which is

[ 306 ]

purified was good prior to the impurity with which it is defiled, purification is sufficient. That, however, which remains after purification, is good, and not purification. The nature of the soul also was not good (prior to purification), but is that which is able to partake of good, and is boniform. For if this were not the case, it would not have become situated in evil. The good, therefore of the soul consists in being united to its generator, but its evil in an association with things subordinate to itself. Its evil also is twofold; the one arising from an association with terrestrial natures, but the other from doing this with an excess of the passions. Hence, all the political virtues which liberate the soul from one evil may be denominated virtues, and are honourable. But the cathartic are more honourable, and liberate it from evil, so far as it is soul. It is necessary, therefore, that the soul, when purified, should associate with its generator. Hence, the virtue of it, after its conversion, consists in a scientific knowledge of (true) being; but this will not be the case, unless conversion precedes. There is, therefore, another genus of virtues after the cathartic and political, and which are the virtues of the soul energizing intellectually. And here, indeed, wisdom and prudence consist in the contemplation of those things which intellect possesses. But justice consists in performing what is appropriate in conformity to, and energizing according to intellect. Temperance is an inward conversion of the soul to intellect. And fortitude is apathy, according to a similitude of that to which the soul looks, and which is naturally impassive. These virtues also, in the same manner as the others, alternately follow each other. The fourth species of the virtues is that of the paradigms subsisting in intellect: which are more excellent than the psychical virtues, and exist as the paradigms of these; the virtues of the soul being the similitudes of them. And intellect indeed is that in which all things subsist at once as paradigms. Here, therefore, prudence is science; but intellect that knows (all things) is wisdom. Temperance is that which is converted to itself. The proper work of intellect, is the performance of its appropriate duty (and this is justice)25. But fortitude is sameness and the abiding with purity in itself, through an abundance of power. There are therefore four genera of virtues; of which, indeed, some pertain to intellect, concur with the essence of it, and are paradigmatic. Others pertain to soul now looking to intellect, and being filled from it. Others belong to the soul of man, purifying itself, and becoming purified from the body and the irrational passions. And others are the virtues of the soul of man, adorning the man, through giving measure and bound to the irrational nature, and producing moderation in the passions. And he indeed who has the greater virtues, has also necessarily the less; but the contrary is not true, that he who has the less, has also the greater virtues. Nor will he who possesses

[ 307 ]

the greater, energize precedaneously according to the less, but only so far as the necessities of the mortal nature require. The scope also, of the virtues is as we have said, generically different in the different virtues. For the scope of the political virtues, is to give measure to the passions in their practical energies according to nature. But the scope of the cathartic virtues, is entirely to obliterate the remembrance of the passions; and the scope of the rest subsists analogously to what has been before said. Hence he who energizes according to the practical virtues, is a worthy man; but he who energizes according to the cathartic virtues, is an angelic man, or is also a good daemon. He who energizes according to the intellectual virtues alone, is a God; but he who energizes according to the paradigmatic virtues, is the father of the Gods. We, therefore, ought especially to pay attention to the cathartic virtues, since we may obtain these in the present life. But through these, the ascent is to the more honourable virtues. Hence, it is requisite to survey to what degree purification may be extended; for it is a separation from body, and from the passive motion of the irrational part. But how this may be effected, and to what extent, must now be unfolded. In the first place, indeed, it is necessary that he who intends to acquire this purification, should, as the foundation and basis of it, know himself to be a soul bound in a foreign thing, and in a different essence. In the second place, as that which is raised from this foundation, he should collect himself from the body, and as it were from different places, so as to be disposed in a manner perfectly impassive with respect to the body. For he who energizes uninterruptedly according to sense, though he may not do this with an adhering affection and the enjoyment resulting from pleasure, yet, at the same time, his attention is dissipated about the body, in consequence of becoming through sense 26 in contact with it. But we are addicted to the pleasures or pains of sensibles; in conjunction with a promptitude, and converging sympathy; from which disposition it is requisite to be purified. This, however, will he effected by admitting necessary pleasures, and the sensations of them, merely as remedies, or as a liberation from pain,27 in order that (the rational part) may not be impeded (in its energies). Pain also must be taken away. But if this is not possible, it must be mildly diminished. And it will be diminished, if the soul is not co-passive with it. Anger, likewise, must as much as possible be taken away; and must by no means be premeditated. But if it cannot be entirely removed, deliberate choice must not be mingled with it, but the unpremeditated motion must be the impulse of the irrational part. That however which is unpremeditated is imbecile and small. All fear likewise must be expelled. For he who is adapted to this purification will fear nothing. Here, however, if it should take place, it will be unpremeditated. Anger therefore and fear must be used for the purpose of

[ 308 ]

admonition. But the desire of everything base must be exterminated. Such a one also, so far as he is a cathartic philosopher, will not desire meats and drinks (except so far as they are necessary). Neither must there be the unpremeditated in natural venereal connexions; but if this should take place, it must only be as far as to that precipitate imagination which energizes in sleep. In short, the intellectual soul itself of the purified man must be liberated from all these (corporeal propensities). He must likewise endeavour, that what is moved to the irrational nature of corporeal passions, may be moved without sympathy, and without animadversion; so that the motions themselves may be immediately dissolved through their vicinity to the reasoning power. This, however, will not take place while the purification is proceeding to its perfection; but will happen to those in whom reason rules without opposition. Hence, in these, the inferior part will so venerate reason that it will be indignant if it is at all moved, in consequence of not being quiet when its master is present, and will reprove itself for its imbecility. These, however, are yet only moderations of the passions, but at length terminate in apathy. For when co-passivity is entirely exterminated, then apathy is present with him who is purified from this passivity. For passion becomes moved when reason imparts excitation, through verging (to the irrational nature). 35. Everything which is situated somewhere, is there situated according to its own nature, and not preternaturally. For body, therefore, which subsists in matter and bulk, to be somewhere is to be in place. Hence, for the body of the world, which is material and has bulk, to be every where is to be extended with interval, and to subsist in the place of interval. But a subsistence in place is not at all present with the intelligible world, nor, in short, with that which is immaterial, and essentially incorporeal, because it is without bulk, and without interval; so that the ubiquity of an incorporeal nature is not local. Hence, neither will one part of it be here, but another there; for if this were the case, it would not be out of place, nor without interval; but wherever it is, the whole of it is there. Nor is it indeed in this, but not in another place; for thus it would be comprehended by one place, but separated from another. Nor is it remote from this thing, but near to that; in the same manner as remoteness and nearness are asserted of things which are adapted to be in place, according to the measures of intervals. Hence, the sensible is present, indeed, with the intelligible world, according to interval, but (a truly) incorporeal nature is present with the world impartibly, and unaccompanied by interval. The impartible, likewise, when it is in that which has interval, is wholly in every part of it, being one and the same in number (in every part of it). That which is impartible, therefore, and without multitude, becomes extended into magnitude, and multiplied, when intimately connected with that which is naturally multitudinous, and endued with magnitude; and thus the latter receives the former in such a way as it is [ 309 ]

adapted to receive it, and not such as the former truly is. But that which is partible and multitudinous, is received by that which is naturally impartible and without multitude, impartibly and non-multitudinously, and after this manner is present with it; i.e., the impartible is present impartibly, without plurality, and without a subsistence in place, conformably to its own nature, with that which is partible, and which is naturally multitudinous, and exists in place. But that which is partible, multiplied, and in place, is present with the impartible essence, partibly, multitudinously, and locally. Hence, it is necessary, in the survey of these natures, to preserve and not confound the peculiarities of each; or rather, we should not imagine or opine of that which is incorporeal, such properties as pertain to bodies, or any thing of the like kind. For no one would ascribe to bodies the peculiarities of a genuinely incorporeal essence. For all of us are familiar with bodies; but the knowledge of incorporeal natures is attainable by us with great difficulty; because, through not being able to behold them intuitively, we are involved in doubt about their nature; and this takes place as long as we are under the dominion of imagination. Thus, therefore, you should say, - if that which is in place, is out of, or has departed from itself, through having proceeded into bulk, that which is intelligible is not in place, and is in itself, because it has not proceeded into corporeal extension. Hence, if the former is an image, the latter is an archetype. And the former, indeed, derives its being through the intelligible; but the latter subsists in (and through) itself. For every (physical) image is the image of intellect. It is also requisite that, calling to mind the peculiarities of both these, we should not wonder at the discrepance which takes place in their congress with each other; if, in short, it is proper on this occasion to use the word congress. For we are not now surveying the congress of bodies, but of things which are entirely distinct from each other, according to peculiarity of hypostasis. Hence, also, this congress is different from everything which is usually surveyed in things essentially the same. Neither, therefore, is it temperament, or mixture, or conjunction, or apposition, but subsists in a way different from all these; appearing, indeed, in all the mutual participations of consubstantial natures, in whatever way this may be effected; but transcending everything that falls under the apprehension of sense. Hence, an intelligible essence is wholly present without interval, with all the parts of that which has interval, though they should happen to be infinite in number. Nor is it present distributed into parts, giving a part to a part; nor being multiplied, does it multitudinously impart itself to multitude; but it is wholly present with the parts of that which is extended into bulk, and with each individual of the multitude, and all the bulk impartibly, and without plurality, and as numerically one. But it pertains to those natures to enjoy it partibly, and in a distributed manner, whose power is dissipated into [ 310 ]

different parts. And to these it frequently happens, that through a defect of their own nature, they counterfeit an intelligible essence; so that doubts arise respecting that essence, which appears to have passed from its own nature into theirs. 36. Truly-existing being is neither great nor small, for magnitude and parvitude are properly the peculiarities of bulk. But true being transcends both magnitude and parvitude; and is above the greatest, and above the least; and is numerically one and the same, though it is found to be simultaneously participated by everything that is greatest, and everything that is least. You must not, therefore, conceive of it as something which is greatest; as you will then be dubious how, being that which is greatest, it is present with the smallest masses without being diminished or contracted. Nor must you conceive of it as something which is least; since you will thus again be dubious how, being that which is least, it is present with the greatest masses without being multiplied or increased, or without receiving addition. But at one and the same time receiving into the greatest magnitude that which transcends the greatest bulk, and into the least magnitude that which transcends the least,28 you will be able to conceive how the same thing, abiding in itself, may be simultaneously seen in any causal magnitude, and in infinite multitudes and corporeal masses. For according to its own peculiarity, it is present with the magnitude of the world impartibly and without magnitude. It also antecedes the bulk of the world, and comprehends every part of it in its own impartibility; just as, vice versa, the world, by its multitude of parts, is multifariously present, as far as it is able, with truly existing being, yet cannot comprehend it, neither with the whole of its bulk, nor the whole of its power; but meets with it in all its parts as that which is infinite, and cannot be passed beyond; and this both in other respects, and because truly-existing being is entirely free from all corporeal extension. 37. That which is greater in bulk, is less in power when compared, not with things of a similar kind, but with those that are of a different species, or of a different essence. For bulk is, as it were, the departure of a thing from itself, and a division of power into the smallest parts. Hence, that which transcends in power, is foreign from all bulk. For power proceeding into itself, is filled with itself, and, by corroborating itself, obtains its proper strength; on which account, body proceeding into bulk through a diminution of power, is as much remote from truly incorporeal being, as that which truly exists is from being exhausted by bulk; for the latter abides in the magnitude of the same power, through an exemption from bulk. As, therefore, truly existing being is, with reference to a corporeal mass, without magnitude and without bulk; thus also, that which is corporeal is, with reference to truly-existing being, imbecile and powerless. For that which is greatest by magnitude of power, is exempt from all bulk; so that the world

[ 311 ]

existing every where, and, as it is said, meeting with real being which is truly every where, is not able to comprehend the magnitude of its power. It meets, however, with true being, which is not partibly present with it, but is present without magnitude, and without any definite limitation. The presence, therefore, of truly-existing being with the world, is not local, but assimilative, so far as it is possible for body to be assimilated to that which is incorporeal, and for that which is incorporeal to be surveyed in a body assimilated to it. Hence, an incorporeal nature is not present with body so far as it is not possible for that which is material to be assimilated to a perfectly immaterial nature; and it is present, so far as a corporeal can be assimilated to an incorporeal essence. Nevertheless, this is not effected through reception; since, if it were, each would be corrupted. For the material, indeed, in receiving the immaterial nature, would be corrupted, through being changed into it; and the immaterial essence would become material. Assimilations, therefore, and participations of powers, and the deficiency of power, proceed from things which are thus different in essence from each other, into each other. The world, therefore, is very far from possessing the power of real being; and real being is very remote from the imbecility of a material nature. But that which subsists between these, assimilating and being assimilated, and conjoining the extremes to each other, becomes the cause of deception about the extremes, in consequence of applying, through the assimilation, the one to the other. 38. Truly-existing being is said to be many things, not by a subsistence in different places, nor in the measures of bulk, nor by coacervation, nor by the circumscriptions or comprehensions 29 of divisible parts, but by a difference which is immaterial, without bulk, and without plurality, and which is divided according to multitude. Hence, also, it is one; not as one body, nor as one place; nor as one bulk; nor as one which is in many things; because it is different so far as it is one, and its difference is both divided and united. For its difference is not externally acquired, nor adscititious, nor obtained through the participation of something else, but it is many things from itself. For, remaining one, it energizes with all energies, because, through sameness, it constitutes all difference; not being surveyed in the difference of one thing with respect to another, as is the case in bodies. For, on the contrary, in these, unity subsists in difference; because diversity has in them a precedaneous existence; but the unity which they contain is externally and adscititiously derived. For in truly-existing being, indeed, unity, and sameness precede; but difference is generated from this unity, being energetic. Hence, true being is multiplied in impartiality; but body is united in multitude and bulk. The former also is established in itself subsisting in itself according to unity; but the latter is never in itself, because it receives its hypostasis in an extension of existence.

[ 312 ]

The former, therefore, is an all-energetic one; but the latter is a united multitude. Hence, it is requisite to explore how the former is one and different; and again, how the latter is multitude and one. Nor must we transfer the peculiarities of the one to those which pertain to the other. 39. It is not proper to think that the multitude of souls was generated on account of the multitude of bodies; but it is necessary to admit that, prior to bodies, there were many souls, and one soul (the cause of the many). Nor does the one and whole soul prevent the subsistence in it of many souls; nor do the multitude of souls distribute by division the one soul into themselves. For they are distinct from, but are not abscinded from the soul, which ranks as a whole; nor do they distribute into minute parts this whole soul into themselves. They are also present with each other without confusion; nor do they produce the whole soul by coacervation. For they are not separated from each other by any boundaries; nor, again, are they confused with each other; just as neither are many sciences confused in one soul (by which they are possessed). For these sciences do not subsist in the soul like bodies, as things of a different essence from it; but they are certain energies of the soul. For the nature of soul possesses an infinite power. Everything also that occurs in it is soul; and all souls are (in a certain respect) one; and again, the soul which ranks as a whole is different from all the rest. For as bodies, though divided to infinity, do not end in that which is incorporeal, but alone receive a difference of segments according to bulk; thus also soul, being a vital form, may be conceived to consist of forms ad infinitum. For it possesses specific differences, and the whole of it subsists together with or without these. For if there is in the soul that which is, as it were, a part divided from the rest of the parts, yet, at the same time that there is difference, the sameness remains. If, however, in bodies, in which difference predominates over sameness, nothing incorporeal when it accedes cuts off the union, but all the parts remain essentially united, and are divided by qualities and other forms; what ought we to assert and conceive of a specific incorporeal life, in which sameness is more prevalent than difference; to which nothing foreign to form is subjected, and from which the union of bodies is derived? Nor does body, when it becomes connected with soul, cut off its union, though it is an impediment to its energies in many respects. But the sameness of soul produces and discovers all things through itself, through its specific energy, which proceeds to infinity; since any part of it whatever is capable of effecting all things, when it is liberated and purified from a conjunction with bodies; just as any part of seed possesses the power of the whole seed. As, however, seed, when it is united with matter, predominates over it, according to each of the productive principles which the seeds contain; and all the seed, its power being collected into one, possesses the whole of its power in each of the parts; thus also, in the [ 313 ]

immaterial soul, that which may be conceived as a part, has the power of the whole soul. But that part of it which verges to matter is vanquished, indeed, by the form to which it verges, and yet is adapted to associate with immaterial form, though it is connected with matter, when withdrawing itself from a material nature, it is converted to itself. Since, however, through verging to matter, it becomes in want of all things, and suffers an emptiness of its proper power; but when it is elevated to intellect, is found to possess a plenitude of all its powers; hence those who first obtained a knowledge of this plenitude of the soul, very properly indicated its emptiness by calling it poverty, and its fullness by denominating it satiety.

[ 314 ]

SECTION THREE 40. TH E A N C I E N T S , wishing to exhibit to us the peculiarity of incorporeal being, so far as this can be effected by words, when they assert that it is one, immediately add, that it is likewise all things; by which they signified that it is not some one 30 of the things which are known by the senses. Since, however, we suspect that this incorporeal one is different from sensibles, in consequence of not perceiving this total one, which is all things according to one, in a sensible nature, and which is so because this one is all things; - hence the ancients added, that it is one so far as one; in order that we might understand that what is all things in truly existing being, is something uncompounded, and that we might withdraw ourselves from the conception of a coacervation. When likewise they say that it is every where, they add that it is no where. When also they assert that it is in all things, they add, that it is no where in everything. Thus, too, when they say, that it is in all things, and in every divisible nature which is adapted to receive it, they add, that it is a whole in a whole. And, in short, they render it manifest to us, through contrary peculiarities; at one and the same time assuming these, in order that we may exterminate from the apprehension of it, the fictitious conceptions which are derived from bodies, and which obscure the cognoscible peculiarities of real being. 41. When you have assumed an eternal essence, infinite in itself according to power, and begin to perceive intellectually an hypostasis unwearied, untamed, and neverfailing, but transcending in the most pure and genuine life, and full from itself; and which is likewise established in itself, satisfied with, and seeking nothing but itself: - to this essence, if you add a subsistence in place, or a relation to a certain thing, at the same time that you (appear to) diminish it, by ascribing to it, an indigence of place, or a relative condition of being, you do not (in reality) diminish this essence, but you separate yourself from the perception of it, by receiving as a veil the phantasy which runs under your conjectural apprehension of it. For you cannot pass beyond, or stop, or render more perfect, or effect the least change in a thing of this kind, because it is impossible for it to be in the smallest degree deficient. For it is much more never-failing than any perpetually flowing fountain can be conceived to be. If, however, you are unable to keep pace with it, and to become assimilated to the intelligible All, you should not investigate any thing pertaining to real being; or, if you do, you will deviate from the path that leads to it, and will look to something else. But if you investigate nothing else,

[ 315 ]

being established in yourself and your own essence, you will be assimilated to the intelligible Universe, and will not adhere to any thing posterior to it. Neither, therefore, should you say, I am of a great magnitude. For omitting this greatness, you will become universal; though you were universal prior to this. But, together with the universal, something else was present with you, and you became less by the addition; because the addition was not from truly-existing being. For to that you cannot add any thing. When, therefore, any thing is added from non-being, a place is afforded to Poverty as an associate, accompanied by an indigence of all things. Hence, dismissing non-being, you will then become sufficient to yourself.31 For he will not return properly to himself who does not dismiss things of a more vile and abject nature, and who opines himself to be something naturally small, and not to be such as he truly is. For thus he, at one and the same time, departs both from himself, and from truly-existing being. When, also, any one is present with that which is present in himself, then he is present with true being, which is every where. But when you withdraw from yourself, then, likewise, you recede from real being; - of such great consequence is it for a man to be present with that which is present with himself, (i.e., with his rational part), and to be absent from that which is external to him. If, however, true being is present with us, but non-being is absent, and real being is not present with us in conjunction with other things (of a nature foreign to it); it does not accede in order that it may be present, but we depart from it, when it is not present (with things of a different nature). And why should this be considered as wonderful? For you when present are not absent from yourself, and yet you are not present with yourself, though present. And you are both present with and absent from yourself when you survey other things, and omit to behold yourself. If, therefore, you are thus present, and yet not (in reality) present with yourself, and on this account are ignorant of yourself, and in a greater degree discover all things, though remote from your essence, than yourself, with which you are naturally present, why should you wonder if that which is not present is remote from you who are remote from it, because you have become remote from yourself? For, by how much the more you are (truly) present with yourself, though it is present, and inseparably conjoined with you, by so much the more will you be present with real being, which is so essentially united to you, that it is as impossible for it to be divulsed from you, as for you to be separated from yourself. So that it is universally possible to know what is present with real being, and what is absent from it, though it is every where present, and again is also no where. For those who are able to proceed into their own essence intellectually, and to obtain a knowledge of it, will, in the knowledge itself, and the Science accompanying this knowledge, be able to

[ 316 ]

recover or regain themselves, through the union of that which knows with that which is known. And with those, who are present with themselves, truly-existing being will also be present. But from such as abandon the proper being of themselves to other things, from these, as they are absent from themselves, true being will also be absent. If, however, we are naturally adapted to be established in the same essence, to be rich from ourselves, and not to descend to that which we are not; in so doing becoming in want of ourselves, and thus again associating with Poverty, though Porus 32 or Plenty is present:and if we are cut off from real being, from which we are not separated either by place, or essence, nor by any thing else, through our conversion to non-being, we suffer as a just punishment of our abandonment of true being, a departure from, and ignorance of ourselves. And again, by a proper attention to we recover ourselves, and become united to Divinity. It is, therefore, rightly said, that the soul is confined in body as in a prison, and is there detained in chains like a fugitive slave.33 We should, however, (earnestly) endeavour to be liberated from our bonds. For, through being converted to these sensible objects, we desert ourselves, though we are of a divine origin, and are, as Empedocles says, “Heaven’s exiles, straying from the orb of light.” So that every depraved life is full of servitude; and on this account is without from God and unjust, the spirit in it being full of impiety, and consequently of injustice. And thus again, it is rightly said, that justice is to be found in the performance of that which is the province of him who performs it. The image also of true justice consists in distributing to each of those with whom we live, that which is due to the desert of each. 42. That which possesses its existence in another (i.e., in something different from itself), and is not essentialized in itself, separably from another, if it should be converted to itself, in order to know itself, without that in which it is essentialized, withdrawing itself from it, would be corrupted by this knowledge, in consequence of separating itself from its essence. But that which is able to know itself without the subject in which it exists, and is able to withdraw itself from this subject without the destruction of itself, cannot be essentialized in that, from which it is capable of converting itself to itself without being corrupted, and of knowing itself by its own energies. Hence, if sight, and every sensitive power, neither perceives itself, nor apprehends or preserves itself by separating itself from body; but intellect, when it separates itself from body, then especially perceives intellectually, is converted to itself, and is not corrupted; - it is evident that the sensitive powers obtain the power of energizing through the body; but that intellect possesses its energies and its essence not in body, but in itself.

[ 317 ]

43. Incorporeal natures are properly denominated and conceived to be what they are, according to a privation of body; just as, according to the ancients, matter, and the form which is in matter, and also natures and (physical) powers, are apprehended by an abstraction from matter. And after the same manner, place, time, and the boundaries of things are apprehended. For all such things are denominated according to a privation of body. There are likewise other things which are said to be incorporeal improperly, not according to a privation of body, but, in short, because they are not naturally adapted to generate body.34 Hence those of the former signification subsist in bodies; but those of the second are perfectly separated from bodies, and from those incorporeal natures which subsist about bodies. For bodies, indeed, are in place, and boundaries are in body. But intellect, and intellectual reason, neither subsist in place nor in body; nor proximately give existence to bodies, nor subsist together with bodies, or with those incorporeal natures which are denominated according to a privation of bodies. Neither, therefore, if a certain incorporeal vacuum should be conceived to exist, would it be possible for intellect to be in a vacuum. For a vacuum may be the recipient of body; but it is impossible that it should be the recipient of Intellect, and afford a place for its energy. Since, however, the genus of an incorporeal nature appears to be twofold, one of these the followers of Zeno do not at all admit, but they adopt the other; and perceiving that the former is not such as the latter, they entirely subvert it, though they ought rather to conceive that it is of another genus, and not to fancy that, because it is not the latter, it has no existence. 44. Intellect and the intelligible are one thing, and sense and that which is sensible another. And the intelligible, indeed, is conjoined with intellect, but that which is sensible with sense. Neither, however, can sense by itself apprehend itself. * * * But the intelligible, which is conjoined with intellect, and intellect, which is conjoined with the intelligible, by no means fall under the perception of sense. Intellect, however, is intelligible to intellect. But if intellect is the intelligible object of intellect, intellect will be its own intelligible object. If, therefore, intellect is an intellectual and not a sensible object, it will be intelligible. But if it is intelligible to intellect and not to sense, it will also be intelligent. The same thing, therefore, will be that which is intelligent, or intellectually perceives, and which is intellectually perceived, or is intelligible; and this will be true of the whole with respect to the whole; but not as he who rubs, and he who is rubbed. Intellect, therefore, does not intellectually perceive by one part, and is intellectually perceived by another: for it is impartible, and the whole is an intelligible object of the whole. It is likewise wholly intellect, having nothing in itself which can be conceived to be deprived of intelligence. Hence one part of it does not intellectually

[ 318 ]

perceive, but not another part of it.35 For so far as it does not intellectually perceive, it will be unintelligent. Neither, therefore, departing from this thing, does it pass on to that. For of that from which it departs, it has no intellectual perception. But if there is no transition in its intellections, it intellectually perceives all things at once. If, therefore, it understands all things at once, and not this thing now but, another afterwards, it understands all things instantaneously and always. * * * 36 Hence, if all things are instantaneously perceived by it, its perceptions have nothing to do with the past and the future, but subsist in an indivisible untemporal now; so that the simultaneous, both according to multitude, and according to temporal interval, is present with intellect. Hence, too, all things subsist in it according to one, and in one, without interval, and without time. But if this be the case, there is nothing discursive or transitive in its intellections, and consequently they are without motion. Hence, they are energies according to one, subsisting in one, and without increase or mutation, or any transition. If, however, the multitude subsists according to one, and the energy is collected together at once, and without time, an essence of this kind must necessarily always subsist in (an intelligible) one. But this is eternity. Hence, eternity is present with intellect. That nature, however, which does not perceive intellectually according to one, and in one, but transitively, and with motion, so that in understanding it leaves one thing and apprehends another, divides and proceeds discursively, - this nature (which is soul) subsists in conjunction with time. For with a motion of this kind, the future and the past are consubsistent. But soul, changing its conceptions, passes from one thing to another; not that the prior conceptions depart, and the posterior accede in their place, but there is, as it were, a transition of the former, though they remain in the soul, and the latter accede, as if from some other place. They do not, however, accede in reality from another place; but they appear to do so in consequence of the self-motion of the soul, and through her eye being directed to a survey of the different forms which she contains, and which have the relation of parts to her whole essence. For she resembles a fountain not flowing outwardly, but circularly scattering its streams into itself. With the motion, therefore, of soul, time is consubsistent; but eternity is consubsistent with the permanency of intellect in itself.37 It is not, however, divided from intellect in the same manner as time is from soul; because in intellect the consubsistent essences are united. But that which is perpetually moved is the source of a false opinion of eternity, through the immeasurable extent of its motion producing a conception of eternity. And that which abides (in one) is falsely conceived to be the same with that which is (perpetually) moved. For that which is perpetually moved, evolves the time of itself in the same manner as the now of itself, and multiplies it, according to a temporal [ 319 ]

progression. Hence, some have apprehended that time is to be surveyed in permanency no less than in motion; and that eternity, as we have said, is infinite time; just as if each of these imparted its own properties to the other; time, which is always moved, adumbrating eternity by the perpetuity of itself, and the sameness of its motion; and eternity, through being established in sameness of energy, becoming similar to time, by the permanency of itself arising from energy. In sensibles, however, the time of one thing is distinct from that of another. Thus, for instance, there is one time of the sun, and another of the moon, one time of the morning star, and another of each of the planets. Hence, also, there is a different year of different planets. The year, likewise, which comprehends these times, terminates as in a summit in the motion of the soul (of the universe,) according to the imitation of which the celestial orbs are moved. The motion of this soul, however, being of a different nature from that of the planets, the time of the former also is different from that of the latter. For the latter subsists with interval, and is distinguished from the former by local motions and transitions. ENDNOTES. 1 In the original Ου το ποιουν εις αλλο, πελασει και αφῃ ποιει, α ποιει, κ.τ.λ. But it is evident from the sense of the whole passage, that, for Ου το ποιουν we should read Ου παν το ποιουν, κ.τ.λ. 2 The article ο is wanting here in the original before ετερος. 3 Knowledge subsists conformably to the nature by which it is possessed, and not conformably to the thing known. Hence it is either better than, or co-ordinate with, or inferior to the object of knowledge. Thus the rational soul has a knowledge of sensibles, which is superior to sensibles; but it knows itself with a co-ordinate knowledge; and its knowledge of Divinity is inferior to the object of knowledge. Porphyry, therefore, is not correct in what he here says. This dogma respecting the conformity of knowledge to that which knows, rather than to the thing known, originated from the divine Iamblichus, as we are informed by Ammonius in his commentary on Aristotle’s treatise De Interpretatione, and is adopted by Proclus (In Parmenid.). Boetius likewise employs it in his reasoning in lib. V about the prescience of Divinity. None of his commentators, however, have noticed the source from whence it was derived. 4 Because here the generator is that primarily which the thing generated is secondarily. See my translation of Proclus’ Theological Elements. 5 Porphyry here summarily comprehends the rational gnostic powers of the soul in intellect, because, being rational, they are expansions of intellect properly so called. But these powers, beginning from the lowest, are opinion, dianoia, and the summit of

[ 320 ]

dianoia, which summit is the intellect of the human soul, and is that power, by the light of which we perceive the truth of axioms, it being intuitive perception. Dianoia is the discursive energy of reason; or it is that power which reasons scientifically, deriving the principles of its reasoning from intellect. And opinion is that power which knows that a thing is, but is ignorant of the cause of it, or why it is. 6 In the original, ει δε μη εζω εκτεινομενος but for ει δε μη, it appears to me to be obviously necessary to read ουδε μη. 7 In the original, εζω δε οντων υλης, ουδαμον αν ειν ταυτα; which Holstenius, wholly mistaking the meaning, most erroneously translates: “At si extra materiam sint, neutiquam id fieri poterit.” Farther on, Porphyry asserts that God, intellect, and soul, are nowhere, according to corporeal locality. 8 In the original, η μνημη ουκ εστι φαντασιων σωτηρια, αλλα των μελετηθεντων προβαλλεσθαι εκ νεας προβληματα. But for προβληματα, I read προλημματα. This power, by which Porphyry characterizes memory, is of a stable nature. And hence memory is stability of knowledge, in the same manner as immortality is stability of life and eternity stability of being. 9 See the notes on the 3rd book of my translation of Aristotle’s treatise on the soul, and also my translation of Plotinus on Felicity. “The phantasy,” says Olympiodorus (in Platonis Phaed.), “is an impediment to our intellectual conceptions; and hence, when we are agitated by the inspiring influence of divinity, if the phantasy intervenes, the enthusiastic energy ceases: for enthusiasm and the phantasy are contrary to each other. Should it be asked, whether the soul is able to energize without the phantasy? We reply that its perception of universals proves that it is able. It has perceptions, therefore, independent of the phantasy; at the same time, however, the phantasy attends it in its energies, just as a storm pursues him who sails on the sea.” 10 The analogy of the soul to harmony, is more accurately unfolded as follows, by Olympiodorus, in his commentary on the Phaedo of Plato, than it is in this place by Porphyry: “Harmony has a triple subsistence. For it is either harmony itself, or it is that which is first harmonized, and which is such according to the whole of itself; or it is that which is secondarily harmonized, and which partially participates of harmony. The first of these must be assigned to intellect, the second to soul, and the third to body. This last, too, is corruptible, because it subsists in a subject; but the other two are incorruptible, because they are neither composites, nor dependent on a subject. Hence the rational soul is analogous to a musician, but the animated body to harmonized chords; for the

[ 321 ]

former has a subsistence separate, but the latter inseparable from the musical instrument.” 11 What Porphyry here says about matter is derived from the treatise of Plotinus On the Impassivity of Incorporeal Natures, to my translation of which I refer the reader. 12 See my translation of the before mentioned treatise of Plotinus. 13 For τα οντα here, I read τα αυτα. 14 Hence it is beautifully said in the Clavis of Hermes Trismegistus, “that the knowledge of the good (or the supreme principle of things), is a divine silence, and the quiescence of all the senses.” See also on this subject, a most admirable extract from Damascius, περι αρχων, at the end of the third volume of my Plato. 15 For that which is truly incorporeal, is every where virtually, i.e., in power and efficacy, but is no where locally. 16 For μερισταις here, I read μερικαις. For Porphyry is here speaking of essences which are opposed to such as rank as wholes, as is evident from the whole of this paragraph. 17 The primary natures of which Porphyry is now speaking, are rational partial souls, such as ours; for the natures superior to these, are never converted to beings posterior to themselves. 18 For αυτου, isthic, I read, αυτος. 19 In the original, και ψυχη εν νῳ τε και θεῳ πανταχου, και ουδαμον εν σωματι, but it appears to be necessary to read, και ψυχη εν νῳ τε και θεῳ, και πανταχου ουδαμον εν σοματι. 20 και εν νῳ is omitted in the original, but ought to be inserted, as is evident from the version of Holstenius. 21 Sect. 31. The irrational life is a thing of this kind, which is partly separable and partly inseparable from body. Hence, so far as it is inseparable from body, it partakes of the every where; but, so far as it is separable, of the no where. 22 i.e.: The animal spirit, or pneumatic soul, in which the rational soul suffers her punishments in Hades. 23 i.e. That part of the Soul which is the source of all-various desires. 24 This philosophic apathy is not, as is stupidly supposed by most of the present day, insensibility, but a perfect subjugation of the passions to reason.

[ 322 ]

25 The words και δικαιοσυνη are omitted in the original. But it is evident from the treatise of Plotinus On the Virtues, that they ought to be inserted. For what Porphyry says in this Section about the virtues, is derived from that treatise. 26 Instead of κατ̕ αυτην, here, it is necessary to read κατ αισθησιν. 27 Conformably to this, as we have before observed, Aristotle says in the 7th Book of his Nicomachean Ethics, “that corporeal pleasures are remedies against pain, and that they fill up the indigence of nature, but perfect no energy of the rational soul.” 28 In the original, αλλα το εχβεβηκος τον μεγιστον ογκον, εις το μεγιστον, και τον ελαχιστον εις το ελαχιστον, αμα λαβων, κ.τ.λ. This Holstenius most erroneously translates, “verum id quod maximam molem intervallo maximo, et minimam minimo excedit simul sumens, &c.” For a truly incorporeal nature, such as that of which Porphyry is now speaking, has nothing to do with interval, and therefore does not by interval surpass either the greatest or the least corporeal mass; but is received transcendently by the greatest and the least magnitude. 29 For διαληψεσιν, here, I read καταληψεσιν, and Holstenius also has in this place comprehensionibus. 30 In the original, καθο εν τι των κατ̕ αισθησιν συνεγνωσμενων; but it appears to me to be necessary after καθο, to insert the words ουκ εστιν. For incorporeal being is not like some one of the things which are known by the senses, because no one of these is one, and, at the same time, all things. Holstenius did not perceive the necessity of this emendation, as is evident from his version of the passage. 31 Immediately after this something is wanting in the original (as is from the asterisks), which, as it appears to me, no conjecture can appropriately supply. 32 In the original και δια τουτων παλιν τῃ πενιᾳ συνειναι καιπερ παροντος αυτου. But for αυτου, I read πορον; as it appears to me that Porphyry is here alluding to what is said by Diotima in the Banquet of Plato concerning the parents of Love, viz., that they are Poverty and Porus or plenty. 33 See the Phaedo of Plato. But something is here wanting in the original, as is evident not only from the asterisks, but from the want of connection in the words themselves. 34 i.e.: - They are not adapted to be the immediate causes of body, because they are perfectly separated from it. The original is ηδη δε ην αλλα καταχρησ ικως λεγομευα ασωματα, ουκατα σ ερησιν σωματος, κατα δε ολως μη πεφυκεναι γεννᾳν σωμα. Holstenius, not understanding what is here said by Porphyry, translates the words κατα δε ολως μη [ 323 ]

πεφυκεναι γεννᾳν σωμα “sed quod nullum omnino corpus generare possunt.” For Porphyry, as is evident from what immediately follows, is here speaking of natures which are perfectly separated from bodies and which are therefore not naturally adapted to be the immediate generators of them, not through any deficiency, but through transcendency of power. 35 In the original διο ουχι τοδε μεν εαυτου νοει, τοδε δε ου νοει which Holstenius erroneously translates “Ideoque non quidem unam sui partem intelligit, alteram vero non intelligit.” For Porphyry is not here speaking of intellect surveying its parts, but of its being wholly intellective . This is evident from what immediately follows. 36 The asterisks in the original denote something is wanting. Nevertheless, what immediately follows them, is evidently connected with what immediately precedes. 37 See the fourth book of my translation of Proclus, on the Timaeus of Plato, in which the nature of time and eternity is most admirably unfolded. See also my translation of Plotinus on Eternity and Time. In these works, what both these divine men have said of eternity, and what the former has said of time, contains, as it appears to me, the ne plus ultra of philosophical investigation on these most abstruse subjects.

[ 324 ]

Letter to Marcella Translated by Alice Zimmern, 1896 1. I chose you as my wife, Marcella, though you were the mother of five daughters and two sons, some of whom are still little children, and the others approaching a marriageable age; and I was not deterred by the multitude of things which would be needful for their maintenance. And it was not for the sake of having children that I wedded you, deeming that the lovers of true wisdom were my children, and that your children too would be mine if ever these should embrace right philosophy, when educated by us. Nor yet was it because a superfluity of riches had fallen either to your lot or mine. For such necessaries as are ours must suffice us who are poor. Neither did I expect that you would afford me any ease through your ministrations as I advanced in years, for your frame is delicate, and more in need of care from others than fitted to succour or watch over them. Nor yet did I desire other housewifely care from you, nor sought I after honour and praise from those who would not willingly have undertaken such a burden for the mere sake of doing good. Nay, it was far otherwise, for through the folly of your fellow-citizens, and their envy toward you and yours, I encountered much ill-speaking, and contrary to all expectation, I fell into danger of death at their hands on your behalf. 2. For none of these causes did I choose another to be partner of my life, but there was a twofold and reasonable cause that swayed me. One part was that I deemed I should thus propitiate the gods of generation; just as Socrates in his prison chose to compose popular music, for the sake of safety in his departure from life, instead of his customary labours in philosophy, so did I strive to propitiate the divinities who preside over this tragi-comedy of ours, and shrank not from celebrating in all willingness the marriage hymn, though I took as my lot your numerous children, and your straitened circumstances, and the malice of evil-speakers. Nor were there lacking any of those passions usually connected with a play — jealousy, hatred, laughter, quarrelling and anger; this alone excepted, that it was not with a view to ourselves but for the sake of others that we enacted this spectacle in honour of the gods. 3. Another worthier reason, in nowise resembling that commonplace one, was that I admired you because your disposition was suited to true philosophy; and when you were bereaved of your husband, a man dear to me, I deemed it not fitting to leave you without a helpmeet and wise protector suited to your character. Wherefore I drove away

[ 325 ]

all who were minded to use insult under false pretence, and I endured foolish contumely, and bore in patience with the plots laid against me, and strove, as far as in my power lay, to deliver you from all who tried to lord it over you. I recalled you also to your proper mode of life, and gave you a share in philosophy, pointing out to you a doctrine that should guide your life. And who could be a more faithful witness to me than yourself, for I should deem it shame to equivocate to you, or conceal aught of mine from you, or to withhold from you (who honours truth above all things, and therefore did deem our marriage a gift of Heaven) a truthful relation from beginning to end of all that I have done with respect to and during our union. 4. Now had my business permitted me to remain longer in your country, it would have been possible for you to still your thirst with fresh and plentiful draughts from fountains close at hand, so that, not contenting yourself with as much of this gift as would be requisite for ends of utility, you could rejoice in easily supplying yourself at your leisure with plentiful refreshment. But now the affairs of the Greeks requiring me, and the gods too urging me on, it was impossible for you, though willing, to answer the summons, with so large a number of daughters attending you. And I held it to be both foolish and wicked to cast them thus without you among ill-disposed men. And now that I am compelled to delay here, though I cherish the hope of a speedy return, I would deem it right to warn you to keep firm hold of those gifts you did receive in those ten months during which you did live with me, and not to cast away that you already have from desire and longing for more. As for me, I am making what haste I can to rejoin you. 5. Yet considering the uncertainty of the future, in traveling I must, in sending you consolation, lay upon you commands. And I would say somewhat that this is more suitable for you than to take care of yourself and your house, And keep all things in safety, left behind as you are, not unlike Philoctetes in the tragedy, suffering from his sore, though his sore was caused by a baleful serpent, yours by the knowledge of the nature and extent of the descent to earth which has befallen our souls. Albeit the gods have not forsaken us, as the sons of Atreus forsook him, but they have become our helpers and have been mindful of us. Now seeing you are hard beset in a contest, attended with much wrestling and labour, I earnestly beg you to keep firm hold upon philosophy, the only sure refuge, and not to yield more than is fitting to the perplexities caused by my absence. Do not from desire for my instruction cast away what you have already received, and do not faint before the multitude of other cares that encompass you, abandoning yourself to the rushing stream of outward things. Rather bear in mind that it is not by ease that men attain the possession of the true good, and practise yourself for the life you expect to lead by help of those very troubles which are the only [ 326 ]

opponents to your fortitude that are able to disturb and constrain you. As for plots laid against us, it is easy for those to despise them who are accustomed to disregard all that does not lie in our own power, and who deem that injustice rather recoils upon the doer than injures those who believe that the worst injury inflicted on them can cause them but little loss. 6. Now you may console yourself for the absence of him who sustains your soul, and is to you father, husband, teacher, and kindred, yea, if you will, even fatherland, though this seems to offer a reasonable ground for unhappiness, by placing before yourself as arbiter not feeling but reason. In the first place consider that, as I have said before, it is impossible that those who desire to be mindful of their return, should accomplish their journey home from this terrestrial exile pleasantly and easily, as through some smooth plain. For no two things can be more entirely opposed to one another than a life of pleasure and ease, and the ascent to the gods. As the summits of mountains cannot be reached without danger and toil, so it is not possible to emerge from the inmost depths of the body through pleasure and ease which drag men down to the body. For ’tis by anxious thought that we reach the road, and by recollection of our fall. But even if we encounter difficulties in our way, hardship is natural to the ascent, for it is given to the gods alone to lead an easy life. But ease is most dangerous for souls which have sunk to this earthly life, making them forgetful in the pursuit of alien things, and bringing on a state of slumber if we fall asleep, beguiled by alluring visions. 7. Now there are some chains that are of very heavy gold, but, because of their beauty, they persuaded women who in their folly do not perceive the weight, that they contribute to ornament, and thus got them to bear fetters easily. But other fetters which are of iron compelled them to a knowledge of their sins, and by pain forced them to repent and seek release from the weight; while escape from the golden imprisonment, through the delight felt in it, often causes grievous woe. Whence it has seemed to men of wisdom that labours conduce to virtue more than do pleasures. And to toil is better for man, aye, and for woman too, than to let the soul be puffed up and enervated by pleasure. For labour must lead the way to every fair possession, and he must toil who is eager to attain virtue. You know that Heracles and the Discouri, and Asclepius and all other children of the gods, through toil and steadfastness accomplished the blessed journey to heaven. For it is not those who live a life of pleasure that make the ascent to the gods, but rather those who have nobly learnt to endure the greatest misfortunes. 8. I know full well that there could be no greater contest than that which now lies before you, since you think that in me you will lose the path of safety and the guide therein. Yet your circumstances are not altogether unendurable, if you cast from yourself the unreasoning distress of mind which springs from the feelings, and deem it [ 327 ]

no trivial matter to remember those words by which you were with divine rites initiated into true philosophy, approving by your deeds the fidelity with which they have been apprehended. For it is a man’s actions that naturally afford demonstrations of his opinions, and whoever holds a belief must live in accordance with it, in order that he may himself be a faithful witness to the hearers of his words. What was it then that we learnt from those men who possess the clearest knowledge to be found among mortals? Was it not this — that I am in reality not this person who can be touched or perceived by any of the senses, but that which is farthest removed from the body, the colourless and formless essence which can by no means be touched by the hands, but is grasped by the mind alone. And it is not from outward things that we receive those principles which are implanted in us. We receive only the keynote as in a chorus, which recalls to our remembrance those things which we received from the god who gave them us ere we set forth on our wanderings. 9. Moreover, is not every emotion of the soul most hostile to its safety? And is not want of education the mother of all the passions? Now education does not consist in the absorption of a large amount of knowledge, but in casting off the affections of the soul. Now the passions are the beginning of diseases. And vice is the disease of the soul; and every vice is disgraceful. And the disgraceful is opposed to the good. Now since the divine nature is good, it is impossible for it to consort with vice, since Plato says it is unlawful for the impure to approach the pure. Wherefore even now we need to purge away all our passions, and the sins that spring therefrom. Was it not this you did so much approve, reading as it were divine characters within yourself, disclosed by my words? Is it not then absurd, though you are persuaded that you have in yourself the saving and the saved, the losing and the lost, wealth and poverty, father and husband, and a guide to all true good, to pant after the mere shadow of a leader, as though you had not within yourself a true leader, and all riches within your own power? And this must you lose and fly from, if you descend to the flesh, instead of turning towards that which saves and is saved. 10. As for my shadow and visible image, as you were not profited by their presence, so now their absence is not hurtful if you attempt to fly from the body. But you would meet me in all purity, and I should be most truly present and associated with you, night and day, in purity and with the fairest kind of converse which can never be broken up, if you would practise to ascend into yourself, collecting together all the powers which the body has scattered and broken up into a multitude of parts unlike their former unity to which concentration lent strength. You should collect and combine into one the thoughts implanted within you, endeavouring to isolate those that are confused, and to drag to light those that are enveloped in darkness. The divine Plato too made this his [ 328 ]

starting-point, summoning us away from the sensible to the intelligible. Also if you would remember, you would combine what you have heard, and recall it by memory, desiring to turn your mind to discourses of this kind as to excellent counsellors, and afterwards practising in action what you have learned, bearing it in mind in your labours. 11. Reason tells us that the divine is present everywhere and in all men, but that only the mind of the wise man is sanctified as its temple, and God is best honoured by him who knows Him best. And this must naturally be the wise man alone, who in wisdom must honour the Divine, and in wisdom adorn for it a temple in his thought, honouring it with a living statue, the mind moulded in His image … . Now God is not in need of any one, and the wise man is in need of God alone. For no one could become good and noble, unless he knew the goodness and beauty which proceed from the Deity. Nor is any man unhappy, unless he has fitted up his soul as a dwelling-place for evil spirits. To the wise man God gives the authority of a god. And a man is purified by the knowledge of God, and issuing from God, he follows after righteousness. 12. Let God be at hand to behold and examine every act and deed and word. And let us consider Him the author of all our good deeds. But of evil we ourselves are the authors, since it is we who made choice of it, but God is without blame. Wherefore we should pray to God for that which is worthy of Him, and we should pray for what we could attain from none other. And we must pray that we may attain after our labours those things that are preceded by toil and virtue; for the prayer of the slothful is but vain speech. Neither ask of God what you will not hold fast when you have attained it, since God’s gifts cannot be taken from you, and He will not give what you will not hold fast. What you will not require when you are rid of the body, that despise, but practise yourself in that you will need when you are set free, calling on God to be your helper. You will need none of those things which chance often gives and again takes away. Do not make any request before the fitting season, but only when God makes plain the right desire implanted by nature within you. 13. Hereby can God best be reflected, who cannot be seen by the body, nor yet by an impure soul darkened by vice. For purity is God’s beauty, and His light is the life-giving flame of truth. Every vice is deceived by ignorance, and turned astray by wickedness. Wherefore desire and ask of God what is in accordance with His own will and nature, well assured that, inasmuch as a man longs after the body and the things of the body in so far does he fail to know God, and is blind to the sight of God, even though all men should hold him as a god. Now the wise man, if known by only few, or, if you will, unknown to all, yet is known by God, and is reflected by his likeness to Him. Let then your mind follow after God, and let the soul follow the mind, and let the body be [ 329 ]

subservient to the soul as far as may be, the pure body serving the pure soul. For if it be defiled by the emotions of the soul, the defilement reacts upon the soul itself. 14. In a pure body where soul and mind are loved by God, words should conform with deeds: since it is better for you to cast a stone at random than a word, and to be defeated speaking the truth rather than conquer through deceit; for he who conquers by deceit is worsted in his character. And lies are witnesses unto evil deeds. It is impossible for a man who loves God also to love pleasure and the body, for he who loves these must needs be a lover of riches. And he who loves riches must be unrighteous. And the unrighteous man is impious towards God and his fathers, and transgresses against all men. And though he slay whole hecatombs in sacrifice, and adorn the temples with ten thousand gifts, yet is he impious and godless, and at heart a plunderer of holy places. Wherefore we should shun all addicted to love of the body as godless and impure. 15. Do not associate with any one whose opinions cannot profit you, nor join with him in converse about God. For it is not safe to speak of God with those who are corrupted by false opinion. Yea, and in their presence to speak truth or falsehood about God is fraught with equal danger. It is not fitting for a man who is not purified from unholy deeds to speak of God himself, nor must we suppose that he who speaks of Him with such is not guilty of a crime. We should hear and use speech concerning God as though in His presence. Godlike deeds should precede talk of God, and in the presence of the multitude we should keep silence concerning Him, for the knowledge of God is not suitable to the vain conceit of the soul. Esteem it better to keep silence than to let fall random words about God. You will become worthy of God if you deem it wrong either to speak or do or know aught unworthy of Him. Now a man who was worthy of God would be himself a god. 16. You will best honour God by making your mind like unto Him, and this you can do by virtue alone. For only virtue can draw the soul upward to that which is akin to it. Next to God there is nothing great but virtue, yet God is greater than virtue. Now God strengthens the man who does noble deeds. But an evil spirit is the instigator of evil deeds. The wicked soul flies from God, and would fain that His providence did not exist, and it shrinks from the divine law which punishes all the wicked. But the wise man’s soul is like God, and ever beholds Him and dwells with Him. If the ruler takes pleasure in the ruled, then God too cares for the wise man and watches over him. Therefore is the wise man blest, because he is in God’s keeping. Tis not his speech that is acceptable to God, but his deed; for the wise man honours God even in his silence, while the fool dishonours Him even while praying and offering sacrifice. Thus the wise man only is a priest; he only is beloved by God, and knows how to pray.

[ 330 ]

17. The man who practises wisdom practises the knowledge of God; and he shows his piety not by continued prayers and sacrifices but by his actions. No one could become well-pleasing to God by the opinions of men or the vain talk of the Sophists. But he makes himself well-pleasing and consecrated to God by assimilating his own disposition to the blessed and incorruptible nature. And it is he who makes himself impious and displeasing to God, for God does not injure him (since the divine nature can only work good), but he injures himself, chiefly through his wrong opinion concerning God. Not he who disregards the images of the gods is impious, but he who holds the opinions of the multitude concerning God. But do you entertain no thought unworthy of God or of His blessedness and immortality. 18. The chief fruit of piety is to honour God according to the laws of our country, not deeming that God has need of anything, but that He calls us to honour Him by His truly reverend and blessed majesty. We are not harmed by reverencing God’s altars, nor benefited by neglecting them. But whoever honours God under the impression that He is in need of him, he unconsciously deems himself greater than God. It is not when they are angry that the gods do us harm, but when they are not understood. Anger is foreign to the gods, for anger is involuntary, and there is nothing involuntary in God. Do not then dishonour the divine nature by false human opinions, since you will not injure the eternally blessed One, whose immortal nature is incapable of injury, but you will blind yourself to the conception of what is great and chiefest. 19. Again you could not suppose my meaning to be this when I exhort you to reverence the gods, since it would be absurd to command this as though the matter admitted a question. And we do not worship Him only by doing or thinking this or that, neither can tears or supplications turn God from His purpose, nor yet is God honoured by sacrifices nor glorified by plentiful offerings; but it is the godlike mind that remains stably fixed in its place that is united to God. For like must needs approach like. But the sacrifices of fools are mere food for fire, and the offerings they bring help the robbers of temples to lead their evil life. But, as was said before, let your temple be the mind that is within you. This must you tend and adorn, that it may be a fitting dwelling for God. Yet let not the adornment and the reception of God be but for a day, to be followed by mockery and folly and the return of the evil spirit. 20. If, then, you ever bear in mind that wheresoever your soul walks and inspires your body with activity, God is present and overlooks all your counsels and actions, then will you feel reverence before the unbegotten presence of the spectator, and you will have God to dwell with you. And even though your mouth discourse the sound of some other thing, let your thought and mind be turned towards God. Thus shall even your

[ 331 ]

speech be inspired, shining through the light of God’s truth and flowing the more easily; for the knowledge of God makes discourse short. 21. But wheresoever forgetfulness of God shall enter in, there must the evil spirit dwell. For the soul is a dwelling-place, as you have learned, either of gods or of evil spirits. If the gods are present, it will do what is good both in word and in deed; but if it has welcomed in the evil guest, it does all things in wickedness. Whensoever, then, you behold a man doing or rejoicing in that which is evil, know that he has denied God in his heart and is the dwelling-place of an evil spirit. They who believe that God exists and governs all things have this reward of their knowledge and firm faith: they have learnt that God has forethought for all things, and that there exist angels, divine and good spirits, who behold all that is done, and from whose notice we cannot escape. Being persuaded that this is so, they are careful not to fall in their life, keeping before their eyes the constant presence of the gods whence they cannot escape. And they have attained to a wise mode of life, and know the gods and are known by them. 22. On the other hand, they who believe that the gods do not exist and that the universe is not governed by God’s providence, have this punishment: they neither believe themselves, nor yet do they put faith in others who assert that the gods exist, but think that the universe is directed by a whirling motion void of reason. Thus they have cast themselves into unspeakable peril, trusting to an unreasoning and uncertain impulse in the events of life; and they do all that is unlawful in the endeavour to remove the belief in God. Assuredly such men are forsaken by the gods for their ignorance and unbelief. Yet they cannot flee and escape the notice of the gods or of justice their attendant, but having chosen an evil and erring life, though they know not the gods, yet are they known by them and by justice that dwells with the gods. 23. Even if they think they honour the gods, and are persuaded that they exist, yet neglect virtue and wisdom, they really have denied the divinities and dishonour them. Mere unreasoning faith without right living does not attain to God. Nor is it an act of piety to honour God without having first ascertained in what manner He delights to be honoured. If, then, He is gratified and won over by libations and sacrifices, it would not be just that while all men make the same requests they should obtain different answers to their prayers. But if there is nothing that God desires less than this, while he delights only in the purifications of the mind, which every man can attain of his own free choice, what injustice could there be? But if the divine nature delights in both kinds of service, it should receive honour by sacred rites according to each man’s power, and by the thoughts of his mind even beyond that power. It is not wrong to pray to God, since ingratitude is a grievous wrong.

[ 332 ]

24. No god is in fault for a man’s wickedness, but the man who has chosen it for himself. The prayer which is accompanied by base actions is impure, and therefore not acceptable to God; but that which is accompanied by noble actions is pure, and at the same time acceptable. There are four first principles that must be upheld concerning God — faith, truth, love, hope. We must have faith that our only salvation is in turning to God. And having faith, we must strive with all our might to know the truth about God. And when we know this, we must love Him we do know. And when we love Him we must nourish our souls on good hopes for our life, for it is by their good hopes good men are superior to bad ones. Let then these four principles be firmly held. 25. Next let these three laws be distinguished. First, the law of God; second, the law of human nature; third, that which is laid down for nations and states. The law of nature fixes the limits of bodily needs, and shows what is necessary to these, and condemns all striving after which is needless and superfluous. Now that which is established and laid down for States regulates by fixed agreements the common relations of men, by their mutual observance of the covenants laid down. But the divine law is implanted by the mind, for their welfare, in the thoughts of reasoning souls, and it is found truthfully inscribed therein. The law of humanity is transgressed by him who through vain opinions know it not, owing to his excessive love for the pleasures of the body. But the conventional law is subject to expediency, and is differently laid down at different times according to the arbitrary will of the prevailing government. It punishes him who transgresses it, but it cannot reach a man’s secret thoughts and intentions. 26. The divine law is unknown to the soul that folly and intemperance have rendered impure, but it shines forth in self-control and wisdom. It is impossible to transgress this, for there is nothing in man that can transcend it. Nor can it be despised, for it cannot shine forth in a man who will despise it. Nor is it moved by chances of fortune, because it is in truth superior to chance and stronger than any form of violence. Mind alone knows it, and diligently pursues the search thereafter, and finds it imprinted in itself, and supplies from it food to the soul as to its own body. We must regard the rational soul as the body of the mind, which the mind nourishes by bringing into recognition, through the light that is in it, the thoughts within, which mind imprinted and engraved in the soul in accordance with the truth of the divine law. Thus mind is become teacher and saviour, nurse, guardian and leader, speaking the truth in silence, unfolding and giving forth the divine law; and looking on the impressions thereof in itself it beholds them implanted in the soul from all eternity. 27. You must therefore first understand the law of nature, and then proceed to the divine law, by which also the natural law has been prescribed. And if you make these [ 333 ]

your starting-point you shall never fear the written law. For written laws are made for the benefit of good men, not that they may do no wrong, but that they may not suffer it. Natural wealth is limited, and it is easy to attain. But the wealth desired of vain opinions has no limits, and is hard to attain. The true philosopher therefore, following nature and not vain opinions, is self-sufficing in all things; for in the light of the requirements of nature every possession is some wealth, but in the light of unlimited desires even the greatest wealth is but poverty. Truly it is no uncommon thing to find a man who is rich if tried by the standard of vain opinions. No fool is satisfied with what he possesses; he rather mourns for what he has not. Just as men in a fever are always thirsty through the grievous nature of their malady, and desire things quite opposed to one another, so men whose souls are ill-regulated are ever in want of all things, and experience ever-varying desires through their greed. 28. Wherefore the gods, too, have commanded us to purify ourselves by abstaining from food and from love, bringing those who follow after piety within the law of that nature which they themselves have formed, since everything which transgresses this law is loathsome and deadly. The multitude, however, fearing simplicity in their mode of life, because of this fear, turn to the pursuits that can best procure riches. And many have attained wealth, and yet not found release from their troubles, but have exchanged them for greater ones. Wherefore philosophers say that nothing is so necessary as to know thoroughly what is unnecessary, and moreover that to be self-sufficing is the greatest of all wealth, and that it is honourable not to ask anything of any man. Wherefore, too, they exhort us to strive, not to acquire some necessary thing, but rather to remain of good cheer if we have not acquired it. 29. Neither let us accuse our flesh as the cause of great evils, nor attribute our troubles to outward things. Rather let us seek the cause of these things in our souls, and casting away every vain striving and hope for fleeting joys, let us become completely masters of ourselves. For a man is unhappy either through fear or through unlimited and empty desire. Yet if he bridle these, he can attain to a happy mind. But in as far as you are in want, it is through forgetfulness of your nature that you feel the want. For hereby you cause to yourself vague fears and desires. And it were better for you to be content and lie on a bed of rushes than to be troubled though you have a golden couch and a luxurious table acquired by labour and sorrow. Whilst the pile of wealth is growing bigger, life is growing wretched. 30. Do not think it unnatural that when the flesh cries out for anything, the soul should cry out too. The cry of the flesh is, “Let me not hunger, or thirst, or shiver,” and it is hard for the soul to restrain these desires. It is hard, too, for it by help of its own natural self-sufficing to disregard day by day the exhortations of nature, and to teach it [ 334 ]

to esteem the concerns of life as of little account. And when we enjoy good fortune, to learn to bear ill fortune, and when we are unfortunate not to hold of great account the possessions of those who enjoy good fortune. And to receive with a calm mind the good gifts of fortune, and to stand firm against her seeming ills. Yea, all that the many hold good is but a fleeting thing. 31. But wisdom and knowledge have no part in chance. It is not painful to lack the gifts of chance, but rather to endure the unprofitable trouble of vain ambition. For every disturbance and unprofitable desire is removed by the love of true philosophy. Vain is the word of that philosopher who can ease no mortal trouble. As there is no profit in the physician’s art unless it cure the diseases of the body, so there is none in philosophy, unless it expel the troubles of the soul. These and other like commands are laid on us by the law of our nature. 32. Now the divine law cries aloud in the pure region of the mind: “Unless you consider that your body is joined to you as the outer covering to the child in the womb and the stalk to the sprouting corn, you can not know yourself.” Nor can anyone know himself who does not hold this opinion. As the outer covering grows with the child, and the stalk with the corn, yet, when they come to maturity, both are cast away, thus too the body which is fastened to the soul at birth is not a part of the man. But as the outer covering was formed along with the child that it may come to being in the womb, so likewise the body was yoked to the man that he may come to being on the earth. In as far as a man turns to the mortal part of himself, in so far he makes his mind incommensurate with immortality. And in as far as he refrains from sharing the feelings of the body, in such a measure does he approach the divine. The wise man who is beloved of God strives and toils as much for the good of his soul as others do for the good of their body. He deems that he cannot become self-sufficing merely by remembering what he has heard, but strives by practising it to hasten on towards his duty. 33. Naked was he sent into the world, and naked shall he call on Him that sent him. For God listens only to those who are not weighed down by alien things, guarding those who are pure from corruption. Consider it a great help towards the blessed life if the captive in the thralls of nature takes his captor captive. For we are bound in the chains that nature has cast around us, by the belly, the throat and the other parts of the body, and by the use of these and the pleasant sensations that arise therefrom and the fears they occasion. But if we rise superior to their witchcraft, and avoid the snares laid by them, we have led our captor captive. Neither trouble yourself much whether you be male or female in body, nor look upon yourself as a woman, for I did not approach you as such. Flee all that is womanish in the soul, as though you had a man’s body about [ 335 ]

you. For what is born from a virgin soul and a pure mind is most blessed, since imperishable springs from imperishable. But what the body produces is held corrupt by all the gods. 34. It is a great proof of wisdom to hold the body in thrall. Often men cast off certain parts of the body; be ready for the soul’s safety to cast away the whole body. Hesitate not to die for whose sake you are willing to live. Let reason then direct all our impulses, and banish from us tyrannous and godless masters. For the rule of the passions is harder than that of tyrants, since it is impossible for a man to be free who is governed by his passions. As many as are the passions of the soul, so many cruel masters have we. 35. Strive not to wrong your slaves nor to correct them when you are angry. And before correcting them, prove to them that you do this for their good, and give them an opportunity for excuse. When purchasing slaves, avoid the stubborn ones. Accustom yourself to do many things yourself, for our own labour is simple and easy. And men should use each limb for the purpose for which nature intended it to be used. Nature needs no more. They who do not use their own bodies, but make excessive use of others, commit a twofold wrong, and are ungrateful to nature that has given them these parts. Never use your bodily parts merely for the sake of pleasure, for it is far better to die than to obscure your soul by intemperance …. correct the vice of your nature …. If you give something to your slaves, distinguish the better ones by a share of honour …. for it is impossible that he who does wrong to men should honour God. But look on the love of mankind as the foundation of your piety. And… [HERE THE MS. ENDS ABRUPTLY.]

[ 336 ]

Letter to the Egyptian Anebo Translated by Thomas Taylor, 1812 Porphyry to the Prophet Anebo greeting. I COMMENCE MY FRIENDSHIP towards you from the Gods and good daemons, and from those philosophic disquisitions, which have an affinity to these powers. And concerning these particulars indeed, much has been said by the Grecian philosophers; but, for the most part, the principles of their belief are derived from conjecture. In the first place, therefore, it is granted that there are Gods, But I inquire what the peculiarities are of each of the more excellent genera, by which they are separated from each other; and whether we must say that the cause of the distinction between them is from their energies, or their passive motions, or from things that are consequent, or from their different arrangement with respect to bodies; as, for instance, from the arrangement of the Gods with reference to etherial, but of daemons to aerial, and of souls to terrestrial, bodies? I also ask, why, since [all] the Gods dwell in the heavens, theurgists only invoke the terrestrial and subterranean Gods? Likewise, how some of the Gods are said to be aquatic and aerial? And how different Gods are allotted different places, and the parts of bodies according to circumscription, though they have an infinite, impartible, and incomprehensible power? How there will be a union of them with each other, if they are separated by the divisible circumscriptions of parts, and by the difference of places and subject bodies? How do theologists, or those who are wise in divine concerns, represent the Gods as passive, to whom on this account, it is said, erect phalli are exhibited, and obscene language is used? But if they are impassive, the invocations of the Gods will be in vain, which announce that they can appease the anger of the divinities, and procure a reconciliation with them; and still more, what are called the necessities of the Gods, will be vain. For that which is impassive cannot be allured, nor compelled, nor necessitated. How, therefore, are many things, in sacred operations, performed to them as passive? Invocations, likewise, are made to the Gods as passive; so that not daemons only are passive, but the Gods also, conformably to what Homer says, “And flexible are e’en the Gods themselves.” But if we assert with certain persons, that the Gods are pure intellects, but that daemons, being psychical, participate of intellect; in a still greater degree will pure

[ 337 ]

intellects be incapable of being allured, and will be unmingled with sensible natures. Supplications, however, are foreign to the purity of intellect, and therefore are not to be made to it. But the things which are offered [in sacred rites] are offered as to sensitive and psychical essences. Are, therefore, the Gods separated from daemons, through the former being incorporeal, but the latter corporeal? If, however, the Gods are incorporeal alone, how will the sun and moon, and the visible celestials, be Gods? How, likewise, are some of the Gods beneficent, but others malefic? What is it that connects the Gods in the heavens that have bodies, with the incorporeal Gods? What is it that distinguishes daemons from the visible and invisible Gods, since the visible are connected with the invisible Gods? In what do a daemon, hero, and soul, differ from each other? Is it in essence, or in power, or in energy? What is the indication of a God, or angel, or archangel, or daemon, or a certain archon, or soul being present? For to speak boastingly, and to exhibit a phantasm of a certain quality, is common to Gods and daemons, and to all the more excellent genera. So that the genus of Gods will in no respect be better than that of daemons. Since the ignorance of, and deception about, divine natures is impiety and impurity, but a scientific knowledge of the Gods is holy and beneficial, the ignorance of things honourable and beautiful will be darkness, but the knowledge of them will be light. And the former, indeed, will fill men with all evil§, through the want of erudition, and through audacity; but the latter will be the cause to them of every good. [I wish you, therefore, to unfold to me the truth respecting these particulars. And, in the first place, I wish you to explain to me distinctly ] what that is which is effected in divination? For we frequently obtain a knowledge of future events through dreams, when we are asleep; not being, at that time, in a tumultuous ecstasy, for the body is then quiescent; but we do not apprehend what then takes place, in the same manner as when we are awake. But many, through enthusiasm and divine inspiration, predict future events, and are then in so wakeful a state, as even to energize according to sense, and yet they are not conscious of the state they are in, or at least, not so much as they were before. Some also of those who suffer a mental alienation, energize enthusiastically on hearing cymbals or drums, or a certain modulated sound, such as those who are Corybantically inspired, those who are possessed by Sabazius, and those who are inspired by the mother of the Gods. But some energize enthusiastically by drinking water, as the priest of Clarius, in Colophon; others, by being seated at the mouth of a [ 338 ]

cavern, as those who prophesy at Delphi; and others by imbibing the vapour from water, as the prophetesses in Branchidse. Some also become enthusiastic by standing on characters, as those that are filled from the intromission of spirits. Others, who are conscious what they are doing in other respects, are divinely inspired according to the phan-tastic part; some, indeed, receiving darkness for a cooperator, others certain potions, but others incantations and compositions: and some energize, according to the imagination, through water; others in a wall, others in the open air, and others in the sun, or in some other of the celestial bodies. Some also establish the art of the investigation of futurity through the viscera, through birds, and through the stars. I likewise ask concerning the mode of divination, what it is, and what the quality by which it is distinguished? All diviners, indeed, assert, that they obtain a foreknowledge of future events through Gods or daemons, and that it is not possible for any others to know that which is future, than those who are the lords of futurity. I doubt, therefore, whether divinity is so far subservient to men, as not to be averse to some becoming diviners from meal. But, concerning the causes of divination, it is dubious whether a God, an angel, or a daemon, or some other power, is present in manifestations, or divinations, or certain other sacred energies, as is the case with those powers that are drawn down through you [priests] by the necessities with which invocation is attended. Or does the soul assert and imagine these things, and are they, as some think, the passions of the soul, excited from small incentives? Or is a certain mixed form of subsistence produced from our soul, and divine inspiration externally derived? Hence it must be said, that the soul generates the power which has an imaginative perception of futurity, through motions of this kind, or that the things which are adduced from matter constitute daemons, through the powers that are inherent in them, and especially things adduced from the matter which is taken from animals. For in sleep, when we are not employed about any thing, we sometimes obtain a knowledge of the future. But that a passion of the soul is the cause of divination, is indicated by this, that the senses are occupied, that fumigations are introduced, and that invocations are employed; and likewise, that not all men, but those that are more simple and young, are more adapted to prediction. The ecstasy, also, of the reasoning power is the cause of divination, as is likewise the mania which happens in diseases, or mental aberration, or a sober and vigilant condition, or suffusions of the body, or the imaginations excited by diseases, or an

[ 339 ]

ambiguous state of mind, such as that which takes place between a sober condition and ecstasy, or the imaginations artificially procured by enchantment. Nature, likewise, art, and the sympathy of things in the universe, as if they were the parts of one animal, contain premanifestations of certain things with reference to each other. And bodies are so prepared, that there is a presignification of some by others, which is clearly indicated by the works performed in predicting what is future. For those who invoke the divinities for this purpose, have about them stones and herbs, bind certain sacred bonds, which they also dissolve, open places that are shut, and change the deliberate intentions of the recipients, so as from being depraved to render them worthy, though they were before depraved. Nor are the artificers of efficacious images to be despised. For they observe the motion of the celestial bodies, and can tell from the concurrence of what star with a certain star or stars, predictions will be true or false; and also whether the things that are performed will be inanities, or significant and efficacious, though no divinity or daemon is drawn down by these images. But there are some who suppose that there is a certain obedient genus of daemons, which is naturally fraudulent, omniform, and various, and which assumes the appearance of Gods and daemons, and the souls of the deceased; and that through these every thing which appears to be either good or evil is effected; for they are not able to contribute any thing to true goods, such as those of the soul, nor to have any knowledge of them, but they abuse, deride, and frequently impede those who are striving to be virtuous. They are likewise full of pride, and rejoice in vapours and sacrifices. Jugglers likewise fraudulently attack us in many ways, through the ardour of the expectations which they raise. It very much indeed perplexes me to understand how superior beings, when invoked, are commanded by those that invoke them, as if they were their inferiors; and they think it requisite that he who worships them should be just, but when they are called upon to act unjustly, they do not refuse so to act. Though the Gods, likewise, do not hear him who invokes them, if he is impure from venereal connexions, yet, at the same time, they do not refuse to lead any one to illegal venery. [I am likewise dubious with respect to sacrifices, what utility or power they possess in the universe, and with the Gods, and on what account they are performed, appropriately indeed, to the powers who are honoured by them, but usefully to those by whom the gifts are offered.] Why also do the interpreters of prophecies and oracles think it requisite that they should abstain from animals, lest the Gods should be polluted by the vapours arising from them; and yet the Gods are especially allured by the vapours of animals? [ 340 ]

Why is it requisite that the inspector [who presides over sacred rites] ought not to touch a dead body, though most sacred operations are performed through dead bodies’? And why, which is much more absurd than this, are threats employed and false terrors, by any casual person, not to a daemon, or some departed soul, but to the sovereign Sun himself, or to the Moon, or some one of the celestial Gods, in order to compel these divinities to speak the truth? For does not he who says that he will burst the heavens, or unfold the secrets of Isis, or point out the arcanum in the adytum, or stop Baris, or scatter the members of Osiris to Typhon, [or that he will do something else of the like kind ], does not he who says this, by thus threatening what he neither knows nor is able to effect, prove himself to be stupid in the extreme? And what abjectness does it not produce in those who, like very silly children, are possessed with such vain fear, and are terrified at such fictions? And yet Chaeremon, who was a sacred scribe, writes these things, as disseminated by the Egyptians. It is also said, that these, and things of the like kind, are of a most compulsive nature. What also is the meaning of those mystic narrations which say that a certain divinity is unfolded into light from mire, that he is seated above the lotus, that he sails in a ship, and that he changes his forms every hour, according to the signs of the zodiac? For thus, they say, he presents himself to the view, and thus ignorantly adapt the peculiar passion of their own imagination to the God himself. But if these things are asserted symbolically, being symbols of the powers of this divinity, I request an interpretation of these symbols. For it is evident, that if these are similar to passions of the Sun, when he is eclipsed, they would he seen by all men who intently survey the God. What also is the design of names that are without signification? and why, of such, are those that are barbaric preferred to our own? For if he who hears them looks to their signification, it is sufficient that the conception remains the same, whatever the words may be that are used. For he who is invoked is not of the Egyptian race; nor, if he was an Egyptian, does he use the Egyptian, or, in short, any human language. For either all these are the artificial contrivances of enchanters, and veils originating from our passions, which rumour ascribes to a divine nature; or we ignorantly frame conceptions of divinity, contrary to its real mode of subsistence. I likewise wish you to unfold to me, what the Egyptians conceive the first cause to be; whether intellect, or above intellect? whether alone, or subsisting with some other or others? whether incorporeal, or corporeal; and whether it is the same with the Demiurgus, or prior to the Demiurgus? Likewise, whether all things are from one principle, or from many principles? whether the Egyptians have a knowledge of matter, or of primary corporeal qualities; and whether they admit matter to be unbegotten, or [ 341 ]

to be generated? For Chaeremon, indeed, and others, do not think there is any thing else prior to the visible worlds; but in the beginning of their writings on this subject, admit the existence of the Gods of the Egyptians, but of no others, except what are called the planets, the Gods that give completion to the zodiac, and such as rise together with these; and likewise, the sections into decans, and the horoscopes. They also admit the existence of what are called the powerful leaders, whose names are to be found in the calendars, together with their ministrant offices, their risings and settings, and their significations of future events. For Chaeremon saw that what those who say that the sun is the Demiurgus, and likewise what is asserted concerning Osiris and Isis, and all the sacred fables, may be resolved into the stars and the phases, occultations and risings of these, or into the increments or decrements of the moon, or into the course of the sun, or the nocturnal and diurnal hemisphere, or into the river [Nile]. And, in short, the Egyptians resolve all things into physical, and nothing into incorporeal and living essences. Most of them likewise suspend that which is in our power from the motion of the stars; and bind all things, though I know not how, with the indissoluble bonds of necessity, which they call fate. They also connect fate with the Gods; whom, nevertheless, they worship in temples and statues, and other things, as the only dissolvers of fate. Concerning the peculiar daemon, it must be inquired how he is imparted by the lord of the geniture, and according to what kind of efflux, or life, or power, he descends from him to us? And also, whether he exists, or does not exist? And whether the invention of the lord of the geniture is impossible, or possible? For if it is possible he is happy, who having learned the scheme of his nativity, and knowing his proper daemon, becomes liberated from fate. The canons, also, of genethliology [or prediction from the natal day] are innumerable and incomprehensible. And the knowledge of this mathematical science cannot be obtained; for there is much dissonance concerning it, and Chaeremon and many others have written against it. But the discovery of the lord, or lords, of the geniture, if there are more than one in a nativity, is nearly granted by astrologers themselves to be unattainable, and yet they say that on this the knowledge of the proper daemon depends. Farther still, I wish to know whether the peculiar daemon rules over some one of the parts in us? For it appears to certain persons, that daemons preside over the parts of our body, so that one is the guardian of health, another of the form of the body, and another of the corporeal habits, and that there is one daemon who presides in common over all these. And again, that one daemon presides over the body, another over the soul, and another over the intellect; and that some of them are good, but others bad. [ 342 ]

I am also dubious whether this daemon is not a certain part of the soul, [such, for instance, as the intellectual part;] and if so, he will be happy who has a wise intellect. I see likewise, that there is a twofold worship of the peculiar daemon; the one being the worship as of two, but the other as of three. By all men, however, the daemon is called upon by a common invocation. I farther ask, whether there is a certain other latent way to felicity, separate from the Gods? And I am dubious whether it is requisite to look to human opinions in divine divination and theurgy? And whether the soul does not devise great things from casual circumstances? Moreover, there are certain other methods which are conversant with the prediction of future events. And, perhaps, those who possess divine divination, foresee indeed what will happen, yet are not on this account happy; for they foresee future events, but do not know how to use this knowledge properly. I wish, therefore, that you would point out to me the path to felicity, and show me in what the essence of it consists. For with us [Greeks] there is much verbal contention about it, because we form a conjecture of good from human reasonings. But by those who have devised the means of associating with beings more excellent than man, if the investigation of this subject is omitted, wisdom will be professed by them in vain; as they will only disturb a divine intellect about the discovery of a fugitive slave, or the purchase of land, or, if it should so happen, about marriage, or merchandize. And if they do not omit this subject, but assert what is most true about other things, yet say nothing that is stable and worthy of belief about felicity, in consequence of employing themselves about things that are difficult, but useless to mankind; in this case, they will not be conversant either with Gods or good daemons, but with that daemon who is called fraudulent; or, if this is not admitted, the whole will be the invention of men, and the fiction of a mortal nature.

[ 343 ]

The Greek Texts

Athens — under Cassius Longinus in Athens, Porphyry studied grammar and rhetoric.

[ 344 ]

List of Greek Texts In this section of the eBook, readers can view the original Greek texts of Porphyry’s works. You may wish to Bookmark this page for future reference. CONTENTS Life of Plotinus Life of Pythagoras Isagoge Against the Christians On the Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey On the Abstinence of Eating Animals Aids to the Study of the Intelligibles Letter to Marcella Letter to the Egyptian Anebo On Philosophy from Oracles Commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics Homeric Questions Chronica On Statues

[ 345 ]

Life of Plotinus ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΠΛΩΤΙΝΟΥ ΒΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΤΑΞΕΩΣ ΤΩΝ ΒΙΒΛΙΩΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ.

CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

[ 346 ]

1 ΠΛ ΩΤ ῖΝ Ο ς Ὁ Κ ΑΘ ’ ἡμᾶς γεγονὼς φιλόσοφος ἐῴκει μὲν αἰσχυνομένῳ ὅτι ἐν σώματι εἴη. ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης διαθέσεως οὔτε περὶ τοῦ γένους αὐτοῦ διηγεῖσθαι ἠνείχετο οὔτε περὶ τῶν γονέων οὔτε περὶ τῆς πατρίδος. ζωγράφου δὲ ἀνασχέσθαι ἢ πλάστου τοσοῦτον ἀπηξίου, ὥστε καὶ λέγειν πρὸς Ἀμέλιον δεόμενον εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἐπιτρέψαι· οὐ γὰρ ἀρκεῖ φέρειν, ὃ ἡ φύσις εἴδωλον ἡμῖν περιτέθεικεν; ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰδώλου εἴδωλον συγχωρεῖν αὐτὸν ἀξιοῦν πολυχρονιώτερον καταλιπεῖν ὡς δή τι τῶν ἀξιοθεάτων ἔργων. ὅθεν ἀπαγορεύοντος καὶ καθεδεῖσθαι ἕνεκα τούτου ἀρνουμένου ἔχων φίλον ὁ Ἀμέλιος Καρτέριον τὸν ἄριστον τῶν τότε γεγονότων ζωγράφων εἰσιέναι καὶ ἀπαντᾶν εἰς τὰς συνουσίας ποιήσας· ἐξῆν γὰρ τῷ βουλομένῳ φοιτᾶν εἰς τὰς συνουσίας· τὰς ἐκ τοῦ ὁρᾶν φαντασίας πληκτικωτέρας λαμβάνειν διὰ τῆς ἐπὶ πλέον προσοχῆς συνείθισεν. ἔπειτα γράφοντος ἐκ τοῦ τῇ μνήμῃ ἐναποκειμένου ἰνδάλματος τὸ εἴκασμα καὶ συνδιορθοῦντος εἰς ὁμοιότητα τὸ ἴχνος τοῦ Ἀμελίου εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἡ εὐφυία τοῦ Καρτερίου παρέσχεν ἀγνοοῦντος τοῦ Πλωτίνου ὁμοιοτάτην.

[ 347 ]

2 ΚΟ Ι Λ Ι Α Κ ῇ Δ Ὲ Ν ΌΣ ῼ πολλάκις καταπονούμενος οὔτε κλυστῆρος ἠνέσχετο, οὐκ εἶναι πρὸς τοῦ πρεσβύτου λέγων ὑπομένειν τὰς τοιαύτας θεραπείας, οὔτε τὰς θηριακὰς ἀντιδότους λαβεῖν ὑπέμεινε, μηδὲ τῶν ἡμέρων ζῴων τὰς ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τροφὰς προσίεσθαι λέγων. λουτροῦ δὲ ἀπεχόμενος καὶ τρίψεσι καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν χρώμενος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας, ἐπειδὴ τοῦ λοιμοῦ ἐπιβρίσαντος συνέβη τοὺς τρίβοντας αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν, ἀμελήσας τῆς τοιαύτης θεραπείας κατ’ ὀλίγον τὴν τοῦ κυνάγχου ἀγριότητα κατασκευαζομένην ἔσχε. κἀμοῦ μὲν παρόντος οὐδέν· πω τοιοῦτον ὑπεφαίνετο· ἀποπλεύσαντος δὲ εἰς τοσοῦτον ἠγριώθη τὸ πάθος, ὡς ἔλεγεν ἐπανελθόντι Εὐστόχιος ὁ ἑταῖρος ὁ καὶ παραμείνας αὐτῷ ἄχρι θανάτου, ὡς καὶ τῆς φωνῆς περιαιρεθῆναι τὸ τορὸν καὶ εὔηχον βραγχῶντος αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ὄψιν συγχυθῆναι καὶ τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας ἑλκωθῆναι· ὅθεν ἐκτρεπομένων αὐτοῦ τὰς συναντήσεις τῶν φίλων διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ στόματος πάντας προσαγορεύειν ἔθος ἔχειν, τῆς μὲν πόλεως ἀπαλλάττεται, εἰς δὲ τὴν Καμπανίαν ἐλθὼν εἰς Ζήθου χωρίον ἑτραίρου παλαιοῦ αὐτῷ γεγονότος καὶ τεθνηκότος κατάγεται. τὰ δ’ ἀναγκαῖα αὐτῷ ἔκ τε τῶν τοῦ Ζήθου ἐτελεῖτο καὶ ἐκ Μιντουρνῶν ἐκομίζετο ἐκ τῶν Καστρικίου· ἐν Μιντούρναις γὰρ ὁ Καστρίκιος τὰς κτήσεις εἶχε. μέλλων δὲ τελευτᾶν, ὡς ὁ Εὐστόχιος ἡμῖν διηγεῖτο, ἐπειδὴ ἐν Ποτιόλοις κατοικῶν ὁ Εὐστόχιος βραδέως πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀφίκετο, εἰπὼν ὅτι σὲ ἔτι περιμένω καὶ φήσας πειρᾶσθαι τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν θεῖον ἀνάγειν πρὸς τὸ ἐν τῷ παντὶ θεῖον, δράκοντος ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην διελθόντος ἐν ᾗ κατέκειτο καὶ εἰς ὀπὴν ἐν τῷ τοίχῳ ὑπάρχουσαν ὑποδεδυκότος ἀφῆκε τὸ πνεῦμα ἔτη γεγονώς, ὡς ὁ Εὐστόχιος ἔλεγεν, ἕξ τε καὶ ἑξήκοντα, τοῦ δευτέρου ἔτους τῆς Κλαυδίου βασιλείας πληρουμένου. τελευτῶντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἐγὼ μὲν ὁ Πορφύριος ἐτύγχανον ἐν Λιλυβαίῳ διατρίβων, Ἀμέλιος δὲ ἐν Ἀπαμείᾳ τῆς Συρίας, Καστρίκιος δὲ ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ· μόνος δὲ παρῆν ὁ Εὐστόχιος. ἀναψηφίζουσι δὲ ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ δευτέρου ἔτους τῆς Κλαυδίου βασιλείας πίπτει. οὔτε δὲ τὸν μῆνα δεδήλωκέ τινι καθ’ ὃν γεγέννηται, οὔτε τὴν γενέθλιον ἡμέραν, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ θύειν ἢ ἑστιᾶν τινα τοῖς αὐτοῦ γενέθλιον ἡμέραν, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ θύειν ἢ ἑστιᾶν τινα τοῖς αὐτοῦ γενεθλίοις ἠξίου, καίπερ ἐν τοῖς Πλάτωνος καὶ Σωκράτους παραδεδομένοις γενεθλίοις θύων τε καὶ ἑστιῶν τοὺς ἑταίρους, ὅτε καὶ λόγον ἔδει τῶν ἑταίρων τοὺς δυνατοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν συνελθόντων ἀναγνῶναι.

[ 348 ]

3 Ἃ Μ Έ Ν ΤΟ Ι Ἡ Μ ῖΝ αὐτὸς ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ταῖς ὁμιλίαις πολλάκις διηγεῖτο, ἦν τοιαῦτα. προσφοιτᾶν μὲν γὰρ τῇ τροφῷ καίπερ εἰς γραμματοδιδασκάλου ἀπιόντα ἄχρις ὀγδόου ἔτους ἀπὸ γενέσεως ὄντα καὶ τοὺς μαζοὺς γυμνοῦντα θηλάζειν προθυμεῖσθαι· ἀκούσαντα δέ ποτε ὅτι ἀτηρόν ἐστι παιδίον, ἀποσχέσθαι αἰδεσθέντα. εἰκοστὸν δὲ καὶ ὄγδοον ἔτος αὐτὸν ἄγοντα ὁρμῆσαι ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν καὶ τοῖς τότε κατὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν εὐδοκιμοῦσι συσταθέντα κατιέναι ἐκ τῆς ἀκροάσεως αὐτῶν κατηφῆ καὶ λύπης πλήρη, ὡς καί τινι τῶν φίλων διηγεῖσθαι ἃ πάσχοι· τὸν δὲ συνέντα αὐτοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ βούλημα ἀπενέγκαι πρὸς Ἀμμώνιον, οὗ μηδέπω πεπείρατο. τὸν δὲ εἰσελθόντα καὶ ἀκούσαντα φάναι πρὸς τὸν ἑταῖρον· τοῦτον ἐζήτουν. καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας συνεχῶς τῷ Ἀμμωνίῳ παραμένοντα τοσαύτην ἕξιν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ κτήσασθαι, ὡς καὶ τῆς παρὰ τοῖς Πέρσαις ἐπιτηδευομένης πεῖραν λαβεῖν σπεῦσαι καὶ τῆς παρ’ Ἰνδοῖς κατορθουμένης. Γορδιανοῦ δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας παριέναι μέλλοντος δοὺς ἑαυτὸν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ συνεισῄει ἔτος ἤδη τριακοστὸν ἄγων καὶ ἔννατον. ἕνδεκα γὰρ ὅλων ἐτῶν παραμένων τῷ Ἀμμωνίῳ συνεσχόλασε. τοῦ δὲ Γορδιανοῦ περὶ τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν ἀναιρεθέντος μόλις φεύγων εἰς τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν διεσώθη. καὶ Φιλίππου τὴν βασιλείαν κρατήσαντος τεσσαράκοντα γεγονὼς ἔτη εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἄνεισιν. Ἐρεννίῳ δὲ καὶ Ὠριγένει καὶ Πλωτίνῳ συνθηκῶν γεγονυιῶν μηδὲν ἐκκαλύπτειν τῶν Ἀμμωνίου δογμάτων ἃ δὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀκροάσεσιν αὐτοῖς ἀνεκεκάθαρτο, ἔμενε καὶ ὁ Πλωτῖνος συνὼν μέν τισι τῶν προσιόντων, τηρῶν δὲ ἀνέκπυστα τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Ἀμμωνίου δόγματα. Ἐρεννίου δὲ πρώτου τὰς συνθήκας παραβάντος, Ὠριγένης μὲν ἠκολούθει τῷ φθάσαντι Ἐρεννίῳ. ἔγραψε δὲ οὐδὲν πλὴν τὸ «Περὶ τῶν δαιμόνων» σύγγραμμα καὶ ἐπὶ Γαλιήνου «Ὅτι μόνος ποιητὴς ὁ βασιλεύς». Πλωτῖνος δὲ ἄχρι μὲν πολλοῦ γράφων οὐδὲν διετέλεσεν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἀμμωνίου συνουσίας ποιούμενος τὰς διατριβάς· καὶ οὕτως ὅλων ἐτῶν δέκα διετέλεσε, συνὼν μέν τισι, γράφων δὲ οὐδέν. ἦν δὲ ἡ διατριβή, ὡς ἂν αὐτοῦ ζητεῖν προτρεπομένου τοὺς συνόντας, ἀταξίας πλήρης καὶ πολλῆς φλυαρίας, ὡς Ἀμέλιος ἡμῖν διηγεῖτο. προσῆλθε δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἀμέλιος τρίτον ἔτος ἄγοντι ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ κατὰ τὸ τρίτον ἔτος τῆς Φιλίππου βασιλείας καὶ ἄχρι τοῦ πρώτου ἔτους τῆς Κλαυδίου βασιλείας παραμείνας ἔτη ὅλα συγγέγονεν εἴκοσι καὶ τέσσαρα, ἕξιν μὲν ἔχων ὅτε προσῆλθεν ἀπὸ τῆς Λυσιμάχου συνουσίας, φιλοπονίᾳ δὲ ὑπερβαλλόμενος τῶν καθ’ αὑτὸν πάντων διὰ τὸ καὶ σχεδὸν πάντα τὰ Νουμηνίου καὶ γράψαι καὶ συναγαγεῖν καὶ σχεδὸν τὰ πλεῖστα ἐκμαθεῖν· σχόλια δὲ ἐκ τῶν συνουσιῶν ποιούμενος ἑκατόν που βιβλία συνέταξε τῶν σχολίων, ἃ Οὐστιλλιανῷ Ἡσυχίῳ τῷ Ἀπαμεῖ, ὃν υἱὸν ἔθετο, κεχάρισται.

[ 349 ]

4 Τ ῷ Δ Ε Κ ΆΤῼ Δ Ὲ ἔτει τῆς Γαλιήνου βασιλείας ἐγὼ Πορφύριος ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος μετὰ Ἀντωνίου τοῦ Ῥοδίου γεγονὼς καταλαμβάνω μὲν τὸν Ἀμέλιον ὀκτωκαιδέκατον ἔτος ἔχοντα τῆς πρὸς Πλωτῖνον συνουσίας, μηδὲν δέ πω γράφειν τολμήσαντα πλὴν τῶν σχολίων ἃ οὐδέπω εἰς ἑκατὸν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῷ συνῆκτο. ἦν δὲ ὁ Πλωτῖνος τῷ δεκάτῳ ἔτει τῆς Γαλιήνου βασιλείας ἀμφὶ τὰ πεντήκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐννέα. ἐγὼ δὲ Πορφύριος τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῷ συγγέγονα αὐτὸς ὢν τότε ἐτῶν τριάκοντα. ἀπὸ μέντοι τοῦ πρώτου ἔτους τῆς Γαλιήνου ἀρχῆς προτραπεὶς ὁ Πλωτῖνος γράφειν τὰς ἐμπιπτούσας ὑποθέσεις, τὸ δέκατον ἔτος τῆς Γαλιήνου ἀρχῆς, ὅτε τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῷ ἐγὼ ὁ Πορφύριος ἐγνωρίσθην, γράψας εὑρίσκεται ὀλίγοις. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν πω ῥᾳδία ἡ ἔκδοσις οὐδὲ εὐσυνειδήτως ἐγίγνετο οὐδ᾿ ἁπλῶς κἀκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου, ἀλλὰ μετὰ πάσης κρίσεως τῶν λαμβανόντων. ἦν δὲ καὶ τὰ γεγραμμένα ταῦτα ἃ διὰ τὸ μὴ αὐτὸν ἐπιγράφειν ἄλλος ἄλλο ἑκάστῳ τοὐπίγραμμα ἐτίθει. αἱ δ’ οὖν κρατήσασαι ἐπιγραφαί εἰσιν αἵδε· θήσω δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν βιβλίων, εἰς τὸ εὐεπίγνωστον εἶναι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχῶν ἕκαστον τῶν δηλουμένων βιβλίων· περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ καλὸν ἔστι μὲν ἐν ὄψει πλεῖστον. περὶ ψυχῆς ἀθανασίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· εἰ δέ ἐστιν ἀθάνατος ἕκαστος. περὶ εἱμαρμένης· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· πάντα τὰ γινόμενα. περὶ οὐσίας τῆς ψυχῆς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσίαν. περὶ νοῦ καὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν καὶ τοῦ ὄντος· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· πάντες ἄνθρωποι ἐξ ἀρχῆς γενόμενοι. περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ σώματα καθόδου τῆς ψυχῆς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· πολλάκις ἐγειρόμενος. πῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου τὸ μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἑνός· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· εἴ τι ἐστὶ μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον. εἰ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ μία· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρα ὥσπερ ψυχήν. περὶ τἀγαθοῦ ἢ τοῦ ἑνός· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἅπαντα τὰ ὄντα. περὶ τῶν τριῶν ἀρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τί ποτε ἄρα ἐστὶ τὸ πεποιηκὸς τὰς ψυχάς. περὶ γενέσεως καὶ τάξεως τῶν μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ ἓν πάντα. περὶ τῶν δύο ὑλῶν· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὴν λεγομένην ὕλην. ἐπισκέψεις διάφοροι· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· νοῦς φησιν ὁρᾷ ἐνούσας ἰδέας. περὶ τῆς κυκλοφορίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· διὰ τί κύκλῳ κινεῖται. περὶ τοῦ εἰληχότος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος· τῶν μὲν αἱ ὑποστάσεις. περὶ εὐλόγου ἐξαγωγῆς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· οὐκ ἐξάξεις, ἵνα μὴ ἐξίῃ. περὶ ποιότητος· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρα τὸ ὂν καὶ ἡ οὐσία. εἰ καὶ τῶν καθέκαστά εἰσιν ἰδέαι· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· εἰ καὶ τοῦ καθέκαστον. περὶ ἀρετῶν· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδὴ τὰ κακὰ ἐνταῦθα. περὶ διαλεκτικῆς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τίς τέχνη ἢ μέθοδος.

[ 350 ]

πῶς ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ μεριστῆς οὐσίας μέση εἶναι λέγεται· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τῷ νοητῷ. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν εἴκοσι καὶ ἓν ὄντα, ὅτε αὐτῷ τὸ πρῶτον προσῆλθον ὁ Πορφύριος, εὕρηται γεγραμμένα· πεντηκοστὸν δὲ καὶ ἔννατον ἔτος ἦγε τότε ὁ Πλωτῖνος.

[ 351 ]

5 Σ Υ Γ Γ Ε ΓΟ Ν Ὼ ς Δ Ὲ Α ὐΤ ῷ τοῦτό τε τὸ ἔτος καὶ ἐφεξῆς ἄλλα ἔτη πέντε — ὀλίγον γὰρ ἔτι πρότερον τῆς δεκαετίας ἐγεόνειν ὁ Πορφύριος ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ, τοῦ Πλωτίνου τὰς θερινὰς μὲν ἄγοντος ἀργούς, συνόντος δὲ ἄλλως ἐν ταῖς ὁμιλίαις — ἐν δὴ τοῖς ἓξ ἔτεσι τούτοις πολλῶν ἐξετάσεων ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις γιγνομένων καὶ γράφειν αὐτὸν ἀξιούντων Ἀμελίου τε καὶ ἐμοῦ, γράφει μὲν περὶ τοῦ τί τὸ ὂν πανταχοῦ ὅλον εἶναι ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν βιβλία δυο· τούτων δὲ τὸ πρῶτον ἀρχὴν ἔχει· ἆρα γε ἡ ψυχὴ πανταχοῦ· τοῦ δὲ δευτέρου ἡ ἀρχή· ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἀριθμῷ. γράφει δὲ ἐφεξῆς ἄλλα δύο, ὧν τὸ μὲν περὶ τοῦ τὸ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ὄντος μὴ νοεῖν καὶ τί τὸ πρώτως νοοῦν καὶ τί τὸ δευτέρως· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ μέν ἐστι νοεῖν ἄλλο ἄλλο, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ αὐτό· τὸ δὲ περὶ τοῦ δυνάμει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· λέγεται τὸ μὲν δυνάμει. περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀσωμάτων ἀπαθείας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὰς αἰσθήσεις οὐ πάθη λέγοντες. περὶ ψυχῆς πρῶτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ ψυχῆς ὅσα ἀπορήσαντας δεῖ. περὶ ψυχῆς δεύτερον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τί οὖν ἐρεῖ. περι ψυχῆς τρίτον ἢ περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδήπερ ὑπερεθέμεθα. περὶ θεωρίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· παίζοντες τὴν πρώτην. περὶ τοῦ νοητοῦ κάλλους· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδή φαμεν. περὶ νοῦ καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ νοῦ τὰ νοητὰ καὶ περὶ τἀγαθοῦ· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸν νοῦν τὸν ἀληθῆ νοῦν. πρὸς τοὺς γνωστικούς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ἐφάνη ἡμῖν. περὶ ἀριθμῶν· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐστὶ πλῆθος. πῶς τὰ πόρρω ὁρώμενα μικρὰ φαίνεται; οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρά τε τὰ πόρρω ὁρώμενα. εἰ ἐν παρατάσει χρόνου τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν; οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν. περὶ τῆς δι’ ὅλων κράσεως· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ τῆς δι’ ὅλων λεγομένης. πῶς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἰδεῶν ὑπέστη καὶ περὶ τἀγαθοῦ· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· εἰς γένεσιν πέμπων ὁ θεός. περὶ τοῦ ἑκουσίου· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρ’ ἐστὶ περὶ θεῶν. περὶ τοῦ κόσμου· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸν κόσμον ἀεὶ λέγοντες. περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ μνήμης· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὰς αἰσθήσεις οὐ τυπώσεις. περὶ τῶν τοῦ ὄντος γενῶν πρῶτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ τῶν ὄντων πόσα καὶ τίνα. περὶ τῶν τοῦ ὄντος γενῶν δεύτερον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδὴ περὶ τῶν λεγομένων. περὶ τῶν τοῦ ὄντος γενῶν τρίτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ μὲν τῆς οὐσίας ὅπῃ δοκεῖ. περὶ αἰῶνος καὶ χρόνου· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ τὸν χρόνον. Ταῦτα τὰ εἴκοσι καὶ τέτταρα ὄντα ὅσα ἐν τῷ ἑξαέτει χρόνῳ τῆς παρουσίας ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου ἔγραψεν, ἐκ προσκαίρων προβλημάτων τὰς ὑποθέσεις λαβόντα, ὡς ἐκ τῶν κεφαλαίων ἑκάστου

[ 352 ]

τῶν βιβλίων ἑδηλώσαμεν, μετὰ τῶν πρὸ τῆς ἐπιδημίας ἡμῶν εἴκοσι καὶ ἑνὸς τὰ πάντα γίνεται τεσσαρακονταπέντε.

[ 353 ]

6 Ἐ Ν Δ Ὲ Τ ῇ Σικελίᾳ διατρίβοντός μου — ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἀνεχώρησα περὶ τὸ πεντεκαιδέκατον ἔτος τῆς βασιλείας Γαλιήνου — , ὁ Πλωτῖνος γράψας πέντε βιβλία ἀποστέλλει μοι ταῦτα· περὶ εὐδαιμονίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ εὖ ζῆν καὶ εὐδαιμονεῖν. περὶ προνοίας πρῶτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ μὲν τῷ αὐτομάτῳ. περὶ προνοίας δεύτερον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τί τοίνυν δοκεῖ περὶ τούτων. περὶ τῶν γνωριστικῶν ὑποστάσεων καὶ τοῦ ἐπέκεινα· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρα τὸ νοοῦν ἑαυτὸ ποικίλον δεῖ εἶναι. περὶ ἔρωτος· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ ἔρωτος πότερα θεός. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει τῆς Κλαυδίου πέμπει βασιλείας· ἀρχομένου δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου, ὅτε καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγον θνῄσκει, πέμπει ταῦτα· τίνα τὰ κατά· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· οἱ ζητοῦντες πόθεν τὰ κακά. εἰ ποιεῖ τὰ ἄστρα· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἡ τῶν ἄστρων φορά. τί τὸ ζῷον; οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἡδοναὶ καὶ λῦπαι. περὶ εὐδαιμονίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρ’ τις ἕτερον εἴποι. ταῦτα μετὰ τεσσαρακονταπέντε τῶν πρώτων καὶ δευτέρων γραφέντων γίνεται τέτταρα καὶ πεντήκοντα. ὥσπερ δὲ ἐγράφη, τὰ μὲν κατὰ πρώτην ἠλικίαν, τὰ δὲ ἀκμάζοντος, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ σώματος καταπονουμένου, οὕτω καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως ἔχει τὰ βιβλία. τὰ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτα εἴκοσι καὶ ἓν ἐλαφροτέρας ἐστὶ δυνάμεως καὶ οὐδέπω πρὸς εὐτονίαν ἀρκοῦν μέγεθος ἐχούσης, τὰ δὲ τῆς μέσης ἐκδόσεως τυχόντα τὸ ἀκμαῖον τῆς δυνάμεως ἐμφαίνει καί ἐστι τὰ κδ πλὴν τῶν βραχέων τελεώτατα, τὰ μέντοι τελευταῖα ἐννέα ὑφειμένης ἤδη τῆς δυνάμεως γέγραπται καὶ μᾶλλόν γε τὰ τελευταῖα τέσσαρα ἢ τὰ πρὸ τούτων πέντε.

[ 354 ]

7 ἜΣ Χ Ε Δ Ὲ Ἀ Κ ΡΟΑΤ Ὰ ς μὲν πλείους, ζηλωτὰς δὲ καὶ διὰ φιλοσοφίαν συνόντας Ἀμέλιόν τε ἀπὸ τῆς Τουσκίας, οὗ τὸ ὄνομα ἦν Γεντιλιανὸς τὸ κύριον, αὐτὸς δὲ διὰ τοῦ ρ Ἀμέριον αὐτὸν καλεῖν ἠξίου ἀπὸ τῆς ἀμερείας ἢ τῆς ἀμελείας πρέπειν αὐτῷ καλεῖσθαι λέγων. ἔσχε δὲ καὶ ἰατρικόν τινα Σκυθοπολίτην Παυλῖνον ὃν ὁ Ἀμέλιος Μίκκαλον προσηγόρευε, παρακουσμάτων πλήρη γεγονότα. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ἀλεξανδρέα Εὐστόχιον ἰατρικὸν ἔσχεν ἕτερον, ὃς περὶ τὰ τελευταῖα τῆς ἡλικίας γνωρισθεὶς αὐτῷ διέμενε θεραπεύων ἄχρι τοῦ θανάτου καὶ μόνοις τοῖς Πλωτίνου σχολάζων ἕξιν περιεβάλλετο γνησίου φιλοσόφου. Συνῆν δὲ καὶ Ζωτικὸς κριτικός τε καὶ ποιητικός, ὃς καὶ τὰ Ἀντιμάχου διορθωτικὰ πεποίηται καὶ τὸν «Ἀτλαντικὸν» εἰς ποίησιν μετέβαλε πάνυ ποιητικῶς, συγχυθεὶς δὲ τὰς ὄψεις πρὸ ὀλίγου τῆς Πλωτίνου τελευτῆς ἀπέθανεν. ἔφθασε δὲ καὶ ὁ Παυλῖνος προαποθανὼν τοῦ Πλωτίνου. ἔσχε δὲ καὶ Ζῆθον ἑταῖρον, Ἀράβιον τὸ γένος, Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Ἀμμωνίου γενομένου ἑταίρου εἰς γάμον λαβόντα θυγατέρα. ἦν δὲ καὶ οὗτος ἰατρικὸς καὶ σφόδρα πεφίλωτο τῷ Πλωτίνῳ· πολιτικὸν δὲ ὄντα καὶ ῥοπὰς ἔχοντα πολιτικὰς ἀναστέλλειν ὁ Πλωτῖνος ἐπειρᾶτο. ἐχρῆτο δὲ αὐτῷ οἰκείως, ὡς καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀναχωρεῖν πρὸ ἓξ σημείων Μητουρνῶν ὑπάρχοντας, οὓς Καστρίκιος ἐκέτητο ὁ Φίρμος κεκλημένος, ἀνδρῶν τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς φιλοκαλώτατος γεγονὼς καὶ τόν τε Πλωτῖνον σεβόμενος καὶ Ἀμελίῳ οἷα οἰκέτης ἀγαθὸς ἐν πᾶσιν ὑπηρετούμενος καὶ Πορφυρίῳ ἐμοὶ οἷα γνησίῳ ἀδελφῷ ἐν πᾶσι προσεσχηκώς. καὶ οὗτος οὖν ἐσέβετο Πλωτῖνον τὸν πολιτικὸν ᾑρημένος βίον. ἠκροῶντο δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου οὐκ ὀλίγοι ὧν ἔργον ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ μάλιστα ἐποίουν Μάρκελλος Ὀρρόντιος καὶ Σαβινῖλλος. ἦν δὲ καὶ Ῥογατιανὸς ἐκ τῆς συγκλήτου, ὃς εἰς τοσοῦτον ἀποστροφῆς τοῦ βίου τούτου προκεχωρήκει ὡς πάσης μὲν κτήσεως ἀποστῆναι, πάντα δὲ οἰκέτην ἀποπέμψασθαι, ἀποστῆναι δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἀξιώματος· καὶ πραίτωρ προιέναι μέλλων παρόντων τῶν ὑπηρετῶν μήτε προελθεῖν μήτε φροντίσαι τῆς λειτουργίας, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ οἰκίαν ἑαυτοῦ ἑλέσθαι κατοικεῖν, ἀλλὰ πρός τινας τῶν φίλων καὶ συνήθων φοιτῶντα ἐκεῖ τε δειπνεῖν κἀκεῖ καθεύδειν, σιτεῖσθαι δὲ παρὰ μίαν· ἀφ’ ἧς δὴ ἀποστάσεως καὶ ἀφροντιστίας τοῦ βίου ποδαγρῶντα μὲν οὕτως, ὡς καὶ δίφρῳ βαστάζεσθαι, ἀναρρωσθῆναι, τὰς χεῖρας δὲ ἐκτεῖναι μὴ οἷόν τε ὄντα χρῆσθαι ταύταις πολὺ μᾶλλον εὐμαρῶς ἢ οἱ τὰς τέχνας διὰ τῶν χειρῶν μετιόντες. τοῦτον ἀπεδέχετο ὁ Πλωτῖνος καὶ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα ἐπαινῶν διετέλει εἰς ἀγαθὸν τοῖς φιλοσοφοῦσι προβαλλόμενος. συνῆν δὲ καὶ Σεραπίων Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ῥητορικὸς μὲν τὰ πρῶτα, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ φιλοσόφοις συνὼν λόγοις, τοῦ δὲ περὶ χρήματα καὶ τὸ δανείζειν μὴ δυνηθεὶς ἀποστῆναι ἐλαττώματος. ἔσχε δὲ καὶ ἐμὲ Πορφύριον Τύριον ὄντα ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα ἑταῖρον, ὃν καὶ διορθοῦν αὐτοῦ τὰ συγγράμματα ἠξίου.

[ 355 ]

8 Γ Ρ ΆΨΑ ς Φ Ὰ Ρ Ἐ Κ Ε ῖΝ Ο ς δὶς τὸ γραφὲν μεταλαβεῖν οὐδέποτ’ ἂν ἠνέσχετο, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἅπαξ γοῦν ἀναγνῶναι καὶ διελθεῖν διὰ τὸ τὴν ὅρασιν μὴ ὑπηρετεῖσθαι αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν. ἔγραφε δὲ οὔτε εἰς κάλλος ἀποτυπούμενος τὰ γράμματα οὔτε εὐσήμως τὰς συλλαβὰς διαιρῶν οὔτε τῆς ὀρθογραφίας φροντίζων, ἀλλὰ μόνον τοῦ νοῦ ἐχόμενος καὶ, ὃ πάντες ἐθαυμάζομεν, ἐκεῖνο ποιῶν ἄχρι τελευτῆς διετέλεσε. συντελέσας γὰρ παρ’ ἑαυτῷ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τέλους τὸ σκέμμα, ἔπειτα εἰς γραφὴν παραδιδοὺς ἃ ἐσκέπτετο, συνεῖρεν οὕτω γράφων ἃ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ διέθηκεν, ὡς ἀπὸ βιβλίου δοκεῖν μεταβάλλειν τὰ γραφόμενα· ἐπεὶ καὶ διαλεγόμενος πρός τινα καὶ συνείρων τὰς ὁμιλίας πρὸς τῷ σκέμματι ἦν, ὡς ἅμα τε ἀποπληροῦν τὸ ἀναγκαῖον τῆς ὁμιλίας καὶ τῶν ἐν σκέψει προκειμένων ἀδιάκοπον τηρεῖν τὴν διάνοιαν· ἀποστάντος γοῦν τοῦ προσδιαλεγομένου οὐδ’ ἐπαναλαβὼν τὰ γεγραμμένα, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπαρκεῖν αὐτῷ πρὸς ἀνάληψιν, ὡς εἰρήκαμεν, τὴν ὅρασιν, τὰ ἑξῆς ἂν ἐπισυνῆψεν, ὡς μηδένα διαστήσας χρόνον μεταξὺ ὅτε τὴν ὁμιλίαν ἐποιεῖτο. συνῆν οὖν καὶ ἑαυτῷ ἅμα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, καὶ τήν γε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν προσοχὴν οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐχάλασεν, ἢ μόνον ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις, ὃν ἂν ἀπέκρουεν ἥ τε τῆς τροφῆς ὀλιγότης, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄρτου πολλάκις ἂν ἥψατο, καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ διαρκὴς ἐπιστροφή.

[ 356 ]

9 ἜΣ Χ Ε Δ Ὲ Κ Α Ὶ γυναῖκας σφόδρα φιλοσοφίᾳ προσκειμένας, Γεμίναν τε, ἧς καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ κατῴκει, καὶ τὴν ταύτης θυγατέρα Γεμίναν, ὁμοίως τῇ μητρὶ καλουμένην, Ἀμφίκλειάν τε τὴν Ἀρίστωνος τοῦ Ἰαμβλίχου υἱοῦ γεγονυῖαν γυναῖκα, σφόδρα φιλοσοφίᾳ προσκειμένας. πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες ἀποθνῄσκειν μέλλοντες τῶν εὐγενεστάτων φέροντες τὰ ἑαυτῶν τέκνα, ἄρρενάς τε ὁμοῦ καὶ θηλείας, ἐκείνῳ παρεδίδοσαν μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης οὐσίας ὡς ἱερῷ τινι καὶ θείῳ φύλακι. διὸ καὶ ἐπεπλήρωτο αὐτῷ ἡ οἰκία παίδων καὶ παρθένων. ἐν τούτοις δὲ ἦν καὶ Ποτάμων, οὗ τῆς παιδεύσεως φροντίζων πολλάκις ἓν καὶ μεταποιοῦντος ἠκροάσατο. ἠνείχετο δὲ καὶ τοὺς λογισμούς, ἀναφερόντων τῶν ἐκείνοις παραμενόντων, καὶ τῆς ἀκριβείας ἐπεμελεῖτο λέγων, ἕως ἂν μὴ φιλοσοφῶσιν, ἔχειν αὐτοὺς δεῖν τὰς κτήσεις καὶ τὰς προσόδους ἀνεπάφους τε καὶ σῳζομένας. καὶ ὅμως τοσούτοις ἐπαρκῶν τὰς εἰς τὸν βίον φροντίδας τε καὶ ἐπιμελείας τὴν πρὸς τὸν νοῦν τάσιν οὐδέποτ’ ἂν ἐγρηγορότως ἐχάλασεν. ἦν δὲ καὶ πρᾶος καὶ πᾶσιν ἐκκείμενος τοῖς ὁπωσοῦν πρὸς αὐτὸν συνήθειαν ἐσχηκόσι. διὸ εἴκοσι καὶ ἓξ ἐτῶν ὅλων ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ διατρίψας καὶ πλείστοις διαιτήσας τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀμφισβητήσεις οὐδένα τῶν πολιτικῶν ἐχθρόν ποτε ἔσχε.

[ 357 ]

10 Τ ῶΝ Δ Ὲ Φ Ι ΛΟΣΟ Φ Ε ῖΝ προσποιουμένων Ὀλύμπιος Ἀλεξανδρεύς, Ἀμμωνίου ἐπ’ ὀλίγου μαθητὴς γενόμενος, καταφρονητικῶς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔσχε διὰ φιλοπρωτίαν· ὃς καὶ οὕτως αὐτῷ ἐπέθετο, ὥστε καὶ ἀστροβολῆσαι αὐτὸν μαγεύσας ἐπεχείρησεν. ἐπεὶ δὲ εἰς ἑαυτὸν στρεφομένην ᾔσθετο τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν, ἔλεγε πρὸς τοὺς συνήθεις μεγάλην εἶναι τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ Πλωτίνου δύναμιν, ὡς ἀποκρούειν δύνασθαι τὰς εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπιφορὰς εἰς τοὺς κακοῦν αὐτὸν ἐπιχειροῦντας. Πλωτῖνος μέντοι τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου ἐγχειροῦντος ἀντελαμβάνετο λέγων αὐτῷ τὸ σῶμα τότε ὡς τὰ σύσπαστα βαλάντια ἕλκεσθαι τῶν μελῶν αὐτῷ πρὸς ἄλληλα συνθλιβομένων. κινδυνεύσας δὲ ὁ Ὀλύμπιος πολλάκις αὐτός τι παθεῖν ἢ δρᾶσαι τὸν Πλωτῖνον ἐπαύσατο. ἦν γὰρ καὶ κατὰ γένεσιν πλέον τι ἔχων παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους ὁ Πλωτῖνος. Αἰγύπτιος γάρ τις ἱερεὺς ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην καὶ διά τινος φίλου αὐτῷ γνωρισθεὶς θέλων τε τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἀπόδειξιν δοῦναι ἠξίωσε τὸν Πλωτῖνον ἐπὶ θέαν ἀφικέσθαι τοῦ συνόντος αὐτῷ οἰκείου δαίμονος καλουμένου. τοῦ δὲ ἑτοίμως ὑπακούσαντος γίνεται μὲν ἐν τῷ Ἰσίῳ ἡ κλῆσις· μόνον γὰρ ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον καθαρὸν φῆσαι εὑρεῖν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ τὸν Αἰγύπτιον. κληθέντα δὲ εἰς αὐτοψίαν τὸν δαίμονα θεὸν ἐλθεῖν καὶ μὴ τοῦ δαιμόνων εἶναι γένους· ὅθεν τὸν Αἰγύπτιον εἰπεῖν· μακάριος εἶ θεὸν ἔχων τὸν δαίμονα καὶ οὐ τοῦ ὑφειμένου γένους τὸν συνόντα. μήτε δὲ ἐρέσθαι τι ἐκγενέσθαι μήτε ἐπιπλέον ἰδεῖν παρόντα τοῦ συνθεωροῦντος φίλου τὰς ὄρνεις, ἃς κατεῖχε φυλακῆς ἕνεκα, πνίξαντος εἴτε διὰ φθόνον εἴτε καὶ διὰ φόβον τινά. τῶν οὖν θειοτέρων δαιμόνων ἔχων τὸν συνόντα καὶ αὐτὸς διετέλει ἀνάγων αὐτοῦ τὸ θεῖον ὄμμα πρὸς ἐκεῖνον. ἔστι γοῦν αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας καὶ βιβλίον γραφὲν περὶ τοῦ εἰληχότος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος, ὅπου πειρᾶται αἰτίας φέρειν περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν συνόντων. φιλοθύτου δὲ γεγονότος τοῦ Ἀμελίου καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ κατὰ νουμηνίαν καὶ τὰς ἑορτὰς ἐκπεριιόντος καί ποτε ἀξιοῦντος τὸν Πλωτῖνον σὺν αὐτῷ παραλαβεῖν ἔφη· «ἐκείνους δεῖ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἔρχεσθαι, οὐκ ἐμὲ πρὸς ἐκείνους.» Τοῦτο δὲ ἐκ ποίας διανοίας οὕτως ἐμεγαληγόρησεν, οὔτ’ αὐτοὶ συνεῖναι δεδυνήμεθα οὔτ’ αὐτὸν ἐρέσθαι ἐτολμήσαμεν.

[ 358 ]

11 Π Ε Ρ Ι ῆΝ Δ Ὲ Α ὐΤ ῷ τοσαύτη περιουσία ἠθῶν κατανοήσεως, ὡς κλοπῆς ποτε γεγονυίας πολυτελοῦς περιδεραίου Χιόνης, ἥτις αὐτῷ συνῴκει μετὰ τῶν τέκνων σεμνῶς τὴν χηρείαν διεξάγουσα, καὶ ὑπ’ ὄψιν τοῦ Πλωτίνου τῶν οἰκετῶν συνηγμένων ἐμβλέψας ἅπασιν· οὗτος, ἔφη, ἐστὶν ὁ κεκλοφώς, δείξας ἕνα τινά. μαστιζόμενος δὲ ἐκεῖνος καὶ ἐπιπλεῖον ἀρνούμενος τὰ πρῶτα ὕστερον ὡμολόγησε καὶ φέρων τὸ κλαπὲν ἀπέδωκε. προεῖπε δ’ ἂν καὶ τῶν συνόντων παίδων περὶ ἑκάστου οἷος ἀποβήσεται· ὡς καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πολέμωνος οἷος ἔσται, ὅτι ἐρωτικὸς ἔσται καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνιος, ὅπερ καὶ ἀπέβη. καί ποτε ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου ᾔσθετο ἐξάγειν ἐμαυτὸν διανοουμένου τοῦ βίου· καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἐπιστάς μοι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ διατρίβοντι καὶ εἰπὼν μὴ εἶναι ταύτην τὴν προθυμίαν ἐκ νοερᾶς καταστάσεως, ἀλλ’ ἐκ μελαγχολικῆς τινος νόσου, ἀποδημῆσαι ἐκέλευσε. πεισθεὶς δὲ αὐτῷ ἐγὼ εἰς τὴν Σικελίαν ἀφικόμην Πρόβον τινὰ ἀκούων ἐλλόγιμον ἄνδρα περὶ τὸ Λιλύβαιον διατρίβειν· καὶ αὐτός τε τῆς τοιαύτης προθυμίας ἀπεσχόμην τοῦ τε παρεῖναι ἄχρι θανάτου τῷ Πλωτίνῳ ἐνεποδίσθην.

[ 359 ]

12 ἘΤ Ί Μ Η Σ Α Ν Δ Ὲ Τ Ὸ Ν Πλωτῖνον μάλιστα καὶ ἐσέφθησαν Γαλιῆνός τε ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ καὶ ἡ τούτου γυνὴ Σαλωνίνα. ὁ δὲ τῇ φιλίᾳ τῆ τούτων καταχρώμενος φιλοσόφων τινὰ πόλιν κατὰ τὴν Καμπανίαν γεγενῆσθαι λεγομένην, ἄλλως δὲ κατηριπωμένην, ἠξίου ἀνεγείρειν καὶ τὴν πέριξ χώραν χαρίσασθαι οἰκισθείσῃ τῇ πόλει, νόμοις δὲ χρῆσθαι τοὺς κατοικεῖν μέλλοντας τοῖς Πλάτωνος καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν αὐτῇ Πλατωνόπολιν θέσθαι, ἐκεῖ τε αὐτὸς μετὰ τῶν ἑταίρων ἀναχωρήσειν ὑπισχνεῖτο. καὶ ἐγένετ’ ἄν τὸ βούλημα ἐκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου τῷ φιλοσόφῳ, εἰ μή τινες τῶν συνόντων τῷ βασιλεῖ φθονοῦντες ἢ νεμεσῶντες ἢ δι’ ἄλλην μοχθηρὰν αἰτίαν ἐνεπόδισαν.

[ 360 ]

13 Γ Έ ΓΟ Ν Ε Δ ’ Ἐ Ν ταῖς συνουσίαις φράσαι μὲν ἱκανὸς καὶ εὑρεῖν καὶ νοῆσαι τὰ πρόσφορα δυνατώτατος, ἐν δέ τισι λέξεσιν ἁμαρτάνων· οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἶπεν «ἀναμιμνήσκεται», ἀλλὰ «ἀναμνημίσκεται», καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ παράσημα ὀνόματα ἃ καὶ ἐν τῷ γράφειν ἐτήρει. ἦν δ’ ἐν τῷ λέγειν ἡ ἔνδειξις τοῦ νοῦ ἄχρι τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὸ φῶς ἐπιλάμποντος· ἐράσμιος μὲν ὀφθῆναι, καλλίων δὲ τότε μάλιστα ὁρώμενος· καὶ λεπτός τις ἰδρὼς ἐπέθει καὶ ἡ πραότης διέλαμπε καὶ τὸ προσηνὲς πρὸς τὰς ἐρωτήσεις ἐδείκνυτο καὶ τὸ εὔτονον. τριῶν γοῦν ἡμερῶν ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου ἐρωτήσαντος, πῶς ἡ ψυχὴ σύνεστι τῷ σώματι, παρέτεινεν ἀποδεικνύς, ὥστε καὶ Θαυμασίου τινὸς τοὔνομα ἐπεισελθόντος τοὺς καθόλου λόγους πράττοντος καὶ εἰς βιβλία ἀκοῦσαι αὐτοῦ λέγοντος θέλειν, Πορφυρίου δὲ ἀποκρινομένου καὶ ἐρωτῶντος μὴ ἀνασχέσθαι, ὁ δὲ ἔφη· «ἀλλὰ ἂν μὴ Πορφυρίου ἐρωτῶντος λύσωμεν τὰς ἀπορίας, εἰπεῖν τι καθάπαξ εἰς τὸ βιβλίον οὐ δυνησόμεθα.»

[ 361 ]

14 Ἐ Ν Δ Ὲ Τ ῷ σύντομος γέγονε καὶ πολύνους βραχύς τε καὶ νοήμασι πλεονάζων ἢ λέξεσι, τὰ πολλὰ ἐνθουσιῶν καὶ ἐκπαθῶς φράζων καὶ τὸ συμπαθείας ἢ παραδόσεως. ἐμμέμικται δ’ ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασι καὶ τὰ Στωικὰ λανθάνοντα δόγματα καὶ τὰ Περιπατητικά· καταπεπύκνωται δὲ καὶ ἡ «Μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ» τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους πραγματεία. ἔλαθε δὲ αὐτὸν οὔτε γεωμετρικόν τι λεγόμενον θεώρημα οὔτ’ ἀριθμητικόν, οὐ μηχανικόν, οὐκ ὀπτικόν, οὐ μουσικόν· αὐτὸς δὲ ταῦτα ἐξεργάζεσθαι οὐ παρεσκεύαστο. ἐν δὲ ταῖς συνουσίαις ἀνεγινώσκετο μὲν αὐτῷ τὰ ὑπομνήματα, εἴτε Σεβήρου εἴη, εἴτε Κρονίου ἢ Νουμηνίου ἢ Γαίου ἤ Ἀττικοῦ, κἀν τοῖς Περιπατητικοῖς τά τε Ἀσπασίου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἀδράστου τε καὶ τῶν ἐμπεσόντων. ἐλέγετο δὲ ἐκ τούτων οὐδὲν καθάπαξ, ἀλλ’ ἴδιος ἦν καὶ ἐξηλλαγμένος ἐν τῇ θεωρίᾳ καὶ τὸν Ἀμμωνίου φέρων νοῦν ἐν ταῖς ἐξετάσεσιν. ἐπληροῦτο δὲ ταχέως καὶ δι’ ὀλίγων δοὺς νοῦν βαθέος θεωρήματος ἀνίστατο. ἀναγνωσθέντος δὲ αὐτῷ τοῦ τε περὶ ἀρχῶν Λογγίνου καὶ τοῦ «Φιλαρχαίου», «φιλόλογος μέν», ἔφη, «ὁ Λογγῖνος, φιλόσοφος δὲ οὐδαμῶς». Ὠριγένους δὲ ἀπαντήσαντός ποτε εἰς τὴν συνουσίαν πληρωθεὶς ἐρυθήματος ἀνίστασθαι μὲν ἐβούλετο, λέγειν δὲ ὑπὸ Ὠριγένους ἀξιούμενος ἔφη ἀνίλλεσθαι τὰς προθυμίας, ὅταν ἴδῃ ὁ λέγων, ὅτι πρὸς εἰδότας ἐρεῖ ἃ αὐτὸς λέγειν μέλλει· καὶ οὕτως ὀλίγα διαλεχθεὶς ἐξανέστη.

[ 362 ]

15 Ἐ Μ Ο ῦ Δ Ὲ Ἐ Ν Πλατωνείοις ποίημα ἀναγνόντος τὸν ἱερὸν γάμον, καί τινος διὰ τὸ μυστικῶς πολλὰ μετ’ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ ἐπικεκρυμμένως εἰρῆσθαι εἰπόντος μαίνεσθαι τὸν Πορφύριον, ἐκεῖνος εἰς ἐπήκοον ἔφε πάντων· ἔδειξας ὁμοῦ καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν καὶ τὸν φιλόσοφον καὶ τὸν ἱεροφάντην. Ὅτε δὲ ὁ ῥήτωρ Διοφάνης ἀνέγνω ὑπὲρ Ἀλκιβιάδου τοῦ ἐν τῷ Συμποσίῳ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἀπολογίαν δογματίζων χρῆναι ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα μαθήσεως εἰς συνουσίαν αὑτὸν παρέχειν ἐρῶντι ἀφροδισίου μίξεως τῷ καθηγεμόνι, ἤιξε μὲν πολλάκις ἀναστὰς ἀπαλλαγῆναι τῆς συνόδου, ἐπισχὼν δ’ ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τὴν διάλυσιν τοῦ ἀκουστηρίου ἐμοὶ Πορφυρίῳ ἀντιγράψαι προσέταξε. μὴ θέλοντος δὲ τοῦ Διοφάνους τὸ βιβλίον δοῦναι διὰ τῆς μνήμης ἀναληφθέντων τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων ἀντιγράψας ἐγὼ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀκροατῶν συνηγμένων ἀναγνοὺς τοσοῦτον τὸν Πλωτῖνον ηὔφρανα, ὡς κἀν ταῖς συνουσίαις συνεχῶς ἐπιλέγειν· βάλλ’ οὕτως, αἴ κέν τι φόως ἄνδρεσσι γένηαι. γράφοντος δὲ Εὐβούλου Ἀθήνηθεν τοῦ Πλατωνικοῦ διαδόχου καὶ πέμποντος συγγράμματα ὑπέρ τινων Πλατωνικῶν ζητημάτων ἐμοὶ Πορφυρίῳ ταῦτα δίδοσθαι ἐποίει καὶ σκοπεῖν καὶ ἀναφέρειν αὐτῷ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἠξίου. προσεῖχε δὲ τοῖς μὲν περὶ τῶν ἀστέρων κανόσιν οὐ πάνυ τι μαθηματικῶς, τοῖς δὲ τῶν γενεθλιαλόγων ἀποτελεσματικοῖς ἀκριβέστερον. καὶ φωράσας τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τὸ ἀνεχέγγυον ἐλέγχειν πολλαχοῦ κατ’ αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν οὐκ ὤκνησε.

[ 363 ]

16 Γ Ε Γ Ό ΝΑ Σ Ι Δ Ὲ Κ ΑΤ ’ αὐτὸν τῶν Χριστιανῶν πολλοὶ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι, αἱρετικοὶ δὲ ἐκ τῆς παλαιᾶς φιλοσοφίας ἀνηγμένοι οἱ περὶ Ἀδέλφιον καὶ Ἀκυλῖνον οἳ τὰ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Λίβυος καὶ Φιλοκώμου καὶ Δημοστράτου καὶ Λυδοῦ συγγράμματα πλεῖστα κεκτημένοι ἀποκαλύψεις τε προφέροντες Ζωροάστρου καὶ Ζωστριανοῦ καὶ Νικοθέου καὶ Ἀλλογενοῦς καὶ Μέσσου καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων πολλοὺς ἐξηπάτων καὶ αὐτοὶ ἠπατημένοι, ὡς δὴ τοῦ Πλάτωνος εἰς τὸ βάθος τῆς νοητῆς οὐσίας οὐ πελάσαντος. ὅθεν αὐτὸς μὲν πολλοὺς ἐλέγχους ποιούμενος ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις, γράψας δὲ καὶ βιβλίον ὅπερ πρὸς τοὺς Γνωστικούς ἐπεγράψαμεν, ἡμῖν τὰ λοιπὰ κρίνειν καταλέλοιπεν. Ἀμέλιος δὲ ἄχρι τεσσαράκοντα βιβλίων προκεχώρηκε πρὸς τὸ Ζωστριανοῦ βιβλίον ἀντιγράφων. Πορφύριος δὲ ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸ Ζωροάστρου συχνοὺς πεποίημαι ἐλέγχους, (ὅπως) νόθον τε καὶ νέον τὸ βιβλίον παραδεικνὺς πεπλασμένον τε ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν αἵρεσιν συστησαμένων εἰς δόξαν τοῦ εἶναι τοῦ παλαιοῦ Ζωροάστρου τὰ δόγματα, ἃ αὐτοὶ εἵλοντο πρεσβεύειν.

[ 364 ]

17 Τ ῶΝ Δ ’ Ἀ Π Ὸ τῆς Ἑλλάδος τὰ Νουμηνίου αὐτὸν ὑποβάλλεσθαι λεγόντων καὶ τοῦτο πρὸς Ἀμέλιον ἀγγέλλοντος Τρύφωνος τοῦ Στωικοῦ τε καὶ Πλατωνικοῦ γέγραφεν ὁ Ἀμέλιος βιβλίον ὃ ἐπέγραψε μὲν περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὰ δόγματα τοῦ Πλωτίνου πρὸς τὸν Νουμήνιον διαφορᾶς, προσεφώνησε δὲ αὐτὸ Βασιλεῖ ἐμοί· Βασιλεὺς δὲ τοὔνομα τῷ Πορφυρίῳ ἐμοὶ προσῆν, κατὰ μὲν πάτριον διάλεκτον Μάλχῳ κεκλημένῳ, ὅπερ μοι καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὄνομα κέκλητο, τοῦ δὲ Μάλχου ἑρμηνείαν ἔχοντος βασιλεύς, εἴ τις εἰς Ἑλληνίδα διάλεκτον μεταβάλλειν ἐθέλοι. ὅθεν ὁ Λογγῖνος μὲν προσφωνῶν τὰ περὶ ὁρμῆς Κλεοδάμῳ τε κἀμοὶ Πορφυρίῳ Κλεόδαμέ τε καὶ Μάλχε προὔγραψεν· ὁ δ’ Ἀμέλιος ἐρμηνεύσας τοὔνομα, ὡς ὁ Νουμήνιος τὸν Μάξιμον εἰς τὸν Μεγάλον, οὕτω τὸν Μάλχον οὗτος εἰς τὸν Βασιλέα, γράφει· Ἀμέλιος Βασιλεῖ εὖ πράττειν. αὐτῶν μὲν ἕνεκα τῶν πανευφήμων ἀνδρῶν, οὓς διατεθρυλληκέναι ἐς ἑαυτὸν φής, τὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου ἡμῶν δόγματα εἰς τὸν Ἀπαμέα Νουμήνιον ἀναγόντων, οὐκ ἂν προηκάμην φωνήν, σαφῶς ἐπίστασο. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἀγαλλομένης προελήλυθεν εὐστομίας τε καὶ εὐγλωττίας, νῦν μὲν ὅτι πλατὺς φλήναφος, αὖθις δὲ ὅτι ὑποβολιμαῖος, ἐκ τρίτων δὲ ὅτι καὶ τὰ φαυλότατα τῶν ὄντων ὑποβαλλόμενος, τῷ διασιλλαίνειν αὐτὸν δηλαδὴ κατ’ αὐτοῦ λεγόντων. σοῦ δὲ τῇ προφάσει ταύτῃ οἰομένου δεῖν ἀποχῆσθαι πρὸς τὸ καὶ τὰ ἡμῖν ἀρέσκοντα ἔχειν προσχειρότερα εἰς ἀνάμνησιν καὶ τὸ ἐπ’ ὀνόματι ἑταίρου ἀνδρὸς οἵου τοῦ Πλωτίνου μεγάλου εἰ καὶ πάλαι διαβεβοημένα ὁλοσχερέστερον γνῶναι ὑπήκουσα, καὶ οὖν ἥκω ἀποδιδούς σοι τὰ ἐπηγγελμένα ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς οἶσθα, πεπονημένα. χρὴ δὲ αὐτὰ ὡς ἃν μὴ ἐκ τῆς τῶν συνταγμάτων ἐκείνων παραθέσεως οὔτ’ οὖν συντεταγμένα οὔτε ἐξειλεγμένα, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς ἐντεύξεως ἀναπεπολημένα καὶ ὡς πρῶτα προὔπεσεν ἕκαστα οὕτω ταχθέντα ἐνταῦθα νῦν συγγνώμης δικαίας παρὰ σοῦ τυχεῖν, ἄλλως τε καὶ τοῦ βουλήματος τοῦ ὑπὸ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁμολογίαν ὑπαγομένου πρός τινων ἀνδρὸς οὐ μάλα προχείρου ἑλεῖν ὑπάρχοντος διὰ τὴν ἄλλοτε ἄλλως περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ὡς ἂν δόξειε φοράν. ὅτι δέ, εἴ τι τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας ἑστίας παραχαράττοιτο, διορθώσει εὐμενῶς, εὖ οἶδα. ἠνάγκασμαι δ’ ὡς ἔοικεν, ὥς πού φησιν ἡ τραγῳδία, ὢν φιλοπράγμων τῇ ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ καθηγεμόνος ἡμῶν δογμάτων διαστάσει εὐθύνειν τε καὶ ἀποποιεῖσθαι. τοιοῦτον ἄρα ἦν τὸ σοὶ χαρίζεσθαι ἐξ ἅπαντος βούλεσθαι. ἔρρωσο.

[ 365 ]

18 ΤΑ Ύ Τ Η Ν Τ Ὴ Ν Ἐ Π Ι ΣΤΟΛ Ὴ Ν θεῖναι προήχθην οὐ μόνον πίστεως χάριν τοῦ τοὺς τότε καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγονότας τὰ Νουμηνίου οἴεσθαι ὑποβαλλόμενον κομπάζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι πλατὺν αὐτὸν φλήναφον εἶναι ἡγοῦντο καὶ κατεφρόνουν τῷ μὴ νοεῖν ἃ λέγει καὶ τῷ πάσης σοφιστικῆς αὐτὸν σκηνῆς καθαρεύειν καὶ τύφου, ὁμιλοῦντι δὲ ἐοικέναι ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις καὶ μηδενὶ ταχέως ἐπιφαίνειν τὰς συλλογιστικὰς ἀνάγκας αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐν τῷ λόγῷ λαμβανομένας. ἔπαθον δ’ οὖν τὰ ὅμοια ἐγὼ Πορφύριος, ὅτε πρῶτον αὐτοῦ ἠκροασάμην. διὸ καὶ ἀντιγράψας προσήγαγον δεικνύναι πειρώμενος ὅτι ἔξω τοῦ νοῦ ὑφέστηκε τὸ νόημα. Ἀμέλιον δὲ ποιήσας ταῦτα ἀναγνῶναι, ἐπειδὴ ἀνέγνω, μειδιάσας ‘σὸν ἂν εἴη’, ἔφη, ‘ὦ Ἀμέλιε, λῦσαι τὰς ἀπορίας, εἰς ἃς δι’ ἄγνοιαν τῶν ἡμῖν δοκούντων ἐμπέπτωκε’. γράψαντος δὲ βιβλίον οὐ μικρὸν τοῦ Ἀμελίου πρὸς τὰς τοῦ Πορφυρίου ἀπορίας, καὶ αὖ πάλιν πρὸς τὰ γραφέντα ἀντιγράψαντός μου, τοῦ δὲ Ἀμελίου καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀντειπόντος, ἐκ τρίτων μόλις συνεὶς τὰ λεγόμενα ἐγὼ ὁ Πορφύριος μετεθέμην καὶ παλινῳδίαν γράψας ἐν τῇ διατριβῇ ἀνέγνων· κἀκεῖθεν λοιπὸν τά τε βιβλία τὰ Πλωτίνου ἐπιστεύθεν, καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν διδάσκαλον εἰς φιλοτιμίαν προήγαγον τοῦ διαρθροῦν καὶ διὰ πλειόνων γράφειν τὰ δοκοῦντα. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀμέλιος εἰς τὸ συγγράφειν πρόθυμον ἐποίησεν.

[ 366 ]

19 Ἦ Ν Δ Ὲ ἜΣ Χ Ε καὶ Λογγῖνος περὶ τοῦ Πλωτίνου δόξαν ἐξ ὧν μάλιστα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐγὼ γράφων ἐσήμαινον, δηλώσει μέρος ἐπιστολῆς γραφείσης πρός με ἐπέχον τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. ἀξιῶν γάρ με ἀπὸ τῆς Σικελίας κατιέναι πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν Φοινίκην καὶ κομίζειν τὰ βιβλία τοῦ Πλωτίνου φησί· ‘καὶ σὺ μὲν ταῦτά τε πέμπειν, ὅταν σοι δοκῇ, μᾶλλον δὲ κομίζειν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἀποσταίην τοῦ πολλάκις δεῖσθαί σου τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁδὸν τῆς ἑτέρωσε προκρῖναι, κἂν εἰ μηδὲν δι’ ἄλλο· τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ σοφὸν παρ’ ἡμῶν προσδοκῶν ἀφίκοιο; τήν τε παλαιὰν συνήθειαν καὶ τὸν ἀέρα μετριώτατον ὄντα πρὸς ἣν λέγεις τοῦ σώματος ἀσθένειαν· κἂν ἄλλο τι τύχῃς οἰηθείς, παρ’ ἐμοῦ δὲ μηδὲν προσδοκᾶν καινότερον, μηδ’ οὖν τῶν παλαιῶν ὅσα φὴς ἀπολωλεκέναι. τῶν γὰρ γραψάντων τοσαύτη σπάνις ἐνταῦθα καθέστηκεν, ὥστε νὴ τοὺς θεοὺς πάντα τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον τὰ λειπόμενα τῶν Πλωτίνου κατασκευάζων μόλις αὐτῶν ἐπεκράτησα τὸν ὑπογραφέα τῶν μὲν εἰωθότων ἀπάγων ἔργων, πρὸς ἑνὶ δὲ τούτῳ τάξας γενέσθαι. καὶ κέκτημαι μὲν ὅσα δοκεῖν πάντα καὶ τὰ νῦν ὑπὸ σοῦ πεμφθέντα, κέκτημαι δὲ ἡμιτελῶς· οὐ γὰρ μετρίως ἦν διημαρτημένα, καίτοι τὸν ἑταῖρον Ἀμέλιον ᾤμην ἀναλήψεσθαι τὰ τῶν γραφέων πραίσματα· τῷ δ’ ἦν ἄλλα προυργιαίτερα τῆς τοιαύτης προσεδρείας. οὔκουν ἔχω τίνα χρὴ τρόπον αὐτοῖς ὁμιλῆσαι καίπερ ὑπερεπιθυμῶν τά τε περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ ὄντος ἐπισκέψασθαι· ταῦτα γὰρ οὖν καὶ μάλιστα διημάρτηται. καὶ πάνυ βουλοίμην ἂν ἐλθεῖν μοι παρὰ σοῦ τὰ μετ’ ἀκριβείας γεγραμμένα τοῦ παραναγνῶναι μόνον, εἶτα ἀποπέμψαι πάλιν. αὖθις δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐρῶ λόγον, ὅτι μὴ πέμπειν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸν ἥκειν ἔχοντα μᾶλλον ἀξιῶ ταῦτά τε καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν εἴ τι διαπέφευγε τὸν Ἀμέλιον. ἃ μὲν γὰρ ἤγαγεν, ἅπαντα διὰ σπουδῆς ἐκτησάμην. πῶς δ’ οὐκ ἔμελλον ἀνδρὸς ὑπομνήματα πάσης αἰδοῦς ἄξια καὶ τιμῆς κτήσασθαι; Τοῦτο γὰρ οὖν καὶ παρόντι σοι καὶ μακρὰν ἀπόντι καὶ περὶ τὴν Τύρον διατρίβοντι τυγχάνω δήπουθεν ἐπεσταλκὼς ὅτι τῶν μὲν ὑποθέσεων οὐ πάνυ με τὰς πολλὰς προσίεσθαι συμβέβηκε· τὸν δὲ τύπον τῆς γραφῆς καὶ τῶν ἐννοιῶν τἀνδρὸς τὴν πυκνότητα καὶ τὸ φιλόσοφον τῆς τῶν ζητημάτων διαθέσεως ὑπερβαλλόντως ἄγαμαι καὶ φιλῶ καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐλλογιμωτάτων ἄγειν τὰ τούτου βιβλία φαίην ἂν δεῖν τοὺς ζητητικούς.’

[ 367 ]

20 ΤΑ ῦΤΑ Ἐ Π Ι Π Λ ΈΟ Ν Π Α ΡΑΤ ΈΘ Ε Ι Κ Α τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς κριτικωτάτου γενομένου καὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων σχεδὸν πάντα τῶν καθ’ αὑτὸν διελέγξαντος δεικνὺς οἵα γέγονεν ἡ περὶ Πλωτίνου κρίσις· καίτοι τὰ πρῶτα ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀμαθίας καταφρονητικῶς ἔχων πρὸς αὐτὸν διετέλει. ἐδόκει δὲ ἃ ἐκτήσατο ἐκ τῶν Ἀμελίου λαβὼν ἡμαρτῆσθαι διὰ τὸ μὴ νοεῖν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τὴν συνήθη ἑρμηνείαν. εἰ γάρ τινα καὶ ἄλλα, καὶ τὰ παρ’ Ἀμελίῳ διώρθωτο ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτογράφων μετειλημμένα. ἔτι δὲ τοῦ Λογγίνου ἃ ἐν συγγράμματι γέγραφε περὶ Πλωτίνου τε καὶ Ἀμελίου καὶ τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν γεγονότων φιλοσόφων ἀναγκαῖον παραθεῖναι, ἵνα καὶ πλήρης γένηται ἡ περὶ αὐτῶν κρίσις οἵα γέγονε τοῦ ἐλλογιμωτάτου ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἐλεγκτικωτάτου. ἐπιγράφεται δὲ τὸ βιβλίον Λογγίνου πρὸς Πλωτῖνον καὶ Γεντιλιανὸν Ἀμέλιον περὶ τέλους. Ἔχει δὲ τοιόνδε προοίμιον· ‘πολλῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς, ὦ Μάρκελλε, γεγενημένων φιλοσόφων οὐχ ἥκιστα παρὰ τοὺς πρώτους τῆς ἡλικίας ἡμῶν χρόνους· ὁ μὲν γὰρ νῦν καιρὸς οὐδ’ εἰπεῖν ἔστιν ὅσην σπάνιν ἔσχηκε τοῦ πράγματος· ἔτι δὲ μειρακίων ὄντων ἡμῶν οὐκ ὀλίγοι τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγων προέστησαν, οὓς ἅπαντας μὲν ὑπῆρξεν ἰδεῖν ἡμῖν διὰ τὴν ἐκ παίδων ἐπὶ πολλοὺς τόπους ἅμα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἐπιδημίαν, συγγενέσθαι δὲ αὐτῶν τοῖς ἐπιβιώσασι κατὰ ταὐτὸ συχνοῖς ἔθνεσι καὶ πόλεσιν ἐπιμίξαντας· οἱ μὲν καὶ διὰ γραφῆς ἐπεχείρησαν τὰ δοκοῦντα σφίσι πραγματεύεσθαι καταλιπόντες τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις τῆς παρ’ αὐτῶν ὠφελείας μετασχεῖν, οἱ δ’ ἀποχρῆναι σφίσιν ἡγήσαντο τοὺς συνόντας προβιβάζειν εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀρεσκόντων ἑαυτοῖς κατάληψιν. ὧν τοῦ μὲν προτέρου γεγόνασι τρόπου Πλατωνικοὶ μὲν Εὐκλείδης καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Προκλῖνος ὁ περὶ τὴν Τρῳάδα διατρίψας οἵ τε μέχρι νῦν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ δημοσιεύοντες Πλωτῖνος καὶ Γεντιλιανὸς Ἀμέλιος ὁ τούτου γνώριμος, Στωικῶν δὲ Θεμιστοκλῆς καὶ Φοιβίων οἵ τε μέχρι πρῴην ἀκμάσαντες Ἄννιός τε καὶ Μήδιος, Περιπατητικῶν δὲ ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς Ἡλιόδωρος. τοῦ δὲ δευτέρου Πλατωνικοὶ μὲν Ἀμμώνιος καὶ Ὡριγένης, οἷς ἡμεῖς τὸ πλεῖστον τοῦ χρόνου προσεφοιτήσαμεν, ἀνδράσιν οὐκ ὀλίγῳ τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς εἰς σύνεσιν διενεγκοῦσιν, οἵ τε Ἀθήνησι διάδοχοι Θεόδοτος καὶ Εὔβουλος· καὶ γὰρ εἴ τι τούτων γέγραπταί τισιν, ὥσπερ Ὡριγένει μὲν τὸ περὶ τῶν δαιμόνων, Εὐβούλῳ δὲ τὸ περὶ τοῦ Φιλήβου καὶ τοῦ Γοργίου καὶ τῶν Ἀριστοτέλει πρὸς τὴν Πλάτωνος Πολιτείαν ἀντειρημένων, οὐκ ἐχέγγυα πρὸς τὸ μετὰ τῶν ἐξειργασμένων τὸν λόγον αὐτοὺς ἀριθμεῖν ἂν γένοιτο πάρεργον τῇ τοιαύτῃ χρησαμένων σπουδῇ καὶ μὴ προηγουμένην περὶ τοῦ γράφειν ὁρμὴν λαβόντων. τῶν δὲ Στωικῶν Ἑρμῖνος καὶ Λυσίμαχος οἵ τε ἐν ἄστει καταβιώσαντες Ἀθηναῖος καὶ Μουσώνιος, καὶ Περιπατητικῶν Ἀμμώνιος καὶ Πτολεμαῖος φιλολογώτατοι μὲν τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἄμφω γενόμενοι καὶ μάλιστα ὁ Ἀμμώνιος· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ὅστις ἐκείνῳ γέγονεν εἰς πολυμαθίαν παραπλήσιος· οὐ μὴν καὶ γράψαντές τε τεχνικὸν οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ ποιήματα καὶ λόγους ἐπιδεικτικούς, ἅπερ οὖν καὶ σωθῆναι [ 368 ]

τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων οὐχ ἑκόντων οἶμαι· μὴ γὰρ ἂν αὐτοὺς δέξασθαι διὰ τοιούτων βιβλίων ὕστερον γενέσθαι γνωρίμους, ἀφέντας σπουδαιοτέροις συγγράμμασι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀποθησαυρίσαι διάνοιαν. τῶν δ’ οὖν γραψάντων οἱ μὲν οὐδὲν πλέον ἢ συναγωγὴν καὶ μεταγραφὴν τῶν τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις συντεθέντων ἐποιήσαντο, καθάπερ Εὐκλείδης καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Προκλῖνος, οἱ δὲ μικρὰ κομιδῇ πράγματα τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν ἱστορίας ἀπομνημονεύσαντες εἰς τοὺς αὐτοὺς τόπους ἐκείνοις ἐπεχείρησαν συντιθέναι βιβλία, καθάπερ Ἄννιος τε καὶ Μήδιος καὶ Φοιβίων, οὗτος μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν τῇ λέξει κατασκευῆς γνωρίζεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ συντάξεως ἀξιῶν· οἷς καὶ τὸν Ἡλιόδωρον συγκατανείμειέ τις ἄν, οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνον παρὰ τὰ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἐν ταῖς ἀκροάσεσιν εἰρημένα πλέον τι συμβαλλόμενον εἰς τὴν τοῦ λόγου διάρθρωσιν. οἱ δὲ καὶ πλήθει προβλημάτων ἃ μετεχειρίσαντο τὴν σπουδὴν τοῦ γράφειν ἀποδειξάμενοι καὶ τρόπῳ θεωρίας ἰδίῳ χρησάμενοι Πλωτῖνός εἰσι καὶ Γεντιλιανὸς Ἀμέλιος· ὃς μὲν τὰς Πυθαγορείους ἀρχὰς καὶ Πλατωνικάς, ὡς ἐδόκει, πρὸς σαφεστέραν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ καταστησάμενος ἐξήγησιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐγγύς τι τὰ Νουμηνίου καὶ Κρονίου καὶ Μοδεράτου καὶ Θρασύλλου τοῖς Πλωτίνου περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν συγγράμμασιν εἰς ἀκρίβειαν· ὁ δὲ Ἀμέλιος κατ’ ἴχνη μὲν τούτου βαδίζειν προαιρούμενος καὶ τὰ πολλὰ μὲν τῶν αὐτῶν δογμάτων ἐχόμενος, τῇ δὲ ἐξεργασίᾳ πολὺς ὢν καὶ τῇ τῆς ἑρμηνείας περιβολῇ πρὸς τὸν ἐναντίον ἐκείνῳ ζῆλον ὑπαγόμενος. ὧν καὶ μόνων ἡμεῖς ἄξιον εἶναι νομίζομεν ἐπισκοπεῖσθαι τὰ συγγράμματα. τοὺς μὲν γὰρ λοιποὺς τί τις ἂν κινεῖν οἴοιτο δεῖν ἀφεὶς ἐξετάζειν ἐκείνους, παρ’ ὧν ταῦτα λαβόντες οὗτοι γεγράφασιν οὐδὲν αὐτοὶ παρ’ αὑτῶν προσθέντες οὐχ ὅτι τῶν κεφαλαίων, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων, οὐδ’ οὖν ἢ συναγωγῆς τῶν παρὰ τοῖς πλείοσιν ἢ κρίσεως τοῦ βελτίονος ἐπιμεληθέντες; Ἤδη μὲν οὖν καὶ δι’ ἄλλων τουτὶ πεποιήκαμεν, ὥσπερ καὶ τῷ μὲν Γεντιλιανῷ περὶ τῆς κατὰ Πλάτωνα δικαιοσύνης ἀντειπόντες, τοῦ δὲ Πλωτίνου τὸ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν ἐπισκεψάμενοι· τὸν μὲν γὰρ κοινὸν ἡμῶν τε κἀκείνων ἑταῖρον ὄντα, Βασιλέα τὸν Τύριον, οὐδ’ αὐτὸν ὀλίγα πεπραγματευμένον κατὰ τὴν Πλωτίνου μίμησιν, ὃν ἀποδεξάμενος μᾶλλον τῆς παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀγωγῆς ἐπεχείρησε διὰ συγγράμματος ἀποδεῖξαι βελτίω δόξαν περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν τῆς ἡμῖν ἀπεσκούσης ἔχοντα, μετρίως ἀντιγραφῇ διελέγξαι δοκοῦμεν οὐκ εὖ παλινῳδήσαντα κἀν τούτοις οὐκ ὀλίγας τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων κεκινηκότες δόξας, ὥσπερ κἀν τῇ πρὸς τὸν Ἀμέλιον ἐπιστολῇ, μέγεθος μὲν ἐχούσῃ συγγράμματος, ἀποκρινομένῃ δὲ πρὸς ἄττα τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπεσταλμένων, ἣν αὐτὸς μὲν ἐπιστολὴν περὶ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς Πλωτίνου φιλοσοφίας ἐπέγραψεν, ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸ μόνον προσηρκέσθημεν τῇ κοινῇ τοῦ συγγράμματος ἐπιγραφῇ πρὸς τὴν Ἀμέλιον ἐπιστολὴν αὐτὸ προσαγορεύσαντες.’

[ 369 ]

21 Ἐ Ν Δ Ὴ ΤΟ Ύ ΤΟ Ι ς τότε ὡμολόγησε μὲν πάντων τῶν ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγονότων πλήθει τε προβλημάτων διενεγκεῖν Πλωτῖνόν τε καὶ Ἀμέλιον, τρόπῳ δὲ θεωρίας ἰδίῳ μάλιστα τούτους χρήσασθαι, τὰ Νουμηνίου δὲ οὐχ ὅτι ὑποβάλλεσθαι καὶ τἀκείνου πρεσβεύειν δόγματα, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων αὐτοῦ τε ἑλομένου μετιέναι δόγματα, καὶ οὐδ’ ἐγγὺς εἶναι τὰ Νουμηνίου καὶ Κρονίου καὶ Μοδεράτου καὶ Θρασύλλου τοῖς Πλωτίνου περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν συγγράμμασιν εἰς ἀκρίβειαν. εἰπὼν δὲ περὶ Ἀμελίου, ὅτι κατ’ ἴχνη μὲν τοῦ Πλωτίνου ἐβάδιζε, τῇ δὲ ἐξεργασίᾳ πολὺς ὢν καὶ τῇ τῆς ἑρμηνείας περιβολῇ πρὸς τὸν ἐναντίον ἐκείνῳ ζῆλον ὑπήγετο, ὅμως μνησθεὶς ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου ἔτι ἀρχὰς ἔχοντος τῆς πρὸς τὸν Πλωτῖνον συνουσίας φησὶν ὅτι ‘ὁ δὲ κοινὸς ἡμῶν τε κἀκείνων ἑταῖρος Βασιλεὺς ὁ Τύριος οὐδ’ αὐτὸς ὀλίγα πεπραγματευμένος κατὰ τὴν Πλωτίνου μίμησιν συνέθηκε’, ταῦτα ὄντως κατιδών, ὅτι τῆς Ἀμελίου περιβολῆς τὸ ἀφιλόσοφον παντελῶς ἐφυλαξάμην καὶ πρὸς ζῆλον τὸν Πλωτίνου γράφων ἀφεώρων. ἀρκεῖ τοίνυν ὁ τοσοῦτος ἀνὴρ καὶ ἐν κρίσει πρῶτος ὢν καὶ ὑπειλημμένος ἄχρι νῦν τοιαῦτα γράφων περὶ Πλωτίνου, ὡς, εἰ καὶ καλοῦντί με τὸν Πορφύριον συνέβη δυνηθῆναι συμμῖξαι αὐτῷ, οὐδ’ ἂν ἀντέγραψεν, ἃ πρὶν ἀκριβῶσαι τὸ δόγμα γράψαι ἐπεχείρησεν.

[ 370 ]

22 Ἀ Λ Λ Ὰ Τ Ι Ή Μ Ο Ι ταῦτα περὶ δρῦν ὴ περὶ πέτραν — φησὶν ὁ Ἡσίοδος — λέγειν; Εἰ γὰρ δεῖ ταῖς μαρτυρίαις χρῆσθαι ταῖς παρὰ τῶν σοφῶν γεγενημέναις, τίς ἂν εἴη σοφώτερος θεοῦ, καὶ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀληθῶς εἰρηκότος· οἶδα δ’ ἐγὼ ψάμμου τ’ ἀριθμὸν καὶ μέτρα θαλάσσης καὶ κωφοῦ ξυνίημι καὶ οὐ λαλέοντος ἀκούω; ὁ γὰρ δὴ Ἀπόλλων ἐρομένου τοῦ Ἀμελίου, ποῦ ἡ Πλωτίνου ψυχὴ κεχώρηκεν, ὁ τοσοῦτον εἰπὼν περὶ Σωκράτους· ἀνδρῶν ἁπάντων Σωκράτης σοφώτατος, ἐπάκουσον, ὅσα καὶ οἷα περὶ Πλωτίνου ἐθέσπισεν· ἄμβροτα φορμίζειν ἀναβάλλομαι ὕμνον ἀοιδῆς ἀμφ’ ἀγανοῖο φίλοιο μελιχροτάταισιν ὑφαίνων φωναῖς εὐφήμου κιθάρης χρυσέῳ ὑπὸ πλήκτρῳ. κλῄζω καὶ Μούσας ξυνὴν ὄπα γηρύσασθαι παμφώνοις ἰαχαῖσι παναρμονίαισί τ’ ἐρωαῖς, οἷον ἐπ’ Αἰακίδῃ στῆσαι χορὸν ἐκλήιχθεν ἀθανάτων μανίαισιν Ὁμηρείαισί τ’ ἀοιδαῖς. ἀλλ’ ἄγε Μουσάων ἱερὸς χορός, ἀπύσωμεν εἰς ἓν ἐπιπνείοντες ἀοιδῆς τέρματα πάσης· ὕμμι καὶ ἐν μέσσαισιν ἐγὼ Φοῖβος βαθυχαίτης· δαῖμον, ἄνερ τὸ πάροιθεν, ἀτὰρ νῦν δαίμονος αἴσῃ θειοτέρῃ πελάων, ὅτ’ ἐλύσαο δεσμὸν ἀνάγκης ἀνδρομέης, ῥεθέων δὲ πολυφλοίσβοιο κυδοιμοῦ ῥωσάμενος πραπίδεσσιν ἐς ᾐόνα νηχύτου ἀκτῆς νήχε’ ἐπειγόμενος δήμου ἀπο νόσφιν ἀλιτρῶν στηρίξαι καθαρῆς ψυχῆς εὐκαμπέα οἴμην, ἧχι θεοῖο σέλας περιλάμπεται, ἧχι θέμιστες ἐν καθαρῷ ἀπάτερθεν ἀλιτροσύνης ἀθεμίστου. καὶ τότε μὲν σκαίροντι πικρὸν κῦμ’ ἐξυπαλύξαι αἱμοβότου βιότοιο καὶ ἀσηρῶν εἰλίγγων ἐν μεσάτοισι κλύδωνος ἀνωίστου τε κυδοιμοῦ πολλάκις ἐκ μακάρων φάνθη σκοπὸς ἐγγύθι ναίων. πολλάκι σεῖο νόοιο βολὰς λοξῇσιν ἀταρποῖς ἱεμένας φορέεσθαι ἐρωῇσι σφετέρῃσιν [ 371 ]

ὀρθοπόρους ἀνὰ κύκλα καὶ ἄμβροτον οἶμον ἄειραν ἀθάνατοι θαμινὴν φαέων ἀκτῖνα πορόντες ὄσσοισιν δέρκεσθαι ἀπαὶ σκοτίης λυγαίης. οὐδέ σε παμπήδην βλεφάρων ἔχε νήδυμος ὕπνος· ἀλλ’ ἄρ’ ἀπὸ βλεφάρων πετάσας κληῖδα βαρεῖαν ἀχλύος ἐν δίνῃσι φορεύμενος ἔδρακες ὄσσοις πολλά τε καὶ χαρίεντα, τά κεν ῥέα οὔτις ἴδοιτο ἀνθρώπων, ὅσσοι σοφίης μαιήτορες ἔπλευν. νῦν δ’ ὅτε δὴ σκῆνος μὲν ἐλύσαο, σῆμα δ’ ἔλειψας ψυχῆς δαιμονίης, μεθ’ ὁμήγυριν ἔρχεαι ἤδη δαιμονίην ἐρατοῖσιν ἀναπνείουσαν ἀήταις, ἔνθ’ ἔνι μὲν φιλότης, ἔνι δ’ ἵμερος ἁβρὸς ἰδέσθαι, εὐφροσύνης πλείων καθαρῆς, πληρούμενος αἰὲν ἀμβροσίων ὀχετῶν θεόθεν ὅθεν ἐστὶν ἐρώτων πείσματα, καὶ γλυκερὴ πνοιὴ καὶ νήνεμος αἰθήρ, χρυσείης γενεῆς μεγάλου Διὸς ἧχι νέμονται Μίνως καὶ Ῥαδάμανθυς ἀδελφεοί, ἧχι δίκαιος Αἰακός, ἧχι Πλάτων, ἱερὴ ἴς, ἧχί τε καλὸς Πυθαγόρης ὅσσοι τε χορὸν στήριξαν ἔρωτος ἀθανάτου, ὅσσοι γενεὴν ξυνὴν ἐλάχοντο δαίμοσιν ὀλβίστοις, ὅθι τοι κέαρ ἐν θαλίῃσιν αἰὲν εὐφροσυνῃσι τ’ ἰαίνεται. ἆ μάκαρ, ὅσσους ὀτλήσας ἀριθμοὺς ἀέθλων μετὰ δαίμονας ἁγνοὺς πωλέεαι ζαμενῇσι κορυσσάμενος ζωῇσι. στήσωμεν μολπήν τε χοροῦ τ’ εὐδίνεα κύκλον Πλωτίνου, Μοῦσαι, πολυγηθέος· αὐτὰρ ἐμεῖο χρυσείη κιθάρη τόσσον φράσεν εὐαίωνι.

[ 372 ]

23 Ἐ Ν Δ Ὴ ΤΟ Ύ ΤΟ Ι ς εἴρηται μὲν ὅτι ἀγανὸς γέγονε καὶ ἤπιος καὶ πρᾶός γε μάλιστα καὶ μείλιχος, ἅπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς οὕτως ἔχοντι συνῄδειμεν· εἴρηται δ’ ὅτι ἄγρυπνος καὶ καθαρὰν τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχων καὶ ἀεὶ σπεύδων πρὸς τὸ θεῖον, οὗ διὰ πάσης τῆς ψυχῆς ἤρα, ὅτι τε πάντ’ ἐποίει ἀπαλλαγῆναι [καὶ] πικρὸν κῦμ’ ἐξυπαλύξαι τοῦ αἱμοβότου τῇδε βίου. οὕτως δὲ μάλιστα τούτῳ τῷ δαιμονίῳ φωτὶ πολλάκις ἐνάγοντι ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸν πρῶτον καὶ ἐπέκεινα θεὸν ταῖς ἐννοίαις καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἐν τῷ «Συμποσίῳ» ὑφηγημένας ὁδοὺς τῷ Πλάτωνι ἐφάνη ἐκεῖνος ὁ θεὸς ὁ μήτε μορφὴν μήτε τινὰ ἰδέαν ἔχων, ὑπὲρ δὲ νοῦν καὶ πᾶν τὸ νοητὸν ἱδρυμένος. ᾧ δὴ καὶ ἐγὼ Πορφύριος ἅπαξ λέγω πλησιάσαι καὶ ἑνωθῆναι ἔτος ἄγων ἑξηκοστόν τε καὶ ὄγδοον. ἐφάνη γοῦν τῷ Πλωτίνῳ σκοπὸς ἐγγύθι ναίων. τέλος γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ σκοπὸς ἦν τὸ ἑνωθῆναι καὶ πελάσαι τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεῷ. ἔτυχε δὲ τετράκις που, ὅτε αὐτῷ συνήμην, τοῦ σκοποῦ τούτου ἐνεργείᾳ ἀρρήτῳ (καὶ οὐ δυνάμει). καὶ ὅτι λοξῶς φερόμενον πολλάκις οἱ θεοὶ κατεύθυναν θαμινὴν φαέων ἀκτῖνα πορόντες, ὡς ἐπισκέψει τῇ παρ’ ἐκείνων καὶ ἐπιβλέψει γραφῆναι τὰ γραφέντα, εἴρηται. ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἀγρύπνου ἔσωθέν τε καὶ ἔξωθεν θέας ἔδρακες, φησίν, ὄσσοις πολλά τε καὶ χαρίεντα, τά κεν ῥέα οὔτις ἴδοιτο ἀνθρώπων τῶν φιλοσοφίᾳ προσεχόντων. ἡ γὰρ δὴ τῶν ἀνθρώπων θεωρία ἀνθρωπίνης μὲν ἂν γένοιτο ἀμείνων· ὡς δὲ πρὸς τὴν θείαν γνῶσιν χαρίεσσα μὲν ἂν εἴη, οὐ μὴν ὥστε τὸ βάθος ἑλεῖν ἂν δυνηθῆναι, ὥσπερ αἱροῦσιν οἱ θεοί. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὅ τι ἔτι σῶμα περικείμενος ἐνήργει καὶ τίνων ἐτύγχανε δεδήλωκε. μετὰ δὲ τὸ λυθῆναι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἐλθεῖν μὲν αὐτόν φησιν εἰς τὴν δαιμονίαν ὁμήγυριν, πολιτεύεσθαι δ’ ἐκεῖ φιλότητα, ἵμερον, εὐφροσύνην, ἔρωτα ἐξημμένον τοῦ θεοῦ, τετάχθαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς λεγομένους δικαστὰς τῶν ψυχῶν, παῖδας τοῦ θεοῦ, Μίνω καὶ Ῥαδάμανθυν καὶ Αἰακόν, πρὸς οὓς οὐ δικασθησόμενον οἴχεσθαι, συνεσόμενον δὲ τούτοις, οἷς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι θεοῖς ἀρεστοὶ σύνεισιν. [εἰσὶ] δὲ οὗτοι Πλάτων, Πυθαγόρας ὁπόσοι τε ἄλλοι χορὸν στήριξαν ἔρωτος ἀθανάτου· ἐκεῖ δὲ τὴν γένεσιν τοὺς ὀλβίστους δαίμονας ἔχειν βίον τε μετιέναι τὸν ἐν θαλείαις καὶ εὐφροσύναις καταπεπυκνωμένον καὶ τοῦτον διατελεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ θεῶν μακαριζόμενον.

[ 373 ]

24 ΤΟ Ι Ο ῦΤΟ ς Μ Ὲ Ν Ο ὖΝ ὁ Πλωτίνου ἡμῖν ἱστόρηται βίος. ἐπεὶ δὲ αὐτὸς τὴν διάταξιν καὶ τὴν διόρθωσιν τῶν βιβλίων ποιεῖσθαι ἡμῖν ἐπέτρεψεν, ἐγὼ δὲ κἀκείνῳ ζῶντι ὑπεσχόμην καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἑταίροις ἐπηγγειλάμην ποιῆσαι τοῦτο, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ βιβλία οὐ κατὰ χρόνους ἐᾶσαι φύρδην ἐκδεδομένα ἐδικαίωσα, μιμησάμενος δ’ Ἀπολλόδωρον τὸν Ἀθηναῖον καὶ Ἀνδρόνικον τὸν Περιπατητικόν, ὧν ὁ μὲν Ἐπίχαρμον τὸν κωμῳδιογράφον εἰς δέκα τόμους φέρων συνήγαγεν, ὁ δὲ τὰ Ἀριστοτέλους και Θεοφράστου εἰς πραγματείας διεῖλε τὰς οἰκείας ὑποθέσεις εἰς ταὐτὸν συναγαγών· οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐγὼ νδ ὄντα ἔχων τὰ τοῦ Πλωτίνου τοῦ ἓξ ἀριθμοῦ καὶ ταῖς ἐννεάσιν ἀσμένως ἐπιτυχών, ἑκάστῃ δὲ ἐννεάδι τὰ οἰκεῖα φέρων συνεφόρησα δοὺς καὶ τάξιν πρώτην τοῖς ἐλαφροτέροις προβλήμασιν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ πρώτη ἐννεὰς ἔχει τὰ ἠθικώτερα τάδε· τί τὸ ζῷον καὶ τίς ὁ ἄνθρωπος· περὶ ἀρετῶν· περὶ διαλεκτικῆς· περὶ εὐδαιμονίας· εἰ ἐν παρατάσει χρόνου τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν· περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ· περὶ τοῦ πρώτου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν· πόθεν τὰ κακά· περὶ τῆς ἐκ τοῦ βίου ἐυλόγου ἐξαγωγῆς· ἡ μὲν οὖν πρώτη τάδε περιέχει ἠθικωτέρας ὑποθέσεις περιλαβοῦσα. ἡ δὲ δευτέρα τῶν φυσικῶν συναγωγὴν ἔχουσα τὰ περὶ κόσμου καὶ τὰ τῷ κόσμῳ ἀνήκοντα περίεχει. ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα· περὶ τοῦ κόσμου· περὶ τῆς κυκλοφορίας· εἰ ποιεῖ τὰ ἄστρα· περὶ τῶν δύο ὑλῶν· περὶ τοῦ δυνάμει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ· περὶ ποιότητος καὶ εἴδους· περὶ τῆς δι’ ὅλων κράσεως· πῶς τὰ πόρρω ὁρώμενα μικρὰ φαίνεται· πρὸς τοὺς κακὸν τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὸν κόσμον κακὸν εἶναι λέγοντας· Ἡ δὲ τρίτη ἐννεὰς ἔτι τὰ περὶ κόσμου ἔχουσα περιείληφε τὰ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν κόσμον θεωρουμένων ταῦτα·

[ 374 ]

περὶ εἱμαρμένης· περὶ προνοίας πρῶτον· περὶ προνοίας δεύτερον· περὶ τοῦ εἰληχότος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος· περὶ ἔρωτος· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ τῆς ἀπαθείας τῶν ἀσωμάτων· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ αἰῶνος καὶ χρόνου· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ φύσεως καὶ θεωρίας καὶ τοῦ ἑνός· ἐπισκέψεις διάφοροι·

[ 375 ]

25 ΤΑ Ύ ΤΑ ς Τ Ὰ ς Τ Ρ Ε ῖς ἐννεάδας ἡμεῖς ἐν ἑνὶ σωματίῳ τάξαντες κατεσκευάσαμεν. ἐν δὲ τρίτῃ ἐννεάδι ἐτάξαμεν καὶ τὸ περὶ τοῦ εἰληχότος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος, ὅτι καθόλου θεωρεῖται τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔστι τὸ πρόβλημα καὶ παρὰ τοῖς τὰ κατὰ τὰς γενέσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων σκεπτομένοις. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ περὶ ἔρωτος τόπος. τὸ δὲ περὶ αἰῶνος καὶ χρόνου διὰ τὸ περὶ τοῦ χρόνου ἐνταῦθα ἐτάξαμεν. τὸ δὲ περὶ φύσεως καὶ θεωρίας καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς διὰ τὸ περὶ φύσεως κεφάλαιον ἐνταῦθα τέτακται. ἡ δὲ τετάρτη ἐννεὰς μετὰ τὰ περὶ κόσμου τὰ περὶ ψυχῆς εἴληχε συγγράμματα. ἔχει δὲ τάδε· περὶ οὐσίας ψυχῆς πρῶτον· περὶ οὐσίας ψυχῆς δεύτερον· περὶ ψυχῆς ἀποριῶν πρῶτον· περὶ ψυχῆς ἀποριῶν δεύτερον· περὶ ψυχῆς ἀποριῶν τρίτον ἢ περὶ ὄψεως· περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ μνήμης· περὶ ἀθανασίας ψυχῆς· περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ σώματα καθόδου τῆς ψυχῆς· εἰ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ μία· ἡ μὲν οὖν τετάρτη ἐννεὰς τὰς περὶ ψυχῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεις ἔσχε πάσας. ἡ δὲ πέμπτη ἔχει μὲν τὰς περὶ νοῦ, περιέχει δὲ ἕκαστον τῶν βιβλίων ἔν τισι καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἐπέκεινα καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἐν ψυχῇ νοῦ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν. ἔστι δὲ τάδε· περὶ τῶν τριῶν ἀρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων· περὶ γενέσεως καὶ τάξεως τῶν μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον· περὶ τῶν γνωριστικῶν ὑποστάσεων καὶ τοῦ ἐπέκεινα· πῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου τὸ μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἑνός· ὅτι οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ νοῦ τὰ νοητὰ καὶ περὶ τἀγαθοῦ· περὶ τοῦ τὸ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ὄντος μὴ νοεῖν· καὶ τί τὸ πρώτως νοοῦν καὶ τί τὸ δευτέρως· περὶ τοῦ εἰ καὶ τῶν καθέκαστά ἐστιν εἴδη· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ τοῦ νοητοῦ κάλλους· περὶ νοῦ καὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν καὶ τοῦ όντος·

[ 376 ]

26 Κ Α Ὶ Τ Ὴ Ν Τ ΕΤ Ά Ρ Τ Η Ν οὖν καὶ πέμπτην ἐννεάδα εἰς ἓν σωμάτιον κατελέξαμεν. λοιπὴν δὲ τὴν ἕκτην ἐννεάδα εἰς ἄλλο σωμάτιον, ὡς διὰ τριῶν σωματίων γεγράφθαι τὰ Πλωτίνου πάντα, ὧν τὸ μὲν πρῶτον σωμάτιον ἔχει τρεῖς ἐννεάδας, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον δύο, τὸ δὲ τρίτον μίαν. ἔστι δὲ τὰ τοῦ τρίτου σωματίου, ἐννεάδος δὲ ἕκτης, ταῦτα· περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος πρῶτον· περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος δεύτερον· περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος τρίτον· περὶ τοῦ τὸ ὂν ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸ ὂν ἅμα πανταχοῦ εἶναι ὅλον πρῶτον· περὶ τοῦ τὸ ὂν ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸ ὂν ἅμα πανταχοῦ εἶναι ὅλον δεύτερον· περὶ ἀριθμῶν· πῶς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἰδεῶν ὑπέστη καὶ περὶ τἀγαθοῦ· περὶ τοῦ ἑκουσίου καὶ θελήματος τοῦ ἑνός· περὶ τἀγαθοῦ ἢ τοῦ ἑνός· τὰ μὲν οὖν βιβλία εἰς ἓξ ἐννεάδας τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον κατετάξαμεν τέσσαρα καὶ πεντήκοντα ὄντα· καταβεβλήμεθα δὲ καὶ εἴς τινα αὐτῶν ὑπομνήματα ἀτάκτως διὰ τοὺς ἐπείξαντας ἡμᾶς ἑταίρους γράφειν εἰς ἅπερ αὐτοὶ τὴν σαφήνειαν αὐτοῖς γενέσθαι ἠξίουν. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰ κεφάλαια τῶν πάντων πλὴν τοῦ «Περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ» διὰ τὸ λεῖψαι ἡμῖν πεποιήμεθα κατὰ τὴν χρονικὴν ἔκδοσιν τῶν βιβλίων· ἀλλ’ ἐν τούτῳ οὐ τὰ κεφάλαια μόνον καθ’ ἕκαστον ἔκκειται τῶν βιβλίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπιχεριήματα, ἃ ὡς κεφάλαια συναριθμεῖται. νυνὶ δὲ πειρασόμεθα ἕκαστον τῶν βιβλίων διερχόμενοι τάς τε στιγμὰς αὐτῶν προσθεῖναι καὶ εἴ τι ἡμαρτημένον εἴη κατὰ λέξιν διορθοῦν· καὶ ὅ τι ἂν ἡμᾶς ἄλλο κινήσῃ, αὐτὸ σημαίνει τὸ ἔργον.

[ 377 ]

Life of Pythagoras ΠΥΘΑΓΟΡΟΥ ΒΙΟΣ. [ 1 ] ΣΥ Μ Φ Ω Ν Ε ῖΤΑ Ι Μ Ὲ Ν δὴ παρὰ τοῖς πλείστοις Μνησάρχου γεγενῆσθαι παῖς· περὶ δὲ τοῦ γένους τοῦ Μνησάρχου διαπεφώνηται. οἳ μὲν γὰρ Σάμιον αὐτὸν εἶναι φασί, Νεάνθης δ’ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν μυθικῶν Σύρον ἐκ Τύρου τῆς Συρίας. σιτοδείας δὲ καταλαβούσης τοὺς Σαμίους προσπλεύσαντα τὸν Μνήσαρχον κατ’ ἐμπορίαν μετὰ σίτου τῇ νήσῳ ἀποδόμενον τιμηθῆναι πολιτείᾳ. Πυθαγόρου δ’ ἐκ παίδων εἰς πᾶσαν μάθησιν ὄντος εὐφυοῦς, τὸν Μνήσαρχον ἀπαγαγεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς Τύρον, ἐκεῖ δὲ τοῖς Χαλδαίοις συστάντα μετασχεῖν τούτων ἐπὶ πλεῖον ποιῆσαι. ἐπανελθόντα δ’ εἰς τὴν Ἰωνίαν ἐντεῦθεν τὸν Πυθαγόραν πρῶτον μὲν Φερεκύδῃ τῷ Συρίῳ ὁμιλῆσαι, δεύτερον δ’ Ἑρμοδάμαντι [2] τῷ Κρεοφυλείῳ ἐν Σάμῳ ἤδη γηράσκοντι. λέγει δ’ ὁ Νεάνθης ἄλλους εἶναι οἳ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ Τυρρηνὸν ἀποφαίνονται τῶν τὴν Λῆμνον ἐποικησάντων, ἐντεῦθεν δὲ κατὰ πρᾶξιν εἰς Σάμον ἐλθόντα καταμεῖναι καὶ ἀστὸν γενέσθαι· πλέοντος δὲ τοῦ Μνησάρχου εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν συμπλεύσαντα τὸν Πυθαγόραν νέον ὄντα κομιδῇ σφόδρα οὖσαν εὐδαίμονα καὶ τόθ’ ὕστερον εἰς αὐτὴν ἀποπλεῦσαι. καταλέγει δ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοὺς δύο, Εὔνοστον καὶ Τυρρηνόν, πρεσβυτέρους. Ἀπολλώνιος δ’ ἐν τοῖς περὶ Πυθαγόρου καὶ μητέρα ἀναγράφει Πυθαΐδα, ἀπόγονον Ἀγκαίου τοῦ οἰκιστοῦ τῆς Σάμου. τινὰς δ’ Ἀπόλλωνος αὐτὸν ἱστορεῖν καὶ Πυθαΐδος τῷ γόνῳ, λόγῳ δὲ Μνησάρχου φησὶν Ἀπολλώνιος. τῶν γοῦν ποιητῶν τῶν Σαμίων εἰπεῖν τινά·  Πυθαγόραν θ’ ὃν ἔτικτε Διὶ φίλον Ἀπόλλωνι  Πυθαΐς, ἣ κάλλος πλεῖστον ἔχεν Σαμίων. διακοῦσαι δ’ οὐ μόνον Φερεκύδου καὶ Ἑρμοδάμαντος, [3] ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀναξιμάνδρου φησὶν οὗτος. Δοῦρις δ’ ὁ Σάμιος ἐν δευτέρῳ τῶν ὥρων παῖδά τ’ αὐτοῦ ἀναγράφει Ἀρίμνηστον καὶ διδάσκαλον φησὶ γενέσθαι Δημοκρίτου. τὸν δ’ Ἀρίμνηστον κατελθόντ’ ἀπὸ τῆς φυγῆς χαλκοῦν ἀνάθημα τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς Ἥρας ἀναθεῖναι τὴν διάμετρον ἔχον ἐγγὺς δύο πήχεων, οὗ ἐπίγραμμα ἦν ἐγγεγραμμένον τόδε·  Πυθαγόρεω φίλος υἱὸς Ἀρίμνηστός μ’ ἀνέθηκε,  πολλὰς ἐξευρὼν εἰνὶ λόγοις σοφίας. τοῦτο δ’ ἀνελόντα Σῖμον τὸν ἁρμονικὸν καὶ τὸν κανόνα σφετερισάμενον ἐξενεγκεῖν ὡς ἴδιον. εἶναι μὲν οὖν ἑπτὰ τὰς ἀναγεγραμμένας σοφίας· διὰ δὲ τὴν μίαν, ἣν Σῖμος ὑφείλετο, συναφανισθῆναι καὶ τὰς [4] ἄλλας τὰς ἐν τῷ ἀναθήματι γεγραμμένας. ἄλλοι δ’ ἐκ Θεανοῦς τῆς Πυθώνακτος τὸ γένος Κρήσσης υἱὸν Τηλαύγη Πυθαγόρου ἀναγράφουσι καὶ θυγατέρα Μυῖαν, οἳ δὲ καὶ Ἀριγνώτην· ὧν καὶ συγγράμματα Πυθαγόρεια σῴζεσθαι. Τίμαιος δ’ ἱστορεῖ τὴν Πυθαγόρου θυγατέρα καὶ παρθένον οὖσαν ἡγεῖσθαι τῶν παρθένων ἐν Κρότωνι καὶ γυναῖκα τῶν γυναικῶν· τὴν δ’ οἰκίαν Δήμητρος ἱερὸν ποιῆσαι τοὺς Κροτωνιάτας, τὸν δὲ [5] στενωπὸν καλεῖν [ 378 ]

μουσεῖον. Λύκος δ’ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν ἱστοριῶν καὶ περὶ τῆς πατρίδος ὡς διαφωνούντων τινῶν μνημονεύει λέγων· ‘τὴν μὲν οὖν πατρίδα καὶ τὴν πόλιν, ἧς γενέσθαι πολίτην τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον συμβέβηκεν, εἰ μὴ τυγχάνεις κατειδώς, μηδὲν διαφερέτω σοι. λέγουσι γὰρ αὐτὸν οἳ μὲν εἶναι Σάμιον, [6] οἳ δὲ Φλιάσιον, οἳ δὲ Μεταποντῖνον.’ ἔτι καὶ περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ οἱ πλείους τὰ μὲν τῶν μαθηματικῶν καλουμένων ἐπιστημῶν παρ’ Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ Χαλδαίων καὶ Φοινίκων φασὶν ἐκμαθεῖν· γεωμετρίας μὲν γὰρ ἐκ παλαιῶν χρόνων ἐπιμεληθῆναι Αἰγυπτίους, τὰ δὲ περὶ ἀριθμούς τε καὶ λογισμοὺς Φοίνικας, Χαλδαίους δὲ τὰ περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν θεωρήματα· περὶ τὰς τῶν θεῶν ἁγιστείας καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν περὶ τὸν βίον ἐπιτηδευμάτων παρὰ τῶν μάγων φασὶ [7] διακοῦσαί τε καὶ λαβεῖν. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν σχεδὸν πολλοὺς ἐπιγιγνώσκειν διὰ τὸ γεγράφθαι ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἧττον εἶναι γνώριμα· πλὴν τοσαύτῃ γε ἁγνείᾳ φησὶν Εὔδοξος ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ τῆς γῆς περιόδου κεχρῆσθαι καὶ τῇ περὶ τοὺς φόνους φυγῇ καὶ τῶν φονευόντων, ὡς μὴ μόνον τῶν ἐμψύχων ἀπέχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ μαγείροις καὶ θηράτορσι μηδέποτε πλησιάζειν. Ἀντιφῶν δ’ ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ βίου τῶν ἐν ἀρετῇ πρωτευσάντων καὶ τὴν καρτερίαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ διηγεῖται λέγων τὸν Πυθαγόραν ἀποδεξάμενον τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἱερέων τὴν ἀγωγὴν σπουδάσαντά τε μετασχεῖν ταύτης δεηθῆναι Πολυκράτους τοῦ τυράννου γράψαι πρὸς Ἄμασιν τὸν βασιλέα τῆς Αἰγύπτου, φίλον ὄντα καὶ ξένον, ἵνα κοινωνήσῃ τῆς τῶν προειρημένων παιδείας. ἀφικόμενον δὲ πρὸς Ἄμασιν λαβεῖν γράμματα πρὸς τοὺς ἱερέας καὶ συμμίξαντα τοῖς Ἡλιοπολίταις ἐκπεμφθῆναι μὲν εἰς Μέμφιν ὡς πρὸς πρεσβυτέρους, τῇ γ’ ἀληθείᾳ σκηπτομένων τῶν Ἡλιοπολιτῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἐκ δὲ Μέμφεως κατὰ τὴν [8] ὁμοίαν σκῆψιν πρὸς Διοσπολίτας ἐλθεῖν. τῶν δ’ οὐ δυναμένων προΐσχεσθαι αἰτίας διὰ τὸ δέος τοῦ βασιλέως, νομισάντων δὲ τῷ μεγέθει τῆς κακοπαθείας ἀποστήσειν αὐτὸν τῆς ἐπιβολῆς, προστάγματα σκληρὰ καὶ κεχωρισμένα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ἀγωγῆς κελεῦσαι ὑπομεῖναι αὐτόν. τὸν δὲ ταῦτα ἐκτελέσαντα προθύμως οὕτως θαυμασθῆναι, ὡς ἐξουσίαν λαβεῖν θύειν τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ προσιέναι ταῖς τούτων ἐπιμελείαις, ὅπερ [9] ἐπ’ ἄλλου ξένου γεγονὸς οὐχ εὑρίσκεται. ἐπανελθόντα δ’ εἰς τὴν Ἰωνίαν κατασκευάσαι ἐν τῇ πατρίδι διδασκαλεῖον τὸ Πυθαγόρου καλούμενον ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἡμικύκλιον, ἐν ᾧ Σάμιοι περὶ τῶν κοινῶν συνιόντες βουλεύονται. ἔξω δὲ τῆς πόλεως ἄντρον οἰκεῖον τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φιλοσοφίας ποιήσαντα, ἐν τούτῳ τὰ πολλὰ τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς διατρίβειν συνόντα ὀλίγοις τῶν ἑταίρων. γεγονότα δ’ ἐτῶν τεσσαράκοντα, φησὶν ὁ Ἀριστόξενος, καὶ ὁρῶντα τὴν τοῦ Πολυκράτους τυραννίδα συντονωτέραν οὖσαν ὥστε καλῶς ἔχειν ἐλευθέρῳ ἀνδρὶ τὴν ἐπιστατείαν τε καὶ δεσποτείαν ὑπομένειν, [10] οὕτως δὴ τὴν εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἄπαρσιν ποιήσασθαι. Διογένους δ’ ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ Θούλην ἀπίστοις τὰ κατὰ τὸν φιλόσοφον ἀκριβῶς διελθόντος, ἔκρινα μηδαμῶς τὰ τούτου παρελθεῖν. φησὶ δὴ Μνήσαρχον Τυρρηνὸν ὄντα κατὰ γένος τῶν Λῆμνον καὶ Ἴμβρον καὶ Σκῦρον κατοικησάντων Τυρρηνῶν κἀκεῖθεν μεταστάντα πολλὰς μὲν πόλεις πολλὰ δὲ χωρία ἐπιόντα ἐπιτυχεῖν ποτὲ παιδὶ νηπίῳ ὑπὸ λεύκῃ μεγάλῃ καὶ εὐφυεῖ κειμένῳ· ἐπιστάντα δὲ θεάσασθαι ὕπτιον εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβλέποντα πρὸς ἥλιον ἀσκαρδαμυκτὶ καὶ τῷ στόματι ἐνιέντα κάλαμον σμικρὸν καὶ λεπτὸν καθάπερ αὐλόν. θαυμάσαντα δὲ καὶ δρόσῳ ἐκ τῆς λεύκης κατασταζούσῃ θεασάμενον [ 379 ]

τρεφόμενον ἀναλαβεῖν, θείαν τινὰ νομίζοντα τὴν τοῦ παιδίου εἶναι γένεσιν· ἱδρυθέντα δ’ ἐν Σάμῳ ἀναληφθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀνδροκλέους ἐπιχωρίου, ὃς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν αὐτῷ τῆς οἰκίας ἐνεχείρισεν. βιοῦντα δ’ ἐν ἀφθόνοις ἀνατρέφειν τὸ παιδίον Ἀστραῖον καλέσαντα μετὰ τῶν αὑτοῦ παίδων τριῶν ὄντων, Εὐνόστου καὶ Τυρρηνοῦ καὶ Πυθαγόρου· ὃν καὶ υἱὸν [11] ἔθετο Ἀνδροκλῆς ὄντα νεώτατον. παῖδα μὲν οὖν ὄντα ἔπεμπεν εἴς τε κιθαριστοῦ καὶ παιδοτρίβου καὶ ζωγράφου, νεανίαν δὲ γενόμενον εἰς Μίλητον πρὸς Ἀναξίμανδρον, μαθησόμενον τὰ γεωμετρικὰ καὶ ἀστρονομικά. ἀφίκετο δὲ καὶ πρὸς Αἰγυπτίους, φησίν, ὁ Πυθαγόρας καὶ πρὸς Ἄραβας καὶ Χαλδαίους καὶ Ἑβραίους, παρ’ ὧν καὶ τὴν περὶ ὀνείρων γνῶσιν ἠκριβώσατο· καὶ τῇ διὰ λιβανωτοῦ μαντείᾳ πρῶτος ἐχρήσατο. καὶ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μὲν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι συνῆν καὶ τὴν σοφίαν ἐξέμαθε καὶ τὴν Αἰγυπτίων φωνήν, [12] γραμμάτων τε τρισσὰς διαφοράς, ἐπιστολογραφικῶν τε καὶ ἱερογλυφικῶν καὶ συμβολικῶν, τῶν μὲν κυριολογουμένων κατὰ μίμησιν, τῶν δ’ ἀλληγορουμένων κατά τινας αἰνιγμούς· καὶ περὶ θεῶν πλέον τι ἔμαθεν. ἐν δὲ Ἀραβίᾳ τῷ βασιλεῖ συνῆν ἔν τε Βαβυλῶνι τοῖς τ’ ἄλλοις Χαλδαίοις συνεγένετο καὶ πρὸς Ζάρατον ἀφίκετο, παρ’ οὗ καὶ ἐκαθάρθη τὰ τοῦ προτέρου βίου λύματα καὶ ἐδιδάχθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἁγνεύειν προσήκει τοῖς σπουδαίοις, τόν τε περὶ φύσεως λόγον ἤκουσε καὶ τίνες αἱ τῶν ὅλων ἀρχαί. ἐκ γὰρ τῆς περὶ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη πλάνης ὁ Πυθαγόρας τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς σοφίας [13] ἐνεπορεύσατο. τὸν δὴ Ἀστραῖον τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ χαρίζεται Μνήσαρχος. ὃ δὲ λαβὼν καὶ φυσιογνωμονήσας καὶ τὰς κινήσεις καὶ τὰς ἠρεμίας τοῦ σώματος ἐπισκεψάμενος ἐπαίδευεν. ταύτην γὰρ ἠκρίβου πρῶτος τὴν περὶ ἀνθρώπων ἐπιστήμην, ὁποῖος τὴν φύσιν ἕκαστος εἴη μανθάνων. καὶ οὔτ’ ἂν φίλον οὔτε γνώριμον ἐποιήσατο οὐδένα πρὶν πρότερον φυσιογνωμονῆσαι τὸν [14] ἄνδρα, ὁποῖός ποτ’ ἔστιν. ἦν δ’ αὐτῷ καὶ ἕτερον μειράκιον ὃ ἐκ Θρᾴκης ἐκτήσατο, ᾧ Ζάμολξις ἦν ὄνομα, ἐπεὶ γεννηθέντι αὐτῷ δορὰ ἄρκτου ἐπεβλήθη· τὴν γὰρ δορὰν οἱ Θρᾷκες ζαλμὸν καλοῦσιν. ἀγαπῶν δ’ αὐτὸν ὁ Πυθαγόρας τὴν μετέωρον θεωρίαν ἐπαίδευσε τά τε περὶ ἱερουργίας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας εἰς θεοὺς θρησκείας· τινὲς δὲ καὶ Θαλῆν τοῦτον φασὶν ὀνομάζεσθαι. ὡς Ἡρακλέα δ’ αὐτὸν προσκυνοῦσιν οἱ βάρβαροι. [15] Διονυσοφάνης δὲ λέγει δουλεῦσαι μὲν αὐτὸν τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ, ἐμπεσόντα δ’ εἰς λῃστὰς καὶ στιχθέντα, ὅτε κατεστασιάσθη ὁ Πυθαγόρας καὶ ἔφευγεν, δῆσαι τὸ μέτωπον διὰ τὰ στίγματα. τινὲς δ’ ἑρμηνεύεσθαι τὸ ὄνομα φασὶ Ζάλμοξιν ξένος ἀνήρ. νοσήσαντα δὲ τὸν Φερεκύδην ἐν Δήλῳ θεραπεύσας ὁ Πυθαγόρας καὶ ἀποθανόντα θάψας εἰς Σάμον ἐπανῆλθε πόθῳ τοῦ συγγενέσθαι Ἑρμοδάμαντι τῷ Κρεοφυλείῳ. χρόνον δέ τινα αὐτοῦ διατρίβων Εὐρυμένους τοῦ Σαμίου ἀθλητοῦ ἐπεμελεῖτο, ὃς τῇ Πυθαγόρου σοφίᾳ καίτοι σμικρὸς τὸ σῶμα ὢν πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ἐκράτει καὶ ἐνίκα Ὀλυμπίασιν. τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων ἀθλητῶν κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον ἔτι τρόπον τυρὸν καὶ σῦκα σιτουμένων, οὗτος Πυθαγόρᾳ πειθόμενος πρῶτος κρέας τεταγμένον ἐσθίων ἐφ’ ἑκάστην τὴν ἡμέραν ἰσχὺν τῷ σώματι περιεποιήσατο. καίτοι γε προϊὼν τῇ σοφίᾳ ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἀθλεῖν μὲν παρῄνει, νικᾶν δὲ μή, ὡς δέον τοὺς μὲν πόνους ὑπομένειν, τοὺς δ’ ἐκ τοῦ νικᾶν φθόνους φεύγειν· συμβαίνειν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλως μηδ’ εὐαγεῖς εἶναι τοὺς [16] νικῶντας καὶ φυλλοβολουμένους. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τῆς Πολυκράτους τυραννίδος Σαμίους [ 380 ]

καταλαβούσης, οὐ πρέπον ἡγούμενος ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἐν τοιαύτῃ πολιτείᾳ βιοῦν ἀνδρὶ φιλοσόφῳ, διενοήθη εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἀπαίρειν. ὡς δὲ πλέων Δελφοῖς προσέσχε, τὸ ἐλεγεῖον τῷ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τάφῳ ἐπέγραψε, δι’ οὗ ἐδήλου ὡς Σειληνοῦ μὲν ἦν υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων, ἀνῃρέθη δὲ ὑπὸ Πύθωνος, ἐκηδεύθη δ’ ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ Τρίποδι, ὃς ταύτης ἔτυχε τῆς ἐπωνυμίας διὰ τὸ τὰς τρεῖς κόρας τὰς Τριόπου θυγατέρας ἐνταῦθα θρηνῆσαι τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα. [17] Κρήτης δ’ ἐπιβὰς τοῖς Μόργου μύσταις προσῄει ἑνὸς τῶν Ἰδαίων Δακτύλων, ὑφ’ ὧν καὶ ἐκαθάρθη τῇ κεραυνίᾳ λίθῳ, ἕωθεν μὲν παρὰ θαλάττῃ πρηνὴς ἐκταθείς, νύκτωρ δὲ παρὰ ποταμῷ ἀρνειοῦ μέλανος μαλλοῖς ἐστεφανωμένος. εἰς δὲ τὸ Ἰδαῖον καλούμενον ἄντρον καταβὰς ἔρια ἔχων μέλανα τὰς νομιζομένας τρὶς ἐννέα ἡμέρας ἐκεῖ διέτριψεν καὶ καθήγισεν τῷ Διὶ τόν τε στορνύμενον αὐτῷ κατ’ ἔτος θρόνον ἐθεάσατο, ἐπίγραμμά τ’ ἐνεχάραξεν ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ ἐπιγράψας ‘Πυθαγόρας τῷ Διὶ’, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή·  ὧδε θανὼν κεῖται Ζάν, ὃν Δία κικλήσκουσιν. [18]ἐπεὶ δὲ τῆς Ἰταλίας ἐπέβη καὶ ἐν Κρότωνι ἐγένετο, φησὶν ὁ Δικαίαρχος, ὡς ἀνδρὸς ἀφικομένου πολυπλάνου τε καὶ περιττοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν φύσιν ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης εὖ κεχορηγημένου, τήν τε γὰρ ἰδέαν εἶναι ἐλευθέριον καὶ μέγαν χάριν τε πλείστην καὶ κόσμον ἐπί τε τῆς φωνῆς καὶ τοῦ ἤθους καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἔχειν, οὕτως διαθεῖναι τὴν Κροτωνιατῶν πόλιν ὥστ’ ἐπεὶ τὸ τῶν γερόντων ἀρχεῖον ἐψυχαγώγησεν πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ διαλεχθείς, τοῖς νέοις πάλιν ἡβητικὰς ἐποιήσατο παραινέσεις ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων κελευσθείς· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοῖς παισὶν ἐκ τῶν διδασκαλείων ἀθρόοις συνελθοῦσιν· εἶτα ταῖς γυναιξὶ [19] καὶ γυναικῶν σύλλογος αὐτῷ κατεσκευάσθη. γενομένων δὲ τούτων μεγάλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ηὐξήθη δόξα, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν ἔλαβεν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς πόλεως ὁμιλητὰς οὐ μόνον ἄνδρας ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναῖκας, ὧν μιᾶς γε Θεανοῦς καὶ διεβοήθη τοὔνομα, πολλοὺς δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς σύνεγγυς βαρβάρου χώρας βασιλεῖς τε καὶ δυνάστας. ἃ μὲν οὖν ἔλεγε τοῖς συνοῦσιν οὐδὲ εἷς ἔχει φράσαι βεβαίως· καὶ γὰρ οὐχ ἡ τυχοῦσα ἦν παρ’ αὐτοῖς σιωπή. μάλιστα μέντοι γνώριμα παρὰ πᾶσιν ἐγένετο πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀθάνατον εἶναι φησὶ τὴν ψυχήν, εἶτα μεταβάλλουσαν εἰς ἄλλα γένη ζῴων, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὅτι κατὰ περιόδους τινὰς τὰ γενόμενά ποτε πάλιν γίνεται, νέον δ’ οὐδὲν ἁπλῶς ἔστι, καὶ ὅτι πάντα τὰ γινόμενα ἔμψυχα ὁμογενῆ δεῖ νομίζειν. φέρεται γὰρ εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα [20] τὰ δόγματα πρῶτος κομίσαι ταῦτα Πυθαγόρας. οὕτως δὲ πάντας εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπέστρεψεν ὥστε μιᾷ μόνον ἀκροάσει, ὡς φησὶ Νικόμαχος, ἣν ἐπιβὰς τῆς Ἰταλίας πεποίηται, πλέον ἢ δισχιλίους ἑλεῖν τοῖς λόγοις, ὡς μηκέτι οἴκαδ’ ἀποστῆναι, ἀλλ’ ὁμοῦ σὺν παισὶ καὶ γυναιξὶν ὁμακοεῖόν τι παμμέγεθες ἱδρυσαμένους πολίσαι τὴν πρὸς πάντων ἐπικληθεῖσαν μεγάλην Ἑλλάδα ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ, νόμους τε παρ’ αὐτοῦ δεξαμένους καὶ προστάγματα ὡσανεὶ θείας ὑποθήκας ἐκτὸς τούτων πράττειν μηδὲ ἕν. οὗτοι δὲ καὶ τὰς οὐσίας κοινὰς ἔθεντο καὶ μετὰ τῶν θεῶν τὸν Πυθαγόραν κατηρίθμουν· διόπερ ἕν τι τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασιν ἀπορρήτων προχειρισάμενοι, γλαφυρὸν ἄλλως καὶ πρὸς πολλὰ διατεῖνον φυσικὰ συντελέσματα, τὴν λεγομένην τετρακτύν, δι’ αὐτῆς ἐπώμνυον ὡς θεόν τινα τὸν Πυθαγόραν ἐπιφθεγγόμενοι πάντες ἐπὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν βεβαιουμένοις, [ 381 ]

 οὔ, μὰ τὸν ἁμετέρᾳ γενεᾷ παραδόντα τετρακτύν,  παγὰν ἀενάου φύσιος ῥιζώματ’ ἔχουσαν. [21] ἃς δ’ ἐπιδημήσας Ἰταλίᾳ τε καὶ Σικελίᾳ κατέλαβε πόλεις δεδουλωμένας ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων, τὰς μὲν πολλῶν ἐτῶν τὰς δὲ νεωστί, φρονήματος ἐλευθερίου πλήσας διὰ τῶν ἐφ’ ἑκάστης ἀκουστῶν αὐτοῦ ἠλευθέρωσε, Κρότωνα καὶ Σύβαριν καὶ Κατάνην καὶ Ῥήγιον καὶ Ἱμέραν καὶ Ἀκράγαντα καὶ Ταυρομένιον καὶ ἄλλας τινάς, αἷς καὶ νόμους ἔθετο διὰ Χαρώνδα τε τοῦ Καταναίου καὶ Ζαλεύκου τοῦ Λοκροῦ, δι’ ὧν ἀξιοζήλωτοι τοῖς περιοίκοις ἄχρι πολλοῦ γεγόνασιν. Σίμιχος δ’ ὁ Κεντοριπίνων τύραννος ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ τήν τ’ ἀρχὴν ἀπέθετο καὶ τῶν χρημάτων τὰ μὲν τῇ ἀδελφῇ [22] τὰ δὲ τοῖς πολίταις ἔδωκεν. προσῆλθον δ’ αὐτῷ, ὡς φησὶν Ἀριστόξενος, καὶ Λευκανοὶ καὶ Μεσσάπιοι καὶ Πευκέτιοι καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι. ἀνεῖλεν δ’ ἄρδην στάσιν οὐ μόνον ἀπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀπογόνων αὐτῶν ἄχρι πολλῶν γενεῶν καὶ καθόλου ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ τε καὶ Σικελίᾳ πόλεων πασῶν πρός τε ἑαυτὰς καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλας. πυκνὸν γὰρ ἦν πρὸς ἅπαντας αὐτῷ πολλοὺς καὶ ὀλίγους τόδε τὸ ἀπόφθεγμα· φυγαδευτέον πάσῃ μηχανῇ καὶ περικοπτέον πυρὶ καὶ σιδήρῳ καὶ μηχαναῖς παντοίαις ἀπὸ μὲν σώματος νόσον, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχῆς ἀμαθίαν, κοιλίας δὲ πολυτέλειαν, πόλεως δὲ στάσιν, οἴκου δὲ διχοφροσύνην, ὁμοῦ δὲ πάντων ἀμετρίαν. [23] εἰ δὲ δεῖ πιστεύειν τοῖς ἱστορήσασι περὶ αὐτοῦ παλαιοῖς τε οὖσι καὶ ἀξιολόγοις, μέχρι καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων διικνεῖτο αὐτοῦ ἡ νουθέτησις. τὴν μὲν γὰρ Δαυνίαν ἄρκτον λυμαινομένην τοὺς ἐνοίκους κατασχών, ὡς φασί, καὶ ἐπαφησάμενος χρόνον συχνὸν ψωμίσας τε μάζῃ καὶ ἀκροδρύοις ὁρκώσας τε μηκέτι ἐμψύχου ἐφάπτεσθαι ἀπέλυσεν. ἣ δ’ εὐθὺς εἰς τὰ ὄρη καὶ τοὺς δρυμοὺς ἀπαλλαγεῖσα οὐκέτ’ ὤφθη παράπαν ἐπιοῦσα [24] οὐδ’ ἀλόγῳ ζῴῳ. βοῦν δ’ ἐν Τάραντι ἰδὼν ἐν παμμιγεῖ νομῇ κυάμων χλωρῶν ἐφαπτόμενον, τῷ βουκόλῳ παραστὰς συνεβούλευσεν εἰπεῖν τῷ βοῒ τῶν κυάμων ἀποσχέσθαι· προσπαίξαντος δ’ αὐτῷ τοῦ βουκόλου καὶ φήσαντος οὐκ εἰδέναι βοϊστὶ λαλεῖν, προσελθόντα καὶ εἰς τὸ οὖς προσψιθυρίσαντα τῷ ταύρῳ οὐ μόνον τότ’ ἀποστῆσαι τοῦ κυαμῶνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὖθις μηδέποτε κυάμων θιγεῖν, μακροχρονιώτατον δ’ ἐν Τάραντι κατὰ τὸ τῆς Ἥρας ἱερὸν γηρῶντα διαμεμενηκέναι τὸν ἱερὸν καλούμενον βοῦν, τροφὰς σιτούμενον ἃς οἱ ἀπαντῶντες [25] ὤρεγον. αἰετὸν δ’ ὑπεριπτάμενον Ὀλυμπίασι προσομιλοῦντος αὐτοῦ τοῖς γνωρίμοις ἀπὸ τύχης περί τε οἰωνῶν καὶ συμβόλων καὶ διοσημιῶν, ὅτι παρὰ θεῶν εἰσὶν ἀγγελίαι τινὲς αἱ αὐταὶ τοῖς ὡς ἀληθῶς θεοφιλέσι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καταγαγεῖν λέγεται καὶ καταψήσαντα πάλιν ἀφεῖναι. δικτυουλκοῖς τ’ ἐπιστάντα ἐπὶ τῆς σαγήνης ἐκ βυθοῦ πολὺν φόρτον ἐπισυρομένοις, ὅσον πλῆθος ἐπισπῶνται προειπεῖν τῶν ἰχθύων ὁρίσαντα τὸν ἀριθμόν, καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ὑπομεινάντων ὅτι ἂν κελεύσῃ πράξειν, εἰ τοῦθ’ οὕτως ἀποβαίη, ζῶντας ἀφεῖναι πάλιν κελεῦσαι τοὺς ἰχθύας πρότερόν γε ἀκριβῶς διαριθμήσαντας· καὶ τὸ θαυμασιώτερον ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν τοσούτῳ τῆς ἀριθμήσεως χρόνῳ τῶν ἰχθύων ἐκτὸς [26] ὕδατος μεινάντων ἀπέπνευσεν ἐφεστῶτος αὐτοῦ. πολλοὺς δὲ τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων ἀνεμίμνησκε τοῦ προτέρου βίου, ὃν αὐτῶν ἡ ψυχὴ πρὸ τοῦ τῷδε τῷ σώματι ἐνδεθῆναι πάλαι ποτ’ ἐβίωσε. καὶ

[ 382 ]

ἑαυτὸν δ’ ἀναμφιλέκτοις τεκμηρίοις ἀπέφαινεν Εὔφορβον τὸν Πάνθου. καὶ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν στίχων ἐκείνους μάλιστα ἐξύμνει καὶ μετὰ λύρας ἐμμελέστατα ἀνέμελπεν,  αἵματί οἱ δεύοντο κόμαι χαρίτεσσιν ὁμοῖαι  πλοχμοί θ’, οἳ χρυσῷ τε καὶ ἀργύρῳ ἐσφήκωντο.  οἷον δὲ τρέφει ἔρνος ἀνὴρ ἐριθηλὲς ἐλαίης  χώρῳ ἐν οἰοπόλῳ, ὅθ’ ἅλις ἀναβέβρυχεν ὕδωρ  καλὸν τηλεθάον· τὸ δέ τε πνοιαὶ δονέουσιν  παντοίων ἀνέμων, καί τε βρύει ἄνθεϊ λευκῷ·  ἐλθὼν δ’ ἐξαπίνης ἄνεμος σὺν λαίλαπι πολλῇ  βόθρου τ’ ἐξέστρεψε καὶ ἐξετάνυσσ’ ἐπὶ γαίης·  τοῖον Πάνθου υἱὸν ἐυμελίην Εὔφορβον  Ἀτρεΐδης Μενέλαος ἐπεὶ κτάνε, τεύχε’ ἐσύλα. [27] τὰ γὰρ ἱστορούμενα περὶ τῆς ἐν Μυκήναις ἀνακειμένης σὺν Τρωικοῖς λαφύροις τῇ Ἀργείᾳ Ἥρᾳ Εὐφόρβου τοῦ Φρυγὸς τούτου ἀσπίδος παρίεμεν ὡς πάνυ δημώδη. Καύκασον δ’ ἔφασαν τὸν ποταμὸν σὺν πολλοῖς τῶν ἑταίρων διαβαίνοντά ποτε προσειπεῖν· καὶ ὁ ποταμὸς γεγωνόν τι καὶ τρανὸν ἀπεφθέγξατο πάντων ἀκουόντων ‘χαῖρε Πυθαγόρα’. μιᾷ δὲ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἔν τε Μεταποντίῳ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ ἐν Ταυρομενίῳ τῆς Σικελίας συγγεγονέναι καὶ διειλέχθαι κοινῇ τοῖς ἑκατέρωθι ἑταίροις αὐτὸν διαβεβαιοῦνται σχεδὸν ἅπαντες, σταδίων ἐν μεταιχμίῳ παμπόλλων καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν ὑπαρχόντων οὐδ’ ἡμέραις ἀνυσίμων πάνυ πολλαῖς. [28] τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι τὸν μηρὸν χρυσοῦν ἐπέδειξεν Ἀβάριδι τῷ Ὑπερβορέῳ εἰκάσαντι αὐτὸν Ἀπόλλωνα εἶναι τὸν ἐν Ὑπερβορέοις, οὗπερ ἦν ἱερεὺς ὁ Ἄβαρις, βεβαιοῦντα ὡς τοῦτο ἀληθές, τεθρύληται· καὶ ὅτι νεὼς καταπλεούσης καὶ τῶν φίλων εὐχομένων τὰ κομιζόμενα γενέσθαι αὐτοῖς ὁ Πυθαγόρας εἶπεν ‘ἔσται τοίνυν ὑμῖν νεκρός’, καὶ ἡ ναῦς κατέπλευσεν ἔχουσα νεκρόν. μυρία δ’ ἕτερα θαυμαστότερα καὶ θειότερα περὶ τἀνδρὸς ὁμαλῶς καὶ συμφώνως εἴρηται. ὡς ‹δ’› ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν κατ’ οὐδενὸς ὑπενοήθη πλείονα οὐδὲ περιττότερα. [29] προρρήσεις τε γὰρ ἀπαράβατοι σεισμῶν διαμνημονεύονται αὐτοῦ καὶ λοιμῶν ἀποτροπαὶ σὺν τάχει καὶ ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τ’ ἐκχύσεως καταστολαὶ καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλαττίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν. ὧν μεταλαβόντας Ἐμπεδοκλέα τε καὶ Ἐπιμενίδην καὶ Ἄβαριν πολλαχῇ ἐπιτετελεκέναι τοιαῦτα· δῆλα δ’ αὐτῶν τὰ ποιήματα ὑπάρχει. ἄλλως δὲ καὶ ἀλεξάνεμος μὲν ἦν τὸ ἐπώνυμον Ἐμπεδοκλέους, καθαρτὴς δὲ τὸ Ἐπιμενίδου, αἰθροβάτης δὲ τὸ Ἀβάριδος, ὅτι ἄρα ὀιστῷ τοῦ ἐν Ὑπερβορέοις Ἀπόλλωνος δωρηθέντι αὐτῷ ἐποχούμενος ποταμούς τε καὶ πελάγη καὶ τὰ ἄβατα διέβαινεν ἀεροβατῶν τρόπον τινά. ὅπερ ὑπενόησαν καὶ Πυθαγόραν τινὲς πεπονθέναι τότε ἡνίκα ἐν Μεταποντίῳ καὶ ἐν Ταυρομενίῳ [30] τοῖς ἑκατέρωθι ἑταίροις ὡμίλησε τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ. κατεκήλει δὲ ῥυθμοῖς καὶ μέλεσι καὶ ἐπῳδαῖς τὰ ψυχικὰ πάθη καὶ τὰ σωματικά. καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἑταίροις ἡρμόζετο ταῦτα, αὐτὸς δὲ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἁρμονίας ἠκροᾶτο συνιεὶς τῆς καθολικῆς τῶν σφαιρῶν καὶ τῶν κατ’ [ 383 ]

αὐτὰς κινουμένων ἀστέρων ἁρμονίας, ἧς ἡμᾶς μὴ ἀκούειν διὰ σμικρότητα τῆς φύσεως. τούτοις καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μαρτυρεῖ λέγων περὶ αὐτοῦ·  ἦν δέ τις ἐν κείνοισιν ἀνὴρ περιώσια εἰδώς,  ὃς δὴ μήκιστον πραπίδων ἐκτήσατο πλοῦτον,  παντοίων τε μάλιστα σοφῶν ἐπιήρανος ἔργων.  ὁππότε γὰρ πάσῃσιν ὀρέξαιτο πραπίδεσσιν,  ῥεῖά γε τῶν ὄντων πάντων λεύσσεσκεν ἕκαστα,  καί τε δέκ’ ἀνθρώπων καί τ’ εἴκοσιν αἰώνεσσιν. [31] τὸ γὰρ ‘περιώσια’ καὶ ‘τῶν ὄντων λεύσσεσκεν ἕκαστα’ καὶ ‘πραπίδων πλοῦτον’ καὶ τὰ ἐοικότα ἐμφαντικὰ μάλιστα τῆς ἐξαιρέτου καὶ ἀκριβεστέρας παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους διοργανώσεως ἔν τε τῷ ὁρᾶν καὶ τῷ ἀκούειν καὶ τῷ νοεῖν [τοῦ Πυθαγόρου]. τὰ δ’ οὖν τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων φθέγματα καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀπλανῶν ἐπὶ ταύτης τε τῆς ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς λεγομένης δὲ κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἀντίχθονος τὰς ἐννέα μούσας εἶναι διεβεβαιοῦτο. τὴν δὲ πασῶν ἅμα σύγκρασιν καὶ συμφωνίαν καὶ ὡσανεὶ σύνδεσμον, ἧσπερ ὡς ἀιδίου τε καὶ ἀγενήτου μέρος ἑκάστη καὶ ἀπόρροια, Μνημοσύνην ὠνόμαζεν. [32] τὴν δὲ καθ’ ἡμέραν αὐτοῦ διαγωγὴν ἀφηγούμενος ὁ Διογένης φησὶν ὡς ἅπασι μὲν παρηγγύα φιλοτιμίαν φεύγειν καὶ φιλοδοξίαν, ὥπερ μάλιστα φθόνον ἐργάζεσθαι, ἐκτρέπεσθαι δὲ τὰς μετὰ τῶν πολλῶν ὁμιλίας. τὰς γοῦν διατριβὰς καὶ αὐτὸς ἕωθεν μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας ἐποιεῖτο, ἁρμοζόμενος πρὸς λύραν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φωνὴν καὶ ᾄδων παιᾶνας ἀρχαίους τινὰς τῶν Θάλητος. καὶ ἐπῇδε τῶν Ὁμήρου καὶ Ἡσιόδου ὅσα καθημεροῦν τὴν ψυχὴν ἐδόξαζε. καὶ ὀρχήσεις δέ τινας ὑπωρχεῖτο ὁπόσας εὐκινησίαν καὶ ὑγείαν τῷ σώματι παρασκευάζειν ᾤετο. τοὺς δὲ περιπάτους οὐδ’ αὐτὸς ἐπιφθόνως μετὰ πολλῶν ἐποιεῖτο, ἀλλὰ δεύτερος ἢ τρίτος ἐν ἱεροῖς ἢ ἄλσεσιν, ἐπιλεγόμενος τῶν χωρίων [33] τὰ ἡσυχαίτατα καὶ περικαλλέστατα. τοὺς δὲ φίλους ὑπερηγάπα, κοινὰ μὲν τὰ τῶν φίλων εἶναι πρῶτος ἀποφηνάμενος, τὸν δὲ φίλον ἄλλον ἑαυτόν. καὶ ὑγιαίνουσι μὲν αὐτοῖς ἀεὶ συνδιέτριβεν, κάμνοντας δὲ τὰ σώματα ἐθεράπευεν, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς δὲ νοσοῦντας παρεμυθεῖτο, καθάπερ ἔφαμεν, τοὺς μὲν ἐπῳδαῖς καὶ μαγείαις τοὺς δὲ μουσικῇ. ἦν γὰρ αὐτῷ μέλη καὶ πρὸς νόσους σωμάτων παιώνια, ἃ ἐπᾴδων ἀνίστη τοὺς κάμνοντας. ἦν ‹δ’› ἃ καὶ λύπης λήθην εἰργάζετο καὶ ὀργὰς ἐπράυνε καὶ ἐπιθυμίας ἀτόπους ἐξῄρει. [34] τῆς δὲ διαίτης τὸ μὲν ἄριστον ἦν κηρίον ἢ μέλι, δεῖπνον δ’ ἄρτος ἐκ κέγχρων ἢ μᾶζα καὶ λάχανα ἑφθὰ καὶ ὠμά, σπανίως δὲ κρέας ἱερείων θυσίμων καὶ τοῦτο οὐδ’ ἐκ παντὸς μέρους. τά γε μὴν πλεῖστα ὁπότε θεῶν ἀδύτοις ἐγκαταδύσεσθαι μέλλοι καὶ ἐνταῦθα χρόνου τινὸς ἐνδιατρίψειν, ἀλίμοις ἐχρῆτο καὶ ἀδίψοις τροφαῖς, τὴν μὲν ἄλιμον συντιθεὶς ἐκ μήκωνος σπέρματος καὶ σησάμου καὶ φλοιοῦ σκίλλης πλυθείσης ἀκριβῶς ἔστ’ ἂν τοῦ περὶ αὐτὴν ὀποῦ καθαρθείη, καὶ ἀσφοδέλων ἀνθερίκων καὶ μαλάχης φύλλων καὶ ἀλφίτων καὶ κριθῶν καὶ ἐρεβίνθων, ἅπερ κατ’ ἴσον πάντα σταθμὸν κοπέντα μέλιτι ἀνέδευεν Ὑμηττίῳ· τὴν δ’ ἄδιψον ἐκ σικύων σπέρματος καὶ ἀσταφίδος λιπαρᾶς, ἐξελὼν αὐτῆς τὰ γίγαρτα, καὶ ἄνθους κορίου καὶ [ 384 ]

μαλάχης ὁμοίως σπέρματος καὶ ἀνδράχνης καὶ τυροῦ κνήστεως καὶ ἀλεύρου πάλης καὶ γάλακτος [35] λίπους, ἅπερ πάντα ἀνεμίγνυ μέλιτι νησιωτικῷ. ταῦτα δ’ Ἡρακλέα παρὰ Δήμητρος ἔφασκε μαθεῖν στελλόμενον εἰς τὴν Λιβύην τὴν ἄνυδρον. ὅθεν αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ σῶμα ὥσπερ ἐπὶ στάθμῃ τὴν αὐτὴν ἕξιν διεφύλαττεν, οὐ ποτὲ μὲν ὑγιαῖνον ποτὲ δὲ νοσοῦν, οὐδ’ αὖ ποτὲ μὲν πιαινόμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον ποτὲ δὲ λεπτυνόμενον καὶ ἰσχναινόμενον, ἥ τε ψυχὴ τὸ ὅμοιον ἦθος ἀεὶ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως παρεδήλου. οὔτε γὰρ ὑφ’ ἡδονῆς διεχεῖτο πλέον οὔθ’ ὑπ’ ἀνίας συνεστέλλετο, οὐδ’ ἐπίδηλος ἦν χαρᾷ ἢ λύπῃ κάτοχος, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ γελάσαντα ἢ κλαύσαντά τίς ποτ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐθεάσατο. [36] θύων τε θεοῖς ἀνεπαχθὴς ἦν, ἀλφίτοις τε καὶ ποπάνῳ καὶ λιβανωτῷ καὶ μυρρίνῃ τοὺς θεοὺς ἐξιλασκόμενος, ἐμψύχοις δ’ ἥκιστα, πλὴν εἰ μή ποτε ἀλεκτορίσιν καὶ τῶν χοίρων τοῖς ἁπαλωτάτοις. ἐβουθύτησεν δέ ποτε σταίτινον, ὡς φασὶ βοῦν οἱ ἀκριβέστεροι, ἐξευρὼν τοῦ ὀρθογωνίου τὴν ὑποτείνουσαν ἴσον δυναμένην ταῖς περιεχούσαις. ὅσα γε μὴν τοῖς προσιοῦσι διελέγετο, [37] ἢ διεξοδικῶς ἢ συμβολικῶς παρῄνει. διττὸν γὰρ ἦν αὐτοῦ τῆς διδασκαλίας τὸ σχῆμα. καὶ τῶν προσιόντων οἳ μὲν ἐκαλοῦντο μαθηματικοί, οἳ δ’ ἀκουσματικοί· καὶ μαθηματικοὶ μὲν οἱ τὸν περιττότερον καὶ πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν διαπεπονημένον τῆς ἐπιστήμης λόγον ἐκμεμαθηκότες, ἀκουσματικοὶ δ’ οἱ μόνας τὰς κεφαλαιώδεις ὑποθήκας τῶν γραμμάτων ἄνευ ἀκριβεστέρας [38] διηγήσεως ἀκηκοότες. παρῄνει δὲ περὶ μὲν τοῦ θείου καὶ δαιμονίου καὶ ἡρῴου γένους εὔφημον εἶναι καὶ ἀγαθὴν ἔχειν διάνοιαν, γονεῦσι δὲ καὶ εὐεργέταις εὔνουν· νόμοις δὲ πείθεσθαι· προσκυνεῖν δὲ μὴ ἐκ παρέργου τοὺς θεούς, ἀλλ’ οἴκοθεν ἐπὶ τοῦτο ὡρμημένοις· καὶ τοῖς μὲν οὐρανίοις θεοῖς περιττὰ θύειν, τοῖς δὲ χθονίοις ἄρτια. ἐκάλει γὰρ τῶν ἀντικειμένων δυνάμεων τὴν μὲν βελτίονα μονάδα καὶ φῶς καὶ δεξιὸν καὶ ἴσον καὶ μένον καὶ εὐθύ, τὴν δὲ χείρονα δυάδα καὶ σκότος καὶ ἀριστερὸν καὶ ἄνισον [39] καὶ περιφερὲς καὶ φερόμενον. παρῄνει δὲ καὶ τοιάδε. φυτὸν ἥμερον καὶ ἔγκαρπον, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ζῷον ὁ μὴ βλαβερὸν εἶναι πέφυκε τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ γένει, μήτε φθείρειν μήτε βλάπτειν. παρακαταθήκην δὲ μὴ χρημάτων μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ λόγων πιστῶς τῷ παρακαταθεμένῳ φυλάσσειν. τρισσὰς δ’ ἡγεῖσθαι διαφορὰς τῶν ἀξίων σπουδῆς πραγμάτων, ἃ καὶ μετιτέον καὶ μεταχειριστέον· πρῶτον μὲν τῶν εὐκλεῶν καὶ καλῶν, εἶτα τῶν πρὸς τὸν βίον συμφερόντων, τρίτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν τὴν τῶν ἡδέων. ἡδονὴν δὲ οὐ προσίετο τὴν δημώδη καὶ γοητευτικήν, ἀλλὰ τὴν βέβαιον καὶ σεμνοτάτην καὶ καθαρεύουσαν διαβολῆς. διττὴν γὰρ εἶναι διαφορὰν ἡδονῶν· τὴν μὲν γὰρ γαστρὶ καὶ ἀφροδισίοις διὰ πολυτελείας κεχαρισμένην ἀπείκαζε ταῖς ἀνδροφόνοις τῶν σειρήνων ᾠδαῖς· τὴν δ’ ἐπὶ καλοῖς καὶ δικαίοις τοῖς πρὸς τὸ ζῆν ἀναγκαίοις, ὁμοίως καὶ παραχρῆμα ἡδεῖαν καὶ εἰς τὸ ἐπιὸν ἀμεταμέλητον, ἣν [40] ἔφασκεν ἐοικέναι μουσῶν τινὶ ἁρμονίᾳ. δύο δὲ μάλιστα καιροὺς παρηγγύα ἐν φροντίδι θέσθαι, τὸν μὲν ὅτε εἰς ὕπνον τρέποιτο, τὸν δ’ ὅτε ἐξ ὕπνου διανίσταιτο. ἐπισκοπεῖν γὰρ προσήκειν ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τούτοιν τά τε ἤδη πεπραγμένα καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα, τῶν μὲν γενομένων εὐθύνας παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἕκαστον λαμβάνοντα, τῶν δὲ μελλόντων πρόνοιαν ποιούμενον. πρὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ὕπνου ταῦτα ἑαυτῷ τὰ ἔπη ἐπᾴδειν ἕκαστον·  μηδ’ ὕπνον μαλακοῖσιν ἐπ’ ὄμμασι προσδέξασθαι [ 385 ]

 πρὶν τῶν ἡμερινῶν ἔργων τρὶς ἕκαστον ἐπελθεῖν,  πῇ παρέβην; τί δ’ ἔρεξα; τί μοι δέον οὐκ ἐτελέσθη; πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἐξαναστάσεως ἐκεῖνα·  πρῶτα μὲν ἐξ ὕπνοιο μελίφρονος ἐξυπαναστὰς  εὖ μάλ’ ὀπιπεύειν ὅσ’ ἐν ἤματι ἔργα τελέσσεις. [41] τοιαῦτα παρῄνει· μάλιστα δ’ ἀληθεύειν· τοῦτο γὰρ μόνον δύνασθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ποιεῖν θεῷ παραπλησίους. ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς παρὰ τῶν μάγων ἐπυνθάνετο, ὃν Ὡρομάζην καλοῦσιν ἐκεῖνοι, ἐοικέναι τὸ μὲν σῶμα φωτί, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ἀληθείᾳ. καὶ ἄλλ’ ἄττα ἐπαίδευεν ὅσα παρὰ Ἀριστοκλείας τῆς ἐν Δελφοῖς ἔλεγεν ἀκηκοέναι. ἔλεγε δέ τινα καὶ μυστικῷ τρόπῳ συμβολικῶς, ἃ δὴ ἐπὶ πλέον Ἀριστοτέλης ἀνέγραψεν· οἷον ὅτι τὴν θάλατταν μὲν ἐκάλει εἶναι δάκρυον, τὰς δ’ ἄρκτους Ῥέας χεῖρας, τὴν δὲ πλειάδα μουσῶν λύραν, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας κύνας τῆς Φερσεφόνης. τὸν δ’ ἐκ χαλκοῦ κρουομένου γινόμενον ἦχον φωνὴν εἶναί τινος τῶν δαιμόνων ἐναπειλημμένου τῷ χαλκῷ. [42] ἦν δὲ καὶ ἄλλο εἶδος τῶν συμβόλων τοιοῦτον. ζυγὸν μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν, τοῦτ’ ἔστι μὴ πλεονεκτεῖν. μὴ τὸ πῦρ τῇ μαχαίρᾳ σκαλεύειν, ὅπερ ἦν μὴ τὸν ἀνοιδοῦντα καὶ ὀργιζόμενον κινεῖν λόγοις τεθηγμένοις. στέφανόν τε μὴ τίλλειν, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τοὺς νόμους μὴ λυμαίνεσθαι· στέφανοι γὰρ πόλεων οὗτοι. πάλιν δ’ αὖ ἕτερα τοιαῦτα. μὴ καρδίαν ἐσθίειν, οἷον μὴ λυπεῖν ἑαυτὸν ἀνίαις. μηδ’ ἐπὶ χοίνικος καθέζεσθαι, οἷον μὴ ἀργὸν ζῆν. μηδ’ ἀποδημοῦντα ἐπιστρέφεσθαι, μὴ ἔχεσθαι τοῦ βίου τούτου ἀποθνῄσκοντα· τάς τε λεωφόρους μὴ βαδίζειν, δι’ οὗ ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν ἕπεσθαι γνώμαις ἐκώλυεν, τὰς δὲ τῶν λογίων καὶ πεπαιδευμένων μεταθεῖν. μηδὲ χελιδόνας ἐν οἰκίᾳ δέχεσθαι, τοῦτ’ ἔστι λάλους ἀνθρώπους καὶ περὶ γλῶτταν ἀκρατεῖς ὁμωροφίους μὴ ποιεῖσθαι. φορτίον δὲ συνανατιθέναι μὲν τοῖς βαστάζουσιν, συγκαθαιρεῖν δὲ μή, δι’ οὗ παρῄνει μηδενὶ πρὸς ῥᾳστώνην, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀρετὴν συμπράττειν. θεῶν τ’ εἰκόνας ἐν δακτυλίοις μὴ φορεῖν, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τὴν περὶ θεῶν δόξαν καὶ λόγον μὴ πρόχειρον μηδὲ φανερὸν ἔχειν μηδὲ εἰς πολλοὺς προφέρειν. σπονδάς τε ποιεῖσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς κατὰ τὸ οὖς τῶν ἐκπωμάτων· ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ ᾐνίττετο τιμᾶν τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ ὑμνεῖν τῇ μουσικῇ· αὕτη γὰρ διὰ ὤτων χωρεῖ. μηδ’ ἐσθίειν ὅσα μὴ θέμις, γένεσιν, αὔξησιν, ἀρχήν, τελευτήν, μηδ’ ἐξ ὧν ἡ πρώτη τῶν [43] πάντων ὑπόθεσις γίνεται. ἔλεγε δ’ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν καταθυομένων ὀσφύος καὶ διδύμων καὶ αἰδοίων καὶ μυελοῦ καὶ ποδῶν καὶ κεφαλῆς. ὑπόθεσιν μὲν γὰρ τὴν ὀσφῦν ἐκάλει, διότι ἐπὶ ταύτῃ ὡς ἐπὶ θεμελίῳ συνίσταται τὰ ζῷα· γένεσιν δὲ τοὺς διδύμους καὶ αἰδοῖα, ἄνευ γὰρ τῆς τούτων ἐνεργείας οὐ γίνεται ζῷον· αὔξησιν δὲ τὸν μυελὸν ἐκάλει, ὃς τοῦ αὔξεσθαι πᾶσιν ζῴοις αἴτιος· ἀρχὴν δὲ τοὺς πόδας, τὴν δὲ κεφαλὴν τελευτήν· ἅπερ τὰς μεγίστας ἡγεμονίας ἔχει τοῦ σώματος. ἴσα δὲ κυάμων παρῄνει ἀπέχεσθαι [44] καθάπερ ἀνθρωπίνων σαρκῶν. ἱστοροῦσι δ’ αὐτὸν ἀπαγορεύειν τὸ τοιοῦτο ὅτι τῆς πρώτης τῶν ὅλων ἀρχῆς καὶ γενέσεως ταραττομένης καὶ πολλῶν ἅμα συνηνεγμένων καὶ συσπειρομένων καὶ συσσηπομένων ἐν τῇ γῇ κατ’ ὀλίγον γένεσις καὶ διάκρισις συνέστη ζῴων τε ὁμοῦ γεννωμένων καὶ φυτῶν ἀναδιδομένων, τότε δὴ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς σηπεδόνος ἀνθρώπους συστῆναι καὶ κύαμον βλαστῆσαι. τούτου τε φανερὰ ἐπῆγε [ 386 ]

τεκμήρια. εἰ γάρ τις διατραγὼν κύαμον καὶ τοῖς ὀδοῦσι λεάνας ἐν ἀλέᾳ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου βολῆς καταθείη πρὸς ὀλίγον, εἶτ’ ἀποστὰς ἐπανέλθοι μετ’ οὐ πολύ, εὕροι ἂν ὀδωδότα ἀνθρωπείου γόνου· εἰ δὲ καὶ ἀνθοῦντος ἐν τῷ βλαστάνειν τοῦ κυάμου λαβών τις περκάζοντος τοῦ ἄνθους βραχὺ ἐνθείη ἀγγείῳ κεραμεῷ καὶ ἐπίθημα ἐπιθεὶς ἐν τῇ γῇ κατορύξειεν καὶ ἐνενήκοντα παραφυλάξειεν ἡμέρας μετὰ τὸ κατορυχθῆναι, εἶτα μετὰ ταῦτα ὀρύξας λάβοι καὶ ἀφέλοι τὸ πῶμα, εὕροι ἂν ἀντὶ τοῦ κυάμου ἢ παιδὸς κεφαλὴν [45] συνεστῶσαν ἢ γυναικὸς αἰδοῖον. ἀπέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἄλλων παρῄνει, οἷον μήτρας τε καὶ τριγλίδος καὶ ἀκαλήφης, σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θαλασσίων ξυμπάντων. ἀνέφερεν δ’ αὑτὸν εἰς τοὺς πρότερον γεγονότας, πρῶτον μὲν Εὔφορβος λέγων γενέσθαι, δεύτερον δ’ Αἰθαλίδης, τρίτον Ἑρμότιμος, τέταρτον δὲ Πύρρος, νῦν δὲ Πυθαγόρας. δι’ ὧν ἐδείκνυεν ὡς ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τοῖς κεκαθαρμένοις εἰς μνήμην τοῦ παλαιοῦ βίου ἀφικνεῖται. [46] φιλοσοφίαν δ’ ἐφιλοσόφησεν ἧς ὁ σκοπὸς ῥύσασθαι καὶ διελευθερῶσαι τῶν τοιούτων εἱργμῶν τε καὶ συνδέσμων τὸν κατακεχωρισμένον ἡμῖν νοῦν· οὗ χωρὶς ὑγιὲς οὐδὲν ἄν τις οὐδ’ ἀληθὲς τὸ παράπαν ἐκμάθοι οὐδ’ ἂν κατίδοι δι’ ἧστινος οὖν ἐνεργῶν αἰσθήσεως. νοῦς γὰρ κατ’ αὐτὸν πάνθ’ ὁρᾷ καὶ πάντ’ ἀκούει, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά. καθαρθέντι δὲ τότε δεῖ προσάγειν τι τῶν ὀνησιφόρων. προσῆγε δὲ ταῦτα μηχανὰς ἐπινοῶν, πρῶτον μὲν παιδαγωγῶν ἑαυτὸν ἠρέμα πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀιδίων καὶ ὁμοφύλων αὐτῷ ἀσωμάτων ἀεὶ καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἐχόντων θέαν, ἐκ τῶν κατ’ ὀλίγον προβιβάζων, μὴ συνταραχθεὶς τῇ ἄφνω καὶ ἀθρόως μεταβολῇ ἀποστραφῇ καὶ ἀπείπῃ διὰ τὴν τοσαύτην τε καὶ [47] τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ τροφῆς κακίαν. μαθήμασι τοίνυν καὶ τοῖς ἐν μεταιχμίῳ σωματικῶν τε καὶ ἀσωμάτων θεωρήμασι προεγύμναζεν κατὰ βραχὺ πρὸς τὰ ὄντως ὄντα ἀπὸ τῶν μηδέποτε κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἐν ταὐτῷ μηδ’ ἐφ’ ὅσον οὖν διαμενόντων σωματικῶν τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμματα μετὰ τεχνικῆς ἀγωγῆς εἰς τὴν ἔφεσιν τῶν τροφῶν προάγων. δι’ ὧν ἀντεισάγων τὴν τῶν ὄντως ὄντων θέαν μακαρίους ἀπετέλει. ἡ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὰ μαθήματα γυμνασία εἰς τοῦτο παρείληπτο. [48] ἡ δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν πραγματεία, ὡς ἄλλοι τε φασὶν καὶ Μοδέρατος ὁ ἐκ Γαδείρων πάνυ συνετῶς ἐν ἕνδεκα βιβλίοις συναγαγὼν τὸ ἀρέσκον τοῖς ἀνδράσι διὰ τοῦτο ἐσπουδάσθη. μὴ δυνάμενοι γάρ, φησί, τὰ πρῶτα εἴδη καὶ τὰς πρώτας ἀρχὰς σαφῶς τῷ λόγῳ παραδοῦναι διά τε τὸ δυσπερινόητον αὐτῶν καὶ δυσέξοιστον, παρεγένοντο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς εὐσήμου διδασκαλίας χάριν μιμησάμενοι τοὺς γεωμέτρας καὶ τοὺς γραμματιστάς. ὡς γὰρ οὗτοι, τὰς δυνάμεις τῶν στοιχείων καὶ αὐτὰ ταῦτα βουλόμενοι παραδοῦναι, παρεγένοντο ἐπὶ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας, τούτους λέγοντες ὡς πρὸς τὴν πρώτην διδασκαλίαν στοιχεῖα εἶναι, ὕστερον μέντοι διδάσκουσιν ὅτι οὐχ οὗτοι στοιχεῖά εἰσιν οἱ χαρακτῆρες, ἀλλὰ διὰ τούτων ἔννοια γίνεται τῶν [49] πρὸς ἀλήθειαν στοιχείων· καὶ οἱ γεωμέτραι μὴ ἰσχύοντες τὰ ἀσώματα εἴδη λόγῳ παραστῆσαι παραγίνονται ἐπὶ τὰς διαγραφὰς τῶν σχημάτων, λέγοντες εἶναι τρίγωνον τόδε, οὐ τοῦτο βουλόμενοι τρίγωνον εἶναι τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ὄψιν ὑποπῖπτον, ἀλλὰ τὸ τοιοῦτο, καὶ διὰ τούτου τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ τριγώνου παριστᾶσι. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πρώτων οὖν λόγων καὶ εἰδῶν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐποίησαν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, μὴ ἰσχύοντες λόγῳ παραδιδόναι τὰ ἀσώματα εἴδη καὶ τὰς πρώτας [ 387 ]

ἀρχάς, παρεγένοντο ἐπὶ τὴν διὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν δήλωσιν. καὶ οὕτως τὸν μὲν τῆς ἑνότητος λόγον καὶ τὸν τῆς ταυτότητος καὶ ἰσότητος καὶ τὸ αἴτιον τῆς συμπνοίας καὶ τῆς συμπαθείας τῶν ὅλων καὶ τῆς σωτηρίας τοῦ κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχοντος ἓν προσηγόρευσαν· καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος ἓν τοιοῦτον ὑπάρχει ἡνωμένον τοῖς μέρεσι καὶ σύμπνουν κατὰ μετουσίαν τοῦ πρώτου αἰτίου. [50] τὸν δὲ τῆς ἑτερότητος καὶ ἀνισότητος καὶ παντὸς τοῦ μεριστοῦ καὶ ἐν μεταβολῇ καὶ ἄλλοτε ἄλλως ἔχοντος δυοειδῆ λόγον καὶ δυάδα προσηγόρευσαν· τοιαύτη γὰρ κἀν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος ἡ τῶν δύο φύσις. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι οὐ κατὰ τούτους μὲν εἰσί, κατὰ δὲ τοὺς λοιποὺς οὐκ ἔτι, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους φιλοσόφους δυνάμεις τινὰς ἀπολιπόντας ἑνοποιοὺς καὶ διακρατητικὰς τῶν ὅλων οὔσας, καὶ εἰσί τινες καὶ παρ’ ἐκείνοις λόγοι ἰσότητος καὶ ἀνομοιότητος καὶ ἑτερότητος. τούτους οὖν τοὺς λόγους εὐσήμου χάριν διδασκαλίας τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς ὀνόματι προσαγορεύουσιν καὶ τῷ τῆς δυάδος· οὐ διαφέρει δέ γε τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἢ δυοειδὲς [51] ἢ ἀνισοειδὲς εἰπεῖν ἢ ἑτεροειδές. ὁμοίως δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀριθμῶν ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος· πᾶς γὰρ κατά τινων δυνάμεων τέτακται. πάλιν γὰρ ἔστι τι ἐν τῇ φύσει τῶν πραγμάτων ἔχον ἀρχὴν καὶ μέσον καὶ τελευτήν. κατὰ τοῦ τοιούτου εἴδους καὶ κατὰ τῆς τοιαύτης φύσεως τὸν τρία ἀριθμὸν κατηγόρησαν. διὸ καὶ πᾶν τὸ μεσότητι προσκεχρημένον τριοειδὲς εἶναι φασίν. [οὕτως δὲ καὶ πᾶν τὸ τέλειον προσηγόρευσαν.] καὶ εἴ τί ἐστι τέλειον, τοῦτο φασὶν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἀρχῇ προσκεχρῆσθαι καὶ κατ’ ἐκείνην κεκοσμῆσθαι. ἣν ἄλλως μὴ δυνάμενοι ὀνομάσαι τῷ τῆς τριάδος ὀνόματι ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ἐχρήσαντο· καὶ εἰς ἔννοιαν αὐτῆς βουλόμενοι εἰσαγαγεῖν ἡμᾶς διὰ τοῦ εἴδους τούτου ταύτῃ εἰσήγαγον. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων δ’ ἀριθμῶν ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος. οὗτοι οὖν οἱ λόγοι καθ’ οὓς οἱ ῥηθέντες ἀριθμοὶ [52] ἐτάγησαν. καὶ οἱ ἑξῆς περιέχονται ὑπὸ μιᾶς τινὸς ἰδέας καὶ δυνάμεως· ταύτην δὲ δεκάδα οἷον δεχάδα προσηγόρευσαν. διὸ καὶ τέλειον ἀριθμὸν τὸν δέκα εἶναι λέγουσιν, μᾶλλον δὲ τελειότατον ἁπάντων, πᾶσαν διαφορὰν ἀριθμοῦ καὶ πᾶν εἶδος λόγου καὶ ἀναλογίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιειληφότα. εἰ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ παντὸς φύσις κατ’ ἀριθμῶν λόγους τε καὶ ἀναλογίας περατοῦται καὶ πᾶν τὸ γεννώμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον καὶ τελειούμενον κατ’ ἀριθμῶν λόγους διεξάγει, πάντα δὲ λόγον καὶ πᾶσαν ἀναλογίαν καὶ πᾶν εἶδος ἀριθμοῦ περιέχει ἡ δεκάς, πῶς οὐκ ἂν τέλειος ἀριθμὸς λέγοιτο αὕτη; [53] ἡ μὲν δὴ περὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν πραγματεία τοιαύτη τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις. καὶ διὰ ταύτην πρωτίστην οὖσαν τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ταύτην συνέβη σβεσθῆναι, πρῶτον μὲν διὰ τὸ αἰνιγματῶδες, ἔπειτα διὰ τὸ καὶ τὰ γεγραμμένα δωριστὶ γεγράφθαι, ἐχούσης τι καὶ ἀσαφὲς τῆς διαλέκτου καὶ μηδὲν διὰ τοῦτο ὑπονοεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς ἀνιστορούμενα δόγματα ὡς νόθα καὶ παρηκουσμένα τῷ μὴ ἄντικρυς Πυθαγορικοὺς εἶναι τοὺς ἐκφέροντας ταῦτα. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὸν Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη Σπεύσιππόν τε καὶ Ἀριστόξενον καὶ Ξενοκράτη, ὡς φασὶν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, τὰ μὲν κάρπιμα σφετερίσασθαι διὰ βραχείας ἐπισκευῆς, τὰ δ’ ἐπιπόλαια καὶ ἐλαφρὰ καὶ ὅσα πρὸς διασκευὴν καὶ χλευασμὸν τοῦ διδασκαλείου ὑπὸ τῶν βασκάνως ὕστερον συκοφαντούντων προβάλλεται συναγαγεῖν καὶ ὡς ἴδια τῆς αἱρέσεως καταχωρίσαι. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἀπέβη ὕστερον.

[ 388 ]

[54] Πυθαγόρας δ’ ἄχρι πολλοῦ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν οὕτως ἐθαυμάζετο αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ συνόντες αὐτῷ ἑταῖροι, ὥστε καὶ τὰς πολιτείας τοῖς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπιτρέπειν τὰς πόλεις. ὀψὲ δέ ποτε ἐφθονήθησαν, καὶ συνέστη κατ’ αὐτῶν ἐπιβουλὴ τοιάδε τις. Κύλων ἀνὴρ Κροτωνιάτης, κατὰ μὲν τὸ γένος καὶ δόξαν προγονικὴν καὶ βίου περιουσίαν πάντας ὑπερβάλλων τοὺς πολίτας, χαλεπὸς δ’ ἄλλως καὶ βίαιος καὶ τυραννικός, τῇ τε τῶν φίλων περιβολῇ καὶ τῇ τοῦ πλούτου δυνάμει πρὸς ἰσχὺν ἀδικημάτων χρώμενος, οὗτος τῶν τ’ ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἃ ἐδόκει καλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἠξίου, ἡγεῖτο δὲ καὶ τῆς Πυθαγόρου φιλοσοφίας ἀξιώτατον εἶναι μετασχεῖν. πρόσεισι τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ ἑαυτὸν ἐπαινῶν καὶ βουλόμενος συνεῖναι αὐτῷ. ὃ δ’ εὐθὺς φυσιογνωμονήσας τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ ὁποῖος ἦν συνιδὼν ἐκ τῶν σημείων ἃ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἐθήρα [τῶν προσιόντων], ἀπιέναι ἐκέλευεν καὶ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ πράττειν. τοῦτο τὸν Κύλωνα οὐ μετρίως ἐλύπησεν ὥσπερ ὑβρισμένον καὶ [55] τὰ ἄλλα χαλεπὸν ὄντα καὶ ὀργῆς ἀκρατῆ. συναγαγὼν οὖν τοὺς φίλους διέβαλλε τὸν Πυθαγόραν καὶ παρεσκεύαζεν ὡς ἐπιβουλεύσων αὐτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς γνωρίμοις. τοὐντεῦθεν δ’ οἳ μὲν φασὶ τῶν ἑταίρων τοῦ Πυθαγόρου συνηγμένων ἐν τῇ Μίλωνος οἰκίᾳ τοῦ ἀθλητοῦ παρὰ τὴν Πυθαγόρου ἀποδημίαν (ὡς γὰρ Φερεκύδη τὸν Σύριον αὑτοῦ διδάσκαλον γενόμενον εἰς Δῆλον πεπόρευτο νοσοκομήσων τε αὐτὸν περιπετῆ γενόμενον τῷ ἱστορουμένῳ τῆς φθειριάσεως πάθει καὶ κηδεύσων), πάντας πανταχῇ ἐνέπρησαν αὐτοῦ τε καὶ κατέλευσαν, δύο ἐκφυγόντων ἐκ τῆς πυρᾶς, Ἀρχίππου τε καὶ Λύσιδος, ὡς φησὶ Νεάνθης· ὧν ὁ Λῦσις ἐν Ἑλλάδι ᾤκησε καὶ Θήβας ἐπῴκησεν Ἐπαμεινώνδᾳ τε [56] συγγέγονεν, οὗ καὶ διδάσκαλος γέγονεν. Δικαίαρχος δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀκριβέστεροι καὶ τὸν Πυθαγόραν φασὶν παρεῖναι τῇ ἐπιβουλῇ. Φερεκύδην γὰρ πρὸ τῆς ἐκ Σάμου ἀπάρσεως τελευτῆσαι. τῶν δ’ ἑταίρων ἀθρόους μὲν τετταράκοντα ἐν οἰκίᾳ τινὸς συνεδρεύοντας ληφθῆναι, τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς σποράδην κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ὡς ἔτυχον ἕκαστοι διαφθαρῆναι. Πυθαγόραν δὲ κρατουμένων τῶν φίλων τὸ μὲν πρῶτον εἰς Καυλωνίαν τὸν ὅρμον σωθῆναι, ἐκεῖθεν δὲ πάλιν ἐς Λοκρούς. πυθομένους δὲ τοὺς Λοκροὺς τῶν γερόντων τινὰς ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς χώρας ὅρια ἀποστεῖλαι. τούτους δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπαντήσαντας εἰπεῖν ‘ἡμεῖς, ὦ Πυθαγόρα, σοφὸν μὲν ἄνδρα σε καὶ δεινὸν ἀκούομεν· ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις νόμοις οὐθὲν ἔχομεν ἐγκαλεῖν, αὐτοὶ μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων πειρασόμεθα μένειν· σὺ δ’ ἑτέρωθί που βάδιζε λαβὼν παρ’ ἡμῶν εἴ του κεχρημένος [τῶν ἀναγκαίων] τυγχάνεις.’ ἐπεὶ δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν Λοκρῶν πόλεως τὸν εἰρημένον ἀπηλλάγη τρόπον, εἰς Τάραντα πλεῦσαι· πάλιν δὲ κἀκεῖ παραπλήσια παθόντα τοῖς περὶ Κρότωνα εἰς Μεταπόντιον ἐλθεῖν. πανταχοῦ γὰρ ἐγένοντο μεγάλαι στάσεις, ἃς ἔτι καὶ νῦν οἱ περὶ τοὺς τόπους μνημονεύουσί τε καὶ διηγοῦνται, τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων καλοῦντες. [Πυθαγόρειοι δ’ ἐκλήθησαν [57] ἡ σύστασις ἅπασα ἡ συνακολουθήσασα αὐτῷ.] ἐν δὲ τῇ περὶ Μεταπόντιον καὶ Πυθαγόραν αὐτὸν λέγουσι τελευτῆσαι καταφυγόντα ἐπὶ τὸ μουσῶν ἱερόν, σπάνει τῶν ἀναγκαίων τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας διαμείναντα. οἳ δὲ φασὶν ὅτι τοῦ πυρὸς νεμομένου τὴν οἴκησιν ἐν ᾗ συνειλεγμένοι ἐτύγχανον, θέντας αὑτοὺς εἰς τὸ πῦρ τοὺς ἑταίρους δίοδον παρέχειν τῷ διδασκάλῳ, γεφυρώσαντας τὸ πῦρ τοῖς σφετέροις σώμασι. διεκπεσόντα δ’ ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς τὸν Πυθαγόραν διὰ τὴν ἐρημίαν τῶν συνήθων ἀθυμήσαντα ἑαυτὸν τοῦ βίου ἐξαγαγεῖν. τῆς δὲ συμφορᾶς οὕτως κατασχούσης τοὺς [ 389 ]

ἄνδρας συνεξέλειπεν καὶ ἡ ἐπιστήμη ἄρρητος ἐν τοῖς στήθεσι διαφυλαχθεῖσα ἄχρι τότε, μόνων τῶν δυσσυνέτων παρὰ τοῖς ἔξω διαμνημονευομένων. οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοῦ Πυθαγόρου σύγγραμμα ἦν, οἵ τ’ ἐκφυγόντες Λῦσίς τε καὶ Ἄρχιππος καὶ ὅσοι ἀποδημοῦντες ἐτύγχανον, ὀλίγα διέσῳσαν ζώπυρα τῆς φιλοσοφίας [58] ἀμυδρά τε καὶ δυσθήρατα. μονωθέντες γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ συμβάντι ἀθυμήσαντες διεσπάρησαν ἄλλος ἀλλαχοῦ, τὴν πρὸς ἀνθρώπους κοινωνίαν ἀποστραφέντες. διευλαβούμενοι δὲ μὴ παντελῶς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀπόληται τὸ φιλοσοφίας ὄνομα καὶ θεοῖς αὐτοὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπεχθάνωνται, ὑπομνήματα κεφαλαιώδη συνταξάμενοι τά τε τῶν πρεσβυτέρων συγγράμματα καὶ ὧν διεμέμνηντο συναγαγόντες κατέλιπεν ἕκαστος οὗπερ ἐτύγχανε τελευτῶν, ἐπισκήψαντες υἱοῖς ἢ θυγατράσιν ἢ γυναιξὶ μηδενὶ δοῦναι τῶν ἐκτὸς τῆς οἰκίας· αἳ δὲ μέχρι πολλοῦ χρόνου τοῦτο διετήρησαν ἐκ διαδοχῆς τὴν αὐτὴν ἐντολὴν διαγγέλλουσαι τοῖς ἀπογόνοις. [59] τεκμηραίμεθα δ’ ἄν, φησὶν Νικόμαχος, περὶ τοῦ μὴ παρέργως αὐτοὺς τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἐκκλίνειν φιλίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ σπουδαίως περικάμπτειν αὐτὰς καὶ φυλάττεσθαι καὶ μὴν περὶ τοῦ μέχρι πολλῶν γενεῶν τὸ φιλικὸν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀνένδοτον αὐτοὺς διατετηρηκέναι, καὶ ἐξ ὧν Ἀριστόξενος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πυθαγορείου βίου αὐτὸς διακηκοέναι φησὶν Διονυσίου τοῦ Σικελίας τυράννου, ὅτ’ ἐκπεσὼν τῆς μοναρχίας γράμματα ἐν Κορίνθῳ ἐδίδασκεν. φησὶ δ’ οὕτως. οἴκτων καὶ δακρύων ‹καὶ πάντων τῶν τοιούτων εἴργεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐκείνους ὡς ἐνδέχεται μάλιστα· ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ λόγος καὶ περὶ θωπείας› καὶ δεήσεως καὶ [60] λιτανείας καὶ πάν‹των τῶν τοιούτων. βουλόμενος οὖν› ποτε Διονύσιος πεῖραν αὐτῶν λ‹αβεῖν›, διαβεβαιουμένων τινῶν ὡς συλληφθέντες καὶ φοβηθέντες οὐκ ἐμμενοῦσι τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους πίστει, τάδ’ ἐποίησεν. συνελήφθη μὲν Φιντίας καὶ ἀνήχθη πρὸς τὸν τύραννον. κατηγορεῖν δ’ αὐτοῦ Διονύσιον ὡς ἐπιβουλεύοντος αὐτῷ· καὶ δὴ τοῦτο ἐξεληλέγχθαι κεκρίσθαι τ’ ἀποθνῄσκειν αὐτόν. τὸν δέ, ἐπεὶ οὕτως αὐτῷ δέδοκται, εἰπεῖν δοθῆναί γε τὸ λοιπὸν τῆς ἡμέρας, ὅπως οἰκονομήσηται τά τε καθ’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὰ κατὰ Δάμωνα· εἶναι γὰρ αὐτῷ ἑταῖρον καὶ κοινωνόν· πρεσβύτερον δ’ ‹αὐτὸν› ὄντα πολλὰ τῶν περὶ τὴν οἰκονομίαν εἰς αὑτὸν ἀνειληφέναι. ἠξίου δ’ ἀφεθῆναι ἐγγυητὴν παρασχὼν τὸν Δάμωνα. συγχωρήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Διονυσίου μεταπεμφθεὶς ὁ Δάμων καὶ τὰ συμβάντα ἀκούσας ἐνεγγυήσατο καὶ ἔμεινεν ἕως ἂν ἐπανέλθῃ [61] ὁ Φιντίας. ὁ μὲν οὖν Διονύσιος ἐξεπλήττετο ἐπὶ τοῖς γιγνομένοις. ἐκείνους δὲ τοὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰσαγαγόντας τὴν διάπειραν τὸν Δάμωνα χλευάζειν ὡς ἐγκαταλειφθησόμενον. ὄντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου περὶ δυσμὰς ἥκειν τὸν Φιντίαν ἀποθανούμενον, ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντας ἐκπλαγῆναι. Διονύσιον δὲ περιβαλόντα καὶ φιλήσαντα τοὺς ἄνδρας ἀξιῶσαι τρίτον αὑτὸν εἰς τὴν φιλίαν παραδέξασθαι· τοὺς δὲ μηδενὶ τρόπῳ καίτοι πολλὰ λιπαροῦντος αὐτοῦ συγκαταθεῖναι εἰς τοιοῦτο. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν Ἀριστόξενος ὡς παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἀκούσας Διονυσίου ἀπήγγειλεν. Ἱππόβοτος δὲ καὶ Νεάνθης περὶ Μυλλίου καὶ Τιμύχας ἱστοροῦσι …..

[ 390 ]

Isagoge CONTENTS ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ ΤΟΥ ΦΟΙΝΙΚΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΜΑΘΗΤΟΥ ΠΛΩΤΙΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΛΥΚΟΠΟΛΙΤΟΥ Περὶ γένους. Περὶ εἴδους. Περὶ διαφορᾶς. Περὶ ἰδίου. Περὶ συμβεβηκότος. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῶν πέντε φωνῶν. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας γένους καὶ διαφορᾶς. Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ γένους καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ εἴδους. Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ εἴδους. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος. Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ εἴδους. Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ ἰδίου καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος. Περὶ τῶν ἰδίων διαφορᾶς καὶ συμβεβηκότος. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος. Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν αὐτῶν. Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἰδίου καὶ τοῦ ἀχωρίστου συμβεβηκότος.

[ 391 ]

ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ ΤΟΥ ΦΟΙΝΙΚΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΜΑΘΗΤΟΥ ΠΛΩΤΙΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΛΥΚΟΠΟΛΙΤΟΥ [1] ὌΝ ΤΟ ς Ἀ ΝΑ Γ Κ Α Ί ΟΥ , Χρυσαόριε, καὶ εἰς τὴν τῶν παρὰ Ἀριστοτέλει κατηγοριῶν διδασκαλίαν τοῦ γνῶναι τί γένος καὶ τί διαφορὰ τί τε εἶδος καὶ τί ἴδιον καὶ τί συμβεβηκός, εἴς τε τὴν τῶν ὁρισμῶν ἀπόδοσιν καὶ ὅλως εἰς τὰ περὶ διαιρέσεως καὶ ἀποδείξεως χρησίμης οὔσης τῆς τούτων θεωρίας, σύντομόν σοι παράδοσιν ποιούμενος πειράσομαι διὰ βραχέων ὥσπερ ἐν εἰσαγωγῆς τρόπῳ τὰ παρὰ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἐπελθεῖν, τῶν μὲν βαθυτέρων ἀπεχόμενος ζητημάτων, τῶν δ’ ἁπλουστέρων συμμέτρως στοχαζόμενος. αὐτίκα περὶ τῶν γενῶν τε καὶ εἰδῶν τὸ μὲν εἴτε ὑφέστηκεν εἴτε καὶ ἐν μόναις ψιλαῖς ἐπινοίαις κεῖται εἴτε καὶ ὑφεστηκότα σώματά ἐστιν ἢ ἀσώματα καὶ πότερον χωριστὰ ἢ ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς καὶ περὶ ταῦτα ὑφεστῶτα, παραιτήσομαι λέγειν βαθυτάτης οὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης πραγματείας καὶ ἄλλης μείζονος δεομένης ἐξετάσεως· τὸ δ’ ὅπως περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν προκειμένων λογικώτερον οἱ παλαιοὶ διέλαβον καὶ τούτων μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου, νῦν σοι πειράσομαι δεικνύναι.

[ 392 ]

Περὶ γένους. ἜΟ Ι Κ Ε Ν Δ Ὲ Μ Ή Τ Ε τὸ γένος μήτε τὸ εἶδος ἁπλῶς λέγεσθαι. γένος γὰρ λέγεται καὶ ἡ τινῶν ἐχόντων πως πρὸς ἕν τι καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἄθροισις, καθ’ ὃ σημαινόμενον τὸ Ἡρακλειδῶν λέγεται γένος ἐκ τῆς ἀφ’ ἑνὸς σχέσεως, λέγω δὴ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους, καὶ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἐχόντων πως πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὴν ἀπ’ ἐκείνου οἰκειότητα. κατὰ ἀποτομὴν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων γενῶν κεκλημένου. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ἄλλως πάλιν γένος ἡ ἑκάστου τῆς γενέσεως [2] ἀρχὴ εἴτε ἀπὸ τοῦ τεκόντος εἴτε ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου ἐν ᾧ τις γέγονεν. οὕτως γὰρ Ὀρέστην μὲν ἀπὸ Ταντάλου φαμὲν ἔχειν τὸ γένος, Ὕλλον δὲ ἀφ’ Ἡρακλέους, καὶ πάλιν Πίνδαρον μὲν Θηβαῖον εἶναι τὸ γένος, Πλάτωνα δὲ Ἀθηναῖον· καὶ γὰρ ἡ πατρὶς ἀρχή τίς ἐστι τῆς ἑκάστου γενέσεως, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ πατήρ. τοῦτο δὲ ἔοικε πρόχειρον εἶναι τὸ σημαινόμενον· Ἡρακλεῖδαι γὰρ λέγονται οἱ ἐκ γένους κατάγοντες Ἡρακλέους καὶ Κεκροπίδαι οἱ ἀπὸ Κέκροπος καὶ οἱ τούτων ἀγχιστεῖς. καὶ πρότερόν γε ὠνομάσθη γένος ἡ ἑκάστου τῆς γενέσεως ἀρχή, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἀπὸ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς οἷον Ἡρακλέους, ὃ ἀφορίζοντες καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων χωρίζοντες ἔφαμεν τὸ ὅλον ἄθροισμα Ἡρακλειδῶν γένος. ἄλλως δὲ πάλιν γένος λέγεται, ᾧ ὑποτάσσεται τὸ εἶδος, καθ’ ὁμοιότητα ἴσως τούτων εἰρημένον· καὶ γὰρ ἀρχή τίς ἐστι τὸ τοιοῦτο γένος τῶν ὑφ’ ἑαυτὸ καὶ δοκεῖ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος περιέχειν πᾶν τὸ ὑφ’ ἑαυτό. Τριχῶς οὖν τοῦ γένους λεγομένου περὶ τοῦ τρίτου παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις ὁ λόγος· ὃ καὶ ὑπογράφοντες ἀποδεδώκασι γένος εἶναι λέγοντες τὸ κατὰ πλειόνων καὶ διαφερόντων τῷ εἴδει ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι κατηγορούμενον οἷον τὸ ζῷον. τῶν γὰρ κατηγορουμένων τὰ μὲν καθ’ ἑνὸς λέγεται μόνου, ὡς τὰ ἄτομα οἷον Σωκράτης καὶ τὸ οὗτος καὶ τὸ τοῦτο, τὰ δὲ κατὰ πλειόνων, ὡς τὰ γένη καὶ τὰ εἴδη καὶ αἱ διαφοραὶ καὶ τὰ ἴδια καὶ τὰ συμβεβηκότα κοινῶς ἀλλὰ μὴ ἰδίως τινί. ἔστι δὲ γένος μὲν οἷον τὸ ζῷον, εἶδος δὲ οἷον ὁ ἄνθρωπος, διαφορὰ δὲ οἷον τὸ λογικόν, ἴδιον δὲ οἷον τὸ γελαστικόν, συμβεβηκὸς δὲ οἷον τὸ λευκόν, τὸ μέλαν, τὸ καθέζεσθαι. τῶν μὲν οὖν καθ’ ἑνὸς μόνου κατηγορουμένων διαφέρει τὰ γένη τῷ ταῦτα κατὰ πλειόνων ἀποδοθέντα κατηγορεῖσθαι, τῶν δὲ αὖ κατὰ πλειόνων τῶν μὲν εἰδῶν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν εἴδη εἰ καὶ κατὰ πλειόνων κατηγορεῖται ἀλλ’ οὐ διαφερόντων τῷ εἴδει ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀριθμῷ· ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος εἶδος ὢν Σωκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος κατηγορεῖται, οἳ οὐ τῷ εἴδει διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀριθμῷ, τὸ δὲ ζῷον γένος ὂν ἀνθρώπου καὶ βοὸς καὶ ἵππου κατηγορεῖται, οἳ διαφέρουσι [3] καὶ τῷ εἴδει ἀλλήλων ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ τῷ ἀριθμῷ μόνον. τοῦ δ’ αὖ ἰδίου διαφέρει τὸ γένος, ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἴδιον καθ’ ἑνὸς μόνου εἴδους, οὗ ἐστιν ἴδιον. κατηγορεῖται καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸ εἶδος ἀτόμων, ὡς τὸ γελαστικὸν ἀνθρώπου μόνου καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀνθρώπων, τὸ δὲ γένος οὐχ ἑνὸς εἴδους κατηγορεῖται ἀλλὰ πλειόνων τε καὶ διαφερόντων. τῆς δ’ αὖ διαφορᾶς καὶ τῶν κοινῇ συμβεβηκότων διαφέρει τὸ γένος, ὅτι εἰ καὶ κατὰ πλειόνων καὶ διαφερόντων τῷ εἴδει κατηγοροῦνται αἱ διαφοραὶ καὶ τὰ κοινῶς συμβεβηκότα, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι κατηγοροῦνται. ἐρωτησάντων γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐκεῖνο καθ’ οὗ [ 393 ]

κατηγορεῖται ταῦτα, οὐκ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστιν, φαμέν, κατηγορεῖται, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐν τῷ ποῖόν τί ἐστιν. ἐν γὰρ τῷ ἐρωτᾶν ποῖόν τί ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπός φαμεν ὅτι λογικόν, καὶ ἐν τῷ ποῖόν τι ὁ κόραξ φαμὲν ὅτι μέλαν· ἔστιν δὲ τὸ μὲν λογικὸν διαφορά, τὸ δὲ μέλαν συμβεβηκός· ὅταν δὲ τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ἐρωτηθῶμεν, ζῷον ἀποκρινόμεθα· ἦν δὲ ἀνθρώπου γένος τὸ ζῷον. ὥστε τὸ μὲν κατὰ πλειόνων λέγεσθαι τὸ γένος διαστέλλει αὐτὸ ἀπὸ τῶν καθ’ ἑνὸς μόνου τῶν ἀτόμων κατηγορουμένων, τὸ δὲ διαφερόντων τῷ εἴδει διαστέλλει ἀπὸ τῶν ὡς εἰδῶν κατηγορουμένων ἢ ὡς ἰδίων, τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι κατηγορεῖσθαι χωρίζει ἀπὸ τῶν διαφορῶν καὶ τῶν κοινῇ συμβεβηκότων, ἃ οὐκ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστιν ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ποῖόν τί ἐστιν ἢ πῶς ἔχον ἐστὶν κατηγορεῖται ἕκαστον ὧν κατηγορεῖται. οὐδὲν ἄρα περιττὸν οὐδὲ ἐλλεῖπον περιέχει ἡ τοῦ γένους ῥηθεῖσα ὑπογραφὴ τῆς ἐννοίας.

[ 394 ]

Περὶ εἴδους. ΤῸ Δ Ὲ Ε Ἶ ΔΟ ς λέγεται μὲν καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἑκάστου μορφῆς, καθὸ εἴρηται [4] πρῶτον μὲν εἶδος ἄξιον τυραννίδος. λέγεται δὲ εἶδος καὶ τὸ ὑπὸ τὸ ἀποδοθὲν γένος, καθὸ εἰώθαμεν λέγειν τὸν μὲν ἄνθρωπον εἶδος τοῦ ζῴου γένους ὄντος τοῦ ζῴου, τὸ δὲ λευκὸν τοῦ χρώματος εἶδος, τὸ δὲ τρίγωνον τοῦ σχήματος εἶδος. εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ γένος ἀποδιδόντες τοῦ εἴδους ἐμεμνήμεθα εἰπόντες τὸ κατὰ πλειόνων καὶ διαφερόντων τῷ εἴδει ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι κατηγορούμενον, καὶ τὸ εἶδός φαμεν τὸ ὑπὸ τὸ ἀποδοθὲν γένος, εἰδέναι χρὴ ὅτι, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ γένος τινός ἐστιν γένος καὶ τὸ εἶδος τινός ἐστιν εἶδος ἑκάτερον ἑκατέρου, ἀνάγκη καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀμφοτέρων λόγοις κεχρῆσθαι ἀμφοτέροις. ἀποδιδόασιν οὖν τὸ εἶδος καὶ οὕτως· εἶδός ἐστι τὸ ταττόμενον ὑπὸ τὸ γένος καὶ οὗ τὸ γένος ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι κατηγορεῖται. ἔτι δὲ καὶ οὕτως· εἶδός ἐστι τὸ κατὰ πλειόνων καὶ διαφερόντων τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι κατηγορούμενον. ἀλλ’ αὕτη μὲν ἡ ἀπόδοσις τοῦ εἰδικωτάτου ἂν εἴη καὶ ὅ ἐστι μόνον εἶδος, αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι εἶεν ἂν καὶ τῶν μὴ εἰδικωτάτων. σαφὲς δ’ ἂν εἴη τὸ λεγόμενον τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. καθ’ ἑκάστην κατηγορίαν ἐστίν τινα γενικώτατα καὶ πάλιν ἄλλα εἰδικώτατα καὶ μεταξὺ τῶν γενικωτάτων καὶ τῶν εἰδικωτάτων ἄλλα. ἔστιν δὲ γενικώτατον μέν, ὑπὲρ ὃ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἄλλο ἐπαναβεβηκὸς γένος, εἰδικώτατον δέ, μεθ’ ὃ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἄλλο ὑποβεβηκὸς εἶδος, μεταξὺ δὲ τοῦ γενικωτάτου καὶ τοῦ εἰδικωτάτου ἄλλα, ἃ καὶ γένη καὶ εἴδη ἐστὶ τὰ αὐτά, πρὸς ἄλλο μέντοι καὶ ἄλλο λαμβανόμενα. Γινέσθω δὲ ἐπὶ μιᾶς κατηγορίας σαφὲς τὸ λεγόμενον. ἡ οὐσία ἔστι μὲν καὶ αὐτὴ γένος, ὑπὸ δὲ ταύτην ἐστὶν σῶμα, καὶ ὑπὸ τὸ σῶμα [4] ἔμψυχον σῶμα, ὑφ’ ὃ τὸ ζῷον, ὑπὸ δὲ τὸ ζῷον λογικὸν ζῷον, ὑφ’ ὃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὑπὸ δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον Σωκράτης καὶ Πλάτων καὶ οἱ κατὰ μέρος ἄνθρωποι. ἀλλὰ τούτων ἡ μὲν οὐσία τὸ γενικώτατον καὶ ὃ μόνον γένος, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος τὸ εἰδικώτατον καὶ ὃ μόνον εἶδος, τὸ δὲ σῶμα εἶδος μὲν τῆς οὐσίας, γένος δὲ τοῦ ἐμψύχου σώματος. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἔμψυχον σῶμα εἶδος μὲν τοῦ σώματος, γένος δὲ τοῦ ζῴου, πάλιν δὲ τὸ ζῷον εἶδος μὲν τοῦ ἐμψύχου σώματος, γένος δὲ τοῦ λογικοῦ ζῴου, τὸ δὲ λογικὸν ζῷον εἶδος μὲν τοῦ ζῴου, γένος δὲ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος εἶδος μὲν τοῦ λογικοῦ ζῴου, οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ γένος τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ μόνον εἶδος· καὶ πᾶν τὸ πρὸ τῶν ἀτόμων προσεχῶς κατηγορούμενον εἶδος [5] ἂν εἴη μόνον, οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ γένος. ὥσπερ οὖν ἡ οὐσία ἀνωτάτω οὖσα τῷ μηδὲν εἶναι πρὸ αὐτῆς γένος ἦν τὸ γενικώτατον, οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἶδος ὤν, μεθ’ ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν εἶδος οὐδέ τι τῶν τέμνεσθαι δυναμένων εἰς εἴδη, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἀτόμων (ἄτομον γὰρ Σωκράτης καὶ Πλάτων καὶ τουτὶ τὸ λευκόν) μόνον ἂν εἴη εἶδος καὶ τὸ ἔσχατον εἶδος καὶ ὡς ἔφαμεν τὸ εἰδικώτατον· τὰ δὲ μέσα τῶν μὲν πρὸ αὐτῶν εἴη ἂν εἴδη, τῶν δὲ μετ’ αὐτὰ γένη. ὥστε ταῦτα μὲν ἔχει δύο σχέσεις, τήν τε πρὸς τὰ πρὸ αὐτῶν, καθ’ ἣν εἴδη αὐτῶν εἶναι λέγεται, τήν τε πρὸς τὰ μετ’ αὐτά, καθ’ ἣν γένη αὐτῶν εἶναι λέγεται· τὰ δὲ ἄκρα μίαν ἔχει σχέσιν· τό τε γὰρ [ 395 ]

γενικώτατον τὴν μὲν ὡς πρὸς τὰ ὑφ’ ἑαυτὸ ἔχει σχέσιν, γένος ὂν πάντων τὸ ἀνωτάτω, τὴν δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὰ πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ οὐκέτι ἔχει, ἀνωτάτω ὂν καὶ ὡς πρώτη ἀρχὴ καί, ὡς ἔφαμεν, ὑπὲρ ὃ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἄλλο ἐπαναβεβηκὸς γένος· καὶ τὸ εἰδικώτατον δὲ μίαν ἔχει σχέσιν τὴν μὲν ὡς πρὸς τὰ πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ὧν ἐστιν εἶδος, τὴν δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὰ μετ’ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἀλλοίαν ἔχει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀτόμων εἶδος λέγεται ἀλλ’ εἶδος μὲν λέγεται τῶν ἀτόμων ὡς περιέχον αὐτά, εἶδος δὲ πάλιν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ ὡς περιεχόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν. Ἀφορίζονται τοίνυν τὸ μὲν γενικώτατον οὕτως, ὃ γένος ὂν οὐκ ἔστιν εἶδος, καὶ πάλιν, ὑπὲρ ὃ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἄλλο ἐπαναβεβηκὸς γένος· τὸ δὲ εἰδικώτατον, ὃ εἶδος ὂν οὐκ ἔστιν γένος καὶ ὃ εἶδος ὂν οὐκ ἂν διελοίμεθα ἔτι εἰς εἴδη καὶ ὃ κατὰ πλειόνων καὶ διαφερόντων τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι κατηγορεῖται. τὰ δὲ μέσα τῶν ἄκρων ὑπάλληλά τε καλοῦσι γένη καὶ εἴδη, καὶ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν εἶδος εἶναι καὶ γένος τίθενται, πρὸς ἄλλο μέντοι καὶ ἄλλο λαμβανόμενον. τὰ δὴ πρὸ τῶν εἰδικωτάτων ἄχρι [6] τοῦ γενικωτάτου ἀνιόντα γένη τε λέγεται καὶ εἴδη καὶ ὑπάλληλα γένη ὡς ὁ Ἀγαμέμνων Ἀτρείδης καὶ Πελοπίδης καὶ Τανταλίδης καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον Διός. ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν γενεαλογιῶν εἰς ἕνα ἀνάγουσι, φέρε εἰπεῖν τὸν Δία, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν γενῶν καὶ τῶν εἰδῶν οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει· οὐ γάρ ἐστι κοινὸν ἓν γένος πάντων τὸ ὂν οὐδὲ πάντα ὁμογενῆ καθ’ ἓν τὸ ἀνωτάτω γένος, ὥς φησιν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης. ἀλλὰ κείσθω, ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς Κατηγορίαις, τὰ πρῶτα δέκα γένη οἷον ἀρχαὶ δέκα πρῶται· κἂν δὴ πάντα τις ὄντα καλῇ, ὁμωνύμως, φησί, καλέσει, ἀλλ’ οὐ συνωνύμως. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἓν ἦν κοινὸν πάντων γένος τὸ ὄν, συνωνύμως ἂν πάντα ὄντα ἐλέγετο· δέκα δὲ ὄντων τῶν πρώτων ἡ κοινωνία κατὰ τοὔνομα μόνον, οὐκέτι μὴν καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον τὸν κατὰ τοὔνομα. δέκα μὲν οὖν τὰ γενικώτατα, τὰ δὲ εἰδικώτατα ἐν ἀριθμῷ μέν τινι, οὐ μὴν ἀπείρῳ· τὰ δὲ ἄτομα, ἅπερ ἐστὶ τὰ μετὰ τὰ εἰδικώτατα, ἄπειρα. διὸ ἄχρι τῶν εἰδικωτάτων ἀπὸ τῶν γενικωτάτων κατιόντας παρεκελεύετο ὁ Πλάτων παύεσθαι, κατιέναι δὲ διὰ τῶν διὰ μέσου διαιροῦντας ταῖς εἰδοποιοῖς διαφοραῖς· τὰ δὲ ἄπειρά φησιν ἐᾶν, μὴ γὰρ ἂν γενέσθαι τούτων ἐπιστήμην. κατιόντων μὲν οὖν εἰς τὰ εἰδικώτατα ἀνάγκη διαιροῦντας διὰ πλήθους ἰέναι, ἀνιόντων δὲ εἰς τὰ γενικώτατα ἀνάγκη συναιρεῖν τὸ πλῆθος εἰς ἕν· συναγωγὸν γὰρ τῶν πολλῶν εἰς μίαν φύσιν τὸ εἶδος καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον τὸ γένος, τὰ δὲ κατὰ μέρος καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστα τοὐναντίον εἰς πλῆθος ἀεὶ διαιρεῖ τὸ ἕν· τῇ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ εἴδους μετουσίᾳ οἱ πολλοὶ ἄνθρωποι εἷς, τοῖς δὲ κατὰ μέρος ὁ εἷς καὶ κοινὸς πλείους· διαιρετικὸν μὲν γὰρ ἀεὶ τὸ καθ’ ἕκαστον, συλληπτικὸν δὲ καὶ ἑνοποιὸν τὸ κοινόν. Ἀποδεδομένου δὲ τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ εἴδους τί ἐστιν ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν, [7] καὶ τοῦ μὲν γένους ἑνὸς ὄντος τῶν δὲ εἰδῶν πλειόνων (ἀεὶ γὰρ εἰς πλείω εἴδη ἡ τομὴ τοῦ γένους) τὸ μὲν γένος ἀεὶ τοῦ εἴδους κατηγορεῖται καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐπάνω τῶν ὑποκάτω, τὸ δὲ εἶδος οὔτε τοῦ προσεχοῦς αὐτοῦ γένους οὔτε τῶν ἐπάνω· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀντιστρέφει. δεῖ γὰρ ἢ τὰ ἴσα τῶν ἴσων κατηγορεῖσθαι ὡς τὸ χρεμετιστικὸν τοῦ ἵππου ἢ τὰ μείζω τῶν ἐλαττόνων ὡς τὸ ζῷον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τὰ δὲ ἐλάττω τῶν μειζόνων οὐκέτι· οὐκέτι γὰρ τὸ ζῷον εἴποις ἂν εἶναι ἄνθρωπον, ὥσπερ τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἴποις ἂν εἶναι ζῷον. καθ’ ὧν δ’ ἂν τὸ εἶδος κατηγορῆται, κατ’ ἐκείνων ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ τὸ τοῦ εἴδους γένος κατηγορηθήσεται καὶ τὸ τοῦ γένους γένος ἄχρι τοῦ [ 396 ]

γενικωτάτου· εἰ γὰρ ἀληθὲς τὸ τὸν Σωκράτην εἰπεῖν ἄνθρωπον, τὸν δὲ ἄνθρωπον ζῷον, τὸ δὲ ζῷον οὐσίαν· ἀληθὲς καὶ τὸν Σωκράτην ζῷον εἰπεῖν καὶ οὐσίαν. ἀεὶ οὖν τῶν ἐπάνω κατηγορουμένων τῶν ὑποκάτω τὸ μὲν εἶδος τοῦ ἀτόμου κατηγορηθήσεται, τὸ δὲ γένος καὶ κατὰ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ κατὰ τοῦ ἀτόμου, τὸ δὲ γενικώτατον καὶ κατὰ τοῦ γένους ἢ τῶν γενῶν, εἰ πλείω εἴη τὰ μέσα καὶ ὑπάλληλα, καὶ κατὰ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ κατὰ τοῦ ἀτόμου. λέγεται γὰρ τὸ μὲν γενικώτατον κατὰ πάντων τῶν ὑφ’ ἑαυτὸ γενῶν τε καὶ εἰδῶν καὶ ἀτόμων, τὸ δὲ γένος τὸ πρὸ τοῦ εἰδικωτάτου κατὰ πάντων τῶν εἰδικωτάτων καὶ τῶν ἀτόμων, τὸ δὲ μόνον εἶδος κατὰ πάντων τῶν ἀτόμων, τὸ δὲ ἄτομον ἐφ’ ἑνὸς μόνου τῶν κατὰ μέρος. ἄτομον δὲ λέγεται ὁ Σωκράτης καὶ τουτὶ τὸ λευκὸν καὶ οὑτοσὶ ὁ προσιὼν Σωφρονίσκου υἱός, εἰ μόνος αὐτῷ εἴη Σωκράτης υἱός. ἄτομα οὖν λέγεται τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὅτι ἐξ ἰδιοτήτων συνέστηκεν ἕκαστον, ὧν τὸ ἄθροισμα οὐκ ἂν ἐπ’ ἄλλου ποτὲ τὸ αὐτὸ γένοιτο· αἱ γὰρ Σωκράτους ἰδιότητες οὐκ ἂν ἐπ’ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν κατὰ μέρος γένοιντο ἂν αἱ αὐταί, αἱ μέντοι τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, λέγω δὴ τοῦ κοινοῦ, ἰδιότητες γένοιντ’ ἂν αἱ αὐταὶ ἐπὶ πλειόνων, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀνθρώπων, καθὸ ἄνθρωποι. περιέχεται οὖν τὸ μὲν ἄτομον ὑπὸ τοῦ εἴδους, τὸ δὲ εἶδος ὑπὸ τοῦ [8] γένους· ὅλον γάρ τι τὸ γένος, τὸ δὲ ἄτομον μέρος, τὸ δὲ εἶδος καὶ ὅλον καὶ μέρος, ἀλλὰ μέρος μὲν ἄλλου, ὅλον δὲ οὐκ ἄλλου ἀλλ’ ἐν ἄλλοις· ἐν γὰρ τοῖς μέρεσι τὸ ὅλον. Περὶ μὲν οὖν γένους καὶ εἴδους καὶ τί τὸ γενικώτατον καὶ τί τὸ εἰδικώτατον καὶ τίνα καὶ γένη τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ εἴδη τίνα τε τὰ ἄτομα καὶ ποσαχῶς τὸ γένος καὶ τὸ εἶδος, εἴρηται.

[ 397 ]

Περὶ διαφορᾶς. ΔΙ ΑΦ Ο Ρ Ὰ Δ Ὲ ΚΟ Ι Ν ῶς τε καὶ ἰδίως καὶ ἰδιαίτατα λεγέσθω. κοινῶς μὲν γὰρ διαφέρειν ἕτερον ἑτέρου λέγεται τὸ ἑτερότητι διαλλάττον ὁπωσοῦν ἢ πρὸς αὑτὸ ἢ πρὸς ἄλλο· διαφέρει γὰρ Σωκράτης Πλάτωνος τῇ ἑτερότητι καὶ αὐτός γε ἑαυτοῦ παιδός τε ὄντος καὶ ἀνδρωθέντος καὶ ἐνεργοῦντός τι ἢ παυσαμένου καὶ ἀεί γε ἐν ταῖς τοῦ πῶς ἔχειν ἑτερότησιν. ἰδίως δὲ διαφέρειν λέγεται ἕτερον ἑτέρου, ὅταν ἀχωρίστῳ συμβεβηκότι τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου διαφέρῃ· ἀχώριστον δὲ συμβεβηκὸς οἷον γλαυκότης ἢ γρυπότης ἢ καὶ οὐλὴ ἐκ τραύματος ἐνσκιρωθεῖσα. ἰδιαίτατα δὲ διαφέρειν ἕτερον ἑτέρου λέγεται, ὅταν εἰδοποιῷ διαφορᾷ διαλλάττῃ, ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος ἵππου εἰδοποιῷ διαφορᾷ διενήνοχε τῇ τοῦ λογικοῦ ποιότητι. καθόλου μὲν οὖν πᾶσα διαφορὰ ἑτεροῖον ποιεῖ προσγινομένη τινί· ἀλλ’ αἱ μὲν κοινῶς καὶ ἰδίως ἀλλοῖον ποιοῦσιν, αἱ δὲ ἰδιαίτατα ἄλλο. τῶν γὰρ διαφορῶν αἱ μὲν ἀλλοῖον ποιοῦσιν, αἱ δὲ ἄλλο. αἱ μὲν οὖν ποιοῦσαι ἄλλο εἰδοποιοὶ κέκληνται, αἱ δὲ ἀλλοῖον ἁπλῶς διαφοραί. τῷ γὰρ ζῴῳ διαφορὰ προσελθοῦσα ἡ τοῦ λογικοῦ [9] ἄλλο ἐποίησεν, ἡ δὲ τοῦ κινεῖσθαι ἀλλοῖον μόνον παρὰ τὸ ἠρεμοῦν ἐποίησεν, ὥστε ἡ μὲν ἄλλο, ἡ δὲ ἀλλοῖον μόνον ἐποίησεν. κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὰς ἄλλο ποιούσας διαφορὰς αἵ τε διαιρέσεις γίνονται τῶν γενῶν εἰς τὰ εἴδη, οἵ τε ὅροι ἀποδίδονται ἐκ γένους ὄντες καὶ τῶν τοιούτων διαφορῶν, κατὰ δὲ τὰς μόνον ἀλλοῖον ποιούσας αἱ ἑτερότητες μόνον συνίστανται καὶ αἱ τοῦ πως ἔχοντος μεταβολαί. Ἄνωθεν οὖν πάλιν ἀρχομένῳ ῥητέον τῶν διαφορῶν τὰς μὲν χωριστὰς εἶναι, τὰς δὲ ἀχωρίστους· τὸ μὲν γὰρ κινεῖσθαι καὶ τὸ ἠρεμεῖν καὶ τὸ ὑγιαίνειν καὶ τὸ νοσεῖν καὶ ὅσα τούτοις παραπλήσια χωριστά ἐστιν, τὸ δὲ γρυπὸν εἶναι ἢ σιμὸν ἢ λογικὸν ἢ ἄλογον ἀχώριστα. τῶν δὲ ἀχωρίστων αἱ μὲν ὑπάρχουσι καθ’ αὑτάς, αἱ δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκός· τὸ μὲν γὰρ λογικὸν καθ’ αὑτὸ ὑπάρχει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τὸ θνητὸν καὶ τὸ ἐπιστήμης εἶναι δεκτικόν, τὸ δὲ γρυπὸν ἢ σιμὸν εἶναι κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς καὶ οὐ καθ’ αὑτό. αἱ μὲν οὖν καθ’ αὑτὰς προσοῦσαι ἐν τῷ τῆς οὐσίας λαμβάνονται λόγῳ καὶ ποιοῦσιν ἄλλο, αἱ δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς οὔτε ἐν τῷ τῆς οὐσίας λόγῳ λαμβάνονται οὔτε ποιοῦσιν ἄλλο ἀλλὰ ἀλλοῖον. καὶ αἱ μὲν καθ’ αὑτὰς οὐκ ἐπιδέχονται τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ τὸ ἧττον, αἱ δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, κἂν ἀχώριστοι ὦσιν, ἐπίτασιν λαμβάνουσι καὶ ἄνεσιν· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ γένος μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον κατηγορεῖται οὗ ἂν ᾖ γένος οὔτε αἱ τοῦ γένους διαφοραί, καθ’ ἃς διαιρεῖται· αὗται μὲν γάρ εἰσιν αἱ τὸν ἑκάστου λόγον συμπληροῦσαι, τὸ δὲ εἶναι ἑκάστῳ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὔτε ἄνεσιν οὔτε ἐπίτασιν ἐπιδεχόμενόν ἐστιν, τὸ δὲ γρυπὸν ἢ σιμὸν εἶναι ἢ κεχρῶσθαί πως καὶ ἐπιτείνεται καὶ ἀνίεται. Τριῶν οὖν εἰδῶν τῆς διαφορᾶς θεωρουμένων καὶ τῶν μὲν οὐσῶν χωριστῶν τῶν δὲ ἀχωρίστων καὶ πάλιν τῶν ἀχωρίστων τῶν μὲν οὐσῶν καθ’ [10] αὑτὰς τῶν δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, πάλιν τῶν καθ’ αὑτὰς διαφορῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι καθ’ ἃς διαιρούμεθα τὰ γένη εἰς τὰ εἴδη, αἱ δὲ καθ’ ἃς τὰ διαιρεθέντα εἰδοποιεῖται. οἷον τῶν καθ’ αὑτὰς διαφορῶν πασῶν τῶν τοιούτων τοῦ ζῴου [ 398 ]

οὐσῶν ἐμψύχου καὶ αἰσθητικοῦ, λογικοῦ καὶ ἀλόγου, θνητοῦ καὶ ἀθανάτου, ἡ μὲν τοῦ ἐμψύχου καὶ αἰσθητικοῦ διαφορὰ συστατική ἐστι τῆς τοῦ ζῴου οὐσίας, ἔστι γὰρ τὸ ζῷον οὐσία ἔμψυχος αἰσθητική, ἡ δὲ τοῦ θνητοῦ καὶ ἀθανάτου διαφορὰ καὶ ἡ τοῦ λογικοῦ τε καὶ ἀλόγου διαιρετικαί εἰσι τοῦ ζῴου διαφοραί· δι’ αὐτῶν γὰρ τὰ γένη εἰς τὰ εἴδη διαιρούμεθα. ἀλλ’ αὗταί γε αἱ διαιρετικαὶ διαφοραὶ τῶν γενῶν συμπληρωτικαὶ γίνονται καὶ συστατικαὶ τῶν εἰδῶν· τέμνεται γὰρ τὸ ζῷον τῇ τε τοῦ λογικοῦ καὶ τῇ τοῦ ἀλόγου διαφορᾷ καὶ πάλιν τῇ τε τοῦ θνητοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀθανάτου διαφορᾷ. ἀλλ’ αἱ μὲν τοῦ θνητοῦ καὶ τοῦ λογικοῦ διαφοραὶ συστατικαὶ γίνονται τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, αἱ δὲ τοῦ λογικοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀθανάτου τοῦ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ τοῦ ἀλόγου καὶ τοῦ θνητοῦ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων. οὕτω δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀνωτάτω οὐσίας διαιρετικῶν οὐσῶν τῆς τε ἐμψύχου καὶ ἀψύχου διαφορᾶς καὶ τῆς αἰσθητικῆς καὶ ἀναισθήτου ἡ μὲν ἔμψυχος καὶ αἰσθητικὴ συλληφθεῖσαι τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἀπετέλεσαν τὸ ζῷον, ἡ δὲ ἔμψυχος καὶ ἀναίσθητος ἀπετέλεσαν τὸ φυτόν. ἐπεὶ οὖν αἱ αὐταὶ πὼς μὲν ληφθεῖσαι γίνονται συστατικαί, πὼς δὲ διαιρετικαί, εἰδοποιοὶ πᾶσαι κέκληνται. καὶ τούτων γε μάλιστα χρεία εἴς τε τὰς διαιρέσεις τῶν γενῶν καὶ εἰς τοὺς ὁρισμούς, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῶν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἀχωρίστων οὐδ’ ἔτι μᾶλλον τῶν χωριστῶν. Ἃς δὴ καὶ ὁριζόμενοί φασιν· διαφορά ἐστιν ᾗ περισσεύει τὸ εἶδος τοῦ [11] γένους. ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ ζῴου πλέον ἔχει τὸ λογικὸν καὶ τὸ θνητόν· τὸ γὰρ ζῷον οὔτε οὐδὲν τούτων ἐστίν, ἐπεὶ πόθεν ἂν τὰ εἴδη σχοῖεν διαφοράς; οὔτε δὲ πάσας τὰς ἀντικειμένας ἔχει, ἐπεὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἅμα ἕξει τὰ ἀντικείμενα, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἀξιοῦσι, δυνάμει μὲν πάσας ἔχει τὰς τῶν ὑφ’ αὑτὸ διαφοράς, ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ οὐδεμίαν. καὶ οὕτως οὔτε ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τι γίνεται οὔτε τὰ ἀντικείμενα ἅμα περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἔσται. Ὁρίζονται δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ οὕτως· διαφορά ἐστι τὸ κατὰ πλειόνων καὶ διαφερόντων τῷ εἴδει ἐν τῷ ποῖόν τί ἐστι κατηγορούμενον· τὸ γὰρ λογικὸν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατηγορούμενον ἐν τῷ ποῖόν τί ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος λέγεται ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστιν. τί μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐρωτωμένων ἡμῶν οἰκεῖον εἰπεῖν ζῷον, ποῖον δὲ ζῷον πυνθανομένων λογικὸν καὶ θνητὸν οἰκείως ἀποδώσομεν. τῶν γὰρ πραγμάτων ἐξ ὕλης καὶ εἴδους συνεστώτων ἢ ἀνάλογόν γε ὕλῃ καὶ εἴδει τὴν σύστασιν ἐχόντων, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀνδριὰς ἐξ ὕλης μὲν τοῦ χαλκοῦ, εἴδους δὲ τοῦ σχήματος, οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ κοινός τε καὶ εἰδικὸς ἐξ ὕλης μὲν ἀναλόγου συνέστηκεν τοῦ γένους, ἐκ μορφῆς δὲ τῆς διαφορᾶς, τὸ δὲ ὅλον τοῦτο, ζῷον λογικὸν θνητόν, ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς ἐκεῖ ὁ ἀνδριάς. Ὑπογράφουσι δὲ τὰς τοιαύτας διαφορὰς καὶ οὕτως· διαφορά ἐστιν τὸ χωρίζειν πεφυκὸς τὰ ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ γένος· τὸ λογικὸν γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἄλογον τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὸν ἵππον ὄντα ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ γένος τὸ ζῷον χωρίζει. ἀποδιδόασι δὲ καὶ οὕτως· διαφορά ἐστιν ὅτῳ διαφέρει ἕκαστα. ἄνθρωπος γὰρ καὶ ἵππος κατὰ μὲν τὸ γένος οὐ διενήνοχεν· θνητὰ γὰρ ζῷα καὶ ἡμεῖς καὶ τὰ ἄλογα, ἀλλὰ τὸ λογικὸν προστεθὲν διέστησεν ἡμᾶς ἀπ’ ἐκείνων· καὶ λογικά ἐσμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς καὶ οἱ θεοί, ἀλλὰ τὸ θνητὸν προστεθὲν [12] διέστησεν ἡμᾶς ἀπ’ ἐκείνων. προσεξεργαζόμενοι δὲ τὰ περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς μὴ τὸ τυχόν φασι τῶν χωριζόντων τὰ ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ γένος εἶναι τὴν διαφοράν, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ εἰς τὸ εἶναι συμβάλλεται καὶ ὃ τοῦ τί ἦν εἶναι τοῦ πράγματός ἐστι μέρος. οὐ γὰρ τὸ πεφυκέναι πλεῖν διαφορὰ ἀνθρώπου, εἰ καὶ ἴδιον ἀνθρώπου· εἴποιμεν γὰρ ἂν τῶν ζῴων τὰ μὲν πλεῖν [ 399 ]

πεφυκέναι τὰ δὲ μή χωρίζοντες ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων, ἀλλὰ τὸ πεφυκέναι πλεῖν οὐκ ἦν συμπληρωτικὸν τῆς οὐσίας οὐδὲ μέρος αὐτῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐπιτηδειότης μόνον αὐτῆς διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι οἷαι αἱ ἰδίως εἰδοποιοὶ λεγόμεναι διαφοραί. εἶεν ἂν οὖν εἰδοποιοὶ διαφοραί, ὅσαι ἕτερον εἶδος ποιοῦσιν, καὶ ὅσαι ἐν τῷ τί ἦν εἶναι παραλαμβάνονται. Καὶ περὶ μὲν διαφορᾶς ἀρκεῖ τοσαῦτα.

[ 400 ]

Περὶ ἰδίου. ΤῸ Δ Ὲ Ἴ Δ Ι Ο Ν διαιροῦσι τετραχῶς· καὶ γὰρ ὃ μόνῳ τινὶ εἴδει συμβέβηκεν, εἰ καὶ μὴ παντί, ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ ἰατρεύειν ἢ τὸ γεωμετρεῖν· καὶ ὃ παντὶ συμβέβηκεν τῷ εἴδει, εἰ καὶ μὴ μόνῳ, ὡς τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ εἶναι δίποδι· καὶ ὃ μόνῳ καὶ παντὶ καὶ ποτέ, ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ παντὶ τὸ ἐν γήρᾳ πολιοῦσθαι. τέταρτον δέ, ἐφ’ οὗ συνδεδράμηκεν τὸ μόνῳ καὶ παντὶ καὶ ἀεί, ὡς τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ γελαστικόν· κἂν γὰρ μὴ γελᾷ ἀεί, ἀλλὰ γελαστικὸν λέγεται οὐ τῷ ἀεὶ γελᾶν ἀλλὰ τῷ πεφυκέναι· τοῦτο δὲ ἀεὶ αὐτῷ σύμφυτον ὑπάρχει, ὡς καὶ τῷ ἵππῳ τὸ χρεμετιστικόν. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ κυρίως ἴδιά φασιν, ὅτι καὶ ἀντιστρέφει· εἰ γὰρ ἵππος, χρεμετιστικόν, καὶ εἰ χρεμετιστικόν, ἵππος.

[ 401 ]

Περὶ συμβεβηκότος. ΣΥ Μ Β Ε Β Η Κ Ὸ ς Δ Έ ἘΣΤ Ι Ν ὃ γίνεται καὶ ἀπογίνεται χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ ὑποκειμένου φθορᾶς. διαιρεῖται δὲ εἰς δύο· τὸ μὲν γὰρ αὐτοῦ χωριστόν ἐστιν, τὸ δὲ ἀχώριστον. τὸ μὲν οὖν καθεύδειν χωριστὸν συμβεβηκός, τὸ δὲ μέλαν [13] εἶναι ἀχωρίστως τῷ κόρακι καὶ τῷ Αἰθίοπι συμβέβηκεν, δύναται δὲ ἐπινοηθῆναι καὶ κόραξ λευκὸς καὶ Αἰθίοψ ἀποβαλὼν τὴν χροιὰν χωρὶς φθορᾶς τοῦ ὑποκειμένου. ὁρίζονται δὲ καὶ οὕτως· συμβεβηκός ἐστιν ὃ ἐνδέχεται τῷ αὐτῷ ὑπάρχειν ἢ μὴ ὑπάρχειν, ἢ ὃ οὔτε γένος ἐστὶν οὔτε διαφορὰ οὔτε εἶδος οὔτε ἴδιον, ἀεὶ δέ ἐστιν ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ ὑφιστάμενον. Ἀφορισθέντων δὲ πάντων τῶν προτεθέντων, λέγω δὴ γένους, εἴδους, διαφορᾶς, ἰδίου, συμβεβηκότος, ῥητέον τίνα τε κοινὰ πρόσεστιν αὐτοῖς καὶ τίνα ἴδια.

[ 402 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῶν πέντε φωνῶν. ΚΟ Ι Ν Ὸ Ν Μ Ὲ Ν Δ Ὴ πάντων τὸ κατὰ πλειόνων κατηγορεῖσθαι. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν γένος τῶν εἰδῶν τε καὶ τῶν ἀτόμων, καὶ ἡ διαφορὰ ὡσαύτως, τὸ δὲ εἶδος τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὸ ἀτόμων, τὸ δὲ ἴδιον τοῦ τε εἴδους, οὗ ἐστιν ἴδιον, καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸ εἶδος ἀτόμων, τὸ δὲ συμβεβηκὸς καὶ εἰδῶν καὶ ἀτόμων. τό τε γὰρ ζῷον ἵππων τε καὶ βοῶν κατηγορεῖται εἰδῶν ὄντων καὶ τοῦδε τοῦ ἵππου καὶ τοῦδε τοῦ βοὸς ἀτόμων ὄντων, τὸ δὲ ἄλογον ἵππων καὶ βοῶν κατηγορεῖται καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος, τὸ μέντοι εἶδος οἷον ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῶν κατὰ μέρος μόνον, τὸ δὲ ἴδιον οἷον τὸ γελαστικὸν καὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος, τὸ δὲ μέλαν τοῦ τε εἴδους τῶν κοράκων καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος συμβεβηκὸς ὂν ἀχώριστον, καὶ τὸ κινεῖσθαι ἀνθρώπου τε καὶ ἵππου χωριστὸν ὂν συμβεβηκός, ἀλλὰ προηγουμένως μὲν τῶν ἀτόμων, κατὰ δεύτερον δὲ λόγον καὶ τῶν περιεχόντων τὰ ἄτομα.

[ 403 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας γένους καὶ διαφορᾶς. ΚΟ Ι Ν Ὸ Ν Δ Ὲ Γ Έ Ν ΟΥ ς καὶ διαφορᾶς τὸ περιεκτικὸν εἰδῶν· περιέχει γὰρ καὶ [14] ἡ διαφορὰ εἴδη, εἰ καὶ μὴ πάντα ὅσα τὰ γένη. τὸ γὰρ λογικὸν εἰ καὶ μὴ περιέχει τὰ ἄλογα ὥσπερ τὸ ζῷον, ἀλλὰ περιέχει ἄνθρωπον καὶ θεόν, ἅπερ ἐστὶν εἴδη. ὅσα τε κατηγορεῖται τοῦ γένους ὡς γένους, καὶ τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὸ εἰδῶν κατηγορεῖται, ὅσα τε τῆς διαφορᾶς ὡς διαφορᾶς, καὶ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῆς εἴδους κατηγορηθήσεται. γένους τε γὰρ τοῦ ζῴου ὄντος ὡς γένους κατηγορεῖται ἡ οὐσία καὶ τὸ ἔμψυχον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸ ζῷον εἰδῶν πάντων κατηγορεῖται ταῦτα ἄχρι καὶ τῶν ἀτόμων· διαφορᾶς τε οὔσης τῆς τοῦ λογικοῦ κατηγορεῖται ὡς διαφορᾶς τὸ λόγῳ χρῆσθαι, οὐ μόνον δὲ τοῦ λογικοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸ λογικὸν εἰδῶν κατηγορηθήσεται τὸ χρῆσθαι λόγῳ. κοινὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀναιρεθέντος ἢ τοῦ γένους ἢ τῆς διαφορᾶς ἀναιρεῖσθαι τὰ ὑπ’ αὐτά· ὡς γὰρ μὴ ὄντος ζῴου οὐκ ἔστιν ἵππος οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπος, οὕτως μὴ ὄντος λογικοῦ οὐδὲν ἔσται ζῷον τὸ χρώμενον λόγῳ.

[ 404 ]

Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ γένους καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς. ἼΔ Ι Ο Ν Δ Ὲ ΤΟ ῦ γένους τὸ ἐπὶ πλειόνων κατηγορεῖσθαι, ἤπερ ἡ διαφορὰ καὶ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ ἴδιον καὶ τὸ συμβεβηκός· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ζῷον ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ἵππου καὶ ὀρνέου καὶ ὄφεως, τὸ δὲ τετράπουν ἐπὶ μόνων τῶν τέσσαρας πόδας ἐχόντων, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ μόνων τῶν ἀτόμων, καὶ τὸ χρεμετιστικὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου μόνον καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος, καὶ τὸ συμβεβηκὸς ὁμοίως ἐπ’ ἐλαττόνων. δεῖ δὲ διαφορὰς λαμβάνειν, αἷς τέμνεται τὸ γένος, οὐ τὰς συμπληρωτικὰς τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ γένους. ἔτι τὸ γένος περιέχει τὴν διαφορὰν δυνάμει· τοῦ γὰρ ζῴου τὸ μὲν λογικὸν τὸ δὲ ἄλογον. ἔτι τὰ μὲν γένη πρότερα τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὰ διαφορῶν, διὸ συναναιρεῖ μὲν αὐτάς, οὐ συναναιρεῖται δέ· ἀναιρεθέντος γὰρ τοῦ ζῴου συναναιρεῖται τὸ λογικὸν καὶ [15] τὸ ἄλογον. αἱ δὲ διαφοραὶ οὐκέτι συναναιροῦσι τὸ γένος· κἂν γὰρ πᾶσαι ἀναιρεθῶσιν, οὐσία ἔμψυχος αἰσθητικὴ ἐπινοεῖται, ἥτις ἦν τὸ ζῷον. ἔτι τὸ μὲν γένος ἐν τῷ τί ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ διαφορὰ ἐν τῷ ποῖόν τί ἐστιν, ὡς εἴρηται, κατηγορεῖται. ἔτι γένος μὲν ἓν καθ’ ἕκαστον εἶδος οἷον ἀνθρώπου τὸ ζῷον, διαφοραὶ δὲ πλείους οἷον λογικόν, θνητόν, νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης δεκτικόν, αἷς τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων διαφέρει. καὶ τὸ μὲν γένος ἔοικεν ὕλῃ, μορφῇ δὲ ἡ διαφορά. προσόντων δὲ καὶ ἄλλων κοινῶν τε καὶ ἰδίων τῷ γένει καὶ τῇ διαφορᾷ ἀρκείτω ταῦτα.

[ 405 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ εἴδους. ΓΈ Ν Ο ς Δ Ὲ Κ Α Ὶ εἶδος κοινὸν μὲν ἔχουσι τὸ κατὰ πλειόνων, ὡς εἴρηται, κατηγορεῖσθαι· εἰλήφθω δὲ τὸ εἶδος ὡς εἶδος, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ καὶ ὡς γένος, ἄνπερ ᾖ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ εἶδος καὶ γένος. κοινὸν δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸ προτέροις εἶναι ὧν κατηγορεῖται καὶ τὸ ὅλον τι εἶναι ἑκάτερον.

[ 406 ]

Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ εἴδους. ΔΙ ΑΦ Έ Ρ Ε Ι Δ Ὲ ᾟ τὸ μὲν γένος περιέχει τὰ εἴδη, τὰ δὲ εἴδη περιέχεται καὶ οὐ περιέχει τὰ γένη· ἐπὶ πλεῖον γὰρ τὸ γένος τοῦ εἴδους. ἔτι τὰ γένη προϋποκεῖσθαι δεῖ καὶ διαμορφωθέντα ταῖς εἰδοποιοῖς διαφοραῖς ἀποτελεῖν τὰ εἴδη, ὅθεν καὶ πρότερα τῇ φύσει τὰ γένη. καὶ συναναιροῦντα, ἀλλ’ οὐ συναναιρούμενα, καὶ εἴδους μὲν ὄντος πάντως ἔστι καὶ γένος, γένους δὲ ὄντος οὐ πάντως ἔστι καὶ τὸ εἶδος. καὶ τὰ μὲν γένη συνωνύμως κατηγορεῖται τῶν ὑφ’ ἑαυτὰ εἰδῶν, τὰ δὲ εἴδη τῶν γενῶν οὐκέτι. ἔτι τὰ μὲν γένη πλεονάζει τῇ τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὰ εἰδῶν περιοχῇ, τὰ δὲ εἴδη τῶν γενῶν πλεονάζει ταῖς οἰκείαις διαφοραῖς. ἔτι οὔτε τὸ εἶδος γένοιτ’ ἂν γενικώτατον οὔτε τὸ γένος εἰδικώτατον. [16]

[ 407 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. ΓΈ Ν ΟΥ ς Δ Ὲ Κ Α Ὶ ἰδίου κοινὸν μὲν τὸ ἕπεσθαι τοῖς εἴδεσιν· εἰ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος, ζῷον, καὶ εἰ ἄνθρωπος, γελαστικόν. καὶ τὸ ἐπίσης κατηγορεῖσθαι τὸ γένος τῶν εἰδῶν καὶ τὸ ἴδιον τῶν αὐτοῦ μετεχόντων ἀτόμων· ἐπίσης γὰρ καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ βοῦς ζῷον καὶ Ἄνυτος καὶ Μέλητος γελαστικόν. κοινὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ συνωνύμως κατηγορεῖσθαι τὸ γένος τῶν οἰκείων εἰδῶν καὶ τὸ ἴδιον ὧν ἂν ᾖ ἴδιον.

[ 408 ]

Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. ΔΙ ΑΦ Έ Ρ Ε Ι Δ Ὲ Ὅ Τ Ι τὸ μὲν γένος πρότερον, ὕστερον δὲ τὸ ἴδιον· δεῖ γὰρ εἶναι ζῷον, εἶτα διαιρεῖσθαι διαφοραῖς καὶ ἰδίοις. καὶ τὸ μὲν γένος κατὰ πλειόνων εἰδῶν κατηγορεῖται, τὸ δὲ ἴδιον ἑνὸς εἴδους, οὗ ἐστιν ἴδιον. καὶ τὸ μὲν ἴδιον ἀντικατηγορεῖται οὗ ἐστιν ἴδιον, τὸ δὲ γένος οὐδενὸς ἀντικατηγορεῖται· οὔτε γὰρ εἰ ζῷον, ἄνθρωπος, οὔτε εἰ ζῷον, γελαστικόν· εἰ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, γελαστικόν, καὶ ἔμπαλιν. ἔτι τὸ μὲν ἴδιον παντὶ τῷ εἴδει ὑπάρχει, οὗ ἐστιν ἴδιον, καὶ μόνῳ καὶ ἀεί, τὸ δὲ γένος παντὶ μὲν τῷ εἴδει, οὗ ἂν ᾖ γένος, καὶ ἀεί, οὐ μέντοι καὶ μόνῳ. ἔτι τὰ μὲν ἴδια ἀναιρούμενα οὐ συναναιρεῖ τὰ γένη, τὰ δὲ γένη ἀναιρούμενα συναναιρεῖ τὰ εἴδη, ὧν ἐστιν ἴδια, ὥστε καὶ ὧν ἐστιν ἴδια ἀναιρουμένων καὶ αὐτὰ συναναιρεῖται.

[ 409 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος. ΓΈ Ν ΟΥ ς Δ Ὲ Κ Α Ὶ συμβεβηκότος κοινὸν τὸ κατὰ πλειόνων, ὡς εἴρηται, κατηγορεῖσθαι, ἄν τε τῶν χωριστῶν ᾖ ἄν τε τῶν ἀχωρίστων· καὶ γὰρ τὸ [17] κινεῖσθαι κατὰ πλειόνων καὶ τὸ μέλαν κατὰ κοράκων καὶ Αἰθιόπων καί τινων ἀψύχων.

[ 410 ]

Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ γένους καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος. ΔΙ ΑΦ Έ Ρ Ε Ι Δ Ὲ Τ Ὸ γένος τοῦ συμβεβηκότος, ὅτι τὸ μὲν γένος πρὸ τῶν εἰδῶν, τὰ δὲ συμβεβηκότα τῶν εἰδῶν ὕστερα· κἂν γὰρ ἀχώριστον λαμβάνηται συμβεβηκός, ἀλλ’ οὖν πρότερόν ἐστι τὸ ᾧ συμβέβηκε τοῦ συμβεβηκότος. καὶ τοῦ μὲν γένους ἐπίσης τὰ μετέχοντα μετέχει, τοῦ δὲ συμβεβηκότος οὐκ ἐπίσης· ἐπίτασιν γὰρ καὶ ἄνεσιν ἐπιδέχεται ἡ τῶν συμβεβηκότων μέθεξις, ἡ δὲ τῶν γενῶν οὐκέτι. καὶ τὰ μὲν συμβεβηκότα ἐπὶ τῶν ἀτόμων προηγουμένως ὑφίσταται, τὰ δὲ γένη καὶ τὰ εἴδη φύσει πρότερα τῶν ἀτόμων οὐσιῶν. καὶ τὰ μὲν γένη ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι κατηγορεῖται τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτά, τὰ δὲ συμβεβηκότα ἐν τῷ ποῖόν τι ἢ πῶς ἔχον ἕκαστον· ποῖος γὰρ Αἰθίοψ ἐρωτηθεὶς ἐρεῖς μέλας, καὶ πῶς ἔχει Σωκράτης ἐρεῖς ὅτι κάθηται ἢ περιπατεῖ. Τὸ μὲν οὖν γένος ᾗ τῶν ἄλλων τεττάρων διαφέρει εἴρηται, συμβέβηκεν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον διαφέρειν τῶν τεττάρων, ὥστε πέντε μὲν ὄντων, ἑνὸς δὲ ἑκάστου τῶν τεττάρων διαφέροντος, τετράκι τὰ πέντε, εἴκοσι γίνεσθαι τὰς πάσας διαφοράς. ἀλλ’ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς καταριθμουμένων καὶ τῶν μὲν δύο μιᾷ λειπομένων διαφορᾷ διὰ τὸ ἤδη εἰλῆφθαι, τῶν δὲ τριῶν δυσίν, τῶν δὲ τεττάρων τρισί, τῶν δὲ πέντε τέτρασι, δέκα αἱ πᾶσαι γίνονται διαφοραί, τέσσαρες, τρεῖς, δύο, μία. τὸ μὲν γὰρ γένος διαφέρει τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος· τέσσαρες οὖν αἱ διαφοραί. ἡ διαφορὰ δὲ πῇ μὲν διενήνοχεν τοῦ γένους εἴρηται, ὅτε πῇ διαφέρει τὸ γένος αὐτῆς ἐρρέθη· λοιπὸν δὲ πῇ διαφέρει τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος ῥηθήσεται, καὶ γίνονται τρεῖς. πάλιν τὸ εἶδος πῇ μὲν διαφέρει τῆς διαφορᾶς ἐρρέθη, ὅτε πῇ διαφέρει ἡ διαφορὰ τοῦ εἴδους ἐλέγετο· πῇ δὲ διαφέρει τὸ εἶδος [18] τοῦ γένους ἐρρέθη, ὅτε πῇ διαφέρει τὸ γένος τοῦ εἴδους ἐλέγετο· λοιπὸν οὖν πῇ διαφέρει τοῦ ἰδίου καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος ῥηθήσεται· δύο οὖν καὶ αὗται αἱ διαφοραί. τὸ δὲ ἴδιον πῇ διαφέρει τοῦ συμβεβηκότος καταλειφθήσεται· πῇ γὰρ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ γένους διαφέρει, προειρημένον ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ ἐκείνων πρὸς αὐτὸ διαφορᾷ· τεσσάρων οὖν λαμβανομένων τοῦ γένους πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα διαφορῶν, τριῶν δὲ τῆς διαφορᾶς, δύο δὲ τοῦ εἴδους, μιᾶς δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου πρὸς τὸ συμβεβηκός, δέκα ἔσονται αἱ πᾶσαι, ὧν τὰς τέσσαρας, αἳ ἦσαν τοῦ γένους πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα, φθάσαντες ἀπεδείξαμεν.

[ 411 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ εἴδους. ΚΟ Ι Ν Ὸ Ν ΤΟ Ί Ν Υ Ν Δ Ι ΑΦ Ο Ρ ᾶς καὶ εἴδους τὸ ἐπίσης μετέχεσθαι· ἀνθρώπου τε γὰρ ἐπίσης μετέχουσιν οἱ κατὰ μέρος ἄνθρωποι καὶ τῆς τοῦ λογικοῦ διαφορᾶς. κοινὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀεὶ παρεῖναι τοῖς μετέχουσιν· ἀεὶ γὰρ Σωκράτης λογικός, καὶ ἀεὶ Σωκράτης ἄνθρωπος.

[ 412 ]

Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς. ἼΔ Ι Ο Ν Δ Ὲ Δ Ι ΑΦ Ο Ρ ᾶς μὲν τὸ ἐν τῷ ποῖόν τί ἐστι κατηγορεῖσθαι, εἴδους δὲ τὸ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστιν· κἂν γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὡς ποιὸν λαμβάνηται, οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἂν εἴη ποιόν, ἀλλὰ καθὸ τῷ γένει προσελθοῦσαι αἱ διαφοραὶ ὑπέστησαν αὐτό. ἔτι ἡ μὲν διαφορὰ ἐπὶ πλειόνων πολλάκις εἰδῶν θεωρεῖται, ὡς τὸ τετράπουν ἐπὶ πλείστων ζῴων τῷ εἴδει διαφερόντων, τὸ δὲ εἶδος ἐπὶ μόνων τῶν ὑπὸ τὸ εἶδος ἀτόμων ἐστίν. ἔτι ἡ διαφορὰ προτέρα τοῦ κατ’ αὐτὴν εἴδους· συναναιρεῖ γὰρ τὸ λογικὸν ἀναιρεθὲν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἀναιρεθεὶς οὐκ ἀνῄρηκεν τὸ λογικόν, ὄντος θεοῦ. ἔτι διαφορὰ μὲν συντίθεται μετὰ ἄλλης διαφορᾶς· τὸ λογικὸν γὰρ καὶ τὸ θνητὸν συνετέθη [19] εἰς ὑπόστασιν ἀνθρώπου· εἶδος δὲ εἴδει οὐ συντίθεται, ὥστε ἀπογεννῆσαι ἄλλο τι εἶδος· τὶς μὲν γὰρ ἵππος τινὶ ὄνῳ σύνεισιν εἰς ἡμιόνου γένεσιν, ἵππος δὲ ἁπλῶς ὄνῳ οὐκ ἂν συντεθεὶς ἀποτελέσειεν ἡμίονον.

[ 413 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. ΔΙ ΑΦ Ο Ρ Ὰ Δ Ὲ Κ Α Ὶ ἴδιον κοινὸν μὲν ἔχουσι τὸ ἐπίσης μετέχεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν μετεχόντων· ἐπίσης γὰρ τὰ λογικὰ λογικὰ καὶ τὰ γελαστικὰ γελαστικά. καὶ τὸ ἀεὶ καὶ παντὶ παρεῖναι κοινὸν ἀμφοῖν· κἂν γὰρ κολοβωθῇ ὁ δίπους, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ πεφυκέναι τὸ ἀεὶ λέγεται, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ γελαστικὸν τῷ πεφυκέναι ἔχει τὸ ἀεί, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ τῷ γελᾶν ἀεί.

[ 414 ]

Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ ἰδίου καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς. ἼΔ Ι Ο Ν Δ Ὲ Δ Ι ΑΦ Ο Ρ ᾶς ὅτι αὕτη μὲν ἐπὶ πλειόνων εἰδῶν λέγεται πολλάκις, οἷον τὸ λογικὸν καὶ ἐπὶ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ ἀνθρώπου, τὸ δὲ ἴδιον ἐφ’ ἑνὸς εἴδους, οὗ ἐστιν ἴδιον. καὶ ἡ μὲν διαφορὰ ἕπεται ἐκείνοις, ὧν ἦν διαφορά, οὐ μὴν καὶ ἀντιστρέφει· τὰ δὲ ἴδια ἀντικατηγορεῖται ὧν ἂν ᾖ ἴδια διὰ τὸ ἀντιστρέφειν.

[ 415 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος. ΔΙ ΑΦ Ο Ρ ᾷ Δ Ὲ Κ Α Ὶ συμβεβηκότι κοινὸν μὲν τὸ ἐπὶ πλειόνων λέγεσθαι, κοινὸν δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἀχώριστα συμβεβηκότα τὸ ἀεὶ καὶ παντὶ προσεῖναι· τό τε γὰρ δίπουν ἀεὶ πρόσεστι πᾶσι κόραξι τό τε μέλαν ὁμοίως.

[ 416 ]

Περὶ τῶν ἰδίων διαφορᾶς καὶ συμβεβηκότος. ΔΙ ΑΦ Έ ΡΟΥ Σ Ι Δ Ὲ Ὅ Τ Ι ἡ μὲν διαφορὰ περιέχει, οὐ περιέχεται δέ· [20] περιέχει γὰρ τὸ λογικὸν τὸν ἄνθρωπον· τὰ δὲ συμβεβηκότα τρόπον μέν τινα περιέχει τῷ ἐν πλείοσιν εἶναι, τρόπον δέ τινα περιέχεται τῷ μὴ ἑνὸς συμβεβηκότος εἶναι δεκτικὰ τὰ ὑποκείμενα, ἀλλὰ πλειόνων. καὶ ἡ μὲν διαφορὰ ἀνεπίτατος καὶ ἀνάνετος, τὰ δὲ συμβεβηκότα τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ τὸ ἧττον ἐπιδέχεται. καὶ ἀμιγεῖς μὲν αἱ ἐναντίαι διαφοραί, μιγείη δ’ ἂν τὰ ἐναντία συμβεβηκότα. Τοιαῦται μὲν οὖν αἱ κοινότητες καὶ αἱ ἰδιότητες τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων. τὸ δὲ εἶδος πῇ μὲν διαφέρει γένους καὶ διαφορᾶς, εἴρηται ἐν ᾧ ἐλέγομεν, πῇ τὸ γένος διαφέρει τῶν ἄλλων καὶ πῇ ἡ διαφορὰ διαφέρει τῶν ἄλλων.

[ 417 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. ΕἼ ΔΟΥ ς Δ Ὲ Κ Α Ὶ ἰδίου κοινὸν τὸ ἀλλήλων ἀντικατηγορεῖσθαι· εἰ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος, γελαστικόν, καὶ εἰ γελαστικόν, ἄνθρωπος· τὸ γελαστικὸν δὲ ὅτι κατὰ τὸ πεφυκέναι γελᾶν ληπτέον, πολλάκις εἴρηται· ἐπίσης τε γάρ ἐστι τὰ εἴδη τοῖς μετέχουσι καὶ τὰ ἴδια ὧν ἐστιν ἴδια.

[ 418 ]

Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου. ΔΙ ΑΦ Έ Ρ Ε Ι Δ Ὲ Τ Ὸ εἶδος τοῦ ἰδίου, ὅτι τὸ μὲν εἶδος δύναται ἄλλων γένος εἶναι, τὸ δὲ ἴδιον εἶναι ἄλλων ἴδιον ἀδύνατον. καὶ τὸ μὲν εἶδος προϋφέστηκεν τοῦ ἰδίου, τὸ δὲ ἴδιον ἐπιγίνεται τῷ εἴδει· δεῖ γὰρ ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, ἵνα καὶ γελαστικὸν ᾖ. ἔτι τὸ μὲν εἶδος ἀεὶ ἐνεργείᾳ πάρεστι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ, τὸ δὲ ἴδιόν ποτε καὶ δυνάμει· ἄνθρωπος μὲν γὰρ ἀεὶ ἐνεργείᾳ ὁ Σωκράτης ἐστίν, γελᾷ δὲ οὐκ ἀεί, καίπερ ἀεὶ πεφυκὼς εἶναι γελαστικός. ἔτι ὧν οἱ ὅροι διάφοροι, καὶ αὐτὰ διάφορά ἐστιν· ἔστιν δὲ εἴδους μὲν τὸ [21] ὑπὸ τὸ γένος εἶναι καὶ τὸ κατὰ πλειόνων καὶ διαφερόντων τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστιν κατηγορούμενον εἶναι καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, ἰδίου δὲ τὸ μόνῳ καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ παντὶ προσεῖναι.

[ 419 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος. ΕἼ ΔΟΥ ς Δ Ὲ Κ Α Ὶ συμβεβηκότος κοινὸν μὲν τὸ ἐπὶ πολλῶν κατηγορεῖσθαι, σπάνιοι δὲ αἱ ἄλλαι κοινότητες διὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἀλλήλων διεστάναι τό τε συμβεβηκὸς καὶ τὸ ᾧ συμβέβηκεν.

[ 420 ]

Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν αὐτῶν. ἼΔ Ι Α Δ Ὲ Ἑ Κ ΑΤ Έ ΡΟΥ , τοῦ μὲν εἴδους τὸ ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι κατηγορεῖσθαι ὧν ἐστιν εἶδος, τοῦ δὲ συμβεβηκότος τὸ ἐν τῷ ποῖον ἢ πῶς ἔχον. καὶ τὸ ἑκάστην οὐσίαν ἑνὸς μὲν εἴδους μετέχειν, συμβεβηκότων δὲ πλειόνων, τῶν τε χωριστῶν καὶ τῶν ἀχωρίστων. καὶ τὰ μὲν εἴδη προεπινοεῖται τῶν συμβεβηκότων, κἂν ἀχώριστα ᾖ (δεῖ γὰρ εἶναι τὸ ὑποκείμενον, ἵνα ἐκείνῳ τι συμβῇ)· τὰ δὲ συμβεβηκότα ὑστερογενῆ πέφυκεν καὶ ἐπεισοδιώδη τὴν φύσιν ἔχει. καὶ τοῦ μὲν εἴδους ἡ μετοχὴ ἐπίσης, τοῦ δὲ συμβεβηκότος, κἂν ἀχώριστον ᾖ, οὐκ ἐπίσης· καὶ γὰρ Αἰθίοψ Αἰθίοπος ἔχοι ἂν τὴν χροιὰν ἢ ἀνειμένην ἢ ἐπιτεταμένην κατὰ μελανίαν. Λείπεται δὴ περὶ ἰδίου καὶ συμβεβηκότος εἰπεῖν· πῇ γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον τοῦ τε εἴδους καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ γένους διενήνοχεν, εἴρηται.

[ 421 ]

Περὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἰδίου καὶ τοῦ ἀχωρίστου συμβεβηκότος. ΚΟ Ι Ν Ὸ Ν Δ Ὴ Τ ῷ ἰδίῳ καὶ τῷ ἀχωρίστῳ συμβεβηκότι τὸ ἄνευ αὐτῶν μὴ ὑποστῆναι ἐκεῖνα, ἐφ’ ὧν θεωρεῖται· ὡς γὰρ ἄνευ τοῦ γελαστικοῦ οὐχ [22] ὑφίσταται ἄνθρωπος, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἄνευ τοῦ μέλανος ὑποσταίη ἂν Αἰθίοψ. καὶ ὥσπερ παντὶ καὶ ἀεὶ πάρεστι τὸ ἴδιον, οὕτως καὶ τὸ ἀχώριστον συμβεβηκός. Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν αὐτῶν. Διενήνοχεν δὲ ὅτι τὸ μὲν ἴδιον μόνῳ ἑνὶ εἴδει πάρεστιν ὡς τὸ γελαστικὸν ἀνθρώπῳ, τὸ δὲ ἀχώριστον συμβεβηκὸς οἷον τὸ μέλαν οὐκ Αἰθίοπι μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ κόρακι πρόσεστι καὶ ἄνθρακι καὶ ἐβένῳ καὶ ἄλλοις τισίν. διὸ τὸ μὲν ἴδιον ἀντικατηγορεῖται οὗ ἐστὶν ἴδιον καὶ ἔστιν ἐπίσης, τὸ δὲ ἀχώριστον συμβεβηκὸς οὐκ ἀντικατηγορεῖται. καὶ τῶν μὲν ἰδίων ἐπίσης ἡ μετοχή, τῶν δὲ συμβεβηκότων ἡ μὲν μᾶλλον ἡ δὲ ἧττον. Εἰσὶν μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλαι κοινότητές τε καὶ ἰδιότητες τῶν εἰρημένων, ἀλλ’ ἐξαρκοῦσι καὶ αὗται εἰς διάκρισίν τε αὐτῶν καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας παράστασιν.

[ 422 ]

Against the Christians EU S E B ., PR A E PA R . E V . I, 2, 1 ff.: (Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ εἰκότως ἄν τις διαπορήσειε τίνες ὄντες ἐπὶ τὴν γραφὴν παρεληλύθαμεν) - πότερον Ἕλληνες ἢ βάρβαροι - ἢ τί ἂν γένοιτο τούτων μέσον, καὶ τίνας ἑαυτοὺς εἶναί φαμεν, οὐ τὴν προσηγορίαν, ὅτι καὶ τοῖς πᾶσιν ἔκδηλος αὕτη, ἀλλὰ τὸν τρόπον καὶ τὴν προαίρεσιν τοῦ βίου· οὔτε γὰρ τὰ Ἑλλήνων φρονοῦντας ὁρᾶν οὔτε τὰ βαρβάρων ἐπιτηδεύοντας (vgl. I, 5, 10 init.). τί οὖν ἂν γένοιτο τὸ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ξένον καὶ τίς ὁ νεωτερισμὸς τοῦ βίου; πῶς δ’ οὐ πανταχόθεν δυσσεβεῖς ἂν εἶεν καὶ ἄθεοι οἱ τῶν πατρίων ἐθῶν ἀποστάντες, δι’ ὧν πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ πᾶσα πόλις συνέστηκεν; ἢ τί καλὸν ἐλπίσαι εἰκὸς τοὺς τῶν σωτηρίων (σωτήρων Wil.) ἐχθροὺς καὶ πολεμίους καταστάντας καὶ τοὺς εὐεργέτας παρωσαμένους; καὶ τί γὰρ ἄλλο ἢ θεομαχοῦντας; ποίας δὲ καὶ ἀξιωθήσεσθαι συγγνώμης τοὺς ἐξ αἰῶνος μὲν παρὰ πᾶσιν Ἕλλησιν καὶ βαρβάροις κατά τε πόλεις καὶ ἀγροὺς παντοίοις ἱεροῖς καὶ τελεταῖς καὶ μυστηρίοις πρὸς ἁπάντων ὁμοῦ βασιλέων τε καὶ νομοθετῶν καὶ φιλοσόφων θεολογουμένους ἀποστραφέντας, ἑλομένους δὲ τὰ ἀσεβῆ καὶ ἄθεα τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις; ποίαις δ’ οὐκ ἂν ἐνδίκως ὑποβληθεῖεν τιμωρίαις οἱ τῶν μὲν πατρίων φυγάδες τῶν δ’ ὀθνείων καὶ παρὰ πᾶσι διαβεβλημένων Ἰουδαϊκῶν μυθολογημάτων γενόμενοι ζηλωταί; πῶς δ’ οὐ μοχθηρίας εἶναι καὶ εὐχερείας ἐσχάτης τὸ μεταθέσθαι μὲν εὐκόλως τῶν οἰκείων, ἀλόγῳ δὲ καὶ ἀνεξετάστῳ πίστει τὰ τῶν δυσσεβῶν καὶ πᾶσιν ἔθνεσι πολεμίων ἑλέσθαι, καὶ μηδ’ αὐτῷ τῷ παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις τιμωμένῳ θεῷ κατὰ τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς προσανέχειν νόμιμα, καινὴν δέ τινα καὶ ἐρήμην ἀνοδίαν ἑαυτοῖς συντεμεῖν, μήτε τὰ Ἑλλήνων μήτε τὰ Ἰουδαίων φυλάττουσαν; (Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν εἰκότως ἄν τις Ἑλλήνων, μηδὲν ἀληθὲς μήτε τῶν οἰκείων μήτε τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἐπαΐων, πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀπορήσειεν). [7] Euseb., Demonstr. III, 5, 95 ff. οἱ δὴ οὖν τὰ μὲν δόξαντα αὐτοῖς ἀγαθὴν φέρειν φήμην παραιτούμενοι, τὰς δὲ καθ’ ἑαυτῶν διαβολὰς εἰς ἄληστον αἰῶνα καταγράφοντες …. πῶς οὐ φιλαυτίας μὲν ἁπάσης καὶ ψευδολογίας ἐκτὸς γεγονέναι ἐνδίκως ἂν ὁμολογοῖντο, φιλαλήθους δὲ διαθέσεως σαφῆ καὶ ἐναργῆ τεκμήρια παρεσχηκέναι; οἱ δέ γε τοὺς τοιούσδε πεπλάσθαι καὶ κατεψεῦσθαι νομίζοντες καὶ οἷα πλάνους βλασφημεῖν πειρώμενοι, πῶς οὐκ ἂν γένοιντο καταγέλαστοι, φίλοι μὲν φθόνου καὶ βασκανίας, ἐχθροὶ δὲ αὐτῆς ἀληθείας ἁλισκόμενοι, οἵ γε τοὺς οὕτως ἀπανούργους καὶ ἄπλαστον ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ ἀκέραιον ἦθος διὰ τῶν οἰκείων λόγων ἐπιδεδειγμένους πανούργους τινὰς καὶ δεινοὺς ὑποτίθενται σοφιστάς, ὡς τὰ μὴ ὄντα πλασαμένους καὶ τῷ οἰκείῳ διδασκάλῳ τὰ μὴ πρὸς αὐτοῦ πραχθέντα κεχαρισμένως ἀναθέντας; ….. τί δέ; οἱ καταψευδόμενοι τοῦ διδασκάλου καὶ τὰ μὴ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῶν παραδιδόντες γραφῇ, ἆρα καὶ τὰ πάθη κατεψεύσαντο αὐτοῦ; …. εἰ γὰρ δὴ πλάττεσθαι αὐτοῖς σκοπὸς ἦν καὶ λόγοις ψευδέσι τὸν διδάσκαλον κοσμεῖν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε τὰ προειρημένα κατέγραφον.

[ 423 ]

[8] Cod. Lawr. [Athos] 184. B. 64 saec. X: Ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων καὶ τοῦ αἵματος καὶ τῆς πορνείας Χ καὶ ὅσα ἂν μὴ θέλωσιν αὐτοῖς γενέσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖν Χ)· Εἰρηναῖος ὁ πάνυ ἐν τῷ γ’ κατὰ τὰς αἱρέσεις λόγῳ καὶ ὧδε καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐκ προσώπου τῶν ἀποστόλων οὕτως ἀναφέρει τὴν χρῆσιν· καὶ ὁ Παμφίλου μέγας Εὐσέβιος ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Πορφυρίου ἕκτῳ καὶ ἑβδόμῳ λόγῳ ὁμοίως καὶ τὸν Πορφύριον τίθησι οὕτως ἐπὶ διαβολῇ μεμνημένον τῆς χρήσεως. [12] Epiphan., haer. 51, 8: Ὅθεν καί τινες ἄλλοι ἐξ Ἑλλήνων φιλοσόφων, φημὶ δὲ Πορφύριος καὶ Κέλσος καὶ Φιλοσαββάτιος, ὁ ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ὁρμώμενος, δεινὸς καὶ ἀπατεὼν ὄφις, εἰς τὴν κατὰ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς πραγματείας διεξιόντες ἀνατροπὴν τῶν ἁγίων εὐαγγελιστῶν κατηγοροῦσι, ψυχικοὶ καὶ σαρκικοὶ ὑπάρχοντες, κατὰ σάρκα δὲ στρατευόμενοι … Ἕκαστος γὰρ προσκόπτων τοῖς λόγοις τῆς ἀληθείας διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ τύφλωσιν τῆς ἀγνωσίας, εἰς τοῦτο ἐμπίπτοντες ἔλεγον· Πῶς δύναται ἡ αὐτὴ ἡμέρα εἶναι τῆς ἐν Βηθλεὲμ γεννήσεως, αὐτὴ καὶ περιτομὴν ἔχειν ὀκταήμερον καὶ διὰ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἄνοδον καὶ τὰ ἀπὸ Συμεῶνος καὶ Ἄννας εἰς αὐτὸν τετελεσμένα, ὁπότε ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ ἐγεννήθη πέφηνεν αὐτῷ, φησίν, ἄγγελος μετὰ τὴν τῶν μάγων ἔλευσιν τῶν ἐλθόντων προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ καὶ ἀνοιξάντων τὰς πήρας καὶ προσενεγκάντων, ὡς λέγει; Φησίν· Ὤφθη αὐτῷ ἄγγελος λέγων· ….. εἰ τοίνυν ἐν ταύτῃ νυκτὶ ᾗ γεγέννηται παρελήμφθη εἰς Αἴγυπτον καὶ ἐκεῖ ἦν ἕως ὅτου ἀπέθανεν Ἡρώδης, πόθεν τὸ ἐπιμεῖναι καὶ ὀκταήμερον περιτμηθῆναι; ἢ πῶς τὸ μετὰ τεσσαράκοντα εὑρίσκεται Λουκᾶς ψευδόμενος, ὥς φασι βλασφημοῦντες κατὰ τῆς ἑαυτῶν κεφαλῆς, ὅτι φησίν· ….. [13] Makar. IV, 3: Ἐκεῖνο δ’ αὖθις μνημονευτέον ὃ ὁ Ματθαῖος εἶπε, καθάπερ ἐν μύλωνι κατακεκλειμένος· Καὶ κηρυχθήσεται, λέγων, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος. ἰδοὺ γὰρ πᾶσα τῆς οἰκουμένης ῥύμη τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν πεῖραν ἔχει, καὶ τέρμονες ὅλοι καὶ κόσμου πέρατα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὅλα κατέχουσι, καὶ ‹τὸ› τέλος οὐδαμοῦ οὐδ’ ἥξει ποτέ. [15] Makar. II, 12: Τοὺς εὐαγγελιστὰς ἐφευρετὰς οὐχ ἵστορας τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν γεγενῆσθαι πράξεων· ἕκαστος γὰρ αὐτῶν οὐ σύμφωνον ἀλλ’ ἑτερόφωνον μάλιστα τὸν λόγον περὶ τοῦ πάθους ἔγραψεν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἱστορεῖ, ὡς σταυρωθέντι σπόγγον τις ὄξους πληρώσας προσήνεγκεν …. ‹οὗτός ἐστι Μάρκος›. ὁ δὲ ἑτέρως· εἰς τὸν τόπον, φησίν, ἐλθόντες Γολγαθᾶ, ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον· καὶ γευσάμενος οὐκ ἠθέλησε πιεῖν· καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα· περὶ δὲ ἐνάτην ὥραν ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων· ἐλωείμ, ἐλωείμ, λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί, τουτέστιν· θεέ μου, θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες; οὗτος δ’ ἐστὶ Ματθαῖος. ὁ δέ φησι· σκεῦος ἔκειτο ὄξους μεστόν· σκεῦος οὖν μεστὸν τοῦ ὄξους σὺν ὑσσώπῳ προσδήσαντες προσήνεγκαν αὐτοῦ τῷ στόματι· ὅτε οὖν ἔλαβε τὸ ὄξος ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπε· τετέλεσται· καὶ κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν παρέδωκε τὸ πνεῦμα· οὗτός ἐστιν [ὁ] Ἰωάννης. ὁ δὲ λέγει· καὶ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ κράξας εἶπε· πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου· οὗτος δὲ τυγχάνει Λουκᾶς. ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ἑώλου ἱστορίας καὶ διαφώνου ὡς οὐχ ἑνὸς ἀλλὰ πολλῶν πεπονθότων ἔστι λαβεῖν τὸν [ 424 ]

λόγον· εἰ γὰρ ὁ μέν· εἰς χεῖράς σου, λέγει, παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου, ὁ δέ· τετέλεσται, ὁ δέ· θεέ μου, ἵνα τί με ἐγκατέλιπες; ὁ δέ· ὁ θεός, θεός μου, εἰς τί ὠνείδισάς με; φανερὸν ὡς ἀσύμφωνος αὕτη μυθοποιΐα ἢ πολλοὺς σταυρουμένους ἐμφαίνει ἢ ἕνα δυσθανατοῦντα καὶ τὸ σαφὲς τοῖς παροῦσι τοῦ πάθους μὴ παρέχοντα· εἰ δὲ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν τὸν τρόπον τοῦ θανάτου εἰπεῖν μὴ δυνάμενοι οὗτοι παντάπασιν ἐρραψῴδησαν, καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν οὐδὲν ἐσαφήνισαν. [16] Makar. II, 13: Ὅτι δὲ τὰ περὶ τοῦ τέλους αὐτοῦ πάντα κατεστοχάσαντο, ἐξ ἑτέρου κεφαλαίου τοῦτ’ ἀποδειχθήσεται· γράφει γὰρ Ἰωάννης· ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐλθόντες, ὡς εἶδον αὐτὸν ἤδη τεθνηκότα, οὐ κατέαξαν αὐτοῦ τὰ σκέλη, ἀλλ’ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν· καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ· μόνος γὰρ τοῦτ’ εἴρηκεν ὁ Ἰωάννης, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων οὐδείς· διὸ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ βούλεται μαρτυρεῖν λέγων· καὶ ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκε, καὶ ἀληθινὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία. ὅπερ δοκεῖ μοι τουτὶ κέπφου τυγχάνειν τὸ ῥῆμα· πῶς γὰρ ἀληθινὴ ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ περὶ οὗ ἡ μαρτυρία μὴ ὑφεστῶτος; μαρτυρεῖ γάρ τις περὶ τοῦ ὄντος· περὶ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος πῶς ἂν λεχθείη μαρτυρία; [23] Makar. III, 19: Ταῦτα μὲν χύδην οὕτω μακρηγορούμενα πολλήν, ὡς εἰκός, ἔχει τὴν ἀηδίαν, καὶ ὥσπερ αὐτὰ πρὸς ἑαυτὰ τῆς ἀντιλογίας ἀνακαίει τὴν μάχην· εἰ γὰρ ἐθέλει τις ὡς ἐκ τριόδου κἀκεῖνον τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀφηγήσασθαι τὸν λόγον, ὃν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῶν Πέτρῳ διαφθέγγεται, φάς· Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ, σκάνδαλόν μου εἶ, ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· εἶτ’ ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ· Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καί σοι δώσω τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν· εἰ γὰρ οὕτω κατέγνω τοῦ Πέτρου, ὡς καὶ Σατανᾶν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν ὀπίσω βαλλόμενον καὶ σκάνδαλον, μηδ’ ὁτιοῦν θεῖον ἀνειληφότα φρόνημα, ἀποσκορακίσαι δ’ αὐτὸν οὕτως ἅτε καιρίως πλημμελήσαντα, ὡς μηδ’ εἰς ὄψιν τοῦ λοιποῦ λαβεῖν τοῦτον ἐθέλειν, ἀλλ’ εἰς τοὐπίσω ῥίψαι εἰς τὸν τῶν ἀπερριμμένων καὶ ἀφανῶν ὅμιλον - τί χρὴ ταύτης ἀνωτέρω τῆς ἀποφάσεως ψῆφον ἀπεκδέχεσθαι κατὰ τοῦ κορυφαίου καὶ πρώτου τῶν μαθητῶν; ταῦτα γοῦν εἴ τις νήφων σφοδρῶς μηρυκήσεται, εἶθ’, ὡς ἐπιλαθομένου τοῦ Χριστοῦ τῶν κατὰ τοῦ Πέτρου γεγενημένων φωνῶν, ἐπακούσει τό· Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ τό· Σοὶ δώσω τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐ γελάσεται μέγα τὸ στόμα ῥηγνύμενος; οὐ καγχάσει καθάπερ ἐν θυμέλῃ θεάτρου; οὐ λέξει κερτομῶν, οὐ συριεῖ σφοδρότερον; οὐ τοῖς παρεστῶσιν ἐρεῖ γεγωνότερον· Ἢ Πέτρον Σατανᾶν λέγων ἐμεθύσκετο οἴνῳ βεβαρημένος καὶ λαλῶν ἐπίληπτα ἢ κλειδάρχην τοῦτον τῆς βασιλείας ποιῶν ὀνείρους ἐζωγράφει τῇ φαντασίᾳ τῶν ὕπνων; ποῖος γὰρ Πέτρος βαστάσαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν κρηπῖδα δυνάμενος, ὁ μυριάκις σαλευθεὶς εὐχερείᾳ τῆς γνώμης; ποῖος στερρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ λογισμὸς ἐφωράθη ἢ ποῦ τὸ ἀκλόνητον τῆς φρονήσεως ἔδειξεν, ὁ παιδίσκης οἰκτρᾶς ἕνεκεν τοῦ “Ἰησοῦ” ῥημάτιον ἐπακούσας καὶ δεινῶς κραδαινόμενος, ὁ τρίτον ἐπιορκήσας οὐ μεγάλης αὐτῷ τινος ἐπικειμένης ἀνάγκης; εἰ γοῦν τὸν οὕτως εἰς αὐτὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας πταίσαντα τὸ κεφάλαιον Σατανᾶν προλαβὼν εὐλόγως ὠνόμασεν, ἀτόπως πάλιν, ὡς ἀγνοῶν ὃ ἐποίησε, τῆς κορυφῆς τῶν πραγμάτων διδοῖ τὴν ἐξουσίαν.

[ 425 ]

[24] Makar. III, 20: Ὅτι δὲ Πέτρος ἐν πολλοῖς πταίσας κατηγορεῖται, δηλοῖ κἀξ ἐκείνου τοῦ κεφαλαίου τὸ ῥητόν, ὅπου πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· Οὐ λέγω σοι ἕως ἑπτάκις, ἀλλ’ ἕως ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτὰ ἀφήσεις τῷ πλημμελοῦντι τὸ ἁμάρτημα. Ὁ δὲ ταύτην λαβὼν τὴν ἐντολὴν καὶ τὴν νομοθεσίαν οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως πλημμελήσαντα κόπτει τοῦ ὠτίου καὶ ὠμὸν ἐργάζεται τὸν μηδὲν ὅλως ἁμαρτόντα. τί γὰρ ἥμαρτεν, εἰ κελευσθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ δεσπότου συνῆλθεν εἰς τὴν τότε κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔφοδον; [25] Makar. III, 21: Οὗτος ὁ Πέτρος καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις ἀδικῶν ἐλέγχεται· ἄνδρα γάρ τινα λεγόμενον Ἀνανίαν καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ γυναῖκα Σάπφειραν καλουμένην, ἐπεὶ μὴ τὸ πᾶν τοῦ χωρίου τίμημα κατεβάλοντο, ὀλίγον δ’ εἰς ἀναγκαίας ἑαυτοῖς [τὰς] χρείας ἀφώρισαν, ἐθανάτωσε μηδὲν ἀδικήσαντας. τί γὰρ ἠδίκησαν, εἰ μὴ πάντα τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἠθέλησαν χαρίσασθαι; εἰ δ’ ἄρα καὶ ἀδίκημα τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐνομίζετο, ἐχρῆν αὐτὸν τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μεμνημένον, ἕως τετρακοσίων ἐνενήκοντα πλημμελημάτων συμπάσχειν διδαχθέντα, συγγνῶναι τῇ μιᾷ, εἰ γ’ ὄντως ἁμαρτία τις τὸ πεπραγμένον ὑπῆρχε· σκοπεῖν δ’ αὐτὸν ἐχρῆν πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις κἀκεῖνο, ὡς αὐτὸν ἀγνοεῖν ὀμόσας τὸν Ἰησοῦν οὐ μόνον ἐψεύσατο, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπιώρκησε τῆς μελλούσης καταφρονήσας κρίσεως καὶ ἀναστάσεως. [26] Makar. III, 22: Οὗτος ὁ πρωτοστάτης τοῦ χοροῦ τῶν μαθητῶν, διδαχθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ θανάτου καταφρονεῖν, συλληφθεὶς ὑπὸ Ἡρώδου καὶ φυγών, αἴτιος κολάσεως τοῖς τηροῦσιν ἐγένετο. φυγόντος γὰρ αὐτοῦ νυκτός, ἡμέρας γενομένης θόρυβος ἦν ἐν τοῖς στρατιώταις, πῶς ἐξῆλθεν ὁ Πέτρος· ἐπιζητήσας δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἡρώδης καὶ μὴ εὑρών, ἀνακρίνας τοὺς φύλακας, ἐκέλευσεν ἀπαχθῆναι, τουτέστιν ἀποτμηθῆναι. θαυμάσαι τοίνυν ἔστι πῶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοιούτῳ ὄντι τῷ Πέτρῳ τὰ κλειδία δέδωκε τῶν οὐρανῶν, πῶς ἐν τοσούτῳ τεταραγμένῳ θορύβῳ καὶ τηλικούτοις πράγμασι καταπεπονημένῳ ἔλεγε· Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου, εἴ γε τὰ μὲν πρόβατά εἰσιν οἱ Πιστοὶ ‹οἱ› εἰς τὸ τῆς τελειώσεως προβάντες μυστήριον, τὰ δ’ ἀρνία τῶν ἔτι Κατηχουμένων ὑπάρχει τὸ ἄθροισμα, ἁπαλῷ τέως τρεφόμενον διδασκαλίας γάλακτι. ὅμως ἱστορεῖται μηδ’ ὀλίγους μῆνας βοσκήσας τὰ προβάτια ὁ Πέτρος ἐσταυρῶσθαι, εἰρηκότος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὰς ᾅδου πύλας μὴ κατισχύσειν αὐτοῦ. κατέγνω καὶ Παῦλος Πέτρου λέγων· Πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου τινὰς μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς· καὶ συνεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ πολλοὶ Ἰουδαῖοι. πολλὴ δὲ κἀν τούτῳ καὶ μεγάλη κατάγνωσις, ἄνδρα τοῦ θείου στόματος ὑποφήτην γενόμενον ἐν ὑποκρίσει ζῆν καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων ἀρέσκειαν πολιτεύεσθαι, ἔτι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκα περιάγεσθαι, Παύλου καὶ τοῦτο λέγοντος· Μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγεσθαι, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ Πέτρος; εἶτα ἐπιλέγει· Οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι. εἰ γοῦν ἐν τοσούτοις ἱστόρηται ἐγκεκυλῖσθαι κακοῖς, πῶς οὐ φρικτέον ὑποτοπῆσαι κλεῖδας οὐρανοῦ κατέχειν καὶ λύειν καὶ δεσμεῖν αὐτὸν μυρίοις ἐσφιγμένον ὥσπερ ἀτοπήμασιν; [27] Makar. III, 30: Πῶς ὁ Παῦλος, Ἐλεύθερος γὰρ ὤν, λέγει, πᾶσιν ἐμαυτὸν ἐδούλωσα, ἵνα πάντας κερδήσω; πῶς δὲ καὶ τὴν περιτομὴν λέγων κατατομὴν αὐτὸς ἐν Λύστροις περιτέμνει τινά, Τιμόθεον, ὡς αἱ Πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων διδάσκουσιν; εὖ γε τῆς ὄντως ὧδε βλακείας τῶν [ 426 ]

ῥημάτων· τοιοῦτον ὀκρίβαντα, γελοίου μηχανήματα, αἱ τῶν θεάτρων σκηναὶ ζωγραφοῦσι· τοιοῦτον θαυματοποιῶν ὄντως τὸ παραπαίγνιον. πῶς γὰρ ἐλεύθερος ὁ [παρὰ] πᾶσι δουλούμενος; πῶς δὲ πάντας κερδαίνει ὁ πάντας καθικετεύων; εἰ γὰρ τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἄνομος, ὡς αὐτὸς λέγει, καὶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις Ἰουδαῖος καὶ τοῖς πᾶσιν ὁμοίως συνήρχετο, ὄντως πολυτρόπου κακίας ἀνδράποδον, καὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ξένον καὶ ἀλλότριον, ὄντως ἀλλοτρίων κακῶν ὑπουργὸς καὶ διάκονος καὶ ζηλωτὴς πραγμάτων ἀσέμνων ἐπίσημος, ὁ τῇ κακίᾳ τῶν ἀνόμων συνδιατρίβων ἑκάστοτε καὶ τὰς πράξεις αὐτῶν ἰδιοποιούμενος. οὐκ ἔνι ταῦτα ψυχῆς ὑγιαινούσης τὰ δόγματα, οὐκ ἔνι λογισμῶν ἐλευθέρων ἀφήγησις, ὑποπύρου δὲ τὰς φρένας καὶ τὸν λογισμὸν ἀρρωστοῦντος ἡ τῶν λόγων ὑπόθεσις. εἰ γὰρ ἀνόμοις συζῇ καὶ τὸν Ἰουδαϊσμὸν ἐγγράφως ἀσμενίζει ἑκατέρου μετέχων, ἑκατέρῳ συμπέφυρται συναναμιγνύμενος καὶ συναπογραφόμενος τῶν οὐκ ἀστείων τὰ πταίσματα. ὁ γὰρ τὴν περιτομὴν οὕτω παραγραφόμενος ὡς ἐπαρᾶσθαι τοὺς ταύτην ἐπιτελεῖν θέλοντας καὶ περιτεμών, αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ βαρύτατος ὑπάρχει κατήγορος, λέγων· Εἰ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνίστημι. [28] Makar. III, 31: Ὁ δ’ αὐτὸς οὗτος ἡμῖν, ὁ πολὺς ἐν τῷ λέγειν ὥσπερ τῶν οἰκείων λόγων ἐπιλαθόμενός φησι τῷ χιλιάρχῳ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαῖον ἑαυτὸν ἀλλὰ Ῥωμαῖον εἶναι, πρὸ τούτου φάς· Ἐγὼ ἀνὴρ Ἰουδαῖός εἰμι, ἐν Τάρσῳ τῆς Κιλικίας γενόμενος, ἀνατεθραμμένος δὲ παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Γαμαλιήλ, πεπαιδευμένος κατ’ ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου. ὁ γοῦν εἰπών· Ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ Ἐγώ εἰμι Ῥωμαῖος, οὐδέτερόν ἐστιν, ἑκατέρῳ προσκείμενος· ὁ γὰρ ὑποκρινόμενος καὶ λέγων ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν, δόλῳ τὰς ὑποθέσεις τῶν ἔργων πραγματεύεται καὶ προσωπεῖον ἀπάτης περιβαλὼν ἑαυτῷ φενακίζει τὸ σαφὲς καὶ κλέπτει τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀλληνάλλως πολιορκῶν τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ φρόνημα, τέχνῃ γοητείας τοὺς εὐχερεῖς δουλούμενος. ὁ δὲ τοιαύτην ἐν βίῳ γνώμην ἀσπασάμενος οὐδὲν ἀσπόνδου πολεμίου καὶ πικροῦ διενήνοχεν, ὃς τῶν ὑπερορίων τὰς γνώμας ὑποκριθεὶς πάντας αἰχμαλωτίζει ἀπανθρώπως δουλούμενος. εἰ γοῦν Παῦλος ὑποκρινόμενος πῆ μὲν Ἰουδαῖος, πῆ δὲ Ῥωμαῖός ἐστι, πῆ μὲν ἄνομος, πῆ δὲ Ἕλλην, ὅταν ἐθέλῃ ἑκάστου πράγματος ὀθνεῖος καὶ πολέμιος, ἕκαστον ὑπεισελθὼν ἕκαστον ἠχρείωκε, θωπείαις ἑκάστου κλέπτων τὴν προαίρεσιν. ψεύστης οὖν καὶ τοῦ ψεύδους ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ σύντροφος, καὶ περιττὸν τὸ λέγειν· Ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι. ὁ γὰρ πρώην τὸν νόμον καὶ τήμερον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον σχηματιζόμενος, ἐνδίκως ὁ τοιοῦτος κἀν βίῳ κἀν πολιτείᾳ κακοῦργος καὶ ὕπουλος. [29] Makar. III, 32: Ὅτι δὲ κενοδοξίας ἕνεκεν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ πλεονεξίας τὸν νόμον ὑποκρίνεται, δῆλος ἀφ’ ὧν λέγει· Τίς στρατεύεται ἰδίοις ὀψωνίοις ποτέ; τίς ποιμαίνει ποίμνην καὶ ἐκ τοῦ γάλακτος τῆς ποίμνης οὐκ ἐσθίει; καὶ ταῦτα θέλων κρατῦναι τὸν νόμον τῆς πλεονεξίας λαμβάνει συνήγορον, φάς· Ἢ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα οὐ λέγει; ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται· “οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα”. εἶτ’ ἐπισυνάπτει τὸν λόγον ἀσαφῆ καὶ μεστὸν φλυαρίας, τῶν ἀλόγων τὴν θείαν ἀποτέμνων πρόνοιαν, φάσκων· Μὴ τῶν βοῶν μέλει τῷ θεῷ; ἢ δι’ ἡμᾶς λέγει; δι’ ἡμᾶς γὰρ ἐγράφη. δοκεῖ δέ μοι ταῦτα λέγων ἱκανῶς ἐνυβρίζειν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ κτίσαντος ὡς οὐ προνοουμένῃ τῶν γενομένων [πάλαι]. εἰ γὰρ περὶ τῶν βοῶν οὐ μέλει τῷ θεῷ, τί [ 427 ]

καὶ γέγραπται· Πάντα ὑπέταξας, πρόβατα καὶ βόας καὶ κτήνη καὶ τοὺς ἰχθύας. εἰ γὰρ ἰχθύων λόγον ποιεῖται, πολλῷ μᾶλλον “βοῶν ἀροτήρων” καὶ καματηρῶν. ὅθεν ἄγαμαι τὸν οὕτω φένακα, τὸν ἀπληστίας ἕνεκεν καὶ τοῦ λαβεῖν ἱκανὸν τῶν ὑπηκόων ἔρανον οὕτω τὸν νόμον σεμνῶς περιέποντα. [30] Makar. III, 33: Εἶθ’ ὑποστρέψας αἰφνίδιον ὡς ὀνειροπλὴξ ἀφ’ ὕπνου τινὸς ἀναπηδήσας φάσκει· Μαρτύρομαι ἐγὼ Παῦλος ὅτι ἐάν τις ἓν ποιήσῃ τοῦ νόμου, ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ· ὅλως οὐ χρὴ τοῖς λεγομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου προσέχειν. Ὁ βέλτιστος οὗτος, ὁ φρενήρης, ὁ συνετός, ὁ κατὰ ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου πεπαιδευμένος, ὁ τοσαυτάκις Μωσέως δεξιῶς μεμνημένος; ὥσπερ ἐν οἴνῳ καὶ μέθῃ διαβραχείς, ἀναιρεῖ δογματίζων τοῦ νόμου τὸ πρόσταγμα, λέγων Γαλάταις· Τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; τουτέστι τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ· εἶτα δεινοποιῶν καὶ φρικτὸν ἐργαζόμενός τινα τῷ νόμῳ πείθεσθαι λέγει· Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν. ὁ γράφων Ῥωμαίοις, ὅτι Ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστι, καὶ αὖθις· Ὁ νόμος ἅγιος καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία, τοὺς πειθομένους τῷ ἁγίῳ ὑπὸ κατάραν τίθησιν. εἶτα φύρων ἄνω καὶ κάτω τὴν φύσιν τοῦ πράγματος συγχέει τὸ πᾶν καὶ ζοφερὸν ἐργάζεται, ὡς σκοτοδινιᾶσαι μικροῦ δεῖν τὸν ἀκούοντα καὶ καθάπερ ἐν νυκτὶ προσαράττειν ἑκατέροις, τῷ τε νόμῳ προσπταίειν καὶ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ προσκρούειν τῇ συγχύσει διὰ τὴν τοῦ χειραγωγοῦντος ἀμαθίαν. [31] Makar. III, 34: Ἴδε γάρ, ἴδε τοῦ σοφοῦ τὴν ἀφήγησιν· μετὰ μυρίας φωνάς, ἃς ἐκ τοῦ νόμου πρὸς σύναρσιν ἔλαβε, καὶ τῶν οἰκείων ῥημάτων τὴν ψῆφον ἠκύρωσε λέγων· Νόμος γὰρ παρεισῆλθεν, ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα, καὶ πρὸ τούτων· Τὸ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἡ δὲ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ νόμος, μονονουχὶ μάχαιραν καθάπερ τὴν οἰκείαν ἀπακονήσας γλῶτταν ἀφειδῶς μεληδὸν τεμαχίζει τὸν νόμον ὁ πείθεσθαι τῷ νόμῳ πολλαχῶς προτρεπόμενος καὶ τὸ ζῆν κατ’ αὐτὸν λέγων ἐπαινετόν. ὥσπερ δὲ ἐκ συνηθείας ταύτην ἀναλαβὼν τὴν ἀπαίδευτον γνώμην τὰς οἰκείας πανταχοῦ ψήφους καταβέβληκεν. [32] Makar. III, 35: Ἀμέλει τὴν βρῶσιν τῶν ἱεροθύτων ἀπαγορεύων πάλιν ἀδιαφορεῖν περὶ τούτων διδάσκει, λέγων μὴ δεῖν πολυπραγμονεῖν μηδ’ ἐξετάζειν, ἀλλ’ ἐσθίειν κἂν ἱερόθυτα ᾖ, μόνον ἐάν τις μὴ προείπῃ· …. ἐν οἷς ἱστόρηται λέγων· Ἃ θύουσι, δαιμονίοις θύουσιν· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι. ταῦτα λέγων καὶ γράφων πάλιν ἀδιαφόρως περὶ τῆς βρώσεως γράφει λέγων· Οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς, καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα· Βρῶμα ὑμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ θεῷ, οὔτε ἐὰν φάγωμεν περισσεύομεν, οὔτε ἐὰν οὐ φάγωμεν ὑστερούμεθα, εἶτα μετὰ τοσαύτην τερθρείας ἀδολεσχίαν ὥσπερ ἐν κλίνῃ κείμενος ἀπεμηρυκήσατο φάς· Πᾶν τὸ ἐν μακέλλῳ πωλούμενον ἐσθίετε μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν· τοῦ κυρίου γὰρ ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς· ὦ σκηνῆς παίγνιον πρὸς μηδενὸς εὑρεθέν, ὦ φωνῆς ἀλλόκοτον ῥῆμα καὶ ἀσύμφωνον. ὦ λόγος αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν τῇ μαχαίρᾳ χειρούμενος. ὦ καινοτέρα τοξεία κατὰ τοῦ βάλλοντος ἐρχομένη καὶ πίπτουσα. [33] Makar. III, 36: Ὅμοιον τούτοις ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς αὐτοῦ ῥῆμά τι εὕρομεν, ἔνθα τὴν παρθενίαν ἐπαινῶν, μεταβαλλόμενος αὖθις γράφει· Ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς [ 428 ]

πίστεως προσέχοντες πνεύμασι πλάνης, κωλύοντες γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους δὲ ἐπιστολῇ λέγει· Περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω. οὐκοῦν ὁ παρθενεύων οὐ καλῶς ποιεῖ οὐδ’ ὁ γάμων ἀπεχόμενος, πονηροῦ τινος ὑφηγήσει πειθόμενοι, μὴ ἔχοντες πρόσταγμα περὶ παρθενίας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ πῶς τινες παρθενεύουσαι ὡς μέγα τι κομπάζουσι καὶ λέγουσι πνεύματος ἁγίου πεπληρῶσθαι ὁμοίως τῇ τεξαμένῃ τὸν Ἰησοῦν; [34] Makar. IV, 1: Πῶς παράγειν ὁ Παῦλος λέγει τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου; καὶ πῶς δυνατὸν τοὺς ἔχοντας ὡς μὴ ἔχοντας εἶναι καὶ τοὺς χαίροντας ὡς μὴ χαίροντας, καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς τούτοις γραολογίας εἶναι πιθανάς; πῶς γὰρ δυνατὸν τὸν ἔχοντα μὲν ὡς μὴ ἔχοντα γενέσθαι; πῶς δὲ πιθανὸν τὸν χαίροντα ὡς μὴ χαίροντα; ἢ πῶς τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου παρελθεῖν δυνατόν; τίς δ’ ὁ παράγων ἔσται καὶ τίνος χάριν; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὁ δημιουργὸς τοῦτο παράξειε, διαβληθήσεται ὡς τὸ κείμενον ἀσφαλῶς κινῶν καὶ μεταφέρων· εἰ δ’ ἐπὶ τὸ κρεῖττον παράξει τὸ σχῆμα, κατηγορεῖται κἀν τούτῳ πάλιν ὡς οὐ συνιδὼν ἐν τῇ δημιουργίᾳ τὸ ἁρμόζον καὶ πρέπον σχῆμα τῷ κόσμῳ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ κρείττονος λόγου λειπόμενος ἔκτισεν αὐτὸν ὥσπερ ἀτελῆ. πόθεν γοῦν ἰστέον ὡς εἰς τὸ καλὸν ἡ τοῦ κόσμου φύσις ὀψὲ τῶν χρόνων ἀλλαττομένη λήξει ποτέ; τί δὲ τὸ συμφέρον τὴν τῶν φαινομένων τάξιν ἀλλαγῆναι; εἰ μὲν γὰρ κατηφῆ καὶ λύπης αἴτια τὰ τῶν ὁρωμένων ὑπάρχει πράγματα, καταψάλλεται καὶ τούτοις ὁ δημιουργός, καταυλούμενος εὐλόγοις αἰτίαις, ὅτι λυπηρὰ καὶ ταράττοντα τὴν λογικὴν φύσιν ἐτεκτήνατο τοῦ κόσμου τὰ μέρη καὶ μεταγνοὺς ἔκρινεν ἀλλάξαι τὸ πᾶν. μή τι γοῦν ὁ Παῦλος τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ ὡς μὴ ἔχοντα διδάσκει τὸν ἔχοντα φρονεῖν, ἐπεὶ τὸν κόσμον ἔχων ὁ κτίσας ὡς μὴ ἔχων τούτου παράγει τὸ σχῆμα; καὶ τὸν χαίροντα λέγει μὴ χαίρειν, ἐπεὶ τὸ χαρίεν καὶ λαμπρὸν κτίσμα ὁ δημιουργὸς βλέπων οὐ τέρπεται, καθάπερ δ’ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ πολλὰ λυπούμενος μετάγειν τοῦτο καὶ μεταφέρειν διεβουλεύσατο; μετρίῳ μὲν οὖν γέλωτι τοῦτο τὸ λεξίδιον παραχωρήσωμεν. [35] Makar. IV, 2: Ἄλλο δ’ ἐμβρόντητον καὶ πεπλανημένον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ῥηθὲν ἴδωμεν σόφισμα, ἐν ᾧ φησίν· Ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου, ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ καταβήσεται ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ οἱ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον· ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλῃ εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτω πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα. τοῦτ’ οὐρανόμηκες ὄντως καὶ μετεωρότερον τοῦ πράγματος, ὑπέρογκον τὸ ψεῦσμα καὶ ἀνώτερον· τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ἐπᾳδόμενον ζῴοις ἀναγκάζει βληχᾶσθαι καὶ κρώζειν ἐν ὑποκρίσει τὸν ἔξηχον πάταγον, ἐπὰν γνῷ ἐνσάρκους ἀνθρώπους ὡς τὰ πετεινὰ πετομένους ἐν ἀέρι ἢ βασταζομένους ἐπὶ νεφέλης. πολὺς γὰρ οὗτος τῆς ἀλαζονείας ὁ κόμπος, ζῷα τῷ φόρτῳ πεπιλημένα τῶν σωματικῶν ὄγκων φύσιν ἀναλαβεῖν πτερωτῶν ὀρνέων καὶ διαπερᾶν ὥσπερ τι πέλαγος τὸν πολὺν ἀέρα, ὀχήματι νεφέλης ἀποχρησάμενα. εἰ γὰρ καὶ δυνατόν, ἀλλὰ τερατῶδες καὶ τῆς ἀκολουθίας ἐστὶν ἀλλότριον. ἡ γὰρ δημιουργὸς ἄνωθεν φύσις τόπους ἁρμόζοντας τοῖς γινομένοις συναπεκλήρωσε καὶ κατάλληλον ἐνομοθέτησεν ἔχειν ἐναύλισμα, ἐνύδροις θάλασσαν, χερσαίοις ἤπειρον, πτηνοῖς ἀέρα, φωστῆρσιν αἰθέρα. ἓν γοῦν ἐκ τούτων ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας ἂν μετάρῃ μονῆς, ἀφανισθήσεται εἰς ξένην [ 429 ]

μετελθὸν δίαιταν καὶ μονήν· οἷον εἰ τὸ ἔνυδρον βουληθείης λαβεῖν κἀπὶ τῆς ξηρᾶς διάγειν βιάσῃ, φθείρεται ῥᾷον ἐξαπολλύμενον· εἰ δὲ χερσαῖον αὖθις καὶ αὐχμηρὸν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ βάλλῃς, ἀποπνιγήσεται· κἂν τοῦ ἀέρος χωρίσῃς πτηνόν, οὐχ ὑπομενεῖ. κἂν ἀστέριον ἐξ αἰθερίου σώματος μεταβιβάσῃς, οὐχ ὑποστήσεται. ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὁ θεῖος καὶ δραστήριος τοῦ θείου λόγος τοῦτ’ ἐποίησεν ἢ πράξει ποτέ, καίπερ δυνάμενος τῶν γινομένων τὰς μοίρας ἀλλάττειν· οὐ γὰρ καθ’ ὃ δύναται πράττει τι καὶ θέλει, ἀλλά, καθ’ ὃ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν σώζει τὰ πράγματα, τὸν τῆς εὐταξίας φυλάττει νόμον. οὐδὲ γοῦν τὴν γῆν, εἴ γε καὶ δύναται, ναυτίλλεσθαι ποιεῖ, οὐδ’ ἀροῦσθαι πάλιν καὶ γεωργεῖσθαι ποιεῖ τὴν θάλασσαν, οὐδὲ τὴν ἀρετὴν καθ’ ὃ δύναται ποιεῖ κακίαν οὐδὲ τὴν κακίαν αὖθις ἀρετήν, οὐδὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον παρασκευάσει πτηνὸν γενέσθαι, οὐδὲ τὰ ἄστρα κάτω καὶ τὴν γῆν ἄνω. ὅθεν εὐλόγως μεστὸν ἐξηχίας τὸ λέγειν ἀνθρώπους ἁρπαγήσεσθαι εἰς ἀέρα ποτέ· ἀρίδηλον δὲ τὸ ψεῦδος τοῦ Παύλου ἐν τῷ λέγειν· Ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες· ἔτη γὰρ ἐξ οὗ λέγει ‹τ΄› τριάκοντα καὶ οὐδὲν οὐδαμοῦ οὐδ’ αὐτὸς ὁ Παῦλος μετὰ καὶ ἄλλων ἡρπάγη σωμάτων. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ὧδε σιγὴν ἐχέτω τὸ κεκλονημένον ῥῆμα τοῦ Παύλου. [36] Makar. IV, 4: Ἴδωμεν δ’ ἐκεῖνο τὸ ῥηθὲν τῷ Παύλῳ· Εἶπε δὲ δι’ ὁράματος ὁ κύριος ἐν νυκτὶ τῷ Παύλῳ· μὴ φοβοῦ, ἀλλὰ λάλει, ὅτι μετὰ σοῦ εἰμὶ καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπιθήσεταί σοι τοῦ κακῶσαί σε. καὶ ὅσον οὐδέπω ἐν Ῥώμῃ κρατηθεὶς τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀποτέμνεται οὗτος ὁ κομψός, ὁ λέγων ὅτι Ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Πέτρος λαβὼν ἐξουσίαν βόσκειν τὰ ἀρνία τῷ σταυρῷ προσηλωθεὶς ἀνασκολοπίζεται· καὶ ἄλλοι δὲ μύριοι τούτοις ὁμόδοξοι οἱ μὲν ἐκαύθησαν, οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι τιμωρίαν ἢ λώβην δεξάμενοι διεφθάρησαν· τοῦτο δ’ οὐκ ἄξιον θεοῦ γνώμης, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἀνδρὸς εὐσεβοῦς εἰς ἑαυτοῦ χάριν καὶ πίστιν πλῆθος ἀνδρῶν ἀπανθρώπως κολάζεσθαι, τῆς προσδοκωμένης ἀναστάσεως καὶ ἐλεύσεως οὔσης ἀδήλου. [38] Theodoret, Graec. affect. cur. VII: Τοῖς προφήταις ἀκριβῶς ἐντυχὼν ὁ Πορφύριος (μάλα γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐνδιέτριψε) τὴν καθ’ ἡμῶν τυρεύων [τορεύων] γραφὴν ἀλλότριον εὐσεβείας καὶ αὐτὸς ἀποφαίνει τὸ θύειν … τὰ θεῖα λόγια κεκλοφὼς καὶ ἐνίων τὴν διάνοιαν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν ἐντεθεικὼς τοῖς οἰκείοις. [39] Euseb., h. e. VI, 19, 2 ff.: Τί δεῖ ταῦτα λέγειν, ὅτε καὶ ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἐν Σικελίᾳ καταστὰς Πορφύριος συγγράμματα καθ’ ἡμῶν ἐνστησάμενος καὶ δι’ αὐτῶν τὰς θείας γραφὰς διαβάλλειν πεπειραμένος τῶν τε εἰς αὐτὰς ἐξηγησαμένων μνημονεύσας, μηδὲν μηδαμῶς φαῦλον ἔγκλημα τοῖς δόγμασιν ἐπικαλεῖν δυνηθείς, ἀπορίᾳ λόγων ἐπὶ τὸ λοιδορεῖν τρέπεται καὶ τοὺς ἐξηγητὰς ἐνδιαβάλλειν, ὧν μάλιστα τὸν Ὠριγένην· ὃν κατὰ τὴν νέαν ἡλικίαν ἐγνωκέναι φήσας, διαβάλλειν μὲν πειρᾶται, συνιστῶν δὲ ἄρα τὸν ἄνδρα ἐλάνθανεν, τὰ μὲν ἐπαληθεύων, ἐν οἷς οὐδ’ ἑτέρως αὐτῷ λέγειν ἦν δυνατόν, τὰ δὲ καὶ ψευδόμενος, ἐν οἷς λήσεσθαι ἐνόμιζεν, καὶ τοτὲ μὲν ὡς Χριστιανοῦ κατηγορῶν, τοτὲ δὲ τὴν περὶ τὰ φιλόσοφα μαθήματα ἐπίδοσιν αὐτοῦ διαγράφων· ἄκουε δ’ οὖν ἅ φησιν κατὰ λέξιν· “Τῆς δὴ μοχθηρίας τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν γραφῶν οὐκ ἀπόστασιν, λύσιν δέ τινες εὑρεῖν προθυμηθέντες, ἐπ’ ἐξηγήσεις ἐτράποντο ἀσυγκλώστους καὶ ἀναρμόστους τοῖς γεγραμμένοις, οὐκ ἀπολογίαν μᾶλλον ὑπὲρ τῶν ὀθνείων, παραδοχὴν δὲ καὶ ἔπαινον τοῖς οἰκείοις φερούσας. [ 430 ]

αἰνίγματα γὰρ τὰ φανερῶς παρὰ Μωυσεῖ λεγόμενα εἶναι κομπάσαντες καὶ ἐπιθειάσαντες ὡς θεσπίσματα πλήρη κρυφίων μυστηρίων διά τε τοῦ τύφου τὸ κριτικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς καταγοητεύσαντες, ἐπάγουσιν ἐξηγήσεις.” εἶτα μεθ’ ἕτερά φησιν· “Ὁ δὲ τρόπος τῆς ἀτοπίας ἐξ ἀνδρός, ᾧ κἀγὼ κομιδῇ νέος ὢν ἔτι ἐντετύχηκα, σφόδρα εὐδοκιμήσαντος καὶ ἔτι δι’ ὧν καταλέλοιπεν συγγραμμάτων εὐδοκιμοῦντος παρειλήφθω, Ὠριγένους, οὗ κλέος παρὰ τοῖς διδασκάλοις τούτων τῶν λόγων μέγα διαδέδοται. ἀκροατὴς γὰρ οὗτος Ἀμμωνίου τοῦ πλείστην ἐν τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς χρόνοις ἐπίδοσιν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐσχηκότος γεγονώς, εἰς μὲν τὴν τῶν λόγων ἐμπειρίαν πολλὴν παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου τὴν ὠφέλειαν ἐκτήσατο, εἰς δὲ τὴν ὀρθὴν τοῦ βίου προαίρεσιν τὴν ἐναντίαν ἐκείνῳ πορείαν ἐποιήσατο. Ἀμμώνιος μὲν γὰρ Χριστιανὸς ἐν Χριστιανοῖς ἀνατραφεὶς τοῖς γονεῦσιν, ὅτε τοῦ φρονεῖν καὶ τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἥψατο, εὐθὺς πρὸς τὴν κατὰ νόμους πολιτείαν μετεβάλετο, Ὠριγένης δὲ Ἕλλην ἐν Ἕλλησιν παιδευθεὶς λόγοις, πρὸς τὸ βάρβαρον ἐξώκειλεν τόλμημα· ᾧ δὴ φέρων αὐτόν τε καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἕξιν ἐκαπήλευσεν, κατὰ μὲν τὸν βίον Χριστιανῶς ζῶν καὶ παρανόμως, κατὰ δὲ τὰς περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τοῦ θείου δόξας Ἑλληνίζων τε καὶ τὰ Ἑλλήνων τοῖς ὀθνείοις ὑποβαλλόμενος μύθοις. συνῆν τε γὰρ ἀεὶ τῷ Πλάτωνι, τοῖς τε Νουμηνίου καὶ Κρονίου Ἀπολλοφάνους τε καὶ Λογγίνου καὶ Μοδεράτου Νικομάχου τε καὶ τῶν ἐν Πυθαγορείοις ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρῶν ὡμίλει συγγράμμασιν, ἐχρῆτο δὲ καὶ Χαιρήμονος τοῦ Στωϊκοῦ Κορνούτου τε ταῖς βίβλοις, παρ’ ὧν τὸν μεταληπτικὸν τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησιν μυστηρίων γνοὺς τρόπον ταῖς Ἰουδαϊκαῖς προσῆψεν γραφαῖς.” Ταῦτα τῷ Πορφυρίῳ κατὰ τὸ γ΄ σύγγραμμα τῶν γραφέντων αὐτῷ κατὰ Χριστιανῶν εἴρηται, ἐπαληθεύσαντι μὲν περὶ τῆς τἀνδρὸς ἀσκήσεως καὶ πολυμαθείας, ψευσαμένῳ δὲ σαφῶς - τί γὰρ οὐκ ἔμελλεν ὁ κατὰ Χριστιανῶν; - ἐν οἷς αὐτὸν μέν φησιν ἐξ Ἑλλήνων μετατεθεῖσθαι, τὸν δ’ Ἀμμώνιον ἐκ βίου τοῦ κατὰ θεοσέβειαν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐθνικὸν τρόπον ἐκπεσεῖν. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν εἰς παράστασιν ἐκκείσθω τῆς τοῦ ψευδηγόρου συκοφαντίας. [40] (Syncellus: Ἑλληνικῶν δὲ φιλοσόφων, ὅστις ποτὲ ἦν ἐκεῖνος ἀνήρ, ὁ τὴν καθ’ ἡμῶν συσκευὴν προβεβλημένος ἐν τῇ δ΄ τῆς εἰς μάτην αὐτῷ πονηθείσης καθ’ ἡμῶν ὑποθέσεως πρὸ τῶν Σεμιράμεως χρόνων τὸν Μωϋσέα γενέσθαι φησί· βασιλεύει δὲ Ἀσσυρίων ἡ Σεμίραμις πρόσθεν ἔτεσι ν΄ πρὸς τοῖς ρ΄· ὥστε εἶναι κατὰ τοῦτον τῶν Τρωϊκῶν Μωϋσέα πρεσβύτερον ν΄ καὶ ω΄ ἔτεσιν). [41] Euseb., Praepar. ev. I, 9, 20f.: Μέμνηται τούτων ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς τὴν καθ’ ἡμῶν πεποιημένος συσκευὴν ἐν δ΄ τῆς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὑποθέσεως ὧδε τῷ ἀνδρὶ μαρτυρῶν πρὸς λέξιν· “Ἱστορεῖ δὲ τὰ περὶ Ἰουδαίων ἀληθέστατα, ὅτι καὶ τοῖς τόποις καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν αὐτῶν τὰ συμφωνότατα, Σαγχουνιάθων ὁ Βηρύτιος, εἰληφὼς τὰ ὑπομνήματα παρὰ Ἱερομβάλου τοῦ ἱερέως θεοῦ τοῦ Ἰευώ· ὃς Ἀβιβάλῳ (Ἀβελβαλῷ) τῷ βασιλεῖ Βηρυτίων τὴν ἱστορίαν ἀναθεὶς ὑπ’ ἐκείνου καὶ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὸν ἐξεταστῶν τῆς ἀληθείας παρεδέχθη. οἱ δὲ τούτων χρόνοι καὶ πρὸ τῶν Τρωϊκῶν πίπτουσι χρόνων, καὶ σχεδὸν τοῖς Μωσέως πλησιάζουσιν, ὡς αἱ τῶν Φοινίκης [ 431 ]

βασιλέων μηνύουσι διαδοχαί. Σαγχουνιάθων δὲ ‹ὁ› κατὰ τὴν Φοινίκων διάλεκτον φιλαλήθως πᾶσαν τὴν παλαιὰν ἱστορίαν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ πόλιν ὑπομνημάτων καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἀναγραφῶν συναγαγὼν δὴ καὶ συγγράψας ἐπὶ Σεμιράμεως γέγονε τῆς Ἀσσυρίων βασιλίδος, ἣ πρὸ τῶν Ἰλιακῶν ἢ κατ’ αὐτούς γε τοὺς χρόνους γενέσθαι ἀναγέγραπται. τὰ δὲ τοῦ Σαγχουνιάθωνος εἰς Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν ἡρμήνευσε Φίλων ὁ Βύβλιος.” Theodoret, Graec. affect. cur. II 44f., p. 49, 3 R.: Πορφύριος γοῦν ὑμῖν μάρτυς ἀξιόχρεως ἔστω, ὃς τῆς ἀσεβείας γενόμενος πρόμαχος κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων τὴν ἀκόλαστον ἐκίνησε γλῶτταν· ἀκούσατε οὖν αὐτοῦ ταῦτα λέγοντος ἐν οἷς καθ’ ἡμῶν συγγέγραφεν. [42] Severianus Gabal., de mundi creatione, orat. VI (Migne T. 56, col. 487): Λέγουσι πολλοὶ καὶ μάλιστα οἱ τῷ θεοστυγεῖ Πορφυρίῳ ἀκουλουθήσαντες τῷ κατὰ Χριστιανῶν συγγράψαντι καὶ τοῦ θείου δόγματος πολλοὺς ἀποστήσαντι· λέγουσι τοίνυν· Διὰ τί ὁ θεὸς ἀπηγόρευσε τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ; ἔστιν, τὸ πονηρὸν ἀπηγόρευσε· διὰ τί καὶ τὸ καλόν; εἰπὼν γάρ· “Ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ εἰδέναι καλὸν καὶ πονηρὸν μὴ φάγητε”, κωλύει, φησίν, αὐτὸν τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸ κακόν· διὰ τί καὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν; (ἀεὶ ἡ κακία καθ’ ἑαυτῆς τεχνάζεται καὶ τὰς λαβὰς καθ’ ἑαυτῆς δίδωσιν). [47] Euseb., Demonstr. VI, 18, 11: Εἰ δὲ λέγοι τις κατὰ Ἀντίοχον τὸν Ἐπιφανῆ ταῦτα πεπληρῶσθαι, σκεψάσθω εἰ οἷος τέ ἐστιν ἀποδιδόναι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς προφητείας κατὰ τοὺς Ἀντιόχου χρόνους, οἷον τὸ αἰχμαλωσίαν πεπονθέναι τὸν λαὸν καὶ τὸ στῆναι τοὺς πόδας κυρίου ἐπὶ τὸ τῶν ἐλαιῶν ὄρος …. καὶ εἰ τὸ “ὄνομα κυρίου” ἐκύκλωσεν τὴν γῆν πᾶσαν καὶ τὴν ἔρημον, ὅτε τῆς Συρίας Ἀντίοχος ἐκράτει. [48] Makar. III, 18: Φέρε δέ σοι κἀκείνην ὧδε τὴν λέξιν εἴπωμεν, τίνος χάριν τοῦ πειράζοντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντος· Βάλε σεαυτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ κάτω, τοῦτο μὲν οὐ ποιεῖ, φησὶ δὲ πρὸς αὐτόν· Οὐ πειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου; ὅπερ δοκεῖ μοι δεδοικότα τὸν τῆς καταπτώσεως κίνδυνον τοῦτ’ εἰρηκέναι· εἰ γάρ, ὥς φατε, ἄλλα τε πολλὰ διεπράττετο θαύματα καὶ δὴ καὶ νεκροὺς ἀνίστα λόγῳ μόνῳ, ἐχρῆν αὑτὸν παραχρῆμα δεῖξαι ὡς ἱκανὸς καὶ ἑτέρους ἀπὸ κινδύνων ῥύεσθαι ἐν τῷ δισκεῦσαι τοῦ ὕψους ἄνωθεν αὑτὸν κάτω καὶ μηδὲ ὁτιοῦν αὐτὸν λωβηθῆναι τοῦ σώματος, καὶ μάλισθ’ ὅτι καὶ γραφικὸν εἰς αὐτόν που διελάλει κεφάλαιον, φάσκον· Ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου. ὅθεν τοῖς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ παροῦσι δεῖξαι τῷ ὄντι δίκαιον, ὅτι θεοῦ παῖς ἐστι καὶ παντὸς κινδύνου δύναται αὑτόν τε καὶ τοὺς αὑτοῦ ῥύεσθαι. [49] Makar. III, 4: Εἰ δὲ θέλοι τις κἀκείνην τὴν ἱστορίαν εἰπεῖν, ὄντως ὕθλος φανεῖται καπηλικὸς τὸ λεχθέν, ὁπηνίκα Ματθαῖος μὲν δύο δαίμονας ἀπὸ μνημείων λέγει ἀπαντῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷ, εἶτα φοβηθέντας τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς χοίρους ἀπελθεῖν καὶ ἀποκτεῖναι πολλούς. Μάρκος δὲ καὶ ἀριθμὸν ὑπέρμετρον οὐκ ὤκνησεν ἀναπλάσαι τῶν χοίρων· φησὶ δὲ οὕτως· Ἔλεγεν αὐτῷ· ἔξελθε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· καὶ ἐπερώτησεν αὐτόν· τί σοι ὄνομα· καὶ ἀπεκρίθη …, ὅτι πολλοί … καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτόν, ἵνα μὴ ἐκβάλῃ αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς χώρας. ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ ἀγέλη χοίρων βοσκομένη, καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν τὰ δαιμόνια, ὅπως ἐπιτρέψῃ αὐτοῖς ἀπελθεῖν εἰς [ 432 ]

τοὺς χοίρους. καὶ ἀπελθόντες εἰς τοὺς χοίρους ὥρμησαν κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ὡς δισχίλιοι, καὶ ἀπεπνίγησαν· οἱ δὲ βόσκοντες ἔφυγον. ὢ μῦθος, ὢ λῆρος, ὢ γέλως ὄντως πλατύς. χοίρων πλῆθος δισχιλίων εἰς θάλασσαν ἔδραμε καὶ συμπνιγὲν ἀπώλετο. καὶ πῶς ἀκούων τις, ὡς οἱ δαίμονες παρακαλοῦσιν, ἵνα μὴ πεμφθῶσιν εἰς ἄβυσσον, εἶτ’ ὁ Χριστὸς παρακληθεὶς τούτους οὐκ ἔπεμψεν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς χοίροις αὐτοὺς ἐπαπέστειλεν, οὐκ ἐρεῖ· φεῦ τῆς ἀπαιδευσίας. φεῦ τῆς κωμικῆς πλάνης, φονίων πνευμάτων καὶ βλάβην ἐν κόσμῳ πολλὴν ἐργαζομένων λαμβάνειν ἀξίωσιν καὶ ὅπερ ἐβούλοντο, τοῦτ’ ἐπιτρέπειν αὐτοῖς. ἐβούλοντο δ’ οἱ δαίμονες χορεύειν ἐν βίῳ καὶ παίγνιον ποιεῖν τὸν κόσμον ἀκόρεστον· ἐβούλοντο γῆν συμμίξαι καὶ θάλασσαν καὶ πενθικὸν τὸ σύμπαν ἐκτελέσαι θέατρον· ἐβούλοντο τὰ στοιχεῖα ἐκταράξαι τῇ συγχύσει καὶ κτίσιν ὅλην ἀμαλδῦναι τῇ βλάβῃ· [οὐ γὰρ] ἐχρῆν δ’ οὖν τοὺς κακῶς διαθεμένους τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰς ὅπερ ἀπηύχοντο τῆς ἀβύσσου χωρίον βαλεῖν, τοὺς ἀρχεκάκους, ἀλλ’ οὐ θηλυνόμενον αὐτῶν τῇ παρακλήσει ἑτέραν ἐπιτρέψαι συμφορὰν ἀπεργάσασθαι. εἰ γὰρ ὄντως ἀληθὲς τοῦτο καὶ μὴ πλάσμα τυγχάνει, ὡς ἡμεῖς σαφηνίζομεν, πολλὴν ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατηγορεῖ κακίαν, ἐλαύνειν μὲν ἐξ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου τοὺς δαίμονας, τούτους δὲ χοίροις ἐπιπέμπειν ἀλόγοις καὶ τοὺς συβώτας ἐκδειματῶσαι τοῖς φόβοις καὶ φεύγειν ἀπνευστὶ ποιῆσαι ἐν ταραχῇ καὶ πόλιν ἐπὶ τῷ γενομένῳ σοβῆσαι θορύβῳ. οὐ γὰρ δίκαιον μὴ μόνον ἑνὸς ἢ δυοῖν ἢ τριῶν ἢ τρισκαίδεκα, ἀλλὰ παντὸς ἀνθρώπου θεραπεῦσαι τὴν βλάβην, καὶ μάλισθ’ ὅτι τούτου χάριν αὐτὸν ἐπιστῆναι τῷ βίῳ μαρτυρούμενον; ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς ἕνα μὲν δεσμῶν ἀοράτων ἐκλύειν, ἄλλοις δὲ τοὺς δεσμοὺς ἀποστέλλειν ἀφανῶς, καί τινας μὲν τῶν φόβων ἐλευθεροῦν αἰσίως, τινὰς δὲ τοῖς φόβοις περιβάλλειν ἀλόγως, τοῦτο οὐ κατόρθωμα, ἀλλὰ κακουργία δικαίως ἂν κληθείη. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ πολεμίων λαμβάνειν ἀξίωσιν ἐπὶ χώραν ἑτέραν οἰκεῖν καὶ κατανέμεσθαι ὅμοιον πράττει βασιλεῖ φθείροντι τὸ ὑπήκοον, ὅστις, ἀδυνατῶν ἐκ πάσης χώρας ἐλάσαι τὸν βάρβαρον, εἰς τόπον ἐκ τόπου τοῦτον ἐκπέμπει μένειν, χώραν ἐκ τοῦ κακοῦ μίαν ἐξαιρούμενος καὶ μίαν ἔκδοτον τῷ κακῷ δωρούμενος. εἰ γοῦν καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁμοίως ἀδυνατῶν τότε τῆς ἐνορίου ἐλάσαι τὸν δαίμονα εἰς ἀγέλην αὐτὸν τῶν χοίρων ἐξέπεμπε, τερατῶδες μὲν ὄντως τοῦτο καὶ χρᾶναι τὴν ἀκοὴν [ποιεῖ] δυνάμενον, μεστὸν δὲ φαύλης ὑπονοίας ἐργάζεται. εὐθὺς γὰρ ταῦτ’ ἀκούσας ‹εἰ› εὖ φρονῶν ἔκρινεν αὐτόθεν δικάσας τὴν ἀφήγησιν, καὶ ψῆφον ἀνάλογον ἐπῆγε τῷ πράγματι λέγων· εἰ μὴ πᾶσαν τὴν ὑφήλιον τῆς βλάβης ἐλευθεροῖ, ἀλλ’ εἰς διαφόρους χώρας φυγαδεύει τὰ βλάπτοντα καί τινων φροντίζει καί τινων οὐ κήδεται, οὐκ ἀσφαλὲς τούτῳ προσφεύγειν καὶ σώζεσθαι· ὁ γὰρ σωθεὶς τοῦ μὴ σωθέντος λυπεῖ τὴν διάθεσιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ σωθεὶς τοῦ σωθέντος ὑπάρχει κατήγορος. ὅθεν, ὡς ἐγὼ κρίνω, πλάσμα τῆς ἱστορίας ταύτης ἡ ἀφήγησις. εἰ δ’ οὐ πλάσμα τυγχάνει, τῆς δ’ ἀληθείας συγγενές, γέλως ὄντως ἱκανὸς τῶν χασμωμένων ἐστί. φέρε γὰρ ὧδε τουτὶ σαφῶς ἐξετάσωμεν, πῶς ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ γῇ τοσοῦτο πλῆθος τότε χοίρων ἐνέμετο τῶν μάλιστα ῥυπαρῶν καὶ μισουμένων τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις βοσκημάτων ἄνωθεν, πῶς δὲ καὶ πάντες οἱ χοῖροι ἐκεῖνοι συνεπνίγησαν, λίμνης οὐ θαλάσσης βαθείας ὑπαρχούσης. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν νηπίοις κρίνειν παραχωρήσωμεν [51] τούτους πάντας ἡ σωτήριος διέτεμε μάχαιρα ἐν ἑνὶ καθάπερ οἴκῳ

[ 433 ]

ἀτραυματίστως διχάσασα· τέμνει γὰρ αὕτη γνώμας καὶ μώλωπας οὐ ποιεῖ …. οὐ σώματα διχάζει. [52] Makar. IV, 9: Εἴ γε δεῖ κἀκείνην τὴν πεῦσιν μηρυκήσασθαι, ὡς Ἰησοῦς λέγει· Ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἀπέκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις, καὶ ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ δὲ γέγραπται· Τὰ κρυπτὰ κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν καὶ τὰ φανερὰ ἡμῖν. σαφέστερα οὖν δεῖ εἶναι καὶ οὐκ αἰνιγματώδη τὰ τοῖς νηπίοις καὶ ἀσυνέτοις γραφόμενα· εἰ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν σοφῶν κέκρυπται τὰ μυστήρια, νηπίοις δὲ καὶ θηλαζομένοις ἀλόγως ἐκκέχυται, βέλτιον τὴν ἀλογίαν ζηλοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀμαθίαν· καὶ τοῦτο τῆς σοφίας τοῦ ἐπιδημήσαντος τὸ μέγα κατόρθωμα, κρύψαι μὲν τῶν σοφῶν τὴν ἀκτῖνα τῆς γνώσεως, ἄφροσι δὲ ταύτην ἐκκαλύψαι καὶ βρέφεσιν. [54] Makar. IV, 8: Ἄλλο δὲ μυθωδέστερον τούτου καθάπερ ἐν νυκτὶ δόγμα ψηλαφήσωμεν ἐν τῷ· Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως, καὶ πάλιν· Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ζύμῃ, καὶ αὖθις· Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἀνθρώπῳ ἐμπόρῳ ζητοῦντι καλοὺς μαργαρίτας; ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκ ἀνδρῶν, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὀνειροπολούντων γυναίων τὰ μυθάρια· ὅταν γάρ τις περὶ μεγάλων ἢ θείων ἀπαγγέλῃ, κοινοῖς μὲν ὀφείλει καὶ ἀνθρωπίνοις χρῆσθαι παραδείγμασι σαφηνείας ἕνεκεν, οὐ μὴν οὕτω χυδαίοις καὶ ἀσυνέτοις. ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα, μετὰ τοῦ ταπεινὰ εἶναι καὶ μὴ πρέποντα τηλικούτοις πράγμασιν, οὐδεμίαν ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἔννοιαν συνετὴν οὐδὲ σαφήνειαν· καίτοι σφόδρα προσῆκεν αὐτὰ εἶναι σαφῆ διὰ τὸ μὴ σοφοῖς μηδὲ συνετοῖς, ἀλλὰ νηπίοις γεγράφθαι. [55] Makar. III, 6: Φέρε δέ σοι κἀκείνην ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν ῥῆσιν ἀναπτύξωμεν τὴν γελοίως μὲν ὧδε γραφεῖσαν ἀπιθάνως, γελοιωδέστερον δὲ ἔχουσαν τὸ διήγημα, ὁπηνίκα τοὺς μαθητὰς ἀπὸ δείπνου προπέμψας ὁ Ἰησοῦς διαπλεῦσαι τὴν θάλασσαν αὐτὸς ἐπέστη τῇ τετάρτῃ τῆς νυκτὸς αὐτοῖς φυλακῇ δεινῶς ὑπὸ τῆς ζάλης τετρυχωμένοις τοῦ χειμῶνος, ἅτε παννύχιον μοχλεύουσιν [αὐτοῖς] τῇ βίᾳ τῶν κυμάτων· τετάρτη γὰρ τῆς νυκτὸς φυλακή ἐστιν ἡ δεκάτη τῆς νυκτὸς ὥρα, μεθ’ ἣν ὑπολείπονται τρεῖς ὑστεραῖοι ὧραι. οἱ γοῦν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν τόπων ἀφηγούμενοί φασι θάλασσαν μὲν ἐκεῖ μὴ εἶναι, λίμνην δὲ μικρὰν ἐκ ποταμοῦ συνεστῶσαν ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος κατὰ τὴν Γαλιλαίαν χώραν παρὰ πόλιν Τιβεριάδα, ἣν καὶ μονοξύλοις μικροῖς διαπλεῦσαι ῥᾴδιον ἐν ὥραις οὐ πλεῖον δύο, μήτε δὲ κῦμα μήτε χειμῶνα χωρῆσαι δυναμένην. ἔξω τοίνυν τῆς ἀληθείας πολὺ βαίνων ὁ Μάρκος σφόδρα γελοίως τοῦτο συγγράφει τὸ μύθευμα τὸ διανυθεισῶν ὡρῶν ἐννέα τῇ δεκάτῃ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιβάντα - τουτέστι τῇ τετάρτῃ τῆς νυκτὸς φυλακῇ - εὑρεῖν ἐπιπλέοντας τῷ λάκκῳ τοὺς μαθητάς· εἶτα θάλατταν λέγει, καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς θάλατταν, ἀλλὰ καὶ χειμαζομένην καὶ δεινῶς ἀγριαίνουσαν καὶ τῇ τῶν κυμάτων ταραχῇ φοβερὸν σφαδάζουσαν, ἵν’ ἐκ τούτων ὡς μέγα τι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐνεργήσαντα σημεῖον εἰσαγάγῃ, χειμῶνά τε πολὺν παύσαντα καὶ ἐξαίσιον, κἀκ βυθοῦ καὶ πελάγους σεσωκότα τοὺς μαθητὰς μικροῦ κινδυνεύοντας. ἐκ τοιούτων παιδικῶν ἱστοριῶν ἐγνώκαμεν σκηνὴν σεσοφισμένην εἶναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. ἐξ ὧν ἕκαστα ζητοῦμεν λεπτότερον.

[ 434 ]

[57] Makar. II, 10: Τί πρᾶγμα εἶχον οἱ πολλοὶ ταύτης ἀκούειν τῆς φωνῆς (ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος, ἕως ποτὲ ἔσομαι μεθ’ ὑμῶν;), ἑνὸς ἀξιοῦντος ἢ καὶ σφαλλομένου περὶ τὴν ἀξίωσιν (οὐ γὰρ σελήνη τοῦτον ἀλλὰ δαίμων ἐκόλαζε); τίνος δὲ ἕνεκεν, ἐλεεινῶς τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ τὸν υἱὸν γονυπετοῦντος, ἐπιτιμητικῶς οὐκ αὐτῷ μόνῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ὄχλοις ἀπαντήσας ἐφθέγξατο; οὐ γὰρ ἐχρῆν μᾶλλον ἀσμενίσαι τὴν ἔντευξιν ἅτε περὶ κακουμένου συμπαθῶς γιγνομένην; ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἀποσκορακίζει τῶν ἱκετῶν τὴν δέησιν· δοκεῖ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς ἀλόγως ἐκ τοῦ προφανοῦς ἐνυβρίζειν τὸν δῆμον. [58] Makar. III, 5: Ἄλλην δὲ τούτων ἀσαφεστέραν λέξιν ἐξετάσωμεν, ἔνθα φησίν· Εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστι κάμηλον διὰ ῥαφίδος εἰσελθεῖν ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. εἴ γε οὖν τις πλούσιος τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ πλημμελημάτων ἀφέμενος, φόνου, κλοπῆς, μοιχείας, φαρμακείας, ἀνοσίου ὅρκου, τυμβωρυχίας, ἱεροσύλου κακίας εἰς τὴν λεγομένην “βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν” οὐκ εἰσάγεται, τί τοῦ δικαιοπραγεῖν τοῖς δικαίοις ὄφελος, εἰ τυγχάνουσι πλούσιοι; τί δὲ τοῖς πένησι βλαβερὸν πράττειν τῶν κακῶν πᾶν ἀνοσιούργημα; οὐ γὰρ ἀρετὴ τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάγει, ἀλλὰ πενία καὶ πραγμάτων ἔνδεια. εἰ γὰρ τὸν πλούσιον ὁ πλοῦτος ἀποκλείει τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἐξ ἀντιφάσεως ἡ πενία τοὺς πένητας εἰσάγει· καὶ θέμις τοῦτο μαθόντα τινὰ τὸ μάθημα ἀρετῆς μὲν οὐδαμῶς ποιεῖσθαι λόγον, πενίας δὲ μόνης καὶ τῶν αἰσχίστων ἀκωλύτως ἔχεσθαι, ἅτε πενίας οἵας τε σώζειν τὸν πενόμενον καὶ πλούτου τὸν πλούσιον ἀποκλείοντος τῆς ἀκηράτου μονῆς. ὅθεν δοκεῖ μοι ταῦτα μὲν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ τυγχάνειν τὰ ῥήματα, εἴγε τὸν “τῆς ἀληθείας” παρεδίδου “κανόνα”, ἀλλὰ πενήτων τινῶν τὰς τῶν πλουτούντων οὐσίας ἐκ τοιαύτης κενοφωνίας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι θελόντων. ἀμέλει γοῦν χθές, οὐ πάλαι, γυναιξὶν εὐσχήμοσι ταῦτ’ ἐπαναγινώσκοντες· Πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ δὸς πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ἔπεισαν πᾶσαν οὐσίαν, ἣν εἶχον, καὶ ὕπαρξιν διανεῖμαι πένησι, καὶ αὐτὰς εἰς ἔνδειαν ἐλθούσας ἐρανίζεσθαι, ἐξ ἐλευθερίας εἰς ἄσεμνον ἀπαίτησιν ἐλθούσας ἐλεεινὸν ἐξ εὐδαιμονίας ἐπελθούσας πρόσωπον καὶ τέλος ἀναγκασθείσας ἐπὶ τὰς ἐχόντων οἰκίας ἀπιέναι· ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῆς πρώτης, μᾶλλον δ’ ἐσχάτης ὕβρεώς τε καὶ συμφορᾶς, τῶν οἰκείων ἐκπεσεῖν εὐσεβείας προσχήματι καὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἐρᾶν ἀνάγκῃ τῆς ἐνδείας. ἐξ ὧν δοκεῖ μοι ταῦτα γυναικὸς εἶναι καμνούσης τὰ ῥήματα. [60] Makar. IV, 5: Ἔνι καὶ ἕτερον ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ λαβεῖν ἀμφίβολον ὧδε ῥημάτιον, ἔνθα φησὶν ὁ Χριστός· Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ· πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου λέγοντες· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Χριστός, καὶ πολλοὺς πλανήσουσι. καὶ ἰδοὺ …. ἢ καὶ περαιτέρω διΐππευσεν ἔτη καὶ οὐδεὶς οὐδαμοῦ τοιοῦτος ἐπέστη· μή τί γε Ἀπολλώνιον τὸν Τυανέα φήσετε ἄνδρα φιλοσοφίᾳ πάσῃ κεκοσμημένον; ἕτερον δ’ οὐκ ἂν εὕροιτε· ἀλλ’ οὐ περὶ ἑνὸς ἀλλὰ περὶ πολλῶν λέγει· ἐγερθήσονται. [61] Makar. III, 7: Αὐτίκα γοῦν ἕτερον λεξίδιον εὑρόντες ἀνακόλουθον ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς μαθηταῖς εἰρημένον οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνο σιγῆσαι διέγνωμεν, ὅπου λέγει· Τοὺς πτωχοὺς πάντοτε, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε. ἡ δὲ αἰτία τῆς ὑποθέσεώς ἐστιν αὕτη· γυνή τις ἀλάβαστρον μύρου κομίσασα κατέχεε κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ· τῶν δὲ θεασαμένων καὶ τοῦ γενομένου τὴν [ 435 ]

ἀκαιρίαν θρυλούντων εἶπε· Τί κόπους παρέχετε τῇ γυναικί; ἔργον καλὸν εἰργάσατο εἰς ἐμέ· τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε ἔχετε μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε. ἦσαν γὰρ οὐ μικρῶς γογγύσαντες, ἐπειδὴ μὴ μᾶλλον ἐπράθη πολλῆς τιμῆς τὸ μύρον καὶ τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἐδόθη πεινῶσιν εἰς ἀνάλωμα. διὰ ταύτην ὥσπερ τὴν ἀκαιροφωνίαν τὸ φλυαρῶδες τοῦτο ῥῆμα διεφθέγξατο, φὰς μὴ πάντοτε εἶναι μετ’ αὐτῶν, ὁ διαβεβαιούμενος ἀλλαχοῦ καὶ λέγων αὐτοῖς· Ἔσομαι μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. ὡς δ’ ἐπὶ τῷ μύρῳ λυπηθεὶς εἶναι πάντοτε μετ’ αὐτῶν ἠρνήσατο. [62] Makar. III, 2: Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖνο μεστὸν ἀσαφείας, μεστὸν δ’ ἀπαιδευσίας τὸ ῥῆμα καθέστηκε τὸ ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς μαθηταῖς λεγόμενον· Μὴ φοβηθῆτε, φάσκον, τοὺς ἀποκτείνοντας τὸ σῶμα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἀγωνιῶν καὶ τῇ προσδοκίᾳ τῶν δεινῶν ἐπαγρυπνῶν καὶ δι’ εὐχῆς παρακαλῶν τὸ πάθος αὐτὸν παρελθεῖν ‹καὶ› λέγων τοῖς γνωρίμοις· Γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα παρέλθῃ ἡμᾶς ὁ πειρασμός. ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκ ἄξια παιδὸς θεοῦ τὰ ῥήματα, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἀνθρώπου σοφοῦ θανάτου καταφρονοῦντος. [63] Makar. III, 1: Τίνος ἕνεκεν ὁ Χριστὸς οὔτε τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ προσαχθεὶς οὔτε τῷ ἡγεμόνι ἄξιόν τι σοφοῦ καὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς ἐφθέγξατο, δυνάμενον καὶ τὸν κριτὴν καὶ τοὺς παρεστῶτας παιδεῦσαι καὶ βελτίους ἐργάσασθαι, ἀλλ’ ἠνέσχετο καλάμῳ τύπτεσθαι καὶ περιπτύεσθαι καὶ στεφανοῦσθαι ἀκάνθαις, καὶ μὴ καθάπερ Ἀπολλώνιος μετὰ παρρησίας τῷ αὐτοκράτορι λαλήσας Δομετιανῷ τῆς βασιλικῆς αὐλῆς ἀφανὴς ἐγένετο καὶ μεθ’ ὥρας οὐ πολλὰς ἐν πόλει Δικαιαρχείᾳ, νῦν δὲ Ποτιόλοις καλουμένῃ, ὤφθη ἐπιφανέστατος; ὁ δέ γε Χριστὸς εἰ καὶ παθεῖν εἶχε κατ’ ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐχρῆν μὲν ὑπομεῖναι τὴν τιμωρίαν, οὐ μὴν ‹δ’› ἄνευ παρρησίας ὑποστῆναι τὸ πάθος, ἀλλὰ σπουδαῖά τινα καὶ σοφὰ διαφθέγξασθαι πρὸς Πιλᾶτον τὸν δικαστὴν καὶ μὴ ὡς εἷς τῶν ἐκ τριόδου χυδαίων ὑβρισθῆναι. [64] Makar. II, 14: Ἔστι καὶ ἕτερος λόγος δυνάμενος σαθρὰν ταύτην ἐλέγξαι τὴν δόξαν, ὁ περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ τῆς πανταχοῦ θρυλουμένης· τίνος χάριν ὁ Ἰησοῦς μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν αὐτόν, ὥς φατε, καὶ ἀναστῆναι οὐκ ἐμφανίζεται Πιλάτῳ τῷ κολάσαντι αὐτὸν καὶ λέγοντι μηδὲν ἄξιον πεπραχέναι θανάτου, ἢ Ἡρώδῃ τῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων βασιλεῖ, ἢ τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς φρατρίας, ἢ πολλοῖς ἅμα καὶ ἀξιοπίστοις καὶ μάλιστα Ῥωμαίων τῇ τε βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ, ἵνα τὰ κατ’ αὐτὸν θαυμάσαντες μὴ δόγματι κοινῷ καταψηφίσωνται θάνατον ὡς ἀσεβῶν τῶν πειθομένων αὐτῷ; ἀλλ’ ἐμφανίζει τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ Μαρίᾳ γυναικὶ χυδαίᾳ καὶ ἀπὸ κωμυδρίου λυπροτάτου τινὸς ὁρμωμένῃ καὶ ὑπὸ ἑπτὰ δαιμόνων κατασχεθείσῃ ποτέ, μετ’ ἐκείνης δὲ καὶ ἄλλῃ Μαρίᾳ, ἀφανεστάτῳ καὶ αὐτῷ γυναίῳ κωμητικῷ, καὶ ἄλλοις ὀλίγοις οὐ σφόδρα ἐπισήμοις, καίτοι, φάσκοντος Ματθαίου, τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ τῶν Ἰουδαίων προείρηκε, ἀπάρτι, λέγων, ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν. εἰ γὰρ ἦν ἐμφανίσας ἀνδράσιν ἐπισήμοις, δι’ αὐτῶν πάντες ἂν ἐπίστευον καὶ οὐδεὶς ἂν τῶν δικαστῶν ὡς μύθους ἀλλοκότους ‹αὐτοὺς› ἀναπλάττοντας ἐκόλαζεν· οὐδὲ γὰρ θεῷ δήπουθεν ἀρεστὸν ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπῳ συνετῷ πολλοὺς δι’ αὐτὸν ταῖς ἀνωτάτω τιμωρίαις ὑποβληθῆναι. [68] Makar. III, 3: Ἔτι δὲ πολλῆς μοι γέμον τῆς ἀβελτηρίας φαίνεται τὸ λεχθέν· Εἰ ἐπιστεύετε Μωσεῖ, ἐπιστεύετε ἂν ἐμοί· περὶ γὰρ ἐμοῦ ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψεν. ὅμως δὲ Μωσέως οὐδὲν [ 436 ]

ἀποσώζεται· συγγράμματα γὰρ πάντα συνεμπεπρῆσθαι τῷ ναῷ λέγεται· ὅσα δ’ ἐπ’ ὀνόματι Μωσέως ἐγράφη μετὰ ταῦτα, μετὰ χίλια καὶ ἑκατὸν καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα ἔτη τῆς Μωσέως τελευτῆς ὑπὸ Ἔσδρα καὶ τῶν ἀμφ’ αὐτὸν ‹οὐκ ἀκριβῶς› συνεγράφη. εἰ δὲ καὶ Μωσέως δοίη τις εἶναι τὸ γράμμα, οὐ δυνατὸν δειχθῆναι ὡς θεόν που λελέχθαι ἢ θεὸν λόγον τὸν Χριστὸν ἢ δημιουργόν. ὅλως ‹δὲ› Χριστὸν σταυροῦσθαι τίς εἴρηκεν; [69] Makar. III, 15: Πολυθρύλητον ἐκεῖνο τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ διδασκάλου ἐστίν, ὃ λέγει· Ἐὰν μὴ φάγητέ μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίητέ μου τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. τοῦτο γὰρ οὐ θηριῶδες ὄντως οὐδ’ ἄτοπον, ἀλλ’ ἀτοπήματος παντὸς ἀτοπώτερον καὶ παντὸς θηριώδους τρόπου θηριωδέστερον, ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρωπίνων σαρκῶν ἀπογεύεσθαι καὶ πίνειν ὁμοφύλων αἷμα καὶ ὁμογενῶν καὶ τοῦτο πράττοντα ζωὴν ἔχειν αἰώνιον. ποίαν γάρ, εἰπέ μοι, τοῦτο ποιοῦντες ὑπερβολὴν ὠμότητος εἰς τὸν βίον εἰσάξετε; ποίαν τούτου τοῦ μύσους ἐναγεστέραν κακίαν ἄλλην καινοτομήσετε; οὐ φέρουσιν ἀκοαί - οὐ λέγω τὴν πρᾶξιν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὸ λεγόμενον νεώτερον τοῦτο καὶ ξένον ἀνοσιούργημα, οὐδὲ τῶν Ἐριννύων αἱ φαντασίαι ποτὲ τοῖς ἐκτόπως ζῶσι τοῦτο κατεμήνυσαν, οὐδὲ Ποτιδαιᾶται, εἰ μὴ λιμὸς ἀπάνθρωπος αὐτοὺς κατελέπτυνε, τοῦτο κατεδέξαντο· Θυέστειόν ποτε δεῖπνον ἐξ ἀδελφικῆς λύπης τοιοῦτο ἐγένετο· Τηρεὺς ὁ Θρᾷξ ἄκων τοιούτων ἐνεφορήθη σιτίων· Ἅρπαγος ὑπ’ Ἀστυάγους ἀπατηθεὶς τὰς τοῦ φιλτάτου σάρκας ἐθοινήσατο· καὶ πάντες οὗτοι ἀκουσίως τοιαύτην ὑπέμενον βδελυρίαν. οὐ μήν τις ἐν εἰρήνῃ ζῶν τοιαύτην ἤρτυσεν ἐν τῇ ζωῇ τράπεζαν· οὐδεὶς παρὰ διδασκάλου τοιοῦτο μυσαρὸν ἐδιδάχθη μάθημα. κἂν Σκυθίαν ταῖς ἱστορίαις παρέλθῃς, κἂν τοὺς Μακροβίους διέλθῃς Αἰθίοπας, κἂν τὴν ὠκεάνιον ζώνην ἐν κύκλῳ διϊππεύσῃς, Φθειροφάγους μὲν καὶ Ῥιζοφάγους εὑρήσεις, Ἑρπετοσίτας καὶ Μυοτρώκτας ἀκούσεις, σαρκῶν δ’ ἀνθρωπείων πάμπαν ἀπεχομένους. τίς οὖν ὁ λόγος οὗτος; κἂν γὰρ ἀλληγορικῶς ἔχῃ τι μυστικώτερον καὶ λυσιτελέστερον, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀσμὴ τῆς λέξεως διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς εἴσω που παρελθοῦσα αὐτὴν ἐκάκωσε τὴν ψυχὴν τῇ ἀηδίᾳ ταράξασα, καὶ τῶν ἀποκρύφων τὸν λόγον ἐσίνωσεν ὅλον παρασκευάσας σκοτοδινιᾶσαι τῇ συμφορᾷ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. οὐδὲ τῶν ἀλόγων ἡ φύσις, κἂν ἀπαραίτητον ἴδῃ λιμὸν καὶ ἀφόρητον, ὑπομενεῖ τοῦτό ποτε, οὐδὲ κύων κυνὸς οὐδὲ ἄλλο τι τῶν ὁμογενῶν γεύσεταί ποτε σαρκῶν. ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν διδασκόντων καινοτομοῦσι ξένα· τούτου δὲ καινότερον οὐδεὶς τῶν διδασκόντων ἐξεῦρε τραγῴδημα, οὐχ ἱστοριογράφος, οὐ φιλόσοφος ἀνήρ, οὐ βαρβάρων, οὐχ Ἑλλήνων τῶν ἄνω. βλέπετε γοῦν τί παθόντες συμπείθεσθαι τοὺς εὐχερεῖς ἀλόγως προτρέπεσθε, βλέπετε ποῖον οὐ μόνον ταῖς ἀγροικίαις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἐπικεκώμακε κακόν ὅθεν δοκεῖ μοι μήτε Μάρκον μήτε Λουκᾶν μήτ’ αὐτὸν τοῦτο γεγραφηκέναι Ματθαῖον, ἅτε δοκιμάσαντας οὐκ ἀστεῖον τὸ ῥῆμα, ἀλλὰ ξένον καὶ ἀπᾷδον καὶ τῆς ἡμέρου ζωῆς μακρὰν ἀπῳκισμένον. [71] Makar. II, 16: Φέρε δὴ κἀκείνης τῆς ἐπισκηνίου λέξεως ἀκούσωμεν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ὧδε γεγενημένης· οὐ δύνασθε, φησίν, ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν. τίς οὖν ὁ διάβολος ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων πατήρ, ἡμῖν διασάφησον· οἱ γὰρ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκτελοῦντες πρεπόντως τοῦτο ποιοῦσι γνώμῃ πατρὸς εἴκοντες καὶ τοῦτον τιμώμενοι· εἰ δὲ κακὸς ὁ πατήρ, οὐ τοῖς [ 437 ]

τέκνοις τὸ ἔγκλημα τοῦ κακοῦ προσαπτέον. τίς οὖν ἐκεῖνος ὁ πατήρ, οὗ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ποιοῦντες οὐκ ἤκουον τοῦ Χριστοῦ; λεγόντων γὰρ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὡς ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν θεόν, ἀκυροῖ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐν τῷ φάσκειν· ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ. τίς οὖν ὁ διάβολος ἐκεῖνος καὶ ποῦ τυγχάνει καὶ τίνα διαβαλὼν τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ταύτην ἐκληρώσατο; δοκεῖ γὰρ οὐ κύριον ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος τοῦτ’ ἔχειν τὸ ὄνομα· ὅπερ ἂν μάθωμεν δεόντως, εἰσόμεθα· ἐκ διαβολῆς γὰρ εἰ καλεῖται διάβολος, τίνων μεταξὺ φανεὶς τὴν ἀπηγορευμένην πρᾶξιν ἀπετέλεσεν; ὀφθήσεται γὰρ κἀν τούτῳ ὁ τὴν διαβολὴν δεχόμενος εὐχερής, μάλιστ‹α δ’› ἀδικούμενος ὁ διαβαλλόμενος· ὀφθήσεται δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς μηδὲν ἠδικηκὼς ὁ διάβολος, ἀλλ’ ὁ τῆς διαβολῆς ὑποδείξας τὴν πρόφασιν. ὡς γὰρ ὁ θεὶς ἐν ὁδῷ νύκτωρ τὸν σκόλοπα, οὐχ ὁ περιπατῶν καὶ πταίων, ὑπεύθυνος, ἀλλ’ ὁ καταπήξας λαμβάνει τὸ ἔγκλημα, οὕτως ὁ διαβολῆς ἐνθέμενος ἀφορμὴν αὐτὸς πλέον, οὐχ ὁ κατέχων οὐδ’ ὁ λαβών, ἀδικεῖ. λέγε δὲ κἀκεῖνο· ὁ διαβάλλων παθητὸς ἢ ἀπαθής; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀπαθής, οὐκ ἄν ποτε διέβαλεν· εἰ δ’ ἐμπαθής, ὀφείλει συγγνώμης τυχεῖν· οὐδεὶς γὰρ νοσήμασι φυσικοῖς ἐνοχλούμενος ὡς ἀδικῶν κρίνεται, ἀλλ’ ὡς καταπονούμενος πρὸς πάντων οἰκτείρεται. [72] Makar. II, 15: Εἰ δέ τις κἀκείνην τὴν γεγραμμένην ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τερθρείαν ἀναγνῴη, σφόδρα εἴσεται τερατολογίαν εἶναι τὰ εἰρημένα, ἔνθα φησί· νῦν κρίσις ἐστὶ τοῦ κόσμου, νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου βληθήσεται ἔξω. εἰπὲ γάρ μοι πρὸς θεοῦ, τίς ἡ κρίσις ἡ τότε γινομένη, καὶ τίς ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου ὁ βληθεὶς ἔξω; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐρεῖτε· τὸν αὐτοκράτορα, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔστι μόνος ἄρχων, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἐβλήθη κάτω· πολλοὶ γὰρ ἄρχουσι τοῦ κόσμου· εἰ δὲ νοητόν τινα καὶ ἀσώματον, οὐ δυνατὸν βληθῆναι ἔξω· ποῦ γὰρ βληθῇ, ἄρχων τυγχάνων τοῦ κόσμου; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλον λέξετέ που κόσμον ὑφεστάναι, εἰς ὃν ‹ὁ› ἄρχων βληθήσεται, ἐκ πιθανῆς ἡμῖν ἱστορίας τοῦτο εἴπατε· εἰ δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ δυνατὸν κόσμους ὑφεστάναι δύο, ποῦ βληθῇ ὁ ἄρχων, εἰ μήτι γε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν ᾧ τυγχάνων ἐστίν; καὶ πῶς, ἐν ᾧ τις ἔστιν, ἐν αὐτῷ καταβάλλεται; εἰ μήτι κατὰ τὸ κεραμεοῦν ἄγγος, ὃ συντριβὲν καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔξω βληθῆναι ποιεῖ - ὅμως οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἀλλ’ εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα, ἀέρος ἢ γῆς, εἰ τύχοι, ἢ ἄλλου τινός. εἰ γοῦν ὁμοίως, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον, συντριβέντος τοῦ κόσμου ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ βληθήσεται ἔξω, καὶ ποῖος ἔξω χῶρος, εἰς ὃν ἐκβληθήσεται; τί δὲ καὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ χώρῳ, πόσον ἢ ποῖον ὕψος ἢ βάθος ἢ μῆκος ἢ πλάτος; εἰ γὰρ ταῦτ’ ἐν αὐτῷ, κόσμος ἔσται ταῦτ’ ἔχων. τίς δὲ ‹ἡ› αἰτία ‹τοῦ› βληθῆναι τὸν ἄρχοντα ἔξω ὡς ξένον τοῦ κόσμου; καὶ πῶς ξένος ὢν ἦρξε; πῶς δ’ ἐκβάλλεται; ἑκὼν ἢ ἄκων; ἄκων δηλονότι· ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς λέξεως φανερὸν τὸ λεγόμενον· τὸ γὰρ ἐκβαλλόμενον ἀκουσίως ἐκβάλλεται· ἀλλ’ ὁ βιαζόμενος, οὐχ ὁ τὴν βίαν ὑπομένων, ἀδικεῖ. καὶ τὴν μὲν τοσαύτην τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀσάφειαν γυναίοις, οὐκ ἀνδράσι, παραχωρεῖν δίκαιον· εἰ γὰρ θέλοιμεν τὰ τοιαῦτα ζητεῖν ἀκριβέστερον, εὑρήσομεν μυρίας ἀσαφεῖς διηγήσεις λόγου μηδὲν κατεχούσας [ἕρμαιον]. [73] Euseb., Demonstr. I, 1, 12: Οὐδὲν ἡμᾶς δύνασθαί φασι οἱ συκοφάνται δι’ ἀποδείξεως παρέχειν, πίστει δὲ μόνῃ προσέχειν ἀξιοῦν τοὺς ἡμῖν προσιόντας τούτους δὲ καὶ πείθειν οὐδὲν πλέον ἢ σφᾶς αὐτούς, θρεμμάτων ἀλόγων δίκην, μύσαντας εὖ καὶ ἀνδρείως ἕπεσθαι δεῖν ἀνεξετάστως ἅπασι τοῖς παρ’ ἡμῶν λεγομένοις, παρ’ ὃ καὶ Πιστοὺς χρηματίζειν τῆς ἀλόγου [ 438 ]

χάριν πίστεως. Vgl. Praepar. ev. I, 3, 1: συκοφάντας προαποδείκνυμεν τοὺς μηδὲν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς δι’ ἀποδείξεως παριστάναι, ἀλόγῳ δὲ πίστει (cf. I, 5, 2) προσέχειν ἀποφηναμένους. [75] Makar. IV, 20: Τὸ μέντοι περὶ τῆς μοναρχίας τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ τῆς πολυαρχίας τῶν σεβομένων θεῶν διαρρήδην ζητήσωμεν, ὡς οὐκ οἶδας οὐδὲ τῆς μοναρχίας τὸν λόγον ἀφηγήσασθαι. μονάρχης γάρ ἐστιν οὐχ ὁ μόνος ὤν, ἀλλ’ ὁ μόνος ἄρχων. ἄρχει δ’ ὁμοφύλων δηλαδὴ ἢ ὁμοίων, οἷον Ἁδριανὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς μονάρχης γέγονεν, οὐχ ὅτι μόνος ἦν οὐδ’ ὅτι βοῶν καὶ προβάτων ἦρχεν, ὧν ἄρχουσι ποιμένες ἢ βουκόλοι, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἀνθρώπων ἐβασίλευσε τῶν ὁμογενῶν τὴν αὐτὴν φύσιν ἐχόντων. ὡσαύτως θεὸς μονάρχης οὐκ ἂν κυρίως ἐκλήθη, εἰ μὴ θεῶν ἦρχε· τοῦτο γὰρ ἔπρεπε τῷ θείῳ μεγέθει καὶ τῷ οὐρανίῳ πολλῷ ἀξιώματι. [76] Makar. IV, 21: Εἰ γὰρ ἀγγέλους φατὲ τῷ θεῷ παρεστάναι ἀπαθεῖς καὶ ἀθανάτους καὶ τὴν φύσιν ἀφθάρτους, οὓς ἡμεῖς θεοὺς λέγομεν διὰ τὸ πλησίον αὐτοὺς εἶναι τῆς θεότητος, τί τὸ ἀμφισβητούμενον περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἢ μόνον τὸ διαφορὰν ἡγεῖσθαι τῆς κλήσεως; καὶ γὰρ τὴν καλουμένην ὑφ’ Ἑλλήνων Ἀθηνᾶν Μινέρβαν οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι καλοῦσιν, Αἰγύπτιοι δὲ καὶ Σύροι καὶ Θρᾷκες ἄλλως προσαγορεύουσι, καὶ οὐ δήπου τῇ τῶν ὀνομάτων διαφορᾷ συσχηματίζεται ἢ ἀναιρεῖται τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ προσηγορίας. εἴτε οὖν θεοὺς εἴτε ἀγγέλους τις αὐτοὺς ὀνομάζει, οὐ πολὺ τὸ διάφορον, τῆς φύσεως αὐτῶν μαρτυρουμένης θείας, ὁπότε γράφει Ματθαῖος οὕτως· Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπε· πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ’ εἰσὶν ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. ὁμολογουμένου τοίνυν θείας φύσεως τοὺς ἀγγέλους μετέχειν, οἱ τὸ πρέπον σέβας τοῖς θεοῖς ποιοῦντες οὐκ ἐν ξύλῳ ἢ λίθῳ ἢ χαλκῷ, ἐξ οὗ τὸ βρέτας κατασκευάζεται, τὸν θεὸν εἶναι νομίζουσιν, οὐδ’ εἴ τι μέρος ἀγάλματος ἀκρωτηριασθείη, τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως ἀφαιρεῖσθαι κρίνουσιν. ὑπομνήσεως γὰρ ἕνεκα τὰ ξόανα καὶ οἱ ναοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν παλαιῶν ἱδρύθησαν, ὑπὲρ τοῦ τοὺς φοιτῶντας ἐκεῖσε σχολὴν ἄγοντας καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν καθαρεύοντας εἰς ἔννοιαν γίνεσθαι τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ προσιόντας εὐχαῖς καὶ ἱκεσίαις χρῆσθαι, αἰτοῦντας παρ’ αὐτοῦ ὧν ἕκαστος χρῄζει. καὶ γὰρ εἴ τις εἰκόνα κατασκευάσει φίλου, οὐκ ἐν ἐκείνῳ δήπουθεν αὐτὸν νομίζει τὸν φίλον εἶναι οὐδὲ τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἐκείνου τοῖς τῆς γραφῆς ἐγκεκλεῖσθαι μέρεσιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν εἰς τὸν φίλον τιμὴν δι’ εἰκόνος δείκνυσθαι. τὰς δὲ προσαγομένας τοῖς θεοῖς θυσίας οὐ τοσοῦτον τιμὴν εἰς αὐτοὺς φέρειν, ὅσον δεῖγμα εἶναι τῆς τῶν θρησκευόντων προαιρέσεως καὶ τοῦ μὴ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀχαρίστως διακεῖσθαι. ἀνθρωποειδῆ δὲ τῶν ἀγαλμάτων εἰκότως εἶναι τὰ σχήματα, ἐπεὶ τὸ κάλλιστον τῶν ζῴων ἄνθρωπος εἶναι νομίζεται καὶ εἰκὼν θεοῦ. ἔνι δ’ ἐξ ἑτέρου λόγου τοῦτο κρατῦναι τὸ δόγμα, διαβεβαιουμένου δακτύλους ἔχειν τὸν θεόν, οἷς γράφει φάσκων· Καὶ ἔδωκε τῷ Μωσῇ τὰς δύο πλάκας τὰς γεγραμμένας τῷ δακτύλῳ τοῦ θεοῦ· ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ Χριστιανοὶ μιμούμενοι τὰς κατασκευὰς τῶν ναῶν μεγίστους οἴκους οἰκοδομοῦσιν, εἰς οὓς συνιόντες εὔχονται, καίτοι μηδενὸς κωλύοντος ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις τοῦτο πράττειν, τοῦ κυρίου δηλονότι πανταχόθεν ἀκούοντος. [77] Makar. IV, 22: Εἰ δὲ καί τις τῶν Ἑλλήνων οὕτω κοῦφος τὴν γνώμην, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἀγάλμασιν ἔνδον οἰκεῖν νομίζειν τοὺς θεούς, πολλῷ καθαρώτερον εἶχε τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ [ 439 ]

πιστεύοντος ὅτι εἰς τὴν γαστέρα Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου εἰσέδυ τὸ θεῖον, ἔμβρυόν τε ἐγένετο καὶ τεχθὲν ἐσπαργανώθη, μεστὸν αἵματος χορίου καὶ χολῆς καὶ τῶν ἔτι πολλῷ τούτων ἀτοπωτέρων. [78] Makar. IV, 23: Ἔχοιμι ἄν σοι καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου δεῖξαι τὸ τῶν θεῶν πολύσεπτον ὄνομα ἐν τῷ βοᾶν καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς αἰδοῦς νουθετεῖν τὸν ἀκούοντα· Θεοὺς οὐ κακολογήσεις καὶ ἄρχοντα τοῦ λαοῦ σου οὐκ ἐρεῖς κακῶς. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλους παρὰ τοὺς ἡμῖν νομιζομένους ὧδε θεοὺς λέγει, ἐξ ὧν ἴσμεν ἐν τῷ· Οὐ πορεύσῃ ὀπίσω θεῶν, καὶ πάλιν· Ἐὰν πορευθῆτε καὶ λατρεύσητε θεοῖς ἑτέροις. ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἀνθρώπους, ἀλλὰ θεοὺς καὶ τοὺς ὑφ’ ἡμῶν δοξαζομένους λέγει οὐ μόνον Μωσῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἰησοῦς ὁ διάδοχος αὐτοῦ φησιν τῷ λαῷ· Καὶ νῦν φοβήθητε αὐτὸν καὶ λατρεύσατε αὐτῷ μόνῳ καὶ περιέλεσθε τοὺς θεούς, οἷς ἐλάτρευσαν οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν, καὶ Παῦλος δὲ οὐ περὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν ἀσωμάτων φησίν· Εἴπερ εἰσὶν οἱ λεγόμενοι θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ, ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα. διὸ πάνυ σφάλλεσθε νομίζοντες χαλεπαίνειν τὸν θεόν, εἴ τις καὶ ἄλλος κληθείη θεὸς καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ προσηγορίας τυγχάνοι, ὁπότε καὶ ἄρχοντες ὑπηκόοις καὶ δούλοις δεσπόται τῆς ὁμωνυμίας οὐ φθονοῦσιν· οὐ θεμιτὸν γοῦν μικροψυχότερον ἀνθρώπων τὸν θεὸν εἶναι νομίζειν. καὶ περὶ μὲν τοῦ εἶναι θεοὺς καὶ δεῖν τιμᾶσθαι τούτους ἅλις. [80] Euseb., Praep. ev. V, 1, 9f.: Αὐτὸς ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς τῶν δαιμόνων προήγορος ἐν τῇ καθ’ ἡμῶν συσκευῇ τοῦτόν που λέγων μαρτυρεῖ τὸν τρόπον· “Νυνὶ δὲ θαυμάζουσιν εἰ τοσούτων ἐτῶν κατείληφε τὴν πόλιν ἡ νόσος, Ἀσκληπιοῦ μὲν ἐπιδημίας καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν μηκέτ’ οὔσης· Ἰησοῦ γὰρ τιμωμένου οὐδεμιᾶς τις θεῶν δημοσίας ὠφελείας ᾔσθετο.” [83] Methodius, 1891, S. 347, Z. 20ff.: Οἴονταί τινες καὶ τὸν θεόν, πρὸς τὸ τῆς οἰκείας διαθέσεως μέτρον ἰσάζοντες αὐτόν, τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς φαύλοις ἢ ἐπαινετέα ἢ ψεκτέα ἡγεῖσθαι, ὥσπερ κανόνι καὶ μέτρῳ χρώμενον ταῖς δόξαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, οὐ συννοήσαντες διὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἄγνοιαν, ὅτι πᾶσα δήπουθεν ἡ κτίσις ἐνδεής ἐστι τοῦ κάλλους τοῦ θεοῦ. [84] (Bonwetsch, ς. .): Τί ὠφέλησεν ἡμᾶς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ σαρκωθεὶς ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος; καὶ διὰ τί τῷ τοῦ σταυροῦ σχήματι ἠνέσχετο παθεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἄλλῃ τινὶ τιμωρίᾳ; καὶ τί τὸ χρήσιμον τοῦ σταυροῦ; Πῶς ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ υἱός, ὁ Χριστός, ἐν βραχεῖ τε καὶ περιωρισμένῳ χρόνῳ διαστολαῖς σώματι ἐκεχώρητο; καὶ πῶς, ἀπαθὴς ὤν, ἐγένετο ὑπὸ πάθους; [86] Theophylakt., Enarr. in Joh. (Migne, T. 123, Col. 1141): ὥστε διαπέπτωκε τοῦ Ἕλληνος Πορφυρίου τὸ σόφισμα· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἀνατρέπειν πειρώμενος τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τοιαύταις ἐχρῆτο διαιρέσεσιν· Εἰ γὰρ λόγος, φησίν, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἤτοι προφορικός ἐστιν ἢ ἐνδιάθετος· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὔτε τοῦτο, οὔτε ἐκεῖνο· οὐκ ἄρα οὐδὲ λόγος ἐστίν. [87] Makar. IV, 10: Ἄλλο δὲ τούτου πρᾶγμα πολὺ λογιώτερον - κατ’ ἀντίφρασιν λέγω θέμις διασκοπῆσαι· Οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ὑγιαίνοντες ἰατροῦ, ἀλλ’ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες. περὶ δὲ τῆς οἰκείας ἐπιδημίας ὁ Χριστὸς ταῦτ’ ἐρραψώδει τοῖς ὄχλοις. εἰ γοῦν διὰ τοὺς κάμνοντας, ὡς αὐτὸς λέγει, ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἐπέστη, ἆρ’ οὐκ ἔκαμνον οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν οὐδ’ ἐνοσηλεύοντο ταῖς [ 440 ]

ἁμαρτίαις οἱ πρόγονοι; εἴ γε χρείαν οὐκ ἔχουσιν οἱ ὑγιαίνοντες ἰατροῦ καὶ οὐκ ἦλθε καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν, καὶ τὸν Παῦλον δὲ λέγειν οὕτως· Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι, ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ - εἰ γοῦν ταῦθ’ οὕτως ἔχει καὶ ὁ πεπλανημένος μὲν καλεῖται, ὁ δὲ νοσῶν θεραπεύεται, καὶ καλεῖται μὲν ὁ ἄδικος, ὁ δὲ δίκαιος οὐ καλεῖται, ὁ μήτε κληθεὶς μήτε τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν δεόμενος θεραπείας εἴη ἂν ἀπλανής τε καὶ δίκαιος· ὁ γὰρ μὴ χρῄζων ἰατρείας τὸν παρὰ τοῖς Πιστοῖς λόγον ἀποστραφεὶς τυγχάνει, καὶ ὅσῳ ἂν μᾶλλον ἀποστραφῇ, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον δίκαιος ἔσται καὶ ὑγιαίνων καὶ ἀπλανής. [88] Makar. IV, 19: Εὐλόγως Ὅμηρος τὴν ἀνδρείαν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἅτε πεπαιδευμένην ἡσυχάζειν ἐπέταττε, τὴν δ’ ἀνίδρυτον τοῦ Ἕκτορος γνώμην ἐδημοσίευσεν, ἐμμέτρῳ λόγῳ δημηγορῶν τοῖς Ἕλλησι. Σχέσθ’, Ἀργεῖοι, λέγων, μὴ βάλλετε, κοῦροι Ἀχαίων· στεῦται γάρ τοι ἔπος ἐρέειν κορυθαίολος Ἕκτωρ, καὶ νῦν ἐφ’ ἡσυχίας ὧδε πάντες καθεδούμεθα· ἐπαγγέλλεται γὰρ ἡμῖν καὶ διαβεβαιοῦται ὁ τῶν χριστιανικῶν δογμάτων ὑφηγητὴς τὰ σκοτεινὰ τῶν γραφῶν ἑρμηνεύειν κεφάλαια. λέγε δ’ οὖν ἡμῖν, ὦ τᾶν, παρακολουθοῦσι τοῖς ὑπὸ σοῦ φραζομένοις, τί φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος· Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τίνες ἦτε (δῆλον δ’ ὅτι τὰ φαῦλα), ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν. θαυμάζομεν γὰρ καὶ ὄντως ἐπὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπορούμεθα, εἰ τοσούτων μολυσμῶν καὶ μιασμῶν ἄνθρωπος ἅπαξ ἀπολουσάμενος ὀφθήσεται καθαρός, εἰ τοσαύτης βλακείας ἀναμεμαγμένος κηλῖδας ἐν τῷ βίῳ, πορνείας, μοιχείας, μέθης, κλοπῆς, ἀρσενοκοιτίας, φαρμακείας καὶ μυρίων φαύλων καὶ μυσαρῶν πραγμάτων, μόνον βαπτισθεὶς καὶ ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐλευθεροῦται ῥᾷον καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄγος καθάπερ ὄφις παλαιὸν ἀποδύεται θώρακα. τίς οὐκ ἂν ἐντεῦθεν ῥητοῖς καὶ ἀρρήτοις ἐπιτολμήσει κακοῖς καὶ δράσει τὰ μήτε λόγῳ ῥητὰ μήτ’ ἔργοις φορητά, γνοὺς ὡς τῶν τοσούτων ἐναγεστάτων ἔργων λήψεται τὴν ἀπόλυσιν, μόνον πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισάμενος καὶ συγγνώμης τυχεῖν ἐλπίσας μετὰ ταῦτα παρὰ τοῦ μέλλοντος κρῖναι τοὺς ζῶντάς τε καὶ τοὺς νεκρούς; ταῦτ’ ἁμαρτάνειν προτρέπεται τὸν ἀκούοντα, ταῦτ’ ἐφ’ ἑκάστης πράττειν διδάσκεται τὰ ἀθέμιτα, ταῦτ’ οἶδεν ἐξορίσαι καὶ τοῦ νόμου τὴν παίδευσιν καὶ τὸ δίκαιον αὐτὸ κατὰ τῶν ἀδίκων μηδὲν ἰσχύειν ὅλως, ταῦτ’ εἰσάγει τὴν ἄθεσμον ἐν κόσμῳ πολιτείαν καὶ δογματίζει τὴν ἀσέβειαν ὅλως μὴ δεδοικέναι, ὁπότε μυρίων ἀδικημάτων σωρὸν μόνον βαπτισάμενος ἄνθρωπος ἀποτίθεται. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ὧδε τοῦ λόγου τὸ κομψὸν πλάσμα. [89] Makar. IV, 6: Περιουσίας δ’ ἕνεκεν λελέχθω κἀκεῖνο τὸ λελεγμένον ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Πέτρου· εἰσάγει τὸν οὐρανὸν ἅμα τῇ γῇ κριθήσεσθαι οὕτως· Ἡ γῆ, φησί, παραστήσει πάντας τῷ θεῷ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως. καὶ αὐτὴ μέλλουσα κρίνεσθαι σὺν καὶ τῷ περιέχοντι οὐρανῷ. οὐδεὶς δὲ οὕτως ἀπαίδευτος οὐδ’ οὕτως ἀναίσθητος, ὃς οὐκ οἶδεν ὅτι τὰ μὲν περὶ τὴν γῆν τετάρακται καὶ τὴν τάξιν οὐ πέφυκε σώζειν, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἀνώμαλα, τὰ δὲ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ τάξιν ὁμοίαν ἔχει διαπαντὸς καὶ ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ προχωρεῖ καὶ οὐδέποτε ὑπαλλάττεται, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὑπαλλαγήσεταί ποτε· ποίημα γὰρ ἀκριβέστατον καθέστηκε τοῦ θεοῦ· ὅθεν τὰ κρείττονος ἀξιωθέντα μοίρας λυθῆναι ἀμήχανον, ἅτε θείῳ πεπηγότα καὶ ἀκηράτῳ θεσμῷ. τίνος δ’ ἕνεκεν [ 441 ]

οὐρανὸς κριθήσεται; ἡμαρτηκὼς δέ τί φανήσεταί ποτε, ὁ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ θεοῦ τάξιν δοκιμασθεῖσαν φυλάττων καὶ διαμένων ἐπὶ τῆς ταυτότητος ἀεί; εἰ μή τί γε τις ἐκ διαβολῆς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἄξιον εἶναι κρίσεως ῥητορεύσει τῷ κτίσαντι, ὡς τὸν κριτὴν ἀνασχόμενον κατ’ αὐτοῦ τινα τερατεύεσθαι οὕτω θαυμαστοῦ, οὕτω μεγάλου. [90a] Makar. IV, 7: Καὶ ἐκεῖνο δ’ αὖθις λέγει, ὃ καὶ ἀσεβείας μεστὸν ὑπάρχει, τὸ ῥῆμα φάσκον· Καὶ τακήσεται πᾶσα δύναμις οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἑλιχθήσεται ὁ οὐρανὸς ὡς βιβλίον· καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα πεσεῖται ὡς φύλλα ἐξ ἀμπέλου καὶ ὡς πίπτει φύλλα ἀπὸ συκῆς. ἀπὸ τερατώδους καὶ τοῦτο ψευδολογίας καὶ ὑπερφυοῦς ἀλαζονείας κεκόμπασται τό· Ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσεται, οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι. ποῖος γάρ τις ἂν εἴποι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοὺς λόγους στήσεσθαι, εἴπερ οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ μηκέτ’ εἶεν; ἄλλως τε εἰ τοῦτο πράξειεν ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ κατάξειε τὸν οὐρανόν, τοὺς ἀσεβεστάτους τῶν ἀνθρώπων μιμήσεται, οἳ τὰ ἑαυτῶν διαφθείρουσιν· ὅτι γὰρ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς πατήρ ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ὑπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὡμολόγηται, Πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, λέγοντος· Ἰωάννης δὲ ὁ βαπτίστης μεγεθύνει τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ λέγει τὰ θεῖα χαρίσματα πέμπεσθαι λέγων· Οὐδεὶς δύναται ποιεῖν οὐδέν, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ οἱ προφῆται δὲ ἅγιον τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκητήριον λέγουσιν ὑπάρχειν τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν τῷ· Ἔπιδε ἐκ κατοικητηρίου ἁγίου ‹σου› καὶ εὐλόγησον τὸν λαόν σου τὸν Ἰσραήλ. εἴ γε ὁ τοσοῦτος καὶ τηλικοῦτος ἐν μαρτυρίαις οὐρανὸς παρελεύσεται, τίς ἔσται καθέδρα λοιπὸν τοῦ δεσπόζοντος; εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς γῆς στοιχεῖον ἀπόλλυται, τί τὸ ὑποπόδιον ἔσται τοῦ καθημένου, λέγοντος αὐτοῦ· Ὁ οὐρανός μοι θρόνος, ἡ δὲ γῆ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν μου; καὶ περὶ μὲν τοῦ παρελθεῖν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ὧδε. [90b] Nemesius, De natura hom. c. 38: Διὰ ταύτην τὴν ἀποκατάστασιν φασί τινες τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς τὴν ἀνάστασιν φαντάζεσθαι, πολὺ πλανηθέντες· εἰς ἅπαξ γὰρ τὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως καὶ οὐ κατὰ περίοδον ἔσεσθαι τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ δοξάζει λόγια. [93] Quaestiones XIV et XV Gentilium ad Christianos (Otto, Corp. Apol. V `1850] S. 320; Harnack, Texte u. Unters. Bd. XXI, 4 `1901] S. 162f.): Εἰ φθείρεται τὸ γινόμενον παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, τίνος κακίᾳ φθείρεται, τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἢ τοῦ γεγονότος ἤ τινος ἔξωθεν ὑπεναντίου γινομένου τῷ ποιήσαντι; ὅ τι δ’ ἂν αὐτῶν ὑποθώμεθα, δῆλον ὅτι τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡ κακία. εἴτε γὰρ τὸ γεγονὸς διά τινα ἔμφυτον ἑαυτοῦ κακίαν ὀφείλει φθαρῆναι, ὁ ποιήσας αἴτιος, ὅτι τοιοῦτον αὐτὸ ἐποίησεν, ὥστε ὑπολιμπάνεσθαι ἐν αὐτῷ κακόν τι. εἴτε ἔξωθέν ἐστί τι ὑπεναντίον τῷ ποιήσαντι, καὶ οὕτως κακίᾳ τοῦ πεποιηκότος, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι κατακρατεῖν τῶν ἐναντίων· εἴτε ἐκ τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡ κακία, πρόδηλον ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ κακός. Εἰ δεῖ, φησί, σώους ἀνίστασθαι τοὺς τετελευτηκότας, πῶς, εἰ συμβαίη ἄνθρωπον ἀποθανεῖν εἰς θάλατταν, εἶτα βρωθέντα τοῦτον ὑπὸ ἰχθύων, αὖθις ὑπὸ ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων καταβρωθῆναι διὰ μέσων τῶν ἰχθύων, πῶς ἂν ἀναλάβοι τὰς σάρκας τὰς εἰς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους ἀναδαπανηθείσας; ἢ γὰρ τοῦτον ἀνάγκη παρὰ τὰς σάρκας ἀναστῆναι, ἃς ἔφαγον οἱ ἄλλοι ἄνθρωποι διὰ μέσων τῶν ἰχθύων, καθὼς πολλάκις εἴρηται, ἢ ἐκείνους, μέλη τῶν ἑαυτῶν σαρκῶν ἀπαιτουμένους,

[ 442 ]

ἀποθέσθαι καὶ ἐλλιπεῖς γενέσθαι, ἵνα ἀποπληρώσωσι τὸ ἐλλεῖπον τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἀδίκως καταβρωθέντων. [94] Makar. IV, 24: Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν νεκρῶν αὖθις ἀφηγητέον. τίνος γὰρ ἕνεκεν τοῦτο ποιήσειεν ὁ θεὸς καὶ τὴν μέχρι νῦν τῶν γενομένων διαδοχήν, δι’ ὧν (ἧς) ὥρισε τὰ γένη σώζεσθαι καὶ μὴ διαλείπειν, ἀναλύσειε προχείρως οὕτως ἐξ ἀρχῆς νομοθετήσας καὶ διατυπώσας; τὰ δ’ ἅπαξ δόξαντα τῷ θεῷ καὶ τοσούτῳ φυλαχθέντα αἰῶνι αἰώνια αὐτὰ προσήκει εἶναι καὶ μήτε καταγινώσκεσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ δημιουργήσαντος μήτε διαφθείρεσθαι ὡς ὑπό τινος ἀνθρώπου γενόμενα καὶ θνητὰ ὑπὸ θνητοῦ κατεσκευασμένα. ὅθεν ἄλογον, εἰ τοῦ παντὸς φθαρέντος ἀκολουθήσει ἡ ἀνάστασις, εἰ τὸν πρὸ τριῶν ‹ἐτῶν›, εἰ τύχοι, τῆς ἀναστάσεως τελευτήσαντα ἀναστήσει ‹καὶ› σὺν αὐτῷ Πρίαμον καὶ Νέστορα, τοὺς πρὸ χιλίων ἐτῶν ἀποθανόντας καὶ ἄλλους πρὸ ἐκείνων ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνθρωπείας γενέσεως. εἰ δὲ κἀκεῖνό τις ἐθέλοι κατανοεῖν, εὑρήσει μεστὸν ἀβελτηρίας πρᾶγμα τὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως· πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐν θαλάττῃ πολλάκις ἀπώλοντο καὶ ὑπὸ ἰχθύων ἀνηλώθη τὰ σώματα, πολλοὶ δ’ ὑπὸ θηρίων καὶ ὀρνέων ἐβρώθησαν· πῶς οὖν τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐπανελθεῖν οἷόν τε; φέρε γὰρ τὸ λεχθὲν λεπτῶς βασανίσωμεν· οἷον, ἐναυάγησέ τις, εἶτα τρίγλαι τοῦ σώματος ἐγεύσαντο, εἶθ’ ἁλιεύσαντές τινες καὶ φαγόντες ἐσφάγησαν καὶ ὑπὸ κυνῶν ἐβρώθησαν, τοὺς κύνας ἀποθανόντας κόρακες παμμελεὶ καὶ γῦπες ἐθοινήσαντο· πῶς οὖν συναχθήσεται τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ναυαγήσαντος διὰ τοσούτων ἐξαναλωθὲν ζῴων; καὶ δὴ ἄλλο πάλιν ὑπὸ πυρὸς ἀναλωθὲν καὶ ἕτερον εἰς σκώληκας λῆξαν, πῶς οἷόν τε εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπανελθεῖν ὑπόστασιν; ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖς μοι ὅτι τοῦτο τῷ θεῷ δυνατόν, ὅπερ οὐκ ἀληθές. οὐ γὰρ πάντα δύναται· ἀμέλει οὐ δύναται ποιῆσαι μὴ γεγενῆσθαι ποιητὴν τὸν Ὅμηρον οὐδὲ τὸ Ἴλιον μὴ ἁλῶναι· οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τὰ δύο διπλασιαζόμενα, τέτταρα ὄντα τῷ ἀριθμῷ. ἀριθμεῖσθαι ποιήσειεν ε΄, κἂν αὐτῷ δοκῇ τοῦτο. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ κακὸς ὁ θεός, εἰ καὶ θέλει, δύναται γενέσθαι ποτέ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἀγαθὸς ὢν τὴν φύσιν ἁμαρτῆσαι δύναιτ’ ἄν· εἰ οὖν ἁμαρτάνειν οὔκ ἐστιν οἷός τε οὐδὲ κακὸς γενέσθαι, τοῦτο οὐ δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῷ θεῷ συμβαίνει· οἱ γὰρ ἔχοντες ἐκ φύσεως παρασκευὴν καὶ ἐπιτηδειότητα πρός τι, εἶτα κωλυόμενοι τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ὑπὸ ἀσθενείας δηλαδὴ κωλύονται· ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἀγαθὸς εἶναι πέφυκε καὶ οὐ κωλύεται κακὸς εἶναι· ὅμως καὶ μὴ κωλυόμενος γενέσθαι κακὸς ἀδυνατεῖ. σκέψασθε δὲ κἀκεῖνο πηλίκον ἐστὶν ἄλογον εἰ ὁ δημιουργὸς τὸν μὲν οὐρανόν, οὗ μηδέν τις ἐπενόησε κάλλος θεσπεσιώτερον, περιόψεται τηκόμενον καὶ ἄστρα πίπτοντα καὶ γῆν ἀπολλυμένην, τὰ δὲ σεσηπότα καὶ διεφθαρμένα τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀναστήσει σώματα, σπουδαίων ἔνια καὶ ἄλλα πρὸ τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν ἀτερπῆ καὶ ἀσύμμετρα καὶ ἀηδεστάτην ὄψιν ἔχοντα. εἰ δὲ καὶ ῥᾴδιον ἀναστῆσαι δύναται σὺν κόσμῳ πρέποντι, ἀδύνατον χωρῆσαι τὴν γῆν τοὺς ἀπὸ γενέσεως τοῦ κόσμου τελευτήσαντας, εἰ ἀνασταῖεν. [95] Makar. III, 17: Βλέπε δ’ ὅμοιον τούτῳ ῥητὸν καὶ ἀκόλουθον· Ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐρεῖτε τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ· ἄρθητι καὶ βλήθητι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀδυνατήσει ὑμῖν. δῆλον τοίνυν ὡς ὁ μὴ δυνάμενος ἐκ προστάγματος ὄρος ἀποκινῆσαι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄξιος τῆς τῶν Πιστῶν νομίζεσθαι φρατρίας. ὅθεν ἐλέγχεσθε φανερῶς ὅτι μὴ ὅπως τὸ [ 443 ]

λοιπὸν μέρος τῶν Χριστιανῶν τοῖς Πιστοῖς ἐναριθμεῖται, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τῶν ἐπισκόπων ἢ πρεσβυτέρων τις τούτου ‹τοῦ› προσρήματός ἐστιν ἄξιος. [96] Makar. III, 16: Σκέψαι δὲ κἀκεῖνο λεπτῶς τὸ κεφάλαιον, ἔνθα φησί· Τοῖς δὲ πιστεύσασιν ἐπακολουθήσει σημεῖα τοιάδε· ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσι καὶ καλῶς ἕξουσι· κἂν θανάσιμον φάρμακον πίωσιν, οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψει. ἐχρῆν γοῦν τοὺς ἐκκρίτους τῆς ἱερωσύνης καὶ μάλιστα τοὺς ἀντιποιουμένους τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἤτοι προεδρίας τούτῳ χρήσασθαι τῷ τῆς κρίσεως τρόπῳ καὶ προκεῖσθαι τὸ θανάσιμον φάρμακον, ἵνα ὁ μὴ βλαβεὶς ἐκ τῆς φαρμακοποσίας τῶν ἄλλων προκριθείη· εἰ δ’ οὐ θαρροῦσι τοιοῦτον παραδέξασθαι τρόπον, ὁμολογεῖν αὐτούς, ὡς οὐ πιστεύουσι τοῖς ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ. εἰ γὰρ τῆς πίστεως ἴδιον νικῆσαι φαρμάκου κακίαν καὶ νοσοῦντος ἀλγηδόνα καταβαλεῖν, ὁ πιστεύων καὶ μὴ ποιῶν ταῦτα ἢ γνησίως οὐ πεπίστευκεν ἢ πιστεύων γνησίως οὐ δυνατὸν ἀλλ’ ἀσθενὲς ἔχει τὸ πιστευόμενον.

[ 444 ]

On the Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙΑΙ ΤΩΝ ΝΥΜΦΩΝ ΑΝΤΡΟΥ [ 1 ] ὍΤ Ι Π Ο Τ Ὲ Ὁμήρῳ αἰνίττεται τὸ ἐν Ἰθάκῃ ἄντρον, ὃ διὰ τῶν ἐπῶν τούτων διαγράφει λέγων· ‘αὐτὰρ ἐπὶ κρατὸς λιμένος τανύφυλλος ἐλαίη, ἀγχόθι δ’ αὐτῆς ἄντρον ἐπήρατον ἠεροειδές, ἱρὸν νυμφάων αἳ νηιάδες καλέονται. ἐν τῷ κρητῆρές τε καὶ ἀμφιφορῆες ἔασι λάινοι· ἔνθα δ’ ἔπειτα τιθαιβώσσουσι μέλισσαι. ἐν δ’ ἱστοὶ λίθεοι περιμήκεες, ἔνθα τε νύμφαι φάρε’ ὑφαίνουσιν ἁλιπόρφυρα, θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι· ἐν δ’ ὕδατ’ ἀενάοντα. δύω δέ τέ οἱ θύραι εἰσίν, αἱ μὲν πρὸς βορέαο καταβαταὶ ἀνθρώποισιν, αἱ δ’ αὖ πρὸς νότου εἰσὶ θεώτεραι· οὐδέ τι κείνῃ ἄνδρες ἐσέρχονται, ἀλλ’ ἀθανάτων ὁδός ἐστιν.’ [2] Ὅτι μὲν οὐ καθ’ ἱστορίαν παρειληφὼς μνήμην τῶν παραδοθέντων πεποίηται, δηλοῦσιν οἱ τὰς περιηγήσεις τῆς νήσου γράψαντες, οὐδενὸς τοιούτου κατὰ τὴν νῆσον ἄντρου μνησθέντες, ὡς φησὶ Κρόνιος· ὅτι δὲ κατὰ ποιητικὴν ἐξουσίαν πλάσσων ἄντρον ἀπίθανος ἦν, εἰ τὸ προστυχὸν καὶ ὡς ἔτυχε πλάσας πείσειν ἤλπισεν ὡς ‹ἐν› τῇ Ἰθακησίᾳ γῇ ἀνήρ τις ἐτεχνήσατο ὁδοὺς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ θεοῖς, ἢ εἰ μὴ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ’ ἡ φύσις αὐτόθεν ἀπέδειξε κάθοδόν τε ἀνθρώποις πᾶσι καὶ πάλιν ἄλλην ὁδὸν τοῖς πᾶσι θεοῖς, δῆλον. ἀνθρώπων γὰρ καὶ θεῶν ὁ πᾶς μὲν πλήρης κόσμος, τὸ δὲ Ἰθακήσιον ἄντρον πόρρω καθέστηκε τοῦ πείθειν ἐν αὐτῷ κατάβασιν εἶναι τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀνάβασιν τῶν θεῶν. [3] Τοιαῦτα τοίνυν ὁ Κρόνιος προειπὼν φησὶν ἔκδηλον εἶναι οὐ τοῖς σοφοῖς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἰδιώταις ἀλληγορεῖν τι καὶ αἰνίττεσθαι διὰ τούτων τὸν ποιητήν, πολυπραγμονεῖν ἀναγκάζοντα τίς μὲν ἀνθρώπων πύλη, τίς δὲ θεῶν, καὶ τί βούλεται τὸ ἄντρον τοῦτο τὸ δίθυρον, ‹ἱερὸν› μὲν νυμφῶν εἰρημένον, τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπήρατον καὶ ἠεροειδές, οὐδαμῶς τοῦ σκοτεινοῦ ἐπηράτου ὄντος, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον φοβεροῦ· διὰ τί δὲ οὐχ ἁπλῶς νυμφῶν λέγεται ἱερόν, ἀλλὰ πρόσκειται εἰς ἀκρίβειαν τὸ ‘αἳ νηιάδες καλέονται’ τίς δὲ καὶ ἡ τῶν κρατήρων καὶ ἀμφιφορέων παράληψις, οὐδενὸς τῶν ἐγχεομένων αὐτοῖς παρειλημμένου, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐν αὐτοῖς ὡς ἐν σμήνεσι τιθαιβώσσουσι μέλισσαι. οἵ τε περιμήκεις ἱστοὶ ἔστωσαν ἀναθήματα ταῖς νύμφαις· ἀλλὰ τί μὴ ἐκ ξύλων ἢ ἄλλης ὕλης, λίθινοι δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς οἱ ἀμφιφορεῖς καὶ οἱ κρατῆρες; καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἧττον ἀσαφές· τὸ δ’ ἐν τοῖς λιθίνοις ἱστοῖς τούτοις τὰς νύμφας ὑφαίνειν ἁλιπόρφυρα φάρη, οὐκ ἰδέσθαι θαῦμα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκοῦσαι. τίς γὰρ ἂν πιστεύσαι θεὰς ἁλιπόρφυρα ἱμάτια ὑφαίνειν ‹ἐν› [ 445 ]

σκοτεινῷ ἄντρῳ ἐπὶ λιθίνων ἱστῶν, καὶ ταῦτα ὁρατὰ φάσκοντος εἶναι ἀκούων τὰ θεῶν ὑφάσματα καὶ ἁλουργῆ; ἐφ’ οἷς καὶ τὸ δίθυρον εἶναι τὸ ἄντρον θαυμαστόν, τῶν μέν τινων ἀνθρώποις εἰς κατάβασιν πεποιημένων, τῶν δ’ αὖ πάλιν θεοῖς· καὶ ὅτι αἱ μὲν ἀνθρώποις πορεύσιμοι πρὸς βορρᾶν ἄνεμον τετράφθαι λέγονται, αἱ δὲ τοῖς θεοῖς πρὸς νότον, οὐ μικρᾶς οὔσης ἀπορίας δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀνθρώποις μὲν τὰ βόρεια μέρη προσένειμε, τοῖς δ’ αὖ θεοῖς τὰ νότια, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀνατολῇ καὶ δύσει πρὸς τοῦτο μᾶλλον κέχρηται, ὡς ἂν σχεδὸν πάντων τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ μὲν ἀγάλματα καὶ τὰς εἰσόδους ἐχόντων πρὸς ἀνατολὴν τετραμμένας, τῶν δὲ εἰσιόντων πρὸς δύσιν ἀφορώντων, ὅταν ἀντιπρόσωποι τῶν ἀγαλμάτων ἑστῶτες τοῖς θεοῖς τὰς [4] λιτὰς καὶ θεραπείας προσάγωσι. τοιούτων ἀσαφειῶν πλήρους ὄντος τοῦ διηγήματος πλάσμα μὲν ὡς ἔτυχεν εἰς ψυχαγωγίαν πεποιημένον μὴ εἶναι, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἱστορίας τοπικῆς περιήγησιν ἔχειν, ἀλληγορεῖν δέ τι δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸν ποιητήν, προσθέντα μυστικῶς καὶ ἐλαίας φυτὸν πλησίον. ἃ δὴ πάντα ἀνιχνεῦσαι καὶ ἀναπτύξαι ἔργον καὶ τοὺς παλαιοὺς νομίσαι καὶ ἡμᾶς μετ’ ἐκείνων τε καὶ τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς πειρᾶσθαι νῦν ἀνευρίσκειν. Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐγχωρίου ἱστορίας ῥᾳθυμότερον φαίνονται ἀναγράψαντες ὅσοι τέλεον ᾠήθησαν πλάσμα εἶναι τοῦ ποιητοῦ τό τε ἄντρον καὶ ὅσα περὶ τούτου ἀφηγήσατο· οἱ δὲ τὰς γεωγραφίας ἀναγράψαντες, ὧν ἄριστα καὶ ἀκριβέστατα καὶ ὁ Ἐφέσιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῆς εἰς ἕνδεκα συνηγμένης αὐτῷ πραγματείας γράφει ταῦτα· ‘τῆς δὲ Κεφαληνίας ἀπὸ Πανόρμου λιμένος πρὸς ἀνατολὴν ἀπέχουσα δώδεκα στάδια νῆσός ἐστιν Ἰθάκη σταδίων ὀγδοήκοντα πέντε, στενὴ καὶ μετέωρος, λιμένα ἔχουσα καλούμενον Φόρκυνος· ἔστι δ’ αἰγιαλὸς ἐν αὐτῷ· ἐκεῖ νυμφῶν ἱερὸν ἄντρον, οὗ λέγεται τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ὑπὸ τῶν Φαιάκων ἐκβιβασθῆναι.’ πλάσμα μὲν οὖν Ὁμηρικὸν παντελῶς οὐκ ἂν εἴη· εἴτε δ’ οὕτως ἔχον ἀφηγήσατο εἴτε καὶ αὐτός τινα προσέθηκεν, οὐδὲν ἧττον μένει τὰ ζητήματα τὴν βούλησιν ἢ τῶν καθιδρυσαμένων ἢ τοῦ προσθέντος ποιητοῦ ἀνιχνεύοντι, ὡς ἂν μήτε τῶν παλαιῶν ἄνευ συμβόλων μυστικῶν τὰ ἱερὰ καθιδρυσαμένων μήτε Ὁμήρου ὡς ἔτυχε τὰ περὶ τούτων ἀφηγουμένου. ὅσῳ δ’ ἄν τις μὴ Ὁμήρου πλάσμα ἐγχειρῇ τὰ κατὰ τὸ ἄντρον δεικνύναι, τῶν δὲ πρὸ Ὁμήρου θεοῖς τοῦτο καθιερωσάντων, τοσούτῳ τῆς παλαιᾶς σοφίας πλῆρες τὸ ἀνάθημα εὑρεθήσεται καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄξιον ἐρεύνης καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ συμβολικῆς καθιδρύσεως δεόμενον τῆς παραστάσεως. [5] Ἄντρα μὲν δὴ ἐπιεικῶς οἱ παλαιοὶ καὶ σπήλαια τῷ κόσμῳ καθιέρουν καθ’ ὅλον τε αὐτὸν καὶ κατὰ μέρη λαμβάνοντες, σύμβολον μὲν τῆς ὕλης ἐξ ἧς ὁ κόσμος τὴν γῆν παραδιδόντες (διό τινες καὶ αὐτόθεν τὴν ὕλην τὴν γῆν εἶναι ἐτίθεντο), τὸν ‹δὲ› ἐκ τῆς ὕλης γινόμενον κόσμον διὰ τῶν ἄντρων παριστῶντες, ὅτι τε ὡς ἐπὶ πολὺ αὐτοφυῆ τὰ ἄντρα καὶ συμφυῆ τῇ γῇ ὑπὸ πέτρας περιεχόμενα μονοειδοῦς, ἧς τὰ μὲν ἔνδον κοῖλα, τὰ δ’ ἔξω εἰς τὸ ἀπεριόριστον τῆς γῆς ἀνεῖται· αὐτοφυὴς δὲ ὁ κόσμος καὶ [αὐτοσυμφυὴς] προσπεφυκὼς τῇ ὕλῃ, ἣν λίθον καὶ πέτραν διὰ τὸ ἀργὸν καὶ ἀντίτυπον πρὸς τὸ εἶδος εἶναι ᾐνίττοντο, ἄπειρον κατὰ τὴν αὐτῆς ἀμορφίαν τιθέντες. ῥευστῆς δ’ οὔσης αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ εἴδους δι’ οὗ μορφοῦται καὶ φαίνεται καθ’ ἑαυτὴν ἐστερημένης, τὸ ἔνυδρον καὶ ἔνικμον τῶν ἄντρων καὶ σκοτεινὸν καὶ ὡς ὁ ποιητὴς ἔφη ἠεροειδὲς οἰκείως ἐδέξαντο εἰς σύμβολον [6] τῶν προσόντων τῷ κόσμῳ διὰ τὴν ὕλην. διὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν ὕλην [ 446 ]

ἠεροειδὴς καὶ σκοτεινὸς ὁ κόσμος, διὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ εἴδους συμπλοκὴν καὶ διακόσμησιν, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ κόσμος ἐκλήθη, καλός τέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπέραστος. ὅθεν οἰκείως ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ ἂν ῥηθείη ἄντρον ἐπήρατον μὲν τῷ εὐθὺς ἐντυγχάνοντι διὰ τὴν τῶν εἰδῶν μέθεξιν, ἠεροειδὲς δὲ σκοποῦντι τὴν ὑποβάθραν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὴν εἰσιόντι τῷ νῷ· ὥστε τὰ μὲν ἔξω καὶ ἐπιπολαίως ἐπήρατα, τὰ δ’ ἔνδον καὶ ἐν βάθει ἠεροειδῆ. οὕτω καὶ Πέρσαι τὴν εἰς κάτω κάθοδον τῶν ψυχῶν καὶ πάλιν ἔξοδον μυσταγωγοῦντες τελοῦσι τὸν μύστην, ἐπονομάσαντες σπήλαιον ‹τὸν› τόπον· πρώτου μέν, ὡς ἔφη Εὔβουλος, Ζωροάστρου αὐτοφυὲς σπήλαιον ἐν τοῖς πλησίον ὄρεσι τῆς Περσίδος ἀνθηρὸν καὶ πηγὰς ἔχον ἀνιερώσαντος εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ πάντων ποιητοῦ καὶ πατρὸς Μίθρου, εἰκόνα φέροντος αὐτῷ τοῦ σπηλαίου τοῦ κόσμου, ὃν ὁ Μίθρας ἐδημιούργησε, τῶν δ’ ἐντὸς κατὰ συμμέτρους ἀποστάσεις σύμβολα φερόντων τῶν κοσμικῶν στοιχείων καὶ κλιμάτων· μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν Ζωροάστρην κρατήσαντος καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις, δι’ ἄντρων καὶ σπηλαίων εἴτ’ οὖν αὐτοφυῶν εἴτε χειροποιήτων τὰς τελετὰς ἀποδιδόναι. ὡς γὰρ τοῖς μὲν Ὀλυμπίοις θεοῖς ναούς τε καὶ ἕδη καὶ βωμοὺς ἱδρύσαντο, χθονίοις δὲ καὶ ἥρωσιν ἐσχάρας, ὑποχθονίοις δὲ βόθρους καὶ μέγαρα, οὕτω καὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἄντρα τε καὶ σπήλαια, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ταῖς νύμφαις διὰ τὰ ἐν ἄντροις καταλειβόμενα ἢ ἀναδιδόμενα ὕδατα, ὧν αἱ ναΐδες, ὡς μετ’ ὀλίγον ἐπέξιμεν, προεστήκασι νύμφαι. [7] Οὐ μόνον δ’, ὡς φαμέν, κόσμου σύμβολον ἤτοι γενητοῦ αἰσθητοῦ τὸ ἄντρον ἐποιοῦντο, ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ πασῶν τῶν ἀοράτων δυνάμεων τὸ ἄντρον ἐν συμβόλῳ παρελάμβανον διὰ τὸ σκοτεινὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ ἄντρα, ἀφανὲς δὲ τὸ τῶν δυνάμεων οὐσιῶδες. οὕτω καὶ ὁ Κρόνος ἐν τῷ Ὠκεανῷ αὑτῷ ἄντρον κατασκευάζει κἀκεῖ κρύπτει τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ παῖδας· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἡ Δημήτηρ ἐν ἄντρῳ τρέφει τὴν Κόρην μετὰ νυμφῶν, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλὰ εὑρήσει τις ἐπιὼν τὰ τῶν θεολόγων. [8] ὅτι δὲ καὶ ταῖς νύμφαις ἀνετίθεσαν ἄντρα καὶ τούτων μάλιστα ταῖς ναΐσιν, αἳ ἐπὶ πηγῶν εἰσὶ κἀκ τῶν ὑδάτων, ἀφ’ ὧν αἱ ῥοαί, ναΐδες ἐκαλοῦντο, δηλοῖ καὶ ὁ εἰς Ἀπόλλωνα ὕμνος, ἐν ᾧ λέγεται ‘σοὶ δ’ ἄρα πηγὰς νοερῶν ὑδάτων τέμον ἄντροις μίμνουσαι γαίης ἀτιταλλόμεναι πνεύματι μούσης θέσπιν ἐς ὀμφήν· ταὶ δ’ ὑπὲρ οὖδας διὰ πάντα νάη ῥήξασαι παρέχουσι βροτοῖς γλυκερῶν ῥείθρων ἀλιπεῖς προχοάς.’ Ἀφ’ ὧν οἶμαι ὁρμώμενοι καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ μετὰ τούτους Πλάτων ἄντρον καὶ σπήλαιον τὸν κόσμον ἀπεφήναντο. παρά τε γὰρ Ἐμπεδοκλεῖ αἱ ψυχοπομποὶ δυνάμεις λέγουσιν ‘ἠλύθομεν τόδ’ ὑπ’ ἄντρον ὑπόστεγον,’ παρά τε Πλάτωνι ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ τῆς Πολιτείας λέγεται ‘ἰδὲ γὰρ ἀνθρώπους οἷον ἐν κατωγείῳ ἄντρῳ καὶ οἰκήσει σπηλαιώδει ἀναπεπταμένῃ πρὸς φῶς, τὴν εἴσοδον ἐχούσῃ μακρὰν [ 447 ]

παρ’ ἅπαν τὸ σπήλαιον’. εἶτα εἰπόντος τοῦ προσδιαλεγομένου ‘ἄτοπον λέγεις εἰκόνα’, ἐπάγει ‘τὴν εἰκόνα, ὦ φίλε Γλαύκων, προσαπτέον πᾶσι τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν λεγομένοις, τὴν μὲν δι’ ὄψεως φαινομένην ἕδραν τῇ τοῦ δεσμωτηρίου οἰκήσει ἀφομοιοῦντα, τὸ δὲ τοῦ πυρὸς φῶς τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου δυνάμει’. [9] Ὅτι μὲν οὖν σύμβολον κόσμου τὰ ἄντρα καὶ τῶν ἐγκοσμίων δυνάμεων ἐτίθεντο οἱ θεολόγοι, διὰ τούτων δεδήλωται· ἤδη δὲ καὶ ὅτι τῆς νοητῆς οὐσίας εἴρηται, ἐκ διαφόρων μέντοι καὶ οὐ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐννοιῶν ὁρμώμενοι. τοῦ μὲν γὰρ αἰσθητοῦ κόσμου διὰ τὸ σκοτεινὰ εἶναι τὰ ἄντρα καὶ πετρώδη καὶ δίυγρα, τοιοῦτον δ’ εἶναι τὸν κόσμον διὰ τὴν ὕλην ἐξ ἧς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος, καὶ ἀντίτυπον καὶ ῥευστὸν ἐτίθεντο· τοῦ δ’ αὖ νοητοῦ διὰ τὸ ἀφανὲς αἰσθήσει καὶ στερρὸν καὶ βέβαιον τῆς οὐσίας· οὑτωσὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν μερικῶν ἀφανῶν δυνάμεων, καὶ μᾶλλόν γε ἐπὶ τούτων τῶν ἐνύλων. κατὰ γὰρ τὸ αὐτοφυὲς τὸ τῶν ἄντρων καὶ νύχιον καὶ σκοτεινὸν καὶ πέτρινον ἐποιοῦντο τὰ σύμβολα· οὐκέτι μὴν πάντως καὶ κατὰ σχῆμα, ὥς τινες ὑπενόουν, [10] ὅτι μηδὲ πᾶν ἄντρον σφαιροειδές, διπλοῦ δ’ ὄντος ἄντρου, ὡς καὶ τὸ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ δίθυρον, οὐκέτι τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς νοητῆς, ἀλλὰ τῆς αἰσθητῆς παρελάμβανον οὐσίας, ὡς καὶ τὸ νῦν παραληφθὲν διὰ τὸ ἔχειν, ‹ὡς› φησίν, ‘ὕδατα ἀενάοντα’ οὐκ ἂν εἴη τῆς νοητῆς ὑποστάσεως, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐνύλου φέρον οὐσίας σύμβολον. διὸ καὶ ἱερὸν νυμφῶν οὐκ ὀρεστιάδων οὐδὲ ἀκραίων ἤ τινων τοιούτων, ἀλλὰ ναΐδων, αἳ ἀπὸ τῶν ναμάτων οὕτω κέκληνται. Νύμφας δὲ ναΐδας λέγομεν καὶ τὰς τῶν ὑδάτων προεστώσας δυνάμεις ἰδίως, ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ τὰς εἰς γένεσιν κατιούσας ψυχὰς κοινῶς ἁπάσας. ἡγοῦντο γὰρ προσιζάνειν τῷ ὕδατι τὰς ψυχὰς θεοπνόῳ ὄντι, ὡς φησὶν ὁ Νουμήνιος, διὰ τοῦτο λέγων καὶ τὸν προφήτην εἰρηκέναι ἐμφέρεσθαι ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος θεοῦ πνεῦμα· τούς τε Αἰγυπτίους διὰ τοῦτο τοὺς δαίμονας ἅπαντας οὐχ ἱστάναι ἐπὶ στερεοῦ, ἀλλὰ πάντας ἐπὶ πλοίου, καὶ τὸν Ἥλιον καὶ ἁπλῶς πάντας· οὕστινας εἰδέναι χρὴ τὰς ψυχὰς ἐπιποτωμένας τῷ ὑγρῷ τὰς εἰς γένεσιν κατιούσας. ὅθεν καὶ Ἡράκλειτον ψυχῇσι φάναι τέρψιν μὴ θάνατον ὑγρῇσι γενέσθαι, τέρψιν δὲ εἶναι αὐταῖς τὴν εἰς τὴν γένεσιν πτῶσιν, καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ δὲ φάναι ζῆν ἡμᾶς τὸν ἐκείνων θάνατον καὶ ζῆν ἐκείνας τὸν ἡμέτερον θάνατον. παρὸ καὶ διεροὺς τοὺς ἐν γενέσει ὄντας καλεῖν τὸν ποιητὴν τοὺς διύγρους τὰς ψυχὰς ἔχοντας. αἷμά τε γὰρ ταύταις [11] καὶ ὁ δίυγρος γόνος φίλος, ταῖς δὲ τῶν φυτῶν τροφὴ τὸ ὕδωρ. διαβεβαιοῦνται δέ τινες καὶ τὰ ἐν ἀέρι καὶ οὐρανῷ ἀτμοῖς τρέφεσθαι ἐκ ναμάτων καὶ ποταμῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀναθυμιάσεων· τοῖς δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἥλιον μὲν τρέφεσθαι ἐκ τῆς ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἀναθυμιάσεως ἐδόκει, σελήνην δ’ ἐκ τῶν πηγαίων καὶ ποταμίων ὑδάτων, τὰ δ’ ἄστρα ἐκ τῆς ἀπὸ γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄναμμα μὲν νοερὸν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον ἐκ θαλάσσης, τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐκ ποταμίων ὑδάτων, τοὺς δ’ ἀστέρας ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως τῆς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. ἀνάγκη τοίνυν καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἤτοι σωματικὰς οὔσας ἢ ἀσωμάτους μέν, ἐφελκομένας δὲ σῶμα, καὶ μάλιστα τὰς μελλούσας καταδεῖσθαι εἴς τε αἷμα καὶ δίυγρα σώματα ῥέπειν πρὸς τὸ ὑγρὸν καὶ σωματοῦσθαι ὑγρανθείσας. διὸ καὶ χολῆς καὶ αἵματος ἐκχύσει προτρέπεσθαι τὰς τῶν τεθνηκότων, καὶ τάς γε φιλοσωμάτους ὑγρὸν τὸ πνεῦμα ἐφελκομένας παχύνειν τοῦτο ὡς νέφος· ὑγρὸν γὰρ ἐν ἀέρι παχυνθὲν νέφος συνίσταται· παχυνθέντος δ’ ἐν αὐταῖς τοῦ πνεύματος ὑγροῦ [ 448 ]

πλεονασμῷ ὁρατὰς γίνεσθαι. καὶ ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων αἳ συναντῶσί τισι κατὰ φαντασίαν χρώζουσαι τὸ πνεῦμα εἰδώλων ἐμφάσεις, αἱ μέντοι καθαραὶ γενέσεως ἀπότροποι. αὐτὸς δέ φησιν Ἡράκλειτος ‘ξηρὰ ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη’. διὸ κἀνταῦθα κατὰ τὰς τῆς μίξεως ἐπιθυμίας δίυγρον καὶ νοτερώτερον γίνεσθαι τὸ πνεῦμα, ἀτμὸν ἐφελκομένης δίυγρον τῆς [12] ψυχῆς ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τὴν γένεσιν νεύσεως. ναΐδες οὖν νύμφαι αἱ εἰς γένεσιν ἰοῦσαι ψυχαί. ὅθεν καὶ τὰς γαμουμένας ἔθος ὡς ἂν εἰς γένεσιν συνεζευγμένας νύμφας τε καλεῖν καὶ λουτροῖς καταχεῖν ἐκ πηγῶν ἢ ναμάτων ἢ κρηνῶν ἀενάων εἰλημμένοις. ἀλλὰ ψυχαῖς μὲν τελουμέναις εἰς φύσιν καὶ γενεθλίοις δαίμοσιν ἱερός τε ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐπέραστος καίπερ σκοτεινὸς ὢν φύσει καὶ ἠεροειδής· ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ αὗται ἀερώδεις καὶ ἐξ ἀέρος ἔχειν τὴν οὐσίαν ὑπωπτεύθησαν. διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ οἰκεῖον αὐταῖς ἱερὸν ἐπὶ γῆς ἂν εἴη ἄντρον ἐπήρατον ἠεροειδὲς κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κόσμου, ἐν ᾧ ὡς μεγίστῳ ἱερῷ αἱ ψυχαὶ διατρίβουσι. νύμφαις τε ὑδάτων προστάτισιν οἰκεῖον τὸ ἄντρον, ἔνθ’ ὕδατ’ ἀενάοντα ἔνεστιν. [13] Ἀνακείσθω δὴ τὸ προκείμενον ἄντρον ψυχαῖς καὶ ταῖς μερικωτέραις ἐν δυνάμεσι νύμφαις, αἳ ναμάτων καὶ πηγῶν προεστῶσαι πηγαῖαί τε καὶ ναΐδες διὰ τοῦτο κέκληνται. τίνα οὖν ἡμῖν διάφορα σύμβολα, τὰ μὲν πρὸς τὰς ψυχὰς ἀναφερόμενα, τὰ δὲ πρὸς τὰς ἐν ὕδασι δυνάμεις, ἵνα κοινὸν ἀμφοτέραις καθιερῶσθαι τὸ ἄντρον ὑπολάβωμεν; σύμβολα δὴ ἔστω ὑδριάδων νυμφῶν οἱ λίθινοι κρατῆρες καὶ ἀμφιφορεῖς. Διονύσου μὲν γὰρ σύμβολα ταῦτα, ἀλλ’ ὄντα κεραμεᾶ, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἐκ γῆς ὠπτημένα· ταῦτα γὰρ φίλα τῇ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δωρεᾷ τῆς ἀμπέλου, ἐπεὶ ἀπὸ πυρὸς οὐρανίου πεπαίνεται ταύτης ὁ καρπός. [14] λίθινοι δὲ κρατῆρες καὶ ἀμφιφορεῖς ταῖς προεστώσαις τοῦ ἐκ πετρῶν ἐξιόντος ὕδατος νύμφαις οἰκειότατοι· ψυχαῖς δὲ εἰς γένεσιν κατιούσαις καὶ σωματουργίαν τί ἂν εἴη οἰκειότερον σύμβολον τούτων; διὸ καὶ ἀπετόλμησεν εἰπεῖν ὁ ποιητὴς ὅτι ἐν τούτοις ‘φάρε’ ὑφαίνουσιν ἁλιπόρφυρα, θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι’. ἐν ὀστοῖς μὲν γὰρ καὶ περὶ ὀστᾶ ἡ σαρκοποιία, λίθος δὲ ταῦτα ἐν ζῴοις λίθῳ ἐοικότα· διὸ καὶ οἱ ἱστοὶ οὐκ ἀπ’ ἄλλης ὕλης, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ λίθου ἐρρήθησαν. τὰ δ’ ἁλιπόρφυρα φάρη ἄντικρυς ἡ ἐξ αἱμάτων ἂν εἴη ἐξυφαινομένη σάρξ· ἐξ αἵματος μὲν γὰρ ἁλουργῆ ἔρια καὶ ἐκ ζῴων ἐβάφη καὶ τὸ ἔριον, δι’ αἵματος δὲ καὶ ἐξ αἱμάτων ἡ σαρκογονία. καὶ χιτών γε τὸ σῶμα τῇ ψυχῇ ὃ ἠμφίεσται, θαῦμα τῷ ὄντι ἰδέσθαι, εἴτε πρὸς τὴν σύστασιν ἀποβλέποις εἴτε πρὸς τὴν πρὸς τοῦτο σύνδεσιν τῆς ψυχῆς. οὕτω καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ὀρφεῖ ἡ Κόρη, ἥπερ ἐστὶ παντὸς τοῦ σπειρομένου ἔφορος, ἱστουργοῦσα παραδίδοται, τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν πέπλον εἰρηκότων οἷον θεῶν οὐρανίων περίβλημα. [15] Διὰ τί οὖν οὐχ ὕδατος πλήρεις οἱ ἀμφιφορεῖς, ἀλλὰ κηρίων; ἐν γὰρ τούτοις, φησί, τιθαιβώσσουσι μέλισσαι. δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ τιθαιβώσσειν τὸ τιθέναι τὴν βόσιν· βόσις δὲ καὶ τροφὴ τὸ μέλι ταῖς μελίσσαις. κέχρηνται δὴ τῷ μέλιτι οἱ θεολόγοι πρὸς πολλὰ καὶ διάφορα σύμβολα διὰ τὸ ἐκ πολλῶν αὐτὸ συνεστάναι δυνάμεων, ἐπεὶ καὶ καθαρτικῆς ἐστι δυνάμεως καὶ συντηρητικῆς· τῷ γὰρ μέλιτι ‹πολλὰ› ἄσηπτα μένει καὶ τὰ χρόνια τραύματα ἐκκαθαίρεται μέλιτι. ἔστι δὲ γλυκὺ τῇ γεύσει καὶ συναγόμενον ἐξ ἀνθῶν ὑπὸ μελισσῶν, ἃς βουγενεῖς εἶναι συμβέβηκεν. ὅταν μὲν οὖν τοῖς τὰ λεοντικὰ μυουμένοις εἰς τὰς χεῖρας ἀνθ’ ὕδατος μέλι [ 449 ]

νίψασθαι ἐγχέωσι, καθαρὰς ἔχειν τὰς χεῖρας παραγγέλλουσιν ἀπὸ παντὸς λυπηροῦ καὶ βλαπτικοῦ καὶ μυσαροῦ, καὶ ὡς μύστῃ καθαρτικοῦ ὄντος τοῦ πυρὸς οἰκεῖα νίπτρα προσάγουσι, παραιτησάμενοι τὸ ὕδωρ ὡς πολεμοῦν τῷ πυρί. καθαίρουσι δὲ καὶ τὴν [16] γλῶσσαν τῷ μέλιτι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ. ὅταν δὲ τῷ Πέρσῃ προσάγωσι μέλι ὡς φύλακι καρπῶν, τὸ φυλακτικὸν ἐν συμβόλῳ τίθενται· ὅθεν τινὲς ἠξίουν τὸ νέκταρ καὶ τὴν ἀμβροσίαν ἣν κατὰ ῥινῶν στάζει ὁ ποιητὴς εἰς τὸ μὴ σαπῆναι τοὺς τεθνηκότας, τὸ μέλι ἐκδέχεσθαι, θεῶν τροφῆς ὄντος τοῦ μέλιτος. διὸ καὶ φησί που ‘νέκταρ ἐρυθρόν’· τοιοῦτον γὰρ εἶναι τῇ χροιᾷ τὸ μέλι. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τοῦ νέκταρος, εἰ χρὴ ἀκούειν ἐπὶ μέλιτος, ἐν ἄλλοις ἀκριβέστερον ἐξετάσομεν· παρὰ δὲ τῷ Ὀρφεῖ ὁ Κρόνος μέλιτι ὑπὸ Διὸς ἐνεδρεύεται· πλησθεὶς γὰρ μέλιτος μεθύει καὶ σκοτοῦται ὡς ἀπὸ οἴνου καὶ ὑπνοῖ ὡς παρὰ Πλάτωνι ὁ Πόρος τοῦ νέκταρος πλησθείς· ‘οὔπω γὰρ οἶνος ἦν’. φησὶ γὰρ παρ’ Ὀρφεῖ ἡ Νὺξ τῷ Διὶ ὑποτιθεμένη τὸν διὰ μέλιτος δόλον· ‘εὖτ’ ἂν δή μιν ἴδηαι ὑπὸ δρυσὶν ὑψικόμοισιν ἔργοισιν μεθύοντα μελισσάων ἐριβομβέων, δῆσον αὐτόν’. ὃ καὶ πάσχει ὁ Κρόνος καὶ δεθεὶς ἐκτέμνεται ὡς ὁ Οὐρανός, τοῦ θεολόγου δι’ ἡδονῆς δεσμεῖσθαι καὶ κατάγεσθαι τὰ θεῖα εἰς γένεσιν αἰνισσομένου ἀποσπερματίζειν τε δυνάμεις εἰς τὴν ἡδονὴν ἐκλυθέντα. ὅθεν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μὲν συνουσίας τὸν Οὐρανὸν κατιόντα εἰς Γῆν ἐκτέμνει Κρόνος· ταὐτὸν δὲ τῇ ἐκ συνουσίας ἡδονῇ παρίστησιν αὐτοῖς ‹ἡ› τοῦ μέλιτος, ὑφ’ οὗ δολωθεὶς ὁ Κρόνος ἐκτέμνεται. πρῶτος γὰρ τῶν ἀντιφερομένων τῷ Οὐρανῷ ὁ Κρόνος ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ τούτου σφαῖρα. κατίασι δὲ δυνάμεις ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν πλανωμένων· ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δέχεται Κρόνος, τὰς δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ Κρόνου [17] Ζεύς. λαμβανομένου τοίνυν καὶ ἐπὶ καθαρμοῦ τοῦ μέλιτος καὶ ἐπὶ φυλακῆς σηπεδόνος καὶ ἐπὶ ‹τῆς δι’› ἡδονῆς εἰς γένεσιν καταγωγῆς οἰκεῖον σύμβολον καὶ νύμφαις ὑδριάσι παρατίθεται εἰς τὸ ἄσηπτον τῶν ὑδάτων ὧν ἐπιστατοῦσι καὶ τὴν κάθαρσιν αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ‹εἰς› γένεσιν συνεργίαν, συνεργεῖ γὰρ γενέσει τὸ ὕδωρ. διὸ καὶ ἐν τοῖς κρατῆρσι καὶ ἀμφιφορεῦσι τιθαιβώσσουσι μέλισσαι, τῶν μὲν κρατήρων σύμβολον τῶν πηγῶν φερόντων, καθὼς παρὰ τῷ Μίθρᾳ ὁ κρατὴρ ἀντὶ τῆς πηγῆς τέτακται, τῶν δ’ ἀμφιφορέων ‹τῶν› ἐν οἷς τὰ ἀπὸ [18] τῶν πηγῶν ἀρυόμεθα. πηγαὶ δὲ καὶ νάματα οἰκεῖα ταῖς ὑδριάσι νύμφαις καὶ ἔτι γε μᾶλλον νύμφαις ταῖς ψυχαῖς, ἃς ἰδίως μελίσσας οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐκάλουν ἡδονῆς οὔσας ἐργαστικάς. ὅθεν καὶ ὁ Σοφοκλῆς οὐκ ἀνοικείως ἐπὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ἔφη ‘βομβεῖ δὲ νεκρῶν σμῆνος ἔρχεταί τ’ ἄνω.’ καὶ τὰς Δήμητρος ἱερείας ὡς τῆς χθονίας θεᾶς μύστιδας μελίσσας οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐκάλουν αὐτήν τε τὴν Κόρην Μελιτώδη, Σελήνην τε οὖσαν γενέσεως προστάτιδα Μέλισσαν ἐκάλουν ἄλλως τε ἐπεὶ ταῦρος μὲν Σελήνη καὶ ὕψωμα Σελήνης ὁ ταῦρος, βουγενεῖς δ’ αἱ μέλισσαι, καὶ ψυχαὶ δ’ εἰς γένεσιν ἰοῦσαι βουγενεῖς, καὶ βουκλόπος θεὸς ὁ τὴν γένεσιν λεληθότως †ἀκούων . πεποίηνται ἤδη τὸ μέλι καὶ θανάτου σύμβολον (διὸ καὶ μέλιτος σπονδὰς τοῖς χθονίοις ἔθυον), τὴν δὲ χολὴν ζωῆς, ἤτοι δι’ ἡδονῆς αἰνιττόμενοι ἀποθνῄσκειν τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς βίον, διὰ δὲ πικρίας ἀναβιώσκεσθαι (ὅθεν καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς χολὴν ἔθυον), ἢ ὅτι ὁ μὲν θάνατος λυσίπονος, ἡ δ’ ἐνταῦθα [ 450 ]

ζωὴ ἐπίμοχθος [19] καὶ πικρά. οὐχ ἁπλῶς μέντοι πάσας ψυχὰς εἰς γένεσιν ἰούσας μελίσσας ἔλεγον, ἀλλὰ τὰς μελλούσας μετὰ δικαιοσύνης βιοτεύειν καὶ πάλιν ἀναστρέφειν εἰργασμένας τὰ θεοῖς φίλα. τὸ γὰρ ζῷον φιλόστροφον καὶ μάλιστα δίκαιον καὶ νηφαντικόν· ὅθεν καὶ νηφάλιοι σπονδαὶ αἱ διὰ μέλιτος. καὶ κυάμοις οὐκ ἐφιζάνουσιν, οὓς ἐλάμβανον εἰς σύμβολον τῆς κατ’ εὐθεῖαν γενέσεως καὶ ἀκαμποῦς διὰ τὸ μόνον σχεδὸν τῶν σπερματικῶν δι’ ὅλου τετρῆσθαι, μὴ ἐγκοπτόμενον ταῖς μεταξὺ τῶν γονάτων ἐμφράξεσι. φέροιεν ‹ἂν› οὖν τὰ κηρία καὶ αἱ μέλισσαι οἰκεῖα σύμβολα καὶ κοινὰ ὑδριάδων νυμφῶν καὶ ψυχῶν εἰς γένεσιν νυμφευομένων. [20] Σπήλαια τοίνυν καὶ ἄντρα τῶν παλαιοτάτων πρὶν καὶ ναοὺς ἐπινοῆσαι θεοῖς ἀφοσιούντων, καὶ ἐν Κρήτῃ μὲν Κουρήτων Διί, ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ δὲ Σελήνῃ καὶ Πανὶ Λυκείῳ, καὶ ‹ἐν› Νάξῳ Διονύσῳ, πανταχοῦ δ’ ὅπου τὸν Μίθραν ἔγνωσαν διὰ σπηλαίου τὸν θεὸν ἱλεουμένων, τὸ Ἰθακήσιον σπήλαιον οὐκ ἠρκέσθη δίθυρον εἰπὼν Ὅμηρος, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς μέν τινας πρὸς βορρᾶν τετράφθαι θύρας, τὰς δὲ πρὸς νότον [θεωτέρας], καὶ καταβατάς γε τὰς βορείους, τὰς δὲ πρὸς νότον οὐδὲ εἰ καταβαταὶ ἐπεσημήνατο, μόνον δὲ ὅτι ‘οὐδέ τι κείνῃ ἄνδρες ἐσέρχονται, ἀλλ’ ἀθανάτων ὁδός ἐστιν.’ [21] ἕπεται τοίνυν ζητεῖν τὸ βούλημα εἴτε τῶν καθιδρυσαμένων, εἴπερ ἱστορίαν ὁ ποιητὴς ἀπαγγέλλει, ἢ αὐτοῦ γε τὸ αἴνιγμα, εἴπερ αὐτοῦ πλάσμα τὸ διήγημα. τοῦ δὴ ἄντρου εἰκόνα καὶ σύμβολον φησὶ τοῦ κόσμου φέροντος Νουμήνιος καὶ ὁ τούτου ἑταῖρος Κρόνιος δύο εἶναι ἐν οὐρανῷ ἄκρα, ὧν οὔτε νοτιώτερόν ἐστι τοῦ χειμερινοῦ τροπικοῦ οὔτε βορειότερον τοῦ θερινοῦ. ἔστι δ’ ὁ μὲν θερινὸς κατὰ καρκίνον, ὁ δὲ χειμερινὸς κατ’ αἰγόκερων. καὶ προσγειότατος μὲν ὢν ἡμῖν ὁ καρκίνος εὐλόγως τῇ προσγειοτάτῃ Σελήνῃ ἀπεδόθη, ἀφανοῦς δ’ ἔτι ὄντος τοῦ νοτίου πόλου τῷ μακρὰν ἔτι ἀφεστηκότι καὶ ἀνωτάτῳ τῶν [22] πλανωμένων πάντων ὁ αἰγόκερως ἀπεδόθη. καὶ ἔχουσί γε ἐφεξῆς αἱ θέσεις τῶν ζῳδίων· ἀπὸ μὲν καρκίνου εἰς αἰγόκερων πρῶτα μὲν λέοντα οἶκον Ἡλίου, εἶτα παρθένον Ἑρμοῦ, ζυγὸν δὲ Ἀφροδίτης, σκορπίον δὲ Ἄρεος, τοξότην Διός, αἰγόκερων Κρόνου· ἀπὸ δ’ αἰγόκερω ἔμπαλιν ὑδροχόον Κρόνου, ἰχθύας Διός, Ἄρεος κριόν, ταῦρον Ἀφροδίτης, διδύμους Ἑρμοῦ, καὶ Σελήνης λοιπὸν καρκίνον. δύο οὖν ταύτας ἔθεντο πύλας καρκίνον καὶ αἰγόκερων οἱ θεολόγοι, Πλάτων δὲ δύο στόμια ἔφη· τούτων δὲ καρκίνον μὲν εἶναι δι’ οὗ κατίασιν αἱ ψυχαί, αἰγόκερων δὲ δι’ οὗ ἀνίασιν. ἀλλὰ καρκίνος μὲν βόρειος [23] καὶ καταβατικός, αἰγόκερως δὲ νότιος καὶ ἀναβατικός. ἔστι δὲ τὰ μὲν βόρεια ψυχῶν εἰς γένεσιν κατιουσῶν, καὶ ὀρθῶς καὶ τοῦ ἄντρου αἱ πρὸς βορρᾶν πύλαι καταβαταὶ ἀνθρώποις· τὰ δὲ νότια οὐ θεῶν, ἀλλὰ τῶν εἰς θεοὺς ἀνιουσῶν, διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν δ’ αἰτίαν οὐ θεῶν ἔφη ὁδός, ἀλλ’ ἀθανάτων, ὃ κοινὸν καὶ ἐπὶ ψυχῶν ὡς οὐσῶν καθ’ αὑτὸ ἢ τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἀθανάτων. τῶν δύο πυλῶν τούτων μεμνῆσθαι καὶ Παρμενίδην ἐν τῷ Φυσικῷ φησὶ Ῥωμαίους τε καὶ Αἰγυπτίους. Ῥωμαίους μὲν γὰρ τὰ Κρόνια ἑορτάζειν Ἡλίου κατ’ αἰγόκερων γενομένου, ἑορτάζειν δὲ τοὺς δούλους ἐλευθέρων σχήματα περιβάλλοντας καὶ πάντων ἀλλήλοις κοινωνούντων· αἰνιξαμένου τοῦ νομοθέτου ὅτι κατὰ ταύτην τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὴν πύλην οἱ νῦν ὄντες διὰ τὴν γένεσιν δοῦλοι διὰ τῆς Κρονικῆς ἑορτῆς καὶ τοῦ ἀνακειμένου Κρόνῳ οἴκου [ 451 ]

ἐλευθεροῦνται, ἀναβιωσκόμενοι καὶ εἰς ἀπογένεσιν ἀπερχόμενοι. καταβατικὴ δὲ αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀπ’ αἰγόκερω ὁδός· διὸ ἰανούαν εἰπόντες τὴν θύραν καὶ ἰανουάριον μῆνα τὸν θυραῖον προσεῖπον, ἐν ᾧ Ἥλιος ἀπ’ αἰγόκερω [24] πρὸς ἑῴαν ἐπάνεισιν ἐπιστρέψας εἰς τὰ βόρεια. Αἰγυπτίοις δὲ ἀρχὴ ἔτους οὐχ ὁ ὑδροχόος, ὡς Ῥωμαίοις, ἀλλὰ καρκίνος· πρὸς γὰρ τῷ καρκίνῳ ἡ Σῶθις, ἣν κυνὸς ἀστέρα Ἕλληνες φασί. νουμηνία δ’ αὐτοῖς ἡ Σώθεως ἀνατολή, γενέσεως κατάρχουσα τῆς εἰς τὸν κόσμον. οὔτ’ οὖν ἀνατολῇ καὶ δύσει τὰς θύρας ἀνέθηκεν οὔτε ταῖς ἰσημερίαις, οἷον κριῷ καὶ ζυγῷ ἀλλὰ νότῳ καὶ βορρᾷ καὶ ταῖς κατὰ νότον νοτιωτάταις πύλαις καὶ ταῖς κατὰ βορρᾶν βορειοτάταις, ὅτι ψυχαῖς καθιέρωτο τὸ ἄντρον καὶ νύμφαις ὑδριάσι, ψυχαῖς δὲ γενέσεως καὶ ἀπογενέσεως οἰκεῖοι οἱ τόποι. Τῷ μὲν οὖν Μίθρᾳ οἰκείαν καθέδραν τὴν κατὰ τὰς ἰσημερίας ὑπέταξαν· διὸ κριοῦ μὲν φέρει Ἀρηίου ζῳδίου τὴν μάχαιραν, ἐποχεῖται δὲ ταύρῳ, Ἀφροδίτης δὲ καὶ ὁ ταῦρος. δημιουργὸς δὲ ὢν ὁ Μίθρας καὶ γενέσεως δεσπότης κατὰ τὸν ἰσημερινὸν τέτακται κύκλον, ἐν δεξιᾷ μὲν ‹ἔχων› τὰ βόρεια, ἐν ἀριστερᾷ δὲ τὰ νότια, τεταγμένου αὐτοῖς κατὰ μὲν τὸν νότον τοῦ Καύτου διὰ τὸ εἶναι θερμόν, κατὰ δὲ [25] τὸν βορρᾶν τοῦ ‹Καυτοπάτου› διὰ τὸ ψυχρὸν τοῦ ἀνέμου. ψυχαῖς δ’ εἰς γένεσιν ἰούσαις καὶ ἀπὸ γενέσεως χωριζομέναις εἰκότως ἔταξαν ἀνέμους διὰ τὸ ἐφέλκεσθαι καὶ αὐτὰς πνεῦμα, ὥς τινες ᾠήθησαν, καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἔχειν τοιαύτην. ἀλλὰ βορέας μὲν οἰκεῖος εἰς γένεσιν ἰούσαις· διὸ καὶ τοὺς θνῄσκειν μέλλοντας ἡ βορέου πνοὴ ‘ζωγρεῖ ἐπιπνείουσα κακῶς κεκαφηότα θυμόν’, ἡ δὲ τοῦ νότου διαλύει. ἡ μὲν γὰρ πήγνυσι ψυχροτέρα οὖσα καὶ ἐν τῷ ψυχρῷ τῆς χθονίου γενέσεως διακρατοῦσα, ἡ δὲ διαλύει θερμοτέρα οὖσα καὶ πρὸς τὸ θερμὸν τοῦ θείου ἀναπέμπουσα. βορειοτέρας δ’ οὔσης τῆς ἡμετέρας οἰκουμένης ἀνάγκη τὰς τῇδε κυομένας βορρᾷ ἀνέμῳ ὁμιλεῖν καὶ τὰς ἐντεῦθεν ἀπαλλαττομένας νότῳ· αὕτη δὲ καὶ ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν μὲν βορρᾶν ἀρχόμενον μέγαν εἶναι, τὸν δὲ νότον λήγοντα. ὁ μὲν γὰρ εὐθὺς ἐπίκειται τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν ἄρκτον οἰκοῦσιν, ὁ δὲ μακρὰν ἀφέστηκε· χρονιωτέρα δ’ ἡ ἐκ τῶν ἄπωθεν ἐπιρροή· καὶ [26] ὅταν ἀθροισθῇ, τότε πληθύνει. εἰς γένεσιν δ’ ἀπὸ βορέου πύλης τῶν ψυχῶν ἐρχομένων ἐρωτικὸν διὰ τοῦτο ὑπεστήσαντο τὸν ἄνεμον· καὶ γὰρ ‘ἵππῳ ἐεισάμενος παρελέξατο κυανοχαίτῃ· αἱ δ’ ὑποκυσσάμεναι ἔτεκον δυοκαίδεκα πώλους.’ καὶ τὴν Ὠρείθυιαν αὐτὸν ἁρπάσαι φασίν, ἐτέκνωσέ τε Ζήτην καὶ Κάλαϊν. Τὸν δὲ νότον θεοῖς νέμοντες ἱσταμένης τῆς μεσημβρίας ἐν τοῖς ναοῖς τῶν θεῶν τὰ παραπετάσματα ἕλκουσι, τὸ Ὁμηρικὸν δὴ τοῦτο φυλάσσοντες παράγγελμα, ὡς κατὰ τὴν εἰς νότον ἔγκλισιν τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ θέμις ἀνθρώπους εἰσιέναι εἰς τὰ ἱερά, ἀλλ’ ἀθανάτων ὁδός ἐστιν. [27] ἱστᾶσιν οὖν τὸ σύμβολον τῆς μεσημβρίας καὶ τοῦ νότου ἐπὶ τῇ θύρᾳ μεσημβριάζοντος τοῦ θεοῦ. οὐκοῦν οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων θυρῶν ἐφ’ ὁποίας οὖν ὥρας ἐξὸν λαλεῖν ὡς ἱερᾶς οὔσης θύρας, καὶ διὰ τοῦθ’ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ οἱ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις σοφοὶ μὴ λαλεῖν ἀπηγόρευον διερχομένους ἢ θύρας ἢ πύλας, σεβομένους ὑπὸ σιωπῆς θεὸν ἀρχὴν τῶν ὅλων ἔχοντα. Οἶδε δὲ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἱερὰς τὰς θύρας, ὡς δηλοῖ παρ’ αὐτῷ ὁ σείων Οἰνεὺς ἀνθ’ ἱκετηρίας τὴν θύραν, [ 452 ]

‘σείων κολλητὰς σανίδας, γουνούμενος υἱόν’. οἶδε δὲ καὶ πύλας οὐρανοῦ, ἃς αἱ Ὧραι ἐπιστεύθησαν, ἀρχὰς ἐχούσας τῶν νεφουμένων τόπων, ὧν αἱ ἀνοίξεις καὶ τὰ κλεῖθρα διὰ νεφῶν, ‘ἠμὲν ἀνακλῖναι πυκινὸν νέφος ἠδ’ ἐπιθεῖναι,’ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μυκώμεναι, ὅτι καὶ αἱ βρονταὶ διὰ τῶν νεφῶν· ‘αὐτόματοι δὲ πύλαι μύκον οὐρανοῦ, ἃς ἔχον Ὧραι’. [28] λέγει δέ που καὶ Ἡλίου πύλας, σημαίνων καρκίνον τε καὶ αἰγόκερων· ἄχρι ‹γὰρ› τούτων πρόεισιν ἀπὸ βορέου ἀνέμου εἰς τὰ νότια κατιὼν κἀκεῖθεν ἐπανιὼν εἰς τὰ βόρεια. αἰγόκερως δὲ καὶ καρκίνος περὶ τὸν γαλαξίαν τὰ πέρατα αὐτοῦ εἰληχότες, καρκίνος μὲν τὰ βόρεια, αἰγόκερως δὲ τὰ νότια· δῆμος δὲ ὀνείρων κατὰ Πυθαγόραν αἱ ψυχαί, ἃς συνάγεσθαι φησὶν εἰς τὸν γαλαξίαν τὸν οὕτω προσαγορευόμενον ἀπὸ τῶν γάλακτι τρεφομένων, ὅταν εἰς γένεσιν πέσωσιν. ᾧ καὶ σπένδειν αὐταῖς τοὺς ψυχαγωγοὺς μέλι κεκραμένον γάλακτι ὡς ἂν δι’ ἡδονῆς εἰς γένεσιν μεμελετηκυίαις ἔρχεσθαι· αἷς συγκυεῖσθαι τὸ γάλα πέφυκεν. Ἔτι τὰ μὲν νότια μικροφυῆ ποιεῖ τὰ σώματα· τὸ γὰρ θερμὸν ἰσχναίνειν αὐτὰ μάλιστα εἴωθεν, [ἐν] αὐτῷ δὲ τούτῳ καὶ κατασμικρύνειν καὶ ξηραίνειν· ἔτι δ’ ἐν τοῖς βορείοις πάντα μεγάλα τὰ σώματα, δηλοῦσι δὲ Κελτοί, Θρᾷκες, Σκύθαι ἥ τε γῆ κάθυγρος αὐτῶν οὖσα καὶ νομὰς πλείστας φέρουσα. ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτό γε τοὔνομα ἀπὸ τῆς βορᾶς· βορὰ δὲ ὄνομα τροφῆς, καὶ ὁ ἐκ γῆς οὖν πνέων τροφοῦ, ἅτε τρόφιμος [29] ὤν, βορρᾶς κέκληται. κατὰ ταῦτα τοίνυν τῷ μὲν θνητῷ καὶ γενέσει ὑποπτώτῳ φύλῳ τὰ βόρεια οἰκεῖα, τῷ δὲ θειοτέρῳ τὰ νότια, ὡς θεοῖς μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικά, δαίμοσι δὲ τὰ δυτικά. Ἀρξαμένης γὰρ τῆς φύσεως ἀπὸ ἑτερότητος πανταχοῦ τὸ δίθυρον αὐτῆς πεποίηνται σύμβολον. ἢ γὰρ διὰ νοητοῦ ἡ πορεία ἢ δι’ αἰσθητοῦ· καὶ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ ἢ διὰ τῆς ἀπλανοῦς ἢ διὰ τῆς τῶν πεπλανημένων, καὶ πάλιν ἢ διὰ τῆς ἀθανάτου ἢ διὰ τῆς θνητῆς πορείας, καὶ κέντρον τὸ μὲν ὑπὲρ γῆν, τὸ δ’ ὑπόγειον, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀνατολικόν, τὸ δὲ δυτικόν, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἀριστερά, τὰ δὲ δεξιά, νύξ τε καὶ ἡμέρα· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο παλίντονος ἡ ἁρμονία καὶ τοξεύει διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων. δύο δὲ στόμια Πλάτων φησί, δι’ οὗ μὲν ἀναβαινόντων εἰς οὐρανόν, δι’ οὗ δὲ κατιόντων εἰς γῆν, καὶ τῶν θεολόγων πύλας ψυχῶν Ἥλιον τιθέντων καὶ Σελήνην, καὶ διὰ μὲν Ἡλίου ἀνιέναι, διὰ δὲ Σελήνης κατιέναι· καὶ δύο πίθοι παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ ‘δώρων, οἷα δίδωσι, κακῶν, ἕτερος δὲ ἐάων’· [30] πίθου νενομισμένης καὶ παρὰ Πλάτωνι ἐν Γοργίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ τῆς μὲν οὔσης εὐεργέτιδος, τῆς δὲ κακοεργέτιδος, καὶ τῆς μὲν λογικῆς, τῆς δ’ ἀλόγου· πίθοι δὲ ὅτι χωρήματα ἦσαν αἱ ψυχαὶ ἐνεργειῶν τε καὶ ἕξεων ποιῶν. καὶ παρ’ Ἡσιόδῳ ὁ μέν τις νοεῖται πίθος δεδεμένος, ὁ δὲ ὃν λύει ἡ ἡδονὴ καὶ εἰς πάντα διασκεδάννυσι μόνης ἐλπίδος μενούσης. ἐν οἷς γὰρ ἡ φαύλη ψυχὴ σκιδναμένη περὶ ὕλην τάξεως διαμαρτάνει, ἐν τούτοις ἅπασι ταῖς ἀγαθαῖς ἐλπίσιν ἑαυτὴν βουκολεῖν [31] εἴωθε. πανταχοῦ τοίνυν τοῦ διθύρου φύσεως ὄντος συμβόλου εἰκότως καὶ τὸ ἄντρον οὐ μονόθυρον, ἀλλὰ δύο ἔχον θύρας ὡσαύτως τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξηλλαγμένας, καὶ τὰς μὲν θεοῖς τε καὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς προσηκούσας, τὰς δὲ τοῖς θνητοῖς καὶ φαυλοτέροις. ἀφ’ ὧν καὶ Πλάτων ὁρμώμενος οἶδε καὶ αὐτὸς κρατῆρας, καὶ ἀντὶ τῶν ἀμφιφορέων λαμβάνει πίθους, καὶ δύο στόμια, ὡς ἔφαμεν, τῶν δύο πυλῶν, καὶ τοῦ [ 453 ]

Συρίου Φερεκύδου μυχοὺς καὶ βόθρους καὶ ἄντρα καὶ θύρας καὶ πύλας λέγοντος καὶ διὰ τούτων αἰνιττομένου τὰς τῶν ψυχῶν γενέσεις καὶ ἀπογενέσεις. Ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν φιλοσόφων τε καὶ θεολόγων ἐπεισάγοντες τὸν λόγον μηκύνωμεν, τὴν μὲν πᾶσαν βούλησιν καὶ [32] διὰ τούτων παραδεδειχέναι ἡγούμεθα τοῦ διηγήματος. λείπεται δὴ παραστῆσαι καὶ τὸ τῆς πεφυτευμένης ἐλαίας σύμβολον ὅτι ποτὲ μηνύει. καίτοι αὕτη καὶ περιττότερόν τι παρίστησιν, οὐχ ἁπλῶς παραπεφυτεῦσθαι εἰρημένη, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ κρατὸς λιμένος· ‘αὐτὰρ ἐπὶ κρατὸς λιμένος τανύφυλλος ἐλαίη· ἀγχόθι δ’ αὐτῆς ἄντρον.’ ἔστι δ’ οὐχ, ὡς ἄν τις νομίσειεν, ἀπὸ τύχης τινὸς οὕτω βλαστήσασα, ἀλλ’ αὐτὴ συνέχουσα τοῦ ἄντρου τὸ αἴνιγμα. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ κόσμος οὐκ εἰκῆ οὐδ’ ὡς ἔτυχε γέγονεν, ἀλλ’ ἔστι φρονήσεως θεοῦ καὶ νοερᾶς φύσεως ἀποτέλεσμα, παραπεφύτευται τῇ εἰκόνι τοῦ κόσμου τῷ ἄντρῳ σύμβολον φρονήσεως θεοῦ ἡ ἐλαία. Ἀθηνᾶς μὲν γὰρ τὸ φυτόν, φρόνησις δὲ ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ. κρατογενοῦς δ’ οὔσης τῆς θεοῦ, οἰκεῖον τόπον ὁ θεολόγος ἐξεῦρεν ἐπὶ κρατὸς τοῦ λιμένος αὐτὴν καθιερώσας, σημαίνων δι’ αὐτῆς ὡς οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοματισμοῦ τὸ ὅλον τοῦτο καὶ τύχης ἀλόγου ἔργον γέγονεν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι φύσεως νοερᾶς καὶ σοφίας ἀποτέλεσμα, χωριστῆς μὲν οὔσης ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, πλησίον δὲ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ [33] σύμπαντος λιμένος ἱδρυμένης. ἀειθαλὴς δὲ οὖσα ἡ ἐλαία φέρει τι ἰδίωμα οἰκειότατον ταῖς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τροπαῖς τῶν ψυχῶν, αἷς τὸ ἄντρον καθιέρωται. διὰ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ θέρους τὰ λευκὰ τῶν φύλλων ἀνανεύει, διὰ δὲ τοῦ χειμῶνος μεταστρέφει τὰ λευκότερα· ὅθεν καὶ ἐν ταῖς λιτανείαις καὶ ἱκετηρίαις τὰς τῆς ἐλαίας θαλείας προτείνουσιν, εἰς τὸ λευκὸν αὑτοῖς τὸ σκοτεινὸν τῶν κινδύνων μεταβάλλειν ὀττευόμενοι. φύσει μὲν οὖν ἀειθαλεῖ ἡ ἐλαία συνέχεται ἀρωγὸν πόνων καρπὸν φέρουσα, ἀνάκειται δὲ τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ καὶ τοῖς ἀθληταῖς ἐξ αὐτῆς δίδοται νικήσασι στέφανος, καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς ἱκετηρία τοῖς δεομένοις. διοικεῖται δὲ καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὑπὸ νοερᾶς φύσεως φρονήσει ἀιδίῳ καὶ ἀειθαλεῖ ἀγόμενος, ἀφ’ ἧς καὶ τὰ νικητήρια τοῖς ἀθληταῖς τοῦ βίου δίδονται καὶ τῶν πολλῶν πόνων τὸ ἄκος, καὶ ὁ τοὺς ἐλεεινοὺς ἀνακτώμενος καὶ ἱκέτας ὁ συνέχων τὸν κόσμον δημιουργός. [34] Εἰς τοῦτο τοίνυν φησὶν Ὅμηρος δεῖν τὸ ἄντρον ἀποθέσθαι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν κτῆμα, γυμνωθέντα δὲ καὶ προσαίτου σχῆμα περιθέμενον καὶ κάρψαντα τὸ σῶμα καὶ πᾶν περίττωμα ἀποβαλόντα καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἀποστραφέντα βουλεύεσθαι μετὰ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς, καθεζόμενον σὺν αὐτῇ ὑπὸ πυθμένα ἐλαίας, ὅπως τὰ ἐπίβουλα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ πάθη πάντα περικόψῃ. οὐ γὰρ ἀπὸ σκοποῦ οἶμαι καὶ τοῖς περὶ Νουμήνιον ἐδόκει Ὀδυσσεὺς εἰκόνα φέρειν Ὁμήρῳ κατὰ τὴν Ὀδύσσειαν τοῦ διὰ τῆς ἐφεξῆς γενέσεως διερχομένου καὶ οὕτως ἀποκαθισταμένου εἰς τοὺς ἔξω παντὸς κλύδωνος καὶ θαλάσσης ἀπείρους· ‘εἰσόκε τοὺς ἀφίκηαι οἳ οὐκ ἴσασι θάλασσαν ἀνέρες οὐδέ θ’ ἅλεσσι μεμιγμένον εἶδαρ ἔδουσι’. πόντος δὲ καὶ θάλασσα καὶ κλύδων καὶ παρὰ Πλάτωνι ἡ ὑλικὴ [35] σύστασις. διὰ τοῦτ’, οἶμαι, καὶ τοῦ Φόρκυνος ἐπωνόμασε τὸν λιμένα· [ 454 ]

‘Φόρκυνος δέ τίς ἐστι λιμήν,’ ἐναλίου θεοῦ, οὗ δὴ καὶ θυγατέρα ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς Ὀδυσσείας τὴν Θόωσαν ἐγενεαλόγησεν, ἀφ’ ἧς ὁ Κύκλωψ, ὃν ὀφθαλμοῦ Ὀδυσσεὺς ἀλάωσεν, ἵνα καὶ ἄχρι τῆς πατρίδος ὑπῇ τι τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων μνημόσυνον. ἔνθεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἡ ὑπὸ τὴν ἐλαίαν καθέδρα οἰκεία ὡς ἱκέτῃ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὑπὸ τὴν ἱκετηρίαν ἀπομειλισσομένῳ τὸν γενέθλιον δαίμονα. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἁπλῶς τῆς αἰσθητικῆς ταύτης ἀπαλλαγῆναι ζωῆς τυφλώσαντα αὐτὴν καὶ καταργῆσαι συντόμως σπουδάσαντα, ἀλλ’ εἵπετο τῷ ταῦτα τολμήσαντι μῆνις ἁλίων καὶ ὑλικῶν θεῶν, οὓς χρὴ πρότερον ἀπομειλίξασθαι θυσίαις τε καὶ πτωχοῦ πόνοις καὶ καρτερίαις, ποτὲ μὲν διαμαχόμενον τοῖς πάθεσι, ποτὲ δὲ γοητεύοντα καὶ ἀπατῶντα καὶ παντοίως πρὸς αὐτὰ μεταβαλλόμενον, ἵνα γυμνωθεὶς τῶν ῥακέων καθέλῃ πάντα καὶ οὐδ’ οὕτως ἀπαλλαγῇ τῶν πόνων, ἀλλ’ ὅταν παντελῶς ἔξαλος γένηται καὶ ἐν ψυχαῖς ἀπείροις θαλασσίων καὶ ἐνύλων ἔργων, ὡς πτύον εἶναι ἡγεῖσθαι τὴν κώπην διὰ τὴν τῶν ἐναλίων ὀργάνων καὶ ἔργων παντελῆ ἀπειρίαν. [36] Οὐ δεῖ δὲ τὰς τοιαύτας ἐξηγήσεις βεβιασμένας ἡγεῖσθαι καὶ εὑρεσιλογούντων πιθανότητας, λογιζόμενον δὲ τὴν παλαιὰν σοφίαν καὶ τὴν Ὁμήρου ὅση τις φρόνησις γέγονε καὶ πάσης ἀρετῆς ἀκρίβειαν μὴ ἀπογινώσκειν ὡς ἐν μυθαρίου πλάσματι εἰκόνας τῶν θειοτέρων ᾐνίσσετο. οὐ γὰρ ἐνῆν ἐπιτυχῶς πλάσσειν ὅλην ὑπόθεσιν μὴ ἀπό τινων ἀληθῶν μεταποιοῦντα τὸ πλάσμα. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτου εἰς ἄλλην πραγματείαν ὑπερκείσθω τὸ σύγγραμμα, περὶ δὲ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου ἄντρου πέρας ἔχει τὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἐνταῦθα.

[ 455 ]

On the Abstinence of Eating Animals CONTENTS ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΠΡΩΤΟΝ. ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝ. ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΤΡΙΤΟΝ. ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΤΕΤΑΡΤΟΝ.

[ 456 ]

ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΠΡΩΤΟΝ. [ 1 ] ΤῶΝ Π Ρ Ὸ ς ἡμᾶς ἡκόντων, ὦ Φίρμε, πυθόμενος ὡς τῆς ἀσάρκου καταγνοὺς τροφῆς ἐπὶ τὴν ἔνσαρκον ἀναδεδράμηκας πάλιν βοράν, κατ’ ἀρχὰς μὲν ἠπίστουν τῆς τε σῆς σωφροσύνης στοχαζόμενος καὶ τῆς εὐλαβείας ἣν πρὸς τοὺς ταῦτα ὑποδείξαντας παλαιούς τε ὁμοῦ καὶ θεοφόβους ἄνδρας πεποιήμεθα· ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι ἐπὶ τοῖς πρώτοις μηνύοντες τὴν ἀγγελίαν ἐβεβαίουν, τὸ μὲν ἐπιπλήττειν σοι, οὔτε κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν φυγῇ κακοῦ τὸ ἄμεινον εὑρόντι, οὔτε κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα τὸν μὲν πρότερον ἀποδυσαμένῳ βίον, εἰς δὲ τὸν βελτίω ὑποστρέψαντι, ἀγροῖκόν τ’ εἶναι ἐδόκει καὶ πόρρω τῆς κατὰ τὸν λογισμὸν πειθοῦς εὑρισκομένης· τὸ δ’ αὖ διὰ τοῦ λόγου τὸν ἔλεγχον τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἐκκαλύπτειν ἀφ’ οἵων τε εἰς οἷα καταβέβηκας μηνύειν τῆς τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους φιλίας ἀντάξιον καὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλήθειαν τὸν αὑτῶν βίον συνταξαμένων [2] εἶναι ἐδικαίουν. καὶ γάρ μοι κατ’ ἐμαυτὸν λογιζομένῳ τὴν τῆς μεταθέσεως αἰτίαν, ὑγείας μὲν καὶ ῥώμης, ὡς ἂν ὁ πολὺς καὶ ἰδιώτης φαίη ὄχλος, οὐκ ἂν μεταβαλέσθαι ‹σε› φήσαιμι· τοὐναντίον γὰρ καὶ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ πρὸς σύμμετρον ὑπομονὴν τῶν περὶ φιλοσοφίαν πόνων τὴν ἄσαρκον δίαιταν αὐτὸς συνὼν ἡμῖν ὡμολόγεις συμβάλλεσθαι· τῇ τε πείρᾳ γινώσκειν πάρεστιν ὡς ταῦτα λέγων ἠλήθευες. ἢ δι’ ἀπάτην οὖν ἢ τῷ μηδὲν διαφέρειν ἡγεῖσθαι πρὸς φρόνησιν τὸ οὕτως ἢ ἐκείνως διαιτᾶσθαι, ἢ δι’ ἄλλην ἴσως αἰτίαν ἣν ἀγνοῶ, φόβον τῆς ἐν τῷ παραβαίνειν ἀσεβείας ἐπαρτῶσαν μείζονα, ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσθεν ἀναδραμεῖν σε παρανομήματα ἐφαίνετο. οὐ γὰρ δὴ δι’ ἀκρασίαν καὶ πόθον τῆς ὀψοφάγου λαιμαργίας καταφρονῆσαι τῶν πατρίων ἧς ἐζήλωκας φιλοσοφίας νόμων φήσαιμι ἄν σε, οὐδ’ ἐλάττω τὴν φύσιν τῶν παρά τισιν ἰδιωτῶν εἶναι, οἳ νόμους ἐναντίους οἷς ἔζων πρότερον καταδεξάμενοι τομάς τε μορίων ὑπομένουσιν, καί τινων ζῴων, ὧν πρόσθεν ἐνεφοροῦντο, ἀπόσχοιντο ἂν μᾶλλον [3] ἢ κρεῶν ἀνθρωπείων. ἐπεὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἀφικομένων καὶ λόγων ἀπεμνημόνευον οὓς κατὰ τῶν ἀπεχομένων ἐποιοῦ, οὐ σχετλιάζειν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ νεμεσᾶν παρῆν, εἰ ψυχροῖς καὶ ἄγαν ἑώλοις σοφισματίοις πεισθέντες αὑτούς τε ἀπατᾶν καὶ παλαιὸν δόγμα καὶ θεοῖς φίλον ἀνατρέπειν ὑπεμείνατε. ὅθεν μοι ἐδόκει μὴ μόνον τὸ οἰκεῖον ὑποδεικνύναι ὡς ἔχει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐναντίων πολλῷ ἰσχυρότερα τῶν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν λεγομένων ὄντα καὶ πλήθει καὶ δυνάμει καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις κατασκευαῖς συναγαγεῖν τε καὶ λῦσαι, οὐδ’ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμβριθῶν δοκούντων εἶναι, οὐχ ὅτι τῶν ἑώλων καὶ ἐπιπολαίων σοφισμάτων τὸ ἀληθὲς ἡττημένον δεικνύντα. ἴσως γὰρ ἀγνοεῖς ὅτι τῇ ἀποχῇ τῶν ἐμψύχων οὐκ ὀλίγοι ἀντειρήκασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων οἵ τ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ περιπάτου καὶ τῆς στοᾶς καὶ τοῦ Ἐπικούρου τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς ἀντιλογίας πρὸς τὴν Πυθαγόρου καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέους ἀποτεινόμενοι φιλοσοφίαν, ἧς ζηλωτὴς εἶναι ἐσπούδακας· τῶν τε φιλολόγων συχνοὶ καὶ Κλώδιός τις Νεαπολίτης πρὸς τοὺς ἀπεχομένους τῶν σαρκῶν βιβλίον κατεβάλετο. ὧν τὰς πραγματικὰς καὶ κοινὰς πρὸς τὸ δόγμα ζητήσεις παραθήσομαι, τὰς ἰδίως πρὸς τὰ τοῦ Ἐμπεδοκλέους φερομένας ἀνασκευὰς παραιτησάμενος. [ 457 ]

[4] εὐθὺς τοίνυν φασὶν οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην συγχεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ ἀκίνητα κινεῖσθαι, ἐὰν τὸ δίκαιον μὴ πρὸς τὸ λογικὸν μόνον τείνωμεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄλογον· οὐ μόνον τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἡγούμενοι, οἰκείως δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἄλογα θηρία τὰ μηδὲν ἡμῖν προσήκοντα ἔχοντες, καὶ οὐχὶ τοῖς μὲν πρὸς ἔργον χρώμενοι, τοῖς δὲ πρὸς ἐδωδήν, ἔκφυλα καὶ ἄτιμα τῆς κοινωνίας καθάπερ πολιτείας νομίζοντες. ὁ γὰρ καθάπερ ἀνθρώποις καὶ τούτοις χρώμενος φειδόμενός τε καὶ μὴ βλάπτων, προσάπτων τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ὃ μὴ δύναται φέρειν, καὶ τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτῆς ἀπόλλυσι καὶ διαφθείρει τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ τὸ οἰκεῖον. γίγνεται γὰρ ἢ τὸ ἀδικεῖν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἀφειδοῦσιν αὐτῶν, ἢ μὴ χρωμένοις τὸ ζῆν ἀδύνατον καὶ ἄπορον, καὶ τρόπον τινὰ θηρίων βίον βιωσόμεθα [5] τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν θηρίων προέμενοι χρείας. ἀφίημι γὰρ Νομάδων καὶ Τρωγλοδυτῶν ἀνεξευρέτους ἀριθμῷ μυριάδας, οἳ τροφὴν σάρκας, ἄλλο δὲ οὐδὲν ἴσασιν· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμῖν τοῖς ἡμέρως καὶ φιλανθρώπως ζῆν δοκοῦσιν ποῖον ἔργον ἀπολείπεται γῆς, ποῖον ἐν θαλάττῃ, τίς ἐναργὴς τέχνη, τίς κόσμος διαίτης, ἂν ὡς πρὸς ὁμόφυλα τὰ ζῷα διακεώμεθα ἀβλαβῶς καὶ μετ’ εὐλαβείας αὐτοῖς προσφερώμεθα; εἰπεῖν γὰρ ἔργον οὐδέν. οὐδὲ φάρμακον οὐδὲ ἴαμα τῆς ἢ τὸν βίον ἀναιρούσης ἀπορίας ἢ τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἔχομεν, ἂν μὴ τὸν ἀρχαῖον νόμον καὶ ὅρον φυλάττωμεν, ᾧ καθ’ Ἡσίοδον ὁ Ζεὺς τὰς φύσεις διελὼν καὶ θέμενος ἰδίᾳ τῶν γενῶν ἑκάτερον ἰχθύσι μὲν καὶ θηρσὶ καὶ οἰωνοῖς πετεηνοῖς ἔσθειν ἀλλήλους, ἐπεὶ οὐ δίκη ἐστὶ μετ’ αὐτῶν, ἀνθρώποισι δ’ ἔδωκε δίκην [6]πρὸς ἀλλήλους. οἷς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ δικαιοπραγεῖν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐδὲ ἡμῖν πρὸς ἐκεῖνα γίνεται τὸ ἀδικεῖν. ὡς οἵ γε τοῦτον προέμενοι τὸν λόγον οὔτε εὐρεῖαν ἄλλην οὔτε λεπτὴν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ παρεισελθεῖν ὁδὸν ἀπολελοίπασιν. ὃ γὰρ ἤδη εἰρήκαμεν, τὴν φύσιν αὐτάρκη μὲν οὐκ οὖσαν, ἀλλ’ ἐνδεῆ πολλῶν, εἰργομένην δὲ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ζῴων βοηθείας ἄρδην ἀναιρεῖν καὶ κατακλείειν εἰς τὸν ἄπορον καὶ ἀνόργανον καὶ ἀκτήμονα τῶν ἀναγκαίων βίον. φασὶ δὲ οὐκ εὐτυχῶς διαβιῶναι τοὺς πρώτους γενομένους· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων ἵστασθαι τὴν δεισιδαιμονίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ φυτὰ βιάζεσθαι. τί γὰρ μᾶλλον ὁ βοῦν ἀποσφάττων καὶ πρόβατον ἀδικεῖ τοῦ κόπτοντος ἐλάτην ἢ δρῦν; εἴ γε καὶ τούτοις ἐμφύεται ψυχὴ κατὰ τὴν μεταμόρφωσιν. τῶν μὲν οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς καὶ τοῦ περιπάτου τὰ κυριώτατα ταῦτα. [7] οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἐπικούρου ὥσπερ γενεαλογίαν μακρὰν διεξιόντες φασὶν ὡς οἱ παλαιοὶ νομοθέται, ἀπιδόντες εἰς τὴν τοῦ βίου κοινωνίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους πράξεις, ἀνόσιον ἐπεφήμισαν τὴν ἀνθρώπου σφαγὴν καὶ ζημίας οὐ τὰς τυχούσας προσῆψαν, τάχα μὲν καὶ φυσικῆς τινὸς οἰκειώσεως ὑπαρχούσης τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πρὸς ἀνθρώπους διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα τῆς μορφῆς καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς εἰς τὸ μὴ προχείρως φθείρειν τὸ τοιοῦτον ζῷον ὥσπερ ἕτερόν τι τῶν συγκεχωρημένων· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ τήν γε πλείστην αἰτίαν τοῦ δυσχερανθῆναι τοῦτο καὶ ἀνόσιον ἐπιφημισθῆναι τὸ μὴ συμφέρειν εἰς τὴν ὅλην τοῦ βίου σύστασιν ὑπολαβεῖν. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς οἱ μὲν παρακολουθήσαντες τῷ συμφέροντι τοῦ διορίσματος οὐδὲν προσεδεήθησαν ἄλλης αἰτίας τῆς ἀνειργούσης αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς πράξεως ταύτης, οἱ δὲ μὴ [ 458 ]

δυνάμενοι λαβεῖν αἴσθησιν ἱκανὴν τούτου, τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ζημίας δεδιότες ἀπείχοντο τοῦ κτείνειν προχείρως ἀλλήλους. ὧν ἑκάτερον φαίνεται καὶ νῦν ἔτι συμβαῖνον. καὶ γὰρ οἱ μὲν θεωροῦντες τὸ συμφέρον τῆς προειρημένης διατάξεως ἑτοίμως ἐπ’ αὐτῆς μένουσιν, οἱ δὲ μὴ δεκτικοὶ τούτου τὰς ἀπειλὰς φοβούμενοι τῶν νόμων, ἃς ἕνεκα τῶν ἀσυλλογίστων τοῦ χρησίμου διώρισάν τινες, παραδεξαμένων αὐτὰς τῶν πλειόνων. [8] οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς βιαίως κατέστη νόμιμον οὔτε μετὰ γραφῆς οὔτε ἄνευ γραφῆς τῶν διαμενόντων νῦν καὶ διαδίδοσθαι πεφυκότων, ἀλλὰ συγχωρησάντων αὐτῷ [καὶ] τῶν χρησομένων. φρονήσει γὰρ ψυχῆς, οὐ ῥώμῃ σώματος καὶ δυναστευτικῇ δουλώσει τῶν ὄχλων διήνεγκαν οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα τοῖς πολλοῖς εἰσηγούμενοι, καὶ τοὺς μὲν εἰς ἐπιλογισμὸν τοῦ χρησίμου καταστήσαντες ἀλόγως αὐτοῦ πρότερον αἰσθανομένους καὶ πολλάκις ἐπιλανθανομένους, τοὺς δὲ τῷ μεγέθει τῶν ἐπιτιμίων καταπλήξαντες. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἑτέρῳ χρῆσθαι φαρμάκῳ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ συμφέροντος ἀμαθίαν ἢ τῷ φόβῳ τῆς ἀφωρισμένης ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ζημίας. αὕτη γὰρ κατέχει μόνη καὶ νῦν τοὺς τυχόντας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ κωλύει τοῦ μήτε κοινῇ μήτε ἰδίᾳ τὸ ἀλυσιτελὲς πράττειν. εἰ δὲ πάντες ἐδύναντο βλέπειν ὁμοίως καὶ μνημονεύειν τὸ συμφέρον, οὐδὲν ἂν προσεδέοντο νόμων, ἀλλ’ αὐθαιρέτως τὰ μὲν εὐλαβοῦντο [τῶν ἀπειρημένων], τὰ δὲ ἔπραττον [τῶν προστεταγμένων]. ἱκανὴ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ χρησίμου καὶ βλαβεροῦ θεωρία τῶν μὲν φυγὴν παρασκευάσαι, τῶν δὲ αἵρεσιν· ἡ δὲ τῆς ζημίας ἀνάτασις πρὸς τοὺς μὴ προορωμένους τὸ λυσιτελοῦν. ἀναγκάζει γὰρ δεσπόζειν ἐπικρεμαμένη ταῖς ἀγούσαις ἐπὶ τὰς ἀσυμφόρους πράξεις ὁρμαῖς, καὶ βίᾳ [9] συναναγκάζει τὸ δέον ποιεῖν. ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸν ἀκούσιον φόνον οὐκ ἔξω πάσης ζημίας κατέστησαν οἱ νομοθέται, ὅπως μηδεμίαν ἐνδῶσι πρόφασιν τοῖς ἑκουσίως τὰ τῶν ἀκουσίως δρώντων ἔργα μιμεῖσθαι προαιρουμένοις, ἀλλ’ ὅπως μὴ ἀφύλακτον ᾖ μηδὲ ἠμελημένον τὸ τοιοῦτο, ὥστε πολλὰ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἀκούσια συμβαίνειν. οὐ γὰρ συνέφερεν οὐδὲ τοῦτο διὰ τὰς αὐτὰς αἰτίας δι’ ἃς καὶ τὸ καθ’ ἑκούσιον τρόπον φθείρειν ἀλλήλους. ὥστε τῶν ἀκουσίων τῶν μὲν παρὰ τὴν ἀστάθμητον αἰτίαν καὶ ἀφύλακτον γιγνομένων ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει, τῶν δὲ παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀμέλειαν καὶ ἀνεπίστατον τῆς διαφορᾶς, βουληθέντες κωλῦσαι τὴν βλάπτουσαν τοὺς πλησίον ῥᾳθυμίαν, οὐκ ἀθῷον κατέστησαν ζημίας οὐδὲ τὴν ἀκούσιον πρᾶξιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ φόβῳ τῶν ἐπιτιμίων ἀφεῖλον τὸ πολὺ τῆς τοιαύτης ἁμαρτίας. οἶμαι δ’ ἔγωγε καὶ τοὺς συγκεχωρημένους ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου φόνους τὰς ἀφοσιώσεις λαμβάνειν τὰς εἰθισμένας διὰ τῶν καθαρμῶν παρ’ οὐδεμίαν ἑτέραν αἰτίαν ὑπὸ τῶν πρώτων καλῶς ταῦτα εἰσηγησαμένων ἢ παρὰ τὸ τῆς ἑκουσίου πράξεως ὅτι πλεῖστον βούλεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀφιστάναι. πανταχόθεν γὰρ ἐδέοντο τοῦ κωλύσοντος ἑτοίμως πράττειν τὸ μὴ συμφέρον οἱ τυχόντες. ὅθεν οὐ μόνον ζημίας ἔταξαν οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦτο συνιδόντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερον φόβον ἄλογον ἐπήρτησαν, οὐ καθαροὺς ἐπιφημίσαντες εἶναι τοὺς ὅπως οὖν ἄνθρωπον ἀνελόντας, μὴ χρησαμένους καθαρμοῖς. τὸ γὰρ ἀνόητον τῆς ψυχῆς ποικίλως παιδαγωγηθὲν ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν καθεστῶσαν ἡμερότητα, προσμηχανωμένων ἐπὶ τῆς ἀλόγου φορᾶς ἐπιθυμίας τιθασεύματα τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ πλήθη διοικησάντων· ὧν ἔστιν καὶ τὸ μὴ κτείνειν ἀλλήλους [10] ἀκρίτως. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ζῴων εἰκότως οὐδὲν διεκώλυσαν φθείρειν οἱ πρῶτοι διορίσαντες ἅ τε δεῖ ποιεῖν ἡμᾶς καὶ ἃ μή· τὸ γὰρ [ 459 ]

συμφέρον ἐπὶ τούτων ἐκ τῆς ἐναντίας ἀπετελεῖτο πράξεως. οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν ἦν σῴζεσθαι μὴ πειρωμένους ἀμύνεσθαι τοῦτο συντρεφομένους μετ’ ἀλλήλων. διαμνημονεύοντες δέ τινες τῶν τότε χαριεστάτων, ὡς αὐτοῦ τε ἀπέσχοντο τοῦ κτείνειν διὰ τὸ χρήσιμον πρὸς τὴν σωτηρίαν, τοῖς τε λοιποῖς ἐνεποίουν μνήμην τοῦ ἀποβαίνοντος ἐν ταῖς μετ’ ἀλλήλων συντροφίαις, ὅπως ἀπεχόμενοι τοῦ συγγενοῦς, διαφυλάττωσι τὴν κοινωνίαν, ἣ συνήργει πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστου σωτηρίαν. οὐ μόνον δὲ χρήσιμον ἦν τὸ χωρίζεσθαι μηδὲ λυμαντικὸν ποιεῖν μηδὲν τῶν ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον συνειλεγμένων πρὸς τὸν τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ἐξορισμὸν ζῴων, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ἐπὶ βλάβῃ παραγιγνομένους. μέχρι μὲν οὖν τινὸς διὰ ταύτην ἀπείχοντο τοῦ συγγενοῦς, ὅσον ἐβάδιζεν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ χρείας τινὰς παρείχετο πρὸς ἑκάτερον τῶν εἰρημένων· ἐλθόντος δὲ ἐπὶ πλέον τοῦ χρόνου καὶ τῆς δι’ ἀλλήλων γενέσεως μακρὰν προηκούσης, ἐξεωσμένων δὲ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ζῴων καὶ τῆς παρασπάσεως, ἐπιλογισμὸν ἔλαβόν τινες τοῦ συμφέροντος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς [11] ἀλλήλων τροφαῖς, οὐ μόνον ἄλογον μνήμην. ὅθεν ἐπειράθησαν βεβαιοτέρως ἀνεῖρξαι τοὺς προχείρως φθείροντας ἀλλήλους καὶ τὴν βοήθειαν ἀσθενεστέραν κατασκευάζοντας διὰ τὴν τοῦ παρεληλυθότος λήθην. πειρώμενοι δὴ τοῦτο δρᾶν τὰς ἔτι μενούσας καὶ νῦν κατὰ πόλεις τε καὶ ἔθνη νομοθεσίας εἰσήνεγκαν, ἐπακολουθήσαντος τοῦ πλήθους αὐτοῖς ἑκουσίως παρὰ τὸ μᾶλλον ἤδη τοῦ συμφέροντος ἐν τῇ μετ’ ἀλλήλων ἀθροίσει λαμβάνειν αἴσθησιν· ὁμοίως γὰρ εἰς τὴν ἀφοβίαν συνήργει τό τε λυμαντικὸν πᾶν κτεινόμενον ἀφειδῶς καὶ τὸ χρήσιμον πρὸς τὴν τούτου φθορὰν διατηρούμενον. ὅθεν εἰκότως τὸ μὲν ἀπηγορεύθη, τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἐκωλύθη τῶν εἰρημένων. ἐκεῖνο δὲ λέγειν οὐκ ἔστιν, ὡς ἔνια τῶν ζῴων οὐ φθαρτικὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ὄντα φύσεως οὐδὲ καθ’ ἕτερον οὐδένα τρόπον λυμαινόμενα τοὺς βίους συγκεχώρηκεν ὁ νόμος ἀναιρεῖν ἡμῖν. οὐδὲν γάρ, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ἐστὶ τοιοῦτο τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου συγκεχωρημένων, ὅπερ οὐκ ἐώμενον λαμβάνειν τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἀφθονίας βλαπτικὸν γίγνοιτ’ ἂν ἡμῶν· ἐν δὲ τῷ νῦν πλήθει διατηρούμενον χρείας παρέχεταί τινας εἰς τὸν βίον. καὶ γὰρ πρόβατον καὶ βοῦς καὶ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτο μετριάζον μὲν φέρει τινὰς πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν ἡμῖν διαγωγὴν ὠφελείας, εἰς πᾶσαν δὲ ἐκπεσὸν δαψίλειαν καὶ μακρὰν ὑπεροχὴν ἔχον τῆς καθεστώσης λυμαίνοιτ’ ἂν τὸν βίον ἡμῶν, τὸ μὲν καὶ πρὸς ἀλκὴν τρεπόμενον, ἅτε φύσεως εὐφυοῦς εἰς τοῦτο μετέχον, τὸ δὲ μόνον τὴν ἀνεθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐκ τῆς γῆς τροφὴν καταναλίσκον. διὸ καὶ παρὰ τὴν αἰτίαν ταύτην οὐδὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν ζῴων ἐκωλύθη φθείρειν, ἵνα τὸ συμφέρον πρὸς τὴν χρείαν καταλείπηται πλῆθος καὶ τὸ ῥᾳδίως κρατεῖσθαι δυνησόμενον. οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ λεόντων καὶ λύκων καὶ ἁπλῶς τῶν ἀγρίων προσαγορευομένων ζῴων, ὁμοίως μικρῶν τε καὶ μεγάλων, οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν λαβεῖν πλῆθος ὃ καταλειπόμενον ἐπεκούφιζεν ἂν τὸν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῶν βίον, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ βοῶν καὶ ἵππων καὶ προβάτων ἔχει καὶ ἁπλῶς τῶν ἡμέρων ὀνομαζομένων ζῴων. ὅθεν τὰ μὲν ἄρδην φθείρομεν, τῶν δὲ τὸ πλεῖον τῆς συμμετρίας ἀφαιροῦμεν. [12] διὰ παραπλησίους ταῖς εἰρημέναις αἰτίας καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἐδωδὴν διορισθῆναι τῶν ἐμψύχων νομιστέον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ταῦτα καταλαβόντων νόμῳ, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν οὐκ ἐδωδίμων αἴτιον τὸ συμφέρον καὶ ἀσύμφορον· ὥστε τοὺς λέγοντας ὅτι πᾶν τὸ καλὸν καὶ δίκαιον κατὰ τὰς [ 460 ]

ἰδίας ὑπολήψεις ἐστὶ περὶ τῶν νενομοθετημένων, ἠλιβάτου τινὸς γέμειν εὐηθείας. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν οὕτως ἔχον τοῦτο, ἀλλ’ ὅνπερ τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συμφερόντων, οἷον ὑγιεινῶν τε καὶ ἑτέρων μυρίων εἰδῶν, ἀλλὰ διαμαρτάνουσιν ἐν πολλοῖς τῶν τε κοινῶν ὁμοίως καὶ τῶν ἰδίων. καὶ γὰρ τὰ παραπλησίως ἐφαρμόττοντα νομοθετήματα πᾶσιν οὐ καθορῶσί τινες, ἀλλ’ οἳ μὲν τῶν ἀδιαφόρων δοξάζοντες εἶναι παραλείπουσιν, οἳ δὲ τὴν ἐναντίαν δόξαν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἔχουσιν, καὶ τὰ μὴ καθόλου συμφέροντα πανταχοῦ τινὲς οἴονται συμφέρειν. ὅθεν διὰ τὴν αἰτίαν ταύτην ἀντέχονται τῶν οὐκ ἐφαρμοττόντων, εἰ καὶ ἐπί τινων ἐξευρίσκουσι τά τε πρὸς αὑτοὺς λυσιτελῆ καὶ τὰ κοινὴν ἔχοντα τὴν ὠφέλειαν· ὧν ἔστι καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς ἐδωδὰς τῶν ἐμψύχων καὶ φθορὰς ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν ἐθνῶν διατεταγμένα διὰ τὸ τῆς χώρας ἴδιον, οἷς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἐμμένειν ἡμῖν διὰ τὸ μηδὲ τὸν αὐτὸν οἰκεῖν τόπον. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἠδύναντο ποιήσασθαί τινα συνθήκην ὥσπερ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους οὕτω καὶ πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ζῴων ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ κτείνειν μηδὲ πρὸς ἡμῶν ἀκρίτως αὐτὰ κτείνεσθαι, καλῶς εἶχε μέχρι τούτου τὸ δίκαιον ἐξάγειν· ἐπιτεταμένον γὰρ ἐγίγνετο πρὸς τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ τῶν ἀμηχάνων ἦν κοινωνῆσαι νόμου τὰ μὴ δεχόμενα τῶν ζῴων λόγον, διὰ μὲν τοῦ τοιούτου τρόπου τὸ συμφέρον οὐχ οἷόν τε κατασκευάσασθαι πρὸς τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἐμψύχων ἀσφάλειαν μᾶλλόν περ ἢ τῶν ἀψύχων, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τὴν ἐξουσίαν λαμβάνειν, ἣν νῦν ἔχομεν εἰς τὸ κτείνειν αὐτά, μόνως ἔστι τὴν ἐνδεχομένην ἔχειν ἀσφάλειαν. τοιαῦτα μὲν καὶ τὰ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων. [13] λοιπὸν δὲ ὁ πολὺς καὶ δημώδης ἄνθρωπος ἃ λέγειν εἴωθεν παραθετέον. τοὺς γὰρ παλαιοὺς φασὶν τῶν ἐμψύχων ἀποσχέσθαι οὐ δι’ εὐσέβειαν, διὰ δὲ τὸ μήπω εἰδέναι τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς χρῆσιν· ὡς δ’ ἔμαθον, τιμιώτατόν τε καὶ ἱερώτατον νομίσαι Ἑστίαν τε προσειπεῖν καὶ συνεστίους ἀπὸ τούτου γενέσθαι καὶ λοιπὸν χρήσασθαι τοῖς ζῴοις. εἶναι μὲν γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ σαρκοφαγεῖν, παρὰ φύσιν δὲ τὸ ὠμοφαγεῖν. πυρὸς οὖν εὑρεθέντος ἀπολαβεῖν τὸ κατὰ φύσιν δι’ ἑψήσεως, προσεμένους τὰ κρέα. δι’ ἃ ‘ὠμοφάγοι’ μὲν οἱ ‘θῶες’ καὶ ἐν ὀνείδει τὸ ‘ὠμὸν βεβρώθοις Πρίαμον’ καὶ ‘ὤμ’ ἀποτεμνόμενον κρέα ἔδμεναι’, ὡς ἂν δὴ τοῖς ἀθέοις ἀποδεδομένης τῆς τῶν ‹κρεῶν ὠμοφαγίας› ….. ‘κρεῶν πίνακας παρέθηκεν ἀείρας παντοίων’. τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον οὐ προσεφέροντο τὰ ἔμψυχα· οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὠμοφάγον ζῷον ὁ ἄνθρωπος· ὡς δὲ ἡ τοῦ πυρὸς εὑρέθη χρῆσις, πυρικμήτοις οὐ μόνον τοῖς κρέασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τοῖς πλείστοις βρωτοῖς ἐχρῶντο. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὠμοφάγον ὁ ἄνθρωπος δηλοῖ τινὰ ἔθνη ἰχθυοφάγα· τοὺς γὰρ ἰχθῦς ὀπτῶσιν, οἳ μὲν ἐπειδὰν αἱ πέτραι μάλιστα διάπυροι γένωνται ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου, οἳ δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄμμῳ. ὅτι δὲ σαρκοφάγον, αὐτὸ τοῦτο δηλοῖ τὸ μηδὲν ἔθνος ἀπέχεσθαι ἐμψύχων· καὶ οὐ κατὰ διαστροφὴν οἱ Ἕλληνες προσήκαντο, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῖς βαρβάροις ταὐτόν [14] ἐστιν ἔθος. ὁ δὲ κελεύων μὴ ἐσθίειν καὶ ἄδικον ἡγούμενος, οὐδὲ κτείνειν δίκαιον ἐρεῖ οὐδὲ ψυχὰς ἀφαιρεῖσθαι. ἀλλὰ μὴν πρός γε τὰ θηρία πόλεμος ἡμῖν ἔμφυτος ἅμα καὶ δίκαιος. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἑκόντα ἐπιτίθεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ὥσπερ λύκοι καὶ λέοντες· τὰ δ’ οὐχ ἑκόντα, ὥσπερ οἱ ἔχεις· πατηθέντες γὰρ ἐνίοτε δάκνουσιν· καὶ τὰ μὲν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐπιτίθεται, τὰ δὲ τοὺς καρποὺς φθείρει· ὑπὲρ ὧν πάντων μέτιμεν ταῦτα, καὶ τὰ κατάρξαντα θηρία κτείνομεν καὶ τὰ μὴ κατάρξαντα, ὡς μή τι πρὸς αὐτῶν πάθωμεν. οὐκ ἔστιν γὰρ ὅστις ἰδὼν ὄφιν οὐκ ἔκτεινε [ 461 ]

δυνάμενος, ὡς μήτ’ αὐτὸς δηχθείη μήτ’ ἄλλος ἁπλῶς ἄνθρωπος· οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἐστὶ μῖσος κατὰ τῶν κτεινομένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ στοργὴ πρὸς ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώπου. δικαίου δ’ ὄντος τοῦ πρὸς τὰ θηρία πολέμου πολλῶν ἀπεχόμεθα τῶν συνανθρωπούντων. ὅθεν οἱ Ἕλληνες οὔτε κυνοφαγοῦσιν οὔθ’ ἵππους ἐσθίουσιν οὔτ’ ὄνους ‹ὗς› μέντοι ἐσθίουσιν ὡς ταὐτοῦ γένους τοῖς ἀγρίοις τὸ ἥμερον· ὡσαύτως τε τοὺς ὄρνιθας. οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστι χρήσιμον πρὸς ἄλλο τι ὗς ἢ πρὸς βρῶσιν. Φοίνικες δὲ καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀπέσχοντο, ὅτι οὐδ’ ὅλως ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐφύετο· ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ νῦν ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ φασὶν ὁρᾶσθαι τὸ ζῷον τοῦτο. ὡς οὖν κάμηλον ἢ ἐλέφαντα Ἑλλήνων οὐδεὶς θεοῖς ἔθυσε, παρ’ ὅσον οὐδ’ ἤνεγκεν ἡ Ἑλλὰς ταῦτα τὰ ζῷα, οὕτως οὐδ’ ἐν Κύπρῳ ἢ Φοινίκῃ θεοῖς προσήχθη τὸ ζῷον τοῦτο, παρ’ ὅσον οὐκ ἦν ἐντόπιον· οὐδὲ Αἰγύπτιοι θεοῖς θύουσιν ὗν παρὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. τὸ δ’ ὅλως ἀπέχεσθαι τοῦ ζῴου τινὰς ὅμοιόν ἐστιν τῷ μηδ’ ἂν ἡμᾶς ἐθελῆσαι καμήλεια ἐσθίειν. [15] διὰ τί δ’ ἄν τις καὶ ἀπόσχοιτο τῶν ἐμψύχων; ἆρά γε τὴν ψυχὴν χείρω ποιεῖ ἢ τὸ σῶμα; δῆλον δ’ ἐστὶν ὡς οὐδέτερον. τὰ γὰρ σαρκοφαγοῦντα ζῷα συνετώτερα τῶν ἄλλων. θηρευτικὰ γοῦν ἐστὶ καὶ τέχνην ἔχει ταύτην, ἀφ’ ἧς περιποιεῖται τὸν βίον, ἰσχύν τε καὶ ἀλκὴν κέκτηται, ὥσπερ λέοντες καὶ λύκοι· ὥσθ’ ἡ κρεοφαγία οὔτε τὴν ψυχὴν οὔτε τὸ σῶμα λυμαίνεται. δῆλον δ’ ἐστὶ κἀκ τοῦ τοὺς ἀθλητὰς τὰ σώματα κρείσσω τῇ κρεοφαγίᾳ παρέχειν, κἀκ τῶν ἰατρῶν, οἳ τὰ ἐκ τῆς ἀρρωστίας σώματα ἀναλαμβάνουσι ταῖς κρεοφαγίαις. τοῦ δὲ μὴ ὑγιῶς δοξάσαι τὸν Πυθαγόραν σημεῖον οὐ μικρόν· τῶν γὰρ σοφῶν ἀνδρῶν οὐδεὶς ἐπείσθη, οὔτε τῶν ἑπτὰ οὔτε τῶν ὕστερον γενομένων φυσικῶν, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὁ σοφώτατος Σωκράτης οὐδ’ οἱ ἀπὸ Σωκράτους. [16] φέρε δὲ καὶ πεισθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους τῷ δόγματι. τίνα τοίνυν ἡ ἐπιγονὴ τῶν ζῴων ἕξει μοῖραν; ὗς μὲν γὰρ ὅσα τίκτει καὶ λαγὼς οὐδένα λανθάνει· πρόσθες δὲ καὶ τἄλλα ζῷα πάνθ’ ἁπλῶς. πόθεν οὖν τούτοις ἡ νομή, καὶ τί πείσονται οἱ γεωργοί; καὶ γὰρ φθειρομένων τῶν καρπῶν τοὺς φθείροντας οὐκ ἀποκτείνουσιν ἡ γῆ τε τὸ πλῆθος οὐκ οἴσει τῶν ζῴων, τά τε θνῄσκοντα ἐκ τῆς σηπεδόνος φθορὰν ἐμποιήσει, λοιμοῦ τε κατασχόντος οὐκ ἔσται καταφυγή. θάλασσα μὲν γὰρ καὶ ποταμοὶ καὶ λίμναι ἰχθύων πεπλήσονται, ὁ δὲ ἀὴρ ὀρνίθων, ἡ δὲ γῆ [πλήρης] ἑρπετῶν παντοίων. [17] πόσοι δὲ πρὸς θεραπείαν ἐμποδισθήσονται ἀπεχόμενοι τῶν ζῴων; τοὺς γοῦν τῶν ὄψεων ἀποτυφλουμένους ἔστιν ἰδεῖν ἔχεως βρώσει τηρήσαντας ὅρασιν. Κρατεροῦ τοῦ ἰατροῦ οἰκέτης ξένῳ περιπεσὼν νοσήματι, τῶν σαρκῶν ἀπόστασιν λαβουσῶν ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν, τοῖς μὲν φαρμάκοις ὠφέλητο οὐδέν· ἰχθύος δὲ τρόπῳ ἔχει σκευασθέντι καὶ βρωθέντι διεσώθη, τῆς σαρκὸς συγκολληθείσης. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἄλλα ζῷα θεραπεύει προσενεχθέντα καὶ τῶν ζῴων ἓν ἕκαστον μέρος. ἃ δὴ πάντα [18] παραιρεῖται ὁ παραιτούμενος τὰ ἔμψυχα. εἰ δέ, ὡς φασί, καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ψυχὴν ἔχει, ποῖος ἂν εἴη ὁ βίος μήτε ζῴων μήτε φυτῶν ἡμῶν ἀποτεμνόντων; εἴπερ δὲ μὴ ἀσεβεῖ ὁ τὰ φυτὰ κατακόπτων, οὐδ’ ὁ τὰ ζῷα. [19] ἀλλ’ οὐ χρῆναι φήσει τις κτείνειν τὸ ὁμόφυλον, εἴ γε ὁμοούσιοι αἱ τῶν ζῴων ψυχαὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις. ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν ἑκούσας τις εἰσκρίνεσθαι τὰς ψυχὰς δίδωσιν, νεότητος ἐρώσας ἄν τις φαίη εἰσκρίνεσθαι [ἐν γὰρ ταύτῃ πάντων ἀπόλαυσις]. διὰ τί οὖν οὐκ εἰς ἀνθρώπου πάλιν εἰσεδύοντο φύσιν; εἰ δὲ ἑκούσας μὲν καὶ νεότητος ἔρωτι, διὰ δὲ παντὸς εἴδους ζῴων, [ 462 ]

κεχαρισμένον ἂν εἴη αὐταῖς τὸ ἀναιρεῖσθαι. ἡ γὰρ ἐπάνοδος ταχίων ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τά τε σώματα ἐσθιόμενα λύπην οὐκ ἂν ἐντίκτοι ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὡς ἂν ἀπηλλαγμέναις αὐτῶν, ἔρως δ’ ἂν αὐταῖς εἴη ἐν ἀνθρώπου φύσει γενέσθαι, ὥσθ’ ὅσον ἂν λυποῖντο ἐκλείπουσαι τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτο χαίροιεν ἀπολείπουσαι τὰ ἄλλα σώματα. ταχίων γὰρ ἡ ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπάνοδος, ὃς τῶν ἀλόγων δεσπόζει πάντων ὡς ὁ θεὸς ἀνθρώπων. αἰτία τοίνυν ἱκανὴ ἀναιρεῖν τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα [ἐφ’ ὅσον ἀδικεῖ κτείνοντα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους]. εἰ δ’ εἰσὶν αἱ μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀθάνατοι ψυχαί, αἱ δὲ τῶν ἀλόγων θνηταί, οὐκ ἀδικοῦμεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὰ ἄλογα κτείνοντες, ὥσπερ ὠφελοῦμεν, εἴπερ εἰσὶν ἀθάνατοι, κτείνοντες· εἰς ἐπάνοδον γὰρ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως [20] τοῦτο δρῶμεν. [εἰ δ’ ἀμύνομεν, οὐκ ἀδικοῦμεν, ἀλλ’ ἀδικοῦντα μετερχόμεθα.] ὥστ’ εἰ μὲν ἀθάνατοι αἱ ψυχαί, κτείνοντες ὠφελοῦμεν· εἰ δὲ αἱ τῶν ἀλόγων θνηταί, κτείνοντες οὐδὲν ἀσεβὲς πράττομεν. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἀμύνομεν, πῶς οὐκ ἐν δίκῃ πράττομεν; ὄφιν μὲν οὖν καὶ σκορπίον, κἂν μὴ ἐπίωσιν ἡμῖν, κτείνομεν, ἵνα μηδ’ ἄλλος πρὸς αὐτῶν τι πάθῃ, τῷ κοινῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀμύνοντες· ἐπιχειροῦντα δὲ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἢ τοῖς συνανθρωποῦσιν ἢ τοῖς καρποῖς, πῶς οὐκ [21] ἂν δικαίως κτείνοιμεν; εἰ δ’ ἅπαξ ἀδικίαν τις ταύτην ἡγεῖται, μήτε γάλακτι χρήσθω μήτ’ ἐρίῳ μήτε ᾠοῖς μήτε μέλιτι. ὡς γὰρ ἄνθρωπον ἀδικεῖς ἀφαιρούμενος τὴν ἐσθῆτα, οὕτως καὶ τὴν ὄιν πέξας· ἐσθὴς γὰρ αὕτη τοῦ προβάτου· καὶ τὸ γάλα οὐ σοὶ γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀποκυηθεῖσι τέκνοις· ἥ τε μέλισσα ταύτην αὑτῇ τροφὴν συνελέξατο, ἣν ἀφελόμενος ἡδονὴν σαυτῷ κατεσκεύασας. καὶ τὸν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων λόγον σεσίγηκα, ὅτι καὶ τῶν φυτῶν ἀδικοῦμεν ἁπτόμενοι. εἰ δὲ ταῦθ’ ἡμῶν χάριν γέγονεν, καὶ ἡ μέλισσα ἡμῖν δουλεύουσα τὸ μέλι ἐργάζεται καὶ τὸ ἔριον ἐπιφύεται τῶν προβάτων, [22] ὃ ἡμῖν κόσμος καὶ ἀλέα. αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς θεοῖς εἰς εὐσέβειαν συντελοῦντες ζῷα θύομεν· καὶ αὐτῶν ὁ μὲν Ἀπόλλων λυκοκτόνος, ἡ δὲ Ἄρτεμις θηροκτόνος· ἐπεὶ καὶ οἱ ἡμίθεοι καὶ οἱ ἥρωες πάντες καὶ γένει καὶ ἀρετῇ ἡμῶν προύχοντες ἐδοκίμασαν τὴν τῶν ἐμψύχων προσφοράν, ὥστε καὶ θεοῖς θύειν δωδεκῇδας καὶ ἑκατόμβας. ὁ δὲ Ἡρακλῆς ἔν τε τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ ἐπὶ [23] τούτῳ ὑμνεῖται, ὅτι βουφάγος ἦν. τὸ δὲ λέγειν ὅτι πόρρωθεν Πυθαγόρας ἠσφαλίζετο τῆς ἀλληλοφαγίας ἀποκρουόμενος τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, εὔηθες. εἰ μὲν γὰρ οἱ κατὰ Πυθαγόραν [πάντες ἄνθρωποι] ἀλλήλους ἤσθιον, ληρώδης ὁ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἀποσπῶν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἵνα τῆς ἀλληλοφαγίας ἀποστήσῃ. διὰ τούτου γὰρ ἔμελλε μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς προτρέψεσθαι, ἀποφαίνων ὡς ἴσον ἐστὶν ἀλλήλους ἐσθίειν καὶ ὑῶν τε καὶ βοῶν σάρκας ἐμφορεῖσθαι. εἰ δὲ μὴ ἦν ἀλληλοφαγία τότε, τί ἔδει τούτου τοῦ δόγματος; εἰ δ’ ἑαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς ἑταίροις τὸν νόμον ἐτίθει, αἰσχρὰ ἡ ὑπόθεσις· ἀλληλοφάγους γὰρ ἀποδείκνυσι τοὺς Πυθαγόρᾳ [24] συμβιώσαντας. τοὐναντίον δὲ συμβήσεσθαι ὧν οὗτος ἐστοχάζετο. εἰ γὰρ ἀποστησόμεθα τῶν ἐμψύχων, οὐ μόνον πλούτου τοῦ τοιούτου καὶ ἡδονῆς ἀπολειψόμεθα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἀρούρας ἀπολοῦμεν φθειρομένας ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων, ὑπό τε ὄφεων καταλήψεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς ἀρότους χαλεπῶς γίγνεσθαι καὶ τὰ σπαρέντα εὐθύς τε ὑπὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων ἀναλέγεσθαι καὶ τὰ τελεωθέντα ὑπὸ τῶν τετραπόδων ἅπαντα ἀναλίσκεσθαι. τοσαύτης δὲ ἀπορίας βρωτῶν γιγνομένης ἀνάγκη πικρὰ καταλήψεται ἐπ’ ἀλλήλους [25] τραπέσθαι. καὶ μὴν καὶ οἱ θεοὶ συντάξεις τε πολλοῖς θεραπείας ἕνεκα δεδώκασιν τὰς ἐκ θηρίων, καὶ πλήρης γε ἡ [ 463 ]

ἱστορία ὡς αὐτοὶ προσέταξάν τισι καὶ θύειν αὐτοῖς καὶ προσφέρεσθαι τῶν τυθέντων. ἐν δὲ τῇ καθόδῳ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν οἱ ἐπὶ τὴν Λακεδαίμονα στρατεύοντες μετ’ Εὐρυσθένους καὶ Προκλέους ἐν ἀπορίᾳ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ὄφεις ἔφαγον, οὓς ἀνέδωκεν ἡ γῆ τότε τροφὴν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ. ἄλλῳ δὲ στρατῷ πεινῶντι κατὰ τὴν Λιβύην ἐνέπεσε νέφος ἀκρίδων. ἐν τοῖς Γαδείροις καὶ τόδε συνέτυχεν. Βόγος ἦν βασιλεὺς Μαυρουσίων ὁ ἐν Μεθώνῃ σφαγεὶς ὑπ’ Ἀγρίππα· οὗτος ἐπεχείρησεν τῷ Ἡρακλείῳ πλουσιωτάτῳ ὄντι ἱερῷ. ἔστι δὲ νόμος τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ὁσημέραι τὸν βωμὸν αἱμάσσειν. τοῦτο δὲ ὅτι οὐ γνώμῃ γίγνεται ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ κατὰ θεόν, ὁ τότε καιρὸς ἀπέδειξε. τῆς γὰρ πολιορκίας ἐγχρονιζομένης ἐπέλειπον τὰ ἱερεῖα. ὁ δὲ ἱερεὺς ἐν ἀπορίᾳ γενόμενος ὄνειρον ὁρᾷ τοιόνδε. ἐδόκει ἑστάναι μέσος τῶν στηλῶν τῶν Ἡρακλείων, ἔπειτ’ ἄντικρυς τοῦ βωμοῦ ὁρᾶν ὄρνιν καθεζόμενον καὶ πειρώμενον ἐφίπτασθαι· ἐπιπτάντα δὲ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν αὐτοῦ· ᾧ δὴ καὶ τὸν βωμὸν αἱμάξαι. τοῦτ’ ἰδὼν ἅμ’ ἡμέρᾳ ἐξαναστὰς ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν ἦλθεν καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ ὀνείρῳ στὰς ἐπὶ τοῦ πύργου ἀποβλέπει· ὁρᾷ τε τὸν ὄρνιν ἐκεῖνον οἷον ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις, ἐλπίσας τε ἐκβαίνειν τοὐνύπνιον ἔστη. καταπτὰς δ’ ὁ ὄρνις ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ ἐκαθέζετο, εἰς τὰς χεῖράς θ’ αὑτὸν ἔδωκε τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, καὶ οὕτως ἱερεύθη καὶ ὁ βωμὸς ᾑμάχθη. τούτου δ’ ἐστὶν ἐνδοξότερον τὸ γεγονὸς ἐν Κυζίκῳ. πολιορκοῦντος γὰρ αὐτὴν Μιθραδάτου ἡ τῆς Περσεφόνης ἑορτὴ ἐπέστη, ἐν ᾗ βοῦν χρὴ θῦσαι. αἱ δ’ ἱεραὶ ἀγέλαι ἐνέμοντο τῆς πόλεως ἄντικρυς, ἐξ ὧν ἔδει τὸ ἱερεῖον γενέσθαι, ἤδη δὲ ἦν καὶ τὸ σημεῖον ἐπικείμενον. τῆς δ’ ὥρας αἰτούσης ἡ βοῦς ἐμυκήσατο διενήξατό τε τὸν πόρον· ὥς τε ἀνέῳξαν τὴν πύλην οἱ φύλακες, ἣ δὲ δρόμῳ διῇξε κἀπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ παρέστη, τῇ θεῷ τε ἐτελέσθη τὸ θῦμα. οὐκ ἀπεικότως ἄρα εὐσεβέστατον εἶναι νομίζουσι τὸ πλεῖστα θῦσαι, εἴπερ ἀρεστὸν θεοῖς φαίνεται τὸ θύειν. [26] ποία δὲ ἄν τις γένοιτο πόλις, εἰ πάντες οἱ πολῖται ταύτην ἔχοιεν τὴν γνώμην; πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἀμύναιντο πολεμίους ἐπὶ σφᾶς ἰόντας, τὴν μεγίστην ποιούμενοι φυλακὴν μή τινα αὐτῶν ἀποκτείνωσιν; παραχρῆμα τοίνυν ἀνάστατοι γίγνοιντ’ ἄν· ἄλλα δ’ ὅσα δυσχερῆ συμβαίνειν ἀνάγκη, μακρὸν ἂν [ἔργον] εἴη λέγειν. ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἀσεβὲς τὸ κτείνειν καὶ ἐσθίειν, δηλοῖ τὸ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Πυθαγόραν, τῶν μὲν πάλαι διδόντων γάλα πίνειν τοῖς ἀθλοῦσι καὶ τυροὺς δὲ ἐσθίειν ὕδατι βεβρεγμένους, τῶν δὲ μετ’ ἐκείνους ταύτην μὲν ἀποδοκιμασάντων τὴν δίαιταν, διὰ ‹δὲ› τῶν ξηρῶν σύκων τὴν τροφὴν ποιουμένων τοῖς ἀθληταῖς, πρῶτον περιελόντα τὴν ἀρχαίαν κρέα διδόναι τοῖς γυμναζομένοις καὶ πολὺ διαφέρουσαν πρὸς ἰσχὺν εὑρεῖν δύναμιν. ἱστοροῦσι δέ τινες καὶ αὐτοὺς ἅπτεσθαι τῶν ἐμψύχων τοὺς Πυθαγορείους, ὅτε θύοιεν θεοῖς. τοιαῦτα μὲν καὶ τὰ παρὰ Κλωδίῳ καὶ Ἡρακλείδῃ τῷ Ποντικῷ Ἑρμάρχῳ τε τῷ Ἐπικουρείῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς καὶ τοῦ περιπάτου, ἐν οἷς καὶ τὰ ὑμέτερα, ὅσα ἡμῖν ἀπηγγέλθη, περιείληπται. μέλλοντες δὲ πρός τε ταύτας καὶ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν ὑπολήψεις ἀντιλέγειν εἰκότως ἂν προλέγοιμεν ταῦτα. [27] πρῶτον μὲν τοίνυν ἰστέον ὡς οὐ παντὶ τῷ βίῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁ λόγος μου τὴν παραίνεσιν οἴσει· οὔτε γὰρ τοῖς τὰς βαναύσους τέχνας μετερχομένοις, οὔτ’ ἀθληταῖς σωμάτων, οὐ στρατιώταις, οὐ ναύταις, οὐ ῥήτορσιν, οὐ τοῖς τὸν πραγματικὸν βίον ἐπανελομένοις· [ 464 ]

ἀνθρώπῳ δὲ λελογισμένῳ, τίς τέ ἐστιν καὶ πόθεν ἐλήλυθεν ποῖ τε σπεύδειν ὀφείλει, τά τε περὶ τροφὴν κἀν τοῖς ἄλλοις καθήκουσιν ἐξηλλαγμένα τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ἄλλους βίους ὑποτιθεμένῳ. οὐδὲν ἄρα πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἢ τοιούτους γρύξαιμεν ἄν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν τῷ κοινῷ τούτῳ βίῳ ἡ αὐτὴ δήπου παραίνεσις τῷ τε καθεύδοντι καὶ εἰ τύχοι τοῦτο διὰ βίου σπουδάζοντι τά τε ὑπνωτικὰ πανταχόθεν παρασκευασαμένῳ, καὶ τῷ προθυμουμένῳ μὲν τὸν ὕπνον ἀποκρούειν, πᾶν ‹δὲ› τὸ περὶ αὑτὸν πρὸς ἀγρυπνίαν συντάξαντι. ἀλλὰ τῷ μὲν ἀνάγκη καὶ μέθην καὶ κραιπάλην καὶ πλησμονὴν ὑποτίθεσθαι, σκοτεινόν τε οἶκον καὶ στρωμνὴν μαλακὴν εὐρεῖάν τε καὶ πίειραν, ὡς φασὶν οἱ ποιηταί, παραινεῖν ἐκλέγεσθαι, καὶ πᾶν καρωτικὸν ἀργίας τε καὶ λήθης ποιητικόν, εἴτε ὀσφραντὸν εἴτ’ ἐπίχριστον εἴτε ποτὸν ἢ βρωτὸν προσάγειν φάρμακον· τῷ δὲ νηφάλιον μὲν καὶ ἄοινον τὸ ποτόν, λεπτὸν δὲ τὸ σιτίον καὶ ἐγγὺς τεῖνον ἀποσιτίας, φωτεινὸν δὲ τὸν οἶκον καὶ ἀέρος λεπτοῦ καὶ πνεύματος μέτοχον, φροντίδων ‹δὲ› καὶ μερίμνης ἀνακίνησιν σύντονον ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ τὴν κοίτην λιτήν τε καὶ σκληρὰν παρασκευάζειν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τοῦτο πεφύκαμεν, λέγω δὲ τὸ διαγρυπνεῖν, ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ὀλίγον τι διδόντες τῷ ὕπνῳ, καθ’ ὅσον οὐκ ἐν χώρῳ ἐσμὲν τῷ τῶν δι’ αἰῶνος ἀγρύπνων, ἢ οὔ, πρὸς δὲ τὸ καθεύδειν συνέστημεν, ἄλλος ἂν εἴη [28] λόγος καὶ μακρῶν δεόμενος ἀποδείξεων. τῷ δὲ ἅπαξ τὸ γοήτευμα τῆς ἐνταῦθ’ ἡμῶν διατριβῆς καὶ τοῦ οἴκου, ἐν ᾧ διάγομεν, ὑποπτεύσαντι τό τε αὑτοῦ ἄγρυπνον φύσει κατιδόντι καὶ τὸ ὑπνοποιὸν τοῦ χώρου, ἐν ᾧ διατρίβει, φωράσαντι, τούτῳ διαλεγόμενοι τὴν ἀκόλουθον τῇ τε ὑποψίᾳ τοῦ χώρου καὶ τῇ αὐτοῦ γνώσει τροφὴν παραδίδομεν, τοὺς καθεύδοντας ἐᾶν παρειμένους ἐν τοῖς σφῶν δεμνίοις παρακελευόμενοι, εὐλαβούμενοι μὴ ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμίας οἱ εἰς τοὺς ὀφθαλμιῶντας ἐμβλέποντες ἢ χάσμης οἱ συνόντες τοῖς χασμωμένοις, οὕτως νυσταγμῶν ἐμπλησθῶμεν καὶ ὕπνου, ψυγμοῦ τε πλήρους ὄντος τοῦ τόπου, ἐν ᾧ διατρίβομεν, ἐπιτηδείως τε ἔχοντος ὀφθαλμοὺς ῥευματίζειν, ἅτε καὶ λιμνώδους ὄντος, καὶ πρὸς καρηβαρίαν καὶ λήθην πάντας τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ καθελκουσῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων. εἰ μὲν οὖν καὶ οἱ νομοθέται τὰ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους διέταξαν ταῖς πόλεσι πρὸς τὸν θεωρητικὸν ἀνάγοντες βίον καὶ ζωὴν τὴν κατὰ νοῦν, χρῆν δήπου πειθομένους ἐκείνοις καὶ τὰς περὶ τῶν τροφῶν προσίεσθαι συγχωρήσεις. εἰ δὲ οὗτοι μὲν πρὸς τὸν κατὰ φύσιν λεγόμενον μέσον βίον ἀφορῶντες, καὶ ἃ πρόσοιντ’ ἂν καὶ οἱ πολλοί, οἷς τὰ ἐκτὸς ὡς τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἢ κακὰ καὶ τὰ τοῦ σώματος ὡσαύτως ὑπείληπται, νομοθετοῦσιν, τί τις ἂν τὸν τούτων παραφέρων νόμον ἀνατρέποι βίον νόμου μὲν παντὸς γραπτοῦ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς κειμένου κρείττονα, τὸν δὲ ἄγραφον καὶ θεῖον μάλιστα διώκοντα; [29] ἔχει γὰρ οὕτως. οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ εὐδαιμονικὴ ἡμῖν θεωρία λόγων ἄθροισις καὶ μαθημάτων πλῆθος, ὡς ἄν τις οἰηθείη, συνισταμένη κατὰ τοῦτο, οὐδ’ ἐν τῷ ποσῷ τῶν λόγων λαμβάνει τὴν ἐπίδοσιν· οὕτω γὰρ οὐδὲν ἂν ἐκώλυεν τοὺς πᾶν μάθημα συνάγοντας εἶναι εὐδαίμονας. νῦν δ’ οὐχ ὅπως πᾶν μάθημα συμπληροῖ τὴν θεωρίαν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὰ περὶ τῶν ὄντως ὄντων, ἐὰν μὴ προσῇ καὶ ἡ κατ’ αὐτὰ φυσίωσις καὶ ζωή. τριῶν γάρ, φασίν, ὡς καθ’ ἕκαστον σκοπὸν τελῶν ὄντων, ἡμῖν τὸ τυχεῖν τῆς τοῦ ὄντος θεωρίας τὸ τέλος, τῆς τεύξεως τελούσης τὴν κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν ἡμετέραν σύμφυσιν τῷ θεωροῦντι καὶ θεωρουμένῳ· οὐ γὰρ εἰς ἄλλο, ἀλλ’ εἰς τὸν ὄντως ἑαυτὸν ἡ ἀναδρομή· οὐδὲ πρὸς ἄλλο, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν ὄντως αὐτὸν ‹ἡ› σύμφυσις. αὐτὸς δὲ ὄντως ὁ νοῦς, ὥστε καὶ τὸ τέλος τὸ ζῆν [ 465 ]

κατὰ νοῦν. καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο καὶ οἱ λόγοι καὶ τὰ μαθήματα τὰ ἔξωθεν, καθαρτικὸν ἐπέχοντα τόπον ἡμῶν, οὐ συμπληρωτικὸν τῆς εὐδαιμονίας. ὅθεν εἰ μὲν ἐν λόγων ἀναλήψει ἀφώριστο τὸ εὔδαιμον, οἷόν τ’ ἦν ὀλιγωροῦντας καὶ τροφῶν καὶ ποιῶν ἔργων τυγχάνειν τοῦ τέλους. ἐπεὶ δὲ ζωὴν δεῖ ἀντὶ ζωῆς ἀλλάξασθαι τῆς νῦν διὰ λόγων καὶ ἔργων καθαρθέντας, φέρε ποῖοι λόγοι καὶ τίνα ἔργα εἰς ταύτην ἡμᾶς [30] καθίστησι σκεψώμεθα. ἆρ’ οὖν οὐ τὰ μὲν χωρίζοντα ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν καὶ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὰ παθῶν, ἀνάγοντα δὲ πρὸς νοερὸν καὶ ἀφάνταστον ἀπαθῆ τε ζωὴν καθ’ ὅσον οἷόν τε, ταῦτα ἂν εἴη· τὰ δ’ ἐναντία ἀλλότρια καὶ ἀποβολῆς ἄξια, καὶ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ τοῦ μὲν ἀφίστησιν, πρὸς ὃ δὲ κατασπᾷ; οἶμαι ἀκόλουθον εἶναι συγχωρεῖν. ἐοίκαμεν γὰρ τοῖς εἰς ἀλλόφυλον ἔθνος ἥκουσι καὶ μὴ μόνον τῶν οἰκείων ἐξορίστοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῆς ξένης ἐμπλησθεῖσι παθῶν τε καὶ ἐθῶν καὶ νομίμων ἐκφύλων καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα ῥοπὴν ἐσχηκόσιν. ὅνπερ οὖν τρόπον ὁ ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὰ οἰκεῖα μέλλων ἐπανήκειν οὐ μόνον προθυμεῖται ὁδεύειν, ἀλλὰ καί, ἵνα παραδεχθῇ, μελετᾷ μὲν ἀποτίθεσθαι πᾶν εἴ τι προσέλαβεν ἀλλόφυλον, ἐπαναμιμνήσκει δ’ ἑαυτὸν ὧν ἔχων ἐπελάθετο, ὧν ἄνευ παραδεχθῆναι οὐχ οἷόν τε πρὸς τῶν οἰκείων· τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐντεῦθεν, εἴπερ πρὸς τὰ ὄντως οἰκεῖα μέλλομεν ἐπανιέναι, ἃ μὲν ἐκ τῆς θνητῆς προσειλήφαμεν φύσεως, ἀποθέσθαι πάντα μετὰ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὰ προσπαθείας, δι’ ἧς ἡ κατάβασις γέγονεν, ἀναμνησθῆναι δὲ τῆς μακαρίας καὶ αἰωνίου οὐσίας καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἀχρώματον καὶ ἄποιον σπεύδοντας ἐπανελθεῖν, δύο μελέτας ποιησαμένους· μίαν μὲν καθ’ ἣν πᾶν τὸ ὑλικὸν καὶ θνητὸν ἀποθησόμεθα, ἑτέραν δὲ ὅπως ἐπανέλθωμεν καὶ περιγενώμεθα, ἐναντίως ἐπ’ αὐτὰ ἀναβαίνοντες ἢ ἐνταῦθα κατήλθομεν. νοεραὶ γὰρ ἦμεν καὶ ἐσμὲν ἔτι οὐσίαι, πάσης αἰσθήσεως καὶ ἀλογίας καθαρεύοντες· συνεπλάκημεν δὲ τῷ αἰσθητῷ δι’ ἀδυναμίας μὲν τῆς πρὸς τὸ νοητὸν ἡμῶν αἰωνίου συνουσίας, δυνάμεως δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὰ τῇδε λεγομένης. πᾶσαι γὰρ αἱ μετ’ αἰσθήσεως καὶ μετὰ σώματος ἐνεργοῦσαι δυνάμεις, μὴ μενούσης ἐν νοητῷ τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐβλάστησαν [ἐοικυῖαι κακώσει γῆς, ἣ πυροῦ πολλάκις τὸ σπέρμα δεξαμένη αἴρας ἐγέννησεν] διά τινα μοχθηρίαν τῆς ψυχῆς, οὐ φθειρούσης μὲν τὴν αὑτῆς οὐσίαν τῇ τῆς ἀλογίας γεννήσει, διὰ δὲ ταύτης πρὸς τὸ θνητὸν συναπτομένης καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἀλλότριον ἐκ τοῦ οἰκείου [31] καθελκομένης. ὥστε καὶ μελετητέον, εἴπερ ἀναστρέφειν πρὸς τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐσπουδάκαμεν, καθ’ ὅσον δύναμις, αἰσθήσεως μὲν ἀφίστασθαι καὶ φαντασίας τῆς τε ταύταις ἑπομένης ἀλογίας καὶ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὴν παθῶν [καθ’ ὅσον μὴ ἐπείγῃ ἡ ἀνάγκη τῆς γενέσεως]· διαρθρωτέον δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν νοῦν, εἰρήνην αὐτῷ καὶ ἡσυχίαν ἐκ τοῦ ‹πρὸς› τὴν ἀλογίαν πολέμου παρασκευάζοντας· ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἀκούωμεν περὶ νοῦ καὶ τῶν νοητῶν, ἀλλὰ καί, ὅση δύναμις, ὦμεν ἀπολαύοντές τε αὐτοῦ τῆς θεωρίας καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀσωματίαν καθιστάμενοι καὶ ζῶντες μετ’ ἀληθείας δι’ ἐκεῖνον, ἀλλ’ οὐ ψευδῶς μετὰ τῶν τοῖς σώμασι συμφύλων. ἀποδυτέον ἄρα τοὺς πολλοὺς ἡμῖν χιτῶνας, τόν τε ὁρατὸν τοῦτον καὶ σάρκινον καὶ οὓς ἔσωθεν ἠμφιέσμεθα προσεχεῖς ὄντας τοῖς δερματίνοις, γυμνοὶ δὲ καὶ ἀχίτωνες ἐπὶ τὸ στάδιον ἀναβαίνωμεν τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς Ὀλύμπια ἀγωνισόμενοι. ἀρχὴ δὲ τὸ ἀποδύσασθαι [καὶ] οὗ οὐκ ἄνευ τὸ ἀγωνίζεσθαι γένοιτο. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἦν ἔξωθεν τῶν ἐνδυμάτων, τὰ δὲ ἔσωθεν, καὶ ἀπόδυσις ἣ μὲν διὰ τῶν φανερῶν, ἣ δὲ διὰ τῶν ἀφανεστέρων. τὸ μὲν γὰρ μὴ φαγεῖν φέρε ἢ μὴ λαβεῖν διδόμενα χρήματα τῶν φανερῶν ἦν καὶ [ 466 ]

ἐκκειμένων, τὸ δὲ μηδὲ ἐπιθυμεῖν τῶν ἀφανεστέρων. ὥστε μετὰ τῶν ἔργων ἀποστατέον καὶ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὰ προσπαθείας καὶ τοῦ πάθους. τί γὰρ καὶ ὄφελος τῶν ἔργων ἀφιστάμενον ταῖς αἰτίαις, [32] ἀφ’ ὧν καὶ τὰ ἔργα, προσηλῶσθαι; ἡ δ’ ἀπόστασις γένοιτο μὲν ἂν καὶ μετὰ βίας, γένοιτο δ’ ἂν καὶ πειθοῖ καὶ κατὰ λόγον διὰ μαράνσεως καί, ὡς ἄν τις εἴποι, λήθης αὐτῶν καὶ θανάτου, ἣ δὴ καὶ ἀρίστη [ἐτύγχανεν] οὖσα ἀπόστασις οὐχ ἧπται οὗ ἀπεσπάσθη. φέρει γοῦν τι κἀν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς τὸ ἀποσπασθὲν βίᾳ ἢ μέρος ἢ ἴχνος τῆς ἀποσπάσεως· εἰσῆλθεν δὲ κατὰ τὸ συνεχῶς ἀμελέτητον. τὴν δ’ ἀμελετησίαν παρέχει ἡ μετὰ τῆς πρὸς τὰ νοητὰ διαρκοῦς φροντίδος ἀποχὴ τῶν τὰ πάθη ἐγειρόντων αἰσθημάτων, ἐν οἷς καὶ τὰ [33] ἐκ τῶν τροφῶν ἐγκρίνεται. ἀφεκτέον ἄρα οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἄλλων καὶ τροφῶν τινῶν, ὅσαι τὸ παθητικὸν ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐγείρειν ἐπεφύκεσαν. σκεπτέον δ’ ἔτι καὶ τῇδε. δύο πηγαὶ ἀνεῖνται πρὸς δεσμὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνταῦθα, ἐξ ὧν ὥσπερ θανασίμων πωμάτων ἐμπιμπλαμένη ἐν λήθῃ τῶν οἰκείων γίγνεται θεαμάτων, ἡδονή τε καὶ λύπη· ὧν παρασκευαστικὴ μὲν ἡ αἴσθησις καὶ ἡ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀντίληψις αἵ τε συνομαρτοῦσαι ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι φαντασίαι τε καὶ δόξαι καὶ μνῆμαι, ἐκ δὲ τούτων ἐγειρόμενα τὰ πάθη καὶ πᾶσα ἡ ἀλογία παχυνομένη κατάγει τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τοῦ οἰκείου περὶ τὸ ὂν ἀποστρέφει ἔρωτος. ἀποστατέον ἄρα εἰς δύναμιν τούτων. αἱ δὲ ἀποστάσεις διὰ τῶν ἐκκλίσεων τῶν κατὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις παθῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὰς ἀλογίας, αἱ δὲ αἰσθήσεις ἢ διὰ τῶν ὁρατῶν ἢ τῶν ἀκουστῶν ἢ γευστῶν ἢ ὀσφραντῶν ἢ ἁπτῶν. οἷον γὰρ μητρόπολις ἡ αἴσθησις ἦν τῆς ἐν ἡμῖν ἐκφύλου τῶν παθῶν ἀποικίας. φέρε γὰρ ἴδε καθ’ ἑκάστην ὅσον τὸ ὑπέκκαυμα εἰσρεῖ τῶν παθῶν εἰς ἡμᾶς, τοῦτο μὲν ἐκ τῆς κατὰ τὰς θέας ἵππων τε ἁμίλλης καὶ ἀθλητῶν ἢ τῶν ἐκλελυγισμένων ὀρχήσεων, τοῦτο δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐπιβλέψεως τῆς πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ, αἳ δέλεαρ τοῦ ἀλογίστου παντοίαις [34] ἐπιθέτοις παγίσι χειροῦνται τὸ ἄλογον. κατὰ γὰρ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐκβακχευομένη ὑπὸ τῆς ἀλογίας ἀναπηδᾶν τε ποιεῖ καὶ ἐκβοᾶν καὶ κεκραγέναι, τῆς ἔξω ταραχῆς ἀπὸ τῆς ἔνδον ἐκκαομένης, ἣν ἀνῆψεν ἡ αἴσθησις. αἱ δὲ διὰ τῶν ἀκοῶν ἐμπαθεῖς οὖσαι κινήσεις ἔκ τε ποιῶν ψόφων καὶ ἤχων, αἰσχρορρημοσύνης τε καὶ λοιδορίας, [ὡς] τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς τέλεον τοῦ λογισμοῦ ἐκδεδυκότος φέρεσθαι ποιοῦσιν οἰστρουμένους, τοὺς δ’ αὖ θηλυνομένους παντοίας στροφὰς ἑλίττεσθαι. θυμιαμάτων δὲ χρήσεις ἢ εὐώδεις πνοαί, αἵ τε τοὺς αὑτῶν ἔρωτας τοῖς ἐρασταῖς ἐμπορευόμεναι, τίνα λελήθασιν, ὅσην τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν ἀλογίαν πιαίνουσιν; περὶ γὰρ τῶν διὰ τῆς γεύσεως τί ἄν τις καὶ εἴποι παθημάτων, διπλοῦ μάλιστ’ ἐνταῦθα τοῦ δεσμοῦ συμπλεκομένου· τοῦ μὲν ὃν ἐκ τῆς γεύσεως τὰ πάθη πιαίνει, τοῦ δὲ ὃν ἐκ τῆς ἐμφορήσεως τῶν ἀλλοτρίων σωμάτων βαρύν τε καὶ δυνατὸν ἐργαζόμεθα; φάρμακα γάρ, ὥς πού τις τῶν ἰατρῶν ἔφη, οὐ μόνα τὰ σκευαστὰ ὑπὸ τῆς ἰατρικῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ καθ’ ἡμέραν εἰς τροφὴν παραλαμβανόμενα σιτία τε καὶ ποτά· καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον τὸ θανάσιμον ἐκ τούτων τῇ ψυχῇ ἀναδίδοται ἢ ἐκ τῶν φαρμακειῶν εἰς διάλυσιν τοῦ σώματος κατασκευάζεται. αἱ δὲ ἁφαὶ μόνον οὐ σωματοῦσαι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ εἰς ἀνάρθρους ψόφους, οἷα δὴ σῶμα, πολλάκις ἐκπίπτειν ἠρέθισαν. ἐξ ὧν αἱ μνῆμαι καὶ αἱ φαντασίαι αἵ τε δόξαι ἀθροιζόμεναι ἑσμὸν τῶν παθῶν

[ 467 ]

ἐγείρουσαι, φόβων, ἐπιθυμιῶν, ὀργῶν, ἐρώτων, φίλτρων, λυπῶν, ζήλων, μεριμνῶν, νοσημάτων, τῶν ὁμοίων παθῶν πλήρη ἀπέδειξαν. [35] διὸ πολὺς μὲν ὁ ἀγὼν τούτων καθαρεῦσαι, πολὺς δὲ ὁ πόνος ἀπαλλαγῆναι αὐτῶν τῆς μελέτης, καὶ νύκτωρ καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέραν τῆς κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀναγκαίας συμπλοκῆς ἡμῖν παρούσης. ὅθεν ὅση δύναμις ἀποστατέον τῶν τοιούτων χωρίων, ἐν οἷς καὶ μὴ βουλόμενόν ἐστιν περιπίπτειν τῷ πάθει· καὶ εὐλαβητέον τὴν ἐκ τῆς πείρας μάχην καὶ εἰ βούλει καὶ νίκην καὶ [36] τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀπειρίας ἀγυμναστίαν. οὕτως γὰρ καὶ τῶν πρόσθεν ἀκούομεν κλέα ἀνδρῶν, Πυθαγορείων τε καὶ σοφῶν· ὧν οἳ μὲν τὰ ἐρημότατα χωρία κατῴκουν, οἳ δὲ καὶ τῶν πόλεων τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τὰ ἄλση, ἐξ ὧν ἡ πᾶσα ἀπελήλαται τύρβη. Πλάτων δὲ τὴν Ἀκαδήμειαν οἰκεῖν εἵλετο, οὐ μόνον ἔρημον καὶ πόρρω τοῦ ἄστεος χωρίον, ἀλλὰ καί, ὡς φασίν, ἐπίνοσον. ἄλλοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν οὐκ ἐφείσαντο πόθῳ τῆς ἔνδον ἀπερισπάστου θεωρίας. εἰ δέ τις οἴεται συνανθρωπεύων καὶ ἐμπιπλὰς τὰς αἰσθήσεις τῶν κατ’ αὐτὰς παθῶν αὐτὸς μενεῖν ἀπαθής, λέληθεν αὑτὸν καὶ τοὺς αὐτῷ πειθομένους ἀπατῶν ἀγνοῶν τε ὡς πολὺ τῶν παθῶν καταδεδούλωται αὐτῇ ‹τῇ› ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους οὐκ ἀλλοτριώσει. οὐ γὰρ δὴ μάτην οὐδὲ τῆς φύσεως καταψευδόμενος τῶν φιλοσόφων ἔλεγεν ὁ φάς· ‘οὗτοι δέ που ἐκ νέων πρῶτον εἰς ἀγορὰν οὐκ ἴσασι τὴν ὁδόν, οὐδὲ ὅπου δικαστήριον ἢ βουλευτήριον ἤ τι κοινὸν ἄλλο τῆς πόλεως συνέδριον, νόμους δὲ καὶ ψηφίσματα λεγόμενα ἢ γεγραμμένα οὔτε ὁρῶσιν οὔτε ἀκούουσιν. σπουδαὶ δὲ ἑταιρειῶν ἐπ’ ἀρχὰς καὶ σύνοδοι καὶ δεῖπνα καὶ σὺν αὐλητρίσιν κῶμοι, οὐδὲ ὄναρ πράττειν προσίσταται αὐτοῖς. εὖ δὲ ἢ κακῶς τις γέγονεν ἐν πόλει, ἤ τί τῳ κακόν ἐστιν ἐκ προγόνων γεγονός, πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ἢ γυναικῶν, μᾶλλον αὐτὸν λέληθεν ἢ οἱ τῆς θαλάττης λεγόμενοι χόες. καὶ ταῦτα πάντα οὐδ’ ὅτι οὐκ οἶδεν, οἶδεν· οὐδὲ γὰρ αὐτῶν ἀπέχεται τοῦ εὐδοκιμεῖν χάριν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι τὸ σῶμα μόνον ἐν τῇ πόλει κεῖται αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπιδημεῖ, ἡ δὲ διάνοια ταῦτα πάντα ἡγησαμένη σμικρὰ καὶ οὐδέν, ἀτιμάσασα, πανταχῇ πέτεται κατὰ Πίνδαρον, εἰς τῶν ἐγγὺς οὐδὲν [37] ἑαυτὴν συγκαθιεῖσα.’ διὰ γὰρ τούτων ὁ Πλάτων οὐ καθιέντα εἰς τὰ εἰρημένα φησὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν μένειν ἀπαθῆ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ εἰς μηδὲν αὐτῶν συγκαθιέναι. διὸ οὔτε τὴν ὁδὸν οἶδεν ὅπου τὸ δικαστήριον ἢ βουλευτήριον, οὔτ’ ἄλλο οὐδὲν τῶν κατὰ μέρος. οὐκ οἶδε μὲν καὶ ἀπαντᾷ, ἀπαντῶν δὲ καὶ ἐμπιπλὰς τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἀπ’ αὐτῶν, ὅτι οὐδὲν οὐκ οἶδεν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἀπεχόμενον αὐτῶν φησίν, καὶ μὴ εἰδότα, οὐδ’ ὅτι οὐκ οἶδεν εἰδέναι. εἰς δὲ δεῖπνα καθιέναι οὐδὲ ὄναρ, φησίν, προσίσταται αὐτῷ. σχολῇ ἄρα ἀγανακτήσειεν ‹ἂν› ζωμῶν καὶ κρεᾳδίων ἀποστερούμενος. ἢ ὅλως προσήσεται ταῦτα; οὐχὶ δὲ πάντα ἡγησάμενος μικρὰ μὲν καὶ οὐδὲν ἐκ τῆς ἀποχῆς, μεγάλα δὲ καὶ βλαβερὰ ἐκ τῆς προσαγωγῆς, παραδειγμάτων ἐν τῷ ὄντι ἑστώτων, τοῦ μὲν θείου εὐδαιμονεστάτου, τοῦ δὲ ἀθέου ἀθλιωτάτου, τῷ μὲν ὁμοιώσεται, τῷ δὲ ἀνομοιώσεται, τὸν εἰκότα βίον ζῶν ᾧ ὁμοιοῦται, λιτόν τε τοῦτον καὶ αὐτάρκη καὶ ἥκιστα τοῖς θνητοῖς ἐμφορούμενον; [38] ὡς ἕως ἄν τις περὶ βρωτῶν διαφέρηται καὶ συνηγορῇ ὡς καὶ τόδε βρωτέον, ἀλλ’ οὐκ, εἰ οἷόν τε ἦν, ἁπάσης τροφῆς ὅτι ἀφεκτέον διανοῆται, τοῖς πάθεσι συναγορεύων δοξοκοπεῖ, ὡς μηδὲν διαφερόμενος περὶ ὧν διαφέρεται. βίᾳ μὲν τοίνυν ἑαυτὸν ὁ φιλοσοφῶν οὐκ ἐξάξει· βιαζόμενος γὰρ οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐκεῖ μενεῖ, ὅθεν ἀπελθεῖν βιάζεται· οὐ μὴν [ 468 ]

τὸν δεσμὸν παχύνων ἀδιάφορόν τι πράττειν ἡγήσεται. ὥστε τὸ ἀναγκαῖον μόνον διδοὺς τῇ φύσει καὶ τοῦτο κοῦφον καὶ διὰ κουφοτέρων τροφῶν, πᾶν τὸ πέρα τούτου ὡς εἰς ἡδονὴν συντεῖνον παραιτήσεται. πέπεισται γὰρ κατὰ τὸν εἰπόντα, ὡς ἧλος ψυχῆς πρὸς τὰ σώματα ἐτύγχανεν ἡ αἴσθησις, αὐτῇ τῇ ῥώσει τοῦ πάθους ἑαυτῆς συγκολλῶσα καὶ οἷον καθηλοῦσα τὴν ψυχὴν πρὸς τὴν διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἀπόλαυσιν. εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐνεπόδιζεν τὰ αἰσθήματα τῇ τῆς ψυχῆς καθαρᾷ ἐνεργείᾳ, τί δεινὸν ἦν ἐν σώματι εἶναι ἀπαθῆ μένοντα [39] τῶν διὰ σώματος κινημάτων; πῶς δ’ ἂν ἐπέκρινας καὶ εἶπας ὃ πέπονθας, μὴ πάσχων μηδὲ παρὼν οἷς ἔπαθες; νοῦς μὲν γάρ ἐστι πρὸς αὑτῷ, κἂν ἡμεῖς μὴ ὦμεν πρὸς αὐτῷ. νοῦ δὲ ὁ παρεκβὰς ἐκεῖ ἐστὶν ὅπου καὶ παρεξῆλθεν, καὶ διαθέων γε ἄνω καὶ κάτω τῇ τῆς ἀντιλήψεως προσοχῇ ἐκεῖ πάρεστιν ὅπου ἡ ἀντίληψις. ἄλλο δὲ ἦν μὴ προσέχειν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς τῷ πρὸς ἄλλοις εἶναι, ἄλλο δὲ τὸ ἀφιστάντα νομίζειν ἑαυτὸν μὴ παρεῖναι. οὐ δὴ δείξει τις τοῦτο συγχωροῦντα τὸν Πλάτωνα, εἴ γε μὴ ἑαυτὸν ἀπατῶντα τοῦτόν τις ἐπιδείξειεν. ὁ δὴ καθιεὶς εἰς βρωτῶν παραδοχὰς καὶ εἰς θέας ἑκὼν τὰς δι’ ὄψεως ὁμιλίας τε καὶ γέλωτας αὐτῇ τῇ καθέσει ἐκεῖ ἐστὶν ὅπου καὶ τὸ πάθος· ὁ δὲ πρὸς ἄλλοις ὢν καὶ ἀποστάς, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν γέλωτα παρέχων οὐ μόνον Θρᾴτταις ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἄλλῳ ὄχλῳ, καὶ ὅταν καθῇ, εἰς πᾶσαν ἀπορίαν ἐμπίπτων, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀναισθητῶν, οὐδὲ ἐξακριβῶν μέν, τῷ δὲ ἀλόγῳ μόνον ἐνεργῶν (οὐ γὰρ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν ἐτόλμησε Πλάτων), ἀλλ’ ὡς ἔν τε ταῖς λοιδορίαις ἴδιον ἔχει οὐδὲν οὐδένα λοιδορεῖν, ἅτε οὐκ εἰδὼς κακὸν οὐδὲν οὐδενός, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ μεμελετηκέναι, φησίν· ἀπορῶν οὖν γελοῖος φαίνεται, ἔν τε τοῖς ἐπαίνοις καὶ ταῖς τῶν ἄλλων μεγαλαυχίαις, οὐ προσποιητῶς, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι γελῶν ἔνδηλος γιγνόμενος ληρώδης [40] δοκεῖ εἶναι. ὥστε διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν καὶ ἀποχὴν οὐκ οἶδεν οὐχ ὅτι εἰς πεῖραν καθιεὶς καὶ διὰ τοῦ ἀλόγου ἐνεργῶν, οἷός τέ ἐστιν θεωρεῖν τὰ κατὰ τὸν νοῦν ἀκραιφνῶς· οὐδὲ τῶν δύο ψυχὰς ἡμᾶς ἔχειν λεγόντων, δύο προσοχὰς ἡμῖν δεδωκότων. δύο γὰρ ἂν οὕτω ζῴων συνέρξεις ἐποίουν, ἃ ἐνεδέχετο, ἄλλου πρὸς ἄλλοις ὄντος, τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου μὴ προσποιεῖσθαι [41] τὰ ἔργα. τί δὲ ἔδει καὶ μαραίνειν τὰ πάθη καὶ ἀποθνῄσκειν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦτο μελετᾶν καθ’ ἡμέραν, εἰ οἷόν τ’ ἦν ἐνεργεῖν ἡμᾶς κατὰ νοῦν πρὸς τὰ θνητὰ συναπτομένους ἄνευ τῆς τοῦ νοῦ ἐπιβλέψεως, ‹ὥς› τινες ἀπεφαίνοντο; [νοῦς γὰρ ὁρᾷ καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει.] εἰ δ’ ἐσθίων πολυτελῆ καὶ πίνων οἶνον τὸν ἥδιστον οἷός τε εἶ πρὸς τοῖς ἀύλοις εἶναι, διὰ τί οὐχὶ καὶ παλλακίσι συνὼν καὶ δρῶν ἃ μηδὲ λέγειν καλόν; πανταχοῦ γὰρ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν παιδὸς ἦν ταῦτα τὰ πάθη, καὶ ὅσῳ αἰσχρά, οὐ πρὸς αὐτὰ φήσεις κατασπᾶσθαι. τίς γὰρ ἡ διακλήρωσις τούτου τὰ μὲν μὴ οἷόν τε εἶναι πάσχειν μὴ ὄντα πρὸς αὐτοῖς, τὰ δὲ ἕτερα συγχωρεῖν ἀποτελεῖν πρὸς τοῖς νοητοῖς ὄντα; οὐ γὰρ ὅτι τὰ μὲν ὑπείληπται εἶναι αἰσχρὰ παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς, τὰ δὲ οὔ· αἰσχρὰ γὰρ πάντα ὡς πρός γε τὴν κατὰ νοῦν ζωήν, καὶ πάντων ἀφεκτέον [καθάπερ τῶν ἀφροδισίων. ὀλίγον δὲ τῇ φύσει τροφῶν συγχωρητέον διὰ τὴν τῆς γενέσεως ἀνάγκην]. ὅπου γὰρ αἴσθησις καὶ ταύτης ἀντίληψις, ἐκεῖ τοῦ νοητοῦ ἡ ἀπόστασις· καὶ ὅσῳ τῆς ἀλογίας ἀνακίνησις, τόσῳ τοῦ νοεῖν ἀπόστασις. οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται τῇδε κἀκεῖσε φερόμενον, ἐνταῦθα ὄντα, εἶναι ἐκεῖ· οὐ γὰρ μέρει ἡμῶν, ἀλλ’ [42] ὅλοι τὰς προσοχὰς ποιούμεθα. τὸ δὲ οἴεσθαι κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν παθαινόμενον πρὸς τοῖς νοητοῖς ἐνεργεῖν πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων ἐξετραχήλισεν, οἳ ἐπὶ πᾶν εἶδος ἡδονῆς προῆλθον ἐκ [ 469 ]

καταφρονήσεως, λέγοντες καὶ τῶν δύνασθαι πρὸς ἄλλοις ὄντα, τῇ ἀλογίᾳ χρῆσθαι τούτοις ἐπιτρέπειν. ἤδη γάρ τινων ἀκήκοα τῇ σφῶν δυστυχίᾳ συναγορευόντων τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. οὐ γὰρ ἡμᾶς μολύνει, φασί, τὰ βρώματα, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὴν θάλατταν τὰ ῥυπαρὰ τῶν ῥευμάτων· κυριεύομεν γὰρ βρωτῶν ἁπάντων, καθάπερ ἡ θάλασσα τῶν ὑγρῶν πάντων. εἰ δὲ ἡ θάλασσα κλείσειε τὸ ἑαυτῆς στόμα ὥστε μὴ δέξασθαι τὰ ῥέοντα, ἐγένετο καθ’ ἑαυτὴν μὲν μεγάλη, κατὰ δὲ τὸν κόσμον μικρά, ὡς μὴ δυναμένη στέξαι τὰ ῥυπαρά· εὐλαβηθεῖσα δὲ μολυνθῆναι οὐκ ἂν δέξαιτο. ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο δὴ πάντα δέχεται, γιγνώσκουσα τὸ ἑαυτῆς μέγεθος, καὶ οὐκ ἀποστρέφεται τὰ εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἐρχόμενα. καὶ ἡμεῖς οὖν, φασίν, ἐὰν εὐλαβηθῶμεν βρῶσιν, ἐδουλώθημεν τῷ τοῦ φόβου παθήματι. δεῖ δὲ πάνθ’ ἡμῖν ὑποτετάχθαι. ὕδωρ μὲν γὰρ ὀλίγον συνακτὸν ἐάν τι δέξηται ῥυπαρόν, εὐθέως μιαίνεται καὶ θολοῦται ὑπὸ τῆς ῥυπαρίας· βυθὸς δὲ οὐ μιαίνεται. οὕτω δὴ καὶ βρώσεις τῶν ὀλίγων περιγίγνονται· ὅπου δὲ βυθὸς ἐξουσίας, πάντα δέχονται καὶ ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς μιαίνονται. τοιούτοις δ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἀπατῶντες ἀκόλουθα μὲν οἷς ἠπάτηντο ἔδρων, ἀντὶ δ’ ἐλευθερίας εἰς τὸν τῆς κακοδαιμονίας βυθὸν αὑτοὺς φέροντες ἔπνιξαν. τοῦτο καὶ τῶν κυνικῶν τινὰς παντορέκτας ἐποίησεν, προσπλακέντας τῷ αἰτίῳ τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων αὐτοῖς, ὃ δὴ καλεῖν εἰώθασιν ἀδιάφορον. [43] ἀνὴρ δὲ εὐλαβὴς καὶ ὕποπτος πρὸς τὰ γοητεύματα τῆς φύσεως, τήν τε τοῦ σώματος φύσιν κατασκεψάμενος [καὶ] ὡς ἥρμοσται ὀργάνου δίκην πρὸς τὰς δυνάμεις τῆς ψυχῆς [γνούς], οἶδεν ὡς ἕτοιμον φθέγξασθαι τὸ πάθος, ἄν τε βουλώμεθα ἄν τε μή, κρουσθέντος τοῦ σώματος ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν καὶ τοῦ κρούσματος εἰς ἀντίληψιν ἀφικομένου. ἡ γὰρ ἀντίληψις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα ἡ φθέγξις, φθέγξασθαι δ’ οὐκ ἔστι τὴν ψυχὴν μὴ ὅλην πρὸς τὸ φθέγμα ἐπιστραφεῖσαν καὶ τὸ ἐπιστατικὸν ὄμμα πρὸς τοῦτο μεταθεῖσαν. ὅλως δὲ τῆς ἀλογίας τὸ ἄχρι τίνος καὶ πῶς καὶ πόθεν καὶ πρὸς οὓς ἐπικρίνειν οὐκ ἐχούσης, καθ’ ἑαυτὴν δὲ ἀνεπισκέπτου ὑπαρχούσης, ᾗ ἂν ἐπιβρίσῃ, ἵπποις ἐοικυίας ἄνευ ἡνιόχου, ἀμήχανόν ἐστιν ἢ διοικεῖν τι καθηκόντως πρὸς τὰ ἔξω ἢ τροφῆς καιρὸν καὶ μέτρα γιγνώσκειν, μὴ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἡνιόχου ἐφεστῶτος ὄμματος, ὃς τὰ κινήματα ῥυθμίζει καὶ ἡνιοχεῖ τῆς τυφλῆς καθ’ ἑαυτὴν ἀλογίας. ὁ δὲ τὴν ἐπίστασιν τοῦ λογισμοῦ ἀφαιρῶν τῆς ἀλογίας, ἐπιτρέπων δὲ αὐτῇ φέρεσθαι κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν, οἷος ἂν εἴη τῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ συγχωρήσας εἰς ὅσον βούλεται προχωρεῖν τῆς οἰκείας κινήσεως, καὶ τῷ θυμῷ ὡσαύτως. καλὸν γοῦν ἡμῖν τὸ σπουδαῖον ποιήσει καὶ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ λελογισμένα ἀκάθεκτον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐφεστῶτος λογισμοῦ ποιῶν ἐν [44] ταῖς τοῦ ἀλόγου ἐνεργείαις. καίτοι ταύτῃ διενηνοχέναι φαίνεται ὁ σπουδαῖος τοῦ φαύλου, ὅτι ὃ μὲν πανταχοῦ τὸν λογισμὸν ἔχει παρεστῶτα καὶ κρατοῦντα καὶ ἡνιοχοῦντα τὸ ἄλογον, ὃ δὲ πολλὰ πράττει παριεὶς τῷ λογισμῷ καὶ σὺν τούτῳ πράττειν ἃ πράττει. διὸ καὶ ὃ μὲν ἀλόγιστος λέγεται καὶ φερόμενος ὑπὸ τῆς ἀλογίας, ὃ δὲ λελογισμένος καὶ ἐγκρατὴς παντὸς ἀλογίστου· καὶ τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν ἄρα τοῦτο τοῖς πολλοῖς καὶ ἐν λόγῳ καὶ ἐν πράξει καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ταῖς ὀργαῖς γίνεται, ἔμπαλιν δὲ κατορθοῦν τοῖς σπουδαίοις, ὅτι οἳ μὲν ἐφῆκαν τῷ παιδὶ δρᾶν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἃ βούλεται, οἳ δὲ τῷ παιδαγωγῷ, καὶ μετὰ τούτου τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς κυβερνῶσιν. ὥστε καὶ ἐν βρωτοῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ταῖς διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἐνεργείαις ἢ ἀπολαύσεσιν παρὼν μὲν ὁ [ 470 ]

ἡνίοχος ἀφορίζει τὸ σύμμετρον καὶ τὸ εὔκαιρον, ἀπὼν δὲ καὶ ὡς φασίν τινες πρὸς τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ὤν, εἰ μὲν καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν πρόσεξιν ἔχει παρ’ ἑαυτῷ, οὐδ’ ἐπιτρέπει τῇ ἀλογίᾳ παθαίνεσθαι οὐδ’ ὅλως τι ἐνεργεῖν· εἰ δ’ ἀφῆκε ταύτην πρὸς τῷ παιδὶ εἶναι ἄνευ αὑτοῦ, ἀπώλεσε τὸν ἄνθρωπον [45] συρόμενον ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνοίας τοῦ ἀλόγου. ὅθεν τοῖς σπουδαίοις ἡ ἀποχὴ μᾶλλον οἰκειοτέρα καὶ βρωτῶν καὶ τῶν διὰ σώματος ἀπολαύσεων καὶ πράξεων τῆς ἐφάψεως, τῷ δεῖν ἐφαπτόμενον τῶν σωματικῶν καταβαίνειν ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκείων ἠθῶν εἰς παιδαγωγίαν τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν ἀλογίστου· ἐν δὲ ταῖς τροφαῖς καὶ μᾶλλον· οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπιλογιστικὸν τὸ ἄλογον· φύσει γὰρ ἀνεπίγνωμον τοῦ ἀπόντος τὸ ἄλογον. τῶν δὲ τροφῶν εἰ μὲν ἦν ἀπηλλάχθαι ὥσπερ τῶν ὁρατῶν ἀρθέντων (ἔξεστι γὰρ πρὸς ἄλλοις εἶναι κοιμίσαντα τὰς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν φαντασίας), μέτριον ἂν ἦν, τῇ ἀνάγκῃ εἴξαντα τῆς θνητῆς φύσεως ἐπ’ ὀλίγον, εὐθὺς ἀπηλλάχθαι. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ παρολκῆς χρόνου χρεία καὶ πέψεως καὶ ἀναδόσεως καὶ τῆς πρὸς τούτοις συνεργείας τῆς ἐξ ὕπνου τε καὶ ἡσυχίας τῆς τε ἄλλης ἀργίας καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τῆς ἐκ τῆς ἀναδόσεως ποιᾶς κράσεως περιττωμάτων τε διαχωρήσεως, ἀνάγκη τὸν παιδαγωγὸν παρεῖναι, ὃς τὰ κοῦφα καὶ ἀνεμπόδιστα ἑαυτῷ ἐκλεξάμενος, ταῦτ’ ἐπιτρέψει τῇ φύσει, τὸ μέλλον προορώμενος καὶ ὅσον τὸ ἐμπόδιον, συγχωρήσαντος ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις φορτίον οὐκ εὐάγκαλον ἐπεισάγειν ἡμῖν δι’ ὀλίγην ἡδονήν, ἧς ἐν τῷ καταδέχεσθαι αὐτὰ [46] εἰς τὴν κατάποσιν ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα. οὐκ ἀπεικότως ἄρα τὸ πολὺ καὶ περιττὸν ὁ λόγος ἀποκρίνας εἰς ὀλίγον περιγράφει τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, εἰ μέλλει μήτε πορίζων ἕξειν πράγματα διὰ τὸ δεῖσθαι πλειόνων, μήτε εὐτρεπῆ ποιῶν πλειόνων τῶν ὑπηρετησομένων δεήσεσθαι, μήτε ἐσθίων πλειόνων ἡδονῶν ἀντιλήψεσθαι, μήτε πληρούμενος πολλῆς ἀργίας ἐμπλήσεσθαι, μήτε παχυτέρου φορτίου ἐμπιπλάμενος ὑπνώδης γίγνεσθαι, μήτε τῶν πιαινόντων τὸ σῶμα πληρούμενος ἰσχυρότερον μὲν τὸν δεσμόν, αὑτὸν δὲ ἀργότερον πρὸς τὰ οἰκεῖα ποιήσειν καὶ ἀσθενέστερον. δειξάτω τοίνυν ἡμῖν τις ἀνήρ, σπεύδων ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ζῆν κατὰ νοῦν καὶ ἀπερίσπαστος ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὸ σῶμα παθῶν εἶναι, ὡς εὐπορωτέρα μὲν ἡ κρεοφαγία τῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροδρύων καὶ ἐκ λαχάνων ὄψων, εὐτελεστέρα δὲ ἡ τούτων παρασκευὴ τῆς τῶν ἀψύχων καὶ μαγείρων ὅλως μὴ δεομένης, [ἀνήδονος δὲ καθ’ ἑαυτὴν παραβαλλομένη πρὸς τὴν ἄψυχον,] κουφοτέρα δὲ ἐν ταῖς πέψεσιν τῆς ἑτέρας, κἀν ταῖς ἀναδόσεσιν ταῖς εἰς τὸ σῶμα ταχυτέρα τῆς ἐκ λαχάνων ἀναδόσεως, πρός τε τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἧττον ἐρεθίζουσα καὶ εἰς πάχος καὶ ῥώμην σώματος ἔλαττον [47] συμβαλλομένη τῆς ἀψύχου διαίτης. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο οὔτε ἰατρῶν τις οὔτε φιλοσόφων, οὐ γυμναστής, οὐκ ἰδιώτης εἰπεῖν ἐτόλμησεν, τί οὐκ ἀφιστάμεθα ἑκόντες τοῦ σωματικοῦ φορτίου; τί οὐκ ἐλευθεροῦμεν αὑτοὺς ἅμα τῇ ἀποστάσει ἐκ πολλῶν; οὐ γὰρ ἑνὸς ἦν, ἀλλὰ μυρίων, τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις ἐθίσαντα αὑτὸν ἀρκεῖσθαι, ἀπηλλάχθαι, χρημάτων περιουσίας, οἰκετῶν πλειόνων ὑπηρεσίας, σκευῶν πλήθους, ὑπνώδους καταστάσεως, νόσων σφοδρότητος καὶ πλήθους, ἰατρῶν δεήσεως, ἐρεθισμῶν πρὸς ἀφροδίσια, ἀναθυμιάσεων παχυτέρων, περιττωμάτων πλήθους, παχύτητος τοῦ δεσμοῦ, ῥώμης πρὸς πράξεις ἐγειρούσης, Ἰλιάδος κακῶν· ὧν ἡ ἄψυχος καὶ λιτὴ τροφὴ καὶ πᾶσιν εὐπόριστος ἀφαιρεῖται ἡμᾶς, εἰρήνην παρασκευάζουσα τῷ τὰ σωτήρια ἡμῖν ἐκπορίζοντι λογισμῷ. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν μαζοφάγων, φησὶν ὁ Διογένης, οἱ κλέπται καὶ οἱ πολέμιοι, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν κρεοφάγων οἱ [ 471 ]

συκοφάνται καὶ τύραννοι. τῆς δὲ τοῦ πολλῶν δεῖσθαι ἀρθείσης αἰτίας καὶ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν εἰσαγομένων εἰς τὸ σῶμα περιαιρεθέντος τοῦ τε βάρους τῶν ἀναδιδομένων κουφισθέντος, ἐλεύθερον τὸ ὄμμα καπνοῦ τε καὶ κύματος τοῦ σωματικοῦ [48] ἐκτὸς καθωρμισμένον γίγνεται. καὶ τοῦτο οὔτε ὑπομνήσεως οὔτε ἀποδείξεως διὰ τὴν αὐτόθεν προσοῦσαν ἐνάργειαν χρῄζει. ὅθεν οὐ μόνον οἱ κατὰ νοῦν ζῆν ἐσπουδακότες καὶ τέλος τὸν κατ’ αὐτὸν βίον ἐνστησάμενοι ἀναγκαίαν πρὸς τὸ τέλος ὁρῶσι τὴν τούτων ἀποχήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶς σχεδὸν οἶμαι φιλόσοφος τὴν εὐτέλειαν πρὸ τῆς πολυτελείας ἐγκρίνων ἀποδέξαιτ’ ἂν μᾶλλον τὸν ὀλίγοις ἀρκούμενον τοῦ πλειόνων δεομένου. καὶ ὃ παράδοξον τοῖς πολλοῖς δόξειεν ‹ἂν› εἶναι, τοῦτο λέγοντας καὶ ἐκτιμῶντας εὑρίσκομεν [λέγω δὲ] τοὺς ἡδονὴν οἰομένους τὸ τέλος τῶν φιλοσοφησάντων. τῶν γὰρ Ἐπικουρείων οἱ πλείους ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ κορυφαίου ἀρξάμενοι μάζῃ καὶ τοῖς ἀκροδρύοις ἀρκούμενοι φαίνονται, τά τε συγγράμματα ἐμπεπλήκασι τὸ ὀλιγοδεὲς τῆς φύσεως ἀφηγούμενοι καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῶν λιτῶν καὶ εὐπορίστων ἱκανῶς αὐτῆς τὸ ἀναγκαῖον [49] ἰώμενον παριστάντες. ὥρισται γάρ, φησίν, ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ἔστιν εὐπόριστος, ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν ἀόριστός τε ἦν καὶ δυσπόριστος. τὸ γὰρ κατ’ ἔνδειαν ἐνοχλοῦν τὴν σάρκα ἐξαιρεῖται καλῶς καὶ αὐτάρκως τὰ εὐπόριστα, ἁπλῆν ἔχοντα φύσιν ὑγρῶν τε καὶ ξηρῶν· τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ὅσον εἰς πολυτέλειαν πέπτωκεν, οὐκ ἀναγκαίαν ἔχειν φασὶ τὴν ὄρεξιν οὐδ’ ἀπ’ ἀλγοῦντός τινος ἀναγκαίως γιγνομένην, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἢ λυποῦντος ἢ νύττοντος μόνον ἐν τῷ μὴ παρεῖναι, τὴν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ χαίροντος, τὴν δὲ ὅλως ἀπὸ τῶν κενῶν καὶ διεψευσμένων δογμάτων, ἣ εἰς οὐδὲν φυσικὸν ἀνάγεται ἔλλειμμα οὐδ’ εἰς τὸ διαλύον τὴν σύστασιν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι. ἱκανὰ γὰρ καὶ τὰ τυχόντα διακρατῆσαι ταῦτα ἦν, ὧν ἀναγκαίως δεῖται ἡ φύσις. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν λιτότητα καὶ διὰ τὸν ὀλιγότητά ἐστιν εὐπόριστα· καὶ τῷ μὲν κρεοφαγίας ἁπτομένῳ χρεία καὶ τῶν ἀψύχων, τῷ δὲ ἀρκουμένῳ τοῖς ἀψύχοις ἐξ ἡμισείας καὶ τοῦτο εὐπόριστον καὶ ὀλίγων δεόμενον ἀναλωμάτων τὸ τῆς [50] παρασκευῆς. δεῖ δέ, φασίν, οὐχ ἑτοιμασάμενον τὰ ἀναγκαῖα προσθήκῃ τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ χρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ παρασκευασάμενον τὸ θαρρεῖν τῇ ψυχῇ γνησίως, οὕτως ἀντέχεσθαι τῶν καθ’ ἡμέραν. κακῷ γὰρ φροντιστῇ τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιτρέψομεν, ἄνευ φιλοσοφίας τὸ ἀναγκαῖον συμμετρούμενοι τῆς φύσεως καὶ παρασκευάζοντες. διὸ φιλοσοφοῦντα δεῖ καὶ τούτων προνοεῖν καὶ ἐφ’ ὅσον ἂν ἡ παρ’ ἐκείνοις ἔντονος ἐπιμέλεια παραδιδῷ. ἐφ’ ὅσον δὲ ἐκεῖθέν τι ἀφαιρεῖται, ὃ μὴ κυριεύσει τῆς τελείας ἐκθαρρήσεως, μὴ προσίεσθαι πρὸς τὴν χρημάτων τε καὶ τροφῶν παρασκευήν. σὺν φιλοσοφίᾳ τοίνυν ἁπτέον τούτων, καὶ εὐθὺς προσπεσεῖται ὅτι πολλῷ κρεῖττον τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς μεταδιώκειν ἐλάχιστόν τε καὶ λιτὸν καὶ κοῦφον· ἐλάχιστον γὰρ [51] καὶ τὸ ὀχληρὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἐλαχίστου. ὧν δ’ ἂν συνεφελκύσηται ἡ παρασκευὴ ἐμπόδια ἐκ τῆς τοῦ σώματος βαρύτητος ἢ ἐκ τῆς τῶν παρασκευαζομένων πραγματείας ἢ ἐκ τοῦ κωλύειν τὴν περὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων λογισμῶν ἐνέργειαν εἶναι συνεχῆ ἢ ἔκ τινος ἄλλης αἰτίας, εὐθὺς ἀλυσιτελὴς γίνεται καὶ οὐκ ἀντάλλακτος πρὸς τὰς συνακολουθούσας ὀχλήσεις. δεῖ μέντοι τῷ φιλοσόφῳ καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα τοῦ μηδὲν ὑπολείψειν παρεῖναι διὰ βίου· ταύτην δὲ τὰ μὲν εὐπόριστα ἱκανῶς διασῴζει, τὰ δὲ πολυτελῆ ποιεῖ δυσέλπιστον. οἱ γοῦν πολλοὶ διὰ τοῦτο, καίπερ πολλὰ κεκτημένοι, ὡς ὑπολειψόντων [ 472 ]

ἀνήνυτα μοχθοῦσιν. ἀρκεῖσθαι δὲ τοῖς εὐπορίστοις καὶ λιτοτάτοις ποιεῖ τὸ μνημονεύειν ὅτι πρὸς μὲν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀξιόλογον ταραχῆς λύσιν οὐθὲν ἰσχύειν πέφυκεν οὐδ’ ὁ πᾶς πλοῦτος συναχθείς, τὸ δὲ τῆς σαρκὸς ὀχληρὸν ἐξαιρεῖ καὶ τὰ πάνυ μέτρια καὶ τυχόντα πᾶσάν τε εὐποριστίαν κεκτημένα, ὑπολείποντά τε καὶ τὰ τοσαῦτα οὐ ταράττει τὸν ἀποθνῄσκειν μελετῶντα. ἔτι καὶ τὸ ἀλγεινὸν τὸ δι’ ἐνδείας πολλῆς ἠπιότητος ἢ τὸ διὰ πληρώσεως μετέχει, ἐὰν μή τις ταῖς κεναῖς δόξαις ἑαυτὸν ἀπατᾷ· ἥ τε ποικιλία τῶν τροφῶν οὐχ ὅπως τὰς ταραχὰς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκλύει, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὴν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἡδονὴν συνεπαύξει. πέρας γὰρ ἔχει καὶ αὕτη ἅμα τῇ τῆς ἀλγηδόνος ὑπεξαιρέσει. ὡς τό γε τῆς σαρκοφαγίας οὔτ’ ἔλυέν τι ὀχληρὸν τῆς φύσεως οὔθ’ ὃ μὴ συντελούμενον ἐπ’ ἀλγηδόνα ἠνύετο· τὴν δὲ χάριν βιαίαν εἶχεν καὶ ταχὺ τῷ ἐναντίῳ μιγνυμένην. οὐ γὰρ πρὸς ζωῆς συμμονήν, πρὸς δὲ ποικιλίαν ἡδονῶν συνεβάλλετο, ἐοικὸς ἀφροδισίοις ἢ ξενικῶν οἴνων πόσεσιν, ὧν καὶ χωρὶς διαμένειν δύναται ἡ φύσις. ὧν δὲ χωρὶς οὐκ ἂν ὑπομείνειεν, βραχέα παντάπασίν ἐστι καὶ δυνάμενα ῥᾳδίως καὶ μετὰ δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἐλευθερίας ἡσυχίας τε καὶ [52] πολλῆς ῥᾳστώνης πορίζεσθαι. ἔτι δὲ οὐδὲ πρὸς ὑγείαν τὰ κρέα συντελεῖ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τῇ ὑγείᾳ ἐμποδίζει. δι’ ὧν γὰρ ὑγεία ἀνακτᾶται, διὰ τούτων καὶ διαμένει· ἀνακτᾶται δὲ διὰ τῆς λιτοτάτης καὶ ἀσάρκου διαίτης, ὥστε καὶ ταύτῃ ἂν συμμείνειεν. εἰ δὲ μὴ πρὸς τὴν Μίλωνος ῥώμην τὰ ἄψυχα συμβάλλεται μηδὲ ὅλως πρὸς ἐπίτασιν ἰσχύος, οὐδὲ γὰρ ῥώμης οὐδὲ ἐπιτάσεως ἰσχύος χρεία τῷ φιλοσόφῳ, εἰ μέλλοι θεωρίᾳ καὶ μὴ πράξεσι καὶ ἀκολασίαις προσέχειν. οὐδὲν δὲ θαυμαστὸν τοὺς πολλοὺς οἴεσθαι εἰς ὑγίειαν συντελεῖν τὴν κρεοφαγίαν· τῶν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἦν καὶ τὰς ἀπολαύσεις οἴεσθαι ὑγείας εἶναι τηρητικὰς καὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια, ἃ ὤνησε μὲν οὐδένα τινά, ἀγαπητὸν δὲ εἰ μὴ ἔβλαψεν. εἰ δ’ οἱ πολλοὶ μὴ τοιοῦτοι, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· οὐδὲ γὰρ φιλίας καὶ εὐνοίας πιστόν τι καὶ διαμόνιμον ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς· οὐδὲ δεκτικοὶ τούτων οὐδὲ σοφίας οὐδὲ τῶν ἀξιόλογόν τι ἐχόντων σοφίας μορίων, οὐδὲ τοῦ συμφέροντος οὔτε τοῦ ἰδίου οὔτε τοῦ κοινοῦ συνετὸς ὁ πολύς, οὐδὲ ἐθῶν φαύλων καὶ ἀστείων κρίσιν ποιεῖσθαι δυνάμενος. πρός τε τούτοις· πολὺ τὸ ἀσελγὲς καὶ ἀκρασίας γέμον ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς. διὸ οὐδὲ φοβητέον [53] μή ποτε οὐκ ὦσιν οἱ βρωσόμενοι τὰ ζῷα. πάντων μὲν γὰρ φρονησάντων τὰ ἄριστα οὐδεμία χρεία ὀρνιθευτικῆς, ἰξευτῶν, ἁλιέων, συβωτῶν. αὐτὰ δὲ αὑτὰ διοικοῦντα τὰ ζῷα καὶ μὴ ἔχοντα τὸν ἐπιμελόμενον καὶ ἐφεστῶτα ταχέως φθείρεται καὶ δαπανᾶται πρὸς τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἀναλισκόντων, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ μυρίων ὧν οὐ γεύονται ἄνθρωποι ζῴων συμβέβηκεν· μενούσης δὲ τῆς κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ποικίλης καὶ παντοίας ἀφροσύνης ἔσονται μύριοι καὶ οἱ ταῦτα λαιμαργήσοντες. τηρεῖν τε χρὴ τὴν ὑγείαν οὐ φόβῳ θανάτου, ἀλλ’ ἕνεκα τοῦ μὴ ἐμποδίζεσθαι πρὸς τὰ ἀγαθὰ τὰ ἐκ τῆς θεωρίας. διατηρητικὸν δὲ αὐτῆς μάλιστα μὲν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀτάραχος κατάστασις καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸ ὄντως ὂν διάθεσις τῆς διανοίας. πολὺ γὰρ τὸ ἄχρι σώματος ἐντεῦθεν ἀφικνούμενον, ὡς πείρᾳ διέδειξαν ἡμῶν ἑταῖροι, καὶ ἀρθρῖτιν νόσον περί τε πόδας καὶ χεῖρας τοσαύτην οὖσαν, ὡς ὅλων ὀκτὼ ἐτῶν φέρεσθαι βασταζομένους, ἀποκροῦσαι ἅμα τῇ ἐκστάσει τῶν χρημάτων καὶ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἐπιβλέψει· συναπέθεντο γοῦν ἅμα τοῖς χρήμασι καὶ ταῖς φροντίσιν καὶ τὴν νόσον τοῦ σώματος, ὥστε πολὺ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἐκ τῆς ποιᾶς ψυχῆς καταστάσεως εἰς τὸ σῶμα κάτεισιν. συμβάλλεται [ 473 ]

δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον καὶ ἡ τῆς τροφῆς ἐλάττωσις. καθόλου δὲ ὀρθῶς ὁ Ἐπίκουρος ἔφασκεν εὐλαβητέον εἶναι τροφήν, ἣν ἀποῦσαν μὲν ποθοῦμεν καὶ διώκομεν, συντελεσθεῖσαν δ’ ἐν ἀχαρίστῳ τίθεμεν. τοιαύτη δὲ πᾶσα ἡ δαψιλὴς καὶ παχεῖα. καὶ τοῦτο πάσχουσιν οἱ περὶ ταύτην ἐπτοημένοι, ἢ ἀναλώμασιν ἢ νόσοις ἢ πλησμονῇ [54] ἢ ἀσχολίαις περιπίπτοντες. διὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λιτῶν φυλακτέον τὸ πλήσμιον, καὶ πανταχοῦ σκεπτέον τί διὰ τῆς ἀπολαύσεως ἢ κτήσεως γίγνεται καὶ πηλίκον ἔχει μέγεθος καὶ τίνος ὀχληροῦ λυτικὸν σαρκὸς ἢ ψυχῆς, μὴ διὰ ‹κενὴν› χάριν ἡ περὶ ἑκάστου …. ἔντασις γίγνεται, ὥσπερ ὁτω…. βίος κεκύηται. ἀοριστεῖν γὰρ οὐδαμοῦ δεῖ, ἀλλ’ ἔχεσθαι ὅρου καὶ μέτρου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις, καὶ λογίζεσθαι ὡς ὁ φοβούμενος ἐμψύχων ἀποχήν, εἴπερ δι’ ἡδονὴν ἅπτεται κρεοφαγίας, τὸν θάνατον φοβεῖται. εὐθὺς γὰρ τῇ στερήσει τῶν βρωτῶν συνάπτει ἀορίστου τινὸς δεινοῦ παρουσίαν, ἐξ ἧς ὁ θάνατος. παρὰ δὲ τὰς τοιαύτας καὶ τὰς ὁμογενεῖς αἰτίας καὶ ἡ τοῦ ζῆν ἄπληστος ὄρεξις γίγνεται καὶ πλούτων καὶ χρημάτων καὶ δόξης τοῦ συναυξήσειν τε νομίζειν τὸ πᾶν ἀγαθὸν σὺν αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦ πλείονος χρόνου καὶ τὸ κατὰ τὸν θάνατον δεινὸν ὡς ἀπέραντον φοβεῖσθαι. ἡδονὴ δὲ ἡ διὰ πολυτελείας οὐδὲ ἐγγὺς τείνει τῆς δι’ αὐταρκείας τῷ πεπειραμένῳ γιγνομένης· πολὺ γὰρ τὸ ἡδὺ ἐν τῷ κατανοεῖν ὅσων αὐτὸς χρείαν ἔχει. ἀρθείσης γὰρ πολυτελείας, ἀρθείσης ‹δὲ› τῆς περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια πτοίας, τῆς ἔξω φιλοτιμίας, τίς λοιπὸν χρεία πλούτου ἀργοῦ, εἰς μηδὲν ἡμῖν χρησιμεύσοντος, ἀλλὰ μόνον βαρήσοντος; ὡς τὸ πεπληρῶσθαι γίγνεται καὶ ἡ ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου κόρου ἡδονὴ ἀκραιφνής. δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἀπεθίζειν ὡς οἷόν τε τῆς τοῦ κόρου ἡδονῆς, οὐ τῆς κατὰ τὴν πεῖναν πλησμονῆς, καὶ γεύεσθαι, ἵνα …. διὰ πάντων διέλθῃ, καὶ ὅρον θεῖναι τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, μὴ τὸ ἀόριστον. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τούτῳ εἰληφέναι τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον ἀγαθὸν ἐνέσται διὰ τῆς αὐταρκείας καὶ ὁμοιώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ· οὕτως οὐδ’ αὐτὸ ἐπὶ πλέον ποθήσει οὐδὲ τὸν χρόνον ὡς προσθήσοντα αὐτῷ μεῖζον ἀγαθόν· οὕτως δ’ αὖ ἀληθινῶς πλουτήσει τῷ φυσικῷ ὅρῳ τὸν πλοῦτον μετρῶν, οὐ δόξαις κεναῖς· οὕτως οὐκ ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι κρεμήσεται μεγίστης ἡδονῆς πίστιν οὐκ ἐχούσῃ τοῦ γενέσθαι· θορυβωδεστάτη γὰρ αὕτη· ἀλλ’ ἐν αὐταρκείᾳ τοῦ παρόντος καὶ γεγονότος ἤδη μενεῖ, οὐδὲ ἀγωνιάσει [55] μὴ τὸν πλείονα χρόνον παραμένειν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πῶς οὐκ ἄτοπον πρὸς Διός, τὸν μὲν κακοπαθοῦντα ἢ ἐν περιστάσει ὄντα ἰσχυρᾷ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἢ ἐν δεσμοῖς εἰλημμένον οὐδ’ ἔννοιαν ἔχειν τροφῆς, οὐδὲ πόθεν πορισθήσεται φροντίζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ [παρατιθεμένης] παραιτεῖσθαι τὴν ἀναγκαίαν· τὸν δὲ ὄντως δεσμώτην κατατεινόμενον ταῖς ἔνδον κακοπαθείαις ζητεῖν ἐδεσμάτων παρασκευήν, ποικιλίας φροντίζειν, δι’ ὧν τὸν δεσμὸν παχυνεῖ; καὶ πῶς ταῦτα ἀνδρῶν ἦν ἐγνωκότων ἃ πεπόνθασιν, οὐχὶ φιληδούντων οἷς πεπόνθασιν καὶ ἐν οἷς εἰσὶν οὐκ εἰδότων; οἷς ἀντίστροφον τὸ πάθος ἢ τοῖς εἰδόσι δεσμώταις τὴν ἑαυτῶν συμφορὰν γίγνεται. τῷ γὰρ ὑπάρχοντι βίῳ ἀχαριστοῦντες καὶ ταραχῆς ἀπλάτου γέμοντες, τοῦ ἀπόντος εἰς πλήρωσιν ἐφίενται. οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ πάντα αὐτῷ εὔλυτα εἶναι τὰ κατὰ τοὺς θορύβους ἔρχεται ἐπὶ τραπεζῶν καὶ κλινῶν ἀργυρῶν ὀρέξεις καὶ μύρων καὶ μαγείρων καὶ σκευῶν καὶ ἐσθήτων καὶ δείπνων ἐπὶ πᾶν πλῆθος καὶ ποικιλίας καὶ πολυτελείας ἀνθρώπων ἡκόντων, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ ἀχρηστίας παντὶ τῷ ὑπάρχοντι βίῳ καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἀορίστου γενέσεως καὶ ταραχῆς ἀπλάτου. ὥσθ’ οἳ μὲν οὐ μέμνηνται τῷ τὸ παρὸν ἀποκρούειν, οἳ δὲ τὸ μὴ παρὸν ζητοῦσι [ 474 ]

τῷ [56] ἀχαριστεῖν τῷ παρόντι. ἑκατέρως δὲ ὁ θεωρητικὸς τοῦ λιτοῦ τῆς διαίτης ἀνθέξεται· καὶ γὰρ οἶδεν ἐν οἷς ἐστιν δεσμοῖς· ὥστε πολυτελείας ὀρέγεσθαι οὐ δύναται, καὶ τὸ λιτὸν ἀγαπῶν οὐ ζητήσει ἐμψύχων βρώσεις ὡς οὐκ ἀρκούμενος τῇ τῶν ἀψύχων. εἰ δὲ καὶ μὴ τοιαύτη ἦν ἡ τοῦ σώματος φύσις ἐπὶ τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ οὕτως εὐάγωγος καὶ διὰ τῶν τυχόντων εὐίατος, ἔδει δὲ καὶ ἀλγηδόνας ὑπομένειν ἕνεκα τῆς ἀληθινῆς σωτηρίας, ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ὑπεμείναμεν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ νοσήματος στέρεσθαι δεῖ ὅπου σπουδάζοντες πάνθ’ ὑπομένομεν, τεμνόμενοι, φοινισσόμενοι, καιόμενοι, πικρὰ φάρμακα πίνοντες, καθαιρόμενοι διὰ γαστρός, δι’ ἐμέτων, διὰ ῥινῶν, μισθούς τε προσαναλίσκοντες τοῖς ταῦθ’ ἡμᾶς διατιθεῖσιν, οὐχὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔνδον χάριν νοσήματος [ὡς ἂν τὸν ὑπὲρ ἀθανασίας ἀγῶνα ἀθλοῦντες καὶ θεοῦ συνουσίας, ὧν κωλυόμεθα διὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος συνουσίαν] πάνθ’ ὑπομενοῦμεν εὐλόγως, εἰ καὶ μετ’ ἀλγηδόνων ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ὑπομονὰς ἐχρῆν; [καὶ οὐ δήπου τοῖς νόμοις τοῦ σώματος ἕπεσθαι βιαίοις οὖσι καὶ ἀντικειμένοις τοῖς τοῦ νοῦ νόμοις καὶ ταῖς ὁδοῖς ταῖς σωτηρίοις ὑπομένομεν.] ὅπου δὲ νῦν οὐδὲ περὶ ἀλγηδόνων ὑπομονῆς φιλοσοφοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ περὶ ἡδονῶν οὐκ ἀναγκαίων ἀποβολῆς, τίς λοιπὸν ἀπολογία τοῖς ἀπαναισχυντεῖν [57] πρὸς τὴν αὑτῶν ἀκρασίαν βουλομένοις; εἰ γὰρ δεῖ μηδὲν ὑποστειλάμενον [μετὰ παρρησίας] εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλως τυχεῖν τοῦ τέλους ἢ προσηλωθέντα μέν, εἰ χρὴ φάναι, τῷ θεῷ, ἀφηλωθέντα δὲ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῶν διὰ τούτου τῆς ψυχῆς ἡδυπαθειῶν [δι’ ἔργων ἡμῖν τῆς σωτηρίας, οὐ δι’ ἀκροάσεως λόγων ψιλῆς γινομένης]. θεῷ δὲ οὐδὲ τῶν μερικῶν τινί, οὐχ ὅτι τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀσώματον φύσιν ἁπλῶς μεθ’ ὁποίας οὖν διαίτης καὶ ὅλως σαρκοφαγίας ἐνῆν οἰκειοῦσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἁγνείαις παντοίαις καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος μόλις καταξιοῦσθαι τῆς ἐκείνου ἐπαισθήσεως, φύντι τε καλῶς καὶ ζῶντι ὁσίως καὶ καθαρῶς. ὥσθ’ ὅσῳ ὁ πάντων πατὴρ ἀπαθέστερος καὶ καθαρώτερος καὶ αὐταρκέστατος, ἅτε πόρρω ὑλικῆς ἐμφάσεως ἱδρυμένος, τόσῳ τὸν προσιόντα αὐτῷ παντοίως καθαρόν τε καὶ ἁγνὸν εἶναι προσήκει, ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τελευτῶντα εἰς τὸ εἴσω, καθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν ἢ ὅλως τῶν προσόντων τὴν κατὰ φύσιν ἑκάστῳ ἁγνείαν ἀπονέμοντα. ἀλλ’ ἴσως πρὸς μὲν ταῦτα οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀντείποι, ἀπορήσειε δ’ ἂν πῶς ἐν ἁγνείᾳ τίθεμεν τὴν ἀποχήν, καίτοι ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις μηλοσφαγοῦντές τε καὶ βουθυτοῦντες ἁγνήν τε ταύτην νομίζοντες τὴν ἱερουργίαν καὶ θεοῖς κεχαρισμένην. διὸ μακροῦ δεομένων λόγου πρὸς τὴν τούτων διάλυσιν, ἀπ’ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς τὰ περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν διαληπτέον.

[ 475 ]

ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝ. [ 1 ] ΤῶΝ Π Ε Ρ Ὶ λιτότητος καὶ ἁγνείας ζητημάτων ἐχόμενοι εἰς τὸν περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν, ὦ Καστρίκιε, λόγον ἀφικόμεθα δυσδιαίτητόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ πολλῆς ἐξηγήσεως δεόμενον, εἰ μέλλοιμεν ἀληθῶς τε ἅμα καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς εὐαρέστως τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ κρίσιν διαθήσειν. διὸ εἰς ἴδιον σκέμμα τὸν τόπον ὑπερβαλλόμενοι, νῦν τὰ φαινόμενα ἡμῖν καὶ ὅσα δυνατὸν ἐξαγορεύειν ἐροῦμεν, τὸ παρορώμενον πρότερον εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν εὐθύναντες. [2] πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὐ φαμὲν εἶναι ἀκόλουθον τῷ ἀναιρεῖν τὰ ζῷα τὸ δεῖν ἐξ ἀνάγκης αὐτὰ καὶ ἐσθίειν, οὐδ’ ὁ τὸ ἕτερον διδούς, λέγω δὲ τὸ σφάττειν, τίθησι πάντως καὶ τὸ ἐσθίειν. αὐτίκα πολεμίους μὲν ἐπιόντας οἱ νόμοι ἀμύνεσθαι συνεχώρησαν, ἐσθίειν δ’ αὐτοὺς οὐκέτ’ εἶναι κατ’ ἄνθρωπον δέδοκται. δεύτερον οὐκ εἰ δαίμοσιν ἢ θεοῖς ἤ τισι δυνάμεσιν θῦσαί τι τῶν ἐμψύχων προσήκει διά τινας αἰτίας εἴτε γνωστὰς εἴτε καὶ ἀγνώστους ἀνθρώποις, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ θοινᾶσθαι ἐξ ἀνάγκης δεῖ τὰ ζῷα. δειχθήσεται γὰρ ἄνθρωπος παραλαμβανόμενος ἐν θύμασι καὶ ζῷα, ὧν οὐκ ἄν τις οὐδὲ τῶν εἰωθότων σαρκοφαγεῖν ἀνθρώπων ὑπομείνειεν ἂν γεύσασθαι. καὶ μὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ φονεύειν ζῷα τὸ αὐτὸ παρορᾶται πλημμέλημα. οὐ γὰρ εἴ τινα δεῖ, καὶ πάντα, ὡς οὐδ’ εἰ τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα, πάντως [3] καὶ ἀνθρώπους. ἥ τε ἀποχὴ τῶν ἐμψύχων, καθάπερ κἀν τῷ πρώτῳ ἐλέγομεν, οὐχ ἁπλῶς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παραγγέλλεται, ἀλλὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, καὶ τούτων μᾶλλον τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς τούτου μιμήσεως τὴν σφῶν εὐδαιμονίαν ἀνάψασιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν τῷ πόλεως βίῳ τὰ αὐτὰ οἱ νομοθέται τοῖς τε ἰδιώταις καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἀφωρίσαντο πρακτέα, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἐν οἷς συγχωρήσαντες τοῖς πολλοῖς τὰ κατὰ τὴν τροφὴν καὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον, τοὺς ἱερέας χρῆσθαι τοῖς αὐτοῖς διεκώλυσαν, θάνατον ἢ ζημίας μεγάλας θέντες [4] τὰ ἐπιτίμια. μὴ συγχεομένων ἄρα τούτων, ἀλλ’ ὃν προσήκει τρόπον διακρινομένων, τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων εὑρίσκεται μάταια. τὰ γὰρ πλεῖστα ἢ ὅτι φονεύειν δεῖ διὰ τὰς βλάβας τὰς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν μηνύσαντα καὶ τὸ ὅτι ἐσθίειν ὡς ἀκόλουθον λαμβάνει, ἢ ὅτι ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις καὶ ζῷα παρελήφθη, συλλογίζεται ὡς καὶ ἀνθρώποις ἄρα βρωτέον ταῦτα. καὶ πάλιν εἴ τινα διὰ τὸ ἄγριον ἀναιρετέον, ἀξιοῦσιν ὡς ἀκόλουθον τὸ δεῖν φονεύειν καὶ τὰ ἥμερα· καὶ εἴ τισι βρωτέον, οἷον ἀθληταῖς καὶ στρατιώταις καὶ τοῖς διὰ σώματος τὴν ἐργασίαν ποιουμένοις, ὅτι καὶ φιλοσόφοις· καὶ εἴ τισι τούτων, καὶ πᾶσι· πασῶν τῶν ἀκολουθιῶν τούτων μοχθηρῶν τε οὐσῶν καὶ οὐδεμίαν ἀνάγκην τῆς θέσεως παραστῆσαι δυναμένων. καὶ ὅτι μὲν πᾶσαι μοχθηραί, ἐναργῶς αὐτόθεν τοῖς μὴ ἐριστικοῖς προσπίπτει. ἡμεῖς μέντοι τὰς μὲν ἤδη εὐθύναντες, τὰς δὲ προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου ἐλέγξειν μέλλοντες, νῦν τὸ περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν σκέμμα διευκρινήσομεν, τάς τε ἀρχὰς ὅθεν γεγόνασιν ἀφηγούμενοι, καὶ τίνες καὶ ποῖαι ἦσαν αἱ πρῶται, πῶς τε μετέβαλλον καὶ πότε, καὶ εἰ πάντα θυτέον τῷ φιλοσόφῳ, τίσιν τε αἱ θυσίαι αἱ διὰ τῶν ζῴων γίγνονται· καὶ ὅλως πᾶν τὸ παρακείμενον, τὰ μὲν αὐτοὶ ἐφευρίσκοντες, τὰ δὲ παρὰ τῶν παλαιῶν λαμβάνοντες

[ 476 ]

ἀναγράψομεν, τοῦ συμμέτρου καὶ οἰκείου τῇ ὑποθέσει στοχαζόμενοι κατὰ δύναμιν. ἔχει δὲ οὕτως. [5] ἀνάριθμος μέν τις ἔοικεν εἶναι χρόνος, ἀφ’ οὗ τό γε πάντων λογιώτατον γένος, ὡς φησὶν Θεόφραστος, καὶ τὴν ἱερωτάτην ὑπὸ τοῦ Νείλου κτισθεῖσαν χώραν κατοικοῦν ἤρξατο πρῶτον ἀφ’ Ἑστίας τοῖς οὐρανίοις θεοῖς θύειν οὐ σμύρνης οὐδὲ κασίας καὶ λιβανωτοῦ κρόκῳ μιχθέντων ἀπαρχάς· πολλαῖς γὰρ γενεαῖς ὕστερον παρελήφθη ταῦτα, καὶ πλάνης καὶ μαστὴρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος γιγνόμενος τῆς ἀναγκαίας ζωῆς μετὰ πολλῶν πόνων καὶ δακρύων σταγόνας τούτων ἀπήρξατο τοῖς θεοῖς. οὐ τούτων οὖν ἔθυον πρότερον, ἀλλὰ χλόης, οἱονεί τινα τῆς γονίμου φύσεως χνοῦν ταῖς χερσὶν ἀράμενοι. δένδρα μὲν γὰρ δὴ πρὸ ζῴων ἀνέδωκεν ἡ γῆ, τῶν δένδρων δὲ πολὺ πρόσθεν τὴν ἐπέτειον γεννωμένην πόαν, ἧς δρεπόμενοι φύλλα καὶ ῥίζας καὶ τοὺς ὅλους τῆς φύσεως αὐτῶν βλαστοὺς κατέκαιον, ταύτῃ τοὺς φαινομένους οὐρανίους θεοὺς τῇ θυσίᾳ δεξιούμενοι καὶ τοῦ πυρὸς ἀπαθανατίζοντες αὐτοῖς τὰς τιμάς. τούτοις γὰρ καὶ τὸ πῦρ ἀθάνατον φυλάττομεν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ὡς ὂν μάλιστα αὐτοῖς ὁμοιότατον. ἐκ δὲ τῆς θυμιάσεως τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς θυμιατήριά τε ἐκάλουν καὶ τὸ θύειν καὶ θυσίας· ἃ δὴ ἡμεῖς ὡς τὴν ὑστέραν πλημμέλειαν ἐκβαίνοντα οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐξακούομεν, τὴν διὰ τῶν ζῴων δοκοῦσαν θεραπείαν καλοῦντες θυσίαν. τοσοῦτον δὲ τοῖς παλαιοῖς τοῦ μὴ παραβαίνειν τὸ ἔθος ἔμελεν, ὡς κατὰ τῶν ἐκλειπόντων τὸ ἀρχαῖον, ἐπεισαγόντων δὲ ἕτερον ἀρασομένους ἀρώματα τὰ θυμιώμενα νῦν προσαγορεῦσαι. τὴν δὲ ἀρχαιότητα τῶν εἰρημένων θυμιαμάτων κατίδοι τις ἂν ἐπιβλέψας ὅτι πολλοὶ καὶ νῦν ἔτι θύουσι συγκεκομμένα τῶν εὐωδῶν ξύλων τινά. ὅθεν μετὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς πόαν δενδροφυούσης ἤδη τῆς γῆς, πρώτης δρυὸς καρποφαγήσαντες, τῆς μὲν τροφῆς διὰ τὴν σπάνιν μικρά, τῶν δὲ φύλλων αὐτῆς πλείω τοῖς θεοῖς εἰς τὰς θυσίας ἀνῆπτον. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὁ βίος ἐπὶ τὴν ἥμερον ἤδη τροφὴν μεταβαίνων καὶ θύματα ‹τὰ› ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν ‘ἅλις [6] δρυὸς’ ἔφη. τοῦ δὲ Δημητρίου καρποῦ μετὰ τὸν χέδροπα πρώτου φανέντος κριθῶν, ταύταις ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὐλοχυτεῖτο κατὰ τὰς πρώτας θυσίας τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος· ὕστερον δὲ ἐρειξαμένων τε αὐτὰς καὶ τὴν τροφὴν ψαισαμένων τὰ μὲν τῆς ἐργασίας ὄργανα θείαν τοῖς βίοις ἐπικουρίαν παρασχόντα κρύψαντες εἰς ἀπόρρητον, ὡς ἱεροῖς αὐτοῖς ἀπήντων, τοῦ δ’ ἀληλεμένου βίου παρὰ τὸν πρόσθεν μακαρισθέντος, ἀπήρξαντό τι τῆς ψαισθείσης τροφῆς πρῶτον εἰς πῦρ τοῖς θεοῖς. ὅθεν ἔτι καὶ νῦν πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν θυσιῶν τοῖς ψαισθεῖσι θυλήμασι χρώμεθα, μαρτυροῦντες μὲν τῷ πραττομένῳ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τῶν θυμάτων αὔξησιν, οὐ συνορῶντες δὲ τίνος χάριν τούτων ἕκαστα δρῶμεν. ἀφ’ ὧν ὁρμωμένοις ἡμῖν, καὶ τῶν κριθῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πυρῶν ἀφθονωτέρων γιγνομένων, προσετίθεντο πελάνων ἤδη καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων ἀπαρχαὶ τοῖς θεοῖς εἰς τὰς θυσίας· πολλὰ μὲν ἀνθολογούντων, οὐκ ἐλάττω δὲ τούτων μιγνύντων ‹τῶν› τότε, εἴ τι καλὸν εἶχον ἐν βίῳ καὶ πρέπον ὀσμῇ πρὸς θείαν αἴσθησιν. καὶ τὰ μὲν στέφοντες, τὰ δ’ εἰς πῦρ δωρούμενοι, θείας ἑτέρας σταγόνας οἴνου καὶ μέλιτος ἔτι δ’ ἐλαίου ταῖς χρείαις ἀνευρίσκοντες [7] ἀπήρχοντο καὶ τούτων τοῖς αἰτίοις θεοῖς. οἷς μαρτυρεῖν ἔοικεν καὶ ἡ Ἀθήνησιν ἔτι καὶ νῦν δρωμένη πομπὴ Ἡλίου τε καὶ Ὡρῶν. πομπεύει γὰρ εἰλυσπόα ἄγρωστις ἐπὶ πυρηνίων ἡγηρίας, ὄσπρια, δρῦς, μιμαίκυλα, κριθαί, πυροί, παλάθη ἡγητηρία, ἀλεύρων πυρίνων καὶ κριθίνων [ 477 ]

φθοῖς, ὀρθοστάτης, χύτρος. πόρρω δὲ τῶν περὶ τὰς θυσίας ἀπαρχῶν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις προϊουσῶν παρανομίας, ἡ τῶν δεινοτάτων θυμάτων παράληψις ἐπεισήχθη, ὠμότητος πλήρης, ὡς δοκεῖν τὰς πρόσθεν λεχθείσας καθ’ ἡμῶν ἀρὰς νῦν τέλος εἰληφέναι, σφαξάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τοὺς βωμοὺς αἱμαξάντων, ἀφ’ οὗ λιμῶν τε καὶ πολέμων πειραθέντες αἱμάτων ἥψαντο. τοιγὰρ οὖν τὸ δαιμόνιον, ὡς φησὶν ὁ Θεόφραστος, τούτων ἑκατέρων νεμεσῆσαν ἐπιθεῖναι τὴν πρέπουσαν ἔοικε τιμωρίαν. καθὸ οἳ μὲν ἄθεοι γεγόνασι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, οἳ δὲ κακόφρονες μᾶλλον ἢ κακόθεοι λεχθέντες ἂν ἐν δίκῃ, διὰ τὸ φαύλους καὶ μηθὲν ἡμῶν βελτίους ἡγεῖσθαι τὴν φύσιν εἶναι τοὺς θεούς· οὕτως οἳ μὲν ἄθυτοι φαίνονται γενέσθαι τινές, οὐδεμίαν ἀπαρχὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ποιούμενοι τοῖς θεοῖς· οἳ δὲ κακόθυτοι καὶ παρανόμων ἁψάμενοι θυμάτων. [8] διὸ Θῶες μὲν οἱ ἐν μεθορίοις Θρᾴκης οἰκήσαντες μηδενὸς ἀπαρχόμενοι μηδὲ θύοντες, ἀνάρπαστοι κατ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐγένοντο τὸν χρόνον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, καὶ οὔτε τοὺς οἰκοῦντας οὔτε τὴν πόλιν οὔτε τὸν τῶν οἰκήσεων θεμέλιον ἐξαίφνης οὐδεὶς εὑρεῖν ἐδύνατο· ὕβριν γὰρ ἀτάσθαλον οὐκ ἐθέλεσκον ἴσχειν, οὐδ’ ἀθανάτους θεραπεύειν ἤθελον, οὐδ’ ἔρδειν μακάρων ἱεροῖς ἐπὶ βωμοῖς, ἣ θέμις ἀθανάτοις. τοιγὰρ οὖν αὐτοὺς Ζεὺς Κρονίδης ἔκρυψε χολούμενος, οὕνεκα τιμὰς οὐκ ἐδίδουν μακάρεσσιν οὐδ’ ἀπήρχοντο τούτοις, καθάπερ ἦν δίκαιον. Βασσάρων δὲ δὴ τῶν τὸ πάλαι τὰς Ταύρων θυσίας οὐ μόνον ζηλωσάντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ τῶν ἀνθρωποθυσιῶν βακχείᾳ βορὰν τούτων προσθεμένων (καθάπερ ἡμεῖς νῦν ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων· ἀπαρξάμενοι γὰρ τὰ λοιπὰ δαῖτα τιθέμεθα), τίς οὐκ ἀκήκοεν ὅτι μετὰ μανίας προσπίπτοντές τε καὶ δάκνοντες ἀλλήλους, ἔτι δὲ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν αἱμοδαιτοῦντες οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο πρὶν τὸ γένος ἐξαναλῶσαι τῶν πρώτων παρ’ αὐτοῖς τῆς τοιαύτης ἁψαμένων θυσίας; [9] ὑστέρα μὲν τοίνυν καὶ νεωτάτη ἡ διὰ τῶν ζῴων θυσία, τὴν δὲ αἰτίαν λαβοῦσα οὐκ εὐχάριστον ὡς ἡ ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν, ἀλλὰ λιμοῦ ἤ τινος ἄλλης δυστυχίας περίστασιν. αὐτίκα τῶν κατὰ μέρος παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις ἀναιρέσεων αἱ πλεῖσται ἢ ἀγνοίας ἢ ὀργὰς ἢ φόβους τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχουσιν. τὴν μὲν γὰρ τῶν συῶν σφαγὴν ἀκουσίῳ ἁμαρτίᾳ Κλυμένης προσάπτουσιν, ἀπροαιρέτως μὲν βαλούσης, ἀνελούσης δὲ τὸ ζῷον. διὸ καὶ εὐλαβηθέντα αὐτῆς τὸν ἄνδρα, ὡς παράνομον διαπεπραγμένης, Πυθῶδε ἀφικόμενον χρήσασθαι τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ μαντείῳ. τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τῷ συμβάντι ἐπιτρέψαντος, ἀδιάφορον λοιπὸν νομίσαι τὸ γιγνόμενον. Ἐπισκόπῳ δέ, ὃς ἦν ἔκγονος τῶν Θεοπρόπων, βουληθέντι προβάτων ἀπάρξασθαι, ἐπιτρέψαι μὲν φασὶ τὸ λόγιον, σὺν πολλῇ δ’ εὐλαβείᾳ. ἔχει γὰρ οὕτως· οὔ σε θέμις κτείνειν ὀίων γένος ἐστὶ βέβαιον, ἔγγονε Θειοπρόπων· ὃ δ’ ἑκούσιον ἂν κατανεύσῃ χέρνιβ’ ἐπιθύειν τὸ δ’, Ἐπίσκοπε, φημὶ δικαίως. [10] αἶγα δ’ ἐν Ἰκαρίῳ τῆς Ἀττικῆς ἐχειρώσαντο πρῶτον, ὅτι ἄμπελον ἀπέθρισεν· βοῦν δὲ Δίομος ἔσφαξε πρῶτος, ἱερεὺς ὢν τοῦ Πολιέως Διός, ὅτι τῶν Διιπολείων ἀγομένων καὶ [ 478 ]

παρεσκευασμένων κατὰ τὸ πάλαι ἔθος τῶν καρπῶν ὁ βοῦς προσελθὼν ἀπεγεύσατο τοῦ ἱεροῦ πελάνου· συνεργοὺς γὰρ λαβὼν τοὺς ἄλλους ὅσοι παρῆσαν, ἀπέκτεινε τοῦτον. καὶ παρὰ μὲν Ἀθηναίοις τοιαῦται κατὰ μέρος ἀποδίδονται αἰτίαι, ἄλλαι δὲ παρ’ ἄλλοις λέγονται· πλήρεις δὲ πᾶσαι οὐκ εὐαγῶν ἀπολογιῶν. λιμὸν δὲ οἱ πλεῖστοι αἰτιῶνται καὶ τὴν ἐκ τούτου ἀδικίαν. διὸ γευσάμενοι τῶν ἐμψύχων ἀπήρξαντο καὶ τούτων, εἰωθότες τῆς τροφῆς ἀπάρχεσθαι. ὅθεν οὐδὲ πρεσβύτερον τὸ θυσιῶν ὑπάρχον τῆς ἀναγκαίας τροφῆς ἐκ τούτου ἀφορίζοι ἂν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὸ βρωτέον, ἑπόμενον δὲ οἷς ἐγεύσαντο καὶ ἀπήρξαντο, οὐκ ἀναγκάζοι προσίεσθαι ὡς εὐσεβές, οὗ μὴ [11] εὐσεβῶς τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπήρξαντο. μηνύει δὲ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐξ ἀδικίας πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτο λαβεῖν τὴν ἀρχὴν τὸ μὴ ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει τὰ αὐτὰ ἢ θύειν ἢ ἐσθίειν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς χρείας τῆς πρὸς αὑτοὺς στοχάζεσθαι τοῦ καθήκοντος. παρὰ γοῦν Αἰγυπτίοις καὶ Φοίνιξι θᾶττον ἄν τις ἀνθρωπείων κρεῶν γεύσαιτο ἢ θηλείας βοός. αἴτιον δὲ ὅτι χρήσιμον τὸ ζῷον ὂν τοῦτο ἐσπάνιζεν παρ’ αὐτοῖς. διὸ ταύρων μὲν καὶ ἐγεύσαντο καὶ ἀπήρξαντο, τῶν δὲ θηλειῶν φειδόμενοι τῆς γονῆς ἕνεκα, ἐν μύσει τὸ ἅψασθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν· καίτοι γε τῆς χρείας ἐφ’ ἑνὸς καὶ ταὐτοῦ γένους [τῶν βοῶν] τό τε εὐσεβὲς καὶ τὸ ἀσεβὲς διώρισαν. ὧν δὴ τοῦτον ἐχόντων τὸν τρόπον, εἰκότως ὁ Θεόφραστος ἀπαγορεύει μὴ θύειν τὰ ἔμψυχα τοὺς τῷ ὄντι εὐσεβεῖν ἐθέλοντας, χρώμενος καὶ τοιαύταις ἄλλαις αἰτίαις. [12] πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ἐξ ἀνάγκης μείζονος, ὡς ἔφαμεν, ἡμᾶς καταλαβούσης κατήρξαντο αὐτῶν· λιμοὶ γὰρ αἴτιοι καὶ πόλεμοι, οἳ καὶ τοῦ γεύσασθαι ἀνάγκην ἐπήγαγον. ὄντων οὖν τῶν καρπῶν, τίς χρεία τῷ τῆς ἀνάγκης χρῆσθαι θύματι; ἔπειτα τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν τὰς ἀμοιβὰς καὶ τὰς χάριτας ἄλλοις μὲν ἄλλας ἀποδοτέον κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν τῆς εὐποιίας, τοῖς δὲ εἰς τὰ μέγιστα ἡμᾶς εὖ πεποιηκόσιν τὰς μεγίστας καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τιμιωτάτων, καὶ μάλιστα εἰ αὐτοὶ εἶεν τούτων πάροχοι. κάλλιστα δὲ καὶ τιμιώτατα ὧν ἡμᾶς οἱ θεοὶ εὖ ποιοῦσιν, οἱ καρποί· διὰ γὰρ τούτων ἡμᾶς σῴζουσιν καὶ νομίμως ζῆν παρέχουσιν· ὥστε ἀπὸ τούτων αὐτοὺς τιμητέον. καὶ μὴν θύειν δεῖ ἐκεῖνα ἃ θύοντες οὐδένα πημανοῦμεν· οὐθὲν γὰρ ὡς τὸ θῦμα ἀβλαβὲς εἶναι χρὴ πᾶσιν. εἰ δὲ λέγοι τις ὅτι οὐχ ἧττον τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς εἰς χρῆσιν δέδωκεν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι γε ἐπιθυομένων τῶν ζῴων φέρει τινὰ βλάβην αὐτοῖς, ἅτε τῆς ψυχῆς νοσφιζομένων. οὐ θυτέον οὖν ταῦτα· ἡ γὰρ θυσία ὁσία τίς ἐστι κατὰ τοὔνομα. ὅσιος δὲ οὐδεὶς ὃς ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἀποδίδωσι χάριτας, κἂν καρποὺς λάβῃ κἂν φυτά, μὴ ἐθέλοντος. πῶς γὰρ ὅσιον ἀδικουμένων τῶν ἀφαιρεθέντων; εἰ δὲ οὐδὲ καρποὺς ὁ ἀφελόμενος ἄλλων ὁσίως θύει, τά γε τούτων τιμιώτερα παντελῶς οὐχ ὅσιον ἀφαιρουμένους τινῶν θύειν· τὸ γὰρ δεινὸν οὕτω γίγνεται μεῖζον· ψυχὴ δὲ πολλῷ τιμιώτερον τῶν ἐκ γῆς φυομένων, ἣν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι [13] θύοντα τὰ ζῷα οὐ προσῆκεν. ἀλλ’ ἴσως τις ἂν εἴποι ὅτι καὶ τῶν φυτῶν ἀφαιροῦμέν τι. ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὁμοία ἡ ἀφαίρεσις· οὐ γὰρ παρὰ ἀκόντων. καὶ γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐασάντων, αὐτὰ μεθήσει τοὺς καρπούς, καὶ ἡ τῶν καρπῶν λῆψις οὐ μετ’ ἀπωλείας αὐτῶν, καθάπερ ὅταν τὰ ζῶα τὴν ψυχὴν πρόηται. καὶ τὴν παρὰ τῶν μελιττῶν δὲ τοῦ καρποῦ παράληψιν ἐκ τῶν πόνων ἡμῶν γιγνομένην, κοινὴν ἔχειν προσήκει καὶ τὴν ὄνησιν. συνάγουσι γὰρ αἱ μέλιτται ἐκ τῶν φυτῶν τὸ μέλι, ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπιμελούμεθα. διὸ καὶ δεῖ οὕτω μερίζεσθαι, ὡς μηδεμίαν αὐταῖς γίγνεσθαι βλάβην. τὸ δ’ ἄχρηστον μὲν ἐκείναις, ἡμῖν δὲ [ 479 ]

χρήσιμον εἴη ἂν μισθὸς ὁ παρ’ ἐκείνων. ἀφεκτέον ἄρα τῶν ζῴων ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλως πάντα μὲν τῶν θεῶν ἐστίν, ἡμῶν δὲ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι οἱ καρποί· ἡμεῖς γὰρ καὶ σπείρομεν αὐτοὺς καὶ φυτεύομεν καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπιμελείαις ἀνατρέφομεν. θυτέον οὖν ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων, οὐ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων· ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ εὐδάπανον καὶ εὐπόριστον τοῦ δυσπορίστου ὁσιώτερον καὶ θεοῖς κεχαρισμένον καὶ τὸ ῥᾷστον τοῖς θύουσιν πρὸς συνεχῆ εὐσέβειαν ἕτοιμον. τὸ τοίνυν μήθ’ ὅσιον μήτ’ εὐδάπανον [14] οὐ πάνυ θυτέον, εἰ καὶ παρείη. ὅτι δ’ οὐ τῶν εὐπορίστων καὶ εὐδαπάνων τὰ ζῷα, θεωρητέον εἰς τὸ πολὺ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν ὁρῶντας. οὐ γὰρ εἴ τινές εἰσι ‘πολύρρηνες [καὶ] πολυβοῦται’ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τοῦτο σκεπτέον· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι πολλὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν οὐ κέκτηται τῶν θυσίμων ζῴων οὐθέν, εἰ μή τι τῶν ἀτίμων [λέγοι]· δεύτερον δὲ ὅτι τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οἰκούντων οἱ πλεῖστοι σπανίζουσι τούτων. εἰ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἡμέρων τις καρπῶν λέγοι σπανίζειν, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῶν γε λοιπῶν τῶν ἐκ γῆς φυομένων, οὐδ’ οὕτω χαλεπὸν τοὺς καρποὺς ὡς τὰ ζῷα πορίσασθαι. [ῥᾴων ἄρ’ ὁ πόρος τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς ἢ ὁ τῶν ζῴων.] τὸ δὲ εὐδάπανον καὶ εὐπόριστον πρὸς συνεχῆ εὐσέβειαν συντελεῖ [15] καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἁπάντων. καὶ μαρτυρεῖ γε ἡ πεῖρα ὅτι χαίρουσιν τούτῳ οἱ θεοὶ ἢ τῷ πολυδαπάνῳ. οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτε τοῦ Θετταλοῦ ἐκείνου ‹τοῦ› τοὺς χρυσόκερως βοῦς καὶ τὰς ἑκατόμβας τῷ Πυθίῳ προσάγοντος μᾶλλον ἔφησεν ἡ Πυθία τὸν Ἑρμιονέα κεχαρίσθαι θύσαντα τῶν ψαιστῶν ἐκ τοῦ πηριδίου τοῖς τρισὶ δακτύλοις. προσεπιβαλόντι δὲ διὰ τὸ ῥηθὲν τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα τῆς πήρας ἐπὶ τὸν βωμόν, εἶπε πάλιν ὅτι δὶς τόσον ἀπέχθοιτο τοῦτο δράσας ἢ πρότερον ἦν κεχαρισμένος. οὕτω τὸ εὐδάπανον φίλον θεοῖς, καὶ μᾶλλον τὸ δαιμόνιον πρὸς τὸ τῶν θυόντων ἦθος ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῶν θυομένων πλῆθος βλέπει. [16] τὰ παραπλήσια δὲ καὶ Θεόπομπος ἱστόρηκεν, εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀφικέσθαι ἄνδρα Μάγνητα ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίας φάμενος, πλούσιον σφόδρα, κεκτημένον συχνὰ βοσκήματα. τοῦτον δ’ εἰθίσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν θυσίας ποιεῖσθαι πολλὰς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς, τὰ μὲν δι’ εὐπορίαν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, τὰ δὲ δι’ εὐσέβειαν καὶ τὸ βούλεσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς ἀρέσκειν. οὕτω δὲ διακείμενον πρὸς τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐλθεῖν εἰς Δελφούς, πομπεύσαντα δὲ ἑκατόμβην τῷ θεῷ καὶ τιμήσαντα μεγαλοπρεπῶς τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα παρελθεῖν εἰς τὸ μαντεῖον χρηστηριασόμενον· οἰόμενον δὲ κάλλιστα πάντων ἀνθρώπων θεραπεύειν τοὺς θεοὺς ἐρέσθαι τὴν Πυθίαν, τὸν ἄριστα καὶ προθυμότατα τὸ δαιμόνιον γεραίροντα θεσπίσαι καὶ τὸν ποιοῦντα τὰς θυσίας προσφιλεστάτας, ὑπολαμβάνοντα δοθήσεσθαι αὑτῷ τὸ πρωτεῖον. τὴν δὲ ἱέρειαν ἀποκρίνασθαι, πάντων ἄριστα θεραπεύειν τοὺς θεοὺς Κλέαρχον κατοικοῦντα ἐν Μεθυδρίῳ τῆς Ἀρκαδίας. τὸν δ’ ἐκπλαγέντα ἐκτόπως ἐπιθυμῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἰδεῖν καὶ ἐντυχόντα μαθεῖν, τίνα τρόπον τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελεῖ. ἀφικόμενον οὖν ταχέως εἰς τὸ Μεθύδριον πρῶτον μὲν καταφρονῆσαι μικροῦ καὶ ταπεινοῦ ὄντος τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ χωρίου, ἡγούμενον οὐχ ὅπως ἄν τινα τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἂν αὐτὴν τὴν πόλιν δύνασθαι μεγαλοπρεπέστερον αὑτοῦ καὶ κάλλιον τιμῆσαι τοὺς θεούς. ὅμως δ’ οὖν συντυχόντα τῷ ἀνδρὶ ἀξιῶσαι φράσαι αὐτῷ, ὅντινα τρόπον τοὺς θεοὺς τιμᾷ. τὸν δὲ Κλέαρχον φάναι ἐπιτελεῖν καὶ σπουδαίως θύειν ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις, κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον ταῖς νουμηνίαις στεφανοῦντα καὶ φαιδρύνοντα τὸν Ἑρμῆν καὶ τὴν Ἑκάτην καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἱερῶν, ἃ δὴ τοὺς προγόνους καταλιπεῖν, καὶ τιμᾶν λιβανωτοῖς καὶ ψαιστοῖς καὶ ποπάνοις· κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν δὲ [ 480 ]

θυσίας δημοτελεῖς ποιεῖσθαι, παραλείποντα οὐδεμίαν ἑορτήν· ἐν αὐταῖς δὲ ταύταις θεραπεύειν τοὺς θεοὺς οὐ βουθυτοῦντα οὐδὲ ἱερεῖα κατακόπτοντα, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἂν παρατύχῃ ἐπιθύοντα, σπουδάζειν μέντοι ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν περιγιγνομένων καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ὡραίων ἃ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαμβάνεται, τοῖς θεοῖς τὰς ἀπαρχὰς ἀπονέμειν· καὶ τὰ μὲν παρατιθέναι, τὰ δὲ καθαγίζειν αὐτοῖς· αὐτὸν δὲ τῇ αὐταρκείᾳ προσεσχηκότα τὸ θῦσαι βοῦς προεῖσθαι. [17] παρ’ ἐνίοις δ’ ἱστόρηται τῶν συγγραφέων, τῶν Τυρρηνῶν μετὰ τὸ κρατῆσαι Καρχηδονίων ἑκατόμβας κατὰ πολλὴν ἔριν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐκπρεπεῖς παραστησάντων τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, εἶτα πυνθανομένων αἷς ἡσθείη μάλιστα, παρ’ ἐλπίδα πᾶσαν αὐτὸν ἀποκρίνασθαι, διότι τοῖς Δοκίμου ψαιστοῖς. Δελφὸς δὲ ἦν οὗτος, σκληρὰ γεωργῶν πετρίδια· κατιὼν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ χωρίου ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας, ἐκ τῆς περικειμένης πήρας τῶν ἀλφίτων ὀλίγας δράκας ἐθυλήσατο, πλέον τέρψας τὸν θεὸν τῶν μεγαλοπρεπεῖς θυσίας συντελεσάντων. ὅθεν καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν τισὶ διὰ τὸ γνώριμον ἀποφαίνεσθαι ἐδόκει τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὡς Ἀντιφάνει ἐν Μύστιδι λέγεται, ταῖς εὐτελείαις οἱ θεοὶ χαίρουσι γάρ· τεκμήριον δ’· ὅταν γὰρ ἑκατόμβας τινὲς θύωσιν, ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅπασιν ὕστατος πάντων καὶ λιβανωτὸς ἐπετέθη, ὡς τἄλλα μὲν τὰ πολλὰ παραναλούμενα δαπάνην ματαίαν οὖσαν αὐτῶν οὕνεκα, τὸ δὲ μικρὸν αὐτὸ τοῦτ’ ἀρεστὸν τοῖς θεοῖς. καὶ Μένανδρος δ’ ἐν Δυσκόλῳ φησίν, ὁ λιβανωτὸς εὐσεβὴς καὶ τὸ πόπανον· τοῦτ’ ἔλαβεν ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τὸ πῦρ ἅπαν τεθέν. [18] διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς κεραμεοῖς ἀγγείοις καὶ τοῖς ξυλίνοις καὶ πλεκτοῖς ἐχρῶντο καὶ μᾶλλον πρὸς τὰς δημοτελεῖς ἱεροποιίας, τοιούτοις χαίρειν πεπεισμένοι τὸ θεῖον. ὅθεν καὶ τὰ παλαιότατα ἕδη κεραμεᾶ καὶ ξύλινα ὑπάρχοντα μᾶλλον θεῖα νενόμισται διά τε τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὴν ἀφέλειαν τῆς τέχνης. τὸν γοῦν Αἰσχύλον φασί, τῶν Δελφῶν ἀξιούντων εἰς τὸν θεὸν γράψαι παιᾶνα, εἰπεῖν ὅτι βέλτιστα Τυννίχῳ πεποίηται· παραβαλλόμενον δὲ τὸν αὑτοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἐκείνου ταὐτὸν πείσεσθαι τοῖς ἀγάλμασιν τοῖς καινοῖς πρὸς τὰ ἀρχαῖα· ταῦτα γὰρ καίπερ ἀφελῶς πεποιημένα, θεῖα νομίζεσθαι, τὰ δὲ καινὰ περιέργως εἰργασμένα θαυμάζεσθαι μέν, θείου δὲ δόξαν ἧττον ἔχειν. καὶ τὸν Ἡσίοδον οὖν εἰκότως τὸν τῶν ἀρχαίων θυσιῶν νόμον ἐπαινοῦντα εἰπεῖν, ὥς κε πόλις ῥέζῃσι, νόμος δ’ ἀρχαῖος ἄριστος. [19] οἱ δὲ τὰ περὶ τῶν ἱερουργιῶν γεγραφότες καὶ θυσιῶν τὴν περὶ τὰ πόπανα ἀκρίβειαν φυλάττειν παραγγέλλουσιν, ὡς ἀρεστὴν τοῖς θεοῖς ταύτην ἢ τὴν διὰ τῶν ζῴων θυσίαν. καὶ Σοφοκλῆς διαγράφων τὴν θεοφιλῆ θυσίαν φησὶν ἐν τῷ Πολυΐδῳ, ἦν μὲν γὰρ οἰὸς μαλλός, ἦν δ’ ἀμπέλου [ 481 ]

σπονδή τε καὶ ῥὰξ εὖ τεθησαυρισμένη· ἐνῆν δὲ παγκάρπεια συμμιγὴς ὀλαῖς λίπος τ’ ἐλαίας καὶ τὸ ποικιλώτατον ξουθῆς μελίσσης κηρόπλαστον ὄργανον. σεμνὰ δ’ ἦν τῶν πρὶν ὑπομνήματα ἐν Δήλῳ ἐξ Ὑπερβορέων ἀμαλλοφόρων. δεῖ τοίνυν καθηραμένους τὸ ἦθος ἰέναι θύσοντας, τοῖς θεοῖς θεοφιλεῖς τὰς θυσίας προσάγοντας, ἀλλὰ μὴ πολυτελεῖς. νῦν δὲ ἐσθῆτα μὲν λαμπρὰν περὶ σῶμα μὴ καθαρὸν ἀμφιεσαμένοις οὐκ ἀρκεῖν νομίζουσιν πρὸς τὸ τῶν θυσιῶν ἁγνόν· ὅταν δὲ τὸ σῶμα μετὰ τῆς ἐσθῆτός τινες λαμπρυνάμενοι μὴ καθαρὰν κακῶν τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχοντες ἴωσιν πρὸς τὰς θυσίας, οὐδὲν διαφέρειν νομίζουσιν, ὥσπερ οὐ τῷ θειοτάτῳ γε τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν χαίροντα μάλιστα τὸν θεὸν διακειμένῳ καθαρῶς, ἅτε συγγενεῖ πεφυκότι. ἐν γοῦν Ἐπιδαύρῳ προεγέγραπτο, ἁγνὸν χρὴ ναοῖο θυώδεος ἐντὸς ἰόντα ἔμμεναι· ἁγνεία δ’ ἐστὶ φρονεῖν ὅσια. [20] ὅτι δὲ οὐ τῷ ὄγκῳ χαίρει ὁ θεὸς τῶν θυσιῶν, ἀλλὰ τῷ τυχόντι, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ τῆς καθ’ ἡμέραν τροφῆς, κἂν ὁποία τις οὖν αὕτη παρατεθῇ, ταύτης πρὸ τῶν ἀπολαύσεων πάντας ἀπάρχεσθαι μικρὸν μέν, ἀλλὰ τῷ μικρῷ τούτῳ παντὸς μᾶλλον μεγάλη τίς ἐστι τιμή. διὰ πολλῶν δὲ ὁ Θεόφραστος ‹ἐκ› τῶν παρ’ ἑκάστοις πατρίων ἐπιδείξας, ὅτι τὸ παλαιὸν τῶν θυσιῶν διὰ τῶν καρπῶν ἦν ἔτ’ εἰπὼν πρότερον τῆς πόας λαμβανομένης, καὶ τὰ τῶν σπονδῶν ἐξηγεῖται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. τὰ μὲν ἀρχαῖα τῶν ἱερῶν νηφάλια παρὰ πολλοῖς ἦν, νηφάλια δ’ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑδρόσπονδα, τὰ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα μελίσπονδα· τοῦτον γὰρ ἕτοιμον παρὰ μελιττῶν πρῶτον ἐλάβομεν τὸν ὑγρὸν καρπόν· εἶτ’ ἐλαιόσπονδα· τέλος [21] δ’ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τὰ ὕστερον γεγονότα οἰνόσπονδα. μαρτυρεῖται δὲ ταῦτα οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ τῶν κύρβεων, αἳ τῶν Κρήτηθέν εἰσι Κορυβαντικῶν ἱερῶν οἷον ἀντίγραφα ἄττα πρὸς ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ’ Ἐμπεδοκλέους, ὃς περὶ τῆς θεογονίας διεξιὼν καὶ περὶ τῶν θυμάτων παρεμφαίνει λέγων· οὐδέ τις ἦν κείνοισιν Ἄρης θεὸς οὐδὲ Κυδοιμὸς οὐδὲ Ζεὺς βασιλεὺς οὐδ’ ὁ Κρόνος οὐδ’ ὁ Ποσειδῶν, ἀλλὰ Κύπρις βασίλεια, ἥ ἐστιν ἡ φιλία· τὴν οἵ γ’ εὐσεβέεσσιν ἀγάλμασιν ἱλάσκοντο γραπτοῖς τε ζῴοισι μύροισί τε δαιδαλεόσμοις σμύρνης τ’ ἀκράτου θυσίαις λιβάνου τε θυώδους ξουθῶν τε σπονδὰς μελιττῶν ῥιπτοῦντες ἐς οὖδας, ἅπερ καὶ νῦν ἔτι σῴζεται παρ’ ἐνίοις οἷον ἴχνη τινὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ὄντα, ταύρων δ’ ἀκρίτοισι φόνοις οὐ δεύετο βωμός. [22] τῆς γὰρ [οἶμαι] φιλίας [καὶ τῆς] περὶ τὸ συγγενὲς αἰσθήσεως πάντα κατεχούσης, οὐδεὶς οὐθὲν ἐφόνευεν, οἰκεῖα εἶναι νομίζων τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ζῴων. ἐπεὶ δὲ Ἄρης καὶ Κυδοιμὸς καὶ πᾶσα μάχη καὶ πολέμων ἀρχὴ κατέσχεν, τότε πρῶτον οὐθεὶς οὐθενὸς ὅλως ἐφείδετο τῶν [ 482 ]

οἰκείων. σκεπτέον δ’ ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἰκειότητος οὔσης ἡμῖν πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, τοὺς κακοποιοὺς καὶ καθάπερ ὑπό τινος πνοῆς ‹τῆς› ἰδίας φύσεως καὶ μοχθηρίας φερομένους πρὸς τὸ βλάπτειν τὸν ἐντυγχάνοντα ἀναιρεῖν ἡγούμεθα δεῖν καὶ κολάζειν ἅπαντας, οὕτως καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων τὰ ἄδικα τὴν φύσιν καὶ κακοποιὰ πρός τε τὸ βλάπτειν ὡρμημένα τῇ φύσει τοὺς ἐμπελάζοντας ἀναιρεῖν ἴσως προσήκει, τὰ δὲ μηθὲν ἀδικοῦντα τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων μηδὲ τῇ φύσει πρὸς τὸ βλάπτειν ὡρμημένα ἀναιρεῖν τε καὶ φονεύειν ἄδικον δήπου, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺς τοιούτους. ὃ δὴ καὶ ἐμφαίνειν ἔοικεν δίκαιον ἡμῖν μηδὲν εἶναι πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ζῴων, διὰ τὸ βλαβερὰ ἄττα τούτων εἶναι καὶ κακοποιὰ τὴν φύσιν, τὰ δὲ μὴ τοιαῦτα, καθάπερ καὶ τῶν [23] ἀνθρώπων. ἆρ’ οὖν θυτέον τὰ ἄξια τοῦ σφάττεσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς; καὶ πῶς, εἴ γε φαῦλα τὴν φύσιν ἐστίν; οὐθὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον οὕτω ἢ τὰ ἀνάπηρα θυτέον. κακῶν δὲ οὕτως ἀπαρχὴν καὶ οὐ τιμῆς ἕνεκα τὰς θυσίας ποιήσομεν. εἰ δ’ ἄρα θυτέον τοῖς θεοῖς ζῷα, τὰ μηθὲν ἀδικοῦντα [τούτων] ἡμᾶς θυτέον. οὐκ ἀναιρετέον δὲ ὡμολογηκότες μηθὲν ἡμᾶς ἀδικοῦντα τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων, ὥστε οὐδὲ θυτέον αὐτὰ τοῖς θεοῖς. εἰ οὖν οὔτε ταῦτα θυτέον οὔτε τὰ κακοποιά, πῶς οὐ φανερὸν ὅτι παντὸς μᾶλλον ἀφεκτέον καὶ οὐ θυτέον ἐστὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων οὐδέν, ἀναιρεῖν γε μέντοι τούτων ἕτερ’ [24] ἄττα προσήκει; καὶ γὰρ ὅλως τριῶν ἕνεκα θυτέον τοῖς θεοῖς· ἢ γὰρ διὰ τιμὴν ἢ διὰ χάριν ἢ διὰ χρείαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν. καθάπερ γὰρ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οὕτω κἀκείνοις ἡγούμεθα δεῖν ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀπαρχάς. τιμῶμεν δὲ τοὺς θεοὺς ἢ κακῶν μὲν ἀποτροπήν, ἀγαθῶν δὲ παρασκευὴν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι ζητοῦντες, ἢ προπεπονθότες εὖ [ἢ ἵνα τύχωμεν ὠφελείας τινὸς] ἢ κατὰ ψιλὴν τὴν τῆς ἀγαθῆς αὐτῶν ἕξεως ἐκτίμησιν. ὥστε καὶ τῶν ζῴων, εἰ ἀπαρκτέον αὐτὰ θεοῖς, τούτων τινὸς ἕνεκα θυτέον. καὶ γὰρ ἃ θύομεν, τούτων τινὸς ἕνεκα θύομεν. ἆρ’ οὖν τιμῆς ἡγήσαιτ’ ἄν τις τυγχάνειν ἡμῶν ἢ θεός, ὅταν ἀδικοῦντες εὐθὺς διὰ τῆς ἀπαρχῆς φαινώμεθα, ἢ μᾶλλον ἀτιμίαν οἰήσεται τὸ τοιοῦτο δρᾶν; ἐν τῷ δέ γε θύειν ἀναιροῦντες τὰ μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντα τῶν ζῴων, ἀδικεῖν ὁμολογοῦμεν· ὥστε τιμῆς μὲν ἕνεκα οὐ θυτέον τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων οὐθέν· οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν χάριν αὐτοῖς ἀποδιδόντας. ὁ γὰρ τὴν δικαίαν ἀμοιβὴν τῆς εὐεργεσίας καὶ τῆς εὐποιίας τὸ ἀντάξιον ἀποδιδοὺς οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ κακῶς τινὰς δρᾶν ὀφείλει ταῦτα παρέχειν· οὐδὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον ἀμείβεσθαι δόξει ἢ κἂν εἰ τὰ τοῦ πέλας ἁρπάσας τις στεφανοίη τινὰς ὡς χάριν ἀποδιδοὺς καὶ τιμήν. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ χρείας τινὸς ἕνεκα τῶν ἀγαθῶν. ὁ γὰρ ἀδίκῳ πράξει τὸ παθεῖν εὖ θηρεύων ὕποπτός ἐστι μηδὲ εὖ παθὼν χάριν ἕξειν· ὥστ’ οὐδ’ ἐλπιζομένης εὐεργεσίας θυτέον ἐστὶ τοῖς θεοῖς ζῷα. καὶ γὰρ δὴ τῶν μὲν ἀνθρώπων λάθοι τις ἂν ἴσως τινὰ τοῦτο πράττων, τὸν δὲ θεὸν ἀμήχανον καὶ λαθεῖν. εἰ τοίνυν θυτέον μὲν τούτων τινὸς ἕνεκα, οὐδενὸς δὲ τούτων χάριν αὐτὸ πρακτέον, δῆλον ὡς [25] οὐ θυτέον ἐστὶν ζῷα τὸ παράπαν τοῖς θεοῖς. ταῖς γὰρ ἐκ τῶν θυμάτων ἀπολαύσεσι τὸ περὶ τούτων ἀληθὲς ἐξαλείφειν πειρώμενοι λανθάνομεν ἡμᾶς αὐτούς, οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὸν θεόν. τῶν μὲν οὖν ἀτίμων ζῴων, ἃ μηδεμίαν εἰς τὸν βίον ἡμῖν παρέχεται χρείαν, καὶ τῶν οὐδεμίαν ἀπόλαυσιν ἐχόντων οὐθὲν θύομεν τοῖς θεοῖς. τίς γὰρ δὴ πώποτε ἔθυσεν ὄφεις καὶ σκορπίους ἢ πιθήκους ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων ζῴων; τῶν δὲ τοῖς βίοις ἡμῶν χρείαν τινὰ παρεχομένων ἢ καί τι εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν ἐν αὑτοῖς ἐχόντων οὐθενὸς ἀπεχόμεθα, σφάττοντες ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ δέροντες ἐπὶ προστασίας τοῦ θείου. βοῦς γὰρ καὶ [ 483 ]

πρόβατα πρός τε τούτοις ἐλάφους καὶ ὄρνιθας, αὐτούς τε τοὺς καθαρειότητος μὲν οὐδὲν κοινωνοῦντας, ἀπόλαυσιν δὲ ἡμῖν παρέχοντας σιάλους σφάττομεν τοῖς θεοῖς· ὧν τὰ μὲν τοῖς βίοις ἡμῶν ἐπικουρεῖ συμπονοῦντα, τὰ δὲ εἰς τροφὴν ἤ τινας ἄλλας χρείας ἔχει βοήθειαν. τὰ δὲ οὐθὲν τούτων δρῶντα διὰ τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπόλαυσιν ὁμοίως τοῖς ἔχουσι τὸ χρήσιμον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπόλλυται ταῖς θυσίαις. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ὄνους οὐδ’ ἐλέφαντας οὐδὲ ἄλλο τῶν συμπονούντων μέν, οὐκ ἐχόντων δὲ ἀπόλαυσιν θύομεν. καίτοι καὶ χωρίς γε τοῦ θύειν οὐκ ἀπεχόμεθα τῶν τοιούτων, σφάττοντες διὰ τὰς ἀπολαύσεις, καὶ θύομεν αὐτῶν τῶν θυσίμων οὐ τὰ τοῖς θεοῖς, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον τὰ ταῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις κεχαρισμένα, καταμαρτυροῦντες ἡμῶν αὐτῶν, ὅτι τῆς ἀπολαύσεως χάριν [26] ἐμμένομεν τοῖς τοιούτοις θύμασιν. καίτοι Σύρων μὲν [Ἰουδαῖοι] διὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς συνήθειαν ἔτι καὶ νῦν, φησὶν ὁ Θεόφραστος, ζῳοθυτούντων εἰ τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμᾶς τρόπον τις κελεύοι θύειν, ἀποσταίημεν ἂν τῆς πράξεως. οὐ γὰρ ἑστιώμενοι τῶν τυθέντων, ὁλοκαυτοῦντες δὲ ταῦτα νυκτὸς καὶ κατ’ αὐτῶν πολὺ μέλι καὶ οἶνον λείβοντες ἀνήλισκον τὴν θυσίαν θᾶττον, ἵνα τοῦ δεινοῦ μὴ ‹Ἥλιος› ὁ πανόπτης γένοιτο θεατής. καὶ τοῦτο δρῶσιν νηστεύοντες τὰς ἀνὰ μέσον τούτων ἡμέρας· κατὰ δὲ πάντα τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον, ἅτε φιλόσοφοι τὸ γένος ὄντες, περὶ τοῦ θείου μὲν ἀλλήλοις λαλοῦσι, τῆς δὲ νυκτὸς τῶν ἄστρων ποιοῦνται τὴν θεωρίαν, βλέποντες εἰς αὐτὰ καὶ διὰ τῶν εὐχῶν θεοκλυτοῦντες. κατήρξαντο γὰρ οὗτοι πρῶτοι τῶν τε λοιπῶν ζῴων καὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν, ἀνάγκῃ καὶ οὐκ ἐπιθυμίᾳ τοῦτο πράξαντες. μάθοι δ’ ἄν τις ἐπιβλέψας τοὺς λογιωτάτους πάντων Αἰγυπτίους, οἳ τοσοῦτον ἀπεῖχον τοῦ φονεύειν τι τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων, ὥστε τὰς τούτων εἰκόνας μιμήματα τῶν θεῶν ἐποιοῦντο. οὕτως οἰκεῖα καὶ συγγενῆ ταῦτα τοῖς θεοῖς ἐνόμιζον [27] εἶναι καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μὲν γὰρ αἱ τῶν καρπῶν ἐγίνοντο τοῖς θεοῖς θυσίαι· χρόνῳ δὲ τῆς ὁσιότητος ἡμῶν ἐξαμελησάντων, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν καρπῶν ἐσπάνισαν καὶ διὰ τὴν τῆς νομίμου τροφῆς ἔνδειαν εἰς τὸ σαρκοφαγεῖν ἀλλήλων ὥρμησαν, τότε μετὰ πολλῶν λιτῶν ἱκετεύοντες τὸ δαιμόνιον σφῶν αὐτῶν ἀπήρξαντο τοῖς θεοῖς πρῶτον, οὐ μόνον ὅτι κάλλιστον ἐνῆν αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῦτο τοῖς θεοῖς καθοσιοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ πέρα τῶν καλλίστων προσεπιλαμβάνοντες τοῦ γένους· ἀφ’ οὗ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν οὐκ ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ μόνον τοῖς Λυκαίοις οὐδ’ ἐν Καρχηδόνι τῷ Κρόνῳ κοινῇ πάντες ἀνθρωποθυτοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ περίοδον τῆς τοῦ νομίμου χάριν μνήμης ἐμφύλιον αἷμα ῥαίνουσι πρὸς τοὺς βωμούς, καίπερ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὁσίας ἐξειργούσης τῶν ἱερῶν τοῖς περιρραντηρίοις ‹καὶ› κηρύγματι, εἴ τις αἵματος ἀνθρωπείου μεταίτιος. ἐντεῦθεν οὖν μεταβαίνοντες ὑπάλλαγμα πρὸς τὰς θυσίας τῶν ἰδίων ἐποιοῦντο σωμάτων τὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων σώματα, καὶ πάλιν κόρῳ τῆς νομίμου τροφῆς εἰς τὴν περὶ εὐσεβείας λήθην ἰόντες, ἐπιβαίνοντες ἀπληστίας οὐθὲν ἄγευστον οὐδὲ ἄβρωτον περιλείποντες. ὅπερ καὶ περὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν τροφὴν νῦν συμβαίνει περὶ πάντας. ὅταν γὰρ τῇ προσφορᾷ τὴν ἀναγκαίαν ἔνδειαν κουφίσωνται, ζητοῦντος τοῦ κόρου τὸ περιττόν, ἐκπονοῦσι πρὸς βρῶσιν πολλὰ τῶν σωφροσύνης ἔξω κειμένων. ὅθεν ὡς οὐκ ἄτιμα ποιούμενοι τὰ θεοῖς θύματα, γεύσασθαι τούτων προήχθησαν, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς πράξεως ταύτην προσθήκη ἡ ζῳοφαγία γέγονεν τῇ ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τροφῇ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. καθάπερ οὖν τὸ παλαιὸν ἀπήρξαντό τε τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τῶν [ 484 ]

ἀπαρχθέντων ἀσπασίως μετὰ τὴν θυσίαν ἐγεύσαντο, οὕτω τῶν ζῴων καταρξάμενοι ταὐτὸν ἡγοῦντο δεῖν τοῦτο δρᾶν, καίπερ τὸ ἀρχαῖον οὐχ οὕτως τῆς ὁσίας ταῦτα βραβευσάσης, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν ἕκαστον τῶν θεῶν τιμῶντες. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἥ τε φύσις καὶ πᾶσα τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς αἴσθησις δρωμένοις συνηρέσκετο, ταύρων δ’ ἀκρίτοισι φόνοις οὐ δεύετο βωμός, ἀλλὰ μύσος τοῦτ’ ἔσκεν ἐν ἀνθρώποισι μέγιστον, θυμὸν ἀπορραίσαντας ἐέδμεναι ἤια γυῖα. [28] θεωρῆσαι δὲ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ περὶ Δῆλον ἔτι νῦν σῳζομένου βωμοῦ, πρὸς ὃν οὐθενὸς προσαγομένου παρ’ αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ θυομένου ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ ζῴου εὐσεβῶν κέκληται βωμός. οὕτως οὐ μόνον ἀπείχοντο τῶν ζῴων θύοντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἱδρυσαμένοις τοῦτον ὁμοίως καὶ τοῖς χρωμένοις αὐτῷ μετέδοσαν τῆς εὐσεβείας. διόπερ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι τοῦτο παραδεξάμενοι κατὰ μὲν τὸν πάντα βίον ἀπείχοντο τῆς ζῳοφαγίας, ὅτε δὲ εἰς ἀπαρχήν τι τῶν ζῴων ἀνθ’ ἑαυτῶν μερίσειαν τοῖς θεοῖς, τούτου γευσάμενοι μόνον, πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἄθικτοι τῶν λοιπῶν ὄντες ἔζων. ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἡμεῖς· ἐμπιπλάμενοι δὲ εἰς πολλοστὸν ἀφικόμεθα τῆς ἐν τούτοις [παρὰ τὸν βίον] παρανομίας. καὶ γὰρ οὔτε φόνῳ τοὺς τῶν θεῶν βωμοὺς χραίνειν δεῖ, οὔτε ἁπτέον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τῆς τοιαύτης τροφῆς, ὡς οὐδὲ τῶν ἰδίων σωμάτων, ἀλλὰ ποιητέον παράγγελμα τῷ παντὶ βίῳ τὸ ἐν [29] Ἀθήναις ἔτι σῳζόμενον. τὸ γὰρ παλαιόν, ὡς καὶ πρόσθεν ἐλέγομεν, καρποὺς τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων θυόντων, ζῷα δὲ οὔ, οὐδὲ εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν τροφὴν καταχρωμένων, λέγεται κοινῆς θυσίας οὔσης Ἀθήνησιν Δίομον ἢ Σώπατρόν τινα, τῷ γένει οὐκ ἐγχώριον, γεωργοῦντα δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ἀττικήν, ἐπεὶ πελάνου τε καὶ τῶν θυλημάτων ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης ἐναργῶς κειμένων, ἵνα τοῖς θεοῖς ταῦτα θύοι, τῶν βοῶν τις εἰσιὼν ἀπ’ ἔργου τὰ μὲν κατέφαγεν τὰ δὲ συνεπάτησεν, αὐτὸν δ’ ὑπεραγανακτήσαντα τῷ συμβάντι, πελέκεώς τινος πλησίον ἀκονωμένου, τοῦτον ἁρπάξαντα, πατάξαι τὸν βοῦν. τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ βοός, ὡς ἔξω τῆς ὀργῆς καταστὰς συνεφρόνησεν οἷον ἔργον ἦν εἰργασμένος, τὸν μὲν βοῦν θάπτει, φυγὴν δὲ ἑκούσιον ἀράμενος ὡς ἠσεβηκώς, ἔφυγεν εἰς Κρήτην. αὐχμῶν δὲ κατεχόντων καὶ δεινῆς ἀκαρπίας γενομένης, ἐπερωτῶσι κοινῇ τὸν θεὸν ἀνεῖλεν ἡ Πυθία τὸν ἐν Κρήτῃ φυγάδα ταῦτα λύσειν, τόν τε φονέα τιμωρησαμένων καὶ τὸν τεθνεῶτα ἀναστησάντων ἐν ᾗπερ ἀπέθανε θυσίᾳ λῷον ἔσεσθαι γευσαμένοις τε τοῦ τεθνεῶτος καὶ μὴ κατασχοῦσιν. ὅθεν ζητήσεως γενομένης καὶ τοῦ [Σωπάτρου] μεταιτίου τῆς πράξεως ἀνευρεθέντος, Σώπατρος νομίσας τῆς περὶ αὑτὸν δυσκολίας ἀπαλλαγήσεσθαι ὡς ἐναγοῦς ὄντος, εἰ κοινῇ τοῦτο πράξειαν πάντες, ἔφη πρὸς τοὺς αὐτὸν μετελθόντας, δεῖν κατακοπῆναι βοῦν ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως. ἀπορούντων δὲ τίς ὁ πατάξων ἔσται, παρασχεῖν αὐτοῖς τοῦτο, εἰ πολίτην αὐτὸν ποιησάμενοι κοινωνήσουσι τοῦ φόνου. συγχωρηθέντων οὖν τούτων, ὡς ἐπανῆλθον ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν, συνέταξαν οὕτω τὴν πρᾶξιν, ἥπερ [30] καὶ νῦν διαμένει παρ’ αὐτοῖς. ὑδροφόρους παρθένους κατέλεξαν· αἳ δ’ ὕδωρ κομίζουσιν, ὅπως τὸν πέλεκυν καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν ἀκονήσουσιν. ἀκονησάντων δὲ ἐπέδωκεν μὲν τὸν πέλεκυν ἕτερος, ὃ δ’ ἐπάταξε τὸν βοῦν, ἄλλος δ’ ἔσφαξεν· τῶν δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα δειράντων, ἐγεύσαντο τοῦ βοὸς πάντες. τούτων δὲ πραχθέντων τὴν μὲν δορὰν τοῦ βοὸς ῥάψαντες καὶ χόρτῳ [ 485 ]

ἐπογκώσαντες ἐξανέστησαν, ἔχοντα ταὐτὸν ὅπερ καὶ ζῶν ἔσχεν σχῆμα, καὶ προσέζευξαν ἄροτρον ὡς ἐργαζομένῳ. κρίσιν δὲ ποιούμενοι τοῦ φόνου πάντας ἐκάλουν εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοὺς τῆς πράξεως κοινωνήσαντας. ὧν δὴ αἱ μὲν ὑδροφόροι τοὺς ἀκονήσαντας αὑτῶν ᾐτιῶντο μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ ἀκονήσαντες τὸν ἐπιδόντα τὸν πέλεκυν, οὗτος δὲ τὸν ἐπισφάξαντα, καὶ ὁ τοῦτο δράσας τὴν μάχαιραν, καθ’ ἧς οὔσης ἀφώνου τὸν φόνον κατέγνωσαν. ἀπὸ δ’ ἐκείνου μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἀεὶ τοῖς Διιπολείοις Ἀθήνησιν ἐν ἀκροπόλει οἱ εἰρημένοι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ποιοῦνται τὴν τοῦ βοὸς θυσίαν. θέντες γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς χαλκῆς τραπέζης πέλανον καὶ ψαιστά, περιελαύνουσι τοὺς κατανεμηθέντας βοῦς, ὧν ὁ γευσάμενος κόπτεται. καὶ γένη τῶν ταῦτα δρώντων ἔστιν νῦν· οἳ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ πατάξαντος [Σωπάτρου] βουτύποι καλούμενοι πάντες, οἳ δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ περιελάσαντος κεντριάδαι· τοὺς δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐπισφάξαντος δαιτροὺς ὀνομάζουσιν διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς κρεανομίας γιγνομένην δαῖτα. πληρώσαντες δὲ τὴν βύρσαν, ὅταν πρὸς τὴν κρίσιν ἀχθῶσιν, κατεπόντωσαν τὴν [31] μάχαιραν. οὕτως οὔτε τὸ παλαιὸν ὅσιον ἦν κτείνειν τὰ συνεργὰ τοῖς βίοις ἡμῶν ζῷα, νῦν τε τοῦτο φυλακτέον ἐστὶ πράττειν. καὶ καθάπερ πρότερον οὐχ ὅσιον ἦν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπτεσθαι τούτων, οὕτως νῦν τροφῆς χάριν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν ζῴων οὐχ ὅσιον ἡγητέον. εἰ δ’ ἄρα τοῦτο διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἁγιστείαν ποιητέον, ἀλλ’ ὅτι γε τὸ πάθος ἐκ τῶν σωμάτων καθ’ ἑαυτὸ πᾶν ἐκπεμπτέον τοῦτο, ἵνα μὴ τὴν τροφὴν ἐξ ὧν οὐ προσήκει ποριζόμενοι, σύνοικον ἔχωμεν τὸ μίασμα τοῖς ἰδίοις βίοις. καὶ γὰρ εἰ μηθὲν ἄλλο, πρός γε τὴν κατ’ ἀλλήλων ἐκεχειρίαν μεγάλα πάντες ὀνηθείημεν ἄν. οἷς γοῦν ἡ αἴσθησις τοῦ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ἅπτεσθαι ζῴων ἀπέκλινεν, τούτων ὁ νοῦς πρόδηλός ἐστιν ὁμοφύλων ἀφεξόμενος. πάντων μὲν οὖν ἴσως ἦν κράτιστον εὐθὺς ἀποσχέσθαι· ἐπεὶ δ’ ἀναμάρτητος οὐδείς, λοιπὸν δὴ ἀκεῖσθαι τοῖς ὕστερον διὰ τῶν καθαρμῶν τὰς πρόσθε περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἁμαρτίας. τοῦτο δὲ ὁμοίως γένοιτ’ ἄν, εἰ πρὸ ὀμμάτων ποιησάμενοι τὸ δεινὸν ἀνευφημήσαιμεν κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα λέγοντες οἴμοι, ὅτ’ οὐ πρόσθεν με διώλεσε νηλεὲς ἦμαρ, πρὶν σχέτλι’ ἔργα βορᾶς περὶ χείλεσι μητίσασθαι. τὸ γὰρ τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασι συναλγεῖν τὴν οἰκείαν αἴσθησιν, εὕρασθαί τι τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι κακοῖς ἄκος ζητούντων … βίον, ἵνα καθάπερ ἁγνὰ θύματα τῷ δαιμονίῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστος ἀπαρχόμενος τύχῃ [32] τῆς ὁσίας καὶ τῆς παρὰ θεῶν ὠφελείας. πάντων δὲ μεγίστη καὶ πρώτη ἡ τῶν καρπῶν ἐστίν, ἧς καὶ ἀπαρκτέον μόνης τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τῇ γῇ τῇ τούτους ἀναδούσῃ. κοινὴ γάρ ἐστιν αὕτη καὶ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἑστία, καὶ δεῖ πάντας ἐπὶ ταύτης ὡς τροφοῦ καὶ μητρὸς ἡμῶν κλινομένους ὑμνεῖν καὶ φιλοστοργεῖν ὡς τεκοῦσαν· οὕτως γὰρ τῆς τοῦ βίου καταστροφῆς τυχόντες πάλιν ἀξιωθείημεν ἂν εἰς οὐρανὸν τὸ σύμπαν γένος τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ θεῶν, οὓς νῦν ὁρῶντας τιμᾶν τούτοις ὧν συναίτιοι ἡμῖν εἰσίν, ἀπαρχομένους μὲν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων καρπῶν καὶ πάντας, οὐκ ἀξιόχρεως δ’ εἰς τὸ θύειν θεοῖς πάντας ἡμᾶς ἡγουμένους. καθάπερ γὰρ οὐ πᾶν θυτέον αὐτοῖς, οὕτως οὐδ’ ὑπὸ παντὸς ἴσως κεχάρισται τοῖς θεοῖς. τὰ μὲν δὴ κεφάλαια τοῦ μὴ δεῖν θύειν ζῷα χωρὶς τῶν ἐμβεβλημένων μύθων ὀλίγων τε τῶν ὑφ’ ἡμῶν προσκειμένων καὶ συντετμημένων ἐστὶν τῶν [33] Θεοφράστου ταῦτα. ἐγὼ δὲ τὰ μὲν [ 486 ]

κεκρατηκότα παρ’ ἑκάστοις νόμιμα λύσων οὐκ ἔρχομαι· οὐ γάρ μοι περὶ πολιτείας νῦν πρόκειται λέγειν· δεδωκότων δὲ τῶν νόμων, ἐν οἷς πολιτευόμεθα, καὶ διὰ τῶν λιτοτάτων καὶ ἀψύχων γεραίρειν τὸ θεῖον, τὸ λιτότατον αἱρούμενοι νόμῳ τε πόλεως θύσομεν καὶ αὐτοὶ σπουδάσομεν τὴν προσήκουσαν θυσίαν ποιεῖσθαι, καθαροὶ πανταχόθεν τοῖς θεοῖς προσιόντες. ὅλως δ’ εἰ τὸ τῆς θυσίας ἀπαρχῆς ἔχει ἀξίαν καὶ εὐχαριστίας ὧν παρὰ θεῶν ἔχομεν εἰς τὰς χρείας, ἀλογώτατον ἂν εἴη αὐτοὺς ἀπεχομένους τῶν ἐμψύχων τοῖς θεοῖς τούτων ἀπάρχεσθαι. οὔτε γὰρ χείρους ἡμῶν οἱ θεοί, ἵνα τούτων αὐτοὶ δέωνται, ἡμῶν μὴ δεομένων, οὔτε ὅσιον ἀπαρχὴν διδόναι ἧς ἡμεῖς ἀπεχόμεθα τροφῆς. ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἔθος τοιοῦτο κατειλήφαμεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτε μὲν οὐχ ἥπτοντο ἐμψύχου βορᾶς οὐδ’ ἀπαρξαμένων ἀπὸ τῶν ζῴων, ἀφ’ οὗ δ’ ἐγεύσαντο καὶ θεοῖς ἀπαρξαμένων· ὥστε καὶ νῦν καθήκει δήπου τὸν ἀπαρχόμενον ἐκείνων [34] ἀπάρχεσθαι ὧν καὶ θιγγάνει. θύσωμεν τοίνυν καὶ ἡμεῖς· ἀλλὰ θύσωμεν, ὡς προσήκει, διαφόρους τὰς θυσίας ὡς ἂν διαφόροις δυνάμεσι προσάγοντες· θεῷ μὲν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, ὥς τις ἀνὴρ σοφὸς ἔφη, μηδὲν τῶν αἰσθητῶν μήτε θυμιῶντες μήτ’ ἐπονομάζοντες· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔστιν ἔνυλον, ὃ μὴ τῷ ἀύλῳ εὐθύς ἐστιν ἀκάθαρτον. διὸ οὐδὲ λόγος τούτῳ ὁ κατὰ φωνὴν οἰκεῖος, οὐδ’ ὁ ἔνδον, ὅταν πάθει ψυχῆς ᾖ μεμολυσμένος, διὰ δὲ σιγῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτοῦ καθαρῶν ἐννοιῶν θρησκεύομεν αὐτόν. δεῖ ἄρα συναφθέντας καὶ ὁμοιωθέντας αὐτῷ τὴν αὑτῶν ἀναγωγὴν θυσίαν ἱερὰν προσάγειν τῷ θεῷ, τὴν αὐτὴν δὲ καὶ ὕμνον οὖσαν καὶ ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν. ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ ἄρα τῆς ψυχῆς, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ θεωρίᾳ ἡ θυσία αὕτη τελεῖται. τοῖς δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐκγόνοις, νοητοῖς δὲ θεοῖς ἤδη καὶ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ λόγου ὑμνῳδίαν προσθετέον. ἀπαρχὴ γὰρ ἑκάστῳ ὧν δέδωκεν ἡ θυσία, καὶ δι’ ὧν ἡμῶν τρέφει καὶ εἰς τὸ εἶναι συνέχει τὴν οὐσίαν. ὡς οὖν γεωργὸς δραγμάτων ἀπάρχεται καὶ τῶν ἀκροδρύων, οὕτως ἡμεῖς ἀπαρξώμεθα αὐτοῖς ἐννοιῶν τῶν περὶ αὐτῶν καλῶν, εὐχαριστοῦντες ὧν ἡμῖν δεδώκασιν τὴν θεωρίαν, καὶ ὅτι ἡμᾶς διὰ τῆς αὐτῶν θέας ἀληθινῶς τρέφουσι, συνόντες καὶ φαινόμενοι καὶ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σωτηρίᾳ ἐπιλάμποντες· [35] νῦν δὲ τοῦτο μὲν ποιεῖν ὀκνοῦσι καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν φιλοσοφεῖν ἐσπουδακότων, δοξοκοποῦντες δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ θεῖον τιμῶντες περὶ τὰ ἀφιδρύματα στρέφονται, οὐδὲ πῇ ἀπαντητέον ἢ μὴ ἐπεσκεμμένοι, οὐδὲ παρὰ τῶν θεοσόφων μαθεῖν σπουδάσαντες, ἄχρι τίνος καὶ πόσου κἀνταῦθα παραβλητέον. ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς οὐδὲν διοισόμεθα τούτοις, μή πῃ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ τοιοῦτον σπουδάσομεν διαγιγνώσκειν, καὶ τοὺς ὁσίους καὶ παλαιοὺς ἐκμιμησόμεθα, τὸ πλέον ἀπαρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θεωρίας, ἧς ἡμῖν αὐτοὶ δεδώκασιν, καὶ ἧς ἐν χρείᾳ πρὸς τὴν ὄντως σωτηρίαν καθεστήκαμεν. [36] οἱ γοῦν Πυθαγόρειοι περὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς καὶ τὰς γραμμὰς σπουδάζοντες ἀπὸ τούτων τὸ πλέον τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπήρχοντο, τὸν μέν τινα ἀριθμὸν Ἀθηνᾶν καλοῦντες, τὸν δέ τινα Ἄρτεμιν, ὥσπερ αὖ ἄλλον Ἀπόλλωνα, καὶ πάλιν ἄλλον μὲν δικαιοσύνην, ἄλλον δὲ σωφροσύνην· καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διαγραμμάτων ὁμοίως. καὶ οὕτως ἠρέσκοντο τοὺς θεοὺς ταῖς τοιαύταις ἀπαρχαῖς, ὡς καὶ τυγχάνειν αὐτῶν καλοῦντας ἕκαστον τοῖς ἀναθήμασιν καὶ κεχρῆσθαι πολλάκις πρὸς μαντείαν καὶ εἴ τινος πρὸς ἐξέτασιν δέοιντο. θεοῖς γε μὴν τοῖς ἐντὸς οὐρανοῦ πλανωμένοις τε καὶ ἀπλανέσιν, ὧν ἡγεῖσθαι θετέον ἥλιον πάντων σελήνην τε δευτέραν, πῦρ τε ἤδη ξυγγενὲς ἀνάπτοιμεν ἂν ἅ τε φησὶν ὁ θεολόγος ποιήσωμεν. φησὶ δὲ ἔμψυχον οὗτος θύειν μηδὲ ἕν, ἀλλ’ [ 487 ]

ἄχρις ἀλφίτων καὶ μέλιτος καὶ τῶν ἐκ γῆς ἀκροδρύων τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀνθέων ἀπάρχεσθαι· μηδὲ ἀφ’ ᾑμαγμένης ἐσχάρας ἔστω τὸ πῦρ, καὶ ὅσα φησὶν ἐκεῖνος· τί γὰρ δεῖ μεταγράφειν ταῦτα; οἶδεν δὲ ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας φροντίζων ὡς θεοῖς μὲν οὐ θύεται ἔμψυχον οὐδέν, δαίμοσι δὲ ἄλλοις ἤτοι ἀγαθοῖς ἢ καὶ φαύλοις, καὶ τίνων ἐστὶ τὸ θύειν τούτοις καὶ ἄχρι τίνος αὐτοῦ δεομένων. ἐμοὶ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα εὔστομα κείσθω, ἃ δ’ οὖν τῶν Πλατωνικῶν τινὲς ἐδημοσίευσαν, ταῦτα ἀνεμέσητον παρατιθέντα τοῖς εὐξυνέτοις μηνύειν τὰ [37] προκείμενα· λέγουσι δὲ ὧδε. ὁ μὲν πρῶτος θεὸς ἀσώματός τε ὢν καὶ ἀκίνητος καὶ ἀμέριστος καὶ οὔτε ἔν τινι ὢν οὔτ’ ἐνδεδεμένος εἰς ἑαυτόν, χρῄζει οὐδενὸς τῶν ἔξωθεν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, οὐ μὴν οὐδ’ ἡ τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴ ἔχουσα μὲν τὸ τριχῇ διαστατὸν καὶ αὐτοκίνητον ἐκ φύσεως, προαιρεῖσθαι δὲ πεφυκυῖα τὸ καλῶς καὶ εὐτάκτως κινεῖσθαι καὶ κινεῖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ τοὺς ἀρίστους λόγους. δέδεκται δὲ τὸ σῶμα εἰς ἑαυτὴν καὶ περιείληφεν, καίπερ ἀσώματος οὖσα καὶ παντὸς πάθους ἀμέτοχος. τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς θεοῖς, τῷ τε κόσμῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπλανέσι καὶ πλανωμένοις, ἔκ τε ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος οὖσιν ὁρατοῖς θεοῖς, ἀντευχαριστητέον τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον διὰ τῶν θυσιῶν τῶν ἀψύχων. λοιπὸν οὖν ἡμῖν ἐστὶ τὸ τῶν ἀοράτων πλῆθος, οὓς δαίμονας ἀδιαστόλως εἴρηκε Πλάτων. τούτων δὲ οἳ μὲν κατονομασθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων παρ’ ἑκάστοις τυγχάνουσι τιμῶν τ’ ἰσοθέων καὶ τῆς ἄλλης θεραπείας, οἳ δὲ ὡς τὸ πολὺ μὲν οὐ πάνυ τι κατωνομάσθησαν, ὑπ’ ἐνίων δὲ κατὰ κώμας ἤ τινας πόλεις ὀνόματός τε καὶ θρησκείας ἀφανῶς τυγχάνουσιν. τὸ δὲ ἄλλο πλῆθος οὕτω μὲν κοινῶς προσαγορεύεται τῷ τῶν δαιμόνων ὀνόματι, πεῖσμα δὲ περὶ πάντων τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, ὡς ἄρα καὶ βλάπτοιεν ‹ἂν› εἰ χολωθεῖεν ἐπὶ τῷ παρορᾶσθαι καὶ μὴ τυγχάνειν τῆς νενομισμένης θεραπείας, καὶ πάλιν εὐεργετοῖεν ἂν τοὺς εὐχαῖς τε αὐτοὺς καὶ λιτανείαις θυσίαις τε καὶ τοῖς ἀκολούθοις [38] ἐξευμενιζομένους. συγκεχυμένης δὲ τῆς περὶ αὐτῶν ἐννοίας καὶ εἰς πολλὴν διαβολὴν χωρούσης ἀναγκαῖον διαστεῖλαι λόγῳ τὴν φύσιν αὐτῶν. ἴσως γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον φασὶν ὅθεν ἡ πλάνη γέγονεν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις περὶ αὐτῶν ἀναφαίνειν. διαιρετέον οὖν τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον. ὅσαι μὲν ψυχαὶ τῆς ὅλης ἐκπεφυκυῖαι μεγάλα μέρη διοικοῦσι τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην τόπων, ἐπερειδόμεναι μὲν πνεύματι, κρατοῦσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ κατὰ λόγον, ταύτας δαίμονάς τε ἀγαθοὺς νομιστέον καὶ ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ τῶν ἀρχομένων πάντα πραγματεύεσθαι, εἴτε τινῶν ἀφηγοῖντο ζῴων, εἴτε καρπῶν ἀποτεταγμένων, εἴτε καὶ τῶν ἕνεκα τούτων, οἷον ὄμβρων, πνευμάτων μετρίων, εὐδίας, τῶν τε ἄλλων ἃ τούτοις συνεργεῖ, εὐκρασίας τε ὡρῶν τοῦ ἔτους, ἡμῖν αὖ τεχνῶν τε καὶ τῶν κατὰ μουσικὴν παιδείας τε συναπάσης ἰατρικῆς τε καὶ γυμναστικῆς ἤ τινος τούτοις ὁμοίας. τούτους γὰρ ἀδύνατόν ἐστι καὶ τὰς ὠφελείας ἐκπορίζειν καὶ πάλιν αὖ βλάβης ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς αἰτίους γίγνεσθαι. ἐν δὲ τούτοις ἀριθμητέον καὶ τοὺς πορθμεύοντας, ὡς φησὶ Πλάτων, καὶ διαγγέλλοντας τὰ παρ’ ἀνθρώπων θεοῖς καὶ τὰ παρὰ θεῶν ἀνθρώποις, τὰς μὲν παρ’ ἡμῶν εὐχὰς ὡς πρὸς δικαστὰς ἀναφέροντας τοὺς θεούς, τὰς δὲ ἐκείνων παραινέσεις καὶ νουθεσίας μετὰ μαντειῶν ἐκφέροντας ἡμῖν. ὅσαι δὲ ψυχαὶ τοῦ συνεχοῦς πνεύματος οὐ κρατοῦσιν, ἀλλ’ ὡς τὸ πολὺ καὶ κρατοῦνται, δι’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἄγονταί τε καὶ φέρονται λίαν, ὅταν αἱ τοῦ πνεύματος ὀργαί τε καὶ ἐπιθυμίαι τὴν ὁρμὴν λάβωσιν. αὗται δ’ αἱ ψυχαὶ δαίμονες μὲν καὶ αὐταί, κακοεργοὶ [39] δ’ ἂν εἰκότως λέγοιντο. καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ σύμπαντες οὗτοί τε καὶ οἱ τῆς ἐναντίας δυνάμεως ἀόρατοί τε [ 488 ]

καὶ τελέως ἀναίσθητοι αἰσθήσεσιν ἀνθρωπίναις. οὐ γὰρ στερεὸν σῶμα περιβέβληνται οὐδὲ μορφὴν πάντες μίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐν σχήμασι πλείοσιν ἐκτυπούμεναι αἱ χαρακτηρίζουσαι τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῶν μορφαὶ τοτὲ μὲν ἐπιφαίνονται, τοτὲ δὲ ἀφανεῖς εἰσίν· ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ μεταβάλλουσι τὰς μορφὰς οἵ γε χείρους. τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ᾗ μέν ἐστι σωματικόν, παθητικόν ἐστι καὶ φθαρτόν· τῷ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ψυχῶν οὕτως δεδέσθαι, ὥστε τὸ εἶδος αὐτῶν διαμένειν πλείω χρόνον, οὐ μήν ἐστιν αἰώνιον. καὶ γὰρ ἀπορρεῖν αὐτοῦ τι συνεχῶς εἰκός ἐστι καὶ τρέπεσθαι. ἐν συμμετρίᾳ μὲν οὖν τὸ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὡς καὶ τὰ σώματα τῶν φαινομένων, τῶν δὲ κακοποιῶν ἀσύμμετρα, οἳ πλέον τῷ παθητικῷ νέμοντες τὸν περίγειον τόπον οὐδὲν ὅτι τῶν κακῶν οὐκ ἐπιχειροῦσι δρᾶν. βίαιον γὰρ ὅλως καὶ ὕπουλον ἔχοντες ἦθος ἐστερημένον τε τῆς φυλακῆς τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος δαιμονίου, σφοδρὰς καὶ αἰφνιδίους οἷον ‹ἐξ› ἐνέδρας ὡς τὸ πολὺ ποιοῦνται τὰς ἐμπτώσεις, πῇ μὲν λανθάνειν πειρώμενοι, πῇ δὲ βιαζόμενοι. ὅθεν ὀξέα μὲν τὰ ἀπ’ ἐκείνων πάθη· αἱ δ’ ἀκέσεις καὶ κατορθώσεις αἱ ἀπὸ τῶν κρειττόνων δαιμόνων βραδύτεραι δοκοῦσιν. πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ἀγαθὸν εὐήνιόν τε ὂν καὶ ὁμαλὸν τάξει πρόεισιν καὶ τὸ δέον οὐχ ὑπερβαίνει. οὕτως δέ σοι δοξάζοντι οὐδέποτ’ ἂν εἰς τὸ ἀτοπώτατον ἐμπίπτειν ἐνέσται, τὸ περὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν τὰ κακὰ ὑπολαμβάνειν καὶ περὶ τῶν κακῶν τὰ ἀγαθά· οὐ γὰρ ταύτῃ μόνον ὁ λόγος ἄτοπός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς περὶ τῶν θεῶν φαυλοτάτας ὑπολήψεις λαμβάνοντες οἱ πολλοὶ διαδιδόασιν καὶ εἰς [40] τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους. ἓν γὰρ δὴ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς μεγίστης βλάβης τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν κακοεργῶν δαιμόνων θετέον, ὅτι αὐτοὶ αἴτιοι γιγνόμενοι τῶν περὶ τὴν γῆν παθημάτων, οἷον λοιμῶν, ἀφοριῶν, σεισμῶν, αὐχμῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων, ἀναπείθουσιν ἡμᾶς, ὡς ἄρα τούτων αἴτιοί εἰσιν οἵπερ καὶ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων [τουτέστιν τῶν εὐφοριῶν], ἑαυτοὺς ἐξαιροῦντες τῆς αἰτίας καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πραγματευόμενοι πρῶτον, τὸ λανθάνειν ἀδικοῦντες. τρέπουσίν τε μετὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ λιτανείας ἡμᾶς καὶ θυσίας τῶν ἀγαθοεργῶν θεῶν ὡς ὠργισμένων. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ τὰ ὅμοια ποιοῦσιν μεταστῆσαι ἡμᾶς ἐθέλοντες ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρθῆς ἐννοίας τῶν θεῶν καὶ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιστρέψαι. πᾶσι γὰρ τοῖς οὕτως ἀνομολόγως καὶ ἀκαταλλήλως γινομένοις αὐτοὶ χαίρουσι, καὶ ὥσπερ ὑποδύντες τὰ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν πρόσωπα, τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀβουλίας ἀπολαύουσι, προσεταιριζόμενοι τὰ πλήθη διὰ τοῦ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐκκαίειν ἔρωσιν καὶ πόθοις πλούτων καὶ δυναστειῶν καὶ ἡδονῶν, κενοδοξίαις τε αὖ, ἐξ ὧν στάσεις καὶ πόλεμοι φύονται καὶ τὰ συγγενῆ τούτων. τὸ δὲ πάντων δεινότατον, ἐπαναβαίνουσιν ἐκ τῶνδε καὶ τὰ ὅμοια ἀναπείθουσι καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων θεῶν, μέχρι τοῦ καὶ τὸν ἄριστον θεὸν τούτοις τοῖς ἐγκλήμασιν ὑπάγειν, ᾧ δὴ καὶ τεταράχθαι φασὶν πάντ’ ἄνω κάτω. πεπόνθασι δὲ τοῦτο οὐκ ἰδιῶται μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ διατριβόντων οὐκ ὀλίγοι. ἡ δ’ αἰτία δι’ ἀλλήλων γέγονεν. καὶ γὰρ τῶν φιλοσοφούντων οἱ μὴ ἀποστάντες τῆς κοινῆς φορᾶς εἰς τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς πλήθεσι συνέβησαν, καὶ πάλιν αὖ τὰ πλήθη σύμφωνα ταῖς ἑαυτῶν δόξαις παρὰ τῶν δοκούντων σοφῶν ἀκούοντα, ἐπερρώσθη φρονεῖν ἔτι μᾶλλον περὶ τῶν θεῶν [41] τὰ τοιαῦτα. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ποιητικὸν καὶ προσεξέκαυσεν τὰς ὑπολήψεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρῆσθαι φράσει πρὸς ἔκπληξιν καὶ γοητείαν πεποιημένῃ κήλησίν τε ἐμποιῆσαι καὶ πίστιν περὶ τῶν ἀδυνατωτάτων δυναμένῃ· δέον ἐμπέδως πεπεῖσθαι ὅτι οὔτε τὸ ἀγαθὸν βλάπτει ποτὲ οὔτε τὸ κακὸν ὠφελεῖ· οὐ γὰρ θερμότητος, ὡς φησὶν Πλάτων, τὸ ψύχειν, [ 489 ]

ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐναντίου· οὕτως οὐδὲ τοῦ δικαίου τὸ βλάπτειν. δικαιότατον δὲ δήπου φύσει πάντων τὸ θεῖον, ἐπεὶ οὐδ’ ἂν ἦν θεῖον. οὐκοῦν ἀποτετμῆσθαι δεῖ ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν καὶ μοῖραν τῶν δαιμόνων τῶν ἀγαθοεργῶν. ἡ γὰρ βλάπτειν πεφυκυῖά τε καὶ βουλομένη ἐναντία τῇ ἀγαθοεργῷ· τὰ δ’ ἐναντία περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο. τούτων δὲ κατὰ πολλὰ μέρη λυμαινομένων τὸ θνητόν, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ κατὰ μεγάλα, καθ’ ἕνα μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔσθ’ ὅτε οὐχὶ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ οὐκ ἀνιᾶσι τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσημαίνουσιν εἰς δύναμιν τοὺς ἐπηρτημένους ἀπὸ τῶν κακοεργῶν κινδύνους, καὶ δι’ ὀνειράτων ἐμφαίνοντες καὶ διὰ ἐνθέου ψυχῆς ἄλλων τε πολλῶν. καὶ εἰ ἱκανός τις εἴη τὰ σημαινόμενα διαιρεῖσθαι, πᾶς ἂν γιγνώσκοι καὶ προφυλάττοιτο. πᾶσι γὰρ σημαίνουσιν, οὐ πᾶς δὲ ξυνίησι τὰ σημαινόμενα, οὐδὲ πᾶς τὰ γεγραμμένα δύναται ἀναγινώσκειν, ἀλλ’ ὁ μαθὼν γράμματα. διὰ μέντοι τῶν ἐναντίων καὶ ἡ πᾶσα γοητεία ἐκτελεῖται. τούτους γὰρ μάλιστα καὶ τὸν προεστῶτα αὐτῶν ἐκτιμῶσιν οἱ [42] τὰ κακὰ διὰ τῶν γοητειῶν διαπραττόμενοι. πλήρεις γὰρ πάσης φαντασίας οὗτοι καὶ ἀπατῆσαι ἱκανοὶ διὰ τῆς τερατουργίας. διὰ τούτων φίλτρα καὶ ἐρωτικὰ κατασκευάζουσιν οἱ κακοδαίμονες. πᾶσα γὰρ ἀκολασία καὶ πλούτων ἐλπὶς καὶ δόξης διὰ τούτων, καὶ μάλιστα ἡ ἀπάτη. τὸ γὰρ ψεῦδος τούτοις οἰκεῖον· βούλονται γὰρ εἶναι θεοὶ καὶ ἡ προεστῶσα αὐτῶν δύναμις δοκεῖν θεὸς εἶναι ὁ μέγιστος. οὗτοι οἱ χαίροντες ‘λοιβῇ τε κνίσῃ τε’, δι’ ὧν αὐτῶν τὸ πνευματικὸν καὶ σωματικὸν πιαίνεται. ζῇ γὰρ τοῦτο ἀτμοῖς καὶ ἀναθυμιάσεσι ποικίλως διὰ τῶν ποικίλων, καὶ δυναμοῦται ταῖς [43] ἐκ τῶν αἱμάτων καὶ σαρκῶν κνίσαις. διὸ συνετὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ σώφρων εὐλαβηθήσεται τοιαύταις χρῆσθαι θυσίαις, δι’ ὧν ἐπισπάσεται πρὸς ἑαυτὸν τοὺς τοιούτους· σπουδάσει δὲ καθαίρειν τὴν ψυχὴν παντοίως· καθαρᾷ γὰρ ψυχῇ οὐκ ἐπιτίθενται διὰ τὸ αὐτοῖς ἀνόμοιον. εἰ δὲ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τούτους ἀπομειλίττεσθαι, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς. ταύταις γὰρ καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ τὰ ἐκτὸς καὶ τὰ σωματικὰ ἀγαθὰ εἶναι νενόμισται καὶ τὰ ἐναντία κακά, ὀλίγιστον δ’ ἐν αὐταῖς τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπιμελούμενον. ἡμεῖς δὲ κατὰ δύναμιν οὐ δεησόμεθα ὧν οὗτοι παρέχουσιν, ἀλλ’ ἔκ τε ψυχῆς ἔκ τε τῶν ἐκτὸς πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμεθα, θεῷ μὲν καὶ τοῖς ἀμφ’ αὐτὸν ὁμοιοῦσθαι, ὃ γίνεται δι’ ἀπαθείας καὶ τῆς περὶ τῶν ὄντως ὄντων διηρθρωμένης διαλήψεως καὶ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὰ ταῦτα ζωῆς, πονηροῖς δὲ ἀνθρώποις καὶ δαίμοσιν καὶ ὅλως παντὶ τῷ χαίροντι τῷ θνητῷ τε καὶ ὑλικῷ ἀνομοιοῦσθαι. ὥστε κατὰ τὰ εἰρημένα τῷ Θεοφράστῳ θύσομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς. οἷς καὶ οἱ θεολόγοι συνεφώνησαν, εἰδότες ὡς καθ’ ὅσον τῆς τῶν παθῶν ἐξαιρέσεως ἀμελοῦμεν τῆς ψυχῆς, κατὰ τοσοῦτον τῇ πονηρᾷ δυνάμει συναπτόμεθα, καὶ δεήσει καὶ ταύτην ἀπομειλίττεσθαι. ὡς γὰρ φασὶν οἱ θεολόγοι, τοῖς δεδεμένοις ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκτὸς καὶ μηδέπω κρατοῦσιν τῶν παθῶν ἀναγκαῖον ἀποτρέπεσθαι καὶ ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, πόνων οὐ λήξουσι. [44] μέχρι δὴ τούτων τὰ περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν δεδηλώσθω. πλὴν ὅπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐλέγομεν, μὴ εἶναι ἀναγκαῖον ὡς εἰ θυτέον ζῷα, καὶ βρωτέον πάντως, νῦν ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὸ μὴ δεῖν ἐσθίειν, εἴπερ καὶ θύειν ἀνάγκη ποτέ, ἐπιδείκνυται. πάντες γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ ὡμολόγησαν οἱ θεολόγοι ὡς οὔτε ἁπτέον ἐν ταῖς ἀποτροπαίοις θυσίαις τῶν θυομένων, καθαρσίοις τε χρηστέον. μὴ γὰρ ἴοι τις εἰς ἄστυ μηδ’ εἰς οἶκον ἴδιον, μὴ πρότερον ἐσθῆτα καὶ σῶμα ποταμοῖς ἢ πηγῇ ἀποκαθήρας, φασίν. [ 490 ]

ὥστε καὶ οἷς ἐπέτρεψαν θύειν, ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν θυομένων τούτοις παρήγγειλαν, προαγνεύειν τε ἀποσιτίαις καὶ μάλιστα ταῖς ἀποχαῖς τῶν ἐμψύχων. εἶναι γὰρ τὴν ἁγνείαν φυλακὴν πρὸς εὐλάβειαν, οἷον σύμβολον ἢ σφραγῖδα θείαν περὶ τοῦ μηδὲν παθεῖν ὑπ’ ἐκείνων, οἷς πρόσεισιν καὶ ἀπομειλίττεται. ἐναντίως γὰρ διακείμενος οἷς δρᾷ καὶ θειοτέρως, ὅτι καὶ καθαρωτέρως, καὶ κατὰ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς μένει ἀβλαβής, οἷον ἔρυμα περιβεβλημένος τὴν ἁγνείαν. [45] διὸ καὶ ἄχρι τῶν γοήτων ἀναγκαία ἔδοξεν ἡ τοιαύτη προφυλακή, οὐ δύναται μέντοι διὰ παντός· ἀσελγείας γὰρ ἕνεκα ἐνοχλοῦσι δαίμονας πονηρούς· ὥστε οὐ γοήτων ἦν ἡ ἁγνεία, ἀλλὰ θείων καὶ θεοσόφων ἀνδρῶν, φυλακὴν δὲ φέρουσα πανταχοῦ τοῖς χρωμένοις τὴν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον οἰκείωσιν. ὡς εἴθε διὰ παντὸς αὐτῇ καὶ γόητες ἐχρῶντο, καὶ οὐκ ἂν γοητεύειν προυθυμήθησαν, ἀποκεκλεισμένοι ὑπὸ ταύτης ἀπολαύειν ὧν ἕνεκα ἀσεβοῦσιν. ὅθεν παθῶν ὄντες πλήρεις καὶ πρὸς ὀλίγον ἀπεχόμενοι τῶν ἀκαθάρτων βρώσεων, μεστοὶ ὄντες ἀκαθαρσίας, δίκας τίνουσι τῆς εἰς τὰ ὅλα παρανομίας, τὰ μὲν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὧν ἐρεθίζουσι, τὰ δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς πάντ’ ἐφορώσης τὰ θνητὰ καὶ ἕργα καὶ διανοήματα δίκης. ἀνδρὸς ἄρα θείου ἡ ἔσω καὶ ἡ ἐκτὸς ἁγνεία, ἀποσίτου μὲν παθῶν ψυχῆς σπουδάζοντος εἶναι, ἀποσίτου δὲ καὶ βρώσεων αἳ τὰ πάθη κινοῦσιν, σιτουμένου δὲ θεοσοφίαν καὶ ὁμοιουμένου ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου ὀρθαῖς διανοίαις καὶ ἱερωμένου τῇ νοερᾷ θυσίᾳ καὶ μετὰ λευκῆς ἐσθῆτος καὶ καθαρᾶς τῷ ὄντι τῆς ψυχικῆς ἀπαθείας καὶ τῆς κουφότητος τοῦ σώματος προσιόντος τῷ θεῷ, οὐκ ἐξ ἀλλοτρίων καὶ ὀθνείων χυμῶν καὶ παθῶν ψυχικῶν βεβαρημένου. [46] οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἐν μὲν ἱεροῖς ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων θεοῖς ἀφωρισμένοις καὶ τὰ ἐν ποσὶ καθαρὰ δεῖ εἶναι καὶ ἀκηλίδωτα πέδιλα, ἐν δὲ τῷ νεῷ τοῦ πατρός, τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, τὸν ἔσχατον καὶ ἐκτὸς ἡμῶν χιτῶνα τὸν δερμάτινον οὐχ ἁγνὸν προσήκει διατηρεῖν καὶ μεθ’ ἁγνοῦ διατρίβειν ἐν τῷ νεῷ τοῦ πατρός; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ μεμολύνθαι αὐτὸν μόνον ὁ κίνδυνος ἔκειτο, ἐνῆν παριδεῖν ἴσως καὶ καταρρᾳθυμῆσαι· νῦν δὲ παντὸς τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ σώματος ἀπορροίας φέροντος δαιμονίων ὑλικῶν, ἅμα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ τῇ ἐκ σαρκῶν καὶ αἱμάτων πάρεστιν ἡ ταύτῃ φίλη καὶ προσήγορος δύναμις [47] δι’ ὁμοιότητα καὶ οἰκειότητα. ὅθεν ὀρθῶς οἱ θεολόγοι τῆς ἀποχῆς ἐπεμέλοντο, καὶ ὁ Αἰγύπτιος ταῦθ’ ἡμῖν ἐμήνυσεν αἰτίαν ἀποδιδοὺς φυσικωτάτην, ἣν ἐκ τῆς πείρας ἐδοκίμασεν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ψυχὴ φαύλη καὶ ἄλογος, ἣ τὸ σῶμα ἀπέλιπε βίᾳ συληθεῖσα, προσμένει τούτῳ, ὅπου γε καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων αἱ τῶν βίᾳ ἀποθανόντων κατέχονται πρὸς τῷ σώματι, ὃ καὶ τοῦ μὴ βίᾳ ἑαυτὸν ἐξάγειν ἦν κωλυτικόν, ἐπεὶ οὖν τῶν ζῴων αἱ βίαιοι σφαγαὶ ἐμφιληδεῖν τὰς ψυχὰς οἷς ἀπολείπουσιν ἀναγκάζουσιν, διείργεται δὲ οὐδαμῶς ψυχὴ ἐκεῖ εἶναι ὅποι τὸ συγγενὲς καθέλκει αὐτήν, ὅθεν καὶ ὀδυρόμεναι ὤφθησαν πολλαί, καὶ αἱ τῶν ἀτάφων παραμένουσι τοῖς σώμασιν, αἷς καὶ οἱ γόητες καταχρῶνται πρὸς ‹τὴν› αὑτῶν ὑπηρεσίαν, βιαζόμενοι τῇ τοῦ σώματος ἢ μέρους τοῦ σώματος κατοχῇ· ἐπεὶ οὖν ταῦτα ἱστόρησαν καὶ φύσιν ψυχῆς φαύλης καὶ συγγένειαν καὶ ἡδονήν, ‹ἣν› ἔχει πρὸς τὰ σώματα ἐξ ὧν ἀπεσπάσθη, εἰκότως ἐφυλάξαντο τὴν τῶν σαρκῶν θοίνην, ἵνα ἀλλοτρίαις ψυχαῖς βιαίοις καὶ ἀκαθάρτοις πρὸς τὸ συγγενὲς ἑλκομέναις μὴ ἐνοχλοῖντο μηδὲ ἐμποδίζοιντο προσέρχεσθαι μόνοι τῷ θεῷ, δαιμόνων τῇ παρουσίᾳ [ 491 ]

ἐνο[48]χλούντων. ὅτι γὰρ ὁλκὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ τοῦ συγγενοῦς σώματος φύσις, ἡ πεῖρα τούτους ἐδίδαξεν διὰ πλειόνων. οἱ γοῦν ζῴων μαντικῶν ψυχὰς δέξασθαι βουλόμενοι εἰς ἑαυτούς, τὰ κυριώτατα μόρια καταπιόντες, οἷον καρδίας κοράκων ἢ ἀσπαλάκων ἢ ἱεράκων, ἔχουσι παροῦσαν τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ χρηματίζουσαν ὡς θεὸν καὶ εἰσιοῦσαν εἰς αὐτοὺς ἅμα τῇ ἐνθέσει τῇ τοῦ σώματος. [49] εἰκότως ἄρα ὁ φιλόσοφος καὶ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἱερεὺς πάσης ἀπέχεται ἐμψύχου βορᾶς, μόνος μόνῳ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ θεῷ προσιέναι σπουδάζων ἄνευ τῆς τῶν παρομαρτούντων ἐνοχλήσεως, καὶ ἔστιν εὐλαβὴς τὰς τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγκας ἐξιστορηκώς. ἵστωρ γὰρ πολλῶν ὁ ὄντως φιλόσοφος καὶ σημειωτικὸς καὶ καταληπτικὸς τῶν τῆς φύσεως πραγμάτων καὶ συνετὸς καὶ κόσμιος καὶ μέτριος, πανταχόθεν σῴζων ἑαυτόν· καὶ ὥσπερ ὅ τινος τῶν κατὰ μέρος ‹θεῶν› ἱερεὺς ἔμπειρος τῆς ἱδρύσεως τῶν ἀγαλμάτων αὐτοῦ τῶν τε ὀργιασμῶν καὶ τελετῶν καθάρσεών τε καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων, οὕτως ὁ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν θεοῦ ἱερεὺς ἔμπειρος τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀγαλματοποιίας καθάρσεών τε καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δι’ ὧν συνάπτεται τῷ [50] θεῷ. εἰ δὲ οἱ τῶν τῇδε ἱερεῖς καὶ ἱεροσκόποι καὶ τάφων ἀπέχεσθαι κελεύουσιν ἑαυτοῖς τε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, καὶ ἀνδρῶν ἀνοσίων καὶ ἐμμήνων καὶ συνουσιῶν καὶ θέας ἤδη αἰσχρᾶς καὶ πενθικῆς καὶ ἀκροάσεως πάθος ἐγειρούσης [ἐπεὶ πολλάκις φαίνεται καὶ διὰ τοὺς παρόντας ἀκαθάρτους ὃ ταράττει τὸν ἱεροσκόπον· διὸ καὶ τὸ θύειν ἀκαίρως καὶ βλάβην μείζονα φέρειν ἢ κέρδος φασίν], ἦ που γε ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἱερεὺς αὐτὸς τάφος γίγνεσθαι νεκρῶν σωμάτων ὑπομενεῖ [αὐτὸς] μιασμάτων πλήρης, ὁμιλητὴς σπουδάζων γενέσθαι τῷ κρείττονι; [ἀρκεῖ ὅτι τὰ τοῦ θανάτου μέρη ἐπὶ τῶν καρπῶν εἰς τὴν ἐνταῦθα ἡμῶν ζωὴν παραλαμβάνομεν.] ἀλλὰ μήπω περὶ τούτων· ἔτι δὲ τὰ περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν [51] διακριτέον. φαίη γὰρ ἄν τις ὅτι πολὺ μέρος ἀναιροῦμεν μαντείας τῆς διὰ σπλάγχνων, ἀπεχόμενοι τῆς τῶν ζῴων ἀναιρέσεως. οὐκοῦν ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀναιρείτω καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· ἐπιφαίνεται γὰρ μᾶλλον, ὡς φασίν, τοῖς τούτων σπλάγχνοις τὰ μέλλοντα· καὶ πολλοί γε τῶν βαρβάρων δι’ ἀνθρώπων σπλαγχνεύονται. ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἀδικίας καὶ πλεονεξίας ἦν τὸ ἕνεκα μαντείας ἀναιρεῖν τὸν ὁμόφυλον, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἄλογον ζῷον σφάττειν μαντείας ἕνεκα ἄδικον. πότερα δὲ τὰ σημεῖα οἱ θεοὶ ἐπιφαίνουσιν ἢ δαίμονες ἢ ἡ ψυχὴ ἀπαλλαττομένη τοῦ ζῴου πρὸς τὴν πεῦσιν ἀποκρίνεται διὰ τῶν ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις σημείων, οὐκ ἔστιν τοῦ [52] παρόντος λόγου ἐρευνῆσαι. οἷς μέντοι ὁ βίος ἔξω κυλίεται, τούτοις ἐπιτρέπομεν ἅπαξ ἀσεβήσασιν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς φέρεσθαι ᾗπερ καὶ φέρονται. ὃν δ’ ἡμεῖς ὑπογράφομεν φιλόσοφον ἀφιστάμενον τῶν ἐκτός, εἰκότως φαμὲν μὴ ἐνοχλήσειν δαίμοσι μηδὲ μάντεων δεήσεσθαι μηδὲ σπλάγχνων ζῴων. ὧν γὰρ ἕνεκα αἱ μαντεῖαι, τούτων οὗτος μεμελέτηκεν ἀφίστασθαι. οὐ γὰρ εἰς γάμον καθίησιν, ἵνα περὶ γάμου τὸν μάντιν ἐνοχλήσῃ, οὐκ εἰς ἐμπορίαν, οὐ περὶ οἰκέτου, οὐ περὶ προκοπῆς καὶ τῆς ἄλλης παρ’ ἀνθρώποις δοξοκοπίας. περὶ ὧν δὲ ζητεῖ, μάντις μὲν οὐδεὶς οὐδὲ σπλάγχνα ζῴων μηνύσει τὸ σαφές· αὐτὸς δὲ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, ὡς λέγομεν, προσιὼν τῷ θεῷ, ὃς ἐν τοῖς ἀληθινοῖς αὐτοῦ σπλάγχνοις ἵδρυται, περὶ τοῦ αἰωνίου βίου λήψεται τὰς ὑποθήκας, ὅλος ἐκεῖ συρρεύσας, καὶ ἀντὶ μάντεως [53] ‘Διὸς μεγάλου ὀαριστὴς’ εὐχόμενος γενέσθαι. εἰ δ’ ἄρα καὶ ἐπείξειέ τι τῶν τῆς ἀνάγκης, εἰσίν οἱ τῷ οὕτω ζῶντι τῷ οἰκέτῃ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ δι’ ὀνειράτων καὶ συμβόλων καὶ δι’ [ 492 ]

ὄττης ἀγαθοὶ δαίμονες προτρέποντες καὶ μηνύοντες τὸ ἀποβησόμενον καὶ ὃ ἀναγκαῖον φυλάξασθαι. μόνον γὰρ ἀποστῆναι δεῖ τοῦ κακοῦ καὶ ἐπιγνῶναι τὸ ἐν τοῖς ὅλοις τιμιώτατον καὶ πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ ἀγαθὸν φίλον καὶ προσήγορον. ἀλλὰ δεινή τις ἡ κακία καὶ τῶν θείων ἀμαθία καταφρονεῖν ὧν οὐκ οἶδεν καὶ ἐπισύρειν, ἐπειδὴ ταῦτα οὐ φωναῖς ἐξακούστοις ἡ φύσις βοᾷ, νοερὰ δὲ οὖσα διὰ νοῦ μυσταγωγεῖ τοὺς ταύτην σέβοντας. κἂν μέντοι τις θυτικὴν παραδέξηται προγνώσεως ἕνεκα τοῦ μέλλοντος, οὐχ ἕπεται ταύτῃ καὶ τὸ ἐσθίειν δεῖν ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ σάρκας παραδέχεσθαι, καθάπερ οὐδὲ τὸ θύειν ὅπως οὖν ἢ θεοῖς ἢ δαίμοσιν εἰσηγεῖται τὴν βρῶσιν. ἡ γοῦν ἱστορία οὐ μόνον ὧν Θεόφραστος ἐμνήσθη, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλων πλειόνων τὴν μνήμην παρέδωκεν ὡς καὶ ἀνθρώπους θυόντων τῶν πάλαι, καὶ οὐ δήπου διὰ τοῦτο [54] καὶ βρωτέον ἀνθρώπους. καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ πλήρους οὔσης τῆς ἱστορίας λέγομεν, αὐτάρκη καὶ ταῦτα παραστῆσαι. ἐθύετο γὰρ καὶ ἐν Ῥόδῳ μηνὶ Μεταγειτνιῶνι ἕκτῃ ἱσταμένου ἄνθρωπος τῷ Κρόνῳ. ὃ δὴ ἐπὶ πολὺ κρατῆσαν ἔθος μετεβλήθη· ἕνα γὰρ τῶν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ δημοσίᾳ κατακριθέντων μέχρι μὲν τῶν Κρονίων συνεῖχον, ἐνστάσης δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς προαγαγόντες τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔξω πυλῶν ἄντικρυς τοῦ Ἀριστοβούλης ἕδους, οἴνου ποτίσαντες ἔσφαττον. ἐν δὲ τῇ νῦν Σαλαμῖνι, πρότερον δὲ Κορωνίδι ὀνομαζομένῃ, μηνὶ κατὰ Κυπρίους Ἀφροδισίῳ ἐθύετο ἄνθρωπος τῇ Ἀγραύλῳ τῇ Κέκροπος καὶ νύμφης Ἀγραυλίδος. καὶ διέμενε τὸ ἔθος ἄχρι τῶν Διομήδους χρόνων· εἶτα μετέβαλεν, ὥστε τῷ Διομήδει τὸν ἄνθρωπον θύεσθαι· ὑφ’ ἕνα δὲ περίβολον ὅ τε τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς νεὼς καὶ ὁ τῆς Ἀγραύλου καὶ Διομήδους. ὁ δὲ σφαγιαζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν ἐφήβων ἀγόμενος τρὶς περιέθει τὸν βωμόν· ἔπειτα ὁ ἱερεὺς αὐτὸν λόγχῃ ἔπαιεν κατὰ τοῦ στομάχου, καὶ οὕτως αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν νησθεῖσαν πυρὰν ὡλοκαύτιζεν. [55] τοῦτον δὲ τὸν θεσμὸν Δίφιλος ὁ τῆς Κύπρου βασιλεὺς κατέλυσε, κατὰ τοὺς Σελεύκου χρόνους τοῦ θεολόγου γενόμενος, τὸ ἔθος εἰς βουθυσίαν μεταστήσας. προσήκατο δ’ ὁ δαίμων ἀντὶ ἀνθρώπου τὸν βοῦν· οὕτως ἰσάξιόν ἐστιν τὸ δρώμενον. κατέλυσε δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἡλίου πόλει τῆς Αἰγύπτου τὸν τῆς ἀνθρωποκτονίας νόμον Ἄμωσις, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ Μανεθὼς ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀρχαϊσμοῦ καὶ εὐσεβείας. ἐθύοντο δὲ τῇ Ἥρᾳ καὶ ἐδοκιμάζοντο, καθάπερ οἱ ζητούμενοι καθαροὶ μόσχοι καὶ συσφραγιζόμενοι. ἐθύοντο δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας τρεῖς, ἀνθ’ ὧν κηρίνους ἐκέλευσεν ὁ Ἄμωσις τοὺς ἴσους ἐπιτίθεσθαι. ἔθυον δὲ καὶ ἐν Χίῳ τῷ Ὠμαδίῳ Διονύσῳ ἄνθρωπον διασπῶντες, καὶ ἐν Τενέδῳ, ὡς φησὶν Εὔελπις ὁ Καρύστιος· ἐπεὶ καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους φησὶν [56] ὁ Ἀπολλόδωρος τῷ Ἄρει θύειν ἄνθρωπον. Φοίνικες δὲ ἐν ταῖς μεγάλαις συμφοραῖς ἢ πολέμων ἢ λοιμῶν ἢ αὐχμῶν ἔθυον τῶν φιλτάτων τινὰ ἐπιφημίζοντες Κρόνῳ, καὶ πλήρης δὲ ἡ Φοινικικὴ ἱστορία τῶν θυσάντων, ἣν Σαγχουνιάθων μὲν τῇ Φοινίκων γλώττῃ συνέγραψεν, Φίλων δὲ ὁ Βύβλιος εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν δι’ ὀκτὼ βιβλίων ἡρμήνευσεν. Ἴστρος δὲ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ τῶν Κρητικῶν θυσιῶν φησὶν τοὺς Κουρῆτας τὸ παλαιὸν τῷ Κρόνῳ θύειν παῖδας. καταλυθῆναι δὲ τὰς ἀνθρωποθυσίας σχεδὸν τὰς παρὰ πᾶσιν φησὶ Πάλλας ὁ ἄριστα τὰ περὶ τῶν τοῦ Μίθρα συναγαγὼν μυστηρίων ἐφ’ Ἁδριανοῦ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος. ἐθύετο γὰρ καὶ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῇ κατὰ Συρίαν τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ κατ’ ἔτος παρθένος, νῦν δὲ ἔλαφος. καὶ μὴν καὶ οἱ ἐν Λιβύῃ Καρχηδόνιοι ἐποίουν τὴν αὐτὴν θυσίαν, ἣν Ἰφικράτης ἔπαυσεν, καὶ Δουματηνοὶ δὲ τῆς Ἀραβίας κατ’ ἔτος [ 493 ]

ἕκαστον ἔθυον παῖδα, ὃν ὑπὸ βωμὸν ἔθαπτον, ᾧ χρῶνται ὡς ξοάνῳ. Φύλαρχος δὲ κοινῶς πάντας τοὺς Ἕλληνας πρὶν ἐπὶ πολεμίους ἐξιέναι ἀνθρωποκτονεῖν ἱστορεῖ. καὶ παρίημι Θρᾷκας καὶ Σκύθας, καὶ ὡς Ἀθηναῖοι τὴν Ἐρεχθέως καὶ Πραξιθέας θυγατέρα ἀνεῖλον. ἀλλ’ ἔτι γε νῦν τίς ἀγνοεῖ κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην πόλιν τῇ τοῦ Λατιαρίου Διὸς ἑορτῇ σφαζόμενον ἄνθρωπον; καὶ οὐ δήπου τούτου ἕνεκα βρωτέον καὶ σάρκας ἀνθρώπων, ἐπείπερ διά τινα ἀνάγκην εἰς θυσίαν ἄνθρωπος παρελήφθη. καὶ γὰρ ἐν λιμοῖς πολιορκούμενοί τινες ἀλλήλων ἐγεύσαντο, καὶ ὅμως ἐναγεῖς οὗτοι ἐνομίσθησαν καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα [57] ἀσεβές. καὶ μετά γε τὸν πρῶτον πόλεμον τὸν γενόμενον Ῥωμαίοις περὶ Σικελίας πρὸς Καρχηδονίους ἀποστάντων τῶν Φοινίκων μισθοφόρων καὶ συναποστησάντων τοὺς Λίβυας, Ἀμίλκας ὁ Βάρκας ἐπικαλούμενος, ἐπιστρατεύσας αὐτοῖς εἰς λιμὸν οὕτως περιέστησεν, ὡς τὸ μὲν πρῶτον τοὺς πίπτοντας ἐν ταῖς μάχαις ἐσθίειν ἐπιλειπόντων πάντων, δεύτερον τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους, τρίτον τοὺς οἰκέτας, ὕστερον δὲ καὶ ἐπ’ ἀλλήλους ὁρμῆσαι καὶ κλήρῳ τοὺς συστρατιώτας ἐσθίειν. ἀλλ’ ὅ γε Ἀμίλκας λαβὼν ὑποχειρίους διὰ τῶν ἐλεφάντων συνεπάτησεν, ὡς οὐχ ὅσιον ἔτι τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις αὐτοὺς ἐπιμίγνυσθαι, καὶ οὔτε αὐτὸς παρεδέξατο διὰ τὸ τολμῆσαί τινας τὴν ἀνθρωποφαγίαν οὔθ’ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Ἀννίβας, ᾧ συνεβούλευέ τις εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν στρατεύοντι ἐθίσαι ἀνθρωποφαγεῖν τὸν στρατόν, ὡς μὴ τροφῆς ἀποροῖεν. οὐ τοίνυν ἐπεὶ λιμοὶ καὶ πόλεμοι αἴτιοι τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων βρώσεως γεγόνασιν, ἐχρῆν ταύτην καὶ δι’ ἡδονὴν παραδέξασθαι, καθάπερ οὐδὲ τὴν ἀνθρωποφαγίαν προσηκάμεθα· οὐδὲ ἐπεὶ ἔθυσάν τισι δυνάμεσιν ζῷα, ἐχρῆν καὶ ἐσθίειν αὐτά. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀνθρώπους θύσαντες ἐγεύσαντο τούτου γε ἕνεκα σαρκῶν ἀνθρωπίνων. ἀλλ’ ὅτι μὲν τῷ θύειν οὐχ ἕπεται τὸ καὶ ἐσθίειν [58] πάντως τὰ ζῷα, διὰ τούτων ἀποδέδεικται· ὅτι δὲ οὐ θεοῖς, ἀλλὰ δαίμοσι τὰς θυσίας τὰς διὰ τῶν αἱμάτων προσῆγον οἱ τὰς ἐν τῷ παντὶ δυνάμεις καταμαθόντες, καὶ τοῦτο πεπίστωται παρ’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεολόγων. καὶ μὴν ὅτι τούτων οἳ μὲν κακοποιοί, οἳ δὲ ἀγαθοί, οἳ οὐκ ἐνοχλήσουσιν ἡμῖν ἀπαρχομένοις ἐκ μόνων ὧν ἐσθίομεν καὶ τρέφομεν ἢ τὸ σῶμα ἢ τὴν ψυχήν, καὶ τούτου μέμνηνται. ὀλίγα δ’ ἔτι προσθέντες, ὡς καὶ αἱ ἀδιάστροφοι ἔννοιαι τῶν πολλῶν ἐπιβάλλουσι τῇ ὀρθῇ περὶ τῶν θεῶν ὑπολήψει, τὸ βιβλίον περιγράψομεν. λέγουσι γοῦν καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν οἱ ἐπ’ ὀλίγον σωφρονοῦντες, τίς ὧδε μῶρος καὶ λίαν ἀνειμένος εὔπιστος ἀνδρῶν, ὅστις ἐλπίζει θεοὺς ὀστῶν ἀσάρκων καὶ χολῆς πυρουμένης, ἃ καὶ κυσὶν πεινῶσιν οὐχὶ βρώσιμα, χαίρειν ἅπαντας καὶ γέρας λαχεῖν τόδε; ἄλλος δὲ φησίν, ψαιστά, λιβανωτόν, πόπανα· ταῦτ’ ὠνήσομαι. οὐ τοῖς φίλοις θύω γάρ, ἀλλὰ τοῖς θεοῖς τὰ νῦν. [59] ἐπεὶ καὶ Ἀπόλλων παραινῶν θύειν κατὰ τὰ πάτρια [τουτέστιν κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῶν πατέρων], ἐπανάγειν ἔοικεν εἰς τὸ παλαιὸν ἔθος. τὸ δὲ παλαιὸν διὰ ποπάνων καὶ τῶν καρπῶν [ 494 ]

ἦν, ὡς ἀπεδείξαμεν. ὅθεν καὶ θυσίαι καὶ θυηλαὶ καὶ θυμέλαι ἐκαλοῦντο, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ θύειν τοῦ θυμιᾶν εἴχετο καὶ τοῦ νῦν παρ’ ἡμῖν λεγομένου ἐπιθύειν. ὃ γὰρ ἡμεῖς νῦν θύειν λέγομεν ἔρδειν ἔλεγον· ἔρδον δ’ Ἀπόλλωνι τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας ταύρων ἠδ’ αἰγῶν. [60] ἀγνοοῦσιν δὲ οἱ τὴν πολυτέλειαν εἰσαγαγόντες εἰς τὰς θυσίας, ὅπως ἅμα ταύτῃ ἑσμὸν κακῶν εἰσήγαγον, δεισιδαιμονίαν, τρυφήν, ὑπόληψιν τοῦ δεκάζειν δύνασθαι τὸ θεῖον καὶ θυσίαις ἀκεῖσθαι τὴν ἀδικίαν. ἢ πόθεν οἳ μὲν τριττύας χρυσόκερως, οἳ δ’ ἑκατόμβας, Ὀλυμπιὰς δ’ ἡ Ἀλεξάνδρου μήτηρ πάντα χίλια ἔθυεν, ἅπαξ τῆς πολυτελείας ἐπὶ τὴν δεισιδαιμονίαν προαγούσης; ὅταν δὲ νέος θεοὺς χαίρειν πολυτελείαις γνῷ καί, ὡς φασίν, ταῖς τῶν βοῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων θοίναις, πότ’ ἂν ἑκὼν σωφρονήσειεν; πῶς δὲ κεχαρισμένα θύειν ἡγούμενος τοῖς θεοῖς ταῦτα, οὐκ ἐξεῖναι ἀδικεῖν οἰήσεται αὑτῷ μέλλοντι διὰ τῶν θυσιῶν ἐξωνεῖσθαι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν; πεισθεὶς δὲ ὅτι τούτων χρείαν οὐκ ἔχουσιν οἱ θεοί, εἰς δὲ τὸ ἦθος ἀποβλέπουσι τῶν προσιόντων, μεγίστην θυσίαν λαμβάνοντες τὴν ὀρθὴν περὶ αὐτῶν τε καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων διάληψιν, πῶς οὐ σώφρων καὶ [61] ὅσιος καὶ δίκαιος ἔσται; θεοῖς δὲ ἀρίστη μὲν ἀπαρχὴ νοῦς καθαρὸς καὶ ψυχὴ ἀπαθής, οἰκεῖον δὲ καὶ τὸ μετρίων μὲν ἀπάρχεσθαι τῶν ἄλλων, μὴ παρέργως δέ, ἀλλὰ σὺν πάσῃ προθυμίᾳ. ἐοικέναι γὰρ δεῖ τὰς τιμὰς ταῖς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν προεδρίαις, ὑπαναστάσεσίν τε καὶ κατακλίσεσιν, οὐ συντάξεων δόσεσιν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἄνθρωπος μὲν ἐρεῖ, εἰ μνημονεύεις εὖ παθὼν φιλεῖς τέ με, ἀπέχω πάλαι, Φιλῖνε, παρὰ σοῦ τὴν χάριν· τούτου γὰρ αὐτὴν ἕνεκα πρὸς σὲ κατεθέμην· θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἀρκεῖται τούτοις. διόπερ ὁ Πλάτων, τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῷ θύειν, φησί, προσήκει καὶ προσομιλεῖν ἀεὶ τοῖς θεοῖς εὐχαῖς καὶ ἀναθήμασι καὶ θυσίαις καὶ τῇ πάσῃ θεραπείᾳ, τῷ δὲ κακῷ μάτην περὶ θεοὺς τὸν πολὺν εἶναι πόνον. ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς οἶδεν ἃ θυτέον καὶ ὧν ἀφεκτέον καὶ τίνα προσενεκτέον καὶ τίνων ἀπαρκτέον, ὁ δὲ φαῦλος ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας διαθέσεως καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς ἐσπούδακεν, προσάγων τοῖς θεοῖς τὰς τιμὰς ἀσεβεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ εὐσεβεῖ. διὸ οὐδ’ οἴεται δεῖν τοῖς φαύλοις ὁ Πλάτων ἐθισμοῖς συμπεριφέρεσθαι τὸν φιλόσοφον· οὔτε γὰρ τοῖς θεοῖς εἶναι φίλον οὔτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συμφέρον, ἀλλὰ μεταβάλλειν μὲν πειρᾶσθαι εἰς τὸ ἄμεινον, εἰ δὲ μή, αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτὰ μὴ μεταβάλλεσθαι, μετιέναι δὲ τὴν ὀρθὴν ὁδὸν αὐτὸν πορευόμενον μήτε κινδύνους τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν πολλῶν εὐλαβούμενον μήτε τὴν ἄλλην, εἴ τις γίγνοιτο, βλασφημίαν. καὶ γὰρ δεινὸν ἂν εἴη, Σύρους μὲν τῶν ἰχθύων μὴ ἂν γεύσασθαι μηδὲ τοὺς Ἑβραίους συῶν, Φοινίκων τε τοὺς πολλοὺς καὶ Αἰγυπτίων βοῶν θηλειῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ βασιλέων πολλῶν μεταβαλεῖν αὐτοὺς σπουδασάντων θάνατον ὑπομεῖναι μᾶλλον ἢ τὴν τοῦ νόμου παράβασιν, ἡμᾶς δὲ τοὺς τῆς φύσεως νόμους καὶ τὰς θείας παραγγελίας φόβων ἕνεκα ἀνθρωπίνων ἤ τινος βλασφημίας τῆς ἀπὸ τούτων αἱρεῖσθαι παραβαίνειν. ἦ μέγα ὁ θεῖος χορὸς σχετλιάσειεν ἂν θεῶν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀνδρῶν θείων πρὸς ἀνθρώπων φαύλων δόξας ὁρῶν ἡμᾶς κεχηνότας καὶ τὸν παρὰ τούτων φόβον ὑφορωμένους, οἳ καθ’ ἡμέραν μελέτην ἐν τῷ βίῳ τὸ ἀποθνῄσκειν τοῖς ἄλλοις πεποιήμεθα. [ 495 ]

ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΤΡΙΤΟΝ. [ 1 ] Ὡς Μ Ὲ Ν οὔτε πρὸς σωφροσύνην καὶ λιτότητα οὔτε πρὸς εὐσέβειαν, αἳ μάλιστα πρὸς τὸν θεωρητικὸν συντελοῦσι βίον, ἡ τῶν ἐμψύχων βρῶσις συμβάλλεται, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐναντιοῦται, διὰ τῶν φθασάντων, ὦ Φίρμε Καστρίκιε, δυεῖν βιβλίων ἀπεδείξαμεν. τῆς δὲ δικαιοσύνης τὸ κάλλιστον ἐν τῇ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς εὐσεβείᾳ κεκτημένης, ταύτης δὲ ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα διὰ τῆς ἀποχῆς συνισταμένης, οὐ δέος ἐστὶ περὶ τοῦ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δικαίου, μή πῃ τοῦτο παραθραύσωμεν, τήν γε πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ὁσίαν διασῴζοντες. Σωκράτης μὲν οὖν πρὸς τοὺς ἡδονὴν διαμφισβητοῦντας εἶναι τὸ τέλος, οὐδ’ ἂν πάντες, ἔφη, σύες καὶ τράγοι τούτῳ συναινῶσι, πεισθήσεσθαι ἐν τῷ ἥδεσθαι τὸ εὔδαιμον ἡμῶν κεῖσθαι, ἔστ’ ἂν νοῦς ἐν τοῖς πᾶσι κρατῇ· ἡμεῖς δέ, οὐδ’ ἂν πάντες λύκοι ἢ γῦπες τὴν κρεοφαγίαν δοκιμάζωσιν, οὐ συγχωρήσομεν τούτοις δίκαια λέγειν, ἔστ’ ἂν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀβλαβὲς ᾖ φύσει καὶ ἀφεκτικὸν τοῦ διὰ τῆς ἄλλων βλάβης αὑτῷ τὰς ἡδονὰς πορίζεσθαι. ἐς οὖν τὸν περὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης λόγον μεταβαίνοντες, ἐπείπερ ταύτην πρὸς τὰ ὅμοια δεῖν μόνα παρατείνειν εἰρήκασιν οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὰ ἄλογα διαγράφουσι τῶν ζῴων, φέρε ἡμεῖς τὴν ἀληθῆ τε ὁμοῦ καὶ Πυθαγόρειον δόξαν παραστήσωμεν, πᾶσαν ψυχήν, ᾗ μέτεστιν αἰσθήσεως καὶ μνήμης, λογικὴν ἐπιδεικνύντες· τούτου γὰρ ἀποδειχθέντος εἰκότως δὴ καὶ κατὰ τούτους πρὸς πᾶν ζῷον τὸ δίκαιον παρατενοῦμεν. ἐροῦμεν δὲ τὰ παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς συντόμως [2] ἐπιτέμνοντες. διττοῦ δὴ λόγου κατὰ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ὄντος, τοῦ μὲν ἐνδιαθέτου, τοῦ δὲ προφορικοῦ, καὶ πάλιν τοῦ μὲν κατωρθωμένου, τοῦ δὲ ἡμαρτημένου, ποτέρου ἀποστεροῦσι τὰ ζῷα διαρθρῶσαι προσῆκον. ἆρά γε τοῦ ὀρθοῦ μόνου, οὐχ ἁπλῶς δὲ τοῦ λόγου; ἢ παντελῶς παντὸς τοῦ τε ἔσω καὶ τοῦ ἔξω προϊόντος; ἐοίκασι δὴ τὴν παντελῆ στέρησιν αὐτῶν κατηγορεῖν, οὐ τὴν τοῦ κατωρθωμένου μόνον. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν οὐκ ἄλογα, λογικὰ δὲ ἦν ἔτι τὰ ζῷα, καθάπερ σχεδὸν πάντες κατ’ αὐτοὺς οἱ ἄνθρωποι. σοφὸς μὲν γὰρ ἢ εἷς ἢ καὶ δύο κατ’ αὐτοὺς γεγόνασιν, ἐν οἷς μόνοις ὁ λόγος κατώρθωται, οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι φαῦλοι πάντες· κἂν οἳ μὲν ὦσι προκόπτοντες, οἳ δὲ χύσιν τῆς φαυλότητος ἔχοντες, εἰ καὶ πάντες ὁμοίως λογικοί· ὑπὸ δὲ τῆς φιλαυτίας παρηγμένοι ἄλογα φασὶν τὰ ζῷα ἐφεξῆς τὰ ἄλλα σύμπαντα, τὴν παντελῆ στέρησιν τοῦ λόγου διὰ τῆς ἀλογίας μηνύειν ἐθέλοντες· καίτοι εἰ χρὴ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, οὐ μόνον ἁπλῶς ὁ λόγος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις θεωρεῖται, ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ὑποβολὰς [3] ἔχων πρὸς τὸ τέλειον. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν διττὸς ἦν, ὃ μὲν ἐν τῇ προφορᾷ, ὃ δὲ ἐν τῇ διαθέσει, ἀρξώμεθα πρότερον ἀπὸ τοῦ προφορικοῦ καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν φωνὴν τεταγμένου. εἰ δὴ προφορικός ἐστι λόγος φωνὴ διὰ γλώττης σημαντικὴ τῶν ἔνδον καὶ κατὰ ψυχὴν παθῶν· κοινοτάτη γὰρ ἡ ἀπόδοσις αὕτη καὶ αἱρέσεως οὐδέπω ἐχομένη, ἀλλὰ μόνον τῆς τοῦ λόγου ἐννοίας· τί τούτου ἄπεστι τῶν ζῴων ὅσα φθέγγεται; τί δὲ οὐχὶ καὶ ἃ πάσχει τι, πρότερον καὶ πρὶν εἰπεῖν ὃ μέλλει, διενοήθη; λέγω δὴ διάνοιαν τὸ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ κατὰ σιγὴν φωνούμενον. τοῦ τοίνυν ὑπὸ τῆς γλώττης φωνηθέντος, ὅπως ἂν καὶ φωνηθῇ, εἴτε βαρβάρως εἴτε [ 496 ]

Ἑλληνικῶς εἴτε κυνικῶς ἢ βοϊκῶς, λόγου γε ὄντος μέτοχα τὰ ζῷα τὰ φωνητικά, τῶν μὲν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ νόμους τοὺς ἀνθρωπείους φθεγγομένων, τῶν δὲ ζῴων κατὰ νόμους οὓς παρὰ τῶν θεῶν καὶ τῆς φύσεως εἴληχεν ἕκαστον. εἰ δὲ μὴ ἡμεῖς ξυνίεμεν, τί τοῦτο; οὐδὲ γὰρ τῆς Ἰνδῶν οἱ Ἕλληνες οὐδὲ τῆς Σκυθῶν ἢ Θρᾳκῶν ἢ Σύρων οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀττικῇ τραφέντες· ἀλλ’ ἴσα κλαγγῇ γεράνων ὁ τῶν ἑτέρων τοῖς ἑτέροις ἦχος προσπίπτει. καίτοι ἐγγράμματος τοῖς ἑτέροις ἡ αὐτῶν καὶ ἔναρθρος, ὡς καὶ ἡμῖν ἡ ἡμετέρα· ἄναρθρος δὲ καὶ ἀγράμματος ἡ τῶν Σύρων φέρε εἰπεῖν ἢ τῶν Περσῶν, ὡς καὶ πᾶσιν ἡ τῶν ζῴων. καθάπερ γὰρ ἡμεῖς ψόφου μόνου ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα καὶ ἤχου, ἀξύνετοι ὄντες τῆς [φέρε] Σκυθῶν ὁμιλίας, καὶ κλαγγάζειν δοκοῦσιν καὶ μηδὲν διαρθροῦν, ἀλλ’ ἑνὶ ψόφῳ χρῆσθαι μακροτέρῳ ἢ βραχυτέρῳ, τὸ παρηλλαγμένον δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰς σημασίαν οὐδαμῶς προσπίπτει, ἐκείνοις δὲ εὐσύνετος ἡ φθέγξις καὶ πολὺ τὸ διάφορον ἔχουσα, καθάπερ ἡμῖν ἡ συνήθης· οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων ἡ ξύνεσις μὲν ἐκείνοις κατὰ γένος ἰδίως προσπίπτει, ἡμῖν δὲ ὁ ψόφος μόνος ἐξάκουστος, τῆς σημασίας ἐκλειπούσης, διὰ τὸ μηδένα διδαχθέντα τὴν ἡμετέραν διδάξαι ἡμᾶς διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν λεγομένων παρὰ τοῖς ζῴοις. καίτοι εἰ δεῖ πιστεύειν τοῖς παλαιοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἐφ’ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν πατέρων γεγονόσιν, εἰσὶν οἳ λέγονται ἐπακοῦσαι καὶ σύνεσιν ἔχειν τῆς τῶν ζῴων φθέγξεως· ὡς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν παλαιῶν ὁ Μελάμπους καὶ ὁ Τειρεσίας καὶ οἱ τοιοῦτοι, οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ δὲ Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Τυανεύς, ἐφ’ οὗ καὶ λέγεται, ὅτι τοῖς ἑταίροις συνόντος, χελιδόνος ἐπιπτάσης καὶ φθεγγομένης, εἶπεν ὅτι μηνύει ἡ χελιδὼν ταῖς ἄλλαις ὄνον πρὸ τοῦ ἄστεως πεπτωκέναι σίτου βαστάζοντα φορτίον, ὃ δὴ κεχύσθαι εἰς τὴν γῆν τοῦ ἀχθοφοροῦντος πεπτωκότος. ἑταῖρος δὲ ἡμῶν ἐξηγεῖτό τις, οἰκέτου εὐτυχῆσαι παιδός, ὃς πάντα ξυνίει τὰ φθέγματα τῶν ὀρνίθων, καὶ ἦν πάντα μαντικὰ καὶ τοῦ μετ’ ὀλίγον μέλλοντος ἀγγελτικά· ἀφαιρεθῆναι δὲ τὴν σύνεσιν, τῆς μητρὸς εὐλαβηθείσης μὴ δῶρον αὐτὸν βασιλεῖ πέμψειεν, καὶ καθεύδοντος εἰς τὰ ὦτα ἐνουρησάσης. [4] ἀλλ’ ἵνα ταῦτα παρῶμεν διὰ τὸ ξύμφυτον ἡμῖν πάθος τῆς ἀπιστίας, ἀλλὰ τῶν γε ἐθνῶν τινὰ εἰς ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὅπως ξυγγένειαν ἔχει πρός τινων ζῴων σύνεσιν τῆς φθέγξεως, οὐδεὶς οἶμαι ἠγνόηκεν. Ἄραβες μὲν κοράκων ἀκούουσιν, Τυρρηνοὶ δ’ ἀετῶν· τάχα δ’ ἂν καὶ ἡμεῖς καὶ πάντες ἄνθρωποι συνετοὶ ἦμεν πάντων τῶν ζῴων, εἰ καὶ ἡμῶν τὰ ὦτα δράκων ἔνιψε. δηλοῖ γε μὴν καὶ τὸ ποικίλον καὶ διάφορον τῆς φθέγξεως αὐτῶν τὸ σημαντικόν. ἄλλως γοῦν ἀκούεται ὅταν φοβῆται φθεγγόμενα, ἄλλως ὅταν καλῇ, ἄλλως ὅταν εἰς τροφὴν παρακαλῇ, ἄλλως ὅταν φιλοφρονῆται, ἄλλως ὅταν προκαλῆται εἰς μάχην· καὶ τοσοῦτόν ἐστι τὸ διάφορον, ὡς καὶ σφόδρα δυσπαρατήρητον τὴν παραλλαγὴν εἶναι διὰ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τοῖς τὸν βίον εἰς ‹τὴν› τούτων τήρησιν καταθεμένοις. κορώνης γοῦν καὶ κόρακος οἰωνισταὶ ἄχρι τινὸς [πλήθους] τὸ διάφορον σημειωσάμενοι, τὸ λοιπὸν εἴασαν ὡς οὐκ ὂν ἀνθρώπῳ εὐπερίληπτον. ὅταν δὲ πρὸς ἄλληλα φθέγγηται φανερά τε καὶ εὔσημα, εἰ καὶ μὴ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν γνώριμα, φαίνηται δὲ καὶ ἡμᾶς μιμούμενα καὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶτταν ἐκμανθάνοντα καὶ συνιέντα τῶν ἐφεστώτων, τίς οὕτως ἀναιδὴς ὡς μὴ συγχωρεῖν εἶναι λογικά, διότι αὐτὸς οὐ συνίησιν ὧν λέγουσιν; κόρακες γοῦν καὶ κίτται ἐριθακοί τε καὶ ψιττακοὶ ἀνθρώπους μιμοῦνται καὶ μέμνηνται ὧν ἂν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ [ 497 ]

διδασκόμενοι ὑπακούουσι τῷ διδάσκοντι, καὶ πολλοί γε ἐμήνυσαν δι’ ὧν ἐδιδάχθησαν καὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας κατὰ τὸν οἶκον. ἡ δ’ Ἰνδικὴ ὕαινα, ἣν κοροκότταν οἱ ἐπιχώριοι καλοῦσι, καὶ ἄνευ διδασκάλου οὕτω φθέγγεται ἀνθρωπικῶς, ὡς καὶ ἐπιφοιτᾶν ταῖς οἰκίαις καὶ καλεῖν ὃν ‹ἂν› ἴδῃ εὐχείρωτον αὑτῇ, καὶ μιμεῖταί γε τοῦ φιλτάτου καὶ ᾧ ἂν πάντως ὑπακούσειεν ὁ κληθεὶς τὸ φθέγμα· ὡς καίπερ εἰδότας τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς διὰ τῆς ὁμοιότητος ἐξαπατᾶσθαι καὶ ἀναλίσκεσθαι ἐξιόντας τε καὶ πρὸς τὸ φθέγμα ὑπακούοντας. εἰ δὲ μὴ πάντα μιμητικὰ μηδὲ πάντα εὐμαθῆ τῆς ἡμετέρας, τί τοῦτο; οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος πᾶς εὐμαθὴς ἢ μιμητικὸς οὐχ ὅτι τῆς τῶν ζῴων, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ πέντε που διαλέκτων τῶν παρ’ ἀνθρώποις. τινὰ δὲ καὶ τῷ μὴ διδάσκεσθαι ἴσως οὐ φθέγγεται ἢ καὶ τῷ ὑπὸ τῶν ὀργάνων τῶν τῆς φωνῆς ἐμποδίζεσθαι. ἡμεῖς γοῦν κατὰ Καρχηδόνα, πέρδικος ἐπιπτάντος ἡμέρου, τρέφοντες τοῦτον, τοῦ χρόνου προϊόντος καὶ τῆς συνηθείας εἰς πολλὴν ἡμερότητα αὐτὸν μεταβαλούσης, οὐ μόνον σαίνοντος καὶ θεραπεύοντος ᾐσθόμεθα καὶ προσπαίζοντος, ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ ἀντιφθεγγομένου πρὸς τὸ ἡμέτερον φθέγμα καὶ καθ’ ὅσον ἦν δυνατὸν ἀποκρινομένου, ἀλλοίως ἢ καλεῖν ἀλλήλους εἰώθασιν οἱ πέρδικες. [οὔκουν σιωπῶντος, [5] φθεγξαμένου δ’ ἀντεφθέγξατο μόνον.] ἱστορεῖται δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀφθόγγων ‹τινὰ› οὕτως ἑτοίμως ὑπακούειν τοῖς δεσπόταις, ὡς οὐκ ‹ἂν› ἄνθρωπος τῶν συνήθων. ἡ γοῦν Κράσσου τοῦ Ῥωμαϊκοῦ μύραινα ὀνομαστὶ καλουμένη προσῄει τῷ Κράσσῳ, ὃν καὶ οὕτως διέθηκεν, ὡς πενθῆσαι ἀποθανοῦσαν, τριῶν τέκνων ἀποβολὴν πρότερον μετρίως ἐνεγκόντα. καὶ ἐγχέλεις δὲ πολλοὶ ἱστόρησαν τὰς ἐν Ἀρεθούσῃ καὶ σαπέρδας τοὺς περὶ Μαίανδρον ὑπακούοντας τοῖς καλοῦσιν. οὐκοῦν φαντασία ἡ αὐτὴ ‹τῇ› τοῦ λέγοντος, ἐάν τε ἐπὶ γλῶτταν ἐξικνῆται ἐάν τε μή. πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἄγνωμον μόνην λόγον τὴν ἀνθρώπου φωνὴν λέγειν, ὅτι ἡμῖν ξυνετή, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων παραιτεῖσθαι; ὅμοιον γὰρ ὡς εἰ κόρακες τὴν σφῶν μόνην ἠξίουν εἶναι φωνήν, ἡμᾶς δ’ εἶναι ἀλόγους, διότι οὐκ αὐτοῖς εὔσημα φθεγγόμεθα· ἢ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ εἰ μόνην τὴν Ἀτθίδα ἔλεγον φωνήν, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους ἀλόγους ἡγοῦντο τοὺς λέξεως Ἀττικῆς ἀμοιροῦντας. καίτοι θᾶττον ἂν κόρακος ξύνεσιν λάβοι ὁ Ἀττικὸς ἢ Σύρου ἢ Πέρσου συρίζοντος καὶ περσίζοντος. ἀλλὰ μήποτε ἄτοπον ἐκ τῆς εὐσυνέτου φθέγξεως ἢ μὴ ἢ τῆς σιγῆς καὶ φωνῆς τὸ λογικὸν κρίνειν καὶ τὸ ἄλογον· οὕτως γὰρ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεὸν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τῷ μὴ φθέγγεσθαι φαίη ἄν τις μὴ εἶναι λογικούς. ἀλλ’ οἵ γε θεοὶ σιγῶντες μηνύουσι, καὶ συνιᾶσιν αὐτῶν ὄρνιθες θᾶττον ἢ ἄνθρωποι καὶ συνέντες ἀπαγγέλλουσιν ὡς δύνανται καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰσὶ κήρυκες ἄλλοι ἄλλων θεῶν· Διὸς μὲν ἀετός, Ἀπόλλωνος δὲ ἱέραξ καὶ κόραξ, Ἥρας δὲ πελαργός, Ἀθηνᾶς δὲ αὖ κρέξ τε καὶ γλαῦξ, ὡς Δήμητρος γέρανος καὶ ἄλλων ἄλλοι. καὶ μὴν καὶ ἡμῶν οἱ παρατηροῦντες καὶ οἱ σύντροφοι γιγνώσκουσιν αὐτῶν τὰ φθέγματα. ὁ γοῦν κυνηγέτης ἀπὸ τῆς ὑποκρίσεως ᾔσθετο τοῦ κυνὸς ὑλακτοῦντος νῦν μὲν ὅτι ζητεῖ τὸν λαγών, νῦν δὲ ὅτι εὗρεν, νῦν δὲ ὅτι διώκει, νῦν δὲ ὅτι ἔλαβεν, καὶ πλανωμένου ὅτι πλανᾶται. καὶ ὁ βουκόλος οἶδεν ὅτι ἡ βοῦς πεινῇ ἢ διψῇ ἢ κέκμηκεν ἢ ὀργᾷ ἢ τὸν μόσχον ζητεῖ· καὶ λέων βρυχώμενος δηλοῖ ὅτι ἀπειλεῖ, καὶ λύκος ὠρυόμενος ὅτι κακῶς πράσσει, καὶ ὄιες βληχώμεναι οὐκ ἔλαθον τὸν [6] ποιμένα ὅτου δέονται. οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνα ἔλαθεν ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φωνή, οὐκ ὀργιζομένων, οὐ φιλοφρονουμένων, οὐ καλούντων, οὐχ ἡ διώκουσα, οὐχ ἡ αἰτοῦσα, οὐχ ἡ διδοῦσα, οὐδεμία ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ πάσαις οἰκείως ὑπήκουσαν· [ 498 ]

ὅπερ ἀδύνατον ποιεῖν μὴ τοῦ ὁμοίου τῇ συνέσει τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἐνεργοῦντος. σωφρονίζονται δὲ καὶ μέλεσιν καὶ ἥμεροι ἐξ ἀγρίων γίγνονται ἕλαφοι καὶ ταῦροι καὶ ἕτερα ζῷα. διαλεκτικῆς μὲν γὰρ αὐτοὶ φασὶν οἱ τὸ ἄλογον αὐτῶν καταψηφιζόμενοι ἐπαΐειν τοὺς κύνας, κεχρῆσθαί τε τῷ διὰ πλειόνων διεζευγμένῳ ἰχνεύοντας, ὅταν εἰς τριόδους ἀφίκωνται. ἤτοι γὰρ ταύτην ἢ ἐκείνην ἢ τὴν ἑτέραν ἀπεληλυθέναι τὸ θηρίον· οὔτε δὲ ταύτην, οὔτε ταύτην· ταύτην ἄρα, καθ’ ἣν λοιπὸν καὶ διώκειν. ἀλλ’ ἕτοιμον λέγειν φύσει ταῦτα ποιεῖν ὅτι μηδεὶς αὐτὰ ἐξεδίδαξεν, ὡς δὴ καὶ ἡμῶν τὸν λόγον οὐ φύσει κεκληρωμένων, εἰ καί τινα τίθεμεν τῶν ὀνομάτων αὐτοὶ διὰ τὸ καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ἐπιτηδείως ἔχειν κατὰ φύσιν. εἰ μέντοι πιστεύειν δεῖ Ἀριστοτέλει, καὶ διδάσκοντα ὤφθη οὐ μόνον τῶν ἄλλων τι ποιεῖν τὰ τέκνα τὰ ζῷα, ἀλλὰ καὶ φθέγγεσθαι, ὡς ἀηδὼν τὸν νεοττὸν ᾄδειν. καὶ ὡς αὐτός γε φησίν, πολλὰ μὲν παρ’ ἀλλήλων μανθάνει ζῷα, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ παρ’ ἀνθρώπων, καὶ πᾶς αὐτῷ ἀληθεύοντι μαρτυρεῖ, πᾶς μὲν πωλοδάμνης, πᾶς δὲ ἱπποκόμος τε καὶ ἱππεὺς καὶ ἡνίοχος, πᾶς δὲ κυνηγέτης τε καὶ ἐλεφαντιστὴς καὶ βουκόλος καὶ οἱ τῶν θηρίων διδάσκαλοι οἵ τε τῶν ὀρνίθων πάντες. ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν εὐγνώμων καὶ ἐκ τούτων μεταδίδωσι συνέσεως τοῖς ζῴοις, ὁ δὲ ἀγνώμων καὶ ἀνιστόρητος αὐτῶν φέρεται συνεργῶν αὑτοῦ τῇ εἰς αὐτὰ πλεονεξίᾳ. καὶ πῶς γὰρ οὐκ ἔμελλεν κακολογήσειν καὶ διαβαλεῖν ἃ κατακόπτειν ὡς λίθον προῄρηται; ἀλλ’ Ἀριστοτέλης γε καὶ Πλάτων Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τε καὶ Πυθαγόρας Δημόκριτός τε καὶ ὅσοι ἐφρόντισαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν περὶ [7] αὐτῶν ἑλεῖν, ἔγνωσαν τὸ μετέχον τοῦ λόγου. δεικτέον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἐντὸς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐνδιάθετον. φαίνεται δὲ ἡ παραλλαγή, ὡς φησί που καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης, οὐκ οὐσίᾳ διαλλάττουσα, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον θεωρουμένη· καθάπερ πολλοὶ οἴονται καὶ τὴν θεῶν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηλλάχθαι, οὐ κατ’ οὐσίαν οὔσης τῆς διαφορᾶς ταύτης, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἢ μὴ τοῦ λόγου. καὶ ὅτι μὲν ἄχρι γε αἰσθήσεως τῆς τε ἄλλης ὀργανώσεως τῆς τε κατὰ τὰ αἰσθητήρια καὶ τῆς κατὰ σάρκα ὁμοίως ἡμῖν διάκειται, πᾶς σχεδὸν συγκεχώρηκεν. καὶ γὰρ οὐ μόνον τῶν κατὰ φύσιν παθῶν τε καὶ κινημάτων τῶν διὰ τούτων ὁμοίως ἡμῖν κεκοινώνηκεν, ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ τῶν παρὰ φύσιν καὶ νοσωδῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρουμένων. οὐκ ἂν δέ τις εὖ φρονῶν διὰ τὸ ἐξηλλαγμένον τῆς ἕξεως τοῦ σώματος ἄδεκτα λογικῆς εἴποι διαθέσεως, ὁρῶν καὶ ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπων πολλὴν τὴν παραλλαγὴν τῆς ἕξεως κατά τε γένη καὶ ἔθνη, καὶ ὅμως λογικοὺς συγχωρῶν πάντας. ὄνος μέν γε κατάρρῳ ἁλίσκεται, κἂν εἰς πνεύμονα αὐτῷ ῥυῇ τὸ νόσημα, ἀποθνῄσκει ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος· ἵππος δὲ καὶ ἔμπυος γίνεται καὶ φθίνει, ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ τέτανος λαμβάνει ἵππον καὶ ποδάγρα καὶ πυρετὸς καὶ λύσσα, ὁπότε καὶ κατωπιᾶν λέγεται. καὶ ἡ κύουσα ἵππος, ἐπειδὰν ὀσφρήσηται λύχνου ἀπεσβεσμένου, ἀμβλίσκει ὡς ἄνθρωπος. πυρέττει δὲ καὶ βοῦς καὶ μαίνεται, καθάπερ καὶ ὁ κάμηλος. κορώνη δὲ ψωριᾷ καὶ λεπριᾷ, ‹ὥσπερ› καὶ κύων· οὗτος μέν γε καὶ ποδαγριᾷ καὶ λυσσᾷ. ὗς δὲ βραγχᾷ, καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον κύων, καὶ τὸ πάθος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ κυνὸς κυνάγχη κέκληται. καὶ ταῦτα ‹μὲν› γνώριμα, ἐπεὶ σύννομα ταῦτα ἡμῖν τὰ ζῷα, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ἐσμὲν ἄπειροι διὰ τὸ ἀσύνηθες. καὶ εὐνουχιζόμενα δὲ μαλακίζεται· οἱ μέν γε ἀλεκτρυόνες οὐδὲ ᾄδουσιν ἔτι, ἀλλὰ τὴν φωνὴν ἐπὶ τὸ θῆλυ μεταβάλλουσιν ὥσπερ ἄνθρωποι, βοός τε κέρατα καὶ φωνὴν οὐκ ἔστι διαγνῶναι τομίου καὶ θήλεος· οἱ δὲ ἔλαφοι οὐκέτι ἀποβάλλουσι τὰ κέρατα, ἀλλὰ συνέχουσιν, ὡς εὐνοῦχοι τὰς [ 499 ]

τρίχας, μὴ ἔχοντες δὲ οὐ φύουσιν, ὥσπερ οἱ πρὶν πώγωνα φῦσαι ἐκτμηθέντες. οὕτως σχεδὸν ἁπάντων τὰ σώματα ὁμοίως τοῖς ἡμετέροις κατὰ τὰ [8] πάθη. τά γε μὴν τῆς ψυχῆς πάθη ὅρα εἰ μὴ πάντα ὅμοια· καὶ πρῶτά γε τὴν αἴσθησιν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἀνθρώπου μὲν ἡ γεῦσις χυμῶν, ἡ δὲ ὄψις χροιῶν, ἢ ὀσμῶν ἡ ὄσφρησις ἀντιλαμβάνεται, ἢ ψόφων ἡ ἀκοή, ἢ θερμῶν ἢ ψυχρῶν ἡ ἁφὴ ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπτῶν, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν ζῴων ἁπάντων ὁμοίως. οὐδὲ ταύτης μὲν ἀφῄρηται τὰ ζῷα διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἄνθρωποι, λογικῆς δὲ ἀμοιροῦσι διὰ τοῦτο· ἐπεὶ οὕτω γε καὶ οἱ θεοὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἄνθρωποι λογικῆς στερήσονται, ἢ ἡμεῖς, εἴπερ οἱ θεοὶ λογικοί. αἰσθήσεως μέν γε καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἔοικεν μᾶλλον τὰ ζῷα. τίς μὲν γὰρ ἀνθρώπων τοσοῦτον βλέπει [οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ μυθευόμενος Λυγκεύς] ὅσον ὁ δράκων; ὅθεν καὶ τὸ βλέπειν δρακεῖν λέγουσιν οἱ ποιηταί· τὸν δὲ ἀετὸν ‘καὶ ὑψόθ’ ἐόντα οὐκ ἔλαθε πτώξ’. τίς δὲ ὀξυηκοώτερος γεράνων, αἳ ἀπὸ τοσούτων ἀκούουσιν ὅπως οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπων τις ὁρᾷ. τῇ μὲν γὰρ ὀσφρήσει τοσούτῳ πλεονεκτεῖ σχεδὸν πάντα τὰ ζῷα, ὡς ἐκείνοις προσπίπτειν τὰ ἡμᾶς λανθάνοντα, καὶ κατὰ γένος ἐπιγινώσκειν ἕκαστον ἤδη καὶ ἐξ ἴχνους ὀσφραινόμενα. οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἡγεμόσι κυσὶ χρῶνται, εἰ δεῖ ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ σῦν ἢ ἔλαφον· καὶ ἡμῶν μὲν ὀψὲ ἡ τοῦ ἀέρος κατάστασις ἅπτεται, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ζῴων εὐθύς, ὡς τούτοις τεκμηρίοις χρῆσθαι τοῦ μέλλοντος. τὴν δὲ τῶν χυμῶν διάκρισιν οὕτως οἶδεν, ὡς ἐξακριβοῦν καὶ τὰ νοσερὰ καὶ τὰ ὑγιεινὰ καὶ τὰ δηλητήρια, ὡς οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπων οἱ ἰατροί. φρονιμώτερα δὲ φησὶν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης εἶναι τὰ εὐαισθητότερα. σωμάτων δὲ παραλλαγαὶ εὐπαθῆ μὲν ἢ δυσπαθῆ ποιῆσαι δύνανται, καὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἧττον πρόχειρον ἔχειν τὸν λόγον, κατ’ οὐσίαν δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐξαλλάττειν οὐ δύνανται, ὅπου γε οὐδὲ τὰς αἰσθήσεις οὐδὲ τὰ πάθη ἔτρεψαν, οὐδὲ τέλεον ἐκβεβηκυίας ἐποίησαν. ἐν οὖν τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον ἡ διαφορὰ συγχωρείσθω, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τελείᾳ στερήσει· οὐδ’ ἐν τῷ καθάπαξ τὸ μὲν ἔχειν, τὸ δὲ μή· ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐν ἑνὶ γένει τὸ μὲν ὑγιεινότερον σῶμά ἐστιν, τὸ δὲ ἧττον, καὶ ἐπὶ νόσου ὁμοίως πολὺ τὸ διάφορον, ἔν τε εὐφυΐαις καὶ ἀφυΐαις, οὕτω καὶ ἐν ψυχαῖς ἣ μὲν ἀγαθή, ἣ δὲ φαύλη· καὶ τῶν φαύλων ἣ μὲν μᾶλλον, ἣ δὲ ἧττον· καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἰσότης, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως Σωκράτης ἀγαθὸς καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Πλάτων, οὐδ’ ἐν ὁμοδόξοις ἡ ταυτότης. οὐ τοίνυν οὐδ’ εἰ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς νοοῦμεν ἢ τὰ ζῷα, διὰ τοῦτο ἀφαιρετέον τῶν ζῴων τὸ νοεῖν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ πέτεσθαι τοὺς πέρδικας, ὅτι μᾶλλον αὐτῶν ‹οἱ› ἱέρακες πέτονται, οὐδὲ τοὺς ἄλλους ἱέρακας, ὅτι καὶ τούτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ὁ φασσοφόνος. συμπάσχειν μὲν οὖν δοίη ἄν τις ψυχὴν σώματι καὶ πάσχειν τι πρὸς αὐτοῦ εὖ ἢ κακῶς διακειμένου, μεταβάλλειν δὲ τὴν αὑτῆς φύσιν οὐδαμῶς. εἰ δὲ συμπάσχει μόνον καὶ χρῆται αὐτῷ ὡς ὀργάνῳ, δράσειε μὲν ἂν δι’ αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἀλλοίως ὠργανωμένου ἢ ὡς ἡμῖν, ὧν ἡμεῖς δρᾶν ἀδύνατοι, καὶ συμπάθοι ἄν πως διακειμένου, [9] οὐ μέντοι τὴν αὑτῆς ἐξαλλάξειε φύσιν. ὅτι τοίνυν καὶ λογικὴ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔστιν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῄρηται φρονήσεως ἐπιδεικτέον. πρῶτον μὲν ἕκαστον οἶδεν εἴτε ἀσθενές ἐστιν εἴτε ἰσχυρόν, καὶ τὰ μὲν φυλάττεται, τοῖς δὲ χρῆται, ὡς πάρδαλις μὲν ὀδοῦσιν, ὄνυξι δὲ λέων καὶ ὀδοῦσιν, ἵππος δὲ ὁπλῇ καὶ βοῦς κέρασιν, καὶ ἀλεκτρυὼν μὲν πλήκτρῳ, σκορπίος δὲ κέντρῳ· οἱ δ’ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ὄφεις πτύσματι [ὅθεν καὶ πτυάδες καλοῦνται] ἐκτυφλοῦσι τὰς ὄψεις τῶν ἐπιόντων, ἄλλο δὲ ἄλλῳ χρῆται, σῷζον ἑαυτὸ ἕκαστον. πάλιν τὰ μὲν ἐκποδὼν νέμεται τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅσα ἰσχυρά· τὰ δὲ ἀγεννῆ ἐκποδὼν μὲν [ 500 ]

τῶν ἰσχυροτέρων θηρίων, τοὔμπαλιν δὲ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ ἢ πορρωτέρω [μέν], ὡς στρουθοὶ ἐν ὀροφαῖς καὶ χελιδόνες, ἢ καὶ συνανθρωποῦντα, ὡς οἱ κύνες. ἀμείβει δὲ καὶ τόπους κατὰ τὰς ὥρας, καὶ πᾶν ὅσον τὸ πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον οἶδεν. ὁμοίως δ’ ἄν τις καὶ ἐπὶ ἰχθύων ἴδοι τὸν τοιοῦτον λογισμὸν καὶ ἐπ’ ὀρνίθων. ἃ δὴ ἐπὶ πλέον συνῆκται τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἐν τοῖς περὶ ζῴων φρονήσεως, τοῦ ταῦτα πολυπραγμονήσαντος ἐπὶ πλέον Ἀριστοτέλους λέγοντος πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις μεμηχανῆσθαι πρὸς τὸν βίον καὶ σωτηρίαν [10] αὐτῶν τὴν ‹οἴκησιν›. ὁ δὲ φύσει λέγων αὐτοῖς προσεῖναι ταῦτα ἀγνοεῖ λέγων ὅτι φύσει ἐστὶ λογικά, ἢ ὡς τοῦ λόγου μὴ φύσει ἐν ἡμῖν συνισταμένου, καὶ τῆς τελειώσεως μὴ καθὸ πεφύκαμεν τὴν αὔξησιν λαμβανούσης. τὸ μέν γε θεῖον οὐδὲ διὰ μαθήσεως λογικὸν γέγονεν· οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὅτε ἦν ἄλογον, ἀλλ’ ἅμα τε ἦν καὶ λογικὸν ἦν, καὶ οὐ κεκώλυται εἶναι λογικόν, ὅτι οὐ διὰ διδασκαλίας ἀνέλαβε τὸν λόγον. καίτοι ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὰ μὲν πολλὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡ φύσις ἐδίδαξεν, τὰ δὲ ἤδη παρέσχε καὶ ἡ μάθησις· διδάσκονται δὲ τὰ μὲν ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων, τὰ δέ, ὡς ἔφαμεν, ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων. καὶ ἔχει γε μνήμην, ἥπερ εἰς ἀνάληψιν λογισμοῦ καὶ φρονήσεως ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα κυριωτάτη. εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ κακίαι ἄφθονοι ἐν αὐτοῖς, εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτω κέχυνται ὥσπερ ἐν ἀνθρώποις· ἔστιν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἡ κακία κουφοτέρα τῆς ἀνθρώπων. αὐτίκα ἀνὴρ μὲν οἰκοδόμος οἰκίας θεμέλια οὐκ ἂν καταβάλοιτο μὴ νήφων, οὐδὲ ναυπηγὸς νεὼς τρόπιν μὴ ὑγιαίνων, οὐδὲ γεωργὸς ἄμπελον φυτεύσαι μὴ πρὸς τοῦτο τὸν νοῦν ἔχων· παιδοποιοῦνται δὲ σχεδὸν πάντες μεθύοντες. ἀλλ’ οὐ τά γε ζῷα· ζῳογονεῖ δὲ τέκνων ἕνεκα, καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα, ὅταν ἐγκύμονα ποιήσῃ τὴν θήλειαν, οὔτε αὐτὰ ἐπιβαίνειν ἐπιχειρεῖ, οὔτε τὸ θῆλυ ἀνέχεται. ἡ δὲ ὕβρις ὅση ἐν τούτοις ἡ ἀνθρώπειος καὶ ἀκολασία δήλη. οἶδεν δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων τὰς ὠδῖνας ὁ σύνοικος, καὶ συνωδίνει γε τὰ πολλά, ὥσπερ καὶ ἀλεκτρυόνες· τὰ δὲ καὶ συνεκλέπει, ὡς ταῖς περιστεραῖς οἱ ἄρρενες· καὶ τόπου προνοεῖ, οὗ μέλλουσι τίκτειν. καὶ γεννῆσαν ἕκαστον ἐκκαθαίρει τὸ γεννώμενον καὶ ἑαυτό. παρατηρήσας δ’ ἄν τις κατίδοι καὶ σὺν τάξει ἰόντα πάντα καὶ διαπαντῶντα μετὰ τοῦ σαίνειν τῷ τρέφοντι καὶ ἐπιγινώσκειν τὸν δεσπότην [11] καὶ μηνύειν τὸν ἐπίβουλον. τὰ δὲ συναγελαστικὰ ὅπως τηρεῖ τὸ δίκαιον τὸ πρὸς ἄλληλα, τίς ἀγνοεῖ; τοῦτο μὲν μυρμήκων ἕκαστον, τοῦτο δὲ καὶ μελιττῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων. τίς δὲ σωφροσύνης φαττῶν πρὸς τοὺς συνοίκους, αἳ καὶ μοιχευθεῖσαι ἀναιροῦσιν εἰ λάβοιεν τὸν μοιχεύσαντα, ἢ τῆς τῶν πελαργῶν δικαιοσύνης πρὸς τοὺς τεκόντας ἀνήκοος; ἐξέχει γὰρ ἐν ἑκάστῳ ἰδία τις ἀρετὴ πρὸς ἣν πεφυσίωται, οὔτε τῆς φύσεως οὔτε τοῦ βεβαίου διὰ τοῦτο ἀφαιρουμένου αὐτῶν τὸ λογικόν· ἐκεῖνο γὰρ ἐλέγχειν δεῖ, εἰ μὴ τὰ ἔργα ἀρετῶν καὶ λογικῆς ἐντρεχείας οἰκεῖα. εἰ δὲ μὴ συνίεμεν πῶς πράττεται διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰσδύνειν αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν λογισμὸν δύνασθαι, οὐ μέντοι διὰ τοῦτο ἀλογίαν αὐτῶν κατηγορήσομεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ θεοῦ τις εἰς τὸν νοῦν διαδύναι δύναται· ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἔργων τοῦ θεοῦ συνῃνέσαμεν τοῖς νοερὸν καὶ λογικὸν αὐτὸν [12] ἀποφηναμένοις. θαυμάσειε δ’ ἄν τις τοὺς τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐκ τοῦ λογικοῦ συνιστάντας καὶ τὰ μὴ κοινωνοῦντα τῶν ζῴων ἄγρια καὶ ἄδικα λέγοντας, μηκέτι δὲ ἄχρι τῶν κοινωνούντων τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐκτείνοντας. καθάπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἴχεται τὸ ζῆν ἀρθείσης τῆς κοινωνίας, οὕτω κἀκείνοις. ὄρνιθες γοῦν καὶ κύνες καὶ πολλὰ τῶν τετραπόδων, οἷον αἶγες, ἵπποι, πρόβατα, ὄνοι, ἡμίονοι, τῆς μετὰ ἀνθρώπων κοινωνίας ἀφαιρεθέντα ἔρρει. καὶ [ 501 ]

ἡ δημιουργήσασα αὐτὰ φύσις ἐν χρείᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατέστησεν τούς τε ἀνθρώπους εἰς τὸ χρῄζειν αὐτῶν, τὸ δίκαιον ἔμφυτον αὐτοῖς τε πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ ἡμῖν πρὸς αὐτὰ κατασκευάσασα. εἰ δέ τινα πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἀγριαίνει, θαυμαστὸν οὐδέν· ἀληθὲς γὰρ ἦν τὸ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους, ὡς ἀφθονίαν εἰ τῆς τροφῆς πάντα ἐκέκτητο, οὔτ’ ἂν πρὸς ἄλληλα οὔτε πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἔσχεν ἂν ἀγρίως· ταύτης γὰρ χάριν, καίτοι ἀναγκαίας καὶ εὐτελοῦς οὔσης, αἵ τε ἔχθραι καὶ αἱ φιλίαι αὐτοῖς, καὶ τοῦ τόπου ἕνεκα. ἄνθρωποι δὲ εἰ οὕτως εἰς στενὸν κομιδῇ κατεκέκλειντο ὡς τὰ ζῷα, πόσῳ ἂν ἀγριώτεροι καὶ τῶν δοκούντων ἀγρίων ἐγένοντο; διέδειξεν δὲ καὶ ὁ πόλεμος καὶ λιμός, ὅπου οὐδὲ γεύσασθαι φείδονται ἀλλήλων· καὶ ἄνευ γε πολέμου καὶ λιμοῦ τὰ σύντροφα [13] καὶ ἥμερα τῶν ζῴων κατεσθίουσιν. ἀλλὰ φαίη τις ἂν ὅτι ἐστὶ μὲν λογικά, οὐκ ἔχει δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τινὰ σχέσιν. καὶ μὴν διὰ τὸ ἄλογα εἶναι ἀφῄρουν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὰ σχέσιν, ἐποίουν ἄλογα, ἔπειτα ἐκ τῆς χρείας ἦν ἀναπτόντων τὴν πρὸς αὐτὰ κοινωνίαν, οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ λόγου· ἡμῖν δὲ εἰ λογικὰ προύκειτο δεῖξαι, οὐκ εἰ συνθήκας πρὸς ἡμᾶς πεποίηται· ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐ πᾶς ἡμῖν συντίθεται, καὶ οὐδεὶς τὸν μὴ συνθέμενον εἴποι ἂν ἄλογον. καίτοι τὰ πολλὰ καὶ ἐδούλευσεν ἀνθρώποις, καί, ὡς ἔφη τις λέγων ὀρθῶς, δουλεύοντα ὑπ’ ἀγνωμοσύνης ἀνθρώπων ὅμως ὑπὸ σοφίας καὶ δικαιοσύνης τοὺς δεσπότας ὑπηρέτας καὶ ἐπιμελητὰς αὑτῶν πεποίηται. αἵ γε μὴν κακίαι αὐτῶν πρόδηλοι, ἐξ ὧν μάλιστα τὸ λογικὸν διαφαίνεται· καὶ γὰρ φθονοῦσιν καὶ ζηλοτυποῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν θηλειῶν, αἵ τε θήλειαι ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀρρένων. μία δὲ αὐτοῖς κακία οὐχ ὑπάρχει, ἐπιβουλὴ τῷ εὐνοοῦντι, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα εὔνοια παντὶ οὖσα τυγχάνει· καὶ τοσοῦτον τῷ εὐνοοῦντι θαρρεῖ, ὡς ἕπεσθαι ᾗ ἂν ἄγῃ τις, κἂν ἐπὶ σφαγὴν καὶ προῦπτον κίνδυνον· κἂν γὰρ μὴ δι’ αὐτά, δι’ ἑαυτὸν δέ τις αὐτὰ τρέφῃ, εὐνοεῖ τῷ κεκτημένῳ. ἄνθρωποι δὲ ἐπ’ οὐδένα οὕτως συνίστανται ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν τρέφοντα, καὶ οὐδένα οὕτως ἀποθνῄσκειν εὔχονται ὡς [14] τοῦτον. οὕτω δ’ ἐστὶ λογιστικὰ ὧν δρᾷ, ὥστε πολλάκις ἐπιστάμενα τὰ δελέατα ὅτι ἐπίβουλά ἐστι, δι’ ἀκρασίαν πρόσεισιν ἢ διὰ λιμόν. καὶ τὰ μὲν οὐκ εὐθέως προσῆλθεν, τὰ δὲ μέλλει καὶ πειρᾶται εἰ δύναται ἀφελεῖν τὴν τροφὴν ἄνευ τοῦ περιπεσεῖν, καὶ πολλάκις κρατήσαντος τοῦ λογισμοῦ τὸ πάθος ἀπέστη· ἔνια δὲ καὶ ἐνυβρίσαντα καὶ προσουρήσαντα τῷ σοφίσματι τῶν ἀνθρώπων· τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ λιχνείας, εἰδότα ὅτι ἁλώσεται, οὐ χεῖρον ἢ οἱ Ὀδυσσέως ἑταῖροι, περιεῖδε φαγόντα ἀποθανεῖν. οὐ κακῶς δέ τινες κἀκ τῶν τόπων πεπείρανται πολλὰ δεικνύναι μᾶλλον ἡμῶν ἐμφρονέστερα, ὧν εἴληχεν. ὡς γὰρ τὰ κατὰ τὸν αἰθέρα οἰκοῦντά ἐστι λογικά, οὕτω φασὶ τὰ τὸ μετ’ ἐκεῖνον εὐθέως πλησιάζον οἰκοῦντα, ὁποῖα τὰ ἐν ἀέρι, εἶτα τὰ ἔνυδρα διαφέρειν, εἶθ’ οὕτως τὰ ἐπίγεια· ὧν ἡμεῖς τὴν ὑποστάθμην οἰκοῦμεν· οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν θεῶν κἀκ τοῦ τόπου τὸ κρεῖττον συλλογιζόμεθα, οὐχὶ [15] δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν θνητῶν τὸ ὅμοιον θήσομεν. ὅταν δὲ καὶ τέχνας ἀναλαμβάνῃ καὶ ταύτας ἀνθρωπίνας, ὀρχεῖσθαι μανθάνοντα καὶ ἡνιοχεῖν μονομαχεῖν τε καὶ καλοβατεῖν, ἤδη δὲ καὶ γράφειν καὶ ἀναγινώσκειν αὐλεῖν τε καὶ κιθαρίζειν καὶ τοξεύειν καὶ ἱππεύειν, ἔτι ἀμφισβητήσεις εἰ τὸ δεξόμενον ἔχει, τοῦ παραδεχθέντος ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρουμένου; ποῦ γὰρ δέχεται, εἰ μὴ ὁ λόγος ὑπῆν ἐν ᾧ συνίστανται αἱ τέχναι; οὐδὲ γὰρ ὡς ψόφου τῆς φωνῆς ἡμῶν ἀκούει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν σημείων τῆς διαφορᾶς ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἐπαίσθησις, ἥτις δὴ ἐκ συνέσεως λογικῆς παραγίνεται. ἀλλὰ κακῶς, φασί, ποιεῖ τὰ ἀνθρωπικά. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωποι πάντες [ 502 ]

καλῶς· ἢ μάτην ἂν ἀγῶνα καὶ νικῶντες ἦσαν καὶ ἡττώμενοι. ἀλλ’ οὐ βουλεύονται, φασίν, οὐδ’ ἐκκλησιάζουσιν οὐδὲ δικάζουσιν. ἦ γὰρ ἄνθρωποι, εἰπέ μοι, πάντες; οὐχὶ δὲ πολλοῖς, πρὶν βουλεύσονται, αἱ πράξεις; πόθεν δὲ καὶ ἐπιδείξειεν ἄν τις ὅτι οὐ βουλεύονται; τούτου μὲν γὰρ τεκμήριον οὐδεὶς εἰπεῖν ἔχει, τοῦ δ’ ἐναντίου οἱ κατὰ μέρος περὶ τῶν ζῴων συγγράψαντες [ἔδειξαν]. λοιπὸν δὲ τὰ ἄλλα ἕωλα, ὅσα κατ’ αὐτῶν ῥητορεύεται· οἷον ὅτι πόλεις αὐτοῖς οὐκ εἰσίν· οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῖς ἁμαξοβίοις Σκύθαις [φήσω] οὐδὲ τοῖς θεοῖς. οὐδὲ νόμοι γραπτοί, φασίν, παρὰ τοῖς ζῴοις· οὐδὲ γὰρ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις, ἄχρις εὐδαιμόνουν. Ἆπις δὲ λέγεται πρῶτος νομοθετῆσαι παρ’ Ἕλλησιν, [16] ὅτε ἐδεήθησαν. ἀνθρώποις μὲν οὖν διὰ τὴν λαιμαργίαν οὐ δοκεῖ λόγον ἔχειν τὰ ζῷα· θεοῖς δὲ καὶ θείοις ἀνδράσιν ἐξ ἴσου τοῖς ἱκέταις τετίμηται. καὶ χρῶν γε ὁ θεὸς Ἀριστοδίκῳ τῷ Κυμαίῳ ἱκέτας τοὺς στρουθοὺς αὐτοῦ ἔφη εἶναι. Σωκράτης δὲ καὶ ὤμνυεν κατ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔτι πρὸ αὐτοῦ Ῥαδάμανθυς. Αἰγύπτιοι δὲ καὶ θεοὺς ἐνόμισαν, εἴτε ὄντως θεοὺς ἡγούμενοι, εἴτε ἐξεπίτηδες τὰ τῶν θεῶν εἴδη βουπρόσωπα καὶ ὀρνιθοπρόσωπα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ποιοῦντες, ὅπως αὐτῶν ἐξ ἴσου καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπέχοιντο, εἴτε καὶ δι’ ἄλλας αἰτίας μυστικωτέρας. οὕτω δὴ καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες τῷ μὲν τοῦ Διὸς ἀγάλματι κριοῦ προσῆψαν κέρατα, ταύρου δὲ τῷ Διονύσου· τὸν δὲ Πᾶνα ἐξ ἀνθρώπου καὶ αἰγὸς συνέθηκαν, τὰς δὲ μούσας ἐπτέρωσαν καὶ τὰς σειρῆνας, κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ τήν τε Νίκην καὶ τὴν Ἶριν καὶ τὸν Ἔρωτα καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν. Πίνδαρος δὲ ἐν προσοδίοις πάντας τοὺς θεοὺς ἐποίησεν, ὅτε ὑπὸ Τυφῶνος ἐδιώκοντο, οὐκ ἀνθρώποις ὁμοιωθέντας, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις· ἐρασθέντα δὲ Πασιφάης Δία γενέσθαι ‹νῦν› μὲν ταῦρον, νῦν δὲ ἀετὸν καὶ κύκνον. δι’ ὧν τὴν πρὸς τὰ ζῷα τιμὴν οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐνεδείκνυντο· καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον, ὅταν τὸν Δία θρέψαι λέγωσιν αἶγα. Κρησὶ δὲ νόμος ἦν Ῥαδαμάνθυος, ὅρκον ἐπάγεσθαι πάντα τὰ ζῷα. οὐδὲ Σωκράτης τὸν κύνα καὶ τὸν χῆνα ὀμνὺς ἔπαιζεν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς καὶ Δίκης παῖδα ἐποιεῖτο τὸν ὅρκον, οὐδὲ παίζων ὁμοδούλους αὑτοῦ ἔλεγεν τοὺς κύκνους. αἰνίσσεται δὲ καὶ ὁ μῦθος ὡς ὁμόψυχά ἐστιν ἡμῖν, καὶ χόλῳ μὲν θεῶν μεταβαλεῖν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων εἰς ζῷα, μεταβαλόντας δὲ λοιπὸν ἐλεεῖσθαι καὶ φιλεῖσθαι. τοιαῦτα γὰρ τὰ περὶ δελφίνων λεγόμενα καὶ τὰ περὶ ἀλκυόνων ἀηδόνων τε καὶ χελιδόνων. [17] αὐχεῖ δὲ καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν ἕκαστος, ὅστις εὐτύχησεν τῆς ἐκ ζῴων ἀνατροφῆς, οὐχ οὕτως τοὺς πατέρας ὡς τοὺς ἀναθρεψαμένους, ὃ μὲν λύκαιναν, ὃ δὲ ἔλαφον, ἄλλος αἶγα, ἄλλος μέλιτταν, Σεμίραμις δὲ τὰς περιστεράς, Κῦρος δὲ κύνα, κύκνον δὲ Θρᾷξ, καὶ τοὔνομα τοῦ θρέψαντος ἔφερεν. ὅθεν καὶ θεοῖς ἐπωνυμίαι, Διονύσῳ μὲν εἰραφιώτης, Ἀπόλλωνι δὲ λύκειος καὶ δελφίνιος, Ποσειδῶνι δὲ ἵππιος, καὶ Ἀθηνᾷ ἱππία. ἡ δ’ Ἑκάτη ταῦρος, κύων, λέαινα ἀκούουσα μᾶλλον ὑπακούει. εἰ δ’ ὅτι θύοντες αὐτὰ κατεσθίουσι, διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ αὑτοὺς παραμυθούμενοι ἄλογα λέγουσιν, εἴποιεν ἂν καὶ οἱ τοὺς πατέρας ἑστιώμενοι [18] Σκύθαι ἀλόγους εἶναι τοὺς πατέρας. διὰ μὲν τούτων καὶ ἄλλων, ὧν ἑξῆς μνησθησόμεθα τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν ἐπιτρέχοντες, δείκνυται λογικὰ ὄντα τὰ ζῷα, τοῦ λόγου ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ἀτελοῦς μὲν ὄντος, οὐ μὴν παντελῶς ἐστερημένου. τῆς δὲ δικαιοσύνης πρὸς τὰ λογικὰ οὔσης, καθάπερ φασὶν οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες, πῶς οὐχὶ καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα εἴη ἂν ἡμῖν τὸ δίκαιον; οὐ γὰρ καὶ πρὸς τὰ φυτὰ παρατενοῦμεν τὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, διὰ τὸ φαίνεσθαι πολὺ τὸ πρὸς τὸν λόγον ἀσύγκλωστον· καίτοι κἀνταῦθα τοῖς [ 503 ]

καρποῖς χρῆσθαι εἰώθαμεν, οὐ μὴν σὺν τοῖς καρποῖς κατακόπτειν καὶ τὰ πρέμνα. τὸν δὲ σιτικὸν καρπὸν καὶ τὸν τῶν χεδρόπων αὐανθέντα καὶ εἰς γῆν πίπτοντα καὶ τεθνηκότα συλλέγομεν, ζῴων δὲ τὰ θνησείδια [πλὴν τῶν ἰχθύων, ἃ καὶ αὐτὰ βίᾳ ἀναιροῦμεν] οὐκ ἄν τις προσενέγκαιτο· ὥστε πολὺ τὸ ἄδικον ἐν τούτοις. ἀρχὴν δέ, ὡς καὶ Πλούταρχος φησίν, οὐκ ἐπεὶ δεῖταί τινων ἡμῶν ἡ φύσις καὶ χρώμεθα τούτοις, ἤδη ἐπὶ πᾶν προακτέον καὶ πρὸς πάντα τὴν ἀδικίαν. δίδωσι μὲν γὰρ καὶ παρέχει τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις τὴν ἄχρι τινὸς βλάβην, εἴ γε βλάβη τὸ λαμβάνειν τι παρὰ τῶν φυτῶν, καίτοι ζώντων μενόντων· τὸ δ’ ἐκ περιουσίας καὶ πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἀπολλύειν ἕτερα καὶ φθείρειν τῆς παντελοῦς ἦν ἀγριότητος καὶ ἀδικίας· καὶ ἡ τούτων ἀποχὴ οὔτε πρὸς τὸ ζῆν οὔτε πρὸς τὸ εὖ ζῆν ἡμᾶς ἠλάττου. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος φυτῶν τε καὶ καρπῶν, ὧν ἄνευ ζῆν ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, οὕτω φόνου ζῴων καὶ βρώσεως σαρκῶν ἐτυγχάνομεν δεόμενοι πρὸς τὸν βίον, ἀναγκαίαν ἡ φύσις συμπλοκὴν εἶχεν ἂν πρὸς ταύτην τὴν ἀδικίαν· εἰ δὲ πολλοὶ μὲν ἱερεῖς θεῶν, πολλοὶ δὲ βασιλεῖς βαρβάρων ἁγνεύοντες, ἄπειρα δὲ γένη ζῴων τὸ παράπαν οὐ θιγγάνοντα τῆς τοιαύτης τροφῆς ζῶσιν καὶ τυγχάνουσι τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν τέλους, πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἄτοπος ὁ κελεύων, εἴ τισιν ἀναγκαζοίμεθα πολεμεῖν, μηδὲ οἷς ἔξεστιν εἰρηνικῶς ὁμιλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ἢ πρὸς μηθὲν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ χρωμένους ζῆν, ἢ πρὸς πάντα χρωμένους μὴ ζῆν; ὥσπερ οὖν ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπων ὃ μὲν αὑτοῦ σωτηρίας ἕνεκα καὶ παίδων καὶ πατρίδος ἢ χρήματά τινων παραιρούμενος ἢ χώραν ἐπιτρίβων καὶ πόλιν ἔχει πρόσχημα τῆς ἀδικίας τὴν ἀνάγκην, ὅστις δὲ ταῦτα δρᾷ διὰ πλοῦτον ἢ κόρον ἢ ἡδονὰς τρυφώσας καὶ ἀποπληρώσεις οὐκ ἀναγκαίων ποριζόμενος ἐπιθυμιῶν, ἄμικτος εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ ἀκρατὴς καὶ πονηρός, οὕτως τὰς μὲν εἰς φυτὰ βλάβας καὶ ‹διὰ› πυρὸς καὶ ναμάτων ἀναλώσεις κουράς τε προβάτων καὶ γάλα βοῶν τε ἐξημέρωσιν καὶ κατάζευξιν ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ καὶ διαμονῇ τοῖς χρωμένοις ὁ θεὸς δίδωσι συγγνώμην, ζῷα δὲ ὑπάγειν σφαγαῖς καὶ μαγειρεύειν ἀναπιμπλαμένους φόνου, μὴ τροφῆς ἢ πληρώσεως χάριν, ἀλλ’ ἡδονῆς καὶ λαιμαργίας ποιουμένους τέλος, ὑπερφυῶς ὡς ἄνομον καὶ δεινόν. ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ὅτι μηδὲν πονεῖν δεομένοις χρώμεθα προκάμνουσι καὶ μοχθοῦσιν, ἵππων ὄνων τ’ ὀχεῖα καὶ ταύρων γονάς, ὡς Αἰσχύλος φησίν, ἀντίδουλα καὶ πόνων ἐκδέκτορα [19] χειρωσάμενοι καὶ καταζεύξαντες. ὁ δὲ ἀξιῶν ἡμᾶς ὄψῳ μὴ χρῆσθαι βοΐ, μηδὲ πνεῦμα καὶ ζωὴν διολλύντας καὶ διαφθείροντας ἡδύσματα πλησμονῆς καὶ καλλωπίσματα προστίθεσθαι τραπέζης, τίνος ἀναγκαίου πρὸς σωτηρίαν [ἢ καλοῦ πρὸς ἀρετὴν] ἀφαιρεῖται τὸν βίον; οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ζῴοις τὰ φυτὰ παραβάλλειν κομιδῇ βίαιον. τὰ μὲν γὰρ αἰσθάνεσθαι πέφυκε καὶ ἀλγεῖν καὶ φοβεῖσθαι καὶ βλάπτεσθαι, διὸ καὶ ἀδικεῖσθαι· τοῖς δὲ οὐθέν ἐστιν αἰσθητόν, οὕτως δὲ οὐδὲ ἀλλότριον οὐδὲ κακὸν οὐδὲ βλάβη τις οὐδὲ ἀδικία. καὶ γὰρ οἰκειώσεως πάσης καὶ ἀλλοτριώσεως ἀρχὴ τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι. τὴν δὲ οἰκείωσιν ἀρχὴν τίθενται δικαιοσύνης οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος. πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἄλογον πολλοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπ’ αἰσθήσει μόνον ζῶντας ὁρῶντας, νοῦν δὲ καὶ λόγον οὐκ ἔχοντας, πολλοὺς δὲ πάλιν ὠμότητι καὶ θυμῷ καὶ πλεονεξίᾳ τὰ φοβερώτατα τῶν θηρίων ὑπερβεβληκότας, παιδοφόνους καὶ πατροκτόνους, τυράννους καὶ βασιλέων [ 504 ]

ὑπουργούς, πρὸς μὲν τούτους οἴεσθαι ‹δίκαιόν τι› εἶναι ἡμῖν, πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἀροτῆρα βοῦν καὶ τὸν σύντροφον κύνα καὶ τὰ γάλακτι μὲν τρέφοντα, κουρᾷ δὲ κοσμοῦντα θρέμματα μηδὲν [20] εἶναι, πῶς οὐ παραλογώτατόν ἐστιν; ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο νὴ Δία τοῦ Χρυσίππου πιθανὸν ἦν, ὡς ἡμᾶς αὑτῶν καὶ ἀλλήλων οἱ θεοὶ χάριν ἐποιήσαντο, ἡμῶν δὲ τὰ ζῷα, συμπολεμεῖν μὲν ἵππους καὶ συνθηρεύειν κύνας, ἀνδρείας δὲ γυμνάσια παρδάλεις καὶ ἄρκτους καὶ λέοντας. ἡ δὲ ὗς, ἐνταῦθα γάρ ἐστιν τῶν χαρίτων τὸ ἥδιστον. οὐ δι’ ἄλλο τι πλὴν θύεσθαι ἐγεγόνει, καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὁ θεὸς οἷον ἅλας ἐνέμιξεν, εὐοψίαν ἡμῖν μηχανώμενος. ὅπως δὲ ζωμοῦ καὶ παραδειπνίων ἀφθονίαν ἔχωμεν, ὄστρεά τε παντοδαπὰ καὶ πορφύρας καὶ ἀκαλήφας καὶ γένη πτηνῶν ποικίλα παρεσκεύασεν, οὐκ ἀλλαχόθεν, ἀλλ’ ὡς αὑτοῦ μέγα μέρος ἐνταῦθα τρέψας εἰς γλυκυθυμίας, τὰς τιτθὰς ὑπερβαλόμενος καὶ καταπυκνώσας ταῖς ἡδοναῖς καὶ ἀπολαύσεσιν τὸν περίγειον τόπον. ὅτῳ δὴ ταῦτα δοκεῖ τι τοῦ πιθανοῦ καὶ θεῷ πρέποντος μετέχειν, σκοπείτω, τί πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἐρεῖ τὸν λόγον ὃν Καρνεάδης ἔλεγεν· ἕκαστον τῶν φύσει γεγονότων ὅταν τοῦ πρὸς ὃ πέφυκε καὶ γέγονε τυγχάνῃ [τέλους], ὠφελεῖται. κοινότερον δὲ ‹τὸ› τῆς ὠφελείας, ἣν εὐχρηστίαν οὗτοι λέγουσιν, ἀκουστέον. ἡ δὲ ὗς φύσει γέγονε πρὸς τὸ σφαγῆναι καὶ καταβρωθῆναι· καὶ τοῦτο πάσχουσα τυγχάνει τοῦ πρὸς ὃ πέφυκε, καὶ ὠφελεῖται. καὶ μὴν εἰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων χρῆσιν ὁ θεὸς μεμηχάνηται τὰ ζῷα, τί χρησόμεθα μυίαις, ἐμπίσι, νυκτερίσιν, κανθάροις, σκορπίοις, ἐχίδναις; ὧν τὰ μὲν ὁρᾶν εἰδεχθῆ καὶ θιγγάνειν μιαρὰ καὶ κατ’ ὀδμὰς δυσανάσχετα καὶ φθέγγεται δεινὸν καὶ ἀτερπές, τὰ δ’ ἄντικρυς ὀλέθρια τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι· φαλαίνας τε καὶ πρίστεις καὶ τὰ ἄλλα κήτη, ἃ μυρία βόσκειν Ὅμηρος φησὶν ἀγάστονον Ἀμφιτρίτην, τί οὐκ ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς ὁ δημιουργὸς ὅπῃ χρήσιμα τῇ φύσει γέγονεν; εἰ δὲ οὐ πάντα φασὶν ἡμῖν καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς γεγονέναι, πρὸς τῷ σύγχυσιν ἔχειν πολλὴν καὶ ἀσάφειαν τὸν διορισμὸν οὐδὲ ἐκφεύγομεν τὸ ἀδικεῖν, ἐπιτιθέμενοι καὶ χρώμενοι βλαβερῶς τοῖς οὐ δι’ ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς κατὰ φύσιν γεγενημένοις. ἐῶ λέγειν ὅτι τῇ χρείᾳ τὸ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁρίζοντες οὐκ ἂν φθάνοιμεν ἑαυτοὺς ἕνεκα τῶν ὀλεθριωτάτων ζῴων, οἷα κροκόδειλοι καὶ φάλαιναι καὶ δράκοντες, γεγονέναι συγχωροῦντες. ἡμῖν μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν ἀπ’ ἐκείνων ὑπάρχει τὸ παράπαν ὠφελεῖσθαι· τὰ δὲ ἁρπάζοντα καὶ διαφθείροντα τοὺς παραπίπτοντας ἀνθρώπους βορᾷ χρῆται, μηδὲν ἡμῶν κατὰ τοῦτο δρῶντα χαλεπώτερον, πλὴν ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἔνδεια καὶ λιμὸς ἐπὶ ταύτην ἄγει τὴν ἀδικίαν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ὕβρει καὶ τρυφῆς ἕνεκα παίζοντες πολλάκις ἐν θεάτροις καὶ κυνηγεσίοις τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ζῴων φονεύομεν. ἐξ ὧν δὴ καὶ τὸ μὲν φονικὸν καὶ θηριῶδες ἡμῶν ἐπερρώσθη καὶ τὸ πρὸς οἶκτον ἀπαθές, τοῦ δ’ ἡμέρου τὸ πλεῖστον ἀπήμβλυναν οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦτο τολμήσαντες. οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν πρὸς τὰ θηρία πραότητα μελέτην ἐποιήσαντο τοῦ φιλανθρώπου καὶ φιλοικτίρμονος. ὥστε πῶς οὐχ οὗτοι πρὸς δικαιοσύνην μᾶλλον ἤγειραν ἢ οἱ φθείρεσθαι λέγοντες ἐκ τούτων τὴν συνήθη δικαιοσύνην; ἡ γὰρ συνήθεια δεινὴ τοῖς κατὰ μικρὸν ἐνοικειουμένοις πάθεσι πόρρω προαγαγεῖν [21] τὸν ἄνθρωπον. ναί, φασίν, ἀλλ’ ὡς τῷ θνητῷ τὸ ἀθάνατον ἀντίκειται καὶ τῷ φθαρτῷ τὸ ἄφθαρτον καὶ σώματί γε τὸ ἀσώματον, οὕτως ὑπάρχοντί γε τῷ λογικῷ χρῆναι τὸ ἄλογον ἀντικεῖσθαι καὶ ἀνθυπάρχειν, καὶ μὴ μόνην ἐν τοσαῖσδε συζυγίαις ἀτελῆ τήνδε λείπεσθαι καὶ πεπηρωμένην, ὥσπερ ἡμῶν μὴ τοῦτο συγχωρούντων ἢ πολὺ τὸ [ 505 ]

ἄλογον ἐπιδεικνύντων ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν. πολὺ γὰρ δήπου καὶ ἄφθονον ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ψυχῆς ἀμοιροῦσι, καὶ οὐδὲν ἑτέρας δεόμεθα πρὸς τὸ λογικὸν ἀντιθέσεως· ἀλλὰ πᾶν εὐθὺς τὸ ἄψυχον, ἄλογον ὂν καὶ ἀνόητον, ἀντίκειται τῷ μετὰ ψυχῆς λόγον ἔχοντι καὶ διάνοιαν. εἰ δέ τις ἀξιοῖ μὴ κολοβὸν εἶναι τὴν φύσιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἔμψυχον φύσιν ἔχειν τὸ μὲν λογικόν, τὸ δὲ ἄλογον, ἕτερος ἀξιώσει τὴν ἔμψυχον φύσιν ἔχειν τὸ μὲν φανταστικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀφαντασίωτον, καὶ τὸ μὲν αἰσθητικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀναίσθητον, ἵνα δὴ τὰς ἀντιζύγους ταύτας καὶ ἀντιθέτους ἕξεις καὶ στερήσεις περὶ ταὐτὸν ἡ φύσις ἔχῃ γένος οἷον ἰσορρόπους. [ἀλλ’ ἄτοπον τοῦτό γε.] εἰ δὲ ἄτοπος ὁ ζητῶν τοῦ ἐμψύχου τὸ μὲν αἰσθητικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀναίσθητον εἶναι, καὶ τὸ μὲν φαντασιούμενον, τὸ δὲ ἀφαντασίωτον, ὅτι πᾶν ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικὸν εὐθὺς εἶναι καὶ φανταστικὸν πέφυκεν, οὐδ’ οὕτως ἐπιεικῶς ἀπαιτήσει τὸ μὲν λογικὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἐμψύχου, τὸ δὲ ἄλογον, πρὸς ἀνθρώπους διαλεγόμενος μηθὲν οἰομένους αἰσθήσεως μετέχειν ὃ μὴ καὶ συνέσεως, μηδ’ εἶναι ζῷον ᾧ μὴ δόξα τις καὶ λογισμὸς ὥσπερ αἴσθησις καὶ ὁρμὴ κατὰ φύσιν πάρεστιν. ἡ γὰρ φύσις, ἣν ἕνεκά του καὶ πρός τι πάντα ποιεῖν ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν, οὐκ ἐπὶ ψιλῷ τῷ πάσχειν καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον αἰσθητικὸν ἐποίησεν, ἀλλὰ ὄντων μὲν οἰκείων πρὸς αὐτὸ πολλῶν, ὄντων δὲ ἀλλοτρίων, οὐδὲ ἀκαρὲς ἦν περιεῖναι μὴ μαθόντι τὰ μὲν φυλάττεσθαι, τοῖς δὲ συμφέρεσθαι. τὴν μὲν οὖν γνῶσιν ἀμφοῖν ὁμοίως ἡ αἴσθησις ἑκάστῳ παρέχει, τὰς δὲ ἑπομένας τῇ αἰσθήσει τῶν μὲν ὠφελίμων λήψεις καὶ διώξεις, διακρούσεις δὲ καὶ φυγὰς τῶν ὀλεθρίων καὶ λυπηρῶν, οὐδεμία μηχανὴ παρεῖναι τοῖς μὴ λογίζεσθαί τι καὶ κρίνειν καὶ μνημονεύειν καὶ προσέχειν πεφυκόσιν. ὧν γὰρ ἂν ἀφέλῃς παντάπασιν προσδοκίαν, μνήμην, πρόθεσιν, παρασκευήν, τὸ ἐλπίζειν, τὸ δεδοικέναι, τὸ ἐπιθυμεῖν, τὸ ἀσχάλλειν, οὔτε ὀμμάτων ὄφελος παρόντων οὔτε ὤτων, αἰσθήσεώς τε πάσης καὶ φαντασίας τὸ χρώμενον οὐκ ἐχούσης ἀπηλλάχθαι βέλτιον ἢ πονεῖν καὶ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀλγεῖν, ᾧ διακρούσεται ταῦτα μὴ παρόντος. καίτοι Στράτωνός γε τοῦ φυσικοῦ λόγος ἐστὶν ἀποδεικνύων, ὡς οὐδὲ αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸ παράπαν ἄνευ τοῦ νοεῖν ὑπάρχει. καὶ γὰρ γράμματα πολλάκις ἐπιπορευομένους τῇ ὄψει καὶ λόγοι προσπίπτοντες τῇ ἀκοῇ διαλανθάνουσιν ἡμᾶς καὶ διαφεύγουσι πρὸς ἑτέροις τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντας· εἶτ’ αὖθις ἐπανῆλθεν καὶ μεταθεῖ καὶ διώκει τῶν προειρημένων ἕκαστον ἀναλεγόμενος· ᾗ καὶ λέλεκται, νοῦς ὁρᾷ, νοῦς ἀκούει, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά· ὡς τοῦ περὶ τὰ ὄμματα καὶ τὰ ὦτα πάθους, ἂν μὴ παρῇ τὸ φρονοῦν, αἴσθησιν οὐ ποιοῦντος. διὸ καὶ Κλεομένης ὁ βασιλεὺς παρὰ πότον εὐδοκιμοῦντος ἀκροάματος, ἐρωτηθεὶς εἴ οἱ φαίνεται σπουδαῖον, ἐκέλευεν ἐκείνους σκοπεῖν, αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ τὸν νοῦν ἔχειν. ὅθεν ἀνάγκη πᾶσιν οἷς τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι, [22] καὶ τὸ νοεῖν ὑπάρχειν. ἀλλ’ ἔστω μὴ δεῖσθαι τοῦ νοῦ τὴν αἴσθησιν πρὸς τὸ αὑτῆς ἔργον· ἀλλ’ ὅταν γε τῷ ζῴῳ πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ τὸ ἀλλότριον ἡ αἴσθησις ἐνεργασαμένη διαφορὰν ἀπέλθῃ, τί τὸ μνημονεῦόν ἐστιν ἤδη καὶ δεδιὸς τὰ λυποῦντα καὶ ποθοῦν τὰ ὠφέλιμα καὶ μὴ παρόντα ὅπως παρέσται μηχανώμενον ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ παρασκευαζόμενον ὁρμητήρια καὶ καταφυγὰς καὶ θήρατρα πάλιν αὖ τοῖς ἁλωσομένοις καὶ ἀποδράσεις τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων; καίτοι γε κἀκεῖνοι λέγοντες ἀποκναίουσιν ἐν ταῖς εἰσαγωγαῖς ἑκάστοτε τὴν πρόθεσιν ὁριζόμενοι σημείωσεν ἐπιτελειώσεως, τὴν δ’ ἐπιβολὴν ὁρμὴν πρὸ ὁρμῆς, παρασκευὴν δὲ πρᾶξιν πρὸ πράξεως, μνήμην δὲ κατάληψιν ἀξιώματος παρεληλυθότος, οὗ τὸ [ 506 ]

παρὸν ἐξ αἰσθήσεως κατελήφθη. τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ὅτι μὴ λογικόν ἐστι, καὶ πάντα τοῖς ζῴοις ὑπάρχει πᾶσιν· ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς νοήσεις, ἃς ἐναποκειμένας μὲν ἐννοίας καλοῦσιν, κινουμένας δὲ διανοήσεις. τὰ δὲ πάθη σύμπαντα κοινῶς κρίσεις φαύλας καὶ δόξας ὁμολογοῦντες εἶναι, θαυμαστὸν ὅτι δὴ παρορῶσιν ἐν τοῖς θηρίοις ἔργα καὶ κινήματα, πολλὰ μὲν θυμῶν, πολλὰ δὲ φόβων καὶ νὴ Δία φθόνων καὶ ζηλοτυπιῶν. αὐτοὶ δὲ κύνας ἁμαρτόντας καὶ ἵππους κολάζουσιν, οὐ διὰ κενῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ σωφρονισμῷ, λύπην δι’ ἀλγηδόνος ἐμποιοῦντες αὐτοῖς, ἣν μετάνοιαν ὀνομάζομεν. ἡδονῆς δὲ τῆς μὲν δι’ ὤτων ὄνομα κήλησίς ἐστιν, τῆς δὲ δι’ ὀμμάτων γοητεία. χρῶνται δὲ ἑκατέραις ἐπὶ τὰ θηρία· κηλοῦνται μὲν ἔλαφοι καὶ ἵπποι σύριγξιν καὶ αὐλοῖς, καὶ τοὺς παγούρους ἐκ τῶν χηραμῶν ἀνακαλοῦνται μελιζόμενοι ταῖς σύριγξι, καὶ τὴν θρίσσαν ᾀδόντων ἀναδύεσθαι καὶ προϊέναι λέγουσιν. οἱ δὲ περὶ τούτων ἀβελτέρως λέγοντες μήτε ἥδεσθαι μήτε θυμοῦσθαι μήτε φοβεῖσθαι μήτε παρασκευάζεσθαι μήτε μνημονεύειν, ἀλλ’ ὡσανεὶ μνημονεύειν τὴν μέλιτταν καὶ ὡσανεὶ παρασκευάζεσθαι τὴν ἀηδόνα καὶ ὡσανεὶ θυμοῦσθαι τὸν λέοντα καὶ ὡσανεὶ φοβεῖσθαι τὸν ἔλαφον, οὐκ οἶδα τί χρήσονται τοῖς λέγουσι μηδὲ βλέπειν μηδὲ ἀκούειν, ἀλλ’ ὡσανεὶ βλέπειν αὐτὰ καὶ ὡσανεὶ ἀκούειν, μηδὲ φωνεῖν ἀλλ’ ὡσανεὶ φωνεῖν, μηδὲ ὅλως ζῆν ἀλλ’ ὡσανεὶ ζῆν. ταῦτα γὰρ ἐκείνων οὐ μᾶλλόν ἐστι λεγόμενα παρὰ τὴν ἐνάργειαν ὁμοίως, ὡς ὁ εὐγνώμων ἂν πεισθείη. ὅταν δὲ τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἤθεσιν καὶ βίοις καὶ πράξεσιν καὶ διαίταις τὰ τῶν ζῴων παρατιθεὶς πολλὴν ἐνορῶ φαυλότητα, καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς, πρὸς ἣν ὁ λόγος γέγονεν, μηδένα τῶν ζῴων ἐμφανῆ στοχασμὸν μηδὲ προκοπὴν μηδὲ ὄρεξιν, ἀποροίην ἂν πῶς ἡ φύσις δέδωκε τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸ τέλος ἐξικέσθαι μὴ δυναμένοις· ἢ τοῦτο μὲν οὐδ’ ἐκείνοις ἄτοπον εἶναι δοκεῖ. τὴν γοῦν πρὸς τὰ ἔκγονα φιλοστοργίαν, ἀρχὴν μὲν ἡμῖν κοινωνίας καὶ δικαιοσύνης τιθέμενοι, πολλὴν δὲ τοῖς ζῴοις καὶ ἰσχυρὰν ὁρῶντες παροῦσαν, οὐ φασὶν αὐτοῖς οὐδ’ ἀξιοῦσι μετεῖναι δικαιοσύνης· ἡμιόνοις δὲ τῶν γεννητικῶν μορίων οὐδὲν ἐνδεῖ· καὶ γὰρ αἰδοῖα καὶ μήτρας καὶ τὸ χρῆσθαι μεθ’ ἡδονῆς τούτοις ἔχουσαι, πρὸς τὸ τέλος οὐκ ἐξικνοῦνται τῆς γενέσεως. σκόπει δὲ ἄλλως μὴ καταγέλαστόν ἐστι τοὺς Σωκράτεις καὶ τοὺς Πλάτωνας καὶ τοὺς Ζήνωνας οὐδὲν ἐλαφροτέρᾳ κακίᾳ τοῦ τυχόντος ἀνδραπόδου συνεῖναι φάσκειν, ἀλλ’ ὁμοίως ἄφρονας εἶναι καὶ ἀκολάστους καὶ ἀδίκους, εἶτα τῶν θηρίων αἰτιᾶσθαι τὸ μὴ καθαρὸν μηδ’ ἀπηκριβωμένον πρὸς ἀρετήν, ὡς στέρησιν οὐχὶ φαυλότατα λόγου καὶ ἀσθένειαν προσεῖναι, καὶ ταῦτα τὴν κακίαν ὁμολογοῦντας εἶναι λογικήν, ἧς πᾶν θηρίον ἀναπέπλησται. καὶ γὰρ δειλίαν πολλοῖς καὶ ἀκολασίαν [23] ἀδικίαν τε καὶ κακόνοιαν ὁρῶμεν ὑπάρχουσαν. ὁ δὲ ἀξιῶν τὸ μὴ πεφυκὸς ὀρθότητα λόγου δέχεσθαι μηδὲ λόγον δέχεσθαι, πρῶτον μὲν οὐδὲν διαφέρει τοῦ μήτε πίθηκον αἴσχους φύσει μετέχειν μήτε χελώνην βραδυτῆτος ἀξιοῦντος, ὅτι μηδὲ κάλλους ἐπιδεκτικὰ μηδὲ τάχους ἐστίν· ἔπειτα τὴν διαφορὰν ἐμποδὼν οὖσαν οὐ συνορᾷ. λόγος μὲν γὰρ ἐγγίνεται φύσει, σπουδαῖος δὲ λόγος καὶ τέλειος ἐξ ἐπιμελείας καὶ διδασκαλίας. διὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐμψύχοις μέτεστι, τὴν δὲ ὀρθότητα καὶ σοφίαν οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπον εἰπεῖν κεκτημένον ἔχουσιν, κἂν μυρίοι δὲ ὦσιν. ὥσπερ ὄψεώς ἐστιν πρὸς ὄψιν διαφορὰ καὶ πτήσεως πρὸς πτῆσιν· οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως ἱέρακες βλέπουσι καὶ τέττιγες, οὐδὲ ἀετοὶ πέτονται καὶ πέρδικες· οὕτως οὐδὲ παντὶ λογικῷ μέτεστιν ὡσαύτως τῆς δεχομένης τὸ ἄκρον [ 507 ]

εὐστροφίας καὶ ὀξύτητος. ἐπιδείγματά γε πολλὰ κοινωνίας καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ τοῦ πανούργου περὶ τοὺς πορισμοὺς καὶ τὰς οἰκονομίας, ὥσπερ αὖ καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων, ἀδικίας, δειλίας, ἀβελτερίας, ἔνεστιν αὐτοῖς. ὅθεν καὶ ζητήσεις τινὲς συνίστανται, τῶν μὲν τὰ χερσαῖα προῆχθαι λεγόντων, τῶν δὲ τὰ θαλάττια. καὶ δῆλόν ἐστι παραβαλλομένων ἵππων χερσαίων τοῖς ποταμίοις· οἳ μὲν γὰρ τρέφουσι τοὺς πατέρας, οἳ δὲ κτείνουσιν, ἵνα τὰς μητέρας ὀχεύωσιν· καὶ περιστεραῖς πάλιν περδίκων· οἳ μὲν γὰρ ἀφανίζουσι τὰ ᾠὰ καὶ διαφθείρουσι, τῆς θηλείας, ὅταν ἐπῳάζῃ, μὴ προσδεχομένης τὴν ὀχείαν· οἳ δὲ καὶ διαδέχονται τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἐν μέρει θάλποντες, καὶ ψωμίζουσι πρότεροι τὰ νεόττια, καὶ τὴν θήλειαν, ἂν πλείονα χρόνον ἀποπλανηθῇ, κόπτων ὁ ἄρρην εἰσελαύνει πρὸς τὰ ᾠὰ καὶ τοὺς νεοττούς. ὄνοις δὲ καὶ προβάτοις Ἀντίπατρος ἐγκαλῶν ὀλιγωρίαν καθαρειότητος, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως παρεῖδεν τὰς λύγκας καὶ τὰς χελιδόνας· ὧν αἳ μὲν ἐκτοπίζουσιν παντάπασιν κρύπτουσαι καὶ ἀφανίζουσαι τὸ λυγκούριον, αἱ δὲ χελιδόνες ἔξω στρεφομένους διδάσκουσι τοὺς νεοττοὺς ἀφιέναι τὸ περίττωμα. καὶ μὴν δένδρον δένδρου οὐ λέγομεν ἀμαθέστερον, ὡς κυνὸς πρόβατον, οὐδὲ λαχάνου λάχανον ἀνανδρότερον, ὡς ἔλαφον λέοντος· ἢ καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἀκινήτοις ἕτερον ἑτέρου βραδύτερον οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδὲ μικροφωνότερον ἐν τοῖς ἀναύδοις, οὕτως οὐδὲ δειλότερον οὐδὲ νωθρότερον οὐδὲ ἀκρατέστερον, ὅπου μὴ φύσει πᾶσιν ἡ τοῦ φρονεῖν δύναμις, ἄλλοις δὲ ἄλλως κατὰ τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον παροῦσα τὰς ὁρωμένας διαφορὰς πεποίηκεν. ἀλλ’ οὐ θαυμαστὸν ὅσον ἄνθρωπος εὐμαθείᾳ καὶ ἀγχινοίᾳ καὶ τοῖς περὶ δικαιοσύνην καὶ κοινωνίαν διαφέρει τῶν ζῴων. καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων πολλὰ τοῦτο μὲν μεγέθει καὶ ποδωκείᾳ, τοῦτο δὲ ὄψεως ῥώμῃ καὶ ἀκοῆς ἀκριβείᾳ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀπολέλοιπεν· ἀλλ’ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο κωφὸς οὐδὲ τυφλὸς οὐδὲ ἀδύνατος ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ καὶ θέομεν, εἰ καὶ βραδύτερον ἐλάφων, καὶ βλέπομεν, εἰ καὶ χεῖρον ἱεράκων· ἰσχύος τε καὶ μεγέθους ἡ φύσις ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἀπεστέρησεν, καίτοι τὸ μηδὲν ἐν τούτοις πρὸς ἐλέφαντα καὶ κάμηλον ὄντας. οὐκοῦν ὁμοίως μηδὲ τὰ θηρία λέγωμεν, εἰ νωθρότερον φρονεῖ καὶ κάκιον διανοεῖται, μὴ διανοεῖσθαι μηδὲ φρονεῖν ὅλως μηδὲ κεκτῆσθαι λόγον, ἀσθενῆ δὲ κεκτῆσθαι καὶ θολερόν, ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμὸν ἀμβλυώττοντα καὶ τεταραγμένον. [24] εἰ δὲ μὴ πολλὰ ἦν πολλοῖς συνηγμένα καὶ εἰρημένα, μυρία ἂν παρηγάγομεν εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τῆς τῶν ζῴων εὐφυΐας. ἐκεῖνο δ’ ἔτι σκεπτέον. ἔοικεν γὰρ τοῦ πεφυκότος ἢ μέρους ἢ δυνάμεως κατὰ φύσιν τι δέχεσθαι, τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἶναι καὶ εἰς τὸ παρὰ φύσιν ἐμπίπτειν πηρωθὲν ἢ νοσῆσαν, ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμοῦ μὲν εἰς τυφλότητα ἐμπίπτειν, σκέλους δὲ εἰς χωλότητα, καὶ γλώττης εἰς ψελλότητα, ἄλλου δὲ μηδενός. οὐ γὰρ ἔστι τυφλότης μὴ πεφυκότος ὁρᾶν, οὐδὲ χωλότης μὴ πεφυκότος βαδίζειν, ψελλόν τε καὶ ἄναυδον καὶ τραυλὸν μὴ γλῶσσαν ἐχόντων· οὐδ’ ἂν παραπαίοντα ἢ παράφορον εἴποις οὐδὲ μαινόμενον, ᾧ μὴ τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ διανοεῖσθαι καὶ λογίζεσθαι κατὰ φύσιν ὑπῆρχεν. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐν πάθει γενέσθαι μὴ κεκτημένον δύναμιν, ἧς τὸ πάθος ἢ στέρησις ἢ πήρωσις ἤ τις ἄλλη κάκωσίς ἐστιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐντετύχηκάς γε λυττώσαις κυσίν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἵπποις· ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ βοῦς φασὶ μαίνεσθαι καὶ ἀλώπεκας. ἀρκεῖ δὲ τὸ τῶν κυνῶν· ἀναμφισβήτητον γάρ ἐστι καὶ μαρτυρεῖ λόγον καὶ διάνοιαν ἔχειν οὐ φαύλην τὸ ζῷον, ἧς ταραττομένης καὶ συγχεομένης ἡ λεγομένη λύσσα καὶ μανία πάθος ἐστίν. οὔτε γὰρ ὄψιν [ 508 ]

ἀλλοιουμένην αὐτοῖς οὔτε ἀκοὴν ὁρῶμεν, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου μελαγχολῶντος ἢ παρακόπτοντος ὁ μὴ λέγων ἐξεστάναι καὶ διεφθορέναι τὸ φρονοῦν καὶ λογιζόμενον καὶ μνημονεῦον ἄτοπός ἐστιν· καὶ γὰρ ἡ συνήθεια ταῦτά γε κατηγορεῖ τῶν παραφρονούντων, μὴ εἶναι παρ’ αὑτοῖς ἀλλὰ ἐκπεπτωκέναι τῶν λογισμῶν· οὕτως ὁ τοὺς λυττῶντας κύνας ἄλλο τι πεπονθέναι νομίζων, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ τοῦ φρονεῖν πεφυκότος καὶ λογίζεσθαι καὶ μνημονεύειν ἀναπεπλησμένου ταραχῆς καὶ παραπεπαικότος, ἀγνοεῖν τὰ φίλτατα πρόσωπα καὶ φεύγειν τὰς συντρόφους διαίτας, ἢ παρορᾶν τὸ φαινόμενον ἔοικεν ἢ συνορῶν τὸ γιγνόμενον ἐξ αὐτοῦ φιλονεικεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. τὰ μὲν δὴ τοῦ Πλουτάρχου ἐν πολλοῖς βιβλίοις πρὸς τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς καὶ τοῦ περιπάτου εἰς ἀπάντησιν [25] εἰρημένα ἐστὶν τοιαῦτα. Θεόφραστος δὲ καὶ τοιούτῳ κέχρηται λόγῳ. τοὺς ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν γεννηθέντας, λέγω δὲ πατρὸς καὶ μητρός, οἰκείους εἶναι φύσει φαμὲν ἀλλήλων· καὶ τοίνυν καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν προπατόρων σπαρέντας [οἰκείους ἀλλήλων εἶναι νομίζομεν] καὶ μέντοι ‹καὶ› τοὺς ἑαυτῶν πολίτας τῷ τῆς τε γῆς καὶ ‹τῆς› πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμιλίας κοινωνεῖν. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ἔτι τότε τοιούτους ἀλλήλοις φύντας οἰκείους αὑτοῖς εἶναι κρίνομεν, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τινὲς τῶν πρώτων αὐτοῖς προγόνων οἱ αὐτοὶ τοῦ γένους ἀρχηγοὶ πεφύκασιν ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν. οὕτω δέ, οἶμαι, καὶ τὸν Ἕλληνα μὲν τῷ Ἕλληνι, τὸν δὲ βάρβαρον τῷ βαρβάρῳ, πάντας δὲ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀλλήλοις φαμὲν οἰκείους τε καὶ συγγενεῖς εἶναι, δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ τῷ προγόνων εἶναι τῶν αὐτῶν, ἢ τῷ τροφῆς καὶ ἠθῶν καὶ ταὐτοῦ γένους κοινωνεῖν. οὕτως δὲ καὶ τοὺς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀλλήλοις τίθεμεν καὶ συγγενεῖς, καὶ μὴν ‹καὶ› πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις· αἱ γὰρ τῶν σωμάτων ἀρχαὶ πεφύκασιν αἱ αὐταί· λέγω δὲ οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ στοιχεῖα ἀναφέρων τὰ πρῶτα· ἐκ τούτων μὲν γὰρ καὶ τὰ φυτά· ἀλλ’ οἷον δέρμα, σάρκας καὶ τὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν τοῖς ζῴοις σύμφυτον γένος· πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς ψυχὰς ἀδιαφόρους πεφυκέναι, λέγω δὴ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ταῖς ὀργαῖς, ἔτι δὲ τοῖς λογισμοῖς, καὶ μάλιστα πάντων ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν. ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τὰ σώματα, οὕτω καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τὰ μὲν ἀπηκριβωμένας ἔχει τῶν ζῴων, τὰ δὲ ἧττον τοιαύτας, πᾶσί γε μὴν αὐτοῖς αἱ αὐταὶ πεφύκασιν ἀρχαί. δηλοῖ δὲ ἡ τῶν παθῶν οἰκειότης. εἰ δὲ ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ λεγόμενον, ὡς ἡ τῶν ἠθῶν γένεσίς ἐστι τοιαύτη, φρονοῦσι μὲν ἅπαντα φῦλα, διαφέρουσι δὲ ταῖς ἀγωγαῖς τε καὶ ταῖς τῶν πρώτων κράσεσι, παντάπασιν ἂν οἰκεῖον εἴη καὶ συγγενὲς ἡμῖν τὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων γένος. καὶ γὰρ τροφαὶ αἱ αὐταὶ πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς καὶ πνεύματα, ὡς Εὐριπίδης, καὶ φοινίους ἔχει ῥοὰς τὰ ζῷα πάντα καὶ κοινοὺς ἁπάντων [26] δείκνυσι γονεῖς οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν. ὥστε συγγενῶν ὄντων, εἰ φαίνοιτο κατὰ Πυθαγόραν καὶ ψυχὴν τὴν αὐτὴν εἰληχότα, δικαίως ἄν τις ἀσεβὴς κρίνοιτο τῶν οἰκείων [τῆς ἀδικίας] μὴ ἀπεχόμενος. οὐ μὴν ὅτι τινὰ ἄγρια αὐτῶν, διὰ τοῦτο τὸ οἰκεῖον ἀποκέκοπται. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἧττον [ἀλλὰ καὶ μᾶλλον] τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἔνιοι κακοποιοί τε τῶν πλησίον εἰσὶ καὶ φέρονται πρὸς τὸ βλάπτειν τὸν ἐντυχόντα καθάπερ ὑπό τινος πνοῆς τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως καὶ μοχθηρίας· διὸ καὶ ἀναιροῦμεν τούτους, οὐ μέντοι ἀποκόπτομεν τὴν πρὸς τὸ ἥμερον σχέσιν. οὕτως οὖν, εἰ καὶ τῶν ζῴων τινὰ ἄγρια, ἐκεῖνα μὲν ὡς τοιαῦτα ἀναιρετέον καθάπερ καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἀνθρώπους, τῆς δὲ πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ καὶ ἡμερώτερα σχέσεως ‹οὐκ› ἀποστατέον· ἑκατέρων δὲ οὐδέτερα βρωτέον, ὡς οὐδὲ [ 509 ]

τοὺς ἀδίκους τῶν ἀνθρώπων. νῦν δὲ πολὺ τὸ ἄδικον ποιοῦμεν ἀναιροῦντες μὲν καὶ τὰ ἥμερα [ὅτι] καὶ τὰ ἄγρια [καὶ τὰ ἄδικα], ἐσθίοντες δὲ τὰ ἥμερα· κατ’ ἄμφω γὰρ ἄδικοι, ὅτι ἥμερα ὄντα ἀναιροῦμεν καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα θοινώμεθα, καὶ ψιλῶς ὁ τούτων θάνατος εἰς τὴν βορὰν ἔχει τὴν ἀναφοράν. προσθείη δ’ ἄν τις τούτοις καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. ὁ γὰρ λέγων ὅτι ὁ παρεκτείνων τὸ δίκαιον ἄχρι τῶν ζῴων φθείρει τὸ δίκαιον, ἀγνοεῖ ὡς αὐτὸς οὐ τὴν δικαιοσύνην διασῴζει, ἀλλ’ ἡδονὴν ἐπαύξει, ἥ ἐστι δικαιοσύνῃ πολέμιον. ἡδονῆς γοῦν οὔσης τέλους, δείκνυται δικαιοσύνη ἀναιρουμένη. ἐπεὶ ὅτι τὸ δίκαιον συναύξεται διὰ τῆς ἀποχῆς τίνι οὐ δῆλον; ὁ γὰρ ἀπεχόμενος παντὸς ἐμψύχου, κἂν μὴ τῶν συμβαλλόντων αὐτῷ εἰς κοινωνίαν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον πρὸς τὸ ὁμογενὲς τῆς βλάβης ἀφέξεται. οὐ γὰρ ὁ τὸ γένος φιλῶν τὸ εἶδος μισήσει, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ μεῖζον τὸ γένος τὸ τῶν ζῴων, τοσούτῳ καὶ πρὸς τὸ μέρος καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον ταύτην διασώσει. ὁ τοίνυν τὴν οἰκείωσιν πεποιημένος πρὸς τὸ ζῷον, οὗτος καὶ τό τι ζῷον οὐκ ἀδικήσει· ὁ δὲ μόνον περιγράψας ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ δίκαιον ἕτοιμος ἔσται ὡς ἐν στενῷ ἀπορρῖψαι τὴν ἔφεξιν τῆς ἀδικίας. ὥστε καὶ τοῦ Σωκρατικοῦ ὄψου ἥδιον τὸ Πυθαγόρειον. ὃ μὲν γὰρ ὄψον τροφῆς τὸ πεινῆν ἔλεγε, Πυθαγόρας δὲ τὸ μηθένα ἀδικεῖν καὶ ἐφηδύνειν δικαιοσύνῃ τὸ ὄψον. ἡ γὰρ φυγὴ τῆς ἐμψύχου τροφῆς φυγὴ ἦν τῶν περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἀδικημάτων. οὐ γὰρ δὴ μὴ μετὰ κακώσεως ἑτέρου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν ἀμήχανον ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν· ἐπεὶ οὕτω γε τὴν φύσιν ἡμῖν ἀρχὴν ἀδικίας προσετίθει· μήποτε δὲ καὶ ἀγνοεῖν οὗτοι ἐοίκασι τὸ ἰδίωμα τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅσοι ἐκ τῆς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους οἰκειώσεως εἰσάγειν ταύτην ᾠήθησαν· αὕτη μὲν γὰρ φιλανθρωπία τις ἂν εἴη, ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη ἐν τῷ ἀφεκτικῷ καὶ ἀβλαβεῖ κεῖται παντὸς ὅτου οὖν τοῦ μὴ βλάπτοντος. καὶ οὕτως γε νοεῖται ὁ δίκαιος, οὐκ ἐκείνως· ὡς διατείνειν τὴν δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἄχρι τῶν ἐμψύχων κειμένην ἐν τῷ ἀβλαβεῖ. διὸ καὶ ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς ἐν τῷ τὸ λογικὸν ἄρχειν [τοῦ ἀλόγου], ἕπεσθαι δὲ τὸ ἄλογον. ἄρχοντος γὰρ τούτου, τοῦ δ’ ἑπομένου, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη ἀβλαβῆ εἶναι πρὸς πᾶν ὅτι οὖν ἄνθρωπον. συνεσταλμένων γὰρ τῶν παθῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν καὶ ὀργῶν μεμαρασμένων, τοῦ δὲ λογισμοῦ τὴν οἰκείαν ἔχοντος ἀρχήν, εὐθὺς ἡ ὁμοίωσις ἕπεται ἡ πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον. τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ παντὶ κρεῖττον πάντως ἦν ἀβλαβές, καὶ αὐτὸ μὲν διὰ δύναμιν καὶ σωστικὸν πάντων καὶ εὐποιητικὸν πάντων καὶ ἀπροσδεὲς πάντων· ἡμεῖς δὲ διὰ μὲν δικαιοσύνην ἀβλαβεῖς πάντων, διὰ δὲ τὸ θνητὸν ἐνδεεῖς τῶν ἀναγκαίων. ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀναγκαίων λῆψις οὐ βλάπτει οὔτε φυτά, ὅταν ἃ ἀποβάλλουσι λάβωμεν, οὔτε καρπούς, ὅταν τεθνηκότων χρησώμεθα τοῖς καρποῖς, οὔτε πρόβατα, ὅταν διὰ τῆς κουρᾶς αὐτὰ μᾶλλον ὀνήσωμεν καὶ τοῦ γάλακτος κοινωνήσωμεν παρέχοντες αὐτοῖς τὴν ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐπιμέλειαν. διὸ προσπίπτει ὁ δίκαιος οἷον ἐλαττωτικὸς ἑαυτοῦ τῶν κατὰ σῶμα, οὐκ ἀδικεῖ δὲ ἑαυτόν· αὔξεται γὰρ τῇ τούτου παιδαγωγίᾳ καὶ ἐγκρατείᾳ τὸ ἐντὸς ἀγαθόν, [27] τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ὁμοίωσις. οὔτε τοίνυν ἡδονῆς οὔσης τέλους ἡ ὄντως σῴζεται δικαιοσύνη, οὔτε τῶν πρώτων κατὰ φύσιν συμπληρούντων τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἢ ἐκκειμένων γε πάντων. ἐν πολλοῖς γὰρ τὰ τῆς ἀλόγου κινήματα φύσεως καὶ αἱ χρεῖαι ἀδικίας κατάρχει. αὐτίκα τῆς ζῳοφαγίας ἐδεήθησαν, ἵνα τὴν φύσιν, ὡς φασίν, διαφυλάξωσιν ἀλύπητον καὶ ἀνενδεᾶ ὧν ὀρέγεται. τοῦ δ’ ὁμοιοῦσθαι θεῷ ὄντος τέλους ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα, σῴζεται τὸ ἀβλαβὲς ἐν ἅπασιν. ὅνπερ τοίνυν τρόπον ὁ πάθεσιν ἀγόμενος πρὸς μόνα [ 510 ]

τέκνα καὶ γυναῖκα ἀβλαβής, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων καταφρονητικὸς καὶ πλεονέκτης, ὡς ἂν τοῦ ἀλόγου κρατοῦντος ἐν αὐτῷ, πρὸς τὰ θνητὰ ἐγείρεται καὶ ταῦτα ἐκπλήττεται, ὁ δὲ λόγῳ ἀγόμενος καὶ πρὸς πολίτην τηρεῖ τὸ ἀβλαβὲς καὶ [ἔτι μᾶλλον] πρὸς ξένους καὶ πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, ὁ τὴν ἀλογίαν ἔχων ὑπήκοον, καὶ αὐτὸς παρ’ ἐκείνους λογικώτερος, διὰ ταῦτα δὲ καὶ θειότερος· οὕτως ὁ μὴ μόνον στήσας τὸ ἀβλαβὲς ἐν ἀνθρώποις, παρατείνας δὲ καὶ εἰς τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα μᾶλλον ὅμοιος θεῷ, καὶ εἰ ἄχρι φυτῶν δυνατόν, ἔτι μᾶλλον σῴζει τὴν εἰκόνα. εἰ δὲ μή, ἀλλ’ ἐντεῦθέν γε τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν ἐλάττωμα, ἐντεῦθεν τὸ θρηνούμενον πρὸς τῶν παλαιῶν, ὡς τοίων ἔκ τ’ ἐρίδων ἔκ τε νεικέων γενόμεσθα, ὅτι τὸ θεῖον ἀκήρατον καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ἀβλαβὲς σῴζειν οὐ δυνάμεθα· οὐ γὰρ ἐν πᾶσιν ἦμεν ἀπροσδεεῖς· αἰτία δὲ ἡ γένεσις καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ πενίᾳ ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι, τοῦ πόρου ἀπορρυέντος. ἡ δὲ πενία ἐξ ἀλλοτρίων τὴν σωτηρίαν καὶ τὸν κόσμον, δι’ οὗ τὸ εἶναι ἐλάμβανεν, ἐκτᾶτο. ὅστις οὖν πλειόνων δεῖται τῶν ἔξωθεν, ἐπὶ πλέον τῇ πενίᾳ προσήλωται· καὶ ὅσῳ πλεόνων ἐνδεής, τοσούτῳ θεοῦ μὲν ἄμοιρος, πενίᾳ δὲ σύνοικος. τὸ γὰρ θεῷ ὅμοιον τῇ ὁμοιώσει εὐθὺς πλοῦτον ἔχει τὸν ἀληθινόν. πλουτῶν δὲ οὐδεὶς καὶ χρῄζων μηδενὸς ἀδικεῖ· ἕως γὰρ ἀδικεῖ, κἂν πάντα ἔχῃ χρήματα κἂν πάντα τῆς γῆς πλέθρα, πένης ἐστὶν πενίᾳ ὑπάρχων σύνοικος, διὰ ταῦτα δὴ καὶ ἄδικος καὶ ἄθεος καὶ ἀσεβὴς καὶ πάσῃ κακίᾳ ἔνοχος, ἧς τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἡ πρὸς τὴν ὕλην τῆς ψυχῆς πτῶσις κατὰ στέρησιν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ παρήγαγεν. λῆρος οὖν πάντα, ἕως τις τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀπέσφαλται, καὶ ἐνδεὴς πάντων, ἕως οὗ πρὸς τὸν πόρον οὐ βλέπει, εἴκει τε τῷ θνητῷ τῆς φύσεως αὑτοῦ, ἕως τὸν ὄντως ἑαυτὸν οὐκ ἐγνώρισεν. δεινὴ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία πείθειν ἑαυτὴν καὶ δεκάζειν τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτῆς συνεχομένους, διότι σὺν ἡδονῇ προσομιλεῖ τοῖς τροφίμοις. ὥσπερ δὲ ἐν βίων αἱρέσεσιν ἀκριβέστερος κριτὴς ὁ πεῖραν ἀμφοῖν εἰληφὼς τοῦ θατέρου πειραθέντος μόνου, οὕτως ἐν αἱρέσεσι καὶ φυγαῖς καθηκόντων ἀσφαλέστερος κριτὴς ὁ ἐκ τοῦ ἐπαναβεβηκότος κρίνων καὶ τὸ ἧττον τοῦ κάτωθεν κρίνοντος τὰ προκείμενα. ὥστε ὁ κατὰ νοῦν ζῶν τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀλογίαν ἀκριβέστερος ὁριστὴς ὧν τε αἱρετέον καὶ ὧν μή· διῆλθεν γὰρ καὶ δι’ ἀλογίας, ἅτε ἐξ ἀρχῆς ταύτῃ προσομιλήσας· ὁ δὲ ἄπειρος ὢν τῶν κατὰ νοῦν πείθει τοὺς ὁμοίους, παῖς ἐν παισὶ φλυαρῶν. ἀλλ’ εἰ πάντες, φασί, τούτοις πεισθεῖεν τοῖς λόγοις, τί ἡμῖν ἔσται; ἢ δῆλον ὡς εὐδαιμονήσομεν, ἀδικίας μὲν ἐξορισθείσης ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων, δικαιοσύνης δὲ πολιτευομένης καὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν, καθάπερ καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ. νῦν δ’ ὅμοιον, ὡς εἰ αἱ Δαναΐδες ἠπόρουν τίνα βίον βιώσονται ἀπαλλαγεῖσαι τῆς περὶ τὸν τετρημένον πίθον διὰ τοῦ κοσκίνου λατρείας. τί γὰρ ἔσται ἀποροῦσιν, εἰ παυσαίμεθα ἐπιφοροῦντες εἰς τὰ πάθη ἡμῶν καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας, ὧν τὸ πᾶν διαρρεῖ ἀπειρίᾳ τῶν καλῶν τὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀναγκαίων στεργόντων ἡμῶν βίον. τί τοίνυν πράξομεν, ἐρωτᾷς, ὦ ἄνθρωπε; μιμησώμεθα τὸ χρυσοῦν γένος, μιμησώμεθα τοὺς ἐλευθερωθέντας. μεθ’ ὧν μὲν γὰρ Αἰδὼς καὶ Νέμεσις ἥ τε Δίκη ὡμίλει, ὅτι ἠρκοῦντο τῷ ἐκ γῆς καρπῷ· καρπὸν γάρ σφισιν ἔφερεν ζείδωρος ἄρουρα αὐτομάτη πολλόν τε καὶ ἄφθονον·

[ 511 ]

οἱ δέ γε ἐλευθερωθέντες ἃ πάλαι τοῖς δεσπόταις ὑπηρετοῦντες ἐπόριζον, ταῦτα ἑαυτοῖς πορίζουσιν. οὐκ ἄλλως καὶ σὺ τοίνυν ἀπαλλαγεὶς τῆς τοῦ σώματος [δουλείας] καὶ τῆς τοῖς πάθεσι τοῖς διὰ τὸ σῶμα λατρείας, ὡς ἐκεῖνα ἔτρεφες παντοίως τοῖς ἔξωθεν, οὕτως αὑτὸν θρέψεις παντοίως τοῖς ἔνδοθεν, δικαίως ἀπολαμβάνων τὰ ἴδια καὶ οὐκέτι τὰ ἀλλότρια βίᾳ ἀφαιρούμενος.

[ 512 ]

ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΤΕΤΑΡΤΟΝ. [ 1 ] ΠΡ Ὸ ς Μ Ὲ Ν ἁπάσας σχεδὸν τὰς σκήψεις τῶν τῇ μὲν ἀληθείᾳ ἀκρασίας ἕνεκα καὶ ἀκολασίας τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν προσεμένων, ἀπολογίας δὲ αὑτοῖς ἀναισχύντους πεπορικότων τὰς ἐκ τῆς ἐνδείας, ἣν πλέον ἢ χρῆν τῇ φύσει προσάπτουσι, διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὦ Καστρίκιε, ἀπηντήσαμεν. λειπομένων δ’ ἔτι μερικῶν ζητήσεων, ὧν μάλιστα ἡ τοῦ συμφέροντος ἐπαγγελία ἐξαπατᾷ τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ἡδονῶν δεδεκασμένους, καὶ μὴν καὶ τῆς μαρτυρίας τοῦ μηδὲν μήτε τῶν σοφῶν μήτε τι ἔθνος παραιτήσασθαι τὴν βρῶσιν ἱκανῶς εἰς μέγεθος τῆς ἀδικίας τοὺς ἀκούοντας προαγούσης ὑπ’ ἀπειρίας τῆς ἀληθινῆς ἱστορίας, τὸν ἔλεγχον τούτων ποιεῖσθαι μέλλοντες, τὰς περὶ τοῦ συμφέροντος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζητημάτων λύσεις ἐκβαλεῖν πειρασόμεθα. [2] ἀρξώμεθα δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ ἔθνη τινῶν ἀποχῆς, ὧν ἡγήσονται τοῦ λόγου οἱ Ἕλληνες, ὡς ἂν τῶν μαρτυρούντων ὄντες οἰκειότατοι. τῶν τοίνυν συντόμως τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀκριβῶς τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ συναγαγόντων ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ περιπατητικὸς Δικαίαρχος, ὃς τὸν ἀρχαῖον βίον τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀφηγούμενος, τοὺς παλαιοὺς καὶ ἐγγὺς θεῶν φησὶ γεγονότας, βελτίστους τε ὄντας φύσει καὶ τὸν ἄριστον ἐζηκότας βίον, ὡς χρυσοῦν γένος νομίζεσθαι παραβαλλομένους πρὸς τοὺς νῦν, κιβδήλου καὶ φαυλοτάτης ὑπάρχοντας ὕλης, μηδὲν φονεύειν ἔμψυχον. ὃ δὴ καὶ τοὺς ποιητὰς παριστάντας χρυσοῦν μὲν ἐπονομάζειν γένος, ἐσθλὰ δὲ πάντα, λέγειν, τοῖσιν ἔην· καρπὸν δ’ ἔφερεν ζείδωρος ἄρουρα αὐτομάτη πολλόν τε καὶ ἄφθονον· οἳ δ’ ἐθελημοὶ ἥσυχοι ἔργ’ ἐνέμοντο σὺν ἐσθλοῖσιν πολέεσσιν. ὴ μάτην ἐπιπεφημισμένον, τὸ δὲ λίαν μυθικὸν ἀφέντας, εἰς τὸ διὰ τοῦ λόγου φυσικὸν ἀνάγειν. αὐτόματα μὲν γὰρ πάντα ἐφύετο, εἰκότως· οὐ γὰρ αὐτοί γε κατεσκεύαζον οὐθὲν διὰ τὸ μήτε τὴν γεωργικὴν ἔχειν πω τέχνην μήθ’ ἑτέραν μηδεμίαν ἁπλῶς. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῦ σχολὴν ἄγειν αἴτιον ἐγίγνετο αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῦ διάγειν ἄνευ πόνων καὶ μερίμνης, εἰ δὲ τῇ τῶν γλαφυρωτάτων ἰατρῶν ἐπακολουθῆσαι δεῖ διανοίᾳ, καὶ τοῦ μὴ νοσεῖν. οὐθὲν γὰρ εἰς ὑγίειαν αὐτῶν μεῖζον παράγγελμα εὕροι τις ἂν ἢ τὸ μὴ ποιεῖν περιττώματα, ὧν διὰ παντὸς ἐκεῖνοι καθαρὰ τὰ σώματα ἐφύλαττον. οὔτε γὰρ τῆς φύσεως ἰσχυροτέραν τροφὴν [ἀλλ’ ἧς ἡ φύσις ἰσχυροτέρα] προσεφέροντο, οὔτε τὴν πλείω τῆς μετρίας διὰ τὴν ἑτοιμότητα, ἀλλ’ ὡς τὰ πολλὰ τὴν ἐλάττω [τῆς ἱκανῆς] διὰ τὴν σπάνιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ πόλεμοι αὐτοῖς ἦσαν οὐδὲ στάσεις πρὸς ἀλλήλους· ἆθλον γὰρ οὐθὲν ἀξιόλογον ἐν τῷ μέσῳ προκείμενον ὑπῆρχεν, ὑπὲρ ὅτου τις ἂν διαφορὰν τοσαύτην ἐνεστήσατο. ὥστε τὸ κεφάλαιον εἶναι τοῦ βίου συνέβαινεν σχολήν, ῥᾳθυμίαν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀναγκαίων, ὑγίειαν, εἰρήνην, φιλίαν. τοῖς δὲ ὑστέροις ἐφιεμένοις μεγάλων καὶ πολλοῖς περιπίπτουσι κακοῖς ποθεινὸς εἰκότως ἐκεῖνος ὁ βίος ἐφαίνετο. δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ λιτὸν τῶν πρώτων καὶ αὐτοσχέδιον τῆς τροφῆς τὸ μεθύστερον ῥηθὲν ἅλις δρυός, τοῦ μεταβάλλοντος πρώτου, οἷα εἰκός, τοῦτο φθεγξαμένου. ὕστερον ὁ νομαδικὸς εἰσῆλθεν βίος, καθ’ ὃν [ 513 ]

περιττοτέραν ἤδη κτῆσιν προσπεριεβάλοντο καὶ ζῴων ἥψαντο, κατανοήσαντες ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἀσινῆ ἐτύγχανεν ὄντα, τὰ δὲ κακοῦργα καὶ χαλεπά· καὶ οὕτω δὴ τὰ μὲν ἐτιθάσευσαν, τοῖς δὲ ἐπέθεντο, καὶ ἅμα τῷ αὐτῷ βίῳ συνεισῆλθεν πόλεμος. καὶ ταῦτα, φησίν, οὐχ ἡμεῖς, ἀλλ’ οἱ τὰ παλαιὰ ἱστορίᾳ διεξελθόντες εἰρήκασιν. ἤδη γὰρ ἀξιόλογα κτήματα ἦν ὑπάρχοντα, οἳ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ παρελέσθαι φιλοτιμίαν ἐποιοῦντο, ἀθροιζόμενοί τε καὶ παρακαλοῦντες ἀλλήλους, οἳ δ’ ἐπὶ τὸ διαφυλάξαι. προϊόντος δὲ κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω τοῦ χρόνου, κατανοοῦντες ἀεὶ τῶν χρησίμων εἶναι δοκούντων, εἰς τὸ τρίτον τε καὶ γεωργικὸν ἐνέπεσον εἶδος. ταυτὶ μὲν Δικαιάρχου τὰ παλαιὰ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν διεξιόντος μακάριόν τε τὸν βίον ἀφηγουμένου τῶν παλαιοτάτων, ὃν οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἄλλων καὶ ἡ ἀποχὴ τῶν ἐμψύχων συνεπλήρου. διὸ πόλεμος οὐκ ἦν, ὡς ἂν ἀδικίας ἐξεληλαμένης· συνεισῆλθεν δὲ ὕστερον καὶ πόλεμος καὶ εἰς ἀλλήλους πλεονεξία ἅμα τῇ τῶν ζῴων ἀδικίᾳ. ὃ καὶ θαυμαστὸν τῶν τολμησάντων τὴν ἀποχὴν τῶν ζῴων ἀδικίας μητέρα εἰπεῖν, τῆς ἱστορίας καὶ τῆς πείρας ἅμα τῷ φόνῳ αὐτῶν τρυφήν τε καὶ [3] πόλεμον καὶ ἀδικίαν συνεισελθεῖν μηνυούσης. ὃ δὴ καὶ ὕστερον Λυκοῦργον τὸν Λακεδαιμόνιον συνιδόντα, καίπερ κακρατηκότος τοῦ γεύεσθαι ἐμψύχων, οὕτως τὴν πολιτείαν συντάξαι, ὡς ἥκιστα τῆς ἐκ τούτων τροφῆς δεῖσθαι. τὸν γὰρ κλῆρον ἑκάστων οὐκ ἐν ἀγέλαις βοῶν καὶ προβάτων αἰγῶν τε καὶ ἵππων ἢ χρημάτων περιουσίᾳ ἀφορίσαι, ἀλλ’ ἐν γῆς κτήσει φερούσης ἀποφορὰν ἀνδρὶ ἑβδομήκοντα κριθῶν μεδίμνους, γυναικὶ δὲ δώδεκα, καὶ τῶν ὑγρῶν καρπῶν ἀναλόγως τὸ πλῆθος. ἀρκέσειν γὰρ ᾤετο τοσοῦτον τροφῆς πρὸς εὐεξίαν καὶ ὑγείαν ἱκανήν, ἄλλου μηδενὸς δεησομένοις. ὅθεν καὶ φασὶν ὡς ὕστερόν ποτε χρόνῳ τὴν χώραν διερχόμενος ἐξ ἀποδημίας ἄρτι τεθερισμένην ὁρῶν τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰς ἅλωνας παραλλήλους καὶ ὁμαλεῖς, ἐμειδίασέν τε καὶ εἶπε πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας, ὡς ἡ Λακωνικὴ φαίνεται πᾶσα πολλῶν ἀδελφῶν εἶναι νεωστὶ νενεμημένων. τοιγὰρ οὖν ἐξῆν αὐτῷ τρυφὴν ἐξελάσαντι τῆς Σπάρτης ἀκυρῶσαι πᾶν νόμισμα χρυσοῦν καὶ ἀργυροῦν, μόνῳ δὲ χρῆσθαι τῷ σιδηρῷ, καὶ τούτῳ ἀπὸ πολλοῦ σταθμοῦ καὶ ὄγκου δύναμιν ὀλίγην ἔχοντι· ὥστε δέκα μνῶν ἀμοιβὴν ἀποθήκης μεγάλης ἐν οἰκίᾳ δεῖσθαι καὶ ζεύγους ἄγοντος. οὗ κυρωθέντος ἐξέπεσεν ἀδικημάτων γένη πολλὰ τῆς Λακεδαίμονος. τίς γὰρ ἢ κλέπτειν ἔμελλεν ἢ δωροδοκεῖν ἢ ἀποστερεῖν ἢ ἁρπάζειν ὃ μήτε κατακρύψαι δυνατὸν ἦν μήτε κεκτῆσθαι ζηλωτόν, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ κατακόψαι λυσιτελές; ἔμελλον δὲ καὶ τέχναι ἄχρηστοι ἐξελαθήσεσθαι σὺν τούτοις, διάθεσιν τῶν ἔργων οὐκ ἐχόντων. τὸ γὰρ σιδηροῦν ἀγώγιμον οὐκ ἦν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας οὐδὲ εἶχε τιμὴν καταγελώμενον, ὥστε οὐδὲ πρίασθαί τι τῶν ξενικῶν καὶ ῥωπικῶν ὑπῆρχεν, οὐδὲ εἰσέπλει φόρτος ἐμπορικὸς εἰς τοὺς λιμένας, οὐδ’ ἐπέβαινε τῆς Λακωνικῆς οὐ σοφιστὴς λόγων, οὐ μάντις ἀγυρτικός, οὐχ ἑταιρῶν τροφεύς, οὐ χρυσῶν τις, οὐ χαλκῶν καλλωπισμάτων δημιουργός, ἅτε δὴ νομίσματος οὐκ ὄντος. ἀλλ’ οὕτως ἀπερημωθεῖσα κατὰ μικρὸν ἡ τρυφὴ τῶν ζωπυρούντων καὶ τρεφόντων αὐτὴ δι’ ἑαυτῆς ἐμαραίνετο· καὶ πλέον οὐδὲν ἦν τοῖς πολλὰ κεκτημένοις ὁδὸν οὐκ ἐχούσης εἰς μέσον τῆς εὐπορίας, ἀλλ’ ἐγκατῳκοδομημένης καὶ ἀργούσης. διὸ καὶ τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν σκευῶν καὶ ἀναγκαῖα ταῦτα, κλιντῆρες καὶ δίφροι καὶ τράπεξαι, βέλτιστα παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἐδημιουργεῖτο, καὶ κώθων, ὡς φησὶ Κριτίας, ὁ Λακωνικὸς εὐδοκίμει μάλιστα πρὸς τὰς στρατείας. τὰ γὰρ [ 514 ]

ἀναγκαίως πινόμενα τῶν ὑδάτων καὶ δυσωποῦντα τὴν ὄψιν ἀπεκρύπτετο τῇ χρόᾳ, καὶ τοῦ θολεροῦ προσκόπτοντος καὶ προσισχομένου τοῖς ἄμβωσι, καθαρώτερον ἐπλησίαζε τῷ στόματι τὸ πινόμενον. αἴτιος δὲ καὶ τούτων ὁ νομοθέτης, ὡς φησὶν ὁ Πλούταρχος. ἀπηλλαγμένοι γὰρ οἱ δημιουργοὶ τῶν ἀχρήστων ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις ἐπεδείκνυντο [4] τὴν καλλιτεχνίαν. ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον ἐπιθέσθαι τῇ τρυφῇ καὶ τὸν ζῆλον ἀφελέσθαι τοῦ πλούτου διανοηθεὶς τὸ τρίτον πολίτευμα καὶ κάλλιστον ἐπῆγεν, τὴν τῶν συσσιτίων κατασκευήν, ὥστε δειπνεῖν μετ’ ἀλλήλων συνιόντας ἐπὶ κοινοῖς καὶ τεταγμένοις ὄψοις καὶ σιτίοις, οἴκοι δὲ μὴ διαιτᾶσθαι κατακλινέντας εἰς στρωμνὰς πολυτελεῖς καὶ τραπέζας, χερσὶν δημιουργῶν καὶ μαγείρων ὑπὸ σκότος, ὥσπερ ἀδηφάγα ζῷα, πιαινομένους καὶ διαφθείροντας ἅμα τοῖς ἤθεσι τὰ σώματα πρὸς πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀνειμένα καὶ πλησμονήν, μακρῶν μὲν ὕπνων, θερμῶν δὲ λουτρῶν, πολλῆς δὲ ἡσυχίας καὶ τρόπον τινὰ νοσηλείας καθημερινῆς δεομένην. μέγα μὲν οὖν καὶ τοῦτο ἦν, μεῖζον δὲ τούτου τὸ τὸν πλοῦτον ἄζηλον, ὡς φησὶν Θεόφραστος, καὶ ἄπλουτον ἀπεργάσασθαι τῇ κοινότητι τῶν δείπνων καὶ τῇ περὶ τὴν δίαιταν εὐτελείᾳ. χρῆσις γὰρ οὐκ ἦν οὐδὲ ἀπόλαυσις οὐδὲ ὄψις ὅλως ἢ ἐπίδειξις τῆς πολλῆς παρασκευῆς, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ δεῖπνον τῷ πένητι τοῦ πλουσίου βαδίζοντος· ὥστε τοῦτο δὴ τὸ θρυλούμενον ἐν μόνῃ τῇ Σπάρτῃ βλέπεσθαι τυφλὸν ὄντα τὸν Πλοῦτον καὶ κείμενον ὥσπερ γραφὴν ἄψυχον καὶ ἀκίνητον. οὐδὲ γὰρ οἴκοι προδειπνήσαντας ἐξῆν βαδίζειν ἐπὶ τὰ συσσίτια πεπληρωμένους, ἀλλ’ ἐπιμελῶς οἱ λοιποὶ φυλάττοντες τὸν μὴ πίνοντα μηδὲ ἐσθίοντα μετ’ αὐτῶν ἐκάκιζον ὡς ἀκρατῆ καὶ πρὸς τὴν κοινὴν μαλθακιζόμενον δίαιταν. διὸ καὶ φιδίτια προσηγόρευον ταῦτα, εἴτε ὡς φιλίας καὶ φιλοφροσύνης ὑπάρχοντα αἴτια, ἀντὶ τοῦ λάβδα τὸ δέλτα λαμβάνοντες, εἴτε ὡς πρὸς εὐτέλειαν καὶ φειδὼ συνεθιζόντων. συνήρχοντο δὲ ἀνὰ πεντεκαίδεκα καὶ βραχεῖ τούτων ἐλάττους ἢ πλείους. ἔφερε δὲ ἕκαστος κατὰ μῆνα τῶν συσσίτων ἀλφίτων μέδιμνον, οἴνου χόας ὀκτώ, τυροῦ πέντε μνᾶς, σύκων ἡμιμναῖα πέντε· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις εἰς ὀψωνίαν [5] μικρόν τι κομιδῇ νομίσματος. εἰκότως ἄρα οὕτω λιτῶς καὶ σωφρόνως δειπνούντων καὶ οἱ παῖδες ἐφοίτων εἰς τὰ συσσίτια ὥσπερ εἰς διδασκαλεῖα σωφροσύνης ἀγόμενοι, καὶ λόγων ἠκροῶντο πολιτικῶν καὶ παιδευτὰς ἐλευθερίας ἑώρων, αὐτοί τε παίζειν εἰθίζοντο καὶ σκώπτειν ἄνευ βωμολοχίας καὶ σκωπτόμενοι μὴ δυσχεραίνειν. σφόδρα γὰρ ἐδόκει καὶ τοῦτο Λακωνικὸν εἶναι, σκώμματος ἀνασχέσθαι· μὴ φέροντα δὲ ἐξῆν παραιτεῖσθαι, καὶ ὁ σκώπτων ἐπέπαυτο. τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων περὶ τὴν δίαιταν λιτότης, καίπερ εἰς πλῆθος νενομοθετημένη. διὸ καὶ ἀνδρικώτεροι καὶ σωφρονέστεροι καὶ τοῦ ὀρθοῦ μᾶλλον φροντίζοντες οἱ ἐκ ταύτης τῆς πολιτείας ἀναβαίνοντες παραδέδονται τῶν ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων, διεφθαρμένων καὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς καὶ τοῖς σώμασιν· καὶ δῆλον ὡς τοιαύτῃ πολιτείᾳ οἰκεῖον τὸ τῆς ἀποχῆς τῆς παντελοῦς, ταῖς δὲ διεφθαρμέναις τὸ τῆς βρώσεως. μεταβάντι δὲ εἰς τὰ ἄλλα ἔθνη, ὅσα εὐνομίας τε καὶ ἡμερότητος τῆς τε πρὸς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείας ἐπεστράφη, φανερὸν ἔσται ὡς πρός τε τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν πόλεων καὶ τὸ συμφέρον αὐταῖς εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐπὶ πάντας, ἀλλὰ γοῦν εἴς τινας τὸ τῆς ἀποχῆς προσετέτακτο· οἱ δὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως θύοντες τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ θεραπεύοντες ἀπεμειλίττοντο τὰς τῶν πολλῶν ἁμαρτίας. ὅπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς μυστηρίοις ὁ ἀφ’ ἑστίας λεγόμενος παῖς, ‹ὃς› ἀντὶ πάντων τῶν μυουμένων ἀπομειλίσσεται τὸ θεῖον, ἀκριβῶς δρῶν τὰ [ 515 ]

προστεταγμένα, τοῦτο κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη καὶ τὰς πόλεις οἱ ἱερεῖς δύνανται ἀντὶ πάντων θύοντες καὶ τὸ θεῖον προσαγόμενοι διὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας εἰς τὴν σφῶν κηδεμονίαν. τοῖς τοίνυν ἱερεῦσιν τοῖς μὲν τῶν ζῴων πάντων, τοῖς δέ τινων πάντως προστέτακται ἀπέχεσθαι τῆς βορᾶς, ἄν τε Ἑλληνικὸν ἔθος σκοπῇς ἄν τε βάρβαρον, καὶ μέντοι παρ’ ἄλλοις ἄλλων· ὥστε τοὺς πανταχοῦ παραληφθέντας φαίνεσθαι πάντων ἀπεχομένους, εἴ τις τοὺς πάντας ὡς ἕνα ὑπολάβοι. εἰ τοίνυν οἱ τῆς σωτηρίας τῶν πόλεων προεστῶτες καὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν αὐτῶν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς πεπιστευμένοι τῶν ζῴων ἀπέχονται, πῶς ἄν τις τολμήσειεν ὡς ἀσύμφορον ταῖς πόλεσι τὴν [6] ἀποχὴν αἰτιᾶσθαι; τὰ γοῦν κατὰ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἱερέας Χαιρήμων ὁ στωικὸς ἀφηγούμενος, οὓς καὶ φιλοσόφους ὑπειλῆφθαι φησὶ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις, ἐξηγεῖται ὡς τόπον μὲν ἐξελέξαντο ἐμφιλοσοφῆσαι τὰ ἱερά. πρός τε γὰρ τὴν ὅλην ὄρεξιν τῆς θεωρίας συγγενὲς ἦν παρὰ τοῖς ἐκείνων ἀφιδρύμασι διαιτᾶσθαι, παρεῖχέν τε αὐτοῖς ἀσφάλειαν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ θείου σεβασμοῦ καθάπερ τινα ἱερὰ ζῷα πάντων τιμώντων τοὺς φιλοσόφους, ἠρεμαίοις δὲ εἶναι, ἅτε τῆς ἐπιμιξίας κατὰ τὰς πανηγύρεις καὶ τὰς ἑορτὰς συντελουμένης μόνον, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν σχεδὸν ἀβάτων ὄντων τοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν ἱερῶν· ἁγνεύσαντας γὰρ ἔδει προσιέναι καὶ πολλῶν ἀποσχομένους. καὶ τοῦτο ὥσπερ κοινὸς τῶν κατ’ Αἴγυπτον ἱερῶν θεσμός ἐστιν. ἀπειπάμενοι δὲ πᾶσαν τὴν ἄλλην ἐργασίαν καὶ πόρους ἀνθρωπίνους, ἀπέδοσαν ὅλον τὸν βίον τῇ τῶν θείων θεωρίᾳ καὶ θεάσει, διὰ μὲν ταύτης τό τε τίμιον καὶ ἀσφαλὲς καὶ εὐσεβὲς ποριζόμενοι, διὰ δὲ τῆς θεωρίας τὴν ἐπιστήμην, δι’ ἀμφοῖν δὲ ἄσκησιν ἠθῶν κεκρυμμένην τινὰ καὶ ἀρχαιοπρεπῆ. τὸ γὰρ ἀεὶ συνεῖναι τῇ θείᾳ γνώσει καὶ ἐπιπνοίᾳ πάσης μὲν ἔξω τίθησιν πλεονεξίας, καταστέλλει δὲ τὰ πάθη, διεγείρει δὲ πρὸς σύνεσιν τὸν βίον. λιτότητα δὲ ἐπετήδευσαν καὶ καταστολὴν ἐγκράτειάν τε καὶ καρτερίαν τό τε ἐν παντὶ δίκαιον καὶ ἀπλεονέκτητον. σεμνοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς παρεῖχεν καὶ τὸ δυσεπίμικτον, οἵ γε παρὰ μὲν αὐτὸν τῶν λεγομένων ἁγνειῶν τὸν καιρὸν οὐδὲ τοῖς συγγενεστάτοις καὶ ὁμοφύλοις ἐπεμίγνυντο σχεδὸν οὐδὲ ἄλλων τῳ θεωρούμενοι, ὅτι μὴ πρὸς τὰς ἀναγκαίας συναγνεύουσι χρείας, ἢ ἁγνευτήρια τοῖς μὴ καθαρεύουσιν ἄδυτα καὶ πρὸς ἱερουργίας ἅγια κατανεμόμενοι· τὸν δὲ ἄλλον χρόνον ἁπλούστερον μὲν τοῖς ὁμοίοις ἐπεμίγνυντο, τῶν δὲ ἐξωτικῶν τῆς θρησκείας οὐδενὶ συνεβίουν· ἐφαίνοντο δὲ ἀεὶ θεῶν ἢ ἀγαλμάτων ἐγγύς, ἤτοι φέροντες ἢ προηγούμενοι καὶ τάσσοντες μετὰ κόσμου τε καὶ σεμνότητος· ὧν ἕκαστον οὐ τῦφος ἦν, ἀλλά τινος ἔνδειξις φυσικοῦ λόγου. τὸ δὲ σεμνὸν κἀκ τοῦ καταστήματος ἑωρᾶτο. πορεία τε γὰρ ἦν εὔτακτος καὶ βλέμμα καθεστηκὸς ἐπετηδεύετο, ὡς ὅτε βουληθεῖεν μὴ σκαρδαμύττειν· γέλως δὲ σπάνιος· εἰ δέ που γένοιτο, μέχρι μειδιάσεως· ἀεὶ δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ σχήματος ‹αἱ› χεῖρες. καὶ σύμβολόν γε ἦν ἑκάστῳ τῆς τάξεως ἐμφαντικόν, ἣν ἔλαχεν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς· πλείους γὰρ ἦσαν αἱ τάξεις. δίαιτα δὲ λιτὴ καὶ ἀφελής· οἴνου γὰρ οἳ μὲν οὐδ’ ὅλως, οἳ δὲ ὀλίγιστα ἐγεύοντο, νεύρων αἰτιώμενοι βλάβας καὶ πλήρωσιν κεφαλῆς ἐμπόδιον εἰς εὕρεσιν, ἀφροδισίων τε ἔφασαν αὐτὸν ὀρέξεις ἐπιφέρειν. ταύτῃ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων εὐλαβῶς εἶχον, ἄρτοις μὲν οὐδὲ ὅλως ἐν ταῖς ἁγνείαις χρώμενοι· εἰ δέ ποτε μὴ ἁγνεύοιεν, σὺν ὑσσώπῳ κόπτοντες ἤσθιον· τὸ πολὺ γὰρ αὐτοῦ τῆς δυνάμεως καθαιρεῖν ἔφασαν τὸν ὕσσωπον. ἐλαίου δ’ ἀπείχοντο ‹οἳ› μὲν ὡς τὸ πολύ, οἱ πλεῖστοι δὲ καὶ παντελῶς· εἰ δέ που μετὰ λαχάνων χρήσαιντο, [ 516 ]

παντελῶς ὀλίγῳ καὶ ὅσον παρηγορῆσαι [7] τὴν αἴσθησιν. τῶν μὲν οὖν ἐκτὸς Αἰγύπτου γιγνομένων βρωμάτων τε καὶ ποτῶν οὐ θέμις ἦν ἅπτεσθαι. πολύς τις οὕτως τρυφῆς ἀπεκέκλειστο πόρος. τῶν δὲ κατ’ αὐτὴν τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἰχθύων τε ἀπείχοντο πάντων καὶ τετραπόδων ὅσα μώνυχα ἢ πολυσχιδῆ ἢ μὴ κερασφόρα· πτηνῶν δὲ ὅσα σαρκοφάγα· πολλοὶ δὲ καθάπαξ τῶν ἐμψύχων· καὶ ἔν γε ταῖς ἁγνείαις ἅπαντες, ὁπότε μηδ’ ᾠὸν προσίεντο. καὶ μέντοι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οὐκ ἀσυκοφάντητον ἐποιοῦντο παραίτησιν, οἷον τῶν βοῶν τὰς θηλείας παρῃτοῦντο, τῶν δ’ ἀρρένων ὅσα δίδυμα ἢ κατάσπιλα ἢ ἑτερόχροα ἢ παραλλάσσοντα τῇ μορφῇ ἢ δεδαμασμένα, ὡς ἤδη καθωσιωμένα τοῖς πόνοις καὶ τιμωμένοις ἐμφερῆ, ἢ καθ’ ὅντιν’ οὖν οἷον ἀπεικασμὸν ἐξείη ἢ ἑτερόφθαλμα ἢ πρὸς ἀνθρωπείαν ἐμφέρειαν νεύοντα. μυρίαι δ’ ἄλλαι παρατηρήσεις τῆς περὶ αὐτὰ τέχνης τῶν καλουμένων μοσχοσφραγιστῶν ἄχρι συντάξεων προάγουσαι βιβλιακῶν. περιεργότερον δ’ ἔτι περὶ τὰ πτηνά, οἷον τρυγόνα μὴ ἐσθίειν· ἱέραξ γάρ, ἔφασαν, πολλαχῇ τὸ ζῷον συλλαβὼν ἀφίησιν, μισθὸν ἀποδιδοὺς μίξεως σωτηρίαν. ὡς οὖν μὴ λάθοιεν τοιούτῳ περιπεσόντες, ἅπαν αὐτῶν περιίσταντο τὸ γένος. κοιναὶ μὲν δὴ θρησκεῖαί τινες αὗται, κατὰ γένη δὲ τῶν ἱερέων διάφοροι, καὶ οἰκεῖαι καθ’ ἕκαστον θεόν· αἱ δὲ ἁγνεῖαι πάντων ἐκαθάρευον. ὁ δὲ χρόνος οὗτος, ὁπότε συντελεῖν τι τῶν περὶ τὴν ἱερὰν μέλλοιεν θρησκείαν, προλαμβάνων ἡμερῶν ἀριθμόν, οἳ μὲν δυεῖν καὶ τετταράκοντα, οἳ δὲ τούτων πλείους, οἳ δὲ ἐλάσσους, οὐδέποτε μέντοι τῶν ἑπτὰ λειπομένας, παντὸς μὲν ἐμψύχου ἀπείχοντο, παντὸς δὲ λαχάνου τε καὶ ὀσπρίου, πρὸ δὲ πάντων ὁμιλίας γυναικείας· ἄρρενος μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον μετεῖχον. τρὶς δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἀπελούοντο ψυχρῷ, ἀπό τε κοίτης καὶ πρὸ ἀρίστου καὶ πρὸ ὕπνου. εἰ δέ ποτε συμβαίη καὶ ὀνειρώττειν, παραχρῆμα ἀπεκάθαιρον λουτρῷ τὸ σῶμα. ψυχρῷ μὲν οὖν καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἄλλον ἐχρῶντο βίον, οὐ μὴν οὑτωσὶ πλεονάζοντι. κοίτη δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν σπαδίκων τοῦ φοίνικος, ἃς καλοῦσι βάις, ἐπέπλεκτο· ξύλινον δὲ ἡμικυλίνδριον εὖ λελεασμένον ὑπόθημα τῆς κεφαλῆς· ἤσκουν δὲ δίψαν καὶ πεῖναν καὶ ὀλιγοσιτίαν [8] παρὰ πάντα τὸν βίον. μαρτυρία δ’ αὐτῶν τῆς ἐγκρατείας, ὅτι μήτε περιάπτοις μήτ’ ἐπῳδαῖς χρώμενοι διῆγον ἄνοσοι καὶ πρὸς μετρίαν ἰσχὺν εὔτονοι. πολλὰ γοῦν κατὰ τὰς ἱερουργίας ἀνεδέχοντο βάρη καὶ ὑπηρετήματα τῆς κοινῆς ἰσχύος μείζω. διῄρουν δὲ νύκτα μὲν εἰς ἐπιτήρησιν οὐρανίων, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἁγιστείαν, ἡμέραν δὲ εἰς θεραπείαν τῶν θεῶν, καθ’ ἣν τετράκις, κατὰ τὴν ἕω καὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν μεσουρανοῦντά τε τὸν ἥλιον καὶ πρὸς δύσιν καταφερόμενον, τούτους ὑμνοῦντες· τὸν δὲ ἄλλον χρόνον πρὸς θεωρήμασιν ἦσαν ἀριθμητικοῖς τε καὶ γεωμετρικοῖς, ἐκπονοῦντες ἀεί τι καὶ προσεξευρίσκοντες, συνόλως τε περὶ τὴν ἐμπειρίαν καταγιγνόμενοι. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐν ταῖς χειμερίοις ἐπετήδευον νυξί, φιλολογίᾳ προσαγρυπνοῦντες, ἅτε μήτε πορισμοῦ ποιούμενοι φροντίδα δεσπότου τε κακοῦ τῆς πολυτελείας ἐλευθεριάζοντες. ὁ μὲν δὴ πόνος ὁ ἄτρυτός τε καὶ διηνεκὴς καρτερίαν ἀπομαρτυρεῖ τοῖς ἀνδράσι, τὸ δὲ ἀνεπιθύμητον ἐγκράτειαν· οἵ γε ἐν τοῖς ἀσεβεστάτοις ἐτίθεντο πλεῖν ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου, διευλαβούμενοι ξενικὰς τρυφὰς καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματα· μόνοις γὰρ ὅσιον ἐδόκει τοῖς κατὰ τὰς βασιλικὰς χρείας ἀπηναγκασμένοις. πολὺς δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἦν λόγος ἐμμεῖναι τοῖς πατρίοις· μικρὰ δ’ εἰ καταγνωσθεῖεν παραβαίνοντες, ἀπηλαύνοντο. καὶ τὸ μὲν κατ’ ἀλήθειαν φιλοσοφοῦν ἔν τε τοῖς προφήταις ἦν καὶ ἱεροστολισταῖς καὶ [ 517 ]

ἱερογραμματεῦσιν, ἔτι δὲ ὡρολόγοις. τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν τῶν ἱερέων τε καὶ παστοφόρων καὶ νεωκόρων πλῆθος καὶ ὑπουργῶν τοῖς θεοῖς καθαρεύει μὲν ὁμοίως, οὔτι γε μὲν μετ’ ἀκριβείας καὶ ἐγκρατείας τοσῆσδε. τοιαῦτα μὲν τὰ κατ’ Αἰγυπτίους ὑπ’ ἀνδρὸς φιλαλήθους τε καὶ ἀκριβοῦς ἔν τε τοῖς στωικοῖς πραγματικώτατα [9] φιλοσοφήσαντος μεμαρτυρημένα. ἀπὸ δὲ ταύτης ὁρμώμενοι τῆς ἀσκήσεως καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον οἰκειώσεως ἔγνωσαν ὡς οὐ δι’ ἀνθρώπου μόνου τὸ θεῖον διῆλθεν, οὐδὲ ψυχὴ ἐν μόνῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπὶ γῆς κατεσκήνωσεν, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἡ αὐτὴ διὰ πάντων διῆλθεν τῶν ζῴων. διὸ εἰς τὴν θεοποιίαν παρέλαβον πᾶν ζῷον καὶ ὁμοίως που ἀνέμιξαν θηρία καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ πάλιν ὀρνέων σώματα καὶ ἀνθρώπων· εἴκασται γὰρ παρ’ αὐτοῖς τις μέχρι τραχήλου ἀνθρωποειδής, τὸ δὲ πρόσωπον ὀρνέου ἢ λέοντος ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς ζῴου κεκτημένος· καὶ πάλιν αὖ κεφαλὴ ἀνθρώπειος καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ζῴων μέρη, πῇ μὲν ὑποκείμενα, πῇ δὲ ἐπικείμενα. δι’ ὧν δηλοῦσιν ὅτι κατὰ γνώμην θεῶν καὶ ταῦτα ἀλλήλοις κοινωνεῖ, καὶ σύντροφα ἡμῖν καὶ τιθασά ἐστιν τῶν θηρίων τὰ ἄγρια οὐκ ἄνευ τινὸς θείας βουλήσεως. ὅθεν καὶ ὁ λέων ὡς θεὸς θρησκεύεται, καὶ μέρος τι τῆς Αἰγύπτου, ὃ καλοῦσι νομόν, ἐπώνυμον ἔχει Λεοντοπολίτην, ἄλλο δὲ Βουσειρίτην, ἄλλο Λυκοπολίτην. τὴν γὰρ ἐπὶ πάντα δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ ………. διὰ τῶν συννόμων ζῴων ὧν ἕκαστος τῶν θεῶν παρέσχεν ἐθρήσκευσαν. ὕδωρ δὲ καὶ πῦρ σέβονται μάλιστα τῶν στοιχείων, ὡς ταῦτα αἰτιώτατα τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν, καὶ ταῦτα δεικνύντες ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, ὥς που ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐν τῇ ἀνοίξει τοῦ ἁγίου Σαράπιδος ἡ θεραπεία διὰ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος γίνεται, λείβοντος τοῦ ὑμνῳδοῦ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ πῦρ φαίνοντος, ὁπηνίκα ἑστὼς ἐπὶ τοῦ οὐδοῦ τῇ πατρίῳ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων φωνῇ ἐγείρει τὸν θεόν. ταῦτ’ οὖν σέβονται [τὰ μέτοχα] καὶ μάλιστα [πλέον] τούτων [ἐσέφθησαν] τὰ ὡς ἐπὶ πλέον τῶν ἱερῶν μετέχοντα· μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ πάντα τὰ ζῷα, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἄνθρωπον σέβονται κατὰ Ἄναβιν κώμην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τούτῳ θύεται καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν βωμῶν τὰ ἱερεῖα κάεται. ὃ δὲ μετ’ ὀλίγον φάγοι ἂν τὰ ἴδια αὐτῷ ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ παρεσκευασμένα. ὡς οὖν ἀνθρώπου ἀφεκτέον, οὕτω καὶ τῶν ἄλλων. ἔτι δ’ ἐκ περιττῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς περὶ τὸ θεῖον συντροφίας κατέλαβόν τισι τῶν θεῶν προσφιλῆ τῶν ζῴων τινὰ μᾶλλον ἀνθρώπων, ὡς Ἡλίῳ ἱέρακα, σύμπασαν μὲν τὴν φύσιν ἐξ αἵματος ἔχοντα καὶ πνεύματος, οἰκτείροντα δὲ καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ κωκύοντα ἐπὶ νεκρῷ κειμένῳ γῆν τε ἐπαμώμενον εἰς τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, ἐν οἷς τὸ ἡλιακὸν κατοικεῖν πεπιστεύκασι φῶς, καὶ ζῆν μὲν ἐπὶ πλείονα ἔτη κατειληφότες, μετὰ δὲ τὸν βίον ἰσχὺν ἔχειν μαντικὴν καὶ εἶναι λογικώτατον ἀπολυθέντα τοῦ σώματος καὶ προγνωστικώτατον, τελεῖν τε ἀγάλματα καὶ ναοὺς κινεῖν. κάνθαρον δὲ ἀμαθὴς μὲν βδελυχθείη ἂν ἀγνώμων ὑπάρχων τῶν θείων, Αἰγύπτιοι δὲ ἐσέφθησαν ὡς εἰκόνα ἡλίου ἔμψυχον. κάνθαρος γὰρ πᾶς ἄρρην καὶ ἀφιεὶς τὸν θορὸν ἐν τέλματι καὶ ποιήσας σφαιροειδῆ τοῖς ὀπισθίοις ἀνταναφέρει ποσὶν ὡς ἥλιος οὐρανόν, καὶ περίοδον ἡμερῶν ἐκδέχεται σεληνιακήν. οὕτως δὲ καὶ περὶ κριοῦ τι φιλοσοφοῦσιν καὶ ἄλλο τι περὶ κροκοδείλου περί τε γυπὸς καὶ ἴβεως καὶ ὅλως καθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν ζῴων, ὡς ἐκ φρονήσεως καὶ τῆς ἄγαν θεοσοφίας ἐπὶ τὸ σέβας ἐλθεῖν καὶ τῶν ζῴων. [ἀμαθὴς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὑπώπτευσεν, ὅπως οὐ τῇ κοινῇ φορᾷ καὶ μηδὲν γινωσκούσῃ παρηνέχθησαν δηλονότι καὶ αὐτοὶ δι’ ἀμαθίας ὁδεύσαντες, ὑπερβάντες δὲ τὴν τῶν [ 518 ]

πολλῶν ἄγνοιαν, ᾗ πρώτῃ πᾶς ἐντυγχάνει, τὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς οὐδενὸς ἄξια αὐτοὶ εἰς σέβας κατηξίωσαν.] [10] προσγέγονε δ’ αὐτοῖς οὐχ ἧττον τῶν εἰρημένων κἀκεῖνο εἰς πίστιν τοῦ σεβάσματος [καὶ τὰ ζῷα]. τὴν γὰρ ψυχὴν ἀπολυθεῖσαν τοῦ σώματος κατέλαβον παντὸς ζῴου λογικήν τε οὖσαν καὶ προγνωστικὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος καὶ χρηματιστικὴν δραστικήν τε πάντων ὧν καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἀπολυθείς. διὸ εἰκότως ἐτίμησαν καὶ ὡς οἷόν τέ ἐστιν ἀπέσχοντο αὐτῶν. πολλοῦ δὲ ὄντος λόγου δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν διὰ τῶν ζῴων οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τοὺς θεοὺς ἐσέφθησαν καὶ μείζονος τῆς παρούσης πραγματείας, ἀρκεῖ τὰ δεδηλωμένα περὶ αὐτῶν. ἐκεῖνο μέντοι οὐ παραπεμπτέον, ὅτι τοὺς ἀποθανόντας τῶν εὖ γεγονότων ὅταν ταριχεύωσιν, ἰδίᾳ τὴν κοιλίαν ἐξελόντες καὶ εἰς κιβωτὸν ἐνθέντες, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν διαπράττονται ὑπὲρ τοῦ νεκροῦ, καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν κρατοῦντες πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον μαρτύρονται, ἑνὸς τῶν ὑπὲρ τοῦ νεκροῦ ποιουμένου λόγον τῶν ταριχευτῶν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὃν ἡρμήνευσεν Εὔφαντος ἐκ τῆς πατρίου διαλέκτου, τοιοῦτος· ‘ὦ δέσποτα ἥλιε καὶ θεοὶ πάντες οἱ τὴν ζωὴν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δόντες, προσδέξασθέ με καὶ παράδοτε τοῖς ἀιδίοις θεοῖς σύνοικον. ἐγὼ γὰρ τοὺς θεοὺς οὓς οἱ γονεῖς μοι παρέδειξαν, εὐσεβῶν διετέλουν ὅσον χρόνον ἐν τῷ ἐκείνων αἰῶνι τὸν βίον εἶχον, τούς τε τὸ σῶμά μου γεννήσαντας ἐτίμων ἀεί· τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων ‹οὐδένα› οὔτε ἀπέκτεινα οὔτε παρακαταθήκην ἀπεστέρησα οὔτε ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἀνήκεστον διεπραξάμην. εἰ δέ τι ἄρα κατὰ τὸν ἐμαυτοῦ βίον ἥμαρτον ἢ πιὼν ὧν μὴ θεμιτὸν ἦν, οὐ δι’ ἐμαυτὸν ἥμαρτον, ἀλλὰ διὰ ταῦτα’, δείξας τὴν κιβωτόν, ἐν ᾗ ἡ γαστὴρ ἦν. καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν ἀφίησι, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο σῶμα ὡς καθαρὸν ταριχεύει. οὕτως ἀπολογίας δεῖσθαι ᾠήθησαν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ὑπὲρ ὧν ἔφαγον καὶ ἔπιον [11] καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ὑβρίσαι. τῶν δὲ γινωσκομένων ἡμῖν Ἰουδαῖοι, πρὶν ὑπ’ Ἀντιόχου τὸ πρότερον τὰ ἀνήκεστα παθεῖν εἰς τὰ νόμιμα τὰ ἑαυτῶν, ὑπό τε Ῥωμαίων ὕστερον, ὅτε καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἑάλω καὶ πᾶσι βατὸν γέγονεν οἷς ἄβατον ἦν, αὐτή τε ἡ πόλις διεφθάρη, διετέλουν πολλῶν μὲν ἀπεχόμενοι ζῴων, ἰδίως δὲ ἔτι καὶ νῦν τῶν χοιρίων. τῶν δὲ παρ’ αὐτοῖς φιλοσοφιῶν τριτταὶ ἰδέαι ἦσαν, καὶ τῆς μὲν προΐσταντο Φαρισαῖοι, τῆς δὲ Σαδδουκαῖοι, τῆς δὲ τρίτης, ἣ καὶ ἐδόκει σεμνοτάτη εἶναι, Ἐσσαῖοι. οἱ οὖν τρίτοι τοιοῦτον ἐποιοῦντο τὸ πολίτευμα, ὡς πολλαχοῦ Ἰώσηπος τῶν πραγματειῶν ἀνέγραψεν, καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἱστορίας, ἣν δι’ ἑπτὰ βιβλίων συνεπλήρωσεν, καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἀρχαιολογίας, ἣν διὰ εἴκοσι βιβλίων ἐπραγματεύσατο, καὶ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, εἰσὶ δὲ δύο τὰ βιβλία. εἰσὶ τοίνυν οἱ Ἐσσαῖοι Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν τὸ γένος, φιλάλληλοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλέον. οὗτοι τὰς μὲν ἡδονὰς ὡς κακίαν ἀποστρέφονται, τὴν δὲ ἐγκράτειαν καὶ τὸ μὴ τοῖς πάθεσιν ὑποπίπτειν ἀρετὴν ὑπολαμβάνουσι. καὶ γάμου μὲν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὑπεροψία, τοὺς δὲ ἀλλοτρίους παῖδας ἐκλαμβάνοντες ἁπαλοὺς ἔτι πρὸς τὰ μαθήματα, συγγενεῖς ἡγοῦνται καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἑαυτῶν ἐντυποῦσιν, τὸν μὲν γάμον καὶ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ διαδοχὴν οὐκ ἀναιροῦντες, τὰς δὲ τῶν γυναικῶν ἀσελγείας φυλαττόμενοι· καταφρονηταὶ δὲ πλούτου, καὶ θαυμάσιον παρ’ αὐτοῖς τὸ κοινωνικόν, οὐδ’ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν κτήσει τινὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὑπερέχοντα. νόμος γὰρ τοὺς εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν εἰσιόντας δημεύειν τῷ τάγματι τὴν οὐσίαν, ὥστε ἐν ἅπασι μήτε πενίας ταπεινότητα φαίνεσθαι μήθ’ ὑπεροχὴν πλούτου, τῶν δ’ ἑκάστου κτημάτων ἀναμεμιγμένων μίαν ὥσπερ ἀδελφοῖς ἅπασιν [ 519 ]

οὐσίαν εἶναι. κηλῖδα δὲ ὑπολαμβάνουσιν τοὔλαιον, κἂν ἀλειφθῇ τις ἄκων, σμήχεται τὸ σῶμα· τὸ γὰρ αὐχμεῖν ἐν καλῷ τίθενται, λευχειμονεῖν τε διὰ παντός. χειροτονητοὶ δὲ οἱ τῶν κοινῶν ἐπιμεληταί, καὶ αἱρετοὶ πρὸς ἁπάντων εἰς τὰς χρείας ἕκαστοι. μία δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῶν πόλις, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἑκάστῃ κατοικοῦσι πολλοί. καὶ τοῖς ἑτέρωθεν ἥκουσιν αἱρετισταῖς ἀναπέπταται τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς, καὶ οἱ πρῶτον ἰδόντες εἰσίασιν ὥσπερ συνήθεις. διὸ οὐδὲν ἐπικομιζόμενοι ἀποδημοῦσιν ἀναλωμάτων ἕνεκα. οὔτε δὲ ἐσθῆτα οὔτε ὑποδήματα ἀμείβουσιν πρὶν διαρραγῆναι πρότερον παντάπασιν ἢ δαπανηθῆναι τῷ χρόνῳ. οὐδ’ ἀγοράζουσίν τι οὐδὲ πωλοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ χρῄζοντι διδοὺς ἕκαστος τὰ παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ παρ’ ἐκείνου χρήσιμον ἀντικομίζεται. καὶ χωρὶς δὲ τῆς ἀντιδόσεως ἀκώλυτος [12] ἡ μετάληψις αὐτοῖς παρ’ ὧν ἂν ἐθέλωσιν. πρός γε μὴν τὸ θεῖον ἰδίως εὐσεβεῖς. πρὶν γὰρ ἀνασχεῖν τὸν ἥλιον οὐδὲν φθέγγονται τῶν βεβήλων, πατρίους δέ τινας εἰς αὐτὸν εὐχάς, ὥσπερ ἱκετεύοντες ἀνατεῖλαι. μετὰ ταῦτα πρὸς ἃς ἕκαστοι τέχνας ἴσασιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιμελητῶν ἀφίενται, καὶ μέχρι πέμπτης ὥρας ἐργασάμενοι συντόνως ἔπειτα πάλιν εἰς ἓν ἀθροίζονται χωρίον, ζωσάμενοί τε σκεπάσμασι λινοῖς οὕτως ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶμα ψυχροῖς ὕδασι, καὶ μετὰ ταύτην τὴν ἁγνείαν εἰς ἴδιον οἴκημα συνίασιν, ἔνθα μηδενὶ τῶν ἑτεροδόξων ἐπιτέτραπται παρελθεῖν· αὐτοί τε καθαροὶ καθάπερ εἰς ἅγιόν τι τέμενος παραγίνονται τὸ δειπνητήριον. καθισάντων δὲ μεθ’ ἡσυχίας ὁ μὲν σιτοποιὸς ἐν τάξει παρατίθησιν ἄρτους, ὁ δὲ μάγειρος ἓν ἀγγεῖον ἐξ ἑνὸς ἐδέσματος ἑκάστῳ. προκατεύχεται δ’ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῆς τροφῆς ἁγνῆς οὔσης καὶ καθαρᾶς, καὶ γεύσασθαί τινα πρὶν τῆς εὐχῆς ἀθέμιτον· ἀριστοποιησάμενος δ’ ἐπεύχεται πάλιν, ἀρχόμενοί τε καὶ παυόμενοι γεραίρουσι τὸν θεόν. ἔπειθ’ ὡς ἱερὰς καταθέμενοι τὰς ἐσθῆτας πάλιν ἐπ’ ἔργα μέχρι δείλης τρέπονται. δειπνοῦσι δ’ ὑποστρέψαντες ὁμοίως, συγκαθεζομένων τῶν ξένων, εἰ τύχοιεν αὐτοῖς παρόντες. οὔτε δὲ κραυγή ποτε τὸν οἶκον οὔτε θόρυβος μιαίνει, τὰς δὲ λαλιὰς ἐν τάξει παραχωροῦσιν ἀλλήλοις, καὶ τοῖς ἔξωθεν ὡς μυστήριόν τι φρικτὸν ἡ τῶν ἔνδον σιωπὴ καταφαίνεται. τούτου δ’ αἴτιον ἡ διηνεκὴς νῆψις καὶ τὸ μετρεῖσθαι παρ’ αὐτοῖς τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν μέχρι κόρου. τοῖς δὲ ζηλοῦσι τὴν αἵρεσιν οὐκ εὐθὺς ἡ πάροδος, ἀλλ’ ἐπ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἔξω μένοντι τὴν αὐτὴν ὑποτίθενται δίαιταν, ἀξινάριόν τε καὶ περίζωμα δόντες καὶ λευκὴν ἐσθῆτα. ἐπειδὰν δὲ τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ πεῖραν ἐγκρατείας δῷ, πρόσεισι μὲν ἔγγιον τῇ διαίτῃ καὶ καθαρώτερον τῶν πρὸς ἁγνείαν ὑδάτων μεταλαμβάνει, παραλαμβάνεται δὲ εἰς τὰς συμβιώσεις οὐδέπω· μετὰ γὰρ τὴν τῆς καρτερίας ἐπίδειξιν δυσὶν ἄλλοις ἔτεσιν τὸ ἦθος δοκιμάζεται, καὶ φανεὶς ἄξιος οὕτως εἰς τὸν [13] ὅμιλον ἐγκρίνεται· πρὶν δὲ τῆς κοινῆς ἅψασθαι τροφῆς, ὅρκους αὐτοῖς ὄμνυσι φρικώδεις, πρῶτον μὲν εὐσεβήσειν τὸ θεῖον, ἔπειτα τὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δίκαια φυλάξειν καὶ μήτε κατὰ γνώμην βλάψειν τινὰ μήτ’ ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος, μισήσειν δὲ ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀδίκους καὶ συναγωνιεῖσθαι τοῖς δικαίοις, τὸ πιστὸν πᾶσι μὲν παρέξειν, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς κρατοῦσιν· οὐ γὰρ δίχα θεοῦ περιγίνεσθαί τινι τὸ ἄρχειν. κἂν αὐτὸς ἄρχῃ, μηδεπώποτε ἐξυβρίσαι εἰς τὴν ἐξουσίαν, μηδὲ ἐσθῆτι ἤ τινι πλείονι κόσμῳ τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους ὑπερλαμπρύνεσθαι, τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀγαπᾶν ἀεὶ καὶ τοὺς ψευδομένους προβάλλεσθαι· χεῖρας κλοπῆς καὶ ψυχὴν ἀνοσίου κέρδους καθαρὰν φυλάξειν καὶ μήτε κρύψειν τι τοὺς αἱρετιστὰς μήθ’ ἑτέροις αὐτῶν τι μηνύσειν, κἂν μέχρι θανάτου τις βιάζηται. πρὸς δὲ [ 520 ]

τούτοις ὄμνυσι μηδενὶ μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς παρέλαβεν, ἀφέξεσθαι δὲ λῃστείας, καὶ συντηρήσειν ὁμοίως τά τε τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα. τοιοῦτοι μὲν οἱ ὅρκοι· οἱ δ’ ἁλόντες καὶ ἐκβληθέντες κακῷ μόρῳ φθείρονται. τοῖς γὰρ ὅρκοις καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν ἐνδεδεμένοι οὐδὲ τῆς παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις τροφῆς δύνανται μεταλαμβάνειν, ποηφαγοῦντες δὲ καὶ λιμῷ τὸ σῶμα διαφθειρόμενοι ἀπόλλυνται. διὸ δὴ πολλοὺς ἐλεήσαντες ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἀνάγκαις ἀνέλαβον, ἱκανὴν τιμωρίαν δεδωκέναι νομίζοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασι τὴν μέχρι θανάτου βάσανον. τὴν δὲ σκαλίδα διδόασι τοῖς μέλλουσιν αἱρετισταῖς, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἄλλως οὐ θακεύουσιν ἢ βόθρον ὀρύξαντες εἰς βάθος ποδιαῖον, περικαλύψαντές τε θοἱματίῳ, ὡς μὴ ταῖς αὐγαῖς ἐνυβρίζειν τοῦ θεοῦ. τοσαύτη δ’ ἐστὶν αὐτῶν ἡ λιτότης ἡ περὶ τὴν δίαιταν καὶ ὀλιγότης, ὡς τῇ ἑβδομάδι μὴ δεῖσθαι κενώσεως, ἣν τηρεῖν εἰώθασιν εἰς ὕμνους τῷ θεῷ καὶ εἰς ἀνάπαυσιν. ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἀσκήσεως ταύτης τοσαύτην πεποίηνται τὴν καρτερίαν, ὡς στρεβλούμενοι καὶ λυγιζόμενοι καὶ καόμενοι καὶ διὰ πάντων ὁδεύοντες τῶν βασανιστηρίων ὀργάνων, ἵν’ ἢ βλασφημήσωσι τὸν νομοθέτην ἢ φάγωσί τι τῶν ἀσυνήθων, οὐδέτερον ὑπομένειν. διέδειξαν δὲ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πολέμῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ κολακεῦσαι τοὺς αἰκιζομένους ἢ δακρῦσαι ὑπομένουσι, μειδιῶντες δ’ ἐν ταῖς ἀλγηδόσι καὶ κατειρωνευόμενοι τῶν τὰς βασάνους προσφερόντων εὔθυμοι τὰς ψυχὰς ἠφίεσαν, ὡς πάλιν κομιούμενοι· καὶ γὰρ ἔρρωται παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτῶν, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν, καὶ συμπλέκεσθαι μὲν ἐκ τοῦ λεπτοτάτου φοιτώσας αἰθέρος ῥύμῃ φυσικῇ κατασπωμένας· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀνεθῶσι τῶν κατὰ σάρκα δεσμῶν, οἷον δὴ μακρᾶς δουλείας ἀπηλλαγμένας, τότε χαίρειν καὶ μετεώρους φέρεσθαι. ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης διαίτης καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἀσκήσεως εἰκότως ἐν αὐτοῖς πολλοὶ οἳ καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκουσιν, ὡς ἂν βίβλοις ἱεραῖς καὶ διαφόροις ἁγνείαις καὶ προφητῶν ἀποφθέγμασιν ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι. σπάνιον δὲ εἴ ποτε ἐν ταῖς προαγορεύσεσιν ἀστοχοῦσιν. τοιοῦτο μὲν τὸ τῶν Ἐσσαίων παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις [14] τάγμα. πᾶσί γε μὴν ἀπηγόρευτο ὑὸς ἐσθίειν ἢ ἰχθύων τῶν ἀφολιδώτων, ἃ σελάχια καλοῦσιν Ἕλληνες, ἤ τι τῶν μωνύχων ζῴων. ἀπηγόρευτο δὲ καὶ μηδὲ τὰ ἱκετεύοντα καὶ οἷον προσφεύγοντα ταῖς οἰκίαις ἀναιρεῖν, οὐχ ὅτι μὴ ἐσθίειν. οὐδὲ νεοττοῖς ἐπέτρεψεν ὁ νομοθέτης τοὺς γονέας συνεξαιρεῖν, φείδεσθαι δὲ [κελεύει] κἀν τῇ πολεμίᾳ τῶν συνεργαζομένων ζῴων καὶ μὴ φονεύειν. καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήθη μὴ πληθῦναν τὸ γένος τῶν μὴ θυομένων ζῴων λιμὸν ἐργάσηται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· ᾔδει γὰρ πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τὰ πολυτόκα ὀλιγοχρόνια, ἔπειτα ὡς πολὺ τὸ ἀπολλύμενον, ὅταν μὴ τύχῃ τῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἐπιμελείας, καὶ μὴν καὶ ὅτι ἔστιν ἄλλα ζῷα ἃ τῷ πληθύνοντι ἐπιτίθεται. τεκμήριον δέ, ὅτι πολλῶν ἀπεχόμεθα, οἷον σαυρῶν, σκωλήκων, μυῶν, ὄφεων, κυνῶν, καὶ ὅμως οὐ δέος μὴ ἐκ τῆς ἀποχῆς λιμώττοντες διαφθαρῶμεν πληθυνόντων. ἔπειτα οὐ ταὐτὸν τὸ ἐσθίειν τῷ φονεύειν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τούτων ἀναιροῦντες τὰ πολλὰ οὐδενὸς ἔτι [15] γευόμεθα. καὶ μὴν καὶ τοὺς Σύρους ἱστοροῦσι τὸ παλαιὸν ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ζῴων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μηδὲ τοῖς θεοῖς θύειν, ὕστερον δὲ θῦσαι μὲν εἰς ἀποτροπήν τινων κακῶν, αὐτοὺς δὲ μηδὲ ὅλως προσίεσθαι τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν. προϊόντος δὲ τοῦ χρόνου, ὡς φησὶ Νεάνθης ὁ Κυζικηνὸς καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Κύπριος, κατὰ Πυγμαλίωνα τὸν γένει [ 521 ]

μὲν Φοίνικα, βασιλεύσαντα δὲ Κυπρίων, τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν παραδεχθῆναι ἐκ τοιαύτης παρανομίας. λέγει δὲ ὁ Ἀσκληπιάδης ἐν τῷ περὶ Κύπρου καὶ Φοινίκης ταῦτα. ‘τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον οὐκ ἐθύετο τοῖς θεοῖς οὐδὲν ἔμψυχον, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ νόμος ἦν περὶ τούτου διὰ τὸ νόμῳ φυσικῷ κεκωλῦσθαι· ὑπὸ δέ τινας καιροὺς πρῶτον ἱερεῖον θῦσαι μυθεύονται, ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς αἰτουμένους, εἶτα τούτου γενομένου ὁλοκαυτίζειν τὸ τυθέν. ὕστερον δέ ποτε φλεγομένου τοῦ ἱερείου πεσεῖν σάρκα εἰς γῆν, ἣν ἀνελόντα τὸν ἱερέα καὶ κατακαιόμενον ἀβουλήτως προσαγαγεῖν τῷ στόματι τοὺς δακτύλους, ἀκούμενον τὴν κατάκαυσιν. γευσάμενον δὲ τῆς κνίσσης ἐπιθυμῆσαι καὶ μὴ ἀποσχέσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ μεταδοῦναι. γνόντα δὲ τοῦτο τὸν Πυγμαλίωνα αὐτόν τε καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα κατὰ κρημνῶν ἀφεῖναι, ἑτέρῳ δὲ τὴν ἱερωσύνην παραδοῦναι, ὃς οὐ πολλοῦ χρόνου διαλιπόντος τὴν μὲν αὐτὴν θυσίαν ἔτυχε ποιούμενος, ὅτι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν κρεῶν ἔφαγεν, ταῖς αὐταῖς ἐκείνῳ συμφοραῖς περιέπιπτεν. ἐπὶ πλέον δὲ τοῦ πράγματος προβαίνοντος καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῇ θυσίᾳ χρωμένων καὶ διὰ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ἀπεχομένων, ἀλλὰ τῆς σαρκὸς ἁπτομένων, οὕτως ἀποστῆναι τοῦ κολάζειν’. τὸ μέντοι τῶν ἰχθύων ἀπέχεσθαι ἄχρι τῶν Μενάνδρου χρόνων τοῦ κωμικοῦ διέμεινεν· λέγει γάρ· παράδειγμα τοὺς Σύρους λάβε· ὅταν φάγωσ’ ἰχθὺν ἐκεῖνοι διά τινα αὑτῶν ἀκρασίαν, τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὴν γαστέρα οἰδοῦσιν, ἔλαβον σακίον, εἶτ’ εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν ἐκάθισαν αὑτοὺς ἐπὶ κόπρου καὶ τὴν θεὸν ἐξιλάσαντο τοῦ ταπεινῶσαι σφόδρα. [16] παρά γε μὴν τοῖς Πέρσαις οἱ περὶ τὸ θεῖον σοφοὶ καὶ τούτου θεράποντες μάγοι μὲν προσαγορεύονται· τοῦτο γὰρ δηλοῖ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιχώριον διάλεκτον ὁ μάγος· οὕτω δὲ μέγα καὶ σεβάσμιον γένος τοῦτο παρὰ Πέρσαις νενόμισται, ὥστε καὶ Δαρεῖον τὸν Ὑστάσπου ἐπιγράψαι τῷ μνήματι πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅτι καὶ μαγικῶν γένοιτο διδάσκαλος. διῄρηντο δὲ οὗτοι εἰς γένη τρία, ὡς φησὶν Εὔβουλος ὁ τὴν περὶ τοῦ Μίθρα ἱστορίαν ἐν πολλοῖς βιβλίοις ἀναγράψας, ὧν οἱ πρῶτοι καὶ λογιώτατοι οὔτ’ ἐσθίουσιν ἔμψυχον οὔτε φονεύουσιν, ἐμμένουσι δὲ τῇ παλαιᾷ τῶν ζῴων ἀποχῇ· οἱ δὲ δεύτεροι χρῶνται μέν, οὐ μέντοι τῶν ἡμέρων ζῴων τι κτείνουσιν· οὐδ’ οἱ τρίτοι ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐφάπτονται πάντων· καὶ γὰρ δόγμα πάντων ἐστὶ τῶν πρώτων τὴν μετεμψύχωσιν εἶναι, ὃ καὶ ἐμφαίνειν ἐοίκασιν ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις. τὴν γὰρ κοινότητα ἡμῶν τὴν πρὸς τὰ ζῷα αἰνιττόμενοι διὰ τῶν ζῴων ἡμᾶς μηνύειν εἰώθασιν· ὡς τοὺς μὲν μετέχοντας τῶν αὐτῶν ὀργίων μύστας λέοντας καλεῖν, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας λεαίνας, τοὺς δὲ ὑπηρετοῦντας κόρακας. ἐπί τε τῶν πατέρων … ἀετοὶ γὰρ καὶ ἱέρακες οὗτοι προσαγορεύονται. ὅ τε τὰ λεοντικὰ παραλαμβάνων περιτίθεται παντοδαπὰς ζῴων μορφάς· ὧν τὴν αἰτίαν ἀποδιδοὺς Πάλλας ἐν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ Μίθρα τὴν κοινὴν φησὶ φορὰν οἴεσθαι, ὡς πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κύκλου ἀποτείνειν· τὴν δὲ ἀληθινὴν ὑπόληψιν καὶ ἀκριβῆ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ψυχῶν αἰνίττεσθαι, ἃς παντοδαποῖς περιέχεσθαι σώμασι λέγουσι. καὶ γὰρ Λατίνων τινὰς τῇ σφῶν διαλέκτῳ ἄπρους καὶ σκώπρους λασούρους τε καὶ μερούλους καλεῖν. καὶ θεοὺς δὲ τούτους [ 522 ]

δημιουργοὺς οὕτω προσηγόρευσαν· τὴν μὲν Ἄρτεμιν λύκαιναν, τὸν δὲ Ἥλιον σαῦρον, λέοντα, δράκοντα, ἱέρακα, τὴν δ’ Ἑκάτην ἵππον, ταῦρον, λέαιναν, κύνα. τῆς δὲ Φερρεφάττης παρὰ τὸ φέρβειν τὴν φάτταν φασὶν οἱ πολλοὶ τοὔνομα τῶν θεολόγων· ἱερὸν γὰρ αὐτῆς ἡ φάττα. διὸ καὶ αἱ τῆς Μαίας ἱέρειαι ταύτην αὐτῇ ἀνατιθέασι. Μαῖα δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ τῇ Φερσεφόνῃ ὡς ἂν μαῖα καὶ τροφὸς οὖσα· χθονία γὰρ ἡ θεὸς καὶ Δημήτηρ ἡ αὐτή. καὶ τὸν ἀλεκτρυόνα δὲ ταύτῃ ἀφιέρωσαν. διὸ καὶ ἀπέχονται οἱ ταύτης μύσται ὀρνίθων ἐνοικιδίων. παραγγέλλεται γὰρ καὶ Ἐλευσῖνι ἀπέχεσθαι κατοικιδίων ὀρνίθων καὶ ἰχθύων καὶ κυάμων ῥοιᾶς τε καὶ μήλων, καὶ ἐπ’ ἴσης μεμίανται τό τε λεχοῦς ἅψασθαι καὶ τὸ θνησειδίων. ὅστις δὲ φασμάτων φύσιν ἱστόρησεν, οἶδεν καθ’ ὃν λόγον ἀπέχεσθαι χρὴ πάντων ὀρνίθων, καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν σπεύδῃ τις ἐκ τῶν χθονίων ἀπαλλαγῆναι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς οὐρανίους θεοὺς ἱδρυνθῆναι. ἀλλ’ ἡ κακία, ὅπερ πολλάκις ἔφαμεν, ἱκανὴ συναγορεύειν ἑαυτῇ, καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν ἐν οὐκ εἰδόσι ποιῆται τοὺς λόγους. διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο οἱ μέτριοι τῶν κακῶν ματαιολογίαν ἡγοῦνται τὴν τοιαύτην παραίτησιν καὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον γραῶν ὕθλον, οἳ δὲ δεισιδαιμονίαν· οἱ δ’ ἐπίδοσιν ἐν τῇ σφῶν πονηρίᾳ πεποιημένοι ἕτοιμοι οὐ μόνον βλασφημεῖν κατὰ τῶν ταῦτα παραινούντων τε καὶ ὑποδεικνύντων, ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ ἁγνὸν εἰς γοητείαν καὶ τῦφον διαβάλλειν. ἀλλ’ οὗτοι μὲν δίκας καὶ παρὰ θεοῖς καὶ παρ’ ἀνθρώποις ὧν ἁμαρτάνουσιν ἐκτίνοντες αὐτῇ πρῶτον τῇ τοιαύτῃ διαθέσει ἱκανὴν τιμωρίαν διδόασιν· ἡμεῖς δ’ ἔτι τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ἐθνῶν ἑνὸς μνημονεύσαντες ἐνδόξου τε καὶ δικαίου περί τε τὰ θεῖα πεπιστευμένου [17] εὐσεβοῦς, ἐπ’ ἄλλα μεταβησόμεθα. Ἰνδῶν γὰρ τῆς πολιτείας εἰς πολλὰ νενεμημένης, ἔστι τι γένος παρ’ αὐτοῖς τὸ τῶν θεοσόφων, οὓς γυμνοσοφιστὰς καλεῖν εἰώθασιν Ἕλληνες. τούτων δὲ δύο αἱρέσεις· ὧν τῆς μὲν Βραχμᾶνες προΐστανται, τῆς δὲ Σαμαναῖοι. ἀλλ’ οἱ μὲν Βραχμᾶνες ἐκ γένους διαδέχονται ὥσπερ ἱερατείαν τὴν τοιαύτην θεοσοφίαν, Σαμαναῖοι δὲ λογάδες εἰσὶν κἀκ τῶν βουληθέντων θεοσοφεῖν συμπληρούμενοι. ἔχει δὲ τὰ κατ’ αὐτοὺς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ὡς Βαρδησάνης ἀνὴρ Βαβυλώνιος ἐπὶ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν γεγονὼς καὶ ἐντυχὼν τοῖς περὶ Δάνδαμιν πεπεμμένοις Ἰνδοῖς πρὸς τὸν Καίσαρα ἀνέγραψεν. πάντες γὰρ Βραχμᾶνες ἑνός εἰσι γένους· ἐξ ἑνὸς γὰρ πατρὸς καὶ μιᾶς μητρὸς πάντες κατάγουσιν· Σαμαναῖοι δὲ οὐκ εἰσὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ γένους, ἀλλ’ ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ τῶν Ἰνδῶν ἔθνους, ὡς ἔφαμεν, συνειλεγμένοι· οὔτε δὲ βασιλεύεται Βραχμὰν οὔτε συντελεῖ τι τοῖς ἄλλοις. τούτων δὲ οἱ φιλόσοφοι οἳ μὲν ἐν ὄρει οἰκοῦσιν, οἳ δὲ περὶ Γάγγην ποταμόν. σιτοῦνται δὲ οἱ μὲν ὄρειοι τήν τε ὀπώραν καὶ γάλα βόειον βοτάναις παγέν, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Γάγγην ἐκ τῆς ὀπώρας, ἣ πολλὴ περὶ τὸν ποταμὸν γεννᾶται. φέρει δὲ ἡ γῆ σχεδὸν καρπὸν ἀεὶ νέον καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὴν ὄρυζαν πολλήν τε καὶ αὐτόματον, ᾗ χρῶνται ὅταν τὸ τῆς ὀπώρας ἐπιλείπῃ. τὸ δ’ ἄλλου τινὸς ἅψασθαι ἢ ὅλως θιγεῖν ἐμψύχου τροφῆς ἴσον τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ τε καὶ ἀσεβείᾳ νενόμισται. καὶ τοῦτο αὐτοῖς τὸ δόγμα θρησκεύουσί τε τὸ θεῖον καὶ εὐσεβοῦσι περὶ αὐτὸ καθορῶνται. τὸν τοίνυν χρόνον τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς τὸν πλεῖστον εἰς ὕμνους τῶν θεῶν ἀπένειμαν καὶ εὐχάς, ἑκάστου ἰδίαν καλύβην ἔχοντος καὶ ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ἰδιάζοντος. κοινῇ γὰρ Βραχμᾶνες μένειν οὐκ ἀνέχονται οὐδὲ πολλὰ διαλέγεσθαι· ἀλλ’ ὅταν τοῦτο συμβῇ, ἀναχωρήσαντες ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας οὐ φθέγγονται, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ νηστεύουσιν. Σαμαναῖοι δὲ εἰσὶ μέν, ὡς ἔφαμεν, λογάδες· ὅταν δὲ μέλλῃ εἰς τὸ [ 523 ]

τάγμα τις ἐγγράφεσθαι, πρόσεισι τοῖς ἄρχουσι τῆς πόλεως, ὅπου δ’ ἂν τύχῃ τῆς πόλεως ἢ τῆς κώμης, καὶ τῶν κτημάτων ἐξίσταται πάσης ‹τε› τῆς ἄλλης οὐσίας, ξυράμενος δὲ τοῦ σώματος τὰ περιττὰ λαμβάνει στολὴν ἄπεισί τε πρὸς Σαμαναίους, οὔτε πρὸς γυναῖκα οὔτε πρὸς τέκνα, εἰ τύχοι κεκτημένος, ἐπιστροφὴν ἤ τινα λόγον ἔτι ποιούμενος ἢ πρὸς αὑτὸν ὅλως νομίζων. καὶ τῶν μὲν τέκνων ὁ βασιλεὺς κήδεται, ὅπως ἔχωσι τὰ ἀναγκαῖα, τῆς δὲ γυναικὸς οἱ οἰκεῖοι. ὁ δὲ βίος τοῖς Σαμαναίοις ἐστὶ τοιοῦτος. ἔξω τῆς πόλεως διατρίβουσι διημερεύοντες ἐν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου λόγοις, ἔχουσι δὲ οἴκους καὶ τεμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως οἰκοδομηθέντα, ἐν οἷς οἰκονόμοι εἰσὶν ἀπότακτόν τι λαμβάνοντες παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς τροφὴν τῶν συνιόντων. ἡ δὲ παρασκευὴ γίνεται ὀρύζης καὶ ἄρτων καὶ ὀπώρας καὶ λαχάνων. καὶ εἰσελθόντων εἰς τὸν οἶκον ὑπὸ σημαίνοντι κώδωνι οἱ μὴ Σαμαναῖοι ἐξίασιν, οἳ δὲ προσεύχονται. εὐξαμένων δὲ πάλιν διακωδωνίζει καὶ οἱ ὑπηρέται ἑκάστῳ τρυβλίον δόντες (δύο γὰρ ἐκ ταὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν) τρέφουσιν αὐτοὺς τῇ ὀρύζῃ· τῷ δὲ δεομένῳ ποικιλίας προστίθεται λάχανον ἢ τῆς ὀπώρας τι. τραφέντες δὲ συντόμως ἐπὶ τὰς αὑτῶν διατριβὰς ἐξίασιν. ἀγύναιοι δ’ εἰσὶ πάντες καὶ ἀκτήμονες, καὶ τοσοῦτον αὐτῶν τε καὶ τῶν Βραχμάνων σέβας ἔχουσιν οἱ ἄλλοι, ὥστε καὶ τὸν βασιλέα ἀφικνεῖσθαι παρ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἱκετεύειν εὔξασθαί τι καὶ δεηθῆναι ὑπὲρ τῶν καταλαμβανόντων τὴν χώραν [18] ἢ συμβουλεῦσαι τὸ πρακτέον. αὐτοὶ δὲ οὕτω πρὸς θάνατον διάκεινται, ὡς τὸν μὲν τοῦ ζῆν χρόνον ὥσπερ ἀναγκαίαν τινὰ τῇ φύσει λειτουργίαν ἀκουσίως ὑπομένειν, σπεύδειν δὲ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπολῦσαι τῶν σωμάτων. καὶ πολλάκις, ὅταν εὖ ἔχειν σκήψωνται, μηδενὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπείγοντος κακοῦ [μηδὲ ἐξελαύνοντος] ἐξίασι τοῦ βίου, προειπόντες μέντοι τοῖς ἄλλοις· καὶ ἔστιν οὐδεὶς ὁ κωλύσων, ἀλλὰ πάντες αὐτοὺς εὐδαιμονίζοντες πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῶν τεθνηκότων ἐπισκήπτουσί τινα. οὕτως βεβαίαν καὶ ἀληθεστάτην αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς τὴν μετ’ ἀλλήλων εἶναι δίαιταν πεπιστεύκασιν. οἳ δ’ ἐπειδὰν ὑπακούσωσι τῶν ἐντεταλμένων αὐτοῖς, πυρὶ τὸ σῶμα παραδόντες, ὅπως δὴ καθαρωτάτην ἀποκρίνωσι τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν, ὑμνούμενοι τελευτῶσιν· ῥᾷον γὰρ ἐκείνους εἰς τὸν θάνατον οἱ φίλτατοι ἀποπέμπουσιν ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστοι τοὺς πολίτας εἰς μηκίστας ἀποδημίας. καὶ σφᾶς μὲν αὐτοὺς δακρύουσιν ἐν τῷ ζῆν διαμένοντας, ἐκείνους δὲ μακαρίζουσιν τὴν ἀθάνατον λῆξιν ἀπολαμβάνοντας, καὶ οὐδεὶς οὔτε παρὰ τούτοις οὔτε παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς εἰρημένοις σοφιστὴς προελθών, οἷοι βροτοὶ νῦν παρ’ Ἕλλησιν, ἀπορεῖν ἔδοξε λέγων, ἐὰν ὑμᾶς πάντες μιμήσωνται, τί ἡμῖν ἔσται; οὐδὲ διὰ τούτους συνεχύθη τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· οὔτε γὰρ ἐμιμήσαντο πάντες, οἵ τε μιμούμενοι εὐνομίας μᾶλλον, οὐ συγχύσεως τοῖς ἔθνεσι γεγόνασιν αἴτιοι. καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ ὁ νόμος τούτους ἠνάγκασεν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιτρέψας σιτεῖσθαι κρέασι τούτους αὐτονόμους εἴασε καὶ ἐσέφθη ὡς αὑτοῦ κρείττονας, οὐ μὴν ὡς ἀδικίας κατάρχοντας ὑπήγαγε τῇ παρ’ αὑτοῦ δίκῃ [ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἑτέρους]. πρὸς μέντοι τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας ‘τί ἔσται μιμησαμένων πάντων τοὺς τοιούτους;’ ῥητέον τὸ τοῦ Πυθαγόρου· καὶ γὰρ βασιλέων πάντων γενομένων δυσδιέξακτος ὁ βίος, φησίν, ἔσται, καὶ οὐ δήπου φευκτέον τὸ τῆς βασιλείας· καὶ σπουδαίων ἁπάντων ‹ὄντων› οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν πολιτείας διέξοδον τηροῦντας τὴν ἀξίαν τῇ σπουδαιότητι, καὶ οὐ δήπου τοσοῦτον ἄν τις μανείη, ὡς μὴ πᾶσιν ἐπιβάλλειν ἡγεῖσθαι σπουδαίοις εἶναι προθυμεῖσθαι. πολλὰ [ 524 ]

μέντοι καὶ ἄλλα ὁ νόμος τῷ μὲν χυδαίῳ συνεχώρησεν, οὐχ ὅτι δὲ φιλοσόφῳ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τῷ καλῶς πολιτευομένῳ ἐπέτρεψεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκ πάσης τέχνης παραδέξαιτ’ ἂν εἰς τὸ πολίτευμα, καίτοι οὐκ ἐκώλυσε μετιέναι τὰς τέχνας, οὐδ’ ἐκ παντὸς ἐπιτηδεύματος, καὶ ὅμως τοὺς ἐκ τῶν βαναύσων ἄρχειν ἀπείργει, ὅλως τε ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνης χρεία καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἀρετῆς, τῆς προστατείας κωλύει. ἐπεὶ οὐδ’ ἑταίραις ὁμιλεῖν ἀπαγορεύει τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ πραττόμενος τὰς ἑταίρας τὸ μίσθωμα, ἐπονείδιστον ἡγεῖται μετρίοις ἀνδράσι καὶ αἰσχρὰν τὴν πρὸς ταύτας ὁμιλίαν· τό τ’ ἐν καπηλείοις διαζῆν οὐ κεκώλυκεν ὁ νόμος, καὶ ὅμως ἐπονείδιστον τῷ μετρίῳ. τοιοῦτον οὖν τι καὶ τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς διαίτης φαίνεται· καὶ οὐχ ἥτις τοῖς πολλοῖς συγκεχώρηται, ταύτην ἄν τις καὶ τοῖς βελτίστοις συγχωρήσειεν. φιλοσοφῶν δὲ ἀνὴρ μάλιστ’ ἂν τοὺς ἱεροὺς ἑαυτῷ ὑπογράψειε νόμους, οὓς θεοί τε καὶ ἄνθρωποι ἀφώρισαν θεοῖς ἑπόμενοι. οἱ δ’ ἱεροὶ πεφήνασι νόμοι κατὰ ἔθνη καὶ κατὰ πόλεις ἁγνείαν μὲν προστάττοντες, ἐμψύχων δὲ βρῶσιν ἀπαγορεύοντες τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν, ἤδη ‹δὲ› καὶ εἰς πλῆθος πίνειν κωλύοντες, ἢ δι’ εὐσέβειαν ἢ διά τινας βλάβας ἐκ τῆς τροφῆς· ὥστε ἢ τοὺς ἱερέας μιμητέον ἢ πᾶσι πειστέον τοῖς νομοθέταις. ἑκατέρως γὰρ πάντων ἀφεκτέον τὸν νόμιμόν τε τελείως καὶ εὐσεβῆ· εἰ γὰρ κατὰ μέρος τινὲς δι’ εὐσέβειάν τινων ἀπέχονται, ὁ πρὸς πάντα εὐσεβὴς πάντων ἀφέξεται. [19] μικροῦ με παρῆλθε καὶ τὸ Εὐριπίδειον παραθέσθαι, ὃς τοὺς ἐν Κρήτῃ τοῦ Διὸς προφήτας ἀπέχεσθαι φησὶ διὰ τούτων· λέγουσι δ’ οἱ κατὰ τὸν χορὸν πρὸς τὸν Μίνω· Φοινικογενοῦς παῖ τῆς Τυρίας τέκνον Εὐρώπας καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου Ζανός, ἀνάσσων Κρήτης ἑκατομπτολιέθρου· ἥκω ζαθέους ναοὺς προλιπών, οὓς αὐθιγενὴς τμηθεῖσα δοκὸς στεγανοὺς παρέχει Χαλύβῳ πελέκει καὶ ταυροδέτῳ κόλλῃ κραθεῖσ’ ἀτρεκεῖς ἁρμοὺς κυπαρίσσου. ἁγνὸν δὲ βίον τείνων ἐξ οὗ Διὸς Ἰδαίου μύστης γενόμην, καὶ νυκτιπόλου Ζαγρέως βροντὰς τάς τ’ ὠμοφάγους δαίτας τελέσας μητρί τ’ ὀρείῳ δᾷδας ἀνασχὼν καὶ Κουρήτων βάκχος ἐκλήθην ὁσιωθείς. πάλλευκα δ’ ἔχων εἵματα φεύγω γένεσίν τε βροτῶν καὶ νεκροθήκης οὐ χριμπτόμενος τήν τ’ ἐμψύχων βρῶσιν ἐδεστῶν πεφύλαγμαι. [ 525 ]

[20] ἁγνείαν γὰρ ἐτίθεντο οἱ ἱεροὶ ‹τὴν› πρὸς τοὐναντίον ἀμιξίαν, μολυσμὸν δὲ τὴν μῖξιν. ὅθεν τὴν μὲν τῶν καρπῶν τροφὴν οὐκ ἐκ νεκρῶν ληφθεῖσαν οὐδὲ οὖσαν ἔμψυχον [τῇ φύσει] προσφέροντες τὰ ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως διοικούμενα μὴ μιαίνεσθαι ᾤοντο, τῶν δὲ ζῴων αἰσθητικῶν ὄντων τὰς σφαγὰς καὶ ἀφαιρέσεις τῶν ψυχῶν ὡς πρὸς τοὺς ζῶντας μιασμοὺς ἡγοῦντο, καὶ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὸ αἰσθητικὸν γενόμενον σῶμα ἀφῃρημένον τῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ νεκρὸν μιγνύειν τῇ αἰσθήσει ‹τοῦ› ζῶντος. διὸ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡ ἁγνεία ἐν ἀποθέσει μὲν καὶ ἀφέξει τῶν πολλῶν καὶ ἐναντίων, μονώσει δὲ καὶ λήψει τῶν οἰκείων καὶ προσφυῶν. διὸ καὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια μιαίνει· σύνοδος γὰρ θήλεος καὶ ἄρρενος. καὶ κρατηθὲν μὲν τὸ σπέρμα ψυχῆς παρέσχε μίανσιν τῇ πρὸς τὸ σῶμα ὁμιλίᾳ, μὴ κρατηθὲν δὲ τῇ νεκρώσει τοῦ παρατεθέντος. ἡ δὲ πρὸς ἄρσενας ἀρσένων, καὶ ὅτι εἰς νεκρὸν καὶ ὅτι παρὰ φύσιν· καὶ καθάπαξ ἀφροδίσια καὶ ὀνειρώξεις, ὅτι ψυχῆς σώματι μεμιγμένης καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἡδονὴν κατασπωμένης. μιαίνει δὲ καὶ τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς τῇ συμπλοκῇ τοῦ ἀλόγου, θηλυνομένου τοῦ ἐντὸς ἄρρενος. καὶ γάρ πως καὶ ὁ μολυσμὸς καὶ ἡ μίανσις δηλοῖ τὴν μῖξιν τὴν ἑτέρου γένους πρὸς ἕτερον, καὶ μάλισθ’ ὅταν δυσέκνιπτον γένηται. ὅθεν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν βαμμάτων, ἃ δὴ διὰ μίξεων συνίσταται, εἴδους ἄλλου ἄλλῳ συμπλεκομένου, μιαίνειν φασίν· ὡς δ’ ὅτε τίς τ’ ἐλέφαντα γυνὴ φοίνικι μιήνῃ. καὶ ἔμπαλιν τὰς μίξεις φθορὰς οἱ ζωγράφοι λέγουσιν, ἡ δὲ συνήθεια τὸ ἄμικτον καὶ καθαρὸν ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀκραιφνὲς καὶ ἀκήρατον. καὶ γὰρ ὕδωρ γῇ ἀναμιχθὲν ἔφθαρται καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀκραιφνές, τὸ δὲ διαρρέον καὶ διαφεῦγον διακρούεται τὴν προσφερομένην γῆν, ὅταν, φησὶν ὁ Ἡσίοδος, ἀπὸ κρήνης ῥέῃ ἀενάου καὶ ἀπορρύτου, ἥ τ’ ἀθόλωτος. καὶ ὑγιεινόν γε τὸ πῶμα, ὅτι ἀδιάφθορον καὶ ἄμικτον. καὶ θήλεια μὴ ἀναδεξαμένη εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀναθυμίασιν σπέρματος ἄφθορος λέγεται· ὥστε καὶ φθορὰ καὶ μίανσις ἡ τοῦ ἐναντίου μῖξις. εἰ δὴ πρὸς τὰ ζῷα ἡ νεκρῶν καὶ ἡ πρὸς αἴσθησιν ζησάντων εἰς τὰ ζῶντα ἔνθεσις καὶ σαρκῶν νεκρῶν εἰς ζώσας εἰκότως φέρει μόλυσμα καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ ἡμῶν μίανσιν, ὥσπερ αὖ καὶ ψυχὴ ὅταν ἐνσωμάτωται, μεμόλυνται. [διὸ καὶ ὁ γεννώμενος μιαίνεται τῇ μίξει τῆς ψυχῆς τῇ πρὸς τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ὁ ἀποθανών, ὅταν σῶμα καταλίπῃ νεκρὸν ἀλλόφυλον τῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀλλότριον.] μιαίνεται δὲ καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ ὀργαῖς, ἐπιθυμίαις, πλήθει παθῶν, ὧν συναιτία πως καὶ ἡ δίαιτα. ὡς δὲ ὕδωρ διὰ πέτρας ἀπορρέον ἀδιάφθορον τοῦ δι’ ἑλῶν ἰόντος τῷ μὴ πολλὴν ἰλὺν ἀποσπᾶν, οὕτω καὶ ψυχὴ διὰ ξηροῦ σώματος καὶ μὴ χυμοῖς ἀλλοτρίων σαρκῶν ἀρδομένου τὰ ἑαυτῆς διοικοῦσα κρείττων καὶ ἀδιάφθορος καὶ πρὸς σύνεσιν ἑτοιμοτέρα. ἐπεὶ καὶ ταῖς μελίτταις τὸ καλὸν μέλι φασὶ φέρειν τὸ ξηρότατον καὶ δριμύτατον θύμον. μιαίνεται τοίνυν ἡ διάνοια, μᾶλλον δὲ ὁ διανοούμενος, ὅταν ἢ φανταστικῇ ἢ δοξαστικῇ ἀναμίγνυται καὶ ταῖς τούτων ἐνεργείαις τὰς ταύτης συγκεράσηται· καθαρμὸς δὲ ὁ πάντων τούτων χωρισμὸς καὶ ἁγνεία ἡ μόνωσις καὶ τροφὴ τὸ τηροῦν ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ εἶναι. οὕτως γὰρ καὶ λίθου τροφὴν τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ συμμένειν εἴποις ἂν καὶ τοῦ ἑκτικῶς διαμένειν, καὶ φυτοῦ τὴν διατηροῦσαν ἐν τῷ αὔξειν καὶ καρπογονεῖν, καὶ ζῴου σώματος τὴν τηροῦσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν σύστασιν. ἄλλο δ’ ἦν τρέφειν, ἄλλο πιαίνειν, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ ἀναγκαῖον διδόναι, ἄλλο τὸ τρυφὰς πορίζειν. διάφοροι τοίνυν αἱ τροφαὶ κατὰ τὸ διάφορον τῶν τρεφομένων. καὶ δεῖ πάντα μὲν τρέφειν, σπουδάζειν δὲ πιαίνειν [ 526 ]

τὰ ἐν ἡμῖν κυριώτατα. ψυχῆς οὖν λογικῆς τροφὴ ἡ τηροῦσα λογικήν. νοῦς δὲ αὕτη· ὥστε νῷ θρεπτέον καὶ σπουδαστέον πιαίνειν ἀπὸ τούτου ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν βρωτῶν τὴν σάρκα. ὃ μὲν γὰρ τὴν αἰώνιον ἡμῖν ζωὴν συνέχει, τὸ δὲ σῶμα πιαινόμενον λιμώττειν τὴν ψυχὴν ποιεῖ [τῆς μακαρίας ζωῆς] καὶ τὸ θνητὸν αὔξει, παραιροῦν καὶ ἐμποδίζον πρὸς τὸν ἀθάνατον βίον, μιαίνει τε ἐνσωματοῦν τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ κατασπῶν πρὸς τὸ ἀλλότριον. ὁ δὲ μάγνης λίθος σιδήρῳ ψυχὴν δίδωσι πλησίον γενομένῳ, καὶ ὁ βαρύτατος ἀνακουφίζεται σίδηρος πνεύματι προσανατρέχων λίθου. πρὸς θεὸν δὲ τίς ἀναρτηθεὶς ἀσώματόν τε καὶ νοερὸν τροφὴν πολυπραγμονήσει τὴν πιαίνουσαν τὸ ἐμπόδιον πρὸς νοῦν σῶμα, οὐχὶ δὲ εἰς ὀλίγον καὶ εὐπόριστον συστείλας τῆς σαρκὸς τὸ ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸς θρέψεται προσπεφυκὼς τῷ θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ σίδηρος τῷ μάγνητι; εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῆς ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν οἷόν τ’ ἦν [ἄνευ πραγμάτων] τροφῆς ἀποστῆναι, εἰ μὴ τοῦτ’ ἦν ἡμῶν τῆς φύσεως τὸ φθαρτόν. εἰ γάρ, καθάπερ φησὶν Ὅμηρος, μηδὲ σίτου ἐδεήθημεν μηδὲ ποτοῦ, ἵν’ ὄντως ἦμεν ἀθάνατοι· καλῶς τοῦτο τοῦ ποιητοῦ παραστήσαντος, ὡς οὐ μόνον τοῦ ζῆν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἀποθνῄσκειν ἡ τροφὴ ὑπῆρχεν ἐφόδιον. εἰ οὖν μηδὲ ταύτης ἐδεήθημεν, τόσῳ ἂν ἦμεν μακαριώτεροι, ὅσῳ καὶ ἀθανατώτεροι. νῦν δ’ ἐν θνητῷ ὄντες ἔτι θνητοτέρους, εἰ χρὴ οὕτως εἰπεῖν, ἀγνοοῦμεν ἑαυτοὺς ποιοῦντες τῇ τούτου προσέσει, οὐ πολὺ τὸ ἐνοίκιον, ὡς φησί που Θεόφραστος, τῷ σώματι διδούσης τῆς ψυχῆς [τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικήσεως], ἀλλ’ ὅλην ἑαυτὴν προστιθείσης. ὡς εἴθε τὴν μυθευομένην ἄλιμον καὶ ἄδιψον ἦν κεκτῆσθαι, ἵνα τις τὸ διαρρέον τοῦ σώματος ἐπισχὼν δι’ ὀλίγου πρὸς τοῖς ἀρίστοις ἦν, πρὸς οἷσπερ ὢν καὶ θεός ἐστι θεός. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν τί ἄν τις ἀποκλαύσαιτο πρὸς ἀνθρώπους τοσοῦτον ἐσκοτωμένους, ὡς τὸ ἑαυτῶν κακὸν περιέπειν, μισεῖν δὲ πρῶτον μὲν ἑαυτοὺς καὶ τὸν ὄντως αὐτοὺς τεκόντα, ἔπειτα καὶ τοὺς ὑπομιμνήσκοντας κἀκ τῆς μέθης ἀνανῆψαι παρακαλοῦντας; διὸ μήποτε τῶν τοιούτων ἀφεμένους χρὴ ἐπὶ [21] τὰ λειπόμενα τῶν ζητημάτων μεταβαίνειν· οἱ γὰρ δὴ πρὸς τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἡμῖν παρατεθέντα νόμιμα ἀντιπαράγοντες Νομάδας ἢ Τρωγλοδύτας ἢ Ἰχθυοφάγους ἀγνοοῦσιν ὡς δι’ ἀνάγκην, τῆς χώρας ἀκάρπου οὔσης ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὡς μηδὲ βοτάνας φέρειν, θῖνας δὲ μόνον καὶ ψάμμον, ἐπὶ τοῦτο περιέστησαν τῆς τροφῆς [τὸ ἀναγκαῖον]. τεκμηριοῖ δὲ τὸ τῆς ἀνάγκης τὸ μηδὲ τῷ πυρὶ χρῆσθαι δύνασθαι ἀπορίᾳ καυσίμου ὕλης, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν πετρῶν ἀφαυαίνειν ἢ τῆς θινὸς τοὺς ἰχθῦς. καὶ οὗτοι μὲν δι’ ἀνάγκην· τινὰ δὲ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐξηγρίωται καὶ ἔστι φύσει θηριώδη, ἐξ ὧν οὐ προσήκει τοὺς εὐγνώμονας τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης καταψεύδεσθαι φύσεως· ἐπεὶ οὕτω γε ἀμφισβητήσιμον ἔσται οὐ μόνον τὸ τῆς ζῳοφαγίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀνθρωποφαγίας καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἡμερότητος. ἱστοροῦνται γοῦν Μασσαγέται καὶ Δέρβικες ἀθλιωτάτους ἡγεῖσθαι τῶν οἰκείων τοὺς αὐτομάτως τελευτήσαντας. διὸ καὶ φθάσαντες καταθύουσιν καὶ ἑστιῶνται τῶν φιλτάτων τοὺς γεγηρακότας. Τιβαρηνοὶ δὲ ζῶντας κατακρημνίζουσι τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γέροντας· Ὑρκάνιοι δὲ καὶ Κάσπιοι οἳ μὲν οἰωνοῖς καὶ κυσὶ παραβάλλουσι ζῶντας, οἳ δὲ τεθνεῶτας· Σκύθαι δὲ συγκατορύττουσι ζῶντας καὶ ἐπισφάττουσι ταῖς πυραῖς οὓς ἠγάπων οἱ τεθνεῶτες μάλιστα· καὶ Βάκτριοι μέντοι κυσὶ παραβάλλουσι ζῶντας τοὺς γεγηρακότας. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπιχειρήσας καταλῦσαι Στασάνωρ ὁ Ἀλεξάνδρου ὕπαρχος μικροῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπέβαλεν. ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ οὐ διὰ τούτους τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἡμερότητα [ 527 ]

κατελύσαμεν, οὕτως οὐδὲ τὰ δι’ ἀνάγκην σαρκοφαγοῦντα ἔθνη μιμησόμεθα, τὰ δὲ εὐσεβῆ καὶ θεοῖς μᾶλλον ἀνακείμενα. τὸ γὰρ κακῶς ζῆν καὶ μὴ φρονίμως καὶ σωφρόνως καὶ ὁσίως Δημοκράτης ἔλεγεν οὐ κακῶς ζῆν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πολὺν χρόνον [22] ἀποθνῄσκειν. λοιπὸν δὲ καὶ κατὰ ἄνδρα ὀλίγας μαρτυρίας τῆς ἀποχῆς παραφέρωμεν· ἓν γὰρ καὶ τοῦτ’ ἦν τῶν ἐγκλημάτων. τῶν τοίνυν Ἀθήνησι νομοθετῶν Τριπτόλεμον παλαιότατον παρειλήφαμεν· περὶ οὗ Ἕρμιππος ἐν δευτέρῳ περὶ τῶν νομοθετῶν γράφει ταῦτα· φασὶ δὲ καὶ Τριπτόλεμον Ἀθηναίοις νομοθετῆσαι, καὶ τῶν νόμων αὐτοῦ τρεῖς ἔτι Ξενοκράτης ὁ φιλόσοφος λέγει διαμένειν Ἐλευσῖνι τούσδε· γονεῖς τιμᾶν, θεοὺς καρποῖς ἀγάλλειν, ζῷα μὴ σίνεσθαι. τοὺς μὲν οὖν δύο καλῶς παραδοθῆναι· δεῖ γὰρ τοὺς μὲν γονεῖς εὐεργέτας ἡμῶν γεγενημένους ἀντ’ εὖ ποιεῖν ἐφ’ ὅσον ἐνδέχεται, τοῖς θεοῖς δὲ ἀφ’ ὧν ἔδωκαν ἡμῖν [ὠφελίμων] εἰς τὸν βίον ἀπαρχὰς ποιεῖσθαι· περὶ δὲ τοῦ τρίτου διαπορεῖ, τί ποτε διανοηθεὶς ὁ Τριπτόλεμος παρήγγειλεν ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ζῴων. πότερον γάρ, φησίν, ὅλως οἰόμενος εἶναι δεινὸν τὸ ὁμογενὲς κτείνειν ἢ συνιδὼν ὅτι συνέβαινεν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὰ χρησιμώτατα τῶν ζῴων εἰς τροφὴν ἀναιρεῖσθαι; βουλόμενον οὖν ἥμερον ποιῆσαι τὸν βίον πειραθῆναι καὶ τὰ συνανθρωπεύοντα καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ζῴων ἥμερα διασῴζειν. εἰ μὴ ἄρα διὰ τὸ προστάξαι τοῖς καρποῖς τοὺς θεοὺς τιμᾶν ὑπολαβὼν μᾶλλον ἂν διαμεῖναι τὴν τιμὴν ταύτην, εἰ μὴ γίγνοιντο τοῖς θεοῖς διὰ τῶν ζῴων θυσίαι. πολλὰς δὲ αἰτίας τοῦ Ξενοκράτους καὶ ἄλλας οὐ πάνυ ἀκριβεῖς ἀποδιδόντος ἡμῖν αὔταρκες τοσοῦτον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι τοῦτο νενομοθέτητο ἐκ τοῦ Τριπτολέμου. ὅθεν ὕστερον παρανομοῦντες, ὅτε ἥψαντο τῶν ζῴων μετὰ πολλῆς ἀνάγκης καὶ ἁμαρτημάτων ἀκουσίων, ὥσπερ ἐπεδείξαμεν, ἐπὶ τοῦτο πεπτώκασιν. ἐπεὶ καὶ Δράκοντος νόμος μνημονεύεται τοιοῦτος, θεσμὸς αἰώνιος τοῖς Ἀτθίδα νεμομένοις, [κύριος τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον,] θεοὺς τιμᾶν καὶ ἥρωας ἐγχωρίους ἐν κοινῷ ἑπομένοις νόμοις πατρίοις, ἰδίᾳ κατὰ δύναμιν, σὺν εὐφημίᾳ καὶ ἀπαρχαῖς καρπῶν πελάνους ἐπετείους· τοῦ νόμου ἀπαρχαῖς καρπῶν, οἷς χρῆται ὁ ἄνθρωπος, τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖον προστάττοντος καὶ πελάνοις …..

[ 528 ]

Aids to the Study of the Intelligibles ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΑΦΟΡΜΑΙ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΑ ΝΟΗΤΑ [ 1 ] ΠᾶΝ Μ Ὲ Ν σῶμα ἐν τόπῳ, οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν καθ’ αὑτὰ ἀσωμάτων ᾗ τοιοῦτον ἐν τόπῳ. [2] Τὰ καθ’ αὑτὰ ἀσώματα, αὐτῷ ᾧ κρείττονα παντός ἐστι τόπου, πανταχῇ ἐστιν, οὐ διαστατῶς, ἀλλ’ ἀμερῶς. [3] Τὰ καθ’ αὑτὰ ἀσώματα, οὐ τοπικῶς παρόντα τοῖς σώμασι, πάρεστιν αὐτοῖς ὅταν βούληται, πρὸς αὐτὰ ῥέψαντα ᾗ πέφυκε ῥέπειν· καὶ τοπικῶς αὐτοῖς οὐ παρόντα, τῇ σχέσει πάρεστιν αὐτοῖς. [4] Τὰ καθ’ αὑτὰ ἀσώματα ὑποστάσει μὲν καὶ οὐσίᾳ οὐ πάρεστιν οὐδὲ συγκίρναται τοῖς σώμασι, τῇ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ῥοπῆς ὑποστάσει τινὸς δυνάμεως μεταδίδωσι προσεχοῦς τοῖς σώμασιν. ἡ γὰρ ῥοπὴ δευτέραν τινὰ δύναμιν ὑπέστησε προσεχῆ τοῖς σώμασιν. [5] Ἡ μὲν ψυχὴ τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ ‹τῆς› περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστῆς οὐσίας μέσον τι, ὁ δὲ νοῦς ἀμέριστος οὐσία μόνον, τὰ δὲ σώματα μεριστὰ μόνον, αἱ δὲ ποιότητες καὶ τὰ ἔνυλα εἴδη περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστά. [6] Οὐ πᾶν τὸ ποιοῦν εἰς ἄλλο πελάσει καὶ ἁφῇ ποιεῖ ἃ ποιεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ πελάσει καὶ ἁφῇ τι ποιοῦντα κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς τῇ πελάσει χρῆται. [7] Ψυχὴ καταδεῖται πρὸς σῶμα τῇ ἐπιστροφῇ τῇ πρὸς τὰ πάθη τὰ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ λύεται δὲ πάλιν διὰ τῆς ἀπαθείας. [8] Ὃ ἔδησεν ἡ φύσις, τοῦτο φύσις λύει, καὶ ὃ ἔδησεν ἡ ψυχή, τοῦτο αὐτὴ λύει· ἔδησε δὲ φύσις μὲν σῶμα ἐν ψυχῇ, ψυχὴ δὲ ἑαυτὴν ἐν σώματι. φύσις μὲν ἄρα λύει σῶμα ἐκ ψυχῆς, ψυχὴ δὲ ἑαυτὴν λύει ἀπὸ σώματος. [9] Ὁ θάνατος διπλοῦς, ὁ μὲν οὖν συνεγνωσμένος λυομένου τοῦ σώματος ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὁ δὲ τῶν φιλοσόφων λυομένης τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος· καὶ οὐ πάντως ὁ ἕτερος τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἕπεται. [10] Πάντα μὲν ἐν πᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ οἰκείως τῇ ἑκάστου οὐσίᾳ· ἐν νῷ μὲν γὰρ νοερῶς, ἐν ψυχῇ δὲ λογικῶς, ἐν δὲ τοῖς φυτοῖς σπερματικῶς, ἐν δὲ σώμασιν εἰδωλικῶς, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐπέκεινα ἀνεννοήτως τε καὶ ὑπερουσίως. [11] Αἱ ἀσώματοι ὑποστάσεις ὑποβαίνουσαι μὲν μερίζονται καὶ πληθύνονται εἰς τὰ κατὰ ἄτομον ὑφέσει δυνάμεως, ὑπερβαίνουσαι δὲ ἑνίζονται καὶ εἰς τὸ ὁμοῦ ἀντιχωροῦσι δυνάμεως περιουσίᾳ. [12] Οὐ μόνον ἐν τοῖς σώμασι τὸ ὁμώνυμον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ τῶν πολλαχῶς· ἄλλη γὰρ ζωὴ φυτοῦ, ἄλλη ἐμψύχου, ἄλλη νοεροῦ, ἄλλη φύσεως, ἄλλη ψυχῆς, ἄλλη νοῦ, ἄλλη τοῦ ἐπέκεινα· ζῇ γὰρ κἀκεῖνο, εἰ καὶ μηδὲν τῶν μετ’ αὐτὸ παραπλησίαν αὐτῷ ζωὴν κέκτηται.

[ 529 ]

[13] Πᾶν τὸ γεννῶν τῇ οὐσίᾳ αὐτοῦ χεῖρον ἑαυτοῦ γεννᾷ, καὶ πᾶν τὸ γεννηθὲν φύσει πρὸς τὸ γεννῆσαν ἐπιστρέφει· τῶν δὲ γεννώντων τὰ μὲν οὐδ’ ὅλως ἐπιστρέφει πρὸς τὰ γεννηθέντα, τὰ δὲ καὶ ἐπιστρέφει καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστρέφει, τὰ δὲ μόνον ἐπέστραπται πρὸς τὰ γεννήματα εἰς ἑαυτὰ μὴ ἐπιστρέφοντα. [14] Πᾶν γενητὸν ἀπ’ ἄλλου τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς γενέσεως ἔχει, εἴ γε μηδὲν ἀναιτίως γίνεται. ἀλλὰ τῶν γε γενητῶν ὅσα μὲν διὰ συνθέσεως κέκτηται τὸ εἶναι, λυτὰ ἂν εἴη καὶ διὰ τοῦτο φθαρτά· ὅσα δὲ ἁπλᾶ καὶ ἀσύνθετα ὄντα ἐν τῷ ἁπλῷ τῆς ὑποστάσεως κέκτηται τὸ εἶναι, ἄλυτα ὄντα ἐστὶ μὲν ἄφθαρτα, γενητὰ δὲ λέγεται οὐ τῷ σύνθετα εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀπ’ αἰτίου τινὸς ἀνηρτῆσθαι. τὰ μὲν οὖν σώματα διχῶς γενητὰ καὶ ὡς ἀπ’ αἰτίας ἠρτημένα τῆς παραγούσης καὶ ὡς σύνθετα, ψυχὴ δὲ καὶ νοῦς γενητὰ ὡς ἀπ’ αἰτίας ἠρτημένα μόνον, οὐ μὴν καὶ ὡς σύνθετα· τὰ μὲν ἄρα {σώματα} γενητὰ καὶ λυτὰ καὶ φθαρτά, τὰ δὲ ἀγένητα μὲν ὡς ἀσύνθετα καὶ ταύτῃ καὶ ἄλυτα καὶ ἄφθαρτα, γενητὰ δὲ ὡς ‹ἀπ’› αἰτίου ἠρτημένα. [15] Ἡ μνήμη οὐκ ἔστι φαντασιῶν σωτηρία, ἀλλὰ τῶν μελετηθέντων ἐκ νέας {προβάλλεσθαι} προβολή. [16] Ἡ ψυχὴ ἔχει μὲν πάντων τοὺς λόγους, ἐνεργεῖ δὲ κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἢ ὑπ’ ἄλλου εἰς τὴν προχείρησιν ἐκκαλουμένη ἢ ἑαυτὴν εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐπιστρέφουσα εἰς τὸ εἴσω· καὶ ὑπ’ ἄλλου μὲν ἐκκαλουμένη ὡς πρὸς τὰ ἔξω τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἀποδίδωσιν, εἰς δὲ ἑαυτὴν εἰσδῦσα πρὸς τὸν νοῦν ἐν ταῖς νοήσεσι γίνεται. καὶ οὔτε αἴσθησις ἔξωθεν οὔτε νόησις †ἄλλη ποτὲ δὲ †ὡς τῷ ζῴῳ οὐκ ἄνευ πάθους τῶν αἰσθητικῶν ὀργάνων αἱ αἰσθήσεις, οὕτω καὶ αἱ νοήσεις οὐκ ἄνευ φαντασίας· ἵν’ ᾖ τὸ ἀνάλογον, ὡς ὁ τύπος παρακολούθημα ζῴου αἰσθητικοῦ, οὕτω τὸ φάντασμα ψυχῆς {ζῴου} ἑπόμενον νοήσει. [17] Ἡ ψυχὴ οὐσία ἀμεγέθης, ἄυλος, ἄφθαρτος, ἐν ζωῇ παρ’ ἑαυτῆς ἐχούσῃ τὸ ζῆν κεκτημένη τὸ εἶναι. [18] Ἄλλο τὸ πάσχειν τῶν σωμάτων, ἄλλο τῶν ἀσωμάτων· τῶν μὲν γὰρ σωμάτων σὺν τροπῇ τὸ πάσχειν, τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς αἱ οἰκειώσεις καὶ τὰ πάθη ἐνέργειαι, οὐδὲν ἐοικυῖαι θερμάνσεσι καὶ ψύξεσι σωμάτων. διὸ εἴπερ τὸ πάσχειν πάντως σὺν τροπῇ, ἀπαθῆ ῥητέον πάντα τὰ ἀσώματα· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ὕλης κεχωρισμένα καὶ σωμάτων ἐνεργείαις ἦν τὰ αὐτά, τὰ δὲ ὕλῃ πλησιάζοντα καὶ σώμασιν αὐτὰ μὲν ἀπαθῆ, τὰ δὲ ἐφ’ ὧν θεωρεῖται πάσχει. ὅταν γὰρ τὸ ζῷον αἰσθάνηται, ἔοικεν ἡ μὲν ψυχὴ ἁρμονίᾳ χωριστῇ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς τὰς χορδὰς κινούσῃ ἡρμοσμένας ἁρμονίᾳ ἀχωρίστῳ, τὸ δὲ αἴτιον τοῦ κινῆσαι, τὸ ζῷον, διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἔμψυχον ἀνάλογον τῷ μουσικῷ διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἐναρμόνιον, τὰ δὲ πληγέντα σώματα διὰ πάθος αἰσθητικὸν ταῖς ἡρμοσμέναις χορδαῖς· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ οὐχ ἡ ἁρμονία πέπονθεν ἡ χωριστή, ἀλλ’ ἡ χορδή. καὶ κινεῖ μὲν ὁ μουσικὸς κατὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἁρμονίαν, οὐ μὴν ἐκινήθη ἂν ἡ χορδὴ μουσικῶς, εἰ καὶ ὁ μουσικὸς ἐβούλετο, μὴ τῆς ἁρμονίας τοῦτο λεγούσης. [19] Ἡ τῶν ἀσωμάτων προσηγορία οὐ κατὰ κοινότητα ἑνὸς καὶ ταὐτοῦ γένους οὕτω προσηγόρευται καθάπερ τὰ σώματα, κατὰ δὲ ψιλὴν τὴν πρὸς τὰ σώματα στέρησιν· ὅθεν τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν ὄντα, τὰ δὲ οὐκ ὄντα εἶναι οὐ κεκώλυται. καὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸ σωμάτων, τὰ δὲ μετὰ σωμάτων· [ 530 ]

καὶ τὰ μὲν χωριστὰ σωμάτων, τὰ δὲ ἀχώριστα· καὶ τὰ μὲν καθ’ ἑαυτὰ ὑφεστηκότα, τὰ δὲ ἄλλων εἰς τὸ εἶναι δεόμενα· καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐνεργείαις τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ζωαῖς αὐτοκινήτοις, τὰ δὲ ταῖς ζωαῖς παρυφισταμέναις ταῖς ποιαῖς ἐνεργείαις. κατὰ γὰρ ἀπόφασιν ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐ κατὰ παράστασιν ὧν ἐστι προσηγόρευται. [20] Τῆς ὕλης τὰ ἴδια κατὰ τοὺς ἀρχαίους τάδε· ἀσώματος - ἑτέρα γὰρ σωμάτων - , ἄζωος οὔτε γὰρ νοῦς οὔτε ψυχὴ οὐ ζῶν καθ’ ἑαυτό - , ἀνείδεος, ἄλογος, ἄπειρος, ἀδύναμος. διὸ οὐδὲ ὄν, ἀλλὰ μὴ ὄν· καὶ οὐχ ὅπερ κίνησις μὴ ὂν ἢ στάσις μὴ ὄν, ἀλλ’ ἀληθινὸν μὴ ὄν, εἴδωλον καὶ φάντασμα ὄγκου, ὅτι τὸ πρώτως ἐν ὄγκῳ τὸ ἀδύναμον· καὶ ἔφεσις ὑποστάσεως καὶ ἑστὼς οὐκ ἐν στάσει καὶ τὰ ‹ἐναντία› ἀεὶ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ φανταζόμενον, μικρὸν καὶ μέγα καὶ ἧττον καὶ μᾶλλον, ἐλλεῖπον καὶ ὑπερέχον, ἀεὶ γινόμενον καὶ οὐ μένον οὐδ’ αὖ φεύγειν δυνάμενον, ἔλλειψις παντὸς τοῦ ὄντος. διὸ πᾶν ὃ ἐπαγγέλλεται ψεύδεται, κἂν μέγα φαντασθῇ, μικρόν ἐστιν· οἷον γὰρ παίγνιόν ἐστι φεῦγον εἰς τὸ μὴ ὄν· ἡ γὰρ φυγὴ οὐ τόπῳ, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ἀπολείψει· ὅθεν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ εἴδωλά ἐστιν ἐν εἰδώλῳ χείρονι, ὥσπερ ἐν κατόπτρῳ τὸ ἀλλαχοῦ ἱδρυμένον ἀλλαχοῦ φανταζόμενον· καὶ πιμπλάμενον, ὡς δοκεῖ, καὶ ἔχον οὐδὲν καὶ δοκοῦν ‹τὰ πάντα›. [21] Τὰ πάθη περὶ τοῦτο {πάντα}, περὶ ὃ καὶ ἡ φθορά· ὁδὸς γάρ ἐστιν εἰς φθορὰν ἡ παραδοχὴ τοῦ πάθους, καὶ τούτου τὸ φθείρεσθαι, οὗ καὶ τὸ πάσχειν· φθείρεται δὲ οὐδὲν ἀσώματον, τινὰ δὲ αὐτῶν ἢ ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν, ὥστε πάσχειν οὐδέν· τὸ γὰρ πάσχον οὐ τοιοῦτον εἶναι δεῖ, ἀλλ’ οἷον ἀλλοιοῦσθαι καὶ φθείρεσθαι ταῖς ποιότησι τῶν ἐπεισιόντων καὶ τὸ πάσχειν ἐμποιούντων· τῷ γὰρ ἐνόντι ἀλλοίωσις παρὰ τοῦ τυχόντος. ὥστε οὔτε ἡ ὕλη πάσχει - ἄποιος γὰρ καθ’ ἑαυτήν - οὔτε τὰ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς εἴδη εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα, ἀλλὰ τὸ πάθος περὶ τὸ συναμφότερον καὶ ᾧ τὸ εἶναι ἐν τῷ συναμφότερον· τουτὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ἐναντίαις δυνάμεσι καὶ ποιότησι τῶν ἐπεισιόντων θεωρεῖται. διὸ καὶ οἷς τὸ ζῆν ἔξωθεν καὶ οὐ παρ’ ἑαυτῶν, ταῦτα τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ μὴ ζῆν παθεῖν οἷά τε· οἷς δὲ τὸ εἶναι ἐν ζωῇ ἀπαθεῖ, κατὰ ζωὴν μένειν ἀνάγκη, ὥσπερ τῇ ἀζωίᾳ τὸ μὴ παθεῖν καθ’ ὅσον ἀζωία. ὡς οὖν τὸ τρέπεσθαι καὶ πάσχειν ἐν τῷ συνθέτῳ τῷ ἐξ ὕλης τε καὶ εἴδους, ὅπερ ἦν τὸ σῶμα - οὐ μὴν τῇ ὕλῃ τοῦτο προσῆν - , οὕτω καὶ τὸ ζῆν καὶ ἀποθνῄσκειν καὶ πάσχειν κατὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ συνθέτῳ ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος θεωρεῖται· οὐ μὴν {καὶ} τῇ ψυχῇ κατὰ τοῦτο συμβαίνει, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἐξ ἀζωίας καὶ ζωῆς συγκείμενον πρᾶγμα, ἀλλὰ ζωὴ μόνον· καὶ τοῦτο ἦν τῷ Πλάτωνι τὸ οὐσίαν εἶναι καὶ λόγον τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ αὐτοκίνητον. [22] Ἡ νοερὰ οὐσία ὁμοιομερής ἐστιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ μερικῷ νῷ εἶναι τὰ ὄντα καὶ ἐν τῷ παντελείῳ· ἀλλ’ ἐν μὲν τῷ καθόλου καὶ τὰ μερικὰ καθολικῶς, ἐν δὲ τῷ μερικῷ καὶ τὰ καθόλου {καὶ μερικὰ} μερικῶς. [23] Τῆς οὐσίας ἧς ἐν ζωῇ τὸ εἶναι καὶ ἧς τὰ πάθη ζωαί, ταύτης καὶ ὁ θάνατος ἐν ποιᾷ ζωῇ κεῖται, οὐκ ἐν ζωῆς καθάπαξ στερήσει, ὅτι μηδὲ τὸ πάθος ἦν ὁδὸς εἰς τὴν παντελῆ ἀζωίαν ἐπ’ αὐτῆς. [24] Ἐπὶ τῶν ζωῶν τῶν ἀσωμάτων αἱ πρόοδοι μενόντων τῶν προτέρων ἑδραίων καὶ βεβαίων γίνονται καὶ οὐ φθειρόντων τι αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὰ ὑπόστασιν οὐδὲ μεταβαλλόντων· ὥστε οὐδὲ τὰ ὑφιστάμενα μετά τινος φθορᾶς ὑφίσταται ἢ μεταβολῆς, οὗ δὴ [ 531 ]

τοῦτο οὐδὲ γίνεται ὡς ἡ φθορᾶς μετέχουσα γένεσις καὶ μεταβολῆς· ἀγένητα ἄρα καὶ ἄφθαρτα καὶ ἀγενήτως καὶ ἀφθάρτως γεγονότα κατὰ τοῦτο. [25] Περὶ τοῦ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ κατὰ μὲν νόησιν πολλὰ λέγεται, θεωρεῖται δὲ ἀνοησίᾳ κρείττονι νοήσεως, ὡς περὶ τοῦ καθεύδοντος διὰ μὲν ἐγρηγόρσεως πολλὰ λέγεται, διὰ δὲ τοῦ καθεύδειν ἡ γνῶσις καὶ ἡ κατάληψις· τῷ γὰρ ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον γινώσκεται, ὅτι πᾶσα γνῶσις τοῦ γνωστοῦ ὁμοίωσις. [26] Μὴ ὂν τὸ μὲν γεννῶμεν χωρισθέντες τοῦ ὄντος, τὸ δὲ προεννοοῦμεν ἐχόμενοι τοῦ ὄντος· ὡς εἴ γε χωρισθείημεν τοῦ ὄντος, οὐ προεννοοῦμεν τὸ ὑπὲρ τὸ ὂν μὴ ὄν, ἀλλὰ γεννῶμεν ψευδὲς πάθος τὸ μὴ ὄν, συμβεβηκὸς περὶ τὸν ἐκστάντα ἑαυτοῦ. καὶ γὰρ αἴτιος ἕκαστος, ᾧπερ ὄντως καὶ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐνῆν ἀναχθῆναι ἐπὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ τὸ ὂν μὴ ὂν καὶ παραχθῆναι ἐπὶ τὸ κατάπτωμα τοῦ ὄντος μὴ ὄν. [27] Οὐδὲν {πρὸς} τὸ ἀσώματον τὸ καθ’ αὑτὸ ἡ τοῦ σώματος ἐμποδίζει ὑπόστασις πρὸς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ὅπου βούλεται καὶ ὡς θέλει. ὡς γὰρ τῷ σώματι τὸ ἄογκον ἄληπτον καὶ οὐδὲν πρὸς αὐτό, οὕτω τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ τὸ ἔνογκον {καὶ} ἀνεπιπρόσθητον καὶ ὡς μὴ ὂν κεῖται· οὐδὲ τοπικῶς διέρχεται τὸ ἀσώματον ὅπου βούλεται - ὄγκῳ γὰρ συνυφίστατο τόπος - οὐδὲ στενοχωρεῖται σωμάτων ὄγκῳ· τὸ γὰρ ὁπωσοῦν ἐν ὄγκῳ στενοχωρεῖσθαι ἐδύνατο καὶ τοπικῶς ἐποιεῖτο τὴν μετάβασιν, τὸ δ’ ἄογκον παντελῶς καὶ ἀμέγεθες ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ὄγκῳ ἀκράτητον τοπικῆς τε κινήσεως ἄμοιρον. διαθέσει τοίνυν ποιᾷ ἐκεῖ εὑρίσκεται, ὅπου καὶ διάκειται, τόπῳ ὂν πανταχοῦ καὶ οὐδαμοῦ. διὸ ποιᾷ διαθέσει ἢ ὑπὲρ οὐρανὸν ἢ ἐν μέρει που τοῦ κόσμου κεκράτηται· ὅταν δὲ κρατηθῇ ἔν τινι μέρει τοῦ κόσμου, οὐκ ὀφθαλμοῖς ὁρᾶται, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ παρουσία αὐτοῦ γίνεται. [28] Τὸ ἀσώματον ἂν ἐν σώματι κατασχεθῇ, οὐ συγκλεισθῆναι δέει ὡς ἐν ζωγρείῳ θηρίον· συγκλεῖσαι γὰρ αὐτὸ οὐδὲν οὕτω δύναται καὶ περιλαβεῖν σῶμα οὐδ’ ὡς ἀσκὸς ὑγρόν τι ἕλκειν ἢ πνεῦμα, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸ δεῖ ὑποστῆσαι δυνάμεις ῥεπούσας ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸ ἑνώσεως εἰς τὸ ἔξω, αἷς δὴ κατιὸν συμπλέκεται τῷ σώματι· δι’ ἐκτάσεως οὖν ἀρρήτου τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἡ εἰς σῶμα σύνερξις. διὸ οὐδ’ ἄλλο αὐτὸ καταδεῖ, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸ ἑαυτό, οὐδὲ λύει τοίνυν θραυσθὲν τὸ σῶμα καὶ φθαρέν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ στραφὲν ἐκ τῆς προσπαθείας. [29] Ὥσπερ τὸ ἐπὶ γῆς εἶναι ψυχῆς ἐστιν - οὐ τὸ γῆς ἐπιβαίνειν ὡς τὰ σώματα, τὸ δὲ προεστάναι σώματος ὃ γῆς ἐπιβαίνει - , οὕτω καὶ ἐν Ἅιδου εἶναι ἔστι ψυχῇ, ὅταν προεστήκῃ εἰδώλου φύσιν μὲν ἔχοντος εἶναι ἐν τόπῳ, σκότει δὲ τὴν ὑπόστασιν κεκτημένου· ὥστε εἰ ὁ Ἅιδης ὑπόγειός ἐστι τόπος σκοτεινός, ἡ ψυχὴ καίπερ οὐκ ἀποσπωμένη τοῦ ὄντος ἐν Ἅιδου γίνεται ἐφελκομένη τὸ εἴδωλον. ἐξελθούσῃ γὰρ αὐτῇ τοῦ στερεοῦ σώματος τὸ πνεῦμα συνομαρτεῖ, ὃ ἐκ τῶν σφαιρῶν συνελέξατο. ἐκ δὲ τῆς πρὸς τὸ σῶμα προσπαθείας τὸν λόγον ἐχούσῃ τὸν μερικὸν προβεβλημένον, καθ’ ὃν σχέσιν ἔσχε πρὸς τὸ ποιὸν σῶμα ἐν τῷ βιοῦν, ἐκ τῆς προσπαθείας ἐναπομόργνυται τύπος τῆς φαντασίας εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ οὕτως ἐφέλκεται τὸ εἴδωλον· ἐν Ἅιδου δὲ λέγεται, ὅτι τῆς ἀιδοῦς φύσεως ἐτύγχανε τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ σκοτεινῆς.

[ 532 ]

Ἐπεὶ δὲ διήκει τὸ βαρὺ πνεῦμα καὶ ἔνυγρον ἄχρι τῶν ὑπογείων τόπων, οὕτω καὶ αὕτη λέγεται χωρεῖν ὑπὸ γῆν, οὐχ ὅτι ἡ αὐτῆς οὐσία μεταβαίνει τόπους καὶ ἐν τόποις γίνεται, ἀλλ’ ὅτι τῶν πεφυκότων σωμάτων τόπους μεταβαίνειν καὶ εἰληχέναι τόπου σχέσεις ἀναδέχεται, δεχομένων αὐτὴν κατὰ τὰς ἐπιτηδειότητας τῶν τοιούτων σωμάτων ἐκ τῆς κατ’ αὐτὴν ποιᾶς διαθέσεως. ὡς γὰρ ἂν διατεθῇ, εὑρίσκει σῶμα τάξει καὶ τόποις οἰκείοις διωρισμένον· διὸ καθαρώτερον μὲν διακειμένῃ σύμφυτον τὸ ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἀύλου σῶμα, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ αἰθέριον, προελθούσῃ δὲ ἐκ λόγου εἰς φαντασίας προβολὴν σύμφυτον τὸ ἡλιοειδές, θηλυνθείσῃ δὲ καὶ παθαινομένῃ πρὸς τὸ εἶδος παράκειται τὸ σεληνοειδές, πεσούσῃ δὲ εἰς σώματα, ὅταν κατὰ τὸ αὐτῶν ἄμορφον στῇ εἶδος, ἐξ ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων συνεστηκότα, ἄγνοια ἕπεται τοῦ ὄντος τελεία καὶ σκότωσις καὶ νηπιότης. Καὶ μὴν καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐξόδῳ ἔτι κατὰ τὴν δίυγρον ἀναθυμίασιν τὸ πνεῦμα ἔχουσα τεθολωμένον, σκιὰν ἐφέλκεται καὶ βαρεῖται, χωρεῖν σπεύδοντος τοῦ τοιούτου πνεύματος εἰς μυχὸν τῆς γῆς φύσει, ἂν μὴ ἄλλη τις αὐτὸ αἰτία ἀνθέλκῃ. ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ γεῶδες ὄστρεον περικειμένῃ ἀνάγκη ἐπὶ γῆς ἐνίσχεσθαι, οὕτω καὶ ὑγρὸν πνεῦμα ἐφελκομένῃ εἴδωλον περικεῖσθαι ἀνάγκη· ὑγρὸν δὲ ἐφέλκεται, ὅταν συνεχῶς μελετήσῃ ὁμιλεῖν τῇ φύσει, ἧς ἐν ὑγρῷ τὸ ἔργον καὶ ὑπόγειον μᾶλλον. ὅταν δὲ μελετήσῃ ἀφίστασθαι φύσεως, αὐγὴ ξηρὰ γίνεται, ἄσκιος καὶ ἀνέφελος· ὑγρότης γὰρ ἐν ἀέρι νέφος συνίστησι, ξηρότης δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀτμίδος αὐγὴν ξηρὰν ὑφίστησιν. [30] Τῶν μὲν ὅλων καὶ τελείων ὑποστάσεων οὐδεμία πρὸς τὸ ἑαυτῆς γέννημα ἐπέστραπται, πᾶσαι δὲ πρὸς τὰ γεννήσαντά εἰσιν ἀνηγμέναι ἄχρι καὶ τοῦ κοσμικοῦ σώματος· τέλειον γὰρ ὂν ἀνῆκται πρὸς τὴν ψυχὴν νοερὰν οὖσαν, κύκλῳ διὰ τοῦτο κινούμενον, ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν, νοῦς δὲ πρὸς τὸ πρῶτον. διήκει τοίνυν ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐσχάτου ἀρξάμενον καθ’ ὃ δύναται ἕκαστον· ἡ πρὸς τὸ πρῶτον ἀναγωγὴ προσεχῶς μέντοι ἢ πόρρωθεν. διὸ ταῦτα οὐκ ἐφίεσθαι μόνον τοῦ θεοῦ λέγοιτ’ ἄν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπολαύειν κατὰ δύναμιν. Ἐν δὲ ταῖς μερισταῖς ὑποστάσεσι καὶ πρὸς πολλὰ ῥέπειν δυναμέναις ἔνεστι καὶ πρὸς τὰ γεννήματα ἐπιστρέφειν· ὅθεν καὶ ἐν ταύταις ἦν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἐν ταύταις ἡ λελοιδορημένη ἀπιστία. ταύταις οὖν κακὸν ἡ ὕλη τῷ ἐπιστρέφεσθαι ἐπ’ αὐτὴν δύνασθαι, δυναμέναις ἐστράφθαι πρὸς τὸ θεῖον. ὥσθ’ ἡ μὲν τελειότης ὑφίστησι τὰ δεύτερα ἀπὸ τῶν προτέρων τηροῦσα αὐτὰ ἐπεστραμμένα πρὸς τὰ πρῶτα, τὸ δὲ ἀτελὲς στρέφει καὶ πρὸς τὰ ὕστερα τὰ πρῶτα καὶ φιλεῖν ταῦτα ποιεῖ τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν ἀποστραφέντα. [31] Ὁ θεὸς πανταχοῦ ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ, ‹καὶ ὁ νοῦς πανταχοῦ ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ,› καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πανταχοῦ ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ. ἀλλ’ ὁ θεὸς μὲν πανταχοῦ καὶ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν μετ’ αὐτὸν πάντων - αὐτοῦ δέ ἐστι μόνον ὡς ἔστι τε καὶ ἐθέλει - , νοῦς δὲ ἐν μὲν θεῷ, πανταχοῦ δὲ καὶ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν μετ’ αὐτόν· καὶ ψυχὴ ἐν νῷ τε καὶ θεῷ, πανταχοῦ ‹δὲ› καὶ οὐδαμοῦ ἐν σώματι· σῶμα δὲ καὶ ἐν ψυχῇ καὶ ἐν νῷ καὶ ἐν θεῷ. καὶ ὡς πάντα τὰ ὄντα καὶ μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐν θεῷ καὶ οὐκ αὐτὸς τὰ ὄντα καὶ μὴ ὄντα καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς - εἰ γὰρ μόνον ἦν πανταχοῦ, αὐτὸς ἂν ἦν τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν· ἐπεὶ δὲ ‹καὶ› οὐδαμοῦ, τὰ πάντα γίνεται δι’ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ, ὅτι πανταχοῦ ἐκεῖνος, ἕτερα δὲ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι αὐτὸς οὐδαμοῦ - , οὕτω καὶ νοῦς πανταχοῦ ὢν καὶ οὐδαμοῦ αἴτιος ψυχῶν καὶ τῶν [ 533 ]

μετ’ αὐτὰς καὶ οὐκ αὐτὸς ψυχὴ οὔτε τὰ μετὰ ψυχὴν οὐδὲ ἐν τούτοις, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν μόνον πανταχοῦ τῶν μετ’ αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐδαμοῦ· καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ οὐ σῶμα οὔτε ἐν σώματι, ἀλλ’ αἰτία σώματος, ὅτι πανταχοῦ οὖσα τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν οὐδαμοῦ. καὶ ἔστη γε ἡ πρόοδος τοῦ παντὸς εἰς τὸ μήτε πανταχοῦ ἅμα μήτε μηδαμοῦ εἶναι δυνάμενον, ἀλλ’ ἀνὰ μέρος ἑκατέρων μετέχον. [32] Ἄλλαι αἱ ἀρεταὶ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ, καὶ ἄλλαι αἱ τοῦ πρὸς θεωρίαν ἀνιόντος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο λεγομένου θεωρητικοῦ, καὶ ἄλλαι αἱ τοῦ ἤδη τελείου θεωρητικοῦ καὶ ἤδη θεατοῦ, καὶ ἄλλαι αἱ τοῦ νοῦ, καθ’ ὃ νοῦς καὶ ἀπὸ ψυχῆς καθαρός. Αἱ μὲν τοῦ πολιτικοῦ ἐν μετριοπαθείᾳ κείμεναι τῷ ἕπεσθαι καὶ ἀκολουθεῖν τῷ λογισμῷ τοῦ καθήκοντος κατὰ τὰς πράξεις· διὸ πρὸς κοινωνίαν βλέπουσαι τὴν ἀβλαβῆ τῶν πλησίον ἐκ τοῦ συναγελασμοῦ καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας πολιτικαὶ λέγονται. καὶ ἔστι φρόνησις μὲν περὶ τὸ λογιζόμενον, ἀνδρία δὲ περὶ τὸ θυμούμενον, σωφροσύνη δὲ ἐν ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ συμφωνίᾳ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ πρὸς λογισμόν, δικαιοσύνη δὲ ἡ ἑκάστου τούτων ὁμοῦ οἰκειοπραγία ἀρχῆς πέρι καὶ τοῦ ἄρχεσθαι. Αἱ δὲ τοῦ πρὸς θεωρίαν προκόπτοντος θεωρητικοῦ ἐν ἀποστάσει κεῖνται τῶν ἐντεῦθεν· διὸ καὶ καθάρσεις αὗται λέγονται, ἐν ἀποχῇ θεωρούμεναι τῶν μετὰ τοῦ σώματος πράξεων καὶ συμπαθειῶν τῶν πρὸς αὐτό. αὗται μὲν γὰρ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀφισταμένης πρὸς τὸ ὄντως ὄν, αἱ δὲ πολιτικαὶ τὸν θνητὸν ἄνθρωπον κατακοσμοῦσι - καὶ πρόδρομοί γε αἱ πολιτικαὶ τῶν καθάρσεων· δεῖ γὰρ κοσμηθέντα κατ’ αὐτὰς ἀποστῆναι τοῦ σὺν σώματι πράττειν τι προηγουμένως - διὸ ἐν ταῖς καθάρσεσι τὸ μὲν μὴ συνδοξάζειν τῷ σώματι, ἀλλὰ μόνην ἐνεργεῖν ὑφίστησι τὸ φρονεῖν, ὃ διὰ τοῦ καθαρῶς νοεῖν τελειοῦται, τὸ δέ γε μὴ ὁμοπαθεῖν συνίστησι τὸ σωφρονεῖν, τὸ δὲ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι ἀφισταμένην τοῦ σώματος ὡς εἰς κενόν τι καὶ μὴ ὂν τὴν ἀνδρίαν, ἡγουμένου δὲ λόγου καὶ νοῦ καὶ μηδενὸς ἀντιτείνοντος ἡ δικαιοσύνη. ἡ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρετὰς διάθεσις ἐν μετριοπαθείᾳ θεωρεῖται, τέλος ἔχουσα τὸ ζῆν ὡς ἄνθρωπον κατὰ φύσιν, ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὰς θεωρητικὰς ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ, ἧς τέλος ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ὁμοίωσις. Ἐπεὶ δὲ κάθαρσις ἡ μέν τις ἦν καθαίρουσα, ἡ δὲ κεκαθαρμένων, αἱ καθαρτικαὶ ἀρεταὶ κατ’ ἄμφω θεωροῦνται τὰ σημαινόμενα τῆς καθάρσεως· καθαίρουσί τε γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ καθαρθείσῃ σύνεισι - τέλος γὰρ τὸ κεκαθάρθαι τοῦ καθαίρειν - ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τὸ καθαίρειν καὶ κεκαθάρθαι ἀφαίρεσις ἦν παντὸς τοῦ ἀλλοτρίου, τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἕτερον ἂν εἴη τοῦ καθήραντος· ὡς εἴ γε πρὸ τῆς ἀκαθαρσίας ἀγαθὸν ἦν τὸ καθαιρόμενον, ἡ κάθαρσις ἀρκεῖ. ἀλλ’ ἀρκέσει μὲν ἡ κάθαρσις, τὸ δὲ καταλειπόμενον ἔσται τὸ ἀγαθόν, οὐχ ἡ κάθαρσις. ἀλλ’ ἡ ψυχῆς φύσις οὐκ ἦν ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ’ ἀγαθοῦ μετέχειν δυνάμενον καὶ ἀγαθοειδές· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐγένετο ἐν κακῷ. τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν αὐτῇ ἐν τῷ συνεῖναι τῷ γεννήσαντι, κακία δὲ τὸ τοῖς ὑστέροις. καὶ διπλῆ γε κακία· τό τε τούτοις συνεῖναι καὶ μετὰ παθῶν ὑπερβολῆς. διόπερ αἱ πολιτικαὶ ἀρεταὶ μιᾶς γοῦν αὐτὴν κακίας ἀπαλλάττουσαι ἀρεταὶ ἐκρίθησαν καὶ τίμιαι, αἱ δὲ καθαρτικαὶ τιμιώτεραι καὶ τῆς ὡς ψυχὴν κακίας ἀπαλλάττουσαι. Δεῖ τοίνυν καθηραμένην αὐτὴν συνεῖναι τῷ γεννήσαντι· καὶ ἀρετὴ ἄρα αὐτῆς μετὰ τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν αὕτη, ἥπερ ἐστὶν ἐν γνώσει καὶ εἰδήσει τοῦ ὄντος, οὐχ ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει παρ’ αὐτῇ [ 534 ]

ταύτην, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἄνευ τοῦ πρὸ αὐτῆς οὐχ ὁρᾷ τὰ αὐτῆς. ἄλλο οὖν γένος τρίτον ἀρετῶν μετὰ τὰς καθαρτικὰς καὶ πολιτικάς, νοερῶς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνεργούσης· σοφία μὲν καὶ φρόνησις ἐν θεωρίᾳ ὧν νοῦς ἔχει, δικαιοσύνη δὲ οἰκειοπραγία ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν ἀκολουθίᾳ καὶ τὸ πρὸς νοῦν ἐνεργεῖν, σωφροσύνη δὲ ἡ εἴσω πρὸς νοῦν στροφή, ἡ δὲ ἀνδρία ἀπάθεια καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ πρὸς ὃ βλέπει ἀπαθὲς ὂν τὴν φύσιν. καὶ ἀντακολουθοῦσί γε αὗται ἀλλήλαις ὥσπερ καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι. Τέταρτον δὲ εἶδος ἀρετῶν τὸ τῶν παραδειγματικῶν, αἵπερ ἦσαν ἐν τῷ νῷ, κρείττους οὖσαι τῶν ψυχικῶν καὶ τούτων παραδείγματα, ὧν αἱ τῆς ψυχῆς ἦσαν ὁμοιώματα· νοῦς μὲν ἐν ᾧ ἅμα τὰ ὥσπερ παραδείγματα, ἐπιστήμη δὲ ἡ νόησις, σοφία δὲ γινώσκων ὁ νοῦς, τὸ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ σωφροσύνη, τὸ δὲ οἰκεῖον ἔργον ἡ οἰκειοπραγία, ἡ δὲ ἀνδρία ἡ ταυτότης καὶ τὸ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ μένειν καθαρὸν διὰ δυνάμεως περιουσίαν. Τέτταρα τοίνυν ἀρετῶν γένη πέφηνεν, ὧν αἱ μὲν ἦσαν τοῦ νοῦ, αἱ παραδειγματικαὶ καὶ σύνδρομοι αὐτοῦ τῇ οὐσίᾳ, αἱ δὲ ψυχῆς πρὸς νοῦν ἐνορώσης ἤδη καὶ πληρουμένης ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, αἱ δὲ ψυχῆς ἀνθρώπου καθαιρομένης τε καὶ καθαρθείσης ἀπὸ σώματος καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων παθῶν, αἱ δὲ ψυχῆς ἀνθρώπου κατακοσμούσης τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὸ μέτρα τῇ ἀλογίᾳ ἀφορίζειν καὶ μετριοπάθειαν ἐνεργάζεσθαι. καὶ ὁ μὲν ἔχων τὰς μείζους ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔχει καὶ τὰς ἐλάττους, οὐ μὴν τὸ ἔμπαλιν. οὐκέτι μέντοι τῷ ἔχειν καὶ τὰς ἐλάττους ὁ ἔχων τὰς μείζους ἐνεργήσει κατὰ τὰς ἐλάττους προηγουμένως, ἀλλὰ μόνον κατὰ περίστασιν τῆς γενέσεως. ἄλλοι γὰρ οἱ σκοποί, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, καὶ κατὰ γένος διαφέροντες. τῶν μὲν γὰρ πολιτικῶν μέτρον ἐπιθεῖναι τοῖς πάθεσι πρὸς τὰς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἐνεργείας· τῶν δὲ καθαρτικῶν τελέως τῶν παθῶν ἀποστῆσαι {τὸ} τέως μέτρον λαμβανόντων· τῶν δὲ πρὸς νοῦν ἐνεργῆσαι μηδὲ τοῦ ἀποστῆσαι ἐκ τῶν παθῶν εἰς ἔννοιαν ἐρχομένων· τῶν δὲ μηδὲν πρὸς νοῦν ἐχουσῶν τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἀλλὰ τῇ αὐτοῦ οὐσίᾳ εἰς συνδρομὴν ἀφιγμένων ‹›. διὸ καὶ ὁ μὲν κατὰ τὰς πρακτικὰς ἐνεργῶν σπουδαῖος ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὰς καθαρτικὰς δαιμόνιος ἄνθρωπος ἢ καὶ δαίμων ἀγαθός, ὁ δὲ κατὰ μόνας τὰς πρὸς τὸν νοῦν θεός, ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὰς παραδειγματικὰς θεῶν πατήρ. Ἐπιμελητέον οὖν μάλιστα τῶν καθαρτικῶν ἡμῖν σκεψαμένοις, ὅτι τούτων μὲν ἡ τεῦξις ἐν τῷ βίῳ τούτῳ, διὰ τούτων δὲ καὶ ἡ εἰς τὰς τιμιωτέρας ἄνοδος. διὸ θεωρητέον, ἄχρι τίνος καὶ ἐπὶ πόσον οἵα τε παραλαμβάνεσθαι ἡ κάθαρσις· ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ἀπόστασις σώματος καὶ τῆς ἀλόγου παθητικῆς κινήσεως. πῶς δ’ ἂν γένοιτο καὶ μέχρι τίνος, ῥητέον. πρῶτον μὲν οἷον θεμέλιος καὶ ὑποβάθρα τῆς καθάρσεως τὸ γνῶναι ἑαυτὸν ψυχὴν ὄντα ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ πράγματι καὶ ἑτεροουσίῳ συνδεδεμένον. δεύτερον δὲ τὸ ἀπὸ τούτου ὁρμώμενον τοῦ πείσματος συνάγειν αὑτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῖς μὲν τόποις, πάντως γε μὴν ἀπαθῶς πρὸς αὐτὸ διατιθέμενον. ἐνεργῶν μὲν γάρ τις συνεχῶς κατ’ αἴσθησιν, κἂν μὴ μετὰ προσπαθείας καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἥδεσθαι ἀπολαύσεως τοῦτο ποιῇ, ἀλλ’ οὖν ἐσκέδασται περὶ τὸ σῶμα, συναφὴς αὐτῷ κατὰ ταύτην γινόμενος, προσπάσχων δὲ ταῖς τῶν αἰσθημάτων ἡδοναῖς ἢ λύπαις σὺν προθυμίᾳ καὶ ἐπινεύσει συμπαθεῖ· ἀφ’ ἧς δὴ μάλιστα διαθέσεως αὐτὸν προσήκει καθαίρειν. τοῦτο δ’ ἂν γένοιτο, εἰ καὶ τὰς ἀναγκαίας τῶν ἡδονῶν καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἰατρείας ἕνεκα μόνον τις παραλαμβάνοι ἢ ἀπαλλαγῆς πόνων, ἵνα μὴ ἐμποδίζοιτο. ἀφαιρετέον δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀλγηδόνας· εἰ δὲ μὴ οἷόν τε εἴη, πράως οἰστέον ἐλάττους [ 535 ]

τιθέντα τῷ μὴ συμπάσχειν. τὸν δὲ θυμὸν ὅσον οἷόν τε ἀφαιρετέον καὶ εἰ δυνατὸν πάντῃ· εἰ δὲ μή, μὴ αὐτὸν γοῦν συναναμιγνύναι τὴν προαίρεσιν, ἀλλ’ ἄλλου εἶναι τὸ ἀπροαίρετον, τὸ δ’ ἀπροαίρετον ἀσθενὲς καὶ ὀλίγον· τὸν δὲ φόβον πάντῃ· περὶ οὐδενὸς γὰρ φοβήσεται - τὸ δ’ ἀπροαίρετον καὶ ἐνταῦθα - χρηστέον δὲ ἄρα καὶ θυμῷ καὶ φόβῳ ἐν νουθετήσει. ἐπιθυμίαν δὲ παντὸς φαύλου ἐξοριστέον. σίτων δὲ καὶ ποτῶν οὐκ αὐτὸς ἕξει ᾗπερ αὐτός, ἀφροδισίων δὲ τῶν φυσικῶν οὐδὲ τὸ ἀπροαίρετον· εἰ δ’ ἄρα, ὅσον μέχρι φαντασίας προπετοῦς τῆς κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους. ὅλως δὲ αὐτὴ μὲν πάντων ἡ ψυχὴ ἡ νοερὰ τοῦ καθαιρομένου τούτων ἔστω καθαρά. βουλέσθω δὲ καὶ τὸ κινούμενον πρὸς τὸ ἄλογον τῶν σωματικῶν παθῶν ἀσυμπαθῶς κινεῖσθαι καὶ ἀπροσέκτως, ὥστε καὶ τὰς κινήσεις εὐθύς τε λύεσθαι τῇ γειτνιάσει τοῦ λογιζομένου. οὐκ ἔσται τοίνυν μάχη προκοπτούσης τῆς καθάρσεως, ἀλλὰ λοιπὸν παρὼν ὁ λόγος ἀρκέσει, ὃν τὸ χεῖρον αἰδέσεται, ὥστε καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ χεῖρον δυσχερᾶναι, ἂν ὅλως κινηθῇ, ὅτι μὴ ἡσυχίαν ἦγε παρόντος τοῦ δεσπότου, καὶ ἀσθένειαν ἑαυτῷ ἐπιτιμῆσαι. καὶ αὗται μὲν ἔτι μετριοπάθειαι ἐπίτασιν εἰς ἀπάθειαν λαμβάνουσαι· ὅταν δὲ παντελῶς τὸ συμπαθὲς ἐκκαθαρθῇ, σύνεστι τούτῳ τὸ ἀπαθές, ὅτι καὶ τὸ πάθος τὴν κίνησιν ἐλάμβανε τοῦ λογισμοῦ τὸ ἐνδόσιμον διὰ τῆς ῥοπῆς παρεσχηκότος. [33] Ἕκαστον κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ἔστι που, εἰ ὅλως ἔστι που, οὐ μέντοι παρὰ τὴν φύσιν. Σώματι μὲν οὖν ἐν ὕλῃ καὶ ὄγκῳ ὑφεστῶτι τὸ εἶναί πού ἐστι τὸ ἐν τόπῳ εἶναι· διὸ καὶ τῷ σώματι τοῦ κόσμου ἐνύλῳ καὶ ἐνόγκῳ ὄντι τὸ πανταχοῦ εἶναι ὑπῆρξεν ἐν διαστάσει τε καὶ τόπῳ διαστάσεως. τῷ δὲ νοητῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ὅλως τῷ ἀύλῳ καὶ καθ’ αὑτὸ ἀσωμάτῳ, ἀόγκῳ ὄντι καὶ ἀδιαστάτῳ, οὐδ’ ὅλως τὸ ἐν τόπῳ πρόσεστιν, ὥστε τὸ εἶναι πανταχοῦ τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ οὐκ ἦν τοπικόν. Οὔτε ἄρα μέρος μέν τί ἐστιν αὐτοῦ τῇδε, μέρος δὲ τῇδε - οὐκέτι γὰρ ἐκτὸς ἔσται τόπου οὐδὲ ἀδιάστατον - ἀλλ’ ὅλον ἐστίν, ὅπου καὶ ἔστιν· οὔτε ἐνθάδε μέν ἐστιν, ἀλλαχοῦ δὲ οὔ κατειλημμένον γὰρ ἔσται ὑπὸ τοῦ τῇδε, ἀφεστηκὸς δὲ τοῦ ἐκεῖσε - οὐδὲ πόρρω μὲν τοῦδε, ἐγγὺς μέντοι τοῦδε, ὡς τὸ πόρρω καὶ ἐγγὺς τῶν ἐν τόπῳ πεφυκότων εἶναι λέγεται κατὰ μέτρα διαστημάτων. ὅθεν ὁ μὲν κόσμος τῷ νοητῷ διαστατῶς πάρεστι, τὸ δὲ ἀσώματον τῷ κόσμῳ ἀμερῶς καὶ ἀδιαστάτως. Τὸ δ’ ἀμερὲς ἐν διαστατῷ ὅλον γίνεται κατὰ πᾶν μέρος ταὐτὸν ὂν καὶ ἓν ἀριθμῷ. κἀν ἀπείροις μέρεσιν εἰ τύχοι τοῦ διαστατοῦ, παρὸν ὅλον τὸ ἀδιάστατον οὔτε μερισθὲν πάρεστι, τῷ μέρει διδὸν μέρος, οὔτε πληθυνθέν, τῷ πλήθει παρέχον ἑαυτὸ πολλαπλασιασθέν, ἀλλ’ ὅλον πᾶσί τε τοῖς μέρεσι τοῦ ὠγκωμένου ἑνί τε ἑκάστῳ τοῦ πλήθους καὶ παντὶ τῷ ὄγκῳ καὶ παντὶ τῷ πλήθει πάρεστιν ἀμερῶς καὶ ἀπληθύντως καὶ ὡς ἓν ἀριθμῷ. τὸ δὲ μερικῶς καὶ διῃρημένως ἀπολαύειν αὐτοῦ προσῆν τοῖς εἰς μέρη ἑτεροδύναμα ἐσκεδασμένοις, οἷς συνέβαινε πολλάκις τὸ αὐτῶν ἐλάττωμα τῆς φύσεως ἐκείνης καταψεύδεσθαι {καὶ} ‹ἢ› ἀπορεῖν γε περὶ τῆς οὐσίας, ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτοῖς εἰωθυίας {ἡ} εἰς τὴν ἐκείνης μεταβᾶσι. τῷ μὲν ἄρα πεπληθυσμένῳ φύσει καὶ μεμεγεθυσμένῳ τὸ ἀμερὲς καὶ ἀπλήθυντον μεμεγέθυνται καὶ πεπλήθυνται καὶ οὕτως αὐτοῦ [ 536 ]

ἀπολαύει ὡς αὐτὸ πέφυκεν, οὐχ ὡς ἐκεῖνό ἐστι· τῷ δ’ ἀμερεῖ καὶ ἀπληθύντῳ φύσει ἀμερές ἐστι καὶ ἀπλήθυντον τὸ μεριστὸν καὶ πεπληθυσμένον, καὶ οὕτως αὐτῷ πάρεστι, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, αὐτὸ ἀμερῶς πάρεστι καὶ ἀπληθύντως καὶ ἀτόπως κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ φύσιν τῷ μεριστῷ καὶ πεπληθυσμένῳ φύσει καὶ ὄντι ἐν τόπῳ, τὸ δὲ μεριστὸν καὶ πεπληθυσμένον καὶ ἐν τόπῳ πάρεστι θατέρῳ τούτων ἐκτὸς ὄντι μεριστῶς καὶ πεπληθυσμένως καὶ τοπικῶς. Δεῖ τοίνυν ἐν ταῖς σκέψεσι κατακρατοῦντας τῆς ἑκατέρου ἰδιότητος μὴ ἐπαλλάττειν τὰς φύσεις, μᾶλλον δὲ τὰ προσόντα τοῖς σώμασιν ᾗ τοιαῦτα μὴ φαντάζεσθαι καὶ δοξάζειν περὶ τὸ ἀσώματον· οὐ γὰρ ἂν τὰ ἴδιά τις τοῦ καθαρῶς ἀσωμάτου προσγράψειε τοῖς σώμασι. τῶν μὲν γὰρ σωμάτων ἐν συνηθείᾳ πᾶς, ἐκείνων δὲ μόλις ἐν γνώσει γίνεται ἀοριστῶν περὶ αὐτά, οὐχ ὅτι καὶ αὐτόθεν ἐπιβάλλων, ἕως ἂν ὑπὸ φαντασίας κρατῆται. Οὕτως οὖν ἐρεῖς· εἰ τὸ μὲν ἐν τόπῳ καὶ ἔξω ἑαυτοῦ, ὅτι εἰς ὄγκον προελήλυθε, τὸ ‹δὲ› νοητὸν οὔτε ἐν τόπῳ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ὅτι οὐκ εἰς ὄγκον προελήλυθεν, εἰ τὸ μὲν εἰκών, τὸ δὲ ἀρχέτυπον, τὸ μὲν πρὸς τὸ νοητὸν κέκτηται τὸ εἶναι, τὸ δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ· πᾶσα γὰρ εἰκὼν νοῦ ἐστιν εἰκών. Καὶ ὡς μεμνημένον δεῖ τῆς ἀμφοῖν ἰδιότητος μὴ θαυμάζειν τὸ παρηλλαγμένον ἐν τῇ συνόδῳ, εἰ δεῖ ὅλως σύνοδον λέγειν· οὐ γὰρ δὴ σωμάτων σύνοδον σκοπούμεθα, ἀλλὰ πραγμάτων παντελῶς ἐκβεβηκότων ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων κατ’ ἰδιότητα ὑποστάσεως. διὸ καὶ ἡ σύνοδος ἐκβεβηκυῖα τῶν θεωρεῖσθαι εἰωθότων ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοουσίων. οὔτε οὖν κρᾶσις ἢ μῖξις ἢ σύνοδος ἢ παράθεσις, ἀλλ’ ἕτερος τρόπος φαντάζων μὲν παρὰ τὰς ὁπωσοῦν γινομένας ἄλλων πρὸς ἄλλα κοινωνίας τῶν ὁμοουσίων, πασῶν δὲ ἐκβεβηκὼς τῶν πιπτουσῶν ὑπὸ τὴν αἴσθησιν. [34] Τὸ ὄντως ὂν οὔτε μέγα οὔτε μικρόν ἐστι - τὸ γὰρ μέγα καὶ μικρὸν κυρίως ὄγκου ἴδια - , ἐκβεβηκὸς δὲ τὸ μέγα καὶ μικρὸν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸ μέγα ὂν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸ μικρὸν καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ μεγίστου καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐλαχίστου ταὐτὸ καὶ ἓν ἀριθμῷ ὄν, εὑρίσκεται καὶ ἅμα ὑπὸ παντὸς μεγίστου τοῦτο καὶ ὑπὸ παντὸς ἐλαχίστου· μήτε γὰρ ὡς μέγιστον αὐτὸ ὑπονοήσῃς - ‹εἰ δὲ μή, ἀπορήσεις πῶς μέγιστον ὂν τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις ὄγκοις πάρεστι μὴ μερισθὲν ἢ μειωθὲν ἢ συσταλέν - μήτε ὡς ἐλάχιστον - › εἰ δὲ μή, ἀπορήσεις πῶς ἐλάχιστον ὂν τοῖς μεγίστοις ὄγκοις πάρεστι μὴ πολλαπλασιασθὲν ἢ αὐξηθὲν ἢ παραταθέν - ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκβεβηκὸς τὸν μέγιστον ὄγκον εἰς τὸ μέγιστον καὶ τὸν ἐλάχιστον εἰς τὸ ἐλάχιστον ἅμα λαβὼν ἐπινοήσεις, πῶς ἅμα καὶ ἐν τῷ τυχόντι καὶ ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν ἀπείροις θεωρεῖται πλήθεσί τε καὶ ὄγκοις τὸ αὐτὸ ὂν ‹καὶ› ἐν ἑαυτῷ μένον· σύνεστι γὰρ τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἰδιότητα ἀμερῶς τε καὶ ἀμεγέθως καὶ φθάνει τὸν ὄγκον τοῦ κόσμου, {καὶ} πᾶν μέρος τοῦ κόσμου περιλαβὸν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀμερείᾳ, ὥσπερ αὖ ὁ κόσμος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πολυμερείᾳ πολυμερῶς αὐτῷ σύνεστι καὶ καθ’ ὅσον οἷός τε, καὶ οὐ δύναται αὐτὸ περιλαβεῖν οὔτε καθ’ ὅλου οὔτε κατὰ πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν, ἀλλ’ ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτῷ ὡς ἀπείρῳ καὶ ἀδιεξιτήτῳ ἐντυγχάνει κατά τε ἄλλα καὶ καθ’ ὅσον ὄγκου παντὸς καθαρεύει. [35] Τὸ ὄγκῳ μεῖζον δυνάμει ἔλαττον, συγκρινόμενον οὐ πρὸς τὰ ὅμοια γένη, πρὸς δὲ τὰ κατ’ εἶδος ἐξηλλαγμένα δι’ ἑτερότητα οὐσίας· οἷον γὰρ ἔκβασις ἦν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ὁ ὄγκος καὶ [ 537 ]

κατακερματισμὸς τῆς δυνάμεως. τὸ ἄρα δυνάμει ὑπερέχον ὄγκου παντὸς ἀλλότριον· πεπλήρωται γὰρ ἑαυτῆς ἡ δύναμις εἰς ἑαυτὴν κεχωρηκυῖα, καὶ ἑαυτὴν δυναμοῦσα τὸ οἰκεῖον κέκτηται κράτος. διόπερ τὸ σῶμα προελθὸν εἰς ὄγκον τοσοῦτον ἀφέστηκεν ἐν ἐλαττώσει δυνάμεως τῆς τοῦ ἀσωμάτου ὄντως ὄντος δυνάμεως, ὅσον τὸ ὄντως ὂν ἐν ὄγκῳ οὐκ ἐκενώθη, μένον ἐν μεγέθει τῆς αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸ ἄογκον δυνάμεως. ὡς οὖν τὸ ὄντως ὂν πρὸς ὄγκον ἀμέγεθες καὶ ἄογκον, οὕτω τὸ σωματικὸν πρὸς τὸ ὄντως ὂν ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀδύναμον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ μεγέθει δυνάμεως μέγιστον ὄγκου ‹ἀλλότριον, τὸ δὲ μεγέθει ὄγκου μέγιστον δυνάμεως› λειπόμενον. ὥστε πανταχοῦ ὢν ὁ κόσμος πανταχοῦ ὄντι τῷ ὄντι, ὡς λέγεται πανταχοῦ εἶναι, ἐντυγχάνων περιλαβεῖν τὸ μέγεθος τῆς δυνάμεως οὐ δύναται, ἐντυγχάνει δὲ οὐ μεριστῶς συνόντι, ἀλλ’ ἀμεγέθως καὶ ἀόγκως. ἡ οὖν παρουσία οὐ τοπική, ἐξομοιωτικὴ δέ, καθ’ ὅσον οἷόν τε σῶμα ὁμοιοῦσθαι ἀσωμάτῳ καὶ ἀσώματον θεωρεῖσθαι ἐν σώματι ὁμοιουμένῳ αὐτῷ. καὶ οὐ πάρεστιν οὖν τὸ ἀσώματον, καθ’ ὅσον ὁμοιοῦσθαι τὸ ἔνυλον τῷ καθαρῶς ἀύλῳ οὐχ οἷόν τε, καὶ πάρεστι, καθ’ ὅσον ὁμοιοῦσθαι δύναται τὸ σωματικὸν τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ. οὐ μὴν ἑνοῦται διὰ τῆς καταδοχῆς· ἐφθάρη γὰρ ἂν ἑκάτερον, τὸ μὲν ἔνυλον δεξάμενον τὸ ἄυλον διὰ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸ μεταβολῆς, τὸ δὲ ἄυλον γεγονὸς ἔνυλον. ὁμοιώσεις οὖν καὶ μετοχαὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δυνάμεων καὶ ἀδυναμιῶν εἰς τὰ οὕτως ἑτεροούσια φοιτῶσι παρ’ ἀλλήλων εἰς ἄλληλα. πολὺ ἄρα τὸ ἀπὸν τῷ μὲν κόσμῳ τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ ὄντος, τῷ δὲ ὄντι τῆς ἀδυναμίας τοῦ ἐνύλου· τὸ δ’ ἐν μέσῳ ὁμοιοῦν καὶ ὁμοιούμενον καὶ συνάπτον τὰ ἄκρα ταυτὶ γέγονεν αἴτιον τῆς περὶ τὰ ἄκρα ἀπάτης διὰ τὸ τῇ ὁμοιώσει προστιθέναι τῷ ἑτέρῳ τὰ ἕτερα. [36] Τὸ ὄντως ὂν πολλὰ λέγεται οὐ τόποις διαφόροις οὐδὲ ὄγκου μέτροις, οὐ σωρείᾳ, οὐ μερῶν μερισταῖς περιγραφαῖς ἢ διαλήψεσιν, ἀλλ’ ἑτερότητι ἀύλῳ καὶ ἀόγκῳ καὶ ἀπληθύντῳ κατὰ πλῆθος διῃρημένον. διὸ καὶ ἕν· καὶ οὐκ ὡς ἓν σῶμα οὐδ’ ὡς ἓν τόπῳ οὐδ’ ὡς εἷς ὄγκος, ἀλλὰ ἓν πολλά, ὅτι καθ’ ὃ ἓν ἕτερον. καὶ ἡ ἑτερότης αὐτοῦ διῄρηται καὶ ἥνωται· οὐ γὰρ ἔξωθεν ἐπίκτητος οὐδὲ ἐπεισοδιώδης αὐτοῦ ἡ ἑτερότης· οὐδὲ ἄλλου μεθέξει, ἀλλ’ ἑαυτῷ πολλά. ταῖς γὰρ πάσαις ἐνεργείαις ἐνεργεῖ μένον ὃ ἔστιν, ὅτι τὴν πᾶσαν ἑτερότητα διὰ τῆς ταυτότητος ὑπέστησεν, οὐκ ἐν διαφορότητι θατέρου πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον θεωρουμένην καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων. ἐπὶ τούτων μὲν γὰρ ἀνάπαλιν καὶ ἡ ἑνότης ἐν ἑτερότητι, ὡς ἂν προηγουμένης μὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς τῆς ἑτερότητος, ἔξωθεν δὲ καὶ ἐπεισοδιώδους τῆς ἑνότητος ἐγγενομένης· ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῦ ὄντος ἡ μὲν ἑνότης προηγεῖται καὶ ἡ ταυτότης, ἡ δὲ ἑτερότης ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεργητικὴν εἶναι τὴν ἑνότητα γέγονε. διόπερ ἐκεῖνο μὲν ἐν ἀμερεῖ πεπλήθυνται, τοῦτο δὲ ἐν πλήθει καὶ ὄγκῳ ἥνωται· κἀκεῖνο μὲν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἵδρυται, καθ’ ἓν ὂν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ οὐκ ἐξιστάμενον, τοῦτο δὲ οὐδέποτε ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ὡς ἂν ἐν ἐκστάσει λαβὸν τὴν ὑπόστασιν. τὸ μὲν ἄρα ἓν παντενέργητον, τὸ δὲ πλῆθος ἑνιζόμενον. πιέζειν οὖν δεῖ, πῶς ἓν ἐκεῖνο καὶ ἕτερον, καὶ πῶς πάλιν τοῦτο πλῆθος καὶ ἕν, καὶ μὴ ἐπαλλάττειν τὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἴδια εἰς τὰ θατέρῳ προσόντα. [37] Οὐ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν σωμάτων δεῖ νομίζειν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ψυχῶν γενέσθαι, πρὸ δὲ τῶν σωμάτων εἶναι καὶ πολλὰς καὶ μίαν, οὔτε τῆς μιᾶς καὶ ὅλης κωλυούσης τὰς πολλὰς ἐν αὐτῇ εἶναι οὔτε τῶν πολλῶν τὴν μίαν εἰς αὐτὰς μεριζουσῶν. διέστησαν γὰρ οὐκ ἀποκοπεῖσαι οὐδὲ [ 538 ]

ἀποκερματίσασαι εἰς ἑαυτὰς τὴν ὅλην, καὶ πάρεισιν ἀλλήλαις οὐ συγκεχυμέναι οὐδὲ σωρὸν ποιοῦσαι τὴν ὅλην· οὔτε γὰρ πέρασίν εἰσι διειλημμέναι οὔτε πάλιν ἀλλήλαις συγκεχυμέναι, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἐπιστῆμαι συνεχύθησαν αἱ πολλαὶ ἐν ψυχῇ μιᾷ καὶ πάλιν οὐκ ἔγκεινται ὡς τὰ σώματα τῇ ψυχῇ ἑτεροουσίως, ἀλλὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ποιαὶ ἦσαν ἐνέργειαι. Ἀπειροδύναμος γὰρ ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς φύσις καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστον τὸ τυχὸν αὐτῆς ψυχή, καὶ αἱ πᾶσαι μία καὶ πάλιν ἡ ὅλη ἄλλη παρὰ πάσας. ὡς γὰρ τὰ σώματα ἐπ’ ἄπειρον τεμνόμενα οὐ καταλήγει εἰς ἀσώματον, κατ’ ὄγκον λαμβανόντων τῶν τμημάτων τὴν διαφοράν, οὕτω ψυχὴ εἶδος οὖσα ζωτικὸν ἐπ’ ἄπειρον κατὰ τὰ εἴδη συνείληπται, παραλλαγὰς ἔχουσα εἰδητικὰς καὶ ἡ ὅλη σὺν ταύταις οὖσα καὶ ἄνευ τούτων· ἡ γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς οἷον τομὴ ἑτερότης ἦν μενούσης τῆς ταυτότητος. εἰ δ’ ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων, ἐφ’ ὧν ἡ ἑτερότης ἐκράτει μᾶλλον τῆς ταυτότητος, οὐδὲν ἐπεισελθὸν ἀσώματον διέκοψε τὴν ἕνωσιν, μένει δὲ πάντα ἡνωμένα μὲν κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν, ταῖς δὲ ποιότησι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις εἴδεσι διειλημμένα, τί χρὴ καὶ λέγειν καὶ ὑπονοεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς εἰδικῆς ἀσωμάτου ζωῆς, ἐφ’ ἧς ἡ ταυτότης μᾶλλον κεκράτηκε τῆς ἑτερότητος καὶ οὐδὲν ὑπόκειται ἀλλοῖον παρὰ τὸ εἶδος - ἀφ’ ἧς καὶ τοῖς σώμασιν ἡ ἑνότης - οὐδὲ σῶμα συνεμπεσὸν ἀποκόπτει τὴν ἕνωσιν, καίπερ πρὸς τὰς ἐνεργείας ἐν πολλοῖς ἐμποδίζον; αὐτὴ δι’ αὐτὴν ἡ ταυτότης αὐτῆς πάντα ποιεῖ καὶ εὑρίσκει διὰ τῆς ἐπ’ ἄπειρον εἰδητικῆς ἐνεργείας, τοῦ τυχόντος μέρους πάντα δυναμένου ὅταν σωμάτων καθαρεύῃ, ὡς τὸ τυχὸν μέρος τοῦ σπέρματος τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σπέρματος ἔχει δύναμιν. Ὥσπερ δὲ κρατηθὲν ἐν ὕλῃ τι σπέρμα καθ’ ἕκαστον ὧν ἐδύνατο λόγων ἐν τοῖς μέρεσι τῇ ὕλῃ κρατεῖται καὶ πάλιν συναχθὲν εἰς τὴν τοῦ σπέρματος δύναμιν καθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν ἔχει τὴν πᾶσαν δύναμιν, οὕτω καὶ ψυχῆς ἀύλου τὸ ὡς μέρος ἐπινοούμενον τῆς πάσης ψυχῆς ἔχει τὴν δύναμιν. τὸ δὲ πρὸς ὕλην ῥέψαν κεκράτηται μὲν καθ’ ὃ εἶδος ῥέψαν ἐπιτηδείως ἔσχε προσομιλεῖν ἐνύλῳ, ἔχει δὲ τὴν τῆς ὅλης δύναμιν ἤδη καὶ ἐντυγχάνει οὔσῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ὅταν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνύλου ἀποστὰν ἐν ἑαυτῷ γένηται. ἐπεὶ δὲ πρὸς μὲν ὕλην ῥεπούσῃ ἀπορία πάντων καὶ τῆς οἰκείας δυνάμεως κένωσις, εἰς δὲ τὸν νοῦν ἀναγομένη τὸ πλῆρες αὐτῆς κατὰ ‹τὸ› τὴν δύναμιν ἔχειν τῆς πάσης εὑρίσκετο, τὴν μὲν εἰκότως Πενίαν, τὴν δὲ Πόρον οἱ τοῦτο πρῶτον γνόντες τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ πάθος ᾐνίξαντο. [38] Παραστῆσαι βουλόμενοι ὡς ἐνδέχεται διὰ λόγου {παραστῆσαι} τὴν τοῦ ὄντος {ἀσωμάτου} ἰδιότητα οἱ παλαιοί, ὅταν αὐτὸ ‘ἓν’ εἴπωσι, προστιθέασιν εὐθὺς ‘πάντα’, καθ’ ὃ ἕν τι τῶν κατ’ αἴσθησιν συνεγνωσμένων· ὅταν δὲ ἀλλοῖον τὸ ἓν τοῦτο ὑπονοήσωμεν, οὐχ ὁρῶντες ἐπὶ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ τὸ ὅλον τοῦτο ἓν πάντα καθ’ ὃ ἕν, τῷ πάντα αὐτὸ {ἓν} εἶναι συνῆψαν τὸ ‘ἓν καθ’ ὃ ἕν’, ἵνα ἀσύνθετόν τι νοήσωμεν τὸ πάντα εἶναι ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄντος καὶ σωρείας ἀποστῶμεν. καὶ ὅταν {δὲ} πανταχοῦ αὐτὸ εἶναι εἴπωσι, προστιθέασιν ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ· ὅταν δὲ ἐν πᾶσιν εἶναι καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ ἐπιτηδείως αὐτὸ δέχεσθαι δυναμένῳ μεριστῷ, προστιθέασιν ὅτι ἐν ὅλῳ ὅλον. καὶ ὅλως διὰ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων αὐτὸ δεδηλώκασιν, ἅμα ταῦτα λαμβάνοντες, ἵνα τὰς ἀναπλαστικὰς ἀπὸ σωμάτων ἐξορίσωμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπινοίας, αἳ παρασκιάζουσι τὰς γνωριστικὰς ἰδιότητας τοῦ ὄντος. [ 539 ]

[39] Τὰ κατηγορούμενα τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ ἐνύλου ἀληθῶς ἐστι ταῦτα· τὸ πάντῃ εἶναι πεφορημένον, τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἶναι, τὸ ὑφεστάναι ἐν ἑτερότητι, τὸ σύνθετον εἶναι, τὸ καθ’ αὑτὸ λυτὸν ὑπάρχειν, τὸ ἐν τόπῳ, τὸ ἐν ὄγκῳ θεωρεῖσθαι καὶ ὅσα τούτοις παραπλήσια. τοῦ δὲ ὄντως ὄντος καὶ καθ’ αὑτὸ ὑφεστηκότος ἀύλου τὸ εἶναι ἀεὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἱδρυμένον, τὸ ὡσαύτως κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχειν, τὸ ἐν ταυτότητι οὐσιῶσθαι, τὸ ἀμετάβλητον εἶναι κατ’ οὐσίαν, τὸ ἀσύνθετον, τὸ μήτε λυτὸν μήτε ἐν τόπῳ εἶναι μήτε εἰς ὄγκον διαπεφορῆσθαι, τὸ μήτε γινόμενον μήτε ἀπολλύμενον εἶναι καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ὅμοια· ὧν ἐχομένους δεῖ μηδὲν ἐπαλλάττοντας περὶ τῆς διαφόρου αὐτῶν φύσεως καὶ αὐτοὺς λέγειν καὶ ἄλλων λεγόντων ἐπακούειν. [40] Ὅταν λάβῃς ἀένναον οὐσίαν ἐν ἑαυτῇ κατὰ δύναμιν ἄπειρον καὶ νοεῖν ἄρξῃ ὑπόστασιν ἀκάματον, ἄτρυτον, οὐδαμῇ μὲν ἐλλείπουσαν, ὑπερεξαίρουσαν δὲ τῇ ζωῇ τῇ ἀκραιφνεστάτῃ καὶ πλήρει ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς ἐν αὐτῇ τε ἱδρυμένῃ καὶ κεκορεσμένῃ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς καὶ οὐδ’ ἑαυτὴν ζητούσῃ, ταύτῃ ἐάνπερ τὸ ποῦ ἐπιβάλῃς ἢ τὸ πρός τι, ἅμα τῷ ἠλαττῶσθαι ἐξ ἐνδείας τοῦ ποῦ ἢ πρός τι εὐθὺς ἐκείνην μὲν οὐκ ἠλάττωσας, ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἀπέστρεψας, κάλυμμα λαβὼν τὴν ὑποδραμοῦσαν τῆς ὑπονοίας φαντασίαν. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ ὑπερβήσῃ παρελθὼν τὴν τοιαύτην οὐδ’ αὖ στήσεις οὐδ’ ἀπαρτήσεις οὐδὲ καταλήξεις εἰς μικρόν, ὡς οὐκέτι ἐχούσης διδόναι ἐν τῷ κατὰ μικρὸν ἐπιλείπειν· ἀδιάλειπτος γὰρ μᾶλλον ἢ πᾶς πηγῶν τὸ ἀεὶ χεόμενον νοῶν καὶ ἀδιάλειπτον. ἢ συνθέειν οὖν δυνηθεὶς καὶ τῷ παντὶ ὁμοιωθῆναι τοῦ ὄντος οὐδὲν ἐπιζητήσεις, ἢ ζητῶν παρεκβήσῃ ‹εἰς ἄλλο καὶ πεσῇ παρὸν οὐκ ἰδὼν τῷ› εἰς ἄλλο βλέψαι. εἰ δ’ οὐδὲν ἐπιζητήσεις στὰς ἐπὶ σαυτοῦ καὶ τῆς σαυτοῦ οὐσίας, τῷ παντὶ ὡμοιώθης καὶ οὐκ ἐνεσχέθης ἔν τινι τῶν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ· οὐδ’ εἶπας οὐδὲ σύ ‘τοσοῦτός εἰμι’, ἀφεὶς ‹δὲ› τὸ ‘τοσοῦτος’ γέγονας πᾶς· καίτοι καὶ πρότερον ἦσθα πᾶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλο τι προσῆν σοι μετὰ τοῦ ‘πᾶς’ καὶ ἐλάττων ἐγίνου τῇ προσθήκῃ, ὅτι μὴ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ἦν ἡ προσθήκη· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐκείνῳ προσθήσεις. ὅταν οὖν τις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γένηται, οὐ πᾶς, τῇ πενίᾳ σύνοικος καὶ ἐνδεὴς πάντων· ἀφεὶς οὖν τὸ μὴ ὄν, τότε πᾶς, κόρος αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ· ὥστε ἀπολαμβάνει δ’ ἑαυτὸν ἀφεὶς τὰ ταπεινώσαντα καὶ κατασμικρύναντα - καὶ μάλιστα, ὅταν ἐκεῖνα εἶναι αὑτὸν τὰ σμικρὰ τῇ φύσει καὶ οὐχ ὅστις ἐστὶν αὐτὸς τῇ ἀληθείᾳ δοξάζῃ· ἀπέστη γὰρ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἅμα καὶ ἀπέστη τοῦ ὄντος - κἂν στῇ τις ἐν αὐτῷ παρὼν παρόντι, τότε παρῆν καὶ τῷ ὄντι πανταχοῦ ὄντι· ὅταν δὲ ἀφεὶς αὑτὸν ‹ἀποστῇ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ,› ἀπέστη κἀκείνου. τοιαύτην γὰρ ἀξίαν εἴληφε παρεῖναι τῷ αὐτῷ παρόντι καὶ ἀπεῖναι τῷ αὐτοῦ ἐκστάντι. εἰ δὲ ‹παροῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς› πάρεστι μὲν ἡμῖν τὸ ὄν, ἄπεστι δὲ τὸ μὴ ὄν, μετὰ δὲ ἄλλων οὖσιν οὐ πάρεστιν, οὐκ ἦλθεν ἵνα παρῇ, ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς ἀπήλθομεν ὅτε οὐ πάρεστι. καὶ τί θαυμαστόν; αὐτὸς γάρ σοι παρὼν οὐκ ἀπῆς αὐτοῦ· καὶ οὐ πάρει σαυτῷ καίπερ παρὼν καὶ αὐτὸς ὢν ὁ παρών τε καὶ ἀπών, ὅταν πρὸς ἄλλα βλέπῃς παρεὶς σαυτὸν βλέπειν. εἰ δ’ οὕτω σαυτῷ παρὼν οὐ πάρει καὶ διὰ τοῦτο σαυτὸν ἀγνοεῖς καὶ πάντα μᾶλλον † εις πάρει καὶ † πόρρω σου ὄντα εὑρίσκεις ἢ σαυτὸν σαυτῷ φύσει παρόντα, τί θαυμάζεις, εἰ τὸ οὐ παρὸν πόρρω σοῦ ἐστι τοῦ πόρρω αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸ καὶ σαυτοῦ πόρρω γεγονότος; ‹αὐτὸς γὰρ ὅσῳ πρόσει σοι› {ὅσῳ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ πρόσει} καίτοι παρόντι καὶ ἀναποστάτῳ ὄντι, {αὐτὸς γὰρ ὅσῳ πρόσεισι} τόσῳ κἀκείνῳ πρόσει, ὃ δὴ οὕτω σοῦ ἐστιν [ 540 ]

ἀναπόσπαστον κατ’ οὐσίαν ὡς σὺ σαυτοῦ· ὥστε καὶ πάρεστί σοι καθόλου γινώσκειν, τί τε πάρεστι τῷ ὄντι καὶ τί ἄπεστι τοῦ ὄντος παρόντος πανταχοῦ καὶ πάλιν ὄντος οὐδαμοῦ. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ δυναμένοις χωρεῖν εἰς τὴν αὑτῶν οὐσίαν νοερῶς καὶ τὴν αὑτῶν γινώσκειν οὐσίαν ‹καὶ› ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ γνώσει καὶ τῇ εἰδήσει τῆς γνώσεως αὑτοὺς ἀπολαμβάνειν καθ’ ἑνότητα τὴν τοῦ γινώσκοντος καὶ γινωσκομένου, {καὶ} τούτοις παροῦσιν αὐτοῖς πάρεστι καὶ τὸ ὄν· ὅσοι δ’ ἂν παρεξέλθωσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἶναι ἑαυτῶν πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα, ἀποῦσιν ἑαυτῶν ἄπεστι καὶ τὸ ὄν. Εἰ δ’ ἡμεῖς ἐπεφύκειμεν ἱδρῦσθαι ἐν τῇ αὑτῶν οὐσίᾳ καὶ πλουτεῖν ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν καὶ μὴ ἀπέρχεσθαι πρὸς ὃ μὴ ἦμεν καὶ πένεσθαι ἑαυτῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πάλιν τῇ πενίᾳ συνεῖναι καίπερ παρόντος κόρου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος οὐ τόπῳ, οὐκ οὐσίᾳ κεχωρισμένοι οὐδ’ ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἀποτετμημένοι τῇ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ὂν στροφῇ χωριζόμεθα, δίκην ἄρα ταύτην ἀποτίννυμεν τῇ τοῦ ὄντος ἀποστροφῇ αὐτοὺς ἀποστρεφόμενοι καὶ ἀγνοοῦντες, καίτοι πάλιν ἐν τῇ αὑτῶν φιλίᾳ ἑαυτούς τε ἀπολαμβάνοντες καὶ τῷ θεῷ συναπτόμενοι. καὶ ὀρθῶς ἄρα εἴρηται, ὡς ἔν τινι φρουρᾷ ἀποδιδράσκοντα, λύειν δὲ ἐκ τῶν δεσμῶν πειρᾶσθαι, ὡς ἄν του πρὸς τὰ τῇδε ἐστραμμένου καὶ ἑαυτὸν θεῖον ὄντα καταλελοιπότος, ὥς φησι, ‘φυγὰς θεόθεν καὶ ἀλήτης’. ὥστε πᾶς φαῦλος βίος δουλείας πλήρης καὶ ἀσεβείας καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄθεός τε καὶ ἄδικος †ἐν αὐτῷ πνεῦμα πλῆρες ὑπάρχον τῆς ἀσεβείας καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀδικίας. †καὶ οὕτω πάλιν ἐν ἰδιοπραγίᾳ ὀρθῶς εἴρηται εὑρίσκεσθαι τὸ δίκαιον, ἐν δὲ ἀπονεμήσει τοῦ κατ’ ἀξίαν ἑκάστῳ τῶν συζώντων εἰκόνα κεῖσθαι καὶ εἴδωλον τῆς ἀληθινῆς δικαιοσύνης. [41] Τὸ ἐν ἄλλῳ ἔχον τὸ εἶναι καὶ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ χωριστῶς ἀπ’ ἄλλου μὴ οὐσιωμένον ἐὰν εἰς ἑαυτὸ στρέφηται εἰς τὸ γνῶναι ἑαυτὸ ἄνευ ἐκείνου ἐν ᾧ οὐσίωται, ἀπολαμβάνον ἑαυτὸ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου †νοήσει γὰρ αὑτὸ καὶ , φθείρεται αὐτὸ τοῦ εἶναι χωρίζον ἑαυτό· τὸ δὲ γινώσκειν ἑαυτὸ δυνάμενον ἄνευ ἐκείνου ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν, ἀπολαμβάνον ἑαυτὸ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου καὶ οἷόν τε ὂν ἄνευ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φθορᾶς τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ἀμήχανον οὐσιῶσθαι ἐν ἐκείνῳ, ἀφ’ οὗ στρέφειν ἑαυτὸ εἰς ἑαυτὸ {ἀπ’ ἐκείνου} ἄνευ φθορᾶς καὶ γινώσκειν ἑαυτὸ ἄνευ ἐκείνου ἐδύνατο. εἰ δὴ ὅρασις μὲν καὶ πᾶσα αἰσθητικὴ δύναμις οὔτε ἑαυτῆς ἐστιν αἴσθησις οὔτε χωρίζουσα ἑαυτὴν τοῦ σώματος ἑαυτῆς ἀντιλαμβάνεται ἢ σῴζεται, νοῦς δὲ χωρίζων ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ σώματος τότε μάλιστα νοεῖ καὶ εἰς ἑαυτὸν στρέφεται καὶ οὐ φθείρεται, δῆλον ὡς αἱ μὲν αἰσθητικαὶ δυνάμεις διὰ σώματος κέκτηνται τὸ ἐνεργεῖν, ὁ δὲ νοῦς οὐκ ἐν σώματι, ἐν ἑαυτῷ δὲ κέκτηται τὸ ἐνεργεῖν τε καὶ εἶναι. [42] Ἀσώματα τὰ μὲν κατὰ στέρησιν σώματος λέγεται καὶ ἐπινοεῖται κυρίως, ὡς ἡ ὕλη κατὰ τοὺς ἀρχαίους καὶ τὸ εἶδος τὸ ἐπὶ ὕλης, ὅταν ἐπινοῆται ἀποληφθὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης, καὶ αἱ φύσεις καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις· οὕτως δὲ καὶ ὁ τόπος καὶ ὁ χρόνος καὶ τὰ πέρατα. τὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτα πάντα κατὰ στέρησιν σώματος λέγεται. ἤδη δὲ ἦν ἄλλα καταχρηστικῶς λεγόμενα ἀσώματα, οὐ κατὰ στέρησιν σώματος, κατὰ δὲ ‹τὸ› ὅλως μὴ πεφυκέναι γεννᾶν σῶμα. διὸ τὰ μὲν κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον σημαινόμενον πρὸς τὰ σώματα ὑφίσταται, τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὸ δεύτερον χωριστὰ τέλεον σωμάτων καὶ τῶν περὶ τὰ σώματα ἀσωμάτων· σώματα μὲν γὰρ ἐν τόπῳ καὶ πέρατα ἐν σώματι, νοῦς δὲ καὶ νοερὸς λόγος οὔτε ἐν τόπῳ οὔτε ἐν {τῷ} σώματι ὑφίσταται οὔτε προσεχῶς ὑφίστησι σώματα οὔτε παρυφίσταται σώμασιν ἢ τοῖς κατὰ στέρησιν σώματος λεγομένοις ἀσωμάτοις. [ 541 ]

οὐδ’ εἰ κενὸν οὖν τι ἐπινοηθείη ἀσώματον, ἐν κενῷ οἷόν τε εἶναι νοῦν· σώματος μὲν γὰρ δεκτικὸν ἂν εἴη τὸ κενόν, νοῦ δὲ ἐνέργειαν χωρῆσαι ἀμήχανον καὶ τόπον δοῦναι ἐνεργείᾳ. διττοῦ δὲ φανέντος τοῦ γένους, τοῦ μὲν οὐδ’ ὅλως οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος ἀντελάβοντο, τὸ δ’ ἕτερον παραδεξάμενοι καὶ τὸ ἕτερον μὴ τοιοῦτον εἶναι καθορῶντες ἀναιροῦσιν αὐτό, δέον ὡς ἄλλο γένος ἦν ὑποπτεῦσαι καὶ μὴ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἕτερον μηδὲ τοῦτο μὴ εἶναι δοξάσαι. [43] Ὁ νοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρχὴ πάντων· πολλὰ γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νοῦς, πρὸ δὲ τῶν πολλῶν ἀνάγκη εἶναι τὸ ἕν. ὅτι δὲ πολλὰ ὁ νοῦς δῆλον· νοεῖ γὰρ ἀεὶ τὰ νοήματα οὐχ ἓν ὄντα, ἀλλὰ πολλὰ καὶ οὐκ ἄλλα ὄντα παρ’ ἐκεῖνον. εἰ οὖν ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν αὐτοῖς, ἐκεῖνα δὲ πολλά, πολλὰ ἂν εἴη καὶ ὁ νοῦς. Ὅτι δὲ ὁ αὐτός ἐστι τοῖς νοητοῖς, οὕτως δείκνυται· εἰ γάρ τι ἔστιν ὃ θεωρεῖ, ἤτοι ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχων τοῦτο θεωρήσει ἢ ἐν ἄλλῳ κείμενον. καὶ ὅτι μὲν θεωρεῖ δῆλον· σὺν γὰρ τῷ νοεῖν εἴη ἂν νοῦς, ἀφαιρεθεὶς δὲ τοῦ νοεῖν ἀφῄρηται τῆς οὐσίας. δεῖ τοίνυν ἐπιστήσαντας τοῖς πάθεσιν ἃ συμβαίνει περὶ τὰς γνώσεις ἀνιχνεῦσαι τὴν ἐκείνου θεωρίαν. γνωστικαὶ δὲ δυνάμεις ἐν ἡμῖν ἀθρόον αἴσθησις, φαντασία, νοῦς. πάντῃ δὲ τὸ αἰσθήσει προσχρώμενον τοῖς ἔξω ἐπιβάλλον θεωρεῖ, οὐχ ἑνούμενον ἐκείνοις ἃ θεωρεῖ, ἀλλὰ μόνον τύπον αὐτῶν ἐκ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὰ προσβολῆς λαμβάνον. ὅταν οὖν ἴδῃ ὀφθαλμὸς τὸ ὁρώμενον, ἀμήχανον ἐν ταυτότητι γενέσθαι τοῦ ὁρωμένου· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἴδοι, εἰ μὴ ἐν διαστάσει γένοιτο· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ ἁπτόμενον ἐν ταυτότητι γενόμενον φθαρείη. ἐξ ὧν δῆλον ὅτι ἀεὶ ἥ τε αἴσθησις καὶ τὸ αἰσθήσει προσχρώμενον εἰς τὸ ἔξω φέρεται, εἰ μέλλει τὸ αἰσθητὸν καταλήψεσθαι. ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἡ φαντασία ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἔξω φέρεται καὶ τῇ τάσει αὐτῆς τὸ εἰκόνισμα παρυφίσταται †ἤτοι καὶ παρασκευάζον ἔξωθεν ἢ αὐτῇ τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἔξω τάσει τὴν ὡς ἔξω ὄντος εἰκονίσματος ἐνδεικνύμενον . καὶ τούτων μὲν κατάληψις τοιαύτη, ὧν οὐδεμία εἰς ἑαυτὴν συννεύουσα καὶ συναγομένη ἐντύχοι ἂν ἢ τῷ αἰσθητῷ ἢ τῷ ἀναισθήτῳ εἴδει. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ νοῦ οὐ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἡ κατάληψις, ἀλλὰ συννεύοντος εἰς ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἑαυτὸν θεωροῦντος· παρεξελθὼν γὰρ τοῦ θεάσασθαι τὰς ἑαυτοῦ ἐνεργείας καὶ ὄμμα εἶναι τῶν αὐτοῦ ἐνεργειῶν οὐσῶν τὸ ὅραμα οὐδὲν ἂν νοήσειεν. ὡς μὲν οὖν ἦν {ἡ} αἴσθησίς τε καὶ τὸ αἰσθητόν, οὕτως ἐστὶ νοῦς τε καὶ τὸ νοητόν. θεωρεῖ δὲ ἡ μὲν ἐκτεινομένη εἰς τὸ ἔξω, εὑρίσκουσα τὸ αἰσθητὸν ‹ἐν› τῇ ὕλῃ κείμενον, ὁ δὲ νοῦς εἰς αὐτὸν συναγόμενος· εἰ δὲ μὴ ἔξω ἐκτεινόμενος ὅπερ καὶ ἐδόκει τισὶν ὀνόματος διαφορᾶς προστεθείσης τῇ τοῦ νοῦ ὑποστάσει καὶ τῆς φαντασίας· ἡ γὰρ ἐν λογικῷ ζῴῳ φαντασία δέδοκτο αὐτοῖς νόησις. ἀλλ’ εἰ ἐκείνοις μὲν πάντα ἀπαρτήσασιν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τῆς σωματικῆς φύσεως ἀκόλουθον ἦν καὶ τὸν νοῦν τούτων ἀναρτᾶν, ὁ δ’ ἡμέτερος σωμάτων καὶ ἑτέρων θεωρὸς οὐσιῶν, ποῦ τοίνυν κειμένας καταλήψεται αὐτάς; ἔξω δὲ ὄντων ὕλης, οὐδαμοῦ ἂν εἴη ταῦτα ‹καὶ ταύτῃ› δῆλον ὡς νοερὰ καὶ νοήσει συναχθήσεται καὶ τοίνυν, εἰ νοερά, εἰς τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὸ νοητόν - , καὶ ἑαυτὸν θεωρήσει νοῶν τὰ νοητὰ καὶ χωρῶν εἰς ἑαυτὸν νοεῖ διὰ τὸ εἰς ἐκεῖνα χωρεῖν. εἰ δὲ πολλὰ τὰ νοητά - πολλὰ γὰρ ὁ νοῦς νοεῖ καὶ οὐχ ἕν - , πολλὰ ἂν εἴη {καὶ} ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ αὐτός. κεῖται δὲ πρὸ τῶν πολλῶν τὸ ἕν, ὥστε ἀνάγκη πρὸ τοῦ νοῦ εἶναι τὸ ἕν. [44] Ἄλλο νοῦς καὶ νοητόν, καὶ ἄλλο αἴσθησις καὶ αἰσθητόν. καὶ νῷ μὲν τὸ νοητὸν σύζυγον, αἰσθήσει δὲ τὸ αἰσθητόν. ἀλλ’ οὔτε ἡ αἴσθησις ἀντιλαμβάνεται αὑτῆς καθ’ αὑτὴν οὔτε τὸ [ 542 ]

αἰσθητόν· νῷ δὲ τὸ νοητὸν σύζυγον ὂν καὶ {τὸ} νοητὸν τῷ νῷ, {αἰσθήσει δὲ τὸ αἰσθητόν. νῷ δὲ τὸ νοητὸν σύζυγον ὂν καὶ τὸ νοητὸν τῷ νῷ} αἰσθήσει οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ὑπόπτωτον, ἀλλὰ νῷ νοῦς ἐστι νοητόν. εἰ δὲ νοητὸν τῷ νῷ ὁ νοῦς, ἑαυτῷ ἂν εἴη νοητὸν ὁ νοῦς. εἰ μὲν οὖν νοητὸς ὁ νοῦς καὶ οὐκ αἰσθητός, νοητὸν ἂν εἴη· εἰ δὲ νοητὸς νῷ καὶ οὐκ αἰσθήσει, νοοῦν ἂν εἴη. ὁ αὐτὸς ἄρα νοῶν καὶ νοούμενον ὅλον ὅλῳ, καὶ οὐχ ὡς ὁ τρίβων καὶ τριβόμενος. οὐκ ἄλλῳ οὖν μέρει νοεῖται καὶ ἄλλῳ νοεῖ· ἀμερὴς γὰρ καὶ νοητὸς ὅλος ὅλῳ καὶ νοῦς δι’ ὅλου, ἐπίνοιαν οὐδεμίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀνοησίας ἔχων. διὸ οὐχὶ τόδε μὲν ἑαυτοῦ νοεῖ, τόδε δὲ οὐ νοεῖ· καθ’ ὃ γὰρ οὐ νοεῖ, ἀνόητος ἔσται. Οὐδὲ ἀφιστάμενος οὖν τοῦδε ἐπὶ τόδε μεταβαίνει· ἀφ’ οὗ γὰρ ἀφίσταται μὴ νοῶν ἐκεῖνο, ἀνόητος κατ’ ἐκεῖνο γίνεται. εἰ δὲ μὴ τόδε μετὰ τόδε ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ γίνεται, ἅμα πάντα νοεῖ· ἐπεὶ οὖν πάντα ἅμα καὶ οὐ τὸ μὲν νῦν, τὸ δὲ αὖθις, πάντα ἅμα νῦν καὶ ἀεί. εἰ οὖν ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ νῦν, ἀνῄρηται δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ παρεληλυθὸς καὶ τὸ μέλλον, ἐν ἀδιαστάτῳ τῷ νῦν ἀχρόνῳ παραστήματι, ὥστε τὸ ὁμοῦ κατά τε τὸ πλῆθος κατά τε τὸ χρονικὸν διάστημα ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ· διὸ καθ’ ἓν πάντα ἐν ἑνὶ καὶ ἀδιαστάτῳ καὶ ἀχρόνῳ. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, οὐδὲ τὸ ποθέν ποι ἐν τῷ νῷ οὐδὲ κίνησις ἄρα, ἀλλὰ ἐνέργεια καθ’ ἓν ἐν ἑνὶ αὔξης τε ἀφῃρημένη καὶ μεταβολῆς καὶ διεξόδου πάσης. εἰ δὲ τὸ πλῆθος καθ’ ἓν καὶ ἅμα ἡ ἐνέργεια καὶ ἄχρονος, ἀνάγκη παρυποστῆναι τῇ τοιαύτῃ οὐσίᾳ τὸ ἀεὶ ἐν ἑνὶ ὄν· τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν αἰών· παρυπέστη ἄρα νῷ ὁ αἰών. Τῷ δὲ μὴ καθ’ ἓν ἐν ἑνὶ νοοῦντι, ἀλλὰ μεταβατικῶς καὶ ἐν κινήσει καὶ ἐν τῷ τὸ μὲν καταλείπειν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιλαμβάνειν καὶ μερίζειν καὶ διεξοδεύειν παρυπέστη χρόνος· τῇ γὰρ τοιαύτῃ κινήσει παρυφίσταται τὸ μέλλειν καὶ παρεληλυθέναι. ψυχὴ δὲ μεταβαίνει ἀπ’ ἄλλου εἰς ἄλλο ἐπαμείβουσα τὰ νοήματα, οὐκ ἐξισταμένων τῶν προτέρων οὐδέ ποθεν ἄλλοθεν ἐπεισιόντων τῶν δευτέρων, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ὥσπερ παρελήλυθε καίπερ μένοντα ἐν αὐτῇ, τὰ δ’ ὥσπερ ἀλλαχόθεν ἔπεισιν, ἀφίκετο δ’ οὐκ ἀλλαχόθεν, ἀλλὰ παρ’ αὐτῆς καὶ αὐτόθεν εἰς ἑαυτὴν κινουμένης καὶ τὸ ὄμμα φερούσης εἰς ἃ ἔχει κατὰ μέρος· πηγῇ γὰρ ἔοικεν οὐκ ἀπορρύτῳ, ἀλλὰ κύκλῳ εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀναβλυζούσῃ ἃ ἔχει. Τῇ μὲν οὖν ταύτης κινήσει παρυφίσταται χρόνος, τῇ δὲ τοῦ νοῦ μονῇ τῇ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ αἰών, οὐ διῃρημένος ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ὥσπερ ‹οὐδ’› ὁ χρόνος ἐκ ψυχῆς, ὅτι καὶ αἱ παρυποστάσεις ἥνωνται ἐκεῖ. διαψεύδεται δὲ τὸ κινούμενον ‹πρὸς τὸ μένον› αἰῶνα ἑαυτοῦ, τὸ ἄμετρον τῆς κινήσεως εἰς ἔννοιαν λαμβανόμενον αἰῶνος, καὶ τὸ μένον πρὸς τὸ κινούμενον χρόνον ἑαυτοῦ, ὥσπερ τὸ νῦν αὐτοῦ καὶ διεξοδεῦον καὶ πολλαπλασιάζον κατὰ πάροδον τοῦ χρόνου. διὸ καὶ ἐν στάσει τὸν χρόνον τινὲς οὐχ ἧττον ἢ ἐν κινήσει θεωρεῖσθαι ὑπελάμβανον καὶ τὸν αἰῶνα, ὡς ἔφαμεν, τὸν ἄπειρον χρόνον, ἑκατέρου τὰ πάθη τὰ ἑαυτοῦ τῷ ἑτέρῳ προστιθέντος, τοῦ μὲν κινουμένου ἀεὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑστῶτος κατὰ ταυτότητα τῷ ἀεὶ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν αἰῶνα ἀπεικονίζοντος, καὶ τοῦ ἑστῶτος ἐν ταυτότητι ἐνεργείας τὸν χρόνον τῇ ἑαυτοῦ μονῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνεργείας προσάπτοντος. Λοιπὸν δὲ ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὁ διῃρημένος χρόνος ἄλλος ἄλλου, οἷον ἄλλος ἡλίου, ἄλλος σελήνης, ἄλλος ἑωσφόρου, καὶ ἐφ’ ἑκάστου ἄλλος. διὸ καὶ ἄλλου ἐνιαυτὸς ἄλλος· καὶ ὁ τούτους περιέχων ἐνιαυτὸς κεφαλαιούμενος εἰς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς κίνησιν· ἧς κατὰ μίμησιν κινουμένων τούτων, ἀλλοίας δὲ τῆς ἐκείνης κινήσεως οὔσης καὶ ἀλλοίας τῆς τούτων, ἀλλοῖος καὶ ὁ χρόνος [ 543 ]

ἐκείνης τοῦ τούτων. διαστηματικὸς μὲν οὗτος καὶ ταῖς κατὰ τόπον κινήσεσι καὶ μεταβάσεσι* * **

[ 544 ]

Letter to Marcella ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΥ ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΚΕΛΛΑΝ [ 1 ] ἘΓ Ὼ Σ Έ , Μαρκέλλα, θυγατέρων μὲν πέντε, δυοῖν δὲ ἀρρένων οὖσαν μητέρα, τῶν μὲν καὶ ἔτι νηπίων, τῶν δὲ ἤδη εἰς γάμου ἡλικίαν ἡβᾶν ἐφορμώντων, εἱλόμην ἔχειν σύνοικον, μὴ καταδείσας τὸ πλῆθος τῶν εἰς τὰς χρείας αὐτοῖς ἐσομένων ἀναγκαίων, οὔτε παιδοποιίας χάριν τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος, ἔχειν κεκρικὼς παῖδας τοὺς τῆς ἀληθινῆς σοφίας ἐραστάς, τά τε σὰ τέκνα, εἰ φιλοσοφίας τῆς ὀρθῆς ἀντιλάβοιτό ποτε ὑφ’ ἡμῖν ἀνατρεφόμενα· οὔτε μὴν διὰ χρημάτων περιουσίαν ἢ ὑμῖν ἢ ἐμοὶ προσοῦσαν· ἀγαπητὸν γὰρ καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων τὸ τυχὸν οὖσιν ἀκτήμοσιν· οὔτε ἀπὸ τῆς ἄλλης διακονίας ῥᾳστώνην τινά μοι προσδοκήσας εἰς τὸ γῆρας ἀποκλίναντι ἔσεσθαι· ἐπίνοσον γάρ σοι τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἰατρείας μᾶλλον τῆς παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων δεόμενον ἢ ἄλλοις ἐπικουρεῖν τι ἢ παραστατεῖν ἐπιτήδειον· οὔτε δι’ ἄλλην οἰκονομίαν ἢ θήραν δόξης καὶ ἐπαίνων παρὰ τῶν ἀνυποστάτων ἐθελοντὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον βαστάσαι ψιλῆς ἕνεκα τῆς εἰς τὸ εὖ ποιεῖν προθυμίας· τοὐναντίον γὰρ ὑπ’ ἀβελτερίας τῶν πολιτῶν σου καὶ τῷ πρὸς ὑμᾶς φθόνῳ βλασφημίαις τε πολλαῖς περιπέπτωκα καὶ παρὰ πᾶσαν προσδοκίαν εἰς θανάτου κίνδυνον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν δι’ ὑμᾶς περιέστην. [2] τούτων οὖν οὐδενὸς χάριν κοινωνόν σε τοῦ ἡμετέρου βίου πεποίημαι, διττῆς δὲ μᾶλλον ἕνεκα εὐλόγου αἰτίας. μιᾶς μέν, καθ’ ἣν ἀπομειλίξασθαι κρίνας τοὺς γενεθλίους θεοὺς κατὰ τὸν ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ Σωκράτην τὴν δημώδη μουσικὴν πρὸ τῆς ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ συνήθους ἐνεργείας διαθεῖναι ἑλόμενον, ἀσφαλείας ἕνεκα τῆς ἐκ τοῦ βίου ἀπαλλαγῆς. οὑτωσὶ γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπομειλιττόμενος τοὺς ἐν τῇ κωμῳδοτραγῳδίᾳ προστάτας δαίμονας τὸν γαμικὸν ὕμνον ἀγωνίσασθαι οὐκ ὤκνησα ἀσμενέστατα καὶ τῷ πλήθει τῶν σῶν τέκνων συντυχὼν καὶ τῇ προσούσῃ περισκελείᾳ τῶν ἀναγκαίων τῇ τε πονηρίᾳ τῶν ἐνυβρισάντων. οὐδὲν γὰρ παρεῖται τῶν εἰς τὸ δρᾶμα συμβαίνειν εἰωθότων, οὐ ζηλοτυπία, οὐ μῖσος, οὐ γέλως, οὐ διαπληκτισμός τε καὶ ὀργαί· πλήν γε ὅτι οὐ περὶ ἡμᾶς, περὶ δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους ὑπουργοῦντες τοῖς δαίμοσι τουτὶ τὸ θέατρον ἡμεῖς ὑπεκρίθημεν. [3] ἑτέρας δὲ θειοτέρας καὶ οὐδὲν τῇ δημώδει ταύτῃ ἐοικυίας, καθ’ ἣν ἀγασθείς σου τὴν πρὸς τὴν ὀρθὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἐπιτηδειότητα τῆς φύσεως, οὐκ ᾠήθην προσήκειν ἀνδρὸς φίλου μοι στερηθεῖσαν συλλήπτορος ἔρημόν σε καταλιπεῖν καὶ προστάτου σώφρονος καὶ τῷ σῷ τρόπῳ ἐπιτηδείου. ἀποσοβήσας δὲ πάντας τοὺς ἐπηρεάζειν μέλλοντας ἐν προσποιήσει, ἤνεγκα μὲν τὰς παραλόγους ὕβρεις, ἐβάστασα δὲ τὰς ἐπιβουλὰς εὐσχημόνως· ἐλευθερῶν δὲ τὸ εἰς ἐμὲ περιῆκον παντὸς τοῦ δεσπόζειν ἐπιχειροῦντος ἀνεκαλεσάμην εἰς τὸν ἐμαυτοῦ τρόπον, μεταδιδοὺς φιλοσοφίας ἀκόλουθόν τε τῷ βίῳ λόγον ἐπιδεικνύμενος. καὶ τίς γὰρ ἂν ἄλλος μοι πρό γε σοῦ μάρτυς ἂν εἴη ἀκριβέστερος, ἣν αἰσχυνοίμην ἀφοσιούμενος ἢ τὰ κατ’ ἐμαυτὸν ἀποκρύπτων, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς εἰς τέλος τῇ μάλιστα τὴν ἀλήθειαν προτιμώσῃ καὶ διὰ [ 545 ]

ταύτην ἕρμαιον ἡγησαμένῃ τὴν συνοίκησιν, πάντα τὰ εἰς αὐτὴν καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς πραχθέντα ὑπομιμνήσκων. [4] συγχωρούντων οὖν τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπὶ πλέον αὐτόθι διατρίβειν ἐπ’ ἐξουσίας ἂν ἦν σοι ὥσπερ ἐκ παρακειμένων πηγαίων ναμάτων τὸ ποτὸν ἀπαρύεσθαι δαψιλέστερόν τε καὶ πρόσφατον, καὶ μὴ ἀγαπᾶν ὅσον ἂν τῆς δόσεως συντείνοι πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον, θαρρεῖν δὲ καὶ διαναπαυσαμένῃ παρέχεσθαι ἐκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου δι’ ἐξουσίας τὴν ἀνάκτησιν. καλούσης δὲ τῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων χρείας καὶ τῶν θεῶν συνεπειγόντων αὐτοῖς ὑπακούειν μὲν σὲ καίπερ οὖσαν προθυμοτάτην μετὰ τοσαύτης ἀκολουθίας θυγατέρων ἀδύνατον ἦν· ἄνευ δὲ σοῦ ταύτας ῥίπτειν οὕτως ἐν σκαιοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀβουλίας εἶναι ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀδικίας ἔργον ὑπείληφα. μένειν δὲ ἐνταυθοῖ βιαζόμενος τήν τε τοῦ αὖθις ἐντυχεῖν ἐλπίδα προϊσχόμενος εἰκότως σοι παραινέσαιμ’ ἂν ἀντεχομένῃ τῶν δοθέντων ἐν τοῖς δέκα μησὶν οἷς μοι συνῴκησας μὴ πόθῳ καὶ ἐπιθυμίᾳ τοῦ πλείονος καὶ τὸ ὂν ἤδη ἐκβαλεῖν. σπεύδω μὲν γάρ, ὃν ἂν δύνωμαι τρόπον, τὴν ταχίστην πάλιν ἀναλαβεῖν. [5] ἀδήλου δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἀποδημίαις τοῦ μέλλοντος ὄντος ἀναγκαῖόν σοι παραμυθούμενον τῷ λόγῳ ἅμα ἐπισκήπτειν, οἰκειότερον δ’ εἴποιμ’ ἂν τοῦ σαυτῆς καὶ ἐν σεαυτῇ οἴκου κήδεσθαι καὶ ἔμπεδα πάντα φυλάσσειν, καταλειπομένῃ οὐδὲν ἀπεοικότως τοῦ ἐν τραγῳδίαις Φιλοκτήτου ἕλκει μοχθίζοντος, πλὴν ὅτι τῷ μὲν τὸ ἕλκος ὑπὸ ὀλοόφρονος ὕδρου, σοὶ δὲ ἐπιγνούσῃ τὸ εἰς τὴν γένεσιν πτῶμα, ὅσον καὶ οἷον ἡμῖν τῆς ψυχῆς περιέστη, οὐ τῶν θεῶν ἡμᾶς ὑπεριδόντων, ὡς ἐκεῖνον οἱ Ἀτρεῖδαι, ἀλλὰ σωτήρων γενομένων καὶ οὐκ ἐπιλαθομένων. πολλοῖς δή σε παλαίσμασι καὶ ἐπωδύνοις εἰς ἀγῶνα ἐμπεσοῦσαν νῦν μάλιστα φιλοσοφίας, τοῦ μόνου ἀσφαλοῦς πείσματος, ἀντεχομένην παρακαλῶ, μὴ ταῖς ἀμηχανίαις ταῖς ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀπουσίας πλέον ἐνδοῦναι τοῦ προσήκοντος μηδὲ πόθῳ τῆς παρ’ ἡμῖν διδασκαλίας καὶ τὸ δοθὲν ἤδη ἐκκροῦσαι, μηδὲ πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν περιεστώτων ἀλλοτρίων ἀπαυδήσασαν ἔκδοτον σεαυτὴν τῷ σύροντι ποταμῷ τῶν πραγμάτων ἐᾶσαι, ἀλλὰ λογισαμένην ὡς οὐ διὰ ῥᾳστώνης ἡ τῶν ὄντως ὄντων ἀγαθῶν κτῆσις τοῖς ἀνθρώποις περιγίνεται, αὐτοῖς τούτοις τοῖς συγκυρήσασιν εἰς ἄσκησιν τοῦ προσδοκωμένου χρήσασθαι βίου, ὅσα καὶ μόνα τῶν ἄλλων ἀντίπαλα τῆς σῆς καρτερίας εἰς τὸ παρατρέψαι σε καὶ βιάσαι εἶναι δύναται. τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐπιβουλῶν εὐκαταφρόνητα πάντῃ τοῖς, ὧν οὐχ ἡμεῖς κύριοι, ἐθίσασιν ἀτιμάζειν καὶ μᾶλλον εἰς ἐκείνους κεκρικόσι τὴν ἀδικίαν ἀναστρέφειν ἢ βλάπτειν γε τούτους, οἷς τῶν μάλιστα παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς δρωμένων ἐναντίων [6] οὐ μεγάλη τῆς ζημίας ἡ ἐλάττωσις εἶναι ὑπελήφθη. τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἐπωφελοῦντος τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπουσίαν, πατρός τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀνδρὸς καὶ διδασκάλου καὶ συγγενῶν, εἰ δὲ βούλει, καὶ τῆς πατρίδος τὴν εὔνοιαν εἰς αὑτὸν συνῃρηκότος, δοκοῦσαν περιέχειν εὔλογον τῆς δυσχερείας τὴν αἰτίαν, παρηγοροίης ἂν θεωρὸν προστησαμένη τὸν λόγον, οὐ τὸ πάθος. πρῶτον μὲν ὡς οὐκ ἦν ἄλλως, ὅπερ ἔφην, πρὸς τῶν μελλόντων νόστου δὴ μιμνήσκεσθαι ἐκ τῆς ἐνταυθοῖ ξένης καταγωγῆς τὸ δι’ ἡδονῆς καθάπερ περὶ ἱππήλατόν τι χωρίον καὶ ῥᾳστώνης ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπάνοδον. αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ πρᾶγμα ὡς οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἄλλῳ ἀντίκειται πράγματι, ἡδονή τε καὶ ῥᾳθυμία τῇ πρὸς θεοὺς ἀνόδῳ. ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τὰ ὑψηλότερα τῶν ὀρῶν ἀκινδύνως καὶ πόνων [ 546 ]

ἄνευ ἦν ἀναβαίνειν, οὐδ’ ἀπὸ τῶν μυχῶν τοῦ σώματος διὰ τῶν εἰς τὸ σῶμα καταγωγῶν, ἡδονῆς τε καὶ ῥᾳθυμίας, ἀνακύπτειν. διὰ γὰρ μερίμνης ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ τῆς ἀναμνήσεως τοῦ πτώματος. κἂν ᾖ τὰ συμβαίνοντα δυσχερῆ, τὸ δύσκολον πρὸς ἀνάβασιν οἰκεῖον. ὅτι καὶ τὸ ῥεῖα ζώειν παρὰ θεοῖς, πεπτωκόσι δὲ εἰς τὴν γένεσιν ἐναντιώτατον ὡς ἂν εἰς λήθην ἄγον τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ καὶ τῷ ὕπνῳ συντελοῦν, ἂν καθεύδωμεν ὑπὸ τῶν ψυχαγωγούντων ἡμᾶς ἐνυπνίων βουκολούμενοι. [7] ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν πεδῶν αἱ μὲν ἐκ χρυσοῦ βαρυτάτου ὄντος διὰ τὴν εὐπρέπειαν εἰς κόσμον μᾶλλον συντελεῖν καὶ φέρειν τὸν δεσμὸν δι’ αὐτῶν ἐνήγαγον τῷ κούφῳ τὰς δι’ ἀφροσύνην τοῦ βάρους ἀνεπαισθήτους γυναῖκας. αἱ δὲ τοῦ σιδήρου συνιέναι τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἠνάγκασαν καὶ λυπήσασαι μεταγινώσκειν καὶ ζητεῖν τοῦ βάρους ἀπαλλαγὴν πορίσασθαι· τοῦ χρυσοῦ δὲ διὰ τὴν τέρψιν εἰς ἀγανάκτησιν οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν πολλάκις συντελούσης τῆς λύσεως. ὅθεν καὶ ἔδοξε τοῖς σώφροσι τὰ ἐπίπονα τῶν ἡδέων μᾶλλον συντελεῖν εἰς ἀρετήν, καὶ τὸ μοχθεῖν ἄριστον εἶναι ἀνδρί τε ὁμοίως καὶ γυναικὶ ἢ ἐξοιδαίνειν τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς χαλωμένην. παντὸς γὰρ καλοῦ κτήματος πόνους δεῖ προηγεῖσθαι, καὶ πονεῖν ἀνάγκη τὸν τυχεῖν ἀρετῆς σπουδάζοντα. ἀκούεις δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέα τούς τε Διοσκούρους καὶ τὸν Ἀσκληπιὸν τούς τε ἄλλους, ὅσοι θεῶν παῖδες ἐγένοντο, ὡς διὰ τῶν πόνων καὶ τῆς καρτερίας τὴν μακαρίαν εἰς θεοὺς ὁδὸν ἐξετέλεσαν. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν δι’ ἡδονῆς βεβιωκότων ἀνθρώπων αἱ εἰς θεὸν ἀναδρομαί, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν τὰ μέγιστα τῶν συμβαινόντων γενναίως διενεγκεῖν μεμαθηκότων. [8] Μέγιστος δὲ ἆθλος τοῦ νῦν σοι προκειμένου εὖ οἶδα καὶ αὐτὸς ὡς οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο ἄλλος, ἡγουμένῃ μετ’ ἐμοῦ καὶ τῆς σωτηρίας τὴν ὁδὸν καὶ τὸν ταύτης καθηγεμόνα καταλείψειν. ἔχει δὲ οὐχ οὕτω παντάπασιν δυσκαρτερήτως σοι τὰ παρόντα, εἰ παρεῖσα τὴν ἐκ τοῦ πάθους ἀλόγιστον ταραχὴν μὴ περὶ φαύλων ἡγήσῃ μεμνῆσθαι ὧν εἰς φιλοσοφίαν τὴν ὀρθὴν παρὰ τῶν θείων ἐτελέσθης λόγων· ὧν τὴν βεβαίαν ἀκρόασιν αἱ πράξεις ἐλέγχειν εἰώθασι. τὰ γὰρ ἔργα τῶν δογμάτων ἑκάστου φέρειν πέφυκε τὰς ἀποδείξεις· καὶ δεῖ οὕτως βιοῦν, ὅστις ἐπίστευσεν, ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς πιστὸς ᾖ μάρτυς, περὶ ὧν λέγει τοῖς ἀκροωμένοις. τίνα οὖν ἦν ἄρα, ἃ παρὰ τῶν σαφέστατ’ εἰδότων τὰ κατ’ ἀνθρώπους μεμαθήκαμεν; ἆρ’ οὐχ, ὅτι μὲν σοὶ ἐγὼ οὐχ ὁ ἁπτὸς οὗτος καὶ τῇ αἰσθήσει ὑποπτωτός, ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀφεστηκὼς τοῦ σώματος, ὁ ἀχρώματος καὶ ἀσχημάτιστος, καὶ χερσὶ μὲν οὐδαμῶς ἐπαφητός, διανοίᾳ δὲ μόνῃ κρατητός; λαμβάνομεν δὲ οὐ παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν τὰ εἰς τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν ἡμῖν ἐντεθειμένα· τοὐνδόσιμον δὲ μόνον ὥσπερ ἐν χορῷ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν ἡμᾶς ἄγον ὧν ἔχοντες παρὰ τοῦ δεδωκότος [9] ἐπλανήθημεν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οὐχ ὅτι πᾶν πάθος ψυχῆς εἰς σωτηρίαν αὐτῆς πολεμιώτατον, καὶ ἀπαιδευσία μὲν τῶν παθῶν πάντων μήτηρ, τὸ δὲ πεπαιδεῦσθαι οὐκ ἐν πολυμαθείας ἀναλήψει, ἐν ἀπαλλάξει δὲ τῶν ψυχικῶν παθῶν ἐθεωρεῖτο; πάθη δὲ νοσημάτων ἀρχαί· ψυχῆς δὲ νόσημα κακία· κακία δὲ πᾶσα αἰσχρόν· τὸ δὲ αἰσχρὸν τῷ καλῷ ἐναντίον· καλοῦ δὲ ὄντος τοῦ θείου ἀμήχανον αὐτῷ σὺν κακίᾳ πελάζειν· καθαροῦ γὰρ μὴ καθαρὸν ἐφάπτεσθαι οὐδὲν ὁ Πλάτων φησὶ θεμιτὸν εἶναι. διὸ καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν καθαρεύειν δεῖ τῶν παθῶν τε καὶ τῶν διὰ τὸ πάθος ἁμαρτημάτων. ἆρ’ οὖν οὐ τοιαῦτα ἦν, οἷς μάλιστα συνῄνεις, ὡς γράμματα θεῖα ἐνόντα παρὰ σαυτῇ διὰ τῆς τῶν λόγων ἐνδείξεως ἀναγινώσκουσα; πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἄτοπον τὴν πεπεισμένην ἐν σοὶ εἶναι καὶ τὸ σῷζον καὶ [ 547 ]

τὸ σῳζόμενον καὶ τό γε ἀπολλύον καὶ τὸ ἀπολλύμενον τόν τε πλοῦτον καὶ τὴν πενίαν τόν τε πατέρα καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὸν τῶν ὄντως ἀγαθῶν καθηγεμόνα, κεχηνέναι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑφηγητοῦ σκιάν, ὡς δὴ τὸν ὄντως ὑφηγητὴν μὴ ἐντὸς ἔχουσαν μηδὲ παρὰ σαυτῇ πάντα τὸν πλοῦτον; ὃν ἀνάγκη ἀπολλύναι καὶ διαφεύγειν πρὸς τὴν σάρκα καταβαίνουσαν ἀντὶ τοῦ σῴζοντος καὶ σῳζομένου. [10] Τῆς μὲν οὖν ἐμῆς σκιᾶς καὶ τοῦ φαινομένου εἰδώλου οὔτε παρόντων ὠνήσω τι οὔτ’ ἀπόντων ἐπώδυνος ἡ ἀπουσία τῇ μελετώσῃ φεύγειν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος. ἐμοῦ δὲ καθαρῶς τύχοις ἂν μάλιστα καὶ παρόντος καὶ συνόντος νύκτωρ καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέραν σὺν καθαρῷ τε καὶ τῷ καλλίστῳ τῆς συνουσίας καὶ μηδὲ χωρισθῆναι οἵου τε ὄντος, εἰ μελετῴης εἰς σεαυτὴν ἀναβαίνειν συλλέγουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος πάντα τὰ διασκεδασθέντα σου μέλη καὶ εἰς πλῆθος κατακερματισθέντα ἀπὸ τῆς τέως ἐν μεγέθει δυνάμεως ἰσχυούσης ἑνώσεως. συνάγοις δ’ ἂν καὶ ἑνίζοις τὰς ἐμφύτους ἐννοίας καὶ διαρθροῦν συγκεχυμένας καὶ εἰς φῶς ἕλκειν ἐσκοτισμένας πειρωμένη· ἀφ’ ὧν ὁρμώμενος καὶ ὁ θεῖος Πλάτων ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἐπὶ τὰ νοητὰ τὰς ἀνακλήσεις πεποίηται. ἔτι εἰ μνημονεύοις, διαρθροίης δ’ ἄν, ἅ γε ἀκήκοας διὰ τῆς μνήμης ἀναπεμπαζομένη τοῖς τε τοιούτοις τῶν λόγων ὡς ἀγαθοῖς συμβούλοις ἀξιοῦσα προσέχειν καὶ λοιπὸν τὰ γνωσθέντα διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἀσκοῦσα, [11] διὰ δ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πονεῖν συντηροῦσα. λέγει δὲ ὁ λόγος πάντῃ μὲν καὶ πάντως παρεῖναι τὸ θεῖον, νεὼν δὲ τούτῳ παρ’ ἀνθρώποις καθιερῶσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν μάλιστα τοῦ σοφοῦ μόνην, τιμήν τε προσήκουσαν ἀπονέμεσθαι τῷ θεῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ μάλιστα τὸν θεὸν ἐγνωκότος· τοῦτον δὲ εἶναι εἰκότως μόνον τὸν σοφόν, ᾧ τιμητέον διὰ σοφίας τὸ θεῖον καὶ κατακοσμητέον αὐτῷ διὰ σοφίας ἐν τῇ γνώμῃ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐμψύχῳ ἀγάλματι τῷ νῷ ἐνεικονισαμένου ἀγάλλοντος θεοῦ. θεὸς μὲν γὰρ δεῖται οὐδενός, σοφὸς δὲ μόνου θεοῦ. οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄλλως καλὸς κἀγαθὸς γένοιτο ἢ νοῶν τό τε ἀγαθὸν καὶ καλόν, ὅπερ ἐξέχει τοῦ θείου· οὐδ’ αὖ ἄλλως κακοδαίμων ἄνθρωπος ἢ πονηρῶν δαιμόνων ἐνδιαίτημα τὴν ψυχὴν κατασκευάσας. ἀνθρώπῳ δὲ σοφῷ θεὸς θεοῦ δίδωσιν ἐξουσίαν. καὶ καθαίρεται μὲν ἄνθρωπος ἐννοίᾳ θεοῦ, δικαιοπραγίαν δὲ ἀπὸ θεοῦ ὁρμώμενος διώκει. [12] Πάσης πράξεως καὶ παντὸς ἔργου καὶ λόγου θεὸς ἐπόπτης παρέστω καὶ ἔφορος. καὶ πάντων, ὧν πράττομεν ἀγαθῶν, τὸν θεὸν αἴτιον ἡγώμεθα· τῶν δὲ κακῶν αἴτιοι ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν οἱ ἑλόμενοι, θεὸς δὲ ἀναίτιος. ὅθεν καὶ εὐκτέον θεῷ τὰ ἄξια θεοῦ. καὶ αἰτώμεθα, ἃ μὴ λάβοιμεν ἂν παρ’ ἑτέρου· καὶ ὧν ἡγεμόνες οἱ μετ’ ἀρετῆς πόνοι, ταῦτα εὐχώμεθα γενέσθαι μετὰ τοὺς πόνους· εὐχὴ γὰρ ῥᾳθύμου μάταιος λόγος. ἃ δὲ κτησαμένη οὐ καθέξεις, μὴ αἰτοῦ παρὰ θεοῦ· δῶρον γὰρ θεοῦ πᾶν ἀναφαίρετον· ὥστε οὐ δώσει, ὃ μὴ καθέξεις. ὧν δὴ τοῦ σώματος ἀπαλλαγεῖσα οὐ δεηθήσῃ, ἐκείνων καταφρόνει· καὶ ὧν ἂν ἀπαλλαγεῖσα δεηθῇς, ταῦτά σοι ἀσκουμένῃ τὸν θεὸν παρακάλει γενέσθαι συλλήπτορα. οὔκουν δεήσῃ οὐδενός, ὧν καὶ ἡ τύχη δοῦσα πολλάκις πάλιν ἀφαιρεῖται. οὐδὲ δεῖ πρὸ καιροῦ τινὸς τὴν αἴτησιν ποιεῖσθαι, ἀλλ’ ὅταν σοι ὁ θεὸς [13] ἐν σοὶ οὖσαν φύσει τὴν ὀρθὴν αἴτησιν ἐκφήνῃ· δι’ ὧν μάλιστα καὶ αὐτὸς ἐνοπτρίζεσθαι πέφυκεν, οὔτε διὰ σώματος ὁρατὸς ὢν οὔτε διὰ ψυχῆς αἰσχρᾶς καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς κακίας ἐσκοτισμένης. κάλλος γὰρ ἐκείνου τὸ ἀκήρατον καὶ φῶς τὸ ζωτικὸν ἀληθείᾳ διαλάμπον. κακία δὲ πᾶσα ὑπ’ ἀγνοίας [ 548 ]

διέψευσται καὶ ὑπὸ αἴσχους διέστραπται, ταῦτ’ οὖν θέλε καὶ αἰτοῦ τὸν θεὸν ἃ θέλει τε καὶ ἔστιν αὐτός, εὖ ἐκεῖνο γινώσκουσα ὡς ἐφ’ ὅσον τις τὸ σῶμα ποθεῖ καὶ τὰ τοῦ σώματος σύμφυλα, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἀγνοεῖ τὸν θεὸν καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου ἐνοράσεως ἑαυτὸν ἀπεσκότισε, κἂν παρὰ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὡς θεὸς δοξάζηται. σοφὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὀλίγοις γινωσκόμενος, εἰ δὲ βούλει, καὶ ὑπὸ πάντων ἀγνοούμενος, γινώσκεται ὑπὸ θεοῦ. ἑπέσθω τοίνυν ὁ μὲν νοῦς τῷ θεῷ, ἐνοπτριζόμενος τῇ ὁμοιώσει θεοῦ. τῷ δὲ νῷ ἡ ψυχή· τῇ δ’ αὖ ψυχῇ ὑπηρετείτω τὸ σῶμα, εἰς ὅσον οἷόν τε, καθαρᾷ καθαρόν. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν παθῶν ταύτης μιαινόμενον εἰς [14] αὐτὴν πάλιν ἐπαναστρέφεται τὰ μιάσματα. τῇ δὲ ψυχῇ τῇ θεοφιλεῖ καὶ τῷ θεοφιλεῖ νῷ ἐν τῷ καθαρῷ σώματι ἔστωσαν καὶ πρᾶξις ἀκόλουθος καὶ λόγος, αἱρετωτέρου σοι ὄντος λίθον εἰκῆ βαλεῖν ἢ λόγον, καὶ τὸ ἡττᾶσθαι τἀληθῆ λέγοντα ἢ νικᾶν ἀπατῶντα· τὸ γὰρ νικῆσαν ἀπάτῃ ἐν τῷ ἤθει ἥττηται. μάρτυρες δὲ κακῶν ψευδεῖς λόγοι. ἀδύνατον τὸν αὐτὸν φιλόθεόν τε εἶναι καὶ φιλήδονον καὶ φιλοσώματον. ὁ γὰρ φιλήδονος καὶ φιλοσώματος, ὁ δὲ φιλοσώματος πάντως καὶ φιλοχρήματος, ὁ δὲ φιλοχρήματος ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἄδικος, ὁ δὲ ἄδικος καὶ εἰς θεὸν καὶ εἰς πατέρας ἀνόσιος καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἄλλους παράνομος. ὥστε κἂν ἑκατόμβας θύῃ καὶ μυρίοις ἀναθήμασι τοὺς νεὼς ἀγάλλῃ, ἀσεβής ἐστι καὶ ἄθεος καὶ τῇ προαιρέσει ἱερόσυλος. διὸ καὶ πάντα φιλοσώματον ὡς ἄθεον καὶ [15] μιαρὸν ἐκτρέπεσθαι χρή. καὶ οὗ ταῖς δόξαις οὐκ ἂν χρήσαιο, τούτῳ μήτε βίου μήτε λόγου τοῦ περὶ θεοῦ κοινώνει· λόγον γὰρ περὶ θεοῦ τοῖς ὑπὸ δόξης διεφθαρμένοις λέγειν οὐκ ἀσφαλές· καὶ γὰρ καὶ τἀληθῆ λέγειν ἐπὶ τούτων περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ κίνδυνον ἴσον φέρει. οὔτε αὐτῶν τινα προσῆκεν ἀνοσίων ἔργων μὴ καθαρεύοντα φθέγγεσθαι περὶ θεοῦ, οὔτε εἰς τοιούτων ἀκοὰς ἐμβάλλοντα τὸν περὶ θεοῦ λόγον οἴεσθαι μὴ μιαίνειν. ἀλλ’ ἀκροᾶσθαι καὶ λέγειν τὸν περὶ θεοῦ λόγον ὡς ἐπὶ θεοῦ. προηγείσθω οὖν τοῦ περὶ θεοῦ λόγου τὰ θεοφιλῆ ἔργα, καὶ σιγάσθω ὁ περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγος ἐπὶ πλήθους· ἀνοικειοτάτη γὰρ θεολογία κενοδοξίᾳ ψυχῆς. νόμιζε αἱρετώτερον εἶναι σιγᾶν ἢ λόγον εἰκῆ προέσθαι περὶ θεοῦ. ἀξίαν σε ποιήσει θεοῦ τὸ μηδὲν ἀνάξιον θεοῦ μήτε λέγειν μήτε πράττειν μήτε πάντως εἰδέναι ἀξιοῦν. ὁ δὲ ἄξιος ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ θεῖος ἂν εἴη. [16] καὶ τιμήσεις μὲν ἄριστα τὸν θεόν, ὅταν τῷ θεῷ τὴν σαυτῆς διάνοιαν ὁμοιώσῃς· ἡ δὲ ὁμοίωσις ἔσται διὰ μόνης ἀρετῆς. μόνη γὰρ ἀρετὴ τὴν ψυχὴν ἄνω ἕλκει καὶ πρὸς τὸ συγγενές. καὶ μέγα οὐδὲν ἄλλο μετὰ θεὸν ἢ ἀρετή. μείζων ἀρετῆς θεός. θεὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπον βεβαιοῖ πράσσοντα καλά· κακῶν δὲ πράξεων κακὸς δαίμων ἡγεμών. ψυχὴ οὖν πονηρὰ φεύγει μὲν θεόν, πρόνοιαν δὲ θεοῦ εἶναι οὐ βούλεται, νόμου τε θείου τοῦ πᾶν τὸ φαῦλον κολάζοντος ἀποστατοῖ πάντως· ψυχὴ δὲ σοφοῦ ἁρμόζεται πρὸς θεόν, ἀεὶ θεὸν ὁρᾷ, σύνεστιν ἀεὶ θεῷ. εἰ δὲ χαίρει τῷ ἀρχομένῳ τὸ ἄρχον, καὶ θεὸς σοφοῦ κήδεται καὶ προνοεῖ· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μακάριος ὁ σοφός, ὅτι ἐπιτροπεύεται ὑπὸ θεοῦ. οὐχ ἡ γλῶττα τοῦ σοφοῦ τίμιον παρὰ θεῷ, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἔργα. σοφὸς γὰρ ἀνὴρ καὶ σιγῶν τὸν θεὸν τιμᾷ. ἄνθρωπος δὲ ἀμαθὴς καὶ εὐχόμενος καὶ θύων μιαίνει τὸ θεῖον. μόνος [17] οὖν ἱερεὺς ὁ σοφός, μόνος θεοφιλής, μόνος εἰδὼς εὔξασθαι. καὶ ὁ σοφίαν ἀσκῶν ἐπιστήμην ἀσκεῖ τὴν περὶ θεοῦ, οὐ λιτανεύων ἀεὶ καὶ θύων, διὰ δὲ τῶν ἔργων τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ἀσκῶν εὐσέβειαν. θεῷ γὰρ εὐάρεστος οὔτε δόξαις ἀνθρώπων οὔτε σοφιστῶν κεναῖς φωναῖς γένοιτ’ ἄν τις· αὐτὸς δὲ ἑαυτὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον ποιεῖ θεῷ καὶ ἐκθεοῖ τῇ τῆς ἰδίας διαθέσεως [ 549 ]

ὁμοιότητι τῷ μετὰ ἀφθαρσίας μακαρίῳ· καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀσεβῆ καὶ δυσάρεστον ποιεῖ τῷ θεῷ, οὐχ ὑπὸ θεοῦ πάσχων κακῶς - ἀγαθοποιὸν γὰρ μόνον τὸ θεῖον - ἀλλ’ ὑφ’ ἑαυτοῦ διά τε ἄλλα καὶ τὴν περὶ θεοῦ κακὴν δόξαν. ἀσεβὴς οὐχ οὕτως ὁ τὰ ἀγάλματα τῶν θεῶν μὴ περιέπων ὡς ὁ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας τῷ θεῷ προσάπτων. σὺ δὲ μηδὲν ἀνάξιόν ποτε ὑπολάβῃς περὶ θεοῦ μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος αὐτοῦ μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. [18] οὗτος γὰρ μέγιστος καρπὸς εὐσεβείας τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖον κατὰ τὰ πάτρια, οὐχ ὡς ἐκείνου προσδεομένου, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκείνου εὐλαβεστάτης καὶ μακαρίας σεμνότητος εἰς τὸ σέβας αὐτοῦ ἐκκαλούμενον. βωμοὶ δὲ θεοῦ ἱερουργούμενοι μὲν οὐδὲν βλάπτουσιν, ἀμελούμενοι δὲ οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦσιν. ὅστις δὲ τιμᾷ τὸν θεὸν ὡς προσδεόμενον, οὗτος λέληθεν ἑαυτὸν δοξάζων τοῦ θεοῦ κρείττον’ εἶναι. οὐ χολωθέντες οὖν οἱ θεοὶ βλάπτουσιν, ἀλλ’ ἀγνοηθέντες· ὀργὴ γὰρ θεῶν ἀλλοτρία, ὅτι ἐπ’ ἀβουλήτοις μὲν ἡ ὀργή, θεῷ δὲ οὐδὲν ἀβούλητον. μὴ τοίνυν μίαινε τὸ θεῖον ἀνθρωπίναις ψευδοδοξίαις· οὔτε γὰρ ἐκεῖνο βλάψεις τό γε μακάριον διὰ παντὸς καὶ οὗ πᾶσα βλάβη τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἐξελήλαται, σαυτὴν δὲ τυφλώσεις πρὸς τὴν τῶν μεγίστων καὶ κυριωτάτων διάγνωσιν. [19] Σὺ δὲ ταῦτα λέγειν με ἡγοῦ οὐ παραγγέλλοντα σέβειν. θεὸν γελοῖος γὰρ ὁ τοῦτο παραγγέλλων ὡς ἐπιδιστάζειν ἐνόντος περὶ τούτου· καὶ οὐχ ὅτι τινὰ ποιοῦντες ἢ δοξάζοντες περὶ θεοῦ καλῶς τοῦτον σέβομεν. οὔτε δάκρυα καὶ ἱκετεῖαι θεὸν ἐπιστρέφουσιν οὔτε θυηπολίαι θεὸν τιμῶσιν οὔτε ἀναθημάτων πλῆθος κοσμοῦσι θεόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἔνθεον φρόνημα καλῶς ἡδρασμένον συνάπτει θεῷ. χωρεῖν γὰρ ἀνάγκη τὸ ὅμοιον πρὸς τὸ ὅμοιον. θυηπολίαι δὲ ἀφρόνων πυρὸς τροφὴ καὶ τὰ παρὰ τούτων ἀναθήματα ἱεροσύλοις χορηγία τῶν ἀκολασιῶν. σοὶ δέ, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, νεὼς μὲν ἔστω τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἐν σοὶ νοῦς. παρασκευαστέον δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ κοσμητέον εἰς καταδοχὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιτήδειον. μηδὲ ἐφήμερος ὁ κόσμος ἔστω καὶ τὰ τῆς παραδοχῆς καὶ πάλιν γέλωτες καὶ ἀφροσύναι καὶ τὸ χώρημα τοῦ πονηροῦ δαίμονος. [20] Ἐὰν οὖν ἀεὶ μνημονεύῃς, ὅτι ὅπου ἂν ἡ ψυχή σου περιπατῇ καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἐνεργὸν ἀποτελῇ, θεὸς παρέστηκεν ἔφορος ἐν πάσαις σου ταῖς βουλαῖς καὶ ταῖς πράξεσιν, αἰδεσθήσῃ μὲν τοῦ θεωροῦ τὸ ἄλεστον, ἕξεις δὲ τὸν θεὸν σύνοικον. κἂν τὸ στόμα οὖν σου πρόφασίν τινα πράγματος ἄλλου του διαλέγηται, μετὰ τῆς γνώμης τὸ φρόνημα τετράφθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν. οὕτως γάρ σοι καὶ ὁ λόγος ἔνθεος ἔσται διὰ φωτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς [21] ἀληθείας λαμπρυνόμενος καὶ ῥᾷον προχωρῶν. θεοῦ γὰρ γνῶσις ποιεῖ βραχὺν λόγον. ὅπου δ’ ἂν λήθη παρεισέλθῃ θεοῦ, τὸν κακὸν δαίμονα ἀνάγκη ἐνοικεῖν· χώρημα γὰρ ἡ ψυχή, ὥσπερ μεμάθηκας, ἢ θεῶν ἢ δαιμόνων. καὶ θεῶν μὲν συνόντων πράξει τὰ ἀγαθὰ καὶ διὰ τῶν λόγων καὶ διὰ τῶν ἔργων· ὑποδεξαμένη δὲ ψυχὴ τὸν κακὸν σύνοικον διὰ πονηρίας πάντα ἐνεργεῖ. ὅταν οὖν ἴδῃς ἄνθρωπον τοῖς κακοῖς χαίροντα καὶ δρῶντα, γίνωσκε τοῦτον ἠρνῆσθαι μὲν τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῇ γνώμῃ, πονηροῦ δὲ δαίμονος ὄντα ἐνδιαίτημα. θεὸν οἱ μὲν εἶναι νομίζοντες καὶ διοικεῖν ἅπαντα τοῦτο γέρας ἐκτήσαντο διὰ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς βεβαίας πίστεως τὸ μεμαθηκέναι, ὅτι ὑπὸ θεοῦ προνοεῖται πάντα καὶ εἰσὶν ἄγγελοι θεῖοί τε καὶ ἀγαθοὶ δαίμονες ἐπόπται τῶν πραττομένων, οὓς καὶ λαθεῖν ἀμήχανον. καὶ δὴ τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχειν πεπεισμένοι φυλάττονται μὲν μὴ διαπίπτειν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον, πρὸ [ 550 ]

ὄψεως ἔχοντες τὴν τῶν θεῶν ἀναπόδραστον ἐφόρασιν· εὐγνώμονα δὲ βίον κτησάμενοι μανθάνουσι θεοὺς [22] γινώσκονταί τε γινωσκομένοις θεοῖς. οἱ δὲ μήτε εἶναι θεοὺς πιστεύσαντες μήτε προνοίᾳ θεοῦ διοικεῖσθαι τὰ ὅλα, δίκης κόλασιν πεπόνθασι, τὸ μήτε ἑαυτοῖς πιστεύειν μήθ’ ἑτέροις ὅτι θεοὶ εἰσὶ καὶ οὐκ ἀλόγῳ φορᾷ διοικεῖται τὰ πάντα. εἰς κίνδυνον οὖν ἄφατον ἑαυτοὺς ἐμβαλόντες ἀλόγῳ ὁρμῇ καὶ εὐδιαπτώτῳ τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ἐπιτίθενται καὶ πάντα δρῶσιν ἃ μὴ θέμις, ἀναιρεῖν πειρώμενοι τὴν περὶ θεοὺς ὑπόληψιν. καὶ δὴ τούτους μὲν ἀγνοίας ἕνεκα καὶ ἀπιστίας θεοὶ διαφεύγουσιν· αὐτοὶ δὲ θεοὺς καὶ τὴν ὀπαδὸν τῶν θεῶν δίκην οὔτε φυγεῖν οὔτε λαθεῖν δύνανται· βίον δὲ κακοδαίμονα καὶ πλανήτην ἑλόμενοι ἀγνοοῦντες θεοὺς γινώσκονται θεοῖς [23] καὶ τῇ δίκῃ τῇ παρὰ θεῶν. κἂν θεοὺς τιμᾶν οἴωνται καὶ πεπεῖσθαι εἶναι θεούς, ἀρετῆς δὲ ἀμελῶσι καὶ σοφίας, ἤρνηνται θεοὺς καὶ ἀτιμάζουσιν. οὔτε γὰρ ἄλογος πίστις δίχα τοῦ ὀρθῶς ζῆν ἐπιτυχὴς θεοῦ, οὔτε μὴν τὸ τιμᾶν θεοσεβὲς ἄνευ τοῦ μεμαθηκέναι ὅτῳ τρόπῳ χαίρει τὸ θεῖον τιμώμενον. εἰ μὲν γὰρ προχοαῖς ἢ θυηλαῖς τερπόμενον πείθεται, οὐκ ἂν εἴη δίκαιον τῷ τὴν ἴσην πάντας ἀμοιβὴν αἰτεῖν μὴ τὴν ἴσην λαχόντας τύχην. εἰ δὲ τούτων οὐδὲν ἧττον, μόνῳ δὲ ἥδεται τῷ καθαρεύειν τὴν διάνοιαν, ὃ δὴ δυνατὸν ἐκ προαιρέσεως παντί τῳ προσεῖναι, πῶς οὐκ ἂν εἴη δίκαιον; εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν τὸ θεῖον θεραπευόμενον ἥδεται, ἱερείοις μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν, διανοίᾳ δὲ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν αὐτὸ τιμητέον. εὔχεσθαι θεῷ [24] οὐ κακόν, ὡς τὸ ἀχαριστεῖν πονηρότατον. κακῶν ἀνθρώπῳ οὐδεὶς θεὸς αἴτιος, ἀλλὰ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ὁ ἑλόμενος· εὐχὴ ἡ μὲν μετὰ φαύλων ἔργων ἀκάθαρτος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπρόσδεκτος ὑπὸ θεοῦ· ἡ δὲ μετὰ καλῶν ἔργων καθαρά τε ὁμοῦ καὶ εὐπρόσδεκτος.  Τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα μάλιστα κεκρατύνθω περὶ θεοῦ· πίστις, ἀλήθεια, ἔρως, ἐλπίς. πιστεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ ὅτι μόνη σωτηρία ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐπιστροφή, καὶ πιστεύσαντα ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα σπουδάσαι τἀληθῆ γνῶναι περὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ γνόντα ἐρασθῆναι τοῦ γνωσθέντος, ἐρασθέντα δὲ ἐλπίσιν ἀγαθαῖς τρέφειν τὴν ψυχὴν διὰ τοῦ βίου. ἐλπίσι γὰρ ἀγαθαῖς οἱ ἀγαθοὶ τῶν φαύλων ὑπερέχουσι. στοιχεῖα μὲν οὖν ταῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα κεκρατύνθω. [25] Τρεῖς δὲ νόμοι διακεκρίσθωσαν οἵδε· εἷς μὲν ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἕτερος δὲ ὁ τῆς θνητῆς φύσεως, τρίτος δὲ ὁ θετὸς κατ’ ἔθνη καὶ πόλεις. ὁ μὲν οὖν τῆς φύσεως ἀφορίζων τὰ μέτρα τῶν χρειῶν τοῦ σώματος καὶ τὸ ἐν ταύταις δεικνὺς ἀναγκαῖον τὸ μάτην κἀκ περιττοῦ σπουδαζόμενον ἐλέγχει. ὁ δὲ θετός τε καὶ κατ’ ἔθνη διατεταγμένος κατὰ συνθήκην τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους κρατύνει κοινωνίαν διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὰ τεθέντα ὁμολογίας. ὁ δ’ αὖ θεῖος ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦ νοῦ σωτηρίας ἕνεκα ταῖς λογικαῖς ψυχαῖς κατὰ τὰς ἐννοίας διετάχθη, δι’ ἀληθείας δὲ τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς πεφασμένων εὑρίσκεται. παραβαίνεται δὲ ὁ μὲν τῆς φύσεως κεναῖς δόξαις ἀγνοηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν τῇ ἄγαν φιλοσωματίᾳ προσκειμένων τῷ σώματι· ὑπερβαίνεται δὲ καταφρονούμενος ὑπὸ τῶν ὑπεράνω γινομένων τοῦ σώματος καὶ διὰ τὸ σῶμα. ὁ δὲ θετὸς καιρῷ μὲν ὑποτάττεται ἄλλοτε ἀλλοῖος γραφόμενος κατὰ τὸ βίαιον τῆς τοῦ κρατοῦντος δυναστείας, εἰς κόλασιν δὲ ἀπάγει τὸν ἁλόντα, οὔτε τοῦ λαθόντος οὔτε τῆς προαιρέσεως ἐφικέσθαι δυνάμενος [26] ἑκάστου. ὁ δέ γε θεῖος ἀγνοεῖται μὲν ψυχῇ δι’ ἀφροσύνην καὶ ἀκολασίαν ἀκαθάρτῳ, ἐκλάμπει δὲ δι’ ἀπαθείας καὶ φρονήσεως. καὶ οὔτε ὑπερβῆναι τοῦτον δυνατόν - οὐδὲν γὰρ τούτου ὑπεράνω ἀνθρώπῳ - οὔτ’ [ 551 ]

αὐτοῦ καταφρονῆσαι· οὐ γὰρ ἐκλάμψαι αὐτὸν οἷόν τε ἐν τῷ καταφρονεῖν αὐτοῦ μέλλοντι· οὔτε τύχαις καιρῶν τρέπεται, ὅτι κρείττων ἦν τῆς τύχης καὶ πάσης βίας πολυτρόπου ἰσχυρότερος. νοῦς δὲ αὐτὸν μόνος γινώσκει μεταλλεύων αὐτοῦ τὴν ἔρευναν καὶ τετυπωμένον ἐν αὑτῷ ἐξευρίσκει τροφήν τε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ πορίζει τῇ ὥσπερ σώματι αὐτοῦ ψυχῇ· νοῦ γὰρ σῶμα ψυχὴν λογικὴν θετέον, ἣν τρέφει ὁ νοῦς τὰς ἐν αὐτῇ ἐννοίας, ἃς ἐνετύπωσε καὶ ἐνεχάραξεν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ θείου νόμου ἀληθείας, εἰς ἀναγνώρισιν ἄγων διὰ τοῦ παρ’ αὐτῷ φωτός· καὶ διδάσκαλος αὐτὸς γινόμενος καὶ σωτὴρ καὶ τροφεὺς καὶ φύλαξ καὶ ἀναγωγός, μετὰ σιγῆς μὲν φθεγγόμενος τὴν ἀλήθειαν, τὸν δὲ θεῖον αὐτῆς ἐξελίττειν νόμον διδοὺς διὰ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ἐμβλέψεως ἐν ταῖς εἰς αὐτὸν ἐπιβολαῖς ἐν αὐτῇ τετυπωμένον [27] ἐξ ἀιδίου ἐπιγινώσκει. κατανοητέον οὖν πρῶτόν σοι τὸν τῆς φύσεως νόμον, ἀπὸ δὲ τούτου ἀναβατέον ἐπὶ τὸν θεῖον, ὃς καὶ τὸν τῆς φύσεως διέταξε νόμον. ἀφ’ ὧν ὁρμωμένη οὐδαμοῦ εὐλαβήσῃ τὸν ἔγγραφον. οἱ γὰρ ἔγγραφοι νόμοι χάριν τῶν μετρίων κεῖνται, οὐχ ὅπως μὴ ἀδικῶσιν, ἀλλ’ ὅπως μὴ ἀδικῶνται. ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος ἀληθῶς φιλόσοφος ὥρισται καὶ ἔστιν εὐπόριστος, ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν ἀόριστός τε καὶ δυσπόριστος. ὁ οὖν τῇ φύσει κατακολουθῶν καὶ μὴ ταῖς κεναῖς δόξαις ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτάρκης· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ τῇ φύσει ἀρκοῦν πᾶσα κτῆσίς ἐστι πλοῦτος, πρὸς δὲ τὰς ἀορίστους ὀρέξεις καὶ ὁ μέγιστος πλοῦτός ἐστιν οὐδέν. σπάνιόν γε εὑρεῖν ἄνθρωπον πρὸς τὸ τῆς φύσεως τέλος πένητα καὶ πλούσιον πρὸς τὰς κενὰς δόξας. οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν ἀφρόνων οἷς ἔχει ἀρκεῖται, μᾶλλον δὲ οἷς οὐκ ἔχει ὀδυνᾶται. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ πυρέσσοντες διὰ κακοήθειαν τῆς νόσου ἀεὶ διψῶσι καὶ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, οὕτω καὶ οἱ τὴν ψυχὴν κακῶς ἔχοντες διακειμένην πένονται πάντων [28] ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς πολυτρόπους ἐπιθυμίας ὑπὸ λαιμαργίας ἐμπίπτουσιν. ἁγνεύειν οὖν καὶ οἱ θεοὶ δ’ ἀποχῆς βρωμάτων καὶ ἀφροδισίων προσέταξαν, εἰς τὸ τῆς φύσεως, ἣν αὐτοὶ συνέστησαν, ἐπάγοντες βούλημα τοὺς εὐσέβειαν μετιόντας, ὡσὰν παντὸς τοῦ παρὰ τὸ βούλημα πλεονάζοντος μιαροῦ καὶ θανασίμου. φοβούμενος γὰρ ὁ πολυτελὴς τὸ λιτὸν τῆς διαίτης, διὰ τὸν φόβον ἐπὶ πράξεις πορεύεται τὰς μάλιστα τοῦτον παρασκευαζούσας. καὶ πολλοὶ τοῦ πλούτου τυχόντες οὐ τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν κακῶν εὗρον, ἀλλὰ μεταβολὴν μειζόνων. διό φασιν οἱ φιλόσοφοι οὐδὲν οὕτως ἀναγκαῖον ὡς τὸ γινώσκειν καλῶς τὸ μὴ ἀναγκαῖον, πλουσιωτάτην δὲ εἶναι πάντων τὴν αὐτάρκειαν καὶ σεμνὸν τὸ μηδενὸς δεῖσθαι λαμβάνονται. διὸ καὶ μελετᾶν παρακελεύονται οὐχ ὅπως τι ποριστέον ἀναγκαῖον, ἀλλ’ ὅπως [29] μᾶλλον θαρρήσομεν μὴ πορισθέντος. μηδὲ αἰτιώμεθα τὴν σάρκα ὡς τῶν μεγάλων κακῶν αἰτίαν μηδ’ εἰς τὰ πράγματα τρέπωμεν τὰς δυσφορίας, ἐν δὲ τῇ ψυχῇ τὰς τούτων αἰτίας μᾶλλον ζητῶμεν καὶ ἀπορρήξαντες πᾶσαν ματαίαν τῶν ἐφημέρων ὄρεξιν καὶ ἐλπίδα ὅλοι γενώμεθα ἑαυτῶν. ἢ γὰρ διὰ φόβον τις κακοδαιμονεῖ ἢ δι’ ἀόριστον καὶ κενὴν ἐπιθυμίαν. ἅ τις χαλινῶν δύναται τὸν μακάριον ἑαυτῷ περιποιεῖσθαι λογισμόν. ἐφ’ ὅσον δ’ ἂν ἀμηχανῇς, λήθῃ τῆς φύσεως ἀμηχανεῖς· σαυτῇ γὰρ ἀορίστους φόβους καὶ ἐπιθυμίας προσβάλλεις· κρεῖσσον δέ σοι θαρρεῖν ἐπὶ στιβάδος κατακειμένῃ ἢ ταράττεσθαι χρυσῆν ἐχούσῃ κλίνην καὶ πολυτελῆ τράπεζαν. ἐξ ἐργασίας θρηνώδους οὐσίας μὲν πλῆθος σωρεύεται, βίος δὲ ταλαίπωρος [30] συνίσταται. ἀφυσιολόγητον μηδὲν ἡγοῦ βοώσης τῆς σαρκὸς βοᾶν τὴν ψυχήν· σαρκὸς δὲ φωνὴ μὴ πεινῆν, μὴ διψῆν, μὴ [ 552 ]

ῥιγοῦν. καὶ ταῦτα τὴν ψυχὴν χαλεπὸν μὲν κωλῦσαι, ἐπισφαλὲς δὲ παρακοῦσαι τῆς παραγγειλάσης φύσεως αὐτῇ διὰ τῆς προσφυοῦς αὐτῇ αὐταρκείας καθ’ ἡμέραν. καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῆς τύχης μικρότερα διδάσκει νομίζειν, καὶ εὐτυχοῦντας μὲν γινώσκειν ἀτυχεῖν, δυστυχοῦντας δὲ μὴ παρὰ μέγα τίθεσθαι τὸ εὐτυχεῖν· καὶ δέχεσθαι μὲν ἀθορύβως τὰ παρὰ τῆς τύχης ἀγαθά, παρατετάχθαι δὲ πρὸς τὰ παρ’ αὐτῆς δοκοῦντα εἶναι κακά· ὡς ἐφήμερον μὲν πᾶν τὸ τῶν πολλῶν ἀγαθόν ἐστι, σοφία δὲ καὶ ἐπιστήμη οὐδαμῶς τύχης [31] κοινωνεῖ. οὐκ ἀπορεῖν τούτων πόνος ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ φέρειν μᾶλλον τὸν ἀνόνητον ἐκ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν πόνον. ἔρωτι γὰρ φιλοσοφίας ἀληθινῆς πᾶσα ταραχώδης καὶ ἐπίπονος ἐπιθυμία ἐκλύεται. κενὸς ἐκείνου φιλοσόφου λόγος, ὑφ’ οὗ μηδὲν πάθος ἀνθρώπου θεραπεύεται· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἰατρικῆς οὐδὲν ὄφελος, εἰ μὴ τὰς νόσους τῶν σωμάτων θεραπεύει, οὕτως οὐδὲ φιλοσοφίας, εἰ μὴ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκβάλλει πάθος. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν καὶ [32] τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια ὁ τῆς φύσεως παραγγέλλει νόμος. ὁ δὲ θεῖος ἐκβοᾷ ἐν καθαρῷ διανοίας τόμῳ· εἰ μὴ τὸ σῶμα οὕτω σοι συνηρτῆσθαι φυλάξεις ὡς τοῖς ἐμβρύοις κυοφορουμένοις τὸ χόριον καὶ τῷ σίτῳ βλαστάνοντι τὴν καλάμην, οὐ γνώσῃ σεαυτήν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄλλος ὅστις μὴ οὕτω δοξάζει ἔγνω ἑαυτόν. ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ χόριον συγγενόμενον καὶ ἡ καλάμη τοῦ σίτου, τελεωθέντα δὲ ῥίπτεται ἑκάτερα, οὕτω καὶ τὸ συναρτώμενον τῇ ψυχῇ σπαρείσῃ σῶμα οὐ μέρος ἀνθρώπου. ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὲν ἐν γαστρὶ γένηται, προσυφάνθη τὸ χόριον, ἵνα δὲ ἐπὶ γῆς γένηται, συνεζύγη τὸ σῶμα. ὅσῳ τις τέτραπται πρὸς τὸ θνητόν, τοσούτῳ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην ἀσύμμετρον παρασκευάζει πρὸς τὸ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας μέγεθος· καὶ ὅσῳ τῆς τοῦ σώματος προσπαθείας ἀφίσταται, τοσούτῳ μέτρῳ τῷ θείῳ πελάζει. ὁ συνετὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ θεοφιλὴς ὅσα οἱ ἄλλοι μοχθοῦσι τοῦ σώματος ἕνεκα, τοσαῦτα ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς σπουδάσεται πονῆσαι, οὐ τὸ μεμνῆσθαι ὧν ἤκουσεν αὔταρκες εἶναι νομίζων, τὸ δὲ ἀνατρέχειν εἰς ἃ δεῖ δι’ ὧν ἤκουσεν μελετῶν. [33] γυμνὸς δὲ ἀποσταλεὶς γυμνητεύων καλέσει τὸν πέμψαντα· μόνου γὰρ τοῦ μὴ τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις πεφορτισμένου ἐπήκοος ὁ θεός, καὶ τῶν καθαρῶν ἀπὸ τῆς φθορᾶς ὑπερκείμενος. μέγα ἡγοῦ σοι ἐφόδιον εἰς βίον μακάριον τὸ δεδεμένον ἐν φύσει δῆσαι τὸν δήσαντα. ἐδέθημεν γὰρ φύσεως δεσμοῖς οἷς ἡμᾶς περιέβαλε, κοιλίᾳ, μορίοις, λαιμῷ, τοῖς ἄλλοις μέρεσι τοῦ σώματος καὶ ταῖς δι’ αὐτῶν χρήσεσι καὶ ἡδυπαθείαις καὶ τοῖς ὑπὲρ τούτων φόβοις. ἐὰν οὖν τούτων τῆς γοητείας ὑπεράνω γενώμεθα καὶ τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς φυλαξώμεθα τὴν παγίδα, ἐδήσαμεν τὸν δήσαντα. μήτε οὖν εἰ ἄρρην εἶ μήτε εἰ θήλεια τὸ σῶμα πολυπραγμόνει, μηδὲ γυναῖκα ἴδῃς σαυτήν, ὅτι μηδ’ ἐγώ σοι ὡς τοιαύτῃ προσέσχον. φεῦγε τῆς ψυχῆς πᾶν τὸ θηλυνόμενον, ὡς εἰ καὶ ἄρρενος εἶχες τὸ σῶμα περικείμενον. ἐκ παρθένου γὰρ ψυχῆς καὶ ᾐθέου νοῦ τὰ τικτόμενα μακαριώτατα· ἐξ ἀδιαφθόρων γὰρ τὰ ἄφθορα· ἃ δὲ τίκτει τὸ σῶμα, μιαρὸν πᾶσι τοῖς [34] θεοῖς ἐνομίσθη. μεγάλη οὖν παιδεία ἄρχειν τοῦ σώματος. πολλάκις κόπτουσί τινα μέρη ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ· τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ἕνεκα ἕτοιμος ἔσο τὸ ὅλον σῶμα ἀποκόπτειν. ὧν γὰρ ἕνεκα ζῆν ἐθέλεις, τούτων χάριν καὶ ἀποθανεῖν μὴ κατόκνει. ἡγείσθω τοίνυν πάσης ὁρμῆς ὁ λόγος ἐξορίζων τοὺς δεινοὺς δεσπότας καὶ ἀθέους ἀφ’ ἡμῶν. ὅτι καὶ χαλεπώτερον δουλεύειν πάθεσιν ἢ τυράννοις· ἀδύνατον δ’ εἶναι ἐλεύθερον τὸν ὑπὸ παθῶν κρατούμενον. ὅσα γὰρ πάθη ψυχῆς, τοσοῦτοι καὶ ὠμοὶ [ 553 ]

δεσπόται· [35] οἰκέτας πειρῶ μὴ ἀδικεῖν μηδὲ ὀργιζομένη κολάσῃς. κολάζειν δὲ μέλλουσα πεῖθε πρότερον, ὅτι ἐπὶ συμφέροντι κολάζεις, διδοῦσα αὐτοῖς καιρὸν ἀπολογίας. παραιτοῦ εἰς τὴν κτῆσιν τοὺς αὐθάδεις. τὰ πολλὰ ἄσκει αὐτουργεῖν. λιτὸν γὰρ καὶ εὔπορον τὸ τῆς αὐτουργίας, καὶ δεῖ ἑκάστῳ τῶν μερῶν πρὸς ὃ ἡ φύσις κατεσκεύασε χρῆσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, τῆς φύσεως ἄλλου μὴ δεομένης· τοῖς γὰρ μὴ χρωμένοις τοῖς ἰδίοις, καταχρωμένοις δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις διπλοῦν τὸ φορτίον καὶ πρὸς τὴν δεδωκυῖαν τὰ μέρη φύσιν ἀχάριστον. ψιλῆς δὲ ἕνεκα ἡδονῆς μηδέποτε χρήσῃ τοῖς μέρεσι· πολλῷ γὰρ κρεῖττον τεθνάναι ἢ δι’ ἀκρασίαν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀμαυρῶσαι ……………………….. κακίαν ἐνδιορθουμένη τῆς φύσεως ….. οἷα δὲ οἰκέταις κοινωνοῦσα τιμῆς μεταδίδου τοῖς βελτίοσιν. οὐκ ἔσθ’ ὅπως γὰρ οὖν ἄνθρωπον ἀδικοῦντα σέβειν θεόν· ἀλλὰ κρηπὶς εὐσεβείας σοι νομιζέσθω ἡ φιλανθρωπία καὶ ….

[ 554 ]

Letter to the Egyptian Anebo ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ Η ΠΡΟΣ ΑΝΕΒΩ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ [ 1 ] ἘΝ Ἀ ΡΧ ῇ δὴ διελώμεθα τὰ γένη πόσα τέ ἐστι καὶ ὁποῖα τῶν νυνὶ προκειμένων προβλημάτων, ἀπὸ τίνων τε εἴληπται θείων θεολογιῶν .. τὰ ἀπορήματα διέλθωμεν, καὶ κατὰ ποίας τινὰς ἐπιστήμας ἐπιζητεῖται τὴν πρόθεσιν αὐτῶν ποιησώμεθα. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐπιποθεῖ διάκρισίν τινα τῶν κακῶς συγκεχυμένων, τὰ δ’ ἐστὶ περὶ τὴν αἰτίαν δι’ ἣν ἕκαστά ἐστί τε οὑτωσὶ καὶ νοεῖται, τὰ δ’ ἐπ’ ἄμφω τὴν γνώμην ἕλκει κατ’ ἐναντίωσίν τινα προβαλλόμενα· ἔνια δὲ τὴν ὅλην ἀπαιτεῖ παρ’ ἡμῶν μυσταγωγίαν. τοιαῦτα δὲ ὄντα πολλαχόθεν εἴληπται καὶ ἀπὸ διαφερουσῶν ἐπιστημῶν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀφ’ ὧν οἱ Χαλδαίων σοφοὶ παραδεδώκασι τὰς ἐπιστάσεις προσάγει, τὰ δ’ ἀφ’ ὧν Αἰγυπτίων οἱ προφῆται διδάσκουσι ποιεῖται τὰς ἀντιλήψεις, ἔνια δὲ καὶ τῆς τῶν φιλοσόφων θεωρίας ἐχόμενα τὰς ἐρωτήσεις ἑπομένως αὐτοῖς ποιεῖται. ἤδη δέ τινα καὶ ἀπ’ ἄλλων οὐκ ἀξίων λόγου δοξασμάτων ἐφέλκεταί τινα ἀπρεπῆ διαμφισβήτησιν, τὰ δ’ ἀπὸ τῶν κοινῶν ὑπολήψεων παρ’ ἀνθρώποις ὥρμηται. αὐτά τε οὖν καθ’ ἑαυτὰ ἕκαστα ποικίλως διάκειται καὶ πρὸς ἄλληλα πολυειδῶς συνήρμοσται, ὅθεν δὴ διὰ πάντα ταῦτα λόγου τινός ἐστιν ἐπιδεῆ τοῦ κατευθύνοντος αὐτὰ προσηκόντως. “Ἄρξομαι δὲ τῆς πρὸς σὲ φιλίας ἀπὸ θεῶν καὶ δαιμόνων ἀγαθῶν” “τῶν τε τούτοις συγγενῶν φιλοσοφημάτων, περὶ ὧν εἴρηται μὲν πλεῖστα” “καὶ παρὰ τοῖς Ἑλλήνων φιλοσόφοις, εἴρηται δὲ ἐκ στοχασμοῦ τὸ πλέον” “τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχοντα τῆς πίστεως.” [1b] Φῂς τοίνυν πρῶτον διδόναι εἶναι θεούς. Ὁ δὲ αὐτός ἐστί μοι λόγος πρὸς σὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν συνεπομένων θεοῖς κρειττόνων γενῶν, δαιμόνων, φημί, καὶ ἡρώων καὶ ψυχῶν ἀχράντων. [1c] Ἃ δ’ ἐπιζητεῖς ἰδιώματα τίνα ἐστὶν ἑκάστῳ τῶν κρειττόνων γενῶν, οἷς κεχώρισται ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, ὡς δὲ νῦν ἠρώτησας “τίσιν ἰδιώμασι” ‹τὰ τῶν› ἐνεργειῶν μόνον εἴρηκας, ἐπὶ τῶν τελευταίων ἄρα τὸ διάφορον ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐπιζητεῖς, τὰ δὲ πρώτιστα αὐτῶν καὶ τιμιώτατα, ὡσπερεὶ στοιχεῖα τῆς παραλλαγῆς, ἀφῆκας ἀδιερεύνητα. πρόσκειται δὲ δὴ αὐτόθι καὶ τὸ τῶν δραστικῶν ἢ παθητικῶν κινήσεων, ἥκιστα προσήκουσαν ἔχον διαίρεσιν εἰς διαφορὰν τῶν κρειττόνων γενῶν. ἔτι τοίνυν ἀλλοτρίως αὐτῶν κἀκεῖνο τὸ “ἢ τῶν παρεπομένων” προστίθεται. [2a] Οὐ μέντοι τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ διάκρισιν ὑποτεινομένην αὐτῶν προσιέμεθα, ἥτις τὴν πρὸς τὰ διαφέροντα σώματα κατάταξιν, οἷον θεῶν μὲν πρὸς τὰ αἰθέρια, δαιμόνων δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἀέρια, ψυχῶν δὲ τῶν περι‹κοσμίων πρὸς τὰ περὶ› γῆν, αἰτίαν εἶναί φησι τῆς νυνὶ ζητουμένης διαστάσεως. [2b] Διὰ τί, ἐν οὐρανῷ κατοικούντων τῶν θεῶν μόνως, χθονίων καὶ ὑποχθονίων εἰσὶ παρὰ τοῖς θεουργικοῖς κλήσεις;

[ 555 ]

Ἀλλὰ πῶς ἐνύδριοί τινες λέγονται καὶ ἀέριοι, τόπους τε διειλήχασιν ἄλλοι ἄλλους, καὶ σωμάτων μοίρας διακληρώσαντο κατὰ περιγραφήν, καίτοι δύναμιν ἄπειρον ἔχοντες καὶ ἀμέριστον καὶ ἀπερίληπτον; πῶς τε αὐτῶν ἔσται ἡ ἕνωσις πρὸς ἀλλήλους, μερῶν μερισταῖς περιγραφαῖς διειργομένων, καὶ καθ’ ἑτερότητα τῶν τόπων καὶ τῶν ὑποκειμένων σωμάτων διειλημμένων; [2c] Μετὰ ταύτην δὲ αὖθις ὑποτείνας σαυτῷ διαίρεσιν ἑτέραν, τῇ τοῦ ἐμπαθοῦς καὶ ἀπαθοῦς διαφορᾷ χωρίζεις τῶν κρειττόνων τὰς οὐσίας. “Εἰ δὲ οἱ μὲν ἀπαθεῖς, οἱ δὲ ἐμπαθεῖς, οἷς διὰ τούτων φαλλούς φασιν” “ἑστάναι καὶ ποιεῖσθαι αἰσχρορρημοσύνας, μάταιαι αἱ θεῶν κλήσεις” “ἔσονται, προσκλήσεις αὐτῶν ἐπαγγελλόμεναι καὶ μήνιδος ἐξιλάσεις καὶ” “ἐκθύσεις, καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον αἱ λεγόμεναι ἀνάγκαι θεῶν. ἀκήλητον γὰρ” “καὶ ἀβίαστον καὶ ἀκατανάγκαστον τὸ ἀπαθές.” [3a] Μετὰ δὲ ταύτην ἐπ’ ἄλλην μεταβαίνεις ἀντιδιαίρεσιν θεῶν πρὸς δαίμονας· λέγεις γὰρ θεοὺς εἶναι νόας καθαρούς, ὡς ἐν ὑποθέσει προτείνων τὴν δόξαν ἢ ὥς τισιν ἀρέσκουσαν αὐτὴν ἀφηγούμενος, νοῦ δὲ μετόχους ψυχικοὺς ὄντας τοὺς δαίμονας ἀπολογιζόμενος. [3b] Ἃ δὲ καὶ πρὸς ταύτην ἀπορεῖς, ἐπείπερ ἅπτεται τῆς ἱερατικῆς θεραπείας, λόγου τυγχανέτω τοῦ προσήκοντος. ἔτι γὰρ μᾶλλον ἀκλίτους καὶ ἀμιγεῖς αἰσθητοῖς εἰπὼν εἶναι τοὺς καθαροὺς νόας, ἀπορεῖς εἰ δεῖ πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὔχεσθαι. Εἰ δέ σοι ἄπιστον εἶναι καταφαίνεται, πῶς φωνῆς ἀκούει τὸ ἀσώματον καὶ ὡς αἰσθήσεως προσδεήσεται καὶ [δι’] ὤτων τὰ λεγόμενα ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς εὐχαῖς, ἑκὼν ἐπιλανθάνῃ τῆς τῶν πρώτων αἰτίων περιουσίας ἔν τε τῷ εἰδέναι καὶ τῷ περιέχειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὰ ὑφ’ ἑαυτῶν πάντα. [3c] Ἔχεται δὲ ταύτης ἐν τοῖς σοῖς γράμμασιν ἡ σώματι καὶ ἀσωματίᾳ θεοὺς δαιμόνων χωρίζουσα. Πῶς γὰρ δὴ ἥλιός τε καὶ σελήνη κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον καὶ οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐμφανεῖς ἔσονται θεοί, εἰ ἀσώματοί εἰσι μόνως οἱ θεοί; Ἡ δ’ ἑξῆς ἐπιζήτησις ἡ σὴ διαπορεῖ, πῶς αὐτῶν οἱ μέν εἰσιν ἀγαθοποιοί, οἱ δὲ κακοποιοί. [3d] Ἴθι δὴ οὖν κἀκεῖνο ἀποκρινώμεθα, τί τὸ συνάπτον ἐστὶ πρὸς τοῖς ἀσωμάτοις θεοῖς τοὺς ἔχοντας σῶμα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. [3e] Ἀπορεῖς γὰρ δὴ τί τὸ διακρῖνόν ἐστι τοὺς δαίμονας ‹ἀφανεῖς μὲν› ἀπό τε τῶν ἐμφανῶν καὶ τῶν ἀφανῶν θεῶν [ἀφανεῖς μέν], συνημμένων δὲ τῶν ἐμφανῶν θεῶν τοῖς ἀφανέσιν. Δεῖ δὲ δὴ καὶ τοῦτο προσαποδειχθῆναί σοι, δαίμων ἥρωος καὶ ψυχῆς τίνι κατ’ οὐσίαν διαφέρει ἢ κατὰ δύναμιν ἢ ἐνέργειαν. [4a] Ἐπιζητεῖς γάρ, τί τὸ γνώρισμα θεοῦ παρουσίας ἢ ἀγγέλου ἢ ἀρχαγγέλου ἢ δαίμονος ἤ τινος ἄρχοντος ἢ ψυχῆς. [4b] Λέγεις μὲν γὰρ τὸ περιαυτολογεῖν καὶ τὸ ποιὸν φάντασμα φαντάζειν, κοινὸν εἶναι θεοῖς καὶ δαίμοσι καὶ τοῖς κρείττοσι γένεσι ἅπασι. [5] Τὰ δ’ ἐφεξῆς ἐν οἷς τὴν περὶ τούτων ἄγνοιαν καὶ ἀπάτην ἀνοσιουργίαν καὶ ἀκαθαρσίαν νενόμικας, προτρέπεις τε ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τὴν ἀληθῆ περὶ αὐτῶν παράδοσιν, ἔχει μὲν οὐδεμίαν [ 556 ]

ἀμφισβήτησιν, ἀλλ’ ὁμολογεῖται παρὰ πᾶσιν ὡσαύτως. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν συγχωρήσειεν ἐπιστήμην τυγχάνουσαν τοῦ ὄντος οἰκειοτάτην εἶναι τῆς θείας αἰτίας [θεοῖς], τὴν δὲ ἄγνοιαν τὴν ὑποφερομένην εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν πορρωτάτω τῆς θείας αἰτίας τῶν ἀληθῶν εἰδῶν ἀποπίπτειν; ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ οὐχ ἱκανῶς εἴρηται προσθήσω τὸ ἐλλεῖπον· καὶ διότι φιλοσόφως μᾶλλον καὶ λογικῶς ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ κατὰ τὴν ἔνεργον τῶν ἱερέων τέχνην τὸν ἀπολογισμὸν ποιεῖται, διὰ τοῦτο οἶμαι δεῖν θεουργικώτερον εἰπεῖν τι περὶ αὐτῶν. Τῆς δὲ αὐτῆς ἔχεται τούτοις δυνάμεως κἀκεῖνα, ἐν οἷς ὅσιον καὶ ὠφέλιμον εἶναι νενόμικας τὴν περὶ θεῶν ἐπιστήμην, καὶ τὸ μὲν τῆς ἀγνοίας τῆς περὶ τῶν τιμίων καὶ καλῶν σκότος καλεῖς, φῶς δὲ τὸ τῆς γνώσεως, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐμπλῆσαι τίθεσαι πάντων κακῶν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δι’ ἀμαθίαν καὶ τόλμαν, τὸ δ’ αἴτιον ἡγῇ πάντων ἀγαθῶν.

[ 557 ]

On Philosophy from Oracles ΠΕΡΙ ΤΗΣ ΕΚ ΛΟΓΙΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΙΑΣ. [ 1 0 9 ] ΒΈ ΒΑ Ι Ο ς Δ Ὲ καὶ μόνιμος ὁ ἐντεῦθεν ὡς ἂν ἐκ μόνου βεβαίου τὰς ἐλπίδας τοῦ σωθῆναι ἀρυόμενος, οἷς δὴ καὶ μεταδώσεις μηδὲν ὑφαιρούμενος. ἐπεὶ κἀγὼ τοὺς θεοὺς μαρτύρομαι, ὡς οὐδὲν οὔτε προστέθεικα οὔτε ἀφεῖλον τῶν χρησθέντων νοημάτων, εἰ μή που λέξιν ἡμαρτημένην διώρθωσα ἢ πρὸς τὸ σαφέστερον μεταβέβληκα, ἢ τὸ μέτρον ἐλλεῖπον ἀνεπλήρωσα, ἤ τι τῶν μὴ πρὸς τὴν πρόθεσιν συντεινόντων διέγραψα, ὥστε τὸν νοῦν ἀκραιφνῆ τῶν ῥηθέντων διετήρησα, εὐλαβούμενος τὴν ἐκ τούτων ἀσέβειαν μᾶλλον ἢ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἱεροσυλίας τιμωρὸν ἑπομένην δίκην. ἕξει δὲ ἡ παροῦσα [110] συναγωγὴ πολλῶν μὲν τῶν κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν δογμάτων ἀναγραφήν, ὡς οἱ θεοὶ τἀληθὲς ἔχειν ἐθέσπισαν· ἐπ’ ὀλίγον δὲ καὶ τῆς χρηστικῆς ἁψόμεθα πραγματείας, ἥ τις πρός τε τὴν θεωρίαν ὀνήσει καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὅλην κάθαρσιν τοῦ βίου. ἣν δ’ ἔχει ὠφέλειαν ἡ συναγωγὴ μάλιστα εἴσονται, ὅσοιπερ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὠδίναντες ηὔξαντό ποτε τῆς ἐκ θεῶν ἐπιφανείας τυχόντες ἀνάπαυσιν λαβεῖν τῆς ἀπορίας διὰ τὴν τῶν λεγόντων ἀξιόπιστον διδασκαλίαν. Σὺ δ’, εἴπερ τι, καὶ ταῦτα πειρῶ μὴ δημοσιεύειν, μηδ’ ἄχρι καὶ τῶν βεβήλων ῥίπτειν αὐτὰ δόξης ἕνεκα ἢ κέρδους ἤ τινος ἄλλης οὐκ εὐαγοῦς κολακείας. κίνδυνος γὰρ οὐ σοὶ μόνον τὰς ἐντολὰς παραβαίνοντι ταύτας ἀλλὰ κἀμοὶ ῥᾳδίως πιστεύσαντι τῷ στέγειν παρ’ ἑαυτῷ μὴ δυναμένῳ τὰς εὐποιίας. δοτέον δὴ τοῖς τὸν βίον ἐνστησαμένοις πρὸς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρίαν. Ταῦτά μοι ὡς ἀρρήτων ἀρρητότατα κρύπτειν· οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ θεοὶ φανερῶς περὶ αὐτῶν ἐθέσπισαν, ἀλλὰ δι’ αἰνιγμάτων. [111] Ἀκολούθως μετὰ τὰ ῥηθέντα περὶ εὐσεβείας, ἃ περὶ τῆς θεραπείας αὐτῶν ἔχρησαν ἀναγράφοιμεν ἄν, ὧν ἐκ μέρους κἀν τοῖς περὶ εὐσεβείας φθάσαντες παρατεθείκαμεν. Ἔστι δὲ ὁ χρησμὸς τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, ἅμα καὶ διαίρεσιν τῆς τῶν θεῶν περιέχων τάξεως· [112] Ἐργάζευ, φίλε, τήνδε θεόσδοτον ἐς τρίβον ἐλθών, μηδ’ ἐπιλήθεο τῶν μακάρων, θυσίας ἐναγίζων πῆ μὲν ἐπιχθονίοις, πῆ δ’ οὐρανίοις, ποτὲ δ’ αἴθρης αὐτοῖσιν βασιλεῦσι καὶ ἠέρος ὑγροπόροιο, ἠδὲ θαλασσαίοις καὶ ὑποχθονίοισιν ἅπασι· [113] πάντα γὰρ ἐνδέδεται φύσεως μεστώμασι τῶνδε. ζῴων δ’ ὡς θέμις ἐστὶ τελευτῆσαι καθαγισμοὺς ἀείσω - δέλτοις δὲ χαράσσετε χρησμὸν ἐμεῖο [114] τοῖς μὲν ἐπιχθονίοις, τοῖς δ’ οὐρανίοισι θεοῖσι. φαιδρὰ μὲν οὐρανίοις, χθονίοις δ’ ἐναλίγκια χροιῇ. τῶν χθονίων διάειρε τριχῇ θυσίας ἐναγίζων, [ 558 ]

νερτερίων κατάθαπτε, καὶ εἰς βόθρον αἵματ’ ἴαλλε. [115] χεῦε μέλι Νύμφαισι Διωνύσοιό τε δῶρα. ὅσσοι δ’ ἀμφὶς γῆν πωτώμενοι αἰὲν ἔασι, [116] τοῖς δὲ, φόνου πλήσας πάντη πυριπληθέα βωμόν, ἐν πυρὶ βάλλε δέμας θύσας ζῴοιο πετεινοῦ, καὶ μέλι φυράσας Δηωίῳ ἀλφίτῳ ἔνθευ ἀτμούς τε λιβάνοιο, καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἐπίβαλλε. εὖτε δ’ ἐπὶ ψαμάθοισιν ἴῃς, γλαυκὴν ἅλα χεύας κὰκ κεφαλῆς θυσίαζε, καὶ εἰς βαθὺ κῦμα θαλάσσης ζῷον ὅλον προΐαλλε. τελευτήσας τάδε πάντα [117] ἐς πλατὺν ἠερίων χορὸν ἔρχεο οὐρανιώνων. ἀστραίοις δἤπειτα καὶ αἰθερίοις ἐπὶ πᾶσιν αἷμα μὲν ἐκ λαιμῶν κρουνώμασιν ἀμφὶ θυηλὰς λιμνάζειν, τὰ δὲ γυῖα θεοῖς ἐν δαιτὶ πονεῖσθαι. ἄκρα μὲν Ἡφαίστῳ δόμεναι, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάσασθαι, ἀτμοῖσιν λαροῖσιν ἐνιπλήσαντες ἅπαντα ἠέρα ῥευσταλέον· ἐπὶ δ’ εὐχὰς πέμπετε τοῖσδε. [118] Αἱ δὲ θυσίαι ἔχουσι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον κατὰ τὴν προρρηθεῖσαν διαίρεσιν τῶν θεῶν ἐκδιδόμενα. ὄντων γὰρ ὑποχθονίων καὶ ἐπιχθονίων θεῶν, καὶ τῶν μὲν ὑποχθονίων καὶ νερτερίων καλουμένων, τῶν δ’ ἐπιχθονίων καὶ χθονίων κληθέντων θεῶν, κοινῶς μὲν τούτοις ἱερεῖα τετράποδα μέλανα θύειν παρακελεύεται. περὶ δὲ τὸν τρόπον τῆς θυσίας ἐξαλλάττει. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἐπιχθονίοις σφάζειν ἐπὶ βωμῶν, τοῖς δ’ ὑποχθονίοις ἐπὶ βόθρων παρακελεύεται, καὶ μέντοι καὶ θάπτειν τούτοις θύσαντας τὰ σώματα. ὅτι γὰρ κοινὰ τούτων καὶ τὰ τετράποδα, αὐτὸς ἐρωτηθεὶς ἐπήγαγε. [119] ξυνὰ πέλει χθονίων καὶ ὑποχθονίων τάδε μούνων, τετράποδα· χθονίοις ἀρνῶν νεοπηγέα γυῖα. τοῖς δὲ ἀερίοις πτηνὰ θύειν παρακελεύεται ὁλοκαυτοῦντας, καὶ τὸ αἷμα ἐπὶ τῶν βωμῶν περιάγοντας· τοῖς δὲ θαλασσίοις πτηνὰ μέν, ζῶντα δὲ ἀφιέναι εἰς τὰ κύματα, μέλανα τὴν χρόαν ὄντα. φησὶ γάρ τοῖς δ’ ἑτέροις τὰ πετεινά, θαλασσαίοις δὲ κελαινά, [120] πᾶσι μὲν λέγων τοῖς θεοῖς πλὴν τῶν χθονίων τὰ πετεινά· μόνοις δὲ τοῖς θαλασσίοις τὰ κελαινά· οὐκοῦν τοῖς ἄλλοις λευκά. τοῖς δ’ οὐρανίοις καὶ αἰθερίοις τὰ ἄκρα τῶν ἱερείων λευκῶν ὄντων ἀφιεροῦν, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ μέρη ἐσθίειν· ἐκ μόνων γὰρ τούτων βρωτέον σοι, ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων μή. οὓς δὲ εἴρηκεν ἐν τῇ διαιρέσει οὐρανίους, τούτους ἐνταῦθα ἀστραίους. Ἆρ’ οὖν δεήσει ἐξηγήσασθαι τῶν θυσιῶν τὰ σύμβολα τῷ εὐσυνέτῳ δῆλα; τετράποδα μὲν γὰρ τοῖς χθονίοις καὶ χερσαῖα· τῷ γὰρ ὁμοίῳ χαίρει τὸ ὅμοιον. χθόνιον δὲ τὸ πρόβατον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Δήμητρι φίλον, καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ τὴν ἔκφανσιν ἐκ τῆς γῆς τῶν καρπῶν μεθ’ ἡλίου λοχεύει. μέλανα δέ· τοιαύτη γὰρ ἡ γῆ φύσει σκοτεινή. τρία δέ· τοῦ γὰρ σωματικοῦ καὶ γεώδους τὰ τρία [ 559 ]

σύμβολον. τοῖς [121] μὲν οὖν ἐπιχθονίοις ἄνω ἐπὶ βωμῶν δεῖ θῦσαι· ἐπὶ γὰρ τῆς γῆς ἀναστρέφονται οὗτοι. τοῖς δ’ ἐπιχθονίοις ἐν βόθρῳ καὶ ἐν ταφῇ, ἔνθα διατρίβουσι. τὰ πτηνὰ δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅτι πάντα θεῖ. καὶ γὰρ τὸ ὕδωρ ἀεικίνητον τῆς θαλάσσης, μέλαν δέ· διὸ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἱερεῖα πρόσφορα· τοῖς δὲ ἀερίοις λευκά· πεφώτισται γὰρ καὶ ὁ ἀὴρ φύσεως ὢν διαφανοῦς. οὐρανίοις δὲ καὶ αἰθερίοις τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων κουφότερα, ἅπερ ἐστὶν ἄκρα· οὓς κοινωνεῖν τῆς θυσίας δεῖ. δοτῆρες γὰρ οὗτοι ἀγαθῶν· οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι τῶν κακῶν κωλυτῆρες. [122] Οὐδὲν ἐν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖς ποτε δῖα μάταιον οὐδ’ ἀκράαντον ἔλεξε σοφοῖς Ἑκάτη θεοφήταις· ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ παγκρατεροῖο νόου πατρόθεν κατιοῦσα αἰὲν ἀληθείῃ σελαγίζεται, ἀμφὶ δὲ μῆτις ἔμπεδος ἀρρήκτοισι μένει λογίοισι βεβαία. δεσμῷ δ’ οὖν κλήιζε· θεὴν γὰρ ἄγεις με τοσήνδε, ὅσση ψυχῶσαι πανυπέρτατον ἤρκεσα κόσμον. Καὶ μήποτε διὰ τοῦτο τρίμορφος τριμερής τε καὶ ἡ ψυχή. Ταύτης [123] δὲ τὸ μὲν θυμοειδές, τὸ δὲ ἐπιθυμητικόν· ὅθεν καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἐρωτικὰ καλεῖται. Καὶ μὴν ὅ τι ἑκάστῳ ἐπιτέτακται, αὐτοὶ δεδηλώκασιν, ὥσπερ ὁ Διδυμαῖος διὰ τούτων· - ἦν δ’ ἡ πεῦσις, εἰ δεῖ ὀμόσαι τῷ ἐπαγαγόντι τὸν ὅρκον Μητέρι μὲν μακάρων μέλεται Τιτηνίδι Ῥείῃ αὐλοὶ καὶ τυπάνων πάταγοι καὶ θῆλυς ὅμιλος· [124] Παλλάδι δ’ εὐπήληκι μόθοι καὶ δῆρις Ἐνυοῦς, καὶ βαλίαις σκυλάκεσσι βαθυσκοπέλους ἀνὰ πρῶνας θῆρας ὀρειονόμους ἐλάαν Λητωίδι κούρῃ· Ἥρῃ δ’ εὐκελάδῳ μαλακὴ χύσις ἠέρος ὑγρῆς· λήια δ’ εὐαλδῆ κομέειν σταχυητρόφα Δηοῖ· Ἴσιδι δ’ αὖ Φαρίῃ, γονίμοις παρὰ χεύμασι Νείλου, μαστεύειν οἴστροισιν ἑὸν πόσιν ἁβρὸν Ὄσιριν. [125] Ὦ μέγα πᾶσιν χάρμα βροτοῖσιν [126] ἀπὸ σῶν ἱερῶν ματέρος ἁγνᾶς προθορὼν τοκετῶν. Οἷς ἐπιλέγει· Ἀλλ’ ὅτε Λατὼ ὠδὶς ἱερὰ λάζετο πᾶσαν, ὀροθυνομένων διδύμων τοκετῶν ἔνδοθι σηκῶν, ἵστατο μὲν γᾶ, ἵστατο δ’ ἀήρ, πάγνυτο νᾶσος, πάγνυτο κῦμα· ἀνὰ δ’ ἐξέθορες μάντι Λυκωρεῦ, τοξότα Φοῖβε, [ 560 ]

κατὰ χρησμολάλων, βασιλεῦ, τριπόδων. [127] Καὶ ὁ Ἀσκληπιὸς πάλιν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ· Τρίκκης ἐξ ἱερῆς ἥκω θεὸς, ὅν ποτε μήτηρ Φοίβῳ ὑπευνηθεῖσα κυεῖ σοφίης βασιλῆα, ἴδριν ἰητορίης Ἀσκληπιόν· ἀλλὰ τί πεύθῃ; Ὁ δ’ Ἑρμῆς φησι· Ὃς δ’ ἐγώ, ὃν καλέεις, Ζηνὸς καὶ Μαιάδος υἱός, Ἑρμείας προβέβηκα, λιπὼν ἀστραῖον ἄνακτα. [128] Ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις οἱ μὲν θεράποντές τινων ἀνεδείχθησαν, ὡς ὁ Πὰν τοῦ Διονύσου. δεδήλωκε δὲ τοῦτο ὁ ἐν Βραγχίδαις Ἀπόλλων διὰ τούτων. Ἐννέα γὰρ εὑρέθησαν ἀποθανόντες· πυνθανομένων οὖν τῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν οἰκούντων τὴν αἰτίαν, ἔχρησεν ὁ θεός· [129] Χρυσόκερως βλοσυροῖο Διωνύσου θεράπων Πάν, βαίνων ὑλήεντα κατ’ οὔρεα, χειρὶ κραταιῇ ῥάβδον ἔχων, ἑτέρῃ δὲ λιγὺ πνείουσαν ἔμαρπτε σύριγγα γλαφυρήν, Νύμφῃσι δὲ θυμὸν ἔθελγεν· ὀξὺ δὲ συρίξας μέλος ἀνέρας ἐπτοίησεν ὑλοτόμους πάντας, θάμβος δ’ ἔχεν εἰσορόωντας δαίμονος ὀρνυμένου κρυερὸν δέμας οἰστρήεντος. Καί νύ κε πάντας ἔμαρψε τέλος κρυεροῦ θανάτοιο, εἰ μή οἱ κότον αἰνὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἔχουσα Ἄρτεμις ἀγροτέρη παῦσεν μένεος κρατεροῖο, ἣν καὶ χρὴ λίσσεσθ’, ἵνα σοι γίγνητ’ ἐπαρωγός. Οὐ μόνον δὲ τὴν πολιτείαν αὐτῶν αὐτοὶ μεμηνύκασι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ εἰρημένα, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἷστισι χαίρουσι καὶ κρατοῦνται ὑπηγόρευσαν, καὶ μὴν καὶ τίσιν ἀναγκάζονται, τίνα δὲ δεῖ θύειν, καὶ ἐκ ποίας ἡμέρας ἐκτρέπεσθαι, τὸ σχῆμα τῶν ἀγαλμάτων ποταπὸν δεῖ ποιεῖν, αὐτοί τε ποίοις σχήμασι φαίνονται ἔν τε ποίοις διατρίβουσι τόποις. καὶ ὅλως ἓν οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὃ μὴ παρ’ αὐτῶν μαθόντες [130] οἱ ἄνθρωποι οὕτως αὐτοὺς ἐτίμησαν. πολλῶν δ’ ὄντων, ἃ τούτων ἐστὶ παραστατικά, ὀλίγα ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν παραθήσομεν, ἵνα μὴ ἀμάρτυρον τὸν λόγον καταλείπωμεν. Ἀλλὰ τέλει ξόανον, κεκαθαρμένον ὥς σε διδάξω. πηγάνου ἐξ ἀγρίου δέςμας ποίει, ἠδ’ ἐπικόσμει ζῴοισιν λεπτοῖσι, κατοικιδίοις καλαβώταις. σμύρνης καὶ στύρακος λιβάνοιό τε μίγματα τρίψας σὺν κείνοις ζῴοις, καὶ ὑπαιθριάσας ὑπὸ μήνην [131] αὔξουσαν, τέλει αὐτὸς ἐπευχόμενος τήνδ’ εὐχήν. εἶτ’ ἐξέδωκεν εὐχήν, ἐδίδαξέ τε, πόσους ληπτέον ἀςκαλαβώτας· ὅσσαι μορφαί μοι, τόσσοις ζῴοις σε κελεύω καὶ σφόδρα ταῦτα τελεῖν· δάφνης δέ μοι αὐτογενέθλου [ 561 ]

οἴκου ἐμοῦ χώρημα ποιεῖν. καὶ ἀγάλματι πολλὸν κείνῳ ἐπευχόμενος δι’ ὕπνων ἐμὲ δῖαν ἀθρήσεις. Λέγει Σάραπις, ἰδὼν τὸν Πᾶνα, περὶ ἑαυτοῦ· Φαιδρὴ μὲν κατὰ δῶμα θεοῦ καταλάμπεται αὐγή· ἦλθε γάρ, ἠντιβόλησε θεὸς μέγας· εἶδεν ἐμεῖο κάρτος ἀμαιμάκετον, λαμπηδόνα φλογμοτύραννον, βόστρυχον ἐκ κεφαλῆς νεάτης χαροποῖσι μετώποις ἀμφὶς ἰαινόμενον πλοχμοῖς θ’ ἱεροῖο γενείου. [132] Καὶ τὸ εἶδος δὲ ἑαυτῶν ὑπογράφουσι τοῦ σχήματος, ὥσπερ ὁ Πὰν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν χρησμοῖς περὶ ἑαυτοῦ τάδε λέγει διδάσκων· εὔχομαι βροτὸς γεγὼς Πανὶ σύμφυτος θεῷ, δισσοκέρατι, δισσόποδι, †τραγοσκελεῖ, τρυφῶντι. [133] Καὶ ἡ Ἑκάτη δὲ περὶ ἑαυτῆς οὕτω φησί· Ἤδη μοι σύγε πάντα ποίει· ξοάνῳ δ’ ἄρ’ ἐν αὐτῷ μορφή μοι πέλεται Δημήτερος ἀγλαοκάρπου, εἵμασι παλλεύκοις, περὶ ποσσὶ δὲ χρυσοπέδιλος· [134] ἀμφὶ δὲ τῇ ζώνῃ δολιχοὶ προθέουσι δράκοντες, ἴχνεσιν ἀχράντοισιν ἐφερπύζοντες, ἄνωθεν αὐτῆς ἐκ κεφαλῆς ἀρτώμενοι ἐς πόδας ἄκρους, σπειρηδὸν περὶ πᾶσαν ἑλισσόμενοι κατὰ κόσμον. ὕλη δέ φησιν ἢ Παρίοιο λίθου ἢ εὐξέστου ἐλέφαντος. Ἐστὶ δὲ σύμβολα μὲν τῆς Ἑκάτης κηρὸς τρίχρωμος, ἐκ λευκοῦ καὶ μέλανος καὶ ἐρυθροῦ συνεστώς, ἔχων τύπον Ἑκάτης φερούσης μάστιγα καὶ λαμπάδα καὶ ξίφος, περὶ ἣν εἱλήσθω δράκων· οὐρανοῦ δὲ ἀστέρες οἱ θαλάττιοι πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν πεπατταλευμένοι. ταῦτα γὰρ οἱ θεοὶ αὐτοὶ μεμηνύκασι διὰ τούτων. λέγει δὲ ὁ Πάν· †Τούσδε δ’ αὖ ἐλαύνετε, [135] κηρὸν ἐν πυρὸς μένει θέντες αἰόλου χροός· λευκὸς ἔστω καὶ μέλας, χὥστε πῦρ φαεσφόρον ἄνθρακος πεφλεγμένου. δεῖμα νερτέρων κυνῶν γλύμμα δεινὸν τῆς θεᾶς. λαμπὰς ἔστω πρὸς χέρας, [ 562 ]

καὶ ξίφος τὸ ποίνιμον, καὶ δράκων περισταλὴς ἅμμασιν κόρην κρατῶν. δεινὸν ἀμφὶ κρᾶτα δρῦς, [136] αἰόλη τε κλεὶς ὁμοῦ καὶ τὸ δαιμόνων κράτος, [137] μάστιγος ψόφος πολύς. Ὅτι δὲ φιλοῦσι τὰ σύμβολα τῶν χαρακτήρων, ἡ Ἑκάτη παραβάλλουσα πρὸς ἃ φιλοῦσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μεμήνυκε διὰ τούτων· Τίς βροτὸς οὐ πεπόθηκε χαρακτῆρας ὀπάσασθαι χαλκοῦ καὶ χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου αἰγλήεντος; τίς δὲ τάδ’ οὐ φιλέει τῶν δὴ καθύπερθεν ἐφεστώς, εἰς †ἓν ἐγειρόμενος εἴρω πολυμερὲς φωτῶν; [138] Κληίζειν Ἑρμῆν ἠδ’ Ἠέλιον κατὰ ταῦτα, ἡμέρῃ Ἠελίου, Μήνην δ’, ὅτε τῆσδε παρείη ἡμέρη, ἠδὲ Κρόνον ἠδ’ ἑξείης Ἀφροδίτην κλήσεσιν ἀφθέγκτοις, ἃς εὗρε μάγων ὄχ’ ἄριστος, τῆς ἑπταφθόγγου βασιλεύς, ὃν πάντες ἴσασιν. Ὀστάνην λέγεις εἰπόντων, ἐπήγαγεν· [139] Καὶ σφόδρα, καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστον ἀεὶ θεὸν ἑπτάκι φωνεῖν. [140] Αἰπεινὴ μὲν ὁδὸς μακάρων τρηχεῖά τε πολλόν, χαλκοδέτοις τὰ πρῶτα διοιγομένη πυλεῶσιν. ἀτραπιτοὶ δὲ ἔασιν ἀθέσφατοι ἐγγεγαυῖαι, ἃς πρῶτοι μερόπων ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα πρῆξιν ἔφηναν οἱ τὸ καλὸν πίνοντες ὕδωρ Νειλώτιδος αἴης· πολλὰς καὶ Φοίνικες ὁδοὺς μακάρων ἐδάησαν, Ἀσσύριοι Λυδοί τε καὶ Ἑβραίων γένος ἀνδρῶν. [141] Χαλκόδετος γὰρ ἡ πρὸς θεοὺς ὁδός, αἰπεινή τε καὶ τραχεῖα, ἧς πολλὰς ἀτραποὺς βάρβαροι μὲν ἐξεῦρον, Ἕλληνες δὲ ἐπλανήθησαν, οἱ δὲ κρατοῦντες ἤδη καὶ διέφθειραν. τὴν δὲ εὕρεσιν Αἰγυπτίοις ὁ θεὸς ἐμαρτύρησε Φοίνιξί τε καὶ Χαλδαίοις (Ἀσσύριοι γὰρ οὗτοι), Λυδοῖς τε καὶ Ἑβραίοις. ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ χρησμῷ φησιν ὁ Ἀπόλλων· Μοῦνοι Χαλδαῖοι σοφίην λάχον ἠδ’ ἄρ’ Ἑβραῖοι, αὐτογένεθλον ἄνακτα σεβαζόμενοι θεὸν ἁγνῶς. καὶ πάλιν ἐρωτηθείς, τίνι λόγῳ πολλοὺς λέγουσιν οὐρανούς, ἔφησε τάδε· Εἷς ἐν παντὶ πέλει κόσμῳ κύκλος, ἀλλὰ σὺν ἑπτὰ ζώναισιν πεφόρηται ἐς ἀστερόεντα κέλευθα ἃς δὴ Χαλδαῖοι καὶ ἀριζήλητοι Ἑβραῖοι [ 563 ]

οὐρανίας ὀνόμηναν - ἐς ἑβδόματον δρόμον ἕρπων. [142] Ἐς δὲ θεὸν βασιλῆα, καὶ ἐς γενετῆρα προπάντων, ὃν τρομέει καὶ γαῖα καὶ οὐρανὸς ἠδὲ θάλασσα [143] ταρτάριοι τε μυχοί, καὶ δαίμονες ἐκφρίσσουσιν. ὧν νόμος ἐστὶ πατήρ, ἁγνοὶ δὲ τίουσιν Ἑβραῖοι. [144] Ἀθανάτων ἄρρητε πατήρ, αἰώνιε, μύστα, κόσμων ἀμφιδρόμων ἐποχούμενε δέσποτα νώτοις αἰθερίοις, ἀλκῆς ἵνα σοι μένος ἐστήρικται πάντ’ ἐπιδερκομένῳ καὶ ἀκούοντ’ οὔασι καλοῖς, κλῦθι τεῶν παίδων, οὓς ἤροσας αὐτὸς ἐν ὥραις. σὴ γὰρ ὑπὲρ κόσμον τε καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα χρυσῆ ὑπέρκειται πολλὴ αἰώνιος ἀλκή, ἧς ὑπερῃώρησαι ὀρίνων φωτὶ σεαυτόν, ἀενάοις ὀχετοῖσι τιθηνῶν νοῦν ἀτάλαντον, [145] ὅς ῥα κυεῖ τόδε πᾶν, τεκνούμενος ἄφθιτον ὕλην, ἧς γένεσις δεδόκηται, ὅτε σφε τύποισιν ἔδησας. ἔνθεν ἐπεισρείουσι γοναὶ ἁγίων μὲν ἀνάκτων ἀμφὶ σέ, παντόκρατορ βασιλεύτατε καὶ μόνε θνητῶν ἀθανάτων τε πάτερ μακάρων· αἱ δ’ εἰσὶν ἄτερθεν, ἐκ σέο μὲν γεγαυῖαι, ὑπ’ ἀγγελίῃσι δ’ ἕκαστα πρεσβυγενεῖ διάγουσι νόῳ καὶ κάρτεϊ τῷ σῷ. πρὸς δ’ ἔτι καὶ τρίτον ἄλλο γένος ποίησας ἀνάκτων, οἵ ῥ’ ἑκὰς ἦμαρ ἄγουσιν ἀνυμνείοντες ἀοιδαῖς βουλόμενόν σ’ ἐθέλοντες, ἀοιδιάουσι δ’ ἐσῶδε. [146]εἶτα ἐπάγει ὁ χρησμὸς τάδε· Τύνη δ’ ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ μητέρος ἀγλαὸν εἶδος [147] καὶ τεκέων τέρεν ἄνθος, ἐν εἴδεσιν εἶδος ὑπάρχων καὶ ψυχὴ καὶ πνεῦμα καὶ ἁρμονίη καὶ ἀριθμός. Τοὺς δὲ πονηροὺς δαίμονας οὐκ εἰκῆ ὑπὸ τὸν Σάραπιν ὑποπτεύομεν, οὐδ’ ἐκ τῶν συμβόλων μόνον ἀναπεισθέντες, ἀλλ’ ὅτι τὰ μειλίγματα καὶ τὰ τούτων ἀποτρόπαια πρὸς τὸν Πλούτωνα γίνεται, ὡς ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ἐδείκνυμεν. ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ τῷ Πλούτωνι ὁ θεός, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα δαιμόνων ἄρχων, καὶ σύμβολα διδοὺς πρὸς τὴν τούτων ἔλασιν. Οὗτος γοῦν καὶ τοῖς ἱκέταις ἐδήλωσεν, ὡς πᾶσι ζῴοις ὁμοιούμενοι προσίασι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· ὅθεν καὶ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις καὶ παρὰ Φοίνιξι καὶ ὅλως παρὰ τοῖς τὰ θεῖα σοφοῖς [148] ἱμάντες ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἐπιρρήσσονται, καὶ ζῷα προσουδίζεται πρὸ τῆς θρησκείας τῶν θεῶν· ἐξελαυνόντων τῶν ἱερέων τούτους διὰ τοῦ δοῦναι πνεῦμα, ἤτοι αἷμα ζῴων, καὶ διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀέρος πληγῆς· ἵνα τούτων ἀπελθόντων παρουσία τοῦ θεοῦ γένηται. καὶ [149] οἶκος δὲ πᾶς μεστός, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο προκαθαίρουσι, καὶ ἀποβάλλουσι τούτους, ὅταν θεὸν κατακαλῶσι. καὶ τὰ σώματα [ 564 ]

τοίνυν μεστὰ ἀπὸ τούτων· καὶ γὰρ μάλιστα ταῖς ποιαῖς τροφαῖς χαίρουσι. σιτουμένων γὰρ ἡμῶν προσίασι καὶ προσιζάνουσι τῷ σώματι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο αἱ ἁγνεῖαι, οὐ διὰ τοὺς θεοὺς προσηγουμένως, ἀλλ’ ἵν’ οὗτοι ἀποστῶσι. μάλιστα δ’ αἵματι χαίρουσι καὶ ταῖς ἀκαθαρσίαις, καὶ ἀπολαύουσι τούτων, εἰσδύνοντες τοῖς χρωμένοις. ὅλως γὰρ ἡ ἐπίτασις τῆς πρός τι ἐπιθυμίας, καὶ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ὀρέξεως ὁρμὴ ἀλλαχόθεν οὐ σφοδρύνεται ἢ ἐκ τῆς τούτων παρουσίας· οἳ καὶ εἰς [150] ἀσήμους φθόγγους καὶ φύσας ἀναγκάζουσι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐμπίπτειν διὰ τῆς συναπολαύσεως τῆς μετ’ αὐτῶν γιγνομένης. ὅπου γὰρ πνεύματος πλείονος ὁλκή, ἢ τῆς γαστρὸς ἐξ ἡδυπαθείας πεπληρωμένης, ἢ τῆς προθυμίας δι’ ἡδονῆς ἐπίτασιν ἐκφυσώσης καὶ πολὺ τὸ ἔξωθεν σπώσης, ἐκεῖ παρουσία τῶν τοιούτων πνευμάτων σοι δηλούσθω. ἄχρι τούτων τολμᾷ φύσις ἀνθρώπων εὑρίσκειν τὰς περὶ αὐτὴν συνεστώσας παγίδας· καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὅταν εἰσκριθῇ, πολυπλασιάζεται τὸ πνεῦμα. Μήποτε οὗτοί εἰσιν ὧν ἄρχει ὁ Σάραπις, καὶ τούτων σύμβολον ὁ τρίκρανος κύων, τουτέστιν ὁ ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ στοιχείοις, ὕδατι, γῇ, ἀέρι, πονηρὸς δαίμων· οὓς καταπαύει ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἔχων ὑπὸ χεῖρα. ἄρχει δ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἡ Ἑκάτη, ὡς συνέχουσα τὸ τρίστοιχον. [151] Ἓν χρηστήριον ἔτι παραθεὶς, ὅπερ αὐτὴ ἡ Ἑκάτη πεποίηται, καταπαύσω τὸν περὶ ταύτης λόγον· Ἥδ’ ἐγώ εἰμι κόρη πολυφάσματος, οὐρανόφοιτος, ταυρῶπις, τρικάρηνος, ἀπηνὴς, χρυσοβέλεμνος, Φοίβη ἀπειρολεχής, φαεσίμβροτος, Εἰλείθυια, τριστοίχου φύσεως συνθήματα τρισσὰ φέρουσα· αἰθέρα μὲν πυρόεσσιν ἐειδομένη εἰδώλοις, ἠέρα δ’ ἀργεννοῖσι τροχάσμασιν ἀμφικάθημαι· γαῖαν ἐμῶν σκυλάκων δνοφερῷ γένει ἡνιοχεύω. [152] Σπεύδοντος γοῦν τοῦ προφήτου αὐτοπτῆσαι τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἐπειγομένου, ὁ Ἀπόλλων ἀδύνατον ἔφη τὸ τοιοῦτο πρὶν λύτρα τῷ πονηρῷ δαίμονι δοῦναι. Λέγει δὲ οὕτως· Λύτρα δίδου γαίης πατρίης οἰκήτορι σεμνῷ, πρῶτα χοάς, μετέπειτα πυρὴν ἠδ’ αἷμα κελαινόν, [153] οἴνου παμμέλανός τ’ ὀίων θ’ ἅμα καλὰ ῥέεθρα. Καὶ σαφέστερον εἶπε περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν· Οἶνον καὶ γάλα βάλλε καὶ ὕδατος ἀγλαὸν εἶδος, καὶ ξύλα καρπὸν ἔχοντα διογνήτων ἀκυλαιῶν· σπλάγχνα δὲ κατθέμενος λιπαροῖς ἅμα νάμασι σπένδε. Μετὰ ποίας δὲ εὐχῆς ἐρωτηθεὶς ἤρξατο μέν, οὐ μὴν ἐπλήρωσεν, οὕτως εἰπών· δαῖμον ἀλιτρονόων ψυχῶν διάδημα λελογχώς [154] ἠερίων ὑπένερθε μυχῶν χθονίων τ’ ἐφύπερθεν. Ὀρθῶς καὶ τοῦτο ὁ Ῥόδιος Πυθαγόρας ἀπεφήνατο, ὅτι οὐχ ἥδονται οἱ κληιζόμενοι ἐπὶ ταῖς θυσίαις θεοί, ἀνάγκῃ δέ τινι ἀκολουθίας συρόμενοι παραγίνονται· καὶ οἱ μὲν μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ ἧττον. τινὲς δὲ καὶ ὥσπερ ἔθος ποιησάμενοι τῆς ἑαυτῶν παρουσίας εὐμαρέστερον φοιτῶσι, καὶ [ 565 ]

μάλιστα ἐὰν καὶ φύσει ἀγαθοὶ τυγχάνωσιν· [155] οἱ δέ, κἂν ἔθος ἔχωσι τοῦ παραγίνεσθαι, βλάβην τινὰ προθυμοῦνται ποιεῖν, καὶ μάλιστα ἐὰν ἀμελέστερόν τις δοκῇ ἀναστρέφεσθαι ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι. τοῦ γὰρ Πυθαγόρου ταῦτα εἰρηκότος παρετήρησα ἐκ τῶν λογίων, ὡς ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ εἰρημένον. πάντες γὰρ δι’ ἀνάγκην φασὶν ἀφῖχθαι, οὐχ ἁπλῶς δέ, ἀλλ’ οἷον, εἰ χρὴ οὕτω φάναι, πειθανάγκην. εἴρηται δ’ ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἐκεῖνα τὰ τῆς Ἑκάτης, δι’ ὧν φησιν ἐπιφαίνειν· Ἠέριον, μεγαφεγγές, ἀπείριτον, ἀστεροπληθές, ἄχραντον, πολὺ δῶμα θεοῦ λίπον, ἠδ’ ἐπιβαίνω γαίης ζῳοτρόφοιο τεῇς ὑποθημοσύνῃσι [156] πειθοῖ τ’ ἀρρήτων ἐπέων, οἷς δὴ φρένα τέρπειν ἀθανάτων ἐδάη θνητὸς βροτός. καὶ πάλιν· ἤλυθον εἰσαΐουσα τεῆς πολυφράδμονος εὐχῆς, ἣν θνητῶν φύσις εὗρε θεῶν ὑποθημοσύνῃσι. καὶ ἔτι σαφέστερον· τίπτε δ’ ἀεὶ θείοντος ἀπ’ αἰθέρος ὧδε χατίζων θειοδάμοις Ἑκάτην με θεὴν ἐκάλεσσας ἀνάγκαις; καὶ ἑξῆς· [157] τοὺς μὲν ἀπορρήτοις ἐρύων ἴυγξιν ἀπ’ αἴθρης ῥηιδίως ἀέκοντας ἐπὶ χθόνα δῖαν ἄγεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ μέσους μεσάτοισιν ἐπεμβεβαῶτας ἀήταις, νόσφι πυρὸς θείοιο, πανομφέας ὥσπερ ὀνείρους [158] εἰσκρίνεις μερόπεσσιν, ἀεικέα δαίμονας ἔρδων. καὶ πάλιν· ἀλλ’ οἱ μὲν καθύπερθε μετήοροι οὐρανίωνες σπερχόμενοι κούφαισι μεθ’ Ἁρπυίαισι φέρονται. ῥίμφα δὲ θειοδάμοισιν ἐπημύσαντες ἀνάγκαις εἰς χθόν’ ἐπειγομένως δηώιον ἀίσσουσι, θνητοῖς ἐσσομένων ὑποφήτορες. καὶ πάλιν ἄλλος ἀναγκαζόμενος ἔφη· κλῦθί μευ οὐκ ἐθέλοντος, ἐπεί μ’ ἐπέδησας ἀνάγκῃ. [159] Ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐπανάγκους ἑαυτῶν ἐκδιδόασιν, ὡς δηλώσει ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἐκδοθεὶς περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἐπάναγκος. λέγεται δὲ οὕτως· Οὔνομ’ ἀναγκαίης τόδε καρτερὸν ἠδ’ ἔτι βριθύ. καὶ ἐπήγαγε· Μόλε δ’ ἐσσυμένως τοισίδε μύθοις, οἵους ἀπ’ ἐμῆς κραδίης ἀνάγω, ἱεροῖσι τύποις συνθλιβομένου πυρὸς ἁγνοῦ. τολμᾷ δὲ φύσις ταῦτα προφαίνειν τῆς σῆς γενέθλης, ἄμβροτε Παιάν. καὶ πάλιν ὁ Ἀπόλλων· [160] Ῥεῦμα τὸ Φοιβείης ἀπονεύμενον ὑψόθεν αἴγλης πνοιῇ ὑπὸ λιγυρῇ κεκαλυμμένον ἠέρος ἁγνοῦ [ 566 ]

θελγόμενον μολπαῖσι καὶ ἀρρήτοις ἐπέεσσι, κάππεσεν ἀμφὶ κάρηνον ἀμωμήτοιο δοχῆος λεπταλέων ὑμένων· μαλακὸν δ’ ἐνέπλησε χιτῶνα, ἀμβολάδην διὰ γαστρὸς ἀνεσσύμενον παλίνορσον· αὐλοῦ δ’ ἐκ βροτέοιο φίλην ἐτεκνώσατο φωνήν. Τούτων οὔτε σαφέστερα οὔτε θεϊκώτερα καὶ φυσικώτερα γένοιτ’ ἄν. πνεῦμα γὰρ τὸ κατιὸν καὶ ἀπόρροια ἐκ τῆς ἐπουρανίου δυνάμεως εἰς ὀργανικὸν σῶμα καὶ ἔμψυχον εἰσελθοῦσα, βάσει χρωμένη τῇ ψυχῇ, διὰ τοῦ σώματος ὡς ὀργάνου φωνὴν ἀποδίδωσιν. [162] Ὅτι δὲ σπεύδουσιν ἀναχωρεῖν οἱ κληθέντες θεοί, δηλώσει τὰ τοιαῦτα, λεγόντων· λύετε λοιπὸν ἄνακτα· βροτὸς θεὸν οὐκέτι χωρεῖ. καὶ πάλιν· τίπτ’ ἐπιδευόμενοι δηρὸν βροτὸν αἰκίζεσθε; καὶ πάλιν· ἕρπε, καὶ ὀτραλέως †ἐπιέρχεο, τόνδε σαώσας. καὶ πῶς ἀπολύειν αὐτοὺς χρὴ αὐτὸς διδάξει λέγων· παύεο δὴ περίφρων ὀάρων, ἀνάπαυε δὲ φῶτα, θάμνων ἐκλύων πολιὸν τύπον, ἠδ’ ἀπὸ γυίων Νειλαίην ὀθόνην χερσὶν στιβαρῶς ἀπαείρας. [163] καὶ τὴν ἀπόλυσιν εἶπεν· ὑψίπρωρον αἶρε ταρσόν, ἴσχε βάξιν ἐκ μυχῶν, καὶ βραδυνόντων ἀπολῦσαι, φησί· Σινδόνος ἀμπέτασον νεφέλην, λῦσόν τε δοχῆα. καὶ πάλιν ἄλλοτε ἀπόλυσιν ἔδωκε τοιαύτην· Ναϊάδες Νύμφαι Μούσαις μίγα λύετε Φοῖβον ᾄδουσαι θείαις, ἑκατηβόλον Ἀπόλλωνα. [164] καὶ πάλιν ἄλλοτε φησι· λύσατέ μοι στεφάνους, καί μευ πόδας ὕδατι λευκῷ ῥάνατε, καὶ γραμμὰς ἀπαλείψατε, καί κε μόλοιμι. Χειρὸς δεξιτερῆς δάφνης κλάδον ἄρατε χερσί, ψήχετέ τ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς διδύμους ῥῖνάς τε προσώπου. ἄρατε φῶτα γαίηθεν ἀναστήσαντες ἑταῖροι Τὰς γραμμὰς τοίνυν παρακελεύεται ἀπαλείφειν, ἵνα ἀπέλθῃ· ταύτας γὰρ κρατεῖν, καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὸ ἄλλο σχῆμα τῆς ἐνδύσεως, διὰ τὸ φέρειν εἰκονίσματα τῶν κεκλημένων θεῶν. [165] Δεηθέντος γάρ τινος καταδέξασθαι θεόν, εἰπὼν ὁ θεός, ὅτι ἀνεπιτήδειός ἐστι διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ φύσεως καταδεδέσθαι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀποτροπιασμοὺς ὑπαγορεύσας, ἐπάγει· Ῥιπὴ δαιμονίης γὰρ ἁλοῦσ’ ἐπιδέδρομεν ἀλκῆς σαῖσι γοναῖς, ἃς χρή σε φυγεῖν τοίαισι μαγείαις.

[ 567 ]

δι’ ὧν καὶ σαφῶς δεδήλωται, ὅτι ἡ μαγεία ἐν τῷ λύειν τὰ τῆς εἱμαρμένης παρὰ θεῶν ἐδόθη εἰς τὸ ὁπωσοῦν ταύτην παρατρέπειν. [166] Ἃ γὰρ λέγουσιν οἱ θεοί, εἴπερ τὰ μεμοιραμένα γινώσκοντες λέγουσιν, ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ἄστρων φορᾶς δηλοῦσι, καὶ τοῦτο σχεδὸν πάντες ἐξέφηναν οἱ ἀψευδεῖς τῶν θεῶν. Ἐρωτηθεὶς ὁ Ἀπόλλων, τί τέξεται ἡ γυνή, ἐκ τῶν ἄστρων εἶπεν, ὅτι θῆλυ, ἐκ τοῦ σπορίμου ἐπιγνοὺς χρόνου· Ἐκφύεται γαίηθεν ὁ κλών, ὅτε λείμακες ὄμβρου διψοσύνῃ κατέμαρψαν ὅλον πόμα μητέρος αὐτῆς, [167] ἔνδον ὀρινομένης χρόνον ἄρκιον· οὔτι δὲ κοῦρον, ἀλλὰ κόρην. Φοίβη γὰρ ἐύσκοπος ἤροσεν ἁγνὴν Κύπριν, ἐπειγομένην θῆλυν γόνον, ὦ φίλε, σεῖο. ἰδοὺ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σπορίμου, ὅτι σελήνη ἐπὶ Ἀφροδίτην ἐφέρετο, εἶπεν ὅτι θῆλυ γεννηθήσεται. καὶ μὴν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐκεῖθεν προλέγουσιν. ἐπάκουσον γάρ· [168] ἦ μάλα μιν κακὸς ἰὸς ἐνὶ στέρνοισι δαμάζει, πνεύμονος ἀλγινόεσσαν ὑπερβλύζων κακότητα, ταῦτα δὲ Μοιράων νόος ἤγαγεν, ἠδὲ κελαινὴν εἰς ἔριν ἐστήριξε, κακηπελίῃσι δαμάζειν, ὑψιπόλοιο Κρόνοιο κακὴν ὑπ’ ἀταρπὸν ἰόντος. ἀλλά σε μόρσιμον ἦμαρ ἀναπλῆσαι βιότοιο ἀλγινόεις βροτολοιγὸς ἐπισπέρχων Κρόνῳ ἄντα σπεύσατο, σῆς δὲ θέμειλον ἀπὸ φρενὸς ἠίστωσε· τοὔνεκα καὶ πατέρος θεοειδέος ἱερὸν ἦτορ φευγέμεναι κακόεργον ἐπηπείλησεν Ἄρηα. Οὕτως καὶ ὁ Ἀπόλλων περί τινος, ἅμα καὶ τὴν περὶ στρατιὰν προθυμίαν ἐφηγούμενος πόθεν αὐτῷ γίνεται, ἔφη· [169] Ἄρεα κραιπνὸν ἔχει γενεθλήιον, ὅς μιν ὀρίνει, οὐδέ ἑ ταρχύσει· Ζηνὸς γὰρ ἐπέχραε βουλή, ἥ οἱ κῦδος ἄρειον ἀπ’ Ἄρεος εὐθὺς ὀρέξει. καὶ πάλιν ἐπ’ ἄλλου· εὐχαίτης ἐπέκειτο Κρόνος, στυγεροῖσι δὲ κέντροις ἄλγυνεν παιδὸς ταλαοῦ δυσπέμφελον ἠῶ. Ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ τὴν γνῶσιν τῆς φορᾶς τὴν ἀκριβῆ καὶ τὰς ἐκ τούτων συμβάσεις ἀκατάληπτον εἶναι ἀνθρώποις, καὶ οὐ μόνον τούτοις, ἀλλὰ καί τισι τῶν δαιμόνων· ὅθεν καὶ ψεύδονται περὶ πολλῶν ἐρωτηθέντες. [170] Οὕτω καὶ ναῶν μοῖραι καὶ ἱερῶν, καὶ αὐτοῦ γε τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τὸ ἱερὸν μεμοίρατο κεραυνωθῆναι, ὥς φησιν· Ὦ ζαθέης γεγαῶτες Ἐριχθονίοιο γενέθλης, ἔτλητ’ ἐλθέμεναι καὶ ἐμὴν ἐρεεινέμεν ὀμφήν, [ 568 ]

ὅππως δῃωθῆ περικαλλέος ἕδρανα σηκοῦ. κλῦτε δαφνηρεφέων μυχάτων ἄπο θέσκελον ὀμφήν. εὖτ’ ἂν ἄνω πνείοντες ὑπαιθέριοι κελάδοντες [171] τρίβωνται πατάγοισιν ἐναντία δηριόωντες κρυμὸς δ’ αὖ περὶ κόσμον ἀπείρονα νήνεμος ἔσται μηδὲ διεξερύγησιν ἔχῃ κεκακωμένος αἰθήρ, αἰθαλόεις περὶ γαῖαν, ὅπη τύχεν, ἔκπεσε πυρσός. τὸν μὲν δὴ θῆρές γε κατ’ οὔρεα δειμαίνοντες φεύγουσιν πυμάτοις ὑπὸ κεύθεσιν, οὐδὲ μένουσιν εἰσιδέειν ὄσσοισι καταιβάσιον Διὸς ἔγχος. τοῦ μὲν καὶ νηοὶ μακάρων καὶ δένδρεα μακρὰ ἠλιβάτων τ’ ὀρέων κορυφαὶ νῆές τ’ ἐνὶ πόντῳ δάμνανται ζαπύροις πωτήμασιν ἐμπελάοντος· καὶ δ’ αὐτὴ πληγεῖσα Ποσειδαῶνος ἑταίρη πολλάκις ἠχήεσσ’ ἀναχάζεται Ἀμφιτρίτη. ὑμεῖς οὖν καὶ ἄτλητον ἐνὶ φρεσὶν ἄλγος ἔχοντες τέτλατε Μοιράων ἀμετάτροπα δήνεα θυμῷ· [172] ταῖσι γὰρ οὐρανίδαο Διὸς κατένευσε κάρηνον, ὅττι κε δὴ νήσωσιν, μένειν ἀσάλευτον, ἀτράκτοις. αἶσα γὰρ ἦν δολιχοῖσι χρόνοις περικαλλέα σηκὸν πυρσῶν αἰώρῃσι διιπετέεσσι δαμῆναι. Ἀμφὶ δὲ Πυθὼ καὶ Κλαρίην, μαντεύματα Φοίβου, [173] αὐδήσει φάτις ἡμετέρη θεμιτώδεσιν ὀμφαῖς. μύρια μὲν γαίης μαντήια θέσκελα νώτῳ ἐβλύσθη, πηγαί τε καὶ ἄσθματα δινήεντα· καὶ τὰ μὲν ἂψ χθονίοισιν ὑπαὶ κόλποισιν ἔδεκτο αὐτὴ γαῖα χανοῦσα, τὰ δ’ ὤλεσε μυρίος αἰών. μούνῳ δ’ Ἠελίῳ φαεσιμβρότῳ εἰσέτ’ ἔασιν ἐν Διδύμων γυάλοις Μυκαλήιον ἔνθεον ὕδωρ, Πυθῶνός τ’ ἀνὰ πέζαν ὑπαὶ Παρνάσιον αἶπος, καὶ κραναὴ Κλαρίη, τρηχὺ στόμα φοιβάδος ὀμφῆς. Νικαεῦσι δὲ χρῶν ἔφη· [174] Πυθῷον δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀναρρῶσαι λάλον ὀμφήν· ἤδη γὰρ δολιχοῖσιν ἀμαυρωθεῖσα χρόνοισιν βέβληται κληῖδας ἀμαντεύτοιο σιωπῆς. Ῥέξατε δ’ ὡς ἔθος ἐστὶ θεόπροπα θύματα Φοίβῳ.

[ 569 ]

[175] Καὶ τὸ περιέχον ἀναγκάζον ψευδῆ γίνεσθαι τὰ μαντεῖα, οὐ τοὺς παρόντας ἑκόντας προστιθέναι τὸ ψεῦδος. πολλάκις γοῦν προλέγουσιν ὅτι ψεύσονται· οἱ δὲ μένουσι καὶ λέγειν ἀναγκάζουσι διὰ τὴν ἀμαθίαν. εἶπε γοῦν ὁ Ἀπόλλων ποτέ, τοιαύτης οὔσης τῆς καταστάσεως, ὡς ἐδείξαμεν, πονηρᾶς τοῦ περιέχοντος. κλεῖε βίην κάρτος τε λόγων· ψευδηγόρα λέξω. [176]καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα ἀληθῆ ἐστιν ἅπερ ἔφαμεν, δηλώσει τὰ λόγια. ἔφη γοῦν τις κληθεὶς τῶν θεῶν· σήμερον οὐκ ἐπέοικε λέγειν ἄστρων ὁδὸν ἱρήν, ἕδρανα μαντοσύνης γὰρ ἐν ἀστράσι νῦν πεπέδηται. Ἥ τε Ἑκάτη κληθεῖσα ἐν τοιαύτῃ καταστάσει τοῦ περιέχοντός φησι· Οὐ λαλέω, κλείσω δὲ πύλας δολιχοῖο φάρυγγος. νυκτὸς γὰρ κέντροισιν ἀχρειοτάτοις προσελαύνει Τιτηνὶς κερόεσσα θεὴ †κακοῦς ἄρ’ ἰδοῦσα. καὶ πάλιν, τινῶν εἰπόντων, εἰ καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ θεοὶ ὑπὸ τὴν εἱμαρμένην εἰσίν, ὅτι φυλάττονται ταῦτα, ἐπήγαγε· [177] λυέσθω φύσεως †δεσμὰ, ἵνα σοῖσι πίθωμαι. ὦ κραδίη, τί λέληκας ἀναλκείῃσι τυπεῖσα; ὡς ποθέεις μαθέειν, ὅ σε μὴ θέμις ὧδ’ ἐρεείνειν. στῆτε πόθου, παύσασθε βίης, τυτθοί περ ἐόντες. [178] Ψυχὴ μὲν, μέχρις οὗ δεσμοῖς πρὸς σῶμα κρατεῖται φθαρτὰ νοοῦσα πάθη θνηταῖς ἀλγηδόσιν εἴκει· ἡνίκα δ’ αὖτε λύσιν βροτέην μετὰ σῶμα μαρανθὲν ὠκίστην εὕρηται, ἐς αἰθέρα πᾶσα φορεῖται αἰὲν ἀγήραος οὖσα, μένει δ’ εἰς πάμπαν ἀτειρής. πρωτόγονος γὰρ τοῦτο θεοῦ διέταξε πρόνοια. [180] Παράδοξον ἴσως δόξειεν ἄν τισιν εἶναι τὸ μέλλον λέγεσθαι ὑφ’ ἡμῶν. Τὸν γὰρ Χριστὸν οἱ θεοὶ εὐσεβέστατον ἀπεφήναντο καὶ ἀθάνατον γεγονότα, εὐφήμως τε αὐτοῦ μνημονεύουσι. Περὶ γοῦν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐρωτησάντων, εἰ ἐστὶ θεός, φησὶν [ἡ Ἑκάτη]· Ὅττι μὲν ἀθανάτη ψυχὴ μετὰ σῶμα προβαίνει, γιγνώσκεις· σοφίης δὲ τετμημένη αἰὲν ἀλᾶται. ἀνέρος εὐσεβίῃ προφερεστάτου ἐστὶν ἐκείνη ψυχή. [182] Ἐπερωτησάντων δέ, διὰ τί ἐκολάσθη, ἔχρησεν· Σῶμα μὲν ἀδρανέσιν βασάνοις αἰεὶ προβέβληται· ψυχὴ δ’ εὐσεβέων εἰς οὐράνιον πέδον ἵζει. Αὐτὸς οὖν εὐσεβὴς καὶ εἰς οὐρανούς, ὥσπερ οἱ εὐσεβεῖς, χωρήσας. ὥστε τοῦτον μὲν οὐ βλασφημήσεις, ἐλεήσεις δὲ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν ἄνοιαν. [185] θνητὸς ἔην κατὰ σάρκα, σοφὸς τερατώδεσιν ἔργοις, [ 570 ]

ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ Χαλδαίοισι δικασπολίαισιν ἁλωκώς, γομφωθεὶς σκολόπεσσι πικρὴν ἀνέπλησε τελευτήν.

[ 571 ]

Commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics CONTENTS ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΕΙΣ ΤΑ ΑΡΜΟΝΙΚΑ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΥΠΟΜΝΗΜΑ. α΄. Ἁρμονική ἐστι δύναμις καταληπτικὴ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις περὶ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ βαρὺ διαφορῶν. Ψόφος δὲ πάθος ἀέρος πλησσομένου, τὸ πρῶτον καὶ γενικώτατον τῶν ἀκουστῶν. Καὶ κριτήρια μὲν ἁρμονίας ἀκοὴ καὶ λόγος, οὐ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον, ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν ἀκοὴ παρὰ τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὸ πάθος, ὁ δὲ λόγος παρὰ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ αἴτιον. Ὅτι καὶ καθόλου τῶν μὲν αἰσθήσεων ἴδιόν ἐστι τὸ τοῦ μὲν ἕως τοῦ εὑρετικόν. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁρίζεται ἕως τοῦ ὁμολογουμένας. Τοῦτο δ’ ὅτι τὸν μὲν λόγον ἕως τοῦ παραπαιδαγωγήσεως. Ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ μόνῃ τῇ ὄψει ἕως τοῦ καὶ ᾆσιν τὸ ᾆσαι. Καὶ τοίνυν ἡ τοιαύτη ἕως τοῦ λεπτομερεστέρων. Αἴτιον δὲ ἕως τοῦ εὐκατανόητον. Εὐθείας γοῦν δοθείσης ἕως τοῦ καὶ τὰ διπλάσια. Τῶν ὁμοίων οὖν ἕως τοῦ οὕτως ἔχειν. β΄. Τὸ μὲν οὖν ὄργανον ἕως τοῦ παρειλημμένος. Ἁρμονικοῦ δ’ ἂν εἴη ἕως τοῦ ὄψεως καὶ ἀκοῆς. Ταύτης δὴ τῆς προθέσεως ἕως τοῦ διορισμοῦ τινος τύχῃ. γ΄. Τῆς τοίνυν ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις ἕως τοῦ παραλλαγῶν. Γίνεται οὖν ἕως τοῦ καθ’ ὅντινα οὖν τρόπον. Τῶν δὴ ψόφων ἕως τοῦ πρὸς τὴν αἴσθησιν. Ἡ δὲ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πλήττοντος ἕως τοῦ τὸ ἔλαττον. Ἡ δὲ παρὰ τὰ δι’ ὧν ἕως τοῦ κοινὸν πρὸς πληγήν; Περιποιεῖ δὲ ἕως τοῦ ἔχειν τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Διὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς λειότητος ἕως τοῦ εἰσὶ κυρίως. Διὰ δὲ τῆς μανότητος ἕως τοῦ τῆς οὐσίας. Πυκνότερόν τε γὰρ ἕως τοῦ ἔχον οὐσίαν. Καὶ ἔστι τοῦ μὲν ὀξυτέρου ἕως τοῦ καὶ τὸ παχύτερον. Ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἕως τοῦ παρὰ τὸ μᾶλλον. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο χαλκὸς ἕως καὶ πυκνότερα γάρ. Τῶν τε ὁμοιοπύκνων ἕως τοῦ τῶν ναστῶν. Καὶ πάλιν αὖ τῶν ἕως τοῦ ὀξυτονώτεραι. [ 572 ]

Τούτων δ’ ἕκαστον ἕως τοῦ ὀξύτερον. Διὸ κἂν ἄλλως ἕως τοῦ κατὰ τὸ πάχος. Τάσις γάρ τις ἐστὶν ἕως τοῦ ἀποτελεῖται. Διά τε δὴ τούτων ἕως τοῦ εἶδος εἶναί τι. Καὶ μᾶλλον ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποχῶν ἕως τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ βάθους. Αὐλῷ γάρ τινι ἕως τοῦ τὰς τῶν ψόφων διαφοράς. δ΄. Πῶς μὲν οὖν ὀξύτης ἕως τοῦ τὰς τῶν μεγεθῶν. Εἶναί τε δύο τούτων ἕως τοῦ διαστάσεις. Τούτων τοίνυν ἕως τοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς. Τῶν δ’ ἀνισοτόνων ἕως τοῦ λύκων ὠρυγμοί. Διωρισμένοι δ’ εἰσὶ ἕως τοῦ χρωμάτων. Ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν ἕως τοῦ τῶν ὑπεροχῶν. Καὶ δὴ φθόγγους ἕως τοῦ ἐπέχων τόνον. Διὸ καὶ μόνος μὲν ἕως τοῦ καὶ τὸ ἐμμελές. Εἰσὶ δ’ ἐμμελεῖς ἕως τοῦ μὴ οὕτως ἔχοντας. ε΄. Συμφωνίας δ’ ἡ μὲν αἴσθησις ἕως τοῦ ἐννοιῶν. Ἀρχὴν γὰρ οἰκειοτάτην ἕως τοῦ μήτε πολλαπλάσιον. ‹Γραμμικώτερον δὲ προσάγοντες ἕως τοῦ εἶναι τὰ ἐμμελῆ.› Ϛ΄. Τοιαύτης δὴ τυγχανούσης ἕως τοῦ καταλαμβανομένοις. Ἐμποιεῖ δ’ αὐτοῖς ἕως τοῦ πρὸς ἐκείνους. Καὶ ἔτι τὸ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἕως τοῦ τὰ ἀνόμοια. Ἐὰν γὰρ ἕως τοῦ τῶν συμφωνοτέρων. Ὅλως δὲ καὶ κατὰ ἕως τοῦ μάλα εἰκότως. Ἐπειδὴ τὸ μὲν διὰ πέντε ἕως τοῦ συμφωνίας. Τὸ δὲ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἕως τοῦ καὶ διὰ πέντε. ζ΄. Δέον οὖν ἕως τοῦ ἐκλαμβάνειν. Πειρᾶσθαι ἕως τοῦ τοῖς ἐμμελέσιν. Τούτων δὴ ἕως τοῦ αὐτόθι δῆλόν ἐστιν. Ἀκολούθου τοίνυν ἕως τοῦ καὶ τῷ διπλασίῳ. Πάλιν μετὰ μὲν ἕως τοῦ προϋποτεθειμένους. Ἑξῆς δὲ ἕως τοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς ἕκαστον. Συνελόντι δ’ εἰπεῖν ἕως τοῦ ἔχωμεν ὑποτεθειμένον. η΄. Τὸ μὲν οὖν ἕως τοῦ ἀπαραλλαξίαν. Ἡ δ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ καλουμένου κανόνος ἕως τοῦ τετραπλάσιον λόγον. θ΄. Τοῖς μὲν δὴ Πυθαγορείοις ἕως τοῦ μουσικῇ. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ τοιαῦτα ἕως τοῦ εἶναι διαφοράς. [ 573 ]

Πῶς δὲ ἔχουσι ἕως τοῦ καὶ λόγῳ ποιεῖν. “Ἄπειροι τοίνυν συναχθήσονται καθ’ ἕκαστον λόγον τῶν ποιούντων αὐτὰς μὴ προσοριζομένων.” ι΄. Τοιγάρτοι ἕως τοῦ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων. ια΄. Ἐναργέστερον δ’ ἂν ἄρα ἀπελέγχοιτο τὸ προκείμενον καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. ιβ΄. Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν μειζόνων ἐν τοῖς φθόγγοις διαφορῶν τοσαῦτα ἡμῖν διωρίσθω, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. ιγ΄. ιδ΄. ιε΄. Φέρε τοίνυν ἕως τοῦ τοῦ τρίτου μέρους. Ἐπὶ μὲν δὴ τῶν ἕως τοῦ καταγραφαί. Ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀπύκνων γενῶν ἀκολούθου τοῖς προδιωρισμένοις ὄντος καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἄχρι τέλους τῶν καταγραφῶν. ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΥΠΟΜΝΗΜΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΑΡΜΟΝΙΚΩΝ. α΄. Λάβοιμεν δ’ ἂν ἕως τοῦ τὸν δὲ τόνον ἐπόγδοον. Τῶν δὴ παρὰ τοῖς ἕως τοῦ ὁ δὲ τῶν ΒΔ ἐπὶ ζ΄. Πάλιν μένοντος ἕως τοῦ συμπληροῖ τὸν ἐπὶ γ΄. Ἑξῆς πεποιήσθω ἕως τοῦ συντόνου διατόνου γένους. Πάλιν μένοντος ἕως τοῦ ὁ δὲ τῶν ϜΖ ἐπὶ θ΄. Λοιπὸν δὲ μένοντος ἕως τοῦ τουτέστι τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄. Οὐδένες δὲ λόγοι ἕως τοῦ ἅπερ προύκειτο δεῖξαι. β΄. Αἱ μὲν οὖν ἕως τοῦ παραβολῆς. Γίνοιτο δ’ ἂν ἕως τοῦ ἁπλῶς ὡς τὸ ΑΒΓΔ. Καὶ νοήσωμεν ἕως τοῦ ἀνακρινομένων λόγοις. Ἔχει δ’ ὁ μὲν πρῶτος ἕως τοῦ τῶν χορδῶν. Οὗτος δὲ ἕως τοῦ ἐπιψαύσεων μεταβάσεις. γ΄. Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἕως τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ἑπτά. Καὶ δὴ συμβέβηκε ἕως τοῦ καὶ τὸ ΑΘ ἕβδομον. δ΄. Τούτων δὴ προεκτεθειμένων σύστημα μὲν ἁπλῶς καλεῖται τὸ συγκείμενον μέγεθος ἐκ συμφωνιῶν. Τὰ δὲ τοῦ διὰ πέντε ποτὲ μέν, ποτὲ δ’ οὔ· ἀλλ’ ὅταν μὲν οὕτως ἔχῃ θέσεως, ὥστε τὸν τόνον διαζευγνύναι. Ὅταν δ’ οὕτως ἔχῃ θέσεως, ὥστε τὸν τόνον ἐπὶ τὸ πέρας εἶναι. ε΄. [ 574 ]

Πόθεν μὲν οὖν τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων σύστημα παρέζευκται τῷ δὶς διὰ πασῶν; Ποτὲ δὲ παρὰ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτήν, τὸ πρός τι πῶς ἔχον, ᾧ δὴ πρότερον ἐφαρμόσαντες ταῖς θέσεσιν. Καὶ δὴ κατὰ ταύτας ἕως τοῦ παρασημειώσεις. Ϛ΄. Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν τὸ σύστημα ἕως τοῦ ἐκκειμένων συστημάτων. Ἀναβαῖνον γὰρ τὸ μέλος ἐπὶ τὴν μέσην, ὅταν μὴ ὡς ἔθος εἶχεν ἐπὶ τὸ τῶν διεζευγμένων τετράχορδον ἔλθῃ, κατὰ τὴν διὰ πέντε συμφωνίαν τῷ τῶν μέσων. Ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐ προεκεκόφει ἕως τοῦ μεταβολήν. Καθόλου μέντοι γ’ ἐπὶ τῶν τόνων τῶν τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ὑπερεχόντων ἀλλήλων. Ἔστω γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ Α ὀξυτάτου φθόγγου τετράχορδον ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ, τὸ ΑΒ, καὶ ἕτερον αὐτῷ συνημμένον, τὸ ΒΓ. ζ΄. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἕως τοῦ λόγων διαφοραί. Πλὴν καθόσον τούτων μὲν τῶν ὅρων ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει τὸ αἴτιον, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν τόνων ἕπεταί πως.

[ 575 ]

ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΕΙΣ ΤΑ ΑΡΜΟΝΙΚΑ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΥΠΟΜΝΗΜΑ. ΠΟΛ Λ ῶΝ Α Ἱ Ρ ΈΣ Ε Ω Ν Ο ὐΣ ῶΝ ἐν μουσικῇ περὶ τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου, ὦ Εὐδόξιε, δύο πρωτεύειν ἄν τις ὑπολάβοι, τήν τε Πυθαγόρειον καὶ τὴν Ἀριστοξένειον, ὧν καὶ τὰ δόγματα εἰς ἔτι καὶ νῦν σῳζόμενα φαίνεται. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἐγένοντο πλείους αἱ μὲν πρὸ τοῦ Ἀριστοξένου, οἷα ἡ Ἐπιγόνειος καὶ Δαμώνιος καὶ Ἐρατόκλειος Ἀγηνόριός τε καί τινες ἄλλαι, ὧν καὶ αὐτὸς μνημονεύει, αἱ δὲ μετ’ αὐτόν, ἃς ἄλλοι ἀνέγραψαν, οἷα ἡ Ἀρχεστράτειος καὶ ἡ Ἀγώνιος καὶ ἡ Φιλίσκιος καὶ ἡ Ἑρμίππιος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλαι, ἔχοιμεν ἂν λέγειν. ὅτι δὲ τὸ πρωτεῖον ἐν ταῖς εἰρημέναις δύο εὑρίσκεται, δηλοῖ μὲν καὶ ἡ τῶν δοκούντων αὐτοῖς μάθησις, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ καὶ τὸ τὰς μὲν ἄχρι ὀνόματος μένειν διὰ τὸ ἐπιπόλαιον ἀφανισθείσας, τὰς δὲ καὶ ἐν ἀμουσίᾳ πολλῇ τῶν μεταγενεστέρων εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐν ἐπιστήμαις ἀλλ’ ἀναγεγραμμένας διασῴζεσθαι. Ἱκανῶς δ’ αὐτὰς πρὸ Πτολεμαίου μὲν Διδύμου τοῦ μουσικοῦ διακρίναντος ἐν προηγουμένῳ περὶ αὐτῶν συγγράμματι, Πτολεμαίου δὲ καὶ ἐξετάσαντος ἐν τοῖς Ἁρμονικοῖς καὶ τὴν ἀπ’ ἀμφοῖν ὠφέλειαν ἐπιδείξαντος τήν τε δοκοῦσαν πρὸς ἀλλήλας μάχην συμβιβάσαντος, ἔκρινα τῶν Πτολεμαίου Ἁρμονικῶν ἐξήγησιν καταβάλλεσθαι εἰδὼς μὲν μηδένα ἄχρι καὶ νῦν, ὅσον κἀμὲ γινώσκειν, τουτὶ πεποιηκότα, ὁρῶν δὲ μὴ εὐσύνοπτον οὖσαν τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τοῖς μὴ τὰς αἱρέσεις ἀκριβῶς [4] ἀνειληφόσιν ἔν τε τοῖς μαθήμασιν εἰσηγμένοις, ὧν ἐν πολλῇ ἕξει γεγονὼς οὗτος ἐμπέπληκε τὰ συγγράμματα, τὴν μὲν πρόφασιν τῆς χρήσεως λαβὼν παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων οὐχ ἧττον γὰρ τῶν Πυθαγορείων καὶ οἱ Ἀριστοξένειοι ταῖς διὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν χρῶνται ἀποδείξεσιν - αὐτὸς δ’ ἐκ τῆς ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασιν ἐντρεχείας κατακόρως τούτοις χρησάμενος, ἅτε καὶ τοῦ λογικοῦ κριτηρίου αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς καὶ τὸ ἐντεῦθεν ἀδιάπτωτον εἰς τὰ μέτρα τῶν τῇ αἰσθήσει ἀλόγως φαινομένων παραπέμποντος. Ἐνῆγε δέ με πρὸς τὴν ἐξήγησιν καὶ τὸ μόνον ἢ μάλιστα τὸν Πτολεμαῖον τὴν περὶ τὸ ἡρμοσμένον θεωρίαν τελεῶσαι οὐχ οὕτω τῇ προθέσει - ὀλίγα γάρ ἐστι παντάπασιν, ἃ τοῖς παλαιοῖς προσεξεῦρεν - ὡς τῇ κρίσει τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς θεωρημάτων. κριτικὸς γὰρ καὶ ἐλεγκτικὸς τῶν ὑγιῶν, εἰ καί τις ἄλλος, ἐν τῇ πραγματείᾳ ταύτῃ γέγονεν ἐκ καθαρᾶς μὲν τῆς θεωρίας καὶ ἀποκρίνας πᾶν τὸ φιλονείκως πρός τε τὰ κριτήρια καὶ τὰ κρινόμενα ὑπ’ αὐτῶν εἰρημένον, ἐπιδείξας δὲ τὰ καλῶς εἰρημένα σύμφωνα τοῖς τε πράγμασι καὶ τοῖς τούτων κριτηρίοις. τὴν δ’ ἐν τούτοις κατόρθωσιν οὐ μόνον αὐτῶν τὸ εὐπερινόητον τῆς φύσεως τῆς οἰκείας παρέσχε· σχεδὸν γὰρ ἐν πᾶσιν, οἷς συνέγραψε, τοιοῦτος οὐδὲ τὸ γεγυμνᾶσθαι καὶ πολλὴν ἕξιν ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασιν ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἐκ φιλοσοφίας μάλιστα τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν ὡρμῆσθαι, ἀφ’ ἧς καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ οἱ Ἀριστοξένειοι τὸ ἐπιστημονικὸν ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις συνηύξησαν.

[ 576 ]

Προῃρημένοι τοίνυν τὰ Ἁρμονικὰ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου ἐξηγεῖσθαι ἐπεργασόμεθα μὲν τὰ πλεῖστα μετὰ τοῦ στοχάζεσθαι τῆς συμμετρίας. εἰ δέ τισι τῶν παρὰ τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν εἰς τὴν ἐξήγησιν καταχρησαίμεθα, οὐχ ὑποβολὴν ἐγκλητέον ἡμῖν τὸ τοιοῦτον, φειδὼ δὲ τοῦ χρόνου, ἐν οἷς ἔνεστι χρήσασθαι τοῖς παρασκευασμένοις πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον. πάνυ γάρ μοι ἀεὶ καλῶς ἔχειν ἔδοξε τὸ κοινὸν εἶναι τὸν Ἑρμῆν λέγεσθαι, ὡς κοινωνία τῶν λόγων πᾶσιν ὀφειλόντων δεινήν τε φιλοτιμίαν κατέγνων τῶν παρατρέπειν ἢ παραφράζειν ἐθελόντων τὰ ἄλλοις εἰρημένα [5] ὑπὸ τοῦ δοκεῖν ἴδια λέγειν. τοῦτο γὰρ οὐκ ἦν τὴν προνομίαν διδόντων τοῖς πράγμασιν, ὧν εἵνεκα καὶ τοῦ λόγου ἐδεήθημεν, διὰ δὲ τὸ φράζειν μᾶλλον καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι καταχρωμένων. ἐγὼ δὲ τοσούτου δέω παραιτεῖσθαι χρῆσθαι τοῖς ὑγιῶς τισιν εἰρημένοις, ὥστε καὶ εὐξαίμην ἂν πάντας τὰ αὐτὰ λέγειν περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ὡς ὁ Σωκράτης ἔφασκε διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἦν ἀναμφίλεκτος περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἔρις. οὐ παρήσω δὲ πολλαχοῦ τὸ ἐπ’ ὀνόματος μηνύειν, ὧν ἂν ταῖς ἀποδείξεσι χρήσωμαι, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸν τοῦτον, ὃν ἐξηγούμεθα, τὰ μὲν πλεῖστα, εἰ καὶ μὴ σχεδὸν πάντα, εἰληφότα παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εὑρίσκομεν καὶ ὅπου μὲν ἐνδεικνύμενον παρ’ ὧν εἴληφε τὰς ἀποδείξεις, ὅπου δὲ σιωπῇ παρερχόμενον. τὸ γοῦν Διδύμου Περὶ διαφορᾶς τῆς Πυθαγορείου μουσικῆς πρὸς τὴν Ἀριστοξένειον κατὰ πολλοὺς τρόπους μεταγράφων οὐδαμοῦ τοῦτο μεμήνυκεν, καὶ παρ’ ἄλλων ἄλλα μετατιθεὶς παρῆλθε σιγῇ, ὡς ἐπιδείξομεν. καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τοῦτο καταμέμψαιτο τοῖς καλῶς εἰρημένοις ὡς κοινοῖς οὖσι πάντων κεχρημένων. Ἃ μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαῖον ἦν μοι προειπεῖν, ἔστι ταῦτα. παρεὶς δέ σοι κρίνειν τὴν ἐξήγησιν ἐντεῦθεν ἄρχομαι τοῦ προκειμένου.

[ 577 ]

α΄. Ἁρμονική ἐστι δύναμις καταληπτικὴ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις περὶ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ βαρὺ διαφορῶν. ΤῊ Ν Μ ΟΥ Σ Ι Κ Ὴ Ν Σ Ύ Μ Π Α Σ Α Ν διαιρεῖν εἰώθασιν εἴς τε τὴν ἁρμονικὴν καλουμένην πραγματείαν, εἴς τε τὴν ῥυθμικὴν καὶ τὴν μετρικήν, εἴς τε τὴν ὀργανικὴν καὶ τὴν ἰδίως κατ’ ἐξοχὴν ποιητικὴν καλουμένην καὶ τὴν ταύτης ὑποκριτικήν. μουσικοὶ γὰρ λέγονται πάντες οἱ περὶ ταῦτα τεχνῖται. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα μέρη τῆς μουσικῆς τὰ νῦν παρείσθω, περὶ δὲ τῆς ἁρμονικῆς σκεπτέον, ἣ τάξει μὲν ὑπάρχει πρώτη, δύναμιν δὲ στοιχειώδη κέκτηται, θεωρητικὴν τῶν πρώτων οὖσαν ἐν μουσικῇ. ταῦτα δ’ ἐστὶ [6] φθόγγοι τε καὶ διαστήματα καὶ τὰ ἐκ τούτων συστήματα τά τε τούτοις ἐπιφαινόμενα γένη καὶ πάντα, ὅσα συνεργεῖ πρὸς τὴν τῶν τελείων λεγομένων συστημάτων ἐπίγνωσιν. Ὁρίζονται δ’ αὐτὴν οἱ μὲν ἐπιστήμην θεωρητικὴν τῆς τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου φύσεως, οἱ δ’ ἕξιν θεωρητικὴν τοῦ διαστηματικοῦ μέλους καὶ τῶν τούτῳ συμβαινόντων, ὅπερ ἰδίως ἡρμοσμένον προσαγορεύεται, μελῳδούμενον ἐπὶ τῶν τελείων συστημάτων, ἃ δὴ τρόπους τε καὶ τόπους καλεῖν εἰώθαμεν. ὁ δὲ Πτολεμαῖος δύναμιν αὐτὴν ἀποδέδωκε καταληπτικὴν τῶν ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις περὶ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ βαρὺ διαφορῶν. εἰς ταὐτὸ δὲ συντείνειν δοκοῦσιν οἱ ὅροι. ἥ τε γὰρ καταληπτικὴ δύναμις θεωρητική τίς ἐστιν ἕξις, ἡ αὐτὴ δὲ καὶ ἐπιστήμη κατὰ τὴν παλαιὰν χρῆσιν τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπιστήμης, ἣν κοινῶς κατὰ πασῶν τῶν θεωρητικῶν προσηγόρευον ἕξεων. τό τε τῶν ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις περὶ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ βαρὺ διαφορῶν οὐδὲν διαφέρει λέγειν ἢ τῆς τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου φύσεως ἢ τοῦ διαστηματικοῦ μέλους. ἐκ γὰρ τῶν τοῦ ὀξέος καὶ τῶν τοῦ βαρέος διαφορῶν συνίσταται τὸ ἡρμοσμένον, ὃ δὴ καὶ διαστηματικὸν κέκληται μέλος. οὕτω μὲν οὖν ἐξηγουμένοις εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ συντείνειν δόξουσιν οἱ ὅροι. μήποτε δ’ ἀκριβέστερος ὁ δύναμιν καταληπτικὴν ἀποδιδοὺς τῶν ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις περὶ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ βαρὺ διαφορῶν, ὅτι καὶ περιληπτικώτερος πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τὴν ἁρμονικὴν θεωρίαν πιπτόντων. οὐ γὰρ μόνον θεωρητικὴ τῆς τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου φύσεως ἡ ἁρμονική, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν προηγουμένως, κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἀναρμόστου· οὐ δὲ σκοπεῖται τὸ διαστηματικὸν μέλος ὁποῖον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν συνεχῆ φωνὴν ἀπὸ τῆς διαστηματικῆς ἀποκρίνει, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τοὺς φθόγγους μόνον καταλαμβάνει, ἐξ ὧν τὸ διαστηματικὸν μέλος καὶ ὅλως τὸ ἡρμοσμένον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ψόφων τοὺς συνεχεῖς τῶν ἀνισοτόνων ἀπὸ τῶν φθόγγων διακρίνει. καθόλου γὰρ πᾶσα ἐπιστήμη καὶ πᾶσα τέχνη οὐ μόνον τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτάς εἰσι καταληπτικαί, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτάς, εἰ καὶ τῶν μὲν προηγουμένως, τῶν δὲ κατ’ ἐπακολούθησιν. ὁ δὴ κοινότερον ἀποδοὺς τὴν ἁρμονικὴν καταληπτικὴν δύναμιν τῶν ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις περὶ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ βαρὺ διαφορῶν καὶ μηδὲ τὴν φωνήν, μηδὲ τὸν φθόγγον ἐν τῷ ὅρῳ τάξας, ἀλλὰ τὸν ψόφον, ὃς τῆς φωνῆς ἐπαναβέβηκεν, ἀκριβέστερον ἂν εἴη πεποιημένος τὴν ἀπόδοσιν. δύναμιν δ’ ἀκουστέον οὐ τὴν παρὰ τῇ δυνάμει [7] λεγομένην - ἀτελὴς γὰρ ἡ τοιαύτη

[ 578 ]

καὶ οὔπω μὲν ἐν ἕξει, ἐπιτήδειος δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἕξιν - ἀλλὰ τὴν παρὰ τὸ δύνασθαι κεκλημένην τῷ οἷάν τε εἶναι ἐνεργεῖν ἤδη τελείως πρὸς ἃ πέφυκεν, καθ’ ὃ σημαινόμενον καὶ τὰς ἕξεις δυνάμεις λέγομεν καὶ τὰς ἐπιστήμας. καὶ ἡ ἁρμονικὴ ἕξις λέγοιτ’ ἂν δύναμις.

[ 579 ]

Ψόφος δὲ πάθος ἀέρος πλησσομένου, τὸ πρῶτον καὶ γενικώτατον τῶν ἀκουστῶν. ΤῸ Ν Ψ Ό Φ Ο Ν Γ Ὰ Ρ εἴληφεν, οὐ τὴν φωνήν, εἰς τὸν ὅρον, ὅτι γενικώτερον μὲν ψόφος φωνῆς. τὸ δὲ μέλος οὐκ ἐν φωνῇ μόνον συνίσταται, ἣ κατ’ Ἀριστοτέλην καί τινας τῶν Πυθαγορείων κυρίως ζῴου τε ἦν καὶ καθ’ ὁρμήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ἀψύχοις ὀργάνοις, ἃ ψόφου μὲν κοινωνεῖν, φωνῆς δ’ οὐκ ἂν λέγοιτο κυρίως. τῶν γὰρ ἀψύχων, φησὶν Ἀριστοτέλης, οὐδὲν φωνεῖ, οὐδὲ φωνὴν προΐεται, ἀλλὰ κατά τινα ὁμοιότητα καὶ μεταφορὰν αὐλός τε καὶ λύρα λέγεται φωνεῖν, οὐ κυρίως μέντοι γε, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τῶν ἀψύχων τάσιν ἔχει· τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν ὀξύτητα καὶ βαρύτητα κέκτηται τὴν ἐν μουσικῇ· ταύτην γὰρ τάσιν λέγουσιν. ὅσα οὖν ταύτης μετέχει καὶ τοῦ μέλους, καταχρηστικώτερον εὔφωνα λέγεται καὶ φωνὴν ἔχειν. διαλέκτῳ γάρ φησιν ἔοικε τὴν τάσιν ἔχοντα καὶ τὸ μέλος, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὴν φωνὴν ταῦτα ὁρῶμεν ἔχουσαν τὰ ἰδιώματα κατὰ τὰ μέλη. Καὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων δ’ οἱ πλεῖστοι, καθ’ οὓς τὰ κατὰ τὰς συμφωνίας πραγματεύεται, ἐπὶ τοῦ ψόφου τὴν θεωρίαν ἐνίσταντο τῆς ἐξηγήσεως ἀρχόμενοι. ὁ γοῦν περιπατητικὸς Ἄδραστος τὰ κατὰ τοὺς Πυθαγορείους ἐκτιθέμενος γράφει. “Ἐπεὶ μέλος μὲν πᾶν καὶ πᾶς φθόγγος φωνή τίς ἐστι, πᾶσα δὲ φωνὴ [8] ψόφος, ὁ δὲ ψόφος πλῆξις ἀέρος κεκωλυμένου θρύπτεσθαι, φανερὸν ὡς ἠρεμίας μὲν οὔσης περὶ τὸν ἀέρα, οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο οὔτε ψόφος, οὔτε φωνή, διὸ οὐδὲ φθόγγος. πλήξεως δὲ καὶ κινήσεως γενομένης περὶ τὸν ἀέρα ταχείας μὲν ὀξὺς ἀποτελεῖται ὁ φθόγγος, βραδείας δὲ βαρύς, καὶ σφοδρᾶς μὲν μείζων ἦχος, ἠρεμαίας δὲ μικρός.” Ἡ μὲν οὖν αἰτία τοῦ ἀποδοῦναι τὸν ὅρον τῆς ἁρμονικῆς διὰ τοῦ ψόφου τοιαύτη. αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν ψόφον πάθος ἀέρος πλησσομένου, τὸ πρῶτον καὶ γενικώτατον τῶν ἀκουστῶν, ἀποδέδωκε, τὴν μὲν οὐσίαν τοῦ ψόφου ἀφορίζων ἐν τῷ πάθος αὐτὸν ἀποδιδόναι πλησσομένου ἀέρος, τὴν δ’ ἰδιότητα τῆς οὐσίας περιγράφων ἐν τῷ τὸ πρῶτον καὶ γενικώτατον τῶν ἀκουστῶν προσθεῖναι. ἐπεὶ γὰρ πάθη ἀέρος πολλὰ καὶ διάφορα, οἷα καὶ τρεπομένου καὶ πηγνυμένου καὶ λεπτυνομένου καὶ ψυχομένου καὶ θερμαινομένου, πρόσκειται τὸ πλησσομένου. ἦν γὰρ τὸ ψοφητικὸν τοῦ ἀέρος πάθος ἐν πληγῇ κείμενον, ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ καὶ πλησσόμενος ἔσθ’ ὅτε οὐ ψοφεῖ, πρόσκειται διὰ μὲν τοῦτο ἀκουστὸν δεῖν εἶναι, διὰ δὲ τὸ πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα εἶναι ἀκουστά, ὅτι πρῶτόν τε καὶ γενικώτατον τῶν ἀκουστῶν. εἶδος γὰρ ψόφου ἡ φωνὴ καὶ ταύτης ἐστὶν εἰδικώτερον ὁ λόγος. Ἀριστόξενος μὲν οὖν παρήγγελλε “καθόλου δεῖν ἐν τῷ ἄρχεσθαι παρατηρεῖν, ὅπως μήτ’ εἰς τὴν ὑπερορίαν πίπτωμεν ἀπό τινος φωνῆς ἢ κινήσεως ἀέρος ἀρχόμενοι, μήτ’ αὖ ἐνδοτέρω κάμπτοντες πολλὰ τῶν οἰκείων παραλιμπάνωμεν”.

[ 580 ]

Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἐπιτιμᾶν τινας εὐλόγως Ξενοκράτει, ὅτι ἐγχειρήσας ὑπὲρ τῶν διαλεκτικῶν πραγματεύσασθαι ἀπὸ φωνῆς ἄρχεται, οὐδὲν οἰομένους εἶναι πρὸς τὰ διαλεκτικὰ τὸν τῆς φωνῆς ἀφορισμόν, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀέρος κίνησις, οὐδὲ τὴν μετὰ ταῦτα διαίρεσιν, ὅτι ἐστὶ τῆς φωνῆς τὸ μὲν τοιοῦτον, οἷον ἐκ γραμμάτων συγκεῖσθαι, τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον, οἷον ἐκ διαστημάτων τε καὶ φθόγγων· πάντα γὰρ εἶναι ταῦτα ἀλλότρια τῆς διαλεκτικῆς· καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο πεπονθέναι τὸν οὕτως ἁπτόμενον τῆς σκέψεως, ἀλλ’ ἢ προδιεξιέναι τινὰς θεωρίας πρὸ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς οὐδὲν πρὸς αὐτὴν συναπτούσας. [9] Οἱ μέντοι Πυθαγόρειοι, οἷς ἕπεται ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας τῶν ψόφων καὶ τῆς φωνῆς ἤρχοντο τῆς θεωρίας δι’ αἰτίαν τήνδε. ἐκβάλλοντες γὰρ τὸ τῆς ἀκοῆς κριτήριον ὡς πρὸς πίστιν οὐκ ἐχέγγυον τῆς τῶν συμφώνων καταλήψεως ἐπὶ τὸν λόγον καὶ τὴν διὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν κρίσιν ἀφικνοῦντο. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν τὸ μέλος καὶ αἱ συμφωνίαι ἐν ὀξύτησι ψόφων καὶ βαρύτησί πως ἐχούσαις πρὸς ἀλλήλας συνίστανται, ὀξύτητος δὲ καὶ βαρύτητος ταχυτὴς αἰτία καὶ βραδυτής, ὡς δειχθήσεται ὕστερον διὰ πλειόνων, ἡ δὲ ταχυτὴς καὶ βραδυτὴς ἐν κινήσει, εἰκότως τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς φωνῆς καὶ τοῦ ψόφου ἐζήτουν, ἥτις ἐστίν, καὶ εὑρόντες ἐν κινήσει. πάθος γὰρ ἀέρος πλησσομένου ὁ ψόφος, τῷ γένει δὲ ψόφος καὶ ἡ φωνή. τοὐντεῦθεν τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν κατὰ τὰς κινήσεις ταχῶν καὶ βραδυτήτων καὶ τοὺς λόγους τῶν συμμετριῶν ἐσκοποῦντο. πάσης δὲ συμμετρίας ἐν ἀριθμοῖς τισι θεωρουμένης εὑρόντες τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν συμφωνιῶν καὶ τοὺς ἀριθμούς, ἐξ ὧν τῆς συμμετρίας οἱ λόγοι ὑφίσταντο, τῇ τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἀκριβείᾳ ἔκρινον τὰς συμφωνίας καὶ τοῖς τούτων λόγοις ταύτας παρεμέτρουν παρέντες τὴν ἀκοὴν ὡς οὐκ ἱκανὴν οὖσαν κρίνειν τὰ τοιαῦτα. ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἦν κατ’ αὐτοὺς τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ ψόφου καὶ τῆς φωνῆς θεωρεῖν καὶ ἄρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς τούτων καταλήψεως πρὸς πᾶσαν τὴν τοῦ συμφώνου εὕρεσιν διὰ τὴν κίνησιν. τοῖς παραιτουμένοις μὲν τὴν διὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν καὶ τοῦ λόγου κρίσιν τῆς συμφωνίας, αὐτόθεν δ’ ἀξιοῦσι τῇ αἰσθήσει κανόνι χρήσασθαι - τούτῳ ὡς ἀρχοειδεῖ ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου καταλήψει - ἀλλότριον γίνεται καὶ πόρρω παντελῶς τὸ τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν ψόφων καὶ τῆς φωνῆς ἐρευνᾶν. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τοιαύτην ἔχει τὴν λύσιν. Ὁ δὲ Πτολεμαῖος ὅτι ἐν πολλοῖς πρὸς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους ἀποκλίνει κατὰ τὴν ἁρμονικὴν πραγματείαν, δειχθήσεται μὲν τοῦ λόγου προϊόντος μᾶλλον· νῦν δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τούτων γινέσθω φανερόν. πάντων γὰρ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν τῶν Ἀριστοξενείων καταρχὰς τῆς διδασκαλίας περὶ φωνῆς σκοπουμένων οὐ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς - ἐπέγνωσται γὰρ τοῦτο ὑπὸ τοῦ καθηγεμόνος τῆς αἱρέσεως - ποίας δ’ ἔχει διαφορὰς ἀποδιδόντων, καὶ τὴν μὲν ἁρμονικὴν γνῶσιν φωνῆς ἀνθρωπίνης τε καὶ ὀργανικῆς καὶ τῆς ταύταις παρακειμένης, τίνα τρόπον πεφύκασι κινούμεναι φυσικῶς ἀναστρέφεσθαι καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου περιγίνεσθαι τέλους ὁριζομένων, τὰς δὲ τῆς φωνῆς διαφορὰς ἑξῆς παριστάντων. διττὴ γάρ φασιν ἡ ταύτης κίνησις, ἡ μὲν [10] λεγομένη συνεχής, ἡ δὲ διαστηματική. συνεχὴς μέν, καθ’ ἣν πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαλεγόμεθα, ὅθεν καὶ λογικὴ συνωνύμως καλεῖται· διαστηματικὴ δέ, καθ’ ἣν ᾄδομέν τε καὶ μελῳδοῦμεν, αὐλοῦμέν τε καὶ κιθαρίζομεν, ὅθεν καὶ μελῳδικὴ προσαγορεύεται· τῆς διαφορᾶς αὐτῶν θεωρουμένης, ὅτι ἡ μὲν συνεχὴς εἱρμοῦ τινος καὶ τάχους κατὰ τὴν προφοράν, πυκνότητός τε καὶ τοῦ ἐπ’ ἀλλήλου τῶν μορίων, ἐξ [ 581 ]

ὧν συνέστηκε, φαντασίαν ἐγγενᾷ τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, ἡ δὲ διαστηματικὴ πᾶν τοὐναντίον, οὐ ταχυτῆτος, οὐδ’ εἱρμοῦ, μετ’ ὀξύτητος δέ τινος κατὰ λεπτὰ μερισμοῦ ἐμποιεῖ κατάληψιν, ὥστε ἁπλῶς ὑπολαμβάνειν, ὅτι ἡ μὲν προτέρα κίνησις τῆς φωνῆς σπεύδει καὶ προαίρεσιν ἔχει μηδαμοῦ στῆναι. κατὰ μόνας γοῦν τὰς τελευταίας ἀποσιωπήσεις ἵσταται καὶ τὸν ἴδιον δρόμον ἐπέχεται. ἡ δὲ δευτέρα φιλεῖ πως διαναπαύεσθαι καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστον, ὧν προφέρεται μορίων, λήγουσα εὐθὺς ἠρεμεῖ, εἶτ’ ἠρεμήσασα ὥσπερ ἀπ’ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς πάλιν ἄρχεται καὶ χρῆται τῇ τε διαναπαύσει καὶ τῇ προφορᾷ μιᾷ παρὰ μίαν ἐναλλάξ. διὸ καὶ κατὰ μὲν τὸ λέγειν περιϊστάμεθα τὸ πολλάκις ἀποσιωπᾶν. ᾠδῆς γὰρ καὶ μελῳδίας ἴδιον τοῦτο. κατὰ δὲ τὸ ᾄδειν προνοούμεθα τοῦ μηδαμῶς συνάπτειν τὰ μόρια· συνεχοῦς γὰρ φωνῆς παρακολούθημα καὶ τοῦτο, ὅθεν καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἐν τῷ διαλέγεσθαι δυσφόρους καὶ κατ’ ὀλίγας λέξεις σταλάττοντας ὡς μὴ καθικνουμένους τοῦ τῆς λαλιᾶς ἰδιώματος ψέγομεν, τοὺς δὲ λίαν κατεσπευσμένας ᾠδὰς καὶ τροχαλῶς παραφέροντας πάλιν οὐκ ἐπαινοῦμεν, κἂν γὰρ τὰ μάλιστα ἑαυτοῖς τεχνῖται δόξωσιν εἶναι καὶ δυσκόλως ᾄδειν, ἀλλ’ οὖν ὅμως ᾄδουσιν οὐ χωρὶς τοῦ καὶ τὸ μέλος διὰ τὴν πυκνότητα καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν φωνὴν συγγενισμὸν ποιεῖν ἀσχημονεῖν. ὅσῳ μὲν γὰρ ἂν ταχύνηται καὶ λίαν ἐλαύνηται τὸ μέλος, παρ’ ὀλίγον συνεχὲς ἀναγκαζόμενον εἶναι, κακοτεχνεῖται, ὅσῳ δ’ ἂν ἀναβεβλημένος παρέλκηται καὶ βραδύνηται, σαφὲς καὶ περίτρανον φαίνεται καὶ μᾶλλον εὐσχημονοῦν. Τοιούτων οὖν σχεδὸν παρὰ πᾶσι τοῖς Ἀριστοξενείοις λεγομένων εὐθὺς καταρχὰς τοῦ περὶ τῆς ἁρμονικῆς σκέμματος ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ταυτὶ παρῄρηται. τὴν δ’ ἁρμονικὴν διὰ τοῦ ψόφου ὑπογράψας, ἀλλ’ οὐ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς καθάπερ τοῖς Ἀριστοξενείοις ἔθος, περὶ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ ψόφου διελέχθη, ὃ δοκεῖ μὲν τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις· παραιτούμενοι δὲ τοῦτο οἱ ἀπ’ Ἀριστοξένου φαίνονται. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν περὶ τῆς προαιρέσεως τἀνδρὸς εἰρήσθω, σκεπτέον δέ, ἃ περὶ τοῦ κριτηρίου ἑξῆς ἐπάγει, γράφων ταῦτα. [11]

[ 582 ]

Καὶ κριτήρια μὲν ἁρμονίας ἀκοὴ καὶ λόγος, οὐ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον, ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν ἀκοὴ παρὰ τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὸ πάθος, ὁ δὲ λόγος παρὰ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ αἴτιον. ΚΡ Ι Τ Ή Ρ Ι Α Μ Ὲ Ν Ο ὖΝ οὐ μόνον τῶν περὶ τοὺς ψόφους διαφορῶν καὶ τῆς τούτων ἁρμονίας αἴσθησιν καὶ λόγον οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐτίθεντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντων ὁμοίως τῶν αἰσθητῶν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ λόγῳ κρινόμενα μὴ πάντα καὶ αἰσθήσει κρίνεσθαι, τὰ δ’ αἰσθήσει πάντως καὶ λόγῳ. αἴσθησιν δὲ καὶ λόγον ἐκάλουν τάς τε δυνάμεις τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τὴν αἰσθητικὴν λέγω καὶ τὴν λογικὴν καὶ τὰς χρήσεις τῶν δυνάμεων· καὶ εἶναι μὲν εἴδους ἀντίληψιν καὶ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον, ἐπεὶ καὶ εἴδη εἶναι καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸν λόγον. ἀλλ’ ἤδη τὸν μὲν αὐτοῦ μόνου τοῦ εἴδους ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι, ὡς συμβέβηκεν ἐγγίνεσθαι τῇ ὕλῃ, τὴν δὲ κατὰ προσπαράληψιν τῆς ὕλης. τοῦ γὰρ εἴδους ἡ αἴσθησις καθ’ ὃ ἔνυλον. καὶ γὰρ ἡ μὲν μετὰ σώματος καὶ πάθους κινεῖται εἰς ἀντίληψιν, κατ’ ἐνίους δ’ οὐδ’ ἄλλο τι ἐστὶν ἢ πάθος, ὥσπερ ἔοικε καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος τίθεσθαι. ὁ δ’ ἀπαθῶς καὶ ἀσωμάτως ἐνεργεῖ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐν ἀύλῳ εἴδει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ κεκτημένος, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ τοὺς ὅρους κατὰ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀποδιδόντες τοὺς μέν τινας ποιούμεθα κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος, τοὺς δὲ κατὰ τὴν μεῖξιν τοῦ εἴδους πρὸς τὴν ὕλην. πολλάκις δὲ καὶ τῆς ὕλης γίνονταί τινες ὁρισμοί, μᾶλλον δὲ κατὰ τὴν ὕλην, ὅτι δέχεται τὸ εἶδος καὶ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ δεκτικὸν αὕτη. διὸ καὶ τρεῖς οἱ ὅροι, οἱ μὲν ἐννοητικοὶ οἱ τοῦ εἴδους, οὓς μᾶλλον οὐσιώδεις καλεῖ Ἀριστοτέλης, οἱ δ’ ὑλικοί, οὓς οἱ Στωικοὶ καλοῦσι μόνον οὐσιώδεις, οἱ δὲ κατὰ τὸ συναμφότερον, οὓς μάλιστα ὁ Ἀρχύτας ἀπεδέχετο. καὶ πάντες μέν εἰσι τρόπον τινὰ τοῦ εἴδους, ἀλλ’ οἱ μὲν αὐτοῦ μόνου, ὡς συμβέβηκεν ἐγγίνεσθαι τῇ ὕλῃ, οἱ δὲ κατὰ προσπαράληψιν τῆς ὕλης, οἱ δὲ κατὰ τὸ δεκτικὸν μόνον αὐτῆς. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ἡ φωνὴ φέρεται καὶ ὁ ψόφος λέγεται καὶ τὸ ἴδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῇ καὶ ὁ πεπληγμένος ἀὴρ κινητικὸς ἀκοῇ καὶ αὕτη ἡ πληγὴ κίνησις τοῦ ἀέρος. ὡς οὖν οὗτοι τοῦ εἴδους ὄντες διαφόρως ἀπεδόθησαν, οὕτω καὶ τὰ φυσικὰ κριτήρια· πάντα μὲν τοῦ εἴδους ἐστὶ καὶ κατ’ αὐτὸ κινεῖται, ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν αἴσθησις, ᾗ ἔνυλον τὸ εἶδος, ὁ δὲ λόγος χωρίζων αὐτὸ ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης. ἔνθεν καὶ δοκεῖ τισιν τὸν μὲν τῆς οὐσίας εἶναι κριτικόν οὐσίας γὰρ τὰ εἴδη καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ ὑπελάμβανον - τὴν δὲ τῶν οὐσιωμένων, [12] οὐσιώμενα δ’ εἶναι τὰ εἴδη σὺν ὕλῃ ἢ ἐν ὕλῃ, μηδ’ ἁρμονίας οὖν κριτικὴν εἶναι τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου. διαφέρει γὰρ τὸ ἡρμοσμένον ἁρμονίας, ᾗ τὸ ἀριθμητὸν ἀριθμοῦ· εἶναι γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἀριθμητὸν ἀριθμὸν ἐν ὕλῃ ἢ σὺν ὕλῃ, τὸ δ’ ἡρμοσμένον ἁρμονίαν ἐν ὕλῃ ἢ σὺν ὕλῃ· ὑπάρχειν δὲ τὸν λόγον οὐ μόνον κριτὴν τῶν αἰσθητῶν ὡς τὸ εἶδος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς τὸ αἴτιον. πολλαχῶς δὲ τοῦ λόγου λεγομένου λέγεται οὐχ ἧττον λόγος καὶ ὁ φυσικός, ὅ τε τῆς σπερματικῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ὁ κατὰ τὴν σύνταξιν τῶν αὐτῆς τῆς φύσεως ἐνεργειῶν. λέγουσι δὲ καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν λόγον, οἷός ἐστι καὶ τραπεζητικός, καὶ τὸν τῆς τῶν ὁμογενῶν πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσεως ἐν [ 583 ]

ταῖς ἀναλογίαις. διὸ καὶ κυριώτατος καὶ πάντων προηγούμενός ἐστι λόγος ὁ ἅμα τε τὴν σχέσιν ἔχων καὶ τὸν συμψηφισμὸν τῆς συγκεφαλαιώσεως τῆς φυσικῆς τῶν πραγμάτων, ὃν ὥσπερ μεμίμηται καὶ ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς λογισμός. οὗτος δ’ ἐστὶν ὁ τῆς ὕλης εἰδοποιός. εἰδοποιεῖται γὰρ ἡ ὕλη καθάπερ ἐξαριθμουμένη καὶ κεφαλαιουμένη μετὰ συντάξεως τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν προσεγγινομένων αὐτῇ παθῶν καὶ διαθέσεων κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα αὐτῶν σχέσιν καὶ συμφωνίαν, ὧν ἀναλόγως συναρμοζομένων κατά τε τὰς ἑκάστων ἀπεργασίας καὶ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς περιοχὴν τὰ ὅλα διοικεῖται, ᾧ χρῆται λόγῳ καὶ λογισμῷ καθάπερ ἱερὰν ἔχων ἐπιστήμην καὶ διανόησιν ὁ τῶν ὅλων ἡγεμὼν θεὸς καὶ καθ’ ὃν ἡ φύσις ἕκαστα τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ παρέχεται. Καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τῶν εἰδῶν λόγος, ὥς φησιν ὁ Θράσυλλος, “συνεσπειραμένος μὲν ἐν τοῖς σπέρμασι καὶ ὥσπερ ἐγκεκρυμμένος, ἐξαπλούμενος δὲ καὶ ἀνελιττόμενος κατὰ τὰς ἑκάστης φύσεως ἐνεργείας, ἐγγινόμενος δὲ κατὰ μίμησιν κἀν τοῖς τεχνικοῖς θεωρήμασιν, ὡς κἀν τοῖς τεχνικοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀποτελέσμασι καὶ τῷ τῆς διανοητικῇς φρονήσεως καὶ σοφίας λογισμῷ, καθ’ ὃν ὅ τι ποτ’ ἐστὶν ὁ νοῦς ἐπισφραγίζεται καὶ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι ἑκάστῳ καθορίζεταί τε καὶ πιστοῦται, οὗ καὶ ὁ ὁριστικὸς καὶ ὁ ἀποδεικτικὸς λόγος ἐστὶ δηλωτικός.” Καὶ γὰρ ὁ ὁρισμὸς οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἐστὶν ἢ καθάπερ ἐξαρίθμησίς τις τεταγμένη ‹καὶ› συνεψηφισμένη τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν πραγμάτων, καὶ ἡ ἀπόδειξις ὥσπερ συναγωγή τίς ἐστιν ἐκ διεστώτων εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ τῶν κατὰ τὸν [13] ὁρισμὸν συνεληλυθότων παραλλαγμάτων. διὸ καὶ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος ἐφάπτεται τὰ πολλά· ταῦτα γὰρ διέστηκε. τῷ δ’ ὅρῳ μᾶλλον τὰ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας εἴδη συνάγειν ἀναγκαῖον. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὁρισμὸς τὴν φαινομένην διαίρεσιν τῶν γενῶν εἰς τὰ εἴδη καὶ τὰς διαφορὰς συντίθησιν, οἷον τὸ ζῷον καὶ τὸ ὑλακτικόν, εἰς τὴν δήλωσιν τοῦ τί ἦν εἶναι· οἷον ὁ τί ἐστιν ὁ κύων, ζῷον ὑλακτικόν. ἡ δ’ ἀπόδειξις διεστῶσας τὰς διαφορὰς καὶ μεσαζομένας συνάγει πρὸς τὸ ἄμεσον τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτῶν τῆς συνδέσεως ἐπιλογιζομένη. ὁ γὰρ λέγων “πᾶν τὸ βαρὺ κάτω φέρεται· ἡ δὲ γῆ ἐστι βαρεῖα· κάτω ἄρα φέρεται” οὐδὲν ἄλλο εἴρηκεν ἢ τὴν αἰτίαν, ὅτι ἡ γῆ κάτω φέρεται διὰ τὸ βαρεῖαν εἶναι καὶ ὅτι γε ἡ γῆ κάτω φέρεται τῷ βάρει, ὅ ἐστιν ὥσπερ ὅρος αὐτῆς. ἡ γῆ γάρ ἐστι τὸ φύσει τὸν μέσον τόπον ἐπέχον σῶμα. ὁ δὲ μέσος ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὁ κάτω. διὰ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια, ὧν πλήρη τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν συγγράμματα, ὁ λόγος πανταχοῦ κατὰ τὸ εἶδος τέτακται καὶ τὸ αἴτιον. Ἡ μέντοι γ’ αἴσθησις διὰ τὰ εἰρημένα κατὰ τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὸ πάσχον· ὕλην δὲ ψυχικήν, ἐπεὶ καὶ πάντα τὰ ὑποβεβηκότα προσεχῶς ὕλαι τῶν ἐπαναβεβηκότων· οὕτω γάρ που καὶ ὑλικὸς νοῦς λέγεται καίπερ ὢν ἀμιγὴς σωματικὴ ὕλη, ὅτι τοῦ θύραθεν καὶ ἐπαναβεβηκότος νοῦ ἐν χρείᾳ τῆς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας ὡς ὕλη ἐτύγχανεν. αἱ δὲ κρίσεις ὅπως ἐκτελοῦνται σαφεῖς γενόμεναι ἱκανὴν τοῖς ῥηθεῖσι παρέξουσι τὴν μαρτυρίαν. τῆς γὰρ ὕλης εἰδοπεποιημένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ῥηθέντος λόγου τὴν ψυχὴν συμβέβηκε τοῖς οὖσιν ἐφισταμένην καὶ οἷον ἀποσπῶσαν αὖθις ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης τὰ εἴδη καὶ δεχομένην εἰς ἑαυτὴν καὶ τρόπον τινὰ ἀποκαθιστᾶσαν εἰς τὸ ἄυλον γίνεσθαι τὴν κρίσιν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἡ ἀντίληψις, οἷον ἐπαφωμένη τοῦ ὄντος ἀναλαμβάνειν αὐτὰ πειρᾶται καὶ οἷον εἰσαγγέλλειν τε καὶ εἰσάγειν εἰς τὴν ψυχὴν ὥσπερ ὁδηγός τις καὶ εἰσαγωγεύς. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἡ δοξαστικὴ ὑπόληψις ὑποδέχεται τὸ εἰσαχθὲν [ 584 ]

προσαγορεύουσα αὐτὸ καὶ ἀναγράφουσα διὰ λόγου τῇ ψυχῇ, οἷον εἴς τι γραμμάτιον ἐνυπάρχον αὐτῇ. τρίτη δ’ ἐστὶ μετὰ ταῦτα δύναμις εἰκονιστὴ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων καὶ ὄντως ζωγραφική τις ἢ πλαστικὴ ἢ φαντασία οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τῷ τῆς προσαγορεύσεως εἴδει καὶ τῷ τῆς ἀναγραφῆς, ἀλλ’ ὅνπερ τρόπον οἱ τοὺς καταπλέοντας εἰκονίζοντες ἢ κατὰ τοὺς τοῖς συμβόλοις παρακολουθοῦντας τὴν ἀκρίβειαν τῆς ὁμοιότητος [14] ἐκλογίζονται· οὕτω καὶ αὕτη τοῦ πράγματος ἅπασαν τὴν μορφὴν ἐκλογιζομένη, ὁπόταν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἀκριβώσῃ, τότε ἀπέθετο ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ τὸ εἶδος. καὶ τοῦτο ἦν ἡ ἔννοια, ἧς ἐγγενομένης τε καὶ βεβαιωθείσης ἡ τῆς ἐπιστήμης ἐγγίνεται διάθεσις, ἀφ’ ἧς ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πυρὸς πηδήσαντος ἐξαφθὲν φῶς ὁ νοῦς ἀναφαίνεται οἷόν περ ὄψις ἀκριβὴς εἰς τὴν προσβολὴν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ ὄντως ὄν. καὶ διὰ μὲν τῆς ἀντιλήψεως ἀρξαμένης τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ μαθούσης τὸ ἐν τῇ ὕλῃ ἐνυπάρχον εἶδος, διὰ δὲ τῆς ὑπολήψεως, ὅτι τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ταὐτὸ τῷ δείξαντι τὸ δειχθὲν παραδεξαμένης· διὰ δὲ τῆς φαντασίας ὅτι καὶ τοιόνδε προσεξειργασμένης κατὰ τὸν εἰκονισμόν, ὁποῖον ἦν τὸ ἐκτός· διὰ δὲ τῆς ἐννοίας ἐπὶ τὸ καθόλου μετελθούσης εἰς τὴν ἄυλον ἀπόθεσιν τοῦ εἴδους, μεθ’ ἣν ἐκ τῆς ἐπιβολῆς τὸ βέβαιον προσλαβοῦσα ἡ ἐπιστήμη καθαρὸν τὸν ἔπειτα καθόλου νοῦν ἐπιβλητικὸν λαμβάνει. διὸ καὶ ὁ νοῦς γίνεται ἐκείνου, οὗ ἐπιστήμη καὶ ἔννοια τοῦ εἴδους τοῦ παρέχοντος τὴν ὅλην μορφὴν τῇ ὕλῃ. καὶ ἔστι τὸ γινόμενον τοιοῦτον, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις, ἀπὸ κοίλης γλυφῆς δακτυλίου ἐναποτυπωθέντος καὶ ἐναπομαχθείσης τῆς σφραγῖδος μετεώρου, πάλιν αὖθις ἀπ’ ἐκείνης τυπώσειεν εἰς ἑτέραν ὕλην τὴν σφραγῖδα. γίνεται γὰρ ὁμοία τῇ γλυφῇ τοῦ δακτυλίου κατὰ τὴν σφραγῖδα. καὶ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα, οἷον ἀπὸ δακτυλίου, τοῦ εἴδους ἀσωμάτου καὶ ἀύλου ὑπάρχοντος, ἐπειδὰν ἀπομαχθῇ τῇ ὕλῃ τὸ εἶδος, ἐξ ἀσωμάτου σωματοῦται. εἶτ’ αὖθις πάλιν ἀναληφθὲν τῇ ψυχῇ καθ’ αὑτὸ γίνεται ἄυλόν τε καὶ ἀσώματον. καὶ ἡ μὲν κρίσις τῶν ὄντων ἐστὶν αὕτη τε καὶ τοιαύτη. ἄγεται δ’ εἰς προχειρότητά τε ἑκάστῳ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ κοινωνίαν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως, ἐκδεχομένης τῆς φωνῆς τῇ διαρθρώσει τῆς λέξεως τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς εἰκόνα καὶ ὥσπερ ἐφαρμοζούσης τοῖς τ’ ἀρχετύποις αὐτοῖς εἴδεσι καὶ τοῖς τούτων μετασχοῦσιν ἐν τῇ ὕλῃ· καὶ οὕτω πάλιν καθάπερ εἰς αἰσθητὸν εἶδος ἐκ νοητοῦ ἄγεται τὸ τῶν ὄντων εἰκόνισμα δι’ ἀκοῆς, ὥσπερ ἂν καὶ δι’ ὄψεως, ἐπειδὰν αὐτήν τις τὴν λέξιν ἀναγράψῃ. Διὰ μὲν δὴ τούτων σαφὲς γέγονεν, πῶς κριτήρια λέγοντες τὸν λόγον καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν τῶν αἰσθητῶν τὴν μὲν αἴσθησιν παρὰ τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὸ πάθος κρίνειν ἐτίθεντο, τὸν δὲ λόγον παρὰ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ αἴτιον. ὑλικὸν μὲν γὰρ κριτήριον καὶ παθητικὸν ἡ αἴσθησις, εἰδικὸν δὲ καὶ ὡς ὅθεν ἡ κίνησις καὶ τὸ εἶναι αἴτιον ὁ λόγος. ὅθεν ἡ μὲν τῷ πάσχειν κρίνουσα καὶ ὑλικῶς ὁλοσχερῶς καὶ ἐς ὅσον ἂν τὸ αἰσθητὸν τυπώσῃ [15] καταλαμβάνει καὶ τοῦτο μόνον μηνύει, ὁ δὲ τῷ ἐνεργεῖν εἰδητικῶς καὶ ἀύλως προειληφῶς εὑρίσκεται ἅπαν τὸ κρινόμενον καὶ οἷον ἔχων τὸ εἶδος παρ’ ἑαυτῷ ἀκριβῶς τοῦ ζητουμένου καὶ ἀκριβέστερόν γε ἢ ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς θεωρεῖται. ὅθεν καὶ τὸ ἐκλεῖπον αὐτοῦ προστίθησιν ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἡμαρτημένον εὐθύνει. οὐκ ἂν δὲ ταῦτα ποιεῖν μὴ προέχων ἠδύνατο. διὸ καλῶς ὁ μουσικὸς τῇ μὲν εἰπὼν τὸ ἀκριβῶς ἔξωθεν καὶ παρὰ τοῦ λόγου δίδοσθαι - καθ’ ἑαυτὴν γὰρ εἶναι ὁλοσχερές - τῷ δὲ παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ μὲν προεῖναι τὸ ἀκριβές, ἔξωθεν δὲ τὸ ὁλοσχερὲς ἀπαγγέλλεσθαι, τουτέστι παρὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως. [ 585 ]

Ἔοικε γὰρ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸν λόγον βασιλεῖ καὶ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ μὲν πάντα προειληφότι καὶ προειδότι ἀκριβῶς καὶ ἔνδον παρ’ ἑαυτῷ ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις βασιλείοις διατρίβοντι, τῷ δὲ μόνον τοὺς τύπους ἀναλαμβάνειν δυναμένῳ τῶν προσειρόντων καὶ τούτους εἰσαγγέλλειν εἰς ὅσον ἀπετυπώσατο τῷ ἄρχοντι. καθάπερ οὖν ἐπὶ τούτων τοῦ ἀγγέλου ὁλοσχερῶς τοὺς τύπους τῶν ὁραθέντων μηνύοντος ὁ βασιλεύς, ἅτε προεγνωκὼς ἅπαντα, οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰσαγγελθὲν μανθάνει, ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ ὁ ἀπαγγέλλων οὐκ ἀκριβῶς ἐδήλωσε καὶ ὅλως πᾶσαν τὴν σύστασιν τοῦ μηνυθέντος, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ὁ λόγος πᾶσαν τὴν τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἀντίληψιν εἰδὼς εὑρίσκεται καὶ ἀκριβέστερον ἢ ἐκείνη τὰ αἰσθητὰ μηνύειν ἠδύνατο. ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἡ αἴσθησις προτέρα τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῇ τῶν αἰσθητῶν γνώσει, οὐ μὴν διά γε τοῦτο κρείσσων τοῦ λόγου κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν. οὐ γὰρ ὅσον ἐκείνη παρίστησι, τοῦτο λαμβάνει ὁ λόγος. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἦν οὐ χρόνῳ μόνον ὕστερος ὁ λόγος τῆς αἰσθήσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ δυνάμει. προειληφὼς δὲ παρ’ ἑαυτῷ τὰ πάντα προεστῶσαν καθάπερ ἐν προθύροις ἐν τοῖς σωματικοῖς ὀργάνοις τὴν αἰσθητικὴν δύναμιν ἔχει, παρ’ ἧς ὅσον ἀπαγγέλλειν ἠδύνατο λαμβάνων αὐτὸς τὸ ἀκριβὲς καθ’ ἑαυτὸν εὑρίσκει ἀποτελῶν καὶ ταύτην τῇ πρὸς αὐτὸν συνουσίᾳ ἀκριβεστέραν. ἃ δὴ παριστὰς καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἑξῆς τοῖς προειρημένοις γράφει ταῦτα.

[ 586 ]

Ὅτι καὶ καθόλου τῶν μὲν αἰσθήσεων ἴδιόν ἐστι τὸ τοῦ μὲν ἕως τοῦ εὑρετικόν. ΣΎ Ν Ε Γ Γ Υ ς Λ Έ Γ ΕΤΑ Ι Τ Ὸ ὁλοσχερὲς καὶ τῷ ἀκριβεῖ ἀντικείμενον, ὃ δὴ εὑρίσκειν φησὶν ἴδιον εἶναι τῆς αἰσθήσεως. ἴδιον δ’ ἔφη τῶν αἰσθήσεων [16] τὸ ὁλοσχερές, ὅτι καθ’ ἑαυτὰς καὶ ὅλως κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν τοιαύτας κέκτηνται τὰς ἀντιλήψεις. μὴ γάρ μοι τὰς ὑπὸ λόγου συγγυμνασθείσας, οἷαι αἱ τῶν τεχνιτῶν αἰσθήσεις, εἰς ἔλεγχον τῶν εἰρημένων παραγέτω τις. αὐτὰς δὲ καθ’ ἑαυτὰς ἄνευ τῆς παρὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐπιστάσεως σκοπείτω καὶ ἄν περ εὐγνώμων καὶ μὴ φιλόνεικος ᾖ, τῷ λεγομένῳ ὡς ἀληθεῖ ὄντι συγχωρήσει. ἴδιον οὖν τῆς μὲν αἰσθήσεως τὸ σύνεγγυς καὶ ὁλοσχερὲς καὶ μὴ ἀκριβὲς εὑρίσκειν, τὸ δ’ ἀκριβὲς παραδέχεσθαι. λέγει δὲ παραδοχὴν τὴν παρ’ ἄλλου δοχὴν καὶ μὴ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ εὕρεσιν. παρ’ ἄλλου δὲ τὸ ἀκριβὲς δέχεται, τοῦ λόγου δηλονότι, ὃς τῆς ἀκριβείας προέστηκε τῶν αἰσθήσεων. ἔμπαλιν δὲ τοῦ λόγου ἴδιον τοῦτο τὸ μὲν ἀκριβὲς καθ’ ἑαυτὸν εὑρίσκειν, τὸ δὲ σύνεγγυς καὶ ὁλοσχερὲς ἔξωθεν καὶ παρὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως λαμβάνειν. ἕκαστον γὰρ ὃ ἔχει διδούς, ὃ μὴ ἔχει παρ’ ἐκείνου, ᾧ δίδωσι, λαμβάνει. ἔχει δ’ ὁ μὲν λόγος τὸ ἀκριβές, ἡ δ’ αἴσθησις τὸ ὁλοσχερές, ὥστε τὰ ἑκατέρου ἴδια ἑκάτερον ἐρανίζεται παρὰ θατέρου πρὸς τὴν κρίσιν. ἐκ δ’ ἀμφοῖν γίνεται ἡ τελεία τῶν αἰσθητῶν κρίσις τῆς μὲν αἰσθήσεως παρεχούσης τῷ λόγῳ τὴν ὁλοσχερεστέραν ἐπίγνωσιν καὶ οἷον αἴθυγμα καὶ ἀρχὴν τοῦ κρινομένου ἐνδιδούσης, τοῦ δὲ λόγου τὴν κρίσιν τελεοῦντος καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν πλείστην ὠφέλειαν παρέχοντος καὶ ἀμφοῖν, οὗ ἡ χρεία πρὸς τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τῷ ἑτέρῳ θατέρου πρός τε τὸ ἄρξασθαι τῆς κρίσεως καὶ τὸ εἰς τέλος ταύτην ἀκριβεστάτην ἀπεργάσασθαι.

[ 587 ]

Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁρίζεται ἕως τοῦ ὁμολογουμένας. Ἡ ὝΛ Η Κ ΑΘ ’ ἑαυτὴν ἄπειρός τε καὶ ἀόριστος καὶ τὰ πάθη δὲ καθ’ ἑαυτὰ ἄπειρά τε καὶ ἀόριστα συμβέβηκε. τὸ μέντοι εἶδος καὶ ὁρίζει τε καὶ περατοῖ τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὰ αἴτια τῶν κινήσεων ὁρίζει τὰ πάθη. ἐφ’ ὅσον γὰρ ἂν τὸ κινοῦν κινήσῃ, τοσοῦτον κινεῖται τὸ κινούμενον. ἔστι δ’ ἡ μὲν αἴσθησις ὑλικόν τι καὶ παθητικόν, ὁ δὲ λόγος εἰδικόν τι καὶ αἴτιον ὡς ὅθεν ἡ κίνησις. εἰκότως οὖν καὶ αἱ αἰσθητικαὶ διαλήψεις καὶ κρίσεις καθ’ ἑαυτὰς οὖσαι ἀδιόριστοι ὁρίζονται ταῖς λογικαῖς καὶ περαίνονται. εἰ δὲ τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἀληθές, ἀνάγκη δύο θέσθαι κριτήρια ἁρμονίας, ἀκοὴν καὶ λόγον, καὶ οὐκ, ὡς ἄλλοις ἐδόκει, πρὸς οὓς ἀποτεινόμενος ἐν τούτοις πλεονάζει ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, αἴσθησιν μόνον. εἰδὼς δ’ ὁ μουσικὸς λογικὰς διαλήψεις οὔσας καὶ ἄνευ αἰσθήσεων, ὁποῖαι αἱ περὶ τῶν νοητῶν [17] φησιν ἐπὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν χρείαν εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ τῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ τῆς παρὰ ταύτης ὑποβολῆς πρὸς τὰς διαλήψεις τὰς περὶ αὐτῶν. αἱ γὰρ αἰσθητικαὶ κρίσεις καὶ ὡς οὗτος ἔφη διαλήψεις ταῖς λογικαῖς ὁρίζονται κρίσεσι καθ’ ἑαυτὰς οὖσαι ἀδιόριστοι. τοῦτο δὲ διότι ὑλικαί τε καὶ παθητικαὶ κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν ὑπάρχουσι φύσιν. ἐξηγήσατο δὲ καὶ πῶς ταῖς λογικαῖς ὁρίζονται κρίσεσιν. ὑπολαμβάνουσι μὲν γὰρ αἱ αἰσθητικαὶ κρίσεις τὰς ὁλοσχερέστερον λαμβανομένας διαφορὰς τῶν αἰσθητῶν τῷ λόγῳ. ὁ δὲ λόγος εὑρὼν τὸ ἀκριβὲς προσάγει λοιπὸν καὶ τὰς αἰσθητικὰς κρίσεις ἐπὶ τὰς ἀκριβεῖς καὶ ὁμολογουμένας. χρεία γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν κριτηρίου, εἰ καὶ ὁλοσχερέστερον τοῦτό γε, ἀλλ’ ἐπί γε τῶν δι’ αἰσθήσεως νοητῶν. δι’ αἰσθήσεως δὲ νοητὰ τίνα ἐστίν, γνωσθείη ἄν, εἰ τὸ νοητὸν ποσαχῶς λέγεται μάθοιμεν. Λέγεται τοίνυν νοητὸν ἰδίως, ὃ κατ’ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν διενήνοχε τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ὡς ἔστι μόνα τὰ ἀσώματα νοητὰ καὶ καθάπαξ ὅσα μὴ σώματα. ἐλέγετο γοῦν ὁ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις λόγος περὶ τῶν νοητῶν. λέγεται ἑτέρως νοητόν, ἐφ’ ὃ δύναται ἐπίστασις γενέσθαι τοῦ νοῦ καὶ ἀντίληψις. οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν ἔσται νοητὸν καὶ ἅπαν γε. οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῦτο τῶν ἁπλῶς λεγομένων, ἀλλ’ οὔτε δύναιτ’ ἂν αἰσθήσει γενέσθαι αἰσθητὸν καὶ προσέτι τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ὂν τῶν αἰσθητῶν, κἂν ὑπὸ σμικρότητος παντάπασιν διαφεύγῃ τὴν αἴσθησιν. ἔτι ἰδίως νοητὸν λέγεται τὸ πρὸς μόνην τὴν τοῦ νοῦ γνῶσιν ὑφεστηκός, τὴν δ’ αἴσθησιν διαφεῦγον, ὡς τὰ ὑπὸ σμικρότητος ἐκφεύγοντα τὴν αἴσθησιν νοητὰ μέν φαμεν εἶναι, αἰσθητὰ δ’ οὔ. κείσθω οὖν νοητὸν τό τε ὁπωσοῦν τῷ νῷ ποιοῦν ἀντίληψιν καὶ τὸ ἔξω τῆς τῶν αἰσθητῶν ὑπάρχον οὐσίας, καὶ οὗ διὰ μὲν τῆς αἰσθήσεως οὐ δυνατόν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ νοῦ μόνως πεφύκαμεν ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι. ἄλλως δέ τι τὸ ἤδη νοητὸν καὶ τὸ ὅσον ἐφ’ ἑαυτῷ. κατὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον οὖν σημαινόμενον καὶ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς φθόγγους αἰσθητά ἐστι νοητά, ὅτι δύναται καὶ περὶ τούτων ὁ λόγος ἐπιστῆσαι, ὃν κοινότερον οἱ παλαιοὶ καὶ νοῦν προσηγόρευον. ἐπεὶ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τούτων κρίσιν χρεία τῶν αἰσθήσεων τῷ λόγῳ, διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτά γε δι’ αἰσθήσεως νοητὰ καλεῖται.

[ 588 ]

Τοῦτο δ’ ὅτι τὸν μὲν λόγον ἕως τοῦ παραπαιδαγωγήσεως. [ 1 8 ] ἌΥΛΟ Ν Γ Ὰ Ρ τὸν λόγον ὄντα καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἁπλοῦν ἔφασκον εἶναι καὶ ἀνεμπόδιστον καθ’ ἑαυτὸν πρὸς τὰς ἐνεργείας διὰ τοῦτο. διὸ καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ὁ λόγος μέτοχος καὶ τοῦ ἀκριβοῦς εὑρετικός. ἁπλοῦν γὰρ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ καθαρόν, τὸ δὲ ψεῦδος τοὐναντίον. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἡ μὲν ἀλήθεια βέβαιον καὶ ὅμοιον καὶ μονοειδές, τὸ δὲ ψεῦδος ἀνόμοιον καὶ ἀβέβαιον καὶ πολυφάνταστον, ὁ δὲ λόγος βέβαιόν τε καὶ ὅμοιον καὶ μονειδές, ἡ δ’ αἴσθησις τὰ ἐναντία. ὁ μὲν ἄρα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ συγγενής, ἡ δὲ τοῦ ψεύδους μέτοχος. ἔστι γὰρ ἡ μὲν ὕλη σύμπλοκος, ἣ τῆς ἀγνοίας ἦν αἰτία, αὐτή τε ἄστατος καὶ ἀεὶ φερομένη. εἰκότως οὖν τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἑλεῖν καθ’ ἑαυτὴν οὐκ οἷά τε. ὁ δὲ λόγος ἄυλος ὢν αὐτοτελής ἐστι, τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν αὐτάρκης ἑαυτῷ εὑρίσκειν τὸ οἰκεῖον τέλος· αὐτοκίνητος γάρ. ἡ δ’ αἴσθησις μεθ’ ὕλης πάντοτε πολυμιγοῦς τε καὶ ῥευστῆς· διὸ πρὸς τὰ αὐτὰ ὑποκείμενα οὐχ ὁμοίως φέρεται, οὔτε ἡ πάντων αἴσθησις - ἄλλως γὰρ ἄλλος περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κινεῖται, ὁ μὲν ὁλοσχερέστερον, ὁ δέ τι τούτου ἀμβλύτερον - οὔτε τῶν αὐτῶν ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὁμοίως. ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἄλλοτε ἄλλως περὶ ταὐτοῦ κρίνει κατ’ αἴσθησιν. τὸ δὲ “ταύτης ἄστατον” ἀκουστέον ἐπὶ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τὸ “μήτε τὴν πάντων” ἀκουστέον αἴσθησιν. καὶ πάλιν “μήτε τῶν αὐτῶν ἀεὶ” ἀκουστέον αἴσθησιν. τί οὖν ἥτε τῶν πάντων αἴσθησις καὶ ἡ τῶν αὐτῶν αἴσθησις πέπονθεν, ἐπάγει· πρὸς τὰ ὁμοίως ὑποκείμενα οὐ τηρεῖται ἡ αὐτὴ διὰ τὸ τῆς ὕλης ἄστατον, ἀλλὰ δεῖται τῆς παρὰ τοῦ λόγου βοηθείας καθάπερ οἱ στῆναι καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς μὴ δυνάμενοι βάκτρου. ὁ γὰρ λόγος πρὸς τὰ αὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ἔχει καὶ τὸ ἐπαγόμενον δὲ παράδειγμα συνίστησι τὸ ὅμοιον.

[ 589 ]

Ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ μόνῃ τῇ ὄψει ἕως τοῦ καὶ ᾆσιν τὸ ᾆσαι. ΜΌ Ν ῌ Τ ῇ ὌΨ Ε Ι περιάγεται κύκλος ὁ καταγραφόμενος ἄνευ διαβήτου πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν τῇ ὄψει εἶναι περιφερές· διὸ οὕτω περιενεχθείς· δοκεῖ μὲν εἶναι ἀκριβὴς τῇ αἰσθήσει. ἀλλ’ ὅταν ὁ λόγῳ περιενεχθείς, τουτέστιν ὁ τῷ ἀκριβεῖ διαβήτῃ ἀποτελεσθεὶς παρατεθῇ, ἀφίσταται μὲν ἡ αἴσθησις τοῦ προτέρου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀλλοτρίου, προσίεται δὲ τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου εὑρεθέντα ὡς τῷ ὄντι τοῦτον ὄντα τὸν κύκλον, ἐκεῖνον δ’ οὔ. ὡς τοίνυν ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ὅρασιν ἔχει, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ψόφων τῶν κατὰ [19] τὴν ἀκοήν. διαφέρουσι μὲν γὰρ ἀλλήλων οἱ ψόφοι βαρύτητι καὶ ὀξύτητι. τὰς δὲ συμμετρίας τῶν βαρυτήτων καὶ τῶν ὀξυτήτων ταχέως καὶ ὁλοσχερῶς καθ’ ἑαυτὴν κρίνει ἡ ἀκοή. τοῦτο δ’ οὐ γινώσκει, ἀλλ’ οἴεται εἶναι τὸ ἀκριβές. ὅταν δ’ ἡ κατὰ τοὺς ψόφους συμμετρία κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἀφορισθῇ, ἐλέγχεται μὲν τὸ δοκοῦν εἶναι ἀκριβὲς τέως κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν. μετατίθεται δ’ ἡ αἴσθησις πρὸς τὸ ἀφορισθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου ὡς ἐπ’ οἰκεῖον αἰσθητόν. ὁ μὲν οὖν εὑρίσκων τὸ ὀρθὸν καὶ ἀκριβὲς ἦν ὁ λόγος, τὸ δὲ κρῖνον τὸ εὑρεθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου ἡ αἴσθησις. πανταχοῦ δ’ ἐπὶ ταὐτοῦ τὸ κρῖναι τοῦ ποιῆσαι ῥᾷον, οἷον τὸ κρῖναι πάλαισιν τοῦ παλαῖσαι ῥᾷον καὶ τὸ κρῖναι ὄρχησιν τοῦ ὀρχήσασθαι εὐμαρέστερον. οὕτως οὖν καὶ τὸ εὑρεῖν τὸ ἡρμοσμένον καὶ ἀφορίσαι τὰς τῶν ψόφων διαφόρους συμμετρίας τοῦ κρῖναι δυσκολώτερον. ποιεῖ τοίνυν ὁ λόγος, κρίνει δ’ ἡ αἴσθησις ἡ τοιαύτη τὸ σύμμετρον. ἐπιστήσαι δ’ ἄν τις, μὴ ὁ καὶ εὑρίσκων καὶ κρίνων ὁ λόγος ᾖ τὸ ἡρμοσμένον· οὐκ ἄνευ μέντοι τῆς αἰσθήσεως. ὄργανον γὰρ τοῦ λόγου ἡ αἴσθησις. ὡς οὖν ἄνευ πρίονος οὐκ ἂν πρίσαι ὁ τέκτων, οὐ μέντοι διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ πρίονος τὸ πρίζειν ἐνέργημα, ἀλλὰ τοῦ τέκτονος διὰ τοῦ πρίονος· οὕτω μή ποτε ἄνευ αἰσθήσεως οὐκ ἂν κριθείη τὸ ἡρμοσμένον. οὐ μέντοι τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἂν εἴη τὸ κρίνειν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ λόγου διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως.

[ 590 ]

Καὶ τοίνυν ἡ τοιαύτη ἕως τοῦ λεπτομερεστέρων. ΤῸ Γ Ὰ Ρ Δ Ὴ μὴ εἰς τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἐξικνούμενον τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη αὐτῶν ἔνδεια. πρὸς μὲν τὸ γνωρίσαι ἁπλῶς, τουτέστι μὴ ἀκριβῶς ἀλλ’ ὁλοσχερῶς, τὸ διάφορον ‹ἢ› μὴ διάφορον τῶν πρὸς αὐτῶν κρινομένων οὐκ ἂν πάνυ διαμάρτοι, οὐδὲ κατάφωρος αὐταῖς ἡ οἰκεία ἔνδεια ἐπὶ τούτων γίνεται. οὐδὲ μὴν αἱ μεγάλαι ὑπεροχαὶ τῶν διαφερόντων πάρεισιν αὐταῖς. κατάφωροι δ’ αὐταῖς γίνονται διὰ τὸ παρηλλαγμένον τοῦ μεγέθους, ὅθεν ἐν τούτοις ἀνεπίστατον αὐταῖς τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐνδεές. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ὀλίγον διαφερόντων πλείων ἂν γένοιτο αὐταῖς ἡ διαμαρτία τῷ μὴ ἐξικνεῖσθαι αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἤδη ἡ οἰκεία αὐτῶν ἔνδεια ἐν τούτοις κατάφωρος καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τῶν μᾶλλον λεπτομερεστέρων. αὐτίκα καὶ ἐν τοῖς πολυανθρωποτάτοις θεάτροις, ἃ συμπληροῖ παντοδαπὸς καὶ ἄμουσος [20] ὄχλος, ἔστιν ἰδεῖν θορυβοῦντας, ὅταν αὐλητὴς ἀσύμφωνον ἐμπνεύσῃ μὴ πιέσας τὸ στόμα θρυλισμὸν ἢ ἐκμελές τι αὐλήσῃ. καὶ ὅταν τις ἐν ῥυθμοῖς κροῦσιν ἢ κίνησιν ἢ φωνὴν ἐν ἀσυμμέτροις ποιήσηται χρόνοις, τὰς μέντοι μικρὰς παραλλαγὰς οὐκ ἂν ἡ τούτων ἐπικρίνειεν αἴσθησις. οὕτω τὸ μὲν ἁπλῶς καὶ παχὺ πάσης ἦν ἐπιγνῶναι αἰσθήσεως ἔν τε ταῖς διαμαρτίαις καὶ ταῖς κατορθώσεσι, τὸ δ’ ἀκριβὲς ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν καὶ παρηλλαγμένον οὐκέτ’ ἦν ῥᾴδιον ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἀφορίζειν. αἰτιολογῶν δὲ τὸ συμβαῖνον ὁ μουσικὸς ἐπάγει.

[ 591 ]

Αἴτιον δὲ ἕως τοῦ εὐκατανόητον. ὌΝ ΤΩ ς Γ Ὰ Ρ Τ Ὸ μὲν ψεῦδος οὐ μόνον παρὰ τὴν μεγάλην παραγωγήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ τὴν τυχοῦσαν συνίσταται. ἀκρότητος γὰρ λόγον ἐπέχον τὸ ἀληθὲς πᾶν τὸ μὴ τοιοῦτον ἐσφαλμένον ἀποφαίνει. ἡ δ’ αἴσθησις τὴν μὲν μικρὰν παραλλαγὴν καταλαμβάνειν οὐχ οἵα τε διὰ τὸ πᾶν αὐτὴν τὸ μικρὸν αὖ διαλανθάνειν, τὴν δὲ μεγάλην οἵα τε. γινομένης οὖν οὐ μόνον παρὰ τὴν μεγάλην παραλλαγὴν τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ τὴν μικράν, οὐχ οἵα τε οὔσα τὴν μικρὰν καταλαμβάνειν, ἡ αἴσθησις ἀπατᾶται ἐν τούτοις.

[ 592 ]

Εὐθείας γοῦν δοθείσης ἕως τοῦ καὶ τὰ διπλάσια. ΤῸ Π Α Ρ Ὰ Τ Ὸ Ν δοθέντα ἀριθμὸν ἢ μέγεθος ἢ ἰσοῦν ἢ αὔξειν ἢ μειοῦν ἄλλο τι τῶν ὁμογενῶν παραβάλλειν ἔλεγον. δοθείσης γοῦν εὐθείας συναρμόσαι μείζονα ἢ ἐλάσσονα ἢ ὁμοίαν πολλαπλασιάσαι παραβαλεῖν λέγουσι. τὸ τοίνυν τῇ δοθείσῃ εὐθείᾳ μείζονα ἢ ἐλάττονα παραβαλεῖν προχειρότατόν φησιν εἶναι. τὸ δὲ πρόχειρον οὐχ ὅτι τὸ μείζονα ἢ ἐλάττονα παραβαλεῖν, ἅτ’ ἐν πλάτει διὰ τὸ ἀδιόριστον κείμενον, εὐμαρές - ἁπλῶς γὰρ ἢ μείζονα ἢ ἐλάττονα λαβεῖν προβέβληται - ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ μία ἡ παραβολή, καὶ πρὸς τὸ τυχὸν γίνεσθαι προβέβληται. πάλιν δὲ τὸ ἢ δίχα τεμεῖν ἢ διπλασιάσαι δύο μέν ἐστι ποιῆσαι παραβολάς. καὶ γὰρ ὁ δίχα διαιρῶν ἰσῶσαι τὰ μέρη καὶ παραβάλλειν ἀλλήλοις βούλεται καὶ ὁ διπλασιάσας δὶς τῷ αὐτῷ λαβεῖν ἴσον. δὶς οὖν μετρῶν ὁ δίχα διαιρῶν καὶ ὁ διπλασιάζων δύο ἐξ ἀνάγκης ποιεῖται τὰς παραβολάς. τὸ δὴ τοιοῦτο [21] πρόχειρον μὲν ἢ ὁμοίως τῷ ἁπλῷ μεῖζον ἢ ἔλαττον ἐφαρμόσαι. τὸ μέντοι τρεῖς παραβολὰς ποιῆσαι ἤτοι διαιροῦντα εἰς τρία ἢ τριπλασιάζοντα ἤδη δύσκολον. αἱ γὰρ ἐφαρμογαὶ ἐνταῦθα ἤδη πλείους καὶ κατὰ λόγον δὲ δὴ τὰ ἐν πλείοσι παραβολαῖς δυσεφικτότερα· οὐ μὴν ἀεί γε τοῦτο, ἀλλ’ ὅταν αὐτά τις καθ’ ἑαυτὰ λαμβάνῃ τὰ ζητούμενα, οἷον ἀξιῶν ὀκταπλασιάσαι τὸ πηχυαῖον ἢ τὸ ὄγδοον λαβεῖν ὀκταπήχεος, εἰ γὰρ διά τινων προχειροτέρων, οὐκ ἔσται χαλεπόν. διδάσκει δ’ ὅπως διὰ τῶν προχειροτέρων οὐκ ἔσται χαλεπόν. φέρε γὰρ τοῦ ὀκταπήχεος θέλειν λαβεῖν τὸ ὄγδοον. τὸ μὲν οὖν αὐτόθεν εἰς ὀκτὼ ἴσα μερίσαι καὶ οὕτω λαβεῖν τὸ πηχυαῖον οὐκ εὐμαρές, διὰ τὸ ὀκτὼ γίνεσθαι τὰς παραβολάς· τὸ δὲ διαιρεῖν δίχα, οἷον τετράπηχυ καὶ τετράπηχυ ποιήσαντα καὶ πάλιν ἓν τῶν τετραπήχεων εἰς δύο διπηχυαῖα, ἔπειτα ἓν τῶν διπηχυαίων διελεῖν δίχα καὶ οὕτω λαβεῖν τὸ ὄγδοον εὐμαρές. φέρε δ’ ὀκταπλασιάσαι προκεῖσθαι τὸ πηχυαῖον. τὸ μὲν οὖν αὐτόθεν πάλιν οὐκ εὐμαρὲς δήπου διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην αἰτίαν· τὸ δὲ διπλασιάσαι πρότερον καὶ ποιῆσαι διπηχυαῖον, ἔπειτα καὶ τοῦτο διπλασιάσαι καὶ τετράπηχυ ἀποτελέσαι καὶ πάλιν τοῦτο καὶ ποιῆσαι τὸ προβληθὲν εὐμαρέστερον. τρεῖς γὰρ αἱ παραβολαὶ καὶ οὐκ ὀκτώ. οὕτω γὰρ ποιοῦντι οὐκέτι ἔσται τὸ ὄγδοον τοῦ ἑνὸς μεγέθους ἐν τῷ μερισμῷ ἢ τὸ ὀκταπλάσιον ἐν τῷ πολλαπλασιασμῷ, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ μερισμοῦ πλεόνων ἀνίσων τὰ ἡμίση, οἷον τῶν ὀκτὼ καὶ τεσσάρων καὶ δύο, ἵνα τῶν ὀκτὼ ληφθῇ τὸ ὄγδοον τὸ ἕν, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ πολλαπλασιασμοῦ πλεόνων ἀνίσων τὰ διπλάσια, οἷον τὸ ἕν, δύο, τεσσάρων, ἵνα ὀκταπλάσια τοῦ ἑνὸς γένηται τὰ ὀκτώ.

[ 593 ]

Τῶν ὁμοίων οὖν ἕως τοῦ οὕτως ἔχειν. Ὡς Ο ὖΝ Ἐ Ν τοῖς μεγέθεσιν οὐκ εὐμαρὲς τῇ ὁράσει καθ’ ἑαυτὴν φωρᾶσαι τὰς συμμετρίας, οὕτω κἀν τοῖς ψόφοις οὐ ῥᾷστον τῇ ἀκοῇ δι’ αὐτῆς καταλαβεῖν τὸ ἡρμοσμένον. καθάπερ οὖν τῇ ὁράσει ὁ λόγος ἐξεῦρε βοήθειαν οἰκείαν προσθεὶς ὄργανα, οἷον πρὸς μὲν τὴν τοῦ εὐθέος ἀπότασιν δοὺς στάθμην, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τοῦ κύκλου περιαγὲς καὶ τὰς τῶν μερῶν καταμετρήσεις τὸν καρκίνον, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς δεῖ τινος οἷον ὀργάνου παρὰ τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἐφόδου, πρὸς ἃ μὴ πεφύκασι καθ’ ἑαυτὰς ἀκριβῶς κρίνειν, πρὸς ἣν ἔφοδον οὐκ ἀντιμαρτυρήσουσιν, ὁμολογήσουσι [22] δ’ οὕτως ἔχειν. δύο γὰρ αὗται μάλιστα αἰσθήσεις ὑπηρετικαὶ τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὰς θεωρίας αὐτοῦ δέδονται παρὰ τῆς φύσεως, ὅρασις καὶ ἀκοή. διὸ καὶ πολλὴ φροντὶς γέγονε τῷ λόγῳ, ὅπως ἀδιάπτωτοι αὐτῶν εἶεν αἱ ὑπηρέτιδες, ὁράσει μὲν δόντι ὄργανα οἰκεῖα, δι’ ὧν τὸ προσὸν αὐτῇ ἐλλιπὲς ἐπανορθοῦνται· ἀκοῇ δ’ ἐξεῦρέ τινα ἔφοδον, δι’ ἧς προϊοῦσα ἀδιάπτωτος γίνεται πρὸς τὴν κρίσιν τῶν ψόφων. τίς οὖν ἔφοδος καὶ τίς καλεῖται ἐπάγει.

[ 594 ]

β΄. Τὸ μὲν οὖν ὄργανον ἕως τοῦ παρειλημμένος. ΤῸ Ὄ Ρ ΓΑ Ν Ο Ν Τ ῆς ἐφόδου φησίν, ἣν ὁ λόγος ἐξεῦρέ τε καὶ δέδωκε ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι πρὸς τὸ κανονίζειν τὰ ἐνδέοντα αὐταῖς πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, κανὼν καλεῖται ἁρμονικὸς ἀπὸ τῆς κοινῆς προσηγορίας τοῦ εὑρίσκοντος ὀργάνου τὸ ἐλλεῖπον ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν εἰς τὴν ἀκρίβειαν, ὃ καλεῖται κανών, οὕτω κεκλημένος. πάντα γὰρ τὰ πρὸς τοῦτο ἐπιτήδεια ὄργανα ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι ‹οὕτω› καλεῖται. οὐ γὰρ δὴ κανών, οὐδὲ κανονικὴ αἰσθήσει ἔφοδος κέκληται ἡ κατὰ τὴν ἁρμονικὴν θεωρίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ κατὰ τὰς κιθάρας καλουμένου κανόνος, ἔνθα διατείνονται αἱ χορδαί, ἀλλ’ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, οἵπερ καὶ μάλιστα τὴν ἔφοδον εὗρον, κανονικὴν μὲν ἐκάλουν, ἣν νῦν ἁρμονικὴν λέγομεν θεωρίαν συνωνύμως, κανόνα δὲ τὸ τῆς ὀρθότητος τῶν συμμετριῶν μέτρον, ὃ καὶ ὁρίζονταί τινες αὐτῶν οὕτω. “κανών ἐστι μέτρον ὀρθότητος τῶν ἐν τοῖς φθόγγοις ἡρμοσμένων διαφορῶν, αἳ θεωροῦνται ἐν λόγοις ἀριθμῶν.” γράφει γέ τοι περὶ τούτου καὶ Πτολεμαῒς ἡ Κυρηναία ἐν τῇ Πυθαγορικῇ τῆς μουσικῆς στοιχειώσει ταῦτα. “Ἡ οὖν κανονικὴ πραγματεία, κατὰ τίνας μᾶλλόν ἐστι; καθόλου κατὰ τοὺς Πυθαγορικούς· ἣν γὰρ νῦν ἁρμονικὴν λέγομεν, ἐκεῖνοι κανονικὴν ὠνόμαζον. ἀπὸ τίνος κανονικὴν αὐτὴν λέγομεν; οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοι νομίζουσι ἀπὸ τοῦ κανόνος ὀργάνου παρονομασθεῖσαν, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς εὐθύτητος ὡς διὰ ταύτης τῆς πραγματείας τὸ ὀρθὸν τοῦ λόγου εὑρόντος καὶ τὰ τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου παραπήγματα.” [23] Κανονικήν γέ τοι καλοῦσι καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ συρίγγων καὶ αὐλῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πραγματείαν, καίτοι τούτων μὴ κανονικῶν ὄντων, ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ αὐτοῖς οἱ λόγοι καὶ τὰ θεωρήματα ἐφαρμόζουσι, κανονικὰ καὶ ταῦτα προσαγορεύουσι. μᾶλλον οὖν τὸ ὄργανον ἀπὸ τῆς κανονικῆς πραγματείας κανὼν ὠνομάσθη. κανονικὸς δ’ ἐστὶ καθόλου ὁ ἁρμονικὸς ὁ περὶ τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου ποιούμενος τοὺς λόγους. διαφέρουσι δὲ μουσικοὶ καὶ οἱ κανονικοί. μουσικοὶ μὲν γὰρ λέγονται οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων ὁρμώμενοι ἁρμονικοί, κανονικοὶ δ’ οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ οἱ ἁρμονικοί. εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ἑκάτεροι τῷ γένει μουσικοί. Οἷς ἐπάγει κατ’ ἐρώτησιν πάλιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν. “ἡ κατὰ τὸν κανόνα θεωρία, ἐκ τίνων σύγκειται; ἐκ τῶν παρὰ τοῖς μουσικοῖς ὑποτιθεμένων καὶ ἐκ τῶν παρὰ τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς λαμβανομένων.” Ἔστι δὲ τὰ παρὰ τοῖς μουσικοῖς ὑποτιθέμενα, ὅσα παρὰ τῶν αἰσθήσεων λαμβάνουσιν οἱ κανονικοί, οἷον τὸ εἶναί τινα σύμφωνα καὶ διάφωνα διαστήματα καὶ τὸ εἶναι σύνθετον τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἔκ τε τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τοῦ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ εἶναι τόνον τὴν δ’ ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ διὰ πέντε παρὰ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τὰ ὅμοια. τὰ δὲ παρὰ τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς λαμβανόμενα, ὅσα ἰδίως οἱ κανονικοὶ τῷ λόγῳ θεωροῦσιν ἐκ τῶν τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἀφορμῶν μόνον κινηθέντες, οἷον τὸ εἶναι ἐν ἀριθμῶν λόγοις τὰ διαστήματα καὶ τὸ εἶναι ἐξ ἀριθμῶν συγκρουστῶν τὸν φθόγγον καὶ

[ 595 ]

τὰ παραπλήσια. τὰς ὑποθέσεις οὖν τῆς κανονικῆς διορίσειεν ἄν τις ὑπάρχειν τῇ τε περὶ τὴν μουσικὴν ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ τῇ περὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς καὶ τὴν γεωμετρίαν.

[ 596 ]

Ἁρμονικοῦ δ’ ἂν εἴη ἕως τοῦ ὄψεως καὶ ἀκοῆς. ΠΕ Ρ Ὶ ΤΟ Ύ ΤΩ Ν Γ Ρ ΆΦ Ε Ι ἡ Πτολεμαῒς ἐν τῇ εἰρημένῃ εἰσαγωγῇ ταῦτα. “Πυθαγόρας καὶ οἱ διαδεξάμενοι βούλονται τὴν μὲν αἴσθησιν ὡς ὁδηγὸν τοῦ λόγου ἐν ἀρχῇ παραλαμβάνειν πρὸς τὸ οἱονεὶ ζώπυρά τινα παραδιδόναι αὐτῷ, τὸν δὲ λόγον ἐκ τούτων ὁρμηθέντα καθ’ ἑαυτὸν πραγματεύεσθαι ἀποστάντα τῆς αἰσθήσεως, ὅθεν κἂν τὸ σύστημα τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου εὑρεθὲν τῆς πραγματείας μηκέτι συνᾴδῃ τῇ αἰσθήσει, οὐκ ἐπιστρέφονται, ἀλλ’ ἐπεγκαλοῦσι λέγοντες τὴν μὲν αἴσθησιν πλανᾶσθαι, τὸν δὲ λόγον εὑρηκέναι καθ’ ἑαυτὸν τὸ ὀρθὸν καὶ ἀπελέγχειν τὴν αἴσθησιν.” [24] “Ἐναντίως δὲ τούτοις ἔνιοι τῶν ἀπ’ Ἀριστοξένου μουσικῶν φέρονται, ὅσοι κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἔννοιαν θεωρίαν ἔλαβον, ἀπὸ δ’ ὀργανικῆς ἕξεως προκόψαντες. οὗτοι γὰρ τὴν μὲν αἴσθησιν ὡς κυρίαν ἐθεάσαντο, τὸν δὲ λόγον ὡς παρεπόμενον, πρὸς μόνον τὸ χρειῶδες. κατὰ δὴ τούτους εἰκότως οὐ πανταχῇ αἱ λογικαὶ ὑποθέσεις τοῦ κανόνος σύμφωνοι ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν.” Ὁ δὲ Πτολεμαῖος πεπείραται μηδαμῇ μηδαμῶς ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι μαχομένας κατὰ τὰς τούτων ὑπολήψεις τὰς λογικὰς ὑποθέσεις τοῦ κανόνος ἐπιδεῖξαι καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μάλιστα ἐξαίρετον τῆς ἁρμονικῆς ἐστι πραγματείας καὶ διὰ τοῦτο παρηλλαγμένον τῆς τῶν ἐκείνων ἀνδρῶν διαιρέσεως. ταὐτὸ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀστρολογικοῖς πεποίηκεν ἡγούμενος ἀστρολόγου πρόθεσιν δεῖν εἶναι τὸ διασῶσαι τὰς τῶν οὐρανίων κινήσεων ὑποθέσεις συμφώνους ταῖς τηρουμέναις παρόδοις εἰλημμένας μὲν καὶ αὐτὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναργῶν τε καὶ ὁλοσχερέστερον φαινομένων, εὑρούσας δὲ τῷ λόγῳ τὰ κατὰ μέρος οὐ μόνον ἐφ’ ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀκριβῶς. καὶ λέγει γ’ ἐν ἀρχαῖς τῆς μαθηματικῆς πραγματείας ταυτὶ κατὰ λέξιν. “Ἕκαστα δὲ τούτων πειρασόμεθα δεικνύναι ἀρχαῖς μὲν καὶ ὥσπερ θεμελίοις εἰς τὴν εὕρεσιν χρώμενοι τοῖς ἐναργέσι φαινομένοις καὶ ταῖς ἀδιστάκτοις τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς τηρήσεων, τὰς δ’ ἐφεξῆς τῶν καταλήψεων ἐφαρμόζοντες διὰ τῶν ἐν ταῖς γραμμικαῖς ἐφόδοις ἀποδείξεων.” Ὀρθῶς δὲ τὸ φάναι ἐν ἅπασιν ἴδιον εἶναι τοῦ θεωρητικοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμονος τὸ δεικνύναι τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἔργα μετὰ λόγου τινὸς καὶ τεταγμένης αἰτίας δημιουργούμενα καὶ μηδὲν εἰκῇ, μηδ’ ὡς ἔτυχεν ἀποτελούμενον ὑπ’ αὐτῆς. ἔλεγον γὰρ καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ παρήγγελλον τὸ εἰκῆ δεῖν ἐξορίζειν πανταχόθεν κἀκ τοῦ βίου κἀκ τῆς θεωρίας κἀκ τῶν πράξεων καὶ μηδαμῶς εἶναι ἐν τῇ φύσει οἴεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ αὕτη νοῦ ἀποτέλεσμα, τὸ δὲ οὗ ἕνεκα καὶ διὰ τί ἐν νῷ. καλλίστας δὲ τῶν αἰσθήσεων ὅρασιν καὶ ἀκοὴν σχεδὸν πάντες οἱ φιλόσοφοι συγχωροῦσιν καὶ λογικάς τε ἔνιοι καθάπερ οὗτος καλοῦσιν, ὅτι μάλιστα αὗται ὑπηρέτιδές εἰσι πρὸς τὴν οἰκείαν θεωρίαν τῷ λόγῳ. [25]

[ 597 ]

Ταύτης δὴ τῆς προθέσεως ἕως τοῦ διορισμοῦ τινος τύχῃ. ΠΕ Ρ Ὶ ΤΟ Ύ ΤΩ Ν Σ Υ Ν Τ Ό Μ Ω ς μὲν καὶ ἡ Κυρηναία Πτολεμαῒς ἔγραψεν ἐν τῇ εἰσαγωγῇ, ἐπῆλθε δὲ καὶ Δίδυμος ὁ μουσικὸς διὰ πλειόνων ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν Ἀριστοξενείων τε καὶ Πυθαγορείων. ἡμεῖς δὲ τὰ παρ’ ἀμφοῖν ἀναγράψωμεν, ὀλίγα τῆς λέξεως συντομίας ἕνεκεν παρακινοῦντες. γράφει δὴ ἡ μὲν Πτολεμαῒς τάδε. “Τῶν ἐν τῇ μουσικῇ διαπρεψάντων τίς ἡ διαφορά; οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὸν λόγον προέκριναν αὐτόν, οἱ δὲ τὴν αἴσθησιν, οἱ δὲ τὸ συναμφότερον. τὸν μὲν λόγον προέκρινον αὐτὸν τῶν Πυθαγορείων ὅσοι μᾶλλον ἐφιλονείκησαν πρὸς τοὺς μουσικοὺς τελέως τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐκβάλλειν, τὸν δὲ λόγον ὡς αὔταρκες κριτήριον καθ’ ἑαυτὸν εἰσφέρειν. ἐλέγχονται δ’ οὗτοι πάντως τι αἰσθητὸν παραλαμβάνοντες ἐν ἀρχῇ καὶ ἐπιλανθανόμενοι. τὴν δ’ αἴσθησιν προέκριναν οἱ ὀργανικοί, οἷς ἢ οὐδαμῶς ἔννοια θεωρίας ἐγένετο ἢ ἀσθενής. τῶν δὲ τὸ συναμφότερον προκρινάντων τίς ἡ διαφορά; οἱ μὲν ὁμοίως ἀμφότερα ἰσοδυναμοῦντα παρέλαβον τήν τ’ αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸν λόγον, οἱ δὲ τὸ ἕτερον προηγούμενον, τὸ δ’ ἕτερον ἑπόμενον. ὁμοίως μὲν ἀμφότερα Ἀριστόξενος ὁ Ταραντῖνος. οὔτε γὰρ αἰσθητὸν δύναται συστῆναι καθ’ αὑτὸ δίχα λόγου, οὔτε λόγος ἰσχυρότερός ἐστι παραστῆσαί τι μὴ τὰς ἀρχὰς λαβὼν παρὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως, καὶ τὸ τέλος τοῦ θεωρήματος ὁμολογούμενον πάλιν τῇ αἰσθήσει ἀποδιδούς. τί δὲ μᾶλλον βούλεται προηγεῖσθαι τὴν αἴσθησιν τοῦ λόγου; τῇ τάξει, οὐ τῇ δυνάμει. ὅταν γάρ, φησί, ταύτῃ τὸ αἰσθητὸν συναφθῇ ὁποῖόν ποτέ ἐστι, τότε δεῖν ἡμᾶς καὶ τὸν λόγον προάγειν εἰς τὴν τούτου θεωρίαν. τίνες τὸ συναμφότερον ὁμοίως; Πυθαγόρας καὶ οἱ διαδεξάμενοι. βούλονται γὰρ αὐτοὶ τὴν μὲν αἴσθησιν ὡς ὁδηγὸν τοῦ λόγου ἐν ἀρχῇ παραλαμβάνειν πρὸς τὸ οἱονεὶ ζώπυρά τινα παραδιδόναι αὐτῷ, τὸν δὲ λόγον ἐκ τούτων ὁρμηθέντα καθ’ ἑαυτὸν πραγματεύεσθαι ἀποστάντα τῆς αἰσθήσεως, ὅθεν κἂν τὸ σύστημα τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου εὑρηθὲν τῆς πραγματείας μηκέτι συνᾴδῃ τῇ αἰσθήσει, οὐκ ἐπιστρέφονται, ἀλλ’ ἐπεγκαλοῦσι λέγοντες τὴν μὲν αἴσθησιν πλανᾶσθαι, τὸν δὲ λόγον εὑρηκέναι τὸ ὀρθὸν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπελέγχειν τὴν [26] αἴσθησιν. τίνες ἐναντίως τούτοις; ἔνιοι τῶν ἀπ’ Ἀριστοξένου μουσικῶν, ὅσοι κατὰ μὲν τὴν ἔννοιαν θεωρίαν ἔλαβον, ἀπὸ δ’ ὀργανικῆς ἕξεως προκόψαντες. οὗτοι γὰρ τὴν μὲν αἴσθησιν ὡς κυρίαν ἔθεσαν, τὸν δὲ λόγον ὥσπερ ἑπόμενον εἰς μόνον τὸ χρειῶδες.” ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τὰ τῆς Κυρηναίας. Ὁ δὲ Δίδυμος ἐξεργαζόμενος τοὺς τόπους γράφει ταῦτα· “καθόλου τοίνυν τῶν ἐπὶ μουσικὴν ἐλθόντων οἱ μὲν αἰσθήσει μόνον προσέσχον τέλεον παρέντες τὸν λόγον. οὐ λέγω δ’ ὡς οὗτοι δίχα τοῦ λόγου τὸ σύνολον ἢ οὐχὶ κατὰ λόγους τινὰς ἐνυπάρχοντας τοῖς πράγμασι τὴν αἰσθητικὴν κρίσιν ἐποιοῦντο, ἀλλ’ ὅτι κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον δυναμοῦν οὐδαμῶς αὐτοῖς ἀπόδειξις ἢ ἐπὶ λόγον ἀναφορά τις ἐγένετο, ἢ ὅλως ἀκολουθητικῆς θεωρίας φροντίς, μόνῃ δὲ τῇ διὰ συνηθείας αὐτοῖς περιγεγενημένῃ αἰσθητικῇ τριβῇ ἐπερειδόμενοι ἠρκοῦντο· ἦσαν δ’ οἵ τε ὀργανικοὶ ἰδίως τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ φωνασκικοὶ καὶ ἁπλῶς ὅσοι ἔτι καὶ νῦν συνήθως τῇ ἀλόγῳ τριβῇ λέγονται χρῆσθαι. οἱ δὲ [ 598 ]

τὴν ἐναντίαν τούτοις ὁρμήσαντες τὸν μὲν λόγον προετίμων κριτήν, τῇ δ’ αἰσθήσει οὐκέτι οὕτω προσεῖχον, ἀλλ’ ὅσον ἐς ἀφορμὴν μόνον, ἐπαρκούσῃ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ἵνα ὁ λόγος ἐντεῦθεν διατηρῇ. οὗτοι δ’ εἰσὶν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι. λαμβάνοντες γὰρ ἐναύσεις τινὰς καθ’ ἕκαστον πρᾶγμα τὰ ἐκ τούτων ἐπισυντιθέμενα θεωρήματα τῷ λόγῳ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν συνιστᾶσιν, οὐκέτι προσέχοντες τῇ αἰσθήσει. διὸ καὶ δέδοται αὐτοῖς ποτε, ἡνίκ’ ἂν τἀκόλουθον λογικῶς μόνον διατηρῆται, ἡ δ’ αἴσθησις ἀντιμαρτυρῇ, μηδὲν ὑπὸ τῆς τοιαύτης δυσωπεῖσθαι διαφωνίας, ἀλλὰ πεποιθόσι τῷ λόγῳ τὴν αἴσθησιν ὡς πλανωμένην ἀπελαύνειν. καὶ τὰ καθωμιλημένα δὲ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ἐμπειρίας ἀναγομένοις προσδέχονται μόνον, ὅταν μὴ τῷ λόγῳ ἀντιμαρτυρῇ.” Ἐπιδείξας δὲ διὰ πλειόνων τὸ λεγόμενον, οἷς ὕστερον εὐκαιρότερον χρησόμεθα, ἐπάγει· “ἄλλοι δ’ εἰσίν, οἳ ἀμφότερα μὲν τιθέασιν αἴσθησίν τε καὶ λόγον, ἤδη δὲ τῷ λόγῳ προνομίαν τινὰ ἀποδιδόασιν, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Ἀρχέστρατος.” Οὐκ ἀχρεῖον δ’ ἂν εἴη παρεκβατικώτερον καὶ τούτου σαφηνίσαι τὸν τρόπον ἕνεκα διορισμοῦ τῶν νῦν ἡμῖν χρειωδῶν. ἀποφηνάμενος γὰρ οὗτος τρεῖς εἶναι τοὺς σύμπαντας φθόγγους, βαρύπυκνον, ὀξύπυκνον, [27] ἀμφίπυκνον, βαρύπυκνον μὲν ἀφ’ οὗ πυκνόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ θεῖναι, ὀξύπυκνον δ’ ἐναντίως ἐξ οὗ πυκνόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ θεῖναι, ἀμφίπυκνον δὲ τὸν μεταξὺ τούτων ἔχοντά φησιν ἐνδέχεσθαι· καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ φθόγγῳ κατέχεσθαι, ἐπειδὴ δυνατόν ἐστι πλείους τάσεις τοῦτον ‹δέχεσθαι› καὶ πλέξαι ἐν αὐταῖς μέλος ἑνὸς εἴδους μενούσης τῆς τάσεως, ὡς ‹δυνατὸν τὰς ὑπάτας› ἀμφοτέρας καὶ ‹τὴν› παραμέσην καὶ τὰς πάσας τοιαύτας ὀξυπύκνους εἶναι φθόγγους, ὡσὰν φῇ ἐκεῖνος. ᾖ συμβαίνει δὴ τοῦτον χρῆσθαι μὲν καὶ τῇ αἰσθήσει κριτηρίῳ, ἐπεὶ δίχα αὐτῆς οὐκ ἂν φανείη ἕκαστον τῶν εἰλημμένων, οἷον ὅ τε φθόγγος καὶ τὸ εἶναι τρεῖς ἐν πυκνῷ μόνον χώρας αὐτοῦ. βεβαιοῦται γὰρ τοῦτο διὰ τοῦ πυκνὸν πρὸς πυκνῷ μὴ τίθεσθαι μήτε ὅλον μήτε μέρος. τὸ μέντοι θεώρημα ὅλον λογικῶς συνῆκται· τά τε γὰρ τῶν φθόγγων εἴδη, ὅτι τοιαῦτ’ ἐστί, λόγῳ θεωρεῖται, ἐπεὶ τάξεις εἰσί τινες τῆς σχέσεως αὐτῶν· τό τε συμπέρασμα, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τοῦ θεωρήματος - σοφιστικώτερον ὂν τὸ λέγειν τὸ εἶδος μόνον φθόγγου καὶ ‹τὸ› νοητὸν οὕτως ἀπολιπεῖν αὐτό - δῆλον ὥς ἐστι λογικὸν ὅλον, ὅθεν καὶ οὗτος ὁ τρόπος δεδείχθω ἐντεῦθεν. “Λοιπὸς δ’ ἐστὶν ὁ τῶν κριτήρια τιθέντων ἐπ’ ἴσης ἀμφότερα, τήν τ’ αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸν λόγον· ὁ δ’ αὐτὸς οὗτος ὑπάρχει· καὶ τῶν προήγησιν ἐνίοτε διδόντων τῇ αἰσθήσει παρὰ τὸν λόγον, ἐν ᾧ καὶ Ἀριστόξενος ὑπάρχει. οὗτος γὰρ τὰ μὲν τῶν θεωρημάτων φαινόμενα εἰσάγει τῇ ἐμπειρικῇ αἰσθήσει, τὰ δὲ δεικνύμενα τῷ λόγῳ θεωρήματα, καὶ τῶν μὲν προτέρων τὴν αἴσθησιν μόνην εἶναί φησι κριτήριον, τῶν δ’ ὑστέρων τὸν λόγον, ἐπαλλαγὴν δ’ οὐδαμῶς τούτων γίνεσθαι καὶ ἴσον ἑκάτερον τούτων τῶν κριτηρίων δύνασθαι ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ γένει. ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν συνεστηκὸς θεωρῆται, προηγεῖσθαι μὲν τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἕπεσθαι δὲ τὸν λόγον τῇ τάξει. ἄρχεσθαι μὲν γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν φαινομένων, τὰ δὲ συμβεβηκότα [28] τῷ λόγῳ ἐπισυνάπτειν ἀκολούθως, ὁμολογούμενα τοῖς φαινομένοις καὶ οὐδέποτε ἐναντιοστατοῦντα αὐτοῖς. τὸν γὰρ λόγον ἐνταῦθα τὸ μὲν φαινόμενον τῇ αἰσθήσει ἀδύνατον αἰτιολογῆσαι. διόπερ τοῦτ’ αὐτὸ πιστευτέον σχεδὸν εἶναι. τὰ δὲ συμβαίνοντα ἐπισκοπεῖν κατὰ τὸ αἰσθήσει ὁμολογούμενον καὶ τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα δὲ τοιοῦτον θεωρεῖν, οἷον εἶναι συνᾷδον πάλιν τῇ αἰσθήσει. διόπερ ἐντέλλεται [ 599 ]

ἀκριβοῦν μάλιστα ἀμφότερα τὰ κριτήρια. τοιαῦτα γὰρ ἄν φησιν ἐρεῖν ἕκαστα, οἷα φαίνεται αὐτῷ διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ οὐδέποτε ὑποτίθεσθαί τι ἀξιοῖ τὸν λόγον, ᾧ μὴ ὁμολογήσει ἡ αἴσθησις. οὐ γὰρ εἶναι λογικὸν μάθημα μόνον τὴν μουσικήν, ἀλλ’ ἅμα αἰσθητὸν καὶ λογικόν, ὅθεν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι μὴ ἀπολείπεσθαι θατέρου τὸν γνησίως πραγματευόμενον, καὶ προηγούμενον τιθέναι τὸ τῇ αἰσθήσει φαινόμενον, εἴπερ ἐντεῦθέν ἐστιν ἀρκτέον τῷ λόγῳ. γεωμέτρῃ μὲν γὰρ ἐνέσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ἄβακος τὸ κυκλοτερὲς ὑποθεμένῳ ὡς εὐθὺ διανύειν τὸ θεώρημα ἀνεμποδίστως διὰ τὸ ἀφροντιστεῖν τοῦ πεῖσαι τὴν ὄψιν περὶ τοῦ εὐθέος λογικὴν ὕλην διεξάγοντι. μουσικῷ δ’ οὐκ ἔσται ὑποθεμένῳ τὸ μὴ διὰ τεσσάρων ὡς διὰ τεσσάρων θεωρῆσαί τι δεόντως, ὅτι προσομολογηθῆναι τοῦτο δέον ἐστὶ τῇ αἰσθήσει καὶ τὸν λόγον τὸ ἀκόλουθον τῷ φανέντι ἐπισυνάπτειν, ὅθεν μὴ κατ’ ὀρθὸν τούτου συναφθέντος τῇ αἰσθήσει καὶ τὸν λόγον διαμαρτήσεσθαι τἀληθοῦς. τοιοῦτος δὴ καὶ ὁ τρόπος τῶν Ἀριστοξενείων κριτηρίων, ὡς σαφὲς τοῖς ἐγκεχειρηκόσι τῇ πραγματείᾳ τἀνδρὸς καὶ μάλιστα ἐξ ὧν αὐτολεξεὶ περὶ κριτηρίου ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν Ἁρμονικῶν στοιχείων προφέρεται. διόπερ ὁ περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τοῦ κριτηρίου λόγος τῶν τε Πυθαγορείων καὶ Ἀριστοξένου ἐνταῦθα ἀπηρτίσθω εἰς τὸ ἐντελὲς ἅμα παριστορηκὼς καὶ τὰς τῶν ἄλλων μουσικῶν γενικώτερον περὶ ταῦθ’ ὑπολήψεις.” Τοιαῦτα μὲν καὶ τὰ τοῦ Διδύμου περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν. δόξει δ’ ἐξ ὧν αὐτὸς περὶ τῆς Ἀριστοξένου εἴρηκεν αἱρέσεως τῆς αὐτῆς εἶναι δόξης καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος αὐτῷ. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ τοῦτ’ ἀληθές. τίθεται μὲν γὰρ κριτήρια τὸν λόγον καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν, οὐ μέντοι ὡσαύτως τῷ Ἀριστοξένῳ, ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν λόγον τοιοῦτον ἐγκρίνων μᾶλλον, ὁποῖον οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι παρελάμβανον, τὴν δ’ αἴσθησιν οἵαν Ἀριστόξενος. διὸ καὶ μεικτός τις μᾶλλον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν κατ’ ἐκλογὴν τῶν παρ’ ἀμφοτέροις ἰδίως εἰρημένων. ὃ δὴ καὶ προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου ἔσται σαφές. [29] Νῦν δὲ τὴν λέξιν τοῦ Πτολεμαίου τὴν προκειμένην σαφηνιστέον, ἐν οἷς ἂν ἔχοι ἀσαφείας. τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων “μηδ’ ἐν οἷς ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ἅπασι τῇ τῆς ἀκοῆς προσβολῇ κατακολουθήσαντες” τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἅπασι τοῖς μουσικοῖς· καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις ἐστὶν ἅπασιν ἀνάγκη κατακολουθῆσαι τῇ αἰσθήσει, οἷον περὶ εὐωδίας ἢ δυσωδίας καὶ περὶ γλυκύτητος ἢ πικρότητος καὶ ἐπὶ πολλῶν αἰσθητῶν, μᾶλλον δὲ πάντων ἀναγκαῖον ἅπασι κατακολουθεῖν τῇ αἰσθήσει. ἀλλ’ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοί φησι μηδ’ ἐν οἷς ἦν ἅπασιν ἀναγκαῖον τῇ αἰσθήσει κατακολουθῆσαι, οὐδ’ ἐν τούτοις τῇ ταύτης προσβολῇ ἐπεσκεύασαν. ὅπως δὲ πολλαχοῦ ταῖς διαφοραῖς τῶν ψόφων λόγους ἀνοικείους ἐφήρμοσαν, ὀλίγον προελθὼν ἐπιδείκνυσι. διὰ ταῦτα δὴ καὶ διαβολῆς ἐγένοντο αἴτιοι, τῷ λογικῷ κριτηρίῳ παρὰ τοῖς ἑτεροδόξοις. τίνες δὲ οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι εἴρηται. τοὺς δ’ Ἀριστοξενείους αἰτιᾶται, ὡς παρὰ τὸν λόγον πεποιηκότας καὶ παρὰ τὰ κατ’ αἴσθησιν ἐναργῶς ὑποπίπτοντα. παρὰ λόγον μέν, ὅτι μὴ ταῖς τῶν ψόφων διαφοραῖς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἐφήρμοσαν· οἱ δ’ ἀριθμοὶ εἰκόνες τῶν λόγων· τοῦ γὰρ φέρε διπλασίονος λόγου εἰκὼν ὁ δύο πρὸς τὸ ἓν ἀριθμὸς καὶ τοῦ ἡμιολίου ὁ τρία πρὸς τὰ δύο καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὡσαύτως. οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι τὰς τῶν φθόγγων διαφορὰς θεωροῦσιν, ἐν οἷς εἰσι λόγοις καὶ ἀριθμοῖς. οἱ δ’ Ἀριστοξένειοι τὰ περιλαμβανόμενα ὑπὸ τῶν φθόγγων διαστήματα καταμετροῦσι καὶ τοῖς διαστήμασι τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἀπονέμουσι παραλόγως, ὡς προελθὼν διὰ [ 600 ]

πλειόνων ἀποδείξει. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν παρὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτῶν ἁμάρτημα, παρὰ δὲ τὰ ἐναργῆ ἐσφάλθαι φησὶν αὐτούς, ὅτι καὶ οὓς τοῖς διαστήμασι παραλαμβάνουσιν ἀριθμοὺς τοῖς κατὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις μερισμοῖς οὐχ ὁμολογοῦσιν. ἐλέγξει δὲ καὶ τοῦτο διὰ πλειόνων τοῦ λόγου προϊόντος.

[ 601 ]

γ΄. ΑἹ Ὀ Ξ Ύ Τ Η Τ Ε ς Κ Α Ὶ αἱ βαρύτητες αἱ τῶν ψόφων τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις οὐ ποιότητες εἶναι ἐδόκουν, ἀλλὰ ποσότητες. ἐπεὶ γὰρ διαφοραὶ μὲν αὗται ψόφων, παντὸς δὲ ψόφου καὶ πάσης φωνῆς ἀρχηγὸς αἰτία ἡ κίνησις, τῶν δὲ κινήσεων ἡ μὲν ταχεῖα, ἡ δὲ βραδεῖα, ταῖς διαφοραῖς ταύταις τῶν κινήσεων τὰς περὶ τοὺς ψόφους διαφορὰς ἀνετίθεσαν. αἰτία δ’ ἡ μὲν ταχεῖα φορὰ ὀξύτητος, ἡ δὲ βραδεῖα βαρύτητος. τὸ δὲ ταχὺ καὶ βραδὺ θεωρεῖται ἐν ποσῷ καὶ ὀξύτης ἄρα καὶ βαρύτης ἐν ποσῷ. [30] Γράφει δὲ καὶ Ἡρακλείδης περὶ τούτων ἐν τῇ Μουσικῇ εἰσαγωγῇ ταῦτα· “Πυθαγόρας, ὥς φησι Ξενοκράτης, εὕρισκε καὶ τὰ ἐν μουσικῇ διαστήματα οὐ χωρὶς ἀριθμοῦ τὴν γένεσιν ἔχοντα· ἔστι γὰρ σύγκρισις ποσοῦ πρὸς ποσόν. ἐσκοπεῖτο τοίνυν, τίνος συμβαίνοντος τά τε σύμφωνα γίνεται διαστήματα καὶ τὰ διάφωνα καὶ πᾶν ἡρμοσμένον καὶ ἀνάρμοστον. καὶ ἀνελθὼν ἐπὶ τὴν γένεσιν τῆς φωνῆς ἔφη· “ὡσεὶ μέλλει τι ἐκ τῆς ἰσότητος σύμφωνον ἀκουσθήσεσθαι, κίνησιν δεῖ τινα γενέσθαι.” ἡ δὲ κίνησις οὐκ ἄνευ ἀριθμοῦ γίνεται, ὁ δ’ ἀριθμὸς οὐκ ἄνευ ποσότητος. κινήσεως δέ φησιν εἴδη δύο· τὸ μὲν φορά, τὸ δ’ ἀλλοίωσις. καὶ φορᾶς μὲν εἴδη δύο· ἡ μὲν ἐν κύκλῳ, ἡ δ’ ἐπ’ εὐθύ. καὶ τῆς μὲν ἐν κύκλῳ ἡ μὲν εἰς τόπον ἐκ τόπου φέρεται ὡς ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα, ἡ δ’ ἐν τόπῳ μένοντι ὡς οἱ κινούμενοι κῶνοι καὶ σφαῖραι περὶ τὸν ἴδιον ἄξονα. τῆς δ’ εἰς εὐθὺ φορᾶς πλείονά ἐστιν εἴδη, περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον νῦν λέγειν. ὑποκείσθω οὖν φησιν, ὅτι ἔστι τις φορὰ ἡ περὶ τοὺς φθόγγους ‹εἰς› τόπον ἐκ τόπου, εἰς εὐθὺ ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς ἀκοῆς αἰσθητήριον φερομένη. πληγῆς γὰρ ἔξωθεν προσγενομένης ἀπὸ τῆς πληγῆς φωνὴ φέρεταί τις, μέχρις ἂν εἰς τὸ τῆς ἀκοῆς ἀφίκηται αἰσθητήριον. ἀφικομένη δ’ ἐκίνησε τὴν ἀκοὴν καὶ αἴσθησιν ἐνεποίησεν. ἡ πληγὴ δέ φησιν ἐν οὐδενὶ χρόνῳ ἐστὶν ἀλλ’ ἐν ὅρῳ χρόνου τοῦ παρεληλυθότος καὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος. οὔτε γὰρ ὅτε προσφέρει τις προσκρούσων, τότ’ ἐγεννήθη πληγή, οὔθ’ ὅτε πέπαυται, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ τοῦ τε μέλλοντος χρόνου καὶ τοῦ παρεληλυθότος ἐστὶν ἡ πληγὴ οἱονεὶ τομή τις τοῦ χρόνου καὶ διορισμός. καθάπερ γάρ φησιν εἰ γραμμὴ τέμνοι τὸ ἐπίπεδον, ἐν οὐδετέρῳ ἐπιπέδῳ ἐστὶν ἡ γραμμή, ἀλλ’ ὅρος ἀμφοτέρων ἐστὶ τῶν ἐπιπέδων ἡ γραμμή. οὕτω καὶ ἡ πληγὴ οὖσα κατὰ τὸ νῦν ἐν οὐδετέρῳ τῶν χρόνων ἐστὶ τοῦ παρεληλυθότος καὶ μέλλοντος. φαίνεται δέ φησιν ἡ πληγὴ ἐν χρόνῳ τινὶ γινομένη ἀνεπαισθήτῳ διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀκοῆς ἀσθένειαν, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὄψεως ὁρῶμεν γινόμενον. πολλάκις γὰρ κώνου κινουμένου, στιγμῆς ἐπούσης μιᾶς ἐπὶ τοῦ κώνου λευκῆς [31] ἢ μελαίνης, φαίνεσθαι συμβαίνει κύκλον ἐπὶ τοῦ κώνου ὁμόχρουν τῇ στιγμῇ· καὶ πάλιν γραμμῆς μόνης ἐπούσης λευκῆς ἢ μελαίνης τοῦ κώνου κινουμένου, τὴν σύμπασαν ἐπιφάνειαν συμβαίνει τὴν τοιαύτην φαίνεσθαι, οἷον ἂν εἴη καὶ τὸ τῆς γραμμῆς χρῶμα, καθ’ ὃ μέρος οὐδ’ ἓν ἡ στιγμὴ τοῦ κύκλου φαίνεται οὐδ’ ἓν ἡ γραμμὴ τῆς ἐπιφανείας ἀλλ’ ἡ ὄψις τὸ τοιοῦτον διακριβοῦν οὐ δύναται. φησὶ δὲ τὸ τοιοῦτο καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν γίνεσθαι. καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν ταράχῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀκοὴ ἤπερ ἡ ὄψις. εἰ [ 602 ]

γάρ τις φησὶ χορδὴν κατατείνας καὶ κρούσας ἐάσῃ αὐτὴν ἀπηχεῖν, συμβήσεταί τινων μὲν ἀκηκοέναι φθόγγων, τὴν δ’ ἔτι κινεῖσθαι σειομένην καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον ἀνακάμψεις ποιεῖσθαι, ὥστε τῇ μὲν ὄψει τὴν κίνησιν τῆς χορδῆς φανερὰν μᾶλλον ἢ τῇ ἀκοῇ γίνεσθαι. καθ’ ἑκάστην δὲ πρόσκρουσιν τοῦ ἀέρος τυπτομένου ὑπ’ αὐτῆς ἀναγκαῖον ἔσται μᾶλλον ἀεὶ καὶ μᾶλλον τῇ ἀκοῇ προσπίπτειν τινὰ ἦχον. εἰ δὲ τοῦτό φησιν, οὕτως ἔχει, φανερὸν ὅτι ἑκάστη τῶν χορδῶν πλείους προΐεται φθόγγους. εἰ οὖν ἕκαστος φθόγγος ἐν τῇ πληγῇ γίνεται, πληγὴν δ’ εἶναι συμβέβηκεν οὐκ ἐν χρόνῳ ἀλλ’ ἐν ὅρῳ χρόνου, δῆλον ὅτι ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν κατὰ φθόγγους πληγῶν σιωπαὶ ἂν εἴησαν ἐν χρόνῳ ὑπάρχουσαι. ἡ δ’ ἀκοὴ τῶν μὲν σιγῶν οὐ συναισθάνεται διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι κινητικὰς τῆς ἀκοῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἅμα τὰ διαστήματα μικρὰ ὄντα καὶ ἀκατάληπτα τυγχάνειν. συνεχεῖς δ’ ὄντες οἱ φθόγγοι ἑνὸς ἤχου ποιοῦνται φαντασίαν παρεκτεινομένου ἐπὶ ποσόν τινα χρόνον.” Καθάπερ καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ τοῦ δινωμένου κώνου γραμμὴ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν ὁμόχρουν ὅλην ἐποίει φαίνεσθαι, [οὗ] οὐ συναισθανομένης τῆς ὄψεως, ὁπότε καθ’ ἕκαστον τόπον συγκινουμένη τῷ κώνῳ φαίνοιτο ἡ γραμμή, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ τάχος τῆς φορᾶς φαντασίαν λαμβανόντων ἡμῶν ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ μέρη τοῦ κώνου κινουμένης τῆς γραμμῆς. καὶ τὴν μὲν ὅρασιν ἔφασάν τινες ἡγεῖσθαι τῶν λοιπῶν αἰσθήσεων, ὡς κατὰ λέξιν Ἀρχύτας ἐν τῷ Περὶ σοφίας γράφων ᾧδε. [32] “Τοσοῦτον διαφέρει σοφία ἐν πάντεσσι τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις πραγμάτεσσιν, ὡς ὄψις μὲν αἰσθασίων σώματος, νόος δὲ ψυχᾶς. ὄψις τ’ ἐστὶ γὰρ ἐπιβολεστέρα, καὶ πολυειδεστέρα τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθασίων ἐστὶ καὶ νόος ὕπατος τὸ δέον ἐπικραίνων.” Ἐκ δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων σχεδὸν τὰ πάθη ἑκατέρᾳ τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἐναντίως πέφυκεν ἐγγίνεσθαι, λέγω δὲ τῇ ὁράσει καὶ τῇ ἀκοῇ. οὐ γὰρ καθάπερ ἡ ὅρασις ἐκπέμπουσα ἐπὶ τὸ ὑποκείμενον τὴν ὄψιν κατὰ διάδοσιν, ὥς φασιν οἱ μαθηματικοί, τὴν ἀντίληψιν ποιεῖται τοῦ ὑποκειμένου, οὕτω που καὶ ἡ ἀκοή. Ἀλλ’, ὥς φησιν ὁ Δημόκριτος “ἐκδοχεῖον μύθων οὖσα μένει τὴν φωνὴν ἀγγείου δίκην· ἡ δὲ γὰρ εἰσκρίνεται καὶ ἐνρεῖ, παρ’ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ θᾶττον ὁρῶμεν ἢ ἀκούομεν. ἀστραπῆς γὰρ καὶ βροντῆς ἅμα γενομένης τὴν μὲν ὁρῶμεν ἅμα τῷ γενέσθαι, τὴν δ’ οὐκ ἀκούομεν ἢ μετὰ πολὺ ἀκούομεν, οὐ παρ’ ἄλλο τι συμβαῖνον ἢ παρὰ τὸ τῇ μὲν ὄψει ἡμῶν ἀπαντᾶν τὸ φῶς, τὴν δὲ βροντὴν παραγίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν ἐκδεχομένης τῆς ἀκοῆς τὴν βροντήν.” Διὸ δὴ ἐναντίως πεφυκέναι ἑκατέρας. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὄψις τὰ ἐκτὸς ὁρᾷ ἐπιβάλλουσα αὐτοῖς, ὧν τὴν ἀντίληψιν ποιεῖται, λέγω δ’ ἐπί τε μείζονος καὶ ἐλάττονος διαστήματος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δόξαν οὐκ ἀπίθανον ἡμῖν τοῦ αὐτὴν θεωρεῖν τὰ ἐν σχέσει παρέχει. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ἀκοῆς πᾶν τοὐναντίον πέφυκε γίνεσθαι. οὐ γὰρ μένει τὰ διαστήματα ἐντός, ὥστε τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐπιβάλλειν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλ’ εἰσρεῖ τῇ ἀκοῇ. “Θεωρῶν οὖν τὰς αἰσθήσεις μὴ ἑστώσας ἀλλ’ ἐν ταράχῳ οὔσας καὶ τὸ ἀκριβὲς μὴ καταλαμβανούσας ἐπειράθη λόγῳ τινὶ ἑστῶτι συνιδεῖν τὴν τῶν φθόγγων ἁρμογήν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ τῶν φωνῶν αἱ μέν εἰσιν ἐκμελεῖς, αἱ δ’ ἐμμελεῖς· ἐκμελεῖς μὲν ὁπόσαι τραχύνουσι τὴν αἴσθησιν ἡμῶν ἢ ἀνομάλως κινοῦσι· καθάπερ ὄσφρησιν τὰ δυσώδη καὶ ὄψιν τὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ γένους ὁρατά, οὕτω [ 603 ]

δὴ καὶ ἀκοὴν πάντα τὰ τραχέα καὶ ἐστερημένα τοῦ προσηνοῦς. ἐμμελεῖς δ’ εἰσὶ φωναὶ αἱ προσηνεῖς τε καὶ λεῖαι. δείκνυται δ’ ὅτι πᾶσα φωνὴ κατ’ ἀριθμὸν κινεῖται· καὶ ἔστι κοινὸν μὲν αὐτῆς ἡ κατ’ ἀριθμὸν κίνησις, ἴδιον δὲ τῆς μὲν τὸ ἐκμελές, τῆς δὲ τὸ ἐμμελές. σκοπεῖν οὖν χρή, τίνος προσγενομένου τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐπισυμβαίνει [33] ταῖς φωναῖς. ἐπεὶ οὖν συμφωνεῖ τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς οὐδ’ ἄλλο ἢ ὁ λόγος· λόγου ἄρα προσγενομένου τῇ τῶν φωνῶν κινήσει γίνεται τὸ ἐμμελές. καὶ οὕτως ἄν τις ἐπιδείξειε παρὰ τὴν τοῦ λόγου αἰτίαν συμβαῖνον τὸ εἰρημένον.” Ἐν δὴ τούτοις εἴρηται μὲν ἡ αἰτία, δι’ ἣν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν ἀκοὴν πρὸς τὰς κρίσεις τῶν συμφώνων παρῃτοῦντο, τῷ δὲ λόγῳ μόνῳ μόνον προσεῖχον. εἴρηται δὲ καί, πῶς συνεχεῖς ὄντες οἱ φθόγγοι ἑνὸς ἤχου ποιοῦνται φαντασίαν παρεκτεινομένου ἐπὶ ποσόν τινα χρόνον διὰ τὸ τάχος τῆς φορᾶς οὐ συναισθανομένης τῆς ἀκοῆς, ὁπότε καθ’ ἕκαστον φθόγγον συγκινούμενος τῷ φθόγγῳ ὁ ἦχος φαίνοιτο. ταχείας μὲν οὖν καὶ πυκνοτέρας τῆς φορᾶς γινομένης ὀξὺς γίνεται ὁ ψόφος, βραδείας δὲ καὶ χαλαρωτέρας βαρύς. ὅπερ γὰρ αἱ ἐπιτάσεις καὶ αἱ ἀνέσεις τῶν χορδῶν, τοῦτο αἱ ταχυτῆτες καὶ βραδυτῆτες ποιοῦσιν· ἡ δ’ ἐπίτασις ὀξυτέραν ἐποίει πρὸς φθόγγον καὶ ἡ ἄνεσις βαρυτέραν, ὥστε καὶ αἱ ταχυτῆτες ὀξυτέραν καὶ αἱ βραδυτῆτες βαρυτέραν τὴν ἠχὴν ἀποτελοῦσι. Πεπείραται δὲ καὶ Αἰλιανὸς ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Εἰς τὸν Τίμαιον ἐξηγητικῶν παραστῆσαι τὸ τοιοῦτον, οὗ τὴν λέξιν παραγράψομεν ἔχουσαν οὕτως. “Αἱ δὲ φωναὶ διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι. ἴδωμεν οὖν, τίνες εἰσὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν φθόγγων ἀρχηγοὶ αἰτίαι. πάσης δὴ φωνῆς ἀρχηγὸς αἰτία ἐστὶν ἡ κίνησις. εἴτε γάρ ἐστι φωνὴ ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος, ἡ πλῆξις κίνησίς ἐστιν, εἴτε, ὡς ‹οἱ› Ἐπικούριοι θέλουσι, τὸ τῆς ἀκοῆς αἰσθητήριον - ἀπὸ τῶν φωνῶν τῆς παραφωνῆς παραγινομένης ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς ἀκοῆς αἰσθητήριον ἔκ τινων ῥευμάτων - καὶ οὕτως ἡ κίνησις αἰτία γίνεται τοῦ πάθους. τίς οὖν ἡ περὶ τὴν κίνησιν διαφορὰ θεωρήσωμεν καὶ ποία κίνησις τῆς τοιᾶσδε φωνῆς αἰτία, καὶ ποία τῆς τοιᾶσδε; τοῖς οὖν φαινομένοις τὰ πρῶτα προσέχοντες οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν καὶ λαβόντες ἀπὸ τούτων τὴν καταρχὴν τὸ ζητούμενον ἐπορίσαντο. ηὑρίσκετο γὰρ τῆς μὲν ὀξείας φωνῆς ἡ ταχεῖα κίνησις αἰτία, τῆς δὲ βαρείας ἡ βραδυτής. καὶ τοῦτο συνιδεῖν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῶν φαινομένων ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι τοῦ συμβαίνοντος. ἐὰν γὰρ αὐλοὺς λάβῃ τις δύο ταῖς εὐρύτησι τῶν κοιλιῶν ἴσους καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι χρησάμενος ἐμφυσήσῃ ἀπὸ μιᾶς δυνάμεως τοῦ [34] πνεύματος, ἐξακουσθήσεται διὰ μὲν τοῦ μείζονος αὐλοῦ βαρύτερος φθόγγος, διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἐλάσσονος ὀξύτερος. καὶ φανερόν, ὅτι τοῦ πνεύματος διὰ μὲν τοῦ ἐλάσσονος τάχιον διαθέοντος καὶ τὸν παρακείμενον ἀέρα πλήξαντος, διὰ δὲ τοῦ μείζονος βράδιον τὸν ἐν τῷ μακροτέρῳ αὐλῷ περιεχόμενον ἀέρα προώσαντος - κατὰ λόγον ὀξύτερος μὲν ὁ φθόγγος διὰ τοῦ τῷ μεγέθει μικροτέρου αὐλοῦ γίνεται, βραδύτερος δὲ διὰ τοῦ μακροτέρου. καὶ αἱ σύριγγες δὲ τοῦτο ἐναργῶς δηλοῦσιν, ὅταν ἐξ ἀνίσων μὲν τοῖς μήκεσι μεγεθῶν γένωνται οἱ αὐλίσκοι, ἴσων δὲ ταῖς τῶν κοιλιῶν εὐρύτησιν. ὁ γὰρ μικρότερος τῷ μήκει αὐλίσκος ὀξύτατον φθόγγον ἀποτελεῖ, ὁ δὲ μέγιστος βαρύτερον, οἱ δὲ μεταξὺ ἀναλογούντως ἀπηχοῦσι. πάλιν δ’ ἐὰν λάβῃς δύο αὐλοὺς τοῖς μὲν μήκεσιν ἴσους, ταῖς δ’ εὐρύτησι τῶν κοιλιῶν διαφέροντας, καθάπερ ἔχουσιν οἱ Φρύγιοι πρὸς τοὺς Ἑλληνικούς, εὑρήσεις παραπλησίως τὸν [ 604 ]

εὐρυκοίλιον ὀξύτερον προϊέμενον φθόγγον τοῦ στενοκοιλίου. θεωροῦμέν γέ τοι τοὺς Φρυγίους στενοὺς ταῖς κοιλίαις ὄντας καὶ πολλῷ βαρυτέρους ἤχους προβάλλοντας τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν. καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων οὖν τὸ τάχος τῆς κινήσεως αἴτιον. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν στενοπόρων δυσοδοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος καὶ τῇ μικρότητι τοῦ πόρου θλιβομένου βραδυτέρα κίνησις αὐτοῦ γίνεται, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ εὐρυτέρᾳ τῇ κοιλίᾳ κεχρημένου, ἅτε δὴ μηδεμιᾶς ἐγκοπῆς γινομένης ἡ διέξοδος τοῦ πνεύματος ταχυτέρα συμβαίνει καὶ ἐφ’ ἑνὸς αὐλοῦ ταὐτὸ κατανοῆσαι δυνατόν ἐστι. τὰ γὰρ τρήματα πρὸς γένεσιν ὀξέων καὶ βαρέων φθόγγων μεμηχάνηται· τὰ γὰρ ἐγγυτάτω τῆς γλωσσίδος τρήματα, τουτέστι τ’ ἀνωτάτω, τάχιον τοῦ πνεύματος δι’ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν ἐκτὸς ἀέρα ἐκπίπτοντος, ὀξύτερος ὁ φθόγγος γίνεται, διὰ δὲ τῶν πορρωτέρω τρημάτων βαρύτερος ὁ φθόγγος ἀποτελεῖται, δι’ οὖν τῶν κατωτάτω τρημάτων βαρύτατος, ὅθεν ἐὰν βουληθῶσιν ὀξύτερον ἀποτελέσαι φθόγγον, τὰ μὲν ἀνωτέρω τρήματα ἀνοίγουσι, τὰ δὲ κατώτερα κλείουσιν, ἐὰν δὲ βαρύτερον, τὸ ἐναντίον ποιοῦσι. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐντατῶν δ’ ὀργάνων τὸ αὐτὸ παρέσται σκοπεῖν. οἵ γέ τοι παλαιοὶ τὸ τρίγωνον, ὃ δὴ καλεῖται σαμβύκη, ἐξ ἀνίσων τοῖς μήκεσι χορδῶν ἐποίησαν, μακροτάτης μὲν τῆς πασῶν ἐξωτάτω, ὑποδεεστέρας δὲ ταύτης τῆς πλησίον, τῶν δ’ ἔτι ἐνδοτέρων καὶ πρὸς τῇ γωνίᾳ τοῦ ὀργάνου καθημένων κολοβωτέρων τοῖς μήκεσιν· ἰσοπαχεῖς δ’ ἐποίουν τὰς χορδάς. οὐ γὰρ ᾔδεσάν πω τὰς τῶν [35] παχέων διαφοράς. διὸ καὶ συνέβαινε τὰς μὲν μικροτέρας χορδὰς πληττομένας ὀξύτερον ἀποτελεῖν τὸν φθόγγον, τὰς δὲ μακροτέρας βαρύτερον. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν μακροτέρων χορδῶν [φθόγγων] βραδεῖα τε γίνεται ἡ ἀντίστασις καὶ ὁμοίως βραδίων ἡ μετὰ τὴν πλῆξιν ἀποκατάστασις, ὅθεν ὁ ἀὴρ βράδιον ὑπὸ τῆς χορδῆς πληττόμενος βαρὺν ἀποτελεῖ τὸν φθόγγον. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν βραχυτέρων χορδῶν ταχεῖα γίνεται ἥ τε πλῆξις καὶ ἡ ἀποκατάστασις. ὕστερον δ’ ἐπενοήθη ἐπὶ τῶν ἰσομηκῶν χορδῶν τὴν τῶν παχέων διαφορὰν τὸ τάχος τῆς κινήσεως διὰ μὲν τῶν παχυτέρων χορδῶν βράδιον γίνεσθαι, διὰ δὲ τῶν λεπτομερῶν θᾶσσον. καὶ δι’ ἄλλων δὲ πολλῶν τὸ αὐτὸ παραστῆσαι δυνάμενος, ἵνα μὴ τὴν γραφὴν ἐπιμήκη ποιῶ, ἀρκεθήσομαι τοῖς εἰρημένοις. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς τοπικωτέροις ἀκριβῶς πάντα δεδήλωται ἡμῖν.” “Τῆς οὖν ταχείας κινήσεως αἰτίας οὔσης τοῦ τὸν φθόγγον ὀξὺν ἀποτελεῖσθαι, τῆς δὲ βραδείας βαρύν, συμφανές, ὅτι ὁ ὀξὺς φθόγγος ἀπὸ τοῦ βαρυτέρου διάστημα ἀφέστηκεν, καὶ ἡ διαφορὰ τοῦ ὀξυτέρου παρὰ τὸν βαρύτερον φθόγγον καὶ τοῦ βαρυτέρου παρὰ τὸν ὀξύτερον καλεῖται διάστημα. ἐπεὶ δ’ οὐ πᾶς ὀξὺς φθόγγος καὶ βαρὺς κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ κρουόμενοι σύμφωνον ἀποτελοῦσιν, ἀλλ’ οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν ἔχουσι τὸν ἕτερον ἐπικρατοῦντα, ὥστε καὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι τοῦ τ’ ἀσυμφώνου κράματος καὶ τοῦ συμφώνου, διόπερ ἡμῖν ἡ διαφορὰ τοῦ ὀξυτέρου φθόγγου παρὰ τὸν βαρύτερον διάστημα καλεῖται. καὶ οὕτως ὁρίζεται τὸ διάστημα δυεῖν φθόγγων ἀνομοίων ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι διαφέρον. καὶ οὐ πάντως τὸ διάστημα καὶ συμφωνίαν ἔχει. δυνατὸν δέ γε διάστημά τι ἅμα καὶ σύμφωνον εἶναι, ὥστ’ εἰ μέν τί ἐστι σύμφωνον, τοῦτο καὶ διάστημα περιέχει, εἰ δέ τί ἐστι διάστημα, οὐ πάντως ἐστὶ σύμφωνον. συμφωνία δ’ ἐστὶ δυεῖν φθόγγων ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι διαφερόντων κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ πτῶσις καὶ κρᾶσις. δεῖ γὰρ τοὺς φθόγγους συγκρουσθέντας ἕν τι ἕτερον εἶδος φθόγγου ἀποτελεῖν παρ’ ἐκείνους, ἐξ ὧν φθόγγων ἡ συμφωνία γέγονεν. ὥσπερ γὰρ εἴ τις βούλοιτο οἰνόμελι ποιῆσαι [ 605 ]

ποσόν τι μέλιτος λαβὼν καὶ ποσὸν οἴνου, ὅταν οὕτω κεράσῃ, ὥστε μὴ ἐπικρατεῖν τὸν οἶνον μήτε τὸ μέλι, ἀλλά τινι συμμετρίᾳ κραθῇ, τρίτον τι γίνεται κρᾶμα, ὃ μήτε οἶνος μήτε μέλι ἐστίν· οὕτως ὅταν ὀξὺς καὶ βαρὺς φθόγγος κρουσθέντες ἕν τι τῇ ἀκοῇ παρασχῶσι κρᾶμα μὴ δ’ ἑτέρου τῶν φθόγγων τὴν ἰδίαν παρεμφαίνοντος δύναμιν, ἀλλὰ τρίτον ἐξηχῇ τῇ ἀκοῇ [36] παρὰ τὸν βαρὺν καὶ τὸν ὀξὺν φθόγγον, τότε καλεῖται σύμφωνον. ἐὰν δ’ ἡ ἀκοὴ τοῦ βαρέος μᾶλλον ἀντίληψιν ποιῆται ἢ πάλιν τοῦ ὀξέος, ἀσύμφωνόν ἐστι τὸ τοιοῦτο διάστημα.” ταῦτα μὲν οὖν παρ’ Αἰλιανοῦ. Ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰς συμφωνίας ἐν λόγοις ἀριθμητικοῖς ἐτίθεντο οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, οἷον ἐπιτρίτοις ἢ ἡμιολίοις ἢ διπλασίοις καὶ ἄλλοις τοιούτοις, ὡς ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν ἀκριβώσομεν λόγῳ, ἐξηγούμενος, πῶς ἂν μετρηθείη ἡ κίνησις ἡ ποιοῦσα τὸν ὀξὺν ἢ τὸν βαρὺν φθόγγον, γράφει οὕτως· “Ἐπεὶ δ’ ἀπεδείξαμεν, ὅτι ἡ ταχεῖα κίνησις ὀξὺν ἀποτελεῖ φθόγγον, ἡ δὲ βραδεῖα βαρύν, συμφανές, ὅτι ἡ κίνησις ἢ τὸ τάχος τῆς κινήσεως, ‹ἀφ’ ἧς› ὁ ὀξὺς φθόγγος γίνεται, πρὸς τὴν κίνησιν ἢ τὸ τάχος τῆς κινήσεως, ἀφ’ ἧς ὁ βαρὺς γίνεται φθόγγος ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ ἐστὶ λόγῳ. χάριν μέντοι τοῦ μηδὲν παραλελεῖφθαι καὶ τοῦτο σαφηνείας τεύξεται, πῶς λέγεται τάχος κινήσεως πρὸς ἑτέρου τάχος ἐπίτριτον εἶναι ἢ διπλάσιον ἢ οἷον δήποτε λόγον ἔχειν. εἰ γὰρ δύο εἴη τὰ κινούμενα ἀνίσως καὶ τὸ ἕτερον αὐτῶν ἐν ταὐτῷ χρόνῳ τοῦ ἑτέρου διπλασίονι τάχει χρῷτο, ἔσται τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ θᾶττον κινουμένου διπλάσιον ἠνυσμένον διάστημα τοῦ ἑτέρου, ὥστε τὸ μὲν εἶναι φέρε εἰπεῖν ἠνυσμένον διάστημα ὑπὸ τοῦ τάχιον κινουμένου πηχῶν δέκα, τὸ δ’ ἕτερον πηχῶν πέντε, οὕτω λέγεται διπλασίονι τάχει κεχρῆσθαι. καὶ ἄλλως δὲ νοεῖν πάρεστι τὸ ἐξηγητικὸν τῆς τῶν ταχῶν συγκρίσεως. φέρε γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ διάστημα, οἷον δεκαστάδιον, ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦ τάχιον κινουμένου ἐν ὥραις δυσὶ δείκνυσθαι, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ βράδιον ἐν ὥραις τετράσιν, ὃν λόγον ἔχει ὁ χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ τὸ βραδέως κινούμενον διήνυσε τὰ δέκα στάδια, πρὸς τὸν χρόνον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ταχέως κινούμενον διήνυσε τὸ αὐτὸ διάστημα, τουτέστιν αἱ τέσσαρες ὧραι πρὸς τὰς δύο, τοῦτον ἕξει τὸν λόγον ὑπεναντίως τὸ τάχος τῆς κινήσεως τοῦ θᾶττον κινουμένου πρὸς τὸ τάχος τῆς κινήσεως τοῦ βραδέως κινουμένου. ἐπεὶ δ’ οἵ τε χρόνοι τῆς τῶν συνεχῶν φύσεώς εἰσιν καὶ τὰ διανυόμενα ὑπὸ τῶν κινουμένων διαστημάτων, τουτέστι τὰ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν συνεχῶν, ἔστι δῆλον, ὅτι οἵ τε χρόνοι ἀλλήλοις συγκρινόμενοι ὁμογενεῖς εἰσι καὶ τὰ ἠνυσμένα διαστήματα ὁμογενῆ, οἷον εὐθεῖαί τε πρὸς εὐθείας καὶ κύκλων περιφέρειαι πρὸς περιφερείας. εἰς ἄπειρον δ’ οὔσης τῆς τομῆς τῶν συνεχῶν ἃ μέν εἰσι σύμμετρα, ἃ δ’ ἀσύμμετρα καὶ τὰ μὲν [37] σύμμετρα διὰ λόγου ἀριθμῶν θεωρεῖται, τὰ δ’ ἀσύμμετρα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν λόγοις ἀριθμῶν. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ταχῶν χρὴ νοεῖν καὶ ὅτι καὶ ἐν τούτοις τὰ μέν ἐστι σύμμετρα, τὰ δ’ οὔ. καὶ ὅπου μὲν ἡ τῶν ταχῶν σύγκρισις ἐν συμμετρίᾳ θεωρεῖται, λόγον ἔχει τὰ τάχη πρὸς ἄλληλα, ὃν ἀριθμὸς πρὸς ἀριθμόν.” Τούτων ἡμῖν διηρθρωμένων φανερὰ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν Πυθαγορείων αἵρεσις καὶ ὅτι τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ψόφων τὰς κατ’ ὀξύτητα καὶ βαρύτητα ἐν ποσότητι ἐτίθεσαν, οἷς ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἠκολούθησεν. διὰ δὴ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν τὰ ποιητικὰ μέλους καὶ ῥυθμοῦ οὐχ ἕτερα, καθάπερ ἄλλοι, τὰ δ’ αὐτὰ ἀναγκαῖον ἦν αὐτοῖς παραδέχεσθαι, ἔτι δ’ ἀμφοῖν τῆς ὑποστάσεως ταχυτὴς [ 606 ]

καὶ βραδυτὴς αἰτία. διὸ ὥσπερ τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς τοὺς λόγους τῶν συμμετριῶν προσάπτομεν ἐν ἴσῳ λόγῳ καὶ διπλασίονι καὶ ἡμιολίῳ τιθέντες τινὰς, οὕτωσι δὲ καὶ ταῖς συμφωνίαις οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι τοὺς ἀριθμητικοὺς λόγους προσῆπτον. Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ Διονύσιος ὁ μουσικὸς ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ ὁμοιοτήτων λέγων ταῦτα. “Κατὰ μέν γε τοὺς κανονικοὺς μία σχεδὸν καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ οὐσία ἐστὶ ῥυθμοῦ τε καὶ μέλους, οἷς τό τε ὀξὺ ταχὺ δοκεῖ καὶ τὸ βαρὺ βραδύ. καὶ καθόλου δὴ τὸ ἡρμοσμένον κινήσεών τινων συμμετρία καὶ ἐν λόγοις ἀριθμῶν τὰ ἐμμελῆ διαστήματα.” Ὥστ’ εἴπερ ἀληθῆ τὰ ὑπὸ τούτων λεγόμενα - δοκεῖ δὲ πολλοῖς καὶ εὐδοκίμοις ἀνδράσιν· εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ ῥυθμοὶ πάντες ἐν λόγοις τισὶν ἀριθμῶν, οἱ μὲν διπλασίοις, οἱ δ’ ἴσοις, οἱ δ’ ἄλλοις τισὶ - τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως δόξειεν ἂν εἶναι μέλος καὶ ῥυθμός. Καὶ πάλιν δόξουσι δὲ καὶ οἱ κανονικοὶ συνεπιμαρτυρεῖν τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, λέγω δὲ τὰς συμφωνίας καὶ τοὺς ποδικοὺς λόγους, ἔχειν τὸ συγγενὲς καὶ οἰκεῖον. τάς τε γὰρ συμφωνίας ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων τούτων γίνεσθαι νομίζουσι, τὴν μὲν διὰ τεσσάρων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου, τὴν δὲ διὰ πέντε ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡμιολίου, ‹τὴν δὲ διὰ πασῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ διπλασίου,› τὴν δὲ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε ὑπὸ τοῦ τριπλασίου· ὁ μέν γ’ ἴσος λόγος τοῦ ὁμοφώνου παρασκευαστικός ἐστιν αὐτοῖς, καὶ οἱ ῥυθμητικοὶ πόδες κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς τούτους λόγους διακεκριμένοι τυγχάνουσι κατὰ μὲν τὸν ἴσον καὶ διπλάσιον [38] καὶ ἡμιόλιον οἱ πλεῖστοι καὶ εὐφυέστατοι, ὀλίγοι δέ τινες καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἐπίτριτον καὶ κατὰ τὸν τριπλάσιον. Ἃ μὲν οὖν ἐχρῆν προειπεῖν τοῦ προκειμένου σκέμματος μετὰ παραλήψεως τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρῶν, ἔστι ταῦτα. λοιπὸν δὲ τὴν λέξιν τοῦ Πτολεμαίου διαρθρωτέον, ἧς ἀναπτυσσομένης καὶ ἡ Πλάτωνος περὶ τούτων δόξα καὶ ἡ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους ὑποδειχθήσεται, παρ’ ὧν τὰ πλεῖστα ὁ ἀνὴρ ὠφελημένος καταφαίνεται.

[ 607 ]

Τῆς τοίνυν ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις ἕως τοῦ παραλλαγῶν. Ἡ ΒΑ Ρ Ύ Τ Η ς Κ Α Ὶ ἡ ὀξύτης ἡ τῶν ψόφων διαφορὰ καὶ συμβεβηκότα τῶν ψόφων εἰσίν. αὐτὸς γὰρ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐπινοούμενος ὁ ψόφος οὐ συνεπιβάλλει μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ὀξὺ ἢ τὸ βαρύ, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸ σῶμα τὸ χρῶμα, εἰ καὶ πάντως τὸ σῶμα μετὰ τοῦ χρώματος. ἐν τίνι οὖν γένει θετέον τὴν ὀξύτητα καὶ τὴν βαρύτητα; ἄρα γ’ ἐν τῷ ποιῷ ἢ ἐν τῷ ποσῷ; τοῦτο δέ φησιν οὐκ εἶναι ῥᾴδιον ἀποφήνασθαι, πρὶν ἐπισκέψασθαι τὰ αἴτια τῆς ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος, ἃ κοινά πώς ἐστι καὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πληγαῖς παραλλαγῶν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ ψόφος τῷ γένει πληγή, ψόφου δὲ διαφορὰ ἡ ὀξύτης καὶ ἡ βαρύτης ἡ ἐν τοῖς ἤχοις, κοινῶς φησι δεῖ ἐπισκέψασθαι τὰς τῶν πληγῶν διαφοράς, ἐν αἷς καὶ ἡ κατὰ τοὺς ψόφους διαφορὰ περιληφθήσεται. ὅτι δὲ καὶ κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ ποιὸν προφανῶς διαφέρουσι ψόφοι, αὐτὸς προϊὼν ἐπιδείξει λείους καὶ τραχεῖς ψόφους καί τινας ἄλλους παρατιθείς, ὧν ἡ διαφορὰ αὐτόθι κατὰ ποιότητα εἶναι συγκεχώρηται.

[ 608 ]

Γίνεται οὖν ἕως τοῦ καθ’ ὅντινα οὖν τρόπον. ΤᾺ Ἐ Κ Τ ῶΝ πληγῶν πάθη κοινῶς σκοπουμένοις διαφέροντα γίνεται διὰ τρία ταῦτα· ἢ γὰρ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πλήττοντος βίαν διάφορος ἡ πληγὴ γίνεται καὶ τὸ τῆς πληγῆς πάθος - ἄλλως γὰρ ὁ ἀσθενὴς πλήττει, ἄλλως ὁ ἰσχυρός - ἢ παρὰ τὰς σωματικὰς συστάσεις τοῦ πληττομένου καὶ τοῦ δι’ οὗ ἡ πληγή. πλήττοντα δὲ καὶ πληττόμενα οὐ μόνον τὰ στερεὰ θετέον εἶναι, οὐδὲ τὸ ὕδωρ φέρε καὶ τὸ πῦρ μόνα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἀέρα· τῶν γὰρ πληττομένων καὶ πληττόντων καὶ οὗτος· καὶ οὐ πάντως γε τῶν [39] πληττομένων ἐν ταῖς εἰς ἄλληλα συγκρούσεσι τῶν σωμάτων. πλήττει δ’ ὅταν ῥύσιν λαβὸν πνεῦμα γένηται σφοδρόν, ὥσπερ οἱ ἄνεμοι. δευτέρα οὖν ἔστω διαφορὰ ἡ περὶ τὰς σωματικὰς συστάσεις τοῦ πληττομένου καὶ τοῦ δι’ οὗ ἡ πληγή. ἄλλως γὰρ φέρε σπογγιὰ σπογγιὰν πλήσσει ἢ ἔριον, ἄλλως χαλκὸς λίθον ἢ σίδηρον. ἐκ τρίτων δὲ διάφοροι γίνονται αἱ πληγαὶ καὶ παρὰ τὴν ἀποχὴν τοῦ πληττομένου καὶ τοῦ αἰτίου τῆς πληγῆς. ἄλλως γὰρ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀπεχόντων ἀλλήλων διάστημα τοῦ τε πλήττοντος καὶ τοῦ πληττομένου γίνεται ἡ πληγή, ἄλλως δ’ ἐπ’ ἔλαττον. Ἐπεὶ γὰρ “ἀδύνατον”, ὥς φησι καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης, “ἑνὸς ὄντος πληγὴν γενέσθαι” - “πρός τι” γὰρ ἡ πληγὴ καὶ ἀπό τινος, “ἔν τινι”, δεῖ δὲ καὶ διά τινος - ἀνάγκη καὶ παρὰ τὴν βίαν τοῦ τύπτοντος διάφορον τὴν πληγὴν γίνεσθαι καὶ παρὰ τὰς σωματικὰς συστάσεις τοῦ πληττομένου καὶ τοῦ δι’ οὗ ἡ πληγή, καὶ ἔτι παρὰ τὴν διάστασιν καὶ ὅλως τὸ πόρρωθεν ἢ ἐγγύθεν εἶναι τὸ πληττόμενον τοῦ τῆς κινήσεως κατάρχοντος. σαφῶς γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν αὐτῶν ὑποκειμένων ἕκαστον τῶν εἰρημένων ἴδιόν τι ποιεῖται, παρ’ ὃ τὸ διάφορον ἀπεργάζεται πάθος. διάφορον δ’ ἀπεργάζεται πάθος, ὅταν αὐτὸ διάφορον ᾖ καὶ παρηλλαγμένον καθ’ ἕνα τῶν εἰρημένων τρόπων. τὸ γὰρ “ὅταν αὐτὸ διενέγκῃ” ἀκουστέον ἀντὶ τοῦ “ὅταν αὐτὸ διαλλάττον καὶ διάφορον γένηται”. διενεγκεῖν γὰρ λέγομεν τὴν ἀρετὴν τῆς κακίας, ὅτι ἡ μὲν ὠφελεῖ, ἡ δὲ βλάπτει. καὶ διήνεγκεν ἥδε ἡ πρᾶξις τῆσδε τῆς πράξεως. τὸ διενεγκεῖν ἐπὶ πάντων τούτων ἀντὶ τοῦ διαφέρειν καὶ ἐξηλλάχθαι παραλαμβάνοντες.

[ 609 ]

Τῶν δὴ ψόφων ἕως τοῦ πρὸς τὴν αἴσθησιν. ΤᾺ ς ΚΟ Ι Ν Ὰ ς Α Ἰ Τ Ί Α ς τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν πληγῶν καταριθμησάμενος ἔπεισι καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπὶ τῶν ψόφων - πληγαὶ γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι - δεικνύς, τίνων παθῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς εἰσι ποιητικαὶ καὶ πῶς ἀλλήλων διαφερόντων. εἶτ’ ἐπειδὴ πληγὴ ἦν ἀέρος ὁ ψόφος, εἰσὶ δ’ ἀέρων πολλαὶ κατὰ σύστασιν διαφοραί, εἴ γε οἱ μὲν θερμοί, οἱ δὲ ψυχροὶ καὶ οἱ μὲν ὁμιχλώδεις, οἱ δὲ καθαροί, καὶ ἄλλαι πολλαὶ διαφοραὶ ἀέρων λανθάνουσαι τὴν αἴσθησιν, τὰς μὲν τούτων διαφορὰς μηδεμίαν ψόφων ἀποτελεῖν παραλλαγήν, οὔτι γε αἰσθητὴν τίθεται, ὥστε τῶν παρὰ τὰς σωματικὰς συστάσεις τοῦ πληττομένου διαφορῶν αἱ τοῦ πλησσομένου ἀέρος διαφοραὶ αἱ καθ’ ὅσον ἀὴρ [40] οὐδὲν πρὸς τὴν τῶν ψόφων ὀξύτητα ἢ βαρύτητα συντελοῦσιν, αἱ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων σωμάτων διάφοροι συστάσεις ποιοῦσι παραλλαγάς, ὡς ὕστερον ἐπιδείξει. ἦν δ’ ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἄλλων σωμάτων πληγαῖς καὶ ὁ ἀὴρ πληττόμενος καὶ σχεδὸν πάσαις ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι συνεργὸς πρὸς τὰ ἐκ τῶν αἰσθητῶν πρὸς αὐτὰς ἰόντα πάθη, ἀλλ’ αἱ μὲν αὐτοῦ κατὰ σύστασιν διαφοραὶ οὐδεμίαν παραλλαγὴν εἰς ὀξύτητα καὶ βαρύτητα ἐμποιοῦσι τοῖς ψόφοις, αἱ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἃς ποιοῦσι διαφορὰς μετ’ ὀλίγον διέξεισιν.

[ 610 ]

Ἡ δὲ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πλήττοντος ἕως τοῦ τὸ ἔλαττον. Ἡ Β Ί Α Φ Η Σ Ὶ Ν ἡ τοῦ πλήττοντος ἢ ἡ ἀσθένεια μέγεθος μὲν ἢ μικρότητα τοῖς ψόφοις περιποιεῖν δύναται, κατ’ ὀξύτητα δ’ ἢ βαρύτητα διαφορὰν οὐκέτι. ἔστι γὰρ τὸν ὀξὺν ψόφον ἠρέμα μὲν προφέροντα καὶ ἄνευ βίας μικρὸν ἀποδιδόναι, σφοδρῶς δὲ σὺν βίᾳ μεῖζον ποιεῖν. οὐ μὴν ἡ κατὰ μέγεθος ἢ μείωσιν παραλλαγὴ ὀξύτητος ἦν καὶ βαρύτητος διαφορά. καὶ τοῦτο δείκνυσιν ἐπιὼν τά τε ἐμπνευστά, τά τε ἐντατὰ καὶ κρουόμενα καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ ζῴων φωνούμενα. ἡ γὰρ βία τοῦ φωνοῦντος τὸν αὐτὸν ἦχον τοῦ ψόφου ἢ σφοδρὸν ἢ ἠρεμαῖον ἀπεργάζεται, κατ’ ὀξύτητα δ’ ἢ βαρύτητα οὐδαμῶς διαφέροντα καὶ μὴν τῶν ἐμπνεόντων ἡ βία καὶ τὸ σφοδρὸν ἢ ἡ ἀσθένεια ὀξὺν μὲν ἢ βαρὺν τὸν ἦχον οὐδαμῶς ἀποτελεῖ, σφοδρὸν δ’ ἢ ἀσθενῆ μόνον. ἐπί τε τῶν κρουόντων ὁμοίως· τῷ μὲν βιαιοτέρῳ ἕπεται τὸ μεῖζον τοῦ ψόφου, τῷ δ’ ἀσθενεστέρῳ τὸ ἔλαττον, ὥστε παρὰ μὲν τὴν βίαν ἢ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τοῦ πλήττοντος οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο διαφορὰ κατ’ ὀξύτητα τῶν ψόφων ἢ βαρύτητα.

[ 611 ]

Ἡ δὲ παρὰ τὰ δι’ ὧν ἕως τοῦ κοινὸν πρὸς πληγήν; ΠΛ Η Τ Τ Ό Μ Ε Ν Ο Ν Μ Ὲ Ν Ἦ Ν ὁ ἀήρ, πληγαὶ γὰρ τούτου οἱ ψόφοι· δι’ ὧν δ’ αἱ τούτων πληγαὶ ἀποτελοῦνται, ἔστι τὰ σώματα συγκρούοντα ἀλλήλοις καὶ δηλονότι καὶ αὐτὰ πληττόμενα. ὥσπερ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἐκτὸς ἡμῶν λίθοι καὶ ξύλα καὶ τὰ ὅμοια, ἐφ’ ἡμῶν δὲ καὶ τῆς ζωικῆς φωνῆς τὸ μὲν κατάρχον τῆς κινήσεώς ἐστιν ἡ ὁρμὴ ἡ πρὸς τὸ φωνεῖν, τὰ δὲ συνταράττοντα τό τε πνεῦμα τὸ φυσικόν, ὃ προΐει τὸ ζῷον διὰ τῆς ἀρτηρίας καὶ [41] ἡ γλῶττα· ὅ τ’ ἀὴρ ὁ τυπτόμενος. τοῦ μὲν φυσικοῦ πνεύματος διὰ τῆς ἀρτηρίας ὡς δι’ αὐλοῦ ἐξιόντος, σχηματιζομένου δ’ ὑπὸ τῆς γλώττης ὡς τοῖς δακτύλοις τὸ ἐμφύσημα, τοῦ δ’ ἀέρος πληττομένου διὰ τὸ περικεχύσθαι τὰ κρούοντα καὶ τὰ κρουόμενα. ὅταν οὖν τὰ συγκρούοντα σώματα τὰς πρώτας καὶ φυσικὰς συστάσεις ἔχῃ διαφόρους, τουτέστιν ἢ μανὰ ὄντα ἢ πυκνὰ ἢ λεπτὰ ἢ παχέα ἢ λεῖα ἢ τραχέα ἤ πως ἐσχηματισμένα, ἰδίους ψόφους καὶ διαφόρους ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀποτελεῖ. ταύτας μὲν τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν συστάσεων ὡς ἀποτελεστικὰς πληγῶν διαφόρων καὶ παθῶν ἐν ταῖς πληγαῖς παρηλλαγμένων εἰς τὴν προκειμένην παραληπτέον σκέψιν. οὐκέτι γὰρ καὶ τὰς κατὰ τὰς παθητικὰς ποιότητας γινομένας διαφορὰς τῶν σωμάτων παραληπτέον. παθητικὰς δὲ ποιότητας λέγει, ἃς καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν ταῖς Κατηγορίαις ὑπὸ τρίτον γένος τῆς ποιότητος ἔταξεν εἰπών· “Τρίτον δὲ γένος ποιότητος παθητικαὶ ποιότητες καὶ πάθη. ἔστι δὲ τὰ τοιάδε, οἷον γλυκύτης καὶ στρυφνότης καὶ πάντα τὰ τούτοις συγγενῆ, ἔτι δὲ θερμότης καὶ ψυχρότης καὶ λευκότης καὶ μελανότης.” εἶτά φησι· “παθητικαὶ δὲ ποιότητες λέγονται οὐ τῷ αὐτὰ τὰ δεδεγμένα τὰς ποιότητας πεπονθέναι τι. οὔτε γὰρ τὸ μέλι τῷ πεπονθέναι τι λέγεται γλυκύ, οὔτε τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων οὐδέν. ὁμοίως δὲ τούτοις καὶ ἡ θερμότης καὶ ἡ ψυχρότης παθητικαὶ ‹ποιότητες› λέγονται οὐ τῷ αὐτὰ τὰ δεδεγμένα πεπονθέναι τι, τῷ δὲ κατὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἑκάστην τῶν εἰρημένων ποιοτήτων πάθους εἶναι ποιητικὴν παθητικαὶ ποιότητες λέγονται. ἥ τε γὰρ γλυκύτης πάθος τι κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν ἐμποιεῖ καὶ ἡ θερμότης κατὰ τὴν ἁφήν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι. λευκότητες δὲ καὶ μελανίαι καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι δὲ χροιαὶ οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον τοῖς εἰρημένοις παθητικαὶ ποιότητες λέγονται, ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐταὶ ἀπὸ πάθους γεγενῆσθαι· γίνονται γὰρ διὰ πάθους πολλαὶ μεταβολαὶ χρωμάτων.” Παθητικαὶ μὲν οὖν ποιότητες αἱ τοιαῦται καὶ ἔτι αἱ κατὰ τὰς εὐωδίας καὶ δυσωδίας τεταγμέναι. συλλαβὼν δὲ πάσας ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἀτμοὺς μὲν ἔφη τὰς κατὰ τὰς δυσωδίας καὶ εὐωδίας καὶ ὅλως τὰς κατὰ τὴν ὄσφρησιν ποιούσας πάθη, χυμοὺς δὲ τὰς κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν, χρώματα δὲ [42] τὰς κατὰ τὴν ὅρασιν. αὗται γὰρ πᾶσαι αἱ διαφοραὶ ἴδιοι οὖσαι τῶν εἰρημένων αἰσθήσεων καὶ συζυγοῦσαι ὁράσει, γεύσει, ὀσφρήσει εἰκότως τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ψόφους πληγῶν εἶεν ἂν ἀλλότριοι, αἱ τῆς ἀκοῆς ἦσαν ἴδιοι. ἐκθέμενος οὖν τὰς χρησίμους διαφορὰς τῶν ψόφων συστάσεις ὑπάγει, ὃ ἑκάστη περιποιεῖν τοῖς ψόφοις πάθος δύναται. [ 612 ]

Περιποιεῖ δὲ ἕως τοῦ ἔχειν τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Ἡ Κ ΑΤ Ὰ Σ Χ ῆΜ Α διαφορὰ κατηρίθμηται μὲν ἐν ταῖς διαφορὰν ἐμποιούσαις τοῖς ψόφοις. φησὶ δὲ μὴ πᾶσαν εἶναι πρὸς τοῦτο ἐπιτήδειον, μόνην δὲ τὴν κατὰ τὸ στόμα καὶ τὴν γλῶτταν ἐγγινομένην καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἀνθρώπων. παντοίως γὰρ σχηματίζειν τὴν γλῶτταν καὶ τὸ στόμα δυνάμεθα καὶ διαφόρους κατὰ τοῦτο ψόφους ἀποδιδόναι. σχηματισμὸς γάρ ἐστι γλώττης καὶ στόματος, ὅταν φέρε κόρακας μιμώμεθα ἢ κορώνας ἢ γεράνους ἢ ἀετοὺς ἤ τι ἄλλο τῶν ὀρνέων ἢ τῶν ζῴων ἢ ἑτερογλώττων φωνὰς ἢ λίθων ἀραγμοὺς ἢ ψόφους ἀλλοίους ἢ δούπους ἢ βρόμους πεφυκότες πρὸς παντοῖον σχηματισμὸν διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἡμῶν εὐμίμητον φύσιν. ἀλλ’ ὅ γε ποιὸς σχηματισμὸς τῆς γλώττης καὶ τοῦ στόματος οὐκ ἦν ὀξύτητος ἢ βαρύτητος ψόφων κατ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὑποστατικός, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ φησὶ σχηματισμοῦ μόνον τοῖς ψόφοις αἴτιος, οὓς σημαινόμενοι ὀνομάζομεν ἰδίως πατάγους καὶ δούπους καὶ φωνὰς καὶ κλαγγὰς καί τινα ὀνοματοποιοῦνες τοιαῦτα. οὐ μὴν ἔτι καὶ ὀξύτητας καὶ βαρύτητας ὀνομάζοντες, ὡς τῇ κατὰ σχῆμα διαφορᾷ τῶν τοιῶνδε σχηματίζεσθαι οὐκ ἦν ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος τῆς ζητουμένης ἀποτελεσματική. διὸ καὶ αὕτη ἡ διαφορὰ τῶν σωματικῶν παρείσθω συστάσεων.

[ 613 ]

Διὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς λειότητος ἕως τοῦ εἰσὶ κυρίως. Ἡ Λ Ε Ι Ό Τ Η ς Φ Η Σ Ὶ τῶν σωμάτων καὶ ἡ τραχύτης ποιότητές εἰσι μόνον κυρίως. παρὰ δὴ ταύτας αἱ γινόμεναι πληγαὶ τῶν σωμάτων τοὺς ψόφους ποιοὺς μόνους ἀπεργάζονται· ἢ γὰρ λείους ἢ τραχεῖς αὐτοὺς ἀποτελοῦσιν, οὐ μὴν βαρεῖς ἢ ὀξεῖς. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἡ λειότης καὶ ἡ τραχύτης ποιότητές εἰσι, μονονουχὶ δὲ τὴν σύστασιν ἐν ποσῷ κεκτημέναι, Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν ταῖς Κατηγορίαις ἐφίστησι. [43] “Τὸ δὲ μανὸν καὶ τὸ πυκνὸν καὶ τὸ τραχὺ καὶ τὸ λεῖον δόξειε μὲν ἂν ποιόν τι σημαίνειν· ἦν δ’ ἀλλότρια ταῦτα τῆς περὶ τὸ ποιὸν διαιρέσεως. θέσιν γάρ τινά φησι φαίνεται μᾶλλον τῶν μορίων ἑκάτερον δηλοῦν. πυκνὸν μὲν γὰρ τῷ τὰ μόρια σύνεγγυς εἶναι ἀλλήλοις, μανὸν δὲ τῷ διεστάναι ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, καὶ λεῖον μὲν τῷ ἐπ’ εὐθείας πως τὰ μόρια κεῖσθαι, τραχὺ δὲ τῷ τὸ μὲν ὑπερέχειν, τὸ δ’ ἐλλείπειν.” Ἢ πρῶτον μὲν οὐ ταῖς διαστάσεσι ταῖς ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων καὶ τῷ μὲν ἐγγὺς τὸ μανὸν καὶ τὸ πυκνόν, οὐ δὲ τραχύτης καὶ λειότης πανταχοῦ ἐξ ἀνωμαλίας θέσεως καὶ ὁμαλότητος. δεύτερον δὲ δύναται ἄρχειν μόνη τοπικὴ θέσις, ἕτερον δ’ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς τὸ γινόμενον εἶναι, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς αὐξήσεσιν ἄν τις εὕροι ἄρχουσαν μὲν τὴν τοπικήν, ἐπιγινομένην δὲ τὴν κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν κίνησιν. οὕτως οὖν καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἡγεῖται μὲν ἡ θέσις, ἕπεται δ’ ἡ ποιότης ἀλλοίωσις οὖσα τοῦ ὑποκειμένου. εἰ γὰρ μὴ τοῦτο λέγομεν, ἀλλ’ ὅλως τὴν ἀραίωσιν καὶ τὴν πύκνωσιν σύγκρισιν καὶ διάκρισιν τιθῶμεν ἢ ἐκ τούτων ὅλως εἶναι, καὶ τὴν τραχύτητα καὶ λειότητα τῇ τῶν μορίων προσάπτομεν θέσει, καινὸν ἂν ἐξ ἀνάγκης παραδεχοίμεθα· ποιότητες οὖν καὶ αὗται. καὶ ὀρθῶς τῷ μουσικῷ εἴρηται τὰ περὶ τούτων, ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς μὲν καὶ τὸ λεῖον καὶ τὸ τραχὺ καὶ τὸ μανὸν καὶ τὸ πυκνὸν ποιὰ εἶναι εἰρήκαμεν· ὁ δὲ τὸ μὲν λεῖον καὶ τὸ τραχὺ συγχωρεῖ μόνον εἶναι ποιά, τὸ δὲ μανὸν καὶ τὸ πυκνὸν μὴ μόνον ποιά, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ποσοῦ μετέχειν ἀποφαίνεται γράφων οὕτως.

[ 614 ]

Διὰ δὲ τῆς μανότητος ἕως τοῦ τῆς οὐσίας. ΤᾺ Μ Α Ν Ὰ Κ Α Ὶ πυκνὰ καὶ παχέα ἢ λεπτὰ δύο φησὶ διαφορὰς ἀποτελεῖν τῶν ψόφων. καὶ γὰρ ποιοὺς αὐτοὺς ποιεῖν, καθ’ ὃ λέγομεν ὁμωνύμως τινὰς ψόφους πυκνοὺς ἢ χαύνους καὶ παχεῖς ἢ ἰσχνούς, ποιεῖν δὲ τὰ εἰρημένα καὶ ὀξεῖς ἢ βαρεῖς τοὺς ψόφους. καὶ ποιότητες οὖν ἀποτελοῦνται ἐν τοῖς ψόφοις ὁμώνυμοι ταῖς τῶν τοιούτων σωμάτων ποιότησιν. ἀλλὰ καὶ βαρύτητες ἐνταῦθα, τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τούτων, καὶ ὀξύτητες, τὰς δ’ [44] ὀξύτητας καὶ βαρύτητας, εἴ τε ποιότητές εἰσιν, εἴ τ’ ἄλλο τι, οὐδέπω μὲν γνώριμον ἀπὸ τῶν ῥηθέντων. δειχθέντος δὲ παρὰ τί ἀποτελοῦνται, σαφεῖς καθίστανται ἐν ποίῳ γένει τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι. τῶν δ’ εἰρημένων συστάσεων ἑκατέραν φησὶ μίαν μὲν τιθεὶς συστοιχίαν μανότητα καὶ πυκνότητα, ἑτέραν δὲ παχύτητα καὶ λεπτότητα. ἑκατέραν οὖν φησι τούτων τῶν συστάσεων ποιότητα μὲν εἶναι, ἀποτελεῖσθαι δὲ παρὰ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς οὐσίας. διὸ καὶ ποιῶν γίνεσθαι αἰτίας καὶ ποσῶν, τῶν μὲν ποιῶν κατὰ τὸ πυκνοὺς ἢ μανοὺς γίνεσθαι ἢ παχεῖς ἢ λεπτοὺς τοὺς ψόφους θεωρουμένων, τῶν δὲ ποσῶν κατὰ τὸ βαρεῖς ἢ ὀξεῖς. δῆλον οὖν ὡς ἡ βαρύτης τῶν φθόγγων καὶ ἡ ὀξύτης εἰς τὴν ποσότητα ἀναχθήσεται. τοῦτο δ’ οὐ πάντως, φαίη ἄν τις, συνάγεσθαι ἐκ τοῦ λόγου, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τὸ ποσὸν οὐκ ἐκωλύετο τῆς οὐσίας ποιότητος γίνεσθαι αἴτιον, οὕτως εἰ τὸ ποσὸν αἴτιον τῆς ὀξύτητος καὶ τῆς βαρύτητος, οὐ πάντως ποσὰ ἡ ὀξύτης καὶ ἡ βαρύτης. ἐνδέχεται γὰρ εἶναι ποιά, ἐπείπερ κεῖται οὐ ποσῶν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ποιῶν τὸ ποσὸν τῆς οὐσίας γίνεσθαι αἴτιον. ὅτι γὰρ διὰ ποσότητος τῆς οὐσίας αἱ εἰρημέναι ποιότητες ἀπετελέσθησαν, αὐτὸς διδάσκει γράφων τάδε.

[ 615 ]

Πυκνότερόν τε γὰρ ἕως τοῦ ἔχον οὐσίαν. ΟὝ ΤΩ Γ Ὰ Ρ Κ Α Ὶ ἄλλοι ὡρίσαντο· τὸ μὲν πυκνόν, οὗ σύνεγγυς ἀλλήλων τὰ μόρια ἀποδιδόντες, τὸ δὲ μανόν, οὗ διεστῶτα, καὶ συγκρίσεσι καὶ διαθέσεσιν ἀναθέντες τὰς μανώσεις καὶ πυκνώσεις. καὶ αὐτὸς τοίνυν ὡσαύτως ἀποδέδωκε πυκνότερον εἰπὼν ἕτερον ἑτέρου, ὅταν ὁ μὲν ὄγκος ἴσος ᾖ καὶ ὁ αὐτός, πλείων δ’ ἡ θατέρου οὐσία τῆς τοῦ ἑτέρου. οὕτω γὰρ συμβαίνει διὰ τὸ τὰ ‹τοῦ μὲν› μόρια σύνεγγυς εἶναι ἀλλήλων, τοῦ δὲ μή, τὸ μὲν πλείω ἔχειν οὐσίαν, τὸ δ’ ἐλάττω τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὄντος ὄγκου. πάλιν παχύτερον ἐν τοῖς ὁμοιοσυστάτοις λέγομεν, οἷον χορδὴν χορδῆς παχυτέραν καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώπου παχύτερον ἢ ξύλον ξύλου, ὅταν τὸ μὲν μῆκος ἴσον ᾖ, πλείων δ’ ἡ οὐσία τοῦ ἑτέρου. ἡ κατὰ ποσὸν οὖν τῆς οὐσίας διαφορὰ τὸ πυκνὸν καὶ τὸ μανὸν καὶ τὸ λεπτὸν καὶ τὸ παχὺ ὑπέστησε, καί εἰσι ποιότητες ἡ μανότης καὶ ἡ πυκνότης καὶ ἡ λεπτότης [45] καὶ ἡ παχύτης. οὐδὲν οὖν κωλύει τὸ ποσὸν αἴτιον ποιοτήτων γίνεσθαι, ὡστ’ οὐ συνάγεται τὸ τὴν ὀξύτητα καὶ βαρύτητα εἶναι ποσότητας, ἐπεὶ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῶν αἴτιον γίνεται. ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ ἃ ἐπάγει.

[ 616 ]

Καὶ ἔστι τοῦ μὲν ὀξυτέρου ἕως τοῦ καὶ τὸ παχύτερον. ὭΣΤ Ε Τ ῶΝ Σ Υ Ζ Υ Γ Ι ῶΝ , λέγω δὲ συζυγίας μὲν πυκνότητα καὶ μανότητα, ἑτέραν δὲ λεπτότητα καὶ παχύτητα, τὰ μὲν ἕτερα μέρη ὀξύτητος, τὰ δ’ ἕτερα βαρύτητος γίνεσθαι αἴτια, τὴν μὲν πυκνότητα καὶ τὴν λεπτότητα ὀξύτητος, τὴν δὲ μανότητα καὶ παχύτητα βαρύτητος. οὐκέτ’ οὖν, φήσαι ἄν τις πρὸς αὐτόν, οὐδὲ παρὰ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς οὐσίας ἀποτελεῖται ἡ ὀξύτης καὶ ἡ βαρύτης, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὰς ποιότητας. παρὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς οὐσίας ἡ πυκνότης καὶ ἡ λεπτότης καὶ ἡ μανότης καὶ ἡ παχύτης ἀπετελοῦντο καὶ ἦσαν οὐ ποσότητες κατ’ αὐτὸν τοῦτον, εἰ καὶ ἐκ ποσότητος ἐγίνοντο, ἀλλὰ ποιότητες. αὗται δὲ ποιότητες οὖσαι αἴτιαι γίνονται τῆς ὀξύτητος τῶν φθόγγων καὶ τῆς βαρύτητος. ὥστ’ ἐξ ἀνάγκης, εἴπερ αἱ ποιότητες ποιοτήτων εἰσὶν ἀποτελεστικαί, ποιότητας εἶναι καὶ τὰς ὀξύτητας καὶ τὰς βαρύτητας, αἵ γε κἂν, εἰ παρὰ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς οὐσίας ὑφίσταντο, οὐκ ἐκωλύοντο εἶναι ποιότητες. τὴν τοίνυν ἔφοδον παραιτητέον, ᾗ κέχρηται ὁ Πτολεμαῖος. χρηστέον δὲ τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν παλαιῶν εἰρημένοις, ἃ συμπληρώσαντες τὴν ἐξήγησιν τῶν ὑπὸ τούτου εἰρημένων παραθήσομεν.

[ 617 ]

Ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἕως τοῦ παρὰ τὸ μᾶλλον. ΤΑ Ύ Τ ῌ Τ ῇ Α Ἰ Τ Ί ᾼ καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐχρῶντο, ἐφ’ ἣν μεταβέβηκε παρεὶς τὴν προτέραν. τὴν γὰρ ταχυτῆτα αἰτίαν τῆς ὀξύτητος ἀπεδίδοσαν καὶ τὴν βραδυτῆτα τῆς βαρύτητος. καὶ εἴπερ ἐν ποσῷ ἡ ταχυτὴς καὶ ἡ βραδυτής, αἴτιον μὲν τὸ ποσὸν ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος δοίη ἄν τις. οὐ μὴν πάντως ἐκ τούτου τοῦτο συνάγεται τὸ εἶναι τοῦ ποσοῦ τὴν ὀξύτητα καὶ τὴν βαρύτητα, εἰ μέντοι ὡς οἴεται Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ ὁ Πλάτων οὐκ αἴτιον τὸ ταχὺ ἐτίθετο τοῦ ὀξέος, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸ τὸ ὀξὺ ταχὺ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ βαρὺ βραδύ· εἴη ἂν τοῦ ποσοῦ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ βαρύ, εἴπερ ποσὰ τὸ ταχὺ καὶ τὸ βραδύ. ἵνα δὲ σαφὴς γένηται ἥ τε Πλάτωνος καὶ Ἀριστοτέλους δόξα καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τούτου λεγόμενα ἔτι μᾶλλον ἀναπτυχθῇ τῆς τε [46] προσηκούσης ἐξετάσεως τύχῃ, φέρε τὰ τοῦ Πλάτωνος καὶ τὰ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους περὶ τούτων ῥηθέντα παραθώμεθα. Ὁ δὴ Πλάτων ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ περί τε φωνῆς καὶ ἀκοῆς διαφορᾶς τε φωνῆς διαλεγόμενος γράφει ταῦτα. “Τρίτον δ’ αἰσθητικὸν ἐν ἡμῖν μέρος ἐπισκοποῦσι τὸ περὶ τὴν ἀκοήν, δι’ ἃς αἰτίας τὰ περὶ αὐτὸ ξυμβαίνει παθήματα, λεκτέον. ὅλως μὲν οὖν φωνὴν θῶμεν τὴν δι’ ὤτων ὑπ’ ἀέρος ἐγκεφάλου τε καὶ αἵματος μέχρι ψυχῆς πληγὴν διαδιδομένην, τὴν δ’ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς κίνησιν, ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς μὲν ἀρχομένην, τελευτῶσαν δὲ περὶ τὴν τοῦ ἥπατος ἕδραν, ἀκοήν· ὅση δ’ αὐτῆς ταχεῖα, ὀξεῖαν, ὅση δὲ βραδυτέρα, βαρυτέραν· τὴν δὲ μίαν ὁμαλήν τε καὶ λείαν, τὴν δ’ ἐναντίαν τραχεῖαν· μεγάλην δὲ τὴν πολλήν, ὅση δ’ ἐναντία, σμικράν. τὰ δὲ περὶ ξυμφωνίας αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς ὕστερον λεχθησομένοις ἀνάγκη ῥηθῆναι.” Ἐν δὲ τούτοις ὁ Πλάτων τὴν μὲν φωνὴν ἔφη εἶναι πληγήν, ὑπ’ ἀέρος μὲν γινομένην, δι’ ὤτων δὲ καὶ ἐγκεφάλου καὶ αἵματος μέχρι ψυχῆς διαδιδομένην, ὥστε - τῆς πληγῆς διχῶς λεγομένης κατά τε τὸ πλήττειν, ὅ ἐστιν ἐνεργεῖν εἰς ἄλλον, ὡς λεγόμεθα πληγὰς διδόναι τοῖς οἰκέταις, κατά τε τὸ πλήττεσθαι, ὅ ἐστι πάσχειν ὑπ’ ἄλλου, ὡς λέγονται πληγὰς ἔχειν οἱ τυπτηθέντες - ὁ Πλάτων πληγὴν ἀέρος ἀποδέδωκε τὴν φωνήν, οὐ τὴν κατὰ τὸ πεπλῆχθαι τὸν ἀέρα λέγων πληγήν, ἀλλὰ τὴν κατὰ τὸ πλήσσειν καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν τὴν πληγὴν εἰς τοὺς ἀκούοντας. οὐ γὰρ ἔφη πληγὴ ἀέρος, ἀλλὰ πληγὴ ὑπ’ ἀέρος, τὴν κατὰ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν πληγὴν ἀέρος λαμβάνων, οὐ τὴν κατὰ τὸ πάσχειν αὐτὸν καὶ πλήττεσθαι. ὃ δὴ οὐκ οἶδα, ὅπως οὐ συνεῖδον οἱ Πλατωνικοὶ πάντες ἁπαξαπλῶς πληγὴν ἀέρος κατὰ Πλάτωνα ἀποδόντες τὴν φωνήν, οὐ τὴν κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πλήσσειν ἡμᾶς ὑπακουομένην, ὡς Πλάτων τίθησι, τὴν δὲ κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πεπλῆχθαι τὸν ἀέρα πληγὴν ἀέρος ἐξηγούμενοι, ὃ διὰ τῆς ἐκκειμένης λέξεως οὐκ εἴρηκεν ὁ Πλάτων. ἔξωθεν γὰρ ἦν συλλογίζεσθαι καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐξακούειν, ὅτι πλήσσει ἡμῶν τὴν αἴσθησιν ὁ ἀὴρ πληγεὶς καὶ αὐτὸς πρότερον καὶ διαφέρων τὴν πληγὴν εἰς ἡμᾶς. ἓν μὲν δὴ τοῦτο ἐπισεσημάνθω, δεύτερον δ’ ὅτι τὴν ὑπ’ ἀέρος πληγὴν διαδιδομένην εἰς ψυχὴν καὶ ‹δι’› ὤτων καὶ ἐγκεφάλου καὶ αἵματος ὡς ὀργάνων [47] ἐμποιεῖν φησιν ἐν ἡμῖν [ 618 ]

κίνησιν, ταύτην δ’ εἶναι τὴν κίνησιν ἀκοὴν τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν πληγὴν τῆς διαδοθείσης εἰς ψυχὴν ἀποτελουμένην. ὡς τὴν μὲν πληγὴν τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος, δι’ ὧν εἴρηκεν ὀργάνων διαδιδομένην εἰς τὴν ψυχήν, εἶναι τὴν φωνήν, τὴν δ’ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς γινομένην κίνησιν τῆς αἰσθήσεως εἶναι τὴν ἀκοήν. λοιπὸν δ’ ὅση μὲν ταχεῖα τῆς πληγῆς, τουτέστι τῆς φωνῆς, εἶναι ταύτην ὀξεῖαν, ὅση δὲ βραδεῖα, βαρεῖαν. πολλῆς δὲ γενομένης τῆς φωνῆς εἶναι αὐτὴν μεγάλην, ὀλίγης δὲ μικράν, καὶ ὁμαλοῦς μέν, λείαν, διασπάσματα δ’ ἐχούσης, τραχεῖαν. σαφῶς οὖν ὁ Πλάτων ἐν τούτοις τὴν ταχεῖαν φωνὴν τίθεται ὀξεῖαν, καὶ τὴν βαρεῖαν βραδεῖαν· ἀλλ’ οὐ τὴν ταχυτῆτα αἰτίαν γίνεσθαι τῆς ὀξύτητος ἢ τὴν βραδυτῆτα τῆς βαρύτητος, ὥστ’ εἴπερ ἡ ταχυτὴς καὶ ἡ βραδυτὴς ποσότητες καὶ ἡ ὀξύτης καὶ ἡ βαρύτης κατὰ Πλάτωνα ποσότητες ἂν εἶεν. Ἀριστοτέλης δ’ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ ψυχῆς περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν ψόφων ἀποδιδοὺς γράφει ταῦτα· “Αἱ δὲ διαφοραὶ τῶν ψοφούντων ἐν τῷ κατ’ ἐνέργειαν ψόφῳ δηλοῦνται· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἄνευ φωτὸς οὐχ ὁρᾶται τὰ χρώματα, οὕτως οὐδ’ ἄνευ ψόφου τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ βαρύ· ταῦτα δὲ λέγεται κατὰ μεταφορὰν ἀπὸ τῶν ἁπτῶν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὀξὺ κινεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ ἐπὶ πολύ, τὸ δὲ βαρὺ ἐν πολλῷ ἐπ’ ὀλίγον. οὐ δὴ ταχὺ τὸ ὀξύ, οὐδὲ βραδὺ τὸ βαρύ, ἀλλὰ γίνεται τοῦ μὲν διὰ τάχος ἡ κίνησις τοιαύτη, τοῦ δὲ διὰ βραδυτῆτα, καὶ ἔοικεν ἔχειν ἀνάλογον τῷ περὶ τὴν ἁφὴν ὀξεῖ καὶ ἀμβλεῖ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὀξὺ οἷον κεντεῖ, τὸ δ’ ἀμβλὺ οἷον ὠθεῖ διὰ τὸ κινεῖν, τὸ μὲν ἐν ὀλίγῳ, τὸ δ’ ἐν πολλῷ, ὥστε συμβαίνει τὸ μὲν ταχύ, τὸ δὲ βραδὺ εἶναι.” Σαφηνιστέον δὲ καὶ τὴν τούτου λέξιν. διαφορὰς γὰρ τοῦ ψόφου ἔφη τὴν ὀξύτητα καὶ τὴν βαρύτητα· διαφορὰ δὲ ψόφου τοῦ κατ’ ἐνέργειαν οὐ τοῦ δυνάμει. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀὴρ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν δυνάμει ψόφος, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τούτου οὔτε βαρέος ψόφου ἀντιληψόμεθα, οὔτ’ ὀξέος, ἐκ μέντοι γε τοῦ ἤδη γινομένου ψόφου. γίνεται δὲ κατ’ ἐνέργειαν ψόφος, ὅταν πληγῇ ὁ ἀὴρ καὶ ὑπομείνῃ διαχυθείς· ἐν τῷ οὖν κατ’ ἐνέργειαν ψόφῳ καὶ ἡ ὀξεῖα καὶ ἡ βαρεῖα τοῦ ψόφου ἀπογέννησις. ὥσπερ γὰρ χωρὶς φωτός φησιν οὐ δύναται χρῶμά τι ὁραθῆναι - δεῖ γὰρ φῶς περικεχύσθαι τοῖς ὄμμασιν, ὅταν αὐτοῖς παραδείξῃ χρώματα - οὕτως οὐδ’ ἄνευ ψόφου τοῦ [48] κατ’ ἐντελέχειαν καὶ ἤδη γινομένου τὸ ὀξὺ ἐν τούτῳ καὶ τὸ βαρὺ γνωρισθήσεται. λέγεται δέ φησι ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῶν ψόφων, τουτέστι τὸ βαρὺ καὶ τὸ ὀξύ, ἀπὸ τῶν ἁπτῶν τῆς μεταφορᾶς γενομένης. ὡς γὰρ τὸ ὀξὺ καθ’ ἁφὴν ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ καὶ ἐπ’ ὀλίγον ἁψάμενον ἐπὶ πολὺ κινεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν, διικνουμένης τῆς ὀξύτητος ταχέως καὶ δι’ ὀλίγου εἰς τὴν αἴσθησιν, τὸ δ’ ἀμβλὺ ἐν πολλῷ τε χρόνῳ κινεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ ἐπ’ ὀλίγον διὰ τὸ μὴ διικνεῖσθαι ταχέως, μηδὲ διατέμνειν τὴν σάρκα τὸ ὀξὺ ὥσπερ, ἀλλ’ ὠθεῖν καὶ βραδέως ἐφικνεῖσθαι, οὕτω καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ψόφους ὁ ὀξὺς κινεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ ἐπὶ πολύ, ὁ δὲ βαρὺς ἐν πολλῷ καὶ ἐπ’ ὀλίγον. ταχυτὴς μὲν οὖν αἰτία ὀξύτητος καὶ ὀξύτης ταχυτῆτος καὶ βραδυτὴς βαρύτητος· οὐ μὴν ἡ ὀξύτης ἐστὶ ταχυτής, οὐδ’ ἡ βαρύτης βραδυτής. ἀντιλέγων γὰρ Πλάτωνί φησιν· “οὐ δὴ ταχὺ τὸ ὀξύ”, οὐδὲ τὸ βραδὺ τῆς φωνῆς γένος βαρύ - πρὸς γὰρ ἐκεῖνον ταῦτα ἀποτείνεται - ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ὀξὺ γίνεται διὰ τὸ τάχος τῆς περὶ τὴν πλῆξιν φορᾶς, τὸ δὲ βαρὺ διὰ τὴν βραδυτῆτα τῆς πληγῆς, ὥστ’ ὀξεῖαν μὲν φωνὴν ἀποτελεῖσθαι τῆς περὶ τὸν ἀέρα κινήσεως τάχιστα γινομένης, βαρεῖαν δὲ βραδείας, ἀνάλογόν τε ἔχειν ἡ μὲν [ 619 ]

ὀξεῖα τῷ κατὰ τὴν ἁφὴν ὀξεῖ σώματι, ἡ δὲ βαρεῖα τῷ κατὰ τὴν ἁφὴν ἀμβλεῖ. ὡς γὰρ τὸ μὲν ὀξὺ κινεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐν ὀλίγῳ μὲν χρόνῳ, ἐπὶ πολὺ δέ· οὕτως ἡ ὀξεῖα φωνὴ διὰ ταχυτῆτα τῆς πληγῆς γινομένης ἐπιπλέον διικνεῖται τῆς ἀκοῆς. ὡς δὲ τὸ ἀμβλὺ κινεῖ μὲν τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐν πλείονι μὲν χρόνῳ, ἐπ’ ὀλίγον δὲ διὰ τὸ ὠθεῖν μᾶλλον ἀλλὰ μὴ διατέμνειν· οὕτως ἡ βαρεῖα φωνὴ διὰ βραδυτῆτα τῆς πληγῆς τοῦ ἀέρος γινομένης ἐπ’ ὀλίγον τῆς ἀκοῆς διικνεῖται. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἁπτῶν τὸ ὀξὺ ταχὺ καὶ τὸ ἀμβλὺ βραδύ, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ψόφων ἡ ταχυτὴς ὀξύτητος αἰτία τῶν ψόφων καὶ ἡ βραδυτὴς βαρύτητος. διαφέρει δ’ ἡ περὶ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ τὸ ποιοῦν ἡγεῖσθαι τὸ συμβαῖνον ἢ περὶ τὸ αἰτιατὸν καὶ τὸ πάσχον. καὶ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης περὶ τὸ αἴτιόν φησιν εἶναι τὸ συμβαῖνον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν μὲν τοῖς ψόφοις ἡ ταχυτὴς τῆς πληγῆς τοῦ ἀέρος, ὃς ἦν αἴτιος τοῦ ψόφου, ποιεῖ κατ’ αὐτὸν τὴν ὀξύτητα. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἁπτοῖς ἡ ὀξύτης ἡ περὶ τὸν σίδηρον φέρε, ὃς ἦν τὸ αἴτιον, ποιεῖ τὴν ταχυτῆτα καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς βαρύτητος καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀμβλύτητος ὡσαύτως. ὁ δὲ Πλάτων περὶ τὸ αἰτιατόν, “ταχείας μὲν [49] γὰρ οὔσης τῆς φωνῆς ὀξεῖαν αὐτὴν γίνεσθαι, βραδείας δὲ βαρεῖαν.” εἰ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Πλάτωνα ὡς ποιεῖ τὸ ποιοῦν, οὕτω πάσχει τὸ πάσχον καὶ ἔμπαλιν, εἴη ἂν τὰ περὶ τὸ αἰτιατὸν συμβαίνοντα προϋπάρχοντα ποιητικῶς ἐν τῷ αἰτίῳ, καὶ ταύτῃ ὁμόφωνοι εἶεν ἂν ἀλλήλοις οἱ φιλόσοφοι. Τούτοις τοίνυν καὶ τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις ἑπόμενος ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἐπὶ τὰς κατὰ τάχη καὶ τὰς βραδυτῆτας αἰτιολογίας μεταβέβηκε, τὴν πρόφασιν λαβὼν τῆς μεταβάσεως ἀπὸ τοῦ τὴν λεπτότητα αἰτίαν εἶναι ὀξύτητος ἀποδοῦναι καὶ τὴν παχύτητα βαρύτητος. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἁπτοῖς τὰ μὲν λεπτὰ εἶναι ὀξέα, τὰ δὲ παχέα ἀμβλέα· ὀξέα δὲ καὶ ἀμβλέα τῷ τὰ μὲν πλήττειν ἀθρούστερον, τὰ δὲ μή· ἀθρούστερον δὲ πλήττει παρὰ τὸ θᾶττον διικνεῖσθαι. ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἁπτῶν τὰ πυκνότερα, ὀξύτερα δὲ τῷ πλήττειν ἀθρούστερον, ἀθρούστερον δὲ παρὰ τὸ μᾶλλον πλήσσειν διικνεῖσθαι ἤπερ τὰ μανότερα. εἴληπται δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα ἀθρόου παρὰ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους. ἀπορῶν γάρ, πότερον ψοφεῖ τὸ τυπτόμενον ἢ τὸ τύπτον ἢ καὶ ἄμφω, γράφει. “Πότερον δὲ ψοφεῖ τὸ τυπτόμενον ἢ τὸ τύπτον ἢ καὶ ἄμφω, τρόπον δ’ ἕτερον; ἔστι γὰρ ὁ ψόφος ἡ κίνησις τοῦ δυναμένου κινεῖσθαι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ὅνπερ τὰ ἁλλόμενα ἀπὸ τῶν λείων, ἐπάν τις κρούσῃ. οὐ δὴ πᾶν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ψοφεῖ τυπτόμενον καὶ τύπτον, οἷον ἐὰν πατάξῃ βελόνη βελόνην, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὸ τυπτόμενον ὁμαλὸν εἶναι, ὥστε τὸν ἀέρα ἀθροῦν ἀφάλλεσθαι καὶ σείεσθαι.” Καὶ πάλιν· “οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ψόφου κύριος ὁ ἀήρ, ἀλλὰ δεῖ στερεῶν πληγὴν γίνεσθαι πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα· τοῦτο δὲ γίνεται, ὅταν ὑπομείνῃ πληγεὶς ὁ ἀὴρ καὶ μὴ διαχυθῇ· διὸ ἐὰν ταχέως καὶ σφοδρῶς πληγῇ, ψοφεῖ· δεῖ γὰρ φθάσαι τὴν κίνησιν τοῦ ῥαπίζοντος τὴν θρύψιν τοῦ ἀέρος, ὥσπερ εἰ σωρὸν ἢ συρφετὸν ἄμμου τύπτει τις φερόμενον ταχύ.” Λαβὼν δὴ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, ὅτι τὰ λεπτότερα καὶ τὰ πυκνότερα ὀξυτέρους ψόφους ἀποτελεῖ παρὰ τὸ θᾶττον καὶ μᾶλλον διικνεῖσθαι δύνασθαι, τὰ δὲ παχύτερα καὶ μανότερα βαρυτέρους, ἔπεισι διὰ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ὑλῶν δεικνὺς τὸ εἰρημένον. τί γάρ φησι; [50] [ 620 ]

Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο χαλκὸς ἕως καὶ πυκνότερα γάρ. ΤΑ ῦΤΑ Μ Ὲ Ν Ἐ Κ τῆς πυκνότητος τὴν αἰτίαν· ἐκ δὲ τῆς λεπτότητος ἐπάγει.

[ 621 ]

Τῶν τε ὁμοιοπύκνων ἕως τοῦ τῶν ναστῶν. Τῆς Π Υ Κ Ν Ό Τ Η ΤΟ ς Κ Α Ὶ τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν αὐτῶν ὄντων τὸ λεπτότερον καὶ ὀξυφωνότερον· καὶ τὰ κοῖλα δ’ ὀξυφωνότερα τῶν ναστῶν διὰ τὴν λεπτότητα. καὶ ταῦτα τοίνυν τὴν αἰτιολογίαν εἴληφεν ἀπὸ τῆς λεπτότητος. ἐξ ἀμφοῖν δέ, τῆς πυκνότητος λέγω καὶ τῆς λεπτότητος, αἰτιολογῶν ἐπάγει.

[ 622 ]

Καὶ πάλιν αὖ τῶν ἕως τοῦ ὀξυτονώτεραι. ἈΛ Λ Ὰ Μ Έ Χ Ρ Ι Μ Ὲ Ν τούτων ὁμολογούμενα τοῖς ἐναργέσι λέγει, τῇ πυκνότητι καὶ τῇ λεπτότητι ἀποδιδοὺς τὴν ὀξύτητα τῶν ψόφων. ἃ δ’ ἑξῆς ἐπάγει, δεῖται ἐπιστάσεως· λέγει γάρ.

[ 623 ]

Τούτων δ’ ἕκαστον ἕως τοῦ ὀξύτερον. Οὐ Γ Ὰ Ρ Π Ά Ν ΤΩ ς τὸ λεπτὸν εὔτονον· λεπταὶ γὰρ γίνονται φωναὶ καὶ δι’ ἀτονίαν, καὶ “ὅταν ὀλίγον ᾖ”, ὥς φησιν Ἀριστοτέλης, “τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκπῖπτον. διὸ καὶ τῶν παιδίων γίνονται ‹λεπταὶ› καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ τῶν εὐνούχων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν διαλελυμένων διὰ νόσον ἢ πόνον ἢ ἀτροφίαν· οὐ δύνανται γὰρ πολὺ τὸ πνεῦμα διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν ἐκπέμπειν. δῆλον δ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χορδῶν· ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν λεπτῶν καὶ τὰ φωνία γίνεται λεπτὰ καὶ στενὰ καὶ τριχώδη, διὰ τὸ καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος τὴν πληγὴν γίνεσθαι κατὰ στενόν. οἵας γὰρ ἂν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχωσι τῆς κινήσεως αἱ τοῦ ἀέρος πληγαί, τοιαύτας καὶ τὰς φωνὰς συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι προσπιπτούσας πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν, οἷον ἀραιὰς ἢ πυκνὰς ἢ μαλακὰς ἢ σκληρὰς ἢ λεπτὰς ἢ παχείας. ἀεὶ γὰρ ὁ ἕτερος ἀὴρ τὸν ἕτερον κινῶν ὡσαύτως ποιεῖ τὴν φωνὴν ἅπασαν ὁμοίαν, καθάπερ ἔχει καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀξύτητος καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς βαρύτητος. καὶ γὰρ τὰ τάχη τὰ τῆς πληγῆς τὰ ἕτερα τοῖς ἑτέροις συνακολουθοῦντα διαφυλάττει τὰς φωνὰς ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ὁμοίως.” [51] Ταῦτα εἴρηκεν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἀκουστῶν, οὗ καὶ πᾶν τὸ σύγγραμμα ἀναγκαιότατον ὑπάρχειν παρὰ τὰ ἐνεστηκότα ὕστερον παραθήσομεν. Πλὴν ἀλλὰ φανερόν, ὅτι ἡ μὲν λεπτότης ποιεῖ τὴν ὀξύτητα καὶ εἰ βούλεταί τις, λεγέτω διὰ τὴν ταχυτῆτα· ταχεῖα γὰρ ἡ λεπτότης, οὐ μέντοι διὰ τὴν εὐτονίαν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ πυκνότερον ἔστω εὐτονώτερον, τὸ δὲ λεπτότερον οὐ πάντως εὐτονώτερον. ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸ ἀθρούστερον τοῦ ἀέρος σφοδρότερον μὲν εἶναι δύναται, οὐ μέντοι τὸ σφοδρὸν καὶ ὀξὺ πάντως, ὡς καὶ αὐτῷ ἀρέσκει τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ ἐν ταῖς παρὰ τὴν βίαν τοῦ πλήττοντος διαφοραῖς. τὸ μὲν σφοδρότερον παραδεξαμένῳ, τούτου δ’ οὐχ ἕπεσθαι φαμένῳ τὸ ὀξύ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὸ μεῖζον. πῶς οὖν ἐνταῦθα ἀκολούθως ἐπήγαγεν, ὅτι τὸ εὐτονώτερον ἐν ταῖς πληγαῖς γίνεται σφοδρότερον, τοῦτο δ’ ἀθρούστερον, τοῦτο δ’ ὀξύτερον; τοῦ δ’ αὐτοῦ παροράματος ἐχόμενος ἐπάγει τάδε.

[ 624 ]

Διὸ κἂν ἄλλως ἕως τοῦ κατὰ τὸ πάχος. Ὁ Χ Α Λ Κ Ὸ ς Ὀ Ξ Ύ Τ Ε ΡΟ Ν ψόφον τοῦ μολίβδου ἀποτελεῖ, διότι πυκνότερος ἦν. ἔκειτο δὲ τὰ πυκνότερα ὀξυφωνότερα τῶν μανοτέρων, ἐπηκολούθει δὲ τὸ σκληρότερον τῷ πυκνοτέρῳ καὶ τὸ μαλακὸν τῷ μανοτέρῳ. ἡ αἰτία οὖν τοῦ ὀξέος διὰ τὸ πυκνόν, οὐ διὰ τὸ σκληρόν, ἐπεὶ ἐνδέχεται τὸ σκληρότερον καὶ μὴ ὀξυφωνότερον εἶναι· ὡς ἄνδρες παίδων σκληρότεροι καὶ βαρυφωνότεροι καὶ γυναῖκες ἀνδρῶν μαλακώτεραι καὶ ὀξυφωνότεραι· τοῦτο δὲ διὰ τὸ λεπτοτέρας ἔχειν τὰς ἀρτηρίας· ἔκειτο δὲ τὸ λεπτότερον ὀξύφθογγον. ὁ δὲ μείζων καὶ παχύτερος χαλκὸς τοῦ ἐλάττονος καὶ λεπτοτέρου σφοδροτέραν μὲν καὶ μείζονα ἠχὴν ἀποδίδωσιν, ὀξυτέραν δ’ οὔ. ἔκειτο δὲ καὶ ταὐτόν, ἄλλο εἶναι τὸ σφοδρὸν καὶ μεῖζον, ἄλλο τὸ ὀξύ. καὶ οὐ τοῦτο λέγω, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπου τὸ εὐτονώτερόν ἐστιν ὀξυφωνότερον - βοῦς γοῦν ἄρρην θηλείας ὀξύτερον μυκᾶται διὰ τὸ εὐτονώτερον τῆς ἀρτηρίας - ἀλλ’ ὅτι τὰ εἰρημένα παραδείγματα τοῖς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τεθεῖσιν οὐ πάνυ τι συνῳδὰ φαίνεται· ὅλον δὲ μεῖζον ἔφη, ὅταν δύο ὦσι χαλκοί, ὧν ὁ ἕτερος καὶ μείζων καὶ παχύτερος, ὁ δὲ καὶ ἐλάττων καὶ [52] λεπτότερος· ὅλως γὰρ μείζων ὁ ἕτερος, ὅτι καὶ κατ’ ὄγκον ὑπόκειται μείζων καὶ κατὰ μέγεθος. καὶ οὐκ ἔστι τις λειπομένη σύγκρισις, καθ’ ἣν ἰσοῦται αὐτῷ ὁ ἕτερος. ἑξῆς δι’ ὑπογραφῆς τὸν ψόφον ἐπάγει.

[ 625 ]

Τάσις γάρ τις ἐστὶν ἕως τοῦ ἀποτελεῖται. Ὁ Ἀ Ὴ Ρ Ἡ Ν Ω Μ Έ Ν Ο ς ὢν ἐν αὑτῷ τούς τε τὰς πληγὰς ποιοῦντας παρέχει καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μείξεων τούτων συνεχής ἐστι παντὶ τῷ ἐκτὸς αὐτῶν διὰ τὸ ἡνῶσθαι. ὅταν οὖν τὰ σώματα ἀλλήλοις συμπίπτοντα καὶ τοῦτον συναράξῃ, καὶ μὴ φθάσας διαχυθῇ, ἀλλὰ τὰς πληγὰς ὑπομείνῃ, διατείνεται ὑπὸ τῆς βίας τῆς πληγῆς ἄχρι πολλοῦ διικνουμένης ταύτης ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐμπεριλαμβανομένου ἀέρος τοῖς τὰς πληγὰς ἐμποιοῦσι σώμασι πρὸς τὸν ἐκτὸς ἀέρα. διὸ καὶ οὐ μόνον παρόντες ἀντιλαμβάνονται τοῦ ψόφου, ἂν μὴ ὦσι τὰς ἀκοὰς βεβλαμμένοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ ποσόν τι τούτων ἀφεστῶτες καὶ ἄχρις ἂν οὐ διικνῆται ἡ τάσις ἄθρυπτος μένουσα, ἀποτελεῖται καὶ διαμένει ὁ ψόφος, ἐπί τινων δὲ καὶ ἀντανακλᾶται. “Ἠχὼ γάρ”, φησὶν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης, “γίνεται, ὅταν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος ἑνὸς γενομένου διὰ τὸ ἀγγεῖον τὸ διορίσαν καὶ κωλῦσαν θρυφθῆναι πάλιν ὁ ἀὴρ ἀπωσθῇ ὥσπερ σφαῖρα.”

[ 626 ]

Διά τε δὴ τούτων ἕως τοῦ εἶδος εἶναί τι. ΔΙ Ὰ ΤΟ Ύ ΤΩ Ν Φ Η Σ Ὶ τῶν συστάσεων, δηλονότι τῶν κατὰ τὸ πυκνὸν καὶ τὸ μανὸν καὶ λεπτὸν καὶ παχύ, εὔτονόν τε καὶ ἄτονον, ἃ ἔχεται ποσότητος, δι’ ὧν ἀπετελεῖτο ἡ ὀξύτης καὶ ἡ βαρύτης τῶν ψόφων, ἀποδείκνυται ποσότητος εἶναι διαφορὰ ἡ ὀξύτης καὶ ἡ βαρύτης καὶ οὐ ποιότητος. ἐπεδείξαμεν δ’ ἡμεῖς, πῶς τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕπεται παραδέξασθαι διὰ τὸ ἐπὶ ποσότητι μὲν τῆς οὐσίας συνίστασθαι τὰς εἰρημένας διαφορὰς τὰς κατὰ τὴν λεπτότητα καὶ πυκνότητα καὶ εἰ βούλει εὐτονίαν, τήν τε παχύτητα καὶ μανότητα καὶ ἀτονίαν· ταῦτα δ’ εἶναι ποιότητας κατ’ αὐτόν, καθ’ ἃς συνίστασθαι τῶν ψόφων τὰς ὀξύτητας καὶ τὰς βαρύτητας οὔτε ποσῶν αἰτίων ὄντων προσεχῶς τοῦ τε ὀξέος καὶ βαρέος ἀλλὰ ποιῶν, [53] οὔτ’ εἰ προσεχῶς τὸ ποσὸν ἦν αἴτιον τῆς τῶν ψόφων τοιαύτης διαφορᾶς ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ τοῦ αἰτιατοῦ ποσοῦ εἶναι ὀφείλοντος. τούτοις μὲν οὖν καὶ ἀκριβέστερον αὐτὸς ἐπιστήσεις. Λειπομένης δ’ αἰτίας ἔτι πληγῶν διαφορᾶς τῆς παρὰ τὴν ἀπόστασιν τοῦ πληττομένου πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς κινήσεως περὶ ταύτης λείπεται ποιήσασθαι λόγον. εἰσὶ γὰρ ἀποδοθεῖσαι αὐτῷ αἰτίαι τῶν διαφορῶν πληγῶν ἥτε παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πλήττοντος βίαν καὶ ἡ παρὰ τὰς σωματικὰς συστάσεις τοῦ τε πληττομένου καὶ τοῦ δι’ οὗ ἡ πληγή. διπλοῦν δὲ τὸ πληττόμενον· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἀήρ, οὗ τὰς διαφόρους συστάσεις παραιτεῖται, ὡς πρὸς διαφορὰν πληγῶν ἀνεπιτηδείους καὶ τὸ τῷ πλήττοντι σώματι πρὸς τὸ πλήττεσθαι ὑποκείμενον. τρίτη δ’ ἦν αἰτία ἡ παρὰ τὴν ἀποχὴν τοῦ πληττομένου πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς κινήσεως, ὧν ἡ μὲν παρὰ τὴν βίαν ἄσχιστος ἦν ἐκβεβλημένη τε, ὡς μηδὲν συντελοῦσα πρὸς τὴν ὀξύτητα καὶ βαρύτητα τῶν ψόφων. ἡ δὲ παρὰ τὰς σωματικὰς συστάσεις τοῦ πληττομένου διῃρεῖτο εἴς τε τὰς τοῦ ἀέρος διαφοράς - ἦν γὰρ καὶ οὗτος τῶν πληττομένων - καὶ εἰς τὰς τῶν στερεῶν ἢ ἄλλων σωμάτων διαφοράς, ὧν πάλιν τοῦ ἀέρος παρεθέντος αἱ σωματικαὶ συστάσεις τοῦ τε πλήττοντος καὶ τοῦ πληττομένου. πλήττοντος δ’ - οὐχ ὡς ἡ βία ἡμῶν πλήττει· αὕτη γὰρ ἐκβέβληται· ἀλλ’ ὡς δι’ οὗ πλήττομεν σώματος - διῃροῦντο εἴς τε τὰς πυκνώσεις καὶ μανώσεις, λεπτότητάς τε καὶ παχύτητας, λειότητάς τε καὶ τραχύτητας, τούς τε σχηματισμούς, ὧν οἷόν τε σχηματίζεσθαι· προσετίθετο δὲ καὶ ἡ εὐτονία καὶ ἡ ἀτονία, ὧν ἐν μόναις ταῖς μανότησι καὶ πυκνώσεσι, λεπτότησι καὶ παχύτησιν, εὐτονίαις τε καὶ ἀτονίαις αἰτία τῆς ὀξύτητος τῶν ψόφων καὶ βαρύτητος, ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις συστάσεσιν οὐκέτι. ἐπιστησάντων ἡμῶν περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν εὐτονίαν καὶ ἀτονίαν παραλήψεως, ἣν ὕστερον προστέθεικε, πῶς ταύτην μὲν αἰτίαν τίθεται ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος· τὴν δὲ παρὰ τὴν βίαν ἢ ἀσθένειαν παρῃτεῖτο διαφοράν, ὡς σφοδροτέρους μὲν ἢ ἀσθενεστέρους ποιοῦσαν τοὺς ψόφους, ὀξυτέρους δὲ καὶ βαρυτέρους οὐκέτι· τῷ σφοδρῷ ἐκεῖ μὲν ῥηθέντος μὴ ἕπεσθαι τοῦ ὀξέος· ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ εὐτόνου ὕστερον τῷ σφοδρῷ ἀποδοθέντος ἕπεσθαι τοῦ ὀξέος. Τούτων οὖν τεθεωρημένων περὶ τῆς λοιπῆς αἰτίας τῆς κατὰ τὴν διάστασιν τῶν τυπτόντων τε καὶ τυπτομένων ποιούμενος τὸν λόγον συντόμως ἐπάγει τὰς κατασκευάς, διὰ τὸ μάλιστα [ 627 ]

ταύτην πεπατῆσθαι παρὰ τοῖς [54] πρὸ αὐτοῦ καὶ διαβεβλῆσθαι παρὰ πᾶσιν, ὡς φθάσαντες καὶ ἡμεῖς καταρχὰς τοῦ λόγου παρεστήσαμεν θέντες τὰ εἰωθότα λέγεσθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις περὶ τούτου.

[ 628 ]

Καὶ μᾶλλον ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποχῶν ἕως τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ βάθους. ἘΠ Ὶ Τ ῶΝ Δ Ι Α ΣΤ Ά Σ Ε Ω Ν τῶν ἐγγύς τε καὶ πόρρω οἱ πλείους οὐ τὴν σφοδρότητα ᾐτιάσαντο καὶ τὴν ἔκλυσιν, ὡσὰν τῆς μὲν ὀλίγης διαστάσεως διὰ τὸ ὀλίγον σφοδροτέραν τὴν πληγὴν ἀπεργαζομένης καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὀξυτέραν, τῆς δὲ πολλῆς ἔκλυτον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο βαρυτέραν. ἔμπαλιν γὰρ πολλὰ τοῦ πόρρωθεν ἐπιδεῖται περὶ τὸ σφοδρόν, ὡσὰν ἐκ τοῦ ἐγγύθεν τῆς δυνάμεως ἐγκοπτόμενα. τὰ γοῦν ὀξυβελῆ καὶ πάντα τὰ τῇ ἀφέσει ἐνεργοῦντα δεῖται τοῦ πόρρωθεν περὶ τὴν δύναμιν, καὶ τοῦτο Ἀριστοτέλης ἐπισημαίνεται, ὡς μετ’ ὀλίγον ἐπιδείξομεν. τίνα οὖν οἱ πλείους αἰτίαν ἀποδεδώκασιν τοῦ τὴν μὲν πόρρωθεν πληγὴν βαρυτέραν, τὴν δ’ ἐγγύθεν γίνεσθαι ὀξυτέραν; τὴν βραδυτῆτά φημι καὶ τὴν ταχυτῆτα. ἐπί τε γὰρ τῶν χορδῶν τῶν ὁμοίων τὰς μικροτέρας ὀξύτερον ἀποτελεῖν τὸν φθόγγον, τὰς δὲ μακροτέρας βαρύτερον διὰ τὸ βραδεῖαν ἐπὶ τῶν μακροτέρων γίνεσθαι τὴν ἀντίστασιν καὶ ὁμοίως βραδυτέραν τὴν μετὰ τὴν πληγὴν ἀποκατάστασιν, ὅθεν βραδύτερον πληττόμενον τὸν ἀέρα βαρὺν ἀποτελεῖν τὸν φθόγγον· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν βραχυτέρων ταχείας τῆς τε πλήξεως τῆς τε ἀποκαταστάσεως γινομένης ὀξὺν γίνεσθαι τὸν ψόφον. ἐπί τε τῶν αὐλῶν τὰ ἐγγυτάτω τῆς γλωσσίδος τρυπήματα ὀξύτερον ἀποδιδόναι τὸν ψόφον, ἅτε ταχύτερον τοῦ πνεύματος δι’ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν ἐκτὸς ἀέρα ἐκπίπτοντος· διὰ μέντοι τῶν πόρρω τρημάτων βαρύτερον τὸν ψόφον ἀποδίδοσθαι, διὰ δὲ τῶν κατωτάτω βαρύτατον τῷ βραδεῖαν διὰ τούτων τὴν διέξοδον γίνεσθαι τοῦ πνεύματος. Ἐπί τε τῶν ἀρτηριῶν, ὅταν μὲν τὸ πλῆττον πνεῦμα, ὃ προϊέμεθα, ἄνωθεν ἐκπέμπηται καὶ ἐγγὺς ᾖ τοῦ τε πληττομένου ἀέρος καὶ τῆς ἀπαντώσης τῷ πνεύματι γλώσσης, ὀξὺν τὸν ψόφον ἀποτελεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ ἐγγύθεν· ὅταν δὲ κάτωθεν καὶ ἐκ βάθους, βαρύν, τῷ πόρρω εἶναι τὸ [55] πληττόμενον τοῦ πλήττοντος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο βραδεῖαν γίνεσθαι τὴν κίνησιν. ἀντιπεπόνθασιν οὖν αἱ διαστάσεις τοῖς ψόφοις, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ζυγῶν αἱ ῥοπαὶ ταῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρτήματος ἀπόστασιν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ μείζων ἀποχὴ τοῦ ἀρτήματος ἐλάττονα ποιεῖ τὴν ῥοπήν, ἡ δ’ ἐλάττων μείζονα. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ψόφων ἡ πλείων ἀπόστασις τοῦ τῆς πληγῆς κατάρχοντος βαρύτερον ποιεῖ τὸν ψόφον, ἡ δ’ ἐλάττων ὀξύτερον. ὃν οὖν λόγον ἔχει ἡ μείζων ἀποχὴ τῆς πληγῆς πρὸς τὴν ἐλάττονα, τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν λόγον ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλάττονος ἀποχῆς ψόφος πρὸς τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς μείζονος· ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ῥοπῶν ὡς ἡ μείζων ἀποχὴ τοῦ ἀρτήματος πρὸς τὴν ἐλάττονα, ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλάττονος ῥοπὴ πρὸς τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς μείζονος. δεῖ δ’ ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοίων χορδῶν ἀκούειν τῶν λεγομένων, εἰ δὲ μή, ἐναντίον τι συμβήσεται· ἡ γὰρ αὐτὴ ἐκβληθεῖσα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μείζων γενομένη ὀξύτερον φθέγγεται καὶ οὐ βαρύτερον· αἴτιον δὲ τὸ λεπτότερον αὐτὴν γίνεσθαι διὰ τὴν τάσιν.

[ 629 ]

Αὐλῷ γάρ τινι ἕως τοῦ τὰς τῶν ψόφων διαφοράς. ΤῸ Π Λ ῆΤ Τ Ό Ν ἘΣΤ Ι Ν ἐπί τε τῶν αὐλῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν ἡ ὁρμὴ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα, ὃ καθ’ ὁρμὴν προΐεμεν, τὸ πληττόμενον δ’, ἐφ’ ὧν μὲν ὁ αὐλός, ἐφ’ ὧν δ’ ἡ ἀρτηρία. ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν αὐλῶν τὸ μὲν πλῆττον πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ καταρχὴ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν αὐλούντων πληγῆς μένει ἡ αὐτή· παραχωρεῖ δ’ ὁ αὐλὸς διὰ τῆς ἐπιτεχνήσεως τῶν τρυπημάτων ἢ ἐγγὺς τῆς ἀρχῆς γινομένης τοῦ πλήττοντος ἢ πόρρω καὶ οὕτω διαφόρους ἀποδιδοῦσα τοὺς ψόφους. ἐπί τε τῶν ἀρτηριῶν ἡ μὲν πληττομένη ἀρτηρία μένει, τὸ δὲ πλῆττον, ὅπερ ἦν τὸ καθ’ ὁρμὴν πνεῦμα, τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρτηρίας τόπους εὑρίσκει φυσικῶς καὶ τούτοις παραχωρεῖ ὑπαγωγέως τρόπον· ἀφ’ ὧν αἱ παρὰ τὸν ἐκτὸς ἀέρα ἐκπίπτουσαι διαστάσεις ἀνάλογον ταῖς ἑαυτῶν ὑπεροχαῖς ἀποτελοῦσι τὰς τῶν ψόφων διαφοράς. Τὰ μὲν δὴ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου περὶ τῆς κατὰ τοὺς ψόφους ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος τοιαῦτα· τὰ μὲν παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπινοηθέντα, τὰ δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ εἰλημμένα. Δεῖ δὲ καὶ ἡμᾶς, καθάπερ ἐπηγγέλμεθα, ἐπιστῆσαι τῷ ζητήματι, εἰ καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς μέρεσι τῆς ἐξηγήσεως τὴν ἑαυτῶν φθάσαντες ἤδη γνώμην ἀπεδείξαμεν. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ἡ τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας ἀπόδοσις παλαιά [56] τις ἦν καὶ παρὰ τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις κυκλουμένη, καὶ διὰ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν μὲν ἀπεδείξαμεν. παρακείσθω δὲ καὶ νῦν τὰ Ἀρχύτα τοῦ Πυθαγορείου, οὗ μάλιστα καὶ γνήσια λέγεται εἶναι τὰ συγγράμματα. λέγει δ’ ἐν τῷ Περὶ μαθηματικῆς εὐθὺς ἐναρχόμενος τοῦ λόγου τάδε· “Καλῶς μοι δοκοῦντι τοὶ περὶ τὰ μαθήματα διαγνῶναι καὶ οὐθὲν ἄτοπον ὀρθῶς αὐτοὺς περὶ ἑκάστου θεωρεῖν. περὶ γὰρ τᾶς τῶν ὅλων φύσιος καλῶς διαγνόντες ἔμελλον καὶ περὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος, οἷά ἐντι, ὄψεσθαι. περί τε δὴ τᾶς τῶν ἄστρων ταχυτᾶτος καὶ ἐπιτολᾶν καὶ δυσίων παρέδωκαν ἁμῖν διάγνωσιν καὶ περὶ γαμετρίας καὶ ἀριθμῶν καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα περὶ μουσικᾶς. ταῦτα γὰρ τὰ μαθήματα δοκοῦντι ἦμεν ἀδελφεά. πρᾶτον μὲν οὖν ἐσκέψαντο, ὅτι οὐ δυνατόν ἐστιν ἦμεν ψόφον μὴ γενηθείσας πληγᾶς τινων ποτ’ ἄλλαλα. πλαγὰν δ’ ἔφαν γίνεσθαι, ὅκκα τὰ φερόμενα ἀπαντιάξαντα ἀλλάλοις συμπέτῃ. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἀντίαν φορὰν φερόμενα ἀπαντιάζοντα αὐτὰ αὐτοῖς συγχαλᾶντα, ‹τὰ› δ’ ὁμοίως φερόμενα, μὴ ἴσῳ δὲ τάχει, περικαταλαμβανόμενα παρὰ τῶν ἐπιφερομένων τυπτόμενα ποιεῖν ψόφον. πολλοὺς μὲν δὴ αὐτῶν οὐκ εἶναι ἁμῶν τᾷ φύσει οἵους τε γινώσκεσθαι, τοὺς μὲν διὰ τὰν ἀσθένειαν τᾶς πλαγᾶς, τοὺς δὲ διὰ τὸ μᾶκος τᾶς ἀφ’ ἁμῶν ἀποστάσιος, τινὰς δὲ καὶ διὰ τὰν ὑπερβολὰν τοῦ μεγέθεος. οὐ γὰρ παραδύεσθαι ἐς τὰν ἀκοὰν ἁμῖν τὼς μεγάλως τῶν ψόφων, ὥσπερ οὐδ’ ἐς τὰ σύστομα τῶν τευχέων, ὅκκα πολύ τις ἐκχέῃ, οὐδὲν ἐκχεῖται. τὰ μὲν οὖν ποτιπίπτοντα ποτὶ τὰν [57] αἴσθασιν, ἃ μὲν ἀπὸ τᾶν πλαγᾶν ταχὺ παραγίνεται καὶ ‹ἰσχυρῶς›, ὀξέα φαίνεται· τὰ δὲ βραδέως καὶ ἀσθενῶς, βαρέα δοκοῦντι ἦμεν. αἰ γάρ τις ῥάβδον λαβὼν κινοῖ νωθρῶς τε καὶ ἀσθενέως, τᾷ πλαγᾷ βαρὺν ποιήσει τὸν ψόφον· αἰ δέ κα ταχύ τε καὶ ἰσχυρῶς, ὀξύν. οὐ μόνον δὲ κα τούτῳ ‹τοῦτο› γνοίημεν, [ 630 ]

ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅκκα ἄμμες ἢ λέγοντες ἢ ἀείδοντες χρῄζομές τι μέγα φθέγξασθαι καὶ ὀξύ, σφοδρῷ τῷ πνεύματι φθεγγόμενοι. ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο συμβαίνει ὥσπερ ἐπὶ βελῶν· τὰ μὲν ἰσχυρῶς ἀφιέμενα πρόσω φέρεται, τὰ δ’ ἀσθενῶς ἐγγύς. τοῖς γὰρ ἰσχυρῶς φερομένοις μᾶλλον ὑπακούει ὁ ἀήρ, τοῖς δ’ ἀσθενέως ἧσσον. τωὐτὸ δὲ καὶ ταῖς φωναῖς συμβήσεται· τᾷ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶ ἰσχυρῶ τῶ πνεύματος φερομένᾳ μεγάλᾳ τε ἦμεν καὶ ὀξέᾳ, τᾷ δ’ ὑπ’ ἀσθενέος μικρᾷ τε καὶ βαρέᾳ. ἀλλὰ μὰν καὶ τούτῳ γά κα ἴδοιμες ἰσχυροτάτῳ σαμείῳ, ὅτι τῶ αὐτῶ φθεγξαμένω μέγα μὲν πόρσωθέν κ’ ἀκούσαιμες· μικκὸν δ’ οὐδ’ ἐγγύθεν. ἀλλὰ μὰν καὶ ἔν γα τοῖς αὐλοῖς τὸ ἐκ τῶ στόματος φερόμενον πνεῦμα ἐς μὲν τὰ ἐγγὺς τῶ στόματος τρυπήματα ἐμπῖπτον διὰ τὰν ἰσχὺν τὰν σφοδρὰν ὀξύτερον ἆχον ἀφίησιν, ἐς δὲ τὰ πόρσω βαρύτερον, ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι ἁ ταχεῖα κίνασις ὀξὺν ποιεῖ, ἁ δὲ βραδεῖα βαρὺν τὸν ἆχον. ἀλλὰ μὰν καὶ τοῖς ῥόμβοις τοῖς ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς κινουμένοις τὸ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει· ἡσυχᾷ μὲν κινούμενοι βαρὺν ἀφίεντι ἆχον, ἰσχυρῶς δ’ ὀξύν. ἀλλὰ μὰν καὶ ὅ γα κάλαμος αἴ κά τις αὐτῷ τὸ κάτω μέρος ἀποφράξας ἐμφυσῇ, ἀφήσει ‹βαρέαν› τινα ἁμῖν φωνάν· αἰ δέ κα ἐς τὸ ἥμισυ ἢ ὁπόστον μέρος αὐτῷ, ὀξὺ φθεγξεῖται. τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα διὰ μὲν τῶ μακρῶ τόπω ἀσθενὲς ἐκφέρεται, διὰ δὲ τῶ μείονος σφοδρόν.” Εἰπὼν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα περὶ τοῦ διαστηματικὴν εἶναι τὴν τῆς φωνῆς κίνησιν συγκεφαλαιοῦται τὸν λόγον ὡς· “Ὅτι μὲν δὴ τοὶ ὀξεῖς φθόγγοι τάχιον κινέονται, οἱ δὲ βαρεῖς βράδιον, φανερὸν ἁμῖν ἐκ πολλῶν γέγονεν.” [58] Διὰ μὲν δὴ τούτων καὶ τῶν ἔτι πρόσθεν παρακειμένων, ὅτι Πυθαγόρειος καὶ παλαιά τις δόξα ἦν αὕτη, ἧς προύστη ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, τὰ μὲν αὐτὸς ἐργασάμενος, τὰ δ’ ἐπιδραμὼν ὡς κυκλιζόμενα, αὐτάρκως ἡμῖν ἐπιδέδεικται. Ἐπεὶ δ’ οὐ μόνον διὰ ποσότητας ἀποτελεῖσθαι τὰς ὀξύτητας ἔφη καὶ τὰς βαρύτητας, ἀλλὰ καὶ ποσότητας εἶναι, ἐπιστήσειεν ἄν τις, ‹εἰ› καὶ ὀρθῶς λέγεται τὸ τοιοῦτον. καὶ ὅλως εἰς τὸν λεγόμενον τόπον τῆς φωνῆς, ὃν διέξεισιν ἀπὸ τοῦ βαρυτάτου ἄχρι τοῦ ὀξυτάτου, ποσοτήτων δεῖ θέσθαι διαφοράς, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ ποιοτήτων, μᾶλλον ποσοτήτων τε καὶ ποιοτήτων. ἄρχει μὲν γὰρ τὸ ποσόν· εἴ τέ τις τῶν φθόγγων λέγειν ἐθέλοι, εἴ τε τῶν διαστημάτων, ἥ τε ταχυτὴς τῶν κινήσεων καὶ ἡ βραδυτής. ἡ δ’ ἐπὶ ταύτης ὀξύτης καὶ βαρύτης τῶν φθόγγων ποιότητές εἰσι καὶ οὐ ποσότητες. καλῶς καὶ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους αἰτίας μὲν ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος τὰ τάχη καὶ τὰς βραδυτῆτας παραδεξαμένου, μηκέτι δὲ προσεμένου τὸ ταχυτῆτα εἶναι ἢ ταχεῖαν γε τὴν ὀξεῖαν φωνὴν ἢ βραδεῖαν τὴν βαρεῖαν. καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς αὐξήσεως κατάρχει μὲν ἡ τοπικὴ κίνησις, ἐπιγίνεται δὲ ταύτῃ ἡ κατὰ τὸ ποσόν, οὐκ οὔσης τῆς τοπικῆς, ὡς τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἐδόκει, κατὰ ποσόν. καὶ συγκρίσεων καὶ διακρίσεων ἡγουμένων ἐπιγίνεσθαι ἀλλοίωσις, οἷον πυκνότης καὶ μανότης ποιότητες οὖσαι κατὰ τούτους καὶ οὐ ποσότητες, οὐδὲ κατὰ τόπον θέσεις. Σκοπουμένῳ δὲ τὴν τοῦ ὀξέος πρὸς τὸ βαρὺ διαφορὰν οὐδενὶ προσπίπτει οὔτε ὡς μείζονος μεγέθους πρὸς ἔλαττον μέγεθος ὑπεροχή, οὔτε ὡς πλείονος ἀριθμοῦ πρὸς ἐλάττονα, οὔτε ὡς ἡ τοῦ ἀρτίου πρὸς περιττὸν παραλλαγή, ἀλλά τις ἰδιότης ψόφων καὶ κατ’ ἀλλοίωσιν ἑτερότης καὶ μᾶλλον ὡς ἡ τοῦ λευκοῦ πρὸς τὸ μέλαν διαφορὰ ἢ ὡς ἡ τῶν πέντε πρὸς τὰ τρία παραλλαγή. [ 631 ]

οὐδὲ γὰρ διαφέρειν ἂν ῥηθείη τὰ πέντε τῶν τριῶν τοῖς δύο, ἅ γ’ ἔνεστιν ἐν τοῖς τρισίν, ἀλλ’ ηὐξῆσθαι μᾶλλον καὶ ὑπερέχειν. ἡ δ’ ὀξύτης τῆς φωνῆς οὐκ ἦν τῆς βαρύτητος αὔξησις ἀλλ’ ἀλλοίωσις μᾶλλον. ἔνεστι γοῦν τηροῦντα τὴν βαρύτητα σφοδρύνειν καὶ τὴν ὀξύτητα ἠρέμα προφέρειν καὶ ὅμως τηρεῖν τὴν παραλλαγὴν τῷ μὴ ποσότητας εἶναι αὐτάς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ποιότητας, ὡς αὔξειν τὸ ποσὸν τοῦ μέλανος καὶ μειοῦν τὸ λευκὸν τῆς κατὰ τὴν χρόαν διαφορᾶς μενούσης ἀπαραλλάκτου. [59] Σαφῶς δ’ ἡμῖν διὰ τῶν συμφωνιῶν τὸ λεγόμενον ἐπιδειχθήσεται. τῆς γὰρ διὰ πασῶν φέρε συμφωνίας ὑποκειμένης ἐγχωρεῖ σφοδρότερον πλήττειν τὸν βαρύτερον φθόγγον, ἠρέμα δὲ τὸν ὀξύτερον· καὶ ὅμως τοῦ ψόφου σφοδροτέρου ἀποδιδομένου ἀπὸ τοῦ βαρυτέρου μένει ἡ συμφωνία ἀπαράλλακτος. εἰ δ’ ἦσαν ποσότητες αὐξηθέντος τοῦ ποσοῦ ἢ μειωθέντος διὰ τῆς σφοδρότητος θατέρου, οὐκ ἔτ’ ἂν ἔμεινεν ἡ συμφωνία τῆς κατὰ τὴν κρᾶσιν ὁμοιότητος ἀναιρεθείσης, ἐξ ἧς οἶμαι ἐναργέστατα φαίνεται ποιότης οὖσα ἡ ὀξύτης καὶ ἡ βαρύτης· διὸ καὶ τηροῦσι τὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα διαφοράν, ὡς τὸ μέλαν πρὸς τὸ λευκόν· κἂν τὸ μὲν ᾖ πηχυαῖον, τὸ δ’ ὅσον τὸ ὄρος. κατ’ ἄλλην γὰρ αἰτίαν ἡ ἀλλοίωσις, κἂν ἐλαχίστη γένηται προσθήκη ἢ ἀφαίρεσις, τοῦ δ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ πλῆθος ἢ ὀλιγότης τὴν κατὰ ποιότητα οὐκ ἐξίστησι διαφοράν. πλανᾷ δὲ τὸ ἐπιγίνεσθαι ἀριθμοῖς τισι καὶ μέτροις τῆς κινήσεως τὰς ὀξύτητας καὶ βαρύτητας· δέον συνορᾶν, ὅτι καὶ οὐσίαι ἀριθμοῖς τισι καὶ λόγοις ἀριθμητικοῖς ἐπιγίνονται καὶ ποιότητες, ὡς δ’ οἴονται οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, καὶ πάντων αἴτιοι οἱ ἀριθμοί, ἀλλ’ οὐδήπου πάντα ὅσα διὰ τοῦτο. εἰ δ’ ἦν ποσότης φέρε ἡ βαρύτης, δύο ἄν ποτε ψόφοι βαρεῖς ληφθέντες ἢ διπλασίονι δυνάμει, ἡ κατὰ τὸ βαρὺ ἡρμοσμένη χορδὴ κρουσθεῖσα ὀξὺν ἂν ἀπετέλεσε τὸν φθόγγον· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ ἡρμοσμένη βίᾳ μὲν κρουσθεῖσα ὀξὺν ἀπεδίδου τὸν ἦχον, ἠρέμα δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ δυνάμεως ἐλάττονος βαρύν. Πῶς οὖν αἱ συμφωνίαι ἐν ἀριθμοῖς καὶ ἡ διὰ πασῶν φέρε ἐν διπλασίονι λόγῳ θεωρεῖται ἀπό τε τοῦ ἑνὸς φθόγγου θατέρου τοσούτῳ ὑπερέχειν λεγομένου; ὅτι δεῖ μὲν καὶ τὴν κατὰ ποιότητα αἰτίαν προσεῖναι. ὥσπερ φέρε κἂν ταῖς συσταθμίαις τῶν φαρμάκων - ἄνευ γὰρ μέτρων καὶ ἀριθμῶν ἀδύνατος ἡ σύστασις· ἀλλ’ ὅμως ποιότης ἦν ἡ τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς καὶ ταῖς συμμετρίαις ἐπιγινομένη - οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ἡ τῶν φθόγγων ὀξύτης τε καὶ βαρύτης· εἰ καὶ τῷ ποσῷ τῶν πληγῶν ἐπιγίνεται, ἀλλ’ αἰτία γε, οὐ ποσότης ἀλλὰ ποιότης. ἐπιστήσας δέ τις τῇ φωνῇ σαφῶς εἴσεται οὐκ οὖσαν τὴν ὀξύτητα καὶ τὴν βαρύτητα οἷον ἔκτασιν ἢ συστολὴν καὶ ταχυτῆτα ἢ βραδυτῆτα· ἰδιότητος δὲ παραλλαγήν, καθ’ ἣν καὶ ἐν τῇ λογικῇ φωνῇ ἄλλαι μέν εἰσιν αἱ ἐκτάσεις καὶ συστολαὶ τῶν συλλαβῶν αἵ τε μακρότητες καὶ αἱ βραχύτητες, ἄλλαι δ’ αἱ ταχυτῆτες καὶ αἱ βραδυτῆτες, ἄλλαι δ’ ὀξύτητες καὶ βαρύτητες. διὸ ταῖς μὲν χρῆται [60] ἡ ῥυθμική, ταῖς δ’ ἡ μετρική, ταῖς δ’ ἡ ἀναγνωστική, περὶ τὴν ποιὰν προφορὰν τῶν λέξεων πραγματευομένη. ὅλως δὲ τῶν κατὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις θεωρουμένων αἰσθητῶν ἐν ποσῷ καὶ ποιῷ ὑφισταμένων, μὴ μόνον τὰς ἐκτάσεις καὶ τὰς συστολάς, τάς τε ταχυτῆτας τῶν προφορῶν παρὰ τὰς βραδυτῆτας τιθεὶς ἐν ποσῷ καὶ ὅσα τούτοις σύστοιχα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ὀξύτητας καὶ τὰς βαρύτητας ἀνάγων εἰς τὸ ποσὸν κινδυνεύσει μόνον τὸ ποσὸν κατὰ τὰ ἀκουστὰ παραλαμβάνειν, τὸ δὲ ποιὸν ἐκκλείειν ἀπὸ [ 632 ]

τούτων. οὐ γὰρ καὶ τὰς λειότητας καὶ τὰς τραχύτητας καὶ εἴ τινα τοιαῦτα περὶ τῶν ψόφων λέγεται, πειράσεταί τις ὑπάγειν τῷ ποσῷ, καὶ πᾶν, ὅπερ ἄν τις συγχωρῇ εἶναι τῆς ποιότητος. ὡς ὅ γε Πτολεμαῖος ἄτοπος τὴν μὲν πυκνότητα καὶ λεπτότητα καὶ παχύτητα παρὰ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς οὐσίας συνισταμένας συγχωρῶν εἶναι ποιότητας, τὰς δὲ παρὰ τὴν πυκνότητα καὶ λεπτότητα, μανότητά τε καὶ παχύτητα ποιότητας οὔσας ὑφισταμένας· ὀξύτητας καὶ βαρύτητας μηκέτι διδοὺς εἶναι ποιότητας, ἀλλὰ ποσότητας τῷ τὰς αἰτίας αὐτῶν παρὰ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς οὐσίας ὑφιστάναι. ἄτοπος δὲ καὶ παρὰ μὲν τὸ ποσὸν μὴ ἀπογινώσκων συνίστασθαι ποιότητα, παρὰ δὲ τὴν ταχυτῆτα καὶ βραδυτῆτα· διὸ ἦσαν ποσότητες ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὰς ἐπισυνισταμένας αὐταῖς ὀξύτητας καὶ βαρύτητας, ἀξιῶν εἶναι ποσότητας. Θέασαι δὲ κἀπὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθητῶν τὴν ὀξύτητα καὶ τὴν βαρύτητα, τίνι τις ἂν τῶν γενῶν ὑπάγοι. οὐκοῦν ἵνα τις ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων ἄρξηται, ἡ μὲν γῆ παχεῖα τ’ οὖσα καὶ ψυχρὰ ἅμα καὶ βραδυκίνητος, καθ’ ἑαυτὴν δὲ καὶ ἀκίνητος, ἐστὶ βαρυτάτη· τὸ δὲ πῦρ λεπτόν τε ὂν καὶ θερμὸν καὶ ταχυκίνητον, ἐστὶν ὀξύτατον. καὶ οὐδεὶς ἂν εὐφρονῶν τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς κατ’ ὀξύτητα διαφορὰν πρὸς τὴν τῆς γῆς κατὰ βαρύτητα ποσοῦ ἂν εἴποι εἶναι διαφοράν, καίτοι κατὰ ποσόν ἐστί τις παραλλαγὴ τοῖς στοιχείοις. καὶ μὴν καὶ κατὰ τὴν γεῦσιν· ὁ μέν τις οἶνός ἐστι γλυκὺς ἀλλὰ παχύς, ὁ δ’ αὐστηρὸς ἀλλὰ λεπτός· καὶ οὐχ ἡ γλυκύτης ἦν παχύτητος, οὐκ αὐστηρότης προσῆν λεπτότητος, ἀλλὰ μόνη ἡ γλυκύτης, ᾧ ἡ παχύτης, καὶ ἡ αὐστηρότης, ᾧ ἡ λεπτότης· αὐτή τε ἡ παχύτης ὑφίστατο, ἐφ’ οὗ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς οὐσίας ἦν πλεῖον, ἡ δὲ λεπτότης, ἐφ’ οὗ τὸ ποσὸν ἔλαττον. τί οὖν κωλύει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τόνων, εἰ καὶ ταῖς λεπτοτέραις φέρε χορδαῖς οἱ ὀξεῖς ἐπιθεωροῦνται φθόγγοι, εἰ καὶ ταῖς ταχείαις κινήσεσιν, εἰ καὶ τῷ ποσῷ μετέχει τῶν πληγῶν, μὴ εἶναι τὴν ὀξύτητα [61] ποσότητα; οὐδὲ γὰρ ποσόν τι ἡ ὀξύτης, οὐδ’ ἡ βαρύτης, ἀλλὰ τοιόνδε μᾶλλον· οὐδ’ ἴσον ἢ ἄνισον, ἀλλ’ ὅμοιον ἢ ἀνόμοιον τὸ καθ’ ἑκατέραν ἰδίωμα, ἃ δὴ τὸ ποιὸν ἀλλ’ οὐ τὸ ποσὸν χαρακτηρίζειν ἐπεφύκει. ἐπί τε τῶν ὀσμῶν αἱ ὀξεῖαι ταῖς βαρείαις οὐ κατὰ ποσότητα κέκτηνται τὴν διαφοράν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ποιότητα. καὶ γένοιτο μὲν ἂν ὀξέος ὀξύτερον καὶ βαρέος βαρύτερον· οὐκ ἂν δὲ τὸ ὀξύτερον βαρέος ἂν λέγοιτο ὀξύτερον, οὐδὲ τὸ βαρύτερον ὀξέος βαρύτερον. ἰδιότης γάρ ἐστι ψόφων καὶ ἡ ὀξύτης καὶ ἡ βαρύτης, ὡς ὁρατῶν αἱ χροιαὶ χυμοί τε γεύσεως καὶ ὀσμῶν αἱ κατὰ τὰ ὀσφραντὰ διαφοραί. ὅλως τέ τινα οὐκ ἐκωλύετο ἐν πλείοσι θεωρεῖσθαι κατηγορίαις καθάπερ τὰ γεωμετρικὰ σχήματα, καθ’ ὃ μὲν μεγέθη ἐτύγχανεν ὄντα ἐν ποσῷ, καθ’ ὃ δὲ τοιάνδε μορφὴν παρείχετο ἐν ποιῷ. τί οὖν ἐκώλυσε καὶ τοὺς ψόφους, καθ’ ὃ μὲν ἐν ταχυτῆσιν ἢ βραδυτῆσι θεωροῦνται, εἶναι ἐν ποσῷ, καθ’ ὃ δ’ ἐν ὀξύτησι καὶ βαρύτησι, ποιότητι διαλλάττειν; πλείους δ’ ἂν ἔτι παρέσχον πίστεις πρὸς τὸ πρᾶγμα, εἰ μόνος αὐτὸς ἐγνωκὼς ἐτύγχανον. Νῦν δ’ ἴσως μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι πλείους συμφέρονταί μοι, οὓς ἀπορίᾳ τῶν συγγραμμάτων οὐκ ἔχω καταλέγειν ἐπ’ ὀνόματος. ἀντὶ πάντων δέ μοι ἀρκέσει Θεόφραστος διὰ πλειόνων καὶ ἰσχυρῶν, ὥς γ’ ἐμαυτὸν πείθω, τοῦ δόγματος δείξας τὴν ἀτοπίαν ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ μουσικῆς, οὗ τὴν λέξιν ἀναγραπτέον καὶ ἀξιωτέον τοὺς ὑπὲρ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου ἱσταμένους εὐθύνειν τὰ λεγόμενα ἔχοντα οὕτως. [ 633 ]

“Ἔστι γὰρ τὸ γινόμενον κίνημα μελῳδητικὸν περὶ τὴν ψυχὴν σφόδρα ἀκριβές, ὁπόταν φωνῇ ἐθελήσῃ ἑρμηνεύειν αὐτό, τρέπει μὲν τήνδε, τρέπει δ’ ἐφ’ ὅσον οἵα τ’ ἐστὶ τὴν ἄλογον τρέψαι, καθ’ ὃ ἐθέλει· ἧς τὴν ἀκρίβειάν τινες ἐπεβάλοντο εἰς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἀναπέμπειν, κατὰ τοὺς ἐν τούτοις λόγους τὴν ἀκρίβειαν τῶν διαστημάτων γίνεσθαι φήσαντες. ἕνα γὰρ λόγον εἶναι τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ἔφασαν ὡς καὶ τὸν τοῦ διπλασίονος, καὶ τὸν τοῦ διὰ πέντε ὡς τὸν τοῦ ἡμιολίου, καὶ τὸν τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων ὡς τὸν τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου· καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ διαστημάτων ἁπάντων ὁμοίως, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀριθμῶν ἑκάστου ἴδιον. οὕτω τ’ ἐν ποσότητι τὴν [62] μουσικὴν εἶναι, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τήνδε αἱ διαφοραί. ἃ δὴ λέγοντες συνετώτεροί τισιν ἐφαίνοντο τῶν ἁρμονικῶν καὶ αἰσθήσει κρινόντων τοῖς τῶν νοητῶν ἀριθμῶν λόγοις ἐπικρίνοντες, οἳ οὐκ ᾔδεσαν, ὅτι εἰ μέντοι ποσότης ἐστὶν ἡ διαφορά, γίνεται αὕτη παρὰ τὸ ποσότητι διάφορον, κἂν μέλος ἢ μέλους μέρος εἴη· ὥστε καὶ ἡ χρόα χρόας ποσότητι διαφέρει, ὅπερ ἀνάγκη, [κἂν μέλος ἢ μέλους εἴη], εἴ γε τὸ μέλος καὶ τὸ διάστημα ἀριθμὸς καὶ διὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸ μέλος καὶ ἡ τοῦδε διαφορά. καὶ γὰρ εἰ πᾶν διάστημα πλῆθός τι, τὸ δὲ μέλος ἐκ διαφορῶν φθόγγων, τὸ μέλος ὅτι ἀριθμὸς τοιόνδε ἂν εἴη· ἀλλ’ εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο ‹ἢ› ἀριθμός, πᾶν ἀριθμητὸν μετέχοι ἂν καὶ μέλους, ὅσον καὶ ἀριθμοῦ. ἦ δ’ ὡς τῷ χρώματι συμβέβηκε τὸ πλῆθος ἄλλῳ ὄντι καὶ τοῖς φθόγγοις. ἔστι τι ἄλλο φθόγγος καὶ ἄλλο τὸ περὶ αὐτὸν πλῆθος· ἀλλ’ εἰ ἄλλο τι φθόγγος ἢ ἀκουστός, καὶ ὁ βαρύτερος καὶ ὁ ὀξύτερος διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων ἢ ὡς φθόγγοι ἢ ὡς τῷ πλήθει. εἰ μὲν τῷ πλήθει, καὶ ἔστιν ὁ ὀξύτερος τοιοῦτος τῷ πλείονας ἀριθμοὺς κεκινῆσθαι καὶ ὁ βαρύτερος τῷ ἐλάττους, τί ἄλλο τὸ ἴδιον τῆς φωνῆς ἂν εἴη; πᾶσα γὰρ ἀντιληπτικὴ ἢ κατὰ τὸ ὀξὺ ἢ κατὰ τὸ βαρύ ἐστι. πᾶσα γὰρ φωνή ἐστιν ἧς μὲν ὀξυτέρα, ἧς δὲ βαρυτέρα, ὥστε ἧς μὲν ἔλαττον τὸ πλῆθος, ἧς δὲ πλεῖον, ὥστε ἀριθμός· οὗ αἰρομένου τί τὸ ἀπολειπόμενον εἴη ἄλλο τι καθ’ ὃ φωνή; ἡ φωνὴ δ’ ἢ ὀξυτέρα τινὸς ἢ βαρυτέρα ἐστίν. ἔχει τὸ ποσὸν ἡ φωνή, εἰ δ’ ἄλλο τι, οὐκ ἔτι ἔσται φωνή τις. εἰ δ’ ᾗ φθόγγοι διοίσουσιν ἀλλήλων οἱ ὀξεῖς καὶ βαρεῖς, οὐκέτι τοῦ πλήθους δεησόμεθα· ἡ γὰρ αὐτῶν φύσει διαφορὰ αὐτάρκης ἔσται εἰς τὴν τῶν μελῶν γένεσιν, καὶ εἴδησις ἔσται τῶν διαφορῶν. οὐκέτι γὰρ ἔσονται διαφοραὶ παρὰ τὰ πλήθη ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν ἰδιότητα τῶν φωνῶν ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς χρώμασιν· οὐδὲν γὰρ χρῶμα ἁπλοῦν ἁπλοῦ χρώματος ποσότητι διαφέρει· ἴσαι γὰρ ἂν εἶεν αἱ ποσότητες, ὥσπερ εἰ συμμιγείη ἢ μέλαν λευκῷ, ἴσῳ ἴσον, οὐκ ἂν οἱ τοῦ λευκοῦ ἀριθμοὶ τῶν τοῦ μέλανος πλείους λέγοιντο, οὐδ’ ἂν οἱ τοῦ μέλανος τῶν τοῦ λευκοῦ· οὕτως οὐδὲ τῷ γλυκεῖ πικρόν· ἕκαστον γὰρ καθ’ ὃ ἐπιτέταται ἴσον· ἀλλ’ ἔστι τὸ πλῆθος ἐπ’ ἴσον ἐπιτεταμένον κατὰ τὸ ἴδιον. οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡ ὀξεῖα φωνὴ ἐκ πλειόνων συνέστηκεν ἢ πλείους ἀριθμοὺς κινεῖται, οὔτε ἡ βαρεῖα· οἷόν τε γὰρ καὶ ταύτην λέγειν ἢ κἀκείνην, ἐπειδὴ ἴδιόν τι μέγεθος βαρείας ἐστὶ φωνῆς.” [63] “Δῆλον δ’ ἐκ τῆς βίας τῆς γινομένης περὶ τοὺς μελῳδοῦντας· ὡς γάρ τινος δέονται δυνάμεως εἰς τὸ τὴν ὀξεῖαν ἐκφωνῆσαι, οὕτω καὶ εἰς τὸ τὴν βαρεῖαν φθέγξασθαι. ἔνθα μὲν γὰρ συνάγουσι τὰ πλευρὰ καὶ τὴν ἀρτηρίαν ἐκτείνουσι [διὸ βραχύτερον] βίᾳ ἀποστενοῦντες· ἔνθα δὲ διευρύνουσι τὴν ἀρτηρίαν, διὸ βραχύτερον τὸν τράχηλον ποιοῦσι τὸ μῆκος τῆς εὐρύτητος συναγούσης. ταύτῃ ἔοικεν ἔν τε τοῖς αὐλοῖς εἰς τὸ ἐμπνεῦσαι βίᾳ τῷ στενωτέρῳ δυνάμεως δεῖν καὶ εἰς τὸ τῷ εὐρυτέρῳ, ἵνα πληρωθῇ. καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς αὐλοῖς· ἀπονώτερον γὰρ τὸ [ 634 ]

ὀξὺ τῷ διὰ τῶν ἄνω γίνεσθαι τρημάτων· βίας δὲ δεόμενον τὸ βαρὺ καὶ μείζονος, εἰ δι’ ὅλου τὸ πνεῦμα πέμποιτο, ὥστε ὅσον μήκους προστίθεται, τοσόνδε καὶ πνεύματος ἰσχύος προστίθεται. ἐν δὲ ταῖς χορδαῖς τὸ ἴσον κατὰ θάτερον δῆλον· ὅσῳ γὰρ εὐτονωτέρα ἡ τῆς λεπτοτέρας τάσις, τοσῷδε ἡ ἀνεῖσθαι δοκοῦσα παχυτέρα· οὕτω τε ὅσῳ ἰσχυρότερος ὁ ἦχος ἐκ τῆς λεπτοτέρας, τοσῷδε βαρύτερος ὁ ἕτερος. ἐκ γὰρ μείζονος ὁ πλείων καὶ τοῦ πέριξ ἦχος. πῶς γὰρ ἂν σύμφωνοι ἐγίνοντό τινες φθόγγοι, εἰ μὴ ἰσότης ἦν; ἀσύγκρατον γὰρ τὸ πλεονάζον. τὸ γὰρ ὑπέρμετρον ὑπὲρ τὴν μεῖξιν διάδηλον γίνεται. διὸ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν κρᾶσιν ἰσχυροτέροις τὸ ἀνειμένον πλεῖον ἐπιμείγνυται εἰς τὸ ἰσοδυναμῆσαι· ὥστ’ εἰ ἔστι τις συμφωνία, καὶ ἰσότης τῶν ἐξ ὧν γίνεται. εἰ γὰρ ὁ ὀξὺς πλείους κινοῖτο ἀριθμούς, πῶς ἂν συνήχησις γένοιτο; καὶ γὰρ εἰ, ὥς φασιν, καὶ πορρωτέρω ἀκούεται ὁ ὀξύτερος φθόγγος τῷ πορρωτέρῳ διὰ τὴν τῆς κινήσεως ὀξύτητα διικνεῖσθαι ἢ ‹τῷ› διὰ τὸ πλῆθος γίνεσθαι, οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο σύμφωνος οὗτος πρὸς τὸν βαρύν, οὔθ’ ὅτε μόνος ἀκούεται, εἴ γ’ ἐν ἀμφοτέροις ἡ συμφωνία, οὔθ’ ὅτε ἐκλείπει ὁ βαρύτερος. ἀνάγκη γὰρ κατὰ τὴν λεληθυῖαν ἔκλειψιν μηκέτ’ ἀκούεσθαι· οὔτε μάλιστα ἄμφω ἀκούονται· καὶ τότε γὰρ ὁ ὀξὺς σφοδρότερός ἐστιν, ἅτε οἷός τε ὢν καὶ πόρρω διικνεῖσθαι· φθάνει τε οὖν τὸν βαρὺν καὶ κατισχύει, ὥστε σφετερίζεσθαι τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἀεὶ μὴ μειονεκτοῦντος τοῦ βαρυτέρου. ἀλλ’ ἐπεί ἐστί τι σύμφωνον, ἰσότητα δηλοῦν ἀμφοῖν τοῖν φθόγγοιν, ἰσότης ἐστὶ τῶν δυνάμεων διαφέρουσα τῇ ἰδιότητι ἑκατέρᾳ· τὸ γὰρ ὀξύτερον φύσει ὂν ἐκδηλότερον, οὐκ ἰσχυρότερον, πορρωτέρω ἀντιληπτόν ἐστι τοῦ βαρυτέρου, ὥσπερ τὸ λευκὸν ἄλλου τοῦ χρώματος ἤ τι ἕτερον, ὃ οὐχὶ τῷ θάτερον ἧττον εἶναι, ὃ πέφυκε μᾶλλον, ἀντιληπτόν ἐστιν ἢ τῷ μὴ τοὺς [64] ἴσους ἀριθμοὺς κινεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ μᾶλλον τῷδε ἢ τῷδε ἐπιβάλλειν τὴν αἴσθησιν διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὰ πέριξ ἀνομοιότητα. οὕτως διικνεῖται μὲν καὶ ὁ βαρύς· ἡ δ’ ἀκοὴ θᾶττον ἀντιλαμβάνεται διὰ τὴν ἰδιότητα τοῦ ὀξέος, οὐ διὰ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ πλῆθος. καὶ γὰρ δή γε, εἰ καὶ πορρωτέρω ἐκινεῖτο, οὐ διὰ τὸ πλείους κινεῖσθαι ἀριθμοὺς ὁ ὀξύτερος, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ σχῆμα, ἐπειδὴ ὁ μὲν ὀξὺς ἦχος πρόσω μᾶλλον φέρεται καὶ ἄνω, ὁ δὲ βαρὺς πέριξ κατ’ ἴσον μᾶλλον.” “Δῆλον δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀργάνων· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ κέρας καὶ τὰ σὺν τῷ χαλκώματι περιηχητικώτερα, ἅτε τοῦ ἤχου ἴσου περὶ πᾶν γινομένου. καὶ γὰρ εἴ τις ὀξὺν φθεγγόμενος φθόγγον ἅπτοιτο τῆς αὐτοῦ πλευρᾶς, ἔπειτα πάλιν βαρύν, αἰσθάνοιτο ἂν μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τοῦ βαρέος φθόγγου τῇ χειρὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν πλευρὰν κινήσεως. κἂν τοῦ ὀργάνου ἅπτηται τῆς χέλυος ἢ τοῦ κέρατος ἢ ἀγκῶνος, ὁπότε τὴν λεπτὴν τύπτοι καὶ τὴν τοῦ βαρέος προετικήν, πάλιν ἐπαίσθοιτο ἂν μᾶλλον τῆς περὶ τὸ κύτος κινήσεως, ὁπότε τὴν τοῦ βαρυτέρου τύπτοι ἤχου προετικήν. εἰς πᾶν γὰρ ὁ βαρὺς φθόγγος διικνεῖται πέριξ, ὁ δ’ ὀξὺς πρόσω ἢ εἰς ὃ βιάζεται ὁ φθεγγόμενος. εἰ οὖν ὅσον πρόσω κινεῖται ὁ ὀξύς, τοσόνδε περὶ πᾶν κινοῖτο ὁ βαρύς, οὐκ ἂν ἐλάττους κινοῖτο ἀριθμούς, ὅπερ κἀκ τῶν αὐλητικῶν δῆλον. ὁ γὰρ μακρότερος αὐλὸς βαρύτερος, ἐν ᾧ πλεῖον τὸ πνεῦμα, περὶ ὃ πᾶν ἡ κίνησις. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τάχει ἂν διαφέροι ὁ ὀξύς· προκατελαμβάνετο γὰρ ἂν τὴν ἀκοήν, ὥστε μὴ γίνεσθαι σύμφωνον· εἰ δὲ γίνεται, ἰσοταχοῦσιν ἄμφω· οὐχὶ οὖν ἀριθμοί τινες ἄνισοι τὸν τῶν διαφορῶν λόγον ποιοῦσιν. αἱ δὲ φύσει τοιαίδε φωναὶ φύσει συνηρμοσμέναι οὖσαι· οὐδὲ γὰρ τὰ διαστήματα, ὥς τινές φασιν, αἴτια τῶν διαφορῶν, διὸ καὶ ἀρχαί, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τούτων [ 635 ]

παραλειπομένων ἀεὶ διαφοραί· οὐ γὰρ ὧν παραλειπομένων γίνεται τάδε αἴτια τοῦ εἶναι οὐχ ὡς ποιοῦντα, ἀλλ’ ὡς μὴ κωλύοντα. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ ἐκμέλεια τῆς ἐμμελείας αἰτία, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο ἐμμέλεια, εἰ μὴ ἡ ἐκμέλεια παραπέμποιτο, οὐδ’ ἄν τι ἄλλο ἐπιστημονικὸν γένοιτο, εἰ μὴ τοὐναντίον ἀνεπιστῆμον τοῦ ἐπιστήμονος· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὡς ὂν αἴτιον ἀνεπιστῆμον τοῦ ἐπιστήμονος, ἀλλὰ παραπεμπόμενον τῷ μὴ κωλύειν, ὥστ’ οὐδὲ τὰ διαστήματα τοῦ μέλους αἴτια ὡς ποιοῦντα, ἀλλ’ ὡς μὴ κωλύοντα. εἰ γάρ τις ἅμα φθέγγοιτο [65] κατὰ τὸ συνεχὲς καὶ τοὺς μεταξὺ τόπους, ἆρ’ οὖν ἐκμελῆ προΐοιτο φωνήν; ὧν οὖν μὴ παραπεμπομένων ἐκμέλεια γίνοιτο ἄν· οὐχὶ τούτων παραλειπομένων ἡ ἐμμέλεια, ὡς εἰ μὴ παραλειφθεῖεν κωλυσόντων.” “Μέγα οὖν ὄφελος τὸ περιΐστασθαι ταύταις τὴν μελῳδίαν, ὥστ’ ἀνευρίσκειν τοὺς συνηρμοσμένους πρὸς ἀλλήλους φθόγγους· ἀλλ’ οὗτοι μὲν αἴτιοι τοῦ μέλους ὄντες, τὰ δὲ διαστήματα παραπεμπόμενα ἐπιδηλούμενα ἐκμελείας αἴτιά ἐστιν, ἧς καὶ ἀρχαὶ λέγοιντ’ ἄν, οὐχὶ τῆς ἐμμελοῦς φωνῆς. οὔτ’ οὖν τὰ διαστήματα αἴτια τῆς ἐμμελείας, ἀλλὰ βλαπτικὰ αὐτῆς φαινόμενά γε, οὔθ’ οἱ ἀριθμοὶ αἴτιοι τῷ ποσότητι διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων τοὺς φθόγγους. κατ’ ἄλλο γὰρ ἴσοι εὑρίσκονται οἱ βαρεῖς τοῖς ὀξέσι καθ’ ὃ καὶ ὁ πόνος ἴσος κατὰ τοὐναντίον· οὐ γὰρ ἧττον τῶν τοὺς ὀξεῖς φθόγγους φθεγγομένων οἱ τοὺς βαρεῖς πονοῦσι βιαζόμενοι εἰς τοὐναντίον πάλιν. μία δὲ φύσις τῆς μουσικῆς· κίνησις τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ κατ’ ἀπόλυσιν γινομένη τῶν διὰ τὰ πάθη κακῶν, ἣ εἰ μὴ ἦν, οὐδ’ ἂν ἡ τῆς μουσικῆς φύσις ἦν.” Τοιαῦτα μὲν τὰ τοῦ Θεοφράστου, πάνυ φυσικώτατα περὶ τῆς κατ’ ὀξύτητα καὶ βαρύτητα διαφορᾶς αἰτιολογήσαντος καὶ τὰ περὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν παραστήσαντος, καὶ ὅλως οὐχ ὡς ἐν ποσότητι φθόγγων ἀλλ’ ἐν ποιότητι καὶ ἰδιότητι κεῖται τὸ μέλος ἐπιδείξαντος, ἃ χρῆν οἶμαι πρότερον ἐλέγξαντα τὸν Πτολεμαῖον οὕτως ἐγχειρεῖν τῷ ζητήματι. Εἴρηται δὲ καὶ Παναιτίῳ τῷ νεωτέρῳ ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν κατὰ γεωμετρίαν καὶ μουσικὴν λόγων καὶ διαστημάτων συντόμως περὶ τούτων μετ’ εὐλόγου ἀπολογίας τῆς ὑπὲρ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ διδασκαλίας τῆς κατὰ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς χρήσεως. γράφει γὰρ ὧδε. “Καὶ κατὰ μουσικὴν δὲ τὸ λεγόμενον ἡμιτόνιον κατάχρησίς ἐστιν ὀνόματος. ὁ γὰρ οἰόμενος τὸ μεταξὺ διάστημα ὀξέος καὶ βαρέος διχοτομεῖσθαι μέσῳ τινι φθόγγῳ ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ τὸ μεταξὺ λευκοῦ καὶ μέλανος ἢ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ διχοτομεῖσθαι λέγοντι. οὐ γὰρ παρὰ τὰ μεγέθη τῶν φθόγγων ἡ περὶ τὰ σύμφωνα πραγματεία, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὰς ποιότητας. οἱ δ’ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων ἐπειδὰν λέγωσι τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἐν διπλασίονι λόγῳ, οὐ τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ὅτι τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ φθόγγου τῆς νήτης διπλοῦν ἐστι τοῦ μεγέθους τῆς ὑπάτης ἢ ἀνάπαλιν. τεκμήριον δέ, ἐάν τε γὰρ [66] σφόδρα πλήττωσι τὰς χορδάς, ἐάν τε τὴν μὲν μᾶλλον, τὴν δ’ ἧττον - τὸ μὲν διάστημα ταὐτόν - ἡ δὲ μᾶλλον πληττομένη χορδὴ μείζονα ἀποτελεῖ ἦχον, ὥστ’ ἔοικεν οὐκ ἐν μεγέθει τὸ διάστημα λέγεσθαι. πῶς οὖν εἴπερ ἐν ποιότησίν ἐστι, τὸ μὲν διὰ πασῶν ἐν διπλασίονι λόγῳ λέγεται, τὸ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε ἐν ἡμιολίῳ καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε ἐν τριπλασίῳ, τὸ δὲ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐν τετραπλασίονι; ὅτι οὔτε τῆς ὄψεως ἰσχυούσης κρίνειν τὰ σύμμετρα τῶν μεγεθῶν ἀλλ’ εὑρημένου μέτρου, ᾧ καταμετρούμενα τὰ σύμμετρα κρίνεσθαι πέφυκεν, οὔτε τῆς ἁφῆς ἰσχυούσης κρίνειν τὴν κατὰ τὰ βάρη σύγκρισιν, ἀλλ’ [ 636 ]

εὑρημένου ζυγοῦ, ᾧ κρίνεται τὰ βάρη. ἄτοπον δὲ δοκεῖ τὴν ἀκοὴν πολὺ ἀσθενεστέραν ὑπάρχουσαν τῆς ὄψεως χωρὶς μέτρου τινος καὶ κανόνος κρίνειν τὰ σύμφωνα τῶν διαστημάτων. οἱ γὰρ αὖ τῇ αἰσθήσει προσέχοντες ὡς ἐκ γειτόνων φωνὴν ἀκούοντες, ὅμοιοι φαίνονται τοῖς χωρὶς μέτρου διὰ τῆς ὄψεως περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὰ μεγέθη συμμετρίας ἀποφαινομένοις, οἳ πολὺ ἀφαμαρτάνουσι τῆς ἀληθείας.” Ἦν δὴ πολλὴ ζήτησις ἄνωθεν ἀρξαμένοις τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις καὶ ἑξῆς τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων, κατὰ τίνας λόγους ἐπὶ τῶν συμφώνων διαστημάτων ἐκ τῶν διαφερόντων κατὰ ποιότητα φθόγγων μία γίνεται κρᾶσις καὶ τῆς ἑτέρας χορδῆς πληχθείσης, ἣ σύμφωνος συγκινεῖσθαι πέφυκεν. ἐζήτουν εἰ καὶ ταῦτα κατὰ λόγους ἐλαχίστους συμβαίνει. διόπερ ἄλλων κατ’ ἄλλας ἐφόδους παρὰ τῶν πρότερον ζητούντων τὸ προκείμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ λεγομένου κανόνος ὃν ἐγὼ καὶ τοὔνομα οἶμαι ἐσχηκέναι, ἐπεὶ κριτήριόν ἐστι τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀκοὴν ἐν τοῖς συμφώνοις γινομένου πλήθους - εὕρισκον χορδῆς τεταμένης καὶ τοῦ ὑπαγωγέως κατὰ τὴν διχοτομίαν ὑπαχθέντος τὴν ὅλην πρὸς τὴν ἡμισεῖαν συμφωνοῦσαν τὸ διὰ πασῶν, ὑπὸ δὲ τὸ τέταρτον ὑπαχθέντος τὴν ὅλην πρὸς τὰ τρία μέρη συμφωνοῦσαν τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τέταρτον τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν· καὶ ὑπὸ τὸ τρίτον τὴν ὅλην πρὸς μὲν τὰ δύο μέρη συμφωνοῦσαν τὸ διὰ πέντε, πρὸς δὲ τὸ τρίτον τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε· τὸν δὲ τόνον ἐν ἐπογδόῳ, ὅτι ἡ ὅλη πρὸς τὰ ὀκτὼ διάστημα ποιεῖ τὸ ἴδιον. διόπερ ἐπειδὰν λέγωσι τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἐν διπλασίονι λόγῳ, οὐ τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ὅτι ὁ φθόγγος [67] τοῦ φθόγγου διπλάσιος, ἀλλ’ ὅτι αἱ χορδαί, ἀφ’ ὧν οἱ φθόγγοι οἱ ποιοῦντες τὸ διὰ πασῶν, τοῦτον ἔχουσι τὸν λόγον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως. ἐπὶ δ’ ἐπογδόου διαστήματος μέσος ἀνάλογον οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἀριθμοῖς, οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν κανονικὴν θεωρίαν τὸν τόνον φασὶ δίχα τέμνεσθαι. διόπερ οὔτ’ ἐπὶ τὰς ποιότητας ἀναφερόντων, οὔτ’ ἐπὶ τὴν κανονικὴν θεωρίαν τὸ ἡμιτόνιον ἥμισύ ἐστι τοῦ τόνου, ἀλλὰ καταχρήσει ὀνόματος λέγεται μόνον, καθάπερ ἡμίφωνον καὶ ἡμίονος. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ἔνεστι τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ φωνηέντος ἢ τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ ὄνου. περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ἐν καταχρήσει λέγεσθαι τὸν διπλάσιόν τε καὶ τριπλοῦν λόγον ἱκανὰ οἶμαι εἶναι τὰ εἰρημένα. Ταῦτα δ’ ἡμῖν διὰ πλειόνων μεμήκυνται ἐκ πολλῶν τὸ ἀληθὲς ἐνδείξασθαι σπουδάζουσιν. οὐ γὰρ ὁ τυχὼν ἦν ἀνήρ, οὔτ’ αὐτός, οὔθ’ οἱ πρὸ αὐτοῦ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἐνηνεγμένοι· λέγω δ’ οἱ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ ὁμοίως δοξάζοντες, ὧν ἀνατρέπειν ἐπιχειροῦμεν τὸ δόγμα. Ἐπεὶ δ’ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος τὰ περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν ψόφων οὐ μόνον ἐπέδραμεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπ’ ἤχων καὶ ψόφων τῶν ἐξ ἀψύχων σωμάτων τὰς ἀποδείξεις ἐνεστήσατο, Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ τῷ τρόπῳ ἐπεξῆλθεν ἐπὶ τῆς καθ’ ὁρμὴν προϊεμένης φωνῆς τὴν διδασκαλίαν ποιησάμενος. διείλεκται δὲ καὶ περὶ συμφωνιῶν, ἃ χρήσιμα ἔσται πρὸς τὸν μετὰ ταῦτα περὶ αὐτῶν ἐσόμενον λόγον. φέρε καὶ τὰ τούτου συντέμνοντες διὰ τὸ μῆκος ἔνια παρατιθώμεθα, ἵνα καὶ ταύτην πεπληρωκότες ὦμεν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. περὶ δὴ τῶν κατὰ τὰς φωνὰς διαφορῶν ποιούμενος λόγον ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἀκουστῶν φησι. “Τὰς δὲ φωνὰς ἁπάσας συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ψόφους ἢ τῶν σωμάτων ἢ τοῦ ἀέρος πρὸς τὰ σώματα προσπίπτοντος οὐ τῷ τὸν ἀέρα σχηματίζεσθαι, καθάπερ οἴονταί τινες, ἀλλὰ τῷ [ 637 ]

κινεῖσθαι παραπλησίως αὐτὸν συστελλόμενον καὶ ἐκτεινόμενον καὶ καταλαμβανόμενον, ἔτι δὲ συγκρούοντα διὰ τὰς τοῦ πνεύματος καὶ τῶν χορδῶν γινομένας πληγάς. ὅταν γὰρ τὸν ἐφεξῆς ἀέρα πλήξῃ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐμπῖπτον αὐτῷ, ὁ ἀὴρ ἤδη φέρεται βίᾳ, τὸν ἐχόμενον αὐτοῦ προωθῶν ὁμοίως, ὥστε πάντῃ τὴν φωνὴν διατείνειν τὴν αὐτήν, ἐφ’ ὅσον συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος τὴν κίνησιν. διαχεῖται γὰρ ἐπὶ πλέονα ἡ βία τῆς κινήσεως αὐτοῦ γινομένης, [68] ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν ποταμῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας ἀποπνέοντα. τῶν δὲ φωνῶν τυφλαὶ μέν εἰσι καὶ νεφώδεις ὅσαι τυγχάνουσιν αὐτοῦ καταπεπνιγμέναι. λαμπραὶ δ’ οὖσαι πόρρω διατείνουσι, καὶ πάντα πληροῦσι τὸν συνεχῆ τόπον. ἀναπνέομεν δὲ τὸν μὲν ἀέρα πάντες τὸν αὐτόν, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα καὶ τὰς φωνὰς ἐκπέμπομεν ἀλλοίας διὰ τὰς τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἀγγείων διαφοράς, δι’ ὧν ἑκάστου τὸ πνεῦμα περαιοῦται πρὸς τὸν ἔξω τόπον. ταῦτα δ’ ἐστὶν ἥ τε ἀρτηρία καὶ ὁ πνεύμων καὶ τὸ στόμα. πλείστην μὲν οὖν διαφορὰν ἀπεργάζονται τῆς φωνῆς αἵ τε τοῦ ἀέρος πληγαὶ καὶ οἱ τοῦ στόματος σχηματισμοί. φανερὸν δ’ ἐστίν· καὶ γὰρ τῶν φθόγγων αἱ διαφοραὶ πᾶσαι γίνονται διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν, καὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁρῶμεν μιμουμένους καὶ ἵππων φωνὰς καὶ βατράχων καὶ ἀηδόνων καὶ γεράνων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων σχεδὸν ἁπάντων, τῷ αὐτῷ χρωμένους πνεύματι καὶ ἀρτηρίᾳ, παρὰ τὸ τὸν ἀέρα διαφόρως ἐκπέμπειν αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τῶν ὀρνέων, ὅταν ἀκούσωσι, μιμοῦνται τὰς τῶν ἄλλων φωνὰς διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην αἰτίαν. ὁ δὲ πνεύμων, ὅταν ᾖ μικρὸς καὶ πυκνὸς καὶ σκληρός, οὔτε δέχεσθαι τὸν ἀέρα δύναται πολὺν εἰς αὐτόν, οὔτ’ ἐκπέμπειν πάλιν ἔξω, οὐδὲ τὴν πληγὴν ἰσχυράν, οὐδ’ εὔρωστον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος. διὰ γὰρ τὸ εἶναι σκληρὸς καὶ πυκνὸς καὶ συνδεδεμένος οὐ δύναται λαμβάνειν τὴν διαστολὴν ἐπὶ πολὺν τόπον, οὐδὲ πάλιν ἐκ πολλοῦ διαστήματος συνάγων ἑαυτὸν ἐκθλίβειν βίᾳ τὸ πνεῦμα, καθάπερ οὐθ’ ἡμεῖς ταῖς φύσαις, ὅταν ὦσι σκληραὶ καὶ μήτε διαστέλλεσθαι, μήτε πιέζεσθαι δύνωνται ῥᾳδίως· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ ποιοῦν τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος πληγὴν εὔρωστον, ὅταν ὁ πνεύμων ἐκ πολλοῦ διαστήματος συνάγων αὑτὸν ἐκθλίβῃ τὸν ἀέρα βιαίως.” “Δῆλον δὲ τοῦτ’ ἐστίν· οὐδὲ γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων μορίων οὐθὲν ἐκ μικρᾶς ἀποστάσεως δύναται ποιεῖσθαι τὴν πληγὴν ἰσχυράν· οὔτε γὰρ τῷ σκέλει δυνατόν ἐστιν, οὔτε τῇ χειρὶ πατάξαι σφοδρῶς, οὐδ’ ἀπορρῖψαι πόρρω τὸ πληγέν, ἐὰν μή τις αὐτῶν ἑκατέρῳ ποιήσας ἐκ πολλοῦ λάβῃ τῆς πληγῆς τὴν ἀνάτασιν. εἰ δὲ μή, σκληρὰ μὲν ἡ πληγὴ γίνεται διὰ τὴν συντονίαν, ἐκβιάζεσθαι δ’ οὐ δύναται πόρρω τὸ πληγέν, ἐπεὶ οὐθ’ οἱ καταπέλται μακρὰν δύνανται βάλλειν, οὔθ’ ἡ σφενδόνη, οὔτε τόξον, ἂν ᾖ σκληρὸν καὶ μὴ δύνηται κάμπτεσθαι, μηδὲ τὴν ἀναγωγὴν ἡ νευρὰ λαμβάνειν [69] ἐπὶ πολὺν τόπον. ἐὰν δὲ μέγας ὁ πνεύμων ᾖ καὶ μαλακὸς καὶ εὔτονος, πολὺν τὸν ἀέρα δύναται δέχεσθαι, καὶ τοῦτον ἐκπέμπειν πάλιν, ταμιευόμενος ὡς ἂν βούληται διὰ τὴν μαλακότητα καὶ διὰ τὸ ῥᾳδίως αὑτὸν συστέλλειν. ἡ δ’ ἀρτηρία μακρὰ μὲν ὅταν ᾖ καὶ στενή, χαλεπῶς ἐκπέμπουσιν ἔξω τὴν φωνὴν καὶ μετὰ βίας πολλῆς διὰ τὸ μῆκος τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος φορᾶς. φανερὸν δ’ ἐστίν· πάντα γὰρ τὰ τοὺς τραχήλους ἔχοντα μακροὺς φθέγγονται βιαίως, οἷον οἱ χῆνες καὶ γέρανοι καὶ ἀλεκτρύονες. μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦτο καταφανές ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῶν αὐλῶν· πάντες γὰρ χαλεπῶς πληροῦσι τοὺς βόμβυκας καὶ μετὰ συντονίας πολλῆς διὰ τὸ μῆκος τῆς ἀποστάσεως. ἔτι δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα διὰ τὴν στενοχωρίαν ὅταν ἐντὸς θλιβόμενον εἰς τὸν ἔξω τόπον [ 638 ]

ἐκπέσῃ, παραχρῆμα διαχεῖται καὶ σκεδάννυται καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ῥεύματα φερόμενα διὰ τῶν εὐρίπων, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι τὴν φωνὴν συμμένειν, μηδὲ διατείνειν ἐπὶ πολὺν τόπον. ἅμα δὲ καὶ δυσταμίευτον ἀνάγκη πάντων τῶν τοιούτων εἶναι τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ μὴ ῥᾳδίως ὑπηρετεῖν. ὅσων δ’ ἐστὶ μέγα τὸ διάστημα τῆς ἀρτηρίας, τῶν δὲ τοιούτων ἔξω μὲν περαιοῦσθαι συμβαίνει τὸ πνεῦμα ῥᾳδίως, ἐντὸς δὲ φερόμενον διαχεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν γίνεσθαι κενὴν καὶ μὴ συνεστῶσαν, ἔτι δὲ μὴ δύνασθαι διαιρεῖσθαι τῷ πνεύματι τοὺς τοιούτους διὰ τὸ μὴ συνερείδεσθαι τὴν ἀρτηρίαν αὐτῶν. ὅσων δ’ ἐστὶν ἀνωμάλως καὶ μὴ πάντοθεν ἔχει τὴν διάστασιν ὁμοίαν, τούτους ἀναγκαῖον ἁπασῶν μετέχειν τῶν δυσχερειῶν· καὶ γὰρ ἀνωμάλως αὐτοῖς ἀνάγκη τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπηρετεῖν καὶ θλίβεσθαι καὶ καθ’ ἕτερον τόπον διαχεῖσθαι πάλιν. βραχείας δὲ τῆς ἀρτηρίας οὔσης ταχὺ μὲν ἀνάγκη τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκπέμπειν καὶ τὴν πληγὴν ἰσχυροτέραν γίνεσθαι τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος, πάντας δὲ τοὺς τοιούτους ὀξύτερον φωνεῖν διὰ τὸ τάχος τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος φορᾶς. οὐ μόνον δὲ συμβαίνει τὰς τῶν ἀγγείων διαφοράς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ πάθη πάντα τὰς φωνὰς ἀλλοιοῦν· ὅταν μὲν γὰρ ὦσιν ὑγρασίας πλήρη πολλῆς ὅ τε πνεύμων καὶ ἡ ἀρτηρία, διασπᾶται τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ οὐ δύναται περαιοῦσθαι εἰς τὸν ἔξω τόπον συνεχῶς διὰ τὸ προσκόπτειν καὶ γίνεσθαι παχὺν καὶ ὑγρὸν καὶ δυσκίνητον, καθάπερ καὶ περὶ τοὺς κατάρρους καὶ τὰς μέθας. ἐὰν δὲ ξηρὸν ᾖ τὸ πνεῦμα παντελῶς, σκληροτέρα ἡ φωνὴ γίνεται καὶ διεσπασμένη· συνέχει γὰρ ἡ νοτίς, ὅταν ᾖ λεπτή, τὸν ἀέρα καὶ ποιεῖ τινα τῆς φωνῆς ἁπλότητα.” “Τῶν μὲν οὖν ἀγγείων διαφοραὶ καὶ τῶν παθῶν τῶν περὶ ταῦτα [70] γινομένων τοιαύτας ἕκαστα τὰς φωνὰς ἀποτελοῦσιν· αἱ δὲ φωναὶ δοκοῦσι μὲν εἶναι, καθ’ οὓς ἂν ἐν ἑκάστῃ γίνωνται τόπους, ἀκούομεν δὲ πασῶν αὐτῶν, ὅταν ἡμῖν προσπέσωσι πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν· ὁ γὰρ ὠσθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς πληγῆς ἀὴρ μέχρι μέν τινος φέρεται συνεχής, ἔπειτα κατὰ μικρὸν ἀεὶ διακινεῖται μᾶλλον, καὶ τούτῳ γινώσκομεν πάντας τοὺς ψόφους καὶ τοὺς πόρρω γινομένους καὶ τοὺς ἐγγύς. δῆλον δ’ ἐστίν. ὅταν γάρ τις λαβὼν κέραμον ἢ αὐλὸν ἢ σάλπιγγα, προσθείς τε ἑτέρῳ πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν, διὰ τούτων λαλῇ, πᾶσαι δοκοῦσιν αἱ φωναὶ παντελῶς εἶναι πλησίον τῆς ἀκοῆς διὰ τὸ μὴ σκεδάννυσθαι τὸν ἀέρα φερόμενον, ἀλλὰ διατηρεῖσθαι τὴν φωνὴν ὁμοίαν ὑπὸ τοῦ περιέχοντος ὀργάνου. καθάπερ οὖν καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γραφῆς, ὅταν τις τοῖς χρώμασι τὸ μὲν ὅμοιον ποιήσῃ τῷ πόρρω, τόδε τῷ πλησίον, τὸ μὲν ἡμῖν ἀνακεχωρηκέναι δοκεῖ τῆς γραφῆς, τὸ δὲ προέχειν, ἀμφοτέρων αὐτῶν ὄντων ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπιφανείας, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ψόφων καὶ τῆς φωνῆς· ὅταν γὰρ ἡ μὲν ἤδη διαλελυμένη προσπίπτῃ πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν, ἡ δέ τις συνεχής, ἀμφοτέρων αὐτῶν ἀφικνουμένων πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον, ἡ μὲν ἀφεστηκέναι πόρρω δοκεῖ τῆς ἀκοῆς, ἡ δ’ εἶναι σύνεγγυς, διὰ τὸ τὴν μὲν τῇ πόρρωθεν ὁμοίαν εἶναι, τὴν δὲ πλησίον. “Σαφεῖς δὲ μάλιστα αἱ φωναὶ γίνονται παρὰ τὴν ἀκρίβειαν τὴν τῶν φθόγγων· ἀδύνατον γὰρ μὴ τελέως τούτων διηρθρωμένων τὰς φωνὰς εἶναι σαφεῖς, καθάπερ καὶ τὰς τῶν δακτυλίων σφραγῖδας, ὅταν μὴ διατυπωθῶσιν ἀκριβῶς. διόπερ οὔτε τὰ παιδία δύνανται διαλέγεσθαι σαφῶς, οὐθ’ οἱ μεθύοντες, οὐθ’ οἱ γέροντες, οὐθ’ ὅσοι φύσει τραυλοὶ τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες, οὐθ’ ὅλως ὅσων εἰσὶν αἱ γλῶτται καὶ τὰ στόματα δυσκίνητα· ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τὰ χαλκία καὶ τὰ κέρατα συνηχοῦντα ποιεῖ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ὀργάνων φθόγγους σαφεστέρους, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς [ 639 ]

διαλέκτου πολλὴν ἀσάφειαν ἀπεργάζεται τὰ ἐκπίπτοντα τῶν πνευμάτων ἐκ τοῦ στόματος, ὅταν μὴ διατυπωθῶσιν ὁμοίως. οὐ μόνον δ’ ἑαυτῷ τινα παρεμφαίνουσιν ἀσάφειαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς διηρθρωμένους τῶν φθόγγων ἐμποδίζουσιν, ἀνομοίας αὐτῶν γινομένης τῆς περὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν κινήσεως· διὸ καὶ μᾶλλον ἑνὸς ἀκούοντες συνίεμεν ἢ πολλῶν ἅμα ταὐτὰ λεγόντων, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χορδῶν, καὶ πολὺ ἧττον, ὅταν προσαυλῇ τις ἅμα καὶ κιθαρίζῃ, διὰ τὸ συγκεῖσθαι τὰς φωνὰς ὑπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων. οὐχ ἥκιστα [71] δὲ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν φανερόν ἐστιν· ἀμφοτέρους γὰρ ἀποκρύπτεσθαι τοὺς ἤχους συμβαίνει ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων.” “Ἀσαφεῖς μὲν οὖν φωναὶ γίνονται διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας αἰτίας. λαμπραὶ δὲ γίνονται καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν χρωμάτων· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ τὰ μάλιστα δυνάμενα τὰς ὄψεις κινεῖν, ταῦτα εἶναι συμβαίνει τῶν χρωμάτων λαμπρότατα. τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον τῶν φωνῶν ταύτας ὑποληπτέον εἶναι λαμπροτάτας, ὅσαι μάλιστα δύνανται προσπίπτουσαι κινεῖν τὴν ἀκοήν. τοιαῦται δ’ εἰσὶν αἱ σαφεῖς καὶ πυκναὶ καὶ καθαραὶ καὶ πόρρω δυνάμεναι διατείνειν. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις αἰσθητοῖς ἅπασι τὰ ἰσχυρότερα καὶ πυκνότερα καὶ καθαρώτερα σαφεστέρας ποιεῖ τὰς αἰσθήσεις. δῆλον δέ· τὸ γὰρ τελευταῖον αἱ φωναὶ πᾶσαι γίνονται κωφαί, τοῦ ἀέρος ἤδη διαχεομένου. δῆλον δ’ ἐστὶ κἀπὶ τῶν αὐλῶν· τὰ γὰρ ἔχοντα τῶν δευτέρων τὰς γλώσσας πλαγίας μαλακωτέραν μὲν ἀποδίδωσι τὴν φωνήν, οὐχ ὁμοίως δὲ λαμπράν· τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα φερόμενον εὐθέως εἰς εὐρυχωρίαν ἐμπίπτει, καὶ οὐκέτι φέρεται σύντονον, οὐδὲ συνεστηκός, ἀλλὰ διεσκεδασμένον. ἐν δὲ ταῖς συγκροτητικαῖς γλώτταις ἡ φωνὴ γίνεται σκληροτέρα καὶ λαμπροτέρα, ἂν πιέσῃ τις αὐτὰς μᾶλλον τοῖς χείλεσι, διὰ τὸ φέρεσθαι τὸ πνεῦμα βιαιότερον.” “Αἱ μὲν οὖν λαμπραὶ τῶν φωνῶν γίνονται διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας αἰτίας· παρ’ ὃ καὶ δοκοῦσιν οὐ χείρους εἶναι τῶν λευκῶν αἱ καλούμεναι φαιαί· πρὸς γὰρ τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰς πρεσβυτέρας ἡλικίας μᾶλλον ἁρμόττουσιν αἱ τραχύτεραι καὶ μικρὸν ὑποσυγκεχυμέναι καὶ μὴ λίαν ἔχουσαι τὸ λαμπρὸν ἐκφανές. ἅμα δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν συντονίαν οὐχ ὁμοίως εἰσὶν εὐπειθεῖς· τὸ γὰρ βίᾳ φερόμενον δυσταμίευτον· οὔτε γὰρ ἐπιτεῖναι ῥᾴδιον, ὡς βούλεταί τις, οὔτ’ ἀνιέναι. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν αὐλῶν γίνονται αἱ φωναὶ λαμπραί, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὀργάνων, ὅταν τὸ ἐκπῖπτον πνεῦμα πυκνὸν ᾖ καὶ σύντονον· ἀνάγκη γὰρ καὶ τοῦ ἔξωθεν ἀέρος τοιαύτας γίνεσθαι τὰς πληγάς, καὶ μάλιστα τὰς φωνὰς οὕτω διαπέμπεσθαι συνεστώσας πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰς ὀσμὰς καὶ τὸ φῶς καὶ τὰς θερμότητας. καὶ γὰρ πάντα ταῦτα ἀραιότερα φαινόμενα πρὸς τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀσημότερα γίνεται, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ χυλοὶ κραθέντες τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἑτέροις χυλοῖς. τὸ γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ παρέχον αἴσθησιν ἀσαφεῖς ἑκάστῳ ποιεῖ τὰς δυνάμεις. ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ὀργάνων οἱ τῶν κεράτων ἦχοι πυκνοὶ καὶ συνεχεῖς πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα [72] προσπίπτοντες ποιοῦσι τὰς φωνὰς ἀμαυράς· διὸ δεῖ τὸ κέρας τὴν φύσιν ἔχειν τῆς αὐξήσεως ὁμαλὴν καὶ λείαν καὶ μὴ ταχέως ἐκδεδραμηκυῖαν· ἀνάγκη γὰρ μαλακώτερα καὶ χαυνότερα γίνεσθαι τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν κεράτων, ὥστε τοὺς ἤχους διασπᾶσθαι καὶ μὴ συνεχεῖς ἐκπίπτειν δι’ αὐτῶν, μηδὲ γεγωνεῖν ὁμοίως διὰ τὴν μαλακότητα καὶ τὴν ἀραιότητα τῶν πόρων, μηδὲ πάλιν εἶναι δυσαυξῆ τὴν φύσιν, μηδὲ τὴν σύμφυσιν ἔχειν πυκνὴν καὶ σκληρὰν καὶ δύσφορον· καθ’ ὅ τι γὰρ ἂν προκόψῃ φερόμενος ὁ ἦχος, αὐτοῦ λαμβάνει τὴν κατάπαυσιν καὶ οὐκέτι περαιοῦται πρὸς τὸν ἔξω τόπον, ὥστε κωφοὺς καὶ [ 640 ]

ἀνωμάλους ἐκπίπτειν τοὺς ἤχους ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων κεράτων. ὅτι δ’ ἡ φορὰ γίνεται κατὰ τὴν εὐθυπορίαν, φανερόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῶν ἱστῶν, καὶ ὅλως ἐπὶ τῶν ξύλων τῶν μεγάλων, ὅταν αὐτὰ βασανίζωσιν· ὅταν γὰρ κρούσωσιν ἐκ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἄκρου κατὰ τὸ ἕτερον, ὁ ἦχος φέρεται συνεχής, ἐὰν μή τι ἔχῃ σύντριμμα τὸ ξύλον· εἰ δὲ μή, μέχρι τούτου προελθὼν αὐτοῦ καταπαύεται διασπασθείς. περικάμπτει δὲ καὶ τοὺς ὄζους, καὶ οὐ δυνατὸς δι’ αὐτῶν εὐθυπορεῖν. κατάδηλον δὲ τοῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χαλκείων, ὅταν ῥινῶσι τὰς ἀπηρτημένας στολίδας τῶν ἀνδριάντων, ἢ τὰ πτερύγια, τῷ συμμύειν· διὸ ῥοῖζον καὶ πολὺν ἦχον ἀφιᾶσι καὶ ψόφον. ἂν δέ τις αὐτὰ ταινίᾳ διαδήσῃ, παύεσθαι συμβαίνει τὸν ἦχον· ἕως γὰρ τούτου προελθὼν ὁ τρόμος, ὅταν προκόψῃ πρὸς τὸ μαλακόν, αὐτοῦ ποιεῖται τὴν κατάπαυσιν.” “Πολὺ δὲ καὶ ἡ ὄπτησις ἡ τῶν κεράτων συμβάλλεται καὶ πρὸς εὐφωνίαν· μᾶλλον μὲν γὰρ κατοπτηθέντα παραπλήσιον τὸν ἦχον ἔχουσι τῷ κεράμῳ διὰ τὴν σκληρότητα καὶ τὴν σύγκαυσιν· ἐὰν δέ τις αὐτὰ καταδεέστερον ὀπτήσῃ, ἁπαλώτερον μὲν ἀφίησι διὰ τὴν μαλακότητα τὸν ἦχον, οὐ δύναται δὲ γεγωνεῖν ὁμοίως. διὸ καὶ τὰς ἡλικίας ἐκλέγονται· τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν γερόντων ἐστὶ ξηρὰ καὶ πεπωρωμένα καὶ χαῦνα, τὰ δὲ τῶν νέων ἁπαλὰ παντελῶς καὶ πολλὴν ἔχοντα ἐν αὐτοῖς ὑγρασίαν. δεῖ δ’ εἶναι, καθάπερ εἴρηται, τὸ κέρας ξηρὸν καὶ πυκνὸν ὁμαλῶς καὶ εὐθύπορον καὶ λεῖον· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα συμβαίνοι καὶ τοὺς ἤχους πυκνοὺς καὶ λείους καὶ ὁμαλοὺς φέρεσθαι δι’ αὐτῶν, καὶ τοῦ ἔξωθεν ἀέρος τὰς πληγὰς γίνεσθαι τοιαύτας, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν χορδῶν εἰσιν αἱ λειόταται βέλτισται καὶ τοῖς πᾶσιν ὁμαλώταται, καὶ τὴν κατεργασίαν ἔχουσι πάντοθεν ὁμοίαν, καὶ τὰς συμβολὰς ἀδήλους τὰς τῶν νεύρων· οὕτω γὰρ συμβαίνει καὶ ταύτας ποιεῖσθαι τὰς τοῦ ἀέρος πληγὰς ὁμοιοτάτας.” “Δεῖ δὲ καὶ τῶν αὐλῶν εἶναι τὰς γλώττας πυκνὰς καὶ λείας καὶ ὁμαλάς, [73] ὅπως ἂν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα διαπορεύηται δι’ αὐτῶν λεῖον καὶ ὁμαλὸν καὶ μὴ διεσπασμένον· διὸ καὶ τὰ βεβρεγμένα τῶν ζευγῶν καὶ τὰ πεπωκότα τὸ σίαλον εὐφωνότερα γίνεται, τὰ δὲ ξηρὰ κακόφωνα· ὁ γὰρ ἀὴρ δι’ ὑγροῦ καὶ λείου φέρεται μαλακὸς καὶ ὁμαλός. δῆλον δέ· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα, ὅταν ἔχῃ νοτίδα, πολὺ ἧττον προκόπτει πρὸς τὰ ζεύγη καὶ διασπᾶται· τὸ δὲ ξηρὸν μᾶλλον ἀντιλαμβάνεται καὶ τὴν πληγὴν ποιεῖται σκληροτέραν διὰ τὴν βίαν.” “Αἱ μὲν οὖν διαφοραὶ τῶν ἤχων γίνονται διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας αἰτίας· σκληραὶ δ’ εἰσὶ τῶν φωνῶν, ὅσαι βιαίως πρὸς τὴν ἀκοὴν προσπίπτουσιν· διὸ καὶ μάλιστα παρέχουσι τὸν πόνον. τοιαῦται δ’ εἰσὶν αἱ δυσκινητότεραι καὶ μετὰ πλείστης φερόμεναι βίας· τὸ γὰρ ὑπεῖκον ταχέως οὐ δύναται τὴν πληγὴν ὑπομένειν, ἀλλ’ ἀποπηδᾷ πρότερον. δῆλον δέ· τὰ γὰρ ὑπέρογκα τῶν βελῶν βιαιοτάτην φέρεται τὴν φοράν, καὶ τὰ ῥεύματα φερόμενα διὰ τῶν εὐρίπων· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα γίνεται σφοδρότατα περὶ αὐτὰς τὰς στενοχωρίας, οὐ δυνάμενα ταχέως ὑπείκειν, ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ πολλῆς ὠθούμενα βίας· ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο συμβαίνει καὶ περὶ τὰς φωνὰς καὶ τοὺς ψόφους. φανερὸν δ’ ἐστίν· πάντες γὰρ οἱ βίαιοι γίνονται σκληροί, καθάπερ καὶ τῶν κιβωτίων καὶ τῶν στροφέων, ὅταν ἀνοίγωνται βιαίως, καὶ τοῦ χαλκοῦ καὶ τοῦ σιδήρου· καὶ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀκμόνων γίνεται σκληρός, καὶ μάλα γε, ὅταν ἐλαύνωσι κατεψυγμένον καὶ σκληρὸν ἤδη τὸν σίδηρον· ἔτι δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς ῥίνης, ὅταν ῥινῶσι καὶ χαράττωσι τὰ σιδήρια καὶ τοὺς πρίονας, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν βροντῶν [ 641 ]

αἱ βιαιόταται γίνονται σκληρόταται καὶ τῶν ὑδάτων τὰ καλούμενα ῥαγδαῖα τὴν βίαν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ταχυτὴς τοῦ πνεύματος ποιεῖ τὴν φωνὴν ὀξεῖαν, ἡ δὲ βία σκληράν· διόπερ οὐ μόνον συμβαίνει τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁτὲ μὲν ὀξυτέραν, ὁτὲ δὲ βαρυτέραν, ἀλλὰ καὶ σκληροτέραν καὶ μαλακωτέραν. καίτοι τινὲς ὑπολαμβάνουσι διὰ τὴν σκληρότητα τῶν ἀρτηριῶν τὰς φωνὰς γίνεσθαι σκληράς, διαμαρτάνοντες· τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ βραχύ τι συμβάλλεται παντελῶς, ἀλλ’ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος γινομένη πληγὴ βιαίως ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύμονος· ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τὰ σώματα τῶν μέν ἐστιν ὑγρὰ καὶ μαλακά, τῶν δὲ σκληρὰ καὶ σύντονα, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ὁ πνεύμων· διόπερ τῶν μὲν μαλακὸν ἐκπίπτει τὸ πνεῦμα, τῶν δὲ σκληρὸν καὶ βίαιον, ἐπεὶ διότι γε τὴν ἀρτηρίαν αὐτὴν μικράν τινα συμβαίνει παρέχεσθαι δύναμιν, ῥᾴδιον συνιδεῖν. οὐδεμία γάρ ἐστιν ἀρτηρία σκληρὰ τοῖς αὐλοῖς ὁμοίως, ἀλλ’ οὐθὲν ἧττον δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ διὰ τούτων φερομένου τοῦ πνεύματος, οἱ μὲν μαλακῶς αὐλοῦσιν, [74] οἱ δὲ σκληρῶς. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς τῆς αἰσθήσεως. καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἐπιτείνῃ τις τὸ πνεῦμα βιαιότερον, εὐθέως ἡ φωνὴ γίνεται σκληροτέρα διὰ τὴν βίαν, κἂν ᾖ μαλακωτέρα· τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς σάλπιγγος· διὸ καὶ πάντες, ὅταν κωμάζωσιν, ἀνιᾶσιν ἐν τῇ σάλπιγγι τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος συντονίαν, ὅπως ἂν ποιῶσι τὸν ἦχον ὡς μαλακώτατον.” “Φανερὸν δ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ὀργάνων· καὶ γὰρ αἱ κατεστραμμέναι χορδαί, καθάπερ εἴρηται, τὰς φωνὰς ποιοῦσι σκληροτέρας, καὶ τὰ κατωπτημένα τῶν κεράτων. κἄν ‹τις› ἅπτηται τῶν χορδῶν ταῖς χερσὶ βιαίως καὶ μὴ μαλακῶς, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν αὐτὰς οὕτω πάλιν ποιεῖσθαι βιαιοτέραν. αἱ δ’ ἧττον κατεστραμμέναι καὶ τὰ ὠμότερα τῶν κεράτων τὰς φωνὰς ποιεῖ μαλακωτέρας, καὶ τὰ μακρότερα τῶν ὀργάνων· αἱ γὰρ τοῦ ἀέρος πληγαὶ καὶ βραδύτεραι καὶ μαλακώτεραι γίνονται διὰ τὰ μήκη τῶν τόπων, αἱ δ’ ἐπὶ τῶν βραχυτέρων σκληρόταται διὰ τὴν κατάτασιν τῶν χορδῶν. δῆλον δ’ ἐστίν· καὶ γὰρ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὀργάνου σκληροτέρας συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι τὰς φωνάς, ὅταν μὴ κατὰ μέσον τις ἅπτηται τῶν χορδῶν, διὰ τὸ μᾶλλον αὐτῶν τὰ πρὸς αὐτῷ τῷ ζυγῷ καὶ τῷ χορδοτόνῳ κατατετάσθαι. συμβαίνει δὲ καὶ τὰ ναρθήκινα τῶν ὀργάνων τὰς φωνὰς ἔχειν ἁπαλωτέρας· οἱ γὰρ ἦχοι πρὸς μαλακὸν προσπίπτοντες οὐχ ὁμοίως ἀποπηδῶσι μετὰ βίας. τραχύνεσθαι δὲ συμβαίνει τὰς φωνάς, ὅταν ἡ πληγὴ μὴ μία γένηται τοῦ ἀέρος παντός, ἀλλὰ πολλαχῇ κατὰ μικρὰ διεσπασμένη· καθ’ αὑτὸ γὰρ ἕκαστον τῶν τοῦ ἀέρος μορίων προσπῖπτον πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν, ὡσὰν ἀπὸ πληγῆς ἑτέρας ὄν, διεσπασμένην ποιεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν, ὥστε τὴν μὲν διαλείπειν τὴν φωνήν, τὴν δὲ προσπίπτειν βιαιότερον, καὶ γίνεσθαι τὴν ἁφὴν τῆς ἀκοῆς ἀνομοίαν, ὥσπερ καὶ ὅταν τι τῶν τραχέων ἡμῖν προσπίπτῃ πρὸς τὸν χρῶτα.” “Μάλιστα δὲ τοῦτο συμφανές ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῆς ῥίνης· διὰ γὰρ τὸ τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος πληγὴν ἅμα γίνεσθαι κατὰ μικρὰ καὶ πολλά, τραχεῖς οἱ ψόφοι προσπίπτουσιν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν, καὶ μᾶλλον ὅταν πρὸς σκληρόν τι παρατρίβωνται, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἁφῆς· τὰ γὰρ σκληρὰ καὶ τραχέα βιαιότερον ποιεῖται τὴν αἴσθησιν. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ῥευμάτων· τοῦ γὰρ ἐλαίου γίνεται πολὺ πάντων τῶν ὑγρῶν ὁ ψόφος ἀδηλότερος διὰ τὴν συνέχειαν τὴν τῶν μορίων. λεπταὶ δ’ εἰσὶ τῶν φωνῶν, [75] ὅταν ὀλίγον ᾖ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκπῖπτον. διὸ καὶ τῶν παιδίων γίνονται λεπταί, καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ τῶν εὐνούχων· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν διαλελυμένων [ 642 ]

διὰ νόσον ἢ πόνον ἢ ἀτροφίαν· οὐ δύνανται γὰρ πολὺ τὸ πνεῦμα διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν ἐκπέμπειν. δῆλον δ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χορδῶν· ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν λεπτῶν καὶ τὰ φωνία γίνεται λεπτὰ καὶ στενὰ καὶ τριχώδη διὰ τὸ καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος τὴν πληγὴν γίνεσθαι κατὰ στενόν. οἵας γὰρ ἂν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχωσι τῆς κινήσεως αἱ τοῦ ἀέρος πληγαί, τοιαύτας καὶ τὰς φωνὰς συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι προσπιπτούσας πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν, οἷον ἀραιὰς ἢ πυκνὰς ἢ μαλακὰς ἢ σκληρὰς ἢ λεπτὰς ἢ παχείας. ἀεὶ γὰρ ὁ ἕτερος ἀὴρ τὸν ἕτερον κινῶν ὡσαύτως ποιεῖ τὴν φωνὴν ἅπασαν ὁμοίαν, καθάπερ ἔχει καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀξύτητος καὶ τῆς βαρύτητος. καὶ γὰρ τὰ τάχη τὰ τῆς πληγῆς τὰ ἕτερα τοῖς ἑτέροις συνακολουθοῦντα διαφυλάττει τὰς φωνὰς ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ὁμοίως.” “Αἱ δὲ πληγαὶ γίνονται μὲν τοῦ ἀέρος ὑπὸ τῶν χορδῶν πολλαὶ καὶ κεχωρισμέναι, διὰ δὲ σμικρότητα τοῦ μεταξὺ χρόνου τῆς ἀκοῆς οὐ δυναμένης συναισθάνεσθαι τὰς διαλείψεις, μία καὶ συνεχὴς ἡμῖν ἡ φωνὴ φαίνεται, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χρωμάτων· καὶ γὰρ τούτων τὰ διεστηκότα δοκεῖ πολλάκις ἡμῖν συνάπτειν ἀλλήλοις, ὅταν φέρωνται ταχέως. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει τοῦτο καὶ περὶ τὰς συμφωνίας. διὰ γὰρ τὸ περισυγκαταλαμβάνεσθαι τοὺς ἑτέρους ἤχους ὑπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων, καὶ γίνεσθαι τὰς καταπαύσεις αὐτῶν ἅμα, λανθάνουσιν ἡμᾶς αἱ μεταξὺ γινόμεναι φωναί. πλεονάκις μὲν γὰρ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς συμφωνίαις ὑπὸ τῶν ὀξυτέρων φθόγγων αἱ τοῦ ἀέρος γίνονται πληγαὶ διὰ τὸ τάχος τῆς κινήσεως· τὸν δὲ τελευταῖον τῶν ἤχων ἅμα συμβαίνει προσπίπτειν ἡμῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀκοὴν καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς βραδυτέρας γινόμενον· ὥστε τῆς ἀκοῆς οὐ δυναμένης αἰσθάνεσθαι, καθάπερ εἴρηται, τὰς μεταξὺ φωνάς, ἅμα δοκοῦμεν ἀμφοτέρων τῶν φθόγγων ἀκούειν συνεχῶς. παχεῖαι δ’ εἰσὶ τῶν φωνῶν τοὐναντίον, ὅταν ᾖ τὸ πνεῦμα πολὺ καὶ ἀθρόον ἐκπῖπτον· διὸ καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν εἰσι παχύτεραι καὶ τῶν τελείων αὐλῶν, καὶ μᾶλλον ὅταν πληρώσῃ τις αὐτοὺς τοῦ πνεύματος. φανερὸν δ’ ἐστίν· καὶ γὰρ ἂν πιέσῃ τις τὰ ζεύγη, μᾶλλον ὀξυτέρα ἡ φωνὴ γίνεται καὶ λεπτοτέρα. κἂν κατασπάσῃ τις τὰς σύριγγας, κἂν δ’ ἐπιλάβῃ, παμπλείων ὁ ὄγκος γίνεται τῆς φωνῆς διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ πνεύματος, καθάπερ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν παχυτέρων χορδῶν. παχεῖαι δὲ γίνονται καὶ τῶν τραγιζόντων καὶ τῶν βραγχιώντων, καὶ [76] μετὰ τοὺς ἐμέτους, διὰ τὴν τραχύτητα τῆς ἀρτηρίας καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ὑπεξάγειν, ἀλλ’ αὐτοῦ προσκόπτουσαν ἀνειλεῖσθαι τὴν φωνὴν καὶ λαμβάνειν ὄγκον, καὶ μάλιστα διὰ τὴν ὑγρότητα τοῦ σώματος. λιγυραὶ δ’ εἰσὶ τῶν φωνῶν αἱ λεπταὶ καὶ πυκναί, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τεττίγων καὶ τῶν ἀκρίδων καὶ αἱ τῶν ἀηδόνων, καὶ ὅλως ὅσαις λεπταῖς οὔσαις μηθεὶς ἀλλότριος ἦχος παρακολουθεῖ· ὅλως γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτ’ ἐν ὄγκῳ φωνῆς τὸ λιγυρόν, οὐτ’ ἐν τόνοις ἀνιεμένοις καὶ βάρεσιν, οὐτ’ ἐν ταῖς τῶν φθόγγων ἁφαῖς, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὀξύτητι καὶ λεπτότητι καὶ ἀκριβείᾳ. διὸ καὶ τῶν ὀργάνων τὰ λεπτὰ καὶ σύντονα καὶ μὴ ἔχοντα κέρας τὰς φωνὰς ἔχειν λιγυροτέρας. ὁ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑδάτων ἦχος καὶ ὅλως ὅταν ἀπό τινος γινόμενος παρακολουθῇ, συνέχει τὴν ἀκρίβειαν τὴν τῶν φθόγγων. σαθραὶ δ’ εἰσὶ καὶ παρερρυηκυῖαι τῶν φωνῶν, ὅσαι μέχρι τινὸς φερόμεναι συνεχεῖς διασπῶνται.” “Φανερώτατον δὲ τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἐπὶ τοῦ κεράμου· πᾶς γὰρ ὁ ἐκ πληγῆς ῥαγεὶς ποιεῖ τὸν ἦχον σαθρόν, διασπωμένης τῆς κινήσεως τὰ κατὰ τὴν πληγήν, ὥστε μηκέτι γίνεσθαι τοὺς ἐκπίπτοντας ἤχους συνεχεῖς. ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦτο συμβαίνει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐρρωγότων κεράτων καὶ [ 643 ]

ἐπὶ τῶν χορδῶν τῶν ‹παρα›νενευρισμένων. ἐπὶ πάντων μὲν γὰρ τῶν τοιούτων μέχρι μέν τινος ὁ ἦχος φέρεται συνεχής, ἔπειτα διασπᾶται, καθ’ ὅ τι ἂν ᾖ μὴ συνεχὲς τὸ ὑποκείμενον, ὥστε μὴ μίαν γίνεσθαι πληγήν, ἀλλὰ διεσπασμένην, καὶ φαίνεσθαι τὸν ἦχον σαθρόν· σχεδὸν γὰρ παραπλήσιαι τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι τοῖς τραχείαις, πλὴν ἐκεῖναι μέν εἰσιν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων κατὰ μικρὰ μέρη διεσπασμέναι, τῶν δὲ σαθρῶν αἱ πλεῖσται τὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς ἔχουσι συνεχεῖς, ἔπειτ’ εἰς πλείω μέρη τὴν διαίρεσιν λαμβάνουσιν. δασεῖαι δ’ εἰσὶ τῶν φωνῶν, ὅσαις ἔσωθεν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθέως συνεκβάλλομεν μετὰ τῶν φθόγγων. ψιλαὶ δ’ εἰσὶ τοὐναντίον, ὅσαι γίνονται χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐκβολῆς. ἀπορρήγνυσθαι δὲ συμβαίνει τὰς φωνάς, ὅταν μηκέτι δύνωνται τὸν ἀέρα μετὰ πληγῆς ἐκπέμπειν, ἀλλ’ ὁ περὶ τὸν πνεύμονα τόπος αὐτῶν ὑπὸ τῆς διατάσεως ἐκλυθῇ· ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τὰ σκέλη καὶ τοὺς ὤμους ἐκλύεσθαι συμβαίνει τὸ τελευταῖον συντόνως, οὕτω καὶ τὸν περὶ τὸν πνεύμονα τόπον. κοῦφον γὰρ ἔξω φέρεσθαι τὸ πνεῦμα διὰ τὸ μὴ γίνεσθαι βίαιον αὐτοῦ τὴν πληγήν. ἅμα δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ τετραχύνθαι τὴν ἀρτηρίαν αὐτῶν ἰσχυρῶς οὐ δύναται τὸ πνεῦμα ἔξω φέρεσθαι συνεχές, [77] ἀλλὰ διεσπασμένον ὡς ἀπερρωγυίας γίνεσθαι τὰς φωνὰς αὐτῶν. καί τινες οἴονται διὰ τὴν τοῦ πνεύμονος γλισχρότητα τὸ πνεῦμα οὐ δύνασθαι περαιοῦσθαι πρὸς τὸν ἔξω τόπον, διαμαρτάνοντες· φθέγγονται μὲν γάρ, ἀλλ’ οὐ δύνανται γεγωνεῖν, διὰ τὸ μὴ γίνεσθαι μετὰ συντονίας τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος πληγήν, ἀλλὰ μόνον φωνοῦσιν, ὡς ἂν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ φάρυγγος τὸ πνεῦμα βιαζόμενον.” “Τῶν δ’ ἰσχνοφώνων οὔτε περὶ τὰς φλέβας, οὔτε περὶ τὰς ἀρτηρίας ἐστὶ τὸ πάθος, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν κίνησιν τῆς γλώττης. χαλεπῶς γὰρ αὐτὴν μεταφέρουσιν, ὅταν ἕτερον δέῃ φθόγγον εἰπεῖν· διὸ καὶ πολὺν χρόνον τὸ αὐτὸ ῥῆμα λέγουσιν, οὐ δυνάμενοι τὸ ἑξῆς εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ συνεχῶς τῆς κινήσεως καὶ τοῦ πνεύμονος αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὁρμὴν φερομένου διὰ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὴν βίαν τοῦ πνεύματος· ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τὸ σῶμα ὅλον τῶν τρεχόντων βιαίως χαλεπόν ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς ὁρμῆς εἰς ἄλλην κίνησιν μεταστῆσαι, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ κατὰ μέρος· διὸ καὶ πολλάκις τὸ μὲν ἑξῆς εἰπεῖν οὐ δύνανται, τὸ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο λέγουσι ῥᾳδίως, ὅταν ἄλλην ποιήσωνται τῆς κινήσεως ἀρχήν. δῆλον δ’ ἐστίν· καὶ γὰρ τοῖς ὀργιζομένοις τοῦτο συμβαίνει πολλάκις διὰ τὸ βίαιον αὐτῶν γίνεσθαι τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος φοράν.” Ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν παρ’ Ἀριστοτέλους περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν ἀκουστῶν ἱκανὰ καὶ ταῦτα· εἴρηται γάρ, πῶς τε ἡ φωνὴ γίνεται καὶ πῶς τῶν αὐτῶν ὄντων αἰτίων διάφοροι ἡμῶν αἱ φωναί, πῶς τε ἀκούομεν καὶ πῶς λανθάνουσι τὴν ἀκοὴν αἱ συνέχειαι τῶν πληγῶν ὡς μία αἱ πολλαὶ προσπίπτουσαι. εἴρηται δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν, δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν οἱ ἐναντιώτατοι ψόφοι συγκεκραμένοι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς προσπίπτουσι. καὶ μὴν καὶ περὶ τῶν φυσικῶν ὀργάνων τεθεώρηται, πνεύμονος λέγω καὶ ἀρτηρίας καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ λοιπὸν περὶ σχηματισμῶν τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ψόφους. εἴρηται δ’ οὐ μόνον περὶ ὀξείας καὶ βαρείας φωνῆς καὶ τίνα τούτων αἴτια, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τυφλῶν καὶ νεφωδῶν φωνῶν, ἰσχυρῶν τε καὶ ἀσθενῶν, περί τε κενῆς φωνῆς, παχείας τε καὶ ἰσχνῆς, σαφοῦς τε καὶ ἀσαφοῦς, περί τε λαμπρᾶς, σκληρᾶς τε καὶ μαλακῆς, τραχείας τε καὶ λεπτῆς, λιγυρᾶς τε καὶ σαθρᾶς, δασείας τε καὶ περιερρωγυίας, τό τε πάθος τῶν ἰσχνοφώνων ὅπως γίνεται, ὡς πλήρη τὸν περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν ψόφων λόγον εἶναι· οὐ μόνον ἐξηγήσεως [ 644 ]

τυχόντων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου εἰρημένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξετασθέντων καὶ τοῦ ἐλλιποῦς λαβόντων τὴν συμπλήρωσιν. [78] Μεταβατέον τοίνυν εἰς τὴν περὶ τῶν φθόγγων καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς διαφορῶν ἐξήγησιν.

[ 645 ]

δ΄. Πῶς μὲν οὖν ὀξύτης ἕως τοῦ τὰς τῶν μεγεθῶν. ΣΥ Γ Κ ΕΦΑ Λ Α Ι Ο Ύ Μ Ε Ν Ο ς Τ Ὸ Ν Π Ε Ρ Ὶ τῆς ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος λόγον προστίθησι καὶ ἄλλο τεκμήριον τοῦ εἶναι ποσότητας ταύτας. καὶ γὰρ αἱ παραυξήσεις αὐτῶν φησι δυνάμει μὲν ἄπειροι, ἐνεργείᾳ πεπερασμέναι, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ μεγεθῶν αἱ παραυξήσεις δυνάμει μὲν ἄπειροι, ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ πεπερασμέναι. τοῦτο δὲ συμβαίνει διὰ τὸ ἐπ’ ἄπειρον τῶν συνεχῶν τομῶν. ἰστέον δέ, ὅτι κἂν ποιότητες ὦσιν αἱ εἰρημέναι, ἥ γ’ ἐπ’ ἄπειρον διαφορὰ δύναται σῴζεσθαι, τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐν τῷ Φιλήβῳ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ τὰς ποιότητας παραλλαγῶν δείξαντος τὴν ἀπειρίαν. τοῦ γὰρ θερμοτέρου καὶ τοῦ ψυχροτέρου καὶ μελανωτέρου διαφορότητα ἔχουσαν τὴν ἀπειρίαν φησὶν ἐνοικεῖν ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ μὴ ἵστασθαι, ὁρισθεῖσαν δὲ ἀπόλλυσθαι. ἐξειργασμένου δὲ τοῦ τόπου παρὰ Πλάτωνι οὐδὲν δεῖ μηκύνειν τὰς πίστεις ἐκεῖθεν παραγράφοντα. περὶ μέντοι τῆς ἀπειρίας τῶν τάσεων καὶ ὁ Ἀριστόξενος πολλαχοῦ διείλεκται· φησὶ δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ Περὶ τόνων οὕτως. “Ληφθέντων γὰρ τοῦ διὰ τεττάρων αἱ μὲν σύμπασαι τάσεις ἐν αὐτῷ δηλονότι ἄπειροί εἰσιν, ἐπειδήπερ πᾶν διάστημα διαιρεῖται ἀπειραχῶς, οἱ δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐμμελῆ τάξιν ἔχοντες ἓξ μόνοι.” Ἐν δὲ τῷ Περὶ τοῦ πρώτου χρόνου καὶ τὴν ἐσομένην ἂν πρός τινων κατηγορίαν ἀπολυόμενος γράφει ταῦτα. “Ὅτι δ’ εἴπερ εἰσὶν ἑκάστου τῶν ῥυθμῶν ἀγωγαὶ ἄπειροι, ἄπειροι ἔσονται καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι, φανερὸν ἐκ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένων. τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ ξυμβήσεται καὶ περὶ τοὺς δισήμους καὶ τρισήμους καὶ τετρασήμους καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς τῶν ῥυθμικῶν χρόνων· καθ’ ἕκαστον γὰρ τῶν πρώτων τούτων ἔσται δίσημός τε καὶ τρίσημος καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν οὕτω λεγομένων [79] ὀνομάτων. δεῖ οὖν ἐνταῦθα εὐλαβηθῆναι τὴν πλάνην καὶ τὴν δι’ αὐτῶν γινομένην ταραχήν. ταχέως γὰρ ἄν τις τῶν ἀπείρων μὲν μουσικῆς καὶ τῶν τοιούτων θεωρημάτων, ἃ νῦν ψηλαφῶμεν ἡμεῖς, ἐν δὲ τοῖς σοφιστικοῖς λόγοις καλινδουμένων, Ἔριδος ποτὶ μάργον ἔχων στόμα, ‹ὥς› φησί που Ἴβυκος, ἀντία δῆριν ἐμοὶ κορύσσοι, λέγων ὅτι ἄτοπον, εἴ τις ἐπιστήμην εἶναι φάσκων τὴν ῥυθμικήν, ἐξ ἀπείρων αὐτὴν συντίθησιν· εἶναι γὰρ πολέμιον πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις τὸ ἄπειρον. οἶμαι μὲν οὖν φανερὸν εἶναί σοι, ὅτι οὐδὲν προσχρώμεθα τῷ ἀπείρῳ πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστήμην, εἰ δὲ μή, νῦν ἔσται φανερώτατον. οὔτε γὰρ πόδας συντίθεμεν ἐκ χρόνων ἀπείρων, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ὡρισμένων καὶ πεπερασμένων μεγέθει τε καὶ ἀριθμῷ καὶ τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ξυμμετρίᾳ τε καὶ τάξει, οὔτε ῥυθμὸν οὐδένα τοιοῦτον ὁρῶμεν· δῆλον δέ, εἴπερ μηδὲ πόδα, οὐδὲ ῥυθμόν, ἐπειδὴ πάντες οἱ ῥυθμοὶ ἐκ ποδῶν τινων σύγκεινται. καθόλου δὴ νοητέον, ὃς ἂν ληφθῇ τῶν ῥυθμῶν, ὅμοιον εἰπεῖν ὁ τροχαῖος, ἐπὶ τῆσδέ τινος ἀγωγῆς τεθεὶς ἀπείρων ἐκείνων πρώτων ἕνα τινὰ λήψεται εἰς αὑτόν. ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ λόγος καὶ περὶ τῶν δισήμων· καὶ γὰρ τούτων ἕνα λήψεται τὸν ξύμμετρον τῷ [ 646 ]

ληφθέντι πρώτῳ· ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ λόγος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων μεγεθῶν, ὥστ’ εἶναι φανερόν, ὅτι οὐδέποτε εὑρεθήσεται ἡ ῥυθμικὴ ἐπιστήμη τῇ τῆς ἀπειρίας ἰδέᾳ προσχρωμένη. δεῖ δὴ καταμαθεῖν, ὅτι καὶ περὶ τῆς ἁρμονικῆς ἐπιστήμης ὁ αὐτὸς ἂν γένοιτο λόγος· φανερὸν γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο γέγονεν ἡμῖν, ὅτι περὶ τῶν ξυμπάντων διαστημάτων ἄπειρα τυγχάνει τὰ μεγέθη ὄντα, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἀπείρων τούτων πυκνῶν τόδε τὸ σύστημα κατὰ τήνδε τὴν χρόαν μελῳδούμενον ἕν τι λήψεται μέγεθος τόδε· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀπείρων ἐκείνῳ ὑπερεχόντων ἕν τι λήψεται μέγεθος τόδε τὸ ξύμμετρον τῷ ληφθέντι πυκνῷ. ὑπερέχον δὲ καλῶ τὸ τοιοῦτο οἷον τὸ μέσης καὶ λιχανοῦ διάστημα.” Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν μέχρι τούτου εἰρήσθω. τοῖς δ’ εἰρημένοις ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἐπάγει ταῦτα.

[ 647 ]

Εἶναί τε δύο τούτων ἕως τοῦ διαστάσεις. [ 8 0 ] ἘΠ Ε Ι Δ Ὴ Ο ὖΝ ἂν ὑποστήσωμεν ἐν τοῖς ὀργάνοις ὀξύτατον ἢ βαρύτατον φθόγγον, ἀντιλαμβάνεται τούτου ἡ ἀκοὴ καὶ καταλείπει νοεῖν, ὅτι κἂν τούτου γένηται ὀξύτερος ἢ βαρύτερος, ἀντιλαμβάνεται καὶ τούτου. καὶ ἐπιλείπει γ’ ἡμᾶς πρότερον ψόφων παραλλαγὴ κατ’ ὀξύτητα ἢ βαρύτητα εἰς ἐνέργειαν ἀφικνουμένη, ἤπερ ἀκοή. κἂν γὰρ ἀπὸ διαφόρων συστάσεων συνίστανται οἱ ψόφοι, καὶ πολὺ διαφέρουσιν, ἀλλ’ αὐτοὶ πέρατα ἔχουσιν κατά τε τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ βαρύ, ὡσὰν οὐ μεγάλας ποιοῦντες διαφοράς. διὰ τοῦτό φησι μείζονα εἶναι τὸν ὅρον τῆς ἀκοῆς τοῦ ὅρου τῶν ψόφων, ὅτι προαπαρτίζονται οἱ τῶν ψόφων ὅροι οἱ κατ’ ὀξύτητα καὶ βαρύτητα διαφέροντες, ἢ ἡ ἀκοὴ ἐκλείπει, ἅτε ἀεὶ καταλαμβάνειν δυναμένη οὐ μόνον τὰς ἐνεργείᾳ ὑποπιπτούσας ὀξύτητας καὶ βαρύτητας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἐννοουμένας παραυξήσεις. Ὁ μέντοι Ἀριστόξενος ἀληπτότερον οὐκ ἐπὶ τῶν ψόφων πεποίηται τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆς φωνῆς, ἣν ἡμεῖς προϊέμεθα, τῷ λέγεσθαί τινας ψόφους ὑπερβάλλειν τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀκοὴν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μὴ ἀκούεσθαι, ὡς ἐπιδείξομεν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας φωνῆς καὶ ἀκοῆς ποιούμενος τὸν λόγον. Ἐν μέν τινι τῶν Συμμίκτων ὑπομνημάτων φησὶ τὸ μέγιστον καὶ ἐλάχιστον διάστημα ὑπεναντίως ἔχειν τῇ δυνάμει πρὸς τὴν αἴσθησιν ἡμῶν. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τὸ μέγα φθεγγόμενοι θᾶττον ἀπαγορεύομεν ἢ ἀκούοντες· ἐπὶ δὲ τὸ μικρὸν αἰσθανόμενοι πρότερον ἢ μελῳδοῦντες. Ἐν μέντοι τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ ἀρχῶν φησιν, ὅτι “ἐπὶ μὲν τὸ μικρὸν ἅμα πως ἐξαδυνατεῖν ἐοίκασιν ἥ τε φωνὴ καὶ ἡ ἀκοή. οὔτε γὰρ ἡ φωνὴ διέσεως ἐλαχίστης ἔλαττον δύναται διασαφεῖν, οὔθ’ ἡ ἀκοὴ διαισθάνεσθαι, ὥστε καὶ ξυνιέναι, τί μέρος ἐστὶ εἴτε διέσεως, εἴτ’ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν γνωρίμων διαστημάτων. ἐπὶ δὲ τὸ μέγα τάχ’ ἂν δόξειεν ὑπερτείνειν ἡ ἀκοὴ τὴν φωνήν, οὐ μέντοι πολλῷ γέ τινι.” Τοιαῦτα μὲν καὶ τὰ τοῦ Ἀριστοξένου. εἰ μέντοι, ὥς φασιν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, [81] ἡ τοῦ παντὸς ἁρμονία διὰ μέγεθος ψόφων ὑπερβάλλει ἡμῶν τὴν ἀκοήν, μείζων ἂν εἴη ὁ ὅρος τῶν ψόφων τῶν τῆς ἀκοῆς. ἔχοι γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὀξυτάτους καὶ βαρυτάτους φθόγγους ἡ τοῦ παντὸς ἁρμονία, ὧν ἡμῶν ἡ ἀκοὴ ἀπολείπεται. Γράφει οὖν ὁ Ἀρχύτας, οὗ καὶ πρόσθεν τὴν λέξιν παρεθήκαμεν περὶ τῶν ψόφων τάδε. “Πολλοὺς μὲν δὴ αὐτῶν οὐκ εἶναι ἁμῶν τᾷ φύσει οἵους τε γινώσκεσθαι, τοὺς μὲν διὰ τὰν ἀσθένειαν τᾶς πλαγᾶς, τοὺς δὲ διὰ τὸ μᾶκος τᾶς ἀφ’ ἁμῶν ἀποστάσιος, τινὰς δὲ καὶ διὰ τὰν ὑπερβολὰν τῶ μεγέθεος· οὐ γὰρ παραδύεσθαι ἐς τὰν ἀκοὰν ἁμῖν τὼς μεγάλως τῶν ψόφων, ὥσπερ οὐδ’ ἐς τὰ σύστομα τῶν τευχέων ὅκκα πολύ τις ἐκχέῃ, οὐδὲν ἐκχεῖται.” Ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἀρκείτω ταῦτα. φανερὸν δ’ ἐκ τούτων, ὅτι αὕτη μὲν καθ’ ἑαυτὴν ἡ τοῦ μέλους τάξις νοουμένη τὴν αὔξησιν ἐπ’ ἄπειρον ἂν δόξειε λαμβάνειν, εἰς μέντοι τὴν φωνὴν ἢ

[ 648 ]

καὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν τιθεμένη, οὐκ ἐπ’ ἄπειρον ἴσχει τὴν διάστασιν, ἀλλ’ ὁρίζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας δυνάμεως.

[ 649 ]

Τούτων τοίνυν ἕως τοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς. ΚΑΤΑ ΣΤ Ή Σ Α ς, Τ Ί ΝΑ Τ Ὰ κριτήρια τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου περί τε ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος τῶν ψόφων, καὶ διαλαβὼν ἐν τίνι γένει θεωροῦνται, περὶ φθόγγων ποιεῖται τὸν λόγον, ἐπείπερ οὗτοι στοιχεῖα τοῦ μέλους ὡς τῆς ἐγγραμμάτου φωνῆς τὰ γράμματα, δεῖ δ’ ἄρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων. εἰώθασι δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἀπὸ τούτων ἄρχεσθαι τῆς διδασκαλίας. διὸ καὶ αἰτιῶνται τὸν Ἀριστόξενον ἐν τοῖς Ἁρμονικοῖς στοιχείοις ἀπὸ τοῦ περὶ γενῶν λόγου καὶ οὐ τῶν φθόγγων τῆς διδασκαλίας ἀρξάμενον. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι πᾶσαν τάσιν τῶν ψόφων φθόγγους καλεῖν εἰώθασιν. οὗτος δ’ ἀκριβέστερον οὐ πᾶσαν· γενικώτατον μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὸν ψόφον, τούτου δ’ εἶδός τι τὸν φθόγγον. τῶν γὰρ ψόφων οἱ μέν εἰσιν ἰσότονοι, οἱ δ’ ἀνισότονοι. δεῖ δὲ πρότερον περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν τόνον σημαινομένων εἰπεῖν πρὸς τὸ δῆλον γενέσθαι, ποῖον εἴληπται σημαινόμενον, ὅταν λέγωμεν ἰσότονον ἢ ἀνισότονον. [82] Τρία γὰρ σημαίνεται ἐκ τῆς “τόνος” λέξεως ἐν μουσικῇ. τόνος γὰρ λέγεται καὶ τὸ διάστημα, οἷον μέτρον τι τοῦ τῆς φωνῆς τόπου, καθ’ ὃ λέγεται μεῖζον εἶναι τὸ διὰ πέντε τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων ‹τόνου› λόγῳ· λέγεται δὲ τόνος καὶ ὁ κατὰ τὸ σύστημα τόπος κατ’ Ἀριστόξενον δεκτικὸς ὢν τελείου συστήματος ἀπλατής, ὡς λέγεται ὁ Δώριος καὶ ὁ Φρύγιος καὶ οἱ παραπλήσιοι τρόποι. ἐκ τρίτων δὲ λέγεται τόνος καὶ ἡ τάσις αὐτή, ὅθεν φαμὲν τῶν μελῳδούντων τοὺς μὲν ὀξεῖ, τοὺς δὲ βαρεῖ τόνῳ χρῆσθαι. τόνος οὖν εἴληπται ἐν τῷ λέγειν ἰσότονον καὶ ἀνισότονον ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς τάσεως τεταγμένος κοινός· κοινὴ δ’ ἡ τάσις ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος καὶ ὁ παρὰ ταύτην λεγόμενος κοινὸς ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος, ὡς καὶ τὸ πέρας κοινὸν τέλους καὶ ἀρχῆς καὶ τὸ χρῶμα λευκοῦ καὶ μέλανος γένος. κατηγορεῖται γὰρ ἡ τάσις ἀμφοῖν· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ἡ βαρύτης τάσις καὶ ἡ ὀξύτης τάσις, οὔτε δ’ ἡ βαρύτης ἐστὶν ἐν ὀξύτητι, οὔθ’ ἡ ὀξύτης ἐν βαρύτητι, ἀλλ’ ἐν τάσει μόνον. Δήλου τοίνυν γεγονότος, τίς τόνος παραλαμβάνεται ἐν τῷ λέγειν ἰσότονον καὶ ἀνισότονον, ῥητέον πάλιν, ὡς ἰσότονον ὁ ψόφος λέγεται διχῶς. ὁ μὲν ἄλλῳ ψόφῳ ἴσην τὴν τάσιν κεκτημένος ὥσπερ ἡ νήτη συνημμένων τῇ παρανήτῃ διεζευγμένων λέγεται εἶναι ἰσότονος. τὸν δ’ οὕτως ἰσότονον ψόφον κυριώτερον ὁμότονον καλοῦσι καὶ οὐ ψόφον ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ’ ὁμότονον φθόγγον, ἓν μὲν οὖν τοῦτο σημαινόμενον τοῦ ἰσοτόνου, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ ἐφ’ ἑνὸς καὶ ταὐτοῦ τιθέμενον καὶ οὐ πρὸς ἕτερον ψόφον ἀναφέρον τὴν ἰσότητα, πρὸς δὲ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ μέρη. ἔχει γὰρ πᾶς ψόφος, κἂν ἁπλούστατος ᾖ καὶ ἀρχοειδέστατος ἀρχήν τε καὶ μέσα καὶ τελευτήν· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀδιάστατος, ἐπεὶ οὐδ’ ἂν προσέπιπτε τῇ ἀκοῇ. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐστιν ὁ ψόφος ἐν παρατάσει, συμβέβηκε τὸν μέν τινα δι’ ὅλου ὅμοιον εἶναι καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ κατὰ τὰ μέσα καὶ κατὰ τὸ τέλος. καλεῖται οὖν οὗτος ἰσότονος, ὃν ἂν εἴπῃς κυριώτερον ὁμοιομερῆ· κυριώτερον δ’ ἔφην ὁμοιομερῆ καλεῖσθαι, ὅτι τὸ ὅμοιον ποιοῦ οἰκεῖον, τὸ δ’ ἴσον ποσοῦ. προειληφότες δ’ οὗτοι τὴν τάσιν τῆς φωνῆς ποσότητα τοῖς τοῦ ποσοῦ σημαντικοῖς χρῶνται ἐπ’ αὐτῆς. ἰσότονος μὲν οὖν ὁ τοιοῦτος καλείσθω [ 650 ]

ψόφος, ᾧ ἐναντίος ὁ ἀνιόστονος ὁ μὴ ὁμοιομερής, μηδὲ δι’ ὅλου ὅμοιος ὤν, ἀλλὰ κατά τι τῶν μερῶν παραλλάσσων τῶν ἑαυτοῦ. αὕτη μὲν δὴ πρώτη διαίρεσις τῶν ψόφων· ἐν τίνι δὲ θετέον τοὺς φθόγγους, προϊὼν διδάξει. [83]

[ 651 ]

Τῶν δ’ ἀνισοτόνων ἕως τοῦ λύκων ὠρυγμοί. ΣΥ Ν Ε Χ Έ ς ἘΣΤ Ι Μ Έ Γ ΕΘ Ο ς, οὗ λαβεῖν ἐστι κοινὸν ὅρον, πρὸς ὃν τὰ μόρια αὐτοῦ συνάπτει, οἷον ἡ γραμμή. ἔστι γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς λαβεῖν τὴν στιγμὴν κοινὸν ὅρον, πρὸς ἣν τὰ μόρια τῆς γραμμῆς συνάπτει. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐπιφάνεια συνεχές ἐστι μέγεθος· τὰ γὰρ τοῦ ἐπιπέδου μόρια πρὸς τὴν γραμμὴν ὡς κοινὸν ὅρον συνάπτει. διωρισμένον δ’ ἐστίν, οὗ οὐδείς ἐστι κοινὸς ὅρος, πρὸς ὃν συνάπτει αὐτοῦ τὰ μόρια, οἷον ὁ ἀριθμός. ὁ γὰρ πέντε, εἴ ἐστι τῶν δέκα μόριον, πρὸς οὐδένα κοινὸν ὅρον συνάπτει τὰ πέντε καὶ τὰ πέντε, ἀλλὰ διώρισται· οὐδ’ ἂν ἔχοις ὅλως ἐπ’ ἀριθμοῦ λαβεῖν κοινὸν ὅρον τῶν μορίων, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ διώρισται. τοιούτου τοίνυν ὄντος τοῦ συνεχοῦς καὶ τοῦ διωρισμένου τῶν ἀνισοτόνων ψόφων οἱ μέν φησίν εἰσι συνεχεῖς, οἱ δὲ διωρισμένοι. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν διωρισμένων ἀνισοτόνων ψόφων ῥηθήσεται ὕστερον, νῦν δὲ περὶ τῶν συνεχῶν ἀνισοτόνων ψόφων λέγωμεν· εἰσὶ γὰρ πρὸς τὸ ἡρμοσμένον ἀνεπιτήδειοι, οὐδὲ τῆς τῶν φθόγγων καταξιούμενοι προσηγορίας. ἐὰν τοίνυν αὐτοὺς ἐμφανίσωμεν οἵτινές εἰσι, τότε καὶ τοὺς ὅρους αὐτῶν εἰσόμεθα, εἰ ὀρθῶς ἀποδέδονται. ἀνισότονοι γάρ εἰσι συνεχεῖς ψόφοι, ὧν οὐχ ὁμοία γίνεται οὐδ’ ἴση ἡ τάσις, οὐδ’ ὁμοιομερής, οἷος ὁ τῶν τυπτομένων χαλκωμάτων ψόφος καὶ ὁ τῶν σαλπίγγων τῶν ὡρολογίων ἦχος. ταῦτα γὰρ ἀρχόμενα κατ’ ὀλίγον ἐπαναβαίνει καὶ συνεχῶς καὶ κατ’ ὀλίγον ἐπιτεινόμενα ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα, καὶ ἑτέραν ποιεῖται τάσιν, συνεχῆ μέντοι. ἀρχόμενα δέ, ἐφ’ ἣν πέφυκεν ἄρχεσθαι πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ κατ’ ὀλίγον ὑποβαίνοντα μυουρίζεται, καὶ πρὸς τὸν βαρύτερον ἀφικνούμενα τόπον οἱονεὶ καθ’ ὑπέκλυσιν μόγις ἀποσιωπᾷ. Κἀπὶ τῶν ἄρτι δὲ μανθανόντων μελῳδεῖν τὸ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει· προβαλλομένου γάρ τινα τάσιν τοῦ διδασκάλου καὶ κελεύσαντος ταύτην ὁμοίως προενέγκασθαι ὁ μανθάνων πειρώμενος μὲν ὁμοτονεῖν, οὐ δυνάμενος δέ, προφέρεταί τινα τάσιν βαρυτέραν τῆς δοθείσης καὶ ὀξυτέραν, καὶ λοιπὸν ἀντιλαμβανόμενος ἑαυτοῦ μὴ λήγοντος σιωπῆσαι μὲν αἰδεῖται, μένων δ’ ἐν τῷ φωνὴν ἀφιέναι οἱονεὶ διαψηλαφᾷ καὶ ζητεῖ πάντα τὸν σύνεγγυς [84] τόπον τῆς ἐνδοθείσης τάσεως· καὶ βαρυτέρας μὲν τῆς ἰδίας προφορᾶς αἴσθησιν λαβὼν παροξύνει κατ’ ὀλίγον αἰσθητὸν διάστημα μηδ’ ἓν ποιῶν· ὀξυτέρας δέ, βαρύνει πάλιν πρὸς ὀλίγον. ταῦτα δὲ ποιῶν συνεχῆ μὲν τὴν τάσιν τῆς φωνῆς ποιεῖ, ἐπὶ μίαν δὲ καὶ ὁμοίαν καὶ ἴσην τάσιν οὐκέτι, οὐδ’ ἰσοτόνως. Ἰδεῖν δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦτο κἀπὶ τῶν ἐντατῶν ὀργάνων, ἐφ’ ὧν, ὅταν τις ἅμα τῷ πλῆξαί τινα χορδὴν εὐθὺς ἐπιτείνῃ, ποιεῖ φωνὴν κατὰ παρεξήγησιν ἑτέραν. σχεδὸν γὰρ τῆς πληγῆς ἔτι συνεχούσης τὸν φθόγγον ἐπακολουθήσασα καὶ ἡ ἐπίτασις ἢ ἄνεσις ὑποσύρει τοῦτον εἰς ἀπείρους καὶ συνεχεῖς τάσεις. ὃ δὴ ἔφη καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος πεπονθέναι τοὺς ταῖς ἐπιτάσεσιν ἢ ταῖς ἀνέσεσιν κινουμέναις ἔτι συνηχοῦντας ψόφους. “Ἔστι δ’ ἐπίτασις μὲν κίνησις φωνῆς ἐκ βαρυτέρου τόνου εἰς ὀξύτερον, ἄνεσις δὲ κίνησις φωνῆς συνεχὴς ἐξ ὀξυτέρου εἰς βαρύτερον, τάσις δὲ μονὴ καὶ στάσις τῆς φωνῆς. καὶ βαρύτης [ 652 ]

μὲν φωνῆς ἐστι τὸ γινόμενον διὰ τῆς ἀνέσεως, ὀξύτης δὲ τὸ γινόμενον διὰ τῆς ἐπιτάσεως.” Ἡ τάσις δέ, ὡς ἤδη ἀποδέδεικται, ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος διαφέρει, ᾗ γένος εἰδῶν. διὸ κοινή ἐστιν ἑκατέρας ἐναντίων οὐσῶν ἀλλήλαις. ἔχουσι μὲν τοίνυν οἱ ἀνισότονοι ψόφοι μετάβασιν, ἀλλ’ ἀνεπίδηλον ταύτην τῷ μὴ διορίζεσθαι τοὺς τόπους αὐτῆς, ὥστ’ ὀρθῶς ἀπεδόθησαν “συνεχεῖς εἰσιν οἱ ἀνισότονοι ψόφοι, οἱ τοὺς τόπους τῶν ἐφ’ ἑκάτερα μεταβάσεων ἀνεπιδήλους ἔχοντες”. ἔστι δὲ καὶ οὕτως αὐτοὺς ἀφορίσαι, ὧν οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν μέρος ἰσότονόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ διάστασιν αἰσθητήν. μέρος μὲν γάρ τί ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἰσότονον, ἀλλ’ ἄχρι τινός, μέρος δ’ ἀνισότονον, οὐ μὴν ἐπιδηλώσοι ἂν οὐ συνεχὴς ὁ ψόφος, ἀλλὰ διωρισμένος διειλημμένων αὐτοῦ τῶν τάσεων τοῖς ἐπιδήλοις πέρασιν. ὥσπερ οὖν ἐπὶ τῆς ἴριδος τὸ πρασίζον χρῶμα καὶ τὸ χρυσίζον καὶ ἐρυθρὸν ἄχρι μέν τινος ὅμοιον θεωρεῖται, ἀνεπίδηλον δὲ τὸ πέρας ἑκάστου καὶ συγκέχυται ἀκαταλήπτως τῇ αἰσθήσει· οὕτως ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνισοτόνων συνεχῶν ψόφων ἔχει· καὶ τἆλλα δ’ ἃ παρείληφε παραδείγματα εἰσηγησόμεθα.

[ 653 ]

Διωρισμένοι δ’ εἰσὶ ἕως τοῦ χρωμάτων. [ 8 5 ] ΔΙ Ω Ρ Ι Σ Μ Έ Ν ΟΥ ς Ἀ Ν Ι ΣΟ Τ Ό Ν ΟΥ ς ψόφους φησὶν εἶναι, ὅταν οἱ τόποι τῶν μεταβάσεών εἰσιν ἔκδηλοι καὶ μὴ συγκεχυμένοι. γίνεται δὲ τοῦτο, ὅταν ἰσότονα μένῃ αὐτῶν τὰ μέρη δι’ αἰσθητὴν τάσιν. ἡ γὰρ διορίζουσα τάσις τὰ πέρατα τῶν μερῶν, ὅταν ᾖ αἰσθητὴ καὶ μὴ ἀνεπίδηλος, τὸ ἀνισότονον αὐτῶν μερίζουσα τῇ αἰσθητῇ διαφορᾷ, ἐκδήλους ποιεῖ τὰς μεταβάσεις, κἂν διὰ σιγῆς ἡ φωνὴ μὴ διακόπτηται. οὐ γὰρ διωρισμένοι εἰσὶ ψόφοι οἱ σιγαῖς διειλημμένοι, ἀλλ’ οἱ τὰς ὀξύτητας καὶ βαρύτητας περιγεγραμμένας ἔχοντες καὶ ἀσυγχύτους, καθάπερ ἄκρατα χρώματα ἀλλήλοις παρακείμενα. διὰ τοίνυν τὸ ἀφωρίσθαι τὰς τάσεις, κἂν ὑφ’ ἓν πνεῦμά τις προφέρῃ αὐτοὺς μὴ διακόπτων, διωρισμένοι λέγονται· καὶ ἀνισότονοι μέν, ὡς πρὸς ἀλλήλας αἱ τάσεις θεωροῦνται, καθ’ ἑαυτὴν δ’ ἑκάστη καὶ τὰ ἑαυτῆς μέρη ἰσότονοι, ὥσθ’ ἑκάστην διάληψιν τῶν διωρισμένων ἀνισοτόνων ψόφων καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς μὲν ἀποτελεῖν αὐτοὺς ἰσοτόνους, πρὸς δ’ ἀλλήλους ἀναφερομένους ἀνισοτόνους.

[ 654 ]

Ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν ἕως τοῦ τῶν ὑπεροχῶν. ΤῶΝ Ἀ Ν Ι ΣΟ Τ Ό Ν Ω Ν Ψ Ό Φ Ω Ν οἱ μὲν ἦσαν συνεχεῖς, οἱ δὲ διωρισμένοι. τοὺς μὲν οὖν συνεχεῖς παρῃτητέον φησὶ διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἀορίστους καὶ ἀπείρους καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πάσης τεχνικῆς ἐκκλείεσθαι καταλήψεως - τῶν γὰρ ἀπείρων καὶ ἀορίστων ὡμολόγηται μὴ εἶναι ἐπιστήμην τοὺς δ’ ἀνισοτόνους μέν, διωρισμένους δ’, οὔ. κατὰ τὸν διορισμὸν εἴ τις σκοπός, οἱ αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τοῖς ἰσοτόνοις ὅμοιοι ὄντες ἑαυτοῖς, εἰ καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἀνόμοιοι. τούτους οὖν φησι ληπτέον ὡς οἰκείους τῇ ἁρμονικῇ. διὸ γάρ φησι τοὺς ἀνισοτόνους συνεχεῖς παρῃτούμεθα ὡς ὄντας ἀπείρους καὶ ἀπεριορίστους καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τῶν ἐπιστημῶν ἀλλοτρίους· ἔμπαλιν τούτους παραδεκτέον· ὁρίζονται γὰρ καὶ τοῖς πέρασι τοῖς οἰκείοις, ἃ δή ἐστιν ἰσότονα τοῖς ὅλοις, παραμετροῦνται δὲ καὶ ταῖς τάξεσι τῶν ὑπεροχῶν. ὑπεροχῶν δὲ τάξεις εἰσί, καθ’ ἃς οἱ τῶν ἀριθμῶν λόγοι θεωροῦνται οἵ τε πολλαπλάσιοι καὶ οἱ ἐπιμόριοι καὶ οἱ ἐπιμερεῖς, οἷς δὴ λόγοις αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν ἀνισοτόνων διωρισμένων ψόφων παραμετροῦνται, περὶ ὧν ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῶν συμφώνων ἐπὶ πλέον ποιησόμεθα λόγον. ἐκβεβλημένων οὖν τῶν ἀνισοτόνων συνεχῶν ψόφων τῆς ἁρμονικῆς θεωρίας, παραδεδεγμένων δὲ τῶν ἀνισοτόνων διωρισμένων, ἐν οἷς ἦσαν καὶ οἱ ἰσότονοι, ἐν τούτοις φησὶ τοὺς φθόγγους θεωρεῖσθαι λέγων· [86]

[ 655 ]

Καὶ δὴ φθόγγους ἕως τοῦ ἐπέχων τόνον. ΤΟ Ὺ ς Δ Ὴ ΤΟ ῖς μὲν πέρασι τῶν ἰσοτόνων ὁριζομένους, παραμετρουμένους δὲ ταῖς τάξεσι τῶν ὑπεροχῶν φθόγγους φησὶ κλητέον, εἶτ’ ἀποδίδωσιν ὅρον τοῦ φθόγγου· φθόγγος γάρ ἐστι ψόφος ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπέχων τόνον, τόνον μὲν λαμβάνων ἀντὶ τῆς τάσεως, καθάπερ ἤδη κέχρηται, τοὺς δὲ φερομένους ὅρους τοῦ φθόγγου μεταλαβών. φέρονται γὰρ αὐτοῦ ὅροι παρὰ μὲν τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις· “φθόγγος ἐστὶ ψόφος κατὰ μίαν τάσιν ἐκφερόμενος”. παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἀριστοξενείοις· “φθόγγος ἐστὶ φωνῆς ἐμμελοῦς πτῶσις ἐπὶ μίαν τάσιν.” ἢ “ἐμμελὴς οὖν φωνῆς πτῶσις ἐπὶ μίαν τάσιν.” φωνῆς μὲν ἐμμελοῦς εἴρηται, ἐπείπερ οὐ περὶ πάσης φωνῆς ὁ λόγος, ἀλλά τινος, τουτέστι τῆς ἐμμελοῦς. ἐμμελῆ δὲ φωνὴν τὴν αὐτὴν τῇ διαστηματικῇ τιθέμενος, ὅθεν δυνάμει τὸ λεγόμενον μέν ἐστι φωνῆς διαστηματικῆς. διαστηματικὴ δὲ φωνή ἐστιν ἡ πρὸς μέλος ἐπιτήδειος, ἣν διαστέλλονται πρὸς τὴν κατὰ τὰς ὁμιλίας εἰς τὴν χρῆσιν παραλαμβανομένην, ἣν “συνεχῆ τε καὶ λογικὴν” καλεῖν εἴωθεν ὁ Ἀριστόξενος, πτῶσιν δὲ διὰ τὸ τὴν μὲν συνεχῆ ὡσανεὶ ἑστῶσαν εἶναι· τὴν μέντοι διαστηματικὴν τὴν ὀρθότητα μὴ σῴζουσαν κεκλᾶσθαι καὶ μονονουχὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑστάναι πεσοῦσαν ἐμμελῆ γεγονέναι· διὸ καὶ τὸ μέλος ἀποδιδόασι κλᾶσιν φωνῆς. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν, οἷον ξύλων ἢ δένδρων, τὰ μὲν ἰθυτενῆ ὀρθὰ διαμένοντα συνεχῆ πως θεωρεῖται, τὰ δ’ ὑπ’ ἀνέμου ἤ τινος ἄλλης βίας παθόντα κλασθέντα πίπτει· οὕτω καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἐν συνεχείᾳ μὲν διαμένουσα ὀρθή τις εἶναι καὶ ἄκλαστος νομίζεται, λυγισθεῖσα δὲ καὶ πεσοῦσα μελῳδικὴ γίνεται. τὸ δ’ “ἐπὶ μίαν τάσιν”, ἐπεὶ τὸ μὲν ὅλον μέλος πτῶσίς ἐστιν ἐπὶ πολλὰς τάσεις καὶ τοσαύτας, ὅσας ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχει κατὰ τὸ σύστημα, ὁ δὲ φθόγγος ἕν τι μέρος ἐλάχιστον ὢν τοῦ μέλους ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ τὴν ἐφ’ ἑαυτὸν γινομένην πτῶσιν μίαν ἔχει. καὶ μὴν καὶ διὰ τὰς εἰρημένας τῶν ἀνισοτόνων συνεχῶν ψόφων παρατηρήσεις πρόσκειται τὸ “ἐπὶ μίαν τάσιν” διὰ τὸ ἔχειν καὶ ἀρχὴν καὶ μέσα καὶ τέλος τὸν φθόγγον· ἔστι γὰρ διαστατός· δι’ ὅλου δεῖν ὅμοιον εἶναι. [87] Ὅπερ οὖν παρὰ τοῖς Ἀριστοξενείοις ἀπεδόθη τὸ “εἶναι τὸν φθόγγον φωνῆς ἐμμελοῦς πτῶσιν κατὰ μίαν τάσιν ἐκφερομένην”, τοῦτο μετείληπται εἰς τὸ “εἶναι τὸν φθόγγον ψόφον ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπέχοντα τόνον”, ἀντὶ μὲν “τῆς φωνῆς” τοῦ ψόφου παρειλημμένου ἀκριβέστερον διὰ τοὺς τὴν φωνὴν ἐπὶ τῆς ὑπὸ ζῴων προϊεμένης καθ’ ὁρμὴν διὰ τὰς ἀρτηρίας ἐνάρθρου ἠχῆς ὑπακούοντας, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀψύχων ὀργάνων μηκέτι προϊεμένους τοὔνομα, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ “ἐν μιᾷ τάσει” τοῦ “ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπέχειν τόνον” εἰρημένου. ὁ γὰρ τόνος ἀντὶ τῆς τάσεως πολλάκις εἴρηται παρελήφθη. δόξει δὲ μὴ εἶναι ἀκριβὴς ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου ἀποδοθεὶς ὅρος τῷ προσπεριλαμβάνειν καὶ τῆς συνεχοῦς φωνῆς καὶ τῶν ἁπλῶν καὶ μὴ μελῳδουμένων ψόφων τὰ μέρη. ἐγχωρεῖ γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀξείας ἢ βαρείας συλλαβῆς τάττειν τὸ “εἶναι ψόφον τὸν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπέχοντα τόνον.” οὐκέτι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅρων εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ ἔγκλημα ὑπαγομένων τῷ “φωνῆς ἐμμελοῦς” ἀποδεδόσθαι “πτῶσιν ἐπὶ μίαν τάσιν” τὸν φθόγγον. τό τε γὰρ “ἐμμελοῦς” [ 656 ]

προσκείμενον καὶ “τὴν πτῶσιν” διαστέλλει ἱκανῶς ἀπὸ τῶν μερῶν τῆς συνεχοῦς φωνῆς τὸν φθόγγον. εἰ μὴ ἄρα τις λέγοι, ὅτι φθόγγος παρειλημμένος ἱκανῶς μηνύει, περὶ τίνος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος· εἰ γὰρ ἐμμελὴς λέγεται φθόγγος, τούτου ἂν εἴη καὶ ὁ ὅρος ἀποδεδομένος.

[ 657 ]

Διὸ καὶ μόνος μὲν ἕως τοῦ καὶ τὸ ἐμμελές. ἘΠ Ε Ι Δ Ὴ Δ Ι Ὰ ΤΟ ῦ ποσοῦ ὁ ὅρος τοῦ φθόγγου ἀποδίδοται - ψόφος γάρ ἐστιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπέχων τόνον, ὃ σημαίνει ὅτι καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἀδιάφορος ὁ φθόγγος - εἴη γὰρ καὶ μεριστὸς καθ’ ὅσον αἰσθητὸς καὶ οὐκ ἀδιάστατος, ἀλλ’ ὁμοιομερὴς καὶ ταύτῃ ἐοικὼς ἀριθμῷ ἐξ ὁμοίων μονάδων συνεστῶτι. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν αὐτός τε εἷς καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀδιάφορος, ἀποδέδοται δὲ δι’ ἀριθμοῦ, εἴη ἂν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἄσχετος, εἰ δ’ ἄσχετος, καὶ ἄλογος· ἄλογος δὲ κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμενον τοῦ λόγου, ὃ παρίστησιν δύο μεγεθῶν ὁμογενῶν τὴν κατὰ πηλικότητα ὁμοίαν σχέσιν εἶναι τὸν λόγον. ὥστ’ εἴπερ ἐν ποσότητι ὁ φθόγγος, ἀσχέτῳ δὲ καθ’ ἑαυτόν, εἴη [88] ἂν ἄλογος κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον σημαινόμενον τοῦ λόγου ὁ φθόγγος. δεῖ δὲ γινώσκειν, ὅτι κἂν ποιότητες ὦσιν αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν ψόφων αἱ κατ’ ὀξύτητα καὶ βαρύτητα, οὐδὲν κωλύει ὡς περὶ ποσὸν ποιεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον τῶν φθόγγων ὡς τῇ ποσότητι τοῦ ὑποκειμένου ἐπιγίνεσθαι ταύτας τὰς διαφοράς, ἢ ὥσπερ ὁ Παναίτιος ἔφασκε, “μέτρα τινὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς κατ’ ἀναλογίαν τοῖς φθόγγοις παραβάλλειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀριθμῶν, οἷς χρωμένους ἡμᾶς τὸ παχὺ καὶ ἀβέβαιον τῆς ἀκοῆς ἐκκλίνειν”. αὐτὸς μὲν οὖν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ὁ φθόγγος ἄλογος· ὅταν δ’ ὦσι δύο φθόγγοι, ἤτοι ἰσότονοί εἰσιν ἢ ἀνισότονοι. ἰσοτόνους δ’ ἀκουστέον νῦν οὐχ ὡς τὸν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτόν, ὅταν ὁμοιομερὴς ᾖ, λέγομεν ἰσότονον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἕτερον σημαινόμενον τοῦ ἰσοτόνου, ὃ ἐπὶ δυοῖν ἐτάττετο ἴσην ἐχόντων τάσιν. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἰσότονοι ἀπαράλλακτοι ὄντες κατὰ τὴν τάσιν ἑνὶ ἐοίκασιν ἰσοτόνῳ· διὸ οὐδὲ περιέχουσι διάστημα. εἰ δὲ χρὴ καὶ τούτους ἀλόγους καλεῖν ἢ λόγον μὲν ἔχειν, διάστημα δ’ οὔ, ἑξῆς διορισθήσεται ἐν τῷ περὶ συμφωνιῶν λόγῳ· ἔνθα καὶ περὶ λόγων ἀκριβέστερον καὶ περὶ διαστημάτων διαλεξόμεθα. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἰσότονοι τὰ νῦν παρεκκείσθωσαν. Οἱ δ’ ἀνισότονοι φθόγγοι, φησί, κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους παραβολὴν ποιοῦσί τινα λόγον ἐκ τοῦ ποσοῦ τῆς ὑπεροχῆς· λόγοι μὲν γάρ εἰσιν οἵ τε διπλάσιοι καὶ οἱ τριπλάσιοι καὶ πάντες, ὅσοι πολλαπλάσιοι, οἵ τε ἡμιόλιοι καὶ ἐπίτριτοι καὶ ὅλως ἐπιμόριοι καὶ οἱ τοιοῦτοι· τό τε διάφορον εἰλήφασιν ἐκ τῆς διαφόρου ὑπεροχῆς θατέρου ὅρου τοῦ λοιποῦ. φέρε γὰρ ἔστω ὁ ὑπερέχων ὅρος ὁ ιβ΄· οὗτος δὶς μέν τινα ἔχων καὶ ἴσῳ τοῦ ὑπερεχομένου ὑπερέχων ἐν λόγῳ γίνεται τῷ διπλασίῳ, οἷον ὁ ιβ΄ πρὸς τὸν Ϛ΄· ὑπερέχων δὲ τῷ ἡμίσει τοῦ ὑπερεχομένου οἷον τῷ η΄ ἐν λόγῳ θεωρεῖται τῷ ἡμιολίῳ· τῷ δὲ τρίτῳ ὑπερέχων τοῦ ὑπερεχομένου οἷον τῷ θ΄ ἐν λόγῳ θεωρεῖται τῷ ἐπιτρίτῳ· ὥστ’ ἐκ τοῦ ποσοῦ τῆς ὑπεροχῆς ἡ διαφορὰ τῶν λόγων ὑφίσταται. Παραβολὴν δὲ λέγουσιν οἱ περὶ τὰ μαθήματα τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλας σχέσιν τῶν ὁμοιογενῶν. ἐν οὖν τοῖς πρὸς ἀλλήλους παραβαλλομένοις φθόγγοις καὶ σχέσιν τινὰ πρὸς ἀλλήλους κεκτημένοις καὶ λόγον τὸ ἐμμελὲς ἤδη καταφαίνεται καὶ τὸ ἐκμελές. τὸ γὰρ ἐκμελὲς ἢ ἐμμελὲς οὐκ ἄσχετον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ πρὸς ἕτερον φθόγγον φθόγγου σχέσει θεωρεῖται. τὸ μὲν [89] οὖν ἐκμελές, ὅτι ἀλλοτριότητα καὶ τὸ ἄναπτον καὶ ἀσυνάρμοστον σημαίνει, πρόδηλον, τίνες δ’ οἱ ἐκμελεῖς, ῥηθήσεται ὕστερον. τὸ δ’ ἐμμελές, ὅτι σύναψιν καὶ συνάρμοσιν σημαίνειν βούλεται, καὶ τοῦτο [ 658 ]

γνώριμον. τίνα δ’ ἔχει διαφορὰν τὸ ἐμμελὲς πρὸς τὸ σύμφωνον, ὅταν τίνες οἱ ἐμμελεῖς, καὶ τίνες οἱ σύμφωνοι φθόγγοι φανεροὶ γένωνται, ἔσται σαφές. διακρίνειν γὰρ βούλεται τούτους ὁ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ μὴ πάντως τοὺς ἐμμελεῖς εἶναι καὶ συμφώνους, εἰ καὶ πάντως οἱ σύμφωνοι καὶ ἐμμελεῖς. συντόμως δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ νῦν ἐκδιδάσκει περὶ τούτων ἐπάγων.

[ 659 ]

Εἰσὶ δ’ ἐμμελεῖς ἕως τοῦ μὴ οὕτως ἔχοντας. ΠΡΟ Ε ΛΘ Ὼ Ν Ἀ Κ Ρ Ι Β ΈΣΤ Ε ΡΟ Ν Π Ε Ρ Ὶ τούτων διαλήψεται προστιθεὶς τοῖς ἐμμελέσι καὶ συμφώνοις καὶ ὁμοφώνους· νῦν δὲ διὰ τὴν φερομένην διάταξιν ἐμμελεῖς μὲν ἀποδέδωκε τοὺς εὐφόρους ἀλλήλοις συναπτομένους, συμφώνους δὲ τοὺς τὴν ὁμοίαν ἀντίληψιν ἐμποιοῦντας ταῖς ἀκοαῖς. ἔστι δ’ ἡ διαφορά, ὅτι οἱ μὲν οὐκ ἐναντιοῦνται μόνον πρὸς τὴν ἀλλήλων συναφήν, οἱ δὲ καὶ ἐναντιοῦνται καὶ ὁμοίως ταῖς ἀκοαῖς προσπίπτουσιν. “ἔστι γὰρ συμφωνία δυεῖν φθόγγων ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι διαφερόντων κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ πτῶσις καὶ κρᾶσις. δεῖ γὰρ τοὺς φθόγγους συγκρουσθέντας ἕν τι εἶδος ἀποτελεῖν φθόγγου” τῇ ἀκοῇ, οὔτε τῆς ὀξύτητος ὑπερβαλλούσης καὶ αὑτὴν παρεμφαινούσης, οὔτε τῆς βαρύτητος, ἀλλ’ οἱονεὶ κράσεως τοιαύτης γενομένης ὡς τῶν κεκραμένων μὴ ἐπικρατεῖν θατέρου θάτερον, μηδὲ τὴν αὐτοῦ δύναμιν ἐμφαίνειν ἢ ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς θατέρου ἢ ἐλλείπουσαν. ἐὰν γὰρ ἡ ἀκοὴ τοῦ βαρέος μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ συγκρούσει ποιῆται τὴν ἀντίληψιν ἢ πάλιν τοῦ ὀξέος, ἀσύμφωνόν ἐστι τὸ τοιοῦτον. τοὺς οὖν τοιούτους φθόγγους κεκλήκασι συμφώνους παρὰ τὸν κάλλιστόν φησιν ἤδη τῶν ψόφων τὴν φωνὴν ὀνοματοποιήσαντες. τῷ μὲν γὰρ γένει ψόφος καὶ ἡ φωνή, ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν τὸ ζῷον τοῦ μὴ ζῴου κρεῖττον καὶ τὸν ὑπὸ ζῴου ἢ ζῴων προϊέμενον ψόφον, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἡ φωνή, κρείττονα τῶν μὴ οὕτως ἀποτελουμένων ἐτίθεντο ψόφον. καὶ γάρ πως καὶ οἱ δοκοῦντες εἶναι ἀπὸ τῶν μουσικῶν ὀργάνων κλητὴν τὴν [90] φωνήν, ᾗ μιμεῖσθαι σπουδάζουσι, καὶ ὅμως τοῦ κατ’ αὐτὴν διηρθρωμένου οὐ κατὰ πᾶν τυγχάνειν δύνανται. Ἐμβὰς τοίνυν εἰς τὸν περὶ τῶν συμφώνων λόγον τὰς τῶν Πυθαγορείων περὶ αὐτῶν διατάξεις δοκιμάζει πρότερον, εἶθ’ οὕτω τὰ αὐτῷ ἀρέσκοντα τίθησιν, ὧν ἀπ’ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς τὴν ἐξήγησιν ποιησόμεθα.

[ 660 ]

ε΄. ΧΡ Ὴ Γ Ι Ν ΏΣ Κ Ε Ι Ν , Ὅ Τ Ι τῆς ἁρμονικῆς “πάντες οἱ φθόγγοι γίνονται πληγῆς τινος γενομένης· πληγὴν δ’ ἀμήχανον γίνεσθαι μὴ οὐχὶ κινήσεως πρότερον γινομένης. τῶν δὲ κινήσεων αἱ μέν εἰσι πυκνότεραι, αἱ δ’ ἀραιότεραι, καὶ αἱ μὲν πυκνότεραι ὀξυτέρους ποιοῦσι τοὺς φθόγγους, αἱ δ’ ἀραιότεραι βαρυτέρους. ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἐστι τοὺς μὲν ὀξυτέρους εἶναι, ἐπείπερ ἐκ πυκνοτέρων καὶ πλειόνων σύγκεινται κινήσεων, ‹τοὺς δὲ βαρυτέρους, ἐπείπερ ἐξ ἀραιοτέρων καὶ ἐλασσόνων σύγκεινται κινήσεων›, ὥστε τοὺς μὲν ὀξυτέρους τοῦ δέοντος ‹ἀνιεμένους ἀφαιρέσει κινήσεως τυγχάνειν τοῦ δέοντος, τοὺς δὲ βαρυτέρους› ἐπιτεινομένους προσθέσει κινήσεων τυγχάνειν τοῦ δέοντος. διόπερ ἐκ μορίων συγκεῖσθαι τοὺς φθόγγους φατέον, ἐπειδὴ προσθέσει καὶ ἀφαιρέσει τυγχάνουσι τοῦ δέοντος. πάντα δὲ τὰ ἐκ μορίων συγκείμενα ‹ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ λέγεται πρὸς ἄλληλα, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς φθόγγους ἀναγκαῖον ἐν› ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ λέγεσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους. τῶν δ’ ἀριθμῶν οἱ μὲν ἐν πολλαπλασίονι λόγῳ λέγονται, οἱ δ’ ἐν ἐπιμορίῳ, οἱ δ’ ἐν ἐπιμερεῖ, καθ’ ἃ προείρηται, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς φθόγγους ἀναγκαῖον ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ‹λόγοις› λέγεσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους.” “Λόγος δὲ λέγεται δύο μεγεθῶν ὁμογενῶν ἡ κατὰ πηλικότητα ποιὰ [91] σχέσις”, κατὰ δὲ τοὺς Ἀριστοξενείους “τὸ περιεχόμενον ὑπὸ δύο φθόγγων ἀνομοίων τῇ τάσει”· καὶ ἄλλοι ἄλλως ἐδόξασαν περὶ τοῦ διαστήματος. Ἐρατοσθένης μὲν οὖν φησιν ἕτερον εἶναι διάστημα λόγου· ἐν γὰρ ἑνὶ διαστήματι δύο λόγοι γίνονται. ὁ δὲ λόγος δὶς φέρεται, ὅ τε τοῦ μείζονος πρὸς τὸ ἔλαττον καὶ τοῦ ἐλάττονος πρὸς τὸ μεῖζον καὶ κοινὴ διαφορὰ ὑπεροχῆς καὶ ἐλλείψεως ὡς τῆς διαφορᾶς δηλονότι τὸ διάστημα ποιούσης. διπλασίου τε γάρ φησι πρὸς ἥμισυ καὶ ἡμίσεος πρὸς διπλάσιον ὁ μὲν λόγος ἕτερος, τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ διάστημα. ἐκ δὴ τοιούτων οὔτε τί καλεῖται διάστημα, οὔτε καθ’ ὃ διαφέρει τοῦ λόγου παρέστησεν. Ἀπὸ δὴ τούτου κινηθέντες τινὲς τῶν μετ’ αὐτὸν διάστημα ἐκάλεσαν εἶναι ὑπεροχήν, ὡς Αἰλιανὸς ὁ Πλατωνικὸς καὶ Φιλόλαος δ’ ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν διαστημάτων προσηγορίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Θράσυλλος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ ἑπταχόρδου ἐπὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς εἶναι τῶν φθόγγων τάττει τὸ διάστημα, γράφων οὕτως. “Τὸ δὲ διάστημα λέγουσιν αὐτὴν τὴν διαφορὰν τὴν γινομένην πρὸς ἀλλήλους δύο φθόγγων τῶν ἀνομοίων, οἷον ἐὰν ὁ μὲν ᾖ βαρύς, ὁ δ’ ὀξύς, ἡ παρ’ ἀλλήλους διαφορὰ διάστημα προσαγορεύεται. διαφέρει δὲ λόγος ὑπεροχῆς· καὶ κατὰ τοῦ ὄντος γὰρ διπήχους καὶ πηχυαίου ἡ μὲν ὑπεροχὴ κατὰ μονάδα θεωρεῖται· ὁ δὲ λόγος διπλασίων τοῦ μείζονος ὅρου [92] πρὸς τὸν ἐλάσσονα. καὶ λόγος ὁ αὐτός ἐστι τοῦ ἓξ πρὸς τὰ τρία καὶ τοῦ δύο πρὸς ἕν· αἱ δ’ ὑπεροχαὶ ἄνισοι· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖς ἓξ πρὸς τὰ τρία τριὰς ὑπερέχει, ἐν δὲ τοῖς δύο πρὸς ἓν μονὰς ὑπεροχή. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διαφερόντων δὲ μεγεθῶν τῆς αὐτῆς ὑπεροχῆς οὔσης μείζων ὁ λόγος ἐπὶ τῶν ἐλασσόνων [ 661 ]

ἤπερ ἐπὶ τῶν μειζόνων, οἷον τοῦ ἓξ ἀριθμοῦ πρὸς τὰ δύο λόγος τριπλάσιος καὶ ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τῶν ὅρων μονάδες τέσσαρες· τῶν δὲ κ΄ πρὸς τὰ ιϚ΄ ἡ μὲν ὑπεροχὴ μονάδες δ΄ ἡ αὐτή, ὁ δὲ λόγος ἕτερος ἐπὶ δ΄ ἐλάσσων.” Ὅτι μὲν οὖν διαφέρει λόγος ὑπεροχῆς, δῆλον· ὅτι δ’ ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ σχέσις τῶν πρὸς ἄλληλα συμβλητῶν ὅρων καλεῖται καὶ διάστημα, παραστήσομεν. Εὑρίσκομεν γὰρ συνήθως παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις κατὰ τοῦ λόγου τιθέμενον τὸ διάστημα. ὁ γοῦν παρὰ τῷ θειοτάτῳ Πλάτωνι Τίμαιος “ἡμιολίων” φησί, “διαστάσεων καὶ ἐπιτρίτων καὶ ἐπογδόων γενομένων ἐκ τούτων τῶν δεσμῶν, τῷ τοῦ ἐπογδόου διαστήματι τὰ ἐπίτριτα πάντα συνεπληροῦτο, λείπων αὐτῶν ἑκάστου μόριον, τῆς δὲ τοῦ μορίου ταύτης διαστάσεως λειφθείσης ἀριθμοῦ πρὸς ἀριθμὸν ἐλάσσονας ἐχούσης τοὺς ὅρους Ϛ΄ καὶ ν΄ καὶ σ΄ πρὸς γ΄ καὶ μ΄ καὶ σ΄.” Διὰ δὴ τῶν εἰρημένων τὰ διαστήματα, οὐ τὰς ὑπεροχάς, ἀλλὰ τοὺς λόγους συνήθως φησὶν ὡς καὶ Δημητρίῳ καὶ Παναιτίῳ δοκεῖ τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς. ἀντὶ γὰρ τοῦ εἰπεῖν ἡμιολίων δὲ λόγων ἡμιολίων εἶπε διαστάσεων. καὶ τῶν κανονικῶν δὲ καὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων οἱ πλείους τὰ διαστήματα ἀντὶ τῶν λόγων λέγουσιν. βεβαιοῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ προκείμενον καὶ Παναίτιος ἀποδείξας, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς Ἐρατοσθένης κατεχρήσατό που τῷ διαστήματι ἀντὶ τοῦ λόγου. ἀλλὰ καὶ Δημήτριος ἐν τῷ Περὶ λόγου συναφῆς μὴ ἀρεσκόμενος τοῖς ὑπὸ Διοδώρου λεγομένοις κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τὸ διάστημα τῷ λόγῳ τίθεται, καὶ ἄλλοι δὲ πολλοὶ τῶν παλαιῶν οὕτω φέρονται. καθάπερ καὶ Διονύσιος ὁ Ἁλικαρνασσεὺς καὶ Ἀρχύτας ἐν τῷ Περὶ μουσικῆς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ στοιχειωτὴς Εὐκλείδης ἐν τῇ Τοῦ κανόνος κατατομῇ ἀντὶ τῶν λόγων τὰ διαστήματα λέγουσιν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Εὐκλείδης λέγει· “τὸ διπλάσιον [93] διάστημα σύγκειται ἐκ δύο τῶν μεγίστων ἐπιμορίων” καὶ “ἐπιμορίου διαστήματος οὐδεὶς μέσος ἀνάλογον ἐμπίπτει” ἀριθμός, καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔσται θεωρήματα, ὧν αἱ ἀποδείξεις ὡς ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις τόποις προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου παραστήσομεν ὑπομνήσεως ἕνεκεν. Ἀρχύτας δὲ περὶ τῶν μεσοτήτων λέγων γράφει ταῦτα. “Μέσαι δ’ ἐντι τρῖς τᾷ μουσικᾷ. μία μὲν ἀριθμητικά, δευτέρα δ’ ἁ γεωμετρικά, τρίτα δ’ ὑπεναντία, ἃν καλέοντι ἁρμονικάν. ἀριθμητικὰ μέν, ὅκκα ἔωντι τρεῖς ὅροι κατὰ τὰν τοίαν ὑπεροχὰν ἀνάλογον, ᾧ πρᾶτος δευτέρου ὑπερέχει, τούτῳ δεύτερος τρίτου ὑπερέχει. καὶ ἐν ταύτᾳ ‹τᾷ› ἀναλογίᾳ συμπίπτει ᾖμεν τὸ τῶν μειζόνων ὅρων διάστημα μεῖον, τὸ δὲ τῶν μειόνων μεῖζον. ἁ γεωμετρικὰ δ’ ὅκκα ἔωντι οἷος ὁ πρᾶτος ποτὶ τὸν δεύτερον, καὶ ὁ δεύτερος ποτὶ τὸν τρίτον. τούτων δ’ οἱ μείζονες ἴσον ποιοῦνται τὸ διάστημα καὶ οἱ μείους. ἁ δ’ ὑπεναντία, ἃν καλοῦμεν ἁρμονικάν, ὅκκα ἔωντι ‹τοῖοι, ᾧ› ὁ πρᾶτος ὅρος ὑπερέχει τοῦ δευτέρου αὐταύτου μέρει, τούτῳ ὁ μέσος τοῦ τρίτου ὑπερέχει τοῦ τρίτου μέρει. γίνεται δ’ ἐν ταύτᾳ τᾷ ἀναλογίᾳ τὸ τῶν μειζόνων ὅρων διάστημα μεῖζον, τὸ δὲ τῶν μειόνων μεῖον”. Ἐν γὰρ τούτοις τὸν λόγον τῶν ὅρων διάστημα κέκληκεν, οὐ τὴν ὑπεροχήν. οἱ δ’ Ἀριστοξένειοί φασι τὰ τῶν διαστημάτων μεγέθη λέγεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῶν ὀξυτάτων καὶ βαρυτάτων, οὐ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μείζονος πρὸς τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπεροχήν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ τὸ ἀπὸ μέσης ἐφ’ [ 662 ]

ὑπάτην ἐστὶ διάστημα, δῆλον ὡς ἡ μέση τῆς ὑπάτης διέστηκεν· εἰ δὲ διέστηκεν, ἀνὰ μέσον τις αὐτῶν ἕτερός ἐστι τόπος τῶν περιεχόντων φθόγγων τὸ διάστημα, ὃν τρόπον ἐπὶ κιόνων ἢ τοίχων ἢ δοκῶν ἢ καμπτήρων ἢ πόλεων ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν διεστάναι λεγομένων οὐδὲν ἄλλο θεωροῦμεν διάστημα ἢ τοῦ ἀνὰ μέσον αὐτῶν τόπον. ὅθεν καὶ Ἀριστόξενος ὡρίσατο τὸ μεταξὺ δύο φθόγγων ἀνομοίων τῇ τάσει λέγων εἶναι τὸ διάστημα· διὸ καὶ μεγέθει γνωρίζεται πάντως. [94] Σαφηνιστέον δὲ τὰ περὶ τοῦ λόγου καὶ τοῦ διαστήματος ἔτι μᾶλλον· ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν ὁ λόγος ἐν διαφόροις γίνεται ὅροις, ὁμογενέσι δὲ πάντως, καὶ ἐν ἀδιαφόροις, ὡς Εὐκλείδῃ δοκεῖ, δειχθήσεται· διάστημα δ’ ἐν τοῖς διαφέρουσι μόνον, φανερόν. δεικτέον δ’ ὅπως καὶ ἐν ποσοῖς καὶ πηλίκοις θεωρεῖται τὸ διάστημα. ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖς ἀνίσοις κατὰ μέγεθος διάστημα λέγουσί τινες τὴν κατὰ ποσότητα ὡς εἴρηται ὑπεροχήν· ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐπιδεχομένοις τὴν κατὰ ποιότητα σύγκρισιν διάστημα λέγεται ἡ κατὰ τὴν ἐπίτασιν τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ποιότητος διαφορά, οἷον δυοῖν λευκῶν ἀνομοίων διάστημα λέγεται ἡ κατὰ τὴν ἐπίτασιν τῆς λευκότητος ἐν αὐτοῖς διαφορά. καὶ γάρ ἐστι ἡ μὲν ὁμοιότης ὥσπερ ἰσότης. ἐν τοῖς κατὰ θέσιν διαφέρουσιν ὑφίσταται τὸ ποικίλον διάστημα· τὸ γὰρ μεταξὺ δυοῖν τινων θέσεων διαφερόντων τῷ τὸ μὲν ἐνθάδε, τὸ δ’ ἐνθάδε κεῖσθαι λέγεται διάστημα, ὃ καὶ ὁριζόμενοί φασιν εἶναι γραμμῆς χώραν, ὡσανεὶ γὰρ τόπος τῆς μεταξὺ καὶ εὐθείας οὕτως ἐπινόηται. Γίνεται δὲ καὶ ἐν κινουμένοις διάστημα ἡ κατὰ τὴν ἐπίτασιν τοῦ ἐν αὐτοῖς τάχους διαφορά. οὕτω δὲ καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ἀνισοτόνους “τὴν διαφορὰν τοῦ ὀξυτέρου φθόγγου παρὰ τὸν βαρύτερον διάστημα καλοῦσι· καὶ οὕτως ὁρίζονται διάστημα δυεῖν φθόγγων ἀνομοίων ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι τὸ διαφέρον.” καὶ οὐ πάντως τὸ διάστημα ἤδη καὶ λόγος. ὅταν οὖν τις βούληται καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν διάστημα καλεῖν, ὡς εἶναι τὸ διάστημα κοινὸν ὄνομα καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν ὑπεροχῆς, οὐδεὶς φθόνος. τὸ δὲ ὑπολαμβάνειν, ὅτι ἰδίως ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς ὑπεροχῆς διάστημα λέγεται, οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ λόγου καλεῖται τὸ διάστημα, πῶς οὐκ ἄτοπον εἶναι δόξειε διὰ τὰ προειρημένα Δημητρίῳ τε καὶ Παναιτίῳ, Ἀρχύτᾳ τε καὶ Διονυσίῳ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ Στοιχειωτῇ καὶ ἄλλοις πολλοῖς κανονικοῖς, καταχρησαμένοις τῷ διαστήματι ἀντὶ τοῦ λόγου; Πέφηνε μὲν οὖν, ὅπως καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ λόγου τὸ διάστημα λαμβάνηται, καὶ οὐ πάντως λόγος διαστήματος ἕτερον, ὡς δοκεῖ τισι. τὰ δὲ περὶ τοῦ διαστήματος εἰρημένα συγκεφαλαιωσώμεθα νῦν. τρεῖς γὰρ αἱρέσεις ἢ πάντως δύο γεγόνασι περὶ τούτων. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὸν λόγον καὶ τὴν σχέσιν τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους συμβλητῶν ὅρων τὸ διάστημα καλοῦσι, καθ’ οὓς ὅρους ὁ ἐπίτριτος λόγος καὶ ἡμιόλιος καὶ πάντες οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἀδιαφόρως λόγοι τε καὶ διαστήματα κληθήσονται, [95] ἅπερ καὶ Δημήτριος κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ οὐ τοπικὰ κέκληκεν. εἰ δὲ καὶ ὁ τῆς ἰσότητος τῶν ὅρων λόγος διάστημα καλεῖται κατ’ αὐτούς, οὐ σαφηνίζουσιν. Οἱ δὲ τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν ὁμογενῶν τε καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους συμβλητῶν ὅρων τὸ διάστημα λέγουσι, καθ’ οὓς τοῦ λόγου διαφέρει τὸ διάστημα καὶ ἐν μόνοις τοῖς διαφέρουσιν ὑφέστηκε δ’ ὅροις. ἔστι δ’ ἡ διαφορὰ ἐν μὲν τοῖς διαφέρουσιν ἀριθμοῖς ἡ κατὰ ποσότητα ὑπεροχὴ τὸ διάστημα, ἐν δὲ τοῖς κατὰ μέγεθος διαφέρουσιν ἡ κατὰ πηλίκον ὑπεροχή, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ποιοῖς ἡ [ 663 ]

κατὰ τὴν ἐπίτασιν τῆς διαφορᾶς, ἐν δὲ τοῖς κατὰ θέσιν διαφέρουσιν διάστημά ἐστιν ἡ κατὰ τόπον διάστασις, ἐν δὲ τοῖς κινουμένοις ἡ κατὰ τὴν διαφορὰν τῆς ἐπιτάσεως τοῦ τάχους τῶν κινουμένων, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμογενέσι τε καὶ συμβλητοῖς ἄλλο τὸ διάστημα. Οἱ δ’ Ἀριστοξένειοι τοπικὸν τίθενται τὸ διάστημα· τόπον γὰρ εἶναι φωνῆς ἀκίνητον, ἐν ᾧ κινοῦμεν τὴν φωνὴν πηλίκον τι μέγεθος διὰ τῆς τῶν ποδῶν διαφόρου θέσεως τοῦ τόπου, ἐν ᾧ βαδίζουσιν, ἀφορίζουσιν· διὸ καὶ διαστάντες μὲν ἐπὶ πλέον τὰ διαβήματα μεῖζον διάστημα τοῦ τόπου ἀπολαμβάνουσι, ἐπ’ ὀλίγον γὰρ διαστάντες ὀλίγον. παρὰ διττὰς γὰρ μετρητὰς πηλικότητας τὴν μουσικήν φασι πραγματεύεσθαι· ἐν ῥυθμῷ μὲν περὶ χρονικάς, ἐν ἁρμονίᾳ δὲ περὶ τοπικάς. Τοσαῦτα μὲν καὶ περὶ τοῦ διαστήματος, οὗ τὸ μέν ἐστι τοπικόν, τὸ δὲ καθ’ ὑπεροχήν. χρησίμως οὖν τῆς τούτων ἡμῖν πραγματείας προεκτεθειμένης ἐπὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τῶν Πτολεμαίου ἐπανέλθωμεν, παραθέντες αὐτοῦ τὴν λέξιν.

[ 664 ]

Συμφωνίας δ’ ἡ μὲν αἴσθησις ἕως τοῦ ἐννοιῶν. ΟἹ ΠΥΘΑ Γ Ό Ρ Ε Ι Ο Ι ΤΟ Ὺ ς λόγους τῶν ἀριθμῶν, ἐν οἷς τὰ αἴτια τῶν ψόφων θεωρεῖται, ἀπεργάζεσθαί φασι τὰς συμφωνίας. τίνας δὲ λόγους ἐγκρίνουσιν καὶ τί ποτ’ ἐστίν, ὃ λέγουσι, προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου δειχθήσεται. βουλόμενοι δὲ τῷ λόγῳ ἑρμηνεύειν τῇ ἀκοῇ κατὰ τὰς συμφωνίας προσπίπτοντες ἦχον τῇ τε τοῦ συμφώνου καὶ τοῦ διαφώνου διαφορᾷ παραστῆσαι κρᾶσιν ὀξέος ψόφου καὶ βαρέος τὴν συμφωνίαν ἀπεδίδοσαν, οἱ δὲ συμπάθειαν, οἱ δ’ ἑνότητα, οἱ δὲ λειότητα· καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις ἐχρῶντο ὀνόμασιν παραστάσεως ἕνεκεν. [96] Ἄδραστος δ’ ὁ Περιπατητικὸς ἐν τοῖς Εἰς τὸν Τίμαιον λέγει οὕτως· “Συμφωνοῦσι δὲ φθόγγοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὧν θατέρου κρουσθέντως ἐπί τινος ὀργάνου τῶν ἐντατῶν καὶ ὁ λοιπὸς κατά τινα οἰκειότητα καὶ συμπάθειαν συνηχεῖ. κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ δ’ ἅμα ἀμφοτέρων κρουσθέντων λεία καὶ προσηνὴς ἐκ τῆς κράσεως ἐξακούεται φωνή.” Αἰλιανὸς δ’ ὁ Πλατωνικὸς Εἰς τὸν Τίμαιον γράφων κατὰ λέξιν λέγει ταῦτα. “Συμφωνία δ’ ἐστὶν δυεῖν φθόγγων ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι διαφερόντων κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ πτῶσις καὶ κρᾶσις. τῶν δὲ συμφωνιῶν ἓξ τὸν ἀριθμὸν οὐσῶν” - ἃς μόνας ὁ Πτολεμαῖος κατηρίθμησε, παρεὶς τὰς λοιπάς· Ἀριστόξενος γὰρ καὶ Διονύσιος καὶ Ἐρατοσθένης καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ὀκτὼ κατηρίθμησαν - “ἁπλᾶς μὲν ἐκάλουν οἱ παλαιοὶ τήν τε διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ διὰ πέντε, συνθέτους δὲ τὰς λοιπάς. ἁπλαῖ δὲ λέγονται, ὅτι αἱ μὲν ἄλλαι ἐκ συμφωνιῶν καθεστήκασιν, αὗται δ’ οὔ.” Θράσυλλος δ’ ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἑπταχόρδου ἁπλᾶς καὶ συμφώνους οὐ μόνον τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ διὰ πέντε κατηρίθμησεν, ὡς οἱ πλείους τῶν μουσικῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν διὰ πασῶν. λέγει γὰρ οὕτως. “τῆς δὲ συμφωνίας ἐστὶν εἴδη πλείω· ἡ μὲν γὰρ λέγεται διὰ πασῶν, ἡ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων, ἡ δὲ διὰ πέντε· συντάσσεται δ’ οὖν ἐν ταῖς ἁπλαῖς.” “Οἱ μὲν Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν μὲν διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαν συλλαβὴν ἐκάλουν, τὴν δὲ διὰ πέντε δι’ ὀξειᾶν, τὴν δὲ διὰ πασῶν τῷ συστήματι, ὡς καὶ Θεόφραστος ἔφη, ἔθεντο ἁρμονίαν. ἁρμονία δὲ κατὰ Θράσυλλον “τὸ συνεστηκὸς ἐκ δυεῖν τινων ἢ πλειόνων συμφώνων διαστημάτων καὶ ὑπὸ συμφώνου περιεχόμενον”· ἁρμονίαι οὖν εἰσι τὰ συστήματα τὰ περιεχόμενα ὑπὸ τῶν εἰρημένων συμφωνιῶν, ὥστε μέρη ἁρμονίας οἱ σύμφωνοι φθόγγοι οἵ τε περιεχόμενοι καὶ οἱ περιέχοντες, αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ συστήματα ἁρμονίαι”. Συλλαβὴν δ’ ἐκάλουν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαν, ὡς Αἰλιανός φησιν, ὅτι πρώτη ἐστὶ συμφωνία συλλαβῆς τάξιν ἔχουσα. [97] τὸ δὲ διὰ πέντε τῆς συμφωνίας τῆς διὰ τεσσάρων ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύτερον συγκεχωρηκὸς ἐκάλεσαν δι’ ὀξειᾶν. κατὰ δὲ τοὺς ὀργανικοὺς λυρικοὺς συλλαβὴ εἴρηται ἀπὸ τοῦ λυρικοῦ σχήματος τῆς χειρός, ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῇ ἑπταχόρδῳ χρήσει ἡ πρώτη σύλληψις τῶν δακτύλων κατὰ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐγένετο σύμφωνον· ἐξ οὖν τοῦ συμβαίνοντος συλλαβὴν κεκλῆσθαι, ‹ὅτι τοῦ διὰ πασῶν τὸ διὰ τῶν βαρυτέρων τελούμενον φθόγγων σύμφωνον τὸ διὰ τεσσάρον ἐστίν, καὶ δι’ ὀξειᾶν› ὅτι τοῦ διὰ πασῶν τὸ διὰ τῶν [ 665 ]

ὀξυτέρων τελούμενον φθόγγων σύμφωνον τὸ διὰ πέντε ἐστίν. ἃ μὲν οὖν ἔδει περὶ τῆς τῶν Πυθαγορείων εὑρέσεως εἰπεῖν ταῦτα· παραθέντες τὴν Πτολεμαίου λέξιν ἀρχόμεθα τῆς περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν ἐξηγήσεως. ἐπάγει δὲ τοῖς προκειμένοις ὁ ἀνὴρ ταῦτα.

[ 666 ]

Ἀρχὴν γὰρ οἰκειοτάτην ἕως τοῦ μήτε πολλαπλάσιον. ΚΑΘ Ά Π Ε Ρ Τ Ὴ Ν ΣΤ Ι Γ Μ Ὴ Ν ἀρχὴν γραμμῆς εἶναι συμβέβηκεν, οὐ μὴν γραμμήν, οὕτω καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα ἀρχὴν διαστήματος θετέον, οὐ μὴν διάστημα. καὶ τοίνυν ἡ ἐν τοῖς φθόγγοις ὁμοφωνία ἀρχὴ μέν τις ἐστὶ διαστήματος ἐμμελοῦς, οὐ μὴν διάστημα. τὸ γὰρ διάστημα ἐν ἀνομοίοις φθόγγοις κατὰ τάσιν θεωρεῖται, ἐπείπερ διαφορά τίς ἐστιν ἀνομοίων φθόγγων τῇ τάσει. διὸ ὥσπερ ἡ ἰσότης ἀδιαίρετός ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἰσότονον οὐκ ἔστι διελεῖν. διάστημα γὰρ οὐδέν, οὔτε τῶν ἰσοτόνων φθόγγων, οὔτε τῶν ἴσων ἀριθμῶν εὑρίσκεται. πλειόνων γὰρ ἑξῆς ὁμοφώνων τιθεμένων καὶ ἡ ὑπεροχὴ ὁμόφωνος ἀποτελεῖται. εἰκότως οὖν ταύτῃ ἀποδεδώκασι τὴν ἰσότητα, ἐπειδὴ ἀπὸ τῆς ἰσότητος ἄρχεται πᾶς λόγος ὑφίστασθαι τῶν ἀνίσων λόγων· ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ ἡ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνισον τῆς νοήσεως ἡ ἀνάβασις καὶ ἡ κατάληψις πάλιν ἐπὶ ταύτῃ, τῷ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἀνίσοις λόγοις διαφορὰν στάσιν μὴ ἐπιδέχεσθαι, εἰ μὴ εἰς τὴν ἰσότητα πέσῃ, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀνισοτόνων φθόγγων ἡ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνισοτόνους κατὰ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν γίνεται. παραβέβληται τὸ ἰσότονον τῶν λόγων τῇ ἰσότητι· ἀκολούθως δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀνισότονον τοῖς ἑξῆς λόγοις παραβληθήσεται. ἐπεὶ οὖν τῶν ἑξῆς μετὰ τὴν ἰσότητα λόγων οἱ μὲν ἦσαν πολλαπλάσιοι, οἱ δ’ ἐπιμόριοι, οἱ δ’ ἐπιμερεῖς, ἀκόλουθον ἦν ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, τίνες τε λόγοι μετὰ τὴν [98] ἰσότητα κρείττους καὶ τίνες οἱ χείρους, εἶθ’ οὕτω παραβαλεῖν τοὺς μὲν κρείττους τοῖς κρείττοσι, τοὺς δὲ χείρους τοῖς χείροσι. Τῶν οὖν ἀνίσων λόγων οἱ μὲν πολλαπλάσιοι καὶ οἱ ἐπιμόριοι κρείττους τῶν ἐπιμερῶν, τῶν δ’ ἀνισοτόνων κρείττους οἱ ἐμμελεῖς καὶ οἱ σύμφωνοι τῶν ἀσυμφώνων. ἐφαρμοστέον ἄρα τοὺς ἐπιμορίους καὶ πολλαπλασίους λόγους τοῖς συμφώνοις, τοὺς δ’ ἐπιμερεῖς τοῖς ἀσυμφώνοις. εἰσὶ δὲ κρείττους οἱ πολλαπλάσιοι καὶ ἐπιμόριοι τῶν ἐπιμερῶν, ἐπεὶ οὖν ἁπλουστέρα ἡ ἐν αὐτοῖς παραβολὴ τῆς τῶν ἐπιμερῶν κατὰ τοὺς ὅρους παραβολῆς. ἡ γὰρ τῶν πολλαπλασίων καὶ ἐπιμορίων παραβολὴ μέρος ἔχει ἁπλοῦν ἐν αὐτῇ τῶν μὲν πολλαπλασίων ἐλάσσονα ὅρων ἐχόντων τοῦ μείζονος, τῶν δ’ ἐπιμορίων τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ μείζονος ὅρου μίαν κεκτημένων· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐπιμερῶν, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν τις ἁπλότης, ἀλλὰ μορίων πλειόνων ὑπεροχῆς παραβολή. Λοιπὸν δὲ διὰ τί τῇ μὲν διὰ πασῶν ἐφαρμοστέον τῶν πολλαπλασίων τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον, τῇ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων τῶν ἐπιμορίων τὸν ἐπίτριτον, τῇ δὲ διὰ πέντε τὸν ἡμιόλιον, εἴρηται σαφῶς παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ. τὰ δ’ ἐξαρχῆς ἄχρι τοῦ τέλους τοῦ κεφαλαίου σαφηνίσομεν ἡμεῖς ἐκθέμενοι γραμμικὰ θεωρήματα πρὸς τὰς ἀποδείξεις αὐτῶν συντείνοντα, κείμενα δ’ ἐν Τῇ τοῦ κανόνος Εὐκλείδου κατατομῇ, διὰ τὸ κατ’ ἐπιδρομὴν εἰρηκέναι τὸν Πτολεμαῖον τὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων, ὧν αἱ προτάσεις εἰσὶν αἵδε. Τὸ διὰ πέντε διάστημα ἐν ἐπιμορίῳ λόγῳ ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων. τὸ διὰ πασῶν διάστημα ἐν πολλαπλασίῳ λόγῳ ἐστί· τὸ διὰ πασῶν διάστημα διπλάσιόν ἐστι, τὸ διὰ πέντε διάστημα ἡμιόλιόν ἐστι καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐπίτριτον. τὸ διπλάσιον διάστημα σύγκειται ἐκ δύο μεγίστων [ 667 ]

ἐπιμορίων· οὐδεὶς πολλαπλάσιος σύγκειται ἐξ ἐπιμορίων δύο λόγων, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ διπλάσιος. ὁ τόνος ἐν ἐπογδόῳ λόγῳ ἐστίν· ὁ τόνος οὐ διαιρεῖται εἰς δύο ἴσα, ὥστε ἡμιτόνιον οὐκ ἔσται. ἐπιμορίου διαστήματος οὐδεὶς μέσος ἀνάλογος ἐμπίπτει ἀριθμός. τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε τριπλάσιόν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ δὶς διὰ πασῶν τετραπλάσιον. αἱ δ’ ἀποδείξεις αὐτῶν ἔχουσιν ὧδε.

[ 668 ]

‹Γραμμικώτερον δὲ προσάγοντες ἕως τοῦ εἶναι τὰ ἐμμελῆ.› [ 9 9 ] “ἘᾺ Ν Δ Ι Ά ΣΤ Η Μ Α πολλαπλάσιον δὶς συντεθὲν ποιῇ τι διάστημα, καὶ αὐτὸ πολλαπλάσιον ἔσται. ἔστω τι διάστημα τὸ ΒΓ καὶ ἔστω πολλαπλάσιος ὁ Β τοῦ Γ, καὶ γεγενήσθω ὡς ὁ Γ πρὸς τὸν Β ὁ Β πρὸς τὸν Δ. φημὶ δὴ καὶ τὸν Δ πρὸς τὸν Γ πολλαπλάσιον εἶναι. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ Β τοῦ Γ πολλαπλάσιός ἐστι, μετρεῖ ἄρα ὁ Γ τὸν Β. ἦν δ’ ὡς ὁ Γ πρὸς τὸν Β, ὁ Β πρὸς τὸν Δ, ὥστε μετρεῖ καὶ ὁ Γ τὸν Δ. πολλαπλάσιος ἄρα ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ Δ τοῦ Γ.” “Ἐὰν διάστημα δὶς συντεθὲν τὸ ὅλον ποιῇ πολλαπλάσιον, καὶ αὐτὸ πολλαπλάσιον ἔσται. ἔστω διάστημα τὸ ΒΓ καὶ γεγενήσθω ὡς ὁ Γ πρὸς τὸν Β, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Β πρὸς τὸν Δ, καὶ ἔστω ὁ Δ τοῦ Γ πολλαπλάσιος. φημὶ καὶ τὸν Β τοῦ Γ πολλαπλάσιον εἶναι. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ Δ τοῦ Γ πολλαπλάσιός ἐστι, μετρεῖ ἄρα ὁ Γ τὸν Δ. ἐμάθομεν δ’ ἄρα ὅτι, ἐὰν ὦσιν ἀριθμοὶ ἀνάλογον ὁποσοιοῦν, ὁ δὲ πρῶτος τὸν ἔσχατον μετρῇ, καὶ τοὺς μεταξὺ μετρήσει. μετρεῖ ἄρα ὁ Γ τὸν Β, πολλαπλάσιος ἄρα ὁ Β τοῦ Γ.” “Ἐπιμορίου διαστήματος μέσος, οὔτε εἷς οὔτε πλείους ἀνάλογον ἐμπεσεῖται ἀριθμός. ἔστω γὰρ ἐπιμόριον διάστημα τὸ ΒΓ· ἐλάχιστοι δ’ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ τοῖς ΒΓ ἔστωσαν ὁ ΔΖ καὶ ὁ Θ. οὗτοι οὖν ὑπὸ μονάδος μόνης μετροῦνται κοινοῦ μέτρου. ἀφεῖλον ἴσον τῷ Θ τὸν ΖΕ καὶ ἐπεὶ ἐπιμόριος ὁ ΔΖ τοῦ Θ, ἡ ὑπεροχὴ ἡ ΔΕ κοινὸν μέτρον τοῦ ΔΖ καὶ τοῦ Θ· μονὰς ἄρα ἡ ΔΕ. οὐκ ἄρα ἐμπεσεῖται εἰς τοὺς ΔΖ Θ μέσος οὐδείς. ἔσται γὰρ ὁ ἐμπίπτων τοῦ μὲν ΔΖ ἐλάττων, τοῦ δὲ Θ μείζων, ὥστε τὴν μονάδα διαιρεῖσθαι, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον. οὐκ ἄρα ἐμπεσεῖται εἰς τοὺς ΔΖ Θ οὐδείς τις. ὅσοι δ’ εἰς τοὺς ἐλαχίστους ‹μέσοι› ἀνάλογον ἐμπίπτουσι, τοσοῦτοι καὶ εἰς τοὺς τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον ἔχοντας ἀνάλογον ἐμπεσοῦνται. οὐδεὶς δ’ εἰς τοὺς ΔΖ Θ ἐμπεσεῖται, ὥστε οὐδ’ εἰς τοὺς ΒΓ ἐμπεσεῖται.” [100] “Ἐὰν διάστημα μὴ πολλαπλάσιον δὶς συντεθῇ, τὸ ὅλον οὔτε πολλαπλάσιον ἔσται, οὔτ’ ἐπιμόριον. ἔστω γὰρ διάστημα μὴ πολλαπλάσιον τὸ ΒΓ, καὶ γεγενήσθω ὡς ὁ Γ πρὸς τὸν Β ὁ Β πρὸς τὸν Δ. λέγω ὅτι ὁ Δ τοῦ Γ οὔτε πολλαπλάσιος, οὔτ’ ἐπιμόριός ἐστιν. ἔστω γὰρ πρῶτον ὁ Δ τοῦ Γ πολλαπλάσιος. οὐκοῦν ἐμάθομεν, ὅτι ἐὰν διάστημα δὶς συντεθὲν τὸ ὅλον ποιῇ πολλαπλάσιον, καὶ αὐτό ἐστι πολλαπλάσιον. ἔσται ἄρα ὁ Β τοῦ Γ πολλαπλάσιος· οὐκ ἦν δέ· ἀδύνατον ἄρα τὸν Δ τοῦ Γ εἶναι πολλαπλάσιον. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ’ ἐπιμόριον. ἐπιμορίου γὰρ διαστήματος μέσος οὐδεὶς ἀνάλογον ἐμπίπτει· εἰς δὲ τοὺς ΔΓ ἐμπίπτει ὁ Β· ἀδύνατον ἄρα τὸν Δ τοῦ Γ ἢ πολλαπλάσιον ἢ ἐπιμόριον εἶναι· ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι.” “Ἐὰν διάστημα δὶς συντεθὲν τὸ ὅλον μὴ ποιῇ πολλαπλάσιον, οὐδ’ αὐτό ἐστι πολλαπλάσιον. ἔστω γὰρ διάστημά τι τὸ ΒΓ, καὶ γεγενήσθω ὡς ὁ Γ πρὸς τὸν Β ὁ Β πρὸς τὸν Δ, καὶ μὴ ἔστω ὁ Δ τοῦ Γ πολλαπλάσιος. λέγω ὅτι οὐδὲ ὁ Β τοῦ Γ πολλαπλάσιος ἔσται. εἰ γὰρ ᾖ πολλαπλάσιος, ἔσται ὁ Δ τοῦ Γ πολλαπλάσιος· οὐκ ἔστι δέ. οὐκ ἄρα ὁ Β τοῦ Γ ἔσται πολλαπλάσιος.”

[ 669 ]

“Τὸ διπλάσιον διάστημα ἐκ δύο τῶν μεγίστων ἐπιμορίων συνέστηκεν, ἔκ τε τοῦ ἡμιολίου καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου. ἔστω γὰρ ὁ μὲν Α τοῦ Β ἡμιόλιος, ὁ δὲ Β τοῦ Γ ἐπίτριτος. λέγω ὅτι ὁ Α τοῦ Γ ἐστὶ διπλάσιος. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡμιόλιός ἐστιν ὁ Α τοῦ Β, ὁ ἄρα Α ἔχει τὸν Β καὶ τὸν ἥμισυν αὐτοῦ. δύο ἄρα οἱ Α ἴσοι εἰσὶ τρισὶ τοῖς Β. πάλιν ἐπεὶ ὁ Β τοῦ Γ ἐστὶ ἐπίτριτος, ὁ ἄρα Β ἔχει τὸν Γ καὶ τὸ τρίτον αὐτοῦ. τρεῖς ἄρα οἱ Β εἰσὶν ἴσοι τέτταρσι τοῖς Γ. ὁ ἄρα Α ἴσος ἐστὶ δυσὶ τοῖς Γ· διπλάσιος ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ Α τοῦ Γ.” “Οὐδεὶς πολλαπλάσιος σύγκειται ἐξ ἐπιμορίων λόγων, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ διπλάσιος. εἰ γὰρ δυνατόν, ἄλλος πολλαπλάσιος λόγος ὁ ΑΓ συγκείσθω ἐκ δύο ἐπιμορίων λόγων τοῦ τε ΑΒ καὶ τοῦ ΒΓ· καὶ ἔστω ὁ μὲν Δ τοῦ [101] Ε ἡμιόλιος, ὁ δὲ Ε τοῦ Ζ ἐπίτριτος, διπλάσιος ἄρ’ ἐστὶν ὁ Δ τοῦ Ζ. καὶ ἐπεὶ τῶν ἐπιμορίων λόγος μέγιστός ἐστιν ὁ ἡμιόλιος, δεύτερος δ’ ὁ ἐπίτριτος, εἷς τῶν ΔΕ ΕΖ λόγων ἑνὶ τῶν ΑΒ ΒΓ ἤτοι ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν ἢ ὁ ἕτερος τοῦ ἑτέρου ἢ ἀμφότεροι ἀμφοτέρων μείζονες· ὅπως δ’ ἂν ἔχῃ, ὁ Δ πρὸς τὸν Ζ μείζονα λόγον ἔχει ἤπερ ὁ Α πρὸς τὸν Γ· ὅπερ ἀδύνατον. τῶν γὰρ πολλαπλασίων λόγων ἐλάχιστός ἐστιν ὁ διπλάσιος. οὐδεὶς ἄρα λόγος πολλαπλάσιος σύγκειται ἐκ δύο ἐπιμορίων λόγων, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ διπλάσιος.” “Ἐκ τοῦ διπλασίου διαστήματος καὶ ἡμιολίου τριπλάσιον διάστημα γίνεται. ἔστω γὰρ ὁ μὲν Α τοῦ Β διπλάσιος, ὁ δὲ Β τοῦ Γ ἡμιόλιος. λέγω, ὅτι ὁ Α τοῦ Γ ἐστὶ τριπλάσιος. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ Α τοῦ Β ἐστὶ διπλάσιος, ὁ Α ἄρα ἴσος ἐστὶ δυσὶ τοῖς Β. πάλιν ἐπεὶ ὁ Β τοῦ Γ ἐστὶν ἡμιόλιος, ὁ ἄρα Β ἔχει τὸν Γ καὶ τὸν ἥμισυν αὐτοῦ. δύο ἄρα οἱ Β ἴσοι εἰσὶ τρισὶ τοῖς Γ· δύο δ’ οἱ Β ἴσοι εἰσὶ τῷ Α· καὶ ὁ Α ‹ἄρα ἴσος ἐστὶ τρισὶ τοῖς Γ· τριπλάσιος ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ Α› τοῦ Γ.” “Ἐὰν ἀπὸ ἡμιολίου διαστήματος ἐπίτριτον διάστημα ἀφαιρεθῇ, τὸ λοιπὸν καταλείπεται ἐπόγδοον. ἔστω γὰρ ὁ μὲν Α τοῦ Β ἡμιόλιος, ὁ δὲ Γ τοῦ Β ἐπίτριτος. λέγω ὅτι ὁ Α τοῦ Γ ἐστὶν ἐπόγδοος. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ Α τοῦ Β ἐστὶν ἡμιόλιος, ὁ ἄρα Α ἔχει τὸν Β καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ αὐτοῦ. ὀκτὼ ἄρα οἱ Α ἴσοι εἰσὶ δώδεκα τοῖς Β. πάλιν ἐπεὶ ὁ Γ τοῦ Β ἐστὶν ἐπίτριτος, ὁ ἄρα Γ ἔχει τὸν Β καὶ τὸ τρίτον αὐτοῦ. ἐννέα ἄρα οἱ Γ ἴσοι εἰσι δώδεκα τοῖς Β· δώδεκα δ’ οἱ Β ἴσοι εἰσὶν ὀκτὼ τοῖς Α· ὀκτὼ ἄρα οἱ Α ἴσοι εἰσὶν ἐννέα τοῖς Γ. ὁ ἄρα Α ἴσος ἐστὶ τῷ Γ καὶ τῷ ὀγδόῳ αὐτοῦ, ὁ ἄρα Α τοῦ Γ ἐστὶν ἐπόγδοος.” “Τὰ ἓξ ἐπόγδοα διαστήματα μείζονά ἐστι διαστήματος ἑνὸς διπλασίου. ἔστω γάρ τις ἀριθμὸς ὁ Α· καὶ τοῦ μὲν Α ἐπόγδοος ἔστω ὁ Β, τοῦ δὲ Β ἐπόγδοος ὁ Γ, τοῦ δὲ Γ ἐπόγδοος ὁ Δ, τοῦ δὲ Δ ἐπόγδοος ὁ Ε, τοῦ δὲ Ε ἐπόγδοος ὁ Ζ, τοῦ δὲ Ζ ἐπόγδοος ὁ Η. λέγω, ὅτι ὁ Η τοῦ Α μείζων ἐστὶν ἢ διπλάσιος. ἐμάθομεν δ’ ἑπτὰ ἀριθμοὺς ἐπογδόους ἀλλήλων, εὑρήσθωσαν οἱ ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗ, καὶ γίνεται ὁ μὲν Α μυριάδες κϚ΄ Ϛβρμδ΄ [102] ὁ δὲ Β μυριάδες κθ΄ ϚδϠιβ΄ ὁ δὲ Γ μυριάδες λγ΄ ϚαψοϚ΄ ὁ δὲ Δ μυριάδες λζ΄ Ϛγσμη΄ ὁ δὲ Ε μυριάδες μα΄ ϚθϠδ΄ ὁ δὲ Ζ μυριάδες μζ΄ Ϛβτβ΄ ὁ δὲ Η μυριάδες νγ΄ Ϛαυμα΄ [ 670 ]

καὶ ἔστιν ὁ Η τοῦ Α μείζων ἢ διπλάσιος.” “Τὸ διὰ πασῶν διάστημά ἐστι πολλαπλάσιον. ἔστω γὰρ νήτη μὲν ὑπερβολαίων ὁ Α, μέση δ’ ὁ Β, προσλαμβανόμενος δ’ ὁ Γ. τὸ ἄρα ΑΓ διάστημα δὶς διὰ πασῶν ὄν, ἐστὶ σύμφωνον· ἤτοι οὖν ἐπιμόριόν ἐστιν ἢ πολλαπλάσιον. ἐπιμόριον μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν· ἐπιμορίου γὰρ διαστήματος μέσος οὐδεὶς ἀνάλογον ἐμπίπτει, πολλαπλάσιον ἄρ’ ἐστίν. ἐπεὶ οὖν διαστήματα δύο τὰ ΑΒ ΒΓ συντεθέντα ποιεῖ πολλαπλάσιον τὸ ὅλον, καὶ τὸ ΑΒ ἄρα ἐστὶ πολλαπλάσιον.” “Τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων διάστημα καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε ἑκάτερον ἐπιμόριόν ἐστιν. ἔστω γὰρ νήτη μὲν συνημμένων ὁ Α, μέση δ’ ὁ Β, ὑπάτη δ’ ὁ Γ· τὸ ἄρα ΑΓ διάστημα δὶς διὰ τεσσάρων ἐστὶ διάφωνον· οὐκ ἄρα ἐστὶ πολλαπλάσιον. ἐπεὶ οὖν δύο διαστήματα ἴσα, τὰ ΑΒ ΒΓ, συντεθέντα μὴ ποιεῖ πολλαπλάσιον, ‹οὐδ’ ἄρα τὸ ΑΒ ἐστὶ πολλαπλάσιον.› καὶ ἔστι σύμφωνον· ἐπιμόριον ἄρα. ἡ αὐτὴ δ’ ἀπόδειξις καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ διὰ πέντε.” “Τὸ δὲ διὰ πασῶν διάστημά ἐστι διπλάσιον. οὐκοῦν ἤτοι διπλάσιόν ἐστιν ἢ μεῖζον ἢ διπλάσιον, ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ ἐδείξαμεν τὸ διπλάσιον διάστημα ἐκ δύο τῶν μεγίστων ἐπιμορίων συγκείμενον, ὥστ’ εἰ ἔσται τὸ διὰ πασῶν μεῖζον διπλασίου, οὐ συγκείσεται ἐκ δύο μόνων ἐπιμορίων, ἀλλ’ ἐκ πλειόνων· σύγκειται δ’ ἐκ δύο συμφώνων διαστημάτων, ἐκ τοῦ διὰ πέντε καὶ ἐκ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων· οὐκ ἄρ’ ἔσται τὸ διὰ πασῶν μεῖζον τοῦ διπλασίου, διπλάσιον ἄρα.” “Ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἐστι διπλάσιον, τὸ δὲ διπλάσιον ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων ἐπιμορίων δύο συνέστηκε· συνέστηκε δ’ ἐκ τοῦ διὰ πέντε καὶ ἐκ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων, ὄντων ἐπιμορίων· τὸ μὲν ἄρα διὰ πέντε, ἐπειδὴ [103] μεῖζόν ἐστιν, ἡμιόλιον ἂν εἴη, τὸ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐπίτριτον.” “Φανερὸν δέ, ὅτι καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν τριπλάσιον· ἐδείξαμεν γάρ, ὅτι ἐκ διπλασίου διαστήματος καὶ ἡμιολίου τριπλάσιον διάστημα γίνεται· ὥστε τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε τριπλάσιον.” “Ἀποδέδεικται ἄρα τῶν συμφώνων ἕκαστον, ἐν τίσι λόγοις ἔχει τοὺς περιέχοντας φθόγγους πρὸς ἀλλήλους.” “Λοιπὸν δὴ περὶ τοῦ τονιαίου διαστήματος διελθεῖν, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἐπόγδοον. ἐμάθομεν γάρ, ὅτι ἐὰν ἀπὸ ἡμιολίου διαστήματος ἐπίτριτον διάστημα ἀφαιρεθῇ, τὸ λοιπὸν καταλείπεται ἐπόγδοον. ἐὰν δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ διὰ πέντε τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἀφαιρεθῇ, τὸ λοιπὸν τονιαῖόν ἐστι διάστημα· τὸ γὰρ τονιαῖον διάστημά ἐστιν ἐπόγδοον.” “Τὸ δὲ διὰ πασῶν ἔλαττόν ἐστιν ἢ ἓξ τόνων. δέδεικται γὰρ τὸ μὲν διὰ πασῶν διπλάσιον, ὁ δὲ τόνος ἐπόγδοος· τὰ δ’ ἓξ ἐπόγδοα διαστήματα μείζονα διαστήματός ἐστι διπλασίου. τὸ ἄρα διὰ πασῶν ἔλαττον ἢ ἓξ τόνων.” “Τὸ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων ἔλαττον δύο τόνων καὶ ἡμιτονίου, καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε ἔλαττον τριῶν τόνων καὶ ἡμιτονίου. ἔστω γὰρ νήτη μὲν διεζευγμένων ὁ Β, παραμέση δὲ ὁ Γ, μέση δὲ ὁ Δ, ὑπάτη δὲ ‹μέσων› ὁ Ζ. οὐκοῦν τὸ μὲν ΓΔ διάστημα τόνος, τὸ δὲ ΒΖ διὰ πασῶν ὂν ἔλαττον ἓξ τόνων. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ἄρα, τό τε ΒΓ καὶ τὸ ΔΖ ἴσα ὄντα ἔλαττον δύο τόνων καὶ ἡμιτονίου, ὅ ἐστι διὰ τεσσάρων· τὸ δὲ ΒΔ ἔλαττον τριῶν τόνων καὶ ἡμιτονίου, ὅ ἐστι διὰ πέντε.”

[ 671 ]

“Ὁ τόνος οὐ διαιρεθήσεται εἰς δύο ἴσα οὔτε εἰς πλείω. ἐδείχθη γὰρ ὢν ἐπιμόριος· ἐπιμορίου δὲ διαστήματος ‹μέσοι› οὔτε πλείους οὔτε εἷς ἀνάλογον ἐμπίπτουσιν. οὐκ ἄρα διαιρεθήσεται εἰς ἴσα.” Δέδεικται μὲν οὖν καὶ ἑκάστη τῶν προκειμένων προτάσεων. ἀρξώμεθα δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἑξῆς κεφαλαίου σαφηνίζοντες τὴν τοῦ Πτολεμαίου φωνὴν [104] ἀνατρέπειν βουλομένου τὴν αἵρεσιν τῶν Πυθαγορείων. τὸ δὲ κεφάλαιόν ἐστι τοῦτο.

[ 672 ]

Ϛ΄. Τοιαύτης δὴ τυγχανούσης ἕως τοῦ καταλαμβανομένοις. Ὃ Λ Έ Γ Ε Ι ΤΟ Ι Ο ῦΤ Ό Ν ἐστιν. οἱ ποιοῦντες τὴν διὰ πασῶν συμφωνίαν φθόγγοι, οἷον ὑπάτη μέσων καὶ νήτη διεζευγμένων, ἀδιαφοροῦσι κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἑνὸς φθόγγου· ὄντων γὰρ ἐναντίων δύναμίς ἐστιν ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ οὕτως γ’ ἀμφοῖν ὡς ἑνός. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ δύο ἀδιαφορεῖν ἑνὸς κατὰ δύναμιν, ὅταν ἐκ δυεῖν ἀποδέδωται δύναμις ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνός. διὸ καὶ ἀντίφωνοι οἱ φθόγγοι λέγονται, ὡς ἀντίθεος ὁ ἰσόθεος καὶ ἀντιάνειραι αἱ ἀμάζονες αἱ τῇ δυνάμει ἀνδράσιν ἰσούμεναι καίτοι οὖσαι γυναῖκες. ἔλεγον δ’ οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀρχύταν “ἑνὸς φθόγγου γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὰς συμφωνίας τὴν ἀντίληψιν τῇ ἀκοῇ”. Καὶ συνεχώρει τοῦτο καὶ Διονύσιος ἐπὶ τοῖς διὰ πασῶν κατὰ δύναμιν ἑνὸς φθόγγου ἀδιαφοροῦσιν, ὅταν ἄλλῃ τινὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν προσληφθῶσιν, ὡς εἷς συνάπτεται. ὁποίῳ γὰρ ἂν συναφθῇ τὸ σύμφωνον φθόγγῳ εἴτε τῇ νήτῃ, εἴτε τῇ ὑπάτῃ, ὡς ἑνὶ καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ συνάπτεται. διὸ καὶ ἀπαράτρεπτον τηρεῖ τὸ ‹τῆς› συναφθείσης συμφωνίας εἶδος, καὶ γίνεται τὸ συμβαῖνον οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν. οἱ γὰρ ἐντὸς τῆς δεκάδος συντεθειμένοι μὲν ἀλλήλοις μεταβάλλουσι τὸ εἶδος, τῇ δεκάδι δὲ προσαφθέντες τηροῦσιν ἀπαράτρεπτον. δύο μὲν γὰρ καὶ τρία, πέντε· δύο δὲ καὶ δέκα, ὁμοίως δέκα καὶ δύο· καὶ εἰ πάλιν, μένει τὸ εἶδος δεκάδος· οὐ γὰρ παρ’ ὅσον τῇ δεκάδι προστίθεται, ἐκβιβάζεται· παρ’ ὅσον δ’ ἄλλῳ τινι παρὰ τὴν δεκάδα· δεκάδος οὖν πάλιν προστεθείσης, ὅμοιον τῶν ἐντὸς τῆς δεκάδος μένει τὸ εἶδος· εἴκοσι γὰρ δύο, πάλιν τὰ αὐτά. Τὸν αὐτὸν οὖν τρόπον φησὶ τῇ διὰ πασῶν συμφωνίᾳ πεπονθέναι· ἐπεὶ γὰρ οἱ φθόγγοι οἱ ἀποτελοῦντες αὐτὴν ἀδιαφοροῦσιν ἑνὸς κατὰ δύναμιν, [105] καὶ ἔοικεν αὕτη ἡ συμφωνία δεκάδι, ὥσπερ καθ’ αὑτὰς αἱ συμφωνίαι οὐ παρατρέπονται τοῦ οἰκείου εἴδους, οὕτως οὐδὲ σὺν τῇ διὰ πασῶν. ὅταν οὖν τῇ νήτῃ τῶν διεζευγμένων συναφθὲν τετράχορδον τὸ ὑπερβολαῖον, τὴν νήτην τῇ ὑπάτῃ ἔχῃ σύμφωνον, ἀδιάφορον ἑνὸς ὄντων τῶν δυεῖν φθόγγων τῆς διὰ πασῶν κατὰ δύναμιν, ἀδιαφόρως καὶ νήτη ὑπερβολαίων τούτοις συμφωνήσει· καὶ οὕτως ὡς ἑνὶ καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ φθόγγῳ τηρήσει τε τὸ ἑαυτῆς εἶδος κατὰ τὴν συμφωνίαν· ἐάν τε πρὸς τὸν ἐγγύτερον τῶν συμφώνων φθόγγων συγκρουσθῇ, οἷον πρὸς τὴν νήτην τῶν διεζευγμένων, ἐάν τε πρὸς τὸν ἀπώτερον, οἷον ὑπάτην μέσων. τὸ μὲν οὖν εἶδος ταὐτὸ τῆς συμφωνίας τηρηθήσεται. ἤδη δὲ τῷ ἐγγυτέρῳ συγκρουσθεῖσα τὴν καθ’ ἑαυτὴν διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαν ἀποδώσει· τῷ δὲ πορρωτέρῳ, οἷον ὑπάτῃ τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ διὰ πασῶν· καίπερ εἰ σύμφωνος καθ’ ἑαυτὴν ἡ διὰ τεσσάρων, καὶ ἡ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων σύμφωνος. καὶ ἀνάλογον τῇ διὰ πέντε καὶ διὰ πασῶν. καθάπερ γὰρ ἡ διὰ πέντε καθ’ ἑαυτὴν οὖσα σύμφωνος διαμένει, ὁμοίως καὶ ὅταν τῇ διὰ πασῶν προσαφθῇ· οὕτως καὶ ἡ διὰ τεσσάρων ἔχουσα θεωρεῖται. διὸ καὶ ἡ ἀντίληψις τῷ ἀδιαφορεῖν τοὺς συμφώνους φθόγγους ἑνὸς τοὺς τῆς διὰ πασῶν τοιαύτη ταῖς ἀκοαῖς γίνεται τῆς διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ διὰ πασῶν, οἷα αὐτῆς καθ’ ἑαυτὴν τῆς διὰ ‹τεσσάρων, καὶ ἡ τῆς διὰ πέντε καὶ διὰ πασῶν, οἷα αὐτῆς καθ’ ἑαυτὴν τῆς διὰ› πέντε. οὐκοῦν καὶ εἰ σύμφωνον τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων, [ 673 ]

σύμφωνον ἂν εἴη καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐξήγησις τῶν εἰρημένων τοιαύτη. Δεῖ δὲ προσυπακούειν τῶν εἰρημένων τοιαῦτα. τῷ μὲν οὖν οὕτω ῥηθέντι “καθόλου γὰρ ἡ διὰ πασῶν συμφωνία τῶν ποιούντων αὐτὴν φθόγγων ἀδιαφορούντων κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἑνός” προσυπακούειν δεῖ τοῦ φθόγγου. ἀδιαφοροῦσι γὰρ οἱ ποιοῦντες τὴν διὰ πασῶν συμφωνίαν φθόγγου ἑνός. τῷ δ’ οὕτω ῥηθέντι “ὅταν προσαφθῇ τινι” τῇ διὰ πασῶν συμφωνίᾳ. ὅταν γὰρ ἡ διὰ πασῶν συμφωνία προσαφθῇ τινι συμφωνίᾳ τῶν ἄλλων, ἀπαράτρεπτον τὸ ἐκείνης εἶδος τηρεῖ· ἐκείνης μὲν λέγει τῆς τυχούσης συμφωνίας, ᾗ προσάπτεται ἡ διὰ πασῶν· τηρεῖ δὲ τὸ εἶδος αὐτῆς ἀπαράτρεπτον ἡ διὰ πασῶν, οἷον ἔστω ἡ διὰ πέντε ἢ ἄλλη τις συμφωνία παρὰ τὴν διὰ πασῶν· ταύτῃ οὖν ἐὰν ἡ διὰ πασῶν συναφθῇ, τηρεῖ τὸ εἶδος ἀπαράτρεπτον, ὁμοίως ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ‹ᾖ› ἡ διὰ πέντε. [106] Ὅταν δὲ λέγει “κἂν ληφθῇ τις ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς ἄκροις τοῦ διὰ πασῶν”, τὸ “ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ” δεῖ ἀκούειν, οἷον ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ἄκρων καὶ διὰ πασῶν ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύτερον ἂν ληφθῇ τις συμφωνία ἢ ἀμφοτέρων ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύτερον· οἷον τῆς διὰ πασῶν ἄκρων ὑπάτης ‹μέσων› καὶ νήτης διεζευγμένων· ἐπὶ μὲν τὸ βαρύτερον τῶν ἄκρων ἐστὶ λαβεῖν σύμφωνον, οἷον τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων· τῆς μὲν νήτης ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύτερον τὸ τετράχορδον τὸ διεζευγμένων, οὗ συμφωνεῖ ἡ παραμέση τῇ νήτῃ διὰ τεσσάρων· τῆς δ’ ὑπάτης ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύτερον τὸ ὑπάτων τετράχορδον, οὗ ἡ ὑπάτη ὑπάτων τῇ ὑπάτῃ μέσων συμφωνεῖ διὰ τεσσάρων· ἐπὶ δὲ τὸ ὀξύτερον τῶν ἄκρων ἐὰν λάβωμεν τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων, οἷον τῆς νήτης διεζευγμένων ‹ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύτερον τὸ τετράχορδον τὸ ὑπερβολαίων, οὗ› ἡ νήτη ὑπερβολαίων τῇ νήτῃ διεζευγμένων συμφωνήσει διὰ τεσσάρων· τῆς δ’ ὑπάτης μέσων ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύτερον τὸ τετράχορδον τὸ [διὰ] μέσων, οὗ ἡ μέση συμφωνεῖ τῇ ὑπάτῃ μέσων διὰ τεσσάρων. ἐὰν οὖν ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς ἄκροις τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ληφθῇ τι σύμφωνον, ὡς ἂν ἔχῃ φησὶ τὸ ληφθὲν πρὸς τὸν ἐγγύτερον αὐτῶν τῶν ἄκρων τοῦ διὰ πασῶν, ἕξει τὸ ληφθὲν σύμφωνον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἀπώτερον αὐτοῦ τῶν ἄκρων. οἷον τῆς διὰ πασῶν οὔσης συμφωνίας, ἧς οἱ ἄκροι ὑπάτη καὶ νήτη, εἰλήφθω ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύτερον τῆς νήτης σύμφωνον τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦ ὑπερβολαίου συστήματος, ἡ τοίνυν νήτη ὑπερβολαίων συμφωνεῖ τοῖς ἄκροις τοῦ διὰ πασῶν, ἃ ἦν ὑπάτη καὶ νήτη διεζευγμένων, ‹ὧν ὁ μὲν ἐγγὺς ἡ νήτη,› ὁ δὲ πόρρω ἐστὶν ὅσον ἡ ὑπάτη. ὡς οὖν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν νήτην, οὕτως ἔχει καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὑπάτην. τοῦτ’ οὖν συμβαίνει, διότι οἱ ἄκροι τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ἀδιαφοροῦσι κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἑνός· ὁμοίως δ’ ἔχει, κἂν ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύτερον θάτερον, τουτέστιν εἰ τῇ ὑπάτῃ προσαφθῇ τι σύμφωνον. Λοιπὸν δ’ ἐξηγεῖται τὸ συμβαῖνον ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὸ ἐγγύτερον ἄκρον τοῦ διὰ πασῶν σχέσει τοῦ προσαφθέντος συμφώνου καὶ πάλιν τὸ συμβαῖνον ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν ἀπώτερον ἄκρον τοῦ διὰ πασῶν σχέσει. αἱ μὲν γὰρ καθ’ αὑτὰς καὶ ἁπλαῖ συμφωνίαι γίνονται, οἷον διὰ πέντε ἢ διὰ τεσσάρων, ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν ἐγγύτερον τοῦ διὰ πασῶν σχέσει, αἱ δὲ σύνθετοι καὶ μετὰ τῆς διὰ πασῶν λαμβανόμεναι, οἷον διὰ πέντε καὶ διὰ πασῶν ἢ διὰ τεσσάρων [107] καὶ διὰ πασῶν ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν ἀπώτερον ἄκρον τοῦ διὰ πασῶν σχέσει. τὰ δὲ λοιπά, ὅσα ἐκ τούτων συλλογίζεται, σαφῆ εἰς τὰ προειρημένα καθέστηκε. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἠπόρηται πρὸς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους ἀπὸ τῶν [ 674 ]

τῇ αἰσθήσει ὑποπιπτόντων ἐκ τῆς διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίας. λογικὰς δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπάγων ζητήσεις, γράφει ταῦτα.

[ 675 ]

Ἐμποιεῖ δ’ αὐτοῖς ἕως τοῦ πρὸς ἐκείνους. ΔΙ Ὰ Τ Ί Γ Ὰ Ρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπιμορίων λόγων μόνοις τοῖς ἐπιτρίτοις καὶ ἡμιολίοις ἐν ταῖς συμφωνίαις κέχρηται, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν πολλαπλασίων τῷ διπλασίῳ καὶ τριπλασίῳ μόνοις, οὐκέτι δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τῶν ἐπιμορίων ἢ τοῖς λοιποῖς τῶν πολλαπλασίων - ἑνὸς εἴδους ὄντος τοῖς μὲν πολλαπλασίοις πρὸς τοὺς πολλαπλασίους ἑνὸς εἴδους, τοῖς δ’ ἐπιμορίοις πρὸς τοὺς ἐπιμορίους ἑνὸς εἴδους; ἀποκληρωτικὸν γὰρ δοκεῖ καὶ οὐ καθολικὸν εἶναι τὸ εἰρημένον “ἑνὸς εἴδους ὄντος αὐτοῖς πρὸς ἐκείνους”.

[ 676 ]

Καὶ ἔτι τὸ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἕως τοῦ τὰ ἀνόμοια. ΤῶΝ ΠΥΘΑ ΓΟ Ρ Ι Κ ῶΝ Τ Ι Ν Ε ς, ὡς Ἀρχύτας καὶ Δίδυμος, ἱστοροῦσι μετὰ τὸ καταστήσασθαι τοὺς λόγους τῶν συμφωνιῶν συγκρίνοντες αὐτοὺς πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ τοὺς συμφώνους μᾶλλον ἐπιδεικνύναι βουλόμενοι τοιοῦτόν τι ἐποίουν. πρώτους λαβόντες ἀριθμούς, οὓς ἐκάλουν πυθμένας, τῶν τοὺς λόγους τῶν συμφωνιῶν ἀποτελούντων - τουτέστιν ἐν οἷς ἐλαχίστοις ἀριθμοῖς συμφωνίαι ἀποτελοῦνται, ὡς λόγου χάριν ἡ μὲν διὰ πασῶν ἐν πρώτοις θεωρεῖται ἀριθμοῖς τοῖς β΄ καὶ α΄· πρῶτος γὰρ διπλάσιος ὁ δύο τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ πυθμένος τῶν ἄλλων διπλασίων· ἡ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐν ἐπιτρίτοις τοῖς τέσσαρσι καὶ τρισί· πρῶτος γὰρ ἐπίτριτος καὶ πυθμὴν ὁ δ΄ τῶν γ΄ - τούτους οὖν τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἀποδόντες ταῖς συμφωνίαις ἐσκόπουν καθ’ ἕκαστον λόγον - τῶν τοὺς ὅρους περιεχόντων ἀριθμῶν ἀφελόντες ἀφ’ ἑκατέρων τῶν ὅρων ἀνὰ μονάδα - τοὺς ἀπολειπομένους ἀριθμοὺς μετὰ τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν, οἵτινες εἶεν, οἷον τῶν β΄ α΄, οἵπερ ἦσαν τῆς διὰ πασῶν· ἀφελόντες ἀνὰ μονάδα ἐσκόπουν τὸ καταλειπόμενον· [108] ἦν δ’ ἕν· τῶν δὲ δ΄ καὶ γ΄, οἵτινες ἦσαν τῆς διὰ τεσσάρων, ἀφελόντες ἀνὰ μονάδα εἶχον ἐκ μὲν οὖν τῶν τεσσάρων ὑπολειπόμενον τὸν τρία, ἐκ δὲ τῶν τριῶν τὸν δύο· ὥστ’ ἀπὸ συναμφοτέρων τῶν ὅρων μετὰ τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν τὸ ὑπολειπόμενον ἦν πέντε. τῶν δὲ γ΄ καὶ β΄, οἵτινες ἦσαν τῆς διὰ πέντε, ἀφελόντες ἀνὰ μονάδα εἶχον ἐκ μὲν τῶν τριῶν ὑπολειπόμενα δύο, ἐκ δὲ τῶν δύο ὑπολειπόμενον ἕν, ὥστε τὸ συναμφότερον λειπόμενον εἶναι τρία. ἐκάλουν δὲ τὰς μὲν ἀφαιρουμένας μονάδας ὅμοια, τὰ δὲ λειπόμενα μετὰ τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν ἀνόμοια· διὰ δύο αἰτίας, ὅτι ἐξ ἀμφοῖν τῶν ὅρων ὁμοία ἡ ἀφαίρεσις ἐγίνετο καὶ ἴση· ἴση γὰρ ἡ μονὰς τῇ μονάδι· ὧν ἀφαιρουμένων ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὰ ὑπολειπόμενα ἀνόμοια καὶ ἄνισα. ἐὰν γὰρ ἀπ’ ἀνίσων ἴσα ἀφαιρεθῇ, τὰ λοιπὰ ἔσται ἄνισα. οἱ δὲ πολλαπλάσιοι λόγοι καὶ ἐπιμόριοι, ἐν οἷς θεωροῦνται αἱ συμφωνίαι, ἐν ἀνίσοις ὅροις ὑφεστήκασιν, ἀφ’ ὧν ἴσων ἀφαιρουμένων τὰ λοιπὰ πάντως ἄνισα. γίνεται οὖν τὰ ἀνόμοια τῶν συμφωνιῶν συμμιγέντα· συμμίσγειν δὲ λέγουσιν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι τὸ ἕνα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἀριθμὸν λαβεῖν. ἔσται οὖν τὰ ἀνόμοια συντεθέντα καθ’ ἑκάστην τῶν συμφωνιῶν τοιαῦτα· τῆς μὲν διὰ πασῶν ἕν, τῆς δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων πέντε, τῆς δὲ διὰ πέντε τρία. ἐφ’ ὧν δ’ ἄν φασι τὰ ἀνόμοια ἐλάσσονα ᾖ, ἐκεῖνα τῶν ἄλλων εἰσὶ συμφωνότερα. σύμφωνον μέν ἐστιν ἡ διὰ πασῶν, ὅτι ταύτης τὰ ἀνόμοια ἕν· μεθ’ ἣν ἡ διὰ πέντε, ὅτι ταύτης τὰ ἀνόμοια τρία· τελευταία δ’ ἡ διὰ τεσσάρων, ὅτι ταύτης τὰ ἀνόμοια πέντε. Ταῦτ’ ἐστίν, ἃ εἴρηκεν ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, φάσκων τὴν ἐκλογὴν τῶν συμφωνιῶν, καθ’ ὃν αὐτοὶ βούλονται τρόπον, γελοίαν εἶναι· ἐκλογὴν δὲ λέγει τὴν πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον ἀπονέμησιν. εἰ γὰρ πασῶν οὐσῶν συμφωνιῶν φαίνοιτό τις αὐτῶν συμφωνοτέρα, ἐκλεκτικωτέρα ἂν εἴη αὕτη. γελοίαν δ’ οὐ τὴν προτίμησίν φησιν εἶναι τῆς διὰ πασῶν, οὐδ’ ὅτι τὴν διὰ πέντε μετὰ τὴν διὰ πασῶν προκρίνουσι τῆς διὰ τεσσάρων, ἀλλὰ τὸν τρόπον, δι’ οὗ τὸ τιμιώτερον ἐν αὐταῖς ἐφοδεύουσιν. διὰ δὴ τῶν εἰρημένων δῆλα καὶ τὰ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ συντόμως καὶ ἀσαφῶς εἰρημένα. τῶν [ 677 ]

γὰρ ἀριθμῶν φησι, οἵτινες πρῶτοι ποιοῦσι τοὺς λόγους τῶν συμφωνιῶν, ἀφαιροῦντες ἑκατέρου τῶν ἀριθμῶν μονάδα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ὁμοιότητος τοὺς λοιποὺς μετὰ τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν ἀριθμούς, οἵ εἰσι τῆς ἀνομοιότητος, λαμβάνοντες καθ’ ἑκάστην συμφωνίαν, ἐφ’ ὧν ἂν συμφωνιῶν τὰ ἀνόμοια ταῦτα ἐλάσσονα φαίνηται, συμφωνοτέρας ταύτας λέγουσιν εἶναι. [109] Σαφοῦς τοίνυν τῆς ἐφόδου τῶν Πυθαγορείων γεγονυίας ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πτολεμαίου λέξεως, ἄξιον ἰδεῖν, καὶ τί ἀντιλέγει πρὸς ἑκάτερα, λέγω δ’ ἑκάτερα τό τε μὴ πᾶσι χρῆσθαι τοῖς λόγοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς πρώτοις καὶ πυθμέσιν ἐπὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῶν ἀνομοίων τῶν ὀλίγων κρίνειν τῶν συμφωνιῶν τὰς συμφωνοτέρας. φησὶ δ’ εὐλόγως ἄμφω γελοῖα εἶναι. διὰ τί γὰρ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν πρώτων ποιούντων ἀριθμῶν τοὺς λόγους τὴν παράδοσιν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι πεποίηνται, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων; οἱ γὰρ λόγοι κοινοὶ πάντων τῶν ὁμοίως ἐχόντων πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ διὰ τῶν δύο καὶ ἑνός, φέρε εἰπεῖν, ὁ διπλάσιος λόγος ἦν ἴδιος, ὅτι πρῶτος ἐν τούτοις ὑφίσταται, ἀλλὰ δῆλον, ὅτι καὶ τοῦ δ΄ πρὸς τὸν β΄ καὶ τοῦ Ϛ΄ πρὸς τὸν γ΄ καὶ πάντων τῶν ὁμοίων ἀλλήλων ἐστὶ κοινός. τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ λέγοιτ’ ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡμιολίου λόγου καὶ ἐπιτρίτου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων λόγων. εἰ οὖν συγχωρήσειέ τις ἁπλῶς καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν ὁμοίων λόγων τὴν ἐξέτασιν γίνεσθαι, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐπὶ μόνων τῶν πρώτων ποιούντων ἀριθμῶν τοὺς λόγους, ἄτοπόν τι συμβήσεται. τοῦ γὰρ αὐτοῦ λόγου τὰ ἀνόμοια ποτὲ μὲν ἔσται ὀλίγιστα, ποτὲ δὲ πλεῖστα, οἷον ἐπὶ τοῦ διπλασίου, β΄ καὶ α΄, καταλείπεται τὰ ἀνόμοια ἕν· καὶ ὁμοίως ἐπὶ τοῦ δ΄ πρὸς β΄ διπλασίου, δ΄ τὰ ἀνόμοια· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ η΄ πρὸς δ΄ ἔσται τὰ ἀνόμοια δέκα· καὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἀεὶ προσθέσεως γινομένης δεκάδων καὶ ἑκατοντάδων καὶ χιλιάδων ἔσται πλεῖστα τὰ λειπόμενα τῶν ἀνομοίων. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ τοιαύτην ἀπάντησιν αὐτοῖς προσᾴδει, ἣν καὶ οἰκειοτέραν φησὶν εἶναι πρὸς τὴν ἐπίχρησιν. παρακείσθω δ’ αὐτὴ πάλιν ἡ λέξις, ἔχουσα οὕτως.

[ 678 ]

Ἐὰν γὰρ ἕως τοῦ τῶν συμφωνοτέρων. ΟἸ Κ Ε Ι Ο Τ Έ ΡΑ Ν Μ Ὲ Ν Ο ὖΝ λέγει τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν, ἐπεὶ τὴν διαβολὴν ποιεῖται τοῦ λόγου διὰ τῶν δεδομένων ὑποθέσεων. ποιεῖται δ’ οὕτως. ὥσπερ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι μονάδα μὲν ἀφαιροῦντες ἀφ’ ἑκατέρου τῶν ὅρων τοὺς πρώτους ποιοῦντας τὸν λόγον ὑπετίθεντο ἀριθμούς, οὕτως ὁ Πτολεμαῖός φησιν ὁ μέλλων ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τῆς ὁμοιότητος ἀριθμὸς ὁ Ϛ΄· τουτέστιν ἀφ’ ἑκατέρων τῶν ὅρων τῶν περιεχόντων τὸν λόγον ἀφαιρείσθω ὁ Ϛ΄, ποιῶν τοὺς λόγους τῶν συμφωνιῶν, ἵνα κατὰ πᾶν ἡ παραβολὴ ὁμοία ᾖ. ἦσαν γὰρ καὶ ὑπ’ ἐκείνων λαμβανόμενοι ἀριθμοὶ οἱ πρῶτοι καὶ πυθμένες [110] τῶν λόγων. ἔσονται τοίνυν ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ λόγοις, τῷ τε διπλασίῳ λέγω καὶ τῷ ἡμιολίῳ καὶ τῷ ἐπιτρίτῳ, τοῦ ἐλαχίστου τοῦ ὅρου ὄντος ἕξ, οἱ ἀριθμοὶ τῶν ὅρων τοιοῦτοι· τοῦ μὲν διπλασίου ιβ΄ καὶ Ϛ΄, τοῦ δ’ ἡμιολίου θ΄ καὶ Ϛ΄, τοῦ δ’ ἐπιτρίτου η΄ καὶ Ϛ΄. καὶ εἴ γ’ ἀνὰ ἓξ ἀφέλοιμεν ἀπὸ τῶν ὅρων τοὺς τῆς ὁμοιότητος, λειφθήσεται ἀνόμοια· ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ διπλασίου Ϛ΄, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ἡμιολίου γ΄, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου β΄. οὐκοῦν ἐλάχιστα μὲν ἔσται τὰ ἀνόμοια τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου, ἔπειτα δὲ τὰ τοῦ ἡμιολίου, πλεῖστα δὲ τὰ τοῦ διπλασίου. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο συμφωνότατον μέν ἐστι τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ διὰ πέντε, ἧττον δὲ καὶ τελευταῖον τὸ διὰ πασῶν· ὅπερ οὐ δ’ αὐτοῖς δοκεῖ. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν παραβάλλων πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων ἐπιχείρησιν εἴρηκεν, λοιπὸν δὲ καὶ καθ’ αὑτὴν ἀνατρέπων αὐτὴν ἐπάγει ταῦτα.

[ 679 ]

Ὅλως δὲ καὶ κατὰ ἕως τοῦ μάλα εἰκότως. ΠΡ ῶΤΟ Ν Ἰ Δ Ε ῖΝ Χ Ρ Ή , πῶς κατὰ τοὺς Πυθαγορείους τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε συμφωνότερόν ἐστι τοῦ διὰ πέντε καὶ ὁμοίως τοῦ δὶς διὰ πασῶν, ‹καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν› ἑκάτερον συμφωνότερον εἶναι τοῦ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε. ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε ἐν τριπλασίονι λόγῳ ἐστί, πρῶτα δὲ τοῦ τριπλασίου ἀριθμοῦ τὰ τρία πρὸς τὸ ἕν, τὸ δὲ διὰ πασῶν ἐν διπλασίονι λόγῳ, ταῦτα δ’ ἦν ἐν πρώτῳ ἀριθμῷ δύο πρὸς ἕν, τὸ δὲ διὰ πέντε ἐν ἡμιολίῳ λόγῳ καὶ πρώτοις ἀριθμοῖς ἦν τοῖς γ΄ πρὸς τὰ β΄, τὸ δὲ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐν τετραπλασίονι λόγῳ κείμενον θεωρεῖται ἐν πρώτοις ἀριθμοῖς ἐν σχέσει δ΄ πρὸς τὸ ἕν· ἔσονται ἡμῖν λόγοι τοῦ μὲν τριπλασίου λόγου γ΄ α΄, τοῦ δὲ διπλασίου β΄ α΄, τοῦ δὲ ἡμιολίου γ΄ β΄, τοῦ δὲ τετραπλασίου δ΄ α΄. ὧν τῆς ὁμοιότητος ἂν ἀφέλωμεν ἀνὰ μονάδα, τὰ λοιπὰ ἔσται τὰ ἀνόμοια, τοῦ μὲν τριπλασίου β΄, τοῦ δὲ διπλασίου α΄, τοῦ δ’ ἡμιολίου γ΄ καὶ τετραπλασίου γ΄· ὥστε τὸ μετὰ τὸ διὰ πασῶν ὀλίγα τὰ ἀνόμοια ἔσται τοῦ τριπλασίου, β΄ γάρ· τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἀνὰ γ΄. καὶ ἔστιν ὁ μὲν διπλάσιος λόγος τοῦ διὰ πασῶν, ὁ δὲ τριπλάσιος τοῦ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε, ὁ δὲ ἡμιόλιος τοῦ διὰ πέντε, ὁ δὲ τετραπλάσιος τοῦ δὶς διὰ πασῶν. συμφωνότερον ἡμῖν μετὰ τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἔσται τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε. καὶ τοῦ διὰ πέντε συμφωνοτέρου ὄντος αὐτοῦ, ὡς δείξει, καὶ ὁμοίως τοῦ δὶς διὰ πασῶν. [111] τὸ μὲν οὖν μόνον τὸ διὰ πέντε συμφωνότερον εἶναι τοῦ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε καὶ μάλα εἰκότως φησίν.

[ 680 ]

Ἐπειδὴ τὸ μὲν διὰ πέντε ἕως τοῦ συμφωνίας. ΤῸ Δ ’ Ἄ Κ ΡΑΤΟ Ν , ἄμεικτον ὂν καὶ καθαρώτερον, καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστον γένος τὴν οἰκείαν ἔχει δύναμιν ἰσχυροτέραν διαμένουσαν. οὕτως οὖν καὶ ἐν τοῖς συμφώνοις τὸ ἄκρατον, ὅπερ ἦν τὸ διὰ πέντε, συμφωνότερον τοῦ συνθέτου τοῦ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε. τὸ δὲ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐστι συμφωνότερον τοῦ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε δείκνυται οὕτως. λέγει δὲ κατὰ λέξιν αὐτοῦ ταῦτα.

[ 681 ]

Τὸ δὲ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἕως τοῦ καὶ διὰ πέντε. ΠΡ Ὸ ς Δ Ὲ Τ Ὴ Ν τούτων σαφήνειαν λαμβάνεται θεώρημά τι τοιοῦτον. ἐὰν ἑνὸς ἀριθμοῦ ὁ μέν τις ἀριθμὸς ᾖ τετραπλάσιος, ὁ δὲ τριπλάσιος, καὶ ἔτι τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὁ μὲν διπλάσιος, ὁ δ’ ἡμιόλιος· ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τοῦ τετραπλασίου πρὸς τὸν τριπλάσιον ἐπίτριτον ποιοῦσα λόγον ἡ αὐτὴ ἔσται τῇ ὑπεροχῇ τοῦ διπλασίου πρὸς τὸν ἡμιόλιον· ἔστι γὰρ αὐτὴ ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ λόγῳ. οἷον τοῦ β΄ ἀριθμοῦ ἔστω τετραπλάσιος μὲν ὁ η΄, τριπλάσιος δ’ ὁ Ϛ΄, καὶ πάλιν τοῦ β΄ διπλάσιος μὲν ὁ δ΄, ἡμιόλιος δ’ ὁ γ΄. ἐὰν ἄρα ἀπὸ τοῦ η΄ πρὸς τὰ β΄ λόγου, ὄντος τετραπλασίου, ἀφέλωμεν τὸ τῶν Ϛ΄ πρὸς τὰ β΄ λόγον, ὄντα τριπλάσιον, λείπεται λόγος τῶν η΄ πρὸς τὰ Ϛ΄· καὶ πάλιν ἐὰν ἀπὸ τοῦ δ΄ πρὸς τὰ β΄ λόγου, ὄντος διπλασίου, ἀφέλωμεν τὸν τῶν γ΄ πρὸς τὰ β΄ λόγον, ἡμιόλιον ὄντα, λείπεται λόγος ὁ τῶν δ΄ πρὸς τὰ γ΄ ὁ αὐτός· εἰσὶ γὰρ ἄμφω ἐπίτριτοι. ὥσθ’ ὃν ἔχει ὁ διπλάσιος λόγον πρὸς τὸν ἡμιόλιον, τουτέστι τὰ δ΄ πρὸς τὰ γ΄, τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν λόγον ὁ τετραπλάσιος πρὸς τὸν τριπλάσιον. ᾧ γὰρ ὑπερέχει ὁ τετραπλάσιος τοῦ τριπλασίου, τούτῳ ὑπερέχει ὁ διπλάσιος τοῦ ἡμιολίου. καὶ γὰρ διπλασιασθεὶς ὁ μὲν ἡμιόλιος τὸν τριπλάσιον ποιεῖ, ὁ δὲ διπλάσιος τὸ τετραπλάσιον· καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ λόγον ἔχει ὁ τετραπλάσιος πρὸς τὸν διπλάσιον καὶ ὁ τριπλάσιος πρὸς τὸν ἡμιόλιον. Τούτων δ’ οὕτως ἐχόντων ἐπεὶ τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐν τετραπλασίονι λόγῳ θεωρεῖται, τὸ δὲ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε ἐν τριπλασίῳ, τὸ δὲ διὰ πασῶν μόνον ἐν διπλασίῳ, τὸ δὲ διὰ πέντε μόνον ἐν ἡμιολίῳ, οὕτως ἄρα ἕξει τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν πρὸς τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε, ὡς τὸ μόνον διὰ [112] πασῶν πρὸς τὸ μόνον διὰ πέντε· ὥσθ’ ὅσῳ τὸ μόνον διὰ πασῶν συμφωνότερόν ἐστι τοῦ μόνον διὰ πέντε, τοσούτῳ καὶ τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν συμφωνότερόν ἐστι τοῦ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε.

[ 682 ]

ζ΄. Δέον οὖν ἕως τοῦ ἐκλαμβάνειν. ΚΑ Ὶ ΤΑ ῦΤΑ Π Ρ Ὸ ς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους ἀποτείνεται μὴ παραιτούμενος μέν, οὓς ἐκ τῶν ἀριθμητικῶν λόγους προσῆψαν ταῖς συμφωνίαις· χρήσεται γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς αὐτοῖς ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ὑγιεστάτοις οὖσι, τουτέστι τῷ ἐπιτρίτῳ καὶ ἡμιολίῳ καὶ διπλασίῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς, μὴ προσιέμενος δ’ ἐκεῖνα ὅσα ἐκ τῶν συμβεβηκότων αὐτοῖς πειρῶνται κατασκευάζειν, οἷον τὸ δεῖν τὰς συμφωνίας ἐν πολλαπλασίοις λόγοις θεωρεῖσθαι καὶ ἐπιμορίοις, μηκέτι δ’ ἐν ἐπιμερέσι, καὶ τὸ δεῖν τοῖς πυθμέσιν ἀριθμοῖς τὰς ἁπλᾶς ἐξετάζεσθαι, καὶ τὸ δεῖν συμφωνοτέρας ἡγεῖσθαι, αἷς ὀλίγα τὰ ἀνόμοια. ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκέτι προσίεται δι’ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ ὅτι παραδειχθήσεται τὴν διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων ἀθετεῖν συμφωνίαν, ἣν ἐκεῖνοι μὲν παρῃτοῦντο, οὗτος δὲ κατεδέξατο. οὔτε γὰρ ἐν ἐπιμορίῳ ἢ πολλαπλασίῳ λόγῳ αὕτη θεωρεῖται, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἐπιμερεῖ, οὔτε τὰ ἀνόμοια αὐτῆς ὀλίγα, ἀλλὰ πλεῖστα, ἐξ ὧν ἐκεῖνοι ὡς κανόνων δοκιμάζειν τὰ κατὰ τὰς συμφωνίας ἐπεχείρουν. λοιπὸν δ’ ἣν αὐτὸς οἴεται ὑγιεστάτην εἶναι περὶ τούτου διάταξιν, ἐπιφέρει γράφων ταῦτα.

[ 683 ]

Πειρᾶσθαι ἕως τοῦ τοῖς ἐμμελέσιν. ΤῶΝ Φ Θ Ό Γ ΓΩ Ν Ἐ Ν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἔθετο τοὺς μὲν εἶναι ἰσοτόνους, τοὺς δ’ ἀνισοτόνους· ἰσοτόνους μὲν οἱ κατὰ τὴν τάσιν ἀπαραλλάκτους, ἀνισοτόνους δὲ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν τάσιν παραλλάσσοντας. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἰσότονοι τομὴν οὐκ ἐπιδέχονται, τῶν δ’ ἀνισοτόνων οἱ μὲν ἦσαν συνεχεῖς, οἱ δὲ διωρισμένοι. τοὺς μὲν οὖν συνεχεῖς, ὡσὰν τοὺς τόπους τῶν ἐφ’ ἑκάτερα μεταβάσεων ἀνεπιδήλους ἔχοντας, παρῃτήσατο ἀθέτους ὄντας εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου παράληψιν· τοὺς δὲ διωρισμένους παραδεξάμενος, φθόγγους [113] τούτους προσηγόρευσεν. ἦν γὰρ ὁ φθόγγος ψόφος μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπέχων τάσιν. αὐτὸς μὲν οὖν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ὁ φθόγγος οὐδέπω ἐθεωρεῖτο ἐν λόγῳ· ἐν δυεῖν γὰρ ὁ λόγος πάντως, ἅτ’ ὢν τῶν πρός τι, καὶ ἐν σχέσει τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τινῶν θεωρούμενος, ἔχων δὲ πρὸς ἄλλον σχέσιν ἤτοι πρὸς ἰσότονον αὐτῷ ἢ πρὸς ἀνισότονον ἕξει. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἰσότονον εἴη, ἐν ταυτότητι θεωρηθήσεται, εἰ δ’ ἀνισότονον, ἤτοι συνάπτονται ἀλλήλοις καὶ εὔφοροι γίνονται πρὸς αἴσθησιν ἢ οὐ συνάπτονται ἀλλήλοις. εἰ μὲν οὖν μὴ συνάπτονται πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ φθόγγοι, ἐκμελὴς γίνεται ἡ τοιαύτη σχέσις καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐκμελεῖς οἱ φθόγγοι, εἰ δὲ συνάπτοιντό πως, ἐμμελεῖς. εἰσὶ γὰρ ἐμμελεῖς, ὅσοι συναπτόμενοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους εὔφοροι πρὸς ἀκοὴν τυγχάνουσιν, ἐκμελεῖς δ’, ὅσοι μὴ οὕτως ἔχουσιν. τῶν οὖν συναπτομένων καὶ πρὸς ἀκοὴν εὐφόρων τριττὴν ποιεῖται τὴν διαίρεσιν. οἱ μὲν γὰρ οὕτω συνάπτονται, ὥστ’ εὐφόρους αὐτοὺς εἶναι πρὸς ἀντίληψιν, οἱ δ’ οὕτως, ὡς μὴ μόνον εὐφόρους εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ ὁμοίαν αὐτῶν αἴσθησιν ἀπεργάζεσθαι, οἱ δ’ εἰς τοσοῦτον, ὡς καὶ ἑνὸς ποιεῖν ταῖς ἀκοαῖς τὴν ἀντίληψιν, καίπερ ὄντας ἀνισοτόνους. Καλεῖ τοίνυν τοὺς μὲν εὐφόρους μόνον ταῖς ἀκοαῖς ἐμμελεῖς, τοὺς δ’ ὁμοιότητος ἤδη μετέχοντας συμφώνους, τοὺς δ’ ἑνότητος ὁμοφώνους. εἴ τις μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ὁμόφωνος, καὶ σύμφωνός ἐστι καὶ ἐμμελὴς πάντως, εἴ τις δὲ σύμφωνος, καὶ ἐμμελὴς πάντως, οὐ πάντως δὲ καὶ ὁμόφωνος. ὁ δ’ ἐμμελὴς οὔτε σύμφωνος πάντως, οὔθ’ ὁμόφωνος. καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀντικείμενον δ’ οἱ μὲν ἐκμελεῖς ἐκβεβλήκασι ταύτης τῆς διαιρέσεως, οἱ δὲ διάφωνοι οὐ πάντως εἰσὶ καὶ ἐκμελεῖς· οἱ γὰρ ἐκμελεῖς μόνον ὄντες, οὔτε σύμφωνοι οὔθ’ ὁμόφωνοι ὑπάρχοντες, διάφωνοι μέν εἰσιν, οὐ μὴν καὶ ἐκμελεῖς ἔστωσαν. οἱ μὲν ἐκμελεῖς πάντως καὶ διάφωνοι, οἱ δὲ διάφωνοι οὐ πάντως καὶ ἐκμελεῖς. Πάντως δὲ ταύτης τῆς διαιρέσεως οἱ πλείους τῇ μὲν τῶν ἐμμελῶν καὶ συμφώνων κέχρηνται διαφορᾷ, τῇ δὲ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἀνισοτόνοις ὁμοφώνων οὐκέτι. οἱ γὰρ παλαιοὶ τοὺς ἰσοτόνους ἀδιαφόρως τ’ ἰσοτόνους καὶ ὁμοφώνους ἐκάλουν· οὗτος δὲ διέκρινε τὸ ὁμόφωνον τοῦ ἰσοτόνου, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἰσότονον ἐν τοῖς κατ’ ἴσων τάσεων θεωρουμένοις ἔταξε, τὸ δ’ ὁμόφωνον ἐν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν μὲν τάσιν θεωρουμένοις καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαφέρουσι κατ’ ὀξύτητά τε καὶ βαρύτητα, κατὰ δὲ τὴν σύγκρουσιν ἀντίληψιν ἑνὸς ταῖς ἀκοαῖς παρεχομένοις. τοὺς δὲ τοιούτους συμφώνους [114] συμφώνους οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐκάλουν ἀποδεδωκότες τὸ ὁμόφωνον τῷ ἰσοτόνῳ. [ 684 ]

διελὼν οὖν αὐτὸς τὰ παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς λεγόμενα σύμφωνα, τούτων τὰ μὲν καλεῖ σύμφωνα, τὰ δ’ ὁμόφωνα διαφερόντως κατὰ τοῦτο ἐκείνοις περὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν ἱστάμενος. ὅσα μέντοι κἀκεῖνοι ἐμμελῆ ἀλλ’ οὐ σύμφωνα προσηγόρευον, ταῦτα καὶ οὗτος ὁμοίως κέκληκεν. τὰ μὲν οὖν ὁμόφωνα ὅτι ἐπὶ τῶν ἰσοτόνων ἔλαττον διαφοροῦντα περὶ τὴν κλῆσιν ἑκατέραν, δηλοῖ τὸ τῆς Κυρηναίας Πτολεμαΐδος καὶ ἄλλων πλειόνων, οἳ τὴν μὲν ὁμοφωνίαν διὰ τῆς ἰσοτονίας ἀπεδίδοσαν, τὴν δ’ ἰσοτονίαν διὰ τῆς ὁμοφωνίας. ὁμοφωνία γάρ ἐστι κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἰσοτονία φθόγγων, καὶ ὁμόφωνοι φθόγγοι, ὧν αἱ τάσεις θεωροῦνται ἐν ταυτότητι· ἰσοτονία δέ, ὅταν δύο φθόγγοι ὅμοιοι τῇ τάσει ἅμα κρουόμενοι ἀπαράλλακτον ἔχωσι τὴν διαφοράν, ἰσοδυναμῶσι δ’ οἱ ὅροι· εἰσὶ γὰρ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἑνός. ὁ μέντοι Πτολεμαῖος διέκρινε - συνεκύρωσε γάρ - ἐν τοῖς τῆς φύσεως ἔργοις ὄντων φθόγγων τῶν μὲν ὀξέων, τῶν δὲ βαρέων, καὶ πάλιν τῶν βαρέων τῶν μὲν ὄντων ἀλλήλοις ὁμοίων, τῶν δ’ ἀνομοίων, εἶναί τινας τῶν ὀξέων καὶ βαρέων - καίπερ ὄντων ἐναντίων - ὁμοίους κατ’ ἀντίληψιν ἐκείνοις. διὸ τῶν μὲν βαρέων τοὺς ὁμοίους καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτους, ἰσοτόνους καλεῖν ἠξίωσεν, ὅτι ἡ τάσις κοινόν τι ἦν ὀξύτητός τε καὶ βαρύτητος· τῶν δὲ βαρέων καὶ ὀξέων - καὶ οὕτως ἐναντίων - τοὺς κιρναμένους καὶ ἀδιαφοροῦντας ἑνὸς ὁμοφώνους· τούτοις μὲν διδοὺς τὸ τῆς ὁμοφωνίας, ἐκείνοις δὲ τὸ τῆς ἰσοτονίας.

[ 685 ]

Τούτων δὴ ἕως τοῦ αὐτόθι δῆλόν ἐστιν. Τῆς Δ Ι Α Ι Ρ ΈΣ Ε Ω ς Τ ῶΝ πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσιν ἐχόντων φθόγγων τοιαύτης γενομένης καὶ τοῖς ἐκ τῆς αἰσθήσεως κρίσιν ἔχουσι προσαρμοστέον φησὶ καὶ τὴν παλαιὰν τοῦ λόγου ἀκρίβειαν ταῖς ἀπὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως δοθείσαις διαφοραῖς. ἔνθα καὶ τὰ περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων παραληπτέον ὡς ἱκανῶς τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἔχοντα, καὶ ἀρκτέον γε καθάπερ ἐκεῖνοι ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τῆς ἰσότητος τῶν ἀριθμῶν, ἣν δὴ ἀποδοτέον καὶ τὸν λόγον τὸν κατ’ αὐτὴν προσαρμοστέον τοῖς ἰσοτόνοις. ἐκείνων μὲν οὖν οἱ πλείους οὐ μόνον ἀπὸ τῆς [115] ἰσότητος ἤρχοντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυθμένος ἀριθμοῦ. τῆς ἰσότητος δ’ ἁπλῶς τοὺς ἴσους ἀριθμοὺς ἀποδοτέον φησὶ τοῖς ἰσοτόνοις φθόγγοις, τοὺς δ’ ἀνίσους τοῖς ἀνισοτόνοις. ὅτι γὰρ διὰ τῶν πυθμένων τὰ κατὰ τὰς συμφωνίας ἀπεδείκνυσαν, δηλοῖ Εὔδημος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς Ἀριθμητικῆς ἱστορίας, λέγων περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων ταὐτὶ κατὰ λέξιν. “Ἔτι δὲ τοὺς τῶν τριῶν συμφωνιῶν λόγους τοῦ τε διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τοῦ διὰ πέντε καὶ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ὅτι συμβέβηκεν ἐν πρώτοις ὑπάρχειν τοῖς ἐννέα· β΄ γὰρ καὶ γ΄ καὶ δ΄ γίνεται ἐννέα.” Αἰτίαν δ’ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος τοῦ δεῖν τοὺς ἴσους ἀριθμοὺς ἀπονέμειν τοῖς ἰσοτόνοις ἀποδίδωσι τὴν αὐτόθι τοῦ λόγου ἐνάργειαν. ἑξῆς δ’ ἐπάγει.

[ 686 ]

Ἀκολούθου τοίνυν ἕως τοῦ καὶ τῷ διπλασίῳ. ἈΠ ΟΔΟ Θ Έ Ν ΤΟ ς ΤΟ ῦ Τ ῆς ἰσότητος λόγου, ὃς ἐπ’ ἴσων ἀριθμῶν ἐθεωρεῖτο, τοῖς ἰσοτόνοις, τῶν δ’ ἀνίσων τοῖς ἀνισοτόνοις παραμετρητέον ἀρχῶν κειμένων ἐν μὲν φθόγγοις τοῦ ἰσοτόνου, ἐν δ’ ἀριθμοῖς τῆς ἰσότητος· λοιπὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνισοτόνων φθόγγων καὶ τῶν ἀνίσων λόγων τοῖς ἐγγὺς καθ’ ἑκάτερον τῆς οἰκείας ἀρχῆς. καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐγγύτητος ἢ τοῦ πόρρω παραμετρητέον τὰς τῶν ἀνίσων διαφοράς, φανερόν φησιν, ὅτι τῆς ἰσότητος ἐγγυτάτω τέτακται ἐν μὲν λόγοις τοῖς θεωρουμένοις ἀριθμοῖς ὁ διπλάσιος, ἐν δὲ φθόγγοις τὸ διὰ πασῶν ὁμόφωνον. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἰσοτόνου, μαρτυρεῖ ἡ αἴσθησις· ὅτι δὲ τὸ διπλάσιον ἐγγὺς τῆς ἰσότητος, δείκνυσιν ὁ λόγος. μόνος γὰρ ὁ διπλάσιος λόγος τὴν ὑπεροχὴν ἴσην ἔχει τῷ ὑπερεχομένῳ καὶ τὴν αὐτήν. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἡμῖν περὶ τούτου εἴρηται πρότερον. ὥστ’ ἀποδοτέον τῇ διὰ πασῶν, ὅτι τῶν ὁμοφώνων ἑνωτικώτατόν τε καὶ κάλλιστον τὸ διὰ πασῶν, τοῦ δὲ διπλασίου τῇ διὰ πασῶν ἀποδοθέντος τῇ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἀπονεμοῦμεν τὸ δὶς διπλάσιον· δὶς δὲ διπλάσιος λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ τετραπλάσιος. εἰ δὲ καὶ τρὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐστιν, ὥς τινες παρεδέξαντο, ἢ καὶ τετράκις, ὡς Πλάτων ἐν τῇ Ψυχογονίᾳ τοῦ παντός, ἄχρι τοῦ τετράκις διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε καὶ τόνου προσαγαγὼν τὸ διάστημα, δι’ ἃς ἐν ἄλλοις [116] ἀποδίδομεν αἰτίας, μετροῖτ’ ἂν καὶ ταῦτα τὰ σύμφωνα τῷ τε διὰ πασῶν καὶ τῷ διπλασίῳ. ὑποκείσθω γὰρ ἡ τρὶς διὰ πασῶν· οὐκοῦν τῆς μὲν διὰ πασῶν ἦσαν ἀριθμοί, ὡς τὰ δύο πρὸς τὸ ἕν, τῆς δὲ δὶς διὰ πασῶν, ὡς τέσσαρα πρὸς τὸ ἕν. προστεθείσης οὖν τῆς διὰ πασῶν τῇ δὶς διὰ πασῶν διπλασίονα ἀριθμὸν ληψόμεθα τοῦ τέσσαρα· οὗτος δ’ ἐστὶν ὁ η΄ πρὸς τὸ ἕν· λέγω δὲ τῷ ὀκταπλασίῳ. εἰ δ’ εἴη καὶ τετράκις διὰ πασῶν, ληψόμεθα καὶ τοῦ ὀκτὼ διπλάσιον τὸν ιϚ΄, καὶ γίνεται ἐν λόγῳ τῷ ἑκκαιδεκαπλασίῳ μετρουμένῳ τῇ τρὶς διὰ πασῶν καὶ τῇ διὰ πασῶν. αὔξειν μὲν οὖν ἀριθμούς τε καὶ λόγους ἔνεστιν ἐπὶ πλεῖστον. δυνάμει δὲ τοσοῦτον διάστημα διαστῆναι δυνάμενον, ἀδύνατον ἐντυχεῖν ἀνθρώπῳ. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὁμοφώνων εἰρήσθω ταῦτα.

[ 687 ]

Πάλιν μετὰ μὲν ἕως τοῦ προϋποτεθειμένους. ΜΕΤ Ὰ Τ Ὸ Ν Δ Ι Π Λ Ά Σ Ι Ο Ν τῶν ἐπιμορίων ἐγγὺς ἂν εἶεν τῆς ἀρχῆς φησιν - ἥπερ ἦν ἰσότης - οἱ τὸν διπλάσιον ἔγγιστά πως εἰς ἴσα διαιροῦντες. διελεῖν μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν εἰς ἴσα οὐχ οἷόν τ’ ἦν ὄντα τῶν ἀνίσων, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῆς ἰσότητος. οἱ δ’ ἔγγιστα δίχα διαιροῦντες ἔγγιστ’ ἂν εἶεν τῆς ἰσότητος. ἐγγὺς δ’ εἰς ἴσα διαιροῦσι τὸν διπλάσιον ὅ τε ἡμιόλιος καὶ ὁ ἐπίτριτος· οὐ γὰρ πολλὴ ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τοῦ ἡμιολίου ἢ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου ἡ ὑπεροχὴ οὖσα ἐπόγδοος. τὸ δ’ ἔγγιστα δίχα πλησίον ἐστὶ τοῦ εἰς δύο ἴσα. τῶν οὖν λόγων τοιαύτην ἐχόντων τάξιν μεταβατέον ἐπὶ τοὺς φθόγγους. ἦσαν δὲ μετὰ τοὺς ὁμοφώνους οἱ σύμφωνοι ἐγγὺς τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὧν πρῶτοι οἱ ἔγγιστα τὴν διὰ πασῶν δίχα διαιροῦντες. εἰσὶ δ’ οὗτοι οἱ διὰ πέντε καὶ οἱ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ μείζων ὁ διὰ πέντε τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων τόνῳ. ἀποδοτέον ἄρα καὶ τῶν ἔγγιστα διαιρούντων τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον τὸν μὲν ἡμιόλιον μείζονα ὄντα τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου ἐπογδόῳ τῷ διὰ πέντε, τὸν δ’ ἐπίτριτον ἐλάττονα ὄντα τοῦ ἡμιολίου ἐπογδόῳ λόγῳ τῷ διὰ τεσσάρων. πρῶτοι μὲν οὖν λόγοι ἐπιμορίων τε καὶ συμφώνων φθόγγων οὗτοι. δεύτεροι δὲ τῶν συμφώνων ἦσαν οἱ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων τούτων συμφώνων τοῦ διὰ πέντε καὶ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τῶν ὁμοφώνων συντεθέντες καὶ ἀποτελεσθέντες τό τε διὰ πέντε καὶ διὰ πασῶν σύμφωνον καὶ πάλιν τό τε διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ διὰ πασῶν σύμφωνον, κἂν πλείους εἶεν οἱ ὁμόφωνοι τούτοις συντιθέμενοι. [117] Παραβαλέσθωσαν τοίνυν οἱ τῷ διὰ πασῶν συντιθέμενοι τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ διπλασίου καὶ τῶν ἔγγιστα διαιρούντων αὐτὸν συντιθεμένοις λόγοις. τὸ μὲν οὖν διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε σύμφωνον παραβληθήσεται τῷ τριπλασίῳ λόγῳ· τοῦτον γὰρ ὑφίστησιν ὁ ἡμιόλιος, ὁ γ΄ καὶ ὁ β΄· καὶ προσειλήφθω διπλάσιος τοῦ γ΄, ὁ Ϛ΄. οἱ ἄρα ἄκροι Ϛ΄ καὶ β΄ ἐν τριπλασίῳ λόγῳ ἔσονται συγκείμενοι ἐκ τοῦ διπλασίου καὶ ἡμιολίου. κἂν προτάξῃς δὲ τὸν ἡμιόλιον, ὑποτάξῃς δὲ τὸν διπλάσιον, τὸ αὐτὸ ἐκ τῶν ἄκρων ἀποβήσεται. εἰλήφθω γὰρ διπλάσιος λόγος ἐν ἀριθμοῖς τοῖς Ϛ΄ καὶ γ΄ καὶ προσειλήφθω ὁ ἡμιόλιος ὁ Ϛ΄ τοῦ θ΄· ὁ ἄρα ἄκρος ὁ θ΄ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἄκρου τοῦ γ΄ τριπλάσιός ἐστι συγκείμενος ἐξ ἡμιολίου καὶ τοῦ διπλασίου. τὸ μὲν οὖν διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε σύμφωνον διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν παραβληθήσεται τῷ τριπλασίῳ. τὸ δὲ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων πολλαπλασίῳ μὲν ἢ ἐπιμορίῳ λόγῳ παραβαλεῖν οὐχ οἷόν τε, ἐπιμερεῖ δέ, καὶ ὃν ἀριθμὸς πρὸς ἀριθμὸν ἔχει λόγον, ὁ η΄ πρὸς τὸν γ΄. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἐπίτριτος μὲν ὁ δ΄ τοῦ γ΄, διπλάσιος δ’ ὁ η΄ τοῦ δ΄, οἱ ἄκροι οἱ η΄ καὶ ὁ γ΄ ἐν ἐπιμερεῖ λόγῳ ἔσονται συντιθέντες τι ἐκ τοῦ διπλασίου καὶ ἐπιτρίτου. κἂν προτάξῃς τὸν ἐπίτριτον, ὑποτάξῃς δὲ τὸν διπλάσιον, τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποβήσεται. εἰλήφθω γὰρ διπλάσιος ὁ Ϛ΄ τοῦ γ΄ καὶ προσειλήφθω ὁ ἐπίτριτος τοῦ Ϛ΄ ὁ η΄· πάλιν οὖν οἱ ἄκροι ἐν ἐπιμερεῖ λόγῳ θεωρηθήσονται, ὃν ὁ η΄ ἔχει πρὸς τὸν γ΄, συγκειμένῳ ἐκ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου καὶ τοῦ διπλασίου. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡ διάταξίς φησιν ἤρτητο ἐκ τοῦ δεῖν τὰ σύμφωνα ἐν πολλαπλασίοις ἢ ἐπιμορίοις λόγοις εἶναι, μηκέτι δὲ καὶ ἐν ἐπιμερέσιν, οὐκ ἔδει προσίεσθαι τὴν τοιαύτην σύνθεσιν

[ 688 ]

ὡς σύμφωνον. ἐπεὶ οὐδὲν τοιοῦτον προϋποτέθειται, οὐ δεῖ φησι δυσωπεῖσθαι τὸ τοιοῦτον σύμφωνον, ὅτι μὴ ἐπιμόριον ἢ πολλαπλάσιόν ἐστιν.

[ 689 ]

Ἑξῆς δὲ ἕως τοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς ἕκαστον. ὭΣ Π Ε Ρ Μ ΕΤ Ὰ Τ Ὴ Ν ἰσότητα ἐγγὺς ἦν ταύτης ὁ διπλάσιος λόγος, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον ἐγγὺς πάλιν ἦσαν τούτου οἱ ἔγγιστα δίχα τέμνοντες τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον, οὗτοι δ’ ἦσαν ὁ ἡμιόλιος καὶ ὁ ἐπίτριτος, οὕτω πάλιν μετὰ τὸν ἐπίτριτον ἐν τοῖς ἐλάττοσιν αὐτοῦ ἐπιμορίοις θεωροῦνται οἱ ἐμμελεῖς. ἀρχὴ γὰρ ἐμμελῶν φθόγγων ἐν τοῖς μετὰ τὸν ἐπίτριτον ἐπιμορίοις, [118] ἐξ ὧν συντίθεσθαι δύνανται καὶ εἰς ἓν θεωρεῖσθαι. μετὰ δὲ τὸν ἐπίτριτον οἱ ἐπιμόριοι ἄρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐπὶ δ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄· οὕτως ἐπ’ ἄπειρον· ὧν τινες αὐτὸν συνθεῖναι δύνανται, ὡς ἐπιδείξομεν. ἐμμελεῖς μὲν οὖν οἱ συντιθέντες αὐτὸν πάντες, αὐτῶν δὲ τούτων ἐμμελέστεροι, ὅσοι ἐοίκασι τῇ ἀρίστῃ τῶν ὁμοφωνιῶν, ἥτις ἦν διὰ πασῶν· μεθ’ οὓς οἱ ἐμφερεῖς συντιθέασι τὴν διὰ πασῶν. ἦσαν δ’ οἵ τε τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ ὑπερεχομένου κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν εἰληφότες καὶ οἱ τὸ τρίτον. τοιοῦτος γὰρ ὁ ἡμιόλιος καὶ ὁ ἐπίτριτος. τῶν μὲν οὖν ἐμμελῶν, ὅσοι δίχα ἔγγιστα ποιοῦνται διαιρέσεις, εἶεν ἂν ἐμμελέστατοι· μεθ’ οὕς, ὧν αἱ διαφοραὶ μείζονα ἁπλᾶ μέρη περιέχουσι τῶν ὑπερεχομένων, ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα ἐγγυτέρω τοῦ ἴσου, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς συμφωνίαις τὸ ἥμισυ πάντων μᾶλλον προυτέτακτο, ὃ προσῆν τῇ κατὰ τὸν ἐπίτριτον ὑπεροχῇ. τίνες οὖν οἱ συντιθέντες τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον τῶν ἐλαττόνων αὐτοῦ μορίων, αὐτὸς ἐπιδείξει ὕστερον, ὅταν κατὰ τὸ εὔλογον καὶ τὸ φαινόμενον τῶν τετραχόρδων καὶ κατὰ τὸ γένος ποιῆται διαιρέσεις.

[ 690 ]

Συνελόντι δ’ εἰπεῖν ἕως τοῦ ἔχωμεν ὑποτεθειμένον. ΠΡ ῶΤΟ ς Π ΟΛ Λ Α Π Λ Ά ΣΟ Ι ς Ἦ Ν ὁ διπλάσιος· ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ διπλασίου μετρεῖται ὁ τετραπλάσιος· οὗτοι δ’ οἱ λόγοι ἀπεδόθησαν τῇ διὰ πασῶν καὶ τῇ δὶς καὶ τῇ τρίς, ὥσθ’ ὁμόφωνοι αὗται. ἐπιμόριοι δὲ πρῶτοι ὁ ἡμιόλιος καὶ ὁ ἐπίτριτος, οἷς ἀπεδόθησαν ἡ διὰ πέντε καὶ ἡ διὰ τεσσάρων· ἦν δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου καὶ διπλασίου συντιθέμενος λόγος καὶ θεωρούμενος ἐν σχέσει ὁρισμῶν, ἣν ἔχει ἀριθμὸς πρὸς ἀριθμόν, ὁ η΄ πρὸς τὸν γ΄. καὶ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ ἡμιολίου συντιθέμενος καὶ τοῦ διπλασίου καὶ ποιῶν λόγον τριπλάσιον· καὶ λοιπῶν εἴ τις ἐκ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου καὶ τετραπλασίου συνετίθετο. ἀπεδίδοντο δ’ οἱ εἰρημένοι τῇ τε δὶς διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τῇ τρὶς διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τῇ δὶς διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε. αἱ δὲ πᾶσαι μετὰ τῆς διὰ πέντε καὶ ἔτι τῆς διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαι καλείσθωσαν. πάλιν ἦσαν μετὰ τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγοι ἐπιμόριοι οἱ μὲν ἐπιτέταρτοι, οἱ δ’ ἐπίπεμπτοι, οἱ δ’ ἐπίεκτοι, οἱ δ’ ἐπιέβδομοι, οἱ δ’ ἐπόγδοοι καὶ ἄλλοι πλείους, ὧν οἱ παραλαμβανόμενοι εἰς τὰς συνθέσεις τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου ἐμμελεῖς καλείσθωσαν, οὔσης κἀν τούτοις διαφορᾶς [119] καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν, καθ’ ἣν οἱ ἐμμελέστεροι ῥηθήσονται αὐτῶν τῷ θεωρεῖσθαι ἐν ὑπεροχῇ μείζονι ἢ διαιρέσεσι παρίσοις, καθ’ ἃ διὰ πλειόνων ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀποδειχθήσεται τόποις. ἐπεὶ δὲ ταῖς μὲν ὁμοφωνίαις καὶ ταῖς συμφωνίαις ἤδη ἀριθμοί τε καὶ λόγοι εἰσὶ παραβεβλημένοι, ταῖς δ’ ἐμμελείαις οὐδέπω, πλὴν τῆς τονιαίας - ταύτῃ γὰρ ὁ ἐπόγδοος ἀποδέδεικται - τὰ μὲν κατὰ τὰς ἐμμελείας ἁπάσας ὕστερον διά τε λόγου καὶ τῆς ἐναργείας παραστήσομεν, τὰς δ’ ὁμοφωνίας καὶ συμφωνίας, ἐπειδὴ διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐξεύρομεν, αἵτινες εἶναι ὀφείλουσι φέρε καὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιστημονικῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ τῆς παρὰ ταύτης ἐναργείας τὰ εἰρημένα ἐπιδείξωμεν· οὕτω γὰρ τὰ τοῦ λόγου δειχθήσεται σύμφωνα ταῖς τῆς ἀκοῆς ἀντιλήψεσιν.

[ 691 ]

η΄. Τὸ μὲν οὖν ἕως τοῦ ἀπαραλλαξίαν. ΤῶΝ ΠΥΘΑ ΓΟ Ρ Ε Ί Ω Ν Ἄ Λ ΛΟ Ι ἄλλως διὰ τῶν ὀργάνων τὰ κατὰ τὰς συμφωνίας ἐξέτασαν. οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐλοὺς δύο ποιήσαντες χαλκοῦς ἢ καλάμους, ἰσοπαχεῖς καὶ ἰσοκοιλίους, εἰς συρίγγων τρόπον, ὧν ὁ ἕτερος τοῦ ἑτέρου διπλάσιος ἦν κατὰ μῆκος, καὶ ἐμφυσῶντες τῷ στόματι εἰς τοὺς αὐλοὺς ἅμα διὰ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς γλωσσιδίων κατελάμβανον τὸ διὰ πασῶν σύμφωνον ἐν διπλασίονι λόγῳ· καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς δὲ συμφωνίας ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις λόγοις κατειληφόσι τῶν αὐλῶν κατὰ μῆκος λόγον ἐχόντων πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁτὲ μὲν τῶν τεσσάρων πρὸς τὰ τρία, ὁτὲ δὲ τῶν τριῶν πρὸς τὰ δύο, ὁτὲ δὲ τῶν τριῶν πρὸς τὸ ἕν, ὁτὲ δὲ τῶν τεσσάρον πρὸς τὸ ἕν· οὐδὲν δ’ ἧττον δι’ ἑνὸς αὐλοῦ τὸ προκείμενον αὐτοῖς ἀπέβαινε. τὸν γὰρ ὅλον αὐλὸν διελόντες ὁτὲ μὲν δίχα τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ἕνεκεν, ὁτὲ δ’ εἰς τέσσαρα καὶ τρία, καὶ τὰ τρία μέρη ἀπολαμβάνοντες πρὸς τὴν γλωσσίδα τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων χάριν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων κατὰ τοὺς οἰκείους λόγους ἑκάστης τῶν συμφωνιῶν τὰς διαιρέσεις ποιούμενοι καὶ κατ’ αὐτῶν τρυπήματα ποιοῦντες καὶ ὁμοίως ἐμφυσῶντες εἰς τὸν αὐτόν, ἐξελάμβανον τὸ οἰκεῖον σύμφωνον. ὡσαύτως καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδρα, ἐξ οὗ οἱ ἐπικείμενοι αὐλοὶ ἄνισοι ὄντες τὰς ἁρμονίας ἀποτελοῦσιν. ἕτεροι δὲ λαβόντες ἴσας χορδὰς κατέτειναν ἐξάψαντες τῆς μὲν ἑτέρας βάρη δύο μνῶν, τῆς δ’ ἑτέρας [120] μιᾶς μνᾶς· καὶ ὀξύτερος ὁ φθόγγος ἀπέβαινεν αὐτοῖς, καθ’ ἧς ἀπήρτησαν τὰς δύο μνᾶς, βαρύτερος δέ, καθ’ ἧς ἀπήρτησαν τὸ μναιαῖον· ἐγίνετο δ’ αὐτοῖς ἡ διὰ πασῶν συμφωνία. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ συμφωνιῶν τὴν ὁμοίαν ἐξέτασιν ποιούμενοι τοὺς οἰκείους τῶν συμφωνιῶν λόγους ἐλάμβανον διὰ τῶν βαρῶν, τουτέστι μνᾶς τέσσαρας πρὸς τρεῖς μνᾶς ἐξάψαντες καὶ τρεῖς πρὸς δύο καὶ τρεῖς πρὸς μίαν καὶ τέσσαρας πρὸς μίαν. Κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ καὶ τρυβλία ἢ ἀγγεῖα τῷ ῥυθμῷ καὶ σχήματι καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ὕλης παρασκευασάμενοι ἴσα τὸ μὲν πρῶτον εἴασαν κενόν, τὸ δ’ ἕτερον ἐπλήρωσαν εἰς ὕδατος ἥμισυ, ὥστε τὸν ἐν τῷ κενῷ ἀέρα διπλασίονα γίνεσθαι τοῦ ἔχοντος μέχρι τοῦ ἡμίσεος τὸ ὕδωρ. κρουομένων δὲ τῶν τρυβλίων ἐγίνετο αὐτοῖς ἡ διὰ πασῶν συμφωνία. δῆλον δ’, ὅπως καὶ ἡ διὰ πέντε καὶ ἡ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ αὐτοῖς ἐγίνοντο. ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐάν τις δίσκους χαλκοῦς ποιήσας διπλασιάσῃ θατέρου τὸν ἕτερον, συμφωνοῦσι κρουόμενα διὰ πασῶν· πάντα γὰρ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐκείνων ἐστὶ πρῶτον. Ἄλλοι δὲ τούτων δοκοῦντες ἔτι ἄμεινον φρονεῖν ἔλεγον, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς τοῦ κανόνος κατατομῆς εὑρέθησαν οἱ λόγοι, καὶ δοκεῖ μοι καλῶς λέγεσθαι. διότι καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος πάντα τὰ προειρημένα παραιτησάμενος, δι’ ἃς εἴρηκεν αὐτὸς αἰτίας, ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ κανόνος κατατομὴν ἦλθεν. ἐπί τε γὰρ τῶν αὐλῶν καὶ τῶν συρίγγων φησὶ μετὰ τοῦ δυσεξέταστον αὐτῶν εἶναι τὴν τῆς ἀνωμαλίας διόρθωσιν, ὡς τῶν καλάμων ὅπου μὲν εὐρυτέρων ὄντων, ὅπου δὲ στενωτέρων, ἔτι καὶ τὰ πέρατα αὐτῶν οἷα τὰ σχήματα, πρὸς ἃ δεῖ τὰ μήκη παραβάλλειν, ἐν πλάτει πως καὶ οὐκ ἀκριβῶς γίνεται χωρὶς τοῦ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν ἐμπνευστῶν ὀργάνων [ 692 ]

ἀταξίαν τινὰ προσγίνεσθαι καὶ παρὰ τὰς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐμβολάς. εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἡ διόλου κίνησις τοῦ διπλασίου φέρε αὐλοῦ ὁμοία ἦν τῇ κινήσει τῇ διὰ τοῦ ἡμίσεος αὐλοῦ, κἂν ἀπήρκησεν ἡμῖν διπλασίαν λέγειν τὴν κίνησιν τῇ κινήσει· νυνὶ δ’ ἡμῖν ἕως τοῦ ἡμίσεος τοῦ μείζονος αὐλοῦ γίνεται· ἴσα γὰρ τὰ μήκη· ἡ δὲ διὰ τοῦ ἡμίσεος τοῦ μείζονος οὐχ ὁμοία ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ βραδυτάτη τοῦ πνεύματος οὐχ ὁμαλῶς δι’ ὅλου τοῦ αὐλοῦ φερομένου, ἀλλὰ χαλατονοῦντος ἐν τοῖς μακροτέροις διαστήμασιν· ὅθεν οὐ γίνεται ἡ κίνησις τῆς κινήσεως διπλασία. ἐκβάλλει οὖν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν αὐλῶν ἢ τῶν συρίγγων λῆψιν, ἐκβάλλει δὲ καὶ τὴν διὰ τῶν χορδῶν. λέγει γάρ· “ἐπί τε τῶν ἐξαπτομένων ταῖς χορδαῖς βαρῶν μὴ [121] διασῳζομένων ἀπαραλλάκτως ἀλλήλαις παντάπασι τῶν χορδῶν, ὁπότε καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἑκάστην οὕτως ἔχουσαν εὑρεῖν ἔργον”. εὐλόγως. ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τὴν μίαν χορδήν ἐστιν ἰδεῖν ῥᾳδίως ὁμοίως ἔχουσαν κατὰ πᾶν μέρος, μήπου γε καὶ δύο χορδὰς ἐκ νεύρων πεποιημένας ἢ ἐξ ἐντέρων ἴσας τε τοῖς μήκεσι καὶ ἴσας τοῖς πάχεσι καὶ τῇ ξηρασίᾳ καὶ πυκνότητι καὶ ὁμαλότητι. κἂν ταῦτά τίς φησιν ὑπόθηται δυνατὰ καὶ ἔτι τὸ μῆκος τῶν χορδῶν ἴσον καὶ ἐκ μὲν τῆς ἑτέρας τρεῖς μνᾶς κρεμάσῃ, ἐκ δὲ τῆς λοιπῆς μνᾶς δύο, τὸ τρίμνουν βάρος τῇ πλείονι τάσει μείζονα ποιήσει καὶ πυκνώσει τὴν διάστασιν τῆς κρημνώσης αὐτῆς χορδῆς, ὥστ’ οὔτε μήκει ἔσονται ἴσαι, οὔτ’ ἰσόπυκνοι. τὰ παραπλήσια δὲ συμβαίνει καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν γινομένων ψόφων κατὰ σύγκρουσιν σφαιρῶν ναστῶν ἢ δίσκων κοίλων ἢ ἀγγείων ἴσων καὶ ὁμοίων κενῶν τε καὶ λαμβανόντων ὕδωρ, δυσχεροῦς ὄντος πάνυ τοῦ τηρεῖν ἐν ἅπασι τούτοις καὶ τὸ ἐν ταῖς ὕλαις καὶ τοῖς σχήμασιν αὐτῶν ἀδιάφορον.

[ 693 ]

Ἡ δ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ καλουμένου κανόνος ἕως τοῦ τετραπλάσιον λόγον. ΝΟ Ε Ί ΣΘ Ω Ἐ Π Ὶ Τ ῆς ἄνω τοῦ κανόνος ἐπιφανείας ξυλίνου ὄντος καὶ συμμέτρου τῷ μήκει εὐθεία γεγραμμένη δίχα διαιροῦσα τὸ πλάτος αὐτῆς ἡ ΑΒΓΔ· καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν Α καὶ Δ περάτων ἴσων ἀποληφθεισῶν δύο στάσεων συμμέτρων τῶν ΑΒ καὶ ΓΔ ὡς ἐκ δακτύλων τριῶν, κέντροις τοῖς ΒΓ καὶ διαστήματι τῷ ἡμίσει τοῦ πλάτους τοῦ κανόνος γεγράφθωσαν ἴσαι δύο κύκλοι, ὧν διάμετροι νοείσθωσαν ἴσοι τῇ ΑΒ. καὶ μαγάδες ἔστωσαν ἀπὸ κεράτων πεποιημέναι πανταχόθεν ἴσαι τε καὶ ὅμοιαι μέχρι μέν τινος ὕψους κυλινδρικαὶ οὖσαι, σφαιρικὰς δ’ ἔχουσαι τὰς ὑπὸ τὴν χορδὴν πιπτούσας ἐπιφανείας, ἡ ΕΒ περὶ κέντρον τὸ Ζ καὶ ἡ ΓΗ περὶ κέντρον ὁμοίως τὸ Θ. καὶ ληφθέντων τῶν Ε καὶ Η σημείων κατὰ τὰς διχοτομίας τῶν κυρτοτήτων, θέσιν ἐχέτωσαν τοιαύτην αἱ μαγάδες, ὥστε καὶ ‹τὰς› διὰ τῶν Ε Η διχοτομιῶν καὶ τῶν Ζ καὶ Θ ἑκατέρων ἐκβαλλομένας εὐθείας, τουτέστιν τὴν ΕΖΒ καὶ τὴν ΗΘΓ, καθέτους εἶναι πρὸς τὴν ΑΒΓΔ καὶ τὰς ΒΖ καὶ ΘΓ ἴσας διαστάσεις ἄξονας εἶναι τῶν κυλίνδρων, ὧν βάσεις αἱ περὶ διαμέτρους ἴσαι τῇ ΑΒ εὐθείᾳ. ἐὰν οὖν [122] ἀπὸ τῶν Α καὶ Δ διατείνωμεν χορδὴν ἐκ νεύρου πεποιημένην σύμμετρον ὡς τὴν ΑΕΗΔ, παράλληλος ἔσται ἡ ΕΗ τῇ ΑΒΓΔ καὶ παραλληλόγραμμον τὸ ΕΒΓΗ, ὅτι καὶ αἱ ΕΒ ΗΓ ἴσαι τε καὶ παράλληλοί εἰσι κάθετοι οὖσαι πρὸς τὴν ΒΓ. λήψεται δὲ τὰ Ε καὶ Η σημεῖα, τὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν ἀποψαλμάτων· κατ’ αὐτῶν γὰρ ἡ ΕΗ χορδὴ ἐφάπτεται τῶν κυρτῶν ἐπιφανειῶν διὰ τὸ τὰς ΖΕ καὶ ΘΗ ἐκ κέντρων τῶν κυρτοτήτων καθέτους εἶναι καὶ πρὸς τὴν ΕΗ. Κατασκευάσαντες δὴ καὶ ἄλλο κανόνιον λεπτότερον μὲν τοῦ πρώτου καὶ στενώτερον, ὀλίγον δὲ μεῖζον τῷ μήκει τῆς ΕΗ χορδῆς καὶ μεταβάλλοντες ἐπ’ αὐτῇ τὸ ΕΗ μῆκος ὡς τὸ ΜΝ, καὶ τούτου τὸ τῆς διχοτομίας σημεῖον τὸ Γ θέντες· τοῦ δὲ ΜΓ μήκους τὸ τῆς διχοτομίας τὸ Δ ληψόμεθα καὶ τῆς ΕΗ χορδῆς τὴν διχοτομίαν, οἷον τὸ Κ· καὶ ἔτι τὴν τῆς ἡμισείας διχοτομίαν ὡς τὴν Λ. πρόχειρον γὰρ τοῦτο γίνεται ἐκ τοῦ τὴν μὲν ΜΝ τοῦ κανονίου ἐφαρμόζεσθαι τῇ ΕΗ, τὸ δὲ Δ πίπτειν κατὰ τὸ Λ καὶ τὸ Γ κατὰ τὸ Κ. ὄντων δὲ τούτων καταστήσομεν ὑπαγωγίδια στενὰ πάνυ καὶ λεῖα, οἷον κεράτινα· ἢ μαγάδια ὑψηλότερα μὲν ἐκείνων ὀλίγῳ, τῇ δὲ θέσει καὶ τῇ ὁμοιότητι πανταχόθεν ἀδιαφοροῦντα καὶ τῆς μέσης αὐτῶν τοῦ κυρτώματος γραμμῆς, ἥτις ὑπ’ αὐτὴν ἔσται τὴν Κ τοῦ κανόνος διχοτομίαν· ὅπως ἐὰν μὲν τὸ ΕΚ τῆς χορδῆς μέρος ἀπαράλλακτον εὑρίσκηται κατὰ τὴν τάσιν τῷ ΚΗ, καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο δὲ δῆλον ἡμῖν ὑπάρχῃ τὸ ἰσόπυκνον αὐτὴν εἶναι καὶ ἰσοπληγῆ καὶ ξηρὰν ὁμοίως· κἂν δὲ μὴ οὕτως ἔχῃ, μεταφέρομεν τὴν δοκιμασίαν ἐπ’ ἄλλο μέρος τῆς χορδῆς αὐτῆς ἢ τὴν χορδὴν ἄλλην ἐκβάλλοντες τὴν πρώτην ὡς ἀποίητον οὖσαν, ἄχρις ἂν ἐκ τῆς δοκιμασίας τὸ ἀκόλουθον διασωθῇ· τουτέστιν ἵνα τὰ ἴσα μήκη καὶ ὅμοια ὄντα καὶ μίαν ἔχοντα τάσιν ὁμότονα ᾖ πλησσόμενα χωρίς. Ἔπειτα τοῦ τοιούτου καταληφθέντος καὶ διαιρεθέντος τοῦ λεπτοτέρου κανονίου ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις τῶν συμφωνιῶν λόγοις, τουτέστι τῆς ΜΝ εὐθείας, εἰς τὸν λόγον ‹τῆς ΜΞ πρὸς τὸν [ 694 ]

ΞΝ ἐπίτριτον› τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων δ΄ πρὸς γ΄, καὶ εἰς τὸν τῆς ΜΟ πρὸς ΟΝ ἡμιόλιον τοῦ διὰ πέντε γ΄ πρὸς β΄, καὶ πάλιν εἰς τὸν τῆς ΜΠ πρὸς τὸν ΠΝ διπλάσιον τοῦ διὰ πασῶν β΄ πρὸς α΄, καὶ εἰς τὸν τῆς ΜΡ πρὸς ΡΝ λόγον η΄ πρὸς γ΄ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων, ‹καὶ εἰς τὸν τῆς ΜΣ πρὸς ΣΝ λόγον γ΄ πρὸς α΄ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε,› καὶ εἰς τὸν τῆς ΜΤ πρὸς τὸν ΤΝ [123] λόγον δ΄ πρὸς α΄ τοῦ δὶς διὰ πασῶν. καὶ διὰ τῶν ΞΟΠΡΣΤ σημείων πρὸς ὀρθὰς ἀχθεισῶν τῇ ΜΝ τῶν ΞϜ ΟΩ ΠΨ ΡΧ ΣΦ ΤΥ καὶ τῶν ΕΛΚϜΩΨΧΦΥΗΜΔΓΞΟΠΡΣΤΝ 432834 321311 οἰκείων λόγων ἐπ’ αὐτῶν γραφομένων, τουτέστιν ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς ΞϜ δ΄ πρὸς γ΄, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ΟΩ γ΄ πρὸς β΄, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ΠΨ β΄ πρὸς α΄, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ΡΧ η΄ πρὸς γ΄, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ΣΦ γ΄ πρὸς α΄, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ΤΥ δ΄ πρὸς α΄. καὶ διὰ τὸ εὐσύνοπτον εὑρήσομεν προχείρως ἐκ τῆς ὑφ’ ἕκαστον τμῆμα τοῦ μαγαδίου παραγωγῆς ὁμολογουμένας ταῖς ἀκοαῖς ἐπὶ τὸ ἀκριβέστατον ὥς φησι τὰς τῶν οἰκείων φθόγγων διαφοράς. ἐφαρμοσθείσης γὰρ τῆς ΜΝ τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ τὴν ΕΗ χορδήν, καὶ ἐὰν ὡς τέμνεται ἡ ΓΝ εὐθεία ὑπὸ τῶν ΞΟΠΡΣΤ σημείων, οὕτω τὴν ΚΗ διέλωμεν ἑξάκις δηλονότι εὐσήμου διδασκαλίας ἕνεκα αὐτῷ τῷ Κ ὁτὲ μὲν εἰς τὸν τῶν δ΄ πρὸς τὸν γ΄ λόγον, ὁτὲ δ’ εἰς τὸν τῶν γ΄ πρὸς τὸν β΄, ὁτὲ δ’ εἰς τὸν τῶν β΄ πρὸς α΄, ὁτὲ δ’ εἰς τὸν τῶν η΄ πρὸς γ΄, ὁτὲ δ’ εἰς τὸν τῶν γ΄ πρὸς α΄, ὁτὲ δ’ εἰς τὸν τῶν δ΄ πρὸς α΄· ὁ τῆς ΕΚ πρὸς ΚΗ λόγος ἔσται ὁτὲ μὲν δ΄ πρὸς γ΄, ὁτὲ δὲ γ΄ πρὸς β΄, ὁτὲ δὲ β΄ πρὸς α΄, ὁτὲ δ’ η΄ πρὸς γ΄, ὁτὲ δὲ γ΄ πρὸς α΄, ὁτὲ δὲ δ΄ πρὸς α΄. ὥστε καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν δ΄ λόγος πρὸς τὰ γ΄, φθόγγος τῆς ΕΚ πρὸς ΚΗ, ποιήσει τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ λόγῳ, ὁ δ’ ἀπὸ τῶν γ΄ πρὸς τὰ β΄ τὸ διὰ πέντε ἐν ἡμιολίῳ λόγῳ, ὁ δ’ ἀπὸ τῶν β΄ πρὸς τὸ α΄ ποιήσει τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἐν διπλασίῳ λόγῳ, ὁ δ’ ἀπὸ τῶν η΄ πρὸς τὰ γ΄ ποιήσει τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐν ἐπιμερεῖ λόγῳ τῷ ὃν ἔχει τὰ η΄ πρὸς τὰ γ΄, ὁ δ’ ἀπὸ τῶν γ΄ πρὸς τὸ α΄ τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε ἐν τριπλασίῳ λόγῳ· ὁ δ’ ἀπὸ τῶν δ΄ πρὸς τὸ α΄ ποιήσει τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ὁμόφωνον ἐν τετραπλασίῳ λόγῳ· ‹τοῦ λόγου› ΕΚ πρὸς ΚΗ καθ’ ἕκαστον εἰλημμένου ὡς αὐτὸς ὑπέθετο. καὶ τῷ Κ ἔτι διχοτομεῖται ΕΗ χορδή. ἐξ ὧν ἁπάντων φαμὲν ὡς τοὺς μείζονας τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἐφαρμοστέον ταῖς μείζοσι τῶν ἀποχῶν. γίνεται γὰρ ὡς ἡ μείζων ἀποχὴ πρὸς τὴν ἐλάσσονα, ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλάσσονος ἀποχῆς ψόφος ὀξύτερος ὢν πρὸς τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς μείζονος ὄντα βαρύτερον, ὡς καὶ προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου δείξει. [124]

[ 695 ]

θ΄. Τοῖς μὲν δὴ Πυθαγορείοις ἕως τοῦ μουσικῇ. ΚΈ Χ Ρ Η ΤΑ Ι Μ Ὲ Ν Γ Ὰ Ρ τοῖς αὐτῶν λόγοις καὶ αὐτός, τουτέστι τῷ ἐπιτρίτῳ καὶ τῷ διπλασίῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς λόγοις. Μέμφεται δ’ αὐτοῖς περὶ τῆς αἰτιολογίας αὐτῶν, δι’ ἣν ἐκβάλλουσι τὴν διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαν ἐναργῆ δειχθεῖσαν, καὶ ὅτι συμφωνοτέρας ἔλεγον εἶναι ταύτας, ἐφ’ ὧν ἐλάττονα ἦν τὰ παραλειπόμενα ἀνόμοια μετὰ τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν τῆς μονάδος καθ’ ἑκάτερον τῶν λόγων τῶν ἐλαχίστων ἀριθμῶν ὑποτιθεμένων, ὡς ἀνωτέρω εἴρηται. μέμφεται δὲ καὶ τοῖς Ἀριστοξενείοις, ὅτι οὔτε τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις τῶν συμφωνιῶν ἐναργῶς ἔχουσι συγκατέθεντο, οὔτε μὴν ἀπιστήσαντες αὐτοῖς τοὺς ἀκριβεστέρους ἐζήτησαν, εἴ γε μετὰ τοῦ προσήκοντος λόγου ὑπισχνοῦντο προσενηνέχθαι μουσικῇ φασιν.

[ 696 ]

Τὸ μὲν γὰρ τοιαῦτα ἕως τοῦ εἶναι διαφοράς. ΛΈ Γ Ε Ι Ο ὖΝ Ὁ Ἀριστόξενος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Ἁρμονικῶν Στοιχείων περὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν κατὰ λέξιν οὕτως. “Ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν συμφωνιῶν πλείους εἰσὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλας διαφοραί, ὧν μία τις ἡ γνωριμωτάτη αὐτῶν, πρώτη ἐγκείσθω· αὕτη δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ κατὰ μέγεθος. ἔστω δὴ τῶν συμφωνιῶν ὀκτὼ μεγέθη, ἐλάχιστον μὲν τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων. συμβαίνει δὴ τοῦτο τῇ αὐτοῦ φύσει ἐλάχιστον εἶναι· σημεῖον δὲ τὸ μελῳδεῖν μὲν ἡμᾶς πολλὰ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐλάττω, πάντα μέντοι διάφωνα. δεύτερον δὲ τὸ διὰ πέντε, ὅ τι δ’ ἂν τούτων ἀνὰ μέσον ᾖ μέγεθος, πᾶν ἐστι διάφωνον. τρίτον ‹δ’› ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων συμφώνων σύνθετον τὸ διὰ πασῶν· τὰ δὲ τούτων ἀνὰ μέσον διάφωνα εἶναι λέγομεν. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν παρὰ τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν παρειλήφαμεν. περὶ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν αὐτοῖς ἡμῖν διοριστέον. πρῶτον μὲν δείκνυται, ὅτι πρὸς τῷ [125] διὰ πασῶν πᾶν σύμφωνον προστιθέμενον διάστημα τὸ γινόμενον ἐξ αὐτῶν μέγεθος σύμφωνον ποιεῖ. καὶ ἔστιν ἴδιον πάθος τοῦ συμφώνου τούτου· καὶ γὰρ ἐλάσσονος προστεθέντος καὶ ἴσου καὶ μείζονος τὸ γενόμενον ἐκ τῆς συνθέσεως σύμφωνον γίνεται. τοῖς δὲ πρώτοις συμφώνοις ‹οὐ› συμβαίνει τοῦτο· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ἴσον ἑκατέρῳ αὐτῶν συντεθὲν τὸ ὅλον σύμφωνον ποιεῖ, οὔτε τὸ ἐξ ἑκατέρου αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν συνημμένον, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ διαφωνήσει τὸ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων συμφώνων συγκείμενον. τόνος δ’ ἐστίν, ᾧ τὸ διὰ πέντε τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων μεῖζον.” ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ Ἀριστόξενος.

[ 697 ]

Πῶς δὲ ἔχουσι ἕως τοῦ καὶ λόγῳ ποιεῖν. Πῶς Δ ’ Ἔ ΧΟΥ Σ Ι καθ’ ἕκαστον εἶδος ἡ τῶν συμφωνιῶν ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ἐμμελῶν οἱ ποιοῦντες αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος δύο φθόγγοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους, οὔτε λέγουσιν, οὔτε ζητοῦσιν, ἐξ ὧν παρεθέμεθα, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ αὐτῶν μὲν τῶν φθόγγων ἀσωμάτων ὄντων, τῶν δὲ μεταξὺ σωμάτων, τὰς διαστάσεις τῶν εἰδῶν μόνας παραβάλλουσιν, ἵνα τι δόξωσιν ἀριθμῷ καὶ λόγῳ ποιεῖν. Ὡς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς προγραφομένοις εἰρήκαμεν, οἱ Ἀριστοξένειοί φησι τὰ τῶν διαστημάτων μεγέθη λέγεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἀπόστασιν τῶν ὀξυτάτων καὶ βαρυτάτων, ἀλλ’ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μείζονος πρὸς τὸ ἔλασσον ὑπεροχήν· οὐδὲ λόγον τινὰ ἀριθμῶν τῆς τῶν φθόγγων πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχέσεως λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ Πυθαγόρᾳ καὶ Πτολεμαίῳ δοκεῖ, ἀλλὰ τοπικὸν εἶναι τὸ διάστημα λέγουσιν, ὃν τρόπον ἐπὶ κιόνων ἢ καμπτήρων τὸ μεταξὺ διάστημα· ὅθεν καὶ ὁ Ἀριστόξενος ὡρίσατο τὸ μεταξὺ [καὶ] δύο φθόγγων ἀνομοίων τῇ τάσει λέγων εἶναι διάστημα, διὸ καὶ μεγέθει γνωρίζεσθαι πάντως. καὶ ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ Περὶ μελοποιΐας φαίνεται δοκιμάζων τόνον καὶ δηλονότι τῶν ιβ΄ μονάδων ὑποτιθέμενος ὡς ἐλάχιστον ὄντα τῶν ἐχόντων ἥμισυ καὶ τρίτον καὶ τέταρτον διὰ τὴν [126] τοῦ τόνου εἰς γ΄ καὶ δ΄ καὶ Ϛ΄ διαίρεσιν, ἣ προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου φανερὰ γενήσεται. Ἔστι δὲ πᾶν τοὐναντίον. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὐχ ὁρίζονται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον καθ’ αὑτὸ τῶν εἰδῶν ἕκαστον οἷόν ἐστιν, ὥσπερ ὅταν πυνθανομένων ἡμῶν, τί ἐστι τόνος, εἴπωμεν, ὅτι διαφορὰ δύο φθόγγων ἐπόγδοον περιεχόντων λόγον ἢ τί ἐστι διὰ τεσσάρων, εἴπωμεν, δύο φθόγγων διαφορὰ ἐπίτριτον περιεχόντων λόγον. ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς ἀναφορὰ γίνεται πρὸς ἄλλο τι τῶν μὴ ὡρισμένων, ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀριστόξενος ὡρίσατο τὸν τόνον ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ διὰ πέντε πρὸς τὸν διὰ τεσσάρων, μὴ ὡρισάμενος, τί ἐστι τὸ διὰ πέντε ἢ διὰ τεσσάρων, καίτοι τῆς αἰσθήσεως εἰ θέλει τόνον ἁρμόσασθαι μὴ δεομένης πρότερον τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τινὸς, ἀλλ’ ἱκανῆς οὔσης ἑκάστην τῶν ἐπογδόων διαφορὰν συστήσασθαι καθ’ αὑτήν, ὡς ἐν τῇ κιθαρῳδίᾳ. κἂν ἐπιζητῶμεν δὲ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς λεγομένης ὑπεροχῆς, οἷον τοῦ τόνου, οὐδ’ αὐτὴν ἀποφαίνουσι χωρὶς ἄλλης συμφωνίας, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἂν εἴποιεν, εἰ τύχοι δύο τοιούτων, οἵων ἡ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων πέντε, καὶ ταύτην πάλιν τοιούτων πέντε, οἵων ἡ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν δεκαδύο, καὶ παραπλησίως ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἕως ἂν τραπῶσιν ἐπὶ τὸ λέγειν, οἵων ἡ τονιαία δύο. ἔπειτα οὐδ’ οὕτως τὰς ὑπεροχὰς ὁρίζουσι τῶν διαστάσεων. Λέγει δ’, ὅτι κἂν συγχωρηθῶσι λέγειν, οἵων ἡ τονιαία δύο, οὐδ’ οὕτως ἀεὶ ἔσονται αἱ ὑπεροχαὶ ἴσαι· λόγων γάρ εἰσι ὑπεροχαί, οἱ δ’ οὐ χρῶνται τούτοις.

[ 698 ]

“Ἄπειροι τοίνυν συναχθήσονται καθ’ ἕκαστον λόγον τῶν ποιούντων αὐτὰς μὴ προσοριζομένων.” ΟἿ Ο Ν ΤΟ ῦ Ἡ Μ Ι ΟΛ Ί ΟΥ καὶ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου καὶ τοῦ διπλασίου. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ὀξυτέροις φθόγγοις τῶν αὐτῶν διαστημάτων λαμβανομένων ἄνισα φαίνεται τὰ διαστήματα, ὥσπερ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐμπνευστῶν ὀργάνων τῶν ποιούντων αὐτὰ φθόγγων διαφορὰν λαμβανομένων. τὰ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ὀξυτέροις διαστήματα, οὖσι δὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς, ἄνισα φαίνεται, οἷον ἐν ἀριθμῷ ιβ΄ τοῦ Ϛ΄ διὰ πασῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Ϛ΄ τοῦ γ΄. καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ πρώτου διὰ πασῶν ἡ διάστασις Ϛ΄, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου γ΄. Ὡς διὰ τοῦτο μηδὲ τὰς τὸ διὰ πασῶν εἰ τύχοι ποιούσας διαστάσεις [127] ἐν ταῖς ὀργανοποιΐαις τηρεῖσθαι τὰς αὐτάς, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ τὰς ἐν ταῖς ὀξυτέραις τάσεσι συνίστασθαι βραχυτέρας. παραβαλλομένων γοῦν ἀλλήλαις τῶν ἴσων συμφωνιῶν κατὰ τὰ ἕτερα τῶν περάτων, οὐκ ἴση πάντοτε ἔσται τῆς ὑπεροχῆς ἡ διάστασις, ἀλλ’ ἐὰν μὲν τοὺς ὀξυτέρους φθόγγους αὐτῶν ἐφαρμόζωμεν ἀλλήλοις, μείζων, ἐὰν δὲ τοὺς βαρυτέρους, ἐλάττων. ὑποτεθείσης γὰρ τῆς ΑΒ διαστάσεως τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ἐν αὐτῷ, τοῦ Α νοουμένου ὥς φησι κατὰ τὸ ὀξύτερον πέρας, καὶ ληφθεισῶν δύο τοῦ διὰ πέντε, μιᾶς μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ Α ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ, ὡς τῆς ΑΓ, ἑτέρας δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ Β ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύ, ὡς τῆς ΒΔ· ἔσται ἄρα ἐλάττων ἡ μὲν ΑΓ διάστασις τῆς ΒΔ, ‹μείζων δὲ ἡ ΒΓ ὑπεροχὴ τῆς ΑΔ›, ἡ δ’ ΑΔ ὑπεροχὴ τῆς ΓΔ. Εὐλόγως· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἑκάτερα τῶν ΑΓ ΔΒ διαστάσεων διὰ πέντε ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ μὲν ΑΓ τῆς ΔΒ κατ’ ὀξυτέρων πέπτωκε τάσεων, μείζων ἐστὶν ἡ ΔΒ διάστασις τῆς ΑΓ διαστάσεως· κοινὴ ἀφῃρήσθω ἡ ΔΓ. λοιπὴ ἄρα ἡ ΒΓ ὑπεροχὴ τῆς ΑΔ μείζων. ἁπλῶς οὖν τῷ διπλασίῳ λόγῳ δεῖ χρῆσθαι καὶ τῷ ἡμιολίῳ καὶ οὐ διοίσει ἡ ὑπεροχή. ἐὰν γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ιβ΄ πρὸς Ϛ΄ λόγῳ διπλασίῳ λάβωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ διὰ πέντε τὸν η΄ καὶ ἀφέλωμεν τὸν τῶν ιβ΄ πρὸς η΄ λόγον ἡμιόλιον, καταλείπεται λόγος ἐπίτριτος τῶν η΄ πρὸς τὰ Ϛ΄. καὶ πάλιν ἐὰν ‹ἀπὸ› τοῦ ἑτέρου ὅρου τῶν η΄ λάβωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ διὰ πέντε, τάξαντες μέσον ὅρον τὸν ιβ΄ καὶ τὸν θ΄ ἀριθμόν, καὶ ἀφέλωμεν ὁμοίως τὸν τῶν θ΄ πρὸς τὰ Ϛ΄ λόγον ἡμιόλιον, λείπεται λόγος ἐπίτριτος. οὐ διήνεγκεν ἄρα ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τῶν λόγων καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐπίτριτος οὖσα. αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν ὅρων διήνεγκε· τρία γὰρ καὶ δύο αἱ ὑπεροχαί. Καὶ ὅλως δ’ ἀτοπώτατον δόξειεν ἄν, εἰ τὰς μὲν ὑπεροχὰς λόγου τινὸς ἀξιοῦν, μὴ δεικνυμένου δι’ αὐτῶν τοῦ λόγου τῶν ποιούντων αὐτὰς μεγεθῶν, τὰ δὲ μεγέθη μηδενός, ἀφ’ ὧν καὶ τὸν ἐκείνων εὐθὺς ἔνεστιν ἔχειν. Αὗται αἱ ὑπεροχαὶ ποιοῦσαι διαφωνίας ἢ συμφωνίας, ἀλλ’ αἱ σχέσεις τῶν φθόγγων ἐν μεγέθει τυγχάνουσαι ποιοῦσι τοὺς λόγους. οὐ γὰρ ἀσώματοί εἰσιν οἱ φθόγγοι ὥσπερ σημεῖα, ἀλλ’ οἱονεὶ μεγέθη τινά. πῶς γὰρ ὑπεροχὰς ἔχουσιν ἀμεγέθεις ὄντες; ἄτοπον μὲν οὖν ἐστι τὰς

[ 699 ]

μὲν ὑπεροχὰς λόγου τινὸς ἀξιοῦν, ἐπεὶ μὴ δυνατόν ἐστι δι’ αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν [128] λόγον εὑρεῖν τῶν ποιούντων αὐτὰς μεγεθῶν, τὰ δὲ μεγέθη αὐτὰ τῶν φθόγγων μηδενὸς ἀξιοῦν λόγου, ἀφ’ οὗ δοθέντος καὶ ὁ τῶν ὑπεροχῶν εὐθὺς δοθήσεται. Εἰ δὲ μὴ τῶν ἐν τοῖς φθόγγοις ὑπεροχῶν φήσαιεν εἶναι τὰς παραβολάς - τουτέστι τῆς ὀξύτητος καὶ τῆς βαρύτητος, λέγοντες τὸ διάστημα οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπεροχή, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὑπὸ δύο φθόγγων περιεχόμενον - τίνων ἄλλων εἰσὶν ὑπεροχαί, οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιεν εἰπεῖν. οὔτε γὰρ διάστασίς τις κενὴ καὶ μῆκος μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ σύμφωνον καὶ τὸ ἐμμελές, οὔτε σωματικὸν μέν, ὅπερ συνεχῆ τοῖς σώμασιν ἔχει καὶ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ὕπαρξιν, ἑνὸς δέ τινος ἁπλῶς κατηγορεῖται - τοῦ μεγέθους - ἀλλὰ δύο τῶν πρώτων μεγεθῶν καὶ τούτων ἀνίσων, τουτέστι τῶν ποιούντων αὐτὰ ψόφων, ὥστε τὰς κατὰ τὸ ποσὸν παραβολὰς τῆς ὀξύτητος καὶ βαρύτητος μηδενὸς ἄλλου δυνατὸν εἶναι φάσκεν, εἰ μὴ τῶν φθόγγων ἐν μεγέθει θεωρουμένων καὶ τῶν ὑπεροχῶν αὐτῶν, ὧν οὐδέτερα ποιοῦσιν οἱ Ἀριστοξένειοι γνώριμα τῇ τε φύσει συνωρισμένα καὶ λόγου κοινοῦ τετυχηκότα, διπλασίου ἢ ἄλλου φέρε λόγου, καθ’ ὃν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα δείκνυται, πῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ φθόγγοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους θ’ ἅμα καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχήν. Μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὖσαν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις ἀριθμοῖς τῶν λόγων θεωρουμένων· οὐ γὰρ δύο εἰσὶ καθάπερ ἐδείχθη διὰ γραμμῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀξυτέρου τῶν φθόγγων ἐπὶ τὸν βαρύτερον· ἡ διάστασις ἐλάσσων τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ βαρυτέρου ἐπὶ τὸν ὀξύτερον καὶ ἡ ΒΓ ὑπεροχὴ τῆς ΑΔ μείζων.

[ 700 ]

ι΄. Τοιγάρτοι ἕως τοῦ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων. ΔΕ ῖ Π Ρ ῶΤΟ Ν Ὑ Π ΟΔ Ε ῖΞ Α Ι , πῶς οἱ Ἀριστοξένειοι τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων δεικνύουσι δύο καὶ ἥμισυ τόνων, ἔπειτα τὴν λέξιν αὐτὴν σαφηνίσαι. ἔστωσαν δύο φθόγγοι διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνοῦντες οἱ Α καὶ Β· τοῦτο δ’ ἐκ τηρήσεως τῇ αἰσθήσει τῆς ἀκοῆς κατελάβομεν ὡς ἐν τῇ κιθάρᾳ. καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τοῦ Α δίτονον εἰλήφθω ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύ, τὸ ΑΓ· καὶ τοῦτο δ’ ἐκ τῆς ἁρμογῆς τῶν κιθαρῳδῶν αὐτῶν ἐγίνετο δῆλον· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Β ὁμοίως ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ δίτονον εἰλήφθω, τὸ ΒΔ· ἑκάτερον ἄρα τῶν ΑΔ καὶ ΓΒ ἴσον τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ τηλικοῦτον, ᾧ ἐλλείπει τὸ δίτονον τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων. [129] Πάλιν δὴ ἀπὸ μὲν τοῦ Δ διὰ τεσσάρων εἰλήφθω ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ τὸ ΔΕ, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Γ ὁμοίως διὰ τεσσάρων ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ τὸ ΓΖ· ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ἴσον ἐστὶ τὸ ΑΒ τῷ ΓΖ· ἑκάτερον γὰρ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐστί· κοινὸν ἀφῃρήσθω τὸ ΑΓ δίτονον· λοιπὸν ἄρα τὸ ΑΖ λοιπῷ τῷ ΓΒ ἴσον ἐστί. πάλιν ἐπεὶ ἴσον ἐστὶ τὸ ΑΒ διάστημα τῷ ΔΕ· ἑκάτερον γὰρ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐστί· κοινὸν ἀφῃρήσθω τὸ ΔΒ δίτονον· λοιπὸν ἄρα τὸ ΑΔ ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ ΒΕ. ἐδείχθη δὲ καὶ τὸ ΑΔ ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ΖΑ ΓΒ ἴσον· τὰ τέσσαρα ἄρα τὰ ΖΑ ΑΔ ΓΒ ΒΕ ἴσα ἀλλήλοις ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ΖΕ τὴν διὰ πέντε φασὶ ποιεῖν συμφωνίαν, ἐκ τηρήσεως πάλιν καταλαμβάνοντες, ὅτι οἱ ΖΕ φθόγγοι τὴν διὰ πέντε συμφωνίαν ποιοῦσιν. ὥστ’ ἐπεὶ τὸ μὲν ΑΒ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐστί, τὸ δὲ ΖΕ διὰ πέντε, ὑπεροχὴ δ’ αὐτῶν ἐστι τόνος, ὡς Ἀριστόξενος ὑποτίθεται καὶ αὐτοὶ λέγουσι. τὰ ΖΑ καὶ ΒΕ ἄρα συναμφότερα καταλείπεται τόνου ἑνός· ἑκάτερον δ’ αὐτῶν, τουτέστιν ἑκάτερον τῶν ΑΔ καὶ ΓΒ ἡμιτονίου· διτόνου δ’ ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ ΑΓ, ὥστε καὶ τὸ ΑΒ δύο καὶ ἡμίσεος συντίθεσθαι τόνων. Αὐτοὶ μὲν οὖν οὕτω πως ἔδειξαν τὸ προκείμενον τῇ αἰσθήσει κατακολουθήσαντες, ὥστε καὶ τὴν διὰ πέντε συμφωνίαν τριῶν καὶ ἡμίσεος ὑποτιθέναι τόνων, τὴν δὲ διὰ πασῶν ἓξ τόνων. ὁ δὲ λόγος ἀξιοπιστότερος ὢν ἤδη τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἐν ταῖς οὕτω βραχυτάταις διαφοραῖς ἐλέγχει τοῦτο μὴ οὕτως ἔχον. Ἅπαξ γὰρ τοῦ τόνου δειχθέντος ἐπογδόου καὶ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐπιτρίτου δῆλον αὐτόθεν γίνεται, καθ’ ἃ καὶ Εὐκλείδης ἔδειξε καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, τὸ τὴν ὑπεροχήν, ᾗ ὑπερέχει τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦ διτόνου, καλουμένην δὲ λεῖμμα, ἔλαττον εἶναι ἡμιτονίου. λαβὼν γὰρ ἀριθμὸν ἐλάχιστον τὸν δυνάμενον δεῖξαι οὐ τὸ λεῖμμα μόνον, ἐν ποίῳ λόγῳ ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ὑπεροχήν, ᾗ ὑπερέχει τὸ τονιαῖον διάστημα τοῦ λείμματος. οὗτος δ’ ὁ ἀριθμός ἐστι μονάδες ϚαφλϚ΄· τούτου μὲν ἐπόγδοον ἐκτίθεται τὸν Ϛαψκη΄, τούτου δ’ ἔτι ἐπόγδοον τὸν ϚαϠμδ΄, ὃς δηλονότι πρὸς τὸν τῶν ϚαφλϚ΄ λόγον ἕξει διτόνου. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐπίτριτος τοῦ ϚαφλϚ΄ ὁ τῶν Ϛβμη΄. τὸ ἄρα λεῖμμα ἐν λόγῳ ἐστὶ τῷ τῶν Ϛβμη΄ πρὸς τὰ ϚαϠμδ΄. ἀλλ’ ἐὰν καὶ τούτων ϚαϠμδ΄ τὸν ἐπόγδοον λάβωμεν, ἕξωμεν ἀριθμὸν τὸν τῶν Ϛβρπζ΄· καὶ ἔστιν μείζων ὁ λόγος ὁ τῶν Ϛβρπζ΄ πρὸς τὰ Ϛβμη΄, καλούμενος ἀποτομή, τοῦ τῶν Ϛβμη΄ πρὸς τὰ ϚαϠμδ΄. τὰ μὲν γὰρ Ϛβρπζ΄ τῶν Ϛβμη΄ μείζονι μὲν ὑπερέχει ἢ τῷ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ αὐτῶν μέρει, [130] ἐλάττονι δ’ ἢ [ 701 ]

τῷ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῳ. τὰ δὲ Ϛβμη΄ τῶν ϚαϠμδ΄ μείζονι μὲν ὑπερέχει ἢ τῷ ἐννεακαιδεκάτῳ αὐτῶν μέρει, ἐλάττονι δ’ ἢ τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ. τὸ ἔλασσον ἄρα τοῦ τρίτου τόνου τμῆμα ἐντὸς ἀπείληπται τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων πρὸς τῷ διτόνῳ, ὥστε τὸ μὲν τοῦ λείμματος μέγεθος ἔλαττον ἡμιτονίου συνάγεσθαι, τὸ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων ὅλον ἔλασσον δύο καὶ ἡμίσεος τόνων. καὶ ἔστι τῷ τῶν Ϛβμη΄ πρὸς τὰ ϚαϠμδ΄ λόγῳ ὁ αὐτὸς ὁ τῶν σνϚ΄ πρὸς τὰ σμγ΄. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν φανερά. ποίᾳ δὲ χρησάμενος ἀγωγῇ τὸν ϚαφλϚ΄ ἀριθμὸν ἔλαβεν, ἄξιον εἰπεῖν. ἐκθέμενος γὰρ τοὺς πυθμένας τοῦ ἐπογδόου, τουτέστι τὸν ὀκτὼ καὶ τὸν ἐννέα, ζητεῖ πάλιν καὶ τοῦ θ΄ δευτέρου ἀριθμοῦ ἐπόγδοον ἀριθμὸν καὶ εὐλόγως ποιεῖ τοὺς ἐκκειμένους ὀκτάκις· ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἔχει ὁ θ΄ ὄγδοον· καὶ γίνεται ὅ τε ξδ΄ καὶ ὁ οβ΄· καὶ ἔστι τοῦ οβ΄ ἐπόγδοος ὁ πα΄, ὡς εἶναι τοὺς ἐκκειμένους ἀριθμοὺς ξδ΄ οβ΄ πα΄. καὶ ἐπειδὴ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων δεῖ ἐκθέσθαι ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ λόγῳ τοῦ ἄκρου ἀριθμοῦ, τουτέστι τοῦ ξδ΄, δεῖ ἄρα τὸν ξδ΄ τρίτον ἔχειν· οὐκ ἔχει δέ. πάντα ἄρα τρισσῶς γινέσθω ρβ΄ σιϚ΄ σμγ΄. καὶ ἐπεὶ βουλόμεθα τὸν σμγ΄ πρός τινα ἕτερον ἀριθμὸν εὑρεῖν, δεῖ ἄρα τὸν σμγ΄ ὄγδοον ἔχειν· οὐκ ἔχει δέ. ἄρα ὀκτάκις γίνονται οἱ ἀριθμοὶ ὁ ϚαφλϚ΄ καὶ ὁ Ϛαψκη΄ καὶ ὁ ϚαϠμδ΄ καὶ ὁ Ϛβρπζ΄. καὶ ἔστι τοῦ ϚαϠμδ΄ ἐπόγδοος ὁ Ϛβρπζ΄. εἰσὶν ἄρα οἱ ἀριθμοὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ τοῖς προειρημένοις. ἔλασσον ἄρα τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων δύο καὶ ἡμίσεος τόνων. [ξδ΄ οβ΄ πα΄] Τὴν δὲ τοιαύτην μάχην οὐ τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν αἴσθησιν ὑποληπτέον, ὡς τῆς μὲν αἰσθήσεως εὑρούσης καθ’ ἑαυτὴν τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων σύμφωνον τόνων δύο ἡμίσεος, τοῦ δὲ λόγου καταλαμβάνοντος αὐτὸ ἔλασσον ὂν δύο ἡμίσεος τόνων, ὑποκειμένου δηλονότι τοῦ τονιαίου διαστήματος ἐν ἐπογδόῳ εἶναι λόγῳ, ἀλλὰ τῶν διαφόρως ὑποτιθεμένων, τουτέστι τόνων δύο ἡμίσεος καὶ ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ λόγῳ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων. ἁμαρτίαν δὲ ἤδη τῶν νεωτέρων Ἀριστοξενείων, καὶ παρὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὸν λόγον. ἡ μὲν γὰρ αἴσθησις μονονουχὶ κέκραγεν ἐπιγινώσκουσα σαφῶς καὶ ἀδιστάκτως τήν τε διὰ πέντε συμφωνίαν ἐν ἡμιολίῳ λόγῳ λαμβανομένην ἐπὶ τοῦ προειρημένου μονοχόρδου κανόνος καὶ τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων ἐν τῷ ἐπιτρίτῳ. οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι ταῖς τῆς αἰσθήσεως ὁμολογίαις οὐκ ἐμμένουσι, αἷς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕπεται τὸ τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ διὰ πέντε πρὸς τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τονιαίαν οὖσαν ἐπόγδοον περιέχειν λόγον, ᾧ μείζων ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ [131] ἡμιόλιος λόγος τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου. διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαν ἐλάσσονα συνίστασθαι δύο ἡμίσεος τόνων, ὡς ἀνωτέρω ἔδειξεν. ἀλλ’ ἐν οἷς μὲν ἱκανὴ κρῖναι πέφυκεν ἡ αἴσθησις, τουτέστιν ἐν ταῖς μείζοσι διαφοραῖς, ἀπιστοῦσιν αὐτῇ παντάπασι. τεθέντων γὰρ ἡμιολίων καὶ ἐπιτρίτων λόγων, ἐφ’ ὧν καὶ αὐτοὶ συμφωνίας εἶναι λέγουσιν, οὐ συγκατατίθενται, ὅτι ἐν λόγοις εἰσίν· ἐν οἷς δ’ οὐκέτι αὐτάρκης ἐστί, τουτέστιν ἐν ταῖς ἐλάττοσιν ὑπεροχαῖς πιστεύουσιν αὐτῇ, λέγοντες τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τοῦ διτόνου πρὸς τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμιτονιαῖον καὶ οὐ λεῖμμα. μᾶλλον δὲ προσάπτουσι κρίσεις ἐναντίας ταῖς πρώταις καὶ κυριωτέραις τῶν λόγων, ἡμιολίου λέγω καὶ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου. Πρὸς δὴ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὁ Πτολεμαῖος παραστῆσαι βουλόμενος καὶ τὸ συμπέρασμα τῆς ἀποδείξεως αὐτῶν εὔηθες πάνυ καὶ οὐ γραμμικαῖς ἀνάγκαις συναγόμενον ἐπιλογίζεται τὸ μέγεθος τῆς τοῦ λείμματος πρὸς τὸ ἡμιτόνιον διαφορᾶς οὕτως. [ 702 ]

Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οὐδεὶς μὲν ἐπιμόριος εἰς ἴσους δύο λόγους διαιρεῖται διὰ τὸ ἐπιμορίου διαστήματος μηδένα μέσον ἀνάλογον ἐμπίπτειν ἀριθμόν, ὡς ἀνωτέρω ὑπεδείξαμεν· ἴσοι δ’ ἔγγιστα δύο λόγοι ποιοῦσι τὸν ἐπόγδοον ὅ τ’ ἐπὶ ιϚ΄ καὶ ὁ ἐπὶ ιζ΄· ἔσται ἄρα καὶ τὸ μεταξύ πως τούτων λόγων εὑρεῖν, τὸ ἡμιτόνιον, τουτέστι τὸν μείζονα μὲν τοῦ ἐπιεπτακαιδεκάτου, ἐλάσσονα δὲ τοῦ ἐπιεκκαιδεκάτου· ἔστι δ’ οὗτος ἔγγιστα ὁ σνη΄ ‹πρὸς σμγ΄.› Ὡς μὲν γὰρ ὁ ιζ΄ πρὸς τὸν ιϚ΄, οὕτως ὁ σνη΄ καὶ ‹ἑξηκοστὰ› ια΄ πρὸς σμγ΄. ὡς δ’ ὁ ιη΄ πρὸς ιζ΄, οὕτω καὶ ὁ σνζ΄ καὶ ‹ἑξηκοστὰ› ιη΄ πρὸς τὸν σμγ΄· καὶ ὁ μεταξὺ ἄρα τῶν δύο λόγων ἐστὶν ὁ τῶν σνη΄ πρὸς τὰ σμγ΄. Διόπερ τὰ ιε΄ τῶν σμγ΄ μείζονα μὲν ὄντα μέρος ἢ ἑπτακαιδέκατον, ἔλασσον δ’ ἢ ἑκκαιδέκατον, προσθεὶς τοῖς σμγ΄ ἔσχον λόγον τοῦ ἡμιτονίου σύνεγγυς τὸν τῶν σνη΄ πρὸς τὰ σμγ΄. ἔδειξε δὲ καὶ τὸν τοῦ λείμματος λόγον τῶν σνϚ΄ πρὸς τὰ σμγ΄· καὶ τοῦ λείμματος ἄρα τὸ ἡμιτόνιον μεῖζόν ἐστι τῷ λόγῳ τῶν σνη΄ πρὸς τὰ σνϚ΄, οἵ εἰσιν ἐπὶ ρκη΄. τὴν δὲ βραχεῖαν οὕτω διαφοράν φησι δυνατὸν εἶναι κρῖναι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς, οὐδ’ αὐτοὶ φήσαιεν· εἶτα τούτοις ἐπάγει λέγων· εἰ τοίνυν ἐνδέχεται τὸ ρκη΄ τὴν αἴσθησιν παρακοῦσαι, πολὺ μᾶλλον ἐνδεχόμενον ἦν διὰ πλειόνων λήψεων τὸ μόριον τοῦτο συναχθὲν ἀνεπαίσθητον αὐτῇ γενέσθαι κατὰ τὴν [132] προειρημένην δεῖξιν, τρὶς μὲν τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων ληφθέντος, δὶς δὲ τοῦ διτόνου κατὰ διαφόρους θέσεις, ὁπότε μηδ’ ἅπαξ ποιῆσαι δίτονον ἀκριβῶς πρόχειρόν ἐστι ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι. μᾶλλον γὰρ ἂν ποιήσειαν τόνον ἢ δίτονον, ἐπειδήπερ ὁ μὲν τόνος ἐμμελής τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐν ἐπογδόῳ λόγῳ, τὸ δ’ ἀσύνθετον δίτονον ἐκμελές, ὡσὰν ἐν λόγῳ τῷ τῶν πα΄ πρὸς τὰ ξδ΄, ὅτι οὐχ ἁπλοῦν μέρος ἔχει, ἀλλὰ ἑξηκοστοτέταρτον.

[ 703 ]

ια΄. Ἐναργέστερον δ’ ἂν ἄρα ἀπελέγχοιτο τὸ προκείμενον καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. ἜΤ Ι Μ ᾶΛ ΛΟ Ν ΦΑ Ν Ε Ρ ΏΤ Ε ΡΟ Ν ἐλέγξαι βουλόμενος τὸ τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαν μὴ εἶναι δύο ἡμίσεος τόνων ἀπὸ τῆς διὰ πασῶν συμφωνίας, ἣν αὐτὸς ὁμοφωνίαν ἐκάλεσεν, τοῦτο δεῖξαι πειρᾶται. αὐτοὶ μὲν οὖν τὴν διὰ πασῶν ἀποφαίνονται τόνων ἕξ, ὅτι δὶς ἔχει τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ὡς δύο ‹καὶ› ἡμίσεος τόνων καὶ ἔτι τόνον. ἐὰν γὰρ ἐπιτάξωμεν, ὥς φησι, τῷ μουσικωτάτῳ τόνους ἐφεξῆς καὶ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἓξ ποιῆσαι - μὴ συνεπιβαλομένων μέντοι τῶν προηρμοσμένων φθόγγων, ἵνα μὴ καταφέρηται πρὸς ἄλλο τι τῶν συμφώνων ὁ μουσικός, ἀλλὰ μόνον τὸν τόνον ἐξετάζῃ, μὴ τῷ πρώτῳ φθόγγῳ φέρε διὰ πασῶν ἐπιτείνας τὴν μέσην, ταύτῃ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ τὴν ὑπάτην μέσων καὶ ταύτῃ διὰ τεσσάρων τὴν ὑπάτην ὑπάτων λάβῃ τὸν δεύτερον φθόγγον ἀπέχοντα τοῦ πρώτου φθόγγου τόνον - ὁ πρῶτος φθόγγος πρὸς τὸν ἕβδομον οὐ ποιήσει τὸ διὰ πασῶν σύμφωνον, ὡς δειχθήσεται. εἴ τ’ οὖν μὴ παρὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς αἰσθήσεως συμβαίνει τὸν πρῶτον φθόγγον πρὸς τὸν ἕβδομον μὴ ποιεῖν τὸ διὰ πασῶν, ψεῦδος ἂν εἴποι ὁ μουσικὸς τὸ τὴν διὰ πασῶν συμφωνίαν ἓξ τόνων εἶναι, εἴ τε τῷ μὴ δύνασθαι λαμβάνειν τὴν αἴσθησιν τοὺς τόνους ἀκριβῶς. πολὺ πλέον ἀξιοπιστότερος ἔσται πρὸς τὴν τῶν διτόνων λῆψιν, ἀφ’ ὧν εὑρίσκειν ὑπολαμβάνεται τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων δύο καὶ ἡμίσεος τόνων. τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν ἀληθέστερον, ὅτι πρὸς τὴν τῶν διτόνων λῆψιν οὐκ ἔσται πιστή. οὐ γὰρ μόνον οὐ γίνεται τὸ διὰ πασῶν, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἄλλο τι διὰ τὸ μέγεθος πάντως τῆς διαφορᾶς, οὔτ’ ἐπὶ [133] πάντων τῶν ἁρμοζομένων, πρόσω τε καὶ ὀπίσω, οὔτ’ ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀεί. κατὰ τόνον γὰρ καὶ τόνον καὶ ἡμιτόνιον οὐ λαμβάνεται ‹ἢ› ἡ διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνία ἢ ἄλλη τις τῶν προειρημένων. λαμβανόντων δ’ ἡμῶν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἐφεξῆς τό τε διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε, ποιήσουσιν οἱ ἄκροι τὸ διὰ πασῶν, ὅτι ταῦτα ταῖς ἀκοαῖς ἐστιν εὐοριστότερα. τῷ λόγῳ μέντοι ληφθέντων ἓξ τόνων ἐφεξῆς ἐν ὀκταχόρδῳ κανόνι μεῖζόν τε βραχεῖ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν οἱ ἄκροι φθόγγοι ποιήσουσι μέγεθος καὶ κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπεροχὴν πάντοτε, τουτέστι τὴν διπλασίαν τῆς τοῦ λείμματος πρὸς τὸ ἡμιτόνιον, ἥτις ἔγγιστα συνάγεται ἐν ἐπὶ ξδ΄ λόγῳ ταῖς πρώταις τῶν ὑποθέσεων ἀκολούθως. δύο γὰρ λείμματα συνάγεται, ἓν μὲν τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων, ἕτερον δὲ τοῦ διὰ πέντε, καὶ τὰ δύο ρκη΄ ἕνα ξδ΄ λόγον ποιεῖ. γίνεται δὲ τὸ τοιοῦτο εὐκατανόητον τῷ βουλομένῳ συνάψαντι χορδὰς ἄλλας ἑπτὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν πρὸς τῇ προειρημένῃ μιᾷ ἐπὶ τοῦ μονοχόρδου κανόνος ὁμοίαν ἀνάκρισιν διὰ τῶν μαγάδων καὶ θέσιν παράλληλον αὐτῇ λαμβανούσας. Ἐὰν γάρ τις ἰσοτόνους ἁπλῶς ἁρμόσηται τοὺς ὀκτὼ φθόγγους ἐν ἴσοις τοῖς τῶν χορδῶν μήκεσι μόνον ἀκριβῶς, οὐ πάντως δὲ κἀν τοῖς πάχεσιν αὐτῶν ἢ τῇ ὁμοίᾳ πυκνότητι, ὡς τοὺς ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘ· ἔπειτα διὰ τῆς τοῦ ξυλίνου κανονίου προσαγωγῆς εἰς ἓξ τοὺς ἐφεξῆς ἐπογδόους

[ 704 ]

λόγους διῃρημένου λαβὼν σημεῖα καθ’ ἕκαστον φθόγγον, ὡς τὰ ΚΛΜΝ ΞΟΠΡ, παραφέρῃ παραπλήσιον ὑπαγωγίδιον ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκείαν τομήν, τουτέστι τὸ ληφθὲν σημεῖον, ἵνα ἐπόγδοος ᾖ, ἡ μὲν ΑΚ διάστασις τῆς ΒΛ, ἡ δὲ ΒΛ τῆς ΓΜ, ἡ δὲ ΓΜ τῆς ΔΝ, καὶ αὕτη τῆς ΕΞ, καὶ αὕτη τῆς ΖΟ, καὶ αὕτη τῆς ΗΠ, ποιεῖ δὲ καὶ ἡ ΑΚ πρὸς τὴν ΘΡ τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον, οὗτοι μὲν ἅμα πληχθέντες οἱ φθόγγοι συμφωνήσουσιν ἀκριβῶς τὸ διὰ πασῶν ὁμόφωνον· ὁ δὲ ΠΗ τοῦ ΘΡ βραχεῖ καὶ τῷ ἴσῳ πάντοτε καὶ οὔ ποτε μείζονι ἢ ἐλάττονι ὀξύτερος ἔσται. Ὅτι δ’ ἀδιαφοροῦσιν αἱ χορδαὶ μιᾶς, ὅταν πλείους ὦσιν, ἐὰν ἐν ἴσοις μήκεσι ποιηθῶσιν ἰσότονοι, κἂν μὴ ὅμοιαι πάντως ὦσι τῇ τε παχύτητι καὶ τῇ πυκνότητι, δῆλον ἔσται ἐντεῦθεν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἀπέδειξε, πῶς ἡ περὶ τοὺς ψόφους ὀξύτης καὶ βαρύτης συνίσταται καὶ ὅτι τρία ἐστὶν ἐπὶ τῶν χορδῶν τὰ αἴτια τῆς περὶ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ βαρὺ διαφορᾶς, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐν τῇ πυκνότητι τῶν χορδῶν καὶ μανότητι θεωρεῖται, τὸ δ’ ἐν τῇ περιοχῇ, τὸ δ’ ἐν τῇ μείζονι καὶ ἐλάττονι διαστάσει· καὶ ὀξύτερος γίνεται [134] ὁ ψόφος ὑπὸ τῆς πυκνοτέρας ἢ τῆς μανοτέρας καὶ πάλιν ὑπὸ τῆς ἰσχνοτέρας μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς παχυτέρας καὶ ἔτι ὑπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐλάττονα διάστασιν ἤπερ ὑπὸ τῆς κατὰ τὴν μείζονα ἀεί· παραλαμβάνεται δ’ ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἀντὶ τῆς πυκνώσεως ἡ τάσις· τονοῖ γὰρ καὶ σκληρύνει καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μᾶλλον ταῖς ἐν ταῖς ἐλάττοσι διαστάσεσι χορδαῖς ἡ ὁμοία τάσις· δῆλον, ὅτι τῶν ἄλλων ὑποκειμένων τῶν αὐτῶν, διαφορᾶς δ’ οὔσης μιᾶς ὁτὲ μὲν παρὰ τὴν τάσιν τῶν χορδῶν, ἥτις ἀντὶ τῆς πυκνώσεως ἐλήφθη, ὁτὲ δὲ παρὰ τὴν περιοχήν, ὁτὲ δὲ παρὰ τὴν διάστασιν, ὡς μὲν ἡ πλείων γίνεται τάσις πρὸς τὴν ἐλάττονα, οὕτως ὁ κατὰ τὴν πλείονα τάσιν ψόφος πρὸς τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἐλάττονα· ὡς δ’ ἡ μείζων περιοχὴ πρὸς τὴν ἐλάττονα περιοχήν, οὕτως ὁ κατὰ τὴν ἐλάττονα περιοχὴν ψόφος πρὸς τὸν κατὰ τὴν μείζονα· ὡς δ’ ἡ μείζων διάστασις πρὸς τὴν ἐλάττονα, οὕτως ὁ κατὰ τὴν ἐλάττονα διάστασιν ψόφος πρὸς τὸν κατὰ τὴν μείζονα. Τούτων δ’ οὕτως ὑποκειμένων λέγω, ὅτι τῶν ἀνομοίων χορδῶν, ὅταν ἐν ἴσοις μήκεσιν ἰσότονοι ποιηθῶσι, ἀνταναπληροῦται τὸ παρὰ τὴν μείζονα περιοχὴν ἐνδέον τοῦ ψόφου τῷ παρὰ τὴν πλείονα τάσιν ὑπερβάλλοντι, καὶ γίνεται πάντως ὁ τῆς μείζονος περιοχῆς πρὸς τὴν ἐλάσσονα λόγος ὁ αὐτὸς τῷ τῆς πλείονος τάσεως πρὸς τὴν ἐλάττονα. τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀπέδειξε διὰ γραμμῶν οὕτως. Ἔστωσαν ἐν ἴσοις μήκεσιν ἰσότονοι δύο φθόγγοι, τουτέστιν ἀπαράλλακτοι κατὰ τὸν ψόφον, οἱ Α καὶ Β, καὶ μείζων ἥ τε περιοχὴ τοῦ Α τῆς τοῦ Β περιοχῆς καὶ δηλονότι καὶ ἡ τάσις. καὶ εἰλήφθω ἄλλος φθόγγος ἐν ἴσῳ τῷ μήκει ὁ Γ, τὴν μὲν περιοχὴν ἴσην ἔχων τῷ Β, τὴν δὲ τάσιν ἴσην τῷ Α. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ὁ Γ τοῦ Β μόνῃ τῇ τάσει διαφέρει, ἔσται διὰ τὰ ὑποκείμενα ὡς ἡ τοῦ Γ τάσις πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Β, οὕτως ὁ τοῦ Γ ψόφος πρὸς τὸν τοῦ Β ψόφον. πάλιν ἐπεὶ ὁ Γ τοῦ Α τῇ περιοχῇ μόνῃ διαφέρει, ἔσται ὡς ἡ τοῦ Α περιοχὴ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Γ περιοχήν, οὕτως ὁ τοῦ Γ ψόφος πρὸς τὸν τοῦ Α ψόφον. ἀλλ’ ὡς ὁ τοῦ Γ ψόφος πρὸς τὸν τοῦ Α, οὕτως ὁ τοῦ Γ ψόφος πρὸς τὸν τοῦ Β· ἴσοι γὰρ οἱ ψόφοι τῶν Α καὶ τῶν Β· ὡς ἄρα ἡ τοῦ Γ τάσις πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Β, οὕτως ἡ τοῦ Α περιοχὴ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Γ. καὶ ἔστιν ὡς μὲν ἡ τοῦ Γ τάσις πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Β, οὕτω καὶ ἡ τοῦ Α τάσις πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Β· ἴσαι γὰρ αἱ τῶν Α καὶ Γ τάσεις. ὡς δ’ ἡ τοῦ Α περιοχὴ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Γ, οὕτως ἡ τοῦ Α [ 705 ]

περιοχὴ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Β· ἴσαι γὰρ αἱ τῶν Β καὶ Γ περιοχαί. καὶ ὡς ἄρα ἡ τοῦ Α τάσις πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Β τάσιν, οὕτως ἡ τοῦ Α περιοχὴ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Β περιοχήν. Τοῦτο δ’ ἂν αὐτοῖς συνέβαινε, καὶ εἰ παντάπασιν ἦσαν ἀπαράλλακτοι [135] καὶ ἀδιαφοροῦντες ἑνός. πάλιν δ’ ἂν ἐπὶ τῶν οὕτως ἐχόντων τὰς περιοχὰς καὶ τὰς τάσεις ὁμοίας, ἀνίσους δὲ τὰς διαστάσεις, ποιώμεθα τὴν δεῖξιν, οἷον τοῦ ΑΒ καὶ τοῦ ΓΔ, ἴσον μειοῦντες τὸν ΓΔ ὡς μέχρι τῆς ΓΕ, ἔσται ὡς ἡ ΑΒ διάστασις πρὸς τὴν ΓΕ διάστασιν, οὕτως ὁ τῆς ΓΕ ψόφος πρὸς τὸν τῆς ΑΒ ψόφον. ἐπεὶ γάρ ἐστιν ὡς ἡ ΓΔ διάστασις πρὸς τὴν ΓΕ διάστασιν, οὕτως ὁ τῆς ΓΕ ψόφος πρὸς τὸν τῆς ΓΔ ψόφον, ἴση δ’ ἐστὶν ἥ τε ΑΒ διάστασις τῇ τῆς ΓΔ καὶ ὁ τῆς ΑΒ ψόφος τῷ τῆς ΓΔ· γίνεται ἄρα καὶ ὡς ἡ ΑΒ διάστασις πρὸς τὴν ΓΕ διάστασιν, οὕτως ὁ τῆς ΓΕ ψόφος πρὸς τὸν τῆς ΑΒ ψόφον. ἀντιπεπόνθασι γὰρ οἱ φθόγγοι τῶν χορδῶν τοῖς μήκεσιν.

[ 706 ]

ιβ΄. Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν μειζόνων ἐν τοῖς φθόγγοις διαφορῶν τοσαῦτα ἡμῖν διωρίσθω, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. ΛΈ Γ Ε Ι Μ Ὲ Ν Ο ὖΝ μείζονας διαφορὰς τὰς κατ’ ὀξύτητα καὶ βαρύτητα προειρημένας ἐπὶ τῶν ἓξ συμφωνιῶν τοῦ τ’ ἐπιτρίτου λόγου καὶ τοῦ ἡμιολίου καὶ τοῦ διπλασίου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν. μετῆλθε δ’ ἐπὶ τὰς ἐλάττους διαφορὰς τῶν ψόφων καὶ τὴν τῶν πρώτων συμφωνιῶν καταμετρούσας ἢ συμπληρούσας αὐτήν, αἵτινες λαμβάνονται τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων συμφώνου, τουτέστι τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου λόγου εἰς τρεῖς λόγους διαιρουμένου κατὰ τὸν ἀκόλουθον τοῖς προδιωρισμένοις περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν συμφωνιῶν τρόπον, τοῦ μείζονος τῶν διαστημάτων πρὸς τῷ ὀξυτάτῳ φθόγγῳ τασσομένου, ἵνα δῆλον, ὅτι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὁμόφωνον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ διὰ πασῶν, ἓν ὂν ἐκ δύο τῶν πρώτων συμφωνιῶν τοῦ τε διὰ πέντε καὶ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων ᾖ συντεθειμένον, τὸ δὲ πρῶτον σύμφωνον ἐλάχιστον ὂν πάντων ἐκ τριῶν ἐμμελῶν διαστημάτων, τουτέστι μέχρι τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου λόγου. Τὴν δ’ οὖν διαίρεσιν τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι πανταχῇ συμβέβηκεν, ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλως συνίστασθαι· πρὸς γὰρ τὰ γένη καὶ διαιρέσεις τῶν τετραχόρδων γίνονται ἄλλως μὲν ἐν τῷ ἐναρμονίῳ, ἄλλως δ’ ἐν τῷ χρωματικῷ καὶ ἄλλως ἐν τῷ διατονικῷ, γενικῆς οὔσης τῆς μεταβολῆς, ὡς προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου δειχθήσεται. τῶν μὲν ἄκρων δύο φθόγγων μενόντων, ἵνα τηρῶσι τὸ προκείμενον σύμφωνον ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ [136] λόγῳ, παρ’ ἣν αἰτίαν καλοῦσιν αὐτοὺς ἑστῶτας, τῶν δὲ μεταξὺ δύο κινουμένων, ἵνα ποιῶσιν ἀνίσους τὰς τῶν ἐντὸς φθόγγων ὑπεροχάς, καὶ δηλονότι τοὺς λόγους ἐν ταῖς τῶν γενῶν μεταβολαῖς, ὡς ἀπὸ χρώματος εἰς ἐναρμόνιον ἢ διατονικόν. καλεῖται μὲν οὖν φησιν ἡ τοιαύτη κίνησις μεταβολὴ κατὰ γένος· καὶ γένος ἐν ἁρμονίᾳ ποιὰ σχέσις πρὸς ἀλλήλους τῶν συντιθέντων φθόγγων τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαν. Τοῦ δὲ γένους πρώτη μέν ἐστιν ὡς εἰς δύο διαφορά· κατὰ τὸ μαλακώτερον, ὃ καλοῦσιν ἐναρμόνιον, καὶ κατὰ τὸ συντονώτερον, ὃ καλοῦσι διατονικόν. ἔστι δὲ μαλακώτερον μὲν τὸ συνακτικώτερον τοῦ ἤθους, συντονώτερον δὲ τὸ διαστηματικώτερον. δευτέρα δ’ ὡς εἰς τρία· τοῦ μὲν τρίτου μεταξύ πως τῶν εἰρημένων δύο τιθεμένου· καὶ τοῦτο μὲν καλεῖται χρωματικόν. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἐναρμόνιον μὲν τὸ μαλακώτερον αὐτοῦ, διατονικὸν δὲ τὸ συντονώτερον, ὥστ’ εἶναι τρία γένη, οἷς Ἀρχύτας ἐχρήσατο μόνοις. Πτολεμαῖος γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἐναρμόνιον ἐφύλαξεν ἰδίαν ἔχον διαίρεσιν· τὸ δὲ χρωματικὸν εἰς δύο, εἰς μαλακὸν καὶ σύντονον διαιρῶν καὶ τὸ διατονικὸν ὁμοίως τονιαῖον ὀνομάσας καὶ ποιήσας ἄλλα δύο μαλακώτερον αὐτοῦ καὶ συντονώτερον τοῖς ἑξῆς ἀποδειχθησομένοις λόγοις ἀκολούθως, τὰ πάντα γένη ἓξ ὑπεστήσατο, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐναρμόνιον σύγκειται ἔκ τε τοῦ ἐπὶ δ΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ κγ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ με΄, τὸ δὲ μαλακὸν χρωματικὸν ἔκ τε τοῦ ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ κζ΄, τὸ δὲ σύντονον χρωματικὸν ἔκ τε τοῦ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ια΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ κα΄, τὸ δὲ μαλακὸν διατονικὸν ἔκ τε τοῦ ἐπὶ ζ΄ λόγου καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ

[ 707 ]

κ΄, τὸ δὲ μαλακὸν ἔντονον ἔκ τε τοῦ ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ζ΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ κζ΄, τὸ δὲ σύντονον διάτονον ἔκ τε τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄ λόγου καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ιε΄. τοῦ δὲ σαφοῦς ἕνεκα καὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ὑπέταξα τῶν ἓξ τετραχόρδων ἔχοντας οὕτως. ἐναρμόνιον χρῶμα χρῶμα διάτονον ἔντονον διάτονον μαλακόν σύντονον μαλακόν μαλακόν σύντονον ἐπὶ δ΄ ἐπὶ ε΄ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ ἐπὶ ζ΄ ἐπὶ η΄ ἐπὶ θ΄ ἐπὶ κγ΄ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ ἐπὶ ια΄ ἐπὶ θ΄ ἐπὶ ζ΄ ἐπὶ η΄ ἐπὶ με΄ ἐπὶ κζ΄ ἐπὶ κα΄ ἐπὶ κ΄ ἐπὶ κζ΄ ἐπὶ ιε΄. Ἴδιον δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦ μὲν ἐναρμονίου καὶ τοῦ χρωματικοῦ τὸ καλούμενον πυκνόν· ὅταν οἱ πρὸς τῷ βαρυτάτῳ δύο λόγοι τοῦ λοιποῦ ἑνὸς ἐλάττους γένωνται συναμφότεροι, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς προκειμένης τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἐκθέσεως. ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ κγ΄ μετὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ με΄ ἐν τῷ ἐναρμονίῳ γένει ἐλάττων ἐστὶ τοῦ [137] ἐπὶ δ΄ λόγου πρὸς τῷ ὀξυτάτῳ φθόγγῳ τεταγμένῳ· ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ μετὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ κζ΄ ἐλάσσων ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ε΄ ἐν τῷ μαλακῷ τῶν χρωμάτων· ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ ια΄ μετὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ κα΄ ἐλάσσων τοῦ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ λόγου ἐν τῷ συντόνῳ τῶν χρωματικῶν. Τοῦ δὲ διατονικοῦ ἴδιόν ἐστι τὸ καλούμενον ἄπυκνον· ὅταν μηδ’ εἷς τῶν τριῶν λόγων μείζων γίνηται τῶν λοιπῶν δύο συναμφοτέρων. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο δῆλον ἐκ τῆς προκειμένης τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἐκθέσεως. ἐλάττων γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν γενῶν ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ ζ΄ τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ κ΄ συναμφοτέρων· ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ η΄ τοῦ ἐπὶ ζ΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ κζ΄ συναμφοτέρων· ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ θ΄ τοῦ ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ιε΄ συναμφοτέρων. καὶ ὁμοίως ἕκαστος αὐτῶν πρὸς τῷ ὀξυτάτῳ μεθ’ ἑνὸς τῶν πρὸς τῷ ἑπομένῳ μείζων ἐστὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ. Ποιοῦνται δὲ καὶ τούτων αὐτῶν οἱ νεώτεροι πλείους διαφοράς, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς τὰς Ἀριστοξενείους ὑπέγραψεν ἐχούσας οὕτως. τὸν τόνον διαιρεῖ ὁ Ἀριστόξενος ποτὲ μὲν εἰς δύο ἴσα, ποτὲ δ’ εἰς τρία, ποτὲ δ’ εἰς τέσσαρα, ποτὲ δ’ εἰς ὀκτώ. καὶ τὸ μὲν τέταρτον αὐτοῦ μέρος καλεῖ δίεσιν ἐναρμόνιον, τὸ δὲ τρίτον δίεσιν χρώματος μαλακοῦ, τὸ δὲ τέταρτον μετὰ τοῦ ὀγδόου δίεσιν χρώματος ἡμιολίου, τὸ δ’ ἡμιτόνιον κοινὸν τονιαίου χρώματος καὶ τῶν διατονικῶν γενῶν, ἐξ ὧν ὑφίσταται διαφορὰς τῶν ἀμιγῶν γενῶν ἕξ, μίαν μὲν τὴν τοῦ ἐναρμονίου, τρεῖς δὲ τοῦ χρωματικοῦ μαλακοῦ τε καὶ ἡμιολίου καὶ τονιαίου, τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς δύο τοῦ διατονικοῦ, τὴν μὲν μαλακοῦ, τὴν δὲ συντόνου. τοῦ μὲν οὖν ἐναρμονίου γένους τὸ μὲν πρὸς τῷ βαρυτάτῳ καὶ ἑπόμενον διάστημα καὶ τὸ μέσον ἑκάτερον ποιεῖ διέσεως ἐναρμονίου, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν καὶ ἡγούμενον δύο τόνων, οἷον ὑποκειμένου κατὰ τὸν τόνον ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ τῶν δώδεκα κατ’ Ἀριστόξενον, ὥστε τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων διάστημα γίνεσθαι τοῦ τῶν λ΄ ἀριθμοῦ, τῶν μὲν τοῦ πυκνοῦ διαστημάτων ἑκάτερον ποιεῖ τριῶν τῶν αὐτῶν, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν κδ΄· τοῦ δὲ μαλακοῦ χρώματος ἑκάτερον μὲν τῶν τοῦ πυκνοῦ διαστημάτων ποιεῖ τριτημορίου τόνου, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἑνὸς καὶ ἡμίσους καὶ τρίτου, οἷον ἐκείνων μὲν ἑκάτερον δ΄, τοῦτο δὲ κβ΄· τοῦ δ’ ἡμιολίου χρώματος τῶν μὲν τοῦ πυκνοῦ δύο διαστημάτων ἑκάτερον ποιεῖ τετάρτου καὶ ὀγδόου τόνου, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἑνὸς καὶ ἡμίσεος καὶ τετάρτου, οἷον ἐκείνων μὲν ἑκάτερον δ΄ ἥμισυ, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν κα΄· τοῦ δὲ τονιαίου χρώματος [138] τῶν μὲν τοῦ πυκνοῦ δύο διαστημάτων ἑκάτερον ἡμιτονίου ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἑνὸς τόνου καὶ ἡμίσεος, οἷον ἐκείνων μὲν ἑκάτερον Ϛ΄, τοῦτο δὲ ιη΄. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν καὶ ἀπύκνων δύο γενῶν τὸ μὲν ἑπόμενον ἐν ἀμφοτέροις διάστημα τηρεῖ πάλιν ἡμιτονίου, τῶν δ’ ἐφεξῆς ἐν μὲν τῷ μαλακῷ διατονικῷ τὸ μὲν μέσον ἡμίσεος καὶ τετάρτου τόνου, τὸ δ’ ἡγούμενον [ 708 ]

ἑνὸς καὶ τετάρτου, οἷον Ϛ΄, θ΄ καὶ ιε΄· ἐν δὲ τῷ συντόνῳ διατονικῷ τὸ μὲν μέσον καὶ τὸ ἡγούμενον ἑκάτερον τόνου, τὸ δ’ ἑπόμενον ἡμιτονίου, οἷον Ϛ΄ καὶ ιβ΄ καὶ ιβ΄· ὡς ὑπόκειται τὸ σχῆμα τοὺς διπλασίους ἔχον τῶν εἰρημένων ἀριθμῶν. Ἔλαβε δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων ἀριθμῶν τοὺς διπλασίους ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, ἵνα πάντας ἐξ ὅλων μονάδων ἔκθηται, δηλονότι τοῦ τονιαίου διαστήματος ὑποτεθέντος αὐτῷ ἐν μονάσιν κδ΄ ἀντὶ μονάδων ιβ΄ τῶν κατ’ Ἀριστόξενον, ὃς καὶ περὶ τῶν εἰρημένων γενῶν λέγει που κατὰ λέξιν οὕτως. “Ἕκαστον τῶν τετραχόρδων εἰς ἓξ διαιρεῖται γένη, ὧν ἐστιν ἓν μέν, ὃ καλεῖται ἁρμονία, διέσει χρώμενον τῇ ἐλαχίστῃ, ἥτις ἐστὶ τετάρτου τόνου, τρία δὲ χρωματικά, ὧν τὸ μὲν βαρύτατον χρῆται διέσει τῇ καλουμένῃ χρωματικῇ· ἔστι δ’ αὕτη τρίτον τόνου· τὸ δὲ μέσον ἄλλῃ διέσει χρῆται τῇ καλουμένῃ ἡμιολίᾳ, ἐπειδὴ μίαν ἐναρμόνιον δίεσιν καὶ ἥμισυ συνέστη τὸ διάστημα αὐτῆς· τὸ δὲ τρίτον χρῶμα σύντονόν ἐστιν καθ’ ἡμιτόνιον συνεστὸς καὶ οὐ δίεσιν, καὶ τὸ πυκνὸν μέχρι τούτου πρόεισι. μέχρι γὰρ τούτου τὸ ἓν διάστημα τῶν δύο μεῖζον ὑπάρχει, εἶτ’ ἀπὸ τούτου εἰς ἴσα διαιρεῖται τὸ τετράχορδον. λοιπὰ γὰρ δύο γένη ἐστὶ διατονικὰ ἀμφότερα. κατὰ μέντοι τὸ ἀνειμένον, ὡς εἴρηται, εἰς ἴσα τέμνεται τὸ τετράχορδον κατὰ τὸν ὀξύτερον τῶν κινουμένων φθόγγων. τὸ γὰρ ἀπὸ ὑπάτης μέσων λόγου χάριν ἐπὶ λιχανὸν ἴσον γίνεται τῷ ἀπὸ λιχανοῦ ἐπὶ μέσην, ὅπερ ἐπ’ οὐδενὸς ἦν τῶν πρώτων γενῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τὸ πυκνὸν διέμενε. κατὰ δὲ τὸ λοιπὸν γένος, ὃ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸ διατονικόν ἐστι καὶ συντονώτερον, ὀξυτέρα ἔτι γίνεται ἡ λιχανός, ὥστε τονιαῖον μόνον εἶναι τὸ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς διάστημα ἐπὶ μέσην.”

[ 709 ]

ιγ΄. ΟὟ ΤΟ ς Μ Ὲ Ν Δ Ὴ κἀνταῦθα φαίνεται μηδέν τι τοῦ λόγου φροντίσας ὡς ἐπὶ [139]τῶν συμφωνιῶν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μεταξὺ μόνοις τῶν φθόγγων διαστήμασιν, ὡς τοπικοῖς οὖσι χρησάμενος διώρισε τὰ γένη, καὶ οὐ ταῖς τῶν φθόγγων πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὑπεροχαῖς, ἐξ ὧν τὸ κατὰ δύναμιν διάστημα θεωρεῖται. τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ δύο φθόγγων ἀνομοίων ἡ κατὰ πηλικότητα ποιὰ σχέσις, ὅ ἐστι λόγος. καὶ τὰ μὲν αἴτια τῶν διαφορῶν ὡς ἀναίτια καὶ ὡς μὴ θέσεις καὶ πέρατα παρέλιπε, τοῖς δ’ ἀσωμάτοις καὶ κενοῖς ὥσπερ σώμασι μεταξὺ προσῆψε τὰς συγκρίσεις καὶ σχέσεις τῶν φθόγγων. διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲν αὐτῷ μέλει δίχα διαιροῦντι σχεδὸν πανταχῇ τὰς ἐμμελείας, ὡς διὰ τῶν προκειμένων διεῖλεν εἰς Ϛ΄ καὶ Ϛ΄ καὶ η΄ καὶ η΄ καὶ θ΄ καὶ θ΄ καὶ ιβ΄ καὶ ιβ΄ καὶ κδ΄ καὶ κδ΄ καὶ λ΄ καὶ λ΄, τῶν ἐπιμορίων λόγων μηδαμῶς τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐπιδεχομένων. ἐπιμόριος γὰρ λόγος οὐδαμῶς εἰς δύο λόγους ἴσους διαιρεῖται, καθ’ ὡς ἀνώτερον ἀπεδείχθη. Ἀρχύτας δ’ ὁ Ταραντῖνος ἑξῆς τῶν Πυθαγορείων ἦν· οὗτος δὲ μάλιστα ἐπιμεληθεὶς μουσικῆς πειρᾶται τὸ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἀκόλουθον διασῶσαι οὐκ ἐν ταῖς συμφωνίαις μόνον ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ καὶ ἡμιολίῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς, ἀλλὰ κἀν ταῖς τῶν τετραχόρδων σχέσεσιν, ὡς οἰκείου τῇ φύσει τῶν ἐμμελῶν φθόγγων ὄντος τοῦ συμμέτρου τῶν ὑπεροχῶν, ὡς ὁ τόνος τοῦ διὰ πέντε πρὸς τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ὑπεροχή ἐστιν. ταύτῃ δ’ ὅμως τῇ προθέσει χρώμενος τῇ διὰ λόγων ἀποδείξει εἰς ἔνια τέλεον αὐτῆς, τῆς προθέσεως αὐτῆς, φαίνεται διαμαρτάνων, ὅτι μὴ πᾶσιν ἐπιμορίοις ἀριθμοῖς κέχρηται. ἐν δὲ τοῖς πλείστοις τοῦ μὲν τοιούτου περικρατῶν, τουτέστι τοῦ ἐπιμορίους εἶναι τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς καὶ συμμέτρους εἶναι τὰς ὑπεροχάς· ἀπαγορεύων δὲ σαφῶς τῶν ἄντικρυς ἤδη ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ὡμολογημένων. μάχεται γὰρ τὰ φαινόμενα τῇ κατ’ αὐτὸν τῶν τετραχόρδων διαιρέσει καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο διὰ τῶν ἑξῆς δῆλον ἐκ τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων τῆς διαιρέσεως ἀριθμῶν, οὓς εὗρεν οὕτως. Ἐκκειμένου γὰρ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων λόγου ἐν πυθμέσιν ἀριθμοῖς τῷ δ΄ καὶ γ΄, βαρυτάτου μὲν ὄντος τοῦ δ΄ ὡς ὑπάτης ὑπάτων, ὀξυτέρου δὲ τοῦ γ΄ ὡς ὑπάτης μέσων, διὰ τὸ τοὺς ὀξυτέρους φθόγγους ἐν τοῖς ἐλάττοσιν ἀριθμοῖς τάττεσθαι· ἀνάγκη τῆς παρυπάτης ἐν ἐπὶ κζ΄ λόγῳ οὔσης ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ γένεσιν ἐναρμονίῳ, χρωματικῷ καὶ διατονικῷ· τοῦτο γὰρ Ἀρχύτας ὑπέθετο· τὴν ὑπάτην ἔχειν κη΄, τουτέστι τὸν τῶν κη΄ μορίων ἀριθμόν, ἵνα σχῇ τὴν παρυπάτην καὶ τὸ εἰκοσθέβδομον αὐτῆς, ὡς εἶναι βαρυτέραν τῷ εἰκοσθεβδόμῳ τὴν ὑπάτην τῆς παρυπάτης. ἐπεὶ οὖν δεῖ [140] τὴν ὑπάτην ἔχειν κη΄ καὶ ἔστι τέσσαρα ἑπτάκις, ἑπτάκις ἄρα γινομένη γ΄ κα΄, ἔσται οὖν ἡ μὲν ὑπάτη κη΄, ἡ δὲ παρυπάτη κζ΄, ἡ δ’ ὑπάτη τῶν μέσων κα΄, ἵνα ὁ κη΄ πρὸς τὸν κα΄ τὸν ἐπίτριτον ἔχῃ λόγον. ἐπεὶ οὖν δεῖ τὴν παρυπάτην τῆς λιχανοῦ κατὰ τὴν Ἀρχύτου δόξαν κατὰ τὸ ἐναρμόνιον ποιεῖν ἐπὶ λε΄ λόγον, πρῶτος δ’ ὁ λϚ΄ ποιεῖ τὸν ἐπὶ λε΄ λόγον, δεῖ ἄρα τὸν κζ΄ ἐπ’ ἄλλον γενόμενον ἔχειν λϚ΄· τετράκις δὲ γενόμενος ἴσχει λϚ΄· πάντα ἄρα τετράκις· καὶ [ 710 ]

γίνονται οἱ ἀριθμοὶ ριβ΄ ρη΄ πδ΄ καὶ τὸ ἐπὶ λε΄ ὁ ρη΄ τοῦ ρε΄. ὡς γὰρ λϚ΄ πρὸς λε΄, οὕτως ρη΄ πρὸς ρε΄· ἔσονται ἄρα τοῦ ἐναρμονίου τετραχόρδου οἱ ἀριθμοὶ ριβ΄ ρη΄ ρε΄ πδ΄. πάλιν ἐπειδὴ δεῖ κατὰ τὴν Ἀρχύτου δόξαν τὴν παρυπάτην τῆς λιχανοῦ ἐν τῷ διατονικῷ γένει ἐπὶ ζ΄ εἶναι, δεῖ ἄρα τὸν ρη΄ ὄγδοον ἔχειν ἀριθμὸν ὄντα τῆς παρυπάτης, ἵνα γένηται ἐπὶ ζ΄ τῆς λιχανοῦ· δὶς γενόμενος ἴσχει η΄· ἔσται ἄρα ἐν τῷ διατονικῷ γένει πάντων δὶς γενομένων τῶν προεκτεθέντων ἀριθμῶν ἡ μὲν ὑπάτη ὑπάτων σκδ΄, ἡ δὲ παρυπάτη σιϚ΄, ἡ δὲ λιχανὸς ἡ μὲν ἐναρμόνιος σι΄, ἡ δὲ διατονικὴ ρπθ΄. ὡς γὰρ η΄ πρὸς ζ΄, οὕτως σιϚ΄ πρὸς ρπθ΄, οὗ ἦν ἐπὶ ζ΄ ὁ σιϚ΄· ὡς εἶναι τοῦ ἐναρμονίου ἀριθμοὺς σκδ΄ σιϚ΄ σι΄ ρξη΄, τοῦ δὲ διατονικοῦ σκδ΄ σιϚ΄ ρπθ΄ ρξη΄. πάλιν ἐπεὶ δεῖ κατὰ τὴν Ἀρχύτου δόξαν τὴν λιχανὸν τοῦ διατονικοῦ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ χρώματος λιχανὸν λόγον ἔχειν τὸν τῶν σμγ΄ πρὸς τὰ σνϚ΄, δεῖ ἔτι τὸν ρπθ΄ ἐπί τινα ἀριθμὸν γενόμενον ἔχειν σμγ΄ μέρος ἢ ἀπαρτίζειν παρὰ τῶν σμγ΄· ἐννεάκις δὲ γενόμενος ὁ ρπθ΄ ποιεῖ τὸν Ϛαψα΄, μέρος ἔχοντα σμγ΄ τὸν ζ΄· ἑπτάκις γὰρ ἄρα ποιήσαντες τὸν σνϚ΄ ἕξομεν ἀριθμὸν Ϛαψβ΄, ὄντα λιχανὸν χρωματικήν. ἀκολούθως ἄρα ἐπεὶ ἐννεάκις γέγονεν ὁ ρπθ΄, ποιῆσαι δεῖ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἐννεάκις, τῶν τε τῆς ὑπάτης ὑπάτων καὶ τῶν τῆς παρυπάτης καὶ τῶν τῆς ὑπάτης μέσων. ἔσται οὖν ὑπάτη μὲν ὑπάτων ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ γένεσιν ὁ ϚβιϚ΄· παρυπάτη δὲ ϚαϠμδ΄· καὶ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ γένεσιν· λιχανὸς δ’ ὑπάτων ἐν μὲν ἁρμονίᾳ Ϛαω΄, ἐν δὲ χρώματι Ϛαψβ΄, ἐν δὲ διατόνῳ Ϛαψα΄· ὑπάτη δὲ μέσων Ϛαφιβ΄ ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ γένεσιν, ὃν χωρὶς ἀποδείξεως ἔλαβεν ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἑστῶτα καὶ τηροῦντα τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον πρὸς τὰ ϚβιϚ΄. ὑπογέγραπται δὲ καὶ ἡ τούτων τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἔκθεσις ἔχουσα οὕτως. [141]

[ 711 ]

ιδ΄. ΠΑ Ρ Ὰ Μ Ὲ Ν Δ Ὴ τὴν πρόθεσιν ὡς ἔφαμεν αὐτῷ συνεστάθη τὸ χρωματικὸν τετράχορδον, ὅτι ὁ Ϛαψβ΄ ἀριθμὸς οὔτε πρὸς τὸν Ϛαφιβ΄ ποιεῖ λόγον ἐπιμόριον, οὔτε πρὸς τὸν ϚαϠμδ΄. παρὰ δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἐνάργειαν ὁμοίως ἡ σύστασις αὐτοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ ἐναρμονίου γεγένηται. τόν τε γὰρ ἑπόμενον λόγον τοῦ συνήθους χρωματικοῦ φησι μείζονα καταλαμβάνομεν τοῦ ἐπὶ κζ΄ λόγου. δείκνυται γὰρ οὗτος ἐπὶ κα΄. καὶ τὴν ἐν τῷ ἐναρμονίῳ πάλιν ἑπόμενον τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις γένεσιν ἑπομένων ἐλάττονα πολλῷ φαινόμενον κατὰ Πτολεμαῖον ἴσον ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀρχύτας ὑποτίθεται. Πτολεμαῖος μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν ποιεῖ ἐπὶ με΄ καὶ τοὺς ἑξῆς πάντας τῶν ὁμοίων μείζονας. Ἀρχύτας δ’ ἐποίησε πάντας ἴσους καὶ ἐν ἐπὶ κζ΄ λόγῳ. Καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἐλάττονα τοῦ ἐπὶ κζ΄ τὸν μέσον ἐν ἐπὶ λε΄ λόγῳ τιθέμενος ἐκμελοῦς ἄντικρυς τοῦ τοιούτου κατὰ πᾶν τετράχορδον γινομένου. διόπερ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος πάντας τοὺς μέσους μείζονας τῶν ἑπομένων πεποίηκεν, ὡς ἐκ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτοῦ καταγραφῆς ἐστι φανερόν. Ταῦτα μὲν δὴ δοκεῖ τῷ λογικῷ κριτηρίῳ περιποιῆσαι τὴν διαβολήν, ὅτι κατὰ τοὺς ἐκτιθεμένους λόγους ὑπὸ τῶν προϊσταμένων αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἀρχύτου γινομένης τῆς τοῦ κανόνος κατατομῆς οὐ διασῴζεται τὸ ἐμμελές, ὃ προσηνές ἐστι τῇ αἰσθήσει. οἱ γὰρ πλεῖστοι τῶν προκειμένων λόγων καὶ τῶν τοῖς ἄλλοις Πυθαγορείοις ἅπασι σχεδὸν διαπεπλασμένων οὐκ ἐφαρμόζουσι τοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις ἤθεσιν ἐν ταῖς μελῳδίαις. ἔοικε δὲ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν γενῶν κατὰ μὲν τὸν Ἀρχύταν φησὶν ἐλλείπειν τοῦ μετρίου, μὴ μόνον αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐναρμόνιον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ χρωματικὸν καὶ τὸ διατονικὸν ἑκάτερον μονοειδὲς ὑποθεμένου. κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἀριστόξενον ὑπερβάλλειν μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ χρωματικοῦ τῶν τε τοῦ μαλακοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἡμιολίου διέσεων κδ΄ μέρει τόνου διαφερουσῶν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ η΄ τῶν θ΄ διαφέρουσιν ἑνί· τοῦτο δὲ τόνου μέρος ἐστὶν κδ΄, ὅπερ οὐδεμίαν αἰσθητὴν ταῖς ἀκοαῖς παραλλαγὴν ἐμποιεῖ· ἐνδεῖν δ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ διατονικοῦ πλειόνων φαινομένων σαφῶς τῶν μελῳδουμένων γενῶν, ὡς ἔσται σκοπεῖν εὐθέως ἀπὸ τῶν δειχθησομένων ὑπὸ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου γενῶν. Δύο γὰρ οὗτος, ὡς εἴρηται, ποιεῖται τοῦ χρωματικοῦ, μαλακόν τε καὶ [142] σύντονον, ἀντὶ τριῶν τῶν κατ’ Ἀριστόξενον, καὶ τρία τοῦ διατονικοῦ, μαλακόν τε καὶ σύντονον καὶ τὸ μεταξὺ αὐτῶν τονιαῖον διάτονον, ἀντὶ τῶν κατ’ Ἀριστόξενον δύο γενῶν. Ἔτι δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὑγιῶς οὐδ’ οὗτος οὔτ’ ἐπὶ τῶν πυκνῶν ἀλλήλοις ἴσα ποιεῖ τὰ ἑπόμενα δύο μεγέθη, Ϛ΄ καὶ Ϛ΄ καὶ η΄ καὶ η΄ καὶ θ΄ καὶ θ΄· τὴν δὲ λόγου χάριν Ϛ΄ καὶ η΄ καὶ θ΄ καὶ ιβ΄. Τοῦ μέσου πανταχοῦ καταλαμβανομένου μείζονος, οὔτ’ αὖ πάλιν ἴσα τὰ πρὸς τῷ βαρυτάτῳ φθόγγῳ διαστήματα τοῦ τε συντόνου διατόνου καὶ τοῦ τονιαίου χρωματικοῦ· ιβ΄ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν

[ 712 ]

ἕκαστον μοιρῶν. ἀεὶ δὲ τὸ διάτονον μεῖζον ὀφείλει διάστημα ποιεῖν ἀπὸ ὑπάτης ἐπὶ παρυπάτην τοῦ χρωματικοῦ τονιαίου τοῦ ἀπὸ ὑπάτης ἐπὶ παρυπάτην.

[ 713 ]

ιε΄. Φέρε τοίνυν ἕως τοῦ τοῦ τρίτου μέρους. ἈΠ ΟΔ Ε Ί Ξ Ε Ι Ο ὖΝ Τ Ὰ πρῶτα γένη τῶν τετραχόρδων, ἃ ἀπό τ’ Ἀριστοξένου καὶ Ἀρχύτου διῄρηται, οὐχ ὁμολόγως ταῖς τῶν μουσικωτέρων αἰσθήσεσιν καὶ παρὰ τὰς θέσεις καὶ τάξεις τῶν διαστημάτων αὐτοῖς ὑποκειμένων καὶ ὅσα περὶ αὐτῶν εἴρηκεν. πειρᾶται κἀνταῦθα διασῶσαι καὶ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ταῖς τῶν ἐμμελειῶν ὑποθέσεσιν ἔν τε τῇ θέσει καὶ τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐπιμορίων λόγων καὶ τὸ πρὸς τὰ φαινόμενα τῶν ἠθῶν ἐν ταῖς μελῳδίαις ὁμολογούμενον ἀκολούθως ταῖς πρώταις καὶ κατὰ φύσιν τῶν μερισμῶν ἐπιβολαῖς, αἷς κέχρηται πρὸς τὸν ὑγιέστερον τῶν λόγων ἐπὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν διορισμόν. προσλαμβάνει δ’ εἰς θέσεις καὶ τάξεις τῶν πηλικοτήτων, τουτέστι τῶν φθόγγων, παρὰ μὲν τῆς ἀρχῆθεν ὑποθέσεως τῆς κατὰ τὰς συμφωνίας αὐτῷ προεκτεθειμένης καὶ τοῦ λόγου, κοινὸν πάντων τῶν γενῶν, τὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τετραχόρδων τοὺς ἐφεξῆς φθόγγους ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐπιμορίους ποιεῖν λόγους τοὺς μέχρι τῶν εἰς δύο παρίσους ἢ τρεῖς παρίσους τομῶν· ἐπεὶ μὴ δυνατὸν εἰς ἴσα τέμνειν ἐπιμόριον [143] λόγον ἢ διπλάσιον ἀλλ’ εἰς πάρισα, ὡς τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἐν διπλασίονι λόγῳ τυγχάνον εἰς πάρισα διῄρηται, τὸ δὲ διὰ πέντε καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων κατά τε τὸν ἡμιόλιον λόγον καὶ τὸν ἐπίτριτον, τριῶν ἐνταῦθα γενομένων ὑπεροχῶν. ἦν γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον τὸ ὁμόφωνον ἓν καὶ ἕν, εἶτ’ ἀπὸ τῆς ἰσότητος παραυξήσεως γενομένης τῷ ἑτέρῳ μονάδος ἐγένετο παρ’ ἰσότητα λόγου ὁ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ἐν διπλασίῳ λόγῳ τῶν δύο πρὸς τὸ ἕν, μετὰ δὲ τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον προσθήκῃ μονάδος ἦν γενόμενος ὁ ἡμιόλιος λόγος ὁ τῶν τρία πρὸς τὰ δύο, ὁμοίως δὲ τοῦ αὐτοῦ γενομένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡμιολίου γέγονεν ἐπίτριτος, ὥσθ’ ὑπεροχὰς τρεῖς εἶναι· καὶ ἀεὶ παραυξήσεως γινομένης, τουτέστι προστεθείσης ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ὅρων μονάδος, ἐλάττων ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ μονάδος ἀμφοτέρων αὐτῶν ὄντων, ἥτις ἀπὸ τῆς ἰσότητος μειουμένου τοῦ λόγου κατὰ μὲν τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον ἴση γίνεται τῷ ὑπερεχομένῳ, κατὰ δὲ τὸ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸν ἡμιόλιον λόγον ἡμίσεια τοῦ ὑπερεχομένου, κατὰ δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον τρίτον μέρος τοῦ ὑπερεχομένου. πάλιν δ’ αὖ ἀπὸ τῆς ἰσότητος αὐξομένου τοῦ λόγου μονάδος προστιθεμένης τῷ μείζονι τῶν ὅρων ὁ τριπλάσιος λόγος ἐλαμβάνετο τῆς διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε συμφωνίας, καθ’ ὃν ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τῶν ἄκρων δὶς ποιεῖ τοὺς ὑπερεχομένους ἐν ἀντιθέσει τοῦ ἡμίσους μέρους· καὶ ὁ τετραπλάσιος τοῦ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ὁμοφώνου, καθ’ ὃν ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τῶν ἄκρων τρεῖς ποιεῖ τοὺς ὑπερεχομένους ἐν ἀντιθέσει πάλιν τοῦ τρίτου μέρους. Παρὰ δὲ τῆς ὁμολογουμένης αἰσθήσεως κοινὸν μὲν ὁμοίως πάντων τῶν ὁμογενῶν λαμβάνει τὸ τά γ’ ἑπόμενα τῶν τριῶν διαστημάτων ἐλάττονα συνίστασθαι τῶν λοιπῶν ἑκατέρου. ἴδια δὲ τῶν μὲν τὸ πυκνὸν ἐχόντων, ἅ ἐστιν ἐναρμονίων καὶ χρωματικῶν μαλακῶν τε καὶ συντόνων, τὸ τὰ πρὸς τῷ βαρυτάτῳ δύο συναμφότερα ἐλάττονα γίνεσθαι τοῦ πρὸς τῷ ὀξυτάτῳ. τῶν δ’ ἀπύκνων τὸ μηδὲν τῶν μεγεθῶν μεῖζον καθίστασθαι τῶν λοιπῶν δύο συναμφοτέρων· εἴρηται δ’ ἄπυκνα τὰ διατονικὰ διὰ τὸ πολὺ ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων αὐτῶν εἶναι τὰ διαστήματα. [ 714 ]

Τούτων οὖν ὑποκειμένων διαιρεῖ πρῶτα τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον τῆς διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίας, ὁσάκις ἔνεστιν, εἰς ἐπιμορίους λόγους δύο· τρὶς δὲ γίνεται μόνως· πάλιν καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτο προσλαμβανομένων τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὸν τριῶν ἐφεξῆς ἐπιμορίων τοῦ τ’ ἐπὶ δ΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄. συμπληροῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον τῷ μὲν ἐπὶ δ΄ προστεθεὶς ὁ ἐπὶ ιε΄, τῷ δ’ ἐπὶ ε΄ ὁ ἐπὶ θ΄, τῷ δ’ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ ὁ ἐπὶ ζ΄. καὶ μετὰ τούτους δύο μόνοις [144] ἄλλοις ἐπιμορίοις οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τις συντεθειμένον τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον. γινέσθω δ’ ἡ σύνθεσις δύο ληφθέντων ἐπιμορίων. οἷον μετὰ τὸν ἐπίτριτον ἐφεξῆς αὐτοῦ ἐπιμόριοι ἦσαν ὁ ἐπὶ δ΄ καὶ ὁ ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ ὁ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄. ἐπειδὴ μὲν ὁ ἐπὶ γ΄ λόγος διαιρεῖται εἰς ἐπὶ δ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ιε΄, καὶ ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ ἐπὶ θ΄, καὶ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ζ΄· ἐπιτετάρτου πυθμὴν ὁ ε΄ τοῦ δ΄· ἔχει γὰρ ὁ ε΄ τὸν δ΄ καὶ τὸ τέταρτον αὐτοῦ α΄· ἐπιπέμπτου δὲ πυθμὴν ὁ Ϛ΄ τοῦ ε΄. ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ δὲ πυθμὴν ὁ ζ΄ τοῦ Ϛ΄. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἔχει τὸν ἐλάσσονα καὶ τὸ αὐτοῦ μέρος, ὁ δὲ τὸν Ϛ΄ καὶ τὸ ἕκτον. οὗτοι τοίνυν ἄλλοις ἐπιμορίοις συντεθέντες ἀποτελοῦσι τὸν ἐπίτριτον· ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ δ΄ τῷ ἐπὶ ιε΄· ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ ε΄ τῷ ἐπὶ θ΄· ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ τῷ ἐπὶ ζ΄. ἔστι δ’ ἐπὶ ιε΄ μὲν πυθμὴν ὁ ιϚ΄ τοῦ ιε΄· ἔχει γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ ιε΄· ἐπὶ θ΄ δὲ πυθμὴν ὁ ι΄ τοῦ θ΄, ἔχων αὐτὸν τὸν θ΄ καὶ τὸ ἔννατον· ἐπὶ ζ΄ δὲ ‹πυθμὴν› ὁ η΄ τοῦ ζ΄· ἔχει γὰρ τὸν ζ΄ καὶ τὸ ζ΄ αὐτοῦ. συνθῶμεν οὖν αὐτοὺς προτάξαντες τὸν μὲν ἐπὶ δ΄ τοῦ ἐπὶ ιε΄, τὸν δ’ ἐπὶ ε΄ τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄, τὸν δ’ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ τοῦ ἐπὶ ζ΄. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν τοῦ ἐπὶ ιε΄ πυθμένος ὅροι ἐν ἀριθμοῖς ιϚ΄ ιε΄, δεῖ τοῦ ιϚ΄ λαβεῖν ἐπιτέταρτον, ἵνα γένηται ἡ σύνθεσις· ἔσται δὴ ὁ κ΄· ἔχει γὰρ τὸν ιϚ΄ καὶ τὸ δ΄ τῶν ιϚ΄, τὰ δ΄· ἔσονται τοίνυν δύο λόγοι ἐν ὅροις τοῖς κ΄ ιϚ΄ ιε΄· ἐπὶ δ΄ μὲν ὁ κ΄ τοῦ ιϚ΄· ἐπὶ ιε΄ δ’ ὁ ἑπόμενος ὁ ιϚ΄ ιε΄, ὧν οἱ ἄκροι ὁ κ΄ καὶ ὁ ιε΄ ἐπὶ γ΄· σύγκειται ἄρα ὁ ἐπὶ γ΄ ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ δ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ιε΄, καὶ δῆλον, ὅτι διαιρεῖται εἰς αὐτούς. πάλιν εἰλήφθω ἐπὶ θ΄ ὁ δέκα τοῦ θ΄ καὶ συντιθέσθω τῷ ἐπὶ ε΄ ἡγουμένῳ αὐτοῦ· ἐπὶ ε΄ δ’ ἂν εἴη τῶν ι΄ ὁ ιβ΄, ἔχων τὸν ι΄ καὶ τὸν ε΄ αὐτοῦ τὰ β΄· ἔσονται οὖν οἱ ὅροι ιβ΄ καὶ ι΄ καὶ θ΄ λόγους περιέχοντες δύο, ἐπὶ ε΄ τε καὶ ἐπὶ θ΄, ὧν πάλιν οἱ ἄκροι ἐν ἐπὶ γ΄· ὁ γὰρ ιβ΄ τοῦ θ΄ ἐπίτριτος. ὥστε πάλιν συνετέθη ὁ ἐπὶ γ΄ ἐκ δύο ἐπιμορίων λόγων ἐλαττόνων αὐτοῦ τοῦ τ’ ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄ καὶ δῆλον, ὅτι διαιρεῖται εἰς αὐτούς. Πάλιν εἰλήφθω ἐπὶ ζ΄ ὁ κδ΄ κα΄ καὶ συντιθέσθω λόγῳ ἡγουμένῳ αὐτοῦ τῷ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄· ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ δὲ τῶν κδ΄ ὁ κη΄· ἔσονται οὖν δύο λόγοι συγκείμενοι ἐν ὅροις ἀριθμητικοῖς τοῖς κη΄ κδ΄ κα΄, ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ζ΄, ὧν πάλιν οἱ ἄκροι ἐπὶ γ΄, τουτέστιν ὁ κη΄ τοῦ κα΄. νῦν μὲν οὖν προτάξαντες τοὺς ἐφεξῆς τοῦ ἐπὶ γ΄, τὸν ἐπὶ δ΄ λέγω καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ Ϛ΄, ὑποτάξαντες τοὺς ἄλλους, συνεθήκαμεν τὸν ἐπὶ γ΄· πρὶν τοῦτο ποιήσαντες ἐκ τῆς ἐφεξῆς αὐτοῦ τριῶν ἐπιμορίων. κἂν προτάξωμεν δὲ τὸν ἐπὶ ιε΄ ἢ τὸν ἐπὶ θ΄ ἢ τὸν ἐπὶ ζ΄, ὑποτάξωμεν δ’ ἑκάστῳ τὸν σύμμετρον εἰς σύνθεσιν τοῦ ἐπὶ γ΄, πάλιν οἱ ἄκροι ἀποτελοῦσιν ἐπίτριτον. [145] Αἱ μὲν οὖν εἰς δύο τομαὶ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου καὶ εἰς τοὺς μετ’ αὐτὸν ἐλάττονας αὐτοῦ ἐπιμορίους γινόμεναι τοιαῦται, ἐξ ὧν καὶ αἱ συνθέσεις. ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἀποδεῖξαι βουλόμενος καὶ τὰς εἰς τρεῖς λόγους τομὰς τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου· πρῶτον ἐπὶ τῶν τὸ πυκνὸν ἐχόντων τετραχόρδων ἐπάγει ταῦτα.

[ 715 ]

Ἐπὶ μὲν δὴ τῶν ἕως τοῦ καταγραφαί. ἜΣΤ Ι Μ Ὲ Ν Ο ὖΝ τὰ πλεῖστα τούτων σαφῆ διὰ τὴν προειρημένην διδασκαλίαν. ζητεῖ δέ, ποίῳ λόγῳ τοὺς προκειμένους ἀριθμοὺς εὗρεν. ἔχει δὲ λόγον ἡ εὕρεσις αὐτῶν τοιοῦτον. Ἐκείνου γὰρ τοῦ δ΄ καὶ τοῦ γ΄ ἐν ἐπὶ γ΄ λόγῳ, τοῦτο διεῖλεν εἰς τρεῖς λόγους, εἴς τε τὸν ἐπὶ με΄ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ κγ΄ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ δ΄, ὥστ’ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι συστήσασθαι τοὺς τρεῖς λόγους κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς. τοῦτο δ’ ἔσται οὕτως· ἐπειδὴ πυθμένες τοῦ ἐπὶ γ΄ λόγου ὅ τε δ΄ ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ γ΄, δεῖ δὲ τὸν γ΄ ἔχειν τέταρτον· ἔσται ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ γ΄ ὁ ιβ΄, ἵν’ ἔχῃ τέταρτον καὶ γένηται ὁ ιε΄ ἐπὶ δ΄ τοῦ ιβ΄· ὡς γίνεσθαι ιϚ΄ ιε΄ ιβ΄· ὁ γὰρ ιε΄ τοῦ ιβ΄ ἐπὶ δ΄. πάλιν ἐπεὶ δεῖ τοῦ ιε΄ ἐπὶ κγ΄ τινὰ εὑρεῖν, δεῖ τὸν ιε΄ ἔχειν κγ΄· ἴσχει δ’ ἐπὶ τὸν κγ΄ γενόμενος· ὥστε τάξωμεν ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ ιε΄ τὸν τμε΄, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ιβ΄ τὸν σοϚ΄, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ιϚ΄ τὸν τξη΄· ὥστε γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ κγ΄ τοῦ τμε΄ τὸν τξ΄, οὗ ἐστιν ἐπὶ με΄ ὁ τξη΄. ἔσται οὖν τὸ πρῶτον τετράχορδον ἐν ἀριθμοῖς τοῖς τξη΄ καὶ τξ΄ καὶ τμε΄ καὶ σοϚ΄. Τὸ δὲ δεύτερον συντίθεται οὕτως· ἐπεὶ γὰρ δεῖ πάλιν συγκεῖσθαι τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον ἔκ τε τοῦ ἐπὶ κζ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ε΄· δεῖ ἄρα τὸν γ΄ πέμπτον ἔχειν· τάσσομεν οὖν ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ γ΄ τὸν ιε΄, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ δ΄ τὸν κ΄· καὶ ἔσται ὁ τοῦ ιε΄ ἐπὶ ε΄ ὁ ιη΄, οὗ δεῖ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ λαβεῖν· δεῖ ἄρα τὸν αὐτὸν ‹ἀντὶ› τοῦ ιη΄ τασσόμενον ἔχειν ιη΄ καὶ ιδ΄· ἑπτάκις δὲ γενόμενος ὁ ιη΄ γίνεται ρκϚ΄ καὶ ἴσχει καὶ ιη΄ καὶ ιδ΄, ὥστ’ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ τοῦ ρκϚ΄ ‹τὸν ρλε΄, οὗ ἐστιν ἐπὶ κζ΄ ὁ ρμ΄. ἔσται οὖν τὸ δεύτερον τετράχορδον ἐν ἀριθμοῖς τοῖς ρμ΄ καὶ ρλε΄ καὶ ρκϚ΄ καὶ ρε΄.› Πάλιν ἐπεὶ τὸ τρίτον τετράχορδον συνέστηκεν ἔκ τε τοῦ ἐπὶ κα΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ια΄ καὶ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄, δεῖ ἄρα τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦ γ΄ ἕκτον ἔχειν, ὥστ’ ἔσται ὁ [146] Ϛ΄. καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ γ΄ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ὁ η΄, ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ ὁ ζ΄. πάλιν ἐπεὶ δεῖ τοῦ ἐπὶ ια΄ λαβεῖν, δεῖ ἄρα τὸν ζ΄ ζ΄ ἔχειν ἀλλὰ καὶ ια΄· ἑνδεκάκις δὲ γενόμενος γίνεται ὁ οζ΄· ὥστε ταγήσεται ἐν τῷ τετραχόρδῳ ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ Ϛ΄ ὁ ξϚ΄, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ζ΄ ὁ οϚ΄· ὁ δὲ τούτου ἐπὶ ια΄ ὁ πδ΄· ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ η΄ ὁ πη΄· ὡς εἶναι καὶ τούτου τὸ τετράχορδον ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις ἀριθμοῖς, ὡς δεδήλωται. Ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ μὲν βούλεται τοὺς ἄκρους τῶν τετραχόρδων τοὺς περιέχοντας τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον κοινοὺς εἶναι τῶν τριῶν τετραχόρδων, ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν τινα ἀριθμόν, ὃς ἕξει μέτρα ὁμώνυμα τοῖς ἄκροις τῶν τριῶν τετραχόρδων. ἐὰν δ’ εὕρω τὸν ἐλάττονα τῶν ἄκρων ἔχοντα τὰ προκείμενα μέρη καὶ προσθῶ τὸ τρίτον, εὑρήσω καὶ τὸν μείζονα. ἔστι δ’ ὁ ἐλάττων ἐν μὲν τῷ πρώτῳ τετραχόρδῳ ὁ σοϚ΄, ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ ὁ ρε΄, ἐν δὲ τῷ τρίτῳ ὁ ξϚ΄. δεῖ οὖν ἀριθμὸν εὑρεῖν, ὃς ἕξει ξϚ΄ ρε΄ σοϚ΄. εὑρίσκω δὲ τοῦτο οὕτως· τοῦ μὲν ξϚ΄ καὶ τοῦ ρε΄ τὸ μέγιστον κοινὸν μέτρον ἐστὶν ὁ γ΄· καὶ ἐὰν λάβω τὸ τρίτον τοῦ ξϚ΄, ὅ ἐστι τὰ κβ΄, καὶ πολλαπλασιάσω ἐπὶ τὸν ρε΄, γίνεται Ϛβτι΄. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ θέλω αὐτὸν ἔχειν καὶ σοϚ΄, λαμβάνω πάλιν τὸ μέγιστον κοινὸν μέτρον τοῦ σοϚ΄ καὶ τοῦ Ϛβτι΄· ἔστι δ’ ὁ Ϛ΄· λαβὼν οὖν τὸν Ϛ΄ τοῦ σοϚ΄, ὅ ἐστι μϚ΄ πολλαπλασιάζω ἐπὶ τὸν Ϛβτι΄ καὶ γίνεται ὁ τῶν Μι ϚϚσξ΄ ἀριθμός, οὗ εὑρεθέντος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ δῆλοί εἰσι, καθ’ ἃ γέγραπται. τὸ τρίτον τῶν Μι ϚϚσξ΄ γινόμενον Μγ Ϛευκ΄ ἐὰν προσθῶ αὐτοῖς, [ 716 ]

γίνεται ὁ μείζων Μιδ Ϛαχπ΄ τῶν τριῶν τετραχόρδων. καὶ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον τετράχορδον τξη΄ τξ΄ τμε΄ σοϚ΄ πρὸς Μιδ Ϛαχπ΄ Μιγ Ϛηχ΄ Μιγ Ϛβωκε΄ Μι ϚϚσξ΄· τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ρμ΄ ρλε΄ ρκϚ΄ ρε΄ πρὸς Μιδ Ϛαχπ΄ Μιγ ϚϚχκ΄ Μιβ Ϛζφιβ΄ Μι ϚϚσξ΄· τὸ δὲ τρίτον πη΄ πδ΄ οζ΄ ξϚ΄ πρὸς Μιδ Ϛαχπ΄ Μιγ Ϛεσμ΄ Μιβ ϚγϠο΄ Μι ϚϚσξ΄.

[ 717 ]

Ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀπύκνων γενῶν ἀκολούθου τοῖς προδιωρισμένοις ὄντος καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἄχρι τέλους τῶν καταγραφῶν. ἘΠ Ε Ὶ Ὅ Τ ’ ἐπίτριτος λόγος, καθὼς ἀπέδειξε, σύγκειται ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ δ΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ιε΄, ἀναγκαῖον δ’ ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ τῶν διατονικῶν διαιρέσει καὶ τὸν ἐλάττονα λόγον πρὸς τῷ ἡγουμένῳ τάσσειν, τουτέστι τῷ ὀξυτάτῳ, [147] ἐπεὶ οἱ ἐλάττονες ἀριθμοὶ ἡγοῦνται πρὸς τὸ τοὺς δύο τοὺς ἑπομένους μείζονας εἶναι τοῦ ἡγουμένου ἀνάπαλιν τοῖς ἔχουσι τὸ πυκνόν, ἔταξε τὸν μὲν ἐπὶ ιε΄ ἐν τῷ ἡγουμένῳ, τὸν δ’ ἐπὶ δ΄ διαιρεῖ εἰς δύο τοὺς ἑπομένους. ἐκθέμενος οὖν τὸν ε΄ καὶ τὸν δ΄ τριπλασιάζει αὐτοὺς καὶ γίνονται ὅ τε ιβ΄ καὶ ὁ ιε΄· τούτων μέσοι ἐν ἴσαις ὑπεροχαῖς πίπτουσιν ὅ τε ιδ΄ καὶ ιγ΄· καὶ ὁ μὲν ιγ΄ οὐ ποιεῖ πρὸς ἑκάτερον τῶν ἄκρων ἐπιμόριον λόγον, ὁ δὲ ιδ΄ πρὸς μὲν τὸν ιε΄ ποιεῖ τὸν ἐπὶ ιδ΄ λόγον, πρὸς δὲ τὸν ιβ΄ τὸν ἐπὶ Ϛ΄. καὶ ἐὰν τάξωμεν ἐν ὁποτέρῳ οὖν τῶν διαστημάτων τὸν ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ λόγον, ἄτοπον συμβήσεται· ἄχρηστος γὰρ ἑκάτερος τῶν ἑπομένων λόγος ὅ τ’ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ καὶ ὁ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄· μείζων γάρ ἐστι τοῦ ἡγουμένου, τουτέστι τοῦ ἐπὶ ιε΄. ὁ γὰρ ἑπόμενος λόγος τοῦ ἡγουμένου μείζων ἔσται. θεωρηθήσεται δ’ ἐν πρώτοις ἀριθμοῖς ἔν τε τῷ με΄ καὶ μη΄ καὶ νϚ΄ καὶ ξ΄. ἐν τούτοις μὲν οὖν τοῖς τετραχόρδοις ὁ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ τὸ μέσον ποιεῖ διάστημα καὶ ὁ λοιπὸς ὁ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ τοῦ ἑπομένου· καὶ ἔστι μείζων τοῦ ἡγουμένου τοῦ ἐπὶ ιε΄. ἐν δὲ τῷ τῶν ρε΄ ριβ΄ ρκ΄ ρμ΄ ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ τὸ ἑπόμενον ποιεῖ διάστημα, ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ τὸ μέσον. καὶ συνίστανται οἱ ἀριθμοὶ οὕτως. ἐπεὶ δεῖ τὸν γ΄ ἔχειν ιε΄ καὶ γ΄, ἵν’ αὐτοῦ μὲν ἐπὶ ιε΄ γένηται ὁ μέσος ἀριθμός, ἐπίτριτος δ’ ὁ ἄκρος - ἔχει δὲ τοῦτο πρῶτος ὁ ιε΄, ὅτι ἔχει τρίτον ε΄ καὶ ιε΄ ἕν - τούτου ἐπὶ ιε΄ γίνεται ὁ ιϚ΄. θέλω δ’ αὐτὸν ἔχειν καὶ ἐπὶ ιδ΄, ἵν’ ὁ ἑξῆς αὐτοῦ ἀριθμὸς γένηται ἐπὶ ιδ΄. ζητῶ οὖν ποσάκις γινόμενος ὁ ιϚ΄ ἴσχει καὶ ιδ΄. λαμβάνω οὖν τὸ μέγιστον κοινὸν μέτρον τοῦ ιδ΄ καὶ τοῦ ιϚ΄ καὶ ἔστιν ὁ δύο· καὶ ὁπότερον οὖν αὐτῶν μερίσας παρὰ τὸν δύο τὸν λοιπὸν πολλαπλασιάζω ἐπὶ τὸν ἕτερον, καὶ γίνεται τετράχορδον, ὥσπερ κεῖται ἐν πρώτοις ἀριθμοῖς ρε΄ ριβ΄ ρκ΄ ρμ΄. καὶ ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τετραχόρδῳ ὁ ἑπόμενος λόγος τοῦ ἡγουμένου μείζων ἐστίν, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄτοπον. ὥστ’ οὐδεμία τῶν διαιρέσεων χρήσιμος ἔσται εἰς τὰ ἑξῆς τετράχορδα. Ἐν τοῖς πυκνοῖς τρισὶ τετραχόρδοις ὁ ἡγούμενος λόγος ὁ πρὸς τῷ ὀξυτάτῳ μείζων ἦν τῶν δύο λόγων τῶν πρὸς τῷ βαρυτέρῳ, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀπύκνοις τὸ ἐναντίον· ὁ ἡγούμενος λόγος ὁ πρὸς τῷ ὀξυτέρῳ ἐλάττων ἐστὶ τῶν δύο ἑπομένων τῶν πρὸς τῷ βαρυτέρῳ. ἐπεὶ οὖν διεῖλεν τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων, τουτέστι τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον, εἰς δύο λόγους ἀνίσους τριχῶς· εἰς γὰρ δύο ἴσους ἀδύνατόν ἐστι διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν τὸν γ΄ πρὸς τὸν δ΄, ὃν τετράγωνος ἀριθμὸς πρὸς τετράγωνον ἀριθμόν· ὁ γὰρ τρία οὐκ ἔχει ὡς ὁ δ΄ δὶς δύο· διεῖλεν οὖν τὴν μὲν πρώτην εἰς ἐπὶ δ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ιε΄, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν διαίρεσιν εἰς ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ εἰς ἐπὶ θ΄, τὴν δὲ τρίτην εἰς [148] ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ζ΄. ἡ μὲν πρώτη διαίρεσις οὐ χρησιμεύει, καθὼς ἐδείξαμεν· ἔστι δὲ δευτέρα διαίρεσις, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐξ ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ ἐπὶ θ΄. διεῖλε τάξας τὸν ἐλάττονα λόγον, ὅς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θ΄, πρὸς τῷ ἡγουμένῳ τὸν λοιπὸν καὶ

[ 718 ]

ἐπὶ ε΄, διαιρεῖ εἰς δύο λόγους καὶ εὑρίσκει συγκειμένους οὕτως. τρὶς γὰρ ποιήσας τοὺς πυθμένας τοῦ ἐπὶ ε΄ λόγου τόν τε ε΄ καὶ τὸν Ϛ΄ εὑρίσκει τὸν ιε΄ καὶ τὸν ιη΄, ὧν μέσοι εἰσὶν ὅ τε ιϚ΄ καὶ ὁ ιζ΄. ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ιζ΄ οὐ ποιεῖ πρὸς ἑκάτερον τῶν ἄκρων ἐπιμόριον λόγον, τουτέστι τὸν ιε΄ καὶ τὸν ιη΄, ὁ δὲ ιϚ΄ τοῦ μὲν ιε΄ ἐπὶ ιε΄, τοῦ δὲ ιη΄ ἐπὶ η΄. ἔστι γὰρ παρὰ τὸν θ΄ αὐτοῦ· ὡς εἶναι τὸν ιη΄ τούτου ἐπὶ η΄. εὑρίσκει οὖν τὸν ἐπὶ ε΄ λόγον, ὃν ἔταξε νῦν πρὸς τῷ βαρυτέρῳ συγκείμενον ἐκ δύο λόγων, τοῦ τ’ ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ιε΄, καὶ τάσσει τὸν ἐπὶ η΄ λόγον πρὸς τῷ μέσῳ διαστήματι, ὡς εἶναι τοῦ τετραχόρδου τὴν διαίρεσιν ἔκ τε ἡγουμένου λόγου τοῦ πρὸς τῷ ὀξυτέρῳ τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄ καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ η΄ μέσου καὶ τοῦ βαρυτέρου ἐπὶ ιε΄. διῄρηται γὰρ ὁ ἐπὶ ε΄ καὶ εἰς ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ εἰς ἐπὶ ιε΄ καὶ ἔστιν ἐν πρώτοις ἀριθμοῖς τετράχορδον λϚ΄ μ΄ με΄ μη΄. Εὕρηται δ’ οὕτως. ἐκτιθέμεθα τὸν ἐπίτριτον γ΄ καὶ δ΄ καὶ τὸν ἑξῆς ἀριθμὸν ἐπὶ θ΄ εἶναι τοῦ ἡγουμένου. δεῖ ἄρα τὸν ἀντὶ τοῦ γ΄ τασσόμενον ἀριθμὸν ἔχειν γ΄ καὶ θ΄, ἵν’ ἐπὶ θ΄ γένηται· ἔχει δ’ ὁ θ΄ πρῶτος ὁ γ΄ καὶ θ΄· ἔσται οὖν ὁ μὲν ἡγούμενος θ΄, ὁ δὲ μετ’ αὐτὸν ὢν ἐπὶ θ΄, ὁ ι΄, καὶ ὁ περιέχων τὸ τετράχορδον, ὅς ἐστιν ἐπίτριτος τοῦ θ΄, ιβ΄. πάλιν ἐπεὶ δεῖ τὸν ἑξῆς εἶναι τοῦ ι΄ ἐπὶ η΄, δεῖ ἄρα τὸν ἀντὶ τοῦ ι΄ τασσόμενον ἔχειν ι΄ καὶ η΄ ἐλάχιστον ὄντα τῶν ἐχόντων τὰ αὐτὰ μέρη. λαβὼν γὰρ τοῦ ι΄ καὶ τοῦ η΄ τὸ μέγιστον κοινὸν μέτρον τὸν β΄ μερίζω μὲν ὁπότερον οὖν αὐτῶν παρὰ τὸν β΄, καὶ τὸν λοιπὸν πολλαπλασιάζω ἐπὶ τὸν γενόμενον, οἷον ὁ μὲν ι΄ παρὰ τὸν β΄ γίνεται ε΄, οὗτος ἐπὶ τὸν λοιπὸν τὸν η΄ ποιεῖ τὸν μ΄. ἔσται οὖν ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ ι΄ ὁ μ΄, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ θ΄ ὁ λϚ΄, διὰ τὸ τὸν μ΄ τοῦ ι΄ τετραπλάσιον εἶναι· τὸν δὲ τοῦ μ΄ ἐπὶ η΄ [καὶ] τὸν με΄, τὸν δὲ τελευταῖον τοῦ τετραχόρδου ‹τὸν ἐπὶ ιε΄ τοῦ με΄› καὶ αὐτὸν τετραπλάσιον τοῦ ιβ΄ τὸν μη΄. ἔσται οὖν λϚ΄ μ΄ με΄ μη΄. Πάλιν ἐπεὶ ἡ τρίτη διαίρεσις τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου λόγου ἦν εἴς τ’ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ ζ΄ διαιρεθεῖσα, τάσσει τὸν μὲν ἐπὶ ζ΄ πρὸς τῷ ὀξυτέρῳ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡγούμενον, διαστήματι, τὸν δ’ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ διαιρεῖ εἰς δύο λόγους ὁμοίως τριπλασιάσας τοὺς πυθμένας τόν τε Ϛ΄ καὶ τὸν ζ΄ καὶ γίνεται ιη΄ καὶ κα΄, ὧν μέσοι ὅ τε ιθ΄ καὶ κ΄. καὶ ὁ μὲν ιθ΄ οὐκ ἴσχει πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους τοὺς [149] ἄκρους λόγον ἐπιμόριον, ὁ δὲ κ΄ τοῦ μὲν ιη΄ γίνεται ἐπὶ θ΄, ὁ δὲ κα΄ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ κα΄. ἔσται οὖν καὶ τὸ ἕτερον τετράχορδον, ὅπερ σύγκειται ἔκ τε ἡγουμένου λόγου τοῦ πρὸς τῷ ὀξυτέρῳ τοῦ ἐπὶ ζ΄ καὶ μέσου τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄ καὶ βαρυτάτου τοῦ ἐπὶ κ΄. εὑρεθήσονται δ’ οἱ τετραχόρδου ἀριθμοὶ πρῶτοι οὕτως. Ἐκτίθεμεν πάλιν τὸν ἐπὶ γ΄ ἐν πυθμένι τῷ γ΄ καὶ τῷ δ΄. καὶ ἐπειδὴ δεῖ τὸν μετὰ τὸν γ΄ τασσόμενον ἀριθμὸν ἐπὶ ζ΄ εἶναι [ἀντὶ] τοῦ γ΄· δεῖ ἄρα τὸν ἀντὶ τοῦ γ΄ ‹τασσόμενον› ζ΄ ἔχειν καὶ γ΄· καὶ εἰσὶν ὁ ζ΄ καὶ ὁ γ΄ πρῶτοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους· ὁ ἄρα ὑπὸ τοῦ γ΄ καὶ τοῦ ζ΄ ἐλάχιστός ἐστι τῶν ἐχόντων γ΄ καὶ ζ΄. ἔσται οὖν ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ γ΄ κα΄, ὁ δὲ μετ’ αὐτὸν ἑξῆς κδ΄. καὶ ἐπεὶ δεῖ ἐπὶ θ΄ εἶναι τοῦ κδ΄, δεῖ ἄρα τὸν ἀντὶ τοῦ κδ΄ τασσόμενον θ΄ ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ κδ΄. δεῖ ἄρα εὑρεῖν ἀριθμόν, ὃς ἐλάχιστος ὢν ἕξει θ΄ καὶ κδ΄. λαμβάνω τὸ μέγιστον κοινὸν μέτρον τοῦ θ΄ καὶ τοῦ κδ΄· ἔστι δ’ ὁ γ΄. ἐὰν οὖν ὁποτέρου αὐτῶν λαβὼν τὸν γ΄ ἐπὶ τὸν λοιπὸν πολλαπλασιάσω, ἕξω τὸν ἔχοντα ἄμφω τὰ μέρη· τοῦ δὲ κδ΄ τὸ τρίτον ἐστὶν η΄, ταῦτα ἐπὶ τὸν θ΄ ποιεῖ τὸν οβ΄. τάσσω οὖν ἀντὶ τοῦ κδ΄ τὸν οβ΄· ὁ δὲ τούτου ἑξῆς καὶ ἐπὶ θ΄· ἔστιν ὁ π΄. ὁ δὲ ἡγούμενος τοῦ τετραχόρδου

[ 719 ]

ἔσται ὁ ξγ΄ τριπλασίων τοῦ κα΄, ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ οβ΄ τοῦ κδ΄. ὁ δὲ τελευταῖος καὶ ἑπόμενος ὁ πδ΄ καὶ αὐτὸς τριπλασίων τοῦ κη΄· ἔσται οὖν ξγ΄ οβ΄ π΄ πδ΄. Ἀρέσκει δ’ αὐτῷ καὶ ἕτερον εἶναι τετράχορδον ἐξ ἡγουμένου τονιαίου διαστήματος τοῦ ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ μέσου τοῦ ἐπὶ ζ΄ καὶ τελευταίου τοῦ ἐπὶ κζ΄. καὶ εὑρεθήσεται ἐν ἀριθμοῖς τῇ αὐτῇ ἐφόδῳ τῶν προεκτεθέντων ρξη΄ ρπθ΄ σιϚ΄ σκδ΄. Ἐκκειμένων οὖν τῶν τετραχόρδων ἐν τοῖς εὑρεθεῖσιν ἀριθμοῖς, ἐπειδὴ τοὺς ἄκρους αὐτῶν τῶν τριῶν τετραχόρδων - εἰσὶ δ’ οἱ ἄκροι καὶ ἐλάχιστοι ὁ λϚ΄ καὶ ὁ ξγ΄ καὶ ρξη΄ - ζητῶ πάλιν ἀριθμόν, ὃς ἕξει λϚ΄ ξγ΄ ρξη΄. λαμβάνω πάλιν τοῦ λϚ΄ καὶ τοῦ ξγ΄ τὸ μέγιστον κοινὸν μέτρον· ἔστι δ’ ὁ θ΄· καὶ μερίσας τὸν λϚ΄ παρὰ τὸν θ΄ εὑρίσκω τὸν δ΄· τοῦτον ποιήσας ἐπὶ τὸν ξγ΄ γίνεται ὁ σνβ΄· οὗτος ἔχει λϚ΄ καὶ ξγ΄. θέλω δ’ αὐτὸν ἔχειν καὶ ρξη΄· λαμβάνω οὖν τοῦ σνβ΄ καὶ τοῦ ρξη΄ κοινὸν μέτρον· ἔστι δ’ ὁ πδ΄· λαβὼν οὖν ὁ ἡγούμενος ἀριθμὸς τῶν τριῶν τετραχόρδων ὁ φδ΄, ὁ δὲ τελευταῖος καὶ ἐπὶ γ΄ τούτου κοινὸς πάλιν τῶν τριῶν τετραχόρδων χοβ΄. [150] τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς εὑρήσεις οὕτως. ἐπισκεψάμενος ὁπότερος τῶν ἄκρων τοῦ ὁμοταγοῦς αὐτῷ τοσαυταπλασίων ἐστὶ τοῦ μέσου τοῦ τετραχόρδου τοσαυταπλασίονα ποίησον, οἷον ἐπεὶ τοῦ λϚ΄ ἐστὶν ὁ φδ΄ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκαπλασίων καὶ τοῦ ‹ξγ΄ ὁ φδ΄ ὀκταπλασίων καὶ τοῦ› ρξη΄ ὁ φδ΄ τριπλασίων, ποίησον ἕκαστον μὲν τῶν τεσσάρων ἀριθμῶν λϚ΄ μ΄ με΄ μη΄ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάκις· ἕκαστον δὲ τῶν ξγ΄ οβ΄ π΄ πδ΄ ὀκτάκις, ἕκαστον δὲ τῶν ρξη΄ ρπθ΄ σιϚ΄ σκδ΄ τρίς· καὶ γίνονται ἀριθμοὶ σύμφωνοι ταῖς καταγραφαῖς. λϚ΄ φδ΄ ξγ΄ φδ΄ ρξγ΄ φδ΄ ἐπὶ θ΄ ἐπὶ ζ΄ ἐπὶ η΄ μ΄ φξ΄ οβ΄ φοϚ΄ ρπθ΄ ρξζ΄ ἐπὶ η΄ ἐπὶ θ΄ ἐπὶ ζ΄ με΄ χλ΄ π΄ χμ΄ σιϚ΄ χμη΄ ἐπὶ ιε΄ ἐπὶ κ΄ ἐπὶ κζ΄ μη΄ χοβ΄ πδ΄ χοβ΄ σκδ΄ χοβ΄ Τούτων οὖν δεδειγμένων ἐπεδείχθησαν, τίνες οἱ συντεθέντες τὸν ἐπίτριτον ἐπιμόριοι ἐλάττους μὲν ὄντες αὐτοῦ ἐν συμμέτροις δ’ ὑπεροχαῖς πρὸς ἀλλήλους θεωρούμενοι. καὶ γὰρ τὴν εἰς δύο ἐπιμορίους αὐτοῦ διαίρεσιν καὶ σύνθεσιν ὑπεδείξαμεν καὶ τὴν εἰς τρεῖς, ἐξ ὧν συντίθεται ἡ ἐλαχίστη τῶν συμφωνιῶν εἰς τὰς κατὰ γένος διαφοράς, τάς τ’ ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι χρόας ἐξαλλάττομεν. Ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἐλάττοσι τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου ἐπιμορίοις ἐτάχθησαν εὐλόγως αἱ ἐμμέλειαι· οὐκ ἐν πᾶσι μέντοι, ἀλλ’ ἐν τοῖς συντεθεῖσι τὸν ἐπίτριτον. οὗτοι οἰκείως ἀπεδόθησαν ταῖς συντεθείσαις εἰς τὴν ἐλαχίστην συμφωνίαν ἐμμελείαις, ἐπείπερ ἡ ἐλαχίστη συμφωνία ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ λόγῳ ἀποδέδοται. τῶν συντιθέντων δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐμμελῶν φθόγγων τοὺς ἐμμελεστέρους καὶ τοὺς μετὰ τούτους εὗρε τῷ αὐτῷ κανόνι χρησάμενος, ᾧ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν συμφωνιῶν ἐχρήσατο πρὸς ἀνάκρισιν τῶν συμφωνοτέρων. ἦσαν δὲ συμφωνότατοι οἱ δίχα ἔγγιστα διαιροῦντες ‹τὸ διὰ πασῶν›, ὧν συμφωνότερος ὁ ἡμιόλιος, ἅτε δὴ ἔγγιστα ὢν τῆς ἰσότητος. [151]

[ 720 ]

ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΥΠΟΜΝΗΜΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΑΡΜΟΝΙΚΩΝ.

[ 721 ]

α΄. Λάβοιμεν δ’ ἂν ἕως τοῦ τὸν δὲ τόνον ἐπόγδοον. ΠΡ Ό Τ Ε ΡΟ Ν Μ Ὲ Ν Ὁ Πτολεμαῖος τὰ συνηθέστερα γένη τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου ἐκ τοῦ λόγου δεικνὺς παρέπεμπε ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι, νῦν δ’ ἀντιστρόφως ἀπὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν γενῶν διὰ μόνης τῆς αἰσθήσεως συνιστᾶν βούλεται ἐκ τῶν κιθαρικῶν νόμων, ἔπειτ’ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν παραπέμπειν τὰς ἁρμογὰς τοῖς ἀκολούθοις λόγοις. καὶ γὰρ οὔθ’ ὁ λόγος καθ’ αὑτὸν χωρὶς αἰσθήσεως οἷός τε ποτ’ ἐστὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἡρμοσμένον συστήσασθαι, οὔτε μὴν πάλιν ἡ αἴσθησις καθ’ αὑτὴν χωρὶς λόγου, ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν λόγος διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως, ἡ δ’ αἴσθησις διὰ τοῦ λόγου· ἢ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν λόγος μόνος τῇ αἰσθήσει ὑπηρέτιδι χρώμενος. καὶ γὰρ οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς, ὃς συνίστησι μὲν καθ’ αὑτὸν τὸ ἡρμοσμένον, κρίνει δὲ διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως, πρὸς ἣν καὶ συντάττειν αὐτὸ ἀεὶ εἴωθεν, εἴτε καλῶς τοῦτο ἥρμοσται παρ’ αὐτοῦ, εἴτε μή. δεῖ δ’ εἰδέναι, ὅτι ἐν τῷ τετραχόρδῳ, ὃ δὴ ἐν λόγῳ ἐπιτρίτῳ συνίσταται, οἱ μὲν ἄκροι ἑστῶτές εἰσι· λόγον γὰρ ἀεί ποτ’ ἐπίτριτον ἔχουσιν· οἱ δὲ μέσοι κατὰ τὰ γένη τῆς ἁρμονίας κινοῦνται. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ ἐπίτριτος ἐκ τῶν ἐπιμορίων συνίσταται διαφόρως καὶ τρία ἔχει τὸ τετράχορδον διαστήματα· διάφοροι γὰρ ἐπιμόριοι λόγοι τρεῖς τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον συνιστῶσιν· ὡς οἱ μβ΄ μη΄ νβ΄ νϚ΄. ὁ γὰρ νϚ΄ τοῦ μβ΄ ἐπὶ γ΄, τοῦ δὲ νβ΄ ἐπὶ ιγ΄ καὶ οὗτος αὖθις τοῦ μη΄ ἐπὶ ιβ΄ καὶ οὗτος τοῦ μβ΄ ἐπὶ ζ΄ καὶ σύγκειται ἐξ ἐπὶ ιγ΄ ἐπὶ ιβ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ζ΄. Καὶ αὖθις ἄλλος ἐπὶ γ΄ ἐξ ἐπὶ θ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ιη΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ιε΄ ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ κ΄ ιη΄ ιϚ΄ ιε΄, καὶ ἐξ ἐπὶ ιγ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ιβ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ζ΄ ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ κη΄ κϚ΄ κδ΄ κα΄, καὶ ἐξ ἐπὶ ιε΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ιδ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ λβ΄ λ΄ κη΄ κδ΄, καὶ ἐξ ἄλλων μυρίων, ἵνα μὴ καθ’ ἕκαστον λέγω. τὸ μὲν πάντας παραλαμβάνειν εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου σύστασιν λόγος φύσεως ἀπεκώλυσε. [152] Φησὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν λέγων περὶ χρωμάτων, ὅτι “τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ἔχει ταῦτα ταῖς συμφωνίαις· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς εὐλογίστοις χρώματα, καθάπερ ἐκεῖ τὰς συμφωνίας, ἥδιστα τῶν χρωμάτων εἶναι δοκεῖ, οἷον τὸ ἁλουργὸν καὶ φοινικοῦν καὶ ὀλίγ’ ἄττα τοιαῦτα, δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ αἱ συμφωνίαι ὀλίγαι.” Αἱ γὰρ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς εὐλογίστοις συνιστάμεναι ἡδεῖαί εἰσι καὶ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς εὔφοροι, αἱ δ’ ἐν τοῖς ἀλογίστοις συγκεχυμέναι καὶ ἄλογοι. ὥστε μόνοι οἱ ιε΄ παρελήφθησαν εἰς συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ ἐπὶ γ΄, ὁ ἐπὶ δ΄, ὁ ἐπὶ ε΄ ὁ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄, ὁ ἐπὶ ζ΄, ὁ ἐπὶ η΄, ὁ ἐπὶ θ΄, ὁ ἐπὶ ι΄, ὁ ἐπὶ ια΄, ὁ ἐπὶ ιδ΄, ὁ ἐπὶ ιε΄, ὁ ἐπὶ κ΄, ὁ ἐπὶ κα΄, ὁ ἐπὶ κγ΄, ὁ ἐπὶ κζ΄ καὶ ὁ ἐπὶ με΄. ἐκ τούτων οὖν τρεῖς ἀποτελοῦσι τὸν ‹ἐπὶ› γ΄ ἢ καὶ δύο, ἐξ ὧν τούτων τῶν δύο ὁ εἷς εἰς δύο πρώτους ἀναλύεται· καὶ εἰ μὲν συντιθέντες οἱ δύο κατὰ τὸν ἑπόμενον τόπον ἐλάττους τοῦ ἑνός εἰσι τοῦ κατὰ τὸν ἡγούμενον, πυκνὸν τὸ σύστημα λέγεται, εἰ δ’ οὔ, ἄπυκνον. δεῖ δ’ εἰδέναι, ὡς οὐδὲν ἄλλως αἰσθανόμεθα τὰς τῶν φθόγγων πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαφοράς, ἐξ ὧν τὸ σύστημα, εἰ μὴ ἐκ τῆς κατατομῆς τῆς διὰ τοῦ ὀξυκέντρου καρκίνου. οὐδὲ γὰρ δυνάμεθα ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ἐπὶ γ΄ διαισθανθῆναι ἄλλως διαφορὰν φθόγγου πρὸς φθόγγον· παχυμερῶς γὰρ αἰσθήσεις ἀντιλαμβάνονται· καὶ πῶς ἂν ἐπὶ δ΄ ἢ ἐπὶ ε΄

[ 722 ]

ἢ ἐπὶ κ΄ ἀντιλήψονται; κάτωθεν δὲ τοῦ ἐπὶ γ΄ ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡμιολίου καὶ τοῦ διπλασίου αἰσθανθήσονται, πλὴν οὐδὲ τούτων ἐπ’ ἄπειρον, ἀλλὰ μέχρι καὶ τετραπλασίου δύναται προχωρεῖν ἢ φωνῆς πρὸς φωνήν, ἢ φθόγγου πρὸς φθόγγον διαφορά· ἐπέκεινα δ’ οὐ πέφυκεν, εἰ μὴ μέλλοι ἡ μὲν ὀξυτάτη διαρραγήσεσθαι, ἡ δὲ βαρυτάτη ἄφωνος διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἄνεσιν γενήσεσθαι. Πρῶτον οὖν ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἐκτίθησιν ἐν ἑνὶ τετραχόρδῳ τῆς κιθάρας τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου συνισταμένην ἑκάστου γένους ἁρμογήν, εἶτα τηρεῖ μὲν ἕνα φθόγγον ἀκίνητον, μεταφέρει δὲ τοὺς λοιπούς, ὅπῃ ἄν γε καὶ τύχῃ ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύ, ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ, ἢ ἐπ’ ἀμφότερα, ὥστε τὸ μέλος ὅλον ἀνάρμοστον γενέσθαι· εἶτα πρὸς τὸν ἀκίνητον φθόγγον συνίστησι πάλιν διὰ μόνης τῆς αἰσθήσεως κατὰ τοὺς κιθαρῳδοὺς ὁμοίως ἑκάστου γένους ἁρμογήν, καὶ δείκνυσιν ἐναργῶς ἐντεῦθεν, ποῖοι μὲν λόγοι κατ’ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς εἰρημένας τοιαύτας ἁρμογὰς τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς γένους ἴσοι εἰσίν, ποῖοι δ’ ὑπερέχοντες καὶ ἐλλείποντες. καὶ οὕτως ἐπανορθοῖ καὶ συνίστησι τὸ καλῶς ἡρμοσμένον. [153]

[ 723 ]

Τῶν δὴ παρὰ τοῖς ἕως τοῦ ὁ δὲ τῶν ΒΔ ἐπὶ ζ΄. Ἡ Μ Ὲ Ν Ἀ Κ Ρ Ί Β Ε Ι Α ἀπαιτεῖ, ἵνα τριῶν ὄντων λόγων καὶ διαστημάτων ἐν τετραχόρδῳ τὸ μὲν μέγιστον ἐν τῷ ἡγουμένῳ ᾖ, τὸ δὲ μεῖζον ἐν τῷ μέσῳ, τὸ δ’ ἔλαττον ἐν τῷ ἑπομένῳ, ὥστε καὶ ἐνταῦθα, τοῦ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ ἐν τῷ ἡγουμένῳ κειμένου, τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐπὶ ζ΄ διαλυομένου εἰς δύο λόγους τόν τ’ ἐπὶ ια΄ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ κα΄, τὸν μὲν ἐπὶ ια΄ προηγεῖσθαι, τὸν δ’ ἐπὶ κα΄ ἕπεσθαι. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ οὕτω κειμένων συγχέονται οἱ ἀριθμοί, καὶ λεπτῶν καὶ πρώτων καὶ δευτέρων καὶ τρίτων δεόμεθα. αὐτὸν δὴ τὸν ἐπὶ ζ΄ διαλύομεν εἰς ἐπὶ κα΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ια΄ μόνον λογιζόμενον καὶ ἔξω τοῦ τετραχόρδου. καὶ οὕτως ἐν τῷ τετραχόρδῳ κεῖται πρῶτος ἐν τῷ μέσῳ ὁ ‹ἐπὶ› κα΄, ἐν δέ γε τῷ ἑπομένῳ ὁ ἐπὶ ια΄ καὶ μένουσι καὶ οἱ ἀριθμοὶ ἀσύγχυτοι, ΄ γὰρ καὶ ρε΄, ὧν ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τὸ ἕκτον ιε΄· εἶτα ρι΄, ὧν ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τὸ εἰκοστόπρωτον πρὸς τὰ ρε΄ ε΄· εἶτα ρκ΄, ὧν ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τὸ ἑνδέκατον πρὸς τὰ ρι΄ ι΄. καὶ οὕτω γίνεται τὸ πυκνὸν χρωματικὸν σύντονον ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τμήματι τοῦ α΄ κεφαλαίου τοῦ δευτέρου βιβλίου. ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ ἐκτίθησιν ὁ Πτολεμαῖος κατὰ τοὺς κιθαρῳδοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀξυτέρῳ τετραχόρδῳ τοῦ Ἰαστίου τόνου τὴν τοῦ συντόνου χρώματος γένους ἁρμογήν, ἥτις κατὰ τοὺς κανονικοὺς ἁρμόζεται ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ κατὰ τὸν ἐπὶ κα΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ια΄ καὶ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ λόγον. Εἶτα πάλιν ἐκτίθησιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τετραχόρδῳ ὁμοίως κατὰ τοὺς κιθαρῳδοὺς τὴν τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους ἁρμογήν, ἥτις πάλιν κατὰ τοὺς κανονικοὺς ἁρμόζεται ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ κατὰ τὸν ἐπὶ κ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ θ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ζ΄ λόγον, καὶ δείκνυσιν ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι ἡ νήτη τοῦ συντόνου χρωματικοῦ γένους ὀξυτέρα ἐστὶ τῆς νήτης τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους, καθάπερ καὶ τοῖς κανονικοῖς τοῦτο δοκεῖ. καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ λόγος, ὅς ἐστιν ἡγούμενος τοῦ συντόνου χρώματος γένους, μείζων ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ζ΄ λόγου, ὅς ἐστι πάλιν ἡγούμενος τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους. ὅσῳ γὰρ ἐν τῇ κιθάρᾳ λόγος λόγου ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ μείζων καθέστηκε, τοσούτῳ γ’ ἄρα καὶ ὁ φθόγγος φθόγγου ὀξύτερος. θεωρεῖται δ’ ἡ ὑπεροχή, ᾗ ὑπερέχει ὁ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ λόγος τοῦ ἐπὶ ζ΄ ἐν λόγῳ ἐπὶ μη΄, καθάπερ διὰ τῶν ἀριθμητικῶν ὅρων ἀκριβῶς δείκνυται. τρόπους δ’ ἐνταῦθα καλεῖ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος τὰ τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου γένη, ἅπερ ὑπὸ τῶν κιθαρῳδῶν μαλακὰ χρώματα καλεῖται· [154] τρόποι δὲ τοιαῦτα ‹τὰ› γένη προσαγορεύονται, διότι ἔνεστιν ἐξ αὐτῶν ποτὲ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ ἐναρμόνιον, ποτὲ δ’ ἐπὶ τὸ διάτονον ἦθος τρέπεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν τῶν εἰρημένων γενῶν ταῦτα τὴν σύστασιν κέκτηται.

[ 724 ]

Πάλιν μένοντος ἕως τοῦ συμπληροῖ τὸν ἐπὶ γ΄. ἘΝ Δ Ὲ Τ ῷ δευτέρῳ τμήματι τοῦ τοιούτου κεφαλαίου πάλιν ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἐκτίθησιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τετραχόρδῳ ὁμοίως κατὰ τοὺς κιθαρῳδοὺς τὴν τοῦ μαλακοῦ ἐντόνου γένους ἁρμογήν, ἥτις κατὰ τοὺς κανονικοὺς ἁρμόζεται ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ κατ’ ἐπὶ κζ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ζ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ η΄ λόγον, καὶ δείκνυσιν ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι ἡ νήτη τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους ὀξυτέρα ἐστὶ τῆς νήτης τοῦ μαλακοῦ ἐντόνου γένους, καθάπερ καὶ τοῖς κανονικοῖς τοῦτο δοκεῖ. καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἐπὶ ζ΄ λόγος, ὅς ἐστιν, ὡς εἴρηται, ἡγούμενος τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους, μείζων ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ η΄ λόγου, ὅς ἐστι πάλιν ἡγούμενος τοῦ μαλακοῦ ἐντόνου γένους. θεωρεῖται δ’ ἡ ὑπεροχή, ᾗ ὑπερέχει ὁ ἐπὶ ζ΄ λόγος τοῦ ἐπὶ η΄ ἐν λόγῳ ἐπὶ ξγ΄, καθάπερ διὰ τῶν ἀριθμητικῶν ὅρων ἀκριβῶς δείκνυται. στερεὰ δὲ τετράχορδα καλεῖται τὰ ἔχοντα τὸν διαζευκτικὸν τόνον, ταὐτὸν δ’ εἰπεῖν τὰ διατονικά.

[ 725 ]

Ἑξῆς πεποιήσθω ἕως τοῦ συντόνου διατόνου γένους. ἘΝ Τ ῷ Τ Ρ Ί Τῼ τμήματι τοῦ τοιούτου κεφαλαίου πάλιν ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἐκτίθησι κατὰ τοὺς κιθαρῳδοὺς ἐν τῷ βαρυτέρῳ τετραχόρδῳ τοῦ Αἰολίου τόνου τήν τε τοῦ διτονιαίου γένους ἁρμογήν, ἥτις κατὰ τοὺς κανονικούς, ὡς ‹εἴρηται›, ἁρμόζεται ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ κατὰ τὸ καλούμενον ὑπὸ μὲν τῶν μουσικῶν ἡμιτόνιον, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν κανονικῶν λεῖμμα, καὶ ἐπὶ η΄ λόγον καὶ ἐπὶ η΄ λόγον, καὶ ἔτι τὴν τοῦ συντόνου διατόνου γένους, ἥτις πάλιν κατὰ τοὺς κανονικοὺς ἁρμόζεται ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ κατὰ τὸν ἐπὶ ιε΄ καὶ ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ ἐπὶ θ΄ λόγον. καὶ δείκνυσιν ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἡ νήτη τοῦ διτονιαίου διατόνου γένους ὀξυτέρα ἐστὶ τῆς νήτης τοῦ συντόνου διατόνου γένους, καθὼς καὶ τοῖς κανονικοῖς τοῦτο δοκεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ παρυπάτη τοῦ συντόνου διατόνου γένους τῆς παρυπάτης τοῦ διτονιαίου διατόνου γένους. καὶ γὰρ ὥσπερ ὁ ἐπὶ η΄ λόγος, ὅς ἐστιν ἡγούμενος τοῦ διτονιαίου διατόνου γένους, μείζων ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄ λόγου, ὅς ἐστι πάλιν ἡγούμενος τοῦ συντόνου διατόνου γένους, οὕτω γε καὶ ὁ ἐπὶ ιε΄, ὅς ἐστιν ἔσχατος [155] τοῦ συντόνου διατόνου γένους, μείζων ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ιη΄ λόγου τοῦ ἀντὶ τοῦ λείμματος παρειλημμένου, ὅς ἐστι πάλιν ὁ ἔσχατος τοῦ διτονιαίου διατόνου γένους. θεωρεῖται ἡ μὲν ὑπεροχή, ᾗ ὑπερέχει ὁ ἐπὶ η΄ λόγος τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄ λόγου, ἐν λόγῳ ἐπὶ π΄, ἡ δ’ ὑπεροχή, ᾗ ὑπερέχει ὁ ἐπὶ ιε΄ λόγος τοῦ ἐπὶ ιη΄ λόγου, ὃς ἀντὶ τοῦ λείμματος, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, παρείληπται, ἐν ἐπὶ ε΄, καθάπερ διὰ τῶν ἀριθμητικῶν ὅρων ἀκριβῶς δείκνυται.

[ 726 ]

Πάλιν μένοντος ἕως τοῦ ὁ δὲ τῶν ϜΖ ἐπὶ θ΄. ἘΝ Τ ῷ Π Έ Μ Π Τῼ τμήματι τοῦ τοιούτου κεφαλαίου πάλιν ἐκτίθησιν ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τετραχόρδῳ κατὰ τοὺς κιθαρῳδοὺς τὴν τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους ἁρμογήν, ἥτις κατὰ τοὺς κανονικοὺς ἁρμόζεται, ὡς εἴρηται, ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ κατ’ ἐπὶ κ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ θ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ζ΄ λόγον, καὶ δείκνυσιν ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι ὀξυτέρα ἐστὶν ἡ παρυπάτη τοῦ διτονιαίου διατόνου γένους τῆς παρυπάτης τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους, καθὼς καὶ τοῖς κανονικοῖς τοῦτο δοκεῖ. καὶ ὁ ἐπὶ ιη΄ λόγος, ὅς ἐστιν ὁ ἔσχατος τοῦ διτονιαίου διατόνου γένους, μείζων ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ κ΄ λόγος, ὅς ἐστι πάλιν ὁ ἔσχατος τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους. θεωρεῖται δ’ ἡ ὑπεροχή, ᾗ ὑπερέχει ὁ ἐπὶ ιη΄ λόγος τοῦ ἐπὶ κ΄ λόγου ἐν λόγῳ ἐπὶ ρπθ΄, καθάπερ διὰ τῶν ἀριθμητικῶν ὅρων ἀκριβῶς δείκνυται.

[ 727 ]

Λοιπὸν δὲ μένοντος ἕως τοῦ τουτέστι τοῦ ἐπὶ θ΄. ΠΆ Λ Ι Ν Ὁ ΠΤΟΛ Ε Μ Α ῖΟ ς ἐκτίθησιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τετραχόρδῳ κατὰ τοὺς κιθαρῳδοὺς τὴν τοῦ συντόνου χρώματος γένους ἁρμογήν, ἥτις κατὰ τοὺς κανονικοὺς ἁρμόζεται ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ κατ’ ἐπὶ κα΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ια΄ καὶ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄, καὶ δείκνυσιν ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι ἡ παρυπάτη τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους ὀξυτέρα ἐστὶ τῆς παρυπάτης τοῦ χρωματικοῦ συντόνου γένους, καθάπερ καὶ τοῖς κανονικοῖς τοῦτο δοκεῖ. καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἐπὶ κ΄ λόγος, ὅς ἐστιν ἔσχατος, ὡς εἴρηται, τοῦ μαλακοῦ διατόνου γένους, μείζων ἐστὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ κα΄ λόγου, ὅς ἐστιν ἔσχατος τοῦ συντόνου χρώματος γένους. θεωρεῖται δ’ ἡ ὑπεροχή, ᾗ ὑπερέχει ὁ ἐπὶ κ΄ λόγος τοῦ ἐπὶ κα΄ λόγου, ἐν λόγῳ ἐπὶ υμ΄, καθάπερ διὰ τῶν ἀριθμητικῶν ὅρων ἀκριβῶς δείκνυται. Ἀναγκαῖον δ’ εἰδέναι, ὅτι οὐ δύναται ἡ ἀκοὴ τὰς τῶν ἐλαττόνων τῶν [156] παρίσων λόγων ὑπεροχάς τε καὶ ἐλλείψεις ἀκριβῶς διαισθάνεσθαι· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οἱ κιθαρῳδοὶ πολλαχοῦ τοῦ καλῶς ἡρμοσμένου διαμαρτάνουσιν. εἰδέναι δεῖ καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι τῶν τοῦ ἡρμοσμένου γενῶν ἃ μὲν ἐξ ἰδίων λόγων συνίστανται, ἃ δ’ ἐκ κοινῶν, ἃ δ’ ἐκ κοινῶν τε καὶ ἰδίων, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ κιθάρᾳ τινὰ τῶν γενῶν ἐξ ἄλλων προϋποκειμένων γενῶν δύνανται ἁρμόζεσθαι μηδενὸς λόγου κινουμένου ἐν τῇ ἁρμογῇ. διὸ καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ταῦτα ἐν τῷ προκειμένῳ κεφαλαίῳ δείκνυσι διὰ τῆς τῶν γενῶν μεταλήψεως. εἰδέναι δεῖ καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι οἱ κιθαρῳδοὶ τετράσι τόνοις ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐχρῶντο, τῷ Ὑπολυδίῳ, τῷ Ἰαστίῳ, τῷ Αἰολίῳ καὶ τῷ Ὑπεριαστίῳ.

[ 728 ]

Οὐδένες δὲ λόγοι ἕως τοῦ ἅπερ προύκειτο δεῖξαι. ΠΡ Ώ Η Ν Μ Ὲ Ν Ἐ Ν τοῖς φθάσασι κατὰ τὸ μαλακὸν διάτονον γένος τὸ συμπληρούμενον ἐξ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ζ΄ τῶν δύο διαστημάτων τὸν ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ δύο λόγοι συνεπλήρουν, ὧν ὁ μὲν εἷς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἦν μείζων, ὁ δ’ ἕτερος ἐλάττων. οὐκ ἦν δὲ ὁ μὲν μείζων ἐπὶ η΄, ὁ δ’ ἐλάττων ἐπὶ ιη΄, ὥστ’ εἶναι τοὺς ποιοῦντας αὐτοὺς τοὺς δύο τὸν ιϚ΄, τὸν ιη΄, τὸν ιθ΄. οὐ γὰρ ὁ ιθ΄ πρὸς τὸν ιϚ΄ συνάγει τὸν ἐπὶ Ϛ΄, ἀλλὰ τῶν δύο λόγων τῶν ποιούντων τὸν ἐπὶ Ϛ΄ ὁ μὲν μείζων ἦν ἐπὶ θ΄, ὥσπερ ὁ κ΄ πρὸς τὸν ιη΄, ὁ δ’ ἐλάττων ἐπὶ κ΄, ὡς ὁ κα΄ πρὸς τὸν κ΄, ὃς δὴ κα΄ συνάγει πρὸς τὸν ιη΄ τὸν ἐπὶ Ϛ΄· ἔνι δ’ ὁ ἐπὶ κ΄ ἔχων μόριον ἔλαττον τοῦ ἐπὶ ιη΄· διὸ καὶ τούτου ἐλάττων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐπὶ κ΄. πρώην μὲν οὖν ταῦτα· νῦν δ’ ἐν τούτοις δεικνύει, πῶς τὸν ἐπὶ ζ΄ λόγον συμπληροῦσιν ἄλλοι δύο λόγοι, ὁ μὲν μείζων, ὁ δ’ ἐλάττων, ὥστε γενέσθαι τὸ σύντονον χρωματικὸν ἐκ τριῶν διαστημάτων· οὐ μὴν μείζων μέν ἐστιν ἐν τούτοις ὁ ἐπὶ θ΄ ὡς πρὸς τὸν ιη΄ ὁ κ΄, ἐλάττων δ’ ὁ ἐπὶ κ΄ ὡς πρὸς τὸν κ΄ ὁ κα΄. οὐ γὰρ οὗτος πρὸς τὸν ιη΄ συνάγει τὸν ἐπὶ ζ΄, ἀλλὰ συμπληροῦσιν αὐτὸν δὴ τὸν ἐπὶ ζ΄ δύο λόγοι, μείζων μὲν ὁ ἐπὶ ια΄ ὡς πρὸς τὸν κβ΄ ὁ κδ΄, ἐλάττων δ΄ ὁ ἐπὶ κα΄ ὡς ὁ κβ΄ πρὸς τὸν κα΄, πρὸς ὃν ὁ κδ΄ συνάγει τὸν ἐπὶ ζ΄.

[ 729 ]

β΄.

[ 730 ]

Αἱ μὲν οὖν ἕως τοῦ παραβολῆς. [ 1 5 7 ] ΠΑ Ρ Έ ΒΑ Λ Ε Κ Α Ὶ ἀνέκρινεν ‹ἐν› τῷ πρώτῳ τοὺς ἀνισοτόνους φθόγγους καὶ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν τετραχόρδων περὶ τὰ τρία γένη τῆς ἁρμονίας, τὸ διάτονον, τὸ ἐναρμόνιον καὶ τὸ μέσον τούτων τὸ χρωματικὸν συνέστησε· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ χρωματικὸν ἐκλήθη οἶμαι, ὅτι τοῦ μὲν διατονικοῦ κατὰ τόνους διῃρημένου - ἐπὶ η΄ γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ λεῖμμα τοῦτο συνίστησιν, ὅ ἐστι τόνος, τόνος καὶ ἡμιτόνιον - , τοῦ δ’ ἐναρμονίου κατὰ διέσεις - δίτονον γὰρ καὶ δίεσις καὶ δίεσις τοῦτο συνίστησιν, ὡς γίνεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸ δύο ἡμίσεος τόνων - , τὸ χρωματικὸν κατὰ ἡμιτόνια συνίσταται - τριημιτόνιον γὰρ καὶ ἡμιτόνιον καὶ ἡμιτόνιον τοῦτο συνίστησιν, τὸ δ’ ἡμιτόνιον μέσον τόνου καὶ διέσεως ἐστίν. Διδάξας δὲ περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς αὐτῶν καὶ μᾶλλον περὶ τῶν συνηθεστέρων - οὐ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τῶν ὀκτὼ εἶπεν, ὧν τὰ μὲν πέντε διατονικὰ λέγονται, τὰ δὲ δύο χρωματικά, τὸ δ’ ἓν ἐναρμόνιον· διὸ οὐδὲ κυρίως ἂν γένος κληθείη τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὡς χρόας ἤγουν εἴδη μὴ ἔχον - νῦν εἰσβάλλει δι’ ὀργάνου ἑνός, ὃ δὴ ἑλικῶνά φασιν ἀπ’ ὄρους Ἑλικῶνος, ὅπου αἱ Μοῦσαι μυθεύονται χορεύειν, δεῖξαι ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ τὰς ἓξ συμφωνίας συνισταμένας ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸν δὴ τὸν ἀρχικὸν ἐπὶ η΄, καθ’ ὃ διαφέρει ὁ διὰ πέντε τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων, ὅτι καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ γ΄ ὁ ἡμιόλιος τῷ ἐπὶ η΄ διαφέρει, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ϛ΄, οὗ ὁ η΄ ἐπὶ γ΄, ὁ δὲ θ΄ ἡμιόλιος, ὁ δὲ θ΄ πρὸς αὐτὸν δὴ τὸν η΄ ἐπὶ η΄ λόγον ἔχει, πρὸς τὸν Ϛ΄ τὸν ἡμιόλιον συμπληροῖ. Ἀλλὰ πρότερον περὶ τῶν εἰδῶν τῶν γενῶν λεκτέον. εἰσὶ γὰρ τῶν μὲν διατονικῶν αἱ πέντε χρόαι αὗται· διάτονον ὁμαλὸν ἐξ ἐπὶ θ΄, ἐπὶ ι΄, ἐπὶ ια΄ ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ, ἐπὶ δὲ τὸ ὀξὺ ἐναντίως· διάτονον σύντονον ἐξ ἐπὶ θ΄, ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ ἐπὶ ιε΄ ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ· διάτονον μαλακὸν ἐξ ἐπὶ ζ΄, ἐπὶ θ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ κ΄ ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ· μαλακὸν ἔντονον ἐξ ἐπὶ η΄, ἐπὶ ζ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ κζ΄ ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ· διτονιαῖον διάτονον ἐξ ἐπὶ η΄, ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ λείμματος. τοῦ δὲ χρωματικοῦ αἱ χρόαι δύο· χρωματικὸν σύντονον ἐξ ἐπὶ Ϛ΄, ἐπὶ ια΄ καὶ ἐπὶ κα΄ ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ, καὶ χρωματικὸν μαλακὸν ἐξ ἐπὶ ε΄, ἐπὶ ιδ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ κζ΄. καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸ ἐναρμόνιον ἐξ ἐπὶ δ΄, ἐπὶ κγ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ με΄. ἀλλὰ νῦν διὰ τοῦ ἑλικῶνος τὰς ἓξ συμφωνίας συνιστᾷ καὶ αὐτὸν δὴ τὸν τόνον, τὴν ἐπὶ γ΄ δηλονότι τὴν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων, τὴν ἡμιολίαν, ἥτις λέγεται διὰ πέντε, τὴν διὰ πασῶν τὴν καὶ διπλασίαν, τὴν διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων ἔχουσαν λόγον τὸν τῶν ὀκτὼ πρὸς τὰ τρία, τὴν διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε τὴν τριπλασίαν καὶ τὴν δὶς διὰ πασῶν τὴν καὶ τετραπλασίαν καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἐπὶ η΄. [158]

[ 731 ]

Γίνοιτο δ’ ἂν ἕως τοῦ ἁπλῶς ὡς τὸ ΑΒΓΔ. ΚΑΤ Ὰ Τ Ὸ Ν Ὀ Κ Τ Ά ΧΟ ΡΔ Ό Ν φησι κανόνα, καίτοι ἐν ὀκτὼ καὶ μόναις χορδαῖς οὐ δύνανται πᾶσαι αἱ συμφωνίαι συνίστασθαι· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων, οὔτε τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε, οὔτε τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ τρία ταῦτα, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων, τὸ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀναπληρούμενον διὰ πασῶν. ἔστιν οὖν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὁ ἑλικῶν οὗτος, ὅσον κατὰ τοὺς ἄκρους, ιβ΄ γὰρ καὶ Ϛ΄, τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον ἀποτελεῖ ἐν συμφωνίᾳ τῇ διὰ πασῶν. ἐπεὶ δ’ ὁ διπλάσιος λόγος ἐξ ἐπὶ γ΄ καὶ ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ αὖθις ἐπὶ γ΄ συνίσταται, ιβ΄ γὰρ καὶ θ΄ καὶ η΄ καὶ Ϛ΄, τῶν ἐντὸς δύο παραλλήλων τοὺς λόγους τούτους συνιστώντων πλὴν διαιρουμένων διὰ τῶν πλαγίων, ὡς κατὰ τὰς τομὰς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἐναπολαμβάνεσθαι, καθ’ οὓς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ λόγοι συνίστανται, εὑρίσκονται ἐντεῦθεν καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ τρεῖς συμφωνίαι ἐντὸς τῶν τοιούτων διαιρέσεων. καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο μᾶλλον τὸ ὄργανον χρησιμώτατον, ὅτι τὴν διὰ πασῶν συμφωνίαν ἐν τοῖς ἄκροις περιέχειν δυνάμενον τμηθείσης δίχα τῆς μιᾶς πλευρᾶς. ὅμως ζητηθέντων καὶ τῶν ἐντὸς αὐτῆς λόγων, τοῦ ἐπὶ γ΄ φημί, τοῦ ἐπὶ η΄ καὶ αὖθις ἐπὶ γ΄ καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ συμφωνίαι διὰ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν λόγων εὑρέθησαν πλὴν οὐχ ἅπαξ μία ἑκάστη, ἀλλὰ θαυμασίως καὶ φύσεως λόγῳ αἱ μὲν οἰκεῖαι πλεονάκις, αἱ δὲ παρεθεῖσαι διὰ τῆς τῶν μέσων ἀναπτύξεως ἅπαξ. ἡ γὰρ διὰ τεσσάρων τρίς, ὑπό τε τῶν ΑΓ καὶ ΘΚ, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ΗΜ καὶ ΖΔ, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ΛΗ καὶ ΕΘ. ἡ δὲ διὰ πέντε καὶ αὐτὴ τρίς, ὑπό τε τῶν ΑΓ καὶ ΗΜ, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ΘΚ καὶ ΖΔ, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ΒΖ καὶ ΛΗ· καὶ ἡ διὰ πασῶν τρὶς καὶ αὐτή, ὑπὸ τῶν ΑΓ καὶ ΖΔ, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ΗΜ καὶ ΛΗ, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ΒΖ καὶ ΘΕ· ἡ δὲ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων ἅπαξ, ὑπὸ τῶν ΗΜ καὶ ΘΕ· ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε ἅπαξ ὑπὸ τῶν ΑΓ καὶ ΛΗ, καὶ ἡ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἅπαξ καὶ αὐτὴ ὑπὸ τῶν ΑΓ καὶ ΕΘ· ὁ δὲ τόνος καὶ αὐτὸς ἅπαξ ὑπὸ τῶν ΘΚ καὶ ΗΜ.

[ 732 ]

Καὶ νοήσωμεν ἕως τοῦ ἀνακρινομένων λόγοις. ἈΠ ΟΨ Ά Λ Μ ΑΤ Ά Φ Η Σ Ι , Κ ΑΘ ’ ἃ τοὺς ἤχους αἱ χορδαὶ ἀποδιδοῦσιν, ὅπου εἰσὶ δηλονότι δεδεμέναι. εἰ γοῦν νοήσομέν φησι τὴν ἄνω κεραίαν τὴν [159] ΑΒ καὶ τὴν κάτω τὴν ΓΔ κατὰ τὰ ἀποψάλματα, τὰς δὲ κατὰ τὸ πλάγιον ἱσταμένας τὴν ΑΓ καὶ ΒΔ κατὰ τοὺς ἄκρους φθόγγους τὴν μὲν ΑΓ ὅλην, τὴν δὲ ΒΔ ἄλλως καὶ ἄλλως τεμνομένην κατὰ τὸν μεταβιβαζόμενον ἐν ταύτῃ ὑπαγωγέα, ὡς γίνεσθαι καὶ τὴν διὰ πασῶν πάντως συμφωνίαν κατὰ τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον τμηθείσης δίχα δι’ ὑπαγωγέως τοῦ ΑΖΕ· προσεκβάλωμεν δὲ καὶ ἴσην τῇ ΓΔ τὴν ΔΕ, ὡς φθάνειν τὸν ὑπαγωγέα μέχρι τοῦ Ε, κατατέμωμεν δὲ τοῖς οἰκείοις ἑκάστου γένους λόγοις τὴν ὑποκάτω ΓΔ, ὡς ποιῆσαι τὴν ΓΗ ἡμίσειαν τῆς ὅλης ΓΔ καὶ ταύτην διπλασίαν ἐκείνης· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ΕΓ τετραπλασίονα πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν ΓΗ καὶ αὖθις κατὰ τὸ Θ, ὡς εἶναι τὴν ΓΘ ἡμιολίαν τῆς ΘΔ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα πᾶσαν τὴν ΕΓ τριπλασίαν αὐτῆς δὴ τῆς ΓΘ· καὶ αὖθις ποιήσωμεν ἐντὸς τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτῆς μόνης τῆς ΓΔ τὴν μὲν ὅλην ΓΔ πρὸς τὴν ΓΗ διπλασίαν, τὴν δὲ ΓΘ πρὸς τὴν ΗΓ ἐπὶ γ΄, καὶ διὰ τῶν τομῶν χορδὰς παραλλήλους τῇ ΑΓ τείνωμεν, ποιήσομεν ἴσα τὰ μήκη πάντα τῶν χορδῶν, ὥστ’ ἐπιδέχεσθαι τὰ τετράχορδα ταῦτα τὴν ἑκάστου γένους ἀνάκρισιν. ἔσται γὰρ ὁ μὲν διπλάσιος λόγος, ὃν ἔχει ἡ ΓΔ πρὸς τὴν ΓΗ, ἐκ δύο τετραχόρδων καὶ τονικοῦ ἐπὶ η΄, ὁ δ’ ἐπὶ γ΄ λόγος, ὃν ἔχει ἡ ΓΘ πρὸς τὴν ΓΗ, ἐκ τετραχόρδου καὶ μόνου. ὁ δ’ ἡμιόλιος, ὃν ἔχει πᾶσα ἡ ΓΔ πρὸς τὴν ΓΘ, ἐκ τετραχόρδου καὶ τόνου· καὶ οὕτως ἀεὶ τὰ τετράχορδα προηγήσονται, ὥστε δέχεσθαι ταύτας τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν γενῶν κατὰ τοὺς οἰκείους λόγους, καθ’ ὡς καὶ δεδήλωται. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν τομῶν τῆς κάτω πλευρᾶς μετὰ τῆς προστεθείσης ἴσης τὰς κατὰ τὸ ὀρθὸν ἱσταμένας καταμετρήσει τις, οἷον ὡς ἡ ΕΓ πρὸς τὴν ΕΔ, οὕτως ἡ ΓΑ πρὸς τὴν ΔΖ· ὡσαύτως καὶ ὡς ἡ ὅλη ΕΓ πρὸς τὴν ΓΗ, τετραπλασίως γάρ, οὕτως ἡ ΑΓ πρὸς τὴν ΔΟ· δὶς γὰρ διὰ πασῶν καταβιβασθέντος τοῦ ὑπαγωγέως ἀπὸ τοῦ Α ἐπὶ τὸ Ε.

[ 733 ]

Ἔχει δ’ ὁ μὲν πρῶτος ἕως τοῦ τῶν χορδῶν. ΜΕΘ ’ Ὃ ἜΔ Ε Ι Ξ Ε καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν δύο τρόπων τῶν ὀργάνων, πῶς αἱ συμφωνίαι συνάγονται· τὰς διαφορὰς τούτων τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀποδίδωσι. προχειρότερον μὲν γὰρ παρὰ τοῦτον ἐκεῖνος ἔχει φησίν, ὅτι οὐ κινεῖ τὰς ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων διαστάσεις τῶν χορδῶν, ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ μίαν τῷ μήκει χορδὴν διὰ μικρῶν τινων ὑπαγωγιδίων διάφορον κατὰ τοὺς φθόγγους καθιστᾷ, ὡς ποτὲ μὲν ἔχειν φέρε εἰπεῖν αὐτοὺς λόγον διπλασίονα, ποτὲ δ’ ἐπὶ γ΄, ποτὲ δ’ ἡμιόλιον. [160]

[ 734 ]

Οὗτος δὲ ἕως τοῦ ἐπιψαύσεων μεταβάσεις. ὍΤ Ι Τ Ὰ ς ΧΟ ΡΔ Ὰ ς ἐξαλλάσει κατὰ τὸ μῆκος διὰ τοῦ κοινοῦ αὐτοῦ ὑπαγωγέως, καὶ κινοῦνται αἱ διαστάσεις τῶν χορδῶν, καθ’ ἃς οἱ φθόγγοι διαφέρουσι. τριχῶς γάρ, ὡς εἴρηται, διαφέρουσιν ἢ τῇ περιοχῇ, καθ’ ἣν παχυτέρα ἢ λεπτοτέρα ἡ χορδή ἐστι σῳζομένης πάντως καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς διαστάσεως καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς τάσεως, ἢ τῇ τάσει, καθ’ ἣν ἡ μὲν κατ’ ἐπίτασιν τείνεται, ἡ δὲ κατ’ ἄνεσιν σῳζομένων δηλονότι τῶν ἄλλων, ἢ τῇ διαστάσει, καθ’ ἣν ἡ μὲν μακροτέρα, ἡ δὲ βαρχυτέρα σῳζομένων τῶν ἄλλων τῶν αὐτῶν. ἐνταῦθα τοίνυν κατὰ τὴν διάστασιν ἡ διαφορὰ τῶν φθόγγων ἐστίν· προχειρότερον οὖν ἐν πᾶσι τὸ ὂν τοῦ γινομένου οὐ μὴν δ’, ἀλλὰ καὶ οὗτος ὁ τρόπος πρόχειρον ἔχει, ὅτι οὐ πολλῶν χρῄζει τῶν ὑπαγωγιδίων, ἀλλ’ εἷς ἀρκεῖ κοινὸς ἐν τῇ μεταβάσει αὐτοῦ τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν φθόγγων ἀπεργάζεσθαι. δύναται γὰρ καταβιβάζεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν τὸν φθόγγον ὀξύτερον μενούσης τῆς ἰδιότητος τοῦ γένους, κἂν χρωματικὸν φέρε ᾖ, κἂν διάτονον, κἂν ἐναρμόνιον. οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ ταύτης μὲν τῆς χορδῆς φθόγγος ἀλλάσσεται, ἐκείνης δ’ οὔ, ἀλλ’ ἅμα πᾶσαι καὶ αἱ χορδαὶ καὶ οἱ φθόγγοι ἀλλάσσονται διὰ τοῦ ὑπαγωγέως.

[ 735 ]

γ΄.

[ 736 ]

Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἕως τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ἑπτά. ἈΝΑ Κ ΕΦΑ Λ Α Ι Ο Ύ Μ Ε Ν Ο ς Τ Ὰ Π Ρ Ό Τ Ε ΡΑ τὸν ἴδιον τρόπον σαφηνείας ἕνεκα καὶ ταῦτά φησιν· ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν φθόγγων οἱ μὲν εὔφοροι μόνον ἐμμελεῖς, οἱ δὲ μετέχοντες καὶ ὁμοιότητός τινος σύμφωνοι, οἱ δ’ ὁμοιότητος ὁμόφωνοι, οἳ δὴ καὶ ἀντίφωνοι λέγονται. καὶ εἴ τις ὁμόφωνος, κἀκεῖνος πάντως καὶ σύμφωνος καὶ ἐμμελής, εἴ τις δὲ σύμφωνος καὶ ἐμμελής, οὐ πάντως ὁμόφωνος· ὁ δ’ ἐμμελὴς οὔτε σύμφωνος, οὔθ’ ὁμόφωνος. κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον καὶ αἱ ἐμμέλειαι καὶ αἱ συμφωνίαι καὶ αἱ ὁμοφωνίαι συνίστανται κατὰ τὰ ἀποψάλματα τῶν ὀργάνων, ὅπου ἄρα καὶ αἱ φωναὶ [161] ἀποδιδοῦσι. ὁμόφωνα δ’ ἰδίως ὁ Πτολεμαῖος τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν καὶ τὸ τρὶς ἴσως διὰ πασῶν καὶ τετράκις κατὰ Πλάτωνά φησιν. σύμφωνα δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ συγκείμενα ἔκ τε τούτων καὶ τῶν ὁμοφώνων, ὡς τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε τέως δ’ ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν τε συμφώνων καὶ ὁμοφώνων τὰ αὐτά, ἅπερ πρότερον εἴρηκεν ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ κεφαλαίῳ, κρατοῦσιν. Ἐπεὶ δὲ περὶ τοῦ συστήματος ἔμελλε λέγειν, ὃ δὴ ἐκ τῶν διαστημάτων ἢ τριῶν, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων, ἢ τεσσάρων, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ διὰ πέντε, ἢ ἑπτά, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν, καὶ ἐπέκεινα συνέστηκε, πρῶται δὲ συμφωνίαι εἰσὶ καὶ ἀρχοειδέστεραι τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων, τὸ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν, πρὸ ἐκείνου διορίζεται τὰ εἴδη τῶν τοιούτων ἐν τῷ ὀργάνῳ, πόσα τε καὶ τίνα εἰσί. καὶ ἐκτίθησι πρῶτον τετράχορδον διὰ τεσσάρων ἀπὸ ὑπάτης, τὸ ΑΒΓΔ, τοῦ Α κατὰ τὸν ὀξύτατον τόπον κειμένου· εἶτα δεύτερον διὰ τεσσάρων, τὸ ΔΕΖΗ· εἶτα τόνον τὸ ΗΘ, ὃς καὶ διαζευκτικὸς λέγεται. διαζευγνύουσι γὰρ τὰ τέσσαρα τετράχορδα τοῦ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἔνθεν μὲν τὰ δύο, ἐκεῖθεν δὲ τὰ δύο· εἶτ’ αὖθις ἄλλο τετράχορδον διὰ τεσσάρων τὸ ΘΚΛΜ καὶ αὖθις ἄλλο τὸ ΜΝΞΟ. καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ Ο ἀρχόμενος τοῦ βαρυτέρου τόπου εὑρίσκει εἴδη τοῦ μὲν διὰ τεσσάρων τρία, ἃ δὴ οὐ φθάνουσι μέχρι τοῦ διαζευκτικοῦ τόνου, τοῦ δὲ διὰ πέντε τέσσαρα, τοῦ δὲ διὰ πασῶν ἑπτά, κατὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν διαστημάτων αὐτῶν. Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν εἶδός ἐστι ποιὰ θέσις τῶν καθ’ ἕκαστον γένος, διατονικόν φημι, χρωματικὸν καὶ ἐναρμόνιον, ἰδιαζόντων ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις ὅροις, ταὐτὸν δ’ εἰπεῖν φθόγγοις καὶ τόνοις ὅρων· ἄλλη γὰρ ἡ παρανήτη ἢ ἡ λιχανὸς τοῦ διατόνου φέρε καὶ ἄλλη τοῦ χρωματικοῦ καὶ τούτου ἄλλη τοῦ μαλακοῦ καὶ ἄλλη τοῦ συντόνου καὶ ἄλλη τοῦ ἐναρμονίου· οἱ μὲν τοῦ διὰ πέντε καὶ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν λόγοι εἶεν ἂν οἱ τονιαῖοι καὶ διαζευκτικοί· σῴζουσι γὰρ τὰ αὐτῶν εἴδη μέχρι καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ διαζευκτικοῦ τόνου, ὅθεν ἄρχονται καὶ εἰς ὃν καταλήγουσιν· οἱ δὲ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων εἶεν ἂν οἱ τῶν ἡγουμένων δύο φθόγγων λόγοι. πᾶς γὰρ φθόγγος τῷ συνεχεῖ αὐτοῦ φθόγγῳ διάφωνός ἐστιν, ὅμως γε μέντοι τῇ μείξει τῶν δύο φθόγγων ἢ εὔφορός τις ἠχὼ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς ἀποτελεῖται καὶ ἔστιν ἐμμελής, ἢ τραχὺς καὶ ἀποκναίων καὶ ἔστιν ἐκμελής. [162]

[ 737 ]

Καὶ δὴ συμβέβηκε ἕως τοῦ καὶ τὸ ΑΘ ἕβδομον. ΤΟ ῦ Μ Ὲ Ν Δ Ι Ὰ τεσσάρων εἰ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ο ἄρχῃ καὶ γὰρ ἔξεστι καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Α ἄρχεσθαι καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖν· πρῶτον εἶδος τὸ ΜΝΞΟ, δεύτερον τὸ ΛΜΝΞ, τρίτον τὸ ΚΛΜΝ, ὧν τὸ πρῶτον μόνον χρήσιμόν ἐστιν, ὡς ὑφ’ ἑστώτων συνεχόμενον φθόγγων τοῦ τε Ο καὶ τοῦ Μ, τὰ δὲ δύο ἄχρηστα, ὡς ὑπὸ κινουμένων συνεχόμενα. ἔστι γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον τόνος, τόνος καὶ ἡμιτόνιον, καὶ ὁ ἡγούμενος εὑρίσκεται μείζων τοῦ ἑπομένου κατὰ τὸ εἰκός· τὸ δὲ δεύτερον τόνος, ἡμιτόνιον, τόνος, καὶ ἔστι τὸ μέσον διάστημα ἔλαττον τοῦ ἑπομένου· τὸ δὲ τρίτον ἡμιτόνιον, τόνος, τόνος, καὶ ἔστιν ἐλάττων ὁ ἡγούμενος. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τὰ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων εἴδη. Τὰ δὲ τοῦ διὰ πέντε πρῶτον τὸ ΗΜ· ἔστι γὰρ τόνος, τόνος καὶ ἡμιτόνιον τὸ τετράχορδον καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ διαζευκτικὸς τόνος καὶ συνέχεται ὑφ’ ἑστώτων φθόγγων τοῦ τε Η καὶ Μ καὶ ἔστι χρήσιμον τῇ μελῳδίᾳ· δεύτερον τὸ συνεχὲς ΖΛ· περιέχεται δ’ ὑπὸ κινουμένων καὶ ἔστιν ἄχρηστον· τρίτον τὸ ΕΚ καὶ αὐτὸ ὁμοίως ὑπὸ κινουμένων περιεχόμενον καὶ ἄχρηστον· τέταρτον τὸ ΔΘ ὑφ’ ἑστώτων περιεχόμενον καὶ τῇ μελῳδίᾳ χρήσιμον· ἔστι γὰρ τόνος, τόνος, τόνος καὶ ἡμιτόνιον. Ὁμοίως καὶ τὰ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν εἴδη· πρῶτον τὸ ΗΟ συλλαμβανομένου κἀν τούτοις τοῦ διαζευκτικοῦ τόνου, ὅπερ συνεχόμενον ὑφ’ ἑστώτων φθόγγων χρήσιμόν ἐστιν· δεύτερον τὸ ΖΞ, ὅπερ ὑπὸ κινουμένων συνεχόμενον ἄχρηστόν ἐστι· τρίτον τὸ ΕΝ καὶ αὐτὸ ὑπὸ κινουμένων καὶ ἄχρηστον· τέταρτον τὸ ΔΜ ὑφ’ ἑστώτων περιεχόμενον φθόγγων καὶ χρήσιμον· πέμπτον τὸ ΓΛ ὑπὸ κινουμένων περιεχόμενον καὶ ἄχρηστον· ἕκτον τὸ ΒΚ καὶ αὐτὸ ἄχρηστον· ἕβδομον τὸ ΑΘ, ὅπερ καὶ αὐτὸ ὑφ’ ἑστώτων συνέχεται καὶ χρήσιμόν ἐστι. πλὴν ἰστέον, ὅτι κἂν ἄλλ’ ἄττα καταλαμβάνωνται ἐν τῷ ἀμεταβόλῳ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν συστήματι, ἀλλ’ οὖν κἀκεῖνα τὰ αὐτά εἰσι καὶ μηδὲν ἔχοντα παραλλαγὴν πρὸς ταῦτα.

[ 738 ]

δ΄.

[ 739 ]

Τούτων δὴ προεκτεθειμένων σύστημα μὲν ἁπλῶς καλεῖται τὸ συγκείμενον μέγεθος ἐκ συμφωνιῶν. ΕἸ Σ Β Ά Λ Λ Ε Ι ΛΟ Ι Π Ὸ Ν Ε Ἰ Π Ε ῖΝ περὶ συστήματος, ὁρίζεται δ’ αὐτὸ διττῶς. καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἁπλῶς τὸ συγκείμενον μέγεθος ἐκ συμφωνιῶν, καθάπερ [163] ἡ συμφωνία ἐστὶ συγκείμενον μέγεθος ἐξ ἐμμελειῶν· συμφωνία γὰρ ἴσως τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων· ἐμμέλειαι δὲ τὰ αὐτοῦ διαστήματα· ὁμοίως καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε. σύστημα δὲ τὸ ἐξ αὐτῶν συγκείμενον δηλονότι τὸ διὰ πασῶν, ὃ δὴ καὶ οὐ συμφωνία κληθείη, ἀλλὰ συμφωνία συμφωνιῶν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν καὶ τὰ ἐπέκεινα τούτων, ἤγουν τὸ τρὶς καὶ τετράκις διὰ πασῶν, καθάπερ ὁ Πλάτων φησίν· ἃ δὴ καὶ περίεργα τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ λογίζονται. Εἶτα καὶ τὸ τέλειον σύστημα ὁρίζεται τὸ λεῖπον ἐν μηδενί, ἐπεὶ καὶ πανταχοῦ τοιοῦτον τὸ τέλειον. καὶ ἔστιν ὥς φησι τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν. τοῦτο γὰρ περιέχει, ὡς δείξει, μὴ μόνον τὰ στοιχειωδέστερα σύμφωνα, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ ἐξ αὐτῶν διὰ πασῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ τούτων ἅπαντα εἴδη καὶ τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν συγκείμενα· ἃ δὴ τὰ μὲν ὑπ’ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔχει, τὰ δ’ ὑπὲρ αὐτὸ οὐ πλέον ἕξει ἢ ταῦτα καὶ μόνα· διὸ καὶ κυρίως καὶ τέλειον τὸ τοιοῦτο σύστημα, ὃ ὁριζόμενος λέγει τὸ περιέχον πάσας τὰς συμφωνίας μετὰ τῶν καθ’ ἕκαστον εἰδῶν. Κατὰ γοῦν τὸν πρῶτον ὅρον πᾶσαι αἱ σύνθετοι συμφωνίαι συστήματα ἂν κληθεῖεν, εἰ καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε, οὐκ ἂν ὅλως κληθεῖεν συστήματα ὡς στοιχειωδέστερα, ἐπεὶ τοί γε καὶ τοῖς παλαιοῖς αὔταρκες ἔδοξε σύστημα τὸ διὰ πασῶν. οὔπω γὰρ εἰς τὸ τελειότερον προήχθη ἡ ἁρμονία ὡς συσταθῆναι τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐν τελείᾳ μουσικῇ ἀριδηλότερον, καθ’ ὡς συνέστη ὕστερον, πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων· οὐ μὴν δ’, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ μᾶλλον τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν. ἕκαστον γὰρ αὐτῶν ὑπὸ συμφωνιῶν περιέχεται· συμφωνίας δὲ λεκτέον τό τε διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε, ἐξ ὧν τὸ διὰ πασῶν συνίσταται, εἶθ’ οὕτω τὰ λοιπά, ἃ δὴ καὶ ἐκ πλειόνων περιέχονται· τὸ γὰρ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων ἔκ τε τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ διὰ πέντε καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων σύγκειται. οὗτος δὲ μόνον τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐγκρίνει σύμφωνον συμφώνων καὶ τέλειον, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ σύμφωνα πάντα μετὰ τῶν εἰδῶν αὐτῶν θεωρεῖται· καὶ ὅσ’ ἂν ὦσι τὰ ὑπὲρ αὐτὸ πάντα, τοῦτο περιέχει δυνάμει. τὸ γὰρ δὶς διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων φέρε περιέχει καὶ μόνον τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν δυνάμει· τὸ γὰρ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἔχει καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως. τὰ δ’ ὑπὸ τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐλλείπειεν ἂν πρὸς τὰ περιεχόμενα ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, καθ’ ὡς καὶ προϊὼν δείξει· ὅθεν φησὶ συνάγεται, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι τέλειον σύστημα τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων, διότι εἰ καὶ [164] τὰς συμφωνίας πάσας ἔχει, ἄνευ μέντοι τοῦ δὶς διὰ πασῶν, ἀλλ’ οὖν τὰ εἴδη πάντα τοῦ διὰ πασῶν οὐ περιέξει.

[ 740 ]

Τὰ δὲ τοῦ διὰ πέντε ποτὲ μέν, ποτὲ δ’ οὔ· ἀλλ’ ὅταν μὲν οὕτως ἔχῃ θέσεως, ὥστε τὸν τόνον διαζευγνύναι. ἘΝ ΤΑ ῦΘΑ Ὁ Τ Ό Ν Ο ς διαζεύγνυσι τὰ δύο συνημμένα ὀξύτερα τετράχορδα ἀπὸ τοῦ βαρυτέρου ἑνός, τοῦ ἑτέρου βαρυτέρου λείποντος, ἐν οἷς τρισὶ συμφώνοις περιέχονται τοῦ μὲν διὰ πασῶν εἴδη τέσσαρα τὰ ὕστερα μόνα, τοῦ δὲ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα. Ἐνταῦθα ὁ τόνος διαζεύγνυσι τὰ δύο συνημμένα τετράχορδα ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀξυτέρου ἑνός, ὅπου τὰ μὲν τοῦ διὰ πέντε πάντα εἴδη θεωροῦνται, τὰ δὲ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν τέσσαρα μόνα. Εἰ μὲν ὁ τόνος διαζεύγνυσι τὰ δύο τετράχορδα ἢ τὸ ἓν ἀπὸ τῶν δύο ἢ τὰ δύο ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνός, ὁποτέρως ἂν γένηται, τὰ τέσσαρα εἴδη τοῦ διὰ πέντε θεωροῦνται προομολογουμένου ἔτι καὶ τὰ τρία τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων· οὐδὲ γὰρ περὶ τούτων φροντίζει· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁρίζεται τῷ διαζευκτικῷ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων, ὥσπερ τὸ διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν, μόνα δὲ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν τὰ τέσσαρα. πλὴν εἰ μὲν διαζεύγνυσιν ὁ τόνος τὰ δύο ὀξύτερα τοῦ ἑνὸς βαρυτέρου, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης καταγραφῆς, τὰ ὕστερα τέσσαρα τὸ ΜΔ, τὸ ΛΓ, τὸ ΚΒ, τὸ ΘΑ· εἰ δὲ διαζευγνύει ὁ τόνος τὰ δύο βαρύτερα τοῦ ἑνὸς ὀξυτέρου, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς δευτέρας καταγραφῆς, τὰ πρότερα τέσσαρα τὸ ΟΗ, τὸ ΞΖ, τὸ ΝΕ καὶ τὸ ΜΔ. τοῦτο γὰρ δηλοῖ τὸ ἀφ’ ὁποτέρου τῶν ἄκρων· ἢ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ Α ἄρχονται καὶ λείπει τὸ βαρύτερον τετράχορδον τὸ ΜΝΞΟ, ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ο καὶ λείπει τὸ ὀξύτερον τὸ ΑΒΓΔ.

[ 741 ]

Ὅταν δ’ οὕτως ἔχῃ θέσεως, ὥστε τὸν τόνον ἐπὶ τὸ πέρας εἶναι. ὍΤΑ Ν Δ ’ Ἅ Μ Α ὦσι τὰ τρία τετράχορδα, ὁ τόνος δ’ ἔξωθεν τούτων ἐπὶ τὸ πέρας τὸ ἔσχατον· οὕτω γὰρ συνάγεται τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων· εἰ μὲν τὸ ὀξύτερον λείπει τετράχορδον τὸ ΑΒΓΔ, τὸ πρῶτον εἶδος θεωρεῖται τοῦ τε διὰ πασῶν καὶ τοῦ διὰ πέντε· τοῦ μὲν διὰ πασῶν τὸ ΗΟ, τοῦ δὲ διὰ πέντε τὸ ΗΜ, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης ἔχει καταγραφῆς. [165] εἰ δὲ κεῖται μὲν ἔσχατος ὁ ΗΘ τόνος, ἄρχονται δὲ τὰ δύο τετράχορδα ἀπὸ τοῦ Α, ἤτοι ΑΒΓΔ καὶ ΔΕΖΗ, τὸ δὲ ΚΛΜ συνάπτεται τῷ Α καὶ τὸ ΜΝΞΟ λείπει· τὸ ἔσχατον θεωρεῖται τοῦ τε διὰ πέντε τὸ ΔΘ καὶ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν τὸ ἔσχατον τὸ ΘΑ, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς δευτέρας ἔχει καταγραφῆς.

[ 742 ]

ε΄.

[ 743 ]

Πόθεν μὲν οὖν τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων σύστημα παρέζευκται τῷ δὶς διὰ πασῶν; ΤῸ Δ Ὶ ς Δ Ι Ὰ πασῶν τέλειόν ἐστι καὶ τὸν διαζευκτικὸν τόνον ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τῶν τεσσάρων τετραχόρδων ἔχον· φέρει τὸν αὐτὸν ὀξύτερον μὲν τῶν δύο βαρυτέρων τετραχόρδων, βαρύτερον δὲ τῶν δύο ὀξυτέρων τετραχόρδων. καὶ ὃ δὴ ὁ προσλαμβανόμενος ποιεῖ ἐν τοῖς δυσὶ βαρυτέροις τετραχόρδοις - παρέχει τόνον οὗτος, ἵνα συστῇ τὸ διὰ πασῶν μέχρι τῆς μέσης - τοῦτο καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ διαζευκτικὸς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἑτέροις δυσὶ τετραχόρδοις τοῖς ὀξυτέροις ποιεῖ, ἵνα συστῇ τὸ ὀξύτερον διὰ πασῶν ἀπὸ μέσης ἕως νήτης ὑπερβολαίων· καὶ ἔστι τοῦτο δὶς διὰ πασῶν διεζευγμένον σύστημα διὰ τὸν διαζευκτικὸν τόνον. παρέζευκται δὲ τούτῳ ἀπὸ μέσης τὸ τῶν συνημμένων τετράχορδον, καὶ ἔστιν ἡ μέση ὡς ὑπάτη τῶν συνημμένων, εἶτ’ ἄλλη τις τρίτη τῶν συνημμένων, εἶτα παρανήτη τῶν συνημμένων, εἶτα νήτη τῶν συνημμένων· καὶ συνίσταται ἀπὸ μέσης τὸ τῶν συνημμένων τετράχορδον. εἶθ’ ἡ παραμέση· ἑξῆς τὸ τῶν διεζευγμένων τετράχορδον καὶ εἶτα τὸ τῶν ὑπερβολαίων. ὅπως οὖν παρέζευκται τοῦτο, ἑξῆς ῥηθήσεται, νῦν δὲ περὶ τῆς ὀνομασίας τῶν φθόγγων τοῦ δὶς διὰ πασῶν βούλεται λέγειν, ἄρχεται δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς μέσης καὶ τὰ παρ’ ἑκάτερα λέγει.

[ 744 ]

Ποτὲ δὲ παρὰ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτήν, τὸ πρός τι πῶς ἔχον, ᾧ δὴ πρότερον ἐφαρμόσαντες ταῖς θέσεσιν. ΠΟ Τ Ὲ Μ Ὲ Ν Κ ΑΤ Ὰ τὴν θέσιν αὐτὴν καὶ μόνην τὴν μέσην καλεῖ μέσην τῶν δύο διὰ πασῶν τοῦ ἐν τῷ δὶς διὰ πασῶν συστήματος. ἡ αὐτὴ γὰρ τοῦ [166] μὲν ἑνὸς διὰ πασῶν τοῦ βαρυτέρου ὀξυτέρα, θατέρου δὲ τοῦ ὀξυτέρου βαρυτέρα. ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ προσλαμβανομένου ἕως ταύτης τὸ βαρύτατον διὰ πασῶν καὶ ἀπὸ ταύτης ἕως τῆς νήτης τῶν ὑπερβολαίων νητῶν τὸ ὀξύτατον διὰ πασῶν. μέση γοῦν αὕτη κατὰ τὴν θέσιν τῶν δύο. ἐπιφέρει δὲ καί πως μέση κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν. δύναται γὰρ αὕτη μέση καλεῖσθαι συγκρινομένη πρὸς τὰς λοιπὰς τὰς παρ’ ἑκάτερα καὶ οὐ μόνον καθ’ αὑτὴν κατὰ τὴν θέσιν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ δύο διαζευκτικοὶ τόνοι εἰσίν, ὁ μὲν τῆς βαρυτέρας διαζεύξεως, ὅς ἐστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ προσλαμβανομένου, ὁ δὲ τῆς ὀξυτέρας, ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχὴ τοῦ ὀξυτέρου διὰ πασῶν, ὡς ἐκεῖνος τοῦ βαρυτέρου διὰ πασῶν, ἐκλαμβάνομεν τὸν ἕτερον τούτων τῶν δύο τόνων τὸν ὀξύτερον, ὃς γίνεται ἀπὸ τῆς τῇ θέσει μέσης, καὶ παρατίθεμεν τῷ τοιούτῳ τόνῳ καθ’ ἑκάτερον μέρος δύο τετράχορδα· τὰ μὲν δύο ἐν τῷ βαρυτέρῳ τόπῳ, τὰ δὲ δύο ἐν τῷ ὀξυτέρῳ· δύο συνημμένα καὶ δύο συνημμένα· ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ γὰρ δὶς διὰ πασῶν τέσσαρά εἰσι τὰ τετράχορδα· τὸν δ’ ἕτερον τῆς διαζεύξεως τόνον βαρύτατον ἀποδόντες μέσην μὲν τῇ δυνάμει καλοῦμεν τὴν καὶ τῇ θέσει μέσην συγκρίνοντες αὐτὸν τῇ ὀξυτέρᾳ διαζεύξει, ἧς πρώτη αὕτη ἐστὶ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα βαρυτάτη, παραμέσην δὲ τὸν ὀξύτερον πρὸς αὐτὴν δηλονότι τὸν ἐφεξῆς αὐτοῦ· τὴν δὲ βαρυτέραν ἐκείνην διάζευξιν ἰδόντες τὸν βαρύτερον πάσης ταύτης προσλαμβανόμενον καλοῦμεν, ὑπάτην δ’ ὑπάτων τὸν τούτου ὀξύτερον καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐφεξῆ· εἶτα μέσων ὑπάτην τὴν κοινὴν τῶν συνημμένων δύο βαρυτέρων τετραχόρδων, ἥτις κεῖται μετὰ τὴν βαρυτέραν ἐκείνην διάζευξιν· νήτην δ’ αὖθις διεζευγμένων τὸν κοινὸν τῶν συνημμένων δύο τετραχόρδων τῶν ὀξυτέρων πρὸς ἐκεῖνα τὰ δύο βαρύτερα· μετὰ τὴν ὀξυτέραν δέ φησι διάζευξιν, ὥσπερ μετὰ τὴν βαρυτέραν ἐκεῖ, ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τετραχόρδοις τούτοις οὔθ’ ἡ βαρυτέρα ἐν ἐκείνοις παραλαμβάνεται· ἔξωθεν γὰρ κεῖται· καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε ἀναπληροῖ ἐν τῷ βαρυτάτῳ τετραχόρδῳ, ἵνα συστῇ τὸ βαρύτερον διὰ πασῶν· οὔθ’ ὧδε ἡ ὀξυτέρα διάζευξις ἐν τούτοις τοῖς ὀξυτέροις δυσὶ τετραχόρδοις παραλαμβάνεται· ἔξωθεν γὰρ κεῖται καὶ αὐτὴ καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε συμπληροῖ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τετραχόρδῳ τοῦ ὀξυτέρου διὰ πασῶν· καὶ αὖθις παρυπάτην μὲν ὑπάτων τὸν μετὰ τὴν ὑπάτην τῶν ὑπάτων· ταύτην γὰρ καὶ βαρυτάτην λέγει μετὰ τὴν βαρυτάτην διάζευξιν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ προσλαμβανόμενος· καὶ λιχανὸς ὑπάτων τὸν ἐφεξῆς τούτου καὶ τρίτον τοῦ μετὰ τὴν βαρυτάτην διάζευξιν βαρυτέρου τετραχόρδου. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὴν ὑπάτην τῶν μέσων, εἶπε, καθ’ ἣν καὶ ἡ βαρυτέρα συναφή ἐστι τῶν δύο βαρυτέρων τετραχόρδων, νῦν ὀνομάζει καὶ τὴν μετ’ [167] αὐτὴν παρυπάτην μέσων τὸν δεύτερον τοῦ δευτέρου τετραχόρδου, ὅπερ πρὸ τῆς ὀξυτέρας διαζεύξεως λέγει, οὕτινος τετραχόρδου ὁ βαρύτατος ἡ ὑπάτη τῶν μέσων ἦν. πλὴν σημειῶσαι ὅτι, ὅτε μέλλει

[ 745 ]

δηλῶσαι τὸ σύνεγγυς τῆς διαζεύξεως τετράχορδον τῇ μετά προθέσει χρῆται· μετὰ τὴν βαρυτέραν διάζευξιν τὸ πρῶτον τετράχορδον· ὅτε δὲ τὸ ἐφεξῆς τοῦ προτέρου τετράχορδον θέλει δηλῶσαι, τῇ πρό προθέσει χρῆται, τὸ διεχὲς δηλῶν ἐντεῦθεν καὶ διατεταμένον. πρὸ τῆς ὀξυτέρας τοίνυν διαζεύξεως λέγει τὸ δεύτερον τετράχορδον, οὕτινος ἡ μὲν ὑπάτη τῶν μέσων βαρυτέρα, ἡ δὲ παρυπάτη τῶν μέσων καὶ μετ’ αὐτὴν δευτέρα μετὰ τὴν βαρυτάτην τοῦ τετραχόρδου· ὁμοίως καὶ λιχανὸν μέσων τὸν τρίτον τῶν μέσων, ὡς λιχανὸν ὑπάτων τὸν τρίτον τῶν ὑπάτων· εἶτ’ αὖθις ἐπεὶ τὴν παραμέσην βαρυτέραν ἔλεγε τοῦ τρίτου τετραχόρδου, τὴν μετ’ αὐτὴν τρίτην διεζευγμένων λέγει, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τῆς βαρυτάτης παραμέσης δευτέρα τοῦ μετ’ αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν ὀξυτέραν διάζευξιν τετραχόρδου· καὶ τὸν τρίτον παρανήτην διεζευγμένων, ὡς πλησιάζοντα αὐτῇ τῇ νήτῃ διεζευγμένων, καθ’ ἣν ἡ ὀξυτέρα ἐστὶ συναφὴ τῶν δύο τετραχόρδων. Ἐπεὶ δ’ ἐγκαταλέλειπται μόνον τὸ ὕστερον τετράχορδον, οὗ ἡ βαρυτάτη ἡ νήτη τῶν διεζευγμένων ἦν, τὴν μετ’ αὐτὴν καὶ τρίτην τῶν ὑπερβολαίων δευτέραν λέγει ἀπὸ τοῦ βαρυτάτου τοῦ πρὸ τῆς βαρυτέρας διαζεύξεως τετραχόρδου καὶ τὸν μετ’ αὐτήν, ὃς καὶ τρίτος ἐστὶ τοῦ τετραχόρδου, παρανήτην ὑπερβολαίων νητῶν καλεῖ, ὡς πλησιάζοντα τῇ νήτῃ.

[ 746 ]

Καὶ δὴ κατὰ ταύτας ἕως τοῦ παρασημειώσεις. ἘΝ ΤΟ Ύ Τῼ Τ ῷ ἀμεταβόλῳ συστήματι τῷ δὶς διὰ πασῶν τῷ συγκειμένῳ ἐκ τεσσάρων τετραχόρδων καὶ δυεῖν διαζευκτικῶν τόνων, τοῦ τε βαρυτέρου καὶ τοῦ ὀξυτέρου, ἑστῶτες φθόγγοι εὕρηνται οἱ ἑπτά, ὁ προσλαμβανόμενος, ἡ ὑπάτη ὑπάτων, ἡ ὑπάτη τῶν μέσων, ἡ μέση, ἡ παραμέση, ἡ νήτη τῶν διεζευγμένων καὶ ἡ νήτη τῶν ὑπερβολαίων, μία τις οὖσά φησι τῷ προσλαμβανομένῳ, ὅτι αὕτη ἀεὶ ἀκίνητος μένει καὶ ἑστῶσα ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ προσλαμβανόμενος. οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ μεταβιβαζομένων τῇ θέσει τῶν δυνάμεων οὐκέτι τοῖς αὐτοῖς τόποις τοῖς ἀρχῆθεν ἐφαρμόσουσιν. ἐντεῦθεν δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη τοῦ διὰ πασῶν συνίστησι. πρῶτον μὲν γάρ [168] ἐστι τὸ περιεχόμενον ἔκ τε τῆς παραμέσης καὶ τῆς ὑπάτης ὑπάτων, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ περιεχόμενον ἔκ τε τῆς τρίτης τῶν διεζευγμένων καὶ τῆς παρυπάτης τῶν ὑπάτων, τρίτον τὸ ἐκ τῆς παρανήτης τῶν διεζευγμένων καὶ τῆς λιχανοῦ τῶν ὑπάτων, τέταρτον τὸ ἐκ τῆς νήτης τῶν διεζευγμένων καὶ τῆς ὑπάτης τῶν μέσων, πέμπτον τὸ ἐκ τῆς τρίτης τῶν ὑπερβολαίων καὶ τῆς παρυπάτης τῶν μέσων, ἕκτον τὸ ἐκ τῆς παρανήτης τῶν ὑπερβολαίων καὶ τῆς λιχανοῦ τῶν μέσων, ἕβδομον τὸ ἐκ τῆς νήτης τῶν ὑπερβολαίων καὶ τῆς μέσης ἢ ἔκ τε τῆς μέσης καὶ τοῦ προσλαμβανομένου. καὶ οὕτως οὐδεμία τῶν χορδῶν ἀφίεται, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαι συνέχονται.

[ 747 ]

Ϛ΄. Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν τὸ σύστημα ἕως τοῦ ἐκκειμένων συστημάτων. ΠΕ Ρ Ὶ ΤΟ ῦ Σ Υ ΣΤ Ή Μ ΑΤΟ ς τοῦ συγκειμένου ἐκ δύο διὰ πασῶν ἐν πεντεκαιδεκαχόρδῳ ὀργάνῳ λέγων φησίν, ὅτι τοῦτο λέγεται καὶ διεζευγμένον ἐκ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος αὐτοῦ. ἔστι γὰρ μέσον τῶν δύο διὰ πασῶν τόνος διαζευκτικός, τὸν τοῦ προσλαμβανομένου τόπον ἀναπληρῶν εἰς τὸ συστῆναι τὸ δεύτερον διὰ πασῶν. πρὸς οὖν διαστολὴν τοῦ συνημμένου συστήματος, ὅπερ σύγκειται ἐκ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων, λέγεται τοῦτο διεζευγμένον, καὶ ἀμετάβολον μὲν τὸ τοιοῦτον, ἐκεῖνο δὲ μεταβολικόν. οὐ γὰρ τὴν διάζευξιν ἔχει, ἀλλ’ ὁμοῦ τὰ τρία τετράχορδα ἅμα τῷ ἀρχῆθεν προσλαμβανομένῳ. μετὰ γὰρ τὴν μέσην, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὡς νήτη τοῦ πρώτου διὰ πασῶν, συνῆπται ἀπὸ ταύτης τὸ τρίτον τετράχορδον, ὡς εἶναι τὴν μετ’ αὐτὴν τρίτην συνημμένων καὶ τὴν ἐφεξῆς παρανήτην συνημμένων καὶ τὴν μετ’ αὐτήν, ἣν λέγει καὶ ἡγούμενον καὶ ἑστῶτα, νήτην συνημμένων, ὡς εἶναι ἐφεξῆς τὰ τρία τετράχορδα δίχα τινὸς διαζεύξεως. καὶ ἔστι τοῦτο παραπεποιημένον τοῖς παλαιοῖς μεταβολικόν τι πρὸς ἐκεῖνο ἀμετάβολον. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο λέγεται ἀμετάβολον, ὡς μὴ μεταβάλλον κατὰ τὰ τρία γένη τῆς μελῳδίας, ὅπου γε καὶ κατὰ πάντα μεταβάλλει, ἢ κατὰ δίεσιν, δίεσιν καὶ δίτονον, ὡς ἐν τῷ ἐναρμονίῳ, ἢ κατὰ ἡμιτόνιον, τόνον καὶ τόνον, ὡς ἐν τῷ διατονικῷ, ἢ κατὰ ἡμιτόνιον, ἡμιτόνιον καὶ τριημιτόνιον, ὡς ἐν τῷ χρωματικῷ· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα ἀπὸ [169] βαρέος ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύ, ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνάπαλιν, ὅταν ἀπὸ ὀξέος ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ μελῳδῆται. οὐ διὰ τοῦτο οὖν ἀμετάβολον τὸ ἀμετάβολον, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν τοῦ τόνου δύναμιν, ὃς διαζευγνύει τὰ δύο διὰ πασῶν, καὶ τέλειον σύστημα καθιστᾷ τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν· οὐ κατὰ δόξαν ὡς τὸ συγκείμενον ἐκ διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ τεσσάρων ἐν τῷ συντίθεσθαι ἅμα τὰ τρία τετράχορδα, ἀλλὰ κατ’ ἀλήθειαν ἐν τῷ πάντα τὰ εἴδη τοῦ τε διὰ τεσσάρων, τοῦ τε διὰ πέντε, τοῦ τε διὰ πασῶν ἐμφαίνεσθαι ἐν τούτῳ. ἔστι μὲν οὖν καὶ λέγεται μεταβολικὸν καὶ αὖθις ἀμετάβολον ἐναντία, τοῦ τόνου τούτου τοῦ διαζευκτικοῦ ἢ παρόντος ἢ λείποντος. εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ κατ’ ἄλλον τρόπον ἐν τούτοις δύο διαφοραὶ τῶν μεταβολῶν καὶ πρῶται, μία μέν, καθ’ ἣν τὸ τῆς μελῳδίας ἦθος καὶ τὴν ἀπήχησιν τηροῦμεν, εἰς ὀξυτέραν δ’ ἢ βαρυτέραν τάσιν μεταφέρομεν τὸ τοιοῦτον μέλος, δευτέρα δέ, καθ’ ἣν συνάμα τῇ τάσει ἐξαλλάσσεται ἐκ μέρους καὶ τὸ μέλος· διὸ καὶ καλοῖτ’ ἂν αὕτη τοῦ μέλους μεταβολή, ἐκείνη δὲ τοῦ τόνου· κατ’ ἐκείνην μὲν γὰρ οὐ τὸ μέλος, ἀλλ’ ὁ τόνος ἀλλάσσεται, κατὰ ταύτην δ’ ἐκτρέπεται τὸ μέλος. ἡ δὲ τάσις καὶ αὕτη ἂν πρὸς τὸ ὀξύτερον ἢ τὸ βαρύτερον ἐξ ἀνάγκης παρατραπείη, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς τάσις μόνον, ἀλλὰ χάριν τοῦ μέλους, ὅθεν ἐκείνη μὲν ὀξυνομένη μόνον ἢ βαρυνομένη κατὰ τόνον μόνον ἔχουσα τὴν μεταβολήν, οὐκ ἐμποιεῖ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι φαντασίαν τῆς ἑτερότητος, ἡ δ’ ἑτέρα, ἥτις ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸ μέλος, ἐκβαίνει τοῦ συνήθους καὶ προσδοκωμένου, ὅταν ἐπέκεινα τοῦ διὰ πασῶν συνείρηται τὸ μέλος, μεταβαίνει δὲ

[ 748 ]

πρὸς ἕτερον εἶδος διὰ τὸ λείπειν τὴν διάζευξιν ἢ κατὰ γένος, ὥσπερ ἂν ἀπὸ τοῦ διατονικοῦ εἰς τὸ χρωματικὸν φέρε, ἢ ὅταν ἀπὸ μέλους τοῦ τῶν διὰ πέντε, ὅπερ προσεδοκᾶτο διὰ τὴν διάζευξιν, εἰς τοὺς διὰ τεσσάρων φθόγγους, ὅτε λείπει ἡ διάζευξις· μεταβάλλει γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ διεζευγμένου εἰς τὸ συνημμένον.

[ 749 ]

Ἀναβαῖνον γὰρ τὸ μέλος ἐπὶ τὴν μέσην, ὅταν μὴ ὡς ἔθος εἶχεν ἐπὶ τὸ τῶν διεζευγμένων τετράχορδον ἔλθῃ, κατὰ τὴν διὰ πέντε συμφωνίαν τῷ τῶν μέσων. ΔΙ Δ Ά Σ Κ Ε Ι , Π ῶς Γ Ί Ν ΕΤΑ Ι ἡ τοῦ μέλους ἐξαλλαγὴ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι. προσδοκᾷ γὰρ ἡ αἴσθησις μετὰ τὸ τῶν μέσων τετράχορδον τοῦ μέσου φθόγγου κρουσθέντος διάζευξιν τόνου καὶ εἶθ’ οὕτω τετράχορδον ὡς τοὺς φθόγγους τοῦ διὰ πέντε φανῆναι· οὐ μὴν δ’ οὕτω γίνεται, ἀλλὰ λαμβάνεται [170] ἡ μέση αὕτη, ὡς ἀρχὴ τοῦ συνημμένου ὀξυτέρου τετραχόρδου, καὶ ὁ ἐφεξῆς φθόγγος τρίτη συνημμένων λέγεται, εἶτα παρανήτη καὶ εἶτα ὁ ἡγούμενος τοῦ τοιούτου τετραχόρδου νήτη, ὡς γίνεσθαι τὸ πᾶν σύστημα φθόγγων ια΄· καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο περισπᾶται καὶ ἐξαλλαγὴ γίνεται ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι. τοὺς δὲ πρὸ τῆς μέσης φθόγγους τοὺς ἀνωτέρω καὶ ὀξυτέρους φησί· ὅταν γοῦν σύμμετρος καὶ ἐμμελὴς ἡ συναίρεσις γίνηται, πρόσφορός ἐστι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς, ὅταν δὲ τοὐναντίον, ἀπρόσφορος. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ποτὲ μὲν πρόσφορός ἐστιν ἐξαλλασσομένη, ποτὲ δ’ ἀπρόσφορος ἐν τῷ μὴ εἶναι τὸν διαζευκτικὸν τόνον, εἰς ἐξισασμὸν κάλλιστόν ἐστι τὸ λαμβάνειν τὴν προσληπτικὴν μετάπτωσιν, ἤγουν τὸν τόνον τὸν κατὰ τὸν προσλαμβανόμενον, ᾧ δὴ καὶ διαφέρει τὸ διὰ πέντε τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων κατὰ τὸν ἐπὶ η΄ λόγον, ὃς καὶ ὡς κοινὸς τῶν τριῶν γενῶν. δύναται γὰρ ἐντεῦθεν συσταθῆναι τὸ ἑξῆς τετράχορδον κατὰ μεταβολὴν γένους, ὡς συστῆναι μετὰ διατονικὸν φέρε ἐναρμόνιον ἢ χρωματικόν· “ἐξαλλάσει τὸ μέλος·” ἡ γὰρ διάζευξις ἡ κοινὴ ἀποτελευτᾷ μὲν καὶ τὸ πρότερον ὁλοτελῶς, δίδωσι δὲ καὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐνάρχεσθαι κατὰ τὸ ἴδιον μέλος, ὡς δ’ ἕτερος λόγος τῶν λόγων τῶν ἑκατέρωθεν τετραχόρδων. ἴδια γάρ εἰσι τὰ τετράχορδα καὶ οἱ τούτων λόγοι πρὸς τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐπὶ η΄· ἐξαλλάσσει προσφόρως τὸ μέλος καὶ οὐ συμβαίνει τὸ ἀπρόσφορον ἐν τῷ συνάπτεσθαι τὰ τετράχορδα. γίνεται γὰρ τοῦ μὲν βαρυτέρου τετραχόρδου τέλος, τοῦ δ’ ὀξυτέρου ἀρχὴ ὁ αὐτός. καὶ φέρε κατὰ τὴν διατονικὴν μελῴδησιν ἀπαιτεῖται ὁ αὐτὸς μέσος ὡς ὀξύτερος τοῦ βαρυτέρου τετραχόρδου τόνον ἔχειν, ὡς δὲ βαρύτερος τοῦ ὀξυτέρου τετραχόρδου ἡμιτόνιον. κίνδυνος γοῦν ἐντεῦθεν εἰς τὸ ἀπρόσφορον μεταπεσεῖν ὡς δ’ αὖθις σύμμετρος διὰ τὸ μήτε μεγάλας, μήτε βραχείας ἐκβάσεις τοῦ μέλους ποιεῖν πρῶτος εἰς ἐμμέλειαν τοῦ γενησομένου τετραχόρδου συνιστάμενος. καὶ κίνδυνός ἐστι, μὴ τὸ μέλος παραφθαρείη μὴ σύμμετρον ὂν μεγέθους καὶ βραχύτητος· δυσδιάκριτός ἐστι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς ἡ ἐξαλλαγὴ τοῦ μέλους, καὶ γίνονται ἐντεῦθεν τρία τετράχορδα κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς συνημμένα καὶ μεῖξις τις μερικὴ δύο διεζευγμένων συστημάτων, οἷον ἀποκοπή τις μέρους ἀφ’ ἑνὸς τῶν δύο διὰ πασῶν διαστημάτων. πρόσκειται γὰρ συντιθέμενον ἢ τῷ ὀξεῖ διὰ πασῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ βαρέος τὸ ὀξύτερον ἢ τῷ βαρεῖ διὰ πασῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀξέος τὸ βαρύτερον. διαφέρουσι δ’ ἀλλήλων τὰ τρία κατὰ τὸν τόνον τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων ὑπεροχήν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τέσσαρες ἑστῶτές εἰσι τῶν τριῶν τετραχόρδων χωρὶς τοῦ ἑστῶτος προσλαμβανομένου, τέσσαρες ἑστῶτές εἰσιν ἥ τε ὑπάτη τῶν [ 750 ]

ὑπάτων [171] καὶ ἡ τῶν μέσων ὑπάτη, ἥ τε μέση καὶ ἡ νήτη τῶν συνημμένων, τῷ διὰ τεσσάρων ἀλλήλων αὐτὰ διαφέρουσι.

[ 751 ]

Ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐ προεκεκόφει ἕως τοῦ μεταβολήν. ἘΠ Ε Ι Δ Ὴ Δ ’ Ο Ἱ παλαιοὶ μόνους ἔτι τῶν τόνων ᾔδεισαν τόν τε Δώριον καὶ τὸν Φρύγιον καὶ τὸν Λύδιον ἀλλήλων διαφέροντας τόνῳ, καὶ οὐ προεκεκόφει ἡ τούτων παραύξησις, ὥστε καὶ τῷ ἐπιτρίτῳ διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων τοὺς τόνους τούτους τῶν τετραχόρδων, θέλοντες ἐφεξῆς ταῦτα συστήσασθαι, ἐπειδὴ ἐκ τῆς διαζεύξεως τοῦ τόνου ἐκωλύοντο ἐφεξῆς τὰ τρία συστήσασθαι, ὠνόμασαν σύστημα ὡσανεί γε τέλειον τὸ τῶν συνημμένων τοῦτο σύστημα, ἵνα πρόχειρον ἔχωσι τὴν μεταβολήν.

[ 752 ]

Καθόλου μέντοι γ’ ἐπὶ τῶν τόνων τῶν τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ὑπερεχόντων ἀλλήλων. ΚΑΘ ΌΛΟΥ ΤΟ ῦΤ Ό Φ Η Σ Ι Ν ἐπὶ τῶν τόνων τῶν διαφερόντων ἀλλήλων κατ’ ἐπίτριτον λόγον, ὥσθ’ ὑπερηχεῖν τοὺς ἄκρους καὶ ἑστῶτας τῶν τετραχόρδων τὸν ὀξύτερον πρὸς τὸν βαρύτερον κατ’ ἐπίτριτον λόγον, ὅτι ἐπὶ τοῦ διαζευκτικοῦ τόνου, ὃν ὁμοίαν λέγει διάζευξιν ὡς κοινὸν τῶν παρ’ ἑκάτερα δύο τετραχόρδων καὶ δύο κειμένων τῶν τοιούτων τεσσάρων τετραχόρδων ἐφ’ ἑκάτερα, ἢ τὰ δύο βαρύτερα σῴζεται καὶ ἀφαιρεθείσης τῆς διαζεύξεως ἐπισυνάπτεται ἓν τῶν δύο ὀξυτέρων καὶ γίνονται ἐφεξῆς τρία, ὧν τὸ ἐπισυναφθὲν ὀξύτερον, ἢ τῶν ὀξυτέρων δύο τετραχόρδων μενόντων ἐπισυνάπτεται τούτοις ἓν ἀπὸ τῶν δύο βαρυτέρων τετραχόρδων τῆς διαζεύξεως ἀφαιρεθείσης, καὶ οὕτω πάλιν ἐφεξῆς τρία συνίστανται τετράχορδα, ὧν τὸ ἐπισυναφθὲν βαρύτερον, καθ’ ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς προκειμένης καταγραφῆς δείκνυσιν ἐπισυνάπτων τοῖς δυσὶ τετραχόρδοις τὸ ἕν, ὡς πρόσφορον γίνεσθαι τὴν συναφήν, εἴτε κατὰ τὸν βαρύτατον τόπον, εἴτε μὴν κατὰ τὸν ὀξύτατον· ἀμφοτέρως γὰρ συνάπτεσθαι πέφυκεν.

[ 753 ]

Ἔστω γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ Α ὀξυτάτου φθόγγου τετράχορδον ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ, τὸ ΑΒ, καὶ ἕτερον αὐτῷ συνημμένον, τὸ ΒΓ. [ 1 72 ] ΤΊ Θ Η Σ Ι Τ ΕΤ Ρ Ά ΧΟ ΡΔΟ Ν ὀξύτατον τὸ ΑΒ καὶ ἕτερον αὐτῷ συνημμένον ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ τὸ ΒΓ, καὶ τόνον ἐφεξῆς διαζευκτικὸν τὸν ΓΔ καὶ αὖθις ὑπὸ τοῦτον καὶ μετὰ τοῦτον ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύτερον δηλονότι - τὸ γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύτερον πρὸ τούτου καλεῖ - ἄλλα δύο τετράχορδα συνημμένα τό τε ΔΕ καὶ τὸ ΕΖ. κεῖται τοίνυν τὸ ὀξύτατον τετράχορδον, οὗ ὁ ἡγούμενος τὸ Α, μεθ’ ὃ ἡ τούτου διάζευξις ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύτερον ἡ ΗΘ· ἧς ὁ ἄκρος τοῦ τετραχόρδου τῷ διὰ τεσσάρων ὑπερέχει. καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ διαζεύξει συνημμένα ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ κεῖνται δύο τετράχορδα, τό τε ΘΚ καὶ ΚΛ, καὶ αὖθις κεῖται ὁ βαρύτερος τόνος οὗ ὁ Ζ ἑπόμενος, ὁ δὲ Ε ἡγούμενος, οὕτινος ὀξυτέρα ἐν τῷ ἐπιτρίτῳ λόγῳ ἡ ὁμοία τῇ ΓΔ διαζεύξει διάζευξις ἡ ΜΝ. βαρύτερος γὰρ ὁ τόνος τῆς διαζεύξεως ταύτης. ἔχει δὲ καὶ αὕτη συνημμένα πρὸς τὸ ὀξὺ δύο τετράχορδα, τό τε ΝΞ καὶ τὸ ΞΟ. καὶ ἐντεῦθεν κατασκευάζει, πῶς τὰ τρία ἅμα συνάπτονται· ἀλλοιωθείσης τῆς ΓΔ διαζεύξεως καὶ μενόντων τῶν παρ’ ἑκάτερα ταύτης ἑτέρων δύο διαζεύξεων πλὴν οὐχ ἅμα, ἀλλ’ ὅτε μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ συνάπτεται τὸ τετράχορδον τοῖς δυσὶν ὀξυτέροις, μένει ἡ τοῦ βαρυτέρου τόνου διάζευξις ἡ ΜΝ· μέχρι γὰρ τούτου τὰ τρία συνάπτονται ἀλλοιωθείσης τῆς ΘΗ διαζεύξεως· ὅτε δ’ ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ συνάπτεται τετράχορδον τοῖς δυσὶ βαρυτέροις, μένει μὲν ἡ τοῦ ὀξυτέρου τετραχόρδου διάζευξις ἡ ΗΘ διαζευγνύουσα ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ τὰ τρία ἅμα τετράχορδα συνημμένα. ἀλλοιοῦται δ’ ἡ τοῦ βαρυτέρου διάζευξις ἡ ΜΝ. Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν, φησίν, ὁ Θ φθόγγος, ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ η΄ πρὸς τὸν Η - ὁ γὰρ ΘΗ τόνος διαζευκτικὸς ἦν - ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ Δ, καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Δ φθόγγος πρὸς τὸν Γ τὸ ἐπὶ η΄ εἶχεν· ἐκ τοῦ Θ δὲ μέχρι τοῦ Δ διὰ τεσσάρων τετράχορδον ἦν· ὀξύτερός ἐστιν ὁ Θ τοῦ Δ τῷ διὰ τεσσάρων. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦ Κ ὀξύτερος τῷ αὐτῷ ἐπὶ γ΄. ἰσότονοι ἄρ’ εἰσὶν ὁ Δ καὶ ὁ Κ, ὧν ἀμφοτέρων ὀξύτερος ὁ Θ φθόγγος τῷ ἐπὶ γ΄ λόγῳ, ὥστε δυνατὸν ἔσται συναφθῆναι τῷ Δ ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ τὸ ΚΘ τετράχορδον καὶ ποιῆσαι τρία ἐφεξῆς ἐν τῷ ΑΖ τόνῳ τετράχορδα, ὧν ἐστι τὸ προστεθὲν ὀξύτερον, τὸ ΖΕ δηλονότι καὶ τὸ ΕΔ καὶ τὸ ΔΘ. ἠλλοιώθη γὰρ ὁ μέσος διαζευκτικὸς καὶ γέγονεν ἑπόμενος τοῦ ὀξυτάτου τετραχόρδου τοῦ καὶ ἐπισυναφθέντος. ὃν γὰρ λόγον ἔχει ὁ Θ πρὸς τὸν Κ, τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχει καὶ πρὸς τὸν Δ, ἐπὶ γ΄ γάρ· ὥσθ’ ἵστασθαι τὰ τρία μέχρι τῆς ὀξυτέρας διαζεύξεως τῆς ΘΗ. πάλιν ἐπειδὴ ὁ Ν φθόγγος ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ Γ, ἐπὶ η΄ γὰρ καὶ οὗτος κἀκεῖνος, ὁ μὲν τοῦ Μ, ὁ δὲ τοῦ Δ, καὶ βαρύτερός ἐστιν ὁ Ν τοῦ Γ τῷ διὰ τεσσάρων· βαρύτερός ἐστι καὶ τοῦ Ξ τῷ αὐτῷ· ἰσότονοι ἄρ’ εἰσὶν ὅ τε Γ [173] καὶ ὁ Ξ· ὥστε δυνατόν ἐστι συναφθῆναι τῷ Γ ἤγουν τοῖς δυσὶν ὀξυτέροις τετραχόρδοις ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ τὸ ΞΝ καὶ ποιῆσαι πάλιν τρία ἐφεξῆς ἐν τῷ ΑΖ τόνῳ τετράχορδα, ὧν αὐτὸ ἔσται βαρύτατον, τὰ ΑΒ καὶ ΒΓ καὶ ΓΝ.

[ 754 ]

ζ΄. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἕως τοῦ λόγων διαφοραί. ὍΤ Ι Μ Ὲ Ν Ο ὖΝ , φησίν, ἐπειδὴ τέλειόν ἐστι σύστημα τὸ διεζευγμένον καὶ ἀμετάβολον, εἴ τις τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τούτῳ παραβάλοι καὶ τὸ συνημμένον ποιήσειε σύστημα, πρὸς τῷ μὴ ἔχειν αὐτὸ τὴν τοῦ τελείου φύσιν - οὐ γὰρ πάντα τὰ εἴδη τοῦ τε διὰ πασῶν καὶ αὖθις τοῦ διὰ πέντε συνεῖχεν, ὡς ἔλεγε πρότερον - πρὸς γοῦν τῷ μὴ ἔχειν τοῦτο τὴν τελειότητα καὶ παρέλκον καὶ περιττεῦόν ἐστιν· οὐδὲν γὰρ πλέον ἐντεῦθεν συνάγεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ μᾶλλον πόλλ’ ἄττα τῶν ἐν τῷ τελείῳ καὶ διεζευγμένῳ συναγομένων ἐλλείπει, ἐντεῦθεν ἔστω δῆλον. Νῦν δὲ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς τόνους μεταβολῶν ῥητέον. οὐδὲ γὰρ περὶ τῶν μεταβολῶν τῶν κατὰ τὸ γένος, οὐδὲ μὴν τῶν κατὰ τὸ μέλος, ἀλλὰ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς τόνους, ἐξ ὧν σύστημα πᾶν συνάγεται, εἰ θέλεις διὰ τεσσάρων, εἰ θέλεις διὰ πέντε, εἰ θέλεις ἄλλο τι. οὗτοι γοῦν οἱ τόνοι φησὶν ἄπειροί εἰσι τῇ ἐπινοήσει τὸ πλῆθος κατὰ τὸ ἄπειρον τῶν ἐπιμορίων πλῆθος, ἂν τέως ἔλλογοί εἰσιν· οἱ δ’ ἄλογοί τε καὶ ἄρρητοι ὑπερέκεινα, καθ’ ὡς ἄρα καὶ αἱ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς φθόγγου παρηχήσεις ἄπειροι. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο διαφέρει φθόγγος τόνου ἢ ὡς σημεῖον γραμμῆς. ὁ γὰρ φθόγγος μιᾶς χορδῆς ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ τόνος δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων. ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖ ἀδιάφορόν ἐστι, κἂν τὸ σημεῖον, κἂν τὴν γραμμὴν εἰς τοὺς συνεχεῖς τόπους μεταφέρωμεν, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸ κατὰ τὸ συνεχὲς πλῆθος τῶν τοιούτων ἐμφαίνεται. ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὴν αἴσθησιν ὡρισμένοι εἰσί, καὶ τέως ἐφ’ ἑκάστης συμφωνίας τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ τῶν τόνων ὅροι, εἷς ὁ τῶν ἄκρων, δεύτερος ὁπόσον τὸ πλῆθος τῶν μεταξὺ τῶν ἄκρων, καὶ τρίτος, καθ’ ὃν ὑπάρχουσιν αἱ ὑπεροχαὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς ἢ κατὰ δίεσιν ἢ καθ’ ἡμιτόνιον ἢ κατά τινα ἐπιμόριον ἄλλον. [174]

[ 755 ]

Πλὴν καθόσον τούτων μὲν τῶν ὅρων ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει τὸ αἴτιον, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν τόνων ἕπεταί πως. ΠΛ Ὴ Ν Τ ῶΝ Ὅ ΡΩ Ν ἡ διαφορὰ πρὸς τοὺς τῆς συμφωνίας τόνους, ὅτι ἐκείνων μὲν ἕκαστος ἰδιάζον καὶ ἄμεικτον ἔχει τὸ αἴτιον. ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄκρων ἢ ἡμιόλιον ἢ ἐπίτριτον ἢ διπλάσιον ἢ τριπλάσιον ἢ τετραπλάσιον. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν διαστημάτων ἢ γ΄ ἢ δ΄ ἢ ζ΄ ἢ ια΄ ἢ ιδ΄· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν λόγων καὶ τῶν ὑπεροχῶν πλείστη ἐστὶν ἡ διαφορὰ πάντως ἐφ’ ἑκάστης συμφωνίας· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν τόνων πρὸς τὸν πρῶτον οἱ λοιποὶ δύο ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ τετραχόρδου ἀκόλουθοί εἰσι παραπεφυλαγμένοι ἀκριβῶς εἰς τὸ μέλος ἐξεργάσασθαι πρόσφορον· ὃ δὴ ἀγνοήσαντες οἱ παλαιοὶ οὐκ ἐφρόντισαν, ἵν’ οἱ ἄκροι συνηχῶσιν, ἀλλ’ οἱ μὲν οὐ φθάνουσι τὸ διὰ πασῶν, οἱ δ’ ὑπερβαίνουσιν, οἱ δὴ καὶ οὐ συμφώνους τοὺς ἄκρους καθιστῶσιν, οἱ δ’ ἐπ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο φθάνουσι καὶ εὐστοχοῦσι τῆς συμφωνίας τῶν ἄκρων συμπεραίνοντες καὶ συμβιβάζοντες τὴν τῶν ἄκρων τόνων διάστασιν. οὔτε γὰρ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φωνὴ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχει τὸν ὅρον τῆς μεταβάσεως, οὔτ’ ἄλλο τι τῶν ποιούντων τοὺς ψόφους ὀργάνων. ἡμεῖς δ’ οὐχ ἕνεκα μόνον τῶν ὀξυτέρων καὶ βαρυτέρων φωνῶν τὴν κατὰ τῶν τόνων μεταβολὴν ζητοῦμεν - ὡς φέρε γενέσθαι ὀξύτερον μόνον ἢ βαρύτερον τὸ μέλος τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἤθους φυλασσομένου ἀεί· πρὸς ταῦτα γὰρ ἡ τῶν ὀργάνων ἐπίτασις καὶ ἄνεσις ἀπαρκεῖ, ὅταν ἀποτελῆται τὸ αὐτὸ μέλος ἢ κατ’ ὀξυφωνίαν ἢ κατὰ βαρυφωνίαν - ἀλλὰ ζητοῦμεν καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἤθους μεταβολὴν ποτὲ μὲν ἀρχομένου ἀπὸ τῶν ὀξυτέρων, ποτὲ δ’ ἀπὸ τῶν βαρυτέρων, ὅτε οὐ πρὸς ἑκάτερα τὰ μέρη τοῦ μέλους τὰ τῆς φωνῆς συναπαρτίζεται, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ προκαταλήγει ἐφ’ ἓν μὲν μέρος τυχὸν τὸ τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ μέλους, ἐφ’ ἓν δὲ τὸ πέρας τοῦ μέλους τῆς φωνῆς· ὥστε τὸ ἀρχῆθεν ἐφαρμόζον τῇ διαστάσει μέλος πῇ μὲν ἀπολεῖπον, πῇ δ’ ἐπιλαμβάνον ἑτερότητα τοῦ ἤθους ποιεῖν.

[ 756 ]

Homeric Questions CONTENTS Quaestionum Homericarum liber I (recensio V) Quaestionum Homericarum liber I (recensio X)

[ 757 ]

Quaestionum Homericarum liber I (recensio V) ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΥ ΟΜΗΡΙΚΩΝ ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΩΝ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ Α ‹Porphyrius ad Anatolium› Πολλάκις μὲν ἐν ταῖς πρὸς ἀλλήλους συνουσίαις Ὁμηρικῶν ζητημάτων γινομένων, Ἀνατόλιε, κἀμοῦ δεικνύναι πειρωμένου, ὡς αὐτὸς μὲν ἑαυτὸν τὰ πολλὰ Ὅμηρος ἐξηγεῖται, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐκ τῆς παιδικῆς κατηχήσεως περινοοῦμεν μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ἢ νοοῦμεν ἃ λέγει, ἠξίωσας ἀναγράψαι με τὰ λεχθέντα μηδὲ διαπεσόντα ἐᾶσαι ὑπὸ τῆς λήθης ἀφανισθῆναι. μὴ ὢν δὲ οἷός τε πρὸς τὰς σὰς δεήσεις ἀντιβλέπειν διὰ σὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Ὁμήρου ἐραστάς, πειράσομαι τά τε ῥηθέντα ποτὲ ἀνενεγκεῖν τά τε πάλιν ὑποπεσόντα προσθεῖναι, τὰς μὲν μείζους εἰς Ὅμηρον πραγματείας ὑπερτιθέμενος εἰς καιρὸν σκέψεως τὸν προσήκοντα, ταυτὶ δὲ οἷον προγύμνασμα τῶν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγώνων, ἐν οἷς ἀγνοεῖται μὲν πολλὰ τῶν κατὰ τὴν φράσιν, λανθάνει δὲ τοὺς πολλοὺς τῇ [2] δοκούσῃ ἐπιτρέχειν τῶν ποιημάτων ὁλοσχερεῖ σαφηνείᾳ προσέχοντας. αὐτὸς δὲ ἕκαστος ἑαυτὸν ἀνακρίνων εὐθυνέτω, πρὶν ὑφ’ ἡμῶν ἐπαχθῆναι τὴν ἐξήγησιν, ποίαν περὶ τῶν προβαλλομένων ἐπῶν εἶχε τὴν διάνοιαν. ἢ γὰρ ταὐτὰ γνοὺς ἡμᾶς λέγοντας βεβαίαν τὴν περὶ τῶν νοηθέντων ἕξει κρίσιν, ἢ σφαλλόμενος μεταβήσεται ἡμᾶς τε ὀνήσει πλανωμένους διορθώσας. Ἐζητοῦμεν τὸν νοῦν τὸν τούτων καὶ τὰς λέξεις· “εἶμι μέν, οὐδ’ ἁλίη ὁδὸς ἔσσεται ἣν ἀγορεύω, ἔμπορος· οὐδ’ ἐρετάων ἐπήβολος γίνομαι· ὥς νύ που ὔμμιν ἐείσατο κέρδιον εἶναι”. τί σημαίνει τὸ “ἔμπορος” καὶ τὸ “ἐπήβολος” καὶ πρὸς τί ἀναφέρεται τὸ “ὥς νύ που ὔμμιν ἐείσατο κέρδιον εἶναι”; τὸ μὲν οὖν “ἔμπορος” [3] οὐ κατὰ τὴν συνήθειαν τέτακται παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίας νηὸς περώντων, οὓς συνήθως ἐπιβάτας νῦν λέγομεν. αὐτὸς γοῦν ἐν ἄλλοις παρίστησι λέγων· “ἢ ἔμπορος εἰλήλουθας νηὸς ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίης”, τῶν Ἀττικῶν τῶν ἐν ταῖς τριήρεσι στρατευομένων τοὺς μὲν μαχομένους ἐπιβάτας καλούντων, τοὺς δὲ τὰς κώπας κατὰ πηδαλίου ἔχοντας ἐπικώπους. ὅπερ δὲ παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ τῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἅρμασιν οἱ μὲν μαχόμενοι “παραιβάται”, οἱ δὲ τὰς ἡνίας ἔχοντες “ἡνίοχοι”, τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς τριήρεσιν ἐπίκωποι καὶ ἐπιβάται παρ’ Ἀττικοῖς δύνανται. [4] οὐ μέντοι ὁ “ἔμπορος” ἀπὸ τοῦ πορίζειν πεποίηται παρ’ Ὁμήρου, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ πόρου, τουτέστι τῆς πορείας. τὸν δὲ πόρον κυρίως ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τάττει πορείας, λέγων· “ὅσσ’ ἐμόγησα πόρους ἁλὸς ἐξερεείνων” καὶ “ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ πόρον ἷξον ἐϋρρεῖος ποταμοῖο”. ὡς οὖν τὸ μὴ ἐν οἰκείῳ οἴκῳ γαμεῖν ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ ‹ἐγ›γαμεῖν λέγουσιν, οὕτως τὸ ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίας νηὸς τὸν πλοῦν ποιεῖσθαι ἐμπορεύεσθαι. καὶ “ἔμπορος” ὁ τοιοῦτος. [5] τὸ δὲ “ἐπήβολος” σημαίνει τὸν ἐπιτυχῆ καὶ ἐγκρατῆ, ἀπὸ τῆς βολῆς καὶ τοῦ βάλλειν, ὃ σημαίνει τὸ [ 758 ]

τυγχάνειν τοῦ σκοποῦ, ὅθεν καὶ τὸ “σὺ δ’ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλεο σῇσι”, τουτέστιν ἐπιτυχῶς λάμβανε. καὶ ἡ βουλὴ δὲ οἷον βολή τις, ὅθεν ἔφη· “σῇ δ’ ἥλω βουλῇ Πριάμοιο πόλις”, ὡς εἰ ἔφη· τοῖς σοῖς ὅπλοις ἢ τόξοις ἢ βέλεσι. λύσεις ἐντεῦθεν καὶ [6] τὸ “ἡ δὲ Φερὰς ἐπέβαλεν ἐπειγομένη Διὸς οὔρῳ”· μετῆκται γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν πόρρω τὴν ἐπιβολὴν ποιουμένων ὥστε τυχεῖν· ἡ ναῦς οὖν ἐπιβολὴν ἐποιεῖτο ὥστε τυχεῖν τῶν Φερῶν. οὕτω τῇ λέξει καὶ οἱ μεθ’ Ὅμηρον κέχρηνται· Σοφοκλῆς Ἀλκμαίωνι· “εἴθ’ εὖ φρονήσαντ’ εἰσίδοιμί πως φρενῶν ἐπήβολον καλῶν σε”, Πλάτων Νόμων πρώτῳ· “ἐπήβολοι γεγονότες τῆς καλλίστης ᾠδῆς”, Ὑπερίδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Δημάδου· “μηδέποτε πολέμου μήτε πολιτείας ἐπηβόλους γενέσθαι”, [7] Ἄρχιππος Πλούτῳ· “νῦν ὡς ἐγενόμην χρημάτων ἐπήβολος”. ἔστι δὲ οὐ ποιητικὴ λέξις ἀλλ’ Ἀττική. τί οὖν αἱ λέξεις σημαίνουσι δεδήλωται. τὸ δὲ “ὥς νύ που ὔμμιν ἐείσατο κέρδιον εἶναι” σὺν βαρύτητι εἴρηται, λέγοντος Τηλεμάχου· ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ πλευσοῦμαι νηί· οὐ γάρ εἰμι ἐπιτυχὴς ἰδίας νηὸς οὐδὲ ἐρέτας κέκτημαι· τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν ὠφελιμώτερον εἶναι ἐφάνη, τουτέστι τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἐμὲ ἰδίαν ναῦν ἀλλ’ ἔμπορον πλεῖν· ἀναφέρει δὲ εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι εἰς πενίαν αὐτὸν κατέστησαν. προεῖπε γάρ· “ἢ οὐχ ἅλις, ὡς τὸ πρόσθεν ἐκείρετο πολλὰ καὶ ἐσθλὰ κτήματ’ ἐμά, μνηστῆρες, ἐγὼ δ’ ἔτι νήπιος ἦα;” [8] ἔστιν οὖν οὕτω τὸ νόημα· ἀντὶ ναυκλήρου δι’ ὑμᾶς ἐπιβάτης γέγονα τἀμὰ καταναλώσαντας. Τοῦ ποιητοῦ πολλάκις ἐπισημαινομένου περὶ τῶν πυρῶν, ἃς οἱ Τρῶες ἐποιοῦντο ἐκ παραγγελίας τοῦ Ἕκτορος τοιαύτης· “ἐπὶ δὲ ξύλα πολλὰ λέγεσθε, ὥς κε παννύχιοι μέσφ’ ἠοῦς ἠριγενείης καίωμεν πυρὰ πολλά, σέλας δ’ οὐρανὸν ἵκῃ”, καὶ πάλιν· “ἐγγὺς γὰρ νηῶν καὶ τείχεος αὖλιν ἔθεντο Τρῶες ὑπέρθυμοι τηλεκλειτοί τ’ ἐπίκουροι, κειάμενοι πυρὰ πολλὰ κατὰ στρατόν”, καὶ πάλιν· “ὅτ’ ἐς πεδίον τὸ Τρωϊκὸν ἀθρήσειε, θαύμαζε πυρὰ πολλὰ τὰ καίετο Ἰλιόθι πρό”, εἰκότως ἀσαφές [9] ἐστι τὸ τοῦ Δόλωνος, ὅτι ἐρωτηθεὶς “πῶς δ’ αἱ τῶν Τρώων φυλακαί τε καὶ εὐναί;” ἀποκρίνεται· “φυλακὰς δ’ ἃς εἴρεαι, ἥρως, οὔ τις κεκριμένη ῥύεται στρατὸν οὐδὲ φυλάσσει· ὅσσαι μὲν Τρώων πυρὸς ἐσχάραι, οἷσιν ἀνάγκη οἵ τ’ ἐγρηγόρθασι φυλασσέμεναί τε κέλονται ἀλλήλοις”. τί γὰρ βούλεται τὸ “ὅσσαι μὲν Τρώων πυρὸς ἐσχάραι”, προδεδηλωμένου ὅτι πολλὰς πυρὰς ἔκαιον; ὃ ἀποροῦντας οὐκ ἔστι ῥᾷον συνιδεῖν. λύοντες οὖν ἐλέγομεν ἡμεῖς περὶ τῶν ἐν πεδίῳ πυρῶν νῦν οὐ ποιεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ βούλεσθαι εἰπεῖν ὡς ὅσοι Τρῶες αὐθιγενεῖς καὶ οὐ ξένοι ἀλλ’ ἑστίαν ἔχοντες, ὃ ἐν ἄλλοις περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν φησι· “Τρῶας μὲν λέξαςθαι ἐφέστιοι [10] ὅσοι ἔασι”, τουτέστιν ὅσοι πῦρ καὶ ἑστίας ἔχουσιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις· “ἦλθε μὲν αὐτὸς ζωὸς ἐφέστιος”, ἤτοι εἰς τὴν ἑστίαν· ἑστία δὲ ὁ οἶκος· ὃ γὰρ εἶπεν· “ἦλθε μὲν αὐτὸς ἐφέστιος”, μεταλαβὼν ἔφη· “ἦλθ’ Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ οἶκον ἱκάνεται”. καὶ πάλιν ἀντὶ τοῦ οἶκος· “ἱστίη τ’ Ὀδυσῆος ἀμύμονος”. ὁ οὖν κεκτημένος οἰκίαν ἐφέστιος· ὁ δ’ ἄπολις καὶ φυγὰς “ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιος”. τὸ οὖν “ὅσσαι μὲν Τρώων πυρὸς ἐσχάραι” δηλοῖ ὅσαι Τρώων ἑστίαι, ἐξ οὗ ὅσοι Τρώων [11] ἐφέστιοι καὶ πολῖται. καὶ ὅτι τοὺς πολίτας εἶπεν ἐνταῦθα μὴ λείπειν τὰς ‹φυλακὰς› διὰ ‹τοῦ› “πυρὸς ἐσχάραι”, δηλοῖ τὰ ἐπαγόμενα· “οἷσιν ἀνάγκη οἵ τ’ ἐγρηγόρθασι [ 759 ]

φυλασσέμεναί τε κέλονται ἀλλήλοις· αὐτὰρ αὖτε πολύκλειτοι ἐπίκουροι εὕδουσι· Τρωσὶ γὰρ ἐπιτροπέουσι φυλάσσειν”. ἐκ τούτων λύσεις καὶ τὸ περὶ τῶν Φαιάκων εἰρημένον· “πᾶσι γὰρ ἐπίστιόν ἐστιν”, ἤτοι οὐδεὶς [12] ξένος ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ πάντες πολῖται καὶ ἐφέστιον πῦρ ἔχοντες. διὰ δὲ ψιλοῦ ἐξενήνεκται, ὡς τὸ δέχεσθαι δέκεσθαι καὶ οὐχὶ οὐκί. Τὸ “αἰόλον” οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅθεν τῶν γραμματικῶν τινες ἐπὶ τοῦ ποικίλου παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ ἀκούειν ἀξιοῦσιν· οὕτω γοῦν τὸ “αἰολόπωλον” ἀποδιδόασι καὶ τὸ “αἰόλος ἵππος” καὶ “αἰόλον ὄφιν”. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἀλλὰ σημαίνει τὸν ταχύν, γενόμενον ἀπὸ τῆς ἀέλλης, ἥτις ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄειν καὶ εἱλεῖν πεποίηται, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐξηγήσατο εἰπών· “ὅν περ ἄελλαι χειμέριαι εἰλέωσιν”, ἤτοι εἱλῶσιν, ὡς καὶ [13] ἐπὶ τοῦ Βορρᾶ ἔφη· “εἴλει γὰρ Βορέης ἄνεμος”. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἄελλα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄειν καὶ εἱλεῖν, ἡ δὲ θύελλα ἀπὸ τοῦ θύειν καὶ εἱλεῖν, θύειν δὲ τὸ σφοδρῶς ὁρμᾶν δίκην μαινομένων· “ἦ γὰρ ὅ γ’ ὀλοῇσι φρεσὶ θύει”, ὅθεν καὶ Θυάδες αἱ Βάκχαι. ὡς οὖν “ἀελλόπους” ἡ Ἶρις λέγεται, ἣν μεταλαβὼν “ποδήνεμον” προσηγόρευκεν, οὕτω τὸν ποδώκη ἵππον μεταλαμβάνων “πόδας αἰόλος ἵππος” εἶπε· καὶ ὡς εἰπὼν “ἀργίποδας κύνας” κατὰ περίληψιν ἀλλαχοῦ ἔφη “καὶ κύνας ἀργούς”, οὕτω τοὺς πόδας αἰόλους ἵππους [14] κατὰ τὴν περίληψιν “αἰολοπώλους” ἔφη. καὶ “αἰόλαι” οὖν “εὐλαὶ” ἀπὸ τοῦ εἱλεῖσθαι ταχέως λέγονται, καὶ “σφῆκες μέσον αἰόλοι” οἱ κατὰ τὸ μέσον συνεχῶς κινούμενοι καὶ εἱλούμενοι. καὶ “κορυθαιόλος” οὖν ὁ συνεχῶς κινῶν τὴν κόρυθα, ὃ μεταποιῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἄρεος ἔφη· “ἶσος Ἐνυαλίῳ κορυθάϊκι”. λύσεις ἐντεῦθεν καὶ τὸ “ὡς δ’ ὅτε γαστέρ’ ἀνὴρ πολέος πυρὸς αἰθομένοιο, ἐμπλείην κνίσσης τε καὶ αἵματος, ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα αἰόλλῃ”· δηλοῖ οὖν τὸ εἱλεῖν καὶ συνεχῶς στρέφειν. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ “κορυθάϊκι” λύσεις τὸ “Δωριέες τε τριχάϊκες”, οἱ [15] συνεχῶς τὰς τρίχας διὰ τὸ δραστικὸν κινοῦντες· καρηκομόωντες εἴρηνται. Οὐ δεῖ δυσχεραίνειν, εἰ τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν νῦν παιδευτῶν λανθάνει τινὰ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν, ὅπου καὶ τὸν δοκοῦντα εἶναι ἀκριβέστατον καὶ πολυμαθέστατον Καλλίμαχον ἔλαθεν ἡ διαφορὰ τῆς ἁρματροχίας, ἣν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν χωρὶς τοῦ ρ λεγομένην ἁματροχίαν. ἔστι δὲ ἁματροχία τὸ ἅμα τρέχειν καὶ μὴ ἀπολείπεσθαι, οἷον ὁμοδρομία τις οὖσα· τρόχους γὰρ τοὺς δρόμους ἔλεγον. ἁρματροχία δὲ τῶν τροχῶν τὸ ἴχνος. ἄμφω δὲ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ κεῖται, τὰς δυνάμεις αὐτῶν τοῦ ποιητοῦ ἐξηγουμένου. ὅτι γὰρ τὸ ἅμα τρέχειν δηλοῖ ἁματροχία, παρίστησιν ἐπὶ τοῦ Μενελάου λέγων “τῇ ῥ’ εἶχε Μενέλαος ἁματροχίαν [16] ἀλεείνων”· ὑπελείπετο γὰρ διὰ τὸν ῥωχμὸν τῆς γῆς τὴν συνέμπτωσιν τοῦ δρόμου φυλασσόμενος. τοῦτο δὲ μεταλαβὼν ἐν ἄλλοις ἐξηγήσατο “αἰὲν ὁμοστιχάει”. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐμαίου δὲ ἐχομένου ἤδη τροφῆς καὶ συμβαδίζοντος τῇ μητρί φησι· “παῖδα γὰρ ἀνδρὸς ἑῆος ἐνὶ μεγάροισ ἀτιτάλλω, κερδαλέον δὴ τοῖον, ἁματροχόωντα θύραζε”, τουτέστιν ἤδη μοι ἔξω συντρέχειν δυνάμενον καὶ βάδην σὺν ἐμοὶ πορευόμενον, οὐκ ἐπικολπίδιον· ταὐτὸν δὲ τῷ “ἁματροχόωντα θύραζε” τὸ “ἡ δέ με χειρὸς ἑλοῦσα δόμων ἐξῆγε θύραζε”. ἁματροχία οὖν οὕτως. ἁρματροχία δὲ ὅτι τὸ ἀπὸ τῶν τροχῶν ἴχνος δηλοῖ, αὐτὸς πάλιν παρίστησι λέγων· “οὐδ’ ἄρα πολλὴ γίνεται ἐπισσώτρων ἁρματροχίη κατόπισθεν ἐν λεπτῇ κονίῃ”· διὰ [17] γὰρ τὸ λεπτὸν καὶ ὀλίγον τῆς κόνεως μὴ πολὺ γίνεσθαι τὸ τῶν ἐπισσώτρων [ 760 ]

ἴχνος φησίν. ἐξηγήσατο δὲ καὶ πῶς γίνεται τὸ ἴχνος, ὅτι λειπόμενον ὀπίσω τοῦ ἱεμένου εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσθεν. ἀγνοήσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Καλλίμαχός φησιν· “ἀλλὰ θεόντων ὡς ἀνέμων οὐδεὶς εἶδεν ἁματροχίας”. βούλεται μὲν γὰρ εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐδεὶς εἶδεν ἴχνος διὰ τὸ θεῖν ὡς ἀνέμους· ἁματροχίαι δὲ οὐ δηλοῦσι τὰ ἴχνη τῶν θεόντων ἁρμάτων, ἀλλ’ αἱ μετὰ τοῦ ρ λεγόμεναι ἁρματροχίαι. Τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν Λιτῶν ἀναγινώσκων οὕτως ἔχουσαν· “ὣς οἱ μὲν Τρῶες φυλακὰς ἔχον· αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιοὺς θεσπεσίη ἔχε φύζα φόβου κρυόεντος ἑταίρη, πένθεϊ δ’ ἀτλήτῳ βεβολήατο πάντες ἄριστοι. ὡς δ’ ἄνεμοι δύο πόντον ὀρίνετον ἰχθυόεντα Βορέης καὶ Ζέφυρος, τώ τε Θρῄκηθεν ἄητον ἐλθόντ’ ἐξαπίνης· ἄμυδις δέ τε κῦμα κελαινὸν κορθύεται, πολλὸν δὲ παρὲξ ἅλα φῦκος ἔχευε· ὣς ἐδαΐζετο θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν Ἀχαιῶν”, ταῦτ’ οὖν ἀναγινώσκων ἠπόρεις, πῶς ἀκριβὴς ὢν [18] περὶ τὰς εἰκόνας Ὅμηρος νῦν δοκεῖ πρὸς μηδεμίαν χρείαν δυοῖν ἀνέμοιν εἰκόνα παραλαμβάνειν. εἰ γὰρ αὐξήσεως ἕνεκα, ἔδει τοὺς τέσσαρας, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις· “σὺν δ’ Εὖρός τε Νότος τε πέσον Ζέφυρός τε δυσαὴς καὶ Βορέης αἰθρηγενέτης, μέγα κῦμα κυλίνδων”. λύει δὲ τὴν ἀπορίαν αὐτός, ὡς καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ τοῦ Μόλωνος παρίστησι. δύο γὰρ πάθεσι χειμαζομένους ποιήσας τοὺς Ἀχαιούς, φόβῳ μὲν ἐφ’ οἷς εἴρηκε “θεσπεσίη ἔχε φύζα”, λύπῃ δὲ ἐν οἷς ἐπάγει “πένθεϊ δ’ ἀτλήτῳ βεβολήατο πάντες ἄριστοι” - δεδίασι μὲν γὰρ τὰ μέλλοντα, βαρέως δὲ φέρουσι τὰ γεγονότα - , προσηκόντως [19] αὐτοὺς ἀπεικάζει πελάγει δυσὶ πνεύμασιν ἐξεγειρομένῳ. “θεσπεσίη” δ’ “ἔχε φύζα” δηλοῖ οὐ τὸν προσγενόμενον αὐτοῖς διὰ δειλίαν φόβον, ἀλλ’ ἐκ βουλήσεως θεῶν, ὥς που καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις αὐτὸς εἶπε· “γνώσεαι δ’ εἰ καὶ θεσπεσίῃ πόλιν οὐκ ἀλαπάξεις, ἢ ἀνδρῶν κακότητι”, τουτέστι θείᾳ βουλήσει καὶ οὐ συμφύτῳ κακίᾳ. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἄλλων ἐπίθετον τὸ θεσπέσιον - “θεσπέσιός” τε γὰρ “πλοῦτος” καὶ “θεσπεσίη φύζα” - , ἐκ κοινοῦ ἔσται κἀνταῦθα [20] ἡ κακότης· γνώσῃ πότερον θεσπεσίῃ κακότητι ἢ ἀνδρῶν κακότητι. [φύζα δέ ἐστιν ἡ φυγή. φόβου δὲ φίλη λέγεται, ὅτι ὁ φοβούμενος τὴν φυγὴν προσεταιρίζεται]. καὶ τὸ μὲν “βεβολήατο” τὴν βούλησιν βεβλάφθαι δηλοῖ, τὸ δὲ βεβλῆσθαι ἐπὶ σώματος. Ἐπεὶ δὲ παραβολῆς ἐμνήσαμεν, σκέψαι τὴν τοῦ ποιητοῦ ἐνταῦθα χρῆσιν. ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος [21] τρωθέντος χρησάμενος τῇ παραβολῇ ταύτῃ· “ὡς δ’ ὅταν ὠδίνουσαν ἔχῃ βέλος ὀξὺ γυναῖκα” καὶ ἀνταποδόσει· “ὣς ὀξεῖ’ ὀδύναι δῦνον μένος Ἀτρεΐδαο”, ἐπὶ τοῦ Κύκλωπος δυνάμει τὰ τῆς παραβολῆς μεταφέρων χρῆται· “Κύκλωψ δὲ στενάχων τε καὶ ὠδίνων ὀδύνῃσιν”· ἔστι δὲ τῆς παραβολῆς τὸ “ὠδίνων”, τῆς δὲ ἀνταποδόσεως τὸ “ὀδύνῃσι”. πάλιν εἰπὼν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἕκτορος κατὰ Ἑλλήνων ὁρμῆς· “ὀλοοίτροχος ὣς ἀπὸ πέτρης, ὅν τε κατὰ στεφάνης ποταμὸς χειμάρροος ὤσῃ”, κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν φαντασίαν πεποίηκε περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοντα τὸν Διομήδη· “νῶϊν δὴ τόδε πῆμα κυλίνδεται ὄβριμος Ἕκτωρ”· ὁ δὲ ὄβριμος οἰκεῖος ἀψύχῳ ὁρμῇ· οὐ γὰρ “θρασὺν”

[ 761 ]

ἔφη οὐδὲ “κορυθαιόλον”, οἷς ἰδίως αὐτὸν προσαγορεύειν εἴωθε. πάλιν ἐπὶ τοῦ Νέστορος σκεπτομένου ποῖ τράπηταί [22] φησιν· “ὡς δ’ ὅτε πορφύρῃ πέλαγος μέγα κύματι κωφῷ ὀσσόμενον λιγέων ἀνέμων λαιψηρὰ κέλευθα αὔτως, οὐδ’ ἄρα τε προκυλίνδεται οὐδ’ ἑτέρωσε, πρίν τινα κεκριμένον καταβήμεναι ἐκ Διὸς οὖρον”· εἶτα ἐπ’ Ἀγήνορος προτραπέντος μὲν ὑπ’ Ἀπόλλωνος Ἀχιλλέα ὑποστῆναι, ὅμως δὲ τὴν θέαν αὐτοῦ καταπλαγέντος, ἠρκέσθη τῷ ὀνόματι· “πολλὰ δέ οἱ κραδίη πόρφυρε κιόντι”. πάλιν εἰπὼν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἥρας· “ὡς δ’ ὅταν ἀΐξῃ νόος ἀνέρος, ὅς τ’ ἐπὶ πολλὴν γαίαν ἐληλυθὼς φρεσὶ πευκαλίμῃσι νοήσοι ἔνθα ἴῃ ἢ ἔνθα, μενοινήσειέ τε πολλά, ὣς κραιπνῶς μεμαυῖα διέπτατο πότνια Ἥρη”, καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τοῦ νοῦ ποιήσας τὴν παραβολήν, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ πέτεσθαι τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν, συντέμνων τὰ αὐτὰ ἐν ἄλλοις φησίν· “ὡς εἰ πτερὸν ἠὲ νόημα”. θαυμαστὸν δὲ [23] αὐτῷ κἀκεῖνο· ἐκ μεταφορᾶς γάρ τι τολμηρότερον φθεγξάμενος οἰκείαν ἐπάγει παραβολήν, κρατύνων αὐτὴν ὡς εὔλογον ἔσχε τὴν τόλμαν. εἰπὼν οὖν “κραδίη δέ οἱ ἔνδον ὑλάκτει”, ἐπάγει· “ὡς δὲ κύων ἀμαλῇσι περὶ σκυλάκεσσι βεβῶσα ἄνδρ’ ἀγνοιήσασ’ ὑλάει μέμονέ τε μάχεσθαι”. καὶ αὖθις ἐπὶ τοῦ στρατοπέδου “τῶν δὲ στίχες εἵατο πυκναὶ ἀσπίσι καὶ κορύθεσσι καὶ ἔγχεσι πεφρικυῖαι” εἰπών, ἐπήγαγεν· “οἵη δὲ Ζεφύροιο ἐχεύατο πόντον ἔπι φρὶξ ὀρνυμένοιο νέον, μελάνει δέ τε πόντος ὑπ’ αὐτῆς”. ἐπί τε τῶν Τρώων ἔτι ποικιλώτερον κέχρηται· ἀρξάμενος γὰρ ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς ὁμοίωσίν τε αὐτῇ τὴν ἀκόλουθον ἐπάγει καὶ ἐπ’ ἀμφοῖν τὴν παραβολήν· “Τρῶες μὲν κλαγγῇ”· τοῦτο ἡ μεταφορά· τὸ δ’ “ὄρνιθες ὣς” ἡ ὁμοίωσις· εἶθ’ ἡ παραβολή· “ἠΰτε περ κλαγγὴ γεράνων πέλει οὐρανόθι [24] πρό”· ᾗ σχεδὸν μόνῃ τῶν παραβολῶν οὐκ ἀνταπέδωκεν, ὡς τῆς ὁμοιώσεως ἅμα καὶ μεταφορᾶς προεχουσῶν τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν. πάλιν αὐτοῦ παρατηρητέον ἐκεῖνο· τάς τε γὰρ οἰκείως τιθεμένας φωνὰς ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων πολλάκις εἰς τὰς παραβολὰς μετατίθησι καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν παραβολῶν εἰς τὰ πράγματα. οἷον ἔθνη στρατιωτῶν λέγεται, σμήνη δὲ μελισσῶν· αὐτὸς δὲ μεταλαβὼν τῷ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὀνόματι ἐπὶ τῶν μελισσῶν χρῆται· “ἠΰτ’ ἔθνεα εἶσι μελισσάων ἀδινάων”, ὃ πλήθους ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶν ὄνομα. οὕτως ὀλοοιτρόχῳ λίθῳ τὴν ὁρμὴν τοῦ Ἕκτορος εἰκάζων ἀναθρώσκειν τέ φησι τὸν λίθον καὶ πέτεσθαι, καὶ τελευτήν, ὡς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ στρατιώτου ἀφιγμένος ἀλλ’ οὐ τοῦ λίθου, ἐπάγει· “ὁ δ’ ἀσφαλέως θέει ἔμπεδον, εἰσόκεν ἔλθῃ”. οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ [25] κύματος, ὃ τάξεσιν ἀπεικάζει στρατοπέδου, προειπών· “ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἐν αἰγιαλῷ πολυηχέϊ κῦμα θαλάσσης ὄρνυται Ζεφύρου ὑποκινήσαντος”, μετάγει ἀπὸ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἐπὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· [ 762 ]

“πόντῳ μὲν τὰ πρῶτα κορύσσεται”. ἀνάπαλιν δὲ τὰς τῶν παραβολῶν μετατίθησι φωνὰς ἐπὶ τὰ πράγματα, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως “ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἀριζήλη φωνή, ὅτε τ’ ἴαχε σάλπιγξ” εἰπών, ἐπάγει μετατιθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς σάλπιγγος ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· “οἱ δ’ ὡς οὖν ἄϊον ὄπα χάλκεον Αἰακίδαο”. κεκινδύνευται δὲ αὐτῷ ἐκεῖνα, οἷον “σιδήρειος ὀρυμαγδὸς χάλκεον οὐρανὸν ἧκε δι’ αἰθέρος ἀτρυγέτοιο”. Πολλῆς ταραχῆς πλήρη ἔδοξεν εἶναι τὰ ἔπη ταῦτα· “τὴν δ’ ἑτέρην πόλιν ἀμφὶ δύο στρατοὶ εἵατο [26] λαῶν τεύχεσι λαμπόμενοι· δίχα δέ σφισιν ἥνδανε βουλή, ἠὲ διαπραθέειν ἢ ἄνδιχα πάντα δάσασθαι κτῆσιν ὅσην πτολίεθρον ἐπήρατον ἐντὸς ἐέργει· οἱ δ’ οὔ πω πείθοντο, λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο. τεῖχος μέν ῥ’ ἄλοχοί τε φίλαι καὶ νήπια τέκνα ῥύατ’ ἐφεσταότες, μετὰ δ’ ἀνέρες οὓς ἔχε γῆρας. οἱ δ’ ἴσαν· ἦρχε δ’ ἄρά σφιν Ἄρης καὶ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη ἄμφω χρυσείω, χρύσεια δὲ εἵματα ἕσθην, καλὼ καὶ μεγάλω σὺν τεύχεσιν, ὥς τε θεώ περ ἀμφὶς ἀριζήλω· λαοὶ δ’ ὑπ’ ὀλίζονες ἦσαν. οἱ δ’ ὅτε δή ῥ’ ἵκανον ἐν ποταμῷ ὅθι σφίσιν ἧκε λοχῆσαι ὅθι τ’ ἀρδμὸς ἔην πάντεσσι βοτοῖσιν, ἔνθ’ ἄρα τοί γ’ ἵζοντο εἰλυμένοι αἴθοπι χαλκῷ. τοῖσι δ’ ἔπειτ’ ἀπάνευθεν δύω σκοποὶ εἵατο λαῶν δέγμενοι ὁπότε μῆλα ἰδοίατο καὶ ἕλικας βοῦς. οἱ δὲ τάχα προγένοντο, δύω δ’ ἅμ’ ἕποντο νομῆες τερπόμενοι σύριγξι· δόλον δ’ οὔ τι προνόησαν. οἱ μὲν τὰ προϊδόντες ἐπέδραμον, ὦκα δ’ ἔπειτα τάμνοντο ἀμφὶ βοῶν ἀγέλας καὶ πώεα καλὰ ἀργεννῶν ὀΐων, [27] κτεῖνον δ’ ἐπὶ μηλοβοτῆρας. οἱ δ’ ὡς οὖν ἐπύθοντο πολὺν κέλαδον περὶ βουσὶν ἱράων προπάροιθε καθήμενοι, αὐτίκ’ ἐφ’ ἵππων βάντες ἀερσιπόδων μετεκίαθον, αἶψα δ’ ἵκοντο. στησάμενοι δ’ ἐμάχοντο μάχην ποταμοῖο παρ’ ὄχθας, βάλλον δ’ ἀλλήλους χαλκήρεσιν ἐγχείῃσι” καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. ταράσσει γὰρ τοὺς πολλούς· οἱ δύο στρατοὶ ἆρά γε πολέμιοί εἰσι τῶν κατοικούντων καὶ ἀλλήλοις φίλοι ἢ εἷς μὲν πολέμιος, ὁ δ’ ἕτερος τῶν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως; καὶ πρὸς τίνας διχονοοῦσιν; ἆρά γε πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἢ πρὸς τοὺς ἔνδον; καὶ ἐπὶ τίνων τὸ “οἱ δ’ οὔ πω πείθοντο”; ἆρα τῶν εἴσω ἢ τοῦ ἑτέρου στρατοῦ; καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τίνος τὸ “λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο”; ἆρά γε ὁ ἕτερος τῶν στρατῶν ἢ οἱ ἔνδον; καὶ τίνων οἱ σκοποί; καὶ τίνων ἡ λεία; πῶς τε, εἰ τῶν ἔνδον ἡ λεία, ὁ λόχος παρ’ αὐτῶν; καὶ τίνες οἱ ἐπεξιόντες; ἆρ’ οἱ δύο στρατοὶ ἢ οἱ ἕτεροι; ὅλως τε τίς ἡ διατύπωσις τοῦ πλάσματος; Ἀλέ[28]ξανδρος [29] μὲν ὁ Κοτιαεὺς οὕτω φησίν· “δύο στρατοὶ περιεκάθηντο τὴν πόλιν πολέμιοι, ἢ πορθεῖν ἀξιοῦντες αὐτὴν ἢ τὰ ἡμίση λαβόντες ἀπιέναι· οἱ δ’ ἔνδον ὄντες οὐκ ἐδέχοντο τὴν πρόκλησιν. οἱ οὖν πολέμιοι”, φησίν, “ἐνέδραν τινὰ ἐποιήσαντο τῶν ποιμνίων καὶ τῶν βουκόλων, ἃ ἦν κτήματα τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει”. εἶτα ἀξιοῖ τὸ μὲν “οἱ δ’ οὔ πω πείθοντο” ἀκούειν περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει, τὸ δὲ “λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο” περὶ τῶν πολεμίων, καὶ τὸ “οἱ δ’ ἴσαν” περὶ τῶν εἰς ἐνέδραν ἀπιόντων πολεμίων· οἱ δὲ σκοποὶ τῶν πολεμίων εἰσί· τὸ δὲ “οἱ δ’ ὡς οὖν ἐπύθοντο πολὺν κέλαδον περὶ βουσὶν” ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἀκούει· ἐκαθέζοντο γὰρ ἐν ἐκκλησίαις βουλευόμενοι, τὰ τείχη φρουρεῖν παραδόντες τῇ ἀπολέμῳ ἡλικίᾳ· τὸ γὰρ “ἱράων προπάροιθε καθήμενοι” σημαίνει τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ἐν αἷς εἴρουσι καὶ ἀγορεύουσιν. ὅτε δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐμηνύθη τὰ κατὰ τὰ ποίμνια,

[ 763 ]

ἐπιτρέχουσι καὶ ἐξελθόντες [30] συμβάλλουσι μάχην. εἶχε δ’ ἂν πιθανότητα ἡ διατύπωσις, εἰ μὴ πρῶτα μὲν βεβιασμένη ἦν ἡ ἀπόδοσις τοῦ τοιούτου στίχου· “οἱ δ’ οὔ πω πείθοντο, λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο”. τὸ μὲν γὰρ “οἱ δ’ οὔ πω πείθοντο” ἀξιοῖ περὶ τῶν ἔνδον ἀκούειν, τὸ δὲ “λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο” περὶ τῶν ἐκτός, ἵν’ ᾖ τὸ “οἱ δ’ οὔ πω πείθοντο ‹λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο›” ἀντὶ τοῦ μὴ πειθομένων αὐτῶν εἰς λόχον ἐθωρήσσοντο οἱ τὰς προκλήσεις πεποιημένοι. [τὸ δὲ “οἱ δ’ οὔ πω πείθοντο” ἂν ἀκούωσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ μὴ πειθομένων αὐτῶν, βίαιον]. πάλιν δὲ μεταξὺ τοῦ “λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο” ἐμβεβλῆσθαι φάσκειν ‹τὰ› περὶ τῶν ἔνδον ‹καὶ› τὸ “οἱ δ’ ἴσαν”, ἔστιν ἐλεγχόντων τὸν ποιητὴν μὴ δυνάμενον φράζειν ἀταράχως. πάντως δὲ καὶ ὁ λόχος οὐκ ἐκ πάντων ἦν τῶν ἐν τοῖς δυσὶ στρατοπέδοις, ἀλλὰ τινῶν· πῶς οὖν ὑπεξίασιν οἱ ἐν τῇ πόλει, φανερῶς τε καὶ ἀδεῶς τῶν πολιορκούντων κωλυόντων; ἀμείνους [31] οὖν οἱ οὕτω διατυπώσαντες τὸ πλάσμα· δύο στρατοὶ ἐπελθόντες τὴν λείαν περιήλασαν, καὶ τὴν πόλιν πολιορκοῦντες ἀξιοῦσι τῶν κτημάτων τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ λαβεῖν τὸ ἥμισυ ἐφ’ ᾧ γε καταθέσθαι τὸν πόλεμον. οἱ δ’ ἐν τῇ πόλει οὐκ ἐπείθοντο, ἀλλ’ ἐνεδρεύσοντες ἐπὶ πότον ἐρχόμενα τὰ τετράποδα ἀπήλασαν. οἱ πολέμιοι δὲ στρατοί, καίπερ ἐκκλησιάζοντες, ἐπεὶ ἐπύθοντο τοῦτο, τῶν ἵππων ἐπιβάντες ἐπῆλθον αὐτοῖς. ὅτι γὰρ αὐτοί εἰσι (λέγω δὴ οἱ στρατοί) ἐκκλησιάζοντες, δεδήλωκε περὶ αὐτῶν εἰπών· “δίχα δέ σφισιν ἥνδανε βουλή”. ἀκολούθως δὲ εἴρηται ἐπὶ τῶν ἐντός, ὅτι οὐκ ἐπείθοντο μέν γε, εἰς δὲ λόχον ὡπλίζοντο, παραδόντες τοῖς ἀστρατεύτοις τὴν φρουρὰν τῶν τειχῶν. καὶ τὸ “οἱ δ’ ἴσαν” ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἀκολούθως ἐπῆκται, λάθρα ἐξιόντων αὐτῶν, καὶ ὅθεν οὐκ ἦν προσδοκῆσαι τοῖς ἔξω ἀνοχὰς ἔχουσι τοῦ πολέμου καὶ ἐκκλησιάζουσιν. αὐτῶν τε οἱ σκοποὶ τῶν εἰς τὸν λόχον ἐξιόντων. καὶ οἱ τερπόμενοι ταῖς σύριγξι νομεῖς εἰ μὲν τῶν πολεμίων [32] εἶεν, ἔχει λόγον, εἰ δὲ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει, παρὰ λόγον· οὐ γὰρ οἱ τῶν πολιορκουμένων ἐτέρποντο, ἀλλ’ οἱ τῶν πολιορκούντων. καὶ λοιπὸν ἀκολούθως, ἀπελθόντων τῶν στρατῶν, παρακάθηται μὲν οὐδεὶς τὴν πόλιν, μάχη δὲ περὶ τὸν λόχον γίνεται. ἄλλοι δὲ ἠξίουν τῶν δύο στρατῶν τὸν μὲν εἶναι φίλιον τῶν ἔνδον, τὸν δὲ πολέμιον, καὶ τὸν μὲν πολέμιον ἑλεῖν βούλεσθαι τὴν πόλιν, τὸν δὲ φίλιον ἀξιοῦν τὰ ἡμίση δοῦναι τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει κτημάτων, τοὺς δὲ πολεμίους μήπω πείθεσθαι ἀλλὰ βουλεύεσθαι· ὧν βουλευομένων, λόχον αὐτῶν συστῆσαι τοὺς τῶν ἔνδον φίλους στρατιώτας. τετάρακται δὲ καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη ἐκδοχή, ὡς ἐπιόντι σοι κατ’ αὐτὰ τὰ ἔπη ἔσται δῆλον, ὥστε ἡ δευτέρα ἀπόδοσις ἔχει τὰ τῆς Ὁμηρικῆς διανοίας. ἐκεῖνο μέντοι παρελθεῖν οὐκ ἄξιον, ὅτι οἱ περὶ Παρμενίσκον [33] ἐπὶ τοῦ “τεῖχος μέν ῥ’ ἄλοχοί τε φίλαι καὶ νήπια τέκνα ῥύατ’ ἐφεσταότες μετὰ δ’ ἀνέρες οὓς ἔχε γῆρας” στίζειν ἠξίουν μετὰ τὸ “ῥύατο”, εἶτα συνῆπτον τὸ ἑξῆς· “ἐφεσταότες μετὰ δ’ ἀνέρες οὓς ἔχε γῆρας”. “ἐὰν γὰρ τοῖς ἄνω”, φασί, “συνάψωμεν, σολοικισμὸς ἔσται, ἐπεὶ θηλυκὸν πρόκειται καὶ οὐδέτερον, τὸ δὲ “ἑσταότες” ἀρσενικόν”. ἦ οὖν ἐδυνάμην φάναι πρὸς αὐτούς, ὅτι καὶ οὕτως Ὅμηρος πολλὰ σχηματίζει· καὶ αὐτὸς γὰρ λέγει “κλυτὸς Ἱπποδάμεια” καὶ “θῆλυς ἀϋτμὴ” καὶ “ὀλοώτατος ὀδμὴ” καὶ “ὄπα χάλκεον” καὶ “ἁλὸς πολιοῖο”, [34] καὶ ἐπὶ δυϊκῶν· “οὐκ ἂν ἐφ’ ὑμετέρων ὀχέων πληγέντε κεραυνῷ”. ἄλλως τε ἐν τοῖς τέκνοις καὶ οἱ ἄρσενές εἰσι· τί οὖν κωλύει πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον ἀπηντηκέναι, ὡς ἐπ’ ἄλλων [ 764 ]

μυρίων; οἷον· “νεφέλη δέ μιν ἀμφιβέβηκε κυανέη· τὸ μὲν οὔ ποτ’ ἐρωεῖ”· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ νέφος ἡ ἀπόδοσις. πάλιν· “ἠδ’ ἐπὶ δεξιά, ἠδ’ ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰ νωμῆσαι βῶν ἀζαλέην, τὸ μοί ἐστι ταλαύρινον πολεμίζειν”· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ σάκος ἡ ἀναφορά. καὶ εἰπὼν “ἐπ’ εἰροπόκοις ὀΐεσσι”, ἐπάγει “τὰ δ’ ἔρημα φοβεῖσθαι”· πρὸς γὰρ τὰ πρόβατα τὸ σχῆμα δηλούμενον. καὶ ὧδε οὖν πρὸς τοὺς παῖδας φαίη ἄν τις τὴν ἀναφοράν. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις καὶ δύο σχήματ’ ἔμιξεν, ἐπὶ τοῦ “διάνδιχ’ ἅπαντα δάσασθαι κτῆσιν ὅσην πτολίεθρον [35] ἐπήρατον ἐντὸς ἐέργει”· τὸ γὰρ “ἅπαντα” ἀναφέρεται πρὸς τὰ κτήματα, τὸ δὲ “ὅσην” πρὸς τὴν κτῆσιν. ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ παραπλήσιόν τι νῦν κἀνθάδε πεπονθέναι τὴν φράσιν τῷ λεγομένῳ Ἀλκμανικῷ σχήματι, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τοιοῦτον· “ἔνθα μὲν εἰς Ἀχέροντα Πυριφλεγέθων τε ῥέουσι Κώκυτός τε”, “εἰ δέ κ’ Ἄρης ἄρχωσι μάχης ἢ Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων”. ὡς γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ἐν μέσῳ κεῖται ὃ ἔδει ἐπάγεσθαι, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν νῦν ζητουμένων. εἰ γοῦν τὸ “ἐφεσταότες” ἐπαγάγῃς τῷ “μετὰ δ’ ἀνέρες οὓς ἔχε γῆρας”, οὐδ’ ἂν ἔτι ζητοῖτο· μόνῳ δὲ τούτῳ διαφέρει τοῦ Ἀλκμανικοῦ, [36] ᾗ ἐκεῖνο μὲν τοῖς παρ’ ἀριθμὸν σχήμασιν ὑποπίπτει, τοῦτο δὲ τοῖς παρὰ γένος, ὑπερβατῶς δὲ ἀμφότερα λύεται. Ἐν τοῖς Φιλήμονος Συμμίκτοις περὶ Ἡροδοτείου διορθώματος ὁ γραμματικὸς διαλεγόμενος πειρᾶται καὶ Ὁμηρικά τινα σαφηνίζειν. οὐδὲν δὲ χεῖρον καὶ τὸν Ἡρόδοτον φιλοῦντί σοι τὴν πᾶσαν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀναγράψαι ζήτησιν. φησὶ γὰρ ὅτι ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ Ἡρόδοτος τῶν ἱστοριῶν περὶ Κροίσου τοῦ Λυδοῦ πολλά τε ἄλλα διείλεκται, καὶ μὴν ὅτι θεοσεβέστατος γένοιτο καὶ διαπρεπῶς τιμήσαι τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ μαντεῖα, τὰ ἐν Δελφοῖς, τὰ ἐν Θήβαις, τὸ τοῦ Ἄμμωνος, τὸ τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου· “τοῦτο μὲν δὴ ἄλλοις ἄλλα πέμψε δῶρα, ἀνέθηκε δέ τινα καὶ ἐν Βραγχίδῃσι τῇσι Μιλησίων”. καὶ γέγραπται ἤδη κατὰ πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ ἀντίγραφα [37] τὸ “τῆς” ἄρθρον σὺν τῷ ἰῶτα ἰσοδυναμοῦν τῷ “ταῖς”. οὐδένα γε μὴν Ἑλλήνων ὑπομεῖναι θηλυκῶς τὰς Βραγχίδας ἂν εἰπεῖν, Ἡρόδοτον δὲ μᾶλλον ἂν ἑτέρων φυλάξασθαι, ἀκριβῆ τε ὄντα περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα καὶ πάνυ ἐπιεικῶς φροντιστικόν. “τοῦτο δὴ θεραπεύων τις οὐχ Ἡροδότου, φησίν, ἁμάρτημα γεγονέναι, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸν συγγραφέα φησὶ διαμαρτεῖν [36] παρεμβαλόντα τὸ ςι, πολλὰ δὲ φέρεσθαι μέχρι νῦν ἁμαρτήματα κατὰ τὴν Ἡροδότου συγγραφὴν καὶ ἔτι τὴν Θουκυδίδου καὶ Φιλίστου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀξιολόγων συγγραφέων. τί δ’ οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ ποιήματα σχεδὸν ἀνάπλεω πάντα τυγχάνει ἁμαρτημάτων γραφικῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων παραδιορθωμάτων πάνυ ἀγροίκων; καὶ ἵνα μὴ περαιτέρω τις προβαίνων ἐνοχλῇ διερευνώμενος τὰς ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις ἐμμεμενηκυίας ἡμαρτημένας γραφάς, ἔξεστί σοι σκοπεῖν καὶ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν ταδί· “ὅς τ’ ἐπεὶ ἐκ πολέων πίσυρας συναγείρεται ἵππους …λαοφόρον καθ’ ὁδόν”. ἐνταῦθα γὰρ πρὸς οὐδὲν ἀναγκαῖον ἐγράφη διὰ τοῦ γ· νωθρὸν οὖν τὸ σημαινόμενον καὶ σφόδρα ὑπόκωφον προσπίπτειν ἔοικε. τὸ δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ γ γράφειν Ὁμηρικὸν πάνυ τῇ χρήσει καὶ τῷ λόγῳ [37] πάντη συνᾴδον ἐπιεικῶς. τὸ γὰρ “συναείρεται” μᾶλλον προσεχῶς σημαίνει τὸ συνάγειν καὶ συναρμόζειν. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις· “σὺν δ’ ἤειρεν ἱμᾶσι”, συνήγαγε τοὺς ἵππους. ὁ δὲ [ 765 ]

βέλτιστος Ἀριστοφάνης κἀκεῖνο τὸ ἐν ταῖς Παραποταμίαις λεγόμενον· “θρώσκων τις κατὰ κῦμα μέλαιναν φρῖχ’ ὑπαλύξει ἰχθῦς, ὅς κε φάγῃσι Λυκάονος ἀργῆτα δημόν”, δείκνυσι ὡς ἡμαρτημένον ὑπολείποιτο ἐκ τῆς παλαιᾶς γραμματικῆς. οὐ γὰρ χρὴ τὸ “ὅς κε φάγῃσιν” ἀκούειν ὡς ἄρθρον ὑποτακτικόν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀντ’ ἐπιρρήματος παρειλῆφθαι τοῦ ὧς, ἢ μᾶλλον σύνδεσμον αἰτιώδη. δηλοῦται γάρ· ἵνα φάγῃ· σκοπῶν δὴ (ὡς τὸ σύμπαν προσεχῶς συντέτακται), κατὰ τὴν [38] τούτου γνώμην, ἀκολούθως ὑποδύσεται τὸν ἀφρὸν ὁ ἰχθῦς. καὶ τοῦτο ἀναγκασθήσεται πρᾶξαι καὶ ἐπιπολαίως ὑπονήξεται τοῦ ὕδατος ὑποδεδυκώς, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἀποθανόντων τὰ σώματα, ἕως ἂν ᾖ πρόσφατα καὶ διῳδηκότα, ἄνωθεν ἐπιπλεῖν εἴωθεν”. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον κινεῖται ἡ γραφή, φησὶν αὖθις διὰ πλειόνων ἐπιδείξειν. “ἐπανάγωμεν δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἡρόδοτον καὶ τὸν διορθωτὴν τὸν Κοτιαέα Ἀλέξανδρον. ἠξίου γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ γράφειν “τῇσι Μιλησίων” χωρὶς τοῦ ἰῶτα “τῆς Μιλησίων”, ὑποκειμένης ἔξωθεν χώρης ἢ γῆς. καὶ ἐγὼ δέ, φησίν, ἐπειθόμην οὕτως ἔχειν τὰ τῆς γραφῆς, τὸν δὲ ἄνδρα τῆς ἀκριβοῦς συνέσεως ἐτεθαυμάκειν. ἐντυχὼν ‹δὲ› τοῖς Ἡροδοτείοις αὐτοῖς ἔπεσι καὶ γενόμενος ἐπὶ τέλει τῆς Αἰγυπτιακῆς βίβλου, ἥτις ἐστὶ δευτέρα τῇ τάξει, εὑρίσκω πάλιν κατὰ τὴν αἰτιατικὴν πτῶσιν εἰπόντα τὸν Ἡρόδοτον· “ἀνέθηκεν εἰς Βραγχίδας τὰς Μιλησίων”. οὐκέτι οὖν ᾤμην ἁμάρτημα εἶναι γραφικόν, Ἰωνικὸν δὲ μᾶλλον ἰδίωμα. πολλὰ γὰρ οὗτοι τῶν ὀνομάτων χαίρουσι θηλυκῶς ἐκφέροντες, οἷον τήν τε λίθον καὶ τὴν κίονα καὶ ἔτι τὴν Μαραθῶνα· Κρατῖνος “εὐιπποτάτη Μαραθών”, Νίκανδρος [39] “εὐκτιμένην Μαραθῶνα”. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἃ ἡμεῖς εὕρομεν καὶ ἐκρίναμεν ὑγιέα”. τοιαῦτα δὴ τοῦ Φιλήμονος λέγοντος, ἃ μὲν πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον περὶ τοῦ Ἡροδοτείου διορθώματος εἴρηκεν, οὐκ οἰκεῖον κρίνω τῇ παρούσῃ ὑποθέσει ἐξετάζειν. τὸ δὲ “συναγείρεται” πῶς ὑπόκωφόν φησιν εἶναι οὐκ ἔστι γνῶναι. τίς γὰρ οὐκ οἶδε τοὺς ἱππογνώμονας ἐκ πολλῶν ἵππων τοὺς ἐπιτηδειοτάτους ἀθροίζοντας; ὃ ἐκ τοῦ “συναγείρεται” δηλοῦται· ἀγείρειν γὰρ καὶ συναγείρειν ἐπὶ τοῦ συνάγειν λέγεται. τῷ δ’ Ἀριστοφάνει ὅπως συντέθειται τὰ κατὰ Λυκάονα καταμάθωμεν. βούλεται τὸν ἰχθῦν ὡς καταφάγῃ τὸν τοῦ Λυκάονος δημὸν θρώσκειν κατὰ κῦμα καὶ ὑπαΐσσειν τὴν [40] φρίκην· καί φησιν· “ἐπιπολαίως ἐπινήξεται, τῷ ἀφρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ὑποδεδυκώς, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἀποθανόντων τὰ σώματα, ἕως ἂν ᾖ πρόσφατα, ἄνωθεν ἐπιπλεῖν εἴωθε”. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπινοῆσαι νηχόμενον ἰχθῦν ὑπεράνω μὲν ὕδατος, ὑποκάτω δὲ ἀφροῦ τοῦ ὕδατος, οὐδὲ τούτων μεταξὺ νεκρὸν ἄνδρα φερόμενον. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὴν φρίκην ἀκούειν δύναμαι τὸν ἀφρόν, Ὁμήρου μὲν “μέλαινα φρίκη” λέγοντος· τούτου δὲ ἀξιοῦντος λευκότητα ἀκούειν, ἐπί τε τοῦ Πρωτέως λέγει πάλιν Ὅμηρος “μελαίνῃ φρικὶ καλυφθείς”, καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ τῆς φρικὸς μνημονεύσας ἐπάγει· “μελάνει δέ τε πόντος ὑπ’ αὐτῆς”. καὶ ἔστιν ἡ φρὶξ κινουμένου τοῦ πνεύματος ἀρχή. Σιμονίδης δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ δεῖξαι πειρώμενος [41] οὕτως ἔφη· “εἶσ’ ἅλα στίζουσα πνοιά”. τὸ δὲ λέγειν ὅτι τὰ πρόσφατα σώματα φέρεται τῶν κυμάτων ἐπιπολαίως, ψεῦδος. τοὐναντίον γὰρ ἐν ἀρχῇ μὲν διὰ στερρότητα καὶ πυκνότητα τοῦ σώματος ἰσχυρότερος ὢν τοῦ στηρίζοντος ὕδατος ὁ νεκρὸς διισταμένου καταδύεται, σχήματι καταβαίνων καὶ βάρει· πληρούμενος δὲ τῆς ὑγρότητος, πλείω τόπον ἐπιλαμβάνων τῷ σχήματι μετέωρος αἴρεται, βάρει τοῦ φέροντος ἐλαττούμενος. τίς οὖν ὁ νοῦς [ 766 ]

τῶν ἐπῶν; διττὴ γὰρ ἡ γραφή· ἐν οἷς μὲν γὰρ γράφει “μέλαιναν φρῖχ’ ὑπαΐξει”, ἐν οἷς δὲ γράφει “μέλαιναν φρῖχ’ ὑπαλύξει”. κἂν μὲν κατὰ τὴν “ὑπαΐξει”, φήσομεν λέγειν αὐτόν· τῶν πηδώντων τις κατὰ τὸ κῦμα [42] ἰχθύων ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ἀίξει, τουτέστιν ἐκ τοῦ ἄνω θρώσκειν παυσάμενος ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ὑποδύσεται καὶ ὁρμήσει κάτω, συγκαταφερόμενος τῷ νεκρῷ, ὡς φάγῃ τοῦ Λυκάονος τὸν δημόν. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν, εἰ ἐπιπολῆς τοῦ κύματος θρώσκειν ὑπακούοιμεν· εἰ δ’ ἐκ βάθους ἀναπηδῶντα ἐπὶ τὸ κῦμα, ἔσται ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ λίθου εἶπεν “ὕψι τ’ ἀναθρώσκων πέτεται”, ἵνα σημαίνῃ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ βυθοῦ κάτωθεν κατὰ τοῦ κύματος θορεῖν, μὴ μέντοι ὑπερθορεῖν τὴν φρῖκα, ἀλλ’ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν ὄντα ἅπτεσθαι τοῦ νεκροῦ, εἰ ἐπιπολαίως φέροιτο. εἰ δ’ “ὑπαλύξει” γράφοιτο, φησὶ Πολύκλειτος τὸν νοῦν τοιοῦτον ἔσεσθαι· [43] καταδύσεται μὲν εἰς τὸ βάθος τοῦ κύματος ὁ ἰχθῦς φεύγων τῆς φρίκης τὴν ψυχρότητα. καὶ γὰρ αὐτῷ πολεμιώτατον· τοῦ γοῦν χειμῶνος ἐκ τοῦ πελάγους εἰς τὴν γῆν καταίρουσι· πολλοὺς δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ φωλεύειν κατὰ βάθους διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν ἱστορεῖ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ ζ΄ Περὶ ζώων φύσεως· ψυχροτάτη δ’ ἡ φρίκη, καὶ μάλιστα ἂν βόρειος ᾖ. γενόμενος δ’ ἐν τῷ βάθει τοῦ Λυκάονος ἔδεται τὸ λίπος. οὐ δοκεῖ δέ μοι οὗτος ὀρθῶς τὸν νοῦν τῶν ἐπῶν ἀποδοῦναι. οὐ γὰρ εὐθὺς αὐτόν φησιν Ὅμηρος σφαγέντα καὶ ῥιφέντα τοῦτο παθεῖν, ἵν’ ἐκδεχώμεθα ὅτι κάτω ἐνεχθέντος ὁ ἰχθῦς κάτω χωρεῖν λέγεται εἰς τὰ βάθη τοῦ κύματος ἐπὶ τὴν βρῶσιν, ἀλλ’ ἐξενεχθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Σκαμάνδρου ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, ὥστε οὐκέτι αὐτὸν ὑποβρύχιον, ἄνω δ’ ἐπιπλεῖν ἀνάγκη. ἔχει γὰρ οὕτω τὰ ἔπη· “ἐνταυθοῖ νῦν κεῖσο μετ’ ἰχθύσιν, οἵ σ’ ὠτειλῆς αἷμ’ ἀπολιχμάσονται [44] ἀκηδέες· οὐδέ σε μήτηρ ἐνθεμένη λεχέεσσι γοήσεται, ἀλλὰ Σκάμανδρος οἴσει δινήεις εἴσω ἁλὸς εὐρέα κόλπον”, οἷς ἐπάγει· “θρώσκων τις κατὰ κῦμα μέλαιναν φρῖχ’ ὑπαΐξει ἰχθῦς, ὥς κε φάγῃσι Λυκάονος ἀργῆτα δημόν”. νεοσφαγῆ μὲν οὖν ὄντα φησὶ “κεῖσο μετ’ ἰχθύσιν”, ὡς ἂν κάτω ἀπενεχθέντα, ὅπου φησὶ τῆς ὠτειλῆς αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα ἀπολιχμάσεσθαι τοὺς ἰχθῦς· χρονίζοντα δὲ ἄταφον ἐκβληθῆναι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν ὑπὸ τῶν ποταμῶν, ὅτε καὶ ἀναπλεῦσαι ἀνάγκη, καὶ θρώσκοντα οὐχ ὑπὲρ τὸ κῦμα ἰχθῦν ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ κῦμα, (“κατὰ κῦμα” γὰρ ἔφη, οὐχ ὑπὲρ κῦμα) ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ἀίξαι. τὸ γὰρ μέτρον τῆς εἰς τὰ ἄνω ὁρμῆς τοῦ ἰχθύος δηλῶν ἀφορίζει ἄχρι τῆς φρικός. οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐπέθρωσκε κατὰ κῦμα, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ κῦμα, εἰ καὶ τὴν φρῖκα ὑπερεπήδα. ἐκφερομένου οὖν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκβολῶν [45] τοῦ ποταμοῦ πηδῆσαι κατὰ τὸ κῦμά φησι τὸν ἰχθῦν καὶ γενέσθαι ἄνω ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα, ἔνθα ἐντεύξεται τῷ νεκρῷ. οὕτως ἐξηγήσαντο καὶ οἱ Ἀριστάρχειοι λέγοντες· “ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ἀίξει τις τῶν ἰχθύων κατὰ τὸ κῦμα κολυμβῶν, ὃς φάγοι ἂν τὸν τοῦ Λυκάονος δημόν. πάντως γὰρ ἔδει τὸν μέλλοντα τοῦ ὑπερφερομένου νεκροῦ ἅπτεσθαι ἰχθῦν ἄνω μετέωρον ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ἐλθεῖν”. Φιλητᾶς δὲ τῇ “ὑπαλύξει” γραφῇ συντιθέμενός φησιν, ὅτι ὁ φαγὼν ἰχθῦς τοῦ Λυκάονος τὸν δημὸν πιμελώδης γενόμενος τὸ κρύος φεύξεται. ἀγνοεῖ δὲ καὶ οὗτος, ὅτι τὸ διανεστηκὸς τῆς θαλάσσης ἐπιπολῆς, οὐ τὸ κρύος φησὶν Ὅμηρος φρῖκα· “ὡς δ’ ὅθ’ ὑπὸ φρικὸς Βορέω ἀναπάλλεται [46] ἰχθῦς”, τῆς ἐπιτρεχούσης κατὰ τὴν θάλασσαν πρὸ τῆς τοῦ ἀνέμου ἐμβολῆς. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ συὸς κατὰ μεταφοράν· “φρίξας εὖ λοφιήν”· καὶ “ἔφριξε δὲ μάχη φθισίμβροτος”. [ 767 ]

Ἠξίουν ἡμᾶς, παρατηροῦντας τὴν ἐν πᾶσι τοῦ ποιητοῦ λεπτουργίαν, ἰχνεύειν καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὑτὸν ὁμολογίαν. φωτὸς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν ὄντος συμμέτρου δι’ οὗ ὁρῶμεν τὰ πεφωτισμένα, τὴν τυφλότητα ὁτὲ μέν φησιν “ὀφθαλμοῦ ἀλάωσεν”, ἀφῃρῆσθαι τὸ λεύσσειν παριστάς, [47] ὁτὲ δὲ “ὀφθαλμοῦ μὲν ἄμερσε”, τὸ τοῦ μαίρειν ἐστερημένον λέγων σκοτεινόν· καὶ τὸ τοῦ μαίρειν ἐστερημένον εἴδωλον “ἀμαυρὸν” ἔφη· φωτὸς γὰρ παρουσίᾳ καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς ὁρῶν τὰ ὁρώμενα φαίνεται. διττῆς οὖν ὀφθαλμῶν οὔσης καὶ κατὰ Πλάτωνα ἐπιταράξεως - ἢ γὰρ διὰ σκότος ἢ δι’ ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ συμμέτρου φωτός - , τὸ μὲν διὰ σκότος μὴ μαίρειν ἢ μαρμαίρειν ἀμέρδειν εἶπε καὶ ἀμαυρόν, τὸ δὲ διὰ στιλβηδόνα ἐπὶ τοῦ χαλκοῦ· “ὄσσε δ’ ἄμερσεν αὐγὴ χαλκείη κορύθων ἀπολαμπομενάων θωρήκων τε νεοσμήκτων σακέων τε φαεινῶν”. ὅθεν καὶ ἐπίθετα χαλκοῦ ἐφιλοτέχνησε, τὸ “νώροπα χαλκὸν” καὶ “ἤνοπι [48] χαλκῷ”, σημαίνων τὸν μὴ ἐῶντα τοὺς ὦπας ὁρᾶν διὰ τὴν προσοῦσαν στιλβηδόνα. εἰ δὲ τὸ μέρδειν τὸ μαίρειν ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ μὴ μέρδειν ποιοῦν ἀμέρδειν, τὸ ἄγαν μέρδειν σμερδαλέον ἂν εἴη, τῆς ζα ἐγκειμένης ὡς ἐν τῷ ζαχρειής. ὅταν οὖν ἐπὶ τοῦ δράκοντος λέγῃ “σμερδαλέον δέδορκε”, τὸ ἄγαν στίλβον τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀκουσόμεθα· καὶ γὰρ δράκων παρὰ τὸ δρακεῖν εἴρηται. καὶ τὸ “σμερδαλέω δὲ λέοντε” ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκφοβούσης αὐτῶν ἐνοράσεως ἐκδεξόμεθα· καὶ γὰρ ὁ λέων παρὰ τὸ [49] λεύσσειν ὠνόμασται. καὶ αὐτὸς δ’ ἡρμήνευσε τὸ σμερδαλέον ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τί ἐστιν εἰπὼν “γλαυκιόων”. καὶ ἡ ἀσπὶς δὲ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς διὰ τὴν μαρμαρυγὴν “δεινή τε σμερδνή τε”· δεινὸν γὰρ καὶ φοβερὸν καὶ τὸ ἄγαν λαμπρὸν καὶ στίλβον, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς τῆς γλαυκώπιδος ἔφη· “δεινὼ δέ οἱ ὄσσε φάανθεν”, ὅπερ ἐπ’ ἄλλων ἔφη “ὄμματα μαρμαίροντα”. “γλαυκιόωντες” δὲ λέοντες καὶ Ἀθηνᾶ “γλαυκῶπις” ἀπὸ τοῦ γάλακτος, ὅ ἐστιν ἄσκιον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο λευκόν, ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ εἴρηται· μέλαινα γὰρ ἡ σκιά, οἷον “σκιόωντό τε πᾶσαι ἀγυιαί”, ἤτοι ἡλίου δύντος συνεσκοτοῦντο· ὀξὺ δὲ τὸ λευκόν, ὡς τὸ μέλαν ἀμβλύ· ἡ γοῦν ὀξὺ [50] ὁρῶσα γλαυκῶπις. ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ γάλακτος καὶ τῆς στιλβηδόνος “γλαυκὴ” καὶ ἡ θάλασσα εἴρηται καὶ ἡ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ κόρη “γλήνη” καὶ “τρίγληνα” ἐλλόβια ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν λευκότητι ἀποστίλβειν, καὶ “ὃς γλήνεα πολλὰ κεχάνδει” τὰ μὴ ἐρρυπωμένα ἱμάτια ἀλλὰ στιλπνὰ διὰ καθαρότητα. καὶ ζοφουμένης μὲν τῆς θαλάσσης “μελάνει δέ τε πόντος” λέγει, ἀταραχώδους δὲ οὔσης καὶ διειδοῦς “λευκὴ δὲ ἦν ἀμφὶ γαλήνη”· καὶ γὰρ ἡ γαλήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ γάλακτος εἴρηται. καὶ ἐπεὶ τὸ μέλαν σκυθρωπόν, τὸ δὲ λευκὸν ἀντίκειται τῷ μέλανι, ἱλαρὸν ἂν εἴη· γέλως δὲ ἱλαρότης· [51] “γέλασε δὲ πᾶσα περὶχθὼν” φησὶ “χαλκοῦ ὑπὸ στεροπῆς”, ἤτοι λαμπρυνθεῖσα φαιδρὰ γέγονεν. οὕτω νόει καὶ τὸ “κόρυθες καὶ θώρακες λαμπρὸν γανόοντες”, ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τῆς λαμπούσης καὶ διὰ τῆς στιλβηδόνος φαιδρυνομένης. καὶ ὁ “γαίων” δὲ τῷ “κύδεϊ”, ὁ διαχεόμενος καὶ λαμπρυνόμενος διὰ τὴν δόξαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ φῶς ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, ὅταν μὲν ἥμερον βλέπωσι, “φάεα” αὐτὰ καλεῖ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν αὐτοῖς φωτός· ὅταν γὰρ ἀποθάνῃ· “κατὰ δὲ ὄσσε ἐρεβεννὴ νὺξ [52] ἐκάλυψεν”· ὅταν δὲ ἐξαγριωθῶσιν ὑπ’ ὀργῆς καὶ ἐκκαυθῶσιν, ἔτι μὲν ἀρχομένης τῆς ὀργῆς· “πυρὶ λαμπετόωντι [ 768 ]

ἐΐκτην”, κρατούσης δέ· “πῦρ ὀφθαλμοῖσι δέδορκε”· καὶ γὰρ τὸ φῶς ἀπὸ πυρός. καὶ τὸ ὕφαιμον δ’ ὁρᾶν διὰ τὸ πυρὶ ἐοικέναι τὸ αἷμα σμερδαλέον εἴρηται· “σμερδαλέος δ’ αὐτῇσι φάνη κεκακωμένος ἅλμῃ”, ἤγουν ὕφαιμον βλέπων διὰ τὸ πυρωτοὺς ἔχειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἁλός. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρὸς δίκην μαινομένου εἰπὼν “μαίνετο δ’ ὡς ὅτ’ Ἄρης ἐγχέσπαλος ἢ ὀλοὸν πῦρ”, ἐπάγει· “τὼ δέ οἱ ὄσσε λαμπέσθην”. λοιπὸν δὲ κατὰ μεταφορὰν “σμερδαλέα” μὲν τὰ οἰκήματα τοῦ Ἅιδου ἔφη, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕφαιμα εἶναι καὶ φόνων πλήρη, ἐπὶ τὴν ὄψιν ἀναφέρων· ἐπὶ φωνῆς δὲ λαμπρᾶς καὶ διαφανοῦς· “σμερδαλέον κονάβησαν” καὶ [53] “σμερδνὸν βοόων”· καὶ ἐπ’ ὀρχήσεως συντόνου μεταφέρων “μαρμαρυγὰς” ἔφη “θηεῖτο ποδῶν”, τὰς ἐν τῇ κινήσει στιλβηδόνας, ἃς ποιεῖ καὶ τὸ πῦρ κινούμενον. καὶ οὐχὶ φιλόσοφοι πρῶτοι τὸ λευκὸν ἀφωρίσαντο τὸ διακριτικὸν ὄψεως, ἀλλὰ πρὸ αὐτῶν Ὅμηρος, μαρμαίρειν λέγων τὸ λάμπειν, ὅ ἐστι μερίζειν καὶ διαιρεῖν, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ διακρίνειν· ὅθεν τὸ μὴ μερίζον ἀλλὰ σκοτεινὸν “ἀμαυρόν”. καὶ ὅτι παρὰ τὸ μερίζειν καὶ διακρίνειν καὶ διαιρεῖν κέκληκε τὸ φωτίζειν “μαρμαίρειν” [δὲ], δηλοῖ τὸ φῶς δάος καλέσας· “δάος μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσαι”, ἀφ’ οὗ αἱ δεκτικαὶ τοῦ φωτὸς δᾷδες καὶ δαΐδες. [54] “Ὡς δὲ λέβης ζεῖ ἔνδον ἐπειγόμενος πυρὶ πολλῷ κνίσση μελδόμενος ἁπαλοτρεφέος σιάλοιο πάντοθεν ἀμβολάδην, ὑπὸ δὲ ξύλα κάγκανα κεῖται, ὣς τοῦ καλὰ ῥεῖθρα πυρὶ φλέγετο, ζέε δ’ ὕδωρ”. οἱ μὲν διορθοῦντες ἠξίουν μετὰ τοῦ ν γράφειν “κνίσσην μελδόμενος”, ἀντὶ τοῦ τήκων ἀκούοντες, ἵν’ ᾖ τὴν κνίσσαν τήκων. σημαίνει γὰρ κυρίως τὸ μέλδειν τὸ τὰ μέλη ἔδειν. ἄνευ δὲ τοῦ ν γεγραμμένου “κνίσση μελδόμενος”, οἱ μὲν ἠξίουν μὴ προσγράφειν τὸ ι, ἵν’ ᾖ οὐδέτερον τὸ κνίσση τήκων. οὐκ εἶχον δὲ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ δεικνύναι οὐδετέρως [δεικνύναι] τὸ κνίσσος λεγόμενον, ἀλλὰ θηλυκῶς· “κνίσση δ’ οὐρανὸν ἷκε”, [55] “κνίσσην δ’ ἐκ πεδίου ἄνεμοι φέρον”. μήποτ’ οὖν οὐκ ἔστι “μελδόμενος” τὸ τήκων οὐδὲ κεῖται τὸ ἔδειν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄλδειν. ὃ οὖν λελυμένως ἔφη “μέλε’ ἤλδανε ποιμένι λαῶν”, ἤτοι εὐτραφῆ καὶ λιπαρὰ ἐποίει εὐρύνουσα τὰ μέλη, τοῦτο συνελὼν “μελδόμενος” εἶπε, κατὰ μεταφορὰν τὰ μέρη τοῦ λέβητος λέγων μέλη, ἃ λιπαίνεσθαι τηκομένῃ τῇ πιμελῇ χριόμενα. ἢ γοῦν τῇ κνίσσῃ τοῦ εὐτραφοῦς χοίρου ὁ λέβης λιπαινόμενος, ἢ τῇ κνίσσῃ ζεούσῃ αὐξάνων τὰ μέλη, ἢ τῆς κνίσσης τὰ μέλη ἀλδόμενος, δοτικὴν λαβὼν ἀντὶ γενικῆς. [56] Ἀξιῶν δὲ ἐγὼ Ὅμηρον ἐξ Ὁμήρου σαφηνίζειν αὐτὸν ἐξηγούμενον ἑαυτὸν ὑπεδείκνυον, ποτὲ μὲν παρακειμένως, ἄλλοτε δ’ ἐν ἄλλοις. τῇ τε γὰρ “εἰροκόμῳ” παράκειται ςυνεζευγμένη ἡ ἐξήγησις· “γρηῒ δέ μιν ἐϊκυῖα παλαιγενέϊ προσέειπεν εἰροκόμῳ”. τίς οὖν ἡ εἰροκόμος; “ἥ οἱ” φησὶν “ἤσκειν εἴρια καλά”· ἡ γὰρ ἀσκοῦσα τὰ ἔρια εἴη ἂν εἰροκόμος· ἀσκεῖν δὲ τὸ καλλωπίζειν, οἷον “χρυσὸν … κέρασι περιχεύει ἀσκήσας”. καὶ πάλιν “ἄλλους τ’ αἰδέσθητε περικτίονας ἀνθρώπους”. τίνες οὖν οἱ περικτίονες; [57] “‹οἳ› περιναιετάουσι”. “βοῦν ἦνιν εὐρυμέτωπον ἀδμήτην”. ἆρ’ οὖν τὸ “ἀδμήτην” ἄγαμον δηλοῖ; οὐχί, ἀλλὰ “τὴν οὔ πω ὑπὸ ζυγὸν ἤγαγεν ἀνήρ”. πάλιν· “ἦρχε γὰρ Ἄρης”. τί οὖν τὸ “ἦρχε”; “πρῶτος

[ 769 ]

Ἀθηναίῃ ἐπόρουσεν”. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς Πηλιάδος μελίης καὶ φιλοτιμουμένῳ ἔοικε πολλαχόθεν τὴν κλῆσιν προσοῦσαν δεικνύναι· ἢ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ μόνον ἐπίστασθαι αὐτὴν πῆλαι Ἀχιλλέα· “ἀλλά μιν οἶος ἐπίσταται πῆλαι Ἀχιλλεύς”, ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πηλέως τοῦ πατρός· “τὴν πατρὶ φίλῳ τάμε Χείρων”, ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους ἐξ οὗ ἐτμήθη· “Πηλίου ἐκ κορυφῆς”. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ μελίη τὸ δόρυ [58] ἀπὸ τοῦ δένδρου τῆς μελίας, δῆλον ὡς καὶ τὸ “μείλινον ἔγχος” ἐκ μελίας τοῦ δένδρου, οὐ μήν, ὡς οἱ πολλοί, τὸ μακρόν. καὶ “ἔγχεα ὀξυόεντα” τὰ ἐξ ὀξύης τοῦ δένδρου, ὡς καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος· “ὀξύη ποτᾶτο”, ἀλλ’ οὐ τὰ ὀξέα, ὡς οἱ γραμματικοὶ ἀποδεδώκασιν. πάλιν ἔφη· “ἤτοι ὁ κὰπ πεδίον τὸ Ἀλήϊον”. ἆρά γε τὸ ἄσπορον καὶ μὴ ἔχον λήια; οὐχί, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ οἶον αὐτὸν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀλᾶσθαι. καὶ τί οὖν τὸ οἶον ἀλᾶσθαι; ἐξηγεῖται· “πάτον ἀνθρώπων ἀλεείνων”. ἐν δὲ τῷ “καὶ μέν οἱ [59] Λύκιοι τέμενος τάμον” ταχέως δεδήλωκεν ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ τετμῆσθαι καὶ ἀφωρίσθαι τὸ τέμενος λέγεται. οὕτω καὶ κειμήλια ἔφη κεῖσθαι· ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ κεῖσθαι κειμήλια λέγεται. πάλιν πτωχὸν ἔφη πανδήμιον. τίς οὖν οὗτος; “ὃς κατὰ ἄστυ πτωχεύεσκ’ Ἰθάκης”, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐν μιᾷ οἰκίᾳ. πάλιν· “μετέπρεπε γαστρὶ μάργῃ”. τίς οὖν αὕτη ἡ γαστριμαργία; ἧς ὥσπερ ὅρον ποιούμενος ἐπάγει· “ἀζηχὲς φαγέμεν ἠδὲ πιέμεν”, τὸ ἀδιαλείπτως ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν μεταλαβὼν εἰς τὸ ἀζηχές, ὃ ἐν ἄλλοις ἔφη “συνεχὲς αἰεί”. καὶ ἐπὶ ἄλλου μὲν ἐν πᾶσι διαπρέποντος ἔφη “μετὰ δ’ ἔπρεπε καὶ διὰ πάντων”, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἴρου “μετὰ δ’ ἔπρεπε γαστέρι μάργῃ”, ἤτοι μόνῃ [60] γαστριμαργίᾳ. πόθεν οὖν Ἶρος ἐκλήθη; “οὕνεκ’ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε κιών, ὅτε πού τις ἀνώγει”. πάλιν· “οὐκ ἀΐεις ὅ μοι ἐπιλλίζουσιν ἅπαντες;” τί οὖν τὸ ἐπιλλίζειν; τὸ διανεύειν - “ἑλκέμεναι δὲ κέλονται” - , ἀπὸ τοῦ τοὺς διανεύοντας συστρέφειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς· “ἰλλάδες” γὰρ οἱ συνεστραμμένοι ἱμάντες, ὡς ἀλλαχοῦ ἔφη· “ἐν δὲ στρόφος ἦεν ἀορτήρ”. “τὸν μὲν ἄκουρον ἐόντα βάλ’ ἀργυρότοξος Ἀπόλλων”. τίς οὖν ὁ ἄκουρος; “μίαν οἴην παῖδα [61] λιπόντα”. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ “κύμβαχος” ἐξηγεῖται ἐπάγων “ἐπὶ βρεχμόν τε καὶ ὤμους. δηθὰ μάλ’ εἱστήκει”. “γυῖα” δ’ ἐξηγεῖται· “πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ὕπερθε”· καὶ “ἀμφιγυήεις” ὁ περὶ τὰ γυῖα βεβλαμμένος, ὃν καὶ “κυλλοποδίονα” εἶπε. καὶ “γυιώσω μὲν σφῶϊν ὑφ’ ἅρμασιν ὠκέας ἵππους”, ἤτοι σκελεαγεῖς ποιήσω· ἐπάγει γὰρ “κατὰ δ’ ἅρματα ἄξω”. φιλοτιμεῖται καὶ τὸ λυκόφως ἐξηγήσασθαι· “ἦμος δ’ οὔτ’ ἄρ πω ἠώς, ἔτι δ’ ἀμφιλύκη νύξ”· οὔτε γὰρ εἰ μηδέπω [62] ἠώς, ἔτι ἦν νύξ, ἀλλ’ ἡ ἀμφιλύκη ἦν, ὁ βαθὺς ὄρθρος. ἠῶ δὲ λέγει νῦν τὸν ὄρθρον καὶ τὸ πρὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου πεφωτισμένον διάστημα· ὅτι γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ κατάστημα λέγει ἠῶ, δηλοῖ ἐπὶ τῆς νεὼς τοῦ Τηλεμάχου εἰπών· “παννυχίη μὲν ἄρ’ ἥ γε καὶ ἠῶ πεῖρε κέλευθον”, εἶτα εἰπὼν “ἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε”. καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸ πρὸ ἡλίου ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ φαμεν καὶ ἕωθεν, ὃ ὁ ποιητὴς “ἠῶθεν δ’ ἀγορήνδε” φησίν. ἕως οὖν καὶ ἠὼς τὸ πρὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου, τὸ δὲ πρὸ τῆς ἕω λυκόφως καὶ “νὺξ ἀμφιλύκη”. λέγει μέντοι καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου ἄχρι μεσημβρίας διάστημα ἠῶ· [63] “ἔσσεται ἠὼς ἢ δείλη ἢ μέσον ἦμαρ” καὶ “ὄφρα μὲν ἠὼς ἦν καὶ ἀέξετο ἱερὸν ἦμαρ” καὶ “εὗδον παννύχιος ἐπ’ ἠῶ καὶ μέσον ἦμαρ”. [ 770 ]

λέγει ἠῶ καὶ ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν· “ἥδε δὴ ἠὼς εἶσι δυσώνυμος”, “ἥδε δέ μοι νῦν ἠὼς ἑνδεκάτη”, περὶ οὗ φησιν “ἕνδεκα δ’ ἤματα θυμὸν ἐτέρπετο οἷσι φίλοισιν”. ἠὼς δὲ καὶ ἡ θεός· “ὣς μὲν ὅτ’ Ὠρίωνα ἕλετο ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς”. πάλιν ἑαυτὸν ἐξηγεῖται παρακειμένως δι’ ὧν φησιν “Ἴρῳ δὲ κακῶς ὠρίνετο θυμός”. τὶ οὖν τὸ κακῶς ὀρίνεσθαι τὸν θυμόν; “δειδιότα”. τί οὖν παρακολούθημα δέους; “σάρκες δὲ περιτρομέοντο μέλεσιν”· ὁ δὲ δειλὸς κακός, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ “κακῶς”. πάλιν τὸ δεδιέναι, ὃ πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γίνεται, καὶ τὸ τρέμειν, ὃ ἐν τῷ σώματι, ἐπιτέμνων [64] ἔφη· “εἰ δὴ τοῦτον τρομέεις καὶ δείδιας αἰνῶς”. ἐπιμένων δὲ τῇ ψυχρᾷ φύσει τοῦ φόβου, κρυόεντα καλεῖ τὸν φόβον· “φόβου κρυόεντος ἑταίρη”, καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις· “ψυχρὸν δέος εἷλε” καὶ “ῥίγησε ὁ γέρων”, ἐφοβήθη. εἰ δ’ ὁ φόβος ψύχει, δῆλον ὡς τὸ θάρσος θάλπει· εἰκότως ἄρα “θαλπωρὴν” λέγει τὸ θάρσος. ἐκ δὴ τούτων παρακειμένας ἐχόντων τὰς ἐξηγήσεις δεῖ παρατηρεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ ἐν διαφόροις ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς διανοίας παραλαμβανόμενα εἰς ἐξήγησιν τῶν ἀσαφεστέρων. Ὅτι μὲν ὁ “τηλύγετος” δηλοῖ παρ’ αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν μόνον γενόμενον [65] [τηλοτέρας γενεᾶς] παρίστησι τὰ ὑφ’ Ἑλένης λεγόμενα περὶ Ἑρμιόνης· “παῖδά τε τηλυγέτην καὶ ὁμηλικίην ἐρατεινήν”. σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τὸν τηλοῦ τῆς ἡλικίας τῷ πατρὶ γεγονότα, ὡς ἐπὶ δυεῖν γηράσκοντι τῷ πατρὶ γενομένων ἔφη “ἄμφω τηλυγέτω· ὁ δ’ ἐτείρετο γήραϊ λυγρῷ, υἱὸν δ’ οὐ τέκετ’ ἄλλον”. ἐπὶ τοίνυν τοῦ Ἰδομενέως ὅταν λέγῃ “ἀλλ’ οὐκ Ἰδομενῆα φόβος λάβε τηλύγετον ὥς”, ἐνδέχεται μὲν ἀκοῦσαι ἀπὸ τῶν [66] μονογενῶν παίδων κατὰ μεταφορὰν τὸν μεμονωμένον, ἐνδέχεται δὲ καὶ ὡς τηλοῦ γενεᾶς ὄντα, ἤτοι πρεσβύτην· ἔφη γὰρ περὶ αὐτοῦ· “ἔνθα μεσαιπόλιός περ ἐών”. παρέχει δὲ ὁ ποιητὴς τὴν ἀμφίβολον ἐκδοχὴν αὐτὸν ποιήσας λέγοντα τὸν Ἰδομενέα ἐπιόντος Αἰνείου· “δεῦτε φίλοι, καί μ’ οἴῳ ἀμύνατε· δείδια δ’ αἰνῶς”· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ “οἴῳ ἀμύνατε” τηλύγετον ἔστιν ἐκδέξασθαι τὸν μόνον· ὅταν δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς πάλιν λέγῃ “καὶ δ’ ἔχει ἥβης ἄνθος, ὅ τε κράτος ἐστὶ μέγιστον. εἰ γὰρ ὁμηλικίη γενοίμεθα τῷδ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ αἶψά κεν ἠὲ φέροιτο μέγα κράτος, ἠὲ φεροίμην”, ἀναμφίβολον γίνεται μὴ τὸ τηλύγετόν γε ἐοικέναι ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁμήλικος, ἀλλὰ πρεσβυτέρου καὶ τῆς τηλοτέρας γενεᾶς ὄντος, ὡς ἔφη ποτὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ μὴ ὁμήλικος “οὗτος δὲ προτέρης γενεῆς προτέρων τ’ ἀνθρώπων”. ἀλλ’ Ἰδομενεὺς μὲν “μεσαιπόλιος” καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τῆς [67] “προτέρης γενεῆς”, Νέστωρ δὲ γέρων τρίτης, ἀφ’ οὗ· “δύο μὲν γενεαὶ μερόπων ἀνθρώπων ἐφθίαθ’, οἵ οἱ πρόσθεν ἅμα τράφεν ἠδὲ γένοντο … μετὰ δὲ τριτάτοισιν ἄνασσεν”. δύο μὲν γὰρ γενεαὶ ἐφθάρησαν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ἥ τε τῶν πατρῴων, ὑφ’ ὧν γεννηθεὶς ἀνετράφη, καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀδελφῶν - “ἐλθὼν γὰρ ἐκάκωσε βίη Ἡρακληείη … τῶν οἶος λειπόμην” - , τρίτης δὲ ἄρχει τῆς τῶν παίδων γενεᾶς, οἳ σὺν αὐτῷ ἐστρατεύοντο. καὶ γὰρ ὁ ληγούσης ἡμέρας ἐπιδημήσας καὶ τῆς τρίτης ἕωθεν ἐξιὼν τῇ τρίτῃ ἀποδημεῖν λέγεται, καίτοι μίαν τὴν μέσην ὅλην [ 771 ]

[68] ἐτέλεσεν. εἰ δὲ γενεὰ λέγεται ἡ τοῦ τίκτειν καὶ γεννᾶν τελείωσις, ἥτις τὴν τριακονταετῆ περίοδον ἔχει, ὁ τὰ ἑξήκοντα ἔτη πληρώσας δύο ἂν εἴη γενεὰς βιώσας, ἀπὸ δ’ ἑξηκοστοῦ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ ἂν καταλέγοιτο. ὥστε δύο γενεαὶ ἀνθρώπων ἐφθάρησαν, οὐχ ὅτι καὶ ἀνθρώπους φησὶν ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλὰ δύο περιοδικὰς γενεὰς τὰς καλουμένας ἀνθρωπίνας, ὡς εἰ ἔλεγε δύο τριακονταετίας, αἳ καλοῦνται γενεαὶ ἀνθρώπειοι. οὕτω δ’ ἂν ζώντων τινῶν τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ γεννηθέντων, ὁμοίως αἱ γενεαὶ ἂν εἶεν ἐφθαρμέναι, αὐτὸς δ’ ἄρχοι τῶν ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ γενεᾷ γενομένων, οἳ ἦγον τὴν στρατεύσιμον [69] ἡλικίαν. ταῦτα τοίνυν καὶ τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια, ὡς τὸ ἀμφίβολον ἔχοντα, ἐνδοιάζοντα δεῖ ἐξηγεῖσθαι. Πρῶτος δοκεῖ Πλάτων λύπας ἡδοναῖς μιγνυμένας δεικνύναι ἐπ’ ὀργαῖς καὶ πένθεσιν, Ὁμήρου πρότερον τουτὶ συνεωρακότος καὶ τὸν Πλάτωνα διδάξαντος. ὀργὴν μὲν γὰρ οὐδέποτε Ὅμηρος εἴρηκε, χόλον δὲ αὐτὴν προσαγορεύει οἰκειοτέρως, ἀπὸ τῆς χολῆς, ἥτις ἐν τῷ πάθει κρατεῖ, ἄχος δὲ μεμίχθαι καὶ ἡδονὴν τῷ χόλῳ φησίν, ἄχος μὲν ὅταν λέγῃ· [70] “Πηλεΐωνι δ’ ἄχος γένετ’, ἐν δέ οἱ ἦτορ στήθεσσι λασίοισι διάνδιχα μερμήριξεν”. ἄχους οὖν παρουσίαν ὁ χόλος ὑφίσταται, ὃν καὶ θυμὸν κέκληκεν· “ἠὲ χόλον παύσειεν ἐρητύσειέ τε θυμόν”· θυμὸν γὰρ νῦν τὸν χόλον ἔφη, οὐχ ὡς ἀλλαχοῦ τὴν ψυχήν. ὅτι δὲ οὐ γεννᾷ μόνον ὀργὴν ἡ λύπη, ἀλλὰ καὶ συμπαραμένει, δηλοῖ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως μηνίοντος λέγων “κούρης χωόμενος” καὶ ἐπάγων “τῆς ὅ γε κεῖτ’ ἀχέων”. ὅτι δ’ ἡδονῇ συμμιγὴς ἡ ὀργὴ καὶ ὅτι ἔφεσίς ἐστι καὶ μέτοχος ἐπιθυμίας, ἐξηγεῖται λέγων· [71] “χόλος, ὅς τ’ ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ χαλεπῆναι”, ἤτοι ἐν ἐφέσει καὶ ἐπιθυμίᾳ τοῦ χαλεπαίνειν ἐποίησε. πῶς οὖν ἡδονῆς μέτοχος; “ὅς τε πολὺ γλυκίων μέλιτος καταλειβομένοιο ἀνδρῶν ἐν στήθεσιν ἀέξεται ἠΰτε καπνός”· καρδίας γὰρ ἔπαρσιν εἶναι καὶ ὁρμὴν ἐγειρομένην τὴν ὀργήν· “ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ Μελέαγρον ἔδυ χόλος, ὅς τε καὶ ἄλλων οἰδάνει ἐν στήθεσσι νόον”. οὐ μόνον δὲ αὐτὴν ἔπαρσιν καὶ ἔφεσιν ἀποδεδώκασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ζέσιν. διὸ καπνῷ τε ἀπεικάζει τὴν ἔπαρσιν καὶ τοῦ ὀργισθέντος πυρὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς [72] ἐοικέναι φησίν. [καὶ μὴν ἡ λύπη μελαίνει τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, μελαίνει δὲ καὶ ὁ καπνός· “ῥωγαλέα ῥυπόωντα, κακῷ μεμορυγμένα καπνῷ”.] τὸ οὖν ἄχος τῆς ὀργῆς αἴτιον ὄν, καπνίζον τὴν ὀργήν, μελαίνει τὰς φρένας· “μένεος δὲ μέγα φρένες ἀμφιμέλαιναι πίμπλαντο”. τὸ δ’ ἄχος καὶ τὸ ἄχνυσθαι ὅτι μελαίνει, φησίν “ἀχθομένην ὀδύνῃσι, μελαίνετο δὲ χρόα καλόν”. τὸ δ’ ἄχθεσθαι τοῦ ἄχνυσθαι πλεονασμῷ δηκτικῆς ἀγανακτήσεως διαφέρει, λύπη δ’ ἑκάτερον. ἐπιμένων δὲ τῇ ἐξάψει τῇ ἐπὶ τῶν ὀργιζομένων ἔφη· “κεῖνος δ’ οὐκ ἐθέλει σβέσαι [73] χόλον”. κατηγορεῖ δὲ τοῦ πάθους καὶ ἀγριότητος· “αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἄγριον ἐν στήθεσσι θέτο μεγαλήτορα θυμόν”, καὶ πάλιν· “χόλος δέ μιν ἄγριος ᾕρει”, πρὸς ὃν καὶ ὁ παραινῶν ἔφη ὡς ἐπὶ ἀγρίου θηρίου· “ἀλλ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ, δάμασσον θυμὸν μέγαν”. καὶ πάλιν ἐνδεικνύμενος τὴν θηριωδίαν [ 772 ]

φηςίν· “εἰ δὲ σύ γ’ εἰσελθοῦσα πύλας καὶ τείχεα μακρὰ ὠμὸν βεβρώθοις Πρίαμον Πριάμοιό τε παῖδας ἄλλους τε Τρῶας, τότε κεν χόλον ἐξακέσαιο”. καὶ ὅτι τῶν ἐν κινήσει ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν σχέσει ἐστὶν ὁ χόλος, καθὰ καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν τῶν ἐν κινήσει φασὶν εἶναι οἱ φιλόσοφοι, δηλοῖ τὰ τοιαῦτα· “Ἀτρεΐωνα δ’ ἔπειτα χόλος λάβεν, αἶψα δ’ ἀναστὰς ἠπείλησε μῦθον”, καὶ πάλιν· “Πηλεΐδης δ’ ἐξαῦτις ἀταρτηροῖς ἐπέεσσιν Ἀτρεΐδην προσέειπε, καὶ οὔ πω λῆγε χόλοιο”, [74] ὡς ἂν δυνάμενος καὶ παύσασθαι. ὅταν δ’ ἐν σχέσει γένηται καὶ ἡσυχάζῃ, κότον καλεῖ. διό φησιν· “εἴ περ γάρ τε χόλον γε καὶ αὐτῆμαρ καταπέψῃ, ἀλλά τε καὶ μετόπισθεν ἔχει κότον, ὄφρα τελέσσῃ”, ὡς ἐγχωροῦν ἐᾶσαι μὲν τὸν χόλον, περιποιεῖν δὲ τὸν κότον, μηνίειν δὲ εἰκότως· αὐτοῦ κινηθέντος, πάλιν χόλος. ταὐτὸν δὲ καὶ ὁ θυμός, ὅταν μὴ τὴν ψυχὴν σημαίνῃ, δηλοῖ τῷ χόλῳ· ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν θυμὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ θύειν, ὁ δὲ χόλος ἀπὸ τοῦ χολᾶν προσηγόρευται. εἰπὼν οὖν· “μή τι χολωσάμενος ῥέξῃ κακὸν υἷας Ἀχαιῶν”, ἐπάγει· “θυμὸς δὲ μέγας ἐστὶ διοτρεφέων βασιλήων”· καὶ πάλιν· [75] “ἠὲ χόλον παύσειεν ἐρητύσειέ τε θυμόν”, καὶ πάλιν· “καὶ μάλα περ θυμῷ κεχολωμένον”, εἰ μή τις ἐνταῦθα θυμὸν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀκούοι. ὅτι δὲ παρὰ τὸ θύειν καὶ ἐγείρεσθαι καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ ἡ ὀργὴ θυμός, δηλοῖ λέγων· “Τρωσὶ θυμὸν ἐγεῖραι”. θυμὸς δὲ καὶ χόλος, προσλαβὼν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ δρᾶσαι κακὸν ἀγανάκτησιν, χώεσθαι λέγεται, καὶ ὁ ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ πάθει “χωόμενος κῆρ”· αὐτίκα γοῦν τὸν λοιμὸν ἐπάγει, καὶ δράσαντος ἐρωτῶσιν· “ὅς κ’ εἴπῃ ὅ τι τόσσον [76] ἐχώσατο Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων”· διὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ δρᾶσαί τι κακὸν δυναμένου δι’ ὀργὴν βασιλέως εἴρηται· “κρείσσων γὰρ βασιλεύς, ὅτε χώσεται ἀνδρὶ χέρηϊ”. οὕτως εἴρηκε καὶ τὸ “σὺ δ’ ἔνδοθι θυμὸν ἀμύξεις χωόμενος”, δηλῶν τὸ δραστικὸν δι’ ἀγανάκτησιν περιέχειν τὸ χώεσθαι. καὶ τοίνυν τὸ “χωόμενος δ’ ὁ γέρων πάλιν ᾤχετο” ἀκουσόμεθα οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὀργιζόμενος, ἀλλὰ μετ’ ἀγανακτήσεως ἀμυντικῆς· διὸ καταρᾶται, καὶ οὕτως ἀμυνόμενος. καὶ “χωόμενος” δὲ “κατὰ θυμὸν ἐϋζώνοιο γυναικὸς” Ἀχιλλεὺς τῇ ὀργῇ δηλοῦσθαι ποιεῖ τὴν τιμωρητικὴν δι’ ἀγανάκτησιν ἄμυναν· ἐπεξέρχεται οὖν διὰ τῆς μητρὸς τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὀργίζεται. [77] ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ ἄχθεται πρὸς τὸ ἄχνυται ἔχει περιττεύουσαν ἀγανάκτησιν, οὕτω τὸ χώεσθαι πρὸς τὸ χολοῦσθαι· “μή οἱ γοῦνα λαβόντι χολώσαιτο φρένα κούρη”, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀργισθείη· “γαῖα δ’ ὑπεστονάχιζε Διὶ ὡς τερπικεραύνῳ χωομένῳ”, καὶ ἐπάγει τὰ ἐκ τοῦ χώεσθαι· “ὅτε τ’ ἀμφὶ Τυφωέϊ γαῖαν ἱμάσσῃ”. ἐν κινήσει μὲν οὖν χόλος καὶ θυμὸς καὶ ‹χώεσθαι· καὶ› ταὐτὸν δὲ τῷ χώεσθαι τὸ σκύζεσθαι. εἰπὼν οὖν “σέθεν δ’ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀλεγίζω χωομένης”, ἐπάγει· “οὔ σευ ἔγωγε σκυζομένης ἀλέγω”, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως “χωόμενος κατὰ θυμὸν” εἰπών, ποιεῖ λέγοντα· [ 773 ]

“οἵ μοι σκυζομένῳ περ Ἀχαιῶν φίλτατοί ἐστον”. ἐν δὲ σχέσει μῆνις, μένος καὶ κότος· καὶ [78] μῆνις μὲν καὶ μένος ὀργὴ ἐναπόθετος καὶ ἔμμονος· πάλιν δὲ μῆνις, προσειληφυῖα τὸ ἐπιτηρητικὸν μετ’ ἀγανακτήσεως καὶ κακοποιίας, κότος γίνεται, ὡς τὴν μὲν μῆνιν ἐκ τοῦ χόλου ἐναποκεῖσθαι, τὸν δὲ κότον ἐκ τοῦ χώεσθαι. ὅτι δὲ παρὰ τὸ μένειν ἡ μῆνις “αὐτὰρ ὁ μήνιε νηυσὶ παρήμενος ὠκυπόροισι” καὶ “ἀλλὰ σὺ μὲν νῦν νηυσὶ παρήμενος ὠκυπόροισι μήνι’ Ἀχαιοῖσι”, καὶ ὅτι διὰ τὸ μένειν καὶ κεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζοντα καὶ σιγῶντα, φησὶ “κεῖτ’ ἀπομηνίσας”, παρὰ τὸ κεῖσθαι τὸν μηνίοντα· καὶ ὁ πᾶς χρόνος μηνιθμός· “πάνθ’ ὑπὸ μηνιθμόν”. ὅτι δὲ μένος καὶ μῆνις ταὐτόν· “Ἀτρεΐδη, σὺ δὲ παῦε τεὸν μένος”. τίς οὖν ἡ μῆνις; χόλος, φησί, μὴ ἀφεθείς· ἐπάγει γοῦν· “αὐτὰρ [79] ἐγώ γε λίσσομ’ Ἀχιλῆϊ μεθέμεν χόλον”· καὶ πάλιν ἀντὶ τοῦ φάναι μὴ μήνιε ἔφη· “ἔα δὲ χόλον θυμαλγέα”, καὶ παυσαμένῳ μήνιδός φησι “μεταλήξαντι χόλοιο”. καὶ ὁ μεθεὶς τὸν χόλον καὶ ἀμήνιτος μεθήμων· “ἀλλὰ μάλ’ οὐκ Ἀχιλλῆϊ χόλος φρεσίν, ἀλλὰ μεθήμων”· καὶ ὁ ἄγαν τηρῶν καὶ ἀναφαιρέτως τὸν χόλον “αἰὲν ἐπιζαφελῶς χαλεπαίνει”· ζαφελὲς γὰρ τὸ ἀναφαίρετον, καὶ ζαφελὴς οὖν χόλος ἡ μῆνις, “ὅτε κέν τιν’ ἐπιζαφελὴς χόλος ἵκοιτο”· περὶ γὰρ τῶν μηνιόντων ὁ λόγος. [καὶ τὸ μένος δὲ παρὰ τὸ μένειν, μένειν δὲ ἀκίνητον καὶ ἄτρομον καὶ μὴ φεύγειν· “ἐν γάρ τοι στήθεσι μένος πατρώϊον ἧκα ἄτρομον”. ὅτι γὰρ παρὰ τὸ μένειν· “ἔτι μοι μένος ἔμπεδόν ἐστι”. καὶ μένος οὖν χειρῶν τὸ ἔμμονον ἔργον πρὸς τὸ [80] δράξασθαι· “οἱ δὲ μένος χειρῶν ἰθὺς φέρον”. ὅτι δὲ τὸ μένος σθένος· “πάντως, οἷον ἐμὸν μένος καὶ χεῖρες ἄαπτοι” εἰπόντος Διός, “εὖ νυ”, φησί, “καὶ ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν ὅ τοι σθένος οὐκ ἐπιεικτόν”. ὡς οὖν τὸ σθένος μένος, οὕτω καὶ χόλος μένων μένος καὶ μῆνις. εἰπὼν οὖν “χαλεπὴ δὲ θεοῦ ἔπι μῆνις”, ἐπάγει· “οὐ γάρ τ’ αἶψα θεῶν τρέπεται νόος αἰὲν ἐόντων”.] ἔτι δὲ μῆνις ἐπιτηροῦσα καιρὸν τιμωρίας κότον ποιεῖ· “ἀλλά γε καὶ μετόπισθεν ἔχει κότον, ὄφρα τελέσῃ”· τὸ γὰρ “ὄφρα τελέσῃ” ἕως [81] ἂν κατεργάσηται καὶ λυπήσῃ τὸν λυπήσαντα. ὅτι δὲ παρὰ τὸ ἐγκεῖσθαι κότος εἴρηται, ἐξηγεῖται· “ὅ τοι κότον ἔνθετο θυμῷ”, καὶ ὅτι ἐπιτηρητικὸν ὁ κότος εἰς τὸ δρᾶσαί τι πονηρόν· “Ζεὺς δέ σφι Κρονίδης ὑψίζυγος αἰθέρι ναίων αὐτὸς ἐπισείῃσιν ἐρεμνὴν αἰγίδα τῆσδ’ ἀπάτης κοτέων· τὰ μὲν ἔσται οὐκ ἀτέλεστα”, ὅμοιον τῷ “ἔχει κότον, ὄφρα τελέσῃ”. καὶ πάλιν “ὀλλῦσαι Τρῶας, τοῖσιν κότον αἰνὸν ἔθεσθε”· ἔθεσθε δὲ ἐν τῷ θυμῷ ἀκουστέον· τὸ γὰρ αὐτό ἐστι τῷ “κότον ἔνθετο”. καὶ εἰπὼν ὅτι τῷ Ἀγαμέμνονι “ἐκπάγλως κοτέοντο”, προσάγει τὰ ἐκ τοῦ κότου· “νῦν δή σε, ἄναξ, ἐθέλουσιν Ἀχαιοὶ πᾶσιν ἐλέγχιστον [82] θέμεναι”. [καὶ ὅτι μὲν ἡ μῆνις μέγαν χόλον δηλοῖ· “πὰρ Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο χόλος καὶ μῆνις ἐτύχθη”· ὅτι δὲ μῆνις ἀγανάκτησιν ἀμυντικὴν περιέχουσά ἐστιν ὁ κότος, παρίστησι διὰ τούτων· “εἰ μή τις θεός ἐστι κοτεσσάμενος Τρώεσσιν ἱερῶν μηνίσας· χαλεπὴ δὲ θεοῦ ἔπι μῆνις”· μηνίσας οὖν ὁ θεὸς εἰς κότον μεθίσταται.] εἴρηται τοίνυν ὅτι ἡ μὲν κατὰ κίνησιν πρόσκαιρος ὀργὴ χόλος καὶ θυμός, ἡ δὲ μετ’ ἀγανακτήσεως [83] δραστικῆς ἐνεργείας χώεσθαι λέγεται καὶ σκύζεσθαι, ὁ δ’ ἀπόθετος χόλος μένος καὶ μῆνις, αὕτη δὲ τὸ ἀμύνεσθαι ἐπιτηροῦσα κότος, καὶ ὅπως ὁρμὴ ἐπηρμένη μετὰ λύπης καὶ ὀρέξεως ἡ ὀργή, καὶ ὅπως κατὰ αὔξησιν τοῦ θυμοῦ γίνεται. Γελοίως ὁ Ἀπίων ἱπποκορυστὰς ἀποδέδωκε τοὺς κόρυθας ἔχοντας ἱππείαις [84] θριξὶ κεκοσμημένας. εἰ γὰρ παρὰ τὴν κόρυν συνέκειτο, ἱπποκόρυθος ἂν ἐλέγετο. νῦν δὲ σημαίνει τὸν [ 774 ]

ἐφ’ ἵππων ὁπλίτην· κορυστὴς γὰρ ἀπὸ μέρους ὁ ὁπλίτης καὶ μαχητής· “πρῶτα δ’ Ἀντίλοχος Τρώων ἕλεν ἄνδρα κορυστήν”. καὶ τὸν Ἄρεα δὲ ἔφη χαλκοκορυστήν· “Ἀργεῖοι δ’ ὑπ’ Ἄρηϊ καὶ Ἕκτορι χαλκοκορυστῇ”, ὃ τὸν ὁπλίτην σημαίνει καὶ ἀντίθετον τῷ ἱπποκορυστής. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ κορύεσθαι, ὃ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ θ ἔφη κορθύεσθαι, ἥ τε περικεφαλαία κόρυς καὶ κορύνη, ἀμυντήριον ἐκ κεφαλῆς ῥοπὴν ἔχον καὶ βάρος, παρ’ ὃ καὶ ῥόπαλον λέγεται, καὶ κορυνήτης ὁ τῇ κορύνῃ χρώμενος. ἔμπαλιν δὲ τὸ εἰς τὸ σκηρίπτεσθαι ἐπιτήδειον ξύλον σκηπάνιον καὶ [85] σκῆπτρον. ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ δόρατος, ᾧ καταχρῶνται εἰς τὸ σκηρίπτεσθαι, φησὶ “στῆ δ’ ἄρ’ ἐπὶ μελίας χαλκογλώχινος ἐρεισθείς”, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ῥοπάλου, ὅτε λέγει “δὸς δέ μοι, εἴ ποθί τοι ῥόπαλον τετμημένον ἐστί, σκηρίπτεσθαι”. ἐν δὲ τῷ ἱπποκορυστὴς δύναται ἡ ἵππου γενικὴ συγκεῖσθαι ἀντὶ τοῦ ἱππεύς, ὡς τὸ “ὀτρύνων ἵππους τε καὶ ἀνέρας ἀσπιδιώτας”· τοὺς γὰρ ἵππους τοῖς ἀσπιδιώταις ἀντιθείς, ἤτοι πεζοῖς ὁπλίταις, ἐμήνυσεν ὅτι ἀντὶ τῶν ἱππέων τοὺς ἵππους ἔφη. ᾧ τρόπῳ καὶ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ φαμὲν ἡ τῶν Περσῶν ἵππος ἐνίκησεν, ἤγουν οἱ ἱππεῖς· ἡγεμονικώτεροι δὲ τῶν πεζῶν οὗτοι. διὸ ὀτρύνει “ἵππους τε καὶ ἀνέρας”. καὶ τὸ εὕδειν οὖν ἀνέρας ἱπποκορυστὰς [86] κατ’ ἐπικράτειαν εἰρημένον δηλοῖ οὐ μόνον ἱππεῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ πεζοὺς καὶ οὐκ ἄνδρας μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναῖκας καθεύδειν. Παρατηρεῖν δεῖ ὡς, ὅταν ἐκ προσώπου τινὸς ἐπάγειν λόγους μέλλῃ [87] τινὰς ὁ ποιητής, προλέγει προσημαίνων οἷος ἔσται ὁ λόγος ἢ μεθ’ οἵας διαθέσεως λεγόμενος. οὕτω γὰρ ὅρον λαβόντες παρὰ τοῦ ποιητοῦ ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ οἷς αὐτὸς παρήγγειλε τῶν λεγομένων ἀκουσόμεθα. οἷον εἰπόντος “τὸν δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπόδρα ἰδὼν προσέφη”, ὑβριστικοὺς προσεκτέον ἔσεσθαι τοὺς λόγους, οἷοι ἂν γένοιντο ὑπὸ τοῦ ὑποβλεπομένου· καὶ πάλιν προειπόντος “καί μιν νεικείων ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα”, θεωρητέον εἰ [88] οἱ ἐπάγεσθαι μέλλοντες λόγοι ὀνείδη παρέχουσιν. ὅταν δὲ “ὅς σφιν εὖ φρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπε”, φρονίμους προσδεκτέον λόγους· φρονίμου δέ ἐστι τὰς αἰτίας τῶν ἐνεστηκότων εἰπεῖν καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπάγειν τὰ ποιητέα. τὸ μὲν οὖν “ἀγορήσατο” δηλοῖ τὴν ἐξήγησιν καὶ φανέρωσιν τῶν ἐνεστηκότων, οἷον “οὔτ’ ἄρ’ εὐχωλῆς ἐπιμέμφεται” καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, τὸ δὲ “μετέειπε” τὸ μετάγειν [89] τὸ ποιητέον· ἐπάγει γάρ· “οὐδ’ ὅ γε πρὶν λοιμοῖο βαρείας χεῖρας ἀφέξει” καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Νέστορος· “ὢ πόποι, ἦ μέγα πένθος Ἀχαιΐδα γαῖαν ἱκάνει” διήγησιν ἔχει τῶν ἐνεστώτων ἃ “ἀγορήσατο”, τῷ δὲ “ἀλλὰ πείθεσθε καὶ ὔμμες” ἃ δεῖ πράττειν λέγει. καὶ πάλιν ὅταν εἴπῃ· “καὶ τότε κουφότερον μετεφώνεε Φαιήκεσσι”, δεῖ ἡμᾶς τῶν μελλόντων λέγεσθαι λόγων ἀκούειν ὡς κούφων καὶ ἐπηρμένων, ὑψηλολογοῦντος διὰ τὴν νίκην τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως· τοιοῦτον [90] γὰρ τὸ “τούτων νῦν ἐφίκεσθε, νέοι”, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· προθεωροῦντι γὰρ ἔοικεν ὁ ποιητὴς ἑαυτὸν καὶ προδιατιθέντι τοὺς ἀκουσομένους περὶ τοῦ εἴδους τῶν λόγων. ἐκ τούτων δὲ πολλὰ ἔνεστι λύειν τῶν παρεωραμένων τοῖς γραμματικοῖς. αὐτίκα τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ Διός· “αὐτίκ’ ἐπειρᾶτο Κρονίδης ἐρεθιζέμεν Ἥρην κερτομίοις ἐπέεσσι παραβλήδην ἀγορεύων”. μὴ νοήσαντές τινες ὅτι περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος τρόπου τοῦ λόγου εἴρηκεν, ἀλλοκότους ἐξηγήσεις πεποίηνται· [91] φησὶ δὲ ὅτι παραβλητικοῖς ἐχρῆτο λόγοις, παραβάλλων καὶ ἀντεξετάζων τὴν Ἀφροδίτης Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἐπικουρίαν πρὸς τὴν Ἥρας καὶ Ἀθηνᾶς τῷ Μενελάῳ γινομένην. τὸ οὖν “παραβλήδην” τὸ μετὰ τοῦ παραβάλλειν λέγει, ὃ εἰώθασι λέγειν [ 775 ]

συγκρίνειν. καὶ ὅτι τοῦθ’ οὕτως ἔχει, δηλοῖ ὁ τοῦ Διὸς λόγος συγκριτικὸς ὤν· “δοιαὶ μὲν Μενελάῳ ἀρηγόνες εἰσὶ θεάων, Ἥρη τ’ Ἀργείη καὶ ἀλαλκομενηῒς Ἀθήνη. ἀλλ’ ἤτοι ταὶ νόσφι καθήμεναι εἰσορόωσαι τέρπεσθον· τῷ δ’ αὖτε φιλομειδὴς Ἀφροδίτη αἰεὶ παρμέμβλωκε καὶ αὐτοῦ κῆρας ἀμύνει”. καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἁπλῶς παραβολὴ καὶ ἀντεξέτασις, ἀλλ’ οὕτως ἐρεθιστικὴ καὶ κέρτομος, ὡς προεῖπεν· δύο μὲν Μενελάῳ, μία δ’ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, καὶ ἡ μὲν Ἥρα ὡς Ἀργεία τῷ Μενελάῳ ἐπαρκεῖν ὀφείλουσα, [92] ἡ δὲ Ἀθηνᾶ ἀλαλκομενηΐς, ἡ δὲ Ἀφροδίτη φιλομειδὴς καὶ οὐκ ἀπ’ Ἰλίου· καὶ ὅμως αἱ μὲν νόσφι τοῦ Μενελάου κάθησθε, ἡ δὲ “αἰεὶ παρμέμβλωκε”· καὶ αἱ μὲν θεωροὶ εἰς τέρψιν τῶν ἀγώνων, ἡ δὲ “αὐτοῦ κῆρας ἀμύνει” συμπαραμένουσα· “καὶ νῦν ἐξεσάωσας ὀϊόμενον θανέεσθαι”. ὀρθῶς ἄρα προεῖπεν ὅτι ἐρεθιστικὸς ὁ λόγος ἔσται καὶ χλευαστικὸς καὶ παραβλητικός. πάλιν ὅταν ἐπὶ τῆς Θέτιδος λέγῃ “ὣς ἔχετ’ ἐμπεφυυῖα, καὶ εἴρετο δεύτερον αὖτις”, τὸ “εἴρετο” οὐ χρὴ ἀκούειν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠρώτησεν ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ’ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠρώτα τὸ ἀληθὲς μαθεῖν θέλουσα· ἐπάγει γὰρ “νημερτὲς μὲν δή μοι ὑπόσχεο καὶ κατάνευσον ἢ ἀπόειπε, ἐπεὶ οὔ τοι ἔπι δέος, ὄφρ’ ἐῢ εἰδῶ”. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ἔφη· “εἰρωτᾷς μ’ ἐλθόντα θεὰ θεόν· αὐτὰρ ἐγώ [93] τοι νημερτέως τὸν μῦθον ἐνισπήσω”. καὶ τὸ “εἴρεαι” τοίνυν “ὁπόθεν εἰμὲν” οὕτως ἀκουσόμεθα· τἀληθὲς ἀκοῦσαι βουλόμενος ἐξετάζεις. καὶ τὸ “Ἑρμείαν ἐρέεινε Καλυψώ, δῖα θεάων”· ἐπάγει γὰρ “αὔδα ὅ τι φρονέεις”. ἐνισπεῖν ‹… ἐνισπεῖν›, καὶ τὸ “νημερτέως τὸν μῦθον ἐνισπήσω”, ἤτοι ἀναμαρτήτως τἀληθὲς ἐρῶ· κεῖται γὰρ ὡς εἰ ἔλεγεν ἐπαληθεύσομαί σοι ἀψευδῆ τὸν λόγον. καὶ τὸ “ἔννεπε” οὖν ἀληθῆ λέγε καὶ τὸ “ἄειδε” πάλιν ἀληθῆ ἐν ποιήμασι λέγε· ἀοιδὴ γὰρ ἡ ποίησις. εἰπὼν οὖν “ἀλλά γε δὴ μετάβηθι [94] καὶ ἵππου κόσμον ἄεισον”, ἐπάγει· “αἴ κεν δή μοι κατὰ μοῖραν καταλέξῃς”, ὅπερ ἐν ἄλλοις· “πάντα κατ’ αἶσαν ἔειπες, ἀγακλεές”. τί οὖν τὸ “κατ’ αἶσαν” εἰπεῖν; “οὐδ’ ἂν ἔγωγε ἄλλα πάρεξ εἴποιμι παρακλιδόν, οὐδ’ ἀπατήσω” [καὶ ὅταν δὲ προείπῃ “εἶθαρ δὲ προσηύδα”, τὸ εὐθὲς καὶ ἀληθὲς καὶ φανερὸν ἀκουσόμεθα. πάλιν ἔφη “ἔπος ἀντίον ηὔδα”, τὸ ἄντικρυς καὶ διαῤῥήδην, ὃ ἐν ἄλλοις ἔφη “ἀντικρὺ δ’ ἀπόφημι”]· τοῦ γὰρ εὐθέως λόγου δύναμις τὸ μὴ πάρεξ εἰπεῖν μηδὲ παρεκκλῖναι. καὶ τὸ “ἀντίον” δὲ “ηὔδα” ἐξηγήσατο “τῶν οὐδέν τοι ἐγὼν [95] κρύψω ἔπος”· οἱ γὰρ ἰθὺ καὶ κατεναντίον ἰόντες οὐ κρύπτονται ὡς οἱ κλέπτοντες. ὅθεν ἐπὶ τοῦ οὐκ ἀπατῶντος “‹μὴ› … κλέπτε νόῳ”. τί οὖν τὸ “κλέπτε νόῳ”; “ὅς χ’ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθει ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ βάζει”. πάλιν ὁ ποιητής, τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος μέλλοντος λέγειν πρὸς τὸν Κάλχαντα “μάντι κακῶν, οὔ ποτέ μοι τὸ κρήγυον ἔειπας· αἰεί τοι τὰ κάκ’ ἐστὶ φίλα φρεσὶ μαντεύεσθαι, ἐσθλὸν δ’ οὔτέ τί πω εἶπες ἔπος οὐδ’ ἐτέλεσας”, καὶ † διὰ τ… κ… μάντιν κακῶν πολλάκις ἀγορεύοντες, † προλέγων ὅτι τοιοῦτοι ἔσονται οἱ λόγοι, φησίν· “Κάλχαντα [μάντιν] πρώτιστα κακοσσόμενος [96] προσέειπεν”. οὐ κακῶς ὑποβλεψάμενος· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε τὸ κακῶς συναλεῖψαι διὰ τὸ σύμφωνον οὐδ’ ἔστιν ὅπου τὸ ὑποβλέπεσθαι ὄσσεσθαι λέγει· ἀλλὰ σημαίνει τὸ “κακοσσόμενος” ἐν συνθέτῳ ῥηθὲν κακόμαντιν ἀποκαλῶν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ “ὄσσα” ἡ θεία φήμη, ἣν καὶ Διὸς ἄγγελον ἔφη - “μετὰ δέ σφισιν ὄσσα δεδήει ὀτρύνουσ’ ἰέναι, Διὸς ἄγγελος” - , Διὸς δὲ ἄγγελοι καὶ οἱ μάντεις καὶ τῆς ὀπὸς τῶν θεῶν ἀκούουσιν, ἥτις ἐστὶν [97] ὄσσα - “ὣς γὰρ ὄπ’ ἄκουσα θεῶν” - , ἀπὸ τῆς ὄσσης πεποίηται τὸ “κακοσσόμενος”, ἤτοι ὡς κακόμαντιν αὐτὸν ὀνειδίζων, ὡς εἰ ἔλεγε· κακὸν ἄγγελον τῆς Διὸς ὄσσης ἀποκαλῶν. οὐ γάρ [ 776 ]

ἐστιν ἁπλῶς κακολογῶν, ὅτι οὐδ’ ὄσσαν ἁπλῶς τὴν φωνὴν σημαίνει, ἀλλὰ τὴν θείαν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐπὶ κακῷ χρώμενον τῇ θείᾳ φωνῇ λοιδορῶν. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις· “οὐ μὲν γάρ τοι ἐγὼ κακὸν ὀσσομένη τόδ’ ἱκάνω ἀλλ’ ἀγαθὰ φρονέουσα”, οὐ κακὸν κληδονιζομένη, καὶ “ὀσσόμενος πατέρα ἐσθλὸν ἐνὶ φρεσίν”, ἤτοι ἐν ἑαυτῷ κληδονιζόμενος καὶ εὐχόμενος [98] θείας τυχεῖν φήμης περὶ τῆς ἐπανόδου τοῦ πατρός, καὶ τὸ “οὔ ποτέ μοι θάνατον προτιόσσετο θυμός”, ἀντὶ τοῦ προεμαντεύετο. καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἀπὸ τῆς ὄσσης τὸ ὄσσεσθαι αὐτὸς ἐδήλωσεν ἐπὶ τῶν μνηστήρων λέγων “ἐς δ’ ἰδέτην πάντων κεφαλάς, ὄσσοντο δ’ ὄλεθρον”, ὃ ἐπ’ ἄλλου ἐξηγήσατο εἰπών· “Ξάνθε, τί μοι θάνατον μαντεύεαι;” τὴν δὲ ὄσσαν ὅτι θεία φωνὴ ἐξηγεῖται λέγων· “ἢ ὄσσαν ἀκούσεις ἐκ Διός”. λέγει δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ κληδόνα· “ἦλθον, εἴ τινά μοι κληδόνα πατρὸς ἐνίσποις”, κληδὼν δὲ παρὰ τὸ κλέος διδόναι καὶ φέρειν· “ἢ ὄσσαν ἀκούσεις, ἥ τε κλέος μάλιστα φέρει ἀνθρώποισι”, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Τηλέμαχος “πατρὸς [99] ἐμοῦ”, φησί, “κλέος εὐρὺ μετέρχομαι”, καὶ “ᾤχετο πευσόμενος μετὰ σὸν κλέος”, καὶ ἡ μεγάλη καὶ ἔνδοξος φήμη καὶ κληδὼν μέγα κλέος· “πεύθετο γὰρ Κύπρονδε μέγα κλέος”. τὴν δὲ ὄσσαν, οὖσαν θείαν φωνήν, καὶ “ὀμφὴν” προσαγορεύει· “θείη δέ μιν ἀμφέχυτ’ ὀμφή”, καὶ “ἔνθα πανομφαίῳ Ζηνὶ ῥέζεσκον Ἀχαιοί”, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ ὄσσα καὶ ἡ ὀμφὴ Διὸς ἄγγελοι. ἔστι δέ τις ἄλλη δήμου φήμη ἡ ὑπὸ ……. ………. ἀγγελίας· “εὐνήν τ’ [100] αἰδομένη πόσιος δήμοιό τε φήμην” ……………………ις, καὶ “ἀγορὰ πολύφημος”, ἐν ᾗ πολλὰ φατίζεται. ἤδη δὲ καὶ τὴν κληδόνα φήμην που εἴρηκε· “φήμην δ’ ἐξ οἴκοιο γυνὴ προέηκεν ἀλετρίς”. ὥστε ὄσσα μὲν καὶ ὀμφὴ καὶ κληδὼν ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, φήμη δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς θείας κληδόνος καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης διαλαλήσεως· οἴεται γὰρ … φωνὴν εἶναι Ὅμηρος, ἧς τοὺς μάντεις ἀκούειν - “ὣς γὰρ ἐγὼν ὄπ’ ἄκουσα θεῶν” - , ταύτην δὲ διαδίδοσθαι μηδενὸς προκατάρξαντος ἀνθρώπου· “ὄσσα δ’ ἄρ’ ἄγγελος ὦκα κατὰ πόλιν ᾤχετο πάντη, μνηστήρων στυγερὸν θάνατον καὶ κῆρ’ ἐννέπουσα”· παρὰ γὰρ τὴν ὄπα τὸ “ἐννέπουσα”. τὸ μὲν οὖν “κακοσσόμενος” σημαίνει τὸ εἰρημένον, [101] τὸ δὲ “κρήγυον” οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως τὸ ἀληθὲς δηλοῦν ἀποδεδώκασιν, αὐτοῦ ἀντιτιθέντος οὐ τῷ ψευδεῖ ἀλλὰ τῷ κακῷ τὸ “κρήγυον” ἀντίκειται δὲ τῷ κακῷ οὐ τὸ ἀληθές, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν· “οὐ πώ ποτέ μοι τὸ κρήγυον ἔειπας· αἰεί τοι τὰ κάκ’ ἐστὶ φίλα φρεσὶ μαντεύεσθαι”. ἔστι δὲ “κρήγυον” τὸ τῷ κέαρι ἡδὺ καὶ προσηνές, ὃ ταὐτὸν τῷ θυμῆρες. καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ· “οὐδέ τί πω παρὰ μοῖραν ἔπος νηκερδὲς ἔειπες”, οὐ γὰρ παρὰ τὸ προσῆκον τὰ κακὰ ἠγόρευσας. οἶμαι δὲ ὅμοιον εἶναι τὸ [102] “μάντι κακῶν” τῷ “αἰναρέτη”, ὃ σημαίνει τὸν κακωτικὴν ἀρετὴν κεκτημένον. καὶ ὁ “ὀλοόφρων” βλαπτικὴν ἔχων φρόνησιν, καὶ “οὐλόμενος” δὲ ὁ ὀλοὸν ἔχων μένος, “οὐλομένη” τε “μῆνις” ἡ ἐξ ὀλοοῦ μένους γεννηθεῖσα· ὁ γὰρ ταύτην ἔχων ὀλοός· “ἀλλ’ ὀλοῷ Ἀχιλλῆϊ θεοὶ βούλεσθ’ ἐπαρήγειν”. ταῦτα οὖν λέγει τοῖς ἀγαθόν τι κεκτημένοις, μὴ ὠφελοῦσι δὲ δι’ αὐτοῦ τινας· ἥ τε γὰρ ἀρετὴ καὶ ἡ φρόνησις καὶ τὸ μένος καὶ ἡ μαντικὴ τῶν ἀγαθῶν, οἱ δὲ μὴ δι’ αὐτῶν ὠφελοῦντες εἰκότως διαβάλλονται ὡς ἐπὶ κακῷ κεκτημένοι τὸ ἀγαθόν. ἄλλα δὲ εἴωθε συντιθέναι εἰς [103] διαβολήν τινων ὡς δυσωνύμων, ὡς τὸ “Δύσπαρι” καὶ τὸ “μῆτερ δύσμητερ” καὶ “ἦ τάχα Ἶρος Ἄϊρος”· ἔστι γὰρ ὁ κακόϊρος, ὡς ἄμορφος γυνή, καὶ Ἴλιον “Κακοΐλιον οὐκ ὀνομαστήν”· διὰ γὰρ τοῦ “οὐκ ὀνομαστὴν” τὸ δυσώνυμον ἐπεσημήνατο. [ 777 ]

Πρόσσχες δή μοι καὶ τούτοις, εἰ προσήκουσαν παρ’ ἡμῶν λαμβάνει τὴν λύσιν. “Ἔνθά οἱ ἠπιόδωρος ἐναντίη ἤλυθε μήτηρ Λαοδίκην ἐσάγουσα, θυγατρῶν εἶδος ἀρίστην”. τὸ “εἰσάγουσα” οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες, οἷον εἰσφέρουσα· οὐ γὰρ εἰσάγειν μεθ’ ἑαυτῆς λέγει τὴν Λαοδίκην, ἀλλὰ [104] πρὸς τὴν Λαοδίκην εἰσπορευομένην, ᾗ ὁμοιωθεῖσα ἡ Ἀφροδίτη τὴν Ἑλένην ἐπὶ τὸ τεῖχος ἐξήγαγεν· “εἰδομένη” γάρ φησι “γαλόῳ Ἀντηνορίδαο δάμαρτι, τὴν Ἀντηνορίδης ἔχε κρείων Ἑλικάων Λαοδίκην”. νομίζουσα οὖν ὄντως εἰς τὸ τεῖχος ὑπὸ τῆς Λαοδίκης ἀπῆχθαι, εἰσῄει τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς ἐξόδου πολυπραγμονήσασα. “Τύμβον ἀμφὶ πυρὴν ἕνα ποίεον ἐξαγαγόντες ἄκριτον ἐκ πεδίου”. τῷ “ἐξαγαγόντες” ὁμοίως τῷ “εἰσάγουσα” κέχρηται. ὡς γὰρ τ……….. [105] …… τὸ “ἐξαγαγόντες” ἐκπορευθέντες τοῦ πεδίου. ἕνα ………. …………….. μὴ καθέκαστον τῶν τεθνηκότων διακρινομένων. “Θέτιος δ’ ἐξαίσιον ἀρὴν πᾶσαν ἐπικρήνειεν”· τὴν παράνομον εὐχὴν καὶ ἔξω αἴσης καὶ μοίρας. [106] “Ἐμεῖο δὲ δῆσεν ἀρῆς ἀλκτῆρα γενέσθαι”. οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἔδησεν ἀπὸ τοῦ δεσμοῦ οὐδ’ Ἄρης ὁ πόλεμος νῦν ἢ θεός, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἔδησε κατὰ συγκοπὴν τοῦ ἐδέηςε, περισπαστέον δὲ τὸ “ἀρῆς”, ἵν’ ᾖ βλάβης, ὡς τὸ “Μέντορ, ἄμυνον ἀρήν”· ἐμοῦ γὰρ ἐδέησε καὶ χρείαν ἔσχε τῆς βλάβης βοηθὸν ἔχειν. “Οὐ μὲν γάρ τι νεμεσητὸν βασιλῆα ἄνδρ’ ἀπαρέσσασθαι, ὅτε τις πρότερος χαλεπήνῃ”. ἀμφίβολον διὰ τὴν αἰτιατικήν. ἔστι δὲ ὁ λόγος περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως· οὐ νεμεσητός, εἰ [107] βασιλεὺς ἄνδρα βλάψας καὶ τῆς ἀδικίας προϋπάρξας ἀπαρέσεται αὐτόν. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἀπαρέσεται τὸ τῆς ἀρῆς ἀπᾶραι, ἤτοι τῆς βλάβης ἀπαλλάξαι καὶ ἐξιλάσασθαι. “Αἵ τέ μοι εὐχόμεναι θεῖον δύσονται ἀγῶνα”. ἀγῶνα λέγει καὶ τὸν τόπον· “λείηναν δὲ χορόν, καλὸν δ’ εὔρυναν ἀγῶνα” καὶ “Ἀργεῖοι δ’ ἐν ἀγῶνι καθήμενοι”· καὶ τὸ ἄθροισμα δέ· “Ἥρη μὲν μετ’ ἀγῶνα νεῶν”· καὶ τὸ πλῆθος· “λῦτο δ’ ἀγών”· καὶ τὸ ἆθλον. “θεῖον” οὖν “ἀγῶνα” νῦν τὸ ἱερὸν εἶπε καὶ τὸν νεών, ἤτοι θεῖον τόπον ὄντα ἢ θεῖον ἄθροισμα περιέχοντα, διὰ τὸ πολλῶν θεῶν ἀνατίθεσθαι ἐν αὐτῷ ἀγάλματα. “εὐχόμεναι” δὲ ἐμοί, οὐχ [108] ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι περὶ χειρόνων ἦν ἡ εὐχὴ ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ χείρονος. “Ἦ δὴ ἀλιτρὸς ἐσσὶ καὶ οὐκ ἀποφώλια εἰδώς”. “ἀλιτρὸς” ὁ ἀλιτήριος καὶ ἁμαρτωλός, “ἀποφώλια” δὲ τὰ ἀπαίδευτα. πῶς οὖν ἁμαρτωλός τε εἶ καὶ οὐκ ἀπαίδευτός φησιν; ἀλλὰ λέγει· πάνυ ἥμαρτες καὶ οὐκ ὢν ἀπαίδευτος, ὡς εἰώθαμεν λέγειν· θαυμάζω πῶς σοφὸς ὢν ἥμαρτες. θαυμάζει δὲ καὶ ἡ Καλυψὼ πῶς ἀπιστεῖ ἑαυτῇ ὁ Ὀδυσσεύς, εἰ μὴ ὀμόσει περὶ τῆς ἐκπομπῆς, καίπερ οὐκ ὢν ἄφρων καὶ γνώμης θείας εὐσύνετος καὶ ἐρώσης. [109] “Ἀλλά τιν’ οἴω ἀσπασίως αὐτῶν γόνυ κάμψειν, ὅς κε φύγῃσι φεύγων ἐκ πολεμοῖο”. οἱ φεύγοντες τεταμένον ἔχουσι τὸ γόνυ, οἱ δὲ καθήμενοι κεκαμμένον. ἀσπασίως οὖν, φησί, καθεδεῖται τῶν φευγόντων τις ἐκ τοῦ πολέμου, ὃς καὶ ἀναπαύσει ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὰ σκέλη, ἐκ τοῦ συντόνου τῆς φυγῆς δρόμου καθίσας. [ 778 ]

“Ἑσταότος μὲν καλὸν ἀκουέμεν, οὐδὲ ἔοικεν ὑββάλλειν· χαλεπὸν γὰρ ἐπιστάμενόν περ ἐόντα. ἀνδρῶν δ’ ἐν πολλῷ ὁμάδῳ πῶς κέν τις ἀκούσαι ἢ εἴποι; βλάβεται δὲ λιγύς [110] περ ἐὼν ἀγορητής”. Ἀρίσταρχος ᾠήθη παραίτησιν ἔχειν τὸν λόγον, ὡς διὰ τὸ τετρῶσθαι τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος συγχωρεῖν ἀξιοῦντος εἰ καθήμενος λέγοι. καί φησι· “διὰ τοῦτο ἐνέθηκε τὸ “αὐτόθεν ἐξ ἕδρης, οὐδ’ ἐν μέσοισιν ἀναστάς”“. ἄτοπος δὲ ἡ παραίτησις· οὐ γὰρ τὸν πόδα ἀλλὰ ……………… τὴν χεῖρα δὲ οὕτως τέτρωται, ὥστε μικρὸν [111] ὕστερον αὐτὸς ἀποσφάττει τὸν κάπρον. κἂν προσκείμενος δὲ ὁ στίχος ᾖ τὸ “αὐτόθεν ἐξ ἕδρης”, ἀκουσόμεθα ἐκ τοῦ τῶν ἀριστέων συνεδρίου, ὥστ’ ἐν ἐκείνοις ὄντα λέγειν αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἐν μέσῳ τῷ πλήθει. Ἀπολλώνιος μὲν οὖν ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν, καὶ αὐτὸς συγκαταθέμενος ὅτι ἕστηκεν ὁ Ἀγαμέμνων, “παραιτεῖται”, φησί, “τὸν ὑποβολέα ὡς ἂν ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοσχεδίου μέλλων λέγειν· ἐμοῦ γάρ φησιν ἀκούσατε καὶ μηδείς μοι ὑποβαλλέτω ἵν’ εἴπω· χαλεπὸν γὰρ τὸ ὑποβαλλόντων ἀκούειν τῷ ἐπιστήμονι τοῦ λέγειν· καὶ πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις ἐν πολλῷ ὁμάδῳ ἀκούσειε τοῦ ὑποβάλλοντος ἢ ὁ ἀκούσας εἴποι; ὥστε καὶ λιγὺν ὄντα δημηγόρον καὶ δύναμιν ἔχοντα τοῦ αὐτοσχεδιάζειν βλάπτεσθαι ἐμποδιζόμενον τῷ ἐξ ὑποβολῆς λέγειν ἐν πολλῷ θορύβῳ”. εἶχε δ’ [112] ἄν τινα λόγον ἡ ἐξήγησις, εἰ ἐγίνωσκεν Ὅμηρος τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος τῆς δημηγορίας, λέγω δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἀναγνώσεως καὶ γραφῆς ὑποβαλλόμενον. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ὁ Κοτιαεύς φησι καλῶς ἔχειν τὸ ἑστῶτος τοῦ δημηγοροῦντος ἀκούειν καὶ μὴ ὑποκρούειν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐμποδίζειν (τοῦτο γὰρ σημαίνει τὸ ὑββάλλειν)· χαλεπὸν γὰρ καὶ τὸν πάνυ δεινὸν ἐν ταραχῇ εἰπεῖν. ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ δύνασθαι καὶ οὕτως ἀποδιδόναι τὴν διάνοιαν· ἐκκλησίας ἀθροισθείσης, ὁ Ἀγαμέμνων παύει προοιμιαζόμενος τὸν θόρυβον, λέγων ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία οὐ πρὸς [113] αὐτοὺς ἔχει τὴν ἀπότασιν, οὐδὲ δεῖ νῦν ὑποκρούειν ζητοῦντας τίνος ἕνεκα συνεληλύθασιν· χαλεπὸν γὰρ θορυβεῖν τὸν ἐπιστάμενον τὰ ὄντα. τίνα δὲ ἦν τὰ ὄντα πάντες που ἐγίνωσκον, ὅτι ἐμήνισαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους Ἀχιλλεὺς καὶ Ἀγαμέμνων, καὶ ὅτι νῦν κατηλλάγησαν, καὶ ὅτι ἡ σύνοδος διὰ τοῦτο. χαλεπὸν οὖν καὶ δεινὸν τὸ ἐπιστάμενον τὰ ὄντα καὶ ἐνεστηκότα θορυβεῖν, πυνθανόμενον ὡς ἀγνοοῦντα ἢ ζητοῦντα περὶ ὧν οἶδεν ἀκούειν. καὶ ὅτι τοῦτο νοεῖ, δῆλον οἷς ἐπάγει· “Πηλεΐδῃ μὲν ἐγὼν ἐνδείξομαι· αὐτὰρ οἱ ἄλλοι σύνθεσθ’ Ἀργεῖοι, ἠμὲν νέοι ἠδὲ γέροντες”. λέγει γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀπότασίς μοι τοῦ [114] λόγου πρὸς τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ἐστίν, οὐ πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοὺς εἰδότας δι’ ἃ συνεληλύθαμεν. ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς· μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὑποκρούοντες διὰ τί συνεληλύθαμεν· ἐπίστασθε γὰρ πάντα, καὶ ὁ λόγος μου τὰ νῦν οὐ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἀλλὰ πρὸς Ἀχιλλέα ἔχει τὴν ἀπότασιν· χαλεπὸν γὰρ τοὺς εἰδότας τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς συνόδου ὡς μὴ εἰδότας θορυβεῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐμποδίζειν καὶ τῷ λέγοντι καὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι, πρὸς ὃν ὁ λόγος ὁ παρὼν ἕστηκε. πολλὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσι προοίμια ἐπιγράφεται πρὸς τοὺς θορύβους. “Ἠΰτ’ ἔθνεα εἶσι μελισσάων ἀδινάων πέτρης ἐκ γλαφυρῆς αἰεὶ νέον ἐρχομενάων”. τὸ “νέον ἐρχομενάων” [115] ἀποδεδώκασιν ἀντὶ τοῦ νεωστὶ ἀεὶ ἐρχομένων, ὡς τὸ “κεῖνος γὰρ νέον ἄλλοθεν εἰλήλουθεν”. τί οὖν ἐστι τὸ νεωστὶ ἐξηγούμενοί φασιν ὅτι τὰς πτήσεις οὐ διηνεκεῖς ποιοῦνται, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ βραχύ, ὥστε φαντασίαν αἰεὶ παρέχειν ὡς ἀρ………………… τὴν ὥραν μηνύειν ὅτε [ 779 ]

πέτονται μᾶλλον· πέτονται δὲ τοῦ ἦρος αἰεί, νέον δὲ τὸ ἔαρ ἐκάλουν καὶ νέον ἔτος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔαρος προσηγόρευον. αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκπληρῶν ἔφη “ἔαρος νέον ἱσταμένοιο” πατέρα τε τῶν καιρῶν τὸν χειμῶνα Πυθαγόρας καλεῖ. αὗται οὖν κατὰ νέον ἔαρ ἔρχονται. ὅτι γὰρ τὸ ἔαρ δηλοῖ, ἐπάγει “βοτρυδὸν δὲ πέτονται ἐπ’ ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσιν”. θαυμάσαι δὲ ἔστι Ζηνόδοτον τὸ “βοτρυδὸν” ἐκλαβόντα ἐοικότως βότρυϊ τῷ ὀρνέῳ, ὃ ἑαυτὸ συστρέφει ἐν τῇ πτήσει. οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν παλαιῶν οὐδ’ Ἀριστοτέλης βότρυν ζῶον ἔγραψε, κέχρηται δὲ Ὅμηρος ἐπ’ [116] ἀμπέλου τῷ “βότρυς” ὀνόματι· “μέλανες δ’ ἀνὰ βότρυες ἦσαν”. βοτρυδὸν οὖν τὸ ἐοικότως βότρυϊ σταφυλῆς· κατὰ συστροφὰς γὰρ πέτονται· τάχα δὲ καὶ ὅτι ἐν σχήματι βοτρύων ἐκκρέμανται τῶν ἀνθέων, τῶν ῥαγῶν τὴν παχύτητα μιμούμεναι τῷ πολλὰς ἑνὸς ἐκκρέμασθαι. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν μελισσῶν τὸ βοτρυδὸν λέγει, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οἷς τὰς μελίσσας παραβέβληκεν, “ἰλαδόν”, φησίν, “εἰς ἀγορήν”, κατὰ ἴλας καὶ συστροφάς· ἰσοδυναμεῖ ἄρα τὸ ἰλαδὸν τῷ βοτρυδόν, δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ ὡς συνήθως καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἑταιρίας εἶχον. Οὐκ ἔστι “Τρώων ἄνθ’ ἑκατόν τε [117] διηκοσίων τε ἕκαστος στήσεσθ’ ἐν πολέμῳ” [οὐ] πρὸς ἑκατὸν καὶ διακοσίους μαχέσεσθε, ὥς τινες ἀποδεδώκασιν, ἀλλ’ ὡς εἰ ἔλεγεν· ἀντίσταθμοι καὶ ἰσοβαρεῖς ἑκατὸν καὶ διακοσίων ἕκαστος ἠπείλει ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ γενέσθαι. τῇ γὰρ διανοίᾳ ταύτῃ ἀκόλουθον τὸ “νῦν δ’ οὐδ’ ἑνὸς ἄξιοί εἰμεν Ἕκτορος”· ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ζυγοῖς ἱσταμένων καὶ πιπρασκομένων εἴρηται. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων εἴρηται· ἔφασκεν εἶναι ἀντίσταθμον ‹ἕκαστον› ἑκατὸν καὶ διακοσίων ἑαυτὸν λέγειν, ἤτοι ἰσοβαρῆ καὶ ἰσοδύναμιν. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἕκτορος· “οὐδ’ εἴ κέν σ’ αὐτὸν χρυσῷ ἐρύσασθαι ἀνώγοι Δαρδανίδης Πρίαμος”, οἷον ἶσον καὶ ἰσόσταθμον χρυσῷ· τὸ δ’ “ἐρύσασθαι” ἀντὶ τοῦ στῆσαι, ἀπὸ [118] τῶν ἑλκόντων τὸν ζυγόν. ὃ δὲ σημαίνει τὸ “ἐρύσασθαι”, τοῦτο καὶ “ἐτίταινε” λέγει· “καὶ τότε δὴ χρύσεια πατὴρ ἐτίταινε τάλαντα”, καὶ τὸ ἐρύσασθαι ἐξηγούμενος ἐπάγει “ἕλκε δὲ μέσσα λαβών”, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς χήρας “ἥ τε σταθμὸν ἔχουσα καὶ εἴριον ἀμφὶς ἀνέλκει ἰσάζουσα τάλαντα”. ἀτάλαντος οὖν ὁ ἶσος καὶ μὴ ταλαντεύων· “ἀτάλαντος Ἄρηϊ”, ὃ ἐξηγούμενός φησιν “ἶσος Ἐνυαλίῳ κορυθάϊκι”. κέχρηται τῇ ἀπὸ τῶν σταθμῶν διαμετρήσει καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ “δείδω μὴ τὸ χθιζὸν ἀποστήσωνται Ἀχαιοὶ χρεῖος”, ἤγουν ἶσον ἀπολάβωσιν, ὡς ἐν ζυγῷ τὸ ἶσον στήσαντες [119] καὶ ἀπομετρούμενοι ὄφλημα. χρεῖος γὰρ οὖν τὸ ὄφλημα, οὐχ ἁπλῶς τὸ πρᾶγμα. φησὶν οὖν· δέδοικα μὴ ὡς δανεισάμενοι χθὲς τὴν νίκην ἀποδῶμεν αὐτοῖς στήσαντες τὸ χρέος. “Ὡς δ’ ὅτε πῦρ ἀΐδηλον ἐν ἀξύλῳ ἐμπέσοι ὕλῃ”. ἄξυλον ὕλην οἱ μὲν τὴν πολύξυλον ἀποδεδώκασιν, οἱ δὲ ὁμόξυλον. δηλοῖ γάρ, φασὶν ………. ὡς ἀκόλουθος (ἔστι [120] γὰρ ὁμοκέλευθος) καὶ “ἄβρομοι” ἅμα βρόμῳ καὶ “ἀΐαχοι” ἅμα ἰαχῇ. οὕτω καὶ ἄλοχος καὶ ἄκοιτις ἡ ὁμόλεκτρος καὶ ὁμόκοιτις. καὶ ἄξυλος οὖν ἡ ὁμόξυλος διὰ τὸ πυκνόν. ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ ἄξυλον λέγειν οὐ κατὰ τὴν στέρησιν τοῦ ξύλου· ἐπάγει γάρ· “οἱ δέ τε θάμνοι πρόρριζοι πίπτουσιν”, ἀλλὰ κατὰ στέρησιν τοῦ ξυλίσασθαι, ἵν’ ᾖ ἄξυλος ὕλη ἀφ’ ἧς οὐδείς πω ἐξυλεύσατο. καὶ ἄκοιτις δὲ καὶ ἄλοχος ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ κυρίως ἡ παρθενικὴ λέγεσθαι, παρὰ [121] τὸ λέχους ἑτέρου μὴ μετασχεῖν μηδὲ κοίτης. παρ’ ὃ καὶ λέγει “κουριδίης ἀλόχου”. λοιπὸν δ’ ἡ κατάχρησις καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς ἄλλας μετήγαγεν, ὥσπερ κυρίως “ἀλεξῆσαι” τὸ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλόχων βοηθῆσαι, λοιπὸν δ’ ἐν καταχρήσει [ 780 ]

γέγονεν ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁπωσοῦν συμμαχεῖν. καὶ “ἀΐδηλον” δὲ “πῦρ” οὐκ ἔστι τὸ μεγαλόδηλον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀδηλοποιόν, ἐξ οὗ σημαίνει τὸ ἀφανιστικόν. οὕτω γοῦν ἔφη “σὺ δὲ κτείνεις ἀϊδήλως”, ἀφανίζων καὶ ἀδήλους ποιῶν. οὐ κακῶς δὲ καὶ Σέξστος “ἀΐδηλον” ἀποδέδωκε τὸ ἐξ ἀδήλου ἐμπεσόν. [122] Ἐλέγομεν περὶ τῶν παραβολῶν ὅτι πολλάκις τὰ οἰκεῖα τοῖς πράγμασιν ὀνόματα παρατίθησι τοῖς ἐν ταῖς παραβολαῖς ὁμοιώμασιν, ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ἔμπαλιν. εἰς δὲ πίστιν τούτου παρακείσθω καὶ ταῦτα· συμβάλλουσι μὲν ἀλλήλοις στρατοὶ τὸν πόλεμον· “σύν ῥ’ ἔβαλον Λαπίθαι πόλεμον”, “σὺν δ’ ἔβαλον ῥινά, σὺν δ’ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε’ ἀνδρῶν”, μίσγονται δὲ ποταμοὶ καὶ τὰ ὑγρά· “οἱ μὲν ἄρ’ οἶνον ἔμισγον ἐνὶ κρατῆρι καὶ ὕδωρ”, ὅθεν καὶ τὸ καταδεχόμενον τοὺς ποταμοὺς [123] χωρίον μισγάγκεια εἴρηται. ἀλλ’ ὅμως αὐτὸς ἐναλλὰξ ἐπὶ τῶν ποταμῶν ἔφη τὸ συμβάλλειν, ὃ ἦν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· “ἐς μισγάγκειαν συμβάλλετον ὄβριμον ὕδωρ”, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν στρατῶν τὸ μίσγεσθαι, ὃ ἦν ἐπὶ τῶν ποταμῶν· “ὣς τῶν μισγομένων γένετ’ ἰαχή τε φόβος τε”. συνεχώρει δὲ τὸ μέτρον εἰπεῖν “ἐς μισγάγκειαν συμμίσγετον ὄβριμον ὕδωρ”, Ὁμηρικοῦ ὄντος τοῦ παρετυμολογεῖν, ὡς τὸ “τέμενος τάμον” καὶ “κειμήλιον κεῖται” καὶ “ἅρπυιαι ἀνηρείψαντο” [καὶ “μένος οἴχεται ὃ πρὶν ἔχεσκεν”]. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν Αἰάντων “νέφος” [124] εἶπε τολμήσας “πεζῶν” κατὰ μεταφοράν, καὶ ὡς εὔλογον τὴν τόλμαν τῇ παραβολῇ ἐπιστώσατο καὶ τὰς φωνὰς ἤμειψεν, ἐπιποιῶν τὸ παραβληθὲν τῷ παραβαλλομένῳ. “ἦλθε δ’ ἐπ’ Αἰάντεσσι κιὼν ἀνὰ οὐλαμὸν ἀνδρῶν· τὼ δὲ κορυσσέσθην, ἅμα δὲ νέφος εἵπετο πεζῶν”· προαναφωνήσας οὖν “νέφος πεζῶν” ἐξ αὐτοῦ πλάσσει παραβολήν· “ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἀπὸ σκοπιῆς ἴδε νέφος αἰπόλος ἀνὴρ ἐρχόμενον κατὰ πόντον ὑπὸ Ζεφύροιο ἰωῆς· τῷ δέ τ’ ἄνευθεν ἐόντι μελάντερον ἠΰτε πίσσα φαίνετ’ ἰὸν κατὰ πόντον, ἄγει δέ τε λαίλαπα πολλήν, … τοῖαι ἅμ’ Αἰάντεσσι διοτρεφέων αἰζηῶν δήϊον ἐς πόλεμον πυκιναὶ κίνυντο φάλαγγες κυάνεαι, σάκεσσίν τε καὶ ἔγχεσι πεφρικυῖαι”. [125] τὸ μὲν “νέφος ἐρχόμενον” καὶ “ἰὸν” καὶ “ἄγον λαίλαπα” εἶπεν, ὅ ἐστι πρᾶγμα στρατιώτου, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς φάλαγγος “κίνυντο”, ὃ ἐπὶ νέφους τάττει κινήσει· “πυκινὴν νεφέλην” καὶ “πυκιναὶ φάλαγγες” καὶ “κυάνεον νέφος” καὶ “κυάνεαι φάλαγγες”. ἤμειψε καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ λέοντος καὶ τῆς Πηνελόπης τὰς φωνάς· “ὅσσα δὲ μερμήριξε λέων ἀνδρῶν ἐν ὁμίλῳ δείσας, ὁππότε μιν δόλιον περὶ κύκλον ἄγουσι, τόσσα μιν ὁρμαίνουσαν ἐπήλυθε νήδυμος ὕπνος”· μερμηρίζει μὲν γὰρ κυρίως ἄνθρωπος, ὁρμαίνει δὲ λέων, ὁ δ’ ἐνήλλαξε. τῷ δὲ τήκεσθαι κυρίως ἐπὶ τῆς χιόνος χρησάμενος ἐνδιατρίβειν ὡς ἐναργεῖ πολλάκις οὐκ ὤκνησε καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ χρήσασθαι ἐπὶ τῆς διὰ λύπην τοῖς δακρύοις διαρρεομένης· “ὡς δὲ χιὼν κατατήκεται … ἥν τ’

[ 781 ]

Εὖρος κατέτηξε … τηκομένης δ’ ἄρα τῆς … ὣς τῆς [126] τήκετο καλὰ παρήϊα δακρυχεούσης”, καίτοι ἐν ἄλλοις εἰπών· “τῆς δ’ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ ἄχεϊ φθινύθουσι παρειαί”. Θαυμάσειέ τις ἂν τοὺς τὸν ποταμὸν οἰηθέντας, ὃν Ὅμηρος Αἴγυπτον ποταμὸν κέκληκε, διιπετῆ εἰρῆσθαι διὰ τὸ ἀφανεῖς ἔχειν τὰς πηγὰς ‹καὶ› κατὰ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ οὐρανόθεν ῥεῖν. λέγει γάρ· [127] “οὐ γάρ τοι πρὶν μοῖρα φίλους ἰδέειν… πρίν γ’ ὅταν Αἰγύπτοιο, διιπετέος ποταμοῖο, αὖθις ὕδωρ ἔλθῃς”. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ καὶ τὸν Σπερχειὸν διιπετῆ λέγει· “υἱὸν Σπερχειοῖο, διιπετέος ποταμοῖο”, καὶ τὸν πρὸς τῇ Φαιάκων γῇ· “ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπάνευθεν διιπετέος ποταμοῖο”, καὶ ἁπλῶς δὲ πάντας διιπετεῖς ἐν παραβολῇ λέγει· “ὡς δ’ ὅτε ἐπὶ προχοῇσι διιπετέος [128] ποταμοῖο βέβρυχε μέγα κῦμα”. διιπετεῖς οὖν λέγει τοὺς ποταμοὺς τοὺς ἐκ Διὸς γεγεννημένους· τῷ γὰρ πεσεῖν ἀντὶ τοῦ γεννᾶσθαι χρῆται· “ὅστις ἐπ’ ἤματι τῷδε πέσῃ μετὰ [129] ποσὶ γυναικός”. ἀλλαχοῦ δὲ ἔφη ἀντὶ τοῦ διιπετοῦς· “Ξάνθου δινήεντος, ὃν ἀθάνατος τέκετο Ζεύς”. τοῦτο δὲ ὅτι φύσει οἱ ποταμοὶ ἐκ Διὸς γεννῶνται, ὥς που ἔφη “καί σφιν Διὸς ὄμβρος ἀέξει”. ᾧ λόγῳ καὶ τὰς Νύμφας τοῦ Διὸς θυγατέρας λέγει· “Νύμφαι κρηναῖαι, κοῦραι Διός”, ἔτι “Νύμφαι ὀρεστιάδες κοῦραι Διός”, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὰ ἐν ὄρεσι φυτὰ τῷ Διὸς ὕδατι τρέφονται. Ζηνόδωρος δὲ διιπετῆ τὸν διαυγῆ ἀποδίδωσιν. [130] “Οὐ γὰρ ἔσαν λιμένες νηῶν ὀχοί, οὐδ’ ἐπιωγαί”. τίνι διενηνόχασιν ἐπιωγαὶ λιμένων καὶ πόθεν προσέβαλέ τις τὸ ὄνομα; ἔφην οὖν ὅτι “ἰωὴν” τὴν πνοὴν λέγει, ὥς που εἴρηκεν· “ἐξ ἀνέμου πολυπλάγκτοιο ἰωῆς”, ποιήσας ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄειν, ὃ σημαίνει τὸ πνέειν. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ φωνεῖν καταχρηστικῶς ἔφη “αὖε δ’ ἑταίρους”, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν “ἰωὴν” κέκληκε· “τὸν δ’ αἶψα περὶ φρένας ἤλυθ’ ἰωή”, [καὶ τὸ “ἤυσε” παρὰ τὸ ἄειν] καὶ μεταφορικῶς· “λεύσσω δὴ πυρὸς δηΐοιο ἰωήν”. κυρίως οὖν [131] ἰωῆς τῆς πνοῆς οὔσης καὶ τοῦ ἄγνυσθαι σημαίνοντος τὸ κλᾶσθαι, “ἰωγὴ” λοιπὸν ἡ τῆς πνοῆς ἂν εἴη κλάσις. ἔφη οὖν που· “εὗδον Βορέω ὑπ’ ἰωγῇ”, ὅπου ἄγνυται ἡ τοῦ Βορρᾶ πνοή. καὶ “ἐπιωγαὶ” μὲν οὖν ῥηθήσονται τόποι ἀλίμενοι μέν, δυνάμενοι δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνέμων σκέπην δέξασθαι ναῦς. Πρὸς τοὺς ἀδυναμίαν Ὁμήρου κατηγοροῦντας ἐκ τοῦ πολλάκις [132] τὰς αὐτὰς ῥήσεις ποιεῖν λέγοντας τούς τε ἐκπέμποντας καὶ τοὺς πεμπομένους ἀγγέλους καὶ κήρυκας ἢ διηγουμένους πράξεις ἢ λόγους ῥηθέντας πρότερον, ἄξιον σημήνασθαι ὅπως ποικίλλων αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἄλλως καὶ ἄλλως ἑρμηνεύει διὰ δύναμιν. οἷον εἰπὼν τὸ “ξυνὸς Ἐνυάλιος” καὶ ἐξηγησάμενος πῶς κοινὸς “καί τε κτανέοντα κατέκτα”, ἄλλως τοῦτο λέγων φησίν· “ἤ τ’ ἔβλητ’ ἤ τ’ ἔβαλλ’ ἄλλον”, καὶ πάλιν ἄλλως “ἤ κε φέροιτο μέγα κράτος, ἤ κε φεροίμην”, “ἕλοιμί κεν ἤ κεν ἁλοίην”, καὶ πάλιν “νίκη δ’ ἐπαμείβεται ἄνδρας”. πάλιν τὸ τειχίσαι πόλιν καὶ κύκλῳ περιβαλεῖν τὸ τεῖχος καὶ ὅλως τὰ κυκλοτερῶς συνέχοντά τι ἑρμηνεύει λέγων· “ἀμφὶ δὲ τεῖχος ἔλασε πόλει” καὶ “περὶ δ’ ἕρκος ἔλασε” [133] καὶ “ἔλασε τάφρον ἐπ’ αὐτῷ”, εἶτ’ ἄλλως ἑρμηνεύων φησὶ “τεῖχος ἐς ἀμφίχυτον”, τὸ πέριξ κεχυμένον. καὶ ἐπ’ οἴκου κύκλῳ περιέχοντος· “περὶ δὲ κλίσιον θέε πάντη”, ὡς τὸ “περὶ δὲ χρύσεος πόρκης θέε”, καὶ ἄλλως “ἐν δὲ μετώπῳ λευκὸν σῆμ’ ἐτέτυκτο περίτροχον ἠΰτε μήνη”. [ 782 ]

ὅρα δὲ ἄλλων ὀνομάτων ἀφθονίαν ἐν ἑνὶ καὶ ταὐτῷ μέρει· “ἄνδρα” φησὶ “βαλὼν” καὶ ἐπάγει· “τὸν δὲ σκότος ὄσσ’ ἐκάλυψεν”, εἶτ’ “Ἄξυλον δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπεφνε” καὶ ἐπιφέρει “ἀλλ’ ἄμφω θυμὸν ἀπηύρα”, εἶτ’ ἄλλως “Δρῆσόν τ’ Εὐρύαλος καὶ Ὀφέλτιον ἐξενάριξεν”, εἶτα “καὶ μὲν τῶν ὑπέλυσε μένος”, αὖθις “Ἀστύαλον δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπεφνεν”, ἔπειτα “Ἀντίλοχος δ’ Ἄβληρον ἐνήρατο”, μεθ’ ἃ ἐπιφέρει “Φύλακον δ’ ἕλε Λήϊτος [134] ἥρως”, εἶτ’ ἀνάπαλιν “Ἄδρηστον δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος ζωὸν ἕλεν”, ἔπειτα ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς “τὸν δὲ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων οὔτα κατὰ λαπάρην”, ἔπειτα ὁ Νέστωρ φησίν· “ἀλλ’ ἄνδρας κτείνωμεν”.

[ 783 ]

Quaestionum Homericarum liber I (recensio X)   [3] Ἔμπορος: ἀλλοτρίας νηὸς ἐπιβάτης μὴ ἔχων ἰδίαν ναῦν, ὡς καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ “ἔμπορος εἰλήλουθας νηὸς ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίας”. οὐ γὰρ κατὰ συνήθειαν τέτακται παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίας νηὸς παρόντων, οὕσπερ συνήθως ἐπιβάτας νῦν λέγομεν. ὅπερ γὰρ παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ τῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἅρμασιν οἱ μὲν μαχόμενοι “παραβάται”, οἱ δὲ τὰς ἡνίας ἔχοντες “ἡνίοχοι”, τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν τριήρεσιν οἱ ἐπιβάται καὶ ἐπίκωποι παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς. ἐπίκωποι δὲ οἱ τὰς κώπας ἔχοντες καὶ τὰ πηδάλια. [4] Οὐ μέντοι ὁ “ἔμπορος” ἀπὸ τοῦ πορίζειν πεποίηται παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ πόρου, τουτέστι τῆς πορείας. τὸν δὲ πόρον κυρίως ἐπὶ τοῦ ὕδατος τάττει, λέγων· “πόρους ἁλὸς ἐξερεείνων” καὶ τὸ “Θρύον Ἀλφειοῖο πόρον” καὶ “ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ πόρον ἷξον ἐϋρρεῖος ποταμοῖο”, τὴν δι’ ὑγροῦ διάβασιν. ὡς οὖν τὸ μὴ ἐν ἰδίῳ οἴκῳ γαμεῖν ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ ἐγγαμεῖν λέγουσιν, οὕτως τὸ ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίας νηὸς τὸν πλοῦν ποιεῖσθαι [καὶ] ἐμπορεύεσθαι. καλεῖται “ἔμπορος” ὁ τοιοῦτος. [5] Οὐ γὰρ νηὸς ἐπήβολος: Ἀττικὴν εἶναι τὴν λέξιν φησὶν ὁ Πορφύριος· δηλοῖ δὲ τὸν ἐπιτυχῆ, ἀπὸ τοῦ βάλλειν, τουτέστι τοῦ σκοποῦ τυγχάνειν, ἐξ οὗ καὶ τὸ “σὺ δ’ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλεο σῇσι”, τουτέστιν ἐπιτυχῶς λάμβανε. καὶ ἡ βουλὴ δὲ οἱονεὶ βολή τις οὖσα, ὅθεν ἔφη· “σῇ δ’ ἥλω βουλῇ πόλις Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος”, ὡς εἰ ἔφη· τοῖς σοῖς ὅπλοις ἢ τοῖς σοῖς τόξοις ἢ βέλεσιν. [6] λύσεις ἐντεῦθεν καὶ τὸ “ἡ δὲ Φερὰς ἐπέβαλεν ἐπειγομένη Διὸς οὔρῳ”· μετῆκται γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν πόρρω τὴν ἐπιβολὴν ποιουμένων· ἡ ναῦς οὖν ἐπιβολὴν ἐποιεῖτο ὥστε τυχεῖν τῶν Φερῶν. χρῶνται δὲ ταύτῃ τῇ λέξει καὶ οἱ μεθ’ Ὅμηρον· Ἄρχιππος· “νῦν [7] δ’ ὡς ἐγενόμην χρημάτων ἐπήβολος”, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπιτυχὴς καὶ κύριος. τί οὖν αἱ λέξεις σημαίνουσι δεδήλωται. Τὸ δὲ “ὥς νύ που ὔμμιν ἐείσατο κέρδιον εἶναι” σὺν βαρύτητι εἴρηται, λέγοντος τοῦ Τηλεμάχου ὅτι· ἐν ἀλλοτρίῃ πλευσοῦμαι νηί· οὐ γάρ εἰμι, φησίν, ἐπιτυχὴς ἰδίας νεὼς οὐδὲ κέκτημαι ἰδίους ἐρέτας· τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν ὠφελιμώτατον εἶναι ἐφάνη, τουτέστι τὸ ἐμὲ μὴ ἔχειν ἰδίαν ναῦν ἀλλ’ ἔμπορον πλεῖν· ἀναφέρει δὲ εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι εἰς πενίαν αὐτὸν κατέστησαν. προεῖπε γάρ· “Ἀντίνο’, οὔ πως ἔστιν ὑπερφιάλοισι μεθ’ ὑμῖν δαίνυσθαί τ’ ἀκέοντα καὶ εὐφραίνεσθαι ἕκηλον. ἢ οὐχ ἅλις, ὡς τὸ πρόσθεν ἐκείρετε πολλὰ καὶ ἐσθλὰ κτήματ’ ἐμά, μνηστῆρες, ἐγὼ δ’ ἔτι νήπιος [8] ᾖα;” ἔστιν οὖν δυνάμει τὸ νόημα· ἀντὶ τοῦ ναυκλήρου δι’ ὑμᾶς ἐπιβάτης γέγονα τοὺς κατηναλωκότας μου τὸν πλοῦτον. Τοῦ ποιητοῦ πολλάκις ἐπισημαινομένου περὶ τῶν πυρῶν, ἃς οἱ Τρῶες ἐποιοῦντο ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης τοῦ Ἕκτορος παραγγελίας· “ἐπὶ δὲ ξύλα πολλὰ λέγεσθε , ὥς κεν παννύχιοι μέσφ’ ἠοῦς ἠριγενείης καίωμεν πυρὰ πολλά, σέλας δ’ εἰς οὐρανὸν ἵκῃ”, καὶ πάλιν· “ἐγγὺς γὰρ νηῶν καὶ τείχεος αὖλιν ἔθεντο ‹Τρῶες› ὑπέρθυμοι τηλεκλειτοί τ’ ἐπίκουροι, κειάμενοι πυρὰ πολλὰ κατὰ στρατόν”, καὶ πάλιν· “ἤτοι ὅτ’ ἐς πεδίον τὸ Τρωϊκὸν ἀθρήσειε, θαύμαζε πυρὰ πολλὰ τὰ καίετο Ἰλιόθι πρό”, εἰκότως ἀσαφέστατόν ἐστι τὸ τοῦ Δόλωνος, [9] ὅτι ἐρωτηθεὶς “πῶς δ’ αἱ τῶν ἄλλων [ 784 ]

Τρώων φυλακαί τε καὶ εὐναί;” ἀποκρίνεται· “φυλακὰς δ’ ἃς εἴρεαι, ἥρως, οὔ τις κεκριμένη ῥύεται στρατὸν οὐδὲ φυλάσσει· ὅσσαι μὲν Τρώων πυρὸς ἐσχάραι, οἷσιν ἀνάγκη οἵ τ’ ἐγρηγόρθασι φυλασσέμεναί τε κέλονται ἀλλήλοις”. τί γὰρ βούλεται τὸ “ὅσσαι μὲν Τρώων πυρὸς ἐσχάραι”, προδεδηλωμένου ὅτι πολλὰς πυρὰς ἔκαιον; ὃ ἀποροῦντας οὐκ ἔστι ῥᾳδίως συνιδεῖν. λύοντες οὖν ἐλέγομεν ἡμεῖς ὅτι τῶν ἐν πεδίῳ πυρῶν νῦν οὐ ποιεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ βούλεσθαι εἰπεῖν ὡς ὅσοι Τρῶες αὐθιγενεῖς καὶ οὐ ξένοι ἀλλ’ ἑστίαν ἔχοντες, ὅπερ ἐν ἄλλοις περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν λέγει· “Τρῶας μὲν λέξασθαι ἐφέστιοι ὅσοι ἔασι”, τουτέστιν [10] ὅσοι πῦρ τε καὶ ἑστίας ἔχοντες, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις· “ἦλθε μὲν αὐτὸς ζωὸς ἐφέστιος”, τουτέστιν εἰς τὴν αὑτοῦ ἑστίαν· ἑστία γὰρ ὁ οἶκος· ὃ γὰρ εἶπεν· “ἦλθε μὲν αὐτὸς ἐφέστιος”, μεταλαβὼν ἔφη· “ἦλθ’ Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ οἶκον ἱκάνετο”. καὶ πάλιν ἀντὶ τοῦ οἶκος· “ἑστίη τ’ Ὀδυσῆος ἀμύμονος, ἣν ἀφικάνω”. ὁ οὖν κεκτημένος οἰκίαν ἐφέστιος· ὁ δὲ ἄπολις καὶ φυγὰς “ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος”. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ εἰς ἀλλοτρίαν οἰκίαν ἐνοικοῦντος “ἀλλ’ ἐμὲ τὸν δύστηνον ἐφέστιον ἤγαγε δαίμων”. τὸ οὖν “ὅσσαι μὲν Τρώων πυρὸς ἐσχάραι” δηλοῖ ὅσαι Τρώων ἑστίαι, ἐξ οὗ [11] ὅσοι Τρώων ἐφέστιοι καὶ πολῖται καὶ ἑστιούχῳ Διὶ θύουσιν - ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ Φήμιος “Διὸς μεγάλου ποτὶ βωμὸν ἑρκείου” καταφεύγει, ᾧ δηλονότι κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν ἡμέραν ἔθυον - . ὅτι γὰρ τοὺς πολίτας εἶπε μὴ λείπειν ἐνταῦθα τὰς ‹φυλακὰς› διὰ τοῦ “πυρὸς ἐσχάραι”, δηλοῖ τὰ ἐπαγόμενα· “οἷσιν ἀνάγκη οἵ τ’ ἐγρηγόρθασι φυλασσέμεναί τε κέλονται ἀλλήλοις· ἀτὰρ αὖτε πολύκλειτοι ἐπίκουροι εὕδουσι· Τρωσὶ γὰρ ἐπιτροπέουσι φυλάσσειν”. ἐκ τούτων λύσεις καὶ τὸ περὶ τῶν Φαιάκων εἰρημένον· “πᾶσι γὰρ ἐπίστιόν ἐστιν [12] ἑκάστῳ”· λέγει γάρ· οὐδεὶς ξένος ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ πάντες πολῖται καὶ ἐφέστιον πῦρ ἔχοντες. διὰ δὲ ψιλοῦ ἐξενήνεκται, ὡς τὸ δέχεσθαι δέκεσθαι καὶ οὐχὶ οὐκί. Οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅθεν τῶν γραμματικῶν τινες τὸ “αἰόλον” ἐπὶ τοῦ ποικίλου παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ ἀκούειν ἀξιοῦσιν· οὕτω γοῦν τὸ “αἰολοπώλους” ἀποδιδόασι καὶ “πόδας αἰόλος ἵππος” καὶ τὸ “αἰόλον ὄφιν”. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ οὕτως ἀλλὰ σημαίνει τὸν ταχύν, γενόμενον ἀπὸ τῆς ἀέλλης, ἥτις ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄειν καὶ τοῦ εἰλεῖν πεποίηται, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐξηγήσατο εἰπών· “ὅν περ ἄελλαι χειμέριαι εἰλέωσιν”, τουτέστιν εἰλῶσιν, [13] ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Βορέου ἔφη· “εἴλει γὰρ Βορέης ἄνεμος”. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἄελλα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄειν καὶ εἰλεῖν πεποίηται, ἡ δὲ θύελλα ἀπὸ τοῦ θύειν καὶ εἰλεῖν, θύειν δὲ τὸ σφοδρῶς καὶ ἀκαθέκτως ὁρμᾶν δίκην μαινομένων· “ἦ γὰρ ὅ γ’ ὀλοῇσι φρεσὶ θύει” καὶ “θῦνε διὰ προμάχων”, ὅθεν καὶ Θυάδες αἱ Βάκχαι. ὡς οὖν “ἀελλόπος” Ἶρις λέγεται, ἣν μεταλαβὼν “ποδήνεμον” προσηγόρευσε (καὶ τὰς ἀέλλας εἰς τοὺς ἀνέμους μεταλαμβάνει), οὕτως τὸν ποδώκη ἵππον μεταλαμβάνων “πόδας αἰόλος ἵππος” ἔφη· καὶ ὥσπερ εἰπὼν “ἀργίποδας κύνας” κατὰ περίληψιν ἀλλαχοῦ ἔφη “καὶ κύνας ἀργούς”, οὕτω τοὺς πόδας αἰόλους ἵππους [14] κατὰ περίληψιν “αἰολοπώλους” εἶπε. καὶ “αἰόλαι” οὖν “εὐλαὶ” ἀπὸ τοῦ ταχέως εἰλεῖσθαι εἴρηνται καὶ “σφῆκες μέσον αἰόλοι” οἱ κατὰ μέσον συνεχῶς κινούμενοι καὶ εἰλούμενοι. καὶ “κορυθαιόλος” οὖν ὁ συνεχῶς κινῶν τὴν κόρυθα, ὃ μεταποιῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἄρεος ἔφη· “ἶσος Ἐνυαλίῳ κορυθάϊκι”. λύσεις δ’ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ τὸ “ὡς δ’ ὅτε γαστέρ’ ἀνὴρ πολέος πυρὸς αἰθομένοιο, ἐμπλείην κνίσσης τε καὶ αἵματος, ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα αἰόλλῃ”· δηλοῖ οὖν τὸ εἰλεῖν καὶ συνεχῶς στρέφειν. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ “κορυθάϊκι”

[ 785 ]

λύσεις τὸ “Δωριέες τε τριχάϊκες”, οἱ συνεχῶς τὰς τρίχας διὰ [15] τὸ δραστικὸν κινοῦντες· καρηκομόωντες γὰρ εἴρηνται οἱ Ἀχαιοί. Οὐ δεῖ δυσχεραίνειν, εἰ τῶν νῦν παιδευτῶν τοὺς πολλοὺς λανθάνει τινὰ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν, ὅπου καὶ τὸν δοκοῦντα εἶναι ἀκριβέστατον καὶ πολυγράμματον Καλλίμαχον ἔλαθεν ἡ διαφορὰ τῆς ἁρματροχίας, ἣν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν χωρὶς τοῦ ρ λεγομένην ἁματροχίαν. ἔστι δὲ ἁματροχία τὸ ἅμα τρέχειν καὶ μὴ ἀπολείπεσθαι, οἷον ὁμοδρομία τις οὖσα· τρόχους γὰρ τοὺς δρόμους ἔλεγον. ἁρματροχία δὲ τῶν τροχῶν τὸ ἴχνος. ἄμφω δὲ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ κεῖται, τὰς δυνάμεις αὐτοῦ τοῦ ποιητοῦ ἐξηγησαμένου. ὅτι γὰρ τὸ ἅμα τρέχειν δηλοῖ ἡ ἁματροχία, παρίστησιν ἐπὶ τοῦ Μενελάου λέγων “τῇ ῥ’ εἶχε Μενέλαος [16] ἁματροχίας ἀλεείνων”· ὑπελείπετο γὰρ διὰ τὸν ῥωχμὸν τῆς γῆς καὶ τὴν ῥῆξιν τὴν συνέμπτωσιν τοῦ δρόμου φυλαττόμενος. τοῦτο γὰρ μεταλαβὼν ἐν ἄλλοις ἐξηγήσατο εἰπὼν “αἰὲν ὁμοστιχάει”. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐμαίου δὲ ἐχομένου τῆς τροφοῦ καὶ συμβαδίζοντος μετὰ δρόμου αὐτῇ φησι· “παῖδα γὰρ ἀνδρὸς ἐῆος ἐνὶ μεγάροις ἀτιτάλλω, κερδαλέον δὴ τοῖον, ἁματροχόωντα θύραζε”, τουτέστιν ἤδη μοι ἔξω συντρέχειν δυνάμενον καὶ βάδην σὺν ἐμοὶ πορευόμενον, οὐκ ἐπικολπίδιον· “ἡ δέ με χειρὸς ἑλοῦσα δόμων ἐξῆγε θύραζε”. ἁματροχία μὲν οὖν οὕτως· μετὰ δὲ τοῦ ρ ἁρματροχία ὅτι τὸ ἀπὸ τῶν τροχῶν δηλοῖ, αὐτὸς πάλιν παρίστησι λέγων· “οὐδέ τι πολλὴ γίνετ’ ἐπισσώτρων ἁρματροχίη κατόπισθεν ἐν λεπτῇ κονίῃ”· διὰ γὰρ τὸ λεπτὸν [17] καὶ ὀλίγον τῆς κόνεως μὴ πολὺ γίνεσθαι τὸ τῶν ἐπισσώτρων ἴχνος φησίν. ἐξηγήσατο δὲ πῶς γίνεται ἴχνος, ὅτι λειπόμενον ὀπίσω τοῦ ἱεμένου εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσθεν. ἀγνοήσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Καλλίμαχός φησιν· “ἀλλὰ θεόντων ὡς ἀνέμων οὐδεὶς εἶδεν ἁματροχίας”. βούλεται μὲν γὰρ εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐδεὶς εἶδεν ἴχνος διὰ τὸ θεῖν ὡς ἀνέμους· ἁματροχίαι δὲ οὐ δηλοῦσι τὰ ἴχνη τῶν θεόντων ἁρμάτων, ἀλλ’ αἱ μετὰ τοῦ ρ λεγόμεναι ἁρματροχίαι. [18] Νῦν [i. e. in v. I 4: cf. app. crit.] δοκεῖ πρὸς μηδεμίαν χρείαν δυοῖν ἀνέμων εἰκόνα παραλαμβάνειν. εἰ γὰρ αὐξήσεως ἕνεκα, ἔδει τοὺς τέσσαρας, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις· “σὺν δ’ Εὖρός τε Νότος τ’ ἔπεσον Ζέφυρός τε δυσαὴς καὶ Βορέης αἰθρηγενέτης, μέγα κῦμα κυλίνδων”. λύει δὲ τὴν ἀπορίαν αὐτός, ὡς καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ τοῦ Μόλωνος παρέστησε. δύο γὰρ πάθεσι χειμαζομένους ποιήσας τοὺς Ἀχαιούς, φόβῳ μὲν ἐφ’ οἷς εἴρηκε “θεσπεσίη ἔχε φύζα, φόβου κρυόεντος ἑταίρη”, λύπῃ δὲ ἐν οἷς ἐπάγει “πένθεϊ δ’ ἀτλήτῳ βεβολήατο πάντες ἄριστοι” δεδίασι γὰρ τὰ μέλλοντα, βαρέως δὲ φέρουσι τὰ γεγονότα οἱ ἄριστοι - , δύο οὖν πάθεσι [19] συνεχομένους εἰπὼν τοὺς Ἕλληνας, προσηκόντως ἀπεικάζει πελάγει δυσὶ πνεύμασιν ἐξεγειρομένῳ. τὸ “θεσπεσίη” δ’ “ἔχε φύζα” δηλοῖ τὸν οὐ προσγενόμενον αὐτοῖς διὰ δειλίαν φόβον, ἀλλ’ ἐκ βουλήσεως θεῶν, ὥς που καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις αὐτὸς ἀντέθηκεν εἰπών· “γνώσεαι δ’ εἰ καὶ θεσπεσίῃ πόλιν οὐκ ἀλαπάξεις ἢ ἀνδρῶν κακότητι καὶ ἀφραδίῃ πολέμοιο”, τουτέστι θείᾳ βουλήσει καὶ οὐ συμφύτῳ κακίᾳ. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐπίθετον ἄλλων τὸ τῆς θεσπεσίας, ὡς τὸ “θεσπέσιον πλοῦτον” καὶ “θεσπεσίη φύζα”, ἐκ κοινοῦ ἔσται ἡ κακότης· [20] γνώσῃ πότερον θεσπεσίῃ κακότητι ἢ ἀνδρῶν κακότητι· δηλοῦται οὕτως ἡ θεία. [φύζα δέ ἐστιν ἡ φυγή. φόβου δὲ φίλη

[ 786 ]

λέγεται, ὅτι ὁ φοβούμενος τὴν φυγὴν προσεταιρίζεται]. καὶ τὸ μὲν “βεβολήατο” τὴν βούλησιν βεβλάφθαι δηλοῖ, τὸ δὲ βεβλῆσθαι δηλοῖ τὸ σῶμα. Ἐπεὶ παραβολῆς ἐμνήσθημεν, σκέψαι τὴν τοῦ ποιητοῦ ἐν ταύτῃ χρῆσιν. ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος τρωθέντος [21] χρησάμενος τῇ παραβολῇ ταύτῃ· “ὡς δ’ ὅταν ὠδίνουσαν ἔχῃ βέλος ὀξὺ γυναῖκα” καὶ ἀνταποδόσει· “ὣς ὀξεῖ’ ὀδύναι δῦνον μένος Ἀτρεΐδαο”, ἐπὶ τοῦ Κύκλωπος δυνάμει τὰ τῆς παραβολῆς μεταφέρων χρῆται, ἐν οἷς λέγει· “Κύκλωψ δὲ στενάχων τε καὶ ὠδίνων ὀδύνῃσιν”· ἔστι δὲ τῆς παραβολῆς τὸ “ὠδίνων”, τῆς δ’ ἀνταποδόσεως τὸ “ὀδύνῃσι”. πάλιν δὲ εἰπὼν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἕκτορος κατὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὁρμῆς· “ὀλοοίτροχος ὣς ἀπὸ πέτρης, ὅν τε κατὰ στεφάνης ποταμὸς χειμάρροος ὤσει”, κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν φαντασίαν πεποίηκε περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοντα τὸν Διομήδην· “νῶϊν δὴ τόδε πῆμα κυλίνδεται ὄβριμος Ἕκτωρ”· ὁ δὲ ὄβριμος οἰκεῖος ἀψύχῳ ὁρμῇ· οὐ γὰρ “θρασὺν” ἔφη οὐδὲ “κορυθαιόλον”, οἷς ἰδίοις αὐτὸν προσαγορεύειν εἴωθε. πάλιν ἐπὶ τοῦ Νέστορος σκεπτομένου ποῖ τράπηται “ἢ μεθ’ ὅμιλον ἴοι Δαναῶν ταχυπώλων, ἠὲ μετ’ Ἀτρεΐδην [22] Ἀγαμέμνονα”, ὅλην τὴν παραβολὴν διεξελθὼν “ὡς δ’ ὅτε πορφύρῃ πέλαγος μέγα κύματι κωφῷ ὀσσόμενον λιγέων ἀνέμων λαιψηρὰ κέλευθα αὔτως, οὐδ’ ἄρα τε προκυλίνδεται οὐδετέρωσε, πρίν τινα καταβήμεναι ἐκ Διὸς οὖρον”, εἶτα ἐπ’ Ἀγήνορος προτραπέντος μὲν ὑπὸ Ἀπόλλωνος ὑποστῆναι Ἀχιλλέα, ὅμως δὲ τὴν θέαν αὐτοῦ καταπλαγέντος, ἠρκέσθη τῷ ὀνόματι· “πολλὰ δέ οἱ κραδίη πόρφυρε κιόντι”. πάλιν τε εἰπὼν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἥρας· “ὡς δ’ ὅταν ἀΐξῃ νόος ἀνέρος, ὅστ’ ἐπὶ πολλὴν γαῖαν ἐληλουθὼς φρεσὶ πευκαλίμῃσι νοήσῃ ἔνθα ἴῃ ἢ ἔνθα, μενοινήσειέ τε πολλά, ὣς κραιπνῶς μεμαυῖα διέπτατο πότνια Ἥρη”, καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τοῦ νοῦ ποιήσας παραβολήν, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ πέτεσθαι ἀποδοὺς τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν, συντέμνων τὰ αὐτὰ ἐν ἄλλοις φησίν· “ὡσεὶ πτερὸν ἠὲ νόημα”. θαυμαστὸν [23] δὲ αὐτῷ κἀκεῖνο· ἐκ μεταφορᾶς γάρ τι τολμηρότερον φθεγξάμενος οἰκείαν ἐπάγει παραβολήν, κρατύνων δὲ αὐτὴν ὡς εὔλογον ἔσχε τὴν τόλμαν. εἰπὼν “κραδίη δέ οἱ ἔνδον ὑλάκτει”, ἐπάγει· “ὡς δὲ κύων ἀμαλῇσι περὶ σκυλάκεσσι βεβῶσα ἄνδρ’ ἀγνοιήσασ’ ὑλάει μέμονέν τε μάχεσθαι”. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν στρατοπέδων ἀντικαθημένων “τῶν δὲ στίχες εἵατο πυκναὶ ἀσπίσι καὶ κορύθεσσι καὶ ἔγχεσι πεφρικυῖαι” εἰπών, ἐπήγαγεν· “οἵη δὲ Ζεφύροιο ἐχεύατο πόντον ἔπι φρὶξ ὀρνυμένοιο νέον, μελάνει δέ τε πόντος ὑπ’ αὐτῆς”. ἐπί τε τῶν Τρώων ἔτι ποικιλώτερον κέχρηται· ἀρξάμενος γὰρ ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς ὁμοίωσίν τε αὐτῇ τὴν ἀκόλουθον ἐπάγει καὶ ἐπ’ ἀμφοῖν τὴν παραβολήν· “Τρῶες μὲν κλαγγῇ”· τοῦτο μὲν δὴ ἡ μεταφορά· τὸ δ’ “ὄρνιθες ὣς” ἡ ὁμοίωσις· εἶθ’ ἡ παραβολή· “ἠΰτε περ κλαγγὴ γεράνων πέλει οὐρανόθι πρό, αἵτ’ ἐπεὶ οὖν χειμῶνα φύγον καὶ ἀθέσφατον ὄμβρον, κλαγγῇ ταίγε πέτονται ἐπ’ Ὠκεανοῖο ῥοάων”, ᾗ [24] σχεδὸν μόνῃ τῶν παραβολῶν οὐκ ἀνταπέδωκεν, ὡς τῆς ὁμοιώσεως ἅμα καὶ μεταφορᾶς προεχουσῶν τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν. πάλιν τε αὐτοῦ παρατηρητέον ἐκεῖνο· τάς τε γὰρ οἰκείως τιθεμένας φωνὰς ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων πολλάκις εἰς τὰς παραβολὰς μετατίθησι καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν παραβολῶν εἰς τὰ πράγματα. οἷον ἔθνη

[ 787 ]

στρατιωτῶν λέγεται, σμήνη δὲ μελισσῶν, παραβαλὼν δὲ τὰ πλήθη τῶν στρατιωτῶν ὀνόματι ἐπὶ τῶν μελισσῶν κέχρηται· “ἠΰτε ἔθνεα εἶσι μελισσάων ἀδινάων”, ὃ πλήθους ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶν ὄνομα. οὕτως ὀλοοιτρόχῳ λίθῳ τὴν ὁρμὴν τοῦ Ἕκτορος ἀπεικάζων ἀναθρώσκειν τέ φησι τὸν λίθον καὶ πέτεσθαι, καὶ τελευτῶν, ὡς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ στρατιώτου ἀφιγμένου ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ τοῦ λίθου, ἐπάγει· “ὅδ’ ἀσφαλέως θέει ἔμπεδον, εἰσόκεν ἔλθῃ”. οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ κύματος, [25] ὃ τάξεσιν ἀπεικάζει στρατοπέδου, προειπών· “ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἐν αἰγιαλῷ πολυηχέϊ κῦμα θαλάσσης ὄρνυτ’ ἐπασσύτερον Ζεφύρου ὑποκινήσαντος”, μετάγει ἀπὸ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἐπὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· “πόντῳ μὲν κορύσσεται τὰ πρῶτα”. ἀνάπαλιν δὲ τὰς τῶν παραβολῶν μετατίθησι φωνὰς ἐπὶ τὰ πράγματα, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως “ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἀριζήλη φωνή, ὅτε τ’ ἴαχε σάλπιγξ” ‹εἰπών›, ἐπάγει μετατιθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς σάλπιγγος ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· “οἵδ’ ὡς οὖν ἄϊον ὄπα χάλκεον Αἰακίδαο”. κεκινδύνευται αὐτῷ ἐκεῖνα, οἷον “σιδήρειος δ’ ὀρυμαγδὸς χάλκεον οὐρανὸν ἷκε δι’ αἰθέρος ἀτρυγέτοιο”· ὡς γὰρ ἐξ ἀντιτυπίας χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου τὴν φαντασίαν εἰς τὸν ἐκ πόντου ἦχον κεκίνηκεν. Πολλῆς ταραχῆς πλήρη ἔδοξεν εἶναι τὰ ἔπη ταῦτα· “τὴν δ’ ἑτέρην πόλιν ἀμφὶ δύω στρατοὶ εἵατο λαῶν [26] τεύχεσι λαμπόμενοι· δίχα δέ σφιν ἥνδανε βουλὴ” μέχρι τοῦ “ἐν [27] δ’ ἐτίθει νειὸν μαλακὴν πίειραν ἄρουραν”. ταράσσει γὰρ τοὺς πολλούς· οἱ δύο στρατοὶ ἆρά γε πολέμιοί εἰσι τῶν κατοικούντων καὶ ἀλλήλοις φίλοι ἢ εἷς μὲν τῶν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως, ὁ δ’ ἕτερος πολέμιος; καὶ πρὸς τίνας διχονοοῦσιν; ἆρά γε πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἢ πρὸς τοὺς ἔνδον; καὶ ἐπὶ τίνων τὸ “οἳ δ’ οὔπω πείθοντο”; ἆρά γε τῶν εἴσω ἢ τοῦ ἑτέρου στρατοῦ; καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τίνος τὸ “λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο”; ἆρά γε ὁ ἕτερος τῶν στρατῶν ἢ οἱ ἔνδον; καὶ τίνων οἱ σκοποί; καὶ τίνων ἡ λεία; πῶς τε, εἰ τῶν ἔνδον ἡ λεία, ὁ λόχος παρ’ αὐτῶν; καὶ τίνες οἱ ἐπεξιόντες; ἆρα οἱ δύο στρατοὶ ἢ οἱ ἕτεροι; ὅλως τε τίς ἡ διατύπωσις τῆς πλάσεως; ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Ἐξηγητικῶν [28] φησιν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Κοτιαεὺς ὅτι· “δύο στρατοὶ παρεκάθηντο τὴν πόλιν πολέμιοι, ἢ πορθεῖν ἀξιοῦντες αὐτὴν ἢ τὰ ἡμίση λαβόντες ἀπιέναι· οἱ δ’ ἔνδον ὄντες οὐκ ἐδέχοντο τὴν πρόκλησιν. οἱ οὖν πολέμιοι”, φησίν, “ἐνέδραν τινὰ ἐποιήσαντο τοῖς ποιμνίοις καὶ τοῖς βουκολίοις, ἃ ἦν κτήματα τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει”. εἶτα ἀξιοῖ τὸ μὲν “οἳ δ’ οὔπω πείθοντο” ἀκούειν περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει, τὸ δὲ “λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο” περὶ τῶν πολεμίων, καὶ τὸ “οἳ δ’ ἴσαν” περὶ τῶν πολεμίων τῶν εἰς τὴν ἐνέδραν ἀπιόντων· οἱ δὲ σκοποὶ τῶν πολεμίων εἰσί· τὸ δὲ “οἳ δ’ ὡς οὖν ἐπύθοντο πολὺν κέλαδον παρὰ βουσὶν” ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἀκούει· ἐκαθέζοντο γὰρ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ βουλευόμενοι, τὰ τείχη φρουρεῖν παραδόντες τῇ ἀπολέμῳ ἡλικίᾳ· τὸ γὰρ “ἱράων προπάροιθε καθήμενοι” σημαίνει ἐκκλησιῶν, ἐν αἷς εἴρουσι καὶ ἐκκλησιάζουσιν. ὅτε δ’ αὐτοῖς ἐμηνύθη τὰ κατὰ τὰ ποίμνια, ἐπιτρέχουσι [29] καὶ ἐξελθόντες συμβάλλουσι μάχην. εἶχε δ’ ἂν πιθανότητα ἡ διατύπωσις, εἰ μὴ πρῶτον μὲν βεβιασμένη ἡ ἀπόδοσις ἦν τοῦ τοιούτου στίχου· “οἳ δ’ οὔπω πείθοντο, λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο”. τὸ μὲν γὰρ “οἳ δ’ οὔπω πείθοντο” ἀξιοῖ περὶ τῶν ἔνδον ἀκούειν, τὸ δὲ “λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο” περὶ τῶν ἐκτός, ἵν’ ᾖ τὸ “οἳ δ’ οὔπω πείθοντο ‹λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο›” ἀντὶ τοῦ μὴ πειθομένων αὐτῶν εἰς λόχον ἐθωρήσσοντο οἱ τὰς προκλήσεις ποιούμενοι. [τὸ δὲ “οἳ δ’ [ 788 ]

οὔπω πείθοντο” ἂν ἀκούωσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ μὴ πειθομένων αὐτῶν, βίαιον]. πάλιν δὲ μεταξὺ τοῦ “λόχῳ δ’ ὑπεθωρήσσοντο” ‹καὶ τοῦ› “οἳ δ’ ἴσαν” ἐμβεβλῆσθαι φάσκειν περὶ τῶν ἔνδον, ὅτι οἱ ἀπόλεμοι ἐτειχοφυλάκουν ὑπ’ ἀσθενείας, ἔστιν ἐλεγχόντων τὸν ποιητὴν μὴ δυνάμενον φράζειν ἀταράχως. πάντως δὲ λόχος οὐκ ἐκ πάντων ἦν τῶν ἐν τοῖς δύο στρατοπέδοις, ἀλλὰ τινῶν· πῶς οὖν ὑπεξίασιν οἱ ἐν τῇ πόλει, φανερῶς τε καὶ ἀδεῶς τῶν πολιορκούντων κωλυόντων; ἀμείνους οὖν οἱ [30] οὕτω διατυπώσαντες τὸ πλάσμα· δύο στρατοὶ ἐπελθόντες πόλει τὴν λείαν περιήλασαν, καὶ τὴν πόλιν πολιορκοῦντες ἀξιοῦσι τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ κτημάτων λαβεῖν τὸ ἥμισυ ἐφ’ ᾧ τε καταθέσθαι τὸν πόλεμον. οἱ δ’ ἐν τῇ πόλει οὐκ ἐπείθοντο, ἀλλ’ ἐνεδρεύσοντες ἐπὶ πότον ἐρχόμενα τὰ τετράποδα ἀπήλασαν. οἱ πολέμιοι δὲ στρατοί, καίπερ ἐκκλησιάζοντες, ἐπεὶ ἐπύθοντο τοῦτο, τῶν ἵππων ἐπιβάντες ἐπῆλθον αὐτοῖς. ὅτι γὰρ αὐτοί εἰσι (λέγω δὲ οἱ στρατοί) ἐκκλησιάζοντες, δεδήλωκε περὶ αὐτῶν εἰπών· “δίχα δέ σφισιν ἥνδανε βουλή”. ἀκολούθως εἴρηται ἐπὶ τῶν ἐντός, ὅτι οὐκ ἐπείθοντο μέν γε, εἰς δὲ λόχον καθωπλίζοντο, παραδόντες τοῖς ἀστρατεύτοις τὴν φρουρὰν τῶν τειχῶν. καὶ τὸ “οἳ δ’ ἴσαν” ἐπὶ τῶν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἀκολούθως ἐπῆκται, λάθρα ἐξιόντων αὐτῶν, καὶ ὅθεν οὐκ ἦν προσδοκῆσαι τοῖς ἔξω ἀνοχὰς ἔχουσι τοῦ πολέμου καὶ ἐκκλησιάζουσιν. αὐτῶν τε οἱ σκοποὶ τῶν εἰς τὸν λόχον ἐξελθόντων. καὶ οἱ τερπόμενοι ταῖς σύριγξι νομεῖς εἰ [31] μὲν τῶν πολεμίων εἶεν, ἔχει λόγον, εἰ δὲ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει, παρὰ λόγον· οὐ γὰρ οἱ τῶν πολιορκουμένων ἐτέρποντο, ἀλλ’ οἱ τῶν πολιορκούντων. καὶ λοιπὸν ἀκολούθως, ἀπελθόντων τῶν στρατῶν, παρακάθηται μὲν οὐδεὶς τὴν πόλιν, μάχη δὲ περὶ τὸν λόχον γίνεται. ἄλλοι δὲ ἠξίουν τῶν δύο στρατῶν τὸν μὲν φίλιον εἶναι τῶν ἔνδον, τὸν δὲ πολέμιον, καὶ τὸν μὲν πολέμιον ἑλεῖν βούλεσθαι τὴν πόλιν, τὸν δὲ φίλιον ἀξιοῦντα τὰ ἡμίση δοῦναι τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει κτημάτων, τοὺς δὲ πολεμίους μήπω πείθεσθαι ἀλλὰ βουλεύεσθαι· ὧν βουλευομένων, λόχον αὐτῶν [τῇ πόλει] συστῆσαι τοὺς τῶν ἔνδον φίλους στρατιώτας. τετάρακται δὲ καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη ἐκδοχή, ὡς ἐπιόντι σοι κατ’ αὐτὰ τὰ ἔπη ἔσται δῆλον, ὥστε ἡ β΄ ἀπόδοσις ἔχει τὰ τῆς Ὁμηρικῆς διανοίας. ἐκεῖνο μέντοι παρελθεῖν οὐκ ἄξιον, ὅτι οἱ περὶ Παρμενίσκον [32] στίζειν ἠξίουν ἐπὶ τοῦ “τεῖχος μέν ῥ’ ἄλοχοί τε φίλαι καὶ νήπια τέκνα ῥύατ’ ἐφεσταότες μετὰ δ’ ἀνέρες οὓς ἔχε γῆρας” μετὰ τὸ “ῥύατο”, εἶτα συνῆπτον τὸ ἑξῆς· “ἐφεσταότες μετὰ δ’ ἀνέρες οὓς ἔχε γῆρας”. “ἐὰν γὰρ τοῖς ἄνω”, φασί, “συνάψωμεν, σολοικισμὸς ἔσται, ἐπεὶ θηλυκὸν πρόκειται καὶ οὐδέτερον, τὸ δὲ “ἑσταότες” ἀρσενικόν”. ἐδυνάμην οὖν φάναι πρὸς αὐτούς, ὅτι καὶ οὕτως Ὅμηρος πολλὰ σχηματίζει· καὶ αὐτὸς γὰρ λέγει “κλυτὸς Ἱπποδάμεια” καὶ “θῆλυς ἀϋτμὴ” καὶ “ὀλοώτατος ὀδμὴ” καὶ “ὄπα χάλκεον” καὶ “ἁλὸς πολιοῖο”, [33] καὶ ἐπὶ δυϊκῶν· “οὐκ ἂν ἐφ’ ὑμετέρων ὀχέων πληγέντε κεραυνῷ”. ἄλλως τε ἐν τοῖς τέκνοις καὶ οἱ ἀνέρες εἰσί· τί οὖν κωλύει πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον ἀπηντηκέναι, ὡς ἐπ’ ἄλλων μυρίων; οἷον· “νεφέλη δέ μιν ἀμφιβέβηκε κυανέη· τὸ μὲν οὔ ποτ’ ἐρωεῖ”· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ νέφος ἡ ἀπόδοσις. πάλιν· “ἠδ’ ἐπὶ δεξιά, ἠδ’ ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰ νωμῆσαι βῶν ἀζαλέην, τὸ μοί ἐστι ταλαύρινον πολεμίζειν”· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ σάκος ἡ ἀναφορά. καὶ εἰπὼν “ἐπ’ εἰροπόκοις ὀΐεσιν”, ἐπάγει “τὰ δ’ ἐρῆμα φοβεῖται”· πρὸς γὰρ τὰ πρόβατα τὸ σχῆμα. καὶ ἐνταῦθα οὖν πρὸς τοὺς παῖδας φαίη ἄν τις εἶναι τὴν ἀναφοράν. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις καὶ β΄ σχήματα ἔμιξεν, ἐπὶ τοῦ “διάνδιχ’ ἅπαντα δάσασθαι κτῆσιν ὅσην [ 789 ]

πτολίεθρον ἐπήρατον [34] ἐντὸς ἐέργει”· τὸ γὰρ “ἅπαντα” πρὸς τὰ κτήματα ἀναφέρεται, τὸ δὲ “ὅσην” πρὸς τὴν κτῆσιν. ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ παραπλήσιόν τι νῦν κἀνθάδε πεπονθέναι τὴν φράσιν τῷ λεγομένῳ Ἀλκμανικῷ σχήματι, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τοιοῦτον· “ἔνθα μὲν εἰς Ἀχέροντα Πυριφλεγέθων τε ῥέουσι Κώκυτός τε”, “εἰ δέ κ’ Ἄρης ἄρχωσι μάχης ἢ Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων”. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ἐν μέσῳ κεῖται ὃ ἔδει ἐπάγεσθαι, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν νῦν ζητουμένων. εἰ γοῦν τὸ “ἐφεσταότες” ἐπαγάγωμεν τῷ “μετὰ δ’ ἀνέρες οὓς ἔχε γῆρας”, οὐδ’ ἂν ἔτι ζητοῖτο· μόνῳ δὲ τούτῳ διαφέρει τοῦ Ἀλκμανικοῦ, ᾗ ἐκεῖνο μὲν τοῖς [35] παρὰ ἀριθμὸν σχήμασιν ὑποπίπτει, τοῦτο δὲ τοῖς παρὰ γένος, ὑπερβατῷ δὲ ἀμφότερα λύεται. [36] Τὸ “συναγείρεται” κατ’ οὐδὲν ἀναγκαῖον ἐγράφη διὰ τοῦ γ, ἁμαρτημάτων [37] ὂν γραφικῶν ‹…› ἐπιεικῶς. τὸ γὰρ “συναείρεται” μᾶλλον σημαίνει προσεχῶς τὸ συνάγει καὶ συναρμόζει. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις “σὺν δ’ ἤειρεν ἱμᾶσι”, συνήγαγε τοὺς ἵππους. [39] Ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἀριστοφάνης βούλεται τὸν ἰχθῦν, ὥστε καταφαγεῖν τὸν τοῦ Λυκάονος δημὸν [ἢ διαφαγόντα], θρώσκειν κατὰ κῦμα καὶ ὑπαΐσσειν [40] τὴν φρῖκα· καί φησιν· “ἐπιπολῆς ἐπινήξεται, τῷ ἀφρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ὑποδεδυκώς, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῶν ἀποθανόντων τὰ σώματα, ἕως ἂν εἴη πρόσφατα, ἄνωθεν ἐπιπλεῖν εἴωθε”. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπινοῆσαι νηχόμενον ἰχθῦν ὑπεράνω μὲν ὕδατος, ὑποκάτω δὲ ἀφροῦ τοῦ ὕδατος, οὐδὲ τούτων μεταξὺ νεκρὸν ἄνδρα φερόμενον. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὴν φρῖκα ἀκούειν δύναμαι τὸν ἀφρόν, Ὁμήρου μὲν “μέλαιναν φρῖκα” λέγοντος· τούτου δὲ ἀξιοῦντος λευκότατον ἀκούειν, ἐπί τε τοῦ Πρωτέως λέγει πάλιν Ὅμηρος “μελαίνῃ φρικὶ καλυφθείς”, καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ· “ὡς δ’ ὅθ’ ὑπὸ φρικὸς Βορέω ἀναπάλλεται ἰχθῦς θινὶ ἐπὶ φυκιόεντι μέλαν τέ ἑ κῦμ’ ἐκάλυψε”, καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ τῆς φρικὸς μνημονεύσας ἐπάγει· “μελανεῖ δέ τε πόντος ὑπ’ αὐτῆς”. καὶ ἔστιν ἡ φρὶξ κινουμένου τοῦ πνεύματος ἀρχή. Σιμωνίδης δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ δεῖξαι πειρώμενος [41] οὕτως ἔφη· “εἶσ’ ἅλα στίζουσα πνοιά”. τὸ δὲ λέγειν ὅτι τὰ πρόσφατα σώματα φέρεται τῶν κυμάτων ἐπιπολῆς, ψεῦδος. τοὐναντίον ἐν ἀρχῇ μὲν γὰρ διὰ στερρότητα καὶ πυκνότητα τοῦ σώματος ἰσχυρότερος ὢν τοῦ στηρίζοντος ὕδατος ὁ νεκρὸς διισταμένου καταδύεται, σχήματι καταβαίνων καὶ βάρει· πληρούμενος δὲ τῆς ὑγρότητος, πλείω τόπον ἐπιλαμβάνων τῷ σχήματι μετέωρος αἴρεται, βάρει τοῦ φέροντος ἐλαττούμενος. τίς οὖν ὁ νοῦς τῶν ἐπῶν; διττὴ γὰρ ἡ γραφή· ἐν οἷς μὲν γὰρ γράφει “μέλαιναν φρῖχ’ ὑπαΐξει”, ἐν οἷς δὲ γράφει “μέλαιναν φρῖχ’ ὑπαλύξει”. κἂν μὲν κρατήσῃ τὸ “ὑπαΐξει”, φήσομεν λέγειν αὐτόν· τῶν πηδώντων τις κατὰ τὸ [42] κῦμα ἰχθύων ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ἀίξει, τουτέστιν ἐκ τοῦ ἄνωθεν θρώσκειν παυσάμενος ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ὑποδύεται καὶ ὁρμήσει κάτω, συγκαταφερόμενος τῷ νεκρῷ, ὃς φάγῃ ἂν τοῦ Λυκάονος τὸν δημόν. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν, εἰ ἐπιπολῆς τοῦ κύματος θρώσκειν ὑπακούομεν· εἰ δ’ ἐκ βάθους ἀναπηδῶντα ἐπὶ τὸ κῦμα, ἔσται ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ λίθου εἴρηκεν “ὕψι τ’ ἀναθρώσκων πέτεται”, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἰχθύος τὸ ὑψοῦ τὸ ἐκ βυθοῦ κάτωθεν κατὰ κύματος θορεῖν, μὴ μέντοι ὑπερθορεῖν τὴν φρῖκα, ἀλλ’ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν ὄντα ἅπτεσθαι τοῦ νεκροῦ, εἰ ἐπιπολῆς φέροιτο. εἰ δ’ “ὑπαλύξει” γράφοιτο, φησὶ Πολύκλειτος τὸν νοῦν ἔσεσθαι· [43] καταδύσεται μὲν εἰς τὸ βάθος τοῦ κύματος ὁ ἰχθῦς, φεύγων τῆς φρικὸς τὴν ψυχρότητα. καὶ γὰρ αὐτῷ πολεμιωτάτη· τοῦ γοῦν χειμῶνος ἐκ τοῦ πελάγους εἰς τὴν γῆν [ 790 ]

καταίρουσιν οἱ ἰχθύες· πολλοὺς δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ φωλεύειν κατὰ τοῦ βάθους διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν ἱστορεῖ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ Περὶ ζώων φύσεως· ψυχροτάτη δ’ ἡ φρίκη, καὶ μάλιστα ἂν βόρειος ᾖ. γενόμενος δ’ ἐν τῷ βάθει τοῦ Λυκάονος ἔδεται τὸ λίπος. οὐ δοκεῖ μοί τινα τούτων ὀρθῶς ἀποδεδωκέναι τὸν νοῦν τῶν ἐπῶν. οὐ γὰρ εὐθύς φησιν Ὅμηρος αὐτὸν σφαγέντα καὶ ῥιφέντα τοῦτο παθεῖν, ἵνα ἐκδεχώμεθα ὅτι κάτω ἐνεχθέντος ὁ ἰχθῦς κάτω χωρεῖν λέγεται εἰς τὰ βάθη τοῦ κύματος ἐπὶ τὴν βρῶσιν, ἀλλ’ ἐξενεχθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ Σκαμάνδρου ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, ὥστε οὐκέτι ὑποβρύχιον, ἄνωθεν δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπιπλεῖν ἀνάγκη. ἔχει γὰρ οὕτω τὰ ἔπη· “ἐνταυθοῖ νῦν κεῖσο μετ’ ἰχθύσιν, οἵ σ’ ὠτειλῆς αἷμ’ ἀπολιχμήσονται [44] ἀκηδέες, οὐδέ σε μήτηρ ἐνθεμένη λεχέεσσι γοήσεται, ἀλλὰ Σκάμανδρος οἴσει δινήεις εἴσω ἁλὸς εὐρέα κόλπον· θρώσκων τις κατὰ κῦμα μέλαιναν φρῖχ’ ὑπαΐξει ἰχθῦς, ὅς κε φάγῃσι Λυκάονος ἀργέτα δημόν”. νεοσφαγῆ μὲν οὖν ὄντα φησὶ κεῖσθαι μετ’ ἰχθύσιν, ὡς ἂν κάτω ἀπενεχθέντα, ὅπου φησὶ τῆς ὠτειλῆς αὐτοῦ αἷμα ἀπολιχμήσεσθαι τοὺς ἰχθῦς· χρονίζοντα δὲ ἄταφον ἐκβληθῆναι εἰς θάλασσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ, ὅτε καὶ ἀναπλεῦσαι ἀνάγκη, καὶ θρώσκοντα οὐχ ὑπὲρ τὸ κῦμα ἰχθῦν ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ κῦμα (“κατὰ κῦμα” γὰρ ἔφη, οὐχ ὑπὲρ κῦμα) ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ἀίξαι. τὸ γὰρ μέτρον τῆς εἰς τὰ ἄνω ὁρμῆς τοῦ ἰχθύος δηλῶν ἀφορίζει, ἀλλ’ ἄχρι τῆς φρικός. οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐπέθρωσκε κατὰ κῦμα, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ τὸ κῦμα, εἰ καὶ τὴν φρῖκα ὑπερεπήδα. ἐκφερομένου οὖν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκβολῶν τοῦ ποταμοῦ [45] πηδῆσαι κατὰ τὸ κῦμά φησι τὸν ἰχθῦν καὶ γενέσθαι ἄνω ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα, ἔνθα ἐντεύξεται τῷ νεκρῷ. οὕτως ἐξηγήσαντο καὶ οἱ Ἀριστάρχειοι λέγοντες· “ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ἀίξει τις τῶν ἰχθύων κατὰ τὸ κῦμα κολυμβῶν, ὃς φάγοι ἂν τὸν Λυκάονος δημόν. πάντως γὰρ ἔδει τὸν μέλλοντα τοῦ ὑπερφερομένου νεκροῦ ἅπτεσθαι ἰχθῦν ἄνω μετέωρον ὑπὸ τὴν φρῖκα ἐλθεῖν”. Φιλητᾶς δὲ τῇ “ὑπαλύξει” γραφῇ συντιθέμενός φησιν, ὅτι ὁ φαγὼν ἰχθῦς τὸν Λυκάονος δημὸν πιμελώδης γενόμενος τὸ κρύος ἐκφεύξεται. ἀγνοεῖ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι τὸ διανεστηκὸς τῆς θαλάσσης ἐπιπολῆς, οὐ τὸ κρύος φησὶν Ὅμηρος φρῖκα· “ὡς δ’ ὅθ’ ὑπὸ φρικὸς [46] Βορέω ἀναπάλλεται ἰχθῦς”, τῆς ἐπιτρεχούσης κατὰ τὴν θάλασσαν πρὸ τῆς τοῦ ἀνέμου ἐμβολῆς. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ συὸς κατὰ μεταφοράν· “φρίξας εὖ λοφιήν”· καὶ “ἔφριξεν δὲ μάχη φθισίμβροτος ἐγχείῃσιν”. Ἠξίουν ἡμᾶς, παρατηροῦντας τὴν τοῦ ποιητοῦ ἐν πᾶσι λεπτουργίαν, ἰχνεύειν καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὑτὸν ὁμολογίαν. φωτὸς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν ὄντος συμμέτρου δι’ οὗ ὁρῶμεν τὰ πεφωτισμένα, τὴν τυφλότητα ὁτὲ μέν φησιν “ὀφθαλμοῦ ἀλάωσεν”, ἀφῃρῆσθαι τὸ λεύσσειν παριστάς, [47] ὁτὲ δὲ “ὀφθαλμῶν μὲν ἄμερσε”, τὸ τοῦ μαίρειν ἐστερῆσθαι λέγων σκοτεινόν· καὶ τὸ τοῦ μαίρειν ἀφῃρημένον εἴδωλον “ἀμαυρὸν” ἔφη· φωτὸς γὰρ παρουσίᾳ καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς ὁρῶν τὰ ὁρώμενα φαίνεται. διττῆς οὖν ὀφθαλμῶν οὔσης καὶ κατὰ Πλάτωνα ἐπιταράξεως - ἢ γὰρ διὰ σκότος ἢ δι’ ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ συμμέτρου φωτός - , τὸ μὲν διὰ σκότος [καὶ] μὴ μαίρειν, εἴτουν μαρμαίρειν, ἀμέρδειν εἶπε καὶ ἀμαυρόν, τὸ δὲ διὰ στιλβηδόνα ἐπὶ τοῦ χαλκοῦ· “ὄσσε δ’ ἄμερδεν αὐγὴ χαλκείη κορύθων ἄπο λαμπομενάων θωρήκων τε νεοσμήκτων σακέων τε φαεινῶν”. ὅθεν καὶ ἐπίθετον τοῦ χαλκοῦ ἐφιλοτέχνησε, τὸ “νώροπα χαλκόν” [48] καὶ “ἤνοπι χαλκῷ”, σημαίνων τὸν μὴ ἐῶντα τοὺς ὦπας ὁρᾶν διὰ τὴν προσοῦσαν στιλβηδόνα. εἰ δὲ τὸ μέρδειν τὸ μαίρειν ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ μὴ μέρδειν ποιοῦν ἀμέρδειν, τὸ ἄγαν μέρδειν [ 791 ]

σμερδαλέον ἂν εἴη, τῆς ζα ἐγκειμένης· ὡς τὸ ζαχρειής. ὅταν οὖν ἐπὶ τοῦ δράκοντος λέγῃ “σμερδαλέον δέδορκε”, τὸ ἄγαν στίλβον τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀκουσόμεθα· καὶ γὰρ δράκων παρὰ τὸ δρακεῖν εἴρηται. τὸ “σμερδαλέω δὲ λέοντε” ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκφοβούσης αὐτῶν ἐνοράσεως ἐκδεξόμεθα· καὶ γὰρ ὁ λέων παρὰ τὸ [49] λεύσσειν ὠνόμασται. αὐτὸς γὰρ ἡρμήνευσε τί τὸ σμερδαλέον ἐπ’ αὐτῷ εἰπὼν “γλαυκιόων”. καὶ ἡ ἀσπὶς δὲ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς διὰ τὴν μαρμαρυγὴν “δεινή τε σμερδνή τε”· δεινὸν γὰρ καὶ φοβερὸν καὶ τὸ ἄγαν λαμπρὸν καὶ στίλβον, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς γλαυκώπιδος Ἀθηνᾶς ἔφη· “δεινὼ δέ οἱ ὄσσε φάανθεν”, ὅπερ ἐπ’ ἄλλων ἔφη “ὄμματα μαρμαίροντα”. “γλαυκιόωντες” δὲ οἱ λέοντες καὶ ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ “γλαυκῶπις” ἀπὸ τοῦ γάλακτος, ὅ ἐστιν ἄσκιον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο λευκόν, ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ εἴρηται· μέλαινα γὰρ ἡ σκιά· “σκιόωντο δὲ πᾶσαι ἀγυιαί”, τουτέστι δύντος τοῦ ἡλίου συνεσκοτοῦντο· ὀξὺ δὲ τὸ λευκόν, ὡς τὸ μέλαν ἀμβλύ· [50] ἡ οὖν ὀξὺ ὁρῶσα γλαυκῶπις. ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ γάλακτος καὶ τῆς στιλβηδόνος “γλαυκὴ” καὶ ἡ θάλασσα εἴρηται καὶ ἡ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ κόρη “γλήνη” καὶ “τρίγληνα” τὰ ἐλλόβια ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν λευκότητι ἀποστίλβειν, καὶ “ὃς γλήνεα πολλὰ κεχάνδει” τὰ μὴ ἐρρυπωμένα ἱμάτια ἀλλὰ στιλπνὰ διὰ καθαρότητα. καὶ ζοφουμένη θάλασσα “μελανεῖ δέ τε πόντος” λέγεται· ἀτάραχος γὰρ οὖσα καὶ διειδὴς “λευκὴ δὲ ἦν ἀμφὶ γαλήνη”· καὶ γὰρ ἡ γαλήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ γάλακτος εἴρηται. καὶ ἐπεὶ τὸ μέλαν σκυθρωπόν, τὸ δὲ λευκὸν ἀντίκειται τῷ μέλανι, ἱλαρὸν ἂν εἴη· γέλως δὲ ἡ ἱλαρότης· “γέλασε δὲ [51] πᾶσα περὶ χθὼν” φησὶ “χαλκοῦ ὑπὸ στεροπῆς”, τουτέστι λαμπρυνθεῖσα φαιδρὰ ἐγένετο. οὕτω νόει καὶ τὸ “κόρυθες καὶ θώρακες λαμπρὸν γανόωντες”, ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τῆς λαμπούσης καὶ διὰ τῆς στιλβηδόνος φαιδρυνομένης. καὶ ὁ “γαίων” δὲ τῷ “κύδεϊ”, ὁ διαχεόμενος καὶ λαμπρυνόμενος διὰ τὴν δόξαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ φῶς ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, ὅταν μὲν ἥμερον βλέπωσι, “φάεα” αὐτὰ καλεῖ· “κύσσε δέ μιν κεφαλήν τε καὶ ἄμφω φάεα καλά”· καὶ ἥμερον ζῷον ἄνθρωπος φώς, ζωῆς δὲ ἔτι μετέχων, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς φωτός· ὅταν γὰρ ἀποθάνῃ· “κατὰ δὲ ὄσσε [52] ἐρεβεννὴ νὺξ ἐκάλυψεν”· ὅταν δὲ ἐξαγριωθῶσιν ὑπ’ ὀργῆς καὶ ἐκκαυθῶσιν, ἔτι μὲν ἀρχομένης τῆς ὀργῆς· “πυρὶ λαμπετόωντι ἐΐκτην”, κρατησάσης δέ· “πῦρ ὀφθαλμοῖσι δέδορκε”· καὶ γὰρ τὸ φῶς ἀπὸ πυρός. καὶ τὸ ὕφαιμον δὲ ὁρᾶν διὰ τὸ πυρὶ ἐοικέναι τὸ αἷμα σμερδαλέον [δὲ] εἴρηται· “σμερδαλέος δ’ αὐτῇσι φάνη κεκακωμένος ἅλμῃ”, τουτέστιν ὕφαιμον βλέπων διὰ τὸ πυρωποὺς ἔχειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἁλός. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρὸς δίκην μαινομένου εἰπὼν “μαίνετο δ’ ὡς ὅτ’ Ἄρης ἐγχέσπαλος ἢ ὀλοὸν πῦρ οὔρεσι μαίνηται”, ἐπάγει· “τὼ δέ οἱ ὄσσε λαμπέσθην”. λοιπὸν δὲ καὶ κατὰ μεταφορὰν “σμερδαλέα” μὲν τὰ οἰκήματα τοῦ Ἅιδου ἔφη, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕφαιμα εἶναι καὶ φόνων πλήρη, ἐπὶ τὴν ὄψιν ἀναφέρων· ἐπὶ φωνῆς δὲ λαμπρᾶς καὶ διαφανοῦς· “σμερδαλέον κονάβησαν ἀϋσάντων ὑπ’ Ἀχαιῶν” καὶ “σμερδνὸν [53] βοόων”· καὶ γὰρ ἐπ’ ὀρχήσεως συντόνου μεταφέρων “μαρμαρυγὰς” ἔφη “θηεῖτο ποδῶν”, τὰς ἐν τῇ κινήσει στιλβηδόνας, ἃς ποιεῖ καὶ τὸ πῦρ κινούμενον. καὶ οὐχὶ φιλόσοφοι πρῶτοι τὸ λευκὸν ἀφωρίσαντο τὸ διακριτικὸν ὄψεως, ἀλλὰ πρὸ αὐτῶν Ὅμηρος, μαρμαίρειν λέγων τὸ λάμπειν, ὅ ἐστι μερίζειν καὶ διαιρεῖν, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ διακρίνειν· ὅθεν τὸ μὴ μερίζον ἀλλὰ σκοτεινὸν “ἀμαυρόν”. καὶ ὅτι παρὰ τὸ μερίζειν καὶ διακρίνειν καὶ διαιρεῖν κέκληκε τὸ φωτίζειν “μαρμαίρειν”, δηλοῖ τὸ φῶς δάος καλέσας· “δάος μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσαι”, ἀφ’ οὗ αἱ δεκτικαὶ τοῦ φωτὸς δαΐδες καὶ δᾷδες. [ 792 ]

[54] “Ὡς δὲ λέβης ζεῖ ἔνδον ἐπειγόμενος πυρὶ πολλῷ κνίσση μελδόμενος ἁπαλοτρεφέος σιάλοιο πάντοθεν ἀμβολάδην, ὑπὸ δὲ ξύλα κάγκανα κεῖται, ὣς τοῦ καλὰ ῥέεθρα πυρὶ φλέγετο, ζέε δ’ ὕδωρ”. οἱ μὲν οὖν διορθοῦντες ἠξίουν μετὰ τοῦ ν γράφειν “κνίσσην μελδόμενος”, ἀντὶ τοῦ τήκων ἀκούοντες, ἵν’ ᾖ τὴν κνίσσαν τήκων ‹…› οὐκ εἶχον δὲ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ δεικνύναι οὐδετέρως τὸ κνίσσος λεγόμενον, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ θηλυκῶς· “κνίσση δ’ οὐρανὸν ἷκεν” καὶ “κνίσσην [55] ἐκ πεδίου ἄνεμοι φέρον”. μήποτ’ οὖν οὐκ ἔστι “μελδόμενος” τὸ τήκων οὐδὲ κεῖται τὸ ἔδειν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄλδειν. ὅπερ οὖν λελυμένως ἔφη “μέλε’ ἤλδανε ποιμένι λαῶν”, σημαίνων τὸ εὐτραφῆ, λιπαρὰ ἐποίει εὐρύνουσα τὰ μέλη, τοῦτο συνελὼν “μελδόμενος” ἔφη, κατὰ μεταφορὰν τὰ μέρη τοῦ λέβητος μέλη λέγων, ἅπερ λιπαίνεσθαι τηκομένῃ τῇ πιμελῇ χριόμενα. τὸ οὖν ἀλειφόμενον λιπαίνεσθαι μέλδεσθαι ἔφη, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις· “ἐν δ’ ὠτειλὰς πλῆσαν ἀλείφατος ἐννεώροιο”. τινὲς δὲ οὕτως· “κνίσσῃ μελδόμενος”, ἀντὶ τοῦ κνίσσης μέλη ἀλδόμενος, δοτικὴν ἀντὶ τῆς γενικῆς λαβόντες, ἢ τῇ κνίσσῃ ζεούσῃ αὐξάνων τὰ μέλη, ἤτοι τὰ κρέη, ἢ αὐτὸς τῇ κνίσσῃ τοῦ εὐτραφοῦς χοίρου ὁ λέβης λιπαινόμενος [καὶ τηκόμενος]. [56] Ἀξιῶν δὲ ἐγὼ Ὅμηρον ἐξ Ὁμήρου σαφηνίζειν αὐτὸν ἐξηγούμενον ἑαυτὸν ὑπεδείκνυον, ποτὲ μὲν παρακειμένως, ἄλλοτε δ’ ἐν ἄλλοις. τῆς τε γὰρ εἰροκόμου παράκειται συνεζευγμένη ἡ ἐξήγησις· “γρηῒ δέ μιν ἐϊκυῖα παλαιγενέϊ προσέειπεν εἰροκόμῳ [προσεῖπε]”. τίς οὖν ἡ εἰροκόμος; “ἥ οἱ” φησὶν “ἤσκειν εἴρια καλά”· ἡ γὰρ ἀσκοῦσα τὰ ἔρια, αὐτοῦ ἐξηγησαμένου, εἴη ἂν ἡ εἰροκόμος· ἀσκεῖν δὲ τὸ καλλωπίζειν, ὡς τὸ “χρυσὸν … κέρασι περιχεύει ἀσκήσας, ἵν’ ἄγαλμα θεὰ κεχάροιτο ἰδοῦσα”. καὶ πάλιν· “ἄλλους αἰδέσθητε περικτίονας ἀνθρώπους”. τίνες οὖν οἱ περικτίονες; ἐπάγει· “οἳ περιναιετάουσι”. [57] “βοῦν ἦνιν εὐρυμέτωπον ἀδμήτην”. ἆρ’ οὖν “ἀδμήτην” ἄγαμον δηλοῖ; οὐχί, ἀλλὰ “τὴν οὔ πω ὑπὸ ζυγὸν ἤγαγεν ἀνήρ”, καὶ πάλιν “ἔνθ’ οἵ γ’ οὐκέτι πάμπαν ἀφέστασαν· ἦρχε γὰρ Ἄρης”. τί οὖν ἐστιν “ἦρχε”; “καὶ πρῶτος Ἀθηναίῃ ἐπόρουσεν”. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς Πηλιάδος μελίης καὶ φιλοτιμουμένῳ ἔοικε πολλαχόθεν τὴν κλῆσιν προσοῦσαν δεικνύναι· ἢ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ μόνον αὐτὴν ἐπίστασθαι πῆλαι τὸν Ἀχιλλέα· “ἀλλά μιν οἶος ἐπίστατο πῆλαι Ἀχιλλεύς”, ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πηλέως τοῦ πατρός· “τὴν πατρὶ φίλῳ τάμε Χείρων”, ἢ ἀπὸ Πηλίου τοῦ ὄρους ὅθεν ἐτμήθη· “πατρὶ φίλῳ τάμε Χείρων Πηλίου ἐκ κορυφῆς”. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ μελίη τὸ δόρυ ἀπὸ τοῦ [58] δένδρου τῆς μελίας [καὶ “οὐδ’ ἄρ’ ἀπ’ ἀσφάραγον μελίη τάμε”], δῆλον ὡς καὶ τὸ “μείλινον ἔγχος” ἐκ μελίας τοῦ δένδρου, οὐ μήν, ὡς οἱ πολλοί, τὸ μακρόν. καὶ “ἔγχεα ὀξυόεντα” τὰ ἐξ ὀξείας τοῦ δένδρου, ὡς καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος· “ὀξύη ποτᾶτο”, ἀλλ’ οὐ τὰ ὀξέα, ὡς οἱ γραμματικοὶ ἀποδεδώκασιν. πάλιν· “ἤτοι ὁ κὰπ πεδίον τὸ Ἀλήϊον”. διὰ τί οὖν Ἀλήϊον; ἆρά γε παρὰ τὸ ἄσπορον καὶ μὴ ἔχον λήια; οὐδαμοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ οἶον αὐτὸν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀλᾶσθαι. καὶ τί οὖν τὸ οἶον ἀλᾶσθαι; ἐξηγεῖται· “πάτον ἀνθρώπων ἀλεείνων”. ἐν δὲ τῷ [59] “καὶ μέν οἱ Λύκιοι τέμενος τάμον” ταχέως δεδήλωκεν ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ τετμῆσθαι καὶ ἀφωρίσθαι τὸ τέμενος λέγεται· “τέμενος τάμον”. οὕτω καὶ κειμήλια ἔφη κεῖσθαι· ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ κεῖσθαι κειμήλια λέγεται. πάλιν πτωχὸν ἔφη πανδήμιον. τίς οὖν οὗτος; “ὃς κατὰ ἄστυ πτωχεύεσκ’ Ἰθάκης”, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐν μιᾷ οἰκίᾳ. πάλιν δέ· “μετέπρεπε γαστέρι μάργῃ”. τίς οὖν ἡ γαστριμαργία; ὥσπερ ὅρον ποιούμενος ἐπάγει· “ἀζηχὲς φαγέμεν καὶ [ 793 ]

πιέμεν”, τὸ ἀδιαλείπτως ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν μεταλαβὼν εἰς τὸ ἀζηχές· ἐν ἄλλοις ἔφη “συνεχὲς αἰεί”. καὶ ἐπὶ ἄλλου μὲν ἔφη ἐν πᾶσι διαπρέποντος “ὃ δ’ ἔπρεπε καὶ διὰ πάντων”, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἴρου “μετὰ δ’ ἔπρεπε γαστέρι μάργῃ”, ὅτι ἐπὶ τῇ γαστριμαργίᾳ [60] μόνῃ διέπρεπε. πόθεν οὖν Ἶρος καλεῖται; “οὕνεκ’ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε κιών, ὅτε πού τις ἀνώγοι”. καὶ πάλιν· “οὐκ ἀΐεις ὅτι δή μοι ἐπιλλίζουσιν Ἀχαιοί;” τί οὖν τὸ ἐπιλλίζειν; τὸ διανεύειν - “ἑλκέμεναι δὲ κέλονται” - , ἀπὸ τοῦ τοὺς διανεύοντας ἐπίλλειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς· καὶ “ἰλλάδες” οἱ συνεστραμμένοι ἱμάντες, ὡς ἀλλαχοῦ ἔφη· “ἐν δὲ στρόφος ἦεν ἀορτήρ”. “τὸν μὲν ἄκουρον ἐόντα βάλλ’ ἀργυρότοξος Ἀπόλλων”. τίς οὖν ὁ ἄκουρος; “μίαν οἴην παῖδα λιπόντα”. [61] ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ “κύμβαχος” ἐξηγεῖται ἐπάγων “ἐπὶ βρεχμόν τε καὶ ὤμους. δηθὰ μάλ’ εἱστήκει”. “γυῖα” δὲ ἐξηγεῖται· “πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ὕπερθεν”· καὶ “ἀμφιγυήεις” οὖν ὁ περὶ τὰ γυῖα βεβλαμμένος, ὃν καὶ “κυλλοποδίονα” προσεῖπε. καὶ τὸ “γυιώσω μὲν σφῶϊν ὑφ’ ἅρμασιν ὠκέας ἵππους”, σκελεαγεῖς ποιήσω· ἐπάγει γάρ· “κατὰ δ’ ἅρματα ἄξω”. φιλοτιμεῖται καὶ τὸ λυκόφως ἐξηγήσασθαι, οἷόν ἐστι “ἦμος δ’ οὔτ’ ἄρ πω ἠώς, ἔτι δ’ ἀμφιλύκη νύξ”· οὐ γὰρ εἰ μηδέπω ἠώς, ἔτι ἦν ἡ νύξ, [62] ἀλλ’ ἡ ἀμφιλύκη ἦν, ὁ βαθὺς ὄρθρος. ἠῶ δὲ λέγει νῦν τὸν ὄρθρον καὶ τὸ πρὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου πεφωτισμένον διάστημα· ὅτι γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ διάστημα λέγει ἠῶ, δηλοῖ ἐπὶ τῆς νεὼς τοῦ Τηλεμάχου εἰπών· “παννυχίη μὲν ἄρ’ ἥ γε καὶ ἠῶ πεῖρε κέλευθον”· ἐπάγει· “ἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε, λιπὼν περικαλλέα λίμνην”. καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸ πρὸ ἡλίου ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ φαμεν καὶ ἕωθεν, ὅπερ ὁ ποιητὴς “ἠῶθεν δ’ ἀγορήνδε”. ἕως οὖν καὶ ἠὼς τὸ πρὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου, τὸ δὲ πρὸ τῆς ἕω λυκόφως καὶ “νὺξ ἀμφιλύκη”. λέγει μέντοι καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου ἄχρι μεσημβρίας διάστημα ἠῶ· “ἔσσεται ἢ ἠὼς [63] ἢ δείλη ἢ μέσον ἦμαρ”, “ὄφρα μὲν ἠὼς ἦν καὶ ἀέξετο ἱερὸν ἦμαρ”, “εὗδον παννύχιος καὶ ἐπ’ ἠῶ καὶ μέσον ἦμαρ”. λέγει ἠῶ καὶ ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν· “ἥδε δὴ ἠὼς εἶσι δυσώνυμος”, “ἥδε δέ μοι νῦν ἠὼς ἑνδεκάτη”, περὶ οὗ φησιν “ἕνδεκα δ’ ἤματα θυμὸν ἐτέρπετο οἷσι φίλοισιν ἐλθὼν ἐκ Λήμνοιο”. ἠὼς δὲ καὶ ἡ θεός· “ὣς μὲν ὅτ’ Ὠρίωνα ἕλετο ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς”. πάλιν αὑτὸν ἐξηγεῖται παρακειμένως δι’ ὧν ἐπάγει ἐν τούτοις· “Ἴρῳ δὲ κακῶς ὠρίνετο θυμός”. τί οὖν τὸ κακῶς ὀρίνεσθαι τὸν θυμόν; ἐπάγει “δειδιότα”. τί οὖν παρακολούθημα δέους; “σάρκες δὲ περιτρομέοντο μέλεσσιν”· ὁ δὲ δειλὸς κακός, ἀφ’ οὗ τὸ “κακῶς”. καὶ πάλιν τὸ δεδιέναι, ὅπερ πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γίνεται, καὶ τὸ τρέμειν, ὅπερ ἐν τῷ [64] σώματι, ἐπιτέμνων ἔφη· “εἰ δὴ τοῦτόν γε τρομέεις καὶ δείδιας αἰνῶς”. ἐπιμένων δὲ τῇ ψυχρᾷ φύσει τοῦ φόβου, κρυόεντα καλεῖ τὸν φόβον· “φόβου κρυόεντος ἑταίρη”, καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις· “ψυχρὸν δέος εἷλε” καὶ “ῥίγησε δ’ ὁ γέρων” φοβηθείς. εἰ δ’ ὁ φόβος ψύχει, δῆλον ὡς τὸ θάρσος θάλπει· εἰκότως ἄρα “θαλπωρὴν” λέγει τὸ θάρσος. ἐκ δὴ τούτων παρακειμένας ἐχόντων τὰς ἐξηγήσεις δεῖ παρατηρεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ ἐν διαφόροις ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς διανοίας παραλαμβανόμενα εἰς ἐξήγησιν τῶν ἀσαφεστέρων. Ὅτι μὲν ὁ “τηλύγετος” δηλοῖ παρ’ αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν μόνον γενόμενον [65] παρίστησι τὰ ὑφ’ Ἑλένης λεγόμενα περὶ Ἑρμιόνης· “παῖδά τε τηλυγέτην καὶ ὁμηλικίην ἐρατεινήν”. σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τὸν τηλοῦ τῆς ἡλικίας τῷ πατρὶ γεγονότα, ὡς ἐπὶ δυοῖν γηράσκοντι τῷ πατρὶ γενομένων ἔφη “ἄμφω τηλυγέτω· ὃ δ’ ἐτείρετο γήραϊ λυγρῷ, υἱὸν δ’ οὐ τέκετ’ ἄλλον”. ἐπὶ [ 794 ]

τοίνυν τοῦ Ἰδομενέως ὅταν λέγῃ “ἀλλ’ οὐκ Ἰδομενῆα φόβος λάβε τηλύγετον ὥς”, ἐνδέχεται μὲν ἀκοῦσαι ἀπὸ τῶν μονογενῶν [66] παίδων κατὰ μεταφορὰν τὸν μεμονωμένον, ἐνδέχεται δὲ καὶ ὡς τηλοῦ γενεᾶς ὄντα, τουτέστι πρεσβύτην· ἔφη γὰρ περὶ αὐτοῦ· “ἔνθα μεσαιπόλιός περ ἐών, Δαναοῖσι κελεύσας Ἰδομενεὺς Τρώεσσι μετάλμενος ἐν φόβον ὦρσε”. παρέχει δὲ τὴν ἀμφίβολον ἐκδοχὴν αὐτὸν ποιήσας λέγοντα τὸν Ἰδομενέα ἐπιόντος τοῦ Αἰνείου· “δεῦτε φίλοι, καί μ’ οἴῳ ἀμύνετε· δείδια δ’ αἰνῶς”· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ “οἴῳ ἀμύνετε” τηλύγετον ἔστιν ἐκδέξασθαι τὸν μόνον· ὅταν δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς πάλιν ἐπάγῃ “καὶ δ’ ἔχει ἥβης ἄνθος, ὅ τε κράτος ἐστὶ μέγιστον. εἰ γὰρ ὁμηλικίη γενοίμεθα τῷδ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ, αἶψά κεν ἠὲ φέροιτο μέγα κράτος, ἠὲ φεροίμην”, ἀναμφίβολον γίνεται μὴ τὸ [μὴ] τηλύγετόν γε ἐοικέναι ἐπὶ τοῦ [μὴ] ὁμήλικος, ἀλλὰ πρεσβυτέρου καὶ τῆς τηλοτέρας γενεᾶς ὄντος, ὡς ἔφη ποτὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ μὴ ὁμήλικος “οὗτος δὲ προτέρης γενεῆς προτέρων τ’ ἀνθρώπων”. ἀλλ’ Ἰδομενεὺς μὲν “μεσαιπόλιος” καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τῆς προτέρας γενεᾶς. [67] Τῷ δ’ ἤδη δύο μὲν γενεαί: ἥ τε τῶν πατέρων, ὑφ’ ὧν γεννηθεὶς ἀνετράφη, καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀδελφῶν - “ἐλθὼν γὰρ ἐκάκωσε βίη Ἡρακληείη … τῶν οἶος λιπόμην” - , τριτάτης δὲ ἄρχει τῆς τῶν παίδων ἑαυτοῦ γενεᾶς, οἳ σὺν αὐτῷ ἐστρατεύσαντο. καὶ γὰρ ὁ ληγούσης ἡμέρας ἐπιδημήσας καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ [τῇ] ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ ἐξιὼν διὰ τρίτης ἀποδημεῖν λέγεται, καίτοι μίαν μόνην τὴν μέσην τελέσας. [68] ἄλλως τε ἡ γενεὰ λ΄ ἔτη ἔχει· δύο οὖν γενεὰς πληρώσας, εἰς τρίτην κατελέγετο, ὥστε δύο γενεαὶ ἀνθρώπων ἐφθάρησαν, οὐχ ὅτι δὴ ἀνθρώπους φησὶν ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλὰ δύο περ‹ι›οδικὰς γενεάς, τουτέστι τὰς καλουμένας δύο γενεὰς ἀνθρωπείας, ὡσεὶ ἔλεγε δύο τριακονταετίας. οὕτω δὲ ζώντων τινῶν τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ ἀνθρώπων, ὅμως αἱ γενεαὶ ἂν εἶεν ἐφθαρμέναι, αὐτὸς δὲ ναύαρχος τῶν ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ γενεᾷ γενομένων, οἳ ἦγον τὴν στρατεύσιμον ἡλικίαν. [69] Πρῶτος δοκεῖ Πλάτων λύπας ἡδοναῖς μιγνυμένας δεικνύναι ἐπ’ ὀργαῖς καὶ πένθεσιν, Ὁμήρου πρῶτον τουτὶ συνεωρακότος καὶ τὸν Πλάτωνα διδάξαντος. ὀργὴν μὲν γὰρ οὐδέποτε Ὅμηρος εἴρηκε, χόλον δὲ αὐτὴν προσαγορεύει οἰκειότερον, ἀπὸ τῆς χολῆς, ἥτις ἐν τῷ πάθει κρατεῖ, ἄχος δὲ καὶ ἡδονὴν μεμίχθαι τῷ χόλῳ φησίν, ἄχος μὲν ὅταν λέγῃ· [70] “Πηλεΐωνι δ’ ἄχος γένετ’, ἐν δέ οἱ ἦτορ στήθεσσι λασίοισι διάνδιχα μερμήριξεν, ἢ ὅ γε φάσγανον ὀξὺ ἐρυσσάμενος παρὰ μηροῦ τοὺς μὲν ἀναστήσειεν, ὃ δ’ Ἀτρεΐδην ἐναρίζοι”. ἄχους οὖν παρουσίαν ὁ χόλος ὑφίσταται, ὃν καὶ θυμὸν κέκληκεν· “ἠὲ χόλον παύσειεν ἐρητύσειέ τε θυμόν”·

[ 795 ]

θυμὸν γὰρ νῦν τὸν χόλον ἔφη, οὐχ ὡς ἀλλαχοῦ τὴν ψυχήν. καὶ πάλιν ἐπ’ ἄλλου· “ἀχνύμενος· μένεος δὲ μέγα φρένες ἀμφιμέλαιναι πίμπλαντο”. καὶ ὅτι οὐ γεννᾷ μόνον ὀργὴν ἡ λύπη, ἀλλὰ καὶ συμπαραμένει, δηλοῖ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως μηνίοντος λέγων “κούρης χωόμενος” καὶ ἐπάγων· “τῆς ὅ γε κεῖτ’ ἀχέων”. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἡδονῇ συμμιγὴς ἡ ὀργὴ καὶ ὅτι ἔφεσίς ἐστι καὶ μέτοχος ἐπιθυμίας, ἐξηγεῖται λέγων· [71] “ὡς ἔρις ἔκ τε θεῶν ἔκ τ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀπόλοιτο καὶ χόλος, ὅς τ’ ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ χαλεπῆναι”, τουτέστι ἐν ἐφέσει γενέσθαι καὶ ἐπιθυμίᾳ τοῦ χαλεπαίνειν. πῶς οὖν ἡδονῆς μέτοχος; “ὅς τε πολὺ γλυκίων μέλιτος καταλειβομένοιο ἀνδρῶν ἐν στήθεσσιν ἀέξεται ἠΰτε καπνός”· καρδίας γὰρ ἔπαρσιν εἶναι καὶ ὁρμὴν ἐγειρομένην τὴν ὀργήν, ὅπερ αὐτὸς ἐν ἄλλοις ἔφη· “ἀλλά μοι οἰδάνεται κραδίη χόλῳ”, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Μελεάγρου· “ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ Μελέαγρον ἔδυ χόλος, ὅς τε καὶ ἄλλων οἰδάνει ἐν στήθεσσι νόον”. οὐ μὴν ὅτι [τὴν] αὐτὴν ἔφεσιν καὶ ἔπαρσιν ἀποδεδώκασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ζέσιν. διὸ καπνῷ τε ἀπεικάζει τὴν ἔπαρσιν καὶ τοῦ ὀργισθέντος τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς πυρὶ ἐοικέναι [72] φησίν. [καὶ μὴν ἡ λύπη μελαίνει τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, μελαίνει δὲ καὶ ὁ καπνός· “ῥωγαλέα ῥυπόωντα, κακῷ μεμορυγμένα καπνῷ”.] τὸ οὖν ἄχος, τὸ τῆς ὀργῆς αἴτιον, καπνίζον τὴν ὀργήν, μελαίνει τὰς φρένας· “μένεος δὲ μέγα φρένες ἀμφιμέλαιναι πίμπλαντο”. τὸ δ’ ἄχος καὶ τὸ ἄχνυσθαι ὅτι μελαίνει, φησὶν “ἀχθομένην ὀδύνῃσι, μελαίνετο δὲ χρόα καλόν”. τὸ δ’ ἄχθεσθαι τοῦ ἄχνυσθαι πλεονασμῷ δηκτικῆς ἀγανακτήσεως διαφέρει, λύπη δὲ ἑκάτερον. ἐπιμένων δὲ τῇ ἐξάψει τῇ ἐπὶ τῶν ὀργιζομένων ἔφη· “κεῖνος δ’ οὐκ ἐθέλει σβέσαι χόλον, ἀλλ’ ἔτι μᾶλλον [73] πιμπλάνεται μένεος”, [ὁμοίως τῷ “μένεος δὲ μέγα φρένες ἀμφιμέλαιναι πίμπλαντο”]. κατηγορεῖ δὲ τοῦ πάθους ἀγριότητα· “αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἄγριον ἐν στήθεσσι θέτο μεγαλήτορα θυμόν”, καὶ πάλιν· “χόλος δέ μιν ἄγριος ᾕρει”, πρὸς ὃ καὶ ὁ παραινῶν ἔφη ὡς ἐπ’ ἀγρίου θηρίου· “ἀλλ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ, δάμασσον θυμὸν μέγαν”. καὶ πάλιν ἐνδεικνύμενος τὴν θηριωδίαν φησίν· “εἰ δὲ σύ γ’ εἰσελθοῦσα πύλας καὶ τείχεα μακρὰ ὠμὸν βεβρώθοις Πρίαμον Πριάμοιό τε παῖδας ἄλλους τε Τρῶας, τότε κεν χόλον ἐξακέσαιο”. καὶ ὅτι τῶν ἐν κινήσει ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν σχέσει ἐστὶν ὁ χόλος, καθάπερ καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν τῶν ἐν κινήσει φασὶν εἶναι οἱ φιλόσοφοι, δηλοῖ τὰ τοιαῦτα· “Ἀτρεΐωνα δ’ ἔπειτα χόλος λάβεν, αἶψα δ’ ἀναστὰς ἠπείλησε μῦθον”, καὶ πάλιν· “Πηλεΐδης δ’ ἐξαῦτις ἀταρτηροῖς ἐπέεσσιν Ἀτρεΐδην προσέειπε, καὶ οὔ πω λῆγε χόλοιο”, ὡς ἂν δυναμένου [74] καὶ παύσασθαι. ὅταν δ’ ἐν σχέσει γένηται καὶ ἡσυχάζῃ, κότον καλεῖ. διό· [ 796 ]

“εἴ περ γάρ τε χόλον γε καὶ αὐτῆμαρ καταπέψῃ, ἀλλά τε καὶ μετόπισθεν ἔχει κότον, ὄφρα τελέσσῃ”, ὡς ἐγχωροῦν ἐᾶσαι μὲν τὸν χόλον, περιποιεῖν δὲ τὸν κότον, μηνίειν δὲ εἰκότως, ἀφ’ οὗ κινηθέντος πάλιν χόλος. ταὐτὸν καὶ θυμός, ὅταν μὴ τὴν ψυχὴν σημαίνῃ, δηλοῖ τῷ χόλῳ· ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν θυμὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ θύειν, ὁ δὲ χόλος ἀπὸ τῆς χολῆς καὶ τοῦ χολᾶν προσηγόρευται. εἰπὼν γοῦν· “μή τι χολωσάμενος ῥέξῃ κακὸν υἷας Ἀχαιῶν”, ἐπάγει· “θυμὸς δὲ μέγας ἐστὶ διοτρεφέων βασιλήων”· καὶ πάλιν· [75] “ἠὲ χόλον παύσειεν ἐρητύσειέ τε θυμόν”, καὶ πάλιν· “καὶ μάλα περ θυμῷ κεχολωμένον”, εἰ μή τις ἐνταῦθα θυμὸν τὴν ψυχὴν λέγει, ὡς τὸ “ἄγριον ἐν στήθεσσι θέτο μεγαλήτορα θυμόν”· τὸ δ’ “ἄληκτόν τε κακόν τε θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι θεοὶ θέσαν οὐρανίωνες οὕνεκα κούρης” ἐπὶ τοῦ χόλου λέγει καὶ ἀντὶ τῆς ὀργῆς παραλαμβάνει. ὅτι δὲ παρὰ τὸ θύειν καὶ ἐγείρεσθαι καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ ἡ ὀργὴ θυμός, δηλοῖ λέγων· “Τρωσὶ θυμὸν ἐγεῖραι”. θυμὸς δὲ καὶ χόλος, προσλαβὼν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ δρᾶσαι κακὸν ἀγανάκτησιν, χώεσθαι λέγεται, καὶ ὁ ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ πάθει “χωόμενος κῆρ”· αὐτίκα τὸν λοιμὸν ἐπάγει, καὶ δράσαντος ἐρωτῶσιν· [76] “ὅς κ’ εἴπῃ ὅ τι τόσσον ἐχώσατο Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων”· διὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ δρᾶσαί τι πονηρὸν δυναμένου βασιλέως δι’ ὀργὴν εἴρηται· “κρείσσων γὰρ βασιλεύς, ὅτε χώσεται ἀνδρὶ χέρηϊ”. οὕτως εἴρηκε καὶ τὸ “σὺ δ’ ἔνδοθι θυμὸν ἀμύξεις χωόμενος” ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀμυχὰς ποιήσεις, σπαράττων τὴν ψυχήν· οὕτω τὸ δραστικὸν δι’ ἀγανάκτησιν περιέχει τὸ χώεσθαι. καὶ τοίνυν τὸ “χωόμενος δ’ ὁ γέρων πάλιν ᾤχετο” ἀκουσόμεθα οὐδὲ ἁπλῶς ὀργιζόμενος, ἀλλὰ μετ’ ἀγανακτήσεως ἀμυντικῆς· διὸ καὶ καταρᾶται, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο ἀμυνόμενος. διὸ καὶ “χωόμενος κατὰ θυμὸν ἐϋζώνοιο γυναικὸς” Ἀχιλλεὺς τῇ ὀργῇ δηλοῦσθαι ποιεῖ τὴν τιμωρητικὴν διαγανάκτησιν· ἐπιβουλεύεται οὖν διὰ τῆς μητρὸς τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὀργίζεται. [77] ὅπερ γὰρ τὸ ἄχθεται πρὸς τὸ ἄχνυται ἔχει περιττεύουσαν ἀγανάκτησιν, τοῦτο τὸ χώεσθαι πρὸς τὸ χολοῦσθαι· “μή οἱ γοῦνα λαβόντι χολώσαιτο φρένα κούρη”, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀργισθείη· “γαῖα δ’ ὑπεστονάχιζε Διὶ ὣς τερπικεραύνῳ χωομένῳ”, καὶ ἐπάγει τὰ ἐκ τοῦ χώεσθαι· “ὅτε τ’ ἀμφὶ Τυφωέϊ γαῖαν ἱμάσσῃ”. ἐν κινήσει μὲν οὖν χόλος, θυμός· χώεσθαι οὖν ταὐτὸν θυμὸς καὶ χόλος· τὸ δὲ χώεσθαι ἀντὶ τοῦ σκύζεσθαι. εἰπὼν γοῦν “σέθεν δ’ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀλεγίζω χωομένης”, ἐπάγει· “οὔ σευ ἐγὼ σκυζομένης ἀλέγω”· ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως “χωόμενος κατὰ θυμὸν” εἰπών, ποιεῖ λέγοντα· [ 797 ]

“οἵ μοι σκυζομένῳ περ Ἀχαιῶν φίλτατοί ἐστον”. ἐν δὲ σχέσει μῆνις †μὲν κότος ὢν καὶ μῆνις μὲν ὁπόταν μὴ τὸ μένος [78] δηλοῖ ταὐτόν · ἔστι γὰρ καὶ μένος ὀργὴ ἐναπόθετος καὶ ἔμμονος· πάλιν δὲ μῆνις, προσειληφυῖα τὸ ἐπιτηρητικὸν μετ’ ἀγανακτήσεως ‹καὶ› κακοποιίας, κότος γίνεται, ὡς τὴν μὲν μῆνιν ἐκ τοῦ χόλου ἐναποκεῖσθαι, τὸν δὲ κότον ἐκ τοῦ χώεσθαι. ὅτι δὲ παρὰ τὸ μένειν ἡ μῆνις· “αὐτὰρ ὃ μήνιε [παρὰ] νηυσὶ παρήμενος ὠκυπόροισι” καὶ “ἀλλὰ σὺ μὲν νηυσὶ παρήμενος ὠκυπόροισι μήνι’ Ἀχαιοῖσι”, καὶ διὰ τὸ μένειν καὶ κεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζοντα καὶ ἔχοντα σιγήν, φησὶ “κεῖτ’ ἀπομηνίσας”, παρὰ τὸ κεῖσθαι τὸν μηνίοντα· καὶ ὁ πᾶς χρόνος μηνιθμός· “πάνθ’ ὑπὸ μηνιθμόν”. ὅτι δὲ μένος καὶ μῆνις ταὐτόν· “Ἀτρεΐδη, σὺ δὲ παῦε τεὸν μένος”. τίς οὖν ἐστι μῆνις; χόλος, φησί, μὴ ἀφεθείς· ἐπάγει γοῦν· “αὐ[79]τὰρ [80] ἐγώ γε λίσσομ’ Ἀχιλλῆϊ μεθέμεν χόλον”· καὶ πάλιν ἀντὶ τοῦ φάναι μὴ μήνιε ἔφη· “ἔα δὲ χόλον θυμαλγέα”, καὶ παυσαμένῳ μήνιδός φησι “μεταλλήξαντι χόλοιο”. καὶ ὁ μεθεὶς τὸν χόλον καὶ ἀμήνιτος μεθήμων· “ἀλλὰ μάλ’ οὐκ Ἀχιλῆϊ χόλος φρεσίν, ἀλλὰ μεθήμων”· καὶ ὁ ἄγαν τηρῶν καὶ ὁ ἀναφαίρετος τὸν χόλον “ἀιὲν ἐπιζαφελῶς χαλεπαίνει”· ζαφελὲς γὰρ τὸ ἀναφαίρετον, καὶ ζαφελὴς οὖν χόλος ἡ μῆνις, “ὅτε κέν τιν’ ἐπιζαφελῶς χόλος ἵκοι”· περὶ γὰρ τῶν μηνιόντων ὁ λόγος. [καὶ τὸ μένος δὲ παρὰ τὸ μένειν, μένειν δὲ ἀκίνητον καὶ ἄτρομον καὶ μὴ φεύγειν· “ἐν γάρ τοι στήθεσσι μένος πατρώϊον ἧκα ἄτρομον”. ὅτι γὰρ παρὰ τὸ μένειν· “ἔτι μοι μένος ἔμπεδόν ἐστι”. καὶ μένος οὖν χειρῶν τὸ ἔμμονον ἔργον πρὸς τὸ [81] δράξασθαι· “οἳ δὲ μένος χειρῶν ἰθὺς φέρον”· καὶ ὅτι παρὰ τὸ μένειν τὸ μένος· “Ἀργεῖοι δ’ ὑπέμειναν ἀολλέες οὐδὲ φόβηθεν”, “οὔτε Τρώων βίας ὑπεδείδισαν οὔτε ἰωκάς, ἀλλ’ ἔμενον νεφέλῃσι ἐοικότες”. ὅτι δὲ τὸ μένος σθένος· “πάντως, οἷον ἐμὸν μένος καὶ χεῖρες ἄαπτοι” εἰπόντος τοῦ Διός, φησίν· “εὖ νυ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν ὅ τοι σθένος οὐκ ἐπιεικτόν”. ὡς οὖν [παρὰ] τὸ σθένος μένος, οὕτω καὶ χόλος μένων μένος καὶ μῆνις. εἰπὼν γοῦν “χαλεπὴ δὲ θεοῦ ἔπι μῆνις”, ἐπάγει· “οὐ γάρ τ’ αἶψα θεῶν τρέπεται νόος αἰὲν ἐόντων”.] ὅτι δὲ μῆνις ἐπιτηροῦσα καιρὸν τιμωρίας κότον δηλοῖ· “ἀλλά γε καὶ μετόπισθεν ἔχει κότον, ὄφρα τελέσσῃ”· τὸ γὰρ “ὄφρα τελέσσῃ” ἕως [82] ἂν κατεργάσηται καὶ κακώσῃ τὸν λυπήσαντα. ὅτι δὲ παρὰ τὸ ἐγκεῖσθαι κότος εἴρηται, ἐξηγεῖται· “ὅ τοι κότον ἔνθετο θυμῷ”, καὶ ὅτι ἐπιτηρητικὸν ὁ κότος εἰς τὸ δρᾶσαί τι πονηρόν· “Ζεὺς δέ σφιν Κρονίδης ὑψίζυγος αἰθέρι ναίων αὐτὸς ἐπισσείῃσιν ἐρεμνὴν αἰγίδα πᾶσι τῆσδ’ ἀπάτης κοτέων· τὰ μὲν ἔσσετ’ οὐκ ἀτέλεστα”, ὁμοίως τῷ “ἔχει κότον, ὄφρα τελέσσῃ”. καὶ πάλιν “ὀλλῦσαι Τρῶας, τοῖσι κότον αἰνὸν ἔθεσθε”· ἔθεσθε δὲ ἐν τῷ θυμῷ ἀκουστέον· τὸ γὰρ αὐτό ἐστι τῷ “κότον ἔνθετο θυμῷ”. καὶ εἰπὼν ὅτι τῷ Ἀγαμέμνονι “καὶ ἐκπάγλως κοτέοντο νεμέσηθέν τ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ”, προσάγει τὰ ἐκ τοῦ κότου ἔργα· “Ἀτρεΐδη νῦν δή σε, ἄναξ, ἐθέλουσιν Ἀχαιοὶ [83] πᾶσιν ἐλέγχιστον θέμεναι”. καὶ τὰ “οὐδ’ ὄθομαι κοτέοντος” οὐκοῦν ἀκουσόμεθα τῆς εἰς τὸ δρᾶν ἐγκειμένης μήνιδος μὴ φροντίζειν· διὸ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπαπειλεῖ ἐπεξελθὼν καὶ ἐπάγει· “ὄφρ’ ἐῢ εἰδῇς ὅσσον φέρτερός εἰμι σέθεν”. [καὶ ὅτι μὲν ἡ μῆνις μέγαν χόλον δηλοῖ· “πὰρ Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο χόλος [δὲ] καὶ μῆνις ἐτύχθη”· ὅτι δὲ μῆνις ἀγανάκτησιν ἀμυντικὴν περιέχουσά ἐστιν ὁ κότος, παρίστησι διὰ τούτων· [ 798 ]

“εἰ μή τις θεός ἐστι κοτεσσάμενος Τρώεσσιν ἱερῶν μηνίσας· χαλεπὴ δὲ θεοῦ ἔπι μῆνις”· μηνίσας οὖν ὁ θεὸς εἰς κότον μεθίσταται.] εἴρηται τοίνυν ὅτι ἡ μὲν κατὰ κίνησιν πρόσκαιρος ὀργὴ χόλος καὶ θυμός, ἡ δὲ [κίνησις] μετ’ ἀγανακτήσεως [84] δραστικῆς ἐνεργείας χώεσθαι λέγεται καὶ σκύζεσθαι, ὡς ἀπόθετος μὲν χόλος μένος καὶ μῆνις, ‹μῆνις› δὲ τὸ ἀμύνεσθαι ἐπιτηροῦσα κότος, καὶ ὅπως ὁρμὴ ἐπηρμένη μετὰ λύπης καὶ ὀρέξεως ἡ ὀργή, καὶ ὅπως κατὰ αὔξησιν τοῦ θυμοῦ γίνεται. καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἔγκειται παρατηρεῖν μᾶλλον ἠξίουν τοὺς τὰς μικρὰς ἐξηγήσεις περὶ τὴν μῆνιν καταβαλλομένους. Γελοίως ὁ Ἀπίων τοὺς ἱπποκορυστὰς ἀπέδωκε τοὺς κόρυθας ἔχοντας [85] ἱππείαις θριξὶ κεκοσμημένας. εἰ δὲ παρὰ τὴν κόρυν συνέκειτο, κἂν ἱπποκόρυθες ἐλέγοντο. νῦν δὲ σημαίνει τὸν ἐφ’ ἵππων ὁπλίτην. κορυστὴς γὰρ ἀπὸ μέρους ὁπλίτης καὶ μαχητής· “πρῶτος δ’ Ἀντίλοχος Τρώων ἕλεν ἄνδρα κορυστήν”, “ὥς ῥα τὸν ὑψοῦ ἔχοντε δύο Αἴαντε κορυσταί”. καὶ τὸν Ἄρεα δὲ ἔφη χαλκοκορυστήν· “Ἀργεῖοι δ’ ὑπ’ Ἄρηϊ καὶ Ἕκτορι χαλκοκορυστῇ”, τὸν ὁπλίτην σημαίνων καὶ ἀντίθετον τῷ ἱπποκορυστής. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ κορύεσθαι, ὅπερ ἐν πλεονασμῷ τοῦ θ ἔφη “κορθύεται”, ἥ τε περικεφαλαία κόρυς καὶ κορύνη, ἀμυντήριον ἐκ κεφαλῆς ῥοπὴν ἔχον καὶ βάρος, παρὸ καὶ ῥόπαλον λέγεται, καὶ κορυνήτης ὁ τῇ κορύνῃ χρώμενος. ἔμπαλιν δὲ τὸ εἰς τὸ σκηρίπτεσθαι ἐπιτήδειον ξύλον [86] σκηπάνιον καὶ σκῆπτρον. καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ δόρατος τοῦ ἐπερεισθέντος τῇ γῇ “οὔδει ἐνισκίμφθη”· ὥσπερ δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ δόρατος, ‹ᾧ› καταχρῶνται εἰς τὸ σκηρίπτεσθαι, “στῆ δ’ ἄρ’ ἐπὶ μελίας χαλκογλώχινος ἐρεισθείς”, οὕτω ἐπὶ τοῦ ῥοπάλου, ὅταν λέγῃ “δὸς δέ μοι, εἴ ποθί τοι ῥόπαλον τετμημένον ἐστί”, ὥστε σκηρίπτεσθαι. ἐν δὲ τῷ ἱπποκορυστὴς δύναται ἵππου γενικὴ συγκεῖσθαι ἀντὶ τοῦ ἱππεύς, ὡς τὸ “ἐν δ’ ἄρα τοῖσιν ἀρήϊος ἵστατ’ Ἀχιλλεύς, ὀτρύνων ἵππους ‹τε› καὶ ἀνέρας ἀσπιδιώτας”· τοὺς γὰρ ἵππους τοῖς ἀσπιδιώταις ἀνδράσιν ἀντιτιθείς, τουτέστι τοῖς ὁπλίταις, ἐμήνυσεν ὅτι ἀντὶ τῶν ἱππέων τοὺς ἵππους ἔφη. ᾧ τρόπῳ καὶ ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ λέγομεν ἡ ἵππος τῶν Περσῶν ἐνίκησεν, ἀντὶ τοῦ οἱ ἱππεῖς· ἡγεμονικώτεροι δὲ τῶν πεζῶν οὗτοι. διὸ ὀτρύνει “ἵππους τε καὶ ἀνέρας”. καὶ τὸ εὕδειν οὖν ἀνέρας ἱπποκορυστὰς [87] κατ’ ἐπικράτειαν εἰρημένον δηλοῖ· οὐ μόνον οἱ ἱππεῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ πεζοὶ οὐδ’ οἱ ἄνδρες μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες ἐκάθευδον. Παρατηρεῖν δεῖ ‹ὅτι›, ὅταν ἐκ προσώπου τινὸς μετάγειν λόγους [88] μέλλῃ τινὰς ὁ ποιητής, καὶ προλέγει προσημαίνων οἷος ἔσται ὁ λόγος ἢ μεθ’ οἵας διαθέσεως λεγόμενος. οὕτω γὰρ ὅρον λαβόντες παρὰ τοῦ ποιητοῦ ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς οἷσπερ ὁ ποιητὴς παρήγγειλε τῶν λεγομένων ἀκουσόμεθα. οἷον εἰπόντος “τὸν δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπόδρα ἰδὼν προσέφη”, ὑβριστικοὺς προσδεκτέον ἔσεσθαι τοὺς λόγους, οἷοι ἂν γένοιντο ὑπὸ τοῦ ὑποβλεπομένου· καὶ πάλιν προειπόντος· “καί μιν νεικείων ἔπεα πτερόεντα”, θεωρητέον [89] εἰ οἱ μέλλοντες ἐπάγεσθαι λόγοι ὀνείδη παρέχουσιν. ὅταν δὲ “ὅ σφιν εὖ φρονέων ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπε”, φρονίμους προσδεκτέον λόγους· φρονίμου γάρ ἐστι ‹τὸ› τὰς αἰτίας τῶν ἐνεστηκότων εἰπεῖν καὶ τὸ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπάγειν τὰ ποιητέα. τὸ μὲν οὖν “ἀγορήσατο” δηλοῖ τὴν ἐξήγησιν καὶ φανέρωσιν τῶν ἑστηκότων, ὡς ὁ λέγων “οὔτ’ ἄρ’ ὅ γ’ [ 799 ]

εὐχωλῆς ἐπιμέμφεται οὔθ’ ἑκατόμβης, ἀλλ’ ἕνεκ’ ἀρητῆρος ὃν ἠτίμησ’ Ἀγαμέμνων”, τὸ δὲ “μετέειπε” τὸ [90] μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπαγαγεῖν τὸ ποιητέον· ἐπάγει γάρ· “οὐδ’ ὅ γε πρὶν λοιμοῖο βαρείας χεῖρας ἀφέξει, πρίν γ’ ἀπὸ πατρὶ φίλῳ δόμεναι” καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ Νέστορος· “ὢ πόποι, ἦ μέγα πένθος Ἀχαιΐδα γαῖαν ἱκάνει” διήγησιν ἔχει τῶν ἐνεστηκότων ἅπερ “ἀγορήσατο”, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ “ἀλλὰ πίθεσθε καὶ ὔμμες” μετὰ τὸ διηγήσασθαι τὰ ἐνεστηκότα εἶπεν ἃ δεῖ πράττειν. πάλιν ὅταν προείπῃ· “καὶ τότε κουφότερον μετεφώνεε Φαιήκεσσι”, δεῖ ἡμᾶς τῶν μελλόντων λέγεσθαι λόγων ἀκούειν ὡς κούφων καὶ ἐπηρμένων, ὑψηλολογοῦντος διὰ τὴν νίκην τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως· τοιοῦτον [91] γὰρ τὸ “τούτων νῦν ἐφίκεσθε, νέοι”, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· προθεωροῦντι γὰρ ἔοικεν ὁ ποιητὴς ἑαυτὸν καὶ προδιατιθέναι τι τοὺς ἀκουσομένους περὶ τοῦ [90] εἴδους τῶν λόγων. ἐκ δὲ τούτου πολλὰ ἔνεστι λύειν τῶν παρεωραμένων τοῖς γραμματικοῖς. αὐτίκα τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ Διός· “αὐτίκ’ ἐπειρᾶτο Κρονίδης ἐρεθιζέμεν Ἥρην κερτομίοις ἐπέεσσι παραβλήδην ἀγορεύων”. μὴ νοήσαντές τινες ὅτι περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος τρόπου τοῦ λόγου εἴρηκεν, ἀλλοκότους ἐξηγήσεις ποποίηνται· [91] φησὶ γὰρ ὅτι παραβλητικοῖς ἐχρῆτο λόγοις ὁ Ζεύς, παραβάλλων καὶ ἀντεξετάζων τὴν Ἀφροδίτης Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἐπικουρίαν πρὸς τὴν Ἥρας καὶ Ἀθηνᾶς τῷ Μενελάῳ γινομένην. τὸ οὖν “παραβλήδην” τὸ μετὰ τοῦ παραβάλλειν λέγει, ὅπερ εἰώθασι λέγειν συγκρίνειν. καὶ ὅτι τοῦθ’ οὕτως ἔχει, δηλοῖ ὁ τοῦ Διὸς λόγος συγκριτικὸς ὤν· “δοιαὶ μὲν Μενελάῳ ἀρηγόνες εἰσὶ θεάων, Ἥρη τ’ Ἀργείη καὶ ἀλαλκομενηῒς Ἀθήνη. ἀλλ’ ἤτοι ταὶ νόσφι καθήμεναι εἰσορόωσαι τέρπεσθον· τῷ δ’ αὖτε φιλομειδὴς Ἀφροδίτη αἰεὶ παρμέμβλωκε καὶ αὐτοῦ κῆρας ἀμύνει”. καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἁπλῶς παραβολὴ καὶ ἀντεξέτασις, ἀλλ’ οὕτως ἐρεθιστικὴ καὶ κέρτομος, ὡς προεῖπεν ἔσεσθαι· δοιαὶ μὲν Μενελάῳ, μία δὲ τῷ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, καὶ ἡ μὲν Ἥρα κηδεμὼν τοῦ Ἄργους κἀκεῖ χρηματίζουσα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τοῦ Μενελάου κήδεσθαι [92] ὀφείλουσα, ἡ δὲ Ἀθηνᾶ ἀλαλκομενηΐς, ἡ δὲ Ἀφροδίτη φιλομειδὴς καὶ οὐκ ἀπ’ Ἰλίου· καὶ ὅμως αἱ μὲν νόσφι τοῦ Μενελάου κάθησθε, ἡ δὲ “αἰεὶ παρμέμβλωκε”· καὶ αἱ μὲν θεωροὶ εἰς τέρψιν τῶν ἀγώνων, ἡ δὲ αὐτῷ κῆρας ἀμύνει συμπαραμένουσα· “καὶ νῦν ἐξεσάωσεν ὀϊόμενον θανέεσθαι”. ὀρθῶς ἄρα προείρηκε ὅτι ἐρεθιστικὸς ὁ λόγος ἔσται καὶ χλευαστικὸς καὶ παραβλητικός. πάλιν ὅταν ἐπὶ τῆς Θέτιδος λέγῃ “ὣς ἔχετ’ ἐμπεφυυῖα, καὶ ἤρετο δεύτερον αὖτις”, τὸ “ἤρετο” οὐ χρὴ ἀκούειν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠρώτα ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ’ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἠρώτα τὸ ἀληθὲς μαθεῖν θέλουσα· ἐπάγει γὰρ “νημερτὲς μὲν δή μοι ὑπόσχεο καὶ κατάνευσον ἢ ἀπόειπ’, ἐπεὶ οὔ τοι ἔπι δέος, ὄφρ’ ἐῢ εἰδῶ ὅσσον ἐγὼ μετὰ πᾶσιν ἀτιμοτάτη θεός εἰμι”, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ἔφη· “εἰρωτᾷς μ’ ἐλθόντα θεὰ θεόν· [93] αὐτὰρ ἐγώ τοι νημερτέως τὸν μῦθον ἐνισπήσω”. καὶ τὸ “εἴρεαι” τοίνυν “ὁππόθεν εἰμέν· ἐγὼ δέ κέ τοι καταλέξω” οὕτως ἀκουσόμεθα· εἰ τἀληθὲς ἀκοῦσαι βουλόμενος ἐξετάζεις. καὶ τὸ “Ἑρμείαν ἐρέεινε Καλυψώ, δῖα θεάων”· ἐπάγει γὰρ “αὔδα ὅ τι φρονέεις”. τὸ ἐνισπεῖν δὲ παραπλησίως οὐ μὴν ἁπλῶς τὸ εἰπεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἀληθῶς εἰπεῖν· “αἴ κ’ ἐθέλῃσθα κείνου λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον ἐνισπεῖν”, καὶ τὸ [ 800 ]

“νημερτέως τὸν μῦθον ἐνισπήσω”, ἀναμαρτήτως τἀληθὲς ἐρῶ· κεῖται γὰρ ὡς εἰ ἔλεγεν ἐπαληθεύσομαί σοι ἀψευδῆ τὸν λόγον. καὶ τὸ “ἔννεπε” οὖν ἀληθῆ λέγε· “τίς γὰρ τῶν ὄχ’ ἄριστος ἔην σύ μοι ἔννεπε Μοῦσα”, καὶ τὸ “ἄειδε” πάλιν ἀληθῆ ἐν ποιήμασι λέγε· ἀοιδὴ γὰρ ἡ ποίησις. εἰπὼν γοῦν “ἀλλά γε [94] δὴ μετάβηθι καὶ ἵππου κόσμον ἄεισον”, ἐπάγει· “αἴ κεν δή μοι τάδε κατὰ μοῖραν καταλέξῃς”, ὅπερ ἐν ἄλλοις· “πάντα κατ’ αἶσαν ἔειπες, ἀγακλεές”. τί οὖν τὸ “κατ’ αἶσαν” εἰπεῖν; φησὶν “οὐδ’ ἂν ἔγωγε ἄλλα πάρεξ εἴποιμι παρακλιδόν, οὐδ’ ἀπατήσω” [καὶ ὅταν δὲ προείπῃ “εἶθαρ δὲ προσηύδα”, τὸ εὐθὺ καὶ ἀληθὲς καὶ φανερὸν ἀκουσόμεθα. ὅπερ πάλιν ἔφη “ἔπος ἀντίον ηὔδα”, ἐξηγήσατο τὸ ἄντικρυς καὶ διαῤῥήδην, ὅπερ ἐν ἄλλοις ἔφη “ἄντικρυ δ’ ἀπόφημι”]· τοῦ γὰρ εὐθέος λόγου δύναμις τὸ μὴ πάρεξ εἰπεῖν ἀλλὰ μηδὲ παρεκκλῖναι, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν οὕτω βαδιζόντων. καὶ τὸ “ἀντίον” δὲ “ηὔδα” ἐξηγήσατο “τῶν οὐδέν τοι ἐγὼ κρύψω [95] ἔπος οὐδ’ ἐπικεύσω”· οἱ γὰρ ἰθὺ καὶ κατεναντίον ἰόντες οὐ κρυπτάζονται, κρύπτουσι δὲ μάλιστα οἱ κλέπτοντες. ὅθεν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀπατῶντος “κλέπτε νόῳ”. ‹τί οὖν τὸ “κλέπτε νόῳ”;› “ὅς χ’ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθῃ ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴπῃ”. Τὸ “κακοσσόμενος” οὐ σημαίνει τὸ [96] κακῶς ὑποβλεψάμενος· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ‹τὸ› κακῶς συναλεῖψαι διὰ τὸ σύμφωνον οὐδ’ ἔστιν ὅπου τὸ ὑποβλέψασθαι ὄσσεσθαι λέγει· ἀλλὰ σημαίνει τὸ “κακοσσόμενος” (ἐν συνθέτῳ γὰρ εἴρηται) κακόμαντις. ἐπεὶ γὰρ “ὄσσα” ἡ θεία φωνή, ἣν καὶ Διὸς ἄγγελον ἔφη - “μετὰ δέ σφισιν ὄσσα δεδήει ὀτρύνουσ’ ἰέναι, Διὸς ἄγγελος” - , Διὸς ‹δὲ› ἄγγελοι καὶ οἱ μάντεις καὶ τῆς ὀπὸς τῶν θεῶν ἀκούουσιν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ὄσσα - “ὣς [97] γὰρ ἐγὼν ὄπ’ ἄκουσα θεῶν” - , ἀπὸ τῆς ὄσσης πεποίηκε τὸ “κακοσσόμενος”, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὡς κακόμαντιν αὐτὸν ὀνειδίζων, ὡς εἰ ἔλεγε· κακὸν ἄγγελον τῆς Διὸς ὄσσης ἀποκαλῶν. οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἁπλῶς κακολογῶν, ὅτι οὐδὲ ὄσσαν ἁπλῶς τὴν φωνὴν σημαίνει, ἀλλὰ τὴν θείαν, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ὡς ἐπὶ κακῷ χρώμενον τῇ θείᾳ φωνῇ λοιδορῶν. εἴρηκε δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις· “οὐ μὲν γάρ τοι ἐγὼ κακὸν ὀσσομένη τόδ’ ἱκάνω ἀλλ’ ἀγαθὰ φορέουσα”, οὐ κακὸν κληδονιζομένη, καὶ “ὀσσόμενος πατέρ’ ἐσθλὸν ἐνὶ φρεσὶ” σημαίνει ὁ ἐν αὑτῷ κληδονιζόμενος καὶ εὐχόμενος [98] θείας τυχεῖν φήμης περὶ τῆς ἐπανόδου τοῦ πατρός, καὶ τὸ “οὔ ποτέ μοι θάνατον προτιόσσετο θυμός”, ἀντὶ τοῦ προεμαντεύετο. καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἀπὸ τῆς ὄσσης τὸ ὄσσεσθαι αὐτὸς ἐδήλωσεν ἐπὶ τῶν μνηστήρων λέγων “ἐς δ’ ἰδέτην πάντων κεφαλάς, ὄσσοντο δ’ ὄλεθρον”· τοῦτο ἐπ’ ἄλλου ἐξηγήσατο εἰπών· “Ξάνθε, τί μοι θάνατον μαντεύεαι;” τὴν δὲ ὄσσαν ὅτι θεία φωνὴ ἐξηγεῖται λέγων· “ἢ ὄσσαν ἀκούσεις ἐκ Διός”. λέγει δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ κληδόνα· “ἤλυθον, εἴ τινά μοι κληδόνα πατρὸς ἐνίσποις”, κληδὼν δὲ παρὰ τὸ κλέος διδόναι καὶ φέρειν· “ἢ ὄσσαν ἀκούσεις, ἥ τε κλέος μάλιστα φέρει ἀνθρώποισι”, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Τηλέμαχος “πατρὸς [99] ἐμοῦ”, φησί, “κλέος εὐρὺ μετέρχομαι, ἤν που ἀκούσω”, καὶ “ᾤχετο πευσόμενος μετὰ σὸν κλέος, εἴ που ἔτ’ εἴης”. καὶ ἡ μεγάλη καὶ ἔνδοξος φήμη καὶ κληδὼν μέγα κλέος· “πεύθετο γὰρ Κύπρονδε μέγα κλέος, οὕνεκ’ Ἀχαιοὶ ἐς Τροίην νήεσσιν ἀναπλεύσασθαι ἔμελλον”. τὴν δὲ ὄσσαν, οὖσαν θείαν [ 801 ]

φωνήν, καὶ “ὀμφὴν” προσαγορεύει· “θείη δέ μιν ἀμφέχυτ’ ὀμφή”, καὶ τὸ “ἔνθα πανομφαίῳ Ζηνὶ ῥέζεσκον Ἀχαιοί”, ἐπειδὴ ἡ ὄσσα καὶ ἡ ὀμφὴ Διὸς ἄγγελός ἐστιν. ἔστι δέ τις ἄλλη ἡ δήμου φήμη, ἡ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου διαδιδομένη περί τινος ἀγγελίας, ὡς τὸ “εὐνήν τ’ αἰδομένη [100] πόσιος δήμοιό τε φήμην”, καὶ πάλιν “χαλεπὴ δ’ ἔχε δήμου φήμη”, καὶ “ἀγορὰ πολύφημος”, ἐν ᾗ πολλὰ φατίζεται. ἤδη δὲ φήμην καὶ τὴν κληδόνα που εἴρηκεν· “φήμην δ’ ἐξ οἴκοιο γυνὴ προέηκεν ἀλετρίς”. ὥστε ὄσσα μὲν καὶ ὀμφὴ καὶ κληδὼν ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, φήμη δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θείας κληδόνος καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης διαλαλήσεως· οἴεται γὰρ θείαν εἶναι φωνὴν Ὅμηρος, ἧς τοὺς μάντεις ἀκούειν - “ὣς γὰρ ἐγὼν ὄπ’ ἄκουσα θεῶν” - , ταύτην δὲ διαδίδοσθαι μηδενὸς προκατάρξαντος ἀνθρώπου ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας βουλήσεως· “ὄσσα δ’ ἄρ’ ἄγγελος ὦκα κατὰ πτόλιν ᾤχετο πάντη, μνηστήρων στυγερὸν θάνατον καὶ κῆρ’ ἐνέπουσα”· παρὰ γὰρ τὴν ὄπα τὸ “ἐννέπουσα”. τὸ μὲν οὖν “κακοσσόμενος” σημαίνει τὸ εἰρημένον, τὸ [101] δὲ “κρήγυον” οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως σημαίνειν τὸ ἀληθὲς ἀποδεδώκασιν, αὐτοῦ ἀντιτιθέντος οὐ τῷ ψευδεῖ ἀλλὰ τῷ κακῷ τὸ “κρήγυον”· ἀντίκειται δὲ τῷ κακῷ οὐ τὸ ἀληθές, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν· “οὐ πώ ποτέ μοι τὸ κρήγυον εἶπες· αἰεί τοι τὰ κάκ’ ἐστὶ φίλα φρεσὶ μαντεύεσθαι”. ἔστι δὲ τὸ “κρήγυον” τὸ τῷ κέαρι ἡδὺ καὶ προσηνές, ὃ ταὐτὸν τῷ θυμῆρες. καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ· “οὐδέ τί πω παρὰ μοῖραν ἔπος νηκερδὲς ἔειπες”, οὐ γὰρ παρὰ τὸ προσῆκον τὰ κακὰ ἠγόρευσας. καὶ ὁ “νηκερδὴς” οὖν ἐναντίος καὶ μὴ φειδόμενος τοῦ ἀγορεύειν τὰ κακὰ “οὐ πώποτε τὰ κρήγυα” λέγει. οἶμαι δὲ ὅμοιον εἶναι τὸ “μάντι κακῶν” [102] τῷ “αἰναρέτη”, ὃ σημαίνει κακωτικὴν ἀρετὴν κεκτημένε, καὶ τῷ “ὀλοόφρων”· σημαίνει γὰρ τὸν βλαπτικὴν ἔχοντα φρόνησιν· καὶ “οὐλόμενος” δὲ ὁ ὀλοὸν ἔχων τὸ μένος, “οὐλομένη” δὲ ἡ “μῆνις” ἡ ἐξ ὀλοοῦ μένους γενηθεῖσα· ὁ γὰρ ταύτην ἔχων ὀλοός· “ἀλλ’ ὀλοῷ Ἀχιλῆϊ θεοὶ βούλεσθ’ ἐπαρήγειν”. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἔστι λέγειν τοῖς ἀγαθόν τι κεκτημένοις καὶ διὰ τοῦδε βλάπτουσι καὶ μὴ ὠφελοῦσιν· ἥ τε γὰρ ἀρετὴ καὶ ἡ φρόνησις καὶ τὸ μένος καὶ ἡ μαντικὴ τῶν ἀγαθῶν, οἱ δὲ μὴ δι’ αὐτῶν ὠφελοῦντες ἀλλὰ λυποῦντες εἰκότως ὡς ἐπὶ κακῷ κεκτημένοι τὸ ἀγαθὸν διαβάλλονται. ἀλλὰ δὴ εἴωθε συντιθέναι [103] εἰς διαβολήν τινων ὡς δυσωνύμων, οἷον τὸ “Δύσπαρι” καὶ τὸ “μῆτερ ἐμή, δύσμητερ” καὶ “ἦ τάχα Ἶρος Ἄϊρος”· ἔστι γὰρ ὁ κακόϊρος, ὡς ἡ ἄμορφος γυνή, καὶ τὴν Ἴλιον “Κακοΐλιον οὐκ ὀνομαστήν”· διὰ γὰρ τοῦ “οὐκ ὀνομαστὴν” τὸ δυσώνυμον ἐπεσημήνατο. Πρόσσχες μοι καὶ τούτοις, εἰ προσήκουσαν παρ’ ἡμῶν λαμβάνει τὴν λύσιν. “Ἔνθά οἱ ἠπιόδωρος ἐναντίη ἤλυθε μήτηρ Λαοδίκην ἐσάγουσα, θυγατρῶν εἶδος ἀρίστην”. τὸ “ἐσάγουσα” οὐκέτι κατὰ τὸ σύνηθές ἐστιν, οἷον εἰσφέρουσα (οὐ γὰρ εἰσάγειν μεθ’ ἑαυτῆς λέγει τὴν Λαοδίκην), [104] ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν Λαοδίκην εἰσπορευομένη· εἰσῄει γὰρ πρὸς Λαοδίκην, ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ ταύτῃ ὁμοιωθεῖσα ἡ Ἀφροδίτη τὴν Ἑλένην ἐπὶ τὸ τεῖχος ἐξήγαγεν· “εἰδομένη γαλόῳ Ἀντηνορίδαο δάμαρτι, τὴν Ἀντηνορίδης ἔχε κρείων Ἑλικάων Λαοδίκην”· νομίζουσα γὰρ ὄντως εἰς τὸ τεῖχος ὑπὸ τῆς Λαοδίκης ἀπῆχθαι, εἰσῄει τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς ἐξόδου πολυπραγμονήσασα.

[ 802 ]

Εἰς τὸ “τύμβον δ’ ἀμφὶ πυρὴν ἕνα χεύομεν ἐξαγαγόντες”. τῷ “ἐξαγαγόντες” ὁμοίως τῷ “εἰσάγουσα θυγατρῶν εἶδος ἀρίστην” κέχρηται. ὡς γὰρ τοῦτο σημαίνει τὸ εἰσπορευομένη, [105] οὕτω τὸ “ἐξαγαγόντες” ἐκπορευθέντες τοῦ πεδίου. ἕνα τύμβον πάντων ἄκριτον ἐποιοῦντο, τουτέστι μὴ καθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν τεθνηκότων διακρινομένων. [τὸ δὲ ἄκριτον ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀγνώριστον, ἀχώριστον, ὅμοιον τῷ λοιπῷ πεδίῳ.] Ἐξαίσιον: ἐξαίσιον τὴν παράνομον λέγει εὐχήν, τὴν ἔξω αἴσης καὶ μοίρας. [106] Εἰς τὸ “ἐμεῖο δὲ δῆσεν ἀρῆς ἀλκτῆρα γενέσθαι”. οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἔδησεν ἀπὸ τοῦ δεσμοῦ οὐδ’ Ἄρης ὁ πόλεμος νῦν ἢ θεός, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἔδησε κατὰ συγκοπὴν ἐδέησε, περισπαστέον δὲ τὸ “ἀρῆς”, ἵν’ ᾖ βλάβης, ὡς τὸ “Μέντορ, ἄμυνον ἀρήν”· ἐμοῦ γὰρ ἐδέησε καὶ χρείαν ἔσχε τῆς βλάβης βοηθὸν ἔχειν. “Οὐ μὲν γάρ τι νεμεσσητὸν βασιλῆα ἄνδρ’ ἀπαρέσσασθαι, ὅτε τις πρότερον χαλεπήνῃ”. ἀμφίβολον διὰ τὴν αἰτιατικήν. ἔστι δὲ ὁ λόγος περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι νεμεσητόν, [107] εἰ βασιλεὺς ἄνδρα βλάψας καὶ τῆς ἀδικίας προϋπάρξας ἀπαρέσσεται αὐτόν. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἀπαρέσσεται τὸ τῆς ἀρᾶς ἀπᾶραι, τουτέστι τῆς βλάβης ἀπαλλάξασθαι καὶ ἐξιλάσασθαι. Ἀγῶνα: νῦν τὸν ναὸν λέγει. ἀγὼν δὲ σημαίνει ε΄· τὸν τόπον, ὡς τὸ “λείηναν δὲ χορόν, καλὸν δ’ εὔρυναν ἀγῶνα”· τὸ ἄθροισμα· “ἦλθε μετ’ ἀγῶνα νεῶν καὶ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη”· τὸ πλῆθος, ὡς τὸ “λῦτο δ’ ἀγών”· τὸ ἆθλον, ἀγῶνος ἆθλα· τὸν ναόν, ὡς ἐνταῦθα καὶ “αἵ τέ μοι εὐχόμεναι θεῖον δύσονται ἀγῶνα”. [108] “Ἀλιτρὸς” ὁ ἀλιτήριος καὶ ἁμαρτωλός, “ἀποφώλια” δὲ τὰ ἀπαίδευτα. πῶς οὖν ἁμαρτωλός τε εἶ καὶ οὐκ ἀπαίδευτός φησιν; οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτως, ἀλλὰ λέγει· πάνυ ἥμαρτες, καίπερ οὐκ ὢν ἀπαίδευτος. [109] Εἰς τὸ “ἀλλά τιν’ οἴω ἀσπασίως αὐτῶν γόνυ κάμψειν, ὅς κε φύγῃσι δηΐου ἐκ πολέμοιο ὑπ’ ἔγχεος ἡμετέροιο”. οἱ φεύγοντες τεταμένον ἔχουσι τὸ γόνυ, οἱ δὲ καθήμενοι κεκαμμένον. ἀσπασίως οὖν, φησί, καθεδεῖται τῶν φευγόντων τις ἐκ τοῦ πολέμου, ὃς καὶ ἀναπαύσει αὑτὸν καὶ τὰ σκέλη, ἐκ τοῦ συντόνου τῆς φυγῆς δρόμου καθίσας. [110] “Ἑσταότος μὲν καλὸν ἀκουέμεν, οὐδὲ ἔοικεν ὑββάλλειν· χαλεπὸν γὰρ ἐπιστάμενόν περ ἐόντα. ἀνδρῶν δ’ ἐν πολλῷ ὁμάδῳ πῶς κέν τις ἀκούσαι ἢ εἴποι; βλάβεται δὲ λιγύς περ ἐὼν ἀγορητής”. Ἀρίσταρχος οὖν ᾠήθη παραίτησιν εἶναι τὸν λόγον, ὡς διὰ τὸ τετρῶσθαι τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος συγχωρεῖν ἀξιοῦντος εἰ καθήμενος λέγει. καί φησι· “διὰ τοῦτο ἐνέθηκε τὸ “αὐτόθεν ἐξ ἕδρης, οὐδ’ ἐν μέσσοισιν ἀναστάς”“. ἄτοπος δὲ ἡ παραίτησις· οὐ γὰρ τὸν πόδα ἀλλὰ τὴν χεῖρα τέτρωται, καὶ τὴν χεῖρα δὲ οὕτως ἔρρωτο, ὥστε ὀλίγον [111] ὕστερον αὐτὸς τὸν κάπρον ἀποσφάττει. κἂν προσκείμενον δὲ τῷ στίχῳ ᾖ τὸ “αὐτόθεν ἐξ ἕδρης”, ἀκουσόμεθα ἐκ τοῦ τῶν ἀριστέων συνεδρίου, ὥστ’ ἐν ἐκείνοις ὄντα λέγειν αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἐν μέσῳ τῷ πλήθει. Ἀπολλώνιος μὲν οὖν ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν, καὶ [ 803 ]

αὐτὸς συγκαταθέμενος ὅτι ἕστηκεν ὁ Ἀγαμέμνων, “παραιτεῖται”, φησί, “τὸν ὑποβολέα ὡς ἂν ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοσχεδίου λέγειν μέλλων· ἐμοῦ γάρ φησιν ἀκούσατε καὶ μηδείς μοι ὑποβαλλέτω ἵν’ εἴπω· χαλεπὸν γὰρ τὸ ὑποβαλλόντων ἀκούειν τῷ ἐπιστήμονι τοῦ λέγειν· καὶ πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις ἐν πολλῷ ὁμάδῳ ἀκούσαι τοῦ ὑποβάλλοντος ἢ ὁ ἀκούσας εἴποι; ὥστε καὶ λιγὺν ὄντα δημηγόρον καὶ δύναμιν ἔχοντα τοῦ αὐτοσχεδιάζειν βλάπτεσθαι ἐμποδιζόμενον τῷ ἐξ ὑποβολῆς λέγειν ἐν πολλῷ θορύβῳ”. [112] εἶχε δ’ ἄν τινα λόγον ἡ ἐξήγησις, εἰ ἐγίνωσκεν Ὅμηρος τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος τῆς δημηγορίας, λέγω δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἀναγνώσεως καὶ γραφῆς ὑποβαλλόμενον. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ὁ Κοτιαεύς φησι λέγων· “καλῶς ἔχει τὸ ἑστῶτος τοῦ δημηγοροῦντος ἀκούειν καὶ μὴ ὑποκρούειν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐμποδίζειν (τοῦτο γὰρ σημαίνει τὸ ὑββάλλειν)· χαλεπὸν γὰρ καὶ τῷ πάνυ δεινῷ ἐν ταραχῇ εἰπεῖν”. τὸ γὰρ “χαλεπὸν ἐπιστάμενόν περ ἐόντα” κατὰ Ἀττικὴν συνήθειαν πλεονάζει τὸ “ἐόντα”. ἐκείνοις γὰρ ἦν σύνηθες λέγειν “μὴ προδοὺς ἡμᾶς γένῃ” ἀντὶ τοῦ μὴ προδῷς, καὶ “παίζεις ἔχων” ἀντὶ τοῦ διαπαίζεις, καὶ ἐνταῦθα “χαλεπὸν γὰρ ἐπιστάμενόν περ ἐόντα” ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸν ἐπιστάμενον θορυβεῖσθαι χαλεπόν, ὡς καὶ τοῦ ἐπιστήμονος ῥήτορος ἐν θορύβῳ χαλεπῶς δημηγοροῦντος. ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ δύνασθαί τινα οὕτως ἀποδιδόναι τὴν διάνοιαν· ἐκκλησίας ἀθροισθείσης, ὁ Ἀγαμέμνων παύει προοιμιαζόμενος τὸν θόρυβον, λέγων ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία οὐ πρὸς [113] αὐτοὺς ἔχει τὴν ἀπότασιν, οὐδὲ δεῖ νῦν ὑποκρούειν ζητοῦντας μαθεῖν τίνος ἕνεκα συνεληλύθασιν· χαλεπὸν γὰρ θορυβεῖν τὸν ἐπιστάμενον τὰ ὄντα. τίνα δὲ ἦν τὰ ὄντα πάντες που ἐγίνωσκον, ὅτι ἐμήνισαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους Ἀχιλλεὺς καὶ Ἀγαμέμνων, καὶ ὅτι νῦν κατηλλάγησαν, καὶ ὅτι ἡ σύνοδος διὰ τοῦτο. [τὸ οὖν “ἐπιστάμενόν περ ἐόντα” τὰ ὄντα καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῶτα λέγει τὸν καθ’ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐπίστασθαι, ὡς ἔφη που· “ὃς ᾔδη τά τ’ ἐόντα τά τ’ ἐσσόμενα πρό τ’ ἐόντα”.] χαλεπὸν οὖν καὶ δεινὸν πρᾶγμά ἐστι τὸ ἐπιστάμενον τὰ ὄντα καὶ ἐνεστηκότα θορυβεῖν, πυνθανόμενον ὡς ἀγνοοῦντα ἢ ζητοῦντα περὶ ὧν οἶδεν ἀκούειν. καὶ ὅτι τοῦτο νοεῖ, δηλοῖ δι’ ὧν ἐπάγει· “Πηλεΐδῃ μὲν ἐγὼν ἐνδείξομαι· αὐτὰρ οἱ ἄλλοι σύνθεσθ’ Ἀργεῖοι, ἠμὲν νέοι ἠδὲ γέροντες”. [114] λέγει γὰρ ὅτι ἡ ἀπότασίς [115] μου τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ἐστίν, οὐ πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοὺς εἰδότας δι’ ἃ συνεληλύθαμεν. ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς· μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὑποκρούοντες διὰ τί συνεληλύθαμεν· ἐπίστασθε γὰρ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ὁ λόγος μοι τὰ νῦν οὐ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν Ἀχιλλέα ἔχει τὴν ἀπότασιν· χαλεπὸν γὰρ τοὺς εἰδότας τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς συνόδου ὡς μὴ εἰδότας θορυβεῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐμποδίζειν καὶ τῷ λέγοντι καὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι, πρὸς ὃν ὁ λόγος ὁ παρὼν ἕστηκε. πολλὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσι προοίμια ἐπιγράφεται πρὸς τοὺς θορύβους. [116] Τὸ “νέον ἐρχομενάων” ἀποδεδώκασιν ἀντὶ τοῦ νεωστὶ ἐρχομένων ἀεί, ὡς τὸ “κεῖνος γὰρ νέον ἄλλοθεν εἰληλούθει”. τί οὖν ἐστι τὸ νεωστὶ ἐξηγούμενοί φασιν ὅτι τὰς πτήσεις οὐ διηνεκεῖς ποιοῦνται, ἀλλ’ εἰς βραχύ, ὥστε φαντασίαν ἀεὶ παρέχεσθαι ὡς ἀρτίως ἐξορμωμένων. ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ τὴν ὥραν μηνύειν μᾶλλον ὅτε πέτονται· πέτονται δὲ τοῦ ἦρος αἰεί, νέον δὲ τὸ ἔαρ ἐκάλουν καὶ νέον ἔτος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἦρος προσηγόρευον. αὐτός τε ἐν ἄλλοις ἐκ πλήρους ἔφη “ἔαρος νέον ἱσταμένοιο” πατέρα τε τῶν καιρῶν τὸν χειμῶνα Πυθαγόρας καλεῖ. αὗται οὖν κατὰ τὸ νέον ἔαρ ἔρχονται. ὅτι γὰρ τὸ ἔαρ δηλοῖ, ἐπάγει “βοτρυδὸν δὲ πέτονται ἐπ’ ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσιν”. θαυμάσαι δὲ ἔστι Ζηνόδοτον τὸ “βοτρυδὸν” ἐκλαβόντα ἐοικότως βότρυϊ τῷ ὀρνέῳ, ὅπερ αὑτὸ [ 804 ]

συστρέφει ἐν τῇ πτήσει. οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν παλαιῶν οὐδ’ Ἀριστοτέλης βότρυν ζῶον ἔγραψε, κέχρηται δὲ Ὅμηρος ἐπ’ ἀμπέλου [117] τῷ βότρυος ὀνόματι· “μέλανες δ’ ἀνὰ βότρυες ἦσαν”. βοτρυδὸν οὖν τὸ ἐοικότως βότρυϊ σταφυλῆς· κατὰ συστροφὰς γὰρ πέτονται· τάχα δὲ καὶ ὅτι ἐν σχήματι βοτρύων ἐκκρέμανται τῶν ἀνθέων, τῶν ῥαγῶν τὴν παχύτητα μιμούμεναι τῷ πολλὰς καθ’ ἑνὸς ἐκκρέμασθαι. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν μελισσῶν τὸ βοτρυδὸν λέγει, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οἷς τὰς μελίσσας παραβέβληκεν, “ἰλαδὸν εἰς ἀγορήν”, κατὰ ἴλας καὶ συστροφάς, ὅτι ὡς συνήθεις καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἑταιρείας εἴχοντο· ἰσοδυναμεῖ οὖν ἄρα τὸ ἰλαδὸν τῷ βοτρυδόν. [118] Οὐκ ἔστι τὸ “Τρώων ἀνθ’ ἑκατόν τε διηκοσίων τε ἕκαστος στήσεσθ’ ἐν πολέμῳ” πρὸς ἑκατὸν καὶ διακοσίους μάχεσθαι ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ, ὥς τινες ἀποδεδώκασιν, ἀλλ’ ὡς εἰ ἔλεγεν· ἀντίσταθμοι καὶ ἰσοβαρεῖς ἑκατὸν καὶ διακοσίων ἕκαστος ἠπείλει γενέσθαι ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ. τῇ γὰρ διανοίᾳ ταύτῃ ἀκόλουθον τὸ “νῦν δ’ οὐδ’ ἑνὸς ἄξιοί εἰμεν Ἕκτορος”· ἀπὸ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ζυγοῖς ἱσταμένων τε καὶ πιπρασκομένων εἴρηται. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἔφασκεν ἕκαστον αὑτὸν λέγειν ἀντίσταθμον εἶναι ἑκατὸν καὶ διακοσίων, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἕκτορος· “οὐδ’ εἴ κεν σαυτὸν χρυσῷ ἐρύσασθαι … Δαρδανίδης Πρίαμος”, οἷον ἴσον χρυσῷ καὶ ἰσόσταθμον χρυσῷ· τὸ δ’ “ἐρύσασθαι” ἀντὶ τοῦ στῆσαι. [119] Τὸ δὲ “μὴ τὸ χθιζὸν ἀποστήσωνται … χρεῖος” ἀντὶ τοῦ ἶσον ἀπολάβωσιν, ὡς ἐν ζυγῷ τὸ ἶσον στήσαντες [120] καὶ ἀπομετρούμενοι ὄφλημα. χρεῖος γὰρ τὸ χρέος εἶπε καὶ ὄφλημα, οὐχ ἁπλῶς τὸ πρᾶγμα. φησὶν οὖν· δέδοικα μὴ ὡς δανεισάμενοι χθὲς τὴν νίκην ἀποδῶμεν αὐτοῖς, αὐτῷ σταθμῷ στήσαντες τὸ χρέος. Ἄξυλον ὕλην οἱ μὲν τὴν πολύξυλον ἀποδεδώκασιν, οἱ δὲ ἄξυλον. δηλοῖ γάρ, φασί, τὸ α καὶ τὸ ὁμοῦ, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀκόλουθος (ἔστι γὰρ ὁμοκέλευθος) [121] καὶ “ἄβρομοι” ἅμα βρόμῳ καὶ “ἀΐαχοι” ἅμα ἰαχῇ. οὕτω καὶ ἄλοχος καὶ ἄκοιτις ἡ ὁμόλεχος καὶ ὁμόκοιτις. καὶ ἄξυλος οὖν ἡ ὁμόξυλος διὰ τὸ πυκνόν. ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ ἄξυλον λέγειν οὐ κατὰ στέρησιν τοῦ ξύλου· ἐπάγει γάρ· “οἱ δέ τε θάμνοι πρόρριζοι πίπτουσιν”, ἀλλὰ κατὰ στέρησιν τοῦ ξυλίσασθαι, ἵνα ᾖ ἄξυλος ὕλη ἐξ ἧς οὐδείς πω ἐξυλεύσατο, τουτέστιν ἀφ’ ἧς ξύλον οὐδεὶς ἔκοψε. καὶ ἡ ἄκοιτις δὲ καὶ ἡ ἄλοχος, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, κυρίως ἡ παρθενικὴ [122] λέγεται, παρὰ τὸ λέχους ἑτέρου μὴ μετασχεῖν μηδὲ κοίτης. παρὸ καὶ λέγει “κουριδίης ἀλόχου”, τῆς ἐκ παρθενίας ἀλλ’ οὐ λέχους ἑτέρου μετασχούσης. λοιπὸν δ’ ἡ κατάχρησις καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς ἄλλας μετήγαγεν, ὥσπερ κυρίως τὸ “ἀλεξῆσαι” τὸ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλόχων βοηθῆσαι· λέγει γὰρ Ἕκτωρ· “ἀλλ’ ἵνα μοι Τρώων ἀλόχους καὶ νήπια τέκνα προφρονέως ῥύοισθε”· λοιπὸν δὲ ἐν καταχρήσει γέγονεν ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁπωσοῦν συμμαχεῖν. καὶ τὸ “ἀΐδηλον” δὲ “πῦρ” οὐκ ἔστι τὸ μεγαλόδηλον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀδηλοποιόν, ἐξ οὗ σημαίνει τὸ ἀφανιστικόν. οὕτως γοῦν ἔφη “σὺ δὲ κτείνεις ἀϊδήλως”, ἀφανίζων καὶ ἀδήλους ποιῶν. οὐ κακῶς δὲ καὶ Σέκστος “ἀΐδηλον” ἀποδέδωκε τὸ ἐξ ἀδήλου ἐμπεσόν. [ἡ παραβολὴ οὖν πρὸς [123] τὴν συνέχειαν τῶν πιπτόντων· τί δ’ ὀξύτερον ἢ εὐκινητότερον πυρός;]

[ 805 ]

Ἐλέγομεν περὶ τῶν παραβολῶν ὅτι πολλάκις τὰ οἰκεῖα τοῖς πράγμασιν ὀνόματα παρατίθησι τοῖς ἐν ταῖς παραβολαῖς ὁμοιώμασιν, ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ ἔμπαλιν. εἰς δὲ πίστιν τούτου παρακείσθω καὶ ταῦτα· συμβάλλουσι μὲν ἀλλήλοις στρατοὶ τὸν πόλεμον· “σύν ῥ’ ἔβαλον ῥινούς, σὺν δ’ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε’ ἀνδρῶν”, μίσγονται δὲ ποταμοὶ καὶ τὰ ὑγρά· “οἱ μὲν ἄρ’ οἶνον ἔμισγον ἐνὶ κρατῆρσι καὶ ὕδωρ”, ὅθεν τὸ καταδεχόμενον [124] τοὺς ποταμοὺς χωρίον μισγάγκεια εἴρηται. ἀλλ’ ὅμως αὐτὸς ἐναλλὰξ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ποταμῶν ἔφη τὸ συμβάλλειν, ὅπερ ἦν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· “ἐς μισγάγκειαν συμβάλλετον ὄβριμον ὕδωρ”, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν στρατῶν τὸ μίσγεσθαι, ὅπερ ἦν οἰκεῖον ποταμῷ· “ὣς τῶν μισγομένων γένετ’ ἰαχή τε φόβος τε”. συνεχώρει δὲ τὸ μέτρον εἰπεῖν “ἐς μισγάγκειαν συμμίσγετον ὄβριμον ὕδωρ”, Ὁμηρικοῦ ὄντος τοῦ παρετυμολογεῖν, ὡς τὸ “τέμενος τάμον” καὶ “κειμήλια κεῖται” καὶ “ἅρπυιαι ἀνηρείψαντο” [καὶ “μένος οἴχεται ὃ πρὶν ἔχεσκεν” καὶ “φής που ἄτερ λαῶν πόλιν ἑξέμεν”]. ὁ δὲ προείλετο τὴν ἀντίδοσιν τῶν ὀνομάτων εἰς ἑνωτικὴν τοῦ φραζομένου πρὸς τὸ εἰκαζόμενον, εἴ γε αἱ αὐταὶ φωναὶ πρέπουσιν ἑκατέροις. ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν [125] Αἰάντων καὶ τολμήσας “νέφος” εἶπε καὶ κατὰ μεταφορὰν “πεζῶν”, καὶ ὡς εὔλογον τὴν τόλμαν τῇ παραβολῇ ἐπιστώσατο καὶ τὰς φωνὰς ἤμειψεν, ἐπιποιῶν τὸ παραβληθὲν τῷ παραβαλλομένῳ. “ἦλθε δ’ ἐπ’ Αἰάντεσσι κιὼν ἀνὰ οὐλαμὸν ἀνδρῶν· τὼ δὲ κορυσσέσθην, ἅμα δὲ νέφος εἵπετο πεζῶν”· προαναφωνήσας οὖν “νέφος πεζῶν” ἐξ αὐτοῦ πλάσσει παραβολήν· “ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἀπὸ σκοπιῆς εἶδεν νέφος αἰπόλος ἀνὴρ ἐρχόμενον κατὰ πόντον ὑπὸ Ζεφύροιο ἰωῆς· τῷ δέ τ’ ἄνευθεν ἐόντι μελάντερον ἠΰτε πίσσα φαίνετ’ ἰὸν κατὰ πόντον, ἄγει δέ τε λαίλαπα πολλήν, … τοῖαι ἅμ’ Αἰάντεσσι διοτρεφέων αἰζηῶν δήϊον ἐς πόλεμον πυκιναὶ κίνυντο φάλαγγες κυάνεαι, σάκεσίν τε καὶ ἔγχεσι πεφρικυῖαι”. [126] τὸ μὲν “νέφος ἐρχόμενον” καὶ “ἰὸν” καὶ “ἄγον λαίλαπα” εἶπεν, ὅ ἐστι πρᾶγμα στρατιώτου, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς φάλαγγος “κίνυντο”, ὅπερ ἐπὶ νέφους τάττει κινήσει “πυκινὴν νεφέλην” καὶ “πυκιναὶ φάλαγγες” καὶ “κυάνεον νέφος” καὶ “κυάνεαι φάλαγγες”. ἤμειψε καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ λέοντος καὶ τῆς Πηνελόπης τὰς φωνάς· “ὅσσα δὲ μερμήριξε λέων ἀνδρῶν ἐν ὁμίλῳ δείσας, ὁππότε μιν δόλιον περὶ κύκλον ἄγουσι, τόσσα μιν ὁρμαίνουσαν ἐπήλυθε νήδυμος ὕπνος”· [125] μερμηρίζει μὲν γὰρ κυρίως ἄνθρωπος, ὁρμαίνει δὲ λέων, ὁ δ’ ἐνήλλαξε. τῷ δὲ τήκεσθαι κυρίως ἐπὶ τῆς χιόνος χρησάμενος ἐνδιατρίβειν ὡς ἐναργεῖ πολλάκις οὐκ ὤκνησε καὶ [ 806 ]

τῷ αὐτῷ χρήσασθαι ἐπὶ τῆς διὰ λύπην τοῖς δακρύοις διαρρεομένης· “ὡς δὲ χιὼν κατατήκεται … ἥν τ’ Εὖρος κατέτηξε … τηκομένης δ’ ἄρα τῆς … [126] ὣς τῆς τήκετο καλὰ παρήϊα δακρυχεούσης”, καίτοι ἐν ἄλλοις εἰπών· “τῆς δ’ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ ἄχεϊ φθινύθουσι παρειαί”. Θαυμάσειέ τις ἂν τοὺς τὸν ποταμὸν οἰηθέντας, ὃν Ὅμηρος Αἴγυπτον ποταμὸν κέκληκε, διιπετῆ εἰρῆσθαι διὰ τὸ ἀφανεῖς ἔχειν τὰς πηγὰς καὶ κατὰ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ οὐρανόθεν ῥεῖν. λέγει γάρ· [127] “οὐ γάρ τοι πρὶν μοῖρα φίλους τ’ ἰδέειν… πρίν γ’ ὅταν Αἰγύπτοιο, διιπετέος ποταμοῖο, αὖθις ὕδωρ ἔλθῃς”. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ καὶ τὸν Σπερχειὸν διιπετῆ λέγει· “υἱὸν Σπερχειοῖο, διιπετέος ποταμοῖο”, καὶ τὸν πρὸς τῇ Φαιάκων γῇ· “ἐγὼ δ’ ἀπάνευθε διιπετέος ποταμοῖο”, καὶ ἁπλῶς δὲ πάντας διιπετεῖς ἐν παραβολῇ λέγει· [128] “ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἐπὶ προχοῇσι διιπετέος ποταμοῖο βέβρυχε μέγα κῦμα”. διιπετεῖς οὖν λέγει τοὺς ποταμοὺς τοὺς ἐκ Διὸς γεγεννημένους· τῷ γὰρ πεσεῖν ἀντὶ τοῦ γεννᾶσθαι χρῆται· “ὅστις ἐπ’ ἤματι τῷδε πέσῃ μετὰ ποσσὶ γυναικός”. [129] ἀλλαχοῦ δὲ ἔφη ἀντὶ τοῦ διιπετοῦς· “Ξάνθου δινήεντος, ὃν ἀθάνατος τέκετο Ζεύς”. τοῦτο δὲ ὅτι φύσει οἱ ποταμοὶ ἐκ Διὸς πληροῦνται, ὥς που ἔφη “καί σφιν Διὸς ὄμβρος ἀέξει”. ᾧ λόγῳ καὶ τὰς Νύμφας τοῦ Διὸς θυγατέρας λέγει· “Νύμφαι κρηναῖαι, κοῦραι Διός”, ἔτι “Νύμφαι ὀρεστιάδες κοῦραι Διός”, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσι φυτὰ τῷ τοῦ Διὸς ὕδατι τρέφεται. Ζηνόδωρος δὲ διιπετῆ τὸν διαυγῆ ἀποδίδωσι· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ γράφει διειπετῆ διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου. [130] “Οὐ γὰρ ἔσαν λιμένες νηῶν ὀχοί, οὐδ’ ἐπιωγαί”. τίνι διενηνόχασιν ἐπιωγαὶ τῶν λιμένων καὶ πόθεν τοὔνομα προσέβαλέ τις; ἔφη οὖν ὅτι “ἰωὴν” τὴν πνοὴν λέγει, ὥς που εἴρηκεν· “ἐξ ἀνέμοιο πολυπλάγκτοιο ἰωῆς”, ποιήσας ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄειν, ὃ σημαίνει τὸ πνεῖν. ὅθεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ φωνεῖν καταχρηστικῶς ἔφη “αὖε δ’ ἑταίρους”, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν “ἰωὴν” κέκληκε· “τὸν δ’ αἶψα περὶ φρένας ἤλυθ’ ἰωή”, [καὶ τὸ “ἤυσεν” παρὰ τὸ ἄειν] καὶ μεταφορικῶς· “λεύσσω δὴ παρὰ νηυσὶ πυρὸς δηΐοιο ἰωήν”. κυρίως οὖν τῆς πνοῆς [131] ἰωῆς οὔσης καὶ τοῦ ἄγνυσθαι σημαίνοντος τὸ κλᾶσθαι, εἴρηται· “Βορέω ὑπιωγῇ”, ὅπου ἄγνυται ἡ πνοὴ τοῦ Βορέου. αἱ “ἐπιωγαὶ” οὖν ῥηθήσονται τόποι ἀλίμενοι μέν, δυνάμενοι δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνέμων σκέπην δέξασθαι νῆας. Πρὸς τοὺς ἀδυναμίαν Ὁμήρου κατηγοροῦντας ἐκ τοῦ πολλάκις τὰς [132] αὐτὰς ῥήσεις ποιεῖν ἢ λέγοντας τούς τε ἐκπέμποντας καὶ τοὺς πεμπομένους ἀγγέλους καὶ κήρυκας ἢ διηγουμένους πράξεις ἢ λόγους ῥηθέντας πρότερον, ἄξιον σημειοῦσθαι ὅτι ποικίλλων αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἄλλως καὶ ἄλλως ἑρμηνεύει διὰ δύναμιν. οἷον εἰπὼν τὸ “ξυνὸς Ἐνυάλιος” καὶ ἐξηγησάμενος πῶς κοινός “καί τε κτανέοντα κατέκτα”, ἄλλως τοῦτο λέγων φησίν· “ἤ τ’ ἔβλητ’ ἤ τ’ ἔβαλλ’ ἄλλον”, καὶ πάλιν ἄλλως “ἤ κε φέρῃσι μέγα κράτος, ἤ κε φεροίμην”, “ἕλοιμί κεν ἤ κεν [ 807 ]

ἁλοίην”, καὶ πάλιν “νίκη δ’ ἐπαμείβεται ἄνδρας”. πάλιν τὸ τειχίσαι πόλιν καὶ κύκλῳ περιβαλεῖν τὸ τεῖχος καὶ ὅλως τὰ κυκλοτερῶς συνέχοντά τι ἑρμηνεύων, λέγει· “ἀμφὶ δὲ τεῖχος ἔλασσε πόλει” καὶ “περὶ δ’ ἕρκος [133] ἔλασσε” καὶ “ἤλασε τάφρον ἐπ’ αὐτῷ”, εἶτ’ ἄλλως ἑρμηνεύων φησὶ “τεῖχος ἐς ἀμφίχυτον”, τὸ πέριξ κεχυμένον. καὶ ἐπ’ οἴκου κύκλῳ περιέχοντος· “περὶ δὲ κλισίη θέε πάντη”, ὡς τὸ “περὶ δὲ χρύσεος θέε πόρκης”, καὶ ἄλλως “ἐν δὲ μετώπῳ λευκὸν σῆμ’ ἐτέτυκτο περίτροχον ἠΰτε μήνη”. ὅρα δὲ ἄλλων ὀνομάτων ἀφθονίαν ἐν ἑνὶ καὶ ταὐτῷ μέρει· “ἄνδρα” φησὶ “βαλὼν” καὶ ἐπάγει “τὸν δὲ σκότος ὄσσ’ ἐκάλυψεν”, εἶτ’ “Ἄξυλον δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπεφνε” καὶ ἐπιφέρει “ἀλλ’ ἄμφω θυμὸν ἀπηύρα”, ἔπειτ’ ἄλλως “Δρῆσόν τ’ Εὐρύαλος καὶ Ὀφέλτιον ἐξενάριζεν”, εἶτα “καὶ μὲν τῶν ὑπέλυσε μένος”, αὖθις “Ἀστύαλον δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπεφνεν”, ἔπειτα “Ἀντίλοχος δ’ Ἄβληρον ἐνήρατο”, μεθ’ ἃ ἐπιφέρει “Φύλακον δ’ ἕλε Λήϊτος ἥρως”, εἶτα ἀνάπαλιν [134] “Ἄδρηστον δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος ζωὸν ἕλεν”, ἔπειτα ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς “τὸν δὲ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων οὔτα κατὰ λαπάρην”, ἔπειτα ὁ Νέστωρ φησίν· “ἀλλ’ ἄνδρας κτείνωμεν”.

[ 808 ]

Chronica ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΣ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ. [ 1 ] SY N C E L L . P . 261, D: Ὁ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας Μακεδόνων λόγος διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Φιλίππου τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ τοῖς φιλομαθέσι περὶ ταῦτα σπουδάζουσιν ἀναγκαῖος πέφυκε. Προκείσθω γοῦν κεφαλαιωδῶς ὑπὸ μίαν σύνοψιν ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ Καράνου τοῦ πρώτου βασιλέως Μακεδόνων ἕως Ἀλεξάνδρου. Τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον γένος τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τῶν Μακεδόνων εἰς Ἡρακλέα ἀναφέρεται. Μετὰ γὰρ τὴν ἅλωσιν Τροίας ἔτεσιν π΄ Ἡρακλεῖδαι κατέσχον τὴν Πελοπόννησον, ἐξ ὧν αἱ τῶν Κορινθίων καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεῖαι πρῶται συνέστησαν. Χρόνοις δὲ ὕστερον περὶ τὰ τέλη τούτων ἡ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἤρξατο βασιλεία οὕτως. Κάρανος ὁ Ἀργεῖος ἀδελφὸς ὢν Φείδωνος, ἑνὸς τῶν ἀφ’ Ἡρακλέους καταγόντων τὸ γένος καὶ τῆς Ἀργείας βασιλεύοντος, σπουδάζων ἑαυτῷ χώραν κατακτήσασθαι δύναμιν ἤθροισε παρὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῆς ὅλης Πελοποννήσου, μεθ’ ὧν τοῖς ὑπὲρ Μακεδονίαν τόποις ἐπιστρατεύσας, συμμαχήσας ἅμα καί τινι τῶν Ὀρεστῶν λεγομένων δυνάστῃ περὶ τὴν χώραν κατὰ τῶν πλησιοχώρων βαρβάρων, τὴν ἡμίσειαν ἔλαβε χώραν καὶ πόλιν ἤγειρε κατὰ χρησμὸν καὶ βασιλείαν ἐν αὐτῇ συνεστήσατο, ἣν οἱ κατὰ γένος ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μετ’ αὐτὸν διεδέχοντο. Οὗτος ὁ Κάρανος ἀπὸ μὲν Ἡρακλέους ια΄ ἦν, ἀπὸ δὲ Τημένου τοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων Ἡρακλειδῶν κατελθόντος εἰς Πελοπόννησον ἕβδομος. Γενεαλογοῦσι δ’ αὐτὸν οὕτως, ὥς φησιν ὁ Διόδωρος, [καὶ add. Scalig. a] οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν συγγραφέων, ὧν εἷς καὶ Θεόπομπος· Κάρανος Φείδωνος τοῦ Ἀριστοδαμίδα τοῦ Μέροπος τοῦ Θεστίου (Θεοστίου codd.) τοῦ Κισσίου (Κισοῦ B.) τοῦ Τημένου τοῦ Ἀριστομάχου τοῦ Κλεοδαίου (Κλεοδάτου A. Κλεοδίου B.) τοῦ Ὕλλου τοῦ Ἡρακλέους. Ἔνιοι δὲ ἄλλως, φησὶ, γενεαλογοῦσι, φάσκοντες εἶναι Κάρανον Ποίαντος τοῦ Κροίσου τοῦ Κλεοδαίου τοῦ Εὐρυβιάδα τοῦ Δεβάλλου (Δαιβάλλου cod. B.) τοῦ Λαχάρους τοῦ Τημένου, ὃς καὶ κατῆλθεν εἰς Πελοπόννησον. Οὗτος ὁ Κάρανος λ΄ ἔτη ἐβασίλευσε· μεθ’ ὃν Κοῖνος παῖς ἔτη κη΄. Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον ὁ υἱὸς Τυριμμᾶς ἔτη με΄, καὶ τὴν λοιπὴν τῆς Μακεδονίας προσελάβετο χώραν, καὶ καθ’ ὅλου τὴν βασιλείαν ηὔξησεν. [Εἶτα Περδίκκας ἔτη μη΄. m.] Εἶτα Ἀργεῖος παῖς (Τυριμμᾶ h. v. delet m.) ἔτη λδ΄, μεθ’ ὃν Φίλιππος υἱὸς Ἀργείου ἔτη λε΄. Πρὸς οἷς Ἀλκέτας ὁ Φιλίππου υἱὸς ἔτη …. [Pro his Scaliger: Πρὸς οἷς Ἀερόπας ὁ Φιλίππου υἱὸς ἔτη κγ΄. Ἀλκέτας ἔτη κη΄]. Εἶτ’ Ἀμύντας υἱὸς Ἀλκέτου ἔτη [μβ΄ suppl. Scal.]. Ἑξῆς Ἀλέξανδρος Ἀμύντου [ἔτη μδ΄ Scal.]. Οὗτος κατὰ τὴν Ξέρξου διάβασιν Πέρσαις ἔδωκεν ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν. Οὗτος ἔσχε δύο υἱοὺς, Περδίκκαν καὶ Ἀμύνταν, ὧν Περδίκκας μὲν ἐβασίλευσεν ἔτη [κγ΄ Scal.]. Ἀμύντας δὲ πάντα τὸν βίον ἰδιωτικῶς ζήσας κατέλιπεν υἱὸν Ἀριδαῖον, οὗ παῖς γέγονεν Ἀμύντας ἕτερος ὁμώνυμος τῷ πάππῳ, περὶ οὗ ἑξῆς λεχθήσεται, πῶς ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν παρῆλθε. Μετὰ γὰρ Περδίκκαν Ἀρχέλαος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἐβασίλευσεν ἔτη ιδ΄, πρὸς ὃν καὶ Εὐριπίδης ὁ [ 809 ]

τραγῳδοποιὸς παραγενηθεὶς πάντα τὸν χρόνον διῆξε τιμώμενος παρ’ αὐτῷ. Ἀρχελάου δ’ ἀναιρεθέντος διεδέξατο τὴν βασιλείαν Ὀρέστης υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἔτη δ΄. Ὃν ἀνεῖλεν Ἀερόπας (Ἀρχέλαος m.) ἐπίτροπος καὶ ἐβασίλευσε μετ’ αὐτὸν ἔτη δ΄. Μεθ’ ὃν Ἀμύντας ἔτος α΄ βασιλεύσας ὑπὸ Μακεδόνων ἐξεβλήθη. Καὶ Ἀμύντας ὁ προρρηθεὶς καθείρχθη (l. κατήχθη) υἱὸς μὲν Ἀριδαίου τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἀμύντου τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου, καθ’ ὃν, ὡς προείρηται, γέγονεν ἡ Ξέρξου διάβασις ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα. [supplet m.: Διεδέξατο Παυσανίας ἔτος α΄, εἶτα Ἀμύντας ἔτη ε΄, εἶτα ἄλλος Ἀργεῖος β΄, εἶτα ἄλλος Ἀμύντας ιβ΄.] Ἀμύντου τοίνυν τούτου βασιλεύσαντος ἔτη ιβ΄ διεδέξατο τὴν ἀρχὴν Ἀλέξανδρος, υἱὸς αὐτοῦ πρῶτος, ἔτος α΄. Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον Πτολεμαῖος ἦρξεν ὁ λεγόμενος Ἀλωρίτης, ἀλλότριος τοῦ γένους, ἔτη [γ΄]. Τοῦτον ἀνελὼν Περδίκκας υἱὸς καὶ αὐτὸς Ἀμύντου [κατέσχεν τὴν βασιλείαν ἔτη Ϛ΄. Εἶτα Φίλιππος m.] ἔτη κγ΄ κρατήσας τῆς βασιλείας Μακεδόνων, δεόντως τε ἅπαντα πράξας καὶ κατὰ τάξιν μεγίστην πασῶν τῶν κατὰ τὴν Εὐρώπην ἀναδείξας τὴν Μακεδόνων ἀρχήν. Οὗτος τοὺς περὶ τὴν χώραν ἅπαντας ἐδουλώσατο πολεμίους, βουληθεὶς καὶ αὐτοὺς Ἕλληνας ὑπὸ χεῖρα ποιήσασθαι, μεγάλην κτησάμενος δύναμιν, καὶ Τριβάλλους ὑποτάξας. Ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ Πλάτων μὲν τελευτᾷ καταγηράσας, Ἀριστοτέλης δ’ ὁ Σταγειρίτης Νικομάχου παῖς ἤνθει, οὗ καὶ ἀκροατὴς γέγονεν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Φιλίππου τούτου παῖς ἐξ Ὀλυμπιάδος γαμετῆς, ἣν Ἕλληνές φασιν ἐξ Ἀχιλλέως τοῦ Θέτιδος φέρειν τὸ γένος. Φίλιππος οὗτος πρὸ μικροῦ χρόνου τῆς τελευτῆς τὸ Βυζάντιον ἐπολιόρκησε· συμμαχούντων δὲ Βυζαντίοις Ἀθηναίων διὰ Χάρητος στρατηγοῦ ἀποτυχὼν ὁ Φίλιππος ἐπὶ Χερρόνησον χωρεῖ, καὶ ταύτην λαβὼν ἐπανῆλθε. Τότε καὶ Ἀθηναίοις σπένδεται βασιλεύσας, ὡς προλέλεκται, ἔτη κγ΄, καὶ ἀναιρεθεὶς ὑπὸ Παυσανίου κατὰ τὴν ρι΄ [leg. ρια΄. mgo: ρθ΄ e Sync. computo] ὀλυμπιάδα ἀρχομένην, καθ’ ἣν Ἀλέξανδρος παῖς ἐβασίλευε Μακεδόνων. Μετὰ γὰρ τὸν πατέρα Φίλιππον ἀναδέδεικται κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος Δαρείου Ἀρσάμου Περσῶν βασιλέως, μετὰ Κῦρον γεγονότος. Μέχρι τοῦ νῦν, τῆς ἀρχῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου, γίνεται χρόνος ἀπὸ μὲν πρώτης ὀλυμπιάδος καὶ αὐτῆς ἀρχομένης, καθ’ ἣν Ῥωμύλος Ῥώμην κτίζει, ἔτη υκ΄ [υλγ΄ m.], ἀπὸ δὲ Τροίας ἁλώσεως ἔτη ω΄ [ωκη΄ m.]. [3] Syncell. p. 264, B: () Θάπτεται οὖν τὸ σῶμα (Ἀλεξάνδρου) σταλὲν εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ὑπὸ Ἀριδαίου ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς πατρὸς, ὃς μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον ἦρξε Μακεδόνων, μετονομασθεὶς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν Φίλιππος, σὺν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἐκ Ῥωξάνης τῆς Δαρείου (deb. Ὀξυάρτου) παιδὸς τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀλεξάνδρου, ἐγγὺς ἔτη ζ΄. Ὅσα μὲν οὖν ἐχρῆν πρὸ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου βασιλείας περὶ τῆς Μακεδόνων ἀρχῆς παραθέσθαι, συνοπτικῶς ἤδη προτέτακται μέχρις αὐτοῦ. Λοιπὸν δὲ καὶ τοὺς μετ’ αὐτὸν διαδεξαμένους τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἐπισημοτέρους ἄξιον εἰπεῖν καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐν κεφαλαίῳ. Μετὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου τελευτὴν διαιροῦνται τὴν ἡγεμονίαν Μακεδόνων μὲν, ὡς ἤδη λέλεκται, Ἀριδαῖος ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ πρὸς πατρὸς ἐκ Φιλίννης τῆς Θετταλῆς, ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Φίλιππος, πόθῳ τῶν Μακεδόνων τῷ πρὸς πατέρα Φίλιππον, καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος, παῖς Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐκ Ῥωξάνης τῆς Ὀξυάρτου. Εἶτα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἕκαστος, ὧν οἱ προὔχοντες. ἦσαν Πτολεμαῖος ὁ [ 810 ]

Λάγου κληρωσάμενος τὴν Αἰγύπτου βασιλείαν, Σέλευκος ὁ Νικάτωρ [ἐπὶ] Συρίας καὶ Κιλικίας μέχρι Βαβυλῶνος, Περδίκκας ὁ λαβὼν παρὰ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὸν δακτύλιον (τὸ δακτυλίδιον G.) ἐπὶ τῆς μεγάλης τάττεται Φρυγίας, Λυσίμαχος τὴν εἰς δεξιὰ τοῖς πλέουσι τὸν Πόντον ἡγεμονίαν παραλαμβάνει, Ἀντίγονος Φρυγίας τῆς μικρᾶς καὶ Παμφυλίας καὶ Λυκίας ἄρχει, Εὐμένης Παφλαγονίας καὶ Καππαδοκίας κληροῦται, Κάσανδρος ὁ Ἀντιπάτρου σὺν τῷ πατρὶ τὴν Ἀριδαίου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου διοικεῖ βασιλείαν ἐν Μακεδόσι, καὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος κρατεῖ. Ταῦτα πάντα συντρέχει κατὰ τὴν ριδ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδα, καθ’ ἣν ἀρχομένην ἢ πρὶν ἄρξασθαι τὸν Ἀριδαῖον Ὀλυμπιὰς κτείνει ἡ Ἀλεξάνδρου μήτηρ ἡ παρὰ Αἰακοῦ σταλεῖσα τοῦ βασιλέως Ἠπείρου, ἢ τοῦτον φυγοῦσα καὶ πρὸς Μακεδόνας ἐλθοῦσα· διττῶς γὰρ ἱστορεῖται. [2] Τοῦτον μὲν οὖν ἀνελοῦσα σὺν τῇ γαμετῇ ἑβδόμῳ ἔτει τῆς μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὴ μετὰ βραχὺν χρόνον ἀναιρεῖται ὑπὸ Κασάνδρου τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου· βασιλεύει δὲ Μακεδόνων ἀρξαμένη σὺν δύο παισὶν Ἀλεξάνδρου, τῷ τε ἐκ Φαρσίνης (Βαρσίνης m.) τῆς Φαρναβάζου Ἡρακλεῖ καλουμένῳ καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ προρρηθέντι ἐκ Ῥωξάνης τῆς θυγατρὸς Ὀξυάρτου Βακτρῶν βασιλέως, οὓς καὶ αὐτοὺς ὁ Κάσανδρος ἀνελὼν, τὴν δὲ Ὀλυμπιάδα καὶ ἄταφον ἐκρίψας, ἑαυτὸν Μακεδόσι βασιλέα ἀνηγόρευσε, γήμας τὴν Φιλίππου τοῦ βασιλέως (γαμετὴν) Θεσσαλονίκην, καὶ βασιλεύσας ἔτη ιθ΄, φθινάδι τε νόσῳ διαλυθεὶς [ἔθανεν] ἐπὶ τρισὶν υἱοῖς, Φιλίππῳ, Ἀλεξάνδρῳ καὶ Ἀντιπάτρῳ. [3] Ὧν Φίλιππος πρῶτος ἦρξε μετὰ Κάσανδρον τὸν πατέρα Μακεδόνων, ἐν Ἐλατείᾳ θανὼν, Ἀντίπατρος δὲ Θεσσαλονίκην ἀνελὼν, τὴν ἰδίαν μητέρα, συμπράττουσαν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τἀδελφῷ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας, εἰς Πόντον φεύγει πρὸς Λυσίμαχον καὶ ἀναιρεῖται ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, κ αίπερ γήμας θυγατέρα αὐτοῦ. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ Λυσάνδραν τὴν Πτολεμαίου γαμεῖ, παρὰ Δημητρίου δὲ ἀναιρεῖται τοῦ Πολιορκητοῦ, συμμαχήσειν κατὰ Ἀντιπάτρου τοῦ νεωτέρου ἀδελφοῦ τοῦτον προσκαλεσάμενος, καὶ ἄρχει Μακεδόνων Δημήτριος. Ὁ Ἀντιγόνου μὲν παῖς οὗτος, τοῦ τὴν μικρὰν κληρωσαμένου Φρυγίαν, ὡς ἀνωτέρω προείρηται, φοβερωτάτου δὲ τῶν τότε κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν βασιλέων, ὃς καὶ ἐν Φρυγίᾳ θνήσκει πάντων αὐτῷ διὰ φόβον ἐπιτεθέντων [τῶν] δυναστῶν, ἔτη ιη΄ τῆς βασιλείας κρατήσας, Πολιορκητὴς δὲ ἐπικληθεὶς, διὰ τὸ μετὰ θάνατον Ἀντιγόνου τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διασωθῆναι φυγὰς, ἡνίκα τῆς ὅλης Ἀσίας ἀποσφαλεὶς ὤφθη δεινότατος ἐν τῇ πολιορκίᾳ, βασιλεύσας ἁπάντων τῶν τηνικαῦτα· οὗτος τῆς μὲν Ἀσίας τῆς μικρᾶς ἔτη ιζ΄, Μακεδόνων δὲ Ϛ΄ ἐβασίλευσεν ἔτη μόνα, μετὰ τὸ ἀνελεῖν Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν Κασάνδρου. [4] Καὶ ἐκβάλλεται τῆς ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ Πύρρου βασιλέως Ἠπείρου, υἱοῦ μὲν Αἰακοῦ τοῦ Ἠπειρώτου δυνάστου, διαδεξαμένου τὴν Ἠπειρωτικὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, εἰκοστοῦ δὲ καὶ τρίτου ἀπὸ Ἀχιλλέως τοῦ Θέτιδος καὶ Πηλέως, ἀνδρὸς καὶ χειρὶ δυνατοῦ καὶ εὐβουλίας (εὐβουλίᾳ G.) στρατηγικοῦ· ὃς Πύρρος ἐκβαλὼν Δημήτριον, ὡς προσηκούσης αὐτῷ τῆς Μακεδόνων ἀρχῆς μετὰ τὸ γένος Φιλίππου διὰ Ὀλυμπιάδα τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ κτίστου μητέρα φέρουσαν ἐκ Πύρρου τοῦ καὶ Νεοπτολέμου παιδὸς Ἀχιλλέως τὸ γένος, ἐκράτησε Μακεδόνων μῆνας ζ΄. Λυσίμαχος δὲ ὁ Θετταλὸς, Ἀγαθοκλέους παῖς, εἷς τῶν Ἀλεξάνδρου δορυφόρων, Θρᾴκης τε καὶ [ 811 ]

Χερρονήσου τῆς λοιπῆς τε βασιλεύων ὁμόρου χώρας, τῷ Πόντῳ καὶ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ ταύτῃ ἐπιδραμὼν ὡς γείτονι, Πύρρον μὲν διεδέξατο, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐβασίλευσε Μακεδόνων ἔτη ε΄ (β΄ m. male) καὶ μῆνας Ϛ΄. Οὗτος ἡττηθεὶς ἐν τῇ πρὸς Σέλευκον τὸν Νικάτορα μάχῃ, βασιλέα Συρίας καὶ Ἀσίας, τὸν αἰχμάλωτον ἑλόντα καὶ τὸν Πολιορκητὴν Δημήτριον, ἐκπίπτει τῆς ἀρχῆς. Φανεροῦ δὴ ὄντος τοῦ τρόπου, καθ’ ὃν Ἀντίγονός τε ὁ τῆς μικρᾶς Φρυγίας καὶ Παμφυλίας καὶ Λυκίας ἄρξας εὐθὺς μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον τέθνηκε, καὶ ὅπως ὁ τούτου παῖς Δημήτριος δόλῳ κρατήσας Μακεδόνων ὑπὸ Πύρρου ἐξεβλήθη, αἰχμάλωτός τε ἁλοὺς ὑπὸ Σελεύκου ἐν Κιλικίᾳ τηρούμενος βασιλικῶς θνήσκει, καὶ αὖθις ὁ Λυσίμαχος Πύρρον ἐκβαλὼν Μακεδόνων ἐβασίλευσεν ὑπὸ Σελεύκου τε τοῦ Νικάτορος καταπολεμηθεὶς ἐκπέπτωκε τῆς ἀρχῆς· ὑπολείπεται δεῖξαι καὶ Σέλευκον ὅπως τῆς βασιλείας ἔτυχε. Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου πρῶτος τῆς Αἰγύπτου μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον βασιλεύσας ἔτη μ΄, ἐλθὼν εἰς Παλαίγαζαν συνάπτει μάχην Δημητρίῳ τῷ Ἀντιγόνου, καὶ νικήσας ἀναδείκνυσι Σέλευκον βασιλέα Συρίας καὶ τῶν ἄνω τόπων. Σέλευκος δ’ ἀναβὰς μέχρι Βαβυλωνίας καὶ κρατήσας τῶν βαρβάρων βασιλεύει ἔτη λβ΄ (λγ΄ m.)· διὸ καὶ Νικάτωρ ἐπεκλήθη. [5] Τῷ γοῦν λβ΄ (λγ΄ m.) ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, οε΄ τῆς ὅλης ζωῆς, Λυσίμαχον ἐκβαλὼν τῆς Μακεδονικῆς ἀρχῆς, ἐπαρθεὶς δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ νίκῃ (εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τῇ νίκῃ Euseb.) καὶ αὐτὸς ἀναιρεῖται πρὸς (ὑπὸ Scal.) Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου, τοῦ Κεραυνοῦ λεγομένου, μέλλων καὶ Μακεδόνων ἄρχειν, καὶ κρατεῖ Μακεδόνων Πτολεμαῖος. [6] Οὗτος ὁ Λάγου καὶ Εὐρυδίκης παῖς τῆς Ἀντιπάτρου Σέλευκον ἀνελὼν εὐεργέτην τε ὄντα ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἐκ φυγῆς ὑποδεξάμενον, [μετ’] ἔτος ἓν καὶ μῆνας ε΄ ἀναιρεῖται καὶ αὐτὸς, Γαλάταις πολεμῶν, κατακοπεὶς μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ τῶν ἐλεφάντων. [7] Κατὰ δὲ τοὺς χρόνους τούτους τῶν Γαλατῶν ἐπικειμένων τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ λεηλατούντων αὐτὴν, (suppl. ex Euseb.: γίνεται ἀναρχία,) διὰ τὸ πολλοὺς ἐπεμβαίνοντας τῇ βασιλείᾳ πρὸς βραχὺ κρατεῖν καὶ ἐκπίπτειν αὐτῆς, ὧν εἷς καὶ Μελέαγρος, ἀδελφὸς Πτολεμαίου Λάγου (deb. Πτ. Κεραυνοῦ), πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας δυναστεύσας καὶ ἐκπεσών· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Ἀντίπατρος ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα πέντε· μεθ’ οὓς Σωσθένης· ἔτι δὲ Πτολεμαῖος· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ Πύρρος ὁ Ἠπειρώτης. Οἳ πάντες ἔτη τρία κατὰ Διόδωρον. [8] Ἀντίγονος ὁ Γονατᾶς ἐπικληθεὶς διὰ τὸ ἐν Γόνοις τῆς Θετταλίας τραφῆναι, υἱὸς Δημητρίου τοῦ Πολιορκητοῦ, βασιλεύει Μακεδόνων ἔτη μδ΄, προβασιλεύσας ἔτη δώδεκα (l. δέκα) τῆς Ἑλλάδος, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τῆς Μακεδονικῆς ἀρχῆς σὺν τῇ Ἑλλαδικῇ ἀντιποιησάμενος ἓν κράτος (l. εἰς ἓν κρ. vel ἐγκρατῶς). [9] Μετὰ τοῦτον ὁ υἱὸς Δημήτριος ἔτη ι΄ βασιλεύσας τελευτᾷ καταλιπὼν Φίλιππον υἱὸν νήπιον. [10] Τούτου ἐπίτροπος Ἀντίγονος κατασταθεὶς ὁ Δημητρίου κρατεῖ Μακεδόνων ἔτη ιβ΄, κατὰ δὲ τὸν Διόδωρον ἔτη θ΄. Μεθ’ ὃν ὁ Φίλιππος αὐξηθεὶς ἀπέλαβε τὴν πατρῴαν ἀρχὴν, καὶ ἦρξεν ἔτη μβ΄.

[ 812 ]

[11] Τούτου τελευτήσαντος διεδέξατο τὴν ἀρχὴν Περσεὺς ἔτη ι΄ ἢ θ΄ (l. μῆνας θ΄, uti est p. 282, B), κατά τινας ὕστατος βασιλεὺς Μακεδόνων γεγονὼς ὑποχείριός τε Ῥωμαίοις καὶ τὸν βίον οἰκτρῶς καταστρέψας κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους τῶν Μακκαβαίων. [4] [n] Exc. Euseb. p. 62 Scalig.; tom. II, p. 129 in Crameri Anecd. Paris. [1] Ἡ Μακεδονικὴ βασιλεία ἀπὸ τῶν Πορφυρίου τοῦ καθ’ ἡμῶν φιλοσόφου. Μετὰ δὲ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν Φιλίππου Μακεδόνων ἐβασίλευσαν οἵδε, τῆς Μακεδονίας καὶ Ἑλλάδος. - Ἡ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἀρχὴ ἄχρι τῆς ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων καταλύσεως τοῦτον διήρκησε τὸν τρόπον. Ἀριδαῖος ὁ Φιλίππου καὶ Φιλίννης τῆς Θετταλῆς, ὃν οἱ Μακεδόνες πόθῳ τοῦ Φιλίππου γένους Φίλιππον προσαγορεύσαντες βασιλέα ἀνέδειξαν μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον, καίπερ ἐξ ἑταίρας γεγονότα, καὶ ἄφρονα συνειδότες εἶναι, διαδέχεται τὴν ἀρχὴν, ὥσπερ ἔφαμεν, Ὀλυμπιάδος τῆς ριδ΄ ἔτει δευτέρῳ. Λογίζεται δὲ αὐτῷ ἔτη ζ΄. Ἐπέζησε γὰρ ἄχρι ἑκατοστῆς πεντεκαιδεκάτης Ὀλυμπιάδος ἔτους τετάρτου. Κατέλιπε δὲ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος παῖδας Ἡρακλέα τε ἐκ Βαρσίνης τῆς Φαρναβάζου, Ἀλέξανδρόν τε ἐκ Ῥωξάνης τῆς Ὀξυάρτου τοῦ Βάκτρων βασιλέως. [2] Ἀριδαῖον μὲν οὖν Ὀλυμπιὰς ἔκτεινεν ἡ μήτηρ Ἀλεξάνδρου· αὐτὴν δὲ καὶ τοὺς δύο παῖδας Ἀλεξάνδρου Κάσανδρος ὁ Ἀντιπάτρου ἀναιρεῖ, τὸν μὲν αὐτὸς φονεύσας, τὸν δὲ Βαρσίνης Πολυσπέρχοντα πείσας· Ὀλυμπιάδα δὲ καὶ ἄταφον ἐκρίψας, ἀνεῖπεν ἑαυτὸν Μακεδόνων βασιλέα. Καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦδε καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σατραπῶν ἕκαστος ἐβασίλευσε, τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου γενεᾶς διεφθαρμένης. Γήμας δὲ Θεσσαλονίκην τὴν Φιλίππου, βασιλεύων ἐπεβίω ἔτη ιθ΄, καὶ φθινάδι νόσῳ ἐπιπόνῳ διελύθη. [3] Τοῦτον διαδέχονται οἱ παῖδες, Φίλιππος [καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος] καὶ Ἀντίπατρος, οἵτινες ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας Ϛ΄ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τὸν πατέρα· πρῶτος μὲν Φίλιππος, καὶ ἐν Ἐλατείᾳ ἀποθνήσκει· Ἀντίπατρος δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ παιδὶ συμπράττουσαν ἀνελὼν τὴν μητέρα Θεσσαλονίκην εἰς Λυσίμαχον ἔφυγε, καὶ τῶν ἐκείνου θυγατέρων γήμας τινὰ ὁμοίως ἀνῃρέθη πρὸς αὐτοῦ Λυσιμάχου. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ γαμεῖ μὲν Λυσάνδραν τὴν τοῦ Πτολεμαίου, πρός τε τὸν νεώτερον πολεμῶν ἀδελφὸν εἰς συμμαχίαν ἐπικαλεῖται Δημήτριον τὸν Ἀντιγόνου, ὅτῳ Πολιορκητὴς ἦν ἐπώνυμον, ἀναιρεῖταί τε ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, καὶ Μακεδόσιν αὐτὸς ἄρχει Δημήτριος. Τῶν οὖν παίδων Κασάνδρου τῆς ἀρχῆς ἔτη λογίζονται ἀπὸ τοῦ τετάρτου ἔτους τῆς ἑκατοστῆς [εἰκοστῆς ἄχρι] τοῦ τρίτου ἑκατοστῆς εἰκοστῆς πρώτης Ὀλυμπιάδος. [4] Δημήτριον δὲ ἓξ ἔτη βασιλεύσαντα Μακεδονίας Πύρρος ἐκβάλλει τῆς Ἠπείρου βασιλεὺς, τρίτος καὶ εἰκοστὸς ἀπ’ Ἀχιλλέως τοῦ Θέτιδος ὢν, ὡς ἂν αὐτῷ προσηκούσης τῆς ἀρχῆς μετὰ τὸ Φιλίππου γένος δι’ Ὀλυμπιάδα τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου μητέρα κἀκείνην ἐκ Πύρρου τοῦ [καὶ] Νεοπτολέμου γενομένην. Ἑπτὰ δὲ μῆνας ἄρχει Μακεδόνων. Τῷ δὲ ὀγδόῳ τοῦτον Λυσίμαχος διαδέχεται ὁ Ἀγαθοκλέους Θετταλὸς ὢν ἐκ Κρανῶνος, καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου γεγονὼς δορυφόρος, Θρᾴκης δὲ τότε καὶ Χερρονήσου βασιλεύων, εἰς γείτονα καὶ ὅμορον τὴν Μακεδονίαν ἐπιδραμὼν, διεδέξατο. Οὗτος Ἀρσινόῃ πεισθεὶς τῇ γυναικὶ, Ἀγαθοκλέα τὸν υἱὸν ἐκ τοῦ ζῆν ᾖρε. Βασιλεύει δὲ Μακεδονίας ἔτη ε΄, καὶ μῆνας Ϛ΄. Ἡττᾶται δὲ ἐν τῇ περὶ Κόρου πεδίον μάχῃ τῇ [ 813 ]

πρὸς Σέλευκον τὸν τῆς Ἀσίας βασιλέα, ὅτῳ Νικάτωρ ἐπίκλησις ἦν, ὅτε καὶ τοῦ ζῆν ἀπαλλάττεται. [5] Εὐθὺς δ’ ἐπὶ τῇ νίκῃ Σέλευκον Πτολεμαῖος ὁ τοῦ Λάγου καὶ Εὐρυδίκης παῖς τῆς Ἀντιπάτρου, ᾧ Κεραυνὸς ἐπίκλησις ἦν, εὐεργέτην τε ὄντα ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ φυγῆς ὑποδεξάμενον, ἀνελὼν, ἦρχεν αὐτὸς Μακεδόσιν. Ὅσπερ Γαλάταις πολεμῶν ἀνῃρέθη, βασιλεύσας ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ μῆνας ε΄. [6] Τὸν δὲ Πτολεμαῖον Μελέαγρος ὁ ἀδελφὸς διεδέξατο. Μακεδόνες δ’ αὐτὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς εὐθὺς ἐκβάλλουσιν ἄρξαντα δύο μῆνας ὡς ἀνάξιον φανέντα. Καὶ ἀντ’ αὐτοῦ ποιοῦνται βασιλέα Ἀντίπατρον, ἀδελφιδοῦν μὲν ὄντα Κασάνδρου, υἱὸν δὲ Φιλίππου, κατὰ ἀπορίαν γένους βασιλικοῦ. Πέντε δ’ αὐτὸν καὶ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέραις ἄρχοντα Σωσθένης τις τῶν δημοτικῶν ἐξελαύνει ὡς ἀδύνατον στρατηγεῖν, Βρέννου τοῦ Γαλάτου ἐπιόντος τοσούτου πολέμου. Καὶ αὐτὸν οἱ Μακεδόνες Ἐτησίαν ἐκάλεσαν, ὅτι χρόνῳ τοσῷδε οἱ ἐτησίαι πνέουσι. Σωσθένης δὲ Βρέννον ἐξελάσας, καὶ ὅλων δύο ἐτῶν προστὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀποθνήσκει. [7] Καὶ γίνεται ἀναρχία Μακεδόσι, διὰ τὸ τοὺς περὶ Ἀντίπατρον καὶ Πτολεμαῖον καὶ Ἀριδαῖον ἀντιποιεῖσθαι μὲν τῶν πραγμάτων, ὁλοσχερῶς δὲ μηδένα προστῆναι, ἀπὸ δὴ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου ἐπὶ τὸ τέλος τῆς ἀναρχίας, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, ἀπὸ ρκδ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος ἔτους τετάρτου, ἄχρι τῆς ρκϚ΄, Πτολεμαίου μὲν τοῦ Κεραυνοῦ β΄, ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ μῆνας ε΄ ἄρξαντος, Μελεάγρου δὲ μῆνας Ἀντιπάτρου δὲ ἡμέρας με΄, Σωσθένους δὲ ἔτη β΄, καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ χρόνου εἰς ἀναρχίαν λογισθέντος. [8] Τοῦ δ’ Ἀντιπάτρου τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐπιβουλεύοντος, Ἀντίγονος, ὁ Δημητρίου τοῦ Πολιορκητοῦ καὶ Φίλας τῆς Ἀντιπάτρου θυγατρὸς υἱὸς, μεταποιεῖται τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὃς ἐν Γόνοις τῆς Θετταλίας γενόμενός τε καὶ τραφεὶς Γονατᾶς ἐπεκαλεῖτο. Λογίζεται δὲ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἔτη τῆς βασιλείας τέσσαρα καὶ τεσσαράκοντα. Ἦν γὰρ βασιλεὺς καὶ πρὶν τῆς Μακεδονίας κρατῆσαι, ὅλοις ἔτεσι δέκα πρότερον. Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐγκρατῶς χειρωσάμενος. Καὶ βιοῖ μὲν τὰ πάντα ἔτη τρία καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα, τελευτᾷ δὲ τῆς ρλε΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος ἔτει πρώτῳ. [9] Ὃν διαδέχεται υἱὸς Δημήτριος, ὃς καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν Λιβύην ἔλαβε, Κυρήνης τε ἐκράτησε, καὶ κατέσχεν ἐτῶν δέκα. Γήμας δέ τινα τῶν αἰχμαλώτων, καὶ Χρυσηΐδα προσειπὼν, Φίλιππον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἔσχε τὸν πρῶτον πολεμήσαντα Ῥωμαίοις καὶ κακῶν αἴτιον Μακεδόσι γενόμενον. [10] Φίλιππον μὲν οὖν ὀρφανευόμενον ἐπετρόπευεν Ἀντίγονος ἕτερος ἐκ τοῦ βασιλείου γένους, ᾧ Φοῦσκος ἐπώνυμον ἦν. Δίκαιον δὲ τὸν Φοῦσκον εἰς τὴν ἐπιτροπὴν ὁρῶντες οἱ Μακεδόνες ἐστήσαντο βασιλεύειν, καὶ τὴν Χρυσηΐδα αὐτῷ ἥρμοσαν. Ὁ δὲ παίδων γενομένων ἐκ τῆς Χρυσηΐδος, οὐκ ἀνεθρέψατο, τὴν ἀρχὴν τῷ Φιλίππῳ περισώζων (παρασ. Scal.), ᾧ δὴ καὶ παρέδωκεν ἀποθνήσκων, ἐπιτροπεύσας μὲν ἐπ’ ἔτη ιβ΄, ζήσας δὲ πάντα ἔτη μβ΄. Ἦν δὲ τοῦ Δημητρίου υἱὸς, ὃν οἱ Μακεδόνες Καλὸν ἐπωνόμαζον. [Ὁ δὲ Φίλιππος] χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπιτρόπου ἀπὸ τῆς ρμ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος ἄρχειν ἤρξατο· καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ἔτεσιν ὅλοις δύο καὶ μ΄· τελευτᾷ δὲ δευτέρῳ ἔτει τῆς ρνθ΄ (l. ρν΄) Ὀλυμπιάδος, νη΄ τὰ ὅλα βιοὺς ἔτη.

[ 814 ]

[11] Περσεὺς δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ Φιλίππου Δημήτριον τὸν ἀδελφὸν ταῖς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ διαβολαῖς ἀποκτείνας βασιλεύει ἔτεσι δέκα καὶ μησὶν ὀκτώ. Ἐπὶ γὰρ τῆς ρνβ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος τοῦ τετάρτου ἔτους Λεύκιος Αἰμίλιος πρὸς (στρατηγὸς s. ὕπατος) τοὺς Μακεδόνας περὶ τὴν Πύδναν εἷλε κατὰ κράτος. Περσεὺς δὲ εἰς τὴν Σαμοθρᾴκην ἔφυγεν. Εἶτα ἑκουσίως παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν δέσμιον τοῖς πολεμίοις, κἀκεῖθεν εἰς Ἄλβην μετατεθεὶς καὶ τηρούμενος μετὰ πέντε ἔτη ἐτελεύτα. [12] Τὰ δὴ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐπὶ τούτου κατελύθη. Καὶ αὐτοὺς Ῥωμαῖοι τότε μὲν αὐτονόμους ἀφῆκαν, αἰδούμενοι δόξαν ἀγαθὴν καὶ μέγεθος ἀρχῆς τῆς Μακεδόνων. [13] Ἔτει δὲ ἐννεακαιδεκάτῳ, ἐπὶ τῆς ρνζ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος, εἰς ἔτος τρίτον, Ἀνδρίσκος τις υἱὸν ἑαυτὸν ψευσάμενος εἶναι Περσέως, καὶ Φίλιππον ἑαυτὸν μετονομάσας, καθ’ (καὶ cod. παρ’ Scal.) ὃ καὶ Ψευδοφίλιππος ἐκαλεῖτο, κρατεῖ Μακεδονίας, Θρᾷκας λαβὼν συμμάχους. Ἐνιαυτὸν δὲ κρατήσας, ἐκ παρατάξεως μὲν [ἡττηθεὶς] φεύγει εἰς τοὺς Θρᾷκας, ἔκδοτος δὲ παρ’ ἐκείνων δοθεὶς ἀναπέμπεται δέσμιος εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην. [14] Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ Μακεδόνας ἀχαρίστους γενομένους, διὰ τὸ συλλαβέσθαι τῷ Ψευδοφιλίππῳ, ὑποφόρους ἐποίησαν, ἔτει τετάρτῳ τῆς ρνζ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος. Γίνονται οὖν μετ’ Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν μέγαν ἀπὸ τῆς ριδ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος ἔτους δευτέρου, ἄχρι τῆς ρνζ΄ τετάρτου ἔτους, ἐν ᾧ κατεδουλώθησαν Μακεδόνες, τὰ πάντα ἔτη ροδ΄, ἔτους τῆς Μακεδονικῆς βασιλείας ροδ΄. [15] α΄ Ἀριδαῖος ὁ καὶ Φίλιππος ἔτη ζ΄. β΄ Κάσσανδρος ἔτη ιθ΄. γ΄ Κασσάνδρου παῖδες ἔτη γ΄, μῆνας Ϛ΄. δ΄ Δημήτριος ὁ Πολιορκητὴς ἔτη Ϛ΄. ε΄ Πύρρος μῆνας Ϛ΄ (l. ζ΄). Ϛ΄ Λυσίμαχος ἔτη ε΄, μῆνας ε΄ (supra Ϛ΄). ζ΄ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Κεραυνὸς ἔτος α΄, μῆνας ε΄. η΄ Μελέαγρος (ἔτος α΄, quod dele), μῆνας β΄. θ΄ Ἀντίπατρος Λυσιμάχου (supra Φιλίππου) ἔτος α΄ (l. ὁ Ἐτησίας), ἡμέρας με΄. ι΄ Σωσθένης ἔτη β΄. ια΄ Ἀναρχίας ἔτος α΄ μῆνες β΄. (aliter latin.) ιβ΄ Ἀντίγονος ὁ Γονατᾶς ἔτη λδ΄. ιγ΄ Δημήτριος ὁ Καλὸς ἔτη ι΄. ιδ΄ Ἀντίγονος ὁ Φοῦσκος ἔτη ιβ΄. ιε΄ Φίλιππος ἔτη μβ΄. ιϚ΄ Περσεὺς ἔτη ι΄, μῆνας η΄. ιζ΄ Αὐτονομίας ἔτη ιθ΄. ιη΄ Ψευδοφίλιππος ἔτος α΄. [6] Scaliger Exc. Eus. p. 61. Cramer. An. Par. II, p. 125: Ἀσίας καὶ Συρίας βασιλεῖς οἱ μετὰ τὸν μέγαν Ἀλέξανδρον. [ 815 ]

[1] Φιλίππου τοῦ [καὶ] Ἀριδαίου ἕκτον ἔτος κατάγοντος (ἄγοντος Scal.) τῆς βασιλείας ἐπὶ τῆς ἑκατοστῆς πεντεκαιδεκάτης Ὀλυμπιάδος ἔτει τρίτῳ Ἀντίγονος ὁ πρῶτος ἐβασίλευσε τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ ἦρξε μὲν ἔτεσιν ὀκτωκαίδεκα, τὰ πάντα βιώσας ἓξ καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα. Φοβερώτατος δὲ τῶν τότε βασιλέων γέγονε· καὶ θνήσκει περὶ τὴν Φρυγίαν, πάντων αὐτῷ διὰ φόβον τῶν δυναστῶν ἐπιθεμένων, τετάρτῳ ἔτει τῆς ἑκατοστῆς ἐννεακαιδεκάτης Ὀλυμπιάδος. [2] Ὁ δὲ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Δημήτριος φυγὰς εἰς τὴν Ἔφεσον διεσώθη· καὶ τῆς Ἀσίας ἁπάσης ἀποσφαλεὶς, πάντων δεινότατος βασιλεὺς ἔδοξεν εἶναι ἐν τῇ πολιορκίᾳ· ἀφ’ οὗ δὴ καὶ Πολιορκητὴς ἐπεκλήθη. Βασιλεύει δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἔτη ιζ΄. (Excidit folium.) [Syncell. p. 273, D: Δημήτριον τὸν Πολιορκητὴν ὁ Σέλευκος λαβὼν ἐν Κιλικίᾳ βασιλικῶς τηρεῖσθαι προσέταξεν, ἕως θανάτου ὑπὸ χεῖρα τὴν τῆς Ἀσίας ἀρχὴν κτησάμενος.] [4] [Syncell. p. 266, C: Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου πρῶτος τῆς Αἰγύπτου μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον βασιλεύσας ἔτη μ΄, ἐλθὼν εἰς Παλαίγαζαν συνάπτει μάχην Δημητρίῳ τῷ Ἀντιγόνου, καὶ νικήσας ἀναδείκνυσι Σέλευκον βασιλέα Συρίας καὶ τῶν ἄνω τόπων. Σέλευκος δ’ ἀναβὰς μέχρι Βαβυλωνίας καὶ κρατήσας τῶν βαρβάρων βασιλεύει ἔτη λβ΄· διὸ καὶ Νικάνωρ ἐπεκλήθη.] [15] [Syncell. p. 290, D: Οὗτος ὁ Δημήτριος ὑπὸ Σελεύκου τοῦ πατρὸς δοθεὶς ὅμηρος εἰς Ῥώμην, φυγὼν εἰς Τρίπολιν Φοινίκης ἐν ἡμέραις παρεγένετο, καὶ ἐπελθὼν Λυσίαν τε ἐπίτροπον Ἀντιόχου τοῦ παιδὸς ἀναιρεῖ καὶ αὐτὸν Ἀντίοχον, παραδόξως ἐν ταῖς ὅλαις (ἐν ὀλίγαις) ἡμέραις τοσαύτην κατακτησάμενος ἀρχήν. Κατὰ τούτου Πτολεμαῖός τε συμμαχεῖ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ διὰ μισθοφόρων ξένων καὶ Ἄτταλος ὁ Περγάμου βασιλεὺς ὁ καὶ κατάγων αὐτόν· πρὸς ὃν ἀντιταττόμενος ὁ Δημήτριος τελευτᾷ ιβ΄ ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, καὶ κρατεῖ τῆς Συρίας Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ ὑποτεταγμένος ἔτη ε΄, καὶ ἀναιρεῖται πολεμῶν τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν κατάγοντι τὸν Δημήτριον ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν Συρίας· συμπίπτει δὲ καὶ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολὺν χρόνον θνήσκει.] [17] [Cf. Syncell. p. 292, C: Τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου τούτου τοῦ προρηθέντος υἱοῦ Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Ἐπιφάνους πεσόντος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Πτολεμαῖον μάχῃ μερίζεται ἡ τῆς Συρίας ἀρχὴ εἴς τε Δημήτριον τὸν τοῦ Δημητρίου υἱὸν ὁρμώμενον ἐκ τῆς Σελευκίας καὶ εἰς τὸν υἱὸν Ἀλεξάνδρου ὁρμώμενον ἐκ Συρίας καὶ Ἀντιοχείας Ἀντίοχον. Ἀλλὰ τοῦτον ὁ Δημητρίου Δημήτριος τάχιστα νικήσας χειροῦται τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔτη γ΄· ὅθεν καὶ Νικάνωρ ἐκλήθη. Στρατεύσας δὲ ἐπ’ Ἀρσάκην εἰς Βαβυλῶνα αἰχμάλωτος γίνεται ὑπὸ Ἀρσάκου καὶ εἰς τὴν Παρθικὴν ἀναχθεὶς ἐφρουρεῖτο σιδηρωθείς· ὅθεν καὶ Σιδηρίτης ἐλέγετο ὕστερον.] [18] (Cod. fol. 193) κῆσαι αἰχμάλωτον βασιλικῶς ἐφύλαττεν. [19] Ἦν Ἀντιόχῳ καὶ τοῦ Σελεύκου τούτου νεώτερος υἱὸς ὁ Ἀντίοχος ὁ ἐν Κυζίκῳ παρὰ Κρατερῷ τῷ εὐνούχῳ τρεφόμενος διὰ δέος τοῦ Δημητρίου, ὃς διὰ τούτου Κυζικηνὸς ἐπεκλήθη. [20] Ὁ τοίνυν Δημήτριος ἀπολυθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀρσάκου, ὡς εἴρηται, καὶ κατελθὼν, βασιλεύει. Πτολεμαῖος δὲ ἀγανακτήσας, ὅτι τῷ Πηλουσίῳ προσέβαλεν ὁ Δημήτριος, ἅτε τῶν κατ’ Αἴγυπτον πραγμάτων ἐχόμενος, πέμπει βασιλέα τῆς Ἀσίας Ἀλέξανδρον, ὡς υἱὸν Ἀλεξάνδρου, ὃς διὰ τὸ ὡς ἀγοραστὸς εἶναι νενομίσθαι τοῦ Πτολεμαίου, Ζαβινᾶς ἐπεκλήθη πρὸς [ 816 ]

τῶν Σύρων. Συμβολῆς δὲ περὶ Δαμασκὸν γενομένης, ἡττηθεὶς ὁ Δημήτριος φεύγει εἰς Τύρον, κἀκεῖ κωλυόμενος εἰσελθεῖν, πλοίῳ ἐπιβὰς κατεκόπη, βασιλεύσας πρὸ μὲν τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἔτη τρία, μετὰ δὲ τὴν κάθοδον ἔτη δ΄. [21] Διαδέχεται δὲ τὸν Δημήτριον Σέλευκος ὁ υἱὸς, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ διαβολῆς τῆς μητρὸς ἀποθνήσκει. Ἀντίοχος δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ νεώτερος παραλαμβάνει τὰ πράγματα τῆς εἰκοστῆς ἑξηκοστῆς τετάρτης Ὀλυμπιάδος ἔτει δευτέρῳ, καὶ τρίτῳ ἔτει νικᾷ τὸν Ζαβινᾶν. Ὁ δὲ τὴν ἧτταν μὴ ἐνέγκας φαρμάκῳ ἑαυτὸν διεχρήσατο. Βασιλεύει δὲ ἔτη ια΄, ἄχρι τοῦ τετάρτου ἔτους τῆς ἑκατοστῆς ἑξηκοστῆς ἕκτης Ὀλυμπιάδος. Συναριθμεῖται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ Σελεύκου ἐνιαυτὸς τῆς ἀρχῆς εἰς τοῦτον. Ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ Γρυπὸς καὶ Φιλομήτωρ. Κατιόντι δὲ τῷ ὁμομητρίῳ ἀδελφῷ Ἀντιόχῳ (ἀγιτράχω cod.) καὶ ἀνεψιῷ τὰ ἐκ πατρὸς, τῷ ἐπικληθέντι Κυζικηνῷ, περὶ οὗ πρὸ ὀλίγου εἰρήκαμεν, ἐκχωρεῖ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀπελθὼν εἰς τὴν Ἄσπενδον, ὅθεν καὶ Ἀσπένδιος ἐκλήθη ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ Γρυπὸς καὶ Φιλομήτωρ ἐπικαλούμενος. [22] Τοῦ τοίνυν Ἀντιόχου εἰς τὴν Ἄσπενδον ἐκχωρήσαντος, ἄρχει ἀπὸ τῆς ρξζ΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος ἔτους τοῦ πρώτου ὁ Κυζικηνὸς Ἀντίοχος. Τῷ δὲ δευτέρῳ ἔτει τῆς αὐτῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος κάτεισι πάλιν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀσπένδου ὁ Ἀντίοχος· καὶ κρατεῖ μὲν αὐτὸς τῆς Συρίας, ὁ δὲ Κυζικηνὸς τῆς Κοίλης. Διαιρεθείσης δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὁ μὲν Γρυπὸς παρατείνει ἄχρι τῆς ἑκατοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος τοῦ τετάρτου ἔτους, ἔτη μετὰ τὴν κάθοδον ἐπιζήσας δεκαπέντε, ὡς ἄρξαι τὰ πάντα εἴκοσι ἓξ, ἕνδεκα μὲν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν, πεντεκαίδεκα δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς διῃρημένης. [23] Ὁ δὲ Κυζικηνὸς κρατήσας ἀπὸ τῆς ρξζ΄ ἔτους πρώτου τελευτᾷ ἔτει πρώτῳ τῆς ροα΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος, βασιλεύσας μὲν ἔτη ιη΄, βιοὺς δὲ τὰ πάντα ἔτη ν΄. Τελευτᾷ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. Ἀποθανόντος γὰρ τοῦ Γρυποῦ Ἀντιόχου κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον χρόνον, Σέλευκος ὁ τούτου παῖς ἐπελθὼν μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλὰς πόλεις προσηγάγετο. Ἀντίοχος δὲ ὁ Κυζικηνὸς προσαγαγὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἀντιοχείας τὴν δύναμιν, καὶ παραταξάμενος, ἐνικήθη· ἐξενεχθεὶς δ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἵππου αὑτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους, καὶ μέλλων συλλαμβάνεσθαι, ἑαυτὸν ἀπέσφαξε. Τῆς δὲ βασιλείας ὁ Σέλευκος ἐγκρατὴς γενόμενος παρέλαβε τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν. [24] Πρὸς δὲ τοῦτον ἐπολέμει τοῦ Κυζικηνοῦ υἱὸς γενόμενος Ἀντίοχος. Γενομένης δὲ μάχης ἐν τῇ Κιλικίᾳ περὶ πόλιν τὴν ὀνομαζομένην Μοψουεστίαν, ἐνίκησεν ὁ Ἀντίοχος. Σέλευκος δὲ φυγὼν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, καὶ πυθόμενος τοὺς ἐγχωρίους, ὅτι διεγνώκασιν αὐτὸν ζῶντα κατακαῦσαι, φθάσας ἑαυτὸν ἀπέσφαξεν. [25] Οἱ δὲ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ κληθέντες Δίδυμοι, Ἀντίοχός τε καὶ Φίλιππος, ἐπιφανέντες μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ τὴν πόλιν βίᾳ χειρωσάμενοι μετῆλθον τὴν ἀπώλειαν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, κατασκάψαντες τὴν πόλιν. Ἐπελθὼν δὲ ὁ τοῦ Κυζικηνοῦ υἱὸς μάχῃ αὐτοὺς νικᾷ. Καὶ τούτων Ἀντίοχος μὲν ὁ τοῦ Σελεύκου ἀδελφὸς ἀπὸ τῆς μάχης ἐλαύνων τὸν ἵππον καὶ καταφυγὼν εἰς τὸν Ὀρόντην, ὑπὸ τοῦ ῥείθρου κατεφθάρη. [26] Λοιπῶν δὲ ὄντων τῶν ἀμφισβητούντων περὶ τῆς βασιλείας Φιλίππου, τοῦ Σελεύκου μὲν ἀδελφοῦ, υἱοῦ δὲ τοῦ Γρυποῦ Ἀντιόχου, Ἀντιόχου δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς τοῦ Κυζικηνοῦ, ἀπὸ τρίτου ἔτους τῆς ροα΄ Ὀλυμπιάδος ἀρξάμενοι καὶ δυνάμεις ἀξιολόγους ἔχοντες καὶ μέρους τῆς Συρίας [ 817 ]

ἐπικρατοῦντες, διεπολέμουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ τῆς Συρίας. Καὶ ἡττηθεὶς ὁ Ἀντίοχος εἰς Πάρθους ἀπέφυγε, καὶ ὕστερον Πομπηίῳ ἑαυτὸν ἐνεχείρισεν, ὡς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καταχθησόμενος εἰς τὴν Συρίαν. Ὁ δὲ λαβὼν παρὰ τῶν Ἀντιοχέων χρήματα, τοῦ μὲν οὐκ ἐφρόντισεν, αὐτόνομον δὲ τὴν πόλιν εἴασε. Πεμψάντων δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν (Scal., αὐτοὺς cod.) Μενέλαον καὶ Λάμπωνα καὶ Καλλίμανδρον Ἀλεξανδρέων, ὅπως, Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Διονύσου τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐκστάντος, αὐτὸς ἐλθὼν τῆς Αἰγύπτου βασιλεύσῃ μετὰ τῶν θυγατέρων τοῦ Πτολεμαίου, νόσῳ συσχεθεὶς ἐτελεύτησε. [27] Καταλύεται δὲ καὶ Φίλιππος ὁ τοῦ Γρυποῦ καὶ Τρυφαίνης τῆς Πτολεμαίου τοῦ ὀγδόου υἱὸς ὁ προειρημένος· καὶ κατιέναι θέλοντα αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν Αἴγυπτον (μετεπέμψαντο γὰρ καὶ τοῦτον τότε οἱ Ἀλεξανδρεῖς ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν) Γαβίνιος ὁ τῆς Συρίας ἄρχων Ῥωμαῖος, ἔπαρχος ὢν τοῦ Πομπηίου, ἐπέσχε. Καὶ οὕτως ἡ βασιλικὴ διαδοχὴ ἡ κατὰ Συρίαν ἄχρι τούτων φθάσασα κατελύθη. [28] Εἰσὶν οὖν ἐφεξῆς Ἀσίας καὶ τῆς Συρίας βασιλεῖς οἵδε· α΄. Ἀντίγονος ἐβασίλευσε τῆς Ἀσίας ἔτη ιη΄. β΄. Δημήτριος ὁ Πολιορκητὴς τῶν τε ἄνω τόπων καὶ Συρίας ἔτη ιζ΄. γ΄. Σέλευκος ὁ Νικάτωρ ἔτη λβ΄. δ΄. Ἀντίοχος ὁ Σωτὴρ ἔτη ιθ΄. ε΄. Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς ἔτη ιε΄. Ϛ΄. Σέλευκος ὁ Καλλίνικος ἔτη κα΄. ζ΄. Σέλευκος ὁ Κεραυνὸς ἔτη γ΄. η΄. Ἀντίοχος ὁ Μέγας ἔτη λϚ΄. θ΄. Σέλευκος ὁ Φιλοπάτωρ ἔτη ιβ΄. ι΄. Ἀντίοχος ὁ Ἐπιφανὴς ἔτη ια΄. ια΄. Ἀντίοχος ὁ Εὐπάτωρ ἔτος α΄, μῆνας Ϛ΄. ιβ΄. Ἀντίοχος ὁ Σωτὴρ ἔτη ιβ΄. ιγ΄. Ἀλέξανδρος ἔτη ιε΄ (leg. ε΄). ιδ΄. Δημήτριος Δημητρίου ἔτη γ΄. ιε΄. Ἀντίοχος ὁ Σιδήτης ἔτη θ΄. ιϚ΄. Δημήτριος αὖθις ἔτη δ΄. ιζ΄. Ἀντίοχος ὁ Γρυπὸς ἔτη κϚ΄. ιη΄. Ἀντίοχος ὁ Κυζικηνὸς ἔτη ιη΄. ιθ΄. Φίλιππος ὁ τοῦ Γρυποῦ ἔτη β΄ [leg. ιβ΄], ἐφ’ οὗ ἡ κατὰ Συρίαν ἀρχὴ κατελύθη. Συνάγεται οὖν ὁ τῆς βασιλείας τῆς ὑπὸ Μακεδόνων χρόνος ἀπὸ μὲν τοῦ Ἀντιγόνου εἰς ἔτη σοδ΄, ἀπὸ δὲ Σελεύκου τοῦ Νικάτορος ἔτη σλθ΄. [7] Scaligeri Exc. Euseb. p. 59. Cramer. Anecd. Paris. II, p. 120: [1] [ 818 ]

Οἱ μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν Μακεδόνα Αἰγύπτου καὶ Ἀλεξανδρείας βασιλεύσαντες. Ἀπὸ τῆς Πορφυρίου γραφῆς. Τελευτᾷ μὲν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μακεδὼν ἐπὶ τῆς ἑκατοστῆς τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτης Ὀλυμπιάδος, ἄρξας ἔτη τὰ σύμπαντα δώδεκα. Διαδέχεται δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν Ἀριδαῖος ὁ μετονομασθεὶς Φίλιππος, ἀδελφὸς ὢν Ἀλεξάνδρου οὐχ ὁμομήτριος· γέγονε γὰρ ἐκ Φιλίννης τῆς Λαρισσαίας τῷ Φιλίππῳ. Βασιλεύει δὲ ἐπὶ ἔτεσιν ζ΄, καὶ ἀναιρεῖται ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ διὰ Πολυσπέρχοντος τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου υἱοῦ. Πτολεμαῖος δὲ ὁ Ἀρσινόης καὶ Λάγου υἱὸς μετ’ ἐνιαυτὸν [καὶ διὰ] τῆς εἰς Φίλιππον ἀναγεγραμμένης ἡγεμονίας σατράπης εἰς Αἴγυπτον πέμπεται. Καὶ σατραπεύει μὲν τὰ πρῶτα ἔτη ζ΄ καὶ δέκα, βασιλεύει δὲ ἔτη τρία καὶ εἴκοσιν, ὥστε τὰ πάντα μ΄ λογίζεσθαι αὐτῷ ἄχρι τῆς τελευτῆς. Ἐπεὶ δὲ ζῶν ἔτι τῆς ἀρχῆς παρεχώρησε τῷ υἱῷ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ ἐπικληθέντι Φιλαδέλφῳ, δύο ἔτη ἐπέζησε τῷ παιδὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν διαδεξαμένῳ· οὐκέτι δὴ τεσσαράκοντα, τριάκοντα δὲ καὶ ὀκτὼ τὰ τοῦ πρώτου Πτολεμαίου, ὃν Σωτῆρα ἐπεκάλουν, λογίζονται. Τοῦτον διαδέχεται Πτολεμαῖος ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς, ὡς ἔφαμεν, Φιλάδελφος. Καὶ ζῶντος μὲν ἔτι τοῦ πατρὸς, δύο πληροῖ τῆς βασιλείας ἔτη, ἀποθανόντος δὲ, [ἓξ] (vox deest in cod.; ὀκτὼ dedit Scal.) καὶ τριάκοντα. Ὡς καὶ τούτῳ ὀκτὼ καὶ τριάκοντα τοὺς τῆς βασιλείας ἐνιαυτοὺς ἴσους τοῖς τοῦ πατρὸς ἀποδίδοσθαι. Τοῦτον διαδέχεται τρίτος Πτολεμαῖος ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Εὐεργέτης, καὶ βασιλεύει ἔτη πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι. Ὃν ὁ τέταρτος διαδέχεται Πτολεμαῖος ὁ κληθεὶς Φιλοπάτωρ, καὶ βασιλεύει ἔτεσιν ὅλοις ἑπτακαίδεκα. Ὁ δὲ μετ’ αὐτὸν πέμπτος Πτολεμαῖος, Ἐπιφανὴς μὲν ἐπεκλήθη, βασιλεύει δὲ τέσσαρσι καὶ εἴκοσι ἔτεσιν. [2] Τούτου παῖδες δύο Πτολεμαῖοι μετ’ αὐτὸν τὴν ἀρχὴν διαδεξάμενοι, ὅ τε πρεσβύτερος ὁ κατ’ ἐπίκλησιν Φιλομήτωρ, καὶ ὁ νεώτερος ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Εὐεργέτης δεύτερος. Ἀμφοῖν δὲ ἔτη τέσσαρα καὶ ἑξήκοντα λογίζονται. Ὑφ’ ἓν γὰρ τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν ἐτάξαμεν, ὅτι διαστασιαζόντων πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ ἐναλλὰξ βασιλευόντων, σύγχυσις περὶ τοὺς χρόνους γέγονεν. Ἄρχει μὲν γὰρ ὁ Φιλομήτωρ πρότερος ἔτεσιν ἕνδεκα μόνος. Ἀντιόχου δ’ ἐπιστρατεύσαντος Αἰγύπτῳ, καὶ περιελόντος αὐτοῦ τὸ διάδημα, οἱ Ἀλεξανδρεῖς τῷ νεωτέρῳ ἐπέτρεψαν τὰ πράγματα, καὶ διώξαντες Ἀντίοχον ἐρρύσαντο τὸν Φιλομήτορα, καὶ ἐχρημάτισεν αὐτοῖς [ἔτος] Φιλομήτορος [μὲν] ιβ΄ (ιϚ΄ Scal.), Εὐεργέτου δὲ α΄. Ὁμονοοῦσι δὲ ἄχρι τοῦ ἑπτακαιδεκάτου. Ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου μόνου χρηματίζει τοῦ Φιλομήτορος. Ἀφαιρεθέντα γὰρ τῆς ἀρχῆς τὸν πρεσβύτερον ὑπὸ τοῦ νεωτέρου κατάγουσι Ῥωμαῖοι. Καὶ ἄρχει μὲν αὐτὸς τῆς Αἰγύπτου, τῷ δὲ ἀδελφῷ τῆς Λιβύης τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐγχειρίζει, καὶ μόνος ἄρχει δεκαοκτώ. Ἀποθανόντος δὲ ἐν Συρίᾳ (καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐκείνων ἐγκρατὴς ἦν τῶν τόπων) μετακληθεὶς ἐκ Κυρήνης ὁ Εὐεργέτης, καὶ βασιλεὺς ἀναγορευθεὶς, τὰ ἔτη αὑτοῦ ἀναγράφει ἀφ’ οὗ πρῶτον βασιλεὺς ἐνομίσθη, ὡς δοκεῖν μετὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τελευτὴν ἄρξαντα αὐτὸν ἔτεσιν [ 819 ]

εἴκοσι πέντε ἀνατιθέναι ἑαυτῷ τέσσαρα καὶ πεντήκοντα. Τὸ γὰρ τριακοστὸν ἕκτον τοῦ Φιλομήτορος, δέον προσαγορεύεσθαι τῆς τούτου βασιλείας πρῶτον, αὐτὸς εἰκοστὸν πέμπτον προσέταξε γράφεσθαι. Καὶ οὕτως ἀμφοτέρων μὲν ἑξήκοντα τέσσαρα, τοῦ μὲν Φιλομήτορος λε΄, τὰ δ’ ὑπολειπόμενα τοῦ Εὐεργέτου. Ἡ δ’ ὑποδιαίρεσις ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος ποιεῖ πλάνην. [3] Πτολεμαίου δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου Εὐεργέτου ἐκ Κλεοπάτρας γίνονται υἱοὶ δύο Πτολεμαῖοι καλούμενοι. Ὧν ὁ μὲν πρεσβύτερος Σωτὴρ ἐπεκαλεῖτο, ὁ δὲ νεώτερος Ἀλέξανδρος. Βασιλεύει δὲ πρότερος ὁ πρεσβύτερος ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς ἀναδειχθείς. Δοκῶν δὲ αὐτῇ εἶναι πειθήνιος, ἄχρι μέν τινος ἠγαπᾶτο. Ἐπεὶ δὲ κατὰ τὸ δέκατον ἔτος τῆς ἀρχῆς τοὺς φίλους τῶν γονέων ἀπέσφαξεν, ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς διὰ τὴν ὠμότητα τῆς ἀρχῆς καθῃρέθη, καὶ εἰς Κύπρον ἐφυγαδεύθη. Τὸν δὲ νεώτερον ἡ μήτηρ ἐκ Πηλουσίου μεταπεμψαμένη βασιλέα ἀπέδειξε σὺν ἑαυτῇ. Συνεβασίλευεν οὖν ὁ νεώτερος τῇ μητρὶ, τῶν χρηματισμῶν ἀναφερομένων εἰς ἀμφοτέρους. Καὶ ἑνδέκατον μὲν Κλεοπάτρας ἀνηγορεύθη, ὄγδοον δὲ Πτολεμαίου Ἀλεξάνδρου. Συνανέλαβε γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ τετάρτου ἔτους τῆς τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ βασιλείας εἰς ἑαυτὸν τοὺς χρόνους ἀφ’ οὗ τῆς Κύπρου ἐβασίλευσε. Καὶ τοῦτο ζώσης τῆς Κλεοπάτρας τὸ ἔθος (ἔτος cod.) περιῆν· εἰς μόνον δὲ ἤρξατο μετατίθεσθαι τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον μετὰ τὸν ἐκείνης θάνατον τὰ συμβόλαια. Ὀκτωκαίδεκα τοὺς πάντας ἀντιλαβόμενος τῶν σκήπτρων ἐνιαυτοὺς, ἀφ’ οὗ κατῆλθεν εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν, ἓξ καὶ εἴκοσι βεβασιλευκὼς ἐχρημάτισε· τῷ δὲ ἐννεακαιδεκάτῳ τοῖς στρατεύμασιν ὀργισθεὶς ἐξῆλθε συλλέξων ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς δύναμιν εἰς Αἴγυπτον. Οἱ δ’ ἐπιδιώξαντες, ἡγουμένου Πύρρου (Τύρρου Scal.) συγγενοῦς τῶν βασιλέων, κατεναυμάχησαν αὐτὸν, καὶ φεύγειν ἠνάγκασαν μετὰ γυναικὸς καὶ θυγατρὸς τῆς Λυκίας εἰς πόλιν Μύραν· ὅθεν εἰς Κύπρον μεταπηδήσας, καὶ καταπολεμηθεὶς ὑπὸ ναυάρχου Χαιρέου, θνήσκει. [4] Μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτου φυγὴν, πρὸς τὸν πρεσβύτερον Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Σωτῆρα οἱ Ἀλεξανδρεῖς πρεσβευσάμενοι παραδιδόασι πάλιν τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτῷ ἐκ Κύπρου καταπλεύσαντι. Διαγενομένων δὲ ἄλλων ἐτῶν ἑπτὰ πρὸς μησὶν ἓξ (τοσαῦτα γὰρ ἐπέζησε μετὰ τὴν κάθοδον), ὁ πᾶς χρόνος ὁ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀμφοτέρων θάνατον εἰς τοῦτον ἀναφέρεται, τὸν μὲν ἀριθμὸν σώζων λε΄ ἐνιαυτῶν πρὸς μησὶν ἓξ, διῳκηκὼς δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν εἰς μὲν τὸν Σωτῆρα Πτολεμαῖον κατὰ διαφόρους χρόνους δεκαεπτὰ ἔτη καὶ μῆνας ἓξ, εἰς δὲ τὸν δεύτερον, τὸν καὶ Ἀλέξανδρον, τοὺς μέσους, ὧν ἦρξεν ὁ πρεσβύτερος, ἐνιαυτοὺς δεκαοκτὼ, οὓς καίτοι μὴ δυνηθέντες ἐκ τῆς ἀναγραφῆς ἀφανίσαι, τὸ ὅσον ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῖς ἀπαλείφουσι. Προσέκρουσε γὰρ αὐτοῖς διά τινας Ἰουδαϊκὰς ἐπικουρίας. Οὐ γὰρ ἀριθμοῦσι τούτους τοὺς χρόνους, τοὺς δὲ πάντας τὰ ἓξ καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη τῷ πρεσβυτέρῳ προσνέμουσι. Πάλιν τοὺς ἓξ μῆνας τοὺς μετὰ τὸν θάνατον τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου, οἳ συνεπεπλήρουν τὰ τριάκοντα ἓξ ἔτη, μὴ ἀποδόντες Κλεοπάτρᾳ τῇ θυγατρὶ μὲν τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου, γυναικὶ δὲ τοῦ νεωτέρου, ἥτις μετὰ τὸν θάνατον τοῦ πατρὸς ἀντελάβετο τῶν πραγμάτων· οὐδὲ γὰρ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ μετ’ αὐτῆς ἡμέρας ἄρξαντι ιθ΄, τὰς ιθ΄ ἡμέρας ἀποδιδόασιν. Οὗτος δὲ υἱὸς μὲν ἦν τοῦ νεωτέρου Πτολεμαίου τοῦ καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου, προγονὸς δὲ Κλεοπάτρας· καταμένων δὲ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, τῆς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ δυναστείας ἀνδρῶν ἐρήμου γενομένης, μετάκλητος ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν, καὶ γήμας τὴν [ 820 ]

προειρημένην Κλεοπάτραν, παραλαβών τε παρ’ ἀκούσης τὴν ἐξουσίαν, ἐννεακαίδεκα διαγενομένων ἡμερῶν ἀνεῖλεν αὐτὴν, καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐνόπλων ἐν τῷ γυμνασίῳ διὰ τὴν μιαιφονίαν συνεχόμενος ἀπώλετο. [6] Τοῦτον τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον διαδέχεται Πτολεμαῖος ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς νέος Διόνυσος, υἱὸς μὲν ὢν Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἀδελφὸς δὲ τῆς εἰρημένης Κλεοπάτρας, οὗ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἔτη κθ΄ λογίζονται. Τούτου θυγάτηρ Κλεοπάτρα, ὑστάτη τῆς Λαγιδῶν γενεᾶς, ἧς ἔτη ἀριθμεῖται τῆς ἀρχῆς δύο καὶ εἴκοσι. Οὐδ’ αὐταὶ αἵδε αἱ βασιλεῖαι τὸν εἱρμὸν τῶν χρόνων ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τέλους κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς ἀναγραφόμενον ἔσχον, ἀλλ’ ἐγένετό τις αὐτῶν ἐν ἑκατέρῳ διὰ μέσου παρένθεσις εἰς ἄλλους. Ἐπὶ (τε) γὰρ τοῦ νέου Διονύσου εἰς τὰς αὐτοῦ θυγατέρας, Κλεοπάτραν τὴν καὶ Τρύφαιναν καὶ Βερενίκην, τριετὴς ὡς [εἰς] βεβασιλευκυίας ἀνεγράφη χρόνος, εἰς μὲν ἀμφοτέρας ἐνιαυτὸς εἷς, ἡ δ’ ἑξῆς μετὰ τὸν Κλεοπάτρας τῆς καὶ Τρυφαίνης θάνατον διετία εἰς μόνην Βερενίκην, ἕνεκα τοῦ τὸν μὲν Πτολεμαῖον εἰς Ῥώμην ἀπηρκέναι, καὶ τοῦτον ἐκεῖ διατετριφέναι τὸν χρόνον, τὰς δὲ θυγατέρας, ὡς οὐκέτ’ ἐπανήξοντος τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀντειλῆφθαι τῶν πραγμάτων, συνεπισπωμένης ἑαυτῇ κατὰ [τούτους] χρόνους τῆς Βερενίκης ἄνδρας τινὰς συγγενεῖς τοὺς συνάρξαντας, μέχρι ὅτου παραγενόμενος ὁ Πτολεμαῖος ἀπὸ Ῥώμης τῆς μὲν πρὸς τὴν θυγατέρα διαθέσεως ἐπελάθετο, στυγήσας δ’ αὐτὴν διὰ τὰ πραχθέντα τοῦ ζῆν ἐστέρησεν. [7] Ἐπεί γε (l. ἐπὶ δὲ) τῆς Κλεοπάτρας τὰ πρῶτα τῆς δυναστείας ἔτη εἰς ἐκείνην τε καὶ τὸν πρεσβύτερον αὐτῆς ἀδελφὸν ἀνενέχθη Πτολεμαῖον, τὰ δ’ ἑξῆς εἰς ἑτέρας (l. ἑτέρους), διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν. Τελευτῶν ὁ νέος Διόνυσος ἐπὶ παισὶ τέτρασι, Πτολεμαίοις δυσὶ καὶ Κλεοπάτρᾳ καὶ Ἀρσινόῃ, διέταξε τοῖς προγενεστέροις αὐτοῦ παισὶ Πτολεμαίῳ καὶ Κλεοπάτρᾳ τὴν ἀρχήν. Ὧν συμβασιλευόντων τετραετὴς διεγένετο χρόνος. Καὶ τοῦτο διέμεινεν ἂν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς τὸ ἔθος, εἰ μὴ Πτολεμαῖον παραβάντα τὰς τοῦ πατρὸς ἐντολὰς καὶ μόνον τῆς ἡγεμονίας ἀντιποιεῖσθαι βουλόμενον ἡ μοῖρα τοῦ ζῆν μετέστησεν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καταναυμαχηθέντα ὑπὸ Ἰουλίου Καίσαρος Κλεοπάτρᾳ συλλαμβανομένου. [8] Μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀπώλειαν Πτολεμαίου, ὁ νεώτερος ἀδελφὸς Κλεοπάτρας συνεθρονίσθη τῇ ἀδελφῇ Πτολεμαῖος καλούμενος, γνώμῃ Καίσαρος, καὶ ἐχρημάτισε τὸ πέμπτον ἔτος Κλεοπάτρας τὸ καὶ πρῶτον Πτολεμαίου, καὶ τὰ τούτοις ἑπόμενα, μέχρι τῆς ἀναιρέσεως αὐτοῦ, ἄλλα δύο. [9] Τελευτήσαντος δὲ καὶ τούτου ταῖς Κλεοπάτρας ἀπάταις τῷ τετάρτῳ μὲν αὐτοῦ, τῆς δὲ Κλεοπάτρας ὀγδόῳ, ὁ μεταγενέστερος εἰς μόνην Κλεοπάτραν ἀνεγράφη χρόνος, ἕως ἐτῶν πεντεκαίδεκα. Τὸ δ’ ἑκκαιδέκατον ὠνομάσθη τὸ καὶ πρῶτον, ἐπειδὴ τελευτήσαντος Λυσιμάχου (Λυσανίου mgo Scal.) τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ Χαλκίδος βασιλέως, Μάρκος Ἀντώνιος ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ τήν τε Χαλκίδα καὶ τοὺς περὶ αὐτὴν τόπους παρέδωκε τῇ Κλεοπάτρᾳ· καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦδε καὶ τὰ τούτων ὕστερα (ἕτερα Sc.) ἔτη μέχρι τοῦ εἰκοστοῦ δευτέρου, ὃ καὶ τελευταῖον ἐγένετο Κλεοπάτρας, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον προστιθεμένου τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, ἐγράφετο, ὡς γενέσθαι τὸ δεύτερον καὶ εἰκοστὸν αὐτῆς τὸ καὶ (τὸ κ΄ Sc.) ἕβδομον.

[ 821 ]

[10] Ἀπὸ δὲ Κλεοπάτρας Ὀκτάουιος Καῖσαρ ὁ καὶ Αὔγουστος τὴν ἀρχὴν διαδέχεται κρατήσας Αἰγύπτου τῇ ἐπ’ Ἀκτίῳ μάχῃ, κατὰ τὴν ἑκατοστὴν ὀγδοηκοστὴν τετάρτην (deb. ρπζ΄) Ὀλυμπιάδα, ἐν ἔτει δευτέρῳ. Ἀπὸ τῆς ἑκατοστῆς ἑνδεκάτης (deb. ριδ΄) Ὀλυμπιάδος ἔτους πρώτου, ἀφ’ οὗ Ἀριδαῖος ὁ καὶ Φίλιππος διεδέξατο τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἐπὶ τὴν ἑκατοστὴν ὀγδοηκοστὴν τετάρτην Ὀλυμπιάδα, καὶ ταύτης ἔτος δεύτερον, Ὀλυμπιάδες γίνονται ἑβδομήκοντα τρεῖς καὶ ἐνιαυτός. Τούτων ἔτη σγ΄. Τοσαῦτα δὲ καὶ ἀριθμεῖται τὰ ἔτη τῶν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ βασιλευσάντων ἐπὶ τῆς Κλεοπάτρας τελευτῆς. [11] Οἱ Πτολεμαίων χρόνοι τῶν μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον βασιλευσάντων Αἰγύπτου. Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μακεδὼν κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος τῆς ἑκατοστῆς ἑνδεκάτης Ὀλυμπιάδος βασιλεύει, κτίζει τε Ἀλεξάνδρειαν τὴν πρὸς Αἰγύπτῳ. Ὁ δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτοῦ χρόνος ἔτη ιβ΄, μῆνες ζ΄. Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου ἔτη μ΄. Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Φιλάδελφος ἔτη λη΄. Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Εὐεργέτης ἔτη κδ΄ (deb. κε΄, ut supra.) Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Φιλοπάτωρ ἔτη κα΄ (deb. ιζ΄ ut supra). Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Ἐπιφανὴς ἔτη κδ΄. Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Φιλομήτωρ ἔτη λα΄ (deb. λε΄, ut supr.) Πτολεμαῖος ὁ νεώτερος Εὐεργέτης ἔτη κθ΄. Πτολεμαῖος (ὁ Φύσκων), ὁ καὶ Σωτὴρ, ἔτη ιϚ΄ (l. ιζ΄), μῆνας Ϛ΄ (deb. ἔτη ι΄). Πτολεμαῖος ὁ καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος, ἐξωσθέντος [ὑπὸ τῆς] μητρὸς τοῦ πατρὸς (deb. ἀδελφοῦ) αὐτοῦ, ἔτη . Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Φιλάδελφος κατελθὼν ἀπὸ τῆς φυγῆς, ἐξωσθέντος τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου, ἔτη η΄. Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Διόνυσος ἔτη λ΄. Πτολεμαίου θυγάτηρ Κλεοπάτρα ἔτη κβ΄. Κατὰ ταύτην Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Καῖσαρ πρῶτος ἐμονάρχησε Ῥωμαίων. Μεθ’ ὃν Καῖσαρ Σεβαστὸς Ὀκτάουιος, ὁ καὶ Αὔγουστος, Κλεοπάτραν ἑλὼν καθεῖλε τὴν τῶν Πτολεμαίων ἀρχὴν, οἳ ἐβασίλευσαν ἔτη σγ΄. Ταῦτα καὶ τὰ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις.

[ 822 ]

On Statues Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων “ΦΘ Έ Γ ΞΟ Μ Α Ι Ο Ἷ ς Θ Έ Μ Ι ς ἐστί, θύρας δ’ ἐπίθεσθε, βέβηλοι” σοφίας θεολόγου νοήματα δεικνύς, οἷς τὸν θεὸν καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς δυνάμεις διὰ εἰκόνων συμφύλων αἰσθήσει ἐμήνυσαν ἄνδρες τὰ ἀφανῆ φανεροῖς ἀποτυπώσαντες πλάσμασι, τοῖς καθάπερ ἐκ βίβλων τῶν ἀγαλμάτων ἀναλέγειν τὰ περὶ θεῶν μεμαθηκόσι γράμματα. Θαυμαστὸν δὲ οὐδὲν ξύλα καὶ λίθους ἡγεῖσθαι τὰ ξόανα τοὺς ἀμαθεστάτους, καθὰ δὴ καὶ τῶν γραμμάτων οἱ ἀνόητοι λίθους μὲν ὁρῶσι τὰς στήλας, ξίλα δὲ τὰς δέλτους, ἐξυφασμένην δὲ πάπυρον τὰς βίβλους. [2] Φωτοειδοῦς δὲ ὄντος τοῦ θείου καὶ ἐν πυρὸς αἰθερίου περιχύσει διάγοντος, ἀφανοῦς τε τυγχάνοντος αἰσθήσει περὶ θνητὸν βίον ἀσχόλῳ, διὰ μὲν τῆς διαυγοῦς ὕλης, οἷον κρυστάλλου ἢ Παρίου λίθου ἢ καὶ ἐλέφαντος, εἰς τὴν τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτοῦ ἔννοιαν ἐνῆγον· διὰ δὲ τῆς τοῦ χρυσοῦ, εἰς τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς διανόησιν καὶ τὸ ἀμίαντον αὐτοῦ, ὅτι χρυσὸς οὐ μιαίνεται. Πολλοὶ δὲ αὖ καὶ μέλανι λίθῳ τὸ ἀφανὲς αὐτοῦ τῆς οὐσίας ἐδήλωσαν. Καὶ ἀνθρωποειδεῖς μὲν ἀπετύπουν τοὺς θεούς, ὅτι λογικὸν τὸ θεῖον, καλοὺς δέ, ὅτι κάλλος ἐν ἐκείνοις ἀκήρατον· διαφόροις δὲ σχήμασι καὶ ἡλικίαις, καθέδραις τε καὶ στάσεσι καὶ ἀμφιάσεσι, καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἄρρενας, τὰς δὲ θηλείας, καὶ παρθένους καὶ ἐφήβους ἢ γάμου πεῖραν εἰληφότας, εἰς παράστασιν αὐτῶν τῆς διαφορᾶς. Ὅθεν πᾶν τὸ λευκὸν τοῖς οὐρανίοις θεοῖς ἀπένειμαν· σφαῖράν τε καὶ τὰ σφαιρικὰ πάντα, ἰδίως τε κόσμῳ καὶ ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ, ἔσθ’ ὅπου δὲ καὶ τύχῃ καὶ ἐλπίδι· κύκλον δὲ καὶ τὰ κυκλικὰ αἰῶνι καὶ τῇ κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν κινήσει, ταῖς τε ἐν αὐτῷ ζώναις καὶ τοῖς κύκλοις· κύκλων δὲ τμήματα τοῖς σχηματισμοῖς τῆς σελήνης· πυραμίδας δὲ καὶ ὀβελίσκους τῇ πυρὸς οὐσίᾳ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῖς Ὀλυμπίοις θεοῖς· ὥσπερ αὖ κῶνον μὲν ἡλίῳ, γῇ δὲ κύλινδρον, σπορᾷ δὲ καὶ γενέσει φάλητα καὶ τὸ τρίγωνον σχῆμα διὰ τὸ μόριον τῆς θηλείας. [3] Ὅρα δὲ τὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφίαν οὑτωσὶ διασκοπούμενος. Τὸν γὰρ Δία τὸν νοῦν τοῦ κόσμου ὑπολαμβάνοντες, ὃς τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδημιούργησεν ἔχων τὸν κόσμον, ἐν μὲν ταῖς θεολογίαις ταύτῃ περὶ αὐτοῦ παραδεδώκασιν οἱ τὰ Ὀρφέως εἰπόντες· Ζεὺς πρῶτος γένετο, Ζεὺς ὕστατος ἀργικέραυνος, Ζεὺς κεφαλή, Ζεὺς μέσσα, Διὸς δ’ ἐκ πάντα τέτυκται. Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη. Ζεὺς πυθμὴν γαίης τε καὶ οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος, Ζεὺς βασιλεὺς, Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἁπάντων ἀρχιγένεθλος. Ἓν κράτος, εἷς δαίμων γένετο, μέγας ἀρχὸς ἁπάντων, ἓν δὲ δέμας βασίλειον, ἐν ᾧ τάδε πάντα κυκλεῖται, πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γαῖα καὶ αἰθήρ, νύξ τε καὶ ἦμαρ, καὶ Μῆτις πρῶτος γενέτωρ καὶ Ἔρως πολυτερπής· πάντα γὰρ ἐν Ζηνὸς μεγάλῳ τάδε σώματι κεῖται.

[ 823 ]

Τοῦ δή τοι κεφαλὴ μὲν ἰδεῖν καὶ καλὰ πρόσωπα οὐρανὸς αἰγλήεις, ὃν χρύσεαι ἀμφὶς ἔθειραι ἄστρων μαρμαρέων περικαλλέες ἠερέθονται, ταύρεα δ’ ἀμφοτέρωθε δύο χρύσεια κέρατα, ἀντολίη τε δύσις τε, θεῶν ὁδοὶ οὐρανιώνων, ὄμματα δ’ ἠέλιός τε καὶ ἀντιόωσα σελήνη. Νοῦς δέ ‹οἱ› ἀψευδής, βασιλήϊος, ἄφθιτος αἰθήρ, ᾧ δὴ πάντα κλύει καὶ φράζεται· οὐδέ τίς ἐστιν αὐδή, οὐδ’ ἐνοπή, οὐδὲ κτύπος, οὐδὲ μὲν ὄσσα ἣ λήθει Διὸς οὖας ὑπερμενέος Κρονίωνος. Ὧδε μὲν ἀθανάτην κεφαλὴν ἔχει ἠδὲ νόημα. Σῶμα δέ οἱ περιφεγγές, ἀπείριτον, ἀστυφέλικτον, ἄτρομον, ὀβριμόγυιον, ὑπερμενὲς ὧδε τέτυκται· ὦμοι μὲν καὶ στέρνα καὶ εὐρέα νῶτα θεοῖο ἀὴρ εὐρυβίης· πτέρυγες δέ οἱ ἐξεφύοντο τῇς ἐπὶ πάντα ποτᾶθ’· ἱερὴ δέ οἱ ἔπλετο νηδύς γαῖά τε παμμήτωρ ὀρέων τ’ αἰπεινὰ κάρηνα· μέσση δὲ ζώνη βαρυηχέος οἶδμα θαλάσσης καὶ πόντου· πυμάτη δὲ βάσις χθονὸς ἔνδοθε ῥίζαι τάρταρα τ’ εὐρώεντα καὶ ἔσχατα πείρατα γαίης. Πάντα δ’ ἀποκρύψας αὖθις φάος ἐς πολυγηθές μέλλεν ἀπὸ κραδίης προφέρειν πάλι, θέσκελα ῥέζων. Ζεὺς οὖν ὁ πᾶς κόσμος, ζῷον ἐκ ζῴων, καὶ θεὸς ἐκ θεῶν· Ζεὺς δὲ καθὸ νοῦς ἀφ’ οὗ προφέρει πάντα καὶ δημιουργεῖ τοῖς νοήμασι. Τῶν δὴ θεολόγων τὰ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦτον ἐξηγησαμένων τὸν τρόπον, εἰκόνα μὲν τοιαύτην δημιουργεῖν οἵαν ὁ λόγος ἐμήνυσεν, οὔθ’ οἷόν τε ἦν, οὔτ’ εἴ τις ἐπενόησε, τὸ ζωτικὸν καὶ νοερὸν καὶ προνοητικὸν διὰ τῆς σφαίρας ἐδείκνυεν. Ἀνθρωπόμορφον δὲ τοῦ Διὸς τὸ δείκηλον πεποιήκασιν, ὅτι νοῦς ἦν καθ’ ὃν ἐδημιούργει, καὶ λόγοις σπερματικοῖς ἀπετέλει τὰ πάντα. Κάθηται δέ, τὸ ἑδραῖον τῆς δυνάμεως αἰνιττόμενος· γυμνὰ δὲ ἔχει τὰ ἄνω, ὅτι φανὸς ἐν τοῖς νοεροῖς καὶ τοῖς οὐρανίοις τοῦ κόσμου μέρεσίν ἐστι· σκέπεται δὲ αὐτῷ τὰ πρόσθια, ὅτι ἀφανὴς τοῖς κάτω κεκρυμμένοις. Ἔχει δὲ τῇ μὲν λαιᾷ τὸ σκῆπτρον, καθ’ ὃ μάλιστα τῶν τοῦ σώματος μερῶν τὸ ἡγεμονικώτατόν τε καὶ νοερώτατον ὑποικουρεῖ σπλάγχνον, ἡ καρδία· βασιλεὺς γὰρ τοῦ κόσμου ὁ δημιουργικὸς νοῦς· προτείνει δὲ τῇ δεξιᾷ ἢ ἀετόν, ὅτι κρατεῖ τῶν ἀεροπόρων θεῶν ὡς τῶν μεταρσίων ὀρνέων ὁ ἀετός, ἢ νίκην, ὅτι νενίκηκεν αὐτὸς πάντα. [4] Τὴν δὲ Ἥραν σύνοικον τῷ Διὶ πεποιήκασιν, τὴν αἰθέριον καὶ ἀέριον δύναμιν Ἥραν προσειπόντες. Ἔστι γὰρ ὁ αἰθὴρ ἀὴρ ὁ λεπτομερέστατος. [5] Καὶ τοῦ μὲν παντὸς ἀέρος ἡ δύναμις Ἥρα τοὔνομα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος κεκλημένη· τοῦ δὲ ὑπὸ σελήνην φωτιζομένου καὶ σκοτιζομένου ἀέρος ἡ Λητὼ σύμβολον· ληθὼ γὰρ αὐτὴν εἶναι διὰ τὴν κατὰ τὸν ὕπνον ἀναισθησίαν· καὶ ὅτι ψυχαῖς ὑπὸ σελήνην γενομέναις λήθη ξυνομαρτεῖ τοῦ θείου· διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ μήτηρ Ἀπόλλωνός τε καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος τῶν αἰτίων φωτισμοῦ τῇ νυκτί. [6] Καὶ τὸ μὲν ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς χθονίας δυνάμεως Ἑστία κέκληται, ἧς ἄγαλμα παρθενικὸν ἐφ’ ἑστίας πυρὸς ἱδρυμένον· καθὸ δὲ γόνιμος ἡ δύναμις, σημαίνουσιν αὐτὴν γυναικὸς εἴδει προμάστου. Τὴν δὲ Ῥέαν προσεῖπον τὴν τῆς πετρώδους καὶ ὀρείου γῆς δύναμιν, τὴν δὲ Δήμητραν τὴν τῆς πεδινῆς καὶ γονίμου. Ἡ Δημήτηρ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔχει τῇ Ῥέᾳ, διενήνοχε δὲ ὅτι αὐτὴ κυεῖ τὴν Κόρην ἐκ Διός, τουτέστι τὸν κόρον ἐκ τῶν φρυγανωδῶν σπερμάτων. Διὸ καὶ κατέστεπται τὸ βρέτας αὐτῆς τοῖς στάχυσι, μήκωνές τε περὶ αὐτὴν τῆς πολυγονίας σύμβολον. [ 824 ]

[7] Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰς γῆν βαλλομένων σπερμάτων ἦν τις δύναμις, ἣν ἥλιος περὶ τὸ κάτω ἡμισφαίριον ἰὼν ἕλκει κατὰ τὰς χειμερίους τροπάς, Κόρη μὲν ἡ δύναμις ἡ σπερματοῦχος, Πλούτων δὲ ὁ ὑπὸ γῆν ἰὼν ἥλιος καὶ τὸν ἀφανῆ περινοστῶν κόσμον κατὰ τὰς χειμερίους τροπάς. Ὃς ἁρπάζειν λέγεται τὴν Κόρην, ἣν ποθεῖ ἡ Δημήτηρ κρυπτομένην ὑπὸ γῆν. Τῶν δὲ ἀκροδρύων καὶ ὄλως τῶν φυτευτικῶν ἡ δύναμις Διόνυσος ὀνομάζεται. Ὅρα δὲ καὶ τούτων τὰς εἰκόνας. Σύμβολα γὰρ ἡ Κόρη φέρει τὰς προβολὰς τῶν κατὰ τοὺς καρποὺς ὑπὲρ τὴν γῆν ἐκφύσεων· ὁ δὲ Διόνυσος κοινὰ μὲν πρὸς τὴν Κόρην ἔχει τὰ κέρατα, ἔστι δὲ θηλύμορφος, μηνύων τὴν περὶ τὴν γένεσιν τῶν ἀκροδρύων ἀρρενόθηλυν δύναμιν. Πλούτων δὲ ὁ Κόρης ἅρπαξ κυνῆν μὲν ἔχει τοῦ ἀφανοῦς πόλου σύμβολον, τὸ δὲ σκῆπτρον τὸ κολοβὸν σημεῖον τῆς τῶν κάτω βασιλείας. Ὁ δὲ κύων αὐτοῦ δηλοῖ τὴν κύησιν τῶν καρπῶν εἰς τρία διῃρημένην, εἰς τὴν καταβολὴν καὶ τὴν ὑποδοχὴν καὶ τὴν ἀνάδοσιν· οὐ γὰρ παρὰ τὸ τὰς κῆρας ἔχειν βοράν, ὃ δηλοῖ τὰς ψυχάς, κέκληται κύων, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὸ κυεῖν, ᾗ χορηγὸς ὁ Πλούτων, ὅταν ἁρπάσῃ τὴν Κόρην. Ἄττις δὲ καὶ Ἄδωνις τῇ τῶν καρπῶν εἰσιν ἀναλογίᾳ προσήκοντες. Ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν Ἄττις τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἔαρ προφαινομένων ἀνθέων, καὶ πρὶν τελεσιογονῆσαι διαρρεόντων· ὅθεν καὶ τὴν τῶν αἰδοίων ἀποκοπὴν αὐτῷ προσανέθεσαν, μὴ φθασάντων ἐλθεῖν τῶν καρπῶν εἰς τὴν σπερματικὴν τελείωσιν· ὁ δὲ Ἄδωνις τῆς τῶν τελείων καρπῶν ἐκτομῆς σύμβολον. Ὁ δὲ Σειληνὸς σύμβολον τῆς πνευματικῆς κινήσεως, οὐκ ὀλίγα συμβαλλομένης τῷ παντί. Σύμβολα δέ ἐστι τὸ μὲν φάλανθον καὶ στιλπνὸν κατὰ τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆς οὐρανίου περιφορᾶς, ἡ δὲ περικειμένη κόμη τοῖς κάτω μέρεσιν αὐτοῦ, ὑπόδειγμα τῆς προσγείου περὶ τὸν ἀέρα παχύτητος. Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τῆς μαντικῆς δυνάμεώς τις μέτοχος ἦν δύναμις, Θέμις μὲν κέκληται ἡ δύναμις, τῷ τὰ τεθειμένα καὶ ἑκάστῳ κείμενα λέγειν. Διὰ δὴ πάντων τούτων ἡ περίγειος δύναμις ἐξηγήσεως τυχοῦσα, θρησκεύεται· ὡς μὲν παρθένος καὶ Ἑστία, ἡ κεντροφόρος· ὡς δὲ τοκάς, ἡ τροφός· ὡς δὲ Ῥέα, ἡ πετροποιὸς καὶ ὄρειος· ὡς δὲ Δημήτηρ, ἡ χλοηφόρος· ὡς δὲ Θέμις, ἡ χρησμῳδός· τοῦ εἰς αὐτὴν κατιόντος σπερματικοῦ λόγου εἰς τὸν Πρίαπον ἐκτετυπωμένου· οὗ τὸ μὲν περὶ τοὺς ξηροὺς καρποὺς Κόρη, τὸ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς ὑγροὺς καὶ τὰ ἀκρόδρυα Διόνυσος καλεῖται· τῆς μὲν Κόρης ὑπὸ Πλούτωνος τοῦ ὑπὸ γῆν ἰόντος ἡλίου ἁρπαζομένης κατὰ τὸν σπόρον, τοῦ δὲ Διονύσου κατὰ τὰ πάθη τῆς δυνάμεως ὑπὸ γῆν μὲν νεωτέρας καὶ καλλιγόνης βλαστάνειν ἀρχομένου, ἐπιμάχου δὲ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἄνθην δυνάμεως σύμβολον τὸν Ἄττιν ἐχούσης, τῆς δὲ κατὰ τὴν τελεσιουργίαν ἐκτομῆς, τὸν Ἄδωνιν· καὶ τῆς μὲν πνευματικῆς διὰ πάντων δυνάμεως εἰς Σειληνὸν ἀναπλαττομένης, τῆς δὲ εἰς ἔκστασιν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν παραγωγῆς εἰς Βάκχην· ὥσπερ αὖ τῆς εἰς τὰ ἀφροδίσια ἐρεθιζούσης ὁρμῆς διὰ τῶν Σατύρων. Διὰ δὴ τούτων τῶν συμβόλων ἡ περίγειος ἐκκαλύπτεται δύναμις. [8] Τὴν δὲ ὑδροποιὸν ὅλην δύναμιν Ὠκεανὸν προσεῖπον, τὸ σύμβολον αὐτῆς Τηθὺν ὀνομάσαντες. Τῆς δὲ ὅλης ἡ μὲν τῶν ποτίμων πεποιημένη, Ἀχελῷος αὐτοῖς κέκληται, ἡ δὲ τῶν [ 825 ]

θαλασσίων Ποσειδῶν, πάλιν τῆς θαλασσοποιοῦ, καθὸ γεννητική, Ἀμφιτρίτης οὔσης. Καὶ αἱ μὲν τῶν γλυκέων ὑδάτων μερικαὶ δυνάμεις Νύμφαι, αἱ δὲ τῶν θαλασσίων Νηρηΐδες κέκληνται. Τοῦ δ’ αὖ πυρὸς τὴν δύναμιν προσειπόντες Ἥφαιστον, ἀνθρωποειδὲς μὲν αὐτοῦ τὸ ἄγαλμα πεποιήκασι· πίλον δὲ περιέθεσαν κυάνεον τῆς οὐρανίου σύμβολον περιφορᾶς, ἔνθα τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ ἀρχοειδές τε καὶ ἀκραιφνέστατον· τὸ δὲ εἰς γῆν κατενεχθὲν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πῦρ ἀτονώτερον, δεόμενόν τε στηρίγματος καὶ βάσεως τῆς ἐφ’ ὕλης· διὸ χωλεύει, ὕλης δεόμενον εἰς ὑπέρεισμα. Καὶ ἡλίου δὲ τὴν τοιάνδε δύναμιν ὑπολαβόντες, Ἀπόλλωνα προσεῖπον ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀκτίνων αὐτοῦ πάλσεως. Ἐννέα δὲ ἐπᾴδουσαι αὐτῷ Μοῦσαι, ἥ τε ὑποσελήνιος σφαῖρα καὶ ἑπτὰ τῶν πλανητῶν καὶ μία τῆς ἀπλανοῦς. Περιέθεσαν δὲ αὐτῷ τὴν δάφνην· τοῦτο μὲν ὅτι πυρὸς πλῆρες τὸ φυτὸν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπεχθὲς δαίμοσι· τοῦτο δὲ ὅτι λάλον καιόμενον, εἰς παράστασιν τοῦ προφητεύειν τὸν θεόν. Καθὸ δὲ ἀπαλεξίκακός ἐστι τῶν ἐπιγείων ὁ ἥλιος, Ἡρακλέα αὐτὸν προσεῖπον ἐκ τοῦ κλᾶσθαι πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα, ἀπ’ ἀνατολῆς εἰς δύσιν ἰόντα. Δώδεκα δ’ ἄθλους ἐκμοχθεῖν ἐμυθολόγησαν, τῆς κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν διαιρέσεως τῶν ζῳδίων τὸ σύμβολον ἐπιφημίσαντες. Ῥόπαλον δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ λεοντῆν περιέθεσαν, τὸ μὲν τῆς ἀνωμαλίας μήνυμα, τὸ δὲ τῆς κατὰ τὸ ζῴδιον ἐμφανιστικὸν ἰσχύος. Τῆς δὲ σωστικῆς αὐτοῦ δυνάμεως Ἀσκληπιὸς τὸ σύμβολον· ᾧ τὸ μὲν βάκτρον δεδώκασι, τῆς τῶν καμνόντων ὑπερείσεως καὶ ἀναστάσεως, ὁ δὲ ὄφις περισπειρᾶται, τῆς περὶ τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν σωτηρίας φέρων σημεῖον, πνευματικώτατον γὰρ τὸ ζῷόν ἐστι καὶ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τοῦ σώματος ἀποδύεται· δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ ἰατρικώτατον εἶναι. Τῆς γὰρ ὀξυδορκίας εὗρε τὸ φάρμακον καὶ μυθεύεται τῆς ἀναβιώσεως εἰδέναι τινὰ βοτάνην. Τῆς δ’ αὖ χορευτικῆς τε καὶ ἐγκυκλίου κινήσεως, καθ’ ἣν τοὺς καρποὺς πεπαίνει, ἡ πυρὸς δύναμις Διόνυσος κέκληται, ἑτέρως ‹ἢ› ἡ τῶν ὑγροποιῶν καρπῶν δύναμις, ἢ παρὰ τὸ δινεῖν, ἢ διανύειν τὸν ἥλιον τὴν κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν περιφοράν. Ἧι δὲ περὶ τὰς ὥρας τοῦ κόσμου περιπολεῖ καὶ χρόνων ἐστὶ ποιητικὸς καὶ καιρῶν ὁ ἥλιος, Ὧρος κατὰ τοῦτο κέκληται. Τῆς δ’ αὖ γεωργικῆς αὐτοῦ δυνάμεως καθ’ ἣν αἱ δόσεις τοῦ πλούτου, σύμβολον ὁ Πλούτων. Ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ φθαρτικὴν ἔχει δύναμιν, διὸ τῷ Πλούτωνι συνοικίζουσι τὸν Σάραπιν· τοῦ μὲν δεδυκότος ὑπὸ γῆν φωτὸς τὸν πορφυροῦν χιτῶνα ποιούμενοι σύμβολον, τὸ δὲ ἠκρωτηριασμένον σκῆπτρον τῆς κάτω δυνάμεως, τό τε σχῆμα τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ μεταχωρεῖν εἰς τὸ ἀφανές. Ὁ δὲ Κέρβερος τρικέφαλος μέν, ὅτι τρεῖς αἱ ἄνω χῶραι ἡλίου, ἀνατολή, μεσημβρία, δύσις. Τὴν δὲ σελήνην παρὰ τὸ σέλας ὑπολαβόντες, Ἄρτεμιν προσηγόρευσαν, οἷον ἀερότεμιν. Λοχεία τε ἡ Ἄρτεμις, καίπερ οὖσα παρθένος, ὅτι ἡ τῆς νουμηνίας δύναμις προσθετικὴ εἰς τὸ τίκτειν. Ὅπερ δὲ Ἀπόλλων ἐν ἡλίῳ, τοῦτο Ἀθηνᾶ ἐν σελήνῃ· ἔστι γὰρ τῆς φρονήσεως σύμβολον, Ἀθρηνᾶ τις οὖσα. Ἑκάτη δὲ ἡ σελήνη πάλιν, τῆς περὶ αὐτὴν μετασχηματίσεως καὶ κατὰ τοὺς σχηματισμοὺς δυνάμεως. Διὸ τρίμορφος ἡ δύναμις, τῆς μὲν νουμηνίας φέρουσα τὴν λευχείμονα καὶ χρυσοσάνδαλον καὶ τὰς λαμπάδας ἡμμένας· ὁ δὲ κάλαθος, ὃν ἐπὶ τοῖς μετεώροις φέρει, τῆς τῶν καρπῶν κατεργασίας, οὓς ἀνατρέφει κατὰ τὴν τοῦ φωτὸς παραύξησιν· τῆς δ’ αὖ [ 826 ]

πανσελήνου ἡ χαλκοσάνδαλος σύμβολον. Ἢ καὶ ἐκ μὲν τοῦ κλάδου τῆς δάφνης λάβοι ἄν τις αὐτῆς τὸ ἔμπυρον· ἐκ δὲ τοῦ μήκωνος τὸ γόνιμον καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν εἰσοικιζομένων εἰς αὐτὴν ψυχῶν, ὥσπερ εἰς πόλιν, ὅτι πόλεως ὁ μήκων σύμβολον. Καὶ Εἰλείθυια δὲ ἡ αὐτή, τῆς γεννητικῆς δυνάμεως σύμβολον. Τόξα δὲ φέρει καθάπερ ἡ Ἄρτεμις, διὰ τὴν τῶν ὠδίνων ὀξύτητα. Πάλιν δ’ αὖ αἱ Μοῖραι ἐπὶ τὰς δυνάμεις αὐτῆς ἀναφέρονται, ἡ μὲν Κλωθὼ ἐπὶ τὴν γεννητικήν, Λάχεσις δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν θρεπτικήν, Ἄτροπος δὲ ἡ κατὰ τὸ ἀπαραίτητον τοῦ θεοῦ. Συνοικίζουσι δὲ αὐτῇ καὶ τὴν τῶν καρπῶν γεννητικὴν δύναμιν, ἥπερ ἐστὶ Δημήτηρ, δύναμιν ἐμποιοῦσαν αὐτῇ· καὶ ἔστι συνεκτικὴ τῆς Κόρης ἡ σελήνη. Προσοικίζουσι δὲ καὶ τὸν Διόνυσον διά τε τὴν τῶν κεράτων ἔκφυσιν καὶ διὰ τὸν τῶν νεφῶν τόπον τὸν ὑποκείμενον τοῖς κάτω μέρεσι. Τὴν δὲ τοῦ Κρόνου δύναμιν νωχελῆ καὶ βραδεῖαν καὶ ψυχρὰν κατεῖδον· διὸ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου δύναμιν αὐτῷ προσανέθεσαν, ἀποτυποῦσί τε αὐτὸν ἑστῶτα, πολιόν, πρὸς ἔμφασιν τοῦ γηράσκειν τὸν χρόνον. Τῶν δὲ καιρῶν σύμβολα οἱ Κούρητες, τὸν χρόνον βουκολοῦντες, ὅτι διὰ τῶν καιρῶν ὁ χρόνος παροδεύει. Τῶν δὲ Ὡρῶν αἱ μὲν ὀλυμπιάδες εἰσὶ τοῦ ἡλίου, αἳ καὶ ἀνοίγουσι τὰς κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα πύλας· αἱ δὲ ἐπιχθόνιοι, τῆς Δήμητρος· καὶ τὸν κάλαθον ἔχουσι τὸν μὲν τῶν ἀνθέων, σύμβολον τοῦ ἔαρος· τὸν δὲ τῶν σταχύων, τοῦ θέρους. Τοῦ δὲ Ἄρεος τὴν δύναμιν καταλαβόντες διάπυρον, πολέμων ποιητικὴν καὶ αἱματουργόν, βλάπτειν τε καὶ ὠφελεῖν δυναμένην ἐποίησαν. Τὸν δὲ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἀστέρα τηρήσαντες γενεσιουργόν, ἐπιθυμίας τε καὶ γονῆς αἴτιον, γυναῖκα μὲν ἀνέπλασαν διὰ τὴν γένεσιν, ὡραίαν δὲ ὅτι καὶ Ἕσπερος, ὃς κάλλιστος ἐν οὐρανῷ ἵσταται ἀστήρ. Καὶ Ἔρωτα μὲν παρέστησαν διὰ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν· σκέπειν δὲ μαστοὺς καὶ τὸ μόριον, ὅτι γονῆς αἰτία ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἐκθρέψεως· εἶναι δὲ ἀπὸ θαλάττης, στοιχείου διύγρου καὶ θερμοῦ καὶ πολλὰ κινουμένου καὶ διὰ τὴν συγκίνησιν ἀφριῶντος, τὸ σπερματικὸν αἰνιττόμενοι. Τοῦ δὲ λόγου τοῦ πάντων ποιητικοῦ τε καὶ ἑρμηνευτικοῦ ὁ Ἑρμῆς παραστατικός. Ὁ δὲ ἐντεταμένος Ἑρμῆς δηλοῖ τὴν εὐτονίαν· δείκνυσι δὲ καὶ τὸν σπερματικὸν λόγον τὸν διήκοντα διὰ πάντων. Λοιπὸν δὲ σύνθετος λόγος ὁ μὲν ἐν ἡλίῳ Ἑρμῆς, Ἑκάτη δὲ ὁ ἐν σελήνῃ, Ἑρμόπαν δὲ ὁ ἐν τῷ παντί. Κατὰ πάντων γὰρ ὁ ποιητικὸς καὶ σπερματικός. Σύνθετος δὲ καὶ οἷον μιξέλλην καὶ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις ὁ Ἑρμάνουβις. Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐρώσης ἦν δυνάμεως ὁ λόγος, ταύτης ὁ Ἔρως παραστατικός· διὸ παῖς μὲν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ ὁ Ἔρως, νήπιος δὲ διὰ τὰς αἰφνιδίους περὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἐμπτώσεις αὐτοῦ. Τοῦ δὲ παντὸς τὸν Πᾶνα σύμβολον ἔθεντο· τὰ μὲν κέρατα δόντες σύμβολα ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης· τὴν δὲ νεβρίδα τῶν κατ’ οὐρανὸν ἀστέρων, ἢ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ποικιλίας. [ 827 ]

[10] Τὸν δημιουργόν, ὃν Κνὴφ οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι προσαγορεύουσιν, ἀνθρωποειδῆ, τὴν δὲ χροιὰν ἐκ κυανοῦ μέλανος ἔχοντα, κρατοῦντα ζώνην καὶ σκῆπτρον, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς πτερὸν βασίλειον περικείμενον, ὅτι λόγος δυσεύρετος καὶ ἐγκεκρυμμένος καὶ οὐ φανός, καὶ ὅτι ζωοποιός, καὶ ὅτι βασιλεύς, καὶ ὅτι νοερῶς κινεῖται· διὸ ἡ τοῦ πτεροῦ φύσις ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ κεῖται. Τὸν δὲ θεὸν τοῦτον ἐκ τοῦ στόματος προΐεσθαί φασιν ὠόν, ἐξ οὗ γεννᾶσθαι θεὸν ὃν αὐτοὶ προσαγορεύουσι Φθᾶ, οἱ δὲ Ἕλληνες Ἥφαιστον· ἑρμηνεύουσιν δὲ τὸ ὠὸν τὸν κόσμον. Ἀφιέρωται δὲ τῷ θεῷ τούτῳ πρόβατον διὰ τὸ τοὺς παλαιοὺς γαλακτοποτεῖν. Αὐτοῦ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου τὸ δείκηλον τοιόνδε ἀνέπλασαν· ἀνθρωποειδές ἐστιν ἄγαλμα, τοὺς μὲν πόδας συμβεβηκότας ἔχον, ἄνωθεν δὲ μέχρι ποδῶν ποικίλον ἱμάτιον περιβεβλημένον· ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς σφαῖραν ἔχει χρυσῆν, διὰ τὸ μὴ μεταβαίνειν, καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν ἄστρων ποικίλην φύσιν, καὶ ὅτι σφαιροειδὴς ὁ κόσμος. Ἥλιον δὲ σημαίνουσι ποτὲ μὲν δι’ ἀνθρώπου ἐπιβεβηκότος πλοῖον, τοῦ πλοίου ἐπὶ κροκοδείλου κειμένου. Δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ μὲν πλοῖον τὴν ἐν ὑγρῷ κίνησιν· ὁ δὲ κροκόδειλος πότιμον ὕδωρ, ἐν ᾧ φέρεται ὁ ἥλιος. Ἐσημαίνετο τοίνυν ὁ ἥλιος δι’ ἀέρος ὑγροῦ καὶ γλυκέος τὴν περιπόλησιν ποιεῖσθαι. Τῆς δὲ οὐρανίας γῆς καὶ τῆς χθονίας τὴν δύναμιν Ἶσιν προσεῖπον διὰ τὴν ἰσότητα, ἀφ’ ἧς τὸ δίκαιον· οὐρανίαν δὲ τὴν σελήνην, χθονίαν δὲ τὴν καρποφόρον ἐν ᾗ κατοικοῦμεν, λέγουσι. Τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ δύναται Δημήτηρ παρ’ Ἕλλησι καὶ Ἶσις παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις· καὶ πάλιν Κόρη παρ’ Ἕλλησι καὶ Διόνυσος, καὶ Ἶσις καὶ Ὄσιρις παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις. Αὕτη δὲ τρέφουσα καὶ αἴρουσα τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς· ὁ δὲ Ὄσιρις παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις τὴν κάρπιμον παρίστησι δύναμιν, ἣν θρήνοις ἀπομειλίσσονται εἰς γῆν ἀφανιζομένην ἐν τῷ σπόρῳ, καὶ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν καταναλισκομένην εἰς τροφάς. Λαμβάνεται δὲ καὶ ἀντὶ τῆς ποταμίας τοῦ Νείλου δυνάμεως. Ἀλλ’ ὅταν μὲν τὴν χθονίαν γῆν σημαίνωσιν, Ὄσιρις ἡ κάρπιμος λαμβάνεται δύναμις· ὅταν δὲ τὴν οὐρανίαν, Ὄσιρίς ἐστιν ὁ Νεῖλος, ὃν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταφέρεσθαι οἴονται. Πενθοῦσι δὲ καὶ τοῦτον, ἀπομειλισσόμενοι τὴν δύναμιν λήγουσαν καὶ ἀναλισκομένην. Ἡ δὲ ἐν τοῖς μύθοις μισγομένη τῷ Ὀσίριδι Ἶσις ἡ Αἰγυπτία ἐστὶ γῆ· διόπερ ἰσοῦται καὶ κυεῖ καὶ ποιεῖ τοὺς καρπούς· διὸ ἀνὴρ τῆς Ἴσιδος Ὄσιρις καὶ ἀδελφὸς καὶ υἱὸς παραδέδοται. Κατὰ δὲ τὴν Ἐλεφαντίνην πόλιν τετίμηται ἄγαλμα, πεπλασμένον μέν, ἀλλ’ ἀνδρείκελον καὶ καθήμενον, κυανοῦν τε τὴν χρόαν, κεφαλὴν δὲ κριοῦ κεκτημένον καὶ βασίλειον, κέρατα τράγεια ἔχον, οἷς ἔπεστι κύκλος δισκοειδής. Κάθηται δὲ παρακειμένου κεραμέου ἀγγείου, ἐφ’ οὗ ἄνθρωπον ἀναπλάσσει. Δηλοῖ δὲ ἀπὸ μὲν τοῦ κριοῦ πρόσωπον ἔχειν καὶ αἰγὸς κέρατα τὴν ἐν κριῷ σύνοδον ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης· τὸ δὲ ἐκ κυάνου χρῶμα, ὅτι ὑδραγωγὸς ἐν συνόδῳ ἡ σελήνη. Τὸ δὲ δεύτερον φῶς τῆς σελήνης ἐν Ἀπόλλωνος πόλει καθιέρωται· ἔστι δὲ τούτου σύμβολον ἱερακοπρόσωπος ἄνθρωπος, ζιβύνῃ χειρούμενος Τυφῶνα ἱπποποτάμῳ εἰκασμένον. Λευκὸν δὲ τῇ χρόᾳ τὸ ἄγαλμα, τῆς μὲν λευκότητος τὸ φωτίζεσθαι τὴν σελήνην παραστησάσης, τοῦ δὲ ἱερακείου προσώπου τὸ ἀφ’ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι καὶ πνεῦμα λαμβάνειν· τὸν γὰρ ἱέρακα ἡλίῳ [ 828 ]

ἀφιεροῦσι, φωτὸς δὲ καὶ πνεύματος ἱέραξ αὐτοῖς σύμβολον διά τε τὴν ὀξυκινησίαν καὶ τὸ πρὸς ὕψος ἀνατρέχειν, ἔνθα τὸ φῶς. Ὁ δὲ ἱπποπόταμος τὸν δυτικὸν δηλοῖ πόλον παρὰ τὸ καταπίνειν εἰς ἑαυτὸν τοὺς περιπολοῦντας. Θεὸς δὲ τιμᾶται ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ ὁ Ὧρος. Ἡ δὲ τῆς Εἰλειθυίας πόλις τὸ τρίτον φῶς θεραπεύει. Τὸ δὲ ξόανον τετύπωται εἰς γῦπα πετομένην, ἧς τὸ πτέρωμα ἐκ σπουδαίων συνέστηκε λίθων. Σημαίνει δὲ τὸ μὲν γυποειδὲς αὐτῆς τὴν γεννητικὴν πνευμάτων σελήνην. Ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ πνεύματος οἴονται συλλαμβάνειν τὴν γῦπα, θηλείας πάσας ἀποφαινόμενοι. Ἐν δὲ τοῖς κατ’ Ἐλευσῖνα μυστηρίοις ὁ μὲν ἱεροφάντης εἰς εἰκόνα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἐνσκευάζεται, δᾳδοῦχος δὲ εἰς τὴν ἡλίου, καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ βωμῷ εἰς τὴν σελήνης, ὁ δὲ ἱεροκῆρυξ Ἑρμοῦ. Καὶ ἄνθρωπος δὲ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς παρείληπται. Ἄναβις γάρ ἐστι κώμη Αἰγύπτου, ἐν ᾗ θεραπεύεται ἄνθρωπος, καὶ θύεται τούτῳ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν βωμῶν τὰ ἱερεῖα κάεται· ὁ δὲ μετ’ ὀλίγον φάγοι ἂν τὰ ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ αὐτῷ παρεσκευασμένα. Ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ τὰ ζῷα θεοὺς ἡγοῦνται, εἰκόνας δὲ ἐποιοῦντο καὶ σύμβολα ταῦτα θεῶν, δηλοῖ τὸ πολλαχοῦ βοῦς ἀναχθέντας θεοῖς ἐν ταῖς ἱερομηνίαις καὶ ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς θρησκείαις βουθυτεῖν. Ἡλίῳ μὲν γὰρ καὶ σελήνῃ βοῦς ἀνιέρωσαν. Ἀλλ’ ὅ γε ἡλίῳ ἀνακείμενος ἐν Ἡλίου πόλει καλούμενος Μνεῦις βοῶν ἐστι μέγιστος, σφόδρα μέλας, μάλιστα ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ὁ πολὺς μελαίνει τὰ ἀνθρώπεια σώματα. Ἔχει δὲ τὴν οὐρὰν παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους βοῦς καὶ τὸ πᾶν σῶμα ἀνάτριχον, καθάπερ ὁ ἥλιος τὸν ἐναντίον τῷ πόλῳ ποιεῖται δρόμον· τούς τε ὄρχεις μεγίστους, ἐπειδήπερ ὁ περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια ἵμερος γίνεται ὑπὸ θερμότητος, ὅ τε ἥλιος σπερμαίνειν λέγεται τὴν φύσιν. Σελήνῃ δὲ ταῦρον ἀνέθεσαν, ὃν Ἆπιν ἐπονομάζουσι, μέλανα μὲν καὶ αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἄλλους, φέροντα δὲ σημεῖα ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης, ὅτι καὶ τῆς σελήνης τὸ φῶς ἐξ ἡλίου· ἡλίου δὲ σημεῖον τὸ μέλαν τοῦ σώματος καὶ ὁ ὑπὸ τῇ γλώττῃ κάνθαρος, σελήνης δὲ σύμβολον τό τε διχότομον καὶ ἀμφίκυρτον.

[ 829 ]

The Dual Texts

The Forum at Rome — in 262 Porphyry went to Rome, attracted by the reputation of Plotinus, and for six years devoted himself to the practice of Neoplatonism.

[ 830 ]

Dual Greek and English Texts In this section, readers can view a section by section text of Porphyry’s works, alternating between the original Greek and the English translations. CONTENTS Life of Plotinus Life of Pythagoras Aids to the Study of the Intelligibles On the Abstinence of Eating Animals BOOK ONE BOOK TWO BOOK THREE BOOK FOUR

[ 831 ]

Life of Plotinus 1 Πλωτῖνος ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς γεγονὼς φιλόσοφος ἐῴκει μὲν αἰσχυνομένῳ ὅτι ἐν σώματι εἴη. ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης διαθέσεως οὔτε περὶ τοῦ γένους αὐτοῦ διηγεῖσθαι ἠνείχετο οὔτε περὶ τῶν γονέων οὔτε περὶ τῆς πατρίδος. ζωγράφου δὲ ἀνασχέσθαι ἢ πλάστου τοσοῦτον ἀπηξίου, ὥστε καὶ λέγειν πρὸς Ἀμέλιον δεόμενον εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἐπιτρέψαι· οὐ γὰρ ἀρκεῖ φέρειν, ὃ ἡ φύσις εἴδωλον ἡμῖν περιτέθεικεν; ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰδώλου εἴδωλον συγχωρεῖν αὐτὸν ἀξιοῦν πολυχρονιώτερον καταλιπεῖν ὡς δή τι τῶν ἀξιοθεάτων ἔργων. ὅθεν ἀπαγορεύοντος καὶ καθεδεῖσθαι ἕνεκα τούτου ἀρνουμένου ἔχων φίλον ὁ Ἀμέλιος Καρτέριον τὸν ἄριστον τῶν τότε γεγονότων ζωγράφων εἰσιέναι καὶ ἀπαντᾶν εἰς τὰς συνουσίας ποιήσας· ἐξῆν γὰρ τῷ βουλομένῳ φοιτᾶν εἰς τὰς συνουσίας· τὰς ἐκ τοῦ ὁρᾶν φαντασίας πληκτικωτέρας λαμβάνειν διὰ τῆς ἐπὶ πλέον προσοχῆς συνείθισεν. ἔπειτα γράφοντος ἐκ τοῦ τῇ μνήμῃ ἐναποκειμένου ἰνδάλματος τὸ εἴκασμα καὶ συνδιορθοῦντος εἰς ὁμοιότητα τὸ ἴχνος τοῦ Ἀμελίου εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι ἡ εὐφυία τοῦ Καρτερίου παρέσχεν ἀγνοοῦντος τοῦ Πλωτίνου ὁμοιοτάτην. 1. Plotinus, the philosopher our contemporary, seemed ashamed of being in the body. So deeply-rooted was this feeling that he could never be induced to tell of his ancestry, his parentage or his birthplace. He showed, too, an unconquerable reluctance to sit to a painter or a sculptor, and when Amelius persisted in urging him to allow of a portrait being made he asked him, “Is it not enough to carry about this image in which nature has enclosed us? Do you really think I must also consent to leave, as a desirable spectacle to posterity, an image of the image?” In view of this determined refusal Amelius brought his friend Carterius, the best artist of the day, to the Conferences, which were open to every comer, and saw to it that by long observation of the philosopher he caught his most striking personal traits. From the impressions thus stored in mind the artist drew a first sketch; Amelius made various suggestions towards bringing out the resemblance, and in this way, without the knowledge of Plotinus, the genius of Carterius gave us a life-like portrait. 2 κοιλιακῇ δὲ νόσῳ πολλάκις καταπονούμενος οὔτε κλυστῆρος ἠνέσχετο, οὐκ εἶναι πρὸς τοῦ πρεσβύτου λέγων ὑπομένειν τὰς τοιαύτας θεραπείας, οὔτε τὰς θηριακὰς ἀντιδότους λαβεῖν ὑπέμεινε, μηδὲ τῶν ἡμέρων ζῴων τὰς ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τροφὰς προσίεσθαι λέγων. λουτροῦ δὲ ἀπεχόμενος καὶ τρίψεσι καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν χρώμενος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας, ἐπειδὴ τοῦ λοιμοῦ ἐπιβρίσαντος συνέβη τοὺς τρίβοντας αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν, ἀμελήσας τῆς τοιαύτης θεραπείας κατ’ ὀλίγον τὴν τοῦ κυνάγχου ἀγριότητα κατασκευαζομένην ἔσχε. κἀμοῦ μὲν παρόντος οὐδέν· πω [ 832 ]

τοιοῦτον ὑπεφαίνετο· ἀποπλεύσαντος δὲ εἰς τοσοῦτον ἠγριώθη τὸ πάθος, ὡς ἔλεγεν ἐπανελθόντι Εὐστόχιος ὁ ἑταῖρος ὁ καὶ παραμείνας αὐτῷ ἄχρι θανάτου, ὡς καὶ τῆς φωνῆς περιαιρεθῆναι τὸ τορὸν καὶ εὔηχον βραγχῶντος αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ὄψιν συγχυθῆναι καὶ τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας ἑλκωθῆναι· ὅθεν ἐκτρεπομένων αὐτοῦ τὰς συναντήσεις τῶν φίλων διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ στόματος πάντας προσαγορεύειν ἔθος ἔχειν, τῆς μὲν πόλεως ἀπαλλάττεται, εἰς δὲ τὴν Καμπανίαν ἐλθὼν εἰς Ζήθου χωρίον ἑτραίρου παλαιοῦ αὐτῷ γεγονότος καὶ τεθνηκότος κατάγεται. τὰ δ’ ἀναγκαῖα αὐτῷ ἔκ τε τῶν τοῦ Ζήθου ἐτελεῖτο καὶ ἐκ Μιντουρνῶν ἐκομίζετο ἐκ τῶν Καστρικίου· ἐν Μιντούρναις γὰρ ὁ Καστρίκιος τὰς κτήσεις εἶχε. μέλλων δὲ τελευτᾶν, ὡς ὁ Εὐστόχιος ἡμῖν διηγεῖτο, ἐπειδὴ ἐν Ποτιόλοις κατοικῶν ὁ Εὐστόχιος βραδέως πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀφίκετο, εἰπὼν ὅτι σὲ ἔτι περιμένω καὶ φήσας πειρᾶσθαι τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν θεῖον ἀνάγειν πρὸς τὸ ἐν τῷ παντὶ θεῖον, δράκοντος ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην διελθόντος ἐν ᾗ κατέκειτο καὶ εἰς ὀπὴν ἐν τῷ τοίχῳ ὑπάρχουσαν ὑποδεδυκότος ἀφῆκε τὸ πνεῦμα ἔτη γεγονώς, ὡς ὁ Εὐστόχιος ἔλεγεν, ἕξ τε καὶ ἑξήκοντα, τοῦ δευτέρου ἔτους τῆς Κλαυδίου βασιλείας πληρουμένου. τελευτῶντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἐγὼ μὲν ὁ Πορφύριος ἐτύγχανον ἐν Λιλυβαίῳ διατρίβων, Ἀμέλιος δὲ ἐν Ἀπαμείᾳ τῆς Συρίας, Καστρίκιος δὲ ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ· μόνος δὲ παρῆν ὁ Εὐστόχιος. ἀναψηφίζουσι δὲ ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ δευτέρου ἔτους τῆς Κλαυδίου βασιλείας πίπτει. οὔτε δὲ τὸν μῆνα δεδήλωκέ τινι καθ’ ὃν γεγέννηται, οὔτε τὴν γενέθλιον ἡμέραν, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ θύειν ἢ ἑστιᾶν τινα τοῖς αὐτοῦ γενέθλιον ἡμέραν, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ θύειν ἢ ἑστιᾶν τινα τοῖς αὐτοῦ γενεθλίοις ἠξίου, καίπερ ἐν τοῖς Πλάτωνος καὶ Σωκράτους παραδεδομένοις γενεθλίοις θύων τε καὶ ἑστιῶν τοὺς ἑταίρους, ὅτε καὶ λόγον ἔδει τῶν ἑταίρων τοὺς δυνατοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν συνελθόντων ἀναγνῶναι. 2. Plotinus was often distressed by an intestinal complaint, but declined clysters, pronouncing the use of such remedies unbecoming in an elderly man: in the same way he refused such medicaments as contain  any substance taken from wild beasts or reptiles: all the more, he remarked, since he could not approve of eating the flesh of animals reared for the table. He abstained from the use of the bath, contenting himself with a daily massage at home: when the terrible epidemic carried off his masseurs he renounced all such treatment: in a short while he contracted malign diphtheria. During the time I was about him there was no sign of any such malady, but after I sailed for Sicily the condition grew acute: his intimate, Eustochius, who was with him till his death, told me, on my return to Rome, that he became hoarse, so that his voice quite lost its clear sonorous note, his sight grew dim and ulcers formed on his hands and feet. As he still insisted on addressing everyone by word of mouth, his condition prompted his friends to withdraw from his society: he therefore left Rome for Campania, retiring to a property which had belonged to Zethos, an old friend of his at

[ 833 ]

this time dead. His wants were provided in part out of Zethos’ estate, and for the rest were furnished from Minturnæ, where Castricius’ property lay. Of Plotinus’ last moments Eustochius has given me an account. He himself was staying at Puteoli and was late in arriving: when he at last came, Plotinus said: “I have been a long time waiting for you; I am striving to give back the Divine in myself to the Divine in the All.” As he spoke a snake crept under the bed on which he lay and slipped away into a hole in the wall: at the same moment Plotinus died. This was at the end of the second year of the reign of Claudius, and, as Eustochius tells me, Plotinus was then sixty-six. I myself was at Lilybæum at the time, Amelius at Apamea in Syria, Castricius at Rome; only Eustochius was by his side. Counting sixty-six years back from the second year of Claudius, we can fix Plotinus’ birth at the thirteenth year of Severus; but he never disclosed the month or day. This was because he did not desire any birthday sacrifice or feast; yet he himself sacrificed on the traditional birthdays of Plato and of Socrates, afterwards giving a banquet at which  every member of the circle who was able was expected to deliver an address. 3 ἃ μέντοι ἡμῖν αὐτὸς ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ταῖς ὁμιλίαις πολλάκις διηγεῖτο, ἦν τοιαῦτα. προσφοιτᾶν μὲν γὰρ τῇ τροφῷ καίπερ εἰς γραμματοδιδασκάλου ἀπιόντα ἄχρις ὀγδόου ἔτους ἀπὸ γενέσεως ὄντα καὶ τοὺς μαζοὺς γυμνοῦντα θηλάζειν προθυμεῖσθαι· ἀκούσαντα δέ ποτε ὅτι ἀτηρόν ἐστι παιδίον, ἀποσχέσθαι αἰδεσθέντα. εἰκοστὸν δὲ καὶ ὄγδοον ἔτος αὐτὸν ἄγοντα ὁρμῆσαι ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν καὶ τοῖς τότε κατὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν εὐδοκιμοῦσι συσταθέντα κατιέναι ἐκ τῆς ἀκροάσεως αὐτῶν κατηφῆ καὶ λύπης πλήρη, ὡς καί τινι τῶν φίλων διηγεῖσθαι ἃ πάσχοι· τὸν δὲ συνέντα αὐτοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ βούλημα ἀπενέγκαι πρὸς Ἀμμώνιον, οὗ μηδέπω πεπείρατο. τὸν δὲ εἰσελθόντα καὶ ἀκούσαντα φάναι πρὸς τὸν ἑταῖρον· τοῦτον ἐζήτουν. καὶ ἀπ’ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας συνεχῶς τῷ Ἀμμωνίῳ παραμένοντα τοσαύτην ἕξιν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ κτήσασθαι, ὡς καὶ τῆς παρὰ τοῖς Πέρσαις ἐπιτηδευομένης πεῖραν λαβεῖν σπεῦσαι καὶ τῆς παρ’ Ἰνδοῖς κατορθουμένης. Γορδιανοῦ δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας παριέναι μέλλοντος δοὺς ἑαυτὸν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ συνεισῄει ἔτος ἤδη τριακοστὸν ἄγων καὶ ἔννατον. ἕνδεκα γὰρ ὅλων ἐτῶν παραμένων τῷ Ἀμμωνίῳ συνεσχόλασε. τοῦ δὲ Γορδιανοῦ περὶ τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν ἀναιρεθέντος μόλις φεύγων εἰς τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν διεσώθη. καὶ Φιλίππου τὴν βασιλείαν κρατήσαντος τεσσαράκοντα γεγονὼς ἔτη εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἄνεισιν. Ἐρεννίῳ δὲ καὶ Ὠριγένει καὶ Πλωτίνῳ συνθηκῶν γεγονυιῶν μηδὲν ἐκκαλύπτειν τῶν Ἀμμωνίου δογμάτων ἃ δὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀκροάσεσιν αὐτοῖς ἀνεκεκάθαρτο, ἔμενε καὶ ὁ Πλωτῖνος συνὼν μέν τισι τῶν προσιόντων, τηρῶν δὲ ἀνέκπυστα τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Ἀμμωνίου δόγματα. Ἐρεννίου δὲ πρώτου τὰς συνθήκας παραβάντος, Ὠριγένης μὲν ἠκολούθει τῷ φθάσαντι Ἐρεννίῳ. ἔγραψε δὲ οὐδὲν πλὴν τὸ «Περὶ τῶν δαιμόνων» σύγγραμμα καὶ ἐπὶ Γαλιήνου «Ὅτι μόνος ποιητὴς ὁ βασιλεύς». Πλωτῖνος δὲ ἄχρι μὲν πολλοῦ γράφων οὐδὲν διετέλεσεν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἀμμωνίου συνουσίας ποιούμενος τὰς διατριβάς· καὶ οὕτως [ 834 ]

ὅλων ἐτῶν δέκα διετέλεσε, συνὼν μέν τισι, γράφων δὲ οὐδέν. ἦν δὲ ἡ διατριβή, ὡς ἂν αὐτοῦ ζητεῖν προτρεπομένου τοὺς συνόντας, ἀταξίας πλήρης καὶ πολλῆς φλυαρίας, ὡς Ἀμέλιος ἡμῖν διηγεῖτο. προσῆλθε δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἀμέλιος τρίτον ἔτος ἄγοντι ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ κατὰ τὸ τρίτον ἔτος τῆς Φιλίππου βασιλείας καὶ ἄχρι τοῦ πρώτου ἔτους τῆς Κλαυδίου βασιλείας παραμείνας ἔτη ὅλα συγγέγονεν εἴκοσι καὶ τέσσαρα, ἕξιν μὲν ἔχων ὅτε προσῆλθεν ἀπὸ τῆς Λυσιμάχου συνουσίας, φιλοπονίᾳ δὲ ὑπερβαλλόμενος τῶν καθ’ αὑτὸν πάντων διὰ τὸ καὶ σχεδὸν πάντα τὰ Νουμηνίου καὶ γράψαι καὶ συναγαγεῖν καὶ σχεδὸν τὰ πλεῖστα ἐκμαθεῖν· σχόλια δὲ ἐκ τῶν συνουσιῶν ποιούμενος ἑκατόν που βιβλία συνέταξε τῶν σχολίων, ἃ Οὐστιλλιανῷ Ἡσυχίῳ τῷ Ἀπαμεῖ, ὃν υἱὸν ἔθετο, κεχάρισται. 3. Despite his general reluctance to talk of his own life, some few details he did often relate to us in the course of conversation. Thus he told how, at the age of eight, when he was already going to school, he still clung about his nurse and loved to bare her breasts and take suck: one day he was told he was a “perverted imp,” and so was shamed out of the trick. At twenty he was caught by the passion for philosophy: he was directed to the most highly reputed professors to be found at Alexandria; but he used to come from their lectures saddened and discouraged. A friend to whom he opened his heart divined his temperamental craving and suggested Ammonius, whom he had not yet tried. Plotinus went, heard a lecture, and exclaimed to his comrade: “This was the man I was looking for.” From that day he followed Ammonius continuously, and under his guidance made such progress in philosophy that he became eager to investigate the Persian methods and the system adopted among the Indians. It happened that the Emperor Gordian was at that time preparing his campaign against Persia; Plotinus joined the army and went on the expedition. He was then thirty-nine, for he had passed eleven entire years under Ammonius. When Gordian was killed in Mesopotamia, it was only with great difficulty that Plotinus came off safe to Antioch. At forty, in the reign of Philip, he settled in Rome. Erennius, Origen and Plotinus had made a compact not to disclose any of the doctrines which Ammonius had revealed to them. Plotinus kept faith, and in all his intercourse with his associates divulged nothing of Ammonius’ system. But the compact was broken, first by Erennius and then by Origen following suit: Origen, it is true, put in writing nothing but the treatise On the Spirit-Beings, and in Galienus’ reign that entitled The King the Sole Creator. Plotinus himself remained a  long time without writing, but he began to base his Conferences on what he had gathered from his studies under Ammonius. In this way, writing nothing but constantly conferring with a certain group of associates, he passed ten years. [ 835 ]

He used to encourage his hearers to put questions, a liberty which, as Amelius told me, led to a great deal of wandering and futile talk. Amelius had entered the circle in the third year of Philip’s reign, the third, too, of Plotinus’ residence in Rome, and remained about him until the first year of Claudius, twenty-four years in all. He had come to Plotinus after an efficient training under Lysimachus: in laborious diligence he surpassed all his associates; for example, he transcribed and arranged nearly all the works of Numenius, and was not far from having most of them off by heart. He also took notes of the Conferences and wrote them out in something like a hundred treatises which he has since presented to Hostilianus of Apamea, his adopted son. 4 τῷ δεκάτῳ δὲ ἔτει τῆς Γαλιήνου βασιλείας ἐγὼ Πορφύριος ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος μετὰ Ἀντωνίου τοῦ Ῥοδίου γεγονὼς καταλαμβάνω μὲν τὸν Ἀμέλιον ὀκτωκαιδέκατον ἔτος ἔχοντα τῆς πρὸς Πλωτῖνον συνουσίας, μηδὲν δέ πω γράφειν τολμήσαντα πλὴν τῶν σχολίων ἃ οὐδέπω εἰς ἑκατὸν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῷ συνῆκτο. ἦν δὲ ὁ Πλωτῖνος τῷ δεκάτῳ ἔτει τῆς Γαλιήνου βασιλείας ἀμφὶ τὰ πεντήκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐννέα. ἐγὼ δὲ Πορφύριος τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῷ συγγέγονα αὐτὸς ὢν τότε ἐτῶν τριάκοντα. ἀπὸ μέντοι τοῦ πρώτου ἔτους τῆς Γαλιήνου ἀρχῆς προτραπεὶς ὁ Πλωτῖνος γράφειν τὰς ἐμπιπτούσας ὑποθέσεις, τὸ δέκατον ἔτος τῆς Γαλιήνου ἀρχῆς, ὅτε τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῷ ἐγὼ ὁ Πορφύριος ἐγνωρίσθην, γράψας εὑρίσκεται ὀλίγοις. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν πω ῥᾳδία ἡ ἔκδοσις οὐδὲ εὐσυνειδήτως ἐγίγνετο οὐδ᾿ ἁπλῶς κἀκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου, ἀλλὰ μετὰ πάσης κρίσεως τῶν λαμβανόντων. ἦν δὲ καὶ τὰ γεγραμμένα ταῦτα ἃ διὰ τὸ μὴ αὐτὸν ἐπιγράφειν ἄλλος ἄλλο ἑκάστῳ τοὐπίγραμμα ἐτίθει. αἱ δ’ οὖν κρατήσασαι ἐπιγραφαί εἰσιν αἵδε· θήσω δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν βιβλίων, εἰς τὸ εὐεπίγνωστον εἶναι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχῶν ἕκαστον τῶν δηλουμένων βιβλίων· περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ καλὸν ἔστι μὲν ἐν ὄψει πλεῖστον. περὶ ψυχῆς ἀθανασίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· εἰ δέ ἐστιν ἀθάνατος ἕκαστος. περὶ εἱμαρμένης· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· πάντα τὰ γινόμενα. περὶ οὐσίας τῆς ψυχῆς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσίαν. περὶ νοῦ καὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν καὶ τοῦ ὄντος· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· πάντες ἄνθρωποι ἐξ ἀρχῆς γενόμενοι. περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ σώματα καθόδου τῆς ψυχῆς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· πολλάκις ἐγειρόμενος. πῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου τὸ μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἑνός· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· εἴ τι ἐστὶ μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον. εἰ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ μία· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρα ὥσπερ ψυχήν. περὶ τἀγαθοῦ ἢ τοῦ ἑνός· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἅπαντα τὰ ὄντα. περὶ τῶν τριῶν ἀρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τί ποτε ἄρα ἐστὶ τὸ πεποιηκὸς τὰς ψυχάς. περὶ γενέσεως καὶ τάξεως τῶν μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ ἓν πάντα. περὶ τῶν δύο ὑλῶν· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὴν λεγομένην ὕλην. ἐπισκέψεις διάφοροι· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· νοῦς φησιν ὁρᾷ ἐνούσας ἰδέας. περὶ τῆς κυκλοφορίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· διὰ τί κύκλῳ κινεῖται. περὶ τοῦ εἰληχότος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος· τῶν μὲν αἱ ὑποστάσεις. [ 836 ]

περὶ εὐλόγου ἐξαγωγῆς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· οὐκ ἐξάξεις, ἵνα μὴ ἐξίῃ. περὶ ποιότητος· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρα τὸ ὂν καὶ ἡ οὐσία. εἰ καὶ τῶν καθέκαστά εἰσιν ἰδέαι· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· εἰ καὶ τοῦ καθέκαστον. περὶ ἀρετῶν· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδὴ τὰ κακὰ ἐνταῦθα. περὶ διαλεκτικῆς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τίς τέχνη ἢ μέθοδος. πῶς ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ μεριστῆς οὐσίας μέση εἶναι λέγεται· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τῷ νοητῷ. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν εἴκοσι καὶ ἓν ὄντα, ὅτε αὐτῷ τὸ πρῶτον προσῆλθον ὁ Πορφύριος, εὕρηται γεγραμμένα· πεντηκοστὸν δὲ καὶ ἔννατον ἔτος ἦγε τότε ὁ Πλωτῖνος. 4. I myself arrived from Greece in the tenth year of Galienus’ reign, accompanied by Antonius of Rhodes, and found Amelius an eighteen-years’ associate of Plotinus, but still lacking the courage to write anything except for the notebooks, which had not reached their century. Plotinus, in this tenth year of Galienus, was about fifty-nine: when I first met him I was thirty. From about the first year of Galienus Plotinus had begun to write upon such subjects as had arisen at the Conferences: when I first came to know him in this tenth year of the reign he had composed twenty-one treatises. These I procured though they were by no means given about freely. In fact the distribution was grudging and secret; those that obtained them had passed the strictest scrutiny. Plotinus had given no titles to these treatises; everybody headed them for himself: I cite them here under the titles which finally prevailed, quoting the first words of each to facilitate identification. 1. On Beauty (I. 6). 2. On the Immortality of the Soul (IV. 7). 3. On Fate (III. 1). 4. On the Essence of the Soul (IV. 1). 5. On the Intellectual-Principle, the Ideas, and the Authentic-Existent (V. 9). 6. On the Descent of the Soul into the Body (IV. 8). 7. On the Emanation of the Non-Primal from the Primal-Being; and on The One (V. 4). 8. Whether all the Souls constitute One Soul (IV. 9). 9. On the Good or the One (VI. 9). 10. On the Three First Hypostases (V. 1). 11. On the Generation and Order of the Post-Primals (V. 2). 12. On the Two Orders of Matter (II. 4). 13. Diverse Questions (III. 9). [ 837 ]

14. On the Circular Movement (II. 2). 15. On our Tutelary Spirit (II. 2). 16. On the Reasoned Dismissal (I. 9). 17. On Quality (II. 6). 18. Whether there exist Ideas of Particulars (V. 7). 19. On the Virtues (I. 2). 20. On Dialectic (I. 3). 21. Why the Soul is described as Intermediate between the Existent having parts and the undisparted Existent (IV. 1). These are the twenty-one treatises which, as I have said, Plotinus had already written, by his fifty-ninth year, when I first came to him. 5 συγγεγονὼς δὲ αὐτῷ τοῦτό τε τὸ ἔτος καὶ ἐφεξῆς ἄλλα ἔτη πέντε — ὀλίγον γὰρ ἔτι πρότερον τῆς δεκαετίας ἐγεόνειν ὁ Πορφύριος ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ, τοῦ Πλωτίνου τὰς θερινὰς μὲν ἄγοντος ἀργούς, συνόντος δὲ ἄλλως ἐν ταῖς ὁμιλίαις — ἐν δὴ τοῖς ἓξ ἔτεσι τούτοις πολλῶν ἐξετάσεων ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις γιγνομένων καὶ γράφειν αὐτὸν ἀξιούντων Ἀμελίου τε καὶ ἐμοῦ, γράφει μὲν περὶ τοῦ τί τὸ ὂν πανταχοῦ ὅλον εἶναι ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν βιβλία δυο· τούτων δὲ τὸ πρῶτον ἀρχὴν ἔχει· ἆρα γε ἡ ψυχὴ πανταχοῦ· τοῦ δὲ δευτέρου ἡ ἀρχή· ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἀριθμῷ. γράφει δὲ ἐφεξῆς ἄλλα δύο, ὧν τὸ μὲν περὶ τοῦ τὸ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ὄντος μὴ νοεῖν καὶ τί τὸ πρώτως νοοῦν καὶ τί τὸ δευτέρως· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ μέν ἐστι νοεῖν ἄλλο ἄλλο, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ αὐτό· τὸ δὲ περὶ τοῦ δυνάμει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· λέγεται τὸ μὲν δυνάμει. περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀσωμάτων ἀπαθείας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὰς αἰσθήσεις οὐ πάθη λέγοντες. περὶ ψυχῆς πρῶτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ ψυχῆς ὅσα ἀπορήσαντας δεῖ. περὶ ψυχῆς δεύτερον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τί οὖν ἐρεῖ. περι ψυχῆς τρίτον ἢ περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδήπερ ὑπερεθέμεθα. περὶ θεωρίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· παίζοντες τὴν πρώτην. περὶ τοῦ νοητοῦ κάλλους· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδή φαμεν. περὶ νοῦ καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ νοῦ τὰ νοητὰ καὶ περὶ τἀγαθοῦ· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸν νοῦν τὸν ἀληθῆ νοῦν. πρὸς τοὺς γνωστικούς· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ἐφάνη ἡμῖν. περὶ ἀριθμῶν· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐστὶ πλῆθος. πῶς τὰ πόρρω ὁρώμενα μικρὰ φαίνεται; οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρά τε τὰ πόρρω ὁρώμενα. εἰ ἐν παρατάσει χρόνου τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν; οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν. περὶ τῆς δι’ ὅλων κράσεως· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ τῆς δι’ ὅλων λεγομένης. πῶς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἰδεῶν ὑπέστη καὶ περὶ τἀγαθοῦ· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· εἰς γένεσιν πέμπων ὁ θεός. περὶ τοῦ ἑκουσίου· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρ’ ἐστὶ περὶ θεῶν. περὶ τοῦ κόσμου· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸν κόσμον ἀεὶ λέγοντες. περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ μνήμης· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὰς αἰσθήσεις οὐ τυπώσεις. [ 838 ]

περὶ τῶν τοῦ ὄντος γενῶν πρῶτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ τῶν ὄντων πόσα καὶ τίνα. περὶ τῶν τοῦ ὄντος γενῶν δεύτερον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἐπειδὴ περὶ τῶν λεγομένων. περὶ τῶν τοῦ ὄντος γενῶν τρίτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ μὲν τῆς οὐσίας ὅπῃ δοκεῖ. περὶ αἰῶνος καὶ χρόνου· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ τὸν χρόνον. Ταῦτα τὰ εἴκοσι καὶ τέτταρα ὄντα ὅσα ἐν τῷ ἑξαέτει χρόνῳ τῆς παρουσίας ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου ἔγραψεν, ἐκ προσκαίρων προβλημάτων τὰς ὑποθέσεις λαβόντα, ὡς ἐκ τῶν κεφαλαίων ἑκάστου τῶν βιβλίων ἑδηλώσαμεν, μετὰ τῶν πρὸ τῆς ἐπιδημίας ἡμῶν εἴκοσι καὶ ἑνὸς τὰ πάντα γίνεται τεσσαρακονταπέντε. 5. I had been, it is true, in Rome a little before this tenth year of Galienus, but at that time Plotinus was taking a summer holiday, engaging merely in conversation with his friends. After coming to know him I passed six years in close relation with him. Many questions were threshed out in the Conferences of those six years and, under persuasion from Amelius and myself, he composed two treatises to establish: — 22, 23. That the Authentic-Existent is universally an integral, self-identical Unity (II. 4, 5). In immediate succession to these he composed two more: one is entitled: — 24. On the Absence of the Intellectual-Act in the Transcendental; and on What Existent has the Intellectual-Act Primarily and What Existent has the Intellectual-Act Secondarily (V. 6); The other deals with — 25. Existence, Potential and Actual (II. 5). After these come the following twenty: — 26. On the Impassibility of the Bodiless (III. 5). 27. On the Soul, First (IV. 3). 28. On the Soul, Second (IV. 4). 29. On the Soul, Third; or, How We See (IV. 5). 30. On Contemplation (III. 8). 31. On the Intellectual-Beauty (V. 8). 32. That the Intelligibles are Not Outside of the Intellectual-Principle and On the Good (V. 5). 33. Against the Gnostics (II. 9). 34. On Numbers (VI. 6). 35. Why Distant Objects Appear Small (II. 8). 36. Whether Happiness depends upon Extension of Time (I. 5). 37. On Coalescence (II. 7). 38. How the Multitude of Ideas came into Being; and on the Good (VI. 7). 39. On Free-Will (VI. 8). [ 839 ]

40. On the World (II. 1). 41. On Sensation and Memory (IV. 6). 42. On the Kinds of Being, First (VI. 1). 43. On the Kinds of Being, Second (VI. 2). 44. On the Kinds of Being, Third (VI. 3). 45. On Eternity and Time (III. 7). Thus we have twenty-four treatises composed during the six years of my association with him and dealing, as the titles indicate, with such problems as happened to arise at the Conferences; add the twenty-one composed before my arrival, and we have accounted for forty-five treatises. 6 ἐν δὲ τῇ Σικελίᾳ διατρίβοντός μου — ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἀνεχώρησα περὶ τὸ πεντεκαιδέκατον ἔτος τῆς βασιλείας Γαλιήνου — , ὁ Πλωτῖνος γράψας πέντε βιβλία ἀποστέλλει μοι ταῦτα· περὶ εὐδαιμονίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ εὖ ζῆν καὶ εὐδαιμονεῖν. περὶ προνοίας πρῶτον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τὸ μὲν τῷ αὐτομάτῳ. περὶ προνοίας δεύτερον· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· τί τοίνυν δοκεῖ περὶ τούτων. περὶ τῶν γνωριστικῶν ὑποστάσεων καὶ τοῦ ἐπέκεινα· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρα τὸ νοοῦν ἑαυτὸ ποικίλον δεῖ εἶναι. περὶ ἔρωτος· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ ἔρωτος πότερα θεός. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει τῆς Κλαυδίου πέμπει βασιλείας· ἀρχομένου δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου, ὅτε καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγον θνῄσκει, πέμπει ταῦτα· τίνα τὰ κατά· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· οἱ ζητοῦντες πόθεν τὰ κακά. εἰ ποιεῖ τὰ ἄστρα· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἡ τῶν ἄστρων φορά. τί τὸ ζῷον; οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἡδοναὶ καὶ λῦπαι. περὶ εὐδαιμονίας· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ἆρ’ τις ἕτερον εἴποι. ταῦτα μετὰ τεσσαρακονταπέντε τῶν πρώτων καὶ δευτέρων γραφέντων γίνεται τέτταρα καὶ πεντήκοντα. ὥσπερ δὲ ἐγράφη, τὰ μὲν κατὰ πρώτην ἠλικίαν, τὰ δὲ ἀκμάζοντος, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ σώματος καταπονουμένου, οὕτω καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως ἔχει τὰ βιβλία. τὰ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτα εἴκοσι καὶ ἓν ἐλαφροτέρας ἐστὶ δυνάμεως καὶ οὐδέπω πρὸς εὐτονίαν ἀρκοῦν μέγεθος ἐχούσης, τὰ δὲ τῆς μέσης ἐκδόσεως τυχόντα τὸ ἀκμαῖον τῆς δυνάμεως ἐμφαίνει καί ἐστι τὰ κδ πλὴν τῶν βραχέων τελεώτατα, τὰ μέντοι τελευταῖα ἐννέα ὑφειμένης ἤδη τῆς δυνάμεως γέγραπται καὶ μᾶλλόν γε τὰ τελευταῖα τέσσαρα ἢ τὰ πρὸ τούτων πέντε. 6. The following five more Plotinus wrote and sent to me while I was living in Sicily, where I had gone about the fifteenth year of Galienus: — 46. On Happiness (I. 4). 47. On Providence, First (III. 2). 48. On Providence, Second (III. 3). 49. On the Conscious Hypostases and the Transcendental (V. 3). [ 840 ]

50. On Love (III. 5). These five he sent me in the first year of Claudius: in the early months of the second year, shortly before his death, I received the following four: — 51. On Evil (I. 8). 52. Whether the Stars have Causal Operation (II. 3). 53. On the Animate and the Man (I. 1). 54. On the First Good; or, On Happiness (I. 8). Adding these nine to the forty-five of the first and second sets we have a total of fifty-four treatises. According to the time of writing — early manhood, vigorous prime, worn-out constitution — so the tractates vary in power. The first twenty-one pieces manifest a slighter capacity, the talent being not yet matured to the fulness of nervous strength. The twenty-four produced in the mid-period display the utmost reach of the powers and, except for the short treatises among them, attain the highest perfection. The last nine were written when the mental strength was already waning, and of these the last four show less vigour even than the five preceding. 7 ἔσχε δὲ ἀκροατὰς μὲν πλείους, ζηλωτὰς δὲ καὶ διὰ φιλοσοφίαν συνόντας Ἀμέλιόν τε ἀπὸ τῆς Τουσκίας, οὗ τὸ ὄνομα ἦν Γεντιλιανὸς τὸ κύριον, αὐτὸς δὲ διὰ τοῦ ρ Ἀμέριον αὐτὸν καλεῖν ἠξίου ἀπὸ τῆς ἀμερείας ἢ τῆς ἀμελείας πρέπειν αὐτῷ καλεῖσθαι λέγων. ἔσχε δὲ καὶ ἰατρικόν τινα Σκυθοπολίτην Παυλῖνον ὃν ὁ Ἀμέλιος Μίκκαλον προσηγόρευε, παρακουσμάτων πλήρη γεγονότα. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ἀλεξανδρέα Εὐστόχιον ἰατρικὸν ἔσχεν ἕτερον, ὃς περὶ τὰ τελευταῖα τῆς ἡλικίας γνωρισθεὶς αὐτῷ διέμενε θεραπεύων ἄχρι τοῦ θανάτου καὶ μόνοις τοῖς Πλωτίνου σχολάζων ἕξιν περιεβάλλετο γνησίου φιλοσόφου. Συνῆν δὲ καὶ Ζωτικὸς κριτικός τε καὶ ποιητικός, ὃς καὶ τὰ Ἀντιμάχου διορθωτικὰ πεποίηται καὶ τὸν «Ἀτλαντικὸν» εἰς ποίησιν μετέβαλε πάνυ ποιητικῶς, συγχυθεὶς δὲ τὰς ὄψεις πρὸ ὀλίγου τῆς Πλωτίνου τελευτῆς ἀπέθανεν. ἔφθασε δὲ καὶ ὁ Παυλῖνος προαποθανὼν τοῦ Πλωτίνου. ἔσχε δὲ καὶ Ζῆθον ἑταῖρον, Ἀράβιον τὸ γένος, Θεοδοσίου τοῦ Ἀμμωνίου γενομένου ἑταίρου εἰς γάμον λαβόντα θυγατέρα. ἦν δὲ καὶ οὗτος ἰατρικὸς καὶ σφόδρα πεφίλωτο τῷ Πλωτίνῳ· πολιτικὸν δὲ ὄντα καὶ ῥοπὰς ἔχοντα πολιτικὰς ἀναστέλλειν ὁ Πλωτῖνος ἐπειρᾶτο. ἐχρῆτο δὲ αὐτῷ οἰκείως, ὡς καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀναχωρεῖν πρὸ ἓξ σημείων Μητουρνῶν ὑπάρχοντας, οὓς Καστρίκιος ἐκέτητο ὁ Φίρμος κεκλημένος, ἀνδρῶν τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς φιλοκαλώτατος γεγονὼς καὶ τόν τε Πλωτῖνον σεβόμενος καὶ Ἀμελίῳ οἷα οἰκέτης ἀγαθὸς ἐν πᾶσιν ὑπηρετούμενος καὶ Πορφυρίῳ ἐμοὶ οἷα γνησίῳ ἀδελφῷ ἐν πᾶσι προσεσχηκώς. καὶ οὗτος οὖν ἐσέβετο Πλωτῖνον τὸν πολιτικὸν ᾑρημένος βίον. ἠκροῶντο δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου οὐκ ὀλίγοι ὧν ἔργον ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ μάλιστα ἐποίουν Μάρκελλος Ὀρρόντιος καὶ Σαβινῖλλος. ἦν δὲ καὶ Ῥογατιανὸς ἐκ τῆς συγκλήτου, ὃς εἰς τοσοῦτον ἀποστροφῆς τοῦ βίου τούτου προκεχωρήκει ὡς πάσης μὲν κτήσεως ἀποστῆναι, πάντα δὲ οἰκέτην ἀποπέμψασθαι, ἀποστῆναι δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἀξιώματος· καὶ [ 841 ]

πραίτωρ προιέναι μέλλων παρόντων τῶν ὑπηρετῶν μήτε προελθεῖν μήτε φροντίσαι τῆς λειτουργίας, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ οἰκίαν ἑαυτοῦ ἑλέσθαι κατοικεῖν, ἀλλὰ πρός τινας τῶν φίλων καὶ συνήθων φοιτῶντα ἐκεῖ τε δειπνεῖν κἀκεῖ καθεύδειν, σιτεῖσθαι δὲ παρὰ μίαν· ἀφ’ ἧς δὴ ἀποστάσεως καὶ ἀφροντιστίας τοῦ βίου ποδαγρῶντα μὲν οὕτως, ὡς καὶ δίφρῳ βαστάζεσθαι, ἀναρρωσθῆναι, τὰς χεῖρας δὲ ἐκτεῖναι μὴ οἷόν τε ὄντα χρῆσθαι ταύταις πολὺ μᾶλλον εὐμαρῶς ἢ οἱ τὰς τέχνας διὰ τῶν χειρῶν μετιόντες. τοῦτον ἀπεδέχετο ὁ Πλωτῖνος καὶ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα ἐπαινῶν διετέλει εἰς ἀγαθὸν τοῖς φιλοσοφοῦσι προβαλλόμενος. συνῆν δὲ καὶ Σεραπίων Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ῥητορικὸς μὲν τὰ πρῶτα, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ φιλοσόφοις συνὼν λόγοις, τοῦ δὲ περὶ χρήματα καὶ τὸ δανείζειν μὴ δυνηθεὶς ἀποστῆναι ἐλαττώματος. ἔσχε δὲ καὶ ἐμὲ Πορφύριον Τύριον ὄντα ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα ἑταῖρον, ὃν καὶ διορθοῦν αὐτοῦ τὰ συγγράμματα ἠξίου. 7. Plotinus had a large following. Notable among the more zealous students, really devoted to philosophy, was Amelius of Tuscany, whose family name was Gentilianus. Amelius preferred to call himself Amerius, changing L for R, because, as he explained, it suited him better to be named from Amereia, Unification, than from Ameleia, Indifference. The group included also one Paulinus, a doctor of Scythopolis, whom Amelius used to call Mikkalos in allusion to his blundering habit of mind. Among closer personal friends was Eustochius of Alexandria, also a doctor, who came to know Plotinus towards the end of his life, and attended him until his death: Eustochius consecrated himself exclusively to Plotinus’ system and became a veritable philosopher. Then there was Zoticus, at once critic and poet, who has amended the text of Antimachus’ works and is the author of an exquisite poem upon the Atlantis story: his sight failed, and he died a little before Plotinus, as also did Paulinus. Another friend was Zethos, an Arabian by descent, who married a daughter of Ammonius’ friend Theodosius. Zethos, too, was a doctor: Plotinus was deeply attached to him and was always trying to divert him from the political career in which he stood high. Plotinus was on the most familiar terms with him, and used to stay with him at his country place, six miles from Minturnæ, a property which had formerly belonged to Castricius Firmus. Castricius was excelled by none of the group in appreciation of the finer side of life: he venerated Plotinus; he devoted himself in the most faithful comradeship to Amelius in every need, and was in all matters as loyal to myself as though I were his own brother. This was another example of a politician venerating the philosopher. There were also among Plotinus’ hearers not a few members of the Senate, amongst whom Marcellus Orontius and Sabinillus showed the greatest assiduity in philosophical studies. [ 842 ]

Another Senator, Rogatianus, advanced to such detachment from political ambitions that he gave up all his property, dismissed all his  slaves, renounced every dignity, and, on the point of taking up his prætorship, the lictors already at the door, refused to come out or to have anything to do with the office. He even abandoned his own house, spending his time here and there at his friends’ and acquaintances’, sleeping and eating with them and taking, at that, only one meal a day. He had been a victim of gout, carried in a chair, but this new regime of abstinence and abnegation restored his health: he had been unable to stretch out his hands; he came to use them as freely as men living by manual labour. Plotinus took a great liking to Rogatianus and frequently praised him very highly, holding him up as a model to those aiming at the philosophical life. Then there was Serapion, an Alexandrian, who began life as a professional orator and later took to the study of philosophy, but was never able to conquer the vices of avarice and usury. I myself, Porphyry of Tyre, was one of Plotinus’ very closest friends, and it was to me he entrusted the task of revising his writings. 8 γράψας φὰρ ἐκεῖνος δὶς τὸ γραφὲν μεταλαβεῖν οὐδέποτ’ ἂν ἠνέσχετο, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἅπαξ γοῦν ἀναγνῶναι καὶ διελθεῖν διὰ τὸ τὴν ὅρασιν μὴ ὑπηρετεῖσθαι αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν. ἔγραφε δὲ οὔτε εἰς κάλλος ἀποτυπούμενος τὰ γράμματα οὔτε εὐσήμως τὰς συλλαβὰς διαιρῶν οὔτε τῆς ὀρθογραφίας φροντίζων, ἀλλὰ μόνον τοῦ νοῦ ἐχόμενος καὶ, ὃ πάντες ἐθαυμάζομεν, ἐκεῖνο ποιῶν ἄχρι τελευτῆς διετέλεσε. συντελέσας γὰρ παρ’ ἑαυτῷ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τέλους τὸ σκέμμα, ἔπειτα εἰς γραφὴν παραδιδοὺς ἃ ἐσκέπτετο, συνεῖρεν οὕτω γράφων ἃ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ διέθηκεν, ὡς ἀπὸ βιβλίου δοκεῖν μεταβάλλειν τὰ γραφόμενα· ἐπεὶ καὶ διαλεγόμενος πρός τινα καὶ συνείρων τὰς ὁμιλίας πρὸς τῷ σκέμματι ἦν, ὡς ἅμα τε ἀποπληροῦν τὸ ἀναγκαῖον τῆς ὁμιλίας καὶ τῶν ἐν σκέψει προκειμένων ἀδιάκοπον τηρεῖν τὴν διάνοιαν· ἀποστάντος γοῦν τοῦ προσδιαλεγομένου οὐδ’ ἐπαναλαβὼν τὰ γεγραμμένα, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐπαρκεῖν αὐτῷ πρὸς ἀνάληψιν, ὡς εἰρήκαμεν, τὴν ὅρασιν, τὰ ἑξῆς ἂν ἐπισυνῆψεν, ὡς μηδένα διαστήσας χρόνον μεταξὺ ὅτε τὴν ὁμιλίαν ἐποιεῖτο. συνῆν οὖν καὶ ἑαυτῷ ἅμα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, καὶ τήν γε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν προσοχὴν οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐχάλασεν, ἢ μόνον ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις, ὃν ἂν ἀπέκρουεν ἥ τε τῆς τροφῆς ὀλιγότης, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄρτου πολλάκις ἂν ἥψατο, καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ διαρκὴς ἐπιστροφή. 8. Such revision was necessary: Plotinus could not bear to go back on his work even for one re-reading; and indeed the condition of his sight would scarcely allow it: his handwriting was slovenly; he misjoined his words; he cared nothing about spelling; his one concern was for the idea: in these habits, to our general surprise, he remained unchanged to the very end. He used to work out his design mentally from first to last: when he came to set down his ideas; he wrote out at one jet all he had stored in mind as though he were copying [ 843 ]

from a book. Interrupted, perhaps, by someone entering on business, he never lost hold of his plan; he was able to meet all the demands of the conversation and still keep his own train of thought clearly before him; when he was free again, he never looked over what he had previously written — his sight, it has been mentioned, did not allow of such rereading — but he linked on what was to follow as if no distraction had occurred. Thus he was able to live at once within himself and for others; he never relaxed from his interior attention unless in sleep; and even his sleep was kept light by an abstemiousness that often prevented him taking as much as a piece of bread, and by this unbroken concentration upon his own highest nature. 9 Ἔσχε δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας σφόδρα φιλοσοφίᾳ προσκειμένας, Γεμίναν τε, ἧς καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ κατῴκει, καὶ τὴν ταύτης θυγατέρα Γεμίναν, ὁμοίως τῇ μητρὶ καλουμένην, Ἀμφίκλειάν τε τὴν Ἀρίστωνος τοῦ Ἰαμβλίχου υἱοῦ γεγονυῖαν γυναῖκα, σφόδρα φιλοσοφίᾳ προσκειμένας. πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες ἀποθνῄσκειν μέλλοντες τῶν εὐγενεστάτων φέροντες τὰ ἑαυτῶν τέκνα, ἄρρενάς τε ὁμοῦ καὶ θηλείας, ἐκείνῳ παρεδίδοσαν μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης οὐσίας ὡς ἱερῷ τινι καὶ θείῳ φύλακι. διὸ καὶ ἐπεπλήρωτο αὐτῷ ἡ οἰκία παίδων καὶ παρθένων. ἐν τούτοις δὲ ἦν καὶ Ποτάμων, οὗ τῆς παιδεύσεως φροντίζων πολλάκις ἓν καὶ μεταποιοῦντος ἠκροάσατο. ἠνείχετο δὲ καὶ τοὺς λογισμούς, ἀναφερόντων τῶν ἐκείνοις παραμενόντων, καὶ τῆς ἀκριβείας ἐπεμελεῖτο λέγων, ἕως ἂν μὴ φιλοσοφῶσιν, ἔχειν αὐτοὺς δεῖν τὰς κτήσεις καὶ τὰς προσόδους ἀνεπάφους τε καὶ σῳζομένας. καὶ ὅμως τοσούτοις ἐπαρκῶν τὰς εἰς τὸν βίον φροντίδας τε καὶ ἐπιμελείας τὴν πρὸς τὸν νοῦν τάσιν οὐδέποτ’ ἂν ἐγρηγορότως ἐχάλασεν. ἦν δὲ καὶ πρᾶος καὶ πᾶσιν ἐκκείμενος τοῖς ὁπωσοῦν πρὸς αὐτὸν συνήθειαν ἐσχηκόσι. διὸ εἴκοσι καὶ ἓξ ἐτῶν ὅλων ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ διατρίψας καὶ πλείστοις διαιτήσας τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀμφισβητήσεις οὐδένα τῶν πολιτικῶν ἐχθρόν ποτε ἔσχε. 9. Several women were greatly attached to him, amongst them Gemina, in whose house he lived, and her daughter, called Gemina, too, after the mother, and Amphiclea, the wife of Ariston, son of Iamblichus; all three devoted themselves assiduously to philosophy. Not a few men and women of position, on the approach of death, had left their boys and girls, with all their property, in his care, feeling that with Plotinus for guardian the children would be in holy hands. His house therefore was filled with lads and lasses, amongst them Polemon, in whose education he took such interest as often to hear the boy recite verses of his own composition. He always found time for those that came to submit returns of the childrens’ property, and he looked closely to the accuracy of the accounts: “Until the young people take to philosophy,” he used to say, “their fortunes and revenues must be kept intact for

[ 844 ]

them.” And yet all this labour and thought over the worldly interests of so many people never interrupted, during waking hours, his intention towards the Supreme. He was gentle, and always at the call of those having the slightest acquaintance with him. After spending twenty-six entire years in Rome, acting, too, as arbiter in many differences, he had never made an enemy of any citizen. 10 τῶν δὲ φιλοσοφεῖν προσποιουμένων Ὀλύμπιος Ἀλεξανδρεύς, Ἀμμωνίου ἐπ’ ὀλίγου μαθητὴς γενόμενος, καταφρονητικῶς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔσχε διὰ φιλοπρωτίαν· ὃς καὶ οὕτως αὐτῷ ἐπέθετο, ὥστε καὶ ἀστροβολῆσαι αὐτὸν μαγεύσας ἐπεχείρησεν. ἐπεὶ δὲ εἰς ἑαυτὸν στρεφομένην ᾔσθετο τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν, ἔλεγε πρὸς τοὺς συνήθεις μεγάλην εἶναι τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ Πλωτίνου δύναμιν, ὡς ἀποκρούειν δύνασθαι τὰς εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπιφορὰς εἰς τοὺς κακοῦν αὐτὸν ἐπιχειροῦντας. Πλωτῖνος μέντοι τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου ἐγχειροῦντος ἀντελαμβάνετο λέγων αὐτῷ τὸ σῶμα τότε ὡς τὰ σύσπαστα βαλάντια ἕλκεσθαι τῶν μελῶν αὐτῷ πρὸς ἄλληλα συνθλιβομένων. κινδυνεύσας δὲ ὁ Ὀλύμπιος πολλάκις αὐτός τι παθεῖν ἢ δρᾶσαι τὸν Πλωτῖνον ἐπαύσατο. ἦν γὰρ καὶ κατὰ γένεσιν πλέον τι ἔχων παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους ὁ Πλωτῖνος. Αἰγύπτιος γάρ τις ἱερεὺς ἀνελθὼν εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην καὶ διά τινος φίλου αὐτῷ γνωρισθεὶς θέλων τε τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἀπόδειξιν δοῦναι ἠξίωσε τὸν Πλωτῖνον ἐπὶ θέαν ἀφικέσθαι τοῦ συνόντος αὐτῷ οἰκείου δαίμονος καλουμένου. τοῦ δὲ ἑτοίμως ὑπακούσαντος γίνεται μὲν ἐν τῷ Ἰσίῳ ἡ κλῆσις· μόνον γὰρ ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον καθαρὸν φῆσαι εὑρεῖν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ τὸν Αἰγύπτιον. κληθέντα δὲ εἰς αὐτοψίαν τὸν δαίμονα θεὸν ἐλθεῖν καὶ μὴ τοῦ δαιμόνων εἶναι γένους· ὅθεν τὸν Αἰγύπτιον εἰπεῖν· μακάριος εἶ θεὸν ἔχων τὸν δαίμονα καὶ οὐ τοῦ ὑφειμένου γένους τὸν συνόντα. μήτε δὲ ἐρέσθαι τι ἐκγενέσθαι μήτε ἐπιπλέον ἰδεῖν παρόντα τοῦ συνθεωροῦντος φίλου τὰς ὄρνεις, ἃς κατεῖχε φυλακῆς ἕνεκα, πνίξαντος εἴτε διὰ φθόνον εἴτε καὶ διὰ φόβον τινά. τῶν οὖν θειοτέρων δαιμόνων ἔχων τὸν συνόντα καὶ αὐτὸς διετέλει ἀνάγων αὐτοῦ τὸ θεῖον ὄμμα πρὸς ἐκεῖνον. ἔστι γοῦν αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας καὶ βιβλίον γραφὲν περὶ τοῦ εἰληχότος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος, ὅπου πειρᾶται αἰτίας φέρειν περὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν συνόντων. φιλοθύτου δὲ γεγονότος τοῦ Ἀμελίου καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ κατὰ νουμηνίαν καὶ τὰς ἑορτὰς ἐκπεριιόντος καί ποτε ἀξιοῦντος τὸν Πλωτῖνον σὺν αὐτῷ παραλαβεῖν ἔφη· «ἐκείνους δεῖ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἔρχεσθαι, οὐκ ἐμὲ πρὸς ἐκείνους.» Τοῦτο δὲ ἐκ ποίας διανοίας οὕτως ἐμεγαληγόρησεν, οὔτ’ αὐτοὶ συνεῖναι δεδυνήμεθα οὔτ’ αὐτὸν ἐρέσθαι ἐτολμήσαμεν. 10. Among those making profession of Philosophy at Rome was one Olympius, an Alexandrian, who had been for a little while a pupil of Ammonius. This man’s jealous envy showed itself in continual insolence, and  finally he grew so bitter that he even ventured sorcery, seeking to crush Plotinus by star-spells. But he found his experiments recoiling upon himself, and he confessed to his associates that Plotinus possessed “a mighty soul, so powerful as to be able to hurl every assault back upon those that sought his ruin.” Plotinus had felt the operation and declared that at that moment Olympius’ “limbs were convulsed and his body shrivelling like a money-

[ 845 ]

bag pulled tight.” Olympius, perceiving on several attempts that he was endangering himself rather than Plotinus, desisted. In fact Plotinus possessed by birth something more than is accorded to other men. An Egyptian priest who had arrived in Rome and, through some friend, had been presented to the philosopher, became desirous of displaying his powers to him, and he offered to evoke a visible manifestation of Plotinus’ presiding spirit. Plotinus readily consented and the evocation was made in the Temple of Isis, the only place, they say, which the Egyptian could find pure in Rome. At the summons a Divinity appeared, not a being of the spirit-ranks, and the Egyptian exclaimed: “You are singularly graced; the guiding-spirit within you is none of the lower degree but a God.” It was not possible, however, to interrogate or even to contemplate this God any further, for the priest’s assistant, who had been holding the birds to prevent them flying away, strangled them, whether through jealousy or in terror. Thus Plotinus had for indwelling spirit a Being of the more divine degree, and he kept his own divine spirit unceasingly intent upon that inner presence. It was this preoccupation that led him to write his treatise upon Our Tutelary Spirit, an essay in the explanation of the differences among spirit-guides. Amelius was scrupulous in observing the day of the New-Moon and other holy-days, and once asked Plotinus to join in some such celebration: Plotinus refused: “It is for those Beings to come to me, not for me to go to them.” What was in his mind in so lofty an utterance we could not explain to ourselves and we dared not ask him. 11 περιῆν δὲ αὐτῷ τοσαύτη περιουσία ἠθῶν κατανοήσεως, ὡς κλοπῆς ποτε γεγονυίας πολυτελοῦς περιδεραίου Χιόνης, ἥτις αὐτῷ συνῴκει μετὰ τῶν τέκνων σεμνῶς τὴν χηρείαν διεξάγουσα, καὶ ὑπ’ ὄψιν τοῦ Πλωτίνου τῶν οἰκετῶν συνηγμένων ἐμβλέψας ἅπασιν· οὗτος, ἔφη, ἐστὶν ὁ κεκλοφώς, δείξας ἕνα τινά. μαστιζόμενος δὲ ἐκεῖνος καὶ ἐπιπλεῖον ἀρνούμενος τὰ πρῶτα ὕστερον ὡμολόγησε καὶ φέρων τὸ κλαπὲν ἀπέδωκε. προεῖπε δ’ ἂν καὶ τῶν συνόντων παίδων περὶ ἑκάστου οἷος ἀποβήσεται· ὡς καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πολέμωνος οἷος ἔσται, ὅτι ἐρωτικὸς ἔσται καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνιος, ὅπερ καὶ ἀπέβη. καί ποτε ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου ᾔσθετο ἐξάγειν ἐμαυτὸν διανοουμένου τοῦ βίου· καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἐπιστάς μοι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ διατρίβοντι καὶ εἰπὼν μὴ εἶναι ταύτην τὴν προθυμίαν ἐκ νοερᾶς καταστάσεως, ἀλλ’ ἐκ μελαγχολικῆς τινος νόσου, ἀποδημῆσαι ἐκέλευσε. πεισθεὶς δὲ αὐτῷ ἐγὼ εἰς τὴν Σικελίαν ἀφικόμην Πρόβον τινὰ ἀκούων ἐλλόγιμον ἄνδρα περὶ τὸ Λιλύβαιον διατρίβειν· καὶ αὐτός τε τῆς τοιαύτης προθυμίας ἀπεσχόμην τοῦ τε παρεῖναι ἄχρι θανάτου τῷ Πλωτίνῳ ἐνεποδίσθην. 11. He had a remarkable penetration into character. Once a valuable necklace was stolen from Chione, who was living in honourable widowhood with her children in the same house as Plotinus: the servants were called [ 846 ]

before him: he scrutinised them all, then indicated one: “This man is the thief.” The man was whipped but for some time persisted in denial: finally, however, he confessed, and restored the necklace. Plotinus foretold also the future of each of the children in the household: for instance, when questioned as to Polemon’s character and destiny he said: “He will be amorous and short-lived”; and so it proved. I myself at one period had formed the intention of ending my life; Plotinus discerned my purpose; he came unexpectedly to my house where I had secluded myself, told me that my decision sprang not from reason but from mere melancholy and advised me to leave Rome. I obeyed and left for Sicily, which I chose because I heard that one Probus, a man of scholarly repute, was living there not far from Lilybæum. Thus I was induced to abandon my first intention but was prevented from being with Plotinus between that time and his death. 12 ἐτίμησαν δὲ τὸν Πλωτῖνον μάλιστα καὶ ἐσέφθησαν Γαλιῆνός τε ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ καὶ ἡ τούτου γυνὴ Σαλωνίνα. ὁ δὲ τῇ φιλίᾳ τῆ τούτων καταχρώμενος φιλοσόφων τινὰ πόλιν κατὰ τὴν Καμπανίαν γεγενῆσθαι λεγομένην, ἄλλως δὲ κατηριπωμένην, ἠξίου ἀνεγείρειν καὶ τὴν πέριξ χώραν χαρίσασθαι οἰκισθείσῃ τῇ πόλει, νόμοις δὲ χρῆσθαι τοὺς κατοικεῖν μέλλοντας τοῖς Πλάτωνος καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν αὐτῇ Πλατωνόπολιν θέσθαι, ἐκεῖ τε αὐτὸς μετὰ τῶν ἑταίρων ἀναχωρήσειν ὑπισχνεῖτο. καὶ ἐγένετ’ ἄν τὸ βούλημα ἐκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου τῷ φιλοσόφῳ, εἰ μή τινες τῶν συνόντων τῷ βασιλεῖ φθονοῦντες ἢ νεμεσῶντες ἢ δι’ ἄλλην μοχθηρὰν αἰτίαν ἐνεπόδισαν. 12. The Emperor Galienus and his wife Salonina greatly honoured and venerated Plotinus, who thought to turn their friendly feeling to some good purpose. In Campania there had once stood, according to tradition, a City of Philosophers, a ruin now; Plotinus asked the Emperor to rebuild this city and to make over the surrounding district to the new-founded state; the population was to live under Plato’s laws: the city was to be called Platonopolis; and Plotinus undertook to settle down there with his associates. He would have had his way without more ado but that opposition at court, prompted by jealousy, spite, or some such paltry motive, put an end to the plan. 13 γέγονε δ’ ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις φράσαι μὲν ἱκανὸς καὶ εὑρεῖν καὶ νοῆσαι τὰ πρόσφορα δυνατώτατος, ἐν δέ τισι λέξεσιν ἁμαρτάνων· οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἶπεν «ἀναμιμνήσκεται», ἀλλὰ «ἀναμνημίσκεται», καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ παράσημα ὀνόματα ἃ καὶ ἐν τῷ γράφειν ἐτήρει. ἦν δ’ ἐν τῷ λέγειν ἡ ἔνδειξις τοῦ νοῦ ἄχρι τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὸ φῶς ἐπιλάμποντος· ἐράσμιος μὲν ὀφθῆναι, καλλίων δὲ τότε μάλιστα ὁρώμενος· καὶ λεπτός τις ἰδρὼς ἐπέθει καὶ ἡ πραότης διέλαμπε καὶ τὸ προσηνὲς πρὸς τὰς ἐρωτήσεις ἐδείκνυτο καὶ τὸ εὔτονον. τριῶν γοῦν ἡμερῶν ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου ἐρωτήσαντος, πῶς ἡ ψυχὴ σύνεστι τῷ σώματι, παρέτεινεν ἀποδεικνύς, ὥστε καὶ Θαυμασίου τινὸς τοὔνομα ἐπεισελθόντος τοὺς καθόλου λόγους πράττοντος καὶ εἰς βιβλία ἀκοῦσαι αὐτοῦ λέγοντος θέλειν, Πορφυρίου δὲ ἀποκρινομένου καὶ ἐρωτῶντος μὴ ἀνασχέσθαι, ὁ [ 847 ]

δὲ ἔφη· «ἀλλὰ ἂν μὴ Πορφυρίου ἐρωτῶντος λύσωμεν τὰς ἀπορίας, εἰπεῖν τι καθάπαξ εἰς τὸ βιβλίον οὐ δυνησόμεθα.» 13. At the Conferences he showed the most remarkable power of going to the heart of a subject, whether in exposition or in explanation, and his phrasing was apt; but he made mistakes in certain words; for example, he said “anamnemisketai” for “anamimnesketai” — just such errors as he committed in his writing. When he was speaking his intellect visibly illuminated his face: always of winning presence, he became at these times still more engaging: a slight moisture gathered on his forehead; he radiated benignity. He was always as ready to entertain objections as he was powerful in meeting them. At one time I myself kept interrogating him during three days as to how the soul is associated with the body, and he continued explaining; a man called Thomasius entered in the midst of our discussions; the visitor was more interested in the general drift of the system than in particular points, and said he wished to hear Plotinus expounding some theory as he would in a set treatise, but that he could not endure Porphyry’s questions and answers: Plotinus asked, “But if we cannot first solve the difficulties Porphyry raises what could go into the treatise?” 14 ἐν δὲ τῷ σύντομος γέγονε καὶ πολύνους βραχύς τε καὶ νοήμασι πλεονάζων ἢ λέξεσι, τὰ πολλὰ ἐνθουσιῶν καὶ ἐκπαθῶς φράζων καὶ τὸ συμπαθείας ἢ παραδόσεως. ἐμμέμικται δ’ ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασι καὶ τὰ Στωικὰ λανθάνοντα δόγματα καὶ τὰ Περιπατητικά· καταπεπύκνωται δὲ καὶ ἡ «Μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ» τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους πραγματεία. ἔλαθε δὲ αὐτὸν οὔτε γεωμετρικόν τι λεγόμενον θεώρημα οὔτ’ ἀριθμητικόν, οὐ μηχανικόν, οὐκ ὀπτικόν, οὐ μουσικόν· αὐτὸς δὲ ταῦτα ἐξεργάζεσθαι οὐ παρεσκεύαστο. ἐν δὲ ταῖς συνουσίαις ἀνεγινώσκετο μὲν αὐτῷ τὰ ὑπομνήματα, εἴτε Σεβήρου εἴη, εἴτε Κρονίου ἢ Νουμηνίου ἢ Γαίου ἤ Ἀττικοῦ, κἀν τοῖς Περιπατητικοῖς τά τε Ἀσπασίου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἀδράστου τε καὶ τῶν ἐμπεσόντων. ἐλέγετο δὲ ἐκ τούτων οὐδὲν καθάπαξ, ἀλλ’ ἴδιος ἦν καὶ ἐξηλλαγμένος ἐν τῇ θεωρίᾳ καὶ τὸν Ἀμμωνίου φέρων νοῦν ἐν ταῖς ἐξετάσεσιν. ἐπληροῦτο δὲ ταχέως καὶ δι’ ὀλίγων δοὺς νοῦν βαθέος θεωρήματος ἀνίστατο. ἀναγνωσθέντος δὲ αὐτῷ τοῦ τε περὶ ἀρχῶν Λογγίνου καὶ τοῦ «Φιλαρχαίου», «φιλόλογος μέν», ἔφη, «ὁ Λογγῖνος, φιλόσοφος δὲ οὐδαμῶς». Ὠριγένους δὲ ἀπαντήσαντός ποτε εἰς τὴν συνουσίαν πληρωθεὶς ἐρυθήματος ἀνίστασθαι μὲν ἐβούλετο, λέγειν δὲ ὑπὸ Ὠριγένους ἀξιούμενος ἔφη ἀνίλλεσθαι τὰς προθυμίας, ὅταν ἴδῃ ὁ λέγων, ὅτι πρὸς εἰδότας ἐρεῖ ἃ αὐτὸς λέγειν μέλλει· καὶ οὕτως ὀλίγα διαλεχθεὶς ἐξανέστη. 14. In style Plotinus is concise, dense with thought, terse, more lavish of ideas than of words, most often expressing himself with a fervid inspiration. He followed his own path rather than that of tradition, but in his writings both the Stoic and Peripatetic doctrines are sunk; Aristotle’s Metaphysic, especially, is condensed in them, all but entire. [ 848 ]

He had a thorough theoretical knowledge of Geometry, Mechanics, Optics and Music, though it was not in his temperament to go practically into these subjects. At the Conferences he used to have treatises by various authors read aloud — among the Platonists it might be Severus or Cronius, Numenius, Caius or Atticus; and — among the Peripatetics Aspasius, Alexander, Adrastus or some such writer, at the call of the moment. But it was far from his way to follow any of these authors blindly; he took  a personal, original view, applying Ammonius’ method to the investigation of every problem. He was quick to absorb; a few words sufficed him to make clear the significance of some profound theory and so to pass on. After hearing Longinus’ work On Causes, and his Philarchaios, he remarked: “Longinus is a man of letters, but in no sense a philosopher.” One day Origen came to the conference-room; Plotinus blushed deeply and was on the point of bringing his lecture to an end; when Origen begged him to continue, he said: “The zest dies down when the speaker feels that his hearers have nothing to learn from him.” 15 ἐμοῦ δὲ ἐν Πλατωνείοις ποίημα ἀναγνόντος τὸν ἱερὸν γάμον, καί τινος διὰ τὸ μυστικῶς πολλὰ μετ’ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ ἐπικεκρυμμένως εἰρῆσθαι εἰπόντος μαίνεσθαι τὸν Πορφύριον, ἐκεῖνος εἰς ἐπήκοον ἔφε πάντων· ἔδειξας ὁμοῦ καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν καὶ τὸν φιλόσοφον καὶ τὸν ἱεροφάντην. Ὅτε δὲ ὁ ῥήτωρ Διοφάνης ἀνέγνω ὑπὲρ Ἀλκιβιάδου τοῦ ἐν τῷ Συμποσίῳ τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἀπολογίαν δογματίζων χρῆναι ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα μαθήσεως εἰς συνουσίαν αὑτὸν παρέχειν ἐρῶντι ἀφροδισίου μίξεως τῷ καθηγεμόνι, ἤιξε μὲν πολλάκις ἀναστὰς ἀπαλλαγῆναι τῆς συνόδου, ἐπισχὼν δ’ ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τὴν διάλυσιν τοῦ ἀκουστηρίου ἐμοὶ Πορφυρίῳ ἀντιγράψαι προσέταξε. μὴ θέλοντος δὲ τοῦ Διοφάνους τὸ βιβλίον δοῦναι διὰ τῆς μνήμης ἀναληφθέντων τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων ἀντιγράψας ἐγὼ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀκροατῶν συνηγμένων ἀναγνοὺς τοσοῦτον τὸν Πλωτῖνον ηὔφρανα, ὡς κἀν ταῖς συνουσίαις συνεχῶς ἐπιλέγειν· βάλλ’ οὕτως, αἴ κέν τι φόως ἄνδρεσσι γένηαι. γράφοντος δὲ Εὐβούλου Ἀθήνηθεν τοῦ Πλατωνικοῦ διαδόχου καὶ πέμποντος συγγράμματα ὑπέρ τινων Πλατωνικῶν ζητημάτων ἐμοὶ Πορφυρίῳ ταῦτα δίδοσθαι ἐποίει καὶ σκοπεῖν καὶ ἀναφέρειν αὐτῷ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἠξίου. προσεῖχε δὲ τοῖς μὲν περὶ τῶν ἀστέρων κανόσιν οὐ πάνυ τι μαθηματικῶς, τοῖς δὲ τῶν γενεθλιαλόγων ἀποτελεσματικοῖς ἀκριβέστερον. καὶ φωράσας τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τὸ ἀνεχέγγυον ἐλέγχειν πολλαχοῦ κατ’ αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν οὐκ ὤκνησε. 15. Once on Plato’s feast I read a poem, “The Sacred Marriage”; my piece abounded in mystic doctrine conveyed in veiled words and was couched in terms of enthusiasm; someone exclaimed: “Porphyry has gone mad”; Plotinus said to me so that all might hear: “You have shown yourself at once poet, philosopher and hierophant.”

[ 849 ]

The orator Diophanes one day read a justification of the Alcibiades of Plato’s Banquet and maintained that the pupil, for the sake of advancement in virtue, should submit to the teacher without reserve, even to the extent of carnal commerce: Plotinus started up several times to leave the room but forced himself to remain; on the breaking up of the company he directed me to write a refutation. Diophanes refused to lend me his address and I had to depend on my recollection of his argument; but my refutation, delivered before the same audience, delighted Plotinus so much that during the very reading he repeatedly quoted: “So strike and be a light to men.” When Eubulus, the Platonic Successor, wrote from Athens, sending treatises on some questions in Platonism, Plotinus had the writings put into my hands with instructions to examine them and report to him upon them. He paid some attention to the principles of Astronomy, though he did not study the subject very deeply on the mathematical side. He went more searchingly into Horoscopy; when once he was convinced  that its results were not to be trusted he had no hesitation in attacking the system frequently both at the Conferences and in his writings. 16 γεγόνασι δὲ κατ’ αὐτὸν τῶν Χριστιανῶν πολλοὶ μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι, αἱρετικοὶ δὲ ἐκ τῆς παλαιᾶς φιλοσοφίας ἀνηγμένοι οἱ περὶ Ἀδέλφιον καὶ Ἀκυλῖνον οἳ τὰ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Λίβυος καὶ Φιλοκώμου καὶ Δημοστράτου καὶ Λυδοῦ συγγράμματα πλεῖστα κεκτημένοι ἀποκαλύψεις τε προφέροντες Ζωροάστρου καὶ Ζωστριανοῦ καὶ Νικοθέου καὶ Ἀλλογενοῦς καὶ Μέσσου καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων πολλοὺς ἐξηπάτων καὶ αὐτοὶ ἠπατημένοι, ὡς δὴ τοῦ Πλάτωνος εἰς τὸ βάθος τῆς νοητῆς οὐσίας οὐ πελάσαντος. ὅθεν αὐτὸς μὲν πολλοὺς ἐλέγχους ποιούμενος ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις, γράψας δὲ καὶ βιβλίον ὅπερ πρὸς τοὺς Γνωστικούς ἐπεγράψαμεν, ἡμῖν τὰ λοιπὰ κρίνειν καταλέλοιπεν. Ἀμέλιος δὲ ἄχρι τεσσαράκοντα βιβλίων προκεχώρηκε πρὸς τὸ Ζωστριανοῦ βιβλίον ἀντιγράφων. Πορφύριος δὲ ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸ Ζωροάστρου συχνοὺς πεποίημαι ἐλέγχους, (ὅπως) νόθον τε καὶ νέον τὸ βιβλίον παραδεικνὺς πεπλασμένον τε ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν αἵρεσιν συστησαμένων εἰς δόξαν τοῦ εἶναι τοῦ παλαιοῦ Ζωροάστρου τὰ δόγματα, ἃ αὐτοὶ εἵλοντο πρεσβεύειν. 16. Many Christians of this period — amongst them sectaries who had abandoned the old philosophy, men of the schools of Adelphius and Aquilinus — had possessed themselves of works by Alexander of Lydia, by Philocomus, by Demostratus and by Lydus, and exhibited also Revelations bearing the names of Zoroaster, Zostrianus, Nikotheus, Allogenes, Mesus and others of that order. Thus they fooled many, themselves fooled first; Plato, according to them, had failed to penetrate into the depth of Intellectual Being. Plotinus frequently attacked their position at the Conferences and finally wrote the treatise which I have headed Against the Gnostics: he left to us of the circle the task of [ 850 ]

examining what he himself passed over. Amelius proceeded as far as a fortieth treatise in refutation of the book of Zostrianus: I myself have shown on many counts that the Zoroastrian volume is spurious and modern, concocted by the sectaries in order to pretend that the doctrines they had embraced were those of the ancient sage. 17 τῶν δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἑλλάδος τὰ Νουμηνίου αὐτὸν ὑποβάλλεσθαι λεγόντων καὶ τοῦτο πρὸς Ἀμέλιον ἀγγέλλοντος Τρύφωνος τοῦ Στωικοῦ τε καὶ Πλατωνικοῦ γέγραφεν ὁ Ἀμέλιος βιβλίον ὃ ἐπέγραψε μὲν περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὰ δόγματα τοῦ Πλωτίνου πρὸς τὸν Νουμήνιον διαφορᾶς, προσεφώνησε δὲ αὐτὸ Βασιλεῖ ἐμοί· Βασιλεὺς δὲ τοὔνομα τῷ Πορφυρίῳ ἐμοὶ προσῆν, κατὰ μὲν πάτριον διάλεκτον Μάλχῳ κεκλημένῳ, ὅπερ μοι καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὄνομα κέκλητο, τοῦ δὲ Μάλχου ἑρμηνείαν ἔχοντος βασιλεύς, εἴ τις εἰς Ἑλληνίδα διάλεκτον μεταβάλλειν ἐθέλοι. ὅθεν ὁ Λογγῖνος μὲν προσφωνῶν τὰ περὶ ὁρμῆς Κλεοδάμῳ τε κἀμοὶ Πορφυρίῳ Κλεόδαμέ τε καὶ Μάλχε προὔγραψεν· ὁ δ’ Ἀμέλιος ἐρμηνεύσας τοὔνομα, ὡς ὁ Νουμήνιος τὸν Μάξιμον εἰς τὸν Μεγάλον, οὕτω τὸν Μάλχον οὗτος εἰς τὸν Βασιλέα, γράφει· Ἀμέλιος Βασιλεῖ εὖ πράττειν. αὐτῶν μὲν ἕνεκα τῶν πανευφήμων ἀνδρῶν, οὓς διατεθρυλληκέναι ἐς ἑαυτὸν φής, τὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου ἡμῶν δόγματα εἰς τὸν Ἀπαμέα Νουμήνιον ἀναγόντων, οὐκ ἂν προηκάμην φωνήν, σαφῶς ἐπίστασο. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἀγαλλομένης προελήλυθεν εὐστομίας τε καὶ εὐγλωττίας, νῦν μὲν ὅτι πλατὺς φλήναφος, αὖθις δὲ ὅτι ὑποβολιμαῖος, ἐκ τρίτων δὲ ὅτι καὶ τὰ φαυλότατα τῶν ὄντων ὑποβαλλόμενος, τῷ διασιλλαίνειν αὐτὸν δηλαδὴ κατ’ αὐτοῦ λεγόντων. σοῦ δὲ τῇ προφάσει ταύτῃ οἰομένου δεῖν ἀποχῆσθαι πρὸς τὸ καὶ τὰ ἡμῖν ἀρέσκοντα ἔχειν προσχειρότερα εἰς ἀνάμνησιν καὶ τὸ ἐπ’ ὀνόματι ἑταίρου ἀνδρὸς οἵου τοῦ Πλωτίνου μεγάλου εἰ καὶ πάλαι διαβεβοημένα ὁλοσχερέστερον γνῶναι ὑπήκουσα, καὶ οὖν ἥκω ἀποδιδούς σοι τὰ ἐπηγγελμένα ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς οἶσθα, πεπονημένα. χρὴ δὲ αὐτὰ ὡς ἃν μὴ ἐκ τῆς τῶν συνταγμάτων ἐκείνων παραθέσεως οὔτ’ οὖν συντεταγμένα οὔτε ἐξειλεγμένα, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς ἐντεύξεως ἀναπεπολημένα καὶ ὡς πρῶτα προὔπεσεν ἕκαστα οὕτω ταχθέντα ἐνταῦθα νῦν συγγνώμης δικαίας παρὰ σοῦ τυχεῖν, ἄλλως τε καὶ τοῦ βουλήματος τοῦ ὑπὸ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁμολογίαν ὑπαγομένου πρός τινων ἀνδρὸς οὐ μάλα προχείρου ἑλεῖν ὑπάρχοντος διὰ τὴν ἄλλοτε ἄλλως περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ὡς ἂν δόξειε φοράν. ὅτι δέ, εἴ τι τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας ἑστίας παραχαράττοιτο, διορθώσει εὐμενῶς, εὖ οἶδα. ἠνάγκασμαι δ’ ὡς ἔοικεν, ὥς πού φησιν ἡ τραγῳδία, ὢν φιλοπράγμων τῇ ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ καθηγεμόνος ἡμῶν δογμάτων διαστάσει εὐθύνειν τε καὶ ἀποποιεῖσθαι. τοιοῦτον ἄρα ἦν τὸ σοὶ χαρίζεσθαι ἐξ ἅπαντος βούλεσθαι. ἔρρωσο. 17. Some of the Greeks began to accuse Plotinus of appropriating the ideas of Numenius. Amelius being informed of this charge by the Stoic and Platonist Trupho, challenged it in a treatise which he entitled The Difference between the Doctrines of Plotinus and Numenius. He dedicated the work to me, under the name of Basileus (or King). This really is my name; it is equivalent to Porphyry (Purple-robed) and translates the name I [ 851 ]

bear in my own tongue; for I am called Malchos, like my father, and “Malchos” would give “Basileus” in Greek. Longinus, in dedicating his work On Impulse to Cleodamus and myself, addressed us as “Cleodamus and Malchus,” just as Numenius translated the Latin “Maximus” into its Greek equivalent “Megalos.” Here follows Amelius’ letter: Amelius to Basileus, with all good wishes. You have been, in your own phrase, pestered by the persistent assertion that our friend’s doctrine is to be traced to Numenius of Apamea. Now, if it were merely for those illustrious personages who spread this charge, you may be very sure I would never utter a word in reply. It is sufficiently clear that they are actuated solely by that famous and astonishing facility of speech of theirs when they assert, at one moment, that he is an idle babbler, next that he is a plagiarist, and finally that he bases the universe on the meanest of existents. Clearly in all this we have nothing but scoffing and abuse. But your judgement has persuaded me that we should profit by this occasion firstly to provide ourselves with a useful memorandum of the doctrines that have won our adhesion, and secondly to bring about a more complete knowledge of the system — long celebrated though it be — to the glory of our friend, a man so great as Plotinus. Hence I now bring you the promised Reply, executed, as you yourself know, in three days. You must judge it with reasonable indulgence; this is no orderly and elaborate defence composed in step by step correspondence with the written indictment: I have simply set down, as they occurred to me, my recollections of our frequent discussions. You will admit, also, that it is by no means easy to grasp the meaning of a writer who, like Plotinus, now arraigned for the opinion we also hold, varies in the terms he uses to express the one idea. If I have falsified any essential of the doctrine, I trust to your good nature to set me right: I am reminded of the phrase in the tragedy: A busy man and far from the teachings of our master I must needs correct and recant. Judge how much I wish to give you pleasure. Good health. 18 ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν θεῖναι προήχθην οὐ μόνον πίστεως χάριν τοῦ τοὺς τότε καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγονότας τὰ Νουμηνίου οἴεσθαι ὑποβαλλόμενον κομπάζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι πλατὺν αὐτὸν φλήναφον εἶναι ἡγοῦντο καὶ κατεφρόνουν τῷ μὴ νοεῖν ἃ λέγει καὶ τῷ πάσης σοφιστικῆς αὐτὸν σκηνῆς καθαρεύειν καὶ τύφου, ὁμιλοῦντι δὲ ἐοικέναι ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις καὶ μηδενὶ ταχέως ἐπιφαίνειν τὰς συλλογιστικὰς ἀνάγκας αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐν τῷ λόγῷ λαμβανομένας. ἔπαθον δ’ οὖν τὰ ὅμοια ἐγὼ Πορφύριος, ὅτε πρῶτον αὐτοῦ ἠκροασάμην. διὸ καὶ ἀντιγράψας προσήγαγον δεικνύναι πειρώμενος ὅτι ἔξω τοῦ νοῦ ὑφέστηκε τὸ νόημα. Ἀμέλιον δὲ ποιήσας ταῦτα ἀναγνῶναι, ἐπειδὴ ἀνέγνω, μειδιάσας ‘σὸν ἂν εἴη’, ἔφη, ‘ὦ Ἀμέλιε, λῦσαι τὰς ἀπορίας, εἰς ἃς δι’ [ 852 ]

ἄγνοιαν τῶν ἡμῖν δοκούντων ἐμπέπτωκε’. γράψαντος δὲ βιβλίον οὐ μικρὸν τοῦ Ἀμελίου πρὸς τὰς τοῦ Πορφυρίου ἀπορίας, καὶ αὖ πάλιν πρὸς τὰ γραφέντα ἀντιγράψαντός μου, τοῦ δὲ Ἀμελίου καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀντειπόντος, ἐκ τρίτων μόλις συνεὶς τὰ λεγόμενα ἐγὼ ὁ Πορφύριος μετεθέμην καὶ παλινῳδίαν γράψας ἐν τῇ διατριβῇ ἀνέγνων· κἀκεῖθεν λοιπὸν τά τε βιβλία τὰ Πλωτίνου ἐπιστεύθεν, καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν διδάσκαλον εἰς φιλοτιμίαν προήγαγον τοῦ διαρθροῦν καὶ διὰ πλειόνων γράφειν τὰ δοκοῦντα. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀμέλιος εἰς τὸ συγγράφειν πρόθυμον ἐποίησεν. 18. This letter seemed worth insertion as showing, not merely that some contemporary judgement pronounced Plotinus to be parading on the strength of Numenius’ ideas, but that he was even despised as a word-spinner. The fact is that these people did not understand his teaching: he was entirely free from all the inflated pomp of the professor: his lectures had the air of conversation, and he never forced upon his hearers the severely logical substructure of his thesis. I myself, when I first heard him, had the same experience. It led me to combat his doctrine in a paper in which I tried to show that The Intelligibles exist outside of the Intellectual-Principle. He had my work read to him by Amelius: at the end he smiled and said: “You must clear up these difficulties, Amelius: Porphyry doesn’t understand our position.” Amelius wrote a tract of considerable length, “In Answer to Porphyry’s Objections”; I wrote a reply to the reply: Amelius replied to my reply; at my third attempt I came, though even so with difficulty, to grasp the doctrine: then only, I was converted, wrote a recantation and read it before the circle. From that time on I put faith in Plotinus’ writings and sought to stir in the master himself the ambition of organising his doctrine and setting it down in more extended form. Amelius, too, under my prompting, was encouraged in composition. 19 ἦν δὲ ἔσχε καὶ Λογγῖνος περὶ τοῦ Πλωτίνου δόξαν ἐξ ὧν μάλιστα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐγὼ γράφων ἐσήμαινον, δηλώσει μέρος ἐπιστολῆς γραφείσης πρός με ἐπέχον τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. ἀξιῶν γάρ με ἀπὸ τῆς Σικελίας κατιέναι πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν Φοινίκην καὶ κομίζειν τὰ βιβλία τοῦ Πλωτίνου φησί· ‘καὶ σὺ μὲν ταῦτά τε πέμπειν, ὅταν σοι δοκῇ, μᾶλλον δὲ κομίζειν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἀποσταίην τοῦ πολλάκις δεῖσθαί σου τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁδὸν τῆς ἑτέρωσε προκρῖναι, κἂν εἰ μηδὲν δι’ ἄλλο· τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ σοφὸν παρ’ ἡμῶν προσδοκῶν ἀφίκοιο; τήν τε παλαιὰν συνήθειαν καὶ τὸν ἀέρα μετριώτατον ὄντα πρὸς ἣν λέγεις τοῦ σώματος ἀσθένειαν· κἂν ἄλλο τι τύχῃς οἰηθείς, παρ’ ἐμοῦ δὲ μηδὲν προσδοκᾶν καινότερον, μηδ’ οὖν τῶν παλαιῶν ὅσα φὴς ἀπολωλεκέναι. τῶν γὰρ γραψάντων τοσαύτη σπάνις ἐνταῦθα καθέστηκεν, ὥστε νὴ τοὺς θεοὺς πάντα τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον τὰ λειπόμενα τῶν Πλωτίνου κατασκευάζων μόλις αὐτῶν ἐπεκράτησα τὸν ὑπογραφέα τῶν μὲν εἰωθότων ἀπάγων ἔργων, πρὸς ἑνὶ δὲ τούτῳ τάξας γενέσθαι. καὶ κέκτημαι μὲν ὅσα δοκεῖν πάντα καὶ τὰ νῦν ὑπὸ σοῦ πεμφθέντα, κέκτημαι δὲ ἡμιτελῶς· οὐ γὰρ μετρίως ἦν διημαρτημένα, [ 853 ]

καίτοι τὸν ἑταῖρον Ἀμέλιον ᾤμην ἀναλήψεσθαι τὰ τῶν γραφέων πραίσματα· τῷ δ’ ἦν ἄλλα προυργιαίτερα τῆς τοιαύτης προσεδρείας. οὔκουν ἔχω τίνα χρὴ τρόπον αὐτοῖς ὁμιλῆσαι καίπερ ὑπερεπιθυμῶν τά τε περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ ὄντος ἐπισκέψασθαι· ταῦτα γὰρ οὖν καὶ μάλιστα διημάρτηται. καὶ πάνυ βουλοίμην ἂν ἐλθεῖν μοι παρὰ σοῦ τὰ μετ’ ἀκριβείας γεγραμμένα τοῦ παραναγνῶναι μόνον, εἶτα ἀποπέμψαι πάλιν. αὖθις δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐρῶ λόγον, ὅτι μὴ πέμπειν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸν ἥκειν ἔχοντα μᾶλλον ἀξιῶ ταῦτά τε καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν εἴ τι διαπέφευγε τὸν Ἀμέλιον. ἃ μὲν γὰρ ἤγαγεν, ἅπαντα διὰ σπουδῆς ἐκτησάμην. πῶς δ’ οὐκ ἔμελλον ἀνδρὸς ὑπομνήματα πάσης αἰδοῦς ἄξια καὶ τιμῆς κτήσασθαι; Τοῦτο γὰρ οὖν καὶ παρόντι σοι καὶ μακρὰν ἀπόντι καὶ περὶ τὴν Τύρον διατρίβοντι τυγχάνω δήπουθεν ἐπεσταλκὼς ὅτι τῶν μὲν ὑποθέσεων οὐ πάνυ με τὰς πολλὰς προσίεσθαι συμβέβηκε· τὸν δὲ τύπον τῆς γραφῆς καὶ τῶν ἐννοιῶν τἀνδρὸς τὴν πυκνότητα καὶ τὸ φιλόσοφον τῆς τῶν ζητημάτων διαθέσεως ὑπερβαλλόντως ἄγαμαι καὶ φιλῶ καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐλλογιμωτάτων ἄγειν τὰ τούτου βιβλία φαίην ἂν δεῖν τοὺς ζητητικούς.’ 19. Longinus’ estimate of Plotinus, formed largely upon indications I myself had given him in my letters, will be gathered from the following extract from one of his to me. He is asking me to leave Sicily and join him in Phœnicia, and to bring Plotinus’ works with me. He says: “And send them at your convenience or, better, bring them; for I can never cease urging you to give the road towards us the preference over any other. If there is no better reason — and what intellectual gain can you anticipate from a visit to us? — at least there are old acquaintances and the mild climate which would do you good in the weak state of health you report. Whatever else you may be expecting, do not hope for anything new of my own, or even for the earlier works which you tell me you have lost; for there is a sad dearth of copyists here. I assure you it has taken me all this time to complete my set of Plotinus, and it was done only by calling off my scribe from all his routine work, and keeping him steadily to this one task. I think that now, with what you have sent me, I have everything, though in a very imperfect state, for the manuscript is exceeding faulty. I had expected our friend Amelius to correct the scribal errors, but he evidently had something better to do. The copies are quite useless to me; I have been especially eager to examine the treatises on the Soul and on The Authentic-Existent, and these are precisely the most corrupted. It would be a great satisfaction to me if you would send me faithful transcripts for collation and return — though again I suggest to you not to send but to come in person, bringing me the correct copies of these treatises and of any that Amelius may have passed over. All that have reached me I have been careful to make my own: how could I be content not to possess myself of all the writings of a man so worthy of the deepest veneration? [ 854 ]

I repeat, what I have often said in your presence and in your absence, as on that occasion when you were at Tyre, that while much of the theory does not convince me, yet I am filled with admiration and delight over the general character of the work, the massive thinking of the man, the philosophic handling of problems; in my judgement investigators must class Plotinus’ work with that holding the very highest rank.” 20 ταῦτα ἐπιπλέον παρατέθεικα τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς κριτικωτάτου γενομένου καὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων σχεδὸν πάντα τῶν καθ’ αὑτὸν διελέγξαντος δεικνὺς οἵα γέγονεν ἡ περὶ Πλωτίνου κρίσις· καίτοι τὰ πρῶτα ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀμαθίας καταφρονητικῶς ἔχων πρὸς αὐτὸν διετέλει. ἐδόκει δὲ ἃ ἐκτήσατο ἐκ τῶν Ἀμελίου λαβὼν ἡμαρτῆσθαι διὰ τὸ μὴ νοεῖν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τὴν συνήθη ἑρμηνείαν. εἰ γάρ τινα καὶ ἄλλα, καὶ τὰ παρ’ Ἀμελίῳ διώρθωτο ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτογράφων μετειλημμένα. ἔτι δὲ τοῦ Λογγίνου ἃ ἐν συγγράμματι γέγραφε περὶ Πλωτίνου τε καὶ Ἀμελίου καὶ τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν γεγονότων φιλοσόφων ἀναγκαῖον παραθεῖναι, ἵνα καὶ πλήρης γένηται ἡ περὶ αὐτῶν κρίσις οἵα γέγονε τοῦ ἐλλογιμωτάτου ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἐλεγκτικωτάτου. ἐπιγράφεται δὲ τὸ βιβλίον Λογγίνου πρὸς Πλωτῖνον καὶ Γεντιλιανὸν Ἀμέλιον περὶ τέλους. Ἔχει δὲ τοιόνδε προοίμιον· ‘πολλῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς, ὦ Μάρκελλε, γεγενημένων φιλοσόφων οὐχ ἥκιστα παρὰ τοὺς πρώτους τῆς ἡλικίας ἡμῶν χρόνους· ὁ μὲν γὰρ νῦν καιρὸς οὐδ’ εἰπεῖν ἔστιν ὅσην σπάνιν ἔσχηκε τοῦ πράγματος· ἔτι δὲ μειρακίων ὄντων ἡμῶν οὐκ ὀλίγοι τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγων προέστησαν, οὓς ἅπαντας μὲν ὑπῆρξεν ἰδεῖν ἡμῖν διὰ τὴν ἐκ παίδων ἐπὶ πολλοὺς τόπους ἅμα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἐπιδημίαν, συγγενέσθαι δὲ αὐτῶν τοῖς ἐπιβιώσασι κατὰ ταὐτὸ συχνοῖς ἔθνεσι καὶ πόλεσιν ἐπιμίξαντας· οἱ μὲν καὶ διὰ γραφῆς ἐπεχείρησαν τὰ δοκοῦντα σφίσι πραγματεύεσθαι καταλιπόντες τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις τῆς παρ’ αὐτῶν ὠφελείας μετασχεῖν, οἱ δ’ ἀποχρῆναι σφίσιν ἡγήσαντο τοὺς συνόντας προβιβάζειν εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀρεσκόντων ἑαυτοῖς κατάληψιν. ὧν τοῦ μὲν προτέρου γεγόνασι τρόπου Πλατωνικοὶ μὲν Εὐκλείδης καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Προκλῖνος ὁ περὶ τὴν Τρῳάδα διατρίψας οἵ τε μέχρι νῦν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ δημοσιεύοντες Πλωτῖνος καὶ Γεντιλιανὸς Ἀμέλιος ὁ τούτου γνώριμος, Στωικῶν δὲ Θεμιστοκλῆς καὶ Φοιβίων οἵ τε μέχρι πρῴην ἀκμάσαντες Ἄννιός τε καὶ Μήδιος, Περιπατητικῶν δὲ ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς Ἡλιόδωρος. τοῦ δὲ δευτέρου Πλατωνικοὶ μὲν Ἀμμώνιος καὶ Ὡριγένης, οἷς ἡμεῖς τὸ πλεῖστον τοῦ χρόνου προσεφοιτήσαμεν, ἀνδράσιν οὐκ ὀλίγῳ τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς εἰς σύνεσιν διενεγκοῦσιν, οἵ τε Ἀθήνησι διάδοχοι Θεόδοτος καὶ Εὔβουλος· καὶ γὰρ εἴ τι τούτων γέγραπταί τισιν, ὥσπερ Ὡριγένει μὲν τὸ περὶ τῶν δαιμόνων, Εὐβούλῳ δὲ τὸ περὶ τοῦ Φιλήβου καὶ τοῦ Γοργίου καὶ τῶν Ἀριστοτέλει πρὸς τὴν Πλάτωνος Πολιτείαν ἀντειρημένων, οὐκ ἐχέγγυα πρὸς τὸ μετὰ τῶν ἐξειργασμένων τὸν λόγον αὐτοὺς ἀριθμεῖν ἂν γένοιτο πάρεργον τῇ τοιαύτῃ χρησαμένων σπουδῇ καὶ μὴ προηγουμένην περὶ τοῦ γράφειν ὁρμὴν λαβόντων. τῶν δὲ Στωικῶν Ἑρμῖνος καὶ Λυσίμαχος οἵ τε ἐν ἄστει καταβιώσαντες Ἀθηναῖος καὶ Μουσώνιος, καὶ Περιπατητικῶν Ἀμμώνιος καὶ Πτολεμαῖος φιλολογώτατοι μὲν τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἄμφω γενόμενοι καὶ μάλιστα ὁ Ἀμμώνιος· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ὅστις ἐκείνῳ γέγονεν εἰς πολυμαθίαν παραπλήσιος· οὐ μὴν καὶ γράψαντές τε τεχνικὸν οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ ποιήματα καὶ λόγους ἐπιδεικτικούς, ἅπερ οὖν καὶ σωθῆναι [ 855 ]

τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων οὐχ ἑκόντων οἶμαι· μὴ γὰρ ἂν αὐτοὺς δέξασθαι διὰ τοιούτων βιβλίων ὕστερον γενέσθαι γνωρίμους, ἀφέντας σπουδαιοτέροις συγγράμμασι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀποθησαυρίσαι διάνοιαν. τῶν δ’ οὖν γραψάντων οἱ μὲν οὐδὲν πλέον ἢ συναγωγὴν καὶ μεταγραφὴν τῶν τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις συντεθέντων ἐποιήσαντο, καθάπερ Εὐκλείδης καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Προκλῖνος, οἱ δὲ μικρὰ κομιδῇ πράγματα τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν ἱστορίας ἀπομνημονεύσαντες εἰς τοὺς αὐτοὺς τόπους ἐκείνοις ἐπεχείρησαν συντιθέναι βιβλία, καθάπερ Ἄννιος τε καὶ Μήδιος καὶ Φοιβίων, οὗτος μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν τῇ λέξει κατασκευῆς γνωρίζεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ συντάξεως ἀξιῶν· οἷς καὶ τὸν Ἡλιόδωρον συγκατανείμειέ τις ἄν, οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνον παρὰ τὰ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἐν ταῖς ἀκροάσεσιν εἰρημένα πλέον τι συμβαλλόμενον εἰς τὴν τοῦ λόγου διάρθρωσιν. οἱ δὲ καὶ πλήθει προβλημάτων ἃ μετεχειρίσαντο τὴν σπουδὴν τοῦ γράφειν ἀποδειξάμενοι καὶ τρόπῳ θεωρίας ἰδίῳ χρησάμενοι Πλωτῖνός εἰσι καὶ Γεντιλιανὸς Ἀμέλιος· ὃς μὲν τὰς Πυθαγορείους ἀρχὰς καὶ Πλατωνικάς, ὡς ἐδόκει, πρὸς σαφεστέραν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ καταστησάμενος ἐξήγησιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐγγύς τι τὰ Νουμηνίου καὶ Κρονίου καὶ Μοδεράτου καὶ Θρασύλλου τοῖς Πλωτίνου περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν συγγράμμασιν εἰς ἀκρίβειαν· ὁ δὲ Ἀμέλιος κατ’ ἴχνη μὲν τούτου βαδίζειν προαιρούμενος καὶ τὰ πολλὰ μὲν τῶν αὐτῶν δογμάτων ἐχόμενος, τῇ δὲ ἐξεργασίᾳ πολὺς ὢν καὶ τῇ τῆς ἑρμηνείας περιβολῇ πρὸς τὸν ἐναντίον ἐκείνῳ ζῆλον ὑπαγόμενος. ὧν καὶ μόνων ἡμεῖς ἄξιον εἶναι νομίζομεν ἐπισκοπεῖσθαι τὰ συγγράμματα. τοὺς μὲν γὰρ λοιποὺς τί τις ἂν κινεῖν οἴοιτο δεῖν ἀφεὶς ἐξετάζειν ἐκείνους, παρ’ ὧν ταῦτα λαβόντες οὗτοι γεγράφασιν οὐδὲν αὐτοὶ παρ’ αὑτῶν προσθέντες οὐχ ὅτι τῶν κεφαλαίων, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων, οὐδ’ οὖν ἢ συναγωγῆς τῶν παρὰ τοῖς πλείοσιν ἢ κρίσεως τοῦ βελτίονος ἐπιμεληθέντες; Ἤδη μὲν οὖν καὶ δι’ ἄλλων τουτὶ πεποιήκαμεν, ὥσπερ καὶ τῷ μὲν Γεντιλιανῷ περὶ τῆς κατὰ Πλάτωνα δικαιοσύνης ἀντειπόντες, τοῦ δὲ Πλωτίνου τὸ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν ἐπισκεψάμενοι· τὸν μὲν γὰρ κοινὸν ἡμῶν τε κἀκείνων ἑταῖρον ὄντα, Βασιλέα τὸν Τύριον, οὐδ’ αὐτὸν ὀλίγα πεπραγματευμένον κατὰ τὴν Πλωτίνου μίμησιν, ὃν ἀποδεξάμενος μᾶλλον τῆς παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀγωγῆς ἐπεχείρησε διὰ συγγράμματος ἀποδεῖξαι βελτίω δόξαν περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν τῆς ἡμῖν ἀπεσκούσης ἔχοντα, μετρίως ἀντιγραφῇ διελέγξαι δοκοῦμεν οὐκ εὖ παλινῳδήσαντα κἀν τούτοις οὐκ ὀλίγας τῶν ἀνδρῶν τούτων κεκινηκότες δόξας, ὥσπερ κἀν τῇ πρὸς τὸν Ἀμέλιον ἐπιστολῇ, μέγεθος μὲν ἐχούσῃ συγγράμματος, ἀποκρινομένῃ δὲ πρὸς ἄττα τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπεσταλμένων, ἣν αὐτὸς μὲν ἐπιστολὴν περὶ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς Πλωτίνου φιλοσοφίας ἐπέγραψεν, ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸ μόνον προσηρκέσθημεν τῇ κοινῇ τοῦ συγγράμματος ἐπιγραφῇ πρὸς τὴν Ἀμέλιον ἐπιστολὴν αὐτὸ προσαγορεύσαντες.’ 20. This extended quotation from the most acute of the critics of our day — a writer who has passed judgement on nearly all his contemporaries — serves to show the estimate he came to set upon Plotinus of whom, at first, misled by ignorant talk, he had held a poor opinion. His notion, by the way, that the transcripts Amelius sent him were faulty sprang from his misunderstanding of Plotinus’ style and phraseology; if there were ever any [ 856 ]

accurate copies, these were they, faithful reproductions from the author’s own manuscript. Another passage from a work of Longinus, dealing with Amelius, Plotinus and other metaphysicians of the day, must be inserted here to give a complete view of the opinion formed upon these philosophers by the most authoritative and most searching of critics. The work was  entitled On the End: in Answer to Plotinus and Gentilianus Amelius. It opens with the following preface: In our time, Marcellus, there have been many philosophers — especially in our youth — for there is a strange scarcity at present. When I was a boy, my parents’ long journeys gave me the opportunity of seeing all the better-known teachers; and in later life those that still lived became known to me as my visits to this and that city and people brought me where they happened to live. Some of these undertook the labour of developing their theories in formal works and so have bequeathed to the future the means of profiting by their services. Others thought they had done enough when they had convinced their own immediate hearers of the truth of their theories. First of those that have written. Among the Platonists there are Euclides, Democritus, Proclinus the philosopher of the Troad, and the two who still profess philosophy at Rome, Plotinus and his friend Gentilianus Amelius. Among the Stoics there are Themistocles and Phoibion and the two who flourished only a little while ago, Annius and Medius. And there is the Peripatetic, Heliodorus of Alexandria. For those that have not written, there are among the Platonists Ammonius and Origen, two teachers whose lectures I myself attended during a long period, men greatly surpassing their contemporaries in mental power; and there are the Platonic Successors at Athens, Theodorus and Eubulus. No doubt some writing of a metaphysical order stands to the credit of this group: Origen wrote on Spirit-Beings; Eubulus commented on both the Philebus and Gorgias, and examined the objections urged by Aristotle to Plato’s Republic; but this is not enough to class either of them with systematic authors. This was side-play; authorship was not in the main plan of their careers. Among Stoic teachers that refrained from writing we have Herminus and Lysimachus, and the two living at Athens, Musonius and Athenæus; among Peripatetics, Ammonius and Ptolemæus. The two last were the most accomplished scholars of their time, Ammonius especially being unapproached in breadth of learning; but neither produced any systematic work; we have from them merely verses and duty-speeches; and these I [ 857 ]

cannot think to have been preserved with their consent; they did not concern themselves about formal statement of their doctrine, and it is not likely they would wish to be known in after times by compositions of so trivial a nature. To return to the writers; some of them, like Euclides, Democritus and Proclinus, confined themselves to the mere compilation and transcription of passages from earlier authorities. Others diligently worked over various minor points in the investigations of the ancients, and put together books dealing with the same subjects. Such were Annius, Medius and Phoibion, the last especially choosing to be distinguished for style rather than for systematic thinking. In the same class must be ranked Heliodorus; his writings contribute nothing to the organisation of the thought which he found to his hand in the teaching of earlier workers. Plotinus and Gentilianus Amelius alone display the true spirit of authorship; they treat of a great number of questions and they bring a method of their own to the treatment. Plotinus, it would seem, set the principles of Pythagoras and of Plato in a clearer light than anyone before him; on the same subjects, Numenius, Cronius, Moderatus and Thrasyllus fall far short of him in precision and fulness. Amelius set himself to walk in Plotinus’ steps and adopted most of Plotinus’ opinions; his method, however, was diffuse and, unlike his friend, he indulges in an extravagance of explanation. Only these two seem to me worth study. What profit can anyone expect from troubling the works of any of the others to the neglect of the originals on which they drew? Content with setting side by side the most generally adopted theories and marking off the better from the worse, they bring us nothing of their own, not even a novel argument, much less a leading idea. My own method has been different; as for example when I replied to Gentilianus upon Plato’s treatment of Justice and in a review I undertook  of Plotinus’ theory of the Idea. This latter was in the form of a reply to Basileus of Tyre, my friend as theirs. He had preferred Plotinus’ system to mine and had written several works in the manner of his master, amongst them a treatise supporting Plotinus’ theory of the Idea against that which I taught. I endeavoured, not, I think, unsuccessfully, to show that his change of mind was mistaken. In these two essays I have ranged widely over the doctrines of this school, as also in my Letter to Amelius which, despite the simple title with which I contented myself, has the dimensions of a book, being a reply to a treatise he addressed to me from Rome under the title “On Plotinus’ Philosophic Method.” 21 ἐν δὴ τούτοις τότε ὡμολόγησε μὲν πάντων τῶν ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγονότων πλήθει τε προβλημάτων διενεγκεῖν Πλωτῖνόν τε καὶ Ἀμέλιον, τρόπῳ δὲ θεωρίας ἰδίῳ μάλιστα τούτους [ 858 ]

χρήσασθαι, τὰ Νουμηνίου δὲ οὐχ ὅτι ὑποβάλλεσθαι καὶ τἀκείνου πρεσβεύειν δόγματα, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων αὐτοῦ τε ἑλομένου μετιέναι δόγματα, καὶ οὐδ’ ἐγγὺς εἶναι τὰ Νουμηνίου καὶ Κρονίου καὶ Μοδεράτου καὶ Θρασύλλου τοῖς Πλωτίνου περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν συγγράμμασιν εἰς ἀκρίβειαν. εἰπὼν δὲ περὶ Ἀμελίου, ὅτι κατ’ ἴχνη μὲν τοῦ Πλωτίνου ἐβάδιζε, τῇ δὲ ἐξεργασίᾳ πολὺς ὢν καὶ τῇ τῆς ἑρμηνείας περιβολῇ πρὸς τὸν ἐναντίον ἐκείνῳ ζῆλον ὑπήγετο, ὅμως μνησθεὶς ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου ἔτι ἀρχὰς ἔχοντος τῆς πρὸς τὸν Πλωτῖνον συνουσίας φησὶν ὅτι ‘ὁ δὲ κοινὸς ἡμῶν τε κἀκείνων ἑταῖρος Βασιλεὺς ὁ Τύριος οὐδ’ αὐτὸς ὀλίγα πεπραγματευμένος κατὰ τὴν Πλωτίνου μίμησιν συνέθηκε’, ταῦτα ὄντως κατιδών, ὅτι τῆς Ἀμελίου περιβολῆς τὸ ἀφιλόσοφον παντελῶς ἐφυλαξάμην καὶ πρὸς ζῆλον τὸν Πλωτίνου γράφων ἀφεώρων. ἀρκεῖ τοίνυν ὁ τοσοῦτος ἀνὴρ καὶ ἐν κρίσει πρῶτος ὢν καὶ ὑπειλημμένος ἄχρι νῦν τοιαῦτα γράφων περὶ Πλωτίνου, ὡς, εἰ καὶ καλοῦντί με τὸν Πορφύριον συνέβη δυνηθῆναι συμμῖξαι αὐτῷ, οὐδ’ ἂν ἀντέγραψεν, ἃ πρὶν ἀκριβῶσαι τὸ δόγμα γράψαι ἐπεχείρησεν. 21. This Preface leaves no doubt of Longinus’ final verdict: he ranks Plotinus and Amelius above all authors of his time in the multitude of questions they discuss; he credits them with an original method of investigation: in his judgement they by no means took their system from Numenius or gave a first place to his opinions, but followed the Pythagorean and Platonic schools; finally he declares the writings of Numenius, Cronius, Moderatus and Thrasyllus greatly inferior in precision and fulness to those of Plotinus. Notice, by the way, that while Amelius is described as following in Plotinus’ footsteps, it is indicated that his temperamental prolixity led him to delight in an extravagance of explanation foreign to his master: in the reference to myself, though I was then only at the beginning of my association with Plotinus— “Basileus of Tyre, my friend as theirs, who has written a good deal, has taken Plotinus as his model” — Longinus recognises that I entirely avoided Amelius’ unphilosophical prolixity and made Plotinus’ manner my standard. Such a pronouncement upon the value of Plotinus’ work, coming from so great an authority, the first of critics then as now, must certainly carry weight, and I may remark that if I had been able to confer with him, during such a visit as he proposed, he would not have written to combat doctrines which he had not thoroughly penetrated. 22 ἀλλὰ τιή μοι ταῦτα περὶ δρῦν ὴ περὶ πέτραν — φησὶν ὁ Ἡσίοδος — λέγειν; Εἰ γὰρ δεῖ ταῖς μαρτυρίαις χρῆσθαι ταῖς παρὰ τῶν σοφῶν γεγενημέναις, τίς ἂν εἴη σοφώτερος θεοῦ, καὶ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀληθῶς εἰρηκότος· οἶδα δ’ ἐγὼ ψάμμου τ’ ἀριθμὸν καὶ μέτρα θαλάσσης καὶ κωφοῦ ξυνίημι καὶ οὐ λαλέοντος ἀκούω; ὁ γὰρ δὴ Ἀπόλλων ἐρομένου τοῦ Ἀμελίου, ποῦ ἡ Πλωτίνου ψυχὴ κεχώρηκεν, ὁ τοσοῦτον εἰπὼν περὶ Σωκράτους· [ 859 ]

ἀνδρῶν ἁπάντων Σωκράτης σοφώτατος, ἐπάκουσον, ὅσα καὶ οἷα περὶ Πλωτίνου ἐθέσπισεν· ἄμβροτα φορμίζειν ἀναβάλλομαι ὕμνον ἀοιδῆς ἀμφ’ ἀγανοῖο φίλοιο μελιχροτάταισιν ὑφαίνων φωναῖς εὐφήμου κιθάρης χρυσέῳ ὑπὸ πλήκτρῳ. κλῄζω καὶ Μούσας ξυνὴν ὄπα γηρύσασθαι παμφώνοις ἰαχαῖσι παναρμονίαισί τ’ ἐρωαῖς, οἷον ἐπ’ Αἰακίδῃ στῆσαι χορὸν ἐκλήιχθεν ἀθανάτων μανίαισιν Ὁμηρείαισί τ’ ἀοιδαῖς. ἀλλ’ ἄγε Μουσάων ἱερὸς χορός, ἀπύσωμεν εἰς ἓν ἐπιπνείοντες ἀοιδῆς τέρματα πάσης· ὕμμι καὶ ἐν μέσσαισιν ἐγὼ Φοῖβος βαθυχαίτης· δαῖμον, ἄνερ τὸ πάροιθεν, ἀτὰρ νῦν δαίμονος αἴσῃ θειοτέρῃ πελάων, ὅτ’ ἐλύσαο δεσμὸν ἀνάγκης ἀνδρομέης, ῥεθέων δὲ πολυφλοίσβοιο κυδοιμοῦ ῥωσάμενος πραπίδεσσιν ἐς ᾐόνα νηχύτου ἀκτῆς νήχε’ ἐπειγόμενος δήμου ἀπο νόσφιν ἀλιτρῶν στηρίξαι καθαρῆς ψυχῆς εὐκαμπέα οἴμην, ἧχι θεοῖο σέλας περιλάμπεται, ἧχι θέμιστες ἐν καθαρῷ ἀπάτερθεν ἀλιτροσύνης ἀθεμίστου. καὶ τότε μὲν σκαίροντι πικρὸν κῦμ’ ἐξυπαλύξαι αἱμοβότου βιότοιο καὶ ἀσηρῶν εἰλίγγων ἐν μεσάτοισι κλύδωνος ἀνωίστου τε κυδοιμοῦ πολλάκις ἐκ μακάρων φάνθη σκοπὸς ἐγγύθι ναίων. πολλάκι σεῖο νόοιο βολὰς λοξῇσιν ἀταρποῖς ἱεμένας φορέεσθαι ἐρωῇσι σφετέρῃσιν ὀρθοπόρους ἀνὰ κύκλα καὶ ἄμβροτον οἶμον ἄειραν ἀθάνατοι θαμινὴν φαέων ἀκτῖνα πορόντες ὄσσοισιν δέρκεσθαι ἀπαὶ σκοτίης λυγαίης. οὐδέ σε παμπήδην βλεφάρων ἔχε νήδυμος ὕπνος· ἀλλ’ ἄρ’ ἀπὸ βλεφάρων πετάσας κληῖδα βαρεῖαν ἀχλύος ἐν δίνῃσι φορεύμενος ἔδρακες ὄσσοις πολλά τε καὶ χαρίεντα, τά κεν ῥέα οὔτις ἴδοιτο ἀνθρώπων, ὅσσοι σοφίης μαιήτορες ἔπλευν. νῦν δ’ ὅτε δὴ σκῆνος μὲν ἐλύσαο, σῆμα δ’ ἔλειψας ψυχῆς δαιμονίης, μεθ’ ὁμήγυριν ἔρχεαι ἤδη δαιμονίην ἐρατοῖσιν ἀναπνείουσαν ἀήταις, [ 860 ]

ἔνθ’ ἔνι μὲν φιλότης, ἔνι δ’ ἵμερος ἁβρὸς ἰδέσθαι, εὐφροσύνης πλείων καθαρῆς, πληρούμενος αἰὲν ἀμβροσίων ὀχετῶν θεόθεν ὅθεν ἐστὶν ἐρώτων πείσματα, καὶ γλυκερὴ πνοιὴ καὶ νήνεμος αἰθήρ, χρυσείης γενεῆς μεγάλου Διὸς ἧχι νέμονται Μίνως καὶ Ῥαδάμανθυς ἀδελφεοί, ἧχι δίκαιος Αἰακός, ἧχι Πλάτων, ἱερὴ ἴς, ἧχί τε καλὸς Πυθαγόρης ὅσσοι τε χορὸν στήριξαν ἔρωτος ἀθανάτου, ὅσσοι γενεὴν ξυνὴν ἐλάχοντο δαίμοσιν ὀλβίστοις, ὅθι τοι κέαρ ἐν θαλίῃσιν αἰὲν εὐφροσυνῃσι τ’ ἰαίνεται. ἆ μάκαρ, ὅσσους ὀτλήσας ἀριθμοὺς ἀέθλων μετὰ δαίμονας ἁγνοὺς πωλέεαι ζαμενῇσι κορυσσάμενος ζωῇσι. στήσωμεν μολπήν τε χοροῦ τ’ εὐδίνεα κύκλον Πλωτίνου, Μοῦσαι, πολυγηθέος· αὐτὰρ ἐμεῖο χρυσείη κιθάρη τόσσον φράσεν εὐαίωνι. 22. But why talk, to use Hesiod’s phrase, “About Oak and Rock”? If we are to accept the evidence of the wise — who could be wiser than a God? And here the witness is the same God that said with truth: “I have numbered the sands and taken the measure of the sea; I understand the dumb and hear where there has been no speech.” Apollo was consulted by Amelius, who desired to learn where Plotinus’ soul had gone. And Apollo, who uttered of Socrates that great praise, “Of all men, Socrates the wisest” — you shall hear what a full and lofty oracle Apollo rendered upon Plotinus. I raise an undying song, to the memory of a gentle friend, a hymn of praise woven to the honey-sweet tones of my lyre under the touch of the golden plectrum. The Muses, too, I call to lift the voice with me in strains of many-toned exultation, in passion ranging over all the modes of song: even as of old they raised the famous chant to the glory of Aeakides in the immortal ardours of the Homeric line. Come, then, Sacred Chorus, let us intone with one great sound the utmost of all song, I Phoebus, Bathychaites, singing in the midst. Celestial! Man at first but now nearing the diviner ranks! the bonds of human necessity are loosed for you and, strong of heart, you beat your eager way from out the roaring tumult of the fleshly life to the shores of that wave-washed coast free from the thronging of the guilty, thence to take the grateful path of the sinless soul:

[ 861 ]

where glows the splendour of God, where Right is throned in the stainless place, far from the wrong that mocks at law. Oft-times as you strove to rise above the bitter waves of this blood-drenched life, above the sickening whirl, toiling in the mid-most of the rushing flood and the unimaginable turmoil, oft-times,  from the Ever-Blessed, there was shown to you the Term still close at hand: Oft-times, when your mind thrust out awry and was like to be rapt down unsanctioned paths, the Immortals themselves prevented, guiding you on the straightgoing way to the celestial spheres, pouring down before you a dense shaft of light that your eyes might see from amid the mournful gloom. Sleep never closed those eyes: high above the heavy murk of the mist you held them; tossed in the welter, you still had vision; still you saw sights many and fair not granted to all that labour in wisdom’s quest. But now that you have cast the screen aside, quitted the tomb that held your lofty soul, you enter at once the heavenly consort: where fragrant breezes play, where all is unison and winning tenderness and guileless joy, and the place is lavish of the nectar-streams the unfailing Gods bestow, with the blandishments of the Loves, and delicious airs, and tranquil sky: where Minos and Rhadamanthus dwell, great brethren of the golden race of mighty Zeus; where dwells the just Aeacus, and Plato, consecrated power, and stately Pythagoras and all else that form the Choir of Immortal Love, there where the heart is ever lifted in joyous festival. O Blessed One, you have fought your many fights; now, crowned with unfading life, your days are with the Ever-Holy. Rejoicing Muses, let us stay our song and the subtle windings of our dance; thus much I could but tell, to my golden lyre, of Plotinus, the hallowed soul. 23 ἐν δὴ τούτοις εἴρηται μὲν ὅτι ἀγανὸς γέγονε καὶ ἤπιος καὶ πρᾶός γε μάλιστα καὶ μείλιχος, ἅπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς οὕτως ἔχοντι συνῄδειμεν· εἴρηται δ’ ὅτι ἄγρυπνος καὶ καθαρὰν τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχων καὶ ἀεὶ σπεύδων πρὸς τὸ θεῖον, οὗ διὰ πάσης τῆς ψυχῆς ἤρα, ὅτι τε πάντ’ ἐποίει ἀπαλλαγῆναι [καὶ] πικρὸν κῦμ’ ἐξυπαλύξαι τοῦ αἱμοβότου τῇδε βίου. οὕτως δὲ μάλιστα τούτῳ τῷ δαιμονίῳ φωτὶ πολλάκις ἐνάγοντι ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸν πρῶτον καὶ ἐπέκεινα θεὸν ταῖς ἐννοίαις καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἐν τῷ «Συμποσίῳ» ὑφηγημένας ὁδοὺς τῷ Πλάτωνι ἐφάνη ἐκεῖνος ὁ θεὸς ὁ μήτε μορφὴν μήτε τινὰ ἰδέαν ἔχων, ὑπὲρ δὲ νοῦν καὶ πᾶν τὸ νοητὸν ἱδρυμένος. ᾧ δὴ καὶ ἐγὼ Πορφύριος ἅπαξ λέγω πλησιάσαι καὶ ἑνωθῆναι ἔτος ἄγων ἑξηκοστόν τε καὶ ὄγδοον. ἐφάνη γοῦν τῷ Πλωτίνῳ σκοπὸς ἐγγύθι ναίων. τέλος γὰρ αὐτῷ καὶ σκοπὸς ἦν τὸ ἑνωθῆναι καὶ πελάσαι τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεῷ. ἔτυχε δὲ τετράκις που, ὅτε αὐτῷ συνήμην, τοῦ σκοποῦ τούτου ἐνεργείᾳ ἀρρήτῳ (καὶ οὐ δυνάμει). καὶ ὅτι λοξῶς φερόμενον πολλάκις οἱ θεοὶ κατεύθυναν θαμινὴν φαέων ἀκτῖνα [ 862 ]

πορόντες, ὡς ἐπισκέψει τῇ παρ’ ἐκείνων καὶ ἐπιβλέψει γραφῆναι τὰ γραφέντα, εἴρηται. ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἀγρύπνου ἔσωθέν τε καὶ ἔξωθεν θέας ἔδρακες, φησίν, ὄσσοις πολλά τε καὶ χαρίεντα, τά κεν ῥέα οὔτις ἴδοιτο ἀνθρώπων τῶν φιλοσοφίᾳ προσεχόντων. ἡ γὰρ δὴ τῶν ἀνθρώπων θεωρία ἀνθρωπίνης μὲν ἂν γένοιτο ἀμείνων· ὡς δὲ πρὸς τὴν θείαν γνῶσιν χαρίεσσα μὲν ἂν εἴη, οὐ μὴν ὥστε τὸ βάθος ἑλεῖν ἂν δυνηθῆναι, ὥσπερ αἱροῦσιν οἱ θεοί. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὅ τι ἔτι σῶμα περικείμενος ἐνήργει καὶ τίνων ἐτύγχανε δεδήλωκε. μετὰ δὲ τὸ λυθῆναι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἐλθεῖν μὲν αὐτόν φησιν εἰς τὴν δαιμονίαν ὁμήγυριν, πολιτεύεσθαι δ’ ἐκεῖ φιλότητα, ἵμερον, εὐφροσύνην, ἔρωτα ἐξημμένον τοῦ θεοῦ, τετάχθαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς λεγομένους δικαστὰς τῶν ψυχῶν, παῖδας τοῦ θεοῦ, Μίνω καὶ Ῥαδάμανθυν καὶ Αἰακόν, πρὸς οὓς οὐ δικασθησόμενον οἴχεσθαι, συνεσόμενον δὲ τούτοις, οἷς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι θεοῖς ἀρεστοὶ σύνεισιν. [εἰσὶ] δὲ οὗτοι Πλάτων, Πυθαγόρας ὁπόσοι τε ἄλλοι χορὸν στήριξαν ἔρωτος ἀθανάτου· ἐκεῖ δὲ τὴν γένεσιν τοὺς ὀλβίστους δαίμονας ἔχειν βίον τε μετιέναι τὸν ἐν θαλείαις καὶ εὐφροσύναις καταπεπυκνωμένον καὶ τοῦτον διατελεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ θεῶν μακαριζόμενον. 23. Good and kindly, singularly gentle and engaging: thus the oracle presents him, and so in fact we found him. Sleeplessly alert — Apollo tells — pure of soul, ever striving towards the divine which he loved with all his being, he laboured strenuously to free himself and rise above the bitter waves of this blood-drenched life: and this is why to Plotinus — God-like  and lifting himself often, by the ways of meditation and by the methods Plato teaches in the Banquet, to the first and all-transcendent God — that God appeared, the God throned above the Intellectual-Principle and all the IntellectualSphere. “There was shown to Plotinus the Term ever near”: for the Term, the one end, of his life was to become Uniate, to approach to the God over all: and four times, during the period I passed with him, he achieved this Term, by no mere latent fitness but by the ineffable Act. To this God, I also declare, I Porphyry, that in my sixty-eighth year I too was once admitted and entered into Union. We are told that often when he was leaving the way, the Gods set him on the true path again, pouring down before him a dense shaft of light; here we are to understand that in his writing he was overlooked and guided by the divine powers. “In this sleepless vision within and without,” — the oracle says,— “your eyes have beheld sights many and fair not vouchsafed to all that take the philosophic path”: contemplation in man may sometimes be more than human, but compare it with the True-Knowing of the Gods and, wonderful though it be, it can never plunge into the depths their divine vision fathoms. Thus far the Oracle recounts what Plotinus accomplished and to what heights he attained while still in the body: emancipated from the body, we are told how he entered [ 863 ]

the celestial circle where all is friendship, tender delight, happiness and loving union with God, where Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, the sons of God, are enthroned as judges of souls — not, however, to hold him to judgement but as welcoming him to their consort to which are bidden spirits pleasing to the Gods — Plato, Pythagoras and all the people of the Choir of Immortal Love, there where the blessed spirits have their birth-home and live in days made happy by the Gods. 24 τοιοῦτος μὲν οὖν ὁ Πλωτίνου ἡμῖν ἱστόρηται βίος. ἐπεὶ δὲ αὐτὸς τὴν διάταξιν καὶ τὴν διόρθωσιν τῶν βιβλίων ποιεῖσθαι ἡμῖν ἐπέτρεψεν, ἐγὼ δὲ κἀκείνῳ ζῶντι ὑπεσχόμην καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἑταίροις ἐπηγγειλάμην ποιῆσαι τοῦτο, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ βιβλία οὐ κατὰ χρόνους ἐᾶσαι φύρδην ἐκδεδομένα ἐδικαίωσα, μιμησάμενος δ’ Ἀπολλόδωρον τὸν Ἀθηναῖον καὶ Ἀνδρόνικον τὸν Περιπατητικόν, ὧν ὁ μὲν Ἐπίχαρμον τὸν κωμῳδιογράφον εἰς δέκα τόμους φέρων συνήγαγεν, ὁ δὲ τὰ Ἀριστοτέλους και Θεοφράστου εἰς πραγματείας διεῖλε τὰς οἰκείας ὑποθέσεις εἰς ταὐτὸν συναγαγών· οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐγὼ νδ ὄντα ἔχων τὰ τοῦ Πλωτίνου τοῦ ἓξ ἀριθμοῦ καὶ ταῖς ἐννεάσιν ἀσμένως ἐπιτυχών, ἑκάστῃ δὲ ἐννεάδι τὰ οἰκεῖα φέρων συνεφόρησα δοὺς καὶ τάξιν πρώτην τοῖς ἐλαφροτέροις προβλήμασιν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ πρώτη ἐννεὰς ἔχει τὰ ἠθικώτερα τάδε· τί τὸ ζῷον καὶ τίς ὁ ἄνθρωπος· περὶ ἀρετῶν· περὶ διαλεκτικῆς· περὶ εὐδαιμονίας· εἰ ἐν παρατάσει χρόνου τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν· περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ· περὶ τοῦ πρώτου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν· πόθεν τὰ κακά· περὶ τῆς ἐκ τοῦ βίου ἐυλόγου ἐξαγωγῆς· ἡ μὲν οὖν πρώτη τάδε περιέχει ἠθικωτέρας ὑποθέσεις περιλαβοῦσα. ἡ δὲ δευτέρα τῶν φυσικῶν συναγωγὴν ἔχουσα τὰ περὶ κόσμου καὶ τὰ τῷ κόσμῳ ἀνήκοντα περίεχει. ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα· περὶ τοῦ κόσμου· περὶ τῆς κυκλοφορίας· εἰ ποιεῖ τὰ ἄστρα· περὶ τῶν δύο ὑλῶν· περὶ τοῦ δυνάμει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ· περὶ ποιότητος καὶ εἴδους· περὶ τῆς δι’ ὅλων κράσεως· πῶς τὰ πόρρω ὁρώμενα μικρὰ φαίνεται· πρὸς τοὺς κακὸν τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὸν κόσμον κακὸν εἶναι λέγοντας·

[ 864 ]

Ἡ δὲ τρίτη ἐννεὰς ἔτι τὰ περὶ κόσμου ἔχουσα περιείληφε τὰ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν κόσμον θεωρουμένων ταῦτα· περὶ εἱμαρμένης· περὶ προνοίας πρῶτον· περὶ προνοίας δεύτερον· περὶ τοῦ εἰληχότος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος· περὶ ἔρωτος· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ τῆς ἀπαθείας τῶν ἀσωμάτων· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ αἰῶνος καὶ χρόνου· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ φύσεως καὶ θεωρίας καὶ τοῦ ἑνός· ἐπισκέψεις διάφοροι· 24. I have related Plotinus’ life; something remains to tell of my revision and arrangement of his writings. This task he himself had  imposed upon me during his lifetime and I had pledged myself to him and to the circle to carry it out. I judged that in the case of treatises which, like these, had been issued without consideration of logical sequence it was best to disregard the time-order. Apollodorus, the Athenian, edited in ten volumes the collected works of Epicharmus, the comedy writer; Andronicus, the Peripatetic, classified the works of Aristotle and of Theophrastus according to subject, bringing together the discussions of related topics: I have adopted a similar plan. I had fifty-four treatises before me: I divided them into six sets of nine, an arrangement which pleased me by the happy combination of the perfect number six with the nines: to each such ennead I assigned matter of one general nature, leading off with the themes presenting the least difficulty. The First Ennead, on this method, contains the treatises of a more ethical tendency: — 1. On the Animate and the Man. 2. On the Virtues. 3. On Dialectic. 4. On Happiness. 5. Whether Happiness depends on Extension of Time. 6. On Beauty. 7. On the Primal Good and Secondary forms of Good. 8. On Evil. 9. On the Reasoned Withdrawal from Life. The Second Ennead, following the more strictly ethical First, is physical, containing the disquisitions on the world and all that belongs to the world: — [ 865 ]

1. On the World. 2. On the Circular Movement. 3. On the Stars. 4. On the Two Orders of Matter. 5. On Potentiality and Actuality. 6. On Quality and Form. 7. On Coalescence. 8. Why Distant Objects appear Small. 9. Against those Declaring the Creator of the World, and the World itself, to be Evil. The Third Ennead, still keeping to the World, discusses the philosophical implications of some of its features: — 1. On Fate. 2. The First Treatise on Providence. 3. The Second Treatise on Providence. 4. On Our Tutelary Spirit. 5. On Love. 6. On the Impassibility of the Bodiless. 7. On Eternity and Time. 8. On Nature, Contemplation and The One. 9. Various Questions. 25 ταύτας τὰς τρεῖς ἐννεάδας ἡμεῖς ἐν ἑνὶ σωματίῳ τάξαντες κατεσκευάσαμεν. ἐν δὲ τρίτῃ ἐννεάδι ἐτάξαμεν καὶ τὸ περὶ τοῦ εἰληχότος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος, ὅτι καθόλου θεωρεῖται τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔστι τὸ πρόβλημα καὶ παρὰ τοῖς τὰ κατὰ τὰς γενέσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων σκεπτομένοις. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ περὶ ἔρωτος τόπος. τὸ δὲ περὶ αἰῶνος καὶ χρόνου διὰ τὸ περὶ τοῦ χρόνου ἐνταῦθα ἐτάξαμεν. τὸ δὲ περὶ φύσεως καὶ θεωρίας καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς διὰ τὸ περὶ φύσεως κεφάλαιον ἐνταῦθα τέτακται. ἡ δὲ τετάρτη ἐννεὰς μετὰ τὰ περὶ κόσμου τὰ περὶ ψυχῆς εἴληχε συγγράμματα. ἔχει δὲ τάδε· περὶ οὐσίας ψυχῆς πρῶτον· περὶ οὐσίας ψυχῆς δεύτερον· περὶ ψυχῆς ἀποριῶν πρῶτον· περὶ ψυχῆς ἀποριῶν δεύτερον· περὶ ψυχῆς ἀποριῶν τρίτον ἢ περὶ ὄψεως· περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ μνήμης· περὶ ἀθανασίας ψυχῆς· περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ σώματα καθόδου τῆς ψυχῆς· εἰ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ μία·

[ 866 ]

ἡ μὲν οὖν τετάρτη ἐννεὰς τὰς περὶ ψυχῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεις ἔσχε πάσας. ἡ δὲ πέμπτη ἔχει μὲν τὰς περὶ νοῦ, περιέχει δὲ ἕκαστον τῶν βιβλίων ἔν τισι καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἐπέκεινα καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἐν ψυχῇ νοῦ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν. ἔστι δὲ τάδε· περὶ τῶν τριῶν ἀρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων· περὶ γενέσεως καὶ τάξεως τῶν μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον· περὶ τῶν γνωριστικῶν ὑποστάσεων καὶ τοῦ ἐπέκεινα· πῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου τὸ μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἑνός· ὅτι οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ νοῦ τὰ νοητὰ καὶ περὶ τἀγαθοῦ· περὶ τοῦ τὸ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ὄντος μὴ νοεῖν· καὶ τί τὸ πρώτως νοοῦν καὶ τί τὸ δευτέρως· περὶ τοῦ εἰ καὶ τῶν καθέκαστά ἐστιν εἴδη· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· περὶ τοῦ νοητοῦ κάλλους· περὶ νοῦ καὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν καὶ τοῦ όντος· 25. These first three Enneads constitute in my arrangement one self-contained section. The treatise on Our Tutelary Spirit is placed in the Third Ennead because this Spirit is not discussed as it is in itself, and the essay by its main content falls into the class dealing with the origin of man. Similar reasons determined the inclusion in this set of the treatise on Love. That on Time and Eternity is placed in this Third Ennead in virtue of its treatment of Time: that On Nature, Contemplation and The One, because of the discussion of Nature contained in it. Next to the two dealing with the world comes the Fourth Ennead containing the treatises dealing with the Soul: — 1. On the Essence of the Soul (I.). 2. On the Essence of the Soul (II.). 3. Questions referring to the Soul (I.). 4. Questions referring to the Soul (II.). 5. Questions referring to the Soul (III.); or, On Vision. 6. On Sensation and Memory. 7. On the Immortality of the Soul. 8. On the Descent of the Soul into Bodies. 9. Whether all Souls are One. The Fifth Ennead — following upon that dealing with the Soul — contains the treatises upon the Intellectual-Principle, each of which has also some reference to the All-Transcending and to the Intellectual-Principle in the Soul, and to the Ideas: — 1. On the three Primal Hypostases. 2. On the Origin and Order of the Post-Primals. 3. On the Conscious Hypostases and the All-Transcending. [ 867 ]

4. How the Post-Primal derives from the Primal, and On the One. 5. That the Intelligibles are not outside the Intellectual-Principle and on the Good. 6. That there is no Intellectual Act in the Principle which transcends the AuthenticExistent; and On the Nature that has the Intellectual Act Primally and that which has it Secondarily. 7. Whether there are Ideas even of Particulars. 8. On Intellectual Beauty. 9. On the Intellectual-Principle, on the Ideas and on the Authentic-Existent. 26 καὶ τὴν τετάρτην οὖν καὶ πέμπτην ἐννεάδα εἰς ἓν σωμάτιον κατελέξαμεν. λοιπὴν δὲ τὴν ἕκτην ἐννεάδα εἰς ἄλλο σωμάτιον, ὡς διὰ τριῶν σωματίων γεγράφθαι τὰ Πλωτίνου πάντα, ὧν τὸ μὲν πρῶτον σωμάτιον ἔχει τρεῖς ἐννεάδας, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον δύο, τὸ δὲ τρίτον μίαν. ἔστι δὲ τὰ τοῦ τρίτου σωματίου, ἐννεάδος δὲ ἕκτης, ταῦτα· περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος πρῶτον· περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος δεύτερον· περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος τρίτον· περὶ τοῦ τὸ ὂν ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸ ὂν ἅμα πανταχοῦ εἶναι ὅλον πρῶτον· περὶ τοῦ τὸ ὂν ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸ ὂν ἅμα πανταχοῦ εἶναι ὅλον δεύτερον· περὶ ἀριθμῶν· πῶς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἰδεῶν ὑπέστη καὶ περὶ τἀγαθοῦ· περὶ τοῦ ἑκουσίου καὶ θελήματος τοῦ ἑνός· περὶ τἀγαθοῦ ἢ τοῦ ἑνός· τὰ μὲν οὖν βιβλία εἰς ἓξ ἐννεάδας τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον κατετάξαμεν τέσσαρα καὶ πεντήκοντα ὄντα· καταβεβλήμεθα δὲ καὶ εἴς τινα αὐτῶν ὑπομνήματα ἀτάκτως διὰ τοὺς ἐπείξαντας ἡμᾶς ἑταίρους γράφειν εἰς ἅπερ αὐτοὶ τὴν σαφήνειαν αὐτοῖς γενέσθαι ἠξίουν. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰ κεφάλαια τῶν πάντων πλὴν τοῦ «Περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ» διὰ τὸ λεῖψαι ἡμῖν πεποιήμεθα κατὰ τὴν χρονικὴν ἔκδοσιν τῶν βιβλίων· ἀλλ’ ἐν τούτῳ οὐ τὰ κεφάλαια μόνον καθ’ ἕκαστον ἔκκειται τῶν βιβλίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπιχεριήματα, ἃ ὡς κεφάλαια συναριθμεῖται. νυνὶ δὲ πειρασόμεθα ἕκαστον τῶν βιβλίων διερχόμενοι τάς τε στιγμὰς αὐτῶν προσθεῖναι καὶ εἴ τι ἡμαρτημένον εἴη κατὰ λέξιν διορθοῦν· καὶ ὅ τι ἂν ἡμᾶς ἄλλο κινήσῃ, αὐτὸ σημαίνει τὸ ἔργον. 26. These Fourth and Fifth Enneads, again, I have arranged in the form of one distinct section. The Last Ennead, the Sixth, constitutes one other section, so that we have the entire work of Plotinus in three sections, the first containing three Enneads, the second two, the third one Ennead. The content of the third section, that is of the Sixth Ennead, is as follows: — 1, 2, 3. On the Kinds of the Authentic-Existent.

[ 868 ]

4, 5. That the Authentic-Existent, one and identical, is everywhere present, integrally. 6. On Numbers. 7. How the Multitude of Ideas Exists; and On the Good. 8. On Free-Will and the Will of The One. 9. On The Good, or The One. Thus, in sum, I have arranged the fifty-four treatises, constituting Plotinus’ entire work, into six sets of nine: to some of the treatises I have further added commentaries — irregularly, as friends asked for enlightenment on this or that point — finally for all the treatises, except that on Beauty, which was not to hand, I have written Summaries which follow the chronological order: in this department of my work besides the Summaries will be found Developments; the numbering of these also adopts the chronological order. Now I have only to go once more through the entire work, see to the punctuation and correct any verbal errors; what else has solicited my attention, the reader will discover for himself.

[ 869 ]

Life of Pythagoras [ 1 ] ΣΥ Μ Φ Ω Ν Ε ῖΤΑ Ι Μ Ὲ Ν δὴ παρὰ τοῖς πλείστοις Μνησάρχου γεγενῆσθαι παῖς· περὶ δὲ τοῦ γένους τοῦ Μνησάρχου διαπεφώνηται. οἳ μὲν γὰρ Σάμιον αὐτὸν εἶναι φασί, Νεάνθης δ’ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῶν μυθικῶν Σύρον ἐκ Τύρου τῆς Συρίας. σιτοδείας δὲ καταλαβούσης τοὺς Σαμίους προσπλεύσαντα τὸν Μνήσαρχον κατ’ ἐμπορίαν μετὰ σίτου τῇ νήσῳ ἀποδόμενον τιμηθῆναι πολιτείᾳ. Πυθαγόρου δ’ ἐκ παίδων εἰς πᾶσαν μάθησιν ὄντος εὐφυοῦς, τὸν Μνήσαρχον ἀπαγαγεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς Τύρον, ἐκεῖ δὲ τοῖς Χαλδαίοις συστάντα μετασχεῖν τούτων ἐπὶ πλεῖον ποιῆσαι. ἐπανελθόντα δ’ εἰς τὴν Ἰωνίαν ἐντεῦθεν τὸν Πυθαγόραν πρῶτον μὲν Φερεκύδῃ τῷ Συρίῳ ὁμιλῆσαι, δεύτερον δ’ Ἑρμοδάμαντι [1] Many think that Pythagoras was the son of Mnesarchus, but they differ as to the latter’s race; some thinking him a Samian, while Neanthes, in the fifth book of his Fables states he was a Syrian, from the city of Tyre. As a famine had arisen in Samos, Mnesarchus went thither to trade, and was naturalized there. There also was born his son Pythagoras, who early manifested studiousness, but was later taken to Tyre, and there entrusted to the Chaldeans, whose doctrines he imbibed. Thence he returned to Ionia, where he first studied under the Syrian Pherecydes, then also under Hermodamas the Creophylian who at that time was an old man residing in Samos. [2] τῷ Κρεοφυλείῳ ἐν Σάμῳ ἤδη γηράσκοντι. λέγει δ’ ὁ Νεάνθης ἄλλους εἶναι οἳ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ Τυρρηνὸν ἀποφαίνονται τῶν τὴν Λῆμνον ἐποικησάντων, ἐντεῦθεν δὲ κατὰ πρᾶξιν εἰς Σάμον ἐλθόντα καταμεῖναι καὶ ἀστὸν γενέσθαι· πλέοντος δὲ τοῦ Μνησάρχου εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν συμπλεύσαντα τὸν Πυθαγόραν νέον ὄντα κομιδῇ σφόδρα οὖσαν εὐδαίμονα καὶ τόθ’ ὕστερον εἰς αὐτὴν ἀποπλεῦσαι. καταλέγει δ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοὺς δύο, Εὔνοστον καὶ Τυρρηνόν, πρεσβυτέρους. Ἀπολλώνιος δ’ ἐν τοῖς περὶ Πυθαγόρου καὶ μητέρα ἀναγράφει Πυθαΐδα, ἀπόγονον Ἀγκαίου τοῦ οἰκιστοῦ τῆς Σάμου. τινὰς δ’ Ἀπόλλωνος αὐτὸν ἱστορεῖν καὶ Πυθαΐδος τῷ γόνῳ, λόγῳ δὲ Μνησάρχου φησὶν Ἀπολλώνιος. τῶν γοῦν ποιητῶν τῶν Σαμίων εἰπεῖν τινά· Πυθαγόραν θ’ ὃν ἔτικτε Διὶ φίλον Ἀπόλλωνι Πυθαΐς, ἣ κάλλος πλεῖστον ἔχεν Σαμίων. διακοῦσαι δ’ οὐ μόνον Φερεκύδου καὶ Ἑρμοδάμαντος, [2] Neanthes says that others hold that his father was a Tyrrhenian, of those who inhabit Lemnos, and that while on a trading trip to Samos was there naturalized. On sailing to Italy, Mnesarchus took the youth Pythagoras with him. Just at this time this country was greatly flourishing. Neanthes adds that Pythagoras had two older brothers, Eunostus and Tyrrhenus. But Apollonius, in his book about Pythagoras, affirms that his mother was Pythais, a descendant, of Ancaeus, the founder of Samos. Apollonius adds

[ 870 ]

that he was said to be the off-spring of Apollo and Pythais, on the authority of Mnesarchus; and a Samian poet sings: “Pythais, of all Samians the most fair; Jove-loved Pythagoras to Phoebus bare!” This poet says that Pythagoras studied not only under Pherecydes and Hermodamas, but also under Anaximander. [3] ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀναξιμάνδρου φησὶν οὗτος. Δοῦρις δ’ ὁ Σάμιος ἐν δευτέρῳ τῶν ὥρων παῖδά τ’ αὐτοῦ ἀναγράφει Ἀρίμνηστον καὶ διδάσκαλον φησὶ γενέσθαι Δημοκρίτου. τὸν δ’ Ἀρίμνηστον κατελθόντ’ ἀπὸ τῆς φυγῆς χαλκοῦν ἀνάθημα τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς Ἥρας ἀναθεῖναι τὴν διάμετρον ἔχον ἐγγὺς δύο πήχεων, οὗ ἐπίγραμμα ἦν ἐγγεγραμμένον τόδε· Πυθαγόρεω φίλος υἱὸς Ἀρίμνηστός μ’ ἀνέθηκε, πολλὰς ἐξευρὼν εἰνὶ λόγοις σοφίας. τοῦτο δ’ ἀνελόντα Σῖμον τὸν ἁρμονικὸν καὶ τὸν κανόνα σφετερισάμενον ἐξενεγκεῖν ὡς ἴδιον. εἶναι μὲν οὖν ἑπτὰ τὰς ἀναγεγραμμένας σοφίας· διὰ δὲ τὴν μίαν, ἣν Σῖμος ὑφείλετο, συναφανισθῆναι καὶ τὰς [3] The Samian Duris, in the second book of his “Hours,” writes that his son was named Arimnestus, that he was the teacher of Democritus, and that on returning from banishment, he suspended a brazen tablet in the temple of Hera, a tablet two feet square, bearing this inscription: “Me, Arimnestus, who much learning traced, Pythagoras’s beloved son here placed.” This tablet was removed by Simus, a musician, who claimed the canon graven thereon, and published it as his own. Seven arts were engraved, but when Simus took away one, the others were destroyed. [4] ἄλλας τὰς ἐν τῷ ἀναθήματι γεγραμμένας. ἄλλοι δ’ ἐκ Θεανοῦς τῆς Πυθώνακτος τὸ γένος Κρήσσης υἱὸν Τηλαύγη Πυθαγόρου ἀναγράφουσι καὶ θυγατέρα Μυῖαν, οἳ δὲ καὶ Ἀριγνώτην· ὧν καὶ συγγράμματα Πυθαγόρεια σῴζεσθαι. Τίμαιος δ’ ἱστορεῖ τὴν Πυθαγόρου θυγατέρα καὶ παρθένον οὖσαν ἡγεῖσθαι τῶν παρθένων ἐν Κρότωνι καὶ γυναῖκα τῶν γυναικῶν· τὴν δ’ οἰκίαν Δήμητρος ἱερὸν ποιῆσαι τοὺς Κροτωνιάτας, τὸν δὲ [4] It is said that by Theano, a Cretan, the daughter of Pythonax, he had a son, Thelauges and a daughter, Myia; to whom some add Arignota, whose Pythagorean writings are still extant. Timaeus relates that Pythagoras’s daughter, while a maiden, took precedence among the maidens in Crotona, and when a wife, among married men. The Crotonians made her house a temple of Demeter, and the neighboring street they called a museum. [5] στενωπὸν καλεῖν μουσεῖον. Λύκος δ’ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν ἱστοριῶν καὶ περὶ τῆς πατρίδος ὡς διαφωνούντων τινῶν μνημονεύει λέγων· ‘τὴν μὲν οὖν πατρίδα καὶ τὴν πόλιν, ἧς γενέσθαι [ 871 ]

πολίτην τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον συμβέβηκεν, εἰ μὴ τυγχάνεις κατειδώς, μηδὲν διαφερέτω σοι. λέγουσι γὰρ αὐτὸν οἳ μὲν εἶναι Σάμιον, [5] Lycus, in the fourth book of his Histories, noting different opinions about his country, says, “Unless you happen to know the country and the city which Pythagoras was a citizen, will remain a mere matter of conjecture. Some say he was a Samian, others, a Phliasian, others a Metapontine. [6] οἳ δὲ Φλιάσιον, οἳ δὲ Μεταποντῖνον.’ ἔτι καὶ περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ οἱ πλείους τὰ μὲν τῶν μαθηματικῶν καλουμένων ἐπιστημῶν παρ’ Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ Χαλδαίων καὶ Φοινίκων φασὶν ἐκμαθεῖν· γεωμετρίας μὲν γὰρ ἐκ παλαιῶν χρόνων ἐπιμεληθῆναι Αἰγυπτίους, τὰ δὲ περὶ ἀριθμούς τε καὶ λογισμοὺς Φοίνικας, Χαλδαίους δὲ τὰ περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν θεωρήματα· περὶ τὰς τῶν θεῶν ἁγιστείας καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν περὶ τὸν βίον ἐπιτηδευμάτων παρὰ τῶν μάγων φασὶ [6] As to his knowledge, it is said that he learned the mathematical sciences from the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Phoenicians; for of’ old the Egyptians excelled, in geometry, the Phoenicians in numbers and proportions, and the Chaldeans of astronomical theorems, divine rites, and worship of the Gods; other secrets concerning the course of life he received and learned from the Magi. [7] διακοῦσαί τε καὶ λαβεῖν. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν σχεδὸν πολλοὺς ἐπιγιγνώσκειν διὰ τὸ γεγράφθαι ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἧττον εἶναι γνώριμα· πλὴν τοσαύτῃ γε ἁγνείᾳ φησὶν Εὔδοξος ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ τῆς γῆς περιόδου κεχρῆσθαι καὶ τῇ περὶ τοὺς φόνους φυγῇ καὶ τῶν φονευόντων, ὡς μὴ μόνον τῶν ἐμψύχων ἀπέχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ μαγείροις καὶ θηράτορσι μηδέποτε πλησιάζειν. Ἀντιφῶν δ’ ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ βίου τῶν ἐν ἀρετῇ πρωτευσάντων καὶ τὴν καρτερίαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ διηγεῖται λέγων τὸν Πυθαγόραν ἀποδεξάμενον τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἱερέων τὴν ἀγωγὴν σπουδάσαντά τε μετασχεῖν ταύτης δεηθῆναι Πολυκράτους τοῦ τυράννου γράψαι πρὸς Ἄμασιν τὸν βασιλέα τῆς Αἰγύπτου, φίλον ὄντα καὶ ξένον, ἵνα κοινωνήσῃ τῆς τῶν προειρημένων παιδείας. ἀφικόμενον δὲ πρὸς Ἄμασιν λαβεῖν γράμματα πρὸς τοὺς ἱερέας καὶ συμμίξαντα τοῖς Ἡλιοπολίταις ἐκπεμφθῆναι μὲν εἰς Μέμφιν ὡς πρὸς πρεσβυτέρους, τῇ γ’ ἀληθείᾳ σκηπτομένων τῶν Ἡλιοπολιτῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἐκ δὲ Μέμφεως κατὰ τὴν [7] These accomplishments are the more generally known, but the rest are less celebrated. Moreover Eudoxus, in the second book of his Description of the Earth, writes that Pythagoras used the greatest purity, and was shocked at all bloodshed and killing; that he not only abstained from animal food, but never in any way approached butchers or hunters. Antiphon, in his book on illustrious Virtuous Men praises his perseverance while he was in Egypt, saying, “Pythagoras, desiring to become acquainted with the institutions of Egyptian priests, and diligently endeavoring to participate therein, requested the Tyrant Polycrates to write to Amasis, the King of Egypt, his friend and former host, to procure him initiation. Coming to Amasis, he was given letters to the [ 872 ]

priests; of Heliopolis, who sent him on to those of Memphis, on the pretense that the were the more ancient. On the same pretense, he was sent on from Memphis to Diospolis. [8] ὁμοίαν σκῆψιν πρὸς Διοσπολίτας ἐλθεῖν. τῶν δ’ οὐ δυναμένων προΐσχεσθαι αἰτίας διὰ τὸ δέος τοῦ βασιλέως, νομισάντων δὲ τῷ μεγέθει τῆς κακοπαθείας ἀποστήσειν αὐτὸν τῆς ἐπιβολῆς, προστάγματα σκληρὰ καὶ κεχωρισμένα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ἀγωγῆς κελεῦσαι ὑπομεῖναι αὐτόν. τὸν δὲ ταῦτα ἐκτελέσαντα προθύμως οὕτως θαυμασθῆναι, ὡς ἐξουσίαν λαβεῖν θύειν τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ προσιέναι ταῖς τούτων ἐπιμελείαις, ὅπερ [8] From fear of the King the latter priests dared not make excuses; but thinking that he would desist from his purpose as result of great difficulties, enjoined on him very hard precepts, entirely different from the institutions of the Greeks. These he performed so readily that he won their admiration, and they permitted him to sacrifice to the Gods, and to acquaint himself with all their sciences, a favor theretofore never granted to a foreigner. [9] ἐπ’ ἄλλου ξένου γεγονὸς οὐχ εὑρίσκεται. ἐπανελθόντα δ’ εἰς τὴν Ἰωνίαν κατασκευάσαι ἐν τῇ πατρίδι διδασκαλεῖον τὸ Πυθαγόρου καλούμενον ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἡμικύκλιον, ἐν ᾧ Σάμιοι περὶ τῶν κοινῶν συνιόντες βουλεύονται. ἔξω δὲ τῆς πόλεως ἄντρον οἰκεῖον τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φιλοσοφίας ποιήσαντα, ἐν τούτῳ τὰ πολλὰ τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς διατρίβειν συνόντα ὀλίγοις τῶν ἑταίρων. γεγονότα δ’ ἐτῶν τεσσαράκοντα, φησὶν ὁ Ἀριστόξενος, καὶ ὁρῶντα τὴν τοῦ Πολυκράτους τυραννίδα συντονωτέραν οὖσαν ὥστε καλῶς ἔχειν ἐλευθέρῳ ἀνδρὶ τὴν ἐπιστατείαν τε καὶ δεσποτείαν ὑπομένειν, [9] Returning to Ionia, he opened in his own country, a school, which is even now called Pythagoras’s Semicircles, in which the Samians meet to deliberate about matters of common interest. Outside the city he made a cave adapted to the study of his philosophy, in which he abode day and night, discoursing with a few of his associates. He was now forty years old, says Aristoxenus. Seeing that Polycrates’s government was becoming so violent that soon a free man would become a victim of his tyranny, he journeyed towards Italy. [10] οὕτως δὴ τὴν εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἄπαρσιν ποιήσασθαι. Διογένους δ’ ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ Θούλην ἀπίστοις τὰ κατὰ τὸν φιλόσοφον ἀκριβῶς διελθόντος, ἔκρινα μηδαμῶς τὰ τούτου παρελθεῖν. φησὶ δὴ Μνήσαρχον Τυρρηνὸν ὄντα κατὰ γένος τῶν Λῆμνον καὶ Ἴμβρον καὶ Σκῦρον κατοικησάντων Τυρρηνῶν κἀκεῖθεν μεταστάντα πολλὰς μὲν πόλεις πολλὰ δὲ χωρία ἐπιόντα ἐπιτυχεῖν ποτὲ παιδὶ νηπίῳ ὑπὸ λεύκῃ μεγάλῃ καὶ εὐφυεῖ κειμένῳ· ἐπιστάντα δὲ θεάσασθαι ὕπτιον εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβλέποντα πρὸς ἥλιον ἀσκαρδαμυκτὶ καὶ τῷ στόματι ἐνιέντα κάλαμον σμικρὸν καὶ λεπτὸν καθάπερ αὐλόν. θαυμάσαντα δὲ καὶ δρόσῳ ἐκ τῆς λεύκης κατασταζούσῃ θεασάμενον τρεφόμενον ἀναλαβεῖν, θείαν τινὰ νομίζοντα τὴν τοῦ παιδίου εἶναι γένεσιν· ἱδρυθέντα δ’ ἐν Σάμῳ ἀναληφθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀνδροκλέους ἐπιχωρίου, ὃς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν [ 873 ]

αὐτῷ τῆς οἰκίας ἐνεχείρισεν. βιοῦντα δ’ ἐν ἀφθόνοις ἀνατρέφειν τὸ παιδίον Ἀστραῖον καλέσαντα μετὰ τῶν αὑτοῦ παίδων τριῶν ὄντων, Εὐνόστου καὶ Τυρρηνοῦ καὶ Πυθαγόρου· ὃν καὶ υἱὸν [10] Diogenes, in his treatise about the Incredible Things Beyond Thule, has treated Pythagoras’s affairs so carefully, that I think his account should not be omitted. He says that the Tyrrhenian Mnesarchus was of the race of the inhabitants of Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros and that he departed thence to visit many cities and various lands. During his journeys he found an infant lying under a large, tall poplar tree. On approaching, he observed it lay on its back, looking steadily without winking at the sun. In its mouth was a little slender reed, like a pipe; through which the child was being nourished by the dew-drops that distilled from the tree. This great wonder prevailed upon him to take the child, believing it to be of a divine origin. The child was fostered by a native of that country, named Androcles, who later on adopted him, and entrusted to him the management of affairs. On becoming wealthy, Mnesarchus educated the boy, naming him Astrasus, and rearing him with his own three sons, Eunestus, Tyrrhenus, and Pythagoras; which boy, as I have said, Androcles adopted. [11] ἔθετο Ἀνδροκλῆς ὄντα νεώτατον. παῖδα μὲν οὖν ὄντα ἔπεμπεν εἴς τε κιθαριστοῦ καὶ παιδοτρίβου καὶ ζωγράφου, νεανίαν δὲ γενόμενον εἰς Μίλητον πρὸς Ἀναξίμανδρον, μαθησόμενον τὰ γεωμετρικὰ καὶ ἀστρονομικά. ἀφίκετο δὲ καὶ πρὸς Αἰγυπτίους, φησίν, ὁ Πυθαγόρας καὶ πρὸς Ἄραβας καὶ Χαλδαίους καὶ Ἑβραίους, παρ’ ὧν καὶ τὴν περὶ ὀνείρων γνῶσιν ἠκριβώσατο· καὶ τῇ διὰ λιβανωτοῦ μαντείᾳ πρῶτος ἐχρήσατο. καὶ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μὲν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι συνῆν καὶ τὴν σοφίαν ἐξέμαθε καὶ τὴν Αἰγυπτίων φωνήν, [11] He sent the boy to a lute-player, a wrestler and a painter. Later he sent him to Anaximander at Miletus, to learn geometry and astronomy. Then Pythagoras visited the Egyptians, the Arabians, the Chaldeans and the Hebrews, from whom he acquired expertery in the interpretation of dreams, and he was the first to use frankincense in the worship of divinities. [12] γραμμάτων τε τρισσὰς διαφοράς, ἐπιστολογραφικῶν τε καὶ ἱερογλυφικῶν καὶ συμβολικῶν, τῶν μὲν κυριολογουμένων κατὰ μίμησιν, τῶν δ’ ἀλληγορουμένων κατά τινας αἰνιγμούς· καὶ περὶ θεῶν πλέον τι ἔμαθεν. ἐν δὲ Ἀραβίᾳ τῷ βασιλεῖ συνῆν ἔν τε Βαβυλῶνι τοῖς τ’ ἄλλοις Χαλδαίοις συνεγένετο καὶ πρὸς Ζάρατον ἀφίκετο, παρ’ οὗ καὶ ἐκαθάρθη τὰ τοῦ προτέρου βίου λύματα καὶ ἐδιδάχθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἁγνεύειν προσήκει τοῖς σπουδαίοις, τόν τε περὶ φύσεως λόγον ἤκουσε καὶ τίνες αἱ τῶν ὅλων ἀρχαί. ἐκ γὰρ τῆς περὶ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη πλάνης ὁ Πυθαγόρας τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς σοφίας [12] In Egypt he lived with the priests, and learned the language and wisdom of the Egyptians, and three kinds of letters, the epistolic, the hieroglyphic, and symbolic, whereof one imitates the common way of speaking, while the others express the sense by allegory and parable. In Arabia he conferred with the King. In Babylon he associated [ 874 ]

with the other Chaldeans, especially attaching himself to Zabratus, by whom he was purified from the pollutions of this past life, and taught the things which a virtuous man ought to be free. Likewise he heard lectures about Nature, and the principles of wholes. It was from his stay among these foreigners that Pythagoras acquired the greater part of his wisdom. [13] ἐνεπορεύσατο. τὸν δὴ Ἀστραῖον τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ χαρίζεται Μνήσαρχος. ὃ δὲ λαβὼν καὶ φυσιογνωμονήσας καὶ τὰς κινήσεις καὶ τὰς ἠρεμίας τοῦ σώματος ἐπισκεψάμενος ἐπαίδευεν. ταύτην γὰρ ἠκρίβου πρῶτος τὴν περὶ ἀνθρώπων ἐπιστήμην, ὁποῖος τὴν φύσιν ἕκαστος εἴη μανθάνων. καὶ οὔτ’ ἂν φίλον οὔτε γνώριμον ἐποιήσατο οὐδένα πρὶν πρότερον φυσιογνωμονῆσαι τὸν [13] Astraeus was by Mnesarchus entrusted to Pythagoras, who received him, and after studying his physiognomy and the emotions of his body, instructed him. First he accurately investigated the science about the nature of man, discerning the disposition of everyone he met. None was allowed to become his friend or associate without being examined in facial expression and disposition. [14] ἄνδρα, ὁποῖός ποτ’ ἔστιν. ἦν δ’ αὐτῷ καὶ ἕτερον μειράκιον ὃ ἐκ Θρᾴκης ἐκτήσατο, ᾧ Ζάμολξις ἦν ὄνομα, ἐπεὶ γεννηθέντι αὐτῷ δορὰ ἄρκτου ἐπεβλήθη· τὴν γὰρ δορὰν οἱ Θρᾷκες ζαλμὸν καλοῦσιν. ἀγαπῶν δ’ αὐτὸν ὁ Πυθαγόρας τὴν μετέωρον θεωρίαν ἐπαίδευσε τά τε περὶ ἱερουργίας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας εἰς θεοὺς θρησκείας· τινὲς δὲ καὶ Θαλῆν τοῦτον φασὶν ὀνομάζεσθαι. ὡς Ἡρακλέα δ’ αὐτὸν προσκυνοῦσιν οἱ βάρβαροι. [14] Pythagoras had another youthful disciple from Thrace. Zamolxis was he named because he was born wrapped in a bear’s skin, in Thracian called Zalmus. Pythagoras loved him, and instructed him in sublime speculations concerning sacred rites, and the nature of the Gods. Some say this youth was named Thales, and that the barbarians worshipped him as Hercules. [15] Διονυσοφάνης δὲ λέγει δουλεῦσαι μὲν αὐτὸν τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ, ἐμπεσόντα δ’ εἰς λῃστὰς καὶ στιχθέντα, ὅτε κατεστασιάσθη ὁ Πυθαγόρας καὶ ἔφευγεν, δῆσαι τὸ μέτωπον διὰ τὰ στίγματα. τινὲς δ’ ἑρμηνεύεσθαι τὸ ὄνομα φασὶ Ζάλμοξιν ξένος ἀνήρ. νοσήσαντα δὲ τὸν Φερεκύδην ἐν Δήλῳ θεραπεύσας ὁ Πυθαγόρας καὶ ἀποθανόντα θάψας εἰς Σάμον ἐπανῆλθε πόθῳ τοῦ συγγενέσθαι Ἑρμοδάμαντι τῷ Κρεοφυλείῳ. χρόνον δέ τινα αὐτοῦ διατρίβων Εὐρυμένους τοῦ Σαμίου ἀθλητοῦ ἐπεμελεῖτο, ὃς τῇ Πυθαγόρου σοφίᾳ καίτοι σμικρὸς τὸ σῶμα ὢν πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ἐκράτει καὶ ἐνίκα Ὀλυμπίασιν. τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων ἀθλητῶν κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον ἔτι τρόπον τυρὸν καὶ σῦκα σιτουμένων, οὗτος Πυθαγόρᾳ πειθόμενος πρῶτος κρέας τεταγμένον ἐσθίων ἐφ’ ἑκάστην τὴν ἡμέραν ἰσχὺν τῷ σώματι περιεποιήσατο. καίτοι γε προϊὼν τῇ σοφίᾳ ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἀθλεῖν μὲν παρῄνει, νικᾶν δὲ μή, ὡς δέον τοὺς μὲν πόνους ὑπομένειν, τοὺς δ’ ἐκ τοῦ νικᾶν φθόνους φεύγειν· συμβαίνειν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλως μηδ’ εὐαγεῖς εἶναι τοὺς

[ 875 ]

[15] Dionysiphanes says that he was a servant of Pythagoras, who fell into the hands of thieves and by them was branded. Then when Pythagoras was persecuted and banished, (he followed him) binding up his forehead on account of the scars. Others say that, the name Zamolxis signifies a stranger or foreigner. Pherecydes, in Delos fell sick; and Pythagoras attended him until he died, and performed his funeral rites. Pythagoras then, longing to be with Hermodamas the Creophylian, returned to Samos. After enjoying his society, Pythagoras trained the Samian athlete Eurymenes, who though he was of small stature, conquered at Olympia through his surpassing knowledge of Pythagoras’ wisdom. While according to ancient custom the other athletes fed on cheese and figs, Eurymenes, by the advice of Pythagoras, fed daily on flesh, which endued his body with great strength. Pythagoras imbued him with his wisdom, exhorting him to go into the struggle, not for the sake of victory, but the exercise; that he should gain by the training, avoiding the envy resulting from victory. For the victors, are not always pure, though decked with leafy crowns. [16] νικῶντας καὶ φυλλοβολουμένους. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τῆς Πολυκράτους τυραννίδος Σαμίους καταλαβούσης, οὐ πρέπον ἡγούμενος ὁ Πυθαγόρας ἐν τοιαύτῃ πολιτείᾳ βιοῦν ἀνδρὶ φιλοσόφῳ, διενοήθη εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἀπαίρειν. ὡς δὲ πλέων Δελφοῖς προσέσχε, τὸ ἐλεγεῖον τῷ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τάφῳ ἐπέγραψε, δι’ οὗ ἐδήλου ὡς Σειληνοῦ μὲν ἦν υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων, ἀνῃρέθη δὲ ὑπὸ Πύθωνος, ἐκηδεύθη δ’ ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ Τρίποδι, ὃς ταύτης ἔτυχε τῆς ἐπωνυμίας διὰ τὸ τὰς τρεῖς κόρας τὰς Τριόπου θυγατέρας ἐνταῦθα θρηνῆσαι τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα. [16] Later, when the Samians were oppressed with the tyranny of Polycrates, Pythagoras saw that life in such a state was unsuitable for a philosopher, and so planned to travel to Italy. At Delphi he inscribed an elegy on the tomb of Apollo, declaring that Apollo was the son of Silenus, but was slain by Pytho, and buried in the place called Triops, so named from the local mourning for Apollo by the three daughters of Triopas. [17] Κρήτης δ’ ἐπιβὰς τοῖς Μόργου μύσταις προσῄει ἑνὸς τῶν Ἰδαίων Δακτύλων, ὑφ’ ὧν καὶ ἐκαθάρθη τῇ κεραυνίᾳ λίθῳ, ἕωθεν μὲν παρὰ θαλάττῃ πρηνὴς ἐκταθείς, νύκτωρ δὲ παρὰ ποταμῷ ἀρνειοῦ μέλανος μαλλοῖς ἐστεφανωμένος. εἰς δὲ τὸ Ἰδαῖον καλούμενον ἄντρον καταβὰς ἔρια ἔχων μέλανα τὰς νομιζομένας τρὶς ἐννέα ἡμέρας ἐκεῖ διέτριψεν καὶ καθήγισεν τῷ Διὶ τόν τε στορνύμενον αὐτῷ κατ’ ἔτος θρόνον ἐθεάσατο, ἐπίγραμμά τ’ ἐνεχάραξεν ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ ἐπιγράψας ‘Πυθαγόρας τῷ Διὶ’, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· ὧδε θανὼν κεῖται Ζάν, ὃν Δία κικλήσκουσιν. [17] Going to Crete, Pythagoras besought initiation from the priests of Morgos, one of the Idaean Dactyli, by whom he was purified with the meteoritic thunder-stone. In the morning he lay stretched upon his face by the seaside; at night, he lay beside a river, crowned with a black lamb’s woolen wreath. Descending into the Idaean cave, wrapped in black wool, he stayed there twenty-seven days, according to custom; he sacrificed to [ 876 ]

Zeus, and saw the throne which there is yearly made for him. On Zeus’s tomb, Pythagoras inscribed an epigram, “Pythagoras to Zeus,” which begins: “Zeus deceased here lies, whom men call Jove.” [18]ἐπεὶ δὲ τῆς Ἰταλίας ἐπέβη καὶ ἐν Κρότωνι ἐγένετο, φησὶν ὁ Δικαίαρχος, ὡς ἀνδρὸς ἀφικομένου πολυπλάνου τε καὶ περιττοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν φύσιν ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης εὖ κεχορηγημένου, τήν τε γὰρ ἰδέαν εἶναι ἐλευθέριον καὶ μέγαν χάριν τε πλείστην καὶ κόσμον ἐπί τε τῆς φωνῆς καὶ τοῦ ἤθους καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἔχειν, οὕτως διαθεῖναι τὴν Κροτωνιατῶν πόλιν ὥστ’ ἐπεὶ τὸ τῶν γερόντων ἀρχεῖον ἐψυχαγώγησεν πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ διαλεχθείς, τοῖς νέοις πάλιν ἡβητικὰς ἐποιήσατο παραινέσεις ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων κελευσθείς· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοῖς παισὶν ἐκ τῶν διδασκαλείων ἀθρόοις συνελθοῦσιν· εἶτα ταῖς γυναιξὶ [18] When he reached Italy he stopped at Crotona. His presence was that of a free man, tall, graceful in speech and gesture, and in all things else. Dicaearchus relates that the arrival of this great traveler, endowed with all the advantages of nature, and prosperously guided by fortune, produced on the Crotonians so great an impression, that he won the esteem of the elder magistrates, by his many and excellent discourses. They ordered him to exhort the young men, and then to the boys who flocked out of the school to hear him; and lastly to the women, who came together on purpose. [19] καὶ γυναικῶν σύλλογος αὐτῷ κατεσκευάσθη. γενομένων δὲ τούτων μεγάλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ηὐξήθη δόξα, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν ἔλαβεν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς πόλεως ὁμιλητὰς οὐ μόνον ἄνδρας ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναῖκας, ὧν μιᾶς γε Θεανοῦς καὶ διεβοήθη τοὔνομα, πολλοὺς δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς σύνεγγυς βαρβάρου χώρας βασιλεῖς τε καὶ δυνάστας. ἃ μὲν οὖν ἔλεγε τοῖς συνοῦσιν οὐδὲ εἷς ἔχει φράσαι βεβαίως· καὶ γὰρ οὐχ ἡ τυχοῦσα ἦν παρ’ αὐτοῖς σιωπή. μάλιστα μέντοι γνώριμα παρὰ πᾶσιν ἐγένετο πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀθάνατον εἶναι φησὶ τὴν ψυχήν, εἶτα μεταβάλλουσαν εἰς ἄλλα γένη ζῴων, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὅτι κατὰ περιόδους τινὰς τὰ γενόμενά ποτε πάλιν γίνεται, νέον δ’ οὐδὲν ἁπλῶς ἔστι, καὶ ὅτι πάντα τὰ γινόμενα ἔμψυχα ὁμογενῆ δεῖ νομίζειν. φέρεται γὰρ εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα [19] Through this he achieved great reputation, he drew great audiences from the city, not only of men, but also of women, among whom was a specially illustrious person named Theano. He also drew audiences from among the neighboring barbarians, among whom were magnates and kings. What he told his audiences cannot be said with certainty, for he enjoined silence upon his hearers. But the following is a matter of general information. He taught that the soul was immortal and that after death it transmigrated into other animated bodies. After certain specified periods, the same events occur again; that nothing was entirely new; that all animated beings were kin, and should be considered as belonging to one great family. Pythagoras was the first one to introduce these teachings into Greece. [20] τὰ δόγματα πρῶτος κομίσαι ταῦτα Πυθαγόρας. οὕτως δὲ πάντας εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπέστρεψεν ὥστε μιᾷ μόνον ἀκροάσει, ὡς φησὶ Νικόμαχος, ἣν ἐπιβὰς τῆς Ἰταλίας πεποίηται, [ 877 ]

πλέον ἢ δισχιλίους ἑλεῖν τοῖς λόγοις, ὡς μηκέτι οἴκαδ’ ἀποστῆναι, ἀλλ’ ὁμοῦ σὺν παισὶ καὶ γυναιξὶν ὁμακοεῖόν τι παμμέγεθες ἱδρυσαμένους πολίσαι τὴν πρὸς πάντων ἐπικληθεῖσαν μεγάλην Ἑλλάδα ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ, νόμους τε παρ’ αὐτοῦ δεξαμένους καὶ προστάγματα ὡσανεὶ θείας ὑποθήκας ἐκτὸς τούτων πράττειν μηδὲ ἕν. οὗτοι δὲ καὶ τὰς οὐσίας κοινὰς ἔθεντο καὶ μετὰ τῶν θεῶν τὸν Πυθαγόραν κατηρίθμουν· διόπερ ἕν τι τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασιν ἀπορρήτων προχειρισάμενοι, γλαφυρὸν ἄλλως καὶ πρὸς πολλὰ διατεῖνον φυσικὰ συντελέσματα, τὴν λεγομένην τετρακτύν, δι’ αὐτῆς ἐπώμνυον ὡς θεόν τινα τὸν Πυθαγόραν ἐπιφθεγγόμενοι πάντες ἐπὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν βεβαιουμένοις, οὔ, μὰ τὸν ἁμετέρᾳ γενεᾷ παραδόντα τετρακτύν, παγὰν ἀενάου φύσιος ῥιζώματ’ ἔχουσαν. [20] His speech was so persuasive that, according to Nicomachus, in one address made on first landing in Italy he made more than two thousand adherents. Out of desire to live with him, [……..] , to which both women and built a large auditorium, to which both women and boys were admitted. (Foreign visitors were so many that) they built whole cities, settling that whole region of Italy now known as Magna Grecia. His ordinances and laws were by them received as divine precepts, and without them would do nothing. Indeed they ranked him among the divinities. They held all property in common. They ranked him among the divinities, and whenever they communicated to each other some choice bit of his philosophy, from which physical truths could always be deduced, they would swear by the Tetractys, adjuring Pythagoras as a divine witness, in the words. “I call to witness him who to our souls expressed The Tetractys, eternal Nature’s fountain-spring.” [21] ἃς δ’ ἐπιδημήσας Ἰταλίᾳ τε καὶ Σικελίᾳ κατέλαβε πόλεις δεδουλωμένας ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων, τὰς μὲν πολλῶν ἐτῶν τὰς δὲ νεωστί, φρονήματος ἐλευθερίου πλήσας διὰ τῶν ἐφ’ ἑκάστης ἀκουστῶν αὐτοῦ ἠλευθέρωσε, Κρότωνα καὶ Σύβαριν καὶ Κατάνην καὶ Ῥήγιον καὶ Ἱμέραν καὶ Ἀκράγαντα καὶ Ταυρομένιον καὶ ἄλλας τινάς, αἷς καὶ νόμους ἔθετο διὰ Χαρώνδα τε τοῦ Καταναίου καὶ Ζαλεύκου τοῦ Λοκροῦ, δι’ ὧν ἀξιοζήλωτοι τοῖς περιοίκοις ἄχρι πολλοῦ γεγόνασιν. Σίμιχος δ’ ὁ Κεντοριπίνων τύραννος ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ τήν τ’ ἀρχὴν ἀπέθετο καὶ τῶν χρημάτων τὰ μὲν τῇ ἀδελφῇ [21] During his travels in Italy and Sicily he founded various cities subjected one to another, both of long standing, and recently. By his disciples, some of whom were found in every city, he infused into them an aspiration for liberty; thus restoring to freedom Crotona, Sybaris, Catana, Rhegium, Himera, Agrigentum, Tauromenium, and others, on whom he imposed laws through Charondas the Catanean, and Zaleucus the Locrian, which resulted in a long era of good government, emulated by all their neighbors.

[ 878 ]

Simichus the tyrant of the Centorupini, on hearing Pythagoras’s discourse, abdicated his rule and divided his property between his sister and the citizens. [22] τὰ δὲ τοῖς πολίταις ἔδωκεν. προσῆλθον δ’ αὐτῷ, ὡς φησὶν Ἀριστόξενος, καὶ Λευκανοὶ καὶ Μεσσάπιοι καὶ Πευκέτιοι καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι. ἀνεῖλεν δ’ ἄρδην στάσιν οὐ μόνον ἀπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀπογόνων αὐτῶν ἄχρι πολλῶν γενεῶν καὶ καθόλου ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ τε καὶ Σικελίᾳ πόλεων πασῶν πρός τε ἑαυτὰς καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλας. πυκνὸν γὰρ ἦν πρὸς ἅπαντας αὐτῷ πολλοὺς καὶ ὀλίγους τόδε τὸ ἀπόφθεγμα· φυγαδευτέον πάσῃ μηχανῇ καὶ περικοπτέον πυρὶ καὶ σιδήρῳ καὶ μηχαναῖς παντοίαις ἀπὸ μὲν σώματος νόσον, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχῆς ἀμαθίαν, κοιλίας δὲ πολυτέλειαν, πόλεως δὲ στάσιν, οἴκου δὲ διχοφροσύνην, ὁμοῦ δὲ πάντων ἀμετρίαν. [22] According to Aristoxenus, some Lucanians, Messapians, Picentinians and Romans came to him. He rooted out all dissensions, not only among his disciples and their successors, for many ages, but among all the cities of Italy and Sicily, both internally and externally. He was continuously harping on the maxim, “We ought, to the best of our ability avoid, and even with fire and sword extirpate from the body, sickness; from the soul, ignorance; from the belly, luxury; from a city, sedition; from a family, discord; and from all things excess.” [23] εἰ δὲ δεῖ πιστεύειν τοῖς ἱστορήσασι περὶ αὐτοῦ παλαιοῖς τε οὖσι καὶ ἀξιολόγοις, μέχρι καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων διικνεῖτο αὐτοῦ ἡ νουθέτησις. τὴν μὲν γὰρ Δαυνίαν ἄρκτον λυμαινομένην τοὺς ἐνοίκους κατασχών, ὡς φασί, καὶ ἐπαφησάμενος χρόνον συχνὸν ψωμίσας τε μάζῃ καὶ ἀκροδρύοις ὁρκώσας τε μηκέτι ἐμψύχου ἐφάπτεσθαι ἀπέλυσεν. ἣ δ’ εὐθὺς εἰς τὰ ὄρη καὶ τοὺς δρυμοὺς ἀπαλλαγεῖσα οὐκέτ’ ὤφθη παράπαν ἐπιοῦσα [23] If we may credit what ancient and trustworthy writers have related of him, he exerted an influence even over irrational animals. The Daunian bear, who had committed extensive depredations in the neighborhood, he seized; and after having patted her for awhile, and given her barley and fruits, he made her swear never again to touch a living creature, and then released her. She immediately hid herself in the woods and the hills, and from that time on never attacked any irrational animal. [24] οὐδ’ ἀλόγῳ ζῴῳ. βοῦν δ’ ἐν Τάραντι ἰδὼν ἐν παμμιγεῖ νομῇ κυάμων χλωρῶν ἐφαπτόμενον, τῷ βουκόλῳ παραστὰς συνεβούλευσεν εἰπεῖν τῷ βοῒ τῶν κυάμων ἀποσχέσθαι· προσπαίξαντος δ’ αὐτῷ τοῦ βουκόλου καὶ φήσαντος οὐκ εἰδέναι βοϊστὶ λαλεῖν, προσελθόντα καὶ εἰς τὸ οὖς προσψιθυρίσαντα τῷ ταύρῳ οὐ μόνον τότ’ ἀποστῆσαι τοῦ κυαμῶνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὖθις μηδέποτε κυάμων θιγεῖν, μακροχρονιώτατον δ’ ἐν Τάραντι κατὰ τὸ τῆς Ἥρας ἱερὸν γηρῶντα διαμεμενηκέναι τὸν ἱερὸν καλούμενον βοῦν, τροφὰς σιτούμενον ἃς οἱ ἀπαντῶντες [24] At Tarentum, in a pasture, seeing an ox [reaping] beans, he went to the herdsman, and advised him to tell the ox to abstain from beans. The countryman mocked him, proclaiming his ignorance of the ox-language. So Pythagoras himself went and whispered in the ox’s ear. Not only did the bovine at once desist from his diet of [ 879 ]

beans, but would never touch any thenceforward, though he survived many years near Hera’s temple at Tarentum, until very old; being called the sacred ox, and eating any food given him. [25] ὤρεγον. αἰετὸν δ’ ὑπεριπτάμενον Ὀλυμπίασι προσομιλοῦντος αὐτοῦ τοῖς γνωρίμοις ἀπὸ τύχης περί τε οἰωνῶν καὶ συμβόλων καὶ διοσημιῶν, ὅτι παρὰ θεῶν εἰσὶν ἀγγελίαι τινὲς αἱ αὐταὶ τοῖς ὡς ἀληθῶς θεοφιλέσι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καταγαγεῖν λέγεται καὶ καταψήσαντα πάλιν ἀφεῖναι. δικτυουλκοῖς τ’ ἐπιστάντα ἐπὶ τῆς σαγήνης ἐκ βυθοῦ πολὺν φόρτον ἐπισυρομένοις, ὅσον πλῆθος ἐπισπῶνται προειπεῖν τῶν ἰχθύων ὁρίσαντα τὸν ἀριθμόν, καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ὑπομεινάντων ὅτι ἂν κελεύσῃ πράξειν, εἰ τοῦθ’ οὕτως ἀποβαίη, ζῶντας ἀφεῖναι πάλιν κελεῦσαι τοὺς ἰχθύας πρότερόν γε ἀκριβῶς διαριθμήσαντας· καὶ τὸ θαυμασιώτερον ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν τοσούτῳ τῆς ἀριθμήσεως χρόνῳ τῶν ἰχθύων ἐκτὸς [25] While at the Olympic games, he was discoursing with his friends about auguries, omens, and divine signs, and how men of true piety do receive messages from the Gods. Flying over his head was an eagle, who stopped, and came down to Pythagoras. After stroking her awhile, he released her. Meeting with some fishermen who were drawing in their nets heavily laden with fishes from the deep, he predicted the exact number of fish they had caught. The fishermen said that if his estimate was accurate they would do whatever he commanded. They counted them accurately, and found the number correct. He then bade them return the fish alive into the sea; and, what is more wonderful, not one of them died, although they had been out of the water a considerable time. He paid them and left. [26] ὕδατος μεινάντων ἀπέπνευσεν ἐφεστῶτος αὐτοῦ. πολλοὺς δὲ τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων ἀνεμίμνησκε τοῦ προτέρου βίου, ὃν αὐτῶν ἡ ψυχὴ πρὸ τοῦ τῷδε τῷ σώματι ἐνδεθῆναι πάλαι ποτ’ ἐβίωσε. καὶ ἑαυτὸν δ’ ἀναμφιλέκτοις τεκμηρίοις ἀπέφαινεν Εὔφορβον τὸν Πάνθου. καὶ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν στίχων ἐκείνους μάλιστα ἐξύμνει καὶ μετὰ λύρας ἐμμελέστατα ἀνέμελπεν, αἵματί οἱ δεύοντο κόμαι χαρίτεσσιν ὁμοῖαι πλοχμοί θ’, οἳ χρυσῷ τε καὶ ἀργύρῳ ἐσφήκωντο. οἷον δὲ τρέφει ἔρνος ἀνὴρ ἐριθηλὲς ἐλαίης χώρῳ ἐν οἰοπόλῳ, ὅθ’ ἅλις ἀναβέβρυχεν ὕδωρ καλὸν τηλεθάον· τὸ δέ τε πνοιαὶ δονέουσιν παντοίων ἀνέμων, καί τε βρύει ἄνθεϊ λευκῷ· ἐλθὼν δ’ ἐξαπίνης ἄνεμος σὺν λαίλαπι πολλῇ βόθρου τ’ ἐξέστρεψε καὶ ἐξετάνυσσ’ ἐπὶ γαίης· τοῖον Πάνθου υἱὸν ἐυμελίην Εὔφορβον Ἀτρεΐδης Μενέλαος ἐπεὶ κτάνε, τεύχε’ ἐσύλα. [26] Many of his associates he reminded of the lives lived by their souls before it was bound to the body, and by irrefutable arguments demonstrated that he had bean [ 880 ]

Euphorbus, the son of Panthus. He specially praised the following verses about himself, and sang them to the lyre most elegantly: “The shining circlets of his golden hair; Which even the Graces might be proud to wear, Instarred with gems and gold, bestrew the shore, With dust dishonored, and deformed with gore. As the young olive, in some sylvan scene, Crowned by fresh fountains with celestial green, Lifts the gay head, in snowy flowerets fair, And plays and dances to the gentle air, When lo, a whirlwind from high heaven invades, The tender plant, and withers all its shades; It lies uprooted from its genial head, A lovely ruin now defaced and dead. Thus young, thus beautiful, Euphorbus lay, While the fierce Spartan tore his arms away.” (Pope, Homer’s Iliad, Book 17). [27] τὰ γὰρ ἱστορούμενα περὶ τῆς ἐν Μυκήναις ἀνακειμένης σὺν Τρωικοῖς λαφύροις τῇ Ἀργείᾳ Ἥρᾳ Εὐφόρβου τοῦ Φρυγὸς τούτου ἀσπίδος παρίεμεν ὡς πάνυ δημώδη. Καύκασον δ’ ἔφασαν τὸν ποταμὸν σὺν πολλοῖς τῶν ἑταίρων διαβαίνοντά ποτε προσειπεῖν· καὶ ὁ ποταμὸς γεγωνόν τι καὶ τρανὸν ἀπεφθέγξατο πάντων ἀκουόντων ‘χαῖρε Πυθαγόρα’. μιᾷ δὲ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἔν τε Μεταποντίῳ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ ἐν Ταυρομενίῳ τῆς Σικελίας συγγεγονέναι καὶ διειλέχθαι κοινῇ τοῖς ἑκατέρωθι ἑταίροις αὐτὸν διαβεβαιοῦνται σχεδὸν ἅπαντες, σταδίων ἐν μεταιχμίῳ παμπόλλων καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν ὑπαρχόντων οὐδ’ ἡμέραις ἀνυσίμων πάνυ πολλαῖς. [27] The stories about the shield of this Phrygian Euphorbus being at Mycenae dedicated to Argive Hera, along with other Trojan spoils, shall here be omitted as being of too popular a nature. It is said that the river Caicasus, while he with many of his associates was passing over it, spoke to him very clearly, “Hail, Pythagoras!” Almost unanimous is the report that on one and the same day he was present at Metapontum in Italy, and at Tauromenium in Sicily, in each place conversing with his friends, though the places are separated by many miles, both at sea and land, demanding many days’ journey. [28] τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι τὸν μηρὸν χρυσοῦν ἐπέδειξεν Ἀβάριδι τῷ Ὑπερβορέῳ εἰκάσαντι αὐτὸν Ἀπόλλωνα εἶναι τὸν ἐν Ὑπερβορέοις, οὗπερ ἦν ἱερεὺς ὁ Ἄβαρις, βεβαιοῦντα ὡς τοῦτο ἀληθές, τεθρύληται· καὶ ὅτι νεὼς καταπλεούσης καὶ τῶν φίλων εὐχομένων τὰ κομιζόμενα γενέσθαι αὐτοῖς ὁ Πυθαγόρας εἶπεν ‘ἔσται τοίνυν ὑμῖν νεκρός’, καὶ ἡ ναῦς κατέπλευσεν ἔχουσα νεκρόν. [ 881 ]

μυρία δ’ ἕτερα θαυμαστότερα καὶ θειότερα περὶ τἀνδρὸς ὁμαλῶς καὶ συμφώνως εἴρηται. ὡς ‹δ’› ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν κατ’ οὐδενὸς ὑπενοήθη πλείονα οὐδὲ περιττότερα. [28] It is well known that he showed his golden thigh to Abaris the Hyperborean, to confirm him in the opinion that he was the Hyperborean Apollo, whose priest Abaris was. A ship was coming into the harbor, and his friends expressed the wish to own the goods it contained. “Then,” said Pythagoras, “you would own a corpse!” On the ship’s arrival, this was found to be the true state of affairs. Of Pythagoras many other more wonderful and divine things are persistently and unanimously related, so that we have no hesitation in saying never was more attributed to any man, nor was any more eminent. [29] προρρήσεις τε γὰρ ἀπαράβατοι σεισμῶν διαμνημονεύονται αὐτοῦ καὶ λοιμῶν ἀποτροπαὶ σὺν τάχει καὶ ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τ’ ἐκχύσεως καταστολαὶ καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλαττίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν. ὧν μεταλαβόντας Ἐμπεδοκλέα τε καὶ Ἐπιμενίδην καὶ Ἄβαριν πολλαχῇ ἐπιτετελεκέναι τοιαῦτα· δῆλα δ’ αὐτῶν τὰ ποιήματα ὑπάρχει. ἄλλως δὲ καὶ ἀλεξάνεμος μὲν ἦν τὸ ἐπώνυμον Ἐμπεδοκλέους, καθαρτὴς δὲ τὸ Ἐπιμενίδου, αἰθροβάτης δὲ τὸ Ἀβάριδος, ὅτι ἄρα ὀιστῷ τοῦ ἐν Ὑπερβορέοις Ἀπόλλωνος δωρηθέντι αὐτῷ ἐποχούμενος ποταμούς τε καὶ πελάγη καὶ τὰ ἄβατα διέβαινεν ἀεροβατῶν τρόπον τινά. ὅπερ ὑπενόησαν καὶ Πυθαγόραν τινὲς πεπονθέναι τότε ἡνίκα ἐν Μεταποντίῳ καὶ ἐν Ταυρομενίῳ [29] Verified predictions of earthquakes are handed down, also that he immediately chased a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, calmed storms both on rivers and on seas, for the comfort and safe passage of his friends. As their poems attest, the like was often performed by Empedocles, Epimenides and Abaris, who had learned the art of doing these things from him. Empedocles, indeed, was surnamed Alexanemos, as the chaser of winds; Epimenides, Cathartes, the lustrator. Abaris was called Aethrobates, the walker in air; for he was carried in the air on an arrow of the Hyperborean Apollo, over rivers, seas and inaccessible places. It is believed that this was the method employed by Pythagoras when on the same day he discoursed with his friends at Metapontum and Tauromenium. [30] τοῖς ἑκατέρωθι ἑταίροις ὡμίλησε τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ. κατεκήλει δὲ ῥυθμοῖς καὶ μέλεσι καὶ ἐπῳδαῖς τὰ ψυχικὰ πάθη καὶ τὰ σωματικά. καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἑταίροις ἡρμόζετο ταῦτα, αὐτὸς δὲ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἁρμονίας ἠκροᾶτο συνιεὶς τῆς καθολικῆς τῶν σφαιρῶν καὶ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὰς κινουμένων ἀστέρων ἁρμονίας, ἧς ἡμᾶς μὴ ἀκούειν διὰ σμικρότητα τῆς φύσεως. τούτοις καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μαρτυρεῖ λέγων περὶ αὐτοῦ· ἦν δέ τις ἐν κείνοισιν ἀνὴρ περιώσια εἰδώς, ὃς δὴ μήκιστον πραπίδων ἐκτήσατο πλοῦτον, παντοίων τε μάλιστα σοφῶν ἐπιήρανος ἔργων. [ 882 ]

ὁππότε γὰρ πάσῃσιν ὀρέξαιτο πραπίδεσσιν, ῥεῖά γε τῶν ὄντων πάντων λεύσσεσκεν ἕκαστα, καί τε δέκ’ ἀνθρώπων καί τ’ εἴκοσιν αἰώνεσσιν. [30] He soothed the passions of the soul and body by rhythms, songs and incantations. These he adapted and applied to his friends. He himself could hear the harmony of the Universe, and understood the universal music of the spheres, and of the stars which move in concert with them, and which we cannot hear because of the limitations of our weak nature. This is testified to by these characteristic verses of Empedocles: “Amongst these was one in things sublimest skilled, His mind with all the wealth of learning filled, Whatever sages did invent, he sought; And whilst his thoughts were on this work intent, All things existent, easily he viewed, Through ten or twenty ages making search.” [31] τὸ γὰρ ‘περιώσια’ καὶ ‘τῶν ὄντων λεύσσεσκεν ἕκαστα’ καὶ ‘πραπίδων πλοῦτον’ καὶ τὰ ἐοικότα ἐμφαντικὰ μάλιστα τῆς ἐξαιρέτου καὶ ἀκριβεστέρας παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους διοργανώσεως ἔν τε τῷ ὁρᾶν καὶ τῷ ἀκούειν καὶ τῷ νοεῖν [τοῦ Πυθαγόρου]. τὰ δ’ οὖν τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων φθέγματα καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀπλανῶν ἐπὶ ταύτης τε τῆς ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς λεγομένης δὲ κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἀντίχθονος τὰς ἐννέα μούσας εἶναι διεβεβαιοῦτο. τὴν δὲ πασῶν ἅμα σύγκρασιν καὶ συμφωνίαν καὶ ὡσανεὶ σύνδεσμον, ἧσπερ ὡς ἀιδίου τε καὶ ἀγενήτου μέρος ἑκάστη καὶ ἀπόρροια, Μνημοσύνην ὠνόμαζεν. [31] Indicating by sublimest things, and, he surveyed all existent things, and the wealth of the mind, and the like, Pythagoras ‘s constitution of body, mind, seeing, hearing and understanding, which was exquisite, and surpassingly accurate, Pythagoras affirmed that the nine Muses were constituted by the sounds made by the seven planets, the sphere of the fixed stars, and that which is opposed to our earth, called “anti-earth.” He called Mnemosyne, or Memory, the composition, symphony and connexion of then all, which is eternal and unbegotten as being composed of all of them. [32] τὴν δὲ καθ’ ἡμέραν αὐτοῦ διαγωγὴν ἀφηγούμενος ὁ Διογένης φησὶν ὡς ἅπασι μὲν παρηγγύα φιλοτιμίαν φεύγειν καὶ φιλοδοξίαν, ὥπερ μάλιστα φθόνον ἐργάζεσθαι, ἐκτρέπεσθαι δὲ τὰς μετὰ τῶν πολλῶν ὁμιλίας. τὰς γοῦν διατριβὰς καὶ αὐτὸς ἕωθεν μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας ἐποιεῖτο, ἁρμοζόμενος πρὸς λύραν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φωνὴν καὶ ᾄδων παιᾶνας ἀρχαίους τινὰς τῶν Θάλητος. καὶ ἐπῇδε τῶν Ὁμήρου καὶ Ἡσιόδου ὅσα καθημεροῦν τὴν ψυχὴν ἐδόξαζε. καὶ ὀρχήσεις δέ τινας ὑπωρχεῖτο ὁπόσας εὐκινησίαν καὶ ὑγείαν τῷ σώματι παρασκευάζειν ᾤετο. τοὺς δὲ περιπάτους οὐδ’ αὐτὸς ἐπιφθόνως μετὰ πολλῶν ἐποιεῖτο, ἀλλὰ δεύτερος ἢ τρίτος ἐν ἱεροῖς ἢ ἄλσεσιν, ἐπιλεγόμενος τῶν χωρίων [ 883 ]

[32] Diogenes, setting forth his daily routine of living, relates that he advised all men to avoid ambition and vain-glory, which chiefly excite envy, and to shun the presences of crowds. He himself held morning conferences at his residence, composing his soul with the music of the lute, and singing certain old paeans of Thales. He also sang verses of Homer and Hesiod, which seemed to soothe the mind. He danced certain dances which he conceived conferred on the body agility and health. Walks he took not promiscuously, but only in company of one or two companions, in temples or sacred groves, selecting the quietest and pleasantest places. [33] τὰ ἡσυχαίτατα καὶ περικαλλέστατα. τοὺς δὲ φίλους ὑπερηγάπα, κοινὰ μὲν τὰ τῶν φίλων εἶναι πρῶτος ἀποφηνάμενος, τὸν δὲ φίλον ἄλλον ἑαυτόν. καὶ ὑγιαίνουσι μὲν αὐτοῖς ἀεὶ συνδιέτριβεν, κάμνοντας δὲ τὰ σώματα ἐθεράπευεν, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς δὲ νοσοῦντας παρεμυθεῖτο, καθάπερ ἔφαμεν, τοὺς μὲν ἐπῳδαῖς καὶ μαγείαις τοὺς δὲ μουσικῇ. ἦν γὰρ αὐτῷ μέλη καὶ πρὸς νόσους σωμάτων παιώνια, ἃ ἐπᾴδων ἀνίστη τοὺς κάμνοντας. ἦν ‹δ’› ἃ καὶ λύπης λήθην εἰργάζετο καὶ ὀργὰς ἐπράυνε καὶ ἐπιθυμίας ἀτόπους ἐξῄρει. [33] His friends he loved exceedingly, being the first to declare that the goods of friends are common, and that a friend was another self. While they were in good health he always conversed with them; if they were sick, he nursed them; if they were afflicted in mind, he solaced them, some by incantations and magic charms, others by music. He had prepared songs for the diseases of the body, by the singing of which he cured the sick. He had also some that caused oblivion of sorrow, mitigation of anger and destruction of lust. [34] τῆς δὲ διαίτης τὸ μὲν ἄριστον ἦν κηρίον ἢ μέλι, δεῖπνον δ’ ἄρτος ἐκ κέγχρων ἢ μᾶζα καὶ λάχανα ἑφθὰ καὶ ὠμά, σπανίως δὲ κρέας ἱερείων θυσίμων καὶ τοῦτο οὐδ’ ἐκ παντὸς μέρους. τά γε μὴν πλεῖστα ὁπότε θεῶν ἀδύτοις ἐγκαταδύσεσθαι μέλλοι καὶ ἐνταῦθα χρόνου τινὸς ἐνδιατρίψειν, ἀλίμοις ἐχρῆτο καὶ ἀδίψοις τροφαῖς, τὴν μὲν ἄλιμον συντιθεὶς ἐκ μήκωνος σπέρματος καὶ σησάμου καὶ φλοιοῦ σκίλλης πλυθείσης ἀκριβῶς ἔστ’ ἂν τοῦ περὶ αὐτὴν ὀποῦ καθαρθείη, καὶ ἀσφοδέλων ἀνθερίκων καὶ μαλάχης φύλλων καὶ ἀλφίτων καὶ κριθῶν καὶ ἐρεβίνθων, ἅπερ κατ’ ἴσον πάντα σταθμὸν κοπέντα μέλιτι ἀνέδευεν Ὑμηττίῳ· τὴν δ’ ἄδιψον ἐκ σικύων σπέρματος καὶ ἀσταφίδος λιπαρᾶς, ἐξελὼν αὐτῆς τὰ γίγαρτα, καὶ ἄνθους κορίου καὶ μαλάχης ὁμοίως σπέρματος καὶ ἀνδράχνης καὶ τυροῦ κνήστεως καὶ ἀλεύρου πάλης καὶ γάλακτος [34] As to food, his breakfast was chiefly of honey; at dinner he used bread made of millet, barley or herbs, raw and boiled. Only rarely did he eat the flesh of victims; nor did he take this from every part of the anatomy. When he intended to sojourn in the sanctuaries of the divinities, he would eat no more than was necessary to still hunger and thirst. To quiet hunger, he made a mixture of poppy seed and sesame, the skin of a sea-onion, well washed, till entirely drained of the outward juice; of the flower of the [ 884 ]

daffodil, and the leaves of mallows, of paste of barley and pea; taking an equal weight of which, and chopping it small, with Hymettian honey he made it into mass. Against thirst he took the seed of cucumbers, and the best dried raisins, extracting the seeds, and the flower of coriander, and the seeds of mallows, purselain, scraped cheese, meal and cream; these he made up with wild honey. [35] λίπους, ἅπερ πάντα ἀνεμίγνυ μέλιτι νησιωτικῷ. ταῦτα δ’ Ἡρακλέα παρὰ Δήμητρος ἔφασκε μαθεῖν στελλόμενον εἰς τὴν Λιβύην τὴν ἄνυδρον. ὅθεν αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ σῶμα ὥσπερ ἐπὶ στάθμῃ τὴν αὐτὴν ἕξιν διεφύλαττεν, οὐ ποτὲ μὲν ὑγιαῖνον ποτὲ δὲ νοσοῦν, οὐδ’ αὖ ποτὲ μὲν πιαινόμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον ποτὲ δὲ λεπτυνόμενον καὶ ἰσχναινόμενον, ἥ τε ψυχὴ τὸ ὅμοιον ἦθος ἀεὶ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως παρεδήλου. οὔτε γὰρ ὑφ’ ἡδονῆς διεχεῖτο πλέον οὔθ’ ὑπ’ ἀνίας συνεστέλλετο, οὐδ’ ἐπίδηλος ἦν χαρᾷ ἢ λύπῃ κάτοχος, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ γελάσαντα ἢ κλαύσαντά τίς ποτ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐθεάσατο. [35] He claimed that this diet had, by Demeter, been taught to Hercules, when he was sent into the Libyan deserts. This preserved his body in an unchanging condition; not at one time well, and at another time sick, nor at one time fat, and at another lean. Pythagoras’s countenance showed the same constancy was in his soul also. For he was neither more elated by pleasure, nor dejected by grief, and no one ever saw him either rejoicing or mourning. [36] θύων τε θεοῖς ἀνεπαχθὴς ἦν, ἀλφίτοις τε καὶ ποπάνῳ καὶ λιβανωτῷ καὶ μυρρίνῃ τοὺς θεοὺς ἐξιλασκόμενος, ἐμψύχοις δ’ ἥκιστα, πλὴν εἰ μή ποτε ἀλεκτορίσιν καὶ τῶν χοίρων τοῖς ἁπαλωτάτοις. ἐβουθύτησεν δέ ποτε σταίτινον, ὡς φασὶ βοῦν οἱ ἀκριβέστεροι, ἐξευρὼν τοῦ ὀρθογωνίου τὴν ὑποτείνουσαν ἴσον δυναμένην ταῖς περιεχούσαις. ὅσα γε μὴν τοῖς προσιοῦσι διελέγετο, [36] When Pythagoras sacrificed to the Gods, he did not use offensive profusion, but offered no more than barley bread, cakes and myrrh; least of all, animals, unless perhaps cocks and pigs. When he discovered the proposition that the square on the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle was equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle, he is said to have sacrificed an ox, although the more accurate say that this ox was made of flour. [37] ἢ διεξοδικῶς ἢ συμβολικῶς παρῄνει. διττὸν γὰρ ἦν αὐτοῦ τῆς διδασκαλίας τὸ σχῆμα. καὶ τῶν προσιόντων οἳ μὲν ἐκαλοῦντο μαθηματικοί, οἳ δ’ ἀκουσματικοί· καὶ μαθηματικοὶ μὲν οἱ τὸν περιττότερον καὶ πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν διαπεπονημένον τῆς ἐπιστήμης λόγον ἐκμεμαθηκότες, ἀκουσματικοὶ δ’ οἱ μόνας τὰς κεφαλαιώδεις ὑποθήκας τῶν γραμμάτων ἄνευ ἀκριβεστέρας [37] His utterances were of two kinds, plain or symbolical. His teaching was twofold: of his disciples some were called Students, and others Hearers. The Students learned the fuller and more exactly elaborate reasons of science, while the Hearers heard only the chief heads of learning, without more detailed explanations. [ 885 ]

[38] διηγήσεως ἀκηκοότες. παρῄνει δὲ περὶ μὲν τοῦ θείου καὶ δαιμονίου καὶ ἡρῴου γένους εὔφημον εἶναι καὶ ἀγαθὴν ἔχειν διάνοιαν, γονεῦσι δὲ καὶ εὐεργέταις εὔνουν· νόμοις δὲ πείθεσθαι· προσκυνεῖν δὲ μὴ ἐκ παρέργου τοὺς θεούς, ἀλλ’ οἴκοθεν ἐπὶ τοῦτο ὡρμημένοις· καὶ τοῖς μὲν οὐρανίοις θεοῖς περιττὰ θύειν, τοῖς δὲ χθονίοις ἄρτια. ἐκάλει γὰρ τῶν ἀντικειμένων δυνάμεων τὴν μὲν βελτίονα μονάδα καὶ φῶς καὶ δεξιὸν καὶ ἴσον καὶ μένον καὶ εὐθύ, τὴν δὲ χείρονα δυάδα καὶ σκότος καὶ ἀριστερὸν καὶ ἄνισον [38] He ordained that his disciples should speak well and think reverently of the Gods, muses and heroes, and likewise of parents and benefactors; that they should obey the laws; that they should not relegate the worship of the Gods to a secondary position, performing it eagerly, even at home; that to the celestial divinities they should sacrifice uncommon offerings; and ordinary ones to the inferior deities. (The world he Divided into) opposite powers; the “one” was a better monad, light, right, equal, stable and straight; while the “other” was an inferior duad, darkness, left, unequal, unstable and movable. [39] καὶ περιφερὲς καὶ φερόμενον. παρῄνει δὲ καὶ τοιάδε. φυτὸν ἥμερον καὶ ἔγκαρπον, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ζῷον ὁ μὴ βλαβερὸν εἶναι πέφυκε τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ γένει, μήτε φθείρειν μήτε βλάπτειν. παρακαταθήκην δὲ μὴ χρημάτων μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ λόγων πιστῶς τῷ παρακαταθεμένῳ φυλάσσειν. τρισσὰς δ’ ἡγεῖσθαι διαφορὰς τῶν ἀξίων σπουδῆς πραγμάτων, ἃ καὶ μετιτέον καὶ μεταχειριστέον· πρῶτον μὲν τῶν εὐκλεῶν καὶ καλῶν, εἶτα τῶν πρὸς τὸν βίον συμφερόντων, τρίτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν τὴν τῶν ἡδέων. ἡδονὴν δὲ οὐ προσίετο τὴν δημώδη καὶ γοητευτικήν, ἀλλὰ τὴν βέβαιον καὶ σεμνοτάτην καὶ καθαρεύουσαν διαβολῆς. διττὴν γὰρ εἶναι διαφορὰν ἡδονῶν· τὴν μὲν γὰρ γαστρὶ καὶ ἀφροδισίοις διὰ πολυτελείας κεχαρισμένην ἀπείκαζε ταῖς ἀνδροφόνοις τῶν σειρήνων ᾠδαῖς· τὴν δ’ ἐπὶ καλοῖς καὶ δικαίοις τοῖς πρὸς τὸ ζῆν ἀναγκαίοις, ὁμοίως καὶ παραχρῆμα ἡδεῖαν καὶ εἰς τὸ ἐπιὸν ἀμεταμέλητον, ἣν [39] Moreover, he enjoined the following. A cultivated and fruit-bearing plant, harmless to man and beast, should be neither injured nor destroyed. A deposit of money or of teachings should be faithfully preserved by the trustee. There are three kinds of things that deserve to be pursued and acquired; honorable and virtuous things, those that conduce to the use of life, and those that bring pleasures of the blameless, solid and grave kind, of course not the vulgar intoxicating kinds. Of pleasures there were two kinds; one that indulges the bellies and lusts by a profusion of wealth, which he compared to the murderous songs of the Sirens; the other kind consists of things honest, just, and necessary to life, which are just as sweet as the first, without being followed by repentance; and these pleasures he compared to the harmony of the Muses. [40] ἔφασκεν ἐοικέναι μουσῶν τινὶ ἁρμονίᾳ. δύο δὲ μάλιστα καιροὺς παρηγγύα ἐν φροντίδι θέσθαι, τὸν μὲν ὅτε εἰς ὕπνον τρέποιτο, τὸν δ’ ὅτε ἐξ ὕπνου διανίσταιτο. ἐπισκοπεῖν γὰρ προσήκειν ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τούτοιν τά τε ἤδη πεπραγμένα καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα, τῶν μὲν γενομένων [ 886 ]

εὐθύνας παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἕκαστον λαμβάνοντα, τῶν δὲ μελλόντων πρόνοιαν ποιούμενον. πρὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ὕπνου ταῦτα ἑαυτῷ τὰ ἔπη ἐπᾴδειν ἕκαστον· μηδ’ ὕπνον μαλακοῖσιν ἐπ’ ὄμμασι προσδέξασθαι πρὶν τῶν ἡμερινῶν ἔργων τρὶς ἕκαστον ἐπελθεῖν, πῇ παρέβην; τί δ’ ἔρεξα; τί μοι δέον οὐκ ἐτελέσθη; πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἐξαναστάσεως ἐκεῖνα· πρῶτα μὲν ἐξ ὕπνοιο μελίφρονος ἐξυπαναστὰς εὖ μάλ’ ὀπιπεύειν ὅσ’ ἐν ἤματι ἔργα τελέσσεις. [40] He advised special regard to two times; that when we go to sleep, and that when we awake. At each of these we should consider our past actions, and those that are to come. We ought to require of ourselves an account of our past deeds, while of the future we should have a providential care. Therefore he advised everybody to repeat to himself the following verses before he fell asleep: “Nor suffer sleep to close thine eyes Till thrice thy acts that day thou hast run o’er; How slipt? What deeds? What duty left undone?” On rising: “As soon as ere thou wakest, in order lay The actions to be done that following day” [41] τοιαῦτα παρῄνει· μάλιστα δ’ ἀληθεύειν· τοῦτο γὰρ μόνον δύνασθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ποιεῖν θεῷ παραπλησίους. ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς παρὰ τῶν μάγων ἐπυνθάνετο, ὃν Ὡρομάζην καλοῦσιν ἐκεῖνοι, ἐοικέναι τὸ μὲν σῶμα φωτί, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ἀληθείᾳ. καὶ ἄλλ’ ἄττα ἐπαίδευεν ὅσα παρὰ Ἀριστοκλείας τῆς ἐν Δελφοῖς ἔλεγεν ἀκηκοέναι. ἔλεγε δέ τινα καὶ μυστικῷ τρόπῳ συμβολικῶς, ἃ δὴ ἐπὶ πλέον Ἀριστοτέλης ἀνέγραψεν· οἷον ὅτι τὴν θάλατταν μὲν ἐκάλει εἶναι δάκρυον, τὰς δ’ ἄρκτους Ῥέας χεῖρας, τὴν δὲ πλειάδα μουσῶν λύραν, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας κύνας τῆς Φερσεφόνης. τὸν δ’ ἐκ χαλκοῦ κρουομένου γινόμενον ἦχον φωνὴν εἶναί τινος τῶν δαιμόνων ἐναπειλημμένου τῷ χαλκῷ. [41] Such things taught he, though advising above all things to speak the truth, for this alone deifies men. For as he had learned from the Magi, who call God Oremasdes, God’s body is light, and his soul is truth. He taught much else, which he claimed to have learned from Aristoclea at Delphi. Certain things he declared mystically, symbolically, most of which were collected by Aristotle, as when he called the sea a tear of Saturn; the two bear (constellations) the hand of Rhea; the Pleiades, the lyre of the Muses; the Planets, the dogs of Persephone; and he called be sound caused by striking on brass the voice of a genius enclosed in the brass. [42] ἦν δὲ καὶ ἄλλο εἶδος τῶν συμβόλων τοιοῦτον. ζυγὸν μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν, τοῦτ’ ἔστι μὴ πλεονεκτεῖν. μὴ τὸ πῦρ τῇ μαχαίρᾳ σκαλεύειν, ὅπερ ἦν μὴ τὸν ἀνοιδοῦντα καὶ ὀργιζόμενον [ 887 ]

κινεῖν λόγοις τεθηγμένοις. στέφανόν τε μὴ τίλλειν, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τοὺς νόμους μὴ λυμαίνεσθαι· στέφανοι γὰρ πόλεων οὗτοι. πάλιν δ’ αὖ ἕτερα τοιαῦτα. μὴ καρδίαν ἐσθίειν, οἷον μὴ λυπεῖν ἑαυτὸν ἀνίαις. μηδ’ ἐπὶ χοίνικος καθέζεσθαι, οἷον μὴ ἀργὸν ζῆν. μηδ’ ἀποδημοῦντα ἐπιστρέφεσθαι, μὴ ἔχεσθαι τοῦ βίου τούτου ἀποθνῄσκοντα· τάς τε λεωφόρους μὴ βαδίζειν, δι’ οὗ ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν ἕπεσθαι γνώμαις ἐκώλυεν, τὰς δὲ τῶν λογίων καὶ πεπαιδευμένων μεταθεῖν. μηδὲ χελιδόνας ἐν οἰκίᾳ δέχεσθαι, τοῦτ’ ἔστι λάλους ἀνθρώπους καὶ περὶ γλῶτταν ἀκρατεῖς ὁμωροφίους μὴ ποιεῖσθαι. φορτίον δὲ συνανατιθέναι μὲν τοῖς βαστάζουσιν, συγκαθαιρεῖν δὲ μή, δι’ οὗ παρῄνει μηδενὶ πρὸς ῥᾳστώνην, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀρετὴν συμπράττειν. θεῶν τ’ εἰκόνας ἐν δακτυλίοις μὴ φορεῖν, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τὴν περὶ θεῶν δόξαν καὶ λόγον μὴ πρόχειρον μηδὲ φανερὸν ἔχειν μηδὲ εἰς πολλοὺς προφέρειν. σπονδάς τε ποιεῖσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς κατὰ τὸ οὖς τῶν ἐκπωμάτων· ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ ᾐνίττετο τιμᾶν τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ ὑμνεῖν τῇ μουσικῇ· αὕτη γὰρ διὰ ὤτων χωρεῖ. μηδ’ ἐσθίειν ὅσα μὴ θέμις, γένεσιν, αὔξησιν, ἀρχήν, τελευτήν, μηδ’ ἐξ ὧν ἡ πρώτη τῶν [42] He had also another kind of symbol, such as, pass not over a balance; that is, Shun avarice. Poke not the fire with a sword, that is, we ought not to excite a man full of fire and anger with sharp language. Pluck not a crown, meant not to violate the laws, which are the crowns of cities. Eat not the heart, signified not to afflict ourselves with sorrows. Do not sit upon a [pack]-measure, meant, do not live ignobly. On starting a journey, do not turn back, meant, that this life should not be regretted, when near the bourne of death. Do not walk in the public way, meant, to avoid the opinions of the multitude, adopting those of the learned and the few. Receive not swallows into your house, meant, not to admit under the same roof garrulous and intemperate men. Help a man to take up a burden, but not to lay it down, meant, to encourage no one to be indolent, but to apply oneself to labor and virtue. Do not carry the images of the Gods in rings, signified that one should not at once to the vulgar reveal one’s opinions about the Gods, or discourse about them. Offer libations to the Gods, just to the ears of the cup, meant, that we ought to worship and celebrate the Gods with music, for that penetrates through the ears. Do not eat those things that are unlawful, sexual or increase, beginning nor end, nor the first basis of all things. [43] πάντων ὑπόθεσις γίνεται. ἔλεγε δ’ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν καταθυομένων ὀσφύος καὶ διδύμων καὶ αἰδοίων καὶ μυελοῦ καὶ ποδῶν καὶ κεφαλῆς. ὑπόθεσιν μὲν γὰρ τὴν ὀσφῦν ἐκάλει, διότι ἐπὶ ταύτῃ ὡς ἐπὶ θεμελίῳ συνίσταται τὰ ζῷα· γένεσιν δὲ τοὺς διδύμους καὶ αἰδοῖα, ἄνευ γὰρ τῆς τούτων ἐνεργείας οὐ γίνεται ζῷον· αὔξησιν δὲ τὸν μυελὸν ἐκάλει, ὃς τοῦ αὔξεσθαι πᾶσιν ζῴοις αἴτιος· ἀρχὴν δὲ τοὺς πόδας, τὴν δὲ κεφαλὴν τελευτήν· ἅπερ τὰς μεγίστας ἡγεμονίας ἔχει τοῦ σώματος. ἴσα δὲ κυάμων παρῄνει ἀπέχεσθαι [43] He taught abstention from the loins, testicle, pudenda, marrow, feet and heads of victims. The loins he called basis, because on them as foundations living beings are settled. Testicles and pudenda he called generation, for no one is engendered without [ 888 ]

the help of these. Marrow he called increase as it is the cause of growth in living beings. The beginning was the feet, and the head the end; which have the most power in the government of the body. He likewise advised abstention from beans, as from human flesh. [44] καθάπερ ἀνθρωπίνων σαρκῶν. ἱστοροῦσι δ’ αὐτὸν ἀπαγορεύειν τὸ τοιοῦτο ὅτι τῆς πρώτης τῶν ὅλων ἀρχῆς καὶ γενέσεως ταραττομένης καὶ πολλῶν ἅμα συνηνεγμένων καὶ συσπειρομένων καὶ συσσηπομένων ἐν τῇ γῇ κατ’ ὀλίγον γένεσις καὶ διάκρισις συνέστη ζῴων τε ὁμοῦ γεννωμένων καὶ φυτῶν ἀναδιδομένων, τότε δὴ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς σηπεδόνος ἀνθρώπους συστῆναι καὶ κύαμον βλαστῆσαι. τούτου τε φανερὰ ἐπῆγε τεκμήρια. εἰ γάρ τις διατραγὼν κύαμον καὶ τοῖς ὀδοῦσι λεάνας ἐν ἀλέᾳ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου βολῆς καταθείη πρὸς ὀλίγον, εἶτ’ ἀποστὰς ἐπανέλθοι μετ’ οὐ πολύ, εὕροι ἂν ὀδωδότα ἀνθρωπείου γόνου· εἰ δὲ καὶ ἀνθοῦντος ἐν τῷ βλαστάνειν τοῦ κυάμου λαβών τις περκάζοντος τοῦ ἄνθους βραχὺ ἐνθείη ἀγγείῳ κεραμεῷ καὶ ἐπίθημα ἐπιθεὶς ἐν τῇ γῇ κατορύξειεν καὶ ἐνενήκοντα παραφυλάξειεν ἡμέρας μετὰ τὸ κατορυχθῆναι, εἶτα μετὰ ταῦτα ὀρύξας λάβοι καὶ ἀφέλοι τὸ πῶμα, εὕροι ἂν ἀντὶ τοῦ κυάμου ἢ παιδὸς κεφαλὴν [44] Beans were interdicted, it is said, because the particular plants grow and individualize only after (the earth) which is the principle and origin of things, is mixed together, so that many things underground are confused, and coalesce; after which everything rots together. Then living creatures were produced together with plants, so that both men and beans arose out of putrefaction whereof he alleged many manifest arguments. For if anyone should chew a bean, and having ground it to a pulp with his teeth, and should expose that pulp to the warm sun, for a short while, and then return to it, he will perceive the scent of human blood. Moreover, if at the time when beans bloom, one should take a little of the flower, which then is black, and should put it into an earthen vessel, and cover it closely, and bury in the ground for ninety days, and at the end thereof take it up, and uncover it, instead of the bean he will find either the head of an infant, or the pudenda of a woman. [45] συνεστῶσαν ἢ γυναικὸς αἰδοῖον. ἀπέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἄλλων παρῄνει, οἷον μήτρας τε καὶ τριγλίδος καὶ ἀκαλήφης, σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θαλασσίων ξυμπάντων. ἀνέφερεν δ’ αὑτὸν εἰς τοὺς πρότερον γεγονότας, πρῶτον μὲν Εὔφορβος λέγων γενέσθαι, δεύτερον δ’ Αἰθαλίδης, τρίτον Ἑρμότιμος, τέταρτον δὲ Πύρρος, νῦν δὲ Πυθαγόρας. δι’ ὧν ἐδείκνυεν ὡς ἀθάνατος ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τοῖς κεκαθαρμένοις εἰς μνήμην τοῦ παλαιοῦ βίου ἀφικνεῖται. [45] He also wished men to abstain from other things, such as a swine’s paunch, a mullet, and a sea-fish called a “nettle,” and from nearly all other marine animals. He referred his origin to those of past ages, affirming that he was first Euphorbus, then Aethalides, then Hermotimus, then Pyrrhus, and last, Pythagoras. He showed to his

[ 889 ]

disciples that the soul is immortal, and to those who were rightly purified he brought back the memory of the acts of their former lives. [46] φιλοσοφίαν δ’ ἐφιλοσόφησεν ἧς ὁ σκοπὸς ῥύσασθαι καὶ διελευθερῶσαι τῶν τοιούτων εἱργμῶν τε καὶ συνδέσμων τὸν κατακεχωρισμένον ἡμῖν νοῦν· οὗ χωρὶς ὑγιὲς οὐδὲν ἄν τις οὐδ’ ἀληθὲς τὸ παράπαν ἐκμάθοι οὐδ’ ἂν κατίδοι δι’ ἧστινος οὖν ἐνεργῶν αἰσθήσεως. νοῦς γὰρ κατ’ αὐτὸν πάνθ’ ὁρᾷ καὶ πάντ’ ἀκούει, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά. καθαρθέντι δὲ τότε δεῖ προσάγειν τι τῶν ὀνησιφόρων. προσῆγε δὲ ταῦτα μηχανὰς ἐπινοῶν, πρῶτον μὲν παιδαγωγῶν ἑαυτὸν ἠρέμα πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀιδίων καὶ ὁμοφύλων αὐτῷ ἀσωμάτων ἀεὶ καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἐχόντων θέαν, ἐκ τῶν κατ’ ὀλίγον προβιβάζων, μὴ συνταραχθεὶς τῇ ἄφνω καὶ ἀθρόως μεταβολῇ ἀποστραφῇ καὶ ἀπείπῃ διὰ τὴν τοσαύτην τε καὶ [46] He cultivated philosophy, the scope of which is to free the mind implanted within us from the impediments and fetters within which it is confined; without whose freedom none can learn anything sound or true, or perceive the unsoundedness in the operation of sense. Pythagoras thought that mind alone sees and hears, while all the rest are blind and deaf. The purified mind should be applied to the discovery of beneficial things, which can be effected by, certain artificial ways, which by degrees induce it to the contemplation of eternal and incorporeal things, which never vary. This orderliness of perception should begin from consideration of the most minute things, lest by any change the mind should be jarred and withdraw itself, through the failure of continuousness in its subject-matter. [47] τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ τροφῆς κακίαν. μαθήμασι τοίνυν καὶ τοῖς ἐν μεταιχμίῳ σωματικῶν τε καὶ ἀσωμάτων θεωρήμασι προεγύμναζεν κατὰ βραχὺ πρὸς τὰ ὄντως ὄντα ἀπὸ τῶν μηδέποτε κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἐν ταὐτῷ μηδ’ ἐφ’ ὅσον οὖν διαμενόντων σωματικῶν τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμματα μετὰ τεχνικῆς ἀγωγῆς εἰς τὴν ἔφεσιν τῶν τροφῶν προάγων. δι’ ὧν ἀντεισάγων τὴν τῶν ὄντως ὄντων θέαν μακαρίους ἀπετέλει. ἡ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὰ μαθήματα γυμνασία εἰς τοῦτο παρείληπτο. [47] That is the reason he made so much use of the mathematical disciplines and speculations, which are intermediate between the physical and the incorporeal realm, for the reason that like bodies they have a threefold dimension, and yet share the impassibility of incorporeals; as degrees of preparation to the contemplation of the really existent things; by an artificial reason diverting the eyes of the mind from corporeal things, whose manner and state never remain in the same condition, to a desire for true (spiritual) food. By means of these mathematical sciences therefore, Pythagoras rendered men truly happy, by this artistic introduction of truly [consistent] things. [48] ἡ δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν πραγματεία, ὡς ἄλλοι τε φασὶν καὶ Μοδέρατος ὁ ἐκ Γαδείρων πάνυ συνετῶς ἐν ἕνδεκα βιβλίοις συναγαγὼν τὸ ἀρέσκον τοῖς ἀνδράσι διὰ τοῦτο ἐσπουδάσθη. [ 890 ]

μὴ δυνάμενοι γάρ, φησί, τὰ πρῶτα εἴδη καὶ τὰς πρώτας ἀρχὰς σαφῶς τῷ λόγῳ παραδοῦναι διά τε τὸ δυσπερινόητον αὐτῶν καὶ δυσέξοιστον, παρεγένοντο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς εὐσήμου διδασκαλίας χάριν μιμησάμενοι τοὺς γεωμέτρας καὶ τοὺς γραμματιστάς. ὡς γὰρ οὗτοι, τὰς δυνάμεις τῶν στοιχείων καὶ αὐτὰ ταῦτα βουλόμενοι παραδοῦναι, παρεγένοντο ἐπὶ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας, τούτους λέγοντες ὡς πρὸς τὴν πρώτην διδασκαλίαν στοιχεῖα εἶναι, ὕστερον μέντοι διδάσκουσιν ὅτι οὐχ οὗτοι στοιχεῖά εἰσιν οἱ χαρακτῆρες, ἀλλὰ διὰ τούτων ἔννοια γίνεται τῶν [48] Among others, Moderatus of Gades, who [learnedly] treated of the qualities of numbers in seven books, states that the Pythagoreans specialized in the study of numbers to explain their teachings symbolically, as do geometricians, inasmuch as the primary forms and principles are hard to understand and express, otherwise, in plain discourse. A similar case is the representation of sounds by letters, which are known by marks, which are called the first elements of learning; later, they inform us these are not the true elements, which they only signify. [49] πρὸς ἀλήθειαν στοιχείων· καὶ οἱ γεωμέτραι μὴ ἰσχύοντες τὰ ἀσώματα εἴδη λόγῳ παραστῆσαι παραγίνονται ἐπὶ τὰς διαγραφὰς τῶν σχημάτων, λέγοντες εἶναι τρίγωνον τόδε, οὐ τοῦτο βουλόμενοι τρίγωνον εἶναι τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ὄψιν ὑποπῖπτον, ἀλλὰ τὸ τοιοῦτο, καὶ διὰ τούτου τὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ τριγώνου παριστᾶσι. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πρώτων οὖν λόγων καὶ εἰδῶν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐποίησαν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, μὴ ἰσχύοντες λόγῳ παραδιδόναι τὰ ἀσώματα εἴδη καὶ τὰς πρώτας ἀρχάς, παρεγένοντο ἐπὶ τὴν διὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν δήλωσιν. καὶ οὕτως τὸν μὲν τῆς ἑνότητος λόγον καὶ τὸν τῆς ταυτότητος καὶ ἰσότητος καὶ τὸ αἴτιον τῆς συμπνοίας καὶ τῆς συμπαθείας τῶν ὅλων καὶ τῆς σωτηρίας τοῦ κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχοντος ἓν προσηγόρευσαν· καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος ἓν τοιοῦτον ὑπάρχει ἡνωμένον τοῖς μέρεσι καὶ σύμπνουν κατὰ μετουσίαν τοῦ πρώτου αἰτίου. [49] As the geometricians cannot express incorporeal forms in words, and have recourse to the descriptions of figures, as that is a triangle, and yet do not mean that the actually seen lines are the triangle, but only what they represent, the knowledge in the mind, so the Pythagoreans used the same objective method in respect to first reasons and forms. As these incorporeal forms and first principles could not be expressed in words, they had recourse to demonstration by numbers. Number one denoted to them the reason of Unity, Identity, Equality, the purpose of friendship, sympathy, and conservation of the Universe, which results from persistence in Sameness. For unity in the details harmonizes all the parts of a whole, as by the participation of the First Cause. . [50] τὸν δὲ τῆς ἑτερότητος καὶ ἀνισότητος καὶ παντὸς τοῦ μεριστοῦ καὶ ἐν μεταβολῇ καὶ ἄλλοτε ἄλλως ἔχοντος δυοειδῆ λόγον καὶ δυάδα προσηγόρευσαν· τοιαύτη γὰρ κἀν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος ἡ τῶν δύο φύσις. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι οὐ κατὰ τούτους μὲν εἰσί, κατὰ δὲ τοὺς λοιποὺς οὐκ ἔτι, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους φιλοσόφους δυνάμεις τινὰς ἀπολιπόντας ἑνοποιοὺς καὶ [ 891 ]

διακρατητικὰς τῶν ὅλων οὔσας, καὶ εἰσί τινες καὶ παρ’ ἐκείνοις λόγοι ἰσότητος καὶ ἀνομοιότητος καὶ ἑτερότητος. τούτους οὖν τοὺς λόγους εὐσήμου χάριν διδασκαλίας τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς ὀνόματι προσαγορεύουσιν καὶ τῷ τῆς δυάδος· οὐ διαφέρει δέ γε τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἢ δυοειδὲς [50] Number two, or Duad, signifies the two-fold reason of diversity and inequality, of everything that is divisible, or mutable, existing at one time in one way, and at another time in another way. After all these methods were not confined to the Pythagoreans, being used by other philosophers to denote unitive powers, which contain all things in the universe, among which are certain reasons of equality, dissimilitude and diversity. These reasons are what they meant by the terms Monad and Duad, or by the words uniform, biform, or diversiform. [51] ἢ ἀνισοειδὲς εἰπεῖν ἢ ἑτεροειδές. ὁμοίως δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀριθμῶν ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος· πᾶς γὰρ κατά τινων δυνάμεων τέτακται. πάλιν γὰρ ἔστι τι ἐν τῇ φύσει τῶν πραγμάτων ἔχον ἀρχὴν καὶ μέσον καὶ τελευτήν. κατὰ τοῦ τοιούτου εἴδους καὶ κατὰ τῆς τοιαύτης φύσεως τὸν τρία ἀριθμὸν κατηγόρησαν. διὸ καὶ πᾶν τὸ μεσότητι προσκεχρημένον τριοειδὲς εἶναι φασίν. [οὕτως δὲ καὶ πᾶν τὸ τέλειον προσηγόρευσαν.] καὶ εἴ τί ἐστι τέλειον, τοῦτο φασὶν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἀρχῇ προσκεχρῆσθαι καὶ κατ’ ἐκείνην κεκοσμῆσθαι. ἣν ἄλλως μὴ δυνάμενοι ὀνομάσαι τῷ τῆς τριάδος ὀνόματι ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ἐχρήσαντο· καὶ εἰς ἔννοιαν αὐτῆς βουλόμενοι εἰσαγαγεῖν ἡμᾶς διὰ τοῦ εἴδους τούτου ταύτῃ εἰσήγαγον. καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων δ’ ἀριθμῶν ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος. οὗτοι οὖν οἱ λόγοι καθ’ οὓς οἱ ῥηθέντες ἀριθμοὶ [51] The same reasons apply to their use of other numbers, which were ranked according to certain powers. Things that had a beginning, middle and end, they denoted by the number Three, saying that anything that has a middle is triform, which was applied to every perfect thing. They said that if anything was perfect it would make use of this principle and be adorned, according to it; and as they had no other name for it, they invented the form Triad; and whenever they tried to bring us to the knowledge of what is perfect they led us to that by the form of this Triad. So also with the other numbers, which were ranked according to the same reasons. [52] ἐτάγησαν. καὶ οἱ ἑξῆς περιέχονται ὑπὸ μιᾶς τινὸς ἰδέας καὶ δυνάμεως· ταύτην δὲ δεκάδα οἷον δεχάδα προσηγόρευσαν. διὸ καὶ τέλειον ἀριθμὸν τὸν δέκα εἶναι λέγουσιν, μᾶλλον δὲ τελειότατον ἁπάντων, πᾶσαν διαφορὰν ἀριθμοῦ καὶ πᾶν εἶδος λόγου καὶ ἀναλογίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιειληφότα. εἰ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ παντὸς φύσις κατ’ ἀριθμῶν λόγους τε καὶ ἀναλογίας περατοῦται καὶ πᾶν τὸ γεννώμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον καὶ τελειούμενον κατ’ ἀριθμῶν λόγους διεξάγει, πάντα δὲ λόγον καὶ πᾶσαν ἀναλογίαν καὶ πᾶν εἶδος ἀριθμοῦ περιέχει ἡ δεκάς, πῶς οὐκ ἂν τέλειος ἀριθμὸς λέγοιτο αὕτη; [52] All other things were comprehended under a single form and power which they called Decad, explaining it by a pun as decad, meaning comprehension. That is why they called Ten a perfect number, the most perfect of all as comprehending all difference of [ 892 ]

numbers, reasons, species and proportions. For if the nature of the universe be defined according to the reasons and proportions of members, and if that which is produced, increased and perfected, proceed according to the reason of numbers; and since the Decad comprehends every reason of numbers, every proportion, and every species, why should Nature herself not be denoted by the most perfect number, Ten? Such was the use of numbers among the Pythagoreans. [53] ἡ μὲν δὴ περὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν πραγματεία τοιαύτη τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις. καὶ διὰ ταύτην πρωτίστην οὖσαν τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ταύτην συνέβη σβεσθῆναι, πρῶτον μὲν διὰ τὸ αἰνιγματῶδες, ἔπειτα διὰ τὸ καὶ τὰ γεγραμμένα δωριστὶ γεγράφθαι, ἐχούσης τι καὶ ἀσαφὲς τῆς διαλέκτου καὶ μηδὲν διὰ τοῦτο ὑπονοεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς ἀνιστορούμενα δόγματα ὡς νόθα καὶ παρηκουσμένα τῷ μὴ ἄντικρυς Πυθαγορικοὺς εἶναι τοὺς ἐκφέροντας ταῦτα. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὸν Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἀριστοτέλη Σπεύσιππόν τε καὶ Ἀριστόξενον καὶ Ξενοκράτη, ὡς φασὶν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, τὰ μὲν κάρπιμα σφετερίσασθαι διὰ βραχείας ἐπισκευῆς, τὰ δ’ ἐπιπόλαια καὶ ἐλαφρὰ καὶ ὅσα πρὸς διασκευὴν καὶ χλευασμὸν τοῦ διδασκαλείου ὑπὸ τῶν βασκάνως ὕστερον συκοφαντούντων προβάλλεται συναγαγεῖν καὶ ὡς ἴδια τῆς αἱρέσεως καταχωρίσαι. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἀπέβη ὕστερον. [53] This primary philosophy of the Pythagoreans finally died out first, because it was enigmatical, and then because their commentaries were written in Doric, which dialect itself is somewhat obscure, so that Doric teachings were not fully understood, and they became misapprehended, and finally spurious, and later, they who published them no longer were Pythagoreans. The Pythagoreans affirm that Plato, Aristotle, Speusippus, Aristoxenus and Xenocrates; appropriated the best of them, making but minor changes (to distract attention from this their theft), they later collected and delivered as characteristic Pythagorean doctrines whatever therein was most trivial, and vulgar, and whatever had been invented by envious and calumnious persons, to cast contempt on Pythagoreanism. [54] Πυθαγόρας δ’ ἄχρι πολλοῦ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν οὕτως ἐθαυμάζετο αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ συνόντες αὐτῷ ἑταῖροι, ὥστε καὶ τὰς πολιτείας τοῖς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπιτρέπειν τὰς πόλεις. ὀψὲ δέ ποτε ἐφθονήθησαν, καὶ συνέστη κατ’ αὐτῶν ἐπιβουλὴ τοιάδε τις. Κύλων ἀνὴρ Κροτωνιάτης, κατὰ μὲν τὸ γένος καὶ δόξαν προγονικὴν καὶ βίου περιουσίαν πάντας ὑπερβάλλων τοὺς πολίτας, χαλεπὸς δ’ ἄλλως καὶ βίαιος καὶ τυραννικός, τῇ τε τῶν φίλων περιβολῇ καὶ τῇ τοῦ πλούτου δυνάμει πρὸς ἰσχὺν ἀδικημάτων χρώμενος, οὗτος τῶν τ’ ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἃ ἐδόκει καλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἠξίου, ἡγεῖτο δὲ καὶ τῆς Πυθαγόρου φιλοσοφίας ἀξιώτατον εἶναι μετασχεῖν. πρόσεισι τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ ἑαυτὸν ἐπαινῶν καὶ βουλόμενος συνεῖναι αὐτῷ. ὃ δ’ εὐθὺς φυσιογνωμονήσας τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ ὁποῖος ἦν συνιδὼν ἐκ τῶν σημείων ἃ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἐθήρα [τῶν προσιόντων], ἀπιέναι ἐκέλευεν καὶ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ πράττειν. τοῦτο τὸν Κύλωνα οὐ μετρίως ἐλύπησεν ὥσπερ ὑβρισμένον καὶ [ 893 ]

[54] Pythagoras and his associates were long held in such admiration in Italy, that many cities invited them to undertake their administration. At last, however, they incurred envy, and a conspiracy was formed against them as follows. Cylon, a Crotonian, who in race, nobility and wealth was the most preeminent, was of a severe, violent and tyrannical disposition, and did not scruple to use the multitude of his followers to compass his ends. As he esteemed himself worthy of whatever was best, he considered it his right to be admitted to Pythagorean fellowship. He therefore went to Pythagoras extolled himself, and desired his conversation. Pythagoras, however, who was accustomed to read in human bodies’ nature and manners the disposition of the man, bade him depart, and go about his business. Cylon, being of a rough and violent disposition, took it as a great affront, and became furious. [55] τὰ ἄλλα χαλεπὸν ὄντα καὶ ὀργῆς ἀκρατῆ. συναγαγὼν οὖν τοὺς φίλους διέβαλλε τὸν Πυθαγόραν καὶ παρεσκεύαζεν ὡς ἐπιβουλεύσων αὐτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς γνωρίμοις. τοὐντεῦθεν δ’ οἳ μὲν φασὶ τῶν ἑταίρων τοῦ Πυθαγόρου συνηγμένων ἐν τῇ Μίλωνος οἰκίᾳ τοῦ ἀθλητοῦ παρὰ τὴν Πυθαγόρου ἀποδημίαν (ὡς γὰρ Φερεκύδη τὸν Σύριον αὑτοῦ διδάσκαλον γενόμενον εἰς Δῆλον πεπόρευτο νοσοκομήσων τε αὐτὸν περιπετῆ γενόμενον τῷ ἱστορουμένῳ τῆς φθειριάσεως πάθει καὶ κηδεύσων), πάντας πανταχῇ ἐνέπρησαν αὐτοῦ τε καὶ κατέλευσαν, δύο ἐκφυγόντων ἐκ τῆς πυρᾶς, Ἀρχίππου τε καὶ Λύσιδος, ὡς φησὶ Νεάνθης· ὧν ὁ Λῦσις ἐν Ἑλλάδι ᾤκησε καὶ Θήβας ἐπῴκησεν Ἐπαμεινώνδᾳ τε [55] He therefore assembled his friends, began to accuse Pythagoras, and conspired against him and his disciples. Pythagoras then went to Delos, to visit the Syrian Pherecydes, formerly his teacher, who was dangerously sick, to nurse him. Pythagoras’s friends then gathered together in the house of Milo the wrestler; and were all stoned and burned when Cylo’s followers set the house on fire. Only two escaped, Archippus and Lysis, according to the account of Neanthes. Lysis took refuge in Greece, with Epaminondas, whose teacher he had formerly been. [56] συγγέγονεν, οὗ καὶ διδάσκαλος γέγονεν. Δικαίαρχος δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀκριβέστεροι καὶ τὸν Πυθαγόραν φασὶν παρεῖναι τῇ ἐπιβουλῇ. Φερεκύδην γὰρ πρὸ τῆς ἐκ Σάμου ἀπάρσεως τελευτῆσαι. τῶν δ’ ἑταίρων ἀθρόους μὲν τετταράκοντα ἐν οἰκίᾳ τινὸς συνεδρεύοντας ληφθῆναι, τοὺς δὲ πολλοὺς σποράδην κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ὡς ἔτυχον ἕκαστοι διαφθαρῆναι. Πυθαγόραν δὲ κρατουμένων τῶν φίλων τὸ μὲν πρῶτον εἰς Καυλωνίαν τὸν ὅρμον σωθῆναι, ἐκεῖθεν δὲ πάλιν ἐς Λοκρούς. πυθομένους δὲ τοὺς Λοκροὺς τῶν γερόντων τινὰς ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς χώρας ὅρια ἀποστεῖλαι. τούτους δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπαντήσαντας εἰπεῖν ‘ἡμεῖς, ὦ Πυθαγόρα, σοφὸν μὲν ἄνδρα σε καὶ δεινὸν ἀκούομεν· ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις νόμοις οὐθὲν ἔχομεν ἐγκαλεῖν, αὐτοὶ μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων πειρασόμεθα μένειν· σὺ δ’ ἑτέρωθί που βάδιζε λαβὼν παρ’ ἡμῶν εἴ του κεχρημένος [τῶν ἀναγκαίων] τυγχάνεις.’ ἐπεὶ δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν Λοκρῶν πόλεως τὸν εἰρημένον ἀπηλλάγη τρόπον, εἰς Τάραντα πλεῦσαι· πάλιν δὲ κἀκεῖ παραπλήσια παθόντα τοῖς περὶ Κρότωνα εἰς Μεταπόντιον [ 894 ]

ἐλθεῖν. πανταχοῦ γὰρ ἐγένοντο μεγάλαι στάσεις, ἃς ἔτι καὶ νῦν οἱ περὶ τοὺς τόπους μνημονεύουσί τε καὶ διηγοῦνται, τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων καλοῦντες. [Πυθαγόρειοι δ’ ἐκλήθησαν [56] But Dicaearchus and other more accurate historians relate that Pythagoras himself was present when this conspiracy bore fruit, for Pherecydes had died before he left Samos. Of his friends, forty who were gathered together in a house were attacked and slain; while others were gradually slain as they came to the city. As his friends were taken, Pythagoras himself first escaped to the Caulonian haven, and thence visited the Locrians. Hearing of his coming, the Locrians sent some old men to their frontiers to intercept him. They said, “Pythagoras, you are wise and of great worth; but as our laws retain nothing reprehensible, we will preserve them intact. Go to some other place, and we will furnish you with any needed necessaries of travel.” Pythagoras turned back, and sailed to Tarentum, where, receiving the same treatment as at Crotona, he went to Metapontum. Everywhere arose great mobs against him, of which even now the inhabitants make mention, calling them the Pythagorean riots, as his followers were called Pythagoreans. [57] ἡ σύστασις ἅπασα ἡ συνακολουθήσασα αὐτῷ.] ἐν δὲ τῇ περὶ Μεταπόντιον καὶ Πυθαγόραν αὐτὸν λέγουσι τελευτῆσαι καταφυγόντα ἐπὶ τὸ μουσῶν ἱερόν, σπάνει τῶν ἀναγκαίων τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας διαμείναντα. οἳ δὲ φασὶν ὅτι τοῦ πυρὸς νεμομένου τὴν οἴκησιν ἐν ᾗ συνειλεγμένοι ἐτύγχανον, θέντας αὑτοὺς εἰς τὸ πῦρ τοὺς ἑταίρους δίοδον παρέχειν τῷ διδασκάλῳ, γεφυρώσαντας τὸ πῦρ τοῖς σφετέροις σώμασι. διεκπεσόντα δ’ ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς τὸν Πυθαγόραν διὰ τὴν ἐρημίαν τῶν συνήθων ἀθυμήσαντα ἑαυτὸν τοῦ βίου ἐξαγαγεῖν. τῆς δὲ συμφορᾶς οὕτως κατασχούσης τοὺς ἄνδρας συνεξέλειπεν καὶ ἡ ἐπιστήμη ἄρρητος ἐν τοῖς στήθεσι διαφυλαχθεῖσα ἄχρι τότε, μόνων τῶν δυσσυνέτων παρὰ τοῖς ἔξω διαμνημονευομένων. οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοῦ Πυθαγόρου σύγγραμμα ἦν, οἵ τ’ ἐκφυγόντες Λῦσίς τε καὶ Ἄρχιππος καὶ ὅσοι ἀποδημοῦντες ἐτύγχανον, ὀλίγα διέσῳσαν ζώπυρα τῆς φιλοσοφίας [57] Pythagoras fled to the temple of the Muses, in Metapontum. There he abode forty days, and starving, died. Others however state that his death was due to grief at the loss of all his friends who, when the house in which they were gathered was burned, in order to make a way for their master, they threw themselves into the flames, to make a bridge of safety for him, whereby indeed he escaped. When died the Pythagoreans, with them also died their knowledge, which till then than they had kept secret, except for a few obscure things which were commonly repeated by those who did not understand them. Pythagoras himself left no book; but some little sparks of his philosophy, obscure and difficult, were preserved by the few who were preserved by being scattered, as were Lysis and Archippus.

[ 895 ]

[58] ἀμυδρά τε καὶ δυσθήρατα. μονωθέντες γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ συμβάντι ἀθυμήσαντες διεσπάρησαν ἄλλος ἀλλαχοῦ, τὴν πρὸς ἀνθρώπους κοινωνίαν ἀποστραφέντες. διευλαβούμενοι δὲ μὴ παντελῶς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀπόληται τὸ φιλοσοφίας ὄνομα καὶ θεοῖς αὐτοὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπεχθάνωνται, ὑπομνήματα κεφαλαιώδη συνταξάμενοι τά τε τῶν πρεσβυτέρων συγγράμματα καὶ ὧν διεμέμνηντο συναγαγόντες κατέλιπεν ἕκαστος οὗπερ ἐτύγχανε τελευτῶν, ἐπισκήψαντες υἱοῖς ἢ θυγατράσιν ἢ γυναιξὶ μηδενὶ δοῦναι τῶν ἐκτὸς τῆς οἰκίας· αἳ δὲ μέχρι πολλοῦ χρόνου τοῦτο διετήρησαν ἐκ διαδοχῆς τὴν αὐτὴν ἐντολὴν διαγγέλλουσαι τοῖς ἀπογόνοις. [58] The Pythagoreans now avoided human society, being lonely, saddened and dispersed. Fearing nevertheless that among men the name of philosophy would be entirely extinguished, and that therefore the Gods would be angry with them, they made abstracts and commentaries. Each man made his own collection of written authorities and his own memories, leaving them wherever he happened to die, charging their wives, sons and daughters to preserve them within their families. This mandate of transmission within each family was obeyed for a long time. [59] τεκμηραίμεθα δ’ ἄν, φησὶν Νικόμαχος, περὶ τοῦ μὴ παρέργως αὐτοὺς τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἐκκλίνειν φιλίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ σπουδαίως περικάμπτειν αὐτὰς καὶ φυλάττεσθαι καὶ μὴν περὶ τοῦ μέχρι πολλῶν γενεῶν τὸ φιλικὸν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀνένδοτον αὐτοὺς διατετηρηκέναι, καὶ ἐξ ὧν Ἀριστόξενος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πυθαγορείου βίου αὐτὸς διακηκοέναι φησὶν Διονυσίου τοῦ Σικελίας τυράννου, ὅτ’ ἐκπεσὼν τῆς μοναρχίας γράμματα ἐν Κορίνθῳ ἐδίδασκεν. φησὶ δ’ οὕτως. οἴκτων καὶ δακρύων ‹καὶ πάντων τῶν τοιούτων εἴργεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐκείνους ὡς ἐνδέχεται μάλιστα· ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ λόγος καὶ περὶ θωπείας› καὶ δεήσεως καὶ [59] Nichomacus says that this was the reason why the Pythagoreans studiously avoided friendship with strangers, preserving a constant friendship among each other. Aristoxenus, in his book on the Life of Pythagoras, says he heard many things from Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, who, after his abdication, taught letters at Corinth. Among these were that they abstained from lamentations and grieving and tears; also from adulation, entreaty, supplication and the like. [60] λιτανείας καὶ πάν‹των τῶν τοιούτων. βουλόμενος οὖν› ποτε Διονύσιος πεῖραν αὐτῶν λ‹αβεῖν›, διαβεβαιουμένων τινῶν ὡς συλληφθέντες καὶ φοβηθέντες οὐκ ἐμμενοῦσι τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους πίστει, τάδ’ ἐποίησεν. συνελήφθη μὲν Φιντίας καὶ ἀνήχθη πρὸς τὸν τύραννον. κατηγορεῖν δ’ αὐτοῦ Διονύσιον ὡς ἐπιβουλεύοντος αὐτῷ· καὶ δὴ τοῦτο ἐξεληλέγχθαι κεκρίσθαι τ’ ἀποθνῄσκειν αὐτόν. τὸν δέ, ἐπεὶ οὕτως αὐτῷ δέδοκται, εἰπεῖν δοθῆναί γε τὸ λοιπὸν τῆς ἡμέρας, ὅπως οἰκονομήσηται τά τε καθ’ ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὰ κατὰ Δάμωνα· εἶναι γὰρ αὐτῷ ἑταῖρον καὶ κοινωνόν· πρεσβύτερον δ’ ‹αὐτὸν› ὄντα πολλὰ τῶν περὶ τὴν οἰκονομίαν εἰς αὑτὸν ἀνειληφέναι. ἠξίου δ’ ἀφεθῆναι ἐγγυητὴν παρασχὼν τὸν Δάμωνα. συγχωρήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Διονυσίου μεταπεμφθεὶς ὁ Δάμων καὶ τὰ συμβάντα ἀκούσας ἐνεγγυήσατο καὶ ἔμεινεν ἕως ἂν ἐπανέλθῃ [ 896 ]

[60] It is said that Dionysius at one time wanted to test their mutual fidelity under imprisonment. He contrived this plan. Phintias was arrested, and taken before the tyrant, and charged with plotting against the tyrant, convicted, and condemned to death. Phintias, accepting the situation, asked to be given the rest of the day to arrange his own affairs, and those of Damon, his friend and associate, who now would have to assume the management. He therefore asked for a temporary release, leaving Damon as security for his appearance. Dionysius granted the request, and they sent for Damon, who agreed to remain until Phintias should return. [61] ὁ Φιντίας. ὁ μὲν οὖν Διονύσιος ἐξεπλήττετο ἐπὶ τοῖς γιγνομένοις. ἐκείνους δὲ τοὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰσαγαγόντας τὴν διάπειραν τὸν Δάμωνα χλευάζειν ὡς ἐγκαταλειφθησόμενον. ὄντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου περὶ δυσμὰς ἥκειν τὸν Φιντίαν ἀποθανούμενον, ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντας ἐκπλαγῆναι. Διονύσιον δὲ περιβαλόντα καὶ φιλήσαντα τοὺς ἄνδρας ἀξιῶσαι τρίτον αὑτὸν εἰς τὴν φιλίαν παραδέξασθαι· τοὺς δὲ μηδενὶ τρόπῳ καίτοι πολλὰ λιπαροῦντος αὐτοῦ συγκαταθεῖναι εἰς τοιοῦτο. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν Ἀριστόξενος ὡς παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἀκούσας Διονυσίου ἀπήγγειλεν. Ἱππόβοτος δὲ καὶ Νεάνθης περὶ Μυλλίου καὶ Τιμύχας ἱστοροῦσι ….. [61] The novelty of this deed astonished Dionysius; but those who had first suggested the experiment, scoffed at Damon, saying he was in danger of losing his life. But to the general surprise, near sunset Phintias came to die. Dionysius then expressed his admiration, embraced them both, and asked to be received as a third in their friendship. Though he earnestly besought this, they refused this, though assigning no reason therefore. Aristoxenus states he heard this from Dionysius himself. [Hippobotus] and Neanthes relate about Myllia and Timycha…

[ 897 ]

Aids to the Study of the Intelligibles [ 1 ] ΠᾶΝ Μ Ὲ Ν σῶμα ἐν τόπῳ, οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν καθ’ αὑτὰ ἀσωμάτων ᾗ τοιοῦτον ἐν τόπῳ. [1] Every body is in place; but nothing essentially incorporeal, or any thing of this kind, has any locality. [2] Τὰ καθ’ αὑτὰ ἀσώματα, αὐτῷ ᾧ κρείττονα παντός ἐστι τόπου, πανταχῇ ἐστιν, οὐ διαστατῶς, ἀλλ’ ἀμερῶς. [2] Things essentially incorporeal, because they are more excellent than all body and place, are every where, not with interval, but impartibly. [3] Τὰ καθ’ αὑτὰ ἀσώματα, οὐ τοπικῶς παρόντα τοῖς σώμασι, πάρεστιν αὐτοῖς ὅταν βούληται, πρὸς αὐτὰ ῥέψαντα ᾗ πέφυκε ῥέπειν· καὶ τοπικῶς αὐτοῖς οὐ παρόντα, τῇ σχέσει πάρεστιν αὐτοῖς. [3] Things essentially incorporeal are not locally present with bodies but are present with them when they please; by verging towards them so far as they are naturally adapted so to verge. They are not, however, present with them locally, but through habitude, proximity, and alliance. [4] Τὰ καθ’ αὑτὰ ἀσώματα ὑποστάσει μὲν καὶ οὐσίᾳ οὐ πάρεστιν οὐδὲ συγκίρναται τοῖς σώμασι, τῇ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ῥοπῆς ὑποστάσει τινὸς δυνάμεως μεταδίδωσι προσεχοῦς τοῖς σώμασιν. ἡ γὰρ ῥοπὴ δευτέραν τινὰ δύναμιν ὑπέστησε προσεχῆ τοῖς σώμασιν. [4] Things essentially incorporeal, are not present with bodies, by hypostasis and essence; for they are not mingled with bodies. But they impart a certain power which is proximate to bodies, through verging towards them. For tendency constitutes a certain secondary power proximate to bodies. [5] Ἡ μὲν ψυχὴ τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ ‹τῆς› περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστῆς οὐσίας μέσον τι, ὁ δὲ νοῦς ἀμέριστος οὐσία μόνον, τὰ δὲ σώματα μεριστὰ μόνον, αἱ δὲ ποιότητες καὶ τὰ ἔνυλα εἴδη περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστά. [5] Soul, indeed, is a certain medium between an impartible essence, and an essence which is divisible about bodies. But intellect is an impartible essence alone. And qualities and material forms are divisible about bodies. [6] Οὐ πᾶν τὸ ποιοῦν εἰς ἄλλο πελάσει καὶ ἁφῇ ποιεῖ ἃ ποιεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ πελάσει καὶ ἁφῇ τι ποιοῦντα κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς τῇ πελάσει χρῆται. [6] Not everything  which acts on another, effects that which it does effect by approximation and contact; but those natures which effect any thing by approximation and contact, use approximation accidentally.

[ 898 ]

[7] Ψυχὴ καταδεῖται πρὸς σῶμα τῇ ἐπιστροφῇ τῇ πρὸς τὰ πάθη τὰ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ λύεται δὲ πάλιν διὰ τῆς ἀπαθείας. [7] The soul is bound to the body by a conversion to the corporeal passions; and again liberated by becoming impassive to the body. [8] Ὃ ἔδησεν ἡ φύσις, τοῦτο φύσις λύει, καὶ ὃ ἔδησεν ἡ ψυχή, τοῦτο αὐτὴ λύει· ἔδησε δὲ φύσις μὲν σῶμα ἐν ψυχῇ, ψυχὴ δὲ ἑαυτὴν ἐν σώματι. φύσις μὲν ἄρα λύει σῶμα ἐκ ψυχῆς, ψυχὴ δὲ ἑαυτὴν λύει ἀπὸ σώματος. [8] That which nature binds, nature also dissolves: and that which the soul binds, the soul likewise dissolves. Nature, indeed, bound the body to the soul; but the soul binds herself to the body. Nature, therefore, liberates the body from the soul; but the soul liberates herself from the body. [9] Ὁ θάνατος διπλοῦς, ὁ μὲν οὖν συνεγνωσμένος λυομένου τοῦ σώματος ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὁ δὲ τῶν φιλοσόφων λυομένης τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος· καὶ οὐ πάντως ὁ ἕτερος τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἕπεται. [9] Hence there is a twofold death; the one, indeed, universally known, in which the body is liberated from the soul; but the other peculiar to philosophers, in which the soul is liberated from the body. Nor does the one  entirely follow the other. [10] Πάντα μὲν ἐν πᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ οἰκείως τῇ ἑκάστου οὐσίᾳ· ἐν νῷ μὲν γὰρ νοερῶς, ἐν ψυχῇ δὲ λογικῶς, ἐν δὲ τοῖς φυτοῖς σπερματικῶς, ἐν δὲ σώμασιν εἰδωλικῶς, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐπέκεινα ἀνεννοήτως τε καὶ ὑπερουσίως. [10] We do not understand similarly in all things, but in a manner adapted to the essence of each. For intellectual objects we understand intellectually; but those that pertain to soul rationally. We apprehend plants spermatically; but bodies idolically (i.e., as images); and that which is above all these, super-intellectually and super-essentially. [11] Αἱ ἀσώματοι ὑποστάσεις ὑποβαίνουσαι μὲν μερίζονται καὶ πληθύνονται εἰς τὰ κατὰ ἄτομον ὑφέσει δυνάμεως, ὑπερβαίνουσαι δὲ ἑνίζονται καὶ εἰς τὸ ὁμοῦ ἀντιχωροῦσι δυνάμεως περιουσίᾳ. [11] Incorporeal hypostases, in descending, are distributed into parts, and multiplied about individuals with a diminution of power; but when they ascend by their energies beyond bodies, they become united, and proceed into a simultaneous subsistence, through exuberance of power. [12] Οὐ μόνον ἐν τοῖς σώμασι τὸ ὁμώνυμον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ τῶν πολλαχῶς· ἄλλη γὰρ ζωὴ φυτοῦ, ἄλλη ἐμψύχου, ἄλλη νοεροῦ, ἄλλη φύσεως, ἄλλη ψυχῆς, ἄλλη νοῦ, ἄλλη τοῦ ἐπέκεινα· ζῇ γὰρ κἀκεῖνο, εἰ καὶ μηδὲν τῶν μετ’ αὐτὸ παραπλησίαν αὐτῷ ζωὴν κέκτηται. [12] The homonymous is not in bodies only, but life also is among the number of things which have a multifarious subsistence. For the life of a plant is different from that of an animated being; the life of an intellectual essence differs from that of the nature [ 899 ]

which is beyond intellect; and the psychical differs from the intellectual life. For these natures live, though nothing which proceeds from them possesses a life similar to them. [13] Πᾶν τὸ γεννῶν τῇ οὐσίᾳ αὐτοῦ χεῖρον ἑαυτοῦ γεννᾷ, καὶ πᾶν τὸ γεννηθὲν φύσει πρὸς τὸ γεννῆσαν ἐπιστρέφει· τῶν δὲ γεννώντων τὰ μὲν οὐδ’ ὅλως ἐπιστρέφει πρὸς τὰ γεννηθέντα, τὰ δὲ καὶ ἐπιστρέφει καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστρέφει, τὰ δὲ μόνον ἐπέστραπται πρὸς τὰ γεννήματα εἰς ἑαυτὰ μὴ ἐπιστρέφοντα. [13] Everything which generates by its very essence, generates that which is inferior to itself ; and every thing generated is naturally converted to its generator. Of generating natures, however, some are not at all converted to the beings which they generate; but others are partly converted to them, and partly not; and others are only converted to their progeny, but are not converted to themselves. [14] Πᾶν γενητὸν ἀπ’ ἄλλου τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς γενέσεως ἔχει, εἴ γε μηδὲν ἀναιτίως γίνεται. ἀλλὰ τῶν γε γενητῶν ὅσα μὲν διὰ συνθέσεως κέκτηται τὸ εἶναι, λυτὰ ἂν εἴη καὶ διὰ τοῦτο φθαρτά· ὅσα δὲ ἁπλᾶ καὶ ἀσύνθετα ὄντα ἐν τῷ ἁπλῷ τῆς ὑποστάσεως κέκτηται τὸ εἶναι, ἄλυτα ὄντα ἐστὶ μὲν ἄφθαρτα, γενητὰ δὲ λέγεται οὐ τῷ σύνθετα εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀπ’ αἰτίου τινὸς ἀνηρτῆσθαι. τὰ μὲν οὖν σώματα διχῶς γενητὰ καὶ ὡς ἀπ’ αἰτίας ἠρτημένα τῆς παραγούσης καὶ ὡς σύνθετα, ψυχὴ δὲ καὶ νοῦς γενητὰ ὡς ἀπ’ αἰτίας ἠρτημένα μόνον, οὐ μὴν καὶ ὡς σύνθετα· τὰ μὲν ἄρα [σώματα] γενητὰ καὶ λυτὰ καὶ φθαρτά, τὰ δὲ ἀγένητα μὲν ὡς ἀσύνθετα καὶ ταύτῃ καὶ ἄλυτα καὶ ἄφθαρτα, γενητὰ δὲ ὡς ‹ἀπ’› αἰτίου ἠρτημένα. [14] Everything generated, possesses from that which is different from itself the cause of its generation, since nothing is produced without a cause. Such generated natures, however, as have their existence through composition, these are on this account corruptible. But such as, being simple and incomposite, possess their existence in a simplicity of hypostasis, these being indissoluble, are indeed, incorruptible; yet they are said to be generated, not as if they were composites, but as being suspended from a certain cause. Bodies, therefore, are in a twofold respect generated; as being suspended from a certain producing cause; and as being composites. But soul and intellect are only generated as being suspended from a cause, and not as composites. Hence bodies are generated, dissoluble and corruptible; but soul and intellect are unbegotten, as being without composition, and on this account indissoluble and incorruptible; yet they are generated so far as they are suspended from a cause. [15] Ἡ μνήμη οὐκ ἔστι φαντασιῶν σωτηρία, ἀλλὰ τῶν μελετηθέντων ἐκ νέας [προβάλλεσθαι] προβολή. [15] Intellect is not the principle of all things; for intellect is many things; but, prior to the many, it is necessary that there should be The One. It is evident, however, that intellect is many things. For it always understands its conceptions, which are not one, but many; and which are not any thing else than itself. If, therefore, it is the same with [ 900 ]

its conceptions, but they are many, intellect also will be many things. But that it is the same with intelligibles (or the objects of its intellection), may thus be demonstrated. For, if there is any thing which intellect surveys, it will either survey this thing as contained in itself, or as placed in something else. And that intellect, indeed, contemplates or surveys, is evident. For in conjunction with intellection, or intellectual perception, it will be intellect; but if you deprive it of intellection, you will destroy its essence. It is necessary, therefore, that, directing our attention to the properties of knowledge, we should investigate the perception of intellect. All the gnostic powers, then, which we contain, are universally sense, imagination, and intellect. The power, however, which employs sense, surveys by projecting itself to externals, not being united to the objects which it surveys, but only receiving an impression of them by exerting its energies upon them. When, therefore, the eye sees a visible object, it is impossible that it should become the same with that which it perceives: for it would not see if there was not an interval between it and the object of its perception. And, after the same manner, that which is touched, if it was the same with that by which it is touched, would perish. From which it is evident that sense, and that which employs sense, must always tend to an external object, in order to apprehend something sensible. In like manner also, the phantasy, or imagination, always tends to something external, and by this extension of itself, gives subsistence to, or prepares an image; its extension to what is external, indicating that the object of its perception is a resemblance of something external. And such, indeed, is the apprehension of these two powers; neither of which verging to, and being collected into itself, perceives either a sensible or insensible form. In intellect, however, the apprehension of its objects does not subsist after this manner, but is effected by converging to, and surveying itself. For by departing from itself, in order to survey its own energies and become the eye of them, and the sight of essences, it will not understand any thing. Hence, as sense is to that which is sensible, so is intellect to that which is intelligible. Sense, however, by extending itself to externals, finds that which is sensible situated in matter; but intellect surveys the intelligible, by being collected into itself, and not extended outwardly. On this account some are of the opinion that the hypostasis of intellect differs from that of phantasy only in name. For the phantasy, in the rational animal, appeared to them to be intelligence. As these men, however, suspended all things from matter and a corporeal nature, it follows that they should also suspend from these intellect. But our intellect surveys both bodies and other essences. Hence it apprehends them situated somewhere. But as the proper objects of intellect have a subsistence out of matter, they will be no where [locally.] It is evident, therefore, that intellectual natures are to be conjoined with intelligence. But if [ 901 ]

intellectual natures are in intellect, it follows that intellect, when it understands intelligibles, surveys both the intelligible and itself; and that proceeding into itself, it perceives intellectually, because it proceeds into intelligibles. If, however, intellect understands many things, and not one thing only, intellect also will necessarily be many. But The One subsists prior to the many; so that it is necessary that The One should be prior to intellect. [16] Ἡ ψυχὴ ἔχει μὲν πάντων τοὺς λόγους, ἐνεργεῖ δὲ κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἢ ὑπ’ ἄλλου εἰς τὴν προχείρησιν ἐκκαλουμένη ἢ ἑαυτὴν εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐπιστρέφουσα εἰς τὸ εἴσω· καὶ ὑπ’ ἄλλου μὲν ἐκκαλουμένη ὡς πρὸς τὰ ἔξω τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἀποδίδωσιν, εἰς δὲ ἑαυτὴν εἰσδῦσα πρὸς τὸν νοῦν ἐν ταῖς νοήσεσι γίνεται. καὶ οὔτε αἴσθησις ἔξωθεν οὔτε νόησις †ἄλλη ποτὲ δὲ †ὡς τῷ ζῴῳ οὐκ ἄνευ πάθους τῶν αἰσθητικῶν ὀργάνων αἱ αἰσθήσεις, οὕτω καὶ αἱ νοήσεις οὐκ ἄνευ φαντασίας· ἵν’ ᾖ τὸ ἀνάλογον, ὡς ὁ τύπος παρακολούθημα ζῴου αἰσθητικοῦ, οὕτω τὸ φάντασμα ψυχῆς [ζῴου] ἑπόμενον νοήσει. [16] Memory is not the conservation of imaginations, but the power of calling forth de novo those conceptions which had previously occupied the attention of the mind. [17] Ἡ ψυχὴ οὐσία ἀμεγέθης, ἄυλος, ἄφθαρτος, ἐν ζωῇ παρ’ ἑαυτῆς ἐχούσῃ τὸ ζῆν κεκτημένη τὸ εἶναι. [17] Soul, indeed, contains the reasons (or forms) of all things, but energizes according to them, either being called forth to this energy by something else, or converting itself to them inwardly. And when called forth by something else, it introduces, as it were, the senses to externals, but when it enters into itself, it becomes occupied with intellectual conceptions. Hence some one may say, that neither the senses, nor intellectual perceptions, are without the phantasy; so that, as in the animal, the senses are not without the passive affection of the sensitive organs, in like manner intellections are not without the phantasy. Perhaps, however, it may be said, in answer to this, that, as an impression in the sensitive organ is the concomitant of the sensitive animal, so analogously a phantasm is the concomitant of the intellection of the soul in man, considered as an animal. [18] Ἄλλο τὸ πάσχειν τῶν σωμάτων, ἄλλο τῶν ἀσωμάτων· τῶν μὲν γὰρ σωμάτων σὺν τροπῇ τὸ πάσχειν, τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς αἱ οἰκειώσεις καὶ τὰ πάθη ἐνέργειαι, οὐδὲν ἐοικυῖαι θερμάνσεσι καὶ ψύξεσι σωμάτων. διὸ εἴπερ τὸ πάσχειν πάντως σὺν τροπῇ, ἀπαθῆ ῥητέον πάντα τὰ ἀσώματα· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ὕλης κεχωρισμένα καὶ σωμάτων ἐνεργείαις ἦν τὰ αὐτά, τὰ δὲ ὕλῃ πλησιάζοντα καὶ σώμασιν αὐτὰ μὲν ἀπαθῆ, τὰ δὲ ἐφ’ ὧν θεωρεῖται πάσχει. ὅταν γὰρ τὸ ζῷον αἰσθάνηται, ἔοικεν ἡ μὲν ψυχὴ ἁρμονίᾳ χωριστῇ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς τὰς χορδὰς κινούσῃ ἡρμοσμένας ἁρμονίᾳ ἀχωρίστῳ, τὸ δὲ αἴτιον τοῦ κινῆσαι, τὸ ζῷον, διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἔμψυχον ἀνάλογον τῷ μουσικῷ διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἐναρμόνιον, τὰ δὲ πληγέντα σώματα διὰ πάθος αἰσθητικὸν ταῖς ἡρμοσμέναις χορδαῖς· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ οὐχ ἡ ἁρμονία πέπονθεν ἡ χωριστή, ἀλλ’ ἡ χορδή. καὶ κινεῖ [ 902 ]

μὲν ὁ μουσικὸς κατὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἁρμονίαν, οὐ μὴν ἐκινήθη ἂν ἡ χορδὴ μουσικῶς, εἰ καὶ ὁ μουσικὸς ἐβούλετο, μὴ τῆς ἁρμονίας τοῦτο λεγούσης. [18] Soul is an essence without magnitude, immaterial, incorruptible, possessing its existence in life, and having life from itself. [19] Ἡ τῶν ἀσωμάτων προσηγορία οὐ κατὰ κοινότητα ἑνὸς καὶ ταὐτοῦ γένους οὕτω προσηγόρευται καθάπερ τὰ σώματα, κατὰ δὲ ψιλὴν τὴν πρὸς τὰ σώματα στέρησιν· ὅθεν τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν ὄντα, τὰ δὲ οὐκ ὄντα εἶναι οὐ κεκώλυται. καὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸ σωμάτων, τὰ δὲ μετὰ σωμάτων· καὶ τὰ μὲν χωριστὰ σωμάτων, τὰ δὲ ἀχώριστα· καὶ τὰ μὲν καθ’ ἑαυτὰ ὑφεστηκότα, τὰ δὲ ἄλλων εἰς τὸ εἶναι δεόμενα· καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐνεργείαις τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ζωαῖς αὐτοκινήτοις, τὰ δὲ ταῖς ζωαῖς παρυφισταμέναις ταῖς ποιαῖς ἐνεργείαις. κατὰ γὰρ ἀπόφασιν ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐ κατὰ παράστασιν ὧν ἐστι προσηγόρευται. [19] The passivity of bodies is different from that of incorporeal natures. For the passivity of bodies is attended with mutation; but the adaptations and passions of the soul are energies; yet they are by no means similar to the calefactions and frigefactions of bodies. Hence, if the passivity of bodies is accompanied by mutation, it must be said that all incorporeal natures are impassive. For the essences which are separated from matter and bodies, are what they are in energy. But those things which approximate to matter and bodies, are themselves, indeed, impassive; but the natures in which they are surveyed are passive. For when the animal perceives sensibly, the soul (i.e. the rational soul) appears to be similar to separate harmony, of itself moving the chords adapted to harmony; but the body is similar to the inseparable harmony in the chords (i.e. to the harmony which cannot exist separate from the chords). But the animal is the cause of the motion because it is an animated being. It is, however, analogous to a musician, because it is harmonic; but the bodies which are struck through sensitive passion, are analogous to the harmonized chords of a musical instrument. For in this instance also, separate harmony is not passively affected, but the chords. And the musician, indeed, moves according to the harmony which is in him; yet the chords would not be musically moved, even though the musician wished that they should, unless harmony ordered this to take place. [20] Τῆς ὕλης τὰ ἴδια κατὰ τοὺς ἀρχαίους τάδε· ἀσώματος - ἑτέρα γὰρ σωμάτων - , ἄζωος οὔτε γὰρ νοῦς οὔτε ψυχὴ οὐ ζῶν καθ’ ἑαυτό - , ἀνείδεος, ἄλογος, ἄπειρος, ἀδύναμος. διὸ οὐδὲ ὄν, ἀλλὰ μὴ ὄν· καὶ οὐχ ὅπερ κίνησις μὴ ὂν ἢ στάσις μὴ ὄν, ἀλλ’ ἀληθινὸν μὴ ὄν, εἴδωλον καὶ φάντασμα ὄγκου, ὅτι τὸ πρώτως ἐν ὄγκῳ τὸ ἀδύναμον· καὶ ἔφεσις ὑποστάσεως καὶ ἑστὼς οὐκ ἐν στάσει καὶ τὰ ‹ἐναντία› ἀεὶ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ φανταζόμενον, μικρὸν καὶ μέγα καὶ ἧττον καὶ μᾶλλον, ἐλλεῖπον καὶ ὑπερέχον, ἀεὶ γινόμενον καὶ οὐ μένον οὐδ’ αὖ φεύγειν δυνάμενον, ἔλλειψις παντὸς τοῦ ὄντος. διὸ πᾶν ὃ ἐπαγγέλλεται ψεύδεται, κἂν μέγα φαντασθῇ, μικρόν ἐστιν· οἷον γὰρ παίγνιόν ἐστι φεῦγον εἰς τὸ μὴ ὄν· ἡ γὰρ φυγὴ οὐ τόπῳ, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ἀπολείψει· ὅθεν [ 903 ]

καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ εἴδωλά ἐστιν ἐν εἰδώλῳ χείρονι, ὥσπερ ἐν κατόπτρῳ τὸ ἀλλαχοῦ ἱδρυμένον ἀλλαχοῦ φανταζόμενον· καὶ πιμπλάμενον, ὡς δοκεῖ, καὶ ἔχον οὐδὲν καὶ δοκοῦν ‹τὰ πάντα›. [20] Incorporeal natures are not denominated like bodies, according to a participation in common of one and the same genus; but they derive their appellation from a mere privation with respect to bodies. Hence, nothing hinders some of them from having a subsistence as beings, but others as non-beings; some of them, from being prior to, and others posterior to bodies; some, from being separate, and others inseparable from bodies; some, from having a subsistence by themselves, but others from being indigent of things different from themselves, to their existence; some, from being the same through energies and self-motive lives, but others from subsisting together with lives, and energies of a certain quality. For they subsist according to a negation of the things which they are not, and not according to the affirmation of the things which they are. [21] Τὰ πάθη περὶ τοῦτο [πάντα], περὶ ὃ καὶ ἡ φθορά· ὁδὸς γάρ ἐστιν εἰς φθορὰν ἡ παραδοχὴ τοῦ πάθους, καὶ τούτου τὸ φθείρεσθαι, οὗ καὶ τὸ πάσχειν· φθείρεται δὲ οὐδὲν ἀσώματον, τινὰ δὲ αὐτῶν ἢ ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν, ὥστε πάσχειν οὐδέν· τὸ γὰρ πάσχον οὐ τοιοῦτον εἶναι δεῖ, ἀλλ’ οἷον ἀλλοιοῦσθαι καὶ φθείρεσθαι ταῖς ποιότησι τῶν ἐπεισιόντων καὶ τὸ πάσχειν ἐμποιούντων· τῷ γὰρ ἐνόντι ἀλλοίωσις παρὰ τοῦ τυχόντος. ὥστε οὔτε ἡ ὕλη πάσχει - ἄποιος γὰρ καθ’ ἑαυτήν - οὔτε τὰ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς εἴδη εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα, ἀλλὰ τὸ πάθος περὶ τὸ συναμφότερον καὶ ᾧ τὸ εἶναι ἐν τῷ συναμφότερον· τουτὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ἐναντίαις δυνάμεσι καὶ ποιότησι τῶν ἐπεισιόντων θεωρεῖται. διὸ καὶ οἷς τὸ ζῆν ἔξωθεν καὶ οὐ παρ’ ἑαυτῶν, ταῦτα τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ μὴ ζῆν παθεῖν οἷά τε· οἷς δὲ τὸ εἶναι ἐν ζωῇ ἀπαθεῖ, κατὰ ζωὴν μένειν ἀνάγκη, ὥσπερ τῇ ἀζωίᾳ τὸ μὴ παθεῖν καθ’ ὅσον ἀζωία. ὡς οὖν τὸ τρέπεσθαι καὶ πάσχειν ἐν τῷ συνθέτῳ τῷ ἐξ ὕλης τε καὶ εἴδους, ὅπερ ἦν τὸ σῶμα - οὐ μὴν τῇ ὕλῃ τοῦτο προσῆν - , οὕτω καὶ τὸ ζῆν καὶ ἀποθνῄσκειν καὶ πάσχειν κατὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ συνθέτῳ ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος θεωρεῖται· οὐ μὴν [καὶ] τῇ ψυχῇ κατὰ τοῦτο συμβαίνει, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἐξ ἀζωίας καὶ ζωῆς συγκείμενον πρᾶγμα, ἀλλὰ ζωὴ μόνον· καὶ τοῦτο ἦν τῷ Πλάτωνι τὸ οὐσίαν εἶναι καὶ λόγον τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ αὐτοκίνητον. [21] The properties of matter, according to the ancients, are the following: It is incorporeal; for it is different from bodies. It is without life; for it is neither intellect nor soul, nor vital from itself (i.e. essentially). It is also formless, variable, infinite, and powerless. Hence, it is neither being, nor yet non-being; that is, it is not non-being like motion, but it is true non-being, the image and phantasm of bulk, because it is that which bulk primarily contains. It is likewise powerless, and the desire of subsistence, has stability, but not in permanency, and always appears in itself to be contrary. Hence, it is both small and great, more and less, deficient and exceeding. It is always becoming to be, or rising into existence; abides not, and yet is unable to fly away; and is the defect of all being. Hence in whatever it announces itself to be, it deceives; and though it [ 904 ]

should appear to be great, it is nevertheless small. For it resembles a flying mockery, eluding all pursuit, and vanishing into non-entity. For its flight is not in place, but is effected by its desertion of real being. Hence, also, the images which are in it are in an image more unreal than themselves; just as in a mirror, where the thing represented is in one place and the representation of it in another. It likewise appears to be full, yet contains nothing, though it seems to possess all things. [22] Ἡ νοερὰ οὐσία ὁμοιομερής ἐστιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ μερικῷ νῷ εἶναι τὰ ὄντα καὶ ἐν τῷ παντελείῳ· ἀλλ’ ἐν μὲν τῷ καθόλου καὶ τὰ μερικὰ καθολικῶς, ἐν δὲ τῷ μερικῷ καὶ τὰ καθόλου [καὶ μερικὰ] μερικῶς. [22] All passions subsist about the same thing as that about which corruption subsists; for the reception of passion is the path to corruption. And the thing that is the subject of passivity, is also the subject of corruption. Nothing incorporeal, however, is corrupted. But some of them either exist, or do not exist; so that they are not at all passive. For that which is passive, ought not to be a thing of this kind, but such as may be changed in quality, and corrupted by the properties of the things that enter into it, and cause it to be passive. For the change in quality of that which is inherent, is not causally effected. Neither, therefore, does matter suffer; for it is of itself without quality. Nor do the forms which enter into and depart from it, suffer; but the passion subsists about the composite from matter and form, the very being of which consists in the union of the two. For this, in the contrary powers and qualities of the things which enter and produce passion, is seen to be the subject of them. On which account, also, those things, the life of which is externally derived, and does not subsist from themselves, are capable of suffering both the participation and the privation of life. But those beings whose existence consists in an impassive life, must necessarily possess a permanent life; just as a privation of life, so far as it is a privation of it, is attended with impassivity. As, therefore, to be changed and to suffer pertain to the composite from matter and form, and this is body, but matter is exempt from this; thus also, to live and to die, and to suffer through the participation of life and death, is beheld in the composite from soul and body. Nevertheless, this does not happen to the soul, because it is not a thing which consists of life and the privation of life, but consists of life alone. And it possesses this, because its essence is simple, and the reason (or form) of the soul is self-motive. [23] Τῆς οὐσίας ἧς ἐν ζωῇ τὸ εἶναι καὶ ἧς τὰ πάθη ζωαί, ταύτης καὶ ὁ θάνατος ἐν ποιᾷ ζωῇ κεῖται, οὐκ ἐν ζωῆς καθάπαξ στερήσει, ὅτι μηδὲ τὸ πάθος ἦν ὁδὸς εἰς τὴν παντελῆ ἀζωίαν ἐπ’ αὐτῆς. [23] An intellectual Essence is so similar in its parts, that the same  things exist both in a partial and an all-perfect intellect. In a universal intellect, however, partial natures

[ 905 ]

subsist universally; but in a partial intellect, both universals and particulars subsist partially. [24] Ἐπὶ τῶν ζωῶν τῶν ἀσωμάτων αἱ πρόοδοι μενόντων τῶν προτέρων ἑδραίων καὶ βεβαίων γίνονται καὶ οὐ φθειρόντων τι αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὰ ὑπόστασιν οὐδὲ μεταβαλλόντων· ὥστε οὐδὲ τὰ ὑφιστάμενα μετά τινος φθορᾶς ὑφίσταται ἢ μεταβολῆς, οὗ δὴ τοῦτο οὐδὲ γίνεται ὡς ἡ φθορᾶς μετέχουσα γένεσις καὶ μεταβολῆς· ἀγένητα ἄρα καὶ ἄφθαρτα καὶ ἀγενήτως καὶ ἀφθάρτως γεγονότα κατὰ τοῦτο. [24] Of that essence, the existence of which is in life, and the passions of which are lives, the death also consists in a certain life, and not in a total privation of life; because, neither is the deprivation of life in this essence a passion, or a path which entirely leads to a non-vital subsistence. [25] Περὶ τοῦ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ κατὰ μὲν νόησιν πολλὰ λέγεται, θεωρεῖται δὲ ἀνοησίᾳ κρείττονι νοήσεως, ὡς περὶ τοῦ καθεύδοντος διὰ μὲν ἐγρηγόρσεως πολλὰ λέγεται, διὰ δὲ τοῦ καθεύδειν ἡ γνῶσις καὶ ἡ κατάληψις· τῷ γὰρ ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον γινώσκεται, ὅτι πᾶσα γνῶσις τοῦ γνωστοῦ ὁμοίωσις. [25] In incorporeal lives, the progressions are effected while the lives themselves remain firm and stable, nothing pertaining to them being corrupted, or changed into the hypostasis of things subordinate to them. Hence, neither are the things to which they give subsistence produced with a certain corruption or mutation. Nor do these incorporeal lives subsist like generation, which participates of corruption and mutation. Hence, they are unbegotten and incorruptible, and on this account are unfolded into light without generation and incorruptibly. [26] Μὴ ὂν τὸ μὲν γεννῶμεν χωρισθέντες τοῦ ὄντος, τὸ δὲ προεννοοῦμεν ἐχόμενοι τοῦ ὄντος· ὡς εἴ γε χωρισθείημεν τοῦ ὄντος, οὐ προεννοοῦμεν τὸ ὑπὲρ τὸ ὂν μὴ ὄν, ἀλλὰ γεννῶμεν ψευδὲς πάθος τὸ μὴ ὄν, συμβεβηκὸς περὶ τὸν ἐκστάντα ἑαυτοῦ. καὶ γὰρ αἴτιος ἕκαστος, ᾧπερ ὄντως καὶ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐνῆν ἀναχθῆναι ἐπὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ τὸ ὂν μὴ ὂν καὶ παραχθῆναι ἐπὶ τὸ κατάπτωμα τοῦ ὄντος μὴ ὄν. [26] Of that nature which is beyond intellect, many things are asserted through intellection, but it is surveyed by a cessation of intellectual energy better than with it ; just as with respect to one who is asleep, many things are asserted of him while he is in that state by those who are awake; but the proper knowledge and apprehension of his dormant condition, is only to be obtained through sleep. For the similar is known by the similar; because all knowledge is an assimilation to the object of knowledge. [27] Οὐδὲν [πρὸς] τὸ ἀσώματον τὸ καθ’ αὑτὸ ἡ τοῦ σώματος ἐμποδίζει ὑπόστασις πρὸς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ὅπου βούλεται καὶ ὡς θέλει. ὡς γὰρ τῷ σώματι τὸ ἄογκον ἄληπτον καὶ οὐδὲν πρὸς αὐτό, οὕτω τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ τὸ ἔνογκον [καὶ] ἀνεπιπρόσθητον καὶ ὡς μὴ ὂν κεῖται· οὐδὲ τοπικῶς διέρχεται τὸ ἀσώματον ὅπου βούλεται - ὄγκῳ γὰρ συνυφίστατο τόπος - οὐδὲ στενοχωρεῖται [ 906 ]

σωμάτων ὄγκῳ· τὸ γὰρ ὁπωσοῦν ἐν ὄγκῳ στενοχωρεῖσθαι ἐδύνατο καὶ τοπικῶς ἐποιεῖτο τὴν μετάβασιν, τὸ δ’ ἄογκον παντελῶς καὶ ἀμέγεθες ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ὄγκῳ ἀκράτητον τοπικῆς τε κινήσεως ἄμοιρον. διαθέσει τοίνυν ποιᾷ ἐκεῖ εὑρίσκεται, ὅπου καὶ διάκειται, τόπῳ ὂν πανταχοῦ καὶ οὐδαμοῦ. διὸ ποιᾷ διαθέσει ἢ ὑπὲρ οὐρανὸν ἢ ἐν μέρει που τοῦ κόσμου κεκράτηται· ὅταν δὲ κρατηθῇ ἔν τινι μέρει τοῦ κόσμου, οὐκ ὀφθαλμοῖς ὁρᾶται, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ παρουσία αὐτοῦ γίνεται. [27] With respect to that which is non-being, we either produce it, being ourselves separated from real being, or we have a preconception of it, as adhering to being. Hence, if we are separated from being, we have not an antecedent conception of the non-being which is above being, but our knowledge in this case is only that of a false passion, such as that which happens to a man when he departs from himself. For as a man may himself, and through himself, be truly elevated to the non-being which is above being, so, by departing from being, he is led to the non-being which is a falling off from being. [28] Τὸ ἀσώματον ἂν ἐν σώματι κατασχεθῇ, οὐ συγκλεισθῆναι δέει ὡς ἐν ζωγρείῳ θηρίον· συγκλεῖσαι γὰρ αὐτὸ οὐδὲν οὕτω δύναται καὶ περιλαβεῖν σῶμα οὐδ’ ὡς ἀσκὸς ὑγρόν τι ἕλκειν ἢ πνεῦμα, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸ δεῖ ὑποστῆσαι δυνάμεις ῥεπούσας ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸ ἑνώσεως εἰς τὸ ἔξω, αἷς δὴ κατιὸν συμπλέκεται τῷ σώματι· δι’ ἐκτάσεως οὖν ἀρρήτου τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἡ εἰς σῶμα σύνερξις. διὸ οὐδ’ ἄλλο αὐτὸ καταδεῖ, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸ ἑαυτό, οὐδὲ λύει τοίνυν θραυσθὲν τὸ σῶμα καὶ φθαρέν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ στραφὲν ἐκ τῆς προσπαθείας. [28] The hypostasis of body is no impediment whatever to that which is essentially incorporeal, so as to prevent it from being where, and in such a way, as it wishes to be. For as that which is without bulk is incomprehensible by body, and does not at all pertain to it, so that which has bulk cannot impede or obscure an incorporeal nature, but lies before it like a non-entity. Nor does that which is incorporeal pervade locally when it wishes to pass from one thing to another; for place is consubsistent with bulk. Nor is it compressed by bodies. For that which in any way whatever is connected with bulk, may be compressed, and effect a transition locally; but that which is entirely without bulk and without magnitude, cannot be restrained by that which has bulk, and does not participate of local motion. Hence, by a certain disposition, it is found to be there, where it is inclined to be, being with respect to place every where and yet no where. By a certain disposition, therefore, it is either above the heavens, or is contained in a certain part of the world. When, however, it is contained in a certain part of the world, it is not visible to the eyes, but the presence of it becomes manifest from its works. [29] Ὥσπερ τὸ ἐπὶ γῆς εἶναι ψυχῆς ἐστιν - οὐ τὸ γῆς ἐπιβαίνειν ὡς τὰ σώματα, τὸ δὲ προεστάναι σώματος ὃ γῆς ἐπιβαίνει - , οὕτω καὶ ἐν Ἅιδου εἶναι ἔστι ψυχῇ, ὅταν προεστήκῃ εἰδώλου φύσιν μὲν ἔχοντος εἶναι ἐν τόπῳ, σκότει δὲ τὴν ὑπόστασιν κεκτημένου· ὥστε εἰ ὁ Ἅιδης [ 907 ]

ὑπόγειός ἐστι τόπος σκοτεινός, ἡ ψυχὴ καίπερ οὐκ ἀποσπωμένη τοῦ ὄντος ἐν Ἅιδου γίνεται ἐφελκομένη τὸ εἴδωλον. ἐξελθούσῃ γὰρ αὐτῇ τοῦ στερεοῦ σώματος τὸ πνεῦμα συνομαρτεῖ, ὃ ἐκ τῶν σφαιρῶν συνελέξατο. ἐκ δὲ τῆς πρὸς τὸ σῶμα προσπαθείας τὸν λόγον ἐχούσῃ τὸν μερικὸν προβεβλημένον, καθ’ ὃν σχέσιν ἔσχε πρὸς τὸ ποιὸν σῶμα ἐν τῷ βιοῦν, ἐκ τῆς προσπαθείας ἐναπομόργνυται τύπος τῆς φαντασίας εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ οὕτως ἐφέλκεται τὸ εἴδωλον· ἐν Ἅιδου δὲ λέγεται, ὅτι τῆς ἀιδοῦς φύσεως ἐτύγχανε τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ σκοτεινῆς. Ἐπεὶ δὲ διήκει τὸ βαρὺ πνεῦμα καὶ ἔνυγρον ἄχρι τῶν ὑπογείων τόπων, οὕτω καὶ αὕτη λέγεται χωρεῖν ὑπὸ γῆν, οὐχ ὅτι ἡ αὐτῆς οὐσία μεταβαίνει τόπους καὶ ἐν τόποις γίνεται, ἀλλ’ ὅτι τῶν πεφυκότων σωμάτων τόπους μεταβαίνειν καὶ εἰληχέναι τόπου σχέσεις ἀναδέχεται, δεχομένων αὐτὴν κατὰ τὰς ἐπιτηδειότητας τῶν τοιούτων σωμάτων ἐκ τῆς κατ’ αὐτὴν ποιᾶς διαθέσεως. ὡς γὰρ ἂν διατεθῇ, εὑρίσκει σῶμα τάξει καὶ τόποις οἰκείοις διωρισμένον· διὸ καθαρώτερον μὲν διακειμένῃ σύμφυτον τὸ ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἀύλου σῶμα, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ αἰθέριον, προελθούσῃ δὲ ἐκ λόγου εἰς φαντασίας προβολὴν σύμφυτον τὸ ἡλιοειδές, θηλυνθείσῃ δὲ καὶ παθαινομένῃ πρὸς τὸ εἶδος παράκειται τὸ σεληνοειδές, πεσούσῃ δὲ εἰς σώματα, ὅταν κατὰ τὸ αὐτῶν ἄμορφον στῇ εἶδος, ἐξ ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων συνεστηκότα, ἄγνοια ἕπεται τοῦ ὄντος τελεία καὶ σκότωσις καὶ νηπιότης. Καὶ μὴν καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐξόδῳ ἔτι κατὰ τὴν δίυγρον ἀναθυμίασιν τὸ πνεῦμα ἔχουσα τεθολωμένον, σκιὰν ἐφέλκεται καὶ βαρεῖται, χωρεῖν σπεύδοντος τοῦ τοιούτου πνεύματος εἰς μυχὸν τῆς γῆς φύσει, ἂν μὴ ἄλλη τις αὐτὸ αἰτία ἀνθέλκῃ. ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ γεῶδες ὄστρεον περικειμένῃ ἀνάγκη ἐπὶ γῆς ἐνίσχεσθαι, οὕτω καὶ ὑγρὸν πνεῦμα ἐφελκομένῃ εἴδωλον περικεῖσθαι ἀνάγκη· ὑγρὸν δὲ ἐφέλκεται, ὅταν συνεχῶς μελετήσῃ ὁμιλεῖν τῇ φύσει, ἧς ἐν ὑγρῷ τὸ ἔργον καὶ ὑπόγειον μᾶλλον. ὅταν δὲ μελετήσῃ ἀφίστασθαι φύσεως, αὐγὴ ξηρὰ γίνεται, ἄσκιος καὶ ἀνέφελος· ὑγρότης γὰρ ἐν ἀέρι νέφος συνίστησι, ξηρότης δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀτμίδος αὐγὴν ξηρὰν ὑφίστησιν. [29] It is necessary that an incorporeal nature, if it is contained in body, should not be enclosed in it like a wild beast in a den; (for no body is able thus to enclose and comprehend it), nor is it contained in body in the same way as a bladder contains something liquid, or wind; but it is requisite that it should give subsistence to certain powers which verge to what is external, through its union with body; by which powers, when it descends, it becomes complicated with body. Its conjunction, therefore, with body, is effected through an ineffable extension. Hence, nothing else binds it, but itself binds itself to body. Neither, therefore, is it liberated from the body, when the body is (mortally) wounded and corrupted, but it liberates itself, by turning itself from an adhering affection to the body. [30] Τῶν μὲν ὅλων καὶ τελείων ὑποστάσεων οὐδεμία πρὸς τὸ ἑαυτῆς γέννημα ἐπέστραπται, πᾶσαι δὲ πρὸς τὰ γεννήσαντά εἰσιν ἀνηγμέναι ἄχρι καὶ τοῦ κοσμικοῦ σώματος· τέλειον γὰρ ὂν ἀνῆκται πρὸς τὴν ψυχὴν νοερὰν οὖσαν, κύκλῳ διὰ τοῦτο κινούμενον, ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν, νοῦς δὲ πρὸς τὸ πρῶτον. διήκει τοίνυν ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐσχάτου [ 908 ]

ἀρξάμενον καθ’ ὃ δύναται ἕκαστον· ἡ πρὸς τὸ πρῶτον ἀναγωγὴ προσεχῶς μέντοι ἢ πόρρωθεν. διὸ ταῦτα οὐκ ἐφίεσθαι μόνον τοῦ θεοῦ λέγοιτ’ ἄν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπολαύειν κατὰ δύναμιν. Ἐν δὲ ταῖς μερισταῖς ὑποστάσεσι καὶ πρὸς πολλὰ ῥέπειν δυναμέναις ἔνεστι καὶ πρὸς τὰ γεννήματα ἐπιστρέφειν· ὅθεν καὶ ἐν ταύταις ἦν ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἐν ταύταις ἡ λελοιδορημένη ἀπιστία. ταύταις οὖν κακὸν ἡ ὕλη τῷ ἐπιστρέφεσθαι ἐπ’ αὐτὴν δύνασθαι, δυναμέναις ἐστράφθαι πρὸς τὸ θεῖον. ὥσθ’ ἡ μὲν τελειότης ὑφίστησι τὰ δεύτερα ἀπὸ τῶν προτέρων τηροῦσα αὐτὰ ἐπεστραμμένα πρὸς τὰ πρῶτα, τὸ δὲ ἀτελὲς στρέφει καὶ πρὸς τὰ ὕστερα τὰ πρῶτα καὶ φιλεῖν ταῦτα ποιεῖ τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν ἀποστραφέντα. [30] None of the hypostases which rank as wholes, and are perfect, is converted to its own progeny; but all perfect hypostases are elevated to their generators as far as to the mundane body (or the body of the world). For this body, being perfect, is elevated to its soul, which is intellectual: and on this account it is moved in a circle. But the soul of this body is elevated to intellect; and intellect to the first principle of all things. All beings, therefore, proceed to this principle as much as possible, beginning from the last of things. The elevation, however, to that which is first, is either proximate or remote. Hence, these natures may not only be said to aspire after the highest God, but also to enjoy him to the utmost of their power. But in partial  hypostases, and which are able to verge to many things, there is also a desire of being converted to their progeny. Hence, likewise, in these there is error, in these there is reprehensible incredulity. These, therefore, matter injures, because they are capable of being converted to it, being at the same time able to be converted to divinity. Hence, perfection gives subsistence to secondary from primary natures, preserving them converted to the first of things; but imperfection converts primary  to posterior natures, and causes them to love the beings which have departed from Divinity prior to themselves. [31] Ὁ θεὸς πανταχοῦ ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ, ‹καὶ ὁ νοῦς πανταχοῦ ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ,› καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πανταχοῦ ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ. ἀλλ’ ὁ θεὸς μὲν πανταχοῦ καὶ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν μετ’ αὐτὸν πάντων - αὐτοῦ δέ ἐστι μόνον ὡς ἔστι τε καὶ ἐθέλει - , νοῦς δὲ ἐν μὲν θεῷ, πανταχοῦ δὲ καὶ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν μετ’ αὐτόν· καὶ ψυχὴ ἐν νῷ τε καὶ θεῷ, πανταχοῦ ‹δὲ› καὶ οὐδαμοῦ ἐν σώματι· σῶμα δὲ καὶ ἐν ψυχῇ καὶ ἐν νῷ καὶ ἐν θεῷ. καὶ ὡς πάντα τὰ ὄντα καὶ μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐν θεῷ καὶ οὐκ αὐτὸς τὰ ὄντα καὶ μὴ ὄντα καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς - εἰ γὰρ μόνον ἦν πανταχοῦ, αὐτὸς ἂν ἦν τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν· ἐπεὶ δὲ ‹καὶ› οὐδαμοῦ, τὰ πάντα γίνεται δι’ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ, ὅτι πανταχοῦ ἐκεῖνος, ἕτερα δὲ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι αὐτὸς οὐδαμοῦ - , οὕτω καὶ νοῦς πανταχοῦ ὢν καὶ οὐδαμοῦ αἴτιος ψυχῶν καὶ τῶν μετ’ αὐτὰς καὶ οὐκ αὐτὸς ψυχὴ οὔτε τὰ μετὰ ψυχὴν οὐδὲ ἐν τούτοις, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν μόνον πανταχοῦ τῶν μετ’ αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐδαμοῦ· καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ οὐ σῶμα οὔτε ἐν σώματι, ἀλλ’ αἰτία σώματος, ὅτι πανταχοῦ οὖσα τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν οὐδαμοῦ. καὶ ἔστη γε ἡ πρόοδος τοῦ παντὸς εἰς τὸ μήτε πανταχοῦ ἅμα μήτε μηδαμοῦ εἶναι δυνάμενον, ἀλλ’ ἀνὰ μέρος ἑκατέρων μετέχον.

[ 909 ]

[31] God is every where because he is no where: and this is also true of intellect and soul: for each of these is every where because each is no where. But God indeed is every where and no where, and no where with respect to all things which are posterior to him; and he  alone is such as he is, and such as he wills himself to be. intellect is in God, but is every where and no where, with respect to the natures posterior to it. And soul is in God and intellect, and is every where and no where, in (or with respect to) body. But body is in soul, and in intellect, and in God. And as all beings and non-beings are from and in God, hence, he is neither beings nor non-beings, nor subsists in them. For if, indeed, he was alone every where, he would be all things and in all, but since he is also no where, all things are produced through him, and are contained in him because he is every where. They are, however, different from him because he is no where. Thus, likewise, intellect being every where and no where is the cause of souls, and of the natures posterior to souls; yet intellect is not soul, nor the natures posterior to soul, nor subsists in them; because it is not only every where, but is also no where, with respect to the natures posterior to it. And soul is neither body, nor in body, but is the cause of body; because being every where, it is also no where with respect to body. And this progression of things in the universe extends as far as to that which is neither able to be at once every where, nor at once no where, but partially participates of each of these. [32] Ἄλλαι αἱ ἀρεταὶ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ, καὶ ἄλλαι αἱ τοῦ πρὸς θεωρίαν ἀνιόντος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο λεγομένου θεωρητικοῦ, καὶ ἄλλαι αἱ τοῦ ἤδη τελείου θεωρητικοῦ καὶ ἤδη θεατοῦ, καὶ ἄλλαι αἱ τοῦ νοῦ, καθ’ ὃ νοῦς καὶ ἀπὸ ψυχῆς καθαρός. Αἱ μὲν τοῦ πολιτικοῦ ἐν μετριοπαθείᾳ κείμεναι τῷ ἕπεσθαι καὶ ἀκολουθεῖν τῷ λογισμῷ τοῦ καθήκοντος κατὰ τὰς πράξεις· διὸ πρὸς κοινωνίαν βλέπουσαι τὴν ἀβλαβῆ τῶν πλησίον ἐκ τοῦ συναγελασμοῦ καὶ τῆς κοινωνίας πολιτικαὶ λέγονται. καὶ ἔστι φρόνησις μὲν περὶ τὸ λογιζόμενον, ἀνδρία δὲ περὶ τὸ θυμούμενον, σωφροσύνη δὲ ἐν ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ συμφωνίᾳ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ πρὸς λογισμόν, δικαιοσύνη δὲ ἡ ἑκάστου τούτων ὁμοῦ οἰκειοπραγία ἀρχῆς πέρι καὶ τοῦ ἄρχεσθαι. Αἱ δὲ τοῦ πρὸς θεωρίαν προκόπτοντος θεωρητικοῦ ἐν ἀποστάσει κεῖνται τῶν ἐντεῦθεν· διὸ καὶ καθάρσεις αὗται λέγονται, ἐν ἀποχῇ θεωρούμεναι τῶν μετὰ τοῦ σώματος πράξεων καὶ συμπαθειῶν τῶν πρὸς αὐτό. αὗται μὲν γὰρ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀφισταμένης πρὸς τὸ ὄντως ὄν, αἱ δὲ πολιτικαὶ τὸν θνητὸν ἄνθρωπον κατακοσμοῦσι - καὶ πρόδρομοί γε αἱ πολιτικαὶ τῶν καθάρσεων· δεῖ γὰρ κοσμηθέντα κατ’ αὐτὰς ἀποστῆναι τοῦ σὺν σώματι πράττειν τι προηγουμένως - διὸ ἐν ταῖς καθάρσεσι τὸ μὲν μὴ συνδοξάζειν τῷ σώματι, ἀλλὰ μόνην ἐνεργεῖν ὑφίστησι τὸ φρονεῖν, ὃ διὰ τοῦ καθαρῶς νοεῖν τελειοῦται, τὸ δέ γε μὴ ὁμοπαθεῖν συνίστησι τὸ σωφρονεῖν, τὸ δὲ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι ἀφισταμένην τοῦ σώματος ὡς εἰς κενόν τι καὶ μὴ ὂν τὴν ἀνδρίαν, ἡγουμένου δὲ λόγου καὶ νοῦ καὶ μηδενὸς ἀντιτείνοντος ἡ δικαιοσύνη. ἡ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρετὰς διάθεσις

[ 910 ]

ἐν μετριοπαθείᾳ θεωρεῖται, τέλος ἔχουσα τὸ ζῆν ὡς ἄνθρωπον κατὰ φύσιν, ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὰς θεωρητικὰς ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ, ἧς τέλος ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ὁμοίωσις. Ἐπεὶ δὲ κάθαρσις ἡ μέν τις ἦν καθαίρουσα, ἡ δὲ κεκαθαρμένων, αἱ καθαρτικαὶ ἀρεταὶ κατ’ ἄμφω θεωροῦνται τὰ σημαινόμενα τῆς καθάρσεως· καθαίρουσί τε γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ καθαρθείσῃ σύνεισι - τέλος γὰρ τὸ κεκαθάρθαι τοῦ καθαίρειν - ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τὸ καθαίρειν καὶ κεκαθάρθαι ἀφαίρεσις ἦν παντὸς τοῦ ἀλλοτρίου, τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἕτερον ἂν εἴη τοῦ καθήραντος· ὡς εἴ γε πρὸ τῆς ἀκαθαρσίας ἀγαθὸν ἦν τὸ καθαιρόμενον, ἡ κάθαρσις ἀρκεῖ. ἀλλ’ ἀρκέσει μὲν ἡ κάθαρσις, τὸ δὲ καταλειπόμενον ἔσται τὸ ἀγαθόν, οὐχ ἡ κάθαρσις. ἀλλ’ ἡ ψυχῆς φύσις οὐκ ἦν ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ’ ἀγαθοῦ μετέχειν δυνάμενον καὶ ἀγαθοειδές· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐγένετο ἐν κακῷ. τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν αὐτῇ ἐν τῷ συνεῖναι τῷ γεννήσαντι, κακία δὲ τὸ τοῖς ὑστέροις. καὶ διπλῆ γε κακία· τό τε τούτοις συνεῖναι καὶ μετὰ παθῶν ὑπερβολῆς. διόπερ αἱ πολιτικαὶ ἀρεταὶ μιᾶς γοῦν αὐτὴν κακίας ἀπαλλάττουσαι ἀρεταὶ ἐκρίθησαν καὶ τίμιαι, αἱ δὲ καθαρτικαὶ τιμιώτεραι καὶ τῆς ὡς ψυχὴν κακίας ἀπαλλάττουσαι. Δεῖ τοίνυν καθηραμένην αὐτὴν συνεῖναι τῷ γεννήσαντι· καὶ ἀρετὴ ἄρα αὐτῆς μετὰ τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν αὕτη, ἥπερ ἐστὶν ἐν γνώσει καὶ εἰδήσει τοῦ ὄντος, οὐχ ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει παρ’ αὐτῇ ταύτην, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἄνευ τοῦ πρὸ αὐτῆς οὐχ ὁρᾷ τὰ αὐτῆς. ἄλλο οὖν γένος τρίτον ἀρετῶν μετὰ τὰς καθαρτικὰς καὶ πολιτικάς, νοερῶς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνεργούσης· σοφία μὲν καὶ φρόνησις ἐν θεωρίᾳ ὧν νοῦς ἔχει, δικαιοσύνη δὲ οἰκειοπραγία ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν ἀκολουθίᾳ καὶ τὸ πρὸς νοῦν ἐνεργεῖν, σωφροσύνη δὲ ἡ εἴσω πρὸς νοῦν στροφή, ἡ δὲ ἀνδρία ἀπάθεια καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ πρὸς ὃ βλέπει ἀπαθὲς ὂν τὴν φύσιν. καὶ ἀντακολουθοῦσί γε αὗται ἀλλήλαις ὥσπερ καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι. Τέταρτον δὲ εἶδος ἀρετῶν τὸ τῶν παραδειγματικῶν, αἵπερ ἦσαν ἐν τῷ νῷ, κρείττους οὖσαι τῶν ψυχικῶν καὶ τούτων παραδείγματα, ὧν αἱ τῆς ψυχῆς ἦσαν ὁμοιώματα· νοῦς μὲν ἐν ᾧ ἅμα τὰ ὥσπερ παραδείγματα, ἐπιστήμη δὲ ἡ νόησις, σοφία δὲ γινώσκων ὁ νοῦς, τὸ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ σωφροσύνη, τὸ δὲ οἰκεῖον ἔργον ἡ οἰκειοπραγία, ἡ δὲ ἀνδρία ἡ ταυτότης καὶ τὸ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ μένειν καθαρὸν διὰ δυνάμεως περιουσίαν. Τέτταρα τοίνυν ἀρετῶν γένη πέφηνεν, ὧν αἱ μὲν ἦσαν τοῦ νοῦ, αἱ παραδειγματικαὶ καὶ σύνδρομοι αὐτοῦ τῇ οὐσίᾳ, αἱ δὲ ψυχῆς πρὸς νοῦν ἐνορώσης ἤδη καὶ πληρουμένης ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, αἱ δὲ ψυχῆς ἀνθρώπου καθαιρομένης τε καὶ καθαρθείσης ἀπὸ σώματος καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων παθῶν, αἱ δὲ ψυχῆς ἀνθρώπου κατακοσμούσης τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὸ μέτρα τῇ ἀλογίᾳ ἀφορίζειν καὶ μετριοπάθειαν ἐνεργάζεσθαι. καὶ ὁ μὲν ἔχων τὰς μείζους ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔχει καὶ τὰς ἐλάττους, οὐ μὴν τὸ ἔμπαλιν. οὐκέτι μέντοι τῷ ἔχειν καὶ τὰς ἐλάττους ὁ ἔχων τὰς μείζους ἐνεργήσει κατὰ τὰς ἐλάττους προηγουμένως, ἀλλὰ μόνον κατὰ περίστασιν τῆς γενέσεως. ἄλλοι γὰρ οἱ σκοποί, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, καὶ κατὰ γένος διαφέροντες. τῶν μὲν γὰρ πολιτικῶν μέτρον ἐπιθεῖναι τοῖς πάθεσι πρὸς τὰς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἐνεργείας· τῶν δὲ καθαρτικῶν τελέως τῶν παθῶν ἀποστῆσαι [τὸ] τέως μέτρον λαμβανόντων· τῶν δὲ πρὸς νοῦν ἐνεργῆσαι μηδὲ τοῦ ἀποστῆσαι ἐκ τῶν παθῶν εἰς ἔννοιαν ἐρχομένων· τῶν δὲ μηδὲν πρὸς νοῦν ἐχουσῶν τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἀλλὰ τῇ αὐτοῦ οὐσίᾳ εἰς συνδρομὴν ἀφιγμένων ‹›. διὸ καὶ ὁ μὲν κατὰ τὰς πρακτικὰς ἐνεργῶν σπουδαῖος [ 911 ]

ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὰς καθαρτικὰς δαιμόνιος ἄνθρωπος ἢ καὶ δαίμων ἀγαθός, ὁ δὲ κατὰ μόνας τὰς πρὸς τὸν νοῦν θεός, ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὰς παραδειγματικὰς θεῶν πατήρ. Ἐπιμελητέον οὖν μάλιστα τῶν καθαρτικῶν ἡμῖν σκεψαμένοις, ὅτι τούτων μὲν ἡ τεῦξις ἐν τῷ βίῳ τούτῳ, διὰ τούτων δὲ καὶ ἡ εἰς τὰς τιμιωτέρας ἄνοδος. διὸ θεωρητέον, ἄχρι τίνος καὶ ἐπὶ πόσον οἵα τε παραλαμβάνεσθαι ἡ κάθαρσις· ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ἀπόστασις σώματος καὶ τῆς ἀλόγου παθητικῆς κινήσεως. πῶς δ’ ἂν γένοιτο καὶ μέχρι τίνος, ῥητέον. πρῶτον μὲν οἷον θεμέλιος καὶ ὑποβάθρα τῆς καθάρσεως τὸ γνῶναι ἑαυτὸν ψυχὴν ὄντα ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ πράγματι καὶ ἑτεροουσίῳ συνδεδεμένον. δεύτερον δὲ τὸ ἀπὸ τούτου ὁρμώμενον τοῦ πείσματος συνάγειν αὑτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῖς μὲν τόποις, πάντως γε μὴν ἀπαθῶς πρὸς αὐτὸ διατιθέμενον. ἐνεργῶν μὲν γάρ τις συνεχῶς κατ’ αἴσθησιν, κἂν μὴ μετὰ προσπαθείας καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἥδεσθαι ἀπολαύσεως τοῦτο ποιῇ, ἀλλ’ οὖν ἐσκέδασται περὶ τὸ σῶμα, συναφὴς αὐτῷ κατὰ ταύτην γινόμενος, προσπάσχων δὲ ταῖς τῶν αἰσθημάτων ἡδοναῖς ἢ λύπαις σὺν προθυμίᾳ καὶ ἐπινεύσει συμπαθεῖ· ἀφ’ ἧς δὴ μάλιστα διαθέσεως αὐτὸν προσήκει καθαίρειν. τοῦτο δ’ ἂν γένοιτο, εἰ καὶ τὰς ἀναγκαίας τῶν ἡδονῶν καὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἰατρείας ἕνεκα μόνον τις παραλαμβάνοι ἢ ἀπαλλαγῆς πόνων, ἵνα μὴ ἐμποδίζοιτο. ἀφαιρετέον δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀλγηδόνας· εἰ δὲ μὴ οἷόν τε εἴη, πράως οἰστέον ἐλάττους τιθέντα τῷ μὴ συμπάσχειν. τὸν δὲ θυμὸν ὅσον οἷόν τε ἀφαιρετέον καὶ εἰ δυνατὸν πάντῃ· εἰ δὲ μή, μὴ αὐτὸν γοῦν συναναμιγνύναι τὴν προαίρεσιν, ἀλλ’ ἄλλου εἶναι τὸ ἀπροαίρετον, τὸ δ’ ἀπροαίρετον ἀσθενὲς καὶ ὀλίγον· τὸν δὲ φόβον πάντῃ· περὶ οὐδενὸς γὰρ φοβήσεται - τὸ δ’ ἀπροαίρετον καὶ ἐνταῦθα - χρηστέον δὲ ἄρα καὶ θυμῷ καὶ φόβῳ ἐν νουθετήσει. ἐπιθυμίαν δὲ παντὸς φαύλου ἐξοριστέον. σίτων δὲ καὶ ποτῶν οὐκ αὐτὸς ἕξει ᾗπερ αὐτός, ἀφροδισίων δὲ τῶν φυσικῶν οὐδὲ τὸ ἀπροαίρετον· εἰ δ’ ἄρα, ὅσον μέχρι φαντασίας προπετοῦς τῆς κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους. ὅλως δὲ αὐτὴ μὲν πάντων ἡ ψυχὴ ἡ νοερὰ τοῦ καθαιρομένου τούτων ἔστω καθαρά. βουλέσθω δὲ καὶ τὸ κινούμενον πρὸς τὸ ἄλογον τῶν σωματικῶν παθῶν ἀσυμπαθῶς κινεῖσθαι καὶ ἀπροσέκτως, ὥστε καὶ τὰς κινήσεις εὐθύς τε λύεσθαι τῇ γειτνιάσει τοῦ λογιζομένου. οὐκ ἔσται τοίνυν μάχη προκοπτούσης τῆς καθάρσεως, ἀλλὰ λοιπὸν παρὼν ὁ λόγος ἀρκέσει, ὃν τὸ χεῖρον αἰδέσεται, ὥστε καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ χεῖρον δυσχερᾶναι, ἂν ὅλως κινηθῇ, ὅτι μὴ ἡσυχίαν ἦγε παρόντος τοῦ δεσπότου, καὶ ἀσθένειαν ἑαυτῷ ἐπιτιμῆσαι. καὶ αὗται μὲν ἔτι μετριοπάθειαι ἐπίτασιν εἰς ἀπάθειαν λαμβάνουσαι· ὅταν δὲ παντελῶς τὸ συμπαθὲς ἐκκαθαρθῇ, σύνεστι τούτῳ τὸ ἀπαθές, ὅτι καὶ τὸ πάθος τὴν κίνησιν ἐλάμβανε τοῦ λογισμοῦ τὸ ἐνδόσιμον διὰ τῆς ῥοπῆς παρεσχηκότος. [32] The soul does not exist on the earth (when it is conversant with terrene natures), in the same manner as bodies accede to the earth; but a subsistence of the soul on the earth, signifies its presiding over terrene bodies. Thus, also, the soul is said to be in Hades, when it presides over its image, which is naturally adapted to be in place, but possesses its hypostasis in darkness. So that if Hades is a subterranean dark place, the soul, though not divulsed from being, will exist in Hades, by attracting to itself its image. For when the soul departs from the solid body, the spirit accompanies it which it [ 912 ]

had collected from the starry spheres. But as from its adhering affection to the body, it exerts a partial reason, through which it possesses an habitude to a body of a certain quality, in performing the energies of life; - hence, from this adhesion to body, the form of the phantasy is impressed in the spirit, and thus the image is attracted by the soul. The soul, however, is said to be in Hades, because the spirit obtains a formless and obscure nature. And as a heavy and moist spirit pervades as far as to subterranean places, hence the soul is said to proceed under the earth. Not that this essence of the soul changes one place for another, and subsists in place, but it receives the habitudes of bodies which are naturally adapted to change their places, and to be allotted a subsistence in place; such-like bodies receiving it according to aptitudes, from being disposed after a certain manner towards it. For the soul, conformably to the manner in which it is disposed, finds an appropriate body. Hence, when it is disposed in a purer manner, it has a connascent body which approximates to an etherial nature, and this is an etherial body. But when it proceeds from reason to the energies of the phantasy, then its connascent body is of a solar-form nature. And when it becomes effeminate and vehemently excited by corporeal form, then it is connected with a lunar-form body. When, however, it falls into bodies which consist of humid vapours, then a perfect ignorance of real being follows, together with darkness and infancy. Moreover, in its egress from the body, if it still possesses a spirit turbid from humid exhalations, it then attracts to itself a shadow, and becomes heavy; a spirit of this kind naturally striving to penetrate into the recesses of the earth, unless a certain other cause draws it in a contrary direction. As, therefore, the soul, when surrounded with this testaceous and terrene vestment, necessarily lives on the earth; so likewise when it attracts a moist spirit, it is necessarily surrounded with the image. But it attracts moisture when it continually endeavours to associate with nature, whose operations are effected in moisture, and which are rather under than upon the earth. When, however, the soul earnestly endeavours to depart from nature, then she becomes a dry splendour, without a shadow and without a cloud, or mist. For moisture gives subsistence to a mist in the air; but dryness constitutes a dry splendour from exhalation. [33] Ἕκαστον κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ἔστι που, εἰ ὅλως ἔστι που, οὐ μέντοι παρὰ τὴν φύσιν. Σώματι μὲν οὖν ἐν ὕλῃ καὶ ὄγκῳ ὑφεστῶτι τὸ εἶναί πού ἐστι τὸ ἐν τόπῳ εἶναι· διὸ καὶ τῷ σώματι τοῦ κόσμου ἐνύλῳ καὶ ἐνόγκῳ ὄντι τὸ πανταχοῦ εἶναι ὑπῆρξεν ἐν διαστάσει τε καὶ τόπῳ διαστάσεως. τῷ δὲ νοητῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ὅλως τῷ ἀύλῳ καὶ καθ’ αὑτὸ ἀσωμάτῳ, ἀόγκῳ ὄντι καὶ ἀδιαστάτῳ, οὐδ’ ὅλως τὸ ἐν τόπῳ πρόσεστιν, ὥστε τὸ εἶναι πανταχοῦ τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ οὐκ ἦν τοπικόν.

[ 913 ]

Οὔτε ἄρα μέρος μέν τί ἐστιν αὐτοῦ τῇδε, μέρος δὲ τῇδε - οὐκέτι γὰρ ἐκτὸς ἔσται τόπου οὐδὲ ἀδιάστατον - ἀλλ’ ὅλον ἐστίν, ὅπου καὶ ἔστιν· οὔτε ἐνθάδε μέν ἐστιν, ἀλλαχοῦ δὲ οὔ κατειλημμένον γὰρ ἔσται ὑπὸ τοῦ τῇδε, ἀφεστηκὸς δὲ τοῦ ἐκεῖσε - οὐδὲ πόρρω μὲν τοῦδε, ἐγγὺς μέντοι τοῦδε, ὡς τὸ πόρρω καὶ ἐγγὺς τῶν ἐν τόπῳ πεφυκότων εἶναι λέγεται κατὰ μέτρα διαστημάτων. ὅθεν ὁ μὲν κόσμος τῷ νοητῷ διαστατῶς πάρεστι, τὸ δὲ ἀσώματον τῷ κόσμῳ ἀμερῶς καὶ ἀδιαστάτως. Τὸ δ’ ἀμερὲς ἐν διαστατῷ ὅλον γίνεται κατὰ πᾶν μέρος ταὐτὸν ὂν καὶ ἓν ἀριθμῷ. κἀν ἀπείροις μέρεσιν εἰ τύχοι τοῦ διαστατοῦ, παρὸν ὅλον τὸ ἀδιάστατον οὔτε μερισθὲν πάρεστι, τῷ μέρει διδὸν μέρος, οὔτε πληθυνθέν, τῷ πλήθει παρέχον ἑαυτὸ πολλαπλασιασθέν, ἀλλ’ ὅλον πᾶσί τε τοῖς μέρεσι τοῦ ὠγκωμένου ἑνί τε ἑκάστῳ τοῦ πλήθους καὶ παντὶ τῷ ὄγκῳ καὶ παντὶ τῷ πλήθει πάρεστιν ἀμερῶς καὶ ἀπληθύντως καὶ ὡς ἓν ἀριθμῷ. τὸ δὲ μερικῶς καὶ διῃρημένως ἀπολαύειν αὐτοῦ προσῆν τοῖς εἰς μέρη ἑτεροδύναμα ἐσκεδασμένοις, οἷς συνέβαινε πολλάκις τὸ αὐτῶν ἐλάττωμα τῆς φύσεως ἐκείνης καταψεύδεσθαι [καὶ] ‹ἢ› ἀπορεῖν γε περὶ τῆς οὐσίας, ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτοῖς εἰωθυίας [ἡ] εἰς τὴν ἐκείνης μεταβᾶσι. τῷ μὲν ἄρα πεπληθυσμένῳ φύσει καὶ μεμεγεθυσμένῳ τὸ ἀμερὲς καὶ ἀπλήθυντον μεμεγέθυνται καὶ πεπλήθυνται καὶ οὕτως αὐτοῦ ἀπολαύει ὡς αὐτὸ πέφυκεν, οὐχ ὡς ἐκεῖνό ἐστι· τῷ δ’ ἀμερεῖ καὶ ἀπληθύντῳ φύσει ἀμερές ἐστι καὶ ἀπλήθυντον τὸ μεριστὸν καὶ πεπληθυσμένον, καὶ οὕτως αὐτῷ πάρεστι, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, αὐτὸ ἀμερῶς πάρεστι καὶ ἀπληθύντως καὶ ἀτόπως κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ φύσιν τῷ μεριστῷ καὶ πεπληθυσμένῳ φύσει καὶ ὄντι ἐν τόπῳ, τὸ δὲ μεριστὸν καὶ πεπληθυσμένον καὶ ἐν τόπῳ πάρεστι θατέρῳ τούτων ἐκτὸς ὄντι μεριστῶς καὶ πεπληθυσμένως καὶ τοπικῶς. Δεῖ τοίνυν ἐν ταῖς σκέψεσι κατακρατοῦντας τῆς ἑκατέρου ἰδιότητος μὴ ἐπαλλάττειν τὰς φύσεις, μᾶλλον δὲ τὰ προσόντα τοῖς σώμασιν ᾗ τοιαῦτα μὴ φαντάζεσθαι καὶ δοξάζειν περὶ τὸ ἀσώματον· οὐ γὰρ ἂν τὰ ἴδιά τις τοῦ καθαρῶς ἀσωμάτου προσγράψειε τοῖς σώμασι. τῶν μὲν γὰρ σωμάτων ἐν συνηθείᾳ πᾶς, ἐκείνων δὲ μόλις ἐν γνώσει γίνεται ἀοριστῶν περὶ αὐτά, οὐχ ὅτι καὶ αὐτόθεν ἐπιβάλλων, ἕως ἂν ὑπὸ φαντασίας κρατῆται. Οὕτως οὖν ἐρεῖς· εἰ τὸ μὲν ἐν τόπῳ καὶ ἔξω ἑαυτοῦ, ὅτι εἰς ὄγκον προελήλυθε, τὸ ‹δὲ› νοητὸν οὔτε ἐν τόπῳ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ὅτι οὐκ εἰς ὄγκον προελήλυθεν, εἰ τὸ μὲν εἰκών, τὸ δὲ ἀρχέτυπον, τὸ μὲν πρὸς τὸ νοητὸν κέκτηται τὸ εἶναι, τὸ δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ· πᾶσα γὰρ εἰκὼν νοῦ ἐστιν εἰκών. Καὶ ὡς μεμνημένον δεῖ τῆς ἀμφοῖν ἰδιότητος μὴ θαυμάζειν τὸ παρηλλαγμένον ἐν τῇ συνόδῳ, εἰ δεῖ ὅλως σύνοδον λέγειν· οὐ γὰρ δὴ σωμάτων σύνοδον σκοπούμεθα, ἀλλὰ πραγμάτων παντελῶς ἐκβεβηκότων ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων κατ’ ἰδιότητα ὑποστάσεως. διὸ καὶ ἡ σύνοδος ἐκβεβηκυῖα τῶν θεωρεῖσθαι εἰωθότων ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοουσίων. οὔτε οὖν κρᾶσις ἢ μῖξις ἢ σύνοδος ἢ παράθεσις, ἀλλ’ ἕτερος τρόπος φαντάζων μὲν παρὰ τὰς ὁπωσοῦν γινομένας ἄλλων πρὸς ἄλλα κοινωνίας τῶν ὁμοουσίων, πασῶν δὲ ἐκβεβηκὼς τῶν πιπτουσῶν ὑπὸ τὴν αἴσθησιν. [33] The things which are truly predicated of a sensible and material nature, are these: that it has, in every respect, a diffused and dispersed subsistence; that it is [ 914 ]

mutable; that it has existence in difference; that it is a composite; that it subsists by itself (as the subject or recipient of other things); that it is beheld in place, and in bulk: and other properties similar to these are asserted of it. But the following particulars are predicated of truly existing Being, and which itself subsists from itself; viz. that it is always established in itself; that it has an existence perpetually similar and the same; that it is essen-tialized in sameness; that it is immutable according to essence, is uncompounded, is neither dissoluble, nor in place, nor is dispersed into bulk; and is neither generated, nor capable of being destroyed: and other properties are asserted of it similar to these. To which predications adhering, we should neither ourselves assert any thing repugnant to them, concerning the different nature of sensible and trulyexisting beings, nor assent to those who do. [34] Τὸ ὄντως ὂν οὔτε μέγα οὔτε μικρόν ἐστι - τὸ γὰρ μέγα καὶ μικρὸν κυρίως ὄγκου ἴδια - , ἐκβεβηκὸς δὲ τὸ μέγα καὶ μικρὸν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸ μέγα ὂν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὸ μικρὸν καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ μεγίστου καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐλαχίστου ταὐτὸ καὶ ἓν ἀριθμῷ ὄν, εὑρίσκεται καὶ ἅμα ὑπὸ παντὸς μεγίστου τοῦτο καὶ ὑπὸ παντὸς ἐλαχίστου· μήτε γὰρ ὡς μέγιστον αὐτὸ ὑπονοήσῃς - ‹εἰ δὲ μή, ἀπορήσεις πῶς μέγιστον ὂν τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις ὄγκοις πάρεστι μὴ μερισθὲν ἢ μειωθὲν ἢ συσταλέν - μήτε ὡς ἐλάχιστον - › εἰ δὲ μή, ἀπορήσεις πῶς ἐλάχιστον ὂν τοῖς μεγίστοις ὄγκοις πάρεστι μὴ πολλαπλασιασθὲν ἢ αὐξηθὲν ἢ παραταθέν - ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκβεβηκὸς τὸν μέγιστον ὄγκον εἰς τὸ μέγιστον καὶ τὸν ἐλάχιστον εἰς τὸ ἐλάχιστον ἅμα λαβὼν ἐπινοήσεις, πῶς ἅμα καὶ ἐν τῷ τυχόντι καὶ ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν ἀπείροις θεωρεῖται πλήθεσί τε καὶ ὄγκοις τὸ αὐτὸ ὂν ‹καὶ› ἐν ἑαυτῷ μένον· σύνεστι γὰρ τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἰδιότητα ἀμερῶς τε καὶ ἀμεγέθως καὶ φθάνει τὸν ὄγκον τοῦ κόσμου, [καὶ] πᾶν μέρος τοῦ κόσμου περιλαβὸν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀμερείᾳ, ὥσπερ αὖ ὁ κόσμος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ πολυμερείᾳ πολυμερῶς αὐτῷ σύνεστι καὶ καθ’ ὅσον οἷός τε, καὶ οὐ δύναται αὐτὸ περιλαβεῖν οὔτε καθ’ ὅλου οὔτε κατὰ πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν, ἀλλ’ ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτῷ ὡς ἀπείρῳ καὶ ἀδιεξιτήτῳ ἐντυγχάνει κατά τε ἄλλα καὶ καθ’ ὅσον ὄγκου παντὸς καθαρεύει. [34] There is one kind of virtues pertaining to the political character, and another to the man who tends to contemplation, and who on this account is called theoretic, and is now a beholder (of intellectual and intelligible natures). And there are also other virtues pertaining to intellect, so far as it is intellect, and separate from soul. The virtues indeed of the political character, and which consist in the moderation of the passions, are characterized by following and being obedient to the reasoning about that which is becoming in actions. Hence, looking to an innoxious converse with neighbours, these virtues are denominated, from the aggregation of fellowship, political. And here prudence indeed subsists about the reasoning part; fortitude about the irascible part; temperance in the consent and symphony of the epithymetic  with the reasoning part; and justice, in each of these performing its proper employment with respect to [ 915 ]

governing and being governed. But the virtues of him who proceeds to the contemplative life, consist in a departure from terrestrial concerns. Hence, also, they are called purifications, being surveyed in the refraining from corporeal actions, and avoiding sympathies with the body. For these are the virtues of the soul elevating itself to true being. The political virtues therefore adorn the mortal man, and are the forerunners of purifications. For it is necessary that he who is adorned by the cathartic virtues, should abstain from doing any thing precedaneously in conjunction with body. Hence, in these purifications, not to opine with body, but to energize alone, gives subsistence to prudence; which derives its perfection through energizing intellectually with purity. But not to be similarly passive with the body, constitutes temperance. Not to fear a departure from body, as into something void, and non-entity, gives subsistence to fortitude. But when reason and intellect are the leaders, and there is no resistance (from the irrational part), justice is produced. The disposition therefore, according to the political virtues, is surveyed in the moderation of the passions; having for its end to live as man conformable to nature. But the disposition, according to the theoretic virtues, is beheld in apathy, the end of which is a similitude to God. Since, however, of purification, one kind consists in purifying, but another pertains to those that are purified, the cathartic virtues are surveyed according to both these significations of purification. For the end of purification is to become pure. But since purification, and the being purified are an ablation of everything foreign, the good resulting from them will be different from that which purifies; so, that if that which is purified was good prior to the impurity with which it is defiled, purification is sufficient. That, however, which remains after purification, is good, and not purification. The nature of the soul also was not good (prior to purification), but is that which is able to partake of good, and is boniform. For if this were not the case, it would not have become situated in evil. The good, therefore of the soul consists in being united to its generator, but its evil in an association with things subordinate to itself. Its evil also is twofold; the one arising from an association with terrestrial natures, but the other from doing this with an excess of the passions. Hence, all the political virtues which liberate the soul from one evil may be denominated virtues, and are honourable. But the cathartic are more honourable, and liberate it from evil, so far as it is soul. It is necessary, therefore, that the soul, when purified, should associate with its generator. Hence, the virtue of it, after its conversion, consists in a scientific knowledge of (true) being; but this will not be the case, unless conversion precedes. There is, therefore, another genus of virtues after the cathartic and political, and which are the virtues of the soul energizing intellectually. And here, indeed, wisdom and prudence consist in the contemplation of those things which intellect possesses. But [ 916 ]

justice consists in performing what is appropriate in conformity to, and energizing according to intellect. Temperance is an inward conversion of the soul to intellect. And fortitude is apathy, according to a similitude of that to which the soul looks, and which is naturally impassive. These virtues also, in the same manner as the others, alternately follow each other. The fourth species of the virtues is that of the paradigms subsisting in intellect: which are more excellent than the psychical virtues, and exist as the paradigms of these; the virtues of the soul being the similitudes of them. And intellect indeed is that in which all things subsist at once as paradigms. Here, therefore, prudence is science; but intellect that knows (all things) is wisdom. Temperance is that which is converted to itself. The proper work of intellect, is the performance of its appropriate duty (and this is justice). But fortitude is sameness and the abiding with purity in itself, through an abundance of power. There are therefore four genera of virtues; of which, indeed, some pertain to intellect, concur with the essence of it, and are paradigmatic. Others pertain to soul now looking to intellect, and being filled from it. Others belong to the soul of man, purifying itself, and becoming purified from the body and the irrational passions. And others are the virtues of the soul of man, adorning the man, through giving measure and bound to the irrational nature, and producing moderation in the passions. And he indeed who has the greater virtues, has also necessarily the less; but the contrary is not true, that he who has the less, has also the greater virtues. Nor will he who possesses the greater, energize precedaneously according to the less, but only so far as the necessities of the mortal nature require. The scope also, of the virtues is as we have said, generically different in the different virtues. For the scope of the political virtues, is to give measure to the passions in their practical energies according to nature. But the scope of the cathartic virtues, is entirely to obliterate the remembrance of the passions; and the scope of the rest subsists analogously to what has been before said. Hence he who energizes according to the practical virtues, is a worthy man; but he who energizes according to the cathartic virtues, is an angelic man, or is also a good daemon. He who energizes according to the intellectual virtues alone, is a God; but he who energizes according to the paradigmatic virtues, is the father of the Gods. We, therefore, ought especially to pay attention to the cathartic virtues, since we may obtain these in the present life. But through these, the ascent is to the more honourable virtues. Hence, it is requisite to survey to what degree purification may be extended; for it is a separation from body, and from the passive motion of the irrational part. But how this may be effected, and to what extent, must now be unfolded. In the first place, indeed, it is necessary that he who intends to acquire this purification, should, as the foundation and basis of it, know himself to be a soul bound [ 917 ]

in a foreign thing, and in a different essence. In the second place, as that which is raised from this foundation, he should collect himself from the body, and as it were from different places, so as to be disposed in a manner perfectly impassive with respect to the body. For he who energizes uninterruptedly according to sense, though he may not do this with an adhering affection and the enjoyment resulting from pleasure, yet, at the same time, his attention is dissipated about the body, in consequence of becoming through sense  in contact with it. But we are addicted to the pleasures or pains of sensibles; in conjunction with a promptitude, and converging sympathy; from which disposition it is requisite to be purified. This, however, will he effected by admitting necessary pleasures, and the sensations of them, merely as remedies, or as a liberation from pain, in order that (the rational part) may not be impeded (in its energies). Pain also must be taken away. But if this is not possible, it must be mildly diminished. And it will be diminished, if the soul is not co-passive with it. Anger, likewise, must as much as possible be taken away; and must by no means be premeditated. But if it cannot be entirely removed, deliberate choice must not be mingled with it, but the unpremeditated motion must be the impulse of the irrational part. That however which is unpremeditated is imbecile and small. All fear likewise must be expelled. For he who is adapted to this purification will fear nothing. Here, however, if it should take place, it will be unpremeditated. Anger therefore and fear must be used for the purpose of admonition. But the desire of everything base must be exterminated. Such a one also, so far as he is a cathartic philosopher, will not desire meats and drinks (except so far as they are necessary). Neither must there be the unpremeditated in natural venereal connexions; but if this should take place, it must only be as far as to that precipitate imagination which energizes in sleep. In short, the intellectual soul itself of the purified man must be liberated from all these (corporeal propensities). He must likewise endeavour, that what is moved to the irrational nature of corporeal passions, may be moved without sympathy, and without animadversion; so that the motions themselves may be immediately dissolved through their vicinity to the reasoning power. This, however, will not take place while the purification is proceeding to its perfection; but will happen to those in whom reason rules without opposition. Hence, in these, the inferior part will so venerate reason that it will be indignant if it is at all moved, in consequence of not being quiet when its master is present, and will reprove itself for its imbecility. These, however, are yet only moderations of the passions, but at length terminate in apathy. For when co-passivity is entirely exterminated, then apathy is present with him who is purified from this passivity. For passion becomes moved when reason imparts excitation, through verging (to the irrational nature).

[ 918 ]

[35] Τὸ ὄγκῳ μεῖζον δυνάμει ἔλαττον, συγκρινόμενον οὐ πρὸς τὰ ὅμοια γένη, πρὸς δὲ τὰ κατ’ εἶδος ἐξηλλαγμένα δι’ ἑτερότητα οὐσίας· οἷον γὰρ ἔκβασις ἦν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ὁ ὄγκος καὶ κατακερματισμὸς τῆς δυνάμεως. τὸ ἄρα δυνάμει ὑπερέχον ὄγκου παντὸς ἀλλότριον· πεπλήρωται γὰρ ἑαυτῆς ἡ δύναμις εἰς ἑαυτὴν κεχωρηκυῖα, καὶ ἑαυτὴν δυναμοῦσα τὸ οἰκεῖον κέκτηται κράτος. διόπερ τὸ σῶμα προελθὸν εἰς ὄγκον τοσοῦτον ἀφέστηκεν ἐν ἐλαττώσει δυνάμεως τῆς τοῦ ἀσωμάτου ὄντως ὄντος δυνάμεως, ὅσον τὸ ὄντως ὂν ἐν ὄγκῳ οὐκ ἐκενώθη, μένον ἐν μεγέθει τῆς αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸ ἄογκον δυνάμεως. ὡς οὖν τὸ ὄντως ὂν πρὸς ὄγκον ἀμέγεθες καὶ ἄογκον, οὕτω τὸ σωματικὸν πρὸς τὸ ὄντως ὂν ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀδύναμον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ μεγέθει δυνάμεως μέγιστον ὄγκου ‹ἀλλότριον, τὸ δὲ μεγέθει ὄγκου μέγιστον δυνάμεως› λειπόμενον. ὥστε πανταχοῦ ὢν ὁ κόσμος πανταχοῦ ὄντι τῷ ὄντι, ὡς λέγεται πανταχοῦ εἶναι, ἐντυγχάνων περιλαβεῖν τὸ μέγεθος τῆς δυνάμεως οὐ δύναται, ἐντυγχάνει δὲ οὐ μεριστῶς συνόντι, ἀλλ’ ἀμεγέθως καὶ ἀόγκως. ἡ οὖν παρουσία οὐ τοπική, ἐξομοιωτικὴ δέ, καθ’ ὅσον οἷόν τε σῶμα ὁμοιοῦσθαι ἀσωμάτῳ καὶ ἀσώματον θεωρεῖσθαι ἐν σώματι ὁμοιουμένῳ αὐτῷ. καὶ οὐ πάρεστιν οὖν τὸ ἀσώματον, καθ’ ὅσον ὁμοιοῦσθαι τὸ ἔνυλον τῷ καθαρῶς ἀύλῳ οὐχ οἷόν τε, καὶ πάρεστι, καθ’ ὅσον ὁμοιοῦσθαι δύναται τὸ σωματικὸν τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ. οὐ μὴν ἑνοῦται διὰ τῆς καταδοχῆς· ἐφθάρη γὰρ ἂν ἑκάτερον, τὸ μὲν ἔνυλον δεξάμενον τὸ ἄυλον διὰ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸ μεταβολῆς, τὸ δὲ ἄυλον γεγονὸς ἔνυλον. ὁμοιώσεις οὖν καὶ μετοχαὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δυνάμεων καὶ ἀδυναμιῶν εἰς τὰ οὕτως ἑτεροούσια φοιτῶσι παρ’ ἀλλήλων εἰς ἄλληλα. πολὺ ἄρα τὸ ἀπὸν τῷ μὲν κόσμῳ τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ ὄντος, τῷ δὲ ὄντι τῆς ἀδυναμίας τοῦ ἐνύλου· τὸ δ’ ἐν μέσῳ ὁμοιοῦν καὶ ὁμοιούμενον καὶ συνάπτον τὰ ἄκρα ταυτὶ γέγονεν αἴτιον τῆς περὶ τὰ ἄκρα ἀπάτης διὰ τὸ τῇ ὁμοιώσει προστιθέναι τῷ ἑτέρῳ τὰ ἕτερα. [35] Everything which is situated somewhere, is there situated according to its own nature, and not preternaturally. For body, therefore, which subsists in matter and bulk, to be somewhere is to be in place. Hence, for the body of the world, which is material and has bulk, to be every where is to be extended with interval, and to subsist in the place of interval. But a subsistence in place is not at all present with the intelligible world, nor, in short, with that which is immaterial, and essentially incorporeal, because it is without bulk, and without interval; so that the ubiquity of an incorporeal nature is not local. Hence, neither will one part of it be here, but another there; for if this were the case, it would not be out of place, nor without interval; but wherever it is, the whole of it is there. Nor is it indeed in this, but not in another place; for thus it would be comprehended by one place, but separated from another. Nor is it remote from this thing, but near to that; in the same manner as remoteness and nearness are asserted of things which are adapted to be in place, according to the measures of intervals. Hence, the sensible is present, indeed, with the intelligible world, according to interval, but (a truly) incorporeal nature is present with the world impartibly, and unaccompanied by interval. The impartible, likewise, when it is in that which has interval, is wholly in every [ 919 ]

part of it, being one and the same in number (in every part of it). That which is impartible, therefore, and without multitude, becomes extended into magnitude, and multiplied, when intimately connected with that which is naturally multitudinous, and endued with magnitude; and thus the latter receives the former in such a way as it is adapted to receive it, and not such as the former truly is. But that which is partible and multitudinous, is received by that which is naturally impartible and without multitude, impartibly and non-multitudinously, and after this manner is present with it; i.e., the impartible is present impartibly, without plurality, and without a subsistence in place, conformably to its own nature, with that which is partible, and which is naturally multitudinous, and exists in place. But that which is partible, multiplied, and in place, is present with the impartible essence, partibly, multitudinously, and locally. Hence, it is necessary, in the survey of these natures, to preserve and not confound the peculiarities of each; or rather, we should not imagine or opine of that which is incorporeal, such properties as pertain to bodies, or any thing of the like kind. For no one would ascribe to bodies the peculiarities of a genuinely incorporeal essence. For all of us are familiar with bodies; but the knowledge of incorporeal natures is attainable by us with great difficulty; because, through not being able to behold them intuitively, we are involved in doubt about their nature; and this takes place as long as we are under the dominion of imagination. Thus, therefore, you should say, - if that which is in place, is out of, or has departed from itself, through having proceeded into bulk, that which is intelligible is not in place, and is in itself, because it has not proceeded into corporeal extension. Hence, if the former is an image, the latter is an archetype. And the former, indeed, derives its being through the intelligible; but the latter subsists in (and through) itself. For every (physical) image is the image of intellect. It is also requisite that, calling to mind the peculiarities of both these, we should not wonder at the discrepance which takes place in their congress with each other; if, in short, it is proper on this occasion to use the word congress. For we are not now surveying the congress of bodies, but of things which are entirely distinct from each other, according to peculiarity of hypostasis. Hence, also, this congress is different from everything which is usually surveyed in things essentially the same. Neither, therefore, is it temperament, or mixture, or conjunction, or apposition, but subsists in a way different from all these; appearing, indeed, in all the mutual participations of consubstantial natures, in whatever way this may be effected; but transcending everything that falls under the apprehension of sense. Hence, an intelligible essence is wholly present without interval, with all the parts of that which has interval, though they should happen to be infinite in number. Nor is it present distributed into parts, giving a part to a part; nor being multiplied, does it [ 920 ]

multitudinously impart itself to multitude; but it is wholly present with the parts of that which is extended into bulk, and with each individual of the multitude, and all the bulk impartibly, and without plurality, and as numerically one. But it pertains to those natures to enjoy it partibly, and in a distributed manner, whose power is dissipated into different parts. And to these it frequently happens, that through a defect of their own nature, they counterfeit an intelligible essence; so that doubts arise respecting that essence, which appears to have passed from its own nature into theirs. [36] Τὸ ὄντως ὂν πολλὰ λέγεται οὐ τόποις διαφόροις οὐδὲ ὄγκου μέτροις, οὐ σωρείᾳ, οὐ μερῶν μερισταῖς περιγραφαῖς ἢ διαλήψεσιν, ἀλλ’ ἑτερότητι ἀύλῳ καὶ ἀόγκῳ καὶ ἀπληθύντῳ κατὰ πλῆθος διῃρημένον. διὸ καὶ ἕν· καὶ οὐκ ὡς ἓν σῶμα οὐδ’ ὡς ἓν τόπῳ οὐδ’ ὡς εἷς ὄγκος, ἀλλὰ ἓν πολλά, ὅτι καθ’ ὃ ἓν ἕτερον. καὶ ἡ ἑτερότης αὐτοῦ διῄρηται καὶ ἥνωται· οὐ γὰρ ἔξωθεν ἐπίκτητος οὐδὲ ἐπεισοδιώδης αὐτοῦ ἡ ἑτερότης· οὐδὲ ἄλλου μεθέξει, ἀλλ’ ἑαυτῷ πολλά. ταῖς γὰρ πάσαις ἐνεργείαις ἐνεργεῖ μένον ὃ ἔστιν, ὅτι τὴν πᾶσαν ἑτερότητα διὰ τῆς ταυτότητος ὑπέστησεν, οὐκ ἐν διαφορότητι θατέρου πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον θεωρουμένην καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων. ἐπὶ τούτων μὲν γὰρ ἀνάπαλιν καὶ ἡ ἑνότης ἐν ἑτερότητι, ὡς ἂν προηγουμένης μὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς τῆς ἑτερότητος, ἔξωθεν δὲ καὶ ἐπεισοδιώδους τῆς ἑνότητος ἐγγενομένης· ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῦ ὄντος ἡ μὲν ἑνότης προηγεῖται καὶ ἡ ταυτότης, ἡ δὲ ἑτερότης ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεργητικὴν εἶναι τὴν ἑνότητα γέγονε. διόπερ ἐκεῖνο μὲν ἐν ἀμερεῖ πεπλήθυνται, τοῦτο δὲ ἐν πλήθει καὶ ὄγκῳ ἥνωται· κἀκεῖνο μὲν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἵδρυται, καθ’ ἓν ὂν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ οὐκ ἐξιστάμενον, τοῦτο δὲ οὐδέποτε ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ὡς ἂν ἐν ἐκστάσει λαβὸν τὴν ὑπόστασιν. τὸ μὲν ἄρα ἓν παντενέργητον, τὸ δὲ πλῆθος ἑνιζόμενον. πιέζειν οὖν δεῖ, πῶς ἓν ἐκεῖνο καὶ ἕτερον, καὶ πῶς πάλιν τοῦτο πλῆθος καὶ ἕν, καὶ μὴ ἐπαλλάττειν τὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἴδια εἰς τὰ θατέρῳ προσόντα. [36] Truly-existing being is neither great nor small, for magnitude and parvitude are properly the peculiarities of bulk. But true being transcends both magnitude and parvitude; and is above the greatest, and above the least; and is numerically one and the same, though it is found to be simultaneously participated by everything that is greatest, and everything that is least. You must not, therefore, conceive of it as something which is greatest; as you will then be dubious how, being that which is greatest, it is present with the smallest masses without being diminished or contracted. Nor must you conceive of it as something which is least; since you will thus again be dubious how, being that which is least, it is present with the greatest masses without being multiplied or increased, or without receiving addition. But at one and the same time receiving into the greatest magnitude that which transcends the greatest bulk, and into the least magnitude that which transcends the least, you will be able to conceive how the same thing, abiding in itself, may be simultaneously seen in any causal magnitude, and in infinite multitudes and corporeal masses. For according to its own peculiarity, it is present with the magnitude of the world impartibly and without magnitude. It also [ 921 ]

antecedes the bulk of the world, and comprehends every part of it in its own impartibility; just as, vice versa, the world, by its multitude of parts, is multifariously present, as far as it is able, with truly existing being, yet cannot comprehend it, neither with the whole of its bulk, nor the whole of its power; but meets with it in all its parts as that which is infinite, and cannot be passed beyond; and this both in other respects, and because truly-existing being is entirely free from all corporeal extension. [37] Οὐ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν σωμάτων δεῖ νομίζειν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ψυχῶν γενέσθαι, πρὸ δὲ τῶν σωμάτων εἶναι καὶ πολλὰς καὶ μίαν, οὔτε τῆς μιᾶς καὶ ὅλης κωλυούσης τὰς πολλὰς ἐν αὐτῇ εἶναι οὔτε τῶν πολλῶν τὴν μίαν εἰς αὐτὰς μεριζουσῶν. διέστησαν γὰρ οὐκ ἀποκοπεῖσαι οὐδὲ ἀποκερματίσασαι εἰς ἑαυτὰς τὴν ὅλην, καὶ πάρεισιν ἀλλήλαις οὐ συγκεχυμέναι οὐδὲ σωρὸν ποιοῦσαι τὴν ὅλην· οὔτε γὰρ πέρασίν εἰσι διειλημμέναι οὔτε πάλιν ἀλλήλαις συγκεχυμέναι, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἐπιστῆμαι συνεχύθησαν αἱ πολλαὶ ἐν ψυχῇ μιᾷ καὶ πάλιν οὐκ ἔγκεινται ὡς τὰ σώματα τῇ ψυχῇ ἑτεροουσίως, ἀλλὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ποιαὶ ἦσαν ἐνέργειαι. Ἀπειροδύναμος γὰρ ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς φύσις καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστον τὸ τυχὸν αὐτῆς ψυχή, καὶ αἱ πᾶσαι μία καὶ πάλιν ἡ ὅλη ἄλλη παρὰ πάσας. ὡς γὰρ τὰ σώματα ἐπ’ ἄπειρον τεμνόμενα οὐ καταλήγει εἰς ἀσώματον, κατ’ ὄγκον λαμβανόντων τῶν τμημάτων τὴν διαφοράν, οὕτω ψυχὴ εἶδος οὖσα ζωτικὸν ἐπ’ ἄπειρον κατὰ τὰ εἴδη συνείληπται, παραλλαγὰς ἔχουσα εἰδητικὰς καὶ ἡ ὅλη σὺν ταύταις οὖσα καὶ ἄνευ τούτων· ἡ γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς οἷον τομὴ ἑτερότης ἦν μενούσης τῆς ταυτότητος. εἰ δ’ ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων, ἐφ’ ὧν ἡ ἑτερότης ἐκράτει μᾶλλον τῆς ταυτότητος, οὐδὲν ἐπεισελθὸν ἀσώματον διέκοψε τὴν ἕνωσιν, μένει δὲ πάντα ἡνωμένα μὲν κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν, ταῖς δὲ ποιότησι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις εἴδεσι διειλημμένα, τί χρὴ καὶ λέγειν καὶ ὑπονοεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς εἰδικῆς ἀσωμάτου ζωῆς, ἐφ’ ἧς ἡ ταυτότης μᾶλλον κεκράτηκε τῆς ἑτερότητος καὶ οὐδὲν ὑπόκειται ἀλλοῖον παρὰ τὸ εἶδος - ἀφ’ ἧς καὶ τοῖς σώμασιν ἡ ἑνότης - οὐδὲ σῶμα συνεμπεσὸν ἀποκόπτει τὴν ἕνωσιν, καίπερ πρὸς τὰς ἐνεργείας ἐν πολλοῖς ἐμποδίζον; αὐτὴ δι’ αὐτὴν ἡ ταυτότης αὐτῆς πάντα ποιεῖ καὶ εὑρίσκει διὰ τῆς ἐπ’ ἄπειρον εἰδητικῆς ἐνεργείας, τοῦ τυχόντος μέρους πάντα δυναμένου ὅταν σωμάτων καθαρεύῃ, ὡς τὸ τυχὸν μέρος τοῦ σπέρματος τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σπέρματος ἔχει δύναμιν. Ὥσπερ δὲ κρατηθὲν ἐν ὕλῃ τι σπέρμα καθ’ ἕκαστον ὧν ἐδύνατο λόγων ἐν τοῖς μέρεσι τῇ ὕλῃ κρατεῖται καὶ πάλιν συναχθὲν εἰς τὴν τοῦ σπέρματος δύναμιν καθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν ἔχει τὴν πᾶσαν δύναμιν, οὕτω καὶ ψυχῆς ἀύλου τὸ ὡς μέρος ἐπινοούμενον τῆς πάσης ψυχῆς ἔχει τὴν δύναμιν. τὸ δὲ πρὸς ὕλην ῥέψαν κεκράτηται μὲν καθ’ ὃ εἶδος ῥέψαν ἐπιτηδείως ἔσχε προσομιλεῖν ἐνύλῳ, ἔχει δὲ τὴν τῆς ὅλης δύναμιν ἤδη καὶ ἐντυγχάνει οὔσῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ὅταν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνύλου ἀποστὰν ἐν ἑαυτῷ γένηται. ἐπεὶ δὲ πρὸς μὲν ὕλην ῥεπούσῃ ἀπορία πάντων καὶ τῆς οἰκείας δυνάμεως κένωσις, εἰς δὲ τὸν νοῦν ἀναγομένη τὸ πλῆρες αὐτῆς κατὰ ‹τὸ› τὴν δύναμιν ἔχειν τῆς πάσης εὑρίσκετο, τὴν μὲν εἰκότως Πενίαν, τὴν δὲ Πόρον οἱ τοῦτο πρῶτον γνόντες τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ πάθος ᾐνίξαντο.

[ 922 ]

[37] That which is greater in bulk, is less in power when compared, not with things of a similar kind, but with those that are of a different species, or of a different essence. For bulk is, as it were, the departure of a thing from itself, and a division of power into the smallest parts. Hence, that which transcends in power, is foreign from all bulk. For power proceeding into itself, is filled with itself, and, by corroborating itself, obtains its proper strength; on which account, body proceeding into bulk through a diminution of power, is as much remote from truly incorporeal being, as that which truly exists is from being exhausted by bulk; for the latter abides in the magnitude of the same power, through an exemption from bulk. As, therefore, truly existing being is, with reference to a corporeal mass, without magnitude and without bulk; thus also, that which is corporeal is, with reference to truly-existing being, imbecile and powerless. For that which is greatest by magnitude of power, is exempt from all bulk; so that the world existing every where, and, as it is said, meeting with real being which is truly every where, is not able to comprehend the magnitude of its power. It meets, however, with true being, which is not partibly present with it, but is present without magnitude, and without any definite limitation. The presence, therefore, of truly-existing being with the world, is not local, but assimilative, so far as it is possible for body to be assimilated to that which is incorporeal, and for that which is incorporeal to be surveyed in a body assimilated to it. Hence, an incorporeal nature is not present with body so far as it is not possible for that which is material to be assimilated to a perfectly immaterial nature; and it is present, so far as a corporeal can be assimilated to an incorporeal essence. Nevertheless, this is not effected through reception; since, if it were, each would be corrupted. For the material, indeed, in receiving the immaterial nature, would be corrupted, through being changed into it; and the immaterial essence would become material. Assimilations, therefore, and participations of powers, and the deficiency of power, proceed from things which are thus different in essence from each other, into each other. The world, therefore, is very far from possessing the power of real being; and real being is very remote from the imbecility of a material nature. But that which subsists between these, assimilating and being assimilated, and conjoining the extremes to each other, becomes the cause of deception about the extremes, in consequence of applying, through the assimilation, the one to the other. [38] Παραστῆσαι βουλόμενοι ὡς ἐνδέχεται διὰ λόγου [παραστῆσαι] τὴν τοῦ ὄντος [ἀσωμάτου] ἰδιότητα οἱ παλαιοί, ὅταν αὐτὸ ‘ἓν’ εἴπωσι, προστιθέασιν εὐθὺς ‘πάντα’, καθ’ ὃ ἕν τι τῶν κατ’ αἴσθησιν συνεγνωσμένων· ὅταν δὲ ἀλλοῖον τὸ ἓν τοῦτο ὑπονοήσωμεν, οὐχ ὁρῶντες ἐπὶ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ τὸ ὅλον τοῦτο ἓν πάντα καθ’ ὃ ἕν, τῷ πάντα αὐτὸ [ἓν] εἶναι συνῆψαν τὸ ‘ἓν καθ’ ὃ ἕν’, ἵνα ἀσύνθετόν τι νοήσωμεν τὸ πάντα εἶναι ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄντος καὶ σωρείας ἀποστῶμεν. καὶ ὅταν [δὲ] πανταχοῦ αὐτὸ εἶναι εἴπωσι, προστιθέασιν ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ· ὅταν δὲ ἐν πᾶσιν εἶναι καὶ ἐν παντὶ [ 923 ]

τῷ ἐπιτηδείως αὐτὸ δέχεσθαι δυναμένῳ μεριστῷ, προστιθέασιν ὅτι ἐν ὅλῳ ὅλον. καὶ ὅλως διὰ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων αὐτὸ δεδηλώκασιν, ἅμα ταῦτα λαμβάνοντες, ἵνα τὰς ἀναπλαστικὰς ἀπὸ σωμάτων ἐξορίσωμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπινοίας, αἳ παρασκιάζουσι τὰς γνωριστικὰς ἰδιότητας τοῦ ὄντος. [38] Truly-existing being is said to be many things, not by a subsistence in different places, nor in the measures of bulk, nor by coacervation, nor by the circumscriptions or comprehensions  of divisible parts, but by a difference which is immaterial, without bulk, and without plurality, and which is divided according to multitude. Hence, also, it is one; not as one body, nor as one place; nor as one bulk; nor as one which is in many things; because it is different so far as it is one, and its difference is both divided and united. For its difference is not externally acquired, nor adscititious, nor obtained through the participation of something else, but it is many things from itself. For, remaining one, it energizes with all energies, because, through sameness, it constitutes all difference; not being surveyed in the difference of one thing with respect to another, as is the case in bodies. For, on the contrary, in these, unity subsists in difference; because diversity has in them a precedaneous existence; but the unity which they contain is externally and adscititiously derived. For in truly-existing being, indeed, unity, and sameness precede; but difference is generated from this unity, being energetic. Hence, true being is multiplied in impartiality; but body is united in multitude and bulk. The former also is established in itself subsisting in itself according to unity; but the latter is never in itself, because it receives its hypostasis in an extension of existence. The former, therefore, is an all-energetic one; but the latter is a united multitude. Hence, it is requisite to explore how the former is one and different; and again, how the latter is multitude and one. Nor must we transfer the peculiarities of the one to those which pertain to the other. [39] Τὰ κατηγορούμενα τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ ἐνύλου ἀληθῶς ἐστι ταῦτα· τὸ πάντῃ εἶναι πεφορημένον, τὸ μεταβλητὸν εἶναι, τὸ ὑφεστάναι ἐν ἑτερότητι, τὸ σύνθετον εἶναι, τὸ καθ’ αὑτὸ λυτὸν ὑπάρχειν, τὸ ἐν τόπῳ, τὸ ἐν ὄγκῳ θεωρεῖσθαι καὶ ὅσα τούτοις παραπλήσια. τοῦ δὲ ὄντως ὄντος καὶ καθ’ αὑτὸ ὑφεστηκότος ἀύλου τὸ εἶναι ἀεὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἱδρυμένον, τὸ ὡσαύτως κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχειν, τὸ ἐν ταυτότητι οὐσιῶσθαι, τὸ ἀμετάβλητον εἶναι κατ’ οὐσίαν, τὸ ἀσύνθετον, τὸ μήτε λυτὸν μήτε ἐν τόπῳ εἶναι μήτε εἰς ὄγκον διαπεφορῆσθαι, τὸ μήτε γινόμενον μήτε ἀπολλύμενον εἶναι καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ὅμοια· ὧν ἐχομένους δεῖ μηδὲν ἐπαλλάττοντας περὶ τῆς διαφόρου αὐτῶν φύσεως καὶ αὐτοὺς λέγειν καὶ ἄλλων λεγόντων ἐπακούειν. [39] It is not proper to think that the multitude of souls was generated on account of the multitude of bodies; but it is necessary to admit that, prior to bodies, there were many souls, and one soul (the cause of the many). Nor does the one and whole soul prevent the subsistence in it of many souls; nor do the multitude of souls distribute by [ 924 ]

division the one soul into themselves. For they are distinct from, but are not abscinded from the soul, which ranks as a whole; nor do they distribute into minute parts this whole soul into themselves. They are also present with each other without confusion; nor do they produce the whole soul by coacervation. For they are not separated from each other by any boundaries; nor, again, are they confused with each other; just as neither are many sciences confused in one soul (by which they are possessed). For these sciences do not subsist in the soul like bodies, as things of a different essence from it; but they are certain energies of the soul. For the nature of soul possesses an infinite power. Everything also that occurs in it is soul; and all souls are (in a certain respect) one; and again, the soul which ranks as a whole is different from all the rest. For as bodies, though divided to infinity, do not end in that which is incorporeal, but alone receive a difference of segments according to bulk; thus also soul, being a vital form, may be conceived to consist of forms ad infinitum. For it possesses specific differences, and the whole of it subsists together with or without these. For if there is in the soul that which is, as it were, a part divided from the rest of the parts, yet, at the same time that there is difference, the sameness remains. If, however, in bodies, in which difference predominates over sameness, nothing incorporeal when it accedes cuts off the union, but all the parts remain essentially united, and are divided by qualities and other forms; what ought we to assert and conceive of a specific incorporeal life, in which sameness is more prevalent than difference; to which nothing foreign to form is subjected, and from which the union of bodies is derived? Nor does body, when it becomes connected with soul, cut off its union, though it is an impediment to its energies in many respects. But the sameness of soul produces and discovers all things through itself, through its specific energy, which proceeds to infinity; since any part of it whatever is capable of effecting all things, when it is liberated and purified from a conjunction with bodies; just as any part of seed possesses the power of the whole seed. As, however, seed, when it is united with matter, predominates over it, according to each of the productive principles which the seeds contain; and all the seed, its power being collected into one, possesses the whole of its power in each of the parts; thus also, in the immaterial soul, that which may be conceived as a part, has the power of the whole soul. But that part of it which verges to matter is vanquished, indeed, by the form to which it verges, and yet is adapted to associate with immaterial form, though it is connected with matter, when withdrawing itself from a material nature, it is converted to itself. Since, however, through verging to matter, it becomes in want of all things, and suffers an emptiness of its proper power; but when it is elevated to intellect, is found to possess a plenitude of all its powers; hence those who first obtained a knowledge of this

[ 925 ]

plenitude of the soul, very properly indicated its emptiness by calling it poverty, and its fullness by denominating it satiety. [40] Ὅταν λάβῃς ἀένναον οὐσίαν ἐν ἑαυτῇ κατὰ δύναμιν ἄπειρον καὶ νοεῖν ἄρξῃ ὑπόστασιν ἀκάματον, ἄτρυτον, οὐδαμῇ μὲν ἐλλείπουσαν, ὑπερεξαίρουσαν δὲ τῇ ζωῇ τῇ ἀκραιφνεστάτῃ καὶ πλήρει ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς ἐν αὐτῇ τε ἱδρυμένῃ καὶ κεκορεσμένῃ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς καὶ οὐδ’ ἑαυτὴν ζητούσῃ, ταύτῃ ἐάνπερ τὸ ποῦ ἐπιβάλῃς ἢ τὸ πρός τι, ἅμα τῷ ἠλαττῶσθαι ἐξ ἐνδείας τοῦ ποῦ ἢ πρός τι εὐθὺς ἐκείνην μὲν οὐκ ἠλάττωσας, ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἀπέστρεψας, κάλυμμα λαβὼν τὴν ὑποδραμοῦσαν τῆς ὑπονοίας φαντασίαν. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ ὑπερβήσῃ παρελθὼν τὴν τοιαύτην οὐδ’ αὖ στήσεις οὐδ’ ἀπαρτήσεις οὐδὲ καταλήξεις εἰς μικρόν, ὡς οὐκέτι ἐχούσης διδόναι ἐν τῷ κατὰ μικρὸν ἐπιλείπειν· ἀδιάλειπτος γὰρ μᾶλλον ἢ πᾶς πηγῶν τὸ ἀεὶ χεόμενον νοῶν καὶ ἀδιάλειπτον. ἢ συνθέειν οὖν δυνηθεὶς καὶ τῷ παντὶ ὁμοιωθῆναι τοῦ ὄντος οὐδὲν ἐπιζητήσεις, ἢ ζητῶν παρεκβήσῃ ‹εἰς ἄλλο καὶ πεσῇ παρὸν οὐκ ἰδὼν τῷ› εἰς ἄλλο βλέψαι. εἰ δ’ οὐδὲν ἐπιζητήσεις στὰς ἐπὶ σαυτοῦ καὶ τῆς σαυτοῦ οὐσίας, τῷ παντὶ ὡμοιώθης καὶ οὐκ ἐνεσχέθης ἔν τινι τῶν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ· οὐδ’ εἶπας οὐδὲ σύ ‘τοσοῦτός εἰμι’, ἀφεὶς ‹δὲ› τὸ ‘τοσοῦτος’ γέγονας πᾶς· καίτοι καὶ πρότερον ἦσθα πᾶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλο τι προσῆν σοι μετὰ τοῦ ‘πᾶς’ καὶ ἐλάττων ἐγίνου τῇ προσθήκῃ, ὅτι μὴ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ἦν ἡ προσθήκη· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐκείνῳ προσθήσεις. ὅταν οὖν τις καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γένηται, οὐ πᾶς, τῇ πενίᾳ σύνοικος καὶ ἐνδεὴς πάντων· ἀφεὶς οὖν τὸ μὴ ὄν, τότε πᾶς, κόρος αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ· ὥστε ἀπολαμβάνει δ’ ἑαυτὸν ἀφεὶς τὰ ταπεινώσαντα καὶ κατασμικρύναντα - καὶ μάλιστα, ὅταν ἐκεῖνα εἶναι αὑτὸν τὰ σμικρὰ τῇ φύσει καὶ οὐχ ὅστις ἐστὶν αὐτὸς τῇ ἀληθείᾳ δοξάζῃ· ἀπέστη γὰρ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἅμα καὶ ἀπέστη τοῦ ὄντος - κἂν στῇ τις ἐν αὐτῷ παρὼν παρόντι, τότε παρῆν καὶ τῷ ὄντι πανταχοῦ ὄντι· ὅταν δὲ ἀφεὶς αὑτὸν ‹ἀποστῇ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ,› ἀπέστη κἀκείνου. τοιαύτην γὰρ ἀξίαν εἴληφε παρεῖναι τῷ αὐτῷ παρόντι καὶ ἀπεῖναι τῷ αὐτοῦ ἐκστάντι. εἰ δὲ ‹παροῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς› πάρεστι μὲν ἡμῖν τὸ ὄν, ἄπεστι δὲ τὸ μὴ ὄν, μετὰ δὲ ἄλλων οὖσιν οὐ πάρεστιν, οὐκ ἦλθεν ἵνα παρῇ, ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς ἀπήλθομεν ὅτε οὐ πάρεστι. καὶ τί θαυμαστόν; αὐτὸς γάρ σοι παρὼν οὐκ ἀπῆς αὐτοῦ· καὶ οὐ πάρει σαυτῷ καίπερ παρὼν καὶ αὐτὸς ὢν ὁ παρών τε καὶ ἀπών, ὅταν πρὸς ἄλλα βλέπῃς παρεὶς σαυτὸν βλέπειν. εἰ δ’ οὕτω σαυτῷ παρὼν οὐ πάρει καὶ διὰ τοῦτο σαυτὸν ἀγνοεῖς καὶ πάντα μᾶλλον † εις πάρει καὶ † πόρρω σου ὄντα εὑρίσκεις ἢ σαυτὸν σαυτῷ φύσει παρόντα, τί θαυμάζεις, εἰ τὸ οὐ παρὸν πόρρω σοῦ ἐστι τοῦ πόρρω αὐτοῦ διὰ τὸ καὶ σαυτοῦ πόρρω γεγονότος; ‹αὐτὸς γὰρ ὅσῳ πρόσει σοι› [ὅσῳ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ πρόσει] καίτοι παρόντι καὶ ἀναποστάτῳ ὄντι, [αὐτὸς γὰρ ὅσῳ πρόσεισι] τόσῳ κἀκείνῳ πρόσει, ὃ δὴ οὕτω σοῦ ἐστιν ἀναπόσπαστον κατ’ οὐσίαν ὡς σὺ σαυτοῦ· ὥστε καὶ πάρεστί σοι καθόλου γινώσκειν, τί τε πάρεστι τῷ ὄντι καὶ τί ἄπεστι τοῦ ὄντος παρόντος πανταχοῦ καὶ πάλιν ὄντος οὐδαμοῦ. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ δυναμένοις χωρεῖν εἰς τὴν αὑτῶν οὐσίαν νοερῶς καὶ τὴν αὑτῶν γινώσκειν οὐσίαν ‹καὶ› ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ γνώσει καὶ τῇ εἰδήσει τῆς γνώσεως αὑτοὺς ἀπολαμβάνειν καθ’ ἑνότητα τὴν τοῦ γινώσκοντος καὶ γινωσκομένου, [καὶ] τούτοις παροῦσιν αὐτοῖς πάρεστι καὶ τὸ ὄν· ὅσοι δ’ ἂν παρεξέλθωσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἶναι ἑαυτῶν πρὸς τὰ ἄλλα, ἀποῦσιν ἑαυτῶν ἄπεστι καὶ τὸ ὄν. [ 926 ]

Εἰ δ’ ἡμεῖς ἐπεφύκειμεν ἱδρῦσθαι ἐν τῇ αὑτῶν οὐσίᾳ καὶ πλουτεῖν ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν καὶ μὴ ἀπέρχεσθαι πρὸς ὃ μὴ ἦμεν καὶ πένεσθαι ἑαυτῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πάλιν τῇ πενίᾳ συνεῖναι καίπερ παρόντος κόρου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος οὐ τόπῳ, οὐκ οὐσίᾳ κεχωρισμένοι οὐδ’ ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἀποτετμημένοι τῇ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ὂν στροφῇ χωριζόμεθα, δίκην ἄρα ταύτην ἀποτίννυμεν τῇ τοῦ ὄντος ἀποστροφῇ αὐτοὺς ἀποστρεφόμενοι καὶ ἀγνοοῦντες, καίτοι πάλιν ἐν τῇ αὑτῶν φιλίᾳ ἑαυτούς τε ἀπολαμβάνοντες καὶ τῷ θεῷ συναπτόμενοι. καὶ ὀρθῶς ἄρα εἴρηται, ὡς ἔν τινι φρουρᾷ ἀποδιδράσκοντα, λύειν δὲ ἐκ τῶν δεσμῶν πειρᾶσθαι, ὡς ἄν του πρὸς τὰ τῇδε ἐστραμμένου καὶ ἑαυτὸν θεῖον ὄντα καταλελοιπότος, ὥς φησι, ‘φυγὰς θεόθεν καὶ ἀλήτης’. ὥστε πᾶς φαῦλος βίος δουλείας πλήρης καὶ ἀσεβείας καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄθεός τε καὶ ἄδικος †ἐν αὐτῷ πνεῦμα πλῆρες ὑπάρχον τῆς ἀσεβείας καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀδικίας. †καὶ οὕτω πάλιν ἐν ἰδιοπραγίᾳ ὀρθῶς εἴρηται εὑρίσκεσθαι τὸ δίκαιον, ἐν δὲ ἀπονεμήσει τοῦ κατ’ ἀξίαν ἑκάστῳ τῶν συζώντων εἰκόνα κεῖσθαι καὶ εἴδωλον τῆς ἀληθινῆς δικαιοσύνης. [40] The ancients, wishing to exhibit to us the peculiarity of incorporeal being, so far as this can be effected by words, when they assert that it is one, immediately add, that it is likewise all things; by which they signified that it is not some one  of the things which are known by the senses. Since, however, we suspect that this incorporeal one is different from sensibles, in consequence of not perceiving this total one, which is all things according to one, in a sensible nature, and which is so because this one is all things; - hence the ancients added, that it is one so far as one; in order that we might understand that what is all things in truly existing being, is something uncompounded, and that we might withdraw ourselves from the conception of a coacervation. When likewise they say that it is every where, they add that it is no where. When also they assert that it is in all things, they add, that it is no where in everything. Thus, too, when they say, that it is in all things, and in every divisible nature which is adapted to receive it, they add, that it is a whole in a whole. And, in short, they render it manifest to us, through contrary peculiarities; at one and the same time assuming these, in order that we may exterminate from the apprehension of it, the fictitious conceptions which are derived from bodies, and which obscure the cognoscible peculiarities of real being. [41] Τὸ ἐν ἄλλῳ ἔχον τὸ εἶναι καὶ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ χωριστῶς ἀπ’ ἄλλου μὴ οὐσιωμένον ἐὰν εἰς ἑαυτὸ στρέφηται εἰς τὸ γνῶναι ἑαυτὸ ἄνευ ἐκείνου ἐν ᾧ οὐσίωται, ἀπολαμβάνον ἑαυτὸ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου †νοήσει γὰρ αὑτὸ καὶ , φθείρεται αὐτὸ τοῦ εἶναι χωρίζον ἑαυτό· τὸ δὲ γινώσκειν ἑαυτὸ δυνάμενον ἄνευ ἐκείνου ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν, ἀπολαμβάνον ἑαυτὸ ἀπ’ ἐκείνου καὶ οἷόν τε ὂν ἄνευ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φθορᾶς τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ἀμήχανον οὐσιῶσθαι ἐν ἐκείνῳ, ἀφ’ οὗ στρέφειν ἑαυτὸ εἰς ἑαυτὸ [ἀπ’ ἐκείνου] ἄνευ φθορᾶς καὶ γινώσκειν ἑαυτὸ ἄνευ ἐκείνου ἐδύνατο. εἰ δὴ ὅρασις μὲν καὶ πᾶσα αἰσθητικὴ δύναμις οὔτε ἑαυτῆς ἐστιν αἴσθησις οὔτε χωρίζουσα ἑαυτὴν τοῦ σώματος ἑαυτῆς ἀντιλαμβάνεται ἢ σῴζεται, νοῦς δὲ χωρίζων ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ σώματος τότε μάλιστα νοεῖ καὶ

[ 927 ]

εἰς ἑαυτὸν στρέφεται καὶ οὐ φθείρεται, δῆλον ὡς αἱ μὲν αἰσθητικαὶ δυνάμεις διὰ σώματος κέκτηνται τὸ ἐνεργεῖν, ὁ δὲ νοῦς οὐκ ἐν σώματι, ἐν ἑαυτῷ δὲ κέκτηται τὸ ἐνεργεῖν τε καὶ εἶναι. [41] When you have assumed an eternal essence, infinite in itself according to power, and begin to perceive intellectually an hypostasis unwearied, untamed, and never-failing, but transcending in the most pure and genuine life, and full from itself; and which is likewise established in itself, satisfied with, and seeking nothing but itself: to this essence, if you add a subsistence in place, or a relation to a certain thing, at the same time that you (appear to) diminish it, by ascribing to it, an indigence of place, or a relative condition of being, you do not (in reality) diminish this essence, but you separate yourself from the perception of it, by receiving as a veil the phantasy which runs under your conjectural apprehension of it. For you cannot pass beyond, or stop, or render more perfect, or effect the least change in a thing of this kind, because it is impossible for it to be in the smallest degree deficient. For it is much more never-failing than any perpetually flowing fountain can be conceived to be. If, however, you are unable to keep pace with it, and to become assimilated to the intelligible All, you should not investigate any thing pertaining to real being; or, if you do, you will deviate from the path that leads to it, and will look to something else. But if you investigate nothing else, being established in yourself and your own essence, you will be assimilated to the intelligible Universe, and will not adhere to any thing posterior to it. Neither, therefore, should you say, I am of a great magnitude. For omitting this greatness, you will become universal; though you were universal prior to this. But, together with the universal, something else was present with you, and you became less by the addition; because the addition was not from truly-existing being. For to that you cannot add any thing. When, therefore, any thing is added from non-being, a place is afforded to Poverty as an associate, accompanied by an indigence of all things. Hence, dismissing non-being, you will then become sufficient to yourself. For he will not return properly to himself who does not dismiss things of a more vile and abject nature, and who opines himself to be something naturally small, and not to be such as he truly is. For thus he, at one and the same time, departs both from himself, and from truly-existing being. When, also, any one is present with that which is present in himself, then he is present with true being, which is every where. But when you withdraw from yourself, then, likewise, you recede from real being; - of such great consequence is it for a man to be present with that which is present with himself, (i.e., with his rational part), and to be absent from that which is external to him. If, however, true being is present with us, but non-being is absent, and real being is not present with us in conjunction with other things (of a nature foreign to it); it does not accede in order that it may be present, but we depart from it, when it is not present [ 928 ]

(with things of a different nature). And why should this be considered as wonderful? For you when present are not absent from yourself, and yet you are not present with yourself, though present. And you are both present with and absent from yourself when you survey other things, and omit to behold yourself. If, therefore, you are thus present, and yet not (in reality) present with yourself, and on this account are ignorant of yourself, and in a greater degree discover all things, though remote from your essence, than yourself, with which you are naturally present, why should you wonder if that which is not present is remote from you who are remote from it, because you have become remote from yourself? For, by how much the more you are (truly) present with yourself, though it is present, and inseparably conjoined with you, by so much the more will you be present with real being, which is so essentially united to you, that it is as impossible for it to be divulsed from you, as for you to be separated from yourself. So that it is universally possible to know what is present with real being, and what is absent from it, though it is every where present, and again is also no where. For those who are able to proceed into their own essence intellectually, and to obtain a knowledge of it, will, in the knowledge itself, and the Science accompanying this knowledge, be able to recover or regain themselves, through the union of that which knows with that which is known. And with those, who are present with themselves, truly-existing being will also be present. But from such as abandon the proper being of themselves to other things, from these, as they are absent from themselves, true being will also be absent. If, however, we are naturally adapted to be established in the same essence, to be rich from ourselves, and not to descend to that which we are not; in so doing becoming in want of ourselves, and thus again associating with Poverty, though Porus  or Plenty is present:and if we are cut off from real being, from which we are not separated either by place, or essence, nor by any thing else, through our conversion to non-being, we suffer as a just punishment of our abandonment of true being, a departure from, and ignorance of ourselves. And again, by a proper attention to we recover ourselves, and become united to Divinity. It is, therefore, rightly said, that the soul is confined in body as in a prison, and is there detained in chains like a fugitive slave. We should, however, (earnestly) endeavour to be liberated from our bonds. For, through being converted to these sensible objects, we desert ourselves, though we are of a divine origin, and are, as Empedocles says, “Heaven’s exiles, straying from the orb of light.” So that every depraved life is full of servitude; and on this account is without from God and unjust, the spirit in it being full of impiety, and consequently of injustice. And thus again, it is rightly said, that justice is to be found in the performance of that which

[ 929 ]

is the province of him who performs it. The image also of true justice consists in distributing to each of those with whom we live, that which is due to the desert of each. [42] Ἀσώματα τὰ μὲν κατὰ στέρησιν σώματος λέγεται καὶ ἐπινοεῖται κυρίως, ὡς ἡ ὕλη κατὰ τοὺς ἀρχαίους καὶ τὸ εἶδος τὸ ἐπὶ ὕλης, ὅταν ἐπινοῆται ἀποληφθὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης, καὶ αἱ φύσεις καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις· οὕτως δὲ καὶ ὁ τόπος καὶ ὁ χρόνος καὶ τὰ πέρατα. τὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτα πάντα κατὰ στέρησιν σώματος λέγεται. ἤδη δὲ ἦν ἄλλα καταχρηστικῶς λεγόμενα ἀσώματα, οὐ κατὰ στέρησιν σώματος, κατὰ δὲ ‹τὸ› ὅλως μὴ πεφυκέναι γεννᾶν σῶμα. διὸ τὰ μὲν κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον σημαινόμενον πρὸς τὰ σώματα ὑφίσταται, τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὸ δεύτερον χωριστὰ τέλεον σωμάτων καὶ τῶν περὶ τὰ σώματα ἀσωμάτων· σώματα μὲν γὰρ ἐν τόπῳ καὶ πέρατα ἐν σώματι, νοῦς δὲ καὶ νοερὸς λόγος οὔτε ἐν τόπῳ οὔτε ἐν [τῷ] σώματι ὑφίσταται οὔτε προσεχῶς ὑφίστησι σώματα οὔτε παρυφίσταται σώμασιν ἢ τοῖς κατὰ στέρησιν σώματος λεγομένοις ἀσωμάτοις. οὐδ’ εἰ κενὸν οὖν τι ἐπινοηθείη ἀσώματον, ἐν κενῷ οἷόν τε εἶναι νοῦν· σώματος μὲν γὰρ δεκτικὸν ἂν εἴη τὸ κενόν, νοῦ δὲ ἐνέργειαν χωρῆσαι ἀμήχανον καὶ τόπον δοῦναι ἐνεργείᾳ. διττοῦ δὲ φανέντος τοῦ γένους, τοῦ μὲν οὐδ’ ὅλως οἱ ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος ἀντελάβοντο, τὸ δ’ ἕτερον παραδεξάμενοι καὶ τὸ ἕτερον μὴ τοιοῦτον εἶναι καθορῶντες ἀναιροῦσιν αὐτό, δέον ὡς ἄλλο γένος ἦν ὑποπτεῦσαι καὶ μὴ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἕτερον μηδὲ τοῦτο μὴ εἶναι δοξάσαι. [42] That which possesses its existence in another (i.e., in something different from itself), and is not essentialized in itself, separably from another, if it should be converted to itself, in order to know itself, without that in which it is essentialized, withdrawing itself from it, would be corrupted by this knowledge, in consequence of separating itself from its essence. But that which is able to know itself without the subject in which it exists, and is able to withdraw itself from this subject without the destruction of itself, cannot be essentialized in that, from which it is capable of converting itself to itself without being corrupted, and of knowing itself by its own energies. Hence, if sight, and every sensitive power, neither perceives itself, nor apprehends or preserves itself by separating itself from body; but intellect, when it separates itself from body, then especially perceives intellectually, is converted to itself, and is not corrupted; - it is evident that the sensitive powers obtain the power of energizing through the body; but that intellect possesses its energies and its essence not in body, but in itself. [43] Ὁ νοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρχὴ πάντων· πολλὰ γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νοῦς, πρὸ δὲ τῶν πολλῶν ἀνάγκη εἶναι τὸ ἕν. ὅτι δὲ πολλὰ ὁ νοῦς δῆλον· νοεῖ γὰρ ἀεὶ τὰ νοήματα οὐχ ἓν ὄντα, ἀλλὰ πολλὰ καὶ οὐκ ἄλλα ὄντα παρ’ ἐκεῖνον. εἰ οὖν ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν αὐτοῖς, ἐκεῖνα δὲ πολλά, πολλὰ ἂν εἴη καὶ ὁ νοῦς. Ὅτι δὲ ὁ αὐτός ἐστι τοῖς νοητοῖς, οὕτως δείκνυται· εἰ γάρ τι ἔστιν ὃ θεωρεῖ, ἤτοι ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχων τοῦτο θεωρήσει ἢ ἐν ἄλλῳ κείμενον. καὶ ὅτι μὲν θεωρεῖ δῆλον· σὺν γὰρ τῷ νοεῖν εἴη ἂν νοῦς, ἀφαιρεθεὶς δὲ τοῦ νοεῖν ἀφῄρηται τῆς οὐσίας. δεῖ τοίνυν ἐπιστήσαντας τοῖς πάθεσιν ἃ συμβαίνει περὶ τὰς γνώσεις ἀνιχνεῦσαι τὴν ἐκείνου θεωρίαν. γνωστικαὶ δὲ δυνάμεις ἐν ἡμῖν ἀθρόον αἴσθησις, φαντασία, νοῦς. πάντῃ δὲ τὸ αἰσθήσει προσχρώμενον τοῖς ἔξω ἐπιβάλλον [ 930 ]

θεωρεῖ, οὐχ ἑνούμενον ἐκείνοις ἃ θεωρεῖ, ἀλλὰ μόνον τύπον αὐτῶν ἐκ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὰ προσβολῆς λαμβάνον. ὅταν οὖν ἴδῃ ὀφθαλμὸς τὸ ὁρώμενον, ἀμήχανον ἐν ταυτότητι γενέσθαι τοῦ ὁρωμένου· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἴδοι, εἰ μὴ ἐν διαστάσει γένοιτο· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ ἁπτόμενον ἐν ταυτότητι γενόμενον φθαρείη. ἐξ ὧν δῆλον ὅτι ἀεὶ ἥ τε αἴσθησις καὶ τὸ αἰσθήσει προσχρώμενον εἰς τὸ ἔξω φέρεται, εἰ μέλλει τὸ αἰσθητὸν καταλήψεσθαι. ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἡ φαντασία ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἔξω φέρεται καὶ τῇ τάσει αὐτῆς τὸ εἰκόνισμα παρυφίσταται †ἤτοι καὶ παρασκευάζον ἔξωθεν ἢ αὐτῇ τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἔξω τάσει τὴν ὡς ἔξω ὄντος εἰκονίσματος ἐνδεικνύμενον . καὶ τούτων μὲν κατάληψις τοιαύτη, ὧν οὐδεμία εἰς ἑαυτὴν συννεύουσα καὶ συναγομένη ἐντύχοι ἂν ἢ τῷ αἰσθητῷ ἢ τῷ ἀναισθήτῳ εἴδει. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ νοῦ οὐ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἡ κατάληψις, ἀλλὰ συννεύοντος εἰς ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἑαυτὸν θεωροῦντος· παρεξελθὼν γὰρ τοῦ θεάσασθαι τὰς ἑαυτοῦ ἐνεργείας καὶ ὄμμα εἶναι τῶν αὐτοῦ ἐνεργειῶν οὐσῶν τὸ ὅραμα οὐδὲν ἂν νοήσειεν. ὡς μὲν οὖν ἦν [ἡ] αἴσθησίς τε καὶ τὸ αἰσθητόν, οὕτως ἐστὶ νοῦς τε καὶ τὸ νοητόν. θεωρεῖ δὲ ἡ μὲν ἐκτεινομένη εἰς τὸ ἔξω, εὑρίσκουσα τὸ αἰσθητὸν ‹ἐν› τῇ ὕλῃ κείμενον, ὁ δὲ νοῦς εἰς αὐτὸν συναγόμενος· εἰ δὲ μὴ ἔξω ἐκτεινόμενος ὅπερ καὶ ἐδόκει τισὶν ὀνόματος διαφορᾶς προστεθείσης τῇ τοῦ νοῦ ὑποστάσει καὶ τῆς φαντασίας· ἡ γὰρ ἐν λογικῷ ζῴῳ φαντασία δέδοκτο αὐτοῖς νόησις. ἀλλ’ εἰ ἐκείνοις μὲν πάντα ἀπαρτήσασιν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τῆς σωματικῆς φύσεως ἀκόλουθον ἦν καὶ τὸν νοῦν τούτων ἀναρτᾶν, ὁ δ’ ἡμέτερος σωμάτων καὶ ἑτέρων θεωρὸς οὐσιῶν, ποῦ τοίνυν κειμένας καταλήψεται αὐτάς; ἔξω δὲ ὄντων ὕλης, οὐδαμοῦ ἂν εἴη ταῦτα ‹καὶ ταύτῃ› δῆλον ὡς νοερὰ καὶ νοήσει συναχθήσεται καὶ τοίνυν, εἰ νοερά, εἰς τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὸ νοητόν - , καὶ ἑαυτὸν θεωρήσει νοῶν τὰ νοητὰ καὶ χωρῶν εἰς ἑαυτὸν νοεῖ διὰ τὸ εἰς ἐκεῖνα χωρεῖν. εἰ δὲ πολλὰ τὰ νοητά - πολλὰ γὰρ ὁ νοῦς νοεῖ καὶ οὐχ ἕν - , πολλὰ ἂν εἴη [καὶ] ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ αὐτός. κεῖται δὲ πρὸ τῶν πολλῶν τὸ ἕν, ὥστε ἀνάγκη πρὸ τοῦ νοῦ εἶναι τὸ ἕν. [43] Incorporeal natures are properly denominated and conceived to be what they are, according to a privation of body; just as, according to the ancients, matter, and the form which is in matter, and also natures and (physical) powers, are apprehended by an abstraction from matter. And after the same manner, place, time, and the boundaries of things are apprehended. For all such things are denominated according to a privation of body. There are likewise other things which are said to be incorporeal improperly, not according to a privation of body, but, in short, because they are not naturally adapted to generate body. Hence those of the former signification subsist in bodies; but those of the second are perfectly separated from bodies, and from those incorporeal natures which subsist about bodies. For bodies, indeed, are in place, and boundaries are in body. But intellect, and intellectual reason, neither subsist in place nor in body; nor proximately give existence to bodies, nor subsist together with bodies, or with those incorporeal natures which are denominated according to a privation of bodies. Neither, therefore, if a certain incorporeal vacuum should be conceived to exist, would it be possible for intellect to be in a vacuum. For a vacuum may be the recipient of body; but [ 931 ]

it is impossible that it should be the recipient of Intellect, and afford a place for its energy. Since, however, the genus of an incorporeal nature appears to be twofold, one of these the followers of Zeno do not at all admit, but they adopt the other; and perceiving that the former is not such as the latter, they entirely subvert it, though they ought rather to conceive that it is of another genus, and not to fancy that, because it is not the latter, it has no existence. [44] Ἄλλο νοῦς καὶ νοητόν, καὶ ἄλλο αἴσθησις καὶ αἰσθητόν. καὶ νῷ μὲν τὸ νοητὸν σύζυγον, αἰσθήσει δὲ τὸ αἰσθητόν. ἀλλ’ οὔτε ἡ αἴσθησις ἀντιλαμβάνεται αὑτῆς καθ’ αὑτὴν οὔτε τὸ αἰσθητόν· νῷ δὲ τὸ νοητὸν σύζυγον ὂν καὶ [τὸ] νοητὸν τῷ νῷ, [αἰσθήσει δὲ τὸ αἰσθητόν. νῷ δὲ τὸ νοητὸν σύζυγον ὂν καὶ τὸ νοητὸν τῷ νῷ] αἰσθήσει οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ὑπόπτωτον, ἀλλὰ νῷ νοῦς ἐστι νοητόν. εἰ δὲ νοητὸν τῷ νῷ ὁ νοῦς, ἑαυτῷ ἂν εἴη νοητὸν ὁ νοῦς. εἰ μὲν οὖν νοητὸς ὁ νοῦς καὶ οὐκ αἰσθητός, νοητὸν ἂν εἴη· εἰ δὲ νοητὸς νῷ καὶ οὐκ αἰσθήσει, νοοῦν ἂν εἴη. ὁ αὐτὸς ἄρα νοῶν καὶ νοούμενον ὅλον ὅλῳ, καὶ οὐχ ὡς ὁ τρίβων καὶ τριβόμενος. οὐκ ἄλλῳ οὖν μέρει νοεῖται καὶ ἄλλῳ νοεῖ· ἀμερὴς γὰρ καὶ νοητὸς ὅλος ὅλῳ καὶ νοῦς δι’ ὅλου, ἐπίνοιαν οὐδεμίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀνοησίας ἔχων. διὸ οὐχὶ τόδε μὲν ἑαυτοῦ νοεῖ, τόδε δὲ οὐ νοεῖ· καθ’ ὃ γὰρ οὐ νοεῖ, ἀνόητος ἔσται. Οὐδὲ ἀφιστάμενος οὖν τοῦδε ἐπὶ τόδε μεταβαίνει· ἀφ’ οὗ γὰρ ἀφίσταται μὴ νοῶν ἐκεῖνο, ἀνόητος κατ’ ἐκεῖνο γίνεται. εἰ δὲ μὴ τόδε μετὰ τόδε ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ γίνεται, ἅμα πάντα νοεῖ· ἐπεὶ οὖν πάντα ἅμα καὶ οὐ τὸ μὲν νῦν, τὸ δὲ αὖθις, πάντα ἅμα νῦν καὶ ἀεί. εἰ οὖν ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ νῦν, ἀνῄρηται δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ παρεληλυθὸς καὶ τὸ μέλλον, ἐν ἀδιαστάτῳ τῷ νῦν ἀχρόνῳ παραστήματι, ὥστε τὸ ὁμοῦ κατά τε τὸ πλῆθος κατά τε τὸ χρονικὸν διάστημα ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ· διὸ καθ’ ἓν πάντα ἐν ἑνὶ καὶ ἀδιαστάτῳ καὶ ἀχρόνῳ. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, οὐδὲ τὸ ποθέν ποι ἐν τῷ νῷ οὐδὲ κίνησις ἄρα, ἀλλὰ ἐνέργεια καθ’ ἓν ἐν ἑνὶ αὔξης τε ἀφῃρημένη καὶ μεταβολῆς καὶ διεξόδου πάσης. εἰ δὲ τὸ πλῆθος καθ’ ἓν καὶ ἅμα ἡ ἐνέργεια καὶ ἄχρονος, ἀνάγκη παρυποστῆναι τῇ τοιαύτῃ οὐσίᾳ τὸ ἀεὶ ἐν ἑνὶ ὄν· τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν αἰών· παρυπέστη ἄρα νῷ ὁ αἰών. Τῷ δὲ μὴ καθ’ ἓν ἐν ἑνὶ νοοῦντι, ἀλλὰ μεταβατικῶς καὶ ἐν κινήσει καὶ ἐν τῷ τὸ μὲν καταλείπειν, τὸ δὲ ἐπιλαμβάνειν καὶ μερίζειν καὶ διεξοδεύειν παρυπέστη χρόνος· τῇ γὰρ τοιαύτῃ κινήσει παρυφίσταται τὸ μέλλειν καὶ παρεληλυθέναι. ψυχὴ δὲ μεταβαίνει ἀπ’ ἄλλου εἰς ἄλλο ἐπαμείβουσα τὰ νοήματα, οὐκ ἐξισταμένων τῶν προτέρων οὐδέ ποθεν ἄλλοθεν ἐπεισιόντων τῶν δευτέρων, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ὥσπερ παρελήλυθε καίπερ μένοντα ἐν αὐτῇ, τὰ δ’ ὥσπερ ἀλλαχόθεν ἔπεισιν, ἀφίκετο δ’ οὐκ ἀλλαχόθεν, ἀλλὰ παρ’ αὐτῆς καὶ αὐτόθεν εἰς ἑαυτὴν κινουμένης καὶ τὸ ὄμμα φερούσης εἰς ἃ ἔχει κατὰ μέρος· πηγῇ γὰρ ἔοικεν οὐκ ἀπορρύτῳ, ἀλλὰ κύκλῳ εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀναβλυζούσῃ ἃ ἔχει. Τῇ μὲν οὖν ταύτης κινήσει παρυφίσταται χρόνος, τῇ δὲ τοῦ νοῦ μονῇ τῇ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ αἰών, οὐ διῃρημένος ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ὥσπερ ‹οὐδ’› ὁ χρόνος ἐκ ψυχῆς, ὅτι καὶ αἱ παρυποστάσεις ἥνωνται ἐκεῖ. διαψεύδεται δὲ τὸ κινούμενον ‹πρὸς τὸ μένον› αἰῶνα ἑαυτοῦ, τὸ ἄμετρον τῆς κινήσεως εἰς ἔννοιαν λαμβανόμενον αἰῶνος, καὶ τὸ μένον πρὸς τὸ κινούμενον χρόνον ἑαυτοῦ, ὥσπερ τὸ νῦν αὐτοῦ καὶ διεξοδεῦον καὶ πολλαπλασιάζον κατὰ πάροδον τοῦ χρόνου. διὸ καὶ ἐν στάσει τὸν [ 932 ]

χρόνον τινὲς οὐχ ἧττον ἢ ἐν κινήσει θεωρεῖσθαι ὑπελάμβανον καὶ τὸν αἰῶνα, ὡς ἔφαμεν, τὸν ἄπειρον χρόνον, ἑκατέρου τὰ πάθη τὰ ἑαυτοῦ τῷ ἑτέρῳ προστιθέντος, τοῦ μὲν κινουμένου ἀεὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑστῶτος κατὰ ταυτότητα τῷ ἀεὶ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν αἰῶνα ἀπεικονίζοντος, καὶ τοῦ ἑστῶτος ἐν ταυτότητι ἐνεργείας τὸν χρόνον τῇ ἑαυτοῦ μονῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνεργείας προσάπτοντος. Λοιπὸν δὲ ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὁ διῃρημένος χρόνος ἄλλος ἄλλου, οἷον ἄλλος ἡλίου, ἄλλος σελήνης, ἄλλος ἑωσφόρου, καὶ ἐφ’ ἑκάστου ἄλλος. διὸ καὶ ἄλλου ἐνιαυτὸς ἄλλος· καὶ ὁ τούτους περιέχων ἐνιαυτὸς κεφαλαιούμενος εἰς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς κίνησιν· ἧς κατὰ μίμησιν κινουμένων τούτων, ἀλλοίας δὲ τῆς ἐκείνης κινήσεως οὔσης καὶ ἀλλοίας τῆς τούτων, ἀλλοῖος καὶ ὁ χρόνος ἐκείνης τοῦ τούτων. διαστηματικὸς μὲν οὗτος καὶ ταῖς κατὰ τόπον κινήσεσι καὶ μεταβάσεσι* * ** [44] Intellect and the intelligible are one thing, and sense and that which is sensible another. And the intelligible, indeed, is conjoined with intellect, but that which is sensible with sense. Neither, however, can sense by itself apprehend itself. * * * But the intelligible, which is conjoined with intellect, and intellect, which is conjoined with the intelligible, by no means fall under the perception of sense. Intellect, however, is intelligible to intellect. But if intellect is the intelligible object of intellect, intellect will be its own intelligible object. If, therefore, intellect is an intellectual and not a sensible object, it will be intelligible. But if it is intelligible to intellect and not to sense, it will also be intelligent. The same thing, therefore, will be that which is intelligent, or intellectually perceives, and which is intellectually perceived, or is intelligible; and this will be true of the whole with respect to the whole; but not as he who rubs, and he who is rubbed. Intellect, therefore, does not intellectually perceive by one part, and is intellectually perceived by another: for it is impartible, and the whole is an intelligible object of the whole. It is likewise wholly intellect, having nothing in itself which can be conceived to be deprived of intelligence. Hence one part of it does not intellectually perceive, but not another part of it. For so far as it does not intellectually perceive, it will be unintelligent. Neither, therefore, departing from this thing, does it pass on to that. For of that from which it departs, it has no intellectual perception. But if there is no transition in its intellections, it intellectually perceives all things at once. If, therefore, it understands all things at once, and not this thing now but, another afterwards, it understands all things instantaneously and always. * * * Hence, if all things are instantaneously perceived by it, its perceptions have nothing to do with the past and the future, but subsist in an indivisible untemporal now; so that the simultaneous, both according to multitude, and according to temporal interval, is present with intellect. Hence, too, all things subsist in it according to one, and in one, without interval, and without time. But if this be the case, there is nothing discursive or transitive in its intellections, and consequently they are without motion. Hence, they [ 933 ]

are energies according to one, subsisting in one, and without increase or mutation, or any transition. If, however, the multitude subsists according to one, and the energy is collected together at once, and without time, an essence of this kind must necessarily always subsist in (an intelligible) one. But this is eternity. Hence, eternity is present with intellect. That nature, however, which does not perceive intellectually according to one, and in one, but transitively, and with motion, so that in understanding it leaves one thing and apprehends another, divides and proceeds discursively, - this nature (which is soul) subsists in conjunction with time. For with a motion of this kind, the future and the past are consubsistent. But soul, changing its conceptions, passes from one thing to another; not that the prior conceptions depart, and the posterior accede in their place, but there is, as it were, a transition of the former, though they remain in the soul, and the latter accede, as if from some other place. They do not, however, accede in reality from another place; but they appear to do so in consequence of the self-motion of the soul, and through her eye being directed to a survey of the different forms which she contains, and which have the relation of parts to her whole essence. For she resembles a fountain not flowing outwardly, but circularly scattering its streams into itself. With the motion, therefore, of soul, time is consubsistent; but eternity is consubsistent with the permanency of intellect in itself. It is not, however, divided from intellect in the same manner as time is from soul; because in intellect the consubsistent essences are united. But that which is perpetually moved is the source of a false opinion of eternity, through the immeasurable extent of its motion producing a conception of eternity. And that which abides (in one) is falsely conceived to be the same with that which is (perpetually) moved. For that which is perpetually moved, evolves the time of itself in the same manner as the now of itself, and multiplies it, according to a temporal progression. Hence, some have apprehended that time is to be surveyed in permanency no less than in motion; and that eternity, as we have said, is infinite time; just as if each of these imparted its own properties to the other; time, which is always moved, adumbrating eternity by the perpetuity of itself, and the sameness of its motion; and eternity, through being established in sameness of energy, becoming similar to time, by the permanency of itself arising from energy. In sensibles, however, the time of one thing is distinct from that of another. Thus, for instance, there is one time of the sun, and another of the moon, one time of the morning star, and another of each of the planets. Hence, also, there is a different year of different planets. The year, likewise, which comprehends these times, terminates as in a summit in the motion of the soul (of the universe,) according to the imitation of which the celestial orbs are moved. The motion of this soul, however, being of a different nature from that of the planets, the

[ 934 ]

time of the former also is different from that of the latter. For the latter subsists with interval, and is distinguished from the former by local motions and transitions.

[ 935 ]

On the Abstinence of Eating Animals

[ 936 ]

BOOK ONE [ 1 ] ΤῶΝ Π Ρ Ὸ ς ἡμᾶς ἡκόντων, ὦ Φίρμε, πυθόμενος ὡς τῆς ἀσάρκου καταγνοὺς τροφῆς ἐπὶ τὴν ἔνσαρκον ἀναδεδράμηκας πάλιν βοράν, κατ’ ἀρχὰς μὲν ἠπίστουν τῆς τε σῆς σωφροσύνης στοχαζόμενος καὶ τῆς εὐλαβείας ἣν πρὸς τοὺς ταῦτα ὑποδείξαντας παλαιούς τε ὁμοῦ καὶ θεοφόβους ἄνδρας πεποιήμεθα· ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι ἐπὶ τοῖς πρώτοις μηνύοντες τὴν ἀγγελίαν ἐβεβαίουν, τὸ μὲν ἐπιπλήττειν σοι, οὔτε κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν φυγῇ κακοῦ τὸ ἄμεινον εὑρόντι, οὔτε κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα τὸν μὲν πρότερον ἀποδυσαμένῳ βίον, εἰς δὲ τὸν βελτίω ὑποστρέψαντι, ἀγροῖκόν τ’ εἶναι ἐδόκει καὶ πόρρω τῆς κατὰ τὸν λογισμὸν πειθοῦς εὑρισκομένης· τὸ δ’ αὖ διὰ τοῦ λόγου τὸν ἔλεγχον τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἐκκαλύπτειν ἀφ’ οἵων τε εἰς οἷα καταβέβηκας μηνύειν τῆς τε πρὸς ἀλλήλους φιλίας ἀντάξιον καὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλήθειαν τὸν αὑτῶν βίον συνταξαμένων [1] Hearing from some of our acquaintance, O Firmus , that you, having rejected a fleshless diet, have again returned to animal food, at first I did not credit the report, when I considered your temperance, and the reverence which you have been taught to pay to those ancient and pious men from whom we have received the precepts of philosophy. But when others who came after these confirmed this report, it appeared to me that it would be too rustic and remote from the rational method of persuasion to reprehend you, who neither, according to the proverb, flying from evil have found something better, nor according to Empedocles, having lamented your former life, have converted yourself to one that is more excellent. I have therefore thought it worthy of the friendship which subsists between us, and also adapted to those who have arranged their life conformably to truth, to disclose your errors through a confutation derived from an argumentative discussion. [2] εἶναι ἐδικαίουν. καὶ γάρ μοι κατ’ ἐμαυτὸν λογιζομένῳ τὴν τῆς μεταθέσεως αἰτίαν, ὑγείας μὲν καὶ ῥώμης, ὡς ἂν ὁ πολὺς καὶ ἰδιώτης φαίη ὄχλος, οὐκ ἂν μεταβαλέσθαι ‹σε› φήσαιμι· τοὐναντίον γὰρ καὶ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ πρὸς σύμμετρον ὑπομονὴν τῶν περὶ φιλοσοφίαν πόνων τὴν ἄσαρκον δίαιταν αὐτὸς συνὼν ἡμῖν ὡμολόγεις συμβάλλεσθαι· τῇ τε πείρᾳ γινώσκειν πάρεστιν ὡς ταῦτα λέγων ἠλήθευες. ἢ δι’ ἀπάτην οὖν ἢ τῷ μηδὲν διαφέρειν ἡγεῖσθαι πρὸς φρόνησιν τὸ οὕτως ἢ ἐκείνως διαιτᾶσθαι, ἢ δι’ ἄλλην ἴσως αἰτίαν ἣν ἀγνοῶ, φόβον τῆς ἐν τῷ παραβαίνειν ἀσεβείας ἐπαρτῶσαν μείζονα, ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσθεν ἀναδραμεῖν σε παρανομήματα ἐφαίνετο. οὐ γὰρ δὴ δι’ ἀκρασίαν καὶ πόθον τῆς ὀψοφάγου λαιμαργίας καταφρονῆσαι τῶν πατρίων ἧς ἐζήλωκας φιλοσοφίας νόμων φήσαιμι ἄν σε, οὐδ’ ἐλάττω τὴν φύσιν τῶν παρά τισιν ἰδιωτῶν εἶναι, οἳ νόμους ἐναντίους οἷς ἔζων πρότερον καταδεξάμενοι τομάς τε μορίων ὑπομένουσιν, καί τινων ζῴων, ὧν πρόσθεν ἐνεφοροῦντο, ἀπόσχοιντο ἂν μᾶλλον

[ 937 ]

[2] For when I considered with myself what could be the cause of this alteration in your diet, I could by no means suppose that it was for the sake of health and strength, as the vulgar and idiots would say; since, on the contrary, you yourself, when you were with us, confessed that a fleshless diet contributed both to health and to the proper endurance of philosophic labours; and experience testifies, that in saying this you spoke the truth. It appears, therefore, that you have returned to your former illegitimate  conduct, either through deception, because you think it makes no difference with respect to the acquisition of wisdom whether you use this or that diet; or perhaps through some other cause of which I am ignorant, which excited in you a greater fear than that which could be produced by the impiety of transgression. For I should not say that you have despised the philosophic laws which we derived from our ancestors, and which you have so much admired, through intemperance, or for the sake of voracious gluttony; or that you are naturally inferior to some of the vulgar, who, when they have assented to laws, though contrary to those under which they formerly lived, will suffer amputation [rather than violate them], and will abstain from certain animals on which they before fed, more than they would from human flesh. [3] ἢ κρεῶν ἀνθρωπείων. ἐπεὶ δέ τινες τῶν ἀφικομένων καὶ λόγων ἀπεμνημόνευον οὓς κατὰ τῶν ἀπεχομένων ἐποιοῦ, οὐ σχετλιάζειν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ νεμεσᾶν παρῆν, εἰ ψυχροῖς καὶ ἄγαν ἑώλοις σοφισματίοις πεισθέντες αὑτούς τε ἀπατᾶν καὶ παλαιὸν δόγμα καὶ θεοῖς φίλον ἀνατρέπειν ὑπεμείνατε. ὅθεν μοι ἐδόκει μὴ μόνον τὸ οἰκεῖον ὑποδεικνύναι ὡς ἔχει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐναντίων πολλῷ ἰσχυρότερα τῶν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν λεγομένων ὄντα καὶ πλήθει καὶ δυνάμει καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις κατασκευαῖς συναγαγεῖν τε καὶ λῦσαι, οὐδ’ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμβριθῶν δοκούντων εἶναι, οὐχ ὅτι τῶν ἑώλων καὶ ἐπιπολαίων σοφισμάτων τὸ ἀληθὲς ἡττημένον δεικνύντα. ἴσως γὰρ ἀγνοεῖς ὅτι τῇ ἀποχῇ τῶν ἐμψύχων οὐκ ὀλίγοι ἀντειρήκασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων οἵ τ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ περιπάτου καὶ τῆς στοᾶς καὶ τοῦ Ἐπικούρου τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς ἀντιλογίας πρὸς τὴν Πυθαγόρου καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέους ἀποτεινόμενοι φιλοσοφίαν, ἧς ζηλωτὴς εἶναι ἐσπούδακας· τῶν τε φιλολόγων συχνοὶ καὶ Κλώδιός τις Νεαπολίτης πρὸς τοὺς ἀπεχομένους τῶν σαρκῶν βιβλίον κατεβάλετο. ὧν τὰς πραγματικὰς καὶ κοινὰς πρὸς τὸ δόγμα ζητήσεις παραθήσομαι, τὰς ἰδίως πρὸς τὰ τοῦ Ἐμπεδοκλέους φερομένας ἀνασκευὰς παραιτησάμενος. [3] But when I was also informed by certain persons that you even employed arguments against those who abstained from animal food, I not only pitied, but was indignant with you, that, being persuaded by certain frigid and very corrupt sophisms, you have deceived yourself, and have endeavoured to subvert a dogma which is both ancient and dear to the Gods. Hence it appeared to me to be requisite not only to show what our own opinion is on this subject, but also to collect and dissolve the arguments of our opponents, which are much stronger than those adduced by you in multitude and power, and every other apparatus; and thus to demonstrate, that truth is not [ 938 ]

vanquished even by those arguments which seem to be weighty, and much less by superficial sophisms. For you are perhaps ignorant, that not a few philosophers are adverse to abstinence from animal food, but that this is the case with those of the Peripatetic and Stoic sects, and with most of the Epicureans; the last of whom have written in opposition to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Empedocles, of which you once were studiously emulous. To this abstinence, likewise, many philologists are adverse, among whom Clodius the Neapolitan wrote a treatise against those who abstain from flesh. Of these men I shall adduce the disquisitions and common arguments against this dogma, at the same time omitting those reasons which are peculiarly employed by them against the demonstrations of Empedocles. The Arguments of the Peripatetics and Stoics from Heraclides Ponticus [4] εὐθὺς τοίνυν φασὶν οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην συγχεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ ἀκίνητα κινεῖσθαι, ἐὰν τὸ δίκαιον μὴ πρὸς τὸ λογικὸν μόνον τείνωμεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄλογον· οὐ μόνον τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἡγούμενοι, οἰκείως δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἄλογα θηρία τὰ μηδὲν ἡμῖν προσήκοντα ἔχοντες, καὶ οὐχὶ τοῖς μὲν πρὸς ἔργον χρώμενοι, τοῖς δὲ πρὸς ἐδωδήν, ἔκφυλα καὶ ἄτιμα τῆς κοινωνίας καθάπερ πολιτείας νομίζοντες. ὁ γὰρ καθάπερ ἀνθρώποις καὶ τούτοις χρώμενος φειδόμενός τε καὶ μὴ βλάπτων, προσάπτων τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ὃ μὴ δύναται φέρειν, καὶ τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτῆς ἀπόλλυσι καὶ διαφθείρει τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ τὸ οἰκεῖον. γίγνεται γὰρ ἢ τὸ ἀδικεῖν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἀφειδοῦσιν αὐτῶν, ἢ μὴ χρωμένοις τὸ ζῆν ἀδύνατον καὶ ἄπορον, καὶ τρόπον τινὰ θηρίων βίον βιωσόμεθα [4] Our opponents therefore say, in the first place, that justice will be confounded, and things immoveable be moved, if we extend what is just, not only to the rational, but also to the irrational nature; conceiving that not only Gods and men pertain to us, but that there is likewise an alliance between us and brutes, who [in reality] have no conjunction with us. Nor shall we employ some of them in laborious works, and use others for food, from a conviction that the association which is between us and them, in the same manner as that of some foreign polity, pertains to a tribe different from ours, and is dishonourable. For he who uses these as if they were men, sparing and not injuring them, thus endeavouring to adapt to justice that which it cannot bear, both destroys its power, and corrupts that which is appropriate, by the introduction of what is foreign. For it necessarily follows, either that we act unjustly by sparing them, or if we spare, and do not employ them, that it will be impossible for us to live. We shall also, after a manner, live the life of brutes, if we reject the use of which they are capable of affording. [5] τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν θηρίων προέμενοι χρείας. ἀφίημι γὰρ Νομάδων καὶ Τρωγλοδυτῶν ἀνεξευρέτους ἀριθμῷ μυριάδας, οἳ τροφὴν σάρκας, ἄλλο δὲ οὐδὲν ἴσασιν· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμῖν τοῖς ἡμέρως καὶ φιλανθρώπως ζῆν δοκοῦσιν ποῖον ἔργον ἀπολείπεται γῆς, ποῖον ἐν θαλάττῃ, τίς [ 939 ]

ἐναργὴς τέχνη, τίς κόσμος διαίτης, ἂν ὡς πρὸς ὁμόφυλα τὰ ζῷα διακεώμεθα ἀβλαβῶς καὶ μετ’ εὐλαβείας αὐτοῖς προσφερώμεθα; εἰπεῖν γὰρ ἔργον οὐδέν. οὐδὲ φάρμακον οὐδὲ ἴαμα τῆς ἢ τὸν βίον ἀναιρούσης ἀπορίας ἢ τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἔχομεν, ἂν μὴ τὸν ἀρχαῖον νόμον καὶ ὅρον φυλάττωμεν, ᾧ καθ’ Ἡσίοδον ὁ Ζεὺς τὰς φύσεις διελὼν καὶ θέμενος ἰδίᾳ τῶν γενῶν ἑκάτερον ἰχθύσι μὲν καὶ θηρσὶ καὶ οἰωνοῖς πετεηνοῖς ἔσθειν ἀλλήλους, ἐπεὶ οὐ δίκη ἐστὶ μετ’ αὐτῶν, ἀνθρώποισι δ’ ἔδωκε δίκην [5] For I shall omit to mention the innumerable multitude of Nomades and Troglodyte, who know of no other nutriment than that of flesh; but to us who appear to live mildly and philanthropically, what work would be left for us on the earth or in the sea, what illustrious art, what ornament of our food would remain, if we conducted ourselves innoxiously and reverentially towards brutes, as if they were of a kindred nature with us? For it would be impossible to assign any work, any medicine, or any remedy for the want which is destructive of life, or that we can act justly, unless we preserve the ancient boundary and law. To fishes, savage beasts, and birds, devoid Of justice, Jove to devour each other Granted; but justice to mankind he gave. i.e. towards each other. [6]πρὸς ἀλλήλους. οἷς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ δικαιοπραγεῖν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐδὲ ἡμῖν πρὸς ἐκεῖνα γίνεται τὸ ἀδικεῖν. ὡς οἵ γε τοῦτον προέμενοι τὸν λόγον οὔτε εὐρεῖαν ἄλλην οὔτε λεπτὴν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ παρεισελθεῖν ὁδὸν ἀπολελοίπασιν. ὃ γὰρ ἤδη εἰρήκαμεν, τὴν φύσιν αὐτάρκη μὲν οὐκ οὖσαν, ἀλλ’ ἐνδεῆ πολλῶν, εἰργομένην δὲ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ζῴων βοηθείας ἄρδην ἀναιρεῖν καὶ κατακλείειν εἰς τὸν ἄπορον καὶ ἀνόργανον καὶ ἀκτήμονα τῶν ἀναγκαίων βίον. φασὶ δὲ οὐκ εὐτυχῶς διαβιῶναι τοὺς πρώτους γενομένους· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων ἵστασθαι τὴν δεισιδαιμονίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ φυτὰ βιάζεσθαι. τί γὰρ μᾶλλον ὁ βοῦν ἀποσφάττων καὶ πρόβατον ἀδικεῖ τοῦ κόπτοντος ἐλάτην ἢ δρῦν; εἴ γε καὶ τούτοις ἐμφύεται ψυχὴ κατὰ τὴν μεταμόρφωσιν. τῶν μὲν οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς καὶ τοῦ περιπάτου τὰ κυριώτατα ταῦτα. [6] But it is not possible for us to act unjustly towards those to whom we are not obliged to act justly. Hence, for those who reject this reasoning, no other road of justice is left, either broad or narrow, into which they can enter. For, as we have already observed, our nature, not being sufficient to itself, but indigent of many things, would be entirely destroyed, and enclosed in a life involved in difficulties, unorganic, and deprived of necessaries, if excluded from the assistance derived from animals. It is likewise said, that those first men did not live prosperously; for this superstition did not stop at animals, but compelled its votaries even to spare plants. For, indeed, what greater injury does he do, who cuts the throat of an ox or a sheep, than he who cuts [ 940 ]

down a fir tree or an oak? Since, from the doctrine of transmigration, a soul is also implanted in these. These therefore are the principal arguments of the Stoics and Peripatetics. The Arguments of the Epicureans, from Hermachus [7] οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἐπικούρου ὥσπερ γενεαλογίαν μακρὰν διεξιόντες φασὶν ὡς οἱ παλαιοὶ νομοθέται, ἀπιδόντες εἰς τὴν τοῦ βίου κοινωνίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους πράξεις, ἀνόσιον ἐπεφήμισαν τὴν ἀνθρώπου σφαγὴν καὶ ζημίας οὐ τὰς τυχούσας προσῆψαν, τάχα μὲν καὶ φυσικῆς τινὸς οἰκειώσεως ὑπαρχούσης τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πρὸς ἀνθρώπους διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα τῆς μορφῆς καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς εἰς τὸ μὴ προχείρως φθείρειν τὸ τοιοῦτον ζῷον ὥσπερ ἕτερόν τι τῶν συγκεχωρημένων· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ τήν γε πλείστην αἰτίαν τοῦ δυσχερανθῆναι τοῦτο καὶ ἀνόσιον ἐπιφημισθῆναι τὸ μὴ συμφέρειν εἰς τὴν ὅλην τοῦ βίου σύστασιν ὑπολαβεῖν. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς οἱ μὲν παρακολουθήσαντες τῷ συμφέροντι τοῦ διορίσματος οὐδὲν προσεδεήθησαν ἄλλης αἰτίας τῆς ἀνειργούσης αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς πράξεως ταύτης, οἱ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενοι λαβεῖν αἴσθησιν ἱκανὴν τούτου, τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ζημίας δεδιότες ἀπείχοντο τοῦ κτείνειν προχείρως ἀλλήλους. ὧν ἑκάτερον φαίνεται καὶ νῦν ἔτι συμβαῖνον. καὶ γὰρ οἱ μὲν θεωροῦντες τὸ συμφέρον τῆς προειρημένης διατάξεως ἑτοίμως ἐπ’ αὐτῆς μένουσιν, οἱ δὲ μὴ δεκτικοὶ τούτου τὰς ἀπειλὰς φοβούμενοι τῶν νόμων, ἃς ἕνεκα τῶν ἀσυλλογίστων τοῦ χρησίμου διώρισάν τινες, παραδεξαμένων αὐτὰς τῶν πλειόνων. [7] The Epicureans, however, narrating, as it were, a long genealogy, say, that the ancient legislators, looking to the association of life, and the mutual actions of men, proclaimed that manslaughter was unholy, and punished it with no casual disgrace. Perhaps, indeed, a certain natural alliance which exists in men towards each other, though the similitude of form and soul, is the reason why they do not so readily destroy an animal of this kind, as some of the other animals which are conceded to our use. Nevertheless, the greatest cause why manslaughter was considered as a thing grievous to be borne, and impious, was the opinion that it did not contribute to the whole nature and condition of human life. For, from a principle of this kind, those who are capable of perceiving the advantage arising from this decree, require no other cause of being restrained from a deed so dire. But those who are not able to have a sufficient perception of this, being terrified by the magnitude of the punishment, will abstain from readily destroying each other. For those, indeed, who survey the utility of the before-mentioned ordinance, will promptly observe it; but those who are not able to perceive the benefit with which it is attended, will obey the mandate, in consequence of fearing the threatenings of the laws; which threatenings certain persons ordained for the sake of those who could not, by a reasoning process, infer the beneficial tendency of the decree, at the same time that most would admit this to be evident.

[ 941 ]

[8] οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς βιαίως κατέστη νόμιμον οὔτε μετὰ γραφῆς οὔτε ἄνευ γραφῆς τῶν διαμενόντων νῦν καὶ διαδίδοσθαι πεφυκότων, ἀλλὰ συγχωρησάντων αὐτῷ [καὶ] τῶν χρησομένων. φρονήσει γὰρ ψυχῆς, οὐ ῥώμῃ σώματος καὶ δυναστευτικῇ δουλώσει τῶν ὄχλων διήνεγκαν οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα τοῖς πολλοῖς εἰσηγούμενοι, καὶ τοὺς μὲν εἰς ἐπιλογισμὸν τοῦ χρησίμου καταστήσαντες ἀλόγως αὐτοῦ πρότερον αἰσθανομένους καὶ πολλάκις ἐπιλανθανομένους, τοὺς δὲ τῷ μεγέθει τῶν ἐπιτιμίων καταπλήξαντες. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἑτέρῳ χρῆσθαι φαρμάκῳ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ συμφέροντος ἀμαθίαν ἢ τῷ φόβῳ τῆς ἀφωρισμένης ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ζημίας. αὕτη γὰρ κατέχει μόνη καὶ νῦν τοὺς τυχόντας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ κωλύει τοῦ μήτε κοινῇ μήτε ἰδίᾳ τὸ ἀλυσιτελὲς πράττειν. εἰ δὲ πάντες ἐδύναντο βλέπειν ὁμοίως καὶ μνημονεύειν τὸ συμφέρον, οὐδὲν ἂν προσεδέοντο νόμων, ἀλλ’ αὐθαιρέτως τὰ μὲν εὐλαβοῦντο [τῶν ἀπειρημένων], τὰ δὲ ἔπραττον [τῶν προστεταγμένων]. ἱκανὴ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ χρησίμου καὶ βλαβεροῦ θεωρία τῶν μὲν φυγὴν παρασκευάσαι, τῶν δὲ αἵρεσιν· ἡ δὲ τῆς ζημίας ἀνάτασις πρὸς τοὺς μὴ προορωμένους τὸ λυσιτελοῦν. ἀναγκάζει γὰρ δεσπόζειν ἐπικρεμαμένη ταῖς ἀγούσαις ἐπὶ τὰς ἀσυμφόρους πράξεις ὁρμαῖς, καὶ βίᾳ [8] For none of those legal institutes which were established from the first, whether written or unwritten, and which still remain, and are adapted to be transmitted, [from one generation to another] became lawful through violence, but through the consent of those that used them. For those who introduced things of this kind to the multitude, excelled in wisdom, and not in strength of body, and the power which subjugates the rabble. Hence, through this, some were led to a rational consideration of utility, of which they had only an irrational sensation, and which they had frequently forgotten; but others were terrified by the magnitude of the punishments. For it was not possible to use any other remedy for the ignorance of what is beneficial than the dread of the punishment ordained by law. For this alone even now keeps the vulgar in awe, and prevents them from doing any thing, either publicly or privately, which is not beneficial [to the community]. But if all men were similarly capable of surveying and recollecting what is advantageous, there would be no need of laws, but men would spontaneously avoid such things as are prohibited, and perform such as they were ordered to do. For a survey of what is useful and detrimental, is a sufficient incentive to the avoidance of the one and the choice of the other. But the infliction of punishment has a reference to those who do not foresee what is beneficial. For impendent punishment forcibly compels such as these to subdue those impulses which lead them to useless actions, and to do that which is right. [9] συναναγκάζει τὸ δέον ποιεῖν. ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸν ἀκούσιον φόνον οὐκ ἔξω πάσης ζημίας κατέστησαν οἱ νομοθέται, ὅπως μηδεμίαν ἐνδῶσι πρόφασιν τοῖς ἑκουσίως τὰ τῶν ἀκουσίως δρώντων ἔργα μιμεῖσθαι προαιρουμένοις, ἀλλ’ ὅπως μὴ ἀφύλακτον ᾖ μηδὲ ἠμελημένον τὸ τοιοῦτο, ὥστε πολλὰ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἀκούσια συμβαίνειν. οὐ γὰρ συνέφερεν οὐδὲ τοῦτο διὰ τὰς [ 942 ]

αὐτὰς αἰτίας δι’ ἃς καὶ τὸ καθ’ ἑκούσιον τρόπον φθείρειν ἀλλήλους. ὥστε τῶν ἀκουσίων τῶν μὲν παρὰ τὴν ἀστάθμητον αἰτίαν καὶ ἀφύλακτον γιγνομένων ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει, τῶν δὲ παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀμέλειαν καὶ ἀνεπίστατον τῆς διαφορᾶς, βουληθέντες κωλῦσαι τὴν βλάπτουσαν τοὺς πλησίον ῥᾳθυμίαν, οὐκ ἀθῷον κατέστησαν ζημίας οὐδὲ τὴν ἀκούσιον πρᾶξιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ φόβῳ τῶν ἐπιτιμίων ἀφεῖλον τὸ πολὺ τῆς τοιαύτης ἁμαρτίας. οἶμαι δ’ ἔγωγε καὶ τοὺς συγκεχωρημένους ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου φόνους τὰς ἀφοσιώσεις λαμβάνειν τὰς εἰθισμένας διὰ τῶν καθαρμῶν παρ’ οὐδεμίαν ἑτέραν αἰτίαν ὑπὸ τῶν πρώτων καλῶς ταῦτα εἰσηγησαμένων ἢ παρὰ τὸ τῆς ἑκουσίου πράξεως ὅτι πλεῖστον βούλεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀφιστάναι. πανταχόθεν γὰρ ἐδέοντο τοῦ κωλύσοντος ἑτοίμως πράττειν τὸ μὴ συμφέρον οἱ τυχόντες. ὅθεν οὐ μόνον ζημίας ἔταξαν οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦτο συνιδόντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερον φόβον ἄλογον ἐπήρτησαν, οὐ καθαροὺς ἐπιφημίσαντες εἶναι τοὺς ὅπως οὖν ἄνθρωπον ἀνελόντας, μὴ χρησαμένους καθαρμοῖς. τὸ γὰρ ἀνόητον τῆς ψυχῆς ποικίλως παιδαγωγηθὲν ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν καθεστῶσαν ἡμερότητα, προσμηχανωμένων ἐπὶ τῆς ἀλόγου φορᾶς ἐπιθυμίας τιθασεύματα τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ πλήθη διοικησάντων· ὧν ἔστιν καὶ τὸ μὴ κτείνειν ἀλλήλους [9] Hence also, legislators ordained, that even involuntary manslaughter should not be entirely void of punishment; in order that they might not only afford no pretext for the voluntary imitation of those deeds which were involuntarily performed, but also that they might prevent many things of this kind from taking place, which happen, in reality, involuntarily. For neither is this advantageous through the same causes, by which men were forbidden voluntarily to destroy each other. Since, therefore, of involuntary deeds, some proceed from a cause which is unstable, and which cannot be guarded against by human nature; but others are produced by our negligence and inattention to different circumstances; hence legislators, wishing to restrain that indolence which is injurious to our neighbours, did not even leave an involuntary noxious deed without punishment, but, through the fear of penalties, prevented the commission of numerous offences of this kind. I also am of opinion, that the slaughters which are allowed by law, and which receive their accustomed expiations through certain purifications, were introduced by those ancient legislators, who first very properly instituted these things for no other reason than that they wished to prevent men as much as possible from voluntary slaughter. For the vulgar everywhere require something which may impede them from promptly performing what is not advantageous [to the community]. Hence those who first perceived this to be the case, not only ordained the punishment of fines, but also excited a certain other irrational dread, though proclaiming those not to be pure who in any way whatever had slain a man, unless they used purifications after the commission of the deed. For that part of the soul which is void of intellect, being variously disciplined, acquired a becoming mildness, certain taming arts having been from the first invented for the purpose of [ 943 ]

subduing the irrational impulses of desire, by those who governed the people. And one of the precepts promulgated on this occasion was, that men should not destroy each other without discrimination. [10] ἀκρίτως. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ζῴων εἰκότως οὐδὲν διεκώλυσαν φθείρειν οἱ πρῶτοι διορίσαντες ἅ τε δεῖ ποιεῖν ἡμᾶς καὶ ἃ μή· τὸ γὰρ συμφέρον ἐπὶ τούτων ἐκ τῆς ἐναντίας ἀπετελεῖτο πράξεως. οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν ἦν σῴζεσθαι μὴ πειρωμένους ἀμύνεσθαι τοῦτο συντρεφομένους μετ’ ἀλλήλων. διαμνημονεύοντες δέ τινες τῶν τότε χαριεστάτων, ὡς αὐτοῦ τε ἀπέσχοντο τοῦ κτείνειν διὰ τὸ χρήσιμον πρὸς τὴν σωτηρίαν, τοῖς τε λοιποῖς ἐνεποίουν μνήμην τοῦ ἀποβαίνοντος ἐν ταῖς μετ’ ἀλλήλων συντροφίαις, ὅπως ἀπεχόμενοι τοῦ συγγενοῦς, διαφυλάττωσι τὴν κοινωνίαν, ἣ συνήργει πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστου σωτηρίαν. οὐ μόνον δὲ χρήσιμον ἦν τὸ χωρίζεσθαι μηδὲ λυμαντικὸν ποιεῖν μηδὲν τῶν ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον συνειλεγμένων πρὸς τὸν τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ἐξορισμὸν ζῴων, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ἐπὶ βλάβῃ παραγιγνομένους. μέχρι μὲν οὖν τινὸς διὰ ταύτην ἀπείχοντο τοῦ συγγενοῦς, ὅσον ἐβάδιζεν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ χρείας τινὰς παρείχετο πρὸς ἑκάτερον τῶν εἰρημένων· ἐλθόντος δὲ ἐπὶ πλέον τοῦ χρόνου καὶ τῆς δι’ ἀλλήλων γενέσεως μακρὰν προηκούσης, ἐξεωσμένων δὲ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ζῴων καὶ τῆς παρασπάσεως, ἐπιλογισμὸν ἔλαβόν τινες τοῦ συμφέροντος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς [10] Those, however, who first defined what we ought to do, and what we ought not, very properly did not forbid us to kill other animals. For the advantage arising from these is effected by a contrary practice, since it is not possible that men could be preserved, unless they endeavoured to defend those who are nurtured with themselves from the attacks of other animals. At that time, therefore, some of those, of the most elegant manners, recollecting that they abstained from slaughter because it was useful to the public safety, they also reminded the rest of the people in their mutual associations of what was the consequence of this abstinence; in order that, by refraining from the slaughter of their kindred, they might preserve that communion which greatly contributes to the peculiar safety of each individual. But it was not only found to be useful for men not to separate from each other, and not to do any thing injurious to those who were collected together in the same place, for the purpose of repelling the attacks of animals of another species; but also for defence against men whose design was to act nefariously. To a certain extent, therefore, they abstained from the slaughter of men, for these reasons, viz. in order that there might be a communion among them in things that are necessary, and that a certain utility might be afforded in each of the above-mentioned incommodities. In the course of time, however, when the offspring of mankind, through their intercourse with each other, became more widely extended, and animals of a different species were expelled, certain persons directed their attention in

[ 944 ]

a rational way to what was useful to men in their mutual nutriment, and did not alone recall this to their memory in an irrational manner. [11] ἀλλήλων τροφαῖς, οὐ μόνον ἄλογον μνήμην. ὅθεν ἐπειράθησαν βεβαιοτέρως ἀνεῖρξαι τοὺς προχείρως φθείροντας ἀλλήλους καὶ τὴν βοήθειαν ἀσθενεστέραν κατασκευάζοντας διὰ τὴν τοῦ παρεληλυθότος λήθην. πειρώμενοι δὴ τοῦτο δρᾶν τὰς ἔτι μενούσας καὶ νῦν κατὰ πόλεις τε καὶ ἔθνη νομοθεσίας εἰσήνεγκαν, ἐπακολουθήσαντος τοῦ πλήθους αὐτοῖς ἑκουσίως παρὰ τὸ μᾶλλον ἤδη τοῦ συμφέροντος ἐν τῇ μετ’ ἀλλήλων ἀθροίσει λαμβάνειν αἴσθησιν· ὁμοίως γὰρ εἰς τὴν ἀφοβίαν συνήργει τό τε λυμαντικὸν πᾶν κτεινόμενον ἀφειδῶς καὶ τὸ χρήσιμον πρὸς τὴν τούτου φθορὰν διατηρούμενον. ὅθεν εἰκότως τὸ μὲν ἀπηγορεύθη, τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἐκωλύθη τῶν εἰρημένων. ἐκεῖνο δὲ λέγειν οὐκ ἔστιν, ὡς ἔνια τῶν ζῴων οὐ φθαρτικὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ὄντα φύσεως οὐδὲ καθ’ ἕτερον οὐδένα τρόπον λυμαινόμενα τοὺς βίους συγκεχώρηκεν ὁ νόμος ἀναιρεῖν ἡμῖν. οὐδὲν γάρ, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ἐστὶ τοιοῦτο τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου συγκεχωρημένων, ὅπερ οὐκ ἐώμενον λαμβάνειν τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἀφθονίας βλαπτικὸν γίγνοιτ’ ἂν ἡμῶν· ἐν δὲ τῷ νῦν πλήθει διατηρούμενον χρείας παρέχεταί τινας εἰς τὸν βίον. καὶ γὰρ πρόβατον καὶ βοῦς καὶ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτο μετριάζον μὲν φέρει τινὰς πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν ἡμῖν διαγωγὴν ὠφελείας, εἰς πᾶσαν δὲ ἐκπεσὸν δαψίλειαν καὶ μακρὰν ὑπεροχὴν ἔχον τῆς καθεστώσης λυμαίνοιτ’ ἂν τὸν βίον ἡμῶν, τὸ μὲν καὶ πρὸς ἀλκὴν τρεπόμενον, ἅτε φύσεως εὐφυοῦς εἰς τοῦτο μετέχον, τὸ δὲ μόνον τὴν ἀνεθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐκ τῆς γῆς τροφὴν καταναλίσκον. διὸ καὶ παρὰ τὴν αἰτίαν ταύτην οὐδὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν ζῴων ἐκωλύθη φθείρειν, ἵνα τὸ συμφέρον πρὸς τὴν χρείαν καταλείπηται πλῆθος καὶ τὸ ῥᾳδίως κρατεῖσθαι δυνησόμενον. οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ λεόντων καὶ λύκων καὶ ἁπλῶς τῶν ἀγρίων προσαγορευομένων ζῴων, ὁμοίως μικρῶν τε καὶ μεγάλων, οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν λαβεῖν πλῆθος ὃ καταλειπόμενον ἐπεκούφιζεν ἂν τὸν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῶν βίον, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ βοῶν καὶ ἵππων καὶ προβάτων ἔχει καὶ ἁπλῶς τῶν ἡμέρων ὀνομαζομένων ζῴων. ὅθεν τὰ μὲν ἄρδην φθείρομεν, τῶν δὲ τὸ πλεῖον τῆς συμμετρίας ἀφαιροῦμεν. [11] Hence they endeavoured still more firmly to restrain those who readily destroyed each other, and who, through an oblivion of past transactions, prepared a more imbecile defence. But in attempting to effect this, they introduced those legal institutes which still remain in cities and nations; the multitude spontaneously assenting to them, in consequence of now perceiving, in a greater degree, the advantage arising from an association with each other. For the destruction of every thing noxious, and the preservation of that which is subservient to its extermination, similarly contribute to a fearless life. And hence it is reasonable to suppose, that one of the above-mentioned particulars was forbidden, but that the other was not prohibited. Nor must it be said, that the law allows us to destroy some animals which are not corruptive of human nature, and which are not in any other way injurious to our life. For as I may say, no animal among those which the law permits us to kill is of this kind; since, if we suffered them to increase excessively, they would become injurious to us. But through [ 945 ]

the number of them which is now preserved, certain advantages are imparted to human life. For sheep and oxen, and every such like animal, when the number of them is moderate, are beneficial to our necessary wants; but if they become redundant in the extreme, and far exceed the number which is sufficient, they then become detrimental to our life; the latter by employing their strength, in consequence of participating of this through an innate power of nature, and the former, by consuming the nutriment which springs up from the earth for our benefit alone. Hence, through this cause, the slaughter of animals of this kind is not prohibited, in order that as many of them as are sufficient for our use, and which we may be able easily to subdue, may be left. For it is not with horses, oxen, and sheep, and with all tame animals, as it is with lions and wolves, and, in short, with all such as are called savage animals, that, whether the number of them is small or great, no multitude of them can be assumed, which, if left, would alleviate the necessity of our life. And on this account, indeed, we utterly destroy some of them; but of others, we take away as many as are found to be more than commensurate to our use. [12] διὰ παραπλησίους ταῖς εἰρημέναις αἰτίας καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἐδωδὴν διορισθῆναι τῶν ἐμψύχων νομιστέον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ταῦτα καταλαβόντων νόμῳ, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν οὐκ ἐδωδίμων αἴτιον τὸ συμφέρον καὶ ἀσύμφορον· ὥστε τοὺς λέγοντας ὅτι πᾶν τὸ καλὸν καὶ δίκαιον κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ὑπολήψεις ἐστὶ περὶ τῶν νενομοθετημένων, ἠλιβάτου τινὸς γέμειν εὐηθείας. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν οὕτως ἔχον τοῦτο, ἀλλ’ ὅνπερ τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συμφερόντων, οἷον ὑγιεινῶν τε καὶ ἑτέρων μυρίων εἰδῶν, ἀλλὰ διαμαρτάνουσιν ἐν πολλοῖς τῶν τε κοινῶν ὁμοίως καὶ τῶν ἰδίων. καὶ γὰρ τὰ παραπλησίως ἐφαρμόττοντα νομοθετήματα πᾶσιν οὐ καθορῶσί τινες, ἀλλ’ οἳ μὲν τῶν ἀδιαφόρων δοξάζοντες εἶναι παραλείπουσιν, οἳ δὲ τὴν ἐναντίαν δόξαν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἔχουσιν, καὶ τὰ μὴ καθόλου συμφέροντα πανταχοῦ τινὲς οἴονται συμφέρειν. ὅθεν διὰ τὴν αἰτίαν ταύτην ἀντέχονται τῶν οὐκ ἐφαρμοττόντων, εἰ καὶ ἐπί τινων ἐξευρίσκουσι τά τε πρὸς αὑτοὺς λυσιτελῆ καὶ τὰ κοινὴν ἔχοντα τὴν ὠφέλειαν· ὧν ἔστι καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς ἐδωδὰς τῶν ἐμψύχων καὶ φθορὰς ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν ἐθνῶν διατεταγμένα διὰ τὸ τῆς χώρας ἴδιον, οἷς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἐμμένειν ἡμῖν διὰ τὸ μηδὲ τὸν αὐτὸν οἰκεῖν τόπον. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἠδύναντο ποιήσασθαί τινα συνθήκην ὥσπερ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους οὕτω καὶ πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ζῴων ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ κτείνειν μηδὲ πρὸς ἡμῶν ἀκρίτως αὐτὰ κτείνεσθαι, καλῶς εἶχε μέχρι τούτου τὸ δίκαιον ἐξάγειν· ἐπιτεταμένον γὰρ ἐγίγνετο πρὸς τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ τῶν ἀμηχάνων ἦν κοινωνῆσαι νόμου τὰ μὴ δεχόμενα τῶν ζῴων λόγον, διὰ μὲν τοῦ τοιούτου τρόπου τὸ συμφέρον οὐχ οἷόν τε κατασκευάσασθαι πρὸς τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἐμψύχων ἀσφάλειαν μᾶλλόν περ ἢ τῶν ἀψύχων, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τὴν ἐξουσίαν λαμβάνειν, ἣν νῦν ἔχομεν εἰς τὸ κτείνειν αὐτά, μόνως ἔστι τὴν ἐνδεχομένην ἔχειν ἀσφάλειαν. τοιαῦτα μὲν καὶ τὰ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων. [12] On this account, from the above-mentioned causes, it is similarly requisite to think, that what pertains to the eating of animals, was ordained by those who from the first established the laws; and that the advantageous and the disadvantageous were the [ 946 ]

causes why some animals were permitted to be eaten and others not. So that those who assert, that every thing beautiful and just subsists conformably to the peculiar opinions of men respecting those who establish the laws, are full of a certain most profound stupidity. For it is not possible that this thing can take place in any other way than that in which the other utilities of life subsist, such as those that are salubrious, and an innumerable multitude of others. Erroneous opinions, however, are entertained in many particulars, both of a public and private nature. For certain persons do not perceive those legal institutes, which are similarly adapted to all men; but some, conceiving them to rank among things of an indifferent nature, omit them; while others, who are of a contrary opinion, think that such things as are not universally profitable, are every where advantageous. Hence, through this cause, they adhere to things which are unappropriate; though in certain particulars they discover what is advantageous to themselves, and what contributes to general utility. And among these are to be enumerated the eating of animals, and the legally ordained destructions which are instituted by most nations on account of the peculiarity of the region. It is not necessary, however, that these institutes should be preserved by us, because we do not dwell in the same place as those did by whom they were made. If, therefore, it was possible to make a certain compact with other animals in the same manner as with men, that we should not kill them, nor they us, and that they should not be indiscriminately destroyed by us, it would be well to extend justice as far as to this; for this extent of it would be attended with security. But since it is among things impossible, that animals which are not recipients of reason should participate with us of law, on this account, utility cannot be in a greater degree procured by security from other animals, than from inanimate natures. But we can alone obtain security from the liberty which we now possess of putting them to death. And such are the arguments of the Epicureans. The Arguments of Claudius the Neapolitan who published a Treatise against Abstinence from Animal Food. [13] λοιπὸν δὲ ὁ πολὺς καὶ δημώδης ἄνθρωπος ἃ λέγειν εἴωθεν παραθετέον. τοὺς γὰρ παλαιοὺς φασὶν τῶν ἐμψύχων ἀποσχέσθαι οὐ δι’ εὐσέβειαν, διὰ δὲ τὸ μήπω εἰδέναι τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς χρῆσιν· ὡς δ’ ἔμαθον, τιμιώτατόν τε καὶ ἱερώτατον νομίσαι Ἑστίαν τε προσειπεῖν καὶ συνεστίους ἀπὸ τούτου γενέσθαι καὶ λοιπὸν χρήσασθαι τοῖς ζῴοις. εἶναι μὲν γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ σαρκοφαγεῖν, παρὰ φύσιν δὲ τὸ ὠμοφαγεῖν. πυρὸς οὖν εὑρεθέντος ἀπολαβεῖν τὸ κατὰ φύσιν δι’ ἑψήσεως, προσεμένους τὰ κρέα. δι’ ἃ ‘ὠμοφάγοι’ μὲν οἱ ‘θῶες’ καὶ ἐν ὀνείδει τὸ ‘ὠμὸν βεβρώθοις Πρίαμον’ καὶ ‘ὤμ’ ἀποτεμνόμενον κρέα ἔδμεναι’, ὡς ἂν δὴ τοῖς ἀθέοις ἀποδεδομένης τῆς τῶν ‹κρεῶν ὠμοφαγίας› ….. ‘κρεῶν πίνακας παρέθηκεν ἀείρας παντοίων’. τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον οὐ προσεφέροντο τὰ ἔμψυχα· οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὠμοφάγον ζῷον ὁ ἄνθρωπος· ὡς δὲ ἡ [ 947 ]

τοῦ πυρὸς εὑρέθη χρῆσις, πυρικμήτοις οὐ μόνον τοῖς κρέασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τοῖς πλείστοις βρωτοῖς ἐχρῶντο. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὠμοφάγον ὁ ἄνθρωπος δηλοῖ τινὰ ἔθνη ἰχθυοφάγα· τοὺς γὰρ ἰχθῦς ὀπτῶσιν, οἳ μὲν ἐπειδὰν αἱ πέτραι μάλιστα διάπυροι γένωνται ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου, οἳ δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄμμῳ. ὅτι δὲ σαρκοφάγον, αὐτὸ τοῦτο δηλοῖ τὸ μηδὲν ἔθνος ἀπέχεσθαι ἐμψύχων· καὶ οὐ κατὰ διαστροφὴν οἱ Ἕλληνες προσήκαντο, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῖς βαρβάροις ταὐτόν [13] It now remains, that we should adduce what plebeians and the vulgar are accustomed to say on this subject. For they say, that the ancients abstained from animals, not through piety, but because they did not yet know the use of fire; but that as soon as they became acquainted with its utility, they then conceived it to be most honourable and sacred. They likewise called it Vesta, and from this the appellation of convestals or companions was derived; and afterwards they began to use animals. For it is natural to man to eat flesh, but contrary to his nature to eat it raw. Fire, therefore, being discovered, they embraced what is natural, and admitted the eating of boiled and masted flesh. Hence lynxes are [said by Homer  to be] crudivorous, or eaters of raw flesh; and of Priam, also, he says, as a disgraceful circumstance, Raw flesh by you, O Priam, is devoured . And, Raw flesh, dilacerating, he devoured . And this is said, as if the eating of raw flesh pertained to the impious. Telemachus, also, when Minerva was his guest, placed before her not raw, but roasted flesh. At first, therefore, men did not eat animals, for man is not [naturally] a devourer of raw flesh. But when the use of fire was discovered, fire was employed not only for the cooking of flesh, but also for most other eatables. For that man is not [naturally] adapted to eat raw flesh, is evident from certain nations that feed on fishes. For these they roast, some upon stones that are very much heated by the sun; but others roast them in the sand. That man, however, is adapted to feed on flesh, is evident from this, that no nation abstains from animal food. Nor is this adopted by the Greeks through depravity, since the same custom is admitted by the barbarians. [14] ἐστιν ἔθος. ὁ δὲ κελεύων μὴ ἐσθίειν καὶ ἄδικον ἡγούμενος, οὐδὲ κτείνειν δίκαιον ἐρεῖ οὐδὲ ψυχὰς ἀφαιρεῖσθαι. ἀλλὰ μὴν πρός γε τὰ θηρία πόλεμος ἡμῖν ἔμφυτος ἅμα καὶ δίκαιος. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἑκόντα ἐπιτίθεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ὥσπερ λύκοι καὶ λέοντες· τὰ δ’ οὐχ ἑκόντα, ὥσπερ οἱ ἔχεις· πατηθέντες γὰρ ἐνίοτε δάκνουσιν· καὶ τὰ μὲν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐπιτίθεται, τὰ δὲ τοὺς καρποὺς φθείρει· ὑπὲρ ὧν πάντων μέτιμεν ταῦτα, καὶ τὰ κατάρξαντα θηρία κτείνομεν καὶ τὰ μὴ κατάρξαντα, ὡς μή τι πρὸς αὐτῶν πάθωμεν. οὐκ ἔστιν γὰρ ὅστις ἰδὼν ὄφιν οὐκ ἔκτεινε δυνάμενος, ὡς μήτ’ αὐτὸς δηχθείη μήτ’ ἄλλος ἁπλῶς ἄνθρωπος· οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἐστὶ μῖσος κατὰ τῶν κτεινομένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ στοργὴ πρὸς ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώπου. δικαίου δ’ ὄντος τοῦ πρὸς τὰ θηρία πολέμου πολλῶν ἀπεχόμεθα τῶν συνανθρωπούντων. ὅθεν οἱ Ἕλληνες οὔτε κυνοφαγοῦσιν [ 948 ]

οὔθ’ ἵππους ἐσθίουσιν οὔτ’ ὄνους ‹ὗς› μέντοι ἐσθίουσιν ὡς ταὐτοῦ γένους τοῖς ἀγρίοις τὸ ἥμερον· ὡσαύτως τε τοὺς ὄρνιθας. οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστι χρήσιμον πρὸς ἄλλο τι ὗς ἢ πρὸς βρῶσιν. Φοίνικες δὲ καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀπέσχοντο, ὅτι οὐδ’ ὅλως ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐφύετο· ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ νῦν ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ φασὶν ὁρᾶσθαι τὸ ζῷον τοῦτο. ὡς οὖν κάμηλον ἢ ἐλέφαντα Ἑλλήνων οὐδεὶς θεοῖς ἔθυσε, παρ’ ὅσον οὐδ’ ἤνεγκεν ἡ Ἑλλὰς ταῦτα τὰ ζῷα, οὕτως οὐδ’ ἐν Κύπρῳ ἢ Φοινίκῃ θεοῖς προσήχθη τὸ ζῷον τοῦτο, παρ’ ὅσον οὐκ ἦν ἐντόπιον· οὐδὲ Αἰγύπτιοι θεοῖς θύουσιν ὗν παρὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. τὸ δ’ ὅλως ἀπέχεσθαι τοῦ ζῴου τινὰς ὅμοιόν ἐστιν τῷ μηδ’ ἂν ἡμᾶς ἐθελῆσαι καμήλεια ἐσθίειν. [14] But he who forbids men to feed on animals, and thinks it is unjust, will also say that it is not just to kill them, and deprive them of life. Nevertheless, an innate and just war is implanted in us against brutes. For some of them voluntarily attack men, as, for instance, wolves and lions; others not voluntarily, as serpents, since they bite not, except they are trampled on. And some, indeed, attack men; but others destroy the fruits of the earth. From all these causes, therefore, we do not spare the life of brutes; but we destroy those who commence hostilities against us, as also those who do not, lest we should suffer any evil from them. For there is no one who, if he sees a serpent, will not, if he is able, destroy it, in order that neither it, nor any other serpent, may bite a man. And this arises, not only from our hatred of those that are the destroyers of our race, but likewise from that kindness which subsists between one man and another. But though the war against brutes is just, yet we abstain from many which associate with men. Hence, the Greeks do not feed either on dogs, or horses, or asses, because of these, those that are tame are of the same species as the wild. Nevertheless, they eat swine and birds. For a hog is not useful for anything but food. The Phoenicians, however, and Jews, abstain from it, because, in short, it is not produced in those places. For it is said, that this animal is not seen in Ethiopia even at present. As, therefore, no Greek sacrifices a camel or an elephant to the Gods, because Greece does not produce these animals, so neither is a hog sacrificed to the Gods in Cyprus or Phoenicia, because it is not indigenous in those places. And, for the same reason, neither do the Egyptians sacrifice this animal to the Gods. In short, that some nations abstain from a hog, is similar to our being unwilling to eat the flesh of camels. [15] διὰ τί δ’ ἄν τις καὶ ἀπόσχοιτο τῶν ἐμψύχων; ἆρά γε τὴν ψυχὴν χείρω ποιεῖ ἢ τὸ σῶμα; δῆλον δ’ ἐστὶν ὡς οὐδέτερον. τὰ γὰρ σαρκοφαγοῦντα ζῷα συνετώτερα τῶν ἄλλων. θηρευτικὰ γοῦν ἐστὶ καὶ τέχνην ἔχει ταύτην, ἀφ’ ἧς περιποιεῖται τὸν βίον, ἰσχύν τε καὶ ἀλκὴν κέκτηται, ὥσπερ λέοντες καὶ λύκοι· ὥσθ’ ἡ κρεοφαγία οὔτε τὴν ψυχὴν οὔτε τὸ σῶμα λυμαίνεται. δῆλον δ’ ἐστὶ κἀκ τοῦ τοὺς ἀθλητὰς τὰ σώματα κρείσσω τῇ κρεοφαγίᾳ παρέχειν, κἀκ τῶν ἰατρῶν, οἳ τὰ ἐκ τῆς ἀρρωστίας σώματα ἀναλαμβάνουσι ταῖς κρεοφαγίαις. τοῦ δὲ μὴ ὑγιῶς δοξάσαι τὸν Πυθαγόραν σημεῖον οὐ μικρόν· τῶν γὰρ σοφῶν ἀνδρῶν οὐδεὶς ἐπείσθη, οὔτε τῶν ἑπτὰ οὔτε τῶν ὕστερον γενομένων φυσικῶν, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὁ σοφώτατος Σωκράτης οὐδ’ οἱ ἀπὸ Σωκράτους. [ 949 ]

[15] But why should any one abstain from animals? Is it because feeding on them makes the soul or the body worse? It is, however, evident, that neither of these is deteriorated by it. For those animals that feed on flesh are more sagacious than others, as they are venatic, and possess an art by which they supply themselves with food, and acquire power and strength; as is evident in lions and wolves. So that the eating of flesh neither injures the soul nor the body. This likewise is manifest, both from the athletae, whose bodies become stronger by feeding on flesh, and from physicians, who restore bodies to health by the use of animal food. For this is no small indication that Pythagoras did not think sanely, that none of the wise men embraced his opinion; since neither any one of the seven wise men, nor any of the physiologists who lived after them, nor even the most wise Socrates, or his followers, adopted it. [16] φέρε δὲ καὶ πεισθῆναι πάντας ἀνθρώπους τῷ δόγματι. τίνα τοίνυν ἡ ἐπιγονὴ τῶν ζῴων ἕξει μοῖραν; ὗς μὲν γὰρ ὅσα τίκτει καὶ λαγὼς οὐδένα λανθάνει· πρόσθες δὲ καὶ τἄλλα ζῷα πάνθ’ ἁπλῶς. πόθεν οὖν τούτοις ἡ νομή, καὶ τί πείσονται οἱ γεωργοί; καὶ γὰρ φθειρομένων τῶν καρπῶν τοὺς φθείροντας οὐκ ἀποκτείνουσιν ἡ γῆ τε τὸ πλῆθος οὐκ οἴσει τῶν ζῴων, τά τε θνῄσκοντα ἐκ τῆς σηπεδόνος φθορὰν ἐμποιήσει, λοιμοῦ τε κατασχόντος οὐκ ἔσται καταφυγή. θάλασσα μὲν γὰρ καὶ ποταμοὶ καὶ λίμναι ἰχθύων πεπλήσονται, ὁ δὲ ἀὴρ ὀρνίθων, ἡ δὲ γῆ [πλήρης] ἑρπετῶν παντοίων. [16] Let it, however, be admitted that all men are persuaded of the truth of this dogma, respecting abstinence from animals. But what will be the boundary of the propagation of animals? For no one is ignorant how numerous the progeny is of the swine and the hare. And to these add all other animals. Whence, therefore, will they be supplied with pasture? And what will husbandmen do? For they will not destroy those who destroy the fruits of the earth. And the earth will not be able to bear the multitude of animals. Corruption also will be produced from the putridity of those that will die. And thus, from pestilence taking place, no refuge will be left. For the sea, and rivers, and marshes, will be filled with fishes, and the air with birds, but the earth will be full of reptiles of every kind. [17] πόσοι δὲ πρὸς θεραπείαν ἐμποδισθήσονται ἀπεχόμενοι τῶν ζῴων; τοὺς γοῦν τῶν ὄψεων ἀποτυφλουμένους ἔστιν ἰδεῖν ἔχεως βρώσει τηρήσαντας ὅρασιν. Κρατεροῦ τοῦ ἰατροῦ οἰκέτης ξένῳ περιπεσὼν νοσήματι, τῶν σαρκῶν ἀπόστασιν λαβουσῶν ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν, τοῖς μὲν φαρμάκοις ὠφέλητο οὐδέν· ἰχθύος δὲ τρόπῳ ἔχει σκευασθέντι καὶ βρωθέντι διεσώθη, τῆς σαρκὸς συγκολληθείσης. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἄλλα ζῷα θεραπεύει προσενεχθέντα καὶ τῶν ζῴων ἓν ἕκαστον μέρος. ἃ δὴ πάντα [17] How many likewise will be prevented from having their diseases cured, if animals are abstained from? For we see that those who are blind recover their sight by eating a viper. A servant of Craterus, the physician, happening to be seized with a new [ 950 ]

kind of disease, in which the flesh fell away from the bones, derived no benefit from medicines; but by eating a viper prepared after the manner of a fish, the flesh became conglutinated to the bones, and he was restored to health. Many other animals also, and their several parts, cure diseases when they are properly used for that purpose; of all which remedies he will be frustrated who rejects animal food. [18] παραιρεῖται ὁ παραιτούμενος τὰ ἔμψυχα. εἰ δέ, ὡς φασί, καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ψυχὴν ἔχει, ποῖος ἂν εἴη ὁ βίος μήτε ζῴων μήτε φυτῶν ἡμῶν ἀποτεμνόντων; εἴπερ δὲ μὴ ἀσεβεῖ ὁ τὰ φυτὰ κατακόπτων, οὐδ’ ὁ τὰ ζῷα. [18] But, if as they say, plants also have a soul, what will become of our life if we neither destroy animals nor plants? If, however, he is not impious who cuts off plants, neither will he be who kills animals. [19] ἀλλ’ οὐ χρῆναι φήσει τις κτείνειν τὸ ὁμόφυλον, εἴ γε ὁμοούσιοι αἱ τῶν ζῴων ψυχαὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις. ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν ἑκούσας τις εἰσκρίνεσθαι τὰς ψυχὰς δίδωσιν, νεότητος ἐρώσας ἄν τις φαίη εἰσκρίνεσθαι [ἐν γὰρ ταύτῃ πάντων ἀπόλαυσις]. διὰ τί οὖν οὐκ εἰς ἀνθρώπου πάλιν εἰσεδύοντο φύσιν; εἰ δὲ ἑκούσας μὲν καὶ νεότητος ἔρωτι, διὰ δὲ παντὸς εἴδους ζῴων, κεχαρισμένον ἂν εἴη αὐταῖς τὸ ἀναιρεῖσθαι. ἡ γὰρ ἐπάνοδος ταχίων ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τά τε σώματα ἐσθιόμενα λύπην οὐκ ἂν ἐντίκτοι ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὡς ἂν ἀπηλλαγμέναις αὐτῶν, ἔρως δ’ ἂν αὐταῖς εἴη ἐν ἀνθρώπου φύσει γενέσθαι, ὥσθ’ ὅσον ἂν λυποῖντο ἐκλείπουσαι τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτο χαίροιεν ἀπολείπουσαι τὰ ἄλλα σώματα. ταχίων γὰρ ἡ ἐπὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπάνοδος, ὃς τῶν ἀλόγων δεσπόζει πάντων ὡς ὁ θεὸς ἀνθρώπων. αἰτία τοίνυν ἱκανὴ ἀναιρεῖν τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα [ἐφ’ ὅσον ἀδικεῖ κτείνοντα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους]. εἰ δ’ εἰσὶν αἱ μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀθάνατοι ψυχαί, αἱ δὲ τῶν ἀλόγων θνηταί, οὐκ ἀδικοῦμεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι τὰ ἄλογα κτείνοντες, ὥσπερ ὠφελοῦμεν, εἴπερ εἰσὶν ἀθάνατοι, κτείνοντες· εἰς ἐπάνοδον γὰρ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως [19] But some one may, perhaps, say it is not proper to destroy that which belongs to the same tribe with ourselves; if the souls of animals are of the same essence with ourselves. If, however, it should be granted that souls are inserted in bodies voluntarily, it must be said that it is through a love of juvenility: for in the season of youth there is an enjoyment of all things. Why, therefore, do they not again enter into the nature of man? But if they enter voluntarily, and for the sake of juvenility, and pass through every species of animals, they will be much gratified by being destroyed. For thus their return to the human form will be more rapid. The bodies also which are eaten will not produce any pain in the souls of those bodies, in consequence of the souls being liberated from them; and they will love to be implanted in the nature of man. Hence, as much as they are pained on leaving the human form, so much will they rejoice when they leave other bodies. For thus they will more swiftly become man again, who predominates over all irrational animals, in the same manner as God does over men. There is, therefore, a sufficient cause for destroying other animals, viz. their acting unjustly in destroying [ 951 ]

men. But if the souls of men are immortal, but those of irrational animals mortal, men will not act unjustly by destroying irrational animals. And if the souls of brutes are immortal, we shall benefit them by liberating them from their bodies. For, by killing them, we shall cause them to return to the human nature. [20] τοῦτο δρῶμεν. [εἰ δ’ ἀμύνομεν, οὐκ ἀδικοῦμεν, ἀλλ’ ἀδικοῦντα μετερχόμεθα.] ὥστ’ εἰ μὲν ἀθάνατοι αἱ ψυχαί, κτείνοντες ὠφελοῦμεν· εἰ δὲ αἱ τῶν ἀλόγων θνηταί, κτείνοντες οὐδὲν ἀσεβὲς πράττομεν. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἀμύνομεν, πῶς οὐκ ἐν δίκῃ πράττομεν; ὄφιν μὲν οὖν καὶ σκορπίον, κἂν μὴ ἐπίωσιν ἡμῖν, κτείνομεν, ἵνα μηδ’ ἄλλος πρὸς αὐτῶν τι πάθῃ, τῷ κοινῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀμύνοντες· ἐπιχειροῦντα δὲ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἢ τοῖς συνανθρωποῦσιν ἢ τοῖς καρποῖς, πῶς οὐκ [20] If, however, we [only] defend ourselves [in putting animals to death], we do not act unjustly, but we take vengeance on those that injure us. Hence, if the souls of brutes are indeed immortal, we benefit them by destroying them. But if their souls are mortal, we do nothing impious in putting them to death. And if we defend ourselves against them, how is it possible that in so doing we should not act justly. For we destroy, indeed, a serpent and a scorpion, though they do not attack us, in order that some other person may not be injured by them; and in so doing we defend the human race in general. But shall we not act justly in putting those animals to death, which either attack men, or those that associate with men, or injure the fruits of the earth? [21] ἂν δικαίως κτείνοιμεν; εἰ δ’ ἅπαξ ἀδικίαν τις ταύτην ἡγεῖται, μήτε γάλακτι χρήσθω μήτ’ ἐρίῳ μήτε ᾠοῖς μήτε μέλιτι. ὡς γὰρ ἄνθρωπον ἀδικεῖς ἀφαιρούμενος τὴν ἐσθῆτα, οὕτως καὶ τὴν ὄιν πέξας· ἐσθὴς γὰρ αὕτη τοῦ προβάτου· καὶ τὸ γάλα οὐ σοὶ γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀποκυηθεῖσι τέκνοις· ἥ τε μέλισσα ταύτην αὑτῇ τροφὴν συνελέξατο, ἣν ἀφελόμενος ἡδονὴν σαυτῷ κατεσκεύασας. καὶ τὸν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων λόγον σεσίγηκα, ὅτι καὶ τῶν φυτῶν ἀδικοῦμεν ἁπτόμενοι. εἰ δὲ ταῦθ’ ἡμῶν χάριν γέγονεν, καὶ ἡ μέλισσα ἡμῖν δουλεύουσα τὸ μέλι ἐργάζεται καὶ τὸ ἔριον ἐπιφύεται τῶν προβάτων, [21] If, however, some one should, nevertheless, think it is unjust to destroy brutes, such a one should neither use milk, nor wool, nor sheep, nor honey. For, as you injure a man by taking from him his garments, thus, also, you injure a sheep by shearing it. For the wool which you take from it is its vestment. Milk, likewise, was not produced for you, but for the young of the animal that has it. The bee also collects honey as food for itself; which you, by taking away, administer to your own pleasure. I pass over in silence the opinion of the Egyptians, that we act unjustly by meddling with plants. But if these things were produced for our sake, then the bee, being ministrant to us, elaborates honey, and the wool grows on the back of sheep, that it may be an ornament to us, and afford us a bland heat.

[ 952 ]

[22] ὃ ἡμῖν κόσμος καὶ ἀλέα. αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς θεοῖς εἰς εὐσέβειαν συντελοῦντες ζῷα θύομεν· καὶ αὐτῶν ὁ μὲν Ἀπόλλων λυκοκτόνος, ἡ δὲ Ἄρτεμις θηροκτόνος· ἐπεὶ καὶ οἱ ἡμίθεοι καὶ οἱ ἥρωες πάντες καὶ γένει καὶ ἀρετῇ ἡμῶν προύχοντες ἐδοκίμασαν τὴν τῶν ἐμψύχων προσφοράν, ὥστε καὶ θεοῖς θύειν δωδεκῇδας καὶ ἑκατόμβας. ὁ δὲ Ἡρακλῆς ἔν τε τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ ἐπὶ [22] Co-operating also with the Gods themselves in what contributes to piety, we sacrifice animals: for, of the Gods, Apollo, indeed, is called the λυκοκτονος, slayer of wolves; and Diana, θηροκτονος, the destroyer of wild beasts. Demi-gods likewise, and all the heroes who excel us both in origin and virtue, have so much approved of the slaughter of animals, that they have sacrificed to the Gods Dodeceides  and Hecatombs. But Hercules, among other things, is celebrated for being an ox-devourer. [23] τούτῳ ὑμνεῖται, ὅτι βουφάγος ἦν. τὸ δὲ λέγειν ὅτι πόρρωθεν Πυθαγόρας ἠσφαλίζετο τῆς ἀλληλοφαγίας ἀποκρουόμενος τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, εὔηθες. εἰ μὲν γὰρ οἱ κατὰ Πυθαγόραν [πάντες ἄνθρωποι] ἀλλήλους ἤσθιον, ληρώδης ὁ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἀποσπῶν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἵνα τῆς ἀλληλοφαγίας ἀποστήσῃ. διὰ τούτου γὰρ ἔμελλε μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς προτρέψεσθαι, ἀποφαίνων ὡς ἴσον ἐστὶν ἀλλήλους ἐσθίειν καὶ ὑῶν τε καὶ βοῶν σάρκας ἐμφορεῖσθαι. εἰ δὲ μὴ ἦν ἀλληλοφαγία τότε, τί ἔδει τούτου τοῦ δόγματος; εἰ δ’ ἑαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς ἑταίροις τὸν νόμον ἐτίθει, αἰσχρὰ ἡ ὑπόθεσις· ἀλληλοφάγους γὰρ ἀποδείκνυσι τοὺς Πυθαγόρᾳ [23] It is, however, stupid to say that Pythagoras exhorted men to abstain from animals, in order that he might, in the greatest possible degree, prevent them from eating each other. For, if all men at the time of Pythagoras were anthropophagites, he must be delirious who drew men away from other animals, in order that they might abstain from devouring each other. For, on this account, he ought rather to have extorted them to become anthropophagites, by showing them that it was an equal crime to devour each other, and to eat the flesh of oxen and swine. But if men at that time did not eat each other, what occasion was there for this dogma? And if he established this law for himself and his associates, the supposition that he did so is disgraceful. For it demonstrates that those who lived with Pythagoras were anthropophagites. [24] συμβιώσαντας. τοὐναντίον δὲ συμβήσεσθαι ὧν οὗτος ἐστοχάζετο. εἰ γὰρ ἀποστησόμεθα τῶν ἐμψύχων, οὐ μόνον πλούτου τοῦ τοιούτου καὶ ἡδονῆς ἀπολειψόμεθα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἀρούρας ἀπολοῦμεν φθειρομένας ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων, ὑπό τε ὄφεων καταλήψεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς ἀρότους χαλεπῶς γίγνεσθαι καὶ τὰ σπαρέντα εὐθύς τε ὑπὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων ἀναλέγεσθαι καὶ τὰ τελεωθέντα ὑπὸ τῶν τετραπόδων ἅπαντα ἀναλίσκεσθαι. τοσαύτης δὲ ἀπορίας βρωτῶν γιγνομένης ἀνάγκη πικρὰ καταλήψεται ἐπ’ ἀλλήλους [24] For we say that the very contrary of what he conjectured would happen. For, if we abstained from animals, we should not only be deprived of pleasure and riches of this kind, but we should also lose our fields, which would be destroyed by wild beasts; since the whole earth would be occupied by serpents and birds, so that it would be [ 953 ]

difficult to plough the land; the scattered seeds would immediately he gathered by the birds; and all such fruits as had arrived at perfection, would be consumed by quadrupeds. But men being oppressed by such a want of food, would be compelled, by bitter necessity, to attack each other. [25] τραπέσθαι. καὶ μὴν καὶ οἱ θεοὶ συντάξεις τε πολλοῖς θεραπείας ἕνεκα δεδώκασιν τὰς ἐκ θηρίων, καὶ πλήρης γε ἡ ἱστορία ὡς αὐτοὶ προσέταξάν τισι καὶ θύειν αὐτοῖς καὶ προσφέρεσθαι τῶν τυθέντων. ἐν δὲ τῇ καθόδῳ τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν οἱ ἐπὶ τὴν Λακεδαίμονα στρατεύοντες μετ’ Εὐρυσθένους καὶ Προκλέους ἐν ἀπορίᾳ τῶν ἀναγκαίων ὄφεις ἔφαγον, οὓς ἀνέδωκεν ἡ γῆ τότε τροφὴν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ. ἄλλῳ δὲ στρατῷ πεινῶντι κατὰ τὴν Λιβύην ἐνέπεσε νέφος ἀκρίδων. ἐν τοῖς Γαδείροις καὶ τόδε συνέτυχεν. Βόγος ἦν βασιλεὺς Μαυρουσίων ὁ ἐν Μεθώνῃ σφαγεὶς ὑπ’ Ἀγρίππα· οὗτος ἐπεχείρησεν τῷ Ἡρακλείῳ πλουσιωτάτῳ ὄντι ἱερῷ. ἔστι δὲ νόμος τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ὁσημέραι τὸν βωμὸν αἱμάσσειν. τοῦτο δὲ ὅτι οὐ γνώμῃ γίγνεται ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ κατὰ θεόν, ὁ τότε καιρὸς ἀπέδειξε. τῆς γὰρ πολιορκίας ἐγχρονιζομένης ἐπέλειπον τὰ ἱερεῖα. ὁ δὲ ἱερεὺς ἐν ἀπορίᾳ γενόμενος ὄνειρον ὁρᾷ τοιόνδε. ἐδόκει ἑστάναι μέσος τῶν στηλῶν τῶν Ἡρακλείων, ἔπειτ’ ἄντικρυς τοῦ βωμοῦ ὁρᾶν ὄρνιν καθεζόμενον καὶ πειρώμενον ἐφίπτασθαι· ἐπιπτάντα δὲ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν αὐτοῦ· ᾧ δὴ καὶ τὸν βωμὸν αἱμάξαι. τοῦτ’ ἰδὼν ἅμ’ ἡμέρᾳ ἐξαναστὰς ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν ἦλθεν καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ ὀνείρῳ στὰς ἐπὶ τοῦ πύργου ἀποβλέπει· ὁρᾷ τε τὸν ὄρνιν ἐκεῖνον οἷον ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις, ἐλπίσας τε ἐκβαίνειν τοὐνύπνιον ἔστη. καταπτὰς δ’ ὁ ὄρνις ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ ἐκαθέζετο, εἰς τὰς χεῖράς θ’ αὑτὸν ἔδωκε τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, καὶ οὕτως ἱερεύθη καὶ ὁ βωμὸς ᾑμάχθη. τούτου δ’ ἐστὶν ἐνδοξότερον τὸ γεγονὸς ἐν Κυζίκῳ. πολιορκοῦντος γὰρ αὐτὴν Μιθραδάτου ἡ τῆς Περσεφόνης ἑορτὴ ἐπέστη, ἐν ᾗ βοῦν χρὴ θῦσαι. αἱ δ’ ἱεραὶ ἀγέλαι ἐνέμοντο τῆς πόλεως ἄντικρυς, ἐξ ὧν ἔδει τὸ ἱερεῖον γενέσθαι, ἤδη δὲ ἦν καὶ τὸ σημεῖον ἐπικείμενον. τῆς δ’ ὥρας αἰτούσης ἡ βοῦς ἐμυκήσατο διενήξατό τε τὸν πόρον· ὥς τε ἀνέῳξαν τὴν πύλην οἱ φύλακες, ἣ δὲ δρόμῳ διῇξε κἀπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ παρέστη, τῇ θεῷ τε ἐτελέσθη τὸ θῦμα. οὐκ ἀπεικότως ἄρα εὐσεβέστατον εἶναι νομίζουσι τὸ πλεῖστα θῦσαι, εἴπερ ἀρεστὸν θεοῖς φαίνεται τὸ θύειν. [25] Moreover, the Gods themselves, for the sake of a remedy, have delivered mandates to many persons about sacrificing animals. For history is full of instances of the Gods having ordered certain persons to sacrifice animals, and, when sacrificed, to eat them. For, in the return of the Heraclidae, those who engaged in war against Lacedsemon, in conjunction with Eurysthenes and Proscles, through a want of necessaries, were compelled to eat serpents, which the land at that time afforded for the nutriment of the army. In Libya, also, a cloud of locusts fell for the relief of another army that was oppressed by hunger. The same thing likewise happened at Gades. Bogus was a king of the Mauritanians, who was slain by Agrippa in Mothone. He in that place attacked the temple of Hercules, which was most rich. But it was the custom of the priests daily to sprinkle the altar with blood. That this, however, was not effected by the [ 954 ]

decision of men, but by that of divinity, the occasion at that time demonstrated. For, the seige being continued for a long time, victims were wanting. But the priest being dubious how he should act, had the following vision in a dream. He seemed to himself to be standing in the middle of the pillars of the temple of Hercules, and afterwards to see a bird sitting opposite to the altar, and endeavouring to fly to it, but which at length flew into his hands. He also saw that the altar was sprinkled with its blood. Seeing this, he rose as soon as it was day, and went to the altar, and standing on the turret, as he thought he did in his dream, he looked round, and saw the very bird which he had seen in his sleep. Hoping, therefore, that his dream would be fulfilled, he stood still, saw the bird fly to the altar and sit upon it, and deliver itself into the hands of the high priest. Thus the bird was sacrificed, and the altar sprinkled with blood. That, however, which happened at Cyzicus, is still more celebrated than this event. For Mithridates having besieged this city, the festival of Proserpine was then celebrated, in which it was requisite to sacrifice an ox. But the sacred herds, from which it was necessary the victim should be taken, fed opposite to the city, on the continent : and one of them was already marked for this purpose. When, therefore, the hour demanded the sacrifice, the ox lowed, and swam over the sea, and the guards of the city opened the gates to it. Then the ox directly ran into the city, and stood at the altar, and was sacrificed to the Goddess. Not unreasonably, therefore, was it thought to be most pious to sacrifice many animals, since it appeared that the sacrifice of them was pleasing to the Gods. [26] ποία δὲ ἄν τις γένοιτο πόλις, εἰ πάντες οἱ πολῖται ταύτην ἔχοιεν τὴν γνώμην; πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἀμύναιντο πολεμίους ἐπὶ σφᾶς ἰόντας, τὴν μεγίστην ποιούμενοι φυλακὴν μή τινα αὐτῶν ἀποκτείνωσιν; παραχρῆμα τοίνυν ἀνάστατοι γίγνοιντ’ ἄν· ἄλλα δ’ ὅσα δυσχερῆ συμβαίνειν ἀνάγκη, μακρὸν ἂν [ἔργον] εἴη λέγειν. ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἀσεβὲς τὸ κτείνειν καὶ ἐσθίειν, δηλοῖ τὸ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Πυθαγόραν, τῶν μὲν πάλαι διδόντων γάλα πίνειν τοῖς ἀθλοῦσι καὶ τυροὺς δὲ ἐσθίειν ὕδατι βεβρεγμένους, τῶν δὲ μετ’ ἐκείνους ταύτην μὲν ἀποδοκιμασάντων τὴν δίαιταν, διὰ ‹δὲ› τῶν ξηρῶν σύκων τὴν τροφὴν ποιουμένων τοῖς ἀθληταῖς, πρῶτον περιελόντα τὴν ἀρχαίαν κρέα διδόναι τοῖς γυμναζομένοις καὶ πολὺ διαφέρουσαν πρὸς ἰσχὺν εὑρεῖν δύναμιν. ἱστοροῦσι δέ τινες καὶ αὐτοὺς ἅπτεσθαι τῶν ἐμψύχων τοὺς Πυθαγορείους, ὅτε θύοιεν θεοῖς. τοιαῦτα μὲν καὶ τὰ παρὰ Κλωδίῳ καὶ Ἡρακλείδῃ τῷ Ποντικῷ Ἑρμάρχῳ τε τῷ Ἐπικουρείῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς καὶ τοῦ περιπάτου, ἐν οἷς καὶ τὰ ὑμέτερα, ὅσα ἡμῖν ἀπηγγέλθη, περιείληπται. μέλλοντες δὲ πρός τε ταύτας καὶ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν ὑπολήψεις ἀντιλέγειν εἰκότως ἂν προλέγοιμεν ταῦτα. [26] But what would be the condition of a city, if all the citizens were of this opinion, [viz. that they should abstain from destroying animals?] For how would they repel their enemies, when they were attacked by them, if they were careful in the extreme not to kill any one of them? In this case, indeed, they must be immediately [ 955 ]

destroyed. And it would be too prolix to narrate other difficulties and inconveniences, which would necessarily take place. That it is not, however, impious to slay and feed on animals, is evident from this, that Pythagoras himself, though those prior to him permitted the athletae to drink milk, and to eat cheese, irrigated with water; but others, posterior to him, rejecting this diet, fed them with dry figs; yet he, abrogating the ancient custom, allowed them to feed on flesh, and found that such a diet greatly increased their strength. Some also relate, that the Pythagoreans themselves did not spare animals when they sacrificed to the gods. Such, therefore, are the arguments of Clodius, Heraclides Ponticus, Hermachus the Epicurean, and the Stoics and Peripatetics [against abstinence from animal food] among which also are comprehended the arguments which were sent to us by you, O Castricius. As, however, I intend to oppose these opinions, and those of the multitude, I may reasonably premise what follows. [27] πρῶτον μὲν τοίνυν ἰστέον ὡς οὐ παντὶ τῷ βίῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁ λόγος μου τὴν παραίνεσιν οἴσει· οὔτε γὰρ τοῖς τὰς βαναύσους τέχνας μετερχομένοις, οὔτ’ ἀθληταῖς σωμάτων, οὐ στρατιώταις, οὐ ναύταις, οὐ ῥήτορσιν, οὐ τοῖς τὸν πραγματικὸν βίον ἐπανελομένοις· ἀνθρώπῳ δὲ λελογισμένῳ, τίς τέ ἐστιν καὶ πόθεν ἐλήλυθεν ποῖ τε σπεύδειν ὀφείλει, τά τε περὶ τροφὴν κἀν τοῖς ἄλλοις καθήκουσιν ἐξηλλαγμένα τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ἄλλους βίους ὑποτιθεμένῳ. οὐδὲν ἄρα πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἢ τοιούτους γρύξαιμεν ἄν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν τῷ κοινῷ τούτῳ βίῳ ἡ αὐτὴ δήπου παραίνεσις τῷ τε καθεύδοντι καὶ εἰ τύχοι τοῦτο διὰ βίου σπουδάζοντι τά τε ὑπνωτικὰ πανταχόθεν παρασκευασαμένῳ, καὶ τῷ προθυμουμένῳ μὲν τὸν ὕπνον ἀποκρούειν, πᾶν ‹δὲ› τὸ περὶ αὑτὸν πρὸς ἀγρυπνίαν συντάξαντι. ἀλλὰ τῷ μὲν ἀνάγκη καὶ μέθην καὶ κραιπάλην καὶ πλησμονὴν ὑποτίθεσθαι, σκοτεινόν τε οἶκον καὶ στρωμνὴν μαλακὴν εὐρεῖάν τε καὶ πίειραν, ὡς φασὶν οἱ ποιηταί, παραινεῖν ἐκλέγεσθαι, καὶ πᾶν καρωτικὸν ἀργίας τε καὶ λήθης ποιητικόν, εἴτε ὀσφραντὸν εἴτ’ ἐπίχριστον εἴτε ποτὸν ἢ βρωτὸν προσάγειν φάρμακον· τῷ δὲ νηφάλιον μὲν καὶ ἄοινον τὸ ποτόν, λεπτὸν δὲ τὸ σιτίον καὶ ἐγγὺς τεῖνον ἀποσιτίας, φωτεινὸν δὲ τὸν οἶκον καὶ ἀέρος λεπτοῦ καὶ πνεύματος μέτοχον, φροντίδων ‹δὲ› καὶ μερίμνης ἀνακίνησιν σύντονον ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ τὴν κοίτην λιτήν τε καὶ σκληρὰν παρασκευάζειν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τοῦτο πεφύκαμεν, λέγω δὲ τὸ διαγρυπνεῖν, ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ὀλίγον τι διδόντες τῷ ὕπνῳ, καθ’ ὅσον οὐκ ἐν χώρῳ ἐσμὲν τῷ τῶν δι’ αἰῶνος ἀγρύπνων, ἢ οὔ, πρὸς δὲ τὸ καθεύδειν συνέστημεν, ἄλλος ἂν εἴη [27] In the first place, therefore, it must be known that my discourse does not bring with it an exhortation to every description of men. For it 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. 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 [ 956 ]

none but such as these do I direct my discourse. For, neither in this common life can there be one and the same exhortation to the sleeper, who endeavours to obtain sleep through the whole of life, and who, for this purpose, procures from all places things of a soporiferous nature, as there is to him who is anxious to repel sleep, and to dispose everything about him to a vigilant condition. But to the former it is necessary to recommend intoxication, surfeiting, and satiety, and to exhort him to choose a dark house, and A bed, luxuriant, broad, and soft, — as the poets say; and that he should procure for himself all such things as are of a soporiferous nature, and which are effective of sluggishness and oblivion, whether they are odours, or ointments, or are liquid or solid medicines. And to the latter it is requisite to advise the use of a drink sober and without wine, food of an attenuated nature, and almost approaching to fasting; a house lucid, and participating of a subtle air and wind, and to urge him to be strenuously excited by solicitude and thought, and to prepare for himself a small and hard bed. But, whether we are naturally adapted to this, I mean to a vigilant life, so as to grant as little as possible to sleep, since we do not dwell among those who are perpetually vigilant, or whether we are designed to be in a soporiferous state of existence, is the business of another discussion, and is a subject which requires very extended demonstrations. [28] λόγος καὶ μακρῶν δεόμενος ἀποδείξεων. τῷ δὲ ἅπαξ τὸ γοήτευμα τῆς ἐνταῦθ’ ἡμῶν διατριβῆς καὶ τοῦ οἴκου, ἐν ᾧ διάγομεν, ὑποπτεύσαντι τό τε αὑτοῦ ἄγρυπνον φύσει κατιδόντι καὶ τὸ ὑπνοποιὸν τοῦ χώρου, ἐν ᾧ διατρίβει, φωράσαντι, τούτῳ διαλεγόμενοι τὴν ἀκόλουθον τῇ τε ὑποψίᾳ τοῦ χώρου καὶ τῇ αὐτοῦ γνώσει τροφὴν παραδίδομεν, τοὺς καθεύδοντας ἐᾶν παρειμένους ἐν τοῖς σφῶν δεμνίοις παρακελευόμενοι, εὐλαβούμενοι μὴ ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμίας οἱ εἰς τοὺς ὀφθαλμιῶντας ἐμβλέποντες ἢ χάσμης οἱ συνόντες τοῖς χασμωμένοις, οὕτως νυσταγμῶν ἐμπλησθῶμεν καὶ ὕπνου, ψυγμοῦ τε πλήρους ὄντος τοῦ τόπου, ἐν ᾧ διατρίβομεν, ἐπιτηδείως τε ἔχοντος ὀφθαλμοὺς ῥευματίζειν, ἅτε καὶ λιμνώδους ὄντος, καὶ πρὸς καρηβαρίαν καὶ λήθην πάντας τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ καθελκουσῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων. εἰ μὲν οὖν καὶ οἱ νομοθέται τὰ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους διέταξαν ταῖς πόλεσι πρὸς τὸν θεωρητικὸν ἀνάγοντες βίον καὶ ζωὴν τὴν κατὰ νοῦν, χρῆν δήπου πειθομένους ἐκείνοις καὶ τὰς περὶ τῶν τροφῶν προσίεσθαι συγχωρήσεις. εἰ δὲ οὗτοι μὲν πρὸς τὸν κατὰ φύσιν λεγόμενον μέσον βίον ἀφορῶντες, καὶ ἃ πρόσοιντ’ ἂν καὶ οἱ πολλοί, οἷς τὰ ἐκτὸς ὡς τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἢ κακὰ καὶ τὰ τοῦ σώματος ὡσαύτως ὑπείληπται, νομοθετοῦσιν, τί τις ἂν τὸν τούτων παραφέρων νόμον ἀνατρέποι βίον νόμου μὲν παντὸς γραπτοῦ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς κειμένου κρείττονα, τὸν δὲ ἄγραφον καὶ θεῖον μάλιστα διώκοντα; [28] To the man, however, who once suspects the enchantments attending our journey through the present life, and belonging to the place in which we dwell; who also perceives himself to be naturally vigilant, and considers the somniferous nature of the [ 957 ]

region which he inhabits; — to this man addressing ourselves, we prescribe food consentaneous to his suspicion and knowledge of this terrene abode, and exhort him to suffer the somnolent to be stretched on their beds, dissolved in sleep. For it is requisite to be cautious, lest as those who look on the blear-eyed contract on ophthalmy, and as we gape when present with those who are gaping, so we should be filled with drowsiness and sleep, when the region which we inhabit is cold, and adapted to fill the eyes with rheum, as being of a marshy nature, and drawing down all those that dwell in it to a somniferous and oblivious condition. If, therefore, legislators had ordained laws for cities, with a view to a contemplative and intellectual life, it would certainly be requisite to be obedient to those laws, and to comply with what they instituted concerning food. But if they established their laws, looking to a life according to nature, and which is said to rank as a medium, [between the irrational and the intellectual life,] and to what the vulgar admit, who conceive externals, and things which pertain to the body to be good or evil, why should anyone, adducing their laws, endeavour to subvert a life, which is more excellent than every law which is written and ordained for the multitude, and which is especially conformable to an unwritten and divine law? For such is the truth of the case. [29] ἔχει γὰρ οὕτως. οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ εὐδαιμονικὴ ἡμῖν θεωρία λόγων ἄθροισις καὶ μαθημάτων πλῆθος, ὡς ἄν τις οἰηθείη, συνισταμένη κατὰ τοῦτο, οὐδ’ ἐν τῷ ποσῷ τῶν λόγων λαμβάνει τὴν ἐπίδοσιν· οὕτω γὰρ οὐδὲν ἂν ἐκώλυεν τοὺς πᾶν μάθημα συνάγοντας εἶναι εὐδαίμονας. νῦν δ’ οὐχ ὅπως πᾶν μάθημα συμπληροῖ τὴν θεωρίαν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὰ περὶ τῶν ὄντως ὄντων, ἐὰν μὴ προσῇ καὶ ἡ κατ’ αὐτὰ φυσίωσις καὶ ζωή. τριῶν γάρ, φασίν, ὡς καθ’ ἕκαστον σκοπὸν τελῶν ὄντων, ἡμῖν τὸ τυχεῖν τῆς τοῦ ὄντος θεωρίας τὸ τέλος, τῆς τεύξεως τελούσης τὴν κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν ἡμετέραν σύμφυσιν τῷ θεωροῦντι καὶ θεωρουμένῳ· οὐ γὰρ εἰς ἄλλο, ἀλλ’ εἰς τὸν ὄντως ἑαυτὸν ἡ ἀναδρομή· οὐδὲ πρὸς ἄλλο, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν ὄντως αὐτὸν ‹ἡ› σύμφυσις. αὐτὸς δὲ ὄντως ὁ νοῦς, ὥστε καὶ τὸ τέλος τὸ ζῆν κατὰ νοῦν. καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο καὶ οἱ λόγοι καὶ τὰ μαθήματα τὰ ἔξωθεν, καθαρτικὸν ἐπέχοντα τόπον ἡμῶν, οὐ συμπληρωτικὸν τῆς εὐδαιμονίας. ὅθεν εἰ μὲν ἐν λόγων ἀναλήψει ἀφώριστο τὸ εὔδαιμον, οἷόν τ’ ἦν ὀλιγωροῦντας καὶ τροφῶν καὶ ποιῶν ἔργων τυγχάνειν τοῦ τέλους. ἐπεὶ δὲ ζωὴν δεῖ ἀντὶ ζωῆς ἀλλάξασθαι τῆς νῦν διὰ λόγων καὶ ἔργων καθαρθέντας, φέρε ποῖοι λόγοι καὶ τίνα ἔργα εἰς ταύτην ἡμᾶς [29] The contemplation which procures for us felicity, does not consist, as some one may think it does, in a multitude of discussions and disciplines; nor does it receive any increase by a quantity of words. For if this were the case, nothing would prevent those from being happy by whom all disciplines are collected together [and comprehended]. Now, however, every discipline by no means gives completion to this contemplation, nor even the disciplines which pertain to truly existing beings, unless there is a conformity to them of our nature  and life. For since there are, as it is said, in every [ 958 ]

purpose three  ends, the end with us is to obtain the contemplation of real being, the attainment of it procuring, as much as it is possible for us, a conjunction of the contemplator with the object of contemplation. For the reascent of the soul is not to anything else than true being itself, nor is its conjunction with any other thing. But intellect is truly-existing being; so that the end is to live according to intellect. Hence such discussions and exoteric disciplines as impede our purification, do not give completion to our felicity. If, therefore, felicity consisted in literary attainments, this end might be obtained by those who pay no attention to their food and their actions. But since for this purpose it is requisite to exchange the life which the multitude lead for another, and to become purified both in words and deeds, let us consider what reasonings and what works will enable us to obtain this end. [30] καθίστησι σκεψώμεθα. ἆρ’ οὖν οὐ τὰ μὲν χωρίζοντα ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν καὶ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὰ παθῶν, ἀνάγοντα δὲ πρὸς νοερὸν καὶ ἀφάνταστον ἀπαθῆ τε ζωὴν καθ’ ὅσον οἷόν τε, ταῦτα ἂν εἴη· τὰ δ’ ἐναντία ἀλλότρια καὶ ἀποβολῆς ἄξια, καὶ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ τοῦ μὲν ἀφίστησιν, πρὸς ὃ δὲ κατασπᾷ; οἶμαι ἀκόλουθον εἶναι συγχωρεῖν. ἐοίκαμεν γὰρ τοῖς εἰς ἀλλόφυλον ἔθνος ἥκουσι καὶ μὴ μόνον τῶν οἰκείων ἐξορίστοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῆς ξένης ἐμπλησθεῖσι παθῶν τε καὶ ἐθῶν καὶ νομίμων ἐκφύλων καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα ῥοπὴν ἐσχηκόσιν. ὅνπερ οὖν τρόπον ὁ ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὰ οἰκεῖα μέλλων ἐπανήκειν οὐ μόνον προθυμεῖται ὁδεύειν, ἀλλὰ καί, ἵνα παραδεχθῇ, μελετᾷ μὲν ἀποτίθεσθαι πᾶν εἴ τι προσέλαβεν ἀλλόφυλον, ἐπαναμιμνήσκει δ’ ἑαυτὸν ὧν ἔχων ἐπελάθετο, ὧν ἄνευ παραδεχθῆναι οὐχ οἷόν τε πρὸς τῶν οἰκείων· τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐντεῦθεν, εἴπερ πρὸς τὰ ὄντως οἰκεῖα μέλλομεν ἐπανιέναι, ἃ μὲν ἐκ τῆς θνητῆς προσειλήφαμεν φύσεως, ἀποθέσθαι πάντα μετὰ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὰ προσπαθείας, δι’ ἧς ἡ κατάβασις γέγονεν, ἀναμνησθῆναι δὲ τῆς μακαρίας καὶ αἰωνίου οὐσίας καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἀχρώματον καὶ ἄποιον σπεύδοντας ἐπανελθεῖν, δύο μελέτας ποιησαμένους· μίαν μὲν καθ’ ἣν πᾶν τὸ ὑλικὸν καὶ θνητὸν ἀποθησόμεθα, ἑτέραν δὲ ὅπως ἐπανέλθωμεν καὶ περιγενώμεθα, ἐναντίως ἐπ’ αὐτὰ ἀναβαίνοντες ἢ ἐνταῦθα κατήλθομεν. νοεραὶ γὰρ ἦμεν καὶ ἐσμὲν ἔτι οὐσίαι, πάσης αἰσθήσεως καὶ ἀλογίας καθαρεύοντες· συνεπλάκημεν δὲ τῷ αἰσθητῷ δι’ ἀδυναμίας μὲν τῆς πρὸς τὸ νοητὸν ἡμῶν αἰωνίου συνουσίας, δυνάμεως δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὰ τῇδε λεγομένης. πᾶσαι γὰρ αἱ μετ’ αἰσθήσεως καὶ μετὰ σώματος ἐνεργοῦσαι δυνάμεις, μὴ μενούσης ἐν νοητῷ τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐβλάστησαν [ἐοικυῖαι κακώσει γῆς, ἣ πυροῦ πολλάκις τὸ σπέρμα δεξαμένη αἴρας ἐγέννησεν] διά τινα μοχθηρίαν τῆς ψυχῆς, οὐ φθειρούσης μὲν τὴν αὑτῆς οὐσίαν τῇ τῆς ἀλογίας γεννήσει, διὰ δὲ ταύτης πρὸς τὸ θνητὸν συναπτομένης καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἀλλότριον ἐκ τοῦ οἰκείου [30] Shall we say, therefore, that they will be such as separate us from sensibles, and the passions which pertain to them, and which elevate us as much as possible to an intellectual, unimaginative, and impassive life; but that the contraries to these are foreign, and deserve to be rejected? And this by so much the more, as they separate us from a life according to intellect. But, I think, it must be admitted, that we should follow [ 959 ]

the object to which intellect attracts us. For we resemble those who enter into, or depart from a foreign region, not only because we are banished from our intimate associates, but in consequence of dwelling in a foreign land, we are filled with barbaric passions, and manners, and legal institutes, and to all these have a great propensity. Hence, he who wishes to return to his proper kindred and associates, should not only with alacrity begin the journey, but, in order that he may be properly-received, should meditate how he may divest himself of everything of a foreign nature which he has assumed, and should recall to his memory such things as he has forgotten, and without which he cannot be admitted by his kindred and friends. After the same manner, also, it is necessary, if we intend to return to things which are truly our own, that we should divest ourselves of every thing of a mortal nature which we have assumed, together with an adhering affection towards it, and which is the cause of our descent [into this terrestrial region;] and that we should excite our recollection of that blessed and eternal essence, and should hasten our return to the nature which is without colour and without quality, earnestly endeavouring to accomplish two things; one, that we may cast aside every thing material and mortal; but the other, that we may properly return, and be again conversant with our true kindred, ascending to them in a way contrary to that in which we descended hither. For we were intellectual natures, and we still are essences purified from all sense and irrationality; but we are complicated with sensibles, through our incapability of eternally associating with the intelligible, and through the power of being conversant with terrestrial concerns. For all the powers which energize in conjunction with sense and body, are injured, in consequence of the soul not abiding in the intelligible; (just as the earth, when in a bad condition, though it frequently receives the seed of wheat, yet produces nothing but tares), and this is through a certain depravity of the soul, which does not indeed destroy its essence from the generation of irrationality, but through this is conjoined with a mortal nature, and is drawn down from its own proper to a foreign condition of being. [31] καθελκομένης. ὥστε καὶ μελετητέον, εἴπερ ἀναστρέφειν πρὸς τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐσπουδάκαμεν, καθ’ ὅσον δύναμις, αἰσθήσεως μὲν ἀφίστασθαι καὶ φαντασίας τῆς τε ταύταις ἑπομένης ἀλογίας καὶ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὴν παθῶν [καθ’ ὅσον μὴ ἐπείγῃ ἡ ἀνάγκη τῆς γενέσεως]· διαρθρωτέον δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν νοῦν, εἰρήνην αὐτῷ καὶ ἡσυχίαν ἐκ τοῦ ‹πρὸς› τὴν ἀλογίαν πολέμου παρασκευάζοντας· ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἀκούωμεν περὶ νοῦ καὶ τῶν νοητῶν, ἀλλὰ καί, ὅση δύναμις, ὦμεν ἀπολαύοντές τε αὐτοῦ τῆς θεωρίας καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀσωματίαν καθιστάμενοι καὶ ζῶντες μετ’ ἀληθείας δι’ ἐκεῖνον, ἀλλ’ οὐ ψευδῶς μετὰ τῶν τοῖς σώμασι συμφύλων. ἀποδυτέον ἄρα τοὺς πολλοὺς ἡμῖν χιτῶνας, τόν τε ὁρατὸν τοῦτον καὶ σάρκινον καὶ οὓς ἔσωθεν ἠμφιέσμεθα προσεχεῖς ὄντας τοῖς δερματίνοις, γυμνοὶ δὲ καὶ ἀχίτωνες ἐπὶ τὸ στάδιον ἀναβαίνωμεν τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς Ὀλύμπια ἀγωνισόμενοι. ἀρχὴ δὲ τὸ ἀποδύσασθαι [καὶ] οὗ οὐκ ἄνευ τὸ ἀγωνίζεσθαι γένοιτο. [ 960 ]

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἦν ἔξωθεν τῶν ἐνδυμάτων, τὰ δὲ ἔσωθεν, καὶ ἀπόδυσις ἣ μὲν διὰ τῶν φανερῶν, ἣ δὲ διὰ τῶν ἀφανεστέρων. τὸ μὲν γὰρ μὴ φαγεῖν φέρε ἢ μὴ λαβεῖν διδόμενα χρήματα τῶν φανερῶν ἦν καὶ ἐκκειμένων, τὸ δὲ μηδὲ ἐπιθυμεῖν τῶν ἀφανεστέρων. ὥστε μετὰ τῶν ἔργων ἀποστατέον καὶ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὰ προσπαθείας καὶ τοῦ πάθους. τί γὰρ καὶ ὄφελος τῶν ἔργων ἀφιστάμενον ταῖς αἰτίαις, [31] So that, if we are desirous of returning to those natures with which we formerly associated, we must endeavour to the utmost of our power to withdraw ourselves from sense and imagination, and the irrationality with which they are attended, and also from the passions which subsist about them, as far as the necessity of our condition in this life will permit. But such things as pertain to intellect should be distinctly arranged, procuring for it peace and quiet from the war with the irrational part; that we may not only be auditors of intellect and intelligibles, but may as much as possible enjoy the contemplation of them, and, being established in an incorporeal nature, may truly live through intellect; and not falsely in conjunction with things allied to bodies. We must therefore divest ourselves of our manifold garments, both of this visible and fleshly vestment, and of those with which we are internally clothed, and which are proximate to our cutaneous habiliments; and we must enter the stadium naked and unclothed, striving for [the most glorious of all prizes] the Olympia of the soul. The first thing, however, and without which we cannot contend, is to divest ourselves of our garments. But since of these some are external and others internal, thus also with respect to the denudation, one kind is through things which are apparent, but another through such as are more unapparent. Thus, for instance, not to eat, or not to receive what is offered to us, belongs to things which are immediately obvious; but not to desire is a thing more obscure; so that, together with deeds, we must also withdraw ourselves from an adhering affection and passion towards them. For what benefit shall we derive by abstaining from deeds, when at the same time we tenaciously adhere to the causes from which the deeds proceed? [32] ἀφ’ ὧν καὶ τὰ ἔργα, προσηλῶσθαι; ἡ δ’ ἀπόστασις γένοιτο μὲν ἂν καὶ μετὰ βίας, γένοιτο δ’ ἂν καὶ πειθοῖ καὶ κατὰ λόγον διὰ μαράνσεως καί, ὡς ἄν τις εἴποι, λήθης αὐτῶν καὶ θανάτου, ἣ δὴ καὶ ἀρίστη [ἐτύγχανεν] οὖσα ἀπόστασις οὐχ ἧπται οὗ ἀπεσπάσθη. φέρει γοῦν τι κἀν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς τὸ ἀποσπασθὲν βίᾳ ἢ μέρος ἢ ἴχνος τῆς ἀποσπάσεως· εἰσῆλθεν δὲ κατὰ τὸ συνεχῶς ἀμελέτητον. τὴν δ’ ἀμελετησίαν παρέχει ἡ μετὰ τῆς πρὸς τὰ νοητὰ διαρκοῦς φροντίδος ἀποχὴ τῶν τὰ πάθη ἐγειρόντων αἰσθημάτων, ἐν οἷς καὶ τὰ [32] But this departure [from sense, imagination, and irrationality,] may be effected by violence, and also by persuasion and by reason, through the wasting away, and, as it may be said, oblivion and death of the passions; which, indeed, is the best kind of departure, since it is accomplished without oppressing that from which we are divulsed. [ 961 ]

For, in sensibles, a divulsion by force is not effected without either a laceration of a part, or a vestige of avulsion. But this separation is introduced by a continual negligence of the passions. And this negligence is produced by an abstinence from those sensible perceptions which excite the passions, and by a persevering attention to intelligibles. And among these passions or perturbations, those which arise from food are to be enumerated. [33] ἐκ τῶν τροφῶν ἐγκρίνεται. ἀφεκτέον ἄρα οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἄλλων καὶ τροφῶν τινῶν, ὅσαι τὸ παθητικὸν ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐγείρειν ἐπεφύκεσαν. σκεπτέον δ’ ἔτι καὶ τῇδε. δύο πηγαὶ ἀνεῖνται πρὸς δεσμὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνταῦθα, ἐξ ὧν ὥσπερ θανασίμων πωμάτων ἐμπιμπλαμένη ἐν λήθῃ τῶν οἰκείων γίγνεται θεαμάτων, ἡδονή τε καὶ λύπη· ὧν παρασκευαστικὴ μὲν ἡ αἴσθησις καὶ ἡ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀντίληψις αἵ τε συνομαρτοῦσαι ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι φαντασίαι τε καὶ δόξαι καὶ μνῆμαι, ἐκ δὲ τούτων ἐγειρόμενα τὰ πάθη καὶ πᾶσα ἡ ἀλογία παχυνομένη κατάγει τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τοῦ οἰκείου περὶ τὸ ὂν ἀποστρέφει ἔρωτος. ἀποστατέον ἄρα εἰς δύναμιν τούτων. αἱ δὲ ἀποστάσεις διὰ τῶν ἐκκλίσεων τῶν κατὰ τὰς αἰσθήσεις παθῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὰς ἀλογίας, αἱ δὲ αἰσθήσεις ἢ διὰ τῶν ὁρατῶν ἢ τῶν ἀκουστῶν ἢ γευστῶν ἢ ὀσφραντῶν ἢ ἁπτῶν. οἷον γὰρ μητρόπολις ἡ αἴσθησις ἦν τῆς ἐν ἡμῖν ἐκφύλου τῶν παθῶν ἀποικίας. φέρε γὰρ ἴδε καθ’ ἑκάστην ὅσον τὸ ὑπέκκαυμα εἰσρεῖ τῶν παθῶν εἰς ἡμᾶς, τοῦτο μὲν ἐκ τῆς κατὰ τὰς θέας ἵππων τε ἁμίλλης καὶ ἀθλητῶν ἢ τῶν ἐκλελυγισμένων ὀρχήσεων, τοῦτο δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐπιβλέψεως τῆς πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ, αἳ δέλεαρ τοῦ ἀλογίστου παντοίαις [33] We should therefore abstain, no less than from other things, from certain food, viz., such as is naturally adapted to excite the passive part of our soul, concerning which it will be requisite to consider as follows: There are two fountains whose streams irrigate the bond by which the soul is bound to the body; and from which the soul being filled as with deadly potions, becomes oblivious of the proper objects of her contemplation. These fountains are pleasure and pain; of which sense indeed is preparative, and the perception which is according to sense, together with the imaginations, opinions, and recollections which accompany the senses. But from these, the passions being excited, and the whole of the irrational nature becoming fattened, the soul is drawn downward, and abandons its proper love of true being. As much as possible, therefore, we must separate ourselves from these. But the separation must be effected by an avoidance of the passions which subsist through the senses and the irrational part. But the senses are employed either on objects of the sight, or of the hearing, or of the taste, or the smell, or the touch; for sense is as it were the metropolis of that foreign colony of passions which we contain. Let us, therefore, consider how much fuel of the passions enters into us through each of the senses. For this is effected partly by the view of the contests of horses and the athletae, or those whose bodies are contorted in dancing; and partly

[ 962 ]

from the survey of beautiful women. For these, ensnaring the irrational nature, attack and subjugate it by all-various deceptions. [34] ἐπιθέτοις παγίσι χειροῦνται τὸ ἄλογον. κατὰ γὰρ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐκβακχευομένη ὑπὸ τῆς ἀλογίας ἀναπηδᾶν τε ποιεῖ καὶ ἐκβοᾶν καὶ κεκραγέναι, τῆς ἔξω ταραχῆς ἀπὸ τῆς ἔνδον ἐκκαομένης, ἣν ἀνῆψεν ἡ αἴσθησις. αἱ δὲ διὰ τῶν ἀκοῶν ἐμπαθεῖς οὖσαι κινήσεις ἔκ τε ποιῶν ψόφων καὶ ἤχων, αἰσχρορρημοσύνης τε καὶ λοιδορίας, [ὡς] τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς τέλεον τοῦ λογισμοῦ ἐκδεδυκότος φέρεσθαι ποιοῦσιν οἰστρουμένους, τοὺς δ’ αὖ θηλυνομένους παντοίας στροφὰς ἑλίττεσθαι. θυμιαμάτων δὲ χρήσεις ἢ εὐώδεις πνοαί, αἵ τε τοὺς αὑτῶν ἔρωτας τοῖς ἐρασταῖς ἐμπορευόμεναι, τίνα λελήθασιν, ὅσην τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν ἀλογίαν πιαίνουσιν; περὶ γὰρ τῶν διὰ τῆς γεύσεως τί ἄν τις καὶ εἴποι παθημάτων, διπλοῦ μάλιστ’ ἐνταῦθα τοῦ δεσμοῦ συμπλεκομένου· τοῦ μὲν ὃν ἐκ τῆς γεύσεως τὰ πάθη πιαίνει, τοῦ δὲ ὃν ἐκ τῆς ἐμφορήσεως τῶν ἀλλοτρίων σωμάτων βαρύν τε καὶ δυνατὸν ἐργαζόμεθα; φάρμακα γάρ, ὥς πού τις τῶν ἰατρῶν ἔφη, οὐ μόνα τὰ σκευαστὰ ὑπὸ τῆς ἰατρικῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ καθ’ ἡμέραν εἰς τροφὴν παραλαμβανόμενα σιτία τε καὶ ποτά· καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον τὸ θανάσιμον ἐκ τούτων τῇ ψυχῇ ἀναδίδοται ἢ ἐκ τῶν φαρμακειῶν εἰς διάλυσιν τοῦ σώματος κατασκευάζεται. αἱ δὲ ἁφαὶ μόνον οὐ σωματοῦσαι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ εἰς ἀνάρθρους ψόφους, οἷα δὴ σῶμα, πολλάκις ἐκπίπτειν ἠρέθισαν. ἐξ ὧν αἱ μνῆμαι καὶ αἱ φαντασίαι αἵ τε δόξαι ἀθροιζόμεναι ἑσμὸν τῶν παθῶν ἐγείρουσαι, φόβων, ἐπιθυμιῶν, ὀργῶν, ἐρώτων, φίλτρων, λυπῶν, ζήλων, μεριμνῶν, νοσημάτων, τῶν ὁμοίων παθῶν πλήρη ἀπέδειξαν. [34] For the soul, being agitated with Bacchic fury through all these by the irrational part, is made to leap, to exclaim and vociferate, the external tumult being inflamed by the internal, and which was first enkindled by sense. But the excitations through the ears, and which are of a passive nature, are produced by certain noises and sounds, by indecent language and defamation, so that many through these being exiled from reason, are furiously agitated, and some, becoming effeminate, exhibit all-various convolutions of the body. And who is ignorant how much the use of fumigations, and the exhalations of sweet odours, with which lovers supply the objects of their love, fatten the irrational part of the soul? But what occasion is there to speak of the passions produced through the taste? For here, especially, there is a complication of a twofold bond; one which is fattened by the passions excited by the taste; and the other, which we render heavy and powerful, by the introduction of foreign bodies [i.e. of bodies different from our own]. For, as a certain physician said, those are not the only poisons which are prepared by the medical art; but those likewise which we daily assume for food, both in what we eat, and what we drink, and a thing of a much more deadly nature is imparted to the soul through these, than from the poisons which are compounded for the purpose of destroying the body. And as to the touch, it does all but transmute the soul into the body, and produces in it certain inarticulate sounds, such as [ 963 ]

frequently take place in inanimate bodies. And from all these, recollections, imaginations, and opinions being collected together, excite a swarm of passions, viz. of fear, desire, anger, love, voluptuousness, pain, emolation, solicitude, and disease, and cause the soul to be full of similar perturbations. [35] διὸ πολὺς μὲν ὁ ἀγὼν τούτων καθαρεῦσαι, πολὺς δὲ ὁ πόνος ἀπαλλαγῆναι αὐτῶν τῆς μελέτης, καὶ νύκτωρ καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέραν τῆς κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀναγκαίας συμπλοκῆς ἡμῖν παρούσης. ὅθεν ὅση δύναμις ἀποστατέον τῶν τοιούτων χωρίων, ἐν οἷς καὶ μὴ βουλόμενόν ἐστιν περιπίπτειν τῷ πάθει· καὶ εὐλαβητέον τὴν ἐκ τῆς πείρας μάχην καὶ εἰ βούλει καὶ νίκην καὶ [35] Hence, to be purified from all these is most difficult, and requires a great contest, and we must bestow much labour both by night and by day to be liberated from an attention to them, and this, because we are necessarily complicated with sense. Whence, also, as much as possible, we should withdraw ourselves from those places in which we may, though unwillingly, meet with this hostile crowd. From experience, also, we should avoid a contest with it, and even a victory over it, and the want of exercise from inexperience. [36] τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀπειρίας ἀγυμναστίαν. οὕτως γὰρ καὶ τῶν πρόσθεν ἀκούομεν κλέα ἀνδρῶν, Πυθαγορείων τε καὶ σοφῶν· ὧν οἳ μὲν τὰ ἐρημότατα χωρία κατῴκουν, οἳ δὲ καὶ τῶν πόλεων τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τὰ ἄλση, ἐξ ὧν ἡ πᾶσα ἀπελήλαται τύρβη. Πλάτων δὲ τὴν Ἀκαδήμειαν οἰκεῖν εἵλετο, οὐ μόνον ἔρημον καὶ πόρρω τοῦ ἄστεος χωρίον, ἀλλὰ καί, ὡς φασίν, ἐπίνοσον. ἄλλοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν οὐκ ἐφείσαντο πόθῳ τῆς ἔνδον ἀπερισπάστου θεωρίας. εἰ δέ τις οἴεται συνανθρωπεύων καὶ ἐμπιπλὰς τὰς αἰσθήσεις τῶν κατ’ αὐτὰς παθῶν αὐτὸς μενεῖν ἀπαθής, λέληθεν αὑτὸν καὶ τοὺς αὐτῷ πειθομένους ἀπατῶν ἀγνοῶν τε ὡς πολὺ τῶν παθῶν καταδεδούλωται αὐτῇ ‹τῇ› ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους οὐκ ἀλλοτριώσει. οὐ γὰρ δὴ μάτην οὐδὲ τῆς φύσεως καταψευδόμενος τῶν φιλοσόφων ἔλεγεν ὁ φάς· ‘οὗτοι δέ που ἐκ νέων πρῶτον εἰς ἀγορὰν οὐκ ἴσασι τὴν ὁδόν, οὐδὲ ὅπου δικαστήριον ἢ βουλευτήριον ἤ τι κοινὸν ἄλλο τῆς πόλεως συνέδριον, νόμους δὲ καὶ ψηφίσματα λεγόμενα ἢ γεγραμμένα οὔτε ὁρῶσιν οὔτε ἀκούουσιν. σπουδαὶ δὲ ἑταιρειῶν ἐπ’ ἀρχὰς καὶ σύνοδοι καὶ δεῖπνα καὶ σὺν αὐλητρίσιν κῶμοι, οὐδὲ ὄναρ πράττειν προσίσταται αὐτοῖς. εὖ δὲ ἢ κακῶς τις γέγονεν ἐν πόλει, ἤ τί τῳ κακόν ἐστιν ἐκ προγόνων γεγονός, πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ἢ γυναικῶν, μᾶλλον αὐτὸν λέληθεν ἢ οἱ τῆς θαλάττης λεγόμενοι χόες. καὶ ταῦτα πάντα οὐδ’ ὅτι οὐκ οἶδεν, οἶδεν· οὐδὲ γὰρ αὐτῶν ἀπέχεται τοῦ εὐδοκιμεῖν χάριν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι τὸ σῶμα μόνον ἐν τῇ πόλει κεῖται αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπιδημεῖ, ἡ δὲ διάνοια ταῦτα πάντα ἡγησαμένη σμικρὰ καὶ οὐδέν, ἀτιμάσασα, πανταχῇ πέτεται κατὰ Πίνδαρον, εἰς τῶν ἐγγὺς οὐδὲν [36] For we learn, that this conduct was adopted by some of the celebrated ancient Pythagoreans and wise men; some of whom dwelt in the most solitary places; but others in temples and sacred groves, from which, though they were in cities, all tumult and the multitude were expelled. But Plato chose to reside in the Academy, a place not only [ 964 ]

solitary and remote from the city, but which was also said to be insalubrious. Others have not spared even their eyes, through a desire of not being divulsed from the inward contemplation [of reality]. If some one, however, at the same time that he is conversant with men, and while he is filling his senses with the passions pertaining to them, should fancy that he can remain impassive, he is ignorant that he both deceives himself and those who are persuaded by him, nor does he see that we are enslaved to many passions, through not alienating ourselves from the multitude. For he did not speak vainly, and in such a way as to falsify the nature of [the Coryphaean] philosophers, who said of them, “These, therefore, from their youth, neither know the way to the forum, nor where the court of justice or senate-house is situated, or any common place of assembly belonging to the city. They likewise neither hear nor see laws, or decrees, whether orally promulgated or written. And as to the ardent endeavours of their companions to obtain magistracies, the associations of these, their banquets and wanton feastings, accompanied by pipers, these they do not even dream of accomplishing. But whether any thing in the city has happened well or ill, or what evil has befallen any one from his progenitors, whether male or female, these are more concealed from such a one, than, as it is said, how many measures called choes the sea contains. And besides this, he is even ignorant that he is ignorant  of all these particulars. For he does not abstain from them for the sake of renown, but, in reality, his body only dwells, and is conversant in the city; but his reasoning power considering all these as trifling and of no value, “he is borne away”, according to Pindar, “on all sides, and does not apply himself to anything which is near.” [37] ἑαυτὴν συγκαθιεῖσα.’ διὰ γὰρ τούτων ὁ Πλάτων οὐ καθιέντα εἰς τὰ εἰρημένα φησὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν μένειν ἀπαθῆ, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ εἰς μηδὲν αὐτῶν συγκαθιέναι. διὸ οὔτε τὴν ὁδὸν οἶδεν ὅπου τὸ δικαστήριον ἢ βουλευτήριον, οὔτ’ ἄλλο οὐδὲν τῶν κατὰ μέρος. οὐκ οἶδε μὲν καὶ ἀπαντᾷ, ἀπαντῶν δὲ καὶ ἐμπιπλὰς τὰς αἰσθήσεις ἀπ’ αὐτῶν, ὅτι οὐδὲν οὐκ οἶδεν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἀπεχόμενον αὐτῶν φησίν, καὶ μὴ εἰδότα, οὐδ’ ὅτι οὐκ οἶδεν εἰδέναι. εἰς δὲ δεῖπνα καθιέναι οὐδὲ ὄναρ, φησίν, προσίσταται αὐτῷ. σχολῇ ἄρα ἀγανακτήσειεν ‹ἂν› ζωμῶν καὶ κρεᾳδίων ἀποστερούμενος. ἢ ὅλως προσήσεται ταῦτα; οὐχὶ δὲ πάντα ἡγησάμενος μικρὰ μὲν καὶ οὐδὲν ἐκ τῆς ἀποχῆς, μεγάλα δὲ καὶ βλαβερὰ ἐκ τῆς προσαγωγῆς, παραδειγμάτων ἐν τῷ ὄντι ἑστώτων, τοῦ μὲν θείου εὐδαιμονεστάτου, τοῦ δὲ ἀθέου ἀθλιωτάτου, τῷ μὲν ὁμοιώσεται, τῷ δὲ ἀνομοιώσεται, τὸν εἰκότα βίον ζῶν ᾧ ὁμοιοῦται, λιτόν τε τοῦτον καὶ αὐτάρκη καὶ ἥκιστα τοῖς θνητοῖς ἐμφορούμενον; [37] In what is here said, Plato asserts, that the Coryphaean philosopher, by not at all mingling himself with the above-mentioned particulars, remains impassive to them. Hence, he neither knows the way to the court of justice nor the senate-house, nor any thing else which has been before enumerated. He does not say, indeed, that he knows [ 965 ]

and is conversant with these particulars, and that, being conversant, and filling his senses with them, yet does not know anything about them; but, on the contrary, he says, that abstaining from them, he is ignorant that he is ignorant of them. He also adds, that this philosopher does not even dream of betaking himself to banquets. Much less, therefore, would he be indignant, if deprived of broth, or pieces of flesh; nor, in short, will he admit things of this kind. And will he not rather consider the abstinence from all these as trifling, and a thing of no consequence, but the assumption of them to be a thing of great importance and noxious? For since there are two paradigms in the order of things, one of a divine nature, which is most happy, the other of that which is destitute of divinity, and which is most miserable ; the Coryphaean philosopher will assimilate himself to the one, but will render himself dissimilar to the other, and will lead a life conformable to the paradigm to which he is assimilated, viz. a life satisfied with slender food, and sufficient to itself, and in the smallest degree replete with mortal natures. [38] ὡς ἕως ἄν τις περὶ βρωτῶν διαφέρηται καὶ συνηγορῇ ὡς καὶ τόδε βρωτέον, ἀλλ’ οὐκ, εἰ οἷόν τε ἦν, ἁπάσης τροφῆς ὅτι ἀφεκτέον διανοῆται, τοῖς πάθεσι συναγορεύων δοξοκοπεῖ, ὡς μηδὲν διαφερόμενος περὶ ὧν διαφέρεται. βίᾳ μὲν τοίνυν ἑαυτὸν ὁ φιλοσοφῶν οὐκ ἐξάξει· βιαζόμενος γὰρ οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐκεῖ μενεῖ, ὅθεν ἀπελθεῖν βιάζεται· οὐ μὴν τὸν δεσμὸν παχύνων ἀδιάφορόν τι πράττειν ἡγήσεται. ὥστε τὸ ἀναγκαῖον μόνον διδοὺς τῇ φύσει καὶ τοῦτο κοῦφον καὶ διὰ κουφοτέρων τροφῶν, πᾶν τὸ πέρα τούτου ὡς εἰς ἡδονὴν συντεῖνον παραιτήσεται. πέπεισται γὰρ κατὰ τὸν εἰπόντα, ὡς ἧλος ψυχῆς πρὸς τὰ σώματα ἐτύγχανεν ἡ αἴσθησις, αὐτῇ τῇ ῥώσει τοῦ πάθους ἑαυτῆς συγκολλῶσα καὶ οἷον καθηλοῦσα τὴν ψυχὴν πρὸς τὴν διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἀπόλαυσιν. εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐνεπόδιζεν τὰ αἰσθήματα τῇ τῆς ψυχῆς καθαρᾷ ἐνεργείᾳ, τί δεινὸν ἦν ἐν σώματι εἶναι ἀπαθῆ μένοντα [38] Hence, as long as any one is discordant about food, and contends that this or that thing should be eaten, but does not conceive that, if it were possible, we should abstain from all food, assenting by this contention to his passions, such a one forms a vain opinion, as if the subjects of his dissension were things of no consequence. He, therefore, who philosophizes, will not separate himself [from his terrestrial bonds] by violence; for he who is compelled to do this, nevertheless remains there from whence he was forced to depart. Nor must it be thought, that he who strengthens these bonds, effects a thing of small importance. So that only granting to nature what is necessary, and this of a light quality, and through more slender food, he will reject whatever exceeds this, as only contributing to pleasure. For he will be persuaded of the truth of what Plato says, that sense is a nail by which the soul is fastened to bodies , through the agglutination of the passions, and the enjoyment of corporeal delight. For if sensible perceptions were no impediment to the pure energy of the soul, why would it be a thing [ 966 ]

of a dire nature to be in body, while at the same time the soul remained impassive to the motions of the body? [39] τῶν διὰ σώματος κινημάτων; πῶς δ’ ἂν ἐπέκρινας καὶ εἶπας ὃ πέπονθας, μὴ πάσχων μηδὲ παρὼν οἷς ἔπαθες; νοῦς μὲν γάρ ἐστι πρὸς αὑτῷ, κἂν ἡμεῖς μὴ ὦμεν πρὸς αὐτῷ. νοῦ δὲ ὁ παρεκβὰς ἐκεῖ ἐστὶν ὅπου καὶ παρεξῆλθεν, καὶ διαθέων γε ἄνω καὶ κάτω τῇ τῆς ἀντιλήψεως προσοχῇ ἐκεῖ πάρεστιν ὅπου ἡ ἀντίληψις. ἄλλο δὲ ἦν μὴ προσέχειν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς τῷ πρὸς ἄλλοις εἶναι, ἄλλο δὲ τὸ ἀφιστάντα νομίζειν ἑαυτὸν μὴ παρεῖναι. οὐ δὴ δείξει τις τοῦτο συγχωροῦντα τὸν Πλάτωνα, εἴ γε μὴ ἑαυτὸν ἀπατῶντα τοῦτόν τις ἐπιδείξειεν. ὁ δὴ καθιεὶς εἰς βρωτῶν παραδοχὰς καὶ εἰς θέας ἑκὼν τὰς δι’ ὄψεως ὁμιλίας τε καὶ γέλωτας αὐτῇ τῇ καθέσει ἐκεῖ ἐστὶν ὅπου καὶ τὸ πάθος· ὁ δὲ πρὸς ἄλλοις ὢν καὶ ἀποστάς, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν γέλωτα παρέχων οὐ μόνον Θρᾴτταις ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἄλλῳ ὄχλῳ, καὶ ὅταν καθῇ, εἰς πᾶσαν ἀπορίαν ἐμπίπτων, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀναισθητῶν, οὐδὲ ἐξακριβῶν μέν, τῷ δὲ ἀλόγῳ μόνον ἐνεργῶν (οὐ γὰρ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν ἐτόλμησε Πλάτων), ἀλλ’ ὡς ἔν τε ταῖς λοιδορίαις ἴδιον ἔχει οὐδὲν οὐδένα λοιδορεῖν, ἅτε οὐκ εἰδὼς κακὸν οὐδὲν οὐδενός, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ μεμελετηκέναι, φησίν· ἀπορῶν οὖν γελοῖος φαίνεται, ἔν τε τοῖς ἐπαίνοις καὶ ταῖς τῶν ἄλλων μεγαλαυχίαις, οὐ προσποιητῶς, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι γελῶν ἔνδηλος γιγνόμενος ληρώδης [39] How is it, also, that you have decided and said, that you are not passive to things which you suffer, and that you are not present with things by which you are passively affected? For intellect, indeed, is present with itself, though we are not present with it. But he who departs from intellect, is in that place to which he departs; and when, by discursive energies, he applies himself upwards and downwards by his apprehension of things, he is there where his apprehension is. But it is one thing not to attend to sensibles, in consequence of being present with other things, and another for a man to think, that though he attends to sensibles yet he is not present with them. Nor can any one show that Plato admits this, without at the same time demonstrating himself to be deceived. He, therefore, who submits to the assumption of [every kind of] food, and voluntarily betakes himself to [alluring] spectacles, to conversation with the multitude, and laughter; such a one, by thus acting, is there where the passion is which he sustains. But he who abstains from these in consequence of being present with other things, he it is who, through his unskilfulness, not only excites laughter in Thracian maid-servants, but in the rest of the vulgar, and when he sits at a banquet, falls into the greatest perplexity, not from any defect of sensation, or from a superior accuracy of sensible perception, and energizing with the irrational part of the soul alone; for Plato does not venture to assert this; but because, in slanderous conversation, he has nothing reproachful to say of anyone, as not knowing any evil of anyone, because he has not made individuals the subject of his meditation. Being in such perplexity, therefore, he

[ 967 ]

appears, says Plato, to be ridiculous; and in the praises and boastings of others, as he is manifestly seen to laugh, not dissembling, but, in reality, he appears to be delirious. [40] δοκεῖ εἶναι. ὥστε διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν καὶ ἀποχὴν οὐκ οἶδεν οὐχ ὅτι εἰς πεῖραν καθιεὶς καὶ διὰ τοῦ ἀλόγου ἐνεργῶν, οἷός τέ ἐστιν θεωρεῖν τὰ κατὰ τὸν νοῦν ἀκραιφνῶς· οὐδὲ τῶν δύο ψυχὰς ἡμᾶς ἔχειν λεγόντων, δύο προσοχὰς ἡμῖν δεδωκότων. δύο γὰρ ἂν οὕτω ζῴων συνέρξεις ἐποίουν, ἃ ἐνεδέχετο, ἄλλου πρὸς ἄλλοις ὄντος, τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου μὴ προσποιεῖσθαι [40] So that, through ignorance of, and abstaining from sensible concerns, he is unacquainted with them. But it is by no means to be admitted, that though he should be familiar with sensibles, and should energize through the irrational part, yet it is possible for him [at the same time] genuinely to survey the objects of intellect. For neither do they who assert that we have two souls, admit that we can attend at one and the same time to two different things. For thus they would make a conjunction of two animals, which being employed in different energies, the one would not be able to perceive the operations of the other. [41] τὰ ἔργα. τί δὲ ἔδει καὶ μαραίνειν τὰ πάθη καὶ ἀποθνῄσκειν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦτο μελετᾶν καθ’ ἡμέραν, εἰ οἷόν τ’ ἦν ἐνεργεῖν ἡμᾶς κατὰ νοῦν πρὸς τὰ θνητὰ συναπτομένους ἄνευ τῆς τοῦ νοῦ ἐπιβλέψεως, ‹ὥς› τινες ἀπεφαίνοντο; [νοῦς γὰρ ὁρᾷ καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει.] εἰ δ’ ἐσθίων πολυτελῆ καὶ πίνων οἶνον τὸν ἥδιστον οἷός τε εἶ πρὸς τοῖς ἀύλοις εἶναι, διὰ τί οὐχὶ καὶ παλλακίσι συνὼν καὶ δρῶν ἃ μηδὲ λέγειν καλόν; πανταχοῦ γὰρ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν παιδὸς ἦν ταῦτα τὰ πάθη, καὶ ὅσῳ αἰσχρά, οὐ πρὸς αὐτὰ φήσεις κατασπᾶσθαι. τίς γὰρ ἡ διακλήρωσις τούτου τὰ μὲν μὴ οἷόν τε εἶναι πάσχειν μὴ ὄντα πρὸς αὐτοῖς, τὰ δὲ ἕτερα συγχωρεῖν ἀποτελεῖν πρὸς τοῖς νοητοῖς ὄντα; οὐ γὰρ ὅτι τὰ μὲν ὑπείληπται εἶναι αἰσχρὰ παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς, τὰ δὲ οὔ· αἰσχρὰ γὰρ πάντα ὡς πρός γε τὴν κατὰ νοῦν ζωήν, καὶ πάντων ἀφεκτέον [καθάπερ τῶν ἀφροδισίων. ὀλίγον δὲ τῇ φύσει τροφῶν συγχωρητέον διὰ τὴν τῆς γενέσεως ἀνάγκην]. ὅπου γὰρ αἴσθησις καὶ ταύτης ἀντίληψις, ἐκεῖ τοῦ νοητοῦ ἡ ἀπόστασις· καὶ ὅσῳ τῆς ἀλογίας ἀνακίνησις, τόσῳ τοῦ νοεῖν ἀπόστασις. οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται τῇδε κἀκεῖσε φερόμενον, ἐνταῦθα ὄντα, εἶναι ἐκεῖ· οὐ γὰρ μέρει ἡμῶν, ἀλλ’ [41] But why should it be requisite that the passions should waste away, that we should die with respect to them, and that this should be daily the subject of our meditation, if it was possible for us, as some assert, to energize according to intellect, though we are at the same time intimately connected with mortal concerns, and this without the intuition of intellect? For intellect sees, and intellect hears [as Epicharmus says]. But if while eating luxuriously, and drinking the sweetest wine, it were possible to be present with immaterial natures, why may not this be frequently effected while you are present with, and are performing things which it is not becoming even to mention? For these passions every where proceed from the boy  which is in us. And you certainly will admit that the baser these passions are, the more we are drawn down towards [ 968 ]

them. For what will be the distinction which ought here to be made, if you admit that to some things it is not possible to be passive, without being present with them, but that you may accomplish other things, at the same time that you are surveying intelligibles? For it is not because some things are apprehended to be base by the multitude, but others not. For all the above mentioned passions are base. So that to the attainment of a life according to intellect, it is requisite to abstain from all these, in the same manner as from venereal concerns. To nature, therefore, but little food must be granted, through the necessity of generation [or of our connexion with a flowing condition of being] For, where sense and sensible apprehension are, there a departure and separation from the intelligible take place; and by how much stronger the excitation is of the irrational part, by so much the greater is the departure from intellection. For it is not possible for us to he borne along to this place and to that, while we are here, and yet be there, [i.e. be present with an intelligible essence] For our attentions to things are not effected with a part, but with the whole of ourselves. [42] ὅλοι τὰς προσοχὰς ποιούμεθα. τὸ δὲ οἴεσθαι κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν παθαινόμενον πρὸς τοῖς νοητοῖς ἐνεργεῖν πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων ἐξετραχήλισεν, οἳ ἐπὶ πᾶν εἶδος ἡδονῆς προῆλθον ἐκ καταφρονήσεως, λέγοντες καὶ τῶν δύνασθαι πρὸς ἄλλοις ὄντα, τῇ ἀλογίᾳ χρῆσθαι τούτοις ἐπιτρέπειν. ἤδη γάρ τινων ἀκήκοα τῇ σφῶν δυστυχίᾳ συναγορευόντων τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. οὐ γὰρ ἡμᾶς μολύνει, φασί, τὰ βρώματα, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὴν θάλατταν τὰ ῥυπαρὰ τῶν ῥευμάτων· κυριεύομεν γὰρ βρωτῶν ἁπάντων, καθάπερ ἡ θάλασσα τῶν ὑγρῶν πάντων. εἰ δὲ ἡ θάλασσα κλείσειε τὸ ἑαυτῆς στόμα ὥστε μὴ δέξασθαι τὰ ῥέοντα, ἐγένετο καθ’ ἑαυτὴν μὲν μεγάλη, κατὰ δὲ τὸν κόσμον μικρά, ὡς μὴ δυναμένη στέξαι τὰ ῥυπαρά· εὐλαβηθεῖσα δὲ μολυνθῆναι οὐκ ἂν δέξαιτο. ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο δὴ πάντα δέχεται, γιγνώσκουσα τὸ ἑαυτῆς μέγεθος, καὶ οὐκ ἀποστρέφεται τὰ εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἐρχόμενα. καὶ ἡμεῖς οὖν, φασίν, ἐὰν εὐλαβηθῶμεν βρῶσιν, ἐδουλώθημεν τῷ τοῦ φόβου παθήματι. δεῖ δὲ πάνθ’ ἡμῖν ὑποτετάχθαι. ὕδωρ μὲν γὰρ ὀλίγον συνακτὸν ἐάν τι δέξηται ῥυπαρόν, εὐθέως μιαίνεται καὶ θολοῦται ὑπὸ τῆς ῥυπαρίας· βυθὸς δὲ οὐ μιαίνεται. οὕτω δὴ καὶ βρώσεις τῶν ὀλίγων περιγίγνονται· ὅπου δὲ βυθὸς ἐξουσίας, πάντα δέχονται καὶ ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς μιαίνονται. τοιούτοις δ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἀπατῶντες ἀκόλουθα μὲν οἷς ἠπάτηντο ἔδρων, ἀντὶ δ’ ἐλευθερίας εἰς τὸν τῆς κακοδαιμονίας βυθὸν αὑτοὺς φέροντες ἔπνιξαν. τοῦτο καὶ τῶν κυνικῶν τινὰς παντορέκτας ἐποίησεν, προσπλακέντας τῷ αἰτίῳ τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων αὐτοῖς, ὃ δὴ καλεῖν εἰώθασιν ἀδιάφορον. [42] But to fancy that he who is passively affected according to sense, may, nevertheless, energize about intelligibles, has precipitated many of the Barbarians to destruction; who arrogantly assert, that though they indulge in every kind of pleasure, yet they are able to convert themselves to things of a different nature from sensibles, at the same time that they are energizing with the irrational part. For I have heard some persons patronizing their infelicity after the following manner. “We are not,” say they, [ 969 ]

“defiled by food, as neither is the sea by the filth of rivers. For we have dominion over all eatables, in the same manner as the sea over all humidity. But if the sea should shut up its mouth, so as not to receive the streams that now flow into it, it would be indeed, with respect to itself, great; but, with respect to the world, small, as not being able to receive dirt and corruption. If, however, it was afraid of being defiled, it would not receive these streams; but knowing its own magnitude, it receives all things, and is not averse to anything which proceeds into it. In like manner, say they, we also, if we were afraid of food, should be enslaved by the conception of fear. But it is requisite that all things should be obedient to us. For, if we collect a little water, indeed, which has received any filth, it becomes immediately defiled and oppressed by the filth; but this is not the case with the profound sea. Thus, also, aliments vanquish the pusillanimous; but where there is an immense liberty with respect to food, all things are received for nutriment, and no defilement is produced.” These men, therefore, deceiving themselves by arguments of this kind, act in a manner conformable to their deception. But, instead of obtaining liberty, being precipitated into an abyss of infelicity, they are suffocated. This, also, induced some of the Cynics to be desirous of eating every kind of food, in consequence of their pertinaciously adhering to the cause of errors, which we are accustomed to call a thing of an indifferent nature. [43] ἀνὴρ δὲ εὐλαβὴς καὶ ὕποπτος πρὸς τὰ γοητεύματα τῆς φύσεως, τήν τε τοῦ σώματος φύσιν κατασκεψάμενος [καὶ] ὡς ἥρμοσται ὀργάνου δίκην πρὸς τὰς δυνάμεις τῆς ψυχῆς [γνούς], οἶδεν ὡς ἕτοιμον φθέγξασθαι τὸ πάθος, ἄν τε βουλώμεθα ἄν τε μή, κρουσθέντος τοῦ σώματος ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν καὶ τοῦ κρούσματος εἰς ἀντίληψιν ἀφικομένου. ἡ γὰρ ἀντίληψις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα ἡ φθέγξις, φθέγξασθαι δ’ οὐκ ἔστι τὴν ψυχὴν μὴ ὅλην πρὸς τὸ φθέγμα ἐπιστραφεῖσαν καὶ τὸ ἐπιστατικὸν ὄμμα πρὸς τοῦτο μεταθεῖσαν. ὅλως δὲ τῆς ἀλογίας τὸ ἄχρι τίνος καὶ πῶς καὶ πόθεν καὶ πρὸς οὓς ἐπικρίνειν οὐκ ἐχούσης, καθ’ ἑαυτὴν δὲ ἀνεπισκέπτου ὑπαρχούσης, ᾗ ἂν ἐπιβρίσῃ, ἵπποις ἐοικυίας ἄνευ ἡνιόχου, ἀμήχανόν ἐστιν ἢ διοικεῖν τι καθηκόντως πρὸς τὰ ἔξω ἢ τροφῆς καιρὸν καὶ μέτρα γιγνώσκειν, μὴ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἡνιόχου ἐφεστῶτος ὄμματος, ὃς τὰ κινήματα ῥυθμίζει καὶ ἡνιοχεῖ τῆς τυφλῆς καθ’ ἑαυτὴν ἀλογίας. ὁ δὲ τὴν ἐπίστασιν τοῦ λογισμοῦ ἀφαιρῶν τῆς ἀλογίας, ἐπιτρέπων δὲ αὐτῇ φέρεσθαι κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν, οἷος ἂν εἴη τῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ συγχωρήσας εἰς ὅσον βούλεται προχωρεῖν τῆς οἰκείας κινήσεως, καὶ τῷ θυμῷ ὡσαύτως. καλὸν γοῦν ἡμῖν τὸ σπουδαῖον ποιήσει καὶ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ λελογισμένα ἀκάθεκτον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐφεστῶτος λογισμοῦ ποιῶν ἐν [43] The man, however, who is cautious, and is suspicious of the enchantments of nature, who has surveyed the essential properties of body, and knows that it was adapted as an instrument to the powers of the soul, will also know how readily passion is prepared to accord with the body, whether we are willing or not, when anything external strikes it, and the pulsation at length arrives at perception. For perception is, as [ 970 ]

it were, an answer to [that which causes the perception] But the soul cannot answer unless she wholly converts herself to the sound, and transfers her animadversive eye to the pulsation. In short, the irrational part not being able to judge to what extent, how, whence, and what thing ought to be the object of attention, but of itself being inconsiderate, like horses without a charioteer ; whither it verges downward, thither it is borne along, without any power of governing itself in things external. Nor does it know the fit time or the measure of the food which should be taken, unless the eye of the charioteer is attentive to it, which regulates and governs the motions of irrationality, this part of the soul being essentially blind. But he who takes away from reason its dominion over the irrational part, and permits it to be borne along, conformably to its proper nature: such a one, yielding to desire and anger, will suffer them to proceed to whatever extent they please. On the contrary, the worthy man will so act that his deeds may be conformable to presiding reason, even in the energies of the irrational part. [44] ταῖς τοῦ ἀλόγου ἐνεργείαις. καίτοι ταύτῃ διενηνοχέναι φαίνεται ὁ σπουδαῖος τοῦ φαύλου, ὅτι ὃ μὲν πανταχοῦ τὸν λογισμὸν ἔχει παρεστῶτα καὶ κρατοῦντα καὶ ἡνιοχοῦντα τὸ ἄλογον, ὃ δὲ πολλὰ πράττει παριεὶς τῷ λογισμῷ καὶ σὺν τούτῳ πράττειν ἃ πράττει. διὸ καὶ ὃ μὲν ἀλόγιστος λέγεται καὶ φερόμενος ὑπὸ τῆς ἀλογίας, ὃ δὲ λελογισμένος καὶ ἐγκρατὴς παντὸς ἀλογίστου· καὶ τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν ἄρα τοῦτο τοῖς πολλοῖς καὶ ἐν λόγῳ καὶ ἐν πράξει καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ταῖς ὀργαῖς γίνεται, ἔμπαλιν δὲ κατορθοῦν τοῖς σπουδαίοις, ὅτι οἳ μὲν ἐφῆκαν τῷ παιδὶ δρᾶν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἃ βούλεται, οἳ δὲ τῷ παιδαγωγῷ, καὶ μετὰ τούτου τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς κυβερνῶσιν. ὥστε καὶ ἐν βρωτοῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ταῖς διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἐνεργείαις ἢ ἀπολαύσεσιν παρὼν μὲν ὁ ἡνίοχος ἀφορίζει τὸ σύμμετρον καὶ τὸ εὔκαιρον, ἀπὼν δὲ καὶ ὡς φασίν τινες πρὸς τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ὤν, εἰ μὲν καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν πρόσεξιν ἔχει παρ’ ἑαυτῷ, οὐδ’ ἐπιτρέπει τῇ ἀλογίᾳ παθαίνεσθαι οὐδ’ ὅλως τι ἐνεργεῖν· εἰ δ’ ἀφῆκε ταύτην πρὸς τῷ παιδὶ εἶναι ἄνευ αὑτοῦ, ἀπώλεσε τὸν ἄνθρωπον [44] And in this the worthy appears to differ from the depraved man, that the former has every where reason present, governing and guiding, like a charioteer, the irrational part; but the latter performs many things without reason for his guide. Hence the latter is said to be most irrational, and is borne along in a disorderly manner by irrationality; but the former is obedient to reason, and superior to every irrational desire. This, therefore, is the cause why the multitude err in words and deeds, in desire and anger, and why, on the contrary, good men act with rectitude, viz. that the former suffer the boy within them to do whatever it pleases; but the latter give themselves up to the guidance of the tutor of the boy, [i.e. to reason] and govern what pertains to themselves in conjunction with it. Hence in food, and in other corporeal energies and enjoyments, the charioteer being present, defines what is commensurate and opportune. But when the charioteer is absent, and, as some say, is occupied in his own [ 971 ]

concerns, then, if he also has with him our attention, he does not permit it to be disturbed, or at all to energize with the irrational power. If, however, he should permit our attention to be directed to the boy, unaccompanied by himself, he would destroy the man, who would be precipitately borne along by the folly of the irrational part. [45] συρόμενον ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνοίας τοῦ ἀλόγου. ὅθεν τοῖς σπουδαίοις ἡ ἀποχὴ μᾶλλον οἰκειοτέρα καὶ βρωτῶν καὶ τῶν διὰ σώματος ἀπολαύσεων καὶ πράξεων τῆς ἐφάψεως, τῷ δεῖν ἐφαπτόμενον τῶν σωματικῶν καταβαίνειν ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκείων ἠθῶν εἰς παιδαγωγίαν τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν ἀλογίστου· ἐν δὲ ταῖς τροφαῖς καὶ μᾶλλον· οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπιλογιστικὸν τὸ ἄλογον· φύσει γὰρ ἀνεπίγνωμον τοῦ ἀπόντος τὸ ἄλογον. τῶν δὲ τροφῶν εἰ μὲν ἦν ἀπηλλάχθαι ὥσπερ τῶν ὁρατῶν ἀρθέντων (ἔξεστι γὰρ πρὸς ἄλλοις εἶναι κοιμίσαντα τὰς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν φαντασίας), μέτριον ἂν ἦν, τῇ ἀνάγκῃ εἴξαντα τῆς θνητῆς φύσεως ἐπ’ ὀλίγον, εὐθὺς ἀπηλλάχθαι. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ παρολκῆς χρόνου χρεία καὶ πέψεως καὶ ἀναδόσεως καὶ τῆς πρὸς τούτοις συνεργείας τῆς ἐξ ὕπνου τε καὶ ἡσυχίας τῆς τε ἄλλης ἀργίας καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τῆς ἐκ τῆς ἀναδόσεως ποιᾶς κράσεως περιττωμάτων τε διαχωρήσεως, ἀνάγκη τὸν παιδαγωγὸν παρεῖναι, ὃς τὰ κοῦφα καὶ ἀνεμπόδιστα ἑαυτῷ ἐκλεξάμενος, ταῦτ’ ἐπιτρέψει τῇ φύσει, τὸ μέλλον προορώμενος καὶ ὅσον τὸ ἐμπόδιον, συγχωρήσαντος ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις φορτίον οὐκ εὐάγκαλον ἐπεισάγειν ἡμῖν δι’ ὀλίγην ἡδονήν, ἧς ἐν τῷ καταδέχεσθαι αὐτὰ [45] Hence, to worthy men, abstinence in food, and in corporeal enjoyments and actions, is more appropriate than abstinence in what pertains to the touch; because though, while we touch bodies, it is necessary we should descend from our proper manners to the instruction of that which is most irrational in us; yet this is still more necessary in the assumption of food. For the irrational nature is incapable of considering what will be the effect of it, because this part of the soul is essentially ignorant of that which is absent. But, with respect to food, if it were possible to be liberated from it, in the same manner as from visible objects, when they are removed from the view; for we can attend to other things when the imagination is withdrawn from them; — if this were possible, it would be no great undertaking to be immediately emancipated from the necessity of the mortal nature, by yielding, in a small degree, to it. Since, however, a prolongation of time in cooking and digesting food, and together with this the co-operation of sleep and rest, are requisite, and, after these, a certain temperament from digestion, and a separation of excrements, it is necessary that the tutor of the boy within us should be present, who, selecting things of a light nature, and which will be no impediment to him, may concede these to nature, in consequence of foreseeing the future, and the impediment which will be produced by his permitting the desires to introduce to us a burden not easily to be borne, through the trifling pleasure arising from the deglutition of food.

[ 972 ]

[46] εἰς τὴν κατάποσιν ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα. οὐκ ἀπεικότως ἄρα τὸ πολὺ καὶ περιττὸν ὁ λόγος ἀποκρίνας εἰς ὀλίγον περιγράφει τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, εἰ μέλλει μήτε πορίζων ἕξειν πράγματα διὰ τὸ δεῖσθαι πλειόνων, μήτε εὐτρεπῆ ποιῶν πλειόνων τῶν ὑπηρετησομένων δεήσεσθαι, μήτε ἐσθίων πλειόνων ἡδονῶν ἀντιλήψεσθαι, μήτε πληρούμενος πολλῆς ἀργίας ἐμπλήσεσθαι, μήτε παχυτέρου φορτίου ἐμπιπλάμενος ὑπνώδης γίγνεσθαι, μήτε τῶν πιαινόντων τὸ σῶμα πληρούμενος ἰσχυρότερον μὲν τὸν δεσμόν, αὑτὸν δὲ ἀργότερον πρὸς τὰ οἰκεῖα ποιήσειν καὶ ἀσθενέστερον. δειξάτω τοίνυν ἡμῖν τις ἀνήρ, σπεύδων ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ζῆν κατὰ νοῦν καὶ ἀπερίσπαστος ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὸ σῶμα παθῶν εἶναι, ὡς εὐπορωτέρα μὲν ἡ κρεοφαγία τῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροδρύων καὶ ἐκ λαχάνων ὄψων, εὐτελεστέρα δὲ ἡ τούτων παρασκευὴ τῆς τῶν ἀψύχων καὶ μαγείρων ὅλως μὴ δεομένης, [ἀνήδονος δὲ καθ’ ἑαυτὴν παραβαλλομένη πρὸς τὴν ἄψυχον,] κουφοτέρα δὲ ἐν ταῖς πέψεσιν τῆς ἑτέρας, κἀν ταῖς ἀναδόσεσιν ταῖς εἰς τὸ σῶμα ταχυτέρα τῆς ἐκ λαχάνων ἀναδόσεως, πρός τε τὰς ἐπιθυμίας ἧττον ἐρεθίζουσα καὶ εἰς πάχος καὶ ῥώμην σώματος ἔλαττον [46] Reason, therefore, very properly rejecting the much and the superfluous, will circumscribe what is necessary in narrow boundaries, in order that it may not be molested in procuring what the wants of the body demand, through many things being requisite; nor being attentive to elegance, will it need a multitude of servants; nor endeavour to receive much pleasure in eating, nor, through satiety, to be filled with much indolence; nor by rendering its burden [the body] more gross, to become somnolent; nor through the body being replete with things of a fattening nature, to render the bond more strong, but himself more sluggish and imbecile in the performance of his proper works. For, let any man show us who endeavours as much as possible to live according to intellect, and not to be attracted by the passions of the body, that animal food is more easily procured than the food from fruits and herbs; or that the preparation of the former is more simple than that of the latter, and, in short, that it does not require cooks, but, when compared with inanimate nutriment, is unattended by pleasure, is lighter in concoction, and is more rapidly digested, excites in a less degree the desires, and contributes less to the strength of the body than a vegetable diet. [47] συμβαλλομένη τῆς ἀψύχου διαίτης. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο οὔτε ἰατρῶν τις οὔτε φιλοσόφων, οὐ γυμναστής, οὐκ ἰδιώτης εἰπεῖν ἐτόλμησεν, τί οὐκ ἀφιστάμεθα ἑκόντες τοῦ σωματικοῦ φορτίου; τί οὐκ ἐλευθεροῦμεν αὑτοὺς ἅμα τῇ ἀποστάσει ἐκ πολλῶν; οὐ γὰρ ἑνὸς ἦν, ἀλλὰ μυρίων, τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις ἐθίσαντα αὑτὸν ἀρκεῖσθαι, ἀπηλλάχθαι, χρημάτων περιουσίας, οἰκετῶν πλειόνων ὑπηρεσίας, σκευῶν πλήθους, ὑπνώδους καταστάσεως, νόσων σφοδρότητος καὶ πλήθους, ἰατρῶν δεήσεως, ἐρεθισμῶν πρὸς ἀφροδίσια, ἀναθυμιάσεων παχυτέρων, περιττωμάτων πλήθους, παχύτητος τοῦ δεσμοῦ, ῥώμης πρὸς πράξεις ἐγειρούσης, Ἰλιάδος κακῶν· ὧν ἡ ἄψυχος καὶ λιτὴ τροφὴ καὶ πᾶσιν εὐπόριστος ἀφαιρεῖται ἡμᾶς, εἰρήνην παρασκευάζουσα τῷ τὰ σωτήρια ἡμῖν [ 973 ]

ἐκπορίζοντι λογισμῷ. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν μαζοφάγων, φησὶν ὁ Διογένης, οἱ κλέπται καὶ οἱ πολέμιοι, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν κρεοφάγων οἱ συκοφάνται καὶ τύραννοι. τῆς δὲ τοῦ πολλῶν δεῖσθαι ἀρθείσης αἰτίας καὶ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν εἰσαγομένων εἰς τὸ σῶμα περιαιρεθέντος τοῦ τε βάρους τῶν ἀναδιδομένων κουφισθέντος, ἐλεύθερον τὸ ὄμμα καπνοῦ τε καὶ κύματος τοῦ σωματικοῦ [47] If, however, neither any physician, nor philosopher, nor wrestler, nor any one of the vulgar has dared to assert this, why should we not willingly abstain from this corporeal burden? Why should we not, at the same time, liberate ourselves from many inconveniences by abandoning a fleshly diet? For we should not be liberated from one only, but from myriads of evils, by accustoming ourselves to be satisfied with things of the smallest nature; viz. we should be freed from a superabundance of riches, from numerous servants, a multitude of utensils, a somnolent condition, from many and vehement diseases, from medical assistance, incentives to venery, more gross exhalations, an abundance of excrements, the crassitude of the corporeal bond, from the strength which excites to [base] actions, and, in short, from an Iliad of evils. But from all these, inanimate and slender food, and which is easily obtained, will liberate us, and will procure for us peace, by imparting salvation to our reasoning power. For, as Diogenes says, thieves and enemies are not found among those that feed on maize , but sycophants and tyrants are produced from those who feed on flesh. The cause, however, of our being in want of many things being taken away, together with the multitude of nutriment introduced into the body, and also the weight of digestibles being lightened, the eye of the soul will become free, and will be established as in a port beyond the smoke and the waves of the corporeal nature. [48] ἐκτὸς καθωρμισμένον γίγνεται. καὶ τοῦτο οὔτε ὑπομνήσεως οὔτε ἀποδείξεως διὰ τὴν αὐτόθεν προσοῦσαν ἐνάργειαν χρῄζει. ὅθεν οὐ μόνον οἱ κατὰ νοῦν ζῆν ἐσπουδακότες καὶ τέλος τὸν κατ’ αὐτὸν βίον ἐνστησάμενοι ἀναγκαίαν πρὸς τὸ τέλος ὁρῶσι τὴν τούτων ἀποχήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶς σχεδὸν οἶμαι φιλόσοφος τὴν εὐτέλειαν πρὸ τῆς πολυτελείας ἐγκρίνων ἀποδέξαιτ’ ἂν μᾶλλον τὸν ὀλίγοις ἀρκούμενον τοῦ πλειόνων δεομένου. καὶ ὃ παράδοξον τοῖς πολλοῖς δόξειεν ‹ἂν› εἶναι, τοῦτο λέγοντας καὶ ἐκτιμῶντας εὑρίσκομεν [λέγω δὲ] τοὺς ἡδονὴν οἰομένους τὸ τέλος τῶν φιλοσοφησάντων. τῶν γὰρ Ἐπικουρείων οἱ πλείους ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ κορυφαίου ἀρξάμενοι μάζῃ καὶ τοῖς ἀκροδρύοις ἀρκούμενοι φαίνονται, τά τε συγγράμματα ἐμπεπλήκασι τὸ ὀλιγοδεὲς τῆς φύσεως ἀφηγούμενοι καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῶν λιτῶν καὶ εὐπορίστων ἱκανῶς αὐτῆς τὸ ἀναγκαῖον [48] And this neither requires monition, nor demonstration, on account of the evidence with which it is immediately attended. Hence, not only those who endeavour to live according to intellect, and who establish for themselves an intellectual life, as the end of their pursuits, have perceived that this abstinence was necessary to the attainment of this end; but, as it appears to me, nearly every philosopher, preferring [ 974 ]

frugality to luxury, has rather embraced a life which is satisfied with a little, than one that requires a multitude of things. And, what will seem paradoxical to many, we shall find that this is asserted and praised by men who thought that pleasure is the end of those that philosophize. For most of the Epicureans, beginning from the Corypheus and their sect, appear to have been satisfied with maize and fruits, and have filled their writings with showing how little nature requires, and that its necessities may be sufficiently remedied by slender and easily procured food. [49] ἰώμενον παριστάντες. ὥρισται γάρ, φησίν, ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ἔστιν εὐπόριστος, ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν ἀόριστός τε ἦν καὶ δυσπόριστος. τὸ γὰρ κατ’ ἔνδειαν ἐνοχλοῦν τὴν σάρκα ἐξαιρεῖται καλῶς καὶ αὐτάρκως τὰ εὐπόριστα, ἁπλῆν ἔχοντα φύσιν ὑγρῶν τε καὶ ξηρῶν· τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ὅσον εἰς πολυτέλειαν πέπτωκεν, οὐκ ἀναγκαίαν ἔχειν φασὶ τὴν ὄρεξιν οὐδ’ ἀπ’ ἀλγοῦντός τινος ἀναγκαίως γιγνομένην, ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἢ λυποῦντος ἢ νύττοντος μόνον ἐν τῷ μὴ παρεῖναι, τὴν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ χαίροντος, τὴν δὲ ὅλως ἀπὸ τῶν κενῶν καὶ διεψευσμένων δογμάτων, ἣ εἰς οὐδὲν φυσικὸν ἀνάγεται ἔλλειμμα οὐδ’ εἰς τὸ διαλύον τὴν σύστασιν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι. ἱκανὰ γὰρ καὶ τὰ τυχόντα διακρατῆσαι ταῦτα ἦν, ὧν ἀναγκαίως δεῖται ἡ φύσις. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν λιτότητα καὶ διὰ τὸν ὀλιγότητά ἐστιν εὐπόριστα· καὶ τῷ μὲν κρεοφαγίας ἁπτομένῳ χρεία καὶ τῶν ἀψύχων, τῷ δὲ ἀρκουμένῳ τοῖς ἀψύχοις ἐξ ἡμισείας καὶ τοῦτο εὐπόριστον καὶ ὀλίγων δεόμενον ἀναλωμάτων τὸ τῆς [49] For the wealth, say they, of nature is definite, and easily obtained; but that which proceeds from vain opinions, is indefinite, and procured with difficulty. For things which may be readily obtained, remove in a beautiful and abundantly sufficient manner that which, through indigence, is the cause of molestation to the flesh; and these are such as have the simple nature of moist and dry aliments. But every thing else, say they, which terminates in luxury, is not attended with a necessary appetition, nor is it necessarily produced from a certain something which is in pain; but partly arises from the molestation and pungency solely proceeding from something not being present; partly from joy; and partly from vain and false dogmas, which neither pertain to any natural defect, nor to the dissolution of the human frame, those not being present. For things which may every where be obtained, are sufficient for those purposes which nature necessarily requires. But these, through their simplicity and paucity, may be easily procured. And he, indeed, who feeds on flesh, requires also inanimate natures; but he who is satisfied with things inanimate, is easily supplied from the half of what the other wants, and needs but a small expense for the preparation of his food. [50] παρασκευῆς. δεῖ δέ, φασίν, οὐχ ἑτοιμασάμενον τὰ ἀναγκαῖα προσθήκῃ τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ χρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ παρασκευασάμενον τὸ θαρρεῖν τῇ ψυχῇ γνησίως, οὕτως ἀντέχεσθαι τῶν καθ’ ἡμέραν. κακῷ γὰρ φροντιστῇ τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιτρέψομεν, ἄνευ φιλοσοφίας τὸ ἀναγκαῖον συμμετρούμενοι τῆς φύσεως καὶ παρασκευάζοντες. διὸ φιλοσοφοῦντα δεῖ καὶ τούτων προνοεῖν [ 975 ]

καὶ ἐφ’ ὅσον ἂν ἡ παρ’ ἐκείνοις ἔντονος ἐπιμέλεια παραδιδῷ. ἐφ’ ὅσον δὲ ἐκεῖθέν τι ἀφαιρεῖται, ὃ μὴ κυριεύσει τῆς τελείας ἐκθαρρήσεως, μὴ προσίεσθαι πρὸς τὴν χρημάτων τε καὶ τροφῶν παρασκευήν. σὺν φιλοσοφίᾳ τοίνυν ἁπτέον τούτων, καὶ εὐθὺς προσπεσεῖται ὅτι πολλῷ κρεῖττον τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς μεταδιώκειν ἐλάχιστόν τε καὶ λιτὸν καὶ κοῦφον· ἐλάχιστον γὰρ [50] They likewise say, it is requisite that he who prepares the necessaries of life, should not afterwards make use of philosophy as an accession; but, having obtained it, should, with a confident mind, thus genuinely endure  the events of the day. For we shall commit what pertains to ourselves to a bad counsellor, if we measure and procure what is necessary to nature, without philosophy. Hence it is necessary that those who philosophize should provide things of this kind, and strenuously attend to them as much as possible. But, so far as there is a dereliction from thence, [i.e. from philosophizing], which is not capable of effecting a perfect purification, so far we should not endeavour to procure either riches or nutriment. In conjunction, therefore, with philosophy, we should engage in things of this kind, and be immediately persuaded that it is much better to pursue what is the least, the most simple, and light in nutriment. For that which is least, and is unattended with molestation, is derived from that which is least. [51] καὶ τὸ ὀχληρὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἐλαχίστου. ὧν δ’ ἂν συνεφελκύσηται ἡ παρασκευὴ ἐμπόδια ἐκ τῆς τοῦ σώματος βαρύτητος ἢ ἐκ τῆς τῶν παρασκευαζομένων πραγματείας ἢ ἐκ τοῦ κωλύειν τὴν περὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων λογισμῶν ἐνέργειαν εἶναι συνεχῆ ἢ ἔκ τινος ἄλλης αἰτίας, εὐθὺς ἀλυσιτελὴς γίνεται καὶ οὐκ ἀντάλλακτος πρὸς τὰς συνακολουθούσας ὀχλήσεις. δεῖ μέντοι τῷ φιλοσόφῳ καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα τοῦ μηδὲν ὑπολείψειν παρεῖναι διὰ βίου· ταύτην δὲ τὰ μὲν εὐπόριστα ἱκανῶς διασῴζει, τὰ δὲ πολυτελῆ ποιεῖ δυσέλπιστον. οἱ γοῦν πολλοὶ διὰ τοῦτο, καίπερ πολλὰ κεκτημένοι, ὡς ὑπολειψόντων ἀνήνυτα μοχθοῦσιν. ἀρκεῖσθαι δὲ τοῖς εὐπορίστοις καὶ λιτοτάτοις ποιεῖ τὸ μνημονεύειν ὅτι πρὸς μὲν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀξιόλογον ταραχῆς λύσιν οὐθὲν ἰσχύειν πέφυκεν οὐδ’ ὁ πᾶς πλοῦτος συναχθείς, τὸ δὲ τῆς σαρκὸς ὀχληρὸν ἐξαιρεῖ καὶ τὰ πάνυ μέτρια καὶ τυχόντα πᾶσάν τε εὐποριστίαν κεκτημένα, ὑπολείποντά τε καὶ τὰ τοσαῦτα οὐ ταράττει τὸν ἀποθνῄσκειν μελετῶντα. ἔτι καὶ τὸ ἀλγεινὸν τὸ δι’ ἐνδείας πολλῆς ἠπιότητος ἢ τὸ διὰ πληρώσεως μετέχει, ἐὰν μή τις ταῖς κεναῖς δόξαις ἑαυτὸν ἀπατᾷ· ἥ τε ποικιλία τῶν τροφῶν οὐχ ὅπως τὰς ταραχὰς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκλύει, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὴν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἡδονὴν συνεπαύξει. πέρας γὰρ ἔχει καὶ αὕτη ἅμα τῇ τῆς ἀλγηδόνος ὑπεξαιρέσει. ὡς τό γε τῆς σαρκοφαγίας οὔτ’ ἔλυέν τι ὀχληρὸν τῆς φύσεως οὔθ’ ὃ μὴ συντελούμενον ἐπ’ ἀλγηδόνα ἠνύετο· τὴν δὲ χάριν βιαίαν εἶχεν καὶ ταχὺ τῷ ἐναντίῳ μιγνυμένην. οὐ γὰρ πρὸς ζωῆς συμμονήν, πρὸς δὲ ποικιλίαν ἡδονῶν συνεβάλλετο, ἐοικὸς ἀφροδισίοις ἢ ξενικῶν οἴνων πόσεσιν, ὧν καὶ χωρὶς διαμένειν δύναται ἡ φύσις. ὧν δὲ χωρὶς οὐκ ἂν ὑπομείνειεν, βραχέα παντάπασίν ἐστι καὶ δυνάμενα ῥᾳδίως καὶ μετὰ δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἐλευθερίας ἡσυχίας τε καὶ

[ 976 ]

[51] The preparation also of these things, draws along with it many impediments, either from the weight of the body, [which they are adapted to increase,] or from the difficulty of procuring them, or from their preventing the continuity of the energy of our most principal reasonings , or from some other cause. For this energy then becomes immediately useless, and does not remain unchanged by the concomitant perturbations. It is necessary, however, that a philosopher should hope that he may not be in want of anything through the whole of life. But this hope will be sufficiently preserved by things which are easily procured; while, on the other hand, this hope is frustrated by things of a sumptuous nature. The multitude, therefore, on this account, though their possessions are abundant, incessantly labour to obtain more, as if they were in want. But the recollection that the greatest possible wealth has no power worth mentioning of dissolving the perturbations of the soul, will cause us to be satisfied with things easily obtained, and of the most simple nature. Things also, which are very moderate and obvious, and which may be procured with the greatest facility, remove the tumult occasioned by the flesh. But the deficiency of things of a luxurious nature will not disturb him who meditates on death. Farther still, the pain arising from indigence is much milder than that which is produced by repletion, and will be considered to be so by him who does not deceive himself with vain opinions. Variety also of food not only does not dissolve the perturbations of the soul, but does not even increase the pleasure which is felt by the flesh. For this is terminated as soon as pain is removed . So that the feeding on flesh does not remove any thing which is troublesome to nature, nor effect any thing which, unless it is accomplished, will end in pain. But the pleasantness with which it is attended is violent, and, perhaps, mingled with the contrary. For it does not contribute to the duration of life, but to the variety of pleasure; and in this respect resembles venereal enjoyments, and the drinking of foreign wines, without which nature is able to remain. For those things, without which nature cannot last, are very few, and may be procured easily, and in conjunction with justice, liberty, quiet, and abundant leisure. [52] πολλῆς ῥᾳστώνης πορίζεσθαι. ἔτι δὲ οὐδὲ πρὸς ὑγείαν τὰ κρέα συντελεῖ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τῇ ὑγείᾳ ἐμποδίζει. δι’ ὧν γὰρ ὑγεία ἀνακτᾶται, διὰ τούτων καὶ διαμένει· ἀνακτᾶται δὲ διὰ τῆς λιτοτάτης καὶ ἀσάρκου διαίτης, ὥστε καὶ ταύτῃ ἂν συμμείνειεν. εἰ δὲ μὴ πρὸς τὴν Μίλωνος ῥώμην τὰ ἄψυχα συμβάλλεται μηδὲ ὅλως πρὸς ἐπίτασιν ἰσχύος, οὐδὲ γὰρ ῥώμης οὐδὲ ἐπιτάσεως ἰσχύος χρεία τῷ φιλοσόφῳ, εἰ μέλλοι θεωρίᾳ καὶ μὴ πράξεσι καὶ ἀκολασίαις προσέχειν. οὐδὲν δὲ θαυμαστὸν τοὺς πολλοὺς οἴεσθαι εἰς ὑγίειαν συντελεῖν τὴν κρεοφαγίαν· τῶν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἦν καὶ τὰς ἀπολαύσεις οἴεσθαι ὑγείας εἶναι τηρητικὰς καὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια, ἃ ὤνησε μὲν οὐδένα τινά, ἀγαπητὸν δὲ εἰ μὴ ἔβλαψεν. εἰ δ’ οἱ πολλοὶ μὴ τοιοῦτοι, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· οὐδὲ γὰρ φιλίας καὶ εὐνοίας πιστόν τι καὶ διαμόνιμον ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς· οὐδὲ δεκτικοὶ τούτων οὐδὲ σοφίας [ 977 ]

οὐδὲ τῶν ἀξιόλογόν τι ἐχόντων σοφίας μορίων, οὐδὲ τοῦ συμφέροντος οὔτε τοῦ ἰδίου οὔτε τοῦ κοινοῦ συνετὸς ὁ πολύς, οὐδὲ ἐθῶν φαύλων καὶ ἀστείων κρίσιν ποιεῖσθαι δυνάμενος. πρός τε τούτοις· πολὺ τὸ ἀσελγὲς καὶ ἀκρασίας γέμον ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς. διὸ οὐδὲ φοβητέον [52] Again, neither does animal food contribute, but is rather an impediment to health. For health is preserved through those things by which it is recovered. But it is recovered through a most slender and fleshless diet; so that by this also it is preserved. If, however, vegetable food does not contribute to the strength of Milo, nor, in short, to an increase of strength, neither does a philosopher require strength, or an increase of it, if he intends to give himself up to contemplation, and not to an active and intemperate life. But it is not at all wonderful, that the vulgar should fancy that animal food contributes to health; for they also think that sensual enjoyments and venery are preservative of health, none of which benefit anyone; and those that engage in them must be thankful if they are not injured by them. And if many are not of this opinion, it is nothing to us. For neither is any fidelity and constancy in friendship and benevolence to be found among the vulgar; nor are they capable of receiving these, nor of participating of wisdom, or any portion of it which deserves to be mentioned. Neither do they understand what is privately or publicly advantageous; nor are they capable of forming a judgment of depraved and elegant manners, so as to distinguish the one from the other. And, in addition to these things, they are full of insolence and intemperance. On this account, there is no occasion to fear that there will not be those who will feed on animals. [53] μή ποτε οὐκ ὦσιν οἱ βρωσόμενοι τὰ ζῷα. πάντων μὲν γὰρ φρονησάντων τὰ ἄριστα οὐδεμία χρεία ὀρνιθευτικῆς, ἰξευτῶν, ἁλιέων, συβωτῶν. αὐτὰ δὲ αὑτὰ διοικοῦντα τὰ ζῷα καὶ μὴ ἔχοντα τὸν ἐπιμελόμενον καὶ ἐφεστῶτα ταχέως φθείρεται καὶ δαπανᾶται πρὸς τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἀναλισκόντων, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ μυρίων ὧν οὐ γεύονται ἄνθρωποι ζῴων συμβέβηκεν· μενούσης δὲ τῆς κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ποικίλης καὶ παντοίας ἀφροσύνης ἔσονται μύριοι καὶ οἱ ταῦτα λαιμαργήσοντες. τηρεῖν τε χρὴ τὴν ὑγείαν οὐ φόβῳ θανάτου, ἀλλ’ ἕνεκα τοῦ μὴ ἐμποδίζεσθαι πρὸς τὰ ἀγαθὰ τὰ ἐκ τῆς θεωρίας. διατηρητικὸν δὲ αὐτῆς μάλιστα μὲν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀτάραχος κατάστασις καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸ ὄντως ὂν διάθεσις τῆς διανοίας. πολὺ γὰρ τὸ ἄχρι σώματος ἐντεῦθεν ἀφικνούμενον, ὡς πείρᾳ διέδειξαν ἡμῶν ἑταῖροι, καὶ ἀρθρῖτιν νόσον περί τε πόδας καὶ χεῖρας τοσαύτην οὖσαν, ὡς ὅλων ὀκτὼ ἐτῶν φέρεσθαι βασταζομένους, ἀποκροῦσαι ἅμα τῇ ἐκστάσει τῶν χρημάτων καὶ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἐπιβλέψει· συναπέθεντο γοῦν ἅμα τοῖς χρήμασι καὶ ταῖς φροντίσιν καὶ τὴν νόσον τοῦ σώματος, ὥστε πολὺ πρὸς ὑγίειαν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἐκ τῆς ποιᾶς ψυχῆς καταστάσεως εἰς τὸ σῶμα κάτεισιν. συμβάλλεται δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον καὶ ἡ τῆς τροφῆς ἐλάττωσις. καθόλου δὲ ὀρθῶς ὁ Ἐπίκουρος ἔφασκεν εὐλαβητέον εἶναι τροφήν, ἣν ἀποῦσαν μὲν ποθοῦμεν καὶ διώκομεν, συντελεσθεῖσαν δ’ ἐν ἀχαρίστῳ τίθεμεν. τοιαύτη δὲ πᾶσα

[ 978 ]

ἡ δαψιλὴς καὶ παχεῖα. καὶ τοῦτο πάσχουσιν οἱ περὶ ταύτην ἐπτοημένοι, ἢ ἀναλώμασιν ἢ νόσοις ἢ πλησμονῇ [53] For if all men conceived rightly, there would be no need of fowlers, or hunters, or fishermen, or swineherds. But animals governing themselves, and having no guardian and ruler, would quickly perish, and be destroyed by others, who would attack them and diminish their multitude, as is found to be the case with myriads of animals on which men do not feed. But all-various folly incessantly dwelling with mankind, there will be an innumerable multitude of those who will voraciously feed on flesh. It is necessary however to preserve health; not by the fear of death, but for the sake of not being impeded in the attainment of the good which is derived from contemplation. But that which is especially preservative of health, is an undisturbed state of the soul, and a tendency of the reasoning power towards truly existing being. For much benefit is from hence derived to the body, as our associates have demonstrated from experience. Hence some who have been afflicted with the gout in the feet and hands, to such a degree as to be infested with it for eight entire years, have expelled it through abandoning wealth, and betaking themselves to the contemplation of divinity . At the same time, therefore, that they have abandoned riches, and a solicitude about human concerns, they have also been liberated from bodily disease. So that a certain state of the soul greatly contributes both to health and to the good of the whole body. And to this also, for the most part, a diminution of nutriment contributes. In short, as Epicurus likewise has rightly said, that food is to be avoided, the enjoyment of which we desire and pursue, but which, after we have enjoyed, we rank among things of an unacceptable nature. But of this kind is every thing luxuriant and gross. And in this manner those are affected, who are vehemently desirous of such nutriment, and through it are involved either in great expense, or in disease, or repletion, or the privation of leisure . [54] ἢ ἀσχολίαις περιπίπτοντες. διὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λιτῶν φυλακτέον τὸ πλήσμιον, καὶ πανταχοῦ σκεπτέον τί διὰ τῆς ἀπολαύσεως ἢ κτήσεως γίγνεται καὶ πηλίκον ἔχει μέγεθος καὶ τίνος ὀχληροῦ λυτικὸν σαρκὸς ἢ ψυχῆς, μὴ διὰ ‹κενὴν› χάριν ἡ περὶ ἑκάστου …. ἔντασις γίγνεται, ὥσπερ ὁτω…. βίος κεκύηται. ἀοριστεῖν γὰρ οὐδαμοῦ δεῖ, ἀλλ’ ἔχεσθαι ὅρου καὶ μέτρου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις, καὶ λογίζεσθαι ὡς ὁ φοβούμενος ἐμψύχων ἀποχήν, εἴπερ δι’ ἡδονὴν ἅπτεται κρεοφαγίας, τὸν θάνατον φοβεῖται. εὐθὺς γὰρ τῇ στερήσει τῶν βρωτῶν συνάπτει ἀορίστου τινὸς δεινοῦ παρουσίαν, ἐξ ἧς ὁ θάνατος. παρὰ δὲ τὰς τοιαύτας καὶ τὰς ὁμογενεῖς αἰτίας καὶ ἡ τοῦ ζῆν ἄπληστος ὄρεξις γίγνεται καὶ πλούτων καὶ χρημάτων καὶ δόξης τοῦ συναυξήσειν τε νομίζειν τὸ πᾶν ἀγαθὸν σὺν αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦ πλείονος χρόνου καὶ τὸ κατὰ τὸν θάνατον δεινὸν ὡς ἀπέραντον φοβεῖσθαι. ἡδονὴ δὲ ἡ διὰ πολυτελείας οὐδὲ ἐγγὺς τείνει τῆς δι’ αὐταρκείας τῷ πεπειραμένῳ γιγνομένης· πολὺ γὰρ τὸ ἡδὺ ἐν τῷ κατανοεῖν ὅσων αὐτὸς χρείαν ἔχει. ἀρθείσης γὰρ πολυτελείας, ἀρθείσης ‹δὲ› τῆς περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια πτοίας, τῆς ἔξω [ 979 ]

φιλοτιμίας, τίς λοιπὸν χρεία πλούτου ἀργοῦ, εἰς μηδὲν ἡμῖν χρησιμεύσοντος, ἀλλὰ μόνον βαρήσοντος; ὡς τὸ πεπληρῶσθαι γίγνεται καὶ ἡ ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου κόρου ἡδονὴ ἀκραιφνής. δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἀπεθίζειν ὡς οἷόν τε τῆς τοῦ κόρου ἡδονῆς, οὐ τῆς κατὰ τὴν πεῖναν πλησμονῆς, καὶ γεύεσθαι, ἵνα …. διὰ πάντων διέλθῃ, καὶ ὅρον θεῖναι τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, μὴ τὸ ἀόριστον. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τούτῳ εἰληφέναι τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον ἀγαθὸν ἐνέσται διὰ τῆς αὐταρκείας καὶ ὁμοιώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ· οὕτως οὐδ’ αὐτὸ ἐπὶ πλέον ποθήσει οὐδὲ τὸν χρόνον ὡς προσθήσοντα αὐτῷ μεῖζον ἀγαθόν· οὕτως δ’ αὖ ἀληθινῶς πλουτήσει τῷ φυσικῷ ὅρῳ τὸν πλοῦτον μετρῶν, οὐ δόξαις κεναῖς· οὕτως οὐκ ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι κρεμήσεται μεγίστης ἡδονῆς πίστιν οὐκ ἐχούσῃ τοῦ γενέσθαι· θορυβωδεστάτη γὰρ αὕτη· ἀλλ’ ἐν αὐταρκείᾳ τοῦ παρόντος καὶ γεγονότος ἤδη μενεῖ, οὐδὲ ἀγωνιάσει [54] Hence also, in simple and slender food, repletion is to be avoided, and every where we should consider what will be the consequence of the possession or enjoyment of it, what the magnitude of it is, and what molestation of the flesh or of the soul it is capable of dissolving. For we ought never to act indefinitely, but in things of this kind we should employ a boundary and measure; and infer by a reasoning process, that he who fears to abstain from animal food, if he suffers himself to feed on flesh through pleasure, is afraid of death. For immediately, together with a privation of such food, he conceives that something indefinitely dreadful will be present, the consequence of which will be death. But from these and similar causes, an insatiable desire is produced of riches, possessions, and renown, together with an opinion that every good is increased with these in a greater extent of time, and the dread of death as of an infinite evil. The pleasure however which is produced through luxury, does not even approach to that which is experienced by him who lives with frugality. For such a one has great pleasure in thinking how little he requires. For luxury, astonishment about venereal occupations, and ambition about external concerns, being taken away, what remaining use can there be of idle wealth, which will be of no advantage to us whatever, but will only become a burden, no otherwise than repletion? - while, on the other hand, the pleasure arising from frugality is genuine and pure. It is also necessary to accustom the body to become alienated, as much as possible, from the pleasure of the satiety arising from luxurious food, but not from the fullness produced by a slender diet, in order that moderation may proceed through all things, and that what is necessary, or what is most excellent, may fix a boundary to our diet. For he who thus mortifies his body will receive every possible good, through being sufficient to himself, and an assimilation to divinity. And thus also, he will not desire a greater extent of time, as if it would bring with it an augmentation of good. He will likewise thus be truly rich, measuring wealth by a natural bound, and not by vain opinions. Thus too, he will not depend on the hope of the greatest pleasure, the existence of which is incredible, since this would be most

[ 980 ]

troublesome. But he will remain satisfied with his present condition, and will not be anxious to live for a longer period of time. [55] μὴ τὸν πλείονα χρόνον παραμένειν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πῶς οὐκ ἄτοπον πρὸς Διός, τὸν μὲν κακοπαθοῦντα ἢ ἐν περιστάσει ὄντα ἰσχυρᾷ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἢ ἐν δεσμοῖς εἰλημμένον οὐδ’ ἔννοιαν ἔχειν τροφῆς, οὐδὲ πόθεν πορισθήσεται φροντίζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ [παρατιθεμένης] παραιτεῖσθαι τὴν ἀναγκαίαν· τὸν δὲ ὄντως δεσμώτην κατατεινόμενον ταῖς ἔνδον κακοπαθείαις ζητεῖν ἐδεσμάτων παρασκευήν, ποικιλίας φροντίζειν, δι’ ὧν τὸν δεσμὸν παχυνεῖ; καὶ πῶς ταῦτα ἀνδρῶν ἦν ἐγνωκότων ἃ πεπόνθασιν, οὐχὶ φιληδούντων οἷς πεπόνθασιν καὶ ἐν οἷς εἰσὶν οὐκ εἰδότων; οἷς ἀντίστροφον τὸ πάθος ἢ τοῖς εἰδόσι δεσμώταις τὴν ἑαυτῶν συμφορὰν γίγνεται. τῷ γὰρ ὑπάρχοντι βίῳ ἀχαριστοῦντες καὶ ταραχῆς ἀπλάτου γέμοντες, τοῦ ἀπόντος εἰς πλήρωσιν ἐφίενται. οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ πάντα αὐτῷ εὔλυτα εἶναι τὰ κατὰ τοὺς θορύβους ἔρχεται ἐπὶ τραπεζῶν καὶ κλινῶν ἀργυρῶν ὀρέξεις καὶ μύρων καὶ μαγείρων καὶ σκευῶν καὶ ἐσθήτων καὶ δείπνων ἐπὶ πᾶν πλῆθος καὶ ποικιλίας καὶ πολυτελείας ἀνθρώπων ἡκόντων, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ ἀχρηστίας παντὶ τῷ ὑπάρχοντι βίῳ καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἀορίστου γενέσεως καὶ ταραχῆς ἀπλάτου. ὥσθ’ οἳ μὲν οὐ μέμνηνται τῷ τὸ παρὸν ἀποκρούειν, οἳ δὲ τὸ μὴ παρὸν ζητοῦσι τῷ [55] Besides this also, is it not absurd, that he who is in great affliction, or, is in some grievous external calamity, or is bound with chains, does not even think of food, nor concern himself about the means of obtaining it; but when it is placed before him, refuses what is necessary to his subsistence; and that the man who is truly in bonds, and is tormented by inward calamities, should endeavour to procure a variety of eatables, paying attention to things through which he will strengthen his bonds? And how is it possible that this should be the conduct of men who know what they suffer, and not rather of those who are delighted with their calamities, and who are ignorant of the evils which they endure? For these are affected in a way contrary to those who are in chains, and who are conscious of their miserable condition; since these, experiencing no gratification in the present life, and being full of immense perturbation, insatiably aspire after another life. For no one who can easily liberate himself from all perturbations, will desire to possess silver tables and couches, and to have ointments and cooks, splendid vessels and garments, and suppers remarkable for their sumptuousness and variety; but such a desire arises from a perfect uselessness to every purpose of the present life, from an indefinite generation of good, and from immense perturbation. Hence some do not remember the past, the recollection of it being expelled by the present; but others do not inquire about the present, because they are not gratified with existing circumstances. [56] ἀχαριστεῖν τῷ παρόντι. ἑκατέρως δὲ ὁ θεωρητικὸς τοῦ λιτοῦ τῆς διαίτης ἀνθέξεται· καὶ γὰρ οἶδεν ἐν οἷς ἐστιν δεσμοῖς· ὥστε πολυτελείας ὀρέγεσθαι οὐ δύναται, καὶ τὸ λιτὸν ἀγαπῶν οὐ ζητήσει ἐμψύχων βρώσεις ὡς οὐκ ἀρκούμενος τῇ τῶν ἀψύχων. [ 981 ]

εἰ δὲ καὶ μὴ τοιαύτη ἦν ἡ τοῦ σώματος φύσις ἐπὶ τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ οὕτως εὐάγωγος καὶ διὰ τῶν τυχόντων εὐίατος, ἔδει δὲ καὶ ἀλγηδόνας ὑπομένειν ἕνεκα τῆς ἀληθινῆς σωτηρίας, ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν ὑπεμείναμεν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ νοσήματος στέρεσθαι δεῖ ὅπου σπουδάζοντες πάνθ’ ὑπομένομεν, τεμνόμενοι, φοινισσόμενοι, καιόμενοι, πικρὰ φάρμακα πίνοντες, καθαιρόμενοι διὰ γαστρός, δι’ ἐμέτων, διὰ ῥινῶν, μισθούς τε προσαναλίσκοντες τοῖς ταῦθ’ ἡμᾶς διατιθεῖσιν, οὐχὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔνδον χάριν νοσήματος [ὡς ἂν τὸν ὑπὲρ ἀθανασίας ἀγῶνα ἀθλοῦντες καὶ θεοῦ συνουσίας, ὧν κωλυόμεθα διὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος συνουσίαν] πάνθ’ ὑπομενοῦμεν εὐλόγως, εἰ καὶ μετ’ ἀλγηδόνων ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ὑπομονὰς ἐχρῆν; [καὶ οὐ δήπου τοῖς νόμοις τοῦ σώματος ἕπεσθαι βιαίοις οὖσι καὶ ἀντικειμένοις τοῖς τοῦ νοῦ νόμοις καὶ ταῖς ὁδοῖς ταῖς σωτηρίοις ὑπομένομεν.] ὅπου δὲ νῦν οὐδὲ περὶ ἀλγηδόνων ὑπομονῆς φιλοσοφοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ περὶ ἡδονῶν οὐκ ἀναγκαίων ἀποβολῆς, τίς λοιπὸν ἀπολογία τοῖς ἀπαναισχυντεῖν [56] The contemplative philosopher, however will invariably adopt a slender diet. For he knows the particulars in which his bond consists, so that he is not capable of desiring luxuries. Hence, being delighted with simple food, he will not seek for animal nutriment, as if he was not satisfied with a vegetable diet. But if the nature of the body in a philosopher was not such as we have supposed it to be, and was not so tractable, and so adapted to have its wants satisfied through things easily procured, and it was requisite to endure some pains and molestations for the sake of true salvation, ought we not [willingly] to endure them? For when it is requisite that we should be liberated from disease, do we not voluntarily sustain many pains, viz., while we are cut, covered with blood, burnt, drink bitter medicines, and are purged through the belly, through emetics, and through the nostrils, and do we not also reward those who cause us to suffer in this manner? And this being the case, ought we not to sustain every thing, though of the most afflictive nature, with equanimity, for the sake of being purified from internal disease, since our contest is for immortality, and an association with divinity, from which we are prevented through an association with the body? By no means, therefore, ought we to follow the laws of the body, which are violent and adverse to the laws of intellect, and to the paths which lead to salvation. Since, however, we do not now philosophize about the endurance of pain, but about the rejection of pleasures which are not necessary, what apology can remain for those, who impudently endeavour to defend their own intemperance? [57] πρὸς τὴν αὑτῶν ἀκρασίαν βουλομένοις; εἰ γὰρ δεῖ μηδὲν ὑποστειλάμενον [μετὰ παρρησίας] εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλως τυχεῖν τοῦ τέλους ἢ προσηλωθέντα μέν, εἰ χρὴ φάναι, τῷ θεῷ, ἀφηλωθέντα δὲ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῶν διὰ τούτου τῆς ψυχῆς ἡδυπαθειῶν [δι’ ἔργων ἡμῖν τῆς σωτηρίας, οὐ δι’ ἀκροάσεως λόγων ψιλῆς γινομένης]. θεῷ δὲ οὐδὲ τῶν μερικῶν τινί, οὐχ ὅτι τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀσώματον φύσιν ἁπλῶς μεθ’ ὁποίας οὖν διαίτης καὶ ὅλως σαρκοφαγίας ἐνῆν οἰκειοῦσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἁγνείαις παντοίαις καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος μόλις [ 982 ]

καταξιοῦσθαι τῆς ἐκείνου ἐπαισθήσεως, φύντι τε καλῶς καὶ ζῶντι ὁσίως καὶ καθαρῶς. ὥσθ’ ὅσῳ ὁ πάντων πατὴρ ἀπαθέστερος καὶ καθαρώτερος καὶ αὐταρκέστατος, ἅτε πόρρω ὑλικῆς ἐμφάσεως ἱδρυμένος, τόσῳ τὸν προσιόντα αὐτῷ παντοίως καθαρόν τε καὶ ἁγνὸν εἶναι προσήκει, ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τελευτῶντα εἰς τὸ εἴσω, καθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν ἢ ὅλως τῶν προσόντων τὴν κατὰ φύσιν ἑκάστῳ ἁγνείαν ἀπονέμοντα. ἀλλ’ ἴσως πρὸς μὲν ταῦτα οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀντείποι, ἀπορήσειε δ’ ἂν πῶς ἐν ἁγνείᾳ τίθεμεν τὴν ἀποχήν, καίτοι ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις μηλοσφαγοῦντές τε καὶ βουθυτοῦντες ἁγνήν τε ταύτην νομίζοντες τὴν ἱερουργίαν καὶ θεοῖς κεχαρισμένην. διὸ μακροῦ δεομένων λόγου πρὸς τὴν τούτων διάλυσιν, ἀπ’ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς τὰ περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν διαληπτέον. [57] For if it is requisite not to dissemble any thing through fear, but to speak freely, it is not otherwise possible to obtain the end [of a contemplative life], than by adhering to God, as if fastened by a nail, being divulsed from body, and those pleasures of the soul which subsist through it; since our salvation is effected by deeds, and not by a mere attention to words. But as it is not possible with any kind of diet, and, in short, by feeding on flesh, to become adapted to an union with even some partial deity, much less is this possible with that God who is beyond all things, and is above a nature simply incorporeal; but after all-various purifications, both of soul and body, he who is naturally of an excellent disposition, and lives with piety and purity, will scarcely be thought worthy to perceive him. So that, by how much more the Father of all things excels in simplicity, purity, and sufficiency to himself, as being established far beyond all material representation, by so much the more is it requisite, that he who approaches to him should be in every respect pure and holy, beginning from his body, and ending internally, and distributing to each of the parts, and in short to every thing which is present with him a purity adapted to the nature of each. Perhaps, however, these things will not be contradicted by any one. But it may be doubted, why we admit abstinence from animal food to pertain to purity, though in sacrifices we slay sheep and oxen, and conceive that these immolations are pure and acceptable to the Gods. Hence, since the solution of this requires a long discussion, the consideration of sacrifices must be assumed from another principle.

[ 983 ]

BOOK TWO [ 1 ] ΤῶΝ Π Ε Ρ Ὶ λιτότητος καὶ ἁγνείας ζητημάτων ἐχόμενοι εἰς τὸν περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν, ὦ Καστρίκιε, λόγον ἀφικόμεθα δυσδιαίτητόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ πολλῆς ἐξηγήσεως δεόμενον, εἰ μέλλοιμεν ἀληθῶς τε ἅμα καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς εὐαρέστως τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ κρίσιν διαθήσειν. διὸ εἰς ἴδιον σκέμμα τὸν τόπον ὑπερβαλλόμενοι, νῦν τὰ φαινόμενα ἡμῖν καὶ ὅσα δυνατὸν ἐξαγορεύειν ἐροῦμεν, τὸ παρορώμενον πρότερον εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν εὐθύναντες. [1] Pursuing therefore the inquiries pertaining to simplicity and purity of diet, we have now arrived, O Castracius, at the discussion of sacrifices; the consideration of which is difficult, and at the same time requires much explanation, if we intend to decide concerning it in such a way as will be acceptable to the Gods. Hence, as this is the proper place for such a discussion, we shall now unfold what appears to us to be the truth on this subject, and what is capable of being narrated, correcting what was overlooked in the hypothesis proposed from the beginning. [2] πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὐ φαμὲν εἶναι ἀκόλουθον τῷ ἀναιρεῖν τὰ ζῷα τὸ δεῖν ἐξ ἀνάγκης αὐτὰ καὶ ἐσθίειν, οὐδ’ ὁ τὸ ἕτερον διδούς, λέγω δὲ τὸ σφάττειν, τίθησι πάντως καὶ τὸ ἐσθίειν. αὐτίκα πολεμίους μὲν ἐπιόντας οἱ νόμοι ἀμύνεσθαι συνεχώρησαν, ἐσθίειν δ’ αὐτοὺς οὐκέτ’ εἶναι κατ’ ἄνθρωπον δέδοκται. δεύτερον οὐκ εἰ δαίμοσιν ἢ θεοῖς ἤ τισι δυνάμεσιν θῦσαί τι τῶν ἐμψύχων προσήκει διά τινας αἰτίας εἴτε γνωστὰς εἴτε καὶ ἀγνώστους ἀνθρώποις, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ θοινᾶσθαι ἐξ ἀνάγκης δεῖ τὰ ζῷα. δειχθήσεται γὰρ ἄνθρωπος παραλαμβανόμενος ἐν θύμασι καὶ ζῷα, ὧν οὐκ ἄν τις οὐδὲ τῶν εἰωθότων σαρκοφαγεῖν ἀνθρώπων ὑπομείνειεν ἂν γεύσασθαι. καὶ μὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ φονεύειν ζῷα τὸ αὐτὸ παρορᾶται πλημμέλημα. οὐ γὰρ εἴ τινα δεῖ, καὶ πάντα, ὡς οὐδ’ εἰ τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα, πάντως [2] In the first place therefore we say, it does not follow because animals are slain that it is necessary to eat them. Nor does he who admits the one, I mean that they should be slain, entirely prove that they should be eaten. For the laws permit us to defend ourselves against enemies who attack us [by killing them]; but it did not seem proper to these laws to grant that we should eat them, as being a thing contrary to the nature of man. In the second place, it does not follow, that because it is proper to sacrifice certain animals to daemons, or Gods, or certain powers, through causes either known or unknown to men, it is therefore necessary to feed on animals. For it may be shown, that men assumed animals in sacrifices, which no one even of those who are accustomed to feed on flesh, would endure to taste. Moreover, in the slaying of animals, the same error is overlooked. For it does not follow, that if it is requisite to kill some, it is

[ 984 ]

therefore necessary to slay all animals, as neither must it be granted, that if irrational animals, therefore men also may be slain. [3] καὶ ἀνθρώπους. ἥ τε ἀποχὴ τῶν ἐμψύχων, καθάπερ κἀν τῷ πρώτῳ ἐλέγομεν, οὐχ ἁπλῶς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παραγγέλλεται, ἀλλὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, καὶ τούτων μᾶλλον τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς τούτου μιμήσεως τὴν σφῶν εὐδαιμονίαν ἀνάψασιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν τῷ πόλεως βίῳ τὰ αὐτὰ οἱ νομοθέται τοῖς τε ἰδιώταις καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἀφωρίσαντο πρακτέα, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἐν οἷς συγχωρήσαντες τοῖς πολλοῖς τὰ κατὰ τὴν τροφὴν καὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον, τοὺς ἱερέας χρῆσθαι τοῖς αὐτοῖς διεκώλυσαν, θάνατον ἢ ζημίας μεγάλας θέντες [3] Besides, abstinence from animal food, as we have said in the first book, is not simply recommended to all men, but to philosophers, and to those especially, who suspend their felicity from God, and the imitation of him. For neither in the political life do legislators ordain that the same things shall be performed by private individuals and the priests, but conceding certain things to the multitude, pertaining to food and other necessaries of life, they forbid the priests to use them, punishing the transgression of their mandates by death, or some great fine. [4] τὰ ἐπιτίμια. μὴ συγχεομένων ἄρα τούτων, ἀλλ’ ὃν προσήκει τρόπον διακρινομένων, τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων εὑρίσκεται μάταια. τὰ γὰρ πλεῖστα ἢ ὅτι φονεύειν δεῖ διὰ τὰς βλάβας τὰς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν μηνύσαντα καὶ τὸ ὅτι ἐσθίειν ὡς ἀκόλουθον λαμβάνει, ἢ ὅτι ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις καὶ ζῷα παρελήφθη, συλλογίζεται ὡς καὶ ἀνθρώποις ἄρα βρωτέον ταῦτα. καὶ πάλιν εἴ τινα διὰ τὸ ἄγριον ἀναιρετέον, ἀξιοῦσιν ὡς ἀκόλουθον τὸ δεῖν φονεύειν καὶ τὰ ἥμερα· καὶ εἴ τισι βρωτέον, οἷον ἀθληταῖς καὶ στρατιώταις καὶ τοῖς διὰ σώματος τὴν ἐργασίαν ποιουμένοις, ὅτι καὶ φιλοσόφοις· καὶ εἴ τισι τούτων, καὶ πᾶσι· πασῶν τῶν ἀκολουθιῶν τούτων μοχθηρῶν τε οὐσῶν καὶ οὐδεμίαν ἀνάγκην τῆς θέσεως παραστῆσαι δυναμένων. καὶ ὅτι μὲν πᾶσαι μοχθηραί, ἐναργῶς αὐτόθεν τοῖς μὴ ἐριστικοῖς προσπίπτει. ἡμεῖς μέντοι τὰς μὲν ἤδη εὐθύναντες, τὰς δὲ προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου ἐλέγξειν μέλλοντες, νῦν τὸ περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν σκέμμα διευκρινήσομεν, τάς τε ἀρχὰς ὅθεν γεγόνασιν ἀφηγούμενοι, καὶ τίνες καὶ ποῖαι ἦσαν αἱ πρῶται, πῶς τε μετέβαλλον καὶ πότε, καὶ εἰ πάντα θυτέον τῷ φιλοσόφῳ, τίσιν τε αἱ θυσίαι αἱ διὰ τῶν ζῴων γίγνονται· καὶ ὅλως πᾶν τὸ παρακείμενον, τὰ μὲν αὐτοὶ ἐφευρίσκοντες, τὰ δὲ παρὰ τῶν παλαιῶν λαμβάνοντες ἀναγράψομεν, τοῦ συμμέτρου καὶ οἰκείου τῇ ὑποθέσει στοχαζόμενοι κατὰ δύναμιν. ἔχει δὲ οὕτως. [4] For these things not being confused, but distinguished in a proper manner, most of the opposing arguments will be found to be vain. For the greater part of them endeavour to show, either that it is necessary to slay animals, on account of the injuries sustained from them, and it is assumed as a thing consequent, that it is proper to eat them; or because animals are slain in sacrifices, it is inferred that therefore they may be eaten by men. And again, if it is requisite to destroy certain animals, on account of their ferocity, it is conceived, that it must follow, that tame animals likewise ought to be slain. [ 985 ]

If, also, some persons may be allowed to eat them, such as those who engage in athletic exercises, soldiers, and those who are employed in bodily labour, therefore this may likewise be permitted to philosophers; and if to some, therefore to all of them; though all these inferences are bad, and are incapable of exhibiting any necessity for their adoption. And, indeed, that all of them are bad, will be immediately evident to men that are not contentious. But some of these inferences we have already confuted, and we shall show the fallacy of others as we proceed. Now, however, we shall discuss what pertains to the consideration of sacrifices, unfolding the principles from which they originated, what the first sacrifices were, and of what kind they were; how they came to be changed, and whence the change arose; whether all things ought to be sacrificed by a philosopher, and from what animals sacrifices are made. In short, we shall unfold every thing pertaining to the proposed subject, discovering some things ourselves, but receiving others from the ancients, and as much as possible directing our attention to what is commensurate and adapted to the hypothesis, [or thing intended to be investigated] [5] ἀνάριθμος μέν τις ἔοικεν εἶναι χρόνος, ἀφ’ οὗ τό γε πάντων λογιώτατον γένος, ὡς φησὶν Θεόφραστος, καὶ τὴν ἱερωτάτην ὑπὸ τοῦ Νείλου κτισθεῖσαν χώραν κατοικοῦν ἤρξατο πρῶτον ἀφ’ Ἑστίας τοῖς οὐρανίοις θεοῖς θύειν οὐ σμύρνης οὐδὲ κασίας καὶ λιβανωτοῦ κρόκῳ μιχθέντων ἀπαρχάς· πολλαῖς γὰρ γενεαῖς ὕστερον παρελήφθη ταῦτα, καὶ πλάνης καὶ μαστὴρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος γιγνόμενος τῆς ἀναγκαίας ζωῆς μετὰ πολλῶν πόνων καὶ δακρύων σταγόνας τούτων ἀπήρξατο τοῖς θεοῖς. οὐ τούτων οὖν ἔθυον πρότερον, ἀλλὰ χλόης, οἱονεί τινα τῆς γονίμου φύσεως χνοῦν ταῖς χερσὶν ἀράμενοι. δένδρα μὲν γὰρ δὴ πρὸ ζῴων ἀνέδωκεν ἡ γῆ, τῶν δένδρων δὲ πολὺ πρόσθεν τὴν ἐπέτειον γεννωμένην πόαν, ἧς δρεπόμενοι φύλλα καὶ ῥίζας καὶ τοὺς ὅλους τῆς φύσεως αὐτῶν βλαστοὺς κατέκαιον, ταύτῃ τοὺς φαινομένους οὐρανίους θεοὺς τῇ θυσίᾳ δεξιούμενοι καὶ τοῦ πυρὸς ἀπαθανατίζοντες αὐτοῖς τὰς τιμάς. τούτοις γὰρ καὶ τὸ πῦρ ἀθάνατον φυλάττομεν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ὡς ὂν μάλιστα αὐτοῖς ὁμοιότατον. ἐκ δὲ τῆς θυμιάσεως τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς θυμιατήριά τε ἐκάλουν καὶ τὸ θύειν καὶ θυσίας· ἃ δὴ ἡμεῖς ὡς τὴν ὑστέραν πλημμέλειαν ἐκβαίνοντα οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐξακούομεν, τὴν διὰ τῶν ζῴων δοκοῦσαν θεραπείαν καλοῦντες θυσίαν. τοσοῦτον δὲ τοῖς παλαιοῖς τοῦ μὴ παραβαίνειν τὸ ἔθος ἔμελεν, ὡς κατὰ τῶν ἐκλειπόντων τὸ ἀρχαῖον, ἐπεισαγόντων δὲ ἕτερον ἀρασομένους ἀρώματα τὰ θυμιώμενα νῦν προσαγορεῦσαι. τὴν δὲ ἀρχαιότητα τῶν εἰρημένων θυμιαμάτων κατίδοι τις ἂν ἐπιβλέψας ὅτι πολλοὶ καὶ νῦν ἔτι θύουσι συγκεκομμένα τῶν εὐωδῶν ξύλων τινά. ὅθεν μετὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς πόαν δενδροφυούσης ἤδη τῆς γῆς, πρώτης δρυὸς καρποφαγήσαντες, τῆς μὲν τροφῆς διὰ τὴν σπάνιν μικρά, τῶν δὲ φύλλων αὐτῆς πλείω τοῖς θεοῖς εἰς τὰς θυσίας ἀνῆπτον. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὁ βίος ἐπὶ τὴν ἥμερον ἤδη τροφὴν μεταβαίνων καὶ θύματα ‹τὰ› ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν ‘ἅλις [5] It seems that the period is of immense antiquity, from which a nation the most learned of all others  as Theophrastus says, and who inhabit the most sacred region [ 986 ]

made by the Nile, began first, from the vestal hearth, to sacrifice to the celestial Gods, not myrrh, or cassia, nor the first-fruits of things mingled with the crocus of frankincense; for these were assumed many generations afterwards, in consequence of error gradually increasing, when men, wanting the necessaries of life, offered, with great labour and many tears, some drops of these, as first-fruits to the Gods. Hence, they did not at first sacrifice these, but grass, which, as a certain soft wool of prolific nature, they plucked with their hands. For the earth produced trees prior to animals; and long before trees grass, which germinates annually. Hence, gathering the blades and roots, and all the germs of this herb, they committed them to the flames, as a sacrifice to the visible celestial Gods, to whom they paid immortal honour through fire. For to these, also, we preserve in temples an immortal fire, because it is especially most similar to these divinities. But from the exhalation or smoke (εκ δε της θυμιασεως) of things produced in the earth, they called the offerings θυμιατηρια, thumiateria; to sacrifice, they called θυειν, thuein, and the sacrifices, θυσιαι, thusiai; all which, as if unfolding the error which was afterwards introduced, we do not rightly interpret; since we call the worship of the Gods through the immolation of animals thusia. But so careful were the ancients not to transgress this custom, that against those who, neglecting the pristine, introduced novel modes of sacrificing, they employed execrations and therefore they now denominate the substances which are used for fumigations αρωματα, aromata, i.e. aromatics, [or things of an execrable nature] The antiquity, however, of the before-mentioned fumigations may be perceived by him who considers that many now also sacrifice certain portions of odoriferous wood. Hence, when after grass, the earth produced trees, and men at first fed on the fruits of the oak; they offered to the Gods but few of the fruits on account of their rarity, but in sacrifices they burnt many of its leaves. After this, however, when human life proceeded to a milder nutriment, and sacrifices from nuts were introduced, they said enough of the oak. [6] δρυὸς’ ἔφη. τοῦ δὲ Δημητρίου καρποῦ μετὰ τὸν χέδροπα πρώτου φανέντος κριθῶν, ταύταις ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὐλοχυτεῖτο κατὰ τὰς πρώτας θυσίας τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος· ὕστερον δὲ ἐρειξαμένων τε αὐτὰς καὶ τὴν τροφὴν ψαισαμένων τὰ μὲν τῆς ἐργασίας ὄργανα θείαν τοῖς βίοις ἐπικουρίαν παρασχόντα κρύψαντες εἰς ἀπόρρητον, ὡς ἱεροῖς αὐτοῖς ἀπήντων, τοῦ δ’ ἀληλεμένου βίου παρὰ τὸν πρόσθεν μακαρισθέντος, ἀπήρξαντό τι τῆς ψαισθείσης τροφῆς πρῶτον εἰς πῦρ τοῖς θεοῖς. ὅθεν ἔτι καὶ νῦν πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῶν θυσιῶν τοῖς ψαισθεῖσι θυλήμασι χρώμεθα, μαρτυροῦντες μὲν τῷ πραττομένῳ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τῶν θυμάτων αὔξησιν, οὐ συνορῶντες δὲ τίνος χάριν τούτων ἕκαστα δρῶμεν. ἀφ’ ὧν ὁρμωμένοις ἡμῖν, καὶ τῶν κριθῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πυρῶν ἀφθονωτέρων γιγνομένων, προσετίθεντο πελάνων ἤδη καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων ἀπαρχαὶ τοῖς θεοῖς εἰς τὰς θυσίας· πολλὰ μὲν ἀνθολογούντων, οὐκ ἐλάττω δὲ τούτων μιγνύντων ‹τῶν› τότε, εἴ τι καλὸν εἶχον ἐν βίῳ καὶ πρέπον ὀσμῇ πρὸς θείαν αἴσθησιν. καὶ τὰ μὲν στέφοντες, [ 987 ]

τὰ δ’ εἰς πῦρ δωρούμενοι, θείας ἑτέρας σταγόνας οἴνου καὶ μέλιτος ἔτι δ’ ἐλαίου ταῖς χρείαις ἀνευρίσκοντες [6] But as barley first appeared after leguminous substances, the race of men used it in primitive sacrifices, moistening it for this purpose with water. Afterwards, when they had broken and bruised it, so as to render it eatable, as the instruments of this operation afforded a divine assistance to human life, they concealed them in an arcane place, and approached them as things of a sacred nature. But esteeming the food produced from it when bruised to be blessed, when compared with their former nutriment, they offered, in fine, the first-fruits of it to the Gods. Hence also now, at the end of the sacrifices, we use fruits that are bruised or ground; testifying by this how much fumigations have departed from their ancient simplicity; at the same time not perceiving on what account we perform each of these. Proceeding, however, from hence, and being more abundantly supplied, both with other fruits and wheat, the first-fruits of cakes, made of the fine flour of wheat, and of everything else, were offered in sacrifices to the Gods; many flowers being collected for this purpose, and with these all that was conceived to be beautiful, and adapted, by its odour, to a divine sense, being mingled. From these, also, some were used for garlands, and others were given to the fire. But when they had discovered the use of the divine drops of wine, and honey, and likewise of oil, for the purposes of human life, then they sacrificed these to their causes, the Gods. [7] ἀπήρχοντο καὶ τούτων τοῖς αἰτίοις θεοῖς. οἷς μαρτυρεῖν ἔοικεν καὶ ἡ Ἀθήνησιν ἔτι καὶ νῦν δρωμένη πομπὴ Ἡλίου τε καὶ Ὡρῶν. πομπεύει γὰρ εἰλυσπόα ἄγρωστις ἐπὶ πυρηνίων ἡγηρίας, ὄσπρια, δρῦς, μιμαίκυλα, κριθαί, πυροί, παλάθη ἡγητηρία, ἀλεύρων πυρίνων καὶ κριθίνων φθοῖς, ὀρθοστάτης, χύτρος. πόρρω δὲ τῶν περὶ τὰς θυσίας ἀπαρχῶν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις προϊουσῶν παρανομίας, ἡ τῶν δεινοτάτων θυμάτων παράληψις ἐπεισήχθη, ὠμότητος πλήρης, ὡς δοκεῖν τὰς πρόσθεν λεχθείσας καθ’ ἡμῶν ἀρὰς νῦν τέλος εἰληφέναι, σφαξάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τοὺς βωμοὺς αἱμαξάντων, ἀφ’ οὗ λιμῶν τε καὶ πολέμων πειραθέντες αἱμάτων ἥψαντο. τοιγὰρ οὖν τὸ δαιμόνιον, ὡς φησὶν ὁ Θεόφραστος, τούτων ἑκατέρων νεμεσῆσαν ἐπιθεῖναι τὴν πρέπουσαν ἔοικε τιμωρίαν. καθὸ οἳ μὲν ἄθεοι γεγόνασι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, οἳ δὲ κακόφρονες μᾶλλον ἢ κακόθεοι λεχθέντες ἂν ἐν δίκῃ, διὰ τὸ φαύλους καὶ μηθὲν ἡμῶν βελτίους ἡγεῖσθαι τὴν φύσιν εἶναι τοὺς θεούς· οὕτως οἳ μὲν ἄθυτοι φαίνονται γενέσθαι τινές, οὐδεμίαν ἀπαρχὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ποιούμενοι τοῖς θεοῖς· οἳ δὲ κακόθυτοι καὶ παρανόμων ἁψάμενοι θυμάτων. [7] And these things appear to be testified by the splendid procession in honour of the Sun and the Hours, which is even now performed at Athens, and in which there were other herbs besides grass, and also acorns, the fruit of the crab-tree, barley, wheat, a heap of dried figs, cakes made of wheaten and barley flour; and, in the last place, an earthen pot. This mode, however, of offering first-fruits in sacrifices, having, at length, [ 988 ]

proceeded to great illegality, the assumption of immolations, most dire and full of cruelty, was introduced; so that it would seem that the execrations, which were formerly uttered against us, have now received their consummation, in consequence of men slaughtering animals, and defiling altars with blood; and this commenced from that period in which mankind tasted of blood, through having experienced the evils of famine and war. Divinity, therefore, as Theophrastus says, being indignant, appears to have inflicted a punishment adapted to the crime. Hence some men became atheists; but others, in consequence of forming erroneous conceptions of a divine nature, may be more justly called κακοφρονες, kakophrones, than κακοθεοι, kakotbeoi , because they think that the Gods are depraved, and in no respect naturally more excellent than we are. Thus, therefore, some were seen to live without sacrificing any thing, and without offering the first-fruits of their possessions to the Gods; but others sacrificed improperly, and made use of illegal oblations. [8] διὸ Θῶες μὲν οἱ ἐν μεθορίοις Θρᾴκης οἰκήσαντες μηδενὸς ἀπαρχόμενοι μηδὲ θύοντες, ἀνάρπαστοι κατ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐγένοντο τὸν χρόνον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, καὶ οὔτε τοὺς οἰκοῦντας οὔτε τὴν πόλιν οὔτε τὸν τῶν οἰκήσεων θεμέλιον ἐξαίφνης οὐδεὶς εὑρεῖν ἐδύνατο· ὕβριν γὰρ ἀτάσθαλον οὐκ ἐθέλεσκον ἴσχειν, οὐδ’ ἀθανάτους θεραπεύειν ἤθελον, οὐδ’ ἔρδειν μακάρων ἱεροῖς ἐπὶ βωμοῖς, ἣ θέμις ἀθανάτοις. τοιγὰρ οὖν αὐτοὺς Ζεὺς Κρονίδης ἔκρυψε χολούμενος, οὕνεκα τιμὰς οὐκ ἐδίδουν μακάρεσσιν οὐδ’ ἀπήρχοντο τούτοις, καθάπερ ἦν δίκαιον. Βασσάρων δὲ δὴ τῶν τὸ πάλαι τὰς Ταύρων θυσίας οὐ μόνον ζηλωσάντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ τῶν ἀνθρωποθυσιῶν βακχείᾳ βορὰν τούτων προσθεμένων (καθάπερ ἡμεῖς νῦν ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων· ἀπαρξάμενοι γὰρ τὰ λοιπὰ δαῖτα τιθέμεθα), τίς οὐκ ἀκήκοεν ὅτι μετὰ μανίας προσπίπτοντές τε καὶ δάκνοντες ἀλλήλους, ἔτι δὲ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν αἱμοδαιτοῦντες οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο πρὶν τὸ γένος ἐξαναλῶσαι τῶν πρώτων παρ’ αὐτοῖς τῆς τοιαύτης ἁψαμένων θυσίας; [8] Hence the Thoes , who dwell in the confines of Thrace, as they neither offered any first-fruits, nor sacrificed to the Gods, were at that time suddenly taken away from the rest of mankind; so that neither the inhabitants, nor the city, nor the foundations of the houses, could by any one be found. “Men prone to ill, denied the Gods their due, And by their follies made their days but few. The altars of the bless’d neglected stand, Without the offerings which the laws demand; But angry Jove in dust this people laid, Because no honours to the Gods they paid.” [ 989 ]

Hesiod. Op. et Di. lib. i. v. 1 33  Nor did they offer first-fruits to the Gods, as it was just that they should. But with respect to the Bassarians, who formerly were not only emulous of sacrificing bulls, but also ate the flesh of slaughtered men, in the same manner as we now do with other animals; for we offer to the Gods some parts of them as first-fruits; and eat the rest; — with respect to these men, who has not heard, that insanely rushing on and biting each other, and in reality feeding on blood, they did not cease to act in this manner till the whole race was destroyed of those who use sacrifices of this kind? [9] ὑστέρα μὲν τοίνυν καὶ νεωτάτη ἡ διὰ τῶν ζῴων θυσία, τὴν δὲ αἰτίαν λαβοῦσα οὐκ εὐχάριστον ὡς ἡ ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν, ἀλλὰ λιμοῦ ἤ τινος ἄλλης δυστυχίας περίστασιν. αὐτίκα τῶν κατὰ μέρος παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις ἀναιρέσεων αἱ πλεῖσται ἢ ἀγνοίας ἢ ὀργὰς ἢ φόβους τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχουσιν. τὴν μὲν γὰρ τῶν συῶν σφαγὴν ἀκουσίῳ ἁμαρτίᾳ Κλυμένης προσάπτουσιν, ἀπροαιρέτως μὲν βαλούσης, ἀνελούσης δὲ τὸ ζῷον. διὸ καὶ εὐλαβηθέντα αὐτῆς τὸν ἄνδρα, ὡς παράνομον διαπεπραγμένης, Πυθῶδε ἀφικόμενον χρήσασθαι τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ μαντείῳ. τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τῷ συμβάντι ἐπιτρέψαντος, ἀδιάφορον λοιπὸν νομίσαι τὸ γιγνόμενον. Ἐπισκόπῳ δέ, ὃς ἦν ἔκγονος τῶν Θεοπρόπων, βουληθέντι προβάτων ἀπάρξασθαι, ἐπιτρέψαι μὲν φασὶ τὸ λόγιον, σὺν πολλῇ δ’ εὐλαβείᾳ. ἔχει γὰρ οὕτως· οὔ σε θέμις κτείνειν ὀίων γένος ἐστὶ βέβαιον, ἔγγονε Θειοπρόπων· ὃ δ’ ἑκούσιον ἂν κατανεύσῃ χέρνιβ’ ἐπιθύειν τὸ δ’, Ἐπίσκοπε, φημὶ δικαίως. [9] The sacrifice, therefore, through animals is posterior and most recent, and originated from a cause which is not of a pleasing nature, like that of the sacrifice from fruits, but received its commencement either from famine, or some other unfortunate circumstance. The causes, indeed, of the peculiar mactations among the Athenians, had their beginning, either in ignorance, or anger, or fear. For the slaughter of swine is attributed to an involuntary error of Clymene, who, by unintentionally striking, slew the animal. Hence her husband, being terrified as if he had perpetrated an illegal deed, consulted the oracle of the Pythian God about it. But as the God did not condemn what had happened, the slaughter of animals was afterwards considered as a thing of an indifferent nature. The inspector, however, of sacred rites, who was the offspring of prophets, wishing to make an offering of first-fruits from sheep, was permitted to do so, it is said, by an oracle, but with much caution and fear. For the oracle was as follows: — “Offspring of prophets, sheep by force to slay, The Gods permit not thee: but with wash’d hands For thee ’tis lawful any sheep to kill, That dies a voluntary death.”

[ 990 ]

[10] αἶγα δ’ ἐν Ἰκαρίῳ τῆς Ἀττικῆς ἐχειρώσαντο πρῶτον, ὅτι ἄμπελον ἀπέθρισεν· βοῦν δὲ Δίομος ἔσφαξε πρῶτος, ἱερεὺς ὢν τοῦ Πολιέως Διός, ὅτι τῶν Διιπολείων ἀγομένων καὶ παρεσκευασμένων κατὰ τὸ πάλαι ἔθος τῶν καρπῶν ὁ βοῦς προσελθὼν ἀπεγεύσατο τοῦ ἱεροῦ πελάνου· συνεργοὺς γὰρ λαβὼν τοὺς ἄλλους ὅσοι παρῆσαν, ἀπέκτεινε τοῦτον. καὶ παρὰ μὲν Ἀθηναίοις τοιαῦται κατὰ μέρος ἀποδίδονται αἰτίαι, ἄλλαι δὲ παρ’ ἄλλοις λέγονται· πλήρεις δὲ πᾶσαι οὐκ εὐαγῶν ἀπολογιῶν. λιμὸν δὲ οἱ πλεῖστοι αἰτιῶνται καὶ τὴν ἐκ τούτου ἀδικίαν. διὸ γευσάμενοι τῶν ἐμψύχων ἀπήρξαντο καὶ τούτων, εἰωθότες τῆς τροφῆς ἀπάρχεσθαι. ὅθεν οὐδὲ πρεσβύτερον τὸ θυσιῶν ὑπάρχον τῆς ἀναγκαίας τροφῆς ἐκ τούτου ἀφορίζοι ἂν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὸ βρωτέον, ἑπόμενον δὲ οἷς ἐγεύσαντο καὶ ἀπήρξαντο, οὐκ ἀναγκάζοι προσίεσθαι ὡς εὐσεβές, οὗ μὴ [10] But a goat was first slain in Icarus, a mountain of Attica, because it had cropped a vine. And Diomus, who was a priest of Jupiter Polieus, was the first that slew an ox; because, when the festival sacred to Jupiter, and called Diipolia, was celebrated, and fruits were prepared after the ancient manner, an ox approaching tasted the sacred cake. But the priest, being aided by others who were present, slew the ox. And these are the causes, indeed, which are assigned by the Athenians for this deed; but by others, other causes are narrated. All of them however, are full of explanations that are not holy. But most of them assign famine, and the injustice with which it is attended, as the cause. Hence men having tasted of animals, they offered them in sacrifice, as first-fruits, to the Gods; but prior to this, they were accustomed to abstain from animal food. Whence, since the sacrifice of animals is not more ancient than necessary food, it may be determined from this circumstance what ought to be the nutriment of men. But it does not follow, because men have tasted of and offered animals in sacrifices as firstfruits, that it must necessarily be admitted to be pious to eat that which was not piously offered to the Gods. [11] εὐσεβῶς τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπήρξαντο. μηνύει δὲ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐξ ἀδικίας πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτο λαβεῖν τὴν ἀρχὴν τὸ μὴ ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει τὰ αὐτὰ ἢ θύειν ἢ ἐσθίειν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς χρείας τῆς πρὸς αὑτοὺς στοχάζεσθαι τοῦ καθήκοντος. παρὰ γοῦν Αἰγυπτίοις καὶ Φοίνιξι θᾶττον ἄν τις ἀνθρωπείων κρεῶν γεύσαιτο ἢ θηλείας βοός. αἴτιον δὲ ὅτι χρήσιμον τὸ ζῷον ὂν τοῦτο ἐσπάνιζεν παρ’ αὐτοῖς. διὸ ταύρων μὲν καὶ ἐγεύσαντο καὶ ἀπήρξαντο, τῶν δὲ θηλειῶν φειδόμενοι τῆς γονῆς ἕνεκα, ἐν μύσει τὸ ἅψασθαι ἐνομοθέτησαν· καίτοι γε τῆς χρείας ἐφ’ ἑνὸς καὶ ταὐτοῦ γένους [τῶν βοῶν] τό τε εὐσεβὲς καὶ τὸ ἀσεβὲς διώρισαν. ὧν δὴ τοῦτον ἐχόντων τὸν τρόπον, εἰκότως ὁ Θεόφραστος ἀπαγορεύει μὴ θύειν τὰ ἔμψυχα τοὺς τῷ ὄντι εὐσεβεῖν ἐθέλοντας, χρώμενος καὶ τοιαύταις ἄλλαις αἰτίαις. [11] But what especially proves that every thing of this kind originated from injustice, is this, that the same things are neither sacrificed nor eaten in every nation, but that they conjecture what it is fit for them to do from what they find to be useful to [ 991 ]

themselves. With the Egyptians, therefore, and Phoenicians, any one would sooner taste human flesh than the flesh of a cow. The cause, however, is that this animal being useful, is also rare among them. Hence, though they eat bulls, and offer them in sacrifice as first-fruits, yet they spare cows for the sake of their progeny, and ordain that, if any one kill them, it shall be considered as an expiation. And thus, for the sake of utility in one and the same genus of animals, they distinguish what is pious, and what is impious. So that these particulars subsisting after this manner, Theophrastus reasonably forbids those to sacrifice animals who wish to be truly pious; employing these, and other similar arguments, such as the following. [12] πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ἐξ ἀνάγκης μείζονος, ὡς ἔφαμεν, ἡμᾶς καταλαβούσης κατήρξαντο αὐτῶν· λιμοὶ γὰρ αἴτιοι καὶ πόλεμοι, οἳ καὶ τοῦ γεύσασθαι ἀνάγκην ἐπήγαγον. ὄντων οὖν τῶν καρπῶν, τίς χρεία τῷ τῆς ἀνάγκης χρῆσθαι θύματι; ἔπειτα τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν τὰς ἀμοιβὰς καὶ τὰς χάριτας ἄλλοις μὲν ἄλλας ἀποδοτέον κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν τῆς εὐποιίας, τοῖς δὲ εἰς τὰ μέγιστα ἡμᾶς εὖ πεποιηκόσιν τὰς μεγίστας καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τιμιωτάτων, καὶ μάλιστα εἰ αὐτοὶ εἶεν τούτων πάροχοι. κάλλιστα δὲ καὶ τιμιώτατα ὧν ἡμᾶς οἱ θεοὶ εὖ ποιοῦσιν, οἱ καρποί· διὰ γὰρ τούτων ἡμᾶς σῴζουσιν καὶ νομίμως ζῆν παρέχουσιν· ὥστε ἀπὸ τούτων αὐτοὺς τιμητέον. καὶ μὴν θύειν δεῖ ἐκεῖνα ἃ θύοντες οὐδένα πημανοῦμεν· οὐθὲν γὰρ ὡς τὸ θῦμα ἀβλαβὲς εἶναι χρὴ πᾶσιν. εἰ δὲ λέγοι τις ὅτι οὐχ ἧττον τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς εἰς χρῆσιν δέδωκεν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι γε ἐπιθυομένων τῶν ζῴων φέρει τινὰ βλάβην αὐτοῖς, ἅτε τῆς ψυχῆς νοσφιζομένων. οὐ θυτέον οὖν ταῦτα· ἡ γὰρ θυσία ὁσία τίς ἐστι κατὰ τοὔνομα. ὅσιος δὲ οὐδεὶς ὃς ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἀποδίδωσι χάριτας, κἂν καρποὺς λάβῃ κἂν φυτά, μὴ ἐθέλοντος. πῶς γὰρ ὅσιον ἀδικουμένων τῶν ἀφαιρεθέντων; εἰ δὲ οὐδὲ καρποὺς ὁ ἀφελόμενος ἄλλων ὁσίως θύει, τά γε τούτων τιμιώτερα παντελῶς οὐχ ὅσιον ἀφαιρουμένους τινῶν θύειν· τὸ γὰρ δεινὸν οὕτω γίγνεται μεῖζον· ψυχὴ δὲ πολλῷ τιμιώτερον τῶν ἐκ γῆς φυομένων, ἣν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι [12] In the first place, indeed, because we sacrificed animals through the occurrence, as we have said, of a greater necessity. For pestilence and war were the causes that introduced the necessity of eating them. Since, therefore, we are supplied with fruits, what occasion is there to use the sacrifice of necessity? In the next place, the remunerations of, and thanks for benefits, are to be given differently to different persons, according to the worth of the benefit conferred; so that the greatest remunerations, and from things of the most honourable nature, are to be given to those who have benefited us in the greatest degree, and especially if they are the causes of these gifts. But the most beautiful and honourable of those things, by which the Gods benefit us, are the fruits of the earth. For through these they preserve us, and enable us to live legitimately; so that, from these we ought to venerate them. Besides, it is requisite to sacrifice those things by the sacrifice of which we shall not injure any one. For nothing ought to be so inoxious to all things as sacrifice. But if someone should say, that [ 992 ]

God gave animals for our use, no less than the fruits of the earth, yet it does not follow that they are, therefore, to be sacrificed, because in so doing they are injured, through being deprived of life. For sacrifice is, as the name implies, something holy. But no one is holy who requites a benefit from things which are the property of another, whether he takes fruits or plants from one who is unwilling to be deprived of them. For how can this be holy, when those are injured from whom they are taken? If, however, he who takes away fruit from others does not sacrifice with sanctity, it cannot be holy to sacrifice things taken from others, which are in every respect more honourable than the fruits of the earth. For a more dire deed is thus perpetrated. But soul is much more honourable than the vegetable productions of the earth, which it is not fit, by sacrificing animals, that we should take away. [13] θύοντα τὰ ζῷα οὐ προσῆκεν. ἀλλ’ ἴσως τις ἂν εἴποι ὅτι καὶ τῶν φυτῶν ἀφαιροῦμέν τι. ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὁμοία ἡ ἀφαίρεσις· οὐ γὰρ παρὰ ἀκόντων. καὶ γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐασάντων, αὐτὰ μεθήσει τοὺς καρπούς, καὶ ἡ τῶν καρπῶν λῆψις οὐ μετ’ ἀπωλείας αὐτῶν, καθάπερ ὅταν τὰ ζῶα τὴν ψυχὴν πρόηται. καὶ τὴν παρὰ τῶν μελιττῶν δὲ τοῦ καρποῦ παράληψιν ἐκ τῶν πόνων ἡμῶν γιγνομένην, κοινὴν ἔχειν προσήκει καὶ τὴν ὄνησιν. συνάγουσι γὰρ αἱ μέλιτται ἐκ τῶν φυτῶν τὸ μέλι, ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπιμελούμεθα. διὸ καὶ δεῖ οὕτω μερίζεσθαι, ὡς μηδεμίαν αὐταῖς γίγνεσθαι βλάβην. τὸ δ’ ἄχρηστον μὲν ἐκείναις, ἡμῖν δὲ χρήσιμον εἴη ἂν μισθὸς ὁ παρ’ ἐκείνων. ἀφεκτέον ἄρα τῶν ζῴων ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλως πάντα μὲν τῶν θεῶν ἐστίν, ἡμῶν δὲ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι οἱ καρποί· ἡμεῖς γὰρ καὶ σπείρομεν αὐτοὺς καὶ φυτεύομεν καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπιμελείαις ἀνατρέφομεν. θυτέον οὖν ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων, οὐ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων· ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ εὐδάπανον καὶ εὐπόριστον τοῦ δυσπορίστου ὁσιώτερον καὶ θεοῖς κεχαρισμένον καὶ τὸ ῥᾷστον τοῖς θύουσιν πρὸς συνεχῆ εὐσέβειαν ἕτοιμον. τὸ τοίνυν μήθ’ ὅσιον μήτ’ εὐδάπανον [13] Some one, however, perhaps may say, that we also take away something from plants [when we eat, and sacrifice them to the Gods]. But the ablation is not similar; since we do not take this away from those who are unwilling that we should. For, if we omitted to gather them, they would spontaneously drop their fruits. The gathering of the fruits, also, is not attended with the destruction of the plants, as it is when animals lose their animating principle. And, with respect to the fruit which we receive from bees, since this is obtained by our labour, it is fit that we should derive a common benefit from it. For bees collect their honey from plants; but we carefully attend to them. On which account it is requisite that such a division should be made [of our attention and their labour] that they may suffer no injury. But that which is useless to them, and beneficial to us, will be the reward which we receive from them [of our attention to their concerns]. In sacrifices, therefore, we should abstain from animals. For, though all things are in reality the property of the Gods, yet plants appear to be our property; since we sow and cultivate them, and nourish them by other attentions which [ 993 ]

we pay to them. We ought to sacrifice, therefore, from our own property, and not from the property of others; since that which may be procured at a small expense, and which may easily be obtained, is more holy, more acceptable to the Gods, and better adapted to the purposes of sacrifice, and to the exercise of continual piety. Hence, that which is neither holy, nor to be obtained at a small expense, is not to be offered in sacrifice, even though it should be present. [14] οὐ πάνυ θυτέον, εἰ καὶ παρείη. ὅτι δ’ οὐ τῶν εὐπορίστων καὶ εὐδαπάνων τὰ ζῷα, θεωρητέον εἰς τὸ πολὺ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν ὁρῶντας. οὐ γὰρ εἴ τινές εἰσι ‘πολύρρηνες [καὶ] πολυβοῦται’ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τοῦτο σκεπτέον· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι πολλὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν οὐ κέκτηται τῶν θυσίμων ζῴων οὐθέν, εἰ μή τι τῶν ἀτίμων [λέγοι]· δεύτερον δὲ ὅτι τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οἰκούντων οἱ πλεῖστοι σπανίζουσι τούτων. εἰ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἡμέρων τις καρπῶν λέγοι σπανίζειν, ἀλλ’ οὐ τῶν γε λοιπῶν τῶν ἐκ γῆς φυομένων, οὐδ’ οὕτω χαλεπὸν τοὺς καρποὺς ὡς τὰ ζῷα πορίσασθαι. [ῥᾴων ἄρ’ ὁ πόρος τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς ἢ ὁ τῶν ζῴων.] τὸ δὲ εὐδάπανον καὶ εὐπόριστον πρὸς συνεχῆ εὐσέβειαν συντελεῖ [14] But that animals do not rank among things which may be procured easily, and at a small expense, may be seen by directing our view to the greater part of our race: for we are not now to consider that some men abound in sheep, and others in oxen. In the first place, therefore, there are many nations that do not possess any of those animals which are offered in sacrifice, some ignoble animals, perhaps, excepted. And, in the second place, most of those that dwell in cities themselves, possess these but rarely. But if some one should say that the inhabitants of cities have not mild fruits in abundance; yet, though this should be admitted, they are not in want of the other vegetable productions of the earth; nor is it so difficult to procure fruits as it is to procure animals. Hence an abundance of fruits, and other vegetables, is more easily obtained than that of animals. But that which is obtained with facility, and at a small expense, contributes to incessant and universal deity. [15] καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἁπάντων. καὶ μαρτυρεῖ γε ἡ πεῖρα ὅτι χαίρουσιν τούτῳ οἱ θεοὶ ἢ τῷ πολυδαπάνῳ. οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτε τοῦ Θετταλοῦ ἐκείνου ‹τοῦ› τοὺς χρυσόκερως βοῦς καὶ τὰς ἑκατόμβας τῷ Πυθίῳ προσάγοντος μᾶλλον ἔφησεν ἡ Πυθία τὸν Ἑρμιονέα κεχαρίσθαι θύσαντα τῶν ψαιστῶν ἐκ τοῦ πηριδίου τοῖς τρισὶ δακτύλοις. προσεπιβαλόντι δὲ διὰ τὸ ῥηθὲν τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα τῆς πήρας ἐπὶ τὸν βωμόν, εἶπε πάλιν ὅτι δὶς τόσον ἀπέχθοιτο τοῦτο δράσας ἢ πρότερον ἦν κεχαρισμένος. οὕτω τὸ εὐδάπανον φίλον θεοῖς, καὶ μᾶλλον τὸ δαιμόνιον πρὸς τὸ τῶν θυόντων ἦθος ἢ πρὸς τὸ τῶν θυομένων πλῆθος βλέπει. [15] Experience also testifies that the Gods rejoice in this more than in sumptuous offerings. For when that Thessalian sacrificed to the Pythian deity oxen with gilt horns, and hecatombs, Apollo said, that the offering of Hermioneus was more gratifying to him, though he had only sacrificed as much meal as he could take with his three fingers [ 994 ]

out of a sack. But when the Thessalian, on hearing this, placed all the rest of his offerings on the altar the God again said, that by so doing his present was doubly more unacceptable to him than his former offering. Hence the sacrifice which is attended with a small expense is pleasing to the Gods, and divinity looks more to the disposition and manners of those that sacrifice, than to the multitude of the things which are sacrificed. [16] τὰ παραπλήσια δὲ καὶ Θεόπομπος ἱστόρηκεν, εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀφικέσθαι ἄνδρα Μάγνητα ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίας φάμενος, πλούσιον σφόδρα, κεκτημένον συχνὰ βοσκήματα. τοῦτον δ’ εἰθίσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν θυσίας ποιεῖσθαι πολλὰς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς, τὰ μὲν δι’ εὐπορίαν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, τὰ δὲ δι’ εὐσέβειαν καὶ τὸ βούλεσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς ἀρέσκειν. οὕτω δὲ διακείμενον πρὸς τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐλθεῖν εἰς Δελφούς, πομπεύσαντα δὲ ἑκατόμβην τῷ θεῷ καὶ τιμήσαντα μεγαλοπρεπῶς τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα παρελθεῖν εἰς τὸ μαντεῖον χρηστηριασόμενον· οἰόμενον δὲ κάλλιστα πάντων ἀνθρώπων θεραπεύειν τοὺς θεοὺς ἐρέσθαι τὴν Πυθίαν, τὸν ἄριστα καὶ προθυμότατα τὸ δαιμόνιον γεραίροντα θεσπίσαι καὶ τὸν ποιοῦντα τὰς θυσίας προσφιλεστάτας, ὑπολαμβάνοντα δοθήσεσθαι αὑτῷ τὸ πρωτεῖον. τὴν δὲ ἱέρειαν ἀποκρίνασθαι, πάντων ἄριστα θεραπεύειν τοὺς θεοὺς Κλέαρχον κατοικοῦντα ἐν Μεθυδρίῳ τῆς Ἀρκαδίας. τὸν δ’ ἐκπλαγέντα ἐκτόπως ἐπιθυμῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἰδεῖν καὶ ἐντυχόντα μαθεῖν, τίνα τρόπον τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελεῖ. ἀφικόμενον οὖν ταχέως εἰς τὸ Μεθύδριον πρῶτον μὲν καταφρονῆσαι μικροῦ καὶ ταπεινοῦ ὄντος τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ χωρίου, ἡγούμενον οὐχ ὅπως ἄν τινα τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἂν αὐτὴν τὴν πόλιν δύνασθαι μεγαλοπρεπέστερον αὑτοῦ καὶ κάλλιον τιμῆσαι τοὺς θεούς. ὅμως δ’ οὖν συντυχόντα τῷ ἀνδρὶ ἀξιῶσαι φράσαι αὐτῷ, ὅντινα τρόπον τοὺς θεοὺς τιμᾷ. τὸν δὲ Κλέαρχον φάναι ἐπιτελεῖν καὶ σπουδαίως θύειν ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι χρόνοις, κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον ταῖς νουμηνίαις στεφανοῦντα καὶ φαιδρύνοντα τὸν Ἑρμῆν καὶ τὴν Ἑκάτην καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἱερῶν, ἃ δὴ τοὺς προγόνους καταλιπεῖν, καὶ τιμᾶν λιβανωτοῖς καὶ ψαιστοῖς καὶ ποπάνοις· κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν δὲ θυσίας δημοτελεῖς ποιεῖσθαι, παραλείποντα οὐδεμίαν ἑορτήν· ἐν αὐταῖς δὲ ταύταις θεραπεύειν τοὺς θεοὺς οὐ βουθυτοῦντα οὐδὲ ἱερεῖα κατακόπτοντα, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἂν παρατύχῃ ἐπιθύοντα, σπουδάζειν μέντοι ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν περιγιγνομένων καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ὡραίων ἃ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαμβάνεται, τοῖς θεοῖς τὰς ἀπαρχὰς ἀπονέμειν· καὶ τὰ μὲν παρατιθέναι, τὰ δὲ καθαγίζειν αὐτοῖς· αὐτὸν δὲ τῇ αὐταρκείᾳ προσεσχηκότα τὸ θῦσαι βοῦς προεῖσθαι. [16] Theopompus likewise narrates things similar to these, viz. that a certain Magnesian came from Asia to Delphi; a man very rich, and abounding in cattle, and that he was accustomed every year to make many and magnificent sacrifices to the Gods, partly through the abundance of his possessions, and partly through piety and wishing to please the Gods. But being thus disposed, he came to the divinity at Delphi, bringing with him a hecatomb for the God, and magnificently honouring Apollo, he consulted his oracle. Conceiving also that he worshipped the Gods in a manner more beautiful than that of all other men, he asked the Pythian deity who the man was that, with the [ 995 ]

greatest promptitude, and in the best manner, venerated divinity, and made the most acceptable sacrifices, conceiving that on this occasion the God would deem him to be pre-eminent. The Pythian deity however answered, that Clearchus, who dwelt in Methydrium, a town of Arcadia, worshipped the Gods in a way surpassing that of all other men. But the Magnesian being astonished, was desirous of seeing Clearchus, and of learning from him the manner in which he performed his sacrifices. Swiftly, therefore, betaking himself to Methydrium, in the first place, indeed, he despised the smallness and vileness of the town, conceiving that neither any private person, nor even the whole city, could honour the Gods more magnificently and more beautifully than he did. Meeting, however, with the man, he thought fit to ask him after what manner he reverenced the Gods. But Clearchus answered him, that he diligently sacrificed to them at proper times in every month at the new moon, crowning and adorning the statues of Hermes and Hecate, and the other sacred images which were left to us by our ancestors, and that he also honoured the Gods with frankincense, and sacred wafers and cakes. He likewise said, that he performed public sacrifices annually, omitting no festive day; and that in these festivals he worshipped the Gods, not by slaying oxen, nor by cutting victims into fragments, but that he sacrificed whatever he might casually meet with, sedulously offering the first-fruits to the Gods of all the vegetable productions of the seasons, and of all the fruits with which he was supplied. He added, that some of these he placed before the [statues of the] Gods, but that he burnt others on their altars; and that, being studious of frugality, he avoided the sacrificing of oxen. [17] παρ’ ἐνίοις δ’ ἱστόρηται τῶν συγγραφέων, τῶν Τυρρηνῶν μετὰ τὸ κρατῆσαι Καρχηδονίων ἑκατόμβας κατὰ πολλὴν ἔριν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐκπρεπεῖς παραστησάντων τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, εἶτα πυνθανομένων αἷς ἡσθείη μάλιστα, παρ’ ἐλπίδα πᾶσαν αὐτὸν ἀποκρίνασθαι, διότι τοῖς Δοκίμου ψαιστοῖς. Δελφὸς δὲ ἦν οὗτος, σκληρὰ γεωργῶν πετρίδια· κατιὼν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ χωρίου ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας, ἐκ τῆς περικειμένης πήρας τῶν ἀλφίτων ὀλίγας δράκας ἐθυλήσατο, πλέον τέρψας τὸν θεὸν τῶν μεγαλοπρεπεῖς θυσίας συντελεσάντων. ὅθεν καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν τισὶ διὰ τὸ γνώριμον ἀποφαίνεσθαι ἐδόκει τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὡς Ἀντιφάνει ἐν Μύστιδι λέγεται, ταῖς εὐτελείαις οἱ θεοὶ χαίρουσι γάρ· τεκμήριον δ’· ὅταν γὰρ ἑκατόμβας τινὲς θύωσιν, ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅπασιν ὕστατος πάντων καὶ λιβανωτὸς ἐπετέθη, ὡς τἄλλα μὲν τὰ πολλὰ παραναλούμενα δαπάνην ματαίαν οὖσαν αὐτῶν οὕνεκα, τὸ δὲ μικρὸν αὐτὸ τοῦτ’ ἀρεστὸν τοῖς θεοῖς. καὶ Μένανδρος δ’ ἐν Δυσκόλῳ φησίν, ὁ λιβανωτὸς εὐσεβὴς [ 996 ]

καὶ τὸ πόπανον· τοῦτ’ ἔλαβεν ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τὸ πῦρ ἅπαν τεθέν. [17] By some writers, also, it is related, that certain tyrants, after the Carthaginians were conquered, having, with great strife among themselves, placed hetacombs before Apollo. Afterwards inquired of the God with which of the offerings he was most delighted; and that he answered, contrary to all their expectation, that he was most pleased with the cakes of Docimus. But this Docimus was an inhabitant of Delphi, and cultivated some rugged and stony land. Docimus, therefore, coming on that day from the place which he cultivated, took from a bag which was fastened round him a few handfuls of meal, and sacrificed them to the God, who was more delighted with his offering than with the magnificent sacrifices of the tyrants. Hence, also a certain poet, because the affair was known, appears to have asserted things of a similar kind, as we are informed by Antiphanes in his Mystics: In simple offerings most the Gods delight: For though before them hecatombs are placed, Yet frankincense is burnt the last of all. An indication this that all the rest, Preceding, was a vain expense, bestowed Through ostentation, for the sake of men; But a small offering gratifies the Gods. Menander likewise, in the comedy called the Morose, says, Pious th’oblation which with frankincense And Popanum is made; for in the fire Both these, when placed, divinity accepts. [18] διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς κεραμεοῖς ἀγγείοις καὶ τοῖς ξυλίνοις καὶ πλεκτοῖς ἐχρῶντο καὶ μᾶλλον πρὸς τὰς δημοτελεῖς ἱεροποιίας, τοιούτοις χαίρειν πεπεισμένοι τὸ θεῖον. ὅθεν καὶ τὰ παλαιότατα ἕδη κεραμεᾶ καὶ ξύλινα ὑπάρχοντα μᾶλλον θεῖα νενόμισται διά τε τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὴν ἀφέλειαν τῆς τέχνης. τὸν γοῦν Αἰσχύλον φασί, τῶν Δελφῶν ἀξιούντων εἰς τὸν θεὸν γράψαι παιᾶνα, εἰπεῖν ὅτι βέλτιστα Τυννίχῳ πεποίηται· παραβαλλόμενον δὲ τὸν αὑτοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἐκείνου ταὐτὸν πείσεσθαι τοῖς ἀγάλμασιν τοῖς καινοῖς πρὸς τὰ ἀρχαῖα· ταῦτα γὰρ καίπερ ἀφελῶς πεποιημένα, θεῖα νομίζεσθαι, τὰ δὲ καινὰ περιέργως εἰργασμένα θαυμάζεσθαι μέν, θείου δὲ δόξαν ἧττον ἔχειν. καὶ τὸν Ἡσίοδον οὖν εἰκότως τὸν τῶν ἀρχαίων θυσιῶν νόμον ἐπαινοῦντα εἰπεῖν, ὥς κε πόλις ῥέζῃσι, νόμος δ’ ἀρχαῖος ἄριστος. [18] On this account also, earthen, wooden, and wicker vessels were formerly used, and especially in public sacrifices, the ancients being persuaded that divinity is delighted with things of this kind. Whence, even now, the most ancient vessels, and [ 997 ]

which are made of wood, are thought to be more divine, both on account of the matter and the simplicity of the art by which they were fashioned. It is said, therefore, that Aeschylus, on his brother’s asking him to write a Paean in honour of Apollo, replied, that the best Paean was written by Tynnichus; and that if his composition were to be compared with that of Tynnichus, the same thing would take place as if new were compared with ancient statues. For the latter, though they are simple in their formation, are conceived to be divine; but the former, though they are most accurately elaborated, produce indeed admiration, but are not believed to possess so much of a divine nature. Hence Hesiod, praising the law of ancient sacrifices, very properly says, Your country’s rites in sacrifice observe: [In pious works] the ancient law is best . [19] οἱ δὲ τὰ περὶ τῶν ἱερουργιῶν γεγραφότες καὶ θυσιῶν τὴν περὶ τὰ πόπανα ἀκρίβειαν φυλάττειν παραγγέλλουσιν, ὡς ἀρεστὴν τοῖς θεοῖς ταύτην ἢ τὴν διὰ τῶν ζῴων θυσίαν. καὶ Σοφοκλῆς διαγράφων τὴν θεοφιλῆ θυσίαν φησὶν ἐν τῷ Πολυΐδῳ, ἦν μὲν γὰρ οἰὸς μαλλός, ἦν δ’ ἀμπέλου σπονδή τε καὶ ῥὰξ εὖ τεθησαυρισμένη· ἐνῆν δὲ παγκάρπεια συμμιγὴς ὀλαῖς λίπος τ’ ἐλαίας καὶ τὸ ποικιλώτατον ξουθῆς μελίσσης κηρόπλαστον ὄργανον. σεμνὰ δ’ ἦν τῶν πρὶν ὑπομνήματα ἐν Δήλῳ ἐξ Ὑπερβορέων ἀμαλλοφόρων. δεῖ τοίνυν καθηραμένους τὸ ἦθος ἰέναι θύσοντας, τοῖς θεοῖς θεοφιλεῖς τὰς θυσίας προσάγοντας, ἀλλὰ μὴ πολυτελεῖς. νῦν δὲ ἐσθῆτα μὲν λαμπρὰν περὶ σῶμα μὴ καθαρὸν ἀμφιεσαμένοις οὐκ ἀρκεῖν νομίζουσιν πρὸς τὸ τῶν θυσιῶν ἁγνόν· ὅταν δὲ τὸ σῶμα μετὰ τῆς ἐσθῆτός τινες λαμπρυνάμενοι μὴ καθαρὰν κακῶν τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχοντες ἴωσιν πρὸς τὰς θυσίας, οὐδὲν διαφέρειν νομίζουσιν, ὥσπερ οὐ τῷ θειοτάτῳ γε τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν χαίροντα μάλιστα τὸν θεὸν διακειμένῳ καθαρῶς, ἅτε συγγενεῖ πεφυκότι. ἐν γοῦν Ἐπιδαύρῳ προεγέγραπτο, ἁγνὸν χρὴ ναοῖο θυώδεος ἐντὸς ἰόντα ἔμμεναι· ἁγνεία δ’ ἐστὶ φρονεῖν ὅσια. [19] But those who have written concerning sacred operations and sacrifices, admonish us to be accurate in preserving what pertains to the popana, because these are more acceptable to the Gods than the sacrifice which is performed through the mactation of animals. Sophocles also, in describing a sacrifice which is pleasing to divinity, says in his Polyidus: The skins of sheep in sacrifice were used, Libations too of wine, grapes well preserved, And fruits collected in a heap of every kind;

[ 998 ]

The olive’s pinguid juice, and waxen work Most variegated, of the yellow bee. Formerly, also, there were venerable monuments in Delos of those who came from the Hyperboreans, bearing handfuls [of fruits]. It is necessary, therefore, that, being purified in our manners, we should make oblations, offering to the Gods those sacrifices which are pleasing to them, and not such as are attended with great expense. Now, however, if a man’s body is not pure and invested with a splendid garment, he does not think it is qualified for the sanctity of sacrifice. But when he has rendered his body splendid, together with his garment, though his soul at the same time is not, purified from vice, yet he betakes himself to sacrifice, and thinks that it is a thing of no consequence; as if divinity did not especially rejoice in that which is most divine in our nature, when it is in a pure condition, as being allied to his essence. In Epidaurus, therefore, there was the following inscription on the doors of the temple: Into an odorous temple, he who goes Should pure and holy be; but to be wise In what to sanctity pertains, is to be pure. [20] ὅτι δὲ οὐ τῷ ὄγκῳ χαίρει ὁ θεὸς τῶν θυσιῶν, ἀλλὰ τῷ τυχόντι, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ τῆς καθ’ ἡμέραν τροφῆς, κἂν ὁποία τις οὖν αὕτη παρατεθῇ, ταύτης πρὸ τῶν ἀπολαύσεων πάντας ἀπάρχεσθαι μικρὸν μέν, ἀλλὰ τῷ μικρῷ τούτῳ παντὸς μᾶλλον μεγάλη τίς ἐστι τιμή. διὰ πολλῶν δὲ ὁ Θεόφραστος ‹ἐκ› τῶν παρ’ ἑκάστοις πατρίων ἐπιδείξας, ὅτι τὸ παλαιὸν τῶν θυσιῶν διὰ τῶν καρπῶν ἦν ἔτ’ εἰπὼν πρότερον τῆς πόας λαμβανομένης, καὶ τὰ τῶν σπονδῶν ἐξηγεῖται τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. τὰ μὲν ἀρχαῖα τῶν ἱερῶν νηφάλια παρὰ πολλοῖς ἦν, νηφάλια δ’ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑδρόσπονδα, τὰ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα μελίσπονδα· τοῦτον γὰρ ἕτοιμον παρὰ μελιττῶν πρῶτον ἐλάβομεν τὸν ὑγρὸν καρπόν· εἶτ’ ἐλαιόσπονδα· τέλος [20] But that God is not delighted with the amplitude of sacrifices, but with any casual offering, is evident from this, that of our daily food, whatever it may be that is placed before us, we all of us make an offering to the Gods, before we have tasted it ourselves; this offering being small indeed, but the greatest testimony of honour to divinity. Moreover, Theophrastus shows, by enumerating many of the rites of different countries, that the sacrifices of the ancients were from fruits, and he narrates what pertains to libations in the following manner: “Ancient sacrifices were for the most part performed with sobriety. But those sacrifices are sober in which the libations are made with water. Afterwards, however, libations were made with honey. For we first received this liquid fruit prepared for us by the bees. In the third place, libations were made with oil; and in the fourth and last place with wine.”

[ 999 ]

[21] δ’ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τὰ ὕστερον γεγονότα οἰνόσπονδα. μαρτυρεῖται δὲ ταῦτα οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ τῶν κύρβεων, αἳ τῶν Κρήτηθέν εἰσι Κορυβαντικῶν ἱερῶν οἷον ἀντίγραφα ἄττα πρὸς ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ’ Ἐμπεδοκλέους, ὃς περὶ τῆς θεογονίας διεξιὼν καὶ περὶ τῶν θυμάτων παρεμφαίνει λέγων· οὐδέ τις ἦν κείνοισιν Ἄρης θεὸς οὐδὲ Κυδοιμὸς οὐδὲ Ζεὺς βασιλεὺς οὐδ’ ὁ Κρόνος οὐδ’ ὁ Ποσειδῶν, ἀλλὰ Κύπρις βασίλεια, ἥ ἐστιν ἡ φιλία· τὴν οἵ γ’ εὐσεβέεσσιν ἀγάλμασιν ἱλάσκοντο γραπτοῖς τε ζῴοισι μύροισί τε δαιδαλεόσμοις σμύρνης τ’ ἀκράτου θυσίαις λιβάνου τε θυώδους ξουθῶν τε σπονδὰς μελιττῶν ῥιπτοῦντες ἐς οὖδας, ἅπερ καὶ νῦν ἔτι σῴζεται παρ’ ἐνίοις οἷον ἴχνη τινὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ὄντα, ταύρων δ’ ἀκρίτοισι φόνοις οὐ δεύετο βωμός. [21] These things, however, are testified not only by the pillars which are preserved in Cyrbe , and which contain, as it were, certain true descriptions of the Cretan sacred rites of the Corybantes; but also by Empedocles, who, in discussing what pertains to sacrifices and theogony, or the generation of the Gods, says: With them nor Mars nor tumult dire was found, Nor Saturn, Neptune, or the sovereign Jove, But Venus [beauty’s] queen. And Venus is friendship. Afterwards he adds, With painted animals, and statues once Of sacred form, with unguents sweet of smell, The fume of frankincense and genuine myrrh, And with libations poured upon the ground Of yellow honey, Venus was propitious made. Which ancient custom is still even now preserved by some persons as a certain vestige of the truth. And in the last place, Empedocles says, Nor then were altars wet with blood of bulls Irrationally slain. [22] τῆς γὰρ [οἶμαι] φιλίας [καὶ τῆς] περὶ τὸ συγγενὲς αἰσθήσεως πάντα κατεχούσης, οὐδεὶς οὐθὲν ἐφόνευεν, οἰκεῖα εἶναι νομίζων τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ζῴων. ἐπεὶ δὲ Ἄρης καὶ Κυδοιμὸς καὶ πᾶσα μάχη καὶ πολέμων ἀρχὴ κατέσχεν, τότε πρῶτον οὐθεὶς οὐθενὸς ὅλως ἐφείδετο τῶν οἰκείων. σκεπτέον δ’ ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα. ὥσπερ γὰρ οἰκειότητος οὔσης ἡμῖν πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, τοὺς κακοποιοὺς καὶ καθάπερ ὑπό τινος πνοῆς ‹τῆς› ἰδίας φύσεως καὶ μοχθηρίας φερομένους πρὸς τὸ βλάπτειν τὸν ἐντυγχάνοντα ἀναιρεῖν ἡγούμεθα δεῖν καὶ κολάζειν ἅπαντας, οὕτως καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων τὰ ἄδικα τὴν φύσιν καὶ κακοποιὰ πρός τε τὸ βλάπτειν ὡρμημένα τῇ φύσει [ 1000 ]

τοὺς ἐμπελάζοντας ἀναιρεῖν ἴσως προσήκει, τὰ δὲ μηθὲν ἀδικοῦντα τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων μηδὲ τῇ φύσει πρὸς τὸ βλάπτειν ὡρμημένα ἀναιρεῖν τε καὶ φονεύειν ἄδικον δήπου, ὥσπερ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺς τοιούτους. ὃ δὴ καὶ ἐμφαίνειν ἔοικεν δίκαιον ἡμῖν μηδὲν εἶναι πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ζῴων, διὰ τὸ βλαβερὰ ἄττα τούτων εἶναι καὶ κακοποιὰ τὴν φύσιν, τὰ δὲ μὴ τοιαῦτα, καθάπερ καὶ τῶν [22] For, as it appears to me, when friendship and a proper sense of the duties pertaining to kindred natures, was possessed by all men, no one slaughtered any living being, in consequence of thinking that other animals were allied to him. But when strife, and tumult, every kind of contention, and the principle of war, invaded mankind, then, for the first time, no one in reality spared any one of his kindred natures. The following particulars, likewise, ought to be considered: For, as though there is an affinity between us and noxious men, who, as it were, by a certain impetus of their own nature and depravity, are incited to injure anyone they may happen to meet, yet we think it requisite that all of them should be punished and destroyed; thus also, with respect to those irrational animals that are naturally malefic and unjust, and who are impelled to injure those that approach them, it is perhaps fit that they should be destroyed. But with respect to other animals who do not at all act unjustly, and are not naturally impelled to injure us, it is certainly unjust to destroy and murder them, no otherwise than it would be to slay men who are not iniquitous. And this seems to evince that the justice between us and other animals does not arise from some of them being naturally noxious and malefic, but others not, as is also the case with respect to men. [23] ἀνθρώπων. ἆρ’ οὖν θυτέον τὰ ἄξια τοῦ σφάττεσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς; καὶ πῶς, εἴ γε φαῦλα τὴν φύσιν ἐστίν; οὐθὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον οὕτω ἢ τὰ ἀνάπηρα θυτέον. κακῶν δὲ οὕτως ἀπαρχὴν καὶ οὐ τιμῆς ἕνεκα τὰς θυσίας ποιήσομεν. εἰ δ’ ἄρα θυτέον τοῖς θεοῖς ζῷα, τὰ μηθὲν ἀδικοῦντα [τούτων] ἡμᾶς θυτέον. οὐκ ἀναιρετέον δὲ ὡμολογηκότες μηθὲν ἡμᾶς ἀδικοῦντα τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων, ὥστε οὐδὲ θυτέον αὐτὰ τοῖς θεοῖς. εἰ οὖν οὔτε ταῦτα θυτέον οὔτε τὰ κακοποιά, πῶς οὐ φανερὸν ὅτι παντὸς μᾶλλον ἀφεκτέον καὶ οὐ θυτέον ἐστὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων οὐδέν, ἀναιρεῖν γε μέντοι τούτων ἕτερ’ [23] Are therefore those animals to be sacrificed to the Gods which are thought to be deserving of death? But how can this be possible, if they are naturally depraved? For it is no more proper to sacrifice such as these, than it would be to sacrifice mutilated animals. For thus, indeed, we shall offer the first-fruits of things of an evil nature, but we shall not sacrifice for the sake of honouring the Gods. Hence, if animals are to be sacrificed to the Gods, we should sacrifice those that are perfectly innoxious. It is however acknowledged, that those animals are not to be destroyed who do not at all injure us, so that neither are they to be sacrificed to the Gods. If, therefore, neither these, nor those that are noxious, are to be sacrificed, is it not evident that we should [ 1001 ]

abstain from them more than from any thing else, and that we should not sacrifice any one of them, though it is fit that some of them should be destroyed? [24] ἄττα προσήκει; καὶ γὰρ ὅλως τριῶν ἕνεκα θυτέον τοῖς θεοῖς· ἢ γὰρ διὰ τιμὴν ἢ διὰ χάριν ἢ διὰ χρείαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν. καθάπερ γὰρ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οὕτω κἀκείνοις ἡγούμεθα δεῖν ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀπαρχάς. τιμῶμεν δὲ τοὺς θεοὺς ἢ κακῶν μὲν ἀποτροπήν, ἀγαθῶν δὲ παρασκευὴν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι ζητοῦντες, ἢ προπεπονθότες εὖ [ἢ ἵνα τύχωμεν ὠφελείας τινὸς] ἢ κατὰ ψιλὴν τὴν τῆς ἀγαθῆς αὐτῶν ἕξεως ἐκτίμησιν. ὥστε καὶ τῶν ζῴων, εἰ ἀπαρκτέον αὐτὰ θεοῖς, τούτων τινὸς ἕνεκα θυτέον. καὶ γὰρ ἃ θύομεν, τούτων τινὸς ἕνεκα θύομεν. ἆρ’ οὖν τιμῆς ἡγήσαιτ’ ἄν τις τυγχάνειν ἡμῶν ἢ θεός, ὅταν ἀδικοῦντες εὐθὺς διὰ τῆς ἀπαρχῆς φαινώμεθα, ἢ μᾶλλον ἀτιμίαν οἰήσεται τὸ τοιοῦτο δρᾶν; ἐν τῷ δέ γε θύειν ἀναιροῦντες τὰ μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντα τῶν ζῴων, ἀδικεῖν ὁμολογοῦμεν· ὥστε τιμῆς μὲν ἕνεκα οὐ θυτέον τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων οὐθέν· οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν χάριν αὐτοῖς ἀποδιδόντας. ὁ γὰρ τὴν δικαίαν ἀμοιβὴν τῆς εὐεργεσίας καὶ τῆς εὐποιίας τὸ ἀντάξιον ἀποδιδοὺς οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ κακῶς τινὰς δρᾶν ὀφείλει ταῦτα παρέχειν· οὐδὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον ἀμείβεσθαι δόξει ἢ κἂν εἰ τὰ τοῦ πέλας ἁρπάσας τις στεφανοίη τινὰς ὡς χάριν ἀποδιδοὺς καὶ τιμήν. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ χρείας τινὸς ἕνεκα τῶν ἀγαθῶν. ὁ γὰρ ἀδίκῳ πράξει τὸ παθεῖν εὖ θηρεύων ὕποπτός ἐστι μηδὲ εὖ παθὼν χάριν ἕξειν· ὥστ’ οὐδ’ ἐλπιζομένης εὐεργεσίας θυτέον ἐστὶ τοῖς θεοῖς ζῷα. καὶ γὰρ δὴ τῶν μὲν ἀνθρώπων λάθοι τις ἂν ἴσως τινὰ τοῦτο πράττων, τὸν δὲ θεὸν ἀμήχανον καὶ λαθεῖν. εἰ τοίνυν θυτέον μὲν τούτων τινὸς ἕνεκα, οὐδενὸς δὲ τούτων χάριν αὐτὸ πρακτέον, δῆλον ὡς [24] To which may be added, that we should sacrifice to the Gods for the sake of three things, viz. either for the sake of honouring them, or of testifying our gratitude, or through our want of good. For, as we offer first-fruits to good men, thus also we think it is necessary that we should offer them to the Gods. But we honour the Gods, either exploring the means of averting evils, and obtaining good, or when we have been previously benefited, or in order that we may obtain some present advantage and assistance, or merely for the purpose of venerating the goodness of their nature. So that if the first-fruits of animals are to be offered to the Gods, some of them for the sake of this are to be sacrificed. For whatever we sacrifice, we sacrifice for the sake of some one of the above mentioned particulars. Is it therefore to be thought that God is honoured by us, when we are directly seen to act unjustly through the first-fruits which we offer to him? Or will he not rather think that he is dishonoured by such a sacrifice, in which, by immolating animals that have not at all injured us, we acknowledge that we have acted unjustly. So that no one of other animals is to be sacrificed for the sake of honouring divinity. Nor yet are they to be sacrificed for the purpose of testifying our gratitude to the Gods. For he who makes a just retribution for the benefits he has received, ought not to make it by doing an injury to certain other animals. For he will no more appear to make a retribution than he who, plundering his neighbour of his property, should [ 1002 ]

bestow it on another person for the sake of honour. Neither are animals to be sacrificed for the sake of obtaining a certain good of which we are in want. For he who endeavours to be benefited by acting unjustly, is to be suspected as one who would not be grateful even when he is benefited. So that animals are not to be sacrificed to the Gods through the expectation of deriving advantage from the sacrifice. For he who does this, may perhaps elude men, but it is impossible that he can elude divinity. If, therefore, we ought to sacrifice for the sake of a certain thing, but this is not to be done for the sake of any of the before mentioned particulars, it is evident that animals ought not to be sacrificed. [25] οὐ θυτέον ἐστὶν ζῷα τὸ παράπαν τοῖς θεοῖς. ταῖς γὰρ ἐκ τῶν θυμάτων ἀπολαύσεσι τὸ περὶ τούτων ἀληθὲς ἐξαλείφειν πειρώμενοι λανθάνομεν ἡμᾶς αὐτούς, οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὸν θεόν. τῶν μὲν οὖν ἀτίμων ζῴων, ἃ μηδεμίαν εἰς τὸν βίον ἡμῖν παρέχεται χρείαν, καὶ τῶν οὐδεμίαν ἀπόλαυσιν ἐχόντων οὐθὲν θύομεν τοῖς θεοῖς. τίς γὰρ δὴ πώποτε ἔθυσεν ὄφεις καὶ σκορπίους ἢ πιθήκους ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων ζῴων; τῶν δὲ τοῖς βίοις ἡμῶν χρείαν τινὰ παρεχομένων ἢ καί τι εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν ἐν αὑτοῖς ἐχόντων οὐθενὸς ἀπεχόμεθα, σφάττοντες ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ δέροντες ἐπὶ προστασίας τοῦ θείου. βοῦς γὰρ καὶ πρόβατα πρός τε τούτοις ἐλάφους καὶ ὄρνιθας, αὐτούς τε τοὺς καθαρειότητος μὲν οὐδὲν κοινωνοῦντας, ἀπόλαυσιν δὲ ἡμῖν παρέχοντας σιάλους σφάττομεν τοῖς θεοῖς· ὧν τὰ μὲν τοῖς βίοις ἡμῶν ἐπικουρεῖ συμπονοῦντα, τὰ δὲ εἰς τροφὴν ἤ τινας ἄλλας χρείας ἔχει βοήθειαν. τὰ δὲ οὐθὲν τούτων δρῶντα διὰ τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπόλαυσιν ὁμοίως τοῖς ἔχουσι τὸ χρήσιμον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπόλλυται ταῖς θυσίαις. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ὄνους οὐδ’ ἐλέφαντας οὐδὲ ἄλλο τῶν συμπονούντων μέν, οὐκ ἐχόντων δὲ ἀπόλαυσιν θύομεν. καίτοι καὶ χωρίς γε τοῦ θύειν οὐκ ἀπεχόμεθα τῶν τοιούτων, σφάττοντες διὰ τὰς ἀπολαύσεις, καὶ θύομεν αὐτῶν τῶν θυσίμων οὐ τὰ τοῖς θεοῖς, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον τὰ ταῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις κεχαρισμένα, καταμαρτυροῦντες ἡμῶν αὐτῶν, ὅτι τῆς ἀπολαύσεως χάριν [25] For, by endeavouring to obliterate the truth of these things through the pleasures which we derive from sacrifices, we deceive ourselves, but cannot deceive divinity. Of those animals, therefore, which are of an ignoble nature, which do not impart to our life any superior utility, and which do not afford us any pleasure, we do not sacrifice any one to the Gods. For who ever sacrificed serpents, scorpions, and apes, or any one of such like animals? But we do not abstain from any one of those animals which afford a certain utility to our life, or which have something in them that contributes to our enjoyments; since we, in reality, cut their throats, and excoriate them, under the patronage of divinity . For we sacrifice to the Gods oxen and sheep, and besides these, stags and birds, and fat hogs, though they do not at all participate of purity, but afford us delight. And of these animals, indeed, some, by co-operating with our labours, afford assistance to our life, but others supply us with food, or administer to our other wants. But those which effect neither of these, yet, through the enjoyment [ 1003 ]

which is derived from them, are slain by men in sacrifices similarly with those who afford us utility. We do not, however, sacrifice asses or elephants, or any other of those animals that co-operate with us in our labours, but are not subservient to our pleasure; though, sacrificing being excepted, we do not abstain from such like animals, but we cut their throats on account of the delight with which the deglutition of them is attended; and of those which are fit to be sacrificed, we do not sacrifice such as are acceptable to the Gods, but such as in a greater degree gratify the desires of men; thus testifying against ourselves, that we persist in sacrificing to the Gods, for the sake of our own pleasure, and not for the sake of gratifying the Gods. [26] ἐμμένομεν τοῖς τοιούτοις θύμασιν. καίτοι Σύρων μὲν [Ἰουδαῖοι] διὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς συνήθειαν ἔτι καὶ νῦν, φησὶν ὁ Θεόφραστος, ζῳοθυτούντων εἰ τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμᾶς τρόπον τις κελεύοι θύειν, ἀποσταίημεν ἂν τῆς πράξεως. οὐ γὰρ ἑστιώμενοι τῶν τυθέντων, ὁλοκαυτοῦντες δὲ ταῦτα νυκτὸς καὶ κατ’ αὐτῶν πολὺ μέλι καὶ οἶνον λείβοντες ἀνήλισκον τὴν θυσίαν θᾶττον, ἵνα τοῦ δεινοῦ μὴ ‹Ἥλιος› ὁ πανόπτης γένοιτο θεατής. καὶ τοῦτο δρῶσιν νηστεύοντες τὰς ἀνὰ μέσον τούτων ἡμέρας· κατὰ δὲ πάντα τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον, ἅτε φιλόσοφοι τὸ γένος ὄντες, περὶ τοῦ θείου μὲν ἀλλήλοις λαλοῦσι, τῆς δὲ νυκτὸς τῶν ἄστρων ποιοῦνται τὴν θεωρίαν, βλέποντες εἰς αὐτὰ καὶ διὰ τῶν εὐχῶν θεοκλυτοῦντες. κατήρξαντο γὰρ οὗτοι πρῶτοι τῶν τε λοιπῶν ζῴων καὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν, ἀνάγκῃ καὶ οὐκ ἐπιθυμίᾳ τοῦτο πράξαντες. μάθοι δ’ ἄν τις ἐπιβλέψας τοὺς λογιωτάτους πάντων Αἰγυπτίους, οἳ τοσοῦτον ἀπεῖχον τοῦ φονεύειν τι τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων, ὥστε τὰς τούτων εἰκόνας μιμήματα τῶν θεῶν ἐποιοῦντο. οὕτως οἰκεῖα καὶ συγγενῆ ταῦτα τοῖς θεοῖς ἐνόμιζον [26] But of the Syrians, the Jews indeed, through the sacrifice which they first made, even now, says Theophrastus, sacrifice animals, and if we were persuaded by them to sacrifice in the same way that they do, we should abstain from the deed. For they do not feast on the flesh of the sacrificed animals, but having thrown the whole of the victims into the fire, and poured much honey and wine on them during the night, they swiftly consume the sacrifice, in order that the all-seeing sun may not become a spectator of it. And they do this, fasting during all the intermediate days, and through the whole of this time, as belonging to the class of philosophers, and also discourse with each other about the divinity . But in the night, they apply themselves to the theory of the stars, surveying them, and through prayers invoking God. For these make offerings both of other animals and themselves, doing this from necessity, and not from their own will. The truth of this, however, may be learnt by any one who directs his attention to the Egyptians, the most learned of all men; who are so far from slaying other animals, that they make the images of these to be imitations of the Gods; so adapted and allied do they conceive these to be both to Gods and men.

[ 1004 ]

[27] εἶναι καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μὲν γὰρ αἱ τῶν καρπῶν ἐγίνοντο τοῖς θεοῖς θυσίαι· χρόνῳ δὲ τῆς ὁσιότητος ἡμῶν ἐξαμελησάντων, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν καρπῶν ἐσπάνισαν καὶ διὰ τὴν τῆς νομίμου τροφῆς ἔνδειαν εἰς τὸ σαρκοφαγεῖν ἀλλήλων ὥρμησαν, τότε μετὰ πολλῶν λιτῶν ἱκετεύοντες τὸ δαιμόνιον σφῶν αὐτῶν ἀπήρξαντο τοῖς θεοῖς πρῶτον, οὐ μόνον ὅτι κάλλιστον ἐνῆν αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῦτο τοῖς θεοῖς καθοσιοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ πέρα τῶν καλλίστων προσεπιλαμβάνοντες τοῦ γένους· ἀφ’ οὗ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν οὐκ ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ μόνον τοῖς Λυκαίοις οὐδ’ ἐν Καρχηδόνι τῷ Κρόνῳ κοινῇ πάντες ἀνθρωποθυτοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ περίοδον τῆς τοῦ νομίμου χάριν μνήμης ἐμφύλιον αἷμα ῥαίνουσι πρὸς τοὺς βωμούς, καίπερ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὁσίας ἐξειργούσης τῶν ἱερῶν τοῖς περιρραντηρίοις ‹καὶ› κηρύγματι, εἴ τις αἵματος ἀνθρωπείου μεταίτιος. ἐντεῦθεν οὖν μεταβαίνοντες ὑπάλλαγμα πρὸς τὰς θυσίας τῶν ἰδίων ἐποιοῦντο σωμάτων τὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων σώματα, καὶ πάλιν κόρῳ τῆς νομίμου τροφῆς εἰς τὴν περὶ εὐσεβείας λήθην ἰόντες, ἐπιβαίνοντες ἀπληστίας οὐθὲν ἄγευστον οὐδὲ ἄβρωτον περιλείποντες. ὅπερ καὶ περὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν τροφὴν νῦν συμβαίνει περὶ πάντας. ὅταν γὰρ τῇ προσφορᾷ τὴν ἀναγκαίαν ἔνδειαν κουφίσωνται, ζητοῦντος τοῦ κόρου τὸ περιττόν, ἐκπονοῦσι πρὸς βρῶσιν πολλὰ τῶν σωφροσύνης ἔξω κειμένων. ὅθεν ὡς οὐκ ἄτιμα ποιούμενοι τὰ θεοῖς θύματα, γεύσασθαι τούτων προήχθησαν, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς πράξεως ταύτην προσθήκη ἡ ζῳοφαγία γέγονεν τῇ ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τροφῇ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. καθάπερ οὖν τὸ παλαιὸν ἀπήρξαντό τε τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ἀπαρχθέντων ἀσπασίως μετὰ τὴν θυσίαν ἐγεύσαντο, οὕτω τῶν ζῴων καταρξάμενοι ταὐτὸν ἡγοῦντο δεῖν τοῦτο δρᾶν, καίπερ τὸ ἀρχαῖον οὐχ οὕτως τῆς ὁσίας ταῦτα βραβευσάσης, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν ἕκαστον τῶν θεῶν τιμῶντες. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἥ τε φύσις καὶ πᾶσα τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς αἴσθησις δρωμένοις συνηρέσκετο, ταύρων δ’ ἀκρίτοισι φόνοις οὐ δεύετο βωμός, ἀλλὰ μύσος τοῦτ’ ἔσκεν ἐν ἀνθρώποισι μέγιστον, θυμὸν ἀπορραίσαντας ἐέδμεναι ἤια γυῖα. [27] For at first, indeed, sacrifices of fruits were made to the Gods; but, in the course of time, men becoming negligent of sanctity, in consequence of fruits being scarce, and through the want of legitimate nutriment, being impelled to eat each other, then supplicating divinity with many prayers, they first began to make oblations of themselves to the Gods, not only consecrating to the divinities whatever among their possessions was most beautiful, but, proceeding beyond this, they sacrificed those of their own species. Hence, even to the present time, not only in Arcadia, in the Lupercal festivals, and in Carthage, men are sacrificed in common to Saturn, but periodically, also, for the sake of remembering the legal institute, they sprinkle the altars of those of the same tribe with blood, although the rites of their sacrifices exclude, by the voice of the crier, him from engaging in them who is accused of human slaughter. Proceeding therefore from hence, they made the bodies of other animals supply the place of their own in sacrifices, and again, through a satiety of legitimate nutriment, becoming [ 1005 ]

oblivious of piety, they were induced by voracity to leave nothing untasted, nothing undevoured. And this is what now happens to all men with respect to the aliment from fruits. For when, by the assumption of them, they have alleviated their necessary indigence, then searching for a superfluity of satiety, they labour to procure many things for food which are placed beyond the limits of temperance. Hence, as if they had made no ignoble sacrifices to the Gods, they proceeded also to taste the animals which they immolated; and from this, as a principle of the deed, the eating of animals became an addition to men to the nutriment derived from fruits. As, therefore, antiquity offered the first produce of fruits to the Gods, and gladly, after their pious sacrifice, tasted what they offered, thus also, when they sacrificed the firstlings of animals to the divinities, they thought that the same thing ought to be done by them, though ancient piety did not ordain these particulars after this manner, but venerated each of the Gods from fruits. For with such oblations, both nature, and every sense of the human soul, are delighted. No altar then was wet with blood of bulls Irrationally slain; but this was thought To be of every impious deed the worst, Limbs to devour of brutes deprived of life. [28] θεωρῆσαι δὲ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ περὶ Δῆλον ἔτι νῦν σῳζομένου βωμοῦ, πρὸς ὃν οὐθενὸς προσαγομένου παρ’ αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ θυομένου ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ ζῴου εὐσεβῶν κέκληται βωμός. οὕτως οὐ μόνον ἀπείχοντο τῶν ζῴων θύοντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἱδρυσαμένοις τοῦτον ὁμοίως καὶ τοῖς χρωμένοις αὐτῷ μετέδοσαν τῆς εὐσεβείας. διόπερ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι τοῦτο παραδεξάμενοι κατὰ μὲν τὸν πάντα βίον ἀπείχοντο τῆς ζῳοφαγίας, ὅτε δὲ εἰς ἀπαρχήν τι τῶν ζῴων ἀνθ’ ἑαυτῶν μερίσειαν τοῖς θεοῖς, τούτου γευσάμενοι μόνον, πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἄθικτοι τῶν λοιπῶν ὄντες ἔζων. ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἡμεῖς· ἐμπιπλάμενοι δὲ εἰς πολλοστὸν ἀφικόμεθα τῆς ἐν τούτοις [παρὰ τὸν βίον] παρανομίας. καὶ γὰρ οὔτε φόνῳ τοὺς τῶν θεῶν βωμοὺς χραίνειν δεῖ, οὔτε ἁπτέον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τῆς τοιαύτης τροφῆς, ὡς οὐδὲ τῶν ἰδίων σωμάτων, ἀλλὰ ποιητέον παράγγελμα τῷ παντὶ βίῳ τὸ ἐν [28] The truth of this may also be perceived from the altar which is even now preserved about Delos, which, because no animal is brought to, or is sacrificed upon it, is called the altar of the pious. So that the inhabitants not only abstain from sacrificing animals, but they likewise conceive, that those who established, are similarly pious with those who use the altar. Hence, the Pythagoreans having adopted this mode of sacrifice, abstained from animal food through the whole of life. But when they distributed to the Gods a certain animal instead of themselves, they merely tasted of it, living in reality without touching other animals. We, however, do not act after this manner; but being filled with animal diet, we have arrived at this manifold illegality in our life by slaughtering animals, and using them for food. For neither is it proper that the altars of [ 1006 ]

the Gods should be defiled with murder, nor that food of this kind should be touched by men, as neither is it fit that men should eat one another; but the precept which is still preserved at Athens, should be obeyed through the whole of life. [29] Ἀθήναις ἔτι σῳζόμενον. τὸ γὰρ παλαιόν, ὡς καὶ πρόσθεν ἐλέγομεν, καρποὺς τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων θυόντων, ζῷα δὲ οὔ, οὐδὲ εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν τροφὴν καταχρωμένων, λέγεται κοινῆς θυσίας οὔσης Ἀθήνησιν Δίομον ἢ Σώπατρόν τινα, τῷ γένει οὐκ ἐγχώριον, γεωργοῦντα δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ἀττικήν, ἐπεὶ πελάνου τε καὶ τῶν θυλημάτων ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης ἐναργῶς κειμένων, ἵνα τοῖς θεοῖς ταῦτα θύοι, τῶν βοῶν τις εἰσιὼν ἀπ’ ἔργου τὰ μὲν κατέφαγεν τὰ δὲ συνεπάτησεν, αὐτὸν δ’ ὑπεραγανακτήσαντα τῷ συμβάντι, πελέκεώς τινος πλησίον ἀκονωμένου, τοῦτον ἁρπάξαντα, πατάξαι τὸν βοῦν. τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ βοός, ὡς ἔξω τῆς ὀργῆς καταστὰς συνεφρόνησεν οἷον ἔργον ἦν εἰργασμένος, τὸν μὲν βοῦν θάπτει, φυγὴν δὲ ἑκούσιον ἀράμενος ὡς ἠσεβηκώς, ἔφυγεν εἰς Κρήτην. αὐχμῶν δὲ κατεχόντων καὶ δεινῆς ἀκαρπίας γενομένης, ἐπερωτῶσι κοινῇ τὸν θεὸν ἀνεῖλεν ἡ Πυθία τὸν ἐν Κρήτῃ φυγάδα ταῦτα λύσειν, τόν τε φονέα τιμωρησαμένων καὶ τὸν τεθνεῶτα ἀναστησάντων ἐν ᾗπερ ἀπέθανε θυσίᾳ λῷον ἔσεσθαι γευσαμένοις τε τοῦ τεθνεῶτος καὶ μὴ κατασχοῦσιν. ὅθεν ζητήσεως γενομένης καὶ τοῦ [Σωπάτρου] μεταιτίου τῆς πράξεως ἀνευρεθέντος, Σώπατρος νομίσας τῆς περὶ αὑτὸν δυσκολίας ἀπαλλαγήσεσθαι ὡς ἐναγοῦς ὄντος, εἰ κοινῇ τοῦτο πράξειαν πάντες, ἔφη πρὸς τοὺς αὐτὸν μετελθόντας, δεῖν κατακοπῆναι βοῦν ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως. ἀπορούντων δὲ τίς ὁ πατάξων ἔσται, παρασχεῖν αὐτοῖς τοῦτο, εἰ πολίτην αὐτὸν ποιησάμενοι κοινωνήσουσι τοῦ φόνου. συγχωρηθέντων οὖν τούτων, ὡς ἐπανῆλθον ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν, συνέταξαν οὕτω τὴν πρᾶξιν, ἥπερ [29] For formerly, as we have before observed, when men sacrificed to the Gods fruits and not animals, and did not assume the latter for food, it is said, that a common sacrifice being celebrated at Athens, one Diomus, or Sopater, who was not a native, but cultivated some land in Attica, seizing a sharp axe which was near to him, and being excessively indignant, struck with it an ox, who, coming from his labour, approached to a table, on which were openly placed cakes and other offerings which were to be burnt as a sacrifice to the Gods, and ate some, but trampled on the rest of the offerings. The ox, therefore, being killed, Diomus, whose anger was now appeased, at the same time perceived what kind of deed he had perpetrated. And the ox, indeed, he buried. But embracing a voluntary banishment, as if he had been accused of impiety, he fled to Crete. A great dryness, however, taking place in the Attic land from vehement heat, and a dreadful sterility of fruit, and the Pythian deity being in consequence of it consulted by the general consent, the God answered, that the Cretan exile must expiate the crime; and that, if the murderer was punished, and the statue of the slain ox was erected in the place in which it fell, this would be beneficial both to those who had and those who had not tasted its flesh. An inquiry therefore being made into the affair, and Sopater, together with the deed, having been discovered, he, thinking that he should be liberated [ 1007 ]

from the difficulty in which he was now involved, through the accusation of impiety, if the same thing was done by all men in common, said to those who came to him, that it was necessary an ox should be slain by the city. But, on their being dubious who should strike the ox, he said that he would undertake to do it, if they would make him a citizen, and would be partakers with him of the slaughter. This, therefore, being granted, they returned to the city, and ordered the deed to be accomplished in such a way as it is performed by them at present, [and which was as follows:] [30] καὶ νῦν διαμένει παρ’ αὐτοῖς. ὑδροφόρους παρθένους κατέλεξαν· αἳ δ’ ὕδωρ κομίζουσιν, ὅπως τὸν πέλεκυν καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν ἀκονήσουσιν. ἀκονησάντων δὲ ἐπέδωκεν μὲν τὸν πέλεκυν ἕτερος, ὃ δ’ ἐπάταξε τὸν βοῦν, ἄλλος δ’ ἔσφαξεν· τῶν δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα δειράντων, ἐγεύσαντο τοῦ βοὸς πάντες. τούτων δὲ πραχθέντων τὴν μὲν δορὰν τοῦ βοὸς ῥάψαντες καὶ χόρτῳ ἐπογκώσαντες ἐξανέστησαν, ἔχοντα ταὐτὸν ὅπερ καὶ ζῶν ἔσχεν σχῆμα, καὶ προσέζευξαν ἄροτρον ὡς ἐργαζομένῳ. κρίσιν δὲ ποιούμενοι τοῦ φόνου πάντας ἐκάλουν εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοὺς τῆς πράξεως κοινωνήσαντας. ὧν δὴ αἱ μὲν ὑδροφόροι τοὺς ἀκονήσαντας αὑτῶν ᾐτιῶντο μᾶλλον, οἱ δὲ ἀκονήσαντες τὸν ἐπιδόντα τὸν πέλεκυν, οὗτος δὲ τὸν ἐπισφάξαντα, καὶ ὁ τοῦτο δράσας τὴν μάχαιραν, καθ’ ἧς οὔσης ἀφώνου τὸν φόνον κατέγνωσαν. ἀπὸ δ’ ἐκείνου μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἀεὶ τοῖς Διιπολείοις Ἀθήνησιν ἐν ἀκροπόλει οἱ εἰρημένοι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ποιοῦνται τὴν τοῦ βοὸς θυσίαν. θέντες γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς χαλκῆς τραπέζης πέλανον καὶ ψαιστά, περιελαύνουσι τοὺς κατανεμηθέντας βοῦς, ὧν ὁ γευσάμενος κόπτεται. καὶ γένη τῶν ταῦτα δρώντων ἔστιν νῦν· οἳ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ πατάξαντος [Σωπάτρου] βουτύποι καλούμενοι πάντες, οἳ δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ περιελάσαντος κεντριάδαι· τοὺς δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐπισφάξαντος δαιτροὺς ὀνομάζουσιν διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς κρεανομίας γιγνομένην δαῖτα. πληρώσαντες δὲ τὴν βύρσαν, ὅταν πρὸς τὴν κρίσιν ἀχθῶσιν, κατεπόντωσαν τὴν [30] They selected virgins who were drawers of water; but these brought water for the purpose of sharpening an axe and a knife. And these being sharpened, one person gave the axe, another struck with it the ox, and a third person cut the throat of the ox. But after this, having excoriated the animal, all that were present ate of its flesh. These things therefore being performed, they sewed up the hide of the ox, and having stuffed it with straw, raised it upright in the same form which it had when alive, and yoked it to a plough, as if it was about to work with it. Instituting also a judicial process, respecting the slaughter of the ox, they cited all those who were partakers of the deed, to defend their conduct. But as the drawers of water accused those who sharpened the axe and the knife, as more culpable than themselves, and those who sharpened these instruments accused him who gave the axe, and he accused him who cut the throat of the ox, and this last person accused the knife, — hence, as the knife could not speak, they condemned it as the cause of the slaughter. From that time also, even till now, during the festival sacred to Jupiter, in the Acropolis, at Athens, the sacrifice of an ox is [ 1008 ]

performed after the same manner. For, placing cakes on a brazen table, they drive oxen round it, and the ox that tastes of the cakes that are distributed on the table, is slain. The race likewise of those who perform this, still remains. And all those, indeed, who derive their origin from Sopater are called boutupoi [i.e. slayers of oxen]; but those who are descended from him that drove the ox round the table, are called kentriadai, [or stimulators] And those who originate from him that cut the throat of the ox, are denominated daitroi, [or dividers,] on account of the banquet which takes place from the distribution of flesh. But when they have filled the hide, and the judicial process is ended, they throw the knife into the sea. [31] μάχαιραν. οὕτως οὔτε τὸ παλαιὸν ὅσιον ἦν κτείνειν τὰ συνεργὰ τοῖς βίοις ἡμῶν ζῷα, νῦν τε τοῦτο φυλακτέον ἐστὶ πράττειν. καὶ καθάπερ πρότερον οὐχ ὅσιον ἦν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπτεσθαι τούτων, οὕτως νῦν τροφῆς χάριν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν ζῴων οὐχ ὅσιον ἡγητέον. εἰ δ’ ἄρα τοῦτο διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἁγιστείαν ποιητέον, ἀλλ’ ὅτι γε τὸ πάθος ἐκ τῶν σωμάτων καθ’ ἑαυτὸ πᾶν ἐκπεμπτέον τοῦτο, ἵνα μὴ τὴν τροφὴν ἐξ ὧν οὐ προσήκει ποριζόμενοι, σύνοικον ἔχωμεν τὸ μίασμα τοῖς ἰδίοις βίοις. καὶ γὰρ εἰ μηθὲν ἄλλο, πρός γε τὴν κατ’ ἀλλήλων ἐκεχειρίαν μεγάλα πάντες ὀνηθείημεν ἄν. οἷς γοῦν ἡ αἴσθησις τοῦ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ἅπτεσθαι ζῴων ἀπέκλινεν, τούτων ὁ νοῦς πρόδηλός ἐστιν ὁμοφύλων ἀφεξόμενος. πάντων μὲν οὖν ἴσως ἦν κράτιστον εὐθὺς ἀποσχέσθαι· ἐπεὶ δ’ ἀναμάρτητος οὐδείς, λοιπὸν δὴ ἀκεῖσθαι τοῖς ὕστερον διὰ τῶν καθαρμῶν τὰς πρόσθε περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἁμαρτίας. τοῦτο δὲ ὁμοίως γένοιτ’ ἄν, εἰ πρὸ ὀμμάτων ποιησάμενοι τὸ δεινὸν ἀνευφημήσαιμεν κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα λέγοντες οἴμοι, ὅτ’ οὐ πρόσθεν με διώλεσε νηλεὲς ἦμαρ, πρὶν σχέτλι’ ἔργα βορᾶς περὶ χείλεσι μητίσασθαι. τὸ γὰρ τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασι συναλγεῖν τὴν οἰκείαν αἴσθησιν, εὕρασθαί τι τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι κακοῖς ἄκος ζητούντων … βίον, ἵνα καθάπερ ἁγνὰ θύματα τῷ δαιμονίῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστος ἀπαρχόμενος τύχῃ [31] Hence, neither did the ancients conceive it to be holy to slay animals that cooperated with us in works beneficial to our life, and we should avoid doing this even now. And as formerly it was not pious for men to injure these animals, so now it should be considered as unholy to slay them for the sake of food. If, however, this is to be done from motives of religious reference of the Gods, yet every passion or affection which is essentially produced from bodies is to be rejected, in order that we may not procure food from improper substances, and thus have an incentive to violence as the intimate associate of our life. For by such a rejection we shall, at least, all of us derive great benefit in what pertains to be our mutual security, if we do not in anything else. For those whose sense is averse to the destruction of animals of a species different from their own, will evidently abstain from injuring those of their own kind. Hence it would [ 1009 ]

perhaps have been best, if men in after-times had immediately abstained from slaughtering these animals; but since no one is free from error, it remains for posterity to take away by purifications the crime of their ancestors, respecting nutriment. This, however, will be effected, if, placing before our eyes, the dire nature of such conduct, we exclaim with Empedocles: Ah me, while yet exempt from such a crime, Why was I not destroyed by cruel Time, Before these lips began the guilty deed, On the dire nutriment of flesh to feed? For in those only the appropriate sense sympathetically grieves for errors that have been committed, who endeavour to find a remedy for the evils with which they are afflicted; so that every one, by offering pure and holy sacrifices to the divinity, may through sanctity obtain the greatest benefits from the Gods. [32] τῆς ὁσίας καὶ τῆς παρὰ θεῶν ὠφελείας. πάντων δὲ μεγίστη καὶ πρώτη ἡ τῶν καρπῶν ἐστίν, ἧς καὶ ἀπαρκτέον μόνης τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τῇ γῇ τῇ τούτους ἀναδούσῃ. κοινὴ γάρ ἐστιν αὕτη καὶ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἑστία, καὶ δεῖ πάντας ἐπὶ ταύτης ὡς τροφοῦ καὶ μητρὸς ἡμῶν κλινομένους ὑμνεῖν καὶ φιλοστοργεῖν ὡς τεκοῦσαν· οὕτως γὰρ τῆς τοῦ βίου καταστροφῆς τυχόντες πάλιν ἀξιωθείημεν ἂν εἰς οὐρανὸν τὸ σύμπαν γένος τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ θεῶν, οὓς νῦν ὁρῶντας τιμᾶν τούτοις ὧν συναίτιοι ἡμῖν εἰσίν, ἀπαρχομένους μὲν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων καρπῶν καὶ πάντας, οὐκ ἀξιόχρεως δ’ εἰς τὸ θύειν θεοῖς πάντας ἡμᾶς ἡγουμένους. καθάπερ γὰρ οὐ πᾶν θυτέον αὐτοῖς, οὕτως οὐδ’ ὑπὸ παντὸς ἴσως κεχάρισται τοῖς θεοῖς. τὰ μὲν δὴ κεφάλαια τοῦ μὴ δεῖν θύειν ζῷα χωρὶς τῶν ἐμβεβλημένων μύθων ὀλίγων τε τῶν ὑφ’ ἡμῶν προσκειμένων καὶ συντετμημένων ἐστὶν τῶν [32] But the benefit derived from fruits is the first and the greatest of all others, and which, as soon as they are matured, should alone be offered to the Gods, and to Earth, by whom they are produced. For she is the common Vesta of Gods and men; and it is requisite that all of us, reclining on her surface, as on the bosom of our mother and nurse, should celebrate her divinity, and love her with a parental affection, as the source of our existence. For thus, when we exchange this life for another, we shall again be thought worthy of a residence in the heavens, and of associating with all the celestial Gods, whom, now beholding , we ought to venerate with those fruits of which they are the causes, sacrificing indeed to them from all these, when they have arrived at maturity, but not conceiving all of us to be sufficiently worthy to sacrifice to the Gods. For as all things are not to be sacrificed to the Gods, so neither perhaps are the Gods gratified by the sacrifice of everyone. This, therefore, is the substance of the arguments adduced by Theophrastus, to show that animals ought not to be sacrificed; exclusive of

[ 1010 ]

the interspersed fabulous narrations, and a few things which we have added to what he has said. [33] Θεοφράστου ταῦτα. ἐγὼ δὲ τὰ μὲν κεκρατηκότα παρ’ ἑκάστοις νόμιμα λύσων οὐκ ἔρχομαι· οὐ γάρ μοι περὶ πολιτείας νῦν πρόκειται λέγειν· δεδωκότων δὲ τῶν νόμων, ἐν οἷς πολιτευόμεθα, καὶ διὰ τῶν λιτοτάτων καὶ ἀψύχων γεραίρειν τὸ θεῖον, τὸ λιτότατον αἱρούμενοι νόμῳ τε πόλεως θύσομεν καὶ αὐτοὶ σπουδάσομεν τὴν προσήκουσαν θυσίαν ποιεῖσθαι, καθαροὶ πανταχόθεν τοῖς θεοῖς προσιόντες. ὅλως δ’ εἰ τὸ τῆς θυσίας ἀπαρχῆς ἔχει ἀξίαν καὶ εὐχαριστίας ὧν παρὰ θεῶν ἔχομεν εἰς τὰς χρείας, ἀλογώτατον ἂν εἴη αὐτοὺς ἀπεχομένους τῶν ἐμψύχων τοῖς θεοῖς τούτων ἀπάρχεσθαι. οὔτε γὰρ χείρους ἡμῶν οἱ θεοί, ἵνα τούτων αὐτοὶ δέωνται, ἡμῶν μὴ δεομένων, οὔτε ὅσιον ἀπαρχὴν διδόναι ἧς ἡμεῖς ἀπεχόμεθα τροφῆς. ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἔθος τοιοῦτο κατειλήφαμεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτε μὲν οὐχ ἥπτοντο ἐμψύχου βορᾶς οὐδ’ ἀπαρξαμένων ἀπὸ τῶν ζῴων, ἀφ’ οὗ δ’ ἐγεύσαντο καὶ θεοῖς ἀπαρξαμένων· ὥστε καὶ νῦν καθήκει δήπου τὸν ἀπαρχόμενον ἐκείνων [33] I, however, shall not attempt to dissolve the legal institutes which the several nations have established. For it is not my design at present to speak about a polity. But as the laws by which we are governed permit us to venerate divinity by things of the most simple, and of an inanimate nature, hence, selecting that which is the least costly, let us sacrifice according to the law of the city, and endeavour to offer an appropriate sacrifice, approaching with consummate purity to the Gods. In short, if the oblation of first-fruits is of any value, and is an acknowledgment of thanks for the benefits which we receive, it will be most irrational to abstain ourselves from animals, and yet offer the first-fruits of these to the Gods. For neither are the Gods worse than we are, so as to be in want of those things of which we are not indigent, nor is it holy to offer the first-fruits of that nutriment from which we ourselves abstain. For we find it is usual with men, that, when they refrain from animal food, they do not make oblations of animals; but that they offer to the Gods the first-fruits of what they themselves eat. Hence also it is now fit, that he who abstains from animals should offer the first-fruits of things which he touches [for the purpose of food]. [34] ἀπάρχεσθαι ὧν καὶ θιγγάνει. θύσωμεν τοίνυν καὶ ἡμεῖς· ἀλλὰ θύσωμεν, ὡς προσήκει, διαφόρους τὰς θυσίας ὡς ἂν διαφόροις δυνάμεσι προσάγοντες· θεῷ μὲν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, ὥς τις ἀνὴρ σοφὸς ἔφη, μηδὲν τῶν αἰσθητῶν μήτε θυμιῶντες μήτ’ ἐπονομάζοντες· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔστιν ἔνυλον, ὃ μὴ τῷ ἀύλῳ εὐθύς ἐστιν ἀκάθαρτον. διὸ οὐδὲ λόγος τούτῳ ὁ κατὰ φωνὴν οἰκεῖος, οὐδ’ ὁ ἔνδον, ὅταν πάθει ψυχῆς ᾖ μεμολυσμένος, διὰ δὲ σιγῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτοῦ καθαρῶν ἐννοιῶν θρησκεύομεν αὐτόν. δεῖ ἄρα συναφθέντας καὶ ὁμοιωθέντας αὐτῷ τὴν αὑτῶν ἀναγωγὴν θυσίαν ἱερὰν προσάγειν τῷ θεῷ, τὴν αὐτὴν δὲ καὶ ὕμνον οὖσαν καὶ ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν. ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ ἄρα τῆς ψυχῆς, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ θεωρίᾳ ἡ θυσία αὕτη τελεῖται. τοῖς δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐκγόνοις, νοητοῖς δὲ θεοῖς ἤδη καὶ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ λόγου ὑμνῳδίαν προσθετέον. ἀπαρχὴ γὰρ ἑκάστῳ ὧν δέδωκεν ἡ θυσία, [ 1011 ]

καὶ δι’ ὧν ἡμῶν τρέφει καὶ εἰς τὸ εἶναι συνέχει τὴν οὐσίαν. ὡς οὖν γεωργὸς δραγμάτων ἀπάρχεται καὶ τῶν ἀκροδρύων, οὕτως ἡμεῖς ἀπαρξώμεθα αὐτοῖς ἐννοιῶν τῶν περὶ αὐτῶν καλῶν, εὐχαριστοῦντες ὧν ἡμῖν δεδώκασιν τὴν θεωρίαν, καὶ ὅτι ἡμᾶς διὰ τῆς αὐτῶν θέας ἀληθινῶς τρέφουσι, συνόντες καὶ φαινόμενοι καὶ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σωτηρίᾳ ἐπιλάμποντες· [34] Let us therefore also sacrifice, but let us sacrifice in such a manner as is fit, offering different sacrifices to different powers; to the God indeed who is above all things, as a certain wise man said, neither sacrificing with incense, nor consecrating any thing sensible. For there is nothing material, which is not immediately impure to an immaterial nature. Hence, neither is vocal language, nor internal speech, adapted to the highest God, when it is defiled by any passion of the soul; but we should venerate him in profound silence with a pure soul, and with pure conceptions about him. It is necessary, therefore, that being conjoined with and assimilated to him, we should offer to him, as a sacred sacrifice, the elevation of our intellect, which offering will be both a hymn and our salvation. In an impassive contemplation, therefore, of this divinity by the soul, the sacrifice to him is effected in perfection; but to his progeny, the intelligible Gods, hymns, orally enunciated, are to be offered. For to each of the divinities, a sacrifice is to be made of the first-fruits of the things which he bestows, and through which he nourishes and preserves us. As therefore, the husbandman offers handfuls of the fruits and berries which the season first produces; thus also we should offer to the divinities the first-fruits of our conceptions of their transcendent excellence, giving them thanks for the contemplation which they impart to us, and for truly nourishing us through the vision of themselves, which they afford us, associating with, appearing to, and shining upon us, for our salvation. [35] νῦν δὲ τοῦτο μὲν ποιεῖν ὀκνοῦσι καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν φιλοσοφεῖν ἐσπουδακότων, δοξοκοποῦντες δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ θεῖον τιμῶντες περὶ τὰ ἀφιδρύματα στρέφονται, οὐδὲ πῇ ἀπαντητέον ἢ μὴ ἐπεσκεμμένοι, οὐδὲ παρὰ τῶν θεοσόφων μαθεῖν σπουδάσαντες, ἄχρι τίνος καὶ πόσου κἀνταῦθα παραβλητέον. ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς οὐδὲν διοισόμεθα τούτοις, μή πῃ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ τοιοῦτον σπουδάσομεν διαγιγνώσκειν, καὶ τοὺς ὁσίους καὶ παλαιοὺς ἐκμιμησόμεθα, τὸ πλέον ἀπαρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θεωρίας, ἧς ἡμῖν αὐτοὶ δεδώκασιν, καὶ ἧς ἐν χρείᾳ πρὸς τὴν ὄντως σωτηρίαν καθεστήκαμεν. [35] Now, however, many of those who apply themselves to philosophy are unwilling to do this; and, pursuing renown rather than honouring divinity, they are busily employed about statues, neither considering whether they are to be reverenced or not, nor endeavouring to learn from those who are divinely wise, to what extent, and to what degree, it is requisite to proceed in this affair. We, however, shall by no means contend with these, nor are we very desirous of being well instructed in a thing of this kind; but imitating holy and ancient men, we offer to the Gods, more than anything else, [ 1012 ]

the first-fruits of contemplation, which they have imparted to us, and by the use of which we become partakers of true salvation. [36] οἱ γοῦν Πυθαγόρειοι περὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς καὶ τὰς γραμμὰς σπουδάζοντες ἀπὸ τούτων τὸ πλέον τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπήρχοντο, τὸν μέν τινα ἀριθμὸν Ἀθηνᾶν καλοῦντες, τὸν δέ τινα Ἄρτεμιν, ὥσπερ αὖ ἄλλον Ἀπόλλωνα, καὶ πάλιν ἄλλον μὲν δικαιοσύνην, ἄλλον δὲ σωφροσύνην· καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διαγραμμάτων ὁμοίως. καὶ οὕτως ἠρέσκοντο τοὺς θεοὺς ταῖς τοιαύταις ἀπαρχαῖς, ὡς καὶ τυγχάνειν αὐτῶν καλοῦντας ἕκαστον τοῖς ἀναθήμασιν καὶ κεχρῆσθαι πολλάκις πρὸς μαντείαν καὶ εἴ τινος πρὸς ἐξέτασιν δέοιντο. θεοῖς γε μὴν τοῖς ἐντὸς οὐρανοῦ πλανωμένοις τε καὶ ἀπλανέσιν, ὧν ἡγεῖσθαι θετέον ἥλιον πάντων σελήνην τε δευτέραν, πῦρ τε ἤδη ξυγγενὲς ἀνάπτοιμεν ἂν ἅ τε φησὶν ὁ θεολόγος ποιήσωμεν. φησὶ δὲ ἔμψυχον οὗτος θύειν μηδὲ ἕν, ἀλλ’ ἄχρις ἀλφίτων καὶ μέλιτος καὶ τῶν ἐκ γῆς ἀκροδρύων τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀνθέων ἀπάρχεσθαι· μηδὲ ἀφ’ ᾑμαγμένης ἐσχάρας ἔστω τὸ πῦρ, καὶ ὅσα φησὶν ἐκεῖνος· τί γὰρ δεῖ μεταγράφειν ταῦτα; οἶδεν δὲ ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας φροντίζων ὡς θεοῖς μὲν οὐ θύεται ἔμψυχον οὐδέν, δαίμοσι δὲ ἄλλοις ἤτοι ἀγαθοῖς ἢ καὶ φαύλοις, καὶ τίνων ἐστὶ τὸ θύειν τούτοις καὶ ἄχρι τίνος αὐτοῦ δεομένων. ἐμοὶ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα εὔστομα κείσθω, ἃ δ’ οὖν τῶν Πλατωνικῶν τινὲς ἐδημοσίευσαν, ταῦτα ἀνεμέσητον παρατιθέντα τοῖς εὐξυνέτοις μηνύειν τὰ [36] The Pythagoreans, therefore, diligently applying themselves to the study of numbers and lines, sacrificed for the most part from these to the Gods, denominating, indeed, a certain number Minerva, but another Diana, and another Apollo: and again, they called one number justice, but another temperance . In diagrams also they adopted a similar mode. And thus, by offerings of this kind, they rendered the Gods propitious to them, so as to obtain of them the object of their wishes, by the things which they dedicated to, and the names by which they invoked them. They likewise frequently employed their aid in divination, and if they were in want of a certain thing for the purpose of some investigation. In order, therefore to affect this, they made use of the Gods within the heavens, both the erratic and non-erratic, of all of whom it is requisite to consider the sun as the leader; but to rank the moon in the second place; and we should conjoin with these fire, in the third place, from its alliance to them, as the theologist  says. He also says that no animal is to be sacrificed; but that first-fruits are to be offered from meal and honey, and the vegetable productions of the earth. He adds, that fire is not to be enkindled on a hearth defiled with gore; and asserts other things of the like kind. For what occasion is there to transcribe all he says? For he who is studious of piety knows, indeed, that to the Gods no animal is to be sacrificed, but that a sacrifice of this kind pertains to daemons, and other powers, whether they are beneficent, or depraved. He likewise knows who those are that ought to sacrifice to these, and to what extent they ought to proceed in the sacrifices which they make. Other things, however, will be passed over by me in silence. But what some Platonists have divulged, I shall lay [ 1013 ]

before the reader, in order that the things proposed to be discussed, may become manifest to the intelligent. What they have unfolded, therefore, is as follows: [37] προκείμενα· λέγουσι δὲ ὧδε. ὁ μὲν πρῶτος θεὸς ἀσώματός τε ὢν καὶ ἀκίνητος καὶ ἀμέριστος καὶ οὔτε ἔν τινι ὢν οὔτ’ ἐνδεδεμένος εἰς ἑαυτόν, χρῄζει οὐδενὸς τῶν ἔξωθεν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, οὐ μὴν οὐδ’ ἡ τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴ ἔχουσα μὲν τὸ τριχῇ διαστατὸν καὶ αὐτοκίνητον ἐκ φύσεως, προαιρεῖσθαι δὲ πεφυκυῖα τὸ καλῶς καὶ εὐτάκτως κινεῖσθαι καὶ κινεῖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ τοὺς ἀρίστους λόγους. δέδεκται δὲ τὸ σῶμα εἰς ἑαυτὴν καὶ περιείληφεν, καίπερ ἀσώματος οὖσα καὶ παντὸς πάθους ἀμέτοχος. τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς θεοῖς, τῷ τε κόσμῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπλανέσι καὶ πλανωμένοις, ἔκ τε ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος οὖσιν ὁρατοῖς θεοῖς, ἀντευχαριστητέον τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον διὰ τῶν θυσιῶν τῶν ἀψύχων. λοιπὸν οὖν ἡμῖν ἐστὶ τὸ τῶν ἀοράτων πλῆθος, οὓς δαίμονας ἀδιαστόλως εἴρηκε Πλάτων. τούτων δὲ οἳ μὲν κατονομασθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων παρ’ ἑκάστοις τυγχάνουσι τιμῶν τ’ ἰσοθέων καὶ τῆς ἄλλης θεραπείας, οἳ δὲ ὡς τὸ πολὺ μὲν οὐ πάνυ τι κατωνομάσθησαν, ὑπ’ ἐνίων δὲ κατὰ κώμας ἤ τινας πόλεις ὀνόματός τε καὶ θρησκείας ἀφανῶς τυγχάνουσιν. τὸ δὲ ἄλλο πλῆθος οὕτω μὲν κοινῶς προσαγορεύεται τῷ τῶν δαιμόνων ὀνόματι, πεῖσμα δὲ περὶ πάντων τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, ὡς ἄρα καὶ βλάπτοιεν ‹ἂν› εἰ χολωθεῖεν ἐπὶ τῷ παρορᾶσθαι καὶ μὴ τυγχάνειν τῆς νενομισμένης θεραπείας, καὶ πάλιν εὐεργετοῖεν ἂν τοὺς εὐχαῖς τε αὐτοὺς καὶ λιτανείαις θυσίαις τε καὶ τοῖς ἀκολούθοις [37] The first God being incorporeal, immoveable, and impartible, and neither subsisting in any thing, nor restrained in his energies, is not, as has been before observed, in want of any thing external to himself, as neither is the soul of the world; but this latter, containing in itself the principle of that which is triply divisible, and being naturally self-motive, is adapted to be moved in a beautiful and orderly manner, and also to move the body of the world, according to the most excellent reasons [i.e. productive principles or powers]. It is, however, connected with and comprehends body, though it is itself incorporeal, and liberated from the participation of any passion. To the remaining Gods, therefore, to the world, to the inerratic and erratic stars, who are visible Gods, consisting of soul and body, thanks are to be returned after the abovementioned manner, through sacrifices from inanimate natures. The multitude, therefore, of those invisible beings remains for us, whom Plato indiscriminately calls daemons ; but of these, some being denominated by men, obtain from them honours, and other religious observances, similar to those which are paid to the Gods; but others, who for the most part are not explicitly denominated, receive an occult religious reverence and appellation from certain persons in villages and certain cities; and the remaining multitude is called in common by the name of daemons. The general persuasion, however, respecting all these invisible beings, is this, that if they become angry through being neglected, and deprived of the religious reverence which is due to them, they are noxious to those by whom they are thus neglected, and that they again [ 1014 ]

become beneficent, if they are appeased by prayers, supplications, and sacrifices, and other similar rites. [38] ἐξευμενιζομένους. συγκεχυμένης δὲ τῆς περὶ αὐτῶν ἐννοίας καὶ εἰς πολλὴν διαβολὴν χωρούσης ἀναγκαῖον διαστεῖλαι λόγῳ τὴν φύσιν αὐτῶν. ἴσως γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον φασὶν ὅθεν ἡ πλάνη γέγονεν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις περὶ αὐτῶν ἀναφαίνειν. διαιρετέον οὖν τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον. ὅσαι μὲν ψυχαὶ τῆς ὅλης ἐκπεφυκυῖαι μεγάλα μέρη διοικοῦσι τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην τόπων, ἐπερειδόμεναι μὲν πνεύματι, κρατοῦσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ κατὰ λόγον, ταύτας δαίμονάς τε ἀγαθοὺς νομιστέον καὶ ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ τῶν ἀρχομένων πάντα πραγματεύεσθαι, εἴτε τινῶν ἀφηγοῖντο ζῴων, εἴτε καρπῶν ἀποτεταγμένων, εἴτε καὶ τῶν ἕνεκα τούτων, οἷον ὄμβρων, πνευμάτων μετρίων, εὐδίας, τῶν τε ἄλλων ἃ τούτοις συνεργεῖ, εὐκρασίας τε ὡρῶν τοῦ ἔτους, ἡμῖν αὖ τεχνῶν τε καὶ τῶν κατὰ μουσικὴν παιδείας τε συναπάσης ἰατρικῆς τε καὶ γυμναστικῆς ἤ τινος τούτοις ὁμοίας. τούτους γὰρ ἀδύνατόν ἐστι καὶ τὰς ὠφελείας ἐκπορίζειν καὶ πάλιν αὖ βλάβης ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς αἰτίους γίγνεσθαι. ἐν δὲ τούτοις ἀριθμητέον καὶ τοὺς πορθμεύοντας, ὡς φησὶ Πλάτων, καὶ διαγγέλλοντας τὰ παρ’ ἀνθρώπων θεοῖς καὶ τὰ παρὰ θεῶν ἀνθρώποις, τὰς μὲν παρ’ ἡμῶν εὐχὰς ὡς πρὸς δικαστὰς ἀναφέροντας τοὺς θεούς, τὰς δὲ ἐκείνων παραινέσεις καὶ νουθεσίας μετὰ μαντειῶν ἐκφέροντας ἡμῖν. ὅσαι δὲ ψυχαὶ τοῦ συνεχοῦς πνεύματος οὐ κρατοῦσιν, ἀλλ’ ὡς τὸ πολὺ καὶ κρατοῦνται, δι’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἄγονταί τε καὶ φέρονται λίαν, ὅταν αἱ τοῦ πνεύματος ὀργαί τε καὶ ἐπιθυμίαι τὴν ὁρμὴν λάβωσιν. αὗται δ’ αἱ ψυχαὶ δαίμονες μὲν καὶ αὐταί, κακοεργοὶ [38] But the confused notion which is formed of these beings, and which has proceeded to great crimination, necessarily requires that the nature of them should be distinguished according to reason. For perhaps it will be said, that it is requisite to show whence the error concerning them originated among men. The distinction, therefore, must be made after the following manner. Such souls as are the progeny of the whole soul of the universe, and who govern the great parts of the region under the moon, these, being incumbent on a pneumatic substance or spirit, and ruling over it conformably to reason, are to be considered as good daemons, who are diligently employed in causing every thing to be beneficial to the subjects of their government, whether they preside over certain animals, or fruits, which are arranged under their inspective care, or over things which subsist for the sake of these, such as showers of rain, moderate winds, serene weather, and other things which co-operate with these, such as the good temperament of the seasons of the year. They are also our leaders in the attainment of music, and the whole of erudition, and likewise of medicine and gymnastic, and of every thing else similar to these. For it is impossible that these daemons should impart utility, and yet become, in the very same things, the causes of what is detrimental. Among these two, those transporters, as Plato calls them, [in his Banquet] are to be enumerated, who announce the affairs of men to the Gods, and the will of the Gods to men; carrying our prayers, indeed, to the Gods as judges, but [ 1015 ]

oracularly unfolding to us the exhortations and admonitions of the Gods. But such souls as do not rule over the pneumatic substance with which they are connected, but for the most part are vanquished by it; these are vehemently agitated and borne along [in a disorderly manner,] when the irascible motions and the desires of the pneumatic substance, received an impetus. These souls, therefore, are indeed daemons, but are deservedly called malefic daemons. [39] δ’ ἂν εἰκότως λέγοιντο. καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ σύμπαντες οὗτοί τε καὶ οἱ τῆς ἐναντίας δυνάμεως ἀόρατοί τε καὶ τελέως ἀναίσθητοι αἰσθήσεσιν ἀνθρωπίναις. οὐ γὰρ στερεὸν σῶμα περιβέβληνται οὐδὲ μορφὴν πάντες μίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐν σχήμασι πλείοσιν ἐκτυπούμεναι αἱ χαρακτηρίζουσαι τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῶν μορφαὶ τοτὲ μὲν ἐπιφαίνονται, τοτὲ δὲ ἀφανεῖς εἰσίν· ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ μεταβάλλουσι τὰς μορφὰς οἵ γε χείρους. τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ᾗ μέν ἐστι σωματικόν, παθητικόν ἐστι καὶ φθαρτόν· τῷ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ψυχῶν οὕτως δεδέσθαι, ὥστε τὸ εἶδος αὐτῶν διαμένειν πλείω χρόνον, οὐ μήν ἐστιν αἰώνιον. καὶ γὰρ ἀπορρεῖν αὐτοῦ τι συνεχῶς εἰκός ἐστι καὶ τρέπεσθαι. ἐν συμμετρίᾳ μὲν οὖν τὸ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὡς καὶ τὰ σώματα τῶν φαινομένων, τῶν δὲ κακοποιῶν ἀσύμμετρα, οἳ πλέον τῷ παθητικῷ νέμοντες τὸν περίγειον τόπον οὐδὲν ὅτι τῶν κακῶν οὐκ ἐπιχειροῦσι δρᾶν. βίαιον γὰρ ὅλως καὶ ὕπουλον ἔχοντες ἦθος ἐστερημένον τε τῆς φυλακῆς τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος δαιμονίου, σφοδρὰς καὶ αἰφνιδίους οἷον ‹ἐξ› ἐνέδρας ὡς τὸ πολὺ ποιοῦνται τὰς ἐμπτώσεις, πῇ μὲν λανθάνειν πειρώμενοι, πῇ δὲ βιαζόμενοι. ὅθεν ὀξέα μὲν τὰ ἀπ’ ἐκείνων πάθη· αἱ δ’ ἀκέσεις καὶ κατορθώσεις αἱ ἀπὸ τῶν κρειττόνων δαιμόνων βραδύτεραι δοκοῦσιν. πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ἀγαθὸν εὐήνιόν τε ὂν καὶ ὁμαλὸν τάξει πρόεισιν καὶ τὸ δέον οὐχ ὑπερβαίνει. οὕτως δέ σοι δοξάζοντι οὐδέποτ’ ἂν εἰς τὸ ἀτοπώτατον ἐμπίπτειν ἐνέσται, τὸ περὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν τὰ κακὰ ὑπολαμβάνειν καὶ περὶ τῶν κακῶν τὰ ἀγαθά· οὐ γὰρ ταύτῃ μόνον ὁ λόγος ἄτοπός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς περὶ τῶν θεῶν φαυλοτάτας ὑπολήψεις λαμβάνοντες οἱ πολλοὶ διαδιδόασιν καὶ εἰς [39] All these being, likewise, and those who possess a contrary power, are invisible, and perfectly imperceptible by human senses; for they are not surrounded with a solid body, nor are all of them of one form, but they are fashioned in numerous figures. The forms, however, which characterize their pneumatic substance, at one time become apparent, but at another are invisible. Sometimes also those that are malefic, change their forms; but the pneumatic substance, so far as it is corporeal, is passive and corruptible: and though, because it is thus bound by the souls [that are incumbent on it,] the form of it remains for a long time, yet it is not eternal. For it is probable that something continually flows from it, and also that it is nourished. The pneumatic substance, therefore, of good daemons, possesses symmetry, in the same manner as the bodies of the visible Gods; but the spirit of malefic dsemons is deprived of symmetry, and in consequence of its abounding in passivity, they are distributed about the terrestrial region. Hence, there is no evil which they do not attempt to effect; for, in short, being violent and fraudulent in their manners, and being also deprived of the [ 1016 ]

guardian care of more excellent dsemons, they make, for the most part, vehement and sudden attacks; sometimes endeavouring to conceal their incursions, but at other times assaulting openly. Hence the molestations which are produced by them are rapid; but the remedies and corrections which proceed from more excellent dsemons, appear to be more slowly effected: for every thing which is good being tractable and equable, proceeds in an orderly manner, and does not pass beyond what is fit. By forming this opinion, therefore, you will never fall into that most absurd notion, that evil may be expected from the good, or good from the evil. For this notion is not truly attended with absurdity, but the multitude, receiving through it the most erroneous conceptions of the Gods, disseminate them among the rest of mankind. [40] τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους. ἓν γὰρ δὴ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς μεγίστης βλάβης τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν κακοεργῶν δαιμόνων θετέον, ὅτι αὐτοὶ αἴτιοι γιγνόμενοι τῶν περὶ τὴν γῆν παθημάτων, οἷον λοιμῶν, ἀφοριῶν, σεισμῶν, αὐχμῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων, ἀναπείθουσιν ἡμᾶς, ὡς ἄρα τούτων αἴτιοί εἰσιν οἵπερ καὶ τῶν ἐναντιωτάτων [τουτέστιν τῶν εὐφοριῶν], ἑαυτοὺς ἐξαιροῦντες τῆς αἰτίας καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πραγματευόμενοι πρῶτον, τὸ λανθάνειν ἀδικοῦντες. τρέπουσίν τε μετὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ λιτανείας ἡμᾶς καὶ θυσίας τῶν ἀγαθοεργῶν θεῶν ὡς ὠργισμένων. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ τὰ ὅμοια ποιοῦσιν μεταστῆσαι ἡμᾶς ἐθέλοντες ἀπὸ τῆς ὀρθῆς ἐννοίας τῶν θεῶν καὶ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιστρέψαι. πᾶσι γὰρ τοῖς οὕτως ἀνομολόγως καὶ ἀκαταλλήλως γινομένοις αὐτοὶ χαίρουσι, καὶ ὥσπερ ὑποδύντες τὰ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν πρόσωπα, τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀβουλίας ἀπολαύουσι, προσεταιριζόμενοι τὰ πλήθη διὰ τοῦ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐκκαίειν ἔρωσιν καὶ πόθοις πλούτων καὶ δυναστειῶν καὶ ἡδονῶν, κενοδοξίαις τε αὖ, ἐξ ὧν στάσεις καὶ πόλεμοι φύονται καὶ τὰ συγγενῆ τούτων. τὸ δὲ πάντων δεινότατον, ἐπαναβαίνουσιν ἐκ τῶνδε καὶ τὰ ὅμοια ἀναπείθουσι καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων θεῶν, μέχρι τοῦ καὶ τὸν ἄριστον θεὸν τούτοις τοῖς ἐγκλήμασιν ὑπάγειν, ᾧ δὴ καὶ τεταράχθαι φασὶν πάντ’ ἄνω κάτω. πεπόνθασι δὲ τοῦτο οὐκ ἰδιῶται μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ διατριβόντων οὐκ ὀλίγοι. ἡ δ’ αἰτία δι’ ἀλλήλων γέγονεν. καὶ γὰρ τῶν φιλοσοφούντων οἱ μὴ ἀποστάντες τῆς κοινῆς φορᾶς εἰς τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς πλήθεσι συνέβησαν, καὶ πάλιν αὖ τὰ πλήθη σύμφωνα ταῖς ἑαυτῶν δόξαις παρὰ τῶν δοκούντων σοφῶν ἀκούοντα, ἐπερρώσθη φρονεῖν ἔτι μᾶλλον περὶ τῶν θεῶν [40] It must be admitted, therefore, that one of the greatest injuries occasioned by malefic dsemons is this, that though they are the causes of the calamities which take place upon the earth, such as pestilence, sterility, earthquakes, excessive dryness, and the like, yet they endeavour to persuade us, that they are the causes of things the most contrary to these, viz. of fertility, [salubrity, and elementary peace] Hence, they exonerate themselves from blame, and, in the first place, endeavour to avoid being detected as the sources of injury; and, in the next place, they convert us to supplications and sacrifices to the beneficent Gods, as if they were angry. But they effect these, and things of a similar nature, in consequence of wishing to turn us from right conceptions [ 1017 ]

of the Gods, and convert us to themselves; for they are delighted with all such as act thus incongruously and discordantly, and, as it were, assuming the persons of other Gods, they enjoy the effects of our imprudence and folly; conciliating to themselves the good opinion of the vulgar, by inflaming the minds of men with the love of riches, power, and pleasure, and fulling them with the desire of vain glory, from which sedition, and war, and other things allied to these, are produced. But that which is the most dire of all things, they proceed still farther, and persuade men that similar things are effected by the greatest Gods, and do not stop till they even subject the most excellent of the divinities to these calumnies, through whom they say every thing is in perfect confusion. And not only the vulgar are affected in this manner, but not a few also of those who are conversant with philosophy. The cause of this, however, extends equally to philosophers, and the vulgar; for of philosophers, those who do not depart from the prevailing notions, fall into the same error with the multitude; and again, the multitude, on hearing assertions from celebrated men conformable to their own opinions, are in a greater degree corroborated in conceiving things of this kind of the Gods. [41] τὰ τοιαῦτα. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ποιητικὸν καὶ προσεξέκαυσεν τὰς ὑπολήψεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρῆσθαι φράσει πρὸς ἔκπληξιν καὶ γοητείαν πεποιημένῃ κήλησίν τε ἐμποιῆσαι καὶ πίστιν περὶ τῶν ἀδυνατωτάτων δυναμένῃ· δέον ἐμπέδως πεπεῖσθαι ὅτι οὔτε τὸ ἀγαθὸν βλάπτει ποτὲ οὔτε τὸ κακὸν ὠφελεῖ· οὐ γὰρ θερμότητος, ὡς φησὶν Πλάτων, τὸ ψύχειν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐναντίου· οὕτως οὐδὲ τοῦ δικαίου τὸ βλάπτειν. δικαιότατον δὲ δήπου φύσει πάντων τὸ θεῖον, ἐπεὶ οὐδ’ ἂν ἦν θεῖον. οὐκοῦν ἀποτετμῆσθαι δεῖ ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν καὶ μοῖραν τῶν δαιμόνων τῶν ἀγαθοεργῶν. ἡ γὰρ βλάπτειν πεφυκυῖά τε καὶ βουλομένη ἐναντία τῇ ἀγαθοεργῷ· τὰ δ’ ἐναντία περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο. τούτων δὲ κατὰ πολλὰ μέρη λυμαινομένων τὸ θνητόν, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ κατὰ μεγάλα, καθ’ ἕνα μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔσθ’ ὅτε οὐχὶ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ οὐκ ἀνιᾶσι τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσημαίνουσιν εἰς δύναμιν τοὺς ἐπηρτημένους ἀπὸ τῶν κακοεργῶν κινδύνους, καὶ δι’ ὀνειράτων ἐμφαίνοντες καὶ διὰ ἐνθέου ψυχῆς ἄλλων τε πολλῶν. καὶ εἰ ἱκανός τις εἴη τὰ σημαινόμενα διαιρεῖσθαι, πᾶς ἂν γιγνώσκοι καὶ προφυλάττοιτο. πᾶσι γὰρ σημαίνουσιν, οὐ πᾶς δὲ ξυνίησι τὰ σημαινόμενα, οὐδὲ πᾶς τὰ γεγραμμένα δύναται ἀναγινώσκειν, ἀλλ’ ὁ μαθὼν γράμματα. διὰ μέντοι τῶν ἐναντίων καὶ ἡ πᾶσα γοητεία ἐκτελεῖται. τούτους γὰρ μάλιστα καὶ τὸν προεστῶτα αὐτῶν ἐκτιμῶσιν οἱ [41] For poetry also inflames the opinions of men, by employing a diction adapted to produce astonishment and enchantment, and not only allures the ears, but is also capable of procuring belief in things that are most impossible. At the same time, however, it is requisite to be firmly persuaded, that what is good can never injure, or what is evil can never be beneficial; for, as Plato says, it is not the province of heat to refrigerate, but of that which is contrary to heat; and, in like manner, neither is it the province of that which is just to injure. But divinity is naturally the most just of all [ 1018 ]

things; since otherwise he would not be divinity. Hence this power and portion of good is not to be abscinded from beneficent daemons; for the power which is naturally adapted, and wishes to injure, is contrary to the power which is beneficent: but contraries can never subsist about the same thing. As malefic daemons, therefore, injure the mortal race in many respects, and sometimes in things of the greatest consequence, good daemons not only never cease to act conformably to their office, but also, as much as possible, presignify to us the dangers which are impendent from malefic daemons, unfolding these through dreams, through a divinely inspired soul, and through many other things; so that he who is capable of explaining what is signified, may know and avoid all the perils with which he is threatened. For they indicate [future events] to all men, but every one cannot understand what they indicate nor is every one able to read what is written by them; but he alone is able to do this, who has learnt their letters. All enchantment, however, [or witchcraft,] is effected through daemons of a contrary nature; for those who perpetrate evil through enchantments, especially venerate these malefic beings, and the power that presides over them. [42] τὰ κακὰ διὰ τῶν γοητειῶν διαπραττόμενοι. πλήρεις γὰρ πάσης φαντασίας οὗτοι καὶ ἀπατῆσαι ἱκανοὶ διὰ τῆς τερατουργίας. διὰ τούτων φίλτρα καὶ ἐρωτικὰ κατασκευάζουσιν οἱ κακοδαίμονες. πᾶσα γὰρ ἀκολασία καὶ πλούτων ἐλπὶς καὶ δόξης διὰ τούτων, καὶ μάλιστα ἡ ἀπάτη. τὸ γὰρ ψεῦδος τούτοις οἰκεῖον· βούλονται γὰρ εἶναι θεοὶ καὶ ἡ προεστῶσα αὐτῶν δύναμις δοκεῖν θεὸς εἶναι ὁ μέγιστος. οὗτοι οἱ χαίροντες ‘λοιβῇ τε κνίσῃ τε’, δι’ ὧν αὐτῶν τὸ πνευματικὸν καὶ σωματικὸν πιαίνεται. ζῇ γὰρ τοῦτο ἀτμοῖς καὶ ἀναθυμιάσεσι ποικίλως διὰ τῶν ποικίλων, καὶ δυναμοῦται ταῖς [42] For they are full of every kind of imagination, and are sufficiently qualified to deceive, through effects of a prodigious nature; and through these, unhappy men procure philtres, and amatory allurements. For all intemperance, and hope of possessing wealth and renown, and especially deception, exist through these, since falsehood is allied to these malevolent beings; for they wish to he considered as Gods, and the power which presides over them is ambitious to appear to be the greatest God. These are they that rejoice in libations, and the savour of sacrifices, through which their pneumatic vehicle is fattened; for this vehicle lives through vapours and exhalations, and the life of it is various through various exhalations. It is likewise corroborated by the savour of blood and flesh. [43] ἐκ τῶν αἱμάτων καὶ σαρκῶν κνίσαις. διὸ συνετὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ σώφρων εὐλαβηθήσεται τοιαύταις χρῆσθαι θυσίαις, δι’ ὧν ἐπισπάσεται πρὸς ἑαυτὸν τοὺς τοιούτους· σπουδάσει δὲ καθαίρειν τὴν ψυχὴν παντοίως· καθαρᾷ γὰρ ψυχῇ οὐκ ἐπιτίθενται διὰ τὸ αὐτοῖς ἀνόμοιον. εἰ δὲ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τούτους ἀπομειλίττεσθαι, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς. ταύταις γὰρ καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ τὰ ἐκτὸς καὶ τὰ σωματικὰ ἀγαθὰ εἶναι νενόμισται καὶ τὰ ἐναντία κακά, ὀλίγιστον [ 1019 ]

δ’ ἐν αὐταῖς τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπιμελούμενον. ἡμεῖς δὲ κατὰ δύναμιν οὐ δεησόμεθα ὧν οὗτοι παρέχουσιν, ἀλλ’ ἔκ τε ψυχῆς ἔκ τε τῶν ἐκτὸς πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμεθα, θεῷ μὲν καὶ τοῖς ἀμφ’ αὐτὸν ὁμοιοῦσθαι, ὃ γίνεται δι’ ἀπαθείας καὶ τῆς περὶ τῶν ὄντως ὄντων διηρθρωμένης διαλήψεως καὶ τῆς πρὸς αὐτὰ ταῦτα ζωῆς, πονηροῖς δὲ ἀνθρώποις καὶ δαίμοσιν καὶ ὅλως παντὶ τῷ χαίροντι τῷ θνητῷ τε καὶ ὑλικῷ ἀνομοιοῦσθαι. ὥστε κατὰ τὰ εἰρημένα τῷ Θεοφράστῳ θύσομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς. οἷς καὶ οἱ θεολόγοι συνεφώνησαν, εἰδότες ὡς καθ’ ὅσον τῆς τῶν παθῶν ἐξαιρέσεως ἀμελοῦμεν τῆς ψυχῆς, κατὰ τοσοῦτον τῇ πονηρᾷ δυνάμει συναπτόμεθα, καὶ δεήσει καὶ ταύτην ἀπομειλίττεσθαι. ὡς γὰρ φασὶν οἱ θεολόγοι, τοῖς δεδεμένοις ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκτὸς καὶ μηδέπω κρατοῦσιν τῶν παθῶν ἀναγκαῖον ἀποτρέπεσθαι καὶ ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, πόνων οὐ λήξουσι. [43] On this account, a wise and temperate man will be religiously afraid to use sacrifices of this kind, through which he will attract to himself such-like daemons; but he will endeavour in all possible ways to purify his soul. For these malefic beings do not attack a pure soul, because it is dissimilar to them; but if it is necessary to cities to render them propitious, this is nothing to us. For by these riches, and things external and corporeal, are thought to be good, and their contraries evil; but the smallest attention is paid by them to the good of the soul. We however, to the utmost of our ability, endeavour not to be in want of those things which they impart; but all our endeavour is to become similar to God, and to the [divine] powers with which he is surrounded both from what pertains to the soul, and from externals; and this is effected through an entire liberation from the dominion of the passions, an evolved perception of truly existing beings, and a vital tendency towards them. On the other hand, we strive to become dissimilar to depraved men and evil daemons, and, in short, to every being that rejoices in a mortal and material nature. So that, conformably to what is said by Theophrastus, we also shall sacrifice from those things which theologists permit us to use for this purpose; as well knowing, that by how much the more we neglect to exempt ourselves from the passions of the soul, by so much the more we connect ourselves with a depraved power, and render it necessary that he should become propitious to us. For, as theologists say, it is necessary for those who are bound  to things external, and have not yet vanquished their passions, should avert the anger of this [malefic] power; since, if they do not, there will be no end to their labours. [44] μέχρι δὴ τούτων τὰ περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν δεδηλώσθω. πλὴν ὅπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐλέγομεν, μὴ εἶναι ἀναγκαῖον ὡς εἰ θυτέον ζῷα, καὶ βρωτέον πάντως, νῦν ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὸ μὴ δεῖν ἐσθίειν, εἴπερ καὶ θύειν ἀνάγκη ποτέ, ἐπιδείκνυται. πάντες γὰρ ἐν τούτῳ ὡμολόγησαν οἱ θεολόγοι ὡς οὔτε ἁπτέον ἐν ταῖς ἀποτροπαίοις θυσίαις τῶν θυομένων, καθαρσίοις τε χρηστέον. μὴ γὰρ ἴοι τις εἰς ἄστυ μηδ’ εἰς οἶκον ἴδιον, μὴ πρότερον ἐσθῆτα καὶ σῶμα ποταμοῖς ἢ πηγῇ ἀποκαθήρας, φασίν. ὥστε καὶ οἷς ἐπέτρεψαν θύειν, ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν θυομένων τούτοις παρήγγειλαν, προαγνεύειν τε [ 1020 ]

ἀποσιτίαις καὶ μάλιστα ταῖς ἀποχαῖς τῶν ἐμψύχων. εἶναι γὰρ τὴν ἁγνείαν φυλακὴν πρὸς εὐλάβειαν, οἷον σύμβολον ἢ σφραγῖδα θείαν περὶ τοῦ μηδὲν παθεῖν ὑπ’ ἐκείνων, οἷς πρόσεισιν καὶ ἀπομειλίττεται. ἐναντίως γὰρ διακείμενος οἷς δρᾷ καὶ θειοτέρως, ὅτι καὶ καθαρωτέρως, καὶ κατὰ σῶμα καὶ κατὰ τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς μένει ἀβλαβής, οἷον ἔρυμα περιβεβλημένος τὴν ἁγνείαν. [44] Thus far what pertains to sacrifices has been elucidated. As we said, however, at first, as it is not entirely necessary, if animals are to be sacrificed, that they are also to be eaten, we shall now show that it is necessary we should not eat them, though it may be sometimes necessary that they should be sacrificed. For all theologists agree in this that in sacrifices, which are made for the purpose of averting some evil, the immolated animals are not to be tasted, but are to be used as expiations. For, say they, no one should go into the city, nor into his own house, till he has first purified his garments, and his body, in rivers, or some fountain. So that they order those whom they permit to sacrifice, to abstain from the victims, and to purify themselves before they sacrifice by fasting, and especially by abstaining from animals. They add, that purity is the guardian of piety; and is, as it were, a symbol or divine seal, which secures its possessor from the attacks and allurements of evil daemons. For such a one, being contrarily disposed to, and more divine in his operations than those by whom he is attacked, because he is more pure both in his body and in the passions of his soul, remains uninjured, in consequence of being surrounded with purity as with a bulwark. [45] διὸ καὶ ἄχρι τῶν γοήτων ἀναγκαία ἔδοξεν ἡ τοιαύτη προφυλακή, οὐ δύναται μέντοι διὰ παντός· ἀσελγείας γὰρ ἕνεκα ἐνοχλοῦσι δαίμονας πονηρούς· ὥστε οὐ γοήτων ἦν ἡ ἁγνεία, ἀλλὰ θείων καὶ θεοσόφων ἀνδρῶν, φυλακὴν δὲ φέρουσα πανταχοῦ τοῖς χρωμένοις τὴν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον οἰκείωσιν. ὡς εἴθε διὰ παντὸς αὐτῇ καὶ γόητες ἐχρῶντο, καὶ οὐκ ἂν γοητεύειν προυθυμήθησαν, ἀποκεκλεισμένοι ὑπὸ ταύτης ἀπολαύειν ὧν ἕνεκα ἀσεβοῦσιν. ὅθεν παθῶν ὄντες πλήρεις καὶ πρὸς ὀλίγον ἀπεχόμενοι τῶν ἀκαθάρτων βρώσεων, μεστοὶ ὄντες ἀκαθαρσίας, δίκας τίνουσι τῆς εἰς τὰ ὅλα παρανομίας, τὰ μὲν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὧν ἐρεθίζουσι, τὰ δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς πάντ’ ἐφορώσης τὰ θνητὰ καὶ ἕργα καὶ διανοήματα δίκης. ἀνδρὸς ἄρα θείου ἡ ἔσω καὶ ἡ ἐκτὸς ἁγνεία, ἀποσίτου μὲν παθῶν ψυχῆς σπουδάζοντος εἶναι, ἀποσίτου δὲ καὶ βρώσεων αἳ τὰ πάθη κινοῦσιν, σιτουμένου δὲ θεοσοφίαν καὶ ὁμοιουμένου ταῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου ὀρθαῖς διανοίαις καὶ ἱερωμένου τῇ νοερᾷ θυσίᾳ καὶ μετὰ λευκῆς ἐσθῆτος καὶ καθαρᾶς τῷ ὄντι τῆς ψυχικῆς ἀπαθείας καὶ τῆς κουφότητος τοῦ σώματος προσιόντος τῷ θεῷ, οὐκ ἐξ ἀλλοτρίων καὶ ὀθνείων χυμῶν καὶ παθῶν ψυχικῶν βεβαρημένου. [45] Hence a defence of this kind has appeared to be necessary even to enchanters; though it is not efficacious with them on all occasions. For they invoke evil daemons for lascivious purposes. So that purity does not belong to enchanters, but to divine men, and such as are divinely wise; since it everywhere becomes a guard to those that use it, [ 1021 ]

and conciliates them with a divine nature. I wish, therefore, that enchanters would make use of purity continually, for then they would not employ themselves in incantations, because, through this, they would be: deprived of the enjoyment of those things, for the sake of which they act impiously. Whence becoming full of passions, and abstaining for a short time from impure food, they are notwithstanding replete with impurity, and suffer the punishment of their illegal conduct towards the whole of things, partly from those whom they irritate, and partly from Justice, who perceives all mortal deeds and conceptions. Both inward, therefore, and external purity pertain to a divine man, who earnestly endeavours to be liberated from the passions of the soul, and who abstains from such food as excites the passions, and is fed with divine wisdom; and by right conceptions of, is assimilated to divinity himself. For such a man being consecrated by an intellectual sacrifice, approaches to God in a white garment, and with a truly pure impassivity of soul, and levity of body, and is not burdened with foreign and external juices, and the passions of the soul. [46] οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἐν μὲν ἱεροῖς ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων θεοῖς ἀφωρισμένοις καὶ τὰ ἐν ποσὶ καθαρὰ δεῖ εἶναι καὶ ἀκηλίδωτα πέδιλα, ἐν δὲ τῷ νεῷ τοῦ πατρός, τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, τὸν ἔσχατον καὶ ἐκτὸς ἡμῶν χιτῶνα τὸν δερμάτινον οὐχ ἁγνὸν προσήκει διατηρεῖν καὶ μεθ’ ἁγνοῦ διατρίβειν ἐν τῷ νεῷ τοῦ πατρός; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ μεμολύνθαι αὐτὸν μόνον ὁ κίνδυνος ἔκειτο, ἐνῆν παριδεῖν ἴσως καὶ καταρρᾳθυμῆσαι· νῦν δὲ παντὸς τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ σώματος ἀπορροίας φέροντος δαιμονίων ὑλικῶν, ἅμα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ τῇ ἐκ σαρκῶν καὶ αἱμάτων πάρεστιν ἡ ταύτῃ φίλη καὶ προσήγορος δύναμις [46] For, indeed, it must not be admitted as necessary in temples, which are consecrated by men to the Gods, that those who enter into them should have their feet pure, and their shoes free from every stain, but that in the temple of the father [of all], which is this world, it is not proper to preserve our ultimate and cutaneous vestment pure, and to dwell in this temple with an undefiled garment. For if the danger consisted only in the defilement of the body, it might, perhaps, be lawful to neglect it. But now, since every sensible body is attended with an efflux of material daemons, hence, together with the impurity produced from flesh and blood, the power which is friendly to, and familiar with, this impurity, is at the same time present through similitude and alliance. [47] δι’ ὁμοιότητα καὶ οἰκειότητα. ὅθεν ὀρθῶς οἱ θεολόγοι τῆς ἀποχῆς ἐπεμέλοντο, καὶ ὁ Αἰγύπτιος ταῦθ’ ἡμῖν ἐμήνυσεν αἰτίαν ἀποδιδοὺς φυσικωτάτην, ἣν ἐκ τῆς πείρας ἐδοκίμασεν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ψυχὴ φαύλη καὶ ἄλογος, ἣ τὸ σῶμα ἀπέλιπε βίᾳ συληθεῖσα, προσμένει τούτῳ, ὅπου γε καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων αἱ τῶν βίᾳ ἀποθανόντων κατέχονται πρὸς τῷ σώματι, ὃ καὶ τοῦ μὴ βίᾳ ἑαυτὸν ἐξάγειν ἦν κωλυτικόν, ἐπεὶ οὖν τῶν ζῴων αἱ βίαιοι σφαγαὶ ἐμφιληδεῖν τὰς ψυχὰς οἷς ἀπολείπουσιν ἀναγκάζουσιν, διείργεται δὲ οὐδαμῶς ψυχὴ ἐκεῖ εἶναι ὅποι τὸ συγγενὲς καθέλκει [ 1022 ]

αὐτήν, ὅθεν καὶ ὀδυρόμεναι ὤφθησαν πολλαί, καὶ αἱ τῶν ἀτάφων παραμένουσι τοῖς σώμασιν, αἷς καὶ οἱ γόητες καταχρῶνται πρὸς ‹τὴν› αὑτῶν ὑπηρεσίαν, βιαζόμενοι τῇ τοῦ σώματος ἢ μέρους τοῦ σώματος κατοχῇ· ἐπεὶ οὖν ταῦτα ἱστόρησαν καὶ φύσιν ψυχῆς φαύλης καὶ συγγένειαν καὶ ἡδονήν, ‹ἣν› ἔχει πρὸς τὰ σώματα ἐξ ὧν ἀπεσπάσθη, εἰκότως ἐφυλάξαντο τὴν τῶν σαρκῶν θοίνην, ἵνα ἀλλοτρίαις ψυχαῖς βιαίοις καὶ ἀκαθάρτοις πρὸς τὸ συγγενὲς ἑλκομέναις μὴ ἐνοχλοῖντο μηδὲ ἐμποδίζοιντο προσέρχεσθαι μόνοι τῷ θεῷ, δαιμόνων τῇ παρουσίᾳ ἐνο [47] Hence theologists have rightly paid attention to abstinence. And these things were indicated to us by a certain Egyptian , who also assigned a most natural cause of them, which was verified by experience. For, since a depraved and irrational soul, when it leaves the body, is still compelled to adhere to it, since the souls also of those men who die by violence, are detained about the body; this circumstance should prevent a man from forcibly expelling his soul from the body. The violent slaughter, therefore, of animals, compels souls to be delighted with the bodies which they have left, but the soul is by no means prevented from being there, where it is attracted by a kindred nature; whence many souls are seen to lament, and some remain about the bodies that are unburied; which souls are improperly used by enchanters, as subservient to their designs, being compelled by them to occupy the body, or a part of the body, which they have left. Since, therefore, these things were well known to theologists, and they also perceived the nature of a depraved soul, and its alliance to the bodies from which it was divulsed, and the pleasure which it received from a union with them, they very properly avoided animal food, in order that they might not be disturbed by alien souls, violently separated from the body and impure, and which are attracted to things of a kindred nature, and likewise that they might not be impeded by the presence of evil daemons, in approaching alone [or without being burdened with things of a foreign nature] to the highest God . [48]χλούντων. ὅτι γὰρ ὁλκὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ τοῦ συγγενοῦς σώματος φύσις, ἡ πεῖρα τούτους ἐδίδαξεν διὰ πλειόνων. οἱ γοῦν ζῴων μαντικῶν ψυχὰς δέξασθαι βουλόμενοι εἰς ἑαυτούς, τὰ κυριώτατα μόρια καταπιόντες, οἷον καρδίας κοράκων ἢ ἀσπαλάκων ἢ ἱεράκων, ἔχουσι παροῦσαν τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ χρηματίζουσαν ὡς θεὸν καὶ εἰσιοῦσαν εἰς αὐτοὺς ἅμα τῇ ἐνθέσει τῇ τοῦ σώματος. [48] For that the nature of a kindred body is attractive of soul, experience abundantly taught these theologists. Hence those who wish to receive into themselves the souls of prophetic animals, swallow the most principal parts of them, such as the hearts of crows, or of moles, or of hawks. For thus they have soul present with, and predicting to them like a God, and entering into them together with the intromission of the body.

[ 1023 ]

[49] εἰκότως ἄρα ὁ φιλόσοφος καὶ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἱερεὺς πάσης ἀπέχεται ἐμψύχου βορᾶς, μόνος μόνῳ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ θεῷ προσιέναι σπουδάζων ἄνευ τῆς τῶν παρομαρτούντων ἐνοχλήσεως, καὶ ἔστιν εὐλαβὴς τὰς τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγκας ἐξιστορηκώς. ἵστωρ γὰρ πολλῶν ὁ ὄντως φιλόσοφος καὶ σημειωτικὸς καὶ καταληπτικὸς τῶν τῆς φύσεως πραγμάτων καὶ συνετὸς καὶ κόσμιος καὶ μέτριος, πανταχόθεν σῴζων ἑαυτόν· καὶ ὥσπερ ὅ τινος τῶν κατὰ μέρος ‹θεῶν› ἱερεὺς ἔμπειρος τῆς ἱδρύσεως τῶν ἀγαλμάτων αὐτοῦ τῶν τε ὀργιασμῶν καὶ τελετῶν καθάρσεών τε καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων, οὕτως ὁ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν θεοῦ ἱερεὺς ἔμπειρος τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀγαλματοποιίας καθάρσεών τε καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δι’ ὧν συνάπτεται τῷ [49] Very properly, therefore, will the philosopher, and who is also the priest of the God that is above all things, abstain from all animal food, in consequence of earnestly endeavouring to approach through himself alone to the alone God , without being disturbed by any attendants. Such a one likewise is cautious, as being well acquainted with the necessities of nature. For he who is truly a philosopher, is skilled in, and an observer of many things, understands the works of nature, is sagacious, temperate and modest, and is in every respect the saviour of himself. And as he who is the priest of a certain particular God, is skilled in placing the statues of that divinity, and in his orgies, mysteries and the like, thus also he who is the priest of the highest God, is skilled in the manner in which his statue ought to be fashioned, and in purifications, and other things, through which he is conjoined to this divinity. [50] θεῷ. εἰ δὲ οἱ τῶν τῇδε ἱερεῖς καὶ ἱεροσκόποι καὶ τάφων ἀπέχεσθαι κελεύουσιν ἑαυτοῖς τε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, καὶ ἀνδρῶν ἀνοσίων καὶ ἐμμήνων καὶ συνουσιῶν καὶ θέας ἤδη αἰσχρᾶς καὶ πενθικῆς καὶ ἀκροάσεως πάθος ἐγειρούσης [ἐπεὶ πολλάκις φαίνεται καὶ διὰ τοὺς παρόντας ἀκαθάρτους ὃ ταράττει τὸν ἱεροσκόπον· διὸ καὶ τὸ θύειν ἀκαίρως καὶ βλάβην μείζονα φέρειν ἢ κέρδος φασίν], ἦ που γε ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἱερεὺς αὐτὸς τάφος γίγνεσθαι νεκρῶν σωμάτων ὑπομενεῖ [αὐτὸς] μιασμάτων πλήρης, ὁμιλητὴς σπουδάζων γενέσθαι τῷ κρείττονι; [ἀρκεῖ ὅτι τὰ τοῦ θανάτου μέρη ἐπὶ τῶν καρπῶν εἰς τὴν ἐνταῦθα ἡμῶν ζωὴν παραλαμβάνομεν.] ἀλλὰ μήπω περὶ τούτων· ἔτι δὲ τὰ περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν [50] But if in the sacred rites which are here, those that are priests and diviners order both themselves and others to abstain from sepulchres, from impious men, from menstrual purgations, and from venereal congress, and likewise from base and mournful spectacles, and from those auditions which excite the passions, (because frequently, through those that are present being impure, something appears which disturbs the diviner; on which account it is said, that to sacrifice inopportunely, is attended with greater detriment than gain); — if this, therefore, is the case, will he, who is the priest of the father of all things, suffer himself to become the sepulchre of dead bodies? And will such a one, being full of defilement, endeavour to associate with the transcendent God? It is sufficient, indeed, that in fruits we assume parts of death, for [ 1024 ]

the support of our present life. This, however, is not yet the place for such a discussion. We must, therefore, still farther investigate what pertains to sacrifices. [51] διακριτέον. φαίη γὰρ ἄν τις ὅτι πολὺ μέρος ἀναιροῦμεν μαντείας τῆς διὰ σπλάγχνων, ἀπεχόμενοι τῆς τῶν ζῴων ἀναιρέσεως. οὐκοῦν ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀναιρείτω καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· ἐπιφαίνεται γὰρ μᾶλλον, ὡς φασίν, τοῖς τούτων σπλάγχνοις τὰ μέλλοντα· καὶ πολλοί γε τῶν βαρβάρων δι’ ἀνθρώπων σπλαγχνεύονται. ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἀδικίας καὶ πλεονεξίας ἦν τὸ ἕνεκα μαντείας ἀναιρεῖν τὸν ὁμόφυλον, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἄλογον ζῷον σφάττειν μαντείας ἕνεκα ἄδικον. πότερα δὲ τὰ σημεῖα οἱ θεοὶ ἐπιφαίνουσιν ἢ δαίμονες ἢ ἡ ψυχὴ ἀπαλλαττομένη τοῦ ζῴου πρὸς τὴν πεῦσιν ἀποκρίνεται διὰ τῶν ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις σημείων, οὐκ ἔστιν τοῦ [51] For some one may say that we shall subvert a great part of divination, viz. that which is effected through an inspection of the viscera, if we abstain from destroying animals. He, therefore, who makes this objection, should also destroy men: for it is said that future events are more apparent in the viscera of men than in those of brutes; and many of the Barbarians exercise the art of divination through the entrails of men. As, however, it would be an indication of great injustice, and inexhaustible avidity, to destroy those of our own species for the sake of divination, thus also it is unjust for the sake of this to slay an irrational animal. But it does not belong to the present discussion to investigate whether God, or daemons, or soul liberated from the animal [with which it had been connected], exhibit signs of future events to those who explore such signs, through the indications which the viscera afford. [52] παρόντος λόγου ἐρευνῆσαι. οἷς μέντοι ὁ βίος ἔξω κυλίεται, τούτοις ἐπιτρέπομεν ἅπαξ ἀσεβήσασιν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς φέρεσθαι ᾗπερ καὶ φέρονται. ὃν δ’ ἡμεῖς ὑπογράφομεν φιλόσοφον ἀφιστάμενον τῶν ἐκτός, εἰκότως φαμὲν μὴ ἐνοχλήσειν δαίμοσι μηδὲ μάντεων δεήσεσθαι μηδὲ σπλάγχνων ζῴων. ὧν γὰρ ἕνεκα αἱ μαντεῖαι, τούτων οὗτος μεμελέτηκεν ἀφίστασθαι. οὐ γὰρ εἰς γάμον καθίησιν, ἵνα περὶ γάμου τὸν μάντιν ἐνοχλήσῃ, οὐκ εἰς ἐμπορίαν, οὐ περὶ οἰκέτου, οὐ περὶ προκοπῆς καὶ τῆς ἄλλης παρ’ ἀνθρώποις δοξοκοπίας. περὶ ὧν δὲ ζητεῖ, μάντις μὲν οὐδεὶς οὐδὲ σπλάγχνα ζῴων μηνύσει τὸ σαφές· αὐτὸς δὲ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, ὡς λέγομεν, προσιὼν τῷ θεῷ, ὃς ἐν τοῖς ἀληθινοῖς αὐτοῦ σπλάγχνοις ἵδρυται, περὶ τοῦ αἰωνίου βίου λήψεται τὰς ὑποθήκας, ὅλος ἐκεῖ συρρεύσας, καὶ ἀντὶ μάντεως [52] Nevertheless, we permit those whose life is rolled about externals, having once acted impiously towards themselves, to be borne along to that which they tend; but we rightly say, that the man who we designate as a philosopher, and who is separated from externals, will not be disturbed by daemons, nor be in want of diviners, nor of the viscera of animals. For he earnestly endeavours to be separated from those things for the sake of which divinations are effected. For he does not betake himself to nuptials, in order that he may molest the diviner about wedlock, or merchandise, or inquiries about a servant, or an increase of property, or any other object of vulgar pursuit. For the [ 1025 ]

subjects of his investigation are not clearly indicated by any diviner or viscera of animals. But he, as we have said, approaching through himself to the [supreme] God, who is established in the true inward parts of himself, receives from thence the precepts of eternal life, tending thither by a conflux of the whole of himself, and instead of a diviner praying that he may become a confabulator of the mighty Jupiter. [53] ‘Διὸς μεγάλου ὀαριστὴς’ εὐχόμενος γενέσθαι. εἰ δ’ ἄρα καὶ ἐπείξειέ τι τῶν τῆς ἀνάγκης, εἰσίν οἱ τῷ οὕτω ζῶντι τῷ οἰκέτῃ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ δι’ ὀνειράτων καὶ συμβόλων καὶ δι’ ὄττης ἀγαθοὶ δαίμονες προτρέποντες καὶ μηνύοντες τὸ ἀποβησόμενον καὶ ὃ ἀναγκαῖον φυλάξασθαι. μόνον γὰρ ἀποστῆναι δεῖ τοῦ κακοῦ καὶ ἐπιγνῶναι τὸ ἐν τοῖς ὅλοις τιμιώτατον καὶ πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ ἀγαθὸν φίλον καὶ προσήγορον. ἀλλὰ δεινή τις ἡ κακία καὶ τῶν θείων ἀμαθία καταφρονεῖν ὧν οὐκ οἶδεν καὶ ἐπισύρειν, ἐπειδὴ ταῦτα οὐ φωναῖς ἐξακούστοις ἡ φύσις βοᾷ, νοερὰ δὲ οὖσα διὰ νοῦ μυσταγωγεῖ τοὺς ταύτην σέβοντας. κἂν μέντοι τις θυτικὴν παραδέξηται προγνώσεως ἕνεκα τοῦ μέλλοντος, οὐχ ἕπεται ταύτῃ καὶ τὸ ἐσθίειν δεῖν ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ σάρκας παραδέχεσθαι, καθάπερ οὐδὲ τὸ θύειν ὅπως οὖν ἢ θεοῖς ἢ δαίμοσιν εἰσηγεῖται τὴν βρῶσιν. ἡ γοῦν ἱστορία οὐ μόνον ὧν Θεόφραστος ἐμνήσθη, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλων πλειόνων τὴν μνήμην παρέδωκεν ὡς καὶ ἀνθρώπους θυόντων τῶν πάλαι, καὶ οὐ δήπου διὰ τοῦτο [53] For if such a one is impelled by some necessary circumstance, there are good daemons, who, to the man living after this manner, and who is a domestic of divinity, will indicate and prevent, through dreams and symbols, and omens, what may come to pass, and what is necessarily to be avoided. For it is only requisite to depart from evil, and to know what is most honourable in the whole of things, and every thing which in the universe is good, friendly, and familiar. But vice, and an ignorance of divine concerns, are dire, through which a man is led to despise and defame things of which he has no knowledge; since nature does not proclaim these particulars with a voice which can be heard by the ears, but being herself intellectual , she initiates through intellect those who venerate her. And even though some one should admit the art of divination for the sake of predicting what is future, yet it does not from thence necessarily follow that the flesh of animals is to be eaten; as neither does it follow, that because it is proper to sacrifice to Gods or daemons, food from animals is therefore to be introduced. For, not only the history which is related by Theophrastus, but also many other narrations inform us, that in ancient times men were sacrificed, yet it must not be inferred that on this account men are to be eaten. [54] καὶ βρωτέον ἀνθρώπους. καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ πλήρους οὔσης τῆς ἱστορίας λέγομεν, αὐτάρκη καὶ ταῦτα παραστῆσαι. ἐθύετο γὰρ καὶ ἐν Ῥόδῳ μηνὶ Μεταγειτνιῶνι ἕκτῃ ἱσταμένου ἄνθρωπος τῷ Κρόνῳ. ὃ δὴ ἐπὶ πολὺ κρατῆσαν ἔθος μετεβλήθη· ἕνα γὰρ τῶν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ δημοσίᾳ κατακριθέντων μέχρι μὲν τῶν Κρονίων συνεῖχον, ἐνστάσης δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς προαγαγόντες τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔξω πυλῶν ἄντικρυς τοῦ Ἀριστοβούλης ἕδους, οἴνου ποτίσαντες [ 1026 ]

ἔσφαττον. ἐν δὲ τῇ νῦν Σαλαμῖνι, πρότερον δὲ Κορωνίδι ὀνομαζομένῃ, μηνὶ κατὰ Κυπρίους Ἀφροδισίῳ ἐθύετο ἄνθρωπος τῇ Ἀγραύλῳ τῇ Κέκροπος καὶ νύμφης Ἀγραυλίδος. καὶ διέμενε τὸ ἔθος ἄχρι τῶν Διομήδους χρόνων· εἶτα μετέβαλεν, ὥστε τῷ Διομήδει τὸν ἄνθρωπον θύεσθαι· ὑφ’ ἕνα δὲ περίβολον ὅ τε τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς νεὼς καὶ ὁ τῆς Ἀγραύλου καὶ Διομήδους. ὁ δὲ σφαγιαζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν ἐφήβων ἀγόμενος τρὶς περιέθει τὸν βωμόν· ἔπειτα ὁ ἱερεὺς αὐτὸν λόγχῃ ἔπαιεν κατὰ τοῦ στομάχου, καὶ οὕτως αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν νησθεῖσαν πυρὰν ὡλοκαύτιζεν. [54] And that we do not carelessly assert these things, but that what we have said is abundantly confirmed by history, the following narrations sufficiently testify. For in Rhodes, on the sixth day of June, a man was sacrificed to Saturn; which custom having prevailed for a long time, was afterwards changed [into a more human mode of sacrificing]. For one of those men who, by the public decision, had been sentenced to death, was kept in prison till the Saturnalia commenced; but as soon as this festival began, they brought the man out of the gates of the city, opposite to the temple of Aristobulus, and giving him wine to drink, they cut his throat. But in the island which is now called Salamis, but was formerly denominated Coronis, in the month according to the Cyprians Aphrodisius, a man was sacrificed to Agraule, the daughter of Cecrops, and the nymph Agraulis. And this custom continued till the time of Diomed. Afterwards it was changed, so that a man was sacrificed to Diomed. But the temples of Minerva, of Agraule, and Diomed, were contained in one and the same enclosure. The man who was also about to be slain, was first led by young men thrice round the altar, afterwards the priest pierced him with a lance in the stomach, and thus being thrown on the pyre, he was entirely consumed. [55] τοῦτον δὲ τὸν θεσμὸν Δίφιλος ὁ τῆς Κύπρου βασιλεὺς κατέλυσε, κατὰ τοὺς Σελεύκου χρόνους τοῦ θεολόγου γενόμενος, τὸ ἔθος εἰς βουθυσίαν μεταστήσας. προσήκατο δ’ ὁ δαίμων ἀντὶ ἀνθρώπου τὸν βοῦν· οὕτως ἰσάξιόν ἐστιν τὸ δρώμενον. κατέλυσε δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἡλίου πόλει τῆς Αἰγύπτου τὸν τῆς ἀνθρωποκτονίας νόμον Ἄμωσις, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ Μανεθὼς ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀρχαϊσμοῦ καὶ εὐσεβείας. ἐθύοντο δὲ τῇ Ἥρᾳ καὶ ἐδοκιμάζοντο, καθάπερ οἱ ζητούμενοι καθαροὶ μόσχοι καὶ συσφραγιζόμενοι. ἐθύοντο δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας τρεῖς, ἀνθ’ ὧν κηρίνους ἐκέλευσεν ὁ Ἄμωσις τοὺς ἴσους ἐπιτίθεσθαι. ἔθυον δὲ καὶ ἐν Χίῳ τῷ Ὠμαδίῳ Διονύσῳ ἄνθρωπον διασπῶντες, καὶ ἐν Τενέδῳ, ὡς φησὶν Εὔελπις ὁ Καρύστιος· ἐπεὶ καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους φησὶν [55] This sacred institute was, however, abolished by Diphilus, the king of Cyprus, who flourished about the time of Seleucus, the theologist. But Daemon substituted an ox for a man; thus causing the latter sacrifice to be of equal worth with the former. Amosis also abolished the law of sacrificing men in the Egyptian city Heliopolis; the truth of which is testified by Manetho in his treatise on Antiquity and Piety. But the sacrifice was made to Juno, and an investigation took place, as if they were endeavouring to find pure calves, and such as were marked by the impression of a seal. [ 1027 ]

Three men also were sacrificed on the day appointed for this purpose, in the place of whom Amosis ordered them to substitute three waxen images. In Chios likewise, they sacrificed a man to Omadius Bacchus , the man being for this purpose torn in pieces; and the same custom, as Eulpis Carystius says, was adopted in Tenedos. To which may be added, that the Lacedaemonians, as Apollodorus says, sacrificed a man to Mars. [56] ὁ Ἀπολλόδωρος τῷ Ἄρει θύειν ἄνθρωπον. Φοίνικες δὲ ἐν ταῖς μεγάλαις συμφοραῖς ἢ πολέμων ἢ λοιμῶν ἢ αὐχμῶν ἔθυον τῶν φιλτάτων τινὰ ἐπιφημίζοντες Κρόνῳ, καὶ πλήρης δὲ ἡ Φοινικικὴ ἱστορία τῶν θυσάντων, ἣν Σαγχουνιάθων μὲν τῇ Φοινίκων γλώττῃ συνέγραψεν, Φίλων δὲ ὁ Βύβλιος εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν δι’ ὀκτὼ βιβλίων ἡρμήνευσεν. Ἴστρος δὲ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ τῶν Κρητικῶν θυσιῶν φησὶν τοὺς Κουρῆτας τὸ παλαιὸν τῷ Κρόνῳ θύειν παῖδας. καταλυθῆναι δὲ τὰς ἀνθρωποθυσίας σχεδὸν τὰς παρὰ πᾶσιν φησὶ Πάλλας ὁ ἄριστα τὰ περὶ τῶν τοῦ Μίθρα συναγαγὼν μυστηρίων ἐφ’ Ἁδριανοῦ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος. ἐθύετο γὰρ καὶ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῇ κατὰ Συρίαν τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ κατ’ ἔτος παρθένος, νῦν δὲ ἔλαφος. καὶ μὴν καὶ οἱ ἐν Λιβύῃ Καρχηδόνιοι ἐποίουν τὴν αὐτὴν θυσίαν, ἣν Ἰφικράτης ἔπαυσεν, καὶ Δουματηνοὶ δὲ τῆς Ἀραβίας κατ’ ἔτος ἕκαστον ἔθυον παῖδα, ὃν ὑπὸ βωμὸν ἔθαπτον, ᾧ χρῶνται ὡς ξοάνῳ. Φύλαρχος δὲ κοινῶς πάντας τοὺς Ἕλληνας πρὶν ἐπὶ πολεμίους ἐξιέναι ἀνθρωποκτονεῖν ἱστορεῖ. καὶ παρίημι Θρᾷκας καὶ Σκύθας, καὶ ὡς Ἀθηναῖοι τὴν Ἐρεχθέως καὶ Πραξιθέας θυγατέρα ἀνεῖλον. ἀλλ’ ἔτι γε νῦν τίς ἀγνοεῖ κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην πόλιν τῇ τοῦ Λατιαρίου Διὸς ἑορτῇ σφαζόμενον ἄνθρωπον; καὶ οὐ δήπου τούτου ἕνεκα βρωτέον καὶ σάρκας ἀνθρώπων, ἐπείπερ διά τινα ἀνάγκην εἰς θυσίαν ἄνθρωπος παρελήφθη. καὶ γὰρ ἐν λιμοῖς πολιορκούμενοί τινες ἀλλήλων ἐγεύσαντο, καὶ ὅμως ἐναγεῖς οὗτοι ἐνομίσθησαν καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα [56] Moreover the Phoenicians, in great calamities, either of war, or excessive dryness, or pestilence, sacrificed some one of their dearest friends, who was selected by votes for this purpose. The Phoenician history also is replete with instances of men being sacrificed, which history was written by Sanchoniatho in the Phoenician tongue, and was interpreted into Greek in eight books, by Philo Byblius. But Ister, in his collection of the Cretan sacrifices, says that the Curetes formerly sacrificed children to Saturn. And Pallas, who is the best of those who have collected what pertains to the mysteries of Mithras, says, that under the Emperor Adrian the sacrificing of men was nearly totally abolished. For, prior to his time, in Laodicea, which is in Syria, they anciently sacrificed a virgin to Minerva, but now they sacrifice a stag. The Carthaginians too, who dwell in Libya, formerly sacrificed men; but this custom was abolished by Iphicrates. And the Dumatii, a people of Arabia, annually sacrificed a boy, whom they buried under the altar, which was used by them as a statue. But Phylarchus narrates, that it was the general custom of all the Greeks, before they went to war, to immolate men. I omit to mention the Thracians and Scythians, and also the Athenians, who slew the daughter of Erechtheus and Praxithea. And even at present, who is ignorant that in [ 1028 ]

the great city of Rome, in the festival of Jupiter Latialis, they cut the throat of a man? Human flesh, however, is not on this account to be eaten; though, through a certain necessity, a man should be sacrificed. For, when a famine takes place during a siege some of the besieged feed on each other, yet at the same time those who do so are deemed execrable and the deed is thought to be impious. [57] ἀσεβές. καὶ μετά γε τὸν πρῶτον πόλεμον τὸν γενόμενον Ῥωμαίοις περὶ Σικελίας πρὸς Καρχηδονίους ἀποστάντων τῶν Φοινίκων μισθοφόρων καὶ συναποστησάντων τοὺς Λίβυας, Ἀμίλκας ὁ Βάρκας ἐπικαλούμενος, ἐπιστρατεύσας αὐτοῖς εἰς λιμὸν οὕτως περιέστησεν, ὡς τὸ μὲν πρῶτον τοὺς πίπτοντας ἐν ταῖς μάχαις ἐσθίειν ἐπιλειπόντων πάντων, δεύτερον τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους, τρίτον τοὺς οἰκέτας, ὕστερον δὲ καὶ ἐπ’ ἀλλήλους ὁρμῆσαι καὶ κλήρῳ τοὺς συστρατιώτας ἐσθίειν. ἀλλ’ ὅ γε Ἀμίλκας λαβὼν ὑποχειρίους διὰ τῶν ἐλεφάντων συνεπάτησεν, ὡς οὐχ ὅσιον ἔτι τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις αὐτοὺς ἐπιμίγνυσθαι, καὶ οὔτε αὐτὸς παρεδέξατο διὰ τὸ τολμῆσαί τινας τὴν ἀνθρωποφαγίαν οὔθ’ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Ἀννίβας, ᾧ συνεβούλευέ τις εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν στρατεύοντι ἐθίσαι ἀνθρωποφαγεῖν τὸν στρατόν, ὡς μὴ τροφῆς ἀποροῖεν. οὐ τοίνυν ἐπεὶ λιμοὶ καὶ πόλεμοι αἴτιοι τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων βρώσεως γεγόνασιν, ἐχρῆν ταύτην καὶ δι’ ἡδονὴν παραδέξασθαι, καθάπερ οὐδὲ τὴν ἀνθρωποφαγίαν προσηκάμεθα· οὐδὲ ἐπεὶ ἔθυσάν τισι δυνάμεσιν ζῷα, ἐχρῆν καὶ ἐσθίειν αὐτά. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀνθρώπους θύσαντες ἐγεύσαντο τούτου γε ἕνεκα σαρκῶν ἀνθρωπίνων. ἀλλ’ ὅτι μὲν τῷ θύειν οὐχ ἕπεται τὸ καὶ ἐσθίειν [57] After the first war, likewise, waged by the Romans against the Carthaginians, in order to obtain Sicily, when the mercenary soldiers of the Phoenicians revolted, and, together with them, those of Africa deserted, Hamilcar, who was surnamed Barkas, in attacking the Romans, was reduced to such a scarcity of food, that at first his men ate those that fell in battle; but afterwards, these failing, they ate their captives; in the third place, their servants; and in the last place, they attacked each other, and devoured their fellow-soldiers, who were led to be slaughtered for this purpose by lot. But Hamilcar, taking those men that were in his power, caused his elephants to trample on such of the soldiers as had acted in this manner, conceiving that it was not holy to suffer them to be any longer mingled with other men; and neither did he admit that men should be eaten because certain persons had dared to do this; nor his son Hannibal, who, when he was leading his army into Italy, was advised by a certain person to accustom his troops to feed on human flesh, in order that they might never be in want of food. It does not follow, therefore, that because famine and war have been the causes of eating other animals, it is also requisite to feed on them for the sake of pleasure; as neither must we admit, that on this account men are to be eaten. Nor does it follow, that because animals are sacrificed to certain powers, it is also requisite to eat them. For neither do those who sacrifice men, on this account, feed on human flesh. Through what has been said, [ 1029 ]

therefore, it is demonstrated, that it does not entirely follow that animals are to be eaten because they are sacrificed. [58] πάντως τὰ ζῷα, διὰ τούτων ἀποδέδεικται· ὅτι δὲ οὐ θεοῖς, ἀλλὰ δαίμοσι τὰς θυσίας τὰς διὰ τῶν αἱμάτων προσῆγον οἱ τὰς ἐν τῷ παντὶ δυνάμεις καταμαθόντες, καὶ τοῦτο πεπίστωται παρ’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεολόγων. καὶ μὴν ὅτι τούτων οἳ μὲν κακοποιοί, οἳ δὲ ἀγαθοί, οἳ οὐκ ἐνοχλήσουσιν ἡμῖν ἀπαρχομένοις ἐκ μόνων ὧν ἐσθίομεν καὶ τρέφομεν ἢ τὸ σῶμα ἢ τὴν ψυχήν, καὶ τούτου μέμνηνται. ὀλίγα δ’ ἔτι προσθέντες, ὡς καὶ αἱ ἀδιάστροφοι ἔννοιαι τῶν πολλῶν ἐπιβάλλουσι τῇ ὀρθῇ περὶ τῶν θεῶν ὑπολήψει, τὸ βιβλίον περιγράψομεν. λέγουσι γοῦν καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν οἱ ἐπ’ ὀλίγον σωφρονοῦντες, τίς ὧδε μῶρος καὶ λίαν ἀνειμένος εὔπιστος ἀνδρῶν, ὅστις ἐλπίζει θεοὺς ὀστῶν ἀσάρκων καὶ χολῆς πυρουμένης, ἃ καὶ κυσὶν πεινῶσιν οὐχὶ βρώσιμα, χαίρειν ἅπαντας καὶ γέρας λαχεῖν τόδε; ἄλλος δὲ φησίν, ψαιστά, λιβανωτόν, πόπανα· ταῦτ’ ὠνήσομαι. οὐ τοῖς φίλοις θύω γάρ, ἀλλὰ τοῖς θεοῖς τὰ νῦν. [58] But that those who had learnt what the nature is of the powers in the universe, offered sacrifices through blood, not to Gods, but to daemons, is confirmed by theologists themselves. For they also assert, that of daemons, some are malefic, but others beneficent, who will not molest us, if we offer to them the first-fruits of those things alone which we eat, and by which we nourish either the soul or the body. After, therefore, we have added a few observations more, in order to show that the unperverted conceptions of the multitude accord with a right opinion respecting the Gods, we shall conclude this book. Those poets, therefore, who are wise, though but in a small degree, say, What man so credulous and void of mind, What man so ignorant, as to think the Gods In fiery bile and fleshless bones rejoice, For hungry dogs a nutriment not fit; Or that such offerers they will e’er reward? But another poet says, My offerings to the Gods from cakes alone And frankincense shall be; for not to friends But deities my sacrifice I make.

[ 1030 ]

[59] ἐπεὶ καὶ Ἀπόλλων παραινῶν θύειν κατὰ τὰ πάτρια [τουτέστιν κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῶν πατέρων], ἐπανάγειν ἔοικεν εἰς τὸ παλαιὸν ἔθος. τὸ δὲ παλαιὸν διὰ ποπάνων καὶ τῶν καρπῶν ἦν, ὡς ἀπεδείξαμεν. ὅθεν καὶ θυσίαι καὶ θυηλαὶ καὶ θυμέλαι ἐκαλοῦντο, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ θύειν τοῦ θυμιᾶν εἴχετο καὶ τοῦ νῦν παρ’ ἡμῖν λεγομένου ἐπιθύειν. ὃ γὰρ ἡμεῖς νῦν θύειν λέγομεν ἔρδειν ἔλεγον· ἔρδον δ’ Ἀπόλλωνι τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας ταύρων ἠδ’ αἰγῶν. [59] Apollo also, when he orders men to sacrifice according to paternal institutes, appears to refer every thing to ancient custom. But the ancient custom of sacrificing was, as we have before shown, with cakes and fruits. Hence also, sacrifices were called θυσιαι thusiai, and θυηλαι thuelai, and θυμελαι thumelai, and αυτο το θυειν auto to thuein, i.e. the act of sacrificing, signified the same thing as του θυμιαν ton thumian, i.e. to offer incense, and which is now called by us, επιθυειν epithuein, i.e. to sacrifice something more. For what we now call θυειν thuein, i.e. to sacrifice, the ancients denominated ερδειν erdein, i.e. to perform or make. They perfect hecatombs of bulls, or goats, Made to Apollo. [60] ἀγνοοῦσιν δὲ οἱ τὴν πολυτέλειαν εἰσαγαγόντες εἰς τὰς θυσίας, ὅπως ἅμα ταύτῃ ἑσμὸν κακῶν εἰσήγαγον, δεισιδαιμονίαν, τρυφήν, ὑπόληψιν τοῦ δεκάζειν δύνασθαι τὸ θεῖον καὶ θυσίαις ἀκεῖσθαι τὴν ἀδικίαν. ἢ πόθεν οἳ μὲν τριττύας χρυσόκερως, οἳ δ’ ἑκατόμβας, Ὀλυμπιὰς δ’ ἡ Ἀλεξάνδρου μήτηρ πάντα χίλια ἔθυεν, ἅπαξ τῆς πολυτελείας ἐπὶ τὴν δεισιδαιμονίαν προαγούσης; ὅταν δὲ νέος θεοὺς χαίρειν πολυτελείαις γνῷ καί, ὡς φασίν, ταῖς τῶν βοῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων θοίναις, πότ’ ἂν ἑκὼν σωφρονήσειεν; πῶς δὲ κεχαρισμένα θύειν ἡγούμενος τοῖς θεοῖς ταῦτα, οὐκ ἐξεῖναι ἀδικεῖν οἰήσεται αὑτῷ μέλλοντι διὰ τῶν θυσιῶν ἐξωνεῖσθαι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν; πεισθεὶς δὲ ὅτι τούτων χρείαν οὐκ ἔχουσιν οἱ θεοί, εἰς δὲ τὸ ἦθος ἀποβλέπουσι τῶν προσιόντων, μεγίστην θυσίαν λαμβάνοντες τὴν ὀρθὴν περὶ αὐτῶν τε καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων διάληψιν, πῶς οὐ σώφρων καὶ [60] But those who introduced costliness into sacrifices, were ignorant that, in conjunction with this, they also introduced a swarm of evils, viz., superstition, luxury, an opinion that a divine nature may be corrupted by gifts, and that a compensation may be made by sacrifices for injustice. Or whence do some make an oblation of three animals with gilded horns, but others of hecatombs? And whence did Olympias, the mother of Alexander [the Great,] sacrifice a thousand of each species of animals, unless sumptuousness had at length proceeded to superstition? But when the young man was informed that the Gods rejoiced in magnificent sacrifices, and, as they say, in solemn banquets of oxen and other animals, how, though he was willing to act wisely, was it possible that he could? How also, when he conceived that these sacrifices were [ 1031 ]

acceptable to the Gods, was it possible he should not fancy that he was permitted to act unjustly, when he might exonerate himself from erroneous conduct through sacrifices? But if he had been persuaded that the Gods have no need of these things, and that they look to the manners of those who approach to them, and conceive that a right opinion of them, and of things themselves, is the greatest sacrifice, how is it possible that he should not have been temperate, holy, and just? [61] ὅσιος καὶ δίκαιος ἔσται; θεοῖς δὲ ἀρίστη μὲν ἀπαρχὴ νοῦς καθαρὸς καὶ ψυχὴ ἀπαθής, οἰκεῖον δὲ καὶ τὸ μετρίων μὲν ἀπάρχεσθαι τῶν ἄλλων, μὴ παρέργως δέ, ἀλλὰ σὺν πάσῃ προθυμίᾳ. ἐοικέναι γὰρ δεῖ τὰς τιμὰς ταῖς ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν προεδρίαις, ὑπαναστάσεσίν τε καὶ κατακλίσεσιν, οὐ συντάξεων δόσεσιν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἄνθρωπος μὲν ἐρεῖ, εἰ μνημονεύεις εὖ παθὼν φιλεῖς τέ με, ἀπέχω πάλαι, Φιλῖνε, παρὰ σοῦ τὴν χάριν· τούτου γὰρ αὐτὴν ἕνεκα πρὸς σὲ κατεθέμην· θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἀρκεῖται τούτοις. διόπερ ὁ Πλάτων, τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῷ θύειν, φησί, προσήκει καὶ προσομιλεῖν ἀεὶ τοῖς θεοῖς εὐχαῖς καὶ ἀναθήμασι καὶ θυσίαις καὶ τῇ πάσῃ θεραπείᾳ, τῷ δὲ κακῷ μάτην περὶ θεοὺς τὸν πολὺν εἶναι πόνον. ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς οἶδεν ἃ θυτέον καὶ ὧν ἀφεκτέον καὶ τίνα προσενεκτέον καὶ τίνων ἀπαρκτέον, ὁ δὲ φαῦλος ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας διαθέσεως καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς ἐσπούδακεν, προσάγων τοῖς θεοῖς τὰς τιμὰς ἀσεβεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ εὐσεβεῖ. διὸ οὐδ’ οἴεται δεῖν τοῖς φαύλοις ὁ Πλάτων ἐθισμοῖς συμπεριφέρεσθαι τὸν φιλόσοφον· οὔτε γὰρ τοῖς θεοῖς εἶναι φίλον οὔτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συμφέρον, ἀλλὰ μεταβάλλειν μὲν πειρᾶσθαι εἰς τὸ ἄμεινον, εἰ δὲ μή, αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτὰ μὴ μεταβάλλεσθαι, μετιέναι δὲ τὴν ὀρθὴν ὁδὸν αὐτὸν πορευόμενον μήτε κινδύνους τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν πολλῶν εὐλαβούμενον μήτε τὴν ἄλλην, εἴ τις γίγνοιτο, βλασφημίαν. καὶ γὰρ δεινὸν ἂν εἴη, Σύρους μὲν τῶν ἰχθύων μὴ ἂν γεύσασθαι μηδὲ τοὺς Ἑβραίους συῶν, Φοινίκων τε τοὺς πολλοὺς καὶ Αἰγυπτίων βοῶν θηλειῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ βασιλέων πολλῶν μεταβαλεῖν αὐτοὺς σπουδασάντων θάνατον ὑπομεῖναι μᾶλλον ἢ τὴν τοῦ νόμου παράβασιν, ἡμᾶς δὲ τοὺς τῆς φύσεως νόμους καὶ τὰς θείας παραγγελίας φόβων ἕνεκα ἀνθρωπίνων ἤ τινος βλασφημίας τῆς ἀπὸ τούτων αἱρεῖσθαι παραβαίνειν. ἦ μέγα ὁ θεῖος χορὸς σχετλιάσειεν ἂν θεῶν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀνδρῶν θείων πρὸς ἀνθρώπων φαύλων δόξας ὁρῶν ἡμᾶς κεχηνότας καὶ τὸν παρὰ τούτων φόβον ὑφορωμένους, οἳ καθ’ ἡμέραν μελέτην ἐν τῷ βίῳ τὸ ἀποθνῄσκειν τοῖς ἄλλοις πεποιήμεθα. [61] To the Gods, indeed, the most excellent offering is a pure intellect and an impassive soul, and also a moderate oblation of our own property and of other things, and this not negligently, but with the greatest alacrity. For the honours which we pay to the Gods should be accompanied by the same promptitude as that with which we give the first seat to worthy men, and with which we rise to salute them, and not by the promptitude with which we pay a tribute. For man must not use such language as the following to God:

[ 1032 ]

If, O Philinus, you recall to mind, And love me for, the benefits which I On you conferr’d, ’tis well, since for the sake Of these alone my bounty was bestow’d. For divinity is not satisfied with such assertions as these. And hence Plato says [in his Laws], that it pertains to a good man to sacrifice, and to be always conversant with the Gods by prayers, votive offerings, sacrifices, and every kind of religious worship; but that to the bad man, much labour about the Gods is inefficacious and vain. For the good man knows what ought to be sacrificed, and from what it is requisite to abstain; what things are to be offered to divinity; and of what the first-fruits are to be sacrificed; but the bad man exhibiting honours to the Gods from his own disposition and his own pursuits, acts in so doing more impiously than piously. Hence Plato thought, that a philosopher ought not to be conversant with men of depraved habits; for this is neither pleasing to the Gods, nor useful to men; but the philosopher should endeavour to change such men to a better condition, and if he cannot effect this, he should be careful that he does not himself become changed into their depravity. He adds, that having entered into the right path, he should proceed in it, neither fearing danger from the multitude nor any other blasphemy which may happen to take place. For it would be a thing of a dire nature, that the Syrians indeed will not taste fish, nor the Hebrews swine nor most of the Phoenicians and Egyptians cows; and though many kings have endeavoured to change these customs, yet those that adopt them would rather suffer death, than a transgression of the law [which forbids them to eat these animals]; and yet that we should choose to transgress the laws of nature and divine precepts through the fear of men, or of a certain denunciation of evil from them. For the divine choir of Gods, and divine men, may justly be greatly indignant with us, if it perceives us directing our attention to the opinions of depraved men, and idly looking to the terror with which they are attended, though we daily meditate how we may become [philosophically] dead to other things in the present life.

[ 1033 ]

BOOK THREE [ 1 ] Ὡς Μ Ὲ Ν οὔτε πρὸς σωφροσύνην καὶ λιτότητα οὔτε πρὸς εὐσέβειαν, αἳ μάλιστα πρὸς τὸν θεωρητικὸν συντελοῦσι βίον, ἡ τῶν ἐμψύχων βρῶσις συμβάλλεται, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐναντιοῦται, διὰ τῶν φθασάντων, ὦ Φίρμε Καστρίκιε, δυεῖν βιβλίων ἀπεδείξαμεν. τῆς δὲ δικαιοσύνης τὸ κάλλιστον ἐν τῇ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς εὐσεβείᾳ κεκτημένης, ταύτης δὲ ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα διὰ τῆς ἀποχῆς συνισταμένης, οὐ δέος ἐστὶ περὶ τοῦ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δικαίου, μή πῃ τοῦτο παραθραύσωμεν, τήν γε πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ὁσίαν διασῴζοντες. Σωκράτης μὲν οὖν πρὸς τοὺς ἡδονὴν διαμφισβητοῦντας εἶναι τὸ τέλος, οὐδ’ ἂν πάντες, ἔφη, σύες καὶ τράγοι τούτῳ συναινῶσι, πεισθήσεσθαι ἐν τῷ ἥδεσθαι τὸ εὔδαιμον ἡμῶν κεῖσθαι, ἔστ’ ἂν νοῦς ἐν τοῖς πᾶσι κρατῇ· ἡμεῖς δέ, οὐδ’ ἂν πάντες λύκοι ἢ γῦπες τὴν κρεοφαγίαν δοκιμάζωσιν, οὐ συγχωρήσομεν τούτοις δίκαια λέγειν, ἔστ’ ἂν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀβλαβὲς ᾖ φύσει καὶ ἀφεκτικὸν τοῦ διὰ τῆς ἄλλων βλάβης αὑτῷ τὰς ἡδονὰς πορίζεσθαι. ἐς οὖν τὸν περὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης λόγον μεταβαίνοντες, ἐπείπερ ταύτην πρὸς τὰ ὅμοια δεῖν μόνα παρατείνειν εἰρήκασιν οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὰ ἄλογα διαγράφουσι τῶν ζῴων, φέρε ἡμεῖς τὴν ἀληθῆ τε ὁμοῦ καὶ Πυθαγόρειον δόξαν παραστήσωμεν, πᾶσαν ψυχήν, ᾗ μέτεστιν αἰσθήσεως καὶ μνήμης, λογικὴν ἐπιδεικνύντες· τούτου γὰρ ἀποδειχθέντος εἰκότως δὴ καὶ κατὰ τούτους πρὸς πᾶν ζῷον τὸ δίκαιον παρατενοῦμεν. ἐροῦμεν δὲ τὰ παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς συντόμως 1. In the two preceding books, O Firmus Castricius, we have demonstrated that animal food does not contribute either to temperance and frugality, or to the piety which especially gives completion to the theoretic life, but is rather hostile to it. Since, however, the most beautiful part of justice consists in piety to the Gods, and this is principally acquired through abstinence, there is no occasion to fear that we shall violate justice towards men, while we preserve piety towards the Gods. Socrates therefore says, in opposition to those who contend that pleasure is the supreme good, that though all swine and goats should accord in this opinion, yet he should never be persuaded that our felicity was placed in the enjoyment of corporeal delight, as long as intellect has dominion over all things. And we also say, that though all wolves and vultures should praise the eating of flesh, we should not admit that they spoke justly, as long as man is by nature innoxious, and ought to abstain from procuring pleasure for himself by injuring others. We shall pass on, therefore, to the discussion of justice; and since our opponents say that this ought only to be extended to those of similar species, and on this account deny that irrational animals can be injured by men, let us exhibit the true, and at the same time Pythagoric opinion, and demonstrate that every soul which participates of sense and memory is rational. For this being demonstrated, we

[ 1034 ]

may extend, as our opponents will also admit, justice to every animal. But we shall epitomize what has been said by the ancients on this subject. [2] ἐπιτέμνοντες. διττοῦ δὴ λόγου κατὰ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ὄντος, τοῦ μὲν ἐνδιαθέτου, τοῦ δὲ προφορικοῦ, καὶ πάλιν τοῦ μὲν κατωρθωμένου, τοῦ δὲ ἡμαρτημένου, ποτέρου ἀποστεροῦσι τὰ ζῷα διαρθρῶσαι προσῆκον. ἆρά γε τοῦ ὀρθοῦ μόνου, οὐχ ἁπλῶς δὲ τοῦ λόγου; ἢ παντελῶς παντὸς τοῦ τε ἔσω καὶ τοῦ ἔξω προϊόντος; ἐοίκασι δὴ τὴν παντελῆ στέρησιν αὐτῶν κατηγορεῖν, οὐ τὴν τοῦ κατωρθωμένου μόνον. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν οὐκ ἄλογα, λογικὰ δὲ ἦν ἔτι τὰ ζῷα, καθάπερ σχεδὸν πάντες κατ’ αὐτοὺς οἱ ἄνθρωποι. σοφὸς μὲν γὰρ ἢ εἷς ἢ καὶ δύο κατ’ αὐτοὺς γεγόνασιν, ἐν οἷς μόνοις ὁ λόγος κατώρθωται, οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι φαῦλοι πάντες· κἂν οἳ μὲν ὦσι προκόπτοντες, οἳ δὲ χύσιν τῆς φαυλότητος ἔχοντες, εἰ καὶ πάντες ὁμοίως λογικοί· ὑπὸ δὲ τῆς φιλαυτίας παρηγμένοι ἄλογα φασὶν τὰ ζῷα ἐφεξῆς τὰ ἄλλα σύμπαντα, τὴν παντελῆ στέρησιν τοῦ λόγου διὰ τῆς ἀλογίας μηνύειν ἐθέλοντες· καίτοι εἰ χρὴ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, οὐ μόνον ἁπλῶς ὁ λόγος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις θεωρεῖται, ἐν πολλοῖς δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ὑποβολὰς 2. Since, however, with respect to reason, one kind, according to the doctrine of the Stoics, is internal, but the other external , and again, one kind being right, but the other erroneous, it is requisite to explain of which of these two, animals, according to them, are deprived. Are they therefore deprived of right reason alone? or are they entirely destitute both of internal and externally proceeding reason? They appear, indeed, to ascribe to brutes an entire privation of reason, and not a privation of right reason alone. For if they merely denied that brutes possess right reason, animals would not be irrational, but rational beings, in the same manner as nearly all men are according to them. For, according to their opinion, one or two wise men may be found in whom alone right reason prevails, but all the rest of mankind are depraved; though some of these make a certain proficiency, but others are profoundly depraved, and yet, at the same time, all of them are similarly rational. Through the influence, therefore, of selflove, they say, that all other animals are irrational; wishing to indicate by irrationality, an entire privation of reason. If, however, it be requisite to speak the truth, not only reason may plainly be perceived in all animals, but in many of them it is so great as to approximate to perfection. [3] ἔχων πρὸς τὸ τέλειον. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν διττὸς ἦν, ὃ μὲν ἐν τῇ προφορᾷ, ὃ δὲ ἐν τῇ διαθέσει, ἀρξώμεθα πρότερον ἀπὸ τοῦ προφορικοῦ καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν φωνὴν τεταγμένου. εἰ δὴ προφορικός ἐστι λόγος φωνὴ διὰ γλώττης σημαντικὴ τῶν ἔνδον καὶ κατὰ ψυχὴν παθῶν· κοινοτάτη γὰρ ἡ ἀπόδοσις αὕτη καὶ αἱρέσεως οὐδέπω ἐχομένη, ἀλλὰ μόνον τῆς τοῦ λόγου ἐννοίας· τί τούτου ἄπεστι τῶν ζῴων ὅσα φθέγγεται; τί δὲ οὐχὶ καὶ ἃ πάσχει τι, πρότερον καὶ πρὶν εἰπεῖν ὃ μέλλει, διενοήθη; λέγω δὴ διάνοιαν τὸ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ κατὰ σιγὴν φωνούμενον. τοῦ τοίνυν ὑπὸ τῆς γλώττης φωνηθέντος, ὅπως ἂν καὶ φωνηθῇ, εἴτε βαρβάρως εἴτε Ἑλληνικῶς εἴτε κυνικῶς ἢ βοϊκῶς, λόγου γε ὄντος μέτοχα τὰ ζῷα τὰ φωνητικά, τῶν μὲν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ νόμους [ 1035 ]

τοὺς ἀνθρωπείους φθεγγομένων, τῶν δὲ ζῴων κατὰ νόμους οὓς παρὰ τῶν θεῶν καὶ τῆς φύσεως εἴληχεν ἕκαστον. εἰ δὲ μὴ ἡμεῖς ξυνίεμεν, τί τοῦτο; οὐδὲ γὰρ τῆς Ἰνδῶν οἱ Ἕλληνες οὐδὲ τῆς Σκυθῶν ἢ Θρᾳκῶν ἢ Σύρων οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀττικῇ τραφέντες· ἀλλ’ ἴσα κλαγγῇ γεράνων ὁ τῶν ἑτέρων τοῖς ἑτέροις ἦχος προσπίπτει. καίτοι ἐγγράμματος τοῖς ἑτέροις ἡ αὐτῶν καὶ ἔναρθρος, ὡς καὶ ἡμῖν ἡ ἡμετέρα· ἄναρθρος δὲ καὶ ἀγράμματος ἡ τῶν Σύρων φέρε εἰπεῖν ἢ τῶν Περσῶν, ὡς καὶ πᾶσιν ἡ τῶν ζῴων. καθάπερ γὰρ ἡμεῖς ψόφου μόνου ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα καὶ ἤχου, ἀξύνετοι ὄντες τῆς [φέρε] Σκυθῶν ὁμιλίας, καὶ κλαγγάζειν δοκοῦσιν καὶ μηδὲν διαρθροῦν, ἀλλ’ ἑνὶ ψόφῳ χρῆσθαι μακροτέρῳ ἢ βραχυτέρῳ, τὸ παρηλλαγμένον δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰς σημασίαν οὐδαμῶς προσπίπτει, ἐκείνοις δὲ εὐσύνετος ἡ φθέγξις καὶ πολὺ τὸ διάφορον ἔχουσα, καθάπερ ἡμῖν ἡ συνήθης· οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων ἡ ξύνεσις μὲν ἐκείνοις κατὰ γένος ἰδίως προσπίπτει, ἡμῖν δὲ ὁ ψόφος μόνος ἐξάκουστος, τῆς σημασίας ἐκλειπούσης, διὰ τὸ μηδένα διδαχθέντα τὴν ἡμετέραν διδάξαι ἡμᾶς διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τῶν λεγομένων παρὰ τοῖς ζῴοις. καίτοι εἰ δεῖ πιστεύειν τοῖς παλαιοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἐφ’ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν πατέρων γεγονόσιν, εἰσὶν οἳ λέγονται ἐπακοῦσαι καὶ σύνεσιν ἔχειν τῆς τῶν ζῴων φθέγξεως· ὡς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν παλαιῶν ὁ Μελάμπους καὶ ὁ Τειρεσίας καὶ οἱ τοιοῦτοι, οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ δὲ Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Τυανεύς, ἐφ’ οὗ καὶ λέγεται, ὅτι τοῖς ἑταίροις συνόντος, χελιδόνος ἐπιπτάσης καὶ φθεγγομένης, εἶπεν ὅτι μηνύει ἡ χελιδὼν ταῖς ἄλλαις ὄνον πρὸ τοῦ ἄστεως πεπτωκέναι σίτου βαστάζοντα φορτίον, ὃ δὴ κεχύσθαι εἰς τὴν γῆν τοῦ ἀχθοφοροῦντος πεπτωκότος. ἑταῖρος δὲ ἡμῶν ἐξηγεῖτό τις, οἰκέτου εὐτυχῆσαι παιδός, ὃς πάντα ξυνίει τὰ φθέγματα τῶν ὀρνίθων, καὶ ἦν πάντα μαντικὰ καὶ τοῦ μετ’ ὀλίγον μέλλοντος ἀγγελτικά· ἀφαιρεθῆναι δὲ τὴν σύνεσιν, τῆς μητρὸς εὐλαβηθείσης μὴ δῶρον αὐτὸν βασιλεῖ πέμψειεν, καὶ καθεύδοντος εἰς τὰ ὦτα ἐνουρησάσης. 3. Since, therefore, reason is two-fold, one kind consisting in external speech, but the other in the disposition of the soul, we shall begin from that which is external, and which is arranged according to the voice. But if external reason is voice, which through the tongue is significant of the internal passions of the soul (for this is the most common definition of it, and is not adopted by one sect [of philosophers] only, and if it is alone indicative of the conception of [internal] reason) - if this be the case, in what pertaining to this are such animals as have a voice deficient? Do they not discursively perceive the manner in which they are inwardly affected, before it is vocally enunciated by them? By a discursive perception, however, I mean the perception produced by the silent discourse which takes place in the soul. Since, therefore, that which is vocally expressed by the tongue is reason, in whatever manner it may be expressed, whether in a barbarous or a Grecian, a canine or a bovine mode, other animals also participate of it that are vocal; men, indeed, speaking conformably to the human laws [of speech], but other animals conformably to the laws which they received from the Gods and nature. But if we do not understand what they say, what is this to the purpose? For the Greeks do not understand what is said by the Indians, nor those who are educated in Attica the [ 1036 ]

language of the Scythians, or Thracians, or Syrians; but the sound of the one falls on the ears of the other like the clangor of cranes, though by others their vocal sounds can be written and articulated, in the same manner as ours can by us. Nevertheless, the vocal sounds of the Syrians, for instance, or the Persians, are to us inarticulate, and cannot be expressed by writing, just as the speech of animals is unintelligible to all men. For as we, when we hear the Scythians speak, apprehend, by the auditory sense, a noise only and a sound, but are ignorant of the meaning of what they say, because their language appears to us to be nothing but a clangor, to have no articulation, and to employ only one sound either longer or shorter, the variety of which is not at all significant to us, but to them the vocal sounds are intelligible, and have a great difference, in the same manner as our language has to us; the like also takes place in the vocal sounds of other animals. For the several species of these understand the language which is adapted to them, but we only hear a sound, of the signification of which we are ignorant, because no one who has learnt our language, is able to teach us through ours the meaning of what is said by brutes. If, however, it is requisite to believe in the ancients, and also in those who have lived in our times, and the times of our fathers, there are some among these who are said to have heard and to have understood the speech of animals. Thus, for instance, this is narrated of Melampus and Tiresias, and others of the like kind; and the same thing, not much prior to our time, is related of Apollonius Tyanaeus. For it is narrated of him, that once, when he was with his associates, a swallow, happening to be present, and twittering, he said, that the swallow indicated to other birds, that an ass laden with corn had fallen down before the city, and that in consequence of the fall of the ass, the corn was spread on the ground . An associate, also, of mine informed me, that he once had a boy for a servant, who understood the meaning of all the sounds of birds, and who said, that all of them were prophetic, and declarative of what would shortly happen. He added, that he was deprived of this knowledge through his mother, who, fearing that he would be sent to the Emperor as a gift, poured urine into his ear when he was asleep. [4] ἀλλ’ ἵνα ταῦτα παρῶμεν διὰ τὸ ξύμφυτον ἡμῖν πάθος τῆς ἀπιστίας, ἀλλὰ τῶν γε ἐθνῶν τινὰ εἰς ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὅπως ξυγγένειαν ἔχει πρός τινων ζῴων σύνεσιν τῆς φθέγξεως, οὐδεὶς οἶμαι ἠγνόηκεν. Ἄραβες μὲν κοράκων ἀκούουσιν, Τυρρηνοὶ δ’ ἀετῶν· τάχα δ’ ἂν καὶ ἡμεῖς καὶ πάντες ἄνθρωποι συνετοὶ ἦμεν πάντων τῶν ζῴων, εἰ καὶ ἡμῶν τὰ ὦτα δράκων ἔνιψε. δηλοῖ γε μὴν καὶ τὸ ποικίλον καὶ διάφορον τῆς φθέγξεως αὐτῶν τὸ σημαντικόν. ἄλλως γοῦν ἀκούεται ὅταν φοβῆται φθεγγόμενα, ἄλλως ὅταν καλῇ, ἄλλως ὅταν εἰς τροφὴν παρακαλῇ, ἄλλως ὅταν φιλοφρονῆται, ἄλλως ὅταν προκαλῆται εἰς μάχην· καὶ τοσοῦτόν ἐστι τὸ διάφορον, ὡς καὶ σφόδρα δυσπαρατήρητον τὴν παραλλαγὴν εἶναι διὰ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τοῖς τὸν βίον εἰς ‹τὴν› τούτων τήρησιν καταθεμένοις. κορώνης γοῦν καὶ κόρακος οἰωνισταὶ ἄχρι τινὸς [πλήθους] τὸ [ 1037 ]

διάφορον σημειωσάμενοι, τὸ λοιπὸν εἴασαν ὡς οὐκ ὂν ἀνθρώπῳ εὐπερίληπτον. ὅταν δὲ πρὸς ἄλληλα φθέγγηται φανερά τε καὶ εὔσημα, εἰ καὶ μὴ πᾶσιν ἡμῖν γνώριμα, φαίνηται δὲ καὶ ἡμᾶς μιμούμενα καὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶτταν ἐκμανθάνοντα καὶ συνιέντα τῶν ἐφεστώτων, τίς οὕτως ἀναιδὴς ὡς μὴ συγχωρεῖν εἶναι λογικά, διότι αὐτὸς οὐ συνίησιν ὧν λέγουσιν; κόρακες γοῦν καὶ κίτται ἐριθακοί τε καὶ ψιττακοὶ ἀνθρώπους μιμοῦνται καὶ μέμνηνται ὧν ἂν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ διδασκόμενοι ὑπακούουσι τῷ διδάσκοντι, καὶ πολλοί γε ἐμήνυσαν δι’ ὧν ἐδιδάχθησαν καὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας κατὰ τὸν οἶκον. ἡ δ’ Ἰνδικὴ ὕαινα, ἣν κοροκότταν οἱ ἐπιχώριοι καλοῦσι, καὶ ἄνευ διδασκάλου οὕτω φθέγγεται ἀνθρωπικῶς, ὡς καὶ ἐπιφοιτᾶν ταῖς οἰκίαις καὶ καλεῖν ὃν ‹ἂν› ἴδῃ εὐχείρωτον αὑτῇ, καὶ μιμεῖταί γε τοῦ φιλτάτου καὶ ᾧ ἂν πάντως ὑπακούσειεν ὁ κληθεὶς τὸ φθέγμα· ὡς καίπερ εἰδότας τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς διὰ τῆς ὁμοιότητος ἐξαπατᾶσθαι καὶ ἀναλίσκεσθαι ἐξιόντας τε καὶ πρὸς τὸ φθέγμα ὑπακούοντας. εἰ δὲ μὴ πάντα μιμητικὰ μηδὲ πάντα εὐμαθῆ τῆς ἡμετέρας, τί τοῦτο; οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος πᾶς εὐμαθὴς ἢ μιμητικὸς οὐχ ὅτι τῆς τῶν ζῴων, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ πέντε που διαλέκτων τῶν παρ’ ἀνθρώποις. τινὰ δὲ καὶ τῷ μὴ διδάσκεσθαι ἴσως οὐ φθέγγεται ἢ καὶ τῷ ὑπὸ τῶν ὀργάνων τῶν τῆς φωνῆς ἐμποδίζεσθαι. ἡμεῖς γοῦν κατὰ Καρχηδόνα, πέρδικος ἐπιπτάντος ἡμέρου, τρέφοντες τοῦτον, τοῦ χρόνου προϊόντος καὶ τῆς συνηθείας εἰς πολλὴν ἡμερότητα αὐτὸν μεταβαλούσης, οὐ μόνον σαίνοντος καὶ θεραπεύοντος ᾐσθόμεθα καὶ προσπαίζοντος, ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ ἀντιφθεγγομένου πρὸς τὸ ἡμέτερον φθέγμα καὶ καθ’ ὅσον ἦν δυνατὸν ἀποκρινομένου, ἀλλοίως ἢ καλεῖν ἀλλήλους εἰώθασιν οἱ πέρδικες. [οὔκουν σιωπῶντος, 4. Omitting, however, these things, through the passion of incredulity, which is connascent with us, I think there is no one who is ignorant, that there are some nations even now who understand the sounds of certain animals, through an alliance to those animals. Thus, the Arabians understand the language of crows, and the Tyrrhenians of eagles. And, perhaps, all men would understand the language of all animals, if a dragon were to lick their ears. Indeed, the variety and difference in the vocal sounds of animals, indicate that they are significant. Hence, we hear one sound when they are terrified, but another, of a different kind, when they call their associates, another when they summon their young to food, another when they lovingly embrace each other, and another when they incite to battle. And so great is the difference in their vocal sounds, that, even by those who have spent their whole life in the observation of them, it is found to be extremely difficult to ascertain their meaning, on account of their multitude. Diviners, therefore, who predict from ravens and crows, when they have noted the difference of the sounds, as far as to a certain multitude, omit the rest, as not easily to be apprehended by man. But when animals speak to each other, these sounds are manifest and significant to them, though they are not known to all of us. If, however, it appears that they imitate us, that they learn the Greek tongue, and understand their keepers, what man is so impudent as not to grant that they are rational, because he does not [ 1038 ]

understand what they say? Crows, therefore, and magpies, the robin redbreast, and the parrot, imitate men, recollect what they have heard, are obedient to their preceptor while he is teaching them; and many of them, through what they have learnt, point out those that have acted wrong in the house. But the Indian hyaena, which the natives call crocotta, speaks in a manner so human, and this without a teacher, as to go to houses, and call that person whom he knows he can easily vanquish. He also imitates the voice of him who is most dear, and would most readily attend to the person whom he calls; so that, though the Indians know this, yet being deceived through the similitude, and obeying the call, they come forth, and are destroyed. If, however, all animals do not imitate, and all of them are not adapted to lean our language, what is this to the purpose? For neither is every man docile or imitative, I will not say of the vocal sounds of animals, but of the five dialects of the Greek tongue. To which may be added, that some animals, perhaps, do not speak, because they have not been taught, or because they are impeded by the ill conformation of the instruments of speech. We, therefore, when we were at Carthage, nurtured a tame partridge, which we caught flying, and which, in process of time, and by associating with us, became so exceedingly mild, that it was not only sedulously attentive to us, caressed and sported with us, but uttered a sound corresponding to the sound of our voice, and, as far as it was capable, answered us; and this in a manner different from that by which partridges are accustomed to call each other. For it did not utter a corresponding sound when we were silent, but when we spoke to it. [5] φθεγξαμένου δ’ ἀντεφθέγξατο μόνον.] ἱστορεῖται δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀφθόγγων ‹τινὰ› οὕτως ἑτοίμως ὑπακούειν τοῖς δεσπόταις, ὡς οὐκ ‹ἂν› ἄνθρωπος τῶν συνήθων. ἡ γοῦν Κράσσου τοῦ Ῥωμαϊκοῦ μύραινα ὀνομαστὶ καλουμένη προσῄει τῷ Κράσσῳ, ὃν καὶ οὕτως διέθηκεν, ὡς πενθῆσαι ἀποθανοῦσαν, τριῶν τέκνων ἀποβολὴν πρότερον μετρίως ἐνεγκόντα. καὶ ἐγχέλεις δὲ πολλοὶ ἱστόρησαν τὰς ἐν Ἀρεθούσῃ καὶ σαπέρδας τοὺς περὶ Μαίανδρον ὑπακούοντας τοῖς καλοῦσιν. οὐκοῦν φαντασία ἡ αὐτὴ ‹τῇ› τοῦ λέγοντος, ἐάν τε ἐπὶ γλῶτταν ἐξικνῆται ἐάν τε μή. πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἄγνωμον μόνην λόγον τὴν ἀνθρώπου φωνὴν λέγειν, ὅτι ἡμῖν ξυνετή, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων παραιτεῖσθαι; ὅμοιον γὰρ ὡς εἰ κόρακες τὴν σφῶν μόνην ἠξίουν εἶναι φωνήν, ἡμᾶς δ’ εἶναι ἀλόγους, διότι οὐκ αὐτοῖς εὔσημα φθεγγόμεθα· ἢ οἱ Ἀττικοὶ εἰ μόνην τὴν Ἀτθίδα ἔλεγον φωνήν, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους ἀλόγους ἡγοῦντο τοὺς λέξεως Ἀττικῆς ἀμοιροῦντας. καίτοι θᾶττον ἂν κόρακος ξύνεσιν λάβοι ὁ Ἀττικὸς ἢ Σύρου ἢ Πέρσου συρίζοντος καὶ περσίζοντος. ἀλλὰ μήποτε ἄτοπον ἐκ τῆς εὐσυνέτου φθέγξεως ἢ μὴ ἢ τῆς σιγῆς καὶ φωνῆς τὸ λογικὸν κρίνειν καὶ τὸ ἄλογον· οὕτως γὰρ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεὸν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τῷ μὴ φθέγγεσθαι φαίη ἄν τις μὴ εἶναι λογικούς. ἀλλ’ οἵ γε θεοὶ σιγῶντες μηνύουσι, καὶ συνιᾶσιν αὐτῶν ὄρνιθες θᾶττον ἢ ἄνθρωποι καὶ συνέντες ἀπαγγέλλουσιν ὡς δύνανται καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰσὶ κήρυκες ἄλλοι ἄλλων θεῶν· Διὸς μὲν ἀετός, Ἀπόλλωνος δὲ ἱέραξ καὶ κόραξ, Ἥρας δὲ πελαργός, Ἀθηνᾶς δὲ αὖ κρέξ τε καὶ γλαῦξ, [ 1039 ]

ὡς Δήμητρος γέρανος καὶ ἄλλων ἄλλοι. καὶ μὴν καὶ ἡμῶν οἱ παρατηροῦντες καὶ οἱ σύντροφοι γιγνώσκουσιν αὐτῶν τὰ φθέγματα. ὁ γοῦν κυνηγέτης ἀπὸ τῆς ὑποκρίσεως ᾔσθετο τοῦ κυνὸς ὑλακτοῦντος νῦν μὲν ὅτι ζητεῖ τὸν λαγών, νῦν δὲ ὅτι εὗρεν, νῦν δὲ ὅτι διώκει, νῦν δὲ ὅτι ἔλαβεν, καὶ πλανωμένου ὅτι πλανᾶται. καὶ ὁ βουκόλος οἶδεν ὅτι ἡ βοῦς πεινῇ ἢ διψῇ ἢ κέκμηκεν ἢ ὀργᾷ ἢ τὸν μόσχον ζητεῖ· καὶ λέων βρυχώμενος δηλοῖ ὅτι ἀπειλεῖ, καὶ λύκος ὠρυόμενος ὅτι κακῶς πράσσει, καὶ ὄιες βληχώμεναι οὐκ ἔλαθον τὸν 5. It is also narrated, that some dumb animals obey their masters with more readiness than any domestic servants. Hence, a lamprey was so accustomed to the Roman Crassus, as to come to him when he called it by its name; on which account Crassus was so affectionately disposed towards it, that he exceedingly lamented its death, though, prior to this, he had borne the loss of three of his children with moderation. Many likewise relate that the eels in Arethusa, and the shell-fish denominated saperdae, about Maeander, are obedient to those that call them. Is not the imagination, therefore, of an animal that speaks, the same, whether it proceeds as far as to the tongue, or does not? And if this be the case, is it not absurd to call the voice of man alone [external] reason, but refuse thus to denominate the voice of other animals? For this is just as if crows should think that their voice alone is external reason, but that we are irrational animals, because the meaning of the sounds which we utter is not obvious to them; or as if the inhabitants of Attica should thus denominate their speech alone, and should think that those are irrational who are ignorant of the Attic tongue, though the inhabitants of Attica would sooner understand the croaking of a crow, than the language of a Syrian or a Persian. But is it not absurd to judge of rationality and irrationality from apprehending or not apprehending the meaning of vocal sounds, or from silence and speech? For thus some one might say, that the God who is above all things, and likewise the other Gods are not rational, because they do not speak. The Gods, however, silently indicate their will, and birds apprehend their will more rapidly than men, and when they have apprehended it, they narrate it to men as much as they are able and different birds are the messengers to men of different Gods. Thus, the eagle is the messenger of Jupiter, the hawk and the crow of Apollo, the stork of Juno, the crex and the bird of night of Minerva, the crane of Ceres, and some other bird is the messenger of some other deity. Moreover, those among us that observe animals, and are nurtured together with them, know the meaning of their vocal sounds. The hunter, therefore, from the barking of his dog, perceives at one time, indeed, that the dog explores a hare, but at another, that the dog has found it; at one time, that he pursues the game, at another that he has caught it, and at another that he is in the wrong track, through having lost the scent of it. Thus, too, the cowherd knows, at one time, indeed, that a cow is hungry, or thirsty, or weary, and at another, that she is incited to venery, or [ 1040 ]

seeks her calf, [from her different lowings ]. A lion also manifests by his roaring that he threatens, a wolf by his howling that he is in a bad condition, and shepherds, from the bleating of sheep, know what the sheep want. [6] ποιμένα ὅτου δέονται. οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνα ἔλαθεν ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φωνή, οὐκ ὀργιζομένων, οὐ φιλοφρονουμένων, οὐ καλούντων, οὐχ ἡ διώκουσα, οὐχ ἡ αἰτοῦσα, οὐχ ἡ διδοῦσα, οὐδεμία ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ πάσαις οἰκείως ὑπήκουσαν· ὅπερ ἀδύνατον ποιεῖν μὴ τοῦ ὁμοίου τῇ συνέσει τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἐνεργοῦντος. σωφρονίζονται δὲ καὶ μέλεσιν καὶ ἥμεροι ἐξ ἀγρίων γίγνονται ἕλαφοι καὶ ταῦροι καὶ ἕτερα ζῷα. διαλεκτικῆς μὲν γὰρ αὐτοὶ φασὶν οἱ τὸ ἄλογον αὐτῶν καταψηφιζόμενοι ἐπαΐειν τοὺς κύνας, κεχρῆσθαί τε τῷ διὰ πλειόνων διεζευγμένῳ ἰχνεύοντας, ὅταν εἰς τριόδους ἀφίκωνται. ἤτοι γὰρ ταύτην ἢ ἐκείνην ἢ τὴν ἑτέραν ἀπεληλυθέναι τὸ θηρίον· οὔτε δὲ ταύτην, οὔτε ταύτην· ταύτην ἄρα, καθ’ ἣν λοιπὸν καὶ διώκειν. ἀλλ’ ἕτοιμον λέγειν φύσει ταῦτα ποιεῖν ὅτι μηδεὶς αὐτὰ ἐξεδίδαξεν, ὡς δὴ καὶ ἡμῶν τὸν λόγον οὐ φύσει κεκληρωμένων, εἰ καί τινα τίθεμεν τῶν ὀνομάτων αὐτοὶ διὰ τὸ καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ἐπιτηδείως ἔχειν κατὰ φύσιν. εἰ μέντοι πιστεύειν δεῖ Ἀριστοτέλει, καὶ διδάσκοντα ὤφθη οὐ μόνον τῶν ἄλλων τι ποιεῖν τὰ τέκνα τὰ ζῷα, ἀλλὰ καὶ φθέγγεσθαι, ὡς ἀηδὼν τὸν νεοττὸν ᾄδειν. καὶ ὡς αὐτός γε φησίν, πολλὰ μὲν παρ’ ἀλλήλων μανθάνει ζῷα, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ παρ’ ἀνθρώπων, καὶ πᾶς αὐτῷ ἀληθεύοντι μαρτυρεῖ, πᾶς μὲν πωλοδάμνης, πᾶς δὲ ἱπποκόμος τε καὶ ἱππεὺς καὶ ἡνίοχος, πᾶς δὲ κυνηγέτης τε καὶ ἐλεφαντιστὴς καὶ βουκόλος καὶ οἱ τῶν θηρίων διδάσκαλοι οἵ τε τῶν ὀρνίθων πάντες. ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν εὐγνώμων καὶ ἐκ τούτων μεταδίδωσι συνέσεως τοῖς ζῴοις, ὁ δὲ ἀγνώμων καὶ ἀνιστόρητος αὐτῶν φέρεται συνεργῶν αὑτοῦ τῇ εἰς αὐτὰ πλεονεξίᾳ. καὶ πῶς γὰρ οὐκ ἔμελλεν κακολογήσειν καὶ διαβαλεῖν ἃ κατακόπτειν ὡς λίθον προῄρηται; ἀλλ’ Ἀριστοτέλης γε καὶ Πλάτων Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τε καὶ Πυθαγόρας Δημόκριτός τε καὶ ὅσοι ἐφρόντισαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν περὶ 6. Neither, therefore, are animals ignorant of the meaning of the voice of men, when they are angry, or speak kindly to, or call them, or pursue them, or ask them to do something, or give something to them; nor, in short, are they ignorant of any thing that is usually said to them, but are aptly obedient to it; which it would be impossible for them to do, unless that which is similar to intellection energized, in consequence of being excited by its similar. The immoderation of their passions, also, is suppressed by certain modulations, and stags, bulls, and other animals, from being wild become tame. Those, too, who are decidedly of opinion that brutes are deprived of reason, yet admit that dogs have a knowledge of dialectic, and make use of the syllogism which consists of many disjunctive propositions, when, in searching for their game, they happen to come to a place where there are three roads. For they thus reason, the beast has either fled through this road, or through that, or through the remaining road; but it has not fled either through this, or through that, and therefore it must have fled through the remaining third of these roads . After which syllogistic process, they resume their pursuit in that road. It may, however, be readily said, that animals do these things [ 1041 ]

naturally, because they were not taught by any one to do them; as if we also were not allotted reason by nature, though we likewise give names to things, because we are naturally adapted to do so. Besides, if it be requisite to believe in Aristotle, animals are seen to teach their offspring, not only something pertaining to other things, but also to utter vocal sounds; as the nightingale, for instance, teaches her young to sing. And as he likewise says, animals learn many things from each other, and many from men; and the truth of what he asserts is testified by all the tamers of colts, by every jockey, horseman, and charioteer, and by all hunters, herdsmen, keepers of elephants, and masters of wild beasts and birds. He, therefore, who estimates things rightly, will be led, from these instances, to ascribe intelligence to brutes; but he who is inconsiderate, and is ignorant of these things, will be induced to act rashly, through his inexhaustible avidity co operating with him against them. For how is it possible that he should not defame and calumniate animals, who has determined to cut them in pieces, as if they were stones? Aristotle, however, Plato, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Democritus, and all such as endeavoured to discover the truth concerning animals, have acknowledged that they participate of reason. [7] αὐτῶν ἑλεῖν, ἔγνωσαν τὸ μετέχον τοῦ λόγου. δεικτέον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἐντὸς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐνδιάθετον. φαίνεται δὲ ἡ παραλλαγή, ὡς φησί που καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης, οὐκ οὐσίᾳ διαλλάττουσα, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον θεωρουμένη· καθάπερ πολλοὶ οἴονται καὶ τὴν θεῶν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηλλάχθαι, οὐ κατ’ οὐσίαν οὔσης τῆς διαφορᾶς ταύτης, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἢ μὴ τοῦ λόγου. καὶ ὅτι μὲν ἄχρι γε αἰσθήσεως τῆς τε ἄλλης ὀργανώσεως τῆς τε κατὰ τὰ αἰσθητήρια καὶ τῆς κατὰ σάρκα ὁμοίως ἡμῖν διάκειται, πᾶς σχεδὸν συγκεχώρηκεν. καὶ γὰρ οὐ μόνον τῶν κατὰ φύσιν παθῶν τε καὶ κινημάτων τῶν διὰ τούτων ὁμοίως ἡμῖν κεκοινώνηκεν, ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ τῶν παρὰ φύσιν καὶ νοσωδῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρουμένων. οὐκ ἂν δέ τις εὖ φρονῶν διὰ τὸ ἐξηλλαγμένον τῆς ἕξεως τοῦ σώματος ἄδεκτα λογικῆς εἴποι διαθέσεως, ὁρῶν καὶ ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπων πολλὴν τὴν παραλλαγὴν τῆς ἕξεως κατά τε γένη καὶ ἔθνη, καὶ ὅμως λογικοὺς συγχωρῶν πάντας. ὄνος μέν γε κατάρρῳ ἁλίσκεται, κἂν εἰς πνεύμονα αὐτῷ ῥυῇ τὸ νόσημα, ἀποθνῄσκει ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος· ἵππος δὲ καὶ ἔμπυος γίνεται καὶ φθίνει, ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ τέτανος λαμβάνει ἵππον καὶ ποδάγρα καὶ πυρετὸς καὶ λύσσα, ὁπότε καὶ κατωπιᾶν λέγεται. καὶ ἡ κύουσα ἵππος, ἐπειδὰν ὀσφρήσηται λύχνου ἀπεσβεσμένου, ἀμβλίσκει ὡς ἄνθρωπος. πυρέττει δὲ καὶ βοῦς καὶ μαίνεται, καθάπερ καὶ ὁ κάμηλος. κορώνη δὲ ψωριᾷ καὶ λεπριᾷ, ‹ὥσπερ› καὶ κύων· οὗτος μέν γε καὶ ποδαγριᾷ καὶ λυσσᾷ. ὗς δὲ βραγχᾷ, καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον κύων, καὶ τὸ πάθος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ κυνὸς κυνάγχη κέκληται. καὶ ταῦτα ‹μὲν› γνώριμα, ἐπεὶ σύννομα ταῦτα ἡμῖν τὰ ζῷα, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ἐσμὲν ἄπειροι διὰ τὸ ἀσύνηθες. καὶ εὐνουχιζόμενα δὲ μαλακίζεται· οἱ μέν γε ἀλεκτρυόνες οὐδὲ ᾄδουσιν ἔτι, ἀλλὰ τὴν φωνὴν ἐπὶ τὸ θῆλυ μεταβάλλουσιν ὥσπερ ἄνθρωποι, βοός τε κέρατα καὶ φωνὴν οὐκ ἔστι διαγνῶναι τομίου καὶ θήλεος· οἱ δὲ ἔλαφοι οὐκέτι ἀποβάλλουσι τὰ κέρατα,

[ 1042 ]

ἀλλὰ συνέχουσιν, ὡς εὐνοῦχοι τὰς τρίχας, μὴ ἔχοντες δὲ οὐ φύουσιν, ὥσπερ οἱ πρὶν πώγωνα φῦσαι ἐκτμηθέντες. οὕτως σχεδὸν ἁπάντων τὰ σώματα ὁμοίως τοῖς ἡμετέροις κατὰ τὰ 7. But it is now requisite to show that brutes have internal reason. The difference, indeed, between our reason and theirs, appears to consist, as Aristotle somewhere says, not in essence, but in the more and the less; just as many are of opinion, that the difference between the Gods and us is not essential, but consists in this, that in them there is a greater, and in us a less accuracy, of the reasoning power . And, indeed, so far as pertains to sense and the remaining organization, according to the sensoria and the flesh, every one nearly will grant that these are similarly disposed in us, as they are in brutes. For they not only similarly participate with us of natural passions, and the motions produced through these, but we may also survey in them such affections as are preternatural and morbid. No one, however, of a sound mind, will say that brutes are unreceptive of the reasoning power, on account of the difference between their habit of body and ours, when he sees that there is a great variety of habit in men, according to their race, and the nations to which they belong and yet, at the same time, it is granted that all of them are rational. An ass, therefore, is afflicted with a catarrh, and if the disease flows to his lungs, he dies in the same manner as a man. A horse, too, is subject to purulence, and wastes away through it, like a man. He is likewise attacked with rigour, the gout, fever, and fury, in which case he is also said to have a depressed countenance. A mare, when pregnant, if she happens to smell a lamp when it is just extinguished, becomes abortive, in the same manner as a woman. An ox, and likewise a camel, are subject to fever and insanity; a raven becomes scabby, and has the leprosy; and also a dog, who, besides this, is afflicted with the gout, and madness: but a hog is subject to hoarseness, and in a still greater degree a dog; whence this disease in a man is denominated from the dog, cynanche. And these things are known to us, because we are familiar with these animals; but of the diseases of other animals, we are ignorant, because we do not associate with them. Castrated animals also became more effeminate. Hence cocks, when they are castrated, no longer crow; but their voice becomes effeminate, like that of men who lose their testicles. It is not possible, likewise, to distinguish the bellowing and horns of a bull, when he is castrated, from those of a cow. But stags, when they are castrated, no longer cast off their horns, but retain them in the same manner as eunuchs do their hairs; and if, when they are castrated, they are without horns, they do not afterwards produce them, just as it happens to those who, before they have a beard, are made eunuchs. So that nearly the bodies of all animals are similarly affected with ours, with respect to the bodily calamities to which they are subject.

[ 1043 ]

[8] πάθη. τά γε μὴν τῆς ψυχῆς πάθη ὅρα εἰ μὴ πάντα ὅμοια· καὶ πρῶτά γε τὴν αἴσθησιν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἀνθρώπου μὲν ἡ γεῦσις χυμῶν, ἡ δὲ ὄψις χροιῶν, ἢ ὀσμῶν ἡ ὄσφρησις ἀντιλαμβάνεται, ἢ ψόφων ἡ ἀκοή, ἢ θερμῶν ἢ ψυχρῶν ἡ ἁφὴ ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπτῶν, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν ζῴων ἁπάντων ὁμοίως. οὐδὲ ταύτης μὲν ἀφῄρηται τὰ ζῷα διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἄνθρωποι, λογικῆς δὲ ἀμοιροῦσι διὰ τοῦτο· ἐπεὶ οὕτω γε καὶ οἱ θεοὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἄνθρωποι λογικῆς στερήσονται, ἢ ἡμεῖς, εἴπερ οἱ θεοὶ λογικοί. αἰσθήσεως μέν γε καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἔοικεν μᾶλλον τὰ ζῷα. τίς μὲν γὰρ ἀνθρώπων τοσοῦτον βλέπει [οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ μυθευόμενος Λυγκεύς] ὅσον ὁ δράκων; ὅθεν καὶ τὸ βλέπειν δρακεῖν λέγουσιν οἱ ποιηταί· τὸν δὲ ἀετὸν ‘καὶ ὑψόθ’ ἐόντα οὐκ ἔλαθε πτώξ’. τίς δὲ ὀξυηκοώτερος γεράνων, αἳ ἀπὸ τοσούτων ἀκούουσιν ὅπως οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπων τις ὁρᾷ. τῇ μὲν γὰρ ὀσφρήσει τοσούτῳ πλεονεκτεῖ σχεδὸν πάντα τὰ ζῷα, ὡς ἐκείνοις προσπίπτειν τὰ ἡμᾶς λανθάνοντα, καὶ κατὰ γένος ἐπιγινώσκειν ἕκαστον ἤδη καὶ ἐξ ἴχνους ὀσφραινόμενα. οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἡγεμόσι κυσὶ χρῶνται, εἰ δεῖ ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ σῦν ἢ ἔλαφον· καὶ ἡμῶν μὲν ὀψὲ ἡ τοῦ ἀέρος κατάστασις ἅπτεται, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ζῴων εὐθύς, ὡς τούτοις τεκμηρίοις χρῆσθαι τοῦ μέλλοντος. τὴν δὲ τῶν χυμῶν διάκρισιν οὕτως οἶδεν, ὡς ἐξακριβοῦν καὶ τὰ νοσερὰ καὶ τὰ ὑγιεινὰ καὶ τὰ δηλητήρια, ὡς οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπων οἱ ἰατροί. φρονιμώτερα δὲ φησὶν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης εἶναι τὰ εὐαισθητότερα. σωμάτων δὲ παραλλαγαὶ εὐπαθῆ μὲν ἢ δυσπαθῆ ποιῆσαι δύνανται, καὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἧττον πρόχειρον ἔχειν τὸν λόγον, κατ’ οὐσίαν δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐξαλλάττειν οὐ δύνανται, ὅπου γε οὐδὲ τὰς αἰσθήσεις οὐδὲ τὰ πάθη ἔτρεψαν, οὐδὲ τέλεον ἐκβεβηκυίας ἐποίησαν. ἐν οὖν τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον ἡ διαφορὰ συγχωρείσθω, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τελείᾳ στερήσει· οὐδ’ ἐν τῷ καθάπαξ τὸ μὲν ἔχειν, τὸ δὲ μή· ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐν ἑνὶ γένει τὸ μὲν ὑγιεινότερον σῶμά ἐστιν, τὸ δὲ ἧττον, καὶ ἐπὶ νόσου ὁμοίως πολὺ τὸ διάφορον, ἔν τε εὐφυΐαις καὶ ἀφυΐαις, οὕτω καὶ ἐν ψυχαῖς ἣ μὲν ἀγαθή, ἣ δὲ φαύλη· καὶ τῶν φαύλων ἣ μὲν μᾶλλον, ἣ δὲ ἧττον· καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ ἰσότης, οὐδὲ ὁμοίως Σωκράτης ἀγαθὸς καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Πλάτων, οὐδ’ ἐν ὁμοδόξοις ἡ ταυτότης. οὐ τοίνυν οὐδ’ εἰ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς νοοῦμεν ἢ τὰ ζῷα, διὰ τοῦτο ἀφαιρετέον τῶν ζῴων τὸ νοεῖν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ πέτεσθαι τοὺς πέρδικας, ὅτι μᾶλλον αὐτῶν ‹οἱ› ἱέρακες πέτονται, οὐδὲ τοὺς ἄλλους ἱέρακας, ὅτι καὶ τούτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ὁ φασσοφόνος. συμπάσχειν μὲν οὖν δοίη ἄν τις ψυχὴν σώματι καὶ πάσχειν τι πρὸς αὐτοῦ εὖ ἢ κακῶς διακειμένου, μεταβάλλειν δὲ τὴν αὑτῆς φύσιν οὐδαμῶς. εἰ δὲ συμπάσχει μόνον καὶ χρῆται αὐτῷ ὡς ὀργάνῳ, δράσειε μὲν ἂν δι’ αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἀλλοίως ὠργανωμένου ἢ ὡς ἡμῖν, ὧν ἡμεῖς δρᾶν ἀδύνατοι, καὶ συμπάθοι ἄν πως διακειμένου, 8. See, however, whether all the passions of the soul in brutes, are not similar to ours; for it is not the province of man alone to apprehend juices by the taste, colours by the sight, odours by the smell, sounds by the hearing, cold or heat, or other tangible objects, by the touch; but the senses of brutes are capable of the same perceptions. Nor are brutes deprived of sense because they are not men, as neither are we to be deprived of reason, because the Gods, if they possess it, are rational beings. With respect to the senses, however, other animals appear greatly to surpass us; for what man can see so [ 1044 ]

acutely as a dragon? (for this is not the fabulous Lynceus). And hence the poets denominate to see δρακειν, drakein: but an eagle, from a great height, sees a hare. What man hears more acutely than cranes, who are able to hear from an interval so great, as to be beyond the reach of human sight? And as to smell, almost all animals so much surpass us in this sense, that things which fall on it, and are obvious to them, are concealed from us; so that they know and smell the several kinds of animals by their footsteps. Hence, men employ dogs as their leaders, for the purpose of discovering the retreat of a boar, or a stag. And we, indeed, are slowly sensible of the constitution of the air; but this is immediately perceived by other animals, so that from them we derive indications of the future state of the weather. With respect to juices also, they so accurately know the distinction between them, that their knowledge of what are morbific, salubrious, and deleterious among these, surpasses that of physicians. But Aristotle says, that animals whose sensitive powers are more exquisite, are more prudent. And the diversities, indeed, of bodies are capable of producing a facility or difficulty of being passively affected, and of having reason, more or less prompt in its energies; but they are not capable of changing the essence of the soul, since neither are they able to change the senses, nor to alter the passions, nor to make them entirely abandon their proper nature. It must be granted, therefore, that animals participate more or less of reason, but not that they are perfectly deprived of it; as neither must it be admitted that one animal has reason, but another not. As, however, in one and the same species of animals, one body is more, but another less healthy; and, in a similar manner, in diseases, in a naturally good, and a naturally bad, disposition, there is a great difference; thus also in souls, one is naturally good, but another depraved: and of souls that are depraved, one has more, but another less, of depravity. In good men, likewise, there is not the same equality; for Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, are not similarly good. Nor is there sameness in a concordance of opinions. Hence it does not follow, if we have more intelligence than other animals, that on this account they are to be deprived of intelligence; as neither must it be said, that partridges do not fly, because hawks fly higher; nor that other hawks do not fly, because the bird called phassophonos  flies higher than these, and than all other birds. Some one, therefore, may admit that the soul is co-passive with the body, and that the former suffers something from the latter, when the latter is well or ill affected, but in this case it by no means changes its nature: but if the soul is only co-passive to, and uses the body as an instrument, she may be able to effect many things through it, which we cannot, even when it is organized differently from ours, and when it is affected in a certain manner, may sympathize with it, and yet may not change its proper nature.

[ 1045 ]

[9] οὐ μέντοι τὴν αὑτῆς ἐξαλλάξειε φύσιν. ὅτι τοίνυν καὶ λογικὴ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔστιν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῄρηται φρονήσεως ἐπιδεικτέον. πρῶτον μὲν ἕκαστον οἶδεν εἴτε ἀσθενές ἐστιν εἴτε ἰσχυρόν, καὶ τὰ μὲν φυλάττεται, τοῖς δὲ χρῆται, ὡς πάρδαλις μὲν ὀδοῦσιν, ὄνυξι δὲ λέων καὶ ὀδοῦσιν, ἵππος δὲ ὁπλῇ καὶ βοῦς κέρασιν, καὶ ἀλεκτρυὼν μὲν πλήκτρῳ, σκορπίος δὲ κέντρῳ· οἱ δ’ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ὄφεις πτύσματι [ὅθεν καὶ πτυάδες καλοῦνται] ἐκτυφλοῦσι τὰς ὄψεις τῶν ἐπιόντων, ἄλλο δὲ ἄλλῳ χρῆται, σῷζον ἑαυτὸ ἕκαστον. πάλιν τὰ μὲν ἐκποδὼν νέμεται τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅσα ἰσχυρά· τὰ δὲ ἀγεννῆ ἐκποδὼν μὲν τῶν ἰσχυροτέρων θηρίων, τοὔμπαλιν δὲ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ ἢ πορρωτέρω [μέν], ὡς στρουθοὶ ἐν ὀροφαῖς καὶ χελιδόνες, ἢ καὶ συνανθρωποῦντα, ὡς οἱ κύνες. ἀμείβει δὲ καὶ τόπους κατὰ τὰς ὥρας, καὶ πᾶν ὅσον τὸ πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον οἶδεν. ὁμοίως δ’ ἄν τις καὶ ἐπὶ ἰχθύων ἴδοι τὸν τοιοῦτον λογισμὸν καὶ ἐπ’ ὀρνίθων. ἃ δὴ ἐπὶ πλέον συνῆκται τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἐν τοῖς περὶ ζῴων φρονήσεως, τοῦ ταῦτα πολυπραγμονήσαντος ἐπὶ πλέον Ἀριστοτέλους λέγοντος πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις μεμηχανῆσθαι πρὸς τὸν βίον καὶ σωτηρίαν 9. It must be demonstrated, therefore, that there is a rational power in animals, and that they are not deprived of prudence. And in the first place, indeed, each of them knows whether it is imbecile or strong, and, in consequence of this, it defends some parts of itself, but attacks with others. Thus the panther uses its teeth, the lion its nails and teeth, the horse its hoofs, the ox its horns, the cock its spurs, and the scorpion its sting; but the serpents in Egypt use their spittle (whence also they are called ptuades, i.e. spitters,) and with this they blind the eyes of those that approach them: and thus a different animal uses a different part of itself for attack, in order to save itself. Again, some animals, viz. such as are robust, feed [and live] remote from men; but others, who are of an ignoble nature, live remote from stronger animals, and, on the contrary, dwell nearer men. And of these, some dwell at a greater distance from more robust animals, as sparrows and swallows, who build their nests in the roofs of houses; but others associate with men, as, for instance, dogs. They likewise change their places of abode at certain times, and know every thing which contributes to their advantage. In a similar manner, in fishes and in birds, a reasoning energy of this kind may be perceived; all which particulars are abundantly collected by the ancients, in their writings concerning the prudence of animals; and they are copiously discussed by Aristotle, who says, that by all animals an habitation subservient to their subsistence and their safety, is most exquisitely contrived. [10] αὐτῶν τὴν ‹οἴκησιν›. ὁ δὲ φύσει λέγων αὐτοῖς προσεῖναι ταῦτα ἀγνοεῖ λέγων ὅτι φύσει ἐστὶ λογικά, ἢ ὡς τοῦ λόγου μὴ φύσει ἐν ἡμῖν συνισταμένου, καὶ τῆς τελειώσεως μὴ καθὸ πεφύκαμεν τὴν αὔξησιν λαμβανούσης. τὸ μέν γε θεῖον οὐδὲ διὰ μαθήσεως λογικὸν γέγονεν· οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὅτε ἦν ἄλογον, ἀλλ’ ἅμα τε ἦν καὶ λογικὸν ἦν, καὶ οὐ κεκώλυται εἶναι λογικόν, ὅτι οὐ διὰ διδασκαλίας ἀνέλαβε τὸν λόγον. καίτοι ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὰ μὲν πολλὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡ φύσις ἐδίδαξεν, τὰ δὲ ἤδη παρέσχε καὶ ἡ μάθησις· διδάσκονται δὲ τὰ μὲν [ 1046 ]

ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων, τὰ δέ, ὡς ἔφαμεν, ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων. καὶ ἔχει γε μνήμην, ἥπερ εἰς ἀνάληψιν λογισμοῦ καὶ φρονήσεως ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα κυριωτάτη. εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ κακίαι ἄφθονοι ἐν αὐτοῖς, εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτω κέχυνται ὥσπερ ἐν ἀνθρώποις· ἔστιν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἡ κακία κουφοτέρα τῆς ἀνθρώπων. αὐτίκα ἀνὴρ μὲν οἰκοδόμος οἰκίας θεμέλια οὐκ ἂν καταβάλοιτο μὴ νήφων, οὐδὲ ναυπηγὸς νεὼς τρόπιν μὴ ὑγιαίνων, οὐδὲ γεωργὸς ἄμπελον φυτεύσαι μὴ πρὸς τοῦτο τὸν νοῦν ἔχων· παιδοποιοῦνται δὲ σχεδὸν πάντες μεθύοντες. ἀλλ’ οὐ τά γε ζῷα· ζῳογονεῖ δὲ τέκνων ἕνεκα, καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα, ὅταν ἐγκύμονα ποιήσῃ τὴν θήλειαν, οὔτε αὐτὰ ἐπιβαίνειν ἐπιχειρεῖ, οὔτε τὸ θῆλυ ἀνέχεται. ἡ δὲ ὕβρις ὅση ἐν τούτοις ἡ ἀνθρώπειος καὶ ἀκολασία δήλη. οἶδεν δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων τὰς ὠδῖνας ὁ σύνοικος, καὶ συνωδίνει γε τὰ πολλά, ὥσπερ καὶ ἀλεκτρυόνες· τὰ δὲ καὶ συνεκλέπει, ὡς ταῖς περιστεραῖς οἱ ἄρρενες· καὶ τόπου προνοεῖ, οὗ μέλλουσι τίκτειν. καὶ γεννῆσαν ἕκαστον ἐκκαθαίρει τὸ γεννώμενον καὶ ἑαυτό. παρατηρήσας δ’ ἄν τις κατίδοι καὶ σὺν τάξει ἰόντα πάντα καὶ διαπαντῶντα μετὰ τοῦ σαίνειν τῷ τρέφοντι καὶ ἐπιγινώσκειν τὸν δεσπότην 10. But he who says that these things are naturally present with animals, is ignorant in asserting this, that they are by nature rational; or if this is not admitted, neither does reason subsist in us naturally, nor with the perfection of it receive an increase, so far as we are naturally adapted to receive it. A divine nature, indeed, does not become rational  through learning, for there never was a time in which he was irrational; but rationality is consubsistent with his existence, and he is not prevented from being rational, because he did not receive reason through discipline: though, with respect to other animals, in the same manner as with respect to men, many things are taught them by nature, and some things are imparted by discipline. Brutes, however, learn some things from each other, but are taught others, as we have said, by men. They also have memory, which is a most principal thing in the resumption of reasoning and prudence. They likewise have vices, and are envious; though their bad qualities are not so widely extended as in men: for their vices are of a lighter nature than those of men: This, indeed, is evident; for the builder of a house will never be able to lay the foundation of it, unless he is sober; nor can a shipwright properly place the keel of a ship, unless he is in health; nor a husbandman plant a vine, unless he applies his mind to it; yet nearly all men, when they are intoxicated, can beget children. This, however, is not the case with other animals; for they propagate for the sake of offspring, and for the most part, when the males have made the female pregnant, they no longer attempt to be connected with her; nor, if they should attempt it, would the female permit them. But the magnitude of the lascivious insolence and intemperance of men in these things, is evident. In other animals, however, the male is conscious of the parturient throes of the female, and, for the most part, partakes of the same pains; as is evident in cocks. But others incubate together with the females; as the males of doves. They likewise provide a proper place [ 1047 ]

for the delivery of their offspring; and after they have brought forth their offspring, they both purify them and themselves. And he who properly observes, will see that every thing proceeds with them in an orderly manner; that they fawn on him who nourishes them, and that they know their master, and give indications of him who acts insidiously. [11] καὶ μηνύειν τὸν ἐπίβουλον. τὰ δὲ συναγελαστικὰ ὅπως τηρεῖ τὸ δίκαιον τὸ πρὸς ἄλληλα, τίς ἀγνοεῖ; τοῦτο μὲν μυρμήκων ἕκαστον, τοῦτο δὲ καὶ μελιττῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων. τίς δὲ σωφροσύνης φαττῶν πρὸς τοὺς συνοίκους, αἳ καὶ μοιχευθεῖσαι ἀναιροῦσιν εἰ λάβοιεν τὸν μοιχεύσαντα, ἢ τῆς τῶν πελαργῶν δικαιοσύνης πρὸς τοὺς τεκόντας ἀνήκοος; ἐξέχει γὰρ ἐν ἑκάστῳ ἰδία τις ἀρετὴ πρὸς ἣν πεφυσίωται, οὔτε τῆς φύσεως οὔτε τοῦ βεβαίου διὰ τοῦτο ἀφαιρουμένου αὐτῶν τὸ λογικόν· ἐκεῖνο γὰρ ἐλέγχειν δεῖ, εἰ μὴ τὰ ἔργα ἀρετῶν καὶ λογικῆς ἐντρεχείας οἰκεῖα. εἰ δὲ μὴ συνίεμεν πῶς πράττεται διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰσδύνειν αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν λογισμὸν δύνασθαι, οὐ μέντοι διὰ τοῦτο ἀλογίαν αὐτῶν κατηγορήσομεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ θεοῦ τις εἰς τὸν νοῦν διαδύναι δύναται· ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἔργων τοῦ θεοῦ συνῃνέσαμεν τοῖς νοερὸν καὶ λογικὸν αὐτὸν 11. Who likewise is ignorant how much gregarious animals preserve justice towards each other? for this is preserved by ants, by bees, and by other animals of the like kind. And who is ignorant of the chastity of female ringdoves towards the males with whom they associate? for they destroy those who are found by them to have committed adultery. Or who has not heard of the justice of storks towards their parents? For in the several species of animals, a peculiar virtue is eminent, to which each species is naturally adapted; nor because this virtue is natural and stable, is it fit to deny that they are rational? For it might be requisite to deprive them of rationality, if their works were not the proper effects of virtue and rational sagacity; but if we do not understand how these works are effected, because we are unable to penetrate into the reasoning which they use, we are not on this account to accuse them of irrationality; for neither is any one able to penetrate into the intellect of that divinity the sun, but from his works we assent to those who demonstrate him to be an intellectual and rational essence. [12] ἀποφηναμένοις. θαυμάσειε δ’ ἄν τις τοὺς τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐκ τοῦ λογικοῦ συνιστάντας καὶ τὰ μὴ κοινωνοῦντα τῶν ζῴων ἄγρια καὶ ἄδικα λέγοντας, μηκέτι δὲ ἄχρι τῶν κοινωνούντων τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐκτείνοντας. καθάπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἴχεται τὸ ζῆν ἀρθείσης τῆς κοινωνίας, οὕτω κἀκείνοις. ὄρνιθες γοῦν καὶ κύνες καὶ πολλὰ τῶν τετραπόδων, οἷον αἶγες, ἵπποι, πρόβατα, ὄνοι, ἡμίονοι, τῆς μετὰ ἀνθρώπων κοινωνίας ἀφαιρεθέντα ἔρρει. καὶ ἡ δημιουργήσασα αὐτὰ φύσις ἐν χρείᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατέστησεν τούς τε ἀνθρώπους εἰς τὸ χρῄζειν αὐτῶν, τὸ δίκαιον ἔμφυτον αὐτοῖς τε πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ ἡμῖν πρὸς αὐτὰ κατασκευάσασα. εἰ δέ τινα πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἀγριαίνει, θαυμαστὸν οὐδέν· ἀληθὲς γὰρ ἦν τὸ τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους, ὡς ἀφθονίαν εἰ τῆς τροφῆς πάντα ἐκέκτητο, οὔτ’ ἂν πρὸς ἄλληλα οὔτε πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἔσχεν ἂν ἀγρίως· ταύτης γὰρ χάριν, καίτοι ἀναγκαίας καὶ εὐτελοῦς οὔσης, αἵ τε ἔχθραι καὶ αἱ φιλίαι αὐτοῖς, καὶ τοῦ τόπου ἕνεκα. ἄνθρωποι δὲ εἰ οὕτως εἰς στενὸν κομιδῇ κατεκέκλειντο ὡς τὰ ζῷα, πόσῳ ἂν [ 1048 ]

ἀγριώτεροι καὶ τῶν δοκούντων ἀγρίων ἐγένοντο; διέδειξεν δὲ καὶ ὁ πόλεμος καὶ λιμός, ὅπου οὐδὲ γεύσασθαι φείδονται ἀλλήλων· καὶ ἄνευ γε πολέμου καὶ λιμοῦ τὰ σύντροφα 12. But some one may very properly wonder at those who admit that justice derives its subsistence from the rational part, and who call those animals that have no association with men, savage and unjust, and yet do not extend justice as far as to those that do associate with us; and which, in the same manner as men, would be deprived of life, if they were deprived of human society. Birds, therefore, and dogs, and many quadrupeds, such as goats, horses, sheep, asses, and mules, would perish, if deprived of an association with mankind. Nature, also, the fabricator of their frame, constituted them so as to be in want of men, and fashioned men so as to require their assistance; thus producing an innate justice in them towards us, and in us towards them. But it is not at all wonderful, if some of them are savage towards men; for what Aristotle says is true, that if all animals had an abundance of nutriment, they would not act ferociously, either towards each other, or towards men. For on account of food, though necessary and slender, enmities and friendships are produced among animals, and also on account of the places which they occupy; but if men were reduced to such straits as brutes are [with respect to food,] how much more savage would they become than those animals that appear to be wild? War and famine are indications of the truth of this; for then men do not abstain from eating each other; and even without war and famine, they eat animals that are nurtured with them, and are perfectly tame. [13] καὶ ἥμερα τῶν ζῴων κατεσθίουσιν. ἀλλὰ φαίη τις ἂν ὅτι ἐστὶ μὲν λογικά, οὐκ ἔχει δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τινὰ σχέσιν. καὶ μὴν διὰ τὸ ἄλογα εἶναι ἀφῄρουν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὰ σχέσιν, ἐποίουν ἄλογα, ἔπειτα ἐκ τῆς χρείας ἦν ἀναπτόντων τὴν πρὸς αὐτὰ κοινωνίαν, οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ λόγου· ἡμῖν δὲ εἰ λογικὰ προύκειτο δεῖξαι, οὐκ εἰ συνθήκας πρὸς ἡμᾶς πεποίηται· ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐ πᾶς ἡμῖν συντίθεται, καὶ οὐδεὶς τὸν μὴ συνθέμενον εἴποι ἂν ἄλογον. καίτοι τὰ πολλὰ καὶ ἐδούλευσεν ἀνθρώποις, καί, ὡς ἔφη τις λέγων ὀρθῶς, δουλεύοντα ὑπ’ ἀγνωμοσύνης ἀνθρώπων ὅμως ὑπὸ σοφίας καὶ δικαιοσύνης τοὺς δεσπότας ὑπηρέτας καὶ ἐπιμελητὰς αὑτῶν πεποίηται. αἵ γε μὴν κακίαι αὐτῶν πρόδηλοι, ἐξ ὧν μάλιστα τὸ λογικὸν διαφαίνεται· καὶ γὰρ φθονοῦσιν καὶ ζηλοτυποῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν θηλειῶν, αἵ τε θήλειαι ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀρρένων. μία δὲ αὐτοῖς κακία οὐχ ὑπάρχει, ἐπιβουλὴ τῷ εὐνοοῦντι, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα εὔνοια παντὶ οὖσα τυγχάνει· καὶ τοσοῦτον τῷ εὐνοοῦντι θαρρεῖ, ὡς ἕπεσθαι ᾗ ἂν ἄγῃ τις, κἂν ἐπὶ σφαγὴν καὶ προῦπτον κίνδυνον· κἂν γὰρ μὴ δι’ αὐτά, δι’ ἑαυτὸν δέ τις αὐτὰ τρέφῃ, εὐνοεῖ τῷ κεκτημένῳ. ἄνθρωποι δὲ ἐπ’ οὐδένα οὕτως συνίστανται ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν τρέφοντα, καὶ οὐδένα οὕτως ἀποθνῄσκειν εὔχονται ὡς 13. Some one, however, may say, that brutes are indeed rational animals, but have not a certain habitude, proximity, or alliance to us; but he who asserts this will, in the first place, make them to be irrational animals, in consequence of depriving them of an alliance to our nature. And, in the next place, he will make their association with us to [ 1049 ]

depend on the utility which we derive from them, and not on the participation of reason. The thing proposed by us, however, is to show that brutes are rational animals, and not to inquire whether there is any compact between them and us. For, with respect to men, all of them do not league with us, and yet no one would say, that he who does not enter into a league with us is irrational. But many brutes are slaves to men, and, as someone rightly says, though they are in a state of servitude themselves, through the improbity of men, yet, at the same time, by wisdom and justice, they cause their masters to be their servants and curators. Moreover, the vices of brutes are manifest, from which especially their rationality is demonstrated. For they are envious, and the males are rivals of each other with respect to the favour of the females, and the females with respect to the regard of the males. There is one vice, however, which is not inherent in them, viz., acting insidiously towards their benefactors, but they are perfectly benevolent to those who are kind to them, and place so much confidence in them, as to follow wherever they may lead them, though it should even be to slaughter and manifest danger. And though some one should nourish them, not for their sake, but for his own, yet they will be benevolently disposed towards their possessor. But men [on the contrary] do not act with such hostility towards any one, as towards him who has nourished them; nor do they so much pray for the death of any one, as for his death. [14] τοῦτον. οὕτω δ’ ἐστὶ λογιστικὰ ὧν δρᾷ, ὥστε πολλάκις ἐπιστάμενα τὰ δελέατα ὅτι ἐπίβουλά ἐστι, δι’ ἀκρασίαν πρόσεισιν ἢ διὰ λιμόν. καὶ τὰ μὲν οὐκ εὐθέως προσῆλθεν, τὰ δὲ μέλλει καὶ πειρᾶται εἰ δύναται ἀφελεῖν τὴν τροφὴν ἄνευ τοῦ περιπεσεῖν, καὶ πολλάκις κρατήσαντος τοῦ λογισμοῦ τὸ πάθος ἀπέστη· ἔνια δὲ καὶ ἐνυβρίσαντα καὶ προσουρήσαντα τῷ σοφίσματι τῶν ἀνθρώπων· τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ λιχνείας, εἰδότα ὅτι ἁλώσεται, οὐ χεῖρον ἢ οἱ Ὀδυσσέως ἑταῖροι, περιεῖδε φαγόντα ἀποθανεῖν. οὐ κακῶς δέ τινες κἀκ τῶν τόπων πεπείρανται πολλὰ δεικνύναι μᾶλλον ἡμῶν ἐμφρονέστερα, ὧν εἴληχεν. ὡς γὰρ τὰ κατὰ τὸν αἰθέρα οἰκοῦντά ἐστι λογικά, οὕτω φασὶ τὰ τὸ μετ’ ἐκεῖνον εὐθέως πλησιάζον οἰκοῦντα, ὁποῖα τὰ ἐν ἀέρι, εἶτα τὰ ἔνυδρα διαφέρειν, εἶθ’ οὕτως τὰ ἐπίγεια· ὧν ἡμεῖς τὴν ὑποστάθμην οἰκοῦμεν· οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν θεῶν κἀκ τοῦ τόπου τὸ κρεῖττον συλλογιζόμεθα, οὐχὶ 14. Indeed, the operations of brutes are attended with so much consideration, that they frequently perceive, that the food which is placed for them is nothing else than a snare, though, either through intemperance or hunger, they approach to it. And some of them, indeed, do not approach to it immediately, but others slowly accede to it. They also try whether it is possible to take the food without falling into danger, and frequently in consequence of rationality vanquishing passion, they depart without being injured. Some of them too revile at, and discharge their urine on the stratagem of men; but others, through voracity, though they know that they shall be captured, yet no less than the associates of Ulysses, suffer themselves to die rather than not eat. Some [ 1050 ]

persons, likewise, have not badly endeavoured to show from the places which animals are allotted, that they are far more prudent than we are. For as those beings that dwell in aether are rational, so also, say they, are the animals which occupy the region proximate to aether, viz. the air; afterwards aquatic animals differ from these, and in the last place, the terrestrial differ from the aquatic [in degrees of rationality]. And we belong to the class of terrene animals dwelling in the sediment of the universe. For in the Gods, we must not infer that they possess a greater degree of excellence from the places [which they illuminate], though in mortal natures this may be admitted. [15] δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν θνητῶν τὸ ὅμοιον θήσομεν. ὅταν δὲ καὶ τέχνας ἀναλαμβάνῃ καὶ ταύτας ἀνθρωπίνας, ὀρχεῖσθαι μανθάνοντα καὶ ἡνιοχεῖν μονομαχεῖν τε καὶ καλοβατεῖν, ἤδη δὲ καὶ γράφειν καὶ ἀναγινώσκειν αὐλεῖν τε καὶ κιθαρίζειν καὶ τοξεύειν καὶ ἱππεύειν, ἔτι ἀμφισβητήσεις εἰ τὸ δεξόμενον ἔχει, τοῦ παραδεχθέντος ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρουμένου; ποῦ γὰρ δέχεται, εἰ μὴ ὁ λόγος ὑπῆν ἐν ᾧ συνίστανται αἱ τέχναι; οὐδὲ γὰρ ὡς ψόφου τῆς φωνῆς ἡμῶν ἀκούει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν σημείων τῆς διαφορᾶς ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἐπαίσθησις, ἥτις δὴ ἐκ συνέσεως λογικῆς παραγίνεται. ἀλλὰ κακῶς, φασί, ποιεῖ τὰ ἀνθρωπικά. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωποι πάντες καλῶς· ἢ μάτην ἂν ἀγῶνα καὶ νικῶντες ἦσαν καὶ ἡττώμενοι. ἀλλ’ οὐ βουλεύονται, φασίν, οὐδ’ ἐκκλησιάζουσιν οὐδὲ δικάζουσιν. ἦ γὰρ ἄνθρωποι, εἰπέ μοι, πάντες; οὐχὶ δὲ πολλοῖς, πρὶν βουλεύσονται, αἱ πράξεις; πόθεν δὲ καὶ ἐπιδείξειεν ἄν τις ὅτι οὐ βουλεύονται; τούτου μὲν γὰρ τεκμήριον οὐδεὶς εἰπεῖν ἔχει, τοῦ δ’ ἐναντίου οἱ κατὰ μέρος περὶ τῶν ζῴων συγγράψαντες [ἔδειξαν]. λοιπὸν δὲ τὰ ἄλλα ἕωλα, ὅσα κατ’ αὐτῶν ῥητορεύεται· οἷον ὅτι πόλεις αὐτοῖς οὐκ εἰσίν· οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῖς ἁμαξοβίοις Σκύθαις [φήσω] οὐδὲ τοῖς θεοῖς. οὐδὲ νόμοι γραπτοί, φασίν, παρὰ τοῖς ζῴοις· οὐδὲ γὰρ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις, ἄχρις εὐδαιμόνουν. Ἆπις δὲ λέγεται πρῶτος νομοθετῆσαι παρ’ Ἕλλησιν, 15. Since, also, brutes acquire a knowledge of the arts, and these such as are human, and learn to dance, to drive a chariot, to fight a duel, to walk on ropes, to write and read, to play on the pipe and the harp, to discharge arrows, and to ride, - this being the case, can you any longer doubt whether they possess that power which is receptive of art, since the recipient of these arts may be seen to exist in them? For where will they receive them, unless reason is inherent in them in which the arts subsist? For they do not hear our voice as if it was a mere sound only, but they also perceive the difference in the meaning of the words, which is the effect of rational intelligence. But our opponents say, that animals perform badly what is done by men. To this we reply, that neither do men perform all things well. For if this be not admitted, some men would be in vain victors in a contest, and others vanquished. They add, that brutes do not consult, nor form assemblies, nor act in a judicial capacity. But tell me whether all men do this? Do not actions in the multitude precede consultation? And whence can anyone demonstrate that brutes do not consult? For no one can adduce an argument sufficient [ 1051 ]

to prove that they do not. For those show the contrary to this, who have written minutely about animals. As to other objections, which are adduced by our adversaries in a declamatory way, they are perfectly frivolous; such, for instance, as that brutes have no cities of their own. For neither have the Scythians, who live in carts, nor the Gods. Our opponents add, that neither have brutes any written laws. To this we reply, that neither had men while they were happy. For Apis is said to have been the first that promulgated laws for the Greeks, when they were in want of them. [16] ὅτε ἐδεήθησαν. ἀνθρώποις μὲν οὖν διὰ τὴν λαιμαργίαν οὐ δοκεῖ λόγον ἔχειν τὰ ζῷα· θεοῖς δὲ καὶ θείοις ἀνδράσιν ἐξ ἴσου τοῖς ἱκέταις τετίμηται. καὶ χρῶν γε ὁ θεὸς Ἀριστοδίκῳ τῷ Κυμαίῳ ἱκέτας τοὺς στρουθοὺς αὐτοῦ ἔφη εἶναι. Σωκράτης δὲ καὶ ὤμνυεν κατ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔτι πρὸ αὐτοῦ Ῥαδάμανθυς. Αἰγύπτιοι δὲ καὶ θεοὺς ἐνόμισαν, εἴτε ὄντως θεοὺς ἡγούμενοι, εἴτε ἐξεπίτηδες τὰ τῶν θεῶν εἴδη βουπρόσωπα καὶ ὀρνιθοπρόσωπα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ποιοῦντες, ὅπως αὐτῶν ἐξ ἴσου καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπέχοιντο, εἴτε καὶ δι’ ἄλλας αἰτίας μυστικωτέρας. οὕτω δὴ καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες τῷ μὲν τοῦ Διὸς ἀγάλματι κριοῦ προσῆψαν κέρατα, ταύρου δὲ τῷ Διονύσου· τὸν δὲ Πᾶνα ἐξ ἀνθρώπου καὶ αἰγὸς συνέθηκαν, τὰς δὲ μούσας ἐπτέρωσαν καὶ τὰς σειρῆνας, κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ τήν τε Νίκην καὶ τὴν Ἶριν καὶ τὸν Ἔρωτα καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν. Πίνδαρος δὲ ἐν προσοδίοις πάντας τοὺς θεοὺς ἐποίησεν, ὅτε ὑπὸ Τυφῶνος ἐδιώκοντο, οὐκ ἀνθρώποις ὁμοιωθέντας, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις· ἐρασθέντα δὲ Πασιφάης Δία γενέσθαι ‹νῦν› μὲν ταῦρον, νῦν δὲ ἀετὸν καὶ κύκνον. δι’ ὧν τὴν πρὸς τὰ ζῷα τιμὴν οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐνεδείκνυντο· καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον, ὅταν τὸν Δία θρέψαι λέγωσιν αἶγα. Κρησὶ δὲ νόμος ἦν Ῥαδαμάνθυος, ὅρκον ἐπάγεσθαι πάντα τὰ ζῷα. οὐδὲ Σωκράτης τὸν κύνα καὶ τὸν χῆνα ὀμνὺς ἔπαιζεν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς καὶ Δίκης παῖδα ἐποιεῖτο τὸν ὅρκον, οὐδὲ παίζων ὁμοδούλους αὑτοῦ ἔλεγεν τοὺς κύκνους. αἰνίσσεται δὲ καὶ ὁ μῦθος ὡς ὁμόψυχά ἐστιν ἡμῖν, καὶ χόλῳ μὲν θεῶν μεταβαλεῖν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων εἰς ζῷα, μεταβαλόντας δὲ λοιπὸν ἐλεεῖσθαι καὶ φιλεῖσθαι. τοιαῦτα γὰρ τὰ περὶ δελφίνων λεγόμενα καὶ τὰ περὶ ἀλκυόνων ἀηδόνων τε καὶ χελιδόνων. 16. To men, therefore, on account of their voracity, brutes do not appear to possess reason; but by the Gods and divine men, they are honoured equally with sacred suppliants. Hence, the God  said to Aristodicus, the Cumean, that sparrows were his suppliants. Socrates also, and prior to him, Rhadamanthus, swore by animals. But the Egyptians conceive them to be Gods, whether they, in reality, thought them to be so, or whether they intentionally represented the Gods in the forms of oxen, birds, and other animals, in order that these animals might be no less abstained from than from men, or whether they did this through other more mystical causes . Thus also the Greeks united a ram to the statue of Jupiter, but the horns of a bull to that of Bacchus. They likewise fashioned the statue of Pan from the form of a man and a goat; but they represented the Muses and the Sirens winged, and also Victory, Iris, Love, and Hermes. Pindar too, in his hymns, represents the Gods, when they were expelled by Typhon, not resembling men, [ 1052 ]

but other animals. And Jupiter, when in love with Pasiphae, is said to have become a bull; but at another time, he is said to have been changed into an eagle and a swan; through all which the ancients indicated the honour which they paid to animals, and this in a still greater degree when they assert that Jupiter was nursed by a goat. The Cretans, from a law established by Rhadamanthus, swore by all animals. Nor was Socrates in jest when he swore by the dog and the goose; but in so doing, he swore conformably to the just son of Jupiter [Rhadamanthus] nor did he sportfully say that swans were his fellow-servants. But fables obscurely signify, that animals have souls similar to ours, when they say that the Gods in their anger changed men into brutes, and that, when they were so changed, they afterwards pitied and loved them. For things of this kind are asserted of Dolphins and halcyons, of nightingales and swallows. [17] αὐχεῖ δὲ καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν ἕκαστος, ὅστις εὐτύχησεν τῆς ἐκ ζῴων ἀνατροφῆς, οὐχ οὕτως τοὺς πατέρας ὡς τοὺς ἀναθρεψαμένους, ὃ μὲν λύκαιναν, ὃ δὲ ἔλαφον, ἄλλος αἶγα, ἄλλος μέλιτταν, Σεμίραμις δὲ τὰς περιστεράς, Κῦρος δὲ κύνα, κύκνον δὲ Θρᾷξ, καὶ τοὔνομα τοῦ θρέψαντος ἔφερεν. ὅθεν καὶ θεοῖς ἐπωνυμίαι, Διονύσῳ μὲν εἰραφιώτης, Ἀπόλλωνι δὲ λύκειος καὶ δελφίνιος, Ποσειδῶνι δὲ ἵππιος, καὶ Ἀθηνᾷ ἱππία. ἡ δ’ Ἑκάτη ταῦρος, κύων, λέαινα ἀκούουσα μᾶλλον ὑπακούει. εἰ δ’ ὅτι θύοντες αὐτὰ κατεσθίουσι, διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ αὑτοὺς παραμυθούμενοι ἄλογα λέγουσιν, εἴποιεν ἂν καὶ οἱ τοὺς πατέρας ἑστιώμενοι 17. Each of the ancients, likewise, who had been prosperously nursed by animals, boasted more of this than of their parents and educators. Thus, one boasted of having been nursed by a she-wolf, another by a hind, another by a she-goat another by a bee. But Semiramis gloried in having been brought up by doves, Cyrus in being nursed by a dog, and a Thracian in having a swan for his nurse, who likewise bore the name of his nurse. Hence also, the Gods obtained their surnames, as Bacchus that of Hinnuleus, Apollo that of Lyceus, and, likewise, Delphinius, Neptune and Minerva that of Equestris. But Hecate, when invoked by the names of a bull, a dog, and a lioness, is more propitious. If, however, those who sacrifice animals and eat them, assert that they are irrational, in order that they may mitigate the crime of so doing, the Scythians also, who eat their parents, may in like manner say that their parents are destitute of reason. [18] Σκύθαι ἀλόγους εἶναι τοὺς πατέρας. διὰ μὲν τούτων καὶ ἄλλων, ὧν ἑξῆς μνησθησόμεθα τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν ἐπιτρέχοντες, δείκνυται λογικὰ ὄντα τὰ ζῷα, τοῦ λόγου ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ἀτελοῦς μὲν ὄντος, οὐ μὴν παντελῶς ἐστερημένου. τῆς δὲ δικαιοσύνης πρὸς τὰ λογικὰ οὔσης, καθάπερ φασὶν οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες, πῶς οὐχὶ καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα εἴη ἂν ἡμῖν τὸ δίκαιον; οὐ γὰρ καὶ πρὸς τὰ φυτὰ παρατενοῦμεν τὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, διὰ τὸ φαίνεσθαι πολὺ τὸ πρὸς τὸν λόγον ἀσύγκλωστον· καίτοι κἀνταῦθα τοῖς καρποῖς χρῆσθαι εἰώθαμεν, οὐ μὴν σὺν τοῖς καρποῖς κατακόπτειν καὶ τὰ πρέμνα. τὸν δὲ σιτικὸν καρπὸν καὶ τὸν τῶν χεδρόπων αὐανθέντα καὶ εἰς γῆν πίπτοντα καὶ τεθνηκότα συλλέγομεν, ζῴων δὲ τὰ θνησείδια [πλὴν τῶν ἰχθύων, ἃ καὶ αὐτὰ βίᾳ [ 1053 ]

ἀναιροῦμεν] οὐκ ἄν τις προσενέγκαιτο· ὥστε πολὺ τὸ ἄδικον ἐν τούτοις. ἀρχὴν δέ, ὡς καὶ Πλούταρχος φησίν, οὐκ ἐπεὶ δεῖταί τινων ἡμῶν ἡ φύσις καὶ χρώμεθα τούτοις, ἤδη ἐπὶ πᾶν προακτέον καὶ πρὸς πάντα τὴν ἀδικίαν. δίδωσι μὲν γὰρ καὶ παρέχει τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις τὴν ἄχρι τινὸς βλάβην, εἴ γε βλάβη τὸ λαμβάνειν τι παρὰ τῶν φυτῶν, καίτοι ζώντων μενόντων· τὸ δ’ ἐκ περιουσίας καὶ πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἀπολλύειν ἕτερα καὶ φθείρειν τῆς παντελοῦς ἦν ἀγριότητος καὶ ἀδικίας· καὶ ἡ τούτων ἀποχὴ οὔτε πρὸς τὸ ζῆν οὔτε πρὸς τὸ εὖ ζῆν ἡμᾶς ἠλάττου. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος φυτῶν τε καὶ καρπῶν, ὧν ἄνευ ζῆν ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, οὕτω φόνου ζῴων καὶ βρώσεως σαρκῶν ἐτυγχάνομεν δεόμενοι πρὸς τὸν βίον, ἀναγκαίαν ἡ φύσις συμπλοκὴν εἶχεν ἂν πρὸς ταύτην τὴν ἀδικίαν· εἰ δὲ πολλοὶ μὲν ἱερεῖς θεῶν, πολλοὶ δὲ βασιλεῖς βαρβάρων ἁγνεύοντες, ἄπειρα δὲ γένη ζῴων τὸ παράπαν οὐ θιγγάνοντα τῆς τοιαύτης τροφῆς ζῶσιν καὶ τυγχάνουσι τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν τέλους, πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἄτοπος ὁ κελεύων, εἴ τισιν ἀναγκαζοίμεθα πολεμεῖν, μηδὲ οἷς ἔξεστιν εἰρηνικῶς ὁμιλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ἢ πρὸς μηθὲν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ χρωμένους ζῆν, ἢ πρὸς πάντα χρωμένους μὴ ζῆν; ὥσπερ οὖν ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπων ὃ μὲν αὑτοῦ σωτηρίας ἕνεκα καὶ παίδων καὶ πατρίδος ἢ χρήματά τινων παραιρούμενος ἢ χώραν ἐπιτρίβων καὶ πόλιν ἔχει πρόσχημα τῆς ἀδικίας τὴν ἀνάγκην, ὅστις δὲ ταῦτα δρᾷ διὰ πλοῦτον ἢ κόρον ἢ ἡδονὰς τρυφώσας καὶ ἀποπληρώσεις οὐκ ἀναγκαίων ποριζόμενος ἐπιθυμιῶν, ἄμικτος εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ ἀκρατὴς καὶ πονηρός, οὕτως τὰς μὲν εἰς φυτὰ βλάβας καὶ ‹διὰ› πυρὸς καὶ ναμάτων ἀναλώσεις κουράς τε προβάτων καὶ γάλα βοῶν τε ἐξημέρωσιν καὶ κατάζευξιν ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ καὶ διαμονῇ τοῖς χρωμένοις ὁ θεὸς δίδωσι συγγνώμην, ζῷα δὲ ὑπάγειν σφαγαῖς καὶ μαγειρεύειν ἀναπιμπλαμένους φόνου, μὴ τροφῆς ἢ πληρώσεως χάριν, ἀλλ’ ἡδονῆς καὶ λαιμαργίας ποιουμένους τέλος, ὑπερφυῶς ὡς ἄνομον καὶ δεινόν. ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ὅτι μηδὲν πονεῖν δεομένοις χρώμεθα προκάμνουσι καὶ μοχθοῦσιν, ἵππων ὄνων τ’ ὀχεῖα καὶ ταύρων γονάς, ὡς Αἰσχύλος φησίν, ἀντίδουλα καὶ πόνων ἐκδέκτορα 18. Through these arguments, therefore, and others which we shall afterwards mention, in narrating the opinions of the ancients, it is demonstrated that brutes are rational animals, reason in most of them being indeed imperfect, of which, nevertheless, they are not entirely deprived. Since, however, justice pertains to rational beings, as our opponents say, how is it possible not to admit, that we should also act justly towards brutes? For we do not extend justice to plants, because there appears to be much in them which is unconnected with reason; though of these, we are accustomed to use the fruits, but not together with the fruits to cut off the trunks. We collect however, corn and leguminous substances, when, being efflorescent, they have fallen on the earth, and are dead. But no one uses for food the flesh of dead animals, that of fish being excepted, unless they have been destroyed by violence. So that in these things there is much injustice. As Plutarch also says , it does not follow that [ 1054 ]

because our nature is indigent of certain things, and we use these, we should therefore act unjustly towards all things. For we are allowed to injure other things to a certain extent, in order to procure the necessary means of subsistence (if to take any thing from plants, even while they are living, is an injury to them); but to destroy other things through luxury, and for the enjoyment of pleasure, is perfectly savage and unjust. And the abstinence from these neither diminishes our life nor our living happily. For if, indeed, the destruction of animals and the eating of flesh were as requisite as air and water, plants and fruits, without which it is impossible to live, this injustice would be necessarily connected with our nature. But if many priests of the Gods, and many kings of the barbarians, being attentive to purity, and if, likewise, infinite species of animals never taste food of this kind, yet live, and obtain their proper end according to nature, is not he absurd who orders us, because we are compelled to wage war with certain animals, not to live peaceably with those with whom it is possible to do so, but thinks, either that we ought to live without exercising justice towards any thing, or that, by exercising it towards all things, we should not continue in existence? As, therefore, among men, he who, for the sake of his own safety, or that of his children or country, either seizes the wealth of certain persons, or oppresses some region or city, has necessity for the pretext of his injustice; but he who acts in this manner through the acquisition of wealth, or through satiety or luxurious pleasure, and for the purpose of satisfying desires which are not necessary, appears to be inhospitable, intemperate, and depraved; -thus too, divinity pardons the injuries which are done to plants, the consumption of fire and water, the shearing of sheep, the milking of cows, and the taming of oxen, and subjugating them to the yoke, for the safety and continuance in life of those that use them. But to deliver animals to be slaughtered and cooked, and thus be filled with murder, not for the sake of nutriment and satisfying the wants of nature, but making pleasure and gluttony the end of such conduct, is transcendently iniquitous and dire. For it is sufficient that we use, for laborious purposes, though they have no occasion to labour themselves, the progeny of horses, and asses, and bulls, as Aeschylus says, as our substitutes, who, by being tamed and subjugated to the yoke, alleviate our toil. [19] χειρωσάμενοι καὶ καταζεύξαντες. ὁ δὲ ἀξιῶν ἡμᾶς ὄψῳ μὴ χρῆσθαι βοΐ, μηδὲ πνεῦμα καὶ ζωὴν διολλύντας καὶ διαφθείροντας ἡδύσματα πλησμονῆς καὶ καλλωπίσματα προστίθεσθαι τραπέζης, τίνος ἀναγκαίου πρὸς σωτηρίαν [ἢ καλοῦ πρὸς ἀρετὴν] ἀφαιρεῖται τὸν βίον; οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ζῴοις τὰ φυτὰ παραβάλλειν κομιδῇ βίαιον. τὰ μὲν γὰρ αἰσθάνεσθαι πέφυκε καὶ ἀλγεῖν καὶ φοβεῖσθαι καὶ βλάπτεσθαι, διὸ καὶ ἀδικεῖσθαι· τοῖς δὲ οὐθέν ἐστιν αἰσθητόν, οὕτως δὲ οὐδὲ ἀλλότριον οὐδὲ κακὸν οὐδὲ βλάβη τις οὐδὲ ἀδικία. καὶ γὰρ οἰκειώσεως πάσης καὶ ἀλλοτριώσεως ἀρχὴ τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι. τὴν δὲ οἰκείωσιν ἀρχὴν τίθενται δικαιοσύνης οἱ ἀπὸ [ 1055 ]

Ζήνωνος. πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἄλογον πολλοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπ’ αἰσθήσει μόνον ζῶντας ὁρῶντας, νοῦν δὲ καὶ λόγον οὐκ ἔχοντας, πολλοὺς δὲ πάλιν ὠμότητι καὶ θυμῷ καὶ πλεονεξίᾳ τὰ φοβερώτατα τῶν θηρίων ὑπερβεβληκότας, παιδοφόνους καὶ πατροκτόνους, τυράννους καὶ βασιλέων ὑπουργούς, πρὸς μὲν τούτους οἴεσθαι ‹δίκαιόν τι› εἶναι ἡμῖν, πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἀροτῆρα βοῦν καὶ τὸν σύντροφον κύνα καὶ τὰ γάλακτι μὲν τρέφοντα, κουρᾷ δὲ κοσμοῦντα θρέμματα μηδὲν 19. But with respect to him who thinks that we should not use an ox for food, nor destroying and corrupting spirit and life, place things on the table which are only the allurements and elegances of satiety, of what does he deprive our life, which is either necessary to our safety, or subservient to virtue? To compare plants, however, with animals, is doing violence to the order of things. For the latter are naturally sensitive, and adapted to feel pain, to be terrified and hurt; on which account also they may be injured. But the former are entirely destitute of sensation, and in consequence of this, nothing foreign, or evil, or hurtful, or injurious, can befall them. For sensation is the principle of all alliance, and of every thing of a foreign nature. But Zeno and his followers assert, that alliance is the principle of justice. And is it not absurd, since we see that many of our own species live from sense alone, but do not possess intellect and reason, and since we also see, that many of them surpass the most terrible of wild beasts in cruelty, anger, and rapine, being murderous of their children and their parents, and also being tyrants, and the tools of kings [is it not, I say, absurd,] to fancy that we ought to act justly towards these, but that no justice is due from us to the ox that ploughs, the dog that is fed with us, and the animals that nourish us with their milk, and adorn our bodies with their wool? Is it not such an opinion most irrational and absurd? [20] εἶναι, πῶς οὐ παραλογώτατόν ἐστιν; ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο νὴ Δία τοῦ Χρυσίππου πιθανὸν ἦν, ὡς ἡμᾶς αὑτῶν καὶ ἀλλήλων οἱ θεοὶ χάριν ἐποιήσαντο, ἡμῶν δὲ τὰ ζῷα, συμπολεμεῖν μὲν ἵππους καὶ συνθηρεύειν κύνας, ἀνδρείας δὲ γυμνάσια παρδάλεις καὶ ἄρκτους καὶ λέοντας. ἡ δὲ ὗς, ἐνταῦθα γάρ ἐστιν τῶν χαρίτων τὸ ἥδιστον. οὐ δι’ ἄλλο τι πλὴν θύεσθαι ἐγεγόνει, καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὁ θεὸς οἷον ἅλας ἐνέμιξεν, εὐοψίαν ἡμῖν μηχανώμενος. ὅπως δὲ ζωμοῦ καὶ παραδειπνίων ἀφθονίαν ἔχωμεν, ὄστρεά τε παντοδαπὰ καὶ πορφύρας καὶ ἀκαλήφας καὶ γένη πτηνῶν ποικίλα παρεσκεύασεν, οὐκ ἀλλαχόθεν, ἀλλ’ ὡς αὑτοῦ μέγα μέρος ἐνταῦθα τρέψας εἰς γλυκυθυμίας, τὰς τιτθὰς ὑπερβαλόμενος καὶ καταπυκνώσας ταῖς ἡδοναῖς καὶ ἀπολαύσεσιν τὸν περίγειον τόπον. ὅτῳ δὴ ταῦτα δοκεῖ τι τοῦ πιθανοῦ καὶ θεῷ πρέποντος μετέχειν, σκοπείτω, τί πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἐρεῖ τὸν λόγον ὃν Καρνεάδης ἔλεγεν· ἕκαστον τῶν φύσει γεγονότων ὅταν τοῦ πρὸς ὃ πέφυκε καὶ γέγονε τυγχάνῃ [τέλους], ὠφελεῖται. κοινότερον δὲ ‹τὸ› τῆς ὠφελείας, ἣν εὐχρηστίαν οὗτοι λέγουσιν, ἀκουστέον. ἡ δὲ ὗς φύσει γέγονε πρὸς τὸ σφαγῆναι καὶ καταβρωθῆναι· καὶ τοῦτο πάσχουσα τυγχάνει τοῦ πρὸς ὃ πέφυκε, καὶ ὠφελεῖται. καὶ μὴν εἰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων χρῆσιν ὁ θεὸς μεμηχάνηται τὰ ζῷα, τί χρησόμεθα μυίαις, ἐμπίσι, νυκτερίσιν, κανθάροις, σκορπίοις, ἐχίδναις; ὧν τὰ μὲν ὁρᾶν εἰδεχθῆ καὶ θιγγάνειν μιαρὰ καὶ κατ’ ὀδμὰς [ 1056 ]

δυσανάσχετα καὶ φθέγγεται δεινὸν καὶ ἀτερπές, τὰ δ’ ἄντικρυς ὀλέθρια τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι· φαλαίνας τε καὶ πρίστεις καὶ τὰ ἄλλα κήτη, ἃ μυρία βόσκειν Ὅμηρος φησὶν ἀγάστονον Ἀμφιτρίτην, τί οὐκ ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς ὁ δημιουργὸς ὅπῃ χρήσιμα τῇ φύσει γέγονεν; εἰ δὲ οὐ πάντα φασὶν ἡμῖν καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς γεγονέναι, πρὸς τῷ σύγχυσιν ἔχειν πολλὴν καὶ ἀσάφειαν τὸν διορισμὸν οὐδὲ ἐκφεύγομεν τὸ ἀδικεῖν, ἐπιτιθέμενοι καὶ χρώμενοι βλαβερῶς τοῖς οὐ δι’ ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς κατὰ φύσιν γεγενημένοις. ἐῶ λέγειν ὅτι τῇ χρείᾳ τὸ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁρίζοντες οὐκ ἂν φθάνοιμεν ἑαυτοὺς ἕνεκα τῶν ὀλεθριωτάτων ζῴων, οἷα κροκόδειλοι καὶ φάλαιναι καὶ δράκοντες, γεγονέναι συγχωροῦντες. ἡμῖν μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν ἀπ’ ἐκείνων ὑπάρχει τὸ παράπαν ὠφελεῖσθαι· τὰ δὲ ἁρπάζοντα καὶ διαφθείροντα τοὺς παραπίπτοντας ἀνθρώπους βορᾷ χρῆται, μηδὲν ἡμῶν κατὰ τοῦτο δρῶντα χαλεπώτερον, πλὴν ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἔνδεια καὶ λιμὸς ἐπὶ ταύτην ἄγει τὴν ἀδικίαν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ὕβρει καὶ τρυφῆς ἕνεκα παίζοντες πολλάκις ἐν θεάτροις καὶ κυνηγεσίοις τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ζῴων φονεύομεν. ἐξ ὧν δὴ καὶ τὸ μὲν φονικὸν καὶ θηριῶδες ἡμῶν ἐπερρώσθη καὶ τὸ πρὸς οἶκτον ἀπαθές, τοῦ δ’ ἡμέρου τὸ πλεῖστον ἀπήμβλυναν οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦτο τολμήσαντες. οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν πρὸς τὰ θηρία πραότητα μελέτην ἐποιήσαντο τοῦ φιλανθρώπου καὶ φιλοικτίρμονος. ὥστε πῶς οὐχ οὗτοι πρὸς δικαιοσύνην μᾶλλον ἤγειραν ἢ οἱ φθείρεσθαι λέγοντες ἐκ τούτων τὴν συνήθη δικαιοσύνην; ἡ γὰρ συνήθεια δεινὴ τοῖς κατὰ μικρὸν ἐνοικειουμένοις πάθεσι πόρρω προαγαγεῖν 20. But, by Jupiter, the assertion of Chrysippus is considered by our opponents to be very probable, that the Gods made us for the sake of themselves, and for the sake of each other, and that they made animals for the sake of us; horses, indeed, in order that they might assist us in battle, dogs, that they might hunt with us, and leopards, bears, and lions, for the sake of exercising our fortitude. But the hog (for here the pleasantry of Chrysippus is most delightful) was not made for any other purpose than to be sacrificed; and God mingled soul, as if it were salt, with the flesh of this animal, that he might procure for us excellent food. In order, likewise, that we might have an abundance of broth, and luxurious suppers, divinity provided for us all-various kinds of shell-fish, the fishes called purples, sea-nettles, and the various kinds of winged animals; and this not from a certain other cause, but only that he might supply man with an exuberance of pleasure; in so doing, surpassing all nurses [in kindness], and thickly filling with pleasures and enjoyments the terrestrial place. Let him, however, to whom these assertions appear to possess a certain probability, and to participate of something worthy of deity, consider what he will reply to the saying of Carneades, that every thing which is produced by nature, is benefited when it obtains the end to which it is adapted, and for which it was generated. But benefit is to be understood in a more general way, as signifying what the Stoics call useful. The hog, however, [says he] was produced by nature for the purpose of being slaughtered and used for food; and when it suffers this, it obtains the end for which it is adapted, and is benefited. But if God fashioned animals [ 1057 ]

for the use of men, in what do we use flies, lice, bats, beetles, scorpions, and vipers? of which some are odious to the sight, defile the touch, are intolerable to the smell, and in their voice dire and unpleasant; and others, on the contrary, are destructive to those that meet with them. And with respect to the balance, pistrices, and other species of whales, an infinite number of which, as Homer says , the loud-sounding Amphitrite nourishes, does not the Demiurgus teach us, that they were generated for the utility of the nature of things?  And if our opponents should admit that all things were not generated for us, and with a view to our advantage, in addition to the distinction which they make being very confused and obscure, we shall not avoid acting unjustly, in attacking and noxiously using those animals which were not produced for our sake, but according to nature [i.e. for the sake of the universe], as we were. I omit to mention, that if we define, by utility, things which pertain to us, we shall not be prevented from admitting, that we were generated for the sake of the most destructive animals, such as crocodiles, balaenae, and dragons. For we are not in the least benefited by them; but they seize and destroy men that fall in their way, and use them for food; in so doing acting not at all more cruelly than we do, excepting that they commit this injustice through want and hunger, but we through insolent wantonness, and for the sake of luxury, frequently sporting in theatres, and in hunting slaughter the greater part of animals. And by thus acting, indeed, a murderous disposition and a brutal nature become strengthened in us, and render us insensible to pity: to which we may add, that those who first dared to do this, blunted the greatest part of lenity, and rendered it inefficacious. The Pythagoreans, however, made lenity towards beasts to be an exercise of philanthropy and commiseration. So that, how is it possible they should not in a greater degree excite us to justice, than those who assert that, by not slaughtering animals, the justice which is usually exercised towards men will be corrupted? For custom is most powerful in increasing those passions in man which were gradually introduced into his nature. [21] τὸν ἄνθρωπον. ναί, φασίν, ἀλλ’ ὡς τῷ θνητῷ τὸ ἀθάνατον ἀντίκειται καὶ τῷ φθαρτῷ τὸ ἄφθαρτον καὶ σώματί γε τὸ ἀσώματον, οὕτως ὑπάρχοντί γε τῷ λογικῷ χρῆναι τὸ ἄλογον ἀντικεῖσθαι καὶ ἀνθυπάρχειν, καὶ μὴ μόνην ἐν τοσαῖσδε συζυγίαις ἀτελῆ τήνδε λείπεσθαι καὶ πεπηρωμένην, ὥσπερ ἡμῶν μὴ τοῦτο συγχωρούντων ἢ πολὺ τὸ ἄλογον ἐπιδεικνύντων ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν. πολὺ γὰρ δήπου καὶ ἄφθονον ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ψυχῆς ἀμοιροῦσι, καὶ οὐδὲν ἑτέρας δεόμεθα πρὸς τὸ λογικὸν ἀντιθέσεως· ἀλλὰ πᾶν εὐθὺς τὸ ἄψυχον, ἄλογον ὂν καὶ ἀνόητον, ἀντίκειται τῷ μετὰ ψυχῆς λόγον ἔχοντι καὶ διάνοιαν. εἰ δέ τις ἀξιοῖ μὴ κολοβὸν εἶναι τὴν φύσιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἔμψυχον φύσιν ἔχειν τὸ μὲν λογικόν, τὸ δὲ ἄλογον, ἕτερος ἀξιώσει τὴν ἔμψυχον φύσιν ἔχειν τὸ μὲν φανταστικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀφαντασίωτον, καὶ τὸ μὲν αἰσθητικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀναίσθητον, ἵνα δὴ τὰς ἀντιζύγους ταύτας καὶ ἀντιθέτους ἕξεις καὶ στερήσεις περὶ ταὐτὸν ἡ φύσις ἔχῃ γένος οἷον [ 1058 ]

ἰσορρόπους. [ἀλλ’ ἄτοπον τοῦτό γε.] εἰ δὲ ἄτοπος ὁ ζητῶν τοῦ ἐμψύχου τὸ μὲν αἰσθητικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀναίσθητον εἶναι, καὶ τὸ μὲν φαντασιούμενον, τὸ δὲ ἀφαντασίωτον, ὅτι πᾶν ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικὸν εὐθὺς εἶναι καὶ φανταστικὸν πέφυκεν, οὐδ’ οὕτως ἐπιεικῶς ἀπαιτήσει τὸ μὲν λογικὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἐμψύχου, τὸ δὲ ἄλογον, πρὸς ἀνθρώπους διαλεγόμενος μηθὲν οἰομένους αἰσθήσεως μετέχειν ὃ μὴ καὶ συνέσεως, μηδ’ εἶναι ζῷον ᾧ μὴ δόξα τις καὶ λογισμὸς ὥσπερ αἴσθησις καὶ ὁρμὴ κατὰ φύσιν πάρεστιν. ἡ γὰρ φύσις, ἣν ἕνεκά του καὶ πρός τι πάντα ποιεῖν ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν, οὐκ ἐπὶ ψιλῷ τῷ πάσχειν καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον αἰσθητικὸν ἐποίησεν, ἀλλὰ ὄντων μὲν οἰκείων πρὸς αὐτὸ πολλῶν, ὄντων δὲ ἀλλοτρίων, οὐδὲ ἀκαρὲς ἦν περιεῖναι μὴ μαθόντι τὰ μὲν φυλάττεσθαι, τοῖς δὲ συμφέρεσθαι. τὴν μὲν οὖν γνῶσιν ἀμφοῖν ὁμοίως ἡ αἴσθησις ἑκάστῳ παρέχει, τὰς δὲ ἑπομένας τῇ αἰσθήσει τῶν μὲν ὠφελίμων λήψεις καὶ διώξεις, διακρούσεις δὲ καὶ φυγὰς τῶν ὀλεθρίων καὶ λυπηρῶν, οὐδεμία μηχανὴ παρεῖναι τοῖς μὴ λογίζεσθαί τι καὶ κρίνειν καὶ μνημονεύειν καὶ προσέχειν πεφυκόσιν. ὧν γὰρ ἂν ἀφέλῃς παντάπασιν προσδοκίαν, μνήμην, πρόθεσιν, παρασκευήν, τὸ ἐλπίζειν, τὸ δεδοικέναι, τὸ ἐπιθυμεῖν, τὸ ἀσχάλλειν, οὔτε ὀμμάτων ὄφελος παρόντων οὔτε ὤτων, αἰσθήσεώς τε πάσης καὶ φαντασίας τὸ χρώμενον οὐκ ἐχούσης ἀπηλλάχθαι βέλτιον ἢ πονεῖν καὶ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀλγεῖν, ᾧ διακρούσεται ταῦτα μὴ παρόντος. καίτοι Στράτωνός γε τοῦ φυσικοῦ λόγος ἐστὶν ἀποδεικνύων, ὡς οὐδὲ αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸ παράπαν ἄνευ τοῦ νοεῖν ὑπάρχει. καὶ γὰρ γράμματα πολλάκις ἐπιπορευομένους τῇ ὄψει καὶ λόγοι προσπίπτοντες τῇ ἀκοῇ διαλανθάνουσιν ἡμᾶς καὶ διαφεύγουσι πρὸς ἑτέροις τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντας· εἶτ’ αὖθις ἐπανῆλθεν καὶ μεταθεῖ καὶ διώκει τῶν προειρημένων ἕκαστον ἀναλεγόμενος· ᾗ καὶ λέλεκται, νοῦς ὁρᾷ, νοῦς ἀκούει, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά· ὡς τοῦ περὶ τὰ ὄμματα καὶ τὰ ὦτα πάθους, ἂν μὴ παρῇ τὸ φρονοῦν, αἴσθησιν οὐ ποιοῦντος. διὸ καὶ Κλεομένης ὁ βασιλεὺς παρὰ πότον εὐδοκιμοῦντος ἀκροάματος, ἐρωτηθεὶς εἴ οἱ φαίνεται σπουδαῖον, ἐκέλευεν ἐκείνους σκοπεῖν, αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ τὸν νοῦν ἔχειν. ὅθεν ἀνάγκη πᾶσιν οἷς τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι, 21. It is so, say our antagonists; but as the immortal is opposed to the mortal, the incorruptible to the corruptible, and the incorporeal to the corporeal, so to the rational essence which has an existence in the nature of things, the irrational essence must be opposed, which has a subsistence contrary to it; nor in so many conjugations of things, is this alone to be left imperfect and mutilated. [Our opponents, however, thus speak], as if we did not grant this, or as if we had not shown that there is much of the irrational among beings. For there is an abundance of it in all the natures that are destitute of soul, nor do we require any other opposition to that which is rational; but immediately every thing which is deprived of soul, being irrational and without intellect, is opposed to that which possesses reason and dianoia . If, however, some one should think fit to assert that not nature in common, but the animated nature, is divided into that which possess and that which is without imagination, and into that which is sensitive, and that which is deprived of sensation, in order that these oppositions of habits and privations may subsist about the same genus, as being equiponderant; - he who says this speaks [ 1059 ]

absurdly. For it would be absurd to investigate in the animated nature that which is sensitive, and that which is without sensation, that which employs, and that which is without imagination, because every thing animated is immediately adapted to be sensitive and imaginative. So that neither thus will he justly require, that one part of the animated nature should be rational, but another irrational, when he is speaking to men, who think that nothing participates of sense which does not also participate of intelligence, and that nothing is an animal in which opinion and reasoning are not inherent, in the same manner as with animals every sense and impulse are naturally present. For nature, which they rightly assert produced all things for the sake of a certain thing, and with reference to a certain end, did not make an animal sensitive merely that it might be passively affected, and possess sensible perception; but as there are many things which are allied and appropriate, and many which are foreign to it, it would not be able to exist for the shortest space of time, unless it learnt how to avoid some things, and to pursue others. The knowledge, therefore, of both these, sense similarly imparts to every animal; but the apprehension and pursuit of what is useful, and the depulsion and avoidance of what is destructive and painful, can by no possible contrivance be present with those animals that are incapable of reasoning, judging, and remembering, and that do not naturally possess an animadvertise power. For to those animals from whom you entirely take away expectation, memory, design, preparation, hope, fear, desire, and indignation, neither the eyes when present, nor the ears, nor sense, nor phantasy, will be beneficial, since they will be of no use; and it will be better to be deprived of them than to labour, be in pain, and be afflicted, without possessing the power of repelling these molestations. There is, however, a treatise of Strato, the physiologist, in which it is demonstrated, that it is not possible to have a sensible perception of anything without the energy of intellection. For frequently the letters of a book, which we cursorily consider by the sight, and words which fall on the auditory sense, are concealed from and escape us, when our intellect is attentive to other things; but afterwards, when it returns to the thing to which it was before inattentive, then, by recollection, it runs through and pursues each of the before-mentioned particulars. Hence also it is said [by Epicharmus], — ’Tis mind alone that sees and hears, And all besides is deaf and blind. For the objects which fall on the eyes and the ears do not produce a sensible perception of themselves, unless that which is intellective is present. On which account, also, king Cleomenes, when something that was recited was applauded, being asked, if it did not also appear to him to be excellent, left this to the decision of those that asked him the question; for he said, that his intellect was at the time in Peloponnesus. Hence [ 1060 ]

it is necessary that intellect should be present with ail those with whom sensible perception is present. [22] καὶ τὸ νοεῖν ὑπάρχειν. ἀλλ’ ἔστω μὴ δεῖσθαι τοῦ νοῦ τὴν αἴσθησιν πρὸς τὸ αὑτῆς ἔργον· ἀλλ’ ὅταν γε τῷ ζῴῳ πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ τὸ ἀλλότριον ἡ αἴσθησις ἐνεργασαμένη διαφορὰν ἀπέλθῃ, τί τὸ μνημονεῦόν ἐστιν ἤδη καὶ δεδιὸς τὰ λυποῦντα καὶ ποθοῦν τὰ ὠφέλιμα καὶ μὴ παρόντα ὅπως παρέσται μηχανώμενον ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ παρασκευαζόμενον ὁρμητήρια καὶ καταφυγὰς καὶ θήρατρα πάλιν αὖ τοῖς ἁλωσομένοις καὶ ἀποδράσεις τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων; καίτοι γε κἀκεῖνοι λέγοντες ἀποκναίουσιν ἐν ταῖς εἰσαγωγαῖς ἑκάστοτε τὴν πρόθεσιν ὁριζόμενοι σημείωσεν ἐπιτελειώσεως, τὴν δ’ ἐπιβολὴν ὁρμὴν πρὸ ὁρμῆς, παρασκευὴν δὲ πρᾶξιν πρὸ πράξεως, μνήμην δὲ κατάληψιν ἀξιώματος παρεληλυθότος, οὗ τὸ παρὸν ἐξ αἰσθήσεως κατελήφθη. τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ὅτι μὴ λογικόν ἐστι, καὶ πάντα τοῖς ζῴοις ὑπάρχει πᾶσιν· ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς νοήσεις, ἃς ἐναποκειμένας μὲν ἐννοίας καλοῦσιν, κινουμένας δὲ διανοήσεις. τὰ δὲ πάθη σύμπαντα κοινῶς κρίσεις φαύλας καὶ δόξας ὁμολογοῦντες εἶναι, θαυμαστὸν ὅτι δὴ παρορῶσιν ἐν τοῖς θηρίοις ἔργα καὶ κινήματα, πολλὰ μὲν θυμῶν, πολλὰ δὲ φόβων καὶ νὴ Δία φθόνων καὶ ζηλοτυπιῶν. αὐτοὶ δὲ κύνας ἁμαρτόντας καὶ ἵππους κολάζουσιν, οὐ διὰ κενῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ σωφρονισμῷ, λύπην δι’ ἀλγηδόνος ἐμποιοῦντες αὐτοῖς, ἣν μετάνοιαν ὀνομάζομεν. ἡδονῆς δὲ τῆς μὲν δι’ ὤτων ὄνομα κήλησίς ἐστιν, τῆς δὲ δι’ ὀμμάτων γοητεία. χρῶνται δὲ ἑκατέραις ἐπὶ τὰ θηρία· κηλοῦνται μὲν ἔλαφοι καὶ ἵπποι σύριγξιν καὶ αὐλοῖς, καὶ τοὺς παγούρους ἐκ τῶν χηραμῶν ἀνακαλοῦνται μελιζόμενοι ταῖς σύριγξι, καὶ τὴν θρίσσαν ᾀδόντων ἀναδύεσθαι καὶ προϊέναι λέγουσιν. οἱ δὲ περὶ τούτων ἀβελτέρως λέγοντες μήτε ἥδεσθαι μήτε θυμοῦσθαι μήτε φοβεῖσθαι μήτε παρασκευάζεσθαι μήτε μνημονεύειν, ἀλλ’ ὡσανεὶ μνημονεύειν τὴν μέλιτταν καὶ ὡσανεὶ παρασκευάζεσθαι τὴν ἀηδόνα καὶ ὡσανεὶ θυμοῦσθαι τὸν λέοντα καὶ ὡσανεὶ φοβεῖσθαι τὸν ἔλαφον, οὐκ οἶδα τί χρήσονται τοῖς λέγουσι μηδὲ βλέπειν μηδὲ ἀκούειν, ἀλλ’ ὡσανεὶ βλέπειν αὐτὰ καὶ ὡσανεὶ ἀκούειν, μηδὲ φωνεῖν ἀλλ’ ὡσανεὶ φωνεῖν, μηδὲ ὅλως ζῆν ἀλλ’ ὡσανεὶ ζῆν. ταῦτα γὰρ ἐκείνων οὐ μᾶλλόν ἐστι λεγόμενα παρὰ τὴν ἐνάργειαν ὁμοίως, ὡς ὁ εὐγνώμων ἂν πεισθείη. ὅταν δὲ τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἤθεσιν καὶ βίοις καὶ πράξεσιν καὶ διαίταις τὰ τῶν ζῴων παρατιθεὶς πολλὴν ἐνορῶ φαυλότητα, καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς, πρὸς ἣν ὁ λόγος γέγονεν, μηδένα τῶν ζῴων ἐμφανῆ στοχασμὸν μηδὲ προκοπὴν μηδὲ ὄρεξιν, ἀποροίην ἂν πῶς ἡ φύσις δέδωκε τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸ τέλος ἐξικέσθαι μὴ δυναμένοις· ἢ τοῦτο μὲν οὐδ’ ἐκείνοις ἄτοπον εἶναι δοκεῖ. τὴν γοῦν πρὸς τὰ ἔκγονα φιλοστοργίαν, ἀρχὴν μὲν ἡμῖν κοινωνίας καὶ δικαιοσύνης τιθέμενοι, πολλὴν δὲ τοῖς ζῴοις καὶ ἰσχυρὰν ὁρῶντες παροῦσαν, οὐ φασὶν αὐτοῖς οὐδ’ ἀξιοῦσι μετεῖναι δικαιοσύνης· ἡμιόνοις δὲ τῶν γεννητικῶν μορίων οὐδὲν ἐνδεῖ· καὶ γὰρ αἰδοῖα καὶ μήτρας καὶ τὸ χρῆσθαι μεθ’ ἡδονῆς τούτοις ἔχουσαι, πρὸς τὸ τέλος οὐκ ἐξικνοῦνται τῆς γενέσεως. σκόπει δὲ ἄλλως μὴ καταγέλαστόν ἐστι τοὺς Σωκράτεις καὶ τοὺς Πλάτωνας καὶ τοὺς Ζήνωνας οὐδὲν ἐλαφροτέρᾳ κακίᾳ τοῦ τυχόντος ἀνδραπόδου συνεῖναι φάσκειν, ἀλλ’ ὁμοίως ἄφρονας εἶναι καὶ ἀκολάστους καὶ ἀδίκους, εἶτα τῶν θηρίων αἰτιᾶσθαι τὸ μὴ καθαρὸν μηδ’ ἀπηκριβωμένον πρὸς ἀρετήν, ὡς στέρησιν οὐχὶ φαυλότατα λόγου καὶ [ 1061 ]

ἀσθένειαν προσεῖναι, καὶ ταῦτα τὴν κακίαν ὁμολογοῦντας εἶναι λογικήν, ἧς πᾶν θηρίον ἀναπέπλησται. καὶ γὰρ δειλίαν πολλοῖς καὶ ἀκολασίαν 22. Let us, however, admit that sense does not require intellect for the accomplishment of its proper work, yet, when energizing about what is appropriate and what is foreign, it discerns the difference between the two, it must then exercise the power of memory, and must dread that which will produce pain, desire that which will be beneficial, and contrive, if it is absent, how it may be present, and will procure methods of pursuing and investigating what is advantageous, and of avoiding and flying from hostile occurrences. Indeed, our opponents, in their Introductions, [as they call them], every where inculcate these things with a tedious prolixity, defining design to be an indication of perfection; the tendency of intellect to the object of its perception, an impulse prior to impulse; preparation, an action prior to action; and memory, the comprehension of some past thing, the perception of which, when present, was obtained through sense. For there is not any one of these which is not rational, and all of them are present with all animals. Thus, too, with respect to intellections, those which are reposited in the mind, are called by them εννοιαι, notions; but when they are in motion [through a discursive energy] they denominate them διανοησεις, or perceptions obtained by a reasoning process. But with respect to all the passions, as they are in common acknowledged to be depraved natures and opinions, it is wonderful that our opponents should overlook the operations and motions of brutes, many of which are the effects of anger, many of fear, and, by Jupiter, of envy also and emulation. Our opponents, too, themselves punish dogs and horses when they do wrong; and this not in vain, but in order to make them better, producing in them, through the pain, a sorrow which we denominate repentance. But the name of the pleasure which is received through the ears is κηλησις, i.e. an ear-alluring sweetness; and the delight which is received through the eyes is denominated γοητεια, i.e. enchantment. Each of these, however, is used towards brutes. Hence stags and horses are allured by the harmony produced from reeds and flutes; and the crabs, called παγουροι, paguri, are evocated from their caverns by the melody of reeds. The fish thrissa, likewise, is said through harmony to come forth from its retreats. Those, however, who speak stupidly about these things, assert that animals are neither delighted, nor enraged, nor terrified, nor make any provision for what is necessary, nor remember; but they say that the bee as it were remembers, that the swallow as it were, provides what is requisite, that the lion is as it were angry, and that the stag is as it were afraid. And I know not what answer to give to those who say that animals neither see nor hear, but see as it were, and as it were hear; that they do not utter vocal sounds, but as it were utter them; and that, in short, they do not live, but as it were live. For he who is truly intelligent, will readily admit that these [ 1062 ]

assertions are no more sane than the former, and are similarly destitute of evidence. When, however, on comparing with human manners and lives, actions and modes of living, those of animals, I see much depravity in the latter, and no manifest tendency to virtue as to the principal end, nor any proficiency, or appetition of proficiency, I am dubious why nature gave the beginning of perfection to those that are never able to arrive at the end of it . But this to our opponents does not appear to be at all absurd. For as they admit that the love of parents towards their offspring is the principle in us of association and justice; yet, though they perceive that this affection is abundant and strong in animals, they nevertheless deny that they participate of justice; which assertion is similarly defective with the nature of mules, who, though they are not in want of any generative member, since they have a penis and vulva, and receive pleasure from employing these parts, yet they are not able to accomplish the end of generation. Consider the thing, too, in another way: Is it not ridiculous to say that such men as Socrates, Plato and Zeno, were not less vicious than any slave, but resembled slaves in stupidity, intemperance, and injustice, and afterwards blame the nature of brutes, as neither pure, nor formed with sufficient accuracy for the attainment of virtue; thus attributing to them a privation, and not a depravity and imbecility of reason? Especially since they acknowledge that there is a vice of the rational part of the soul, with which every brute is replete. For we may perceive that timidity, intemperance, injustice, and malevolence, are inherent in many brutes. [23] ἀδικίαν τε καὶ κακόνοιαν ὁρῶμεν ὑπάρχουσαν. ὁ δὲ ἀξιῶν τὸ μὴ πεφυκὸς ὀρθότητα λόγου δέχεσθαι μηδὲ λόγον δέχεσθαι, πρῶτον μὲν οὐδὲν διαφέρει τοῦ μήτε πίθηκον αἴσχους φύσει μετέχειν μήτε χελώνην βραδυτῆτος ἀξιοῦντος, ὅτι μηδὲ κάλλους ἐπιδεκτικὰ μηδὲ τάχους ἐστίν· ἔπειτα τὴν διαφορὰν ἐμποδὼν οὖσαν οὐ συνορᾷ. λόγος μὲν γὰρ ἐγγίνεται φύσει, σπουδαῖος δὲ λόγος καὶ τέλειος ἐξ ἐπιμελείας καὶ διδασκαλίας. διὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐμψύχοις μέτεστι, τὴν δὲ ὀρθότητα καὶ σοφίαν οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπον εἰπεῖν κεκτημένον ἔχουσιν, κἂν μυρίοι δὲ ὦσιν. ὥσπερ ὄψεώς ἐστιν πρὸς ὄψιν διαφορὰ καὶ πτήσεως πρὸς πτῆσιν· οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως ἱέρακες βλέπουσι καὶ τέττιγες, οὐδὲ ἀετοὶ πέτονται καὶ πέρδικες· οὕτως οὐδὲ παντὶ λογικῷ μέτεστιν ὡσαύτως τῆς δεχομένης τὸ ἄκρον εὐστροφίας καὶ ὀξύτητος. ἐπιδείγματά γε πολλὰ κοινωνίας καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ τοῦ πανούργου περὶ τοὺς πορισμοὺς καὶ τὰς οἰκονομίας, ὥσπερ αὖ καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων, ἀδικίας, δειλίας, ἀβελτερίας, ἔνεστιν αὐτοῖς. ὅθεν καὶ ζητήσεις τινὲς συνίστανται, τῶν μὲν τὰ χερσαῖα προῆχθαι λεγόντων, τῶν δὲ τὰ θαλάττια. καὶ δῆλόν ἐστι παραβαλλομένων ἵππων χερσαίων τοῖς ποταμίοις· οἳ μὲν γὰρ τρέφουσι τοὺς πατέρας, οἳ δὲ κτείνουσιν, ἵνα τὰς μητέρας ὀχεύωσιν· καὶ περιστεραῖς πάλιν περδίκων· οἳ μὲν γὰρ ἀφανίζουσι τὰ ᾠὰ καὶ διαφθείρουσι, τῆς θηλείας, ὅταν ἐπῳάζῃ, μὴ προσδεχομένης τὴν ὀχείαν· οἳ δὲ καὶ διαδέχονται τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἐν μέρει θάλποντες, καὶ ψωμίζουσι πρότεροι τὰ νεόττια, καὶ τὴν θήλειαν, ἂν πλείονα χρόνον ἀποπλανηθῇ, κόπτων ὁ ἄρρην εἰσελαύνει πρὸς τὰ ᾠὰ καὶ τοὺς [ 1063 ]

νεοττούς. ὄνοις δὲ καὶ προβάτοις Ἀντίπατρος ἐγκαλῶν ὀλιγωρίαν καθαρειότητος, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως παρεῖδεν τὰς λύγκας καὶ τὰς χελιδόνας· ὧν αἳ μὲν ἐκτοπίζουσιν παντάπασιν κρύπτουσαι καὶ ἀφανίζουσαι τὸ λυγκούριον, αἱ δὲ χελιδόνες ἔξω στρεφομένους διδάσκουσι τοὺς νεοττοὺς ἀφιέναι τὸ περίττωμα. καὶ μὴν δένδρον δένδρου οὐ λέγομεν ἀμαθέστερον, ὡς κυνὸς πρόβατον, οὐδὲ λαχάνου λάχανον ἀνανδρότερον, ὡς ἔλαφον λέοντος· ἢ καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἀκινήτοις ἕτερον ἑτέρου βραδύτερον οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδὲ μικροφωνότερον ἐν τοῖς ἀναύδοις, οὕτως οὐδὲ δειλότερον οὐδὲ νωθρότερον οὐδὲ ἀκρατέστερον, ὅπου μὴ φύσει πᾶσιν ἡ τοῦ φρονεῖν δύναμις, ἄλλοις δὲ ἄλλως κατὰ τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον παροῦσα τὰς ὁρωμένας διαφορὰς πεποίηκεν. ἀλλ’ οὐ θαυμαστὸν ὅσον ἄνθρωπος εὐμαθείᾳ καὶ ἀγχινοίᾳ καὶ τοῖς περὶ δικαιοσύνην καὶ κοινωνίαν διαφέρει τῶν ζῴων. καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων πολλὰ τοῦτο μὲν μεγέθει καὶ ποδωκείᾳ, τοῦτο δὲ ὄψεως ῥώμῃ καὶ ἀκοῆς ἀκριβείᾳ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀπολέλοιπεν· ἀλλ’ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο κωφὸς οὐδὲ τυφλὸς οὐδὲ ἀδύνατος ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ καὶ θέομεν, εἰ καὶ βραδύτερον ἐλάφων, καὶ βλέπομεν, εἰ καὶ χεῖρον ἱεράκων· ἰσχύος τε καὶ μεγέθους ἡ φύσις ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἀπεστέρησεν, καίτοι τὸ μηδὲν ἐν τούτοις πρὸς ἐλέφαντα καὶ κάμηλον ὄντας. οὐκοῦν ὁμοίως μηδὲ τὰ θηρία λέγωμεν, εἰ νωθρότερον φρονεῖ καὶ κάκιον διανοεῖται, μὴ διανοεῖσθαι μηδὲ φρονεῖν ὅλως μηδὲ κεκτῆσθαι λόγον, ἀσθενῆ δὲ κεκτῆσθαι καὶ θολερόν, ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμὸν ἀμβλυώττοντα καὶ τεταραγμένον. 23. But he who thinks that the nature which is not adapted to receive rectitude of reason, does not at all receive reason, he, in the first place, does not differ from one who fancies that an ape does not naturally participate of deformity, nor a tortoise of tardity; because the former is not receptive of beauty, nor the latter of celerity. And, in the next place, this is the opinion of one who does not perceive the obvious difference of things. For reason, indeed, is ingenerated by nature; but right and perfect reason is acquired by study and discipline. Hence all animated beings participate of reason, but our opponents cannot mention any man who possesses rectitude of reason and wisdom [naturally], though the multitude of men is innumerable. But as the sight of one animal differs from that of another, and the flying of one bird from that of another, (for hawks and grasshoppers do not similarly see, nor eagles and partridges); thus, also, neither does every thing which participates of reason possess genius and acuteness in the highest perfection. Indeed there are many indications in brutes of association, fortitude, and craft, in procuring what is necessary, and in economical conduct; as, on the contrary, there are also indications in them of injustice, timidity, and fatuity. Hence it is a question with some, which are the more excellent, terrestrial or aquatic animals ? And that there are these indications, is evident from comparing storks with river horses: for the former nourish, but the latter destroy their fathers, in order that they may have connexion with their mothers. This is likewise seen on comparing doves with partridges: for the latter conceal and destroy their eggs, if the female, during her incubation, refuses to be connected with the male. But doves successively relieve each [ 1064 ]

other in incubation, alternately cherishing the eggs; and first, indeed, they feed the young, and afterwards the male strikes the female with his beak, and drives her to the eggs and her young, if she has for a long time wandered from them. Antipater, however, when he blames asses and sheep for the neglect of purity, overlooks, I know not how, lynxes and swallows; of which, the former remove and entirely conceal and bury their excrement, but the latter teach their young to throw it out of their nest. Moreover, we do not say that one tree is more ignorant than another, as we say that a sheep is more stupid than a dog. Nor do we say that one herb is more timid than another, as we do that a stag is more timid than a lion. For, as in things which are immoveable, one is not slower than another, and in things which are not vocal, one is not less vocal than another: thus, too, in all things in which the power of intellection is wanting, one thing cannot be said to be more timid, more dull, or more intemperate than another. For, as these qualities are present differently in their different participants, they produce in animals the diversities which we perceive. Nor is it wonderful that man should so much excel other animals in docility, sagacity, justice and association. For many brutes surpass all men in magnitude of body, and celerity of foot, and likewise in strength of sight, and accuracy of hearing; yet man is not on this account either deaf, or blind, or powerless. But we run, though slower than stags, and we see, though not so accurately as hawks; and nature has not deprived us of strength and magnitude, though our possession of these is nothing, when compared with the strength and bulk of the elephant and the camel. Hence, in a similar manner, we must not say that brutes, because their intellection is more dull than ours, and because they reason worse than we do, neither energize discursively, nor, in short, possess intellection and reason; but it must be admitted that they possess these, though in an imbecile and turbid manner, just as a dull and disordered eye participates of sight. [24] εἰ δὲ μὴ πολλὰ ἦν πολλοῖς συνηγμένα καὶ εἰρημένα, μυρία ἂν παρηγάγομεν εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τῆς τῶν ζῴων εὐφυΐας. ἐκεῖνο δ’ ἔτι σκεπτέον. ἔοικεν γὰρ τοῦ πεφυκότος ἢ μέρους ἢ δυνάμεως κατὰ φύσιν τι δέχεσθαι, τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἶναι καὶ εἰς τὸ παρὰ φύσιν ἐμπίπτειν πηρωθὲν ἢ νοσῆσαν, ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμοῦ μὲν εἰς τυφλότητα ἐμπίπτειν, σκέλους δὲ εἰς χωλότητα, καὶ γλώττης εἰς ψελλότητα, ἄλλου δὲ μηδενός. οὐ γὰρ ἔστι τυφλότης μὴ πεφυκότος ὁρᾶν, οὐδὲ χωλότης μὴ πεφυκότος βαδίζειν, ψελλόν τε καὶ ἄναυδον καὶ τραυλὸν μὴ γλῶσσαν ἐχόντων· οὐδ’ ἂν παραπαίοντα ἢ παράφορον εἴποις οὐδὲ μαινόμενον, ᾧ μὴ τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ διανοεῖσθαι καὶ λογίζεσθαι κατὰ φύσιν ὑπῆρχεν. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐν πάθει γενέσθαι μὴ κεκτημένον δύναμιν, ἧς τὸ πάθος ἢ στέρησις ἢ πήρωσις ἤ τις ἄλλη κάκωσίς ἐστιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐντετύχηκάς γε λυττώσαις κυσίν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἵπποις· ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ βοῦς φασὶ μαίνεσθαι καὶ ἀλώπεκας. ἀρκεῖ δὲ τὸ τῶν κυνῶν· ἀναμφισβήτητον γάρ ἐστι καὶ μαρτυρεῖ λόγον καὶ διάνοιαν ἔχειν οὐ φαύλην τὸ ζῷον, ἧς ταραττομένης καὶ συγχεομένης ἡ λεγομένη λύσσα καὶ μανία πάθος ἐστίν. οὔτε γὰρ ὄψιν [ 1065 ]

ἀλλοιουμένην αὐτοῖς οὔτε ἀκοὴν ὁρῶμεν, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου μελαγχολῶντος ἢ παρακόπτοντος ὁ μὴ λέγων ἐξεστάναι καὶ διεφθορέναι τὸ φρονοῦν καὶ λογιζόμενον καὶ μνημονεῦον ἄτοπός ἐστιν· καὶ γὰρ ἡ συνήθεια ταῦτά γε κατηγορεῖ τῶν παραφρονούντων, μὴ εἶναι παρ’ αὑτοῖς ἀλλὰ ἐκπεπτωκέναι τῶν λογισμῶν· οὕτως ὁ τοὺς λυττῶντας κύνας ἄλλο τι πεπονθέναι νομίζων, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ τοῦ φρονεῖν πεφυκότος καὶ λογίζεσθαι καὶ μνημονεύειν ἀναπεπλησμένου ταραχῆς καὶ παραπεπαικότος, ἀγνοεῖν τὰ φίλτατα πρόσωπα καὶ φεύγειν τὰς συντρόφους διαίτας, ἢ παρορᾶν τὸ φαινόμενον ἔοικεν ἢ συνορῶν τὸ γιγνόμενον ἐξ αὐτοῦ φιλονεικεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. τὰ μὲν δὴ τοῦ Πλουτάρχου ἐν πολλοῖς βιβλίοις πρὸς τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς καὶ τοῦ περιπάτου εἰς ἀπάντησιν 24. Innumerable instances, however, might be adduced in proof of this natural sagacity of animals, if many things of this kind had not by many persons been collected and narrated. But this subject must be still further considered. For it appears that it belongs to the same thing, whether it be a part or a power, which is naturally adapted to receive a certain thing, to be also disposed to fall into a preternatural mode of subsistence, when it becomes mutilated or diseased. Thus, the eye is adapted to fall into blindness, the leg into lameness, and the tongue into stammering; but nothing else is subject to such defects. For blindness does not befall that which is not naturally adapted to see, nor lameness that which is not adapted to walk; nor is that which is deprived of a tongue fitted to stammer, or lisp, or be dumb. Hence, neither can that animal be delirious, or stupid, or insane, in which intellection, and the discursive energy of reason, are not naturally inherent. For it is not possible for any thing to be passively affected which does not possess the power, the passion of which is either privation, or mutilation, or some other deprivation. Moreover, I have met with mad dogs, and also rabid horses; and some persons assert that oxen and foxes become mad. The example of dogs, however, is sufficient for our purpose: for it is a thing indubitable, and testifies that the animal possesses no despicable portion of reason and discursive energy, the passion of which, when disturbed and confounded, is fury and madness. For, when they are thus affected, we do not see that there is any change in the quality of their sight or hearing. But as he is absurd who denies that a man is beside himself, and that his intellectual, reasoning, and recollective powers, are corrupted, when he is afflicted with melancholy or delirium, (for it is usually said of those that are insane, that they are not themselves, but have fallen off from reason): thus also, he who thinks that mad dogs suffer any thing else than that of having the power, which is naturally intellective, and is adapted to reason and recollect, full of tumult and distortion, so as to cause them to be ignorant of persons most dear to them, and abandon their accustomed mode of living; he who thus thinks, appears either to overlook what is obvious; or, if he really perceives what takes [ 1066 ]

place, voluntarily contends against the truth. And such are the arguments adduced by Plutarch in many of his treatises against the Stoics and Peripatetics. [25] εἰρημένα ἐστὶν τοιαῦτα. Θεόφραστος δὲ καὶ τοιούτῳ κέχρηται λόγῳ. τοὺς ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν γεννηθέντας, λέγω δὲ πατρὸς καὶ μητρός, οἰκείους εἶναι φύσει φαμὲν ἀλλήλων· καὶ τοίνυν καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν προπατόρων σπαρέντας [οἰκείους ἀλλήλων εἶναι νομίζομεν] καὶ μέντοι ‹καὶ› τοὺς ἑαυτῶν πολίτας τῷ τῆς τε γῆς καὶ ‹τῆς› πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμιλίας κοινωνεῖν. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ἔτι τότε τοιούτους ἀλλήλοις φύντας οἰκείους αὑτοῖς εἶναι κρίνομεν, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τινὲς τῶν πρώτων αὐτοῖς προγόνων οἱ αὐτοὶ τοῦ γένους ἀρχηγοὶ πεφύκασιν ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν. οὕτω δέ, οἶμαι, καὶ τὸν Ἕλληνα μὲν τῷ Ἕλληνι, τὸν δὲ βάρβαρον τῷ βαρβάρῳ, πάντας δὲ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀλλήλοις φαμὲν οἰκείους τε καὶ συγγενεῖς εἶναι, δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ τῷ προγόνων εἶναι τῶν αὐτῶν, ἢ τῷ τροφῆς καὶ ἠθῶν καὶ ταὐτοῦ γένους κοινωνεῖν. οὕτως δὲ καὶ τοὺς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀλλήλοις τίθεμεν καὶ συγγενεῖς, καὶ μὴν ‹καὶ› πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις· αἱ γὰρ τῶν σωμάτων ἀρχαὶ πεφύκασιν αἱ αὐταί· λέγω δὲ οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ στοιχεῖα ἀναφέρων τὰ πρῶτα· ἐκ τούτων μὲν γὰρ καὶ τὰ φυτά· ἀλλ’ οἷον δέρμα, σάρκας καὶ τὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν τοῖς ζῴοις σύμφυτον γένος· πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς ψυχὰς ἀδιαφόρους πεφυκέναι, λέγω δὴ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ταῖς ὀργαῖς, ἔτι δὲ τοῖς λογισμοῖς, καὶ μάλιστα πάντων ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν. ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τὰ σώματα, οὕτω καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τὰ μὲν ἀπηκριβωμένας ἔχει τῶν ζῴων, τὰ δὲ ἧττον τοιαύτας, πᾶσί γε μὴν αὐτοῖς αἱ αὐταὶ πεφύκασιν ἀρχαί. δηλοῖ δὲ ἡ τῶν παθῶν οἰκειότης. εἰ δὲ ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ λεγόμενον, ὡς ἡ τῶν ἠθῶν γένεσίς ἐστι τοιαύτη, φρονοῦσι μὲν ἅπαντα φῦλα, διαφέρουσι δὲ ταῖς ἀγωγαῖς τε καὶ ταῖς τῶν πρώτων κράσεσι, παντάπασιν ἂν οἰκεῖον εἴη καὶ συγγενὲς ἡμῖν τὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῴων γένος. καὶ γὰρ τροφαὶ αἱ αὐταὶ πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς καὶ πνεύματα, ὡς Εὐριπίδης, καὶ φοινίους ἔχει ῥοὰς τὰ ζῷα πάντα καὶ κοινοὺς ἁπάντων 25. But Theophrastus employs the following reasoning:- those that are generated from the same sources, I mean from the same father and mother, are said by us to be naturally allied to each other. And moreover, we likewise conceive that those who derive their origin from the same ancestors that we do, are allied to us, and also that this is the case with our fellow-citizens, because they participate with us of the same land, and are united to us by the bonds of association. For we do not think that the latter are allied to each other, and to us, through deriving their origin from the same ancestors, unless it should so happen that the first progenitors of these were the sources of our race, or were derived from the same ancestors. Hence, I think we should say, that Greek is allied and has an affinity to Greek, and Barbarian to Barbarian, and all men to each other; for one of these two reasons, either because they originate from the same ancestors, or because they participate of the same food, manners and genus. Thus also we must admit that all men have an affinity, and are allied to each other. And, moreover, the principles of the bodies of all animals are naturally the same. I do not say this with reference to the first elements of their bodies; for plants also consist of these; but I [ 1067 ]

mean the seed, the flesh, and the conascent genus of humours which is inherent in animals. But animals are much more allied to each other, through naturally possessing souls, which are not different from each other, I mean in desire and anger; and besides these, in the reasoning faculty, and, above all, in the senses. But as with respect to bodies, so likewise with respect to souls, some animals have them more, but others less perfect, yet all of them have naturally the same principles. And this is evident from the affinity of their passions. If, however, what we have said is true, viz. that such is the generation of the manners of animals, all the tribes of them are indeed intellective, but they differ in their modes of living, and in the temperature of the first elements of which they consist. And if this be admitted, the genus of other animals has an affinity, and is allied to us. For, as Euripides says, they have all of them the same food and the same spirit, the same purple streams; and they likewise demonstrate that the common parents of all of them are Heaven and Earth. [26] δείκνυσι γονεῖς οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν. ὥστε συγγενῶν ὄντων, εἰ φαίνοιτο κατὰ Πυθαγόραν καὶ ψυχὴν τὴν αὐτὴν εἰληχότα, δικαίως ἄν τις ἀσεβὴς κρίνοιτο τῶν οἰκείων [τῆς ἀδικίας] μὴ ἀπεχόμενος. οὐ μὴν ὅτι τινὰ ἄγρια αὐτῶν, διὰ τοῦτο τὸ οἰκεῖον ἀποκέκοπται. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἧττον [ἀλλὰ καὶ μᾶλλον] τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἔνιοι κακοποιοί τε τῶν πλησίον εἰσὶ καὶ φέρονται πρὸς τὸ βλάπτειν τὸν ἐντυχόντα καθάπερ ὑπό τινος πνοῆς τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως καὶ μοχθηρίας· διὸ καὶ ἀναιροῦμεν τούτους, οὐ μέντοι ἀποκόπτομεν τὴν πρὸς τὸ ἥμερον σχέσιν. οὕτως οὖν, εἰ καὶ τῶν ζῴων τινὰ ἄγρια, ἐκεῖνα μὲν ὡς τοιαῦτα ἀναιρετέον καθάπερ καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἀνθρώπους, τῆς δὲ πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ καὶ ἡμερώτερα σχέσεως ‹οὐκ› ἀποστατέον· ἑκατέρων δὲ οὐδέτερα βρωτέον, ὡς οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀδίκους τῶν ἀνθρώπων. νῦν δὲ πολὺ τὸ ἄδικον ποιοῦμεν ἀναιροῦντες μὲν καὶ τὰ ἥμερα [ὅτι] καὶ τὰ ἄγρια [καὶ τὰ ἄδικα], ἐσθίοντες δὲ τὰ ἥμερα· κατ’ ἄμφω γὰρ ἄδικοι, ὅτι ἥμερα ὄντα ἀναιροῦμεν καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα θοινώμεθα, καὶ ψιλῶς ὁ τούτων θάνατος εἰς τὴν βορὰν ἔχει τὴν ἀναφοράν. προσθείη δ’ ἄν τις τούτοις καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. ὁ γὰρ λέγων ὅτι ὁ παρεκτείνων τὸ δίκαιον ἄχρι τῶν ζῴων φθείρει τὸ δίκαιον, ἀγνοεῖ ὡς αὐτὸς οὐ τὴν δικαιοσύνην διασῴζει, ἀλλ’ ἡδονὴν ἐπαύξει, ἥ ἐστι δικαιοσύνῃ πολέμιον. ἡδονῆς γοῦν οὔσης τέλους, δείκνυται δικαιοσύνη ἀναιρουμένη. ἐπεὶ ὅτι τὸ δίκαιον συναύξεται διὰ τῆς ἀποχῆς τίνι οὐ δῆλον; ὁ γὰρ ἀπεχόμενος παντὸς ἐμψύχου, κἂν μὴ τῶν συμβαλλόντων αὐτῷ εἰς κοινωνίαν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον πρὸς τὸ ὁμογενὲς τῆς βλάβης ἀφέξεται. οὐ γὰρ ὁ τὸ γένος φιλῶν τὸ εἶδος μισήσει, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ μεῖζον τὸ γένος τὸ τῶν ζῴων, τοσούτῳ καὶ πρὸς τὸ μέρος καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον ταύτην διασώσει. ὁ τοίνυν τὴν οἰκείωσιν πεποιημένος πρὸς τὸ ζῷον, οὗτος καὶ τό τι ζῷον οὐκ ἀδικήσει· ὁ δὲ μόνον περιγράψας ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ δίκαιον ἕτοιμος ἔσται ὡς ἐν στενῷ ἀπορρῖψαι τὴν ἔφεξιν τῆς ἀδικίας. ὥστε καὶ τοῦ Σωκρατικοῦ ὄψου ἥδιον τὸ Πυθαγόρειον. ὃ μὲν γὰρ ὄψον τροφῆς τὸ πεινῆν ἔλεγε, Πυθαγόρας δὲ τὸ μηθένα ἀδικεῖν καὶ ἐφηδύνειν δικαιοσύνῃ τὸ ὄψον. ἡ γὰρ φυγὴ τῆς ἐμψύχου τροφῆς φυγὴ ἦν τῶν περὶ τὴν τροφὴν ἀδικημάτων. οὐ γὰρ δὴ μὴ μετὰ κακώσεως ἑτέρου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν ἀμήχανον ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν· ἐπεὶ οὕτω γε τὴν φύσιν ἡμῖν [ 1068 ]

ἀρχὴν ἀδικίας προσετίθει· μήποτε δὲ καὶ ἀγνοεῖν οὗτοι ἐοίκασι τὸ ἰδίωμα τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅσοι ἐκ τῆς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους οἰκειώσεως εἰσάγειν ταύτην ᾠήθησαν· αὕτη μὲν γὰρ φιλανθρωπία τις ἂν εἴη, ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη ἐν τῷ ἀφεκτικῷ καὶ ἀβλαβεῖ κεῖται παντὸς ὅτου οὖν τοῦ μὴ βλάπτοντος. καὶ οὕτως γε νοεῖται ὁ δίκαιος, οὐκ ἐκείνως· ὡς διατείνειν τὴν δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἄχρι τῶν ἐμψύχων κειμένην ἐν τῷ ἀβλαβεῖ. διὸ καὶ ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς ἐν τῷ τὸ λογικὸν ἄρχειν [τοῦ ἀλόγου], ἕπεσθαι δὲ τὸ ἄλογον. ἄρχοντος γὰρ τούτου, τοῦ δ’ ἑπομένου, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη ἀβλαβῆ εἶναι πρὸς πᾶν ὅτι οὖν ἄνθρωπον. συνεσταλμένων γὰρ τῶν παθῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν καὶ ὀργῶν μεμαρασμένων, τοῦ δὲ λογισμοῦ τὴν οἰκείαν ἔχοντος ἀρχήν, εὐθὺς ἡ ὁμοίωσις ἕπεται ἡ πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον. τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ παντὶ κρεῖττον πάντως ἦν ἀβλαβές, καὶ αὐτὸ μὲν διὰ δύναμιν καὶ σωστικὸν πάντων καὶ εὐποιητικὸν πάντων καὶ ἀπροσδεὲς πάντων· ἡμεῖς δὲ διὰ μὲν δικαιοσύνην ἀβλαβεῖς πάντων, διὰ δὲ τὸ θνητὸν ἐνδεεῖς τῶν ἀναγκαίων. ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀναγκαίων λῆψις οὐ βλάπτει οὔτε φυτά, ὅταν ἃ ἀποβάλλουσι λάβωμεν, οὔτε καρπούς, ὅταν τεθνηκότων χρησώμεθα τοῖς καρποῖς, οὔτε πρόβατα, ὅταν διὰ τῆς κουρᾶς αὐτὰ μᾶλλον ὀνήσωμεν καὶ τοῦ γάλακτος κοινωνήσωμεν παρέχοντες αὐτοῖς τὴν ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐπιμέλειαν. διὸ προσπίπτει ὁ δίκαιος οἷον ἐλαττωτικὸς ἑαυτοῦ τῶν κατὰ σῶμα, οὐκ ἀδικεῖ δὲ ἑαυτόν· αὔξεται γὰρ τῇ τούτου παιδαγωγίᾳ καὶ ἐγκρατείᾳ τὸ ἐντὸς ἀγαθόν, 26. Hence, since animals are allied to us, if it should appear, according to Pythagoras, that they are allotted the same soul that we are, he may justly be considered as impious who does not abstain from acting unjustly towards his kindred. Nor because some animals are savage, is their alliance to us to be on this account abscinded. For some men may be found who are no less, and even more malefic than savage animals to their neighbours, and who are impelled to injure any one they may meet with, as if they were driven by a certain blast of their own nature and depravity. Hence, also, we destroy such men; yet we do not cut them off from an alliance to animals of a mild nature. Thus, therefore, if likewise some animals are savage, these, as such, are to be destroyed, in the same manner as men that are savage; but our habitude or alliance to other and wilder animals is not on this account to be abandoned. But neither tame nor savage animals are to be eaten; as neither are unjust men. Now, however, we act most unjustly, destroying, indeed tame animals, because some brutes are savage and unjust, and feeding on such as are tame. With respect to tame animals, however, we act with a twofold injustice, because though they are tame, we slay them, and also, because we eat them. And, in short, the death of these has a reference to the assumption of them for food. To these, also, such arguments as the following may be added. For he who says that the man who extends the just as far as to brutes, corrupts the just, is ignorant that he does not himself preserve justice, but increases pleasure, which is hostile to justice. By admitting, therefore, that pleasure is the end [of our actions] justice is evidently [ 1069 ]

destroyed. For to whom is it not manifest that justice is increased through abstinence? For he who abstains from every thing animated, though he may abstain from such animals as do not contribute to the benefit of society, will be much more careful not to injure those of his own species. For he who loves the genus, will not hate any species of animals; and by how much the greater his love of the genus is,* by so much the more will he preserve justice towards a part of the genus, and that to which he is allied. He, therefore, who admits that he is allied to all animals, will not injure any animal. But he who confines justice to man alone, is prepared, like one enclosed in a narrow space, to hurl from him the prohibition of injustice. So that the Pythagorean is more pleasing than the Socratic banquet. For Socrates said, that hunger is the sauce of food; but Pythagoras said, that to injure no one, and to be exhilarated with justice, is the sweetest sauce; as the avoidance of animal food, will also be the avoidance of unjust conduct with respect to food. For God has not so constituted things, that we cannot preserve ourselves without injuring others; since, if this were the case, he would have connected us with a nature which is the principal of injustice. Do not they, however, appear to be ignorant of the peculiarity of justice, who think that it was introduced from the alliance of men to each other? For this will be nothing more than a certain philanthropy; but justice consists in abstaining from injuring any thing which is not noxious. And our conception of the just man must be formed according to the latter, and not according to the former mode. Hence, therefore, since justice consists in not injuring any thing, it must be extended as far as to every animated nature. On this account, also, the essence of justice consists in the rational ruling over the irrational, and in the irrational being obedient to the rational part. For when reason governs, and the irrational part is obedient to its mandates, it follows, by the greatest necessity, that man will be innoxious towards every thing. For the passions being restrained, and desire and anger wasting away, but reason possessing its proper empire, a similitude to a more excellent nature [and to deity] immediately follows. But the more excellent nature in the universe is entirely innoxious, and, through possessing a power which preserves and benefits all things, is itself not in want of any thing. We, however, through justice [when we exercise it], are innoxious towards all things, but, through being connected with mortality, are indigent of things of a necessary nature. But the assumption of what is necessary, does not injure even plants, when we take what they cast off; nor fruits, when we use such of them as are dead; nor sheep, when through shearing we rather benefit than injure them, and by partaking of their milk, we in return afford them every proper attention. Hence, the just man appears to be one who deprives himself of things pertaining to the body; yet he does not [in reality] injure himself. For, by this management of his body, and continence, he increases his inward good, i.e., his similitude to God. [ 1070 ]

[27] τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ὁμοίωσις. οὔτε τοίνυν ἡδονῆς οὔσης τέλους ἡ ὄντως σῴζεται δικαιοσύνη, οὔτε τῶν πρώτων κατὰ φύσιν συμπληρούντων τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἢ ἐκκειμένων γε πάντων. ἐν πολλοῖς γὰρ τὰ τῆς ἀλόγου κινήματα φύσεως καὶ αἱ χρεῖαι ἀδικίας κατάρχει. αὐτίκα τῆς ζῳοφαγίας ἐδεήθησαν, ἵνα τὴν φύσιν, ὡς φασίν, διαφυλάξωσιν ἀλύπητον καὶ ἀνενδεᾶ ὧν ὀρέγεται. τοῦ δ’ ὁμοιοῦσθαι θεῷ ὄντος τέλους ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα, σῴζεται τὸ ἀβλαβὲς ἐν ἅπασιν. ὅνπερ τοίνυν τρόπον ὁ πάθεσιν ἀγόμενος πρὸς μόνα τέκνα καὶ γυναῖκα ἀβλαβής, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων καταφρονητικὸς καὶ πλεονέκτης, ὡς ἂν τοῦ ἀλόγου κρατοῦντος ἐν αὐτῷ, πρὸς τὰ θνητὰ ἐγείρεται καὶ ταῦτα ἐκπλήττεται, ὁ δὲ λόγῳ ἀγόμενος καὶ πρὸς πολίτην τηρεῖ τὸ ἀβλαβὲς καὶ [ἔτι μᾶλλον] πρὸς ξένους καὶ πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, ὁ τὴν ἀλογίαν ἔχων ὑπήκοον, καὶ αὐτὸς παρ’ ἐκείνους λογικώτερος, διὰ ταῦτα δὲ καὶ θειότερος· οὕτως ὁ μὴ μόνον στήσας τὸ ἀβλαβὲς ἐν ἀνθρώποις, παρατείνας δὲ καὶ εἰς τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα μᾶλλον ὅμοιος θεῷ, καὶ εἰ ἄχρι φυτῶν δυνατόν, ἔτι μᾶλλον σῴζει τὴν εἰκόνα. εἰ δὲ μή, ἀλλ’ ἐντεῦθέν γε τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν ἐλάττωμα, ἐντεῦθεν τὸ θρηνούμενον πρὸς τῶν παλαιῶν, ὡς τοίων ἔκ τ’ ἐρίδων ἔκ τε νεικέων γενόμεσθα, ὅτι τὸ θεῖον ἀκήρατον καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ἀβλαβὲς σῴζειν οὐ δυνάμεθα· οὐ γὰρ ἐν πᾶσιν ἦμεν ἀπροσδεεῖς· αἰτία δὲ ἡ γένεσις καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ πενίᾳ ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι, τοῦ πόρου ἀπορρυέντος. ἡ δὲ πενία ἐξ ἀλλοτρίων τὴν σωτηρίαν καὶ τὸν κόσμον, δι’ οὗ τὸ εἶναι ἐλάμβανεν, ἐκτᾶτο. ὅστις οὖν πλειόνων δεῖται τῶν ἔξωθεν, ἐπὶ πλέον τῇ πενίᾳ προσήλωται· καὶ ὅσῳ πλεόνων ἐνδεής, τοσούτῳ θεοῦ μὲν ἄμοιρος, πενίᾳ δὲ σύνοικος. τὸ γὰρ θεῷ ὅμοιον τῇ ὁμοιώσει εὐθὺς πλοῦτον ἔχει τὸν ἀληθινόν. πλουτῶν δὲ οὐδεὶς καὶ χρῄζων μηδενὸς ἀδικεῖ· ἕως γὰρ ἀδικεῖ, κἂν πάντα ἔχῃ χρήματα κἂν πάντα τῆς γῆς πλέθρα, πένης ἐστὶν πενίᾳ ὑπάρχων σύνοικος, διὰ ταῦτα δὴ καὶ ἄδικος καὶ ἄθεος καὶ ἀσεβὴς καὶ πάσῃ κακίᾳ ἔνοχος, ἧς τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἡ πρὸς τὴν ὕλην τῆς ψυχῆς πτῶσις κατὰ στέρησιν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ παρήγαγεν. λῆρος οὖν πάντα, ἕως τις τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀπέσφαλται, καὶ ἐνδεὴς πάντων, ἕως οὗ πρὸς τὸν πόρον οὐ βλέπει, εἴκει τε τῷ θνητῷ τῆς φύσεως αὑτοῦ, ἕως τὸν ὄντως ἑαυτὸν οὐκ ἐγνώρισεν. δεινὴ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία πείθειν ἑαυτὴν καὶ δεκάζειν τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτῆς συνεχομένους, διότι σὺν ἡδονῇ προσομιλεῖ τοῖς τροφίμοις. ὥσπερ δὲ ἐν βίων αἱρέσεσιν ἀκριβέστερος κριτὴς ὁ πεῖραν ἀμφοῖν εἰληφὼς τοῦ θατέρου πειραθέντος μόνου, οὕτως ἐν αἱρέσεσι καὶ φυγαῖς καθηκόντων ἀσφαλέστερος κριτὴς ὁ ἐκ τοῦ ἐπαναβεβηκότος κρίνων καὶ τὸ ἧττον τοῦ κάτωθεν κρίνοντος τὰ προκείμενα. ὥστε ὁ κατὰ νοῦν ζῶν τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀλογίαν ἀκριβέστερος ὁριστὴς ὧν τε αἱρετέον καὶ ὧν μή· διῆλθεν γὰρ καὶ δι’ ἀλογίας, ἅτε ἐξ ἀρχῆς ταύτῃ προσομιλήσας· ὁ δὲ ἄπειρος ὢν τῶν κατὰ νοῦν πείθει τοὺς ὁμοίους, παῖς ἐν παισὶ φλυαρῶν. ἀλλ’ εἰ πάντες, φασί, τούτοις πεισθεῖεν τοῖς λόγοις, τί ἡμῖν ἔσται; ἢ δῆλον ὡς εὐδαιμονήσομεν, ἀδικίας μὲν ἐξορισθείσης ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων, δικαιοσύνης δὲ πολιτευομένης καὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν, καθάπερ καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ. νῦν δ’ ὅμοιον, ὡς εἰ αἱ Δαναΐδες ἠπόρουν τίνα βίον βιώσονται ἀπαλλαγεῖσαι τῆς περὶ τὸν τετρημένον πίθον διὰ τοῦ κοσκίνου λατρείας. τί γὰρ ἔσται ἀποροῦσιν, εἰ παυσαίμεθα ἐπιφοροῦντες εἰς τὰ πάθη ἡμῶν καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας, ὧν τὸ πᾶν διαρρεῖ ἀπειρίᾳ τῶν καλῶν τὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀναγκαίων στεργόντων ἡμῶν βίον. τί [ 1071 ]

τοίνυν πράξομεν, ἐρωτᾷς, ὦ ἄνθρωπε; μιμησώμεθα τὸ χρυσοῦν γένος, μιμησώμεθα τοὺς ἐλευθερωθέντας. μεθ’ ὧν μὲν γὰρ Αἰδὼς καὶ Νέμεσις ἥ τε Δίκη ὡμίλει, ὅτι ἠρκοῦντο τῷ ἐκ γῆς καρπῷ· καρπὸν γάρ σφισιν ἔφερεν ζείδωρος ἄρουρα αὐτομάτη πολλόν τε καὶ ἄφθονον· οἱ δέ γε ἐλευθερωθέντες ἃ πάλαι τοῖς δεσπόταις ὑπηρετοῦντες ἐπόριζον, ταῦτα ἑαυτοῖς πορίζουσιν. οὐκ ἄλλως καὶ σὺ τοίνυν ἀπαλλαγεὶς τῆς τοῦ σώματος [δουλείας] καὶ τῆς τοῖς πάθεσι τοῖς διὰ τὸ σῶμα λατρείας, ὡς ἐκεῖνα ἔτρεφες παντοίως τοῖς ἔξωθεν, οὕτως αὑτὸν θρέψεις παντοίως τοῖς ἔνδοθεν, δικαίως ἀπολαμβάνων τὰ ἴδια καὶ οὐκέτι τὰ ἀλλότρια βίᾳ ἀφαιρούμενος. 27. By making pleasure, therefore, the end of life, that which is truly justice cannot be preserved; since neither such things as are primarily useful according to nature, nor all such as are easily attainable, give completion to felicity. For, in many instances, the motions of the irrational nature, and utility and indigence, have been, and still are the sources of injustice. For men became indigent [as they pretended] of animal food, in order that they might preserve, as they said, the corporeal frame free from molestation, and without being in want of those things after which the animal nature aspires. But if an assimilation to divinity is the end of life, an innoxious conduct towards all things will be in the most eminent degree preserved. As, therefore, he who is led by his passions is innoxious only towards his children and his wife, but despises and acts fraudulently towards other persons, since in consequence of the irrational part predominating in him, he is excited to, and astonished about mortal concerns; but he who is led by reason, preserves an innoxious conduct towards his fellow-citizens, and still more so towards strangers, and towards all men, through having the irrational part in subjection, and is therefore more rational and divine than the former character; - thus also, he who does not confine harmless conduct to men alone, but extends it to other animals, is more similar to divinity; and if it was possible to extend it even to plants, he would preserve this image in a still greater degree. As, however, this is not possible, we may in this respect lament, with the ancients , the defect of our nature, that we consist of such adverse and discordant principles, so that we are unable to preserve our divine part incorruptible, and in all respects innoxious. For we are not unindigent in all things: the cause of which is generation, and our becoming needy through the abundant corporeal efflux which we sustain. But want procures safety and ornament from things of a foreign nature, which are necessary to the existence of our mortal part. He, therefore, who is indigent of a greater number of externals, is in a greater degree agglutinated to penury; and by how much his wants increase, by so much is he destitute of divinity, and an associate of penury. For that which is similar to deity, through this assimilation [ 1072 ]

immediately possesses true wealth. But no one who is [truly] rich and perfectly unindigent injures any thing. For as long as any one injures another, though he should possess the greatest wealth, and all the acres of land which the earth contains, he is still poor, and has want for his intimate associate. On this account, also, he is unjust, without God, and impious, and enslaved to every kind of depravity, which is produced by the lapse of the soul into matter, through the privation of good. Every thing, therefore, is nugatory to any one, as long as he wanders from the principle of the universe; and he is indigent of all things, while he does not direct his attention to Porus [or the source of true abundance]. He likewise yields to the mortal part of his nature, while he remains ignorant of his real self. But Injustice is powerful in persuading and corrupting those that belong to her empire, because she associates with her votaries in conjunction with Pleasure. As, however, in the choice of lives, he is the more accurate judge who has obtained an experience of both [the better and the worse kind of life], than he who has only experienced one of them; thus also, in the choice and avoidance of what is proper, he is a safer judge who, from that which is more, judges of that which is less excellent, than he who from the less, judges of the more excellent. Hence, he who lives according to intellect, will more accurately define what is eligible and what is not, than he who lives under the dominion of irrationality. For the former has passed through the irrational life, as having from the first associated with it; but the latter, having had no experience of an intellectual life, persuades those that resemble himself, and acts with nugacity, like a child among children. If, however, say our opponents, all men were persuaded by these arguments, what would become of us? Is it not evident that we should be happy, injustice, indeed, being exterminated from men, and justice being conversant with us, in the same manner as it is in the heavens? But now this question is just the same as if men should be dubious what the life of the Danaids would be, if they were liberated from the employment of drawing water in a sieve, and attempting to fill a perforated vessel. For they are dubious what would be the consequence if we should cease to replenish our passions and desires, the whole of which replenishing continually flows away through the want of real good; since this fills up the ruinous clefts of the soul more than the greatest of external necessaries. Do you therefore ask, O man, what we should do? We should imitate those that lived in the golden age, we should imitate those of that period who were [truly] free. For with them modesty, Nemesis, and Justice associated, because they were satisfied with the fruits of the earth. The fertile earth for them spontaneous yields Abundantly her fruits . But those who are liberated from slavery, obtain for themselves what they before procured for their masters. In like manner, also, do you, when liberated from the [ 1073 ]

servitude of the body, and a slavish attention to the passions produced through the body, as, prior to this, you nourished them in an all-various manner with externals, so now nourish yourself all-variously with internal good, justly assuming things which are [properly] your own, and no longer by violence taking away things which are foreign [to your true nature and real good].

[ 1074 ]

BOOK FOUR [ 1 ] ΠΡ Ὸ ς Μ Ὲ Ν ἁπάσας σχεδὸν τὰς σκήψεις τῶν τῇ μὲν ἀληθείᾳ ἀκρασίας ἕνεκα καὶ ἀκολασίας τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν προσεμένων, ἀπολογίας δὲ αὑτοῖς ἀναισχύντους πεπορικότων τὰς ἐκ τῆς ἐνδείας, ἣν πλέον ἢ χρῆν τῇ φύσει προσάπτουσι, διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὦ Καστρίκιε, ἀπηντήσαμεν. λειπομένων δ’ ἔτι μερικῶν ζητήσεων, ὧν μάλιστα ἡ τοῦ συμφέροντος ἐπαγγελία ἐξαπατᾷ τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ἡδονῶν δεδεκασμένους, καὶ μὴν καὶ τῆς μαρτυρίας τοῦ μηδὲν μήτε τῶν σοφῶν μήτε τι ἔθνος παραιτήσασθαι τὴν βρῶσιν ἱκανῶς εἰς μέγεθος τῆς ἀδικίας τοὺς ἀκούοντας προαγούσης ὑπ’ ἀπειρίας τῆς ἀληθινῆς ἱστορίας, τὸν ἔλεγχον τούτων ποιεῖσθαι μέλλοντες, τὰς περὶ τοῦ συμφέροντος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζητημάτων λύσεις ἐκβαλεῖν πειρασόμεθα. 1. In the preceding books, O Castricius, we have nearly answered all the arguments which in reality defend the feeding on flesh, for the sake of incontinence and intemperance, and which adduce impudent apologies for so doing by ascribing a greater indigence to our nature than is fit. Two particular inquiries, however, still remain; in one of which the promise of advantage especially deceives those who are corrupted by pleasure. And, moreover, we shall confute the assertion of our opponents, that no wise man, nor any nation, has rejected animal food, as it leads those that hear it to great injustice, through the ignorance of true history; and we shall also endeavour to give the solutions of the question concerning advantage, and to reply to other inquiries. [2] ἀρξώμεθα δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς κατὰ ἔθνη τινῶν ἀποχῆς, ὧν ἡγήσονται τοῦ λόγου οἱ Ἕλληνες, ὡς ἂν τῶν μαρτυρούντων ὄντες οἰκειότατοι. τῶν τοίνυν συντόμως τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀκριβῶς τὰ Ἑλληνικὰ συναγαγόντων ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ περιπατητικὸς Δικαίαρχος, ὃς τὸν ἀρχαῖον βίον τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀφηγούμενος, τοὺς παλαιοὺς καὶ ἐγγὺς θεῶν φησὶ γεγονότας, βελτίστους τε ὄντας φύσει καὶ τὸν ἄριστον ἐζηκότας βίον, ὡς χρυσοῦν γένος νομίζεσθαι παραβαλλομένους πρὸς τοὺς νῦν, κιβδήλου καὶ φαυλοτάτης ὑπάρχοντας ὕλης, μηδὲν φονεύειν ἔμψυχον. ὃ δὴ καὶ τοὺς ποιητὰς παριστάντας χρυσοῦν μὲν ἐπονομάζειν γένος, ἐσθλὰ δὲ πάντα, λέγειν, τοῖσιν ἔην· καρπὸν δ’ ἔφερεν ζείδωρος ἄρουρα αὐτομάτη πολλόν τε καὶ ἄφθονον· οἳ δ’ ἐθελημοὶ ἥσυχοι ἔργ’ ἐνέμοντο σὺν ἐσθλοῖσιν πολέεσσιν. ὴ μάτην ἐπιπεφημισμένον, τὸ δὲ λίαν μυθικὸν ἀφέντας, εἰς τὸ διὰ τοῦ λόγου φυσικὸν ἀνάγειν. αὐτόματα μὲν γὰρ πάντα ἐφύετο, εἰκότως· οὐ γὰρ αὐτοί γε κατεσκεύαζον οὐθὲν διὰ τὸ μήτε τὴν γεωργικὴν ἔχειν πω τέχνην μήθ’ ἑτέραν μηδεμίαν ἁπλῶς. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῦ σχολὴν ἄγειν αἴτιον ἐγίγνετο αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῦ διάγειν ἄνευ πόνων καὶ μερίμνης, εἰ δὲ τῇ τῶν γλαφυρωτάτων ἰατρῶν ἐπακολουθῆσαι δεῖ διανοίᾳ, καὶ τοῦ μὴ νοσεῖν. οὐθὲν γὰρ εἰς ὑγίειαν αὐτῶν μεῖζον παράγγελμα εὕροι τις ἂν ἢ τὸ μὴ ποιεῖν περιττώματα, ὧν διὰ παντὸς ἐκεῖνοι

[ 1075 ]

καθαρὰ τὰ σώματα ἐφύλαττον. οὔτε γὰρ τῆς φύσεως ἰσχυροτέραν τροφὴν [ἀλλ’ ἧς ἡ φύσις ἰσχυροτέρα] προσεφέροντο, οὔτε τὴν πλείω τῆς μετρίας διὰ τὴν ἑτοιμότητα, ἀλλ’ ὡς τὰ πολλὰ τὴν ἐλάττω [τῆς ἱκανῆς] διὰ τὴν σπάνιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ πόλεμοι αὐτοῖς ἦσαν οὐδὲ στάσεις πρὸς ἀλλήλους· ἆθλον γὰρ οὐθὲν ἀξιόλογον ἐν τῷ μέσῳ προκείμενον ὑπῆρχεν, ὑπὲρ ὅτου τις ἂν διαφορὰν τοσαύτην ἐνεστήσατο. ὥστε τὸ κεφάλαιον εἶναι τοῦ βίου συνέβαινεν σχολήν, ῥᾳθυμίαν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀναγκαίων, ὑγίειαν, εἰρήνην, φιλίαν. τοῖς δὲ ὑστέροις ἐφιεμένοις μεγάλων καὶ πολλοῖς περιπίπτουσι κακοῖς ποθεινὸς εἰκότως ἐκεῖνος ὁ βίος ἐφαίνετο. δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ λιτὸν τῶν πρώτων καὶ αὐτοσχέδιον τῆς τροφῆς τὸ μεθύστερον ῥηθὲν ἅλις δρυός, τοῦ μεταβάλλοντος πρώτου, οἷα εἰκός, τοῦτο φθεγξαμένου. ὕστερον ὁ νομαδικὸς εἰσῆλθεν βίος, καθ’ ὃν περιττοτέραν ἤδη κτῆσιν προσπεριεβάλοντο καὶ ζῴων ἥψαντο, κατανοήσαντες ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἀσινῆ ἐτύγχανεν ὄντα, τὰ δὲ κακοῦργα καὶ χαλεπά· καὶ οὕτω δὴ τὰ μὲν ἐτιθάσευσαν, τοῖς δὲ ἐπέθεντο, καὶ ἅμα τῷ αὐτῷ βίῳ συνεισῆλθεν πόλεμος. καὶ ταῦτα, φησίν, οὐχ ἡμεῖς, ἀλλ’ οἱ τὰ παλαιὰ ἱστορίᾳ διεξελθόντες εἰρήκασιν. ἤδη γὰρ ἀξιόλογα κτήματα ἦν ὑπάρχοντα, οἳ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ παρελέσθαι φιλοτιμίαν ἐποιοῦντο, ἀθροιζόμενοί τε καὶ παρακαλοῦντες ἀλλήλους, οἳ δ’ ἐπὶ τὸ διαφυλάξαι. προϊόντος δὲ κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω τοῦ χρόνου, κατανοοῦντες ἀεὶ τῶν χρησίμων εἶναι δοκούντων, εἰς τὸ τρίτον τε καὶ γεωργικὸν ἐνέπεσον εἶδος. ταυτὶ μὲν Δικαιάρχου τὰ παλαιὰ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν διεξιόντος μακάριόν τε τὸν βίον ἀφηγουμένου τῶν παλαιοτάτων, ὃν οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἄλλων καὶ ἡ ἀποχὴ τῶν ἐμψύχων συνεπλήρου. διὸ πόλεμος οὐκ ἦν, ὡς ἂν ἀδικίας ἐξεληλαμένης· συνεισῆλθεν δὲ ὕστερον καὶ πόλεμος καὶ εἰς ἀλλήλους πλεονεξία ἅμα τῇ τῶν ζῴων ἀδικίᾳ. ὃ καὶ θαυμαστὸν τῶν τολμησάντων τὴν ἀποχὴν τῶν ζῴων ἀδικίας μητέρα εἰπεῖν, τῆς ἱστορίας καὶ τῆς πείρας ἅμα τῷ φόνῳ αὐτῶν τρυφήν τε καὶ 2. But we shall begin from the abstinence of certain nations, in the narration of which, what is asserted of the Greeks will first claim our attention, as being the most allied to us, and the most appropriate of all the witnesses that can be adduced. Among those, therefore, that have concisely, and at the same time accurately collected an account of the affairs of the Greeks, is the Peripatetic Dicaearchus , who, in narrating the pristine life of the Greeks, says, the ancients, being generated with an alliance to the Gods, were naturally most excellent, and led the best life; so that, when compared to us of the present day, who consist of an adulterated and most vile matter, they were thought to be a golden race; and they slew no animal whatever. The truth of this, he also says, is testified by the poets, who denominate these ancients the golden race, and assert that every good was present with them. The fertile earth for them spontaneous bore Of fruits a copious and unenvy’d store; In blissful quiet then, unknown to strife, The worthy with the worthy passed their life . Which assertions, indeed Dicaearchus explaining, says, that a life of this kind was under Saturn; if it is proper to consider it as a thing that once existed, and that it is a life which [ 1076 ]

has not been celebrated in vain, and if, laying aside what is extremely fabulous, we may refer it to a physical narration. All things, therefore, are very properly said to have been then spontaneously produced; for men did not procure any thing by labour, because they were unacquainted with the agricultural art, and, in short, had no knowledge of any other art. This very thing, likewise, was the cause of their leading a life of leisure, free from labours and care; and if it is proper to assent to the decision of the most skilful and elegant of physicians, it was also the cause of their being liberated from disease. For there is not any precept of physicians which more contributes to health, than that which exhorts us not to make an abundance of excrement, from which those pristine Greeks always preserved their bodies pure. For they neither assumed such food as was stronger than the nature of the body could bear, but such as could be vanquished by the corporeal nature, nor more than was moderate, on account of the facility of procuring it, but for the most part less than was sufficient, on account of its paucity. Moreover, there were neither any wars among them, nor seditions with each other. For no reward of contention worth mentioning was proposed as an incentive, for the sake of which some one might be induced to engage in such dissensions. So that the principal thing in that life was leisure and rest from necessary occupations, together with health, peace, and friendship. But to those in after times, who, through aspiring after things which greatly exceeded mediocrity, fell into many evils, this pristine life became, as it was reasonable to suppose it would, desirable. The slender and extemporaneous food, however, of these first men, is manifested by the saying which was afterwards proverbially used, enough of the oak; this adage being probably introduced by him who first changed the ancient mode of living. A pastoral life succeeded to this, in which men procured for themselves superfluous possessions, and meddled with animals. For, perceiving that some of them were innoxious, but others malefic and savage, they tamed the former, but attacked the latter. At the same time, together with this life, war was introduced. And these things, says Dicaearchus, are not asserted by us, but by those who have historically discussed a multitude of particulars. For, as possessions were now of such a magnitude as to merit attention, some ambitiously endeavoured to obtain them, by collecting them [for their own use], and calling on others to do the same, but others directed their attention to the preservation of them when collected. Time, therefore, thus gradually proceeding, and men always directing their attention to what appeared to be useful, they at length became conversant with the third, and agricultural form of life. And this is what is said by Dicaearchus, in his narration of the manners of the ancient Greeks, and the blessed life which they then led, to which abstinence from animal food contributed, no less than other things. Hence, at that period there was no war, because injustice was exterminated. But afterwards, together with injustice towards [ 1077 ]

animals, war was introduced among men, and the endeavour to surpass each other in amplitude of possessions. On which account also, the audacity of those is wonderful, who say that abstinence from animals is the mother of injustice, since both history and experience testify, that together with the slaughter of animals, war and injustice were introduced. [3] πόλεμον καὶ ἀδικίαν συνεισελθεῖν μηνυούσης. ὃ δὴ καὶ ὕστερον Λυκοῦργον τὸν Λακεδαιμόνιον συνιδόντα, καίπερ κακρατηκότος τοῦ γεύεσθαι ἐμψύχων, οὕτως τὴν πολιτείαν συντάξαι, ὡς ἥκιστα τῆς ἐκ τούτων τροφῆς δεῖσθαι. τὸν γὰρ κλῆρον ἑκάστων οὐκ ἐν ἀγέλαις βοῶν καὶ προβάτων αἰγῶν τε καὶ ἵππων ἢ χρημάτων περιουσίᾳ ἀφορίσαι, ἀλλ’ ἐν γῆς κτήσει φερούσης ἀποφορὰν ἀνδρὶ ἑβδομήκοντα κριθῶν μεδίμνους, γυναικὶ δὲ δώδεκα, καὶ τῶν ὑγρῶν καρπῶν ἀναλόγως τὸ πλῆθος. ἀρκέσειν γὰρ ᾤετο τοσοῦτον τροφῆς πρὸς εὐεξίαν καὶ ὑγείαν ἱκανήν, ἄλλου μηδενὸς δεησομένοις. ὅθεν καὶ φασὶν ὡς ὕστερόν ποτε χρόνῳ τὴν χώραν διερχόμενος ἐξ ἀποδημίας ἄρτι τεθερισμένην ὁρῶν τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰς ἅλωνας παραλλήλους καὶ ὁμαλεῖς, ἐμειδίασέν τε καὶ εἶπε πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας, ὡς ἡ Λακωνικὴ φαίνεται πᾶσα πολλῶν ἀδελφῶν εἶναι νεωστὶ νενεμημένων. τοιγὰρ οὖν ἐξῆν αὐτῷ τρυφὴν ἐξελάσαντι τῆς Σπάρτης ἀκυρῶσαι πᾶν νόμισμα χρυσοῦν καὶ ἀργυροῦν, μόνῳ δὲ χρῆσθαι τῷ σιδηρῷ, καὶ τούτῳ ἀπὸ πολλοῦ σταθμοῦ καὶ ὄγκου δύναμιν ὀλίγην ἔχοντι· ὥστε δέκα μνῶν ἀμοιβὴν ἀποθήκης μεγάλης ἐν οἰκίᾳ δεῖσθαι καὶ ζεύγους ἄγοντος. οὗ κυρωθέντος ἐξέπεσεν ἀδικημάτων γένη πολλὰ τῆς Λακεδαίμονος. τίς γὰρ ἢ κλέπτειν ἔμελλεν ἢ δωροδοκεῖν ἢ ἀποστερεῖν ἢ ἁρπάζειν ὃ μήτε κατακρύψαι δυνατὸν ἦν μήτε κεκτῆσθαι ζηλωτόν, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ κατακόψαι λυσιτελές; ἔμελλον δὲ καὶ τέχναι ἄχρηστοι ἐξελαθήσεσθαι σὺν τούτοις, διάθεσιν τῶν ἔργων οὐκ ἐχόντων. τὸ γὰρ σιδηροῦν ἀγώγιμον οὐκ ἦν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας οὐδὲ εἶχε τιμὴν καταγελώμενον, ὥστε οὐδὲ πρίασθαί τι τῶν ξενικῶν καὶ ῥωπικῶν ὑπῆρχεν, οὐδὲ εἰσέπλει φόρτος ἐμπορικὸς εἰς τοὺς λιμένας, οὐδ’ ἐπέβαινε τῆς Λακωνικῆς οὐ σοφιστὴς λόγων, οὐ μάντις ἀγυρτικός, οὐχ ἑταιρῶν τροφεύς, οὐ χρυσῶν τις, οὐ χαλκῶν καλλωπισμάτων δημιουργός, ἅτε δὴ νομίσματος οὐκ ὄντος. ἀλλ’ οὕτως ἀπερημωθεῖσα κατὰ μικρὸν ἡ τρυφὴ τῶν ζωπυρούντων καὶ τρεφόντων αὐτὴ δι’ ἑαυτῆς ἐμαραίνετο· καὶ πλέον οὐδὲν ἦν τοῖς πολλὰ κεκτημένοις ὁδὸν οὐκ ἐχούσης εἰς μέσον τῆς εὐπορίας, ἀλλ’ ἐγκατῳκοδομημένης καὶ ἀργούσης. διὸ καὶ τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν σκευῶν καὶ ἀναγκαῖα ταῦτα, κλιντῆρες καὶ δίφροι καὶ τράπεξαι, βέλτιστα παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἐδημιουργεῖτο, καὶ κώθων, ὡς φησὶ Κριτίας, ὁ Λακωνικὸς εὐδοκίμει μάλιστα πρὸς τὰς στρατείας. τὰ γὰρ ἀναγκαίως πινόμενα τῶν ὑδάτων καὶ δυσωποῦντα τὴν ὄψιν ἀπεκρύπτετο τῇ χρόᾳ, καὶ τοῦ θολεροῦ προσκόπτοντος καὶ προσισχομένου τοῖς ἄμβωσι, καθαρώτερον ἐπλησίαζε τῷ στόματι τὸ πινόμενον. αἴτιος δὲ καὶ τούτων ὁ νομοθέτης, ὡς φησὶν ὁ Πλούταρχος. ἀπηλλαγμένοι γὰρ οἱ δημιουργοὶ τῶν ἀχρήστων ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις ἐπεδείκνυντο 3. Hence, this being afterwards perceived by the Lacedaemonian Lycurgus, though the eating of animals then prevailed, yet he so arranged his polity, as to render food of this kind requisite in the smallest degree. For the allotted property of each individual [ 1078 ]

did not consist in herds of oxen, flocks of sheep, or an abundance of goats, horses, and money, but in the possession of land, which might produce for a man seventy medimni  of barley, and for a woman twelve, and the quantity of liquid fruits in the same proportion. For he thought that this quantity of nutriment was sufficient to procure a good habit of body and health, nothing else to obtain these being requisite. Whence also it is said, that on returning to his country, after he had been for some time absent from it, and perceiving, as he passed through the fields, that the corn had just been reaped, and that the threshing-floors and the heaps were parallel and equable, he laughed, and said to those that were present, that all Laconia seemed to belong to many brothers, who had just divided the land among themselves. He added, that as he had therefore expelled luxury from Sparta, it would be requisite also to annul the use of money, both golden and silver, and to introduce iron alone, as its substitute, and this of a great bulk and weight, and of little value; so that as much of it as should be worth ten minae should require a large receptacle to hold it, and a cart drawn by two oxen to carry it. But this being ordained, many species of injustice were exterminated from Lacedaemon. For who would attempt to thieve, or suffer himself to be corrupted by gifts, or defraud or plunder another, when it was not possible for him to conceal what he had taken, nor possess it so as to be envied by others, nor derive any advantage from coining it? Together with money also, the useless arts were expelled, the works of the Lacedaemonians not being saleable. For iron money could not be exported to the other Greeks, nor was it esteemed by them, but ridiculed. Hence, neither was it lawful to buy any thing foreign, and which was intrinsically of no worth, nor did ships laden with merchandise sail into their ports, nor was any verbal sophist, or futile diviner, or bawd, or artificer of golden and silver ornaments, permitted to come to Laconia, because there money was of no use. And thus luxury, being gradually deprived of its incitements and nourishment, wasted away of itself. Those likewise who possessed much derived no greater advantage from it, than those who did not, as no egress was afforded to abundance, since it was so obstructed by impediments, that it was forced to remain in indolent rest. Hence such household furniture as was in constant use, and was necessary, such as beds, chairs, and tables, these were made by them in the best manner; and the Laconic cup, which was called Cothon, was, as Critias says, especially celebrated in military expeditions. For in these expeditions, the water which they drank, and which was unpleasant to the sight, was concealed by the colour of the cup; and the turbid part of the water falling against the lips, through their prominency, that part of it which was drank, was received in a purer condition by the mouth. As we are informed, however, by Plutarch, the legislator was the cause of these things. For the artificers being liberated from useless works, exhibited the beauty of art in things of a necessary nature. [ 1079 ]

[4] τὴν καλλιτεχνίαν. ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον ἐπιθέσθαι τῇ τρυφῇ καὶ τὸν ζῆλον ἀφελέσθαι τοῦ πλούτου διανοηθεὶς τὸ τρίτον πολίτευμα καὶ κάλλιστον ἐπῆγεν, τὴν τῶν συσσιτίων κατασκευήν, ὥστε δειπνεῖν μετ’ ἀλλήλων συνιόντας ἐπὶ κοινοῖς καὶ τεταγμένοις ὄψοις καὶ σιτίοις, οἴκοι δὲ μὴ διαιτᾶσθαι κατακλινέντας εἰς στρωμνὰς πολυτελεῖς καὶ τραπέζας, χερσὶν δημιουργῶν καὶ μαγείρων ὑπὸ σκότος, ὥσπερ ἀδηφάγα ζῷα, πιαινομένους καὶ διαφθείροντας ἅμα τοῖς ἤθεσι τὰ σώματα πρὸς πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀνειμένα καὶ πλησμονήν, μακρῶν μὲν ὕπνων, θερμῶν δὲ λουτρῶν, πολλῆς δὲ ἡσυχίας καὶ τρόπον τινὰ νοσηλείας καθημερινῆς δεομένην. μέγα μὲν οὖν καὶ τοῦτο ἦν, μεῖζον δὲ τούτου τὸ τὸν πλοῦτον ἄζηλον, ὡς φησὶν Θεόφραστος, καὶ ἄπλουτον ἀπεργάσασθαι τῇ κοινότητι τῶν δείπνων καὶ τῇ περὶ τὴν δίαιταν εὐτελείᾳ. χρῆσις γὰρ οὐκ ἦν οὐδὲ ἀπόλαυσις οὐδὲ ὄψις ὅλως ἢ ἐπίδειξις τῆς πολλῆς παρασκευῆς, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ δεῖπνον τῷ πένητι τοῦ πλουσίου βαδίζοντος· ὥστε τοῦτο δὴ τὸ θρυλούμενον ἐν μόνῃ τῇ Σπάρτῃ βλέπεσθαι τυφλὸν ὄντα τὸν Πλοῦτον καὶ κείμενον ὥσπερ γραφὴν ἄψυχον καὶ ἀκίνητον. οὐδὲ γὰρ οἴκοι προδειπνήσαντας ἐξῆν βαδίζειν ἐπὶ τὰ συσσίτια πεπληρωμένους, ἀλλ’ ἐπιμελῶς οἱ λοιποὶ φυλάττοντες τὸν μὴ πίνοντα μηδὲ ἐσθίοντα μετ’ αὐτῶν ἐκάκιζον ὡς ἀκρατῆ καὶ πρὸς τὴν κοινὴν μαλθακιζόμενον δίαιταν. διὸ καὶ φιδίτια προσηγόρευον ταῦτα, εἴτε ὡς φιλίας καὶ φιλοφροσύνης ὑπάρχοντα αἴτια, ἀντὶ τοῦ λάβδα τὸ δέλτα λαμβάνοντες, εἴτε ὡς πρὸς εὐτέλειαν καὶ φειδὼ συνεθιζόντων. συνήρχοντο δὲ ἀνὰ πεντεκαίδεκα καὶ βραχεῖ τούτων ἐλάττους ἢ πλείους. ἔφερε δὲ ἕκαστος κατὰ μῆνα τῶν συσσίτων ἀλφίτων μέδιμνον, οἴνου χόας ὀκτώ, τυροῦ πέντε μνᾶς, σύκων ἡμιμναῖα πέντε· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις εἰς ὀψωνίαν 4. That he might also in a still greater degree oppose luxury, and take away the ardent endeavour to obtain wealth, he introduced a third, and most beautiful political institution, viz. that of the citizens eating and drinking together publicly; so that they might partake of the same prescribed food in common, and might not be fed at home, reclining on sumptuous couches, and placed before elegant tables, through the hands of artificers and cooks, being fattened in darkness, like voracious animals, and corrupting their bodies, together with their morals, by falling into every kind of luxury and repletion; as such a mode of living would require much sleep, hot baths, and abundant quiet, and such attentions as are paid to the diseased. This indeed was a great thing; but still greater than this, that, as Theophrastus says, he caused wealth to be neglected, and to be of no value through the citizens eating at common tables, and the frugality of their food. For there was no use, nor enjoyment of riches; nor, in short, was there any thing to gratify the sight, or any ostentatious display in the whole apparatus, because both the poor and the rich sat at the same table. Hence it was universally said, that in Sparta alone, Plutus was seen to be blind, and lying like an inanimate and immoveable picture. For it was not possible for the citizens, having previously feasted at home, to go to the common tables with appetites already satiated with food. For the rest carefully observed him who did not eat and drink with them, and reviled him, as an intemperate person, [ 1080 ]

and as one who conducted himself effeminately with respect to the common food. Hence these common tables were called phiditia; either as being the causes of friendship and benevolence, as if they were philitia, assuming δ for λ; or as accustoming men (προς ευτελειαν και φειδω) to frugality and a slender diet. But the number of those that assembled at the common table was fifteen, more or less. And each person brought every month, for the purpose of furnishing the table, a medimnus of flour, eight choas  of wine, five pounds of cheese, two and a half pounds of figs, and, besides all these, a very little quantity of money. [5] μικρόν τι κομιδῇ νομίσματος. εἰκότως ἄρα οὕτω λιτῶς καὶ σωφρόνως δειπνούντων καὶ οἱ παῖδες ἐφοίτων εἰς τὰ συσσίτια ὥσπερ εἰς διδασκαλεῖα σωφροσύνης ἀγόμενοι, καὶ λόγων ἠκροῶντο πολιτικῶν καὶ παιδευτὰς ἐλευθερίας ἑώρων, αὐτοί τε παίζειν εἰθίζοντο καὶ σκώπτειν ἄνευ βωμολοχίας καὶ σκωπτόμενοι μὴ δυσχεραίνειν. σφόδρα γὰρ ἐδόκει καὶ τοῦτο Λακωνικὸν εἶναι, σκώμματος ἀνασχέσθαι· μὴ φέροντα δὲ ἐξῆν παραιτεῖσθαι, καὶ ὁ σκώπτων ἐπέπαυτο. τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων περὶ τὴν δίαιταν λιτότης, καίπερ εἰς πλῆθος νενομοθετημένη. διὸ καὶ ἀνδρικώτεροι καὶ σωφρονέστεροι καὶ τοῦ ὀρθοῦ μᾶλλον φροντίζοντες οἱ ἐκ ταύτης τῆς πολιτείας ἀναβαίνοντες παραδέδονται τῶν ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων, διεφθαρμένων καὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς καὶ τοῖς σώμασιν· καὶ δῆλον ὡς τοιαύτῃ πολιτείᾳ οἰκεῖον τὸ τῆς ἀποχῆς τῆς παντελοῦς, ταῖς δὲ διεφθαρμέναις τὸ τῆς βρώσεως. μεταβάντι δὲ εἰς τὰ ἄλλα ἔθνη, ὅσα εὐνομίας τε καὶ ἡμερότητος τῆς τε πρὸς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείας ἐπεστράφη, φανερὸν ἔσται ὡς πρός τε τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν πόλεων καὶ τὸ συμφέρον αὐταῖς εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐπὶ πάντας, ἀλλὰ γοῦν εἴς τινας τὸ τῆς ἀποχῆς προσετέτακτο· οἱ δὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως θύοντες τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ θεραπεύοντες ἀπεμειλίττοντο τὰς τῶν πολλῶν ἁμαρτίας. ὅπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς μυστηρίοις ὁ ἀφ’ ἑστίας λεγόμενος παῖς, ‹ὃς› ἀντὶ πάντων τῶν μυουμένων ἀπομειλίσσεται τὸ θεῖον, ἀκριβῶς δρῶν τὰ προστεταγμένα, τοῦτο κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη καὶ τὰς πόλεις οἱ ἱερεῖς δύνανται ἀντὶ πάντων θύοντες καὶ τὸ θεῖον προσαγόμενοι διὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας εἰς τὴν σφῶν κηδεμονίαν. τοῖς τοίνυν ἱερεῦσιν τοῖς μὲν τῶν ζῴων πάντων, τοῖς δέ τινων πάντως προστέτακται ἀπέχεσθαι τῆς βορᾶς, ἄν τε Ἑλληνικὸν ἔθος σκοπῇς ἄν τε βάρβαρον, καὶ μέντοι παρ’ ἄλλοις ἄλλων· ὥστε τοὺς πανταχοῦ παραληφθέντας φαίνεσθαι πάντων ἀπεχομένους, εἴ τις τοὺς πάντας ὡς ἕνα ὑπολάβοι. εἰ τοίνυν οἱ τῆς σωτηρίας τῶν πόλεων προεστῶτες καὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν αὐτῶν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς πεπιστευμένοι τῶν ζῴων ἀπέχονται, πῶς ἄν τις τολμήσειεν ὡς ἀσύμφορον ταῖς πόλεσι τὴν 5. Hence the children of those who ate thus sparingly and temperately, came to these common tables, as to schools of temperance, where they also heard political discourses, and were spectators of liberal sports. Here, likewise, they learnt to jest acrimoniously, without scurrility, and to receive, without being indignant, the biting jests of others. For this appeared to be extremely Laconic, to be able to endure acrimonious jests; though he who could not endure was permitted to refuse hearing them, and the scoffer was immediately silent. Such, therefore, was the frugality of the [ 1081 ]

Lacedaemonians, with respect to diet, though it was legally instituted for the sake of the multitude. Hence those who came from this polity are said to have been more brave and temperate, and paid more attention to rectitude, than those who came from other communities, which are corrupted both in souls and bodies. And it is evident that perfect abstinence is adapted to such a polity as this, but to corrupt communities luxurious food. If, likewise, we direct our attention to such other nations as regarded equity, mildness and piety to the Gods, it will be evident that abstinence was ordained by them, with a view to the safety and advantage, if not of all, yet at least of some of the citizens, who, sacrificing to, and worshipping the Gods, on account of the city, might expiate the sins of the multitude. For, in the mysteries, what the boy who attends the altar accomplishes, by performing accurately what he is commanded to do, in order to render the Gods propitious to all those who have been initiated, as far as to muesis  (αντι παντων των μυουμενων), that, in nations and cities, priests are able to effect, by sacrificing for all the people, and through piety inducing the Gods to be attentive to the welfare of those that belong to them. With respect to priests, therefore, the eating of all animals is prohibited to some, but of certain animals to others, whether you consider the customs of the Greeks or of the barbarians, which are different in different nations. So that all of them, collectively considered, or existing as one, being assumed, it will be found that they abstain from all animals. If, therefore, those who preside over the safety of cities, and to whose care piety to the Gods is committed, abstain from animals, how can any one dare to accuse this abstinence as disadvantageous to cities? [6] ἀποχὴν αἰτιᾶσθαι; τὰ γοῦν κατὰ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἱερέας Χαιρήμων ὁ στωικὸς ἀφηγούμενος, οὓς καὶ φιλοσόφους ὑπειλῆφθαι φησὶ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις, ἐξηγεῖται ὡς τόπον μὲν ἐξελέξαντο ἐμφιλοσοφῆσαι τὰ ἱερά. πρός τε γὰρ τὴν ὅλην ὄρεξιν τῆς θεωρίας συγγενὲς ἦν παρὰ τοῖς ἐκείνων ἀφιδρύμασι διαιτᾶσθαι, παρεῖχέν τε αὐτοῖς ἀσφάλειαν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ θείου σεβασμοῦ καθάπερ τινα ἱερὰ ζῷα πάντων τιμώντων τοὺς φιλοσόφους, ἠρεμαίοις δὲ εἶναι, ἅτε τῆς ἐπιμιξίας κατὰ τὰς πανηγύρεις καὶ τὰς ἑορτὰς συντελουμένης μόνον, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν σχεδὸν ἀβάτων ὄντων τοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν ἱερῶν· ἁγνεύσαντας γὰρ ἔδει προσιέναι καὶ πολλῶν ἀποσχομένους. καὶ τοῦτο ὥσπερ κοινὸς τῶν κατ’ Αἴγυπτον ἱερῶν θεσμός ἐστιν. ἀπειπάμενοι δὲ πᾶσαν τὴν ἄλλην ἐργασίαν καὶ πόρους ἀνθρωπίνους, ἀπέδοσαν ὅλον τὸν βίον τῇ τῶν θείων θεωρίᾳ καὶ θεάσει, διὰ μὲν ταύτης τό τε τίμιον καὶ ἀσφαλὲς καὶ εὐσεβὲς ποριζόμενοι, διὰ δὲ τῆς θεωρίας τὴν ἐπιστήμην, δι’ ἀμφοῖν δὲ ἄσκησιν ἠθῶν κεκρυμμένην τινὰ καὶ ἀρχαιοπρεπῆ. τὸ γὰρ ἀεὶ συνεῖναι τῇ θείᾳ γνώσει καὶ ἐπιπνοίᾳ πάσης μὲν ἔξω τίθησιν πλεονεξίας, καταστέλλει δὲ τὰ πάθη, διεγείρει δὲ πρὸς σύνεσιν τὸν βίον. λιτότητα δὲ ἐπετήδευσαν καὶ καταστολὴν ἐγκράτειάν τε καὶ καρτερίαν τό τε ἐν παντὶ δίκαιον καὶ ἀπλεονέκτητον. σεμνοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς παρεῖχεν καὶ τὸ δυσεπίμικτον, οἵ γε παρὰ μὲν αὐτὸν τῶν λεγομένων ἁγνειῶν τὸν καιρὸν οὐδὲ τοῖς συγγενεστάτοις καὶ ὁμοφύλοις ἐπεμίγνυντο σχεδὸν οὐδὲ ἄλλων τῳ θεωρούμενοι, ὅτι μὴ πρὸς [ 1082 ]

τὰς ἀναγκαίας συναγνεύουσι χρείας, ἢ ἁγνευτήρια τοῖς μὴ καθαρεύουσιν ἄδυτα καὶ πρὸς ἱερουργίας ἅγια κατανεμόμενοι· τὸν δὲ ἄλλον χρόνον ἁπλούστερον μὲν τοῖς ὁμοίοις ἐπεμίγνυντο, τῶν δὲ ἐξωτικῶν τῆς θρησκείας οὐδενὶ συνεβίουν· ἐφαίνοντο δὲ ἀεὶ θεῶν ἢ ἀγαλμάτων ἐγγύς, ἤτοι φέροντες ἢ προηγούμενοι καὶ τάσσοντες μετὰ κόσμου τε καὶ σεμνότητος· ὧν ἕκαστον οὐ τῦφος ἦν, ἀλλά τινος ἔνδειξις φυσικοῦ λόγου. τὸ δὲ σεμνὸν κἀκ τοῦ καταστήματος ἑωρᾶτο. πορεία τε γὰρ ἦν εὔτακτος καὶ βλέμμα καθεστηκὸς ἐπετηδεύετο, ὡς ὅτε βουληθεῖεν μὴ σκαρδαμύττειν· γέλως δὲ σπάνιος· εἰ δέ που γένοιτο, μέχρι μειδιάσεως· ἀεὶ δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ σχήματος ‹αἱ› χεῖρες. καὶ σύμβολόν γε ἦν ἑκάστῳ τῆς τάξεως ἐμφαντικόν, ἣν ἔλαχεν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς· πλείους γὰρ ἦσαν αἱ τάξεις. δίαιτα δὲ λιτὴ καὶ ἀφελής· οἴνου γὰρ οἳ μὲν οὐδ’ ὅλως, οἳ δὲ ὀλίγιστα ἐγεύοντο, νεύρων αἰτιώμενοι βλάβας καὶ πλήρωσιν κεφαλῆς ἐμπόδιον εἰς εὕρεσιν, ἀφροδισίων τε ἔφασαν αὐτὸν ὀρέξεις ἐπιφέρειν. ταύτῃ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων εὐλαβῶς εἶχον, ἄρτοις μὲν οὐδὲ ὅλως ἐν ταῖς ἁγνείαις χρώμενοι· εἰ δέ ποτε μὴ ἁγνεύοιεν, σὺν ὑσσώπῳ κόπτοντες ἤσθιον· τὸ πολὺ γὰρ αὐτοῦ τῆς δυνάμεως καθαιρεῖν ἔφασαν τὸν ὕσσωπον. ἐλαίου δ’ ἀπείχοντο ‹οἳ› μὲν ὡς τὸ πολύ, οἱ πλεῖστοι δὲ καὶ παντελῶς· εἰ δέ που μετὰ λαχάνων χρήσαιντο, παντελῶς ὀλίγῳ καὶ ὅσον παρηγορῆσαι 6. Chaeremon the Stoic, therefore, in his narration of the Egyptian priests, who, he says, were considered by the Egyptians as philosophers, informs us, that they chose temples, as the places in which they might philosophize. For to dwell with the statues of the Gods is a thing allied to the whole desire, by which the soul tends to the contemplation of their divinities. And from the divine veneration indeed, which was paid to them through dwelling in temples, they obtained security, all men honouring these philosophers, as if they were certain sacred animals. They also led a solitary life, as they only mingled with other men in solemn sacrifices and festivals. But at other times the priests were almost inaccessible to any one who wished to converse with them. For it was requisite that he who approached to them should be first purified, and abstain from many things; and this is as it were a common sacred law respecting the Egyptian priests. But these [philosophic priests], having relinquished every other employment, and human labours, gave up the whole of their life to the contemplation and worship of divine natures and to divine inspiration; through the latter, indeed, procuring for themselves, honour, security, and piety; but through contemplation, science; and through both, a certain occult exercise of manners, worthy of antiquity. For to be always conversant with divine knowledge and inspiration, removes those who are so from all avarice, suppresses the passions, and excites to an intellectual life. But they were studious of frugality in their diet and apparel, and also of continence and endurance, and in all things were attentive to justice and equity. They likewise were rendered venerable, through rarely mingling with other men. For during the time of what are called purifications, they scarcely mingled with their nearest kindred, and those of their [ 1083 ]

own order, nor were they to be seen by anyone, unless it was requisite for the necessary purposes of purification. For the sanctuary was inaccessible to those who were not purified, and they dwelt in holy places for the purpose of performing divine works; but at all other times they associated more freely with those who lived like themselves. They did not, however, associate with any one who was not a religious character. But they were always seen near to the Gods, or the statues of the Gods, the latter of which they were beheld either carrying, or preceding in a sacred procession, or disposing in an orderly manner, with modesty and gravity; each of which operations was not the effect of pride, but an indication of some physical reason. Their venerable gravity also was apparent from their manners. For their walking was orderly, and their aspect sedate; and they were so studious of preserving this gravity of countenance, that they did not even wink, when at any time they were unwilling to do so; and they seldom laughed, and when they did, their laughter proceeded no farther than to a smile. But they always kept their hands within their garments. Each likewise bore about him a symbol indicative of the order which he was allotted in sacred concerns; for there were many orders of priests. Their diet also was slender and simple. For, with respect to wine, some of them did not at all drink it, but others drank very little of it, on account of its being injurious to the nerves, oppressive to the head, an impediment to invention, and an incentive to venereal desires. In many other things also they conducted themselves with caution; neither using bread at all in purifications, and at those times in which they were not employed in purifying themselves, they were accustomed to eat bread with hyssop, cut into small pieces. For it is said, that hyssop very much purifies the power of bread. But they, for the most part, abstained from oil, the greater number of them entirely; and if at any time they used it with pot-herbs, they took very little of it, and only as much as was sufficient to mitigate the taste of the herbs. [7] τὴν αἴσθησιν. τῶν μὲν οὖν ἐκτὸς Αἰγύπτου γιγνομένων βρωμάτων τε καὶ ποτῶν οὐ θέμις ἦν ἅπτεσθαι. πολύς τις οὕτως τρυφῆς ἀπεκέκλειστο πόρος. τῶν δὲ κατ’ αὐτὴν τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἰχθύων τε ἀπείχοντο πάντων καὶ τετραπόδων ὅσα μώνυχα ἢ πολυσχιδῆ ἢ μὴ κερασφόρα· πτηνῶν δὲ ὅσα σαρκοφάγα· πολλοὶ δὲ καθάπαξ τῶν ἐμψύχων· καὶ ἔν γε ταῖς ἁγνείαις ἅπαντες, ὁπότε μηδ’ ᾠὸν προσίεντο. καὶ μέντοι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οὐκ ἀσυκοφάντητον ἐποιοῦντο παραίτησιν, οἷον τῶν βοῶν τὰς θηλείας παρῃτοῦντο, τῶν δ’ ἀρρένων ὅσα δίδυμα ἢ κατάσπιλα ἢ ἑτερόχροα ἢ παραλλάσσοντα τῇ μορφῇ ἢ δεδαμασμένα, ὡς ἤδη καθωσιωμένα τοῖς πόνοις καὶ τιμωμένοις ἐμφερῆ, ἢ καθ’ ὅντιν’ οὖν οἷον ἀπεικασμὸν ἐξείη ἢ ἑτερόφθαλμα ἢ πρὸς ἀνθρωπείαν ἐμφέρειαν νεύοντα. μυρίαι δ’ ἄλλαι παρατηρήσεις τῆς περὶ αὐτὰ τέχνης τῶν καλουμένων μοσχοσφραγιστῶν ἄχρι συντάξεων προάγουσαι βιβλιακῶν. περιεργότερον δ’ ἔτι περὶ τὰ πτηνά, οἷον τρυγόνα μὴ ἐσθίειν· ἱέραξ γάρ, ἔφασαν, πολλαχῇ τὸ ζῷον συλλαβὼν ἀφίησιν, μισθὸν ἀποδιδοὺς μίξεως σωτηρίαν. ὡς οὖν μὴ λάθοιεν τοιούτῳ περιπεσόντες, ἅπαν αὐτῶν [ 1084 ]

περιίσταντο τὸ γένος. κοιναὶ μὲν δὴ θρησκεῖαί τινες αὗται, κατὰ γένη δὲ τῶν ἱερέων διάφοροι, καὶ οἰκεῖαι καθ’ ἕκαστον θεόν· αἱ δὲ ἁγνεῖαι πάντων ἐκαθάρευον. ὁ δὲ χρόνος οὗτος, ὁπότε συντελεῖν τι τῶν περὶ τὴν ἱερὰν μέλλοιεν θρησκείαν, προλαμβάνων ἡμερῶν ἀριθμόν, οἳ μὲν δυεῖν καὶ τετταράκοντα, οἳ δὲ τούτων πλείους, οἳ δὲ ἐλάσσους, οὐδέποτε μέντοι τῶν ἑπτὰ λειπομένας, παντὸς μὲν ἐμψύχου ἀπείχοντο, παντὸς δὲ λαχάνου τε καὶ ὀσπρίου, πρὸ δὲ πάντων ὁμιλίας γυναικείας· ἄρρενος μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον μετεῖχον. τρὶς δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἀπελούοντο ψυχρῷ, ἀπό τε κοίτης καὶ πρὸ ἀρίστου καὶ πρὸ ὕπνου. εἰ δέ ποτε συμβαίη καὶ ὀνειρώττειν, παραχρῆμα ἀπεκάθαιρον λουτρῷ τὸ σῶμα. ψυχρῷ μὲν οὖν καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἄλλον ἐχρῶντο βίον, οὐ μὴν οὑτωσὶ πλεονάζοντι. κοίτη δὲ αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν σπαδίκων τοῦ φοίνικος, ἃς καλοῦσι βάις, ἐπέπλεκτο· ξύλινον δὲ ἡμικυλίνδριον εὖ λελεασμένον ὑπόθημα τῆς κεφαλῆς· ἤσκουν δὲ δίψαν καὶ πεῖναν καὶ ὀλιγοσιτίαν 7. It was not lawful for them therefore to meddle with the esculent and potable substances, which were produced out of Egypt, and this contributed much to the exclusion of luxury from these priests. But they abstained from all the fish that was caught in Egypt, and from such quadrupeds as had solid, or many-fissured hoofs, and from such as were not horned; and likewise from all such birds as were carnivorous. Many of them, however, entirely abstained from all animals; and in purifications this abstinence was adopted by all of them, for then they did not even eat an egg. Moreover, they also rejected other things, without being calumniated for so doing. Thus, for instance, of oxen, they rejected the females, and also such of the males as were twins, or were speckled, or of a different colour, or alternately varied in their form, or which were now tamed, as having been already consecrated to labours, and resembled animals that are honoured, or which were the images of any thing [that is divine], or those that had but one eye, or those that verged to a similitude of the human form. There are also innumerable other observations pertaining to the art of those who are called mosxofragistai, or who stamp calves with a seal, and of which books have been composed. But these observations are still more curious respecting birds; as, for instance, that a turtle should not be eaten; for it is said that a hawk frequently dismisses this bird after he has seized it, and preserves its life, as a reward for having had connexion with it. The Egyptian priests, therefore, that they might not ignorantly meddle with a turtle of this kind, avoided the whole species of those birds. And these indeed were certain common religious ceremonies; but there were different ceremonies, which varied according to the class of the priests that used them, and were adapted to the several divinities. But chastity and purifications were common to all the priests. When also the time arrived in which they were to perform something pertaining to the sacred rites of religion, they spent some days in preparatory ceremonies, some indeed forty-two, but others a greater, and others a less number of days; yet never less [ 1085 ]

than seven days; and during this time they abstained from all animals, and likewise from all pot-herbs and leguminous substances, and, above all, from a venereal connexion with women; for they never at any time had connexion with males. They likewise washed themselves with cold water thrice every day; viz. when they rose from their bed, before dinner, and when they betook themselves to sleep. But if they happened to be polluted in their sleep by the emission of the seed, they immediately purified their body in a bath. They also used cold bathing at other times, but not so frequently as on the above occasion. Their bed was woven from the branches of the palm tree, which they call bais; and their bolster was a smooth semi-cylindric piece of wood. But they exercised themselves in the endurance of hunger and thirst, and were accustomed to paucity of food through the whole of their life. [8] παρὰ πάντα τὸν βίον. μαρτυρία δ’ αὐτῶν τῆς ἐγκρατείας, ὅτι μήτε περιάπτοις μήτ’ ἐπῳδαῖς χρώμενοι διῆγον ἄνοσοι καὶ πρὸς μετρίαν ἰσχὺν εὔτονοι. πολλὰ γοῦν κατὰ τὰς ἱερουργίας ἀνεδέχοντο βάρη καὶ ὑπηρετήματα τῆς κοινῆς ἰσχύος μείζω. διῄρουν δὲ νύκτα μὲν εἰς ἐπιτήρησιν οὐρανίων, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἁγιστείαν, ἡμέραν δὲ εἰς θεραπείαν τῶν θεῶν, καθ’ ἣν τετράκις, κατὰ τὴν ἕω καὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν μεσουρανοῦντά τε τὸν ἥλιον καὶ πρὸς δύσιν καταφερόμενον, τούτους ὑμνοῦντες· τὸν δὲ ἄλλον χρόνον πρὸς θεωρήμασιν ἦσαν ἀριθμητικοῖς τε καὶ γεωμετρικοῖς, ἐκπονοῦντες ἀεί τι καὶ προσεξευρίσκοντες, συνόλως τε περὶ τὴν ἐμπειρίαν καταγιγνόμενοι. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐν ταῖς χειμερίοις ἐπετήδευον νυξί, φιλολογίᾳ προσαγρυπνοῦντες, ἅτε μήτε πορισμοῦ ποιούμενοι φροντίδα δεσπότου τε κακοῦ τῆς πολυτελείας ἐλευθεριάζοντες. ὁ μὲν δὴ πόνος ὁ ἄτρυτός τε καὶ διηνεκὴς καρτερίαν ἀπομαρτυρεῖ τοῖς ἀνδράσι, τὸ δὲ ἀνεπιθύμητον ἐγκράτειαν· οἵ γε ἐν τοῖς ἀσεβεστάτοις ἐτίθεντο πλεῖν ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου, διευλαβούμενοι ξενικὰς τρυφὰς καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματα· μόνοις γὰρ ὅσιον ἐδόκει τοῖς κατὰ τὰς βασιλικὰς χρείας ἀπηναγκασμένοις. πολὺς δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἦν λόγος ἐμμεῖναι τοῖς πατρίοις· μικρὰ δ’ εἰ καταγνωσθεῖεν παραβαίνοντες, ἀπηλαύνοντο. καὶ τὸ μὲν κατ’ ἀλήθειαν φιλοσοφοῦν ἔν τε τοῖς προφήταις ἦν καὶ ἱεροστολισταῖς καὶ ἱερογραμματεῦσιν, ἔτι δὲ ὡρολόγοις. τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν τῶν ἱερέων τε καὶ παστοφόρων καὶ νεωκόρων πλῆθος καὶ ὑπουργῶν τοῖς θεοῖς καθαρεύει μὲν ὁμοίως, οὔτι γε μὲν μετ’ ἀκριβείας καὶ ἐγκρατείας τοσῆσδε. τοιαῦτα μὲν τὰ κατ’ Αἰγυπτίους ὑπ’ ἀνδρὸς φιλαλήθους τε καὶ ἀκριβοῦς ἔν τε τοῖς στωικοῖς πραγματικώτατα 8. This also is a testimony of their continence, that, though they neither exercised themselves in walking or riding, yet they lived free from disease, and were sufficiently strong for the endurance of modern labours. They bore therefore many burdens in the performance of sacred operations, and accomplished many ministrant works, which required more than common strength. But they divided the night into the observation of the celestial bodies, and sometimes devoted a part of it to offices of purification; and they distributed the day into the worship of the Gods, according to which they [ 1086 ]

celebrated them with hymns thrice or four times, viz. in the morning and evening, when the sun is at his meridian altitude, and when he is declining to the west. The rest of their time they devoted to arithmetical and geometrical speculations, always labouring to effect something, and to make some new discovery, and, in short, continually exercising their skill. In winter nights also they were occupied in the same employments, being vigilantly engaged in literary pursuits, as paying no attention to the acquisition of externals, and being liberated from the servitude of that bad master, excessive expense. Hence their unwearied and incessant labour testifies their endurance, but their continence is manifested by their liberation from the desire of external good. To sail from Egypt likewise, [i.e. to quit Egypt,] was considered by them to be one of the most unholy things, in consequence of their being careful to avoid foreign luxury and pursuits; for this appeared to them to be alone lawful to those who were compelled to do so by regal necessities. Indeed, they were very anxious to continue in the observance of the institutes of their country, and those who were found to have violated them, though but in a small degree were expelled [from the college of the priests]. The true method of philosophizing, likewise, was preserved by the prophets, by the hierostolistae , and the sacred scribes, and also by the horologi, or calculators of nativities. But the rest of the priests, and of the pastophori , curators of temples, and ministers of the Gods, were similarly studious of purity, yet not so accurately, and with such great continence, as the priests of whom we have been speaking. And such are the particulars which are narrated of the Egyptians, by a man who was a lover of truth, and an accurate writer, and who among the Stoics strenuously and solidly philosophized. [9] φιλοσοφήσαντος μεμαρτυρημένα. ἀπὸ δὲ ταύτης ὁρμώμενοι τῆς ἀσκήσεως καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον οἰκειώσεως ἔγνωσαν ὡς οὐ δι’ ἀνθρώπου μόνου τὸ θεῖον διῆλθεν, οὐδὲ ψυχὴ ἐν μόνῳ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπὶ γῆς κατεσκήνωσεν, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἡ αὐτὴ διὰ πάντων διῆλθεν τῶν ζῴων. διὸ εἰς τὴν θεοποιίαν παρέλαβον πᾶν ζῷον καὶ ὁμοίως που ἀνέμιξαν θηρία καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ πάλιν ὀρνέων σώματα καὶ ἀνθρώπων· εἴκασται γὰρ παρ’ αὐτοῖς τις μέχρι τραχήλου ἀνθρωποειδής, τὸ δὲ πρόσωπον ὀρνέου ἢ λέοντος ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς ζῴου κεκτημένος· καὶ πάλιν αὖ κεφαλὴ ἀνθρώπειος καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ζῴων μέρη, πῇ μὲν ὑποκείμενα, πῇ δὲ ἐπικείμενα. δι’ ὧν δηλοῦσιν ὅτι κατὰ γνώμην θεῶν καὶ ταῦτα ἀλλήλοις κοινωνεῖ, καὶ σύντροφα ἡμῖν καὶ τιθασά ἐστιν τῶν θηρίων τὰ ἄγρια οὐκ ἄνευ τινὸς θείας βουλήσεως. ὅθεν καὶ ὁ λέων ὡς θεὸς θρησκεύεται, καὶ μέρος τι τῆς Αἰγύπτου, ὃ καλοῦσι νομόν, ἐπώνυμον ἔχει Λεοντοπολίτην, ἄλλο δὲ Βουσειρίτην, ἄλλο Λυκοπολίτην. τὴν γὰρ ἐπὶ πάντα δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ ………. διὰ τῶν συννόμων ζῴων ὧν ἕκαστος τῶν θεῶν παρέσχεν ἐθρήσκευσαν. ὕδωρ δὲ καὶ πῦρ σέβονται μάλιστα τῶν στοιχείων, ὡς ταῦτα αἰτιώτατα τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν, καὶ ταῦτα δεικνύντες ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, ὥς που ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐν τῇ ἀνοίξει τοῦ ἁγίου Σαράπιδος ἡ θεραπεία διὰ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος γίνεται, λείβοντος τοῦ ὑμνῳδοῦ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ πῦρ φαίνοντος, ὁπηνίκα ἑστὼς ἐπὶ τοῦ οὐδοῦ τῇ πατρίῳ τῶν [ 1087 ]

Αἰγυπτίων φωνῇ ἐγείρει τὸν θεόν. ταῦτ’ οὖν σέβονται [τὰ μέτοχα] καὶ μάλιστα [πλέον] τούτων [ἐσέφθησαν] τὰ ὡς ἐπὶ πλέον τῶν ἱερῶν μετέχοντα· μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ πάντα τὰ ζῷα, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἄνθρωπον σέβονται κατὰ Ἄναβιν κώμην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τούτῳ θύεται καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν βωμῶν τὰ ἱερεῖα κάεται. ὃ δὲ μετ’ ὀλίγον φάγοι ἂν τὰ ἴδια αὐτῷ ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ παρεσκευασμένα. ὡς οὖν ἀνθρώπου ἀφεκτέον, οὕτω καὶ τῶν ἄλλων. ἔτι δ’ ἐκ περιττῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς περὶ τὸ θεῖον συντροφίας κατέλαβόν τισι τῶν θεῶν προσφιλῆ τῶν ζῴων τινὰ μᾶλλον ἀνθρώπων, ὡς Ἡλίῳ ἱέρακα, σύμπασαν μὲν τὴν φύσιν ἐξ αἵματος ἔχοντα καὶ πνεύματος, οἰκτείροντα δὲ καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ κωκύοντα ἐπὶ νεκρῷ κειμένῳ γῆν τε ἐπαμώμενον εἰς τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, ἐν οἷς τὸ ἡλιακὸν κατοικεῖν πεπιστεύκασι φῶς, καὶ ζῆν μὲν ἐπὶ πλείονα ἔτη κατειληφότες, μετὰ δὲ τὸν βίον ἰσχὺν ἔχειν μαντικὴν καὶ εἶναι λογικώτατον ἀπολυθέντα τοῦ σώματος καὶ προγνωστικώτατον, τελεῖν τε ἀγάλματα καὶ ναοὺς κινεῖν. κάνθαρον δὲ ἀμαθὴς μὲν βδελυχθείη ἂν ἀγνώμων ὑπάρχων τῶν θείων, Αἰγύπτιοι δὲ ἐσέφθησαν ὡς εἰκόνα ἡλίου ἔμψυχον. κάνθαρος γὰρ πᾶς ἄρρην καὶ ἀφιεὶς τὸν θορὸν ἐν τέλματι καὶ ποιήσας σφαιροειδῆ τοῖς ὀπισθίοις ἀνταναφέρει ποσὶν ὡς ἥλιος οὐρανόν, καὶ περίοδον ἡμερῶν ἐκδέχεται σεληνιακήν. οὕτως δὲ καὶ περὶ κριοῦ τι φιλοσοφοῦσιν καὶ ἄλλο τι περὶ κροκοδείλου περί τε γυπὸς καὶ ἴβεως καὶ ὅλως καθ’ ἕκαστον τῶν ζῴων, ὡς ἐκ φρονήσεως καὶ τῆς ἄγαν θεοσοφίας ἐπὶ τὸ σέβας ἐλθεῖν καὶ τῶν ζῴων. [ἀμαθὴς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὑπώπτευσεν, ὅπως οὐ τῇ κοινῇ φορᾷ καὶ μηδὲν γινωσκούσῃ παρηνέχθησαν δηλονότι καὶ αὐτοὶ δι’ ἀμαθίας ὁδεύσαντες, ὑπερβάντες δὲ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ἄγνοιαν, ᾗ πρώτῃ πᾶς ἐντυγχάνει, τὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς οὐδενὸς ἄξια αὐτοὶ εἰς σέβας κατηξίωσαν.] 9. But the Egyptian priests, through the proficiency which they made by this exercise, and similitude to divinity, knew that divinity does not pervade through man alone, and that soul is not enshrined in man alone on the earth, but that it nearly passes through all animals. On this account, in fashioning the images of the Gods, they assumed every animal, and for this purpose mixed together the human form and the forms of wild beasts, and again the bodies of birds with the body of a man. For a certain deity was represented by them in a human shape as far as to the neck, but the face was that of a bird, or a lion, or of some other animal. And again, another divine resemblance had a human head, but the other parts were those of certain other animals, some of which had an inferior, but others a superior position; through which they manifested, that these [i.e. brutes and men], through the decision of the Gods, communicated with each other, and that tame and savage animals are nurtured together with us, not without the concurrence of a certain divine will. Hence also, a lion is worshipped as a God, and a certain part of Egypt, which is called Nomos, has the surname of Leontopolis [or the city of the lion], and another is denominated Busiris [from an ox], and another Lycopolis [or the city of the wolf]. For they venerated the power of God which extends to all things through animals which are nurtured together, and which each of the Gods imparts. They also reverenced water and fire the most of all the elements, as being the [ 1088 ]

principal causes of our safety. And these things are exhibited by them in temples; for even now, on opening the sanctuary of Serapis, the worship is performed through fire and water; he who sings the hymns making a libation with water, and exhibiting fire, when, standing on the threshold of the temple, he invokes the God in the language of the Egyptians. Venerating, therefore, these elements, they especially reverence those things which largely participate of them, as partaking more abundantly of what is sacred. But after these, they venerate all animals, and in the village Anubis they worship a man, in which place also they sacrifice to him, and victims are there burnt in honour of him on an altar; but he shortly after only eats that which was procured for him as a man. Hence, as it is requisite to abstain from man, so likewise, from other animals. And farther still, the Egyptian priests, from their transcendent wisdom and association with divinity, discovered what animals are more acceptable to the Gods [when dedicated to them] than man. Thus they found that a hawk is dear to the sun, since the whole of its nature consists of blood and spirit. It also commiserates man, and laments over his dead body, and scatters earth on his eyes, in which these priests believe a solar light is resident. They likewise discovered that a hawk lives many years, and that, after it leaves the present life, it possesses a divining power, is most rational and prescient when liberated from the body, and gives perfection to statues, and moves temples. A beetle will be detested by one who is ignorant of and unskilled in divine concerns, but the Egyptians venerate it, as an animated image of the sun. For every beetle is a male, and emitting its genital seed in a muddy place, and having made it spherical, it turns round the seminal sphere in a way similar to that of the sun in the heavens. It likewise receives a period of twenty-eight days, which is a lunar period. In a similar manner, the Egyptians philosophise about the ram, the crocodile, the vulture, and the ibis, and, in short, about every animal; so that, from their wisdom and transcendent knowledge of divine concerns, they came at length to venerate all animals . An unlearned man, however, does not even suspect that they, not being borne along with the stream of the vulgar who know nothing, and not walking in the path of ignorance, but passing beyond the illiterate multitude, and that want of knowledge which befalls every one at first, were led to reverence things which are thought by the vulgar to be of no worth. [10] προσγέγονε δ’ αὐτοῖς οὐχ ἧττον τῶν εἰρημένων κἀκεῖνο εἰς πίστιν τοῦ σεβάσματος [καὶ τὰ ζῷα]. τὴν γὰρ ψυχὴν ἀπολυθεῖσαν τοῦ σώματος κατέλαβον παντὸς ζῴου λογικήν τε οὖσαν καὶ προγνωστικὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος καὶ χρηματιστικὴν δραστικήν τε πάντων ὧν καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἀπολυθείς. διὸ εἰκότως ἐτίμησαν καὶ ὡς οἷόν τέ ἐστιν ἀπέσχοντο αὐτῶν. πολλοῦ δὲ ὄντος λόγου δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν διὰ τῶν ζῴων οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τοὺς θεοὺς ἐσέφθησαν καὶ μείζονος τῆς παρούσης πραγματείας, ἀρκεῖ τὰ δεδηλωμένα περὶ αὐτῶν. ἐκεῖνο μέντοι οὐ παραπεμπτέον, ὅτι τοὺς ἀποθανόντας τῶν εὖ γεγονότων ὅταν ταριχεύωσιν, ἰδίᾳ τὴν κοιλίαν ἐξελόντες καὶ εἰς [ 1089 ]

κιβωτὸν ἐνθέντες, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν διαπράττονται ὑπὲρ τοῦ νεκροῦ, καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν κρατοῦντες πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον μαρτύρονται, ἑνὸς τῶν ὑπὲρ τοῦ νεκροῦ ποιουμένου λόγον τῶν ταριχευτῶν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὃν ἡρμήνευσεν Εὔφαντος ἐκ τῆς πατρίου διαλέκτου, τοιοῦτος· ‘ὦ δέσποτα ἥλιε καὶ θεοὶ πάντες οἱ τὴν ζωὴν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δόντες, προσδέξασθέ με καὶ παράδοτε τοῖς ἀιδίοις θεοῖς σύνοικον. ἐγὼ γὰρ τοὺς θεοὺς οὓς οἱ γονεῖς μοι παρέδειξαν, εὐσεβῶν διετέλουν ὅσον χρόνον ἐν τῷ ἐκείνων αἰῶνι τὸν βίον εἶχον, τούς τε τὸ σῶμά μου γεννήσαντας ἐτίμων ἀεί· τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων ‹οὐδένα› οὔτε ἀπέκτεινα οὔτε παρακαταθήκην ἀπεστέρησα οὔτε ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἀνήκεστον διεπραξάμην. εἰ δέ τι ἄρα κατὰ τὸν ἐμαυτοῦ βίον ἥμαρτον ἢ πιὼν ὧν μὴ θεμιτὸν ἦν, οὐ δι’ ἐμαυτὸν ἥμαρτον, ἀλλὰ διὰ ταῦτα’, δείξας τὴν κιβωτόν, ἐν ᾗ ἡ γαστὴρ ἦν. καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν ἀφίησι, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο σῶμα ὡς καθαρὸν ταριχεύει. οὕτως ἀπολογίας δεῖσθαι ᾠήθησαν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ὑπὲρ ὧν ἔφαγον καὶ ἔπιον 10. This also, no less than the above-mentioned particulars, induced them to believe, that animals should be reverenced [as images of the Gods], viz. that the soul of every animal, when liberated from the body, was discovered by them to be rational, to be prescient of futurity, to possess an oracular power, and to be effective of every thing which man is capable of accomplishing when separated from the body. Hence they very properly honoured them, and abstained from them as much as possible. Since, however, the cause through which the Egyptians venerated the Gods through animals requires a copious discussion, and which would exceed the limits of the present treatise, what has been unfolded respecting this particular is sufficient for our purpose. Nevertheless, this is not to be omitted, that the Egyptians, when they buried those that were of noble birth, privately took away the belly and placed it in a chest, and together with other things which they performed for the sake of the dead body, they elevated the chest towards the sun, whom they invoked as a witness; an oration for the deceased being at the same time made by one of those to whose care the funeral was committed. But the oration which Euphantus  has interpreted from the Egyptian tongue was as follows: “O Sovereign Sun, and all ye Gods who impart life to men, receive me, and deliver me to the eternal Gods as a cohabitant. For I have always piously worshipped those divinities which were pointed out to me by my parents as long as I lived in this age, and have likewise always honoured those who procreated my body. And, with respect to other men, I have never slain any one, nor defrauded any one of what he deposited with me, nor have I committed any other atrocious deed. If, therefore, during my life I have acted erroneously, by eating or drinking things which it is unlawful to eat or drink, I have not erred through myself, but through these,” pointing to the chest in which the belly was contained. And having thus spoken, he threw the chest into the river [Nile]; but buried the rest of the body as being pure. After this manner, they thought an apology ought to

[ 1090 ]

be made to divinity for what they had eaten and drank, and for the insolent conduct which they had been led to through the belly. [11] καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ὑβρίσαι. τῶν δὲ γινωσκομένων ἡμῖν Ἰουδαῖοι, πρὶν ὑπ’ Ἀντιόχου τὸ πρότερον τὰ ἀνήκεστα παθεῖν εἰς τὰ νόμιμα τὰ ἑαυτῶν, ὑπό τε Ῥωμαίων ὕστερον, ὅτε καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἑάλω καὶ πᾶσι βατὸν γέγονεν οἷς ἄβατον ἦν, αὐτή τε ἡ πόλις διεφθάρη, διετέλουν πολλῶν μὲν ἀπεχόμενοι ζῴων, ἰδίως δὲ ἔτι καὶ νῦν τῶν χοιρίων. τῶν δὲ παρ’ αὐτοῖς φιλοσοφιῶν τριτταὶ ἰδέαι ἦσαν, καὶ τῆς μὲν προΐσταντο Φαρισαῖοι, τῆς δὲ Σαδδουκαῖοι, τῆς δὲ τρίτης, ἣ καὶ ἐδόκει σεμνοτάτη εἶναι, Ἐσσαῖοι. οἱ οὖν τρίτοι τοιοῦτον ἐποιοῦντο τὸ πολίτευμα, ὡς πολλαχοῦ Ἰώσηπος τῶν πραγματειῶν ἀνέγραψεν, καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἱστορίας, ἣν δι’ ἑπτὰ βιβλίων συνεπλήρωσεν, καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἀρχαιολογίας, ἣν διὰ εἴκοσι βιβλίων ἐπραγματεύσατο, καὶ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, εἰσὶ δὲ δύο τὰ βιβλία. εἰσὶ τοίνυν οἱ Ἐσσαῖοι Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν τὸ γένος, φιλάλληλοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλέον. οὗτοι τὰς μὲν ἡδονὰς ὡς κακίαν ἀποστρέφονται, τὴν δὲ ἐγκράτειαν καὶ τὸ μὴ τοῖς πάθεσιν ὑποπίπτειν ἀρετὴν ὑπολαμβάνουσι. καὶ γάμου μὲν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὑπεροψία, τοὺς δὲ ἀλλοτρίους παῖδας ἐκλαμβάνοντες ἁπαλοὺς ἔτι πρὸς τὰ μαθήματα, συγγενεῖς ἡγοῦνται καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἑαυτῶν ἐντυποῦσιν, τὸν μὲν γάμον καὶ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ διαδοχὴν οὐκ ἀναιροῦντες, τὰς δὲ τῶν γυναικῶν ἀσελγείας φυλαττόμενοι· καταφρονηταὶ δὲ πλούτου, καὶ θαυμάσιον παρ’ αὐτοῖς τὸ κοινωνικόν, οὐδ’ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν κτήσει τινὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὑπερέχοντα. νόμος γὰρ τοὺς εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν εἰσιόντας δημεύειν τῷ τάγματι τὴν οὐσίαν, ὥστε ἐν ἅπασι μήτε πενίας ταπεινότητα φαίνεσθαι μήθ’ ὑπεροχὴν πλούτου, τῶν δ’ ἑκάστου κτημάτων ἀναμεμιγμένων μίαν ὥσπερ ἀδελφοῖς ἅπασιν οὐσίαν εἶναι. κηλῖδα δὲ ὑπολαμβάνουσιν τοὔλαιον, κἂν ἀλειφθῇ τις ἄκων, σμήχεται τὸ σῶμα· τὸ γὰρ αὐχμεῖν ἐν καλῷ τίθενται, λευχειμονεῖν τε διὰ παντός. χειροτονητοὶ δὲ οἱ τῶν κοινῶν ἐπιμεληταί, καὶ αἱρετοὶ πρὸς ἁπάντων εἰς τὰς χρείας ἕκαστοι. μία δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῶν πόλις, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἑκάστῃ κατοικοῦσι πολλοί. καὶ τοῖς ἑτέρωθεν ἥκουσιν αἱρετισταῖς ἀναπέπταται τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς, καὶ οἱ πρῶτον ἰδόντες εἰσίασιν ὥσπερ συνήθεις. διὸ οὐδὲν ἐπικομιζόμενοι ἀποδημοῦσιν ἀναλωμάτων ἕνεκα. οὔτε δὲ ἐσθῆτα οὔτε ὑποδήματα ἀμείβουσιν πρὶν διαρραγῆναι πρότερον παντάπασιν ἢ δαπανηθῆναι τῷ χρόνῳ. οὐδ’ ἀγοράζουσίν τι οὐδὲ πωλοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ χρῄζοντι διδοὺς ἕκαστος τὰ παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ παρ’ ἐκείνου χρήσιμον ἀντικομίζεται. καὶ χωρὶς δὲ τῆς ἀντιδόσεως ἀκώλυτος 11. But among those who are known by us, the Jews, before they first suffered the subversion of their legal institutes under Antiochus, and afterwards under the Romans, when also the temple in Jerusalem was captured, and became accessible to all men to whom, prior to this event, it was inaccessible, and the city itself was destroyed; - before this took place, the Jews always abstained from many animals, but peculiarly, which they even now do, from swine. At that period, therefore, there were three kinds of philosophers among them. And of one kind, indeed, the Pharisees were the leaders, but of another, the Sadducees, and of the third, which appears to have been the most [ 1091 ]

venerable, the Essenes. The mode of life, therefore, of these third was as follows, as Josephus frequently testifies in many of his writings. For in the second book of his Judaic History, which he has completed in seven books, and in the eighteenth of his Antiquities, which consists of twenty books, and likewise in the second of the two books which he wrote against the Greeks, he speaks of these Essenes, and says, that they are of the race of the Jews, and are in a greater degree than others friendly to one another. They are averse to pleasures, conceiving them to be vicious, but they are of opinion that continence and the not yielding to the passions, constitute virtue. And they despise, indeed, wedlock, but receiving the children of other persons, and instructing them in disciplines while they are yet of a tender age, they consider them as their kindred, and form them to their own manners. And they act in this manner, not for the purpose of subverting marriage, and the succession arising from it, but in order to avoid the lasciviousness of women. They are likewise, despisers of wealth, and the participation of external possessions among them in common is wonderful; nor is any one to be found among them who is richer than the rest. For it is a law with them, that those who wish to belong to their sect, must give up their property to it in common; so that among all of them, there is not to be seen either the abjectness of poverty, or the insolence of wealth; but the possessions of each being mingled with those of the rest, there was one property with all of them, as if they had been brothers. They likewise conceived oil to be a stain to the body, and that if any one, though unwillingly, was anointed, he should [immediately] wipe his body. For it was considered by them as beautiful to be squalid , and to be always clothed in white garments. But curators of the common property were elected by votes, indistinctly for the use of all. They have not, however, one city, but in each city many of them dwell together, and those who come among them from other places, if they are of their sect, equally partake with them of their possessions, as if they were their own. Those, likewise, who first perceive these strangers, behave to them as if they were their intimate acquaintance. Hence, when they travel, they take nothing with them for the sake of expenditure. But they neither change their garments nor their shoes, till they are entirely torn, or destroyed by time. They neither buy nor sell anything, but each of them giving what he possesses to him that is in want, receives in return for it what will be useful to him. Nevertheless, each of them freely imparts to others of their sect what they may be in want of, without any remuneration. [12] ἡ μετάληψις αὐτοῖς παρ’ ὧν ἂν ἐθέλωσιν. πρός γε μὴν τὸ θεῖον ἰδίως εὐσεβεῖς. πρὶν γὰρ ἀνασχεῖν τὸν ἥλιον οὐδὲν φθέγγονται τῶν βεβήλων, πατρίους δέ τινας εἰς αὐτὸν εὐχάς, ὥσπερ ἱκετεύοντες ἀνατεῖλαι. μετὰ ταῦτα πρὸς ἃς ἕκαστοι τέχνας ἴσασιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιμελητῶν ἀφίενται, καὶ μέχρι πέμπτης ὥρας ἐργασάμενοι συντόνως ἔπειτα πάλιν εἰς ἓν ἀθροίζονται [ 1092 ]

χωρίον, ζωσάμενοί τε σκεπάσμασι λινοῖς οὕτως ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶμα ψυχροῖς ὕδασι, καὶ μετὰ ταύτην τὴν ἁγνείαν εἰς ἴδιον οἴκημα συνίασιν, ἔνθα μηδενὶ τῶν ἑτεροδόξων ἐπιτέτραπται παρελθεῖν· αὐτοί τε καθαροὶ καθάπερ εἰς ἅγιόν τι τέμενος παραγίνονται τὸ δειπνητήριον. καθισάντων δὲ μεθ’ ἡσυχίας ὁ μὲν σιτοποιὸς ἐν τάξει παρατίθησιν ἄρτους, ὁ δὲ μάγειρος ἓν ἀγγεῖον ἐξ ἑνὸς ἐδέσματος ἑκάστῳ. προκατεύχεται δ’ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῆς τροφῆς ἁγνῆς οὔσης καὶ καθαρᾶς, καὶ γεύσασθαί τινα πρὶν τῆς εὐχῆς ἀθέμιτον· ἀριστοποιησάμενος δ’ ἐπεύχεται πάλιν, ἀρχόμενοί τε καὶ παυόμενοι γεραίρουσι τὸν θεόν. ἔπειθ’ ὡς ἱερὰς καταθέμενοι τὰς ἐσθῆτας πάλιν ἐπ’ ἔργα μέχρι δείλης τρέπονται. δειπνοῦσι δ’ ὑποστρέψαντες ὁμοίως, συγκαθεζομένων τῶν ξένων, εἰ τύχοιεν αὐτοῖς παρόντες. οὔτε δὲ κραυγή ποτε τὸν οἶκον οὔτε θόρυβος μιαίνει, τὰς δὲ λαλιὰς ἐν τάξει παραχωροῦσιν ἀλλήλοις, καὶ τοῖς ἔξωθεν ὡς μυστήριόν τι φρικτὸν ἡ τῶν ἔνδον σιωπὴ καταφαίνεται. τούτου δ’ αἴτιον ἡ διηνεκὴς νῆψις καὶ τὸ μετρεῖσθαι παρ’ αὐτοῖς τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν μέχρι κόρου. τοῖς δὲ ζηλοῦσι τὴν αἵρεσιν οὐκ εὐθὺς ἡ πάροδος, ἀλλ’ ἐπ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἔξω μένοντι τὴν αὐτὴν ὑποτίθενται δίαιταν, ἀξινάριόν τε καὶ περίζωμα δόντες καὶ λευκὴν ἐσθῆτα. ἐπειδὰν δὲ τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ πεῖραν ἐγκρατείας δῷ, πρόσεισι μὲν ἔγγιον τῇ διαίτῃ καὶ καθαρώτερον τῶν πρὸς ἁγνείαν ὑδάτων μεταλαμβάνει, παραλαμβάνεται δὲ εἰς τὰς συμβιώσεις οὐδέπω· μετὰ γὰρ τὴν τῆς καρτερίας ἐπίδειξιν δυσὶν ἄλλοις ἔτεσιν τὸ ἦθος δοκιμάζεται, καὶ φανεὶς ἄξιος οὕτως εἰς τὸν 12. Moreover, they are peculiarly pious to divinity. For before the sun rises they speak nothing profane, but they pour forth certain prayers to him which they had received from their ancestors, as if beseeching him to rise. Afterwards, they are sent by their curators to the exercise of the several arts in which they are skilled, and having till the fifth hour strenuously laboured in these arts, they are afterwards collected together in one place; and there, being begirt with linen teguments, they wash their bodies with cold water. After this purification, they enter into their own proper habitation, into which no heterodox person is permitted to enter. But they being pure, betake themselves to the dining room, as into a certain sacred fane. In this place, when all of them are seated in silence, the baker places the bread in order, and the cook distributes to each of them one vessel containing one kind of eatables. Prior, however, to their taking the food which is pure and sacred, a priest prays, and it is unlawful for any one prior to the prayer to taste of the food. After dinner, likewise, the priest again prays; so that both when they begin, and when they cease to eat, they venerate divinity. Afterwards, divesting themselves of these garments as sacred, they again betake themselves to their work till the evening; and, returning from thence, they eat and drink in the same manner as before, strangers sitting with them, if they should happen at that time to be present. No clamour or tumult ever defiles the house in which they dwell; but their conversation with each other is performed in an orderly manner; and to those that are out of the house, the silence of those within it appears as if it was some terrific [ 1093 ]

mystery. The cause, however, of this quietness is their constant sobriety, and that with them their meat and drink is measured by what is sufficient [to the wants of nature]. But those who are very desirous of belonging to their sect, are not immediately admitted into it, but they must remain out of it for a year, adopting the same diet, the Essenes giving them a rake, a girdle, and a white garment. And if, during that time, they have given a sufficient proof of their continence, they proceed to a still greater conformity to the institutes of the sect, and use purer water for the purpose of sanctity; though they are not yet permitted to live with the Essenes. For after this exhibition of endurance, their manners are tried for two years more, and he who after this period appears to deserve to associate with them, is admitted into their society. [13] ὅμιλον ἐγκρίνεται· πρὶν δὲ τῆς κοινῆς ἅψασθαι τροφῆς, ὅρκους αὐτοῖς ὄμνυσι φρικώδεις, πρῶτον μὲν εὐσεβήσειν τὸ θεῖον, ἔπειτα τὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δίκαια φυλάξειν καὶ μήτε κατὰ γνώμην βλάψειν τινὰ μήτ’ ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος, μισήσειν δὲ ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀδίκους καὶ συναγωνιεῖσθαι τοῖς δικαίοις, τὸ πιστὸν πᾶσι μὲν παρέξειν, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς κρατοῦσιν· οὐ γὰρ δίχα θεοῦ περιγίνεσθαί τινι τὸ ἄρχειν. κἂν αὐτὸς ἄρχῃ, μηδεπώποτε ἐξυβρίσαι εἰς τὴν ἐξουσίαν, μηδὲ ἐσθῆτι ἤ τινι πλείονι κόσμῳ τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους ὑπερλαμπρύνεσθαι, τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀγαπᾶν ἀεὶ καὶ τοὺς ψευδομένους προβάλλεσθαι· χεῖρας κλοπῆς καὶ ψυχὴν ἀνοσίου κέρδους καθαρὰν φυλάξειν καὶ μήτε κρύψειν τι τοὺς αἱρετιστὰς μήθ’ ἑτέροις αὐτῶν τι μηνύσειν, κἂν μέχρι θανάτου τις βιάζηται. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὄμνυσι μηδενὶ μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς παρέλαβεν, ἀφέξεσθαι δὲ λῃστείας, καὶ συντηρήσειν ὁμοίως τά τε τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα. τοιοῦτοι μὲν οἱ ὅρκοι· οἱ δ’ ἁλόντες καὶ ἐκβληθέντες κακῷ μόρῳ φθείρονται. τοῖς γὰρ ὅρκοις καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν ἐνδεδεμένοι οὐδὲ τῆς παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις τροφῆς δύνανται μεταλαμβάνειν, ποηφαγοῦντες δὲ καὶ λιμῷ τὸ σῶμα διαφθειρόμενοι ἀπόλλυνται. διὸ δὴ πολλοὺς ἐλεήσαντες ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἀνάγκαις ἀνέλαβον, ἱκανὴν τιμωρίαν δεδωκέναι νομίζοντες ἐπὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασι τὴν μέχρι θανάτου βάσανον. τὴν δὲ σκαλίδα διδόασι τοῖς μέλλουσιν αἱρετισταῖς, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἄλλως οὐ θακεύουσιν ἢ βόθρον ὀρύξαντες εἰς βάθος ποδιαῖον, περικαλύψαντές τε θοἱματίῳ, ὡς μὴ ταῖς αὐγαῖς ἐνυβρίζειν τοῦ θεοῦ. τοσαύτη δ’ ἐστὶν αὐτῶν ἡ λιτότης ἡ περὶ τὴν δίαιταν καὶ ὀλιγότης, ὡς τῇ ἑβδομάδι μὴ δεῖσθαι κενώσεως, ἣν τηρεῖν εἰώθασιν εἰς ὕμνους τῷ θεῷ καὶ εἰς ἀνάπαυσιν. ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἀσκήσεως ταύτης τοσαύτην πεποίηνται τὴν καρτερίαν, ὡς στρεβλούμενοι καὶ λυγιζόμενοι καὶ καόμενοι καὶ διὰ πάντων ὁδεύοντες τῶν βασανιστηρίων ὀργάνων, ἵν’ ἢ βλασφημήσωσι τὸν νομοθέτην ἢ φάγωσί τι τῶν ἀσυνήθων, οὐδέτερον ὑπομένειν. διέδειξαν δὲ τοῦτο ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πολέμῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ κολακεῦσαι τοὺς αἰκιζομένους ἢ δακρῦσαι ὑπομένουσι, μειδιῶντες δ’ ἐν ταῖς ἀλγηδόσι καὶ κατειρωνευόμενοι τῶν τὰς βασάνους προσφερόντων εὔθυμοι τὰς ψυχὰς ἠφίεσαν, ὡς πάλιν κομιούμενοι· καὶ γὰρ ἔρρωται παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτῶν, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν, καὶ συμπλέκεσθαι μὲν ἐκ τοῦ λεπτοτάτου φοιτώσας αἰθέρος ῥύμῃ φυσικῇ κατασπωμένας· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀνεθῶσι τῶν [ 1094 ]

κατὰ σάρκα δεσμῶν, οἷον δὴ μακρᾶς δουλείας ἀπηλλαγμένας, τότε χαίρειν καὶ μετεώρους φέρεσθαι. ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης διαίτης καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἀσκήσεως εἰκότως ἐν αὐτοῖς πολλοὶ οἳ καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκουσιν, ὡς ἂν βίβλοις ἱεραῖς καὶ διαφόροις ἁγνείαις καὶ προφητῶν ἀποφθέγμασιν ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι. σπάνιον δὲ εἴ ποτε ἐν ταῖς προαγορεύσεσιν ἀστοχοῦσιν. τοιοῦτο μὲν τὸ τῶν Ἐσσαίων παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις 13. Before, however, he who is admitted touches his common food, he takes a terrible oath, in the first place, that he will piously worship divinity; in the next place, that he will preserve justice towards men, and that he will neither designedly, nor when commanded, injure any one; in the third place; that he will always hate the unjust, but strenuously assist the just; and in the fourth place, that he will act faithfully towards all men, but especially towards the rulers of the land, since no one becomes a ruler without the permission of God; in the fifth place, that if he should be a ruler, he will never employ his power to insolently iniquitous purposes, nor will surpass those that are in subjection to him in his dress, or any other more splendid ornament; in the sixth place, that he will always love the truth, and be hostile to liars; in the seventh place, that he will preserve his hands from theft, and his soul pure from unholy gain ; and, in the eighth place, that he will conceal nothing from those of his sect, nor divulge any thing to others pertaining to the sect, though some one, in order to compel him, should threaten him with death. In addition to these things, also, they swear, that they will not impart the dogmas of the sect to any one in any other way than that in which they received them; that they will likewise abstain from robbery , and preserve the books of their sect with the same care as the names of the angels. Such, therefore, are their oaths. But those among them that act criminally, and are ejected, perish by an evil destiny. For, being bound by their oaths and their customs, they are not capable of receiving food from others; but feeding on herbs, and having their body emaciated by hunger, they perish. Hence the Essenes, commiserating many of these unfortunate men, receive them in their last extremities into their society, thinking that they have suffered sufficiently for their offences in having been punished for them till they were on the brink of the grave. But they give a rake to those who intend to belong to their sect, in order that, when they sit for the purpose of exonerating the belly, they make a trench a foot in depth, and completely cover themselves by their garment, in order that they may not act contumeliously towards the sun by polluting the rays of the God. And so great, indeed, is their simplicity and frugality with respect to diet, that they do not require evacuation till the seventh day after the assumption of food, which day they spend in singing hymns to God, and in resting from labour. But from this exercise they acquire the power of such great endurance, that even when tortured and burnt, and suffering every kind of [ 1095 ]

excruciating pain, they cannot be induced either to blaspheme their legislator, or to eat what they have not been accustomed to. And the truth of this was demonstrated in their war with the Romans. For then they neither flattered their tormentors, nor shed any tears, but smiled in the midst of their torments, and derided those that inflicted them, and cheerfully emitted their souls, as knowing that they should possess them again. For this opinion was firmly established among them, that their bodies were indeed corruptible, and that the matter of which they consisted was not stable, but that their souls were immortal, and would endure for ever, and that, proceeding from the most subtle ether, they were drawn down by a natural flux, and complicated with bodies; but that, when they are no longer detained by the bonds of the flesh, then, as if liberated from a long slavery, they will rejoice, and ascend to the celestial regions. But from this mode of living, and from being thus exercised in truth and piety, there were many among them, as it is reasonable to suppose there would be, who had aforeknowledge of future events, as being conversant from their youth with sacred books, different purifications, and the declarations of the prophets. And such is the order [or sect] of the Essenes among the Jews. [14] τάγμα. πᾶσί γε μὴν ἀπηγόρευτο ὑὸς ἐσθίειν ἢ ἰχθύων τῶν ἀφολιδώτων, ἃ σελάχια καλοῦσιν Ἕλληνες, ἤ τι τῶν μωνύχων ζῴων. ἀπηγόρευτο δὲ καὶ μηδὲ τὰ ἱκετεύοντα καὶ οἷον προσφεύγοντα ταῖς οἰκίαις ἀναιρεῖν, οὐχ ὅτι μὴ ἐσθίειν. οὐδὲ νεοττοῖς ἐπέτρεψεν ὁ νομοθέτης τοὺς γονέας συνεξαιρεῖν, φείδεσθαι δὲ [κελεύει] κἀν τῇ πολεμίᾳ τῶν συνεργαζομένων ζῴων καὶ μὴ φονεύειν. καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήθη μὴ πληθῦναν τὸ γένος τῶν μὴ θυομένων ζῴων λιμὸν ἐργάσηται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· ᾔδει γὰρ πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τὰ πολυτόκα ὀλιγοχρόνια, ἔπειτα ὡς πολὺ τὸ ἀπολλύμενον, ὅταν μὴ τύχῃ τῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἐπιμελείας, καὶ μὴν καὶ ὅτι ἔστιν ἄλλα ζῷα ἃ τῷ πληθύνοντι ἐπιτίθεται. τεκμήριον δέ, ὅτι πολλῶν ἀπεχόμεθα, οἷον σαυρῶν, σκωλήκων, μυῶν, ὄφεων, κυνῶν, καὶ ὅμως οὐ δέος μὴ ἐκ τῆς ἀποχῆς λιμώττοντες διαφθαρῶμεν πληθυνόντων. ἔπειτα οὐ ταὐτὸν τὸ ἐσθίειν τῷ φονεύειν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τούτων ἀναιροῦντες τὰ πολλὰ οὐδενὸς ἔτι 14. All of them, however, were forbidden to eat the flesh of swine, or fish without scales, which the Greeks call cartilaginous; or to eat any animal that has solid hoofs. They were likewise forbidden not only to refrain from eating, but also from killing animals that fled to their houses as supplicants. Nor did the legislator permit them to slay such animals as were parents together with their young; but ordered them to spare, even in a hostile land, and not put to death brutes that assist us in our labours. Nor was the legislator afraid that the race of animals which are not sacrificed, would, through being spared from slaughter, be so increased in multitude as to produce famine among men; for he knew, in the first place, that multiparous animals live but for a short time; and in the next place, that many of them perish, unless attention is paid to them by men. Moreover, he likewise knew that other animals would attack those that increased [ 1096 ]

excessively; of which this is an indication, that we abstain from many animals, such as lizards, worms, flies, serpents, and dogs, and yet, at the same time, we are not afraid of perishing through hunger by abstaining from them, though their increase is abundant. And in the next place, it is not the same thing to eat and to slay an animal. For we destroy many of the above-mentioned animals, but we do not eat any of them. [15] γευόμεθα. καὶ μὴν καὶ τοὺς Σύρους ἱστοροῦσι τὸ παλαιὸν ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ζῴων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μηδὲ τοῖς θεοῖς θύειν, ὕστερον δὲ θῦσαι μὲν εἰς ἀποτροπήν τινων κακῶν, αὐτοὺς δὲ μηδὲ ὅλως προσίεσθαι τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν. προϊόντος δὲ τοῦ χρόνου, ὡς φησὶ Νεάνθης ὁ Κυζικηνὸς καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Κύπριος, κατὰ Πυγμαλίωνα τὸν γένει μὲν Φοίνικα, βασιλεύσαντα δὲ Κυπρίων, τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν παραδεχθῆναι ἐκ τοιαύτης παρανομίας. λέγει δὲ ὁ Ἀσκληπιάδης ἐν τῷ περὶ Κύπρου καὶ Φοινίκης ταῦτα. ‘τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον οὐκ ἐθύετο τοῖς θεοῖς οὐδὲν ἔμψυχον, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ νόμος ἦν περὶ τούτου διὰ τὸ νόμῳ φυσικῷ κεκωλῦσθαι· ὑπὸ δέ τινας καιροὺς πρῶτον ἱερεῖον θῦσαι μυθεύονται, ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς αἰτουμένους, εἶτα τούτου γενομένου ὁλοκαυτίζειν τὸ τυθέν. ὕστερον δέ ποτε φλεγομένου τοῦ ἱερείου πεσεῖν σάρκα εἰς γῆν, ἣν ἀνελόντα τὸν ἱερέα καὶ κατακαιόμενον ἀβουλήτως προσαγαγεῖν τῷ στόματι τοὺς δακτύλους, ἀκούμενον τὴν κατάκαυσιν. γευσάμενον δὲ τῆς κνίσσης ἐπιθυμῆσαι καὶ μὴ ἀποσχέσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ μεταδοῦναι. γνόντα δὲ τοῦτο τὸν Πυγμαλίωνα αὐτόν τε καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα κατὰ κρημνῶν ἀφεῖναι, ἑτέρῳ δὲ τὴν ἱερωσύνην παραδοῦναι, ὃς οὐ πολλοῦ χρόνου διαλιπόντος τὴν μὲν αὐτὴν θυσίαν ἔτυχε ποιούμενος, ὅτι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν κρεῶν ἔφαγεν, ταῖς αὐταῖς ἐκείνῳ συμφοραῖς περιέπιπτεν. ἐπὶ πλέον δὲ τοῦ πράγματος προβαίνοντος καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῇ θυσίᾳ χρωμένων καὶ διὰ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ἀπεχομένων, ἀλλὰ τῆς σαρκὸς ἁπτομένων, οὕτως ἀποστῆναι τοῦ κολάζειν’. τὸ μέντοι τῶν ἰχθύων ἀπέχεσθαι ἄχρι τῶν Μενάνδρου χρόνων τοῦ κωμικοῦ διέμεινεν· λέγει γάρ· παράδειγμα τοὺς Σύρους λάβε· ὅταν φάγωσ’ ἰχθὺν ἐκεῖνοι διά τινα αὑτῶν ἀκρασίαν, τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὴν γαστέρα οἰδοῦσιν, ἔλαβον σακίον, εἶτ’ εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν ἐκάθισαν αὑτοὺς ἐπὶ κόπρου καὶ τὴν θεὸν ἐξιλάσαντο τοῦ ταπεινῶσαι σφόδρα. 15. Farther still, it is likewise related that the Syrians formerly abstained from animals, and, on this account, did not sacrifice them to the Gods; but that afterwards they sacrificed them, for the purpose of averting certain evils; yet they did not at all admit of a fleshly diet. In process of time, however, as Neanthes the Cyzicenean and Asclepiades the Cyprian say, about the era of Pygmalion, who was by birth a Phoenician, but reigned over the Cyprians, the eating of flesh was admitted, from an illegality of the following kind, which Asclepiades, in his treatise concerning Cyprus and Phoenicia, relates as follows: — In the first place, they did not sacrifice anything animated to the Gods; but neither was there any law pertaining to a thing of this kind, because it was [ 1097 ]

prohibited by natural law. They are said, however, on a certain occasion, in which one soul was required for another, to have, for the first time, sacrificed a victim; and this taking place, the whole of the victim was then consumed by fire. But afterwards, when the victim was burnt, a portion of the flesh fell on the earth, which was taken by the priest, who, in so doing, having burnt his fingers, involuntarily moved them to his mouth, as a remedy for the pain which the burning produced. Having, therefore, thus tasted of the roasted flesh, he also desired to eat abundantly of it, and could not refrain from giving some of it to his wife. Pygmalion, however, becoming acquainted with this circumstance, ordered both the priest and his wife to be hurled headlong from a steep rock, and gave the priesthood to another person, who not long after performing the same sacrifice and eating the flesh of the victim, fell into the same calamities as his predecessor. The thing, however, proceeding still farther, and men using the same kind of sacrifice, and through yielding to desire, not abstaining from, but feeding on flesh, the deed was no longer punished. Nevertheless abstinence from fish continued among the Syrians till the time of Menander: for he says: The Syrians for example take, since these When by intemperance led of fish they eat, Swoln in their belly and their feet become. With sack then cover’d, in the public way They on a dunghill sit, that by their lowly state, The Goddess may, appeas’d, the crime forgive. [16] παρά γε μὴν τοῖς Πέρσαις οἱ περὶ τὸ θεῖον σοφοὶ καὶ τούτου θεράποντες μάγοι μὲν προσαγορεύονται· τοῦτο γὰρ δηλοῖ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιχώριον διάλεκτον ὁ μάγος· οὕτω δὲ μέγα καὶ σεβάσμιον γένος τοῦτο παρὰ Πέρσαις νενόμισται, ὥστε καὶ Δαρεῖον τὸν Ὑστάσπου ἐπιγράψαι τῷ μνήματι πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅτι καὶ μαγικῶν γένοιτο διδάσκαλος. διῄρηντο δὲ οὗτοι εἰς γένη τρία, ὡς φησὶν Εὔβουλος ὁ τὴν περὶ τοῦ Μίθρα ἱστορίαν ἐν πολλοῖς βιβλίοις ἀναγράψας, ὧν οἱ πρῶτοι καὶ λογιώτατοι οὔτ’ ἐσθίουσιν ἔμψυχον οὔτε φονεύουσιν, ἐμμένουσι δὲ τῇ παλαιᾷ τῶν ζῴων ἀποχῇ· οἱ δὲ δεύτεροι χρῶνται μέν, οὐ μέντοι τῶν ἡμέρων ζῴων τι κτείνουσιν· οὐδ’ οἱ τρίτοι ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐφάπτονται πάντων· καὶ γὰρ δόγμα πάντων ἐστὶ τῶν πρώτων τὴν μετεμψύχωσιν εἶναι, ὃ καὶ ἐμφαίνειν ἐοίκασιν ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις. τὴν γὰρ κοινότητα ἡμῶν τὴν πρὸς τὰ ζῷα αἰνιττόμενοι διὰ τῶν ζῴων ἡμᾶς μηνύειν εἰώθασιν· ὡς τοὺς μὲν μετέχοντας τῶν αὐτῶν ὀργίων μύστας λέοντας καλεῖν, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας λεαίνας, τοὺς δὲ ὑπηρετοῦντας κόρακας. ἐπί τε τῶν πατέρων … ἀετοὶ γὰρ καὶ ἱέρακες οὗτοι προσαγορεύονται. ὅ τε τὰ λεοντικὰ παραλαμβάνων περιτίθεται παντοδαπὰς ζῴων μορφάς· ὧν τὴν αἰτίαν ἀποδιδοὺς Πάλλας ἐν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ Μίθρα τὴν κοινὴν φησὶ φορὰν οἴεσθαι, ὡς πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κύκλου ἀποτείνειν· τὴν δὲ ἀληθινὴν ὑπόληψιν καὶ ἀκριβῆ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ψυχῶν αἰνίττεσθαι, ἃς παντοδαποῖς περιέχεσθαι σώμασι λέγουσι. καὶ γὰρ Λατίνων τινὰς τῇ σφῶν [ 1098 ]

διαλέκτῳ ἄπρους καὶ σκώπρους λασούρους τε καὶ μερούλους καλεῖν. καὶ θεοὺς δὲ τούτους δημιουργοὺς οὕτω προσηγόρευσαν· τὴν μὲν Ἄρτεμιν λύκαιναν, τὸν δὲ Ἥλιον σαῦρον, λέοντα, δράκοντα, ἱέρακα, τὴν δ’ Ἑκάτην ἵππον, ταῦρον, λέαιναν, κύνα. τῆς δὲ Φερρεφάττης παρὰ τὸ φέρβειν τὴν φάτταν φασὶν οἱ πολλοὶ τοὔνομα τῶν θεολόγων· ἱερὸν γὰρ αὐτῆς ἡ φάττα. διὸ καὶ αἱ τῆς Μαίας ἱέρειαι ταύτην αὐτῇ ἀνατιθέασι. Μαῖα δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ τῇ Φερσεφόνῃ ὡς ἂν μαῖα καὶ τροφὸς οὖσα· χθονία γὰρ ἡ θεὸς καὶ Δημήτηρ ἡ αὐτή. καὶ τὸν ἀλεκτρυόνα δὲ ταύτῃ ἀφιέρωσαν. διὸ καὶ ἀπέχονται οἱ ταύτης μύσται ὀρνίθων ἐνοικιδίων. παραγγέλλεται γὰρ καὶ Ἐλευσῖνι ἀπέχεσθαι κατοικιδίων ὀρνίθων καὶ ἰχθύων καὶ κυάμων ῥοιᾶς τε καὶ μήλων, καὶ ἐπ’ ἴσης μεμίανται τό τε λεχοῦς ἅψασθαι καὶ τὸ θνησειδίων. ὅστις δὲ φασμάτων φύσιν ἱστόρησεν, οἶδεν καθ’ ὃν λόγον ἀπέχεσθαι χρὴ πάντων ὀρνίθων, καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν σπεύδῃ τις ἐκ τῶν χθονίων ἀπαλλαγῆναι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς οὐρανίους θεοὺς ἱδρυνθῆναι. ἀλλ’ ἡ κακία, ὅπερ πολλάκις ἔφαμεν, ἱκανὴ συναγορεύειν ἑαυτῇ, καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν ἐν οὐκ εἰδόσι ποιῆται τοὺς λόγους. διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο οἱ μέτριοι τῶν κακῶν ματαιολογίαν ἡγοῦνται τὴν τοιαύτην παραίτησιν καὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον γραῶν ὕθλον, οἳ δὲ δεισιδαιμονίαν· οἱ δ’ ἐπίδοσιν ἐν τῇ σφῶν πονηρίᾳ πεποιημένοι ἕτοιμοι οὐ μόνον βλασφημεῖν κατὰ τῶν ταῦτα παραινούντων τε καὶ ὑποδεικνύντων, ἀλλ’ ἤδη καὶ ἁγνὸν εἰς γοητείαν καὶ τῦφον διαβάλλειν. ἀλλ’ οὗτοι μὲν δίκας καὶ παρὰ θεοῖς καὶ παρ’ ἀνθρώποις ὧν ἁμαρτάνουσιν ἐκτίνοντες αὐτῇ πρῶτον τῇ τοιαύτῃ διαθέσει ἱκανὴν τιμωρίαν διδόασιν· ἡμεῖς δ’ ἔτι τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ἐθνῶν ἑνὸς μνημονεύσαντες ἐνδόξου τε καὶ δικαίου περί τε τὰ θεῖα πεπιστευμένου 16. Among the Persians, indeed, those who are wise in divine concerns, and worship divinity, are called Magi; for this is the signification of Magus, in the Persian tongue. But so great and so venerable are these men thought to be by the Persians, that Darius, the son of Hystaspes, had among other things this engraved on his tomb, that he had been the master of the Magi. They are likewise divided into three genera, as we are informed by Eubulus, who wrote the history of Mithra, in a treatise consisting of many books. In this work he says, that the first and most learned class of the Magi neither eat nor slay any thing animated, but adhere to the ancient abstinence from animals. The second class use some animals indeed [for food], but do not slay any that are tame. Nor do those of the third class, similarly with other men, lay their hands on all animals. For the dogma with all of them which ranks as the first is this, that there is a transmigration of souls; and this they also appear to indicate in the mysteries of Mithra. For in these mysteries, obscurely signifying our having something in common with brutes, they are accustomed to call us by the names of different animals. Thus they denominate the males who participate in the same mysteries lions, but the females lionesses, and those who are ministrant to these rites crows. With respect to their fathers also, they adopt the same mode. For these are denominated by them eagles and hawks. And he who is initiated in the Leontic mysteries, is invested with all-various forms of animals ; of [ 1099 ]

which particulars, Pallas, in his treatise concerning Mithra, assigning the cause, says, that it is the common opinion that these things are to be referred to the circle of the zodiac, but that truly and accurately speaking, they obscurely signify some thing pertaining to human souls, which, according to the Persians, are invested with bodies of all-various forms. For the Latins also, says Eubulus, call some men, in their tongue, boars and scorpions, lizards, and blackbirds. After the same manner likewise the Persians denominate the Gods the demiurgic causes of these: for they call Diana a she-wolf; but the sun, a bull, a lion, a dragon, and a hawk; and Hecate, a horse, a bull, a lioness, and a dog. But most theologists say that the name of Proserpine (της φερεφαττης) is derived from nourishing a ringdove, (παρα το φερβειν την φατταν) for the ringdove is sacred to this Goddess. Hence, also the priests of Maia dedicate to her a ringdove. And Maia is the same with Proserpine, as being obstetric, and a nurse . For this Goddess is terrestrial, and so likewise is Ceres. To this Goddess, also a cock is consecrated; and on this account those that are initiated in her mysteries abstain from domestic birds. In the Eleusinian mysteries, likewise, the initiated are ordered to abstain from domestic birds, from fishes and beans, pomegranates and apples; which fruits are as equally defiling to the touch, as a woman recently delivered, and a dead body. But whoever is acquainted with the nature of divinely-luminous appearances knows also on what account it is requisite to abstain from all birds, and especially for him who hastens to be liberated from terrestrial concerns, and to be established with the celestial Gods. Vice, however, as we have frequently said, is sufficiently able to patronize itself, and especially when it pleads its cause among the ignorant. Hence, among those that are moderately vicious, some think that a dehortation of this kind is vain babbling, and, according to the proverb, the nugacity of old women; and others are of opinion that it is superstition. But those who have made greater advances in improbity, are prepared, not only to blaspheme those who exhort to, and demonstrate the propriety of this abstinence, but calumniate purity itself as enchantment and pride. They, however, suffering the punishment of their sins, both from Gods and men, are, in the first place, sufficiently punished by a disposition [i.e. by a depravity] of this kind. We shall, therefore, still farther make mention of another foreign nation, renowned and just, and believed to be pious in divine concerns, and then pass on to other particulars. [17] εὐσεβοῦς, ἐπ’ ἄλλα μεταβησόμεθα. Ἰνδῶν γὰρ τῆς πολιτείας εἰς πολλὰ νενεμημένης, ἔστι τι γένος παρ’ αὐτοῖς τὸ τῶν θεοσόφων, οὓς γυμνοσοφιστὰς καλεῖν εἰώθασιν Ἕλληνες. τούτων δὲ δύο αἱρέσεις· ὧν τῆς μὲν Βραχμᾶνες προΐστανται, τῆς δὲ Σαμαναῖοι. ἀλλ’ οἱ μὲν Βραχμᾶνες ἐκ γένους διαδέχονται ὥσπερ ἱερατείαν τὴν τοιαύτην θεοσοφίαν, Σαμαναῖοι δὲ λογάδες εἰσὶν κἀκ τῶν βουληθέντων θεοσοφεῖν συμπληρούμενοι. ἔχει δὲ τὰ κατ’ αὐτοὺς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ὡς Βαρδησάνης ἀνὴρ Βαβυλώνιος ἐπὶ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν γεγονὼς καὶ ἐντυχὼν τοῖς [ 1100 ]

περὶ Δάνδαμιν πεπεμμένοις Ἰνδοῖς πρὸς τὸν Καίσαρα ἀνέγραψεν. πάντες γὰρ Βραχμᾶνες ἑνός εἰσι γένους· ἐξ ἑνὸς γὰρ πατρὸς καὶ μιᾶς μητρὸς πάντες κατάγουσιν· Σαμαναῖοι δὲ οὐκ εἰσὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ γένους, ἀλλ’ ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ τῶν Ἰνδῶν ἔθνους, ὡς ἔφαμεν, συνειλεγμένοι· οὔτε δὲ βασιλεύεται Βραχμὰν οὔτε συντελεῖ τι τοῖς ἄλλοις. τούτων δὲ οἱ φιλόσοφοι οἳ μὲν ἐν ὄρει οἰκοῦσιν, οἳ δὲ περὶ Γάγγην ποταμόν. σιτοῦνται δὲ οἱ μὲν ὄρειοι τήν τε ὀπώραν καὶ γάλα βόειον βοτάναις παγέν, οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Γάγγην ἐκ τῆς ὀπώρας, ἣ πολλὴ περὶ τὸν ποταμὸν γεννᾶται. φέρει δὲ ἡ γῆ σχεδὸν καρπὸν ἀεὶ νέον καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὴν ὄρυζαν πολλήν τε καὶ αὐτόματον, ᾗ χρῶνται ὅταν τὸ τῆς ὀπώρας ἐπιλείπῃ. τὸ δ’ ἄλλου τινὸς ἅψασθαι ἢ ὅλως θιγεῖν ἐμψύχου τροφῆς ἴσον τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ τε καὶ ἀσεβείᾳ νενόμισται. καὶ τοῦτο αὐτοῖς τὸ δόγμα θρησκεύουσί τε τὸ θεῖον καὶ εὐσεβοῦσι περὶ αὐτὸ καθορῶνται. τὸν τοίνυν χρόνον τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς τὸν πλεῖστον εἰς ὕμνους τῶν θεῶν ἀπένειμαν καὶ εὐχάς, ἑκάστου ἰδίαν καλύβην ἔχοντος καὶ ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ἰδιάζοντος. κοινῇ γὰρ Βραχμᾶνες μένειν οὐκ ἀνέχονται οὐδὲ πολλὰ διαλέγεσθαι· ἀλλ’ ὅταν τοῦτο συμβῇ, ἀναχωρήσαντες ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας οὐ φθέγγονται, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ νηστεύουσιν. Σαμαναῖοι δὲ εἰσὶ μέν, ὡς ἔφαμεν, λογάδες· ὅταν δὲ μέλλῃ εἰς τὸ τάγμα τις ἐγγράφεσθαι, πρόσεισι τοῖς ἄρχουσι τῆς πόλεως, ὅπου δ’ ἂν τύχῃ τῆς πόλεως ἢ τῆς κώμης, καὶ τῶν κτημάτων ἐξίσταται πάσης ‹τε› τῆς ἄλλης οὐσίας, ξυράμενος δὲ τοῦ σώματος τὰ περιττὰ λαμβάνει στολὴν ἄπεισί τε πρὸς Σαμαναίους, οὔτε πρὸς γυναῖκα οὔτε πρὸς τέκνα, εἰ τύχοι κεκτημένος, ἐπιστροφὴν ἤ τινα λόγον ἔτι ποιούμενος ἢ πρὸς αὑτὸν ὅλως νομίζων. καὶ τῶν μὲν τέκνων ὁ βασιλεὺς κήδεται, ὅπως ἔχωσι τὰ ἀναγκαῖα, τῆς δὲ γυναικὸς οἱ οἰκεῖοι. ὁ δὲ βίος τοῖς Σαμαναίοις ἐστὶ τοιοῦτος. ἔξω τῆς πόλεως διατρίβουσι διημερεύοντες ἐν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ θείου λόγοις, ἔχουσι δὲ οἴκους καὶ τεμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως οἰκοδομηθέντα, ἐν οἷς οἰκονόμοι εἰσὶν ἀπότακτόν τι λαμβάνοντες παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς τροφὴν τῶν συνιόντων. ἡ δὲ παρασκευὴ γίνεται ὀρύζης καὶ ἄρτων καὶ ὀπώρας καὶ λαχάνων. καὶ εἰσελθόντων εἰς τὸν οἶκον ὑπὸ σημαίνοντι κώδωνι οἱ μὴ Σαμαναῖοι ἐξίασιν, οἳ δὲ προσεύχονται. εὐξαμένων δὲ πάλιν διακωδωνίζει καὶ οἱ ὑπηρέται ἑκάστῳ τρυβλίον δόντες (δύο γὰρ ἐκ ταὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν) τρέφουσιν αὐτοὺς τῇ ὀρύζῃ· τῷ δὲ δεομένῳ ποικιλίας προστίθεται λάχανον ἢ τῆς ὀπώρας τι. τραφέντες δὲ συντόμως ἐπὶ τὰς αὑτῶν διατριβὰς ἐξίασιν. ἀγύναιοι δ’ εἰσὶ πάντες καὶ ἀκτήμονες, καὶ τοσοῦτον αὐτῶν τε καὶ τῶν Βραχμάνων σέβας ἔχουσιν οἱ ἄλλοι, ὥστε καὶ τὸν βασιλέα ἀφικνεῖσθαι παρ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἱκετεύειν εὔξασθαί τι καὶ δεηθῆναι ὑπὲρ τῶν καταλαμβανόντων τὴν χώραν 17. For the polity of the Indians being distributed into many parts, there is one tribe among them of men divinely wise, whom the Greeks are accustomed to call Gymnosophists . But of these there are two sects, over one of which the Bramins preside, but over the other the Samanaeans. The race of the Bramins, however, receive divine wisdom of this kind by succession, in the same manner as the priesthood. But the Samanaeans are elected, and consist of those who wish to possess divine knowledge. And the particulars respecting them are the following, as the Babylonian [ 1101 ]

Bardesanes  narrates, who lived in the times of our fathers, and was familiar with those Indians who, together with Damadamis, were sent to Caesar. All the Bramins originate from one stock; for all of them are derived from one father and one mother. But the Samanaeans are not the offspring of one family, being, as we have said, collected from every nation of Indians. A Bramin, however, is not a subject of any government, nor does he contribute any thing together with others to government. And with respect to those that are philosophers, among these some dwell on mountains, and others about the river Ganges. And those that live on mountains feed on autumnal fruits, and on cows’ milk coagulated with herbs. But those that reside near the Ganges, live also on autumnal fruits, which are produced in abundance about that river. The land likewise nearly always bears new fruit, together with much rice, which grows spontaneously, and which they use when there is a deficiency of autumnal fruits. But to taste of any other nutriment, or, in short, to touch animal food, is considered by them as equivalent to extreme impurity and impiety. And this is one of their dogmas. They also worship divinity with piety and purity. They spend the day, and the greater part of the night, in hymns and prayers to the Gods; each of them having a cottage to himself, and living, as much as possible, alone. For the Bramins cannot endure to remain with others, nor to speak much; but when this happens to take place, they afterwards withdraw themselves, and do not speak for many days. They likewise frequently fast. But the Samanaeans are, as we have said, elected. When, however, any one is desirous of being enrolled in their order, he proceeds to the rulers of the city; but abandons the city or village that he inhabited, and the wealth and all the other property that he possessed. Having likewise the superfluities of his body cut off, he receives a garment, and departs to the Samanaeans, but does not return either to his wife or children, if he happens to have any, nor does he pay any attention to them, or think that they at all pertain to him. And, with respect to his children indeed, the king provides what is necessary for them, and the relatives provide for the wife. And such is the life of the Samanaeans. But they live out of the city, and spend the whole day in conversation pertaining to divinity. They have also houses and temples, built by the king, in which they are stewards, who receive a certain emolument from the king, for the purpose of supplying those that dwell in them with nutriment. But their food consists of rice, bread, autumnal fruits, and potherbs. And when they enter into their house, the sound of a bell being the signal of their entrance, those that are not Samanaeans depart from it, and the Samanaeans begin immediately to pray. But having prayed, again, on the bell sounding as a signal, the servants give to each Samanaean a platter, (for two of them do not eat out of the same dish,) and feed them with rice. And to him who is in want of a variety of food, a potherb is added, or some autumnal fruit. But having eaten as much as is requisite, without [ 1102 ]

any delay they proceed to their accustomed employments. All of them likewise are unmarried, and have no possessions: and so much are both these and the Bramins venerated by the other Indians, that the king also visits them, and requests them to pray to and supplicate the Gods, when any calamity befalls the country, or to advise him how to act. [18] ἢ συμβουλεῦσαι τὸ πρακτέον. αὐτοὶ δὲ οὕτω πρὸς θάνατον διάκεινται, ὡς τὸν μὲν τοῦ ζῆν χρόνον ὥσπερ ἀναγκαίαν τινὰ τῇ φύσει λειτουργίαν ἀκουσίως ὑπομένειν, σπεύδειν δὲ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπολῦσαι τῶν σωμάτων. καὶ πολλάκις, ὅταν εὖ ἔχειν σκήψωνται, μηδενὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπείγοντος κακοῦ [μηδὲ ἐξελαύνοντος] ἐξίασι τοῦ βίου, προειπόντες μέντοι τοῖς ἄλλοις· καὶ ἔστιν οὐδεὶς ὁ κωλύσων, ἀλλὰ πάντες αὐτοὺς εὐδαιμονίζοντες πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῶν τεθνηκότων ἐπισκήπτουσί τινα. οὕτως βεβαίαν καὶ ἀληθεστάτην αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς τὴν μετ’ ἀλλήλων εἶναι δίαιταν πεπιστεύκασιν. οἳ δ’ ἐπειδὰν ὑπακούσωσι τῶν ἐντεταλμένων αὐτοῖς, πυρὶ τὸ σῶμα παραδόντες, ὅπως δὴ καθαρωτάτην ἀποκρίνωσι τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν, ὑμνούμενοι τελευτῶσιν· ῥᾷον γὰρ ἐκείνους εἰς τὸν θάνατον οἱ φίλτατοι ἀποπέμπουσιν ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστοι τοὺς πολίτας εἰς μηκίστας ἀποδημίας. καὶ σφᾶς μὲν αὐτοὺς δακρύουσιν ἐν τῷ ζῆν διαμένοντας, ἐκείνους δὲ μακαρίζουσιν τὴν ἀθάνατον λῆξιν ἀπολαμβάνοντας, καὶ οὐδεὶς οὔτε παρὰ τούτοις οὔτε παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς εἰρημένοις σοφιστὴς προελθών, οἷοι βροτοὶ νῦν παρ’ Ἕλλησιν, ἀπορεῖν ἔδοξε λέγων, ἐὰν ὑμᾶς πάντες μιμήσωνται, τί ἡμῖν ἔσται; οὐδὲ διὰ τούτους συνεχύθη τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· οὔτε γὰρ ἐμιμήσαντο πάντες, οἵ τε μιμούμενοι εὐνομίας μᾶλλον, οὐ συγχύσεως τοῖς ἔθνεσι γεγόνασιν αἴτιοι. καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ ὁ νόμος τούτους ἠνάγκασεν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιτρέψας σιτεῖσθαι κρέασι τούτους αὐτονόμους εἴασε καὶ ἐσέφθη ὡς αὑτοῦ κρείττονας, οὐ μὴν ὡς ἀδικίας κατάρχοντας ὑπήγαγε τῇ παρ’ αὑτοῦ δίκῃ [ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἑτέρους]. πρὸς μέντοι τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας ‘τί ἔσται μιμησαμένων πάντων τοὺς τοιούτους;’ ῥητέον τὸ τοῦ Πυθαγόρου· καὶ γὰρ βασιλέων πάντων γενομένων δυσδιέξακτος ὁ βίος, φησίν, ἔσται, καὶ οὐ δήπου φευκτέον τὸ τῆς βασιλείας· καὶ σπουδαίων ἁπάντων ‹ὄντων› οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν πολιτείας διέξοδον τηροῦντας τὴν ἀξίαν τῇ σπουδαιότητι, καὶ οὐ δήπου τοσοῦτον ἄν τις μανείη, ὡς μὴ πᾶσιν ἐπιβάλλειν ἡγεῖσθαι σπουδαίοις εἶναι προθυμεῖσθαι. πολλὰ μέντοι καὶ ἄλλα ὁ νόμος τῷ μὲν χυδαίῳ συνεχώρησεν, οὐχ ὅτι δὲ φιλοσόφῳ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τῷ καλῶς πολιτευομένῳ ἐπέτρεψεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκ πάσης τέχνης παραδέξαιτ’ ἂν εἰς τὸ πολίτευμα, καίτοι οὐκ ἐκώλυσε μετιέναι τὰς τέχνας, οὐδ’ ἐκ παντὸς ἐπιτηδεύματος, καὶ ὅμως τοὺς ἐκ τῶν βαναύσων ἄρχειν ἀπείργει, ὅλως τε ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνης χρεία καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἀρετῆς, τῆς προστατείας κωλύει. ἐπεὶ οὐδ’ ἑταίραις ὁμιλεῖν ἀπαγορεύει τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἀλλὰ καὶ πραττόμενος τὰς ἑταίρας τὸ μίσθωμα, ἐπονείδιστον ἡγεῖται μετρίοις ἀνδράσι καὶ αἰσχρὰν τὴν πρὸς ταύτας ὁμιλίαν· τό τ’ ἐν καπηλείοις διαζῆν οὐ κεκώλυκεν ὁ νόμος, καὶ ὅμως ἐπονείδιστον τῷ μετρίῳ. τοιοῦτον οὖν τι καὶ τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς διαίτης φαίνεται· καὶ οὐχ ἥτις τοῖς πολλοῖς συγκεχώρηται, ταύτην ἄν τις καὶ τοῖς βελτίστοις συγχωρήσειεν. φιλοσοφῶν δὲ ἀνὴρ μάλιστ’ ἂν τοὺς ἱεροὺς ἑαυτῷ ὑπογράψειε νόμους, οὓς θεοί τε καὶ ἄνθρωποι ἀφώρισαν θεοῖς ἑπόμενοι. οἱ δ’ ἱεροὶ πεφήνασι [ 1103 ]

νόμοι κατὰ ἔθνη καὶ κατὰ πόλεις ἁγνείαν μὲν προστάττοντες, ἐμψύχων δὲ βρῶσιν ἀπαγορεύοντες τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν, ἤδη ‹δὲ› καὶ εἰς πλῆθος πίνειν κωλύοντες, ἢ δι’ εὐσέβειαν ἢ διά τινας βλάβας ἐκ τῆς τροφῆς· ὥστε ἢ τοὺς ἱερέας μιμητέον ἢ πᾶσι πειστέον τοῖς νομοθέταις. ἑκατέρως γὰρ πάντων ἀφεκτέον τὸν νόμιμόν τε τελείως καὶ εὐσεβῆ· εἰ γὰρ κατὰ μέρος τινὲς δι’ εὐσέβειάν τινων ἀπέχονται, ὁ πρὸς πάντα εὐσεβὴς πάντων ἀφέξεται. 18. But they are so disposed with respect to death, that they unwillingly endure the whole time of the present life, as a certain servitude to nature, and therefore they hasten to liberate their souls from the bodies [with which they are connected]. Hence, frequently, when they are seen to be well, and are neither oppressed, nor driven to desperation by any evil, they depart from life. And though they previously announce to others that it is their intention to commit suicide, yet no one impedes them; but, proclaiming all those to be happy who thus quit the present life, they enjoin certain things to the domestics and kindred of the dead: so stable and true do they, and also the multitude, believe the assertion to be, that souls [in another life] associate with each other. But as soon as those to whom they have proclaimed that this is their intention, have heard the mandates given to them, they deliver the body to fire, in order that they may separate the soul from the body in the purest manner, and thus they die celebrated by all the Samanaeans. For these men dismiss their dearest friends to death more easily than others part with their fellow-citizens when going the longest journeys. And they lament themselves, indeed, as still continuing in life; but they proclaim those that are dead to be blessed, in consequence of having now obtained an immortal allotment. Nor is there any sophist, such as there is now amongst the Greeks, either among these Samanaeans, or the above-mentioned Bramins, who would be seen to doubt and to say, if all men should imitate you [i.e. should imitate those Samanaeans who commit suicide] what would become of us? Nor through these are human affairs confused. For neither do all men imitate them, and those who have, may be said to have been rather the causes of equitable legislation, than of confusion to the different nations of men. Moreover, the law did not compel the Samanaeans and Bramins to eat animal food, but, permitting others to feed on flesh, it suffered these to be a law to themselves, and venerated them as being superior to law. Nor did the law subject these men to the punishment which it inflicts, as if they were the primary perpetrators of injustice, but it reserved this for others. Hence, to those who ask, what would be the consequence if all men imitated such characters as these, the saying of Pythagoras must be the answer; that if all men were kings, the passage through life would be difficult, yet regal government is not on this account to be avoided. And [we likewise say] that if all men were worthy, no administration of a polity would be found in which the dignity that probity merits would be preserved. Nevertheless, no one would be so insane as not to [ 1104 ]

think that all men should earnestly endeavour to become worthy characters. Indeed, the law grants to the vulgar many other things [besides a fleshly diet], which, nevertheless, it does not grant to a philosopher, nor even to one who conducts the affairs of government in a proper manner. For it does not receive every artist into the administration, though it does not forbid the exercise of any art, nor yet men of every pursuit. But it excludes those who are occupied in vile and illiberal arts, and, in short, all those who are destitute of justice and the other virtues, from having any thing to do with the management of public affairs. Thus, likewise, the law does not forbid the vulgar from associating with harlots, on whom at the same time it imposes a fine; but thinks that it is disgraceful and base for men that are moderately good to have any connexion with them. Moreover, the law does not prohibit a man from spending the whole of his life in a tavern, yet at the same time this is most disgraceful even to a man of moderate worth. It appears, therefore, that the same thing must also be said with respect to diet. For that which is permitted to the multitude, must not likewise be granted to the best of men. For the man who is a philosopher, should especially ordain for himself those sacred laws which the Gods, and men who are followers of the Gods, have instituted. But the sacred laws of nations and cities appear to have ordained for sacred men purity, and to have interdicted them animal food. They have also forbidden the multitude to eat certain animals, either from motives of piety, or on account of some injury which would be produced by the food. So that it is requisite either to imitate priests, or to be obedient to the mandates of all legislators; but, in either way, he who is perfectly legal and pious ought to abstain from all animals. For if some who are only partially pious abstain from certain animals, he who is in every respect pious will abstain from all animals. [19] μικροῦ με παρῆλθε καὶ τὸ Εὐριπίδειον παραθέσθαι, ὃς τοὺς ἐν Κρήτῃ τοῦ Διὸς προφήτας ἀπέχεσθαι φησὶ διὰ τούτων· λέγουσι δ’ οἱ κατὰ τὸν χορὸν πρὸς τὸν Μίνω· Φοινικογενοῦς παῖ τῆς Τυρίας τέκνον Εὐρώπας καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου Ζανός, ἀνάσσων Κρήτης ἑκατομπτολιέθρου· ἥκω ζαθέους ναοὺς προλιπών, οὓς αὐθιγενὴς τμηθεῖσα δοκὸς στεγανοὺς παρέχει Χαλύβῳ πελέκει καὶ ταυροδέτῳ κόλλῃ κραθεῖσ’ ἀτρεκεῖς ἁρμοὺς κυπαρίσσου. ἁγνὸν δὲ βίον τείνων ἐξ οὗ Διὸς Ἰδαίου μύστης γενόμην, [ 1105 ]

καὶ νυκτιπόλου Ζαγρέως βροντὰς τάς τ’ ὠμοφάγους δαίτας τελέσας μητρί τ’ ὀρείῳ δᾷδας ἀνασχὼν καὶ Κουρήτων βάκχος ἐκλήθην ὁσιωθείς. πάλλευκα δ’ ἔχων εἵματα φεύγω γένεσίν τε βροτῶν καὶ νεκροθήκης οὐ χριμπτόμενος τήν τ’ ἐμψύχων βρῶσιν ἐδεστῶν πεφύλαγμαι. 19. I had almost, however, forgotten to adduce what is said by Euripides, who asserts, that the prophets of Jupiter in Crete abstained from animals. But what is said by the chorus to Minos on this subject, is as follows: Sprung from Phoenicia’s royal line, Son of Europa, nymph divine, And mighty Jove, thy envy’d reign O’er Crete extending, whose domain Is with a hundred cities crown’d I leave yon consecrated ground, Yon fane, whose beams the artist’s toil With cypress, rooted from the soil, Hath fashion’d. In the mystic rites Initiated, life’s best delights I place in chastity alone, Midst Night’s dread orgies wont to rove, The priest of Zagreus  and of Jove; Feasts of crude flesh I now decline, And wave aloof the blazing pine To Cybele, nor fear to claim Her own Curete’s hallow’d name; Clad in a snowy vest I fly Far from the throes of pregnancy, Never amidst the tombs intrude, And slay no animal for food. [20] ἁγνείαν γὰρ ἐτίθεντο οἱ ἱεροὶ ‹τὴν› πρὸς τοὐναντίον ἀμιξίαν, μολυσμὸν δὲ τὴν μῖξιν. ὅθεν τὴν μὲν τῶν καρπῶν τροφὴν οὐκ ἐκ νεκρῶν ληφθεῖσαν οὐδὲ οὖσαν ἔμψυχον [τῇ φύσει] προσφέροντες τὰ ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως διοικούμενα μὴ μιαίνεσθαι ᾤοντο, τῶν δὲ ζῴων αἰσθητικῶν ὄντων τὰς σφαγὰς καὶ ἀφαιρέσεις τῶν ψυχῶν ὡς πρὸς τοὺς ζῶντας μιασμοὺς ἡγοῦντο, καὶ [ 1106 ]

πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὸ αἰσθητικὸν γενόμενον σῶμα ἀφῃρημένον τῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ νεκρὸν μιγνύειν τῇ αἰσθήσει ‹τοῦ› ζῶντος. διὸ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡ ἁγνεία ἐν ἀποθέσει μὲν καὶ ἀφέξει τῶν πολλῶν καὶ ἐναντίων, μονώσει δὲ καὶ λήψει τῶν οἰκείων καὶ προσφυῶν. διὸ καὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια μιαίνει· σύνοδος γὰρ θήλεος καὶ ἄρρενος. καὶ κρατηθὲν μὲν τὸ σπέρμα ψυχῆς παρέσχε μίανσιν τῇ πρὸς τὸ σῶμα ὁμιλίᾳ, μὴ κρατηθὲν δὲ τῇ νεκρώσει τοῦ παρατεθέντος. ἡ δὲ πρὸς ἄρσενας ἀρσένων, καὶ ὅτι εἰς νεκρὸν καὶ ὅτι παρὰ φύσιν· καὶ καθάπαξ ἀφροδίσια καὶ ὀνειρώξεις, ὅτι ψυχῆς σώματι μεμιγμένης καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἡδονὴν κατασπωμένης. μιαίνει δὲ καὶ τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς τῇ συμπλοκῇ τοῦ ἀλόγου, θηλυνομένου τοῦ ἐντὸς ἄρρενος. καὶ γάρ πως καὶ ὁ μολυσμὸς καὶ ἡ μίανσις δηλοῖ τὴν μῖξιν τὴν ἑτέρου γένους πρὸς ἕτερον, καὶ μάλισθ’ ὅταν δυσέκνιπτον γένηται. ὅθεν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν βαμμάτων, ἃ δὴ διὰ μίξεων συνίσταται, εἴδους ἄλλου ἄλλῳ συμπλεκομένου, μιαίνειν φασίν· ὡς δ’ ὅτε τίς τ’ ἐλέφαντα γυνὴ φοίνικι μιήνῃ. καὶ ἔμπαλιν τὰς μίξεις φθορὰς οἱ ζωγράφοι λέγουσιν, ἡ δὲ συνήθεια τὸ ἄμικτον καὶ καθαρὸν ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀκραιφνὲς καὶ ἀκήρατον. καὶ γὰρ ὕδωρ γῇ ἀναμιχθὲν ἔφθαρται καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀκραιφνές, τὸ δὲ διαρρέον καὶ διαφεῦγον διακρούεται τὴν προσφερομένην γῆν, ὅταν, φησὶν ὁ Ἡσίοδος, ἀπὸ κρήνης ῥέῃ ἀενάου καὶ ἀπορρύτου, ἥ τ’ ἀθόλωτος. καὶ ὑγιεινόν γε τὸ πῶμα, ὅτι ἀδιάφθορον καὶ ἄμικτον. καὶ θήλεια μὴ ἀναδεξαμένη εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀναθυμίασιν σπέρματος ἄφθορος λέγεται· ὥστε καὶ φθορὰ καὶ μίανσις ἡ τοῦ ἐναντίου μῖξις. εἰ δὴ πρὸς τὰ ζῷα ἡ νεκρῶν καὶ ἡ πρὸς αἴσθησιν ζησάντων εἰς τὰ ζῶντα ἔνθεσις καὶ σαρκῶν νεκρῶν εἰς ζώσας εἰκότως φέρει μόλυσμα καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ ἡμῶν μίανσιν, ὥσπερ αὖ καὶ ψυχὴ ὅταν ἐνσωμάτωται, μεμόλυνται. [διὸ καὶ ὁ γεννώμενος μιαίνεται τῇ μίξει τῆς ψυχῆς τῇ πρὸς τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ὁ ἀποθανών, ὅταν σῶμα καταλίπῃ νεκρὸν ἀλλόφυλον τῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀλλότριον.] μιαίνεται δὲ καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ ὀργαῖς, ἐπιθυμίαις, πλήθει παθῶν, ὧν συναιτία πως καὶ ἡ δίαιτα. ὡς δὲ ὕδωρ διὰ πέτρας ἀπορρέον ἀδιάφθορον τοῦ δι’ ἑλῶν ἰόντος τῷ μὴ πολλὴν ἰλὺν ἀποσπᾶν, οὕτω καὶ ψυχὴ διὰ ξηροῦ σώματος καὶ μὴ χυμοῖς ἀλλοτρίων σαρκῶν ἀρδομένου τὰ ἑαυτῆς διοικοῦσα κρείττων καὶ ἀδιάφθορος καὶ πρὸς σύνεσιν ἑτοιμοτέρα. ἐπεὶ καὶ ταῖς μελίτταις τὸ καλὸν μέλι φασὶ φέρειν τὸ ξηρότατον καὶ δριμύτατον θύμον. μιαίνεται τοίνυν ἡ διάνοια, μᾶλλον δὲ ὁ διανοούμενος, ὅταν ἢ φανταστικῇ ἢ δοξαστικῇ ἀναμίγνυται καὶ ταῖς τούτων ἐνεργείαις τὰς ταύτης συγκεράσηται· καθαρμὸς δὲ ὁ πάντων τούτων χωρισμὸς καὶ ἁγνεία ἡ μόνωσις καὶ τροφὴ τὸ τηροῦν ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ εἶναι. οὕτως γὰρ καὶ λίθου τροφὴν τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ συμμένειν εἴποις ἂν καὶ τοῦ ἑκτικῶς διαμένειν, καὶ φυτοῦ τὴν διατηροῦσαν ἐν τῷ αὔξειν καὶ καρπογονεῖν, καὶ ζῴου σώματος τὴν τηροῦσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν σύστασιν. ἄλλο δ’ ἦν τρέφειν, ἄλλο πιαίνειν, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ ἀναγκαῖον διδόναι, ἄλλο τὸ τρυφὰς πορίζειν. διάφοροι τοίνυν αἱ τροφαὶ κατὰ τὸ διάφορον τῶν τρεφομένων. καὶ δεῖ πάντα μὲν τρέφειν, σπουδάζειν δὲ πιαίνειν τὰ ἐν ἡμῖν κυριώτατα. ψυχῆς οὖν λογικῆς τροφὴ ἡ τηροῦσα λογικήν. νοῦς δὲ αὕτη· ὥστε νῷ θρεπτέον καὶ σπουδαστέον πιαίνειν ἀπὸ τούτου ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν βρωτῶν τὴν σάρκα. ὃ μὲν γὰρ τὴν αἰώνιον ἡμῖν ζωὴν συνέχει, τὸ δὲ σῶμα πιαινόμενον λιμώττειν τὴν ψυχὴν ποιεῖ [τῆς μακαρίας ζωῆς] καὶ τὸ θνητὸν αὔξει, παραιροῦν καὶ ἐμποδίζον πρὸς τὸν ἀθάνατον βίον, μιαίνει τε [ 1107 ]

ἐνσωματοῦν τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ κατασπῶν πρὸς τὸ ἀλλότριον. ὁ δὲ μάγνης λίθος σιδήρῳ ψυχὴν δίδωσι πλησίον γενομένῳ, καὶ ὁ βαρύτατος ἀνακουφίζεται σίδηρος πνεύματι προσανατρέχων λίθου. πρὸς θεὸν δὲ τίς ἀναρτηθεὶς ἀσώματόν τε καὶ νοερὸν τροφὴν πολυπραγμονήσει τὴν πιαίνουσαν τὸ ἐμπόδιον πρὸς νοῦν σῶμα, οὐχὶ δὲ εἰς ὀλίγον καὶ εὐπόριστον συστείλας τῆς σαρκὸς τὸ ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸς θρέψεται προσπεφυκὼς τῷ θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ σίδηρος τῷ μάγνητι; εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῆς ἐκ τῶν καρπῶν οἷόν τ’ ἦν [ἄνευ πραγμάτων] τροφῆς ἀποστῆναι, εἰ μὴ τοῦτ’ ἦν ἡμῶν τῆς φύσεως τὸ φθαρτόν. εἰ γάρ, καθάπερ φησὶν Ὅμηρος, μηδὲ σίτου ἐδεήθημεν μηδὲ ποτοῦ, ἵν’ ὄντως ἦμεν ἀθάνατοι· καλῶς τοῦτο τοῦ ποιητοῦ παραστήσαντος, ὡς οὐ μόνον τοῦ ζῆν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἀποθνῄσκειν ἡ τροφὴ ὑπῆρχεν ἐφόδιον. εἰ οὖν μηδὲ ταύτης ἐδεήθημεν, τόσῳ ἂν ἦμεν μακαριώτεροι, ὅσῳ καὶ ἀθανατώτεροι. νῦν δ’ ἐν θνητῷ ὄντες ἔτι θνητοτέρους, εἰ χρὴ οὕτως εἰπεῖν, ἀγνοοῦμεν ἑαυτοὺς ποιοῦντες τῇ τούτου προσέσει, οὐ πολὺ τὸ ἐνοίκιον, ὡς φησί που Θεόφραστος, τῷ σώματι διδούσης τῆς ψυχῆς [τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικήσεως], ἀλλ’ ὅλην ἑαυτὴν προστιθείσης. ὡς εἴθε τὴν μυθευομένην ἄλιμον καὶ ἄδιψον ἦν κεκτῆσθαι, ἵνα τις τὸ διαρρέον τοῦ σώματος ἐπισχὼν δι’ ὀλίγου πρὸς τοῖς ἀρίστοις ἦν, πρὸς οἷσπερ ὢν καὶ θεός ἐστι θεός. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν τί ἄν τις ἀποκλαύσαιτο πρὸς ἀνθρώπους τοσοῦτον ἐσκοτωμένους, ὡς τὸ ἑαυτῶν κακὸν περιέπειν, μισεῖν δὲ πρῶτον μὲν ἑαυτοὺς καὶ τὸν ὄντως αὐτοὺς τεκόντα, ἔπειτα καὶ τοὺς ὑπομιμνήσκοντας κἀκ τῆς μέθης ἀνανῆψαι παρακαλοῦντας; διὸ μήποτε τῶν τοιούτων ἀφεμένους χρὴ ἐπὶ 20. For holy men were of opinion that purity consisted in a thing not being mingled with its contrary, and that mixture is defilement. Hence, they thought that nutriment should be assumed from fruits, and not from dead bodies, and that we should not, by introducing that which is animated to our nature, defile what is administered by nature. But they conceived, that the slaughter of animals, as they are sensitive, and the depriving them of their souls, is a defilement to the living; and that the pollution is much greater, to mingle a body which was once sensitive, but is now deprived of sense, with a sensitive and living being. Hence, universally, the purity pertaining to piety consists in rejecting and abstaining from many things, and in an abandonment of such as are of a contrary nature, and the assumption of such as are appropriate and concordant. On this account, venereal connexions are attended with defilement. For in these, a conjunction takes place of the female with the male; and the seed, when retained by the woman, and causing her to be pregnant, defiles the soul, through its association with the body; but when it does not produce conception, it pollutes, in consequence of becoming a lifeless mass. The connexion also of males with males defiles, because it is an emission of seed as it were into a dead body, and because it is contrary to nature. And, in short, all venery, and emissions of the seed in sleep, pollute, because the soul becomes mingled with the body, and is drawn down to pleasure. The passions of the soul likewise defile, through the complication of the irrational and [ 1108 ]

effeminate part with reason, the internal masculine part. For, in a certain respect, defilement and pollution manifest the mixture of things of an heterogeneous nature, and especially when the abstersion of this mixture is attended with difficulty. Whence, also, in tinctures which are produced through mixture, one species being complicated with another, this mixture is denominated a defilement. As when some woman with a lively red Stains the pure iv’ry — says Homer . And again painters call the mixtures of colours, corruptions. It is usual, likewise to denominate that which is unmingled and pure, incorruptible, and to call that which is genuine, unpolluted. For water, when mingled with earth, is corrupted, and is not genuine. But water, which is diffluent, and runs with tumultuous rapidity, leaves behind in its course the earth which it carries in its stream. When from a limpid and perennial fount It defluous runs — as Hesiod says . For such water is salubrious, because it is uncorrupted and unmixed. The female, likewise, that does not receive into herself the exhalation of seed, is said to be uncorrupted. So that the mixture of contraries is corruption and defilement. For the mixture of dead with living bodies, and the insertion of beings that were once living and sentient into animals, and of dead into living flesh, may be reasonably supposed to introduce defilement and stains to our nature; just, again, as the soul is polluted when it is invested with the body. Hence, he who is born, is polluted by the mixture of his soul with body; and he who dies, defiles his body, through leaving it a corpse, different and foreign from that which possesses life. The soul, likewise, is polluted by anger and desire, and the multitude of passions of which in a certain respect diet is a co-operating cause. But as water which flows through a rock is more uncorrupted than that which runs through marshes, because it does not bring with it much mud; thus, also, the soul which administers its own affairs in a body that is dry, and is not moistened by the juices of foreign flesh, is in a more excellent condition, is more uncorrupted, and is more prompt for intellectual energy. Thus too, it is said, that the thyme which is the driest and the sharpest to the taste, affords the best honey to bees. The dianoetic, therefore, or discursive power of the soul, is polluted; or rather, he who energizes dianoetically, when this energy is mingled with the energies of either the imaginative or doxastic power. But purification consists in a separation from all these, and the wisdom which is adapted to divine concerns, is a desertion of every thing of this kind. The proper nutriment likewise, of each thing, is that which essentially preserves it. Thus you may say, that the nutriment of a stone is the cause of its continuing to be a stone, and of firmly remaining in a lapideous form; but the nutriment of a plant is that [ 1109 ]

which preserves it in increase and fructification; and of an animated body, that which preserves its composition. It is one thing, however, to nourish, and another to fatten; and one thing to impart what is necessary, and another to procure what is luxurious. Various, therefore, are the kinds of nutriment, and various also is the nature of the things that are nourished. And it is necessary, indeed, that all things should be nourished, but we should earnestly endeavour to fatten our most principal parts. Hence, the nutriment of the rational soul is that which preserves it in a rational state. But this is intellect; so that it is to be nourished by intellect; and we should earnestly endeavour that it may be fattened through this, rather than that the flesh may become pinguid through esculent substances. For intellect preserves for us eternal life, but the body when fattened causes the soul to be famished, through its hunger after a blessed life not being satisfied, increases our mortal part, since it is of itself insane, and impedes our attainment of an immortal condition of being. It likewise defiles by corporifying the soul, and drawing her down to that which is foreign to her nature. And the magnet, indeed, imparts, as it were, a soul to the iron which is placed near it; and the iron, though most heavy, is elevated, and runs to the spirit of the stone. Should he, therefore, who is suspended from incorporeal and intellectual deity, be anxiously busied in procuring food which fattens the body, that is an impediment to intellectual perception? Ought he not rather, by contracting hat is necessary to the flesh into that which is little and easily procured, he himself nourished, by adhering to God more closely than the iron to the magnet? I wish, indeed, that our nature was not so corruptible, and that it were possible we could live free from molestation, even without the nutriment derived from fruits. O that, as Homer  says, we were not in want either of meat or drink, that we might be truly immortal! — the poet in thus speaking beautifully signifying, that food is the auxiliary not only of life, but also of death. If therefore, we were not in want even of vegetable aliment, we should be by so much the more blessed, in proportion as we should be more immortal. But now, being in a mortal condition, we render ourselves, if it be proper so to speak, still more mortal, through becoming ignorant that, by the addition of this mortality, the soul, as Theophrastus says, does not only confer a great benefit on the body by being its inhabitant, but gives herself wholly to it.  Hence, it is much to be wished that we could easily obtain the life celebrated in fables, in which hunger and thirst are unknown; so that, by stopping the everywayflowing river of the body, we might in a very little time be present with the most excellent natures, to which he who accedes, since deity is there, is himself a God. But how is it possible not to lament the condition of the generality of mankind, who are so involved in darkness as to cherish their own evil, and who, in the first place, hate themselves, and him who truly begot them, and afterwards, those who admonish them, [ 1110 ]

and call on them to return from ebriety to a sober condition of being? Hence, dismissing things of this kind, will it not be requisite to pass on to what remains to be discussed? [21] τὰ λειπόμενα τῶν ζητημάτων μεταβαίνειν· οἱ γὰρ δὴ πρὸς τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἡμῖν παρατεθέντα νόμιμα ἀντιπαράγοντες Νομάδας ἢ Τρωγλοδύτας ἢ Ἰχθυοφάγους ἀγνοοῦσιν ὡς δι’ ἀνάγκην, τῆς χώρας ἀκάρπου οὔσης ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὡς μηδὲ βοτάνας φέρειν, θῖνας δὲ μόνον καὶ ψάμμον, ἐπὶ τοῦτο περιέστησαν τῆς τροφῆς [τὸ ἀναγκαῖον]. τεκμηριοῖ δὲ τὸ τῆς ἀνάγκης τὸ μηδὲ τῷ πυρὶ χρῆσθαι δύνασθαι ἀπορίᾳ καυσίμου ὕλης, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν πετρῶν ἀφαυαίνειν ἢ τῆς θινὸς τοὺς ἰχθῦς. καὶ οὗτοι μὲν δι’ ἀνάγκην· τινὰ δὲ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐξηγρίωται καὶ ἔστι φύσει θηριώδη, ἐξ ὧν οὐ προσήκει τοὺς εὐγνώμονας τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης καταψεύδεσθαι φύσεως· ἐπεὶ οὕτω γε ἀμφισβητήσιμον ἔσται οὐ μόνον τὸ τῆς ζῳοφαγίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀνθρωποφαγίας καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἡμερότητος. ἱστοροῦνται γοῦν Μασσαγέται καὶ Δέρβικες ἀθλιωτάτους ἡγεῖσθαι τῶν οἰκείων τοὺς αὐτομάτως τελευτήσαντας. διὸ καὶ φθάσαντες καταθύουσιν καὶ ἑστιῶνται τῶν φιλτάτων τοὺς γεγηρακότας. Τιβαρηνοὶ δὲ ζῶντας κατακρημνίζουσι τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γέροντας· Ὑρκάνιοι δὲ καὶ Κάσπιοι οἳ μὲν οἰωνοῖς καὶ κυσὶ παραβάλλουσι ζῶντας, οἳ δὲ τεθνεῶτας· Σκύθαι δὲ συγκατορύττουσι ζῶντας καὶ ἐπισφάττουσι ταῖς πυραῖς οὓς ἠγάπων οἱ τεθνεῶτες μάλιστα· καὶ Βάκτριοι μέντοι κυσὶ παραβάλλουσι ζῶντας τοὺς γεγηρακότας. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπιχειρήσας καταλῦσαι Στασάνωρ ὁ Ἀλεξάνδρου ὕπαρχος μικροῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπέβαλεν. ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ οὐ διὰ τούτους τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἡμερότητα κατελύσαμεν, οὕτως οὐδὲ τὰ δι’ ἀνάγκην σαρκοφαγοῦντα ἔθνη μιμησόμεθα, τὰ δὲ εὐσεβῆ καὶ θεοῖς μᾶλλον ἀνακείμενα. τὸ γὰρ κακῶς ζῆν καὶ μὴ φρονίμως καὶ σωφρόνως καὶ ὁσίως Δημοκράτης ἔλεγεν οὐ κακῶς ζῆν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πολὺν χρόνον 21. Those then who oppose the Nomades, or Troglodytae , or Ichthyophagi, to the legal institutes of the nations which we have adduced, are ignorant that these people were brought to the necessity of eating animals through the infecundity of the region they inhabit, which is so barren, that it does not even produce herbs, but only shores and sands. And this necessity is indicated by their not being able to make use of fire, through the want of combustible materials; but they dry their fish on rocks, or on the shore. And these indeed live after this manner from necessity. There are, however, certain nations whose manners are rustic, and who are naturally savage; but it is not fit that those who are equitable judges should, from such instances as these, calumniate human nature: For thus we should not only be dubious whether it is proper to eat animals, but also, whether we may not eat men, and adopt all other savage manners. It is related, therefore, that the Massagetas and the Derbices consider those of their kindred to be most miserable who die spontaneously. Hence, preventing their dearest friends from dying naturally, they slay them when they are old, and eat them. The Tibareni hurl from rocks their nearest relatives, even while living, when they are old. [ 1111 ]

And with respect to the Hyrcani and Caspii, the one exposed the living, but the other the dead, to be devoured by birds and dogs. But the Scythians bury the living with the dead, and cut their throats on the pyres of the dead by whom they were especially beloved. The Bactrii likewise cast those among them that are old, even while living, to the dogs. And Stasanor, who was one of Alexander’s prefects, nearly lost his government through endeavouring to destroy this custom. As, however, we do not on account of these examples subvert mildness of conduct towards men, so neither should we imitate those nations that feed on flesh through necessity, but we should rather imitate the pious, and those who consecrate themselves to the Gods. For Democrates  says, that to live badly, and not prudently, temperately, and piously, is not to live in reality, but to die for a long time. [22] ἀποθνῄσκειν. λοιπὸν δὲ καὶ κατὰ ἄνδρα ὀλίγας μαρτυρίας τῆς ἀποχῆς παραφέρωμεν· ἓν γὰρ καὶ τοῦτ’ ἦν τῶν ἐγκλημάτων. τῶν τοίνυν Ἀθήνησι νομοθετῶν Τριπτόλεμον παλαιότατον παρειλήφαμεν· περὶ οὗ Ἕρμιππος ἐν δευτέρῳ περὶ τῶν νομοθετῶν γράφει ταῦτα· φασὶ δὲ καὶ Τριπτόλεμον Ἀθηναίοις νομοθετῆσαι, καὶ τῶν νόμων αὐτοῦ τρεῖς ἔτι Ξενοκράτης ὁ φιλόσοφος λέγει διαμένειν Ἐλευσῖνι τούσδε· γονεῖς τιμᾶν, θεοὺς καρποῖς ἀγάλλειν, ζῷα μὴ σίνεσθαι. τοὺς μὲν οὖν δύο καλῶς παραδοθῆναι· δεῖ γὰρ τοὺς μὲν γονεῖς εὐεργέτας ἡμῶν γεγενημένους ἀντ’ εὖ ποιεῖν ἐφ’ ὅσον ἐνδέχεται, τοῖς θεοῖς δὲ ἀφ’ ὧν ἔδωκαν ἡμῖν [ὠφελίμων] εἰς τὸν βίον ἀπαρχὰς ποιεῖσθαι· περὶ δὲ τοῦ τρίτου διαπορεῖ, τί ποτε διανοηθεὶς ὁ Τριπτόλεμος παρήγγειλεν ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ζῴων. πότερον γάρ, φησίν, ὅλως οἰόμενος εἶναι δεινὸν τὸ ὁμογενὲς κτείνειν ἢ συνιδὼν ὅτι συνέβαινεν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὰ χρησιμώτατα τῶν ζῴων εἰς τροφὴν ἀναιρεῖσθαι; βουλόμενον οὖν ἥμερον ποιῆσαι τὸν βίον πειραθῆναι καὶ τὰ συνανθρωπεύοντα καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ζῴων ἥμερα διασῴζειν. εἰ μὴ ἄρα διὰ τὸ προστάξαι τοῖς καρποῖς τοὺς θεοὺς τιμᾶν ὑπολαβὼν μᾶλλον ἂν διαμεῖναι τὴν τιμὴν ταύτην, εἰ μὴ γίγνοιντο τοῖς θεοῖς διὰ τῶν ζῴων θυσίαι. πολλὰς δὲ αἰτίας τοῦ Ξενοκράτους καὶ ἄλλας οὐ πάνυ ἀκριβεῖς ἀποδιδόντος ἡμῖν αὔταρκες τοσοῦτον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι τοῦτο νενομοθέτητο ἐκ τοῦ Τριπτολέμου. ὅθεν ὕστερον παρανομοῦντες, ὅτε ἥψαντο τῶν ζῴων μετὰ πολλῆς ἀνάγκης καὶ ἁμαρτημάτων ἀκουσίων, ὥσπερ ἐπεδείξαμεν, ἐπὶ τοῦτο πεπτώκασιν. ἐπεὶ καὶ Δράκοντος νόμος μνημονεύεται τοιοῦτος, θεσμὸς αἰώνιος τοῖς Ἀτθίδα νεμομένοις, [κύριος τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον,] θεοὺς τιμᾶν καὶ ἥρωας ἐγχωρίους ἐν κοινῷ ἑπομένοις νόμοις πατρίοις, ἰδίᾳ κατὰ δύναμιν, σὺν εὐφημίᾳ καὶ ἀπαρχαῖς καρπῶν πελάνους ἐπετείους· τοῦ νόμου ἀπαρχαῖς καρπῶν, οἷς χρῆται ὁ ἄνθρωπος, τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖον προστάττοντος καὶ πελάνοις ….. 22. It now remains that we should adduce a few examples of certain individuals, as testimonies in favour of abstinence from animal food. For the want of these was one of the accusations which were urged against us. We learn, therefore, that Triptolemus was the most ancient of the Athenian legislators; of whom Hermippus , in the second book of his treatise on Legislators, writes as follows: “It is said, that Triptolemus established [ 1112 ]

laws for the Athenians. And the philosopher Xenocrates asserts, that three of his laws still remain in Eleusis, which are these, Honour your parents; Sacrifice to the Gods from the fruits of the earth; Injure not animals.” Two of these, therefore, he says, are properly instituted. For it is necessary that we should as much as possible recompense our parents for the benefits which they have conferred on us; and that we should offer to the Gods the first-fruits of the things useful to our life, which they have imparted to us. But with respect to the third law, he is dubious as to the intention of Triptolemus, in ordering the Athenians to abstain from animals. Was it, says he, because he thought it was a dire thing to slay kindred natures, or because he perceived it would happen, that the most useful animals would be destroyed by men for food? Wishing, therefore to make our life as mild as possible, he endeavoured to preserve those animals that associate with men, and which are especially tame. Unless, indeed, because having ordained that men should honour the Gods by offering to them first-fruits, he therefore added this third law, conceiving that this mode of worship would continue for a longer time, if sacrifices through animals were not made to the Gods. But as many other causes, though not very accurate, of the promulgation of these laws, are assigned by Xenocrates, thus much from what has been said is sufficient for our purpose, that abstinence from animals was one of the legal institutes of Triptolemus. Hence, those who afterwards violated this law, being compelled by great necessity, and involuntary errors, fell, as we have shown, into this custom of slaughtering and eating animals. The following, also, is mentioned as a law of Draco: “Let this be an eternal sacred law to the inhabitants of Attica, and let its authority be predominant for ever; viz. that the Gods, and indigenous Heroes, be worshipped publicly, conformably to the laws of the country, delivered by our ancestors; and also, that they be worshipped privately, according to the ability of each individual, in conjunction with auspicious words, the firstlings of fruits, and annual cakes. So that this law ordains, that divinity should be venerated by the first offerings of fruit which are used by men, and cakes, made of the fine flour of wheat .”

[ 1113 ]

The Biography

Syrcacuse, Sicily — during his time in Rome, Porphyry became suicidal. On the advice of Plotinus he went to live in Sicily for five years to recover.

[ 1114 ]

Brief Biography: Porphyry From ‘1911 Encyclopædia Britannica’, Volume 22 PORPHYRY (Πορφύριος) (A.D. 233-c. 304), Greek scholar, historian, and Neoplatonist, was born at Tyre, or Batanaea in Syria. He studied grammar and rhetoric under Cassius Longinus (q.v.). His original name was Malchus (king), which was changed by his tutor into Porphyrius (clad in purple), a jesting allusion to the colour of the imperial robes (cf. porphyrogenitus, born in the purple). In 262 he went to Rome, attracted by the reputation of Plotinus, and for six years devoted himself to the study of Neoplatonism. Having injured his health by overwork, he went to live in Sicily for five years. On his return to Rome, he lectured on philosophy and endeavoured to render the obscure doctrines of Plotinus (who had died in the meantime) intelligible to the ordinary understanding. His most distinguished pupil was Iamblichus. When advanced in years he married Marcella, a widow with seven children and an enthusiastic student of philosophy. Nothing more is known of his life, and the date of his death is uncertain. Of his numerous works on a great variety of subjects the following are extant: Life of Plotinus and an exposition of his teaching in the Ἀφορμαὶ πρὸς τὰ νοητά (Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes, Aids to the study of the Intelligibles). The Life of Pythagoras, which is incomplete, probably formed part of a larger history of philosophy (φιλόσοφος ἱστορία, in four books) down to Plato. His work on Aristotle is represented by the Introduction (εἰσαγωγή) to and Commentary (ἐξήγησις, in the form of questions and answers) on the Categories. The first, translated into Latin by Boëtius, was extensively used in the middle ages as a compendium of Aristotelian logic; of the second only fragments have been preserved. His Χρονικά, a chronological work, extended from the taking of Troy down to A.D. 270; to it Eusebius is indebted for his list of the Macedonian kings. The treatise φιλόλογος ἱστορία is called an ἀκρόασις (lecture) by Eusebius, who in his Praeparatio evangelica (x. 3) has preserved a considerable extract from it, treating of plagiarism amongst the ancients. Other grammatical and literary works are Ὁμηρικὰ ζητήματα (Quaestiones homericae); and De antro nympharum, in which the description in the Odyssey (xiii. 102-112) is explained as an allegory of the universe. The Περὶ ἀποχῆς ἐμψύχων (De abstinentia), on abstinence from animal food, is especially valuable as having preserved numerous original statements of the old philosophers and the substance of Theophrastus’s Περὶ εὐσεβείας (On Piety). It also contains a long fragment

[ 1115 ]

from the Cretans of Euripides. The Πρὸς Μαρκέλλαν is an exhortation to his wife Marcella to practise virtue and self-restraint and to study philosophy. The letter to the Egyptian priest Anebo, dealing with religious questions, was answered by a member of the school of Iamblichus, who called himself Abammon, in the De mysteriis. It is frequently referred to by Eusebius, Cyril and Augustine. Eusebius preserved fragments of the Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας (De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda), in which he expressed his belief in the responses of the oracles of various gods as confirming his theosophical views. Porphyry is well known as a violent opponent of Christianity and defender of Paganism; of his Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν (Adversus Christianos) in 15 books, perhaps the most important of all his works, only fragments remain. Counter-treatises were written by Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinarius (or Apollinaris) of Laodicea, Methodius of Olympus, and Macarius of Magnesia, but all these are lost. Porphyry’s view of the book of Daniel, that it was the work of a writer in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, is given by Jerome. There is no proof of the assertion of Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, and Augustine, that Porphyry was once a Christian. There is no complete edition of the works of Porphyry. Separate editions: Vita Plotini in R. Volkmann’s edition of the Enneades of Plotinus (1883); Sententiae, by B. Mommert (1907); Vita Pythagorae, De antro nympharum, De abstinentia, Ad Marcellam, by A. Nauck (1885); “Isagoge et in Aristotelis categorias commentarium,” by A. Busse in Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca (1887), iv. 1, with the translation of Boëtius (ed. with introd., S. Brandt, 1906); fragments of the Chronica in C. W. Müller, Frag. hist. graec. (1849), iii. 688; Quaestiones homericae, by H. Schrader (1880, 1890); Letter to Anebo in W. Pharthey’s edition of Iamblichus De mysteriis (1857); De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda, by G. Wolff (1856); fragments of the Adversus Christianos by A. Georgiades (Leipzig, 1891); English trans. of the De abstinentia, De antro nympharum and Sententiae, by Thomas Taylor (1823); of the Sententiae by T. Davidson in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy, iii. (1869); of the De abstinentia by S. Hibberd (1857), and of the Ad Marcellam by A. Zimmern 1896 . On Porphyry and his works generally see Fabricius, Bibliotheca graeca (ed. Harles), v. 725; Eunapius, Vita philosophorum; article in Suïdas; Lucas Holstenius, De vita et scriptis Porphyrii (Cambridge, 1655); J. E. Sandys, Hist. of Classical Scholarship (1906), i. 343; W. Christ, Gesch. der griechischen Litteratur (1898), § 621; M. N. Bouillet, Porphyre, son rôle dans l’école néoplatonicienne (1864); A. I. Kleffner, Porphyrius der Neuplatoniker und Christenfeind (Paderborn, 1896); on his philosophy, T. Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists (Cambridge, 1901), and Neoplatonism.

[ 1116 ]

Rome — believed to be where Porphyry spent his final days

[ 1117 ]