Date: 2026-08-15T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Apologetics & Polemics

Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel)

Eusebius of Caesarea

Royal Archives

2026

Copyright

The source text and this English translation are in the public domain.

The cover design is © 2026 Royal Archives.

Published by Royal Archives

First published 2026

Source: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel)

Cover: Landscape with Moses and the Burning Bush by Domenichino (Italian, 1581–1641), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, which is in the public domain.

Edition identifier: urn:royalarchives:praeparatio_evangelica:en:1

Book 1

Chapter 1

By the present treatise, which includes in its design the Demonstration of the Gospel, I purpose to show the nature of Christianity to those who know not what it means; and here with prayers I dedicate this work to thee, Theodotus, most excellent of Bishops, a man beloved of God and holy, in the hope of so gaining from thee the help of thy devout intercessions on my behalf, whereby thou mayest give me great assistance in my proposed argument on the teaching of the Gospel. But first of all, it is well to define clearly what this word ‘Gospel’ means to express. It is this then that brings ‘good tidings’ to all men of the advent of the highest and greatest blessings, which having been long since foretold have recently shone forth on all mankind—a Gospel which makes not provision for undiscerning wealth, nor for this petty and much-suffering life, nor for anything belonging to the body and corruption, but for the blessings which are dear and congenial to souls possessing an intelligent nature, and on which the interests of their bodies also depend, and follow them like a shadow.

Now the chief of these blessings must be religion, not that which is falsely so called and full of error, but that which makes a true claim to the title; and this consists in the looking up to Him, who in very truth is both acknowledged to be, and is, the One and Only God; and in the kindling of the life after God, wherein friendship also with Him is engendered; and this is followed by that thrice-blessed end of God’s true favour, which coming from on high is dependent upon that better world, and is thereto directed, and terminates again therein.

What then can be more blessed than this excellent and all-happy friendship with God? Is not He both the dispenser and provider to all men of life and light and truth and all things good? Does He not contain in Himself the cause of the being and the life of all things? To one then who has secured friendship with Him what more can be wanting? What can he lack, who has made the Creator of all true blessings his friend? Or who can be superior to him who claims in the place of a father and a guardian the great President and absolute Monarch of the universe?

Nay, it is not possible to mention anything in which he who draws near in disposition to God the absolute Monarch, and through his intelligent piety has been deemed worthy of His all-blessed friendship, can fail to be happy alike in soul and body and all outward things.

It is then this good and saving friendship of men with God that the Word of God sent down from above, like a ray of infinite light, from the God of all goodness proclaims as good tidings to all men; and urges them to come not from this or that place but from every part out of all nations to the God of the universe, and to hasten and accept the gift with all eagerness of soul, Greeks and Barbarians together, men, women, and children, both rich and poor, wise and simple, not deeming even slaves unworthy of His call.

For indeed their Father, having constituted them all of one essence and nature, rightly admitted them all to share in His one equal bounty, bestowing the knowledge of Himself and friendship with Him upon all who were willing to hearken, and who readily welcomed His grace.

This friendship with His Father Christ’s word came to preach to the whole world: for, as the divine oracles teach,

‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,’ and ‘He came,’ they say, ‘and preached peace to them that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh.’

These things the sons of the Hebrews were long ago inspired to prophesy to the whole world, one crying,

‘All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the LORD, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him: for the kingdom is the LORD’S, and He is the ruler over the nations’; and again, ‘Tell it out among the heathen that the LORD is king, for He hath also stablished the world, which shall not be moved’; and another saith, ‘The LORD will appear among them, and will utterly destroy all the gods of the nations of the earth, and men shall worship Him, every one from his place.’

These promises, having been long ago laid up in divine oracles, have now shone forth upon our own age through the teaching of our Saviour Jesus Christ; so that the knowledge of God among all nations, which was both proclaimed of old and looked for by those who were not ignorant of these matters, is duly preached to us by the Word, who has lately come from heaven, and shows that the actual fulfilment corresponds with the voices of the men of old.

But why should we hasten on to anticipate in our eagerness the due order of intermediate arguments, when we ought to take up the subject from the beginning, and clear away all the objections? For some have supposed that Christianity has no reason to support it, but that those who desire the name confirm their opinion by an unreasoning faith and an assent without examination; and they assert that no one is able by clear demonstration to furnish evidence of the truth of the things promised, but that they require their converts to adhere to faith only, and therefore they are called ‘the Faithful,’ because of their uncritical and untested faith. With good reason therefore, in setting myself down to this treatise on the Demonstration of the Gospel, I think that I ought, as a preparation for the whole subject, to give brief explanations beforehand concerning the questions which may reasonably be put to us both by Greeks and by those of the Circumcision, and by every one who searches with exact inquiry into the opinions held among us.

For in this way I think my argument will proceed in due order to the more perfect teaching of the Demonstration of the Gospel, and to the understanding of our deeper doctrines, if my preparatory treatise should help as a guide, by occupying the place of elementary instruction and introduction, and suiting itself to our recent converts from among the heathen. But to those who have passed beyond this, and are already in a state prepared for the reception of the higher truths, the subsequent part will convey the exact knowledge of the most stringent proofs of God’s mysterious dispensation in regard to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Let us then begin the Preparation by bringing forward the arguments which will probably be used against us both by Greeks and by those of the Circumcision, and by every one who searches with exact inquiry into the opinions held among us.

Chapter 2

For in the 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.

What then may the strangeness in us be, and what the new-fangled manner of our life? And how can men fail to be in every way impious and atheistical, who have apostatized from those ancestral gods by whom every nation and every state is sustained? Or what good can they reasonably hope for, who have set themselves at enmity and at war against their preservers, and have thrust away their benefactors? For what else are they doing than fighting against the gods?

And what forgiveness shall they be thought to deserve, who have turned away from those who from the earliest time, among all Greeks and Barbarians, both in cities and in the country, are recognized as gods with all kinds of sacrifices, and initiations, and mysteries by all alike, kings law-givers and philosophers, and have chosen all that is impious and atheistical among the doctrines of men? And to what kind of punishments would they not justly be subjected, who deserting the customs of their forefathers have become zealots for the foreign mythologies of the Jews, which are of evil report among all men?

And must it not be a proof of extreme wickedness and levity lightly to put aside the customs of their own kindred, and choose with unreasoning and unquestioning faith the doctrines of the impious enemies of all nations? Nay, not even to adhere to the God who is honoured among the Jews according to their customary rites, but to cut out for themselves a new kind of track in a pathless desert, that keeps neither the ways of the Greeks nor those of the Jews?

These then are questions which any Greek might naturally put to us, having no true understanding either of his own religion or of ours. But sons of the Hebrews also would find fault with us, that being strangers and aliens we misuse their books, which do not belong to us at all, and because in an impudent and shameless way, as they would say, we thrust ourselves in, and try violently to thrust out the true family and kindred from their own ancestral rights.

For if there was a Christ divinely foretold, they were Jewish prophets who proclaimed His advent, and also announced that He would come as Redeemer and King of the Jews, and not of alien nations: or, if the Scriptures contain any more joyful tidings, it is to Jews, they say, that these also are announced, and we do not well to misunderstand them.

Moreover they say that we very absurdly welcome with the greatest eagerness the charges against their nation for the sins they committed, but on the other hand pass over in silence the promises of good things foretold to them; or rather, that we violently pervert and transfer them to ourselves, and so plainly defraud them while we are simply deceiving ourselves. But the most unreasonable thing of all is, that though we do not observe the customs of their Law as they do, but openly break the Law, we assume to ourselves the better rewards which have been promised to those who keep the Law.

Chapter 3

These being questions which would naturally be the first put to us, let us, after invoking the God of the universe through our Saviour, His own Word, as our High Priest, proceed to clear away the first of the objections put forward, by proving at the outset that they were false accusers who declared that we can establish nothing by demonstration, but hold to an unreasoning faith.

This then we will disprove at once, and with no long argument, both from the proofs which we employ towards those who come for instruction in our doctrines, and from our replies to those who oppose us in more argumentative discussions, and by the debates, whether written or unwritten, which we are zealous in holding both privately with each inquirer, and publicly with the multitudes; and especially by the books which we have in hand, comprising the general treatment of the Demonstration of the Gospel, in which is included our present discourse proclaiming to all men the good tidings of all the grace of God and His heavenly blessing, and accrediting in a more logical way by very many manifest proofs the dispensation of God concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

It is true that most of those before us have diligently pursued many other modes of treatment, at one time by composing refutations and contradictions of the arguments opposed to us, at another time by interpreting p. the inspired and sacred Scriptures by exegetical commentaries, and homilies on particular points, or again by advocating our doctrines in a more controversial manner. The purpose, however, which we have in hand is to be worked out in a way of our own. The very first indeed to deprecate deceitful and sophistical plausibilities, and to use proofs free from ambiguity, was the holy Apostle Paul, who says in one place, ‘And our speech and our preaching was not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.’ To which he adds: ‘Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect; yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world that come to nought; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden.’ And again: ‘Our sufficiency,’ he says, ‘is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant.’

Rightly then is the exhortation addressed to all of us, ‘to be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason concerning the hope that is in us.’

Hence, by recent authors also, there are, as I have said, demonstrations without number, which we may carefully read, very able and clear, written in argumentative form in defence of our doctrine, and not a few commentaries carefully made upon the sacred and inspired Scriptures, showing by mathematical demonstrations the unerring truthfulness of those who from the beginning preached to us the word of godliness.

Nevertheless all words are superfluous, when the works are more manifest and plain than words,—works which the divine and heavenly power of our Saviour distinctly exhibits even now, while preaching good tidings of the divine and heavenly life to all men.

For instance, when He prophesied that His doctrine should be preached throughout the whole world inhabited by man for a testimony to all nations, and by divine foreknowledge declared that the Church, which was afterwards gathered by His own power out of all nations, though not yet seen nor established in the times when He was living as man among men, should be invincible and undismayed, and should never be conquered by death, but stands and abides unshaken, settled, and rooted upon His own power as upon a rock that cannot be shaken or broken—the fulfilment of the prophecy must in reason be more powerful than any word to stop every gaping mouth of those who are prepared to exhibit a shameless effrontery.

For who would not acknowledge the truth of the prophecy, when the facts so manifestly all but cry out and say, that it was indeed the power of God, and not human nature, which before these things came to pass foresaw that they should happen in this way, and foretold them, and in deeds fulfilled them?

Certainly the fame of His Gospel has filled the whole world on which the sun looks down; and the proclamations concerning Him ran through all nations, and are now still increasing and advancing in a manner corresponding to His own words.

The Church also which He foretold by name stands strongly rooted, and lifted up as high as the vaults of heaven by prayers of holy men beloved of God, and day by day is glorified, flashing forth unto all men the intellectual and divine light of the religion announced by Him, and is in no way vanquished or subjected by His enemies, nay, yields not even to the gates of death, because of that one speech uttered by Himself, saying: ‘Upon the rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’

There are also countless other sayings and prophecies of our Saviour, by collecting which in a special work, and showing that the actual events agree with His divine foreknowledge, we prove beyond all question the truth of our opinions concerning Him.

And in addition to all this, there is no small proof of the truth which we hold in the testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures, in which so vast a number of years beforehand the Hebrew prophets proclaimed the promise of blessings to all mortal life, and mentioned expressly the name of the Christ, and foretold His advent among men, and announced the novel manner of His teaching, which in its course has reached unto all nations. They predicted also the future unbelief in Him, and the gainsaying of the Jewish nation, and the deeds they wrought against Him, and the dismal fate which thereupon immediately and without delay overtook them: I mean the final siege of their royal metropolis, and the entire overthrow of the kingdom, and their own dispersion among all nations, and their bondage in the land of their enemies and adversaries, things which they are seen to have suffered after our Saviour’s advent in accordance with the prophecies.

In addition to this, who can fail to be astonished at hearing the same prophets preach in clear and transparent language, that the advent of Christ and the falling away of the Jews would be followed by the call of the Gentiles? Which call itself also straightway became a fact in accordance with the prophecies, through the teaching of our Saviour.

For through Him multitudes from every race of mankind turned away from the delusion of idols, and embraced the true knowledge and worship of Him who is God over all, wellnigh ratifying the oracles of men of old, and especially that one which by Jeremy the prophet said ‘O Lord my God, unto Thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers inherited false idols, and there was no profit in them. Shall a man make unto himself gods, which yet are no gods?’

Chapter 4

All these circumstances then confirm the story of the facts of our religion, and show that it was not contrived from any human impulse, but divinely foreknown, and divinely announced beforehand by the written oracles, and yet far more divinely proffered to all men by our Saviour; afterwards also it received power from God, and was so established, that after these many years of persecution both by the invisible daemons and by the visible rulers of each age it shines forth far more brightly, and daily becomes more conspicuous, and grows and multiplies more and more. Thus it is plain that the help which comes down from the God of the universe supplies to the teaching and name of our Saviour its irresistible and invincible force, and its victorious power against its enemies.

Also the help thence gained towards a happy life for all men, not only from His express words, but also from a secret power, was surely an indication of His divine power: for it must have been of a divine and secret power, that straightway at His word, and with the doctrine which He put forth concerning the sole sovereignty of the One God who is over all, at once the human race was set free from the delusive working of daemons, at once also from the multitude of rulers among the nations.

In fact, whereas of old in each nation numberless kings and local governors held power, and in different cities some were governed by a democracy, and some by tyrants, and some by a multitude of rulers, and hence wars of all kinds naturally arose, nations clashing against nations, and constantly rising up against their neighbours, ravaging and being ravaged, and making war in their sieges one against another, so that from these causes the whole population, both of dwellers in the cities, and labourers in the fields, from mere childhood were taught warlike exercises, and always wore swords both in the highways and in villages and fields,—when God’s Christ was come all this was changed. For concerning Him it had been proclaimed of old by the prophets, ‘In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace,’ and ‘they shall beat their swords into plow-shares and their spears into pruning-hooks; and nation shall not take sword against nation, and they shall not learn war any more.’

In accordance with these predictions the actual events followed. Immediately all the multitude of rulers among the Romans began to be abolished, when Augustus became sole ruler at the time of our Saviour’s appearance. And from that time to the present you cannot see, as before, cities at war with cities, nor nation fighting with nation, nor life being worn away in the old confusion.

Surely there is good cause, when one considers it, to wonder why of old, when the daemons tyrannized over all the nations, and men paid them much worship, they were goaded by the gods themselves into furious wars against each other—so that now Greeks were at war with Greeks, and now Egyptians with Egyptians, and Syrians with Syrians, and Romans with Romans, and made slaves of each other and wore each other out with sieges, as in fact the histories of the ancients on these matters show—but that at the same time with our Saviour’s most religious [and peaceful] teaching the destruction of polytheistic error began to be accomplished, and the dissensions of the nations at once to find rest from former troubles? This especially I consider to be a very great proof of the divine and irresistible power of our Saviour.

And of the benefit which visibly proceeds from His doctrines you may see a clear proof, if you consider, that at no other time from the beginning until now, nor by any of the illustrious men of old, but only from His utterances, and from His teaching diffused throughout the whole world, the customs of all nations are now set aright, even those customs which before were savage and barbarous; so that Persians who have become His disciples no longer marry their mothers, nor Scythians feed on human flesh, because of Christ’s word which has come even unto them, nor other races of Barbarians have incestuous union with daughters and sisters, nor do men madly lust after men and pursue unnatural pleasures, nor do those, whose practice it formerly was, now expose their dead kindred to dogs and birds, nor, strangle the aged, as they did formerly, nor do they feast according to their ancient custom on the flesh of their dearest friends when dead, nor like the ancients offer human sacrifices to the daemons as to gods, nor slaughter their dearest friends, and think it piety.

For these and numberless things akin to these were what of old made havoc of human life.

‘It is recorded, for instance, in history that the Massagetae and Derbices deemed those of their kindred who died a natural death most miserable, and for this reason hastened to sacrifice and to feast upon the aged among their dearest friends. The Tibareni used to throw their old kinsmen alive down a precipice; and the Hyrcanians and Caspians threw them out to birds and dogs, the former while alive, and the latter when dead. But the Scythians used to bury them alive, and to slaughter over their funeral pyres those who were most dear to the deceased. The Bactrians also used to cast those who had grown old alive to the dogs.’ [1]

These however were customs of a former age, and are now no longer practised in the same manner, the salutary law of the power of the Gospel having alone abolished the savage and inhuman pest of all these evils.

Then there is the fact that men no longer regard as gods either the lifeless and dumb images, or the evil daemons operating in them, or the parts of the visible world, or the souls of mortals long since departed, or the most hurtful of irrational animals; but instead of all these, solely through the teaching of our Saviour in the Gospel, Greeks and Barbarians together, who sincerely and unfeignedly adhere to His word, have reached such a point of high philosophy, as to worship and praise and acknowledge as divine none but the Most High God, the very same who is above the universe, the absolute monarch and Lord of heaven and earth, and sun and stars, Creator also of the whole world. They have also learned to live a strict life, so as to be guided even in looking with their eyes, and to conceive no licentious thought from a lustful look, but to cut away the very roots of every base passion from the mind itself.

Must not then all these things help all men towards a virtuous and happy life?

What also of the fact that men, far from perjuring themselves, have no need even of a truthful oath because of learning from Him to ‘swear not at all,’ but in all things to be guileless and true, so as to be satisfied with ‘yea’ and ‘nay,’ making their purpose to be stronger than any oath? [2] And then the fact that even in simple sayings and common conversation they are not indifferent, but carefully measure their words even in these, so as to utter by their voice no lie, nor railing, nor any foul and unseemly word, because again of His admonition, wherein He said, ‘for every idle word ye shall give account in the day of judgement’—to what a high degree of philosophic life do these things pertain? [3]

Add to this that whole myriads in crowds together of men, women, and children, slaves and free, obscure and illustrious, Barbarians and Greeks alike, in every place and city and district in all nations under the sun, flock to the teaching of such lessons as we have lately learned, and lend their ears to words which persuade them to control not only licentious actions, but also foul thoughts of gluttony and wantonness in the mind: and that all mankind is trained in a divine and godly discipline, and learns to bear with a noble and lofty spirit the insults of those who rise up against them, and not to repay the wicked with like treatment, but to get the mastery over anger and wrath and every furious emotion, and moreover to share their possessions with the helpless and needy, and welcome every man as of the same race, and to acknowledge the stranger, commonly so reputed, as being by the law of nature a close kinsman and a brother.

How then could any one, taking all these things together, refuse to admit that our doctrine has brought to all men good tidings of very great and true blessings, and has supplied to human life that which is of immediate advantage towards happiness? For what thinkest thou of the fact that it induced the whole human race, not only Greeks, but also the most savage Barbarians and those who dwell in the utmost parts of the earth, to refrain from their irrational brutality and adopt the opinions of a wise philosophy? As, for example, the opinions concerning the immortality of the soul, and of the life laid up with God for His beloved after their departure hence, for the sake of which they studied to despise this temporary life; so that they showed those who were at any former time renowned for philosophy to be but children, and that death that was so much talked of and celebrated in the mouth of all philosophers to be a mere trifle; since, among us, females and young children, and barbarians and men apparently of little worth, by the power and help of our Saviour have shown by deeds rather than by words that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is true. Such also as is the fact, that all men universally in all nations are trained by our Saviour’s teachings to sound and steadfast thoughts concerning God’s providence as overseeing the whole world; and the fact that every soul learns the doctrine concerning the tribunal and judgement of God, and lives a thoughtful life, and keeps on guard against the practices of wickedness.

[1] Porphyry, Abstinence from animal food, iv. 21

[2] Matt. v. 34, 37

[3] Matt. xii. 36

Chapter 5

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.’ [1]

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 instil 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 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.

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.

[1] 1 Pet. iii. 15

Chapter 6

It is reported then that Phoenicians and Egyptians were the first of all mankind to declare the sun and moon and stars to be gods, and to be the sole causes of both the generation and decay of the universe, and that they afterwards introduced into common life the deifications and theogonies which are matters of general notoriety.

Before these, it is said, no one made any progress in the knowledge of the celestial phenomena, except the few men mentioned among the Hebrews, who with clearest mental eyes looked beyond all the visible world, and worshipped the Maker and Creator of the universe, marvelling much at the greatness of His wisdom and power, which they represented to themselves from His works; and being persuaded that He alone was God, they naturally spake only of Him as God, son from father successively receiving and guarding this as the true, the first, and the only religion. The rest of mankind, however, having fallen away from this only true religion, and gazing in awe upon the luminaries of heaven with eyes of flesh, as mere children in mind, proclaimed them gods, and honoured them with sacrifices and acts of worship, though as yet they built no temples, nor formed likenesses of mortal men with statues and carved images, but looked up to the clear sky and to heaven itself, and in their souls reached up unto the things there seen.

Not here, however, did polytheistic error stay its course for men of later generations, but driving on into an abyss of evils wrought even greater impiety than the denial of God, the Phoenicians and then the Egyptians being the first authors of the delusion. For from them, it is said, Orpheus, son of Oeagrus, first brought over with him the mysteries of the Egyptians, and imparted them to the Greeks; just, in fact, as Cadmus brought to them the Phoenician mysteries together with the knowledge of letters: for the Greeks up to that time did not yet know the use of the alphabet.

First, therefore, let us inquire how those of whom we are speaking have judged concerning the first creation of the world; then consider their opinions about the first and most ancient superstition found in human life; and, thirdly, the opinions of the Phoenicians; fourthly, those of the Egyptians; after which, fifthly, making a distinction in the opinions of the Greeks, we will first examine their ancient and more mythical delusion, and then their more serious and, as they say, more natural philosophy concerning the gods: and after this we will travel over the account of their admired oracles; after which we will also take a survey of the serious doctrines of the noble philosophy of the Greeks. So, when these have been thoroughly discussed, we will pass over to the doctrines of the Hebrews—I mean of the original and true Hebrews, and of those who afterwards received the name Jews. And after all these we will add our own doctrines as it were a seal set upon the whole. The history of all these we must necessarily recall, that so by comparison of the doctrines which have been admired in each country the test of the truth may be exhibited, and it may become manifest to our readers from what opinions we have departed, and what that truth is which we have chosen. But now let us pass to the first point.

From what source then shall we verify our proofs? Not, of course, from our own Scriptures, lest we should seem to show favour to our argument: but let Greeks themselves appear as our witnesses, both those of them who boast of their philosophy, and those who have investigated the history of other nations.

Well then, in recording the ancient theology of the Egyptians from the beginning, Diodorus, the Sicilian, leads the way, a man thoroughly known to the most learned of the Greeks as having collected the whole Library of History into one treatise. From him I will set forth first what he has clearly stated in the beginning of his work concerning the origin of the whole world, while recording the opinion of the ancients in the manner following.

Chapter 7

[DIODORUS] The full account of the ideas entertained concerning the gods by those who first taught men to honour the deity, and of the fabulous stories concerning each of the immortals, I shall endeavour to arrange in a separate work, because this subject requires a long discussion: but all that we may deem to be suitable to our present historical inquiries we shall set forth in a brief summary, that nothing worth hearing may be missed.

But concerning the descent of the whole human race, and the transactions which have occurred in the known parts of the world, we shall give as accurate an account as may be possible about matters so ancient, and shall begin from the earliest times. ‘With regard then to the first origin of mankind two explanations have been held among the most accepted physiologists and historians. For some of them, on the supposition that the universe is uncreated and imperishable, declared that the human race also has existed from eternity, their procreation of children having never had a beginning; while others, who thought the world to be created and perishable, said that, like it, mankind were first created within definite periods of time. ‘For, according to the original constitution of the universe, heaven and earth, they said, had one form, their nature being mixed: but afterwards, when their corporeal particles were separated from each other, though the cosmos embraced in itself the whole visible order, the air was subjected to continual motion. The fiery part of it gathered towards the highest regions, because fire is naturally borne upwards by reason of its lightness; and from this cause the sun and all the multitude of stars were caught and carried off in the general whirl: but the muddy and turbid part of the air, in its commixture with the moist parts, settled down together because of its heaviness, and by revolving in itself and continually contracting made the sea out of the moist parts, and out of the more solid parts made the earth, muddy and quite soft.

‘This was at first hardened from the fire round the sun shining upon it, and afterwards, when the surface was thrown into fermentation through the warmth, some of the liquid particles swelled up in many places, and tumours were formed about them surrounded by thin membranes, a thing which may still be seen going on in stagnant pools and marshy places, when upon the cooling of the ground the air becomes suddenly fiery, because the change does not take place in it gradually.

‘The moist parts then being quickened into life by the warmth in the way mentioned, during the nights they received their nourishment direct from the mist which falls from the surrounding atmosphere, and during the days became hardened by the heat; and at last, when the pregnant cells attained their full growth, and the membranes were thoroughly heated and burst asunder, all various types of living things sprang up.

‘And those of them which had received the largest share of heat went off into the upper regions, and became birds; while those which retained an earthy consistency were counted in the order of reptiles and of the other land animals; and those which had partaken most largely of the watery element ran together to the place congenial to their nature, and were called aquatic.

‘But the earth being more and more solidified both by the fire about the sun and by the winds, at last was no longer able to quicken any of the larger creatures into life, but the several kinds of animals were generated from their union one with another.

‘It seems that even Euripides, who was a disciple of the physicist Anaxagoras, does not dissent from what has been now said concerning the nature of the universe; for he thus writes in the Melanippe:

“So heaven and earth at first had all one form; But when in place dissevered each from other, They gave to all things birth, and brought to light Trees, birds, and beasts, and all the salt sea’s brood, And race of mortal men.” [1]

‘Such are the traditions which we have received concerning the first beginnings of the universe. And they say that the primitive generations of mankind, living in a disorderly and savage state, used to go wandering out over the pastures, and procure for food the tenderest herbage, and the fruits of trees that grew wild: and that when warred on by the wild beasts they were taught by their own interest to help one another, and from gathering together through fear they gradually recognized each other’s forms.

‘And though their speech was originally indistinct and confused, by degrees they articulated their words, and settling with each other signs for every object lying before them, they made their interpretation of all things intelligible among themselves.

‘But when such associations came to be formed throughout all the inhabited world, they had not all a language of the same sounds, because they each arranged their words as it chanced; and from this cause there were originally all kinds of languages, and the associations first formed became the progenitors of all the nations.

‘So then the first generations of men, by whom none of the conveniences of life had been discovered, passed a hard time, being destitute of clothing, and unused to houses and fire, and altogether without any idea of prepared food. For not knowing even how to harvest their food that grew wild, they did not lay by any store of the fruits for their needs: and therefore in the winters many of them perished of the cold and scarcity of food.

‘But afterwards, being gradually taught by experience, they took refuge in their caves in the winter, and laid by such fruits as could be kept. And when fire became known, the usefulness of other things was gradually discovered and the arts also were invented, and all other things that could benefit their common life.

‘For necessity itself became universally men’s teacher in all things, naturally suggesting the knowledge of each to a being well endowed by nature, and having for all purposes the help of hands, and speech, and ready wit. So concerning the origin of mankind and the most primitive mode of life we will be content with what has been said, making brevity our aim.’

Thus much writes the aforesaid historian, without having mentioned God even so much as by name in his cosmogony, but having presented the arrangement of the universe as something accidental and spontaneous. And with him you will find most of the Greek philosophers agreeing, whose doctrines concerning the first principles of things, with their differences of opinion and of statement, based on conjectures not on a clear conception, I shall on the present occasion set forth from Plutarch’s Miscellanies.[2] And do thou, not casually but leisurely and with careful consideration, observe the mutual disagreement of the authors whom I quote.

[1] Euripides, Melanippe the Wise, Fragm. 487

[2] 22 b 1. This fragment of Plutarch’s Stromateis or Miscellanies is known from Eusebius only.

Chapter 8

[PLUTARCH] ‘Thales, it is said, was the first of all who supposed that water was the original element of the universe, for that all things spring from it and return to it.

‘After him Anaximander, who had been a companion of Thales, said that the Infinite contained the whole cause of both the generation and decay of all things, and out of it he says that the heavens, and, generally, all the worlds, which are infinite in number, have been brought into distinct form. He declared that decay and, long before that, generation originated in the revolution of all these worlds from infinite ages. The earth, he says, is in figure cylindrical, and its depth a third part of its breadth. He says too that the eternal generative force of heat and cold was separated at the generation of this world, and that from it a kind of sphere of flame grew round the atmosphere of the earth as bark round a tree; and that when this flame was rent asunder and shut off into certain orbits, the sun and moon and stars came into existence. Further, he says that man at first was generated d from animals of other kinds, because while the other animals quickly find food of themselves, man alone needs to be nursed for a long time; and for this reason, being such as he is, he could not in the beginning have been kept alive. These then are the opinions of Anaximander.

‘But Anaximenes, it is said, declared the air to be the first element of the universe, and that this is in its generic nature infinite, but is differentiated by the qualities attached to it, and that all things are generated by virtue of a certain condensation and subsequent rarefaction of this air. Its motion however subsists eternally, and when the air was compressed, first, he said, the earth was produced, and was very broad, and therefore according to reason floated upon the air; and the sun, and moon, and other heavenly bodies were originally produced out of earth. He declares, for instance, that the sun is earth, but because of its swift motion it has a great supply of heat.

‘Xenophanes of Colophon has proceeded by a way of his own, diverging from all who have been previously mentioned, for he leaves neither generation nor decay, but says that the All is always alike. For, says he, if it were to begin to be, it must previously not be; but Non-being cannot begin to be, nor can Non-being make anything, nor from Non-being can anything begin to be.

‘He declares also that the senses are fallacious, and with them altogether disparages even reason itself. Also he declares that the earth being continuously carried down little by little in time passes away into the sea. He says also that the sun is formed from a gathering of many small sparks. With regard to the gods; also he declares that there is no ruling power among them; for it is not right that any of the gods should be under a master: and none of them needs anything at all from any; and that they hear and see universally and not partially.

‘Also he declares that the earth is infinite, and not surrounded; by air on every side; and that all things are produced out of earth: the sun, however, and the other heavenly bodies he says ‘are produced out of the clouds.

‘But Parmenides the Eleatic, the companion of Xenophanes, both claimed to hold his opinions and at the same time tried to establish the opposite position. For he declares that in real truth the All is eternal and motionless; for he says it is

“Sole, of sole kind, unmoving, uncreated”

and that generation belongs to the things which upon a false assumption are thought to exist, and he denies the truth of the sensual perceptions. He says too that if anything subsists besides Being, this is Non-being, and Non-being does not exist in the universe. Thus he concludes that Being is uncreated. The earth, he says, has arisen from the dense air having settled down.

‘Zeno the Eleatic put forth nothing properly his own, but discussed these opinions more at large.

‘Democritus of Abdera supposed that the All is infinite, because there was none who could possibly have framed it: he further says that it is unchangeable; and generally, everything being such as it is, he expressly asserts that the causes of the processes now going on have no beginning, but all things absolutely, past, present, and to come, are wholly fixed beforehand by necessity from infinite time. Of the generation of the sun and moon he says, that they moved in their separate courses, when as yet they had no natural heat at all, nor generally any brightness, but on the contrary were assimilated to the nature of the earth; for each of them had been produced earlier when the world was as yet in some peculiar rudimentary condition, and afterwards, when the orbit round the sun became enlarged, the fire was included in it.

‘Epicurus son of Neocles, an Athenian, endeavours to suppress the vain conceit about gods: but also says that nothing is produced out of Non-being, because the All always was and always will be such as it is; that nothing new is brought to pass in the All because of the infinite time which has already passed; that all is body, and not only unchangeable, but also infinite; that the summum bonum is pleasure.

‘Aristippus of Gyrene says that pleasure is the summum bonum, and pain the worst of evils; but all other physiology he excludes by saying that the only useful thing is to inquire

“What for your home is evil and what good.” [1]

‘Empedocles of Agrigentum made four elements, fire, water, air, and earth, and their cause friendship and enmity. There was first the mixture of the elements, out of which, he says, the air was separated and diffused all around; and next to the air the fire leaped out, and having no other place was driven upwards by the freezing of the air. And there are two hemispheres, he says, moving in a circle round the earth, the one wholly of fire, the other of air and a little fire mixed, which he supposes to be night; and the beginning of their motion resulted from its having happened when the fire predominated in the combination. And the sun is in its nature not fire, but a reflexion of fire, like the reflexion formed from water. The moon, he says, was formed separately by itself out of the air left by the fire; for this air froze just like hail: but its light it has from the sun. The ruling power, he says, is neither in the head nor in the breast, but in the blood; whence also he thinks that in whatever part of the body this ruling power (the blood) is more largely diffused, in that part men excel.

‘Metrodorus of Chios says that the All is eternal, because if it were created it would have come from Non-being; and infinite, because eternal, for it had no first principle to start from, nor any limit, nor end. But neither does the All partake of motion; for it cannot be moved without changing its place; and a change of place must of necessity be either into plenum or into vacuum. The air being condensed makes clouds, then water, which also flowing down upon the sun extinguishes it: and it is rekindled again by evaporation. And in time the sun is made solid by the dryness, and forms stars out of the clear water, and from being extinguished and rekindled makes night and day, and eclipses generally.

‘Diogenes of Apollonia supposes that air is the primary element, that all things are in motion, and that the worlds are infinite. His cosmogony is as follows: when the All was in motion, and was becoming in one part rare and in another dense, where the dense part happened to meet it formed a concretion, and so the other parts on the same principle; and the lightest having taken the highest position produced the sun.’

Such is the judgement of the all-wise Greeks, those, forsooth, who were entitled physicists and philosophers, concerning the constitution of the All and the original cosmogony; in which they did not assume any creator or maker of the universe, nay, they made no mention of God at all, but referred the cause of the All solely to irrational impulse and spontaneous motion.

So great also is their mutual opposition; for in no point have they agreed one with another, but have filled the whole subject with strife and discord. Wherefore the admirable Socrates used to convict them all of folly, and to say that they were no better than madmen, that is, if you think Xenophon a satisfactory witness, when in the Memorabilia he speaks thus:

[XENOPHON] ‘But no one ever yet either saw Socrates do, or heard him say, anything impious or irreligious. For even concerning the nature of all things, or other such questions, he did not discourse, as most did, speculating what is the nature of the cosmos, as the sophists call it, and by what necessary forces the heavenly bodies are each produced, but he even used to represent those who troubled their minds about such matters as talking folly.’[2]

And presently he adds:

‘And he used to wonder, that it was not manifest to them, that it is impossible for men to discover these things; since even those who prided themselves most highly on discoursing of these subjects did not hold the same opinions one with another, but behaved to each other like mad people. For as among madmen some do not fear even things that should be feared, and others fear what is not at all fearful; … so of those who trouble themselves about the nature of all things, some think that Being is one only, others that it is an infinite multitude; and some that all things are ever in motion, but others that nothing ever can be moved: and some that all things are created and perish, but others that nothing ever can either be created or perish.’[3]

So says Socrates, according to the testimony of Xenophon. And Plato also agrees with this account in his dialogue Concerning the Soul, describing him as thus speaking:

[PLATO] ‘For in my youth, Cebes, said he, I myself had a wonderful longing for this kind of wisdom which they call Physical Research: it seemed to me a magnificent thing to know the causes of everything, why each comes into being, and why it perishes, or why it exists. And I was constantly turning my mind this way and that, in examining first such questions as these:—Is it when hot and cold have assumed a kind of putrefaction, as some used to say,—is it then that living things are bred and nourished? And is the blood that by which we think, or the air, or the fire? Or is it none of these, but is the brain that which supplies the sensation of sight, and hearing, and smell? And from these might come memory and opinion, and from memory and opinion, when they have reached a settled state, in the same manner knowledge arises. And then again I speculated on their decay, and the changes to which the heaven and the earth are subject, and at last it seemed to me that I was of all things in the world the least fitted by nature for such speculation. And I will tell you a good proof of it: I was so utterly blinded by the mere inquiry, that even what I clearly understood before, at least as I and others thought, I then unlearned,—even what I thought I knew before.’[4]

So said Socrates, that very man so celebrated by all the Greeks. When, therefore, even this great philosopher had such an opinion of the physiological doctrines of those whom I have mentioned, I think that we too have with good reason deprecated the atheism of them all, since their polytheistic error also seems not to be unconnected with the opinions already mentioned. This, however, shall be proved on the proper occasion, when I shall show that Anaxagoras is the first of the Greeks mentioned as having set mind to preside over the cause of the All.

But now pass on with me to Diodorus, and consider what he narrates concerning the primitive theology of mankind.[5]

[1] Homer, Od. iv. 392

[2] Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates, 1.i.11

[3] Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates, 1.1.13

[4] Plato, Phaedo 96 A

[5] Diodorus Siculus, I, 11.

Chapter 9

[DIODORUS] ‘It is said then that the men who dwelled of old in Egypt when they looked up to the cosmos, and were struck with astonishment and admiration at the nature of the universe, supposed that the sun and moon were two eternal and primal gods, one of whom they named Osiris, and the other Isis, each name being applied from some true etymology.

‘For when they are translated into the Greek form of speech, Osiris is “many eyed”; with reason, for casting his beams in every direction he beholds, as it were with many eyes, the whole earth and sea: and with this the poet’s words agree:

“Thou Sun, who all things seest, and nearest all.” [1]

‘But some of the ancient mythologists among the Greeks give to Osiris the additional name Dionysus, and, by a slight change in the name, Sirius. One of these, Eumolpus, speaks in his Bacchic poems thus:

“Dionysus named, “Bright as a star, his face aflame with rays.” [2]

And Orpheus says:

“For that same cause Phanes and Dionysus him they call.”[3]

Some say also that the fawn-skin cloak is hung about him as a representation of the spangling of the stars.

‘”Isis” too, being interpreted, means “ancient,” the name having been given to the Moon from her ancient and eternal origin. And they put horns upon her, both from the aspect with which she appears whenever she is crescent-shaped, and also from the cow which is consecrated to her among the Egyptians. And these deities they suppose to regulate the whole world.’ [4]

Such then are the statements on this subject. You find, too, in the Phoenician theology, that their first ‘physical philosophers knew no other gods than the sun, the moon, and besides these the planets, the elements also, and the things connected with them’; and that to these the earliest of mankind ‘consecrated the productions of the earth, and regarded them as gods, and worshipped them as the sources of sustenance to themselves and to following generations, and to all that went before them, and offered to them drink-offerings and libations.’ But pity and lamentation and weeping they consecrated to the produce of the earth when perishing, and to the generation of living creatures at first from the earth, and then to their production one from another, and to their end, when they departed from life. These their notions of worship were in accordance with their own weakness, and the want as yet of any enterprise of mind.’

Such are the statements of the Phoenician writings, as will be proved in due course. Moreover, one of our own time, that very man who gains celebrity by his abuse of us, in the treatise which he entitled Of Abstinence from Animal Food, makes mention of the old customs of the ancients as follows in his own words, on the testimony of Theophrastus:[5]

[PORPHYRY] ‘It is probably an incalculable time since, as Theophrastus says, the most learned race of mankind, inhabiting that most sacred land which Nilus founded, were the first to begin to offer upon the hearth to the heavenly deities not the first-fruits of myrrh nor of cassia and frankincense mingled with saffron; for these were adopted many generations later, when man becoming a wanderer in search of his necessary livelihood with many toils and tears offered drops of these tinctures as first-fruits to the gods.

‘”Of these then they made no offerings formerly, but of herbage, which they lifted up in their hands as the bloom of the productive power of nature. For the earth gave forth trees before animals, and long before trees the herbage which is produced year by year; and of this they culled leaves and roots and the whole shoots of their growth, and burned them, greeting thus the visible deities of heaven with their offering, and dedicating to them the honours of perpetual fire.

‘For these they also kept in their temples an undying fire, as being most especially like them. And from the fume (θυμιασις) of the produce of the earth they formed the words θυμιατηρια (altars of incense), and θυειν (to offer), and θυσιας (offerings),—words which we misunderstand as signifying the erroneous practice of later times, when we apply the term θυσια to the so-called worship which consists of animal sacrifice.

‘And so anxious were the men of old not to transgress their custom, that they cursed (αρωμαι) those who neglected the old fashion and introduced another, calling their own incense-offerings αρωματα.’

After these and other statements he adds:

‘But when these beginnings of sacrifices were carried by men to a great pitch of disorder, the adoption of the most dreadful offerings, full of cruelty, was introduced; so that the curses formerly pronounced against us seemed now to have received fulfilment, when men slaughtered victims and defiled the altars with blood.’ [6]

So far writes Porphyry, or rather Theophrastus: and we may find a seal and confirmation of the statement in what Plato in the Cratylus, before his remarks concerning the Greeks, says word for word as follows:

[PLATO] ‘It appears to me that the first inhabitants of Hellas had only the same gods as many of the barbarians have now, namely the sun, moon, earth, stars, and heaven: as therefore they saw them always moving on in their course and running (θεοντα), from this their natural tendency to run they called them θεουσ (gods).’ [7]

But I think it must be evident to every one on consideration that the first and most ancient of mankind did not apply themselves either to building temples or to setting up statues, since at that time no art of painting, or modelling, [or carving], or statuary had yet been discovered, nor, indeed, were building or architecture as yet established.

Nor was there any mention among the men of that age of those who have since been denominated gods and heroes, nor had they any Zeus, nor Kronos, Poseidon, Apollo, Hera, Athena, Dionysus, nor any other deity, either male or female, such as there were afterwards in multitudes among both barbarians and Greeks; nor was there any daemon good or bad reverenced among men, but only the visible stars of heaven because of their running (θεειν) received, as they themselves say, the title of gods (θεων), and even these were not worshipped with animal sacrifices and the honours afterwards superstitiously invented.

This statement is not ours, but the testimony comes from within, and from the Greeks themselves, and supplies its proof by the words which have been already quoted and by those which will hereafter be set forth in due order.

This is what our holy Scriptures also teach, in which it is contained, that in the beginning the worship of the visible luminaries had been assigned to all the nations, and that to the Hebrew race alone had been entrusted the full initiation into the knowledge of God the Maker and Artificer of the universe, and of true piety towards Him. So then among the oldest of mankind there was no mention of a Theogony, either Greek or barbarian, nor any erection of lifeless statues, nor all the silly talk that there is now about the naming of the gods both male and female.

In fact the titles and names which men have since invented were not as yet known among mankind: no, nor yet invocations of invisible daemons and spirits, nor absurd mythologies about gods and heroes, nor mysteries of secret initiations, nor anything at all of the excessive and frivolous superstition of later generations.

These then were men’s inventions, and representations of our mortal nature, or rather new devices of base and licentious dispositions, according to our divine oracle which says, The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication.[8]

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 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.’ [9]

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.

Philo then, having divided the whole work of Sanchuniathon into nine books, in the introduction to the first book makes this preface concerning Sanchuniathon, word for word: [10]

[PHILO] ‘These things being so, Sanchuniathon, who was a man of much learning and great curiosity, and desirous of knowing the earliest history of all nations from the creation of the world, searched out with great care the history of Taautus, knowing that of all men under the sun Taautus was the first who thought of the invention of letters, and began the writing of records: and he laid the foundation, as it were, of his history, by beginning with him, whom the Egyptians called Thoyth, and the Alexandrians Thoth, translated by the Greeks into Hermes.’

After these statements he finds fault with the more recent authors as violently and untruly reducing the legends concerning the gods to allegories and physical explanations and theories; and so he goes on to say:

‘But the most recent of the writers on religion rejected the real events from the beginning, and having invented allegories and myths, and formed a fictitious affinity to the cosmical phenomena, established mysteries, and overlaid them with a cloud of absurdity, so that one cannot easily discern what really occurred: but he having lighted upon the collections of secret writings of the Ammoneans which were discovered in the shrines and of course were not known to all men, applied himself diligently to the study of them all; and when he had completed the investigation, he put aside the original myth and the allegories, and so completed his proposed work; until the priests who followed in later times wished to hide this away again, and to restore the mythical character; from which time mysticism began to rise up, not having previously reached the Greeks.’

Next to this he says:

‘These things I have discovered in my anxious desire to know the history of the Phoenicians, and after a thorough investigation of much matter, not that which is found among the Greeks, for that is contradictory, and compiled by some in a contentious spirit rather than with a view to truth.’

And after other statements:

‘And the conviction that the facts were as he has described them came to me, on seeing the disagreement among the Greeks: concerning which I have carefully composed three books bearing the title Paradoxical History.’

And again after other statements he adds:

‘But with a view to clearness hereafter, and the determination of particulars, it is necessary to state distinctly beforehand that the most ancient of the barbarians, and especially the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom the rest of mankind received their traditions, regarded as the greatest gods those who had discovered the necessaries of life, or in some way done good to the nations. Esteeming these as benefactors and authors of many blessings, they worshipped them also as gods after their death, and built shrines, and consecrated pillars and staves after their names: these the Phoenicians held in great reverence, and assigned to them their greatest festivals. Especially they applied the names of their kings to the elements of the cosmos, and to some of those who were regarded as gods. But they knew no other gods than those of nature, sun, and moon, and the rest of the wandering stars, and the elements and things connected with them, so that some of their gods were mortal and some immortal.’

Philo having explained these points in his preface, next begins his interpretation of Sanchuniathon by setting forth the theology of the Phoenicians as follows:

[1] Homer, Ill. iii. 277

[2] 27 d 5 The only known Fragment of Eumolpus

[3] d 7 Orphica, Fragment, vii. 3 (Hermann), clxviii (Abel)

[4] Quoted from Philo Byblius

[5] Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food, ii. 5

[6] ibid. 33

[7] Plato, Cratylus, 397

[8] Deut., iv. 19; Wisdom of Solomon, xiv. 12

[9] Porphyry, Against the Christians, a fragment preserved by Eusebius only

[10] 31 d 8 - 42 b 2. Philo Byblius, Fragments quoted by Porphyry and preserved by Eusebius.

Chapter 10. Theology of the Phoenicians

‘The first principle of the universe he supposes to have been air dark with cloud and wind, or rather a blast of cloudy air, and a turbid chaos dark as Erebus; and these were boundless and for long ages had no limit. But when the wind, says he, became enamoured of its own parents, and a mixture took place, that connexion was called Desire. This was the beginning of the creation of all things: but the wind itself had no knowledge of its own creation. From its connexion Mot was produced, which some say is mud, and others a putrescence of watery compound; and out of this came every germ of creation, and the generation of the universe. So there were certain animals which had no sensation, and out of them grew intelligent animals, and were called “Zophasemin,” that is “observers of heaven”; and they were formed like the shape of an egg. Also Mot burst forth into light, and sun, and moon, and stars, and the great constellations.’

Such was their cosmogony, introducing downright atheism. But let us see next how he states the generation of animals to have arisen. He says, then:

‘And when the air burst into light, both the sea and the land became heated, and thence arose winds and clouds, and very great downpours and floods of the waters of heaven. So after they were separated, and removed from their proper place because of the sun’s heat, and all met together again in the air dashing together one against another, thunderings and lightnings were produced, and at the rattle of the thunder the intelligent animals already described woke up, and were scared at the sound, and began to move both on land and sea, male and female.’

Such is their theory of the generation of animals. Next after this the same writer adds and says:

‘These things were found written in the cosmogony of Taautus, and in his Commentaries, both from conjectures, and from evidences which his intellect discerned, and discovered, and made clear to us.’

Next to this, after mentioning the names of the winds Notos and Boreas and the rest, he continues:

‘But these were the first who consecrated the productions of the earth, and regarded them as gods, and worshipped them as being the support of life both to themselves, and to those who were to come after them, and to all before them, and they offered to them drink-offerings and libations.’

He adds also:

‘These were their notions of worship, corresponding to their own weakness, and timidity of soul. Then he says that from the wind Colpias and his wife Baau (which he translates “Night”) were born Aeon and Protogonus, mortal men, so called: and that Aeon discovered the food obtained from trees. That their offspring were called Genos and Genea, and inhabited Phoenicia: and that when droughts occurred, they stretched out their hands to heaven towards the sun; for him alone (he says) they regarded as god the lord of heaven, calling him Beelsamen, which is in the Phoenician language “lord of heaven,” and in Greek “Zeus.”’

And after this he charges the Greeks with error, saying:

‘For it is not without cause that we have explained these things in many ways, but in view of the later misinterpretations of the names in the history, which the Greeks in ignorance took in a wrong sense, being deceived by the ambiguity of the translation.’

Afterwards he says:

‘From Genos, son of Aeon and Protogonus, were begotten again mortal children, whose names are Light, and Fire, and Flame. These, says he, discovered fire from rubbing pieces of wood together, and taught the use of it. And they begat sons of surpassing size and stature, whose names were applied to the mountains which they occupied: so that from them were named mount Cassius, and Libanus, and Antilibanus, and Brathy. From these, he says, were begotten Memrumus and Hypsuranius; and they got their names, he says, from their mothers, as the women in those days had free intercourse with any whom they met.’

Then he says:

‘Hypsuranius inhabited Tyre, and contrived huts out of reeds and rushes and papyrus: and he quarrelled with his brother Ousous, who first invented a covering for the body from skins of wild beasts which he was strong enough to capture. And when furious rains and winds occurred, the trees in Tyre were rubbed against each other and caught fire, and burnt down the wood that was there. And Ousous took a tree, and, having stripped off the branches, was the first who ventured to embark on the sea; and be consecrated two pillars to fire and wind, and worshipped them, and poured libations of blood upon them from the wild beasts which he took in hunting.

‘But when Hypsuranius and Ousous were dead, those who were left, he says, consecrated staves to them, and year by year worshipped their pillars and kept festivals in their honour. But many years afterwards from the race of llypsuranius were born Agreus and Halieus, the inventors of hunting and fishing, from whom were named huntsmen and fishermen: and from them were bom two brethren, discoverers of iron and the mode of working it; the one of whom, Chrysor, practised oratory, and incantations, and divinations: and that he was Hephaestus, and invented the hook, and bait, and line, and raft, and was the first of all men to make a voyage: wherefore they reverenced him also as a god after his death. And he was also called Zeus Meilichios. And some say that his brothers invented walls of brick. Afterwards there sprang from their race two youths, one of whom was called Technites (Artificer), and the other Geinos Autochthon (Earth-born Aboriginal). These devised the mixing of straw with the clay of bricks, and drying them in the sun, and moreover invented roofs. From them others were born, one of whom was called Agros, and the other Agrueros or Agrotes; and of the latter there is in Phoenicia a much venerated statue, and a shrine drawn by yokes of oxen; and among the people of Byblos he is named pre-eminently the greatest of the gods.

‘These two devised the addition to houses of courts, and enclosures, and caves. From them came husbandmen and huntsmen. They are also called Aletae and Titans. From these were born Amynos and Magus, who established villages and sheepfolds. From them came Misor and Suduc, that is to say “Straight “ and “Just”: these discovered the use of salt.

‘From Misor was born Taautus, who invented the first written alphabet; the Egyptians called him Thoyth, the Alexandrians Thoth, and the Greeks Hermes.

‘From Suduc came the Dioscuri, or Cabeiri, or Corybantes, or Samothraces: these, he says, first invented a ship. From them have sprung others, who discovered herbs, and the healing of venomous bites, and charms. In their time is born a certain Elioun called “the Most High,” and a female named Beruth, and these dwelt in the neighbourhood of Byblos.

‘And from them is born Epigeius or Autochthon, whom they afterwards called Uranus; so that from him they named the element above us Uranus because of the excellence of its beauty. And he has a sister born of the aforesaid parents, who was called Ge (earth), and from her, he says, because of her beauty, they called the earth by the same name. And their father, the Most High, died in an encounter with wild beasts, and was deified, and his children offered to him libations and sacrifices.

‘And Uranus, having succeeded to his father’s rule, takes to himself in marriage his sister Ge, and gets by her four sons, Elus who is also Kronos, and Baetylus, and Dagon who is Siton, and Atlas. Also by other wives Uranus begat a numerous progeny; on which account Ge was angry, and from jealousy began to reproach Uranus, so that they even separated from each other.

‘But Uranus, after he had left her, used to come upon her with violence, whenever he chose, and consort with her, and go away again; he used to try also to destroy his children by her; but Ge repelled him many times, having gathered to herself allies. And when Kronos had advanced to manhood, he, with the counsel and help of Hermes Trismegistus (who was his secretary), repels his father Uranus, and avenges his mother.

‘To Kronos are born children, Persephone and Athena. The former died a virgin: but by the advice of Athena and Hermes Kronos made a sickle and a spear of iron. Then Hermes talked magical words to the allies of Kronos, and inspired them with a desire of fighting against Uranus on behalf of Ge. And thus Kronos engaged in war, and drove Uranus from his government, and succeeded to the kingdom. Also there was taken in the battle the beloved concubine of Uranus, being great with child, whom Kronos gave in marriage to Dagon. And in his house she gave birth to the child begotten of Uranus, which she named Demarus.

‘ After this Kronos builds a wall round his own dwelling, and founds the first city, Byblos in Phoenicia.

‘Soon after this he became suspicious of his own brother Atlas, and, with the advice of Hermes, threw him into a deep pit and buried him. At about this time the descendants of the Dioscuri put together rafts and ships, and made voyages; and, being cast ashore near Mount Cassius, consecrated a temple there. And the allies of Elus, who is Kronos, were surnamed Eloim, as these same, who were surnamed after Kronos, would have been called Kronii.

‘And Kronos, having a son Sadidus, dispatched him with his own sword, because he regarded him with suspicion, and deprived him of life, thus becoming the murderer of his son. In like manner he cut off the head of a daughter of his own; so that all the gods were dismayed at the disposition of Kronos.

‘But as time went on Uranus, being in banishment, secretly sends his maiden daughter Astarte with two others her sisters, Ehea and Dione, to slay Kronos by craft. But Kronos caught them, and though they were his sisters, made them his wedded wives. And when Uranus knew it, he sent Eimarmene and Hora with other allies on an expedition against Kronos. and these Kronos won over to his side and kept with him.

‘Further, he says, the god Uranus devised the Baetylia, having contrived to put life into stones. And to Kronos there were born of Astarte seven daughters, Titanides or Artemides: and again to the same there were born of Rhea seven sons, of whom the youngest was deified at his birth; and of Dione females, and of Astarte again two males, Desire and Love. And Dagon, after he discovered corn and the plough, was called Zeus Arotrios.

‘And one of the Titanides united to Suduc, who is named the Just, gives birth to Asclepius.

‘In Peraea also there were born to Kronos three sons, Kronos of the same name with his father, and Zeus Belus, and Apollo. In their time are born Pontus, and Typhon, and Nereus father of Pontus and son of Belus.

‘And from Pontus is born Sidon (who from the exceeding sweetness of her voice was the first to invent musical song) and Poseidon. And to Demarus is born Melcathrus, who is also called Hercules.

‘Then again Uranus makes war against Pontus, and after revolting attaches himself to Demarus, and Demarus attacks Pontus, but Pontus puts him to flight; and Demarus vowed an offering if he should escape.

‘And in the thirty-second year of his power and kingdom Elus, that is Kronos, having waylaid his father Uranus in an inland spot, and got him into his hands, emasculates him near some fountains and rivers. There Uranus was deified: and as he breathed his last, the blood from his wounds dropped into the fountains and into the waters of the rivers, and the spot is pointed out to this day.’

This, then, is the story of Kronos, and such are the glories of the mode of life, so vaunted among the Greeks, of men in the days of Kronos, whom they also affirm to have been the first and ‘golden race of articulate speaking men,’ [1] that blessed happiness of the olden time!

Again, the historian adds to this, after other matters:

‘But Astarte, the greatest goddess, and Zeus Demarus, and Adodus king of gods, reigned over the country with the consent of Kronos. And Astarte set the head of a bull upon her own head as a mark of royalty; and in travelling round the world she found a star that had fallen from the sky, which she took up and consecrated in the holy island Tyre. And the Phoenicians say that Astarte is Aphrodite.

‘Kronos also, in going round the world, gives the kingdom of Attica to his own daughter Athena. But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Uranus, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same. And not long after another of his sons by Rhea, named Muth, having died, he deifies him, and the Phoenicians call him Thanatos and Pluto. And after this Kronos gives the city Byblos to the goddess Baaltis, who is also called Dione, and Berytus to Poseidon and to the Cabeiri and Agrotae and Halieis, who also consecrated the remains of Pontus at Berytus.

‘But before this the god Tauthus imitated the features of the gods who were his companions, Kronos, and Dagon, and the rest, and gave form to the sacred characters of the letters. He also devised for Kronos as insignia of royalty four eyes in front and behind … but two of them quietly closed, and upon his shoulders four wings, two as spread for flying, and two as folded.

‘And the symbol meant that Kronos could see when asleep, and sleep while waking: and similarly in the case of the wings, that he flew while at rest, and was at rest when flying. But to each of the other gods he gave two wings upon the shoulders, as meaning that they accompanied Kronos in his flight. And to Kronos himself again he gave two wings upon his head, one representing the all-ruling mind, and one sensation.

‘And when Kronos came into the South country he gave all Egypt to the god Tauthus, that it might be his royal dwelling-place. And these things, he says, were recorded first by Suduc’s seven sons the Cabeiri, and their eighth brother Asclepius, as the god Tauthus commanded them.

‘All these stories Thabion, who was the very first hierophant of all the Phoenicians from the beginning, allegorized and mixed up with the physical and cosmical phenomena, and delivered to the prophets who celebrated the orgies and inaugurated the mysteries: and they, purposing to increase their vain pretensions from every source, handed them on to their successors and to their foreign visitors: one of these was Eisirius the inventor of the three letters, brother of Chna the first who had his name changed to Phoenix.’

Then again afterwards he adds:

‘But the Greeks, surpassing all in genius, appropriated most of the earliest stories, and then variously decked them out with ornaments of tragic phrase, and adorned them in every way, with the purpose of charming by the pleasant fables. Hence Hesiod and the celebrated Cyclic poets framed theogonies of their own, and battles of the giants, and battles of Titans, and castrations; and with these fables, as they travelled about, they conquered and drove out the truth.

‘But our ears having grown up in familiarity with their fictions, and being for long ages pre-occupied, guard as a trust the mythology which they received, just as I said at the beginning; and this mythology, being aided by time, has made its hold difficult for us to escape from, so that the truth is thought to be nonsense, and the spurious narrative truth.’

Let these suffice as quotations from the writings of Sanchuniathon, translated by Philo of Byblos, and approved as true by the testimony of Porphyry the philosopher.

The same author, in his History of the Jews, further writes thus concerning Kronos:

‘Tauthus, whom the Egyptians call Thoyth, excelled in wisdom among the Phoenicians, and was the first to rescue the worship of the gods from the ignorance of the vulgar, and arrange it in the order of intelligent experience. Many generations after him a god Sourmoubelos and Thuro, whose name was changed to Eusarthis, brought to light the theology of Tauthus which had been hidden and overshadowed, by allegories.’

And soon after he says:

‘It was a custom of the ancients in great crises of danger for the rulers of a city or nation, in order to avert the common ruin, to give up the most beloved of their children for sacrifice as a ransom to the avenging daemons; and those who were thus given up were sacrificed with mystic rites. Kronos then, whom the Phoenicians call Elus, who was king of the country and subsequently, after his decease, was deified as the star Saturn, had by a nymph of the country named Anobret an only begotten son, whom they on this account called ledud, the only begotten being still so called among the Phoenicians; and when very great dangers from war had beset the country, he arrayed his son in royal apparel, and prepared an altar, and sacrificed him.’

Again see what the same author, in his translation from Sanchuniathon about the Phoenician alphabet, says concerning the reptiles and venomous beasts, which contribute no good service to mankind, but work death and destruction to any in whom they inject their incurable and fatal poison. This also he describes, saying word for word as follows:

‘The nature then of the dragon and of serpents Tauthus himself regarded as divine, and so again after him did the Phoenicians and Egyptians: for this animal was declared by him to be of all reptiles most full of breath, and fiery. In consequence of which it also exerts an unsurpassable swiftness by means of its breath, without feet and hands or any other of the external members by which the other animals make their movements. It also exhibits forms of various shapes, and in its progress makes spiral leaps as swift as it chooses. It is also most long-lived, and its nature is to put off its old skin, and so not only to grow young again, but also to assume a larger growth; and after it has fulfilled its appointed measure of age, it is self-consumed, in like manner as Tauthus himself has set down in his sacred books: for which reason this animal has also been adopted in temples and in mystic rites.

‘We have spoken more fully about it in the memoirs entitled Ethothiae, in which we prove that it is immortal, and is self-consumed, as is stated before: for this animal does not die by a natural death, but only if struck by a violent blow. The Phoenicians call it “Good Daemon”: in like manner the Egyptians also surname it Cneph; and they add to it the head of a hawk because of the hawk’s activity.

‘Epeïs also (who is called among them a chief hierophant and sacred scribe, and whose work was translated [into Greek] by Areius of Heracleopolis), speaks in an allegory word for word as follows:

‘The first and most divine being is a serpent with the form of a hawk, extremely graceful, which whenever he opened his eyes filled all with light in his original birthplace, but if he shut his eyes, darkness came on.’

‘Epeïs here intimates that he is also of a fiery substance, by saying “he shone through,” for to shine through is peculiar to light. From the Phoenicians Pherecydes also took the first ideas of his theology concerning the god called by him Ophion and concerning the Ophionidae, of whom we shall speak again.

‘Moreover the Egyptians, describing the world from the same idea, engrave the circumference of a circle, of the colour of the sky and of fire, and a hawk-shaped serpent stretched across the middle of it, and the whole shape is like our Theta (θ), representing the circle as the world, and signifying by the serpent which connects it in the middle the good daemon.

‘Zoroaster also the Magian, in the Sacred Collection of Persian Records, says in express words: “And god has the head of a hawk. He is the first, incorruptible, eternal, uncreated, without parts, most unlike (all else), the controller of all good, who cannot be bribed, the best of all the good, the wisest of all wise; and he is also a father of good laws and justice, self-taught, natural, and perfect, and wise, and the sole author of the sacred power of nature.

‘The same also is said of him by Ostanes in the book entitled Octateuch.’

From Tauthus, as is said above, all received their impulse towards physiological systems: and having built temples they consecrated in the shrines the primary elements represented by serpents, and in their honour celebrated festivals, and sacrifices, and mystic rites, regarding them as the greatest gods, and rulers of the universe. So much concerning serpents.

Such then is the character of the theology of the Phoenicians, from which the word of salvation in the gospel teaches us to flee with averted eyes, and earnestly to seek the remedy for this madness of the ancients. It must be manifest that these are not fables and poets’ fictions containing some theory concealed in hidden meanings, but true testimonies, as they would themselves say, of wise and ancient theologians, containing things of earlier date than all poets and historians, and deriving the credibility of their statements from the names and history of the gods still prevailing in the cities and villages of Phoenicia, and from the mysteries celebrated among each people: so that it is no longer necessary to search out violent physical explanations of these things, since the evidence which the facts bring with them of themselves is quite clear. Such then is the theology of the Phoenicians: but it is now time to pass on and examine carefully the case of the Egyptians.

[Selected footnotes moved to end and numbered]

[1] Hesiod, Works and Days, 109

Book 2

Preface

The theology of the Phoenicians is of the character described above, and the word of salvation teaches us in the gospel to escape from it without looking back, and earnestly to seek the remedy for this madness of the ancients.

Now it must be manifest that these are not fables and poetic fictions containing some theory concealed in covert meanings, but true testimonies, as they would say themselves, of ancient and wise theologians, comprising records of earlier date than all poets and historians, and deriving the credibility of their statements from the names and history of the gods prevailing to the present day in the cities and villages of Phoenicia, and from the mysteries celebrated among the inhabitants of each. This must be manifest, I say, from the confession both of the other historians and especially of their reputed theologians; for they hereby testified that the ancients who first composed the account of the gods did not refer at all to figurative descriptions of physical phenomena, nor make allegories of the myths concerning the gods, but preserved the histories in their literal form. For this was shown by the words already quoted of the authors whom I have mentioned; so that there is no longer need to search up forced physical explanations, since the proof which the facts bring with them of themselves is quite clear.

Such, then, is the theology of the Phoenicians. But it is time to pass on and review that of the Egyptians also. in order to observe carefully and understand exactly whether our revolt from them is not well judged and reasonable, and whether it has not been successful upon the sole evidence of the gospel first of all among the Egyptians themselves, and then among those also who are of like mind with them.

Now the whole Egyptian history has been translated at large into the language of the Greeks, and especially the part concerning their theology, by Manetho the Egyptian, both in the Sacred Book written by him, and in other of his works. Moreover, Diodorus, whom we mentioned before, collected his narratives from many sources, and described the customs of the several nations with the utmost possible accuracy: and being an eminent man, who had won no small reputation for learning among all lovers of literature, and had made a collection of all ancient history, and connected the earliest with the subsequent events, he adopted the theology of the Egyptians as the commencement of his whole treatise.

I think it better, therefore, to draw the representation of the subject before us from that treatise, as his writings are likely to be better known to the Greeks. This, then, is what he narrates word for word: [1]

[1] 45 a 1 Diodorus Siculus, I. c. 10

Chapter 1

[DIODORUS] ‘The Egyptians say that in the original creation of the universe mankind came into existence first in Egypt by reason of its temperate climate and the nature of the Nile. For as that river caused great fertility and supplied food self grown, it gave an easy sustenance to the living creatures that were born.

[1] ‘The gods, they say, had been originally mortal men, but gained their immortality on account of wisdom and public benefits to mankind, some of them having also become kings: and some have the same names, when interpreted, with the heavenly deities, while others have received a name of their own, as Helios, and Kronos, and Rhea, and Zeus, who is by some called Ammon; and besides these Hera and Hephaestus, and Hestia, and lastly Hermes.

‘Helios, they say, was the first king of the Egyptians, having the same name with the celestial luminary: some, however, of the priests say that Hephaestus was the first who became king, because he was the discoverer of fire.

‘Kronos reigned next, and having married his sister Rhea begat, according to some authors, Osiris and Isis. but according to most, Zeus and Hera, who for their valour received the kingdom of the whole world. Of these were born five gods, Osiris, and Isis, and Typhon, and Apollo, and Aphrodite. Osiris is Dionysus, and Isis is Demeter; and Osiris, having married her and succeeded to the kingdom, did many things for the general benefit, and founded in the Thebaid a city of a hundred gates, which some called Diospolis, and others Thebes… [2] He also erected a temple to his parents Zeus and Hera, and golden shrines of the other gods, to each of whom he assigned honours, and appointed the priests to attend to them. Osiris also was the discoverer of the vine, and was the first to make use of bare land, and to teach the rest of mankind agriculture. Above all he honoured Hermes, who was endowed with an excellent genius for contriving what might benefit the common life.

[3] ‘For he was the inventor of letters, and arranged sacrifices for the gods, and invented a lyre, and taught the Greeks the explanation (ερμηνειαν) of these matters, from which circumstance he was called Hermes. He also discovered the olive-tree.

[4] ‘Osiris, after travelling over the whole world, set up Busiris in Phoenicia, and Antaeus in Aethiopia and Libya; and himself led an expedition with his brother Apollo, who, they say, was the discoverer of the laurel. [5] In the expedition with Osiris there went his two sons, Anubis and Macedon; and he took with him also Pan, who is especially honoured by the Egyptians, and from whom Panopolis is named.

‘And when he was near Taphosiris the tribe of Satyrs was, brought to him: and, being fond of music, he carried about with him a band of musicians, amongst whom were nine maidens skilful in singing and well educated in other respects, who among the Greeks are called Muses, and whose leader is Apollo. And since every nation welcomed Osiris as a god because of the benefits bestowed by him, he left memorials of himself behind him everywhere.

[6] ‘In India he founded not a few cities; and also visited the other nations, those about Phrygia, and crossed the Hellespont into Europe. [7] His son Macedon he left as king of Macedonia; and Triptolemus he put in charge of agriculture in Attica.

‘Afterwards he passed from among men to the gods, and from Isis and Hermes received temples and all the honours which are, held among the gods to be most distinguished. These two also taught men his initiatory rites, and introduced many customs, concerning him in the way of mysteries.

[8] ‘He was killed by Typhon his brother, a wicked and impious, person, who, having divided the body of the murdered man into, twenty-six parts, gave a portion to each of his accomplices in the, assault, wishing all to share in the pollution.

‘But Isis, being the sister and wife of Osiris, avenged the murder, with the aid of her son Horus; and, having slain Typhon and his accomplices near what is now called the village of Antaeus, she became queen of Egypt.

‘And having found all except one part of the body of Osiris, they say that round each part she moulded out of spices and wax the figure of a man corresponding in size to Osiris, and gave them to the priests throughout all Egypt to be worshipped: she also consecrated one of the animals found among them, of whatever kind they wished.

[9] ‘The sacred bulls, both Apis so called, and Mnevis, were consecrated to Osiris, and all the Egyptians in common were taught to worship them as gods, because these animals had helped the labours of the discoverers of wheat, both in sowing and in the common course of husbandry. [10] Isis swore to accept the company of no man any more; and when she herself had passed from among men, she received immortal honours, and was buried at Memphis.

‘So the parts of Osiris which had been found again are said to have been honoured with burial in the manner described; but they say that the member which had been cast into the river by Typhon was deemed worthy by Isis of divine honours no less than the rest.

‘For she set up an image of it in the temples, and instituted worship, and made the initiations and sacrifices paid to this deity especially honourable. And as the Greeks received their orgiastic rites and Dionysiac festivals from Egypt, they also worship this member in their mysteries, and in the initiatory rites and sacrifices of this god, and call it Phallus.

[11] ‘But those who say that the god was born in Boeotian Thebes of Semele and Zeus talk, they say, at random. For when Orpheus had landed in Egypt and received initiation, he took part also in the Dionysiac mysteries, and, being friendly to the Cadmeans and honoured by them, he changed the place of the god’s birth to please them; and the multitude, partly through ignorance and partly from their desire that the god should be called a Greek, gladly welcomed the initiations and mysteries.

‘And for the transference of the birth and initiatory rites of the god Orpheus found occasion as follows. Cadmus, a native of the Egyptian Thebes, among other children begat Semele; and she having been violated by somebody or other became pregnant, and after seven months gave birth to a child, just such as the Egyptians consider Osiris to have been.

‘And when the child died, Cadmus covered it with gold, and appointed the proper sacrifices for it, and also assigned the fatherhood to Zeus, thus magnifying Osiris, and taking away the reproach of the mother’s seduction.

‘Wherefore among the Greeks also a story was given out that Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, gave birth to Osiris by Zeus.

‘Afterwards when the mythologists came forward, the story filled the theatre, and became to succeeding generations a strong and unalterable belief. And the most illustrious heroes and gods of the Egyptians are, it is said, universally claimed by the Greeks as their own.

[12] ‘Hercules, for example, was by birth an Egyptian, and moved by his valour travelled over much of the known world: but the Greeks claimed him as their own, though in truth he was different from the son of Alcmena who arose at some later time among the Greeks.

‘Perseus also, it is said, was born in Egypt, and the birth of Isis was transferred by the Greeks to Argos, while in their mythology they said that she was lo, who was transformed into a cow: but some think the same deity to be Isis, some Demeter, some Thesmophoros, but others Selene, and others Hera.[13]

‘Osiris, too, some think to be Apis, and some Dionysus, some Pluto, some Ammon, some Zeus, and others Pan.

‘Isis, they say, was the discoverer of many remedies, and of medical science: she also discovered the medicine of immortality, by which, when her son Horus had been treacherously attacked by the Titans, and was found dead under the water, she not only raised him up again and gave him life, but also made him partake of immortality.

[14] ‘Horus they say was the last of the gods who reigned over Egypt, and his name by interpretation is Apollo: he was taught medicine and soothsaying by his mother Isis, and benefited mankind by his oracles and cures.

‘Most authors agree that in the time of Isis certain giants of great size, arrayed in monstrous fashion, stirred up war against the gods Zeus and Osiris. Also that the Egyptians made it lawful to marry sisters, because Isis had been married to Osiris her brother.’

Such are their stories about these deities: but concerning the animals held sacred in Egypt, there is an account prevailing among them of the following kind:

[15] ‘Some say that the original race of gods, being few and overpowered by the multitude and impiety of the earth-born men, made themselves like certain irrational animals, and so escaped: and afterwards, by way of rendering thanks for their safety, they consecrated the natures of the very animals whose likeness they had taken.

‘But others say that in their encounters with their enemies their leaders prepared images of the animals which they now honour, and wore these upon the head, and had this as a mark of their authority: and when they were victorious over their foes, they ascribed the cause to the animals whose images they wore, and deified them.

[16] ‘Others allege a third cause, saying that the animals have been so honoured because of their usefulness. For the cow bears calves, and ploughs, and sheep bear lambs and supply clothing and food by their milk and cheese, and the dog helps men in hunting, and keeps guard; and for these reasons the god whom they call Anubis has, they say, a dog’s head, meaning that he was a bodyguard of Osiris and Isis.

‘But some say that when Isis was searching for Osiris the dogs led the way before her, and drove off the wild beasts, and the men who encountered them.

‘The cat too, they say, is useful against asps and the other venomous reptiles: the ichneumon breaks the crocodiles’ eggs, and even destroys the crocodiles, by rolling itself in the mud, and leaping into their mouths when open, and, by eating away their entrails, leaves them quite dead.

‘Of the birds the ibis, they say, is useful against snakes and locusts and caterpillars and the hawk against scorpions and horned serpents, and the smaller venomous beasts, and because of its helping in divinations: the eagle also, because it is a kingly bird.

[17] ‘The he-goat, they say, has been deified, like Priapus among the Greeks, because of its generative organ, for this animal has the strongest propensity to lust; and that member of the body which is the cause of generation is rightly honoured, as being the source of animal nature. And speaking generally, not only the Egyptians, but also not a few other nations have consecrated that member in their initiatory rites, as the cause of the reproduction of living beings.

‘The priests who succeed to the hereditary priesthoods in Egypt are initiated in the mysteries of this deity: the Pans also and the Satyrs, they say, are honoured among men for the same reason; and therefore most persons dedicate images of them in the temples very similar to a he-goat; for this animal is traditionally said to be extremely lustful.

‘The sacred bulls Apis and Mnevis are held in like honour as the gods, both on account of their help in agriculture, and because men ascribe the discovery of the fruits of the earth to them.

‘Wolves are worshipped because of the likeness of their nature to dogs, and because in old times when Isis, with her son Horus, was going to fight against Typhon, Osiris, they say, came from Hades to the aid of his wife and child in the likeness of a wolf.

‘But others say that the Ethiopians, having invaded Egypt, were driven away by a multitude of wolves; and on this account the city is called Lycopolis. [18] The crocodile.is said to be worshipped because the robbers from Arabia and Libya are afraid to swim across the Nile on account of the crocodiles,

‘They say too that one of their kings, being pursued by his own hounds, took refuge in the marsh, and then was taken up by a crocodile and, strange to say, carried over to the other side.

‘Other causes also are alleged by some for the worship of the irrational animals. For when in old time the multitude revolted from the kings, and agreed that they would no longer have kings to rule over them, some one formed the idea of supplying them with different animals as objects of worship, so that while they severally worshipped that which was honoured among themselves, and despised that which was held sacred among others, the Egyptians might never be able all to agree together. [19] When any of the animals mentioned dies, they wrap it in fine linen, and beat their breasts in lamentation, and bury it in the sacred sepulchres. And whosoever destroys any of these animals wilfully, incurs death, except if he kill a cat or the ibis; for if any one kills these, whether wilfully or not, he incurs death in any case.

[20] ‘Moreover, if a dog is found dead in a house, they all shave their whole body and make a mourning; and if wine, or corn, or any other of the necessaries of life happen to be stored in the house, they could not bear to use it any more.

‘Apis they maintain at Memphis, and Mnevis in Heliopolis, and the he-goat at Mendes, and the crocodile in the lake Moeris, and the other beasts in sacred enclosures, offering them wheat-flour, or groats boiled in milk, and various kinds of cakes mixed with honey, and the ilesh of a goose, either boiled or roasted.

‘But to the carnivorous animals they throw many kinds of birds, and in company with each male animal they keep the most beautiful females, whom they call concubines.

[21] ‘When Apis dies and has been magnificently buried, they seek another like him ; and when he is found, the people are released from their mourning, and he is brought first to Nilopolis. And at that time only the calf is seen by women, who stand before him and expose themselves; but at all other times they are forbidden to come in sight of this deity. For after the death of Osiris they say that his soul passed into Apis.’

Such is the unseemly theology, or rather atheism, of the Egyptians, which it is degrading even to oppose, and from which we naturally revolted with abhorrence, when we found redemption and deliverance from so great evils in no other way than solely by the saving doctrine of the gospel, which announced the recovery of sight to the blind in understanding. Their graver theories and systems of natural science, we shall examine a little later, after we have discussed the mythology of the Greeks.

The Egyptian and Phoenician mythologies having become thus mixed and combined, the superstitious belief of the ancient error has naturally gained the mastery in most nations. But, as I said, we have yet to speak of the notions of the Greeks.

Now the character assumed by the solemnities of Egyptian theology is that which we have already set forth, and that the Greek doctrines are mere fragments and misunderstandings of the same we have frequently stated already upon the judgement of the writers quoted: this will, however, be made further manifest from the Greek theology itself, since, in their own records concerning the gods, they bring nothing forward from native sources, but fall into the fables of foreign nations: for they are shown to make use of similar statues and the very same mysteries, as we may learn from the history of these matters, which the author before mentioned, who brought the Libraries together into one body, narrates in the third and fourth books of the treatise before quoted, having commenced his history from the times of Cadmus. Now, that Cadmus came after Moses is proved by the exact successions of the chronological writings, as we shall show in due season. So that Moses is proved to be earlier even than the gods of Greece, seeing that he is before Cadmus, while the gods are shown to have come later than the age of Cadmus. Hear, however, the historian’s own words: [22]

[1] b 4 c. 13

[2] d 5 Diod. I. c. 15

[3] 46 a 4 Diod. I. 16

[4] b 1 Diod. I. 17

[5] b 4 Diod. I 18

[6] c 7 Diod. I, 19

[7] c 8 Diod. I. 20

[8] d 8 Diod. I. 21

[9] 47 b 1 Diod. I. 21

[10] b 5 Diod. I. 22

[11] d 3 Diod. I. 23

[12] 48 b 6 Diod. I. 24

[13] c 3 Diod. I. 25

[14] d 7 Diod. I. 27

[15] 49 a 6 Diod. I. 86

[16] b 9 Diod. I. 87

[17] d 11 Diod. I. 88

[18] 50 c 5 Diod. I. 89

[19] 50 d 10 Diod. I. 83

[20] 51 a 4 Diod. I. 84

[21] c 1 Diod. I. 85

[22] 52 d 1 Diod. IV. 2

Chapter 2

[DIODORUS] ‘Cadmus, the son of Agenor, is said to have been sent from Phoenicia by the king to search for Europa. who had been carried off by Zeus: when he failed to find her, he came into Boeotia and founded the Thebes of that country; and having married Harmonia the daughter of Aphrodite, begat of her Semele and her sisters.

‘And Zeus, after union with Semele, was entreated to make his intercourse with her like that with Hera. But when he came to her in godlike fashion with thunderings and lightnings, Semele was unable to bear it, and being pregnant, miscarried with the child, and herself perished from the fire. But Zeus took the child and delivered him to Hermes, and sent him away to the cave in Nysa, lying between Phoenicia and the Nile: and being thus reared by the Nymphs, Dionysus became the discoverer of wine, and taught men the culture of the vine.

‘He discovered also the drink prepared from barley, which is called zyilius. He used to lead about with him an army not only of men, but also of women, and punished the impious and unjust.

[1] ‘He went on an expedition also into India for three years: and from that circumstance the Greeks established triennial sacrifices to Dionysus, and think that the god makes his appearances among men at that time: and all men worship him for his gift of wine, just as they worship Demeter for the discovery of corn as food.

[2] ‘But there is said to be also another Dionysus, much earlier in time than this one, whom some call Sabazius, a son of Zeus and Persephone, whose birth, and sacrifices, and ceremonies they represent at night, and in secret, because of the shame attendant upon their intercourse. He was the first who attempted to yoke oxen, and from this they represent him with horns. But Dionysus, the son of Semele, who is of later date, was delicate in body, and eminently beautiful, and very prone to amorous pleasures; in his expeditions he led about a multitude of women armed with spears made into thyrsi.

‘They say also that he is accompanied in his travels by the Muses, who are virgins and extremely well trained, and charm the soul of the god by singing and dancing. Silenus too, as his tutor, contributes much to his progress in virtue. As a remedy against the headaches resulting from too much wine, his head is bound up with a band.

‘And they call him Dimetor, because the two Dionysi were of one father, but two mothers. They also set a reed in his hand, because the men of old drank unmixed wine and became maddened, and beat each other with their staves, so that some were even killed, and from this cause they introduced the custom of using reeds instead of clubs.

[3] ‘He is called Bacchius from the Bacchae, and Lenaeus from the treading of the grapes in wine-presses, and Bromius from the roar of thunder which took place at his birth.

‘They also say that he leads about Satyrs with him, who afford him pleasure and delight in their dances and their goat-songs; and that he established dramatic spectacles and a system of musical recitations. Such are the statements concerning Dionysus.

[4] ‘Priapus is said to be the son of Dionysus and Aphrodite, because men filled with wine are naturally excited to amorous pleasures. But some say that the ancients gave to the human organ of generation the mythological name Priapus.

‘Others affirm that, because the genital member is the cause of the generation of mankind, therefore it had for ever received immortal honour: as indeed the Egyptians also said that Isis, in her search for the members of Osiris, when she could not find the male organ, appointed it to be worshipped as a god, and set it up in the temple.

‘Nay, even among the Greeks, not only in the Dionysiac rites, but also in all others, this god receives a certain honour, being brought in with laughter and jesting in their sacrifices: as is also Hermaphroditus, who got his name as being begotten of Hermes and Aphrodite.

‘This god, they say, appears at certain times among men, and is born with the bodily form of man and woman combined: but some say that such things are prodigies, and, being produced but rarely, are significant sometimes of evil and sometimes of good.

[5] ‘The Muses are daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, but some say of Uranus and Gé. Most mythologists also make them virgins, and say that they got their name from initiating men, that is teaching them the liberal arts.

Now with respect to Heracles the Greeks tell such, stories as follow:

[6] ‘Of Zeus and Danae the daughter of Acrisius was born Perseus, and of Perseus and Andromeda Electryon, and of him Alcmena, by his union with whom Zeus begat Heracles, making the night which he passed with her thrice as long as usual: and this was the only intercourse sought by Zeus, not on account of amorous desire, as in the case with the other women, but chiefly for the sake of begetting a son.

‘But Hera being jealous delayed Alcmena’s labour, and brought Eurystheus into the world before the proper time, because Zeus had proclaimed that the child which should be born that day was to reign over the Persidae.

‘And when Alcmena was delivered, she exposed the child, as it is said, through fear of Hera: but Athena admired the child, and persuaded Hera to give it the breast: and when the boy dragged at her breast with a violence beyond his age, Hera in great pain threw the child down, and Athena took it up and persuaded the mother to nurse it.

[7] ‘After this Hera sent two serpents to destroy the child, but the boy, undismayed, strangled the serpents by squeezing their necks in either hand. When Heracles was grown to be a man, Eurystheus, who had the kingdom of Argolis, ordered him to perform twelve labours.

[8] ‘And when he had fallen into much trouble, Hera sent a frenzy upon him, and through vexation of soul he became mad. As the disease increased, being out of his mind, he attempted to kill his companion and nephew lolaus, and when he escaped, slew his own sons begotten of Megara, daughter of King Creon, by shooting them down with arrows as if they were enemies.

[9] ‘After this he quieted down, and served Eurystheus in the twelve labours. He also slew the Centaurs, and among them Cheiron, who was renowned for his skill in healing.

[10] ‘It is said that there was a peculiar coincidence in the birth of this god Heracles. For the first mortal woman visited by Zeus was Niobe, daughter of Phoroneus, and the last was Alcmena, mother of Heracles, whom they trace as descended from Niobe in the sixteenth generation. And with her Zeus ended his intercourse with mortal women.

[11] However, after finishing his labours, Heracles gave his own wife Megara to live with his nephew Iolaus, because of the calamity about his children; and for himself asked Iole, the daughter of Eurytus, in marriage, and, on her father’s refusal, he fell sick, and received an oracle that he would be delivered from his sickness, if he first became sold into slavery.

‘So he sails to Phrygia and is bought by one of his friends, and becomes a slave of Omphale, queen of those who were at that time called Maeonians, but now Lydians: and during the time of his slavery he has a son Cleolaus born to him of a slave. And, having married Omphale, he gets sons by her also.

[12] ‘But as he was on his way back to Arcadia, and stayed as guest with King Leos, he secretly seduced his daughter, and left her with child, and came back.

[13] ‘After this again he married Deianeira the daughter of Oeneus, Meleager being now dead. [14] And having taken captive the daughter of Phyleus, by intercourse with her he begat Tlepolemus. While he was supping with Oeneus, the servant made a mistake about something, and Heracles struck him with his fist and killed him.

‘When on his journey he came to the river Evenus, he found the Centaur Nessus ferrying people across the river for hire. He ferried Deianeira over first, and, being enamoured of her for her beauty, tried to do violence to her; but when she cried out to her husband, Heracles shot the Centaur; and Nessus in the midst of his embrace, being at the point of death through the sharpness of the wound, told Deianeira that he would give her a philtre, so that Heracles might never wish to wed any other woman.

‘He bade her therefore take of the blood which was dropping from the point of the arrow, and, after mixing it with oil, anoint therewith the tunic of Heracles: and this Deianeira did, and kept the philtre by her.

[15] ‘Again, Heracles took captive the daughter of Phylas, and by his union with her begat a son Antiochus: and yet again he took captive Astyaneira, the daughter of King Armenius, and by her begat a son Ctesippus.

[16] ‘And Thespius the Athenian, son of Erechtheus, having begotten fifty daughters by different wives, and being ambitious that they should get children by Heracles, entertained him at a splendid feast, and sent his daughters to him one by one: and he deflowered them all in one night, and became the father of the so-called Thespiadae.

[17] ‘He took Iole also captive, and, having to perform a sacrifice, he sent to his wife Deianeira and asked for the cloak and tunic which he was accustomed to wear for sacrifices: and she anointed the tunic with the philtre which the Centaur had given her, and sent it.

‘And Heracles had no sooner put on the tunic than he fell into the greatest misery. For the arrow had been poisoned with the blood of the hydra, and so the tunic began to prey upon the flesh of his body because of its burning heat, so that in his extremity of pain he slew the messenger who had brought it, and, in accordance with an oracle, cast himself into the fire, and so ended his life. Such is the story of Heracles.

[18] ‘Now with regard to Asclepius they say that he was the son of Apollo and Coronis, and studied zealously the science of healing, and rose to such a height of fame, that many of the sick who were given over in despair were, beyond all expectation, cured by him; so that Zeus was enraged, and smote him with a thunderbolt and killed him; and Apollo, being enraged because of the death of his son, slew the Cyclopes who had forged the thunderbolt for Zeus: but Zeus was enraged at their death, and commanded Apollo to serve as a slave with Adrnetus, and took this revenge upon him for his crimes.’

This, then, is what Diodorus has set forth in the fourth book of his Bibliothecae. And as to the rest of their theology, the same author again asserts that the Greeks borrowed it from the other nations, for in the third book of the same history he writes as follows:—

[19] ‘Now the people of Atlas say that their first king was Uranus, and of him were born by many wives five and forty sons, of whom eighteen were by a wife Titaea; and she, having been a virtuous woman and the author of many good deeds, was deified after her death, and had her name changed to Ge.

‘Uranus also had daughters, Basileia, and Rhea who was also called Pandora. And because Basileia brought up her brothers with maternal affection, she was called Meter.

‘And afterwards, when Uranus was dead, she lived with her brother Ilyperion, and bore two sons, whom she named Helios and Selene.

‘But the brethren of Rhea were afraid of them, and slew Ilyperion, and drowned Helios in the river Eridanus. Selene, on learning this, threw herself down from a roof, and Meter became mad and wandered about the country, with her hair loose, driven frantic by drums and cymbals, until she too disappeared altogether.

‘And the multitude, astonished at the catastrophe, transferred Helios and Selene to the stars of heaven, and regarded their mother as a goddess, and set up altars, and worshipped her with performances by drums and cymbals.

[20] ‘The Phrygians say that Maeon was king of Phrygia and begat a daughter named Cybele, who first invented a pipe, and was called the Mountain Mother. And Marsyas the Phrygian, who was friendly with her, was the first to join flutes together, and he lived in chastity to the end of his life.

‘But Cybele became pregnant by intercourse with Attis, and when this was known, her father killed Attis and the nurses: and Cybele became mad and rushed out into the country, and there continued howling and beating a drum.

‘She was accompanied by Marsyas, who entered into a musical contest with Apollo, and was defeated, and flayed alive by Apollo.

‘And Apollo became enamoured of Cybele and accompanied her in her wanderings as far as the Hyperboreans, and ordered the body of Attis to be buried, and Cybele to be honoured as a goddess.

‘Wherefore the Phrygians keep this custom even to the present day, lamenting the death of the youth, and erecting altars, and honouring Attis and Cybele with sacrifices.

‘And afterwards, at Pessinus in Phrygia, they built a costly temple, and instituted most magnificent worship and sacrificial rites.

[21] ‘After the death of Hyperion the sons of Uranus divided the kingdom among themselves, the most illustrious of them being Atlas and Kronos. And of these Atlas took the regions along the coasts of the ocean, and became an excellent astronomer: and d he had seven daughters who were called the Atlantides, and these, by union with the comeliest gods, became the founders of the most numerous race, and gave birth to such as for their worth became gods and heroes; thus the eldest of them, Maia, by union with Zeus became mother of Hermes.

[22] ‘But Kronos, surpassing all in arrogance and impiety, married his sister Rhea, and of her begat Zeus. There had been also another Zeus, the brother of Uranus and king of Crete, far inferior in fame to him of later birth.

‘This latter then became, king of the whole world; but the other became king of Crete, and begat ten sons who were called Curetes: and his sepulchre, they say, is still shown in Crete.

‘Now Kronos reigned in Sicily and Libya and Italy: but his son Zeus desired a life the opposite to his father’s. And some say that he succeeded to the kingdom by his father’s voluntary retirement, others that he was chosen by the multitude because of their hatred to his father.

‘So when Kronos with the Titans made war against him, Zeus was victorious in battle, and marched over the whole inhabited world. He excelled in bodily strength and all virtues, and showed b the greatest zeal in punishment of the impious and benefits to the good; in return for which, after his departure from among men, he was called Zeus, because he was thought to liave been the author of the noble life (ζην) for mankind.

‘These then are the principal heads of the theology held among the Atlanteans.’

These the Greeks also are said to borrow. So Diodorus writes in the third volume of his histories: and in the sixth, the same author confirms the same theology from the writings of Euemerus the Messenian, speaking word for word as follows: [23]

‘With regard then to gods the men of old have handed down to their posterity two sets of notions. For some, say they, are eternal and imperishable, as the Sun and Moon and the other heavenly bodies, and besides these the winds, and the rest who partake of the like nature with them; for each of these has an eternal origin and eternal continuance. Other deities they say were of the earth; but, because of the benefits which they conferred on mankind, they have received immortal honour and glory, as Heracles, Dionysus, Aristaeus, and the others like them.

‘Concerning the terrestrial gods many various tales have been handed down in the historical and mythological writers. Among the historians Euemerus, the author of the Sacred Record, has written a special history; and of the mythologists Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, and such others as these, have invented very marvellous myths concerning the gods: and we shall endeavour to run over what both classes have recorded concisely and with a view to due proportion.

‘Euemerus, then, was a friend of King Cassander and, having boon constrained for his sake to perform some important services for the king, and some long journeys, says that he was carried away southwards into the ocean; for, having started on his voyage from Arabia Felix, he sailed many days across the ocean, and landed on some oceanic islands, one of which is that called Panchaea, in which he saw the Panchaean inhabitants, who were eminent in piety, and honoured the gods with most magnificent sacrifices and notable offerings of silver and gold.

‘The island also was sacred to the gods ; and there were many other things to be admired both for their antiquity, and for the ingenuity of their manufacture, the particulars concerning which we have recorded in the books preceding this.

‘Also therein on a certain exceedingly high hill is a temple of Zeus Triphylius, erected by himself at the time when he reigned over the whole inhabited world, being still among men. In this temple there is a golden pillar, on which is inscribed in the Panchaean language a summary of the acts of Uranus, Kronos, and Zeus.

‘After this he says that Uranus was the first king, a gentle and benevolent man, and learned in the motion of the stars, who also was the first to honour the celestial deities with sacrifices, on which account he was called Uranus.

‘By his wife Ilestia he had sons Pan and Kronos, and daughters Rhea and Demeter: and after Uranus, Kronos became king and, having married Rhea, begat Zeus and Hera and Poseidon.’ And Zeus, having succeeded to the kingdom of Kronos, married Hera and Demeter and Themis, of whom he begat children, of the first the Curetes, of the second Persephone, and of the third Athena.

‘And when he had come to Babylon he was entertained as a guest by Belus: and afterwards on arriving at the island Panchaea, which lay by the ocean, he built an altar to his own grandfather Uranus: and thence he came through Syria to the sovereign of that time Casius, of whom mount Casius is named; and came into Cilicia and conquered in war Cilix the ruler of the country; and visited very many other nations and was honoured among all, and was proclaimed a god.’

After narrating these and similar tales concerning the gods as if they were mortal men, he further says : [24]

‘With regard to Euemerus who composed the Sacred Record, we will be satisfied with what has been said ; but the legends of the Greeks concerning the gods we will try to run over briefly, following Hesiod and Homer and Orpheus.’

Then he appends in order the mythologies of the poets. Let it suffice us, however, to have made these extracts from the theology of the Greeks, to which it is reasonable to append an account of the initiatory rites in the inner shrines of the same deities, and of their secret mysteries, and to observe whether they bear any becoming mark of a theology that is truly divine, or arise from regions below out of long daemoniacal delusion, and are deserving of ridicule, or rather of shame, and yet more of pity for those who are still blinded. These matters are unveiled in plain terms by the admirable Clement, in his Exhortation to the Greeks, a man who had gone through experience of all, but had quickly emerged from the delusion as one who had been rescued from evil by the word of salvation and through the teaching of the Gospel. Listen, then, to a brief statement of these matters also.[25]

[1] 53 b 3 Diod. IV. 3

[2] b 9 Diod. IV. 4

[3] d 12 Diod. IV. 5

[4] 54 a 7 Diod. IV. 6

[5] d 1 Diod. IV. 7

[6] 54 d 7 Diod. IV. 9

[7] 55 b 3 Diod. IV. 10

[8] b 8 Diod. IV. 11

[9] c 6 Diod. IV. 12

[10] c 8 Diod. IV. 14

[11] d 3 Diod. IV. 31

[12] a 5 Diod. IV. 36

[13] 56 a 1 Diod. IV. 33

[14] a 4 Diod. IV. 34

[15] 56 c 5 Diod. IV. 37

[16] c 9 Diod. IV. 29

[17] d 6 Diod. IV. 37, 38

[18] 57 a 4 Diod. IV. 71

[19] c 1 Diod. III. 57

[20] 58 a 1 Diod. III. 58

[21] 58 c 6 Diod. III. 60

[22] d 6 Diod. III. 61

[23] 59 c 3-60 d 10 Diod. vi, Fragment i, preserved by Eusebius only

[24] 60 d 12 Diod. vi, Fragmenti continued

[25] 61 c 4 Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen,c. ii. p. 10 P.

Chapter 3

[CLEMENT] ‘Explore not then too curiously the secret shrines of impiety, nor the mouths of caverns full of prodigies, or the Thesprotian cauldron, or the Cirrhaean tripod, or the brazen urn of Dodona: leave also to antiquated fables the old stump held sacred amid desert sands, and the oracle there, now decayed with the oak itself. The fountain certainly of Castalia is silently forgotten, and another fountain of Colophon; the other oracular streams also are in like manner dead. And so, though emptied late of their vain glory, they have nevertheless been clearly proved to have run dry together with their own fabulous stories.

‘Describe to us also the useless oracles of the other kinds of divination, or of frenzy rather, the Clarian, Pythian, Didymean Apollo, Amphiaraus, and Amphiiochus. Join also with them, if you will, observers of prodigies, and augurs, and the unholy interpreters of dreams: and bring and set together beside the Pythian god those that divine by wheat-flour, and by barley, and the ventriloquists still held in honour among the multitude. Yea more, let the shrines of the Egyptians and the necromancies of the Tyrrhenians be consigned to darkness. These are in very truth mad sophistry-schools of unbelieving men, and gambling houses of pure fraud. Partners in this jugglery are the goats that have been trained for divination, and crows taught by men to utter oracles to men.

‘And what if I were to give you a catalogue of the mysteries? I shall not dance them out, as they say Alcibiades did, but according to the word of truth I will thoroughly lay bare the jugglery that is concealed in them, and those so-called gods of yours, to whom the mystic rites belong, I shall wheel in as it were upon the stage of life before the spectators of truth.

‘The Bacchanals celebrate in their orgies the frenzy of Dionysus, keeping their monthly holiday with a feast on raw flesh, and, in performing the distribution of the flesh of the slaughtered victims, are crowned with their wreaths of serpents, and shout upon Eva, that Eva, through whom the deception crept in [and death followed in its train]: a consecrated serpent, too, is the symbol of the Bacchic orgies.

‘Therefore, according to the exact pronunciation of the Hebrews, the name Heva, with an aspirate, is at once interpreted as the female serpent. Deo too and Kore have already become a mystic drama, and Eleusis celebrates by torchlight the wandering, and the rape, and their mourning.

‘I think, too, that we ought to trace the etymology of “orgies” and “mysteries,” the one from the anger (οργης) of Deo aroused against Zeus, and the other from the pollution (μυσους) which had occurred with regard to Dionysus. Or even if you derive it from a certain Myus of Attica, who perished in hunting, as Apollodorus says, I do not grudge that your mysteries have been glorified by the honour of a name which is engraved upon a tomb.

‘In another way also you may think of your mysteries as mytheria (hunting-stories) by the correspondence of letters. For fables such as these do most especially make prey of the most barbarous of the Thracians, the most senseless of the Phrygians, the most superstitious of the Greeks.

‘Ill betide him then who first taught men this imposture, whether he were Dardanus, who instituted the mysteries of the Mother of the gods, or one Eetion, who established the orgies and initiations of the Samothracians, or that famous Phrygian Midas, who learned the cunning imposture from Odrysus and then spread it among his subjects.

‘For never will I be cajoled by that Cyprian islander Cinyras, who dared to transfer the lewd orgies of Aphrodite from night to day, in his desire to deify a harlot of his own country.

‘But others say that Melampus son of Amythaon brought over from Egypt to Hellas the festivals of Deo, her grief so famed in song. These for my part I should call evil authors of impious fables, and parents of deadly superstition, as having in the mysteries implanted a seed of wickedness and corruption in man’s life.

‘And now, for it is time, I will prove that your orgies themselves are full of imposture and quackery: and if you have been initiated, you will laugh all the more at these your venerated fables. And I shall proclaim the hidden secrets openly, and not let modesty hinder me from speaking of things which you are not ashamed to worship.

‘First then, the daughter of the foam, the Cyprus-born, the beloved of Cinyras, Aphrodite I mean,

“Enamour’d of the source from which she sprang,” [1]

‘those mutilated members of Uranus, those lustful members, which after their excision did violence to the waves, how wanton the members, of which your Aphrodite becomes the worthy fruit! In the mystic celebration of this pleasure of the sea a lump of salt and a phallus are delivered as a symbol of generation to those who are being initiated in the adulterous art: and they pay a piece of money to her, as lovers to a harlot.

‘The mysteries of Deo, and the amorous embraces of Zeus with Demeter his mother, and the wrath of—I know not what to call her now—his mother or wife, Demeter, on account of which wrath, they say, she was called Brimo; the supplications of Zeus, and the drink of gall, the plucking out of the victim’s heart, and unspeakable deeds,—these things the Phrygians celebrate in honour of Attis, and Cybele, and the Corybantes.

‘They have also made up a story that Zeus, having torn off parts of a ram, brought and threw them into the lap of Deo, paying a fraudulent penalty for his violence, as though they had been parts of himself.

‘The watchwords of this initiation, if set before you merely for amusement, will, I know, stir your laughter, although you may not be willing to laugh because of the exposures. “I ate out of the drum, and drank out of the cymbal, I danced the κερνοπηορια, I slipped into the bridal-chamber.” Are not these watchwords an outrage? Are not the mysteries a farce?

‘But what if I should add the rest of the story? Demeter has a child, and her daughter grows up, and again this Zeus who begat her seduces his own daughter Pherephatta, after her mother Deo, forgetting his former crime, and he approaches her in the form of a serpent, it being thus proved who he was.

‘Accordingly, in the Sabazian mysteries the sign for those who are initiated is “The god gliding over the breast”; and this is a serpent drawn over the breast of those who are initiated, a proof of the incontinence of Zeus. Pherephatta also gives birth to a son in the form of a bull.

‘At all events, a certain sham, poet says:

“Bull begets serpent, serpent begets bull. Upon the mount the herdsman’s secret goad.” [2]

calling, I suppose, the reed which the Bacchanals brandish a herdsman’s goad.

‘Would you have me narrate to you also Pherephatta’s gathering of flowers, and her basket, and her seizure by Aidoneus, and the chasm opening in the earth, and the swine of Eubuleus that were swallowed up with the two goddesses, on account of which in the Thesmophoria they throw down swine, when they visit the caves.

‘This fable the women in every city celebrate with festivals in d various ways, the Thesmophoria, Scirophoria, Arretophoria, dramatizing the rape of Pherephatta in many ways.

‘As to the mysteries of Dionysus, they are perfectly inhuman: for when he was yet a child, with the Curetes circling round him in a war-dance, and the Titans had treacherously crept in, they beguiled him with childish toys, did these Titans, and tore him in pieces while yet an infant, as the poet of this mystery, Orpheus the Thracian, says:

“Cone, humming top, and dolls that bend their limbs, Fair golden apples from the guardian Nymphs. Of sweetest song, daughters of Hesperus.” [3]

‘Nor will it be useless to set forth for condemnation the useless symbols of this mystery: dice, ball, hoop, apples, humming-top, mirror, and lock of wool.

‘So then Athena, having stolen away the heart of Dionysus, was called Pallas from the pulsation of the heart: and the Titans, who had torn him in pieces, put a cauldron on a trivet, and threw in the limbs of Dionysus, and, having first boiled them down,

“Then pierc’d with spits and held them o’er the fire.” [4]

‘But afterwards Zeus suddenly appears—I suppose, if he was a god, he perceived the savour of the roasting flesh, for your gods acknowledge that savour to be their perquisite,—and with a thunderbolt he smites the Titans, and delivers the limbs of Dionysus to his son Apollo to bury: and he did not disobey Zeus, but bore the dead body, mangled as it was, to Parnassus and there deposited it.

‘If you wish to be initiated in the orgies of the Corybantes also, two of them slew the third brother, and wrapped up the head of the corpse in a purple cloth, and put a wreath upon it, and carried him on a brazen shield, and buried him under the side of Mount Olympus.

‘These are their mysteries, murders in short, and burials! And their priests, whom those concerned call “Lords of the Mysteries,” invent more wonders to add to the tragedy, forbidding to set a whole root of parsley on the table, because they think forsooth that parsley has sprung from the blood which streamed forth from the Corybant; just as the women who celebrate the Thesmophoria guard against eating the seeds of the pomegranate, for the drops which fell on the ground from the blood of Dionysus they suppose to have grown into pomegranates.

‘As they call the Corybantes Cabeiri, they also proclaim the festival as the Cabeiria. For these very two fratricides, having carried off the chest in which the member of Dionysus was deposited, brought it by sea to Tyrrhenia, as purveyors of a noble cargo! And here they lived in exile, and imparted to the Tyrrhenians their highly venerable doctrine of religion, the chest and its contents, for them to worship; for which cause some not unreasonably will have it that Dionysus is called Attis, as having been mutilated.

‘And what wonder if Tyrrhenians, who were barbarians, are initiated in such foul passions, when there is found among the Athenians, and in the rest of Hellas—I blush even to say it—the shameful legend of Deo.

‘For Deo, wandering in search of her daughter Kore in the neighbourhood of Eleusis—this place is in Attica—grows weary, and sits down in sorrow upon a well. This is forbidden to those who are admitted to the mysteries even to the present day, lest the initiated should seem to be imitating the goddess in her mourning.

‘Now at that time Eleusis was inhabited by the Earth-born: their names were Baubo, and Dysaules, and Triptolemus, also Eumolpus and Eubuleus. Triptolemus was a herdsman, Eumolpus a shepherd, and Eubuleus a swineherd. And from these last grew the flourishing family of the Eumolpidae, and that of the Heralds, the Hierophants I suppose, at Athens.

‘And then Baubo—for I shall not shrink from telling it—having received Deo hospitably, offers her a draught. And when she refused to take it, and would not drink—for she was full of sorrow—Baubo became much annoyed as being forsooth disdained, and exposed herself to the goddess: and Deo, pleased at the sight, at last reluctantly accepted the draught, because she was delighted at what she saw.

‘These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians! These are the things which Orpheus records! But I will set before you the very words of Orpheus, that you may have the master of mysteries himself as witness of their shamelessness:

“She spake, and quick her flowing robes withdrawn Showed all the secret beauty of her form. The child lacchus, laughing, stretched his hand To touch her tender breasts, and Baubo smil’d; Then, too, the goddess smil’d with cheerful thought, And took the shining bowl which held the draught.” [5]

‘There is also the watchword of the Eleusinian mysteries: I fasted, I drank the draught, I took from the chest, finished the work and put it back into the basket, and from the basket into the chest.[6] Noble indeed the sights, and becoming to a goddess!

‘Worthy rather are these mysteries of night, and of torch-light, and of the great-hearted, or rather weak-minded, people of the Erechtheidae, and of the other Greeks also, “men for whom there remain after death things that they little look for,”

‘To whom then does Heracleitus the Ephesian address this foreboding? “To night-walkers, sorcerers, bacchanals male and female, to the initiated.”[7] These he threatens with what follows death; to these he predicts the fire. For they receive an unholy initiation in what men regard as mysteries.[8]

‘Custom therefore, and vain opinion, and the mysteries of the serpent are a kind of fraud devoutly observed by men who, with spurious piety, promote their abominable initiations and profane orgiastic rites.

‘What also are those mystic chests? For I must lay bare their holy things, and tell out their forbidden secrets. Are they not sesame-cakes, and pyramids, and balls, and flat cakes full of knobs, and lumps of salt? A serpent also, mystic symbol of Dionysus Bassarus?

‘And besides these are there not pomegranates, and shoots of fig-trees, and reeds, and ivies, and round cakes also, and poppies?

‘These are their holy things! And there are in addition the secret symbols of Themis, wild marjoram, a lamp, a sword, a woman’s comb, which is an euphemistic and mystical name.

‘O barefaced shamelessness! In times of old for modest men pleasure was veiled in night, and night in silence: but now the night that is sacred to wantonness is the talk of those who are to be initiated, and the fire exposes their lewd passions by the light of torches.

‘Quench thou the fire, O Hierophant! Blush for thy lights, O bearer of the torch! That flame exposes thine lacchus. Suffer the night to conceal the mysteries: let darkness pay respect to your dignified orgies. The fire is no hypocrite : its duty is to expose and to punish.

‘These are the atheists’ mysteries. And atheists I rightly call them, since they have not known Him who is truly God, but worship a child torn in pieces by Titans, and a poor wailing woman; and things for very shame unmentionable they shamelessly worship, and so are involved in a twofold atheism: the first, in that they are ignorant of God, not acknowledging Him who is God indeed; and the other and second delusion this, that they regard those which are not as though they were, and call them gods who have no true being, or rather no being at all, but have only received the name.’

So far this author.

[1] Hesiod, Theogonia, 200

[2] Cf. Arnobius, Against the Heathen, v. 21

[3] Orphic Fragm. 196 (Hermann xvii)

[4] Homer, Iliad, ii. 426

[5] 68 c 6 Orphic Fragm.215 ; see Lobeck, Aglaophamus,vol. ii. p. 819

[6] d 11 Bywater, Heracl. Rell.cxxii; cf. Clem. Al. Strom,iv. p. 630 P.

[7] d 14 Heracl. Rell,cxxiv

[8] d 16 ibid, cxxv

Chapter 4

With good reason then do we avow that we have been freed from all this, and rescued from the long and antiquated delusion as from some terrible and most grievous disease. First, we have been delivered by the grace and beneficence of Almighty God, and secondly by the ineffable power of our Saviour’s teaching in the Gospel, and thirdly by sound reasoning, because we judged that it is an unholy and impious thing to honour with the adorable name of God mortals who have long been lying among the dead, and have not even left a memory of themselves as virtuous men, but have handed down examples of extreme incontinence and wantonness, of cruelty also and insanity, for those who come after them to follow.

For must it not be the extreme of folly for lovers of temperance to yield the first place to the base and licentious, and for the wise and sensible to render august worship to those who have lost their senses, and those who practise justice and benevolence to those who, through excess of cruelty and inhumanity, are involved in the pollutions of infanticide and parricide?

And does it not surpass every excess of impiety to degrade the adorable and all-holy name of God to parts of the human body, male and female, which we may not speak of, and to the irrational nature of brute beasts; and to honour as divine such foul and inhuman deeds as, even in the case of human malefactors would, if proved, fall under the inexorable penalties of the laws? But why need we spend time in proclaiming to every man, barbarian and Greek alike, his deliverance from the evils described, and in bringing to light the reasonableness of our revolt from gods falsely so called, when already the greater number even of the most superstitious, having woke up as it were from a deep slumber, and cleared the eye of the soul of its ancient film, became conscious of the deep folly of the error of their fathers, and took their stand upon reasoning, and withdrew from the old path, and chose the other way?

Some of these made a bold assault, and with broad derision poured contempt upon the whole mythology of their own forefathers; while others, who shrank from the dogma of atheism, neither stood upon their old ways, nor withdrew from them altogether, but, with the purpose of glossing over and explaining their own dogma, gave to the true histories of the gods who had been celebrated among them the title of fables invented by poets, and said that physical theories were concealed in them. And however much they fail to bring any proof whatever of the truth of these theories, it will nevertheless be necessary for us to set forth for examination their solemn doctrines, that thus we may prove the reasonableness of that retreat from them which was provided for us solely by the teaching of our Saviour in the Gospel. Come then, let us take up their argument from the beginning and examine it.

Chapter 5

Now by the Greek theology I mean the popular and more mythical theology, which also prevailed much earlier among the Phoenicians and Egyptians and the other nations of whom mention was made in our preceding books; and the character of this has been proved to be something of the kind which has been already made manifest by the words quoted from the Greek historians themselves. And this character we have with good reason set before our readers in the beginning of this our Preparation for the Gospel for their judgement and decision, that both we and those who as yet have no experience of this subject, may learn for ourselves what we were long ago, and from what sort of forefathers we have sprung, by how great evils we were previously fettered, and in how great a stupor of impiety and ignorance of God our souls were buried, and then were favoured with an uprising and deliverance from all these evils at once by the sole teaching of the Gospel, provided for us in no other way than by the manifestation of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who is God.

For not in a mere part of the earth, nor in a corner of the land of one nation, but throughout the whole inhabited world, where the power of the most superstitious delusion especially prevailed, He, like a sun of intelligent and rational souls, spread abroad the beams of His own light: He translated us all, of every race of mankind, barbarians and Greeks alike, as it were from a terrible darkness and most gloomy and obscure night of superstitious error into the bright and shining day of the true worship of God the King of all.

Certainly the statements that have been already quoted have plainly taught us, that those who in cities and villages have been excited about this delusion of many gods were all universally serving and worshipping images of the dead, and statues of men who have long since passed away. For the men of old, because of the extreme savageness of their life at that time made no account of God the Creator of all, nor paid any heed to the divine judgement which takes vengeance on wrong doing, but cast themselves headlong into every kind of profanity.

For at that time there were no laws yet established for the guidance of life, no civilized government set in order among men, but they led a loose and wandering life like that of the beasts: and some of them, like irrational animals, cared for nothing beyond the filling of their belly, and among these the first kind of atheism found a home; but others, being in some small degree stirred by natural instincts, conceived that God, and God’s power, was some good and salutary thing, and because they wished to find Him, they raised their souls aloft to heaven, and there stopping short in thought, and being astonished at the various beauties of the luminaries which gave and received light in heaven, declared that these were gods.

But a third and different class cast themselves down upon earth, and seeing those who had been thought to excel their contemporaries in wisdom, or had become masters of the multitude by strength of body and power of government, such as giants or tyrants, or even sorcerers and quacks, who after some falling off from holier ways had devised their evil arts of sorcery, or others who had been the authors of some common benefit to human life,—to these, both while yet living and after death, they gave the title of gods. And from this cause the houses of their gods are mentioned as being tombs of the dead, as Clement relates in his Exhortation to the Greeks, bringing forward Greeks themselves as witnesses of his statement. Listen then again, if it please you, to what he writes in the following style:[1]

[1] 71 a 1 Clem. Alex. Exhortation,c. iii. p. 39 P.

Chapter 6

[CLEMENT] ‘Naturally therefore superstition, having somewhere found a beginning, has become a fountain of senseless wickedness; and afterwards, as it was not checked, but gained increase and rushed on in full flood, it has created a multitude of daemons, sacrificing hecatombs, celebrating public festivals, setting up statues, and building temples, which indeed—for I will not keep silence even on this, but will convict them—were called euphemistically temples, but were in reality tombs, that is to say, tombs which had got the name of temples. But now, I pray you, forget at length your superstition, and be ashamed to worship tombs.

‘In the temple of Athena at Larissa in the Acropolis is the tomb of Acrisius, and at Athens in the Acropolis the tomb of Cecrops, as Antiochus says in the ninth book of his Histories. And what of Erichthonius? Is he not buried in the temple of Athena Folias? And Ismarus the son of Eumolpus and Daeira, is he not buried in the precincts of the Eleusinium, which lies under the Acropolis? And the daughters of Celeus, are they not buried at Eleusis?

‘Why should I tell you of the women who came from the Hyperboreans? There are two called Hyperoche and Laodice, who are buried in the precinct of Artemis at Delos, which is in the temple of the Delian Apollo.

‘Leander says that Cleomachus is buried at Miletus in the Didyrnaeum. Here, if we follow Zeno of Myndus, it would not be right to pass over the monument of Leucophryne, who is buried in the temple of Artemis in Magnesia, nor yet the altar of Apollo in Telmessus, which also, the story says, is the monument of Telmesseus the soothsayer.

‘Ptolemy too, the son of Agesarchus, in his first book concerning Philopator says that Cinyras and the descendants of Cinyras are buried in Paphos in the temple of Aphrodite.

‘Were I, however, to go over all the tombs which are worshipped by you, “all time would not suffice for me to tell”; [Homer, Od. xx. 351] while you, if no shame for these audacities steals over you, may wander round with your faith in the dead, utterly dead yourselves:

“Ah! wretched men, what evil doom is this?” [1]

A little further on he says: [2]

‘Another new god the Roman Emperor has deified with great solemnity in Egypt, and almost in Greece; his favourite Antinous, who was extremely beautiful, was deified by him, as Ganymede was by Zeus.

‘For lust, when free from fear, is not easily restrained: and men now celebrate the sacred nights of Antinous, the shame of which was known to the lover who shared his vigils.’

He also adds:

‘And now the favourite’s tomb is the temple and city of Antinous: for just as temples are held in reverence, so, I suppose, are tombs, pyramids, mausoleums, and labyrinths—other temples these of the dead, as those before mentioned were tombs of the gods.’

And again, a little further on: [3]

‘Come then, let us also briefly make the round of your games, and put an end to these great sepulchral festivals, the Isthmian, Nemean, and Pythian, and besides these the Olympian. At Pytho the Pythian dragon is worshipped, and the festival of the serpent is proclaimed as the Pythia. At the Isthmus the sea cast up a miserable carcass, and the Isthmian games are a lamentation for Melicertes: at Nemea another child Archemorus is buried, and the boy’s funeral games are called Nemea. Pisa is the tomb in your midst, O Panhellenes, of a Phrygian charioteer, and the Zeus of Phidias claims as his own the Olympian games, which are the funeral libations of Pelops.’

So speaks our author.

Now take thou up our argument again from the beginning, and observe the downfall of superstitious error. By nature and by our self-taught ideas, or rather ideas taught by God, there is a something noble and salutary that indicates the name and being of God: for all men had taken this for granted in their common reasonings, since the Creator of all things had implanted this conviction by innate ideas in every rational and intelligent soul.

They had not, however, chosen the course which accords with reason. For only some one or two perchance, or at most a very few others, whose memory is recorded in the oracles of the Hebrews, could not adapt their idea of God to any of the things that are seen, but with unperverted reasonings led up their thoughts from visible things to the Creator of the whole world and the great Maker of the universe; and with purified eyes of the understanding perceived that He alone is God, the Saviour of all, and sole giver of good gifts. But the rest wandered about in all kinds of mental blindness, and were carried into an abyss of ungodliness, so that like wild beasts they limited the beautiful, and useful, and good to the pleasure of the eyes and the flesh.

And in this way, as I have said before, the discoverers of the things supposed to be good and useful to the body, or certain governors, or tyrants, or even sorcerers and poisoners, though of mortal nature and subjected to the misfortunes of humanity, were called saviours and gods as givers of good things, and men transferred, the august conception which was implanted in them by nature to those whom they supposed to be benefactors.

And accordingly so great a mental paralysis possessed them, that they took no account of the iniquities of those whom they regarded as gods, nor blushed at the shameful tales reported of them, but in all these things admired the men because of the benefits provided by them, or because of the governments and tyrannies which were then first established.

For example, as I said before, since at that time no laws were yet administered, nor punishment suspended over evil deeds, they recorded as rightful and brave deeds, adulteries and sodomy, and incestuous and unlawful marriages, and bloodshed and parricides, and murders of children and brethren, and moreover, wars and seditions actually carried on by their own champions, whom they both accounted and called gods, and bequeathed the remembrance of them as worshipful and brave to later generations.

Such was the ancient theology which was transformed by certain moderns of yesterday’s growth, who boasted of having a more reasonable philosophy, and introduced what they called the more physical view of the history of the gods, by devising more respectable and ingenious explanations for the legends: yet they neither escaped altogether the fault of their forefathers’ impiety, nor, on the other hand, could endure the self-manifested wickedness of their so-called gods.

So, in their eagerness to palliate the fault of their fathers, they changed the legends into physical narratives and theories, and boasted, as the more mystical view, that the things which give nourishment and increase to the nature of the body are those which the legends set forth.

Going on from this point, these men also gave the title of gods to the elements of the world, not just merely to sun and moon and stars, but also to earth and water, and air and fire, and their combinations and resultants, and moreover to the seasonable fruits of the earth, and all other produce of food both dry and liquid: and these very things, regarded as causes of the life of the body, they called Demeter, and Kore, and Dionysus, and other like names, and, by making gods of them, introduced a forced and untrue embellishment of their legends.

But it was in a later age that these men, as if ashamed of the theologies of their forefathers, added respectable explanations, which each invented of himself, to the legends concerning their gods; for no one dared to disturb the customs of their ancestors, but paid great honour to antiquity, and to the familiar training which had grown with them from their boyhood.

Their elders, however, besides their deifications of men, gave equal rank to their consecrations of brute animals, because of the benefit derived from them also for the causes previously assigned; and they devoted equal religious worship to the brutes, and with libations, sacrifices, mystic rites, and hymns, and songs, exalted the honours paid to them, in the same manner as to the men who had been deified. And so they marched on to such a pitch of evil, that, through excess of unbridled lust, they consecrated with divine honours those parts of the body that lead to impurity, and the unrestrained passions of mankind, while their so-called theologians declared that in these things there is no need at all to use solemn phrases. We must, then, hold it to have been proved on the highest testimony, that the oldest generations knew nothing more at all than the history, but adhered to the legends only. Since, however, we have once begun to glance at the august and recondite doctrines of the noble philosophers, let us go on and examine these also more fully, that we may not seem to be ignorant of their wonderful physical theories.

But before we make our exposition of these doctrines, we must first indicate the mutual contradiction even here of these admirable philosophers themselves. For some of them make random statements, and set forth their opinions according to what comes into the mind of each individually: for they do not agree one with another even in their physical theories. While others more candidly sweep away the whole system, and banish from their own republic not only the indecent stories about the gods, but also the interpretations given of them; though sometimes they speak softly of the legends through fear of the punishment threatened by the laws.

Listen then to the Greeks themselves speaking by the mouth of the one noblest of them all, now banishing and now again adopting the legends. Thus their admirable Plato, when he lays bare his own preference, with great boldness forbids altogether the thinking or saying such things concerning the gods, as had been said by them of old, whether they contained anything latent indicated in allegorical meanings, or were spoken without any allegorical meaning at all. But at other times he speaks softly of the laws, and says that we ought to believe the legends about the gods, though there is nothing indicated by them in allegorical meanings.

But when at last he has dissociated his own theology from the ancient legends, and has stated his physical theories about the heaven, and sun, and moon, and stars, and moreover about the whole cosmos, and the parts of it severally, he again specially and separately goes through the ancient genealogical accounts of the gods just as follows word for word in the Timaeus.

[1] 72 a 5 Homer, Od.xx. 351

[2] a 7 Clem. Al. Exhortation,c. iv. p. 43 P.

[3] b 13 ibid. c. ii. p. 29 P.

Chapter 7

[PLATO] ‘To tell of the other divinities and to learn their origin is beyond our power; but we must give credence to those who have spoken in former times, who being, as they said, the offspring of gods had, I suppose, a clear knowledge of their own ancestors. It is impossible therefore to disbelieve children of the gods, even though they speak without certain or probable proofs; but as they assert that they are reporting family histories, we must, in obedience to the law, believe them.

‘On their authority then let the origin of these gods be admitted and stated by us as follows. The children of Earth and Heaven were Oceanus and Tethys; and their children Phorcys, and Kronos, and Rhea, and the rest of them: and from Kronos and Rhea sprang Zeus and Hera, and all whom we know as their reputed brethren, and still others who were their offspring.’ [1]

These things, says Plato, ‘we must in obedience to the law believe,’ even though, he admits, they are stated ‘without certain or probable proofs.’ And we must observe how he indicates that the names and genealogies of the so-called gods have no hidden meaning to be explained by physical theories.

But again, in another place the same author, laying open his own deliberate opinion, has used these words:[2]

‘In the first place, said I, the author of that greatest lie about the greatest gods told a bad lie, how Uranus did the deeds which Hesiod says he did, and how Kronos took revenge upon him.

‘Again, even if the doings of Kronos and his treatment by his son were true, I should not have thought that they ought to be thus lightly told before young and thoughtless persons, but that they should be buried in silence, as the best thing; or if there were any necessity to tell them, then as few as possible should hear them in secret, after sacrificing no mere pig, but some great and scarce victim, so that very few might have a chance of hearing them.

‘Why yes, said he, these stories certainly are mischievous.

‘Aye, and they must not be told in our city, Adeimantus; nor must a young hearer be told that he would be doing nothing remarkable in committing the worst injuries nor in inflicting every kind of punishment upon his father for injuring him, but would be doing just what the first and greatest of the gods did.

‘Nor do I myself think that such stories are fit to be told.

‘Nor yet, said I, about gods going to war with gods and plotting and fighting (untrue as such things are) ought anything at all to be said, if at least the future guardians of our city are to regard it as very disgraceful to be lightly quarrelling one with another. Much less must we invent fables about wars of the giants, and work them in embroidery, with numberless other quarrels of all kinds of gods and heroes against their own kith and kin. But if there were any chance of our persuading them, that no citizen was ever at enmity with a fellow citizen, and that such a thing was unholy, rather should tales of this kind be told to children from the first by old men and old women and by those of mature age, and the poets should be compelled to make their tales like these.

‘The chaining, too, of Hera by her son, and the hurling of Hephaestus out of heaven by his father, when he was going to defend his mother from a beating, and all the battles of the gods that Homer has invented, must not be admitted into the city, whether they are composed with or without allegorical meanings.’

By these words, then, the philosopher clearly teaches that both the legends of the ancients concerning the gods, and the physical explanations of these legends supposed to be expressed in allegories are to be rejected; so that it can no longer be denied that there is good reason for our Saviour’s teaching in the Gospel, which bids us to abandon these legends, seeing that they have been rejected even by their own friends.

Hence it comes that I admire the ancient Romans for the manner in which, when they perceived that all the physiological theories of the Greeks concerning the gods were absurd and unprofitable, or rather were forced and inconsistent, they excluded them, legends and all, from their own theology. This too you may learn from the Roman Archaeology of Dionysius of Halicarnassus: for he, in his second book, when relating the history of Romulus, the first founder of the city of Rome, while recounting his other good deeds, writes on this point especially in the following manner: [3]

[1] Plato, Timaeus, p. 40

[2] 76 c 2 Plato, Republic,ii. 377 E

[3] 78 a 1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Archaeology,ii. 18

Chapter 8

[DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS] ‘But he knew that good laws and zeal in honourable pursuits render a state religious and temperate, and observant of justice, and brave in war: and for these things he took much forethought, beginning with the laws concerning acts of worship paid to gods and daemons.

‘Temples therefore, and precincts, and altars, and the erection of statues, and their forms and emblems and powers, and gifts whereby they had conferred benefit on our race, and festivals of all such kinds as ought to be kept in honour of each god or daemon, and sacrifices wherewith they delight to be honoured by men, and sacred truces also and national festivals, and seasons of rest from labour, and all such matters he established in a manner similar to the best of the customs among the Greeks. But the traditional fables concerning them, in which there are any slanders or accusations against them, he considered to be wicked and unprofitable and unseemly, and unworthy not to say of gods but even of good men, and he excluded them all, and trained men both to speak and think all that was excellent concerning the gods, imputing to them no practice unworthy of their blessed nature.

‘For among the Romans there is neither any story of Uranus being mutilated by his own children, nor of Kronos devouring his own offspring through fear of their attack, nor of Zeus overthrowing the dynasty of Kronos, and shutting up his own father in the prison of Tartarus; nor yet of wars, and wounds, and bonds, and servitudes of gods among men.

‘Nor is any black-robed or mournful festival held among them, with women’s wailings and lamentations over gods that vanished from sight, such as are celebrated among the Greeks in reference to the rape of Persephone, and the sufferings of Dionysus, and all other things of a like kind.

‘Nor would any one see among them, even though their customs are now corrupted, any wild enthusiasms, nor Corybantic frenzies, nor Bacchanalian revels and secret initiations, no all-night vigils of men and women together in the temples of the gods, nor any other of the monstrosities akin to these, but all things concerning the gods practised and spoken of with reverence, such as is seen neither among Greeks nor barbarians.

‘And what I have admired most of all, though countless races have come to settle in the city, who were strictly bound to worship their ancestral gods with the rites of their own country, the city has never by public consent sought to imitate any of the foreign customs, a propensity which has occurred to many states ere now: but even if any sacred rites have been introduced in accordance with oracles, the city adapted them to its own institutions, and cast out all mythical quackery, as for example the rites of the Idaean goddess.

‘For in her honour the Consuls celebrate sacrifices and games every year according to the laws of the Romans: and her priests are a Phrygian man and Phrygian woman, and these go about the city beggmg for the goddess, as their custom is, with images fastened round their breasts, and rattling cymbals and accompanied by their followers playing on flutes the music of the Mother.

‘But of the home-born Romans none proceeds through the city either so begging, or accompanied by flutes and dressed in an embroidered robe, nor celebrates the goddess with Phrygian orgies by any law or decree of the Senate.

‘So cautious is the attitude of the state towards foreign customs concerning the gods, shunning as ill-omened all vain display in which there is anything unbecoming.

‘But let no one suppose me to be ignorant that some of the Grecian legends are useful to mankind; some exhibiting the works of nature allegorically, and others composed for the sake of consoling human misfortunes, and others removing troubles and terrors of the soul and overthrowing unsound opinions, and others invented for the sake of some other utility.

‘But although I know these things as well as anybody, I am nevertheless cautiously disposed towards them, and I prefer to accept the theology of the Romans, considering that the benefits derived from the Hellenic legends are small, and not capable of benefiting many, but only those who have searched out the purposes for which they are made. And those who have taken part in this branch of philosophy are rare; while the great mass unversed in philosophy loves to take the tales concerning the gods in the worse senses, and is affected in one of two ways; either it despises the gods as tossed about in great misery, or else it abstains from none of the most disgraceful and lawless doings, seeing that they are attributed to the gods.

‘On these subjects, however, let inquiry be left to those who study merely the theoretical part of philosophy: but of the polity established by Romulus I thought these points worth recording.’

Such, we see were the opinions entertained by the best philosophers, and by the ancient and most eminent men of the Roman empire concerning the theology of the Greeks—opinions which give no admission to physical theories in their legends concerning the gods, nor to their gorgeous and sophistical impostures.

Since, however, we have once entered upon their refutation, let us go on and consider their interpretations and theories, to see what, after all, they carry with them that is venerable and worthy of the gods; and let us not say anything as of ourselves, but make use, on all points, of their own words, so that we may again learn their views from themselves.

[Footnotes moved to the end and numbered]

Book 3

Preface

SUCH were the opinions entertained by the best philosophers and by the ancient and most eminent men of the Roman Empire in regard to the theology of the Greeks—opinions which give no admission to physical theories in the legends concerning the gods, nor to their gorgeous and sophistical impostures. Since, however, we have once entered upontheir refutation, let us go on and consider their interpretations and theories, to see what, after all, they bring with them that is venerable and worthy of the gods; and let us say nothing of ourselves, but on all points make use of their own words, so that we may again learn their venerable secrets from themselves.

Now much labour has been spent upon these subjects by numberless other professors of philosophy, who have made different subtle explanations of the same, and strongly insist that the opinion which occurred to each was the exact truth. But for my part I am content to bring forward my proofs from the most illustrious authors who are well known to all philosophers, and have carried off no small reputation for philosophy among the Greeks.

Of whom take first and read the words of Plutarch of Chaeroneia on the questions before us, wherein with solemn phrase he perverts the fables into what he asserts to be mysterious theologies. And in unveiling these he says that Dionysus is drunkenness, and no longer the mortal man who has been exhibited by the history in the preceding book; and that Hera means the joint wedded life of husband and wife. Then, as if he had forgotten his rendering, he forthwith tacks on a different story, and no longer uses the name Hera as before, but calls the earth by her name, and gives the name Leto to oblivion and night. And again he says that Hera is the same as Leto. Then in addition to this he introduces Zeus as representing allegorically the power of the air.

But why need I thus anticipate, when we may hear the man himself, in the essay which he wrote On the Daedala at Plataea,expounding as follows what was hidden from the multitude in the secret physiological doctrines concerning the gods.[1]

[1] 83 c 1 Plutarch, De Daedalis Plataeensibus,a fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 1

[PLUTARCH] ‘THE physiology of the ancients both among Greeks and Barbarians was a physical doctrine concealed in legends, for the most part a secret and mysterious theology conveyed in enigmas and allegories, containing statements that were clearer to the multitude than the silent omissions, and its silent omissions more liable to suspicion than the open statements. This is evident in the Orphic poems, and in the Egyptian and Phrygian stories: ‘out the mind of the ancients is most clearly exhibited in the orgiastic rites connected with the initiations, and in what is symbolically acted in the religious services.

‘For instance, not to digress far from our present subjects, they do not suppose nor admit any intercourse between Hera and Dionysus; and they guard against combining their worship; and their priestesses at Athens, they say, do not speak to each other when they meet, nor is ivy ever brought into the precincts of Hera, not because of their fabulous and nonsensical jealousies, but because the goddess presides over marriage and bridal processions, and drunkenness is unbecoming to bridegrooms, and most unbefitting to a marriage feast, as Plato says:[1] for the drinking of strong wine causes disorder both in body and soul, whereby what is sown and conceived being shapeless and misplaced does not take root well. Again, those who sacrifice to Hera do not consecrate the gall, but bury it beside the altar, meaning that the wedded life of wife and husband ought to be free from anger and wrath, and undisturbed by rage and bitterness.

‘This symbolical style is more common in the tales and legends. As for instance, they relate that Hera, being brought up in Euboea. was stolen away while yet a virgin by Zeus, and was carried across and hidden in this region, where Cithaeron afforded them a shady recess, nature’s own bridal-chamber. And when Macris—she was Hera’s nurse—came to seek her, and wished to make a search, Cithaeron would not let her pry about, or approach the spot, on pretence that Zeus was there resting and passing the time in company with Leto. And as Macris went away, Hera thus escaped discovery on that occasion, and afterwards calling to mind her debt of gratitude to Leto she adopted her as partner in a common altar and common temple, so that sacrifices are first offered to Leto Μυχία,that is, ‘of the inner shrine’;but some call her Νυχία, ‘goddess of night.’In each of the names, however, there is the signification of secrecy and escape. Some say that Hera had secret intercourse there with Zeus, and, being undiscovered, was thus herself denominated Leto of the night: but when her marriage became openly known, and their intercourse first here in the neighbourhood of Citliaeron and of Plataea had been revealed, she was called Hera Τελεία and Γαμήλιος, goddess of the perfect life, and of marriage.

‘Those who understand the fable in a more physical and becoming sense connect Hera with Leto in the following way. Hera, as has been said, is the Earth, and Leto is night, being a sort of oblivion on the part of those who turn to sleep. And night is nothing else but the shadow of the Earth. For when the Sun has reached the West and been hidden by the shadow, this spreads itself out and darkens the air: and this is the cause of the failure of the full moon in an eclipse, when the shadow of the earth touches the moon in her orbit and obscures her light. Moreover, that Leto is none other than Hera, you may learn from what follows. Artemis we of course call the daughter of Latona, but we also name the same goddess Eileithyia: Hera therefore and Leto are two names of one goddess.

‘Again of Leto is born Apollo, and of Hera Ares, and they both have the same power: and Ares is so called as helping (ἀρήγων) in the mischances of violence and battle, and Apollo as delivering and releasing (ἀπαλλάττων καὶ ἀπολύων)a man from his bodily diseases. For which reason also of the most fiery and blazing luminaries one, the sun, is named Apollo, and the other of a fiery red is surnamed Ares. And it is not unsuitable that the same goddess (Hera) is called the goddess of marriage, and considered to be the mother of Eileithyia and of the sun. For the end of marriage is birth; and birth is the passing out of darkness into the sun and light. And it is a fine saying of the poet:

‘But soon her child, by Eileithyia’s aid, Was brought to light, and saw the sun’s bright rays.’ [2]

Rightly did the poet crowd the composition by the preposition, thereby indicating the hardness of the labour, and made the end of the birth consist in seeing the sun. The same goddess therefore made also the marriage union, in order that she might prepare the way for birth.

‘But perhaps we ought also to mention the more silly legend. For it is said that when Hera was at variance with Zeus, and was no longer willing to consort with him, but hid herself, he was wandering about in perplexity and fell in with Alalcomenes the earth-born, and was taught by him that, to deceive Hera, he must pretend to wed another wife. So Alalcomenes helped him, and they secretly cut down a tall and beautiful oak, and shaped it and dressed it in bridal array, and called it Daedale: then the hymeneal was duly chanted, and the nymphs of Triton brought lustral water, and Boeotia supplied flutes and festal processions. But when these performances went on, Hera could bear it no longer, but came down from Cithaeron, followed by the women of Plataea, and from anger and jealousy came running up to Zeus, and when the counterfeit became manifest, she was reconciled to him and with joy and laughter herself led the bridal procession, and gave additional honour to the statue, and called the festival Daedala, and nevertheless from jealousy burnt the thing, lifeless though it was.

‘Such then is the legend: and the explanation of it is as follows. The variance and quarrel of Hera and Zeus is nothing else than the distemper and confusion of the elements, when they no longer bear a due proportion to each other in the cosmos, but disproportion and roughness arise, and they have a desperate fight and dissolve their connexion, and work the ruin of the universe.

If then Zeus, that is, the force of heat and fire, gives occasion to the variance, a drought overtakes the earth: but if it is on the part of Hera, that is, the element of rain and wind, that any outbreak or excess takes place, there comes a great flood, and deluges and overflows everything. And as something of this kind occurred about those times, and Boeotia especially had been deeply flooded, as soon as ever the plain emerged and the flood abated, the order which followed from the tranquillity of the atmosphere was called the agreement and reconciliation of the deities. The first of the plants that sprang up out of the earth was the oak; and men welcomed this, because it gave a permanent supply of food and safety. For not only for the pious, as Hesiod says, but for all who survive the destruction,

‘The top bears acorns, and the middle bees.’ [3]

[1] 83 d 9 Plato, Laws,vi. 775 B

[2] 85 b 7 Hom. Il.xvi. 187

[3] 86 d 10 Hesiod, Opp.233

Chapter 2. The Same Subject

THIS is what Plutarch says; and we learn from the statements which he sets before us, that even the wonderful and secret physiology of the Greek theology conveyed nothing divine, nor anything great and worthy of deity, and deserving of attention.

For you have heard Hera called at one time Gamelios, and a symbol of the joint life of husband and wife, and at another time the earth called Hera, and at another the element of water; and Dionysus translated into drunkenness, and Latona into night, and the sun into Apollo, and Zeus himself into the force of heat and fire.

So then the original indecency of the legends, and the physiological explanation, which is thought to be more respectable, led not up to any heavenly, intellectual, and divine powers, nor yet to rational and incorporeal essences, but the explanation itself led down again to drunkenness, and marriage feasts, and human passions, and reduced the parts of the cosmos to fire, and earth, and sun, and the other elements of matter, without introducing any other deity.

And Plato too knew this. In the Cratylus,at least, he expressly acknowledges that the first inhabitants of Greece knew nothing more than the visible parts of the cosmos, and supposed the luminaries in the heaven and the other phenomena to be the only gods.

So he speaks as follows word for word:

‘It appears to me that the first inhabitants of Greece acknowledged no other gods than those whom many of the barbarians acknowledge now, namely, sun, and moon, and earth, and stars, and heaven.’ [1]

But such being the doctrines of the Greeks, let us look also at those which are far more ancient than these, I mean the Egyptian. They say that Isis and Osiris are the sun and the moon, and that they called the breath that pervades all things Zeus, and fire Hephaestus, and the earth Demeter; also the water was called among the Egyptians Oceanus, and their own river Nilus, and to him they ascribed the generations of the gods: the air, it is said, they call Athena.

And these five gods, I mean Air, and Water, and Fire, and Earth, and Breath, travel over the whole world, transforming themselves at various times into various shapes and semblances of men and animals of all kinds; and there have been among the Egyptians themselves mortal men called by the same names with these, Helios, and Kronos, and Rhea, and Zeus too and Hera, and Hephaestus and Hestia. On these subjects also Manetho writes at large, and Diodorus concisely in his book before mentioned, giving the narrative just as follows word for word: [2]

[1] 87 c 5 Plato, Cratylus,397 C

[2] 88 b 1 Diodorus Siculus, i. 11

Chapter 3

[DIODORUS] ‘THESE Gods,’ he says (the Sun and the Moon, which are according to the Egyptians Osiris and Isis), ‘govern the whole cosmos, supplying nourishment and growth to all things in three distinct seasons, which by an invisible motion complete their circuit, spring, summer, and winter; and these being each of a very opposite nature to the others complete the year in excellent harmony. These deities, they say, contribute most to the quickening of all things with life, Osiris making the chief contribution of fire and wind, and Isis of water and earth, and both alike of air; and by these all things are generated and nourished. And for this reason, they say, the whole body of universal nature is made up completely out of the sun and moon, and as to the live parts of these before mentioned, breath, fire, earth, water, and finally air—just as in a man we count up head, and hands, and feet, and the other members—in the same manner the body of the cosmos is all composed of the parts before mentioned.

‘Each of these, they say, was regarded as a god, and a special name given to each according to his proper character, by those of the inhabitants of Egypt who first made use of articulate speech. So they called the wind Zeus, the word being so interpreted, and as he was the author of the soul in living beings they supposed him to be, as it were, a father of all.[1]

‘And with this, they say, the most illustrious poet of the Greeks agrees, when he speaks of this god, as

‘Father of men and gods.’ [2]

‘Fire by interpretation they called Hephaestus, considering him to be a great god, and to contribute much to the production and perfect growth of all things. The earth they supposed to be a sort of vessel containing all natural productions, and called it Mother: and the Greeks in like manner call it Demeter, the word having been a little changed through lapse of time.

‘For of old she was called Γῆ μήτηρ (Earth Mother), as Orpheus bears witness, saying—

‘Earth Mother of all, Demeter, giver of wealth.’ [3]

‘The water, it is said, was called by the ancients Oceané, which being interpreted is ‘Mother of food,’ but among some of the Greeks it was supposed to be the Ocean, concerning which the poet says,

‘Oceanus sire, and Tethys mother of gods.’ [4]

‘For the Egyptians consider their river Nile to be the Ocean, and that the gods had their origin near it, because in Egypt alone of the whole world there are many cities founded by the elder gods, such as those of Zeus, Helios, Hermes, Apollo, Pan, Eileithyia, and many others.

‘The air, it is said, they called Athena, the word being so interpreted, and they regarded her as the daughter of Zeus, and supposed her to be a virgin, because the air is naturally incorruptible, and occupies the highest place of the whole cosmos: on which account the fable went that she sprang from the head of Zeus. She was called also Tritogeneia from changing her nature thrice in the year, in spring, summer, and winter. She is also called Glaucopis, not as some of the Greeks supposed because she had light-blue eyes, for this is silly, but because the air has a bluish appearance.

‘They say that the five gods before mentioned travel over the whole world, and appear to men in the forms of sacred animals, sometimes also transforming themselves into the likenesses of men or other things: and that this is not fabulous, but possible, since these are in truth the progenitors of all things. The poet too, they say, having landed in Egypt, and had tales of this kind imparted to him by the priests, in a certain passage of his poem stated the above-mentioned circumstance as actually occurring:

‘They, curious oft of mortal actions, deign In forms like these to round the earth and main, Just and unjust recording in their mind, And with sure eyes inspecting all mankind.’ [5]

‘Thus much then the Egyptians say concerning the gods who are in heaven, and have had an eternal generation.

‘But others, they say, were born of these on earth, who having been originally mortal have obtained immortality on account of their wisdom and general beneficence to mankind, and some of them have been kings in Egypt. Of these some have the same names, when interpreted, as the gods of heaven, but others have received a name of their own; as Helios, and Kronos, and Rhea, and Zeus also, whom some call Ammon; and in addition to these Hera, Hephaestus, and Hestia, and Hermes last: and Helios was the first king of the Egyptians, having the same name as the luminary in the heaven.’ [6]

Such, then are the statements of the historian whom I have mentioned.

Moreover Plutarch, in his book On the story of Isis,writes as follows, word for word: [7]

[PLUTARCH] ‘Let us begin again, and consider first the simplest of those who are thought to speak in the more philosophical way. Now, just as the Greeks make Kronos an allegorical name for time (Chronos), and Hera for the air, and the birth of Hephaestus for the transformation of air into fire, so these say that in like manner among the Egyptians Osiris is the Nile, wedded to Isis the earth, and Typhon is the sea, into which the Nile falls and disappears.’

After these and similar statements, he refers the legends concerning the said deities back again to daemons, and then again gives first one allegorical rendering and afterwards another.

Now we might reasonably ask, to which set of gods, will they say, do the forms belong which are engraven on their statues. Are they those of daemons? Or those of fire, and air, and earth, and water? Or likenesses of men and women, and shapes of brute animals and wild beasts?

For it has been admitted even by themselves that certain mortal men have had the same names with the Sun and the universal elements, and that these men have been called gods. Of which then would it be reasonable to say that the sculptures on the lifeless statues are forms and images? Of the universal elements? Or, as their appearance plainly shows, of mortals now lying among the dead?

Why, even if they would not say so themselves, surely true reason shouts and cries aloud, all but in actual speech, and testifies that they of whom we speak have been mortal men. And Plutarch with superabundant pains describes the particular character of their bodily shapes, in his work On Isis and the Gods of Egypt.speaking as follows: [8]

‘The Egyptians narrate that in body Hermes was short-armed, and Typhon red in complexion, and Horus fair, and Osiris dark-skinned, as having been by nature men.’

Thus speaks Plutarch. So then their whole manufacture of gods consists of dead men; and their physical explanations are fictitious. For what need was there to model figures of men and women, when without them they could worship the sun and moon and the other elements of the cosmos?

To which of these two classes did they assign names of this kind, and with whom did they begin? I mean, for example, Hephaestus and Athena, and Zeus, and Poseidon, and Hera.

Were these in the first place names of the universal elements, which they have since ascribed to mortals, making them of the same name as the heavenly bodies? Or on the contrary, have they transferred the names in use among men to the natural substances?

But why should they address the natural elements of the universe by names of mortal men? And the mysteries belonging to each god, and the hymns, and songs, and the secrets of the initiatory rites,—do these introduce the symbols of the universal elements, or of the mortal men of old who had the same names with the gods?

Then as to wanderings, and drunken fits, and amours, and seduction of women, and plots against men, and countless things, which are in truth shameful and unseemly practices of mortal men, how could any one refer these to the universal elements, acts which bear upon their very face mortality and human passion?

So that from all these proofs this wonderful and noble physiology is convicted of having no connexion with truth, and containing nothing really divine, but possessing only a forced and counterfeit solemnity of external utterance. Hear, however, what Porphyry records concerning these same gods in his Epistle to Anebo the Egyptian.[9]

[1] 88 d 6 ibid. 12

[2] 88 d 14 Hom. Il.544

[3] 89 b 1 Orph. Fr.165

[4] 89 b 5 Hom. Il.xiv. 201

[5] 90 a 4 Hom. Od.xvii. 485 (Pope)

[6] 90 b 1 Diod. Sic. i. 13

[7] 90 c 8 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris,363 D 98

[8] 91 b 1 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris,359 E

[9] 92 a 4 Porphyry, Epistle to Anebo,a fragment preserved by Eusebius: see Iamblichus, De Mysteriis,Parthey

Chapter 4

[PORPHYRY] ‘FOR as to Chaeremon and the rest, they do not believe in anything else prior to the visible worlds, since they account as a ruling power the gods of the Egyptians, and no others except the so-called planets, and those stars which fill up the zodiac, and as many as rise near them: also the divisions into the “decani,” and the horoscopes, and the so-called “mighty Rulers,” the names of which are contained in the almanacks, and their powers to heal diseases, and their risings and settings, and indications of future events.

‘For he saw that those who assert the Sun to be the Creator twist the story of Osiris and Isis, and all the priestly legends, either into allusions to the stars and their appearances and disappearances and their solar distances at rising, or to the waxings and wanings of the moon, or to the course of the sun, or to the hemisphere of night, or of day, or to their river; and generally that they interpreted all things of physical phenomena, and nothing of incorporeal and living beings. And most of them made even our own free will depend upon the motion of the stars, binding all things down by indissoluble bonds, I know not how, to a necessity which they call fate, and making all things depend closely on these gods, whom, as the sole deliverers from the bonds of fate, they worship with temples, and statues, and the like.’

Let then this quotation from the before-mentioned Epistle suffice, clearly declaring, as it does, that even the secret theology of the Egyptians made no other gods than the stars in the heaven, both those which are called fixed, and the so-called planets, and introduced no incorporeal mind as creator of the universe, nor any creative reason, nor yet a god or gods, nor any intelligent and invisible powers, but only the visible Sun. “Wherefore also they referred the cause of the universe to the heavenly bodies alone, making all depend on fate, and the movement and course of the stars, as in fact this opinion has prevailed among them until now.

If therefore all is interpreted by the Egyptians of the visible elements of the world alone, and nothing of incorporeal and living beings, and if the elements and all visible bodies are by their own account inanimate and irrational, and in their nature fleeting and perishable,—see into what difficulties their theology has fallen again, in deifying inanimate substance and dead and irrational bodies, especially since they referred nothing to incorporeal and intelligent beings, nor to a mind and reason creating the universe.

But since it was acknowledged in the passages before quoted that their theological doctrines had been brought over to the Greeks from the Egyptians, it is time that the Greeks also should take their place with them, and give the same physiological explanations as the Egyptians, and be convicted of deifying nothing more than inanimate matter. For such were the august deities of the Egyptians according to the description of the writer before mentioned, who again, in the work which he entitled On Abstinence from Animal Food,gives such details as the following concerning the same people: [1]

‘Starting from this discipline and intimacy with the deity, they judged that the divine pervaded not man only, nor did soul tabernacle upon earth in man alone, but all animals were pervaded by almost the same kind of soul. Wherefore they admitted every animal into their manufacture of gods, and mixed up beasts and men just alike, and also the bodies of birds and men.

‘For with them there is a figure represented like a man up to the neck, but having the face of a bird or a lion or some other animal: and, on the other hand again, the head of a man and members of some other animals, set partly below, and partly above. And hereby they indicate that according to the mind of the gods these animals also are associated one with another, and that it is not without a divine purpose that the wild beasts are bred up with us and tamed.

‘Hence also the lion is worshipped as a god, and a division of Egypt which they call a Nome has from the lion the name Leonto-polites, and another, from the cow, Busirites, and another, from the dog, Cynopolites. For the power which is over all they worshipped through the associated animals which each of the gods had given them.

‘Water and fire, the most beautiful of the elements, they reverence as being chief causes of our preservation, and exhibit them also in their temples; as, I believe, even now at the opening of the sanctuary of Serapis the worship is performed by means of fire and water, the precentor pouring out the water and exhibiting the fire, whenever he stands upon the threshold and wakes the god in the native language of the Egyptians.

‘They reverence, therefore, these elements that bear a part in the sacrifices, and above these they reverence most highly the things which are more fully associated with the sacrifices: and such are all living beings, for in the village Anabis they even worship a man, and sacrifice is there offered to him, and the victims are consumed by fire upon the altars: and yet presently he would eat the proper things prepared for him as a man. As, therefore, we ought to abstain from eating man’s flesh, so we should abstain from the flesh of other animals.

‘But further out of their abundant wisdom and their familiarity with the divine, they perceived that certain animals were more dear than men to certain of their gods, a hawk, for instance, to the Sun, as having its whole nature made up of blood and breath, and feding pity even for man, and shrieking over an exposed corpse, and scraping up earth over it.’

A little further on he says:

‘An ignorant person might detest a beetle, being without judgement in things divine: but the Egyptians reverenced it, as a living image of the sun. For every beetle is male, and deposits his spawn in a marsh, and having made it into a ball carries it back with his hind feet, as the sun does the heaven, and waits a lunar period of days.

‘In like manner they make some philosophic explanation concerning the ram, and another concerning the crocodile, and the vulture and the ibis, and generally as to each of the animals; so that out of their wisdom and their superior knowledge of things divine, they attained even to the worship of animals.’

[1] 93 c 13 Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food,iv. 9

Chapter 5

SUCH are the statements set forth concerning the noble physiology of the wise Egyptians by the above-mentioned author, who has made their secrets clear to us, namely that they worship water and fire, and that the essential nature of rational and irrational animals, not in body only but also in soul, is judged among them to be one and the same, so that he thinks they have called the beasts gods with good reason.

Yet must it not be most unreasonable to admit the irrational and bestial nature to deification, on the ground, as they say, of participation in the same kind of soul with men? For they ought, if so, to have regarded them also as men, and given them a share of human glory and honour.

This, however, they did not; but the beasts which were created by nature itself irrational, and have received this appellation, and not even been thought worthy of the title of men, they chose to accept, on no mere equality with men; but taking the highest title of God the universal King and Creator of all things, they have degraded it to the nature of beasts, and bestowed the title of gods upon things which have not been deemed worthy by God Himself even of the title of man.

In addition to this, you have heard the mystic theosophy, which led the wonderful sages of Egypt to worship wolves and dogs and lions: you have learnt also the miracle of the beetle, and the virtue of the hawk. Laugh not then in future at their gods, but pity the thrice wretched human race for their great folly and blindness.

Moreover, consider all things carefully, and see what blessings God’s Christ came to bestow on us, since through His teaching in the Gospel he has redeemed even the souls of Egyptians from such a disease of lasting and long continued blindness, so that now most of the people of Egypt have been freed from this insanity.

Chapter 6

SUCH then were the notions received among the Egyptians, which are recorded as more ancient than all the doctrines of the Greeks. Therefore, you have in addition to the mythical theology that of a more physical character common to Greeks and Egyptians, who devised of old the superstition of polytheism; and you have learnt that among them nothing at all was known of the truly divine, incorporeal, and intelligent natures.

However, let it be granted and allowed to these stargazers that they speak truth and are right in their physical explanation of the allegories; and let their sun become now Apollo, and now again Horus, and the same sun again Osiris, and numberless other things, as many as they would wish; and the moon in like manner either Isis or Artemis, or as many names as any one would choose to enumerate.

For grant that these are not names indicative of mortal men, but of the real celestial luminaries: we should then have to worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the other parts of the cosmos as gods.

In this way, therefore, the noble philosophy of the Greeks appears as it were ‘ex machina,’ on the one hand highly exalting the promise of the word, but on the other lowering the thought of the wise down to the sensible and visible workmanship of God, and deifying, through the celestial luminaries, nothing else than fire, and the nature of heat, and the parts of the cosmos, to which we may add the liquid and the solid elements and the composition of bodies.

Must not then the gospel of Jesus our Saviour, the Christ of God, be great and admirable, as teaching all mankind to worship with befitting thoughts the God and Lord of sun and moon, and Maker of the whole cosmos, who is Himself high above and beyond the universe, and to celebrate in hymns not the elements of bodies, but Him who is the sustainer of life itself, and dispenser of all good things? For that gospel teaches us not to stand in awe of the visible parts of the cosmos and all that can be apprehended by fleshly sense, as they must be of perishable nature; but to marvel only at the mind which in all these exists unseen, and which creates both the whole and each several part; and to regard as God one sole Divine Power pervading and ordering all things, being in its nature incorporeal and intelligent, or rather impossible to describe and to conceive, which shows itself through all things whereby it works, and incorporeally pervades and traverses them all without intermixture, and throughout all things, not only in heaven but also upon earth, both the universal elements and the several parts, exhibits the perpetual mighty working of the Godhead, and presides over all in a manner which our sight and sense cannot perceive, and governs the whole cosmos by laws of ineffable wisdom.

After we have given so many proofs in confutation of their inconsistent theology, both the more mythical so-called, and that which is forsooth of a higher and more physical kind which the ancient Greeks and Egyptians were shown to magnify, it is time to survey also the refinements of the younger generations who make a profession of philosophy in our own time: for these have endeavoured to combine the doctrines concerning a creative mind of the universe, and those concerning incorporeal ideas and intelligent and rational powers,—doctrines invented long ages afterwards by Plato, and thought out with accurate reasonings,—with the theology of the ancients, exaggerating with yet greater conceit their promise concerning the legends. Listen then to their physiology also, and observe with what boastfulness it has been published by Porphyry. [1]

[1] 97 d 4 Porphyry, Concerning Images, Orphic Fragm.vi. I; cf. p. 664 d

Chapter 7

[PORPHYRY]

‘”I speak to those who lawfully may hear: Depart all ye profane, and close the doors.”

‘THE thoughts of a wise theology, wherein men indicated God and God’s powers by images akin to sense, and sketched invisible things in visible forms, I will show to those who have learned to read from the statues as from books the things there written concerning the gods. Nor is it any wonder that the utterly unlearned regard the statues as wood and stone, just as also those who do not understand the written letters look upon the monuments as mere stones, and on the tablets as bits of wood, and on books as woven papyrus.’

After such proud boasting by way of prelude, hear how he goes on next to write, word for word:

‘As the deity is of the nature of light, and dwells in an atmosphere of ethereal fire, and is invisible to sense that is busy about mortal life, He through translucent matter, as crystal or Parian marble or even ivory, led men on to the conception of his light, and through material gold to the discernment of the fire, and to his undefiled purity, because gold cannot be defiled.

‘On the other hand, black marble was used by many to show his invisibility; and they moulded their gods in human form because the deity is rational, and made these beautiful, because in those is pure and perfect beauty; and in varieties of shape and age, of sitting and standing, and drapery; and some of them male, and some female, virgins, and youths, or married, to represent their diversity.

‘Hence they assigned everything white to the gods of heaven, and the sphere and all things spherical to the cosmos and to the sun and moon in particular, but sometimes also to fortune and to hope: and the circle and things circular to eternity, and to the motion of the heaven, and to the zones and cycles therein; and the segments of circles to the phases of the moon; pyramids and obelisks to the element of fire, and therefore to the gods of Olympus; so again the cone to the sun, and cylinder to the earth, and figures representing parts of the human body to sowing and generation.’

These are the statements of this wonderful philosopher: and what could be more unseemly than talking, as they do, in solemn phrase about shameful things? Or what more violently unreasonable than to assert that lifeless materials, gold, and marble, and such like, bear representations of the light of the gods, and manifestations of their heavenly and ethereal nature? That these are modern sophistries, and never entered, even in a drearn, into the imagination of the ancients, you may learn, on being informed that statues made of gold, and other material esteemed more precious, were even rejected among the men of former times. Plutarch, at all events, speaks somewhere thus, word for word: [1]

[1] 99 b 1 Plutarch, De Daedalis Plataeensibus,a fragment preserved by Eusebius only

Chapter 8

[PLUTARCH] ‘THE making of wooden statues seems to be a primitive and ancient custom, inasmuch as the first image sent to Delos by Erysichthon for Apollo at the time of the religious embassies was of wood; also the image of Athena Polias was of wood, which was set up by the aborigines, and which the Athenians carefully preserve to the present day. The Samians also had a wooden figure of Hera, as Callimachus says:

“No polish’d work of Smilis thou, but plank Untouch’d by chisel, as by ancient rule They made their gods: so Danaus of plain wood Athena’s seated form in Lindus set.” [1]

‘And it is said that Peiras, who first founded the temple of Hera in Argolis, and appointed his own daughter Callithyia priestess, cut down a tall pear-tree from the wood about Tiryns, and formed a statue of Hera. For stone being rough and hard to work, and lifeless, they were not willing to have it carved into a likeness of a deity: and gold and silver they thought to be sickly colours and stains breaking out like bruises from a barren and corrupt soil which had been stricken by fire: but sometimes in sport they made use of ivory also, as a variation in luxury.’

So says Plutarch; and long before him Plato knew well that there is nothing venerable nor suited to the divine nature in gold and ivory, and things manufactured out of lifeless material: for hear what sort of directions he gives in the Laws: [2]

‘The land, therefore, and the household hearth are for all men temples of all the gods; wherefore let no man consecrate temples a second time to the gods. In other cities gold and silver, whether in private houses or in temples, are an invidious possession; and ivory taken from a dead body is not a pure offering; iron also and bronze are implements of war.’

Now I think these passages contain a clear refutation of the physical explanation which was put forward: but let us go on and examine the remainder of it. Hear then how he talks: [3]

[1] 99 b 8 Callimachus, Fragment105, preserved by Eusebius only

[2] 99 d 5 Plato, Laws,xii. 955 E

[3] 100 a 1 Porphyry, Concerning Images,Stobaeus, Ed.i. 2, 23

Chapter 9

[PORPHYRY] ‘Now look at the wisdom of the Greeks, and examine it as follows. The authors of the Orphic hymns supposed Zeus to be the mind of the world, and that he created all things therein, containing the world in himself. Therefore in their theological systems they have handed down their opinions concerning him thus: [1]

“Zeus was the first, Zeus last, the lightning’s lord, Zeus head, Zeus centre, all things are from Zeus. Zeus born a male, Zeus virgin undefiled; Zeus the firm base of earth and starry heaven; Zeus sovereign, Zeus alone first cause of all: One power divine, great ruler of the world, One kingly form, encircling all things here, Fire, water, earth, and ether, night and day; Wisdom, first parent, and delightful Love: For in Zeus’ mighty body these all lie. His head and beauteous face the radiant heaven Reveals, and round him float in shining waves The golden tresses of the twinkling stars. On either side bulls’ horns of gold are seen, Sunrise and sunset, footpaths of the gods. His eyes the Sun, the Moon’s responsive light; His mind immortal ether, sovereign truth, Hears and considers all; nor any speech, Nor cry, nor noise, nor ominous voice escapes The ear of Zeus, great Kronos’ mightier son: Such his immortal head, and such his thought. His radiant body, boundless, undisturbed In strength of mighty limbs was formed thus: The god’s broad-spreading shoulders, breast, and back Air’s wide expanse displays; on either side Grow wings, wherewith throughout all space he flies. Earth the all-mother, with her lofty hills, His sacred belly forms; the swelling flood Of hoarse resounding Ocean girds his waist. His feet the deeply rooted ground upholds, And dismal Tartarus, and earth’s utmost bounds. All things he hides, then from his heart again In godlike action brings to gladsome light.”

‘Zeus, therefore, is the whole world, animal of animals, and god of gods; but Zeus, that is, inasmuch as he is the mind from which he brings forth all things, and by his thoughts creates them. When the theologians had explained the nature of god in this manner, to make an image such as their description indicated was neither possible, nor, if any one thought of it, could he show the look of life, and intelligence, and forethought by the figure of a sphere.

‘But they have made the representation of Zeus in human form, because mind was that according to which he wrought, and by generative laws brought all things to completion; and he is seated, as indicating the steadfastness of his power: and his upper parts are bare, because he is manifested in the intellectual and the heavenly parts of the world; but his feet are clothed, because he is invisible in the things that lie hidden below. And he holds his sceptre in his left hand, because most close to that side of the body dwells the heart, the most commanding and intelligent organ: for the creative mind is the sovereign of the world. And in his right hand he holds forth either an eagle, because he is master of the gods who traverse the air, as the eagle is master of the birds that fly aloft—or a victory, because he is himself victorious over all things.’

These things Porphyry tells you: and after they have been delivered in the manner already stated, it will be well to examine quietly and at leisure what after all the verses declare Zeus to be. I for my part think they make him to be none else than the visible world consisting of many various parts, both of those in heaven and in the ether, and of the stars which appear therein,—these being set first as in the head of a great body,—and also of the parts that lie in the air, and earth, and sea, and the like.

Certainly the earth and mountains and hills are parts of the world, and the sea is rolled round in the midst of them like a girdle, and fire also and water, and night and day must be parts of the same nature of the world. These things I suppose to indicate directly the visible world, unless I am somewhat mistaken, and to show us the universe made up of various parts. He says at all events:

‘For in Zeus’ mighty body these all lie.’

And what ‘these all’ are, he clearly states:

‘Fire, water, earth, and ether, night and day. His head and beauteous face the radiant heaven Reveals, and round him float in shining waves The golden tresses of the twinkling stars.’

In the verses that follow these, he adds the statement that the mind of Zeus is the ether and nothing else, in agreement with the Stoics, who assert that the element of fire and heat is the ruling principle of the world, and that god is a body, and the Creator himself nothing else than the force of fire. For in this same sense I think it is said in the verses:

‘His mind immortal ether, sovereign truth, Hears and considers all.’

Wherein without any concealment he supposed the world to be a great animal, and calling it Zeus, he represented the ether as his mind, and the remaining parts of the world as his body.

Such is found to be the Zeus depicted by the verses.

And the interpreter of the poem begins by saying, in accordance with the same, ‘Zeus, therefore, is the whole world, animal of animals, god of gods;’ thus clearly explaining that the Zeus of his theology is shown by the poem to be no other than the visible and sensible world.

Now the doctrine was that of the Egyptians, from whom Orpheus took his theology, and thought that the world was the god composed of many gods who were parts of himself (for they were shown in what goes before to have also deified the parts of the world); and the statements which have been quoted from the verses declared nothing more than this.

But Porphyry after his first interpretation adds another of his own, asserting that the God who is the Maker of the world is this creative mind which has been deified by the poet.

But how could the poet, whether he were the Thracian Orpheus or any one else, deify just this mind, of which he never knew any thing at all, if indeed his theological doctrines came to him from the Egyptians or from the primitive Greeks? For these were proved to have understood nothing ideal or comprised in invisible and incorporeal essence, if Plato’s assurance may suffice us, when in the Cratylushe admits ‘that the first race of men in Greece believed only in these same gods which many of the barbarians believe in now, sun, and moon, and earth, and stars, and heaven.’ [2]

We had also just now Chaeremon as a witness that the Egyptians believed in nothing previous to the visible world, ‘nor in any other gods except the planets’ and other stars, and interpreted all things in reference to the visible parts of the world, ‘and nothing to incorporeal and living beings.’

[1] 100 b 3 Orphic Fragm.123 (Abel), vi (Hermann), Aristotle, De Mundo,c. vii.

[2] 103 c 2 Plato, Cratylus,397 C, quoted on p. 87 c 6

Chapter 10

THESE then being the principles from which the poet started, whence, or how, or from whom did he receive the conception in his verses of the God who is above and beyond the world, and is the Maker of sun, and moon and stars, and of the heaven itself and the whole world?

And whence did he get his knowledge of things incorporeal?

Nay, of these things he knows nothing; for neither does the creative mind of the universe consist of many parts, nor can, the heaven be its head, nor fire and water and earth its body, nor yet sun and moon its eyes. And how can ‘the wide expanse of air, and earth, and lofty hills’ be the shoulders, and breast, and back, and belly, of the Divine Creator of the universe? Or how can the ether ever be thought of as the mind of the Maker of the universe, or of the creative mind?

There is no need, then, to argue further that these are sophistic devices of the interpreter of the poem. For my part, indeed, I say that the man who asserts that the parts of the world are parts of God is guilty of the utmost impiety, and still more he who declared that God is the same as the world, and besides these the man who thinks that the creator of the universe is the mind of the world.

For piety declares that He is the Maker and Preserver of the world, being distinct from that which He has made: but to say that He is the mind of the world, just like the soul of some animal, made altogether one therewith, and clothed with the universe, must pass the bounds of reverence.

Yet certainly our sacred oracles teach us that He is present with the whole, and governs the world by His providence, and they speak of God in a worthy and becoming manner when they say: ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.’[1] And again: ‘He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath.’[2] And again: ‘For in Him we live, and move, and have our being;’[3] not, however, as in a part of the world, nor as in its soul and mind.

But if there is occasion to use a simile, the sacred word somewhere exclaims in a manner more worthy of God and akin to truth: ‘The heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet.’

For if it was necessary to personify God at all in human language, mark the difference in the theology. For He who called the heaven His throne set apart God the universal Monarch above the throne and far higher than the universe, and yet did not sever the earth from His providence; for He teaches that the providential powers of His Godhead condescend even to things here below, and therefore He says: ‘The earth is the footstool of My feet.’

But neither the footstool, nor yet the throne, is the body of Him that is seated there, nor could ever be called parts of Him. And he who said that the heaven and the things therein are the head of god, and the ether his mind, and the other parts of the world his limbs and body, is convicted of knowing neither creator nor god.

For he could not create himself, nor, since the ether was his mind, could he still himself be called mind. What sort of god too would he be. whose members were the earth and the mountains on the earth, mere senseless heaps of corporeal atoms? How too can it be reasonable to proclaim as god the kinsman and brother of fire, and air, and water, products of senseless and perishing matter?

If, again, the mind of Zeus was nothing else except the aforesaid ether, and if ether is the highest and most fiery kind of air, and has received this name, as they say, from ἄθεσθαι ,which means ‘to be on fire,’ and if both the air and the ether are material substances, see to what your mind of Zeus has come down.

And who in his right senses would still address as god him who had a mind devoid of mind and of reason, since such is the nature of every material body? Wherefore we in our thoughts of God must receive the entire contrary to the doctrines which have been mentioned; that He is not the heaven, nor ether, nor sun, nor moon, nor the whole choir of the stars, nor the whole world itself together: but these are works of His hands, still small and petty in comparison with His incorporeal and intelligent powers: because all body is perishable and irrational, and such is the nature of things visible. But the things beyond in the invisible world being rational and immortal, and co-eternal with the blessed life of God the King of all, must be far better than all the things that are seen.

Rightly therefore do the sacred oracles teach us concerning the visible parts of the world as follows: ‘I will behold the heavens, the works of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained.’[4] And again: ‘Thou Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands.’[5] And again: ‘Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created all these.’[6]

Let this, then, suffice for answer to the first interpretation of the poem; and let us go on to examine what follows. Since it was not possible, he says, ‘to make such an image as their description indicated, therefore they have made the representation of Zeus in human form, because it was according to mind that he wrought, and by generative laws brought all things to completion.’[7]

But how, if it was not possible to make an image such as the description indicated, and if, as we have seen, it indicated the parts of the sensible and visible world, heaven and the things in heaven, the air also, and earth, and all that is therein—if then, I say, it was not possible to compose an image of the visible parts of the world, how, inasmuch as god was mind, could any one make an image of him?

And what likeness can a human body have to the mind of God? For my part I think there is nothing in it answering even to the mind of man, since the one is incorporeal, uncompounded, and without parts, while the other, being the work of common mechanics, is the imitation of the nature of a mortal body, and represents a deaf and dumb image of living flesh in lifeless and dead matter.

Rather does the rational and immortal soul and the impassible mind in man’s nature seem to me to be rightly spoken of as preserving an image and likeness of God, inasmuch as it is immaterial and incorporeal, and intelligent and rational in its essence, and is capable of virtue and wisdom.[8]

If then any one were able to fabricate an image and form of the soul in a statue, such a man might also make some representation of the higher natures; but if the mind of man is without form and cannot be seen or figured, neither discernible by sight, nor in its essence comprehensible by speech and hearing, who would be so mad as to declare that the statue made in the likeness of man bears the form and image of the Most High, God?

Rather is God’s nature imagined apart from all perishable matter, being contemplated by purified souls in lucid thought and in silence: whereas, in the representation of the visible Zeus, the figure must be an image of a man of mortal nature, yet not an imitation of the whole man, but of one and that the worse part of him, because it conveys not a trace of life and soul.

How then can the God who is over all, and the mind which is the creator of the universe, be that same Zeus who is seen in the bronze or in the dead ivory? And how could the mind that was the creator of the universe be forsooth that very Zeus, the father of Hercules by Alcmena, and of the other men fabled to be sons of Zeus, who, having ended their mortal life in the way common to all men, have left indelible monuments of their proper nature to those who came after them?

Accordingly, the first theologians among the Phoenicians, as we showed in the first Book, related that Zeus the son of Kronos, mortal son of mortal father, was a Phoenician by race: while the Egyptians, claiming the man as their own, confessed again that he was mortal, and agreed in this point at least with the Phoenicians.

But further the Cretans, showing the grave of Zeus in their midst, would be third witnesses of the same fact. The Atlantians also, and all who have been previously mentioned as claiming Zeus for their own according to their native history, all alike declared him mortal, and recorded his deeds as those of a mortal man, but not deeds of a respectable or philosophic kind, being full of all indecency and wantonness.

To those who have professed to give a more respectable turn to the legends Zeus was at one time a hot and fiery force, and at another the wind: but now, somehow or other they have made him appear as the creative mind of the universe.

We must inquire, therefore, whom would they name as his father, and his father’s father? For according to all the theologians Zeus is acknowledged to be the son of Kronos, and the verses of Orpheus before quoted made mention of ‘the mighty son of Kronos’: and Kronos was son of Uranus. Let us, therefore, grant to them that Zeus is the god over all, and the mind which created all. Who then was his father? Kronos. And who his grandfather? Uranus.

But if Zeus as creator of all was before all, then those who were made by him ought to be counted as second and after him. For if either Kronos be time, as being by nature the offspring of heaven, that is of Uranus, or if time came into existence together with heaven, or if Uranus himself was the father of Kronos, and time subsequent to this latter, at all events the god who was the cause of the universe and creator of heaven and of time, was before them. And if so, Zeus could not be the third from Uranus.

How then, among all Egyptians, and Phoenicians, and Greeks, and philosophers, is the mind that created the universe reckoned third in descent from Uranus? So the fiction of our philosopher is plainly detected, and will be still more fully detected from what he goes on to say, as follows.[9]

[1] 104 c 8 Jer. xxiii. 24 104 d 5 Isa. Ixvi. 1 (Sept.)

[2] 104 c 9 Deut. iv. 39

[3] 104 c 10 Acts xvii. 28

[4] 105 d 6 Ps. viii. 4 (Sept.)

[5] 105 d 8 Ps. ci. 26 (Sept.)

[6] 105 d 10 Isa. xl. 26

[7] 106 a 1 cf. 101 c 5

[8] 106 c 1 Gen. i. 26

[9] 108 b 1 Porphyry, Concerning Images

Chapter 11

[PORPHYRY] ‘THEY have made Hera the wife of Zeus, because they called the ethereal and aerial power Hera. For the ether is a very subtle air.’

The poem quoted above declared that the ether is the mind of Zeus: but now our author’s statement defines what the ether is, by saying that it is a very subtle air: but the air is body, and the ether a much more primitive kind of body.

The mind, then, of Zeus is proved to be body, although the very subtlest kind of body. But how can body and mind be conceived the same, since in their natures they are diametrically opposed?

Then somehow he has forgotten the express statement of the poems—

‘His mind immortal ether, sovereign truth, Hears and considers all; nor any speech, Nor cry, nor noise, nor ominous voice escapes The ear of Zeus, great Kronos’ mightier son’— [1]

for hereby the ether is plainly declared to be the mind of Zeus.

But Porphyry says, on the contrary, that Hera is the ethereal and aerial power. Then he adds a distinction and says:[2]

[PORPHYRY] ‘And the power of the whole air is Hera, called by a name derived from the air: but the symbol of the sublunar air which is affected by light and darkness is Leto; for she is oblivion caused by the insensibility in sleep, and because souls begotten below the moon are accompanied by forgetfulness of the Divine; and on this account she is also the mother of Apollo and Artemis, who are the sources of light for the night.’

Now here he says that the sublunar air is the mother of sun and moon, because the air is Leto. But how could the air become the mother of the sources of illumination, being itself acted on rather than acting? For sun and moon, produce different changes in the air at different times.

But again, he next proceeds to say:

‘The ruling principle of the power of earth is called Hestia, of whom a statue representing her as a virgin is usually set up on the hearth; but inasmuch as the power is productive, they symbolize her by the form of a woman with prominent breasts. The name Rhea they gave to the power of rocky and mountainous land, and Demeter to that of level and productive land. Demeter in other respects is the same as Rhea, but differs in the fact that she gives birth to Koré by Zeus, that is, she produces the shoot (κόρος) from the seeds of plants. And on this account her statue is crowned with ears of corn, and poppies are set round her as a symbol of productiveness.’

Now here again mark in what manner he has degraded Rhea, who is said to be the mother of the gods and of Zeus himself, down to the level of rocks and earth, and makes utter confusion by saying that she is the same with Demeter, except that she differs ‘in the fact that Demeter (he says) gives birth to Koré by Zeus, just as the level ground produces the shoot (κόρος) from the seeds of plants. ‘Behold, here again you have Zeus transformed into the seeds of plants!

To this he next adds a further statement:

‘But since there was in the seeds cast into the earth a certain power, which the sun in passing round to the lower hemisphere drags down at the time of the winter solstice, Koré is the seminal power, and Pluto the sun passing under the earth, and traversing the unseen world at the time of the winter solstice; and he is said to carry off Koré, who, while hidden beneath the earth, is lamented by her mother Demeter.

‘The power which produces hard-shelled fruits, and the fruits of plants in general, is named Dionysus. But observe the images of these also. For Koré bears symbols of the production of the plants which grow above the earth in the crops: and Dionysus has horns in common with Koré, and is of female form, indicating the union of male and female forces in the generation of the hard-shelled fruits.

‘But Pluto, the ravisher of Koré, has a helmet as a symbol of the unseen pole, and his shortened sceptre as an emblem of his kingdom of the nether world; and his dog (κύων)indicates the generation (κύησιν)of the fruits in its threefold division—the sowing of the seed, its reception by the earth, its growing up. For he is called a dog (κύων),not because souls are his food (κῆρας βοράν,Cerberus), but because of the earth’s fertility (κυεῖν),for which Pluto provides when he carries off Koré.

‘Attis, too, and Adonis are related to the analogy of fruits. Attis is the symbol of the blossoms which appear early in the spring, and fall off before the complete fertilization; whence they further attributed castration to him, from the fruits not having attained to seminal perfection: but Adonis was the symbol of the cutting of the perfect fruits.

‘Silenus was the symbol of the wind’s motion, which contributes no few benefits to the world. And the flowery and brilliant wreath upon his head is symbolic of the revolution of the heaven, and the hair with which his lower limbs are surrounded is an indication of the density of the air near the earth.

‘Since there was also a power partaking of the prophetic faculty, the power is called Themis, because of its telling what is appointed (τεθειμένα) and fixed for each person.

‘In all these ways, then, the power of the earth finds an interpretation and is worshipped: as a virgin and Hestia, she holds the centre; as a mother she nourishes; as Rhea she makes rocks and dwells on mountains; as Demeter, she produces herbage; and as Themis, she utters oracles: while the seminal law which descends into her bosom is figured as Priapus, the influence of which on dry crops is called Koré, and on soft fruits and shell-fruits is called Dionysus. For Koré was carried off by Pluto, that is, the sun going down beneath the earth at seed-time; but Dionysus begins to sprout according to the conditions of the power which, while young, is hidden beneath the earth, yet produces fine fruits, and is an ally of the power in the blossom symbolized by Attis, and of the cutting of the ripened corn symbolized by Adonis.

‘Also the power of the wind which pervades all things is formed into a figure of Silenus, and the perversion to frenzy into a figure of a Bacchante, as also the impulse which excites to lust is represented by the Satyrs. These, then, are the symbols by which the power of the earth is revealed.’

So far, then, we have these statements (of Porphyry), which I have been compelled to set before you briefly, in order that we may not be ignorant of the fine doctrines of the philosophers. Thus, therefore, according to the accounts rendered by them, Koré is the power of the seed-crops, and Dionysus of the tree-fruits, and of the spring-flowers Attis is the symbol, and Adonis of the ripe fruits.

Why then ought we to deify these things which have been made by the God of the universe for sustenance of the bodies of the animals upon the earth? Or why is the worship of the power of the earth becoming to us, who have received from God, the sovereign ruler of the world, a soul whose nature is heavenly, rational, and immortal, capable of contemplation by the purged eyes of thought?

On hearing that Silenus is the motion of the wind, and the force which penetrates through all things, and that at one time he represents by his head the revolution of the heavens, and at another the density of the air by the shaggy hair of his beard, how can one patiently endure to see him thought worthy of no august worship, who ought to have been deified before all, while Adonis and Dionysus, the corn-crops forsooth and tree-fruits, are turned into gods?

And who could patiently bear to hear Satyrs and Bacchantes spoken of with reverence, which are the foul and licentious passions of mankind, inasmuch as the former, the Satyrs, represented the impulses which excite to carnal pleasure, and the Bacchantes the inducements which concur to frenzy in those who take part herein?

But what need to refute each part separately, when we ought merely to run over them so that none of their secrets may escape us, and to cut short the physical explanation of what follows, which the author before named has set forth, proceeding in the following manner:[3]

‘The whole power productive of water they called Oceanus, and named its symbolic figure Tethys. But of the whole, the drinking-water produced is called Achelous; and the sea-water Poseidon; while again that which makes the sea, inasmuch as it is productive, is Amphitrite. Of the sweet waters the particular powers are called Nymphs, and those of the sea-waters Nereids.

‘Again, the power of fire they called Hephaestus, and have made his image in the form of a man, but put on it a blue cap as a symbol of the revolution of the heavens, because the archetypal and purest form of lire is there. But the fire brought down from heaven to earth is less intense, and wants the strengthening and support which is found in matter: wherefore he is lame, as needing matter to support him.

‘Also they supposed a power of this kind to belong to the sun and called it Apollo, from the pulsation (πάλσις) of his beams. There are also nine Muses singing to his lyre, which are the sublunar sphere, and seven spheres of the planets, and one of the fixed stars. And they crowned him with laurel, partly because the plant is full of fire, and therefore hated by daemons; and partly because it crackles in burning, to represent the god’s prophetic art.

‘But inasmuch as the sun wards off the evils of the earth, they called him Heracles (Ἑρακλῆς), from his clashing against the air (κλᾶσθαι πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα)in passing from east to west. And they invented fables of his performing twelve labours, as the symbol of the division of the signs of the zodiac in heaven; and they arrayed him with a club and a lion’s skin, the one as an indication of his uneven motion, and the other representative of his strength in “Leo” the sign of the zodiac.

‘Of the sun’s healing power Asclepius is the symbol, and to him they have given the staff as a sign of the support and rest of the sick, and the serpent is wound round it, as significant of his preservation of body and soul: for the animal is most full of spirit, and shuffles off the weakness of the body. It seems also to have a great faculty for healing: for it found the remedy for giving clear sight, and is said in a legend to know a certain plant which restores life.

‘But the fiery power of his revolving and circling motion, whereby he ripens the crops, is called Dionysus, not in the same sense as the power which produces the juicy fruits, but either from the sun’s rotation (δινεῖν), or from his completing (διανύειν)his orbit in the heaven. And whereas he revolves round the cosmical seasons (Spas), and is the maker of “times and tides,” the sun is on this account called Horus.

‘Of his power over agriculture, whereon depend the gifts of wealth (Plutus), the symbol is Pluto. He has, however, equally the power of destroying, on which account they make Sarapis share the temple of Pluto: and the purple tunic they make the symbol of the light that has sunk beneath the earth, and the sceptre broken at the top that of his power below, and the posture of the hand the symbol of his departure into the unseen world.

‘Cerberus is represented with three heads, because the positions of the sun above the earth are three—rising, midday, and setting.

‘The moon, conceived according to her brightness, they called Artemis, as it were ἀερότεμις,”cutting the air.” And Artemis, though herself a virgin, presides over childbirth, because the power of the new moon is helpful to parturition.

‘What Apollo is to the sun, that Athena is to the moon: for the moon is a symbol of wisdom, and so a kind of Athena.

‘But, again, the moon is Hecate, the symbol of her varying phases and of her power dependent on the phases. Wherefore her power appears in three forms, having as symbol of the new moon the figure in the white robe and golden sandals, and torches lighted: the basket, which she bears when she has mounted high, is the symbol of the cultivation of the crops, which she makes to grow up according to the increase of her light: and again the symbol of the full moon is the goddess of the brazen sandals.

‘Or even from the branch of olive one might infer her fiery nature, and from the poppy her productiveness, and the multitude of the souls who find an abode in her as in a city, for the poppy is an emblem of a city. She bears a bow, like Artemis, because of the sharpness of the pangs of labour.

‘And, again, the Fates are referred, to her powers, Clotho to the generative, and Lachesis to the nutritive, and Atropos to the inexorable will of the deity.

‘Also, the power productive of corn-crops, which is Demeter, they associate with her, as producing power in her. The moon is also a supporter of Koré. They set Dionysus also beside her, both on account of their growth of horns, and because of the region of clouds lying beneath the lower world.

‘The power of Kronos they perceived to be sluggish and slow and cold, and therefore attributed to him the power of time (χρόνου):and they figure him standing, and grey-headed, to indicate that time is growing old.

‘The Curetes, attending on Chronos, are symbols of the seasons, because time (Chronos) journeys on through seasons.

‘Of the Hours, some are the Olympian, belonging to the sun, which also open the gates in the air: and others are earthly, belonging to Demeter, and hold a basket, one symbolic of the flowers of spring, and the other of the wheat-ears of summer.

‘The power of Ares they perceived to be fiery, and represented it as causing war and bloodshed, and capable both of harm and benefit.

‘The star of Aphrodite they observed as tending to fecundity, being the cause of desire and offspring, and represented it as a woman because of generation, and as beautiful, because it is also the evening star—

“Hesper, the fairest star that shines in heaven.” [4]

‘And Eros they set by her because of desire. She veils her breasts and other parts, because their power is the source of generation and nourishment. She conies from the sea, a watery element, and warm, and in constant movement, and foaming because of its commotion, whereby they intimate the seminal power.

‘Hermes is the representative of reason and speech, which both accomplish and interpret all things. The phallic Hermes represents vigour, but also indicates the generative law that pervades all things.

‘Further, reason is composite: in the sun it is called Hermes; in the moon Hecate; and that which is in the All Hermopan, for the generative and creative reason extends over all things. Hermanubis also is composite, and as it were half Greek, being found among the Egyptians also. Since speech is also connected with the power of love, Eros represents this power: wherefore Eros is represented as the son of Hermes, but as an infant, because of his sudden impulses of desire.

‘They made Pan the symbol of the universe, and gave him his horns as symbols of sun and moon, and the fawn skin as emblem of the stars in heaven, or of the variety of the universe.’

Such are his interpretations of the Greek mythology: that of the Egyptians again he says has symbols such as follow: [5]

‘The Demiurge, whom the Egyptians call Cneph, is of human form, but with a skin of dark blue, holding a girdle and a sceptre, and crowned with a royal wing on his head, because reason is hard to discover, and wrapt up in secret, and not conspicuous, and because it is life-giving, and because it is a king, and because it has an intelligent motion: wherefore the characteristic wing is put upon his head.

‘This god, they say, puts forth from his mouth an egg, from which is born a god who is called by themselves Phtha, but by the Greeks Hephaestus; and the egg they interpret as the world. To this god the sheep is consecrated, because the ancients used to drink milk.

‘The representation of the world itself they figured thus: the statue is like a man having feet joined together, and clothed from head to foot with a robe of many colours, and has on the head a golden sphere, the first to represent its immobility, the second the many-coloured nature of the stars, and the third because the world is spherical.

‘The sun they indicate sometimes by a man embarked on a ship, the ship set on a crocodile. And the ship indicates the sun’s motion in a liquid element: the crocodile potable water in which the sun travels. The figure of the sun thus signified that his revolution takes place through air that is liquid and sweet.

‘The power of the earth, both the celestial and terrestrial earth, they called Isis, because of the equality (ἰσότητα), which is the source of justice: but they call the moon the celestial earth, and the vegetative earth, on which we live, they call the terrestrial.

‘Demeter has the same meaning among the Greeks as Isis among the Egyptians: and, again, Koré and Dionysus among the Greeks the same as Isis and Osiris among the Egyptians. Isis is that which nourishes and raises up the fruits of the earth; and Osiris among the Egyptians is that which supplies the fructifying power, which they propitiate with lamentations as it disappears into the earth in the sowing, and as it is consumed by us for food.

‘Osiris is also taken for the river-power of the Nile: when, however, they signify the terrestrial earth, Osiris is taken as the fructifying power; but when the celestial, Osiris is the Nile, which they suppose to come down from heaven: this also they bewail, in order to propitiate the power when failing and becoming exhausted. And the Isis who, in the legends, is wedded to Osiris is the land of Egypt, and therefore she is made equal to him, and conceives, and produces the fruits; and on this account Osiris has been described by tradition as the husband of Isis, and her brother, and her son.’

[1] 108 c 5 Orphic Fragm.123,19; see p. 100 d 6

[2] d 3 Porphyry, l. c.

[3] 111 d 10 Porphyry, Concerning Images

[4] 114 c 1 Hom. Il.xxii. 318

[5] 115 a 7 Porphyry, Concerning Images

Chapter 12

[PORPHYRY] ‘AT the city Elephantine there is an image worshipped, which in other respects is fashioned in the likeness of a man and sitting; it is of a blue colour, and has a man’s head, and a diadem bearing the horns of a goat, above which is a quoit-shaped circle. He sits with a vessel of clay beside him, on which he is moulding the figure of a man. And from having the face of a ram and the horns of a goat he indicates the conjunction of sun and moon in the sign of the Ram, while the colour of blue indicates that the moon in that conjunction brings rain.

‘The second appearance of the moon is held sacred in the city of Apollo: and its symbol is a man with a hawk-like face, subduing with a hunting-spear Typhon in the likeness of a hippopotamus. The image is white in colour, the whiteness representing the illumination of the moon, and the hawk-like face the fact that it derives light and breath from the sun. For the hawk they consecrate to the sun, and make it their symbol of light and breath, because of its swift motion, and its soaring up on high, where the light is. And the hippopotamus represents the Western sky, because of its swallowing up into itself the stars which traverse it.

‘In this city Horus is worshipped as a god. But the city of Eileithyia worships the third appearance of the moon: and her statue is fashioned into a flying vulture, whose plumage consists of precious stones. And its likeness to a vulture signifies that the moon is what produces the winds: for they think that the vulture conceives from the wind, and declares that they are all hen birds.

‘In the mysteries at Eleusis the hierophant is dressed up to represent the demiurge, and the torch-bearer the sun, the priest at the altar the moon, and the sacred herald Hermes.

‘Moreover a man is admitted by the Egyptians among their objects of worship. For there is a village in Egypt called Anabis, in which a man is worshipped, and sacrifice offered to him, and the victims burned upon his altars: and after a little while he would eat the things that had been prepared for him as for a man.

‘They did not, however, believe the animals to be gods, but regarded them as likenesses and symbols of gods; and this is shown by the fact that in many places oxen dedicated to the gods are sacrificed at their monthly festivals and in their religious services. For they consecrated oxen to the sun and moon.

Chapter 13

[PORPHYRY] ‘THE ox called Mnevis which is dedicated to the sun in Heliopolis, is the largest of oxen, very black, chiefly because much sunshine blackens men’s bodies. And its tail and all its body are covered with hair that bristles backwards unlike other cattle, just as the sun makes its course in the opposite direction to the heaven. Its testicles are very large, since desire is produced by heat, and the sun is said to fertilize nature.

‘To the moon they dedicated a bull which they call Apis, which also is more black than others, and bears symbols of sun and moon, because the light of the moon is from the sun. The blackness of his body is an emblem of the sun, and so is the beetle-like mark under his tongue; and the symbol of the moon is the semicircle, and the gibbous figure.’

Let it suffice that I have made these short extracts from the writing of the before-named author, so that we may not be ignorant of any secrets of the theology which is at once both Grecian and Egyptian, and from which we confess ourselves to be apostates and deserters, having rejected these doctrines with sound judgement and reasoning.

For I am not going to be frightened by the arrogant voice which said,

‘I speak to those who lawfully may hear: Depart, all ye profane, and close the doors.” [1]

Not we at all events are profane, but those who declared that such foul and unseemly legends about beetles and brute beasts were the thoughts of a wise theology—they who, according to the admirable Apostle, ‘professing themselves to be wise, became fools,’ [2] seeing that they ‘changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.’

But since they used to refer all the secret and more mysterious doctrine on these subjects in a metaphorical sense to incorporeal powers, so as to appear no longer to apply their deification to the visible parts of the world, but to certain invisible and incorporeal powers, let us examine whether we ought not even so to admire. the divine power as one, and not to regard it as many.

For it does not follow, because many shapes and parts and limbs have been created in one body, that we ought to believe them to have as many souls, nor to suppose that there are as many makers and creators of the body; but that as one soul moves the whole body, so one creative power framed the whole living being.

Thus then in the case of the whole world also, since it is one, and consists of one kind of corporeal matter, but is divided into many parts, and reveals one natural sympathy of the universe, and a composition and mixture of its elements, with changes and transformations of one into another, while it exhibits the entire whole as one order and one harmony, we ought not to suppose many creative powers, but to deify only one, namely that which is in very truth ‘the power of God, and the wisdom of God.’[3]

But our wise philosopher does not observe that he is transforming the Egyptian mythologies back into immaterial powers; for you have heard in what has gone before, how he confessed that Chaeremon and several others ‘believed in nothing else as prior to the visible worlds, and placed the Egyptians first,’ because they interpreted all things of physical laws and nothing of incorporeal and living beings.’

If therefore, according to their own confession, it was characteristic of the Egyptians to refer nothing ‘to incorporeal and living beings,’ but to transfer all their mythological stories concerning the gods to the physical parts of the world, why then do they begin anew with their subtleties, and ascribe to the Egyptians doctrines which in no way belong to them, by asserting that they make their theology refer back to incorporeal powers? Such is the general charge to be brought.

And in regard also to the particulars, I think that no long refutation is needed to disprove their forced rendering.

For to pass over the nonsense of the Egyptians and all their prating foolery, and to come on to the physical theories of the wise Greeks, what man of sound mind would not at once condemn those who attempt to give such perverse interpretations?

For grant that Zeus no longer means the fiery and ethereal substance, as however was supposed by the ancients according to Plutarch, but that he is the supreme ‘mind’ itself, ‘the creator of the universe,’ who giveth to all things life—how then shall his father be Kronos, whom they assert to be time, and his mother Rhea, whom our interpreter declared to be the power of rocks and mountains? For I cannot understand how, after calling Hera the air and the ether, he says that she is at the same time sister and wife of the mind that made the world and gave life to all things.

But again let Leto be called a kind of oblivion (ληθώ) because of the insensibility, as they say, in sleep, and because oblivion accompanies the souls that are born into this sublunary world. How then could oblivion become the mother of sun and moon, Apollo and Artemis the children of Leto having been transformed into sun and moon?

And why are we to worship Rhea or Demeter as a goddess, if the one was said to be symbolic of rocky and mountainous land, and the other of the plain? As they allegorize Koré into satiety (κόρος), for what reason do they think they ought to honour her with that venerable title?

And why do they think we ought to worship as gods the seminal power, and the production of tree-fruits, or of the blossoms that appear in spring, and perish before they have perfected their fruit, or the symbols of the cutting of the ripe crops, surnaming them Dionysus and Attis and Adonis, instead of honouring above all these the human race for whose use and sustenance these things were provided by the Divine Creator of the universe?

But passing from these points, you will by the like method confute all the rest of their grand physical theory, and with good reason rebuke the shamelessness of those, say, who declared that the sun was Apollo himself, and again Heracles, and at another time Dionysus, and again in like manner Asclepius.

For how could the same person be both father and son, Asclepius and Apollo at once? And how could he be changed again into Heracles, since Heracles has been acknowledged by them to be the son of a mortal woman Alcmena? And how could the sun go mad and slay his own sons, seeing that this also has been ascribed to Heracles?

But in the performance of his twelve labours Heracles is said to be the symbol of the distribution in the heaven of the zodiacal circle in which they say the sun revolves. Who then is now to be the Eurystheus, that enjoins the performance of the labours on the sun, as he did upon Heracles? And how can the fifty daughters of Thestius be referred to the sun, and the multitude of other female captives with whom the story says that Heracles consorted, and of whom were born to him mortal sons who continued the succession of their generations for a very long time? And who could the Centaur be, with whose blood Deianeira smeared the tunic, and so would have involved the sun, as in fact she did Heracles, in the misery that has been described?

But now suppose they make the sun no longer Heracles, but Dionysus: and any one may with good reason say, ‘What have these things to do with Dionysus?’ For who was his mother, whether called Semele or Persephone? And how could Dionysus be both the sun and the power that sprouts forth in the moist fruits and nuts? And what can the multitude of women who went with him on his expedition mean? And who is the Ariadne of the sun, as there was, we know, the Ariadne of Dionysus. And why, when Dionysus is transformed into the sun, should he be the provider rather of wine, and not of corn and vegetables and all the fruits of the earth? And again, if they make the sun Asclepius, how is he stricken with the thunderbolt of Zeus on account of his sordid love of gain, according to Pindar the lyric poet of Boeotia, who speaks as follows:

‘Him too by splendid bribe the gold Seen glittering on his palm seduc’d… Then swiftly from Kronion’s hand The flashing lightning, fraught with death, With fiery bolt transfixing both, Quench’d in each form the living breath.’

Who again were the Asclepiadae, children of the sun, who after being themselves preserved to a long life, founded a race of mortals like all other men?

However, while they try to escape, as it were by some sudden transformation, from the unseemly and fabulous narratives concerning the gods, their system will run back again to sun, and moon, and the other parts of the world.

If at least they made Hephaestus fire and the force of heat, Poseidon the watery element, Hera the air, and the mountainous and rocky earth Rhea, the plain and fruitful earth Demeter, Koré the seminal power, and Dionysus the power which produces hard fruits, the sun Apollo, together with those who have been enumerated above, and the moon at one time Artemis, at another Athena, and again Hecate, and Eileithyia—are they not again convicted of deifying ‘the creature rather than the Creator.’ and the handiwork of the world but not the worker, with great risk and danger, and with mischief that must fall on their own head?

But if they shall assert that they deify not the visible bodies of sun and moon and stars, nor yet the sensible parts of the world, but the powers, invisible in them, of the very God who is over all—for they say that God being One fills all things with various powers, and pervades all, and rules over all, but as existing in all and pervading all in an incorporeal and invisible manner. and that they rightly worship Him through the things which we have mentioned—why in the world therefore do they not reject the foul and unseemly fables concerning the gods as being unlawful and impious, and put out of sight the very books concerning them, as containing blasphemous and licentious teaching, and celebrate the One and Only and Invisible God openly and purely and without any foul envelopment?

For this was what those who had known the truth ought to do, and not to degrade and debase the venerable name of God into foul and lustful fables of things unspeakable; nor yet to shut themselves up in cells and dark recesses and buildings made by man, as if they would find God inside; nor to think that they are worshipping the Divine powers in statues made of lifeless matter, nor to suppose that by vapours of gore and filth steaming from the earth, and by the blood of slain animals they are doing things pleasing to God.

Surely it became these men of wisdom and of lofty speech, as being set free from all these bonds of error, to impart of their physical speculations ungrudgingly to all men, and to proclaim as it were in naked truth to all, that they should adore not the things that are seen, but only the unseen Creator of things visible, and worship His invisible and incorporeal powers in ways invisible and incorporeal, not by kindling fire nor yet by offerings of ranis and bulls, nay, nor yet by imagining that they honour the Deity by garlands and statues and the building of temples, but by worshipping Him with purified thoughts and right and true doctrines, in dispassionate calmness of soul, and in growing as far as possible like unto Him.

But no one ever yet, barbarian or Greek, began to show all men this truth except only our Saviour; who, having proclaimed to all nations an escape from their ancient error, procured abundantly for them all a way of return and of devotion to the one true and only God of the universe. Yet the men perversely wise who boasted of the highest philosophy of life, whereby as the inspired Apostle says,[4] though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. They professed indeed to be wise, but became fools, … and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.[5]

[1] 118 a 9 Orphic Fragm.vi. 1

[2] 118 b 1 Rom. i. 22

[3] 118 d 8 1 Cor. i. 24

[4] 122 d 7 Rom. i. 21, 22

[5] 122 d 9 verse 25

Chapter 14

So after their long and manifold philosophical speculation, and after their solemn systems of meteorology and physiology, they fell down from their high place, as it were from the loftiest mountain-top, and were dragged down with the common herd, and swept away with the polytheistic delusion of the ancients, pretending that they glorified the like deities with the multitude by offering sacrifice and falling down before images, and increasing, and still further strengthening, the vulgar opinion of the legendary stories concerning the gods.

Must it not then be evident to all men that they are only talking solemn nonsense in their physical theories, and, as far as words go, putting a fair face on foul things by their perversion of the truth, but in actual deeds establishing the fabulous delusion, and the vulgar superstition? And so far there is no wonder, since they even record that their gods themselves assent to the fabulous stories concerning them.

Hear at least how Apollo himself teaches men a hymn, which he put forth concerning himself, acknowledging that he was born of Leto in the island of Delos, and Asclepius again in Tricca, as also Hermes acknowledging that he was the child of Maia: for these things also are written by Porphyry in a book which he entitled Of the Philosophy derived from Oracles,wherein he made mention of the oracles which run as follows:[1]

‘Thou, joy of mortals, forth didst spring From thy pure mother’s sacred pangs.’

To this he subjoins—

‘But when the pangs of holy birth Through all her frame fair Leto seized, And in her womb twin children stirr’d, Still stood the earth, the air stood still, The isle grew fix’d, the wave was hush’d; Forth into life Lycoreus sprang, God of the bow, the prophet-king On the divining tripod thron’d.’

Asclepius again thus speaks of himself:

‘From sacred Tricca, lo! I come, the god Of mortal mother erst to Phoebus born, Of wisdom and the healing art a king, Asclepius nam’d. But say, what would’st thou ask?’

And Hermes says:

‘Lo! whom thou callest, Zeus’ and Maia’s son, Hermes, descending from the starry throne, Hither I come.’

They also subjoin a description of the appearance of their own form, as Pan in the oracles gives the following description concerning himself:[2]

‘To Pan, a god of kindred race, A mortal born my vows I pay; Whose horned brows and cloven feet And goat-like legs his lust betray.’

These are the things which the author before named has set forth among the secrets Of the Philosophy drawn from the Oracles,Pan therefore was no longer the symbol of the universe, but must be some such daemon as is described, who also gave forth the oracle: for of course it was not the universe, and the whole world, that gave the oracle which we have before us. The men therefore who fashioned the likeness of this daemon, and not that of the universe, imitated the figure before described.

How also could Hermes be thought of as the reason which both makes and interprets all things, when he confesses that he had for his mother Maia the daughter of Atlas, thus sanctioning the fable that is told concerning him, and not any physical explanation?

So again, how could Asclepius be changed into the sun, when he lays claim to Tricca as his native place, and confesses that he was born of a mortal mother? Or how, if he were himself the sun, could be represented again as a child of the sun? Since in their physical theory they made his father Phoebus to be no other than the sun.

And is it not the most ridiculous thing of all, to say that he was born of the sun and a mortal woman? For how is it reasonable that his father, the sun, whom they declare to be Apollo, should himself also have been born in the island Delos of a mortal mother again, namely Leto.

Here observe, I pray you, how many gods born of women were deified by the Greeks, to be brought forward if ever they attempt to mock at our Saviour’s birth: observe also that the remarks quoted are not the words of poets, but of the gods themselves.

[1] 123 d 1 Porphyry, De Philos. ex Oraculis,fragments preserved by Eusebius

[2] 124 b 2 This fragment is quoted again p. 201 c 136

Chapter 15

WHEN poets therefore, as they say, invent legends concerning the gods, while philosophers give physical explanations, we ought, I suppose, rightly to despise the former, and admire the latter as philosophers, and to accept the persuasive arguments of this better class rather than the triflings of the poets. But when on the other hand gods and philosophers enter into competition, and the former, as likely to know best, state exactly the facts concerning themselves in their oracles, while the latter twist their guesses about things which they do not know into discordant and undemonstrable subtleties, which does reason persuade us to believe? Or rather is this not even worth asking?

If therefore the gods are to speak true in certifying the human passions attributed to them, they who set these aside must be false; but if the physical explanations of the philosophers are true, the testimonies of the gods must be false.

But even Apollo himself, it may be said, somewhere in an oracle, when asked about himself who he was, replied:

‘Osiris, Horus, Sun, Apollo, Zeus-born king, Ruler of times and seasons, winds and showers. Guiding the reins of dawn and starry night, King of the shining orbs, eternal Fire.’

So then the same witnesses agree both with the poets’ legends and with the philosophers’ guesses, allying themselves with both sides in the battle. For if they ascribe to themselves mortal mothers, and acknowledge their native places upon earth, how can they be such as the physicists describe them?

Grant that Apollo is the sun—for their argument will again be caught running backwards and forwards and round to the same place—how then could Delos, the island which is now still seen at sea, be the native place of the sun, and Leto his mother? For this is what his own oracles just now certified as being true. And how could the sun become the father of Asclepius, a mortal man by nature, having begotten him of a mortal woman? But let us put this subject aside.

Chapter 16

THE falsehood of the oracle is to be refuted in another way. For surely the sun did not come down to them from heaven, and then, after fully inspiring the recipient, utter the Phoebean oracle; since it is neither possible nor right that so great a luminary should be subjected to man’s compulsion: nay, not even if they should speak of the divine and intelligent power in the sun, because a human soul could never be capable of receiving even this.

In the case of the moon also there would be the same argument. For if they mean to assert that she is Hecate, how then can it be right that she should be dragged down by constraint of men, and prophesy through the recipient, and be taken to help in base and amatory services, herself being ruler of the evil daemons—how right, I say, that Hecate should do these things? This the writer himself acknowledges, as we shall fully prove in due time.

How again could Pluto and Sarapis be changed by physical theory into the sun, when the same author declares that Sarapis is the same with Pluto, and is the ruler of the evil daemons? Moreover, in recording oracles of Sarapis how could he say they were those of the sun?

But in fact from all these considerations it only remains to confess that the physical explanations which have been described have no truth, but are sophisms and subtleties of sophistic men.

Chapter 17

THE ministrants indeed of the oracles we must in plain truth declare to be evil daemons, playing both parts to deceive mankind, and at one time agreeing with the more fabulous suppositions concerning themselves, to deceive the common people, and at another time confirming the statements of the philosophers’ jugglery in order to instigate them also and puff them up: so that in every way it is proved that they speak no truth at all.

After having said so much it is now time for us to pass on, and advance to the third kind of Greek theology, which they say is political and legal. For this has been thought most suitable to astonish the multitude, both because of the celebrated oracles, and the healings and cures of bodily sufferings, and the punishments inflicted upon some. And while they assert that they have had experience of these things, they have thoroughly persuaded themselves that they are doing rightly in their own devotion to the gods, and that we are guilty of the greatest impiety in not honouring the powers that are so manifest and so beneficent with the services that are due to them. To meet then these objections also, let us make another new beginning of our argument.

[Footnotes have been numbered and placed at the end]

Book 4

Chapter 1

In this fourth book of the Preparation for the Gospel, due order bids me to refute the third form of polytheistic error, from which we were delivered by the power and beneficence of our Redeemer and Saviour.

For since they divide their whole system of theology under three general heads, the mythical treated by the poets in tragedy, and the physical which has been invented by the philosophers, and that which is enforced by the laws and observed in each city and country; and since two of these parts have been already explained by us in the preceding books, namely the historical, which they call mythical, and that which has transcended the mythical, and which they call physical, or speculative, or by any other name they please; in this present book it will be the right time to examine the third part, and this is what is established in the several cities and countries, and which they call political, or state-religion, which also is especially enforced by the laws, as both ancient and ancestral, and as in itself indicating the excellence of the power of those whom they deify.

There are for instance oracles renowned among them, and responses, and cures, and healings of all kinds of sufferings, and judgements inflicted upon the impious; whereof they profess to have had experience, and have thoroughly persuaded themselves that they act rightly in honouring the deities, and that we are guilty of the greatest impiety in making no account of powers so manifest and so beneficent, but directly breaking the laws, which require every one to reverence ancestral customs, and not disturb what should be inviolable, but to walk orderly in following the religion of his forefathers, and not to be meddlesome through love of innovation. Thus they say that even death has been deservedly fixed by the laws as the punishment for those who transgress.

As to the first form then of their theology, being historical and mythical, let any of the poets arrange it as he will, and so let any of the philosophers deal with the second form, reported to us through the allegorical interpretation of the legends in a more physical sense: but since the third form, as being both ancient and politic, has been legally ordained by their rulers to be honoured and observed, this, say they, let neither poet nor philosopher disturb; but let every one, both in rural districts and in cities, continue to walk by the customs which have prevailed from old time, and obey the laws of his forefathers.

In answer then to this, it is time to render the reason alleged on our side, and to submit a defence of our Saviour’s evangelic system, as protesting against what has been described, and laying down laws opposed to the laws of all the nations.

Well then! it is manifest even to themselves that their lifeless images are no gods; and that their mythical theology offers no explanation that is respectable and becoming to deity, has been shown in the first book, as likewise in the second and third it has been shown that neither does their more physical and philosophical interpretation of the legends contain an unforced explanation.

Come then, let us examine the third point—how we are to regard the powers that lurk in the carved images, whether as civilized and good and truly divine in character, or the very opposite of all these.

Others, peradventure, in entering upon the discussion of these questions, might have laid it down that the whole system is a delusion, and mere conjuror’s tricks and frauds, stating their opinion generally and concisely, that we ought not to attribute even to an evil daemon, much less to a god, the stories commonly told of them. For the poems and the compositions of the oracles, he would say, are fictions of men not without natural ability but extremely well furnished for deception, and are composed in an equivocal and ambiguous sense, and adapted, not without ingenuity, to either of the cases expected from the event: and the marvels which deceive the multitude by certain prodigies are dependent on natural causes.

For there are many kinds of roots, and herbs, and plants, and fruits, and stones, and other powers, both solid and liquid of every kind of matter in the natural world; some of them fit to drive off and expel certain diseases; others of a nature to attract and superinduce them; some again with power to secrete and disperse, or to harden and to bind, and others to relax and liquidate and attenuate; some again to save and others to kill, or to give a thorough turn, and change the present condition, altering it now this way and now that; and some to work this effect for a longer and some for a shorter time; and again, some to be efficacious on many and others only on a few; and some to lead and others to follow; and some to combine in different ways, and to grow and decay together. Yet further, that some are conducive to health, not unconnected with medical science, and others morbific and deleterious; and lastly that some things occur by physical necessities, and wax and wane together with the moon, and that there are countless antipathies of animals and roots and plants, and many kinds of narcotic and soporific vapours, and of others that produce delusion: that the places also, and regions in which the effects are accomplished give no little help; also that they have tools and instruments provided from afar in a way well fitted to their art, and that they associate with themselves in their jugglery many confederates from without, who make many inquiries about those who arrive, and the wants of each, and what he is come to request; also that they conceal within their temples many secret shrines and recesses inaccessible to the multitude; and that the darkness also helps their purpose not a little; and not least the anticipatory assumption itself, and the superstition of those who approach them as gods, and the opinion which has prevailed among them from the time of their forefathers. To this must be added also the silliness of mind of the multitude, and their feeble and uncritical reasoning, and on the other hand the cleverness and craftiness of those who are constantly practising this mischievous art, and the deceitful and knavish disposition of the impostors, at one time promising what will please each person, and soothing the present trouble by hopes of advantage, and at other times guessing at what is to come, and prophesying obscurely, and darkening the sense of their oracles by equivocations and indistinctness of expression, in order that no one may understand what is foretold, but that they may escape detection by the uncertainty of their statement.

They might also say that many events coincide with other frauds and quackeries, when certain so-called spells are associated with the events, with a kind of unintelligible and barbaric incantation, in order that the occurrences which are not in the least affected by them may seem to be hastened by them. Most, too, even of those who are supposed to start with a good education are especially astonished at the poetry of the oracles themselves, finely adorned as it is by the combination of the words, finely inflated also by the pompous grandeur of the language, and arrayed with much, boastful exaggeration and arrogant pretence of inspiration, and deceiving nearly all the people by their ambiguous sound.

Chapter 2

Certainly all their oracles which have been free from ambiguity have been uttered not according to foreknowledge of the future but by mere conjecture, and thousands of these, or rather almost all, were often convicted of having failed in their prediction, the issue of the matters having turned out contrary to the answer of the oracle; unless perhaps on rare occasions some one event out of tens of thousands agreed therewith by some course of luck, or according to the conjectural expectation of what would happen, and so was thought to make the oracle speak true.

And of this you would find them most loudly boasting, and carving inscriptions upon columns, and shouting to the ends of the earth, not choosing to remember at all, that so many persons, it might chance, were disappointed, but publishing it high and low that to this one man out of ten thousand something promised by the oracle had turned out right. Just as if, when men were casting lots two at a time out of ten thousand, and it happened perhaps just once that they both fell upon the same numbers, a man should wonder how one and the same number happened to come round to both at once in consequence of divination and foreknowledge.

For such is the case of the one out of myriads upon myriads of oracular answers that on some one occasion happened to turn out true; and on observing this the man who possesses no firmness in the depth of his soul is exceedingly amazed at the oracle, though it were much better for him to cease from his folly by calculating to how many others the aforesaid soothsayers have been the cause of death, and of sedition, and wars, and to consider the histories of the ancients, and observe that they never pointed out any effect of divine power even at that time when the oracles of Greece were flourishing, and those which formerly were celebrated, but now exist no longer, were firmly established, and thought worthy of all care and zeal by their countrymen, who revered and fostered them by ancestral laws and mysterious rites.

And certainly in that period especially they were proved to be impotent in the calamities of war, in which the fine soothsayers being powerless to help were convicted of deceiving those who sought their protection by the ambiguity of their oracles; and this we shall accordingly show at the proper opportunity, by proving how they even goaded on those who consulted them into war with each other, and how they failed to give answers even about serious matters, and how they used to mislead their inquirers, making sport of them by their oracles, and tried to conceal their own ignorance by the darkness of uncertainty.

But observe from your own inquiries how they often promised to the sick strengthening, and life, and health, and then being trusted as though they were gods, exacted large rewards for this inspired traffic; and not very long afterwards it was discovered what sort of persons they were, being proved to be human impostors and no gods, when some unfortunate catastrophe seized upon their deluded victims.

What need to say that these wonderful prophets did not render their assistance even to their own next neighbours, those I mean who dwelt in the same city? But you might there see persons sick, and maimed, and mutilated all over their body, in thousands. Why in the world then did they promise such good hopes to the foreigners, who arrived from a far country, but not also to those who dwelt in the same place with them, to whom before all, as being their own friends and fellow citizens, they ought to have rendered the benefit of the presence of their gods? Was it not that they could more easily deceive the strangers, who knew nothing of their roguery, but not their intimates, as these were not ignorant of their craft, but conscious of the trickery practised upon those who were to be initiated?

Thus then the whole business was not divine nor beyond the pgwer of man’s device; so that in the greatest calamities, I mean those which are suspended from on high over the heads of the ungodly from the all-ruling God, their temples, with votive offerings, statues and all, were subjected to utter destruction and sudden overthrow.

For where will you find the temple that was at Delphi, celebrated from the earliest times among all the Greeks? Where is the Pythian god? Where the Clarian? Where even the god of Dodona? As for the Delphian shrine, the story goes that it was burnt a third time by Thracians, the oracle not having been able to give any help to the knowledge of what was coming, nor the Pythian god himself to guard his own abode. It is recorded also that the Capitol at Rome met the same fate in the times of the Ptolemies, when the temple of Vesta at Rome is also said to have suffered conflagration. And about the time of Julius Caesar it is recorded that the great statue, which was the glory of the Greeks and of Olympia, was struck by lightning from the god at the very time of the Olympic games. On another occasion also, they say, the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was burnt, and the Pantheon destroyed by lightning, and the Serapeium at Alexandria burnt down in like manner.

Of these events written testimonies are current among the Greeks themselves; but it would be a long story, if any one meant to enumerate the several particulars, in trying to prove that the wonderful oracle-mongers have been found unable to defend even their own temples; and it is not likely that they who have been of no use to themselves in misfortunes would ever be able to give help to others.

By adding one circumstance to those which have been mentioned, such man would have clearly seen the main sum and substance of the matter, that ere now, many of the most highly inspired even of their chief hierophants, and theologians, and prophets, who were celebrated for this kind of theosophy, not only in former times but also recently in our own day, under cruel tortures before the Roman courts declared that the whole delusion was produced by human frauds, and confessed that it was all an artfully contrived imposture; and they had the whole character of the system and the methods of their evil practices registered in the words uttered by them in public records. Therefore they paid the just penalty of their pernicious deception, and revealed every word, and certified by actual facts the proof of the things which we have mentioned.

But, you ask, what sort of persons were these? Think not that they were any of the outcast and obscure. Some came to them from, this wonderful and noble philosophy, from the tribe who wear the long cloak and otherwise look so supercilious; and some were taken from the magistrates of the city of Antioch, who indeed in the time of our persecution prided themselves especially on their outrages against us. We know also the philosopher and prophet who suffered at Miletus the like punishments to those which we have mentioned.

These arguments then, and yet more than these, one might bring together to assert that the authors of the oracles are not gods nor yet daemons, but the delusion and deceit of human impostors.

And there were among the Greeks themselves whole sects distinguished in philosophy who defended this opinion; as the school of Aristotle, and all the successors of the Peripatetic school; Cynics too and Epicureans, in whom what I most admire is, how, after being brought up in the customs of the Greeks, and been taught even from the cradle, son from father, that those of whom we speak are gods, they have not been easily caught, but proved with all their might that even the renowned oracles, and the seats of divination which were sought after among all, had no truth, and declared that they were useless, nay gather mischievous.

But though there are thousands who have wrought the overthrow of the oracles by many arguments, for me I think it is sufficient at present, for a testimony of what I have stated, to make a single quotation from one of them in answer to the arguments devised by Chrysippus concerning fate from the predictions of the oracles. This author then writes against him to prove that he wrongly derives indications of fate from the oracles, and that the oracles of the Greeks give false answers in most cases, and that rarely from a coincidence some events agree with them, and that their prediction of the future is useless and mischievous. Hear, however, what he says, word for word. [1]

[1] 136 d 3 Diogenianus, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius only

Chapter 3

[DIOGENIANUS] ‘But Chrysippus, in the book before mentioned, brings also another proof of the following kind. He says that the predictions of the prophets could not be true unless all things were fast bound by fate: which is itself a most silly argument. For he argues as if it were evident or would be more readily admitted by any one, that all the predictions of the so-called prophets came to pass, than that all things take place according to fate, as if the former would not itself be an equally false statement, since plain experience shows the contrary; I mean that not all the things foretold, or rather not the greatest part of them, come to pass.

‘Thus Chrysippus has brought us his proof, by establishing each proposition from the other. For he wishes to show that all things take place according to fate from the existence of prophecy: but the existence of prophecy he could not prove in any other way, if he did not first assume that all things occur according to fate.

‘But what method of proof could be more wretched than this? For that some things come to pass according to the plain meaning of what the prophets foretell would be a sign, not of the existence of prophetic science, but of the accidental concurrence of the events in agreement with the predictions—a thing which gives us no indication of any science.

‘For neither should we call an archer scientific who hit the mark once now and then, but missed many times; nor a physician who killed the greater number of those who were attended by him, but was able to save one sometimes; nor do we ever give the name of science to that which does not succeed in all, or at least in the greatest part of its proper operations.

‘Now that most of the predictions of the so-called prophets fail, the whole experience of human life would bear witness; and so would these men themselves who profess the art of prophecy, because it is not by this that they help themselves in the exigencies of life, but use sometimes their own judgement, and sometimes the counsel and cooperation of those who have been thought to possess experience in each kind of affairs.

‘But with regard to the want of consistency in this which we have chosen to call prophecy, we will render fuller proof elsewhere, bringing forward the opinions of Epicurus on this point also. But at present we will add to what has been said only this much, that at most the fact of the so-called prophets speaking truth sometimes in their predictions must be an effect, not of science, but of an accidental cause; for it is not that a man never hits the proposed mark, but that he does not hit it always, nor even in most cases, and not from science even when he does occasionally succeed, this is what we have chosen to call a work of chance—we who have arranged our own ideas in clear order under each term. Further, if even by hypothesis it were true that the prophetic art is able to discern and to foretell all things future, it might be concluded that all things are according to fate, but the usefulness of the art and its benefit to life could never be shown; and it is for this purpose especially that Chrysippus seems to sing the praises of the prophetic art.

‘For what benefit would it be to us to learn beforehand the misfortunes certain to come to pass, which it would not even be possible to guard against? For how could any one guard against the things which take place according to fate? So that there is no benefit to us in the prophetic art, but rather it would tend to some mischief, by causing mankind to grieve in vain beforehand over the predicted misfortunes which must of necessity come to pass.

‘For no one will affirm that the prediction of future blessings affords on the other hand equal delight: since man is not naturally so disposed to rejoice over expected blessings, as to be grieved over misfortunes. Especially as we hope that the latter will not happen at all to ourselves, until we hear it: but all of us, so to say, rather look for blessings, because our nature is congenial thereto; for most persons have formed hopes of things even greater than what can possibly come to pass.

‘Hence it results that the prediction of blessings either does not at all increase the joy, because even apart from the prediction every one of his own accord expects the better fortune, or else increases it but little by the supposed certainty, and often even diminishes the joy, when less is foretold than what was hoped for; but the prediction of evils causes great perturbation, both because of their repulsive nature, and because the prediction is sometimes opposed to men’s hopes.

‘But even if this did not happen, nevertheless it would be evident, I think, to every one that the prediction would be useless. For if any one shall affirm that the usefulness of the prophetic art will be maintained on account of the prediction of the misfortune which will certainly happen unless we should guard against it, he can no longer show that all things are to happen in accordance with fate, if it is in our power either to guard or not to guard against them.

‘For if any one shall say that this choice also is controlled by necessity, so as to extend fate to all things that exist, the usefulness of prophecy on the other hand is destroyed; for we shall keep guard if it is so fated, and evidently we shall not keep guard if it is not fated that we shall keep guard, even though all the prophets foretell to us what is about to happen.

‘As to Oedipus, for instance, and Alexander son of Priam, even Chrysippus himself says that though their parents had recourse to many contrivances to kill them, in order that they might guard against the mischief predicted from them, they were unable to do so.

‘Thus there was no benefit, he says, even to them from the prediction of the evils, because they were effects proceeding from fate. Let this then be enough, and more than enough, to have been said in regard to not merely the uncertainty but also the uselessness of the prophetic art.’

Thus far the philosopher. Do thou however consider with thyself, how those who were Greeks, and had from an early age acquired the customary education of the Greeks, and knew more accurately than any men the customs of their ancestors concerning the gods, all Aristotelians, and Cynics, and Epicureans, and all who held like opinions with them, poured ridicule upon the oracles which were renowned among the Greeks themselves.

And yet, if the stories current concerning the miraculous power of the oracles were true, it was natural that these men also should have been struck with wonder, being Greeks, and having an accurate understanding of the customs of their ancestors, and regarding nothing worthy to be known as of secondary importance.

To collect, however, these and all similar evidences, in order to overthrow the argument on behalf of the oracles, there would be abundant means: but it is not in this way that I wish to pursue the present discussion, but in the same way as we started at first, by granting that those who stand forth in their defence speak truth; in order that from their own avowals, when they affirm that oracles are true, and that the alleged responses are divinely inspired Pythian oracles, we may learn the exact explanation of the things alleged.

Chapter 4

Now I think it is plain to every one that the proof of the matters before us will embrace not a small part, but a very great and at the same time very necessary part of the evangelic argument. For suppose it should b be shown that all men everywhere, both Greeks and Barbarians, before the advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ, had no knowledge of the true God, but either regarded ‘the things that are not as though they were,’ [1] or were led about hither and thither like blind men by certain wicked spirits fighting against God, and by evil and impure daemons, and were by them dragged down into an abyss of wickedness (for what else ailed them but possession by daemons?)—how can the great mystery of the Gospel dispensation fail to be seen in a higher light? I mean, that all men from all quarters have been sailed back by our Saviour’s voice from the delusion handed down from their fathers about the tyranny of daemons, and that the men who dwell as far off as the ends of the earth have been released from the deception which from the earliest age oppressed their whole life. For since His time and up to the present the antiquated seats of delusion in all the heathen nations have been broken up and destroyed—shrines and statues and all—and temples truly venerable, and schools of true religion have been raised up in honour of the Absolute Monarch and Creator of the universe in the midst of cities and villages by the power and goodness of our Saviour throughout the whole world. And by prayers of holy men the sacrifices which are worthy of God have been purified from all wickedness, and in freedom of soul from all passions, and in the acquirement of every virtue, according to the divine doctrines of salvation, are day by day continually offered up by all nations—those sacrifices which alone are acceptable and pleasing to the God who is over all?

Now if these things be so, how can we have failed to show at the same time, that with sound reason, arid without giving ourselves over to folly, we have turned away from the superstition handed down from our fathers, and with just and true judgement have chosen the better part, and become lovers of the inspired and true religion? But enough of this, and let us now take in hand the subjects before us.

[1] Rom. iv. 17

Chapter 5

Those, therefore, who have accurately discussed the Greek theology in a manner different from the systems which we have already mentioned, distribute the whole subject under four heads. First of all they have set apart the first God, saying that they know him to be the One over all, and First, and Father and King of all gods, and that after him the race of gods is second, that of daemons third, and heroes fourth. All these, they say, participating in the nature of the higher power act and are acted upon in this way and in that, and everything of this kind is called light because of its participating in light. But they also say that evil rules the essence of the lower nature; and this evil is a race of wicked daemons, who treat the good in no way as a friend, but possess chief power in the nature of the adversaries of good, just as God does in that of the better sort; and everything of this kind is called darkness.

After defining these points in this manner, they say that the heaven, and the ether as far down as the moon, are assigned to gods; and the parts about the moon and the atmosphere to daemons; and the region of the earth and parts beneath the earth to souls. And having made such a distribution they say that we ought to worship first of all the gods of heaven and of the ether, secondly the good daemons, thirdly the souls of the heroes, and fourthly to propitiate the bad and wicked daemons.

But while making these verbal distinctions they in fact throw all into confusion, by worshipping the wicked powers only, instead of all those whom we have mentioned, and are wholly enslaved by them, as the course of our argument will prove. It is in your power, at any rate, to consider from what will be laid before you, what character we ought to ascribe to the powers which operate through the statues, whether as gods or daemons, and whether bad or good.

For our divine oracles never call any daemon good, but say that all are bad who share this lot and even this appellation, since no other is truly and properly god except the One Cause of all: but the gentle and good powers, as being in their nature created, and following far behind the uncreated God who is their Maker, but nevertheless separated also from the mischievous race of daemons—these the Scriptures deem it right to name neither gods nor daemons, but as being intermediate between God and daemons they are accustomed to call them by a well-applied and intermediate name, angels of God, and ‘ministering spirits,’ [1] and divine powers, and archangels, and any other names corresponding to their offices; but the daemons, if indeed it behoves us to declare the origin of their name also, are called according to their nature daemons, not as the Greeks think in consequence of their being knowing (δαημονας), and wise, but because of their fearing and causing fear (δειμαινειν).

Certainly the divine and good powers are different in name as well as in character, from the daemons; since it would be of all things most absurd to adjudge one and the same appellation to the powers which are alike neither in purpose nor in natural character.

[1] 142 b 1 Heb. i. 14

Chapter 6

Come then, let us examine what is, according to them, the character of the oracles, in order that we may learn what kind of power we must ascribe to them, and whether we withdrew from them rightly or not. Now if I were going to bring forward my own proofs of the matters to be set forth, I know well that I should not render my argument unassailable by those who are inclined to find fault. Wherefore instead of asserting anything of my own, I shall make use again of the testimonies of those who are without.

But as there are among the Greeks historians and philosophers without number, I judge the most suitable of all in reference to the subjects before us to be that very friend of the daemons, who in our generation is celebrated for his false accusations against us. For he of all the philosophers of our time seems to have been most familiar with daemons and those whom he calls gods, and to have been their advocate, and to have investigated the facts concerning them much the most accurately.

He therefore, in the book which he entitled Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, made a collection of the oracles of Apollo and the other gods and good daemons, which he especially chose out of them as thinking that they would suffice both for proof of the excellence of the supposed deities, and for the encouragement of what he is pleased to call ‘Theosophy.’

From these oracles, therefore, which have been selected and thought worthy to be remembered it is fair to judge the soothsayers, and to consider what sort of power they possess. But first let us observe how at the beginning of his work the person indicated swears in the following words that he is ‘verily speaking the truth’:[1]

[1] 143 c 4 Porphyry, Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles,a fragment preserved by Eusebius only

Chapter 7

[PORPHYRY] ‘Sure, then, and steadfast is he who draws his hopes of salvation from this as from the only sure source, and to such thou wilt impart information without any reserve. For I myself call the gods to witness, that I have neither added anything, nor taken away from the meaning of the responses, except where I have corrected an erroneous phrase, or made a change for greater clearness, or completed the metre when defective, or struck out anything that did not conduce to the purpose; so that I preserved the sense of what was spoken untouched, guarding against the impiety of such changes, rather than against the avenging justice that follows from the sacrilege.

‘And our present collection will contain a record of many doctrines of philosophy, according as the gods declared the truth to be; but to a small extent we shall also touch upon the practice of divination, such as will be useful both for contemplation, and for the general purification of life. And the utility which this collection possesses will be best known to as many as have ever been in travail with the truth, and prayed that by receiving the manifestation of it from the gods they might gain relief from their perplexity by virtue of the trustworthy teaching of the speakers.’

After making such preludes, he protests and forewarns against revealing to many what he is going to tell, in the following words:[1]

[1] 144 b 1 Porphyry, l. c.

Chapter 8

[PORPHYRY] ‘And do thou endeavour to avoid publishing these above all things, and casting them even before the profane for the sake of reputation, or gain, or any unholy flattery. For so there would be danger not only to thee for transgressing these injunctions, but also to me for lightly trusting thee who couldst not keep the benefits secret to thyself. We must give them then to those who have arranged their plan of life with a view to the salvation of the soul.’

And further on he adds:

‘These things I beg you to conceal as the most unutterable of secrets, for even the gods did not make a revelation concerning thein openly, but by enigmas.’

Since, then, his discourse adopted such lofty strains, let us now examine, by help of the inspired Pythian oracles, what character we ought to ascribe to the invisible deified powers: for thus may the man also be tested from his own words and practices.

The aforesaid author, then, in his work which he entitled Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, gives responses of Apollo enjoining the performance of animal sacrifices, and the offering of animals not to daemons only, nor only to the terrestrial powers, but also to the etherial and heavenly powers.

But in another work [1] the same author, confessing that all, to whom the Greeks used to offer sacrifices by blood and slaughter of senseless animals, are daemons and not gods, says that it is not right nor pious to offer animal sacrifices to gods.

Hear, therefore, his first utterances, in which, collecting the facts concerning The Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, he shows how Apollo teaches that the gods ought to be worshipped. This he sets forth in writing as follows:

[1] 144 d 5 See below, p. 147 d 1

Chapter 9

[PORPHYRY] ‘Next in order after what has been said concerning piety we shall record the responses given by them concerning their worship, part of which by anticipation we have set forth in the statements concerning piety. Now this is the response of Apollo, containing at the same time an orderly classification of the gods.

“Friend, who hast entered on this heaven-taught path, Heed well thy work; nor to the blessed gods Forget to slay thine offerings in due form, Whether to gods of earth, or gods of heaven, Kings of the sky and liquid paths of air And sea, and all who dwell beneath the earth; For in their nature’s fullness all is bound. How to devote things living in due form My verse shall tell, thou in thy tablets write. For gods of earth and gods of heaven each three: For heavenly gods pure white; for gods of earth Cattle of kindred hue divide in three And on the altar lay thy sacrifice. For gods infernal bury deep, and cast The blood into a trench! For gentle Nymphs Honey and gifts of Dionysus pour. For such as flit for ever o’er the earth Fill all the blazing altar’s trench with blood, And cast the feathered fowl into the fire. Then honey mix’d with meal, and frankincense, And grains of barley sprinkle over all. But when thou comest to the sandy shore, Pour green sea-water on the victim’s head, And cast the body whole into the deep. Then, all things rightly done, return at last To the great company of heavenly gods. For all the powers that in pure ether dwell, And in the stars, let blood in fullest stream Flow from the throat o’er all the sacrifice: Make of the limbs a banquet for the gods, And give them to the fire; feast on the rest, Filling with savours sweet the liquid air. Breathe forth, when all is done, thy solemn vows.”’

Then a few words later he explains this response, interpreting it as follows:

‘Now this is the method of the sacrifices, which are rendered according to the aforesaid classification of the gods. For whereas there are gods beneath the earth, and on the earth, and those beneath the earth are called also infernal gods, and those on the earth terrestrial, for all these in common he enjoins the sacrifice of black four-footed victims. But with regard to the manner of the sacrifice he makes a difference: for to terrestrial gods he commands the victims to be slain upon altars, but to the infernal gods over trenches, and moreover after the offering to bury the bodies therein.

‘For that the four-footed beasts are common to these deities, the god himself added when questioned:

“For gods of earth and Erebus alone Four-footed must their common victims be; For gods of earth soft limbs of newborn lambs.”

‘But to the gods of the air he bids men sacrifice birds as whole burnt-offerings, and let the blood run round upon the altars: birds also to the gods of the sea, of a black colour, but to cast them alive into the waves. For he says:

“Birds for the gods, but for the sea-gods black.”

‘He names birds for all the gods save the Chthonian, but black for the sea-gods only, and therefore white for the others.

‘But to the gods of the heaven and the ether he bids thee consecrate the limbs of the victims, which are to be white, and eat the other parts: for of these only must thou eat, and not of the others. But those whom in his classification he called gods of heaven, these he here calls gods of the stars.

‘Will it then be necessary to explain the symbolic meanings of the sacrifices, manifest as they are to the intelligent? For there are four-footed land animals for the gods of the earth, because like rejoices in like. And the sheep is of the earth and therefore dear to Demeter, and in heaven the Ram, with the help of the sun, brings forth out of the earth its display of fruits. They must be black, for of such colour is the earth, being naturally dark: and three, for three is the symbol of the corporeal and earthly.

‘To the gods of earth then one must offer high upon altars, for these pass to and fro upon the earth; but to the gods beneath the earth, in a trench and in a grave, where they abide. To the other gods we must offer birds, because all things are in swift motion. For the water of the sea also is in perpetual motion, and dark, and therefore victims of this kind are suitable. But white victims for the gods of the air: for the air itself is filled with light, being of a translucent nature. For the gods of heaven and of the ether, the parts of the animals which are lighter, and these are the extremities; and with these gods we must participate in the sacrifice: for these are givers of good things, but the others are averters of evil.’

Such are the wonderful theosophist’s statements taken from The Philosophy to be derived from Oracles.

Chapter 10

But now come, let us compare with this the same person’s contrary utterances, set down by him in the book which he entitled On Abstinence from Animal Food. Here indeed, moved by right reasoning, he first of all confesses that we ought not to offer anything at all, either incense or sacrifice, to the God who is over all, nor yet to the divine and heavenly powers who come next to Him.

Then as he goes on, he refutes the opinions of the multitude, by saying that we ought not to regard as gods those who rejoice in the sacrifices of living creatures. For to offer animals in sacrifice, he says, is of all things most unjust, and unholy, and abominable, and hurtful, and therefore not pleasing to gods. But in speaking thus it is evident that he must convict his own god: for he said just before that the oracle enjoined the sacrifice of animals, not only to the infernal and terrestrial gods, but also to those of the air, the heaven, and the ether.

And whereas such are Apollo’s injunctions, yet he, appealing to Theophrastus as witness, says that the sacrifice of animals is not fit for gods, but for daemons only: so that, according to the argument of himself and Theophrastus, Apollo is a daemon and not a god; and not Apollo only but also all those who have been regarded as gods among all the heathen, those to whom whole peoples, both rulers and ruled, in cities and in country districts, offer animal sacrifices. For these we ought to believe to be nothing else than daemons, according to the philosophers whom we have mentioned.

But if they say that they are good, how then, if indeed bloody sacrifice was unholy and abominable and hurtful, could those who were pleased with such things as these be good? And if they should also be shown to delight not only in such sacrifices as these, but, with an excess of cruelty and inhumanity, in the slaughter of men and in human sacrifices, how can they be other than utterly blood-guilty, and friends of all cruelty and inhumanity, and nothing else than wicked daemons?

Now when these things have been demonstrated by us, I suppose that good reason has been rendered for our withdrawal from the practices mentioned. For even to confer the honour of one who is invested with regal dignity among men upon robbers and housebreakers is not holy nor pious, much less to degrade the adorable name of God and His supreme honour to wicked spirits.

Hence we who have been taught to worship only the God who is over all, and to honour in due degree the divinely favoured and blessed powers which are around Him, bring with us no earthy or dead offering, nor gore and blood, nor anything of corruptible and material substance; but with a mind purified from all wickedness, and with a body clothed with the ornament of purity and temperance which is brighter than any raiment, and with right doctrines worthy of God, and beside all this with sincerity of disposition, we pray that we may guard even unto death the religion delivered unto us by our Saviour.

But now after these previous explanations it is time for us to proceed to the proofs of our assertions. And first of all it is reasonable to go through the arguments by which the aforesaid author, in his book entitled On Abstinence from Animal Food, says that neither to the God who is over all, nor to the divine powers next to Him, ought we to bring anything of earth either as burnt-offering or sacrifice; because such things are alien to seemly worship.

Chapter 11

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘To the God who is over all, as a certain wise man said, we must neither offer by fire nor dedicate any of the things of sense; for there is no material thing which is not at once impure to the immaterial. Wherefore neither is speech by the outward voice proper to Him, nor even the inward speech, whenever it is defiled by passion of the soul. But we worship Him in pure silence, and with pure thoughts concerning Him. United therefore and made like to Him, we must offer our own self-discipline as a holy sacrifice to God, the same being both a hymn of praise to Him and salvation to us. Therefore this sacrifice is perfected in passionless serenity of soul and in contemplation of God.’

[1] 149 b 2 Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food,ii. 34. Cf. Eus. Dem. Ev.p. 105 a

Chapter 12

‘But to the gods who are his offspring, and known only by the mind, we must now add also that hymnody which is produced by speech: for the proper sacrifice for each deity is the first-fruit of the gifts which he has bestowed, and by which he sustains our being and keeps it in existence. As therefore a husbandman brings first-fruits of sheaves and of tree-fruits, so let us offer them first-fruits of noble thoughts concerning them, giving thanks for the things of which they have granted us the contemplation, and because they feed us with true food by the vision of themselves, dwelling with us, and showing themselves to us, and shining upon the path of our salvation.’

So speaks this author; and statements closely related and akin to his concerning the First and Great God are said to be written by the famous Apollonius of Tyana, so celebrated among the multitude, in his work Concerning Sacrifices, as follows:[1]

[1] 150 b 1 Apollonius of Tyana in Philostratus. Cf. Eus. Dem. Ev.p. 105 b

Chapter 13

[APOLLONIUS OF TYANA] ‘In this way, then, I think, one would best show the proper regard for the deity, and thereby beyond all other men secure His favour and good will, if to Him whom we called the First God, and who is One and separate from all others, and to whom the rest must be acknowledged inferior, he should sacrifice nothing at all, neither kindle fire, nor dedicate anything whatever that is an object of sense—for He needs nothing even from beings who are greater than we are: nor is there any plant at all which the earth sends up, nor any animal which it, or the air, sustains, to which there is not some defilement attached—but should ever employ towards Him only that better speech, I mean the speech which passes not through the lips, and should ask good things from the noblest of beings by what is noblest in ourselves, and this is the mind, which needs no instrument. According to this therefore we ought by no means to offer sacrifice to the great God who is over all.’

Now these things being so, see next what kind of account the former writer gives of animal sacrifice, calling up Theophrastus as witness of his statement.[1]

[1] 151 a 1 Porphyry, l. c.,ii. 7. Cf. 29 b 2

Chapter 14

[PORPHYRY] ‘But when the sacrifices of first-fruits were allowed by mankind to run into great disorder, they began to adopt the most dreadful offerings full of cruelty, so that the curses formerly denounced against us seemed now to have received accomplishment, by men cutting the victims’ throats, and defiling the altars with blood, from the time that they experienced famines and wars, and had recourse to bloodshed. Therefore the deity, as Theophrastus says, indignant at these several crimes, seems to have inflicted the suitable punishment, inasmuch as some men have become atheists, while others would more justly be called evil-minded than impious, because they believed the gods to be in their nature vile and no better than ourselves. Thus some of them, it appears, came to differ no sacrifices, while others offered evil sacrifices and had recourse to unlawful victims.’

Again the same author adds this also:

‘Which things being so, Theophrastus rightly forbids those who wish to be really pious to sacrifice things with life, making use of other arguments of this kind.’ [1]

He further says:

‘Moreover we ought to offer such sacrifices as shall injure no one, for a sacrifice above all things ought to be harmless to all. But if any one should say that God has given us animals for our use no less than the fruits of the earth, yet at all events when he sacrifices animals he inflicts some harm upon them, inasmuch as they are robbed of their life. These then we must not sacrifice, for by its very name sacrifice is something holy; but no one is holy who renders thank-offerings out of things belonging to another, whether grain or plants, if taken against his will. For how can it be a holy thing, when wrong is done to those who are robbed? But if he who lays hands even upon another man’s crops makes not a holy offering, most certainly it is not holy to take things more precious than these from any, and offer them: for thus the harm becomes greater. And far more precious than the fruits of the earth is life, which man ought not to take by sacrificing living things.’ [2]

And he adds:

‘We must abstain therefore from offering living things in our sacrifices.’ [3]

And again he says:

‘What therefore is neither holy nor of little cost must not be offered in sacrifice.’ [4]

And presently:

‘So that if we are to sacrifice animals to the gods, even these we must offer for some of the following purposes: for whatever we sacrifice is sacrificed for some one of these purposes. Would then any one of us, or would any god think that he received honour, when by what we consecrate we are at once shown to be doing wrong? Or would he not rather think that such a deed was a dishonour? But surely we confess that by slaying in our sacrifice those animals which do no wrong we shall do wrong to them: so that we must not sacrifice any of the other living beings for the sake of honouring the gods: no, nor yet as rendering thanks to them for their benefits. For he that would render just recompense for a benefit, and a worthy return for a kind deed, ought to provide these gifts without doing evil to any. For he will be thought to make no better return, than a man would if he were to seize his neighbour’s property to crown any persons by way of repaying them with gratitude and honour. Nay, nor yet (may we offer animals) because of any need of good things. For if a man seeks to gain good treatment by unjust conduct, it is suspected that, even if well treated, he will not be grateful.

‘So that not even in hope of benefit must we sacrifice animals to the gods: for in so doing one might perhaps deceive man, but to deceive God is impossible. If therefore sacrifice should be offered for some one of these purposes, and if we must not offer animals for the sake of any of them, it is manifest that we must not offer such sacrifices to the gods at all.’ [5]

And again he adds:

‘For both nature and the whole feeling of man’s soul were pleased with offerings of the former kind: [6]

“When with pure blood of bulls no altar dripped, But this was held by men the foulest crime, To rend the life, and feed upon the limbs.”’ [7]

And after other matters he says:

‘But when a young man has learned that gods delight in costliness, and, as is said, in feasts upon kine and other animals, when would he ever choose to be thrifty and temperate? And if he believes that these offerings are pleasing to the gods, how can he avoid thinking that he has license to do wrong, being sure to buy off his sin by his sacrifices? But if he be persuaded that the gods have no need of these sacrifices, but look to the moral disposition of those who approach them, receiving as the greatest offering the right judgement concerning themselves and their affairs, how can he fail to be prudent, and just, and holy? [8]

‘The best sacrifice to the gods is a pure mind and a soul free from passions; but also congenial to them is the offering of other sacrifices in moderation, not carelessly however, but with all earnestness. For their honours must be like those paid in the case of good men, such as chief seats in public assemblies, rising up at their approach, and honourable places at table, and not like grants of tribute.’ [9]

Hereby then it was clearly acknowledged, according to the Greeks and their philosophers, that nothing endued with life can rightly be sacrificed to the gods, for the act is unholy, and unjust, and hurtful, and not far from a pollution. He was no god then nor yet a truthful and good daemon—that oracle-monger of whom we heard just now as exacting drink-offerings of blood and burnt-offerings; nor yet all those to whom the oracle commanded animals to be sacrificed. A deceiver therefore and a cheat and an utterly wicked daemon must we call him who so lied, and called them gods who are not, and enjoined the sacrifice of animals not only to the terrestrial and infernal gods, but also to the gods of heaven and ether and the stars. What then, if not gods, we ought to suppose all those before mentioned to be, the writer himself shall explain again in what follows.

[1] b 7 Porphyry, l. c.,ii. 11

[2] c 2 ibid. ii. 12

[3] d 9 ibid. ii. 13

[4] 152 d 11 Porphyry, l. c.,ii. 13

[5] d 15 ibid. ii. 24

[6] 152 c 5 ibid, ii. 27

[7] c 7 ‘Empedocles ap Sturz. 312 ‘ (Gaisford)

[8] c 11 Porphyry, l. c., ii. 60

[9] d 10 ibid. ii. 62

Chapter 15

[PORPHYRY] ‘He who cares for religion knows that nothing which has life is offered to gods, but to daemons either good or evil; knows also whose interest it is to sacrifice to them, and how far they proceed who need their help.’ [1]

And presently he says again:

‘Those who thoroughly understood the powers that are in the universe brought their bloody sacrifices not to gods but to daemons, which fact also is certified by the theologists themselves; and moreover that some of the daemons do harm, but others are good and will not molest us.’ [2]

Thus far the aforesaid author. But since he asserted that some of the daemons are good and others bad, how may we see that their supposed gods are all found to be not even good daemons, but bad? You may find the proof of this as follows.

What is good gives help, but the contrary does harm. If then those who have been everywhere proclaimed either as gods or as daemons—the very same, I say, who have been celebrated by them all, and are worshipped by all the heathen nations, as Kronos, and Zeus, and Hera and Athena, and the like, also the invisible powers, and the daemons who operate through graven images—if these should be found to delight not only in slaughter and sacrifices of irrational animals, but also in manslaughter and human sacrifices, thus destroying the souls of the miserable men, what worse harm could you conceive than this?

For if the offering of irrational animals was called by the philosophers execrable and sacrilegious, abominable too and unjust and unholy and not harmless to the offerers, and for all these reasons unworthy of the gods, what are we to think of the offering made by human sacrifice? Would not this be most impious, most unholy of all? How then could it reasonably be declared welcome to good daemons, and not rather to utterly abominable and destructive spirits?

Come then, let us examine and prove how widely the plague of polytheistic error held sway over the life of man before our Saviour’s teaching in the gospel. For we shall prove that this error was abolished and destroyed no earlier than the times of Adrian, when Christ’s teaching was already shining forth like light over every region.

And to this not our testimony, but the voices again of our adversaries themselves shall expressly bear witness, charging upon the preceding ages wickedness so great, that the superstitious pass at length beyond nature’s limits, being so utterly driven frantic and possessed by the destroying spirits, as even to suppose that they propitiate the bloodthirsty powers by the blood of their dearest friends and countless other human sacrifices.

Sometimes a father sacrificed his only son to the daemon, and a mother her beloved daughter, and the dearest friends would slay their relatives as readily as any irrational and strange animals, and to the so-called gods in every city and country they used to offer their home-friends and fellow citizens, having sharpened their humane and sympathetic nature to a merciless and inhuman cruelty, and exhibiting a frantic and truly daemoniacal disposition.

So then by examining all history both Grecian and barbarian you would find how some used to dedicate sons, and others daughters, and others even themselves for sacrifice to the daemons. And for this I offer you the same witness as before, in the same work in which he forbad the sacrifice of irrational cattle as unholy and most unjust: and this is what he says word for word. [3]

[1] 153 c 1 Porphyry, l. c.,ii. 36

[2] c 6 ibid. ii. 58

[3] 155 b 1 Porphyry, l. c.,ii. 54

Chapter 16

[PORPHYRY] ‘And that we say this not lightly, but with the fullest testimony of history, the following instances may suffice to prove. For even in Eliodes a man used to be sacrificed to Kronos on the sixth day of the month Metageitnion. This custom prevailed for a long time before it was changed: for one of those who had been publicly condemned to death was kept in custody until the festival of Kronos, and when the festival was come, they brought the man forth outside the gates opposite the temple of Aristobule, gave him a drink of wine, and cut his throat.

‘And in what is now called Salamis, but formerly Coronia, in the month Aphrodisius according to the Cyprians, a man used to be sacrificed to Agraulos, the daughter of Cecrops and a nymph of Agraule. This custom continued until the times of Diomedes; then it changed, so that the man was sacrificed to Diomedes; and the shrine of Athena, and that of Agraulos and Diomedes are under one enclosure. The man to be sacrificed ran thrice round the altar, led by the youths: then the priest struck him in the throat with a spear, and so they offered him as a burnt-sacrifice upon the pyre that was heaped up.

[1] ‘But this ordinance was abolished by Diphilus, king of Cyprus, who lived in the times of Seleucus the theologian, and changed the custom into a sacrifice of an ox: and the daemon accepted the ox instead of a man; so little is the difference in value of the performance.

‘Also at Heliopolis in Egypt Amosis abolished the law of human sacrifice, as Manetho bears witness in his book Concerning Antiquity and Religion. The men were sacrificed to Hera, and were examined just as the pure calves that were sought after and sealed. Three men were sacrificed in the day: but instead of them Amosis ordered the same number of waxen images to be supplied.

‘Also in Chios they used to sacrifice a man to Dionysus Omadius, tearing him limb from limb; in Tenedos also, as Euelpis of Carystus states. For even the Lacedaemonians, Apollodorus says, used to sacrifice a man to Ares.

‘The Phoenicians, too, in the great calamities of war, or pestilence, or drought, used to dedicate one of their dearest friends and sacrifice him to Kronos: and of those who thus sacrificed the Phoenician history is full, which Sanchuniathon wrote in the Phoenician language, and Philo Byblius translated into Greek in eight books.

‘And Ister, in his Collection of Cretan Sacrifices, says that the Curetes in old times used to sacrifice boys to Kronos. But that the human sacrifices in almost all nations had been abolished, is stated by Pallas, who made an excellent collection concerning the mysteries of Mithras in the time of the Emperor Adrian. Also at Laodicea in Syria a virgin used to be offered to Athena every year, but now a hind.

‘Moreover the Carthaginians in Libya used to perform this kind of sacrifice, which was stopped by Iphicrates. The Dumateni also, in Arabia, used every year to sacrifice a boy, and bury him under the altar, which they treated as an image.

‘Phylarchus states in his history that all the Greeks in common offered human sacrifices before going out against their enemies. I say nothing of the Thracians and Scythians, and how the Athenians slew the daughter of Erechtheus and Praxithea. Nay, even at the present time, who knows not that in the Great City a man is sacrificed at the festival of Jupiter Latiaris?

And again he says: [2]

‘From which time until now not only in Arcadia at the Lycaea, nor only in Carthage to Kronos do the whole people offer human sacrifice, but periodically for the sake of keeping the custom in remembrance they always sprinkle kindred blood upon the altars.’

So then from the aforesaid writing let these passages suffice: but from the first book of Philo’s Phoenician History I will quote the following: [3]

[PHILO BYBLIUS] ‘It was a custom of the ancients in the great crises of danger for the rulers of a city or nation, in order to avert the general destruction, to give up the most beloved of their children for sacrifice as a ransom to the avenging daemons: and those who were so given up were slain with mystic rites. Kronos, therefore, whom the Phoenicians call El, who was king of the country, and subsequently, after his decease, was deified and changed into the star Saturn, had by a nymph of the same country called Anobret an only-begotten son (whom on this account they called Jeiid, the only-begotten being still so called among the Phoenicians); and when extreme dangers from war had befallen the country, he arrayed his son in royal apparel, and prepared an altar and sacrificed him.’

Such, was the manner of these doings.

With good reason therefore does the excellent Clement himself also, in his Exhortation to the Greeks, when finding fault with these very customs, lament as follows over the delusion of mankind and say: [4]

[CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA] ‘Come then, let us further observe, what inhuman daemons and haters of mankind your gods were, not only delighting in driving men mad, but also gloating over human slaughter, making for themselves occasions of pleasure now in the armed conflicts of the arena, and now in the endless contests for glory in war, that so they might have the fullest opportunities of freely glutting themselves with human slaughter. And at length, falling like pestilences upon cities and nations, they demanded merciless libations of blood. For instance, Aristomenes the Messenian slew three hundred men in honour of Zeus of Ithome, supposing that hecatombs so many and also of such quality would give good omens; for among them was Theopompus, the king of the Lacedaemonians, a noble victim. The Tauri, the nation who dwell about the Tauric Chersonese, sacrifice forthwith to the Tauric Artemis whatever strangers they take on their coasts, those I mean who have been wrecked at sea. These are the sacrifices which Euripides dramatizes on the stage. Monimus, too, in his Collection of Marvels, relates that at Pella in Thessaly a man of Achaia was offered in sacrifice to Peleus and Cheirou. And that the Lyctians, who are a race of Cretans, sacrificed men to Zeus, is declared by Anticleides in his Returns of the Greeks: and Dosidas says that the Lesbians offered the like sacrifice to Dionysus. The Phocaeans also, for I must not omit them, are said by Pythocles in the third book On Concord to offer a man as a burnt-sacrifice to Artemis Tauropolos. Erechtheus of Attica, and Marius of Rome, sacrificed their own daughters, the one to Pherephatta, as Demaratus states in his first book of Subjects of Tragedy, and Marius to the “Averters of Evil,” as Dorotheus relates in the fourth book of the Italica. Friends truly of mankind the daemons are clearly proved by these examples!

‘Must not then the piety of the daemon-worshippers be of the like kind, the former receiving the flattering title of Saviours, and the latter asking safety of those who plot against safety? At least, while imagining that they offer to them a sacrifice of good omen, they forget that they are cutting men’s throats themselves. For of course the murder does not become a sacrifice because of the place. Nor, if one should slay a man in honour of Artemis and Zeus in a so-called sacred place (would it become a sacrifice) any more than if, from anger or covetousness, he should slay the man in honour of like daemons on altars rather than on highways, and call it a holy sacrifice. But such a sacrifice is murder and manslaughter.

‘Why then, O men, ye wisest of all living creatures, why do we flee from savage wild beasts, and, if we fall in anywhere with a bear or a lion, turn out of the way—

“As when some traveller spies, Coiled in his path upon the mountain side, A deadly snake, back he recoils in haste, His limbs all trembling, and his cheek all pale”— [5]

but though you have perceived and understand that daemons are destructive and pernicious, treacherous, enemies of mankind, and destroyers, you do not turn aside nor shrink back from them?’

Thus far Clement. But I have also to present to you another witness of the blood-thirstiness of the impious and inhuman daemons, namely, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a man who published a complete and accurate work on the History of Rome. Now he too writes that Zeus and Apollo once demanded human sacrifices, but those of whom they were demanded offered to the gods their portion of all crops and cattle, but were beset by all kinds of misfortune, because they did not also sacrifice men. There is nothing, however, like hearing the writer himself, who tells the story as follows: [6]

[DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS] ‘But a small part (of the Pelasgians) remained in Italy, through the prudence of the Aborigines. The first beginning of ruin to the inhabitants of the cities seeme’d to be the damage of the land by drought, when neither did any fruit remain to ripen upon the trees, but all fell off unripe, nor did any of the seeds, which put forth shoots and blossomed, complete the normal periods for the ripening of the ear; nor did grass grow sufficient for cattle; and of the springs some were no longer good to drink, and some were failing from heat, and some completely drying up. And disasters akin to these occurred in regard to offspring of cattle and women: for the fruit of the womb either miscarried, or perished at the time of birth, in some cases causing death to the mothers also. And whatever escaped the danger of parturition was crippled, or imperfect, or injured through some other mischance, and was not fit to be reared. Then, too, the rest of the population which was in the prime of life began to be ravaged by diseases and deaths of more than ordinary frequency. And when they inquired of oracles, which of the gods or daemons they had offended that they suffered thus, and what they could do with a hope of alleviating their troubles, the god made answer, that, after obtaining what they wished, they had not paid what they vowed, but still owed the most precious part. For when a general dearth had fallen upon their land, the Pelasgi made a vow to Zeus and to Apollo and to the Cabeiri that they would offer in sacrifice tithes of all future produce: but when their prayer was fulfilled, they chose out the portion of all crops and cattle, and offered these in sacrifice to the gods, as though they had vowed these only. This story is told by Myrsilus the Lesbian, who writes in almost the same words as I have now used, except only that he does not call the people Pelasgians but Tyrrhenians; and the reason of this I will state a little later.

‘When they learned the answer of the oracle that had been brought back, they could not conjecture the meaning. But in their perplexity, one of the older men who had guessed the oracle said, that they had mistaken the whole matter if they supposed that the gods were accusing them unjustly: for though all the first-fruits of property had been rightly and justly paid by them, yet the portion of human offspring, a thing most precious above all to the gods, was still due. But if the gods were to receive their just share of this also, they would then have fully satisfied the oracle. Some thought then that this was good advice, but others that the speech was concocted as part of a plot: and when some one brought forward the proposal that they should ask the god again whether it was his pleasure to receive tenths of men, they sent ambassadors a second time, and the god made answer that they should do so. Hereupon a quarrel arose among them as to the method of choosing the tenths: and the chief men of their cities then first fell into dissension among themselves, and afterwards the rest of the multitude became suspicious of the magistrates; and their emigrations were not made with any order, but as was to be expected when men were driven away by frenzy and infatuation. So when a portion of them migrated, many households were utterly destroyed; for the relatives of those who went forth did not approve of being left behind by their dearest friends and remaining among their worst enemies. These then were the first who removed from Italy, and wandered into Greece and many barbarous lands; and after the first emigrants, others had the same feeling, and this went on continuously for years. For those who were in power in the cities did not cease to choose out the victims from the youth who at the time were growing into manhood, both as deeming thus to pay due service to the gods, and because they feared seditious movements from those who had escaped. There were many also who from enmity were driven away by their opponents under a specious pretext; so that the migrations became numerous, and the Pelasgic race was scattered abroad over a very great part of the earth.’

Also a little later he says: [7]

‘Now it is said that the ancients offer these sacrifices to Kronos, as was done in Carthage while the city remained, and is done among the Celts unto this day, and in certain other of the Western nations who offer human sacrifices; but that Hercules, wishing to put a stop to the custom of this sacrifice, set up the altar on the hill of Saturn, and dedicated holy offerings hallowed by pure fire. And in order that the people might have no timorous scruple, as having neglected their ancestral sacrifices, he taught the inhabitants to appease the wrath of the god, by substituting for the men whom they used to cast into the stream of the Tiber bound hand and foot, images made like men and arrayed in the same manner as the former, and to throw them into the river in order that the foreboding, whatever there was of it remaining in the souls of all, might be removed as the likenesses of their old suffering were still preserved. And this the Romans continued to do even to my time, a little after the spring equinox, on the so-called Ides in the month of May, meaning this day to be the division of the month: on which day, after sacrificing the customary victims, the so-called Pontifices, the most distinguished of the priests, and with them the Virgins who guard the undying fire, and the Praetors, and those of the other citizens who have the right to be present at the sacred services, throw from the sacred bridge into the stream of the Tiber images fashioned in human forms, which they call Argëi.’

Such are these statements. And Diodorus also narrates similar facts in the twentieth book of his Bibliotheca Historica, after the death of Alexander of Macedon, in the time of the first Ptolemy, concerning the Carthaginians when besieged by Agathocles the tyrant of Sicily, writing word for word thus: [8]

[DIODORUS] ‘They alleged also that Kronos was set against them, inasmuch as they used in earlier times to sacrifice the best of their sons to this god, but afterwards bought children secretly, and reared them and sent them for the sacrifice; and when an inquiry was held, some of those who had been sacrificed were found to have been supposititious. So when they had taken thought of this, and saw the enemy encamping close to their walls, they had a superstitious fear of having abolished the honours which their fathers had paid to the gods: and, being eager to amend their errors, they chose out two hundred of their most distinguished sons and offered them as a public sacrifice; and others who were under suspicion gave themselves up of their own accord, in number not less than three hundred. Now they had a brazen statue of Kronos, stretching forth his upturned hands inclined towards the ground, in such a way that the boy placed thereon rolled off and fell into a pit full of fire.’

Such are the stories handed down by this author also in his own history. With good reason then does the scripture of the Hebrews lay blame upon those of the circumcision who emulated such practices, saying: ‘They offered their sons and their daughters to the daemons, and the land was defiled with their blood, and was polluted with their works.’ [9] But in fact I believe it to be hereby clearly proved that the most ancient and primitive erection of carved images and all the idolatrous creation of gods among the heathen was the work of daemons, and of daemons who were not even good, but utterly wicked and worthless: so that the oracle speaks truth which says in the prophecies, ‘All the gods of the heathen are daemons’; [10] as also the passage of the Apostle where he says, ‘That the things which they sacrifice, they sacrifice to daemons and not to God.’ [11]

Or if there was any good one among them, on whose account they might share in the title of the good, he would be a benefactor and saviour of all, a friend of justice, and a guardian of mankind. But if he were such, how could he delight in human slaughter? And why did he not forbid mankind by oracles to follow such practices? Surely he was worse and more wicked than men, since they by legal punishments brought the blood-guilty to a better mind. For it was no god, but a man, who abolished the long-continued and wide-spread plague of human sacrifice.

But that these were the works of worthless and wicked daemons would be still more manifest to you, were you to consider their practices of infamous and unbridled fornication still observed in the City of the Sun in Phoenicia, and among many other people. For they say that men ought to practise adulteries, and seductions, and other unlawful kinds of intercourse, in honour of the gods, as a sort of debt due to them, and to consecrate to the gods the first-fruits of adultery and fornication, dedicating to them the gains of this ignoble and unseemly commerce, just as if it were some worthy kind of thank-offering: for these practices are similar to their human sacrifices.

If therefore it is not the part even of a decent man to delight in murders, and obscene language, and illicit intercourse with women who sell away their beauty for hire, far be it from us to say that it is the part of gods or good daemons to accept such offerings. But if any one should say that, though these are confessedly the acts of evil daemons, there are nevertheless others, namely the good daemons, whom they especially worship as saviours; where then, we should ask, were their good saviours, if they worshipped them, that they did not hinder the wicked daemons from so treating their suppliants? And where were the good daemons that they did not drive away the mischievous, and bring aid to their worshippers? And why did they neglect and overlook the rational and religious race of mankind when oppressed by the cruelty of the evil daemons, instead of plainly warning them all to flee straight away, and shun every so-called god as being no god but a wicked daemon, to whom things cruel and inhuman and unlawful and disgraceful are dear? And if either in Rhodes there was long ago a supposed god who rejoiced in human sacrifices, the true god, if indeed there was one, would have repressed the practice and warned them all to regard such an one not as a god but as an evil daemon. Or if in Salamis, which also was formerly called Coronea, a man was sacrificed in the month Aphrodisius according to the Cyprians, their true god would have shown them that this too was a wicked daemon, and so would have stopped the proceeding as impious and unholy.

If also at Heliopolis in Egypt Amosis abolished the law of human sacrifice, the true god would have taught them that the man was far better than the god: for there again he who was the author of the human sacrifice was no god but a daemon. Nor would the true god have ordained that men must not consider Hera’s daemon impure, since the history showed that three men were sacrificed to her every day.

And what could be more truly daemoniacal than the so-called Dionysus Omadius, to whom, it is said, they sacrifice a man in Chios, tearing him limb from limb, or the other in Tenedos, whom also in like manner they used to propitiate by human sacrifice? Their true god would also have forbidden to sacrifice a man to Ares, the daemon who is the bane of mortals and lover of war, and would have made a law against sacrificing to him the dearest either of their kindred or of strangers.

If also, as they say, a virgin was sacrificed every year to Athena at Laodicea in Syria, their true god would not have shunned to call her too a wicked daemon; as also him in Libya who delighted in the like sacrifices, and him in Arabia, to whom they sacrificed a boy every year; and buried him under the altar.

[1] d 3 ibid. ii. 55

[2] c 5 Porphyry, l. c.,ii. 27

[3] d 3 Philo Byblius, Phoenician History,i. Cf. p. 40 c 1

[4] 157 a 9 Clement of Alexandria, Protrept.c iii

[5] 158 b 3 Hom. Il.iii. 33 (Lord Derby’s translation)

[6] 158 c 12 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, i. 23

[7] 160 b 2 Dion. Hal. i. 38

[8] 161 a 3 Diod. Sic. xx. 14

[9] c 3 Ps. cvi. 37

[10] d 3 Ps. xcvi. 5

[11] d 4 I Cor. x. 20

Chapter 17

All these, and those who delighted in obscenities of language and illicit seductions of women and all the madness which has been before mentioned, the true and good god, or daemon, would have forewarned them, not by any means to regard as gods. But none of them ever yet is recorded to have done this, except only the God who is honoured among the Hebrews, as being the Only and true God.

For He alone forewarned all men by Moses the Prophet and Theologian, not to reverence the wicked daemons as good, but on the contrary to shun and repel them, as being evil spirits; and moreover He made a law to destroy their shrines and their unholy and profane sacrifices, and utterly to banish from among men the remembrance of them as gods, and the honour that was assigned to them: for it was an impiety that those who were cared for by the good should propitiate the evil.

And whether it is Phylarchus, or any one else, who records that all the Greeks, before going out to their wars, offer a human sacrifice, do not thou hesitate to take him also as a witness of the daemoniacal possession of the Greeks: do not neglect either to declare that those in Africa, and the Thracians, and the Scythians, who follow the like practices, have been subjected to the same daemoniacal frenzies; as also the Athenians, and the inhabitants of the Great City, since these also used to sacrifice men at the festivals of Jupiter Maximus.

But in fact if you were to collect the catalogue of all those who have been mentioned above, you would find that, as I might almost say, the whole manufacture of gods by the heathen depends upon these same murderous spirits and evil daemons. For if in Rhodes, and in Salamis and the other islands, and at Heliopolis in Egypt, in Chios, and Tenedos, and Lacedaemon, Arcadia, Phoenicia, Libya, and, besides all these, in Syria and Arabia, and among the Panhellenes and the Athenians who stand at the very head of them, in Carthage also and Africa, and among Thracians and Scythians, it has been shown that the rites of human sacrifice to daemons were celebrated in old times, and continued down to our Saviour’s time, why may you not say with good reason that all mankind were at that time enslaved to wicked daemons, and that life was not relieved from these great evils before our Saviour’s teaching shed light upon the world? For indeed it was proved by the statement of history that these things continued till the times of Adrian, and have been abolished since his reign: and this was exactly the time at which the doctrine of salvation began to flourish among all mankind.

Moreover it is not in their power to say that they used to sacrifice to the evil daemons; since the history made it clear that the human sacrifices were dedicated especially to the great gods themselves. For it affirmed that they were offered to Hera and to Athena, to Kronos and Ares and Dionysus, and to supreme Zeus himself, and to Phoebus, that is to Apollo the most venerable and most wise of all: and these and none other they address as the greatest and best of saviours and gods.

These then must themselves be the wicked daemons. For if they delighted in such human sacrifices and homicides, may you not with good reason reckon them in the same class of blood-guiltiness with the wicked spirits, whether they were said themselves to delight in such offerings, or to acquiesce in them, and connive at their being done by others?

For why should they permit men at all to propitiate the wicked spirits? Or why allow them to err so far as to worship and flatter the evil daemons? And why to be enslaved by the wicked, when, as being good themselves and gods, it behoved them by their greater and more divine power to drive away everything whatsoever base and wicked as far as possible from man’s daily life?

Surely a good father would not calmly see his own son corrupted by evil men; nor would a prudent master calmly see his servant led away by his enemies, nor yet a commander in time of war give up his own soldiers as prisoners to the enemy, when it was in his power to bring them safe off; nor would a shepherd give up his sheep to the wolves: and shall then gods and good daemons give up mankind in subjection to the bad and wicked daemons? And shall

‘The thrice ten thousand guardians of mankind,’ [1]

I mean their shepherds and preservers, kings and fathers and lords, deliver up their dearest ones to their enemies and foemen, fierce as wild beasts, to harry and plunder in so merciless and cruel a manner? Will they not cast a shield over their suppliants, and fight in their defence? Will they not drive the hostile and wicked daemons far away from the human fold, like savage and devouring beasts? And will they not teach every man to be of good courage because he is closely allied with a countless multitude of gods and good daemons, and, because he is consecrated to those who are not only stronger but also the more numerous and the greatest gods, to pay little or rather no regard to the weakness of the wicked daemons? But since they did not act thus, but on the contrary themselves helped the evil daemons by permitting the fore-mentioned human sacrifices by their oracles, and by delighting in all kinds of obscene language and the practices attendant thereon, it is proved by deed, as the saying is, that they were not themselves at all different in nature from the evil daemons, but rather were of one and the same will and purpose; and that, to speak yet more truly, he was no god at all, nor any good daemon, that was worshipped of old by all the heathen in every city and country district.

For how could the wicked ever become friendly to the good, unless one should say that one mixture might be made of light and darkness? And how much better is human reason than those supposed gods, when it enjoins that no sacrifice should be offered even to wicked daemons! So at all events the writer formerly quoted, in the work wherein he asserted that men ought not to offer living victims, says that neither ought we to sacrifice to wicked daemons, speaking in this wise: [2]

[1] 105 a3 Hesiod, Works and Days,250 ; cf. p. 233 d

[2] 166 b 2 Porphyry, Abstinence,ii. 43; cf. Theodoret, Gr. Aff. Cur.138, 22

Chapter 18

[PORPHYRY] ‘Wherefore a wise and prudent man will guard against using sacrifices such as these, whereby he will draw down daemons of this kind to himself, but will be careful to purify his soul in every way; for they never attack a pure soul, because of its being unlike themselves. But if it is necessary for States to propitiate these daemons also, that is nothing to us; for States regard wealth and externals and things for the body as good, and the contrary as ill; but there are in them very few who care for the soul.’

After this he adds:

Chapter 19

[PORPHYRY] ‘We, however, as far as possible, will require none of the things which these evil daemons supply: but with all our soul and with all outward means we make every endeavour, by freedom from passions, and a clearly formed conception of the realities of being, and the life that looks to them and agrees with them, to grow like to God and those about Him; but to grow unlike to wicked men and daemons and, generally, to all that takes delight in what is mortal and material.

[1] ‘But the philosopher whom we describe as standing aloof from external things will not, we may fairly say, trouble daemons, nor have need of soothsayers, nor of the entrails of animals; for he has made it his care to stand aloof from the very things for which divinations exist. For he neither lets himself fall into marriage, that he should trouble the soothsayer about a wedding, nor into commerce; nor will he trouble him about a servant, or a theft, or any other of the vanities of mankind. But on the subjects of his inquiry no soothsayer, nor animal’s entrails will indicate the truth. By himself alone, as we said, he will approach the god whose seat is in his own true heart, and there uniting all his powers in one full stream will receive his suggestions concerning the life eternal.’ [Porphyry, ibid. ii. 52]

Hereby then his language most clearly shows to whom we must ascribe the oracles, and the inquiries by inspection of sacrifices, and those prognostications about uncertainties at which the multitude marvel. For by calling all these things ‘vanities,’ he rejects them as being wrought by wicked daemons.

So when going through his account of evil daemons, and asserting that the wise and prudent man never gave himself over to them, nor drew such daemons to himself by his sacrifices, he next subjoins a statement that the philosopher ‘will have no need of oracles nor of the entrails of animals,’ and such like, as being part of the evil craft of daemons.

If then according to this the wise and prudent man ought to beware of using sacrifices of this kind, whereby to draw the daemons to himself—and if by these were meant sacrifices by shedding of blood, and by slaughter of brute animals—none could justly be called prudent and wise among those who of old used to sacrifice animals to the daemons,and much less any of those who offered human sacrifices.

But almost all nations in the world, so to speak, before our Saviour was made known unto mankind, were convicted of propitiating the evil daemons by the human sacrifices which were performed in every place: none of these therefore was wise and prudent.

So then the common sense and consideration of mankind, guided by true reason, expressly forewarns every wise and prudent man not to make use of sacrifices for courting the favour of the wicked daemons, ‘but to be diligent in purifying his soul in all ways; for they do not assail a pure soul, because it is unlike themselves.’

But their god Apollo (for we must again compare him with men, and show how far he falls short of right reason) enjoins sacrificing to the picked daemon, not otherwise of course than as being friendly to him: and the bad is friendly to the bad. The witness of this is the same author as before, in the work which he entitled Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, who relates the following story word for word:

[1] 167 a 1 Porphyry, ibid. ii. 52

Chapter 20

[PORPHYRY] ‘So when the prophet was eager to see the deity with his own eyes, and was urgent, Apollo said that such a thing was impossible before giving ransom to the wicked daemon. And these are his words:

“To the dread genius of thy fatherland Bring thou, for ransom meet, libations first, Then fragrant incense, and dark blood of grapes, With rich milk from the mothers of thy flock.” [1]

‘Again, he spake more plainly on the same subject:

“Bring wine and milk, and water crystal-clear, Holm boughs and acorns, and in order lay The entrails, and the rich libations pour.”

‘But when asked what prayer should be used he began, but, did not finish, speaking thus:

“O daemon, crowned king of erring souls Beneath daik caves, and on the earth above—“‘

So spake the wonderful god, or rather the most wily daemon: but the dictates of natural reason are the very contrary, exhorting us ‘to purify the soul,’ but not to draw the wicked daemons to our side by sacrifices, ‘for they do not assail a pure soul, because it is unlike them.’ But then if he who was cautious, and did no sacrifice to daemons, was rightly judged to be a wise and prudent man, I leave it to you to consider, who and what kind of being he could reasonably be esteemed who, by his oracle, advised men to sacrifice to the wicked daemons.

Now if from this point you review what has been said, it will be evident what sort of beings in natural disposition those were who delighted in human sacrifices, or those who had long before enslaved the whole human race to such beings. But should any one say that the custom of human sacrifice is not wicked, but was most rightly practised by the men of old, he must at once condemn all of the present day, because none worship after the manner of their fathers.

[1] 168 b 2 Porphyry, Fragment,preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 21

If, however, it was prudent in those of our day to make their escape from that harsh and fierce cruelty, then none of the ancients was wise in propitiating the wicked daemons by human sacrifices. But in fact it is plain even to a blind man, as the saying is, that those who were deified of old by all the heathen, could neither be gods nor good daemons but were as far removed as possible from goodness.

Wherefore also they might justly be called enemies of God and impious,who ruined all human life, and from whom never any save only our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ provided the way of escape for all men, by preaching to all alike, Greeks and Barbarians, a cure for their ancestral malady, and deliverance from their bitter and inveterate bondage. To that deliverance the language of the Demonstration of the Gospel urges men to hasten, shouting with loud voice to be heard of all, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me, He hath sent me to preach good tidings to the poor, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to heal the broken-hearted.’ [1] And again, ‘To bring out the prisoners from their bonds, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.’ [2]

For these are the things which long ages ago the truly divine oracles of the Hebrews foretold, preaching the good tidings of deliverance for us who had long been blind of soul, and fast bound in the many-linked fetters of wicked daemons. Wherefore with good reason, after being enlightened in the eyes of our understanding by the word of salvation, and made prudent, and wise, and pious, and free from all ills, we will neither sacrifice nor be in bondage to the supposed gods of the heathen, who formerly indeed tyrannized over us also; but having been led and brought near by our Saviour’s teaching to the only true God, who is both our Lord and our Preserver, our Saviour and Benefactor, and moreover our Maker and Creator, and sole King of the universe, Him only we will believe to be the true God, and to Him alone will we render the homage which is due, honouring and worshipping Him only, not as the daemons like, but as the Saviour of all mankind sent down from Him has taught us by the doctrine of His Gospel.

If we worship God in this way, far from fearing the wicked daemons, we shall pursue and drive them away from us by chastity, and a pure disposition, and by a life of prudence and perfect virtue, which has been marked out by our Saviour: for it was acknowledged that they cannot approach a pure soul because it is unlike themselves. But neither shall we need divination and oracles, nor shall we scrutinize the entrails of animals, nor pry into any of the operations of daemoniacal influence.

For Christ’s word enjoined on us to be careful to shun the very things for the sake of which these practices are eagerly pursued by the multitude; and exhorted us to desire only those things concerning which no soothsayer nor any entrails of animals will give clear indication of the truth, but only the Word of God Himself, who dwells in the true hearts of those who, because of perfect purity of soul, are able to receive Him inwardly in themselves. For concerning these He says somewhere in the holy Scriptures, ‘I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’ [3]

These then are the proofs of the wickedness of the daemons derived from the topic of sacrifices. Hear however what the author of the work On Abstinence from Animal Food relates again on the same subject, expressly acknowledging that, while the wicked daemons are sculptured in many shapes, and give their character to forms of all kinds, they elude and deceive most men. For, says he, by slipping into the persons of good beings, and alluring the multitude to their company by inflaming men’s passions, they wish themselves to be entitled the supreme gods.

And so far, says he, have they prevailed, as to deceive even the wisest poets and philosophers of the Greeks, whom he also admits to have been the authors of the perversion of the multitude: he says also that from them all kinds of imposture arose, and the things which allure men to pleasure are supplied by them; also he says how they wish to be gods, though they are really evil daemons, and how the power which presides over them is supposed to be the supreme god. All these things Porphyry relates in the following manner: [4]

[1] 169 d 7 Is. lxi. 1

[2] 170 a 1 Is. xlii. 7

[3] d 10 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; cf. Lev. xxvi. 12

[4] 171 c 1 Porphyry, Abstinence,ii. 38

Chapter 22

[PORPHYRY] ‘All souls which fail to control the spirit connected with them, but are for the most part controlled by it, are on this account greatly vexed and harassed, whenever the angry passions and desires of the spirit are excited: and these souls might reasonably be themselves called daemons, but mischievous ones.’ And the whole number, both these and those of the adverse power, are invisible and perfectly imperceptible by human senses. For they are not clothed with a solid body, nor all with one form, but their forms being moulded in various shapes, and expressing the character of their spirit, sometimes become visible, at other times are invisible: sometimes also the daemons, at least the worst sort of them, change their forms.

‘The spirit, in so far as it is corporeal, is capable of suffering and of perishing: but, by being so bound in subjection to the soul that the character thereof continues for a long time, it is nevertheless not rendered eternal; for it is natural that some portion of it should be continually wasting away and changing.

‘The spirits then of the good are well proportioned, as also are the bodies of those which become visible; but those of the maleficent are misproportioned. These last, occupying chiefly the region near the earth with their sensuous nature, omit no effort to work all kinds of evil. For with a disposition wholly violent and treacherous, and deprived of the guardianship of the better daemons, they make their assaults for the most part forcibly and suddenly like ambuscades, here trying to lie hid, and there using violence.’

Presently he adds: [1]

‘These things and the like they do with the purpose of turning us away from the right notion of the gods, and drawing us towards themselves. For they themselves delight in all things that are done in this irregular and inconsistent way; and having slipped as it were into the persons of the other gods, they take advantage of our thoughtlessness, and attach the multitude to their company, by inflaming men’s lusts by amours, and desires of wealth and power and pleasure, and again by ambitions, out of which things grow wars and seditions, and the like.

‘But worst of all, from these crimes they mount up higher, and make men believe the like concerning the chief gods, until they bring even the God of all goodness under these accusations, and say that by Him all things are thrown into confusion. And not only ordinary men have been thus affected, but also not a few of those who are occupied in philosophy.

‘And the cause of their errors has been mutual; for of the students of philosophy, those who did not depart from the common train of thought came to agree with the opinions of the multitude: and on the other hand again the multitudes, hearing from those who were thought to be wise what agreed with their own opinions, were confirmed in holding more strongly such thoughts concerning the gods.

[2] ‘For poetry further inflamed men’s imaginations by using language adapted to astonish and beguile, and able to work in them a fascination and belief concerning things utterly impossible; whereas they ought to have been firmly persuaded that the good never does harm, nor the evil ever does good. For, as Plato says, to chill is no property of heat, but of the contrary principle; (nor is to warm a property of cold, but of the contrary); so neither is it a property of the just to do harm.

‘And of course the divine is by nature most just of all, else it would not be divine. Wherefore this power and office (of doing harm) must be far removed from the beneficent daemons. For the power which is naturally fit and willing to do harm is contrary to the beneficent power, and opposites can never exist in the same subject.’

Again: [3]

‘It is by the adverse powers, however, that the whole imposture is accomplished; for these and their prince are especially honoured by those who, through their impostures, work mischief.

[4] ‘For they are full of every kind of illusion, and well able to deceive by their wonder-working. By their help those possessed by evil daemons prepare philters and love-potions: for all lewdness, and hope of wealth and fame is wrought by them, and deception above all.

‘For falsehood is congenial to them: for they wish to be gods, and the power who presides over them wishes to be thought the supreme god. These are they who delight “in libations and burnt-offerings,” [5] by which very things the spiritual and bodily element is nourished and fattened. For this element lives on vapours and exhalations, in various ways by their various contrivances, and is strengthened by the sacrifices of blood and flesh.’

Hereby then we have heard them confess that not only the poets among the Greeks inflamed men’s imaginations concerning the evil daemons as if they were gods and good, but so did also those of the philosophers who were thought to be earnest about the gods; for they themselves worshipped not gods but wicked daemons, and so plunged the multitude and the common people headlong into the like delusion.

In their statement at all events it was clearly confessed that the multitudes, by hearing from those who were thought to be wise doctrines about the gods agreeing with their own opinions, were encouraged to think still more of the wicked daemons as if they were gods. And these charges are not brought upon our authority, but by the very men who know their own affairs much more accurately than we do.

In fact the same writer, having made no slight acquaintance with the superstition which is unknown to most, says that the wicked daemons wish to be gods, and to have among men the reputation of being good.

And who the power presiding over them happens to be, shall be made clear by the same author again, who says that the rulers of the wicked daemons are Sarapis and Hecate; but the sacred scripture says Beelzebul. Hear then how he writes on this point in his book Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles. [6]

[1] 172 b 1 ibid. ii. 40

[2] d 4 ibid. ii. 41

[3] 173 a 10 Porphyry, Abstinence,ii. 41

[4] b 1 ibid. ii. 42

[5] b 6 Hom. Il. ix. 496

[6] 174 b 1 Porphyry, Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius.

Chapter 23

[PORPHYRY] ‘But it is not without reason that we suspect the wicked daemons to be subject to Sarapis, nor from being persuaded only by the symbols, but because all the sacrifices for propitiating or averting their influence are offered to Pluto, as we showed in the first book. But this god is the same as Pluto, and for this reason especially rules over the daemons, and grants tokens for driving them away.

‘It was he then who made known to his suppliants how they gain access to men in the likeness of animals of all kinds; whence among the Egyptians also, and the Phoenicians, and generally among those who are wise in divine things, thongs are violently cracked in the temples, and animals are dashed against the ground before worshipping the gods, the priests thus driving away these daemons by giving them the breath or blood of animals, and by the beating of the air, in order that on their departure the presence of the god may be granted.

‘Every house also is full of them, and on this account, when they are going to call down the gods, they purify the house first, and cast these daemons out. Our bodies also are full of them, for they especially delight in certain kinds of food. So when we are eating they approach and sit close to our body; and this is the reason of the purifications, not chiefly on account of the gods, but in order that these evil daemons may depart. But most of all they delight in blood and in impure meats, and enjoy these by entering into those who use them.

‘For universally the vehemence of the desire towards anything, and the impulse of the lust of the spirit, is intensified from no other cause than their presence: and they also force men to fall into inarticulate noises and flatulence by sharing the same enjoyment with them.

‘For where there is a drawing in of much breath, either because the stomach has been inflated by indulgence, or because eagerness from the intensity of pleasure breathes much out and draws in much of the outer air, let this be a clear proof to you of the presence of such spirits there. So far human nature ventures to investigate the snares that are set about it: for when the deity enters in, the breathing is much increased.’

So much then concerning the wicked daemons, the ruler of whom he says is Sarapis. But the same author also teaches us that Hecate rules them, speaking thus: [1]

‘Are not these perhaps they over whom Sarapis rules, and whose symbol is the three-headed dog, that is the wicked daemon in the three elements, water, earth, air: these are restrained by the god, who has them under his hand. But Hecate also rules them, as holding the threefold, elements together.’

And again he says: [2]

‘After quoting yet one oracle, composed by Hecate herself, I will bring my account of her to an end.

‘Lo! here the virgin, who in changing forms Runs forth o’er highest heaven, with bovine face, Three-headed, ruthless, arm’d with shafts of gold, Chaste Phoebe, Ilithyia, light of men; Of nature’s elements the triple sign, In ether manifest in forms of fire, Upon the air in shining car I sit, While earth in leash holds my black brood of whelps.’

After these verses the author plainly states who the whelps are; namely, that they are the wicked daemons, of whom we have just ceased speaking. So much then for these statements. But by still more evidence let us go on to confirm our argument, that those who are by the many regarded as gods are in reality wicked daemons, bringing with them no good at all.

[Footnotes moved to end and numbered]

[1] 175 b 6 Porphyry, ibid.

[2] c 2 ibid.

Book 5

Chapter 1

THOUGH the statements already set forth were sufficient to prove that those who have been honoured among the heathen as gods in every city and country district were not gods nor yet good daemons, but the very contrary, yet I am not sorry still further to strengthen the same argument even superabundantly by more numerous and ample proofs, since the demonstration thereof clearly shows the deliverance from the evils of former times which was provided for all men by our Saviour’s teaching in the Gospel Hear therefore how Greeks themselves confess that their oracles have failed, and never so failed from the beginning until after the times when the doctrine of salvation in the Gospel caused the knowledge of the one God, the Sovereign and Creator of the universe, to dawn like light upon all mankind.

We shall show then almost immediately that very soon after His manifestation there came stories of the deaths of daemons, and that the wonderful oracles so celebrated of old have ceased. But already it has been proved above that, until after the teaching of the Gospel, the human sacrifices which were formerly so cruelly and ruthlessly perpetrated among all the heathen have never admitted any cessation of evils: and on the present occasion it is a good thing to add to this that not only the superstitious worship of daemons but also the multitude of ruling powers among the heathen became from that time extinct.

For almost in every city and village you might in old times see kings, and tyrants, and local governors, and lords, and ethnarchies and multitudes of rulers, by reason of which they were continually rushing into wars against one another, and ever perpetually at work in raiding country districts, and besieging cities, and making slaves and captives of their neighbours, being wildly driven by their local daemons into mutual wars.

Which being so, I leave it to you to consider for yourself in what kind of confusion of mutual evils and misfortunes the whole of life was entangled.

Since then it was only after the time of our Saviour’s abode among men that these troubles together with the delusion of polytheism were removed all at once out of the way, must we not wonder exceedingly at the great mystery of the exhibition of true salvation in the Gospel? For thereby all at once in the whole world inhabited by man houses of prayer and temples were set up and consecrated, in cities and villages and in the deserts of barbarous nations, to the sovereign Ruler and Creator of all things and the only God; and books and lectures, and all kinds of learning, and instructions containing exhortations concerning the highest virtue and the mode of life accordant with true godliness, have been delivered in the hearing of men and women and children alike, while all the oracles and divinations of daemons are dead.

Nor, since the divine power of our Saviour in the Gospel shone forth like light upon all men, is any man now so mad as to dare to propitiate the murderous and bloodthirsty and misanthropic and inhuman daemons by the murder of his best-beloved, and by the slaughter of men in sacrifices, such as the sages and kings of old, being verily possessed by daemons, loved to practise.

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.’ [1]

This is Porphyry’s statement in his very words. If then, according to this confession, ‘since Jesus began to be honoured no one ever heard of any public assistance from the gods, because neither Asclepius nor the other gods were any longer resident,’ what ground is there henceforth for the opinion that they are gods and heroes?

For why do not rather the gods and Asclepius prevail over the power of Jesus? If indeed, as they would say, He is a mortal man—perhaps they would even say that He is a deceiver—while they are gods and saviours, why then have they all fled in a body, Asclepius and all, having turned their backs to this mortal, and given over all humanity forthwith into the power of Him who, as they would say, is no longer living?

But He even after death, ever continues to be honoured every day among all nations, plainly showing the certainty and divinity of the life after death to those who are able to discern it.

Moreover though He is one, and as might be supposed alone, He drives away the multitude of the gods throughout the whole world, and bringing their honours to naught, so prevails that they are gods no longer, nor exercise any power, nor anywhere show themselves, nor reside as they were wont in the cities, because they were no gods but evil daemons; while only His honours, and those of the God of the universe who sent Him down, increase every day, and advance to greater dignity over all humanity.

Whereas on the contrary those gods, if indeed there were any who really cared for things on earth, ought to have utterly put aside His deception, if any there were, and themselves to bestow their own remedies and benefits abundantly on all.

But in fact they have often attempted this by means of those at various times in power who have made most violent war upon the teaching of our Saviour. Nevertheless, they found the object of their attempt impracticable, as the divine power of our Saviour always more than conquered them all, and overthrew all the insurrections of the evil daemons against His teaching, and drove the daemons themselves away; for evil daemons verily they were, though falsely supposed to be gods or even good daemons.

[1] 179 d 9 Porphyry, Against the Christians

Chapter 2

THESE then, being certain daemons who dwell about the earth and underground, and haunt the heavy and cloudy atmosphere over the earth, and have been condemned, for causes which we shall afterwards allege, to inhabit this dark and earthly abode, love to dwell in graves and monuments of the dead and in all loathsome and impure matter, and delight in bloodshed and gore and the bodies of animals of all kinds, and in the exhalation from the fumes of incense and of vapours rising out of the earth. These and their rulers, who are certain powers of the air, or of the nether world, having observed that the human race was grovelling low about the deification of dead men, and spending its labour very zealously upon sacrifices and savours which were to them most grateful, were ready at hand as supporters and helpers of this delusion; and gloating over the miseries of mankind, they easily deceived silly souls by certain movements of the carved images, which had been consecrated by them of old in honour of the departed, and by the illusions produced by oracles, and by the cures of bodies, which these same daemons were secretly ravaging by their own operation, and then again releasing the men and letting them go free from suffering.

Hereby they the more drove the superstitious headlong into supposing sometimes that they were heavenly powers and certain real gods, and at other times that they were the souls of the deified heroes.

From this cause the belief in the polytheistic error began now to be regarded by the multitude as something greater and more venerable, as their thought passed from what was visible to the invisible nature of those who were hidden in the statues, and so confirmed the delusion more strongly.

Thus then at length the terrestrial daemons, and ‘the world-rulers’ that haunt the air, and the ‘spiritual hosts of wickedness,’ [1] and the leader of them all in malice, were regarded among all men as the greatest of gods; the memory also of those long dead came to be thought worthy of greater worship.

For the shapes of the consecrated images in the various cities were thought to wear the semblance of dead men’s bodies, but of their souls and their divine and incorporeal powers the evil daemons made counterfeit presentations by abundance of fictitious miracles; until at length their consecrated ministers themselves used continually to exaggerate the folly of the illusion, and prepare most of their contrivances by evil arts of jugglery, while the evil daemons again took the lead themselves in teaching these tricks to their ministers. These daemons at all events were the authors of the imposture which was the beginning of the mischief to all human life, as was in fact proved in the preceding book.

[1] 181 d 10 Ephes. vi. 12

Chapter 3

SINCE, therefore, these wicked and earthly daemons, as well as the aerial and infernal spirits, whom the divine oracles call ‘world-rulers’ and ‘spiritual hosts of wickedness, and principalities, and powers,’ [1] at one time played the part of good daemons, and at another assumed the semblance of heavenly deities, and again at other times metamorphosed themselves into heroes, and in some cases by their deeds let the evidence of their wickedness directly appear, the delusion naturally went on increasing much among mankind. For some admitted that they were gods, and others that they were heroes and daemons but not gods: and while entitling some of the daemons good, but calling others bad, they yet affirmed that it was necessary to propitiate the bad also, on account of the damage they could inflict: so that their whole manufacture of deities fell into several classes.

The first kind is that which consists of the luminaries which are seen in the sky, and these they say were the first to be called gods (θεούς)because of their running (θέειν),and because they are the cause of our beholding (θεωρεῖν) things visible. The second class is that which has been advanced to great honour because of the benefits said to be conferred by them on our common life: and this kind they themselves acknowledge to have been begotten of men, bringing forward as examples the so-called heroes, Heracles, and the Dioscuri, and Dionysus, and the corresponding deities among the barbarians.

From this class, after separating and putting aside the more disgraceful acts recorded of them, they assumed a third kind of deification, and called it mythical. Of this kind, indeed, they became ashamed, although it was real and most ancient; so they have changed it into a better agreement, as they say, with natural laws, by allegories of a more figurative nature, according to certain theories which they devised.

Yet even at this stage of deception they were not satisfied to stop: for after having degraded the venerable and adorable name of God to the level of their own passions, they further invented a fourth manner of deification, not worthy even of refutation, because it manifestly carries with it its own shame.

Then by giving to their own foul and unbridled lusts the name of gods, an Eros, and Aphrodite, and Desire, and by calling speech Hermes, and reasoning Athena, they have adopted these also in their own theology, and thus remodelled human actions into the fifth kind of deities.

For they made images to represent the operations of war and of art, and assigned them to certain gods, the operations of war to Ares and Athena, and those of art to Hephaestus and certain others.

In addition to all these they brought in a sixth and seventh kind, consisting of daemons, a truly versatile and multiform class, pretending at one time to be gods, and at another to be souls of the dead; nor did they give us any aid to the cultivation of virtue in the soul, but always made a mock of every person who feared the gods, carrying him down into the depths by their delusive error.

Even this class, though it was wicked throughout, they have divided into two, the mischievous and the beneficent, and given them the titles of good and bad.

These things being so, I think it is necessary for us to put aside the matters that do not even need refutation, and to consider the sequel of our argument concerning daemoniacal operation, of which we took a partial and preliminary view in the preceding book, and will now complete what remains.

Come then, let us now at last proceed to the actual proofs. And I will place first those which are drawn from the book which Plutarch has written On the Cessation of Oracles:where, on the point that the prophetic and oracular shrines among the heathen are the abodes of evil daemons, he writes in the following manner: [2]

[1] 182 c 3 Ephes. vi. 12

[2] 184 a 1 Plutarch, On the Cessation of Oracles, c.x. p. 414

Chapter 4

[PLUTARCH] ‘Now though they are right who say that Plato, by his discovery of the element which underlies the qualities generated (which element they call matter), released the philosophers from many great difficulties: yet to me it seems that those men solved more and greater difficulties, who set the race of daemons midway between gods and men, and discovered that it, in a manner, brings together and unites our society with them; whether this doctrine comes from the Magi and Zoroaster, or is Thracian and derived from Orpheus, or Egyptian, or Phrygian, as we conjecture from seeing that with the initiations in both regions there are mingled many symbols of mortality and mourning in the orgiastic performance of their sacred rites. Among the Greeks Homer is seen to make use of both the names indifferently, and occasionally to call the gods daemons. But Hesiod is the first who plainly and definitely set forth four races of rational beings—gods, then daemons, then heroes, and, last of all, men: he seems, however, to make a change from this order, so that the men of the golden age are set. apart as a numerous class of good daemons, and the demi-gods as heroes.’

Then he says next:

‘But upon these matters it is not necessary for us to dispute with Demetrius: for whether the time be more or be less, whether it be fixed or indefinite, in which the soul of a daemon and the life of a hero undergo change, it will none the less be proved, in the judgement of whomsoever he chooses, by the testimony of wise men of old, that there are certain natures on the confines, as it were, between gods and men, susceptible of mortal influences and involuntary changes, whom it is right for us, according to the custom of our fathers, to regard and address as “daemons,” and to hold in reverence.’

To this, after other matters, he adds:

‘It seems to me to be no unreasonable postulate that those who preside over the oracles are not gods, who ought rightly to be kept clear from matters pertaining to earth, but daemons in the service of gods. But to take as it were a handful out of the verses of Empedocles, and charge these daemons with sins, and infatuations, and heaven-sent wanderings, and to imagine them dying deaths like men, I consider too bold and barbaric.’ [1]

Again he adds to what has been quoted the following:

‘For in daemons also, as in men, there are degrees of virtue; some having but a feeble and obscure remnant, a sort of residue, of the part subject to passion and destitute of reason, while in others this part is large and hard to be extinguished; and traces and symbols of this are in many places preserved by sacrifices and initiations and mythologies, and retained in scattered fragments. Now with respect to the Mysteries, in which we might obtain the, chief indications and elucidations of the truth concerning daemons, ‘I must keep a religious silence,’ as Herodotus says: but as to festivals and sacrifices, as well as days of ill omen mourning, on which the eating of raw flesh and the rending of victims, and fasting and beating of the breast are practised, and again in many places obscene language at the temples, “and other frantic excitements with tumult and tossing of the head,” these, I should say, are performed not in honour of any god, but as propitiatory offerings for the sake of averting evil daemons. And it is neither credible that gods demanded or accepted the human sacrifices offered of old, nor, without cause, would kings and generals have submitted to them by giving up their sons and devoting and sacrificing them; but they were trying to avert and to satisfy the anger and sullenness of harsh and stubborn powers of vengeance, or the furious lusts of some, who were neither able nor willing to have intercourse of bodies with bodies. But just as Heracles besieged Oechalia for the sake of a maiden, so oftentimes strong and violent daemons, demanding a human soul that is enveloped in a body, … bring pestilences upon cities and barrenness of the soil, and stir up wars and seditions, until they succeed in obtaining the object of their desire.’ [2]

Hereby the philosopher before mentioned clearly proved that the sacrifices described above were offered in honour of evil daemons in all the cities. Or even if among these there were, as they say, some who were by nature good, or even gods, what need was there to offer worship to the bad, when they ought to have been driven away by the good?

For if indeed they had some good champions, surely it was right to have confidence in these without caring at all for the worse kind, and to turn away the adverse powers by modest words and prayers, not by obscene language.

But when they did nothing of this kind, but tried to make supplication to the evil daemons by a foul and licentious life and unseemly words, and by feeding on raw flesh, and rending victims asunder, and by human sacrifices, how was it even possible that doing such deeds, and pursuing practices pleasing to the wicked, they should be received as friends by the Supreme God, or by the divine Powers subject to Him, or by any good beings at all?

But in fact it is. manifest to all that he who practises the things that are dear to the wicked can never be a friend of the good. So then it was not to gods, nor yet to good daemons, but only to the wicked, that those of whom I have spoken paid worship.

And this argument is still further confirmed by Plutarch, in the passage where he says that the mythical narratives told as concerning gods are certain tales about daemons, and the deeds of Giants and Titans celebrated in song among the Greeks are also stories about daemons, intended to suggest a new phase of thought.

Of this kind then perhaps were the statements in the Sacred Scripture concerning the giants before the Mood, and those concerning their progenitors, of whom it is said, ‘And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, they took unto them wives of all that they chose,’ and of these were born ‘the giants the men of renown which were of old.’

For one might say that these daemons are those giants, and that their spirits have been deified by the subsequent generations of men, and that their battles, and their quarrels among themselves, and their wars are the subjects of these legends that are told as of gods. Plutarch indeed, in the discourse which he composed On Isis and the gods of the Egyptians,speaks as follows word for word: [3]

[1] 184 c 9 Plutarch, On the Cessation of Oracles,c. xii. p. 416 C ibid. c. xvi. p. 418 E b I Plutarch, ibid. p. 417 B

[2] 185 a 1 Plutarch, b 9 Herod. ii. 171. 185 c 3 Pindar, Fr. 121 (224)

[3] 187 a 1 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris,c. xxv. p. 360 D

Chapter 5

[PLUTARCH] ‘THEY therefore do better who think that the incidents recorded concerning Typhon and Osiris and Isis refer to sufferings neither of gods nor of men, but of certain mighty daemons, whom Plato and Pythagoras and Xenocrates and Chrysippus, following the ancient theologians, state to have been stronger than men, and far superior in power to our nature; having, however, their divine element not unmixed nor unalloyed, but sharing both in the nature of the soul and the bodily sense, which is susceptible of pleasure and pain, and in all the feelings which, being engendered by these alternations, trouble some of them more and some less. For various degrees of virtue and vice are found in daemons just as in men. Thus the deeds of the Giants and Titans celebrated in song among the Greeks, and many unholy practices of Kronos, and the contests of Python with Apollo, and the banishments of Dionysos, and the wanderings of Demeter, fall nothing short of the acts of Osiris and Typhon, which one may hear everywhere made the subject of licentious fables. Also the things which, being veiled in mystic rites and initiations, are kept secret and out of sight, have a similar relation to the gods.’ [1]

Presently he adds:

‘Empedocles even asserts that the daemons suffer punishment for any sins and offences which they have committed:

“The angry ether drives them down to sea; Sea spits them out upon the solid earth; Earth flings them to the blazing Sun; he back To ether’s whirling depths. Thus each from each Receives, and all reject the hateful crew:” [2]

until having been thus chastened they recover once more their natural place and rank. Akin to these and suchlike stories are said to be the legends told concerning Typhon, how that he committed dreadful crimes out of envy and spite, throwing everything into confusion, and filled both earth and sea all full of evils, and then was punished for it.’

Having put forward these statements, and worked out the argument more fully in the book which I have mentioned, Plutarch relates the like stories also in his book On the Cessation of Oracles,in the following manner: [3]

‘This man ascribed his inspiration to daemons, and had much to say about Delphi, and there was none of the stories told here about Dionysos, nor of the sacred rites performed, of which he had not heard; but those also he asserted to be mighty sufferings of daemons, and the same of the story about the Python, and that the slayer’s banishment was not for nine years nor to Tempe, but that he was driven out and entered into another world: and afterwards, in the revolutions of nine Great Years having become pure and a true Phoebus in brilliancy, he returned thence and took possession of the oracle, which was guarded in the meantime by Themis. Such, he said, was the case also with the legends of Typhon and the Titans, that there were battles of daemons against daemons, then banishments of the conquered, or punishments by a god of those who had committed sins, such as Typhon is said to have committed upon Osiris, and Kronos on Uranos; gods, whose honours among us have become more obscure, or have altogether ceased, since they have departed into another world. For I learn that the Solymi, who are neighbours of the Lycians, used to pay the highest honours to Kronos: but after he killed their chief rulers Arsalos, and Arytos, and Tosibis, and fled, and departed to some place or other—for they cannot tell whither—he was neglected, but Arsalos and his companions were addressed as gods by the name Sciri, and the Lycians make their imprecations both public and private in their name. Many stories like these you may gather from the mythologies. But if we call certain daemons by the customary names of the gods, it is not to be wondered at, said the stranger; for each of them likes to be called after the god with whom he has been associated, and of whose power he partakes: even as among us one is Dius, and another Athenaeus, and a third Apollonius, or Dionysius, or Hermaeus. But though some of these by accident were rightly so named, the greater part received names not at all befitting them, but changed in derivation from the names of gods.’

So much says Plutarch in his careful treatise On the Cessation of Oracles,showing, in addition to the other points, that the daemons are subject to death, the very thing which I shall bring forward at the proper time.

But meanwhile, let us collect whatever else concerning the power and operation of the good daemons, as he calls them, is set forth at another time by the author of the compilation against us in the book which he entitled Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles:for now again, as indeed often before, I shall make use especially of him as a witness and evidence of the delusion about those whom they imagine to be gods, in order that they may be put to shame at being stricken by their own spears and arrows.

For thus the demonstration of the matters which lie before us, being derived from the very friends of their gods, who have both been esteemed devout, and have accurately examined the account of their own religion, will be found complete and irrefutable.

Now the author aforesaid writes as follows in his book which he entitled Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles,wherein he protests against betraying the secrets of the gods, and binds himself by oath and exhorts others to conceal what he shall say and not publish it to many.

What then Avere these matters of such importance? He affirms that Pan is a servant of Dionysos, and that he being one of the good daemons appeared once upon a time to those who were working in the fields. What ought a good deity, or at all events the advent of a good deity, to confer on those to whom the manifestation of the good has been vouchsafed?

Did then any good result to the beholders of this good daemon, or have they found him an evil daemon, and learned this by practical experience? This admirable witness says indeed that those to whom this blessed sight was vouchsafed all died at once; for thus he speaks: [4]

[1] 187 d 3 Plutarch, On Isis, cc. xxvi, xxvii. p. 361 C

[2] 187 d 5 Empedocles, Fr.32

[3] 188 b 1 Plutarch, On the Cessation of Oracles,c. xxi. p. 421 B

[4] 190 a 1 Porphyry, Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles

Chapter 6

[PORPHYRY] ‘IN other cases also ere now some were shown to be servants of certain gods, as Pan of Dionysos: and this has been made clear by Apollo of Branchidae in the following verses. For nine persons were found dead; and when the inhabitants of the country district inquired the cause, the god made answer:

“Lo! where the golden-horned Pan In sturdy Dionysos’ train Leaps o’er the mountains’ wooded slopes! His right hand holds a shepherd’s staff, His left a smooth shrill-breathing pipe, That charms the gentle wood-nymph’s soul. But at the sound of that strange song Each startled woodsman dropp’d his axe, And all in frozen terror gaz’d Upon the Daemon’s frantic course. Death’s icy hand had seiz’d them all, Had not the huntress Artemis In anger stay’d his furious might. To her address thy prayer for aid.” ‘

Hast thou now heard how Apollo of Branchidae described both the figure and the deeds of the daemon whom Porphyry calls good? See then also the noble achievements of the rest, for the sake of which forsooth they abandoned their life in heaven, and chose the company of men instead.

Surely it was their duty at any rate to set an example of temperance, and to suggest what was profitable and beneficial to mankind: but they did nothing of the kind. Hear what things are brought to light by him, who had searched out the most unutterable secrets, and was favoured with the knowledge of things forbidden.

At one time he says that some of these good daemons are the slaves of amorous pleasures, and then that others delight in drums and flutes, and women’s clatter; and that others again take pleasure in wars and battles, and Artemis in hunting, and Deo in the fruits of the ground; that Isis is still mourning for Osiris, and Apollo uttering oracles. Such are the benefits conferred on mankind by those whom they call good daemons! Now listen to the proofs of this. [1]

[1] 191 b 1 Porphyry, Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles

Chapter 7

[PORPHYRY]

‘NE’ER mid the immortal gods an idle threat Or unaccomplish’d doom to seers inspir’d Spake Hecate; but from the almighty mind Of Zeus descends in brightest truth array’d. Lo! by my side walks Wisdom with firm step, Leaning on oracles that ne’er can fail. In bonds secure me: for my power divine Can give a soul to worlds beyond the sky.’

Perhaps then on this account the soul is of threefold form and parts: and one part of it is irascible, and another concupiscent, by which latter it is invited to amorous indulgence. These are not my ideas, do not suppose it, but what you have heard from the writer before mentioned; from whom again the following is taken:

‘But what utterly perplexes me is, how, being invoked as superiors, they receive orders as inferiors; and while requiring their worshipper to be just, they submit when bidden themselves to do injustice; and, while they would not listen to one who invokes them, if defiled by sensual pleasure, do not hesitate themselves to lead any whom they meet into lawless indulgence.’

This also you may find in the same author’s Epistle to Anebo the Egyptian. [1] And in the aforesaid treatise Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles,in addition to what has been quoted, he speaks as follows:

‘Moreover, some of them have plainly shown what office is assigned to each, as the Didymaean Apollo does in what follows: (the inquiry was, whether a man is bound to take an oath which one has tendered to him):

“Rhea, great mother of the blessed gods, Loves flutes and rattling drums and female rout. The din of war is bright-helm’d Pallas’ joy. Latona’s daughter o’er the rocky steep With spotted hounds pursues the savage beast. Great Juno sends the soft rain’s welcome sound; Rich crops of full-ear’d grain are Deo’s care: And Pharian Isis by Nile’s fruitful stream With wildered steps her fair Osiris seeks.”’

If then ‘flutes, and the rattle of drums, and a throng of women’ are the care of the Mother of the gods, we ought surely to practise these things to the neglect of every virtue, because the aforesaid goddess has no care for modesty or any other devout practice: as also the din of battle, and conflicts, and wars are dear to Athena, and not peace nor the things of peace. Also let Artemis ‘Latona’s daughter’ care for her spotted hounds, because, as a huntress, she wages war afield with the wild bea,sts, and for the other goddesses in like manner the offices enumerated. Well then what would these things contribute towards the divinely favoured and blessed life? But consider whether what he adds next seems to you to be the mark of a divine, or of a vicious and utterly wicked nature. [2]

[1] 191 d 6 Porphyry, Epistle to Anebo,§ 28 (Parthey)

[2] 193 a 3 Porphyry, Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles

Chapter 8

[PORPHYRY] ‘THIS also was rightly declared by Pythagoras of Rhodes, that the gods who are invoked over the sacrifices have no pleasure therein, but come because they are dragged by a certain necessity of following, and some of them more, and some less.

‘Some however, having made as it were a custom of being present, attend more readily, and especially if they happen to be of a good nature: but others, even if they are accustomed to be present, are eager to do some harm, and especially if any one seems to behave rather carelessly in the performances.

‘For as Pythagoras had made these statements, I learned, by close observation of the oracles, how true his words are. For all the gods say that they have come by compulsion, yet not simply so, but as it were, if I may so speak, by compulsion under the guise of persuasion.

‘In what goes before we have mentioned those statements of Hecate, as to the means by which she says she is made to appear:

“The lightsome air and boundless realm of stars, Unsullied home of deity, I leave, To tread the fruitful earth at thy command: Thou know’st the secret spell, which mortal man Has learn’d, to charm immortal spirits down.”

‘And again:

“I come at sound of thy persuasive prayer, Which man inspir’d by heavenly counsels learn’d.”

‘And still more plainly:

“What need of thine, by spells that bind the gods, Calls Hecate from swiftest ether down?”

‘And then:

“Some from the sky thy wheel with mystic charm Draws swiftly, though unwilling, down to earth. And others floating midway on the winds, From the bright empyrean far remov’d, As ominous dreams thou dost to mortals send, Service unseemly laid on powers divine.”

‘And again:

“Some from their lofty home above the sky Down through mid air with Harpies swift descending Bow to the mystic spells that bind the gods, And rushing swiftly down to Deo’s earth Bring messages to man of things to come.”

‘And again another is compelled to say:

“Hear the unwilling voice thy power constrains.”’

After this again the author says:

‘For they give out answers for their own compulsion, as will be shown by Apollo’s answer as to means of compelling him. It is expressed thus:

“Strong to compel and weighty is this name.”

‘Then he added:

“Then come thou swiftly at these words, Drawn from my heart in mystic chant, The while I quench the sacred fire. Thus nature dares thy birth divine, Immortal Paean, to declare.”

‘And again Apollo himself speaks:

“A stream of heavenly light from Phoebus flowing, Veil’d in the clear breath of the purest air, By soothing song and mystic spell allur’d Falls like a glory round the prophet’s head, Pierces the delicate membrane of the brain, Fills the soft coating of the inward frame, Thence surging upward in hot stream returns, And through the living pipe gains welcome voice.”’

To this the writer adds the remark:

‘Nothing could be plainer than this, nothing more godlike and more natural; for that which comes down is a spirit; and an emanation from the heavenly power having entered into an organized and living body, uses the soul as a basis, and through the body, as its organ, utters speech.’

But this is sufficient to prove that they suffer compulsion; and that they also request to be set free, as if it were not in their own power to withdraw, you may learn from what follows.

Chapter 9

[PORPHYRY] ‘Now that the gods so summoned are eager to withdraw, will be shown by such passages as the following, where they say:

“But now release the king; for mortal frame No longer can the present god endure.”

‘And again:

“Why with long prayers torment this mortal frame?”

‘And again:

“Go now, return with speed; thy saving work On me is done.’

‘And how to dismiss them, Apollo himself will teach us, saying:

“Cease then thy cunning spells, let the man rest, Free the old image from its willow bands, And from my limbs with vigorous hand rend off The linen shroud.”

‘He told also the mode of dismissal:

“Lift thy foot up high before thee, Stop the muttering from the cave;”

and the verses that follow these.’

To which he adds, if they are still tardy in the dismissal:

“Unwrap the linen cloud, and set the prophet free.”

‘Again at another time he gave a form of dismissal such as this:

“Ye Nymphs and Naiads with the Muses join To set Apollo free; and then in songs Exalt the praises of the archer god.”

‘At another time he says:

“Now loose the wreaths, with water bathe my feet, Rub out the magic lines, and let me go. The branch of laurel from my right hand take, And both my eyes, both nostrils wipe with care: Then raise, O friends, this mortal from the ground.”’

Upon this the author further remarks:

‘So then he exhorts them to rub out the lines, that he may go free; for these hold him fast, as indeed does also the form of dress in which he is arrayed, because it bears representations of the gods who have been invoked.’

By these quotations I think it has been clearly shown that there is nothing at all worthy of deity, nothing either great or truly divine in these spirits who have fallen to such a depth of degradation as to be drawn and dragged down by any common men, not by reason of any attainment in virtue and wisdom, but merely by their pursuing and practising the arts of magical imposture.

Neither, therefore, did Pythagoras the Rhodian speak rightly, nor would the author of this testimony of theirs, nor any man whatsoever call them with good reason gods, nay, nor yet good daemons, dragged about as they are by mortal men and mere impostors, not according to their own judgement, but dragged by force and compulsion, and without having in themselves the power of release from their bonds.

For if the deity is not subject to force or to compulsion, but is in nature superior to all things, being free and incapable of suffering, how can they be gods who are beguiled by juggling tricks managed by means of such dresses, and lines, and images?—beguiled, I say, by wreaths also and flowers of the earth, and withal by certain unintelligible and barbarous cries and voices, and subdued by ordinary men, and, as it were, enslaved by bonds, so that they cannot even keep safe in their own control the power of independence and free will.

How, too, can they be called good daemons if they are dragged down by force and compulsion? For what is the cause that they give themselves up grudgingly and not of their own free will to those who need help?

If they are good and make their appearance for a good purpose, and if there is, as was said, any benefit to the soul from them, they ought surely to welcome the good by choice, and anticipate the suppliants by their benefits instead of waiting to be compelled.

But if the transaction was not honourable and not beneficial, and therefore its occurrence not according to their mind, how then could they be good, if they practised what is neither honourable nor expedient?

Or how can they deserve to be admired and honoured with divine worship who are enslaved by common impostors of the most abandoned character, and compelled to perform what is neither honourable nor expedient contrary to their judgement, and are led and dragged down, not because they approve of men’s morality, nor to promote virtue or any branch of philosophy, but by forbidden practices of impostors? Such practices the same author has mentioned again in his Epistle to the before-mentioned Egyptian, as though he were consulting a prophet upon secret truths, and requesting to be taught by him the words in which they accomplish these results. For he asks as in doubt, and speaks somewhat as follows. [1]

[1] 197 d 1 Porphyry, Epistle to Anebo,§ 28

Chapter 10

[PORPHYRY] ‘BUT what utterly perplexes me is, how, though invoked as superiors, they receive orders as inferiors, and while requiring their worshipper to be just, submit when bidden themselves to do injustice; and, while they would not listen to one who invokes them, if defiled by sensual pleasure, do not hesitate themselves to lead any whom they meet into lawless indulgence.

‘They also give orders that their interpreters must be abstainers from animal food, that they may not be tainted with the vapours from the carcases, though they are themselves mightily allured by the vapours from the sacrifices; also that the initiate must not touch a dead body, though it is by means of dead animals that the gods are for the most part brought down.

‘But much more absurd than this is the notion that a man under the power of any ordinary master should employ threats, not merely to a daemon perchance or to a dead man’s soul, but to the royal Sun himself, or the Moon, or any of the deities in heaven, and try to frighten them by lies, in order that they may speak the truth.

‘For to say that he will batter the heavens, and publish the secrets of Isis, and show the forbidden mystery at Abydos, and stop the sacred boat, and scatter the limbs of Osiris for Typhon,—is not this the last excess of stupidity on the part of him who threatens things of which he has neither knowledge nor power, and of degradation to those who have been frightened at so vain an alarm, and at mere fictions, like very silly children?

‘And yet Chaeremon the sacred scribe records these things as common talk among the Egyptians, and they say that these and other such methods are most forcible.

‘What meaning have the very prayers, which speak of him who arose out of a marsh, and is seated upon the lotus, and voyages in a ship, and changes his shapes hourly, and is transfigured according to the signs of the zodiac? For thus they say he is beheld by our eyes, not knowing that what they are attaching to him is the peculiar affection of their own imagination.

‘If these things are spoken symbolically, as being symbols of his powers, let them tell us the interpretation of the symbols. For it is evident that if it was what the sun undergoes, as in eclipses, the same thing would have been seen by all who gaze upon him.

‘Further, what is meant by the unintelligible names, and among these the preference of the barbarous names over those which properly belong to each deity? For if he who hears looks to the thing signified, the thought remaining the same is sufficient to show it, whatsoever the name may be.

‘For, I suppose, the god invoked was not an Egyptian by birth: and even if he was an Egyptian, yet surely he did not use the Egyptian language, nor any human language at all. For either these were all impostors’ tricks, and symbols of the passions which affect us, veiled by the titles which they ascribe to the gods, or else we have been unconsciously holding ideas concerning the deity contrary to his real condition.’

After these statements he again expresses his doubts to the Egyptian, saying:

‘If some are passionless (though others are subject to passions, and for this reason, they say, phalli are set up to these latter, and obscene phrases uttered), quite useless will be those invocations of gods which profess to summon them to aid, and to appease their wrath, and to make expiation, and yet more useless the arts by which gods are said to be constrained. For the passionless nature can neither be enticed, nor forced, nor compelled by necessity.’

And then he adds again: [1]

‘Vain has their study of wisdom been, who worried the divine mind about finding a runaway slave, or buying a farm, or perchance about a marriage, or commerce. Or if there has been no neglect of wisdom, and if her associates speak most truly on other subjects, but nothing sure or trustworthy in regard to happiness, then they were neither gods nor good daemons, but only that deceiver as he is called.’

So far then let these quotations suffice from this work of Porphyry. Moreover, these noble gods themselves became the first instructors in this evil art of imposture. For whence could men know these things, except from the daemons themselves having revealed their own case, and published one against another the spells that bind them?

Do not suppose that this is our own statement: for we do not admit that we either understand or wish to know any of these things. Yet in proof of the absurdity of these practices, and at the same time in our own defence for withdrawing from them, let us bring forward our witness to these facts, who is regarded as a wise man among his acquaintances, and both knows and expounds accurately his own system.

The same author then, in the aforesaid collection of oracles, speaks thus word for word. [2]

[1] 199 a 3 Porphyry, Epistleto Anebo,§ 4

[2] 198 d 2 Porphyry, Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles

Chapter 11

[PORPHYRY] ‘BUT not only have they themselves informed us of their mode of life, and the other things which I have mentioned, but they also suggested by what sort of things they are pleased and prevailed upon, and moreover by what they are compelled, and what one ought to sacrifice, and what day to avoid, and what sort of figure should be given to their statues, and in what shapes they themselves appear, and in what kind of places they abide; and of all the things whereby men thus honour them there is not one which they were not taught by the daemons themselves. As the proofs which confirm this are many, we will bring forward a few out of the number, not to leave our statement without witness.’

Chapter 12

‘THAT they themselves suggested how even their statues ought to be made, and of what kind of material, shall be shown by the response of Hecate in the following form:

“My image purify, as I shall show: Of wild rue form the frame, and deck it o’er With lizards such as run about the house; These mix with resin, myrrh, and frankincense, Pound all together in the open air Under the crescent moon, and add this vow.”

‘Then she set forth the vow, and showed how many lizards must be taken:

“Take lizards many as my many forms, And do all this with care. My spacious house With branches of self-planted laurel form. Then to my image offer many a prayer, And in thy sleep thou shalt behold me nigh.”

‘And again in another place she described an image of herself of this same kind.’

Chapter 13

‘MOREOVER they have themselves indicated how they appear with regard to their forms, and from these their images were set up as they are. Sarapis for example says of himself, after seeing Pan:

“A brilliant light shone through the god’s own house; He came, the mighty god, and met me there. My matchless strength, and glow of lordly fire, And waving curls he saw, which from my head On either side play round my radiant brows, And mingle with the red beard’s sacred locks.”

‘Pan also taught men a hymn concerning himself, which runs as follows: [1]

“To Pan, a god of kindred race, A mortal born my vows I pay; Whose horned brows and cloven feet And goat-like legs his lust betray,”

and the rest.

‘Hecate also speaks of herself thus:

“Do all anon: a statue too therein; My form—Demeter bright with autumn fruits, White robes, and feet with golden sandals bound. Around the waist long snakes run to and fro, Gliding o’er all with undefiled track, And from the head down even to the feet Wrapping me fairly round with spiral coils.”

‘And the material, she says, must be

“Of Parian stone or polish’d ivory.”

[1] 201 c 1 The same lines are quoted above, 124 b 3

Chapter 14

‘IN many cases the gods, by giving signs of their statements beforehand, show by their knowledge of the arrangement of each man’s nativity that they are, if we may so say, excellent Magians and perfect astrologers. Again he said that in oracular responses Apollo spake thus:

“Invoke together Hermes and the Sun On the Sun’s day, the Moon when her day comes, Kronos and Aphrodite in due turn, With silent prayers, by chiefest Magian taught, Whom all men know lord of the seven-string’d lyre.”

‘And when they cried “You mean Ostanes,” he added:

“Call with loud voice seven times each several god.” ‘

The same writer also alleges what follows:

‘The symbols of Hecate are wax of three colours, white and black and red combined, having a figure of Hecate bearing a scourge, and torch, and sword, with a serpent to be coiled round her; and the symbols of Uranus are the mariners’ stars nailed up before the doors. For these symbols the gods themselves have indicated in the following verses. The speaker is Pan:

“Evil spirits drive afar: Then upon the fire set wax Gleaming fair with colours three, White and black must mingle there With the glowing embers’ red, Terror to the dogs of hell. Then let Hecate’s dread form Hold in her hand a blazing torch, And the avenging sword of fate; While closely round the goddess wrapp’d A snake fast holds her in his coils, And wreathes about her awful brow. Let the shining key be there, And the far-resounding scourge, Symbol of the daemons’ power.”’

By these and the like quotations this noble philosopher of the Greeks, this admirable theologian, this initiate in secret mysteries, exhibits The Philosophy to be derived from Oraclesas containing secret oracles of the gods, while openly proclaiming the plots laid against men by their wicked and truly daemoniacal power. For what benefit to human life can there be from these evil arts of sorcery? Or what pleasure to the gods in this scrupulous care about lifeless statues? Of what divine power can there be a likeness in the formation of such shapes? Why should he not have counselled us to study philosophy rather than to practise magic and pursue forbidden arts, if the path of virtue and philosophy is sufficient for a happy and blessed life? But he, continuing his own refutation, adds to what has been mentioned the following: [1]

[1] 203 c 2 Porphyry, Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles

Chapter 15

[PORPHYRY] ‘Now that they love the symbols of their features is signified by Hecate comparing them with what men love, as follows:

“What mortal longs not for the features carv’d In bronze, or gold, or silver gleaming bright? What god loves not this pedestal, whereon I weave the tangled web of human fates?”’

He has made it clear that not only the features are dear, but that also, as I said, the gods themselves are confined therein, and dwell in the underlying likeness as it were in a sacred place: for they could not be supported on earth, except on sacred ground: and that ground is sacred which bears the image of the deity; but if the image be taken away, the bond which held the deity on earth is loosed.

By all these testimonies, then, I think it is clearly proved that their gods were found to be daemons haunting the earth and enslaved to passions: wherefore it seems to me that I have followed sound reason in turning away from them.

You see, for instance, how they say that their magic figures and images of that kind hold them fast in certain spots of ground: though they ought, if, as they say, there is any real divinity in them, to set foot in no other place, except only in the thought of the soul, and that thought too purified from all filth and from every stain, and adorned with modesty and righteousness and all the other virtues.

For when these previously exist in a man’s soul as in a truly hallowed place, the advent of a divine Spirit would naturally follow; nor would, souls already prepared by virtuous and godly practice for the reception of the Deity have had any further need of the evil arts of sorcery.

So that they of whom we were just now speaking are expressly convicted on all this evidence of being certain daemons who haunt the earth, and are the slaves of passion and of bodily pleasures. Listen, however, next to what statements the same writer makes concerning the cessation of their celebrated oracles.

Chapter 16

‘”OF Pytho and of Claros, sacred shrines Of Phoebus, let my tongue speak reverent words. Erewhile ten thousand oracles divine Gush’d forth on earth in flowing streams, and breath Of dizzy vapours. Some the earth herself, Wide opening her deep bosom, back received, And some the course of countless time destroy’d. The Sun alone, which lights our mortal life, Hath still his spring in Didyma’s deep vale, Where flows the sacred stream from Mycale: And still beneath Parnassus’ lofty peaks Springs Castalie’s fair fount; mid Clarian rocks Still from the cave prophetic voices sound.”

‘But to some people of Nicaea he gave this response:

“Nought can restore the Pythian voice divine: Enfeebled by long ages, it hath laid The keys of silence on the oracle. Yet still to Phoebus bring your offerings due.” ‘

To this we may here opportunely add the words of Plutarch from the book which he has written On the Cessation of Oracles.[1]

[PLUTARCH] ‘When Ammonius had ceased, Tell us rather, my Cleombrotus, said I, about the oracle: for the reputation of the deity there was great in former times, but now it seems to be fading away.

‘But as Cleombrotus kept silence and looked down, Demetrius said that there was no need for men to inquire and doubt about the state of things there, when they saw the decay of the oracles here, or rather the failure of all except one or two: but we ought to consider generally through what cause they have grown thus feeble.

‘For why need we speak of the others, when Boeotia, which in former times, as far as oracles were concerned, spake with many voices, is now completely forsaken by them, just as streams run dry, and a great drought of inspiration has overspread the land. For in no other place now except at Lebadeia does Boeotia enable inquirers to draw from the well of prophecy: but of the rest, silence has overtaken some and utter desolation others.’

In addition to this the same author speaks of their daemons dying, as follows: [2]

[1] 205 b 4 Plutarch, On the Cessation of Oracles, c. 5, p. 411 E

[2] 205 d 3 Plutarch, l. c., c. xvi, p. 418 E

Chapter 17

‘THE opinion, said he, that those who preside over the oracles are not gods—for gods ought rightly to be kept free from the affairs of earth—but daemons who are servants of gods, seems to me no unfair assumption. But to take as it were a handful out of the verses of Empedocles, and to lay sins and frenzies and heaven-sent wanderings upon these daemons, and to imagine them dying deaths like men, I consider too bold and barbaric. Hereupon Cleombrotus asked Philip who the young man was, and whence he came; and when he had learned his name and city, he said, We are not ourselves unconscious, Ileracleon, that we have entered upon strange arguments: but in dealing with great subjects it is not possible to arrive at a probable opinion without employing great principles.

‘But you are yourself unconsciously taking back what you grant. For you admit that daemons exist; but, in claiming that they are not wicked and not mortal, you no longer have daemons to defend. For in what do they differ from the gods, if they are both in regard to essence incorruptible, and in regard to virtue free from passion and from sin?

‘While Heracleon was silently pondering in himself some answer to this, Philip said to him, Nay, Heracleon, that daemons are wicked was admitted not only by Empedocles, but also by Pinto, and Xenocrates and Chrysippus: and moreover when Democritus prayed that he might meet with favourable apparitions, it was evident that he knew of others perverse and mischievous, with certain propensities and impulses.

‘Now with regard to the death of such beings, I have heard a story from a man who was no fool nor braggart. For the father of Aemilianus the rhetorician, whose hearers some of us have been, was Epitherses, my fellow citizen and grammar-master. He said that once on a voyage to Italy he embarked in a ship carrying merchandise and many passengers: and at evening off the Echinades the wind dropped, and the ship drifted and came near to Paxi; that most of them were awake, and were drinking after they had supped. And suddenly a voice was heard from the island Paxi, some one calling aloud on Thamus, so that they were amazed. For Thamus was the pilot, an Egyptian, not even known by name to many of those on board. Though called twice however, he kept silence, but the third time he answered him that called. He then raised his voice higher and said, “When thou art come off Pelodes, announce that the Great Pan is dead.”

‘On hearing this, Epitherses said they were all struck with amazement, and began to take counsel together, whether it were better to do what was commanded, or not to meddle with the matter, but let it pass; whereupon Thamus decided, that if there should be wind, he would sail past and keep quiet, but if the wind should fail and a calm come on near the place, he would report what he had heard.

‘When therefore he was come off Pelodes, as there was neither wind nor sea, Thamus looking from the poop towards the land spake as he had heard, that “The Great Pan is dead”: and he had no sooner ceased speaking than there came a loud lamentation, not of one but of many, mingled with amazement.

‘And inasmuch as there were many persons present, the tale was soon spread in Rome, and Thamus was sent for by Tiberius Caesar. And Tiberius so fully believed the story, that he made thorough inquiry and research about Pan; and the learned men of his court being present in great number conjectured that it was Pan the son of Hermes and Penelope.

‘So then Philip had witnesses to his story in some of those who were present, and had heard it from the aged Aemiiian. But Demetrius said that there were many desert islands scattered about among those on the coast of Britain, some of which were named after daemons and heroes. And that he himself, being sent by the Emperor to make an investigation and survey, sailed to the nearest of the desert islands, which had but few inhabitants, and these all sacred persons inviolable to the Britons.

‘Very soon after his arrival there arose a great commotion in the air, and many portents in the sky, and violent blasts of wind, and falling of thunderbolts. And when this abated, the islanders said that one of the higher powers had been extinguished; for as a lamp, they said, while lighted does no harm, but being extinguished is hurtful to many, so great souls are benignant and harmless in their shining, but their extinction and dissolution oftentimes, as now, cause winds and storms, and often infect the air with pestilent diseases.

‘There was however one island there, in which Kronos was confined and guarded in his sleep by Briareus; for his sleep had been artfully contrived to keep him bound; and there were many daemons about him as attendants and servants.’.

So far Plutarch. But it is important to observe the time at which he says that the death of the daemon took place. For it was the time of Tiberius, in which our Saviour, making His sojourn among men, is recorded to have been ridding human life from daemons of every kind: so that there were some of them now kneeling before Him and beseeching Him not to deliver them over to the Tartarus that awaited them.

You have therefore the date of the overthrow of the daemons, of which there was no record at any other time; just as you had the abolition of human sacrifice among the Gentiles as not having occurred until after the preaching of the doctrine of the Gospel had reached all mankind. Let then these refutations from recent history suffice.

Chapter 18

BUT since the matters which have been mentioned are not known to all, it seems to me well to pass from this point to subjects which are self-evident to all the learned, and to examine the oracular responses of most ancient date which are repeated in the mouth of all Greeks, and are taught in the schools of every city to those who resort to them for instruction.

Take up again therefore the ancient records from the beginning, and observe what kind of answer the Pythian god gives to the Athenians when afflicted with a pestilence on account of the death of Androgeus. The Athenians were all suffering from a pestilence for one man’s death, and thought to receive the help of the gods.

What advice then does this saviour and god give them? To cultivate justice and benevolence and all other virtue in future, some one will perhaps suppose; or to repent of the offence, and to perform some holy and religious rites, as the gods would thereby be propitiated. Nay, nothing of the kind.

For what indeed did their admirable gods, or rather their utterly wicked daemons, care for these things? So again they say what is natural and familiar to themselves, things merciless and cruel and inhuman, plague upon plague, and many deaths for one.

In fact Apollo bids them every year send of their own children seven grown youths, and as many maidens, fourteen innocent and unconcerned persons for one. and that not once only but every year, to be sacrificed in Crete in the presence of Minos: so that even to the time of Socrates, more than five hundred years afterwards, this dreadful and most inhuman tribute was still kept in memory among the Athenians. And this it was that caused the delay in the death of Socrates.

This answer of the oracle is at once stated and very justly condemned in a vigorous argument by a recent author, who has composed a separate work on The Detection of Impostors:to whose own words, and not mine, now listen, as he aims his stroke at the author of the response in the manner following: [1]

[1] 209 b 2 Oenomaus, The Detection of Impostors,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 19

[OENOMAUS] ‘WHAT then? When the Athenians had caused the death of Androgeus, and suffered a pestilence for it, would they not have said that they repented? Or if they did not say so, would it not have been proper for thee to say “Repent,” rather than to say this?

“Of plague and famine there shall be an end, If your own flesh and blood, female and male, By lot assigned to Minos, ye send forth Upon the mighty sea, for recompense Of evil deeds: so shall the god forgive.”

‘I pass over the fact that you gods are indignant at the death of Androgeus at Athens, but sleep on while so many die in all places and at all times: though thou knewest that Minos at that time was master of the sea, and of mighty power, and all Hellas was paying court to him: he Avas therefore a lover of justice, and a good lawgiver, and seemed to Homer to be

“Frequent in converse close with mighty Zeus,” [1]

and after death he became a judge in Hades: and thou for this offence wouldst exact these penalties on his behalf!

‘But I pass over these matters just as you gods do, and also the fact that after letting the murderers escape ye bade them send the innocent to death, yea, sent them to a man whom ye were about to exhibit as a judge of all mankind, but who in this very case knew not how to give judgement. And yet how many ought you gods in justice to send to the Athenians in place of these youths, whom ye unjustly slew in revenge for Androgeus? ‘

This same writer, after recalling the story about the Heracleidae, counts up the number of persons whose death Apollo has caused by the ambiguity of his responses, in the following words. [2]

[1] 209 d 8 Hom. Od.xix. 179

[2] 210 b 2 Oenomaus, The Detection of Impostors

Chapter 20

[OENOMAUS] ‘BUT since I happen to have mentioned this subject, let me now relate the incidents of the narrative concerning the Heracleidae. For they once set out to invade the Peloponnese by way of the Isthmus, but failed in the attempt. So Aristomachus the son of Aridaeus, because his father had perished in the invasion, comes to thee to learn about the way: for he was eager as his father had been. And thou tellest him,

“Heaven shows the way to victory through the straits.”

‘So he starts on the enterprise by way of the Isthmus, and is killed in battle. His son Temenus, unhappy son of hapless sire, was the third who came to thee, and thou gavest the same promise to him as to his father Aristomachus: and he said, “But my father trusted thee, and perished in the invasion.”

‘Then thou said’st, I do not mean “straits” on land, but on “the broad-bosomed,” because, I suppose, it was difficult for thee to say simply “by the sea.” And he went by sea, after making them think that he was making his incursion by land, and he encamped midway between Navatus and Typaeum. He killed with his spear Carnus son of Phylander, an Aetolian knight, doing, as I think, quite rightly. And when a plague presently fell upon them, and Aristodemus died, they returned again, and Temenus came and complained of his failure, and was told that he had brought upon himself the penalty for the messenger of the god, and he heard the poem concerning his vow to the Carnean Apollo, which told him in the oracular answer,

“Thou sufferest vengeance for my prophet’s death.”

‘What then says Temenus? “What must I do? And how can I appease you?”

“To the Carnean god due honour vow.”

‘O most accursed, and most shameless prophet! Dost thou then not understand that he who hears the word “straits” will miss its meaning? Yet knowing this thou none the less givest this answer, and then lookest on at his mistake.

‘But the word “strait” was ambiguous, and chosen in order that, if he were victorious, thou mightest seem to be the cause of his victory; but, if defeated, not at all to blame for his defeat, being able to take refuge in “the broad-bosomed.” But the man went on “the broad-bosomed,” and did not succeed; and again, an excuse is found in the death of thy messenger Carnus.

‘Yet how, most noble god, didst thou, to whom Carnus was so dear, bid him be inspired for others, but not for himself? And though thou shouldest have saved Carnus, who was but one, how didst thou suffer him to die, and for his death didst bring an Homeric plague upon the multitude, and dictate vows for the plague?

‘And if he had accomplished nothing by his vow, another excuse would have been found for thy quibble, and ye would never have ceased, they on their side inquiring, and thou quibbling, so that whether they were victorious or defeated thy malpractice would not have been detected. For their passion and eagerness were strong enough to mislead them, so as to make them not distrust thee, even if they were to be slain a thousand times.

‘To this it is worth while to add the story of Croesus. He reigned over Lydia, having received the government as it had come down to him from a long line of ancestors. Then hoping to succeed somewhat beyond his forefathers, he was minded to show piety towards the gods, and, after making trial of them all, he preferred the Apollo of Delphi, and proceeded to adorn his temple with bowls and ingots of gold, and a countless multitude of offerings, and made it in a short time the richest of all temples in the world; nor in his magnanimity did he omit all that sufficed for sacrifices.

‘So after he had made such loans to the god, the Lydian king naturally felt confidence in his magnificent works of piety, and resolved to make an expedition against the Persians, expecting to increase his empire greatly by the alliance of the god.

‘What then did the wonderful oracle-monger do? That very same Delphian, Pythian, friendly god contrives that his suppliant, his dear friend, his client should not only fail to win the foreign empire, but also be driven from his own, the god not doing this at all purposely, I think, but rather in ignorance of what was to happen: for surely it was not with any knowledge of the future (since he was no god nor any superhuman power) that he craftily contrived his response to suit either event, and with the seeming affirmation,

“The Halys crossed, Croesus a mighty empire shall destroy,” [1]

overturned the kingdom of Lydia which had come down from a succession of ancestors to the pious king, great and ancient as it was, and rendered to his favoured worshipper this fruit of his extreme zeal towards him.’

After this hear what indignation the writer not unreasonably utters. [2]

[1] 212 b a cf. Herod. i. 53

[2] 212 c 1 Oenomaus

Chapter 21

[OENOMAUS] ‘IT seems then that thou dost verily know all things that are worth no more than sand, but knowest nothing that is excellent. For example, that “the smell of a strong-shelled tortoise boiling should strike on thy senses,” is a piece of knowledge worth but sand, not being even true in itself, but nevertheless becoming to the braggart and the shameless, who looks supercilious over his empty bits of knowledge and tries to persuade Croesus the Lydian captive not to despise him.

‘For he relying upon the trial (of the oracles), intended soon after to ask thee whether he should make an expedition against the Persians, and to make thee his adviser concerning his insane and grasping policy. And thou didst not shrink from telling him, that

“The Halys crossed, Croesus a mighty empire shall destroy.” [1]

‘That certainly was well contrived, that it mattered nought to thee, if he should suffer some strange disaster from being incited by an ambiguous oracle to attack a foreign empire, nor if certain bitter and malicious persons, instead of duly praising thee for having driven a madman headlong, went so far as to accuse thee of having uttered a phrase which was not even equally balanced, that the Lydian king might hesitate and take counsel; but they said that the word “καταλῦσαι” could be understood by the Greeks only in one way, not to be driven from his own empire, but to acquire the empire of another.

‘For Cyrus, the semi-Mede or semi-Persian, or, as he was called in the riddle, “the mule,” being of a royal race by his mother, but of an ordinary stock on his father’s side, shows incidentally the inflated poetry, but especially the blind divination of the soothsayer, if he did not know that the riddle would be misunderstood.

‘If, however, he was thus playing with him not from ignorance but from insolence and malice, heavens! how strange are the playthings of the gods. And if it was not this, but that the things must of necessity so happen, this is of all deceitful speeches the most wicked. For if it must so happen, why nevertheless dost thou, unhappy god, sit at Delphi chanting empty and useless prophecies? And of what use art thou to us? And why are we so mad, who run to thee from all quarters of the earth? And what right hast thou to the savour of sacrifices?’

This plain speaking of Oenomaus in the Detection of Impostorsis not free from cynical bitterness. For he will not admit that the oracles which are admired among all the Greeks proceed from a daemon, much less from a god, but says that they are frauds and tricks of human impostors, cunningly contrived to deceive the multitude. And since I have once mentioned these matters, there can be no objection to hearing other refutations also; and first, that in which the same author says that he had been himself deceived by the Clarian Apollo: he writes as follows: [2]

[1] 212 c 3 Herod. i. 47: cf. p. 457 a

[2] 213 d 3 Oenomaus, ibid.

Chapter 22

[OENOMAUS] ‘BUT forsooth I too must take some part in the comedy, and not pride myself on not having fallen into the common derangement; and I must tell of the bargain in wisdom, which I myself imported out of Asia, from thee, O Clarian god:

“In the land of Trachis lieth Thy fair garden, Heracles, Where all flowers for ever blooming, Laden with perpetual dews, Culled all day, yet ne’er diminish.” [1]

‘Then I myself also, impotent fool that I was, became elated by the “Heracles,” and the “garden of Heracles in its bloom,” dreaming of a certain Hesiodic “sweat” because of the name Trachis, and on the other hand of an “easy” life because of the blooming garden.

‘Then, on my inquiring further whether the gods were inclined to help me, some one of the multitude, swearing by the very gods that were to help, said that he certainly had heard that this very answer had been given from thee to one Callistratus, a merchant of Pontus.

‘When I heard this, what, thinkest thou, was my indignation, at being forsooth robbed by him of my “virtue”? But although dissatisfied I nevertheless began to inquire whether the merchant also had been at all flattered by the “Heracles.” So then it appeared that he also was in some trouble, and was bent upon gain, and expecting from his gain some pleasant kind of life.

‘So as it appeared that the merchant was no better treated than myself, I would no longer accept the oracle, nor the “Heracles,” but disdained to share the same treatment, when I saw the troubles that were actually present and the pleasures that existed only in hope.

‘However, it appeared that none went without his share in the oracle, neither robber nor soldier, neither lover nor mistress, neither flatterer, nor rhetorician, nor sycophant. For of what each man desired, the trouble came first, while the joy was only expected.’

Having made these statements, he immediately adds, how after a second and third inquiry he found that the wonderful prophets knew nothing, but were concealing their own ignorance simply by the obscurity of their ambiguous language. So he speaks as follows:

[1] 214 a 10 Hesiod, Works and Days,vv. 287-290

Chapter 23

[OENOMAUS] ‘But since my business was now so forward, and I wanted only a man to act as a stranger’s guide to wisdom, and he was difficult to find, I requested thee also to point out such an one:

“On Eupelians and Achaeans obligation he will lay, And, if true, for his conjecture shall receive no little pay.”

‘What sayest thou? If I was desirous of becoming a sculptor or painter, and was seeking for teachers, was it sufficient for me to hear Ἔν τε τοῖσιν Εὐπέλευσιν, or rather should I not have said that the speaker was mad?

‘This, however, thou art perhaps not able to understand, for the characters of mankind are very obscure: but whither I had better travel from Colophon is no longer a matter so unintelligible to the god:

“When a man large stones projecteth from a widely-whirling sling, With the blows he slays grass-eating geese unutterably great.”

‘Now who will interpret for me what in the world is meant by these “grass-eating geese unutterably great”? Or the “widely-whirling sling”? Will Amphilochus, or the god of Dodona, or wilt thou at Delphi, if I should come thither? Wilt thou not go and hang thyself with thy “widely-whirling sling,” and take thy unintelligible verses with thee? ‘

But now, after such censures as these, it is time to observe again from the beginning how the same author confutes the most ancient oracular responses, those at Delphi, which are held forsooth in the very highest admiration in the histories of Greece.

‘Vast was the Persian host in arms against the Athenians, nor was there any other hope of safety for them, except the god only. So they, not knowing who he was, invoked him as the helper of their forefathers. This was the Apollo at Delphi. What therefore did this wonderful deity do? Did he fight in defence of his friends? Did he remember the “libations and burnt offerings,” and the customary honours which they paid to him in sacrificing their hecatombs? Not at all. But what said he? That they should flee, and provide a wooden wall for their flight: thus indicating the navy, by means of which alone he said that they could be saved when their city was burned. O mighty help of a god!

‘Then he pretends forsooth to foretell a siege not only of the other buildings in the city, but also of the very temples consecrated to the gods. But this was what all might expect from the invasion of the enemy, apart from any oracle.’

Very naturally therefore the writer again makes sport of this delusion of the Greeks, and censures it in the following words:

Chapter 24

[OENOMAUS] ‘PERHAPS, however, such answers as I have described are those of an intentional mischief-maker; find we ought rather to bring forward for judgement his other answers which were given to the Athenians. So then let the responses to the Athenians be read: [1]

“Wretches, why sit ye here? Fly, fly to the ends of creation, (Quitting your homes, and the crags which your city crowns with her circlet.)Neither the head, nor the body is firm in its place, nor at bottom Firm the feet, nor the hands (nor resteth the middle uninjured. All—all ruined and lost).Since fire and impetuous Ares, Speeding along in a Syrian chariot, hastes to destroy her. Not alone shalt thou suffer; full many the towers he will level, Many the shrines of the gods he will give to a fiery destruction. Even now they stand with dark sweat horribly dripping, Trembling and quaking for fear.”

‘Lo! there you have the oracle that was given to the Athenians. Is there perchance anything prophetic in it? “Yes, surely,” some one will say, “for you had so much confidence in him yourself: and this will be known, if you add what was further said to them when they besought him to help them.” So then, let it be added: [2]

“Pallas has not been able to soften the lord of Olympus, Though she has often prayed him, (and urged him with excellent counsel).Yet once more I address thee in words than adamant firmer When the foe shall have taken (whatever the limit of Cecrops Holds within it, and all which divine Cithaeron shelters),Then far-seeing Zeus grants this to the prayers of Athene; Safe shall the wooden wall continue for thee and thy children; Wait not the tramp of the horse, not the footmen mightily moving Over the land, but turn your back to the foe, and retire ye. Yet shall a day arrive when ye shall meet him in battle. Holy Salamis, thou shalt destroy the offspring of women, When men scatter the seed, or when they gather the harvest.”

‘Thy Zeus is worthy of himself, O son of Zeus! Thy Athena also is worthy of Athena, O brother of Athena! And this eagerness and counter-eagerness well become the father and the daughter, or rather the gods in general! And this ruler of Olympus, too weak to destroy this one city without bringing against it that countless host from Susa, was forsooth a mighty god, having dominion over the world, and persuasive withal, as moving so many nations from Asia into Europe, but yet unable in Europe to overthrow one single city. [3]

‘And thou too, the prophet so bold and so ready also to run needless risks for nothing, dost thou not cry pity? (so the men Blight say, on whose behalf “Pallas has not been able to soften the lord of Olympus”). Or was it that Zeus was wroth not with the men, but with the stones and timber? And then wast thou to save the men, and he to burn the buildings with foreign fire? Because he had at the moment no thunderbolt?

‘Or rather are we somewhat bold, and foolhardy in forbidding you gods to talk such nonsense? But how knewest thou, O prophet, that

“Holy Salamis shall destroy the offspring of women,”

but didst not further know whether it would be,

“When men scatter the seed, or when they gather the harvest”?

‘And how knewest thou not even this, that a man might say that “the offspring of women” were either those of his own kindred, or might say that they were “the enemies,” if he scented the evil device?

‘But we must wait for what will happen, for happen one or other of these must. For in truth “Salamis the holy” would not have been inappropriate even in case of defeat, as being called by such an epithet in compassion: and the naval battle that was to take place either

“When men scatter the seed, or when they gather the harvest,”

is beplastered with poetical bombast, in order that, by this artifice, the prediction might escape detection, and it might not be clearly seen at the moment, that a naval battle does not take place in winter.

‘Now too it is not difficult to see the stage-play, and the wheeling in of the gods, the one beseeching and the other refusing to yield, so useful for the coming event, and the unexpected turn of the war, the one if they should be saved, the other if they should be destroyed. For if they should be saved, behold! the prayers of Pallas have been foreshown, which were able to turn the anger of Zeus: or if not, even this result is not unprovided for by the prophet; for “Pallas is not able to soften Zeus.” And to meet half-evil fortunes the artist mixed the oracle, as though Zeus had on the one hand fulfilled his own purpose, but on the other hand had not disregarded the request of his daughter.

‘And as to the “towers,” it might perhaps have been false that many would be destroyed, if they had attacked them with reeds instead of iron and fire, though in this case even with reeds so great an army could at all events have accomplished something. “But it was I,” says he, “who discovered the wooden wall which alone could not be destroyed.” Yes, it was thy advice, but not a prophecy, not unlike that “Haste, oh! haste thee away, nor blush to behave like a coward.”

‘He therefore who solved that riddle was as good as thyself in discerning that the city of the Athenians was the Persian’s avowed cause for the invasion, and the whole expedition was directed against this city first and chiefly. For even I myself, who am no prophet, should have discerned this, and bidden not only the Lydian king, but also the Athenians to turn their backs and flee. For “Yet shall a day arrive when ye shall meet him in battle,” for there cometh on “the tramp of the horse and the footmen mightily moving.” Also that they must flee in ships, and not on the mainland: for it would have been ridiculous, as they had ships, and dwelt by the sea, not to have collected their goods in all haste, and put on board all the provisions they had, and made their escape, giving over the land to those who chose to take it.’

These then were the answers given to the Athenians: but those given to the Lacedaemonians were utterly weak and ridiculous. For either, says he, the whole city shall be besieged, or it shall mourn the loss of the king. From every circumstance, it was natural for any one to guess this, that either one or the other would happen.

But surely it was no divination of a god to use such ambiguity in ignorance of the future, when he ought to have given help, and appeared opportunely as saviour of the Greeks, and rather to have procured the victory over the enemies and barbarians for the Greeks, as his own friends. And if he had not power to do this, he should at least have provided that they should suffer no harm, and not be conquered. But even this he failed to do, nay, he did not even know how the circumstances of their defeat would turn out. Wherefore on this point also hear how his censure is expressed.

[1] 216 b 5 Herodotus, vii. 140 (Rawlinson’s translation)

[2] 216 d 4 Herod. vii. 141 (Rawlinson)

[3] 218 b 4 Herod, i. 55

Chapter 25

[OENOMAUS] ‘BUT, thou wilt say, one must not give the same advice to the Lacedaemonians. That is true. For thou knewest not, O sophist, as in the case of Attica, what course the affairs of Sparta would take. Therefore thou wast afraid lest thou shouldest bid them flee, and then they should flee, and the enemy never invade them.

‘Since therefore it was necessary to say something, this is what thou saidst to the Lacedaemonians:

“O habitants of Sparta’s spacious streets, Either your glorious city shall be sacked By Perseus’ warrior sons, or else a king Sprung from the race of mighty Heracles Must die, and all Laconia mourn his fate.” [1]

‘Again there is the combination most unlike prophecy. However, let it pass, that we may not seem to be both wearisome and incompetent by trampling upon thee twice for the same fault; but let us examine the remaining facts.

‘In so great a danger all were looking to thee, and thou wast both their informant of the future, and their adviser as to present action. And while they believed thee trustworthy, thou wast sure that they were fools; and that the present opportunity was convenient for drawing on the simpletons, and driving them headlong, not only to the schools of sophistry at Delphi and Dodona, but also to the seats of divination by barley and by wheat-flour, and to the ventriloquists.

‘For at that time not only the gods were believed, but also cats and crows, and the delusions of dreams. It was not difficult therefore to see that they would neither have accepted both misfortunes rather than one, nor the greater instead of the less, and it was less that one, even their king, should fall instead of all.

‘So then with the fall of the city there would be no escape for him either; but if he were posted somewhere else by himself, perhaps something unexpected might happen. The remaining course then was for those who reasoned thus to send the king to carry on the war, and stay at home themselves out of danger, awaiting the event.

‘For him therefore, taking his stand with a few against that immense host, destruction was manifest; but Sparta had a respite from fear, and hopes of the unexpected: while the trick would be equally undetected, whether the city escaped or was captured.

‘Why so? Because it had not been said, forsooth, that the city should be saved if the king died, but that either he should perish alone or the whole city together: and this answer could not be called to account in either case, whether he were to perish alone or not alone. Such is the fruit of arrogance and folly.’

Such was the course in this case. But it would not be right to pass by the answer which he gave to the Cnidians, when they offered vows and prayed for the alliance of the god.

[1] 219 b I Herod. vii. 220

Chapter 26

[OENOMAUS] ‘THE Cnidians also suffered something like this, when Harpagus made an expedition against them. For when they tried to cut through the Isthmus there and make their city an island, at first they stuck close to the work; but when they had to face the labour, they were for giving up and consulting the oracle. And thou saidst to them:

“Fence not the isthmus off, nor dig it through: Jove would have made an island, had he wished”: [1]

and the lazy cowards were persuaded, and turned back from the work, and gave themselves up to Harpagus. But mark the cunning trick: for since it was not certain that they would escape, even if they dug the trench, thou didst stop them from this; but in not bidding them to continue the work, thou dost promise their escape.

‘To this however thou didst add, not that it was better for them not to dig it, but that it was not the pleasure of Zeus that it should be an island. So then in discouraging them the chances were evenly balanced; but in giving them encouragement the promise of escape preponderated: in this case then it was safe for the sophist to deter them. And so, without telling them anything of what they had come for, thou sentedst them away with the idea that they had heard something good.’

Now I think these instances sufficiently convict the feebleness both of the givers and receivers of the responses, and that there is no truth or inspiration to be found in their declarations.

But you will see the mischievous disposition either of the evil daemons or of the men who played false with the divinations, if you learn how in the war of Greeks against each other they irritated those who consulted them, whereas they ought to have been arbiters of peace and friendship.

At one time, therefore, this Delphian god again irritates the Lacedaemonians, as if they were his friends and familiars, against the Messenians, and at another time gives an answer against the Lacedaemonians to the Messenians, if the latter should propitiate the daemons again by human sacrifice. Listen now to this story also.

[1] 220 c 2 Herod. i. 174

Chapter 27

[OENOMAUS] ‘WHEN wisdom is associated with divination she will review such answers as these, and will permit no random discourse, inasmuch as she makes all things sure by their moorings to herself, and assigns their degrees of precedence. Nor will she permit the Pythian prophet, in his folly, to prophecy either to these, or to the Lacedaemonians about the Messenians, and the land which the Messenians held after defeating the Lacedaemonians by a stratagem.

“Set not thy hand to deeds of war alone, So Phoebus bids; for as by stratagem The people hold Messenian soil, so now Shall they be caught by arts which they first used.” [1]

‘Wisdom bids them rather think of peace and frugality and contentment. But they perhaps, though disciplined by the laws of Lycurgus, had come to inquire from insatiate desire and vainglory, that they might not seem to be inferior in battle to Messenians, though reputed to have been bred up in habits of endurance.

‘But surely if they had been thus bred up in habits of endurance, they would have been content with little, and would have had no need of fighting, and arms, and the rest of such folly.

‘This was the answer to the Lacedaemonians against the Messenians; but on the other hand the answer to the Messenians against the Lacedaemonians was as follows; for thou didst give oracles to the Messenians also against the Lacedaemonians, and not only to the Lacedaemonians against the Messenians:

“A virgin of the race of Aepytus The lot shall choose, whom to the infernal gods Thou must devote, Ithome thus to save.” [2]

‘For I do not accept the false inventions, that the victim chosen from the race of Aepytus was not a pure virgin, and therefore the Messenians could not offer the sacrifice. For it is thy nature to make confusion.’

Such then are the statements of ancient history. And in our own days also one might observe thousands of similar cases, in which from ancient times even to our own the successive rulers at one time rushed into unprofitable wars by the advice of the oracles, at another time were foiled by the obscurity of the responses, or again were misled from the actual deceit of the oracles.

What need to tell how at times in the greatest crises either of battle-array against the enemy, or of danger in bodily sickness, men gained no help or healing from the supposed gods. But their answers from the oracles always and constantly turn out to be such as the ancient histories prove them to have been.

But of those Pythian responses which Were most celebrated among the Greeks there was a certain one addressed to Lycurgus, to whom at his coming the Pythoness addressed that famous answer:

‘To my rich shrine thou com’st, Lycurgus, dear To Zeus and all who in Olympus dwell: Whether to hail thee god or mortal man Doubts my prophetic soul, yet hope prevails To welcome thee as god. To seek good laws, Lycurgus, thou art come; such will I give.’

These, with the additional lines, were the words of the oracle. Let us then examine closely what observations were made in answer thereto in the criticism before quoted. The author writes thus: [3]

[1] 221 c 1 Pausanias, iv. 12

[2] 221 d 8 Compare the version of the oracle in Pausanias, iv. 9 Herod, i. 65; Themistius, Or.V (xix. p. 225; Theodoret 141) 240

[3] 222 d 1 Oenomaus

Chapter 28

[OENOMAUS] ‘BUT when the precursor and model of Tyrtacus once came to thee, thou saidst he had come from hollow Laccdaemon, “a friend of Zeus and all who in Olympus dwell,” and that thou wert in doubt, “whether to hail him god or mortal man, yet hope prevailed to welcome him as god,” because he came “to seek good laws.”

‘But, if he was a god, how was it that the ”friend of Zeus and all who in Olympus dwell”did not understand civic law?

‘However, since such matters as have been shown to this most godlike of men by the voice of the god cannot perhaps be discovered without a god’s help, let us look at the divine utterance, and the things which thou didst teach Lycurgus:

“To seek good laws, Lycurgus, thou art come; such will I give.”

‘Give then, I should say: for no such gift as this didst thou ever yet promise to any man.

“So long as to the oracles ye pay Your promises and vows, and justice due To fellow citizens and strangers give, Show to the aged reverence sincere, Duly respect the sons of Tyndarus, Menelaus and the deathless heroes, who In noble Lacedaemon dwell enshrined, So long far-seeing Zeus shall guard your home.”

‘Apollo! What divine teaching and exhortation! And for this no long voyage is needed, nor a journey from Peloponnesus to Delphi, or even to the very Hyperboreans, whence, as they say, in accordance with the response of another prophetess, Asteria,

“Founders and priests of fragrant Delos came.”

‘I suppose that this Lycurgus never had a nurse, nor ever sat in a company of old men, from whom, as well as from her, he might have heard nobler and wiser lessons than these.

‘Perhaps, however, thou wilt add something more, if Lycurgus entreat thee to speak plainly.

“If some should lead aright, and others follow,”—

I shall still say that this comes from the same company, and request Lycurgus not to desist, for the chance that he may go back to Sparta with some political lesson received from thee.

“Two ways there are diverging far apart, This leading on to freedom’s glorious home, That to the hateful cell of slavery. This manly valour treads and concord true, And to this path be ye the peoples’ guides. Through hateful strife and baneful cowardice Men reach the other path; of that beware.”

‘Thou bid’st them to be manly: this we have often heard even from the cowardly. But also to be of one mind: this we have heard not only from the wise, but ere now from the very leaders of sedition: so we can excuse thee from giving us this exhortation.

‘Nevertheless being a prophet didst thou not know that we have received it many a time and from many persons, who had neither eaten greedily of the laurel, nor drunk the water of Castalia, nor ever been supercilious about wisdom?

‘Tell us then about manliness, tell us about freedom, tell us about concord, in what way they are engendered in a state, and bid not us, who are ignorant, to lead the peoples in this path, but lead us thyself. For it is a noble path, but difficult for us and formidable.’

To this he adds further remarks.

Chapter 29

[OENOMAUS] ‘THOU art ready to speak of marriage also:

“From Argive pastures choose a well-bred foal Of dark-maned sire.”

‘And about children:

“Astion, of race most honourable, None gives thee honour; but thy Labda soon Conceives, and bears a mighty rock, (to crush The tyrants, and on Corinth justice do).”

‘About a colony:

‘”Gainst men of gold lead forth a numerous host, Brass on thy shoulders, iron in thine hand.”

‘About vainglory:

“No spot on earth can match Pelasgia’s soil, What soil with thine, Pelasgia, can compare? The mares of Thrace, or Sparta’s beauteous dames, Or men who drink fair Arethusa’s fount.”

‘And it seems to me that thou art no better than the so-called marvel-mongers, nay not even than the rest of the quacks and sophists. At them, however, I do not wonder, that they throw men over for pay; but I do wonder at thee, the god, and at mankind, that they pay to be thrown over.

‘Then the famous Socrates, in answer to him who asked whether he should marry or not, said neither, but that he would repent of both: and to the man who wished for children he said that he would not do right, if, instead of trying how, if he should have children, he might treat them in the best way, he made no account of this but was only considering how he might get them.

‘And when another man had determined to travel, because things were not well with him at home, he said that he was not taking right counsel; for he would go away and leave his country where it was, but would take his folly with him, which would make him disagreeable to the people there just as much as to those at home. And not only when he was questioned, but also of his own accord he often resorted to such conversations.’

Chapter 30

‘FOR twenty days before the Dog-star rise, And twenty days that follow next thereon, In shady bower let Bacchus be thy leech:’ [1]

‘A medical and not a prophetical answer given to the Athenians when troubled by the burning heat.

“Grandson of Presbon, son of Clymenus, Thyself, Erginus, would’st the race prolong: ‘Tis late; yet give the old plough a new tip.”

‘For a young woman to be wedded to an old man, if he desires children, this is the advice not of a prophet, but of one who understands nature. Desire, however, sets the weaklings beside themselves.’

[1] 225 c 6 Pausanias, ix. 37

Chapter 31

‘FOR this reason, if thou canst not persuade them to learn something worthy of the school of a god instead of their contemptible questions, I recommend thee to take a rod to them rather than to say to Archilochus of Paros after he had thrown away his substance in political follies, and in sorrow had come to consult thee:

“To Thasos, Archilochus, go, and dwell in that glorious island.”

‘For he would have profited more had he been told in this other way:

“Archilochus, come to thy senses, in poverty make no bewailing.”

‘Or to the Cretans who had come to thee:

“Dwellers in Phaestus and Tarra and wave-beaten headland of Dium, Hear ye my bidding, and offer the Pythian lustrations to Phoebus In pious devotion, so dwell ye for ever in Creta’s fair island, Worshipping wealth and Zeus in customs not those of your fathers.”

‘It would have been better for them to be told:

“Dwellers in folly and madness and self-conceited elation, Hear ye my bidding, and offer at home in pious devotion Lustrations your folly to purge; so dwell ye in wisdom for ever Worshipping wealth in customs not those of your sires but divine.”

‘Beware lest thou need lustration more than Crete, for inventing lustrations such as those of Orpheus and Epimenides.’

Chapter 32

‘BUT why, O wisest of gods, if Charilaus and Archelaus, the kings of Lacedaemon,

“Give to Apollo as his share of gain One half, it were far better for themselves?”

‘To what other Apollo dost thou mean? For surely thou dost not claim this for thyself, O most shameless prophet, lest any one should rebuke thee, as sharing so basely with the robbers.’

Enough, however, of this subject. So come, let us append to it the verses in which at another time Apollo admires Archilochus, a man who in his own poems employed against women all kinds of foul and unspeakable abuse, which any modest man would not endure even to listen to: Euripides also he admires though he was expelled from the school and philosophy of Socrates, and is caricatured upon the stage even to the present day: besides these Homer also, whom the noble Plato banishes from his own republic, as in no respect profitable, but as having been the author of language which utterly corrupts the young. For these reasons again the author before mentioned scoffs at the soothsaying god as follows:

Chapter 33

[OENOMAUS]

‘”IMMORTAL and renowned in song thy son, Telesicles, among all men shall be.”

‘Now this son was Archilochus.

“A son, Mnesarchus, thou shalt have, whom all Mankind shall honour, who to noble fame Shall rise, encircled with the festal grace Of sacred crowns.”

‘The son was Euripides.

‘Homer was told:

“Life hath a twofold destiny for thee; This shall in darkness veil twin orbs of light; That with immortal gods, in life, in death, Shall set thee equal.”

‘And for this cause it was said of him:

“Happy and hapless, born to either doom.”

‘The speaker is not a man, but one who has sometimes insisted that he must not

“As god be careless of the woes of men.”

‘Come then, thou god, be not careless even of us. For we desire, if it be not wrong, some of us worthy fame, others sacred crowns, others equality with the gods, and others immortality itself. ‘What then was that, for which Archilochus seemed to thee worthy of heaven? Grudge not to other men that upward path, thou of all gods best friend to man! What dost thou bid us do? Or must we, of course, do what Archilochus did, if we would show ourselves worthy of the home of you gods? Abuse bitterly the maidens who are unwilling to marry us, and associate with profligates far baser than the basest of men? But not without poetry, for that is the language of gods, as well as of god-like men like Archilochus. And no wonder perhaps. For through excellence in this art the home is well ordered, and the private life is happy, and cities are kept in concord, and nations are well governed.

‘Not unnaturally therefore he was regarded by thee as a servant of the Muses, and his murderer deemed worthy neither of admission to you gods, nor of speech from you, because he had slain a man of skilful speech.

‘There was no injustice then in the threat against Archias, nor anything inopportune in the Pythia avenging Archilochus though long since dead, and commanding the blood-guilty one to depart out of the temple; for he had slain a servant of the Muses.

‘To me at all events thou didst not appear to be out of order in avenging the poet; for I remembered the other poet also, and the sacred crowns of Euripides; though indeed I was in doubt, and desirous of hearing, not that he had been crowned, but how these crowns were “sacred”; nor that his fame sprang up, but in what way it was “noble” fame.

‘For he used to be applauded in the crowds, I know: also he was agreeable to tyrants, this too I know: and he practised an art which won admiration not only for the lover of it himself, but also for the city of Athens, because it alone gave birth to tragic poets.

‘If therefore the applause is a competent judge, and the table in the Acropolis, I have nothing more to say, since I see Euripides supping in the Acropolis, and the commons both of the Athenians and the Macedonians applauding. But if apart from these the gods have any vote, and that trustworthy, and not inferior to the vote of the tyrants or to that of the crowds, come tell us, for which of his excellences did you gods give your vote in favour of Euripides, that we may hasten at full speed to heaven in the track marked out by your praises.

‘For surely there is no lack even now of Sapaeans or Lycambes ready to be caricatured, nor in the present day would either a Thyestes, or an Oedipus, or the hapless Phineus object to be made a subject of tragedy; nor would they, I think, be envious of any one who desired the friendship of the gods: but even those of old, if they had learned that there would be a certain Euripides, a man who came to be dear to the gods for having dressed them up, they would, I think, have ceased to care for their old misfortunes, and instead of giving their mind to better ways would have turned to making verses. And if they heard loud-sounding names of men of former times, they would use them for their journey to heaven, that on their arrival they might sit in Olympus among the boxers, in the hall of Zeus. For this is what the poet at Delphi says.

‘Now let us look at the question which “the happy” Homer asks of the god: for I suppose it was something about heaven, and important enough to call forth an answer from the god; otherwise he would not so readily have pronounced him “happy,” and in addition to this happiness have awarded him an answer.

“Thou seek’st a fatherland, but none is thine. A motherland thou hast, nor near, nor far From Minos’ realm: there is thy doom to die, When from the tongues of schoolboys thou hast heard A long-drawn hymn thou canst not understand.”

‘Was it then a terrible thing, O thou wisest of men, or rather of gods, if this “happy” man should know neither where on earth he sprang from his mother’s womb, nor where he should close his eyes and lie? I should have thought it of equal importance, whether a Homer or one of the beetles came to consult the god on these points, and that the god could no more have given any guidance on such unknown matters to Homer than to a beetle.

‘As for example, if a beetle did not spend his life and his old age on that same dunghill on which he was begotten, but fell in with an adverse wind, and a cruel beetle-daemon, who caught him up into the air and carried him away by force to some other land and some other dunghill, and then he came to Delphi and inquired which was the dunghill of his fatherland, and what land would receive him when dead.’

Let this suffice then about the poets.

Chapter 34

BUT since this wonderful god by his own responses has deified not only poets but even boxers and athletes, the author before mentioned seems to me to pass an appropriate censure on this also in the following words:

[OENOMAUS]

‘O thou who knowest to number the sands and to measure the ocean Who hast ears for the silent, and knowest the dumb man’s meaning.’ [1]

‘I would that thou wert ignorant of all such things, but knewest this, that the art of boxing is no better than that of kicking, that thou mightest either have immortalized asses also, or else not Cleomedes boxer of Astypalaea, in such words as these:

“Last of the heroes was he, Cleomedes of Astypalaea; Now no longer a mortal with sacrifice honour him duly.” [2]

‘For what then, O ancient interpreter of the religion of the Greeks, as Plato calls thee, didst thou deify this man? Was it because at the Olympic games he struck his antagonist a single blow and laid open his side, and thrust in his hand and seized his lung?

‘By Apollo! how godlike a deed! Or was it not that alone, but also because, being punished by a fine of four talents for this act, he did not submit, but in wrath and indignation turned his anger against the boys in the school, by pulling away the column which upheld the roof. Is it for these deeds then, thou manufacturer of gods, that we ought to honour Cleomedes?

‘Or wilt thou add this also, as the other proof at once of his manliness and his friendship with the gods, that having stepped into a sacred chest, and pulled the cover over it, he could not be caught by his pursuers when they wished to drag him out? A hero then no longer mortal art thou, O Cleomedes, for inventing such contrivances to attain immortality.

‘The gods at least were immediately sensible of thy good deeds, and snatched thee up to heaven, just as Homer’s gods snatched Ganymede; but him they chose for his beauty, and thee for thy strength, and for the good use made of it!

‘I wish therefore, O prophet, as I said, that thou hadst let alone the sand and the sea, and instead of them hadst learned how much boxing is worth, that thou mightest regard the pugnacious asses as gods, and the wild asses as the very best of the gods: and there would have been some proper oracle over the death of a wild ass, rather than over thy boxer:

“Chief of the deathless gods is a wild ass, not Cleomedes; Now no longer a mortal with sacrifice honour him duly.”

‘For indeed you must not wonder, if even a wild ass should lay claim to immortality, as being fully provided with divine qualifications, and should not endure what he heard, but should threaten that with a blow he would knock even Cleomedes himself into the pit, and not permit him to go up to heaven.

‘For he would say that he was more worthy of the very gifts of the gods than Cleomedes, as being ready to fight not with him alone, even if he were to use thongs of iron, but also with the Thasian boxer, both at once, him I mean on account of whose statue the gods were aggrieved, and made the land of the Thasians barren.

‘About this man also we trust to no human testimony but to that of the same god. And from these facts I clearly perceived that boxing was, as we said, a godlike pursuit, though most persons, even those who think themselves wise, were not aware of it: or they would have given up being gentlemen, and would have practised the art of the Thasian boxer, whom the gods, though they did not grant immortality to him, as they did to Cleomedes, yet loved much.

‘Thus his statue of bronze exhibited a power beyond the images of other men, by falling down upon his enemy who was scourging it, which seems to show a kind of divine solicitude.

‘But the senseless Thasians, having no experience in things divine, were indignant and accused the statue of a crime, and exacted punishment, and ventured to sink it in the sea.

‘They did not escape however, these Thasians, but the gods showed them how great a wrong they had dared to commit, by sending a famine upon them as the minister of divine justice, which with difficulty taught them what the counsels of the gods were; and thou the most philanthropic of gods didst send them help in thine own fashion, saying:

“Bring thy banished ones home, and gather a liberal harvest.”

‘But again the stupid people supposed that they must recall the men who were in banishment: but they were mistaken; for as the gods have no love at all for mankind, what care they about men being recalled from banishment, in comparison with their care for statues? For this of course the land gained no help towards being relieved of its barrenness, but that some wise person who understood the mind of the gods conceived that the banished one was the statue which had been drowned in the sea. And so it was. For no sooner was it set up again, than immediately the land began to flourish, and the Thasians thenceforward (enjoying abundant harvests)wore long hair in honour of Ceres.

‘Must not then these be clear proofs that a godlike athleticism is honoured by the gods? For again the gods were wroth because of an insult to the statue of a conqueror in the pentathlum, and for this the Locrians were famished, like the Thasians, until they found a remedy in thy oracle, running thus:

“Hold the dishonoured in honour, and then shalt thou plough up thy land.”

‘For neither did the Locrians perceive the meaning of the gods before they had thee to help them in the matter. But they had cast the pentathlete Euthycles into prison, on a charge of having received bribes against his country: and not only so, but after he was dead they committed outrages upon his statues, until the gods could not endure their conduct, and sent the most violent famine upon them. And they would have utterly perished by the famine, had there not come help from thee, saying that they ought to honour men trained and fattened, who are no less dear to the gods than the oxen which the millers fatten, and by sacrificing which men sometimes win your assent. Not less perhaps, but even much more, than fat cattle do you delight in fat men, so that sometimes you grow angry with a whole city and a whole nation, because one or two persons do wrong to these failings.

‘How I wish then, O prophet, thou hadst been our trainer instead of prophet, or both prophet and trainer together, that as there is a Delphic oracle so there might have been a Delphic gymnasium. For it would not have been inappropriate to the Pythian contest that the gymnasium also should be Pythian.’

To this I will append what he says by way of proving that the gods whom we are discussing are also flatterers of tyrants.

[1] 230 b 4 Herod. i. 47

[2] 230 c 3 Plato, Republic,427 C

Chapter 35

‘”HAPPY the man who now to my sacred dwelling approacheth, Cypselus, son of Aetion, king of illustrious Corinth.” [1]

‘So then tyrants also are happy, and not only those who conspire against tyrants:

“Cypselus, who shall work full many misfortunes to Corinth,”

and Melanippus, who wrought many blessings for the city of Gela.

‘But if Cypselus was “happy,” O thou miserable god, how could Phalaris fail to be liappy too, being of like character with Cypselus? So that your oracle would have run better in this other way:

“Phalaris, happy art thou, and Melanippus likewise, Leaders and guides of mankind in the pathways of heavenly discord.”

‘But I have also heard an oracle of thine in prose concerning Phalaris, praising and honouring him, because after he had discovered their conspiracy and tortured them, he admired their endurance and released them. So Loxias and his father Zeus voted Phalaris a respite from death, because he behaved mercifully towards Chariton and Melanippus. But I wish thou hadst just taught us about death and life, that life is a most noble thing. To all this let us add the following:’

[1] 233 a 1 cf. Herod. v. 92. b 6 cf. Athenaeus, xiii. 78

Chapter 36

‘”FAR better will Methymna’s dwellers fare, If Dionysus’ wooden head they honour.”

‘For the cities offer sacrifice and keep festivals not only to wooden heads of Dionysus, but also to heads of stone, and bronze, and gold; not only to wooden heads but also to actual heads of Dionysus, and to very many of the other gods of Hesiod.

‘For verily there are

“Three times ten thousand on the fruitful earth,”

not immortals, but rulers of mankind of wood and stone: and if they

“Man’s insolence or just behaviour scanned,” [1]

there never would have been raised a crop of nonsense so great, that at length the evil has reached even to you gods, having passed over to Olympus, where, as they say,

“The abode of the gods is for ever secure.”

‘Yet surely if it were “secure,” it would not be accessible to nonsense, nor would any one of the Olympians have reached such a pitch of insanity as to turn a log of olive-wood into a god. This log became entangled in the meshes of a net, and was dragged up by the Methymnaeans, who caught it in their nets twice, it may be, and thrice, or oftener in the same place, and thence ran out into the Libyan sea, and did not cast it out upon the land: for if they had done that, it would not have stuck fast in the meshes, no, by Dionysus!

‘But as the top of the log was like a head (Apollo! what a strange contrivance!), one might ask, what business had it in the sea? Why, what else, to be sure, except that it sat waiting until some insane men (for I will not say, gods also) should meet with it, and believe it to be fallen not from Zeus, but from Poseidon, and then should carry it off to their town, as if it were some lucky prize, though in reality it was unlucky, and no prize, but a firebrand? Or perhaps it was not enough that of itself it utterly ruined them, but an increase of infatuation, so to say, fetched from Delphi gave it new strength and intensity.’

So far Oenomaus. But now, after what has been stated, pass again to The Philosophy to be derived from Oraclesof the author who has made the compilation against us, and read from the responses of the Pythian god concerning Fate, and see whether it will not occur to you also that the account of the celebrated oracles is still more inconsistent with any divine power.

[Footnotes have been numbered and placed at the end]

[1] 233 d 8 Hesiod,Works and Days,250; Hom. Od.xvii. 487

Book 6

Preface

In the books which we have already completed we have sufficiently exposed the character of the oracles; and the divine power of our Saviour has exhibited in the teaching of His Gospel an excellence worthy of God and at the same time beneficial to man; for by it alone, and by no other teaching, deliverance from the daemoniacal phantoms, which had from the beginning over shadowed and afflicted the whole life of man, was secured for all.

Now let us examine their false doctrines about fate, and so restore the true account of the same subject, in order that the daemons who have been supposed to inspire the oracles may be shown not only by the wickedness of their system, but also by the error and falsity of their opinions, to be worthless and impotent. Consider therefore whether it will not occur to you also that the account of them is inconsistent with divine power, both from what I shall set before you in refutation of their doctrine concerning fate, and from the very manner in which they are said to perform their divinations.

For it is not said that they have gained the knowledge of future events beforehand by any superior power, but that they guess what is coming from observation of the motion of the stars, just as men do. Thus, it is said, they have no power either to help, or to effect anything at all, except what is in accordance with fate. And the evidence of this shall be that self-same daemons’ advocate, who in his book entitled Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles, speaks word for word as follows:

Chapter 1

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘The gods, if they speak with a knowledge of things determined by fate, declare that their utterances are derived from the course of the stars, and almost all the truthful gods acknowledge this.’

Then a little farther down he says:

‘Apollo was asked of what sex a woman’s child would be, and by the stars he said it would be female, having learned this from the time of conception: and thus he speaks:

“The shoot springs forth from earth, whose thirsty meads All freshening moisture from their mother drain, While life still stirs within her its due time. No boy she bears, ‘tis but a feeble girl; The Moon with Venus watched the chaste embrace That brings thee soon, O friend, a female child.”

‘See how from the time of conception, because the Moon was then approaching Venus, he said that a girl would be born. Moreover from those signs they foretell diseases; for listen:

“A baneful poison ravages his breast And pours its cruel pangs o’er all the lung,”—

‘and so on: to which he adds:

“So wrought the purpose of the Fates, which urged Their deadly strife, to slay thee by disease, Since Saturn treads on high his baneful path.”

‘And after some other verses:

“But the Destroyer, hastening on to meet The star of Saturn, forced thee to conclude Life’s fated day, and robbed thy soul of hope. For this thy godlike father’s sacred heart Warned thee to shun the baneful god of war.”’

These things show that their divination is not from any divine power in them, but from observation of the stars according to mathematical principles; so that in this they differ nothing from other men, nor show any work of a higher or more divine nature. But see how they also destroy our free-will, by referring not only external events and things independent of us, but also our own purposes, to the course of the stars.

[1] 236 d 3 Porphyry, On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles.

Chapter 2

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘Thus also Apollo spake concerning a certain man, explaining at the same time whence came his eagerness for war:

“In Mars he hath a vehement natal star, Which drives him on, yet not unto the tomb: For Jupiter’s decree foretold it thus, And soon shall give him glory from the war.”

‘And again on another man:

“Saturn’s long hair outspread and cruel rays Saddened the hapless boy’s tempestuous life.”’

So great a horror of Fate have these brave gods, as to confess that they cannot even defend their own temples when struck by lightning! Much hope there must be then for men to get help by prayer from those who are not even able to help themselves! Of what use is it henceforth to be pious, and to worship and serve the gods, who can give no help at all even to themselves? Hear, however, what the oracle says:

[1] 238 b 1 Porphyry, ibid.

Chapter 3

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘Thus even shrines and temples have their destinies, and Apollo’s own temple had been destined to be struck by lightning, as he says:

“Offspring of Erichthonius’ godlike race, Boldly ye come mine oracle to ask When shall this fairest shrine be laid in dust. Hear then this utterance of the voice divine, That issues from the laurel-shaded cave. When high in air the warring winds resound, And storms embattled meet with thundering crash, While the wide world lies wrapped in silent frost, And the imprisoned air no outlet finds, A blazing torch falls, where it will, to earth. Whereat the wild beasts on the mountain tops Flee in swift terror to their dens, nor stay To scan with trembling eyes Jove’s fallen bolt. Shrines of the blessed, trees of stateliest growth, Steep mountain peaks, fair ships upon the sea All shattered lie beneath those wings of fire. Fair Amphitrite too, Poseidon’s bride, Cleft by that awful stroke shrinks moaning back. Ye therefore, though by mighty pain oppressed, Bear with brave souls the counsels of the Fates That know no change: for whatsoe’er the lot Their whirling spindles twine, his awful brow Zeus nods on high to fix the changeless doom. Thus in long ages past this fairest shrine By fiery bolts from heaven was doomed to fall.”’

If therefore by the spindles of the Fates even the shrines of the venerable gods and their holy temples are conquered by ‘wings of fire,’ what hope can be left for mortal men to escape from their destiny? If, moreover, there is no help from the gods, but one must in any case

‘Bear with brave soul the counsels of the Fates That know no change,’

what is the meaning, some one may say, of our useless zeal concerning the gods?

Or what need to assign a portion ‘of libation and burnt-offering,’ and the honour thereof, to those who are not worthy even of these things, if they have no power to help us at all? For then we ought not to ascribe the bestowal of good things to them, but to that (destiny) which they confessed to be the cause of the evil.

For if anything either good or the reverse is destined for men, it will of necessity occur, and, whether the gods will or not, it will come to pass. We ought therefore to worship Necessity only, and care little, or rather nothing, for the gods, as being able neither to annoy nor to benefit us.

But then if He, who is God over all, is sole ruler of the Fates, and sole Lord over them also—for, as the Oracle says:

‘Whate’er the lot Their whirling spindles twine, his awful brow Zeus nods on high, to fix the changeless doom’—
why then dost thou not put aside all else, and confess that the universal Monarch and the Lord of Fate is the only God, and only Giver of good, and Saviour? Seeing that for Him alone it is easy to turn and change even what you call

‘The counsels of the Fates That know no change:’

so that the man who has been consecrated to the all-ruling God, and worships only Him, is enslaved neither to necessity nor to fate, but. as being free and released from every bond, follows without hindrance the divine dispensations of salvation. Such is the path which true reason shows: but see by what means this author, the contrary, that the decrees of fate are dissolved.

[1] 238 d 2 Porphyry, On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles.

Chapter 4

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘For when a certain man prayed that he might be visited by a god, the god said that he was unfit because he was bound down by nature, and on this account suggested certain expiatory sacrifices, and added:

“A blast of daemon power with gathered force The fortunes of thy race hath overrun, Which thou must scape by magic arts like these.”

‘Hereby it is clearly shown that the use of magic in loosing the bonds of fate was a gift from the gods, in order to avert it by any means.’

It is Porphyry who tells you this, not I. But how was it, that he who advised to loose the bonds of fate by magic arts, though he was himself a god, did not annul the destiny of his own temple to be burned by lightning? And how can we fail to see what is the character of him who encourages the use of magic, and not of philosophy? Besides all this the same author confesses that the gods speak falsely.

[1] 240 d 4 Porphyry, On the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles.

Chapter 5. They Utter Lying Prophecies

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘But further, the exact knowledge of the course of the stars, and the consequences dependent on them, is unattainable by men, and not by them only, but also by some of the daemons. Hence when consulted they speak falsely on many matters.’

To this again he adds:

‘Also, they say, it is the surrounding atmosphere that compels the oracles to be falsified, and not that the deities present willingly add the falsehood. For they often declare beforehand that they are going to speak falsely: but the inquirers persist, and compel them to speak, because of their folly. Apollo, for instance, once upon a time, when the condition of the atmosphere was, as we stated, unfavourable, said:

“Cease from these words of power, lest I speak false.”

‘And that what I was saying is true, will be shown by the oracles.

‘For example, one of the gods when invoked made answer:

“To tell the constellations’ sacred course This day befits not; all prophetic power Lies bound and fettered in the silent stars.”’

And he adds:

‘It is shown therefore whence the falsehood often arises.’

[1] 241 c 1 Porphyry, ibid.

Chapter 6

Is there not now an end of all doubt in your judgement, that there was nothing divine at all in the responses of the gods? For how could the divine ever speak falsely, being in nature most truthful, since surely the divine is truthful? And how could a good daemon ever deceive the inquirers by false statements? Or how could that which is ‘fettered’ by the course of the stars be superior to man?

Nay, a mortal man who paid any little regard to virtue would never lie, but would choose rather to reverence the truth; nor would he lay the blame of a lie upon any necessity of fate or course of the stars. But even if any one were to bring fire or sword against his body, to compel him to pervert the word of truth, yet even against this he would reply in freedom’s tone:

‘Come fire, come sword; Burn, and scorch up this flesh, and gorge thyself With my dark blood : for sooner shall the stars Sink down to earth, and earth rise up to heav’n, Than fawning word shall meet thee from my lips.’ [1]

But the deluding and deceitful daemon makes pretences and cajoles the senseless, in order that whenever he should fail of foretelling what was to come, he might provide himself an excuse for his blunder in fate.

So when the daemon had by his oracular answers made everything depend on fate, and had taken away the freedom arising from self-determined action, and subjugated this also to necessity, see into what a deadly pit of evil doctrines he has plunged those who believe him.

For if we must refer not only external events, but also the desires founded upon reason, to the stars and fate, and if human judgements are extorted by some inexorable necessity, there will be an end of your philosophy, an end also of religion: nor is there, as we thought, any praise of virtue for the good, nor any friendship with God, nor any worthy fruit of self-denying toils, if universal causation has been usurped by necessity and fate.

So then it is not right to blame those who offend in the affairs of life, nor yet the impious and the most infamous, nor even to admire the virtuous; but on this principle, as I said, there will be an end also of the great glory of philosophy, if it is made dependent not on voluntary study and discipline, but on necessity imposed by the stars.

See then into what an abyss of evil doctrines these wonderful gods have cast men down, and observe how this doctrine urges on and encourages to recklessness, and injustice, and countless other evils, bringing about an entire overthrow of the whole life.

If, for example, a man were at once to give credit to the marvellous responses of the gods, that truthfulness or falsehood, and the will to start upon an expedition or any other business, or the unwillingness to undertake such matters, was no work of ours but of inexorable fate, would he not choose to be careless and indolent in all matters that could not be performed without labour and pains and exertion on our own part?

For if he thought that this or that would take place by fate, whether we took trouble and care about it or not, would he not certainly wish to choose the easier course, and give himself, up to carelessness, since the result to be attained would be brought to pass by fate and necessity?

Hence one may hear the multitude say, This will be accomplished, if it is destined for me, and why need I give myself trouble?

For if he who set out on an expedition, did this not from his own choice, but from being driven by external necessity, so also evidently would the man who set himself to robbery and plundering graves and all other practices whether impious and lawless or orderly and prudent: for this would be a consequence of the doctrine of fate.

How then would the man who believed that he was undertaking these practices not of his own will, but under external necessity, be likely to give heed to one who admonished him and taught him not to give himself over abjectly to the practices before mentioned?

For he would say to his monitor, as has been said by some before our time, Why, sir, do you admonish me? For this of course does not rest with me, to change my purpose, since fate has determined it beforehand. What need then to exert myself for things which I shall not be able even to desire, unless this also is my destiny. And if it is so destined, I shall desire it even without your teaching, being led thereto by fate. Why then do you trouble yourself to no purpose? But if you mean to say that your exhortation and teaching is also brought about by necessity, to exhort and persuade me thus, yet even in this case what need to be so earnest? For the exhortation is idle and useless. Since if it is so fated, I shall be diligent; and if it is not so fated, the result will be that we both take trouble in vain.

Must not the man who holds this opinion rather give up indolently and say to himself, Come, let me not care to toil, nor trouble myself to no purpose: for that which, is fated will of necessity come to pass? But if a man is diligent about anything, or teaches or encourages himself or another, either to obey or to disobey, and to sin or not to sin, and to rebuke sinners, and to praise them that do well, is it not clearly proved that he has left us the reality of our power and free-will, and simply attaches to it the name of fate; just as if any one were to call by the name of evil that natural goodness, by the presence of which the living being is best governed?

In the same way (since we plainly feel ourselves compelled by no external cause in chastening our sons, and scourging our domestics when they have done amiss, and in wishing or not wishing this or that, but feel that we make such movements quite independently by our own power) he would be wrong who said that these things are done according to fate, with a view to paralyse our own exertions and the exhortations and admonitions given to others, which we see to be the chief sources of success in human affairs.

Moreover this doctrine would overthrow laws, which are made for the sake of their usefulness to man. For what need is there to command or forbid those who are constrained by a necessity of a different kind? Nor will it be right to punish offenders, since for the same reason they have done no wrong, nor to award honours to the doers of the noblest deeds, though these customs of reward and punishment have severally been a chief cause of checking injustice and of readiness to do good.

But further, this opinion would overthrow piety towards the deity, if, fettered as we are by the necessities of fate, neither God Himself, nor the ministers of these oracular gods give us any help either in answer to our prayers or for our piety.

And would it not be most shameless and impudent to say that we are moved like lifeless puppets pulled by strings this way and that by some external power, to will of necessity to do this or that, and to choose other things against our will? For we plainly feel ourselves desiring this or that by our own impulse and motion, and again we take ourselves to task for carelessness, and feel that we succeed or not from this cause, and suffer no compulsion from any external source, but choose some things by voluntary determination, and shun and decline others of our own deliberate purpose.

So evident therefore is the argument for free-will that, in the same way as the feeling of pain and pleasure, and seeing and hearing this or that, is perceived not by reasoning but by actual sensation, so we consciously feel ourselves moving of ourselves and of our own purpose, and choosing some things and rejecting others; thus the freedom and independence of the rational and intelligent nature in us is in any case justly to be acknowledged.

And although the mass of mankind are perplexed by countless things happening to us contrary to our purpose, we must in this case distinguish the nature of the circumstances in which we are placed, and take into consideration the law by which things not in our own power come to pass. For thus the cause of these events also will be attributed to no irrational fate, but to another law, dependent on the providence of the universe. Let us then examine the problem carefully.

That both the existence and the government of all things depend as a whole on the providence of God, the statutes of true religion plainly declare.

But then the several events being caused according to their particular kind, some by habit, some by nature, some by impulse and impression, and others by reasoning and our own judgement and purpose, and some again produced according to a primary law, and others according to effects contingent upon the primary occurrences, render the arrangement of the whole complex and intricate, the author of the universe having allotted to each class of beings a proper and distinct constitution of nature.

Though it would be difficult, therefore, for any one to examine fully the principle of all the rest, yet that of freewill he may more easily learn in the following manner. Man is not a thing of one simple kind, nor consisting of one nature only, but is composed of two opposites, body and soul, the former attached contingently as an instrument to the soul, but the intelligent essence subsisting in accordance with its primary law, and of these the one is irrational and the other rational, and the one perishable but the other imperishable, and the one mortal but the other immortal; so that we have a body of the same kind as brute beasts, but a soul akin to the rational and immortal nature. In this case then surely it is natural, that this double product, inasmuch as it partakes of a double nature, should regulate its life in a twofold and diverse manner, at one time serving the bodily nature, and at another welcoming with the diviner part its proper liberty. Thus the same man is both a slave and free, having had such a combination of soul and body allotted to him by God, for reasons known to Himself.

If therefore any one were to subject the natural functions either of the body or of the soul to necessity as their cause, calling it ‘fate,’ he would miss the proper name. For if there were some irresistible necessity of fate, and if many of the functions which by nature belong to the body and the soul are thereby impeded, and if ten thousand other external things combine by some accident in attaching themselves contrary to nature to both soul and body, how can fate and nature be the same thing?

For if they say that fate is unalterable, and that nothing d can happen contrary to it (because necessity is inexorable), and if, as I said, many things happen both to soul and body contrary to their natural functions, a man would not use right names, if he said that fate and nature are the same.

So then of our inward experiences part must depend upon reasoning and the choice that is in our own power, such as are the natural functions of the soul, and part on the nature of the body, and another part must be incidental to them, I mean to soul and body, but effects due by nature to others: yet no one could rightly detach either the free-will of the soul, or the natural action of the body, nor yet the contingency of external things from Him who is their Author.

For God Himself, the God of the universe, has been shown to be the Creator both of things in our own power and of things dependent on nature, and of things accidental. For the declaration of the divine Scripture, ‘He spake, and they were made: he commanded and they were created,’ [2] must be understood universally of all things.

So then if, at any time when we form certain purposes, other things happen contrary to our intention, we must remind ourselves, that this is owing, as we said, to that twofold and heterogeneous character of the combination in us, I mean of soul and body, in consequence of which the essence of the soul, which is of an intelligent and rational nature, in a body which is by nature childish, shares the position of an irrational being contrary to its own nature: and the mind, which is naturally wise, often in consequence of some accident becomes silly, from being distraught by excessive ailments, say, of the body.

Oftentimes too old age, having in the course of nature overtaken the body, deprives the understanding of the right judgements of its prime, by blunting the rational power of the intelligent soul contrary to nature.

Injuries again and pains and mutilations, which have happened to the body contrary to its nature, accidentally overcome the free-will of the soul, when it gives in to the pains because of its connexion with the body: so that an inevitable bond is found to have been thrown in the way of the freedom of the soul, at one time by the nature of the body, at another by accidents coming from without.

Nevertheless the power of our free-will has, as we said, reached such a pitch of courage and strength, as to dare in many cases to encounter and oppose the bodily nature and the accidents from without.

The bodily nature invites the man to amorous desire, but the soul having bridled the passion by sound reason becomes master of the bodily nature. And again the one, necessitating hunger and thirst and cold and feelings of this kind, invites to the remedies and satisfactions which are in accordance with nature; but the will being persuaded by sound reasons, and having voluntarily embraced certain ascetic counsels, by many days’ fasting and endurance beats off the natural desire of the body, choosing and preferring this course by excellence of reason.

Then again the one naturally delights in all pleasures, and in the easy movement of the body: but the will from a desire of virtue welcomes the life of labour and hardship.

But there are also some who have turned to evil, and ‘changed the natural use into that which is against nature, … men with men working unseemliness.’ [3]

Thus then reason does not give way in all things to nature, but conquers in many, as also it is conquered; and the man now leads, and now is himself led, so that in some cases even prematurely he hastens by violent hands to release himself from the body, whenever he judges life to be unprofitable for him. If then his whole contest were with the proper nature of the body only, this would be tolerable: but since God has planted his civil and social life in the midst of a multitude, so that he is made to pass his time among wild beasts and venomous reptiles, and amid fire and water and the surrounding air, and the perverted and diverse natures in all these, his conflict and resistance is naturally not only against his own bodily nature intimately connected with him, but also against the countless accidents from without, in the midst of which he who leads this mortal life must live, so that he has to hold out bravely against these also.

Ere now, for instance, many such and such kinds of food, and such and such temperatures of the atmosphere, and sudden frosts, and burning heats, and very many other things, though moving naturally according to certain laws proper to them, yet by falling accidentally upon us, have caused no common disturbance of our independence because of the connexion with the body; for our bodily nature cannot withstand the assaults from without, but is overpowered and conquered by the external circumstances which occur according to their proper nature.

Again, we pass our lives in company with a multitude of men who share the same nature with us, and, acting on their individual right, take away our independence by the free exercise of their own choice: therefore in this way again we shall naturally be subject to the purposes of others, when their independent power thus in a manner makes use of us, either against the body or in regard to the soul.

For as our bodily nature is often overpowered by things which assail it from without, so sometimes our will also, being disturbed by a thousand external wills, is induced by its own independent decision to give itself up to the external forces; and sometimes is rendered better, and sometimes worse: since bad company is apt to corrupt, just as on the contrary the intercourse of honourable men makes us better. For ‘evil communications corrupt good manners,’ [4] just as the company of the good saves and improves.

And though the rational faculty of the soul is carried this way and that by the arguments of those who encounter it from without, yet the proper virtue of the rational essence gains strength again, and proves its power to be truly divine and godlike, when by holding out against all external circumstances, and gaining the victory over them all by a free spirit, without abating aught of its own virtue, it is prepared for the study of philosophy. When however it is careless, it is affected by the evil with the worst results, just as also it is improved by careful attention from without.

What need after this to say, that ‘both fruitfulness and barrenness in souls and bodies’ [5] such as these, brought about by some accident in a manner proper to the government of the world and right and good for the whole, work a vast amount of disturbance of every kind to individual portions, and especially to our independence.

But over all existing things universally, both those that occur through us and our causation, and those that come accidentally from without, and those that are due to the operations of nature, there rules one almighty and all-powerful providence of God that extends through all, which also arranges most things by diviner laws inexpressible by us, guiding the whole in due obedience to the rein, and changing many even of natural consequences to suit the occasion, and working and co-operating with our wills, and at other times assigning their proper place to external circumstances.

When these things have been divided in this manner into three classes, those which depend on ourselves, those which take place according to natural law, and those which are accidental, and when all are summed up in one law which proceeds from the counsel of God, there will be no room for the doctrine of fate.

Thus we shall have found that the source of evil, about which many have doubted, has place in nothing natural, neither in bodies, nor in spiritual substances, much less in things that occur accidentally from without: it will be found, I say, solely in the self-determined motion of the soul, and in this, not when following the course of nature it walks in the straight road, but when it departs from the king’s highway, and turns by its own decision into the course contrary to nature, being its own master.

For the soul having obtained this excellent gift from God is free and master of itself, having assumed the determination of its own motion: but the divine law united with it by nature, like a beacon and a star, calls to it with a voice from within and says, ‘Thou shalt walk in the king’s highway, thou shalt not turn aside to the right hand nor to the left,’ teaching us that ‘the king’s highway’ is the path in accordance with right reason. [6]

For the Creator of all implanted in every soul this natural law as a helper and defender in its actions; and while by His law He showed it the right way, by the self-determined freedom bestowed on it He declared the choice of the better course to be deserving of praise and approbation, and of greater honours and rewards for its good deeds, because it performed them not under compulsion but by its own independent decision, though it had the power of choosing the opposite: so that, on the other hand, that soul which chose the worst acts was deserving of blame and punishment, as having ‘proprio motu’ transgressed the law of nature, and given birth to a source and fount of wickedness, and used itself basely not from any external necessity but of free determination and judgement. ‘The chooser then is answerable, God is not to blame.’ [7] For God made neither nature nor yet the substance of the soul evil: since a good Being may not create anything but what is good. Everything, then, that is according to nature is good: and every rational soul possesses by nature the good gift of free-will, which has been given for choosing what is good.

But when it acts wickedly, it is not nature that should be blamed: since evil comes to it not by nature but against nature, being a matter of choice but not an effect of nature. For when one who had power to choose the good, instead of choosing this, voluntarily rejected the better part and claimed the worse, what room for excuse could be left to him after becoming the cause of his own disease, and disregarding the innate law which was, as it were, his preserver and healer?

The man then who pays no regard to all these considerations, but thinks everything dependent upon necessity and the course of the stars, and asserts that the causes of the perversity of men’s offences proceed not from us but from the power that moves all things—must he not be introducing an unholy and impious argument?

For if either he should suppose the course of the world to be automatic and undesigned, he would be convicted at once as an atheist, besides being blind to the all-wise harmony and arrangement of the universe revolving in its eternal motion with beauty and order. If on the other hand he shall confess that God’s providence is the guiding and moving force which presides over all and administers all by a law of perfect wisdom, even thus he will not have escaped from the absurdity of impiety; since as to the sins committed among men he acquits the offenders of having committed any of their wrong deeds of their own determination, but attributes the cause of the evils to the general providence, miscalling it necessity and fate, and saying that it is the cause of all the foul and infamous deeds and cruelty and bloodguiltiness among men.

And who could be more impious than the man who represents the God of the universe, the very Maker and Creator of this world, as by compulsion forcing one man, who is unwilling to commit an impiety, to do so, and to be an atheist of necessity, and a blasphemer against God Himself; and forcing another, whom He constituted by nature a male, to bear the woman’s part contrary to nature, not of his own will but under compulsion from Him; and a third to become a murderer not of his own determination but driven by a necessity from God; so that he cannot reasonably blame the offenders, but must either believe that these are no sins at all, or declare God to be the author of all evils?

For whether God Himself, being present with all things, and seeing all and hearing all, compels men to act thus, or Himself constituted the course of the universe and the motion of the stars such as we see it, to effect and to compel such actions, He who arranged such an instrument, and contrived the net for ensnaring the prey, must Himself be also the one to blame for those who are caught therein.

Whether therefore by Himself alone, or else by some necessity contrived by Himself, He entangles the unwilling in these evils. Himself and no other must be the author of all evil; and it could no longer be justly said that man was prone to sin, but the doer thereof was God. And what statement could be more impious than this?

He then who brings in fate, directly thrusts out God and God’s providence, just as he who makes God ruler over all must overthrow the argument concerning fate. For either God and fate must be the same thing, or different the one from the other: the same thing, however, they cannot be.

For if they say that fate is a certain chain of causes which has come down unbroken and unchanged from the course of the heavenly bodies, must there not be prior to fate the corporeal elements out of which even the heavenly bodies are composed, and of which heavenly bodies one would naturally say that fate is some accidental conjunction?

But how could that which is accidental to the elements be the same thing with the God who is over all, if indeed the elements are considered lifeless and irrational in their proper nature, while God apart from bodies is essential life and wisdom, bestowing the benefit of His creative work both upon the particular elements and on the arrangement of the universe?

God, therefore, and fate are not the same thing. But then if they are different, which is the stronger? Why, nothing is nobler, nothing more mighty than God. Therefore He will conquer and prevail over the bad; else, by yielding to fate when it does evil, He would draw the blame upon Himself, because being able to restrain the evil-working necessity He did not restrain it, but let it loose for the ruin and destruction of all things; or rather He wrought this Himself, if He is to be represented as Maker and Creator of all things even of fate itself.

But supposing Him to take no account of the administration of the world, there would again rise up the atheists’ voice, against which we ought to shut our ears, since the Divine providence and power display themselves manifestly both in the universal effects of perfect wisdom and skill, and in the indubitable evidences in ourselves of the free and self-governing power of the rational soul.

For in accordance with this power, though ten thousand obstacles from without by some accident oppose both the body’s nature and the independent efforts of our will, nevertheless the freedom of virtue in the soul holds out against all, showing that the choice of the good, so far as in us lies, is irresistible and invincible.

And this the present time of our Saviour’s teaching has proved by actual facts. For to show that these are not mere sounds and empty words, you have the opportunity of witnessing the conflict of the godly, and of observing those who by voluntary choice have accepted the sufferings of the contest for religion: sufferings of which countless multitudes both of Greeks and Barbarians throughout the whole world inhabited by man have given proof, by gladly enduring all bodily outrages, and going through every kind of torture with a cheerful countenance, and finally accepting with a glad welcome the release of the soul from the body in many various forms.

Yet surely in this case no reason would permit us to name fate as the cause. For where, pray, did the course of the stars ever in the world’s history bring forth such champions of piety? Or at what time before our Saviour’s teaching was sown broadcast among all men, has human life exhibited such a conflict throughout the whole world inhabited by man?

Or where has all time produced a school of doctrines such as these, able to overthrow superstitious error, and to teach all men, both Greeks and Barbarians, the knowledge of the One God over all?

And to whom among the celebrated sages of all time, Barbarian or Greek, was there ever vouchsafed such a fate as this, to make the doctrine proposed by him give light to the whole world, and be known even to the ends of the earth, and to win the reputation of a God among those devoted to him?

But if these things were not in the beginning, nor have ever happened, nor been heard of, then the cause of them was not a chain of causes and a necessity. For there would have been nothing to hinder others also from receiving long ago the same nativity and fate by the same revolution and cycle of the stars.

From what kind of fate then has our Saviour God appeared and been proclaimed throughout the whole world, while those who were of old esteemed gods among both Greeks and Barbarians have been overthrown, and not otherwise overthrown than by the teaching of the new God?

And what sort of fate announced to all men that God is the Creator of all things, and compelled them to affirm that there is no such thing as fate? And how did fate force men both to say and to think that fate itself does not exist? And what of those who for the sake of our Saviour’s pious teaching have for a long time past endured all kinds of conflicts, and are even yet carrying on the struggle?

They found therefore one and the same destiny, to be brought into subjection under one system and doctrine, and to display one mind and will, and the same virtue of soul, to accept one and the same kind of life, to love the same doctrine, and to endure contentedly the same sufferings for their steadfast piety.

But what sound reason would allow us to say this, that young and old together, of every age, and of either sex, men of barbarous nature, slaves and free, learned and uneducated, not born in a corner of the earth nor under these same stars with us, but throughout the whole world inhabited by man, have been forced by a necessity of fate to prefer a certain doctrine to all the customs of their forefathers, and to welcome death for the religion of the One God over all, and to be thoroughly instructed in the teaching concerning the immortality of the soul, and to prefer a philosophy that consists not in words but in deeds?

For these are the things that even a blind man could clearly see to be the proper effects of no necessity, but of learning and instruction, being manifest proofs of voluntary purpose and free-will.

There would be countless other arguments to prove the proposition, most of which I shall omit, and for my part be contented with what I have stated; but I will leave you to consider your own reading of your venerable philosophers, that so you may learn how much wiser and better than your oracular deities was the man who convicted their wonderful responses of falsehood, and castigated the Pythian god himself for his answers concerning fate. So listen again to him who entitled his own writing, ‘The detection of impostors,’ and note with what a fine vigorous spirit he corrects the error of the multitude, and indeed of Apollo himself, by what he writes as follows word for word:

[1] 242 c 2 Euripides, SyleusFr., cf Eur. Phoen.521

[2] 247 a 3 Ps. cxlviii. 5

[3] 248 a 4 Rom. i. 26, 27

[4] 249 a 6 Menander, i Cor. xv. 33

[5] 249 b 9 cf Plato, Rep.546 A

[6] 250 a 11 Num. xx. 17

[7] c 6 Plato, Rep.x. 617 E

Chapter 7

[OENOMAUS] [1] ‘To think then that thou should’st sit in Delphi unable, even should’st thou wish it, to keep silence! So Apollo, the son of Zeus, now wishes, not because he wishes, but because he is ordained by necessity to wish! But since I have been led on, I know not how, into this argument, I am inclined to pass over all the rest, and inquire into a matter that is appropriate and well worth inquiry. For, so far as it depends on the philosophers, there has been lost out of human life, whether one likes to call it a rudder, or ballast, or foundation—there has been lost the governing power of our life, which we suppose to be absolute over the highest necessity; but Democritus, unless I am mistaken, and Chrysippus think to prove the noblest of man’s faculties, according to the former, a slave, and according to the latter, half-enslaved. Their argument, however, is worth no more than a man can claim for the things of man: but if deity also now makes war upon us, good heavens, what will become of us?’

‘But that is not likely nor just, if at least we may conjecture from these responses following:

“Hated of all thy neighbours, belov’d of the blessed Immortals, Sit thou still, with thy lance drawn inward, patiently watching.”

‘”What then? says the Argive; if I should so wish, is it in my power, and can I, if it shall please me, sit still, patiently watching?” “It is in thy power,” thou would’st say, “and thou canst; or how should I have enjoined this on thee?”

“Carystus, heir of noble Cheiron’s race, Forsake thy native Pelion, and seek Euboea’s cape: there thou art doomed to found A sacred home. But haste, and tarry not.” [2]

‘Is there then anything really dependent on man, O Apollo, and have I power to will to “forsake Pelion”? Yet surely I used to hear from many wise men, that if it is fated for me to “seek Euboea’s cape,” and “found a sacred home,” I shall both come thither and settle, whether thou tell me or not, and whether I should will it or not. If, however, there is any need for me too to will what necessity forces me to will even if I should he unwilling—but thou, O Apollo, art more worthy to be believed, and so I am inclined to give heed rather to thee:

“Tell thou the Parians, Telesicles, I bid thee found in the Aerian isle A city fair to view.”

‘Yes, surely’ (some one will perhaps say in vain conceit, or to confute thee), ‘I shall tell them, even if thou bid me not: for so it is fated: and the “Aerian isle” is Thasos, and the Parians will come to it, when my son Archilochus shall have explained to them, that this island was formerly called Aeria. I suppose therefore that thou, being terrible in taking vengeance, wilt not bear with him, so ungrateful and audacious as he is, since if thou hadst not chosen to inform him, he would never have given the message, nor would his son Archilochus have led the colony of Parians, nor would the Parians have inhabited Thasos.

‘I know not therefore whether thou sayest these things without knowing what thou sayest. But since we seem to be at leisure to hold even a long conversation, and since the subject is of no slight importance, tell me this, for perhaps a few points out of many are sufficient.

‘Are we, I and thou, anything? You will say, Yes. But whence do we know this? Whereby did we determine that we do know it? Is it not the fact that nothing else is so satisfactory a proof (of our existence) as our conscious sensation and apprehension of ourselves?

‘ What again? How did we ever find out that we are animals ? And how that among animals we are, as I should say, men, and among men one an impostor, and another an exposer of impostors; but as thou would’st say, the one a man, the other a god, and the one a prophet, the other a false accuser? And let it be as thou sayest, if I be proved wrong.

‘But how do we know that we are conversing at the present moment? What sayest thou? Did we not rightly judge our apprehension of ourselves by that which is most immediate, the fact itself? Evidently so. For we found nothing else either higher than it, or prior to it, or more trustworthy.

‘For if this is not to be so, then let not hereafter one named Alcmaeon come to thee at Delphi, after he has slain his mother, and been driven from home, and is longing to return home. For he knows not either whether he himself is anything at all, nor whether he is driven from home, nor whether he is longing for home. But even if Alcmaeon is mad, and imagines things that do not exist, yet the Pythian god at least is not mad. And thou must not speak to him thus:

“How to return to thy home thou seek’st, son of Amphiaraus.”

‘For even thou knowest not yet whether any son of Amphiaraus is consulting thee, nor whether thou, the consulted, art anything at all, and able to answer concerning the matters on which he consults thee.

‘Neither therefore let Chrysippus, the author of the semi-slavery, whatever that exactly is, attend in the Porch, nor think that those drivellers will attend there to listen to him, the Nobody: neither let him take his stand and struggle about nothing against Arcesilaus present in person, and Epicurus not present.

‘For what Arcesilaus is, and what Epicurus, or what the Porch is, or what the young men, or what the Nobody, he neither knows nor can know; for he knows not even, what comes far earlier, whether he himself is anything.

‘But neither will you gods nor Democritus endure that any one should talk thus: for there is no more trustworthy criterion than that of which I speak; nor if there seem to be any others, could they be made equal to this, or, if made equal, could not surpass it.

‘So then, some one may say, since thou, O Democritus, and thou, O Chrysippus, and thou, O prophet, are indignant if any one should wish to deny your consciousness of yourselves—for of those many books of yours it is no longer possible to deny the existence—come, let us also be indignant on the other side.

‘How, pray? Is this self-consciousness to be the most trustworthy and primary evidence wherever it pleases you? but where it pleases you not, is there some occult power, Fate, or Destiny, to tyrannize over it?—a power having for each of you a different meaning, proceeding according to one from god, and according to another from those minute bodies which are carried down, and tossed up, and twirled round, and broken up, and separated, and combined by necessity?

‘For lo! the manner of our self-consciousness is the same in which we are also conscious of our voluntary or enforced actions. And we are not unconscious of the great difference between walking and being carried, or between choosing and being compelled.

‘But do you ask the reasons for which I bring these matters into the discussion? Because thou, O prophet, hast failed to perceive things over which we have power, and thou that knowest all things seemest not to know these which are fast moored to our own will.

‘And it was evident that this would be the source of no little trouble: for he who knows not the source, which was the cause of the consequences, would be likely, I suppose, to know the consequences themselves!

‘Evidently then he was an impudent prophet who foretold to Laius [3] that his son would kill him: for the son surely would be master of his own will, and neither any Apollo, nor any higher than he, would be able by any power to attain to a knowledge of things which neither exist at present, nor need ever come into existence.

‘For surely the most ridiculous of all things is this, the mixture and combination of the two notions, that there is something in men’s own power, and that there is nevertheless a fixed chain of causation. For, as the wiser sort say, it is like the account in Euripides.

‘For that Laius should choose to beget a child, was in the power of Laius himself, and this had escaped the notice of Apollo: but after he had begotten a son, there lay upon him an inevitable necessity of dying by his son’s hand. In this way therefore the necessity dependent on the future event supplied to the prophet his presentiment of what would take place.

‘But I suppose the son also, as well as the father, was master of his own will: and as the latter had the power of begetting or not, so the son had the power of slaying or not. Now this is the character of all your oracular answers: and this was that which the Apollo of Euripides said:

“And all thy house shall wade through streams of blood:” [4]

‘namely, that the son shall be blinded by his own hand, on account of the marriage with his mother and of the sovereignty to which he succeeded for his solution of the riddle; and that his sons shall fall by mutual slaughter, because of the banishment of the one from the kingdom, and the ambition of the other, and the marriage of the exile at Argos, and the expedition of seven ridiculous chieftains, and the battle: and since these things were separately dependent on many causes and powers, how could it be possible for thee to understand, or for the chain of causes to bind them together?

‘For if on the contrary Oedipus being his own master had not wished to reign, or, having wished and accomplished this, had not chosen to marry Jocasta, or after marrying had not been puffed up with pride, nor been desponding and disagreeable, how could the several events have been brought to pass? How could he have torn out his eyes? Or how could he have cursed his sons with the curse described by Euripides and thee?

‘In what way too could the events which followed these have taken place, if there were no causes existing before thou could’st tell anything about the future? And again, if the sons had agreed and reigned together, or if they had made an arrangement to reign by turns and adhered to the terms settled; or if he who was banished had determined to go off not to Argos but to Libya or to the Perrhaebi; or if after having arrived at Argos he had decided to be a salt-fish-monger, and not to take a rich wife but some poor workwoman or huckstress; or if Adrastus had not given him his daughter, or if he had given her, but Polynices had b not desired to return home; or if, though desiring it, he had restrained himself; or if Adrastus had given no heed to his request for alliance in war; or if neither Amphiaraus nor Tydeus nor the several other commanders of divisions would follow Adrastus; or if, though they followed, Polynices on arriving had not fought with his brother, but either had reigned together with him by agreement, or, if he refused, had retired, being persuaded by what Euripides says:

“How foolishly thou com’st thine home to sack;” [5]

‘or if, not this one, but the other had listened to those other Euripidean subtleties:

“Are sun and night content to serve man’s need, And wilt thou bear no equal in the house?” [6]

‘how in any such case could they have joined battle, “and all the house of Laius waded through blood”?

‘However, these things, you will say, have come to pass. They have come to pass: but by what way didst thou attain to the knowledge of them? Dost thou not see how frequently the whole action of the play has been broken through by the power which lies in us who perform the action? And so I will take whatever supposed case thou wilt, and cut across that chain of yours, and show that it is impossible.

‘Yet thou wilt say that thou knowest the last links of the supposed case. Yes, but the whole case has been regulated by the force of our interruption of the chain.

‘Or perhaps thou dost not understand what I mean? Yet in every supposed case, O prophet, there are the living beings often making either few or many fresh beginnings therein. And these beginnings having cut across the events preceding them always themselves bring others on: and these latter may proceed as long as no other beginning supervenes from any source, commanding the events which come after it to conform not to those which went before but to itself.

‘Now such afresh beginning may be either an ass, or a dog, or a flea. For surely, by Apollo! thou wilt not rob even the flea of his free will: but the flea will act upon a certain impulse of his own, and being sometimes mixed up with human affairs will make himself the commencement of some new course; and thou art unconsciously consulting this kind of animal.

“Trachis, the home of godlike Heracles, Thou hast destroyed, O Locrian ; and on thee Zeus hath sent curses, and shall yet send more.”

‘What sayest thou? Had it not then been destined by you gods to be destroyed? And why are we mortals to blame, and not that necessity of yours? Thou doest not justice, O Apollo, nor art right in laying the punishment upon us who do no wrong.

‘And this Zeus of yours, I mean the necessity of your necessity, why does he take vengeance upon us, and not upon himself (if he must punish some one), for having shown the necessity to be of such a character? And why too does he threaten us? Or why, as if we were the masters of this event, do we suffer famine for it? Moreover it will either be rebuilt by us, or not; and whichever it may be, this has been fixed by fate.

‘Cease therefore from thy wrath, O Zeus, the lord of famine: for that which has been destined will be, and that is what thy chain has been appointed to do: and we are nothing compared to it. And thou too cease, Apollo, from uttering vain oracles: for just that which will be, will be, even though thou keep silence. And what is to be done to us, O Zeus and Apollo, who are not at all the causes of your enactment of law, enactment, that is, of necessity. Or what have we to do with your threatened curses, which yourselves deserve to bear for what we were compelled by necessity to do? “Oeteans, rush not in blind frenzy on.”

‘Why, Apollo, we are not “rushing on,” but are being driven, and not by “blind frenzy,” but by that necessity of yours.

‘And how is it, O Apollo, that thou praisest that famous Lycurgus, who was not virtuous either willingly or by choice, but unwillingly? That is if a man can be virtuous unwillingly. But what ye do now is just as if one were to praise and honour those who are beautiful in body, but to blame and punish the ugly.

‘For the wicked might justly say to you, You did not permit us, O ye gods, to become virtuous; and not only so, but you even forced us to be wicked. And as to the virtuous, if they walk about with their elbows stuck out, one will not permit it, but will say to them, O Chrysippus and Cleanthes and the rest of your band, since you have been made to be virtuous, I give praise to virtue, but no praise to you in whom virtue resides.

‘Nay, even Epicurus, against whom you, Chrysippus, so often railed, I acquit of the charges, so far at least as you can judge. For how is he to blame, who was not of his own accord luxurious or unjust, as you so often reproached him?

“Well ordered lives the gods approving view, And welcome holy offerings of the just.”

‘Now it seems to me that you gods would not say this, unless you were persuaded that men seek the objects of their pursuit not involuntarily but with a will: and after what has been already proved, no sophist either divine or human will dare to say that whatever men will is ordained by fate: or else we shall no longer use reasoning with him, but take a stout strap, as for an unruly boy, and curry his ribs right well.’

Thus did Oenomaus inveigh, against the soothsayer. And if you do not like this kind of argument, yet take and read the extracts from the other philosophers concerning fate, which are fit to overthrow not only the oracles that have already been quoted, but also generally all the other contrivances in defence of the dogma.

For since not only unlearned and simple persons, but also many who prided themselves greatly upon education and philosophy, have e’er now been dragged into agreement with the dogma, I think it absolutely necessary to set forth the mutual contradictions of the philosophers themselves, for an accurate examination of the problem. First then I will quote for you from Diogenianus the arguments concerning fate, which he urged against Chrysippus as follows:

[1] 255 b 1 Oenomaus, The Selection of Impostors

[2] c 9 Herodotus, vii. 148

[3] 258 a 9 Euripides, Phoenissae,19

[4] c 9 Euripides, Phoenissae,20

[5] 259 c 1 Euripides, Phoenissae,570

[6] c 4 ibid. 541

Chapter 8

[DIOGENIANUS] [1] ‘In addition to all this it is worth while to quote also the opinions of Chrysippus the Stoic on this subject. For in his first book Of Fate wishing to show that all things are comprehended under necessity and fate, he employs among certain other testimonies the following expressions in the poet Homer:

“For me the hateful doom of death, E’en from my birth assigned, too soon hath yawn’d,” [2]

‘and:

“Though the time shall come For him to suffer all such things as fate Decreed, when first his thread of life was spun;” [3]

‘and again :

“His fate I say no mortal e’er hath shunned.” [4]

‘But he does not observe that the expressions elsewhere used by the Poet are directly opposed to these, I mean those which Chrysippus himself employs in his Second Book, when he wishes to prove that there are also many things caused by us, as for example:

“They by their own presumptuous folly died”, [5]

and this:

“Perverse mankind, whose wills, created free, Charge all their woes on absolute decree; All to the dooming gods their guilt translate, And follies are miscalled the crimes of fate.” [6]

‘For these expressions and such as these are opposed to the idea that all things take place according to fate. Nor indeed was he able to perceive even this, that Homer by no means bears witness to his dogma even in those former verses. For it will be found from them that he suggests not that all things are brought to pass according to fate, but rather that certain things occur according thereto.

‘For the passage—

“For me the hateful doom of death, E’en from my birth assigned, too soon hath yawned “—

‘could not mean that all things occur according to fate, but only just that he was soon to die: for most truly it is fated that every being born into life must die.

‘Moreover the passage—

“Though the time shall come For him to suffer all such things as fate Decreed, when first his thread of life was spun “—

‘has the same meaning. For it does not say that all things which are to befall him hereafter will occur according to fate, but that certajn things will occur to him according to necessity. For what else than this is signified by the distinction “such things as”? And many things, though not all, are laid upon us according to necessity.

‘Again, the verse—

“His fate I say no mortal e’er hath shunned”—

‘is a very good statement. For who could possibly escape things that of necessity occur to every living being? So that Chrysippus, far from having Homer voting with him in the opinion that all things take place according to fate, would have him as an opponent; since the latter has often and plainly stated that many things occur through our causation, but can nowhere be found to say expressly that all things occur according to necessity.

‘And inasmuch as a poet does not promise us the true nature of real things, but imitates all kinds of human passions, and dispositions, and opinions, it would be suitable for him often to make contrary statements: but it would not befit a philosopher to make contrary statements, nor to use the testimony of a poet for this purpose.’

After other matters, he says, also:

‘But Chrysippus thinks that he brings another strong proof of the presence of fate in all things, in the adoption of names of this kind. For he says that destiny (πεπρωμενην) is a certain arrangement determined (πεπερασμενην) and concluded, and that fate (ειμαρμενην) is a kind of bond woven (ειρομενην) either out of the will of Zeus, or of any other cause.

‘ Moreover the goddesses of fate (Μοιρας) have been so called from some one of them having been assigned (μεμερισθαι) and allotted to each of us. In the same way he says that the word το χρεων (“the debt”) is used, meaning the portion that falls to our share and is due to us according to fate. And the number of the Fates suggests the three periods in which all things revolve, and by which they are fulfilled.

‘Lachesis is so called from casting lots (λαγχανειν) for each man’s destiny: Atropos from the unchanging (ατρεπτον) and unalterable character of the distribution; and Clotho from all things being twisted together (συγκλεκωσθαι) and woven, and from their having only one appointed solution. For by this and the like silly talk he thinks that he proves the necessity present in all things.

‘But it occurs to me to wonder if in speaking thus he was not conscious of his own nonsensical talk. For let it be granted that men entertained these notions when they imposed the names that have been set forth, according to his own etymologies, and supposed that fate had bound all things fast, and that the causes which had been from eternity predetermined were immutable in all real existences and all passing events.

‘What then, Chrysippus? do you follow all the opinions of mankind, and does not one of them appear to you to be mistaken on any point, and are all men capable of seeing the truth?

‘How then say you that there is no man who does not seem to you as mad as Orestes and Alcmaeon, except the wise? And there have been, say you, only one or two wise, and the rest for their folly have been equally mad with those whom I have named?

‘And how do you refute the errors of those opinions of theirs about riches, for example, and fame, and sovereignty, and pleasure in general, things which most men have thought good? How say you, too, that the established laws and the constitutions of states have all been wrong? Or why did you write such a multitude of books, if on no point mankind held mistaken opinions?

‘For we must not say that, when they hold the same opinions with you, they judge rightly, but when they differ, are mad.

‘For in the first place even you do not call yourself wise, much less do we, that we should make their concurrence with your opinion a criterion of their good judgement at any time; and further, even if this were true, why should you say that they are all equally mad, instead of commending them, in as far as they appeared to be of the same opinions with you, for having got hold of a right opinion, and considering them to be wrong, in as far as they dissented from you?

‘Not even thus, however, was it natural to suppose that their opinion is an adequate evidence of the truth; and every one would acknowledge, not that he is mad, as you think, but that he is far removed from wisdom.

‘It will be ridiculous therefore for you to use these men, whom vou would declare to be no better than yourself in understanding, as bearing witness by their imposition of the names, unless indeed it has happened that those who originally gave these names were wise men—a thing which you cannot possibly prove.

‘However, let it be granted to you that this is so, and that those names are given with their significations as you wish, and that this circumstance has not been a result of false opinions: where then do they indicate that all things without exception are in accordance with fate, and not rather these only, if any, with which fate is concerned.

‘For the number of the Fates, and their names, and Clotho’s spindle, and the thread wound upon it, and the ball of this thread, and all other such things mentioned in that story, indicate the immutability and eternal fitness of the causes in all things which are bound by necessity to take place thus, and all which are hindered from being otherwise.

‘And there would be many things of this nature; but others are not so; and to some of these latter men ascribed gods as rulers and creators, and of some they supposed us to be ourselves the causes, and of others again nature, and of others fortune: and of this last they wished to indicate the changefulness and instability, and its turning now this way and now that; and to show this kind of casualty in affairs by an image, they represented Fortune as standing on a globe.

‘Or are not even these opinions held among mankind? For if at times men confuse the causes, and think that those things which are the results of fate or fortune proceed from a divine power, and that the things of which we are the cause depend on fate, yet surely it is manifest to every one that they think there are all these causes in things.

‘So the result is that neither the notions adopted by mankind, nor the imposition of such names as have been mentioned, bear testimony to the opinion of Chrysippus.’

To this he next adds:

‘Such are some of the proofs that he has used in his first book Concerning Fate, but in the second he tries to solve the absurdities that seem to follow from the statement that all things are subjected to necessity, the same absurdities which we set forth at the beginning: for example, that it destroys the earnest desire on our own part in regard to censure, and praise, and exhortation, and all things which appear to be consequent upon our own causation.

‘In the second book then he says it is evident that many things do originate with us, but nevertheless even these are connected by fate with the general arrangement of the whole.

‘And he has employed certain examples of the following kind. That a man’s cloak should not be lost, was fated, he says, not absolutely but with the condition of its being carefully kept: and that this or that man should be saved from the hands of the enemy, with the condition of his fleeing from the enemy: and the birth of children, with the willingness to cohabit with a wife.

‘For just as it would be absurd, says he, if, upon some one’s saying that Hegesarchus the boxer would come off from the fight without a single scratch, a man were to recommend Hegesarchus to fight with his hands down, because it was fated that he was to come off untouched, whereas he who made the assertion said so because of the man’s superabundant caution against being hit; so it is also in all other cases.

‘For many things cannot take place without the addition of our willing them, and bringing into play the most intense earnestness and zeal concerning them, because it was fated, he says, that they were to take place with this condition.

‘Here then again one may wonder at the man’s want of discernment and consideration, both of the sensible evidences and of the inconsequence of his own arguments. For I imagine that just as what we call sweet is the direct opposite of what is called bitter, and black of white, and hot of cold, so what depends on us is the direct opposite of what depends on fate; if at least it is assumed that one calls the effects of fate whatever things take place absolutely whether we will or no, and effects of our action whatever things come to their fulfilment from our diligence and energy, or fail of fulfilment in consequence of our carelessness and indolence.

‘If therefore my diligence in guarding the cloak be the cause of its being saved, and a man’s will to consort with his wife the cause of the children being born, and the will to flee from his enemies the cause of his escape from being killed by them, and the fighting bravely against his antagonist and guarding against the blows from his hands the cause of his coming off from the contest without a scratch, how is the dependence on fate to be maintained here? For if these results follow from fate, they cannot be said to follow from our will: but if from us, then evidently not from fate, because these cannot concur one with the other.

‘But, says he, they will follow from our will, that will however having been included in fate. But how included (I should say), if at least both the guarding the cloak and the not guarding it proceeded from my free will? For thus it is evident that its preservation also would be in my power.

‘Also from the very distinction which Chrysippus makes, it becomes evident that our causation is freed from fate. For, says he, it is fated that the cloak be preserved, if thou guard it: and that there will be children, if also thou shouldst will it; but otherwise none of these things would have to take place. But in the case of things predetermined by fate we should never employ these pretended conditions.

‘So we do not say that every man will die, if so and so should happen, and that he will not die if it should not happen, but simply that he will die, whatsoever may be done to prevent his dying at all; nor do we say that a certain man will be incapable of feeling pain, even if he do this or that; but that every man is capable of feeling pain, whether he wish it or not: and so of all other things which are fated to be in this way and no other.

‘So that if it is necessary that this or that should take place, if we should wish it, but otherwise not, it is manifest that our wishing or not wishing was not previously constrained by any other cause, but was in our own power.

‘And if this was not subject to necessity, it is evident also that the occurrence of this or that was not eternally predetermined, unless even the very wish to guard the cloak, or the unwillingness, was a consequence of some fate and the effect of some external necessary cause.

‘But in this latter case the power of our free will is utterly destroyed, and the cause of the cloak being saved or being lost would no longer be in me; wherefore also I should reasonably be free from blame if it were lost (for its loss was due to some other cause), and on the other hand I should deserve no praise if it were saved, because even this was not my doing. But you were as positive with your argument as if you could make all sure.’

So far the writer before mentioned. But to this let us subjoin also our extracts from the writings of Alexander of Aphrodisias, a man very illustrious in philosophical studies, who also himself in his book On Fate used such statements as follow to overthrow the dogma.

[1] 262 a 1 Diogenianus, Answers to Chrysippus

[2] a 6 Hom. Il.xxiii. 78

[3] b 2 Il.xx. 127

[4] b 6 Il. vi. 488

[5] c 3 Od. i. 7

[6] c 5 Od. i. 32 (Pope)

Chapter 9

[ALEXANDER APHRODISIENSIS] [1] ‘The causes of events are divided into four kinds, as the divine Aristotle has shown: for of causes some are efficient, and some material; there is also among them the formal cause; and besides these three there is the final cause, for the sake of which the thing is done.

‘So many are the different kinds of causes: for whatever is a cause of anything will be found to be included under one of these classes. For although all events do not require so many causes, yet those which require the most do not exceed the said number.

‘But the difference between them will be more easy to recognize, if it be seen in some example of what occurs. Let us then show the distinction of causes in the case of a statue. Now as the “efficient cause” of the statue there is the artist who made it, whom we call the sculptor: and as “matter,” the bronze substance, or stone, or whatever that may be which is shaped by the artist according to his art: for this also is a cause of the production and existence of the statue.

‘Again, the form also, which is produced in this substance by the artist, is itself a cause of the statue: wherefore the form is either a man throwing a quoit, or a javelin, or it is of some other definite shape.

‘These, however, are not the only causes of the production of the statue, but the end for the sake of which it has been made—that is either the honour of some person, or piety towards a god—is inferior to none of the causes of its production. For without a cause the statue would not have been made at all.

‘Since therefore the causes are so many, and their mutual differences easily recognized, we might justly reckon fate among the efficient causes, as bearing a relation to its own effects analogous to the art which creates the statue.

‘This being so, it would follow that we should direct our argument to efficient causes: for thus it will be known whether we ought to regard fate as the cause of all things that are done, or to make room also for some other things besides this as being efficient causes of certain things.

‘Now Aristotle, in making his classification of all things that are done, says that some of them are done for the sake of something, the doer of them having before him a certain aim and end of what is done; and others for the sake of nothing, namely all such as are not done in consequence of any purpose of the doer, nor have reference to any definite end, being such as, for instance, either holding fast a straw or twisting it about, and either stroking or pulling one’s hair, and all actions of this kind.

‘For that these things are done is well known; but they are without the final cause which is the purpose to be gained. Of things therefore which are done in this way, without aim or object, there can be no reasonable classification.

‘But of those things which have reference to something, and are done for the sake of something, some take place according to nature, others according to reason. For those which have nature as the cause of their production advance according to certain numbers and definite order to some end, on reaching which they cease to be produced—unless any obstacle hinder them in their natural course to this appointed end.

‘Also those things which are done according to reason have some end; for nothing done according to reason is done at random, but they all have reference to some end.

‘Now things which are done according to reason are all such as are produced by the doers reasoning about them, and contriving in what way they may be done. In this way are produced all things which are done according to the rules of art, and those which result from a deliberate purpose.

‘And these differ from the products of nature, because these latter have both their origin and the causes of the special character with which they are produced in themselves (for their nature is of this special character); and because they are produced in a certain order, although the nature which is their efficient cause does not employ any reasoning about them, in the same way as do the arts.

‘But the results of art and of deliberate purpose have the origin of their movement and their efficient cause from without, and not in themselves, and the maker’s calculation concerning them guides their production.

‘A third class among things done for some end, namely those that are believed to result from chance or spontaneous action, and which differ from those that are primarily done with some purpose in this way, that in the latter case the means which precede the end are employed for the sake of the end, while in the former cases the actions preceding the end are done for some other end, but while so done for another purpose there occurs to them as an end that which is said to be spontaneous and accidental.

‘Now these things being so, and all things that are done having been distributed into these four kinds, it follows upon this that we should see among which of the efficient causes we must set fate.

‘Is it among those things which are done for no purpose? Or is this altogether unreasonable? For we always use the name fate in regard to some end, and say that this has been brought about in accordance with fate. Wherefore we must necessarily set fate among the things which have a final cause.’

After making these distinctions word for word, the aforesaid author next establishes them more at length, and shows that fate is nothing else than the consequences of natural law; because in actions performed according to our reasoning and according to art the necessity of fate is not discerned.

But he affirms that many natural consequences are hindered from occurring, and that these cases are called contrary to nature, just as in the operations of art there are many things said to be contrary to art. If then any things at all are done contrary to natural law, they must also be done contrary to fate, since the decrees of fate are nothing else than the laws of nature.

[ALEXANDER APHRODISIENSIS] [2] ‘We see, for instance,’ he says, ‘that the body, from being thus or thus constituted by nature, is liable to diseases and death according to its natural constitution: not, however, in all cases alike, nor of necessity. For oftentimes careful treatment, and changes in the mode of life, and the directions of physicians, and the counsels of the gods avail to drive off a condition of this kind.

‘In the same way in the case of the soul also one might find, contrary to the natural condition, preferences and practices and modes of life different in each of those who were improving from discipline and studies, and better counsels…

‘For example, when the physiognomist once said some absurd things about Socrates the philosopher, very far removed from his chosen course of life, and was being derided for it by the companions of Socrates, Socrates said that Zopyrus had made no mistake: for he would have been of such a character, as far as it depended on his nature, had he not become better than his nature through the discipline of philosophy.’

Such are the effects of nature, which, he says, differ not at all from those of fate. [3]

‘But the results of chance are of the following kind, when a thing has been done for one purpose, and there occurs not that for which it was done, but something else which was not even expected at first. For when a man, in digging for another purpose, and not to find treasure, has lighted upon a treasure, he has found it, he says, by chance. Also when a man has gone into the market for some other purpose, and falls in with his b debtor with money in his hand, and receives what is due to him, men say he has recovered his money by chance. Also when the horse, in hope of food or for some other purpose, has escaped from those who were holding him, but is met in his flight and course by falling into the hands of his masters, he is said by some to have been saved accidentally. Under such conditions these cannot be the results of fate.

‘There are also some causes undiscoverable by human reason, which are believed to occur in consequence of certain antipathies, the real cause of their occurrence being unknown. Such are the effects which certain amulets have been presumed to produce, though they have no reasonable and probable cause to produce these effects: incantations also, and certain conjurings of this kind. For the cause of these things is acknowledged by all men to be obscure: for which reason they call them αναιτιολογετα, things of which the cause cannot be explained.

‘And there are besides these many things which occur contingently, and whichever way it happens, and neither can these be according to fate.

‘By contingent events are meant those wherein it was possible that they might not happen, as is also made clear by the very expression, “whichever way it happens”: [4] as for example, the moving of one’s own limbs, and the casual turning of the neck, and stretching out a finger, and lifting the eyebrows, or that one who is sitting should stand up, and one who is moving should become still, and one who is talking become silent; and in thousands of cases one would find that there existed a power capable of the opposite effects, and these cases cannot depend on fate: for the things which depend on fate do not admit the opposite of their actual condition.

‘Moreover, a man’s power of deliberation is not given to him without purpose: yet he would have this power of deliberation to no purpose, if he performed his actions from necessity. But it evidently appears that man alone has from nature this advantage over the other animals, that he does not follow the impressions of sense as they do, but has in his reason a judge of the circumstances which befall him: and by using this, if the things presented by sense are, on examination, such as they at first appeared, he assents to the impression, and so will pursue them: but if they appear to be different, he no longer abides by his previous conception, after reason has proved the representations false, in consequence of his deliberating upon them.[5]

‘At any rate we deliberate only about things which we have power to do: and whenever we act without having deliberated, we often repent and blame ourselves for our want of consideration: and further, if we see others acting inconsiderately, we charge them with doing wrong, and bid them consult such and such advisers, as knowing that such actions are in our own power.[6]

‘That their argument about fate is false, is sufficiently testified by the fact that even its champions themselves are not able to conform to their own statements. For they profess to exhort and to teach, and they advise men to learn and to be educated, and they reprove and punish those who do things that are not right, as sinning of their own will.[7] Moreover, they leave behind them very many books, by which they expect the young to be educated. They would have ceased, therefore, from being so eager in their arguments if they had observed that (in their books) they claim forgiveness for involuntary offenders, but say that voluntary transgressors deserve punishment, implying evidently that to offend or not lies in their own power.[8]

‘Thus even according to their own account the necessity arising from fate is abolished, and it is established that free-will is ours by nature, with the limitation that there are also very many things not in our own power, as the effects of natural laws, and the accidents of fortune, though even these are contrary to the doctrine of fate, as we have previously shown.’

These statements we have abridged out of a great many, because in the opinions expressed on our side the argument in favour of free-will is of great length: and with this doctrine the utterances of the philosophers which we have quoted concurred, confirming by their testimony our sacred Scriptures, and convicting of falsehood the opinions concerning fate not only of the multitude of mankind but also of the wonderful oracular gods. And some of these extracts were sarcastically aimed against the famous answers of oracles, and some were objections urged against the wonderful philosophers by their own associates. Now therefore it is time to examine also the arguments of the astrologers against the Chaldean sect, of those, I mean, who profess this mischievous charlatanism as a learned study. And my proofs on this subject I shall present to you from one who is by birth a Syrian, and has pursued his inquiries to the highest point of Chaldean science. The man’s name is Bardesanes, and in his Dialogues with his companions it is recorded that he spake as follows:

[1] 268 a 1 Alexander Aphrodisiensis, On Fate,c. iii. p. 8 (Bruns 1882)

[2] 270 c 7 Alex. Aphrod. c. vi. p. 16

[3] 271 a 4 ibid. c. viii

[4] d 2 Alex. Aphrod. c. ix

[5] d 11 ibid. c. xi, much altered and abridged

[6] 272 b 3 ibid. c. xii. p. 42

[7] 272 c 1 Alex. Aphrod. c. xviii. p. 62

[8] c 7 ibid. c. xix. p. 64

Chapter 10

[BARDESANES] [1] ‘It is by natural law that man is begotten, is nourished, reaches maturity, begets children, eats, drinks, and sleeps, grows old and dies: and this is the case of every man and of every irrational animal.

‘And as to the other living creatures, which have only an animal soul, and are begotten wholly by sexual intercourse, they are almost wholly borne along in the course of nature. A lion is carnivorous, and takes revenge if he be injured: and therefore all lions are carnivorous and take revenge. Ewe lambs eat grass, and touch no flesh, and if injured take no revenge: and every lamb’s character is the same.

‘A scorpion eats earth, and injures those who have not injured him, striking with a venomous sting: and all scorpions have the same evil disposition. An ant knows by nature the advent of winter, and by toiling through the whole summer stores up food for itself: and all ants work in like manner.

‘A bee makes honey, and also feeds upon it: and all bees follow the same husbandry. And I might have set before you many kinds of animals, which being unable to depart from their own nature might have caused you much wonderment. But I thought I had given sufficient proof from the examples set forth, that all other animals according to the community or diversity of nature given to each are borne along pleasantly by necessity.

‘But men alone, having as their special privilege the mind, and the reason which proceeds from it, in what they have in common follow nature, as I said before, but as to their special gift are not governed by nature.

‘For they do not all even eat the same food: some feed like lions, and others like lambs: they have not one fashion of raiment: there is not one custom, nor one law of civil society among them, nor one impulse of desire for things: but each man chooses a life for himself according to his own will, not imitating his neighbour, except in what he chooses.

‘For his freedom is subject to no slavery, and if ever he shall voluntarily be a slave, this also is a part of his freedom, that he is able to be a voluntary slave.

‘How many of mankind, and especially among the Alans, eat raw flesh, like wild beasts, without tasting bread, and not because they have it not, but because they are not willing! Others, like tame animals, taste no flesh: some eat only fish; while others never taste fish, not even if they be starving. Some drink water, some drink wine, and some drink strong liquor.

‘And in short there is a great difference among mankind in food and drink, as they differ even in the eating of vegetables and fruits. Moreover some, like scorpions and like asps, injure without having been injured; and some, like other animals, revenge themselves when injured: and others ravage like wolves, and steal like weasels; while others, like lambs and goats, are pursued by men of like feelings with themselves, and do no injury to those who injure them. Some also are called good, and some bad, and some just.

‘Whence we may understand that man is not altogether led by nature (for of what kind shall we say his nature is?): but is borne one way according to nature, and another way according to will. Wherefore he incurs praise and blame and condemnation in matters dependent on will: but in matters dependent on nature he has immunity from blame, not out of pity, but from reason.’

And afterwards he says: [2]

‘Men enacted different laws in each country, some written, and some unwritten: of which I shall mention some, according to what I know and remember, beginning from the beginning of the world.

‘Among the Seres it is law that none should murder, nor fornicate, nor steal, nor worship graven images: and in that very great country you cannot see a temple, nor a harlot, nor a reputed adulteress, no thief dragged off to justice, no homicide, no murdered man.

‘For among them no man’s free-will was compelled by the fiery planet Mars in mid-heaven to kill a man with the sword, nor by the conjunction of Venus with Mars to consort with another man’s wife, though of course Mars was in mid-heaven every day, and Serians were being born every day and every hour.

‘Among the Indians and Bactrians there are many thousands of those called Brahmans, who according to the tradition of their forefathers and of their laws neither commit murder, nor worship images, nor taste animal food, nor are ever intoxicated, as they never taste wine or strong drink, have no communication with evil, but devote themselves to God; whereas the other Indians are guilty of murder and fornication and drunkenness, and worship images, and in almost everything follow the course of fate.

‘But in the same clime of India there is a certain tribe of Indians who hunt down the strangers that fall in their way, and sacrifice and eat them; and neither the beneficent stars have hindered them from blood-guiltiness and unlawful marriages, nor have the maleficent compelled the Brahmans to do evil.

‘Among the Persians it was lawful to marry their daughters, and sisters, and mothers: and these unholy marriages the Persians practised not only in that country and that clime, but also any of them who migrated from Persia, those who are called Magusaei continue to practise the same iniquity, handing down the same laws and customs to their children in succession.

‘And of these there are still many in Media and in Egypt, and in Phrygia, and in Galatia. Yet surely Venus was not found in the regions and houses of Saturn, with Mars in close company with Saturn, at the nativities of all of them.

‘Among the Geli it is customary for the women to till the ground, and build houses, and do all the labour, and to consort with whom they will, and not be blamed by the men; nor is any called an adulteress, because they are all hard workers, and consort with all, and especially with strangers.[3]

‘The Gelan women neither perfume themselves nor wear dyed garments, but are all barefooted, although the Gelan men adorn themselves with soft clothing, and various colours, and wear gold ornaments and perfume themselves, and this not from any effeminacy in other respects, for they are brave, and very warlike, and much given to hunting.

‘And it was not the lot of all the Gelan women to find Venus an evil influence in Capricornus or in Aquarius, nor of all their men to have the Paphian goddess with Mars in Aries, where the Chaldean students say that those who are both brave and luxurious are born.

‘Among the Bactrians the women use every kind of distinguished ornament and every kind of perfume, and receive more attendance than the men from handmaidens and young pages: they promenade on horseback with great show, and adorn their horses with much gold and precious stones: nor are they chaste, but consort promiscuously with their slaves and with strangers, having immunity in this respect, and are not blamed by their husbands, over whom they in a manner domineer.

‘Yet surely the laughter-loving Aphrodite is not in her own regions in mid-heaven with Zeus and Ares at every birth of the women in Bactria. But in Arabia and Osrhoene, not only are adulteresses put to death, but even those who are suspected are not let off without punishment.

‘Among the Parthians and Armenians murderers are put to death, sometimes by the judges, and sometimes by the blood-relations of the murdered. And if any man murder his wife, or a childless brother, or an unmarried sister, or a son or daughter, he is not accused by any one, the law being such in those countries; but among the Greeks and Romans the murderers of their kinsmen and relations are subjected to greater punishment.

‘Among the Atri he who steals anything worth an obol is stoned, among the Bactrians he who steals trifles is spit upon, among the Romans he is severely beaten: for such are their laws.

‘ From the river Euphrates, and as far as the Ocean towards the East, he who is reviled as a murderer, or a thief, is not at all indignant: but he who is reviled for sodomy avenges himself even to the death: among the Greeks, however, even their wise men are not blamed for having favourites.

‘In the same East those who suffer outrage, if it become known, are put to death by brothers, or fathers, or kinsmen, and are not thought worthy of burial in open day.

‘Among the Gauls the young men give themselves in marriage openly, not regarding this as a matter of reproach, because of the law among them. Yet it cannot possibly have been the lot of all in Gaul who thus impiously suffer outrage to have the morning-star with Mercury setting in the houses of Saturn and regions of Mars at their nativities.

‘In Britain many men have the same wife: but in Parthia many wives have one husband, and they are all chaste and obedient to him according to the law.

‘The Amazons are all without husbands, but like the brute creatures once in the year about the vernal equinox they pass beyond their own frontiers and consort with men of the neighbouring countries, counting this a sort of festival: and conceiving by them they return home, and according to the law of nature necessarily bear children at one season, and the males who are born they expose, but rear the females: and they are warlike, and attentive to gymnastic exercises.

‘Mercury in conjunction with Venus in the houses of Mercury makes modellers, and painters, and bankers; but in the houses of Venus perfumers, or singing-masters, and actors of dramatic poems.

‘Among the Taïni and Saraceni, and in the inland part of Libya, also among the Moors, and among the Nomads by the mouth of the Ocean, and in the further part of Germany, and in the inland region of Sarmatia, and in Scythia, and in all the nations on the north of the Pontus, and in all Alania, and Albania, and Otene, and Saunia, and in Chryse, there is not a banker to be seen, nor modeller, nor painter, nor architect, nor geometer, nor singing-master, nor actor of dramatic poems; but the character proceeding from the operation of Mercury and Venus is wanting in that whole circuit of the world.

‘The Medes all cast out the still-breathing corpses to the dogs whom they carefully rear: yet they have not all of them Mars with the Moon in Cancer beneath the earth at their birth in the daytime.

‘The Indians burn their dead, and with them burn their wives with their own consent: and surely all the Indian women who are burnt alive have not the Sun with Mars, in Leo, or in the region of Mars, beneath the earth at their birth in the night.

‘Most of the Germans die by strangulation, and surely the majority of Germans have not the Moon and the hour of their birth intercepted by Saturn and Mars.

‘There are men born in every nation, every day, and with every kind of nativity: but law and custom prevail in each division of mankind because of man’s free-will. Thus their nativity does not compel the Seres to murder against their will, or the Brahmans to eat flesh, or the Persians to abstain from unlawful marriages, or the Indians to cease to be burned, or the Medes to cease from being eaten by dogs, or the Parthians to give up polygamy, or the women in Mesopotamia to be unchaste, or the Greeks to cease from practising athletic exercises with their bodies naked, or the Romans to cease to rule, or the Gauls to cease from effeminacy, or the other barbarous nations to converse with those whom the Greeks call Muses. But as I said before, each nation and each man uses his own freedom as he will and when he will, and is also a slave of his nativity and the nature which clothes him with flesh, sometimes according to his will, and sometimes contrary to his will. For everywhere and in every nation there are rich and poor, rulers and ruled, healthy and sickly, each according to the lot of his nativity.

‘These arguments, O Bardesanes, said I, have entirely persuaded me. But the astrologers say that this earth is divided into seven zones, and that one of the seven stars rules each zone; and that the different laws have not been enacted by men for themselves, but the will of each ruling star prevails in his own region, and is regarded by those under his rule as law.

‘He replied: This answer of theirs, O Philip, is not true. For although the earth is divided into seven zones, yet nevertheless we find many differences of laws in the same division. For there are neither seven laws corresponding to the seven stars, nor twelve corresponding to the signs of the zodiac, nor thirty-six corresponding to the decani, but numberless laws.

‘You ought also to remember what I said before, that in the same clime and same region of India there are Indians who are cannibals, and there are those who abstain from animal food; also that the Magusaei marry their daughters not only in Persia, but also in every nation where they may dwell, observing the laws of their forefathers, and the initiatory rites of their mysteries.

‘Also, we gave a list of many barbarous nations living in the South and West and East and North, that is in different climes, who have no share in the science of Hermes.

‘How many wise men, think you, have set aside badly constituted laws? And how many laws have been abolished from being impracticable? How many kings after gaining power over nations have changed the laws that were before their time and established their own? Yet none of the stars had lost its proper clime.

‘Yesterday the Romans having become masters of Arabia changed the laws of the barbarians. For one free-will follows another free-will. But I will now set forth for you a fact which might convince even the incredulous.

‘The Jews who received a law through Moses all shed the blood of their male children by circumcising them on the eighth day, not waiting for the appearance of a star, nor respecting the influence of clime, nor yielding to any law of a foreign country: but whether they are in Syria, or Gaul, or Italy, or Greece, or Parthia, or wherever they may be, they perform this rite.

‘And this is not dependent on nativity, for all Jews cannot have the same natal stars. Moreover every seventh day, wherever they may be, they abstain from all work, and neither travel nor use fire: nor does his nativity compel a Jew either to build or to demolish a house, to work, to buy or to sell on the sabbath day, although on that same day Jews beget and are begotten, and sicken and die: for these are things not dependent on freewill.

‘In Syria and Osrhoene many used to mutilate themselves in honour of Rhea: hereupon king Abgar at one stroke commanded that those who cut off the genital organs should also have their hands cut off, and from thenceforth no one in Osrhoene mutilated himself.

‘And what shall we say concerning the sect of the Christians? For we who hold those opinions have arisen in multitudes in different climes, in every nation and region, and though many in number, are called by one name.

‘And neither in Parthia do the Christians, Parthians though they are, practise polygamy, nor do those in Media cast their dead to dogs, nor do those in Persia, though they are Persians, marry their daughters, nor among the Bactrians and the Gauls do they form unnatural unions, nor do those in Egypt worship Apis or the dog, the he-goat, or the cat. But wherever they are, they are neither overcome by ill-constituted laws and customs, nor does their nativity, regulated by their ruling stars, compel them to practise the evils forbidden by their teacher, but they submit to sickness and poverty and sufferings and reputed infamies.

‘For as the free man of our idea is not compelled to be a slave, and, even if he be compelled, resists those who compel him, so also the man whom we regard as a slave cannot easily escape from his subjection.

‘For if we could do all things, we ourselves should be the all, even as, if we could do nothing, we should be instruments, as I said before, of others, and not masters of ourselves. But with God’s approval all things are possible and irresistible; for nothing can resist His will. For even the things which seem to resist, resist only because He is kind, and allows each nature to have its own privilege, and its freedom of will.’

So far the Syrian. And when I have mentioned one thing more, I will conclude the discussion. For since we have made sufficient extracts from the non-Christian writings, whilst those from the sacred Scriptures are still wanting, and since these are what we most need for The Preparation of the Evangelic Demonstration, it would be well to examine these also, that our argument may be deficient in none of the considerations proper to the question before us. From this source I shall also make our present subject clear to you.

You would not, however, be able to understand the bare letter of the sacred oracles, since in most points they are obscurely expressed. And therefore I shall set before you their interpreter: and if you are not envious of stronger minds, you know perhaps the man, who to this present time still takes rank in the companies of Christ by the works which he has bequeathed, nor indeed is unknown even to those without for the zeal which he has displayed in their studies also. Consider then how many and how excellent determinations on the subject before us the admirable Origen has given in his Commentaries on Genesis, and how he traced out the argument concerning Fate.

[1] 273 b 4 Bardesanes, On Fate.A fragment preserved in Greek only by Eusebius

[2] 274 d 10 Bardesanes. Compare Clementine Recognitions,ix. c. 19

[3] 275 d 7 Cf. Clem. Recogn.ix. c. 22

Chapter 11

[ORIGEN] [1] ‘One of the things most necessary to resolve is the statement that the lights, which are no other than the sun and moon and stars, are given “for signs”; not only because the nations who are alien to the faith of Christ stumble upon the topic of Fate, since all things upon earth, and the circumstances of each individual man, perhaps of brute animals also, are supposed by them to occur by the combination of the so-called wandering stars with those, in the zodiac; but also because many of those who are supposed to have received the faith are distracted by the doubt whether all human affairs are not ruled by necessity, so that it is impossible for them to take place otherwise than as the stars, according to their different configurations, bring them to fulfilment.

‘Now the consequence for those who hold these doctrines is that they utterly destroy our free-will, and therefore also both praise and blame, and commendable, or on the other hand blame-able actions.

‘But if this is the case, there is an end of the proclaimed judgement of God, and of threatenings against sinners that they shall be punished; also, on the other hand, of the privileges and beatitudes promised to those who have devoted themselves to the better life: for none of these things will any longer have a good d reason for their occurrence.

‘Also if any one would look at the consequences to himself of the doctrines he holds, (he would see that) both his faith will be vain, and Christ’s advent of no avail, and all the dispensation of law and prophets, and the labours of the Apostles to establish the churches of God through Christ.

‘Unless perchance Christ Himself having, according to these so daring thinkers, been subjected to the necessity arising from the motion of the stars by the birth which He assumed, both did and suffered all, because those extraordinary powers were bestowed on Him not by God the Father of all things, but by the stars. From which arguments, atheistical and impious as they are, it follows also that believers must be said to believe in God because led to do so by the stars.

‘But we would ask of them with what purpose God made such a world, that some of the dwellers therein being men should take the place of women, not having been in any way themselves the cause of the outrage, while others placed in the condition of wild beasts, by the course of the world having made them such, because God had so arranged the whole, give themselves over to most cruel and utterly inhuman practices, such as murder and piracy?

‘And what must we say of the things which occur among men and of the sins committed by them, countless as they are, when they are acquitted of all blame by the champions of these grand doctrines, who ascribe to God the cause of all things evil and blameable?

‘But if some of them, as if apologizing for God, say that the good God is another who has not the government of any of these things, and impute such evils as these to the Demiurge of the world—in the first place they will not even thus be able to prove what they wish, that He is just. For how could He, who according to them is the author of so much evil, be reasonably called just?

‘And in the second place we must inquire what they will ever say about themselves? Are they subject to the course of the stars, or are they freed from it, and in their life have no influence wrought upon them from that source? For if they shall say that they are subject to the stars, it is evident that the stars granted them the power of perceiving this, and the Demiurge by the motion of the universe will have suggested the doctrine concerning the higher god whom they have invented; and this they do not wish.

‘But if they shall answer that they are exempt from the laws of the Demiurge which depend upon the stars, in order that their statement may not be a denial incapable of proof, let them endeavour to convince us more irresistibly, by showing the difference between a mind subject to nativity and fate, and another free from them. For it is evident to those who know men of this kind that, when required to give them an explanation, they will be quite unable to do so.

‘In addition to what has been said, prayers also are superfluous, being employed in vain. For if it has been fixed by necessity that this or that should happen, and if the stars do this, and nothing can take place contrary to their mutual combination, we are unreasonable in asking God to grant us this or that.

‘But why need I prolong the discussion, by proving the impiety of the trite topic concerning fate so hackneyed by the multitude without examination? For what I have already said is sufficient for an outline.

‘Let us, however, remember from what point we have come upon our present subject, while examining the passage “Let the lights be for signs.” [2] They who learn the truth on any matters have either been eyewitnesses of the facts, and so give a faithful description of this or that circumstance, because they saw what was done and suffered by the actors and sufferers, or else they learn this or that from having heard the report of those who were in no way the causes of what happened.

‘But let us at present exclude from our argument the possibility that the actors or sufferers, by relating what they have done or suffered, bring one who has not been present to a knowledge of the facts.

‘If therefore the man, who is informed by one who is in no way the cause of the events, that this or that has occurred or will occur to certain persons, fails to distinguish that an informant concerning something that has occurred or will occur is in no way the cause of the matter being of this or that character, he will suppose that the man who has represented to him that this or that has taken place, or this or that will take place, has himself done or will do the things of which he informs him, but will evidently be mistaken in his supposition.

‘Just as if any one having met with a prophetic book which foreshowed the story of the traitor Judas, after learning what was to take place should think, on seeing it fulfilled, that the book was the cause that this or that happened afterwards, because he had learned from the book what would be afterwards done by Judas; or again should suppose that the cause was not the book but the man who wrote it at first, or he who inspired him, say, to speak, namely God.

‘But just as in the case of the prophecies concerning Judas the very expressions when examined show that God was not the author of Judas’ betrayal, but only foreshowed it because He foreknew what acts would follow from this man’s wickedness through his own fault; so if any one were to plunge deep into the question of the foreknowledge of all things by God, and by those in whom He imprinted, as it were, the language of his own foreknowledge, he would understand that neither He who foreknew was in any way the cause of the things foreknown, nor the instruments which received the impressions of the words of the foreknowledge of Him who foreknew.

‘That God indeed knows long before that every thing which is to be will happen, is evident, even apart from Scripture, from the very idea of God to the man who understands the excellence of the power of the Divine mind.

‘But if it is necessary to prove this from Scripture also, the prophecies are full of examples of this kind, and so also is the description by Susanna of God as knowing all things before they come to pass, where she speaks as follows: “O God, the Eternal, the discerner of secrets, that knowest all things before they be, Thou understandest that these have borne false witness against me.” [3]

‘And most clearly in the third Book of Kings both the name of the king who waste reign and his deeds were recorded many years before they came to pass, being predicted as follows: “And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in the land of Judah: and he went up unto the altar that is in Bethel, to sacrifice unto the calves that he had made.” [4] Then after a few words: “And behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel, and Jeroboam was standing upon his altar to burn incense. And he cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD: Behold a son is to be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he sacrifice the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones shall he burn upon thee. And he gave a sign in that day, saying, This is the sign which the LORD hath spoken, saying, Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are thereon shall be poured out.”

‘And after a few words it is shown, that “both the altar was rent, and the ashes poured out from the altar according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD.”

‘Isaiah also came long before the captivity in Babylon, and some time after that captivity came Cyrus the king of the Persians who assisted in the building of the temple in the times of Ezra; and in Isaiah there is the following prophecy concerning Cyrus by name: “Thus saith the LORD God to Cyrus mine anointed, whose right hand I have holden, that nations should obey before him, and I will break the strength of kings, I will open doors before him, and cities shall not be shut. I will go before thee, and make mountains plain, I will break in pieces doors of brass, and shatter bars of iron: and I will give thee treasures of darkness, hidden unseen treasures will I open to thee, that thou mayest know that I am the LORD God, which call thee by thy name, the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel my chosen, I will call thee by my name, and will accept thee.” [5]

‘From this passage it is clearly shown that, for the sake of the people whose benefactor Cyrus had been, though he knew not the religion of the Hebrews, God granted to him the rule over many nations. And these facts one may learn also from the Greeks who recorded the history of Cyrus the subject of the prophecy.

‘Moreover in Daniel, in the time of the Babylonian monarchs, there are shown to Nebuchadnezzar the kingdoms that should come after him. And they are shown by the image, in which the kingdom of Babylon is called gold, the Persian silver, the Macedonian brass, and the Roman iron. [6]

‘Again in the same prophet the events concerning Darius and Alexander, and the four successors of Alexander king of Macedon, and Ptolemy, the ruler of Egypt, who was surnamed Lagos, are thus foretold: “Behold, an he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth: … and the goat had a horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had the horns, which I saw standing before the river, and ran upon him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake both his horns, and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, and he cast him upon the ground, and trampled upon him, and there was none to deliver the ram out of his hand. And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly. And when he was grown strong, his great horn was broken, and there came up from beneath it other horns towards the four winds of heaven, and out of one of them came forth one strong horn, and waxed exceeding great toward the south and toward the west.” [7]

‘And why need I mention the prophecies concerning Christ, as for instance the place of His birth, Bethlehem, and the place where He was brought up, Nazareth, and the flight into Egypt, and the miracles which He wrought, and how he was betrayed by Judas who had been called to be an Apostle? For all these are signs of God’s foreknowledge.

‘Moreover the Saviour Himself says, “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed by armies, then ye shall know that her desolation is at hand.” [8] For He foretold what afterwards happened, the final destruction of Jerusalem.

‘Since then we have given proofs concerning God’s foreknowledge, it will not be inopportune, in order to explain how the stars are for signs, to observe that the motion of the stars is so ordered, that the so-called planets follow a course opposite to the fixed stars, in order that from the configuration of the stars signs of all things that happen concerning each individual man, and generally, may be made known: I do not say “known” by men, for the power of truly understanding from the motion of the stars the case of each one of those who are doing or suffering whatever it may be, is far too great for man: but “known” by the powers which for many reasons must necessarily know these things, as we shall show to the best of our power in what follows.

‘But from certain observations, or even from the teaching of angels who had transgressed their own order, and to afflict our race taught something about these things, men got to understand them, and then thought that those stars from which they supposed themselves to receive the signs were the causes of those things which the Scripture says that they signify. And these very matters we will immediately discuss in a summary way, but very carefully, according to the best of our ability.

‘We will therefore propose for consideration the following questions:

‘(1) How our freedom is preserved, if God foreknows from eternity the things which are supposed to be done by every man?

‘(2) In what way the stars are not efficient causes of human affairs, but only signs of the same?

‘(3) That men cannot have exact knowledge of these affairs, but the signs are set forth by powers greater than man’s.

‘(4) What is the cause of God’s having appointed the signs for the information of those powers? This shall be the fourth subject of inquiry.

‘Let us look then at that first question, about which many of the Greeks were scrupulous, because they thought that all things are made subject to necessity, and that our freedom can in no way be maintained, if God foreknows future events: for so they rashly accepted an impious dogma, rather than admit that which, as they say, gives glory to God, but destroys our freedom, and therefore destroys praise and blame, the merit of virtues and the culpability of vices.

‘And they say, if God knew from eternity that this or that man would be unjust and would commit certain acts of injustice, and if God’s knowledge is infallible, then the man foreseen to be of such a character will certainly be unjust, as he will commit these acts of injustice, and it is impossible that he should not do injustice: and if it is impossible that he should not do injustice, his doing injustice is compelled by necessity, and it will be impossible that he should do anything else than that which God foreknew. But if it is impossible for him to do anything else, and if no man is to be blamed for not doing an impossibility, we have no right to blame the unjust.

‘From the unjust man and deeds of injustice they pass on to the other kinds of sin, and then on the other hand to what are considered good deeds; and it follows, they say, upon God’s having foreknown the future that our free-will cannot possibly be maintained.

‘In answer to whom we have to say that, when God was contemplating the beginning of His creation, since nothing takes place without a cause, he travelled over in His mind every future event, and saw that, when this has occurred, that follows, and if this consequence occurs, that third thing follows: and when this third is settled, that other will occur; and thus having travelled on to the end of all things, he knows the things that will be, though He does not at all cause the occurrence of everything that He knows.

‘For just as, if a man should see another to be rash through ignorance, and through his rashness to be thoughtlessly walking on a slippery road, and should perceive that he will slip and fall, he does not become the cause of the other’s slipping; so we must consider that God, having foreseen of what character each man will be, discerns also the causes of this his future character, and that he will commit these sins, or perform those good deeds.

‘And if we must speak freely, we shall not say that foreknowledge is the cause of events (for God does not meddle with the man whom He has foreknown to be about to sin, at the time of his sinning): but we shall say something more strange and yet true, that the future event is the cause that the foreknowledge of it is of such a character. For it does not take place because it has been known, but it has been known because it was about to take place.

‘We must however make a distinction. For if any one interprets the expression, “It will certainly be,” as if there were a necessity that what is foreknown must take place, we do not grant him this: for we shall not say that, since it was foreknown that Judas would become a traitor, there was an absolute necessity for Judas to become a traitor. In fact in the prophecies concerning Judas there are reproaches and accusations of Judas recorded, which prove to every one his culpability. But blame would not have attached to him, if he was of necessity a traitor, and if it was not possible for him to be like the other apostles.

‘Now see if this is not made clear by the express statements which we will bring forward, running thus: “Nor let there be any to have compassion on his fatherless children,… because that he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, and the broken in heart, to slay them. Yea, he loved cursing, and it shall come unto him: and he delighted not in blessing, and it shall be far from him.” [9]

‘If, however, any one shall explain the expression, “It will certainly be,” by saying that though certain events will be in accordance with its indication, yet that it was possible also for it to have been otherwise, this we admit as true. For though it is “not possible that God should lie,” [10] yet it is possible, concerning things that may either happen or not happen, that He should know either that they will happen or that they will not happen.

‘But we will state this more clearly in the following way. If it is possible for Judas to be an Apostle like Peter, it is possible for God to perceive concerning Judas that he will continue an Apostle like Peter: if it is possible for Judas to become a traitor, it is possible for God to know concerning him that he will be a traitor.

‘But if Judas will be a traitor, and God has foreknowledge of the two contingencies before mentioned, of which only one can possibly be realized, then as He foreknows the truth, He will foreknow that Judas will become a traitor: it being at the same time possible that the object of His knowledge might also come to pass in the other way. And God’s knowledge would say, “though it is possible for this man to do this, yet the contrary also is possible; but whereas both are possible, I know that this he will do.”

‘For though God might say, “It is not possible that this or that man should fly,” He cannot say in like manner, in giving an oracle, for instance, concerning any one, that it is not possible for this man to act temperately. For there is absolutely no power in the man of flying at all, but there is a power of acting temperately, and of acting intemperately.

‘And as he possesses both these powers, the man who gives no heed to words of exhortation and discipline gives himself over to the worse power; but he who has sought the truth and purposed to live according to it, gives himself over to the better power. The one does not seek for what is true, because he inclines towards pleasure: but the other inquires concerning the truth, because he is persuaded by the general opinions of mankind and by words of exhortation.

‘Again, the one chooses pleasure, not because he has no power to resist it, but because he makes no effort; while the other despises it, because he sees the indecency that there is often in it.

‘To show, however, that God’s foreknowledge imposes no necessity on those concerning whom He has conceived such knowledge, will add to what I have already said the following argument, that in many places of the Scriptures God commands the prophets to preach repentance, without claiming for Himself the knowledge, whether those who hear will return or will continue in their sins: as in Jeremiah it is said, “It may be they will hearken and will repent.” [11]

‘For it is not from ignorance whether they will hear or not that God Says, “It may be they will hearken and will repent”; but He shows, as it were, from the expression, that there was the even balance of the things that might happen, lest His foreknowledge, if previously announced, should make the hearers to fall, by presenting an idea of necessity, as though it were not in their own power to return; and thus His foreknowledge should itself become, as it were, the cause of their sins: or again, lest those who, from ignorance of the good foreknown, are able in their conflict and resistance against vice to live a life of virtue, should because of the foreknowledge relax in their efforts and cease to take a vigorous stand against sin, from expecting that what had been foretold would certainly come to pass. For in this way also the foreknowledge of the good to come would be a kind of hindrance.

‘So then God, in arranging all things in the world beneficially, with good reason made us blind to future events. For the knowledge thereof would have made us give up the contest against vice, and from appearing to have been clearly perceived would have weakened us and made us to cease from the struggle against sin, and so to become more readily subjected to it.

‘At the same time also the fact that there had come to this or that man the foreknowledge that he would in any case be good, would be at variance with his becoming noble and good. For in addition to our natural qualities there is need of great earnestness and exertion in order to become noble and good: but the previous acquisition of the knowledge that one will in any case be noble and good gradually relaxes the endeavour. Wherefore it is to our advantage that we know not whether we shall be good or bad.

‘But since we have said that God made us blind to future events, see whether we can explain a certain disputed expression from Exodus, “Who made man dumb or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?”,[12] in this way, that He may be seen to have made the same man both blind and seeing, seeing in reference to things present, but blind to things to come. For it is not necessary on the present occasion to explain the words dumb and deaf.

‘That very many things, however, which are not in our power, are causes of many things which are in our power, we will ourselves admit: and if they, I mean the things which are not in our power, did not take place, certain of the things which are in our power could not be done. But of the things in our power this or that is done in consequence of these antecedents which are not in our power, it being possible upon the same antecedents also to do other things than those which we do.

‘And if any one claims that our free-will is independent of everything, so that we do not choose a certain course in consequence of this or that having happened to us, he forgets that he is a part of the world, and encompassed by association with mankind and with his surroundings.

‘However, I think it has been fairly proved in a summary manner, that God’s foreknowledge does not in any way necessitate the foreknown events. So now, come, let us also contend for the fact that the stars are in no way the causes, but only the signs, of what happens among mankind.

‘Now it is clear that if this or that configuration of the stars were supposed to be an efficient cause of certain things that happen to the man (for this be the present subject of inquiry), the configuration which there may have been, say, to-day affecting this man, cannot be thought to have been the cause of the past circumstances affecting another or others: for every efficient cause is prior to its effect.

‘But as far as we can judge from the doctrines of those who profess such arts, things prior to the configuration are supposed to be foretold concerning the men.

‘For they profess that in some such manner as follows, when they have learned the hour of this or that man’s birth, they can discover how each of the planets was situated vertically either to this or that degree of the sign of the zodiac, or of the minute divisions therein, and what star of the zodiac was on the eastern horizon, and what on the western, and what on the Meridian, and what on the Anti-Meridian.

‘And when they have settled the places of the stars, which they think they have figured for themselves, as having had such a configuration at the moment of a certain man’s nativity, then by the time of his birth they search out not only future events, but also the past, and things that had happened before the birth and before the generation of the man in question, concerning his father, of what country he is, rich or poor, whole in body or maimed, good or bad in moral disposition, of large possessions or of none, of this or that occupation. The same also concerning his mother, and elder brothers, if there happen to be any.

‘Now let us admit at present that they discover the true place (of the stars), although on this very point we shall afterwards show that it is not so: let us inquire therefore of those who suppose that human affairs are brought under necessity by the stars, in what way the configuration of to-day, which is of a certain kind, can possibly have been the cause of earlier events.

‘For if this is impossible, in proportion as the truth is disccovered concerning the time of the earlier events, it is clear that the stars moving thus in the heaven cannot have caused the past events which took place before they were in this position. But if so, perhaps one who admits that they tell true, from observing what is said about future events, will say that they tell true not because the stars cause the events but only because they signify them.

‘But if any one assert that though the stars are not the cause of the past events, yet other configurations have been the causes of their production, and that the present configuration has only indicated them, but that nevertheless things to come are foreshown from the present configuration of a certain person’s nativity; let him prove the difference between being able to show that some things have been discerned with truth from the stars as efficient causes, but other things merely from their indications.

‘And if they are not able to assign the difference, they will candidly agree that none of the things which concern mankind are caused by the stars, but as we have said before are only indicated, if so it be; which is the same as if one learned both past and present events not from the stars, but from the mind of God, by some prophetic utterance.

‘For just as we before showed that the argument on behalf of our free-will is not at all impaired by God’s knowing what every man will do, so neither do the signs which God appointed to give indications hinder our free-will. But like a book which contains future events in the language of prophecy, it is possible that the whole heaven, being as it were a book of God, may contain the things to come.

‘Wherefore in the Prayer of Joseph we may understand in this way what is said by Jacob, “For I read in the tablets of heaven all things that shall happen to you and to your sons.” [13] Perhaps also the saying, “The heaven shall be rolled together as a scroll,” [14] shows that the lessons therein contained significant of the things to come will be accomplished and, so to say, fulfilled, just as the prophecies are said to have been fulfilled by having come to pass.

‘And thus the heavenly bodies will have been for signs, according to the expression which says, “Let them be for signs.” [15] But Jeremiah, to recall us to ourselves, and to take away the fear consequent upon the things supposed to be indicated by the stars, and perhaps suspected also of proceeding from them, says, “Be not dismayed at the signs from heaven.” [16]

‘Let us look at a second attempt to show how the stars cannot possibly be efficient causes, but, if anything, significations. For it is possible to learn the fortunes of one man from an infinite number of nativities (but this we state as a hypothesis, granting the possibility that a knowledge of them may be attained by men): for to take an instance, whether such a man will suffer so and so, and will die by falling among robbers and being slain, this, says the astrologer, we may learn both from his own nativity, and, if he happen to have several brothers, from the nativity of each of them.

‘For they think that the nativity of each includes that a brother will die by robbers, and in like manner the nativity of the father, and that of the mother, and of his wife, and of his sons, and of his servants, and of his best friends; perhaps also of the very men who are to kill him.

‘How then, to grant them this, is it possible that the man whose fortune is involved in so many nativities should come under the configuration of the stars in this nativity rather than in the others? For the assertion that the configuration in this or that man’s particular nativity has been the cause of these events, but that the configuration in the nativity of these others has not been the cause but only the indication, is incredible.

‘And it is silly to say that the nativity of all included in each an efficient cause of this man’s being killed, so that in fifty nativities (I am speaking according to the hypothesis) it was contained that this or that man was to be killed. Nor do I know how they will be able to maintain that, though the configuration at the nativity of nearly all men in Judaea was such that they received circumcision on the eighth day, were mutilated, and ulcerated, and likely to suffer inflammation and wounds, and at their very entrance into life were in need of physicians, yet that of the Ishmaelites in Arabia was such that they were all circumcised when thirteen years old. For this is stated in history concerning them.

‘And again that of certain tribes among the Aethiopians the knee-caps are cut away, and one of the breasts of the Amazons. For how do the stars produce these effects in these nations? I think that, if we were to give our attention to it, we should not be able even to fix anything true to say concerning them.

‘As there are so many modes of prognostication current, I do not understand how men ran upon the difficulty of saying that the methods of augury and of sacrifice do not contain the efficient cause, but only give signs, and yet do not say the same of the study of the stars and casting of nativities.

‘For if events are known (to grant that they are known), and if they are produced from the same source from which the knowledge is derived, why are the events to be caused by the stars rather than by the birds, and why by the birds rather than by the entrails of the sacrifices, or by the shooting stars? These reasons, however, will at present suffice for overthrowing the opinion that the stars are efficient causes of human affairs.

‘But as to the assumption which we have allowed, because it did not damage our argument, that it is possible for men to understand the celestial configurations, and the signs, and the things signified, let us now examine whether this is true.

‘It is said then by those who are clever in such matters, that the man who is to ascertain truly the results of the science of nativities must know not only in which of the twelve signs of the zodiac the planet is, but also in what degree of the sign, and in what minute, and the more exact say, in what second; and this they say he must do in the case of each of the planets, examining their relative position to the fixed stars.

‘Again on the Eastern horizon it will be necessary, they say, to see not only what sign was thereon, but also the degree, and the minute, or the second.

‘Since then the hour comprises, to speak broadly, half a sign of the zodiac, how is it possible for any one to find the minute, if he has not the proportionate division of the hours? How, for instance, know that a certain man is born at the fourth hour, and at the half-hour, and quarter, and eighth, and sixteenth, and thirty-secondth part of the hour?

‘For they say that the indications (given by the planets) vary greatly in consequence of the ignorance not only of the entire hour, but even of the exact division of it. For example, in the birth of twins the interval is often a very small part of an hour, and there occur many differences in the incidents and actions in their cases, because, as the astrologers say, of the relative position of the stars, and because the subdivision of the zodiacal sign which was on the horizon was not ascertained by those who are supposed to have observed the hour.

‘For it is impossible for any one to say that the interval between the birth of this child and of that is the thirtieth part of an hour. Let us, however, grant them the point concerning their calculation of the hour. Now there is a current theorem, which shows that the Ecliptic moves like the planets from West to East one degree in a hundred years, and that this in the long course of time alters the position of the signs, the calculated sign being one, and the visible figure, as it were, another. And the results, they say, are found not from the visible figure, but from the calculated sign, and this cannot possibly be ascertained.

‘But let this also be granted, that the calculated sign is ascertained, or that from the visible sign the true can be ascertained. Yet they will themselves acknowledge that they are not able entirely to preserve the conjunction, as they call it, of the planets which happen to be in these configurations, when, for instance, the malign indication from a certain planet is obscured, because it is overlooked by this other of more benign power, and to such or such a degree obscured: or frequently again when the obscuration of the malign planet by the aspect of the more benign is impeded, from the fact that another has entered into the configuration in a certain way, so as to be significant of misfortune.’

‘I think too that any one who has given attention to these subjects must despair of the comprehension of them as being in no way accessible to man, but reaching only, if at all, to an indication. And if any one has had experience of the facts, the liability of those who talk, or even of those who have written, on the subject to failure in their conjectures, will be better known to him, than their supposed ability to succeed.

‘For instance, Isaiah, seeing that these things cannot be discovered by man, says to the daughter of the Chaldeans, who beyond all men made the greatest profession of this art, “Let now the astrologers of the sky stand up and save thee,… let them announce to thee what shall come upon thee.” [17] For hereby we are taught that those who are entirely devoted to the study of these matters are unable to foreshow what the Lord has purposed to bring upon each nation.’

So far the author mentioned. But in fact this whole discussion of ours is summed up in two chief points, that those who have been supposed in each city to give oracular responses are not gods, and that they are not even good daemons, but are on the contrary a class of jugglers, cheats, and deceivers, who for the destruction and perversion of true religion have put forward, besides all other delusion among mankind, especially this delusion about Fate.

And since no one from the beginning except Jesus our Saviour has ransomed the whole human race from this delusion, we have had good reason for dealing seriously with all the present subjects in the commencement of the Preparation for the Gospel, in order that we might learn by facts from what ancestors we are sprung, and by what kind of delusion they were formerly possessed, and from how manifold and great blindness and ungodliness both we ourselves and all men living have emerged, and have found the cure for that long and inveterate daemoniacal activity in the saving doctrine of the Gospel only.

[Footnotes numbered and placed at the end]

[1] 281 a 3 Origen, On Genesis,tom, iii; Philocalia, c. xxiii

[2] 283 a 9 Gen. i. 14

[3] 284 b 2 Susanna, 42

[4] b 7 I Kings xii. 32

[5] d 12 Isa. xlv. 1

[6] 285 b 6 Dan. ii. 39

[7] c 4 Dan. viii. 5

[8] 286 a 3 Luke xxi. 20

[9] 288 b 4 Ps. cix. 12, 16

[10] c 5 Heb. vi. 18

[11] 289 b 11 Jer. xxvi. 3

[12] 290 b 2 Exod. iv. 11

[13] 292 b 1 Prayer of Joseph;see Schurer, Jewish People,Div. II. vol. iii. p. 127 f.

[14] c 1 Isa. xxxiv. 4

[15] c 6 Gen. i. 14

[16] d 1 Jer. x. 2

[17] 295 c 7 Isa. xlvii. 13

Book 7

Chapter 1

NEXT as to the Hebrews, and their philosophy and religion which we have preferred above all our ancestral system, it is time to describe their mode of life. For since it has been proved that our abandonment of the false theology of Greeks and barbarians alike has not been made without reason, but with well-judged and prudent consideration, it is now time to solve the second question by stating the cause of our claiming a share in the Hebrew doctrines. When therefore we have the necessary leisure, we shall prove that our borrowing what was profitable from barbarians brings no blame upon us; for we shall show that the Greeks and even their renowned philosophers had plagiarized all their philosophic lore and all that was otherwise of common benefit and profitable for their social needs from barbarians: but that nothing at all has yet been found among any of the nations like the boon which has been provided for us from the Hebrews, will become manifest in the following manner.

Chapter 2

ALL the rest of mankind, from the very first establishment of social life and for all subsequent time, persisted in attending to bodily sense only, because they had formed no clear conception concerning the soul within them, and believed that nothing more than what was seen had any real subsistence; they therefore referred beauty and utility and the sole good to bodily pleasure. And as they thought that this alone was to be earnestly desired, as being the only good and agreeable and pleasant thing, and sufficient for the enjoyment of a happy life, they believed it to be the greatest of gods, and have deified it; even life itself they did not desire, if there was to be no participation in bodily pleasure, and they cherished life not for the sake of mere living but for living in pleasure, and prayed that this as the only good might be granted to their children.

Hence some conjectured that sun, moon, and stars were the sources of supply for the life in the flesh; and being also struck with a kind of wonder at beholding their light, pronounced them the first gods, and declared them to be sole causes of the universe. But others again have bestowed the title of gods upon the fruits of the earth, and the moist and dry and hot elements, and the other component parts of the world by which their bodies were nourished and fattened, and made the life of the flesh and its pleasure their pursuit: and others, long before them, with barefaced effrontery deified their own passions, and pleasure their mistress, saying that love, and desire, and lust ruled the very gods themselves. By others, certain tyrants and potentates, who had provided and invented pleasures for them, were deified, both during life and after death, in return for the enjoyments which they had gained from them. Others again, by becoming the playthings of evil spirits and daemons, gave yet greater strength to the passionate part of their soul, by procuring pleasures from them also through the customs of their worship. Others, who could not endure any of these things, introduced atheism as far better than such theology as this: and others yet more shameless than all these declared the philosophic and thrice-blessed life to be no other than the life of pleasure, having defined pleasure as the consummation of all good.

And so in this way the whole race of mankind having become enslaved to the goddess, or rather the foul and licentious daemon, pleasure, as to a harsh and most cruel mistress, was involved in all kinds of miseries. ‘For,’ as the holy Apostle says, ‘their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.’ [1]

In this way both Greeks and barbarians, wise and simple, falling to the ground and on their belly, worshipped pleasure as a goddess; they cast themselves down on their faces like reptiles; they believed in her as an irresistible and inexorable deity, and were content. In songs also and hymns, and in the festivals of gods, and in their public spectacles, they were initiated in the orgies and celebrated the unseemly rites of none other than foul and licentious pleasure; so that this, above all, has been rightly abolished among us. ‘For the devising of idols was the beginning of fornication.’ [2]

So great had been the manifold variety, to speak briefly, of the theology of the other nations, attached to impure and abominable pleasure as its one principle, but. like a hydra of many necks and many heads, carried out into many various divisions and sections.

When therefore they had entrenched themselves in so great an error, naturally in their service of the goddess and evil daemon, pleasure, evils upon evils gathered round them, while they defiled the whole of life with mad passions for women and outrages on men, marriages with mothers, and incest with daughters, and had surpassed in their excess of wickedness the savage nature of wild beasts. Such then was the character of the ancient nations, and of their false theology, as exhibited in the preceding books by the Greek historians and philosophers whom we have brought together.

[1] 300 b 9 Rom. i. 26, 27

[2] d 7 Wisdom xiv. 12

Chapter 3

IF therefore you have had a general view of the mode of life among the ancients, now set your mind to observe next how the children of the Hebrews alone among so many go off on the opposite course.

For of all mankind these were the first and sole people who from the very first foundation of social life devoted their thought to rational speculation; and having set themselves to study reverently the physical laws of the universe, first as to elements of bodies, earth, water, air, fire, of which they perceived that this universe consisted, the sun also, and moon, and stars, they considered them to be not gods, but works of God; for they perceived that the nature of bodily substance is not only irrational but also lifeless, inasmuch as it is ever in flux and liable to perish. They further argued that it is not possible that the order of the whole cosmos, so well and wisely composed, and full as it is of living beings both rational and irrational, should have a spontaneous cause ascribed to it, nor possible to suppose the creative principle of the living to be lifeless, nor the formative principle of the rational to be itself irrational.

But since a building could never be spontaneously composed of timber and stones, nor yet a garment be completed without a weaver, nor cities and states without laws and an order of government, nor a ship without a pilot, nor the smallest instrument of art exist except through an artificer, nor a ship ever gain a sheltering harbour without a good pilot, therefore neither can the nature of the universal elements, lifeless and irrational as it is, ever by its own law apart from the supreme wisdom of God attain to reason and life. With these thoughts then and such as these the fathers of the Hebrew religion, with purified mind and clear-sighted eyes of the soul, learned from the grandeur and beauty of His creatures to worship God the Creator of all.

Chapter 4

AND next, as they became conscious that they were themselves no small part of the whole, they believed that the one part of themselves was precious (and that this was also the true man, which is discerned in the soul), and that the other part holds the place of an envelope of the former, and that this is the body. And so having thus distinguished them, they concentrated their whole thought and diligence upon the life of the inner man.

This they reasoned must be well-pleasing with God the Creator of all, who seemingly had endowed man’s nature with dominion over all things upon earth, not so much by strength of body as by excellence of soul: for of existing things some were inanimate, as stones and stocks; and some partakers of a living force, as the plants that grow out of the earth; and some admitted to share in sensation and the impulse of perception, such as are the irrational animals: but all these were subjected, to the service of the one sole race of mankind, constrained thereto not by vigour and strength of body, but by the exercise of reason and by excellence of soul, whereby they have comprehended that the privilege of rule and royalty over all things upon earth has been granted originally from the Author of the universe.

Starting from this thought, they determined to honour the body and the pleasures of the body no higher than the other creatures upon earth; but the ruling principle in themselves akin, as it were, to the Ruler of all, and the soul’s rational and intelligent faculty, godlike and capable of true knowledge, bearing, as it were, the likeness of the God over all, this alone they held in high esteem.

Then as they reflected that there was no other good than God the giver of all good things, they declared that the knowledge of Him, and His friendship, were the consummation of all happiness, because on Him alone depends the cause of life itself, and soul, and body, and all things necessary to them.

To Him therefore they have eagerly consecrated themselves wholly, body and soul, making their whole life dependent upon Him, and determining to devote themselves to Him only, and to nothing else among things visible.

Having then thus been shown to be both lovers of God and beloved by Him, they were declared to be true worshippers and priests of the Most High God, or were deemed worthy to be called ‘a chosen generation and a royal priesthood and holy nation of God,’ [1] and have bequeathed to their descendants a seed of this true religion.

Do you not think then that we have with reason preferred these to the Greeks, and accepted the histories of godly men among the Hebrews rather than the gods of Phoenicia and Egypt, and the blasphemous absurdities about those gods?

[1] 303 b 6 i Pet. ii. 9

Chapter 5

OBSERVE then further to what a degree of godly virtue these men are said to have advanced. The Deity having accepted them for the general piety and wisdom of their life, and especially for their devotion to His service, now vouchsafed to them diviner oracles and manifestations of Himself and visions of angels, correcting the defects of their mortal nature by suggestions to guide their conduct, and revealing to them the knowledge of doctrines and precepts worthy of God: so that their minds were enlightened no longer by mere arguments and conjectures, but by the bright light of truth itself; and so inspired by God they pondered over the attainment of things future, as if already present, and prophesied what was to happen universally to the human race.

Such are the examples of the excellence of the Hebrews contained in the much celebrated and truly divine oracles, which we have preferred to the fables and the follies of the Greeks and of our forefathers: for these latter contained the foulest tales concerning their gods, while the other contained religious teaching concerning men beloved of God.

Chapter 6

THESE things were known among the forefathers of the Jews from long ages past, far before Moses and the Jewish nation existed. For indeed it is well to make this distinction also clear, that Judaism was not yet in existence at that time, but those of whom I speak were Hebrews alike by name and in character, and as yet neither were nor were called Jews.

And you may know the difference between Hebrews and Jews thus: the latter assumed their name from Judah, from whose tribe the kingdom of Judah was long ages afterwards established, but the former from Eber, who was the forefather of Abraham. And that the Hebrews were earlier than the Jews, we are taught by the sacred writings.

But as to the manner of their religion, Moses was the first author of legislation for the Jews, and taught them to observe a certain day of rest, and to keep it with the utmost care for a reminder of the study of the holy scriptures; he taught them also the distinction between animals that might or might not be eaten, and yearly festivals, and certain bodily purifications, another long period also being more religiously observed in accordance with certain covenants.

But the Hebrews who were earlier in time than Moses, having never heard of all the Mosaic legislation, enjoyed a free and unfettered mode of religion, being regulated by the manner of life which is in accordance with nature, so that they had no need of laws to rule them, because of the extreme freedom of their soul from passions, but had received true knowledge of the doctrines concerning God. But now after remarks of this kind, it is time to go through the written records.

Chapter 7

So then the great theologian Moses, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, if ever any was, and understanding well the customs of his forefathers, by way of preface to the sacred laws has committed to indelible records the lives of the forefathers of the Hebrews, and the blessings which God vouchsafed to them, and on the other hand the characters and the punishments of other godless and impious nations, because he thought that this would be a needful lesson for those who were to be taught his laws, both for avoidance of the like customs to those of the wicked, and for encouragement to adopt the life of the godly.

It was needful besides that they should not be ignorant, that before them, and before his own written laws, many of their forefathers by right use of reason had already been honourably distinguished for excellence in religion; who having been called friends of God and prophets, gained in his writings eternal remembrance; who also were no aliens in race to these for whom he was ordaining his laws.

Wherefore also it was the more necessary for them, as being by birth descendants of righteous men beloved of God, to show themselves emulous of the piety of their forefathers, and to be eager to obtain from God equal blessings with those who had begotten them. Nor must they grow sluggish and discouraged as if this were impossible, nor renounce the hope of those blessings for themselves; for they were possible, and had been gained with entire success by their own forefathers; whose portraits he was handing down to those who were being instructed in the things of God, recounting the lives of the men of old, and delineating as in painted likenesses the peculiar virtue of each one.

Chapter 8

NOR is there anything to hinder us from briefly running over their history. First then we will take those before the Mood, according to the contents of Moses’ own writing. For, as before, we ought, I think, to examine the ancestral history of the Hebrews from no other sources than their own, since we learned the Egyptian history from Egyptians, and the Phoenician from their own writers, as again the Grecian history from those illustrious among Greeks, and their philosophy from the philosophers, and not from those who were ignorant of philosophy. For from what other source would it be proper to inquire about the healing art than from those who are well skilled in it? In accordance then with this rule, I think we ought to receive the history of the Hebrews from the learned among the Hebrews, and not from any other source.

As then the story holds among them, from the beginning before the Flood, from the first creation of mankind and for the following generations there have been a certain number of righteous men beloved of God: one of whom ‘hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God.’ [1]

Now this shows that to none but the Creator of all things he gave the title both of Lord and God of the universe: for he was persuaded that not only by creative power had He well and orderly disposed the whole, but also, like the lord as it were of a great city, was the ruler of the whole, and dispenser, and master of the house, being at once Lord, and King, and God.

The first to lay to heart the idea and the name of this Being as Lord and God was the godly man of whom I speak, and who in place of all substance, and title, and abundance, or rather in place of all good, ‘hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God,’ having procured Him for a treasure to himself of blessings both of soul and body.

In consequence of this it is recorded that he was the first to be called among the Hebrews a true man. At all events he is named Enos, which is ‘true man,’ by a well-applied appellation. For it is said that we ought to consider and to call no other a ‘true man’ than him who attains to the knowledge of God and to piety, who is at the same time full of knowledge and of reverence.

For those who are not of this character, but differ in nothing from irrational animals, as driven headlong after the belly and lust, the Hebrew Scripture teaches us to call beasts rather than men, being accustomed to use names in their proper meaning.

Accordingly its custom is to call such men now wolves and dogs, and now swine feeding on refuse and delighting in it; and again reptiles and serpents, answering to the manifold forms of wickedness.

But if at any time it is necessary to denote the man of the common multitude and the race itself, again it uses a suitable and natural appellation, and indicates man as a whole by the name of Adam, because it suggests that this is the proper and natural name of the progenitor and forefather of all men, a name implying according to its translation into the Greek language ‘the earthborn.’

So Enos is recorded as the first of the beloved of God among the Hebrews, since he first ‘hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God,’ proving the truly rational faculty of the soul to be both capable of knowledge and of understanding the true worship of the Godhead: the first of which would be a proof of true knowledge of God, and the second of his hope in the God whom he knew.

For not to neglect nor put in a secondary place the true knowledge of God, but ever and through all to ‘hope to call upon the name of the Lord God,’ partly as lord of the household, and partly as a gracious and good Father, this must be the thrice blessed end of all.

Such then was he who among the Hebrews has been introduced as the first true man, not Adam, the earthborn by name, who for transgressing God’s commandment fell from his better lot, but the very first of God’s beloved, who ‘hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God.’

Judging therefore by sound reasoning we ourselves also were well pleased to imitate such a character as this, and welcomed the statement of the history as profitable and most beneficial to us; and made a vow that, equalling the example of the man of whom I speak, we would call upon the name of the Creator and Lord of all with a steadfast and good hope.

But now after him of whom we have spoken there was another who ‘pleased the Lord, and was not to be found,’ as Moses says,[2] ‘because God translated him’ for the high perfection of his virtue. For difficult it is to find the truly wise.

Such, however, is he who is perfect in God, he who is withdrawn from the converse of the multitude. For the man of a different character, who frequents the marketplaces and courts and taverns and shops and the general crowd, hustling and being hustled, is swallowed up in the very gulf of wickedness. But he who is taken by God, and translated from this world to that, though he cannot be seen or found by men, has become the friend of God, and is found by God.

Him the Hebrews love to name Enoch: and the name would signify the grace of God. We deemed it therefore a blessed thing to emulate the life of this example also as being good.

Again after these a third appeared: Noah who has received testimony as ‘a righteous man in his generation.’ [3] And the following will be proofs of his righteousness. A great foulness and darkness of indescribable wickedness had overtaken the whole human race, and the giants talked of by every mouth were carrying on with ungodly and impious efforts their wars with God which are still so celebrated: and already the fathers of this their brood, whether they had sprung from some condition mightier than man’s nature, or in whatever way endowed, are said to have begun the teaching of curious arts among men, and to have introduced devices of witchcraft and other mischievous sorcery into their life, so that the whole human race had fallen under one sentence of judgement with God.

And so when all were about to be destroyed by one decree, this one man alone, of whom we are now speaking, is found ‘righteous in his generation,’ together with his family. While therefore all who were upon the earth were being destroyed by a flood, and the earth itself purged from the former evils by a sudden deluge of waters, the friend of God with his sons and their wives were most wonderfully preserved by God, as a spark to kindle the life that was to follow.

This man then also would be a primitive model, a living and breathing image, who had given an example to his posterity of the character that is pleasing to God.

Such were those before the Flood. And there were others again who came after it, conspicuous for piety, whose memory is preserved by the sacred oracles. One of these is announced as ‘priest of the Most High God,’ called by his Hebrew name a ‘king of righteousness.’ [4]

For all these there was not one word about bodily circumcision, nor yet about the Jewish commandments of Moses: and therefore it is not right either to call them Jews, nor yet Greeks, because they did not believe in more gods than one like Greeks or the other nations. But they would be more properly called Hebrews, either because of Eber, or rather because of the interpretation of the name.

For by interpretation they are a kind of ‘passengers,’ who have set out on their journey from this world to pass to the contemplation of the God of the universe. For they are recorded to have travelled the straight path of virtue aright by natural reasoning and by unwritten laws, and to have passed beyond carnal pleasures to the life of perfect wisdom and piety.

Among all these then let us count also the celebrated progenitor of the whole nation, Abraham, to whose righteousness the oracles bear witness; again the righteousness not of the law of Moses, for that was not yet in existence, since Moses arose in the seventh generation after Abraham; but nevertheless he also is pronounced to be eminently righteous and pious, like those who have been mentioned above. So at least the Scripture says: ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.’ [5] The answer indeed of God foretells that he shall be ‘a father of many nations,’ and says expressly that ‘in him shall all the nations and all the tribes of the earth be blessed,’ [6] directly prophesying the things which are being now accomplished in our time.

But this Abraham, after he had been made perfect in righteousness which he had successfully maintained, not by the law of Moses, but by faith, and after the appearances of God which are recorded, when about to be called the father of a true-born son even in his old age, is the first who in accordance with a divine command circumcises himself, and enjoins the performance of this rite upon his posterity, whether as a manifest signification of the great multitude of the children to be born of him, or that the children might have a paternal mark to show whether they were living in emulation of their forefathers, or falling away from their virtue, or for any other causes whatsoever they were, which we have not now leisure to discuss carefully.

Such then was the character of Abraham set forth like the former for our imitation. And next to him Isaac is exhibited as the successor both to his father’s knowledge of God and to divine favour, having received this from his father as the noblest and most blessed of all inheritances. United to one wife, once only, say the sacred oracles, he begat children: but being made thereby the father of twin children, he is said to have set this limit to his intercourse with his wife in his extreme self-control.

Here let me bring before you Jacob, who was also called Israel, a man who received a double name in consequence of the unusual eminence of his proper virtues. When exercised indeed in practical habits and modes of life, and experiencing troubles on behalf of religion, he was called Jacob, a name which when translated into the Greek language means a man in training, an athlete; but when afterwards he receives the rewards of victory over his opponents and is crowned, and is already in the enjoyment of the blessings of contemplation, then his name also is changed by the God who communes with him, who both vouchsafes to him a vision of God, and bestows by his new name the rewards of diviner gifts and honours.

And so the answer of God says to him: ‘Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name, for thou hast had power with God, and shalt prevail with men’ [7]— where Israel indicates ‘the man who beholds and contemplates’: since the very name when translated means ‘a man beholding God.’

Such then was the character of this man, from whom arose the Twelve Tribes of the Jewish nation. And countless things might be told concerning the life of these men, and their philosophic endurance and discipline, some things viewed literally, and some in allegorical suggestions: of which things others have spoken, as well as myself in my treatise ‘Concerning the numerous offspring of the men of old.’ Such then were these patriarchs.

Besides them I can tell you of another, whose name was Job, whom the sacred oracles testify to have been a man ‘blameless, true, just, and devout, abstaining from every evil thing.’ [8] Though he did not belong at all to the Jewish race, he has received witness for all right deeds of religion.

Now as to the children of Jacob, they cherished the knowledge of God and the piety inherited from their forefathers, and advanced the fame of the elder Hebrews to a high degree of glory, so that at length they annexed the government of all Egypt.

Joseph indeed having first been crowned with the rewards of chastity, and afterwards having received the government of Egypt, displayed the divinely favoured character of the Hebrews: and him too we have made it our prayer to emulate, though he had been made a slave by the plot of his brethren, a slave too of an Egyptian.

For I pass by all the rest of his advantages in regard to beauty and strength of body and comeliness, though the Scriptures record that he excelled all in prime of beauty: but his qualities of soul how could any one describe, though he purposed to speak his praise in a manner worthy of his virtue.

The story is that he had by nature the stamp of gentle birth, and the nobility of his disposition blooming upon his face: and so excellently was he endowed with the eminent graces of piety, that his soul shone bright in chastity and justice, in prudence and manliness, and above all in knowledge and piety towards the God of all, which his parents are said to have implanted in his soul from the cradle.

So when his master’s wife fell madly in love with him, and tried to drag him as young and beautiful into licentious and amorous intercourse, and attempted first to cajole him with words, and then besought him with entreaties, and at last ventured to lay violent hands upon him, and had recourse now to immodest and shameless embraces, the hero recalling the memory of the piety of his forefathers, and showing himself both in words and deeds the religious man and true Hebrew, shakes off the base and licentious woman, putting her aside with a stronger hand, and running away as from some terrible and raging beast finds safety in flight.

Afterwards with sober reasoning he reflects as follows within himself and says: ‘If my master from trusting me knoweth none of the things in his house, and hath given into my hands all that is therein, … how then shall I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?’ [9] For which the God of the universe, crowning him as a victor with the rewards of virtue, gives over to him the royalty and governance over his masters and over Egypt itself. Moreover, he also as a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and not a Jew (because the Jewish nation did not yet exist), has been received among the thrice blessed and most highly favoured friends of God.

But after the Hebrews who have been mentioned, the race of their descendants began to grow into a great multitude, and the Jewish nation, which they constituted, now went on multiplying daily and waxing great, until the influence of the pious conduct of their godly forefathers of old began little by little to be weakened and blunted, while the effects of their intercourse with Egyptians gained so much strength over the multitude of whom I speak, that they forgot the virtue of their forefathers, and came round in their modes of living to like customs with the Egyptians, so that their character seemed to differ in nothing from the Egyptians.

At this point then, when they had turned out such as I have described, the God of their forefathers sends forth Moses as a leader and lawgiver, thus verifying the promises given by the oracles to their progenitors: and then having performed by his hand the wonders that are recorded and the extraordinary signs from heaven, He promulgates a law that was suited to the moral condition of those who heard it. For they were unable through moral weakness to emulate the virtue of their fathers, inasmuch as they were enslaved by passions and sick in soul; so He gave them the polity that corresponded to their condition, ordaining some things openly and clearly, and implying others enigmatically, by suggesting symbols and shadows, but not the naked truth, for them to keep and observe.

And so the Jewish polity began about that time with Moses, and continues in accordance with the voices of their own prophets until the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ. For this also was a prophecy of Moses himself and the prophets who followed, that the customs and ordinances of Moses should not fail before those of the Christ appeared, the ordinances, that is, of the new covenant, which has been proclaimed to all nations through our Saviour; and thus these ordinances found a fulfilment in the way which had been announced.

But since we have briefly described the life of the Hebrews before Moses, and shown the character of their religion, it is time to consider the method of their doctrine also, from the writings of Moses and the prophets who followed him.

[1] 306 d 2 Gen. iv. 26

[2] 308 a 10 Gen. v. 24

[3] c 6 Gen. vi. 9

[4] 309 a 8 Gen. xiv. 18-20

[5] 309 d 3 Gen. xv. 6

[6] d 5-7 Cf. Gen. xvii. 5; xviii. 18; xii. 2

[7] 310 d 1 Gen. xxxii. 28

[8] 311 a 5 Job i. 1

[9] 312 a 4 Gen. xxxix. 8

Chapter 9

FIRST of all then that admirable theologian and lawgiver himself, in founding by his own writing a polity in accordance with religion for the Jewish people, did not think it fit to employ the common and trite preambles to his books; but after he had collected every law enjoining what ought to be done and forbidding what ought not to be done, and the public and civic arrangements concerning their mutual contracts, he thought it right to make his teaching begin with their ancestral theology, because he considered no other instruction to be proper to laws pertaining to religion, than that theology which had come down to him from their forefathers.

He begins therefore with God according to the hereditary doctrines of the theology of their Hebrew progenitors, not as was the wont of Egyptians, nor yet of Phoenicians, or the other nations, who like them degraded the adorable name to a multitude of gods, and regarded the luminaries in the sky as visible gods, and as unseen and invisible gods either the departed from among men, or the daemons of earth and air, according to the statements which we have previously proved.

But having made his whole narrative begin with the universal Cause and Creator of things visible and invisible, he shows that He is the Lawgiver of the constitution of the universe, and establishes Him as king of the world, as of one great city.

He teaches us therefore at the outset to regard Him as the real Author and Ruler not only of the laws which he is himself about to ordain presently for men, but also of the laws of universal nature.

Chapter 10

IN fact he represents Him as King and Lawgiver of the whole world: for by His decree and power all things have received their being, and by His laws and limitations again the whole duration of time is directed in its course and order.

For by God’s word and law first of all the firmament of heaven is firmly fixed, and the heavy and solid earth is wonderfully poised contrary to its proper nature upon the lighter elements: by the divine word and law the alternating course of night and day is carried round, and by God’s word and law the sun himself and moon and the circling host of other stars fulfil their proper course in seemly order; and by the law of the universal King the tropical changes, and periodical revolutions, and yearly cycles, and annual seasons are completed in the all-harmonious concert of the universe; by God’s law winter gives way to spring, and spring to the next change of seasons, the depths also of ocean surging up in the flood-tides of winter are yet by divine law shut off in their proper seas, so that they dare not transgress the bounds of their sacred laws; and the dry substance of the earth, being watered by streams of rain and snowstorms supplied likewise by divine law in due measure, brings forth innumerable kinds of plants and animals: in a word, nature the universal mother, subjected to God’s command, obeys the divine laws and the counsel of the all-ruling God.

For not without design, nor as it chanced, nor by spontaneous and irrational impulse, has this so vast system been arranged; nor is this great and most beautiful construction the work of a causeless nature; but it is a creation of the all-wise Architect of the universe, and is directed by the same Being’s words and sacred laws.

Having begun from this point, and assigned the laws which concern the nature of the universe before treating of human legislation, the prophet exhorted men before all things to give their mind to God the universal King, and not carelessly to forsake His laws; since the sun himself, the heaven, and the world, the earth and all things upon earth, and all that are considered works of nature serve His commandments and ordinances and sacred laws and words.

Wherefore, in just consequence, even more ought the human race, being no small part of the whole, to adhere closely to the divine ordinances, and not be surpassed by the partial elements. For in the beginning the earth received its law from Him who said: ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, yielding seed after its kind, and fruit-tree bearing fruit.’ [1] And at His word the earth, exhibiting its readiness to obey His law, never yet even to the present time disregarded the divine command.

Thus also when God said: ‘Let the waters bring forth the moving things that have living souls, and fowls that fly in the firmament of heaven:’ [2] at the word, the element of water performed its work, and is now still seen rendering its obedience to His law.

If then sun and moon and stars, having been appointed by the divine law to perform their proper courses, and ‘to be also for signs and for seasons and for days, and for years,’ [3] do not disregard their code of laws, what excuse can still be left for you to obtain pardon if you despise the laws of God?

By this preliminary teaching the admirable author convinced us, and with good reason made us emulous of his own divine knowledge and piety; because we have been unable to find anything like this among the theologians of the nations before mentioned.

Then after the primary theology he passes on to the second doctrine which is both physical and philosophical. That is to say, next to the knowledge of God, and the arrangement of the universe, he advances in order to that which is by nature second; the doctrine, that is, concerning the nature of man, because next to the knowledge of God it is necessary for one to know himself. For this reason he next teaches us what man is, and what it is that leads him to the knowledge and worship of God, and what is the life that corresponds to the ruling part of man. Having therefore drawn the distinction, between body and soul, he defines the true man as placed in the soul, partaking of an intelligent and incorporeal and rational essence, as having been created after the image of God; but the body as being an earthly envelope of the soul: and to these he adds a third, ‘the breath of life,’ [4] a power uniting and combining that which was taken from the ground with that which had been made after the image of God.

He relates also that the man thus described has his first abode in the thrice-blessed Paradise of God, full of immortal and eternal blessings; but that having been subjected to the law of God, like the rest of the creatures in the beginning of the world, he through heedlessness and transgression of the divine command forfeited this most enviable life.

This is the philosophy which Moses teaches in the preface to his sacred laws, making as it were a proclamation that we are not to disregard our proper dignity, and the likeness to the divine nature which we received, and from which we had been further endowed with the immortality of the soul; because it is not lawful for a king’s image to be obliterated. But the original and true image of the God of the universe is His own Word, who is very Wisdom, and very Life, and Light, and Truth, and whatsoever man can conceive of noble and good: and the human mind is an image of an image, inasmuch as it is acknowledged to have been made after the image of God.

And for those who were to observe the sacred laws, this preliminary instruction he thought it necessary to receive, and to remember what was the part of them taken out of the earth and to be resolved into earth again, and what the better part in us like to God, and how we ought to behave towards each of the said parts, and not to treat with outrage and impiety the man after the image of God, nor to defile him with foul and unlawful practices; but ever to keep the desire for that first and thrice-blessed abode and life, and to be eager to recur to it, making it our prayer to win that first and thrice-blessed life and dignity, and also to prepare here already for our departure thither; because otherwise it is not possible for the profane and unpurified to tread those sanctuaries, from which the first man through heedlessness has fallen by despising the divine command.

After this the Hierophant adds another most conclusive doctrine, teaching us not to doubt that there is lying in wait for each of us an evil daemon, a slanderer and hater of goodness, plotting from the beginning against the salvation of men.

He calls him ‘Dragon’ and ‘Serpent,’ [5] black and a lover of darkness, full of venom and wickedness: and says that he through envy of our divinely inspired life, still tries to trip up and drag down every one of those who are adhering to God; and that by his deceit the forefathers of our race fell from their diviner lot: wherefore also we must be always on the watch against the mischievous crafts of the said daemon.

But why should I thus anticipate, when I ought at once to describe the several things which I have stated out of the Scriptures themselves? Let us then begin with God, after having in the first place invoked His aid through our Saviour.

[1] 315 b 4 Gen. i. 11

[2] c 1 ibid. 20

[3] c 8 ibid. 14

[4] 316 a 5 Gen. ii. 8

[5] 317 a 6 Gen. iii. 1

Chapter 11

THEIR system then sets forth the first principle of theology by beginning from the power which made and organized the universe, not by syllogistic reasoning or plausible arguments, but in a more dogmatic and didactic manner of divination by aid of the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration Moses commenced his doctrine of God in the following manner: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’ [1]

Then he says: ‘God said, Let there be light, and there was light.’ [2] And again: ‘God said, Let there be a firmament: and it was so.’ [3] And again: ‘God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, yielding seed after his kind and in his likeness, and every fruit-tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after his kind, upon the earth: and it was so.’ [4] And again: ‘God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years: and it was so.’ [5]And again: ‘God said, Let the waters bring forth moving creatures of living souls after their kind, and all the fowls of the heaven after their kind: and it was so.’ [6] And again: ‘Let the earth bring forth four-footed beasts and creeping things and wild beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.’ [7]

The Scripture then by saying in these places ‘God said’ represents the divine command, and that God willed all things to be thus made, not, however, that we need suppose Him to speak with a voice and words. But summing up the whole statement, it says: ‘This is the book of the generation of heaven, and earth, in the day that God made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein.’ [8]

Such is the theology of the Hebrews, instructing us that all things subsist by the creative Word of God: and afterwards it teaches that the whole world was not left thus desolate by Him who constructed it, as an orphan by his father, but that it is for ever administered by the providence of God; so that God is not only the Organizer and Maker of the whole, but also the preserver, and administrator, and king, and ruler, presiding for ever over the sun itself and moon and stars and the whole heaven and world, overlooking all things with His great eye and divine power, and present with all things both in heaven and earth, and arranging and administering all things in order.

And in the very same way the succeeding prophets also with corresponding inspiration spake at one time in the person of God Himself, saying: ‘I am a God at hand,saith the Lord, and not a God far off. Shall a man do anything in secret, and I not know it? Do not I fill the heaven and the earth? saith the Lord.’ [9]

And at another time they spake of God thus: ‘Who measured the water with His hand, and the heaven with a span, and all the earth with His fist? Who set the mountains by measure, and the hills by a balance? Who knew the mind of the Lord, and who became His counsellor?’ [10] And again: ‘Who set the heaven for a canopy, and spread it out as a tent to dwell in.’ [11] And again: ‘Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath showed all these.’ [12] And then: ‘The LORD God that created the heaven, and fixed it, that established the earth and that which is therein, and giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk thereon, I am the LORD God.’ [13] And presently: ‘I stretched forth the heaven by Myself, and established the earth.[14] I am the LORD God: there is none beside Me.’ [15]

And again: ‘Thus shall ye say unto them: The gods which made not the heaven and the earth, let them perish from the face of the earth, and from under the heaven. The Lord who made the earth by His power, established the world by His wisdom, and by His understanding stretched out the heaven, and brought up clouds from the end of the earth; He made lightnings for rain, and brought forth winds out of His treasures. Every man is become too brutish for knowledge.’ [16]

And again: ‘Whither shall I go from Thy spirit, and where can I be hidden from Thy presence? If I go up into heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, there Thou art. If I should take my wings in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall Thy hand lead me.’ [17]

These and the like are the statements of the theologians later than Moses, who were themselves also Hebrews, and spake concerning God in accordance with their earliest forefathers. But listen now to those who were before Moses, men beloved of God and highly blessed, the first Hebrews, and the very first of them all, Abraham, who has been pronounced the forefather of the whole Jewish race.

‘And Abraham said to the king of Sodom, I will lift up mine hand unto the Most High God, who created the heaven and the earth.’ [18] And even before Abraham Melchizedek is introduced as priest of the Most High God, blessing Abraham in these words: ‘Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God, who delivered thine enemies into thy hand: and blessed be the God who created the heaven and the earth.’ [19]

In addition to this the narrative introduces Abraham as conversing thus with his servant: ‘Put thine hand under my thigh, and I will make thee swear by the LORD the God of heaven, and the God of the earth.’ [20] And he adds: ‘The LORD the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that took me from my father’s house, and from the land where I was born.’ [21]

Besides all these passages, in the appearance of God to Moses himself, when Moses asked whom he must believe God to be, the answer says: ‘I AM THAT I AM. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.’ [22]

Let these extracts suffice as examples from among ten thousand in the theology of the Hebrews. Is it then right to set in comparison with them the theologies of the wise men of Greece? Some of whom declared that there is no God at all, and others assert that the stars are gods, and that they are red-hot masses of metal, fixed in the sky like studs and plates, and others that God is an artistic fire proceeding in a regular course; and others that the world is not administered by divine providence, but by a kind of irrational nature; and others that things in heaven alone are administered by God, but not things on earth also; and again that the world is uncreated, and was not made by God at all, but subsists spontaneously and accidentally; and others that the complex whole is made up of certain indivisible and minute corpuscles devoid of life and reason.

The doctrines, however, drawn from the oracles of the Hebrews concerning the God of the universe are briefly such as I have described: and after the God of the universe the next thing is to review the doctrines of the Hebrew philosophy concerning the first principle of things created.

[1] d 2 Gen. i. 1

[2] d 4 ibid. 3

[3] d 5 Gen. i. 6

[4] d 6 ibid. 11

[5] d 9 ibid. 14

[6] 318 a 1 ibid. 20

[7] a 4 ibid. 24

[8] a 11 Gen. ii. 4

[9] 318 c 7 Jer. xxiii. 23, 24

[10] d 1 Is. xl. 12, 13

[11] d 6 ibid. 23

[12] d 7 ibid. 26

[13] d 8 Is. xlii. 5, 6

[14] d 12 Is. xliv. 24

[15] 319 a 1 Is. xlv. 5, 6

[16] a 3 Jer. x. 11-14

[17] b 1 Ps. cxxxix. 7

[18] c 4 Gen. xiv. 22

[19] c 8 ibid. 19

[20] d 2 Gen. xxiv. 2

[21] d 4 ibid. 7

[22] d 9 Ex. iii. 14

Chapter 12

THALES of Miletus declared that the first principle of all things is water, Anaximenes the air, Heracleitus fire, Pythagoras numbers, Epicurus and Democritus corporeal atoms, Empedocles the four elements. Let us therefore look also at the oracles of the Hebrews.

Next to the Being of the God of the universe, which is without beginning and uncreate, incapable of mixture and beyond all conception, they introduce a second Being and divine power, which subsisted as the first beginning of all originated things and was originated from the first cause, calling it Word, and ‘Wisdom, and Power of God.’ [1]

And the first to teach us this is Job, saying: ‘But whence was wisdom found? And what is the place of understanding? Man knoweth not the way thereof, nor yet was it found among men,[2]… but we have heard the fame thereof. The Lord established the way thereof, and He knoweth the place thereof.’ [3]

And David also somewhere in the Psalms, addressing Wisdom by another name, says: ‘By the word of the LORD were the heavens established’:[4] for in this manner he celebrated the Word of God the Organizer of all things. Moreover, his son Solomon also speaks as follows in the person of Wisdom herself, saying: ‘I Wisdom made counsel my dwelling, and knowledge and understanding I called unto me.[5] By me kings reign, and rulers decree justice.’[6] And again:

‘The LORD created me as the beginning of His ways unto His works, from everlasting He founded me, in the beginning or ever He made the earth, and before the depths were made, [7]… before the mountains were settled, and before all hills He begat me;[8] … when He was preparing the heaven I was beside Him;[9] … and as He was making safe the fountains beneath the heaven,[10] … I was with Him arranging. I it was in whom He daily delighted, and I was rejoicing before Him in every season when He was rejoicing in having completed the habitable world.’ [11]

So Solomon speaks in Proverbs. And the words also which follow are somewhere spoken in Wisdom’s own person: ‘But what wisdom is, and how she came into being, I will declare, and will not hide mysteries from you; but I will trace her out from the beginning of creation.’ [12] To which he afterwards adds: ‘For she is an understanding spirit, holy, alone in kind, manifold, subtil, freely moving, clear, undefiled, … all-powerful, all-surveying, and going through all intelligent, pure, and most subtil spirits. [13]

‘For wisdom is more moving than any motion; she penetrateth and passeth through all things by reason of her pureness. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty: therefore doth nothing defiled find entrance into her. For she is an effulgence from everlasting light, an unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an image of His goodness… And she reaches from end to end with full strength: and sweetly doth she order all things.’ [14]

Moreover, the sacred Scripture introduces this divine Word in various ways as sent from the Father for the salvation of mankind: and so it relates that it was He who showed Himself to Abraham and to Moses and to the other prophets beloved of God, and taught them so many things in oracles, and prophesied the things to come, whenever it mentions that God or the Lord appearedand entered into converse with the prophets.

That He also became known to all men as having been sent by the Greater to be a Saviour of the sick and a physician of souls, the Scripture thus declares: ‘He sent His Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.’ [15] And again at another time it says: ‘His Word shall run swiftly.’ [16] Whence the teaching of the Gospel also in renewing the doctrine of the prophets and fathers makes the theology clear in the following way: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made, that hath been made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.’ [17]

With good reason then does Moses in his perfect wisdom, when commencing his account of the creation of the world, inspired by the same Spirit declare that in the beginning aforesaid ‘God created the heaven and the earth’; and introduces God communing with Him, as with His own and first-born Word, upon the creation of man, in the passage where he writes: ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image and after our likeness.’[18]

This the Psalmist also hinted, when describing the First Cause he said: ‘He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created’:[19] plainly supposing the direction and command of the First Cause to the Second, as of a father to a son. For. of course it is quite manifest that every one who speaks at all speaks to another, and he who commands, commands some other than himself.

But expressly mentioning again two Lords both together, that is to say Father and Son, Moses in his narrative of the punishment of the ungodly speaks thus: ‘And the LORD rained brimstone and fire from the LORD upon Sodom and Gomorrah.’ [20]

In accordance with which David also said in a Psalm: ‘The LORD said unto my lord, sit thou on My right hand, until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.’ [21] And further on he hinted at His secret and utterly ineffable generation, saying: ‘From the womb I begat thee before the morning star.’ [22]

Lest, however, you should suppose that these are my subtleties, I will offer you as interpreter of the meaning of the Scripture a man of Hebrew race, who received from his forefathers an accurate knowledge of the history of his country, and had learned the doctrine from his teachers; that is, if you accept Philo as such a man. Listen then to him, how he interprets the divine utterances.

[1] 320 d 2 i Cor. i. 24

[2] d 3 Job xxviii. 12

[3] d 6 ibid. 22

[4] d 9 Ps. xxxiii. 6

[5] 321 a 1 Prov. viii. 12

[6] a 3 ibid. 15

[7] a 4 Prov. viii. 22

[8] a 6 ibid. 25

[9] a 7 ibid. 27

[10] a 8 ibid. 28

[11] a 9 ibid. 30

[12] b 6 Wisd. of Sol. vi. 22

[13] b 9 ibid. vii. 22

[14] c 9 ibid. viii. 1

[15] 321 d 13 Ps. cvii. 20

[16] d 15 Ps. cxlvii. 15

[17] d 19 John i. 1

[18] 322 b 1 Gen. i. 26

[19] b 4 Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlviii. 5

[20] c 3 Gen. xix. 24

[21] c 7 Ps. cx. 1

[22] d 1 Ps. cx. 3

Chapter 13

[PHILO IUDAEUS] [1] ‘WHY as if speaking of another God does He say, “In the image of God I made man,” [2] and not in the image of Himself? With consummate beauty and wisdom is this oracle expressed. For nothing mortal could be made in the likeness of the Most High God and Father of the universe, but in the likeness of the second God, who is the Word of the former. For it was right that the rational character in the soul of man should be impressed on it by the divine Word; since the God who is prior to the Word is superior to every rational nature; and it was not lawful for any created thing to be made like to Him who is set above the Word in the most excellent and unique nature.’

This is what I wish to quote from Philo’s first book of Questions and Answers.But the same author in the first book On Agriculturealso calls the Word the First-born Son of God, in the following phrase:

‘All these things then God the Shepherd and King guides according to justice, having set over them as a law His own right Reason (Word) and First-born Son, who is to receive the charge of this sacred flock, as a lieutenant of a great king.’ [3]

Also again in the second book the same author writes as follows word for word:

‘If therefore any one wishes to escape the difficulties which present themselves in the questions thus raised, let him say freely that nothing material is so strong as to be able to support the weight of the world. But the eternal Word of the everlasting God is the most strong and firm support of the universe.

‘He it is who, being extended from the middle to the ends and from the extremities to the middle, runs the full length of nature’s invincible course, bringing all the parts together and binding them fast. For the Father who begat Him made Him an indissoluble bond of the universe.

‘Naturally therefore will neither all earth be dissolved by all water which its bosom contains, nor will fire be extinguished by air, nor on the other hand will air be burnt up by fire, since the divine Word sets Himself as a boundary of the elements, like a vowel between consonants, in order that the universe may be harmonious as in the case of music expressed in writing, since He by the persuasion of His concurrence mediates and reconciles the threatenings of the adverse elements.’ [4]

Thus speaks Philo. And Aristobulus also, another wise man of the Hebrews, who flourished under the rule of the Ptolemies, confirms the doctrine as inherited from his fathers, addressing to Ptolemy himself the Interpretation of the sacred laws,in which he speaks as follows.

[1] d 11 Philo Iudaeus, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius alone

[2] d 11 Gen. ix. 6

[3] 323 b 3 Phil. i. Noah’s husbandry,bk. 1.

[4] 823 b 9 Phil. i. Noah’s husbandry,bk. ii.

Chapter 14. Aristobulus on the Same

[ARISTOBULUS] [1] ‘BUT the same metaphor might be used also in the case of wisdom: for all light comes from it. Wherefore also some who were of the Peripatetic School have said that it holds the place of a torch: for by following it continuously men will be kept undisturbed through their whole life. But more clearly and more beautifully one of our forefathers, Solomon, said that wisdom subsisted before heaven and earth. This accords with what was said before.’

These then and such as these are the philosophical opinions which the Hebrews have held on this point. Is not this then of all statements the most honourable to God, as referring the beginning of the constitution of the universe to the rational and all-wise power of God, or more precisely to the very Wisdom and very Word of God, rather than to the lifeless and irrational elements?

Be that as it may; such are the opinions of the Hebrews concerning the beginning of the universe. And now let us consider what they teach concerning the constitution of the rational creatures, who came after that first Beginning.

[1] 324 a 1 Aristobulus. Cf. 375 d, 663 c

Chapter 15

NEXT to the being of God the Universal King, which is without beginning and unbegotten, they teach that Beginning which is begotten from no other source than the Father, being both First-born and fellow worker of the Father’s will, and perfectly likened unto Him.

And this Beginning is before all originate things which followed, on which account also they are wont to call it the Image of God, and Power of God, and Wisdom of God, and Word of God, nay further the Great ‘Captain of the host of the Lord,’ [1] and ‘Angel of the great Counsel.’ [2]

But the intelligent and rational Powers which came after this Beginning pass man’s nature to describe, both for multitude and for variety of form, except as far as it is possible to think thereon by the examples drawn from the analogy of things visible, sun, moon, and stars, and heaven itself which encompasses them all together within and beneath itself.

‘For there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars,’ says the divine Apostle; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ [3]

In this way, therefore, we must think of the order in incorporeal and intelligent Beings also, the unutterable and infinite power of the God of the universe embracing all of them together; and the second place, next to the Father, being held by the power of the Divine Word, at once creative and illuminating. For which reason also the Hebrews are wont to call Him ‘True Light,’ [4] and ‘Sun of Righteousness.’ [5]

And next after this second Being there is set, as in place of a moon, a third Being, the Holy Spirit, whom also they enroll in the first and royal dignity and honour of the primal cause of the universe, He also having been appointed by the Maker of the universe for a ruling principle of the created things which came after, those I mean which are lower in rank, and need the help which He supplies.

But this Spirit, holding a third rank, supplies those beneath out of the superior powers in Himself, notwithstanding that He also receives from another, that is from the higher and stronger, who, as we said, is second to the most high and unbegotten nature of God the King of all: from whom indeed God the Word is Himself supplied, and drawing as it were from an ever-flowing fountain which pours forth Deity, imparts copiously and ungrudgingly of the radiance of His own light to all, and especially to the Holy Spirit Himself, who is closer to Him than all and very near; and then to the intelligent and divine powers after Him.

But the Unoriginate Beginning of the whole, which is the fountain of all good, and cause of Deity and life as well as of light and every virtue, being also first of the first and beginning of all beginnings, or rather far beyond any beginning and any first and every thought that can be expressed or conceived, communicates wholly whatsoever is comprehended in His ineffable powers to His First-begotten alone, as being alone able to contain and receive that abundance of the Father’s perfections which by the rest can neither be reached nor contained.

But the partial gifts He dispenses to those who are in part worthy through the ministration and mediatorship of the Second, in the measure attainable by each: and of these gifts the perfect and supremely holy have been bestowed by the Father on Him who is third from Himself, and receives the gifts through the Son, but is ruler and leader of those who follow.

Hence the whole body of Hebrew theologians, after Him who is God over all, and after Wisdom His Firstborn, regard as God the third holy Power which they call Holy Spirit, and by which they were enlightened and inspired.

Next after heaven, and sun, and moon, they say ‘star differeth from star in glory.’ [6] Now though for mortal nature it is not possible to find the number of the stars, nevertheless the oracles of the Hebrews say that God the King of All is not ignorant of the numbers and of the names of the heavenly host. Wherefore in them it is said: ‘Who telleth the numbers of the stars, and calleth them all by names.’ [7]

Thus then after those first luminaries which are reckoned among incorporal powers, and excel in power and essence of intellectual light, there are countless tribes and families of stars and a vast difference incomprehensible to us, but not to the Maker of the universe.

And therefore, to represent them as comprehensible to God alone, one of their theologians says: ‘Ten thousand times ten thousand ministered unto Him, and thousand thousands stood before Him’: [8] showing by the number that to God they are comprehensible, but by the greatness of the number that to us they are infinite; in accordance with our custom of calling things that are many and infinite ‘ten thousand,’ as an expression of exceeding multitude.

A certain other prophet also, in discoursing of their nature, thus speaks of the Maker of them all as divine, saying: ‘O LORD, my God, how greatly art Thou magnified; Thou didst clothe Thyself with honour and majesty. Who coverest Thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heaven like a curtain: … who maketh His angels winds, and His ministers a flaming fire.’ [9]

Now do not suppose that the beings here mentioned partake of the nature of this our mortal and earthly fire, nor yet of the winds proceeding from the irrational nature of air: but just as God Himself, though He is in His nature incorporeal and immaterial, and pure mind, or rather above mind, and above all reason, is yet called in a figurative way wind, and fire, and light, and certain other names adapted to mortal ears; so the divine Scriptures address the intelligent and rational Beings, angels, and archangels, and spirits, and divine powers, and heavenly hosts, principalities, and powers, and thrones, and dominions,[10] as if they were myriads upon myriads of stars and luminaries, and say that the Sun of Righteousness and His fellow the Holy Spirit rule and preside over all.[11]

But all of them, with the Son Himself and Holy Spirit, all intelligent and rational living beings, together with those that are seen in heaven, and the heaven itself and all that it contains within it—all these are commanded by the sacred and prophetic Scripture to render to Him alone who is God over all, who through all and in all is universal King and Ruler and cause of the whole world, as being the Framer and Maker and Guardian and Saviour of all, to render, I say, to Him His becoming praise and the worship that is proper to God, saying: ‘Praise ye God from the heavens: praise Him in the heights. Praise Him, all ye angels of His: praise Him, all His hosts. Praise Him, sun and moon: praise Him, all ye stars and light. Praise Him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that are above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created; He made them fast for ever and ever: He gave them a law, and it shall not pass away.’ [12]

Such are the doctrines received from the Hebrews, which we have preferred to the erroneous polytheism and daemonism of the Greeks, knowing and duly honouring divine powers as servants and ministers of God the universal King, but confessing Him alone as God, and worshipping Him alone, whom heaven itself, and all things that are in heaven, and things above heaven were taught to worship and praise and celebrate as God: for even the Only-begotten of God and First-born of the whole world, the Beginning of all, commands us to believe His Father alone true God, and to worship only Him.

[1] d 5 Joshua v. 14

[2] d 6 Isa. ix. 6

[3] 325 a 5 i Cor. xv. 41

[4] 325 b 3 John i. 9

[5] b 4 Mal. iv. 2

[6] 326 b 1 i Cor. xv. 41

[7] b 6 Ps. cxlvii. 4

[8] c 4 Dan. vii. 10

[9] 826 d 1 Ps. civ. 1

[10] 327 a 6 Cf. Col. i. 16

[11] b 1 Mal. iv. 3

[12] c 3 Ps. cxlviii. 1

Chapter 16. On the Adverse Powers

NEXT we must consider what the Hebrew oracles deliver to us concerning the adverse power also. They teach that the divine powers set over the whole world by the will of the Father—‘the ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall inherit salvation’ [1]—and the holy angels of God and archangels, and all the intelligent nature which is the minister of blessings, being full of light, and almoner of all the blessings that are bestowed on men from God, are the attendants of God the sole King of all; and next that, like the stars of heaven, they circle round the Sun of Righteousness [2] and His fellow the Holy Spirit, and enjoy the supply of their light, and for that reason are naturally compared to the luminaries in heaven.

But the nature which is turned away from these, and for its own wickedness is deprived of the company of the better spirits, and contrary to the former has exchanged light for darkness, Scripture calls by the names which befit the badness of their disposition.

The leader for instance of their fall, who had been the cause both for himself and for others of their apostasy from, the better angels, as having fallen down utterly beneath the piety of the more godlike, and wrought for himself the venom of malice and impiety, and become the author of darkness and folly in consequence of his wilful departure from the light—him the Scripture is wont to call dragon and serpent, and black and creeping, an engenderer of deadly poison, a wild beast, and a lion devouring mankind, and the adder among reptiles.

The divine words say that the cause of his falling away was frenzy of mind and distraction of thought, and describe as follows both his fall and his insanity: ‘How is the day star, which did rise in the morning, fallen from heaven! He is crushed to the ground, which did send forth to all the nations. And thou saidst in thine heart, I will ascend into the heaven; above the stars of heaven will I set my throne. … I will be like unto the Most High.’ [3]

And again: ‘Thus saith the Lord: Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I have dwelt in the habitation of God.’ [4] And again: ‘Thou art the sealing of the pattern, and crown of beauty; thou wast born in the pleasaunce of the paradise of God; every precious stone was thy covering,’ [5] and the rest.

And to this he adds: ‘Thou wast in the holy mountain of God, in the midst of the stones of fire; thou wast blameless in thy days, from the day that thou wast created, till thine unrighteousness was found in thee.[6] Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thy knowledge was corrupted with thy beauty; because of the multitude of thy sins I have cast thee to the ground.’ [7]

By these passages then we have learned directly the former association of him of whom we speak with the diviner powers, and his fall from the better sort through his own arrogance and rebellion against God. Under him there is besides a countless race involved in similar offences, which for their impiety fell from the lot of the pious angels, and in exchange for their former lightsome and divine surrounding, and their honour in the King’s palace, and a life passed among the blessed and angelic choirs, received by the just judgement and sentence of the mighty God an abode in Tartarus, the place befitting the impious, which is called by the divine word the abyss, and darkness, not such as with us, but that which is made known by the divine oracles.

And of this race a small fragment left on the earth and in the sublunar air to exercise the athletes of piety, has become a joint cause of the polytheistic delusion of mankind which is no better than atheism.

But upon these also holy Scripture has set appropriate names, more plainly when it calls them evil spirits and daemons, ‘principalities and powers, world-rulers, and spiritual hosts of wickedness’; [8] but figuratively, when it is encouraging the beloved of God to have no fear of the crowd of hostile daemons, by what it says: ‘Thou shalt go upon the asp and adder: the lion and the dragon shalt thou tread under thy feet.’ [9]

A proof of their hatred of God is that they wish themselves to be proclaimed gods, and steal away for themselves the honours intended for God, and attempt to entice the simple by divinations and oracles as lures and baits, and draw them away from looking up to the God of the whole world, and drag them down into the pit of utter destruction in impious, and godless superstition. Wherefore an effort to flee with all speed from their deceits was made by the Hebrews alone from the earliest ages, by expressly teaching that ‘all the gods of the nations are daemons.’ [10]

But now, by God’s grace we may say, through our Saviour’s teaching in the Gospel all nations from all parts of the earth have been delivered from the bondage of the daemons, and sing the praise of that God whom we have learned to be the only Saviour, and King, and God of the whole world.

[1] 328 a 4 Heb. i. 14

[2] b 6 Mal. iv. 2

[3] 328 d 7 Isa. xiv. 12

[4] 329 a 2 Ezek. xxviii. 2

[5] a 4 ibid. 12

[6] a 8 ibid. 14

[7] b 1 ibid. 17

[8] d 5 Eph. vi. 12

[9] d 8 Ps. xci. 13

[10] 330 a 7 Ps, xcvi. 5

Chapter 17

HERE again the Phoenician and Egyptian account of the origin of animal life introduced spontaneous generation of all living beings upon the earth including even man, and described one and the same nature as springing forth in the like fortuitous manner from the earth, supposing that there is no difference at all between the irrational and the rational soul and being.

These at least were the doctrines set forth in the statements of their writers which have been previously quoted. But again with good reason we have preferred the Hebrews as having defined the circumstances of the original constitution of man with great beauty and wisdom and truth.

For the one part of ourselves they say is divine and immortal, being neither carnal nor corporeal by nature, and this they say is the true man made in the image and likeness of God; and he is the work of God, and not of chance nor of spontaneous growth, but of the universal Cause Himself, when by divine decree He had willed that the earthly regions should not be without a share of intelligent and rational being, that so the befitting hymn of praise should ascend to Him from all creatures in heaven and earth and sky, which possess reason and are able to apprehend His divine nature.

Thus then it is contained in the oracles of the Hebrews: ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness: and God created man, in the image of God created He him.’ [1] And again: ‘And God took dust from the earth and formed man, and breathed breath of life into his face; and man became a living soul.’ [2] This again is interpreted by Philo the Hebrew, adding yet the following to his sayings which have been quoted.

[1] 330 d 12 Gen. i. 26

[2] 331 a 1 Gen. ii. 7

Chapter 18. Philo on the Soul

[PHILO IUDAEUS] [1] ‘BUT whereas the others, who said that our mind is a part of the ethereal nature, connected man by kinship with the ether; the great Moses did not liken the form of the reasonable soul to any of the things created, but said that it was a genuine coinage of that divine and invisible Spirit, marked and stamped by the seal of God, the impress of which is the eternal Word. “For God,” says he, “breathed breath of life into his face, and man became a living soul.” [2] So that he who receives that breath must be made like to Him that sends it forth.

‘Wherefore also it is said that man was made iu the image of God, but not in the image of anything created. It naturally followed then that, as man’s soul was fashioned after the likeness of the archetypal Word of the First Cause, so his body, being raised up toward heaven the purest portion of the universe, should lift its eyes on high.’

So far Philo. With good reason then does the sacred Scripture affirm that man was not made in the same way as the other animals; because some of them came forth from the earth at one command of God the King of all, and others again at His bidding flew up out of the watery element: but of the living creatures upon earth only the most beloved of God, ourselves, have been made in our soul after the image and likeness of God. And in reference to this man is also regarded as having the nature of a ruler and a king, and is the only one of the creatures upon earth that has powers of reasoning, creating, judging, and legislating, and is capable of learning arts and sciences. For only the soul in man is an intelligent and rational essence, in which the other animals on earth do not participate.

They therefore are serfs, and fill the place of servants to man: while he as lord and ruler enslaves and subjugates those that are far superior in bodily strength, but inferior by their privation in regard to the intelligent essence.

He therefore, they say, was created with a certain singular excellence after the image and likeness of God by God Himself. And for this reason he is able to attain to a presentation of the concept of God, and to form perceptions of wisdom and righteousness and every virtue, to calculate also the courses of sun and moon and stars, and the cycles of days and seasons, thanks to the kinship with heaven, which man alone of mortal things exhibits.

But the outward frame enveloping this part of man is essentially different in kind and born of the earth, yet this also itself is a work of God taken from earth and returning to earth. And therefore we ought to care for this part as much as a master cares for a brute beast when distressed, and to treat it gently, and feed it just as a slave well attached to the service of human life; but the master within, as being of noble birth and in nature akin to God, we must honour in liberal ways, as having also received honour from the First Cause of all.

The oracles at least say that the Universal King, having adorned man’s original nature with divine powers and with the likeness of God, allotted his first mode of life in accordance with the gifts which He had bestowed, and associated him with divine companies in a Paradise of good things.

Also that God on His part had in the beginning as an all-kind Father bestowed these blessings upon him, but that he by wilful choice fell away from these happier conditions, and for neglect of a divine command passed by exchange into the condition of mortality.

Wherefore also it is our highest concern to make piety our very first aim, and to amend the first transgression by a sequel of happier omen; and so to hasten on to the recurrence and restoration of our proper state. For the true end of man’s nature is not here on earth sinking down into ruin and destruction, but in yonder place from which the first man fell away.

And therefore it is necessary to win back again the purity and likeness to God of the intelligent being within us; and to this all men must zealously strive with all their might to return, by devotion to piety and virtue.

Such were the philosophic doctrines concerning man’s nature taught by the Hebrews originally, before any Greeks had even come into the world: for these being of yesterday and quite newly sprung up from the earth, designed to steal away the doctrines of barbarians, and did not abstain from those of the Hebrews, as our discourse in its progress will presently show.

But since it was peculiar to the Hebrew doctrines to regard the Supreme God as the one sole Creator of all things, including the substance underlying bodies, which the Greeks call hylé (matter), whereas countless multitudes of barbarians and Greeks alike stood opposed to this opinion, some of them declaring that matter was the source of evil and subsisted without beginning, and others that in its own nature it had neither quality nor shape, but by the power of God had acquired its orderly arrangement together with its qualities; we must therefore show that the opinion of the Hebrews upholds a far better doctrine, approaching the question with logical demonstration, and overthrowing the opposite argument with correct reasoning.

I shall quote then the words of those who before our time have thoroughly examined the doctrine, and first of Dionysius, who in the first book of his exercitations Against Sabelliuswrites on the subject before us as follows:

[1] b 1 Philo Iud. tom. i. p. 332 M

[2] b 6 Gen. ii. 7

Chapter 19

[DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS] [1] ‘NOR are they free from impiety who regarding matter as unoriginate give it over into the hand of God for orderly arrangement, inasmuch as being originally passible and changeable it yields to the alterations impressed upon it by God.

‘For let them explain clearly from what source like and unlike originally subsist in God and in matter. For then we must further think of some higher than each of them, a thought which it is not lawful to entertain concerning God. For whence came it that they are unoriginate, a property said to be alike in both, and whence a third conceived to be higher than either of them?

‘For if God is the absolutely unoriginate, and if the being unoriginate is, as one might say, His very essence, matter cannot be unoriginate; for matter and God are not the same: but if each is what it properly is, namely matter and God, while the unoriginate is attached to both, this manifestly is different from each of them, and earlier and higher than both.

‘The idea however that these subsist together from the beginning, or rather that this one of them, the matter, subsists of itself, is utterly overthrown by the difference of their opposite conditions.

‘For let them tell us the cause for which, though both be unoriginate, God on the one hand is impassible, unchangeable, immovable, actively operative, while the other is on the contrary passible, changeable, unstable, transformable.

‘How then could they harmonize and agree in their course? Did God adapt Himself to the nature of matter, and so work it artistically? But this surely is absurd, that God should work like men, as a goldsmith, and a stonecutter, and in all the other handicrafts in which materials can be shaped and modelled.

‘But if He gave to matter such qualities as He chose according to His own wisdom, and set His seal upon it in the manifold forms and varieties of shape and pattern of His own workmanship, then this is both a reverent and true account, and gives additional confirmation to the belief that God the real substance of the universe is unoriginate,

‘For together with the being unoriginate He also combined His proper mode of existence. There is much then to be said against these men also, but it does not lie in our way now: yet in comparison with the most atheistical polytheists these are the more reverent.’

Such are the extracts from Dionysius: but listen also to what Origen says.

[1] 333 c 6 Dionysius of Alexandria, Against Sabellius,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius only

Chapter 20

[ORIGEN] [1] ‘IF it is a difficulty to any one that, because of the case of human artists, he cannot admit that God furnished the existing world without any substratum of unoriginate matter, since neither can a statuary make his proper work without bronze, nor a carpenter without timber, nor a builder without stones, we must question him about God’s power, whether God, if He wills to establish whatever He chooses, there being no defect nor weakness in His will, cannot establish that which He chooses.

‘For as, according to all who bring in providence in their own argument, the qualities which were non-existent are established by Him as He chooses for the orderly arrangement of the whole by His unspeakable power and wisdom, so, the reason being the same in both cases, His will is able to bring into existence all the substance that He needs.

‘For to those who will not admit that this is so we shall put the question, whether it does not follow from their argument that God by a lucky chance found the substance unorigiuate, without which, had it not been supplied to Him by its unoriginate character, He could have produced no work at all, but would have continued to be no Creator, no Father, no Benefactor, no Good Being, nor anything else that is with good reason predicated of God.

‘Whence also came the measurement of just so much of the substratum of matter as to suffice for the establishment of a world of the actual size? For it would seem as if some providence anterior to God must have supplied Him with the matter, providing that the art existing in Him should not have mere empty ideas from the want of any substance, with which He could co-operate in embellishing the world with so great beauty.

‘Whence also has matter become capable of receiving every quality which God wills, unless God Himself made it for His own use just so much and such as He wished to have?

‘At all events if we admit as a hypothesis that matter is unoriginate, this is what we shall say to those who wish to have it so; if without any providence supplying the, material substance to God it has become such as it is, what could providence, if it existed, have done more than their spontaneous chance?

‘And if God Himself, when matter was non-existent, chose to prepare it, what would His wisdom and divine power have done more than that which, as supposed, arose from the unoriginate? For if it is found that the same result would have been produced by providence, which was produced even without providence, what reason is there why we should not dispense with the Demiurge and the Artificer in the case of the world-order also?

‘For just as it is absurd in the case of this ordered world, so skilfully contrived, to say that it has become such without help from a wise Artificer, so it is also equally unreasonable that the matter, being of such extent, and such quality, and so pliable to the Artificer, the Word of God, has been unoriginate.

‘In answer, however, to those who compare the fact that no workman makes anything without material, we must say that they are comparing dissimilar cases. For providence supplies every artificer with his material, as coming from some former art either human or divine. This then will at present suffice in answer to those who, because it is said, “And the earth was invisible and unarranged,’’ [2] think that material substance is unoriginate.’

So far this author. But the Hebrew Philo also in his book Concerning Providencegives the following account of matter:

[1] 334 d 1 Origen, Commentary on Genesis,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius alone

[2] 336 a 8 Gen. i. 2

Chapter 21. Philo on the Same

[PHILO IUDAEUS] [1] ‘BUT concerning the quantity of the material substance, if it has indeed been created, there is this to be said. With a view to the creation of the world God estimated an exactly sufficient quantity of matter, so that there might be neither deficiency nor excess. For it would have been absurd that, whereas particular artists whenever they are making anything, and especially any costly thing, measure the quantity of materials that will suffice, yet He who devised numbers and measures and their equivalent relations to each other, should not have taken thought for a sufficiency.

‘I shall therefore confidently assert that the world needed neither less nor more material substance for its furnishing, since otherwise it would not have been perfect, nor complete in all its parts; whereas now it has been well wrought and completed out of a perfect supply of material substance. For it is the proper mark of a workman thoroughly skilled in his art to see that he has sufficient material before beginning any fabric.

‘Although therefore a man, even if he were superior in knowledge to all others, being unable entirely to escape from error which is natural to mortals, might perhaps be deceived in regard to the quantity of the matter, when practising his art, adding to it at one time as too little, and at another time taking from it as too much; yet He who is a kind of fountain of all knowledge was not likely to supply Himself with too little or too much of anything, inasmuch as He employs measures elaborated to a marvellous exactness, all satisfactory.

‘But he who chooses to prate at random, might as well at once bring forward against us the works of all artists as having gained an advantage in their construction by the addition or diminution of something in the materials. However that may be, it is the part of sophistry to invent quibbles, but of wisdom to examine thoroughly everything in nature.’

Let this suffice to show the character of Philo’s opinions. Maximus too, a man not undistinguished in the Christian life, has composed a special treatise Concerning Matter;from which I think it will be useful to quote some sentences of moderate length, for the accurate decision of the question before us.

[1] b 5 Philo Iud. On Providence,tom. ii. p. 625 M. Fragment preserved by Eusebius alone

Chapter 22

[MAXIMUS] [1] ‘I DO not suppose that you any more than myself are ignorant that it is impossible for two unoriginate things to subsist together, although you certainly seem to have attached to your argument this presupposition, that it is absolutely necessary to affirm one of two things, either that God is separate from matter, or on the other hand that He is inseparable from it.

‘Should any one therefore choose to say that He is united with it, that will be an assertion that the Uncreate is one only; for each will be a part of the other, and being parts each of the other they will not be two uncreated, but one consisting of different parts; for as we do not say that man though consisting of different parts is broken up into the small coin of many created things, but, as reason requires, we say that man is one being of many parts created by God, so, if God is not separate from matter, we must necessarily say that the Uncreated is one only.

‘But if any one shall affirm that He is separate, there must of necessity be something that is intermediate between the two, which also makes their separation evident. For it is impossible that one thing can be proved to be separate from another, when there is no third in which the separation between them is found. And this stands true not only in this and any single case, but in very many.

‘For the argument which we used in the case of two uncreated beings must necessarily succeed equally well, if the uncreated things were admitted to be three. For in their case also I should ask, whether they are separated one from another, or on the contrary each united to his neighbour.

‘So if any one should choose to say that they were united, he will receive the same answer as the first; but if, on the contrary, that they are separated, he cannot avoid the necessary existence of something that separates them.

‘But if perchance any one should say that there is also a third statement which may fitly be made concerning things uncreated, that is, that God is not separated from matter, nor on the other hand united with it as a part, but that God exists as it were locally in matter or matter in God, let him receive the conclusive answer, that if we call matter the place of God, we must of necessity say that He can also be contained, and is circumscribed by matter.

‘Moreover He must be carried about like matter in a disorderly way, and does not remain settled and constant in Himself, when that in which He exists is carried now this way and now that. And besides this we must also say that God has existed in things of worse nature. For if matter was once without order, and He wishing to change it for the better put it into order, there was a time when God was in things without order.

‘I might also fairly ask this question, whether God completely filled matter, or was in some portion only of it. If then any one should choose to say that God was in some portion of matter, he makes Him very much smaller than matter, if indeed a part of it contained the whole of Him: but if he should say that God is in all matter, he has to explain how He was to work upon it. For he must either say that there was a sort of contraction of God, and that when this was effected He wrought upon that part from which He had receded; or else that He wrought upon Himself together with the matter, not having any place into which He could withdraw.

‘If however any one shall say that matter is in God, it is equally necessary to inquire whether it is by God’s being separated from Himself, just as tribes of living creatures subsist in the air, by its being divided and parted for the reception of the creatures that arise in it; or whether matter is in God as in a place, that is, as water is in land.

‘For if we should say, “As in the air,” we must necessarily say that God is divisible: but if, “As water is in land,” and if matter was in confusion and disorder, and moreover contained evils, we are compelled to say that God is the place of disorder and evil: which seems to me an irreverent statement, nay more, a dangerous one. For you claim the existence of matter in order to avoid calling God the author of evil, and while wishing to escape from this you say that He is the receptacle of evil.

‘Now if you had said that from the nature of existing creatures you supposed matter to be uncreated, I should have had much to say about matter in proof that it cannot possibly be uncreated. But since you said that the origin of evil was the cause of such a supposition, I therefore think it well to proceed to the examination of this latter point. For when a clear statement has been given of the mode in which evils exist, and of the impossibility of denying that God is the author of evil, if matter is attributed to Him, I think that such a supposition is utterly overthrown.

‘You say then that co-existing from the beginning with God there is matter without qualities, out of which He formed the beginning of this world? ‘

‘Such is my idea.’

‘Well then, if matter was without qualities, and if the world has been made by God, and there are qualities in the world, God must have been the maker of the qualities.’

‘That is true.’

‘Now since I heard you say before, that it is impossible for anything to be made out of the non-existent, answer me this question of mine. Do you think that the qualities of the world have not been produced out of pre-existing qualities?’

‘I think so.’

‘But are something else besides the substances?’

‘That is so.’

‘If then God made the qualities neither out of pre-existing qualities, nor out of the substances, because they are not themselves substances, we are compelled to say that they have been made by God out of non-existents. And hence I thought it was too much for you to say, that it was impossible to suppose that anything has been made by God out of non-existents.

‘However, let the argument on this point stand as follows: Even among ourselves we see men making some things out of what is non-existent, however much they seem to be making them in some material: as for instance let us take our example in the case of architects. For they make cities not out of cities, and temples in like manner not out of temples.

‘But if, because there are substances underlying these things, you suppose that they make them out of existing things, your argument deceives you. For it is not the substance that makes the city, or the temples, but the art which is employed about the substance; and the art is not produced out of some underlying art in the substances, but is produced out of an art which is non-existent in them.

‘But I suppose you will meet my argument in this way, that the artist makes the art which is in the material substance out of the art which he has in himself. Now in answer to this I think it may fairly be said, that it is not produced even in the man out of any underlying art. For it is not possible to grant that the art exists independently by itself, since it is one of the accidents, and one of those things which have existence given to them at the moment when they are produced in a substance.

‘For the man will exist even apart from his skill as an architect, but this will have no existence unless there be first a man. And hence we are compelled to say that it is the nature of the arts to be produced in men out of what is non-existent. If therefore we have now shown this to be so in the case of men, why was it not proper to say that God was able to make not only qualities but also substances out of what was non-existent? For the proof that it is possible for something to be made out of what is non-existent shows that this is the case with the substances also.

‘But since you are anxious to inquire concerning the origin of evil, I will pass to the discussion of that subject. And I wish first to ask you a few questions. Do you think that evils are substances, or qualities of substances?

‘I think it is right to say that they are qualities of substances.

‘But matter, we said, has no quality nor shape?

‘So I declared in the preface to my argument.

‘If therefore evils are qualities of substances, and matter had no qualities, but God, you said, was the maker of qualities, God must be also the creator of evils. When therefore even in this way it is impossible to say that God is not the cause of evils, it seems to me superfluous to attach matter to Him. But if you have anything to say against this, begin your argument.

‘If our inquiry arose out of contentiousness, I should not think it right to give a second definition of evils: but since it is rather for the sake of friendship and the benefit of our neighbour that we are examining the questions, I think it right to allow a new definition concerning them.

‘I think it must have been long manifest to you, that my purpose and my earnest desire in our arguments is, that I do not wish to gain a victory by plausible statement of falsehood, but that the truth should be shown by means of accurate inquiry. And I clearly understand that you also are so disposed. Wherefore employ without any diffidence whatever kind of method you think will enable you to find the truth: for by employing the better method you will benefit not only yourself, but certainly me also on matters of which I am ignorant.’

‘I think you plainly admitted that evils also are a kind of substances? ‘

‘Yes, for I do not see them existing anywhere apart from substances.’

‘Since then you say, my good sir, that evils also are substances, it is necessary for us to examine the definition of substance. Is it your opinion that substance is a kind of concrete body? ‘

‘It is.’

‘And does the concrete body subsist of itself independently, not requiring anything from whose previous existence it may receive its being? ‘

‘Just so.’

‘And do you think that evils depend on action of some kind? ‘

‘So it seems to me.’

‘And do actions come into being at the moment when the agent is present?’

‘Such is the case.’

‘And when the agent does not exist, there will never be any action of his? ‘

‘There will not.’

‘Well then, if substance is a kind of concrete body, and this requires nothing in union with which it may begin to exist, and if evils are actions of some agent, and if actions do require something in union with which they begin to exist, evils cannot be substances.

‘But if evils are substances, and murder is an evil, murder will be a substance: yet surely murder is an action of some one, and so murder is not a substance. If however you mean that the agents are substances, I too agree. For example, a man who is a murderer, in respect of his being man is a substance: but the murder which he does is not a substance, but a work of the substance.

‘So we say in one case that the man is evil, because of his committing murder, and in a contrary case that he is good, because of his doing good. And these names are attached to the substance in consequence of its accidents, which are not itself: for the substance is not murder, nor again adultery, or any of the like evils. But just as the grammarian is named from grammar, and the rhetorician from rhetoric, and the physician from the art of physic, though his substance is neither the art of physic nor yet rhetoric, nor grammar, but receives the name from its accidents, from which it seems fit to be so called, although it is neither one nor the other of them, in like manner it appears to me that the substance also acquires an additional name from what are thought to be evils, though it is neither of them.

‘And in like manner if you imagine some other being in the mind as the cause of evils in men, I would have you consider that he also, inasmuch as he works in them and suggests the doing evil, is himself evil in consequence of what he does. For he too is said to be evil for this reason that he is the doer of evils. But the things which any one does are not himself, but his actions, from which he receives the name of being evil.

‘For if we were to say that he himself is what he does, and if he does murders and adulteries and thefts and all the like, then he himself is these: and if he is himself these, and these gain real existence at the time of being done, and in ceasing to be done cease to exist, and it is by men that they are done—then the men must be the makers of themselves and the causes of their own being and ceasing to be.

‘Whereas if you say that these are his actions, he has the character of being evil from what he does, not from what constitutes his substance. But we said that a man is called evil from the accidents pertaining to his substance, which are not the substance itself, as the physician from the art of physic.

‘If then each man is evil in consequence of his actions, and if his actions receive a beginning of existence, then that man also began to be evil, and these evils too had a beginning. And if this is so, a man will not be without a beginning in evil, nor evils un-originate, because we say that they originate with him.’

‘The argument against your opponent you seem to me, my friend, to have completed satisfactorily. For from the premises which you assumed for your argument you seemed to draw the conclusion fairly. For in very truth, if matter was without qualities, and God is the maker of qualities, and evils are qualities, then God must be the maker of evils.

‘As to the argument then against that opponent, let us grant that it has been well stated: but in my opinion it is false to say that matter has no qualities; for of no substance whatever is it permissible to say that it is without qualities. For while describing what kind of thing matter is, the speaker indicates its quality by saying that it is without qualities, for that is a certain kind of quality.

‘Therefore, if you please, take up the argument again from the beginning against me; since in my opinion matter has qualities eternally and without beginning. For so I maintain that evils arise from the emanation of matter, in order that God may not be the cause of evils, but matter the cause of them all.’

‘I welcome your ready zeal, my friend, and commend your earnestness in these discussions. For certainly every one who wishes to learn ought not to assent simply and at random to what is said, but should make a strict examination of’the arguments. For even if the opponent by giving a false definition affords his adversary an opportunity of drawing such a conclusion as he pleases, it does not follow that he will persuade the hearer of this, but if he shall say what seems possible to be said fairly. From which one of two things must follow; for either he will gain the full benefit of hearing an answer to the question which seems to be stirred, or he will convict his opponent in the argument of saying what is not true.

‘I think then that you ought not to have stated that matter possesses qualities eternally. For if this is so, of what will God be the maker? For whether we say substances, these we affirm existed before; or on the other hand qualities, these also were there.

‘Since therefore substance exists, and qualities also, it seems to me superfluous to say that God is a creator. But that I may not seem to be arranging an argument for myself, do you now answer the question, in what way do you say that God is a creator? Is it that He changed the substances so that they were no longer those which they once were, but became others different from them? Or that He kept the substances the same that they were before, but changed their qualities? ‘

‘I do not at all think that there has been any change of substances: for this appears to me an absurd thing to say. But I assert that there has been a certain change of the qualities, in respect to which I say that God is a creator; just as if one should chance to say that a house has been made out of stones, of which we cannot say that they are no longer stones in their substance, when the stones have become a house.

‘For I say that the house has been made by the quality of construction, the former quality of the stones having evidently been changed. Just so it seems to me that God also, while the substance remains, has made a certain change in its qualities, in reference to which I say that the creation of this world has come from God.’

‘Since therefore you assert that a certain change of the qualities has come from God, answer me a few questions which I propose to ask. Tell me now whether like myself you also think that evils are qualities of substances? ‘

‘I think so.’

‘And were these qualities in matter eternally, or had they a beginning of existence?’

‘I say that these very qualities were eternally co-existent with matter.’

‘But do you not say that God has made some change of the qualities?’

‘That is what I say.’

‘Was the change then for the better or for the worse? ‘

‘I am disposed to say, for the better.’

‘Well then, if evils are qualities of matter, and God changed its qualities for the better, we are compelled to ask, whence came the evils. For the qualities did not remain of the same kind as they were by nature. Either, if there were no evil qualities previously, but such qualities, you say, have grown around the matter from the first qualities having been changed by God, God must be responsible for the evils, as having changed what were not evil qualities so that they now are evil.

‘Or do you not think that God changed the evil qualities for the better, but say that the rest, and so many only as were neither good nor bad for the purpose of arranging the world, have been changed by God? ‘

‘So I held from the beginning.’

‘How then do you say that He has left the qualities of the bad as they were? Was it that He was able to annihilate them also, but had not the will; or that He had not the power? For if you say that He had the power but not the will, you must necessarily admit that He is responsible for them, because though He had power to bring evils to an end, He permitted them to remain as they were, especially at the time when He began to operate on matter.

‘For if He had taken no care at all about matter, He would not have been responsible for what He permitted to remain. But when He began to operate on a certain portion of it, but left a portion as it was, though He had power to change that also for the better, it seems to me that He incurred the responsibility of causing it, as having left a portion of matter to be mischievous in the destruction of the part on which He operated.

‘Moreover in regard to this part it seems to me that the very greatest wrong has been done: this part, I mean, of matter which He so arranged that it now participates in evils. For if one were to examine the facts carefully, he would find that matter has now fallen into a worse condition than its former disorder. For before it was arranged in order, it might have had no sensation at all of evil; but now each of its parts becomes sensible of evils.

‘Now let me give you an example in the case of a man. For before he was fashioned and made a living creature by the Creator’s skill, he had from his nature the advantage of not participating in any evil at all: but from the time of his being made man by God, he also receives the sensation of approaching evil, and this, which you say has been done by God for the benefit of matter, is found rather to have been added to it for the worse.

‘But if you say that the reason why evils have not been made to cease was that God was not able to annihilate them, you will be asserting that God is deficient in power: and the want of power will mean either that He is by nature weak, or that being overcome by fear He has been brought into subjection by some greater power.

‘If then you will dare to say that God is weak by nature, you seem to me to be in danger for your very salvation: but if through being overcome by fear from the greater power, the evils will be greater than God, as prevailing over the impulse of His will; which seems to me an absurd thing to say of God.

‘For why will not rather these evils be gods, as being able according to your argument to overcome God, since we say that God is that which has the authority over all things?

‘I wish, however, to ask you a few questions also about matter itself. So tell me now, whether matter was something simple or compound: for the diversity of its products brings me round to such a mode of examining this subject. Since if matter was simple and uniform, but the world compound, and composed out of different substances and mixtures, (it is impossible to say that it has been made out of matter, because compounds cannot be composed out of a single thing which has no qualities); for “compound” signifies a mixture of several simple things.

‘But if on the other hand you should choose to say that matter is compound, you must of course say that it has been composed out of certain simple things. Now if it was composed out of simple things, those simple things once existed by themselves, and matter has come from their composition; whence also it is shown to be created.

‘For if matter is compound, and compounds are constituted out of simples, there was once a time when matter did not exist, that is to say, before the simples came together. But if there was once a time when matter did not exist, but never a time when the uncreate did not exist, matter cannot be uncreate. Henceforward, however, there will be many uncreate things. For if God was uncreate, as well as the simple elements out of which matter was composed, the uncreate will not be two only.

But is it your opinion that no existing thing is contrary to itself?’

‘It is.’

‘And is water contrary to fire? ‘

‘It appears to me contrary.’

‘And in like manner darkness to light, and heat to cold, and also moist to dry? ‘

‘I think it is so.’

‘Therefore if no existing thing is contrary to itself, (and these are contrary to each other) they will not be one and the same matter, nor yet from the same matter. I wish, however, to ask you again another question like this. Do you think that the parts of a thing are not destructive one of another? ‘

‘I do.’

‘And that fire and water, and the rest in like manner, are parts of matter? ‘

‘They are so.’

‘Well then? Do you not think that water is destructive of fire, and light of darkness, and all the other similar cases? ‘

‘I do think so.’

‘Therefore if the parts of a thing are not destructive one of another, while the parts of matter are destructive one of another, they will not be parts one of another: and if they are not parts one of another, they will not be parts of the same matter: nay more, they will not themselves he matter, because, according to the adversary’s argument, no existing thing is destructive of itself.

‘For nothing is contrary to itself; because it is the nature of contraries to be contrary to others. As for example white is not contrary to itself, but is said to be the contrary of black: and light is shown in like manner not to be contrary to itself, but appears to have that relation to darkness, and very many other things of course in the same way.

‘If therefore there were also one kind of matter only, it would not be contrary to itself: but since such is the nature of contraries, it is proved that the one only kind of matter has no existence.’

So far the author before mentioned. And since the discourse has now been sufficiently extended, we will pass on to the eighth book of the Preparation for the Gospel; and after invoking the help of God, will fill up what is wanting to the preceding speculation.

[Footnotes moved to end and numbered]

[1] 337 b 3 Maximus: cf. Origen, Philocalia,c. 24; Methodius, On Free WillI, 5. 1

Book 8

Preface

IN the preceding Book, I have traced the lives of the Hebrews of old time before the appearance of Moses, men beloved of God who proved that title true by crowning themselves with the rewards of every virtue. Their pious doctrines also and instructions I described, and moreover their perfectly true and religious beliefs concerning God, which we have confessed that we Christians had come to love and to desire. And now, following the order of succession, I will pass on to the civil polity in the time of Moses, which after that first stage in religion presents a second, namely that which, is provided with legal ordinances quite peculiar to the Jewish nation.

For we shall prove at the proper opportunity that the institutions of Moses were suited to Jews alone, and not to the other nations of the world, nor were possible to be observed by all men, I mean by those who dwelt at a distance from the land of Judaea, whether Greeks or barbarians.

But now I am going to set forth this mode of life, I mean the life in the time of Moses, not in words of my own, but as before only in the words of the very authors who have been approved among the Jews for their hereditary learning: for I think it is proper for me to present the testimonies on which my proofs rest, in the same way as I began, through the authors properly belonging to each subject.

As therefore I called up Phoenicians, and Egyptians, and Greeks as witnesses of the matters well known among themselves in their own country, so it seems to me that the present occasion properly claims these Jewish witnesses, and not that I should myself be supposed to be giving a superficial sketch of matters foreign to me.

But before coming to this point, I think it necessary to set plainly before my readers, how the oracles of the Jews passed to the Greeks, and what was the method settled for the interpretation of the sacred writings entrusted to them; showing also the number and character of the interpreters, and the great zeal of the king, whereby those oracles came to be translated into the Greek language; for the explanation of these matters also will not be unadvisable in regard to my proof of the Preparation for the Gospel.

For when the light of the salutary preaching of our Saviour was all but ready to shine forth unto all men in the Roman empire, more than ordinary reason required that the prophecies concerning Him, and the mode of life of the pious Hebrews of old, and the lessons of their religious teaching, hidden from long ages in their native tongue, should now at length come forth to all the nations, to whom the knowledge of God was about to be introduced; and then God Himself, the author of these blessings, anticipating the future by His foreknowledge as God, arranged that the predictions concerning Him who was to appear before long as the Saviour of all mankind, and to establish Himself as the teacher of the religion of the One Supreme God to all the nations under the sun, should be revealed to them all, and be brought into the light by being accurately translated, and set up in public libraries. So God put it into the mind of King Ptolemy to accomplish this, in preparation, as it seems, for that participation in them by all the nations which was so soon to take place.

For we should not otherwise have got from the Jews those oracles which they would have hidden away for their jealousy of us; but these in consequence of the divinely ordered interpretation were vouchsafed to us in a translation by the men who were approved among them for intelligence and hereditary culture.

These things are described by Aristeas, a man who besides being learned was moreover engaged in the transactions of the time of the second Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, in whose reign the translation of the Jewish Scriptures, made through the zeal of the king, was awarded a place in the libraries of Alexandria. But it is time to listen to the author himself relating the matter word for word in the following manner:

Chapter 2

[ARISTEAS] ‘WHEN Demetrius Phalereus was appointed over the king’s library, he acquired large sums of money with the view of collecting all the books in the world, and by making purchases and transcriptions brought the king’s purpose to completion, as far as in him lay.

‘So being asked in our presence how many myriads there are of books, he answered—“Over twenty myriads, O king: and I shall endeavour to have the rest made up to fifty myriads in a short time. It has also been notified to me that the customs of the Jews are worthy of transcription and of a place in thy library.”

‘”What is there then,” said the king, “to hinder you from doing this? For all that you can require has been assigned to you.” And Demetrius replied—“An interpretation also is required; for in Judaea they use characters peculiar to themselves, just as the Egyptians use their own position of the letters, inasmuch as they have also a language of their own. And they are supposed to employ Syriac, but that is not so, for it is a different kind of language.”

‘And when the king understood everything, he ordered a letter to be written to the High Priest of the Jews, in order that the aforesaid matters might be completed.’

And further on he adds:

‘And when this was accomplished, the king commanded Demetrius to report on the description of the Jewish books. For all matters were arranged by these kings in ordinances and with great accuracy, and nothing thrown off at random. For this reason also I have given a place to the report and to the copies of the letters, and to the number of the offerings sent, and the manufacture of each, because every one of them was distinguished by the grandeur of the parts and artistic skill. A copy of the report is as follows:’

Chapter 3

‘”To THE GREAT KING FROM DEMETRIUS.

‘”IN accordance with thy command, O king, that the books which were wanting to the completion of the library might be collected, and that the parts which had been damaged might be properly restored, I have very carefully given my attention to these matters, and now present my report to thee.

‘”There are wanting the books of the Law of the Jews, together with some few others. For they are expressed in Hebrew characters and language, and are rather carelessly written, and not as they are in the original, according to the report of those who know best, since they have not had the benefit of the king’s providence.

‘”But it is right that thou shouldest possess these also thoroughly corrected, because this legislation, being divine, is very full of wisdom and sincerity. For which reason both prose-writers and poets and the multitude of historians have avoided the mention of the aforesaid books, and of the men who ordered their life according to them, because, as Hecataeus of Abdera says, the mode of thought therein is of a pure and venerable character.

‘”If therefore it seems good, O king, there shall be a letter written to the High Priest in Jerusalem, to send elderly men who have lived the most honourable lives, and are experienced in matters of their own Law, six from each tribe, in order that we may test the agreement by a large number, and after receiving the exact interpretation, may give it a distinguished place, in a manner worthy both of the circumstances and of thy purpose. Good fortune be ever thine.”

‘And when this report had been presented, the king commanded a letter to be written to Eleazar on this subject, informing him also of the release of the captives which had taken place. He also gave for the manufacture of bowls and cups, and a table, and flagons, fifty talents weight of gold, and seventy talents weight of silver, and a large quantity of precious stones.

‘And he commanded the treasurers to give to the artists the choice of whatever they should prefer, and of current coin as much as a hundred talents for sacrifices and other things. Concerning the workmanship, we will give you information, as soon as we have gone through the copies of the letters. The king’s letter was in the following form:’

Chapter 4

‘”KING PTOLEMY TO THE HIGH PRIEST ELEAZAR, GREETING AND HEALTH.

‘”WHEREAS it happens that many Jews who were carried away from Jerusalem by the Persians in the time of their power, have been settled in our country, and many more have come with my father into Egypt as prisoners of war, of whom he enrolled many in the military class on higher pay, and likewise, when he judged the chief of them to be faithful, built fortresses and entrusted them to their charge, in order that through them the native Egyptians might be intimidated: and whereas we having succeeded to the kingdom deal very kindly with all men, and more especially with your fellow countrymen, for we have released more than ten myriads of them from captivity, by paying their masters the due price in money, and amending whatever wrong was done through the attacks of the mobs, having taken a pious resolution to do this and to dedicate a thank-offering to the Most High God, who has preserved our kingdom in peace and in the highest glory in all the world: we have also enrolled in the army those of the most vigorous age, and appointed those whom we judged capable to be about our person and worthy of trust about the court.

‘”And whereas we wish to show favour to thee also and to all the Jews throughout the world, and to those who shall come after, we have purposed that your Law should be translated in the Greek language out of what you call the Hebrew language, in order that these books also may be kept in our library with the rest of the royal books.

‘”Thou wilt, therefore, be acting well and in a manner deserving our favour, in choosing out men of honourable lives, advanced in years, who are skilled in the Law and able to interpret it, out of each tribe six, that so agreement may be obtained from the large number, because the inquiry concerns matters of great importance. For we think that if this is accomplished, we shall gain great glory from it.

‘”Now concerning this business we have sent Andreas one of the chiefs of our bodyguard and Aristeas, men in honour with us, to converse with thee, and to bring the first-fruits of our offerings to the temple, with a hundred talents of silver for sacrifices and other things. And do thou also write to us on whatsoever thou desirest: for thou wilt gratify us, and be doing what deserves our friendship; for whatever things thou mayest prefer shall be performed as quickly as possible. Farewell.”

‘In answer to this, Eleazar wrote back appropriately as follows:’

Chapter 5

‘”ELEAZAR HIGH PRIEST TO KING PTOLEMY, TRUE FRIEND, GREETING.

‘”IF thou art in good health thyself, and Queen Arsinoe thy sister, and thy children, that would be well, and as we wish; we ourselves also are well. On the receipt of thy letter we greatly rejoiced at thy purpose and noble design; and having assembled the whole people we read it before them, that they might know the reverence thou hast toward our God.

‘”We exhibited also the cups which thou hast sent, twenty of gold, and thirty of silver, five bowls, and a table for dedication of offerings, and a hundred talents of silver for offering sacrifices, and for whatever repairs the temple may yet need; and these have been brought by Andreas, one of those honoured in thy presence, and Aristeas, noble and virtuous men, eminent in learning, and worthy in all respects of thy training and just esteem.

‘”They communicated thy commands to us, and have also received from us an answer befitting thy deeds. For in all things whatsoever are expedient for thee. even if they are contrary to our natural disposition, we shall obey: since this is a mark of friendship and affection. For in many ways thou hast conferred upon our citizens benefits great and never to be forgotten.

‘”Immediately, therefore, we offered sacrifices on behalf of thee, and thy sister and children, and friends; and all the people prayed that it may happen to thee always according to thy desire, and that God who ruleth over all may preserve thy kingdom in peace with honour.

‘”Also, in order that the transcription of the sacred Law may be made conveniently and with safety, I chose out, in the presence of all, men of honour and virtue, of mature years, from each tribe six, and these I have sent with the Law. Thou wilt do well then, 0 righteous sovereign, in giving directions, as soon as the transcription of the books is made, that the men may be sent back to us again in safety. Farewell.” ‘

Aristeas next interposes many statements concerning the proposed business, and after his account of the translation of the Scriptures adds in exact words:

‘And as soon as these volumes had been read, the priests and the elder men among the interpreters and rulers of the city, and the leaders of the people stood up and said: “Since the interpretation of the books has been well and reverently made and accurately in every point, it is right that they should continue as they are, and that no revision take place.” And when all had shouted in approval of this saying, they commanded that, as their custom is, any one who should make a revision by adding or by taking away or by changing anything at all in what had been written should be accursed: in which they did rightly, in order that it might be always preserved as an overflowing fountain.

‘When this also had been announced to the king, he was greatly rejoiced: for he thought that the purpose which he entertained had been safely accomplished. And all was read over before him, and he greatly admired the mind of the Lawgiver, and said to Demetrius: “How is it that, when so great deeds had been performed, none of the historians or poets ever attempted to make mention of them?” And he replied: “Because the legislation was sacred, and had come through God, and some of those who attempted it were smitten by God and ceased from the attempt.”

‘For he said that he had heard from Theopompus, that, when intending rather rashly to add to his history some of the passages which had been previously translated out of the Law, he had suffered from confusion of mind more than thirty days, but in the interval of relief he besought God that it might be made clear to him, what the reason of the occurrence was: and when he had been taught in a dream, that he had been over-curious in his desire to publish the divine oracles to common men, and had desisted, he was thus restored to his senses.

‘From Theodectes also, the tragic poet, I was informed that as he was going to convert one of the events recorded in the Book into a drama he was stricken with cataract in the eyes, and having got a suspicion that it had happened to him for this reason, he propitiated God, and after many days was restored.

‘And when the king had received, as I said before, the report from Demetrius concerning these books, he reverenced them, and commanded that great care should be taken of the books, and that they should be preserved in purity.’

Let this abridgement from the writing of the aforesaid author suffice: so now let us take a view of the polity established by the legislation of Moses from authors illustrious among that people. And I will give the first place to the remarks of Philo on the journeying of the Jews from Egypt, which they made under Moses as their leader, quoting from the first book of what he entitled Hypothetica,where, in making his defence of the Jews as against their accusers, he speaks as follows:

Chapter 6

[PHILO IUDAEUS] [1] ‘THEIR ancient forefather was from Chaldaea, and this people, who had emigrated from Syria in old times, removed out of Egypt, as they were increasing in countless myriads, and the land was not sufficient for them; moreover they had been highly trained in youthful confidence of spirit, and God also began to indicate their departure by visions and dreams. Thus under divine influence they had fallen into a very great longing for the ancient land of their forefathers, from which that ancestor of theirs passed over into Egypt, either because God so determined, or he by some foresight of his own became most prosperous, so that from his time to the present the nation has existed and still continues, and is so exceedingly populous.’

Then after a few sentences he says:

‘Their leader in this exodus and journey was a man superior in no respect, if you will have it so, to men in general; so often did they reproach him as a deceiver and a mischievous flatterer. Yet what a noble deceit and craft was that, whereby, when all the people were thirsty and hungry and ignorant of the way and in want of everything, he not only carried them through in perfect safety, and as it were in the midst of abundance, with free passage from the nations that lay between, but also kept them free from mutual dissension, and very obedient towards himself! This, too, he did not, as might be supposed, for a little while, but longer than even a single household would probably dwell together in unanimity and all abundance. And neither thirst nor hunger nor bodily disease, nor fear for the future, nor ignorance of what was to happen, stirred up against that deceiver the tribes who were deluded and perishing around him!

‘Yet what would you have me say? That the man possessed any such great art, or power of eloquence, or wisdom, as to prevail over difficulties so many and so strange, which were leading them all on to destruction? For either we must admit that the men under him were not naturally ignorant nor discontented, but obedient and not wanting in provident, care for the future: or else, that though they were as bad as they could be, yet God soothed their discontents, and was, as it were, the presiding guardian both of their present and their future lot. For whichever of these cases may seem to you to be most true, it evidently is strongly in favour of praise and honour and admiration for the whole people.

‘These then were the circumstances of the exodus. But after they had come into this land, how in time they became settled and got possession of the country, is shown in the sacred records. For my own part, however, I desire not so much to follow the method of history, as to describe what was probable according to any fair calculation concerning them.

‘For which do you prefer, that still abounding in numbers, although they had been extremely afflicted, they were nevertheless strong, and then, with their arms in their hands, took forcible possession of the country, by conquering both Syrians and Phoenicians who were fighting in their own land? Or, are we to suppose that though they were unwarlike and unmanly, and extremely few, and unprovided with the means of war, they yet found respect in the eyes of these nations, and obtained the land with their willing consent? And that then after no long time they straightway built the Temple, and established the other requisites for religion and worship?

‘These things seem to show that they were acknowledged even among their enemies to be most highly favoured of God. For enemies those necessarily were, whose land they had suddenly invaded, to take it from them.

‘If then among these they met with respect and honour, is it not evident that they surpassed all others in good fortune? And what more than this are we to say next as the second or third point? Shall we speak of their good laws well obeyed, or of their holiness, and justice, and piety? So greatly did they admire that man, whoever he was who gave them their laws, that whatever he approved they approved also.

‘Whether, therefore, he advised them from his own reasoning, or as he was divinely taught, they referred it all to God: and though many years have passed, I cannot say exactly how many, but more at all events than two thousand years, they have not altered even a single word of what had been written by him, but would rather endure to die ten thousand times, than yield to any persuasion contrary to his laws and customs.’

After these statements Philo gives an epitome of the civil government founded for the Jewish nation out of the laws of Moses, writing as follows:

[1] 355 c 1 Philo Iud. Hypothetica, aFragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 7

[PHILO IUD.] ‘Is there then among that people any of these customs or anything like them, anything seemingly mild and gentle, admitting solicitations of justice, and pretexts, and delays, and assessments, and subsequent mitigations of penalties? Nothing; but all is simple and clear. If thou commit sodomy or adultery, if thou violate a child, not to speak of a boy, but even a girl, in like manner if thou prostitute thyself, if even at an unsuitable age thou have suffered, or seem, or intend to suffer, anything disgraceful, the penalty is death.

‘If thou outrage either a slave or a free man, if thou keep him in bonds, if thou take him away and sell him, if thou steal either common things or sacred, if thou be guilty of blasphemy, not only by deed but even by a chance word, against God Himself I may not even say (God forgive me for the very thought of such a thing), but against father or mother or thine own benefactor, again it is death, and that no common or ordinary death; but he who has only spoken blasphemy must be stoned to death, as though for blasphemous deeds he could not have been worse.

‘There were other laws again, such as, that wives should be ruled by their husbands, not from any motive of insult, but with a view to obedience in all things: that parents should rule their children, for safety and greater care: that every one should be master of his own possessions, unless at least he had invoked God’s name upon them, or gave them up as to God. But if it should happen that he so promised merely by a word, he is no longer allowed to lay hand or finger upon them, but is to be at once excluded from all.

‘Speak not of plundering what belongs to the gods, nor of stealing what others have offered; but even in regard to his own property, if, as I said, a word has fallen from him unawares, yet having spoken it, he must be deprived of all: but if he repents or tries to correct what he has said, even his life is to be taken from him.

‘Also in the case of others over whom a man has authority, there is the same principle. If a man declare a wife’s aliment to be consecrated, he must cease to support her: if a father does so to a son, or a ruler to his subject, the effect is the same. A release also of what had been consecrated was the most perfect and complete, when the High Priest absolved, for under God he had the right to receive it: but next to this, the absolution granted by those who in each case have greater authority is allowed to declare that God is propitiated, so that it is not compulsory to undertake the consecration.

‘There are countless other rules besides these, all that either rest upon unwritten customs and usages, or are contained in the laws themselves. Let no man himself do what he hates to have done to him: let him not take up what he did not lay down, neither from garden, wine-press, nor threshing-floor: let him not steal from a heap anything whatever, great or small; let him not begrudge fire to one that asks it; not shut up running waters; but to beggars and cripples collecting food, give it. as a pious offering to God.

‘Hinder not a corpse from burial, but help them to cast on more earth, enough at least for natural piety: disturb not at all the graves or monuments of the departed: add not bonds nor any further trouble to him who is in distress: destroy not the generative power of men by excision, nor of women by abortive drugs and other contrivances. Deal not with animals contrary to the way which either God or a lawgiver has enjoined: destroy not seed: enslave not thy offspring. Substitute not an unjust balance, nor a short measure, nor false coin: betray not the secrets of friends in a quarrel. What place then, in God’s name, can we give to those famous Buzygia?

‘But look at other precepts besides these. Separate not parents from children, not even if they are thy captives; nor wife from husband, even if thou art their master by lawful purchase. These, doubtless, are very grave and important commandments: but there are others of a trifling and ordinary character.[1] Rifle not the bird’s nest under thy roof: reject not the supplication of animals which flee as it were sometimes for protection: abstain from any harm that may be even less than these. You may say that these are matters of no importance; but at all events the law which governs them is important, and is the cause of very careful observance; the warnings also are important, and the imprecations of utter destruction, and God’s oversight of such matters, and His presence as an avenger in every place.’

Then after a few sentences he says:

‘Are you not surprised that during a whole day, perchance, or rather not one day only, but many, and these not following one another in immediate succession, but after intervals of as many as seven days (while the custom of the ordinary days always prevailed as is natural), they yet should not have transgressed one of these commandments? Does not this (you may ask) result merely from their practice of self-restraint, so that they are equally strong to work actively in any labour, and to cease from their work if necessary? Certainly not. But the Lawgiver thought it was necessary, even though at the cost of some great and extraordinary pains, that they should not only be able equally to do or leave undone all other things, but that they should be moreover well acquainted with their ancestral laws and customs.

‘What then did he do on these seventh days? He required them to assemble in the same place, and to sit down one with another in reverent and orderly manner, and listen to the laws, in order that none might be ignorant of them.

‘And so in fact they do always meet together and sit down one with another, most of them in silence, except when it is customary to add a word of good omen to what is being read. But some priest who is present, or one of the old men, reads to them the holy laws, and explains each separately till nearly eventide: and after that they are allowed to depart with a knowledge of their holy laws, and with great improvement in piety.

‘Do you not think this is more necessary for them than the most urgent business? So then they do not come to oracular interpreters with questions about what they should do or not do, nor do they of themselves act recklessly from ignorance of the laws; but whomsoever of them you accost and interrogate about the national customs, he can tell you readily and easily; and each seems qualified to impart a knowledge of the laws, husband to wife, and father to children, and master to servants.

‘Moreover it is easy to speak concerning the seventh year in like manner, though not perhaps quite the same. For they do not themselves abstain from work, as on those seventh days, but they leave their land fallow until the time comes again, for the sake of productiveness. For they think that it is much better after having had a rest, and that then it may be tilled for the next year, without having been exhausted by the continuance of cultivation.

‘The same thing you may see conducing to strength in our bodies; since it is not with a view to health only that physicians prescribe intervals of rest and certain relaxations from work: for what is always continuous and monotonous, especially in the case of labour, seems to be hurtful.

‘And this is a proof of it: for if any one were to promise to cultivate the land itself for them much more this seventh year than before, and to yield up all the fruits entirely to them, they would by no means accept it. For they think that they not only themselves need to rest from their labours (though even if they did so, it would be nothing strange), but that their land needs to get some relaxation and repose for a fresh beginning of care and cultivation afterwards.

‘Else what was there, on God’s part, to hinder them in the past year from letting the land beforehand, and collecting from those who cultivated it their tribute of the (seventh) year’s produce?

But, as I said, they will in no wise accept anything of this kind, from care, as I think, for the land.

‘And of their humanity, the following is in truth a great proof. For since they themselves rest from their work in that year, they think that they ought not to collect or store up the fruits that are produced, as not accruing to them from their own labours: but inasmuch as it is God who has provided for them these fruits, which the land produces of its own accord, they think it right that any who choose or are in want, travellers and others, should enjoy them with impunity.

‘Now on these points you have heard enough. For as to their Law having already established these rules for the seventh-day sabbaths you are not likely to question me, having probably often heard of this before from many physicians, and physiologists, and philosophers, what kind of influence it has upon the nature of all things, and especially upon the nature of man. This is the account of the seventh day.’

So far Philo. A similar account to his is given also by Josephus, in the second Book of his work On the Antiquity of the Jews,where he too writes in the following manner:

[1] 359 b 6 Deut. xxii. 6

Chapter 8

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘BUT who it was that made the best laws, and attained the worthiest belief concerning God, it is easy for us to discern from the laws themselves by comparing them one with another: for it is time now to speak of these points.

‘Now although the particular differences in the customs and laws received among all mankind are infinite, one may go over them thus in a summary way.

‘For some entrusted the authority of their civil government to monarchies, and some to oligarchical dynasties, and others to the commons. Our Lawgiver, however, paid no regard at all to these, but rendered our government, as one might call it by a strained expression, a Theocracy, ascribing the authority and the power to God, and persuading all the people to look unto Him, as being the Author of all good things, both those which are possessed by all men in common, and whatever they themselves obtained by praying to Him in difficulties; persuading them also that it was not possible for any either of one’s actions or of one’s inward thoughts to escape His knowledge.

‘But Him he represented as uncreated, and for ever unchangeable, surpassing in beauty all mortal form, and unknown in His essential nature, though known to us by His power.

‘I do not now stay to show that the wisest among the Greeks were taught to entertain these thoughts of God from the principles which he supplied: but that these thoughts are honourable and becoming to God’s nature and majesty, they have borne strong testimony; for Pythagoras and Anaxagoras and Plato, and the Stoic philosophers who came after him, and almost all others, have evidently entertained such thoughts of God’s nature.

‘But whereas these men addressed their philosophy to few, and did not dare to publish the truth of their doctrine to multitudes prejudiced with other opinions, our Legislator, inasmuch as he made his actions agree with his laws, not only persuaded the men of his own time, but also inspired those who were to be begotten of them in every age with a belief in God that nothing could remove.

‘And the reason was, that he far surpassed all others in the tendency of his legislation towards utility. For he did not make religion a part of virtue, but made other things parts of religion, and so looked at them all together and established them: I mean justice, temperance, fortitude, and the agreement of fellow citizens one with another in all things.

‘For all our actions and occupations, and all our discourse, have reference to piety towards our God: and none of these did he leave unexamined nor undetermined.

‘For there are in all education and moral training two methods, the one of which instructs by word, and the other by the training of moral habits. Other legislators therefore were divided in their judgements, and having chosen the one of these ways, each whichever pleased him, neglected the other. As for instance the Lacedaemonians and Cretans used to educate by habits, not by words; but the Athenians, and nearly all the other Greeks, enjoined by the laws what things men ought to do or leave undone, but took little care to habituate them thereto by actual deeds.

‘Our Lawgiver, however, combined both these ways with great care; for he neither left the practice of moral habits without explanation in words, nor suffered the teaching of the Law to go unpractised; but beginning at once from the nurture of infancy and from every man’s domestic mode of life, he left none even of the smallest matters freely dependent upon the wishes of those who were to deal with them; but even about kinds of food, from which one must abstain, and which one must adopt, and concerning those who should live in common with them, and concerning their diligence in labour and on the other hand their rest, he himself made the Law a limit and a rule, in order that living under this as a father and a master we might neither wilfully nor through ignorance commit any sin.

‘For he did not leave even the excuse from ignorance, but appointed the Law to be both the best and most necessary instruction, to be heard by them not merely once, nor twice nor many times; but every week he commanded them to desist from all other employments, and assemble for the hearing of the Law, and to learn it thoroughly and exactly, a thing which all legislators seem to have neglected.

‘And so far are the greatest part of mankind from living according to their own laws, that they hardly even know them; but when they sin, then they learn from others, that they have transgressed the law. Those too who administer the greatest and most absolute powers among them acknowledge their ignorance, for they appoint those who profess to be expert in the laws to preside with them over the administration of affairs.

‘But any one of us whom a man might ask about the laws would tell them all more easily th’an his own name. So by learning them thoroughly as soon as ever we become sensible of anything, we have them engraven as it were on our souls: and while there are few who transgress, no plea can possibly save from punishment.

‘It is this before all things that has produced in us so wonderful an agreement. For to have one and the same opinion concerning God, and no difference between one and another, is our daily life and customs, produces a most excellent harmony in men’s moral dispositions.

‘For among us alone a man will hear no statements concerning God contradictory one to another, though such things are frequent in other nations; for not only by ordinary men is the casual feeling of each expressed, but even among some of the philosophers there has been the same rashness of utterance, some having undertaken to exterminate God’s nature altogether by their arguments, while others deprive Him of His providence over mankind. Nor will one observe any difference in the habits of life; but among us there is a community in all men’s actions, and unity of statement, in agreement with the Law, concerning God, declaring that He takes oversight of all things.

‘Moreover in regard to our habits of life, a man may learn even from women and servants that all other things must have piety for their end. Hence also has resulted the charge which some bring against us, that we have not produced men who were inventors of novelties in words or in works.

‘For others think it a fine thing to abide by no customs derived from their forefathers, and testify to the shrewd wisdom of those who are boldest in transgressing them: but we on the contrary have understood that the only wisdom and virtue is neither in act nor in thought to contradict at all the original enactments of our Law.

‘And this conduct may reasonably be considered a proof that the Law was admirably ordained. For ordinances which have not this character are proved by the tests of experience to require amendment: but for us, who were persuaded that the Law was from the beginning ordained in accordance with God’s will, it would thenceforth have been impious not to guard it safely.

‘For what part of it could one have altered? Or what could one have discovered better, or what transferred from other laws as more useful? Should the whole constitution of the state have been altered? But what could be nobler or more just than the constitution which has made God ruler of the whole, and allows the administration of the chief affairs to the priests in common, but withal has entrusted the government over the other priests to the Chief Priest of all?

‘These from the very first the Lawgiver appointed to their honourable office, not as superior in wealth nor in any other accidental advantages; but he placed the service of God in the hands of those of his companions who excelled others in persuasiveness and prudence.

‘And herein was an exact care both of the Law and of the other institutions: for the priests were appointed overseers of all things, and judges of disputed matters, and punishers of those who had been condemned.

‘What government then could be more holy than this? Or what honour more befitting to God, since the whole people were trained to religion, and the priests entrusted with an especial superintendence, and the whole state administered in the manner of a religious solemnity?

‘For what other nations call “mysteries” and “solemnities,” and cannot observe in practice for a few days, these things we observe through our whole lifetime with much delight and unalterable purpose.

‘What then are these premonitions and proclamations? They are simple and easily known. And the first and leading precept is that which says of God, God holds all things together, being all-perfect, and blessed, sufficing for Himself and for all; He is the beginning, middle, and end of all things, manifest in His works and gifts, and more conspicuous than any other being whatsoever, but to us in form and magnitude most invisible.

‘Every material, costly though it be, is unworthy to form His image; and every art unskilled to conceive a similitude: no likeness of Him was ever seen or conceived, or may without impiety be represented.

‘His works we behold, light, heaven, earth, sun and moon, waters, generations of animals, produce of fruits. These things God made, not with hands, not with labour, not with need of any fellow workers, but when He willed them to be beautiful, at once they were born in beauty.

‘Him all must follow, and serve Him in the practice of virtue; for this mode of worshipping God is the most holy.

‘One temple of One God (for like is ever dear to like), a temple common to all men for the common God of all. The priests continually serve Him, and their leader is ever the first by birth. He together with his fellow priests is to offer sacrifices to God, to guard the laws, to judge of disputed matters, to punish the convicted. Whoever refuses to obey him must suffer punishment, as guilty of impiety towards God Himself.

‘The sacrifices which we offer are not for our own surfeit and drunkenness (for these things are contrary to God’s will, and may be made a pretext for insolence and extravagance), but are sober, orderly, and simply arranged, that in sacrificing men may be most temperate. Also at the sacrifices we must first pray for the common salvation, and then for ourselves, for we are made for fellowship; and he who esteems this higher than his private interest would be most acceptable to God.

‘In prayer let God be invoked and entreated, not that He give good things (for He has given them of His own free will, and has imparted them in common to all), but that we may be able to receive them, and, when we have gotten, to keep them.

‘At the offering of sacrifices the Law has prescribed purifications from mourning for the dead, from defilement, from conjugal intercourse, and many other things, which it would be too long now to write. Such is our doctrine concerning God and His worship, and the same is also our law.[2]

‘Now what are the laws concerning marriages? Our law recognizes no other than the natural intercourse with a wife, and that, if it is to be for the sake of children. The intercourse of males it abhors; and should any one attempt it, the penalty is death.

‘It bids men marry, not out of regard to dowry, nor by forcible abduction, nor yet by crafty and deceitful persuasion, but to ask a woman in marriage from him who has the right to give her, and a woman suitable in respect of kin. Woman, it says, is inferior to man in all things: therefore let her obey, not to be insulted, but that she may be ruled: for God gave power to the man.

‘With her alone the husband must consort, and to attempt another’s wife is unholy. But should any one do this, no entreaty can save him from death; nor if he should violate a virgin betrothed to another man, nor if he should entice a married woman.

‘All children the Law ordered to be reared; and forbade women to cause abortion or to destroy what is begotten: but if discovered, she would be guilty of child-murder, for destroying life, and diminishing the human race.

‘So then if any should proceed to defile the marriage-bed, he can no longer be pure. Even after the lawful intercourse of man and wife, the Law enjoins ablution: it supposed this act to involve a transference of part of the soul to another place. For by growing into union with bodies the soul suffers ill, and again when separated from them by death. For which reason, in all such cases, the Law appointed purifications.

‘Moreover, not even on the birthdays of children did it permit us to celebrate a feast and make pretexts for drunkenness; but it directed the very beginning of education to be temperate, and commanded us to instruct children in the learning that relates to the laws, and that they should be acquainted with the deeds of their forefathers; in order that they may imitate these deeds, and being bred up in those laws may neither transgress them, nor have any excuse from ignorance.

‘It provided for the reverence due to the dead, not by costly funeral rites, nor by erection of conspicuous monuments, but appointed the nearest relations to perform the usual obsequies, and made it customary for all who were passing by at the time of a burial to draw near and join in the mourning. It also commands that the house and its inhabitants be purified from the defilement of death, in order that one who has committed murder may be very far from thinking that he is undefiled.

‘It ordained the honour of parents to be next to that of God; and the son who does not requite the benefits received from them, but fails in any point, it delivers over to be stoned.

‘It also says that the young must pay honour to every elder, since the eldest of all things is God.

‘It does not permit the concealment of anything from friends, because that is no friendship which does not trust in all things: and if any enmity occur, it has forbidden the disclosure of their secrets.

‘Should any one acting as a judge take bribes, the penalty is death. If one disregards a suppliant, when it is in his power to help him, he is responsible. What a man did not lay down, he must not take up. He is not to touch anything belonging to another. If he has lent money, he must not take usury. These ordinances, and many like to these, bind close our fellowship with one another.

‘But it is worth while to see also what was the mind of our Lawgiver in regard to equity towards men of other nations: for it will appear that he made the best of all provision, that we might neither destroy our own institutions, nor begrudge those who wished to share in them.

‘For all who are willing to come and live under the same laws with us, he receives in a friendly spirit, considering that affinity consists not only in race, but also in the purpose of life: but those who come to us only casually he did not wish to be mixed up in close communion with us.

‘He has, however, prescribed the other gifts which we are bound to impart; to supply to all that are in need fire, water, and food, to show them the roads, not to leave a corpse unburied.

‘Also in the treatment of those who are judged to be our enemies we must be equitable: for he does not let us ravage their land with fire, nor has he permitted us to cut down fruit-trees; nay more, he has forbidden us to spoil those who have fallen in battle, and has provided for captives, that no outrage be done to them, especially to women.

‘So far did he carry his zeal to teach us gentleness and humanity, that he did not neglect the care even of brute beasts; but permitted only the accustomed use of them, and forbade all other. Any of them which take refuge in our houses, like suppliants as it were, he forbade us to destroy; nor did he suffer us to slay the parents with the young: he bade us spare the labouring cattle even in an enemy’s country, and not put them to death.

‘Thus did he provide on all sides what tended to clemency, by using the aforesaid laws to instruct us, and on the other hand enacting the penal laws without any excuse against those who transgress. For most of the transgressors the penalty is death, if one commit adultery, if he violate a damsel, if he dare to make attempt on a man, if one so attempted submit to be abused.

‘In the case of slaves, also, the Law is equally inexorable. Moreover, if any one should cheat in regard to measures or weights, or in an unfair and fraudulent sale, and if one steal another’s property, and take up what he did not lay down, for all these there are penalties, not merely such as in other nations but more severe.

‘For in regard to injury to parents, or impiety towards God, if a man even think of it, he is immediately put to death.

‘For those, however, who act in all things according to the laws there is a reward not of silver nor gold, no, nor yet a crown of wild-olive or parsley, with a corresponding proclamation; but each man who has the testimony of his own conscience is persuaded by the prophetic declaration of the Lawgiver, and by God’s confirmation of his faith, that to those who have constantly kept His laws, and would readily die, if it were needful in their defence, God granted that they should be born again, and receive in exchange a better life.

‘I should hesitate to write thus now, were it not manifest to all by their actions that many of our countrymen many times ere now, to avoid uttering a word against the Law, have nobly preferred to endure all sufferings. And yet had it not been the case that our nation is well known to all men, and that our voluntary obedience to the laws is manifest, but had some one either read them to the Greeks, saying that he had written them himself, or had asserted that somewhere out of the limits of the known world he had met with men, who held such a reverent notion concerning God, and had through long ages lived in constant obedience to such laws, I think that all men would have marvelled, because of the continual changes among themselves. At all events when men have attempted to write anything of a like kind in regard to polity and laws, they charge them with having made a collection of marvels, and assert that they adopted impossible assumptions.

‘And here I say nothing of those other philosophers who dealt with any such subject in their writings: but Plato, though admired among the Greeks, both as distinguished by gravity of life, and as having surpassed all who have been engaged in philosophy in power of expression and persuasiveness, is little better than scoffed at continually and ridiculed by those who claim to be clever in political matters.

‘And yet any one examining his writings would constantly find things milder and more nearly like the customs of mankind in general. And Plato himself has confessed that it was not safe to publish the true opinion concerning God to the unintelligent multitudes. Some, however, think that Plato’s discourses are empty words written in a fine style of great authority.

Among lawgivers Lycurgus has been most admired; and all men sing the praises of Sparta for having so long patiently endured his laws.

‘Well then, let it be confessed that this is a proof of virtue, to be obedient to the laws. But let those who admire the Lacedaemonians compare their duration with the more than two thousand years of our political constitution: and let them further consider that though the Lacedaemonians seemed to observe their laws strictly so long as they retained their own liberty, yet when changes of fortune occurred to them they forgot almost all their laws: but we, though involved in countless vicissitudes, because of the changes of the ruling monarchs of Asia, yet never even in the extremities of danger betrayed our laws.’

These are the statements of Josephus concerning the political constitution of the Jews established by Moses. But with regard to the allegorical meaning shadowed out in the laws enacted by him, though I might say much, I think it sufficient to mention the narratives of Eleazar and Aristobulus, men originally of Hebrew descent, and, as to date, distinguished in the times of the Ptolemies.

Of these Eleazar, as we showed a little above, had been honoured with the dignity of the High-Priesthood, and when the ambassadors had come to him from the king for the sake of the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek tongue, he sketches out the nature of the allegorical sense in the sacred laws, and presents the doctrine of his discourse in the following form:

[1] 361 c 2 Josephus, c. Apion,ii. 16

[2] 366 a 9 Lev. xii. 2; xxii. 4

Chapter 9

[ARISTEAS] [1] ‘IT is worth while to mention briefly the information which he gave in answer to our inquiries: for some things included in the legislation usually seem to most persons to be over-scrupulous, I mean about meats and drinks, and the animals supposed to be unclean.

‘For when we asked why, though there isbut one and the same creation, some animals are considered unclean for eating and some even for touching, the legislation, which is superstitious in most things, is especially superstitious in these distinctions; in answer to this he began as follows.

‘You observe, he said, what an effect is wrought in us by our modes of life and our associations, because, by associating with the bad, men catch their depravities, and are miserable through their whole life. But if they live with wise and prudent persons, instead of ignorance they secure an improvement in their mode of life.

‘Our Lawgiver therefore determined first the things pertaining to godliness and righteousness, and gave particular instructions concerning them, not by prohibitions only, but also by examples, showing manifestly both the injurious effects, and the visitations wrought by God upon the guilty.

‘For he explained first of all that God is One alone, and that His power is made manifest through all things, every place being filled with His dominion; and nothing that is secretly done by men on earth escapes His knowledge, but all a man’s deeds stand open and manifest before Him, as also the things that shall be.

‘Working out these truths therefore accurately, and having made them clear, he showed that if a man should even think of working wickedness, not to say, perpetrate it, he would not escape detection; for he showed that the power of God pervades the whole legislation.

‘Having therefore made this commencement, he also showed that all mankind except ourselves believe that there are many gods, though they are themselves far more powerful than those whom they vainly worship. For when they have made statues of stone or wood, they say that they are images of those who invented something useful to them in life, and they fall down and worship them, though they have proof at hand of their insensibility.

‘For to ascribe it to this cause, I mean to their invention, would be utterly foolish; since they only took some of the things already created, and by combining them showed more clearly that their constitution is most useful, but did not themselves make them: wherefore it was a vain and foolish thing to make gods of men like themselves.

‘For even now there are many men more inventive and more learned than those of former times, and they should at once fall down and worship them!

‘The makers of these images and authors of these legends think that they are the wisest of the Greeks. For of the other utterly foolish people why need we even speak, Egyptians and the like, who have placed their reliance upon wild beasts and most kinds of creeping things and cattle, and worship them, and offer sacrifice to them both while living and when dead?

‘So then our Lawgiver in his wisdom having taken a comprehensive view of everything, and having been prepared by God for knowledge of the whole, hedged us round with unbroken ramparts and with walls of iron, so that we might not be mixed up at all with any of the other nations, but remain pure in body and soul, freed from vain imaginations, and worshipping the One God more than the whole creation.

‘Hence the leading priests of the Egyptians, having looked closely into many matters, and gained a knowledge of our affairs, surname us men of God: a title which belongs to no others, except any who worship the true God; but the rest are men (not of God, but) of meats and drinks and clothing; for they are wholly disposed to betake themselves to these things.

‘By our people such things are held in no esteem, but throughout their whole life their contemplation is concerned with the government of God. Lest therefore by sharing in any defilement, or associating with evil, we should ourselves become depraved, they hedged us round on all sides with rules of abstinence, by lawful meats and drinks, and touch, and hearing, and sight.

‘For, speaking generally, all things are alike in reference to the natural order, as being governed by one power, and yet taken singly there is a deep reason in each case as to the things which we abstain from using, and those which we use in common.

‘To give an example, I will run over one or two things and explain them to you. For I would not have you fall into the degraded notion that Moses enacted these laws from superstitious scruples on account of flies, and weasels, or such things as these; but all things have been reverently ordered with a view to holy circumspection, and perfecting of moral dispositions, for righteousness’ sake.

‘For all the birds that we use are tame and distinguished by cleanliness, feeding on various kinds of grain and pulse, as pigeons, doves, moor-fowls, partridges, geese also, and all other birds of this kind. But the birds which are forbidden you will find to be fierce and carnivorous, a tyrannizing over the others by the strength with which they are endowed, and feeding with cruelty upon the wasteful slaughter of the tame birds before-mentioned. And not only so, but they also seize lambs and kids, and hurt human beings too, whether alive or dead.

‘So by calling them unclean he by them gave a sign, that those for whom the legislation is ordained must practise justice in their soul, and not tyrannize over any one in reliance upon their own strength, nor rob them of any single thing, but steer their course of life according to justice, as the tame animals among the birds before-mentioned consume the kinds of pulse that grow upon the earth, and do not tyrannize to the destruction either of those beneath them or of their own kind.

‘The Lawgiver therefore taught that by such means as these indications are given to the wise, to be just, and accomplish nothing by violence, and not tyrannize over others in reliance upon their own strength.

‘For whereas it was not proper even to touch the animals before-mentioned on account of their several dispositions, ought we not to guard by all means against our moral habits being broken down to this degree?

‘So then all the permissions given in case of these birds and of the cattle he has set forth in a figurative sense. For the division of the hoof and separation of the claws is a sign that we should make a distinction in every particular of our actions towards the side of right. ‘For the strength of our whole bodies when in action depends for support upon the shoulders and the legs: therefore by the signification herein given he obliges us to perform all our actions with discrimination towards justice; and especially because we have been distinctly set apart from all men.

‘For the majority of the other nations defile themselves by promiscuous intercourse, working great iniquity; and whole districts and cities pride themselves hereupon. For they not only have intercourse with males, but also defile women after child-birth, and even daughters: but from these nations we have been distinctly separated.

‘But as man is the object to which the aforesaid symbol of separation refers, so has the Lawgiver also characterized the symbol of memory as referring to him. For all animals which divide the hoof and chew the cud manifestly set forth to the thoughtful the idea of memory. For rumination is nothing else than a reminiscence of life and sustenance.

‘For life is wont to be sustained by means of food. Wherefore he exhorts us by the Scripture in these words: “Thou shalt surely remember the Lord God, who wrought in thee those great and wonderful things.” [2]

‘For when closely observed they are manifestly glorious, first the construction of the body, and the distribution of the food, and the distinction of each separate limb, and far more the orderly disposition of the senses, the action of the mind and its invisible movement, its quickness in acting according to each occurrence, and its invention of arts, have a delightful character.

‘Wherefore he exhorts us to remember how the aforesaid parts are held together and preserved by a divine power. For he has marked out every place and time with a view to our continually remembering the God who rules them, while we observe the beginning, and the middle, and the end of each.

‘For in the case of meats and drinks he bids us first consecrate a part, and then straightway use the rest. Moreover from the borders of our garments he has given us a symbol of remembrance: and in like manner he has commanded us also to set the inspired words upon our gates and doors, to be a remembrance of God. Also upon our hands he expressly commands the symbol to be fastened, clearly showing that we ought to perform every action in righteousness, keeping a remembrance of our own creation, but in all things remembering the fear of God.

‘He bids men also when lying down to sleep, and rising up, and walking in the way, to meditate upon the works of God, not only in word, but also by observing distinctly their own movement and their self-consciousness, when they are going to sleep, and then their waking, how the alternation of these states is divine and incomprehensible.

‘There has been shown to you also the excellence of the analogy in regard to distinction and memory, according to our explanation of the division of the hoof and the chewing of the cud. For the laws have not been enacted without consideration and just according to what came into the mind; but with a view to truth and to the indication of right reason.

‘For after the several directions about meats and drinks and cases of touching, he bids us neither to do nor to listen to anything thoughtlessly, nor to resort to injustice by employing the mastery of language.

‘In the case of the wild animals also the same principle may be discovered. For the disposition of the weasel, and of mice, and such animals as these, which have been expressly mentioned, is destructive. For mice defile and damage all things, not only for their own food, but even so far as to render utterly useless to man everything whatsoever it falls in their way to damage.

‘The weasel-kind too is singular: for, besides what has been said above, it has a mischievous constitution; for it conceives through the ears, and brings forth by the mouth. For this reason therefore such a disposition is declared impure for mankind. For by embodying in speech all that they have received through hearsay, they involve others in evils, and being themselves utterly defiled by the pollution of their impiety, work no ordinary impurity.

‘And your king, as we are informed, does quite right in destroying such men.

‘Then, said I, you mean, I suppose, the informers; for he continually exposes them to tortures and to painful kinds of death.

‘Why yes, he said, I do mean these: for watching for men’s destruction is an unholy thing: and our law commands us to hurt nobody by word nor deed.

‘On these subjects therefore it is enough for a brief description to have shown you, that all things have been regulated with a view to righteousness, and nothing has been appointed by the Scripture at random nor in a fabulous way; but in order that throughout our whole life we may in our actual conduct practise righteousness towards all men, remembering the God who is our Governor.

‘So concerning lawful meats and things unclean, creeping things and wild beasts, the whole system aims at righteousness,and the just intercourse of mankind.

‘To me then he seemed to have made a good defence on the several points. For with reference also to the calves and rams and goats which were to be offered, he said that we should take these from the herds and flocks and make them tame, and offer no wild or fierce animal, that the offerers of the sacrifices, having perceived the symbolic meaning of the lawgiver, might feel no arrogant self-consciousness.

‘For he who brings the sacrifice makes the offering of the whole disposition, of his own soul. Therefore on these points also I think that the particulars of our conversation are worthy of consideration, because of the august character of the law, which I have been led on to explain clearly to you, Philocrates, for the love of learning which you entertain.’

These are the accurate distinctions concerning the idea set forth allegorically in the sacred laws, which the High Priest gave to those Greeks who had come to him, thinking them likely to meet with the translations of the Scriptures which were about to be published. But it is time to hear what Aristobulus, who had partaken of Aristotle’s philosophy in addition to that of his own country, declared concerning the passages in the Sacred Books which are currently understood to refer to limbs of God’s body. This is that very man who is mentioned in the beginning of the Second Book of Maccabees:[3] and in his writing addressed to King Ptolemy he too explains this principle.

[1] 370 c 1 Letter of Aristeas

[2] 373 d 1 Cf. Deut. vii. 18

[3] 375 d 8 2 Macc. i. 10

Chapter 10

[ARISTOBULUS] ‘WHEN, however, we had said enough in answer to the questions put before us, you also, O king, did further demand, why by our law there are intimations given of hands, and arm, and face, and feet, and walking, in the case of the Divine Power: which things shall receive a becoming explanation, and will not at all contradict the opinions which we have previously expressed.

‘But I would entreat you to take the interpretations in a natural way, and to hold fast the fitting conception of God, and not to fall off into the idea of a fabulous anthropomorphic constitution.

‘For our lawgiver Moses, when he wishes to express his meaning in various ways, announces certain arrangements of nature and preparations for mighty deeds, by adopting phrases applicable to other things, I mean to things outward and visible.

‘Those therefore who have a good understanding admire his wisdom, and the divine inspiration in consequence of which he has been proclaimed a prophet;[1] among whom are the aforesaid philosophers and many others, including poets, who have borrowed important suggestions from him, and are admired accordingly.

‘But to those who are devoid of power and intelligence, and only cling close to the letter, he does not appear to explain any grand idea.

‘I shall begin then to interpret each particular signification, as far as I may be able. But if I shall fail to hit upon the truth, and to persuade you, do not impute the inconsistency to the Lawgiver, but to my want of ability to distinguish clearly the thoughts in his mind.

‘First then the word “hands” evidently has, even in our own case, a more general meaning. For when you as a king send out forces, wishing to accomplish some purpose, we say, The king has a mighty hand, and the hearers’ thoughts are carried to the power which you possess.

‘Now this is what Moses also signifies in our Law, when he speaks thus : “God brought thee forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand”;[2] and again: “I will put forth My hand,” saith God, “and will smite the Egyptians.” [3] Again in the account of the death of the cattle Moses says to Pharaoh : “Behold, the hand of the Lord shall be upon thy cattle, and upon all that are in the fields a great death.” [4] So that the “hands” are understood of the power of God: for indeed it is easy to perceive that the whole strength of men and their active powers are in their hands.

‘Wherefore our Lawgiver, in saying that the effects are God’s hands, has made the word a beautiful metaphor of majesty. The constitution too of the world may well be called for its majesty God’s standing; for God is over all, and all things are subject unto Him, and have received from Him their station, so that men may comprehend that they are immovable. Now my meaning is like this, that heaven has never become earth, and earth heaven, nor the sun become the shining moon, nor again the moon become the sun, nor rivers seas, nor seas rivers.

‘And again in the case of living beings there is the same principle. For man will never be beast, nor beast man. In the case of all the rest too the same rule exists, of plants and all other things: they are not interchangeable, but are subject to the same changes in themselves, and to decay.

‘In these ways then God may rightly be spoken of as standing, since all things are set under Him. It is said too in the book of the Law that there was a descent of God upon the mountain, at the time when He was giving the Law, in order that all might behold the operation of God: for this is a manifest descent; and so any one wishing to guard safely the doctrine of God would interpret these circumstances as follows.[5]

‘It is declared that the mountain burned with fire, as the Lawgiver says, because God had descended upon it, and that there were the voices of trumpets, and the fire blazing so that none could withstand it.

‘For while the whole multitude, not less than a thousand thousands, besides those of unfit age, were assembled around the mount, the circuit of it being not less than five days’ journey, in every part of the view around them all as they were encamped the fire was seen blazing.

‘So that the descent was not local; for God is everywhere. But whereas the power of fire is beyond all things marvellous because it consumes everything, he could not have shown it blazing irresistibly, yet consuming nothing, unless there were the efficacy given to it from God.

‘For though the places were all ablaze, the fire did not actually consume any of the things which grew upon that mountain: but the herbage of all remained untouched by fire, and the voices of trumpets were loudly heard together with the lightning-like flashing of the fire, though there were no such instruments present nor any that sounded them, but all things were done by divine arrangement.

‘So that it is plain that the divine descent took place for these reasons, that the spectators might have a manifest comprehension of the several circumstances, that neither the fire which, as I said before, burnt nothing, nor the voices of the trumpets were produced by human action or a supply of instruments, but that God without any aid was exhibiting His own all-pervading majesty.’

Thus far Aristobulus. Now since we have gone through the commandments of the Sacred Laws, and the nature of the idea allegorically expressed in them, it would be next in order to indicate the following point, that the whole Jewish nation is divided into two sections. And while the Lawgiver meant to lead the multitude on gently by the precepts of the laws as enjoined according to the literal sense, the other class, consisting of those who had acquired a habit of virtue, he meant to exempt from this sense, and required them to give attention to a philosophy of a diviner kind too highly exalted for the multitude, and to contemplation of the things signified in the meaning of the laws.

Now this was the class of Jewish philosophers at whose strict course of life thousands even of foreigners were struck with admiration, while the most distinguished of their own countrymen, Josephus and Philo, and many others deemed them worthy of everlasting remembrance. But passing by most of these statements, I will be content at present, just merely for the sake of an example, with the testimony of Philo concerning the said persons, which he has set down in many places of his own memoirs. And of these do you take and read the following from his Apology for the Jews:

[1] 376 c 3 Deut. xviii. 15, 18

[2] d 11 Ex. xiii. 9, 16

[3] d 12 Ex. iii. 20

[4] 377 a 1 Ex. ix. 3

[5] 377 c 2 Ex. xix. 18, 20

Chapter 11

[PHILO] [1] ‘BUT our Lawgiver trained to community of living many thousands of his disciples, who are called Essenes because, as I suppose, of their holiness. They dwell in many cities of Judaea and many villages, and in large and populous societies.

‘Their sect is formed not by family-descent, for descent is not reckoned among matters of choice, but on account of zeal for virtue and a longing for brotherly love.

‘Accordingly there is among the Essenes no mere child, nor even a scarce-bearded lad, or young man; since of such as these the moral dispositions are unstable and apt to change in accordance with their imperfect age: but they are all men full-grown and already verging upon old age, as being no longer swept by the flood of bodily impulses, nor led by their passions, but in the enjoyment of the genuine and only real liberty.

‘And their mode of life is an evidence of this liberty: none ventures to acquire any private property at all, no house, nor slave, nor farm, nor cattle, nor any of the other things which procure or minister to wealth; but they deposit them all in public together, and enjoy the benefit of all in common.

‘And they dwell together in one place, forming clubs and messes in companies, and they pass their whole time in managing every kind of business for the common good.

‘But different members have different occupations, to which they strenuously devote themselves, and toil on with unwearied patience, making no excuses of cold or heat or any changes of weather: but before the sun is up they turn to their usual employments, and hardly give up at its setting, delighting in. work no less than those who are being trained in gymnastic contests.

‘For whatever occupation they follow, they imagine that these exercises are more beneficial to life, and more pleasant to soul and body, and more permanent than athletics, because they do not become unseasonable as the vigour of the body declines.

‘For some of them labour in the fields, being skilled in matters relating to sowing and tillage, and others are herdsmen, being masters of all kinds of cattle; and some attend to swarms of bees.

‘Others again are craftsmen in various arts, who, in order to avoid any of the sufferings which the wants of the necessaries of life impose, reject none of the innocent ways of gaining a livelihood.

‘Of the men then who thus differ in occupation every one on receiving his wages gives them to one person who is the appointed steward: and he, on receiving them, immediately purchases the necessary provisions, and supplies abundance of food, and all other things of which man’s life is in need.

‘And they who live together and share the same table are content with the same things every day, being lovers of frugality, and abhorring prodigality as a disease of soul and body.

‘Not only have they a common table, but also common raiment: for there are set out in winter thick cloaks, and in summer cheap tunics, so that any one who will may easily take’whichever he likes, since what belongs to one is considered to belong to all, and the property of all to be on the other hand the property of each one.

‘Moreover if any of them should fall sick, he is medically treated out of the common resources, and attended by the care and anxiety of all. And so the old men, even if they happen to be childless, are wont to end their life in a very happy and bright old age, inasmuch as they are blest with sons both many and good, being held worthy of attention and honour by so many, who from free good will rather than from any bond of natural birth feel it right to cherish them.

‘Further then as they saw with keen discernment the thing which alone, or most of all, was likely to dissolve their community, they repudiated marriage and also practised continence in an eminent degree. For no Essene takes to himself a wife, because woman is immoderately selfish and jealous, and terribly clever in decoying a man’s moral inclinations, and bringing them into subjection by continual cajoleries.

‘For when, by practising flattering speeches and the other arts as of an actress on the stage, she has deluded eyes and ears, then as having thoroughly deceived the servants she proceeds to cajole the master mind.

‘And should she have children, she is filled with pride and boldness of speech, and what she formerly used to hint under the disguise of irony, all this she now speaks out with greater audacity, and shamelessly compels him to practices, every one of which is hostile to community of life.

‘For the man who is either ensnared by the charms of a wife, or by force of natural affection makes children Ins first care, is no longer the same towards others, but has unconsciously become changed from a free man to a slave.

‘So enviable then is the life of these Essenes, that not only private persons, but also great kings are filled with admiration and amazement at the men, and make their venerable character still more venerable by marks of approbation and honour.’

Let this quotation suffice from the aforesaid book: but from that on the theme That every good man is free,I will bring forward the following statements:

[1] 379 a 1 Philo Judaeus, ii. p. 632 (Mang.), a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 12

[PHILO] [1] ‘ALSO Syria in Palestine, which is occupied by no small part of the very populous nation of the Jews, is not unproductive of honourable virtue.

‘There are said to be some among them named Essenes, in number above four thousand, deriving their name, though not, according to my opinion, in an accurate form of the Greek language, from holiness (ὁσιότητος), because they have devoted themselves above all men to the service of God, not by offering animal sacrifices, but by endeavouring to render their own thoughts holy and reverent.

‘These men, in the first place, dwell in villages, and avoid the cities because of the civilized vices of the citizens, knowing that an incurable contagion arises in the soul from a man’s associates, just as a disease from a pestilential atmosphere.

‘Of these men some benefit themselves and their neighbours by tilling the ground, and some by pursuing any arts that contribute to peace; not laying up treasures of silver and gold, nor acquiring large sections of land from desire of revenues, but procuring only enough for the necessary wants of life.

‘For they alone of nearly all mankind having neither money nor possessions themselves (from set purpose more than from want of good fortune), are considered to be most wealthy, because they judge moderate wants and contentedness to be, as they really are, abundance.

‘Of darts, or javelins, or daggers, or helmet, or breastplate, or shield, you would find no maker among them, nor in short any maker of arms or engines, or any one employed about implements of war: nor yet about things which in times of peace may easily slip into mischievous use: for of commerce, or trade, or ship-owning they do not even dream, abjuring the incentives to covetousness.

‘There is not a single slave among them, but all are free, giving help to each other in turn: and masters they condemn, not only as unjust in outraging equality, but also as impious in destroying the holy law of nature, which like a mother having borne and nourished all alike, made them all genuine brothers, not only in name but in very truth.

‘But this natural kinship has been thrown into disorder by the excessive prosperity of insidious covetousness, which has wrought alienation instead of kindred affection, and hatred instead of friendship.

‘Of philosophy they have left the logical branch to word-catchers, as being unnecessary to the attainment of virtue, and the physical branch to star-gazers, as too high for human nature, except so much of it as is made a study concerning the existence of God and the creation of the universe, but the ethical branch they study very elaborately, under the training of their ancestral laws, the meaning of which it is impossible for the human soul to discern without divine inspiration.

‘These laws they are repeatedly taught both at all other times, and especially on every seventh day. For the seventh day is regarded as holy, and on it they abstain from their other works, and come to their holy places, which are called synagogues, and sit in ranks according to their ages, the young below the elder, and listen attentively in becoming order: and while some one takes and reads their sacred books, another of the most experienced comes forward and expounds all that is not easily intelligible: for most subjects are treated among them by symbols with a zealous imitation of antiquity.

‘So they are taught piety, holiness, justice, economy, statesmanship, and the knowledge of things which are in reality good, or bad. or indifferent; the choice of what is right, and the avoidance of the contrary, by using laws and rules of three kinds, namely the love of God, the love of virtue, and the love of mankind.

‘First then of the love of God thousands of examples are supplied by the constant and uninterrupted purity of their whole course of life, such as their abstinence from oaths, their freedom from falsehood, their belief that the Deity is the cause of all good and of no evil: examples too of their love of virtue, in their freedom from the love of money, of glory, of pleasure, in their continence, their endurance, also their frugality, simplicity, contentedness, their freedom from conceit, their obedience to law, their steadfastness, and all qualities of like character to these: examples also are seen of their love of man in good-will, equality, and community of interests surpassing all description, about which nevertheless it will not be out of season to say a few words.

‘In the first place then no single person has any private house, which is not found to be also common to all. For in addition to their living together in companies, the house is also thrown open to those of the same sect who come from other parts.

‘Next there is one and the same store and expenditure for all: their garments also are common, and so is their food as they have formed themselves into messes. For among no other people could any one find a common use of the same roof, the same mode of life, and the same table, more firmly established in practice, and perhaps with good reason.

‘For whatever they receive as wages after a day’s work, they do not keep as their own, but bring it out in public, and supply the benefit of it in common for all who wish to use it. The sick also are not neglected because they are unable to earn anything, but have ready at hand from the common stock what is needed for their sick-diet, so as to spend with perfect freedom out of that larger abundance.

‘For elders there is reverence and care, such as parents receive from their own children, their old age being cherished by countless hands and thoughts amid all abundance. Such are the hardy athletes of virtue produced by the philosophy which is free from the superfluous pomp of Greek names, and proposes as exercises those praiseworthy actions, from which the freedom that cannot be enslaved derives its support.

‘And of this there is proof, since many tyrants have at various times risen up against our country, who exhibited different natural dispositions and purposes: for some of them, endeavouring to surpass the untamed fierceness of wild beasts, omitted no measures of cruelty, nor ever ceased from slaughtering their subjects in droves, or even, like cooks, tearing them in pieces, limb from limb, while yet alive, until they suffered the same calamities themselves from the justice which keeps watch over human affairs.

‘And others converting their wild excitement and frenzy into another kind of wickedness, contrived an indescribable cruelty, while talking gently, and under the disguise of softer language yet betraying the heavy wrath of their disposition, and fawning like venomous dogs, became the authors of irremediable mischief and left in every city memorials of their own impiety and hatred of mankind in the never-to-be forgotten miseries of the sufferers.

‘But yet none either of those monsters of cruelty or of those masters of guile and treachery was able to lay anything to the charge of the aforesaid society of the Essenes or Saints; but all were overcome by the noble virtue of the men, and behaved towards them as being free and independent by nature, singing the praises of their joint meals and of that fellowship surpassing all description, which is the clearest proof of a perfect and most happy life.’

It may suffice then that the particulars of the philosophic kind of training and public life among the Jews are set forth by these extracts; and our discourse has previously described the other kind of life, which the divine laws ordained for the mass of the whole nation.

After this then what is left, but to prove also that the theological tenets of the moderns are in harmony with the religious beliefs of their forefathers, so that our discussion of this subject also may be rendered complete?

Since therefore the oracles of the inspired Scripture are set forth in the Book preceding this, let us on the present occasion closely examine the thoughts of the wise men among the Jews, that we may learn what qualities the Hebrews have shown both in theology and in excellence of speech. Again therefore we must have recourse to Philo, from his first Book On the Law.

[1] 381 b 5 Philo Judaeus, That every good man is free,ii. p. 457 (Mang.)

Chapter 13

[PHILO] [1] ‘FOR some who admired the world itself more than its Maker represented it as being uncreated and eternal, bringing a false and impious charge of great inactivity against God; whereas they ought on the contrary to have been struck with admiration of His powers as Creator and Father, instead of extolling the world beyond the bounds of moderation.

‘But Moses having early attained to the very summit of philosophy, and having been taught by divine oracles the many most binding laws of nature, knew of course that in existing things there must necessarily be both an active cause, and passive principle: and that the active cause, the mind of the universe, is most pure and unmixed, superior to science, and superior to absolute goodness and absolute beauty; while the passive principle is without life, and incapable of self-movement, but having been moved, and newly fashioned, and animated by the mind, has changed this world into the most perfect work: those therefore who assert that it is uncreated have unconsciously cut away the most beneficial and indispensable of the inducements to piety, that is, Providence.

‘For reason proves that the Father and Creator should care for that which He has made. For a human father aims at the preservation of his offspring, and an artificer of the works which he has made, and wards off by all means whatever is hurtful, but longs to provide in every way all that is useful and profitable; whereas towards that which he has not made there is no feeling of appropriation in him who has not made it.

‘Thus it is an undesirable and unprofitable doctrine to maintain that there is anarchy in this world, as in a city, as though it had neither the ephor, nor arbitrator, nor judge, by whom lawfully all things should be administered and superintended.

‘But that great man Moses deemed that the uncreated was most alien from the visible, since all that can be perceived by the senses is subject to generation and to changes, never remaining in the same conditions: he therefore attributed eternity to that which is invisible and only perceived by the mind, as being a brotherly and kindred quality, while to the sensible he assigned “creation” (γένεσιν) as its proper denomination.

‘Since therefore this world is visible and sensible, it must necessarily be also created; wherefore it was not beside the mark that he described its creation with a noble description of the nature of God.’

This then is what he has said on the subject of the world haying been created. And the same author in his treatise On Providencestates some very vigorous arguments on the question of the universe being administered by Providence, setting out first the objections of the atheists, and answering them in order. And since most of these, though they may appear to be rather long, are nevertheless necessary, I will set them forth in a concise form. He arranges the discussion in the following manner:

[1] 384 d 4 Philo Judaeus, On the Creation of the World,p. 2 (Mang.)

Chapter 14

[PHILO] [1] ‘Do you say that a Providence exists amid so great confusion and disorder of affairs? For which of the conditions of human life has been arranged in order? Nay rather, which is not full of disorder and destruction? Or are you alone ignorant that good things come to the worst and most wicked of mankind in riotous abundance, riches, reputation, honours in the opinion of the multitude, chief power again, health, fine senses, beauty, strength, enjoyment of pleasures uninterrupted because both of the abundance of means, and of the perfectly settled and good constitution of the body, while those who love and practise wisdom and every kind of virtue are, I may almost say, all of them poor, obscure, unhonoured, and of low estate?’

After saying these and numberless other things besides in disproof of Providence, he next proceeds to solve the objections by the following arguments:

‘God is not a tyrant who has practised cruelty and violence and all the acts of a despot’s merciless rule, but as a king invested with gentle and lawful authority, He governs the whole heaven and the world in righteousness.

‘Now a king has no more appropriate title than “father”: for what parents are to children in human relationships, such is a king to a city, and God to the world, having combined in indissoluble union by unalterable laws of nature two most noble qualities, the authority of the ruler and the kindly care of a guardian.

‘Just as parents therefore do not altogether neglect their dissolute sons, but taking compassion upon their unhappiness watch over and care for them, considering that it is the part of irreconcilable enemies to exult over their misfortunes, but of friends and kinsmen to lighten their disasters. And oftentimes they lavish their gifts upon these more than upon their well-conducted children, knowing certainly that the prudent conduct of the latter is an abundant source of wealth, while their parents are the only hope of the former, and if they lose this, they will be destitute even of the necessaries of life.

‘In the same way God also, being the father of the rational intellect, cares for all who have been endowed with reason, and takes thought even for those who live a culpable life, both giving them opportunity for amendment, and at the same time not transgressing His own merciful nature, which has goodness for its attendant and such kindness towards man as is worthy to pervade the divinely ordered world.

‘This then is one argument which thou, my soul, must meanwhile receive as a sacred deposit from Him, and a second consistent and harmonious with it of the following kind. Never be thou so far misled from the truth as to suppose any one of the wicked to be divinely favoured, even though he be richer than Croesus, and more sharp-sighted than Lynceus, and stronger than Milo of Crotona, and more beautiful than Ganymede,

“Whom for his beauty’s sake the gods caught up To heaven, to be the cupbearer of Zeus.” [2]

‘His own divine faculty at least, I mean his mind, he has shown to be the slave of innumerable masters, of love, desire, pleasure, fear, sorrow, folly, intemperance, cowardice, injustice, and so could never be divinely favoured, even if the multitude, failing of a true judgement, think him so, through being bribed by a double evil, pride and false opinion, evils strong to ensnare and mislead souls without ballast, and about which most of mankind are anxious.

‘If, however, with the eye of the soul steadily fixed thou shouldest desire to survey the thought of God, so far as is possible for human reason, thou wilt have a clearer perception of the only true good, and wilt laugh at the things of this world, which thou wert erewhile disposed to admire. For it is ever the case that in the absence of the better things the worse are held in honour, as inheriting their place: but when the better have appeared, they withdraw, and are content with the second prize. ‘Being therefore struck with: admiration of that godlike goodness and beauty, thou wilt thoroughly understand, that with God none of the things before-mentioned has been held worthy in itself to be ranked as good; because mines of silver and of gold are the most useless part of the earth, wholly and utterly inferior to that which is given up to the production of fruits.

‘For abundance of money is not the same thing as food, without which one cannot live. One most clear test of this is hunger, whereby what is really necessary and useful is put to proof: for a hungry man would gladly give all the treasures in the world in exchange for a little food.

‘But when the abundance of the necessaries of life flows in an immense and unchecked stream, and is poured out over the cities, while indulging luxuriously in the gifts of nature, we disdain to rest content upon them alone, but making insolent surfeit the ruling principle of life, and eagerly pursuing gains of silver and gold, we equip ourselves with all things from which we may hope for any gain, and as if blinded by love of money we no longer discern in our mind that silver and gold are mere lumps of earth, for which instead of peace there is constant and uninterrupted war.

‘Our garments indeed, as the poets somewhere say, are “the bloom of sheep,” [3] and as to the artistic skill in making them they are the weavers’ glory. And if any one thinks much of reputation, and welcomes the approval of the worthless, let him know that he is also worthless himself; for like takes pleasure in like. ‘But let him pray to get a share of purifications for the healing of his ears, for through them the chief disorders invade the soul. Also let all who are proud of their bodily vigour learn not to be arrogant, by looking at the countless herds of animals tame and untamed, who are born with strength and vigour: for it is a most absurd thing for a man to pride himself on the good qualities of beasts, and that too though surpassed by them.

‘And why should any man of good sense exult in bodily beauty, which a short time extinguishes by withering up its deceitful prime, before it has flourished its full time; and that too though in lifeless things he sees highly prized works of painters, and modellers, and other artists, in pictures, and statues, and embroidered tapestries—works renowned in every city both in Greece and in barbarous countries?

‘Of these things therefore, as I said before, none is by God held worthy to be ranked as good. And why should we wonder, if they are not so esteemed by God? For neither are they so esteemed among men who are beloved of God, by whom true excellence and beauty are held in honour, as they enjoy a well-endowed nature, and have improved that nature by study and exercise, which are the creations of a genuine philosophy.

‘But as many as devoted themselves to a spurious learning did not imitate even the physicians who heal the body that is the slave of the soul, though professing as they do to heal the mistress, the soul herself. For those physicians of the body, when any rich man has fallen sick, even if he be the great king, pass by all the colonnades, the men’s chambers, the women’s chambers, pictures, silver, gold uncoined or coined, abundance of drinking-vessels or of tapestries, and all the other celebrated ornaments of kings, and moreover disregard the crowd of servants, and the attendance of friends or relations and subjects high in office, even his bodyguards, and when they have reached the bedside pay no thought to the decorations of his person, nor wonder that the couches are inlaid with precious stones and are of solid gold, neither that the coverlets are of the finest web or embroidered linen, nor that the patterns of his garments are of varied beauty; but even pull off the blankets that cover him, and take hold of his hands, and pressing the veins note the pulsations carefully, whether they are healthy. Oftentimes too they even draw up his shirt, and examine whether the belly is distended, whether the chest is inflamed, whether the heart beats irregularly: and then they apply the proper treatment.

‘And the philosophers also, who profess to practise the art of healing the kingly nature of the soul, ought to disregard all the vain figments of false opinions, and pass on within and feel the mind itself, whether its pulsations are unequally quickened by anger, and unnaturally excited: also to touch the tongue, whether it is rough and slanderous, whether it is given to wantonness and extravagance: to feel the belly also, whether it is distended with some insatiable form of desire: and to make a general examination of the several passions, disorders, and infirmities, if they seem to be complicated, in order that they may not mistake the remedies conducive to a cure.

‘But now being dazzled by the brilliancy of the external things around them, as they are impotent to discern an intellectual light, they have been for ever wandering in error, not having been able to reach the sovereign reason; but coming hardly so far as the outer portals, and being struck with admiration of the attendants who stand at the gates of virtue, wealth and honour and health and things of the like kind, they proceeded to worship them.

‘But in fact as it is the excess of madness to use the blind as judges of colour, or deaf men of musical sounds, so it is to take evil men as judges of what is truly good: for these likewise are blinded in their master faculty of thought, over which folly has shed a deep darkness.

‘Do we then wonder now that a Socrates and this or that virtuous man continued in poverty, as men who never practised any of the arts which lead to gain, nor even deigned to accept what they might have taken from rich friends or from kings who offered them large gifts, because they regarded the attainment of virtue as the one thing good and beautiful, and while labouring at that took no account of whatever else was good?

‘And who would not thus disregard things spurious to provide the genuine? And if as partakers of a mortal body, and burdened with the misfortunes of humanity, and living in the midst of sucha multitude of unrighteous men, the number of whom it would not be easy to discover, if, I say, they were plotted against, why should we lay the blame on their nature, when we ought rather to reproach the cruelty of their assailants?

‘For if they had been in a pestilential atmosphere, they must certainly have fallen sick; and wickedness is more, or certainly not less, destructive than a pestilential climate. And as the wise man, if he were to spend his time in the open air, when it is raining, must necessarily get wet through, and when a cold north wind is blowing must be pinched with cold and shivering, and in the height of summer must be scorched with heat, since it is a law of nature that our bodies are affected in accordance with the changes of the seasons; in the same way the man who dwells in places of this kind,

“Mid murders, famines, and all kinds of death,” [4]

must in return necessarily incur the penalties which result from such evils.

‘For in the case of Polycrates, when for his dreadful deeds of injustice and impiety he met with a requital in the worse misery of his subsequent life—to which you must add how he was punished by the great king, and was impaled, in fulfilment of an oracle,—“I know,” said he, “that not long ago I seemed to see myself being anointed by the sun and washed by Zeus.” [5] For these enigmatical utterances expressed in figurative language, though originally obscure, received the most manifest confirmation through the facts which followed.

‘And not only at the end, but throughout his whole life from the beginning, he had been unconscious that his soul was impaled before his body was: for he was worried by perpetual fear and trembling at the multitude of those who were plotting against him, and well knew that he had not one friend, but only enemies implacable because of their misery.

‘The authors too of the history of Sicily bear witness to the: unavailing and perpetual caution (of Dionysius), and say that he entertained suspicions of the wife who was dearest to his soul.[6] And a proof of it was this: he ordered the entrance into his apartment, by which she would have to come to him, to be loosely covered with planks, that she might never creep upon him unobserved, but might give notice of her arrival by the creaking and rattling of her passage over the boards; also that she was to come to him not simply undressed, but naked even in all those parts which ought not to be seen by men. And in addition to this, he ordered the continuity of the ground at the entrance to be cut across to the width and depth of a farm-dyke, because he feared lest some attempt at a plot should be concealed from observation, and this was sure to be detected by leaps or long strides.

‘How full of miseries then was the man who took these precautions and devices in the case of a wife, whom he ought to have trusted before all others! But in fact he was like those who, in order to observe more clearly the natural phenomena in the sky, climb precipices on a rugged mountain, and when they have with difficulty reached an overhanging ledge are neither able to ascend any further from failure of strength for the remaining height, nor have courage to descend, but turn giddy at the sight of the chasms below.

‘For having been enamoured of despotic power as a godlike and enviable lot, he began to suspect that it was neither safe to remain nor to run away: for if he remained, there were innumerable evils rushing on like a torrent one after another against him; and if he wished to run away, there was the risk of his life hanging over him, from men armed against him if not in their bodies yet certainly in their thoughts.

‘And this is made manifest also by the practical test which Dionysius is said to have employed against the friend who praised the happy life of despotic rulers. For having invited him to a display of a most brilliant and costly banquet, he ordered a well-sharpened axe to be suspended over him by a very slight thread: and when on reclining he suddenly saw this, he was neither bold enough to rise up out of his place because of the tyrant, nor able from fear to enjoy any of the luxuries provided for him; but giving no heed to the abundant and costly pleasures, he sat with neck and eyes stretched upwards expecting his own destruction.

‘And when Dionysius perceived it, he said, Do you then now understand this celebrated and enviable life of ours? For such, if one would not flatter himself, is its real nature, since it contains great abundance of supplies, without the enjoyment of any one good thing, but terrors coming one after another, and dangers for; which there is no remedy, and a disease more grievous than any cancerous and wasting sickness, which is continually threatening irremediable destruction.

‘But the inexperienced multitude being deceived by the brilliant display are affected in the same way as those who are ensnared by ugly courtesans, who veil their ugliness by dress and gold ornaments, and pencil their eyes, and fabricate a false beauty for want of genuine to catch the beholders.

‘Such is the heavy fate with which the over-prosperous are burdened, and of which they estimate the excessive evils in their own mind and do not conceal them; but, like those who are forced by pain to acknowledge their infirmities, they give utterance to perfectly sincere expressions which are forced from them by suffering, while they live surrounded with penalties both present and expected, like beasts that are being fatted for sacrifice; for these also receive the utmost care in order that they may be slaughtered to make a plentiful feast of meat.

‘Some men also have been not obscurely but manifestly punished for sacrilegious gains: to give a list of their whole number would be a superfluous labour, but one fact may suffice to stand as an example of all. It is said then by the historians of the sacred war in Phocis, that whereas there was a law established that he who plundered a temple should be cast down a precipice, or drowned in the sea, or burnt to death, three men who had plundered the temple at Delphi, Philomelus, and Onomarchus, and Phayllus, divided the punishments among them. For the first was hurled down over a rugged and stony cliff by the fall of a rock, and crushed to death; the second was carried by his horse, which had run away, down to the sea, and being overwhelmed by the tide, went down, horse and all, into a yawning gulf. And Phayllus either wasted away by a consumptive disease (for the story about him is twofold), or perished by being burnt in the conflagration of the temple at Abae.

‘To say that these things happened by mere chance is a very perverse contention. For though it would have been reasonable to allege the uncertainty of fortune as an explanation, if some only had been punished either at different times or by other kinds of punishment; yet when the whole band were punished, and that about the same time, and not by other punishments, but by those which were included in the laws, there is good reason to affirm that they were overtaken by the judgement of God.

‘But if any of the violent men who have been left unmentioned, and who have risen up against the people, and enslaved not only other communities but also their native countries, remained unpunished to the end, there is nothing wonderful in that. For in the first place man judgeth not as God judgeth, because, while we search out only visible facts, He noiselessly enters into the recesses of the soul, and beholds the thought as clear as in the sunlight, stripping off the coverings in which it is wrapped up, and surveying its devices in their naked truth, and instantly distinguishing the false coinage from the true.

‘Never therefore let us prefer our own judgement to that of God, and say that it is more unerring and more full of wisdom; for that is impious. For in the one the causes of error are many, illusions of the senses, insidious passions, the very formidable leaguer of vices; but in the other there is nothing that tends to deception, but justice and truth, whereby each action is judged and naturally rectified in a satisfactory manner.

‘In the next place do not think, my good friend, that a temporary despotism brings no advantage, for neither is punishment unprofitable, but for the good it is either more beneficial, or not unnecessary, to suffer retribution; for which cause this is embodied in all laws that are rightly constituted, and the lawgivers are commended by all: for punishment is in a law what a tyrant is in a people.

‘Whenever therefore a terrible want and scarcity of virtue has overtaken the cities, while an abundance of folly overflows them, then God desiring to draw off the stream of wickedness, as it were the flood of a winter torrent, in order to purify our race, gives strength and power to those who are in their natures fitted to rule.

‘For wickedness is not purged away without the help of some stern soul. And in the same way as cities support public executioners to suppress murderers and traitors and sacrilegious persons, not because they approve the disposition of the men, but. because they find by experience the usefulness of their service; in the same way the guardian of the great metropolis of this world sets up tyrants like public executioners over the cities in which He perceives violence, injustice, impiety, and all the other evils in full flood, that so He may at length stop and abate them.

‘Then also with regard to the agents, as having given their service from an impure and ruthless spirit, He thinks it right to prosecute them last of all, as being in a manner ringleaders. For just as the power of fire, after it has consumed the fuel thrown upon it, feeds at last upon itself, in the same way those also who have gained despotic power over peoples, when they have exhausted the cities and emptied them of men, perish after them at last in satisfaction of the vengeance due for all.

‘And why do we wonder, if God makes use of tyrants to drive away a flood of wickedness spread abroad in cities and countries and nations? For He often does this by Himself without using other assistants, inflicting either famine or pestilence or earthquake and any other visitations of God, by which great crowds and multitudes of men perish every day and a large portion of the habitable world is left desolate, because of His desire to maintain virtue.

‘Enough however, I think, at least for the present, has been said to prove that no wicked man is happy, a fact by which the existence of a providence is most strongly established. But if you are not yet convinced, speak out boldly the doubt still lurking in your mind: for by discussing the question both together we shall know which way the truth lies.’

And after other things he says again:

[PHILO IUD.] [7] ‘Storms of wind and rain were not wrought by God, as you used to think, for the hurt of those at sea, or of men who till the ground, but for the benefit of our whole race. For by rains He purifies the earth, and by winds the whole region beneath the moon; and by both together He nourishes plants and animals, and makes them grow, and brings them to perfection.

‘And if sometimes He hurts those who are voyaging or tilling the earth out of due season, there is nothing wonderful in this; for they are but a small part, and His care is for the whole race of mankind. As therefore the anointing in the gymnasium is appointed for the benefit of all, yet the gymnasiarch, on account of political necessities, often changes the usual order of time, whereby some of those who were to be anointed are too late; so also God in His care for the whole world, as it were a city, is wont to make summers wintry, and winters like spring, for the general benefit, even though some shipmasters or tillers of the ground would probably be injured by the irregularities of these seasons.

‘Knowing therefore that the mutual interchanges of the elements, out of which the world was compacted and still consists, is a very necessary work, He keeps them free from hindrance; and frosts and snows and other things of like kind follow upon the cooling of the atmosphere, and again lightnings and thunderstorms follow upon the collision and friction of the clouds: none of which things perhaps is the direct work of providence, but these are consequences of rains and winds which are the causes of life and nourishment and growth to things on earth.

‘As for example, when from rivalry a gymnasiarch often incurs unlimited expenses, some of the ill-bred being drenched with oil instead of water, shake off drops upon the ground, and then immediately there is the most slippery mud, yet no one in his right senses would say that the mud and the slipperiness had been made by the intention of the gymnasiarch, but that they had been accidental consequences of the abundance of the supplies (of oil).

‘Again, a rainbow and a halo and all things of like kind arc-consequences of the sun’s rays being mingled with the clouds, not primary works of nature, but accidents which follow upon the natural operations. Not but what these also supply some necessary use to the wiser sort of men; for from these signs they draw conjectures, and so foretell calms and winds, and fine weather and storms.

‘Do you not see the porticoes in the city? Most of these face towards the south, in order that those who walk in them may be warmed in winter, and catch the breeze in summer. But there is also another indirect consequence, which does not follow by the intention of the person who arranged them. And what is this? The shadows which fall away from our feet mark to our experience the different hours.

‘Fire moreover is a most necessary product of nature, and smoke is a further consequence of it. But nevertheless smoke itself sometimes offers an advantage. For instance in the case of beacon fires at midday, when the fire grows dim from the beams of the sun shining down upon it, the approach of enemies is indicated by smoke.

‘The same kind of explanation as in the case of the rainbow is also true of eclipses, for eclipses are the consequences of the divine natures of the sun and moon; and they are indications either of the death of kings, or of the destruction of cities, a fact to which Pindar obscurely alluded on the occasion of an eclipse in the passage previously quoted.[8]

‘The circle too of the Milky Way partakes of the same essential nature as the other constellations, and though the cause of it is difficult to explain, those who are accustomed to investigate the principles of nature should not shrink from it; for the discovery of such things is most beneficial, and the inquiry is also most delightful in itself to those who are fond of learning.

‘As therefore the sun and moon, so also all the heavenly bodies have been made by providence, even though we in our inability to trace out their several natures and powers may be silent about them.

‘Earthquakes too, and pestilences and thunderbolts, and all tilings of this kind, though said to be sent from God. are not so in truth (for God is not the cause of any evil at all), but these are produced by the changes of the elementary atoms, and are not primary works of nature, but follow necessary laws as consequences of the primary operations.

‘If then some of the more refined experience their share in the damage which these things cause, they must not lay the blame upon the administration. For in the first place it does not follow, if certain persons are held among us to be virtuous, that they are so in reality, since God’s means of judgement are more exact than any formed according to the standard of the human mind. And in the second place foresight is content to look to the most comprehensive laws of the universe, just as in monarchies and military governments it looks to the cities and the armies, not to any one casual individual of the neglected and obscure.

‘Some too say that just as it is customary when tyrants are slain that their relatives also should be put to death, in order that wrong doings may be checked by the magnitude of the punishment, in like manner also in pestilential diseases some of the innocent perish with the rest, in order that the others may prudently keep aloof; apart from the fact that those who venture into a pestilential atmosphere must necessarily fall sick, just as those on board ship in a storm share equally in the danger.

‘Wild beasts too of great strength (for I must not pass over this in silence, although with your powerful eloquence you were inclined to anticipate my defence and pull it in pieces) have been created for the sake of training men for the conflicts of war. For gymnastic exercises and constant hunting are excellent for hardening and nerving men’s bodies, and, what is more important than their bodies, accustom their souls in the steadfastness of their strength to disregard any sudden assaults of enemies.

‘But those who are of a peaceable nature are allowed to pass their lives shut up not only within walls but also within chamber-doors, safe from hostile designs, with abundant herds of tame animals for their enjoyment; since boars, and lions, and other beasts of like disposition are by their own natural inclination driven far away from a town, from a desire to suffer no harm from the devices of men.

‘And if any from indolence live carelessly amid the lairs of wild beasts unarmed and unprepared let them blame themselves and not nature for what happens, because they neglected to take precautions as they might have done. For instance, ere now at horse-races I have seen some persons give way to thoughtlessness, who when they ought to have been sitting in their places, and looking on in an orderly manner, stood in the course, and being knocked over by the rush of the four-horsed chariots, were crushed by the hoofs and wheels, and met the rewards of their folly.

‘On this subject then enough has been said. But of reptiles the venomous kinds have not been created according to providential design, but in the way of natural consequence, as I said before. For they are quickened into life, when the moisture that is in them changes to excessive heat. Some also are vivified by putrefaction, as worms by putrid food, and lice by sweat. But all which have their origin from a proper substance, in the primary and natural way of seminal generation, are reasonably ascribed to providence.

‘About these also, as having been created for the benefit of man, I have heard two accounts, which I must not conceal. The one was of the following kind: some said that the venomous reptiles were useful for many medical purposes, and that those who regularly pursue the art, by using them scientifically for suitable cases, are well supplied with antidotes, to the unexpected cure of persons in the most dangerous condition; and to the present day one may see those who undertake to practise medicine in no idle or careless fashion, employing the several venomous reptiles in the composition of their remedies, not without careful consideration.

‘But the other story was not medical, but philosophical, as it seems. For it asserted that these animals are prepared by God as punishments for sinners, as scourges or even iron by generals and leaders. On which account, though quiet at other times, they are stirred up to violence against the condemned, whose nature passes sentence of death upon itself in its own incorruptible tribunal.

‘But that they have their holes especially in houses is false, for they are usually seen outside a town in open fields and desert places, avoiding man as their master. Not but what, if it is true, there is some reason in it; for refuse and filth in large quantities are heaped up in corners, and they like to slip in under these, besides that the smell also has an attractive force.

‘If swallows also live among us, it is nothing strange, for we abstain from hunting them. And the desire of safety is implanted not only in rational souls, but also in irrational. But none of those animals which we use for food lives among us, because of our designs against them, except in nations where the use of such animals is forbidden by law.

‘On the sea-coast of Syria there is a city named Ascalon. Having been there at the time when I was journeying to the Temple of my fathers to offer prayers and sacrifices, I saw an incredible number of pigeons upon the roads and at every house. And when I asked the cause, they said that it was not lawful to catch them, for the inhabitants had been forbidden from ancient times to use them for food. So thoroughly has the animal grown tame from fearlessness, that it constantly came not only under the same roof but also to the same table, and revelled in its freedom from attack.

‘But in Egypt there is a still more wonderful thing to be seen. For the crocodile, the most troublesome of all animals, addicted also to devouring men, being born and bred in the most sacred waters of the Nile, although it lives in the depths is conscious of the benefit bestowed upon it. For among the people by whom it is honoured it multiplies exceedingly, but never appears at all among those who injure it: so that in some places even the boldest of voyagers dare not put down even the tip of a finger where the crocodiles congregate in shoals, while in other places even the most timid persons leap out and swim in sport.

‘But in the country of the Cyclopes, since their race is a legendary fiction, in the absence of sowing and husbandmen there grows no eatable fruit, just as nothing is produced out of that which does not exist. We must not accuse Greece of being poor and barren, for here also there is much deep rich soil. And if the country of the barbarians excels in fruitfulness, then though superabounding in food, it falls short in the people to be fed, for whose sake the food is produced. For Greece alone is truly the mother of men, as giving birth to a plant of heavenly origin, and a godlike germ which has been brought to perfection, namely reasoning united to science. And the cause is this: by the lightness of the atmosphere the mind is naturally sharpened.

‘Wherefore also Heracleitus makes no mistake in saying, “Where the soil is dry, the soul is most wise and virtuous.” [9] And this one might conjecture also from the fact that the sober and frugal are more intelligent, while those who are always filling themselves with drink and food are least sensible, inasmuch as their reason is drowned by the things which overlay it.

‘Wherefore in the land of the barbarians plants and trunks of trees are very tall from being well nourished, and the most prolific of irrational animals it produces abundantly, but very little intelligence: because the successive and continuous exhalations of earth and water have prevailed to hinder it from being raised up out of the air which is its source.

‘But the various kinds of fishes and birds and land animals are no reasons for accusing nature as inviting us to luxury, but a terrible reproach to our intemperate use of them. For to the completeness of the universe, that order might exist in every part of it, it was necessary that all species of animals should be produced; but it was not necessary that man, the creature most akin to wisdom, should rush to feast upon them, and change his nature into the fierceness of wild beasts.

‘Wherefore even to the present day those who have regard to temperance abstain altogether from them all, and feed with the sweetest enjoyment upon green vegetables and fruits of trees as their dainties. But against those who think that the feasting upon the aforesaid animals is according to nature there have risen up in various cities teachers, censors, lawgivers, whose care it has been to check men’s immoderate appetites, by not permitting an unscrupulous use of all things to them all.

‘Roses also and crocuses, and all the other variety of flowers, are meant, if for health, yet not all for pleasure. For their virtues are infinite, and they are beneficial of themselves by their scents, filling us all with fragrance; and far more beneficial in the medicinal compositions of drugs. For some of them when compounded make their own virtues more conspicuous, just like the union of male and female for the generation of an animal, each separately not being fitted by nature to effect what both can do combined.

‘These arguments I have been obliged to state in answer to the rest of the questions raised by you, and they are sufficient to produce a satisfactory belief, in those who are not contentious on the subject, of God’s careful superintendence of human affairs.’

These then are the brief extracts which. I have made from the writer before mentioned, both by way of showing what sort of men the Hebrews have been according to the testimony of the moderns, and at the same time of clearly establishing the facts of their pious judgement concerning God, and of their agreement with their forefathers. But now it is time to pass from this point to the testimonies of foreigners on the same subjects.

[Footnotes numbered and moved to the end]

[1] 386 a 1 Philo Judaeus, On Providence,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius, p. 634 (Mang.)

[2] 387 b 1 Homer, Il.xx. 234

[3] 388 a 6 Homer, Il.xiii. 599

[4] 390 c 6 Empedocles 19 (Mullach)

[5] d 1 Herodotus iii. 25

[6] 391 a 2 Cicero, Tusc. Disput.v. 20

[7] 394 c 5 Philo Jud. Fr. ii. p. 642 (Mang.)

[8] 395 d 8 The Fragment ‘previously quoted’ is only preserved in Aucher’s Latin translation from the Armenian version of Philo On Providence,5 80

[9] 399 a 6 Heracleiti Relliquiae,lxxiv-lxxvi (Bywater)

Book 9

Chapter 1

Now since we have surveyed the proofs that our acceptance of the Hebrew oracles has not been made without just reasoning, but with carefully tested judgement and thought, it is time to observe that the most illustrious of the Greeks themselves have not been unacquainted with the affairs of the Hebrews; but some of them testified to the truth of the historical narratives current among them as well as to their mode of life, while others treated doctrinal theology also in the same manner as they did.

I will bring forward in the first place the subjects which naturally come first, showing how many of the Greek historians have mentioned by name both Jews and Hebrews, and the philosophy anciently taught and practised among them, as well as the history of their forefathers from the earliest times.

And I shall begin my account with their mode of life, so as to teach you that it is not without sober reasoning that we have preferred their philosophy to that of the Greeks.

At all events not only their own sacred books, but also the most illustrious of the Greek philosophers, famous even in our own day, bear witness that the duties of practical morality are performed by them in accordance with the rules which have been already examined in the preceding Book. So now take and read the statements of Theophrastus contained in the writings of Porphyry On Abstinence from Animal Food,as follows:

Chapter 2

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘NEVERTHELESS,’ says Theophrastus, ‘though the Syrians [of Judaea], because of their original mode of sacrifice, continue to offer animal sacrifices at the present time, if any one were to bid us sacrifice in the same way, we should revolt from the practice. For instead of feasting upon what had been sacrificed, they made a whole burnt-offering of it by night, and by pouring much honey and wine over it they consumed the sacrifice more quickly, in order that even the all-seeing sun might not be a spectator of the dreadful deed.

‘And while doing this they fast throughout the intermediate days; and all this time, as being a nation of philosophers, they converse with one another about the Deity, and at night they contemplate the heavenly bodies, looking up to them, and calling upon God in prayers. For these were the first to dedicate both the other animals, and themselves, which last they did from necessity and not from any desire.’

[1] 404 a Porphyry. On Abstinence from Animal Food, ii. 26

Chapter 3

ALSO in the fourth book of the same treatise Porphyry narrates concerning the same people such things as the following:

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘The Essenes then are Jews by birth, but united among themselves even more closely than the rest of the Jews.

‘They abhor pleasures as wickedness, and regard self-control and resistance to the passions as virtue. Marriage they disdain for themselves, but choose the sons of others while still easily moulded towards learning; and regarding them as their kindred, impress them with their own moral dispositions: thus without destroying marriage, and the succession of the race thereby produced, they guard themselves against the wantonness of women.

‘They despise riches, and there is among them a wonderful community of goods, so that it is impossible to find any one exceeding others in wealth. For they have a law that those who eater the sect give up their substance to the common fund of the order, so that among them all there is seen neither humiliation of poverty nor excess of wealth; but every one’s possessions being mixed up together, they all have one property like brothers.

‘Oil they consider a defilement, and if any one be anointed against his will, he has his body wiped: for they think it becoming to have a dry skin, and always to wear white.

‘The superintendents of their common interests are elected, and they are severally chosen for their offices by the whole body. They have no one city of their own, but a number of them make their abode in each city, and their means are mutually thrown open to those of the sect who have come from elsewhere; and they are received as familiar friends by those whom they have never seen before: for which reason when they travel they bring nothing with them for expenses.

‘They change neither robe nor sandals before they are altogether ragged, or worn out by time. They neither buy nor sell anything, but each gives what he has himself to the man that wants it, and receives from him in return what is useful to him: and even without this return there is no hindrance to their getting a share from whomsoever they will.

‘With regard to the Deity, however, their piety is of a peculiar kind. For they utter no common words before the sun has risen, but address to him certain prayers handed down by their fathers, as if entreating him to rise. After this they are dismissed by the superintendents to the crafts known to each, and after working vigorously till the fifth hour they then assemble again in one place, and having girded themselves with loin-cloths, so proceed to wash their body with cold water.

‘After this purification they meet in a building of their own, in which none of another sect is permitted to join them; but being themselves purified, they come into the dining-room as if entering some holy place. And when they have quietly taken their seats, the baker sets loaves in a row before them, and the cook sets before each a single dish of one kind of meat. Then the priest first says a prayer over the food, as being pure and clean, and it is unlawful for any to taste the food before the prayer. And when they have finished the meal he again offers a prayer, and thus they honour God both at the beginning and at the end.

‘Then they lay aside their robes as holy, and turn to work again till evening; when they come back and sup in like manner, the guests sitting down with them, if there happen to be any present.

‘And neither clamour nor tumult ever profanes their house, but in conversation they give way in turn to each other; and to those outside the silence of those within seems like some awful mystery. The cause of this is their constant sobriety, and their limitation of food and drink to the satisfying of hunger.

‘To those who desire to join the sect admission is not immediately granted, but for the space of a year while one remains outside they prescribe the same mode of life, and give him a shovel, an apron, and a white robe. And when in this period he has given proof of self-control, he approaches more nearly to their mode of life, and partakes of the purer waters for ablution.

‘He is not, however, admitted as yet to the life of the community. For after the proof of his endurance his moral disposition is tested by two more years, and, if found worthy, he is then enrolled in their company.

‘But before he touches the common food, they make him swear tremendous oaths: first that he will reverently worship God, then that he will observe justice towards men, and will harm no man either of his own will or under command, but will always hate the unjust and succour the righteous; that he will show fidelity to all, but especially to those in power, for it is not without God’s will that the government is acquired by any man: also that, if he be himself a ruler, he will never be insolent in using his authority, nor outshine his subjects in dress or any excessive adornment: that he will always love the truth, and expose liars; keep his hands clear of theft, and his soul of unholy gain; and will neither hide anything from the members of the sect, nor disclose any secret of theirs to others, though any one should press him by violence even unto death.

‘In addition to this, he swears that to no one will he impart their doctrines otherwise than he himself received them, and will abstain from, robbery, and will guard with equal care the books of their sect, and the names of the angels.

‘Such are the oaths; and those who are found guilty and expelled, perish by a miserable fate. For being bound by their oaths and by their customs, they cannot partake of the food which other men have, but eating grass and wasting away by famine, they thus perish. So for this reason they have taken compassion upon many in the extremity of their distress, and received them back, considering that they had suffered punishment enough for their offences in being thus tortured to death.

‘The shovel they give to those who intend to be members of the sect, because they do not themselves sit down without having dug a trench a foot deep, and covered themselves with their cloak, so as not to insult the eyes of God. And so great is their simplicity and sparingness in regard to food, that they do not need to ease nature on the seventh day, which they are accustomed to keep for singing hymns to God and for rest.

‘From this asceticism they have acquired so great endurance, that though they be racked and wrenched and burned, and pass through all the instruments of torture, in order to make them blaspheme their Lawgiver, or eat some unaccustomed food, they cannot endure to do either.

‘And this they clearly showed in the war against the Romans: since they cannot endure either to fawn on their tormentors, or to shed tears, but smiling in the midst of their pains, and bantering those who applied the tortures, they cheerfully gave up their lives with the hope of receiving them again. For indeed this opinion is firmly fixed among them, that though their bodies are perishable, and their material substance not lasting, their souls remain for ever immortal; and coming from the subtlest ether, drawn down by some natural force, they become entangled with the body, but when they are released from the bonds of the flesh they then rejoice, as if delivered from long bondage, and are borne up aloft.

‘From such a mode of life then, and from their training in truth and piety, there are naturally many among them, who even foreknow the tilings to come, as being brought up among sacred books, and various purifications and utterances of the prophets: and they seldom, if ever, go wrong in their predictions.’

This was the testimony of Porphyry, drawn probably from ancient records, both to the piety and the philosophy of the persons aforesaid, in the fourth book of his careful work On Abstinence from Animal Food.

[1] 404 d 2 Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food,iv. 11 = Josephus, Jewish War,II. viii. 2-12

Chapter 4. Hecataeus Concerning the Jews

BUT Hecataeus of Abdera, who was both a philosopher and very competent in active life, devoted a special book to the history of the Jews, and gives very many details concerning them, from which it will for the present suffice to quote the following:

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘For most of the strongholds and villages in the country belong to the Jews; and one strong city Jerusalem, about fifty furlongs in circumference, which is inhabited by about a hundred and twenty thousand men, and is called Hierosolyma.

‘And here about the middle of the city is a stone enclosure, about five hundred feet in length, and a hundred cubits wide, with two gates: and herein is a square altar, of unhewn stones collected and just put together in a rough state, twenty cubits long on each side, and the height ten cubits.

‘And beside it is a large building, wherein, is an altar and a candlestick, both of gold, two talents in weight: and upon these is a light which is never extinguished either day or night. But there is no image nor any votive offering at all, nor any plant, absolutely nothing of the nature of a grove or anything of this kind. ‘And there arc priests who pass both their nights and days in the temple, performing certain purifications, and never drinking any wine while there.’

After these statements, lower down:

‘He has borne witness that they also served in the army of king Alexander, and afterwards of his successors. And I will quote what he says was done by a Jew in the expedition when he was himself present: he speaks as follows:

‘When therefore I was marching towards the Red Sea, among the other Jewish horsemen who escorted us, we were accompanied by a man named Mosollam, a person of great spirit, and good strength, and acknowledged by all to be the best archer among either the Greeks or Barbarians.

‘So while many were marching along the road, and a certain soothsayer was taking auguries, and requiring all to halt, this man asked what they were waiting for. And when the soothsayer showed him the bird, and said, that if it remained in the same place, it was expedient for all to halt, but if it rose and flew forward, they should advance, and if it flew back, they must retire again, then this man made no reply, but drew his bow and shot, and hit the bird and killed it.

‘And when the soothsayer and some others were indignant and began to curse him, he said, Why are ye so mad, unhappy men? Then taking the bird into his hands, he said, For how could this bird, which could not foresee how to save itself, have given us any sound information concerning our march? For had it been able to foreknow what would happen, it would not have come to this place, for fear lest Mosollam the Jew should shoot at and kill it. These are the statements of Hecataeus.’

[1] 408 b 1 Josephus, Against Apion,i. 22, p. 456

Chapter 5

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘BUT Clearchus the Peripatetic philosopher, in his first book Concerning Sleep,attributes to Aristotle the philosopher a statement such as follows concerning the Jews, writing word for word thus:

‘But though it would be too long to tell the greater part, it will not be amiss to go through those of his statements which are alike marvellous and philosophical. Now, said he, understand clearly, Hyperochides, I shall seem to you to relate what is as marvellous as dreams. Then Hyperochides modestly replied, Yes, that is the very reason why we all desire to hear it.

‘Well then, said Aristotle, according to the rule of the rhetoricians, let us first describe the man’s origin, that we may not disobey the teachers of the narrative style.

‘Tell it so, if you please, said Hyperochides.

‘Well then, the man was by origin a Jew, from Coele-Syria. Now these are descendants of the philosophers of India; and philosophers, it is said, are called among the Indians Calani, but among the Syrians they are called Judaeans, having taken their name from the place. For the place which they inhabit is called Judaea: and the name of their city is very awkward, for they call it Hierusalem.

‘This man then, who was hospitably entertained by many on his way down from the inland districts to the sea-coasts, was Greek not only in language but also in spirit. And as at that time we were dwelling in Asia, the man having landed in the same neighbourhood fell into conversation with us and some others of the studious sort, to make trial of their wisdom. And as he had lived in intimacy with many of the learned, he imparted somewhat more than he received.’

Such is the story of Clearchus.

[1] 409 b 3 Josephus, Against Apion,p. 454

Chapter 6

THIS man is mentioned also by our Clement in his first Miscellany,in what he says as follows:

[CLEMENT] [1] ‘Clearchus the Peripatetic says that he knew a Jew who associated with Aristotle.’

And afterwards he adds:

‘But Numa the king of the Romans, though he was a Pythagorean, received benefit from the teaching of Moses, and forbade the Romans to make an image of God in the shape of man or any animal. So in the first hundred and seventy years, though they built themselves temples, they made no image, neither in sculpture nor yet in painting.

‘For Numa used to teach them in secret, that it was not possible for the Perfect Good to be reached by language, but only by the mind.’

Further than this, in what follows below, he speaks thus: [2]

‘But most plainly does Megasthenes, the historian who lived with Seleucus Nicator, write as follows in his third book On Indian Affairs.

‘All that has been said about nature among the ancients is said also among the philosophers outside Greece, partly among the Indians by the Brachmans, and partly in Syria by those who are called Jews.’

Besides this Clement also mentions Aristobulus the Peripatetic and Numenius the Pythagorean, saying: [3]

‘Aristobulus, in his first book addressed to Philometor, writes in these words: Plato too has followed our legislation, and has evidently studied carefully the several precepts contained in it.

‘And others before Demetrius, and prior to the supremacy of Alexander and of the Persians, have translated both the narrative of the Exodus of our fellow countrymen the Hebrews from Egypt, and the fame of all that happened to them, and their conquest of the land, and the exposition of the whole Law.

‘So it is perfectly clear that the philosopher before-mentioned has borrowed much, for he is very learned; as also was Pythagoras, who transferred many of our precepts into his own system of doctrines.

‘And Numenius, the Pythagorean philosopher, writes expressly: “For what is Plato, but Moses speaking in Attic Greek?” ‘

So far Clement.

[1] 410 b 3 Clement of Alexandria, Strom,i. c. 15, p. 358 (Potter)

[2] 410 c 12 Clement Al., Strom.i. c. 15, p. 360

[3] d 9 ibid. c. 22, p. 410

Chapter 7

ALSO from the Pythagorean philosopher himself, I mean Numenius, I will quote as follows from his first book On the Good:

[NUMENIUS] [1] ‘But when one has spoken upon this point, and sealed it by the testimonies of Plato, it will be necessary to go back and connect it with the precepts of Pythagoras, and to appeal to the nations of good repute, bringing forward their rites and doctrines, and their institutions which are formed in agreement with those of Plato, all that the Brachmans, and Jews, and Magi, and Egyptians arranged.’

So much then on these points.

[1] 411 c 1 Numenius, On the Good,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius.

Chapter 8

ALSO in his third book the same author makes mention of Moses, speaking as follows: [1]

‘And next in order came Jannes and Jambres, Egyptian sacred scribes, men judged to have no superiors in the practice of magic, at the time when the Jews were being driven out of Egypt.

‘So then these were the men chosen by the people of Egypt as fit to stand beside Musaeus, who led forth the Jews, a man who was most powerful in prayer to God; and of the plagues which Musaeus brought upon Egypt, these men showed themselves able to disperse the most violent.’

Now by these words Numenius bears witness both to the marvellous wonders performed by Moses, and to Moses himself as having been beloved of God.

[1] d 3 Numenius, ibidem

Chapter 9

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘CHOERILUS also, an ancient poet, has mentioned the Jewish nation, and how they served with king Xerxes in his expedition against Greece. And thus he speaks:

“Next passed a nation wondrous to behold, Whose lips pronounced the strange Phoenician tongue; Upon the hills of Solyma they dwelt By the broad inland sea. Rough and unkempt Their close-cropped hair, and on their heads they wore The smoke-dried skin flayed from a horse’s face.”

‘Now that he spake this concerning Jews is evident from the fact that Hierosolyma lies on the mountains called by the Greeks Solyma, and that near it is the Asphaltic lake, which is very broad as the poet says, and larger than any of the lakes in Syria.’

Such then is this man’s testimony.

[1] 412 a 4 Josephus, Against Apion,i. 22, p. 454

Chapter 10

BUT Porphyry, in the first book of his Philosophy from Oracles,introduces his own god as himself bearing witness to the wisdom of the Hebrew race as well as of the other nations renowned for intelligence.

It is his Apollo who speaks as follows in an oracle which he is uttering; and while still explaining the subject of sacrifices, he adds words which are well worthy of attention, as being full of all divine knowledge:

[PORPHYRY] ‘Steep is the road and rough that leads to heaven, Entered at first through portals bound with brass. Within are found innumerable paths, Which for the endless good of all mankind They first revealed, who Nile’s sweet waters drink. From them the heavenward paths Phoenicia learned, Assyria, Lydia, and the Hebrew race:’ [1]

and so forth: on which the author further remarks:

‘For the road to the gods is bound with brass, and both steep and rough; the barbarians discovered many paths thereof, but the Greeks went astray, and those who already held it even perverted it. The discovery was ascribed by the god to Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans (for these are the Assyrians), Lydians, and Hebrews.

‘In addition to this Apollo also says in another oracle:

“Only Chaldees and Hebrews wisdom found In the pure worship of a self-born God.” [2]

‘And being asked again, for what reason men speak of many heavens, he gave the following response:

“One circle girds the world on every side, In seven zones rising to the starlit paths: These, in their sevenfold orbits as they roll, Chaldees and far-famed Hebrews ‘heavens’ surnamed.”’

“With regard then to the name Jews and Hebrews, and their religion and philosophy of old renown, let these extracts suffice: but concerning their ancestral history observe how many writers have agreed.

Moses, in his ancient history of the whole world, had given an account of a deluge, and how he whom the Hebrews call Noe was preserved with his family in an ark made of wood; and Josephus, in the first book of his Antiquities,sets forth in the following manner how the historical writers. Berossus the Chaldee, and Hieronymus the Egyptian, and Nicolaus of Damascus, make mention of the same things.

[1] 412 d 10 Porphyry, Of the Philosophy to be derived from Oracles,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius.

[2] 413 c 1 Quoted by Justin M., Exhortation to the Greeks,c. xi B, and c. xxiv E

Chapter 11

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘THIS deluge and the ark are mentioned by all who have written histories of the Barbarians, among whom is Berossus the Chaldean. For in narrating the circumstances of the flood, he describes it thus:

‘It is said that there is still a portion of the vessel in Armenia near the mountain of the Cordyaei, and that persons scrape off and carry away some of the pitch. And the people use what they carry away chiefly for charms to avert misfortunes.

‘This is mentioned also by Hieronymus the Egyptian, who wrote The Archaeology of Phoenicia,and by Mnaseas, and several others. Nicolaus also of Damascus gives an account of them in his ninety-sixth book, speaking thus: There is above Minyas a great mountain in Armenia called Baris, to which, as the story goes, many fled for refuge at the time of the deluge and were saved; and a certain man borne on an ark landed on the top of the mountain, and the remains of the timbers were preserved for a long time. Now this must be the same of whom Moses, the Lawgiver of the Jews, wrote.’

So writes Josephus.

[1] 414 a 1 Josephus, Ant.i. c. 3, § 6

Chapter 12

BUT after mentioning the Median and Assyrian records from the work of Abydenus, I will set before you his statements concerning this same story, as follows:

[ABYDENUS] [1] ‘After him reigned among others Sisithrus, to whom Kronos foretold that there would be a great rain on the fifteenth day of Desius, and commanded him to hide everything connected with literature at Heliopolis in the country of the Sippari.

‘And when Sisithrus had accomplished this, he straightway sailed up towards Armenia, and immediately what God had predicted overtook him. But on the third day, when the rain had abated, he proceeded to let loose some of the birds, to try whether they saw land anywhere that had emerged from the water.

‘But as they were met by a vast unbroken ocean, and were at a loss where to find a haven, they came safe back to Sisithrus, and others after them did the same.

‘But when he was successful with the third set, for they came back with their feet full of mud, the gods removed him from men’s sight: but in Armenia the ship supplied the people of the country with wooden amulets as antidotes to poison.’

These then are his statements.

[1] 414 d 4 Abydenus, Assyrian History.Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian,i. p. 8

Chapter 13

BUT again, as Moses asserted that the first generations of mankind had been long-lived, Josephus brings forward the Greek writers as witnesses of this statement also, speaking as follows:

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘From comparing the life of the men of old with the life now, and the short years that we live, let no one suppose that the statements concerning the former are false, inferring that they did not attain to that length of life from the fact that men do not now extend the time of their life so long.

‘For as they were beloved of God, and created by God Himself, and as their kinds of food were better fitted for a longer continuance, it was natural for them to live so many years.

‘Further, God may have granted them a longer life on account of their virtue, and the usefulness of the arts which they invented, astronomy and geometry, things which they could not have announced with certainty, had they not lived at least six hundred years, for by that number the great year is completed.

‘And the truth of my argument is testified by all who have written on ancient history among Greeks and Barbarians. For both Manetho who recorded the Egyptian History,and Berossus who collected the Chaldean annals, and Molos, and Hestiaeus, and in addition to them the Egyptian Hieronymus, and the compilers of Phoenician history, agree with what I say. Hesiod too, and Hecataeus, and Hellanicus, and Acusilaus, and besides these Ephorus and Nicolaus record that the ancients lived a thousand years. So on these matters let men speculate each as it may please him.’

[1] 415 c 2 Josephus, Ant.i. 3, 9

Chapter 14

AGAIN, whereas Moses wrote an account of the building of the tower, and how from one language men passed into the confusion of many dialects, the author just before mentioned, in his work entitled Of Assyrian History, bears the like testimony, speaking as follows:

[ABYDENUS] [1] ‘But there are some who say that the men who first arose out of the earth, being puffed up by their strength and great stature, and proudly thinking that they were better than the gods, raised a huge tower, where Babylon now stands: and when they were already nearer to heaven, the winds came to the help of the gods, and overthrew their structure upon them, the ruins of which were called Babylon. And being up to that time of one tongue, they received from the gods a confused language; and afterwards war arose between Cronos and Titan.

[JOSEPHUS] [2] ‘And the place in which they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of what at first was clear in their language. For the Hebrews call confusion “Babel.” ‘

[1] 416 b 3 Abydenus, Assyrian History.Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, ibidem, p. 9

[2] 416 c 3 Josephus. Ant.i. e. 4, § 3

Chapter 15

‘THE Sibyl also mentions this tower and the diversity of language among mankind, speaking thus: [1]

‘”When all mankind were of one language, some built a very lofty tower, intending by it to mount up to heaven. But the gods sent winds against the tower and overthrew it, and gave to each man a peculiar language, and for this reason it came to pass that the city was called Babylon.” And the plain which is called Sennaar in the country of Babylonia is mentioned by Hestiaeus, who speaks thus: “But those of the priests who escaped took the sacred things of Zeus Enyalios, and came to Sennaar in Babylonia: afterwards they were scattered thence, and everywhere formed their communities from speaking the same language, and took possession of the land which each lighted upon.”’

[1] d 2 Cf. Rzach, Sibylline Oracles,iii. 97-110

Chapter 16

AGAIN, as Moses has set forth at large the history of Abraham the forefather of the Hebrews, Josephus says that the foreign historians also bear witness to him, writing as follows:

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘Berossus mentions our father Abraham, not by name, but in these terms: “In the tenth generation after the flood there was among the Chaldeans a righteous and great man, experienced also in heavenly things.”

‘But Hecataeus has done something more than mentioning him; for he left behind him a book which he had composed concerning him.

‘And Nicolaus Damascenus, in the fourth book of his Histories,speaks thus:[2] “Abraham was king of Damascus, having come as a stranger with an army from the land which lies beyond Babylon, called Chaldaea. But after no long time he removed from this country also, and migrated with his own people into what was then called Canaan, but now Judaea, and so did afterwards the multitude of his descendants, concerning whom I shall relate in another discourse what is recorded in history. Even now the name of Abraham is glorified in the district of Damascus, and a village is pointed out which is called from him the Habitation of Abraham.”

‘When in later times a famine had fallen upon the land of Canaan, Abraham having been informed that the Egyptians were in prosperity was eager to cross over to them, both to partake of their abundance, and to be a hearer of their priests, to learn what they said about the gods; intending either to follow them, if they were found superior, or to bring them over to the better belief, if his own opinions were preferable.’

Then next he adds:

‘And he associated with the most learned of the Egyptians, and the result was that his virtue and his consequent reputation became more illustrious from this cause.

‘For whereas the Egyptians delight in different customs, and disparage one another’s usages, and are for this reason ill-disposed towards each other, he by conferring with them severally, and discussing the arguments which they used in defence of their own practices, proved them to be empty and devoid of all truth.

‘Being therefore admired by them in their conferences as a very wise man, and strong not only in intelligence but also in persuasive speech on whatever subjects he undertook to teach, he freely imparts to them the science of arithmetic, and also communicates to them the facts of astronomy. For before Abraham’s arrival the Egyptians were ignorant of these subjects; for they passed from the Chaldees into Egypt, and thence came also to the Greeks.’

So writes Josephus.

[1] 417 b 4 Josephus, Ant.i. c. 7, § 2

[2] 417 c 1 Nicolaus Damascenus, Universal History,a Fragment.

Chapter 17

AND with this agrees also Alexander Polyhistor, a man of great intellect and much learning, and very well known to those Greeks who have gathered the fruits of education in no perfunctory manner: for in his compilation, Concerning the Jews,he records the history of this man Abraham in the following manner word for word:

[ALEXANDER POLYHISTOR] [1] ‘Eupolemus in his book Concerning the Jews of Assyriasays that the city Babylon was first founded by those who escaped from the Deluge; and that they were giants, and built the tower renowned in history.

‘But when this had been overthrown by the act of God, the giants were dispersed over the whole earth. And in the tenth generation, he says, in Camarina a city of Babylonia, which some call the city Uria (and which is by interpretation the city of the Chaldees),+ in the thirteenth generation + Abraham was born, who surpassed all men in nobility and wisdom, who was also the inventor of astronomy and the Chaldaic art, and pleased God well by his zeal towards religion.

‘By reason of God’s commands this man came and dwelt in Phoenicia, and pleased their king by teaching the Phoenicians the changes of the sun and moon and all things of that kind. And afterwards the Armenians invaded the Phoenicians; and when they had been victorious, and had taken his nephew prisoner, Abraham came to the rescue with his servants, and prevailed over the captors, and made prisoners of the wives and children of the enemy.

‘And when there came to him ambassadors asking that he would ransom them for money, he did not choose to trample upon the unfortunate, but on receiving food for his young men restored the booty; he was also admitted as a guest into the temple of the city called Argarizin, which being interpreted is “Mount of the Most High,” and received gifts from Melchizedek, who was the king, and the priest of God.

‘But when there came a famine Abraham removed into Egypt with all his household, and dwelt there, and the king of Egypt took his wife in marriage, Abraham having said that she was his sister.

‘He also related fully that the king was unable to consort with her, and that it came to pass that his people and his household were perishing. And when he had called for the soothsayers, they said that the woman was not a widow; and thus the king of Egypt learned that she was Abraham’s wife, and gave her back to her husband.

‘And Abraham dwelt with the Egyptian priests in Heliopolis and taught them many things; and it was he who introduced astronomy and the other sciences to them, saying that the Babylonians and himself had found these things out, but tracing back the first discovery to Enoch, and saying that he, and not the Egyptians, had first invented astrology.

‘For the Babylonians say that the first man was Belus, who is Kronos; and that of him was born a son Belus, and Chanaan; and that this Chanaan begat the father of the Phoenicians, and that his son was Churn, who is called by the Greeks Asbolus, and is father of the Aethiopians, and a brother of Mestraim the father of the Egyptians. But the Greeks say that Atlas invented astrology, and that Atlas is the same as Enoch: and that Enoch had a son Methuselah, who learned all things through angels of God, and thus we gained our knowledge.’

[1] 418 c 7 Alexander Polyhistor, Of the Jews,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius.

Chapter 18

‘ARTABANUS in his Jewish Historysays that the Jews were called Ermiuth, which when interpreted after the Greek language means Judaeans, and that they were called Hebrews from Abraham. And he, they say, came with all his household into Egypt, to Pharethothes the king of the Egyptians, and taught him astrology; and after remaining there twenty years, removed back again into the regions of Syria: but that many of those who had come with him remained in Egypt because of the prosperity of the country.

‘In certain anonymous works, however, we found that Abraham traced Lack his origin to the giants, and that they dwelling in Babylonia were destroyed by the gods for their impiety; but that one of them, named Belus, escaped death and settled in Babylon, and lived in a tower which he had built, and which was called Belus from the Belus who built it: and that Abraham having been instructed in the science of astrology came first into Phoenicia, and taught astrology to the Phoenicians, and afterwards passed on into Egypt.’

Chapter 19

‘BUT Molon, the author of the collection Against the Jews,says that at the time of the Deluge the man who survived departed from Armenia with his sons, being driven out of his home by the people of the land; and after crossing the intermediate country came into the mountain-district of Syria which was uninhabited.

‘After three generations Abraham was born, whose name is by interpretation “Father’s friend,” and that he became a wise man, and travelled through the desert. And having taken two wives, the one of his own country and kindred, and the other an Egyptian handmaiden, he begat by the Egyptian twelve sons, who went off into Arabia and divided the land among them, and were the first who reigned over the people of the country: from which circumstance there are even in our own day twelve kings of the Arabians, bearing the same names as the first.

‘But by his lawful wife he had one son, whose name in Greek is Γέλως, “laughter.” Abraham died of old age, but Gelos and a wife of his own country had eleven sons, and a twelfth, Joseph, and Moses was in the third generation from him.’

So much says Polyhistor; and to this he adds, after some sentences, what follows:

‘But not long after God commanded Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a whole burnt-offering to Him. And he led his son up to the mountain, and heaped up a pyre, and set Isaac thereon; but when about to slay him he was forbidden by an Angel, who provided him with a ram for the offering: and Abraham took down his son from the pyre, and offered the ram.’

Chapter 20. Philo on the Same

‘PHILO also speaks of this in the first book of his work Concerning Jerusalem: [1]

[PHILO] “ Ἔκλυον ἀρχεγόνοισι τὸ μυρίον ὥς ποτε θεσμοῖς Ἀβραὰμ κλυτοηχὲς ὑπέρτερον ἅμματι δεσμῶν παμφαές, πλήμμυρε, μεγαυχητοῖσι λογισμοῖς, θειοφιλῆ θέλγητρα. Λιπόντι γὰρ ἀγλαὸν ἕρκος αἰνοφύτων, ἔκκαυμα βριήπυος αἰνετὸς ἴσχων, ἀθάνατον ποίησεν ἑὴν φάτιν, ἐξ ὅτ' ἐκείνου ἔκγονος αἰνογόνοιο πολύμνιον ἔλλαχε κῦδος.”

and the rest: to which after a few lines he adds:

“ Ἀρτίχερος θηκτοῖο ξιφηφόρον ἐντύνοντος λήμματι, καὶ σφαράγοιο παρακλιδὸν ἀθροισθέντος, ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν ἐν χείρεσσι κερασφόρον ὤπασε κριόν.”

and the rest that follows this.’

This then from the fore-mentioned work of Polyhistor. But Josephus also in the first book of his Antiquitiesmentions the same author in the following passage:

[JOSEPHUS] [2] ‘Now it is said that this Afren made an expedition into Libya and subdued it; and his grandsons having settled there called the land Africa after his name.

‘And my statement is confirmed by Alexander Polyhistor, who speaks thus:

‘”But Cleodemus the prophet, who is also called Malchas, in narrating the history of the Jews even as Moses their Lawgiver has narrated it, says that by Chettura Abraham had many sons: and he also mentions their names, calling three of them Afer, Assur, and Afran.

‘And from Assur Assyria was named; and from the other two, Afra and Afer, a city Afra and the country Africa. And these, he says, joined Hercules in his expedition against Libya and Antaeus: and Hercules having married the daughter of Afra begat of her a son Diodorus. And of him was born Sophonas, from whom the barbarian Sophae are called.” ‘

Let it suffice then that the story of Abraham is briefly set forth in these quotations.

[1] 421 c 3-422 a 1 Unintelligible Fragments referring to Abraham and Isaac from a so-called poem on Jerusalemby a certain Philo.

[2] 422 a 6 Josephus, Ant.i. c. 15

Chapter 21. Demetrius Concerning Jacob

Now let us return to Polyhistor.

[ALEXANDER POLYHISTOR] [1] ‘Demetrius says that when Jacob was seventy (seven) years old he fled to Charran in Mesopotamia, having been sent away by his parents on account of the secret enmity with his brother Esau (the cause of which was that his father had blessed him thinking that he was Esau), and also in order that he might take a wife from that country.

‘Jacob therefore set out for Charran in Mesopotamia, having left his father Isaac a hundred and thirty-seven years of age, and being himself seventy-seven years old.

‘So after spending seven years there he married two daughters of his uncle Laban, Leah and Rachel, when he was eighty-four years old: and in seven years more there were born to him twelve sons; in the eighth year and tenth month Reuben, and in the ninth year and eighth month Symeon, and in the tenth year and sixth month Levi, and in the eleventh year and fourth month Judah. And as Rachel did not bear she became envious of her sister, and gave her own handmaid Zilpah to be Jacob’s concubine, at which same time Bilhah conceived Nephthalim, in the eleventh year and fifth month, and bare a son in the twelfth year and second month, and Leah called him Gad: and of the same mother in the same year and twelfth month he begat another son, who was also named by Leah Asher.

‘And in return for the mandrake apples, which Reuben brought ia and gave to Rachel, Leah again conceived in her womb, and her handmaid Zilpah at the same time, in the twelfth year and third month, and bare a son in the same year and twelfth month, and called his name Issachar.

‘And again Leah bare another son in the thirteenth year and tenth month, and his name was Zabulon; and the same Leah bare a son named Dan in the fourteenth year and eighth month. And at the same time when Leah bare a daughter Dinah, Rachel also conceived in her womb, and in the fourteenth year and eighth month bare a son, who was named Joseph, so that in the seven years spent with Laban there were born twelve children.

‘But when Jacob wished to go back to his father in Canaan, he was requested by Laban to stay six years more, so that in all he abode twenty years with Laban in Charran.

‘And when he was on his way to Canaan an Angel of the Lord wrestled with him, and touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh, and he was benumbed and went lame: wherefore the sinew on the thigh of cattle is not eaten. And the Angel said to him, that henceforth he should no longer be called Jacob but Israel.

‘And he came to another city of the land of Canaan called Sikima, having with him his children, Reuben twelve years and two months old, Symeon eleven years and four months, Levi ten years and six months, Judah nine years and eight months, Nephthalim eight years and ten months, Gad eight years and ten months, Asher eight years, Issachar eight years, Zabulon seven years and two months, Dinah six years and four months, Joseph six years and four months.

‘Now Israel dwelt beside Emmor ten years; and Israel’s daughter Dinah was defiled by Sychem the son of Emmor, she being sixteen years and four months old. And Israel’s sons Symeon being twenty-one years and four months old, and Levi twenty years and six months, rushed forth and slew both Emmor and his son Sychem, and all their males, because of the defilement of Dinah: and at that time Jacob was a hundred and seven years old.

‘So when he was come to Luz of Bethel, God said that his name was no longer to be Jacob but Israel. Thence he came to Chaphratha, and thence journeyed to Ephratha, which is Bethlehem, and begat there a son Benjamin; and Rachel died after giving birth to Benjamin, when Jacob had lived with her twenty-three years.

‘Thence Jacob came to Mambri of Hebron, to his father Isaac. Now Joseph was at that time seventeen years old, and he was sold into Egypt, and had remained in the prison thirteen years, so that he was then thirty years old; and Jacob was a hundred and ten years old, one year before which time Isaac died, being a hundred and eighty years old.

‘And Joseph having interpreted the king’s dreams, governed Egypt seven years, in which time he married Aseneth daughter of Pentephres the priest of Heliopolis, and begat Manasseh and Ephraim: and then there followed two years of the famine.

‘But though Joseph had prospered for nine years, he did not send to his father, because he was a shepherd, as were Joseph’s brethren: and with the Egyptians it is disgraceful to be a shepherd. And that this was the reason why he did not send for him, Joseph himself declares. For when his kindred came, he told them that, if they should be summoned by the king and asked what was their occupation, they should say that they were breeders of cattle.

‘And at the dinner they could not understand why in the world Joseph gave Benjamin a portion five times as much as theirs, as it was not possible for him to consume so much flesh. He had done this because his father had had seven sons by Leah, and two by his mother Rachel: therefore he set five portions before Benjamin, and himself took two; so they had seven portions, as many as the sons of Leah received.

‘In like manner also while giving to each two changes of raiment, to Benjamin he gave five, and thirty pieces of gold, and sent to his father in the same proportion, so that his mother’s house might be equal to the other.

‘Now from the time when Abraham was chosen from among the Gentiles and migrated into Canaan they had dwelt in that land, Abraham twenty-five years, Isaac sixty years, Jacob a hundred and thirty years; so that all the years in Canaan were two hundred and fifteen.

‘And in the third year of the famine in Egypt, Jacob came into Egypt, being a hundred and thirty years old, Reuben forty-five years, Symeon forty-four, Levi forty-three, Judah forty-two years and three months, Asher forty years and eight months, Nephthalim forty-one years and seven months, Gad forty-one years and three months, Zabulon forty years, Dinah thirty-nine years, Benjamin twenty-eight years.

‘Joseph, it is said, was in Egypt thirty-nine years; and from Adam until Joseph’s brethren came into Egypt there were three thousand six hundred and twenty-four years; and from the Deluge until Jacob’s coming into Egypt one thousand three hundred and sixty years; and from the choice of Abraham from among the Gentiles and his coming from Charran into Canaan until Jacob and his family came into Egypt two hundred and fifteen years.

‘But Jacob came from Charran to Laban, when he was eighty years old, and begat Levi, and Levi was afterwards seventeen years in Egypt from the time of his coming from Canaan into Egypt, so that he was sixty years old when he begat Clath; and in the same year in which Clath was born Jacob died in Egypt, after he had blessed the sons of Joseph, being himself one hundred and forty-seven years old and leaving Joseph fifty-six years old. And Levi was a hundred and thirty-seven years old when he died; and when Clath was forty years old he begat Amram, who was fourteen years old when Joseph died in Egypt being a hundred and ten years old: and Clath was a hundred and thirty-three years old when he died. Amram took to wife his uncle’s daughter Jochabet, and when he was seventy-five years old begat Aaron and Moses; but when he begat Moses Amram was seventy-eight years old, and Amram was a hundred and thirty-six years old when he died.’

These statements I quote from the work of Alexander Polyhistor. Next let me add the following:

[1] 422 d 2 Alexander Polyhistor, Fragment;cf. p. 418 c 1

Chapter 22. Theodotus Concerning the Same

[THEODOTUS] [1] ‘Now Theodotus says in his work Concerning the Jewsthat Sikima took its name from Sikimius son of Emmor; for he was also the founder of the city: and in his book Concerning the Jewshe describes its situation as follows:

“Rich was the land, well-watered, browsed by goats, Nor far from field to city was the road. No leafy copse the weary wanderer found: Yet from it two strong mountains close at hand, With grass and forest trees abounding, rise. Midway a narrow path runs up the vale, Beneath whose farther slope the sacred town Of Sikima mid sparkling streams is seen Deep down the mountain’s side, around whose base E’en from the summit runs the well-built wall.”

‘Afterwards, he says, it was subdued by the Hebrews, when Emmor was the ruler: for Emmor begat a son Sychem. Thus he speaks:

“Thence Jacob from the wandering shepherd-life Sought Shechem’s spacious streets, where o’er his tribe Emmor with Sychem ruled, a stubborn pair.”

‘Then concerning Jacob and his arrival in Mesopotamia, and the marriage of his two wives, and the birth of his children, and his coming from Mesopotamia to Shechem, he says:

“To Syria rich in cattle Jacob came From broad Euphrates’ loud-resounding stream, To shun his twin-born brother’s bitter wrath. Him Laban gladly welcomed to his home, Laban his mother’s brother, who alone O’er Syria ruled, his sons as yet new-born. He then his youngest daughter for a wife To Jacob promised, but was loth to give. Contriving thus a crafty wile, he sends Leah, the elder, to the marriage-bed. Such fraud could not escape the husband’s eye, But for the other daughter seven more years He served, and both his cousins took to wife. Eleven sons he gat both wise and brave, And one fair daughter, Dinah, whose bright face And faultless form a noble soul expressed.”

‘From the Euphrates Jacob, it is said, came to Shechem to Emmor; and he welcomed him, and gave him a part of his country. So Jacob himself was a landholder, but his sons, eleven in number, were shepherds, and his daughter Dinah and his wives wrought wool. And Dinah while yet a virgin came to Shechem when there was a great festival, wishing to see the city: and Sychem the son of Emmor saw her and loved her, and seized and carried her off to his own home, and ravished her.

‘But afterwards he came with his father to Jacob, to ask her fur his partner in marriage; but he said he would not give her, until all the inhabitants of Shechem were circumcised and followed the customs of the Jews: and Emmor said he would persuade them.

‘With regard to the need of their being circumcised, Jacob says:

“It is forbidden by our Hebrew laws To bring a bridegroom to our daughters’ home, Save one who boasts to come of kindred race.”

‘Then a little lower down about circumcision:

“The God, who Abraham from his home had called, Bade him from heaven to set the blood-stained seal On flesh of every male; and it was done. And changeless still the law which God decreed.”

‘When Emmor therefore was gone into the city, and was exhorting his subjects to be circumcised, one of Jacob’s sons, whose name was Symeon, being unwilling to bear his sister’s disgrace in a politic manner, determined to slay Emmor and Sychem: and this determination he communicated to his brother Levi, and took him as an accomplice and set forth to do the deed, alleging an oracle, that God said He would give ten nations to Abraham’s descendants to destroy.

‘And this is how Symeon speaks to Levi:

“For well have I remembered God’s own word, To give ten nations o’er to Abraham’s sons.”

‘But God, it is said, had put this thought into their mind, because the inhabitants of Shechem were ungodly men. And this is what he says:

“The Shechemites who spared no guest that came, Nor bad nor good regarded, God would smite. No law nor justice in their state was found, But all their thoughts were set on deeds of death.”

‘Levi therefore and Symeon came armed into their city, and first killed those who came in their way, and then murdered both Emmor and Sychem.

‘And of their slaying them he speaks thus:

“So fiercely then on Emmor Symeon rushed, And smote his head, and in his left hand seized His throat, but quickly left him gasping still, For other task appeared. Levi meanwhile Seized Sychem, fiercely raging, by the hair And dashed with force resistless to the earth: Vainly he clasped the victor’s knees, who drave His keen sword deep twixt neck and shoulder-blade, And swiftly from his breast the spirit fled.”

‘And when the other brethren heard of their deed, they came to their aid, and sacked the city, and rescuing their sister carried her back with the captives to their father’s abode.’

[1] 426 b 1 Theodotus, On the Jews,a Fragment preserved by Polyhistor.

Chapter 23. Artapanus Concerning Joseph

To this let us add what comes next concerning Joseph out of the same work of Polyhistor:

[ALEXANDER POLYHISTOR] [1] ‘Artapanus says, in his book Concerning the Jews,that Joseph was a descendant of Abraham and son of Jacob: and because he surpassed his brethren in understanding and wisdom, they plotted against him. But he became aware of their conspiracy, and besought the neighbouring Arabs to convey him across to Egypt: and they did what he requested; for the kings of the Arabians are offshoots of Israel, being sons of Abraham, and brethren of Isaac. And when he had come to Egypt and been commended to the king, he was made administrator of the whole country. And whereas the Egyptians previously occupied the laud in an irregular way, because the country was not divided, and the weaker were unjustly treated by the stronger, he was the first to divide the land, and mark it out with boundaries, and much that lay waste he rendered fit for tillage, and allotted certain of the arable lands to the priests.

‘He was also the inventor of measures, and for these things he was greatly beloved by the Egyptians. He married Aseneth a daughter of the priest of Heliopolis, by whom he begat sons. And afterwards his father and his brethren came to him, bringing much substance, and were set to dwell in Heliopolis and Sais, and the Syrians multiplied in Egypt.

‘These he says built both the temple in Athos and that in Ileliopolis, and were called Ermiuth. Soon afterwards Joseph died, as did also the king of Egypt. So Joseph while governor of Egypt stored up the corn of the seven years, which had been immensely productive, and became master of Egypt.’

[1] 429 c 1 Alexander Polyhistor.

Chapter 24. Philo Concerning Joseph

‘PHILO also, in his fourteenth book Concerning Jerusalem,testifies to the truth of the sacred Scriptures, speaking as follows:

“For them the mighty lord of all the land A happy home prepared—he, now most high, Who from the ancient stock of Abraham And Isaac sprang, and Jacob rich in sons Claimed as his sire—Joseph of royal dreams The wise interpreter, who seated high On Egypt’s throne now sways the sceptre’s power, Much tossed erewhile by waves of fickle fate:” [1]

and so forth. So much concerning Joseph.’

[1] 430 c 1 Philo, Concerning Jerusalem.

Chapter 25. Aristeas Concerning Job

BUT hear also what the same author tells concerning Job:

‘Aristeas says, in his book Concerning the Jews,that Esau married Bassara in Edom and begat Job. This man dwelt in the land of Uz, on the borders of Idumaea and Arabia.

‘He was a just man, and rich in cattle; for he had acquired “seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred she-asses at pasture”; [1] and he had also much arable land.

‘Now this Job was formerly called Jobab: and God continually tried him, and invoked him in great misfortunes. For first his asses and oxen were driven off by robbers; then the sheep together with their shepherds were burned up by fire which fell from heaven, and not long after the camels also were driven off by robbers; then his children died, from the house falling upon them; and the same day his own body also was covered with ulcers.

‘And while he was in evil case, there came to visit him Eliphaz the king of the Temanites, and Bildad the tyrant of the Shuhites, and Zophar the king of the Minnaei, and there came also Elihu the son of Barachiel the Zobite.

‘But when they tried to exhort him, he said that even without exhortation he should continue steadfast in piety even in his sufferings. And God being pleased with his good courage, relieved him from his disease, and made him master of great possessions.’

So much says Polyhistor on this subject.

[1] d 6 Job i. 3

Chapter 26. Eupolemus Concerning Moses

AND concerning Moses the same author again brings forward many things, which are worth hearing:

[ALEXANDER POLYHISTOR] ‘But Eupolemus says that the first wise man was Moses, and that he was the first to teach the Jews letters, and from the Jews the Phoenicians received them, and from the Phoenicians the Greeks, and that Moses was the first to give written laws to the Jews.’ [1]

[1] 431 c 3 A Fragment of Eupolemus, On the Kings of Judaea,quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Strom,i. c. 23, p. 413 P

Chapter 27. Artapanus Concerning the Same

‘AND Artapanus says, in his book Concerning the Jews,that after the death of Abraham, and of his son Mempsasthenoth, and likewise of the king of Egypt, his son Palmanothes succeeded to the sovereignty.

‘This king behaved badly to the Jews; and first he built Kessa, and founded the temple therein, and then built the temple in Heliopolis.

‘He begat a daughter Merris, whom he betrothed to a certain Chenephres, king of the regions above Memphis (for there were at that time many kings in Egypt); and she being barren took a supposititious child from one of the Jews, and called him Mouses (Moses): but by the Greeks he was called, when grown to manhood, Musaeus.

‘And this Moses, they said, was the teacher of Orpheus; and when grown up he taught mankind many useful things. For he was the inventor of ships, and machines for laying stones, and Egyptian arms, and engines for drawing water and for war, and invented philosophy. Further he divided the State into thirty-six Nomes, and. appointed the god to be worshipped by each Nome, and the sacred writing for the priests, and their gods were cats, and dogs, and ibises: he also apportioned an especial district for the priests.

‘All these things he did for the sake of keeping the sovereignty firm and safe for Chenepbres. For previously the multitudes, being under no order, now expelled and now set up kings, often the same persons, but sometimes others.

‘For these reasons then Moses was beloved by the multitudes, and being deemed by the priests worthy to be honoured like a god, was named Hermes, because of his interpretation of the Hieroglyphics.

‘But when Chenephres perceived the excellence of Moses he envied him, and sought to slay him on some plausible pretext. And so when the Aethiopians invaded Egypt, Chenephres supposed that he had found a convenient opportunity, and sent Moses in command of a force against them, and enrolled the body of husbandmen for him, supposing that through the weakness of his troops he would easily be destroyed by the enemy.

‘But Moses with about a hundred thousand of the husbandmen came to the so-called Nome of Hermopolis, and there encamped; and sent generals to pre-occupy the country, who gained remarkable successes in their battles. He adds that the people of Heliopolis say that this war went on for ten years.

‘So Moses, because of the greatness of his army, built a city in this place, and therein consecrated the ibis, because this bird kills the animals that are noxious to man. And he called it Hermes’ city.

‘Thus then the Aethiopians, though they were enemies, became so fond of Moses, that they even learned from him the custom of circumcision: and not they only, but also all the priests.

‘But when the war was ended, Chenephres pretended to welcome him, while in reality continuing to plot against him. So he took his troops from him, and sent some to the frontiers of Aethiopia for an advanced guard; and ordered others to demolish the temple in Diospolis which had been built of baked brick, and build another of stone from the quarries of the neighbouring mountain, and appointed Nacheros superintendent of the building.

‘And when he was come with Moses to Memphis, he asked him whether there was anything else useful for mankind, and he said the breed of oxen, because by means of them the land is ploughed: and Chenephres having given the name Apis to a bull, commanded the troops to found a temple for him, and bade them bring and bury there the animals which had been consecrated by Moses, because he wished to bury the inventions of Moses in oblivion. ‘But when the Egyptians were alienated from him, he bound his friends by an oath not to report to Moses the plot which was being contrived against him, and he appointed the men who were to kill him.

‘When however no one would obey him, Chenephres reproached Chanethothes, whom he had especially addressed; and he, on being thus reproached, promised to make the attempt when he found an opportunity.

‘And Merris having died about this time, Chenephres professed to give the body to Moses and Chanethothes to carry it over into regions beyond Egypt and bury it, supposing that Moses would be slain by Chanethothes.

‘But while they were on the way, one of those who were cognizant of the plot reported it to Moses; and he being on his guard buried Merris himself, and called the river and the city thereby Meroe. And this Merris is honoured by the people of the country not less highly than Isis.

‘Then Aaron the brother of Moses, having learned about the plot, advised his brother to flee into Arabia; and he took the advice, and sailed across the Nile from Memphis, intending to escape into Arabia.

‘But when Chanethothes was informed of the flight of Moses, he lay in ambush intending to kill him; and when he saw him coming, he drew his sword against him, but Moses was too quick for him, and seized his hand, and drew his sword and slew Chanethothes.

‘So he made his escape into Arabia, and lived with Raguel the ruler of the district, having married his daughter. And Raguel wished to make an expedition against the Egyptians in order to restore Moses, and procure the government for his daughter and son-in-law; but Moses prevented it, out of regard for his own nation: and Raguel forbidding him to march against the Arabs, ordered him to plunder Egypt.

‘About the same time Chenephres died, having been the very first person attacked by elephantiasis; and he is said to have incurred this misfortune because he ordered the Jews to wear linen garments and not to wear woollen clothing, in order that they might be conspicuous, and be punished by him.

‘But Moses prayed to God now at last to put an end to the sufferings of the tribes. And God being propitiated, fire, it is said, suddenly blazed up out of the earth, and went on burning though there was no wood nor any other fuel in the place. And Moses was frightened at the occurrence and took to flight; but a divine voice spake to him, to march against Egypt, and rescue the Jews and lead them into their old country.

‘So he took courage and determined to lead a hostile force against the Egyptians: but first he came to his brother Aaron. And when the king of Egypt heard of the arrival of Moses, he called him before him, and asked what he had come for: and he said, Because the Lord of the world commanded him to deliver the Jews.

‘And when the king heard this, he shut him up in prison. But when it was night, all the doors of the prison-house opened of their own accord, and of the guards some died, and some were sunk in sleep, and their weapons broken in pieces.

‘So Moses passed out and came to the palace; and finding the doors opened he went in, and the guards here also being sunk in sleep he woke up the king. And he being dismayed at what had happened bade Moses tell him the name of the God who sent him, scoffing at him: but Moses bent down and whispered in his ear, and when the king heard it he fell speechless, but was held fast by Moses and came to life again.

‘And he wrote the name in a tablet and sealed it up; and one of the priests who made light of what was written in the tablet was seized with a convulsion and died.

‘Also the king told him to work some sign for him, and Moses threw down the rod which he held and turned it into a serpent; and when they were all frightened, he seized it by the tail and took it up, and made it a rod again.

‘Then he went forth a little, and smote the Nile with the rod, and the river became flooded and deluged the whole of Egypt, and it was from that time its inundation began: and the water became stagnant, and stank, and killed all living things in the river, and the people were perishing of thirst.

‘But when these wonders had been wrought, the king said that after a month he would let the people go, if Moses would restore the river to its proper state; and he smote the water again with his rod, and checked the stream.

‘When this was done, the king summoned the priests from above Memphis, and said that he would kill them all, and demolish the temples, unless they also would work some wonder. And then they by some witchcraft and incantations made a serpent, and changed the colour of the river.

‘And the king, being puffed up with pride at what was done, began to maltreat the Jews with every kind of vengeance and punishment. Then Moses, seeing this, both wrought other signs, and also smote the earth with his rod, and brought up a kind of winged animal to harass the Egyptians, and all their bodies broke out in boils. And as the physicians were unable to heal the sufferers, the Jews thus again gained relief.

‘Again Moses by his rod brought up frogs, and besides them locusts and lice. And for this reason the Egyptians dedicate the rod in every temple, and to Isis likewise, because the earth is Isis, and sent up these wonders when smitten by the rod.

‘But as the king still persisted in his folly, Moses caused hail and earthquakes by night, so that those who fled from the earthquake were killed by the hail, and those who sought shelter from the hail were destroyed by the earthquakes. And at that time all the houses fell in, and most of the temples.

‘At last after having incurred such calamities the king let the Jews go: and they, after borrowing from the Egyptians many drinking-vessels, and no little raiment, and very much other treasure, crossed the rivers on the Arabian side, and after traversing a wide space came on the third day to the Red Sea.

‘Now the people of Memphis say, that Moses being acquainted with the country waited for the ebb, and took the people across the sea when dry. But the people of Heliopolis say, that the king hastened after them with a great force, having also with him the consecrated animals, because the Jews were carrying off the property which they had borrowed from the Egyptians.

‘There came, however, to Moses a divine voice bidding him to smite the sea with the rod [and that it should divide]: and when Moses heard it, he touched the water with the rod, and so the stream divided, and the force passed over by a dry path.

‘But when the Egyptians went in with them and were pursuing them, a fire, it is said, shone out upon them from the front, and the sea overflowed the path again, and the Egyptians were all destroyed by the fire and the flood: but the Jews having escaped this danger spent forty years in the wilderness, God raining down meal for them like millet, similar in colour to snow. And Moses they say was tall and ruddy, with long white hair, and dignified: and he performed these deeds when he was about eighty-nine years old.’

Chapter 28. Ezekiel Concerning the Same

‘WITH regard to Moses being exposed by his mother in the marsh, and taken up and reared by the king’s daughter, Ezekiel the tragic poet gives an account, taking up the narrative from the beginning when Jacob and his family came into Egypt to Joseph. And he tells it as follows, bringing Moses forward as the speaker: [1]

“When Jacob from the land of Canaan down To Egypt came, with threescore souls and ten, He there begat a multitudinous race, Who much endured and long, by wicked men And tyrant’s hand to this our day crushed down. For when he saw our people had waxed strong, The king with subtle craft our fathers ruled, And some in making bricks ho sore oppressed, And some in raising heavy stones to build His lofty towers, for their despite contrived. Next he commands that all the Hebrew race Cast every man-child in the Nile’s deep flood. And I have often heard my mother tell, How at that time she hid me for three months: Fearing detection then, she wrapped me close In rough attire, and laid me secretly ‘Mid the thick rushes by the river’s bank. My sister Miriam close at hand kept watch, Till Pharaoh’s daughter with her maids came down To bathe her shining limbs in the cool stream. She saw the babe, and straightway took it up, And knew its Hebrew birth. My sister then Ran up, and to the princess thus she spake: ‘Wilt thou I find as nurse for this fair child Some Hebrew wife?’ The princess bade her speed, And to her mother quick she told the tale, Who came with speed, and took me in her arms. Then spake the Pharaoh’s daughter, ‘Take this child To nurse, good dame, and I will pay thy wage.’ ‘Moses’ the name she gave, to mark the fact That from the river’s brink she drew me forth.”

‘To this farther on in the tragedy Ezekiel adds more on the following points, bringing Moses forward as speaking:

“So when my time of infancy was past, My mother led me to the princess’ home, But first she told me all the tale, my birth And kindred, and God’s gifts of old. The princess then through all my boyhood’s years, As I had been a son of her own womb, In royal state and learning nurtured me. But when the circle of the days was full, I left the palace, urged to lofty deeds By my own soul, and by the king’s device. Then the first day I saw two men at strife, Egyptian one, and one of Hebrew race. And when I saw that we were quite alone, None else in sight, I to the rescue came, Avenged my kinsman, and the Egyptian slew, And buried in the sand, that none might see What we had ventured, and lay bare the deed. But on the morrow’s dawn again I saw Two of our kin in deadly strife, and cried, ‘Why smitest thou thy weaker brother thus?’ But he replied, ‘And who made thee a judge, Or ruler here? Me also wouldest thou slay, As that man yestermorn?’ Then to myself In fear I said, ‘How came that deed abroad?’ All this was quickly carried to the king. And Pharaoh sought to take away my life. His plot I learned, and from his hands escaped, And now to other lands am wandering forth.”

‘Then, concerning the daughters of Raguel he adds this:

“But here, behold! some seven fair maids I see.”

‘And on his asking them what maidens they were, Zipporah replies:

“The land, O stranger, bears the common name Of Libya, but by various tribes is held Of dark-skinned Aethiops: yet the land is ruled By one sole monarch, and sole chief in war. This city has for ruler and for judge A priest, the father of myself and these.”

‘He then describes the giving drink to the cattle, and adds the account of his marriage with Zipporah, bringing forward Chum and Zipporah as speaking in alternate verses:

“Ch.’Yet this thou need’st must tell me, Zipporah.’ Z.’My father gave me for this stranger’s wife.’”

[1] 487 a 1 Ezekiel, The Exodus;cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. i. 414 P

Chapter 29. Demetrius Concerning the Same

‘DEMETRIUS described the slaying of the Egyptian, and the quarrel with him who gave information about the deceased man, in the same way as the writer of the Sacred Book. He says, however, that Moses fled into Midian, and there married Zipporah the daughter of Jothor, who was, as far as one may conjecture from the names, one of the descendants of Keturah, of the stock of Abraham, from Jexan who was the son of Abraham by Keturah: and from Jexan was born Dadan, and from Dadan Raguel, and from Raguel, Jothor, and Hobab: and from Jothor Zipporah, whom Moses married.

‘The generations also agree; for Moses was seventh from Abraham, and Zipporah sixth. For Isaac, from whom Moses descended, was already married when Abraham at the age of a hundred and forty married Keturah, and begat by her a second son Isaar. Now he begat Isaac when he was a hundred years old; so that Isaar, from whom Zipporah derived her descent, was born forty-two years later than Isaac.

‘There is therefore no inconsistency in Moses and Zipporah having lived at the same time. And they dwelt in the city Madiam, which was called from one of the sons of Abraham. For it says that Abraham sent his sons towards the East to find a dwelling-place: for this reason also Aaron and Miriam said at Hazeroth that Moses had married an Aethiopian woman.

‘Ezekiel also speaks of this in the Exodus,adding to the tradition the dream that was seen by Moses and interpreted by his father-in-law. And Moses himself talks with his father-in-law in alternate verses, as follows: [1]

“Methought upon Mount Sinai’s brow I saw A mighty throne that reached to heaven’s high vault, Whereon there sat a man of noblest mien Wearing a royal crown; whose left hand held A mighty sceptre; and his right to me Made sign, and I stood forth before the throne. He gave me then the sceptre and the crown, And bade me sit upon the royal throne, From which himself removed. Thence I looked forth Upon the earth’s wide circle, and beneath The earth itself, and high above the heaven. Then at my feet, behold! a thousand stars Began to fall, and I their number told, As they passed by me like an armed host: And I in terror started up from sleep.”

‘Then his father-in-law thus interprets the dream:

“This sign from God bodes good to thee, my friend. Would I might live to see thy lot fulfilled! A mighty throne shalt thou set up, and be Thyself the leader and the judge of men! And as o’er all the peopled earth thine eye Looked forth, and underneath the earth, and high Above God’s heaven; so shall thy mind survey All things in time, past, present, and to come.”

‘With regard to the burning bush, and the mission of Moses to Pharaoh, he again brings Moses forward as holding converse alternately with God. Moses speaks thus:

“Ha! see! What sign is this from yonder bush? A marvel such as no man might believe. A sudden mighty fire flames round the bush, And yet its growth remains all green and fresh. What then? I will go forward, and behold This wondrous sign, that passes man’s belief.”

‘Then God speaks to him:

“Stay, Moses, faithful servant, draw not nigh, Ere thou hast loosed thy shoes from off thy feet: The place thou standest on is holy ground; And from this bush God’s word shines forth for thee. Fear not, My son, but hearken to My words. Of mortal birth, thou canst not see My face; Yet mayest thou hear the words I came to speak. Thy fathers’ God, the God of Abraham, Of Isaac, and of Jacob, I am God. I do remember all My gifts to them, And come to save My people Israel; For I have seen their sorrows and their toils. Go then, and signify thou in My name, First to the Hebrews gathered by themselves, Then to the king of Egypt, this My will, That thou lead forth My people from the land.”

‘Then lower down Moses himself speaks some lines in answer:

“I am not eloquent, O Lord, but slow Of speech my tongue, and weak my stammering voice To utter words of mine before the king?”

‘Then God in answer to this says to him:

“Thy brother Aaron I will send with speed: First tell thou him all I have told to thee; And he before the king, and thou with Me Alone shalt speak, he what he hears from thee.”

‘With regard to the rod, and the other wonders thus he speaks in alternate verse:

“God.’Say, what is that thou holdest in thine hand? ‘ M.’A rod, wherewith to smite or beasts or men.’ God.’Cast it upon the ground, and flee in haste; For a fierce serpent will affright thine eye.’ N.’Lo! there I cast it. Save me, gracious Lord! How huge, how fierce! In pity spare Thou me. I shudder at the sight in every limb.’ God.’Fear not: stretch forth thy hand, and seize the tail. Again ‘twill be a rod. Now thrust thy hand Into thy bosom: take it out again. See, at My word, ‘tis leprous, white as snow. Now thrust it in again, ‘tis as before.’ “

To this, after some words that he has interposed, he adds the following:

‘Now this is what Ezekiel says in The Exodus,when he brings forward God speaking of the signs, as follows:

“With this thy rod thou shalt work all these plagues. The river first shall flow all red with blood, And every spring, and stream, and stagnant pool. Then frogs and lice shall swarm o’er all the land. Next ashes from the furnace sprinkled round In ulcers sore shall burst on man and beast. And swarms of flies shall come, and sore afflict The bodies of the Egyptians. After that On those hard hearts the pestilence and death Shall fall. And heaven’s wrath let loose on high Shall pour down fire and hail and deadly storm On man, and beast, and all the fruits of earth. Then shall be darkness over all the land For three whole days, and locusts shall devour All food, all fruits, and every blade of grass. Moreover I will slay each first-born child, And crush this evil nation’s wanton pride. Yet none of these My plagues shall touch the king, Until he see his first-born son lie dead: Then will he send you forth in fear and haste. This also speak to all the Hebrew race: ‘This month shall be the first month of your year, Wherein I bring you to that other land, As to the fathers of your race I sware.’ Also command the people, in this month, At evening ere the moon’s full orb appear, To sacrifice the Passover to God, And strike the side-posts of the door with blood: So shall My messenger of death pass by. But the flesh eat ye roast with fire at night. Then will the king drive forth your gathered host In haste; but ere ye go, I will give grace To this My people in the Egyptians’ eyes, So that each woman from her neighbour’s store All needful vessels freely shall receive, Silver and gold, and raiment meet for man, To make requital for their evil deeds. And when ye shall have reached your promised land, Take heed that, from the morn whereon ye fled From Egypt and marched onward seven whole days, From that same morn so many days each year Ye eat unleavened bread, and serve your God, Offering the first-born of all living things, All males that open first the mother’s womb.”

‘And again concerning this same feast he says that the poet has spoken with more careful elaboration:

“And when the tenth day of this month is come, Let every Hebrew for his household choose Unblemished lambs and calves, and keep them up Until the fourteenth day; and then at eve Offer the solemn sacrifice, and eat The flesh and inward parts all roast with fire. Thus shall ye eat it, with your loins girt up, And shoes upon your feet, a staff withal Held ready in your hand; for in great haste The king will bid them drive you from his land. Let each man’s eating for the lamb make count; And when the victim has been duly slain, Take a full bunch of hyssop in your hand, Dipped in the sacred blood, and therewith strike The posts and upper lintel of the door; That death may pass o’er every Hebrew’s house. Keep ever thus this feast unto the Lord, Eating for seven days unleavened bread, And in your houses let no leaven be found. For ye shall be delivered, and the Lord Shall lead you forth from Egypt in this month, Henceforth to be tho first month of your year.”

Again, after some other passages he further says:

‘Ezekiel also, in the drama which is entitled The Exodus,brings forward a Messenger describing both the condition of the Hebrews and the destruction of the Egyptians, as follows:

“For when king Pharaoh from his house set forth With all this crowd of countless men-at-arms, With horsemen, and with four-horsed chariots, In serried ranks in front and on each flank, The embattled host was dreadful to behold. The centre footmen held in phalanx deep With spaces for the chariots to drive through. And on the right wing and the left were set The best of all the Egyptian chivalry. The numbers of our army which I asked, Were thousand thousands brave well-armed men. The Hebrews, when o’ertaken by our host, Lay some in groups hard by the Red Sea shore Worn out with toil, and others with their wives To feed their tender infants were intent: Cumbered with flocks and herds and household goods. The men themselves with hands not armed for fight, At sight of us, set up a doleful cry, And all, with hands uplift to heaven, invoked Their fathers’ God. Great was their multitude; But on our side all jubilant our camp Behind them close we pitched, where by the sea There lies a city, Baal-zephon hight. And as the sun was near his western couch, We waited, longing for the fight at dawn, Trusting our mighty host and deadly arms. But now the signs of heaven’s own wrath began, A dread and wondrous sight. For suddenly A pillar of cloud rose high above the earth Midway between the Hebrew camp and ours: And then their leader Moses took his rod Of power divine, which late on Egypt wrought So many baneful signs and prodigies. Therewith he struck the waves, and the deep sea Was cleft asunder; and with eager steps Their host rushed swiftly o’er that briny path. We then upon their track without delay Trod the same path, and marching forward met The darkness of the night; when suddenly, As if fast bound in chains, our chariot wheels Refused to turn; and from the sky a flame As of a mighty fire before us shone. Their God, methinks, was there to succour them: For they no sooner reached the farther shore, Than close at hand we heard the mighty roar Of surging waves; and one in terror cried: ‘Flee from the vengeful hand of the Most High, For it is He that helps our enemies, And works for our destruction.’ Then the sea Surged o’er our path, and overwhelmed our host.”

And again soon after:

‘Thence they went forward three days, as Demetrius himself says, and the Holy Scripture agrees with him: but as he found there no sweet water, but bitter, at God’s command he cast the wood of a certain tree into the fountain, and the water became sweet. And thence they came to Elim, and found there twelve springs of water, and threescore and ten palm-trees. As to these, and the bird which appeared there, Ezekiel in The Exodusintroduces some one who speaks to Moses concerning the palm-trees and the twelve springs thus:

‘’See, my lord Moses, what a spot is found Fanned by sweet airs from yonder shady grove. For as thyself mayest see, there lies the stream, And thence at night the fiery pillar shed Its welcome guiding light. A meadow there Beside the stream in grateful shadow lies And a deep glen in rich abundance pours From out a single rock twelve sparkling springs. There tall and strong, and laden all with fruit, Stand palms threescore and ten; and plenteous grass Well watered gives sweet pasture to our flocks.”

‘Then lower down he gives a full description of the bird that appeared:

“Another living thing we saw, more strange And marvellous than man e’er saw before. The noblest eagle scarce was half as large: His outspread wings with varying colours shone; The breast was bright with purple, and the legs With crimson glowed, and on the shapely neck The golden plumage shone in graceful curves: The head was like a gentle nestling’s formed: Bright shone the yellow circlet of the eye On all around, and wondrous sweet the voice. The king he seemed of all the winged tribe, As soon was proved; for birds of every kind Hovered in fear behind his stately form: While like a bull, proud leader of the herd, Foremost he marched with swift and haughty step.”

And after a few words he adds that:

‘Some one asked how the Israelites got weapons, as they came out unarmed. For they said that after they had gone out a three days’ journey, and offered sacrifice, they would return again. It appears therefore that these who had not been overwhelmed in the sea made use of the others’ arms.’

[1] 440 a 2 Ezekiel, The Exodus.

Chapter 30

‘BUT Eupolemus says, in some comment on the prophecy of Elias, that Moses prophesied forty years; then Jesus the sou of Nave thirty years, and he lived a hundred and ten years, and pitched the holy tabernacle in Silo.

‘And afterwards Samuel rose up as a prophet: and then by God’s -will Saul was chosen king by Samuel, and died after a reign of twenty-one years.

‘Then his son David reigned, who subdued the Syrians which live beside the river Euphrates, and Commagene, and the Assyrians in Galadene, and the Phoenicians; he also made expeditions against the Edomites, and Ammonites, and Moabites, and Ituraeans, and Nabathaeans, and Nabdaeans.

‘And again he made an expedition against Suron king of Tyre and Phoenicia; and compelled these nations to pay tribute to the Jews; and contracted a friendly alliance with Vaphres king of Egypt.

‘And when David wished to build a temple for God, he entreated God to point out to him a place for the altar; whereupon there appeared to him an angel standing above the place, where the altar is built in Jerusalem, who commanded him not to build the temple, because he was defiled with men’s blood and had passed many years in war.

‘And the angel’s name was Dianathan; and he bade him commit the building of the temple to his son, but himself to prepare the things pertaining to the building, gold, silver, brass, stones, cypress wood and cedar.

‘And on bearing this David built ships in Aelan a city of Arabia, and sent miners to the island Drphe which lies in the Red Sea, and contains gold mines. And thence the miners transported the gold into Judaea.

‘When David had reigned forty years he gave over the government to Solomon his son, who was twelve years old, in the presence of Eli the High Priest and the twelve princes of the tribes, and delivered to him the gold and silver and brass and stone and cypress wood and cedar. Then David died, and Solomon was king, and wrote to Vaphres king of Egypt the letter which is transcribed below.

Chapter 31

‘”KING SOLOMON TO VAPHRES KING OP EGYPT, HIS FATHER’S FRIEND, GBEETING.

“KNOW thou that I have succeeded to the kingdom of my father David by the help of the Most High God, who has also enjoined on me to build a temple to the God who made heaven and earth: and withal to write to thee, to send me some of thy peoples, who shall stay and help me, until we shall have completed all things that are required, according to the injunction laid on me.”

CHAPTER XXXII ‘”KING VAPHRES TO SOLOMON THE GREAT KING GEEETING.

“I REJOICED much when I read thy letter, and both I and all my kingdom kept a festive day in honour of thy succession, to the throne after a man so good and approved by so great a God. But as to what thou writest to me concerning the men among our peoples here, I have sent thee eighty thousand, and have clearly explained to thee their numbers and the places from which they come: from the Sebrithitic nome tea thousand, and from the Mendesian and Sebennytic twenty thousand: from the nomes of Busiris Leonto-polis and Athribites ten thousand each. And do thou carefully provide what things they require, and for the rest, that they may be in good order, and may be restored to their own country, as soon as they cease to be wanted.”

Chapter 33

‘”KING SOLOMON TO SURON KING OP TYRE AND SIDON AND PHOENICIA, HIS FATHER’S FRIEND, GREETING.

“KNOW thou that I have received the kingdom from my father David by help of the Most High God, who also enjoined on me to build a temple to the God who made the heaven and the earth, and withal to write to thee to send me some men from thy peoples, who shall stay and help us until we have fulfilled the requirement of God, according to the injunction laid upon me. I have written also to Galilee, and Samaria, and the land of Moab, and Ammon, and Gilead, to supply them with necessaries from the country every month, ten thousand cors of corn (a cor is six artabae) and ten thousand homers of wine (the homer of wine is ten measures): and oil and the rest shall be supplied to them from Judaea, and from Arabia, victims for sacrifice on which to feed.”

CHAPTER XXXIV ‘”SURON TO SOLOMON THE GREAT KING GREETING.

“BLESSED be God, who made the heaven and the earth, who hath chosen a worthy son of a worthy father. As soon as I read thy letter I rejoiced greatly, and gave praise to God for thy succession to the kingdom.

“And as to what thou writest concerning the men in our various peoples, I have sent thee of Tyrians and Phoenicians eighty thousand, and as chief architect I have sent thee a man of Tyre, of a Jewish mother of the tribe of David: on whatsoever thou shalt ask him of all things under heaven, relating to architecture, he will give thee advice, and will carry out the work.

“And with regard to necessary provisions, and to the servants whom I send to thee, thou wilt do well in commanding the local governors, that all things necessary he provided.” ‘

‘When Solomon with his father’s friends had passed over to mount Lebanon with the Sidonians and Tyrians, he transported the timber which had previously been cut by his father to Joppa by sea, and thence by land to Jerusalem. And he began to build the temple of God when he was thirteen years old: and the work was done by the nations before-mentioned, and the twelve tribes of the Jews supplied the hundred and sixty thousand with all things necessary, one tribe each month; and they laid the foundations of the temple of God, sixty cubits in length, and sixty cubits in breadth, but the breadth of the building and of the foundations was ten cubits, for so had Nathan the prophet of God commanded him.

‘And they built alternately a course of stone and a beam of cypress-wood, fastening the two courses together with bronze cramps of a talent in weight. And when he had built it thus, he boarded it outside with planks of cedar and cypress, so that the stone building was not visible: and covered the temple with gold on the inside, by piling up bricks of gold five cubits long, and nailing them to the walls with silver nails of a talent in weight, four in number, and shaped like a breast.

‘Thus he covered it with gold from floor to roof, and the ceiling he made of golden panels, and the roof he made of brass, that is of brass tiles, having smelted brass and poured it into moulds. He made also two columns of brass, and covered them with pure gold, a finger’s breadth in thickness.

‘And the columns were as high as the temple, and in size each pillar ten cubits in circumference: and they stood one on the right side of the house, and the other on the left. He made also golden lamp-stands, weighing ten talents each, having taken as a pattern the lamp-stand set by Moses in the tabernacle of the Testimony.

‘And he set them on either side of the shrine, some on the right and some on the left. He made also seventy golden lamps, so that there might be seven burning on each lamp-stand. He built also the gates of the temple, and adorned them with gold and silver, and roofed them over with panels of cedar and cypress.

‘He made a porch also on the north side of the temple, and supported it on forty-eight pillars of brass. He made also a brazen laver, twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in width, and five cubits high. And upon it he made a brim projecting on the outside towards the base one cubit, in order that the priests might stand up on it, and wash their feet and hands. Also he made the bases of the laver, twelve in number, molten and chased, and of the height of a man, and set them at the hinder side beneath the laver, on the right side of the altar.

‘He made also a brazen step two cubits high, near the laver, that the king might stand upon it, when praying, so that he might be seen by the Jewish people. Also he built the altar of twenty-five cubits by twenty cubits, and twelve cubits high.

‘He made also two brazen rings of chain-work, and set them upon machines rising twenty cubits in height above the temple, and they cast a shadow over the whole temple: and to each net-work he hung four hundred brass bells of a talent in weight, and the net-works he made solid, that the bells might sound, and frighten away the birds, that they might not settle upon the temple, nor nest upon the panels of the gates and porches, and defile the temple with their dung.

‘He also surrounded the city Jerusalem with walls and towers and moats, and built a palace for himself.

‘And the Lord’s house was at first called the Temple of Solomon (Ἱερὸν Σολομῶνος); afterwards by a corruption the city was named Hierusalem from the Temple, but by the Greeks was called Hierosolyma after the king’s name.

‘And when he had completed the Temple and the walls of the city, he went to Shiloh, and offered a thousand oxen for a burnt-offering. And he took the Tabernacle, and the altar, and the vessels which Moses made, and brought them to Jerusalem, and put them in the house.

‘Moreover the Ark, and the golden altar, and the lamp-stand, and the table, and the other vessels he deposited there, as the prophet commanded him.

‘And he offered to God an immense sacrifice, two thousand sheep, three thousand five hundred calves. And the whole amount of gold which was expended upon the two pillars and the temple was four millions six hundred thousand talents: and upon the nails and the rest of the furniture one thousand two hundred and thirty-two talents of silver: and of brass for the columns and the laver and the porch eighteen thousand and fifty talents.

‘And Solomon sent away both the Egyptians and the Phoenicians each to their own country, having given to every man ten shekels of gold; now the shekel is a talent. And to Vaphres the king of Egypt he sent ten thousand measures of oil, a thousand measures of dates, a hundred vessels of honey, and spices.

‘And to Suron at Tyre he sent the golden pillar which is dedicated in the temple of Zeus at Tyre.

‘But Theophilus says that Solomon sent the gold that remained over to the king of Tyre; and that he made a life-sized figure as an image of his daughter, and made the golden column into a covering for the statue.

‘And Eupolemus says that Solomon made also a thousand golden shields, each of which weighed five hundred staters of gold. He lived fifty-two years, of which he reigned forty in peace.’

Chapter 35. Timochares Concerning Jerusalem

‘TIMOCHARES, in his Life of Antiochus,says that Jerusalem has a circuit of forty furlongs, and is difficult to take, being shut in on all sides by abrupt ravines: and that the whole city is flooded with streams of water, so that even the gardens are irrigated by waters which flow off from the city. But the country from the city as far as forty furlongs is without water: but beyond the forty furlongs again it is well watered.’

Chapter 36

‘THE author of the Metrical Survey of Syriasays in his first book that Jerusalem lies upon a lofty and rugged site: and that some parts of the wall are built of polished stone, but the greater part of rubble; and that the city has a circuit of twenty-seven furlongs, and that there is also within the place a spring which spouts up abundance of water.

Chapter 37

‘PHILO too says, in his Account of Jerusalem,that there is a fountain, and that it is dried up in winter, but becomes full in summer. And in his first Book he speaks thus:

“Νηχόμενος δ' ἐφύπερθε τὸ θαμβηέστατον ἄλλο δέρκηθρον συναοιδὰ μεγιστούχοιο λοετροῖς ῥεύματος ἐμπίπλησι βαθὺν ῥόον ἐξανιείσης.” [1]

‘And so forth. Again, lower down he adds to these a description of the refilling:

“For flashing from on high the joyous stream, Flooded by rain and snow, rolls swiftly on Beneath the neighbouring towers, and spreading o’er The dry and dusty ground, far-shining shows The blessings of that wonder-working fount.”

‘And the rest that follows. Then again, concerning the High Priest’s fountain and the canal that carries off the water, he proceeds as follows:

“A headlong stream by channels under ground The pipes pour forth,”

‘And all that follows this.’

Thus far then our quotations from Alexander Polyhistor.

[1] 453 a 3 These lines are so corrupt as to defy translation.

Chapter 38. Aristeas Concerning the Same

BUT Aristeas also, in the book which he wrote Concerning the Interpretation of the Law of the Jews,gives the following account of the waters in Jerusalem:

[ARISTEAS] [1] ‘Now the house looks towards the East, and the back part of it to the West. The whole site is paved with stone, and has slopes towards the proper places for the influx of the waters for the purpose of washing away the blood from the sacrifices: for many myriads of cattle are offered on the several feast-days.

‘And there is an inexhaustible reservoir of water, as would be expected from an abundant spring gushing up naturally from within; there being moreover wonderful and indescribable cisterns under ground, of five furlongs, according to their showing, all round the foundation of the temple, and countless pipes from them, so that the streams on every side met together. And all these works have been fastened with lead at tbe bottom and the side-walls, and over these has been spread a great quantity of plaster, all having been carefully wrought.’

[1] 453 d 1 Aristeas, § 88 (Wendland).

Chapter 39

BESIDES this, as Polyhistor has made mention of the prophecy of Jeremiah, it would be a most unreasonable thing for us to pass it over in silence. Let this then also be set down:

[POLYHISTOR] ‘Then Jonachim: in his time prophesied Jeremiah the prophet. He was sent by God, and found the Jews sacrificing to a golden image, the name of which was Baal.

‘And he foreshowed to them the calamity which was to come. Jonachim then attempted to burn him alive: but he said that with that fuel they should cook food for the Babylonians, and as prisoners of war should dig the canals of the Tigris and Euphrates.

‘When Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Babylonians, had heard of the predictions of Jeremiah, he summoned Astibares, the king of the Medes, to join him in an expedition. And having taken with him Babylonians and Medes, and collected a hundred and eighty thousand infantry and a hundred and twenty thousand cavalry, and ten thousand chariots, he first subdued Samaria, and Galilee, and Scythopolis, and the Jews who lived in the region of Gilead; and afterwards took Jerusalem, and made Jonachim, the king of the Jews, a prisoner. And the gold that was in the temple, and the silver and brass, they chose out and sent to Babylon, except the Ark and the tables that were in it: but this Jeremiah retained.’

Chapter 40

To this I must necessarily append also the account of the captivity of the Jews under Nebuchadnezzar:

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘Nebuchadnezzar having encountered the rebel and joined battle with him, both mastered him, and brought the country at once under his own rule.

‘And it happened that his father Nabopallasar fell sick at this time, and departed from life in the city of Babylon, after having reigned twenty-one years. And when Nebuchadnezzar heard soon after of his father’s death, he set in order the affairs of Egypt and of the rest of the country, and having committed the prisoners of the Jews and Phoenicians and Syrians, the nations near Egypt, to certain of his friends, came to Babylon.’

After other statements he says:

‘So then Nebuchadnezzar, after be had begun the wall before-mentioned, fell sick and died, after a reign of forty-three years, and his son Evil-Merodach became master of the kingdom.

‘He governed the affairs of the kingdom in a lawless and outrageous manner, and was plotted against and put to death by his sister’s husband Neriglisar, after having reigned two years.

‘And after he was slain Neriglisar, who had plotted against him, succeeded to the government and reigned four years. His son Chabaessoarach succeeded to the kingdom, though he was but a boy, and held it nine mouths; but because be showed many evil dispositions, a plot was made against him by his friends, and he was beaten to death.

‘Upon his death, those who had plotted against him met together, and by common consent conferred the kingdom on Nabonuedus, who was a Babylonian and one of the same conspiracy.

‘In his reign the walls of Babylon adjacent to the river were handsomely repaired with baked brick and asphalt. And in the seventeenth year of his reign Cyrus came from Persia with a great force, and, after subduing all the rest of the kingdom, invaded Babylonia.

‘Nabonnedus, on being informed of his advance, met him with his army, and having joined battle was defeated, and fled with a few attendants, and was shut up in the city Borsippus.

‘And Cyrus having taken Babylon, and ordered the demolition of the outer walls of the city because the city had proved very troublesome to him, and hard to take, moved his army to Borsippus, to besiege Nabonnedus.

‘But as Nabonnedus did not wait for the siege, but gave himself up beforehand, Cyrus treated him in a kindly manner, and, giving him Carmania to dwell in, sent him away from Babylonia. The rest of his time therefore Nabonnedus passed in that country, and there ended his life.

‘This narrative contains the truth in agreement with our books. For in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar in the eighteenth year of his reign laid waste our temple, and it remained unregarded fifty years. But in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid, and it was completed again in the tenth year of the reign of Darius.’

Thus far Josephus.

[1] 455 b 3 Josephus, Against Apion,i. 19

Chapter 41. Abydenus Concerning Nabuchodonosor

I FOUND also the following statements concerning Nebuchadnezzar in the work of Abydenus Concerning the Assyrians:

[ABYDENUS] ‘Now Megasthenes says that Nebuchadnezzar was braver than Hercules, and made an expedition against Libya and Iberia, and, having subdued them, settled a part of their inhabitants on the right shore of Pontus.

‘And afterwards, the Chaldeans say, he went up to his palace, and being possessed by some god or other uttered the following speech:

‘”O men of Babylon, I Nebuchadnezzar here foretell to you the coming calamity, which neither Belus my ancestor, nor Queen Beltis are able to persuade the Fates to avert.

‘”There will come a Persian mule, aided by the alliance of your own deities, and will bring you into slavery. And the joint author of this will be a Mede, in whom the Assyrians glory. O would that before he gave up my citizens some Charybdis or sea might swallow him up utterly out of sight; or that, turning in other directions, he might be carried across the desert, where there are neither cities nor foot of man, but where wild beasts have pasture and birds their haunts, that he might wander alone among rocks and ravines; and that, before he took such thoughts into his mind, I myself had found a better end.”

‘He after uttering this prediction had immediately disappeared, and his son Amil-marudocus became king. But he was slain by his kinsman Iglisar, who left a son Labassoarask. And when he died by a violent death, Nabannidochus, who was not at all related to him was appointed king. But after the capture of Babylon, Cyrus presents him with the principality ofCarmania.’

Also concerning the building of Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar the same author writes thus:

‘It is said that all was originally water, and called a sea. But Belus put a stop to this, and assigned a district to each, and surrounded Babylon with a wall; and at the appointed time he disappeared.

‘And afterwards Nebuchadnezzar built the wall which remained to the time of the Macedonian empire, and was furnished with gates of brass.’

After other statements he adds:

‘When Nebuchadnezzar had succeeded to the kingdom, he fortified Babylon with a triple circuit of walls in fifteen days, and he changed the course of the river Armacales, which is a branch of the Euphrates, and also of the Acracanus. To protect the city of the Sippareni he dug out a reservoir having a circuit of forty parasangs and a depth of twenty fathoms, and put gates to it, by opening which they irrigated the plain; and they call them Echetognomones.

‘He also walled off the inundation of the Red Sea, and built the city Teredon at the place of the incursions of the Arabs. His palace too he adorned with trees, and gave it the name of the Hanging Gardens.’

I have wished to make these quotations from the book before mentioned, because in the prophecy of Daniel it is said that Nebuchadnezzar, walking in the palace of his kingdom in Babylon, in proud thought spoke out arrogantly and said: ‘Is not this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal dwelling place, by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty? ‘ [1] While the word is yet in his mouth the catastrophe which followed has come upon him.

This then is enough for me to have quoted on the present subject.

[1] 457 d 9 Dan. iv. 30

Chapter 42

BUT after all let me add the statements from the Antiquity of the Jewsby Josephus, where, after quoting word for word the sayings of numberless writers, he adds the following:

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘Nevertheless the records of the Syrians and Chaldeans and Phoenicians suffice for the proof of our antiquity, and in addition to them so many writers among the Greeks, and yet further in addition to those mentioned Theophilus, and Theodotus, and Mnaseas, and Aristophanes, and Hermogenes, Euemerus also, and: Conon, and Zopyrion, and many others perhaps (for I have not read all the books) have made no slight or passing mention of us.

‘Most, however, of the persons mentioned missed the truth of our earliest history because they had not read our Sacred Books: nevertheless all alike have borne testimony concerning our antiquity, the subject on which I proposed to speak at this time. Demetrius Phalereus, however, and Philo the elder, and Eupolemus, did not go far astray from the truth. And they deserve to be excused, for it was not in their power to follow our scriptures with entire accuracy.’

So says Josephus. And any one who is pleased to read his statements concerning the Antiquity of the Jewswill find very many testimonies agreeing with those which I have set forth.

Also there pours in upon me a further great crowd of writers both ancient and modern as witnesses, who set their seal upon the like judgement with the authors who have been quoted; but being anxious to preserve the due limits of my discourse, I leave their utterances for students to search out and examine, and will myself pass on to fulfil the remainder of my promise.

[Footnotes numbered and moved to end]

[1] 458 b 5 Josephus, Against Apion,i. 23

Book 10

Chapter 1

WE have previously explained for what reasons we (Christians) have preferred the philosophy of the Hebrews to that of the Greeks, and on what kind of considerations we accepted the sacred Books current among the former people; and then afterwards we proved that the Greeks themselves were not ignorant of that people, but mentioned them by name, and greatly admired their mode of life, and have given a long account both of their royal capital, and other matters of their history. Now then let us go on to observe how they not only deemed the record of these things worthy to be written, but also became zealous imitators of the like teaching and instruction in some of the doctrines pertaining to the improvement of the soul.

I shall show then almost immediately how, from various sources, one and another of these wonderful Greeks, by going about among the Barbarians, collected the other branches of learning, geometry, arithmetic, music, astronomy, medicine, and the very first elements of grammar, and numberless other artistic and profitable studies.

In the previous part of my discourse I proved that they had received from Barbarians their opinion concerning a multitude of gods, and their mysteries and initiations, and moreover their histories, and their fabulous stories about gods, and their physical explanations of the fables as expressed in allegory, and the rest of their superstitious error. This, I say, was proved at the time when we convicted the Greeks of having wandered over much of the earth, and then set up their own. theology on all points, not indeed without labour and care, but by contributions from the learning current among Barbarians: and soon it shall be proved that from no other source than from Hebrews only could they have procured the knowledge of the worship of the One Supreme God, and of the doctrines most in request for the benefit of the soul, which of course would also be most conclusive of their discussions on philosophy.

Or otherwise, if any one should say that they were moved to the same conclusions by innate conceptions, even this would be in our favour, that we preferred to be zealous followers of the doctrines delivered not only to Hebrews from the earliest ages by prophets who spake of God, but also, if not to all, yet to some, and those certainly the very men who were greatly renowned in Greece, doctrines carefully examined also in the discussions of the philosophers.

Now these men you would find to be few in number, because all excellence is proverbially difficult to attain; but nevertheless they have been honoured with the first place among the philosophers of Greece, so that through their great fame they overshadow the reputation of their fellows.

But you must not be surprised if we say that possibly the doctrines of the Hebrews have been plagiarised by them, since they are not only proved to have stolen the other branches of learning from Egyptians and Chaldees and the rest of the barbarous nations, but even to the present day are detected in robbing one another of the honours gained in their own writings.

At all events one after another they surreptitiously steal the phrases of their neighbours together with the thoughts and whole arrangement of treatises, and pride themselves as if upon their own labours. And do not suppose that this is my statement, for you shall again hear the very wisest of them convicting one another of theft in their writings.

And this very fact, since we have once mentioned it, we must consider as evidence before all else of the character of the said persons. Our Clement then, in his sixth Miscellany,has arranged the proof of this point at full length: so take and read me his words first, such as the following:

Chapter 2

[CLEMENT] [1] ‘Now after having shown, that the significance of Greek thought was illumined on all sides from the truth bestowed on us through the Scripturess according to the sense which we took in proving that the theft of the truth (if it be not offensive to say so) came home to them; let us proceed to bring forward the Greeks as witnesses of the theft against themselves.

‘For they who so openly filch their own works one from another establish the fact that they are thieves, and betray, however unwillingly, that they are secretly appropriating to their own countrymen the truth borrowed from us. For if they do not keep their hands off even from one another, it is not likely that they will from our writers.

‘Now of their philosophical doctrines I shall say nothing, since the very men who have divided themselves into sects, confess in writing, in order that they may not be convicted of ingratitude, that they have received the most important of their doctrines from Socrates. But after employing a few testimonies of men familiarly known and renowned among the Greeks, and exposing their style of plagiarism, by dealing with various periods, I shall turn to the subjects next in order.’

After these statements by way of preface, he brings forward his proofs in order, using all kinds of evidence, and calls the poets first to account as having stolen the thoughts from other poets, by a comparison of their respective utterances.

Then next he adds the following:

‘In order that we may not allow philosophy, nor history, nor even rhetoric to pass free from the same charge, it is reasonable to bring forward a few passages from them also.’ [2]

Then he successively compares passages of Orpheus, Heracleitus, Plato, Pythagoras, Herodotus, Theopompus, Thucydides, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Lysias, Isocrates, and ten thousand others, of whose sayings it is superfluous for me to make a catalogue, as the author’s work is ready at hand, in which, after the evidences concerning the said authors, he again speaks as follows:

‘Let then these specimens of Greek plagiarism in thought suffice, being such as they are, for a clear example to one who has any power of discernment. But further they have been detected not only in filching and paraphrasing the thoughts and the expressions, but, as shall be shown, they have stolen the works of others wholesale, and brought them out as their own; as Eugamon of Cyrene stole the entire book Concerning the Thesprotiansfrom Musaeus.’ [3]

Clement having afterwards added to these very many proofs of his argument, again at the end makes this addition:

‘Life would fail me, should I attempt to go over in particular detail the proof of the selfish plagiarism of the Greeks, and how they claim as their own the discovery of the noblest doctrines current among them, which they have taken from us.[4]

‘But now they are convicted not only of stealing their doctrines from the Barbarians, but also of copying our records of deeds so wonderfully wrought of old by the divine power through men of holy lives for our study, and exhibiting them in the marvellous stories of Greek mythology.

‘And so we shall inquire of them whether these stories which they relate are true or false. False they would not say; for they would not willingly convict themselves of the great folly of recording falsehoods; but they would of necessity confess that they are true.

‘But how then do the deeds miraculously exhibited by Moses and the other prophets any longer appear incredible to them? For the Almighty God in His care for all men tries to convert them to salvation, some by commandments, some by threatenings, some by miraculous signs, and some by gentle promises.

‘Moreover, once when a drought was for a long time ruining Greece, and a dearth of food prevailed, the Greeks, those of them who were left, it is said, because of the famine came as suppliants to Delphi, and asked the Pythoness how they might be delivered from the danger. And she answered them that there was only one way of escape from the calamity, that they should employ the prayer of Aeacus, So Aeacus was persuaded by them, and went up to the Hellenic Mount, and, stretching out his pure hands to heaven, called upon God as the common Father, and prayed Him to have pity upon Hellas in her distress.

‘And while he was yet praying there was a portentous sound of thunder, and all the surrounding air grew clouded, and violent and continuous rains burst forth and filled the whole country. Thence an abundant and rich harvest, produced by the husbandry of the prayers of Aeacus, is brought to perfection. [5]

‘”And Samuel(says the Scripture) called upon the Lord, and the Lord gave thunder and rain in the day of harvest.[6] Seest thou that there is One God, who sendeth rain upon the just and unjust[7] by means of the powers subject to Him? “‘ And the rest.

To this Clement subjoined countless instances, and convicted the Greeks of having been plagiarists by indisputable proofs. But if you do not think him trustworthy, inasmuch as he, like us, has himself preferred the philosophy of the Barbarians to that of Greece, well then let him be dismissed, although he conducted his argument not in words of his own, but in those of Greeks themselves. But what would you say. if you should learn the like facts even from your noble philosophers themselves? Listen then to their testimonies also.

[1] 461 d 4 Clement, Miscellanies,vi. c. 2, § 4

[2] 462 c 2 Clement, Miscellanies,vi. c. 2, § 16

[3] d 3 ibid. § 25

[4] d 14 Clement, Miscellanies,vi. c. 2, § 27

[5] 463 a 1 ibid. c. 3, § 28

[6] 463 d 5 I Sam. xi. 18

[7] d 7 Matt. v. 45

Chapter 3

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘WHEN Longinus was entertaining us in Athens at the banquet in memory of Plato, he had invited among many others Nicagoras the Sophist, and Major, and Apollonius the Grammarian, and Demetrius the Geometer, and Prosenes the Peripatetic, and Callietes the Stoic.

‘With these reclined the host himself making seven, and while supper was going on, and some question about Ephorus had arisen among the others, he said, Let us hear what is this clamour about Ephorus? Now the disputants were Caystrius and Maximus: for the latter was for preferring him to Theopompus, while Caystrius called him a plagiarist.

‘”For what,” said he, “belongs properly to Ephorus, who transfers from the writings of Daimachus, and Callisthenes, and Anaximenes word for word sometimes as much as three thousand whole lines?”

‘In answer to whom Apollonius the Grammarian said, “Yes, for you are not aware that even Theopompus, whom you prefer, is infected with the same fault, as having in the eleventh book of his History of Philipcopied word for word from the Areopagiticusof Isocrates that famous passage, “that nothing good and nothing evil comes to men quite of itself,” [2] and the rest.

‘And yet he despises Isocrates, and says that his master was defeated by himself in the contest in honour of Mausolus. Then he has committed a theft of facts, by transferring what he found told of some men to others, that in this way he might also be convicted of falsehood.

‘For whereas Andron in The Tripod,writing of the philosopher Pythagoras, had narrated the story of his predictions, and said that once at Metapontium having been thirsty, and having drawn up and drunk water from a certain well, he foretold that on the third day there would be an earthquake. And after adding some other remarks to these, he proceeds:

‘”So whereas Andron had told this story concerning Pythagoras, Theopompus filched it all. If he had mentioned Pythagoras, perhaps others also would have known about it, and said, The Master also said that. But now the change of the name has made the plagiarism manifest; for he has made use of the same facts, but substituted another name: and he has represented Pherecydes of Syros [3] as uttering this prediction.

‘And not only by this name does he try to conceal the theft, but also by a change of localities: for the prophecy of the earthquake narrated by Andron as spoken in Metapontium, Theopompus says was uttered in Syria. And the incident about the ship was observed, he says, not from Megara in Sicily, but from Samos: and the capture of Sybaris he has transferred to that of Messene.

‘But in order that he might seem to say something more than common, he has also added the name of the stranger, saying that he was called Perilaus.” “I too,” says Nicagoras, “in reading his Hellenicsand Xenophon’s, have detected him in transferring many things from Xenophon; and the mischief is that he has changed them for the worse.

‘”For instance, the account of the conference of Pharnabazus with Agesilaus through the mediation of Apollophanes of Cyzicus, and their conversations with each other under a truce, which Xenophon in his fourth Book recorded very gracefully and in a manner becoming to both, Theopompus has transferred into the eleventh Book of his Hellenics,and deprived of all vigour, and movement, and effect.

‘”For while, in order to hide his theft, he strives to throw in and to display forcible and elaborate language, he appears slow, and hesitating, and procrastinating, and destroys the animation and vigour of Xenophon.”

‘After Nicagoras had thus spoken, Apollonius said, But what wonder that the vice of plagiarism infected Theopompus and Ephorus, who were merely very dull men, when even Menander was full of this infirmity, though in censuring him Aristophanes the Grammarian, because of his excessive friendship for him, dealt gently in his parallel extracts from him and from those whom he plagiarised. But Latinus in six books, which he entitled Of Menander’s Appropriations,exposed the multitude of his plagiarisms.

‘In the same way Philostratus of Alexandria began a treatise On the Plagiarism of Sophocles.And Caecilius, thinking that he has discovered something of great importance, says that Menander transcribed a whole drama, The Augurof Antiphaues, from beginning to end, into The Superstitious Man.

‘But since, says he, it has seemed good to you, I know not how, to bring forward the plagiarists, I myself also inform against the charming Hyperides as having stolen many things from Demosthenes, both in the speech Against Diondasand in the one Concerning the bribes of Eubulus.

‘And that one of them has borrowed from the other is manifest: but as they were contemporaries it must be your task, Apollonius, says he, to track the plagiarist from the dates. Now I suspect that the one who has stolen is Hyperides: but as it is uncertain which it was, I admire Demosthenes, if he borrowed from Hyperides and made appropriate corrections; but I blame Hyperides if he borrowed from Demosthenes, and perverted it for the worse.’

And soon after he says:

‘”Why need I tell you, how the Barbarian Customsof Hellanicus is a compilation out of the works of Herodotus and Damastes? Or how Herodotus in his second Book has transferred many passages of Hecataeus of Miletus from the Geography,verbally with slight falsifications, as the account of the bird Phoenix, and of the hippopotamus, and of the hunting of crocodiles?

‘Or how the statements in Isaeus concerning torture, in his oration Concerning the inheritance of Cylon,are found also in the Trapeziticusof Isocrates, and in the oration of Demosthenes Against Onetor on an action of ejectmentare expressed almost in the same words?

‘Or how Dinarchus in his first speech Against Cleomedon in an action for assaulthas transferred many things word for word from the speech of Demosthenes Against Conon for assault?

‘Or how this sentiment of Hesiod’s,

“Nought can man better than a good wife win, Nor find a worse bane than a vicious shrew,” [4]

was borrowed by Simonides in his eleventh Book, who took it thus:

“Of all the prizes man can win, a wife If good is best, if evil far the worst.” [5]

‘And by Euripides in Melanippe the Captive:

“For than a bad wife nought can e’er be worse, Nor aught excel a virtuous woman’s worth; But of their natures there is difference great.” [6]

‘And whereas Euripides said:

“A race most wretched we poor women are,” [7]

Theodectes says in the Alcmaeon:

“Tis a true proverb in the mouths of men, Than woman nought more wretched e’er was born.” [8]

This author has not only taken the suggestion from that passage, but has also employed the very words; and he craftily preferred to give it a proverbial character, and to employ it as a saying used by many, rather than to seem to have taken it from its original author.

‘Antimachus too steals Homer’s verse, and blunders in correcting it. For Homer having said:

“Idas was strongest born of men on earth,” [9]

Antimachus says:

“Idas was strongest of all men on earth.” [10]

And Lycophron praises the alteration on the ground that the line is thereby strengthened.

‘As to Homer’s

“Τὸν δ' ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη κρείων Διομήδης”

I say nothing, since Homer has been ridiculed in comedy by Cratinus because of his frequent repetition of

“Τὸν δ' ἀπαμειβόμενος”

which, though so trite, Antimachus did not hesitate to borrow.

‘The line,

“The tribes he ruled with mild paternal sway,” [11]

is Homer’s: and again in another place it is written,

“They on either side In closer ranks the deep battalions ranged.” [12]

But Antimachus, by transferring half-lines, has made the verse

“Of all the tribes they ruled In closer ranks the deep battalions ranged.” [13]

‘But lest while charging others with plagiarism I should be convicted as a plagiarist myself, I will indicate those who have treated this subject. There are two books of Lysimachus Concerning the Plagiarism of Ephorus.Alcaeus also, the poet of the vituperative Iambics and Epigrams, has detected and parodied the plagiarisms of Ephorus: then there is an epistle of Pollio to Soteridas Concerning the Plagiarism of Ctesias,and a book of the same author Concerning the Plagiarism of Herodotus,and in the book entitled The Searchersthere are many statements concerning Theopompus, and there is a treatise of Aretades Concerning Coincidence,from which works one may learn many examples of this kind.’

After other passages he adds: [14]

‘Prosenes also said, The other plagiarists you have detected: but that even this hero Plato himself, after whom the feast which . we are celebrating to-day is named, makes use of many works of his predecessors (for in his case I feel too much respect to use the term “plagiarism”), this you have not proceeded to discover.

‘What say you? said Callietes. I not only say, replied Prosenes, but I also offer the proof of my statement. Now the books of Plato’s predecessors are rare: else perhaps one might have detected more of the philosopher’s plagiarisms. As to one, however, which I myself lighted upon by chance, in reading the discourse of Protagoras Concerning Beingagainst those who represent “Being “ as one, I find him employing answers of the following kind; for I was careful to remember wlfat he said in his very words.’

And after this preface he sets out the proofs at large.

But I think that out of numberless examples those which have been mentioned are sufficient to show what was the character of the Greek writers, and that they did not spare even the exposure one of another. Yet in farther preparation for showing the benefit which has overflowed to the Greeks from the Hebrew Scriptures, I think it will be right and necessary for me to prove generally that all the celebrated learning and philosophy of the Greeks, both their elementary studies, and their grand system of logical science, have been collected by them from Barbarians, so that none of them may any longer lay blame upon us, because forsooth we have preferred the religion and philosophy of the Barbarians to their grand doctrines.

[1] 464 a 1 Porphyry, Lecture on Literature,Bk. i, Fragment preserved by Eusebius

[2] c 5 Isocrates, Areopagiticus,p. 140 d

[3] 465 a 3 Or ‘Pherecydes the Syrian’

[4] 466 c 10 Hesiod, Works and Days,702

[5] d 3 Simonides, Fr. 6(Bergk), 224 (Gaisf.)

[6] d 6 Euripides, Fr.29 (511)

[7] d 10 Euripides, Medea,231

[8] d 12 Theodectes, Fr. 2 (Wagner)

[9] 467 a 7 Hom. Il.i. 558

[10] b 1 Antimachus, Fr.34 (Dubner)

[11] c 2 Hom. Od.ii. 334

[12] c 4 Hom. Il.xvi. 563

[13] c 7 Antimachus, Fr.34

[14] d 14 Porphyry, Lecture on Literature,Bk. i

Chapter 4

You may judge that not without sound reason have we given a secondary place to the doctrines of the Greek philosophy, and preferred the theology of the Hebrews, when you learn that even among the Greeks themselves those who have most of all treated philosophy correctly, and thought out something more and better than the vulgar talk about the gods, have discovered no other true doctrines than those which had received a previous sanction among the Hebrews.

For some of them, being carried away hither and thither by various false opinions, were driven about into an abyss of idle prating; while others, who have in some degree employed candid reasoning, have shown themselves partakers in the teaching of the Hebrews in those points wherein they attained to the conception of the truth.

It is probable at all events that having become very learned, and having curiously investigated both the customs and the learning of the nations, they were not unacquainted with the philosophy of the people just mentioned, being younger in time, so to speak, than all men, not Hebrews only, nor yet Phoenicians and Egyptians only, but also than the ancient Greeks themselves.

For these ancients some doctrines derived from Phoenicia were arranged by Cadmus son of Agenor; and others concerning the gods from Egypt or elsewhere, mysteries and rites, the setting up of statues, and hymns, odes, and epodes, either by the Thracian Orpheus, or some other Greek or Barbarian, who became their leaders in error: for the Greeks themselves would acknowledge that they know no men more ancient than these.

They say at least that Orpheus nourished first of all, then Linus, and afterwards Musaeus about the time of the Trojan war, or a little before. But certainly in their time nothing more than the theology of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, with its manifold errors, had a home among the Greeks.

Moreover, among the other nations, in all countries and cities, these very doctrines and others similar to them were carefully observed in sacrifices and mysteries. At all events, the aforesaid doctrine concerning the gods largely prevailed among all mankind: and very beautiful shrines were everywhere furnished and adorned with all kinds of statues and offerings: moreover, images of all kinds of material were moulded into every form of mortal animals and tastefully finished.

And further, there was among them all a manifold and profuse abundance of oracles. Indeed a certain god especially revered and mighty among the Greeks was at that time most nourishing, the Pythian, Clarian, and Dodonaean god: and then Amphiaraus, and Amphi-lochus, and after these flowed on a countless multitude of soothsayers rather than of poets and rhapsodists.

But at length, long ages after them, philosophy arrived among the Greeks, and found among their forefathers nothing that properly belonged to herself, but discovered that the sanctities and antiquities of the theology which had come to them from their fathers, and even the marvellous and universally famous divinities and oracles, were in reality superfluous and unprofitable.

Wherefore she proceeded to put these back into a secondary place, as they could not be of any use to her for the discovery of things necessary and true: and thenceforth, as one naked and destitute of any reasonings or learning of her own, she went about examining the foreign and barbarous systems, and providing, collecting, and borrowing what was useful to her from all sides, whatever she found among the several nations.

For indeed she began to discover that not only the true theology was lacking to the Greeks, but also the most useful in daily life of all the other arts and sciences. Indeed the Greeks themselves confess that it was after Orpheus, Linus, and Musaeus, the most ancient of all their theologians and the first to introduce among them the error of polytheism, that their seven men whom they surnamed Sages were celebrated for wisdom. And these nourished about the time of Cyrus king of Persia.

Now this was the time in which the very latest of the Hebrew prophets were prophesying, who lived more than six hundred years after the Trojan war, and not less than fifteen hundred years after the age of Moses: and this will be manifest to you when presently going through the records of the chronology.

Born somewhere about this recent period the Seven Sages are remembered for a reform of moral conduct, but nothing more is recorded of them than their celebrated maxims. But somewhat late, and lower down in time, the philosophers of the Greeks are reported to have flourished.

First among these Pythagoras the pupil of Pherecydes, who invented the name ‘philosophy,’ was a native, as some say, of Samos, but according to others of Tyrrhenia; while some say that he was a Syrian or Tyrian, so that yon must admit that the first of the philosophers, celebrated in the mouth of all Greeks, was not a Greek but a Barbarian.

Pherecydes also is recorded to have been a Syrian, and Pythagoras they say was his disciple. He is not, however, the only teacher with whom, as it is said, Pythagoras was associated, but he spent some time also with the Persian Magi; and became a disciple of the Egyptian prophets, at the time when some of the Hebrews appear to have made their settlement in Egypt, and some in Babylon.

In fact the said Pythagoras, while busily studying the wisdom of each nation, visited Babylon, and Egypt, and all Persia, being instructed by the Magi and the priests: and in addition to these he is related to have studied under the Brahmans (these are Indian philosophers); and from some he gathered astrology, from others geometry, and arithmetic and music from others, and different things from different nations, and only from the wise men of Greece did he get nothing, wedded as they were to a poverty and dearth of wisdom: so on the contrary he himself became the author of instruction to the Greeks in the learning which he had procured from abroad.

Such then was Pythagoras. And first in succession from him the so-called Italian philosophy was formed, which derived its title to the name from its abode in Italy: after this came the Ionic school, so called from Thales, one of the seven Sages: and then the Eleatic, which claimed as its founder Xenophanes of Colophon. ’

Even Thales, however, as some relate, was a Phoenician, but as others have supposed, a Milesian: and he too is said to have conferred with the prophets of the Egyptians.

Solon also who was himself one of the Seven Sages, and is said to have legislated for the Athenians, is stated by Plato to have resorted in like manner to the Egyptians, at the time when Hebrews were again dwelling in Egypt. At least he introduces him in the Timaeusas receiving instruction from the Barbarian, in the passage where the Egyptian says to him, ‘O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children, and there is not one old man among the Greeks, …. nor is there among you any learning grown hoary with time.’ [1]

This same Plato, too, after having attended the teaching of the Pythagoreans in Italy, was not contented with his studying with them only, but is said to have sailed to Egypt and devoted a very long time to their philosophy. This testimony indeed he himself bears to the Barbarians in many passages of his own discourses, and therein, I think, does well, and candidly confesses that the noblest doctrines are imported into philosophy from the Barbarians. Accordingly in many places, and especially in the Epinomis,you may hear him mentioning both Syrians and Egyptians in the following manner:

[PLATO] [2] ‘The cause of this is that he who first observed these phenomena was a Barbarian: for it was a very ancient region which bred those who first took notice of these things because of the beauty of the summer season, which both Egypt and Syria fully enjoy… Whence the knowledge has reached to all countries, including our own, after having been tested by thousands of years and time without end.’

And lower down he next adds:

‘Let us take it then that, whatever Greeks may have received from Barbarians, they work out and finish it with greater beauty.’ [3]

So says Plato. But Democritus also, still earlier, is said to have appropriated the ethical doctrines of the Babylonians. And somewhere, boasting about himself, he says:

[DEMOCRITUS] [4] ‘But of the men of my time I have wandered over the most land, investigating the most distant parts, and have seen the most climates and soils, and listened to the greatest number of learned men, nor did any one ever yet surpass me in the construction of lines accompanied by demonstration, nor yet those Egyptians who are called Arpedonaptae, for all which purposes I passed as much as five years in foreign lands.’

For this man also visited Babylon, and Persia, and Egypt, and was a disciple of the Egyptians and their priests.

What if I were to count up to you Heracleitus and all the other Greeks, by whom civil life among the Greeks is proved to have been left for long ages very poor, and devoid of all learning.

It was embellished indeed with temples of the gods, and images and statues, and prophecies and oracles, and the manifold pomp of the fraudulent daemons, but of true wisdom and of useful science it was utterly destitute.

Nor did their useless oracles contribute aught to the discovery of good counsels: but even their wonderful Pythian god did not help them at all in philosophy, nor did any other deity assist them in the pursuit of any needful good. But wandering hither and thither, and running about all their life they bedecked themselves, according to the fable, with borrowed plumes; so that now their whole philosophy consisted of what they begged.

For by copying different sciences from different nations, they got geometry from the Egyptians, and astrology from the Chaldeans, and other things again from other countries; but nothing among any other nations like the benefit which some of them found from the Hebrews.

For this was the knowledge of the God of the universe, and the condemnation of their own gods, which our argument as it proceeds a little farther will prove.

But thus much at present it indicates to the readers, that the ancient Greeks were destitute not only of true theology, but also of the sciences which are profitable to philosophy; and not of these only, but also of the common habits of civil life.

And I believe that this indication will assist me in the demonstration of the object which I have proposed; inasmuch as my proposal is to uphold the plea, that we have not unreasonably preferred the theology of the Hebrews, and that of the Barbarians, as they would call it, to the philosophy of the Greeks.

If then it should be seen they have themselves gathered it all long before from Barbarians, and have received from their own gods no help at all in philosophy, but have even found fault justly with their gods; and if some of them for these reasons have preferred atheism to the worship of the gods, then what right have they any more to find fault with us, instead of welcoming and commending us, because from having loved the better part, or rather from having found and recovered that which alone is true, we have withdrawn from the falsehood, without either turning round like the wise men of the Greeks to atheistic reasoning, or on the other hand mixing up the error of polytheism with the knowledge of the Supreme God, in a similar way to their admirable philosophers, nor yet have confused the falsehood with the truth?

Let us not, however, discuss these points yet, but first let me ask you to consider those proofs by which, the Greeks are convicted of having stolen everything from Barbarians, not only their philosophical science, but also the common inventions which are useful in daily life.

[1] 471 c 10 Plato, Timaeus,22 B; cf. Clement, Miscellanies,i. c. 15.

[2] 471 d 12 Pseudo-Plato, Epinomis,986 E

[3] 472 a 6 ibid. 987 E

[4] b 1 Clement, l. c.

Chapter 5

FIRST therefore he who introduced to the Greeks the common letters, even the very first elements of grammar, namely Cadmus, was a Phoenician by birth, from which circumstance some of the ancients have surnamed the alphabet Phoenician.

But some say that the Syrians were the first who devised letters. Now these Syrians would be Hebrews who inhabited the neighbouring country to Phoenicia, which was itself called Phoenicia in old times, but afterwards Judaea, and in our time, Palestine. And it is evident that the sound of the Greek letters is very closely connected with these.

For example, each letter among the Hebrews has its name from some significant idea, a circumstance which it is not possible to trace among the Greeks: on which account especially it is admitted that the letters are not originally Greek.

Now the Hebrews have in all twenty-two letters: of which the first is ‘Alph,’ which translated into the Greek language would mean ‘learning’: and the second ‘Beth,’ which is interpreted ‘of a house’: the third is ‘Gimel,’ which is ‘fullness’: the fourth ‘Delth,’ which signifies ‘of tablets’: the fifth ‘He,’ which is ‘this.’ And all these together make up a meaning of this kind, ‘Learning of a house, fullness of tablets this.’

Then after these is a sixth letter called among them ‘Wau,’ which is ‘in it’: then ‘Zai’,’ which is ‘liveth’: after which comes ‘Heth,’ which is ‘the living’: that the whole may be ‘in it liveth the living.’

After these a ninth letter, ‘Teth,’ which is ‘good’: then ‘Yoth,’ which is interpreted ‘beginning’; the two together, ‘good beginning.’ After these ‘Chaph,’ which is ‘nevertheless’: then ‘Labd,’ which is ‘learn’: the whole being ‘nevertheless learn.’

‘After these is a thirteenth letter ‘Mem,’ which is ‘from them’: then ‘Nun,’ which is ‘eternal.’ Then ‘Samch,’ which is interpreted ‘help’: that the meaning may be, ‘from them eternal help.’

After these is ‘Am,’ which being translated signifies ‘fountain,’ or ‘eye’: then ‘Phe,’ ‘mouth.’ Then next ‘Sade,’ ‘righteousness’: of which the meaning is ‘fountain (or ‘eye’) and mouth of righteousness.’

After these is a letter ‘Koph,’ which is interpreted ‘calling’: then ‘Res,’ which is ‘head’: and after these ‘Sen,’ which is ‘teeth’: last of all the twenty-second letter is called with them ‘Thau,’ which means ‘signs.’ And the sense would be, ‘calling of the head, and signs of the teeth.’

Among the Hebrews such is the paraphrase and interpretation of the letters, making up a meaning in words appropriate to the learning and promise of the letters. But the like you cannot find among the Greeks, whence, as I said, it must be acknowledged that they do not belong originally to the Greeks, but have been imitated directly from the language of the Barbarians.

This is also proved from the very name of each letter. For in what does ‘Alpha’ differ from ‘Alph’? Or ‘Beta’ from ‘Beth’? Or ‘Gamma’ from ‘Gimel’? Or: Delta’ from ‘Delth’? Or ‘Epsilon’ from ‘He’? Or ‘Zeta’ from ‘Zai’? Or ‘Theta’ from ‘Teth’? And all the like cases.

So that it is indisputable that these names belong not originally to the Greeks: therefore they belong to the Hebrews, among whom each of them shows some signification. And having originated with them the letters passed on to other nations, and so to the Greeks. About the letters of the alphabet I have said enough: but you must hear also what Clement says in dealing with the subject before us.

Chapter 6

[CLEMENT] [1] ‘THE healing art is said to have been invented by Apis the Egyptian … and afterwards improved by Aesculapius. Atlas the Libyan was the first who built a ship, and sailed the sea…

‘Astrology also was first made known among men by the Egyptians and Chaldeans… Some, however, say that prognostication by the stars was devised by the Carians. The Phrygians were the first to observe the flights of birds.

‘The inspection of sacrificial victims was accurately practised by the Tuscans who border on Italy. The Isaurians and Arabians perfected augury, and the Telmessians, doubtless, divination by dreams.

‘The Tyrrhenians invented the trumpet, and Phrygians the flute; for both Olympus and Marsyas were Phrygians… The Egyptians again first taught men to burn lamps, and divided the year into twelve months, and forbade intercourse with women in temples, and enacted that none should enter temples after intercourse without bathing.

‘The same people again were the inventors of geometry… Kelmis and Damnameneus, the Idaean Dactyls, first discovered iron in Cyprus. And the tempering of bronze was invented by Delas, another Idaean, or, as Hesiod says, a Scythian. ‘Certainly Thracians were the first who invented the so-called scimitar, which is a curved sword, and they first used targes on horseback: in like manner the. Illyrians invented the so-called targe (πέλτη). Further they say that the Tuscans invented the art of moulding clay: and Itanus, who was a Samnite, fashioned the long shield.

‘Cadmus the Phoenician invented stone-cutting, and discovered the gold mines near Mount Pangaeus. Moreover another nation, the Cappadocians, first invented the so-called “nabla,” as the Assyrians the lyre of two strings.

‘The Carthaginians were the first to fit out a quadrireme, and it was built off hand by Bosporus. Medea of Colchis, the daughter of Aeetes, first devised the dyeing of the hair.

‘The Noropes (a Paeonian tribe, now called Noricum) worked copper, and were the first to refine iron. Amyous, the king of the Bebryces, invented boxing-thongs.

‘With regard to music, Olympus the Mysian was fond of practising the Lydian harmony: and the so-called Troglodytes invented a musical instrument, the sambuca.

‘They say also that the slanting pipe was invented by Satyrus the Phrygian, and in like manner the trichord, and the diatonic harmony by Hyagnis who also was a Phrygian: notes likewise by Olympus the Phrygian; as the Phrygian harmony and the Mixo-Phrygian, and the Mixo-Lydian by Marsyas, fellow countrymen of those just named: and the Dorian was invented by Thamyris the Thracian.

‘We have heard too that the Persians were the first who made a carriage, and couch, and footstool, and that the Sidonians first built a trireme. The Sicilians who are close to Italy were the first to invent a lyre, not far inferior to the harp, and devised castanets.

‘Robes of fine linen are said to have been invented in the time of Semiramis, queen of the Assyrians: and Atossa who reigned over the Persians is said by Hellanicus to have been the first to use folded letters.

‘These things then were related by Scamon of Mitylene, and Theophrastus of Ephesus, and Cydippus of Mantinea, also by Antiphanes, and Aristodemus, and Aristotle, and besides these by Philostephanus, and Straton the Peripatetic in the books Concerning Inventions.And I have quoted a few of them in confirmation of the inventive and practical genius of Barbarians, from whom the Greeks have received the benefit of their institutions.’

These things Clement states in these very words in the Miscellanies.And to what has now been mentioned I think it well to append also the extracts from the writing of Josephus the Hebrew, which he composed in two books, Of the Antiquity of the Jews,on the point that the Greeks are a young nation, and have received help from the Barbarians, and have dissented from each other in their writings. This too will contribute to the accurate and sure confirmation of my statements. Hear therefore what he also writes, word for word.

[1] 475 b 3 Clement, Miscellanies,i. c. 16

Chapter 7

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘MY first thought then is of utter astonishment at those who think it right to attend to none but Greeks concerning the most ancient facts, and to seek to learn the truth from them, but to disbelieve us and the rest of mankind.

‘For I see that the very opposite is the case, if at least we are not to follow vain opinions, but draw the just conclusion from the facts themselves. For you will find all things among the Greeks to be recent, having come into existence, as one might say, yesterday or the day before; I mean the foundation of their cities, and their invention of the arts, and the registration of their laws: and the writing of their histories is almost the latest object of their attention.

‘Doubtless, however, they themselves admit that the most ancient and most constant traditional record is that of the events which have occurred among the Egyptians, and Chaldeans, and Phoenicians (for at present I omit to include ourselves with these).

‘For they all inhabit regions which are least subject to destruction from the surrounding atmosphere, and have taken much care to leave none of the facts of their history unrecorded, but to have all continually enshrined by their wisest men in public registers.

‘But the region about Greece has been invaded by thousands of destructive plagues, which blotted out the memory of past events: and as they were always setting up new modes of life, they each of them supposed that their own was the beginning of all.

‘Tardily and painfully they learned the nature of letters. Those at least who assign the greatest antiquity to their use of them boast of having learned it from the Phoenicians and Cadmus.

‘Nevertheless no one could show any record that is preserved even from that time either in temples or on public monuments: seeing that there has been great doubt and inquiry, whether even those who so many years later went on the expedition to Troy, made use of writing; and the true opinion is rather that they were ignorant of the use now made of written letters.

‘In short, there is no undisputed writing found among the Greeks older than Homer’s poetry: and he was evidently later than the Trojan war. They say too that even he did not leave his poetry in writing, but that it was transmitted by memory and afterwards put together from the songs, and that this is the cause of its many discrepancies.

‘Those, however, among them who undertook to write histories—I mean Cadmus of Miletus and Acusilaus of Argos, and any others who are said to have come after him—lived but a short time before the expedition of the Persians against Greece.

‘Moreover all with one voice acknowledge, that the first among the Greeks who philosophized about things celestial and divine, as Pherecydes the Syrian, and Pythagoras, and Thales, got their learning from Egyptians and Chaldeans, and wrote but little: and these writings are thought by the Greeks to be the oldest of all, and they do not quite believe that they were written by those authors.

‘Is it not then necessarily unreasonable for the Greeks to have been puffed up, as though they alone understood the events of early times, and handed down the truth concerning them correctly? Or who could not easily learn from the same historians, that they had no certain knowledge of anything which they wrote, but gave each their own conjectures about the facts?

‘Accordingly in their books they frequently refute one another, and do not hesitate to make the most contrary statements concerning the same events. But it would be superfluous labour for me to teach those who know better than myself on how many points Hellanicus has dissented from Acusilaus in regard to the genealogies, and how often Acusilaus sets Hesiod right; or in what fashion Ephorus exposes Hellanicus as making very many false statements, and Ephorus is exposed by Timaeus, and Timaeus by those who came after him, and Herodotus by them all.

‘Nor did Timaeus deign to agree with Antiochus and Philistus or Callias about Sicilian history, nor again have the authors of Athenian histories followed each other’s statements about the affairs of Attica, nor the historians of Argos about the affairs of Argolis.

‘And why need I speak about the smaller affairs of the several states, seeing that the most celebrated authors have disagreed about the Persian invasion and the events which happened therein? And on many points even Thucydides is accused by some of falsehood, although he is thought to write the history of his own time with the greatest accuracy.

‘Now of dissension such as this many other causes might perhaps be brought to light by those who wish to seek for them; but I myself attach the greatest importance to two causes which shall now be set forth.

‘And I will mention first that which seems to me to be the more decisive. For the fact that from the beginning there was no zealous care among the Greeks to have public records kept of contemporary events—this most of all was the cause of error, and gave impunity for falsehood to those who afterwards wished to write about ancient history.

‘For not only among the other Greeks was the care of the records neglected, but even among the Athenians themselves, who are said to be aborigines and studious of culture, nothing of this kind is found to have been done: but the oldest of their public records they say are the laws about murder written for them by Draco, a man born a little before the tyranny of Peisistratos.

‘What need is there to speak of the Arcadians, who boast of antiquity? For they even at a later period were scarcely instructed in the use of letters.

‘Inasmuch therefore as no record had been published, which would have taught those who wished to learn, and convicted those who were guilty of falsehood, there ensued the great disagreement of the historians among themselves.

‘But besides this there is that other second cause to be assigned. For those who set themselves to write made no serious study of the truth—although they have always this profession ready at hand—but tried to display their power of language; and adapted themselves to any style in which they thought to surpass the rest in reputation on this point; and some of them turned to writing mythical tales, and some, to gain favour, took to eulogizing cities or kings; while others had recourse to censuring men’s actions or those who had described them, thinking that they should gain reputation herein.

‘In short they are constantly doing what is of all things the most contrary to history. For it is a test of true history, whether all spake and wrote the same accounts of the same events; but these men imagined that if they wrote different accounts from others, they should thus appear to:be themselves;most truthful of all.’

So much, says Josephus. And these statements may be confirmed by the testimony of Diodorus, which I shall quote from the first Book of the Bibliothecacompiled by him, and which is word for word as follows:

[1] 477 a 3 Josephus, Against Apion,i. 2

Chapter 8

[DIODORUS] [1] ‘AFTER having thoroughly explained these points, I must state how many of those who have been famed among the Greeks for intelligence and culture made a voyage to Egypt in ancient times, in order that they might gain some knowledge of its customs and culture.

‘For the priests of the Egyptians report from the records in their sacred books that they were visited by Orpheus, and Musaeus, and Melampus, and Daedalus, and besides these by the poet Homer, and Lycurgus the Spartan; also by Solon the Athenian, and Plato the philosopher; and that there came also Pythagoras of Samos, and Eudoxus the mathematician, Democritus of Abdera also, and Oenopides of Chios.

‘And as evidences of all these they point to the images of some, and the names of places or buildings called after others. Also from the branch of learning studied by each the priests bring proofs of the fact that they had brought over from Egypt everything whereby they gained admiration among the Greeks.

‘Thus Orpheus, they say, brought away from the Egyptians most of the mystic rites, and the orgiastic celebration of his own wandering, and the fable concerning those in Hades. For the rite of Osiris is the same as that of Dionysus: and that of Isis is very similar to that of Demeter, with only the change of names. And the punishments of the ungodly in Hades, and the meadows of the godly, and the making of moulded images (of the shades) common among the multitude he is said to have introduced in imitation of the Egyptian customs in regard to burial.

‘For Hermes the conductor of souls, according to the ancient custom among the Egyptians, having brought up the body Of Apis to a certain place gives it over to him who wears the face of Cerberus. And after Orpheus had made this known among the Greeks, Homer, it is said, following him wrote in his poem:

‘’Cyllenian Hermes waved his golden wand, And summoned forth the souls of heroes slain.”’ [2]

Then again farther on he adds: [3]

‘They say that Melampus brought from Egypt the customary rites performed in honour of Dionysus among the Greeks, and the mythological tales concerning Kronos, and those concerning the war of the Titans, and the entire history of the sufferings of the gods.

‘Daedalus, it is said, imitated the winding of the labyrinth which remains up to the present time, but was built, as some say, by Mendes, or, as others say, by king Marus many years before the reign of Minos: the proportion too of the ancient statues in Egypt is said to be the same with that of the statues made by Daedalus in Greece.

‘Daedalus was also said to have been the architect of the very beautiful vestibule of Hephaestus in Memphis, for which he was admired, and received a wooden statue in the said temple, wrought by his own hands. And at last being held in great honour for his genius, and having made many more discoveries, he received divine honours. For in one of the islands near Memphis there is still a temple of Daedalus venerated by the inhabitants.

‘Of Homer’s visit to Egypt they bring forward among other proofs especially the drugging of Telemachus by Helen in the house of Menelaus, and his oblivion of the evils that had befallen him.[4] For it is evident that the poet had carefully examined the soothing drug which he says that Helen had obtained from Egypt, from Polydamna the wife of Thon.

‘Even at the present time they still say that the women in this country use the same medicine, and they assert that a remedy for anger and sorrow has been discovered from ancient times among the women of Diospolis only: and that Thebes and Diospolis are the same city: also that among the inhabitants Aphrodite is called the “golden” from an ancient tradition, and that near the city named Momemphis there is a so-called “plain of golden Aphrodite.”

‘Also the mythical tales concerning Zeus and Hera and their intercourse, and their travelling to Ethiopia, Homer is said to have brought thence. For among the Egyptians, year by year, the shrine of Zeus is carried across the river into Libya, and after some days it returns again, as if the god were come from Ethiopia: and that the intercourse of these deities takes place when at their festivals both their shrines are carried up into a mountain crowned with all kinds of flowers by the priests.

‘They say that Lycurgus also, and Plato, and Solon, inserted many of the customs of Egypt in, their codes of law, and that Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians the doctrines of the Sacred Word,and the theories of geometry, and the science of numbers, and besides these the migration of the soul into every kind of animal.

‘They suppose also that Democritus spent five years among them, and was taught many of the principles of astrology; and that Oenopides in like manner lived with the priests and astrologers and learned, among other things, that the sun’s orbit has an oblique path, and that he is carried in the opposite direction to the other heavenly bodies.

‘In like manner also it is said that Eudoxus studied astrology with them, and published much useful information to the Greeks, whereby he acquired a notable reputation.

‘And of; all the ancient statuaries those whose names are most widely known had sojourned with them, Telecles and Theodorus the sons of Rhoecus, who had -made the statue of the Pythian Apollo for the Samians.’

Thus far Diodorus. But here I must let this argument, with such proof as has been given, come to an end. Henceforth then we ought not to be charged with unreasonableness, if in our desire for the true religion we have ourselves resorted to the teachers of the wise Greeks and even of their philosophers, I mean the Barbarians, if at least the Hebrews, are Barbarians.

Now it would be well to examine their chronology, I mean the dates at which Moses and the prophets after him nourished: since this would be one of the most conclusive evidences for the argument before us, that before dealing with the learned men among the people we should first decide about their antiquity; in order that, if the Greeks should be found to hold the same doctrines with the prophets and theologians of the Hebrews, you may no longer be in doubt who were likely to have borrowed from the others; whether the elder from the younger, Hebrews from Greeks, and Barbarians from philosophers, whose language even they were not likely to understand; or, what is more likely, that the younger borrowed from, the elder, and that those Greeks who had most busily studied the history of the various nations were not unacquainted with the writings of the Hebrews, which had been long before translated into the Greek language.

[1] 480 a 5 Diodorus Siculus, i. 96

[2] 481 a 1 Homer, Od.xxiv. 1

[3] a 4 Diod. Sic. i. 97

[4] c 6 Homer, Od.iv. 220-230

Chapter 9

WITH regard to Moses and the antiquity of the prophets who came after him, very many others have carefully laid down the evidence in their own writings, from which I shall presently make some few quotations.

But I myself shall take a more novel course than the said authors, and shall adopt the following method. As there is an acknowledged agreement between the times of the Roman emperor Augustus and the birth of our Saviour, and as Christ began to teach the gospel in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, any one who may choose to count up the number of the years from this point proceeding to the earlier times, until Darius king of the Persians, and the restoration in his time of the temple in Jerusalem, which took place after the return of the Jewish nation from Babylon, will find that from Tiberius to the second year of Darius there are five hundred and forty-eight years.

For the second year of Darius coincides with the first year of the sixty-fifth Olympiad: and the fifteenth of the reign of Tiberius at Rome falls in with the fourth year of the two hundred and first Olympiad,

The Olympiads therefore between Darius the Persian and Tiberius the Roman emperor are a hundred and thirty-seven, which make up a period of five hundred and forty-eight years, four years being counted to the Olympiad.

But since the seventieth year of the desolation of the temple in Jerusalem was in the second year of Darius, as the records of Hebrew history show, if we run back from this point again, from the second year of Darius to the first Olympiad there would be made up two hundred and fifty-six years, sixty-four Olympiads: and the same you would find to be the number of years from the last year of the desolation of the said temple going back to the fiftieth year of Uzziah king of Judah, in whose time prophesied Isaiah and Hosea, and all who were contemporary with them. So that the first Olympiad of the Greeks falls in with the time of the prophet Isaiah and his contemporaries.

Again, going back from the first Olympiad to the previous times as far as the capture of Troy, you will find a sum of four hundred and eight years, as contained in the chronological records of the Greeks.

And according to the Hebrews, from the fiftieth year of Uzziah king of Judah going back to the third year of Labdon as judge of Israel, you will make up the same number of years, four hundred and eight; so that the capture of Troy was in the times of Labdon the judge, seven years before Samson ruled over the Hebrews, who is said to have been irresistible in strength of body, like the famous Hercules among the Greeks.

If from this point also you go back to the earlier generations, and count up to yourself four hundred years, you will find among the Hebrews Moses, and among the Greeks Cecrops the earthborn.

Now the history of the events so celebrated among the Greeks is later than the times of Cecrops. For after Cecrops comes the deluge in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in the time of Phaethon, and the birth of Erichthonius, and the rape of Persephone, and the mysteries of Demeter, the establishment of the Eleusinian mysteries, the husbandry of Triptolemus, the abduction of Europa by Zeus, the birth of Apollo, the arrival of Cadmus at Thebes, and, still later than these, Dionysus, Minos, Perseus, Asclepius, the Dioscuri, and Hercules.

Now Moses is proved to have been older than all these, as having been in the prime of life at the time of Cecrops. And going back again from Moses to the first year of the life of Abraham, you will find five hundred and five years. And counting up as many for the earlier time from the aforesaid year of the reign of Cecrops, you will come to Ninus the Assyrian, who is said to have been the first ruler of all Asia except India: after him was named the city Ninus, which among the Hebrews is called Nineve; and in his time Zoroastres the Magian reigned over the Bactrians. And the wife of Ninus and his successor in the kingdom was Semiramis; so Abraham was contemporary with these.

Now in the Canons of Chronology composed by us these events were proved to demonstration to be as I have said. But on the present occasion in addition to what has been stated I shall adduce as witness of the antiquity of Moses the very bitterest and fiercest enemy both of the Hebrews and of us Christians, I mean that philosopher of our time, who having in his excessive hatred published his compilation against us, subjected not us only, but also the Hebrews and Moses himself and the prophets after him, to the like slanders. For I believe that I shall thus confirm my promise beyond controversy by the confession of our enemies.

Well then in the fourth Book of his compilation against us Porphyry writes what follows, word for word:

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘The truest history of the Jews, as being that which most perfectly accords with their localities and names, is that of Sanchuniathon of Berytus, who received their records from Hierombalus the priest of the God Jevo; he dedicated his history to Abelbalus king of Berytus, and was approved by him and by his examiners of truth. Now the times of these men fall before the date of the Trojan war, and approach closely to that of Moses, as is shown by the successions of the kings of Phoenicia. And Sanchuniathon, who with careful regard to truth made a collection of all ancient history from the records of each city and the registers of the temples, and wrote it in the language of the Phoenicians, lived in the time of Semiramis queen of Assyria.’

So says Porphyry. We must then calculate the proposed dates as follows. If Sanchuniathon lived in the time of Semiramis, and she is acknowledged to have been, long before the Trojan war, Sanchuniathon also must be older than the Trojan war.

But he is said to have received the records from others older in time than himself: and they being themselves older than he are said to have approached closely to the times of Moses, though not even themselves contemporary with Moses, but approaching closely to his times: so that Sanchuniathon was as much younger than Moses, as he was later than his own predecessors who were acknowledged to approach near to Moses.

It is difficult, however, to say by how many years Moses probably preceded those of whom I speak: for which reason I think it well to pass over this point. But granting that Moses lived in the very time of this Sanchuniathon, and no earlier, I shall follow up the proof in this way.

If Sanchuniathon was becoming well known in the time of Semiramis queen of Assyria, even granted that Moses was no earlier, but nourished in his time, then he too would be contemporary with Semiramis,

But whereas our calculation went to show that Abraham was in her time, our philosopher’s calculation proves that even Moses was older. Now Semiramis is shown to have been full eight hundred years before the Trojan war. Therefore Moses also will be as many years earlier than the Trojan war according to the philosopher.

Now the first king of Argos is Inachus, the Athenians at that time having as yet no city and no name. But the first ruler of the Argives is contemporary with the fifth king of Assyria after Semiramis, a hundred and fifty years after her and Moses, in which time nothing remarkable is recorded to have happened among the Greeks. But at this period of time the Judges were ruling among the Hebrews.

Then again more than three hundred years later, when more than four hundred were now completed from the time of Semiramis, the first king of the Athenians is Cecrops their celebrated Autochthon when Triopas was ruler of Argos, who was seventh from Inachus the first Argive king.

And in the interval between these the flood in the time of Ogyges is recorded, and Apis was the first to be called a god in Egypt, and Io the daughter of Inachus, who is worshipped by the. Egyptians under the altered name of Isis, became known, as also Prometheus and Atlas.

From Cecrops to the capture of Troy are reckoned little short of other four hundred years, in which fall the marvellous tales of Greek mythology, the flood in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in the time of Phaethon, there having been, probably, many catastrophes on the earth in various places.

Now Cecrops is said to have been the first to call God Zeus, He not having been previously so named among men: and next to have been the first to found an altar at Athens, and again the first to set up an image of Athena, as even these things were not existing of old.

After his time come the genealogies of all the gods among the Greeks. But among the Hebrews at this time the descendants of David were reigning, and the prophets who succeeded Moses were flourishing: so that according to the published testimony of the philosopher there are more than eight hundred years reckoned in all from Moses to the capture of Troy.

But far more recent still than the Trojan war are the traditional times of Homer and Hesiod and the rest. And after these, only yesterday as it were, about the fiftieth Olympiad, Pythagoras and Democritus and the subsequent philosophers gained a name, somewhere about five hundred years after the Trojan war.

Moses therefore and the Hebrew prophets who succeeded him are proved to be fifteen hundred years earlier than the philosophers of the Greeks, according to the confession of the aforesaid author.

Such, then is in brief my statement. But it is time to examine also the arguments upon the same subject of those who have preceded me. There have been then among us men of learning, second to none of the cultivated class, who have also devoted themselves with no little care to sacred literature, and who, after an accurate examination of the present subject, defended the antiquity of the Hebrews by the use of a rich and varied arrangement of proof.

For some of them computed the times from certain well acknowledged histories, and others confirmed their testimony by quotations of an earlier date. And some made use of Greek authors, and others of those who had recorded the history of the Phoenicians and of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. But all of them together, having collected the Greek and the Barbarian records and those of the Hebrews themselves, and having set all their histories side by side, and, as it were, shaken them together one against the other, have made a combined examination of the things done about the same periods in all those nations.

Then, after each had made his arrangement of the events to be proved by methods of his own, they brought forward their proof with common consent and agreement. And for this reason especially I thought it right to give place in the present discussion to their own words, in order that the authors of the arguments might not be deprived of their due rewards, and at the same time the maintenance of the truth might receive indisputable confirmation not by one witness but by many.

[1] 485 b 1Porphyry, Against the Christians,bk. iv; cf. p. 31 a

Chapter 10. From Africanus

[AFRICANUS] [1] ‘UNTIL the beginning of the Olympiads no accurate history has been written by the Greeks, the earlier accounts being all confused and in no point agreeing among themselves: but the Olympiads have been accurately recorded by many, because the Greeks compared the registers of them at no long interval of time, but every four years.

‘For which, reason I shall collect and briefly run over the most celebrated of the mythical histories down to the first Olympiad: but of the later any which are remarkable I shall combine together in chronological order each to each, the Hebrew with the Greek, carefully examining the Hebrew and touching upon the Greek, and shall fit them together in the following manner. By seizing upon one action in Hebrew history contemporary with an action narrated by Greeks, and adhering to it, while either deducting or adding, and indicating what Greek or Persian or any one else synchronized with the Hebrew action, I shall perhaps succeed in my aim.

‘Now a most remarkable event is the migration of the Hebrews, when carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, which continued seventy years, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. Now Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned by Berossus the Babylonian.

‘After the seventy years of the Captivity Cyrus became king of Persia, in the year in which the fifty-fifth Olympic festival was held, as one may learn from the Bibliothecaof Diodorus, and the histories of Thallus and Castor, also from Polybius and Phlegon, and from others too who were careful about Olympiads: for the time agreed in all of them.

‘So then Cyrus in the first year of his reign, which was the first year of the fifty-fifth Olympiad, made the first partial dismissal of the people by the hand of Zerubbabel, contemporary with whom was Jesus the son of Josedek, after the completion of the seventy years, as is related in the Book of Ezra among the Hebrews. [2]

‘The narratives therefore of the reign of Cyrus and of the end of the Captivity synchronize: and the calculations according to the Olympiads will thus be found to agree down to our time; for by following them we shall fit the other histories also one to another according to the same principle.

‘And the Athenian chronology computes the earlier events in the following way; from Ogyges, who was believed among them to be an aboriginal, in whose time that great and first flood occurred in Attica, when Phoroneus was king of Argos, as Acusilaus relates, down to the first Olympiad from which the Greeks considered that they calculated their dates correctly, a thousand and twenty years are computed, which agrees with what has been stated before, and will be shown to agree also with what comes after.

‘For both the historians of Athens, Hellanicus and Philochorus who wrote The Attic Histories,and the writers on Syrian history, Castor and Thallus, and the writer on universal history, Diodorus the author of the Bibliotheca,and Alexander Polyhistor, and some of our own historians recorded these events more accurately even than all the Attic writers. If therefore any remarkable narrative occurs in the thousand and twenty years, it shall be extracted as may be expedient.’

And soon after he proceeds: [3]

‘We assert therefore on the authority of this work that Ogyges, who has given his name to the first deluge, as having been saved when many perished, lived at the time of the Exodus from Egypt of the people with Moses, proving it in. the following way.

‘From Ogyges to the first Olympiad aforesaid there will be shown to be a thousand and twenty years: and from the first Olympiad to the first year of the fifty-fifth, that is the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the end of the Captivity, two hundred and seventeen years. From Ogyges therefore to Cyrus there were one thousand two hundred and thirty-seven years. And if any one would carry back a calculation of one thousand two hundred and thirty-seven years from the end of the Captivity, there is found by analysis the same distance to the first year of the Exodus of Israel from Egypt by the hand of Moses, as from the fifty-fifth Olympiad to Ogyges who founded Eleusis. Which is the more notable point to take as the commencement of the Athenian chronology.’

Again after an interval: [4]

‘So much for events prior to Ogygea. Now about his times Moses came out of Egypt: and that there is no reason to disbelieve that these events occurred at that time, we show in the following manner.

‘From the Exodus of Moses to Cyrus, who reigned after the Captivity, there were one thousand two hundred and thirty-seven years. For the remaining years of Moses’ life were forty: of Joshua, who became the leader after him, twenty-five years: of the elders who were judges after him, thirty years; and of those included in the Book of Judges, four hundred and ninety years. Of the priests Eli and Samuel, ninety years. Of the kings of the Hebrews, who came next, four hundred and ninety years: and seventy of the Captivity, the last year of which was, as we have said before, the first year of the reign of Cyrus.

‘From Moses to the first Olympiad there were one thousand and twenty years, since there were one thousand two hundred and thirty-seven years to the first year of the fifty-fifth Olympiad: and the time in the Greek chronology agreed with this.

‘But after Ogyges, on account of the great destruction caused by the flood, what is now called Attica remained without a king one hundred and eighty-nine years until the time of Cecrops. For Philochorus asserts that that Actaeon who comes after Ogyges, and the fictitious names, never even existed.’

And again: [5]

‘From Ogyges therefore to Cyrus there were as many years as from Moses to the same date, namely one thousand two hundred and thirty-seven. And some of the Greeks also relate that Moses lived about those same times; as Polemon in the first book of his Hellenic histories says, that “in the time of Apis son of Phoroneus a part of the Egyptian army was expelled from Egypt, who took up their abode not far from Arabia in the part of Syria called Palestine,” being evidently those who went with Moses.

‘And Apion the son of Poseidonius, the most inquisitive of grammarians, in his book Against the Jews,and in the fourth Book of his Histories,says that in the time of Inachus king of Argos, when Amosis was reigning in Egypt, the Jews revolted, with Moses as their leader.

‘Herodotus also has made mention of this revolt and of Amosis in his second Book;[6] and, in a certain way, of the Jews themselves, enumerating them among those who practise circumcision,[7] and calling them the Assyrians in Palestine, perhaps on account of Abraham.

‘And Ptolemaeus of Mendes, in writing the history of the Egyptians from the beginning, agrees with all these, so that the variation of the dates is not noticeable to any great extent.[8]

‘But it is to be observed that whatever especial event is mentioned in the mythology of the Greeks because of its antiquity, is found to be later than Moses, their floods, and conflagrations, their Prometheus, Io, Europa, Sparti, Rape of Persephone, Mysteries, Legislations, exploits of Dionysus, Perseus, labours of Hercules, Argonauts, Centaurs, Minotaur, tale of Troy, return of the Heracleidae, migration of Ionians, and Olympic Festivals.

‘It seemed good then to me, when about to compare the Hellenic histories with the Hebrew, to explain the aforesaid date of the monarchy in Athens: for it will be open to any one who will, by taking his starting-point from me, to calculate the number of years in the same way as I do.

‘So then in the first year of the thousand and twenty years set forth from the time of Moses and Ogyges to the first Olympiad there occurs the Passover, and the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, and in Attica the flood in the reign of Ogyges; and very naturally.

‘For when the Egyptians were being scourged by the wrath of God with hailstorms and tempests, it was natural that some parts of the earth should suffer with them; and that the Athenians should experience the same fate with the Egyptians was natural, being supposed to be emigrants from them, as is asserted, among others, by Theopompus in the Three-headed.[9]

‘The intermediate time, in which no special event has been recorded by the Greeks, is passed by. But after ninety-four years, as some say, came Prometheus, who was said in the legend to form men; for being a wise man he tried to reform them out of their extreme uncouthness into an educated condition.’

Thus writes Africanus. And now let us pass on to another.

[1] 487 d 6 Africanus, Chronography,bk. iii. Cf. Routh, Rell. Sacr. ii.p. 269

[2] 488 d 1 Ezra 1

[3] 489 b 1 Cf. Routh, Rell. Sacr.ii. p. 272

[4] c 10 Cf. ibid. ii. 374

[5] 490 a 11 Cf. Routh, l. c.,ii. p. 275

[6] c 1 Cf. Herod, ii. c. 162

[7] c 3 ibid. c. 104

[8] 490 c 5 Cf. 497 a 6

[9] 491 a 10 Cf. Pausanias, vi. c. 18

Chapter 11. From Tatian

[TATIAN] [1] ‘BUT now I think it behoves me to prove that our philosophy is older than the institutions of the Greeks. And Moses and Homer shall be set as our limits: for since each of them is very ancient, and the one the oldest of poets and historians, and the other the founder of all Barbaric wisdom, let them now be taken into comparison by us.

‘For we shall find that our doctrines are older not only than the learning of the Greeks, but even than the invention of letters. And I shall not adopt our own native witnesses, but rather make use of Greeks as my allies. For the one course would be injudicious, because it would not be accepted by you; but the other, if proved, would be admirable, if at any time by opposing you with your own weapons I should bring against you proofs beyond suspicion.

‘For concerning the poetry of Homer, and his parentage, and the time at which he flourished, previous investigations have been made by very ancient writers, as Theagenes of Ehegium who lived in the time of Cambyses, and Stesimbrotus of Thasos, and Antimachus of Colophon, Herodotus also of Halicarnassus, and Dionysius of Olynthus: and after them Ephorus of Cumae, and Philochorus of Athens, and Megacleides and Chamaeleon the Peripatetics: then the grammarians, Zenodotus, Aristophanes, Callimachus, Crates, Eratosthenes, Aristarchus, Apollodorus.

‘Now of these Crates says that he flourished before the return of the Heracleidae, within eighty years after the Trojan war; but Eratosthenes says, after the hundredth year from the capture of Troy; while Aristarchus says, at the time of the Ionian migration, which is a hundred and forty years after the Trojan war; and Philochorus says, forty years after the Ionian migration, in the archonship at Athens of Archippus, a hundred and eighty years after the Trojan war; and Apollodorus says, a hundred years after the Ionian migration, which would be two hundred and forty years after the Trojan war: but some said that he lived before the Olympiads, that is four hundred years after the capture of Ilium; while others brought down the time, and said that Homer had been contemporary with Archilochus; now Archilochus flourished about the twenty-third Olympiad, in the time of Gyges king of Lydia, five hundred years after the Trojan war.

‘With regard then to the times of the aforesaid poet, I mean Homer, and the dispute and disagreement among those who gave an account of him, let this our summary statement suffice for those who are able to examine the matter carefully. For it is in every man’s power to show that their opinions also about the historical statements are false; for with those authors whose record of times is inconsistent, the history cannot possibly be true.’

Again shortly after: [2]

‘Granted, however, that Homer was not only not later than the Trojan war, but let him be supposed to have lived at that very time of the war, and further even to have shared in the expedition, with Agamemnon, and, if any wish to have it so, to have lived even before the invention of letters had taken place: for the aforesaid Moses will be shown to be very many years older than the actual capture of Troy, much more ancient too than the building of Troy was, and than Tros and Bardanus.

‘And for proof of this I will employ the testimony of Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Egyptians. But why need I say much? For one who professes to persuade ought to make his narration of the facts to his hearers very brief.

‘Berossus, a Babylonian, a priest of their god Belus, who lived in the time of Alexander, composed the history of the Chaldaeans in three Books for Antiochus the third successor of Seleucus; and in setting forth the account of the kings he mentions the name of one of them Nabuchodonosor, who made an expedition against the Phoenicians and Jews; events which we know to have been announced by our prophets, and which took place long after the age of Moses, and seventy years before the Persian supremacy.

‘Now Berossus is a most competent man, and a proof of this is given by Iobas, who writing Concerning the Assyrianssays that he has learned their history from Berossus: he is the author of two books Concerning the Assyrians,

‘Next to the Chaldaeans, the case of the Phoenicians is as follows. There have been among them three authors, Theodotus, Hypsicrates, Mochus. Their books were rendered into the Greek language by Laetus, who also wrote an accurate treatise on the lives of the philosophers.

‘In the histories then of the aforesaid authors the rape of Europa is shown to have taken place in the time of one of the kings, also the arrival of Menelaus in Phoenicia, and the story of Hiram, who gave his daughter in marriage to Solomon king of the Jews, and presented him with timber of all kinds for the building of the Temple.

‘Menander also of Pergamus wrote the record of the same events. Now the date of Hiram approaches somewhat near to the Trojan war; and Solomon the contemporary of Hiram is much later than the age of Moses.

‘Then the Egyptians have accurate registers of dates. And Ptolemy, not the king but a priest of Mendes, the translator of their writings, in narrating the actions of their kings says that the journey of the Jews from Egypt to whatever places they chose, under the leadership of Moses, took place in the time of Amosis king of Egypt.

‘And this is how he speaks: “Now Amosis lived in the time of king Inachus.” After him Apion the grammarian, a man of great reputation, in the fourth Book of his Egyptian History(there are five of his Books) among many other things says that Amosis demolished Avaris, and that he lived in the time of Inachus the Argive, as Ptolemy of Mendes recorded in his Chronology.

‘Now the time from Inachus to the capture of Troy makes up twenty generations; and the mode of the proof is as follows:

‘The kings of the Argives have been these:—Inachus, Phoroneus, Apis, Argeius, Criasus, Phorbas, Triopas, Crotopus, Sthenelaus, Danaus, Lynceus, Abas, Proetus, Acrisius, Perseus, Eurystheus, Atreus, Thyestes, Agamemnon, in the eighteenth year of whose reign Troy was taken.

‘Also the intelligent reader must understand quite distinctly that according to the tradition of the Greeks there was no written record of history among them. For Cadmus, who taught the aforesaid people the alphabet, landed in Boeotia many generations afterwards.

‘After Inachus Phoroneus with difficulty put an end to their savage and wandering mode of life, and the people were brought into a state of order. Wherefore if Moses has been shown to have been contemporary with Inachus, he is four hundred years earlier than the Trojan war.

‘And this is proved to be so both from the succession of the kings of Athens, and Macedonia, and the Ptolemies, and also those of the dynasty of Antiochus; “whence it is manifest that if the most illustrious deeds among the Greeks were recorded in writing and begin to be known after the time of Inachus, they were also later than the time of Moses.

‘For as contemporary with Phoroneus who followed Inachus the Athenians mention Ogyges, in whose time the first flood occurred: and as contemporary with Phorbas Actaeus, from whom Attica was called Actaea: and as contemporary with Triopas Prometheus, and Epimetheus, and Atlas, and Cecrops of double sex, and Io.

‘In the time of Crotopus there was Phaethon’s conflagration, and Deucalion’s flood: in the time of Sthenelaus was the reign of Amphictyon, and the arrival of Danaus in the Peloponnese, and the colonization of Dardania by Dardanus, and the abduction of Europa from Phoenicia to Crete.

‘In the time of Lynceus there was the rape of Persephone, and the foundation of the sanctuary at Eleusis, and the husbandry of Triptolemus, and the arrival of Cadmus at Thebes, and the reign of Minos.

‘In the reign of Proetus occurred the war of Eumolpus against the Athenians; and in that of Acrisius the crossing of Pelops from Phrygia, and the arrival of Ion at Athens, and the second Cecrops, and the exploits of Perseus. And in the reign of Agamemnon Troy was taken.

‘Therefore from what has been said above Moses is shown to be older than all heroes, cities, or daemons: and he who preceded them in age ought rather to be believed, than the Greeks who drew his doctrines from the fountain-head without fully understanding them.

‘For there were many sophists among them, who indulged a meddling curiosity, and these attempted to put a false stamp on all that they had learned from Moses and those who agreed, with his philosophy, in order first that they might be thought to say something original; and secondly that, disguising what they did not understand by a kind of rhetorical artifice, they might misrepresent the truth as being a mere fable.

‘With regard, however, to our polity, and the history of our laws, and all that the learned among the Greeks have said, and how many and who they are that have mentioned us, proof shall be shown in my “Answer to those who have set forth opinions concerning God.”

‘But for the present I must endeavour with all accuracy to make it clear that Moses is earlier not only than Homer, but also than the writers before him, Linus, Philammon, Thamyris, Amphion, Orpheus, Musaeus, Demodocus, Phemius, the Sibyl, Epimenides the Cretan, who came to Sparta, Aristaeus of Pro-connesus, who wrote the Arimaspia,and Asbolus the Centaur, and Basis, and Drymon, and Euclus of Cyprus, and Horus of Samos, and Pronapides of Athens.

‘For Linus was the teacher of Hercules, and Hercules has been shown to be one generation earlier than the Trojan war; and this is manifest from his son Tlepolemus, who joined the expedition against Troy.

‘Orpheus was contemporary with Hercules; moreover, the writings afterwards attributed to him are said to have been composed by Onomacritus of Athens, who lived during the government of the Pisistratidae about the fiftieth Olympiad.

‘Musaeus was a disciple of Orpheus. And as Amphion was two generations earlier than the Trojan war, this prevents our collecting more about him for the information of the studious. Demodocus too and Phemius lived at the very time of the Trojan war; for they abode, the one among the suitors, the other with the Phaeacians. Thamyris also and Philammon are not much more ancient than these.

‘So then with regard to their work of various kinds and their dates and record, I think I have described them to you with all possible accuracy. But that we may also complete what is as yet deficient, I will further set forth the evidence concerning those who are considered the Sages.

‘For Minos, who was considered to be pre-eminent in all wisdom, and sagacity, and legislation, lived in the time of Lynceus who reigned after Danaus, in the eleventh generation after Inachus. And Lycurgus, born long after the capture of Troy, made laws for the Lacedaemonians a hundred years before the commencement of the Olympiads.

‘Draco is found to have lived about the thirty-ninth Olympiad, and Solon about the forty-sixth, and Pythagoras about the sixty-second. Now we showed that the Olympiads began four hundred and seven years after the Trojan war.

‘So then, after these facts have been thus proved, a few more words will suffice to record the age of the Seven Sages. For as Thales the eldest of them lived about the fiftieth Olympiad, the approximate dates of those who came after him are thus stated concisely.

‘This is what I have composed for you, O men of Greece, I, Tatian, a follower of the Barbarians in philosophy, born in the land of the Assyrians, but instructed first in your doctrines, and afterwards in such as I now profess to preach. And knowing henceforward who God is, and what is the doing of His will, I present myself to you in readiness for the examination of my doctrines, while my mode of life according to God’s will remains incapable of denial.’

Thus much says Tatian. But let us now pass on to Clement.

[1] c 1 Tatian, Address to the Greeks,c. 31

[2] 492 d 6 Tatian, l. c., c. 36

Chapter 12. From Clement

[CLEMENT] [1] ‘THE subject has indeed been carefully discussed by Tatian in his Discourse to the Greeks,and by Cassian in the first book of his Exegetics.But nevertheless my commentary demands that I also should run over what has been said upon the topic.

‘Apion then the grammarian, who was surnamed Pleistonices, in the fourth Book of his Egyptian Histories,although being an Egyptian by birth he was so spitefully disposed towards the Hebrews as to have composed a book Against the Jews,when he mentions Amosis the king of Egypt and the transactions of his time, brings forward Ptolemaeus of Mendes as a witness.

‘And his language is as follows:

‘”But Avaris was demolished by Amosis, who lived in the time of Inachus the Argive, as Ptolemaeus of Mendes recorded in his Chronology.”

‘Now this Ptolemaeus was a priest, who published The Acts of the Kings of Egyptin three whole books, and says that the departure of the Jews out of Egypt under Moses as their leader took place in the time of Amosis king of Egypt; from which, it is clearly seen that Moses flourished in the time of Inachus.

‘Now Dionysius of Halicarnassus teaches us in his Chronologythat the history of Argos, I mean the history from Inachus downwards, is mentioned as older than any Hellenic history.

‘Forty generations later than this is the Athenian history, beginning from Cecrops the so-called aboriginal of double sex, as Tatian says in so many words: and nine generations later the history of Arcadia from the time of Pelasgus, who also is called an aboriginal.

‘More recent than this last by other fifty-two generations is the history of Phthiotis from the time of Deucalion. From Inachus to the time of the Trojan war twenty or twenty-one generations are reckoned, four hundred years, we may say, and more.

‘And whether the Assyrian history is many years earlier than the Hellenic, will appear from what Ctesias says. In the four hundred and second year of the Assyrian empire, and in the thirty-second year of the reign of Beluchus the eighth, the movement of Moses out of Egypt took place in the time of Amosis king of Egypt, and of Inachus king of Argos.

‘And in Hellas in the time of Phoroneus the successor of Inachus the flood of Ogyges occurred, and the reign in Sicyon, of Aegialeus first, then of Europs, and then of Telchis, and in Crete the reign of Cres.

‘For Acusilaus says that Phoroneus was the first man: whence also the author of the poem “Phoronis” says that he was “the father of mortal men.”

‘Hence Plato in the Timaeus,following Acusilaus, writes: “And once when he wished to lead them on to a discussion about antiquity, he said that he attempted to speak of the most ancient things in this city, about Phoroneus who was called ‘the first’ man, and about Niobe, and the events that followed the flood.” [2]

‘Contemporary with Phorbas was Actaeus, from whom Attica was called Actaea: and contemporary with Triopas were Prometheus, and Atlas, and Epimetheus, and the biform Cecrops, and Io: in the time of Crotopus there was Phaethon’s conflagration, and the flood of Deucalion: and in the time of Sthenelaus was the reign of Amphictyon, and the arrival of Danaus in the Peloponnese, and the colonization of Dardania by Dardanus, whom Homer calls

“The first-born son of cloud-compelling Zeus,” [3]

and the abduction of Europa from Crete to Phoenicia.

‘In the time of Lynceus was the rape of Core, and the foundation of the sanctuary at Eleusis, and the husbandry of Triptolemus, and the arrival of Cadmus in Thebes, and the reign of Minos. In the time of Proetus there was the war of Eumolpus against the Athenians: and in the time of Acrisius the migration of Pelops from Phrygia, and the arrival of Ion in Athens, and the second Cecrops, and the exploits of Perseus and Dionysus, and also Orpheus and Musaeus.

‘And in the eighteenth year of the reign of Agamemnon Troy was taken, in the first year of the reign in Athens of Demophon son of Theseus, on the twelfth day of the month Thargelion, as Dionysius the Argive says.

‘But Agius and Dercylus in their third Book say, on the eighth day of the last decade of the month Panemus: Hellanicus says, on the twelfth of Thargelion; and some of the writers of Athenian history say, on the eighth of the last decade, in the last year of the reign of Menestheus, at the full moon. The poet who wrote The Little Iliadsays:

“At midnight, when the moon was rising bright.” [4]

But others say, on the same day of the month Scirophorion.

‘Now Theseus, who was a rival of Hercules, is older than the Trojan war by one generation: Homer at least mentions Tlepolemus, who was the son of Hercules, as having joined in the expedition against Troy.

‘Moses therefore is shown to be six hundred and four years older than the deification of Dionysus, if at least he was deified in the thirty-second year of the reign of Perseus, as Apollodorus says in his Chronicles.

‘And from Dionysus to Hercules and the chiefs who sailed in the Argo with Jason, there are sixty-three years comprised. Asclepius too and the Dioscuri sailed with them, as Apollonius Rhodius testifies in the Argonautica.[5]

‘From the reign of Hercules in Argos to the deification of Hercules himself and of Asclepius there are comprised thirty-eight years, according to Apollodorus the chronicler: and from that point to the deification of Castor and Pollux fifty-three years: and somewhere about this time was the capture of Troy.

‘And if we are to believe the poet Hesiod, let us hear what he says:

“Admitted to the sacred couch of Zeus, Fairest of Atlas’ daughters, Maia bare Renowned Hermes, herald of the Gods. And linked with Zeus in sweetest bonds of love Fair Semele conceived a glorious son, Great Dionysus, joy of all mankind.” [6]

‘Cadmus the father of Semele came to Thebes in the reign of Lynceus, and became the inventor of the Greek letters. And Triopas was contemporary with Isis in the seventh generation from Inachus.

‘But there are some who say that she was called Io from her going (ἰένα) through all the earth in her wanderings: and Istrus in his book Of the migration of the Egyptianssays that she was the daughter of Prometheus: and Prometheus was contemporary with Triopas, in the seventh generation after Moses; so that Moses would be earlier even than the origin of mankind was according to the Greeks.

‘Now Leon, who wrote a treatise On the gods of Egypt,says that Isis was called by the Greeks Demeter, who is contemporary with Lynceus in the eleventh generation after Moses.

‘Apis also the king of Argos was the founder of Memphis, as Aristippus says in the first Book of the Arcadica.

‘Moreover Aristeas of Argos says that this Apis was surnamed Sarapis, and that it is he whom the Egyptians worship.

‘But Nymphodorus of Amphipolis, in the third Book of The Customs of Asia,says that when Apis the bull died and was embalmed, he was deposited in a coffin (σορός) in the temple of the daemon who was worshipped there, and thence was called Soroapis and afterwards Sarapis. And Apis is the third from Inachus. ‘Moreover Latona is contemporary with Tityus:

“For Leto erst he strove to violate, The noble consort of immortal Zeus.” [7]

‘And Tityus was contemporary with Tantalus. With good reason therefore the Boeotian Pindar writes:

“For late in time Apollo too was born.” [8]

‘And no wonder, since he is found in company with Hercules serving Admetus

“A whole long year.” [9]

‘Zethus too and Amphion, the inventors of music, lived about the age of Cadmus. And if any one tell us that Phemonoe was the first who uttered an oracle in verse to Acrisius, yet let him know that twenty-seven years after Phemonoe came Orpheus, and Musaeus, and Linus the teacher of Hercules.

‘But Homer and Hesiod were much later than the Trojan war, and after them far later were the lawgivers among the Greeks, Lycurgus and Solon, and the Seven Sages, and Pherecydes of Syros, and the great Pythagoras, who lived some time later about the beginning of the Olympiads, as we proved.

‘So then we have demonstrated that Moses was more ancient than most of the gods of the Greeks, and not merely than their so-called Sages and poets.’

So far Clement. But since the question before us was carefully studied before our Christian writers by the Hebrews themselves, it would be well to consider also what they have said: and I shall use the language of Flavius Josephus as representative of them all.

[1] 496 d 1 Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies,i. c. 21

[2] 497 d 9 Plato, Timaeus,22 A

[3] 498 a 8 Hom. Il.xx. 215

[4] c 7 Little Iliad,Fr. 6

[5] d 12 Cf. Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica,i. 146

[6] 499 a 5 Hesiod, Theogony,938

[7] 499 d 6 Hom. Od.xii. 579

[8] d 10 Pind. Fr. 11 (114)

[9] d 13 Cf. Hom. Il.xxi. 443

Chapter 13. From Josephus

[JOSEPHUS] [1] ‘I WILL begin then first with the writings of the Egyptians. It is not possible, however, to quote their own actual words; but Manetho an Egyptian by birth, a man who had a knowledge of Hellenic culture, as is evident from his having written the history . of his own country in the Greek language, and translated it, as he says himself, out of the sacred books, who also convicts Herodotus of having from ignorance falsified many things in Egyptian history—this Manetho then, I say, in the second Book of his Egyptian Historywrites concerning us as follows: and I will quote his words, just as if I brought himself forward as a witness.

‘”We had a king whose name was Timaeus. In his time God was angry with us, I know not why, and men from the Eastern parts, of obscure origin, were strangely emboldened to invade the country, and easily took possession of it by force without a battle.” ‘

And soon after he adds:

‘”The name of their whole nation was Hycsos, that is ‘shepherd-kings.’ For ‘Hyc’ in the sacred language means ‘king,’ and Sos is ‘shepherd,’ and ‘shepherds’ in the common dialect: and thus combined it becomes ‘Hycsos.’ But some say that they were Arabs.”

‘But in another copy [2] he says that “kings” are not meant by the name “Hyc,” but on the contrary “captive-shepherds” are signified. For Hyc in Egyptian, and Hac, aspirated, expressly means “captives.” And this seems to me more probable, and in agreement with ancient history.

‘Now these before-named kings, both those of the so-called “Shepherds,” and their descendants, ruled over Egypt, he says, five hundred and eleven years.

‘But after this, he says, there was a revolt of the kings from the Thebaid and the rest of Egypt against the Shepherds, and a great and long war broke out. But in the time of a king ‘whose name was Misphragmuthosis, he says that the Shepherds were defeated, and though, driven out of the rest of Egypt, they were shut up in a place having a circumference of ten thousand arurae:the name of the place was Avaris.

‘The whole of this. Manetho says, the Shepherds surrounded with a great and strong wall, that so they might have all their possessions and their booty in a stronghold.

‘But Thmouthosis the son of Misphragmouthosis attempted to subdue them by a siege, having sat down against their walls with four hundred and eighty thousand men: but after giving up the siege in despair, he made terms of agreement with them, that they should leave Egypt, and all go away uninjured whithersoever they chose. And upon these conditions they with their whole families and possessions, being not less in number than two hundred and forty thousand, made their way from Egypt across the desert into Syria.

‘But being afraid of the power of the Assyrians (for they were at that time the rulers of Asia), they built a city in what is now called Judaea, to suffice for so many thousands of inhabitants, and called it Jerusalem.’

Next to this he recounts the succession of the kings of Egypt, together with the duration of their reigns, and adds: [3]

‘So says Manetho. And when the time is calculated according to the number of years mentioned, it is evident that the so-called Shepherds, our ancestors, departed from Egypt and colonized this country three hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus arrived in Argos: and yet he is considered by the Argives as very ancient.

‘Two things therefore of the greatest importance Manetho has testified in our favour out of the writings of the Egyptians. First their arrival in Egypt from some other country, and afterwards the departure thence at so ancient a date as to be nearly a thousand years before the Trojan war.’

The extracts from Egyptian history have been recorded thus somewhat at large by Josephus. But from Phoenician history, by employing the testimony of those who have written on Phoenician affairs, he proves that the Temple in Jerusalem had been built by King Solomon a hundred and forty-three years and eight months earlier than the foundation of Carthage by the Tyrians: then he passes on, and quotes from the history of the Chaldaeans their testimonies concerning the antiquity of the Hebrews.

[1] 500 c 1 Josephus, Against Apion,i. 14

[2] 501 a 1 Josephus, l. c.

[3] 501 d 8 Josephus, Against Apion,c. 15

Chapter 14

BUT why need I heap up proofs upon proofs, when every one who is a lover of truth, and not of spitefulness, is satisfied with what has been stated, as containing varied confirmation of the proposed argument? For our proposal was to prove that Moses and the Prophets were more ancient than Greek history.

Since therefore Moses has been proved to have lived long before the Trojan war, let us look also at all those who came after him. Now that Moses appeared in the world later in time than those former true Hebrews, Heber and Abraham, from whom the derived name has been applied to the people, and than all the other godly men of old, is manifest from his own history.

Next to Moses therefore Jesus ruled the nation of the Jews thirty years, as some say: then, as the Scripture says, foreigners ruled eight years. Then Gothoniel,[1] fifty years: after whom Eglom king of Moab eighteen years: after whom Ehud eighty years. After him strangers again twenty years: then Debbora and Barak forty years. Then the Madianites seven years: then Gredeon forty years. Abimelech three years. Tola twenty-three years: Jair twenty-two years: the Ammonites eighteen years: Jephtha six years: Esbon seven years: Aealon ten years:[2] Labdon eight years: strangers forty years: Samson twenty years: then Eli the Priest, as the Hebrew says, forty years; about whose time the capture of Troy occurred. And after Eli the Priest Samuel was the ruler of the people.

After him their first king Saul reigned forty years: then David forty years: then Solomon forty years; who also was the first to build the Temple in Jerusalem. After Solomon Soboam reigns seventeen years: Abia three years: Asa forty-one years: Jehoshaphat twenty-five years: Joram eight years: Ahaziah one year: Athaliah seven years: Joash forty years: Amaziah twenty-seven years: Uzziah fifty-two years; in whose reign prophesied Hosea, Amos, Esaias, Jonah: and after Uzziah Jotham reigned sixteen years: after whom Ahaz sixteen years. In his time was held the first Olympic festival, in which Coroebus of Elis won the foot-race.

Hezekiah succeeds Ahaz for twenty-nine years; and in his time Romulus built Home and became king. And after Hezekiah Manasses reigned fifty-five years: then Amon two years: then Josiah thirty-one years; in whose time prophesied Jeremiah, Baruch, Huldah, and other prophets.

Then Jehoahaz three months: after whom Jehoiachim eleven years; and after him last of all Zedekiah twelve years. In his time Jerusalem having been besieged by the Assyrians, and the Temple burned, the whole nation of the Jews is carried away to Babylon, and there Daniel prophesies, and Ezekiel.

And after the number of seventy years Cyrus becomes king of Persia, and he remitted the captivity of the Jews, and allowed those of them who would to return to their own land, and to raise up the Temple again: at which time Jesus the son of Josedek returned, and Zerubbabel the son of Salathiel, and they laid the foundations, when Haggai, and Zechariah, and Malachi prophesied last of all, after whom there has been no more a prophet among them.

In the time of Cyrus Solon of Athens was flourishing, and the so-called Seven Sages among the Greeks, than whom their records mention no more ancient philosopher.

Of these seven then Thales of Miletus, who was the first natural philosopher among the Greeks, discoursed concerning the solar tropics and eclipse, and the phases of the moon, and the equinox. This man became most distinguished among the Greeks.

A pupil of Thales was Anaximander, the son of Praxiades, himself also a Milesian by birth. He was the first designer of gnomons for distinguishing the solar tropics, and times and seasons, and equinox.

And a pupil of Anaximander was Anaximenes son of Eurystratus of Miletus; and his pupil was Anaxagoras, son of Hegesibulus, of Clazomenae. He was the first who clearly defined the subject of first principles. For he not only published his opinions concerning the essence of all things, like his predecessors, but also concerning the moving cause thereof. ‘For in the beginning,’ he says, ‘all things were confused together. But mind entered and brought them out of disorder into order.’ [3]

Anaxagoras had three pupils, Pericles, Archelaus, and Euripides. Pericles became the first man of Athens, and excelled his contemporaries both in wealth and birth: Euripides turned to poetry, and was called by some ‘the philosopher of the stage’:[4] and Archelaus succeeded to the school of Anaxagoras in Lampsacus, but migrated to Athens and lectured there, and had many Athenians as pupils, and among them especially Socrates.

At the same time with Anaxagoras there flourished the physical philosophers Xenophanes and Pythagoras. Pythagoras was succeeded by his wife Theano, and his sons Telauges and Mnesarchus.

A pupil of Telauges was Empedocles, in whose time Heracleitus ‘the obscure’ became famous. Xenophanes is said to have been succeeded by Parmenides, and Parmenides by Melissus, and Melissus by Zeno the Eleatic, who, they say, concocted a plot against the tyrant of that time, and was caught, and when tortured by the tyrant that so he might give a list of those who were his accomplices, paid no regard to the tyrant’s punishments, but bit through his tongue, and spat it at him, and died in this obstinate endurance of the tortures.

He had for his pupil Leucippus, and Leucippus Democritus, and he Protagoras, in whose time Socrates flourished. One may also find scattered here and there other physical philosophers who lived before Socrates: all, however, beginning with Thales appear to have flourished later than Cyrus king of Persia: and it is manifest that Cyrus lived long after the carrying away of the Jewish nation into captivity at Babylon, when the Hebrew prophets had already ceased, and their holy city had been besieged. So you must admit that Greek philosophy was much later than Moses and the Prophets who came after him; and especially the philosophy of Plato, who having been at first a hearer of Socrates, afterwards associated with the Pythagoreans, and shot far beyond all his predecessors both in eloquence and wisdom and in his philosophical doctrines.

Now Plato lived about the end of the Persian monarchy, a little earlier than Alexander of Macedon, and not much more than four hundred years before the Emperor Augustus.

If therefore it should be shown to you that Plato and his successors have agreed in their philosophy with the Hebrews, it is time to examine the date at which he lived, and to compare the antiquity of the Hebrew theologians and prophets with the age of all the philosophers of Greece.

But since this has been already proved, it is now the proper time to turn back and observe that the wise men of the Greeks have been zealous imitators of the Hebrew doctrines, so that our calumniators can no longer reasonably find fault with us, if we ourselves, admiring the like doctrines with their philosophers, have determined to hold the Hebrew oracles in honour.

[Footnotes numbered and moved to the end]

[1] 502 d 8 Cf. Judges iii. 8, ibid. 9 ‘Othniel’

[2] 503 a 5 Judges xii. 10-13

[3] 504 b 4 cf. Diogenes, Laortius,ii. 6.

[4] c 1 Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies,v. 71

Book 11

Introduction

THE preceding Book, which is the tenth of the Evangelical Preparation,was intended to prove by no statements of my own, but by external testimonies, that as the Greeks had contributed no additional wisdom from their own resources, but only their force and elegance of language, and had borrowed all their philosophy from Barbarians, it was not improbable that they were also not unacquainted with the Hebrew Oracles, but had in part seized upon them also; seeing that they did not keep their hands clean from theft even of the literary efforts of their own countrymen. For, as I said, it was not my statement but their own that proved them to be thieves.

Moreover in the same Book we learned by the comparison of dates that they were very young in age as well as in wisdom, and fell very far short of the ancient literature of the Hebrews.

Such were the contents of the preceding Book: but in this present one we hasten on at once to pay as it were a debt, I mean the promise which was given, and to exhibit the agreement of the Greek philosophers with the Hebrew Oracles in some if not in all their doctrinal theories. Dismissing therefore those of whom it is superfluous to speak, we call up the leader of the whole band, deeming it right to adopt as umpire of the question Plato alone as equivalent to all: since it is likely that as he surpassed all in reputation he will be sufficient by himself for the settlement of our question.

But if at any point it should be necessary, for the sake of giving clearness to his thought, I shall also make use of the testimony of those who have studied his philosophy, and shall set forth their own words for the settlement of the question before us.

Let me, however, make this reservation, that not every matter has been successfully stated by the master, although he has expressed most things in accordance with truth. And this very point also we shall prove at the proper season, not in order to disparage him, but in defence of the reason for which we confess that we have welcomed the Barbarian philosophy in preference to the Greek.

Chapter 1

WHEREAS Plato divided the whole subject of philosophy into three branches, Physics, Ethics, Logic, and then again divided his Physics into the examination of sensibles, and the contemplation of incorporeals, you will find this tripartite form of teaching among the Hebrews also, seeing that they had dealt with the like matters of philosophy before Plato was born.

It will be right then to hear Plato first, and so afterwards to examine the doctrines of the Hebrews. And I shall quote the opinions of Plato from those who give the highest honour to his system; of whom Atticus, a man of distinction among the Platonic philosophers, in the work wherein he withstands those who profess to support the doctrines of Plato by those of Aristotle, recounts the opinions of his master in the following manner:

Chapter 2

[ATTICUS] [1] ‘SINCE therefore the entire system of philosophy is divided into three parts, the so-called Ethical topic, and the Physical,and also the Logical; and whereas the aim of the first is to make each one of us honourable and virtuous, and to bring entire households to the highest state of improvement, and finally to furnish the whole commonalty with the most excellent civil polity and the most exact laws; while the second pertains to the knowledge of things divine, and the actual first principles and causes, and all the other things that result from them, which part Plato has named Natural Science;the third is adopted to help in determining and discovering what concerns both the former. Now that Plato before and beyond all others collected into one body all the parts of philosophy, which had till then been scattered and dispersed, like the limbs of Pentheus, as some one said, and exhibited philosophy as an organized body and a living thing complete in all its members, is manifestly asserted by every one.

‘For it is not unknown that Thales, and Anaximenes, and Anaxagoras, and as many as were contemporary with them spent their time solely on the inquiry concerning the nature of existing things. Nor moreover is any one unaware that Pittacus, and Periander, and Solon, and Lycurgus, and those like them, applied their philosophy to statemanship. Zeno too, and all this Eleatic School, are also well known to have studied especially the dialectic art. But after these came Plato, a man newly initiated in the mysteries of nature and of surpassing excellence, as one verily sent down from heaven in order that the philosophy taught by him might be seen in its full proportions; for he omitted nothing, and perfected everything, neither falling short in regard to what was necessary, nor carried away to what was useless.

‘Since therefore we asserted that the Platonist partakes of all three, as studying Nature, and discussing Morals, and practising Dialectic, let us now examine each point separately.’

So speaks Atticus, And the Peripatetic Aristocles also adds his testimony to the same effect, in the seventh Book of the treatise which he composed Of Philosophy,speaking thus word for word:

[1] 509 b 1 Atticus, Fragmentpreserved by Eusebius. Cf. Mullach, fr. Phil. Gr.iii. 185

Chapter 3

[ARISTOCLES] [1] ‘IF any man ever yet taught a genuine and complete system of philosophy, it was Plato. For the followers of Thales were constantly engaged in the study of Nature: and the school of Pythagoras wrapped all things in mystery: and Xenophanes and his followers, by stirring contentious discussions, caused the philosophers much dizziness, but yet gave them no help.

‘And not least did Socrates, exactly according to the proverb, add fire to fire, as Plato himself said. For being a man of great genius, and clever in raising questions upon any and every matter, he brought moral and political speculations into philosophy, and moreover was the first who attempted to define the theory of the Ideas: but while still stirring up every kind of discussion, and inquiring about all subjects, he died too early a death.

‘Others took certain separate parts and spent their time upon these, some on Medicine, others on the Mathematical Sciences, and some on the poets and Music. Most of them, however, were charmed with the powers of language, and of these some called themselves rhetoricians and others dialecticians.

‘In fact the successors of Socrates were of all different kinds, and opposed to each other in their opinions. For some sang the praises of cynical habits, and humility, and insensibility; but others, on the contrary, of pleasures. And some used to boast of knowing all things, and others of knowing absolutely nothing.

‘Further some used to roll themselves about in public and in the sight of all men, associating with the common people, while others on the contrary could never be approached nor accosted.

‘Plato however, though he perceived that the science of things divine and human was one and the same, was the first to make a distinction, asserting that there was one kind of study concerned with the nature of the universe, and another concerned with human affairs, and a third with dialectic.

‘But he maintained that we could not take a clear view of human affairs, unless the divine were previously discerned: for just as physicians, when treating any parts of the body, attend first to the state of the whole, so the man who is to take a clear view of things here on earth must first know the nature of the universe; and man, he said, was a part of the world; and good was of two kinds, our own good and that of the whole, and the good of the whole was the more important, because the other was for its sake.

‘Now Aristoxenus the Musician says that this argument comes from the Indians: for a certain man of that nation fell in with Socrates at Athens, and presently asked him, what he was doing in philosophy: and when he said, that he was studying human life, the Indian laughed at him, and said that no one could comprehend things human, if he were ignorant of things divine.

‘Whether this, however, is true no one could assert positively: but Plato at all events distinguished the philosophy of the universe, and that of civil polity, and also that of dialectic.’

Such being the philosophy of Plato, it is time to examine also that of the Hebrews, who had studied philosophy in the like manner long before Plato was born. Accordingly you will find among them also this corresponding tripartite division of Ethical, and Dialectical, and Physical studies, by setting yourself to observe in the following manner:

[1] 510 b 2 Aristocles, De Philosophia;cf. Mullach, iii. p. 206

Chapter 4

As to Ethics then, if you thoroughly examine what the Hebrews taught, you will find that this subject before all others was zealously studied among them in deeds much earlier than in words. Since as the end of all good, and the final term of a happy life, they both admired and pursued religion and that friendship with God which is secured by the right direction of moral habits; but not bodily pleasure, like Epicurus; nor again the threefold kinds of good, according to Aristotle, who esteems the good of the body, and external good on an equality with the good of the soul; no, nor yet the utter void of knowledge and instruction, which some have announced by a more respectable name as ‘suspension of judgement’; nay, nor even the virtue of the soul; for how much is there of this in men, and what can it contribute by itself without God to the life that knows no sorrow?

For the sake of that life they fastened their all on hope in God, as a cable that could not break, and declared that the friend of God was the only happy man: because God the dispenser of all good, the purveyor of life and fountain of virtue itself, being the provider of all good things for the body, and of outward fortune, must be alone sufficient for the happy life to the man who by thoroughly true religion has secured His friendship.

Hence Moses, the wisest of men and the first of all to commit to writing the life of the godly Hebrews before his time, has described in an historical narrative their mode of life both political and practical. In beginning that narrative he drew his teaching from universal principles, assuming God as the cause of the universe, and describing the creation of the world and of man.

Thus from universal principles he next advanced in his argument to particulars, and by the memory of the men of old urged his disciples on to emulation of their virtue and piety; and moreover being himself declared the author of the holy laws enacted by him, it must be manifest that on all points he was careful to promote the love of God by his attention to moral habits, a point which in fact our argument anticipated and made clear in what has gone before.

It would be too long to set down in this place the prophets who came in succession after Moses, and their arguments to encourage virtue, and dissuade from all kinds of vice. But what if I were to bring before you the moral precepts of the all-wise Solomon, to which he devoted a special treatise and called it a book of Proverbs,including in one subject many concise judgements of the nature of apophthegms?

And in this way from old times, before the Greeks had learned even the first letters, the Hebrews were both themselves instructed in the ethical branch, and freely imparted of the same instruction to those who came to them.

Chapter 5

ALSO the dialectic branch of Hebrew philosophy they thought it right to pursue not, as the Greeks were wont, with clever sophistries, and arguments cunningly framed to deceive, but by the conception of actual truth, which with souls illumined by divine light their religious philosophers discovered, and were by it enlightened.

And to make those who were being instructed in the learning of their country more keen in pursuit of this truth, they used even from the age of infancy to deliver to them recitations of holy words, and tales from sacred histories, and metrical compositions of psalms and canticles, problems also and riddles, and certain wise and allegorical theories, combined with beauty of language, and eloquent recitation in their own tongue.

Moreover they had certain expositors (δευτερωταί)of primary instruction (for so it pleases them to name the interpreters of their scriptures), who by translation and explanation made clear what was obscurely taught in riddles, if not to all, at least to those who were fitted to hear these things.

Thus again Solomon the wisest among them started from this principle in the beginning of his book of Proverbs,teaching us that this was mainly the cause of his writing, by stating in express terms that every man ought to know wisdom, and instruction, and to discern the words of understanding, and to perceive the turns of language, and understand true righteousness, and give right judgement. ‘That I may give,’ he says, ‘subtilty to the simple, and to the young man perception and thoughtfulness. For the wise man will hear these things and be wiser, and the man of understanding will obtain guidance: he will understand a proverb and a dark saying, the words of the wise, and riddles.’ [1]

Suet were the terms of the promise of the said book: and the particular Questions proposed and their solutions, and the dialectic treatment carried through all their prophetic scriptures in a manner proper to the wisdom and language of the authors, any one who wishes may learn by taking in hand and studying at leisure the books of their discourse. And if any one were also to study the language itself with critical taste, he would see that, for Barbarians, the writers are excellent dialecticians, not at all inferior to sophists or orators in his own language.

There would also be found among them poems in metre, like the great Song of Moses and David’s 118th Psalm, composed in what the Greeks call heroic metre. At least it is said that these are hexameters, consisting of sixteen syllables: also their other compositions in verse are said to consist of trimeter and tetrameter lines, according to the sound of their own language.

While such is the relation of their diction to its logical sense, the thoughts must not be brought into comparison with those of men. For they comprise the oracles of God and of absolute truth to which they have given utterance, prophecies, and predictions, and religious lessons, and doctrines relating to the knowledge of the universe.

And of the authors’ accuracy in reasoning you may find indications from their correctness in the application of names, concerning which it will be evident that Plato also bears witness to the opinion of the Hebrews, and is on this very point in agreement with the philosophy of their authors, as indeed it is easy to discern from what follows.

[1] 513 d 4 Prov. i. 2

Chapter 6

LONG before the name of philosophy was known to the Greeks, Moses had been the first throughout all his writing to treat in numberless instances of the giving of names, and sometimes had arranged the names of all things about him in exact accordance with their nature, and at other times referred to God the decision of the new name given to devout men, and had taught that names are given to things by nature and not conventionally; Plato in following him assents to the same opinions, and does not omit to mention Barbarians, and affirm that this custom is maintained among them, hinting probably at the Hebrews, since it is not easy to observe a theory of this kind among other Barbarians.

He says, at all events, in the Cratylus:

[PLATO] ‘The name of anything is not whatever men agree to call it, pronouncing over it some small portion of their own language, but there is a kind of natural correctness in names, the same for all both Greeks and Barbarians.’ [1]

And then farther on he says:

‘So then as long as the legislator, whether here or among the Barbarians, assigns to each thing the form of name that properly belongs to it, whatever syllables he may use, you will not deem him to be a worse legislator, whether in this country or anywhere else.’ [2]

Then again after asserting that the man who understands the correctness of names is a dialectician and a legislator, he next speaks thus: [3]

‘A carpenter’s work then is to make a rudder under the superintendence of a pilot, if the rudder is to be a good one.

‘Evidently.

‘And a legislator’s work, as it seems, is to give a name, having a dialectician to direct him, if the name is to be rightly given.

‘That is true.

‘The giving of names then, Hermogenes, is likely to be no light matter, as you suppose, nor a work for light persons, nor for chance comers: and Cratylus speaks truly, when he says that things have their names by nature, and that not every one is an artist in names, but only that man who looking to the name which by nature belongs to each thing is able to impose its form upon both the letters and the syllables.’

After these statements, and many more, he again brings up the mention of the Barbarians, and then expressly acknowledges that most of the names have come to the Greeks from the Barbarians, saying in exact words: [4]

‘I have an idea that the Greeks, and especially those who live under the Barbarians, have taken many names from them.

‘Well, what then?

‘If any one should try to find how these names are fitly given according to the Greek language, and not according to that language from which each name happens to be derived, you know that he would be in difficulty.

‘Naturally.’

So says Plato. He is anticipated, however, by Moses; for hear what he says, as being a wise legislator and withal a dialectician. ‘And out of the ground God formed all the beasts of the field and all the fowls of the heaven, and brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them. And whatsoever Adam called a living being, that was the name thereof.’ [5]

For by saying ‘that was the name thereof does he not show that the appellations were given in accordance with nature? For the name just now given, he says, was long before contained in the nature, and that in each of the things named there existed from the beginning this name which the said man inspired by a superior power has given it.

Moreover the very name Adam, being originally a Hebrew noun, would become with Moses an appellation of the earth-born man, because among the Hebrews the earth is called Adam, wherefore also the first man made out of the earth is with true etymology called by Moses Adam.

But the name may also have another meaning, being otherwise taken for ‘red,’ and representing the natural colour of the body. However, by the appellation ‘Adam’ he signified the earthlike, and earthly, and earthborn, or the man of body and of flesh.

But the Hebrews also call man otherwise, giving him the name ‘Enos,’ [6] which they say is the rational man within us, different in nature from the earthlike ‘Adam.’ Enos also has a meaning of its own, being in the Greek language interpreted ‘forgetful.’

And such the rational part within us is by nature apt to be, on account of its combination with the mortal and irrational part. For the one being altogether pure, and incorporeal, and divine, and rational, comprehends not only the memory of the things that are past, but also the knowledge of the things that are to come, through the supreme excellence of its vision. While the other close-packed in flesh, pierced through with bones and nerves, and laden with the great and heavy burden of the body, was seen by the Hebrew Scripture to be full of forgetfulness and ignorance, and called by an apt designation ‘Enos,’ which means ‘the forgetful.’

It is written at least in a certain Prophet ‘What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that Thou visitest him?’ [7] For which the Hebrew, in the first naming of ‘man,’ contains the word ‘Enos’: as if he said more plainly, What is this forgetful one, that Thou, O God, rememberest him, forgetful though he is? And the other clause, ‘Or the son of man that Thou visitest him? is read among the Hebrews, ‘Or the son of Adam’: so that the same man is both Adam and Enos; the fleshly nature being represented by Adam, and the rational by Enos.

In this way do the Hebrew oracles distinguish the etymology of the two words. But Plato asserts that man is called ἄνθρωπος in the Greek language from looking upward, saying:

‘But man no sooner sees, that is the meaning of ὄπωπε,than he both looks up (ἀναθρεῖ),and considers that which he has seen, that he may be one who looks up at what he sees (ἀναθρῶν ἂ ὄπωπε).’ [8]

Again the Hebrews call the man ‘Ish’ (Εἷς): and the name is derived by them from Ἔς, by which they signify fire, that the man may be so named because of the hot and fiery temper of the masculine nature.

But the woman, since she is said to have been taken out of man, also shares the name in common with the man: for the woman is called among them ‘Issha,’ as the man is ‘Ish.’ But Plato says that the man (ἀνήρ)is so named because of the upward flux (τὴν ἄνω ῥοήν); and he adds—

‘And γυνή (woman) seems to me to be the same as γονή (birth).’ [9]

Again Moses calls the heaven in the Hebrew tongue the firmamentetymologically, because the first thing after the incorporeal and intellectual essence is the firmand sensible body of this world. But Plato says that the name οὐρανός is rightly given to the heaven, because it makes us look upward (ὁραν ἄνω). [10]

Again the Hebrews say that the highest and proper name of God may not be spoken or uttered, nor even conceived in the imagination of the mind: but this actual name by which they speak of God, they call Elohim, from El, as it seems: and this they interpret as ‘strength,’ and ‘power’; so that among them the name of God has been derived by reasoning from His power and strength, by which He is conceived as Allpowerful and Almighty, as having established all things. But Plato says that the names θεός and θεοί (god and gods) were given because the luminaries in heaven are always running (θέειν). [11]

Of some such kind, to speak generally, are the investigations of the Hebrews and those of Plato on the correctness of names. The names also among men, Plato says, have been given with some meaning, and he tries to render the reason of them: for he says that Hector somehow or other is named from having and ruling (ἔχειν καὶ κρατεῖν)because he was king of the Trojans;[12] and Agamemnon because he was very persistent (ἄγαν μένειν),and persevered vigorously and constantly in his determinations about the Trojans;[13] Orestes because of the mountainous (ὀρεινόν)and fierce and savage quality of his disposition;[14] and Atreus, because of his having been a mischievous (ἀτηρόν) sort of person in character;[15] and Pelops as one who saw nothing at a distance, but only the things that were close and near (πέλας).[16] Tantalus, he says, means a most miserable man (ταλάντατον)because of the misfortunes which beset him.[17]

These examples and countless others such as these you will find stated by Plato, in endeavouring to teach that the first men had their names given to them by nature and not by convention.

But you would not say that the explanations found also in Moses are forced, nor framed according to any sophistical invention of words, when you have learnt that the Hebrew ‘Cain’ is translated among the Greeks as ‘jealousy’; and the person in question was judged deserving of this appellation because he was jealous of his brother Abel. [18]

‘Abel’ also is interpreted ‘sorrow,’ because he too became the cause of such suffering to his parents, who by some diviner foresight gave these names to their children at birth.

But what if I should quote Abraham to you? He was a kind of meteorologist, and formerly, while he was acquiring the wisdom of the Chaldees, he had become learned in the contemplation of the stars and in the knowledge of the heavens, and was called Abram; and this in the Greek language means ‘high father.’

But God leading him on from things of this world to things invisible and lying beyond the things that are seen, employs an appropriate change of name, saying, ‘Thy name shall no more be called Abram, but Abraham shall be thy name; for a father of many nations have I made thee.’ [19]

Now it would be long to tell with what thought this is connected: but it is sufficient in this matter also to adopt Plato as a witness to my statement, when he says that some names have been given by a more divine power.

He says indeed in express words:

‘For here most of all ought care to have been taken in the giving of names: and perhaps some of them may even have been given by a higher power than that of men.’ [20]

This very point is also certified by many examples in the sacred Scriptures of the Hebrews; and first of all by Moses, who taught that Abraham, and his son Isaac, and also Israel, received their names from a diviner power. ‘Isaac’ is interpreted ‘laughter,’ bringing with it the token of the virtuous joy, which God has promised to give as a special reward to the friends of God.

His son Israel had formerly borne the name of ‘Jacob,’ but instead of ‘Jacob’ God bestows upon him the name ‘Israel,’ transforming the active and practical man into the contemplative. [21]

For ‘Jacob’ is interpreted ‘supplanter,’ as one who strives in the contest of virtue:[22] but ‘Israel’ is interpreted ‘seeing God,’ a description which would suit the mind in man that is capable of knowledge and contemplation.[23]

Why need I now refer to the perfect wisdom of Moses, or to the sacred oracles of the Hebrews, to explain, by countless other examples, the correctness of their imposition of proper names, when the details of the subject require longer leisure?

To go no farther, the Greeks would be unable to state the etymologies even of the letters of the alphabet, nor could Plato himself tell the meaning or the reason of the vowels or the consonants.

But the Hebrews would tell us the reason of ‘Alpha,’ which with them is called ‘Al’ph,’ and this signifies ‘learning’:[24] and of ‘Beta,’ which it is their custom to call ‘Beth,’ which name they give to a house; so as to show the meaning, ‘learning of a house,’ or as it might be more plainly expressed, ‘a kind of teaching and learning of household economy.’

‘Gamma’ also is with them called ‘Gimel’: and this is their name for ‘fullness.’ Then since they call tablets ‘Delth,’ they gave this name to the fourth letter, signifying therewith by the two letters, that ‘written learning is a filling of the tablets.’

And any one going over the remaining letters of the alphabet, would find that they have been named among the Hebrews each with some cause and reason. For they say also that the combination of the seven vowels contains the enunciation of one forbidden name, which the Hebrews indicate by four letters and apply to the supreme power of God, having received the tradition from father to son that this is something unutterable and forbidden to the multitude.

And one of the wise Greeks having learned this, I know not whence, hinted it obscurely in verse, saying as follows:

‘Seven vowels tell My Name,—the Mighty God, The everlasting Father of mankind: The immortal lyre am I, that guides the world, And leads the music of the circling spheres.’ [25]

You would find also the meanings of the remaining Hebrew letters, by fixing your attention on each; but this we have already established by our former statements, when we were showing that the Greeks have received help in everything from the Barbarians.

And any one diligently studying the Hebrew language would discover great correctness of names current among that people: since the very name which is the appellation of the whole race has been derived from Heber; and this means the man that ‘passes over,’ since both a passage and the one who passes over are called in the Hebrew language ‘Heber.’ [26]

For the term teaches us to cross over and pass from the things in this world to things divine, and by no means to stay lingering over the sight of the things that are seen, but to pass from these to the unseen and invisible things of divine knowledge concerning the Maker and Artificer of the world. Thus the first people who were devoted to the one All-ruler and Cause of the Universe, and adhered to Him with a pure and true worship, they called Hebrews, naming men of this character as travellers who had in mind passed over from earthly things.

But why should I spend more time in collecting all the instances of the propriety and correctness of the Hebrew names, when the subject requires a special treatise of its own. However, speaking generally, I think that even by what has been said I have supplied the evidence of the art of reasoning among the Hebrews: if indeed, as Plato said, it is a task for no mean or ordinary men, but for a wise lawgiver and dialectician, to discover the kind of names naturally belonging to things,—a man such as Moses who has made known to us the Hebrew oracles. So then what follows next after the subject of Dialectics, but to examine what was the condition of the Hebrew people in regard to Physics?

[1] 515 a 8 Plato, Cratylus,383 A

[2] b 1 ibid. 390 A

[3] b 9 ibid. 390 D

[4] d 6 Plato, Cratylus,409 D

[5] 616 a 1 Gen. ii. 19

[6] 516 c 4 Gen. vi. 4

[7] d 8 Ps. viii. 4

[8] 517 a 9 Plato, Cratylus,399 C

[9] b 11 ibid. 414 A

[10] c 5 ibid. 396 C

[11] d 5 ibid. 397 D

[12] 517 d 13 Plato, Cratylus,393 A

[13] 518 a 1 395 A

[14] a 4 394 E

[15] a 6 395 B

[16] a 8 395 C

[17] a 9 395 E

[18] b 5 Gen. iv. 1

[19] d 1 Gen. xvii. 5

[20] d 9 Plato, Cratylus,397 B

[21] 519 a 6 Gen. xxxii. 28

[22] a 9 Gen. xxvii. 36

[23] a 10 Gen. xxxii. 28

[24] 519 c 2 Cf. p. 474 b

[25] 520 a 1 Cf. Jacobs, Greek Anthology,vol. xii. p. 34

[26] 620 b 5 Gen. xiv. 13

Chapter 7

THIS third branch also of Hebrew philosophy which, we said, is Physics, was divided among them also into the contemplation of things incorporeal and discerned only by the mind, and the Natural Science of things sensible. This too their all-accomplished Prophets knew, and mingled in their own discourses, when the occasion required; for they had not learned it by conjectures and by application of human thought, nor did they boast of men as their teachers, but ascribed their knowledge to the inspiration of a Higher Power, and the afflatus of a divine Spirit.

From this source came their countless prophecies concerning future events, and countless physical explanations of the constitution of the world, and descriptions likewise countless of the nature of animals, and very many things concerning plants which each set down in his own prophecies.

And Moses, understanding also the qualities of precious stones extremely well, exercises a very careful consideration of them in the case of the High Priest’s dress. Again that Solomon, above all others, excelled in knowledge of the nature of such things is testified by the sacred Scripture in the following words:

‘And Solomon spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were five thousand; and he spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth, as many as heard his wisdom.’ [1]

Starting from this description the author who ascribed to his person the perfection of wisdom, spake also thus: ‘For Himself gave me an unerring knowledge of the things that are, to know the constitution of the world, and the operation of the elements; the beginning and end and middle of times, the alternations of the solstices and the changes of seasons, the circuits of the year and the positions of stars; the natures of living creatures and the ragings of wild beasts, the violences of winds and the thoughts of men, the diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots; and all things that are either secret or manifest I learned, for Wisdom the artificer of all things taught me.’ [2]

And again the same Solomon, explaining the nature of the fleeting substance of bodies, says in Ecclesiastes:’Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. What profit hath man in all his labour, wherein he laboureth under the Sun.’ [3] And he adds: ‘What is that which hath been? The very thing that shall be. And what is that which hath been done? The very thing that shall be done. And there is nothing new under the sun.’ [4]

For these and such as these were his physiological conclusions concerning corporeal substance. And you will find, if you go on, that the other wise Hebrews were not without a share of the like science. At all events, as I said before, there are numberless sayings of theirs about plants and animals, whether of the land or of the water, and moreover about the nature of birds.

Nay further, about the constellations in the heaven also: since there is conveyed in the writings of the said authors especial mention of Arctos and Pleias, Orion and Arcturus, which the Greeks are wont to call Arctophylax and Bootes.

Also concerning the constitution of the world, and the revolution and change of the universe, and concerning the essence of the soul, and the creation of the nature both visible and invisible, of all rational beings, and the universal Providence, and still earlier than these, the . opinions concerning the First Cause of the universe, and the doctrine of the divinity of the Second Cause, and the arguments and speculations about the other things thai can be perceived only by thought, they have comprehended accurately and well: so that one would not err in saying, that those among the Greeks who have afterwards investigated the nature of these things have been like younger men following the guidance of the old.

This then is what we have to say of their Natural Science of the Universe. But as they divided this subject into two parts, the one which concerns things perceived by the senses they did not think it necessary to make known accurately to the multitude, nor to teach the common people the causes of the nature of existing things, except only so far as it was necessary for them to know that the universe has not been self-created, and has not been produced causelessly and by chance from an irrational impetus, but is led on by the Divine Reason as its guide, and governed by a power of ineffable Wisdom.

With regard, however, to things seen only by the mind, that they exist, and what they are, and what their condition is in regard to arrangement, power, and diversity, has been already mentioned and is laid down in the Sacred Books, and has been audibly delivered to all men, so far as the knowledge was necessary for those who profess religion, with a view to the recovery of a pious and sober life.

But the deep and occult reason of these things they left to be sought out and learned in secret communications by those who were capable of being initiated in matters of this kind. It will be well, however, to describe in a general way a few points in the contemplation of these matters, and to show that herein also Plato entertained the sentiments which were dear to the said people.

[1] 521 c 6 i Ki. iv. 32

[2] d 6 Wisdom vii. 17

[3] 522 a 4 Eccles. i. 1

[4] a 6 ibid. 9

Chapter 8

BUT in fact it is manifest from his own words that the admirable Plato followed the all-wise Moses and the Hebrew Prophets in regard also to the teaching and speculation about things incorporeal and seen only by the mind; whether it were that he learned from hearsay which had reached him (since he is proved to have made his studies among the Egyptians at the very time when the Hebrews, having been driven the second time out of their own country, were in the habit of visiting Egypt during the Persian supremacy), or whether of himself he hit upon the true nature of the things, or, in whatever way, was deemed worthy of this knowledge by God. ‘For God,’ says the Apostle, ‘manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by means of the things that are made, even His eternal power and divinity, that they may be without excuse.’ [1] And you may learn what I have stated by examining the matter as follows:

[1] 523 c 8 Rom. i. 20

Chapter 9

MOSES in his declarations of sacred truth uttered a response in the person of God: ‘I AM THAT I AM. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you,’ [1] and so represented God as the sole absolute Being, and declared Him to have been properly and fitly honoured with this name.

And Solomon again spake concerning the origin and the decay of things corporeal and sensible: ‘What is that which hath been? The very thing that shall be. And what is that which hath been done? The very thing that shall be done. And there is nothing new under the sun, whereof a man shall speak and say, See, this is new. It hath been already, in the ages which were before us.’ [2]

In accordance with them we also divide the All into two parts, that which can be perceived only by the mind, and that which can be perceived by the senses: and the former we define as incorporeal and rational in its nature, and imperishable and immortal; but the sensible as being always in flux and decay, and in change and conversion of its substance. And all things being summed up and referred to one beginning, we hold the doctrine that the uncreate, and that which has proper and true being, is One, which is the cause of all things incorporeal and corporeal.

Now see in what manner Plato, having imitated not only the thought, but also the very expressions and words of the Hebrew Scripture, appropriates the doctrine, explaining it more at large, as follows:

‘What is that which always is and has no becoming? And what is that which is always becoming and never is? The former is that which may be comprehended by intelligence combined with reason, being always in the same conditions. The latter is that which may be conjectured by opinion with the help of unreasoning sensation, becoming and perishing but never really being.’ [3]

Does it not plainly appear that the admirable philosopher has altered the oracle which in Moses declared ‘I AM THAT I AM’ [4] into ‘What is that which always is and has no becoming?’ And this he has made still clearer when he says that true ‘being’ is nothing else than that which is not seen by eyes of flesh, but is conceived by the mind. So having asked, What is ‘being’? he makes answer to himself, saying: ‘That which may be comprehended by intelligence combined with reason.’

And as to Solomon’s maxim which said, ‘What is that which hath been? The very thing that shall be. And what is that which hath been done? The very thing that shall be done,’ [5] it must be evident that he translated this almost in the very words, saying, ‘But that which may be conjectured by means of irrational sensation is becoming and perishing, but never really “being.”’ To which he also adds: [6]

‘For all these are parts of time, the “was” and “shall be”; which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence. For we say that “It was, and is, and shall be.” But to this essence the “is” alone is truly appropriate; and the “was” and the “will be” are proper to be spoken of the generation in time, for they are movements. But to that which is always immovably in the same conditions it belongs not to become either older or younger through time: nor that it ever became, nor has now become, nor will be hereafter at all, nor be subject to any of the conditions which becoming attaches to the things which pass to and fro in sensation: but these are forms of time, imitating eternity and moving by number in a circle. And besides these there are such expressions as the following; what has become is become, and what becomes is becoming, and what will become is about to become.’

And lest any one should suppose that I am misinterpreting the philosopher’s words, I will make use of commentaries which explain the meaning of these statements. There are indeed many who have set themselves to the consideration of these matters; but at present it is enough for me to quote the expressions of an illustrious man, Numenius the Pythagorean, which he uses in his second Book Concerning the Good,as follows:

[1] d 2 Ex. iii. 14

[2] 524 a 2 Eccles. i. 9

[3] 524 b 8 Plato, Timaeus,27 D

[4] c 2 Ex. iii. 14

[5] c 9 Eccles. i. 9

[6] d 6 Plato, Timaeus,37 E

Chapter 10

[NUMENIUS] [1] ‘COME then, let us mount up as nearly as we possibly can to true “being,” and let us say that “being” neither at any time “was,” nor ever can “become,” but always “is” in a definite time, the present only.

‘If, however, any one wishes to rename this present time eternity, I too am willing. But the time past we ought to consider altogether gone, already so gone away and escaped as to exist no longer: and on the other hand the time to come as yet is not, but professes to be able at some future time to come into being.

‘It is not therefore reasonable to suppose “being,” at least in one and the same sense, either not to be or to be no longer, or not yet. Since when this is so stated, there arises in the statement one great impossibility, that the same thing at the same time should both be and not be.

‘For if this were so, scarcely would it be possible for anything else to be, if “being” itself in regard to its very “being” be not. For “being” is eternal and constant, ever in the same condition, nor has it been generated and destroyed, nor increased and diminished: nor did it ever yet become more or less: and certainly neither in other senses nor yet locally will it be moved.

‘For it is not right for it to be moved, either backward or forward: nor upward ever, nor downward: neither to the right hand nor to the left shall “being” ever pass: nor shall it ever be moved around its own centre; but rather it shall stand fast, and shall be fixed and set firm, ever in the same conditions and same mode.’

And then, after other statements, he adds:

‘So much then for my introduction. But for my own part I will no longer make pretences, nor say that I do not know the name of the incorporeal; for now at length it seems likely to be pleasanter to speak than not to speak it. And so then I say that its name is that which we have so long been examining.

‘But let no one laugh, if I affirm that the name of the incorporeal is “essence” and “being.” And the cause of the name “being” is that it has not been generated nor will be destroyed, nor is it subject to any other motion at all, nor any change for better or for worse; but is simple and unchangeable, and in the same idea, and neither willingly departs from its sameness, nor is compelled by any other to depart.

‘Plato too said in the Cratylus[2] that names are exactly adapted to a likeness of the things. Be it granted then and agreed that “being” is the incorporeal.’

Then lower down he adds:

‘I said that “being” is incorporeal, and that this is that which can be perceived by the mind only. Their statements then, so far as I can remember, were certainly of this kind: but any one who feels the want of an explanation I am willing to encourage with just this suggestion, that if these statements do not agree with the doctrines of Plato, yet at least he must consider them to be those of some other great man of the highest ability, such as Pythagoras.

‘Plato at all events says [3] —come, let me remember how he says it—What is that which, always is and has no becoming? And what that which is always becoming, and never is? The first that which may be comprehended by intelligence combined with reason, and the other that which may be conjectured by opinion with the aid of unreasoning sensation, becoming and perishing, but never really “being.”

‘For he was inquiring what is “being,” and saying that it is unquestionably without beginning. For he said that for “being” there is no becoming: for then it would be changed, but that which is liable to change is not eternal.’

Then below he says:

‘If then “being” is altogether and in every way eternal and unchangeable, and by no means departs in any way from itself, but abides in the same conditions, and remains fixed in the same manner, this surely must be that which can be comprehended by intelligence combined with reason.

‘But if body is in flux and is carried off by the change of the moment, it passes away and no longer exists. Wherefore is it not utter folly to deny that this is something undefinable, and that can only be conjectured by opinion, and, as Plato says, becoming and perishing, but never really “being”? ‘

Thus then speaks Numenius, explaining clearly both Plato’s doctrines and the much earlier doctrines of Moses. With reason therefore is that saying currently attributed to him, in which it is recorded that he said, ‘For what else is Plato than Moses speaking Attic Greek?’

But see, besides this, whether Plutarch in further unfolding the same thought may not agree both with the statements of philosophers which have been brought forward, and the theological doctrines of the Hebrews set forth again in other places, whereby at one time the God who makes answer is introduced as saying: [4] ‘For I am the LORD your God, and I am not changed’: and at another time the Prophet directs his speech with a view to Him, saying that the things which are seen would all some time be changed and removed, ‘but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.’ [5] Observe then whether—when He who spake in Moses, as if proposing a question, said,’I AM THAT I AM,’ and, ‘I am the LORD your God, and I am not changed’: and again, ‘But Thou art (εἶ) the same’—whether, I say. Plutarch would not seem to be interpreting the meaning of this in his treatise Concerning the Εἶ at Delphi,when he speaks word for word thus: [6]

[1] 525 c 1 Numenius, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius only

[2] 526 c 1 Plato, Cratylus,430 A, and frequently.

[3] d 1 Plato, Timaeus.27 D; see p. 524 b above

[4] 527 b 6 Malachi iii. 6

[5] 527 b 10 Ps. ci. 28

[6] d 1 Plutarch, Moralia,391 F

Chapter 11

‘NEITHER number therefore, nor order, nor conjunction, nor any other of the non-significant particles, does the letter seem to indicate. But it is an address and appellation of the god complete in itself, which as soon as the word is uttered sets the speaker thinking of the power of the god.

‘For the god, welcoming as it were each of us who approach him here, addresses to us the words “Know thyself,” which is nothing less than “Hail”: and we answering the god again say “Thou art” (Εἶ), rendering to him the appellation of “being” as his true and unerring and solely appropriate name.

‘For we have in reality no share in “being,” but every mortal nature is set in the midst between becoming and perishing, and presents a phantom and a faint and uncertain seeming of itself.

‘And if any one closely press the thought, from wishing to grasp it, then just as the violent grasping of water by pressing and squeezing it together causes what was enclosed to slip through and be lost, so when Reason seeks too much actuality in any thing passible and subject to change, it goes astray on this side to the part that is becoming, and on that to the part that is perishing, being unable to lay hold of anything permanent, or of any true “being.”

‘For it is not possible, according to Heracleitus,[1] to step twice into the same river, nor to touch a mortal substance twice in the same condition, but by the swiftness and suddenness of its change it scatters and again collects, or rather we must not say “again” nor “afterwards,” but it is at the same time both combining and passing away, both coming on and going off.

‘Wherefore neither does the part that is becoming attain to being, because the becoming never ceases nor stands still; but from a seed by constant change it makes an embryo, then a babe, then a child, in due order a youth, a young man, a man, an elder, an old man, destroying the first becomings and ages by those which come after.

‘We, however, are ridiculously afraid of one death, although we have already died and are dying so many. For not only, as Heracleitus used to say, is “the death of fire the birth of air,” [2] but still more manifestly in our own case the man in his prime perishes when the old man is coming, and the young man has passed away into the man in his prime, and the child into the young man, and the infant into the child, and the man of yesterday has died into the man of to-day, and the man of to-day (is dying) into the man of to-morrow; and not one abides nor is one,but we become many, while matter is circulating around some one phantom and common mould, and then slipping away.

‘Else how is it, if we remain the same, that we delight now in some things, formerly in others, that we love and hate the contrary things, and praise and blame, use different language, have different feelings, retain no more the same appearance, form, or thought?

‘For neither is it natural to have different feelings without a change, nor can one who changes be the same. But if he is not the same,he isnot, but is changing from this,and becoming other from other: and our sense, through ignorance of true “being,” falsely declares the apparent to “be.”

‘What then is true “being”? The eternal and uncreate, and imperishable, to which no time brings change. For time is something moveable, and imagined in connexion with the movement of matter, and ever flowing and not holding water, as it were a vessel of perishing and becoming. And so when it is said of time “after” and “before,” and “will be” and “has been,” there is at once an acknowledgement of “not-being.”

‘For to say of that which has not yet come into being, or has already ceased from being, that it “is” is silly and absurd. But at the very moment when, trying to fix our perception of time, we say “it is present,” “it is here,” and “now,” our reason slips away again from this and loses it. For it is thrust aside into the future and into the past, just as a visual ray is distorted with those who try to see what is necessarily separated by distance.

‘And if the nature which is measured is subject to the same conditions as the time which measures it, this nature itself has no permanence, nor “being,” but is becoming and perishing according to its relation to time.

‘Hence nothing of this kind may be said of “being,” such as “was” or “will be”: for these are a kind of inflexions, and transitions, and alternations of that which is not fitted by nature to continue in ‘’being.”

‘But we ought to say of God, HE is, and is in relation to no time, but in relation to eternity the motionless, and timeless, and changeless, in which is no “before” nor “after,” nor future, nor past, nor elder nor younger: but being One He has filled the “Ever” with the one “Now”; and is the sole self-dependent real “Being,” having neither past nor future, without beginning and without end.

‘Thus then ought we in worship to salute and address Him, or even indeed as some of the ancients did, THOU ART ONE, For the Deity is not many, as each of us is, a promiscuous assemblage of all kinds compounded of numberless differences arising in its conditions: but “being” must be One, just as One must be “being”: for otherness,as a differentia of “being,” inclines towards a becoming of “not-being.”’

[1] 528 b 3 Heracleitus, Fr. xii, xlii (Bywater)

[2] c 5 Heracleitus, Fr.xxv.

Chapter 12

WHEREAS Moses and all the Hebrew Prophets teach that the Divine nature is ineffable, and indicate the symbol of the ineffable Name by the notation which may not be pronounced among them, hear how Plato also in agreement with them speaks in his great Epistleword for word.

[Ps.-PLATO] ‘For it can by no means be defined in words as other branches of learning, but from long converse on the subject itself, and from living with it, on a sudden a light, as it were kindled from a spark leaping out of the fire, comes to the soul, and thenceforth is self-sustained.’ [1]

This example also of ‘light’ another Hebrew Prophet had previously set forth, saying, ‘The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, was shown upon us.’ [2] And again another, ‘In Thy light shall we see light.’ [3]

[1] 530 a 6 Ps.-Plato, Ep.vii. p. 341 C

[2] b 2 Ps. iv. 7

[3] b 3 Ps. xxxvi. 9

Chapter 13

As Moses declared concerning the God of all the world, ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD,’ [1] Plato again concurring with him teaches that there is one God as also one heaven, speaking thus in the Timaeus:

[PLATO] ‘Have we then been right in speaking of one heaven, or was it more correct to say that there are many and infinite?One, if indeed it is to have been created according to the pattern. For that which includes the ideals of all living creatures whatsoever cannot possibly be second to another.’ [2]

But that he has a knowledge of one God, even though in accordance with the custom of the Greeks he commonly speaks of them as many, is evident from the Epistle to Dionysius,in which, giving marks to distinguish his letters written in earnest from those thrown off at random, he said that he would put the name of ‘The gods’ as a sign at the head of those which contained nothing serious, but the name of ‘God’ at the head of those which were thoughtfully composed by him. Accordingly he thus speaks word for word: [3]

[PS.-PLATO] ‘With regard then to the distinctive mark concerning the letters which I may write seriously, and which not, though I suppose you remember it. nevertheless bear it in mind and give great attention to it. For there are many who bid me to write, whom it is not easy for me openly to refuse. So then the serious letter begins with “God,” and the less serious with “gods.” ‘

And the same author expressly acknowledges that he has learned the doctrine of the one ‘God’ from men of old, as he says in the Laws:

‘God then, as the old tradition says, holding the beginning and end and middle of all things that exist, passes straight through while travelling round in nature’s course. Justice is ever His companion, taking vengeance on those who depart from the divine law: and the man who is to be happy holds fast to her and follows on humbly in orderly array. But if any man lifted up by arrogance, or elated by riches or honours, or personal beauty, has his soul inflamed with youthfulness and folly combined with insolence, as feeling no need of a ruler or guide, but being competent even to guide others, he is left forsaken of God: and when he is thus forsaken, and has also taken to himself others of like mind, he prances about and throws all things into confusion, and to many he seems to be somebody, but after no long time pays to justice no contemptible penalty, and brings utter destruction upon himself as well as on his family and city.’ [4]

Thus Plato writes. And now beside the description, ‘God holding the beginning and end and middle of all things that exist,’ set thou this from Hebrew prophecy, ‘I God am first and I am with the last’:[5] and beside the sentence, ‘passes straight through while travelling on in nature’s course,’ set this, ‘His countenance doth behold uprightness.’ [6]

Also with the phrase, ‘Justice is ever His companion, taking vengeance on those who depart from the divine law,’ compare this, ‘Righteous is the LORD, and He loveth righteousness’;[7] and this, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, saith the LORD ‘;[8] and this, ‘For the Lord is an avenger, and repayeth them that work exceeding proudly’;[9] and with this, ‘the man who is to be happy holds fast to her and follows on humbly in orderly array,’ there agrees,’Thou shalt walk after the LORD thy God.’ [10] And with this, ‘But he that is lifted up by pride is left forsaken of God,’ agrees, ‘God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble’;[11] and, ‘But the joy of the ungodly is a sudden fall.’ [12] These then are a few out of countless passages concerning Him who is God over all. But observe also the passages concerning the Second Cause.

[1] c 2 Deut. vi. 4

[2] c 5 Plato, Timaeus,31 A

[3] d 1 Ps.-Plato, Ep.xiii. p. 363 B

[4] 531 a 2 Plato, Laws,iv. 715 E

[5] b 10 Is. xli. 4

[6] c 2 Ps. xi. 7

[7] c 5 Ps. xi. 7

[8] c 6 Rom. xii. 20; (cp. Beat, xxxii. 35)

[9] c 71 Thess. iv. 6, and Ps. xxxi. 23

[10] d 1 Deut. xiii. 4

[11] d 3 Ja. iv. 6

[12] d 4 Job xx. 5 (Sept.)

Chapter 14. On the Second Cause

IN regard then to the First Cause of all things let this be our admitted form of agreement. But now consider what is said concerning the Second Cause, whom the Hebrew oracles teach to be the Word of God, and God of God, even as we Christians also have ourselves been taught to speak of the Deity.

First then Moses expressly speaks of two divine Lords in the passage where he says, ‘Then the LORD rained from the LORD fire and brimstone upon the city of the ungodly ‘: [1] where he applied to both the like combination of Hebrew letters in the usual way; and this combination is the mention of God expressed in the four letters, which is with them unutterable.

In accordance with him David also, another Prophet as well as king of the Hebrews, says, ‘The LORD said unto my Lord, sit Thou on My right hand,’ [2] indicating the Most High God by the first LORD, and the second to Him by the second title. For to what other is it right to suppose that the right hand of the Unbegotten God is conceded, than to Him alone of whom we are speaking?

This is He whom the same prophet in other places more clearly distinguishes as the Word of the Father, supposing Him whose deity we are considering to be the Creator of the universe, in the passage where he says, ‘By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made firm.’ [3]

He introduces the same Person also as a Saviour of those who need His care, saying, ‘He sent His Word and healed them.’ [4]

And Solomon, David’s son and successor, presenting the same thought by a different name, instead of the ‘Word’ called Him Wisdom, making the following statement as in her person:

‘I Wisdom made prudence my dwelling, and called to my aid knowledge and understanding.’ [5] Then afterwards he adds, ‘The LORD formed me as the beginning of His ways with a view to His works: from everlasting He established me, in the beginning before He made the earth, … before the mountains were settled, and before all hills He begat me… When He was preparing the heaven, I was beside Him.’ [6]

And there is this again of the same author, ‘God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding He prepared the heavens.’ [7] The following also is said to be the same author’s: ‘And all things that are either secret or manifest I learned: for Wisdom, the artificer of all things, taught me.’ [8]

Then he adds, ‘But what wisdom is, and how she came into being, I will declare, and will not hide mysteries from you, but will trace her out from the beginning of creation.’ [9]

And afterwards he gives such explanations as the following: ‘For she is a spirit quick of understanding, holy, alone in kind, manifold, subtil, freely moving, clear in utterance, unpolluted, … all-powerful, all-survey ing, and penetrating through all spirits, that are quick of understanding, pure, most subtil. For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by reason of her pureness. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty. Therefore can nothing defiled find entrance into her. For she is an effulgence from everlasting light, and an unspotted mirror of the operation of God, and an image of His goodness.[10] … And she reacheth from end to end with full strength, and ordereth all things graciously.’[11] Thus the Scripture speaks: but Philo the Hebrew, explaining the meaning of the doctrine more clearly, represents it in the manner following:

[1] 532 a 7 Gen. xix. 24

[2] b 4 Ps. cx. 1

[3] c 3 Ps. xxxiii. 6

[4] 532 c 6 Ps. cvii. 20

[5] c 12 Prov. viii. 12

[6] d 2 Prov. viii. 22

[7] d 7 Prov. iii.19

[8] d 10 Wisdom vii. 21

[9] d 12 Wisdom vi. 22

[10] d 16 Wisdom vii. 22

[11] 533 a 7 Wisdom viii. 1

Chapter 15

[PHILO] [1] ‘FOR it becomes those who have made companionship with knowledge to desire to behold the true Being, but should they be unable, then at least to behold His image, the most holy Word.’

Also in the same treatise he says this: [2]

‘But even if one be not as yet worthy to be called the son of God, let him strive earnestly to be adorned after the likeness of His first-begotten Word, who is the eldest of the Angels, and as an Archangel has many names.

‘For He is called the Beginning, and the Name of God, and the Word, and the Man after God’s image, and He who seeth Israel. For which cause I was induced a short time ago to praise the virtues of those who assert that we are all sons of one Man.[3]

‘For even if we have not yet become fit to be deemed children of God, yet surely we may be children of His eternal Image, the most holy Word: for His eldest Word is the Image of God.’

And again he adds: [4]

‘I have, however,heard also one of the companions of Moses utter an oracle of this kind: Behold I the man whose name is the East.[5] A very strange appellation, if you suppose the man who is composed of body and soul to be meant: but if you mean that incorporeal Being who wears the divine form, you will fully acknowledge that the ‘East’ was happily given to Him as a most appropriate name: for the Universal Father made Him rise as His eldest Son, whom elsewhere He named “First-begotten.” And indeed He that was begotten, imitating the ways of His Father, looked to His archetypal patterns in giving form to the various species.’

Let it suffice at this point to have made these quotations from, the Hebrew Philo, taken from the treatise inscribed with the title, On the worse plotting against the better.[6] But already in an earlier part of The Preparation for the Gospel,in setting forth the doctrines of the religion of the ancient Hebrews, I have also sufficiently discussed those which relate to the Second Cause, and to those passages I will now refer the earnest student. Since therefore these have been the theological opinions held among the Hebrews in the way that I have described concerning the Second Cause of the Universe, it is now time to listen to Plato speaking as follows in the Epinomis:

[1] b 3 Philo Iudaeus, On the Confusion of Tongues,c. xx

[2] c 2 ibid. c. xxviii

[3] c 9 Gen. xlii. 11.

[4] d 5 Philo Iudaeus, l.c., c. xiv

[5] d 6 Zech. vi. 12

[6] 534 a 5 A wrong reference; the quotations are from The Confusion of Tongues

Chapter 16

[PLATO] [1] ‘AND let us not, in assigning offices to them, give to this one a year, and to that a month, and to others appoint no portion, nor any time in which to perform his course, and help to complete the order, which Reason (λόγος), of all things most divine, appointed; Reason, which the happy man at first admires, and then gets a desire to understand, as much as is possible for mortal nature.’

Also in the Epistle to Hermeias, and Erastus, and Coriscus, he has laid down the doctrine with excellent caution, writing as follows word for word: [2]

‘This letter you three must all read, together if possible; but if not, by two and two together, as you can, as often as possible: and must make an agreement and valid law, adding an oath as is right, and with earnestness not unworthy of the Muses, and with culture the sister of earnestness, invoking the God who is the Ruler of all things that are and that shall be, and Father and Lord of Him who is the Ruler and the Cause: Whom, if we rightly study philosophy, we all shall know clearly as far as is possible for favoured mortals.’

Does it not seem to you that in speaking thus Plato has followed the doctrines of the Hebrews? Or from what other source did it occur to him to name another God who is mightier than the cause of all things, whom also he calls Father of the All-ruler? And whence came his idea of setting the name of Lord on the Father of the Demiurge, though never before him had any one brought this to the ears of the Greeks, nor even set it down in. his own mind.

And if we yet want other witnesses for an indisputable confirmation of the philosopher’s meaning, and of the construction of our argument, hear what explanations Plotinus gives in the treatise which he composed Concerning the three Primary Hypostases,writing as follows:

[1] b 6 Ps.-Plato, Epinomis,986 C

[2] c 10 Ps.-Plato, Ep.vi. 323 C

Chapter 17. Plotinus on the Same

[PLOTINUS] [1] ‘IF any one admires this world of sense, beholding at once its greatness and beauty and the order of its eternal course, and the gods that are therein, some visible, and some invisible, the daemons, and animals and all kinds of plants, let him mount up to its original pattern and to the more real world, and there let him see all intelligible things, and things which are of themselves eternal in their own understanding and life, see also the pure intelligence and the infinite wisdom that presides over them.’

Then afterwards in addition to this he says:

‘Who then is He that begat Him? He who is simple, and prior to a plurality of this kind, who is the cause both of His being, and of His plurality. For number came not first: since before the duad is the one; and the duad is second, and produced from the one.’ [2]

And again he goes on and adds: [3]

‘How then and what must we conceive concerning that abiding substance? A light shining around and proceeding from it, while it remains itself unchanged, as from the sun proceeds the bright surrounding light that runs around it, ever produced out of it, while it remains unchanged itself.

‘And all existing things, so long as they remain, give forth necessarily from their own essence and from the power present in the substance which surrounds them externally and is dependent upon them, being as it were an image of the archetypes from which it sprang.

‘Thus fire gives forth the heat which proceeds from it, and snow does not merely retain its cold within itself. And especially all fragrant things bear witness to this fact: for as long as they exist, a something from them goes forth around them, which is enjoyed by whatever is near.

‘Moreover all things as soon as they are perfect begin to generate: so that which is always perfect is always generating a something eternal, and what it generates is less than itself.

‘What then must we say concerning the Most Perfect? That He either generates nothing from Himself, or the things which are the greatest next to Himself. But after Him mind is the greatest and the second. For the mind beholds Him and has need of Him alone, but He has no need of it: and that which is begotten from a superior mind, must be mind; and mind is superior to all things, because all the rest come after it.’

After this he says further: [4]

‘Now everything desires and loves that which begat it, and especially when that which begat and that which is begotten exist alone. And when that which begat is also the very best, the begotten is necessarily so joined with it, as to be separated only by its otherness. But, since it is necessary to speak more plainly, I mean that mind is His image.’

And to this again he adds: [5]

‘This is the reason also of Plato’s trinities: for he says that around the King of all are all the primaries, and around the second the secondaries, and around the third the tertiaries. He says also that the Cause has a Father, meaning that Mind is the Cause, for with Plato Mind is the Creator.

‘And Mind, he says, makes the Soul in that cup of his. And the Cause which is Mind has for its Father, he says, the Good, and that which transcends both Mind and essence. But in many places he speaks of Being and of Mind as the Idea. So that Plato recognizes Mind as proceeding from the Good, and the Soul from Mind: and these are no new doctrines, nor now first stated, but long since, though not publicly divulged: and the doctrines of the present time have been interpretations of the former, which by the testimony of Plato’s own writings have confirmed the antiquity of these opinions.’

This is what Plotinus says. And Numenius highly commending Plato’s doctrines in his treatise Of the Goodgives his own interpretation of the Second Cause, as follows:

[1] 535 b 1 Plotinus, Ennead,v. bk. i. p. 484 D

[2] c 4 ibid. p. 486 A

[3] c 10 ibid. p. 487 D

[4] 536 a 10 Plotinus, ibid. p. 488

[5] b 7 ibid. p. 489.

Chapter 18

[NUMENIUS] [1] ‘THE man who is to understand about the First and Second God must previously distinguish the several questions by some orderly arrangement: and after this seems to be set right, he must then endeavour also to discuss the matter in a becoming manner, or otherwise not at all. Else he who handles it prematurely, before the first steps have been taken, will find his treasure become dust, as the saying is.

‘Let us then not suffer the same; but after invoking God to be the guide of our discussion concerning Himself, and to show us the treasure of His thoughts, so let us commence. At once we must offer our prayer, and then make our distinction.

‘The First God, being in Himself, is simple, because, being united throughout with Himself, He can never be divided. God however the Second and Third is one: but by being associated with matter which is duality, He makes it one, but is Himself divided by it, because it has a tendency to concupiscence, and is always in flux.

‘Therefore by not adhering to the intelligible (for so He would have been adhering to Himself), because He regards matter and gives attention to it, He becomes regardless of Himself.

‘And He lays hold of the sensible and busies Himself with it, and moreover from setting His desire upon matter He takes it tip into His own moral nature.’

And after other statements he says:

‘For it is not at all becoming that the First God should be the Creator; also the First God must be regarded as the father of the God who is Creator of the world.

‘If then we were inquiring about the creative principle, and asserting that He who was pre-existent would thereby be preeminently fit for the work, this would have been a suitable commencement of our argument.

‘But if we are not discussing the creative principle, but inquiring about the First Cause, I renounce what I said, and wish that to be withdrawn, but will pass on in pursuit of my argument, and hunt it out from another source.

‘Before capturing our argument, however, let us make an agreement between ourselves such as no one who hears it ‘can doubt, that the First God is free from all kinds of work and reigns as king, but the Creative God governs, and travels through the heaven.

‘And by Him comes also our equipment for the chase, mind being sent down in transmission to all who have been appointed to partake of it. .

‘So when God is looking at and turned towards each of us, the result is that our bodies then live and revive, while God cherishes them with His radiations. But when He turns away to the contemplation of Himself, these bodies become extinguished, but the mind is alive and enjoying a life of blessedness.’

This is what Numenius writes. And now do you set beside it the passages from David’s prophecy, sung of old among the Hebrews in the following fashion: ‘How mighty are Thy works, O Lord: in wisdom hast Thou made them all. The earth is filled with Thy creation.[2] … All things wait upon Thee, to give them their meat in due season. When Thou givest it them, they will gather it; and when Thou openest Thine hand, they all will be satisfied with goodness. But when Thou turnest away Thy face, they will be troubled: if Thou takest away their breath, they will die, and turn again to their dust. Thou wilt send forth Thy Spirit, and they will be created, and Thou wilt renew the face of the earth.’ [3]

For in what would this differ from the thought of the philosopher, which declares, as we saw, that ‘When God is looking at and turned towards each of us, the result is that our bodies then live and revive, while God cherishes them with His radiations; but when God turns to the contemplation of Himself, these become extinguished.’

And again, whereas with us the Word of Salvation says, ‘I am the vine, … My Father is the husbandman, … ye are the branches,’[4] hear what Numenius says concerning the deity of the Second Cause.

[NUMENIUS] [5] ‘And as again there is a relation between the husbandman and him that planteth, exactly in the same way is the First God related to the Demiurge. The former being the seed of all soul sows it in all things that partake of Himself. But the Lawgiver plants, and distributes, and transplants into each of us the germs which have been previously deposited from that higher source.’

And afterwards again he speaks as follows of the mode in which the Second Cause arose out of the First.[6]

‘Now all things which, when given, pass to the receiver, and have left the giver, such as are attendance, property, silver unstamped or coined,—these things, I say, are mortal and human: but divine things are such as, when they are distributed and have come from one to another, have not forsaken the former, and have brought with them benefit to the latter, without hurting the other; nay, have brought him a further benefit by recalling to memory what he understood before.

‘Now this excellent thing is that good knowledge which brings profit to the receiver and is not lost to the giver. Just as you may see a lamp lit from another lamp shining with a light of which it did not deprive the former, but had its own material kindled at the other’s flame.

‘Such a thing is knowledge, which when given and received remains the same with the giver, and is communicated to the receiver.

‘And the cause of this, my friend, is not anything human; but that the state and essence which possesses knowledge is the same both in God who has given, and in you and me who have received it.

‘Wherefore also Plato said that wisdom was brought to mankind “with a brilliant flame of fire by Prometheus.”’ [7]

And again afterwards lower down he says:

‘Now the modes of life of the First God and of the Second are these: evidently the First God will be at rest, while the Second on the contrary is in motion. So then the First is engaged with intelligibles, and the Second with both intelligibles and sensibles. ‘And be not surprised at my saying this, for you are going to hear something far more surprising. For instead of that motion which belongs to the Second I assert that the rest which belongs to the First is His natural motion, from which both the order of the world, and its eternal continuance, and its safety is diffused throughout the universe.’ [8]

After this in the sixth Book also he adds the following: [9]

‘Since Plato knew that the Creator alone was known among men, but that the First Mind, which is called Absolute Being, is altogether unknown among them, therefore he spoke in this way, just as if one were to say; The First Mind, my good sirs, is not that which you imagine, but another mind before it, more ancient and more divine.’

And after other passages he adds:

‘A pilot when driven along in mid ocean, sits high above the helm, and steers the ship by the tillers, but his eyes and mind are strained directly at the sky, looking at things aloft, as his course passes across the heaven above, while he sails upon the sea below. So also the Creator having bound matter together in harmony that it may neither break out nor slip away, is Himself seated above matter, as above a ship on the sea: and in directing the harmony He steers by the ideas, while instead of the sky He looks to the High God who attracts His eyes, and takes His judgement from that contemplation, and His energy from that impulse.’

Also the Word of our Salvation says, ‘The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing.’ [10] Enough, however, has been said by Numenius on this subject: and there is no need to add anything to his own words to show that he was explaining not his own opinions but Plato’s. And that Plato is not the first who has made these attempts, but has been anticipated by the Hebrew sages, has been proved by the examples already set forth. Naturally therefore Amelius also, who was distinguished among recent philosophers, and above all others an admirer of Plato’s philosophy, who moreover called the Hebrew theologian a Barbarian, even though he did not deign to mention John the Evangelist by name, nevertheless bears witness to his statements, writing exactly what follows word for word:

[1] d 5 Numenius, Of the Good,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius. Cf. Mullach, iii. 167

[2] 537 d 8 Ps. (ciii) civ. 24

[3] 538 a 2 ibid. 27

[4] b 7 John xv. 1, 5

[5] c 1 Numenius, Fr. 10.

[6] c 9 Numenius, ibid.

[7] 539 a 5 Plato, Philebus, 16 C

[8] a 8 Numenius, Fr.10

[9] b 11 Numenius, ibid.

[10] d 10 John v. 19

Chapter 19

[AMELIUS] [1] ‘AND this then was the Word, on whom as being eternal depended the existence of the things that were made, as Heracleitus also would maintain,[2] and the same forsooth of whom, as set in the rank and dignity of the beginning,the Barbarian maintains that He was with God and was God: through whomabsolutely all things were made;in whom the living creature, and life, and being had their birth: and that He came down into bodies, and clothed Himself in flesh, and appeared as man, yet showing withal even then the majesty of His nature; aye, indeed, even after dissolution He was restored to deity, and is a God, such as He was before He came down to dwell in the body, and the flesh, and Man.’

This, it must be evident, is paraphrased from the Barbarian’s theology, no longer under any veil, but openly at last and ‘with forehead bold and bare.’ [3] And who was this Barbarian of his but our Saviour’s Evangelist John, a Hebrew of the Hebrews? Who in the beginning of his own Scripture states the doctrine of the deity thus, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.[4] … And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father.’[5]

Hear also what another Hebrew theologian says concerning the same Person: ‘Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation: for in Him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, whether visible or invisible,… and by Him all things consist, and in Him were they all created.’

But since we have found such agreement between the philosophers of the Greeks and the doctrines of the Hebrews concerning the constitution and substantiation of the Second Cause, let us then pass on to other matters.

[1] 540 b 2 Amelius, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

[2] b 4 Heracleitus, Fr.ii

[3] d 4 Plato. Phaedrus,243 B (Jowett)

[4] 540 d 8 John i. 1

[5] 541 a 2 Col. i. 15

Chapter 20

WHEREAS next to the doctrine of Father and Son the Hebrew oracles class the Holy Spirit in the third place, and conceive the Holy and Blessed Trinity in such a manner as that the third Power surpasses every created nature, and that it is the first of the intellectual essences constituted through the Son, and third from the First Cause, observe how Plato also intimated some such thoughts, speaking thus in his Epistle to Dionysus:

[PLATO] [1] ‘I must explain it to you then in riddles, that if the tablet suffer any harm in the remote parts of sea or land, the reader may learn nothing. For the matter is thus: Around the King of the Universe are all things, and all are for His sake, and that is the cause of all things beautiful: and around the Second are the secondary things, and around the Third the tertiary. The soul of man therefore strains after them to learn what sort of things they are, looking upon the things akin to its own nature.’

These statements are referred, by those who attempt to explain Plato, to the First God, and to the Second Cause, and thirdly to the Soul of the Universe, defining it also as a third God. But the sacred Scriptures regard the Holy and Blessed Trinity o’f Father and Son and Holy Ghost as the beginning, according to the passages already set forth.

The next point to this is to examine the nature of the Good.

[1] c 6 Ps.-Plato, Ep.ii. 312.

Chapter 21

THE Sacred Scripture of the Hebrews explains the nature of the Good in various ways, and teaches that the Good itself is nothing else than God, both in the statement, ‘The LORD is good to all them that wait for Him, to the soul that will seek Him,’[1] and in this, ‘O give thanks unto the LORD; for He is good: for His mercy endureth for ever’;[2] and also by what the Word of our Salvation declared to the man who asked Him concerning this, saying,’Why askest thou Me concerning that which is good? None is good save one, even God.’[3]

Now then listen to what Plato says in the Timaeus:[4]

‘Let me then tell you for what cause the Creator formed a creation, and made this universe. He was good. And in one who is good no jealousy of anything ever finds place: and being free from jealousy He desired that all things should be made as like to Himself as possible.’

In the Republicalso he speaks thus: [5]

‘Is it not true then that the sun though not itself sight, is yet the cause of sight, and is itself discerned by this very sight? It is so, said he. Well then, said I, you may say that this is he whom I call the offspring of the good, whom the good begat as analogous to itself, that this should be in the visible world in relation to sight and the things of sight, what the good is in the intellectual world in relation to mind and the things of mind.’

And afterwards he adds:

‘Well then, this which imparts truth to the things which are known, and bestows on the knower his faculty of knowledge, this you may call the idea of the good.’ [6]

And again he says:

‘You would say, I suppose, that the sun imparts to visible things not only their power of being seen, but also their generation, growth, and nourishment, though he is not himself generation. How could it be otherwise? You would also say then that things which become known receive from the good not only the property of being known, but also their existence and their essence, though the good is not an essence, but far transcends essence in dignity and power.’ [7]

Herein Plato says most distinctly that the intellectual essences receive from ‘the good,’ meaning of course from God, not merely the property of being known, but also their existence and essence; and that’the good ‘ is ‘not an essence, but far transcends essence in dignity and power.’ So that he does not regard the ideas as co-essential, nor yet suppose that they are unbegotten, because they have received their existence and their essence from Him who is not an essence, but far transcends essence in dignity and power, whom alone the Hebrew oracles with good reason proclaim as God, as being the cause of all things.

So then things which have neither their existence nor their essence from themselves, nor yet are of the nature of the good, cannot reasonably be regarded as gods, since the good does not belong to them by nature: for to One only and to no other can this be ascribed, to the Only Good, which Plato admirably proclaimed as ‘far transcending all essence both in dignity and power.’ Again Numenius also in his treatise Of the Good, inexplaining Plato’s meaning, discourses in the following manner:

[1] 542 a 4 Lam. iii. 25. Nahum i. 7

[2] a 5 Ps. cvi. 1

[3] a 8 Matt. xix. 7

[4] b 4 Plato, Timaeus,29 E

[5] b 10 ibid. Republic,508 B

[6] 542 c 6 Plato, Republic,508 E

[7] c 10 ibid. 509 B

Chapter 22. Numenius on the Good

[NUMENIUS] [1] ‘BODIES, therefore, we may conceive by inferences drawn from observing similar bodies, and from the tokens existing in the bodies before us: but there is no possibility of conceiving the good from anything that lies before us, nor yet from anything simil’ar that can be perceived by the senses. For example, a man sitting on a watch-tower, having caught a quick glimpse of a small fishing-boat, one of those solitary skiffs, left alone by itself, and caught in the troughs of the waves, sees the vessel at one glance. Just so, then, must a man withdraw far from the things of sense, and commune in solitude with the good alone, where there is neither man nor any other living thing, nor body great or small, but a certain immense, indescribable, and absolutely divine solitude, where already the occupations, and splendours of the good exist, and the good itself, in peace and benevolence, that gentle, gracious, guiding power, sits high above all being.

‘But if any one, obstinately clinging to the things of sense, fancies that he sees the good hovering over them, and then in luxurious living should suppose that he has found the good, he is altogether mistaken. For in fact no easy pursuit is needed for it, but a godlike effort: and the best plan is to neglect the things of sense, and with vigorous devotion to mathematical learning to study the properties of numbers, and so to meditate carefully on the question, What is being? ‘

This is in the first Book. And in the fifth he speaks as follows: [2]

‘Now if essence and the idea is discerned by the mind, and if it was agreed that the mind is earlier than this and the cause of it, then mind itself is alone found to be the good. For if God the Creator is the beginning of generation, the good is the beginning of essence. And God the Creator is related to the good, of which He is an imitator, as generation is to essence, of which it is a likeness and an imitation.

‘For if the Creator who is the author of generation is good, the Creator also of essence will doubtless be absolute good, innate in essence. For the second god, being twofold, is the self-maker of the idea of Himself, and makes the world as its Creator: afterwards He is wholly given to contemplation.

‘Now as we have by our reasoning gathered names for four things, let them be these four. The first, God, absolute good; His imitator, a good Creator: then essence, one kind of the first God, another of the Second; and the imitation of this essence, the beautiful world, adorned by participation in the beautiful.’

Also in the sixth Book he adds:

‘But the things which partake of Him participate in nothing, else, but only in wisdom: in this way then, but in no other, they may enjoy the communion of the good. And certainly this wisdom has been found to belong to the First alone. If then this belongs exclusively to Him alone, from whom all other things receive their colouring and their goodness, none but a stupid soul could doubt any longer.

‘For if the second God is good, not of Himself but from the First, how is it possible that He, by communion with whom this Second is good, should not Himself be good, especially if the Second has partaken of Him as being good?

‘It is in this way that Plato has shown by syllogistic reasoning to any one who is clear-sighted that the good is one.’

And again afterwards he says:

‘But Plato represented these things as true differently in different places; for in the Timaeuspeculiarly he wrote the common inscription on the Creator, saying, “He was good.” [3] But in the Republiche called the good the idea of good: meaning that the idea of the Creator was the good, because to us He is manifested as good by participation in the First and only Good.

‘For as men are said to have been fashioned by the idea of man, and oxen by that of an ox, and horses by the idea of a horse; so also naturally if the Creator is good by participation in the First Good, the first Mind would be an idea, as being absolute good.’

[1] 643 b 4 Numenius, Fragment preserved by Eusebius. Cf. Mullach, iii. p. 170

[2] 544 a 3 Numenius, ibid.

[3] 544 d 4 Plato, Timaeus,29 E

Chapter 23

[PLATO] ‘AND having been created in this way’ (evidently the world is meant) ‘it has been framed with a view to that which is apprehended by reason and thought and which is unchangeable. And if this be so, it necessarily follows that this world is an image of something.[1] … For that contains in itself all intelligible beings, just as this world contains us.’[2]

So Plato speaks in the Timaeus.And the meaning of his statements I will set forth from the collections of Didymus Concerning the Opinions of Plato:and this is how he writes:

[DIDYMUS] [3] ‘He says that the Ideas are certain patterns arranged class by class of the things which are by nature sensible, and that these are the sources of the different sciences and definitions. For besides all individual men there is a certain conception of man: and besides all horses, of a horse; and generally, besides the animals, a conception of an animal uncreated and imperishable.

‘And in the same way as many impressions are made of one seal, and many images of one man, so from each single idea of the objects of sense a multitude of individual natures are formed, from the idea of man all men, and in like manner in the case of all other things in nature.

‘Also the idea is an eternal essence, cause, and principle, making each thing to be of a character such as its own.

‘As, therefore, the particular archetypes, so to say, precede the bodies which are perceived by sense, so the Idea which includes in itself all Ideas, being most beautiful and most perfect, exists originally as the pattern of this present world; for that has been made by its Creator like this Idea, and wrought according to the providence of God out of the universal essence.’

These are extracts from the aforesaid author. Moses, however, the all-wise, anticipates even these doctrines, teaching us that before the visible sun and stars and before the heaven that we behold, which he calls the firmament, and before this our dry land, and before our day and night, another light besides the light of the sun, and day and night, and the rest, had been made by God the universal Ruler and Cause of all.

Moreover the Hebrews who came after Moses declare that there is a certain incorporeal sun not visible to all, nor subjected to mortal eyes, as says the Prophet speaking in the person of God, ‘And to them that fear Me shall the Sun of righteousness arise.’ [4]

Also righteousness itself, not that of a certain kind among men, but the Idea of that, is known to another Hebrew Prophet, who said concerning God,’Who raised up righteousness from the East? He called it before His face, and it shall go forth as it were before the nations.’ [5]

Also a divine Word, incorporeal and essential, was just lately shown to us by our ordinary word in the previous quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures: concerning which Word there is also the following statement among the same people: ‘Who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.’ [6]

He is called also Life, He is called Wisdom, and Truth. Also the Scriptures of the Hebrews (since the Apostles also and disciples of our Saviour are Hebrews) make known to us all things which have essential being and subsistence, nay more, they show us myriads of other incorporeal powers beyond both heaven and all material and fleeting essence; and the images of these powers, they say, He expressed in things sensible, after which they have now received the name each of its image.

Man, for instance, they have expressly stated to be the image of an ideal pattern, and the whole life of men passeth on in an image.Moses in fact says, ‘And God created man, in the image of God created He him.’ [7] And again another Hebrew writer, following the philosophy of his forefathers, says, ‘Surely man walketh in an image.’ [8] And now hear how the interpreters of the sacred laws explain the thought contained in the writings of Moses. The Hebrew Philo, in fact, speaks thus word for word in interpreting the doctrines of his forefathers.

[1] 545 a 1 Plato, Timaeus,29 A

[2] a 5 ibid. 30 E

[3] b 6 Areius Didymus, De Platonis opiniombus,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

[4] 546 a 4 Mal. iv. 2

[5] a 8 Isa. xli. 2

[6] b 6 I Cor. i. 30

[7] c 9 Gen. i. 27

[8] d 2 Ps. xxxix. 7

Chapter 24

[PHILO] [1] ‘Now if any one should wish to use names in a plainer way, he would not call the intelligible world anything else than the Word (or, Reason) of God already engaged in the creation of a world. For neither is the intelligible city anything else than the reasoning of the architect, when already designing to build the visible city [by help of the intelligible].

‘But this is Moses’ doctrine, not mine. For instance, in recording the creation of man he expressly avows, in what follows, that he was fashioned after the image of God.[2]

‘Now if the part (man) is an image of an image, evidently also the whole species, I mean the whole of this visible world, which is greater than the human image, is a copy of a divine image; and the archetypal seal, as we call the intelligible world, must itself evidently be the archetypal pattern, the Idea of the Ideas, the Word (Reason) of God.

‘He says too that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”;[3] taking the beginning to be not, as some suppose, the beginning in time; for time was not before the world, but either has begun with it, or after it.

‘For since time is the interval of the motion of the universe, and motion could not begin before that which was to be moved, but must necessarily be established either after it or with it, so time also must necessarily either have been of the same age as the universe or younger than it, and to venture to represent it as older is unphilosophical.

‘But if in the present passage the beginningis not taken to be the beginning in time, then the beginning according to number would naturally be signified, so that in the beginning God createdwould be equivalent to “first He created the heaven.” ‘

Then afterwards he says: [4]

‘First, therefore, the Maker proceeded to make an immaterial heaven, and an invisible earth, and an ideal form of air and of empty space, the former of which He called darkness,because the air is by nature black, and the latter He called the deep,for the empty space is very deep and vast.

‘Then He made the incorporeal essence of water and of wind, and over all the essence of light, the seventh in order, which again was incorporeal, and then an intelligible model of the sun. and of all stars that were destined to be established as luminaries in the heaven.

‘And the wind and the light were honoured with special privilege: for the one he called the Spirit of God,because spirit is the most life-giving thing, and God is the author of life; and light, because it excels in beauty. For the intelligible is, I suppose, as much more brilliant and radiant than the sensible, as the sun is than darkness, and day than night, and the mind, which is the guide of the whole soul, than the criteria of sense, and the eyes than the body.

‘But that invisible and intelligible light is made an image of the Divine Word, which explained its origin; and it is a super-celestial star the source of the visible stars, which one would not be wrong in calling “universal light,” from which sun and moon and the other planets and fixed stars draw their appropriate splendours in proportion to the power of each, while that unmingled and pure light becomes obscured, whenever it begins to turn in direction of the change from intelligible to sensible; for of the things subject to sense none is pure.’

Also after a few words he adds: [5]

‘But when light came, and darkness yielded and retired, and bounds were set in the intervals between them, namely evening and morning, there was at once completed, according to the necessary measure of time, that which the Creator rightly called “day,” and not the first daybut one day,which it is called because of the singleness of the intelligible world, which has the nature of unity.

‘So then the incorporeal world was now complete, being founded in the divine Reason (Word); and after the model thereof the sensible world was now to be produced in its perfection: so the Creator proceeded to make first that which was also the best of all its parts, namely the heaven, which He rightly named the firmament,as being corporeal. For body is by nature solid, because it is of three dimensions: and what other idea is there of a solid and a body, except extension in every direction? Naturally therefore He called this the firmament, as contrasting the sensible and corporeal world with the intelligible and incorporeal.’

So writes Philo. And Clement also agrees with him, speaking as follows in the Fifth Miscellany.

[1] d 7 Philo Judaeus, On the Creation of the World,§ 5

[2] 547 a 5 Gen. i. 27

[3] b 2 Gen. i. 1

[4] 547 c 8 Philo Judaeus, ibid. § 6

[5] 548 b 3 ibid. § 7

Chapter 25. Clement on the Same

[CLEMENT] [1] ‘AND again the Barbarian philosophy knows one world of thought, and another of sense, the one an archetype, and the other an image of the fair model. And the former it assigns to Unity, as being perceptible to thought only; but the sensible it assigns to the number six: for among the Pythagoreans six is called marriage, as a number that generates.

‘And in the Unity it establishes an invisible heaven, and a holy earth, and an intellectual light. For “In the beginning,” says Moses, “God created the heaven and the earth: and the earth was invisible.”[2] Then he adds, “And God said, let there be light, and there was light.”[3] But in the cosmogony of the sensible world He creates a solid heaven (and the solid is sensible), and a visible earth, and a light that is seen.

‘Does it not seem to you from this passage that Plato leaves the idsas of living creatures in the intelligible world, and creates the sensible species after their kindsin the intelligible world?

‘With good reason then Moses says that the body was fashioned out of earth, which Plato calls an “earthly tabernacle,”[4] but that the reasonable soul was breathed by God from on high into man’s face.[5]

‘For in this part, they say, the ruling faculty is seated, interpreting thus the accessory entrance of the soul through the organs of sense in the case of the first-formed man; for which reason also man, they say, is made after the image and likenessof God. For the image of God is the divine and royal Word, the impassible Man; and an image of that image is the human mind.’

But let us now listen to what remains to be said.

[1] d 1 Clement of Alexandria, Miscellany,v. 14

[2] 549 a 2 Gen. i. 1

[3] a 4 ibid. i. 3

[4] b 1 Plato, Phaedrus,246 C; Timaeus,64 C

[5] 549 b 2 Gen. ii. 7

Chapter 26

FURTHER than this Plato follows the doctrines of the Hebrews, when he says that there are not only good incorporeal powers but also those of opposite nature, writing as follows in the tenth Book of the Laws:

[PLATO] [1] ‘As then the soul directs and inhabits all things that move in any direction, must we not say that it also directs the heaven? Of course. One soul, or more? More, I will answer for you. Less than two surely we must not suppose, the one that does good, and the other that has power to work evil.’

Then lower down he says: [2]

‘For since we have agreed that the heaven is full of many good things and also of many evil things, and these the more numerous, a conflict of this kind, we say, is immortal, and requires marvellous watchfulness. But gods and daemons are our allies, and we are their possessions.’

Whence these ideas came to Plato, I cannot explain: but what I can truly say is that thousands of years before Plato was born this doctrine also had been acknowledged by the Hebrews.

Accordingly their Scripture says,[3] ‘And there was, as it were, this day when the angels of God came to stand before God; and the devil came in the midst of them, after going round the earth and walking about in it’; where it calls the adverse power devil,and the good powers angels of God.

And these good powers it also calls divine spirits, and God’s ministers, where it says, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.’ [4]

Moreover the conflict of the adverse powers is thus represented by him who said, ‘Our wrestling is not against Wood and flesh, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.’ [5]

Also the oracle of Moses which said, ‘When the Most High was dividing the nations, when He was separating the children of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God,’ [6] seems to be directly paraphrased by Plato in the words whereby he defined the whole human race to be ‘the possessions of gods and daemons.’

[1] d 1 Plato, Laws,x. 896 D

[2] d 7 ibid. x. 906 A

[3] 650 a 4 Job i. 13 a, 6 b

[4] a 10 Ps. civ. 4, Heb. i. 7

[5] b 3 Eph. vi. 12

[6] b 7 Deut. xxxii. 8

Chapter 27

IN the doctrine of the immortality of the soul Plato differs not at all in opinion from Moses. For Moses was the first to define the soul in man as being an immortal essence, when he said that it is originally an image of God, or rather has been made ‘after the image of God.’ For his words were, ‘God said, Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness… And God made man, in the image of God made He him.’ [1]

And afterwards dividing the compound man in his description into the visible body and the man of the soul that is discerned only by the mind, he adds, ‘And God took dust from the earth and formed man, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.’ [2]

Moreover he says that man was made fit to be ruler and king of all the creatures upon earth. So he says,[3] ‘And God said, Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowls of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth… And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him.’

Now in what other way could an image and likeness of God be conceived than in reference to the powers that are in God, and to the likeness of virtue? Hear then how in the AlcibiadesPlato speaks on this point also as one who had been taught by Moses:

[PLATO] [4] ‘Can we then mention any part of the soul that is more divine than that with which knowledge and wisdom have to do?

‘We cannot.

‘This then is the part of it like God; and any one who by looking upon this has learned all that is divine, both God and wisdom, will thus get to know himself also most perfectly.

‘It is evident.

[‘So then, just as there are mirrors clearer than the mirror in the eye, and purer and brighter, so God is something purer and brighter than the best that is in our soul.

‘It seems so, Socrates.

‘In looking then on God, we should be using that noblest mirror of man’s nature also for looking into the virtue of the soul; and in this way should best see and learn to know ourselves. Certainly.’] [5]

This is in the Alcibiades.But in the dialogue On the Soulobserve how he explains these topics more at length. [6]

‘May we then, said he, assume two kinds of existing things, one visible and the other invisible?

‘Let us assume it, said he.

‘And the invisible constant and immutable, but the visible never constant?

‘This also let us assume.

‘Well then, said he, is not the one part of ourselves body, and the other soul?

‘Exactly so, said he.

‘To which class then should we say that the body is more like and more akin?

‘Oh, that is manifest to every one, said he; to the visible.

‘And what of the soul? Is it visible or invisible?

‘Not visible at any rate by men, Socrates.

‘But we surely were speaking of the things that are visible or not visible to the nature of man; or was it, think you, to some other nature?

‘To man’s nature.

‘What do we say then about the soul? Is it visible or invisible?

‘Invisible.

‘Then it is unseen?

‘Yes.

‘Soul then is more like the unseen than body is, and body like the visible?

‘It must certainly be so, Socrates.

‘Well then, were we not also saying long ago, that whenever the soul uses the help of the body to examine anything, either by sight, or by hearing, or by any other sense (for this is what is meant by “the help of the body,” to examine a thing by the help of sense), that then she is dragged by the body into the midst of these ever-changing objects, and loses her own way, and becomes confused, and giddy as if drunken, from trying to lay hold of things of this same kind?

‘Quite so.

‘But whenever she is contemplating anything by herself alone, she passes at once into yonder world, to the pure, and eternal, and immortal, and unchangeable, and there and with that world she ever communes as one of kindred nature, whenever she can be alone, and have opportunity; and so she has rest from her wandering, and with that world she is constant and unchangeable, as trying to lay hold of things of this same kind. And this condition of the soul is called thoughtfulness.

‘Very nobly and truly spoken, Socrates, said he.

‘To which class then does it now seem to you, from both our former and our present arguments, that the soul is more like and more akin?

‘Every one, I think, Socrates, said he, even the most stupid, would from this method of inquiry agree that soul is in every way much more like to that which is ever constant than to that which is not.

‘And what of the body?

‘More like the other.

‘Look at it then again in this way; that, when soul and body are combined in one, nature orders the body to serve and to obey, and the soul to rule and to govern. Now in these respects again which of the two seems to you to be like the divine, and which like the mortal? Do you not think that the divine is naturally fitted to rule and to lead, and the mortal to be ruled and to serve?

‘I think so.

‘To which of the two then is the soul like?

‘Evidently, Socrates, the soul is like the divine, and the body like the mortal.

‘Consider then, Cebes, said he, whether from all that has been said we obtain these results: that soul is most like the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and ever unchangeable and self-consistent; and the body on the other hand most like the human, and mortal, and unintelligible, arid multiform, and dissoluble, and never consistent with itself.

‘Have we anything else to say against this, my dear Cebes, to show that it is not so?

‘We have not.

‘Well then? This being so, is it not a property of body to be quickly dissolved, but of soul on the other hand to be altogether indissoluble, or nearly so?

‘Certainly.

‘Do you then observe, that after a man is dead, the body, the part of him which is visible and lies in the visible world, and is called a corpse, the property of which is to be dissolved, and decomposed, and scattered by the winds, does not at once suffer any change of this kind, but remains for a considerable time—if the man die with his body in a vigorous state and at a vigorous time of life, for a very considerable time indeed. For when the body has shrunk and been embalmed, like those who were embalmed in Egypt, it remains almost entire an incredible time. And even if the body be decayed, some parts of it, bones and sinews and all such parts, are nevertheless, so to say, immortal, are they not?

‘Yes.

‘But then the soul, the unseen, that has passed to another place like herself, noble, and pure, and unseen, the true Hades, to the presence of the good and wise God, whither, if it be God’s will, my own soul is presently to go—is then, I say, this soul of ours, such as she is and so endowed by nature, on being released from the body, immediately scattered to the winds and lost, as most men say?

‘Far from it, my dear Cebes and Simmias; but the truth is much rather this. If the soul is pure when released, drawing nothing of the body after her, as she never during this life had any communication with it willingly, but shrank from it, and was gathered up into herself, as making this her constant study, and this is nothing else than practising true philosophy, and preparing in reality to die cheerfully,—Or would not this be a preparation for death?

‘Certainly.

‘In this condition then the soul departs to that world which is like herself, the unseen, the divine, and deathless, and wise: and on arriving there she finds ready for her a happy existence, released from error, and folly, and fears, and wild desires, and all other human ills, and, as they say of the initiated, she truly passes the rest of her time with the gods. Is it thus, Cebes, that we ought to speak, or otherwise?

‘Thus assuredly, said Cebes.

‘But, I suppose, if when she departs from the body she is polluted and impure, from being in constant communion with the body, and cherishing it, and loving it, and having been so bewitched by it, I mean by its desires and pleasures, as to think that nothing else is true except the corporeal, just what a man might touch, and see, and eat, and drink, and use for his lusts—but accustomed to hate and fear and shun what to the eyes is dark and invisible, but intelligible to thought and attainable by philosophy—in this condition then do you suppose that a soui will depart pure in herself and unalloyed?

‘By no means, said he.’

This is what Plato says. And his meaning is explained by Porphyry in the first Book of his Answer to Boethus Concerning the Soul,where he writes in the following manner:

[1] d 6 Gen. i. 26

[2] d 11 Gen. ii. 7

[3] 651 a 3 Gen. i. 26

[4] 551 b 1 Ps-Plato, Alcibiades,i. 133 C

[5] b 8 The passage in brackets is not in the MSS. of Plato

[6] c 6 Plato, Phaedo,79 A

Chapter 28. Porphyry on the Same

[PORPHYRY] [1] ‘FOR example, he said, the argument from similarity was thought by Plato to be forcible in proof of the immortality of the soul. For if she is like that which is divine, and immortal, and invisible, and inseparable, and indissoluble, and essential, and firmly established in incorruption, how can she fail to be of the corresponding class to the pattern?

‘For whenever there are two extremes manifestly contrary, as rational and irrational, and it is a question to which side some third thing belongs, this is one mode of proof, by showing to which of the opposites it is like. For thus, although the human race in the first stage of life is held down in an irrational condition, and although many even to old age are full of the errors of unreason, nevertheless, because it has many similarities to that which is purely rational, this race was believed to be from the beginning rational.

‘Since therefore there is a divine constitution manifestly incapable of admixture and of damage, namely that of the gods, and since there is evidently on the other hand the earthly, and soluble, subject to corruption, and since with some it is doubted to which side of the said opposition the soul is attached, Plato’s opinion was that we should trace out the truth from similarity.

‘And since she is in no way like to the mortal and soluble and irrational and inanimate, which is therefore also tangible, and sensible, and becoming, and perishing, but like the divine, and immortal, and invisible, and intelligent, which partakes of life, and is akin to truth, and has all the properties which he enumerates as belonging to her,—since this is so, he thought it not right, while granting that she had the other points of likeness to God, to consent to deny her the similarity of essence, which is the cause of her having received these very properties.

‘For as the things which were in their operations unlike God were at once found to differ also in the constitution of their essence, so he thought it followed, that the things which partook in a measure of the same operations had previously possessed the similarity of essence. For because of the quality of the essence the operations also were of a certain quality, as flowing from it, and being offshoots of it.’

Hear then what Boethus, in detracting from the force of this argument, has written in the very beginning of his treatise, as follows:

[BOETHUS] [2] ‘To show whether the soul is immortal, and is a nature too strong for any kind of destruction, a man must persistently travel round many arguments.

‘But one would not need much discussion to believe that nothing about us is more like God than the soul, and that, not only because of the continuous and incessant motion which she generates within us, but also because of the mind belonging to her.

‘In view of which fact the physical philosopher of Crotona said that the soul as being immortal naturally shrank from all quiescence, like the bodies that are divine.

‘But also to the man who had once discerned the idea of the soul, and especially how great purposes and what impulses the mind that rules within us often sets in motion, there would gradually appear a great likeness to God.’

And afterwards he adds:

‘For if the soul is shown to be of all things most like to the divine, of what further use is it to require by way of preface all the other arguments in proof of her immortality, instead of reckoning this as one among the many, sufficient as it is to convince the fair-minded, that the soul would not have participated in the activities which are similar to those of the divine, if she were not also divine herself.

‘For if, although buried in the body which is mortal, and soluble, and unintelligent, and by itself dead, and constantly perishing and wasting away towards its change of final destruction, the soul both forms it and holds it together, and displays her own divine essence, although she is obstructed and impeded by the all-ruinous mould which lies around her, must she not, if by our hypothesis she were separated as gold from the clay plastered round it, at once display her own specific form as being like God alone, and moreover preserving through her participation in Him the similarities in her operations, and even in her most mortal condition (as she is when imprisoned in the mortal body) escaping dissolution for this reason, that she is, as we said, of the nature which has nothing in common with decay? ‘

And lower down he says:

‘But naturally she appears to be both divine from her assimilation to the Indivisible, and mortal from her approaches to the mortal nature: and she descends and ascends, and is both akin to the mortal, and yet like the immortals.

‘For even he who stuffs himself full and hastes to be surfeited like the cattle is a man: and he too is a man, who by knowledge is able in perils by sea to save the ship, and he who can save life in diseases, and he who discovers truth, and has devised methods for the attainment of knowledge, and inventions for kindling fire, and observations of horoscopes, and manufactures imitations of the works of the Creator.

‘For it was a man who thought of fashioning upon earth the conjunctions of the seven planets together with their motions, imitating by mechanism the phenomena in heaven. And in fact what did not man devise, showing thereby the mind within him that is divine and on a par with God?

‘And though thereby he displayed the daring efforts of an Olympian and divine and altogether immortal being, yet because the multitude through the selfishness of their own downward inclination were not able to discern his character, he misled them into supposing from the outward appearances that he was like themselves of mortal nature: there being but this one mode of deriving consolation from their baseness, that because of external appearances they found satisfaction in seeing others share equally in their wretchedness, and persuaded themselves that as in external things so also in their inner nature all men are alike.’

Of all these doctrines Moses has been seen to be the teacher, for in describing the first creation of man in the language already quoted, he by his assimilation to the divine confirmed the arguments concerning the immortality of the soul.

But since the opinions of Moses and Plato were in full harmony and accord concerning the incorporeal and invisible essence, it is time to review the remaining portions of Plato’s philosophy, and to show that he was friendly to the Hebrews on all points, except where perchance he was led astray and induced to speak more after the manner of man, than in accordance with the word of truth.

For instance, all the philosopher’s sayings which have been rightly expressed will be found to agree with the doctrines of Moses, but in whatever he assumed that did not agree with Moses and the prophets, his argument will not be well established. And this we shall prove at the proper season. But meanwhile, since his positions in the contemplation of the intelligible world have been discovered to be in perfect agreement and harmony, it is time to go back again to the physical theory of the sensible world, and briefly run over the philosopher’s agreement with the doctrines of the Hebrews.

[1] 554 c 1 Porphyry, Answer to Boethus Concerning the Soul

[2] 555 b 10 Boethus, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 29

MOSES declared that this universe had a beginning as having been made by God; he says at all events in the commencement of his own writing, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ [1] and after the particulars he adds, ‘This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were created, in the day that God made the heaven and the earth.’ [2] And now listen to Plato, how close he keeps to the thought, when himself writing as follows: [3]

‘And again all that comes into existence must of necessity proceed from some cause; for it is impossible for anything to have been generated without a cause.’

And he adds: [4]

‘The whole heaven then or world, or by whatever other name it would most acceptably be called, so let us call it—we have first to ask a question concerning it, which it is assumed that one must ask on every subject at the outset—did it always exist, without any beginning of generation, or has it been generated and had some beginning?

‘It has been generated: for it is visible, and tangible, and has a body; and all such things are sensible: and all sensible things were shown to be apprehensible by opinion and generated. But that which is generated must, we say, have been generated by some cause. It is a hard task, however, to discover the maker and artificer of this universe, and after discovering Him it is impossible to speak of Him to all men.’

And again afterwards he says: [5]

‘Thus therefore we must say, according to probable reason, that this world was in truth made through the providence of God a living being endowed with soul and mind.’

[1] 557 d 1 Gen. i. 1

[2] d 3 ibid. ii. 4

[3] d 7 Plato, Timaeus,28 A

[4] 557 d 11 Plato, Timaeus,28 B

[5] 558 a 8 ibid. 30 B

Chapter 30

AGAIN Moses, by what he said of the heavenly bodies, taught that they also are created: ‘And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; … and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and for years… And God made the two great lights, … and the stars; and set them in the firmament of the heaven.’ [1]

In like manner Plato speaks: [2]

‘Such then being the reason and the thought of God in regard to the generation of time, in order that time might be brought into existence there have been created the sun and moon and five other bodies which are called planets, for distinguishing and preserving the numbers of time. And when He had made their bodies, God set them in their orbits.’

Now observe whether Plato’s expression,’Such then being the reason (λόγου) and thought of God,’ must not be like that of the Hebrew who says, ‘By the word (λόγῳ) of the LORD were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by the breath of His mouth.’ [3] Moreover as Moses said, ‘And He set (ἔθετο) them in the firmament,’ Plato has used a like word, ‘set,’ when he says, ‘And when He had made their bodies, God set (ἔθηκεν)them in their orbits.’

[1] b 3 Gen. i. 14

[2] c 5 Plato, Timaeus,38 C

[3] d 2 Ps. xxxiii. 6

Chapter 31

As the Hebrew Scripture after each of the creations adds the phrase, ‘And God saw that it was good,’ and after the summing up of all says, ‘And God saw them all, … and behold they were very good’;[1] now hear how Plato speaks:

‘If then indeed this world is fair, and its Creator good, it is evident that he was looking to that pattern which is eternal.’ [2]

And again:

‘For the world is the fairest of things created, and He the best of causes.’ [3]

[1] 559 a 2 Gen. i. 31

[2] a 4 Plato, Timaeus,29 A

[3] a 7 ibid.

Chapter 32

ON this point also the whole Hebrew Scripture speaks throughout, at one time saying, ‘And the heaven shall be rolled together as a scroll,’ [1] and at another adding, ‘And the heaven shall be new, and the earth new, … which I make to remain before Me, saith the LORD ‘;[2] and again at another time saying, ‘For the fashion of this world passeth away.’[3] Hear then how Plato also confirms the doctrine, saying in the Timaeus:

[PLATO] [4] ‘And He established a visible and tangible heaven: and for these reasons, and out of these elements such as I have described, being four in number, the body of the world was formed in harmony by due proportion, and gained from them a friendly union, so that having entered into unity with itself it became indissoluble by everything else except Him who bound it together.’

Then afterwards he says:

‘So then time has come into existence together with the heaven, that having been produced together they may also be dissolved together, if there should ever be any dissolution of them.’ [5]

And again he adds:

‘Ye gods and sons of gods, the works whereof I am the Creator and Father are indissoluble save by my will.’ [6]

Afterwards he adds:

‘Therefore though all that is bound may be dissolved, yet only an evil being would wish to dissolve that which is well combined and in right condition. Wherefore also since ye have been created, though ye are not altogether immortal nor indissoluble, nevertheless ye shall not be dissolved, nor incur the fate of death, since in my will ye have found a still stronger and more valid bond than those by which ye were bound together at the time of your creation.’ [7]

Also in the Politicusor Statesmanthe same author speaks as follows: [8]

‘For there is a time when God Himself goes round with the universe, which He helps to guide and wheel; and there is a time when the revolutions having now completed their proper measure of time, He lets it go, and the universe, being a living creature and having received intelligence from Him who arranged it at first, revolves again of its own accord in the opposite direction. And this retrogression has of necessity been implanted in its nature for the following reason.

‘For what reason, pray?

‘Because it is a property of none but the most divine things to be always changeless in condition and self-consistent and the same, and bodily nature is not of this class. And though that which we have called the heaven and the world has been endowed by its Creator with many blessings, nevertheless it also partakes of body; whence it is impossible for it to be always free from change; as far as possible however, and in a very great degree, it moves in the same orbit in one and the same relative course, because the reversal to which it is subject is the least possible alteration of its proper motion.

‘But it is almost impossible for anything to continue for ever turning itself, except for the Ruler of all things that are moved. And for Him to move anything now one way, and now again in the opposite way, would not be right. From all this then we must neither say that the world always turns itself, nor that it is all turned by God in two opposite courses, nor again that some two gods, who are of opposite minds, turn it, but, as was said just now, and this alone remains possible, that at one time it is guided in its course by another divine cause, acquiring again its life, and receiving from its Creator a restored immortality, and at another time when let go it moves of itself, having been let go at such a time that it travels backwards during countless periods, because being of vast size and most perfectly balanced it moves upon the smallest pivot.

‘Certainly all the details which you have described seem to be very probable.

‘Let us then draw our conclusions and consider closely the effect produced from what I have just mentioned, which effect we said was the cause of all the wonders: for surely it is this very thing.

‘What thing?

‘The fact that the course of the world at one time is guided in the direction of its present revolution, and at another time in the opposite direction.

‘How then?

‘This change we must believe to be the greatest and most complete of all variations in the heavenly motions.

‘It seems so indeed.

‘We must suppose therefore that very great changes occur at that time to us who dwell under the heaven.

‘This too is probable.

‘But do we not know that animal nature ill endures many great and various changes occurring at the same time?

‘Of course.

‘Very great destruction therefore of all other animals necessarily occurs at that time, and moreover very little of the human race survives. And with regard to these survivors, among many other marvellous and strange effects which occur the greatest is this, which also follows immediately upon the reversal of the motion of the universe at the time when the revolution opposite to that which is at present established takes place.’

Afterwards lower down he adds to all this the following remarks on the restoration of the dead to life, taking a similar course to the opinions of the Hebrews.[9]

[1] b 2 Isa. xxxiv. 4

[2] b 3 Isa. Ixv. 17, lxvi. 32

[3] b 6 i Cor. vii. 31

[4] c 1 Plato, Timaeus,32 B

[5] 550 c 9 Plato, Timaeus,38 B

[6] c 14 ibid. 41 A

[7] d 2 ibid.

[8] d 12 Plato, Politicus,269 C

[9] 561 b 2 Plato, Politicus,271 A

Chapter 33

‘BUT how were animals produced in those days, Stranger, and in what way were they begotten one of another?

‘It is evident, Socrates, that the generation of one animal from another did not exist in the order of nature at that time, but the earth-born race which was said to exist formerly—this it was that in this other period sprang up out of the earth again. The tradition was recorded by our earliest ancestors, who in the following period were not far from the end of the former revolution, but were born in the beginning of the present: for they were the heralds to us of these traditions, which are now disbelieved by many without good reason.

‘For we ought, I think, to observe what follows therefrom. With the fact that old men pass on to the natural condition of the child it is consistent, that from those who have died and been laid in the earth, some being brought together again there and restored to life should follow the changed order, the wheel of generation being at the same time turned back in the opposite direction: and so in this manner necessarily springing up out of the earth they are thus named and accounted earth-born, except any whom God reserved for another destiny.

‘This is certainly quite consistent with what was said before.’

Then again, as he goes on further, he discourses in the following manner concerning the consummation of the world, in agreement with the doctrines of the Hebrews:

Chapter 34

[PLATO] [1] ‘FOR when the period of all these events was completed, and a change was to take place, and moreover the earth-born race had now all perished, each soul having fulfilled all its generations, and fallen into the earth for as many sowings as were appointed for each, then at length the pilot of the universe let go, as it were, the handle of the rudder, and withdrew into his own watch-tower, and Fate and an innate desire began to turn the course of the world back again.

‘So all the gods who locally share the government of the chief divinity, as soon as they learnt what was going on, let go in turn the portions of the world belonging to their charge. And the world turning back and clashing together, as having received an opposite impulse from before and from behind, was mightily convulsed in itself, and wrought another destruction of animals of all kinds.

‘And after this in long process of time the world ceasing from tumults and confusion and convulsions welcomed a calm, and entered in orderly array upon its own accustomed course, having charge and control over itself and all things in it.’

Again after a little while he says:

‘Wherefore God, who had first set the world in order, when at length He saw that it was in helpless strait, being anxious that it should not be shattered in the confusion of the storm, and sink down into the infinite gulf of disorder, again takes His seat at the helm, and having turned back what had suffered harm and dissolution into the former circuit appointed by Himself, He arranges and restores it, and endows it with immortality and perpetual youth. Here then the story of the end of all things is told.’ [2]

[1] 562 a 1 Plato, Politicus,272 D

[2] c 8 ibid. 273 D

Chapter 35

[PLATO] [1] ‘THESE things, then, said I, are nothing in number nor in greatness in comparison with those other rewards which await each of them after death. And you ought to hear them, in order that each may receive in full what is due to be told to them by our argument.

‘You may speak, said he, as to one who will not find the story too long, but listen all the more gladly.

‘But indeed, said I, it is not the story of Alcinous that I am going to tell you, but that of a brave man Er the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth, who was killed in battle, and when the dead were gathered up after ten days in a state of putrefaction, his body was taken up undecayed and carried home to be buried, and on the twelfth day when laid on the funeral pile, he came back to life, and after his revival told what he had seen in the other world.

‘And he said that when his soul had departed from his body, it travelled with many others, until they came to a certain wonderful place, in which were two chasms in the earth close to each other, and others opposite to them in the heaven above.

‘And between them there sat judges, who, after they had decided each case, commanded the just to proceed by the way on the right hand leading upward through the heaven, having hung around them on their breast the records of the judgements given, and the unjust by the way leading downwards on the left, these also having on their backs the records of all their deeds.

‘And when he himself came forward, they said that he must be the messenger to mankind of what was done there, and they commanded him to hear and see everything in that place.’

So Plato speaks. And Plutarch also in the first Book Concerning the Soultells a story similar to this:

[1] d 7 Plato, Republic,x. 614 A

Chapter 36

[PLUTARCH] [1] ‘WE were present ourselves with this Antyllus: but let me tell the story to Sositeles and Heracleon. For he was ill not long ago, and the physicians thought that he could not live: but having recovered a little from a slight collapse, though he neither did nor said anything else showing derangement, he declared that he had died and been set free again, and was not going to die at all of that present illness, but that those who had carried him away were severely reproved by their lord; for having been sent for Nicandas, they had brought him back instead of the other. Now Nicandas was a shoemaker, besides being one of those who frequent the palaestrae, and familiar and well known to many. Wherefore the young men used to come and mock him, as having run away from his fate, and as having bribed the officers sent from the other world. It was evident, however, that he was himself at first a little disturbed and disquieted; and at last he was attacked by a fever, and died suddenly on the third day. But this Antyllus came to life again, and is alive and well, and one of our most agreeable friends.’

I wish to quote these statements because of the fact that in the Hebrew Scriptures there are cases mentioned of restoration to life. But since in their promises it is also contained that a certain land shall be given to the friends of God only, according to the oracle which says, ‘But the meek shall inherit the land,’[2] and that this is a heavenly land is made clear by the saying which declares, ‘But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all’;[3] the prophet also intimates in an allegorical way that this same city consists of costly and precious stones, saying, ‘Behold, I prepare for thee a carbuncle for thy stone, and will make thy battlements jasper, and thy foundations sapphire … and thy border choice stones’:[4] now see how Plato also confesses in the dialogue Concerning the Soulthat he is persuaded of the truth of these very things, or the like. He assigns the statement to Socrates in the following manner:

[1] 563 d 1 Plutarch, On the Soul,Fragment iii, preserved by Eusebius

[2] 564 b 3 Ps. xxxvii. 11, Matt. v. 5

[3] b 5 Gal. iv. 26

[4] b 8 Isa. liv. 13

Chapter 37

[PLATO] [1] ‘BUT indeed, Simmias, I do not think it requires the skill of Glaucus to describe to you what it is: but to decide whether it be true, appears to me too hard even for Glaucus’ skill. And not only should I perhaps find myself unable to do so, but even if I knew how, my life seems hardly long enough, Simmias, for an argument of such length. Nevertheless there is nothing to prevent my describing to you the figure of the earth, such as I am convinced it is, and its various regions. ‘Well, said Simmias, even that is enough. ‘My own conviction, then, said he, is first of all that, if the earth is spherical and placed in the centre of the heaven, it has no need either of air to prevent its falling, or of any other similar sustaining force, but that the perfect uniformity of the heaven in all its parts, and the very equilibrium of the earth, are sufficient to sustain it: for a thing in equilibrium placed in the centre of a similar body, will have no reason to incline more or less in any direction, but being evenly balanced will remain undeflected. This then, said he, is my first conviction. ‘And quite correct, said Simmias.

‘Further then, said he, I am persuaded that it is of vast size, and that we who live between the Pillars of Hercules and the Phasis occupy a very small part of it, dwelling round the sea, just as ants or frogs round a pond, and that there are many others elsewhere living in many like regions.

‘For in every direction round the earth there are many hollows of various kinds both in shape and size, into which the waters and the mist and the air have flowed together; but the earth itself is pure and situated in a pure part of the heaven, wherein are the stars, and which most of those who are accustomed to speak of such things call the ether, of which these three (water, mist, and air) are a sediment, and are always flowing together into the hollows of the earth.

‘We therefore are unconscious that we live in the hollows, and suppose that we are living above on the surface of the earth, just as if any one living in the midst of the bottom of the sea should suppose that he was living on the surface, and seeing the sun and the other luminaries through the water should imagine the sea to be heaven, but through sluggishness and weakness had never come up to the top of the water, nor, by rising and lifting his head up out of it into this region of ours, had ever seen how much purer and fairer it is than their own, nor had ever heard this from any one who had seen it. .

‘We then are in this very same case: for while living in some hollow of the earth we imagine that we are living on the surface, and call the air heaven, as if this were the heaven through which the stars run their courses. But the fact is the same, that from weakness and sluggishness we are not able to pass out to the surface of the air: for if any one were to reach the top of it, or take wings and fly up to it. he would put out his head, and, just as the fishes here who jump up out of the water and see the objects on earth, so would a man survey the world beyond: and, if his nature were strong enough to endure the sight, he would learn that yonder is the true heaven, and the true light, and the true earth.

‘For this earth and the stones and the whole region here are decayed and corroded, as the things in the sea by the brine: and there is nothing worth mentioning that grows in the sea, nor anything that is, so to say, perfect; but there are caves, and sand, and vast slime and mud-banks wherever there island, all utterly unworthy to be compared with the beautiful things of our world.

‘But on the other hand yonder world would be seen far more to surpass everything of ours. For if I must tell you a pretty fable, it is worth your while, Simmias, to hear what is the nature of the objects on that earth which lie close under the heaven.

‘We certainly, Socrates, said Simmias, should be delighted to hear this fable.

‘Well then, my friend, said he, it is said in the first place that the earth itself, if any one were to see it from above, is just such to look upon as the balls which are covered with twelve pieces of leather, variegated and marked by different colours, of which the colours used by our painters here on earth are, as it were, samples. But there the earth is wholly made up of colours such as these, and far more brilliant and pure.

‘For part of it is purple and of marvellous beauty, and part like gold, and the part that is white is whiter than chalk or snow, and in like manner it is made up of all the other colours, and yet more in number and more beautiful than all that we have ever seen.

‘For even these mere hollows of it, filled as they are with water and air, present a certain species of colour, as they gleam amid the diversity of the other colours, so that its form appears as one continuous variegated surface.

‘And in this earth such as I have described it, the plants that grow are in like proportion, both trees and flowers, with their fruits; and the mountains again in like manner, and the stones have their smoothness and transparency greater in the same proportion, and their colours more beautiful: and of these the gems here, these that are so prized, are fragments, carnelians, and jaspers, and emeralds, and all such as these: but there everything without exception is of this kind, and still more beautiful than these.

‘And the cause of this is that those stones are pure, and not eaten away or spoiled, like those here, by decay and brine, and by the sediments collected here, which cause ugliness and diseases in stones and earth, and in animals and plants as well. But the real earth is adorned with all these jewels, and with gold and silver besides, and all other things such as these. For they shine out on the surface, being many in number and of great size and in many places of the earth, so that to see it must be a sight for the blessed to behold.’

[1] d 1 Plato, Phaedo,108 D

Chapter 38

THE Hebrew Scripture foretells that there shall be a tribunal of God and a judgement of souls after their departure hence, in countless other passages, and where it says: ‘The judgement was set, and the books were opened, … and the Ancient of days did sit. … A river of fire flowed before Him; ten thousand times ten thousands ministered unto Him, and thousand thousands stood before Him.’ [1] Now hear how Plato mentions the divine judgement, and the river even by name, and how he describes the many mansions of the pious, and the various punishments of the impious, in agreement with the language of the Hebrews.

For he speaks as follows in the dialogue Concerning the Soul:[2]

‘And midway between these a third river issues forth, and near its source falls into a vast region burning with a great fire, and forms a lake larger than our sea, boiling with water and mud: and thence it proceeds in a circular course turbid and muddy, and as it rolls round the earth, arrives, among other places, at the extremity of the Acherusian lake, but does not mingle with its water; and after making many circuits underground, it pours into a depth below Tartarus.

‘Now this is it which they call Pyriphlegethon, fragments of which are thrown up by our volcanoes, wherever they occur in the earth. Opposite again to this the fourth river falls out first, as the tale goes, into a fearful and savage region, which is wholly of a colour like lapis lazuli; this is called the Stygian region, and the lake which the influx of the river forms is called Styx. Then after falling into the lake, and receiving strange properties in its water, the river sinks under the earth, and is whirled round in its course in the opposite direction to Pyriphlegethon, and meets it from the opposite side in the Acherusian lake; and its water also mingles with no other, but after flowing round in a circle this river too falls into Tartarus opposite to Pyriphlegethon: and its name is, as the poets say, Cocytus.

‘Such being the nature of these regions, as soon as the dead have arrived at the place to which each is conveyed by his genius, first of all they undergo a trial, both those who have lived good and holy and just lives, and those who have not. And those who are found to have led tolerable lives proceed to Acheron, and embarking on such vessels as there are for them, they arrive on board these at the lake; and there they dwell, and by undergoing purification and suffering punishment for their evil deeds they are absolved from any wrongs they have committed, or receive rewards for their good deeds, each according to his deserts. But any who are found to be incurable by reason of the greatness of their sins, having either perpetrated many great acts of sacrilege, or many nefarious and lawless murders, or any other crimes of this kind—these are hurled by their appropriate doom into Tartarus, whence they never come forth.

‘But those who are found to have committed sins which are great though not incurable, as for instance if in anger they have done any violence to father or mother, and passed the rest of their life in penitence, or have committed homicide in any other similar way, these must also be thrown into Tartarus, but after they have been thrown in and have continued there a year, they are cast out by the wave, the homicides by way of Cocytus, and the parricides by way of Pyriphlegethon: and when they arrive all on fire at the Acherusian lake, there with loud cries they call upon those whom they either slew or outraged; and having summoned them they intreat and beseech them to let them come out into the lake, and to receive them kindly: and if they persuade them, they come out, and cease from their troubles; but if not, they are carried again into Tartarus, and thence back into the rivers, and never have rest from these sufferings, until they have won over those whom they wronged; for this was the sentence appointed for them by the judges.

‘But any who are found to have been pre-eminent in holiness of life—these are they who are set free and delivered from these regions here on earth, as, from prison-houses, and attain to the pure dwelling place above, and make their abode upon the upper earth. And of this same class those who have fully purified themselves by philosophy live entirely free from troubles for all time to come, and attain to habitations still fairer than these, which it is neither easy to describe, nor does the time suffice at present. But for the sake of these things which I have described we ought, Simmias, to make every effort to gain a share of virtue and of wisdom in our lifetime: for fair is the prize, and great the hope.’

So speaks Plato. And now with that passage, ‘And they attain to fairer habitations, which it is neither easy to describe, nor does the time suffice at present,’ you will compare that which with us runs as follows:

‘For eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.’ [3]

And with the ‘habitations’ mentioned compare the statement that ‘in the Father’s house are many mansions,’ [4] promised to those beloved of Him. And with what is said about Pyriphlegethon compare the eternal fire threatened to the ungodly, according to the Hebrew prophet who says to them, ‘Who shall announce to us that the fire is kindled? Who shall announce to us the place of eternity?’ [5] And again, ‘Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be for a spectacle to all flesh.’ [6]

Now observe how Plato also, after saying in agreement with this that the impious will go into Tartarus, adds, ‘whence they never come out.’ And again after saying that the pious shall live in abodes of bliss, he adds the words, ‘entirely and for all time to come.’ Moreover the expression used by him ‘free from troubles’ is like ‘pain and sorrow and sighing flee away.’ [7]

And when he says that those who go away to Acheron not simply arrive there, but ‘embarking first in what vessels there are for them,’ what vessels then does he mean to indicate but their bodies, in which the souls of the deceased embark, and share their punishment, according to the established opinions of the Hebrews? But now as this subject has been sufficiently discussed, I will pass on to the twelfth Book of the Preparation for the Gospel.

[Footnotes numbered and placed at the end]

[1] 567 b 4 Dan. vii. 10, 9

[2] c 6 Plato, Phaedo,113 A

[3] 568 b 5 1 Cor. ii. 9

[4] b 9 John xiv. 3

[5] c 2 Isa. xxxiii. 14

[6] c 4 ibid. lxvi. 24

[7] d 2 Isa. xxxv. 10

Book 12

Chapter 1

OUR twelfth Book of the Preparation for the Gospelwill now from this point supply what was lacking in the preceding Book in proof of Plato’s accordance with the Hebrew Oracles, like the harmony of a well-tuned lyre. We shall begin with a defence of our Faith, that is reviled among the multitude.

[P] [1] ‘It would be another question therefore whether one is right or wrong in finding fault with the constitutions of Lacedaemon and Crete: perhaps, however, I should be better able than either of you to tell what most people say of them. For if your laws are even moderately well framed, one of the best of them must be a law allowing none of the young to inquire what is right or wrong in them, but bidding all with one Yoice and one mouth to agree that everything is well settled by the appointment of the gods; and if any one says otherwise, they must not endure to listen to him at all. But if an old man observes any fault in your laws, he may discuss such subjects with a ruler and one of his own age, no young man being present.’

‘What you enjoin, Stranger, is perfectly right.’

With good reason then the Hebrew Scriptures at an earlier time require faith before either the understanding or examination of the sacred writings, where it says, ‘If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not understand,’ [2] and again, ‘I believed, and therefore have I spoken.’ [3]

For which cause also among us those who are newly admitted and in an immature condition, as if infants in soul, have the reading of the sacred Scriptures imparted to them in a very simple way, with the injunction that they must believe what is brought forward as words of God. But those who are in a more advanced condition, and as it were grown grey in mind, are permitted to dive into the deeps, and test the meaning of the words: and these the Hebrews were wont to name ‘Deuterotists,’ as being interpreters and expounders of the meaning of the Scriptures.

[1] 573 c 1 Plato, Laws,i. 634 D

[2] d 5 Isa. vii. 9

[3] d 7 Ps. cxv. i

Chapter 2

[P] [1] ‘IN the next place therefore we should say: It seems, Tyrtaeus, that you praise most highly those who distinguish themselves in foreign and external war. He would admit this, I suppose, and agree?

‘Of course.

‘But we say that, though these are brave, those are far braver who show their valour conspicuously in the greatest of all wars. And we too have a poet as witness on our side, Theognis, a citizen of Megara in Sicily, who says:

“Cyrnus, when factions rage, a faithful man Is worth his weight in silver and in gold.” [2]

‘Such a man then, we say, is very much braver than the other in a harder warfare, almost as much as justice and temperance and wisdom combined with valour are better than valour by itself alone. For a man would never be found faithful and true in civil wars without possessing all virtue. But there are very many mercenaries who are willing to die in war, standing firm and fighting, as Tyrtaeus says,[3] the greater part of whom, with very few exceptions, are violent and unjust and insolent and the most senseless of mankind.

‘To what conclusion then does our present argument lead? And what does it wish to make clear by these statements? Evidently this, that before all things both the heaven-sent lawgiver in this country, and every other of the least usefulness, will always enact his laws with a view chiefly to the greatest virtue: and this is, as Theognis says, faithfulness in dangers, which one might call perfect justice.’

Among us also the Word of salvation, joining wisdom with faith, commends the man who is adorned with both, saying, in His own words: ‘Who then is the faithful and wise steward?’ [4] and again, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things.’ [5] Certainly in these passages He clearly shows that He approves not unreasoning faith, but that which is combined with the greatest virtues, such certainly being wisdom and goodness.

[1] 574 b 1 Plato, Laws,i. 629 E

[2] c 2 Theognis, Elegiac Gnomes,v. 77 f.

[3] c 10 Tyrtaeus, i. 16

[4] 575 a 2 Matt. xxiv. 45

[5] a 3 ibid. xxv. 21

Chapter 3

[P] [1] ‘FOR indeed it seems to me that in our former arguments we stated opportunely that the souls of the dead have a certain power after death, and take an interest in human affairs. There are tales treating of these matters, which are tedious though true: but on such subjects besides the other reports which we ought to believe, as being so many and so ancient, we must also believe the lawgivers who say that these things are true, unless they are shown to be utter fools.’

In the Book of the Maccabees also it is said that Jeremiah the Prophet after his departure from life was seen praying for the people, as one who took thought for men upon earth.[2] And Plato also says that we ought to believe these stories.

[1] b 1 Plato, Laws,xi. 926 E

[2] c 8 2 Macc. xv. 12

Chapter 4

[P] [1] ‘THERE are two kinds of stories, the one true, and the other false?

‘Yes.

‘And we must instruct children in both, and in the false first?

‘I do not understand, said he, what you mean.

‘Do you not understand, said I, that what we first tell children is a fable? And this, I suppose, is, generally speaking, fiction, though there is also some truth in it. And we use fables with children earlier than gymnastics.

‘That is true.’

So Plato writes. And among the Hebrews also it is the custom to teach the histories of the inspired Scriptures to those of infantine souls in a very simple way just like any fables, but to teach those of a trained mental habit the more profound and doctrinal views of the histories by means of the so-called Deuterosis and explanation of the thoughts that are unknown to the multitude.

[1] d 3 Plato, Republic,ii. 376 E

Chapter 5

[P] [1] ‘Do you not know then that the beginning is the chief part of every work, especially for any young and tender mind? For at that age any character that one wishes to impress on each is most easily formed and imparted.

‘Quite so.

‘Shall we then just carelessly permit our children to listen to casual fables (composed by casual persons), and to receive into their souls opinions for the most part opposite to those which, when they are grown up, we shall think they ought to hold?

‘We must by no means permit it.

‘In the first place then, it seems, we must supervise the writers of fables, and approve any good fable they may compose, and reject any that are not good. And we must persuade nurses and mothers to tell their children those which are approved, and to form their souls by the fables much more carefully than their bodies with their hands. But the greater number of the tales which they tell them now must be rejected.’

These precautions also had been taken by the Hebrews before Plato’s time. For those who had a divine spirit fit for discerning of spirits approved what was rightly said or written with help from the Holy Spirit, and the contrary they rejected, just as they rejected the words of the false prophets. Moreover it was the custom of parents and nurses to soothe their infant children by singing the most edifying narratives from the divine Scriptures, just like any fables, for the sake of preparing beforehand for the religion which they were to learn when approaching to manhood.

[1] 676 b 1 Plato, Republic,ii. 377 B

Chapter 6

[P] [1] ‘LISTEN then, as they say, to a very pretty story, which you, I suppose, will regard as a myth, but I as a true story, for what I am going to say I shall tell you as being true.’

And after a little more:

‘(There was a law) that he who had lived a just and holy life should depart after death to the Islands of the Blessed, and dwell in perfect happiness beyond the reach of all evils. But the man who had lived an unjust and ungodly life must go away to the prison-house of vengeance and punishment, which they call Tartarus.’

And again a little farther on:

‘Next they must be stripped of all these wrappings and so tried, for their judgement must be after death. The judge also must be naked, that is to say, dead, examining by his very soul the very soul of each immediately after death, when it is bereft of all its kindred, and has left all that apparel behind on earth, in order that the judgement may be just.’

And afterwards he adds: [2]

‘This, Callicles, is what I have heard and believe to be true, and from these stories I gather the following conclusion: death, as it seems to me, is nothing else than the separation from each other of two things, the soul and the body.

‘And after they are separated, each of them retains its own condition almost the same as it had when the man was alive, the body having its own nature and the results of its treatment and sufferings all plainly visible. For instance, if a man’s body was large either by nature or by training or both while he was alive, his corpse also after death will be large; and if it was fat, it will be fat also after death, and so on.

‘And again, if it was his custom to wear long hair, his corpse also will have long hair; or if a man was often whipped, and bore traces of the stripes in scars on his body either from scourges or from wounds of other kinds, when alive, his body after death may be seen to have these marks. Or if a man’s limbs were broken or distorted during life, the same will be visible also after death. ‘And in a word, whatever was a man’s condition of body during life, the same conditions are also plainly visible after death, either all or most of them for a certain time.

This same then seems to me to be the case, Callicles, with reference to the soul also. When it is stript of the body, all things are visible in the soul, both its natural qualities, and the effects due to the habits of every kind which the man had contracted in his soul.

‘When therefore they have come before the judge, those from Asia before Rhadamanthus, he stops them, and examines the soul of each, without knowing whose it is; but often when he has laid hands on the Great King or some other king or potentate, he discerns that his soul has no sound part in it, but is scored with scourges, and full of scars from perjuries and injustice, of which each man’s deeds have left the print upon his soul, and all crooked from falsehood and imposture, with nothing straight, because it has been reared with no sense of truth: and from power, and luxury, and insolence, and intemperance of conduct he sees the soul full of deformity and ugliness; at sight of which he sends it off straight to prison in disgrace, where on its arrival it will have to endure its befitting punishments,

‘Now every man who is under punishment, if punished rightly by another, ought either to become better and profit by it, or to be made an example to the rest, that others, seeing the sufferings which he endures, may be brought by terror to amendment.

‘Those who receive benefit when they are punished by gods and men are they whose sins are remediable; but nevertheless it is by pain and suffering that they receive the benefit both here and in Hades, for in no other way is it possible to be delivered from iniquity.

‘But if any have been guilty of the worst crimes, and have become incurable by reason of such iniquities, of these the examples are made; and inasmuch as they are incurable, they can no longer receive any benefit themselves, but others are benefited, who see them enduring for ever the greatest and most painful and terrible sufferings for their sins, hung up there in the prison-house in Hades as signal examples, a spectacle and a warning to the wicked who from time to time arrive there. And if what Polus says is true, I foretell that Archelaus will be one of these, and every other tyrant who is like him.[3]

‘I suppose that the majority of these examples have been taken from among tyrants and kings and potentates, and those who have managed the affairs of states; for these because of their power commit the greatest and most impious crimes.

‘Homer too bears witness to this.[4] For he has represented those who are suffering eternal punishment in Hades as kings and potentates, a Tantalus, and Sisyphus, and Tityus. But Thersites, or any other common villain, no poet has represented as involved in extreme punishments as being incurable: for, I suppose, he had not the power, and therefore was happier than those who had it. In fact, however, Callicles, the men who become excessively wicked are of the class who have power. Yet there is nothing to prevent good men from being found even among these; and those who are so found are very worthy of admiration. For it is a difficult thing, Callicles, and very praiseworthy for a man who has great power of doing wrong to live always a just life, and few there be of this kind. Some there have been both here and elsewhere, and I doubt not there will be others, endowed with this virtue of administering justly whatever may be entrusted to them; and one there has been very celebrated over all Greece, Aristides son of Lysimachus: yet for the most part, my good friend, men in power turn out bad.

As I was saying therefore, when Rhadamanthus gets hold of such a man, he knows nothing else about him, neither who he is, nor of what family, but only that he is a villain: and on seeing this, he sends him off to Tartarus, with a badge upon him to show whether he seems to be curable or incurable; and on arrival there he undergoes the treatment proper to his case.

‘But sometimes after looking upon another soul that has lived a holy life in company with truth, a private man’s or any other’s (most likely, I venture to say, Callicles, the soul of a philosopher who minded his own work and did not busy himself in affairs during his life), he is delighted and sends it off to the Islands of the Blessed.

‘Aeacus also does just the same, and each of these two sits in judgement with a rod in his hand. But Minos as superintending sits alone, and holds a golden sceptre, as Ulysses in Homer says that he saw him,

“Holding a sceptre of gold, as he utters the doom of the dead.” [5]

‘For my part therefore, Callicles, I am convinced by these stories, and consider how I shall present my soul before the judge in the healthiest condition possible. So renouncing what most men deem honours, I shall try by really practising truth both to live the best life in my power, and so, when death comes, to die.

‘All other men also I exhort to the best of my ability. And you especially I in my turn invite to enter upon this mode of life and this conflict, which I declare to be worth all other conflicts here on earth.

‘And I make it a reproach to you that you will not be able to help yourself, when the trial and the judgement of which I was just now speaking come upon you. But on coming before that judge, the son of Aegina, when he lays hold of you and leads you forward, you will stand agape and turn dizzy there, just as much as I should here. And perhaps some one will smite you even to your shame upon the cheek, and will insult you in every way.

‘Perhaps, however, this appears to you a fable, like an old wife’s tale, and so you despise it. And there would be nothing strange in despising it, if by any searching we could find something better and truer.

‘But as it is you see that though there are three of you, who are the wisest of the Greeks of the present time, yourself and Polus and Gorgias, you are not able to show that we ought to live any other life than this, which appears to be of advantage in the other world as well. But amid so many arguments, while all the rest were refuted, this alone remains unshaken, that to do wrong is to be more carefully avoided than to suffer wrong, and above all a man must study not to seembut to begood, both in private and in public life.’

So then Plato supposed that Aeacus and Minos and Rhadamanthus would be judges of the dead: but the word of God protests that ‘all must appear before the judgement-seat of God; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad.’ [6]

And again it says, ‘In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, … who will render to every man according to his works: to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;[7] … for there is no difference.’[8]

[1] 577 b 1 Plato, Gorgias,523 A

[2] c 5 ibid. 524 A

[3] 578 d 11 Plato, Gorgias,471 A

[4] 579 a 5 Hom. Od.xi. 575 ff.

[5] d 10 Hom. Od.xi. 569

[6] 580 d 2 2 Cor. v, 10

[7] d 6 Rom. ii. 16, 6

[8] d 13 ibid. iii. 22

Chapter 7

[P] [1] ‘TAKE care, however, that these things come not to the knowledge of uneducated men: for there are, I think, hardly any tales more ridiculous than these to the multitude, nor on the other hand any more admirable and inspiring to the well disposed. But though often repeated and constantly heard even for many years, they, like gold, hardly become thoroughly purified with much careful treatment.’

Among us also the Word of salvation says:

‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.’ [2] And again, ‘For the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.’[3]

[1] 581 a 1 Plato, Epistles,ii. 313 E

[2] b 4 Matt. vii. 6

[3] b 5 1 Cor, ii. 14

Chapter 8

[P] [1] ‘AND indeed (I call it folly) also in the individual, when good reasons that are present in his soul produce no good effect, but what is quite contrary to them. All these I should class as the worst kinds of ignorance both in a state and in each individual citizen, and not the ignorance of the craftsmen, if you understand, Strangers, what I mean.

‘Yes, we understand, friend, and admit what you say.

‘Let this then be thus laid down as agreed on and stated, that nothing connected with government must be entrusted to those citizens who are ignorant of these things, and they must be reproached for ignorance, even though they may be very clever in argument and thoroughly trained in all accomplishments, and all that naturally tends to quickness of understanding: while those who are of the opposite character to them must be called wise, even though, according to the proverb, they know neither how to read nor how to swim; and offices of authority must be given to them as sensible men.

‘For, my friends, how can there be even the smallest kind of wisdom without harmony? It is not possible. But the finest and greatest of harmonies may most justly be called the greatest wisdom; and of this that man partakes who lives according to reason, whereas he who lacks wisdom is the ruin of his family, and by no means a saviour to the state, but on the contrary he will on every occasion be found ignorant in such affairs.’

Let this suffice for my quotation from the Laws,But in the Statesmanalso the same author speaks as follows on the subject of not being at all anxious about names and phrases:

‘Very good, Socrates; and if you continue to guard against being anxious on account of names, you will turn out to be richer in wisdom in your old age.’ [2]

[1] c 1 Plato, Laws,iii. 689 B

[2] 582 b 3 Plato, Statesman,261 E

Chapter 9

THE Hebrew Scripture introduces Moses at first as deprecating the leadership of the people by what he said to Him who conversed with him, ‘I beseech Thee, O Lord, appoint some other that is able, whom Thou shalt send’ [1]: and afterwards it represents Saul as hiding himself to avoid assuming the kingdom, and the prophet Jeremiah as humbly deprecating his mission. Now hear how Plato also confirms the reasonableness of declining office, speaking as follows:

[P] [2] ‘This then, O Thrasymachus, is now clear, that no art nor government provides for its own benefit, but as I said before, both provides and enjoins what is profitable to the governed, having regard to his advantage though he is the weaker, and not to that of the stronger.

‘It was for these reasons then, my dear Thrasymachus, that I said just now that no one is ready to accept office of his own free will, and take in hand other people’s troubles to set right, but all demand a recompense, because he who intends to do j ustice to his art never practises nor enjoins what is best for himself, if he follows the rules of art, but what is best for the governed. For which reasons, as it seems, there must be a payment for those who are expected to be willing to take office, either money, or honour, or a penalty if he refuse.’

[1] 582 c 3 Exod. iv. 13

[2] d 1 Plato, Republic,i. 346

Chapter 10

WHEREAS the oracles of the Hebrews teach that their prophets and righteous men bravely endured the most extreme insults and outrages and every kind of danger, you may learn the agreement of Plato’s opinion on this point also from these words of his, which he has set down in the second Book of the Republic:

[P] [1]’Such then being our representation of the unjust man, let us now in our argument set the just man beside him “in his nobleness and simplicity,” a man, as Aeschylus says:

“Whose will is not to seem good, but to be.” [2]

‘We must take away the seeming. For if he is to seem just, he will have honours and rewards for seeming to be so: and then it will be uncertain whether he is just for the sake of justice, or for the sake of the rewards and honours.

‘We must strip him then of everything except justice, and make his condition the reverse of the former. Though never doing wrong, he must have the reputation of the worst wrongdoing, that his justice may be strictly tested by his being proof against infamy, and its consequences: and he must be immovably steadfast even unto death, being in reality just but “with a life-long reputation for injustice.” ‘

And soon after he adds:

‘Let me therefore describe it; and so, Socrates, if my speech be somewhat coarse, imagine the speaker to be not me, but those who praise injustice above justice. And they will tell you as follows, that in these circumstances the just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have both eyes torn out, and at last after suffering every kind of torture he will be crucified, and will learn that a man should wish not to be, but to seem, just.’

Such is Plato’s description in words, but the righteous men and prophets among the Hebrews are recorded long before to have suffered in deed all that he describes. For though most just, yet as if the most unjust, ‘they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword, they wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented,… wandering in deserts, and mountains, and caves, and the holes of the earth, of whom the world was not worthy.’ [3]

The Apostles also of our Saviour, though following the highest path of justice and piety, were by the multitude involved in the reputation of injustice, and what they suffered we may learn from themselves when they say, ‘We are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and to men [4] … And even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place: [5] … being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world.’

Nay, even unto this present time the noble witnesses of our Saviour throughout all man’s habitable world, while exercising themselves ‘not to seem but to be’ both just and pious, have endured all the sufferings which Plato enumerated: for they were both scourged, and endured bonds and racks, and even had their eyes torn out, and at last after suffering all terrible tortures they were crucified. None like them will you find by any searching among the Greeks, so that one may naturally say that the philosopher did no less than prophesy in these words concerning those who among us were distinguished in piety and true righteousness.

[1] 583 b 4 ibid, ii. 361 B

[2] b 5 Aeschylus, Seven against Thebes,577

[3] d 10 Heb. xi. 37

[4] 584 a 5 i Cor. iv. 9

[5] a 6 ibid. 11

Chapter 11

As Moses in some mystic words says that in the beginning of the constitution of the world there had been a certain Paradise of God, and that therein man had been deceived by the serpent through the woman, hear now what Plato, all but directly translating the words, and on his part also speaking allegorically, has set down in the Symposium.Instead of the Paradise of God he called it the garden of Zeus, and instead of the serpent and the deception wrought by it he supposed Penia (Poverty) to lay the plot, and instead of the first man, whom the counsel and providence of God had set forth as it were for His new-born son, he spake of a son ot Metis (Counsel) called Poros (Plenty), and instead of saying ‘when this world was being constituted,’ he said ‘when Aphrodite was born,’ speaking in this allegorical way of the world, because of the beauty with which it is clothed. He speaks, however, word for word as follows:

[P] [1] ‘When Aphrodite was born, the gods were holding a feast, and among the rest was Poros the son of Metis. And after dinner, Penia, as there was a feast, came to beg and stood about the doors. So Poros being drunk with nectar, for there was no wine as yet, went into the garden of Zeus, where he was weighed down with sleep. So then Penia, to relieve her destitution, plotted to get a child by Poros, and lay down beside him, and conceived Eros.’

Such then were the thoughts which in this passage also Plato obscurely hinted in imitation of Moses.

[1] 585 a 1 Plato, Symposium,203

Chapter 12

AGAIN Moses had said, ‘But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And God caused a trance to fall upon Adam, and cast him into a sleep, and He took one of his ribs, and filled up the flesh instead thereof. And the Lord God builded the rib, which He had taken from Adam, into a woman.’ [1]

Plato, though he did not understand in what sense the story is told, was evidently not ignorant of it. But he assigns it to Aristophanes, as a comedian accustomed to scoff even at holy things, introducing him in the Symposiumas speaking thus:

‘Now you must first become acquainted with human nature and its affections. For our original nature of old was not the same as now, but of a different kind. In the first place the sexes of mankind were three, not two as now, male and female, but there was also a third combining them both, of which the name remains now, but the thing itself has disappeared. For Hermaphrodite was then both a real form and a name combined of both, the male and the female.’ [2]

Then after his usual sarcasms, he adds:

‘After this speech his Zeus proceeded to cut the men in two, like those who cut sorb-apples for pickling, or eggs with hairs. And of each whom he cut he bade Apollo turn round the face and half of the neck towards the cutting, that by contemplating the section of himself the man might be more obedient to order: he also bade him heal the other parts.’ [3]

[1] b 2 Gen. ii. 20-22

[2] c 8 Plato, Symposium,189 D

[3] d 9 ibid. 190 D

Chapter 13

MOSES described the original life of the earth-born as having been spent in the Paradise of God, and God as guiding them in a course of life without money or possessions, and all things as growing up for them without sowing or ploughing, and themselves as bare of the clothing afterwards adopted: and now listen to the philosopher all but translating these very statements into the Greek language. He says then:

[P] [1] ‘God Himself was their shepherd and guardian, just as now man being another animal of more divine nature tends other kinds inferior to himself. And while God was their ruler, there were no states, nor any possessions of wives and children; for they all sprang up out of the earth into a new life with no remembrance of their former state: and there were no things of this present kind, but they had fruits in abundance both from trees and many various plants, not growing from cultivation, but sent up spontaneously by the earth. They dwelt for the most part in the open air, without clothes and without bedding; for their seasons were so tempered as to cause them no trouble, and they had soft couches, where grass sprang up in abundance out of the earth. The life of which I speak, Socrates, was that of the age of Kronos: but the present life, which is said to be in the reign of Zeus, you know by your own experience.’

[1] 586 b 3 Plato, Statesman,271 E

Chapter 14

AGAIN as Moses has recorded that ‘the serpent was more subtle than all the beasts,’ [1] and how the serpent talked to the woman and the woman to the serpent, and has set forth the persuasions used by the serpent, now listen to what Plato writes:

[P] [2] ‘If therefore the children of Kronos, with so much leisure and ability to hold intercourse by words not only with men but with beasts also, used all these advantages with a yiew to philosophy, conversing with the beasts as well as with one another, and inquiring from every nature which by the possession of any special faculty discerned anything different from the rest to add to the store of wisdom, it is easy to decide that the men of that age were ten thousand times better than the present in respect of happiness. ‘But if filling themselves to the full with meat and drink they discoursed to one another and to the beasts of fables such as now are told of themselves, this also, just simply to declare my own opinion, is very easy to decide. Nevertheless let us leave these questions, until there appear some informer competent to tell us in which way the men of that age were inclined in regard to knowledge and the use of language.’

[1] d 1 Gen. iii. 1

[2] d 6 Plato, Statesman,272B

Chapter 15

WHEN Moses had laid down a plan of legislating for men, he thought that he must have in his preface an account of ancient times: and he makes mention of the Flood, and of the subsequent life of mankind, and then he describes the social life of the men of old among the Hebrews who were friends of God, and also of those who were proved otherwise in offences, because he considered that the narration of these things would be a parallel to his legislation.

And in like manner Plato also, when he proceeds to write down laws, affects the same method with Moses. In the preface, for instance, of the Laws,he has made use of his account of ancient times, making mention of a flood, and of the mode of life after the flood. Listen at least to what he says at the beginning of the third Book of the Laws:[1]

‘Do you think then that there is any truth in the ancient traditions?

‘What traditions?

‘That mankind has often been destroyed by floods and diseases and many other calamities, in which only some small portion of the human race was left.

‘Certainly every one thinks all this very probable.

‘Come then, let us consider one of the many destructions, namely this which was caused by the flood.

‘What point are we to observe in regard to it?

‘That those who escaped the destruction at that time would be chiefly mountain-shepherds, small sparks of the human race preserved on the hill-tops.

‘Evidently.

‘Moreover such men must necessarily be unacquainted both with other arts and especially with the devices of men in towns against each other with regard to selfish advantage and rivalry, and all other evil deeds which they contrive one against another.

‘Certainly it is probable.

‘Let us suppose then that the cities settled on the plains and by the sea were utterly destroyed at that time.

‘Suppose so.

‘Must we not say then that all implements were lost, and every excellent invention connected with art, whether of political or any other kind of wisdom, must all have perished at that time? ‘

And further on he says: [2]

‘Let us say then that, at the time when the destruction had just taken place, the condition of mankind was this, a boundless and fearful desolation, and a very great expanse of fertile land.’

After these and other such statements, he goes on to describe the lives of mankind after the flood, and then, just as Moses appends to the history after the flood the civil state of the godly Hebrews of old, in like manner Plato also, next to the lives of those who followed the flood, tries to describe the ancient times of Greek history, as Moses does of the Hebrews, mentioning the Trojan war, and the first constitution of Lacedaemon, and the Persians, and those who had lived among these events whether well or ill: and then after the narration of these things he begins his arrangement of the laws, following Moses in this also.

[1] 587 d 1 Plato, Laws,677 A

[2] 588 a 10 Plato, Laws,677 E

Chapter 16

MOSES made all his legislation and the constitution of his state dependent on piety towards the God of the universe, and inaugurated his legislation with the Creator of all, and then taught that from the good that is divine proceeds all good for man, and referred the divine to the ruling mind of the world, that is the very God of all. Now see how our philosopher also, treading in the same steps, finds fault with the lawgivers of the Cretans and Lacedaemonians, and teaches throughout the law approved by Moses, speaking as follows:

[P] [1] ‘May I then explain how I should have liked to hear you define the matter further?

‘By all means, Stranger.

‘You ought to have spoken thus: It is not without reason that the laws of the Cretans are especially celebrated among all the Greeks: for they are rightly framed in that they render those who use them happy; for they provide all good things for them.

‘Now goods are of two kinds: some human, and some divine; and the former are dependent on the divine; and if a city accept the greater, it gains the less also; but otherwise, it is deprived of both. Now there are first the lesser goods, of which the chief is health, and beauty second, and the third strength of body for running and all other movements, and wealth fourth, not blind but keen-sighted wealth, if it accompany wisdom.

‘For this indeed is the first and chief of divine goods, wisdom I mean, and next a temperate habit of soul joined with intelligence, and from these combined with courage a third good would be justice, and a fourth courage. Now all these are by nature set in higher rank than those bodily goods, and the lawgiver too must give them this rank.

‘And next he must direct that all the other ordinances for his citizens are to be regarded by them as looking towards these goods, and among these the human to look to the divine, and all the divine to the ruling mind.

‘With regard also to mutual contracts of marriage, and then in the procreation and nurture of children, both male and female, he must take care of his citizens in youth and maturer years even till old age, duly awarding honour or disgrace, and after having observed and watched over their pains and pleasures and desires in all these kinds of intercourse, and their pursuit of love of all kinds, he must rightly distribute praise or blame by means of the laws themselves.’

Also a little afterwards he says: [2]

‘After careful observation the legislator will appoint guardians over all these matters, some guiding their course by wisdom, and some by true opinion, so. that intelligence may bind all these ordinances together and render them, subservient to temperance and justice, not to wealth or ambition.

‘It is in this way that I, O Strangers, should have wished, and still do wish you to describe how in the so-called laws of Zeus, and those of the Pythian Apollo, which Minos and Lycurgus enacted, all these provisions are contained, and what orderly arrangement in them is discernible to one who by skill and habits has experience about laws, although to the rest of us this is by no means clear.’

Among us also it is said, ‘Seek ye first the kingdom (of God) and (His) righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.’ [3] But long before this Moses also having commenced with the doctrine concerning God, and having next adapted to it his constitution of the state, and the rules about contracts, and the customs of social life, appoints as rulers and guardians over them all those who are consecrated to God, as the scriptures also teach, just men, haters of arrogance, ‘some guiding their course by wisdom and some by true opinion.’

[1] 589 a 2 Plato, Laws,631 A

[2] 589 d 10 Plato, Laws,632 C

[3] 590 a 7 Matt. vi. 33

Chapter 17

[P] [1] ‘I TELL you then; and I affirm that the man who is to excel in anything must practise that very thing from his earliest youth, both in sport and in earnest, in every particular pertaining to the subject. Take for instance, the man who is to be a good husbandman or a builder of some kind; the one must play at building children’s houses, and the other at tilling the ground, and be who brings up either of them must provide small copies of the real tools for him; and whatever branches of knowledge must be learnt beforehand they must begin to learn; the carpenter for instance must learn to measure by rule or line, and the soldier to play at riding or some other such exercise; and by their sports the teacher must try to turn the children’s pleasures and desires to the point which they must reach to attain their end in life.

‘The chief point then in education, we say, is the right “training in the nursery,” which will best lead the soul of the child in his play to the love of that, in which, when he has become a man, he will need to be perfect in the excellence of his work.’

This also Moses had previously enacted, saying, ‘And these words, which I command thee this, day, shall be in thy heart and in thy soul, and thou shalt enforce them upon thy sons.’ [2] This the Hebrews are accustomed to do, training up all their young children from a tender age in the precepts of religion: and this is zealously practised to the present time in accordance with an ancestral custom in the Jewish nation.

[1] c 1Plato, Laws,643 B

[2] 591 a 1 Deut. vi. 6.

Chapter 18

[P] [1] ‘LET not therefore that which we call education be indefinite. For at present when we blame, or praise the mode in which each has been brought up we speak of one of us as educated, and another as uneducated, although sometimes they are men extremely well educated for retail trade or a ship-master’s life or any other such calling. For in our present discourse, as it seems, we do not regard this as education, but that training to virtue from childhood, which makes a man desire and long to become a perfect citizen, knowing how to rule and to obey with justice.

‘This is the training which, as it seems to me, our present mode of speaking designates, and which alone it would allow us to call education; but that which aims at wealth or at strength or even at any kind of cleverness apart from intelligence and justice (it deems) mechanic and illiberal and not worthy to be called education at all.

‘Let us then have no difference with them about a name, but let the present mode of speaking continue as agreed on between us, namely that those who have been rightly educated generally become good men. And so we must never disparage education, as it is of all noblest things the first that comes to the best of men: and if ever it transgresses, but may possibly be reformed, that is what every man should do to the utmost of his power throughout life.’

Also in the second Book of the Lawshe adds: ‘By education then I mean the virtue that comes first to children, that is, if pleasure and friendship and pain and hatred are rightly engendered in their souls when as yet they are incapable of reason, and, when they have attained to reason, agree with their reason that they have been rightly trained by suitable habits. This harmonious agreement is virtue as a whole, but the part of it due to right training in regard to pleasures and pains, so as to hate what one ought to hate, from the very beginning unto the end, and to love what one ought to love, if you cut off just this part by your argument and call it education, according to my judgement you would use the name rightly.’ [2]

So speaks Plato. But he is anticipated by David in the Psalms, when in teaching us ‘to hate what we ought to hate, and love what we ought to love’ [3] he speaks as follows: ‘Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What man is he that desireth life, and would fain see good days? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.’

Solomon too says in like manner: ‘Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father. For I give you a good gift: forget not my laws.’ [4] And again: ‘Get wisdom, get understanding; forget it not.’ [5] And: ‘Say that wisdom is thy sister; and gain understanding for thy familiar friend.’ [6] Again: ‘Enter not upon the paths of the ungodly, and envy not the ways of transgressors.’ [7] And numberless other such, passages you will find in the Hebrew Scriptures, fitted for teaching the acquisition of piety and virtue, and suited alike to the young and to those of full age.

[1] b 1 Plato, Laws,643 D

[2] 591 d 12 Plato, Laws,ii. 653 B

[3] 592 b 6 Ps. xxxiv. 11, 12

[4] 592 c 2 Prov. iv. 1

[5] c 5 ibid. iv. 5

[6] c 6 ibid. vii. 4

[7] c 7 ibid. iv. 14

Chapter 19

THE answer of God said to Moses: ‘See, thou make all things after the pattern which was shown to thee in the mount.’ [1] And the sacred word stated more plainly, ‘Who served a copy and shadow of the heavenly things;’ [2] and taught that the symbols in the writings of Moses plainly contain an image of the more divine realities in the intelligible world. Now then listen how Plato also gives similar interpretations in the sixth Book of the Republic,writing as follows;

[P] [3] ‘The philosopher then by communing with God and with the order of the world becomes both orderly and divine, as far as is possible to man: slander however is rife in all things.

‘In all indeed.

‘If therefore, said I, it ever becomes necessary for him to study how to introduce what he sees in yonder world into the habits of mankind both in private and in public life, and so to mould others as well as himself, do you think that he will be found a bad artificer of temperance and justice and civic virtue in general?

‘Certainly not, said he.

‘But then if the multitude understand that what we say about him is true, will they be angry with the philosophers? And will they disbelieve us when we say that a State can never be prosperous, unless it be planned by artists who follow the divine pattern?

‘They will not be angry, said he, if they understand it. But now what kind of plan do you mean?

‘They would take, said I, a State and the moral nature of man for a tablet, and first of all would make a clean board, which is not at all an easy matter. You know, however, that the philosophers would differ at once from other men on this point, that they would be unwilling to touch either individual or State, or to frame laws, before they had either received a clean board, or themselves had made it so,

‘Yes, and rightly, said he.

‘Next then do you not think they would sketch out the plan of the constitution?

‘Of course.

‘Then, I suppose, in working it out, they would frequently look to this side and to that, both to what is essentially just and beautiful and temperate and everything of that kind, and then to. the other side, to what is found in men, and would put upon their tablet the likeness of a man by making a combination and mixture of the various ways of life, and taking their design from that which, when embodied in man, Homer called the form and likeness of God.[4]

‘Rightly, said he.

‘And one feature, I suppose, they would wipe out, and paint in another, until they made the human characters as pleasing as possible to God.’

[1] d 1 Exod. xv. 40

[2] d 3 Heb. viii. 5

[3] 693 a 6 Plato, Republic,500 C

[4] 593 d 7 Hom. Il.i. 131, iii. 16

Chapter 20

[P] [1] ‘IT seems to me that for the third or fourth time our argument has been brought round to the same point, namely that education is the drawing and leading of children to that which has been declared by the law to be right reason, and which has been approved by the best and eldest men from experience to be truly right.

‘In order therefore that the soul of the child may not be accustomed in its joys and sorrows to go contrary to the law and to the rules laid down by the law, but may comply with it by rejoicing and sorrowing at the same things as the old man,—for this purpose, let these, which we call songs, be now in reality charms for the soul, seriously designed with a view to harmony such as we speak of; but because the souls of the young are unable to bear seriousness, let them be called and treated as plays and songs, just as those who are in charge try to offer to the sick and enfeebled in body the nutriment that is good for them in some kinds of pleasant food and drink, but that which is unwholesome in unpleasant things, in order that they may like the one, and be rightly trained to dislike the other.

‘And in the same way the good lawgiver will persuade, and, failing to persuade, will compel the poet rightly to represent by noble and praiseworthy language both the gestures in his rhythms and the music in his harmonies of the temperate and brave and thoroughly good men.’

With good reason then among us also the children are trained to practise the songs made by divine prophets and hymns addressed to God.

[1] 594 a 1 Plato, Laws,659 C

Chapter 21

[P] [1] ‘You compel your poets to say that the good man, as being temperate and just, is happy and blessed, whether he be tall and strong, or small and weak, and whether he be rich or poor: but if he should perchance

“Midas and Cinyras in wealth surpass,” [2]

and be unjust, he would be miserable and live a wretched life.

‘Also your poet, if he speaks rightly, says,

“Ne’er would I praise, nor count for aught, a man” [3]

who did not combine justice with the practice and attainment of all things accounted honourable; and, being a just man,

“Close should he stand and strive to reach the foe:” [4]

but if unjust he should

“Not dare to look on battle’s bloody death, [5] Nor outstrip Thracian Boreas in the race,” [6]

nor ever have any other of the so-called good things, for the things called good by the many have no right to the name.

‘For health is called the best, and beauty the second, and wealth the third; and numberless other things are called good, such as quick sight and hearing, and the sensitive and sound condition of all organs connected with the senses, and again to be a tyrant and do whatever one likes, and then it is said the consummation of all blessedness is to have acquired all these things and then come to be immortal as soon as possible.

‘But you and I say this, I suppose, that to just and holy men these are all excellent possessions, but to the unjust great evils all of them, beginning with health. For indeed to have sight and hearing and sensation and to live at all are the greatest of evils for a man who possesses all the so-called goods without justice and virtue in general if he is to be immortal for ever, but a less evil if such a one survive as short a time as possible.

‘These then are the things which I suppose you will persuade and compel your poets to say, as I do, and also by making their rhythms and harmonies correspond thereto, so to train your youths. Do you not see? For I say plainly that evil things so-called are to the unjust good, but evil to the just: and good things to the good are really good, but evil to the evil. As I was asking then before, do you and I agree, or how say you?’

These thoughts are not much unlike David’s Psalms, which he had previously composed by divine inspiration, teaching by songs and hymns who is the truly blessed man, and who the contrary. This, at least, is the thought with which his Book begins, where he says: ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,’ [7] and so on. This is what Plato has altered when he declares that the poets ought to say, ‘that the good man being temperate and just is happy and blessed, and if a man be rich but unjust, he is miserable.’

And the very same thought David again expressed thus in the Psalms, saying: ‘If riches abound, set not your heart upon them.’[8] And again: ‘Be not thou afraid when a man is made rich, and when the glory of his house is increased.’[9] And at your leisure you may find each of the philosopher’s sayings stated word for word throughout the whole sacred writing of the Psalms.

[1] d 8 Plato, Laws,660 E

[2] 595 a 3 Tyrtaeus, i. 6

[3] a 6 ibid. i. 1

[4] a 9 ibid. i. 12

[5] a 11 ibid. i. 11

[6] a 12 ibid. i. 4

[7] 596 a 1 Ps. i. 1

[8] a 7 Ps. lxii. 10

[9] a 8 Ps. xlix. 16

Chapter 22

[P] [1] ‘NAY rather, how surpassingly worthy of a lawgiver and a statesman. But other things there you would find to be less worthy: this point, however, about music is both true and worthy of consideration, that it was possible, as it seems, on such subjects for a man of firm courage to get songs established by law which naturally produce right conduct. But this will be work for a god or some godlike man.’

With good reason therefore it had been enacted among the Hebrews also that they should admit no other hymns and songs in religious instructions than those which had been made under the influence of the Divine Spirit by men of God and prophets, and the music corresponding to these sung in the manner customary among them.

[1] b 3 Plato, Laws,657 A

Chapter 23

[P] [1] ‘So far I myself agree with the multitude, that music must be judged by pleasure, not however by the pleasure of chance persons, but that the best music generally is that which gives delight to the best persons who are well educated, and especially that which delights the one man pre-eminent both in virtue and education.

‘And the reason why I say that the judges of this matter must be virtuous is this, that they ought to be endowed with wisdom in general, and especially with courage.

‘For the true judge ought not to judge by what he learns from the theatre, when driven out of his senses by the tumult of the multitude and his own ignorance; nor if, on the other hand, he knows right, ought he through unmaniiness and cowardice carelessly to deliver a false judgement out of the same mouth with which he invoked the gods before proceeding to give judgement. For the judge sits there not as the learner but rather, according to right, as the teacher of the spectators, and to oppose those who neither properly nor rightly give pleasure to the spectators.’

Among the Hebrews also in old times it was not the part of the multitude to judge the discourses pronounced from divine inspiration, and the inspired songs, but they were few and rare persons, themselves partakers of a divine spirit, fit to judge of what was said, who alone were permitted to approve and consecrate the books of the prophets, and to reject those of men unlike them in character.

[1] d 3 ibid. 658 E

Chapter 24

[P] [1] ‘Now the original purpose of my argument, to exhibit in becoming language the aid that should be given to the Chorus of Dionysus, has been stated to the best of my power. Let us then consider whether this has been rightly done. I suppose that an assembly of this kind necessarily ends by becoming ever more tumultuous as the drinking goes on, just what we supposed at the outset must necessarily occur in the circumstances now under discussion.

‘Necessarily.

‘Yes, and every man is lifted with lighter heart above himself, and is gladdened, and grows full of loud confidence, and of unwillingness in such a state to listen to his neighbours, and claims to be competent to govern both himself and every one else.

‘Certainly.

‘Did we not say then that in these circumstances the souls of the drinkers, becoming like iron heated in the fire, grow softer and younger, so as to be found tractable by one who has both the knowledge and the power to train and mould them just as when they were young? And that this modeller is the same as in their youth, namely the good legislator, who must make laws for the banquet, able to give an entirely opposite turn to the will of the man who is growing confident and bold and impudent beyond bounds, and refuses to submit to order and to his turn of silence, and speech, and drinking, and singing; laws able also justly to inspire that noblest fear, which stoutly resists the entrance of unbecoming boldness, that divine fear to which we have given the names of reverence and shame?

‘That is true.

‘We said too that the quiet and sober must be guardians of these laws and aid their operation.’

With good reason therefore it has been made a traditional custom for us also in our feasts to sing songs and hymns composed in honour of God, the proper order being under the charge of those who are guardians among us.

[1] 597 d 1 Plato, Laws,671 A

Chapter 25

[P] [1] ‘IF, as a serious matter, any city means to practise the custom now mentioned in a lawful and orderly fashion, as taking anxious care for the sake of temperance, and in like manner and for the same reason will not hold aloof from other pleasures, but form plans for the sake of controlling them, in this way they may all be used: but if it is to be for sport, and with permission for any one to drink who will, and whenever he will, and with whomsoever he will, with the accompaniment of whatever other customs he will, I should never join in the vote, that this city or this man ought ever to indulge in drinking; but going even farther than the usage of the Cretans and Lacedaemonians I should vote for the law of the Carthaginians, that no one when in camp should ever taste wine, but accustom himself to water-drinking the whole time; and that in any city neither male nor female slave should ever taste wine, nor magistrates during the year in which they may be in office, nor again should pilots or judges while on duty taste wine at all, nor any one who is coming to deliberate in any important council, nor any one at all in the daytime, unless on account of bodily training or sickness; nor again at night, when any one whether man or woman thinks of getting children. One might also mention many other reasons, why those who hold to reason and law should not drink wine, so that on this principle no city whatever would have need of many vineyards, but the other forms of husbandry and the whole mode of life would be duly regulated.’

Moses also anticipates this by enacting that the priests must not taste wine at the time of their religious service, saying: ‘And the Lord spake to Aaron, saying, Ye shall drink no wine nor strong drink, thou and thy sons with thee, whenever ye go into the tent of the testimony, or when ye approach to the altar, so shall ye not die: a statute for ever throughout your generations.’ [2] The same author also gives a law to those who make a vow, saying: ‘Whosoever, whether man or woman, shall make a special vow of self-dedication to purity unto the Lord, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and vinegar of wine and vinegar of strong drink shall he not drink.’ [3] Solomon too forbids the use of wine to rulers and judges, saying: ‘Do all things with deliberation; drink wine with deliberation: princes are passionate, let them not drink wine, lest they drink and forget wisdom… and troubles.’ [4] The apostle also gives permission to Timothy on account of sicknesses, saying: ‘Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.’ [5]

[1] 598 c 1 Plato, Laws,673 E

[2] 599 b 4 Lev. x. 8

[3] b 9 Num. vi. 2, 3

[4] c 4 Prov. xxxi. 4

[5] c 8 I Tim. v. 23

Chapter 26

[P] [1] ‘IF therefore there has either been in the boundless ages of the past, or is even now in some barbarous region lying far away out of our sight, or shall hereafter be a necessity for men eminent in philosophy to take charge of a State, I am ready to argue to the death in defence of this assertion, that the constitution which I have described has existed, and still exists, and will exist, whenever the Muse herself becomes mistress of the State: for it is not impossible that she should become mistress, nor are my descriptions impossible.’

[1] d 1 Plato, Republic,499 C

Chapter 27

[P] [1] ‘But how for a man in relation to himself? Must he be disposed as an enemy towards an enemy, or what do we say in this case?

‘O Athenian stranger, Attic I should not like to call you, since you seem to me worthy rather to be called after the name of the goddess, because you have made the argument clearer by rightly bringing it back to its first principle, so that you will more easily recognize that we were quite right just now in saying that all men are enemies to all, both in public and in private, and every one an enemy to himself.

‘What do you mean, my good sir?

‘In this last case also, my friend, a man’s conquest over himself is the first and noblest of all victories, but to be defeated by himself is at once the basest and worst defeat of all. For this is a sign that there is a war against ourselves going on in every one of us.’

And after other passages he adds to this and says: [2]

‘Must we not then reckon each of ourselves as one?

‘Yes.

‘But as possessing in himself two counsellors, antagonistic and foolish, which we call pleasure and pain?

‘That is true.

‘And in addition to both these certain opinions of things future, which in common are called expectation, but severally the expectation of pain is called fear, and the expectation of the contrary is confidence. And further with all these there is a calculation, which of them is better or worse, and when this calculation has become a common decree of a State it is called law.’

And presently he says: [3]

‘But this we know, that these affections in us are like cords and strings which pull us inwardly, and being opposite to each other draw us different ways towards opposite actions; and herein lies the distinction between virtue and vice. For reason affirms that there is one of these drawings to which every man ought always to yield, and never let it go, but pull against the other cords; and that this one is the golden and sacred guidance of reason, called the public law of the State; and that others are hard and of iron, but this one soft, as being of gold (and of one form), while the others are like all kinds of forms. We ought therefore always to take part with the best guidance, that of the law. For inasmuch as reason is beautiful and gentle and not violent, its guidance needs assistants, in order that in us the golden kind of motive may prevail over the other kinds.

‘And so in this way the fable about virtue, speaking of us as being puppets, would be maintained, and the meaning of the expression about a man being “better or worse than himself” would in a certain way be made clearer; and that in regard to a State or an individual, the latter having found in his own case a true principle with regard to this drawing by cords should live in obedience to it, and a State, having learned the principle either from some god or from this very individual thus informed, should establish it as a law for dealing both with herself and with all other states. Thus vice and virtue would be more clearly distinguished for us.’

Among us also the word of God teaches the like doctrines, saying: ‘I delight in the law of God after the inward man, but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind.’ [4] And again: ‘Their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them.’ [5] And other passages which are similar to these.

[1] 600 b 1 Plato, Laws,626 D

[2] c 9 ibid. 644 C

[3] d 9 ibid. 644 E

[4] 601 c 1 Rom. vii. 22

[5] c 3 ibid. ii. 15

Chapter 28

[P] [1] ‘We remember, however, that in the former part of our discussion we agreed that, if the soul should be found to be older than the body, the properties also of the soul would be older than those of the body.

‘Yes, certainly.

‘Then tempers, and dispositions, and wishes, and reasonings, and true opinions, and meditations, and remembrances must hare been prior to length and breadth and thickness and strength of bodies, if soul is prior to body.

‘Necessarily.

‘Must we not then necessarily grant what follows immediately from this, that the soul is the cause of all that is good and evil, and noble and base, and just and unjust, and of all opposites, if we suppose her to be the cause of all things?’

Let these quotations suffice from the tenth Book of the Laws.Now with these Moses frequently agrees in his laws, saying: ‘And if a soul sin and commit a transgression,’ [2] and all other passages expressed by him in like manner to this.

[1] d 1 Plato, Laws, 896 C

[2] 602 a 7 Lev. vi. 2, 4

Chapter 29

THE Hebrew Scripture says of the earnest philosopher: ‘It is good for a man to bear the yoke in his youth: he will sit alone, and keep silence, because he hath taken it upon him:’ [1] and of the prophets beloved by God, that they passed their lives in deserts, and mountains, and caves,[2] for the sake of attaining the height of philosophy, fixing their thought upon God alone; and now hear Plato, how he too makes this mode of life divine, giving the following description of one who aspires to the height of philosophy:

[P] [3] ‘We are to speak then, it seems, since this is your pleasure, of the leaders: for why should one talk about those who spend their time to bad purpose in philosophy? But these leaders, I suppose, in the first place from their youth up have never known the way to the Agora, nor where the court of justice is, or the council-chamber, or any other public assembly of the State: and laws and decrees, whether read or written, they neither see nor hear. The strivings of political clubs to gain offices, and meetings and banquets and revellings with flute-girls, are practices which do not occur to them even in dreams.

‘And what has happened well or ill in the city, or what evil has come to any one from his ancestors male or female, is less known to him than, as the proverb says, the number of gallons in the sea. And as to all these things he knows not even that he does not know them, for he does not abstain from them for the sake of gaining reputation; but in fact it is only his body that has its place and home in the city, but his mind esteeming all these things as little or nothing, disdains them and is “flying all abroad,” [4] as Pindar says, measuring both the things beneath the earth and on its surface, and studying the stars above the sky, and scrutinizing in all ways the whole nature of existing things each as a universal, but not condescending to anything close at hand.

‘How do you mean this, Socrates?

‘Just as, when Thales was star-gazing, Theodorus, and looking upward fell into a well, a clever and witty Thracian handmaid is said to have made a jest upon him, that he was eager to know about things in heaven, but took no notice of what was before his face and at his feet.

‘And the same jest holds good against all who pass their lives in philosophy. For in fact a man of this kind knows nothing of his nearest neighbour, not merely as to what he is doing, but hardly even knows whether he is a man or some other kind of animal. But what man is as man, and what is becoming to such a nature to do or to suffer different from all others, this he is investigating, and takes much trouble in searching it out. You understand, I suppose, Theodorus, do you not?

‘Yes, I do, and what you say is true.

‘Therefore, my friend, the man of this character both in his private intercourse with every one, and in public life, as I said at first, whenever he is compelled either in a law-court or anywhere else to talk about the things at his feet and before his eyes, becomes a laughing-stock not only to Thracian girls but also to the rest of the rabble, by falling into wells and every kind of trouble from want of experience: and his awkwardness is shocking and makes him seem no better than a fool.

‘For when scandal is going on he has nothing personal wherewith to reproach anybody, inasmuch as he knows no harm of any one from having paid no attention to it: so he appears ridiculous in his perplexity. And amidst the praises and loud boastings of others it is evident that he is laughing not in pretence but in reality, and so he is thought to be silly.

‘For when either a tyrant or a king is eulogized, he fancies that it is some kind of herdsman, as a swineherd, or a shepherd, or cowherd that he hears congratulated for drawing much milk; but he supposes that they have a more ill-tempered and more treacherous animal than those to tend and to milk.

‘He supposes also that a man in this position must become from want of leisure no less boorish and uneducated than the herdsmen, being shut in by his citywall as by a fold on the mountain. And when he hears how some one or other, possessing ten thousand plethra of land or yet more, possesses a wonderful amount, he thinks that what he hears of is very little, being accustomed to look at the earth as a whole.

‘And when men sing the praises of family, saying that some man of birth can show seven wealthy ancestors, he regards the commendation as that of very dull and short-sighted persons, who from want of education cannot look always to the whole, nor calculate that every man has had countless myriads of ancestors and forefathers, among whom any man whatever has had many times over thousands and thousands of rich and poor, and kings and slaves, barbarians and Greeks: but when men pride themselves upon a pedigree of five and twenty ancestors, or trace back to Hercules son of Amphitryon, their narrow-mindedness seems to him extraordinary, and he laughs at their being unable to calculate that the twenty-fifth upwards from Amphitryon, and the fiftieth from him, was such as fortune made him, and so to shake off the vanity of an unintelligent soul.

‘In all these matters then such a philosopher is derided by the multitude, on the one hand as seeming to be arrogant, and on the other as ignorant of what is before his feet, and at a loss on every occasion.

‘You state exactly what takes place, Socrates.

‘But when the philosopher himself, O my friend, draws a man upwards, and the other is willing to escape with him from the question, “In what do I wrong you, or, you me,” into the contemplation of abstract justice and injustice, and what is the essence of each of them, and in what they differ from other things or from each other; or from the question, whether a king possessing much wealth is happy, to the contemplation of abstract monarchy and human happiness and misery in general, of what nature “they are, and in what way it is befitting to human nature to acquire the one of them, and avoid the other,—when in turn that narrow-minded, shrewd and pettifogging creature is required to explain all these subjects, he gives the philosopher his revenge. Turning giddy where he hangs on high, and looking down, unaccustomed as he is, from the upper air, dismayed and perplexed and stammering a barbarous jargon, he makes himself a laughing-stock not to Thracian girls, nor to any other uneducated person, for they do not understand it, but to all who have been brought up otherwise than as slaves.

‘This then, O Theodorus, is the character of each. The one is the character of the man who has been really brought up in freedom and leisure, whom you call a philosopher, with whom we need not be indignant at his seeming to be a simpleton and a nobody, when he is thrown into any servile offices, as for instance if he does not understand how to tie up a bundle of bed-clothes, nor to sweeten a sauce or a flattering speech. But the other is the character of the man who is able to render all such services as these smartly and quickly, but does not understand how to throw his cloak over his right shoulder like a gentleman, nor in just harmony of language to hymn the praises of the true life of gods and of divinely favoured men.

‘If, Socrates, you could persuade all men, as you do me, of the truth of what you say, there would be more peace and fewer evils among men.

‘But it is not possible, O Theodorus, either that evils should disappear (for there must always be something antagonistic to good), or that they should be settled among the gods, but they necessarily haunt our mortal nature and this our place of abode.

‘Wherefore also we should try to escape from this world to the other as speedily as possible. And escape means assimilation to God as far as is possible, and assimilation means to become just and holy and wise withal. But in fact, my good friend, it is not at all an easy thing to persuade men that the reasons for which the multitude say that we ought to shun wickedness and pursue virtue are not the right reasons for practising the one and avoiding the other, I mean the wish not to seem to be bad, but to seem to be good.

‘For this, as it seems to me, is the proverbial old wives’ gossip: but the truth we may state as follows: God is never in any way unrighteous, but most perfectly righteous: and nothing is more like Him than any one of us who may likewise become most righteous. On this depends a man’s true ability, or his nothingness and cowardice.

‘For to know this is wisdom and genuine virtue, but not to know it is manifest ignorance and vice: and all other kinds of seeming cleverness and wisdom, when they display themselves in political power, are vulgar, and in arts mechanical. With the man then who does wrong, and says or does unholy things, it is far best not to admit that villany makes him a clever man.

‘For such men glory in their shame, and suppose that they are spoken of as no fools, nor mere cumberers of the ground, but men of the right sort to prosper in a State. We ought therefore to tell them the truth, that they are all the more what they think they are not, because they think they are not. For they are ignorant of the penalty of injustice, the last thing of which they ought to be ignorant. For it is not the penalty which they fancy, stripes and death, which wrong-doers sometimes escape altogether, but a penalty which it is not possible to escape.

‘What penalty then do you mean?

‘Though there are two examples set forth in the world of reality, the divinity being the example of the greatest happiness, and the godless of the greatest misery, they do not see that this is true, but from silliness and the extreme of folly they are not conscious of growing like to the one and unlike the other because of their evil deeds: and they pay the penalty for this by living the life fitted for the pattern to which they are growing like.

‘And if we tell them that unless they get rid of their cleverness, the place that is free from all evil will not receive them after death, but that they will always have a life here on earth corresponding to their own character by a continual association with evil, being evil themselves, they will listen to this, as men of the utmost cleverness and cunning listening to fools.

‘Quite so, Socrates.

‘I know it indeed, my friend. There is, however, just one circumstance in their case, whenever they are obliged to give and to receive an explanation in private about the studies which they condemn, and are willing to stand their ground manfully for a long time, and not run away like cowards, then at last, my good sir, they are strangely dissatisfied with themselves and their arguments, and their fine rhetoric somehow fades away, so that they seem to be no better than children.’

[1] b 2 Lam. iii. 27, 28

[2] c 1 Heb. xi. 38

[3] c 7 Plato, Theaetetus,173 C

[4] 602 d 14 Pindar, Fragment,123 (226)

Chapter 30

AMONG us also there is this saying concerning all sophistry practised among men: ‘For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will set at nought the prudence of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?’ [1],d 3 ibid. i. 19, 20

Moreover that those who study a divine philosophy ought to have no narrow-minded thoughts, we are taught in the saying: ‘While we look not at the things which are seen, but at those which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.’[2]

And of the fact that wickedness gathers close around the earth and this mortal life, the word of God says somewhere: ‘Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.’[3] And: ‘Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.’[4] The prophet also says: ‘Cursing, and stealing, and adultery, and murder, are poured out upon the earth, and they mingle blood with blood.’[5]

And with regard to escaping from this world to God, Moses says: ‘Thou shalt walk after the Lord thy God, and to Him shalt thou cleave.’[6] And the same Moses teaches us to imitate God, saying: ‘Ye shall be holy, for the Lord your God is holy.’[7]

David also knowing that God is righteous, and urging us to become imitators of Him ourselves, says: ‘Righteous is the Lord, and loveth righteousness.’[8] The same David taught us to despise wealth, saying: ‘If riches increase, set not your heart upon them’;[9] and, ‘Be not thou afraid, when a man is made rich, and when the glory of his house is increased: for when he dieth, he shall carry nothing away, nor shall his glory descend with him.’[10]

Also in the following words he taught us not to admire the ruling powers among mankind: ‘Put not your trust in princes, nor in any sons of men, in whom there is no safety. His breath will go forth, and he will return to his earth: in that day shall all his thoughts perish.’[11]

[1] 606 d 2 i Cor. iii. 19

[2] d 9 2 Cor. iv. 18

[3] 607 a 3 Eph. v. 16

[4] a 4 Matt. vi. 34

[5] a 5 Hos. iv. 2

[6] a 8 Deut. x. 20

[7] b 2 Lev. xi. 45

[8] b 5 Ps. xi. 7

[9] b 6 Ps. lxii. 10

[10] b 7 Ps. xlix. 16

[11] c a Ps. cxlvi. 3

Chapter 31

[P] [1] ‘But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

‘Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.’

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

[1] d 1 Plato, Laws, 663 D

Chapter 32

[P] [1] ‘ARE we then agreed as to our former statements?

‘About what?

‘That every one, man and boy, free and slave, male and female, and the whole city, should never cease from reciting to themselves these charms which we have just described, changed from time to time in some way or other, and presenting every kind of variation, so that the singers may have an insatiable desire for the hymns, and pleasure in them.

‘How could there be any doubt that this practice ought to be adopted?’

In the fifth Book also of the Republiche writes to the like effect, saying as follows:

[P] [2] ‘Do you then know any human occupation, in which the male sex is not superior in all these respects to the female? Or need we waste time by mentioning the art of weaving, and the making of pancakes and preserves, in which the female sex is thought forsooth to be great, and in which their utter inferiority is most ridiculous?

‘You say with truth, said he, that the one sex is far surpassed by the other, I might almost say, in everything. Many women, no doubt, are better than many men in many points, but the general truth is as you say.

‘No occupation then, my friend, of those who manage the affairs of the state belongs to a woman as woman nor to a man as man; but the natural qualities are found here and there in both sexes alike, and while woman has by nature a share in all pursuits, and man in all, yet woman is in all weaker than man.

‘Yes, certainly.

‘Are we then to assign all employments to men, and none to women?

‘How can we?

‘In fact, we shall say, I suppose, that among women also one has a natural gift of healing and another has not, and one is musical and another unmusical?

‘Certainly.

‘Also one fit for gymnastics and for war, and another unwarlike and with no taste for gymnastics?

‘So I suppose.

‘Again, one woman is a philosopher, another hates philosophy? And one is high-spirited, another spiritless?

‘This too is true.

‘So there is one woman fit for a guardian, and another unfit.

Or was not such the nature which we selected as that of men who were fit for guardians?

‘Yes, it was such.

‘Both woman and man therefore have the same natural fitness for guardianship of the state, except in so far as one is weaker and another stronger.

‘So it appears.

‘We must then select women also who are of this character to live with men of the same character, and to share in their guardianship, since they are competent, and akin to them in nature.’

With good reason then our Word also admits to its divine instruction and philosophy every class not only of men but also of women, and not only of free men and slaves, but also of Barbarians and Greeks.

[1] 608 b 1 ibid. 665 B

[2] 608 c 6 Plato, Republic,455 C

Chapter 33

[P] [1] ‘LET us look at it then in this way. Now suppose some one were to praise the breeding of goats, and the animal itself as a fine property; and some one else, having seen goats feeding without a goatherd in cultivated ground and doing mischief, should find fault with them, and on seeing any kind of cattle without a keeper or with bad keepers, should in this case blame them, do we think that such a man’s censure would convey any just blame whatever?

‘How should it? ‘

Also after a few sentences:

‘And what would you say of one who praises or blames any kind of community, which ought naturally to have a ruler, and which with his aid is useful, whereas the critic had never seen it in its rightful association with a ruler, but always without rule, or with bad rulers? Do we suppose that observers such as these could pronounce any useful censure or praise on communities of this kind?

‘How could they?’

If then among us also it should appear that some without any president and ruler, or with evil rulers, were doing evil, one ought not to find fault with our whole school, but rather to admire our religious constitution from the conduct of those who follow it rightly.

[1] 609 c 1 Plato, Laws,639 A

Chapter 34

IN the Proverbsof Solomon it is briefly stated: ‘The memory of the just is associated with praises, but the name of the ungodly is extinguished’;[1] and again it is said: ‘Call no man blessed before his death’[2]: so now hear how Plato interprets the thought in the seventh Book of the Laws,saying:

[P] [3] ‘Whosoever of the citizens should reach the end of their life after having wrought good and laborious works either in body or soul, and been obedient to the laws, it would be fitting that they should receive eulogies.

‘By all means.

‘It is not safe, however, to honour those who are still alive with eulogies and hymns, before a man has finished his whole course of life, and crowned it with a noble end. And let us have all these honours common to men and to women who have been conspicuously good.’

[1] 610 a 1 Prov. x. 7

[2] a 3 Ecclus. xi. 28

[3] b 3 Plato, Laws,801 E

Chapter 35. Of Riches and Poverty

As Solomon had said in Proverbs:’Give me neither poverty nor riches,’ [1] so Plato says in the fourth Book of the Republic:

[P] [2] ‘But we have found, it seems, some other things for the guardians, against which they must watch in every way, that they may not creep in unobserved into the state.

‘What kind of things?

‘Riches, said I, and poverty; as the one engenders luxury, and idleness, and revolution, and the other meanness and mischievousness, as well as revolution.’

By mischievousness is meant every disgraceful action.

[1] e 2 Prov. xxx. 8

[2] c 5 Plato, Rep.421 E

Chapter 36. Of Honour to Parents

AGAIN Moses says in his laws: ‘Let every man fear his father and his mother,’[1] and ‘Honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee’[2]; and Plato, like Moses, bids us both honour and fear them, speaking thus in the Laws:

[P] [3] ‘Every man of sense fears and honours the prayers of his parents, knowing that many times and for many persons they have been accomplished.’

And again in another place he says:

[P] [4] ‘We would have every one reverence his elder both in word and deed. And any one who is twenty years older than himself, whether male or female, let him regard as father or mother, and treat with reverence.’

[1] d 7 Lev. xix. 3

[2] d 8 Exod. xx. 12

[3] 611 a 1 Plato, Laws,931 E

[4] a 5 ibid. 879 C

Chapter 37. Of Purchasing Slaves

MOSES in his laws forbade Hebrews to have Hebrews as slaves, and said: ‘If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee: and in the seventh year thou shalt send him away free.’ [1] And in like manner Plato says in the Republic:

[P] [2] ‘They should therefore themselves own no Greek as a slave, and advise the other Greeks to the same effect.

‘Certainly, said he.

‘Thus then they would be more ready to turn their arms against Barbarians, and abstain from war against each other.’

[1] b 2 Exod. xxi. 2; Deut. xv. 12

[2] b 6 Plato, Republic,469 C

Chapter 38

[P] [1] ‘LET no man move landmarks, either of his own fellow citizen who is a neighbour, or of one whose property marches with his on the borders, if he be neighbour to a foreigner, considering that this is really to move what should be immoveable.’

And presently he says:

[P] [2] ‘Whosoever ploughs over his neighbour’s lands, encroaching upon the boundaries, let him repay the damage, and as a cure for both his impudence and his meanness let him pay besides double of the damage to the person injured.’

[1] c 1 Plato, Laws,842 E

[2] d 1 ibid. 843 C

Chapter 39

[P] [1] ‘And in a word, let not the disgrace and punishment of a father follow upon any of the children, except when any one’s father and grandfather and great-grandfather in succession have paid the penalty of death.’

[1] 611 d 5 Plato, Laws,856 C

Chapter 40. Of Thieves

A LAW of Moses says: ‘If a man steal a calf, or a sheep, and slay it, or sell it, he shall repay five calves for the calf, and four sheep for the sheep… But if he be caught, and the theft be found in his hand alive, from a calf or an ass to a sheep, he shall repay double.’ [1] Now hear how Plato follows this, saying:

[P] [2] ‘But whether a thief steal much or little, let there be one law and one punishment imposed for all alike. For in the first place he must pay double the amount stolen, if he be convicted in a suit of this kind, and if the rest of his substance suffice to pay it, beyond his lot of land; and if not, he must be kept in prison until he has paid it, or persuaded the man who gained sentence against him to release him.’

[1] 612 a 3 Exod. xxii. 1,4

[2] b 2 Plato, Laws,857 A

Chapter 41. Of Slaying a Thief

AGAIN when Moses says: ‘But if the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, it is not murder,’[1] Plato agrees in this also, saying:

[P] [2] ‘If a man catch a thief coming into his house by night to steal his goods, and slay him, let him be guiltless: also if he kill a footpad in self-defence, let him be guiltless.’

[1] c 1 Exod. xxii. 2

[2] c 4 Plato, Laws,874 B

Chapter 42

[P] [1] ‘AND so if a beast of burden or any other animal kill a man, except any animals which, when struggling in any contest of the public games, do such a thing, let the relatives prosecute the slayer for murder, and let the suit be decided by the country guardians, such and so many as the relative shall appoint, and let the beast which is condemned by them be slain and cast outside the borders of the country.’

So says Plato. And Moses in anticipation says: ‘But if a bull gore a man or a woman and they die, the bull shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the bull shall be quit.’[2]

[1] d 1 Plato, Laws,873 D

[2] d 8 Exod. xxi. 28

Chapter 43

THE prophetic scripture says: ‘Son of man, behold, the house of Israel are all of them become unto Me a mixture of copper, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace are they made a mixture of silver. Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord; because ye are all become one mixture, therefore, behold, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem, even as silver is gathered, and copper, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow fire upon them, that they may be melted’ [1]: and now hear what Plato says in like manner:

[P] [2] ‘Listen then to the rest of the fable. For we in the city are of course all brothers, as we shall say to them in telling the fable, but the god, in forming as many of you as are fit to rule, mixed gold in their composition; wherefore they are the most to be honoured; and for all the auxiliaries, silver; but iron and copper for the husbandmen and other operatives.

‘Inasmuch then as you are all of one family, you will generally beget children like yourselves, but sometimes from a golden parent a silver child will be born, and a golden child from a silver parent, and all the rest in this way, one from another.

‘And this is the first and chief command that God lays upon the rulers, that they be above all good guardians of their children and watch over them with strictest care, to see what metal is mingled in their souls; and if one of their own children be found to be partly of copper or iron, they must by no means have pity on him, but assign to him the rank befitting his nature, and thrust him down either among the operatives or the husbandmen; and if, on the other hand, from these classes there be born a child with a mixture of gold or silver, they will value them and promote them, some to the rank of guardian, others to that of auxiliary: for there is an oracle that the state will be destroyed, whenever the man of iron or of copper has become its guardian. Do you know any device then by which they might be brought to believe this fable?’

[1] 613 a 4 Ezek. xxii. 18

[2] b 8 Plato, Republic,415 A

Chapter 44

THE Hebrew prophecy says to the princes of the people: ‘O ye shepherds of Israel, do shepherds feed themselves? Do not the shepherds feed the sheep? Behold, ye devour the milk, and the fat ye slay, and clothe you with the wool, and ye feed not My sheep…. And ye sought not the lost, and the broken ye bound not up, and brought not back that which was going astray.’[1] Moreover the Word of our salvation says: ‘The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep: but he that is an hireling and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, forsaketh them.’[2] Now listen also to Plato, in the first Book of the Republic,how he translates these sayings:

[P] [3] ‘But as it is, Thrasymachus (for we must still look back upon our former statements), you see that though at first you defined the true physician, you did not afterwards think it necessary to keep strict watch over the definition of the true shepherd; but you suppose that, in so far as he is a shepherd, he fattens the sheep not with a view to what is best for the sheep, but with a view to the good cheer, just as a banqueter who is going to have a feast, or on the other hand with a view to selling them, as a money-maker and not a shepherd. But surely the art of the shepherd is concerned with nothing else than how to provide what is best for the flock over which he is set: for surely it has sufficiently provided all that is required for its own perfection, as long as it lacks nothing of the shepherd’s art. Thus then I was supposing just now, that we must necessarily admit that every government, in so far as it is a government, looks solely to what is best for that which is governed and tended by it, in the case both of public and private government. But is it your opinion that the rulers in states, I mean the true rulers, hold office willingly?’

[1] 614 a 4 Ezek. xxxiv. 2

[2] b 5 John x. 11

[3] c 2 Plato, Republic,345 C

Chapter 45. Further Concerning the Same

THE Hebrew prophecy says: ‘From fear of thee, O Lord, we have been with child, and we have been in pain, and have brought forth wind [of deliverance]’[1]: and Plato in the Theaetetusrepresents Socrates as speaking thus:

[P] [2] ‘Those who associate with me are in fact affected in the same way as women in childbirth: for they travail in pain and are full of perplexity night and day far more than the women. And this pain my art is able both to arouse and to allay.’

[1] 615 a 1 Isa. xxvi. 18

[2] 35 Plato, Theaetetus,151 A

Chapter 46. Further Concerning the Same

THE prophet Ezekiel said: ‘And the hand of the Lord came upon me, and I saw, and, behold, an uplifting wind came from the north.’[1] And presently he said: ‘And in the midst was the likeness as of four living creatures. And the appearance of them was as the likeness of a man upon them, and each one had four faces. And the likeness of their faces was as the face of a man: and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of a calf on the left side; they four had also the face of an eagle.’ Hear now what Plato also says in like manner:

[P] [2] ‘Now then, said I, let us discuss it with him, since we have come to an agreement as to the effect of a course of injustice and a course of justice respectively.

‘How discuss it? said he.

‘By forming in words an image of the soul, that the author of those remarks may know how he described it.

‘What sort of image? said he.

‘One of such a kind, said I, as the creatures which, according to the legend, were naturally produced in old times, the Chimaera and Scylla and Cerberus, and many others in which several forms are said to have grown together into one.

‘So they say, said he.

‘Mould then, first, a single form of a motley many-headed beast, having a ring of heads of tame and wild beasts, and able to change all these and to produce them out of itself.

‘The task, said he, needs a cunning artist: but nevertheless, since language is more easily moulded than wax and substances of that kind, suppose the model made.

‘Now then model a second form of a lion, and a third of a man: but let the first be far the greatest, and the second next to it.

‘These, said he, are easier, and are already done.

‘Well, then, join the three in one, so that they may in a manner be grown together.

‘They are so joined, said he.

‘Now mould around them on the outside a likeness of ‘one of them, that of the man, so that to one who cannot see the inside, but only the outer cover, there may appear to be one single animal, a man.

‘The cover is moulded, said he.

‘To the man, then, who says that it is profitable for this human creature to do wrong and not for his interest to do right, let us reply, that his assertion can only mean, that it is profitable for him by feeding the multiform beast well to strengthen both the lion and the lion’s members, but to starve and weaken the man, so that he may be dragged whichever way either of the others draws him. and not to familiarize them at all or make them friendly one to another, but leave them to bite and struggle among themselves and devour one another.

‘Certainly, said he, this is what the eulogist of injustice must say.

‘On the other hand, then, would not he who says that justice is profitable assert that the creature ought so to act and speak, that his inner man shall have the chief control over the whole man, and take charge of the many-headed beast like a husbandman, nourishing and taming the gentle parts and hindering the growth of the wild, having taken the lion’s nature for his ally, and by his common care for all make them friendly to each other and to himself, and so train them?

‘Yes, this again is quite what the advocate of justice has to say.’

[1] b 2 Ezek. i. 3, 5

[2] c 5 Plato, Republic,588 B

Chapter 47

THE whole nation of the Hebrews having been divided into twelve tribes, Plato also in like manner enjoins by law the necessity of maintaining the propriety of this in the case of his own citizens, speaking as follows:

[P] [1] ‘Let our whole country be divided into twelve parts as equal as possible, and for each part let one tribe assigned by lot furnish annually five men as guardians of the public lands and commanders of cavalry.’

And again he says:[2]

‘Let the generals elected propose for themselves twelve commanders of infantry, one for each tribe.’

[1] 616 d 5 Plato, Laws,760 B

[2] d 10 ibid. 755 D

Chapter 48

As the royal metropolis established long before among the Hebrews was far from the sea, and situated among the mountains, and possessed of very fruitful land; so Plato says that the metropolis to be founded by him in his Lawsought to be something of this kind. His words are as follows:

[P] [1] ‘But what I am more desirous of asking concerning it is this, whether it will be a city on the sea-coast or inland.

‘The city of which we spake just now, Stranger, is about eighty stadia distant from the sea.

‘How then? Are there harbours on this side of it, or is it altogether without harbours?

‘Nay, on this side, O Stranger, it is as well provided with harbours as possible.

‘Wonderful! You don’t say so! Further, then, does the country about it produce everything, or does it need anything besides?

‘It hardly needs anything more.

‘And will it have any neighbouring city close to it?

‘None at all, and that is why it is to be founded there: for some emigration that occurred in the place in old times has left this region uninhabited for an immense time.

‘Well, again? As to hills, and plains, and forest, what proportion has it of each?

‘It is like the general character of the rest of Crete.

‘Should you call it rocky rather than level?

‘Yes, certainly.

‘It cannot then be hopelessly bad for the attainment of virtue. For if it was to have been on the coast, and with good harbours, and in need of many things more than it could produce, it would have needed some mighty saviour and lawgivers more than mortal, if, under such natural conditions, its moral tendencies were not to be very promiscuous and evil; but as it is there is some consolation in the eighty stadia. It lies indeed nearer to the sea than it should, considering how very well you say it is provided with harbours; nevertheless we may be content even with this. For when the sea is close to a country, its daily neighbourhood is pleasant, but in reality it is very brackish and bitter: for by filling the city with commerce and retail trade, it engenders shifty and faithless habits in men’s souls, and makes the city unfaithful and unfriendly both to herself, and likewise to all other nations. Against this, however, it possesses a consolation in producing all things; yet being rocky it evidently cannot be at the same time productive in abundance and in variety. For if it had both, it would provide large exports, and in return be filled with gold and silver coin; than which, I may say, there could be no greater evil, taken singly, for a city in regard to the attainment of just and noble sentiments.’

But now after so many proofs as we have hitherto given, let us observe how, after approving the mode of education among the Hebrews in the passages which we have mentioned, he deprecates the Greek method, writing as follows in the tenth Book of the Republic:

[1] 617 b 6 ibid. 704 B

Chapter 49

[P] [1] ‘LET me say to you in confidence (for you will not tell of me to the tragic poets and all the rest of the imitative tribe), all such poetry seems to be hurtful to the understanding of those hearers who do not possess an antidote in the knowledge of its real nature.

‘Pray what is the purport of your remarks? said he.

‘I must speak, said I, although a certain fondness and reverence which I have felt from boyhood for Homer restrains my speech. For of all those charming tragic poets he seems to have been the first teacher and leader: nevertheless we must not respect a person in preference to the truth, but, as I said, I must speak out.

‘Quite so, said he.’

Then afterwards he adds:

[P] [2] ‘As to other matters, then, let us demand no explanation from Homer, or any other of the poets, by asking why, if any of them was skilful in healing, and not a mere imitator of medical language, none of the poets ancient or modern is said to have made cures, as Asclepius did, or to have left any school of medical art behind him, as Asclepius left his descendants: and let us not ask him about other arts, but let them pass.

‘With regard, however, to those grandest and noblest subjects of which Homer undertakes to speak, such as war, and strategy, and administration of states, and the education of mankind, it is fair, I suppose, to ask him this question: “My dear Homer, if in the representation of virtue you were not a mere image-maker twice removed from the truth, as we defined an imitator to be, but only once removed, and capable of knowing what pursuits make men better or worse both in private and in public, tell us which of our states owed a better government to you, as Lacedaemon to Lycurgus, and many both small and great states to many other legislators? What state alleges that you have been a good lawgiver to them and have conferred a benefit upon them? For Italy and Sicily so speak of Charondas, and we of Solon: but who says this of you?” Will he be able to mention any?

‘I think not, said Glaucon. At least no one says so, not even the Homeridae themselves.

‘Well, but what war in the time of Homer is recorded to have been waged successfully under his command or advice?

‘Not one.

‘But are there said to have been many ingenious inventions applicable to arts or any other pursuits, as in the case of a man who is wise in practical work, such as Thales the Milesian, and Anacharsis the Scythian?

‘Nothing of the kind whatever.

‘Well, then, if not publicly, yet in private, is Homer said during his lifetime to have guided the education of any persons, who loved him for his society, and handed down a certain Homeric way of living to those who came after; just as Pythagoras was wonderfully beloved himself for this kind of association, and his successors, who to this day call their mode of life Pythagorean, seem to be in a manner distinguished among other men?

‘Nothing of this kind either is reported of him. For surely, Socrates, the education of Creophylus, the companion of Homer, would appear even more ridiculous than his name, if the stories told about Homer are true: for it is said that in his lifetime he was much neglected by this very man.

‘Yes, so indeed it is said, I replied.

‘But do you suppose, O Glaucon, that if Homer had been really able to educate men and make them better, as being himself capable not merely of imitating but of knowing such subjects, he would have failed to gain many companions, by whom he would have been honoured and beloved? So then Protagoras of Abdera, and Prodicus of Ceos, and very many others are able in private intercourse to persuade the men of their day, that they will not be able to manage either their own house or their state, unless theypreside over their education, and are so much beloved for this their wisdom as to be almost carried about on the heads of their companions. Can we then suppose that, if Homer or Hesiod was really capable of improving men in virtue, their contemporaries would have allowed them to wander about as rhapsodists, and would not rather have hugged them closer than gold, and constrained them to stay with them at home, or, if they could not persuade them, would themselves have escorted them wherever they went, until they had received sufficient education?

‘It seems to me, Socrates, said he, that what you say is entirely true.

‘Then must we not assume that all the poets, from Homer downwards, only copy images of virtue and of the other subjects of their poetry, and do not touch the truth? But, as we were saying just now, the painter, though he knows nothing himself about shoemaking, will make what seems to be a shoemaker to those who likewise know nothing about it, but judge by the colours and forms?

‘Yes, certainly.

‘In the same way, then, I suppose, we may say that the poet also by his names and phrases lays on certain colours proper to the several arts, of which he knows nothing himself except how to imitate them, so that to others like him, judging only from the words, whether he speaks about shoemaking, or generalship, or any other subject whatever, in metre and rhythm and harmony, it seems to be extremely well spoken.

‘So powerful a charm these musical forms have naturally in themselves: but when stripped of their musical colouring, you know, I imagine, how poor the poets’ works appear when read in bare simplicity as prose. Have you observed it, or not?

‘I have, said he.’

Now these things being so, it seems good to me to go through some short passages of Plato, wherein he maintains the doctrine of God and of providence in a more logical manner, adhering in this also to the Hebrew dogmas. And first let us observe how he sets forth the opinions of the atheists.

[1] 618 c 1 Plato, Republic,X. 595 B

[2] d 12 ibid. 599 B

Chapter 50

[P] [1] ‘THERE are some who say that all things come, and have come, and will come into existence some by nature, some by art, and some by chance.

‘Do they not say well then?

‘Yes, it is probable, I suppose, that wise men are right in what they say. Nevertheless let us follow them up, and inquire what they on that side mean.

‘By all means.

‘It seems, they say, that the greatest and fairest things are wrought by nature and chance, and the less important by art, which receiving from nature the great original works of creation moulds and frames all the smaller, which we all call artificial.

‘What do you mean?

‘I will state it still more plainly thus. Fire and water and earth and air, they say, all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art. And the bodies which come next to these, the earth, and sun, and moon, and stars, have been created by help of these elements, which are absolutely inanimate. And being severally carried by the chance with which they meet from their several forces, they combine in some intimate way, hot with cold, or dry with moist, and soft with hard, and all other principles which by chance were yet necessarily combined with a mixture of their opposites, and in this way and according to these conditions they have thus created both the whole heaven and all things in the heaven, and all animals too and plants, all seasons being produced, they say, from these elements, not by virtue of intelligence, nor any god, nor art, but, as we say, by nature and chance.

‘And afterwards from these mortal elements art sprang up later, mortal like them, and has since produced certain playthings, not partaking much of truth, but certain images akin, one to another, such as are produced by painting and music and all their assistant arts. And the arts which do produce anything good, are those which combine their own power with that of nature, as for example medicine, and husbandry, and gymnastics. Moreover it is said that political science also cooperates in some small measure with nature, but for the most part with art: and thus that all legislation allies itself not with nature but with art, the assumptions of which are not true.

‘How do you mean?

‘In the first place, my excellent friend, these people say that gods exist not by nature but by art and by certain laws, and that these laws differ in various ways, according as the several states agreed among themselves in establishing their legislation: and moreover that what is honourable by nature is one thing, but by law another; and that principles of justice have no existence at all by nature, but that men go on disputing with one another, and are always changing them; and whatever alterations they make are severally valid at the time when they make them, being made by art and laws, and not by any natural principle.

‘All these, my friends, are doctrines of men whom the young think wise, both poets and prose writers, who say that conquest by force is the best right. And from this cause young men are assailed by impious thoughts, as that there are no gods such as the law commands them to believe in, and therefore dissensions arise, from their drawing men towards what they call the right life of nature, which is in reality to live in mastery over all others, and not as serving others according to law.

‘What a description you have given, O Stranger, and what injury by young men both publicly to states and to private families!’

Also after other passages he says: [2]

‘But now, Cleinias, answer me again, since you too must take part in the discussion. For the man who talks thus probably believes fire, and water, and earth, and air to be the first elements of all things, and these are what he calls nature, and believes the soul to be made out of them afterwards: and this not only seems to be probable, but he really tries to prove it to us by his argument.

‘Yes, certainly.

‘Is it possible then that we have discovered a source, as it were, of the senseless opinion of all men who ever meddled with physical inquiries? Consider and examine every argument: for indeed it is a matter of no small importance, if those who take up impious arguments, and lead others, should be found to be using their arguments not at all rightly, but in a mistaken manner. This seems indeed to me to be the case.

‘You say well; but try now to explain how it is.

‘It is likely then that we shall have to deal with rather unusual arguments.’

Also soon after he adds this:[3]

‘Nearly all of them, my friend, seem to have been ignorant both of the nature and of the power of the soul, and especially of its origin, that it is the first of all things, created before all bodies, and the chief ruling principle of all their change and rearrangement. Now if this is so, must not the things which are akin to the soul have of necessity been created before those which belong to the body, if the soul itself is older than the body?

‘Necessarily.

‘Then thought, and attention, and mind, and art, and law must be prior to hard and soft, and heavy and light: and moreover the great primal works and actions must be works of art, as being first of all; and natural products and nature, which they are wrong in calling by this name, must come afterwards and take their beginning from art and mind.

‘How wrong?

‘By “nature” they mean the generation of the first principles. But if the soul shall be found to be first, not fire nor air, then the soul having been the very first generated would most rightly be said to exist pre-eminently by nature. This is true, if one has proved soul to be older than body, but not otherwise. ‘What you say is most true.’

[1] 621 a 1 Plato, Laws,888 E

[2] 622 c 3 Plato, Laws,891 C

[3] 622 d 11 Plato, Laws,892 A

Chapter 51

‘COME then, if we ought ever to invoke divine aid, let us do so now: let the gods be invoked with all earnestness to come to the demonstration of their own existence; and let us hold fast to this as a sure cable in embarking upon our present argument.

When I am questioned upon matters of this kind, it seems to be the safest course to answer such questions in the following manner.

‘When any one says to me, Stranger, are all things at rest, and nothing in motion, or the very contrary? Or are some of them in motion, and some at rest? Some I suppose are in motion, I shall say, and some at rest. Is there not then some place in which the fixed are at rest, and the moving move?

‘Of course.

‘And some, I suppose, would move in one single place, and others in more than one.

‘Do you mean, I shall say, that the things which are in the condition of rest at the centre move in one single place, just as the circumference of circles revolves, though the circles are said to be at rest?

‘Yes.’

And afterwards he adds:[1]

‘Let us further state it in the following way, and answer ourselves again. If all things were somehow combined in one mass at rest, as most of such philosophers are bold enough to say, which of the above-mentioned kinds of motion must first arise among them?

‘Of course the self-moving: for unless there were previously some change in themselves, they could never begin to change from any external cause.

‘As the beginning then of all motions, and the first which arises in things at rest and continues in things in motion, the self-moving, we must say, is necessarily the eldest and mightiest of all changes; and that which is changed by another, and itself moves others, is the second.

‘Most true.

‘Since therefore we have reached this stage of the argument, let us make the following answer.

‘What answer?

‘If we see this self-motion take place anywhere in the element of earth, or water, or fire, whether separate or combined, what condition shall we say exists in such element?

‘Do you ask me whether we shall say that it is alive, when it moves itself?

‘Yes.

‘It is alive, of course.

‘And again, when we see soul in any thing, must we admit that this has a different or the same life as the former?

‘The same, and no other.

‘Stay then, in heaven’s name. Should you not wish to understand three points about every thing?

‘What do you mean?

‘One, the essence; and one, the definition of the essence; and one, the name: and further, that there are two questions concerning everything that exists.

‘How two?

‘Sometimes one puts forward the name alone and asks for the definition, and at another time one puts forward the definition alone and asks the name. Are we then willing now again to make a statement of the following kind?

‘Of what kind?

‘There is, I suppose, something divisible into two equal parts in other things as well as in number. And the name of this that is divisible in number is “even,” and its definition is “number divisible into two equal parts.”

‘Yes.

‘It is something of this kind that I am trying to explain. ‘Is it not the same thing of which we speak in either way, whether on being asked for the definition we give the name, or being asked for the name we give the definition, since it is the same thing that we speak of by name as “even,” and by definition as “number divisible into two equal parts “?

‘Yes, certainly.

‘What then is the definition of that which has the name “soul”? Have we any other except that which was stated just now, “the motion which has the power of moving itself “?

‘Do you mean to say that the definition “self-moving “ implies the same essence as the name, which we all call “soul “?

‘That is what I say. And if this is so, do we any longer feel the want of a sufficient proof that soul is the same as the first creative and moving principle of all things that are, and have been, and shall be, and again of all their contraries, since it has been shown to be the cause of all change and motion?

‘We want no more: but it has been most satisfactorily proved that soul is the oldest of all things, as having been the beginning of motion.

‘Is not then the motion which is produced in one thing because of another, but never presents any self-motion, being in reality a change of a soul-less body, of secondary rank or of a rank as far removed as any number by which one may choose to reckon it?

‘Rightly so.

‘Should we then have said rightly and properly and with the most perfect truth that soul has existed before body, or not, and that body is secondary and comes after soul, as according to nature the governed comes after the governing principle?

‘Yes, with the most perfect truth.

‘Do we however remember that we admitted in the former part, that, if soul should be found to be older than body, the things of the soul would also be older than those of the body?

‘Yes, certainly.

‘Then characters, and moral habits, and wishes, and reasonings, and true opinions, and acts of attention and memory must have existed earlier than length, and breadth, and depth, and strength of bodies, if soul was prior to body.

‘Necessarily.

‘Must we then necessarily admit what follows immediately on this, that soul is the cause of good and evil, and honourable and base, and just and unjust, and of all opposites, if at least we are to assume it to be the cause of all things?

‘Of course.

‘Must we not say then that, as soul governs and inhabits all things that move in any way, it governs the heaven also?

‘Certainly.

‘One soul, or more? More than one, I will answer for you both. Not less than two at least we must suppose, the beneficent, and that which has power to work evil. You have spoken very rightly.

‘Well, to proceed. Soul then conducts all things in heaven, and earth, and sea by her own movements, the names of which are will, consideration, attention, deliberation, opinion right or wrong, joy, sorrow, confidence, fear, hatred, affection, and all movements either akin to these or primary, which again taking with them the secondary movements of bodies lead all things to growth and decay, and separation and combination, and their attendant conditions of heat and cold, heaviness and lightness, hard and soft, white and black, bitter and sweet, and all things by use of which the soul, which is divine, taking ever with her the divine mind, conducts all things rightly and happily, but, if she allies herself with folly, works all the contrary effects to these. Are we to assume that these things are so, or have we still a doubt whether they may not be otherwise?

‘By no means.

‘Which kind then of soul, are we to say, rules over heaven and earth and their whole circuit? That which is full of wisdom and virtue, or that which possesses neither? Are you willing that we should answer this as follows?

‘How?

‘If on the one hand, my excellent friend, we are to say, the whole path of heaven and the course of all things therein has a nature similar to the movement and revolution and reasonings of mind, and proceeds in a manner akin thereto, we must evidently say, that the best kind of soul takes care of the whole world, and guides it on that best path.

‘True.

‘But if it proceeds in an insane and disorderly manner, we must say that the evil soul is guiding it.

‘This too is most true.

‘What then is the nature of the movement of mind? Now in answering this question, my friends, it is difficult to speak wisely. And for this reason it is fair that I too should help you now in the answer.

‘You say well.

‘Let us then not frame our answer as if looking straight at the sun and bringing on ourselves darkness at noonday, by supposing that we shall ever see mind with mortal eyes, and know it thoroughly. It is safer to observe the subject of our inquiry by looking upon an image of it.

‘How do you mean?

‘Of those ten kinds of motion let us take as its image that which mind resembles; and when I have helped you to remember this, I will frame our common answer.

‘You could not speak better.

‘Well then of our former discourse we remember thus much at least, that of all things we supposed some to be in motion, and some at rest.

‘Yes.

‘And again of those that were in motion we supposed some to more in one place only, and others in more than one, as they were carried along.

‘That is so.

‘Of these two motions then that whose course is always in one place must necessarily move round some centre, like the wheels on a lathe, and must be in every way as much as possible akin and similar to the revolving motion of the mind.

‘How do you mean?

‘Surely if we say that mind and the motion which goes on in one place both move according to the same conditions, and in the same manner, and in the same course, and round the same centres, and towards the same direction, and according to one law and one order, like the motions of a top, we should never be shown to be bad word-painters of beautiful images.

‘What you say is very right.

‘Well then this other motion which never proceeds in the same manner, nor according to the same conditions, nor in the same course, nor round the same centres, nor towards the same direction, nor in one place, nor in proportion, nor order, nor any law, must be akin to every kind of folly.

‘Most truly it must.

‘Now then there is no longer any difficulty in saying expressly, that since soul is that which carries all things round for us, we must of necessity affirm that the revolution of the heaven is carried on by the care and arrangement either of the best soul or of the worse.

‘But according to what has now been said, O Stranger, it would be impious to say otherwise than that soul or souls endowed with every virtue carry them round.

‘You have paid admirable attention to my arguments, Cleinias. But listen further to the following.

‘What?

‘If soul carries all things round, sun and moon and the stars too, does she not also carry round each one of them?

‘Of course.

‘Then concerning one of them let us argue in a manner which we shall find applicable to all the heavenly bodies.

‘Which one?

‘Every man sees the sun’s body, but no one sees his soul, nor yet the soul of any animal’s body, either in life or after death. There is, however, much reason to suppose that this nature of soul invests all our bodily senses though utterly imperceptible thereby to us, but is apprehended by mind alone. By mind therefore and by thought let us grasp the following notion of it.

‘What kind of notion?

‘If soul carries the sun round, we shall not be far wrong in saying that it does one of three things.

‘What three?

‘That either dwelling within this circular body that we see the soul carries it such as it is safely through in every direction, as our soul carries us about every way; or having from some external source provided herself with a body of fire or a kind of air, as some say, she forcibly drives body by body; or thirdly, being herself without a body, but endowed with certain other exceedingly wonderful powers, she so guides his course.

‘Yes.

‘This so far must be true, that soul directs all things by one or other of these operations.’

These then are the statements of our philosopher in the tenth Book of the Laws.But hear how he arranges the same thought in the Philebusalso:

[P] [2] ‘All the wise men say with one voice, in reality magnifying themselves, that mind is our king of heaven and earth. And perhaps they are right. But, if you please, let us conduct our examination of the general nature of mind more at length.

‘Speak in whatever way you please, Socrates, thinking nothing of length on our account, as you will not be wearisome, to us.

‘You say well. Let us then begin our further inquiries in the following manner.

‘How?

‘Whether ought we to assert, Protarchus, that all things and this so-called universe are under the guardianship of the irrational and purposeless force, and mere hap-hazard; or that, on the contrary, as those before us used to say, mind and wisdom of some marvellous kind arrange and govern them?

‘They are utterly different assertions, O noble Socrates. For the opinion which you mention seems to me to be impious. But the assertion that mind arranges them all is worthy of the aspect of the world, and of sun and moon and stars and the whole circuit of heaven, and for my part I would never speak nor even think of them otherwise.

‘Are you willing then that we also should assent to what was agreed on by those before us, that these things are so? And not merely think that we must state the opinions of others without risk to ourselves, but also share the danger and bear part of the blame, when some clever man asserts that these things are not as we say but all in disorder?

‘Of course I should be willing.

‘Come then, scan carefully the argument on this subject which now encounters us.

‘Only state it.

‘Do we discern in the constitution of the world the elements belonging to the nature of the bodies of all living things, fire and water and air and “land,” as the storm-tossed sailors say?

‘Certainly. For we are verily tossed by storms of perplexity in our present discussions.

‘Well then, concerning each of the elements existing in us, take a statement of this kind.

‘What?

‘That each of these as existing in us is small, and weak, and in no respect at all pure, and without a power worthy of its nature: and having admitted this in one, conceive the same of all. As for instance there is fire, I suppose, in us, and fire in the universe.

‘Of course.

‘Is not then the part that is in us small and weak, and mean, but that which is in the universe wonderful both in quantity and beauty, and in every kind of power that belongs to fire?

‘What you say is very true.

‘Again, is the fire of the universe generated and fed and ruled by this fire that is in us, or on the contrary is it from that fire that mine and yours and that of all other animals receives all these services?

‘This question does not even require an answer.

‘Quite right. You will say the same then, I suppose, concerning the earth that is here in the animals and that which is in the universe; and so of all the other elements about which I asked just now you will give this same answer.

‘Yes, for who would ever be thought to be in his right mind, if he answered otherwise?

‘No one probably. But now follow the next point. For when we saw all these elements now mentioned combined in one, did we not call it a body?

‘Of course.

‘Assume the same then in regard also to this which we call the world: for because of the same process it must be a body, being composed out of the same elements.

‘What you say is very right.

‘Is then our body nourished wholly from this body, or does this receive from ours its nourishment and all the further services which we just now mentioned in reference to them?

‘This is another question, Socrates, not worth asking.

‘But what of the following? Is it worth asking? Or what will you say?

‘Say what it is.

‘Shall we not say that this body of ours has a soul?

‘Of course we shall say so.

‘Whence, my dear Protarchus, did it get a soul, unless indeed the body of the universe had a soul, inasmuch as it has all things the same as our body, and in every way more beautiful?

‘Evidently from no other source, Socrates.

‘For surely we do not think, O Protarchus, that those four classes, the finite, the infinite, their compound, and cause which exists as a fourth class in all things,—that this, which in our bodies supplies a soul, and endows it with the art of exercising the body and healing it when it has fallen ill, and makes various arrangements and remedies in various parts, is to be called entire and complete wisdom; but that, though these same elements exist in the heaven as a whole, and in its great divisions, in more beauty and purity, it has not contrived to create in these the nature of all that is most beautiful and noble.

‘Nay, this would be in every way unreasonable.

‘If then this is denied, would it not be better for us, with that other argument as our guide, to say, that, as we have often said, there is in the world a vast infinity and an efficient limit, and over them a cause of no little power, ordering and arranging years, and seasons, and months, which cause is most justly called wisdom and mind?

‘Most justly indeed.

‘Wisdom however and mind could never exist without soul.

‘No indeed.

‘Will you not say then that through the power of the cause there is implanted in the nature of Zeus a kingly soul and a kingly mind: and in other gods other noble qualities, according to the names by which they like each to be called?’

[1] 624 a 1Plato, Laws,895 A

[2] 628 b 4 Plato, Philebus, 28 C

Chapter 52

[P] [1] ‘To the man who believes that there are gods, but that they take no heed of human affairs, we must speak words of encouragement. O best of men, let us say, your believing in gods is perhaps due to some divine affinity that draws you towards your kindred, to honour and believe in them. But the fortunes of evil and unjust men both in private and in public life, though not really happy, yet being in the opinions of men vehemently but unduly commended as happy, and wrongfully celebrated both in poetry and in literature of every kind, tend to draw you towards impiety.

‘Or perhaps from seeing unrighteous men at last reach old age, and leave behind them children’s children in the greatest dignities, you are now disturbed, when, after seeing them in all these conditions or after hearing or having been yourself an actual eye-witness of some of them, when many terrible impieties were committed, you see them in consequence of these very deeds attain from small beginnings to despotic powers and highest dignities: then it is evident that because of all such things, though you would riot like to blame the gods as the causes of them, because they are your kindred, yet being at the same time led astray by false reasoning and unable to be angry with the gods, you have come to this your present condition of thinking that, though they exist, they despise and disregard the affairs of men.

‘In order therefore that your present doctrine may not grow into a stronger tendency towards impiety, but that, if it be at all possible, we may be enabled to avert its progress by arguments, let us add the sequel to the argument by which at the outset we reached our conclusion against the man who did not believe in gods at all, and try now to make further use of it. And do you, O Cleinias, and you, Megillus, take turns in answering for the young man, as before. And if any difficult point arise in the arguments, I will take it from you, and carry you across the river, as I did just now.

‘You speak well: and if you do this, we to the best of our ability will do as you say.

‘But probably it will not be difficult to prove at least this, that the gods are not less careful over small matters than over those of great importance. For he was present, I suppose, and heard what we were saying just now, that being endowed with every virtue they hold the care of all things as their own peculiar right.

‘Yes, and he listened attentively.

‘Let us then examine the next point together, namely what virtue we ascribe to them, when we agree that they are good. Do we say, pray, that prudence and the possession of mind is proper to virtue, and the contrary to vice?

‘We do say so.

‘Again? That manliness is part of virtue, and cowardice of vice?

‘Yes, certainly.

‘Shall we also say that of these qualities one class is disgraceful, and the other honourable?

‘We must.

‘And of these shall we say that all the bad belong, if so be, to us, but the gods have no part either great or small in such qualities?

‘This also every one must admit.

‘Again? Shall we class carelessness, and idleness, and luxury as a virtue of the soul? How say you?

‘How could we?

‘Well then on the opposite side?

‘Yes.

‘The contraries to these therefore we must set on the other side?

‘Yes, on the other side.

‘What then? Luxurious, and careless, and idle, every one of this character would be in our opinion a man whom the poet declared to be most like to stingless drones?[2]

‘Most truly the poet spake.

‘We must not say then that god is of a character such as this, which he himself hates: nor if any one attempts to utter anything of this kind must it be allowed.

‘Surely not. How could it be allowed?

‘If then it is a man’s especial duty to manage and attend to some work, but he attends to the great and neglects the small parts of this kind of work, on what principle can we praise such a man without going altogether wrong? Let us, however, look at it thus. Does not he who acts in this way, whether god or man, act on one of two principles?

‘What two principles?

‘Either as thinking that it is of no consequence to the whole, if the small matters are neglected, or from slothfulness and luxury, if it is of consequence and he neglects them. Is there any other way inwhich negligence occurs? For of course, when it is impossible to attend to all, there will then be no negligence on the part of one who fails to attend to any matters either small or great, to which a god or any inferior person deficient in power may be unable to attend.

‘Of course not.

‘Now then to answer us three there are two, who both admit that gods exist, though one says that they may be appeased by prayer, and the other that they are careless of small matters. In the first place you both say that gods know and see and hear all things, and that of all the objects of sensation or knowledge nothing can possibly escape their notice. Do you say this is so, or how?

‘It is so.

‘Well, again? Can they do all things which are possible for mortals and immortals?

‘How can they refuse to admit that this also is true?

‘Moreover we have agreed, all five of us, that they are not only good but as good as possible.

‘Yes, certainly.

‘Is it not impossible then to admit that they do anything whatever from indolence and luxury, if they are such as we say? For in us idleness is the offspring of cowardice, and carelessness of idleness and luxury.

‘You speak most truly.

‘No god then is ever negligent from idleness and carelessness, for of course there is no cowardice in him.

‘Most true.

‘If then they neglect the small and trifling concerns of the universe, the alternative is that they must do this, either from knowing that there is no need to attend to any such things at all; or—what is the remaining alternative except that they know the contrary?

‘There is none.

‘Are we then to suppose, O excellent and best of men, that you mean to say that they are ignorant and, though they ought to attend, are negligent from ignorance, or that they know they ought, just as the worst of men are said to do, when they know that it would be better to do differently from what they really do, and do it not, because of some yielding to pleasures or pain?

‘How is it possible?

‘Do not then human affairs partake of the nature endowed with soul, and is not man himself of all animals the most religious?

‘It seems so indeed.

‘We say, however, that all mortal animals are the “possessions of the gods,” to whom also the whole heaven belongs. ‘Of course.

‘Now therefore any one may say that these things are either small or great to the gods; for in neither case can it become our owners to neglect us, being, as they are, most careful and benevolent. Besides this let us consider the following point also.

‘What point?

‘About sensation and power. Are they not naturally opposed to each other in regard to ease and difficulty?

‘How do you mean?

‘It is surely more difficult to see and to hear the small than the great; but on the other hand it is easier for any one to carry, and hold, and take care of the small and light, than the opposites.

‘Very much more.

‘If then a physician who is willing and able to cure a whole body committed to his charge, attend to the great but neglect the small parts, will the whole do well with him?

‘By no means.

‘No, nor yet with pilots, nor generals, nor stewards, nor statesmen, nor any such officials, would the many or the great things do well apart from the few or small. For as the stonemasons say, the large stones do not lie well without the small.

‘How could they?

‘Let us therefore never think that God is inferior to mortal workmen, who, the better they are themselves, finish their proper works the more exactly and perfectly, both small and great with the same skill; but that God, most wise as He is, and both willing and able to care for all, takes no care at all for those which it is easier to care for, as being small, but only of the great, just like some idle or cowardly workman giving up work because of the labour.

‘By no means, O Stranger, let us admit such a thought as this concerning gods: for our thought in that case would be by no means either pious or true.

‘It seems to me that we have now at last had quite sufficient discussion with the censorious young man about the negligence of gods.

‘Yes.

‘In forcing him at least by our arguments to confess that he was wrong in what he said. I think, however, that he is still in need of some consoling words.

‘Of what nature, my good friend?

‘Let us persuade the young man by our arguments, that all things have been arranged by the guardian of the universe with a view to the safety and excellence of the whole, and that each part thereof does and suffers its proper share according to its power. And for each of these parts there are rulers appointed over the very smallest portion of action and suffering, by whom perfection is wrought out even to the minutest subdivision.

‘And as one of these thy own portion, O bold man, small indeed though it is, ever looks and tends towards the whole. But of this very fact thou art ignorant, that all creation takes place for the sake of that whole, in order that the life of the universe may have a constant supply of happy being, created not for thy sake, but thou for the sake of that whole. For every physician and every skilful workman makes every thing for the sake of all, aiming at that which is most for the common good: each part he makes for the sake of a whole, and not a whole for the sake of a part.

‘But thou art discontented, because thou knowest not in what way that which is best for thee is expedient both for the whole and for thyself, as far as the law of your common origin admits. But since a soul combined now with one body, and now with another, is always undergoing changes of all kinds, either of itself or through some other soul, nothing is left for the player to do but to shift the pieces, moving the disposition that is growing better into a more favourable place, and that which is growing worse into the worse place, in order that each may obtain the lot appropriate to its destiny.

‘How do you mean?

‘I think I am explaining it in the way in which it would naturally be easy for the gods to take care of all. For if one were to form and to refashion all things without constantly looking to the whole, as for instance to make living water out of fire, instead of so forming many things out of one, or one out of many, that they partook of a first, or second, or third birth, the contents of the ever-changing arrangement would be infinite in multitude. But now there is wonderful facility for the guardian of the universe.

‘How do you mean again?

‘In this way. Our King saw that all actions were full of life, and that there was much virtue in them and much vice, and that soul and body had become indestructible, but not eternal, like those who are gods according to law; for if either of these two, soul and body, had perished, there would never have been any generation of living beings; he also discerned that it was the constant nature, of one part, the good in the soul, to be beneficial, and of the evil part to do harm; and when He considered all this, He contrived the place of each part so that it would render virtue victorious in the whole being, and vice overpowered, in the fullest and easiest and best manner.

‘With a view then to all this, He has arranged what quality each must be constantly acquiring, and what seat and what regions it must inhabit in its transmutations: but the causes of the production of a certain quality He left to the will of each of us. For every one of us becomes for the most part such at each time as is the tendency of his desires and the quality of his soul.

‘Naturally so.

‘All things therefore which are endowed with a soul are liable to change, as possessing the cause of change in themselves; and in changing they follow the order and law of destiny. If they make only slight changes of moral character, their changes of place are less and on the level surface of their country; but those which make more and worse changes of character are cast down into the abyss, and the so-called infernal regions, all which under the name of Hades and other similar names men greatly dread and dream about, both in life and after they are separated from their bodies. Whenever therefore a soul undergoes great changes of vice or virtue, through her own will and the strong influence of association, if in the one case from communion with divine virtue she becomes eminently virtuous, she passes into an excellent and all-holy place, being carried away to some other and better region than this; but in the contrary case, she transfers her life to places of the opposite kind.

‘ “Such the just doom the Olympian gods decree,” for you, O boy, or youth, who think the gods care nothing for you; namely, that if you are growing worse you must pass on to the worse souls, and if better to the better, and both in life and in every successive death must do and suffer what it is fitting for like to do to like.

‘Neither shall you nor any other ever boast of having got the better of the gods by escaping this doom, which is the most strictly ordained of all dooms by those who ordained it, and of which you must most carefully beware: for it will never lose sight of you. Neither will you be so little as to sink into the depth of the earth, nor so high as to fly tip into heaven; but you shall pay the fitting penalty, whether while abiding here, or after you have passed into Hades, or been carried away into some yet more savage place than these.

‘You must also take the same account of those others, those, I mean, whom you saw grown from small to great by unholy deeds or any such practices, and supposed that they had passed from misery to happiness, and thought that in their deeds, as in. a mirror, you had seen the universal carelessness of the gods, not knowing in what way their share contributes to the whole. But think you, O boldest of men, that it is of no importance to know this, without knowing which a man can never have an idea of life nor be able to join in a discussion thereon, in regard to a happy or unhappy lot.

‘If you can be persuaded of this by Cleinias here, and by all this our company of reverend seniors, that you know not what you say about the gods, God Himself will give you good help: but if you should be in need of any further argument, listen to what we say to the third opponent, if you have any sense at all.’

The meaning of this, if not the actual words, has been previously set down very briefly in the oracles of the Hebrews, the thought being comprised in few words. For the sentence, ‘You will neither be so little as to sink into the depth of the earth, nor so high as to fly up into heaven,’ must be similar to the passage in David, which runs thus:[3] ‘Whither shall I go from Thy spirit, and whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I go up into heaven, Thou art there. If I go down into Hades, Thou art there.

‘If I should take wings, and abide in the utmost parts of the sea; there also shall Thy hand lead me.’ Also this: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handy-work.’[4] And again, this in Isaiah: ‘Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who shewed all these things.’[5] Also this: ‘From the greatness and beauty of created things in like proportion is their first maker beheld.’[6] And this: ‘For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and godhead.’[7] Also this, ‘I was envious at the wicked, when I saw the prosperity of sinners,’[8] seems to me to have been paraphrased by Plato in the passage, ‘You must also take the same account of those others, those, I mean, whom you saw grown from small to great by unholy deeds, or any such practices, and supposed that they had passed from misery to happiness.’

Also all the other passages expressed like these in the words of the Hebrews anticipated the interpretation put forth at length by Plato. And so you will find, by carefully examining each of them point by point, that it agrees with the Hebrew writings. And by doctrines of the Hebrews I mean not only the oracles of Moses, but also those of all the other godly men after Moses, whether prophets or apostles of our Saviour, whose consent in doctrines must fairly render them worthy of one and the same title.

[Footnotes moved to end and numbered]

[1] 630 c 1 Plato, Laws,899 D

[2] 631 d 8 Hesiod, Works and Days,303

[3] 636 b 4 Ps. cxxxix. 7

[4] b 8 Ps. xix. 1

[5] c 2 Is. xl. 26

[6] c 4 Wisdom xiii. 5

[7] c 5 Rom. i. 20

[8] c 8 Ps. lxxiii. 3

Book 13

Preface

SINCE it has been seen in the preceding Books that the philosophy of Plato in very many points contains a translation, as it were, of Moses and the sacred writings of the Hebrews into the Greek language, I now proceed to add what is still wanting to the argument, and to go through the opinions expressed upon the several topics by those who were before me, and at the same time to free myself from a plausible charge of reproach, in case any one should accuse me. Why then, he might say, if Moses and Plato have agreed so well in their philosophy, are we to follow the doctrines not of Plato but of Moses, when we ought to do the reverse, because, in addition to the equivalence of the doctrines, the Greek author would be more congenial to us as Greeks than the Barbarian?

Being loth to make a retort to this charge from respect to the philosopher, I defer this question to a later period, and will first examine those points which I mentioned first. Take then and read what sort of opinion Plato used to put forward concerning the Greek poets and writers on religion, and how he used to reject all the traditional notions concerning the gods, and thoroughly expose their absurdity.

Chapter 1

[PLATO] [1] ‘To tell of the other divinities, and to learn their origin, is beyond our power; but we must give credence to those who have spoken in former times, who being, as they said, the offspring of gods, had certain knowledge, I suppose, of their own ancestors. It is impossible therefore to disbelieve children of the gods, even though they speak without certain or probable proofs: but as they declare that they are reporting family histories, we must in obedience to the law believe them.

‘On their authority then let the origin of these gods be admitted and stated thus. The children of Ge and Uranus (Earth and Heaven) were Oceanus and Tethys, and their children Phorcys and Kronos and Rhea and the rest of them; and of Kronos and Rhea sprang Zeus and Hera, and all whom we know as their reputed brethren, and still others who were their offspring.’

In exhorting us hereby to believe the fables concerning gods, and the authors also of the fables as being forsooth the children of gods, in the first place by saying that ‘the poets are the offspring of the gods,’ it seems to me that he scoffingly implies that the gods also had been men, and of the same nature as their children.

And next he brings a direct charge against the theologians, whom he had declared to be the offspring of gods, in the assertion which he adds, ‘even though they speak without probable or certain proofs,’ and by the addition of the words ‘as they said.’ He seems too to be jesting when he says, they ‘had certain knowledge, I suppose, of their own ancestors’; and again, ‘It is impossible to disbelieve children of the gods.’ Also he expressly shows that he speaks thus against his own judgement on account of the laws, by confessing that it was necessary ‘to believe them in obedience to the law.’

And in proof that this was his meaning, hear how in open and undisguised language he reproaches all the would-be theologians, smiting them in the Epinomiswith the following words: [2]

[1] 639 d 1 Plato, Timaeus,p. 40 D, quoted also p. 75 d 5, and p. 692 c 1

[2] 640 c 5 Ps.-Plato, Epinomis,980 C

Chapter 2

[PLATO] ‘WITH regard therefore to the origin of gods and of living beings, as it has been misrepresented by those of former times, it seems necessary for me in the first place to give a better representation in the subsequent discourse, taking up again the argument which I have undertaken against the impious.’

That he has good reason for repudiating the theology of the earliest writers, he shows in the second Book of the Republic,where it is worth while to fix the attention upon the number and nature of the statements which he makes concerning the same poets and theologians, from the traditions handed down from old times concerning the Hellenic gods, speaking in the very words that follow: [1]

[1] 641 a 1 Plato, Republic,377 C, quoted again p. 692 d 9

Chapter 3

[PLATO] ‘IN the greater fables, said I, we shall discern the lesser also: for the general character and the effect of both the greater and the less must be the same. Do you not think so? Yes, I do, said he: but I do not even understand which you call the greater. Those, said I, which Hesiod and Homer and the other poets used to tell us. For they, I suppose, used to compose and tell, and do still tell, false stories to mankind.

‘What kind of stories do you mean, said he, and what fault do you find with them?

‘The fault, said I, which before and above all we ought to reprove, especially if the falsehood is unseemly.

‘What is this fault?

‘When a man in his discourse concerning gods and heroes misrepresents their nature, as when an artist paints what is not at all like the things which he may wish to imitate.

‘Yes indeed, said he, it is right to condemn such things: but how. and what kind of faults do we mean?

‘In the first place then, said I, it was an unseemly lie that was told by the author of that greatest fiction about the greatest gods, how Uranus wrought what Hesiod says he did, and how Kronos took revenge upon him. Again, the doings of Kronos and his treatment by his son, even if they were true, ought not, I should have thought, to have been thus lightly mentioned before young and silly persons, but, best of all, to have been buried in silence; or, if there were any necessity to tell them, then as few as possible should have heard them in secret, after sacrificing no mere pig, but some great and scarce victim, so that very few might have had a chance of hearing them.

‘Yes indeed, said he, these stories are mischievous. Aye, said I, and they must not be told in our city, Adeimantus; nor must a young hearer be told, that he would be doing nothing extraordinary in committing the worst crimes, nor on the other hand in inflicting every kind of punishment upon his father if he did wrong, but would be doing what the first and greatest of the gods did.

‘Certainly not, nor in my own opinion are such stories fit to be told.

‘Nor yet, said I, about gods going to war with gods, and plotting against each other and fighting (untrue as such things are), ought anything to be said, if the future guardians of our city are to think it most disgraceful to be quarrelling lightly one with another. Far less ought we to tell them in fables and on tapestry about wars of the giants and many other quarrels of all kinds between gods and heroes and their own kinsmen and relations: but if we could in any way persuade them, that no citizen was ever at enmity with a fellow citizen, and that such a thing was unholy, these are the kind of tales that ought rather to be told to children from the first by old men and old women and by those who are growing elderly, and the poets should be compelled to make their tales like these.

‘The chaining too of Hera by her son, and the hurling of Hephaestus out of heaven by his father, when he was going to defend his mother from a beating, and all the battles of the gods that Homer has invented, must not be admitted into the city, whether they are composed with or without allegorical meanings.

‘For the youth is not able to judge what is allegory and what is not: but whatever opinions he accepts at such an age are wont to become indelible and unalterable: and on this account perhaps we ought to regard it of the highest importance, that the tales which they first hear “should be adapted in the most perfect manner to the promotion of virtue.” [1]

‘Yes, that is reasonable, said he: but if any one were to ask us again which these fictions are, and what fables we mean, which should we mention? Then said I: My dear Adeimantus, you and I are not speaking at present as poets, but as founders of a state: and founders of a state ought to know the moulds in which poets should cast their fictions, and from which they must not be permitted to deviate, nor must they invent the fables themselves.

‘Quite right, said he: but that is the very point, what would be the proper models in the case of theology?

‘Some such as the following, said I; God must of course always be represented as He really is, whether a poet describes Him in epic verse, or in lyrics, or in tragedy.

‘Yes, that must be so.

‘Is not God then really good, and to be so described?

‘Of course.

‘But surely nothing good is hurtful? Is it?

‘I think not.

‘Does then that which is not hurtful do hurt?

‘Of course not.

‘And does that which hurts not, do any evil?

‘No, again.

‘Neither can that which does no evil be the cause of any evil?

‘How could it?

‘Well then, is the good beneficial?

‘Yes.

‘It is the cause then of well-being?

‘Yes.

‘The good then is not the cause of all things, but only of what is right, and not the cause of evils.

‘Quite so, said he.

‘Neither then, said I, can God, since He is good, be the cause of all things, as the many say, but of few things that happen to men He is the cause, and of many things He is not the cause: for our good things are far fewer than the evil. And of the good we must assign no other cause than God, but of the evil we must seek the causes in other things, but not in God.

‘I think, said he, you speak most truly.

‘We must not then, said I, allow either Homer or any other poet foolishly to commit such an offence as this against the gods, and to say that

“ Two coffers lie beside the door of Zeus, With gifts for man; one good, the other ill.” [2]

‘And to whom Zeus give a mixture of the two,

“Him sometimes evil, sometimes good befalls”; [3]

‘And to whom he gives no mixture, but the ill alone,

“Him ravenous hunger o’er God’s earth pursues.” [4]

‘Nor must we admit that Zeus is to us

“The sole dispenser both of weal and woe.” [5]

‘And if any one say that the violation of oaths and treaties wrought by Pandarus was brought about by Athene and Zeus,[6] we shall not approve: nor that the strife and contest of the gods was caused by Themis and Zeus:[7] nor again must we permit our young men to hear how Aeschylus says that

“ God plants in mortal breasts the cause of sin, When He would utterly destroy a house.” [8]

‘But if any one writes a poem, in which these iambics are found, about the sorrows of Niobe, or the calamities of “Pelops’ line,” or the “tale of Troy,” or any other such events, either we must forbid him to call them the work of a god, or, if of a god, then he must invent some such explanation for them as we are now seeking, and must say that God did what was just and good, and the others were the better for being chastised. But we must not permit the poet to say that those who suffered punishment were miserable, and that this was God’s doing.

‘If, however, they would say that the wicked were miserable because they needed punishment, but were benefited by being punished by God, that we must approve.

‘But as to saying that God, who is good, becomes the author of evil to any, we must by all possible means contend that no one shall make such statements in his own city, if it is to be governed by good laws, nor any one either young or old listen to his tales whether in verse or prose, as such statements if tittered would be impious, and neither profitable to us, nor consistent with themselves.

‘I vote with you, said he, for this law, and am pleased with it.

‘This then, said I, will be one of the laws and moulds in which our speakers must speak concerning God, and our poets write, That God is not the cause of all things, but only of the good.

‘That is quite satisfactory, said he.

‘And what then of this second? Do you suppose God to be a sorcerer, and of a nature to show Himself craftily now in one form and now in another, at one time actually becoming what He seems, and changing His own proper form into various shapes, and at another deceiving us, and making us imagine such transformations in Him; or do you think that He is a simple essence, and most unlikely to go out of His own proper form?

‘I am not able, said he, to answer now off-hand.

‘Well, what do you say to this? If anything were to change from its own proper form, must it not be changed either by itself or by some other?

‘It must.

‘Are not then the things which are in the best condition least liable to be altered or moved by another? As for example when a body is affected by meats and drinks and labours, and every plant by sunshine and winds and other such influences, is it not the healthiest and the most perfect that is altered least?

‘Of course it is.

‘And would not the bravest and wisest soul be least disturbed and altered by any influence from without?

‘Yes.

‘Moreover I suppose that, on the same principle, among all manufactured things, furniture, buildings, and clothes, those that are well made and in good condition suffer the least alteration from time and other influences?

‘It is so.

‘Everything then which is well constituted either by nature or art, or both, admits the least alteration by any other?

‘So it seems.

‘But surely God, and the things of God, are in every way most excellent?

‘Of course.

‘In this way then God is most unlikely to take many shapes.

‘Most unlikely indeed.

‘But would He change and alter Himself?

‘Evidently, said he, if He is changed at all.

‘Does He then change Himself into what is better and more beautiful, or into what is worse and less beautiful than Himself?

‘It must be into what is worse than Himself, if He is changed at all: for surely we shall not say that God is imperfect in beauty or goodness.

‘You are quite right, said I. And this being so, do you think, Adeimantus, that any one, whether god or man, would willingly make himself worse in any way?

‘Impossible, said he.

‘It is also impossible then, said I, that a god should be willing to change himself, but each one of them, as it seems, being as perfect as possible in beauty and goodness, remains ever absolutely in his own form.

‘It seems to me quite certain, said he.

‘Then, my good friend, said I, let none of the poets tell us that

“ Gods, in the guise of strangers from afar, Wander in various forms from state to state.” [9]

‘Nor let any one slander Proteus and Thetis, nor introduce Hera in tragedies nor in any other poems transformed as a priestess begging alms

“For Inachus the Argive river-god’s Life-giving daughters.” [10]

‘These and many other such falsehoods let them cease to invent. Neither let our mothers be persuaded by these poets to terrify their children by the tales which they wickedly tell them, that certain gods forsooth wander about by night in the likeness of many animals of different kinds, lest they be both guilty of blasphemy against the gods, and at the same time make their children more cowardly.

‘Let them beware, said he.

‘But then, said I, do the gods, though they are not capable of actual change, make us imagine, by their deception and magic, that they appear in various forms?

‘Perhaps, said he.

‘Well then, said I, would a god be willing to lie either by word or by deed, in putting phantoms before us?

‘I do not know, said he.

‘Do you not know, said I, that the true lie, if one may so speak, is hated by all both gods and men?

‘How do you mean? said he.

‘You know, of course, said I, that no one willingly consents to lie to the highest and chiefest part of himself, and concerning matters of the highest importance, but every one fears above all to harbour a lie there.

‘No, I do not even now understand you, said he.

‘Because, said I, you think I have some grand meaning: but I only mean that to lie to the soul about realities, and to be deceived and ignorant, and to have and to hold the falsehood there, is what all men would most dislike, and what in that part of them they utterly detest.

‘Yes, utterly, said he.

‘But surely, as I was saying just now, this is what might most rightly be called “a true lie,” this ignorance in the soul of the deceived: since the lie in words is a sort of imitation of the affection in the soul, and an image produced afterwards, not at all a pure unmixed lie. Is it not so?

‘Yes, certainly.

‘The real lie then is hated not only by gods, but also by men?

‘I think so.

‘Well then? When and in what case is the lie in words useful, and so not deserving to be hated? Is it not in dealing with enemies, and when any of those who are called our friends from madness or any kind of folly attempt to do some mischief, it then becomes useful as a remedy to turn them from their purpose?

‘Also in those mythical tales of which we were speaking just now, because we know not how the truth stands about ancient events, do we not make the falsehood as much like truth as possible, and so make it useful?

‘It certainly is so, said he.

‘For which of these reasons then is falsehood useful to God? Would He lie from ignorance of ancient events by trying to make them like the truth?

‘Nay, that would be ridiculous.

‘There is nothing of the lying poet then in God?

‘I think not.

‘But would He lie through fear of His enemies?

‘Far from it.

‘Or because His friends are foolish or mad?

‘Nay, said he, no fool or madman is a friend of God.

‘There is no motive then for a god to lie?

‘There is none.

‘The nature then of gods and demi-gods is quite incapable of falsehood?

‘Yes, utterly so.

‘God then is perfectly simple and true both in deed and word, and neither changes in Himself, nor deceives others, either in apparitions, or by words, or by sending signs, either in dream or waking vision.

‘I too think it is just as you say.

‘You agree then, said I, that this is a second mould in which speech or poetry about the gods must be cast, that they neither are wizards who transform themselves nor mislead us by falsehoods either in word or in deed?

‘I do agree.

‘While therefore we commend many other things in Homer, we shall not commend this, the sending of the dream by Zeus to Agamemnon;[11] nor the passage of Aeschylus, in which Thetis says that Apollo, singing at her marriage,

“Dwelt on my happy motherhood, The life from sickness free and lengthened years; Then all-inclusively he blest my lot, Favoured of heaven, in strains that cheered my soul. And I too fondly deemed those lips divine Sacred to truth, fraught with prophetic skill; But he himself who sang, the marriage-guest Himself, who spake all this, ‘twas even he That slew my son.” [12]

‘When a poet says such things as these about gods, we shall be angry, and refuse him a chorus; neither shall we allow our teachers to use them for the education of the young, if our guardians are to grow up devout and godlike, as far as it is possible for man to be.

‘I entirely assent, said he, to these principles, and would adopt them as laws.’

Thus speaks Plato: and you would find that the Hebrew Scripture does not contain disgraceful tales about the God of the universe, nor yet about the heavenly angels around Him, nor even about the men who are beloved of God, in any like manner to the Greek theologies; but it contains the model put forth by Plato, that God is good, and all things done by Him are of the same character.

Therefore after each of the works of creation that admirable man Moses adds,[13] And God saw that it was good: and at the end of all he sums up his account of the whole and says,[14] And God saw all things that He had made, and, behold, they were very good. It is also a doctrine of the Hebrews that God is not the author of evils, inasmuch as God made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living:[15] for He created all things that they might have being, and the generative powers of the world are healthful; but by the envy of the devil death entered into the world.[16]

Wherefore by the prophet also God is introduced as saying to the man who from his own choice had become evil, Yet I had planted thee a fruitful vine: how wast thou turned back into the strange vine? [17] And if it should anywhere be said that evils happen to the wicked from God, it must be understood as an accidental coincidence of name, this name being given to the chastisements which God in His goodness is said to send not for the hurt of those who are chastised, but for their benefit and profit: just as a physician to save the sick might be thought to apply bad things in his painful and bitter remedies.

Wherefore in the sacred Scripture also, where it is said that evils are brought upon men by God, we must apply the saying of Plato, ‘that God did what was just and good,’ even when He was inflicting stern treatment and what men think evils upon those who so deserved, and that ‘they were the better for being chastised,’ not only according to the philosopher but also according to the Hebrew Scripture which says,[18] For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.

‘But we must not permit the poet to say that they who were punished were miserable, and that this was God’s doing; if, however, they would say that the wicked were miserable because they needed chastisement, but were benefited by being punished by God, that we must approve. But as to saying that God, who is good, becomes the author of evil to any, we must by all possible means contend against it.’ [19]

Moreover on the point that God is not subject to change, the Hebrew prophecy teaches as follows, speaking in the person of God: For I am the Lord your God, and I change not.[20] David also, in his description of God, cries aloud saying: They all shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou roll them up, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.[21]

Wherever the Hebrew writings introduce the Word of God as appearing in form and fashion of man, we must remark that they do not represent Him as appearing to men in the same manner as Proteus and Thetis and Hera, according to the Greek legends, nor as the gods who wander about at night in the likeness of animals of many various kinds; but He came, as Plato himself says is sometimes necessary, for the benefit of friends: ‘when through madness or some kind of folly they attempt to do mischief, then as a remedy to turn them from their purpose’ [22] the advent of God among men is useful.

Now no species of living creatures on earth is dearer to God than man, a species which is of the kindred and family of the Word of God, by whom also man was made rational in the nature of his soul; with good reason therefore they say that the heavenly Word, in His care for a living creature whom He loved, came for the healing of the whole race, which had become subject to disease and a strange kind of madness, so that they knew neither God their Father, nor the proper essence of their own spiritual nature, nor yet God’s providence which preserves the universe, but had almost come into the degenerate state of an irrational animal.

And on this account, they say, the Saviour and Physician at His advent departed not from His own proper nature, nor yet deceived those who saw Him, but preserved the truth of both natures, the invisible and the visible. For in one way He was seen as true man, and in another way He was the true Word of God, not by witchcraft nor by deluding the spectators; for even Plato thought that the divine nature was rightly free from falsehood.

‘Therefore God the Word, being perfectly simple and true both in deed and in word, neither changed Himself, nor deceived others, either by apparitions or by words, or by sending signs, either in dream or waking vision.’ [23] For all such actions He performed, as became a Physician of reasonable souls, for the salvation of the whole human race, in reality and not in mere seeming, by means of the human nature which He assumed; and thus He bestowed on all of us reconciliation and friendship with His Father through that knowledge of God and true religion which was announced by Him.

Such then are our doctrines: and with those who say otherwise ‘we shall be angry, and refuse them a chorus, neither shall we allow our teachers to use their sayings for the education of the young, if our guardians are to grow up devout and godlike,’ [24] as our philosopher also thought to be best.

[1] 642 c 1 From the translation of Davies and Vaughan.

[2] 643 b 3 Hom. Il.xxiv. 527 (Lord Derby)

[3] b 6 ibid.

[4] 530 c 1 ibid.532

[5] c 3 Cf. Hom. Il.iv. 84; xix. 224

[6] c 4 ibid. iii. 275

[7] c 6 ibid. xx. 4

[8] c 9 Aeschylus, Niobe,Fr. 160

[9] 645 b 6 Homer, Odyssey,xvii. 485

[10] c 2 Aeschylus, Xantriae,a Fragment known only from Plato’s quotation

[11] 646 d 14 Homer, Il.ii. 5 ff.

[12] 647 a 2 Aeschylus, Fragment, 266 (281)

[13] c 4 Gen. i. 10

[14] c 6 ibid i. 31

[15] c 9 Wisd. i. 13

[16] d 1 Wisdom ii. 24

[17] d 4 Jer. ii. 21

[18] 648 a 10 Heb. xii. 6; Prov. iii. 12

[19] b 2 Cf. 643 d 6

[20] b 12 Mal. iii. 6

[21] c 2 Ps. cii. 26, 27

[22] d 2 Cf. 646 b 5

[23] 649 b 1 Cf. 646 d a

[24] 649 c 3 Cf. 647 a 12

Chapter 4

[PLATO] ‘FOR though these men themselves consider Zeus the best and most righteous of the gods, yet they acknowledge that even he bound his own father Kronos, because he used wickedly to devour his sons, and that Kronos too had mutilated his own father for similar reasons; but they are angry with me because I proceed against my father for doing wrong, and so they contradict themselves in regard both to the gods and to me.

‘Is this then the reason, Euthyphron, why I am prosecuted, because when any one says such things about the gods, I am vexed at hearing them? And for this, it seems, some one will say that I commit a great sin. Now therefore if you, who know so well about such matters, agree with them, it seems that I too must of necessity agree. For what else can I say, since I myself admit that I know nothing about them? But tell me, for friendship’s sake, do you really believe that these things are so?

‘Yes, Socrates, and more wonderful things than these, of which the multitude know nothing.

‘Do you then also believe that there has really been war among the gods, and dire quarrels and battles, and many other such things, as are told by the poets, and seen in the decorations of our temples by good painters? Especially at the Great Panathenaea the robe that is carried up to the Acropolis is full of such embroideries. Are we to say that these tales are true, Euthyphron?

‘Not these alone, O Socrates; but, as I said just now, I will, if you like, relate to you many other tales concerning the gods, which, I am sure, you will be astonished to hear.’ [1]

Thus writes Plato in the Euthyphron.And Numenius explains his meaning in his book concerning The Secrets in Plato,speaking in the way following: [2]

[1] d 1 Plato, Euthyphron,5 E

[2] 650 d 1 Numenius, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 5

[NUMENIUS] ‘IF Plato, after proposing to write about the theology of the Athenians, had then been displeased with it, and accused it of containing tales of the quarrels of the gods among themselves, and of singing how some had intercourse with their children, and others devoured them, and how for these things children took vengeance upon their fathers, and brothers upon brothers, and other things of this kind,—if, I say, Plato had taken these stories and openly censured them, I think he would have afforded to the Athenians an occasion for showing their wickedness again by killing him, just as they killed Socrates.

‘But since he would not have preferred life to truthfulness, and saw that he should be able to preserve both life and truth, he gave the part of the Athenians to Euthyphron, a boastful and stupid person, and especially bad in theology, but represented Socrates in his own person, and in his peculiar style, in which he was accustomed to converse with and confute every one.’

Chapter 6

[PLATO] [1] ‘MY dear Crito, your zeal would be most valuable, if it were consistent at all with right; but if not, the greater the zeal, the more dangerous. We must consider therefore whether we ought to do this or not; for I not only am now but always have been so disposed as to yield to no other persuasion from my friends except the reason which on consideration may appear to me the best.

‘The arguments then which I used to urge aforetime, I cannot reject now, because this mischance has come upon me; but they appear to me of no less force, and I prefer and honour the same reasons as I did before: and unless we have any better to urge in my present position, be assured that I shall never agree with you, not even if the power of the multitude should try to scare us like children with more bugbears than at present, threatening bonds, and all kinds of death, and confiscations of goods.

‘What then will be the fairest way of examining the question? Should we in the first place take up again this argument which you urge, I mean that concerning men’s opinions, whether it was in every case a right statement or not, that we ought to pay attention to some opinions, and not to others? Or whether the statement was right before I was condemned to die, but now has been manifestly proved to have been urged just for the sake of arguing, while it was in reality mere jesting and trifling?

‘My own desire then is to consider with your help, Crito, whether the argument will appear to me to be in anyway altered, now that I am. in this position, or still the same; and whether we shall renounce it or act according to it. Now I think that by those who thought they were talking seriously, it was generally stated in the same manner as I stated it just now, that of the opinions which men entertain we ought to prize some highly, and not others.

‘Pray tell me, Crito, do you not think this a right statement? For you, in all human probability, are in no danger of dying to-morrow, and your judgement will not be perverted by the present mischance. Consider then: do you not think it a satisfactory statement, that we ought not to respect all the opinions that men hold, but to respect some and not others? Nor yet the opinions of all men, but those of some, and not of others? What say you? Is not this a right statement?

‘Quite right.

‘Must we not then respect the good opinions, and not the bad?

‘Yes.

‘And are not the opinions of the wise good, and those of the foolish bad?

‘Of course.

‘Come then, what again was said about such matters as these? Does a man who is learning gymnastics with serious attention give heed to the praise and blame and opinion of every man, or only of that one who may happen to be a physician or a trainer?

‘Only of that one.

‘He ought then to fear the censures and welcome the praises of that one, and not those of the many?

‘That is evident.

‘He must act then, and practise, and eat and drink in such way as may seem good to the one who is his master and understands the matter, rather than to all the others together.

‘It is so.

‘Well; and if he disobey that one, and disregard his opinion and praises, and respect those of the many who understand nothing about it, will he suffer no harm?

‘Of course he will.

‘But what is this harm? And whither does it tend, and to what part of the disobedient person?

‘Evidently to the body, for it does harm to this.

‘You are right. And, Crito, is not the case the same with the rest, not to go through them all? Moreover, in regard to what things are just and unjust, and disgraceful and honourable, and good and evil, which are the subjects of our present consultation, must we follow the opinion of the many and fear it, or that of the one, if there is a man of understanding, whom we ought to reverence and fear more than all the rest together? And if we fail to follow him we shall corrupt and ruin that part of us which, as we said, is improved by justice and degraded by injustice. Or is that part of no importance?

‘I think it is important, Socrates.

‘Well then, if we ruin that part of us, which is improved by what is healthful and damaged by what is unwholesome, by not yielding to the opinion of those who have understanding, is our life worth living when that is ruined? Now this part, I suppose, is the body, is it not?

‘Yes.

‘Is our life then worth living with a wretched and diseased body?

‘By no means.

‘But is then life tolerable for us with that part of us diseased which is damaged by injustice and improved by justice? Or do we believe that part of us, whatever it is, which is concerned with injustice and justice to be more worthless than the body?

‘By no means.

‘More precious then?

‘By far.

‘Then, my good friend, we must not care thus at all what the many will say of us, but what the man who understands about justice and injustice will say, the one man, and the very truth. So in the first place this proposal of yours is not right, when you advise that we ought to care for the opinion of the many in reference to what is just and honourable and good, and the contrary.’

The word of salvation also says: ‘Ye seek the glory which cometh from men, and the glory which cometh from the Only One ye seek not.’ [2] Wherefore we also in our conflicts for religion do rightly in not considering what the many will say of us, but what is the will of One, even the Word of God, whom having in our judgement chosen once for all, it behoves us still to honour even as we did before, and not to change, no, ‘not even if the power of the multitude should scare us like children with bugbears.’ [3] Now such were the men who bore illustrious testimony of old among the Hebrews.

[1] 651 b 1 Plato, Crito,46 B

[2] 653 b 12 Joh. v. 44

[3] c 6 Cf. 651 c 11

Chapter 7

[PLATO] [1] ‘Do we say that we must not intentionally do wrong in any way, or that we ought to do wrong in one way, and not in another? Or is it neither honourable nor good to do wrong in any way, as we have often agreed in former times, and as I was saying just now? Or have all those our former admissions been scattered to the winds in these last few days, and have we at our age, dear Crito, while holding earnest discourse with one another, been unaware so long that we are no better than children? Or is it most surely true, as we used then to say, that whether the many affirm or deny it, and whether we are to receive still harder treatment or more gentle than now, nevertheless to do wrong is in every way both evil and disgraceful to the wrong-doer? Is this what we assert or not?

‘It is.

‘We must not then do wrong in any way.

‘Surely not.

‘Not even return wrong for wrong then, as is the opinion of the many, since we must never do wrong in any way?

‘Evidently not.

‘Well, again? Ought we, Crito, to do evil or not?

‘Of course we ought not, Socrates.

‘Well then? To render evil for evil, as the many say, is that just or not just?

‘Not just.

‘For, I suppose, there is no difference between doing evil to men, and doing them wrong.

‘You say well.

‘Then we must neither do wrong in return, nor do evil to any man, whatever we may suffer from him. But take care, dear Crito, lest you may be making this admission against your real opinion. For I know that this is what very few people think or ever will think. Between those then who have adopted this opinion and those who have not there is no common purpose, but they must necessarily despise each other when they look each at the others’ intentions. Therefore do you also consider very carefully whether you share and agree with my opinion, and let us begin our deliberations from this point, that it is never right either to do wrong, or to return wrong, or when evil-entreated to retaliate by rendering evil. Or do you draw back, and not agree with my first principle? For I have long been of this opinion, and am so still. But if you have formed any other opinion, speak and explain. If, however, you abide by what you held before, listen to the next step.

‘I do abide by it, and agree with you. But say on.

‘I go on then to state the next point, or rather I ask whether a man ought to do whatever he has admitted to any one to he just, or falsely to abandon it?

‘He ought to do it.’

Compare with this the saying: ‘Render to no man evil for evil’;[2] and this: ‘Bless them that curse you: pray for them that despitefully use and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven, who maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and upon the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and on the unjust.’ [3] Also this: ‘Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we intreat’: [4] a passage which occurs in our sacred Scriptures. The Hebrew prophet also says: ‘If I rendered evil to them that rendered evil to me.’ [5] And again: ‘With them that hate peace I am for peace.’ [6]

[1] d 1 Plato, Crito,49 A

[2] 654 d 11 Rom. xii. 17

[3] d 12 Matt. v. 44, 45

[4] 655 a 3 1 Cor. iv. 12

[5] b 3 Ps. vii. 4

[6] b 4 Ps. cxx. 7

Chapter 8

[PLATO] [1] ‘BUT you used to boast then that you were not grieved if you must die, but preferred death, as you said, to banishment; now, however, you are neither ashamed of those fine sayings, nor pay any respect to us, the laws, but are attempting to destroy us; and you cire doing just what the vilest slave would do, in trying to run away contrary to the conditions and agreements on which you consented to be our citizen.

‘In the first place, therefore, answer us this very question, whether we state the truth in asserting that you have agreed to be governed according to us in deed, and not only in word; or is it untrue? What are we to say in answer to this, Crito? Must we not admit it?

‘Yes, Socrates, we must.

‘Are you not then, they would say, transgressing the covenants and agreements which you made with us, and to which you agreed under no compulsion, nor deception? Nor were you forced to decide too hastily, but for a period of seventy years you were at liberty to go away, if you were not satisfied with us, and if our agreements appeared to you unjust?

‘You did not, however, prefer either Lacedaemon or Crete, which you are always saying are well governed, nor any other state, Hellenic nor Barbarian, but you travelled away from Athens less than the lame and the blind and the cripples. So much more than other Athenians were you in love with the state, and of course with us the laws; for who would like a state without laws? And will you not now abide by your agreements? You will, if you take our advice, Socrates.’

[1] c 1Plato, Crito,p. 52 C

Chapter 9

[1] ‘FOR whoever is a corrupter of laws, would be surely thought a corrupter of young and foolish persons. Will you then flee from the well-governed states, and the best-behaved of men? And if you do this, will your life be worth living? Or will you associate with them, and feel no shame in discoursing with them,—and what arguments will you use, dear Socrates? The same as here, that virtue and justice and institutions and laws are the most precious things for mankind? And do you not think that this conduct of Socrates would be unseemly? You certainly ought to think so.

‘But you will depart from these regions, and go to Crito’s friends in Thessaly: for there forsooth is the greatest disorder and licence. And perhaps it will please them to hear from you, in what a ridiculous fashion you made your escape from the prison, having wrapped yourself in some disguise, or taken a goatskin, or something else such as runaways usually dress themselves up in, and so transformed your appearance.

‘But will there be no one to remark that, being an old man, with probably but a short time left to live, you dared to show so greedy a love of life in defiance of the highest laws? Perhaps not, if you do not annoy any one: but otherwise, you will have to listen to many things unworthy, dear Socrates, of you. So you will live by cringing to all men, and serving them; and what will you be doing but feasting in Thessaly, as if you had gone abroad to Thessaly for a dinner? And those fine discourses about justice and the other virtues, where will they be?

‘But forsooth you wish to live for the sake of your children, that you may bring them up and educate them?

‘What then? Will you take them to Thessaly and bring them up and educate them there, making aliens of them, that they may receive this further benefit from you? Or if instead of that they are brought up here, will they be better brought up and educated because you are alive though not with them? For your friends will take care of them? They will take care of them then if you are gone away to Thessaly; but if you are gone to the other world, will they not take care of them, if indeed there is any good in those who say that they are your friends? You must surely suppose they will.

‘Nay, dear Socrates, listen to us who have reared you, and value neither children, nor life, nor any thing else as of more account than justice, that when you come to the unseen world you may have all these pleas to offer in your defence to the rulers there. For it is evident that to act in this manner is neither in this life better or more just or more holy for you or any of yours, nor will it be better for you when you have arrived in the other world.

‘But now, if you go hence, you will go as one who has suffered injustice not from us, the laws, but from men. But if you go abroad in this disgraceful manner, returning injury for injury and evil for evil, transgressing your own agreements and covenants which you made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong, yourself and your friends and country and us, we shall be angry with you while you live, and in the other world our brethren, the laws in Hades, will give you no friendly reception, knowing that you have tried your best to destroy us.’

[1] 658 b 1 Crito,53 C. The Laws still speak.

Chapter 10

[1] ‘PERHAPS therefore some one will say, Are you not ashamed then, Socrates, of having pursued such a course of life, that you are now in danger of being put to death for it? But I should return a just answer to him, You are wrong in what you say, Sir, if you suppose that any man who is of the least good ought to take into account the risk of life or death, instead of looking at this point alone in his actions, whether he is doing what is just or unjust, the works of a good or a bad man.

‘For according to your argument the demi-gods who died at Troy would be good for nothing, especially the son of Thetis, who so despised danger in comparison with incurring disgrace, that though his mother, being a goddess, had spoken to him, I suppose, in this way, when he was so eager to kill Hector, O my Son, if you avenge the murder of your friend Patroclus and kill Hector, you will be killed yourself, for, said she,

“On Hector’s fate thine own will follow close.” [2]

And after hearing this he cared little for death and danger, but fearing much more to live as a coward and not avenge his friends, he exclaims:

“Would I might die this hour” [3]

after inflicting vengeance on the injurious foe, that I remain not here a laughing-stock,

“Cumbering the ground, beside the sharp-beaked ships.” [4]

‘Think you that he cared for death and danger? Thus, O men of Athens, the case stands in very truth: wherever a man has chosen his own post because he thought it best, or has been placed by a commander, there, in my judgement, he is bound to await the danger, taking no account either of death or of anything else than disgrace.

‘If therefore, O men of Athens, when the leaders whom you chose to be my commanders set me in my post at Potidaea, and Amphipolis, and at Delium, or anywhere else, I remained just like any other where they placed me and ran the risk of being killed,—how strangely should I have acted, when the god, as I thought and supposed, ordered me to live the life of a philosopher, examining myself and others, if in this case, through fear either of death or anything else whatever, I should desert my post.

‘Strange it would be indeed, and then in truth any one might justly bring me before the court, on the ground that I do not believe in the existence of gods, since I disobey the oracle, and am afraid of death, and think myself wise when I am not. For to be afraid to die, Sirs, is nothing else than to think oneself to be wise, when one is not: for it is to think that one knows, what one does not know. For no one knows about death even whether it may not be the greatest of all blessings to man; but they fear it as if they certainly knew that it is the greatest of evils. And what is this but that same disgraceful ignorance, for a man to think that he knows what he does not know?

‘But I, Sirs, perhaps on this subject also differ from most men in this; and were I to say that I am wiser than another in any respect, it would be in this, that, as I do not know enough about the state of things in Hades, so I also think that I do not know. But I do know that to do wrong and to disobey one’s superior, whether god or man, is evil and disgraceful. Those evils therefore which I know to be evil I shall always fear and shun, rather than things which, for aught I know, may really be good.

‘Therefore not even if you acquit me now, and refuse to believe Anytus, who said that either I ought not to have come into this court at all, or that, since I had come, it was impossible to avoid putting me to death, and told you that, if I should be acquitted, at once your sons would all be utterly corrupted by practising what Socrates teaches—if in answer to this you should say to me,

Socrates, we are not going to be persuaded by Anytus this time, but we acquit you, on this condition however, that you cease to spend your time in this speculation, and in philosophy; and if you be convicted of doing so any more, you will be put to death;—if then, as I said, you were to acquit me on these conditions, I should say to you, O men of Athens, I honour and I love you, but I shall obey the god rather than you, and as long as I have breath and power, I shall never cease from studying philosophy, and exhorting and instructing any of you whom I may meet from time to time, in my usual style of discourse.’

And a little further on he adds: [5]

‘Let us then consider it also in this way, that there is much reason to hope that death is a good. For the state of the dead is one of two things: either it is like non-existence and absence of all sensation in the dead, or, as is commonly said, it is a sort of transference and migration of the soul from this region to another. And if there is no sensation, but as it were a sleep in which the sleeper sees nothing even in a dream, death must be a wonderful gain.

‘For I suppose, that if a man were obliged to select the night in which he slept so soundly as to see nothing even in a dream, and to compare all the other nights and days of his life with this night,—if, I say, he were obliged to consider and tell us how many days and nights in the course of his life he had passed more happily and more pleasantly than this night, I think that not merely any ordinary person but even the great King himself would find these better nights very few in comparison with all the rest of his days and nights. If therefore death is something of this kind, I call it a gain: for thus all time appears nothing more than a single night.

‘But if on the other hand death is like a departure hence to another place, and if what is said is true, that all the dead exist there, what greater good could there be than this, O my judges? For if on arriving in Hades, after having been delivered from the self-styled judges here, a man shall find the true judges, who are said to give judgement there, Minos, and Rhadamanthus, and Aeacus, and Triptolemus, and all the other demi-gods who were just in their own lives, will the change of abode be worth nothing?

‘Or on the contrary, what would any of you pay to associate with Orpheus, and Musaeus, and Hesiod, and Homer? For my part I am willing to die many a death, if indeed these things are true, since I too should find it a delightful occupation there, whenever I met with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and any other of the ancients who has died through an unjust judgement, to compare my own sufferings with theirs,—no unpleasant thing, methinks it would he. And moreover the chief delight would be to spend my life in examining and scrutinizing the dwellers in that world, as I do those here, to learn which of them is wise, and which, though he thinks so, is not.’

We also have the saying: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ [6] And: ‘Be not afraid of them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.’ [7] And we know, ‘that if the earthly house of our bodily frame be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens’:[8] … and that ‘whilst we are absent from the body we are at home with the Lord,’ [9] who also hath promised to all who have hoped in Him, that they shall rest in the bosoms of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and, in company with all the other Hebrew prophets and righteous men beloved of God, shall pass the long eternity in a blessed life.

[1] 659 d 1 Plato, Apology of Socrates,28 B

[2] 660 a 7 Hom. Il.xviii. 96

[3] b 1 ibid. 98

[4] b 4 ibid. 104

[5] 661 c 5 Plato, Apology of Socrates,40 C

[6] 662 c 7 Acts v. 29

[7] c 8 Matt. x. 28

[8] c 9 2 Cor. v. 1

[9] d 1 ibid. 8

Chapter 11

[1] ‘OF those then who have been killed in war, shall we not say in the first place that any one who died an honourable death was of the golden race?

‘Most certainly.

‘But when any of such a race as this have died, shall we not believe Hesiod, that:

“These still on earth as holy daemons dwell, Brave guardians of mankind from every ill”?

‘Yes, we shall believe him.

‘Shall we then inquire of the god how we ought to class daemons and deities, and with what difference, and place them thus in whatever way he may direct?

‘Of course we shall.

‘And for all time to come, believing them to have become daemons, we shall so serve and worship their tombs; and these same customs we shall observe, when from old age or any other cause any one dies of those who have been judged pre-eminently good in life? ‘

These customs also may fitly be adopted on the death of those beloved of God, whom you would not do wrong in calling soldiers of the true religion. Hence comes also our custom of visiting their tombs, and offering our prayers beside them, and honouring their blessed souls, believing that we do this with good reason.

But in truth though I have made these selections out of the writings of Plato, any other student might find still more points of agreement with our doctrines in the same author, and perhaps in others also. Since, however, others before us have touched upon the same subject, I think it would be right for me to look at the results of their work also. And I will quote first the words of the Hebrew philosopher Aristobulus, which are as follows: [2]

[1] 663 a 1 Plato, Republic,468 E

[2] 663 d 2 Aristobulus, cf. p. 411 A

Chapter 12

[ARISTOBULUS] ‘IT is evident that Plato closely followed our legislation, and has carefully studied the several precepts contained in it. For others before Demetrius Phalereus, and prior to the supremacy of Alexander and the Persians, have translated both the narrative of the exodus of the Hebrews our fellow countrymen from Egypt, and the fame of all that had happened to them, and the conquest of the land, and the exposition of the whole Law; so that it is manifest that many things have been borrowed by the aforesaid philosopher, for he is very learned: as also Pythagoras transferred many of our precepts and inserted them in his own system of doctrines.

‘But the entire translation of all the contents of our law was made in the time of the king surnamed Philadelphus, thy ancestor, who brought greater zeal to the work, which was managed by Demetrius Phalereus.’

Then, after interposing some remarks, he further says:

‘For we must understand the voice of God not as words spoken, but as construction of works, just as Moses in the Law has spoken of the whole creation of the world as words of God. For he constantly says of each work, “And God said, and it was so.”

‘Now it seems to me that he has been very carefully followed in all by Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato, who said that they heard the voice of God, when they were contemplating the arrangement of the universe so accurately made and indissolubly combined by God. Moreover, Orpheus, in verses taken from his writings in the Sacred Legend,thus sets forth the doctrine that all things are governed by divine power, and that they have had a beginning, and that God is over all. And this is what he says: [1]

“I speak to those who lawfully may hear: Depart, and close the doors, all ye profane, Who hate the ordinances of the just, The law divine announced to all mankind. But thou, Musaeus, child of the bright Moon, Lend me thine ear; for I have truths to tell. Let not the former fancies of thy mind Amerce thee of the dear and blessed life. Look to the word divine, keep close to that, And guide thereby the deep thoughts of thine heart. Walk wisely in the way, and look to none, Save to the immortal Framer of the world: For thus of Him an ancient story speaks: One, perfect in Himself, all else by Him Made perfect: ever present in His works, By mortal eyes unseen, by mind alone Discerned. It is not He that out of good Makes evil to spring up for mortal men. Both love and hatred wait upon His steps, And war and pestilence, and sorrow and tears: For there is none but He. All other things ‘Twere easy to behold, could’st thou but first Behold Himself here present upon earth. The footsteps and the mighty hand of God Whene’er I see, I’ll show them thee, my son: But Him I cannot see, so dense a cloud In tenfold darkness wraps our feeble sight. Him in His power no mortal could behold, Save one, a scion of Chaldaean race: For he was skilled to mark the sun’s bright path, And how in even circle round the earth The starry sphere on its own axis turns, And winds their chariot guide o’er sea and sky; And showed where fire’s bright flame its strength displayed. But God Himself, high above heaven unmoved, Sits on His golden throne, and plants His feet On the broad earth; His right hand He extends O’er Ocean’s farthest bound; the eternal hills Tremble in their deep heart, nor can endure His mighty power. And still above the heavens Alone He sits, and governs all on earth, Himself first cause, and means, and end of all. So men of old, so tells the Nile-born sage, Taught by the twofold tablet of God’s law; Nor otherwise dare I of Him to speak: In heart and limbs I tremble at the thought, How He from heaven all things in order rules. Draw near in thought, my son; but guard thy tongue With care, and store this doctrine in thine heart.”

Aratus also speaks of the same subject thus: [2]

“From Zeus begin the song, nor ever leave His name unsung, whose godhead fills all streets, All thronging marts of men, the boundless sea And all its ports: whose aid all mortals need; For we his offspring are; and kindly he Reveals to man good omens of success, Stirs him to labour by the hope of food, Tells when the land best suits the grazing ox, Or when the plough; when favouring seasons bid Plant the young tree, and sow the various seed.”

‘It is clearly shown, I think, that all things are pervaded by the power of God: and this I have properly represented by taking away the name of Zeus which runs through the poems; for it is to God that their thought is sent up, and for that reason I have so expressed it. These quotations, therefore, which I have brought forward are not inappropriate to the questions before us.

‘For all the philosophers agree, that we ought to hold pious opinions concerning God, and to this especially our system gives excellent exhortation; and the whole constitution of our law is arranged with reference to piety, and justice, and temperance, and all things else that are truly good.’

To this, after an interval, he adds what follows: [3]

‘With this it is closely connected, that God the Creator of the whole world, has also given us the seventh day as a rest, because for all men life is full of troubles: which day indeed might naturally be called the first birth of light, whereby all things are beheld.

‘The same thought might also be metaphorically applied in the case of wisdom, for from it all light proceeds. And it has been said by some who were of the Peripatetic School that wisdom is in place of a beacon-light, for by following it constantly men will be rendered free from trouble through their whole life.

‘But more clearly and more beautifully one of our forefathers, Solomon, said that it has existed before heaven and earth;[4] which indeed agrees with what has been said above. But what is clearly stated by the Law, that God rested on the seventh day, means not, as some suppose, that God henceforth ceases to do anything, but it refers to the fact that, after He has brought the arrangement of His works to completion, He has arranged them thus for all time.

‘For it points out that in six days He made the heaven and the earth and all things that are therein, to distinguish the times, and predict the order in which one thing comes before another: for after arranging their order, He keeps them so, and makes no change. He has also plainly declared that the seventh day is ordained for us by the Law, to be a sign of that which is our seventh faculty, namely reason, whereby we have knowledge of things human and divine.

‘Also the whole world of living creatures, and of all plants that grow, revolves in sevens. And its name “Sabbath” is interpreted as meaning “rest.”

‘Homer also and Hesiod declare, what they have borrowed from our books, that it is a holy day; Hesiod in the following words: [5]

“The first, the fourth, the seventh a holy day.”

‘And again he says:

‘’And on the seventh again the sun shines bright.”

‘Homer too speaks as follows:

“ And soon the seventh returned, a holy day.”

‘And again:

“ It was the seventh day, and all was done.”

‘Again:

“ And on the seventh dawn the baleful stream Of Acheron we left.”

‘By which he means, that after the soul’s forgetfulness and vice have been left, the things it chose before are abandoned on the true seventh which is reason, and we receive the knowledge of truth, as we have said before.

‘Linus too speaks thus:

“All things are finished on the seventh dawn.”

‘And again:

“Good is the seventh day, and seventh birth.”

‘And:

“Among the prime, and perfect is the seventh.”

‘And:

“Seven orbs created in the starlit sky Shine in their courses through revolving years.”’

Such then are the statements of Aristobulus. And what Clement has said on the same subject, you may learn from the following: [6]

[1] 664 d 1 Orphic Fragment,ii (Hermann)

[2] 666 b 3 Aratus, Phaenomena, 1

[3] 667 a 4 Aristobulus

[4] b5 Prov. viii. 23, 27

[5] d 7 Hesiod, Works and Days,770. The verses that follow are all spurious

[6] 668 d 1 Clement of Alexandria, Miscellany,v. 14, p. 699 Potter

Chapter 13

[CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA] ‘BUT we must add the further evidence, and show now more clearly the plagiarism of the Greeks from the Barbarian philosophy. For the Stoics say that God, as also the soul of course, is in essence body and spirit. All this you will find directly stated in their writings. For I do not wish you now to consider whether their allegorical interpretations, as the Gnostic verity delivers them, show one thing and mean another, like clever wrestlers. But what they say is that God extends through all being, while we call Him simply the Creator, and Creator by a word.

Now they were misled by what is said in Wisdom: “Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by virtue of her purity”:[1] since they did not understand that this is said of that wisdom which was the first-created of God. Yes, say they; but the philosophers, Stoics as well as Plato and Pythagoras and even Aristotle the Peripatetic, suppose matter to be one of the first principles, and do not assume one only principle.

‘Let them know, then, that the so-called matter, which is said by them to be without quality or shape, has been previously described more boldly by Plato as “Not-being”; and is it perchance from knowing that the real and true first cause is one, that he speaks so mysteriously in the Timaeusin these very words?

[2] ‘Now therefore let my position be stated as follows: “Of the first principle or principles of all things, or in whatever way it is thought right to describe them, I must not speak at present, for no other reason than this, that it is difficult to explain my opinions according to our present form of discourse.”

‘And, besides, that prophetic expression, “The earth was invisible and without order,” [3] has given them suggestions of a material essence. In fact, the interposition of “chance” occurred to Epicurus from having misunderstood the language of the following passage: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” [4] To Aristotle it occurred to bring Providence down only so far as to the moon, from this Psalm: “ Thy mercy, O LORD, is in the heaven, and Thy truth reacheth unto the clouds.” [5] For before the coming of the Lord the meaning of the prophetic mysteries was not as yet revealed.

‘Again the chastisements after death and the punishment by fire were stolen from our Barbarian philosophy both by every Muse of poetry and even by the Greek philosophy. Plato, for instance, in the last Book of the Republicsays in. express terms: “Hereupon certain fierce men of fiery aspect, who were standing by and understood the sound, seized and led away some of them separately; But Aridaeus and the rest they bound hand and foot and head together, and threw them down, and flayed them, and dragged them along the road outside, carding them like wool on thorns.” [6] For his “fiery men” are meant to indicate angels, who seize the unrighteous and punish them. “ Who maketh,” says the Scripture, “ His angels spirits, and His ministers a flaming fire.” [7]

‘Now it follows upon this that the soul is immortal. For that which is undergoing punishment or correction being in a state of sensation, must be living, though it be said to suffer. Again, does not Plato know also rivers of fire, and the deep of the earth, called by the Barbarians Gehenna, which he calls poetically Tartarus, and introduces Cocytus, and Acheron, and Phlegethon, and names of this kind, as places of punishment for correctional training? And representing, according to the Scripture, the angels of the least of the little ones which behold the face of God,[8] and also His supervision extended to us through the angels set over us, he does not hesitate to write:

‘”After all the souls have chosen their lives, according to their lot, they went forward in order to Lachesis, and she sent with each the genius of his choice, to be the guardian of his life, and the fulfiller of his chosen destiny.” [9]

‘Perhaps also something of this kind was intimated to Socrates by his daemon.

‘Nay more, the philosophers borrowed, from Moses their doctrine that the world was created, and Plato has said expressly:

‘ “ Was it that the world had no beginning of creation, or has it been created at first from some beginning? For it is visible, and tangible, and has a body.” [10]

‘And again, when he says: “To find therefore the Maker and Father of this universe is a hard task,” [11] he not only shows that the world has been generated, but also indicates that it was generated from Him, as from one alone, and sprang up out of non-existence. The Stoics also suppose that the world has been created.

‘The devil too, so often mentioned by the Barbarian philosophy, the prince of the daemons, is described by Plato, in the tenth Book of the Laws,as being a malignant soul, in the following words: [12] “As then a soul directs and inhabits all things that move in every direction, must we not say that it also directs the heaven?

‘ “ Of course.

‘ “One soul or more? More, I will answer for both of you. Less than two surely we must not suppose, one that does good, and the other that has power to work evil.”

‘In like manner also he writes in the Phaedrusthus: [13] “There are indeed other evils, but with most of them some daemon has mingled an immediate pleasure.” And further in the tenth Book of the Lawsbe directly expresses that thought of the Apostle: “Our wrestling is not against blood and flesh, … but against the spiritual powers of the hosts in heaven,” [14] when he writes thus:

‘ “ For since we agreed among ourselves that the heaven is full of many goods, and full also of evils, and of more evils than goods, such a conflict as this, we say, is immortal, and requires wonderful caution.” [15]

‘Again, the Barbarian philosophy knows one intelligible world, and another sensible, the one an archetype, and the other an image of that fair model; and the former it ascribes to unity, as being perceptible to thought only, but the sensible to the number six: for among the Pythagoreans six is called marriage, as being a generative number. And in the unity it sets an invisible heaven, and a holy earth, and intelligible light. For “In the beginning,” says the Scripture, “God created the heaven and the earth: and the earth was invisible.” [16] Then it adds, “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” [17] But in the creation of the sensible world He framed a solid heaven (and what is solid is sensible), and a visible earth, and a light that is seen. Do you not think that from this passage Plato was led to leave the “ideas” of living things in the intelligible world, and to create the sensible forms according to the various kinds of that intelligible world?

‘With good reason, therefore, Moses says that the body was formed of earth, what Plato calls “an earthly tabernacle,” but that the reasonable soul was breathed by God from, on high into man’s face: for they say that the ruling faculty is seated in this part, and interpret thus the accessory entrance of the soul through the organs of sense in the first-formed man; for which reason also man, they say, is made “after the image and likeness of God.” [18]

‘For the image of God is the divine and royal Word, the impassible man; and an image of that image is the human mind. But if you will admit another name for the growing likeness, you will find it called in Moses a following of God: for he says, “Walk after the LORD your God, … and keep His commandments.” [19] And all the virtuous are, I suppose, followers and servants of God.

‘Hence the Stoics have said that the end of philosophy is to live according to the guidance of nature, while Plato says it is to become like God, as we showed in the second Miscellany; and Zeno the Stoic having received it from Plato, and he from the Barbarian philosophy, says that all good men are friends one of another. For in the PhaedrusSocrates says that “Fate has not ordained that the wicked should be a friend to the wicked; nor the good fail to be a friend to the good.” [20]

‘This he also fully showed in the Lysis, [21] that friendship can never be preserved amid injustice and wickedness. The Athenian Stranger too says in like manner, “That it is conduct pleasing to God and like Him, and has one ancient saying in its favour, when ‘like loves like’ if it be in measure, but things beyond measure agree neither with things beyond nor with things within measure. And God must be to us the measure of all things.” [22]

‘Then lower down Plato adds again:

‘ “ For indeed every good man is like every other good man, and consequently being also like God, he is beloved both by every good man and by God.” Arrived at this point, I am reminded of the following passage, for at the end of the Timaeushe says that “one should assimilate that which perceives to that which is perceived, according to its original nature, and by thus assimilating them attain the end of that life which is proposed by the gods to men as the best both for the present time and for that which is to follow.” [23]

And after a few sentences he adds: [24]

‘That we are brethren as belonging to one God and one teacher, Plato evidently declares in the following terms:

“ For ye in the city are all brothers, as we shall say to them in telling the fable; but God, in forming as many of you as are fit to rule, mixed gold in their composition, wherefore they are the most to be honoured: and for all the auxiliaries silver, but iron and copper for the husbandmen and other operatives.” [25]

‘Whence, he says, it has necessarily come to pass that some embrace and love those things which are objects of knowledge, and others those which are matters of opinion. For perhaps he is prophesying of that elect nature which desires knowledge; unless in assuming three natures he, as some supposed, is describing three forms of polity, that of the Jews silver, that of the Greeks the third, and that of the Christians in whom there has been infused the royal gold, the Holy Spirit.

‘Also he exhibits the Christian life when writing word for word in the Theaetetus: [26]

‘’Let us speak then of the leaders; for why should one talk about those who spend their time to no good purpose in philosophy? But these leaders, I suppose, neither know the way to the Agora, nor where the court of justice is, or the council-chamber, or any other public assembly of the State; and laws, and decrees whether read or written, they neither see nor hear. The strivings of political clubs, and meetings, to obtain offices, and revellings with flute-girls are practices which do not occur to them even in dreams. And what has happened well or ill in the city, or what evil has come to any one from his ancestors, is less known to them than, as the proverb says, the number of gallons in the sea. As to all these things he knows not even that he does not know them: for in fact it is his body only that has its place and home in the city, but the man himself ‘is flying,’ as Pindar says,’underneath the earth’ [27] and above the heaven, studying the stars, and scrutinizing every nature on all sides.”

‘Again, with the Lord’s saying, “Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay,” [28] we must compare this: “But it is by no means right for me to admit a falsehood, and to suppress a truth.” [29] Also with the prohibition of swearing agrees this saying in the tenth Book of the Laws: “Let there be no praising nor swearing about anything.” [30] And to speak generally, Pythagoras and Socrates and Plato, when they say that they hear God’s voice, while carefully contemplating the constitution of the universe as made by God and held together without interruption, must have heard Moses say, in describing the word of God as a deed, “He spake, and it was done.” [31]

‘Also taking their stand upon the formation of the man out of dust, the philosophers on every occasion proclaim that the body is of earth, and Homer does not shrink from putting it in the light of a curse:

“ But may all ye to earth and water turn.” [32]

Just as Esaias says: “ And tread them down as clay.” [33]

‘Callimachus too writes expressly:

“ It was that year in which the winged tribe And they that swim the sea or tread the earth Spake like the clay Prometheus called to life.” [34]

‘And again the same poet said:

“ If thou wast fashioned by Prometheus’ hand, And not of other clay.” [35]

‘Hesiod also says of Pandora:

“ Renowned Hephaestus bade he with all speed Mix earth with water, and therein infuse The voice and mind of man.” [36]

‘Now as the Stoics define nature as an artistic fire which proceeds systematically to generation; [37] so by the Scripture God and His Word are represented figuratively by fire and light. Again, is not Homer also alluding to the separation of the water from the land, and the clear discovery of the dry land, when he says of Tethys and Oceanus:

“ For now have they long time From love and from the marriage-bed abstained “? [38]

‘Again, the most learned among the Greeks ascribe to God power in all things: thus Epicharmus, who was a Pythagorean, says:

“ Nothing e’er from God escapeth; this behoves thee well to know; He o’erlooks us closely; nothing is to God impossible.” [39]

‘The lyric poet too:

“ From thickest darkness of the night God can call forth the purest light, Or with dark clouds at will o’erlay The brightness of the orient day.” [40]

‘He who alone can turn the present day into night, the poet says, is God.

‘Aratus also, in the book entitled Phaenomena,after saying:

“ From Zeus begin the song, nor ever leave His name unsung, whose godhead fills all streets, All thronging marts of men, the boundless sea, And all its ports; whose aid all mortals need,” [41]

‘adds:

“For we his offspring are,”

as it were by creation,

… “and kindly he Reveals to man good omens of success. In heaven he set those guiding lights, and marked Their several course; and for the year he wove The circlet of the stars, to show to man What best the seasons suit, that all things set In order due may grow. Him ever first, Him last our prayers invoke. Hail, Father, hail! Wonder and joy and blessing of mankind.”

‘Also before him Homer, in the account of the shield made by Hephaestus, describes the creation of the world in accordance with Moses, saying:

“Thereon were figured earth, and sky, and sea, And all the signs that crown the vault of heaven.” [42]

‘For the Zeus who is celebrated in all poems and prose compositions, carries up our thought to God.

‘Then, further, Democritus writes that some few of mankind are in the light, so to say, [43] “who lift up their hands to that place which we Greeks now call the air, and mythically speak of all as Zeus; and he knows all things, and gives and takes away, and he is king of all.” With deeper mystery the Boeotian Pindar, as being a Pythagorean, teaches:

“ One race of men and one of gods, Both from one mother draw our breath,” [44]

that is, from matter: he teaches also that the Creator of this world is one, whom he calls,

“ Father, of all artificers the best,” [45]

who has also provided the means of advancement to divinity according to merit.

‘For I say nothing as to Plato, how he plainly appears in the Epistle to Erastus and Coriscus to set forth Father and Son somehow from the Hebrew Scriptures, when he exhorts them in these words [46] “to invoke both with a graceful earnestness, and with the culture which is akin to such earnestness, the God who is the cause of all, and also to invoke the Father and Lord of Him who is ruler and cause, whom (says he) ye shall know, if ye study philosophy aright.”

‘Also Zeus in his harangue in the Timaeuscalls the Creator Father, in these words: [47]

“Ye gods and sons of gods, whose Father I am, and Creator of the works.” So that also when he says, [48] “Around the King of all are all things, and for His sake they all are, and that is the cause of all things beautiful; and around a Second are the secondary things, and around a Third the tertiary,” I understand it in no other way than that the Holy Trinity is signified. For I think that the Holy Spirit is the third, and the Son the second, “by whom all things were made” according to the will of the Father.

‘The same author, in the tenth Book of the Republic,[49] mentions Er, the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth, who is Zoroaster. At least Zoroaster himself writes, “Zoroaster the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth, having been slain in war, writes down here all things which when in Hades I learned from the gods.” Now Plato says that this Zoroaster when laid upon the funeral pile on the twelfth day after death came to life again. Perhaps he alludes not to the resurrection, but to the circumstance that the way for souls to their reception above is through the twelve signs of the Zodiac, and Plato himself says that their way of return to birth is the same. In this way we must understand also that the labours of Hercules were said to be twelve, after which the soul obtains its release from this world entirely. Empedocles also I do not pass over, who mentions the restitution of all things in merely physical language, saying that there will at some time be a change into the essence of fire.

‘And most plainly is Heracleitus of Ephesus of this opinion, who maintained that there is one world eternal, and another that perishes, namely, the world in its orderly arrangement, which he knew to be no other than a certain condition of the former. But that he knew the world, which consisting of all being is eternally of a certain quality, to be eternal, he makes evident in speaking thus: [50]

“ The world which is the same for all was made neither by any god nor man, but always was, and is, and shall be, an everliving fire, kindled in measure, and in measure extinguished.”

‘His doctrine was that the world was created and perishable, as is shown by what he adds: “The transmutations of fire are first sea, and of sea one half becomes earth and the other half lightning.” [51] For virtually he says, that by God the Word, who administers the universe, fire is changed through air into moisture, the seed as it were of the cosmical arrangement; and this moisture he calls sea.[52] And out of this again heaven and earth arise, and all things therein contained.

‘How the world is again taken back into the primitive essence, and destroyed by fire, he clearly shows in these words: “ The sea is spread abroad, and is measured to the same proportion as it was before it became earth.” In like manner concerning the other elements the same is to be understood.

‘Doctrines similar to this are taught also by the most celebrated of the Stoics in their discussions concerning a conflagration and re-arrangement of the world’s order, and concerning both the world and man in their proper quality, and the continuance of our souls. Again, Plato in the seventh Book of the Republichas called our day here a “ darkness visible,” [53] because, I suppose, of the world-rulers of this darkness; and the soul’s entrance into the body he has called “sleep” and “death,” in the same manner as Heracleitus.[54] And is this, perhaps, what the Holy Spirit, speaking by David, foretold concerning our Saviour: “ I laid me down and slept: I awaked, for the LORD will sustain me.” [55] For he figuratively calls not only the Resurrection of Christ an awaking from sleep, but also the Lord’s coming down into flesh a sleep.

‘For instance, the same Saviour gives the exhortation “Watch,” as much as to say, study to live, and try to keep the soul independent of the body. Also in the tenth Book of the Republic,Plato speaks prophetically of the Lord’s day in these words:

“But when those in the meadow had each been there seven days, they were obliged on the eighth to arise thence and proceed on their journey, and arrive on the fourth day.” [56]

‘By the meadow, therefore, we must understand the fixed sphere, as a quiet and pleasant place, and an abode of the saints; and by the seven days, each motion of the seven planets, and the whole effective device which speeds them to their final rest. The journey after passing the planets leads to heaven, that is to the eighth motion and eighth day; and when he says that the souls are four days on the journey, he indicates their passage through the four elements.

‘Moreover, the Greeks as well as the Hebrews recognize the holiness of the seventh day, by which the cycle of the whole world of animals and plants is regulated. Hesiod, for instance, speaks of it thus:

“The first, the fourth, the seventh a holy day.”

‘And again:

“And on the seventh again the sun shines bright.”

‘Homer too:

“ And soon the seventh returned, a holy day.”

‘And again:

“The seventh day was holy.” [57]

‘And again:

“ It was the seventh day, and all was done.”

‘And again:

“And on the seventh day the baleful stream Of Acheron we left.”

‘Moreover, the poet Callimachus writes:

“All things were finished on the seventh dawn.”

‘And again:

“ Good is the seventh day, and seventh birth.”

‘And:

“ Among the prime, and perfect is the seventh.”

‘Also:

“ Seven orbs created in the starlit sky Shine in their courses through revolving years.”

‘The Elegiesof Solon also make the seventh day very divine. [58]

‘And again: Is it not like the Scripture, which says, [59] “Let us take away from us the righteous man, because he is of disservice to us,” when Plato, all but foretelling the dispensation of salvation, speaks thus in the second Book of the Republic:”In these circumstances the just man will be scourged, fettered, both eyes torn out; and at last, after suffering every kind of torture, he will be crucified “? [60] Antisthenes too, the Socratic, paraphrases that prophetic Scripture, “To whom did ye liken Me? saith the LORD,” when he says that “God is like to none, wherefore no man can come to know Him from an image.” [61] The like thoughts Xenophon the Athenian expresses in these words: “ That He who moves all things, and is Himself at rest, is a great and mighty Being, is manifest: but what He is in form, is unknown. Neither, indeed, does the sun, which appears to shine on all, seem to allow himself to be seen: but if any one gazes impudently upon him, he is deprived of sight.” [62] The Sibyl had said before:

“What flesh can e’er behold with mortal eyes The immortal God, who dwells above the skies? Or who of mortal birth can stand and gaze With eyes unshrinking on the sun’s fierce rays?” [63]

‘Rightly, therefore, does also Xenophanes of Colophon, when teaching that God is one and incorporeal, add this:

“ One God there is, supreme o’er gods and men, Not like in form to mortals, nor in mind.” [64]

‘And again:

“ But mortals fondly deem that gods are born, Have voice, and form, and raiment like their own.” [65]

‘And again:

“If then the ox and lion had but hands To paint and model works of art, like man, The ox would give his god an oxlike shape, The horse a figure like his own would frame, And each would deify his kindred form.” [66]

‘Again, then, let us listen to Bacchylides, the lyric poet, when he says concerning the divine nature:

“ No taint of foul disease can them assail, No bane annoy, unlike in all to man.” [67]

‘Hear also Cleanthes, the Stoic, who has written as follows in a certain poem concerning the Deity:

“Askest thou what good is? List then to me. Good is well ordered, holy, just, devout, Self-mastering, useful, honourable, right, Grave, self-dependent, ever full of help, Unmoved by fear, by sorrow, and by pain, Beneficent, well pleasing, friendly, safe, Of good report, acknowledged, and esteemed, Free from vainglory, careful, gentle, strong, Deliberate, blameless, during to the end.” [68]

‘The same author, tacitly accusing the idolatry of the multitude, adds this:

“Poor slave is he who to opinion looks, In hope, forsooth, some honour thence to gain.” [69]

‘We must not, therefore, any longer think of the divine nature according to the opinion of the multitude: for, as Amphion says in the Antiope:

“Never can I believe that secretly, Disguised in fashion of some wicked knave, Zeus visited thy bed in human form.” [70]

‘But Sophocles writes in straightforward language:

“ For this man’s mother was by Zeus espoused, Not in a shower of gold, nor in disguise Of feathered swan, as when he pregnant made Fair Leda, but complete in manly form.” [71]

‘Then farther down he added:

“Swiftly then the adulterer Upon the bridal chamber’s threshold stood.” [72]

‘After which he still more openly describes the incontinence of Zeus as represented in the fable, in the following manner:

“Then he nor feast, nor lustral water touched, But hastened to the couch, with heart deep stung By lust, and wantoned there that whole night through.” [73]

‘Let these things, however, he left to the follies of the theatres. Heracleitus expressly says: “Men are found incapable of understanding the reason of what is right on each occasion, both before they have heard it, and on hearing it for the first time.”

‘And Melanippides, the lyric poet, sings thus:

“ Hear me, O Father, man’s delight, Thou ruler of the undying soul.” [74]

‘Parmenides too, “the Great,” as Plato calls him in the Sophist,[75] writes in the following manner concerning the Deity:

“ Many the proofs that show The Deity knows neither birth nor death, Sole of His kind, complete, immovable.” [76]

‘Moreover, Hesiod says that He is

“Sole king and lord of all the immortal gods, With whom no other may in power contend.” [77]

‘Nay, further, Tragedy also draws us away from the idols, and teaches us to look up to heaven. For as Hecataeus, who composed the Histories,says in the passage concerning Abraham and the Egyptians, Sophocles openly cries out upon the stage:

“There is in truth One God, and One alone, Who made the lofty heavens, and wide-spread earth, The sea’s blue wave, and might of warring winds. But we poor mortals with deceived heart, Seeking some solace for our many woes, Raised images of gods in stone or bronze, Or figures Wrought of gold or ivory; And when we crowned their sacrifice, and held High festival, we thought this piety.” [78]

‘Euripides, too, says in his tragedy upon the same stage:

“Seest thou this boundless ether spread on high, With watery arms embracing all the earth? Call this thy Zeus, deem this thine only god.” [79]

‘In the drama of Pirithousalso the same tragic poet speaks as follows:

“ Thee we sing, the Self-begotten, Who all nature dost embrace, And mid yon bright ether guidest In her everlasting race. Day and dusky night returning Deck for Thee heaven’s wide expanse: Myriad stars for ever burning Weave round Thee their mystic dance.” [80]

‘For here he speaks of the Creative mind as “ the Self-begotten,” and all things that follow are ranked with the cosmos, in which also are the alternations of light and darkness.

Aeschylus also, the son of Euphorion, speaks very solemnly of God:

“ Zeus is the bright pure ether, Zeus the earth, The heaven, the universe, and all above.” [81]

‘I know that Plato adds his testimony to Heracleitus when he writes: “ One, the only wise, wills not to be described, and wills to be named Zeus.” [82] And again, “law is obedience to the will of one.” [83] Also if you should wish to trace back the meaning of the saying, “ He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” [84] you would find it explained by the Ephesian thus: “ Those who hear without understanding are like deaf persons: the proverb witnesses of them that though present they are absent.” [85]

‘But you wish perhaps to hear from the Greeks an express statement of one first cause? Timaeus the Locrian, in his treatise on Nature,will testify for me word for word: “There is one beginning of all things, which is unoriginate: for if it had an origin, it would be no longer a beginning, but that from which it originated would be the beginning.” [86] For this opinion, which is true, flowed from the passage, “ Hear, O Israel, the LORD thy God is One, and Him only shalt thou serve.” [87]

“Lo! He is clear to all, from error free,” [88]

as says the Sibyl.

‘Also Xenocrates, the Chalcedonian, by naming “ the High and Nether” Zeus,[89] admits an indication of Father and Son. And the strangest thing of all is, that the Deity seems to be known to Homer, who represents the gods as subject to human passions, yet even so does not gain the respect of Epicurus. Homer says at least:

“Achilles, why with active feet pursue, Thou mortal, me Immortal? Knowest thou not My Godhead? “ [90]

‘For he has made it clear that the deity cannot be apprehended by a mortal, nor perceived by feet, or hands, or eyes, or by the body at all. “To whom have ye likened the Lord? Or to what likeness have ye compared Him?” [91] says the Scripture. “ Is He an image that a workman made, or did a goldsmith melt gold and spread it over Him? “ and the rest.

‘The Comic poet Epicharmus also, in his Republic,speaks evidently of the Word (Reason) in this manner:

“ Greatest need hath man of Reason and of number in life’s ways; For in them is our salvation, and by them we mortals live.” [92]

Then he adds expressly: [93]

“Reason is man’s guide, to govern and preserve him in the way.”

Then:

“ Mortal men have use of Reason; Reason also is divine: Reason is the gift of nature for man’s life and sustenance. Reason man’s divine attendant guideth him in all his arts: Reason is his sole instructor, teaching what is best to do. Art is not of man’s invention, but a gift that comes from God, Man’s own reason is the offspring of that Reason all-divine.”

‘Moreover, the Spirit had cried by the mouth of Esaias, “ What is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt-offerings [of rams], and in the fat of lambs and blood of bulls [and of he-goats] I have no delight”; [94] and added soon after, “ Wash you, make you clean, put away your iniquities from your souls.” [95] So Menander, the Comic poet, writes what answers to this in these very words:

“For whosoever brings a sacrifice Of countless bulls or kids, O Pamphilus, Or aught like these, who works of art designs, Vestments of gold or purple, life-like forms Graven in emerald or ivory, And hopes thereby God’s favour may be Won He strangely errs, and hath a dullard’s mind. Man’s duty is to help his brother man, Nor simple maid nor wedded wife betray. Nor steal nor murder for foul lucre’s sake. Then covet not, dear friend, a needle’s thread, For God is ever near to watch thy deeds.” [96]

‘” I am a God at hand, and not a God far off. Shall man do aught in secret places, and I not see him?” [97] So God speaks by Jeremiah. And again Menander, paraphrasing that Scripture, “Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD,” [98] writes in this way:

“Then, dearest friend, Ne’er covet even a pin that is not thine; For God in works of righteousness delights, And thine own life permits thee to enrich, Ploughing the land and toiling night and day. Then be thou ever just, and worship God With heart as pure as is thy festal robe. And if the thunder roll, flee not, my lord, For conscious of no guilt thou need’st not fear: Since God is watching o’er thee nigh at hand.” [99]

“Whilst thou art yet speaking, I will say, Behold, here I am,” [100] saith the Scripture.

‘Diphilus again, the Comic poet, discourses of the Judgement somewhat as follows: [101]

“Thinkest thou then, Niceratus, the dead, Who in this life all luxury enjoyed, Escaped from God lie hidden from His sight? There is an eye of Justice that sees all, And even in Hades we believe there are Two paths of destiny, one for the just, The other for the ungodly. If men say The earth shall hide them both alike for ever, Go rob, and steal, all right and wrong confound: Be not deceived; in Hades judgement waits, Which God will execute, the Lord of all, Whose Name so terrible I dare not speak. He to the sinners length of days accords; [102] But if a mortal thinks, that day by day He can do evil, and escape the gods, In this his wicked thought, though Justice lag With tardy foot, he shall be caught at last. [103] All ye who think there is no God, beware! There is, there is: let then the wicked man Cease to do ill, and so redeem the time: Else his just doom he shall at last receive.”

‘With this the tragedy also agrees in these words:

[104] “There comes in after days, there comes a time, When you bright golden ether shall pour forth Her store of fire, until the well-fed flame All things in heaven and earth shall fiercely burn.”

And again soon after it adds:

“And then when all creation is dissolved, The sea’s last wave shall die upon the shore, The bald earth stript of trees, the burning air No winged thing shall bear upon its breast; When all is lost then all shall be restored.”

The like thoughts we shall find also expressed in the Orphic poems, as follows:

“He hides them all, then from his heart again With anxious care brings all to gladsome light.” [105]

And if we live a just and holy life throughout, happy are we here, and happier after our departure hence, enjoying blessedness not merely for a time, but enabled to find rest in eternity.

“Sharing with all the gods one hearth, one feast, And free from human sorrows, toil, and death.”

So says the philosophic poetry of Empedocles. There is none so great, even in the opinion of the Greeks, as to be above the judgement, nor so small as to be hidden from it. ‘The same Orpheus says also this:

“ Look to the word divine, keep close to that, And guide thereby the deep thoughts of thine heart. Walk wisely in the way; and look to none Save to the immortal Framer of the world.” [106]

And again concerning God, calling Him invisible, he says that He was made known only to one certain person, a Chaldaean by birth, whether he so speaks of Abraham, or of his son, in the following words:

“Save one, a scion of Chaldaean race: For he was skilled to mark the sun’s bright path, And how in even circle round the earth The starry sphere on its own axis turns, And winds their chariot guide o’er sea and sky.” [107]

‘Then, as it were paraphrasing the Scripture, “ Heaven is my throne, and earth the footstool of my feet,” [108] he adds:

“But God Himself high above heav’n, unmoved, Sits on His golden throne; and plants His feet On the broad earth; His right hand He extends O’er Ocean’s farthest bound; the eternal hills Tremble in their deep heart, nor can endure His mighty power. And still above the heavens Alone He sits, and governs all on earth. Himself first cause, and means, and end of all. Not otherwise dare I to speak of Him: In heart and limbs I tremble at the thought, How He from heav’n all things in order rules,” [109]

and the lines that follow these. For herein he has plainly set forth all those prophetic sayings: “Whosoever shall rend the heaven, trembling shall seize him: and from Thee the. mountains shall melt away, as wax melteth from the presence of fire.” [110] Also what is said by the mouth of Esaias: “Who measured the heaven with a span, and all the earth with his fist?” [111]

‘Again, when he says:

“Lord of the heavens, of Hades, land, and sea, Whose thunders shake Olympus’ strong-built dome, Whom daemons shuddering flee, and all the gods Do fear, and Fates implacable obey. Eternal Mother and eternal Sire, Whose anger shakes the universal frame, Awakes the stormy wind, veils all with clouds, And rends with sudden flash the expanse of heav’n. At Thy command the stars their changeless course In order run. Before Thy fiery throne Angels unwearied stand; whose only care Is to perform Thy gracious will for man. Thine is the Spring new-decked with purple buds, The winter Thine, with chilling clouds o’ercast, And autumn with its merry vintage Thine.” [112]

‘Then, expressly calling God the Almighty, he adds:

“ Come, then, thou deathless and Immortal Power, Whose name none but Immortals can express. Mightiest of Gods, whose will is strong as Fate, Dreadful art Thou, resistless in Thy might, Deathless, and with etherial glory crowned.” [113]

So then by the word μητροπάτωρ he not only indicated the creation out of nothing, but gave occasion perhaps to those who introduce the doctrine of emissions to imagine also a consort of God. And he paraphrases the prophetic Scriptures, both that which was spoken by Hosea (Amos): “ Lo! I am he that formeth the thunder and createth the wind, whose hands founded the host of heaven”:[114] and that which was spoken by Moses: “ See, see, that it is I, and there is no other god but me. I will kill, and I will make to live: I will wound, and I will heal: and there is none that shall deliver out of my hand.” [115]

“ ‘Tis He that out of good for mortals brings Evil and cruel war,” [116]

according to Orpheus.

‘Such also is the saying of Archilochus of Pares:

“Zeus, Father Zeus, the realm of heav’n is thine, But knavish and unholy deeds of men Scape not thine eye.” [117]

‘Let Thracian Orpheus again sing for us thus:

“His right hand He extends O’er Ocean’s farthest bound; and plants His feet On the broad earth.” [118]

These thoughts are manifestly taken from that passage, “The Lord shall shake inhabited cities, and take the whole world in His hand, as a nest”;[119] “The LORD who made the earth by His power,” as Jeremiah says, “ and established the world by His wisdom.” [120]

‘Moreover in addition to this Phocylides, calling the angels daemons, shows in the following words that some of them are good and some bad, as we also have been taught that some are apostate:

“ But daemons different in kind o’er men At various times preside; some to protect Mankind from coming evils.” [121]

‘Well therefore does Philemon also, the Comic poet, exterminate idolatry by these words:

“ Fortune is no divinity for us, No goddess; only that which of itself Happens by chance to each is fortune called.” [122]

‘Sophocles too, the Tragedian, says:

“Not even the gods have all things at their will, Save Zeus, the final and first cause of all.” [123]

‘Orpheus also says:

“ One power, one god, one vast and flaming heav’n, One universal frame, wherein revolve All things which here we see, fire, water, earth,” [124]

and the lines that follow.

‘Pindar too, the Lyric poet, breaks out as it were in transport, saying expressly:

“ What then is God? The All.” [125]

‘And again:

“ God, who for mortals all things makes, (Gives also grace to song).” [126]

‘Also when he says:

“Why hope in wisdom to excel Thy brother man? It is not well For mortals here on earth With minds of human birth The counsels of the gods to scan.” [127]

He has drawn his thought from the passage: “ Who hath known the mind of the LORD? Or who hath been His counsellor?” [128]

‘Moreover Hesiod agrees with what has been said above in writing thus:

“Of men on earth no prophet so inspired Can know the mind of aegis-bearing Zeus.” [129]

With good reason, therefore, does the Athenian Solon himself follow Hesiod, when he writes:

“The Immortals’ mind is all unknown to men.” [130]

‘Again, as Moses had foretold that the woman because of the transgression should bring forth children to pain and sorrow, a certain poet of no little distinction writes:

“ Never by day from labour and distress By night from groaning shall they cease; so hard The cares and troubles which the gods shall give.” [131]

‘Moreover Homer shows that God is just, when he says:

“The Eternal Father hung His golden scales aloft.” [132]

And Menander, the Comic poet, interprets God’s, goodness, when he says:

“ By every man from moment of his birth A friendly genius stands, life’s mystic guide. No evil daemon he (forbid the thought!), With power malign to mar thy happy lot.” [133]

And then he adds:

“ Ἅπαντα δ' ἀγαθὸν εἶναι τὸν Θεόν,”

meaning either “that every god is good,” or, what is the truer meaning, “ that in all things God is good.”

‘Again, Aeschylus, the Tragic poet, in setting forth the power of God does not hesitate to call Him the Most High in the following passage:

“Set God apart from mortals in thy thought, Nor deem that, like thyself, He too is flesh. Thou know’st. Him not: as fire He now appears. A mighty force, now water, now dark storm. Again in likeness of the beasts He comes, Of wind, or lightning, thunder, cloud, or rain. The seas, and sea-girt rocks, the springing wells, The gathering floods, obey His sovereign will. The pillars of the earth, the vast abyss Of Ocean, and the mountain-tops do shake, If the dread Master’s eye but look on them: So glorious is the power of God Most High.” [134]

Does it not seem to you that he is paraphrasing that passage: “ At the presence of the LORD the earth trembles.” [135]

‘Besides this, the chief prophet Apollo is compelled, in testimony to the glory of God, to say of Athena, when the Medes were marching against Greece, that she entreated and supplicated Zeus for Attica. And the oracle is as follows:

“Pallas with many words and counsel wise May pray, but ne’er appease Olympian Zeus. For he to the consuming fire will give The shrines of many gods, who now perchance Stand bathed in chilling sweat, and shake with fear,” [136]

and so forth.

[CLEMENT] ‘Thearidas, in his book On Nature,writes, “The first cause of things that exist, the real and true cause, is one. For that is in the beginning one and alone.” [137]

“There is none other save the mighty King,” [138]

as Orpheus says. And with him the Comic poet Diphilus agrees in a very sententious manner, when he says:

“Him never cease to honour and adore, Father of all, sole source of every good.” [139]

‘With good reason, therefore, Plato trains “the noblest natures to attain that learning which in the former part of our discussion we declared to be the highest, both to discern the good and to make the great ascent.” [140] “This then, as it seems, would be no mere turning of an oyster-shell, but the conversion of a soul passing from a kind ‘of darkness visible’ to the true upward path of being, which we shall call true philosophy”;[141] and those who have partaken thereof he judges to belong to the golden race, when he says, “Ye are doubtless all brethren”;[142] but those who are of the golden race can judge most accurately, and in every way… [143]

‘Instinctively, therefore, and without teaching, all things derive from all a conception of the Father and Maker of all, things inanimate by suffering with the animal creation, and of living beings those which are already immortal by working in the light of day, and of those still mortal some (perceive Him) in fear while carried by their mother in the womb, but others by independent reasoning. And of mankind both Greeks and Barbarians all have this conception; and nowhere is there any race either of husbandmen or of shepherds, nay not even of the dwellers in cities, who can live without being prepossessed by the belief in that higher power. Wherefore every nation of the east, and every one that touches the western shores, the northern also, and all upon the south, have one and the same presentiment of Him who established the government of the world, inasmuch as the most universal of His operations have pervaded all things alike.

‘Much more did the inquisitive philosophers among the Greeks, by an impulse from the Barbarian philosophy, ascribe the pre-eminence to the One invisible most mighty and most skilful chief cause of all things most beautiful, without understanding the consequences of this, unless they were instructed by us, nay, not even understanding how God Himself is naturally to be conceived, but only, as we have said many times already, in a true but indirect way.’

So far Clement. But since the Philosophy of Plato was shown by us at some length to be in very many things in agreement with the doctrines of the Hebrews (for which we admire the man’s wisdom and his candour also in regard to the truth), it is time to consider what the points are in which, as we say, we are no longer so favourably disposed towards him, but prefer that which is accounted the Barbarian philosophy to his.

[1] 669 a 1 Wisdom vii. 24

[2] b 4 Plato, Timaeus,48 C

[3] b 9 Gen. i. 2

[4] c 4 Eccles. i. 2

[5] c 6 Ps. (xxxv) xxxvi. 5

[6] d 3 Plato, Republic,615E

[7] d 9 Ps. (ciii) civ. 4

[8] 670 a 9 Matt, xviii. 10

[9] b 3 Plato, Republic,620 D

[10] b 1 Plato, Timaeus,28 B

[11] c 2 ibid. 28 C

[12] d 1 Plato, Laws,896 D

[13] d 7 Plato, Phaedrus,240 A

[14] d 10 Eph. vi. 12

[15] 671 a 1 Plato, Laws, 906 A

[16] b 3 Gen. i. 1

[17] b 4 ibid. 3

[18] c 7 Cf. Gen. i. 26

[19] d 3 Deut. xiii. 4

[20] 672 a 1 Plato, Phaedrus,255 B

[21] a 4 Plato, Lysis,214 C

[22] a 6 Laws, 716 C

[23] b 4 Plato, Timaeus,90 D

[24] b 10 Clement of Alexandria, Miscellany,v. 14, p. 706 Potter

[25] b 12 Plato, Republic,415 A

[26] d 7 Theaetetus,173 C

[27] 673 a 8 Pindar, Fr.(226), 123

[28] b 2 Matt. v. 37

[29] b 3 Theaetetus,151 D

[30] b 6 Laws,917 C

[31] c 2 Ps. (xxxii) xxxiii. 9

[32] c 8 Hom. Il.vii. 99

[33] c 9 Isa. x. 6

[34] 673 d 2 Callimachus, Fr.87

[35] d 6 ibid. 133

[36] d 9 Hesiod, Works and Days,60

[37] 674 a 1 Diog. Laertius, vii. 156

[38] a 7 Hom.Il.xiv. 206

[39] b 1 Epicharmus, Fr.297 (Mullach, i. p. 146)

[40] b 4 Pindar, Fr.106 (3)

[41] c 1 Aratus, Phaenomena,1

[42] 675 a 1 Hom. Il.xviii. 483 (Lord Derby’s translation)

[43] a 6 Cf. Clem. Al. Protrept.c. vi. p. 59 Potter

[44] b 2 Pindar, Nem.vi. 1

[45] b 6 Paean. Fr.vi

[46] b 12 Pseudo-Plato, Epistle,vi. 323 C

[47] 675 c 5 Timaeus,41 A

[48] c 6 Pseudo-Plato, Epistle,ii. 312 E

[49] d 4 Plato, Republic,614 B

[50] 676 b 8 Heracleitus, Fr.27 (Mullach)

[51] c 2 Heracleitus, Fr.28 (Mullach)

[52] c 7 ibid. Fr.29

[53] d 8 Plato, Republic,521 C; Eph. vi. 12

[54] d 10 Plato, Phaedo,95 D

[55] d 12 Ps. iii. 5

[56] 677 a 8 Plato, Republic,616 B

[57] 677 d See p. 667 d

[58] 678 a 6 Solon Fr.xiv. (Hermann, Poet. Min. Gr.iii. 139)

[59] b 1 Wisdom ii. 12

[60] b 4 Plato, Republic,361 E; see notes on p. 583 d

[61] b 8 Isa. xl. 25

[62] c 2 Xenophon, Memorabilia,iv. iii. 13, 14

[63] c 8 Sibylline Oracles, Fr.i. 10-13

[64] d 5 Xenophanes, Fr.i. i (Mullach)

[65] d 8 ibid. Fr.v

[66] 679 a 3 ibid. Fr.vi

[67] b 4 Bacchylides, Fr.60.(Kenyon)

[68] 679 b 8 Cleanthes, Fr.1. 45 (Mullach, i. p. 152)

[69] d 3 ibid. 1. 54

[70] d 8 Euripides, Antiope, Fr.6

[71] 680 a 2 Sophocles, Fr.708

[72] b 1 ibid.

[73] b 5 Heracleitus, Fr.ii; Aristotle, Rhetoric,iii. 5, 6

[74] b 9 Melanippides, Fr.8 (Bergk), Parnell’s Greek Lyric Poetry,p. 275

[75] c 1 Plato, Sophist,237 A

[76] c 3 Parmenides, Fr.i. 59 (Mullach)

[77] c 7 Hesiod, Fr.53 (Gaisf.), 152 (Göttling)

[78] d 5 Pseudo-Sophocles, Fr. 18,in Müller, Fr. Hist. Gr.,tom. ii

[79] 681 a 3 Euripides, Fragment quoted by Lucian, Jupiter Trag.,c. 41

[80] a 8 Euripides, Pirithous, Fr.ii.

[81] 681 b 9 Aeschylus, Fr. Incert.295

[82] c 3 Heracleitus, Fr.12 (Mullach)

[83] c 4 ibid. Fr.56 (Mullach)

[84] c 6 Luke viii. 8

[85] c 7 Heracleitus, Fr.4 (Mullach)

[86] d 2 Cf. Plato, Phaedrus,245 D

[87] d 6 Deut. vi. 4, 13

[88] d 8 Sibylline Oracle’s, Fr. i(Rzach, p. 234)

[89] d 10 Xenocrates, Fr.2 (Mullach, iii. p. 114) Cf. Comus, l. 20.

[90] 682 a 5 Hom. Il.xxii. 8 (Lord Derby’s translation)

[91] b 1 Is. xl. 18

[92] b 7 Epicharmus, Republic

[93] c 3 Cf. Plato, Republic,vii. 522: the following fragments of Epicharmus seem to be otherwise unknown

[94] d 4 Is. 1. 11

[95] d 7 ibid. 16

[96] d 10 Pseudo-Menander (Meineke, p. 306)

[97] 683 b 3 Jer. xxiii. 23, 24

[98] 683 b 5 Ps. iv. 5

[99] b 8 Pseudo-Menander (Meineke, p. 308)

[100] d 1 Is. Iviii. 9

[101] d 5 Pseudo-Philemon (Meineke, p. 865)

[102] 684 a 7 Euripides, Phrixus,Fr. viii; cf. Valckenär, Aristobulus,c. i.

[103] b 3 Cf. Valckenär, ibid.

[104] b 8 Pseudo-Justin, De Monarchia,c. iii.

[105] d 3 Orph. Fr.123 (Abel), vi (Hermann); Stob. Ecl.I. ii. 23

[106] 685 a 5 Orph. Fr.ii. 6; cf. 664 d 6

[107] b 6 ibid. 23

[108] c 4 Is. lxvi. i

[109] c 6 Orph. Fr.ii. 29

[110] 686 a 5 Is. lxiv. 1

[111] b 1 ibid. xl. 12

[112] b 4 Orphic Fr.iii. 1

[113] d 5 ibid. iii. 14

[114] 687 a 5 Amos iv. 13

[115] a 7 Deut. xxxii. 39 Cf. Hos. xiii. 4

[116] b 1 Orphic Fr.i. 11

[117] b 5 Archilochus, Fr.xvii

[118] b 9 Orphic Fr.i 19

[119] c 2 Is. x, 14

[120] c 4 Jer. x. 12

[121] d 3 Phocylides, Fr.i. 19 (cf. ii. 31)

[122] d 8 Philemon, Fr.xlviii

[123] 688 a 1 Fragment otherwise unknown

[124] 688 a 4 Orph. Fr.vi. 16 (Hermann)

[125] b 3 Pindar, Fr.104 (Boeckh)

[126] b 5 ibid Fr.105

[127] b 8 ibid. Fr.33

[128] b 14 Is. xl. 13

[129] c 3 Hesiod, Fr.iii (Gaisford)

[130] c 7 Solon, Fr. x

[131] d 4 Hesiod, Works and Days,174-176

[132] d 8 Homer, Il.viii. 689

[133] 680 a 1 Menander, Fr.18

[134] b 1 Ps.-Aeschylus, Fr.in Ps.-Justin, De Monarchia,c. ii

[135] c 6 Ps. cxiv. 7

[136] c 11 Herodotus, vii. 141; cf. 218 d 5

[137] 690 a 2 Thearidas, On Nature,a work otherwise unknown

[138] a 5 Orph. Fr.i. 13

[139] a 8 Diphilus, Fr.52

[140] b 1 Plato, Republic,519 C

[141] b 4 ibid. 521C

[142] b 8 ibid. 415 A

[143] b 10 The Greek text is defective here

Chapter 14

THE oracles of the Hebrews containing prophecies and responses of a divine power beyond that of man, and claiming God as their author, and confirming their promise by the prediction of things to come, and by the results corresponding to the prophecies, are said to be free from all erroneous thought. For instance, ‘the words of God are declared to be pure words, and silver tried in the fire, tested by earth, purified seven times.’ [1]

But not such are the words of Plato, nor yet of any other of the wise among men, who with the eyes of mortal thought and with feeble guesses and comparisons, as in a dream, and not awake, attained to a notion of the nature of all things, but superadded to the truth of nature a large admixture of falsehood, so that one can find in them no learning free from error.

Now, for example, if you would suppress a little of this self-admiration, and contemplate the true light itself by the faculty of reason, you would perceive that even that wonderful philosopher, who alone of all the Greeks touched the threshold of truth, dishonours the name of the gods by applying it to perishable matter and carved images fashioned by mechanic hands into a human shape; and after the lofty height of his magniloquence, wherein he contended that he knew the Father and Maker of this universe, is thrust down from his place on high among the supramundane circles, and sinks with the common people of Athens into the lowest depth of their God-detested idolatry; so that he does not shrink from saying that Socrates had gone down to the Peiraeus to pray to the goddess, and to see his fellow citizens then for the first time celebrating their barbarous festival; acknowledging also that he had enjoined the offering of a cock to Aesculapius, and regarded as a god the ancestral prophet of the Greeks, the daemon who sits enshrined at Delphi.

Wherefore also the blame of the superstitious delusion of the unphilosophical multitude might with good reason be ascribed to him. Take up again for instance his discourse a little farther back, and after his incorporeal and imperishable ‘ideas,’ and after a first god and a second cause, and after intelligent and immortal essences, observe what kind of laws the all-wise philosopher would enact concerning the belief of the common people, speaking thus: [2]

[PLATO] ‘To tell of the other divinities and to learn their origin is beyond us; but we must give credence to those who have spoken in former times, who being, as they said, the offspring of gods, had, I suppose, a clear knowledge of their own ancestors. It is impossible therefore to disbelieve children of the gods, even though they speak without certain or probable proofs: but as they assert that they are reporting family histories, we must in obedience to the law believe them.

‘On their authority then let the origin of these gods be as follows and so stated. The children of Earth and Heaven were Oceanus and Tethys; and their children Phorcys and Kronos and Rhea, and all the others with them: and of Kronos and Rhea came Zeus and Hera, and all whom we know as their reputed brethren, and still others who were their offspring.’

For these reasons then we must give up the great philosopher, as having misrepresented the fabulous theogonies of the poets, not like a philosopher, nor in a self-consistent manner. For you had the opportunity of hearing himself speak in the Republicas follows: [3]

‘In the greater fables, said I, we shall also discern the less: for there must be the same type, and the same tendency in both the greater and the less: do you not think so?

‘Yes, I do, said he: but I do not even understand which you call the greater.

‘Those, said I, which Hesiod and Homer and the other poets told us: for they, I suppose, were the composers of fictitious tales, which they told and still tell to mankind’; meaning the stories which we have quoted a little above.

Again there was that passage of his in which he said, [4]

‘We shall begin then, said I, with the following verse, and strike out it and all that are like it:

“ Fain would I serve some master in the field,” [5]

and the rest; also the passage wherein he adds: [6]

‘Once more then we shall entreat Homer and the other poets not to represent Achilles, the son of a goddess,

“ Now turning on his side, and now again Upon his back,” [7]

and the rest that follows. To this he adds: [8]

‘Or to say that Zeus, while all the other gods and men were asleep, and he alone awake, lightly forgot all the plans he had devised, through the eagerness of desire, and was so smitten at sight of Hera that he would not even wait to go into his chamber, but wished to lie with her there on the ground like a lark, and said that he was possessed by a stronger passion than even when they first used to meet “without the knowledge of their dear parents.” [9] Nor shall we admit the tale of Ares and Aphrodite being bound by Hephaestus for acts of the same kind!’

And then after having told these tales in such a manner, what does he mean in the saying which comes after, by calling the poets ‘children of the gods,’ [10] and asserting that ‘to disbelieve them is impossible,’ although he protested that they had invented the fictitious stories about the gods ‘without necessary or probable proofs’?

And what is the meaning of this unreasonable belief, put forward in fear of punishment from the laws? And how can Uranus and Ge be first of the gods, then their offspring Oceanus and Tethys, and after all these Kronos, and Rhea, and Zeus, and Hera, and all their sons and brothers and descendants mentioned in fables by Homer and Hesiod, when he was refuting these very stories by speaking thus: [11]

‘The fault, said I, which we ought to reprove before all and above all, especially if a man lies in unseemly fashion.

‘What fault is that?

‘When a man in his discourse concerning gods and heroes misrepresents their nature, just as when an artist paints what is not at all like the things which he may wish to imitate.’

And again: [12]

‘In the first place, said I, it was no seemly lie that was told by the author of that greatest lie about the greatest gods, how Uranus wrought what Hesiod says he did, [13] and how Kronos took revenge upon him,’ and what follows this.

But how could the same poets who are here called false and untruthful be spoken of on the other hand as offspring of the gods? However, for these reasons we must abandon this philosopher, as having through fear of death played false with the Athenian democracy: but must honour Moses, and the Hebrew oracles, as everywhere shining out from the one true religion that is free from error. Look then at another point.

[1] 691 c 6 Ps. xli. 6

[2] 692 c 1 Plato, Timaeus,40 D; cf. 75 d, 639 d

[3] d 10 Plato, Republic,377 C

[4] 693 a 8 ibid. 386 C

[5] a 10 Hom. Od.xi. 488

[6] b 2 Plato, Republic,388 A

[7] b 4 Hom. Il.xxiv. 10

[8] b 7 Plato, ibid. 390 B

[9] 693 c 5 Hom. Il.xiv. 291

[10] c 10 Plato, Timaeus,40 D

[11] d 11 ibid. Republic,377 D

[12] 694 a 3 ibid. 377 E

[13] a 5 Hesiod, Theogony,154, 178

Chapter 15

THE Hebrews say that the intermediate nature of rational beings is generated and not without beginning. And in their account they distinguish this nature into intelligent beings whom they call spirits, and powers, and God’s ministering angels and archangels: and from their fall and transgression they derive the race of daemons, and the whole species of the adverse and wicked agency.

For which reason they forbid us to regard as gods those who are not possessed of virtue and goodness as inseparable from their nature, but have received their very existence not from themselves but from the Cause of all, and also acquire their well-being, and their virtue, and their immortality itself not in the same manner as either He who is God over all, or He by whom all things were made.

But Plato although, like the Hebrews, he supposes the rational natures to be incorporeal and intelligible essences, yet falls away from consistency, by first asserting that they, as well as every soul, are unoriginated, and then saying that they were formed out of an effluence of the First Cause. For he does not mean to admit that they have arisen out of nothing.

Wherefore also he supposes that there is a numerous race of gods, assuming in his argument certain effluences and emissions of the First and Second Causes: and that they are in nature good and in no way capable of departing from their proper virtue, whence also he supposes them to be gods.

But the tribe of daemons he believes to be different from these, as being capable of baseness and wickedness, and change for the worse: and some of these are called, and are, good and some evil. But while he thus makes these suppositions contrary to the Hebrew doctrines, he does not explain from what source it may reasonably be said that the daemons arose.

For that they arose from the matter of the corporeal elements no one in his senses would assert: for this matter is irrational, but rational things can never be born of an irrational, and the daemons are rational. If, however, these come from an effluence of the greater gods, how then are they not themselves gods as much as those who have begotten them? And how if the source is good are the things which flow from it not like it? And whence in these latter did a shoot of wickedness grow up, if the root comes originally from good and passes through good? Of how can bitter come from the sweet?

If then the race of the wicked daemons is worse than any darkness and any bitterness, how can it be said to come from an effluence of the nature of the better powers? If it was from this, it would not have turned aside from its proper lot: and if it has been changed, then it was not at first impassible in its nature: and if it was not such, how then could they be gods who are capable of participating in an evil destiny?

If, however, they were neither from the effluence of the better powers, nor yet from the matter of the corporeal elements, we must now either say that they were unoriginated, and must set over against God in addition to the unoriginated matter of the corporeal elements a third group of unoriginated rational beings, thus no longer representing God as being the Maker of all, and Framer of the Universe, or, if we admit this, we must also admit that He made the non-existent, according to the statements of the Hebrews,

For what do these teach on this subject? They say that the intermediate nature of rational beings arose neither from the matter of the corporeal elements, nor from an effluence of the essence which is unbegotten and ever remains in the same mode and relations; but that having no previous existence it has come into being by the effective power of the Cause of all.

And thus they are no gods, nor have been properly dignified with the title, because they are not equalized in nature with their Maker, nor have goodness inseparably attached to them, like God, but sometimes would even admit the contrary to that which is good through disregard of that study of the higher power, which everyone has wrought out for himself, who is by nature master of his own movement and purpose. So much then for this subject; and now let us pass to another.

CHAPTER, XVI

PLATO, although he agreed with the Hebrews in supposing the soul immortal, and saying that it was like unto God, no longer follows them when he sometimes says that its essence is composite, as if involving a certain part of the indivisible and immutable Cause, and a part of the divisible nature belonging to bodies.

He speaks, for instance, in the Timaeusin these very words: [1]

[PLATO] ‘But to the soul, as a mistress to rule over a subject, He gave priority and precedence over the body both in origin and excellence, and made her out of the following constituents and in the following manner. Of the indivisible and ever immutable essence, and of the other divisible essence belonging to bodies, He compounded a third intermediate species of essence out of both the nature of ‘the same’ and the nature of ‘the other,’ and in this way set it midway between the indivisible part and the divisible part which belongs to bodies. And he took the three, as they now were, and mingled them all together into one “idea,” and as the nature of “the other” was hard to combine, he fitted it by force into “the same.”’

Hence also he has naturally connected the passible part with the rational part of the essence. But though at one time he has given this decision concerning the essence of soul, at another he involves it in a different and worse absurdity, by declaring that the divine and heavenly essence, which is incorporeal and rational and like unto God, and which by virtue of its great excellence soars above the celestial circles, comes down from above out of the supramundane regions upon asses, and wolves, and ants, and bees, and calls upon us to believe this account without any proof.

He speaks accordingly in the discourse Concerning the Soulas follows: [2]

‘So they continue to wander until, by the craving of that corporeal nature which still accompanies them, they are again imprisoned in a body: and probably they are imprisoned in animals of such moral nature as the habits which they may themselves happen to have followed in life.

‘What kind of natures do you mean, Socrates?

‘For example, those who have practised gluttony, and wantonness, and drunkenness, and have taken no good heed, probably sink into the class of asses and other beasts of that kind: do you not think so?

‘Yes, what you say is quite probable.

‘And those who have preferred a course of injustice and tyranny and plunder go into the classes of wolves, and hawks, and kites: or whither else should we say that such souls go?

‘Certainly into such as these, said Cebes.

‘Well then, said he, as to the other cases it is evident what way each soul will go, according to the affinities of their habits.

‘Quite evident, said he, for how could it be otherwise?

‘Well then, said he, are not the happiest among them and those who pass into the best place the men who have practised the civil and political virtue which is called temperance and justice, produced by habit and attention, without the aid of philosophy and intellect?

‘How now are these the happiest?

‘Because it is probable that these pass again into some social and gentle race, of bees perhaps or wasps or ants, or even back again into the human race itself.’

In the Phaedrusalso hear how he discourses: [3]

‘For to the same state from which each soul has come she does not attain within ten thousand years; for before this time none grows wings except the soul of the guileless philosopher, or of the philosophic lover. These in the third period of a thousand years, if they have chosen this life thrice successively, so get their wings and fly away in the three-thousandth year. But the others receive judgement when they have finished their first life: and after judgement some go to the houses of correction beneath the earth and suffer punishment, and others, lifted by the judgement to some place in heaven, live in a manner worthy of the life which they lived in human form. But in the thousandth year both good and evil souls come to an allotment and choice of their second life, and choose whichever each may wish. And there both a human soul may pass into the life of a beast, and from a beast he who was once a man may pass back into a man again.’

This is what he says in the Phaedrus; but now listen to him writing in the Republicin the following style: [4]

‘For he said that he saw the soul which was once that of Orpheus choosing the life of a swan, out of hatred of the female sex, because he had been killed by them, and would not be conceived and born of woman. Then he saw the soul of Thamyras choose the life of a nightingale: he saw also a swan changing and making choice of a man’s life, and other musical animals in like manner, as was natural. And the soul that gained the twentieth lot chose a lion’s life; and it was the soul of Ajax, son of Telamon, which shrank from becoming a man because he remembered the judgement concerning the arms.

‘And the soul of Agamemnon which came next, and also hated the human race because of his sufferings, changed for the life of an eagle. The soul of Atalanta, whose lot was about the middle, having observed the great honours of an athlete, could not pass by without choosing that life. Next after her he saw the soul of Epeius, the son of Panopeus, passing into the nature of a female artist. Far off among the hindmost he saw the soul of Thersites, the buffoon, entering into an ape.

‘The soul of Odysseus, having by chance obtained the last lot of all, came forward to choose; and having been cured of ambition by remembrance of his former troubles, went about for a long time seeking for the life of a private person free from business, and with difficulty found one lying somewhere neglected by all the rest, and when he saw it he said that he would have done the same even if he had gained the first lot, and so chose it gladly. Of the other animals also some in like manner passed into men and into one another, the unjust changing into the savage, and the just into the gentle, and formed all kinds of mixtures.’

In these discourses concerning the soul it is evident that Plato is following the Egyptian doctrines: for his statement is not that of the Hebrews, since it is not in accordance with truth. There is, however, no occasion to refute this, because he did not himself attempt the problem in the way of demonstration. But thus much one may reasonably remark, that it was not consistent for the same person to say that at the moment of decease the souls of the ungodly departing hence suffer in Hades the just penalties of their deeds, and there undergo eternal punishment, and then to assert that they choose again their modes of life here according to their own will.

For he says that they become imprisoned in a body through desire of what is bodily; and that some of them who have been reared in wantonness and gluttony become asses, and enter into the bodies of other beasts, choosing them at will and not according to just desert; and the unjust and rapacious become wolves, and kites, having entered into this nature of their own accord. Then he says that the soul of Orpheus wished to be a swan; and the soul of Thamyras chose the life of a nightingale, and Thersites that of an ape.

But where then would be that judgement after their departure hence, which he describes in the dialogue On the Soul,saying: [5]

‘When the deceased have arrived at the place to which each is brought by his daemon, … then those who may be thought to have lived an ordinary life proceed to Acheron, and having embarked in such vessels as there are for them, they arrive in these at the lake; and there they dwell, and are purged and punished for their crimes, and so absolved from any offence which each has committed: and for their good deeds they receive rewards each according to his desert. But any who may be thought to be incurable because of the greatness of their sins, having perpetrated either many great acts of sacrilege or many wicked and lawless murders, or any other crimes of this kind, these, I say, are cast by their suitable destiny into Tartarus, whence they never come out.

Thus he described the fate of the ungodly; and now hear how he speaks of the pious: [6]

‘And of this class those who have thoroughly purified themselves by philosophy live for the time to come altogether free from troubles, and attain to abodes still more beautiful than the former, to describe which is neither easy, nor is the time at present sufficient.’

In the Gorgiasalso observe what he says: [7]

‘The man who has lived a just and holy life departs after death to the Islands of the Blessed, and there dwells in perfect happiness beyond the reach of ills. But he who has lived an unjust and godless life goes to the prison-house of vengeance and punishment, which they call Tartarus, … and whoever may have committed the worst misdeeds, and because of such crimes have become incurable, of these the examples are made. And, being incurable, they receive no more benefit themselves; but others receive benefit, who see them for their great sins enduring the most painful and terrible sufferings for all time, hung up simply as examples there in the prison-house in Hades, a spectacle and warning to the wicked who are continually arriving.’ [8]

How can this agree with the statements concerning an exchange of bodies, which the soul, they say, seeks after and chooses? For how can the same soul after its departure hence endure tortures, and prisons, and all this punishment for ever, and on the other hand as one released and free from bonds choose whatever modes of life it will? And if it were likely to choose again the life of pleasure, where then is the prison-house of vengeance and punishment? At leisure one might attack the argument at a thousand other points, on the thought of which there is no time to enlarge.

So the first error in Plato’s opinion on this subject has been thus detected; but the second slip in the exposition of his doctrine, wherein he laid down that one part of the soul is divine and rational and another part of it irrational and passible, has been condemned even by his own friends, as one may learn from statements of the following kind: [9]

[1] 696 b 9 Plato, Timaeus,34 C

[2] 697 a 1 Plato, Phaedo,81 D

[3] c 6 Plato, Phaedrus,248 E

[4] 698 a 1 ibid. Republic,620 A

[5] 699 a 10 Plato, Phaedo,113 D

[6] c 4 ibid. 114 C

[7] c 10 ibid. Gorgias,523 A

[8] d 3 ibid. 535 C

[9] 700 c 1 Severus, On the Soul,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 17

[SEVERUS] ‘WITH regard to the soul as described by Plato, which he says was composed by God of an impassible and a passible essence, as some intermediate colour from white and black, this is what we have to say, that when in time a separation of them takes place the soul must necessarily disappear, like the composition of the intermediate colour, when each of its constituents is naturally separated in time into its proper colour. But if this is so we shall show the soul to be perishable and not immortal.

‘For if this is admitted, that nothing in nature is without its opposite, and that all things in the world have been arranged by God out of the nature of these opposites, He having impressed upon them a friendship and communion, as of dry with moist, and hot with cold, heavy with light, white with black, sweet with bitter, hard with soft, and on all qualities of this kind one other combination including them all, and then upon the impassible essence a combination with the passible, and if the combined and mingled elements naturally in time undergo a separation from each other, and if it is to be assumed that the soul has been produced out of an impassible and a passible essence, then, in the same way as the intermediate colour, so also this must naturally disappear in time, when the opposite elements in its composition press towards their proper nature.

‘For do we not see that what is naturally heavy, even though it be lifted up by us, or by any natural lightness being added to it from without, presses down as before in its own natural direction? How in like manner also that which is by nature light, if borne downward by similar external causes, presses upward itself as before? For things which have been combined into one out of two mutual opposites cannot possibly remain always in the same state, unless there is always in them some third kind of natural substance.

‘But soul in fact is not any third thing compounded of two mutual opposites, but simple and in its sameness of nature impassible and incorporeal: whence Plato and his School said that it was immortal.

‘Since, however, it is a doctrine common to all that man is made of soul and body, and the motions which take place within us apart from the body, whether voluntary or involuntary, are said to be affections of the soul, most of the philosophers, guessing hereby that its substance is passible, say that it is mortal and of a corporeal nature, not incorporeal. But Plato was driven to interweave the passible element with its naturally impassible essence. That neither, however, is the case we shall endeavour to demonstrate by arguing from what Plato and the others have severally said, and explaining the powers which operate within us.’

Let this suffice for my quotation from Severus the Platonist On the Soul.

But in addition to what has been already said consider also the following point in regard to the origin of heaven and the luminaries therein.

Chapter 18

PLATO agrees with the Hebrews in the account which he gives of the heaven and its phenomena, according to which it was settled that they have had a beginning, as having been made by the Author of the universe, and that they partake of the corporeal and perishable substance; but he no longer agrees with the Hebrews when he enacts a law that men should worship them and believe them to be gods, speaking thus in the Epinomis:[1]

[PS.-PLATO] ’Whom then, O Megillus and Cleinias, do I ever with reverence speak of as god? Heaven, I suppose, which it is most right for us, like all others, daemons as well as gods, to honour, and to pray especially to it: and that it has also been the author of all other blessings to us all men would agree.’

Then lower down in the same work he adds this: [2]

‘But of the visible gods, who are the greatest and most honourable, and have the keenest sight in all directions, the first we must declare to be the nature of the stars, and all things that we perceive to have been created with them; and next to these and under them the daemons in order, and, as occupying a third and intermediate abode, an aerial race acting as our interpreters, whom we ought to honour much with prayers for the sake of their favourable intervention.’

Having hereby declared that the aforesaid beings are gods, he gives in the Timaeusa physical explanation of their original constitution, in the following description: [3]

[PLATO] ‘(Having arranged that) as fire is to air, so is air to water, and as air to water, so is water to earth, of these He combined and constituted a visible and tangible heaven. And for these reasons and out of these elements, such as I have described, being four in number, the body of the world was formed in harmony by due proportion, and from them gained a friendliness such that after having coalesced in itself it became indissoluble by any other except the author of its combination.’

Then he adds: [4]

‘And in the centre of it He set a soul, which He not only spread throughout, but also wrapped it round the body on the outside, and so formed one single and solitary heaven as a circle revolving in a circle.’

And again lower down he says in addition: [5]

‘In accordance then with reason and this purpose of God for the birth of time, that time might begin, sun, and moon, and five other luminaries, which are surnamed planets, have been created in order to define and preserve the reckonings of time: and, after having made their several bodies, God set them in the orbits traversed by the revolution of “the other.” ‘

Also he adds: [6]

‘And the bodies bound together by animated bonds became living beings, and learned the law appointed for them.’

In the tenth Book also of the Lawshe gives a general explanation concerning every kind of soul, speaking as follows: [7]

‘All things, however, that partake of soul are subject to change, as possessing in themselves the cause of change. And when they have changed they move on in the order and law of their destiny: if they have made only small change in their moral characters, they make small changes of place on the surface of the ground; but if they have fallen away more frequently and culpably, they pass into the abyss.’

So then if ‘all things which partake of soul are liable to change, as possessing the cause of change in themselves,’ and if heaven, and sun, and moon are, according to Plato himself, partakers of soul, then these also must change, ‘as possessing the cause of change in themselves,’ according to his statement. How then does he say on the other hand that they are eternal and therefore gods, although existing in a mortal body, and liable to be dissolved? At least he says again in the Timaeus:[8]

‘When therefore all gods, both those which are visible in their revolutions and those which appear only as far as they choose, had been created, the author of this universe spake to them as follows:

‘Ye gods and sons of gods, the works whereof I am the creator and father, are indissoluble save by My will. Therefore though all that is bound may be dissolved, yet only an evil being would wish to dissolve that which is well composed and in right condition. Wherefore also since ye have come into existence, though ye are not altogether immortal nor indissoluble, nevertheless ye shall not be dissolved nor incur the fate of death, since in My will ye have found a still stronger and more valid bond than those by which ye were bound together at the time of your creation.’

So speaks Plato. With good reason therefore do Moses and the Hebrew oracles forbid to worship these and to regard them as gods; but leading us upward to the God who is King of all, the very creator of sun and moon and stars and the whole heaven and world, who by a divine word combined and fitted all things together, he bids us by his law to believe in Him alone as God, and to ascribe the honour of worship to Him only, saying, ‘Lest, when thou see the sun and moon and all the stars and all the host of heaven, thou be deceived and worship them.’ [9]

This command is interpreted and explained at large by Philo, the man so learned in the affairs of the Hebrews, speaking thus word for word: [10]

[PHILO] ‘Some supposed that sun and moon and the other luminaries are gods of absolute power, to whom they attributed the causes of all things that are made. But Moses thought that the world was both created, and was the greatest of all States, having rulers and subjects, the rulers being all in heaven, such as are planets and fixed stars, and the subjects being the natures beneath the moon, in the air, and near the earth.

‘But the so-called rulers, he thought, were not independent, but deputies of one universal Father, by imitating whose superintendence they succeed in ruling every thing in creation in accordance with justice and law. But they who did not discern Him who sits as charioteer ascribed the causes of all things which are done in the world to those who are yoked under Him, as if they worked independently. But the most sacred Lawgiver changes their ignorance into knowledge, when He speaks thus: ‘’Lest, when thou beholdest the sun and the moon and the stars and all the host of heaven, thou be deceived and worship them.” [11]

‘With well-directed aim and nobly did he call the acceptance of the above-mentioned as gods a deception. For they saw that the seasons of the year, in which the generations of animals and plants and fruits are brought to completion in definite periods, of time are settled by the advance and retreat of the Sun; they saw also that the Moon as handmaid and successor of the Sun had taken up by night the care and superintendence of the same as the Sun by day, and that the other luminaries in accordance with their sympathy towards things terrestrial were working and doing countless services for the permanence of the whole; and so they fell into an endless delusion in supposing that these were the only gods.

‘Whereas if they had been attentive to walk by the unerring path they would have learned at once that in the same way as sense is the servant of mind, so also were all who can be perceived by sense made ministers of Him whom mind alone can perceive.’

Also he further says: [12]

‘So having transcended by reason all visible being, let us go on to the dignity of Him who is without bodily form and invisible, and can be apprehended by thought alone, who is not only the God of the worlds both of thought and sense, but also the Creator of all things. But if any one assign the worship of the Eternal Maker to another younger and begotten being, let him be written down as a madman and guilty of the greatest impiety.’

These are the truly genuine and divine teachings of the Hebrew religion which we have preferred to their vain philosophy. Why need I enlarge further, and bring to light the other errors of Plato, when it is easy from what has been already said to guess also what points I have now passed over in silence? It was not, however, for the sake of accusing him that I was led to speak of these things, since for my part I very greatly admire the man, and esteem him as a friend above all the Greeks, and honour him as one whose sentiments are dear and congenial to myself, although not the same throughout; but I wished to show in what his intelligence falls short in comparison with Moses and the Hebrew prophets.

And yet to one prepared to find fault it were easy to pass censure on countless points, such as his solemn and sapient regulations with regard to women in the Republic,or such as his fine phrases about unnatural love in the Phaedrus. If, however, you desire to listen to these subjects also, take and read his utterances which follow: [13]

[1] 702 b 9 Ps.-Plato, Epinomis,977 A

[2] c 5 ibid. 984 D

[3] d 5 Plato, Timaeus,32 B

[4] 703 a 2 Plato, Timaeus,34 B

[5] a 7 ibid. 38C

[6] b 3 ibid. 38 E

[7] b 8 ibid. Laws,904 C

[8] 703 d 5 Plato, Timaeus,41 A

[9] 704 b 3 Deut. iv. 19

[10] b 8 Philo Iud. De Monarchia,i. c. i. p. 213

[11] d 5 Deut. iv. 19

[12] 705 b 1 Philo Iud. De Monarchia,i. c. i. p. 214

[13] 706 a 1 Plato, Republic,452 A

Chapter 19

[PLATO] ‘PERHAPS now, said I, many points connected with our present subject will appear more than usually ridiculous, if they are to be carried out as described.

‘Certainly, said he.

‘What then, said I, is the most ridiculous thing that you see in them? Is it not, of course, that the women are to practise gymnastics naked in the palaestra with the men, and not only the young women but even the elder also; just as the old men in the gymnasia, when though wrinkled and not pleasing in appearance, they nevertheless love to practise gymnastics.’

And next he adds: [1]

‘But the man who laughs at the women taking exercise naked for the best of purposes, as though forsooth he were “reaping fruit of wisdom” [2] in his laughter, seems not even to know at what he is laughing.’

He says also in the seventh Book of the Laws:[3]

‘It will therefore evidently be necessary for the boys and girls to learn dancing and gymnastics; and there will be dancing-masters for the boys and mistresses for the girls, that they may go through the exercise with the greater advantage.’

He also writes therein as follows: [4]

‘Again, I suppose, our virgin Queen, who delighted in the practice of the dance, did not think fit to play with empty hands, but to be arrayed in full armour and so perform the dance: an example which most surely it would become both youths and maidens alike to imitate.’

He also enacts a law that women should even go to war, in the following words: [5]

‘And in all these schools teachers of the several subjects, being resident foreigners, should be induced by payments to give fill instructions relating to war to those who come as pupils, and all relating to music, not merely to one who may come at his father’s wish, while another, without such wish, neglects his education; but, as the saying is, every man and boy, as far as possible, must receive compulsory education, as belonging more to the State than to their parents. All the same rules my law would enjoin for women as much as for men, that the females also should practise the same exercises. And neither as to horsemanship nor gymnastics should I have any fear in making this statement, that, though becoming to men, it would not be becoming to women.’

And again a little lower down he says: [6]

‘Let us consider as gymnastics all bodily exercises relating to war, in archery, and in throwing all kinds of missiles, and the use of the target, and all fighting in heavy armour, and tactical evolutions, and all kinds of marching, camps and encamping, and all instructions pertaining to horsemanship. For there must be public teachers of all these arts, earning pay from the State, and their pupils, all the boys and men in the city and girls and women, must be skilled in all these matters; having while still girls practised every kind of dancing and fighting in heavy armour, and as women having applied themselves to evolutions, and tactics, and grounding and taking up arms.’

But neither to these rules would the Hebrew doctrine assent, but would assert the very opposite, ascribing success in war not even to the strength of men, much less to that of women, but attributing all to God and to His aid in battle. And so it says: ‘Except the Lord build the house, their labour is but lost that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.’ [7]

But observe how the wonderful philosopher also brings the women into the gymnastic contests, speaking thus: [8]

‘But as to women, let girls who are still young contend naked in the foot-race, and double course, and horse-race, and long race on the race-course itself: but those of thirteen years are to go on until their union in marriage, but not beyond twenty years nor less than eighteen; and they must come down to contend in these races clothed in befitting dress.

‘So let these be our rules of racing for both men and women. But as to trials of strength, instead of wrestling and all such contests which now are severe, let there be fighting in armour, both single combats, and two against two.’

And next, after saying, [9]

‘So also we must call to our aid those who excel in fighting in armour, and bid them help us to frame the like laws,’

he adds these words: [10]

‘Let also the same laws be in force in regard to the females until the time of marriage.’

Then after having appended immediately to these laws those concerning the training of peltasts and the pancratium, and archery, and throwing stones from the hand and with a sling, and concerning the horserace, here again he adds these words concerning the females:

‘But it is not right to force females by laws and ordinances to participate in these contests; if, however, just from their former training passing into a habit their natural, constitution without inconvenience allows children or maidens to take part, we must permit it and not blame them.’ [11]

So far the laws of Plato concerning women. But the following extraordinary law is also his: [12]

‘If any have left female children, let the judge go back through brothers and brothers’ sons, first on the male side, and afterwards on the female, in one and the same family: and let him judge by examination the fitness or unfitness of the time for marriage, inspecting the males naked, and the females naked as far as the navel.’

Moreover at the festivals he says that they must dance naked, speaking in the sixth Book of the Lawsas follows: [13]

‘For this so serious purpose therefore they ought to perform their sports and dance together youths and maidens, both seeing and being seen within bounds of reason and of a certain age implying suitable causes, both sexes being naked so far as sober modesty in each permits.’

In addition to all this hear also the following passages in the Republicon the law that the women should be in common: [14]

‘This law, said I, and the others which went before have, I suppose, the following law as their consequence.

‘What is that?

‘These women must all be common to all these men, and none live with any man as his own: and the children too must be common, and neither any parent know his own offspring, nor any child his father.’

Next he adds: [15]

‘It is probable, said he. You therefore, said I, as their lawgiver will select the women as well as the men, and, as far as possible assign those who are of like nature: and they, as having houses and meals in common, and none possessing anything of this kind privately, will of course be together, and being mixed up together both in the gymnasia and in their general mode of life will be led, I suppose, by the necessity of nature to intercourse with each other. Or do you think that what I say will not necessarily occur?

‘Not by any mathematical necessity, said he, but by constraints of love, which are likely to be keener than the other kind in persuading and drawing the mass of mankind.’

But some one perhaps will explain the meaning of these passages in a different way, and will say that they do not suggest what is commonly supposed; since he does not say that all the women without distinction are to be in common, so that wantonness may be allowed to every chance-comer, but that the assignment of them among the men is to lie in the power of the magistrates. For they are to be common in the same way as one may say that the public money is common, being distributed to the proper persons by those who are entrusted with it. Suppose then that this is so.

But what would you say on learning that he also bids them not to bring forth into light what they conceive, speaking as follows? [16]

‘For a woman, said I, let the law be that beginning from the twentieth year she should bear children for the State until the fortieth year: and for a man, after he has passed the most vigorous prime of his course, henceforward to beget children for the State until his fifty-fifth year.’

After which he says: [17]

‘But when both the women and the men, I suppose, have passed the age for begetting children, we shall let them go free perhaps to have intercourse with whomsoever they please.’

And he adds: [18]

‘Having strictly charged them, if possible, to bring forth no embryo to light, if such there should be; but should any force its way, to deal with it on the understanding that there is no maintenance for such a child.’

Such are his directions concerning the conduct of women: and concerning unnatural love [for which he makes a long apology—E.], how unlike are his sentiments to those of Moses, who in laws expressly contrary pronounces with loud voice the fit sentence against sodomites.

Why need we still urge the charge that this most wise philosopher after acquitting such sinners, against whom he did not think it fit to prescribe sentence of death, directs in his Lawsthat the slave who failed to give information of a treasure discovered by another should be punished with death. But that you may not suspect me of bearing false witness, listen also to what follows: [19]

[1] b 1 ibid. 457 B

[2] b 2 Pindar, Fr.227

[3] b 6 Plato, Laws,813 B

[4] b 11 ibid. 796 B

[5] c 6 ibid. 804 C

[6] d 7 ibid. 813 D

[7] 707 b 5 Ps. cxxvii. 1

[8] b 10 Plato, Laws,833 C

[9] c 9 ibid. 833 E

[10] d 1 ibid. 834 A

[11] d 9 Plato, Laws,834 D

[12] 708 a 3 ibid. 924 E

[13] a 12 ibid. 771 E

[14] b 8 Plato, Republic,457 G

[15] c 4 ibid. 458 C

[16] 709 a 2 Plato, Republic,460 E

[17] a 8 ibid. 461 B

[18] b 1 ibid. 461 C

[19] 711 b 1 Plato, Laws,914 A

Chapter 21

‘WHATEVER answer the god may give in regard to the property and the man who removed it, that let the city execute in obedience to the oracles of the god. And if the informer be a free man, let him have the reputation of goodness; but if he fail to inform, of baseness. But if he be a slave, the informer may rightly be made free by the city, on payment of his value to his master; but if he fail to give information, let him be punished by death.’

Here again the punishment of death is enacted not against the man who has purloined some forbidden property, but against him who failed to inform against another who had done wrong: and in another case too he declares a master free from guilt if he kill his own slave in anger. He says in fact: [1]

‘If he have killed a slave of his own, let him undergo purification; but if he have killed another man’s slave in anger, let him pay the owner twofold for the loss.’

Listen also to this passage of the laws which he enacted in regard to murderers: [2]

‘If therefore any one with his own hand slay a free man, and the deed have been done in a passion without premeditation, let him suffer all other penalties that were deemed right for one who slew another without anger to suffer, but let him undergo compulsory exile for two years to correct his passion.’

And then he appends to this another law of the following kind: [3]

‘But let the man who has slain another in anger, yet with premeditation, suffer all other the same penalties as the former offender; but just as the other was banished for two years, let him be banished for three, being punished for a longer term because of the violence of his passion.’

Then next he enacts such laws as the following in regard to one who has committed homicide a second time: [4]

‘But if ever after returning from exile either of them be overcome by anger and commit this same offence again, let him be banished and never return.’

And again afterwards he says: [5]

‘But if, as occurs sometimes, though not often, a father or mother from anger kill a son or a daughter by blows or any manner of violence, let them undergo the same purifications as the others, and spend three years in exile. But when the homicides have returned from exile, let the wife be separated from her husband and the husband from the wife, and not beget children together any more.’

To this also he adds: [6]

‘But if any man in anger slay his wedded wife, or a wife do the same in like manner to her own husband, let them undergo the same purifications, but continue three years in banishment. And when the author of such a deed has returned, let him have no communion in sacred rites with his children, nor ever sit at the same table with them.

[7] ‘And if a brother or sister slay brother or sister in anger, be it enacted that the same purifications and banishments as have been appointed for parents and children be undergone by them; and let them never have the same home with those whom they have deprived of brothers, or of children, nor share in their sacred rites.

‘But if brother slay brother in a faction fight, or in other like manner, while defending himself against an assault, let him be guiltless, as if he had slain an enemy in war. And in like manner if a citizen slay a fellow citizen, or a foreigner a foreigner. But if a foreigner slay a citizen, or a citizen a foreigner in self-defence, let him be in the same position as to being guiltless: and in like manner if a slave kill a slave. But if on the other hand a slave kill a free man in self-defence, let him be subject to the same laws as the slayer of a father.

[8] ‘Whosoever designedly and wrongfully slays with his own hand any one of his kinsmen, in the first place let him be excluded from legal rights, polluting neither agora, nor temples, nor harbours, nor any other public assembly, whether any one interdict the doer of these deeds or not: for the law interdicts him… And let the man who fails to prosecute him, when he ought, or fails to proclaim him be excluded from kinship: … and in the second place let him be liable to prosecution by any one who wishes to exact retribution for the deceased. [9] And if a woman has wounded her husband, or a man his wife, with design to kill, let either suffer perpetual banishment.’

Such are the laws of the philosopher: and if we are to bring those of Moses into comparison with them, hear what sort of ordinances he makes concerning cases of homicide.[10] ‘If one smite a man and he die, let him surely be put to death. And if he did it not purposely, but God delivered him ‘into his hands, I will give thee a place whither the slayer shall flee. But if a man set upon his neighbour to slay him with guile, and flee for refuge, thou shalt take him from Mine altar to put him to death. He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death… And if two men revile one another, and one smite his neighbour with a stone or with his fist, and he die not, but be laid upon his bed, if the man rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for his loss of time, and the fees of his physician. And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a staff, and he die under his hands, he shall surely be punished. But if he live a day or two he shall not be punished; for he is his money… [11] And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his handmaiden, and blind him utterly, he shall send them forth free for their eyes’ sake.’

Such then are the laws of Moses. Now hear again in what way, and for what kind of offences, Plato orders that the slave shall be punished with scourging without hope of pardon: [12]

‘”When a man wishes to gather the vintage of what are now called fine grapes, or the so-called fine figs, if he be taking them from his own property, let him gather the fruit however and whenever he will: but if from the property of others without having gained permission, let that man always be punished, in accordance with the principle of not taking up what one laid not down.But if a slave touch any of such things without having gained permission of the owner of the farms, for every berry of the grapes and every fig of the fig-tree let him be scourged with an equal number of stripes.’

Such are the enactments against these offences, unworthy of the magnanimity of Plato. But how noble and humane those of Moses are you may learn by listening to him while he speaks as follows: [13] ‘When thou art come into thy neighbour’s vineyard, thou shalt eat grapes until thy soul be satisfied, but shalt not put any into thy vessel.’ And again: ‘If thou come into thy neighbour’s standing corn, and pluck the ears with thy hands, then thou shalt not put a sickle to thy neighbour’s standing corn.’ And again: [14] ‘If thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgotten a sheaf in thy field, thou shalt not turn back again to take it: it shall be for the poor, for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow, that the LORD thy God may bless thee in every work of thine hands. And if thou gather thine olives, thou shalt not turn back to glean what is left behind thee: it shall be for the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow. And if thou gather the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean over again what is left behind thee: this shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless and for the widow.’

These then are the enactments found in Moses. And Plato’s are well known, in which you may find thousands irreproachable, whereof we most gladly welcome all that is noble and excellent in him, and bid a long leave to what is not of such a character. But since we have travelled so far through these matters, and have shown cause why we have not chosen to follow Plato in philosophy, it is time to bring the rest of our promise to completion, and to review the other sects of Greek philosophy.

[Footnotes moved to the end and numbered]

[1] c 11 ibid. 868 A

[2] 711 d 4 Plato, Laws,867 C

[3] d 11 ibid. 867 D

[4] 712 a 1 ibid. 868 A

[5] a 5 ibid. 868 C

[6] a 13 ibid. 868 D

[7] b 6 Plato, Laws,869 B

[8] d 1 ibid. 871 A

[9] d 10 ibid. 877 C

[10] 713 a 4 Ex. xxi. 12

[11] 713 b 9 Ex. xxi. 26

[12] c 6 Plato, Laws,844 E

[13] d 6 Deut. xxiii. 24, 25

[14] d 11 Deut. xxiv. 19

Book 14

Chapter 1

HAVING described in the preceding Book all that there was to say and to hear about the philosophy of Plato and his agreement with the Hebrew oracles, for which we are struck with admiration of him, and on the other hand concerning his dissent from them, for which no man of good sense could approve him, I will now pass on to the remaining sects of those who have been famed for philosophy among the Greeks.

And in their case again I shall set their lapse from the truth before the eyes of my readers, not in. my own person nor of my own authority, but as before by the testimony of the very words of Greek authors: not indeed from dislike to any of them personally, since I confess that I have a great admiration for them, when I compare the persons with the rest of mankind as men.

But when I compare them with the sacred writers and prophets of the Hebrews, and with God who through them has both uttered predictions of things to come and exhibited marvellous works, nay more, has laid the foundations of instruction in religious learning and true doctrines, I no longer think that any one ought with reason to blame us, if we prefer God before men, and truth itself before human reasonings and conjectures.

All this I have striven to prove in the argument of this present Preparation,as at once an answer and a defence against those who shall inquire, what beauty or majesty we have seen in the writings of the Barbarians, that we have decided to prefer them to our ancestral and noble philosophy, that, I mean, of the Greeks. However, it is time now to let our proof proceed by way of facts.

Chapter 2

Now, I think, we ought before all things to begin from the first foundation of philosophy among the Greeks, and to learn concerning the so-called physical philosophers before the time of Plato, who they were, and what sort of men their philosophy found as champions of its system; then we must pass on to the successors of Plato, and learn who they also were, and survey their mutual disputations, and review also the dissensions of the other sects, and the oppositions of their opinions, wherein I shall exhibit the noble combatants like boxers eagerly exchanging blows as on a stage before the spectators.

Let us, for instance, at once observe how, on the one hand, Plato used to scoff at the earliest philosophers who preceded him, and how others scoffed at Plato’s friends and successors: and again in turn how Plato’s disciples used to criticize the wise doctrines of Aristotle’s fertile thought: and how those who boasted of Aristotle and the Peripatetic School used to prove that the views of those who preferred the opposite sect were nonsense.

You will also see the clever and precise doctrines of the subtlety of the Stoics ridiculed in turn by others, and all the philosophers on all sides struggling against their: neighbours, and most bravely joining in battle and wrestling, so that even with hands and tongue, or rather with pen and ink, they raise strongholds of war against each other, striking, as it were, and being struck by the spears and various weapons of their wordy war.

And in this strife of athletes our arena will include, in addition to those already mentioned, men stripped of all truth, who have taken up arms in opposition to all the dogmatic philosophers alike; I mean the Pyrrhonists, who declared that in man’s world there is nothing comprehensible; and those who said with Aristippus that the feelings were the sole objects of perception, and then again those who with Metrodorus and Protagoras said that we ought to believe only the sensations of the body.

Over against these we shall at the same time strip for the combat the schools of Xenophanes and Parmenides, who arrayed themselves on the opposite side and annihilated the senses.

Neither shall we omit the champions of pleasure, but shall enroll their leader Epicurus also with those already mentioned. But against all alike we shall use their own weapons to set forth their confutation.

Also of all the so-called physicists alike I shall drag out to light both the discrepancies of their doctrines and the futility of their eager studies; not at all as a hater of the Greeks or of reason, far from it, but to remove all cause of slanderous accusation, that we have preferred the Hebrew oracles from having forsooth been very little acquainted with Hellenic culture.

Chapter 3

THE Hebrews on their part from long time of old and, so to say, from the very first origin of man, having found the true and religious philosophy have carefully preserved this undefiled to succeeding generations, son from sire having received and guarded a treasure of true doctrines, so that no one dared to take away from or add to what had been once for all determined.

So neither has Moses the all-wise, who has been shown by our former discourse to have been older than all the Greeks, but last in time of all the ancient Hebrews, ever thought of disturbing and changing any of the doctrines held by his forefathers concerning dogmatic theology, except so far as to found for the people under his charge a certain conduct of life towards each other, and a code of laws for a kind of moderate republic.

Nor have the prophets after him, who flourished for countless periods of years, ever ventured to utter a word of discord either against each other, or against the opinions held by Moses and the elders beloved of God.

Nay not even has our Christian School, which derives its origin from them, and by a divinely inspired power has filled alike all Greece and Barbarian lands, introduced anything at variance with the earlier doctrines; or perhaps one should rather say that not only in the doctrines of theology but also in the mode of life Christianity prescribes the same course as the godly Hebrews before Moses.

Our doctrines then thus described, and testified to by all authors, first middle and last, with one mind and one voice, confirm with unanimous vote the certainty of that which is both the true religion and philosophy, and are filling the whole world, and growing afresh and flourishing every day, as if they had but just established their first prime: and neither legal ordinances, nor hostile plots, nor the oft-sharpened weapons of enemies have exhibited a power superior to the excellence of the reasons which we followed.

But now let us observe what strength has ever been exhibited by the doctrines of the philosophy of the Greeks, tossed as they were in shallow waters; and first of them all let us send down into the battle those who are called physicists. As then these are said to have flourished before Plato, we may learn, from Plato himself how they were at variance one with another; for he exposes the feud of Protagoras, Heracleitus, and Empedocles against Parmenides and his school.

For Protagoras, who had been a disciple of Democritus, incurred the reputation of atheism: he is said, at least, to have used an introduction of the following kind in his book Concerning the gods:[1] ‘As to gods I neither know that they exist, nor that they do not exist, nor of what nature they are.’ And Democritus said [2] that ‘the first elements of the universe were vacuum and plenum,’ and the plenum he called ‘being’ and ‘solid,’ but the vacuum ‘not-being.’ Wherefore he also says that ‘being’ no more exists than ‘not-being’; and that ‘the things which partake of “being” have from eternity a continuous and swift motion in the vacuum.’

But Heracleitus said [3] that fire was the first principle of all things, out of which they all come, and into which they are resolved. For all things are change, and there is a time determined for the resolution of them all into fire, and for their production out of it.

These philosophers then said that all things are in motion; but Parmenides, who was by birth an Eleatic, held the doctrine that ‘the all is one,’ and that it subsists without beginning and without motion, and is spherical in shape. And Melissus, who was a disciple of Parmenides, held the same opinions with Parmenides. So now listen to what Plato relates with regard to these men in the Theaetetus:[4]

[1] 720 b 10 Diogenes Laertius, ix. c. 8, § 51

[2] 720 c 1 Aristotle, Metaphysics,A 4

[3] 720 c 7 Bywater, Heracl. Rell.Fr. xxii

[4] 720 d 9 Plato, Theaetetus,p. 152 D

Chapter 4

[PLATO] ‘AND so from drift and motion and mixture of one with another, all things are “becoming,” though we forsooth speak of them as “being,” not using a right term. [1] For nothing ever “is,” but is always “becoming.” And on this point grant that, except Parmenides, all the wise men in succession were agreed, Protagoras, and Heracleitus, and Empedocles, and the chief poets in either kind of poetry, Epicharmus in Comedy, and Homer in Tragedy, who, when he calls

“Oceanus sire and Tethys mother of gods,” [2]

says that all things are the offspring of flux and motion. Do you not think that this is what he means?

‘I think so.

‘Who then could any longer escape derision, if he disputed against so great an army with Homer for their leader? ‘

Then afterwards proceeding in his argument he further says: [3]

‘One must come then to closer quarters, as the argument in defence of Protagoras enjoined, and by sounding this floating essence observe whether it gives a true or a false note. At all events there has been no small conflict about it with no few disputants.

Far indeed from being small, it is making great advance in Ionia. For the disciples of Heracleitus take a very vigorous lead in this argument.

‘So much the more then, my dear Theodorus, are we bound to examine it, and that from its first principle, as they themselves suggest.

‘Yes, by all means: for in fact, Socrates, about these Heracleitean doctrines, or, as you call them, Homeric and still older, it is no more possible to argue with the men themselves at Ephesus who pretend to be experts than with men in a frenzy. For in absolute accordance with his writings they are always adrift, and as to dwelling upon an argument and a question, and quietly answering and asking in turn, they have less than no power at all; or rather the expression “not even nothing” is preferable in view of the absence of even the least quietness in the men. But if you ask any of them a question, they pull out as from a quiver dark little phrases which they shoot off at you, and if you try to get an explanation of what this means, you will presently be struck with another new-fangled phrase, and will never come to any conclusion at all with any of them, no, nor yet they themselves with one another; but they watch most carefully not to allow anything to be settled either in argument, or in their own souls, thinking, I suppose, that it would be something stationary; and with that they are altogether at war, and drive it out everywhere to the utmost of their power.

‘Perhaps, Theodorus, you have seen the men fighting, but have never been in their company when at peace; for they are no friends of yours. But, I suppose, they explain doctrines of this peaceful kind at leisure to their disciples, whomsoever they wish to make like themselves.

‘Disciples, my good Sir! Such people do not become disciples one of another, but they grow up of themselves, inspired each of them from any chance source, and the one thinking that the other knows nothing. From these men therefore, as I was going to say, you can never get a reason, either willingly or unwillingly; but we must take the matter over ourselves and examine it like a mathematical proposition.

‘Yes, you speak with discretion. As to the proposition then, have we not received it from the ancients, who concealed it from the multitude in poetry, that Oceanus and Tethys, the origin of all things, are flowing streams, and that nothing is at rest; and now from their successors, who in their superior wisdom openly declare it, in order that even their cobblers may hear and learn their wisdom, and may cease from foolishly supposing that some things are at rest and others in motion, and when they have learned that all are in motion, may honour them?

‘But I nearly forgot, Theodorus, that others set forth the opposite doctrine to this, namely,

“That only is unmoved, whose name is All,” [4]

and all other assertions which men like Melissus and Parmenides, in opposition to all these doctrines, stoutly maintain, that all is one and stands self-contained, having no place in which to move.

‘How then, my friend, are we to deal with all these? For going on little by little we have unconsciously fallen between both armies, and unless we can in some way defend ourselves and retreat, we shall pay the penalty, just like those who play across a line in the palaestra, when they are caught hold of by both sides and dragged in opposite directions.’

This is what Plato says in the Theaetetus.Passing next to the Sophist,he speaks again concerning the physical philosophers his predecessors as follows: [5]

‘It seems to me that Parmenides, and every one who has ever yet adventured upon a trial of determining the number and nature of things existent, have discoursed to us in an easy strain. How? Each seems to me to be relating a sort of fable to us, as if we were children. One says that existences are three, and some of them are sometimes warring in a manner with one another, and then becoming friends again they exhibit marriages, and births, and rearing of offspring: another says that they are two, moist and dry, or hot and cold, and he makes them dwell together and marries them. But all the Eleatic tribe in our part, beginning with Xenophanes and still earlier, assume that all things so-called are one, and so proceed with their fables. But certain Ionian and Sicilian Muses afterwards conceived that it is safer to combine both principles, and say that “being” is both many and one, and is held together by enmity and friendship. For it is ever separating and being united, as the more strong-minded Muses assert; but the weaker relax the perpetual continuance of these conditions, and say that in turn the universe is now one and friendly under the influence of Aphrodite, and then many and at war with itself through some discordance. But whether in all this any of them has spoken truly or not, it would be hard and offensive to find fault in such important matters with famous men of antiquity.’

Then after a few sentences he adds: [6]

‘Well then, though we have not discussed all those who give precise definitions about “being” and “not-being,” nevertheless let it suffice: and on the other hand let us look at those who speak otherwise, in order that we may see from them all that it is by no means easier to say what “being” is than what “not-being” is.

‘We must proceed then to consider these also.

‘Moreover it seems that among them there is, as it were, a kind of war of the Giants, through their disputing with one another about the nature of “being.”

‘How?

‘One side are for dragging all things down from heaven and from the invisible to earth, actually grasping rocks and oaks in their hands. For they lay hold of everything of this kind, and stoutly maintain, that “being” belongs only to that which admits some kind of contact and handling, defining body and “being” as the same, and should any one else say that a thing without body has “being,” they utterly despise him, and will not listen to anything else.

‘Truly they are terrible men that you speak of: for I too ere now have met with many of them.

‘For this reason those who dispute against them defend themselves very cautiously from some high place in an unseen world, contending that certain intelligible and incorporeal “forms” are the true “being.” But the corporeal atoms of the other side, and that which they call the truth, these shatter in pieces by their arguments, and call them a floating kind of “becoming,” instead of “being.” And between the two armies, O Theaetetus, there is always a mighty battle joined on these subjects.

‘True.’

So far, then, has Plato censured the physical philosophers who preceded him. And the kind of opinion which he himself was for introducing on the matters in question we have declared in the preceding Books, when we were showing his agreement with the Hebrew doctrines and with the teaching of Moses in regard to ‘Being.’

But come, let us examine in our argument Plato’s own successors also. It is said that Plato, haying established his School in the Academy, was the first called an Academic, and was the founder of the so-called Academic philosophy. And after Plato Speusippus, the son of Plato’s sister Potone, succeeded to the School, then Xenocrates, and afterwards Polemon.

And these, it is said, began from his own hearth at once to undo the teaching of Plato, distorting what had been clear to the master by introducing foreign doctrines, so that you might expect the power of those marvellous dialogues to be extinguished at no distant time, and the transmission of the doctrines to come to an end at once on the founder’s death: for a conflict and schism having hereupon begun from them, and never ceasing up to the present time, there are none who delight to emulate the doctrines which the Master loved, except perchance one or two in all our lifetime, or some others very few in number, and themselves not altogether free from false sophistry; since even the earlier successors of Plato have been blamed for such tendencies.

Polemon’s successor, it is said, was Arcesilaus, and report says that he forsook the doctrines of Plato, and established a sort of alien and, as it is called, second Academy. Forhe declared that we ought to suspend judgement about all things, for all are incomprehensible, and the arguments on either side equal each other in force, also that the senses and reason in general are untrustworthy. He used, for instance, to praise this saying of Hesiod,

‘The gods have spread a veil o’er human thought.’ [7]

He used also to try to make some paradoxical novelties. After Arcesilaus, Carneades and Cleitomachus are said to have abandoned the opinion of their predecessors, and become the authors of a third Academy.[8] ‘And some add also a fourth, that of the followers of Philo and Charmides: while some reckon even a fifth, that of the disciples of Antiochus.’

Such were the successors of Plato himself: and as to their character take and read the statements of Numenius the Pythagorean, which he has set down in the first Book of his work entitled Of the revolt of the Academics against Plato,to the following effect. [9]

[1] 723 a Viger’s edition, from which this notation is taken, passes at once from 720 to 733

[2] 723 a 7 Hom. Il.xiv. 201

[3] 723 b 8 Plato, Theaetetus,179 C

[4] 724 c 5 Parmenides, Fr. i.1. 98 (Mullach, i. p. 124)

[5] 724 d 9 Plato, Sophist,242 C

[6] 724 b 11 ibid. 245 E

[7] 720 d 9 Hesiod, Works and Days,I. 42

[8] 720 d 11 Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hyp.i. 2 20

[9] 727 b 1 Numenius, The revolt of the Academics against Plato,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 5

[NUMENIUS] ‘FOR the time then of Speusippus, sister’s son to Plato, and Xenocrates the successor of Speusippus, and Polemon who succeeded Xenocrates in the School, the character of the doctrine always continued nearly the same, so far as concerned this much belauded suspension of judgement which was not yet introduced, and some other things perchance of this kind. For in other respects they did not abide by the original tradition, but partly weakened it in many ways, and partly distorted it: and beginning from his time, sooner or later they diverged purposely or unconsciously, and partly from some other cause perhaps other than rivalry.

‘And though for the sake of Xenocrates I do not wish to say anything disparaging, nevertheless I am more anxious to defend Plato. For in fact it grieves me that they did not do and suffer everything to maintain in “every way an entire agreement with Plato on all points. Yet Plato deserved this at their hands, for though not superior to Pythagoras the Great, yet neither perhaps was he inferior to him; and it was by closely following and reverencing him that the friends of Pythagoras became the chief causes of his great reputation.

‘And the Epicureans, having observed this, though they were wrong, were never seen on any point to have opposed the doctrines of Epicurus in any way; but by acknowledging that they held the same opinions with a learned sage they naturally for this reason gained the title themselves: and with the later Epicureans it was for the most part a fixed rule never to express any opposition either to one another or to Epicurus on any point worth mentioning: but innovation is with them a transgression or rather an impiety, and is condemned. And for this reason no one even dares to differ, but from their constant agreement among themselves their doctrines are quietly held in perfect peace. Thus the School of Epicurus is like some true republic, perfectly free from sedition, with one mind in common and one consent; from which cause they were, and are, and seemingly will be zealous disciples.

‘But the Stoic sect is torn by factions, which began with their founders, and have not ceased even yet. They delight in refuting one another with angry arguments, one party among them having still remained steadfast, and others having changed. So their founders are like extreme oligarchs, who by quarrelling among themselves have caused those who came after to censure freely both their predecessors and each other, as still being more Stoical one party than the other, and especially those who showed themselves more captious in technicalities; for these were the very men who, surpassing the others in meddlesomeness and petty quibbles, were the more quick to find fault.

‘Long before these, however, there was the same feeling in those who drew their doctrines from Socrates in different directions, Aristippus in his own way, and Antisthenes in his, and elsewhere the Megarians and Eretrians in ways of their own, and others with them.

‘And the cause was, that as Socrates assumed three gods, and philosophized before them in the strains appropriate to each, his hearers did not understand this, but thought that he spoke all at random, and according to the breath of fortune which at any moment prevailed, sometimes one, sometimes another, as it chanced to blow.

‘But Plato had been a Pythagorean, and knew that Socrates for the same reason took such sayings from no other source than that, and had known what he was saying; and so he too wrapped up his subjects in a manner that was neither usual nor plain to understand; and after conducting them each in the way that he thought fit, and disguising them so as to be half seen and half unseen, he wrote in safety, but himself gave occasion to the subsequent dissension, and distraction of his doctrines, not indeed from jealousy nor yet from ill will—but I am unwilling to speak unfavourable words of men of earlier times.

‘But now that we have learned this, we ought rather to apply our judgement to a different point, and as we proposed at the commencement to distinguish Plato from Aristotle and Zeno, so now again separating him from the Academy, if God help us, we will allow him to be in and of himself a Pythagorean. Since now being torn in pieces more furiously than any Pentheus deserved, he suffers limb by limb, but is by no means transformed from his whole self and retransformed.

‘As a man therefore who stood midway between Pythagoras and Socrates he reduced the sternness of the former to benevolence, and the wit and playfulness of the latter he raised from irony to dignity and gravity, and by making just this mixture of Socrates and Pythagoras he showed himself more affable than the one and more grave than the other.

‘This, however, is not at all what I was going to discuss, my present inquiry having no concern herewith: but I will pass on to what I had intended, lest I should be thrown out of the way that leads thither, or else I seem likely to run away altogether.

‘Arcesilaus and Zeno became disciples of Polemon, for I am going to mention them again at last. Of Zeno I remember to have said that he attended Xenocrates and then Polemon, and afterwards became a Cynic in the School of Crates: but now let him be accounted to have also derived something from Stilpo and those Heracleitean discourses.

‘For since as fellow disciples of Polemon Arcesilaus and Zeno were emulous of each other, the one of them took as his allies in their mutual contest Heracleitus, and Stilpo, and also Crates, among whom he was made by Stilpo a disputant, by Heracleitus austere, and by Crates cynical: but the other, Arcesilaus, has Theophrastus, and Crantor the Piatonist, and Diodorus, and then Pyrrho, and of these Crantor made him persuasive, Diodorus sophistical, and Pyrrho versatile, and reckless, and nothing at all.

‘And this was the meaning of a certain hexameter verse often applied to him in an insulting parody:

“Plato before, and Pyrrho behind, in the midst Diodorus.” [1]

But Timon says that he was also taught and equipped by Menedemus in the art of disputation, if at least it is of him that he says:

“With Menedemus’ lead beneath his breast He runs apace to Pyrrho’s mass of flesh, Or Diodorus’ dialectic craft.” [2]

‘So by interweaving the reasonings and scepticism of Pyrrho with the subtleties of Diodorus, who was skilled in dialectics, he arrayed a kind of mouthy chatter in Plato’s forcible language, and would say and unsay, and roll over from this side and from that, and from either side, whichever it might chance, retracting his own words, obscure, and contradictory withal, and venturesome, and knowing nothing, as he said himself, so candid as he was: and then somehow he would turn out like those who did know, after having exhibited himself in all kinds of characters by the sketchiness of his discourses.’

[1] 729 d 4 Cf. Hom. Il.vi. 181

[2] 729 d 8 Timon, Fr.1. 72 (Mullach, i. p. 90) Diogenes Laertius, iv. c. 6

Chapter 6

‘THERE was no less uncertainty about Arcesilaus than about Tydides in Homer,[1] when you could not know on which side he was, whether associated with Trojans or with Achaeans. For to keep to one argument and ever say the same thing, was not possible for him, nor indeed did he ever think such a course by any means worthy of a clever man. So he went by the name of a

“Keen sophist, slayer of men unskilled in fence.”

‘For by preparation and study in the delusive show of his arguments he used to stupefy and juggle like the Empusae, and could neither know anything himself nor let others know: he spread terror and confusion, and in carrying off the prize for sophistries and deceitful arguments, he rejoiced over his disgrace, and prided himself wonderfully on not knowing either what is base or noble, or what is good or bad, but after saying whichever came into his thoughts, he would change again and upset his argument in many more ways than he had constructed it.

‘So he would cut himself and be cut in pieces like a hydra, neither side being distinguished from the other, and without regard to decency; nevertheless he pleased his hearers, who while they listened saw also that he was good-looking: he was most pleasing therefore both to hear and to see, after they grew accustomed to accept from him arguments proceeding from a beautiful face and mouth, besides the kindliness which shone in his eyes.

‘Now this description must not be taken loosely, but from the beginning such was his character. For having associated in boyhood with Theophrastus, a man of gentle and amorous disposition, Arcesilaus being beautiful and still in the bloom of youth gained the love of Crantor the Academic, and attached himself to him; and being not without natural ability, he let it run its swift and easy course, and fired by love of disputation he gained help from Diodorus in those elegant and artfully studied plausibilities, and also attended the School of Pyrrho (now Pyrrho had begun somewhere or other from the School of Democritus),—so Arcesilaus, equipped from this source, adhered, except in name, to Pyrrho, as one who overthrew all things.

‘Mnaseas at least, and Philomelus, and Timon, the Sceptics, call him a Sceptic, as they were themselves, because he also overthrew truth and falsehood and probability.

‘Therefore, although on account of his Pyrrhonistic doctrines he might have been called a Pyrrhonist, yet from respect for his lover he submitted to be still called an Academic. He was therefore a Pyrrhonist, except in name: but an Academic he was not, except in being so called. For I do not believe what Diocles of Cnidos asserts in his Diatribae so-entitled, that through fear of the followers of Theodorus, and of the Sophist Bion, who used to assail the philosophers, and shrank from no means of refuting them, Arcesilaus took precautions, in order to avoid trouble, by never appearing to suggest any dogma, but used to put forward the “suspense of judgement” as a protection, like the black juice which the cuttle-fishes throw out. This then I do not believe.

‘Those, however, who started from this School, Arcesilaus and Zeno, with such auxiliary forces of arguments helping both sides in the war, forgot the origin from, which they had started in the School of Polemon:

“And parting, formed in order of attack.” [2] “Together rushed Bucklers and lances, and the furious might Of mail-clad warriors; bossy shield on shield Clattered in conflict; loud the clamour rose.” [3] “Buckler to buckler pressed, and helm to helm, And man to man.” [4] “Man struggling hand to hand with man.” [5] “Then rose too mingled shouts and groans of man, Slaying and slain “; [6]

the Stoics being the slain; for they could not strike the Academics, because they could not discover in what part they were most liable to be beaten. But beaten they would be, and their foundation shaken, if they were to have neither principle nor starting-point for the battle. Now the principle was to prove that they did not express the thoughts of Plato; and their starting-point was lost, if they altered the definition concerning the conceptual presentation by the removal of a single word.

‘It is not now the proper time for me to show this, but I will mention it again, when I arrive exactly at this point. When, however, they had come to open variance, it was not that the two struck at each other, but only Arcesilaus at Zeno. For Zeno in his fighting had a certain solemnity and heaviness, not more effective than the oratory of Cephisodorus: for he, Cephisodorus, when he saw his own teacher Isocrates attacked by Aristotle, though he was ignorant and unacquainted with Aristotle, yet from perceiving that the works of Plato were highly esteemed, supposed that Aristotle’s philosophy agreed with Plato’s, and in trying to make war upon Aristotle struck at Plato, and having drawn his first accusation from the “Ideas,” ended by attacking his other doctrines, of which he knew nothing himself, but guessed the received opinions concerning them by the way in which they are usually described.

‘However, this Cephisodorus instead of fighting the man with whom he was at war, fought with the one against whom he wished not to make war. But if Zeno himself after getting rid of Arcesilaus, had abstained also from making war upon Plato, he would have shown himself, in my judgement, an excellent philosopher, in so keeping the peace. But if he acted with a knowledge perhaps of the doctrines of Arcesilaus, though in ignorance of Plato, to judge from what he wrote against him, he is convicted of taking an inconsistent course, in not striking the one whom he knew, and insulting most foully and disgracefully the man whom he had no right to assail, and treating him far worse than he should have treated a dog.

‘However, he certainly showed a high spirit in his disregard of Arcesilaus: for either through ignorance of his doctrines, or through fear of the Stoics, he turned aside “the mighty jaws of bitter war” [7] against Plato. But of Zeno’s vile and utterly shameless revolts against Plato I shall speak again, if I can spare time from philosophy. I hope, however, never to have so much time to spare, at least for this purpose, unless it be in sport.

‘So, when Arcesilaus saw that Zeno was a professional rival, and worth conquering, he shrank from nothing in trying to overthrow the arguments set forth by him.

‘Now of the other points on which he was at war with him, I perhaps am not able to speak, or even if I were able, there would be no need to mention them now: but as Zeno was the first inventor of the following doctrine, and as he, Arcesilaus, saw that both itself and its name were famous at Athens, I mean, the conceptual presentation,he employed every device against it. But the other being in the weaker position could suffer no injury by keeping quiet, and so disregarded Arcesilaus, against whom he would have had much to say, but was unwilling, or rather perhaps there was some other cause; but Plato being no longer among the living he proceeded to fight with his shadow, and tried to cry him down by uttering all kinds of vulgar buffoonery, thinking that neither could Plato defend himself, nor would any one else care to avenge him: or if Arcesilaus should care to do so, he thought that at all events he should be a gainer by diverting the attack of Arcesilaus from himself. He knew also that Agathocles of Syracuse had practised this artifice upon the Carthaginians.

‘The Stoics listened in amazement. For their Muse was not even then learned nor productive of such graces as those by which Arcesilaus talked them down, knocking off this argument, cutting away that, and tripping up others, and so succeeded in persuading them. When therefore those against whom he argued were worsted, and those in whose midst he was speaking were astounded, the men of that day were somehow convinced that neither speech was anything, nor feeling, nor any single work however small, nor on the contrary would anything ever have seemed useless, except what so seemed in the opinion of Arcesilaus of Pitane. But he, as we said, held no opinion, nor made any more definite statement than that all these were little phrases and bugbears.’

[1] 730 b 3 Cf. Hom. Il.v. 85

[2] 731 d 1 Hom. Il.xii. 86 (Lord Derby)

[3] 731 d 2 ibid. iv. 447-449

[4] 731 d 6 Hom. Il.xiii. 131

[5] 731 d 8 ibid. iv. 471

[6] 732 a 1 ibid. iv. 450

[7] d 7 Hom. Il.x, 8

Chapter 7

‘Now there is a pleasant story about Lacydes which I wish to tell you. Lacydes was rather stingy, and in a manner the proverbial Economist; for this man, who was in such general good repute, used to open his storeroom himself and shut it himself. And he would take out what things he wanted, and do all other such, work with his own hands, not at all as approving self-dependence, nor as being in any poverty, nor in want of servants, for he certainly had servants such as they were: but the reason you are at liberty to guess.

‘However, I will go on to tell the pretty story which I promised. For while acting as his own steward he thought that he ought not to carry the key about on his own person, but he used after locking up to hide the key in a certain hollow writing-case: and after sealing this with a ring, he used to roll the ring down through the keyhole and leave it inside the house, so that afterwards when he came back, and opened with the key, he would be able to pick up the ring, and lock up again, and then to seal, and then to throw the ring back again inside through the keyhole.

So the servants having discovered this clever trick, whenever Lacydes went out for a walk or anywhere else, they too would open the storeroom, and then, after eating this and drinking up that according to their desire, and carrying other things away, they went through this same round, they shut up, and sealed, and the ring they let down through the keyhole into the house, laughing heartily at their master.

‘So Lacydes, when he had left his vessels full and found them empty, was puzzled by what occurred; and when he heard that the doctrine of incomprehensibility was taught in the philosophy of Arcesilaus, he thought that this was the very thing that was occurring in regard to his storeroom. And from this beginning he took to studying with Arcesilaus the philosophy that we can neither see nor hear anything clear or sound; and having once drawn one of his companions into the house, he began to argue with him on “the suspense of judgement” with extraordinary Tehemence, as it seemed, and said, This indeed I can state to you as an indisputable fact, haying learned it from my own case, not from questioning any other.

‘And then he began and described the whole misfortune which had happened to him about the storeroom. What then, said he, could Zeno now say against “incomprehensibility” thus in all points proved manifest to me in such circumstances as these? For as I locked it up with my own hands, sealed it myself, and myself threw the ring inside, and when I came again and opened it, saw the ring inside but not my other property, how can I fail to be justly incredulous of all things? For I shall not dare for my part to say that any one came and stole the things, as there was the ring inside.

‘Then his hearer, who was an insolent fellow, having heard out the whole story as well as he could listen, being scarce able hitherto to contain himself, burst out into a very broad laugh, and still laughing and chuckling tried between whiles to refute his silly notion. So beginning from that time Lacydes no longer used to throw the ring inside, and ceased to use in argument the “incomprehensibility” of his storeroom, but began to comprehend his losses, and found that he had been philosophizing over them in vain.

‘Nevertheless his servants were impudent knaves, and not to be caught with one band, but just such as the slaves you see in comedy, a Geta or a Dacus, loud-tongued in Dacian chatter; and after they had listened to the Stoics’ sophisms, or had learned them in some other way, went straight at the venture, and used to take off his seal, and sometimes they would substitute another instead of it, but sometimes they did not even this, because they thought it would be all incomprehensible to him, whether this way or any other.

‘So when he came in, he used to examine, and when he saw the writing-case unsealed, or, though sealed, yet with a different seal, he was very angry: but when they said that it was sealed, for they could themselves see his own seal, he would begin a subtle argument and demonstration. And when they were beaten by his demonstration, and said that, if the seal was not there, perhaps he had himself forgotten and not sealed it up, Yes, certainly, he said, he remembered that he had himself sealed it up, and began to prove it, and argue all round, and thinking that they were making sport of him, he would make violent complaints against them with many oaths.

‘But they suspected his attacks, and began to think that he was making sport of them; since Lacydes, who was a philosopher, had decided that he could have no opinion, and therefore no memory, for memory is a kind of opinion; a short time ago at least they had heard him, they said, speak thus to his friends.

‘But when he overthrew their attempts and used language not at all Academic, they would go themselves to the school of some Stoic, and learn anew what they ought to say, and with that preparation would meet sophistry with sophistry, and show themselves rivals of the Academic school in the art of thievery; Then he would find fault with the Stoics; but his servants would put aside his accusations by alleging “incomprehensibility” with no little jeering.

‘So discussions went on there on all points, and arguments and counter-arguments; and in the meanwhile there was not a single thing left, no vessel, nor anything that was put in the vess.el, nor any other things that make up the furnishing of a house.

‘And Lacydes for a while was at a loss, seeing that the support of his own doctrines was of no help to him; and thinking that, if he could not convict them, everything he had would be upset, he fell into perplexity, and began to cry out upon his neighbours and upon the gods, Oh! Oh!and Alas! Alas!and By all the gods,and By the goddesses,and all the other artless affirmations of men who in cases of distrust take to strong language—all these were uttered with loud shouting and asseveration.

‘But at last, since he had a battle of contradiction in the house, the master, doubtless, took to playing the Stoic with his servants, and when the servants insisted, on the Academic doctrines, in order that they might have no more trouble, he became a constant stay-at-home, sitting before his storeroom. And when he could do no good, he began to suspect what his philosophy was coming to, and opened his mind. Of these things, my boys, said he, we talk in our discussions one way, but we live in another.’

This is what he tells about Lacydes. But the man found many hearers, one of whom, Aristippus of Cyrene, was distinguished. But of all his disciples his successor in the School was Evander, and those who came after him.

After these Carneades took up the teaching and established a third Academy. In argument he employed the same method as Arcesilaus, for, like him, he too practised the mode of attacking both sides, and used to upset all the arguments used by the others: but in the principle of ‘suspension of judgement’ alone he differed from him, saying that it was impossible for a mortal man to suspend judgement upon all matters, and there was a difference between ‘uncertain’ and ‘incomprehensible,’ and though all things were incomprehensible, not all were uncertain. But this Carneades was also acquainted with the Stoic doctrines, and by his contentious opposition to them grew more famous, by aiming not at the truth but at what seemed plausible to the multitude: whence he also gave the Stoics much displeasure. So Numenius writes about him as follows:

Chapter 8

‘CARNEADES having succeeded to the leadership disregarded the teacher whose doctrines he ought to have defended, both those which were unassailable and those which had been assailed, and referring everything back to Arcesilaus, whether good or bad, renewed the battle after a long interval.’

And afterwards he adds:

‘So this man also would bring forward and take back, and gather to the battle contradictions and subtle twists in various ways, and be full both of denials and affirmations, and contradictions on both sides: and if ever there was need of marvellous statements, he would rise up as violent as a river in, flood, overflowing with rapid stream everything on this side and on that, and would fall upon his hearers and drag them along with him in a tumult.

‘While therefore he swept off all others he himself remained infallible, an advantage not enjoyed by Arcesilaus: for while he used with his quackery to come round his frenzied companions, he was unconscious of having first deluded himself in this, that he had not been guided by sensation, but convinced of the truth of his reasoning in the overthrow of all things at once.

‘But Carneades after Arcesilaus must have been evil upon evil, as he made not even the smallest concession, unless his opponents were likely to be disconcerted by it, in accordance with what he called his positive and negative presentations from probability, that this individual thing was an animal or was not an animal.

‘So after such a concession, just as wild beasts who recoil throw themselves all the more violently upon the spear-points, he too after giving in would make a more powerful assault. And when he had stood his ground and was successful, then at once he would voluntarily disregard his previous opinion, and make no mention of it.

‘For while granting that there are both truth and falsehood in all things, as if he were co-operating in the method of inquiry, he would give a hold like a clever wrestler and thereby get the advantage. For after granting each side according to the turn of the scale in probability, he said that neither was comprehended with certainty.

‘He was in fact a more clever freebooter and conjurer than Arcesilaus. For together with something true he would take a falsehood like it, and with a conceptual presentation a concept similar to it, and after weighing them till the scales were even, he would admit the existence neither of the truth nor of the falsehood, or no more of the one than of the other, or more only from probability.

‘So dreams followed dreams, because the false presentations were like the true, as in passing from an egg of wax to the real egg.

‘The evil results therefore were the more numerous. And nevertheless Carneades fascinated and enslaved men’s souls; as an undetected cozener, and an open freebooter, he could conquer whether by craft or by force even those who were very thoroughly equipped.

‘In fact every opinion of Carneades was victorious, and never any other, since those with whom he was at war were less powerful as speakers.

‘Antipater, for instance, who was his contemporary, was intending to write something in rivalry; in face, however, of the arguments which Carneades kept pouring forth day by day, he never made it public, neither in the Schools, nor in the public walks, nor even spoke nor uttered a sound, nor, it is said, did any one ever hear from him a single syllable: but he kept threatening written replies, and hiding in a corner wrote books which he bequeathed to posterity, that are powerless now, and were more powerless then against a man like Carneades, who showed himself eminently great, and was so considered by the men of that time.

‘But nevertheless, although from his jealousy of the Stoics he stirred up confusion in public, he would himself in secret with his own friends agree, and speak candidly, and affirm, as much as any other ordinary person.’

Then next he adds:

‘Mentor was a disciple of Carneades at first, yet not his successor: for while still living Carneades found him familiar with his mistress, and not merely from a probable presentation, nor as failing to comprehend, but most fully believing his own eyes, and with a clear comprehension, rejected him from his School. So he departed and became his opponent in sophistry, and his rival in art, refuting the “incomprehensibility” which he taught in his discourses.’

Again he adds:

‘But Carneades, as teaching a self-contradictory philosophy, used to pride himself upon his falsehoods, and hide the truths beneath them. So he used his falsehoods as curtains, and hiding within spoke the truth in a somewhat knavish way. Thus he suffered from the same fault as beans, of which the empty ones float on the water and rise highest, while the good ones lie below and are unseen,’

This is what is said about Carneades. In the School Cleitomachus is appointed his successor, and after him Philon, of whom Numenius makes mention as follows:

Chapter 9

‘So then this Philon on first succeeding to the School was beside himself with joy, and by way of making a grateful return used to worship and extol the doctrines of Cleitomachus, and

“arm himself in gleaming brass” [1]

against the Stoics.

‘But as time went on, and their doctrine of “suspense” was going out of fashion from familiarity, he was not at all consistent in thought with himself, but began to be converted by the clear evidence and acknowledgement of his misfortunes. Having therefore already much clearness of perception, he was very desirous, you may be sure, to find some who would refute him, that he might not appear to be turning his back and running away of his own accord.

‘A disciple of Philon was Antiochus, who founded a different Academy: at least he attended the School of Mnesarchus the Stoic, and adopted the contrary opinions to his teacher Philon, and fastened countless strange doctrines upon the Academy.’

These anecdotes and thousands like these are recorded of the successors of Plato. It is time, however, to take up our subject anew, and examine the opinions, alike false and contradictory, of the physical philosophers, men who wandered over the wide earth, and had set the highest value on the discovery of truth, and been familiar with the opinions of all the ancients, and carefully studied the exact nature of the theology which existed among all, Phoenicians and Egyptians and the Greeks themselves, in much earlier times. It is worth while then to hear from themselves what was the fruit they found from their labours, that so we may learn whether any worthy notion of God had come down to them from the men of an older time.

For the superstition of polytheism was formerly prevalent from ancient times among the nations, and shrines, and temples, and mysteries of the gods were everywhere customarily maintained, both in city and country districts. So then there was no need even of human philosophy, if indeed the knowledge of things divine had preoccupied the ground: nor was there any necessity for the wise to invent novelties, if forsooth the doctrines of their forefathers were right, nor any cause for factions and dissensions among the noble philosophers, if the ancestral opinion about their gods had been tested and proved to be harmonious and true.

Or what need was there to war and fight with one another, or run about and wander up and down the long course, and filch the learning of the Barbarians, when they ought to have been staying at home, and learning all from the gods, if forsooth there were any gods, or to learn from the writers on religion the true and infallible statements of the matters investigated in philosophy, about which they spent infinite toil and contention, yet fell far short of discovering the truth?

Why too need they have ventured to make novel inquiries about gods or to quarrel and pummel one another, if forsooth a safe and sure discovery of gods and a true knowledge of religion was contained in sacred rites and mysteries and the rest of the theology of the most ancient races, when they might have cultivated that very religion undisturbed and in harmonious agreement?

But then if it should be found that these men had learned no truth about God from their predecessors, but had set themselves to the examination of nature by their own devices, and used conjectures rather than clear conception, why should they any longer refuse to acknowledge that the ancient theology of the nations offered nothing beyond the account which has been rendered in the books preceding this?

Now that the philosophy of the Greeks was a product of human conjectures and much disputation and error, but not of any exact conception, you may learn from Porphyry’s Epistle to Anebo the Egyptian,when you hear him acknowledge this very fact in these words: [2]

[1] 739 c 1 Hom. Il.vii. 206

[2] 741 a 1 Porphyry, Epistle to Anebo,§ I

Chapter 10

[PORPHYRY] ‘I WILL begin my friendship with you by an inquiry concerning the gods and good demons and the philosophical doctrines relating to them, subjects upon which very much has been said by Greek philosophers also, the greater part, however, of their statements having only conjecture for the foundation of their credibility.’

And lower down he adds again: [1]

‘For among us there is much verbal controversy, as we derive the notion of “the good” by conjecture from human reasonings: and those who have formed plans of communication with the higher nature, have exercised their wisdom in vain, if this branch of the subject has been disregarded in the investigation.’

Moreover in what he wrote Against Boethus, On the Soul,the same author makes the following confession in writing, word for word:— [2]

‘The evidence of our thoughts and that of history unquestionably establish the immortality of the soul: but the arguments brought forward by philosophers in demonstration of it seem easy to be overthrown through the ingenious arguments of the Eristics on every subject. For what argument in philosophy could not be disputed by men of a different opinion, when some of them thought fit to suspend judgement even about matters that seemed to be manifest?’

Also in the work which he entitled Of the Philosophy derived from Oracleshe expressly acknowledges that the Greeks have been in error, and calls his own god as a witness, saying that even Apollo had proclaimed this by oracles, and had testified to the discovery of the truth by the Barbarians rather than by the Greeks, and moreover had even mentioned the Hebrews in the testimony which he bore.

In fact, after quoting the oracle he has immediately made use of these concluding words: [3]

‘Have you heard how much pains have been taken that a man may offer the sacrifices of purification for the body, to say nothing of finding the salvation of the soul? For the road to the gods is bound with brass, and steep, and rough, and in it Barbarians found many paths, but Greeks went astray, while those who already held it even ruined it; but the discovery was ascribed by the testimony of the god to Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Chaldeans (for these are Assyrians), to Lydians, and to Hebrews.’

This is the statement of the philosopher, or rather of his god. Is it right then after this to blame us, because forsooth we forsook the Greeks who had gone astray and chose the doctrines of the Hebrews, who had received such testimony for comprehension of the truth?

And what are we to expect to learn from philosophers? Or what hope is there of assistance from them, if indeed their statements for the most part derive the first principles of their proof from conjectures and probabilities? And what is the benefit of disputation, if forsooth all the arguments of the philosophers are easily overthrown, because of the sophistical use of language on all subjects? For these are the statements heard just now not from us, but from themselves.

Wherefore it seems to me that not unreasonably but rightly and with well-proved judgement, we have despised teaching of such a character, and have welcomed the doctrines of the Hebrews, not because they have received testimony from the demon, but because they are shown to partake of the excellence and power of divine inspiration.

In order, however, that you may learn by actual facts the disputations of the wonderful philosophers, and their dissensions about first principles, and about gods, and the constitution of the universe, I will set out their own words before you a little later.

But first we must notice another point; for they go about boasting everywhere of their mathematical sciences and saying that it is altogether necessary for those who are going to attempt the comprehension of truth to pursue the study of astronomy, arithmetic, geometry, music,—the very things which were proved to have come to them from Barbarians,—for that without these a man cannot be accomplished in learning and philosophy, nay, cannot even touch the truth of things, unless the knowledge of these sciences has been previously impressed upon his soul. And then, priding themselves upon their learning in the subjects which I have mentioned, they think that they are lifted up on high and almost walking upon the very ether, as though forsooth they carried God Himself about with them in their arithmetic; and because we do not pursue the like studies, they think us no better than cattle, and say that we cannot in this way know God, nor anything grand. Come then, let us first set straight what is wrong in this, by holding out true reason as a light before them.

And that will show thousands of Greeks and thousands of Barbarian races also, of whom the former with the help of the aforesaid sciences recognized neither God, nor virtuous life, nor anything at all that is excellent and profitable, while the latter without all these sciences have been eminent in religion and philosophy. For instance, you may learn what sort of opinions were held on these subjects by one so celebrated among them all as Socrates, if you give credit to what Xenophon narrates in the Memorabiliaas follows: [4]

[1] 741 b 7 ibid. § 47

[2] 741 c 8 Porphyry, Against Boethus, On the Soul

[3] d 14 Porphyry, Of the Philosophy derived from Oracles

[4] 743 b 3 Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates,iv. c. 7

Chapter 11

[XENOPHON] ‘HE also used to teach how far it was necessary for a well-educated man to be acquainted with each subject. For example, he said that he ought to learn geometry so far as to be able, if ever it should be necessary, rightly to measure land either in taking or giving possession, or in allotting it, or marking out work. And this, he said, was so easy to learn that one who gave his mind to the measuring could know at once how much land there was, and go away acquainted with the mode of measuring it.

‘But of learning geometry so far as to reach those unintelligible diagrams he disapproved, for he said he did not see of what use these were, although he was not unacquainted with them. But they were enough, he said, to exhaust a man’s lifetime, and hindered him from many other useful branches of learning.

‘He bade them also become acquainted with astronomy, but this also only so far as to be able to know the time of night, or of the month, or of the year, for the sake of travelling, or voyaging, or keeping watch, and to be able to make use of the indications relating to all other things that are to be done either in the night, or in the month, or year, by knowing the different seasons for the works before mentioned. These also, he said, were easy to learn from nocturnal hunters, and pilots, and many others, whose business it is to know these things.

‘But he strongly dissuaded from learning astronomy to such an extent as to know the bodies which are not in the same orbit, and the planets and comets, and to waste time in investigating their distances from the earth, and their periods, and the causes of them. For he said that in these matters he did not see any benefit, and yet even in these he was not uninstructed. But he said of these also that they were enough to wear out a man’s lifetime, and to hinder him from many useful pursuits.

‘And he wholly dissuaded one from anxiously inquiring in what way the heavenly bodies are each contrived by God; for he neither thought that these things could be discovered by mankind, nor did he believe that the gods would be pleased with the man who sought to know what they had not been willing to make clear. But he said that the man who troubled himself about these things would be in danger even of going as mad as Anaxagoras was, who prided himself very highly upon explaining the contrivances of the gods.

‘For when he used to say that fire and the sun were the same, he ignored the fact that though men easily discern, the fire, yet they cannot look upon the sun; and by being exposed to the sunshine they have their complexions darkened, but not so by fire. Also he was ignorant that of plants which spring out of the earth none can make good growth without the light of the sun, while all perish when heated by fire. And in saying that the sun was a fiery stone he was ignorant also of this fact, that while a stone set in the fire neither shines nor lasts long, the sun continues all the time to be the brightest of all things.

‘He also used to bid us learn to count; but here also as in everything else he bade us guard against useless trouble: yet as far as it was useful he would himself help his companions in examining and discussing all things.’

So writes Xenophon in the Memorabilia.And in the Epistle to Aeschinesthe same author writes as follows concerning Plato, and those who boast of their physiology of the universe: [1]

[1] 745 a 1 Ps.-Xenophon, Epistle to Aeschines

Chapter 12

‘THAT the things of the gods are beyond us is manifest to every one; but it is sufficient to worship them to the best of our power. What their nature is it is neither easy to discover nor lawful to inquire. For it pertains not to slaves to know the nature or conduct of their masters, beyond what their service requires. And what is of most importance, in proportion as we ought to admire one who spends labour upon the interests of mankind, so to those who strive to get fame from many inopportune and vain attempts it brings the more trouble. For when, 0 Aeschines, has any one ever heard Socrates talking about the heaven, or encouraging any one to learn about geometrical lines for correction of morals? As to music we know that he understood it only by ear; but he was constantly telling them on every occasion what was noble, and what manliness was, and justice, and other virtues: he used in fact to call the interests of mankind absolute good; and all things else, he used to say, were either impossible to be achieved by men, or were akin to fables, playthings of Sophists in their supercilious discussions. And he did not merely say these things without practising them. But to write of his doings to you who know them, although not likely to be unpleasing, takes time, and I have recorded them elsewhere. When refuted therefore let them cease, or betake themselves to what is reasonable, these men who were not pleased with Socrates, to whose wisdom the god bare witness while he was yet alive, and they who put him to death found no expiation in repentance. And so—what a noble thing—they fell in love with Egypt, and the prodigious wisdom of Pythagoras, men whose excess and inconstancy towards Socrates was proved by their love of tyranny, and exchange of frugal living for a table of Sicilian luxury to serve their boundless appetite.’

So speaks Xenophon, with a hint at Plato.[1] But Plato in the Republicrelates that concerning gymnastics and music Socrates spake as follows:[2]

[1] d 4 See Plato, Republic,404 C

[2] 746 a 1 ibid. 521 D

Chapter 13

[PLATO] ‘WHAT then, O Glaucon, would be a learning likely to draw the soul from the transient to the real? But while I am speaking there comes into my mind this point: did we not say surely that these guardians while yet young must be athletes in war? Yes, we said so. The learning then which we are seeking must have this quality in addition to the former. What quality? It must be of some use to men of war. It certainly must, if possible. They were to be educated, we said before, in gymnastic and music. It was so, said he. And gymnastic, I suppose, since it presides over growth and decay of the body, is concerned with generation and corruption. That is evident. This then cannot be the study for which we are seeking. It cannot. Can then music, so far as we previously discussed it? Nay, said he, that, if you remember, was the counterpart of gymnastic, as training our guardians by the influences of habit, by harmony imparting not science but a kind of harmoniousness, and by rhythm a rhythmical movement, and as having in its words certain other moral tendencies akin to these, whether the subjects of its discourse were fabulous or partly true; but it contained no instruction tending to such an end as you are now seeking.

‘You remind me very correctly, said I; for music certainly contained nothing of the kind. But what can there be of this character, my excellent Glaucon? For, I think, we regarded all the arts as mechanical. Of course.’

Then further on he adds: [1]

‘We must never let those whom we are to educate attempt any imperfect form of science that has not reached the point that all ought to attain, as we were saying just now about astronomy. Or do you not know that they treat harmony also in this way? For while they measure and compare with each other the notes and concords that are merely heard, they labour, like the astronomers, on a useless task.

‘Yes, by heaven! said he, and it is ludicrous to see how they name certain condensed intervals, and lay their ears on one side, as if trying to catch a note from their neighbours; and some of them say that they can still hear an intermediate sound, and that this is the very smallest interval which should be used in measuring, while others doubt this and say that they now sound alike, and both set their ears before their mind.

‘You mean, said I, those good men who are always teasing and torturing the strings, and screwing them up on the pegs. But that the metaphor may not be extended too far about the beats given by the plectrum, and the assent, and dissent, and petulance of the strings, I drop the metaphor, and say that I do not mean these men, but those others whom we said just now that we would consult about harmony. For they do the same as the astronomers; they investigate the numerical relations in the harmonies which fall upon the ears, but they do not rise to problems, to examine what numbers are harmonious, and what not, and the reason in either case.’

But now let this suffice in the way of preface to our defence that we have not without right judgement neglected the useless learning of such subjects as these. Let us then make at once a new beginning and examine the mutual contradictions in doctrine of the aforesaid physical philosophers. Now Plutarch has collected together the opinions of all the Platonists and Pythagoreans alike, and of the still earlier physical philosophers as they were called, and again of the more recent Peripatetics, and Stoics, and Epicureans, and written them in a work which he entitled Of the Physical Doctrines approved by Philosophers,from which I shall make the following quotations: [2]

[1] 746 d 5 ibid. 530 E

[2] 747 d 2 Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum,p. 875

Chapter 14

[PLUTARCH] ‘THALES of Miletus, one of the seven sages, declared water to be the first principle of all things. This man is thought to have been the founder of philosophy, and from him the Ionic sect derived its name; for it had many successions. After studying philosophy in Egypt he came as an elderly man to Miletus. He says that all things come from water, and are all resolved into water. And he forms his conjecture first from the fact that seed, which is watery, is the first principle of all animal life; thus it is probable that all things have their origin from moisture. His second argument is that all plants derive nourishment and fruitfulness from moisture, and when deprived of it wither away. And the third, that the very fire of the sun, and of the stars, and the world itself are nourished by the evaporations of the waters. For this reason Homer also suggests this notion concerning water,

“Ocean, which is the origin of all.” [1]

This is what Thales says.

‘But Anaximander of Miletus says that the first principle of all things is the infinite, for from this all are produced, and into this all pass away; for which reason also infinite worlds are generated, and pass away again into that from which they spring. So he says the reason why the infinite exists is that the subsisting creation may not be deficient in any point. But he also is at fault in not saying what the infinite is, whether it is air, or water, or earth, or any other corporeal elements; he is wrong therefore in declaring the matter while excluding the efficient cause. For the infinite is nothing else than matter, and matter cannot have an actual existence, unless the efficient cause underlie it.

‘Anaximenes of Miletus declared that the air is the first principle of all things, for from this all are produced, and into it they are resolved again. For example, our soul, he says, is air, for it holds us together; and the whole world too is encompassed by air and breath, and air and breath are used as synonyms. But he too is wrong in thinking that living beings consist of simple homogeneous air and breath; for it is impossible that the matter can exist as sole principle of things, but we must assume the efficient cause also. As for instance silver suffices not for the production of the drinking-cup, unless there be the efficient cause, that is the silversmith; the case is similar with copper and various kinds of wood, and all other matter.

‘Heracleitus and Hippasus of Metapontum say that fire is the principle of all things: for from fire, they say, all things are produced and all end in fire: and all things in the world are created as it gradually cools down. For first the coarsest part of it is pressed together and becomes earth; then the earth being resolved by the natural force of the fire is turned into water, and being vaporised becomes air. And again the world and all the bodies in it are consumed in a conflagration by fire. Fire therefore is the first principle, because all things come from it, and the end, inasmuch as they are all resolved into it.

‘Democritus, who was followed long after by Epicurus, said that the first principles of all things are bodies indivisible, but conceivable by reason, with no admixture of vacuum, uncreated, imperishable, not capable of being broken, nor of receiving shape from their parts, nor of being altered in quality, but perceptible by reason only; that they move, however, in the vacuum, and through the vacuum, and that both the vacuum itself is infinite and the bodies infinite. And the bodies possess these three properties, shape, magnitude, and weight. Democritus, however, said two, magnitude and shape; but Epicurus added to them a third, namely weight. For he said the bodies must be moved by the impulse of the weight, since otherwise they will not be moved at all. The shapes of the atoms are limitable, not infinite: for there are none either hook-shaped, nor trident-shaped, nor ring-shaped. For these shapes are easily broken, whereas the atoms are impassive and cannot be broken; but they have their proper shapes, which are conceivable by reason. And the “atom” is so called, not because it is extremely small, but because it cannot be divided, being impassive, and free from admixture of vacuum: so that if a man says “atom” he means unbreakable, impassive, unmixed with vacuum. And that the atom exists is manifest: for there are also elements (στοιχεῖα), and living beings that are empty, and there is the Monad.

‘Empedocles, son of Meton, of Agrigentum, says that there are four elements, fire, air, water, earth, and, two original forces, love and hate, of which the one tends to unite, and the other to separate. And this is how he speaks:

“Learn first four roots of all things that exist: Bright Zeus, life-giving Hera, and the god Of realms unseen, and Nestis, who with tears Bedews the fountain-head of mortal life.” [2]

For by “Zeus” he means the seething heat and the ether; and by “life-giving Hera,” the air; the earth by Aidoneus, and by Nestis and “the fountain-head of mortal life,” the seed, as it were, and the water.’

So great is the dissonance of the first physical philosophers: such too is their opinion concerning first principles, assuming, as they did, no god, no maker, no artificer, nor any cause of the universe, nor yet gods, nor incorporeal powers, no intelligent natures, no rational essences, nor anything at all beyond the reach of the senses, in their first principles.

In fact Anaxagoras alone is mentioned as the first of the Greeks who declared in his discourses about first principles that mind is the cause of all things. They say at least that this philosopher had a great admiration for natural science beyond all who were before him: for the sake of it certainly he left his own district a mere sheepwalk, and was the first of the Greeks who stated clearly the doctrine of first principles. For he not only pronounced, like those before him, on the essence of all things, but also on the cause which set it in motion.

‘”For in the beginning,” he said, “all things were mingled together in confusion: but mind came in, and brought them out of confusion into order.’”

One cannot but wonder how this man, having been the first among Greeks who taught concerning God in this fashion, was thought by the Athenians to be an atheist, because he regarded not the sun but the Maker of the sun as God, and barely escaped being stoned to death.

But it is said that even he did not keep the doctrine safe and sound: for though he made mind preside over all things, he did not go on to render his physical system concerning the existing world accordant with mind and reason. Hear in fact how in Plato’s dialogue Of the SoulSocrates blames him in the following passage: [3]

[1] 748 b 3 Hom. Il.xiv. 246

[2] 749 d 12 Empedocles, On Nature,1. 59 (Mullach, i. p. 2)

[3] 750 d 1 Plato, Phaedo,p. 97 B

Chapter 15

[PLATO] ‘BUT once when I heard a man reading out of a book, as he said, of Anaxagoras, and saying that it is mind that sets all in order, and is the cause of all, I was delighted with this cause, and it seemed to me in a certain manner right that mind should be the cause of all things, and I thought, if this is so, mind in its ordering all things must arrange each in such a way that all may be best.

‘If therefore any one should wish to find the cause of each thing, how it comes into being or perishes or exists, what he must find out about it is this, how it is best for it either to be, or to do or suffer anything else. According to this theory then a man ought to consider nothing else, whether in regard to himself or others, except what is best and most perfect: then the same man must necessarily know also the worse; for the knowledge concerning them is the same.

‘Reasoning thus then I rejoiced to think that I had found in Anaxagoras a teacher of the cause of existing things after my own mind, and that he would tell me in the first place whether the earth is flat or round, and, after he had told me, would further explain the cause and the necessity, stating which is the better, and that it is better for it to be of such shape: and if he should say that it is in the centre, I thought that he would go on to explain that it is better for it to be in the centre: and if he should prove all this to me, I was prepared to desire no other kind of cause beyond that.

‘Moreover I was prepared to make the like inquiries concerning sun and moon and the other heavenly bodies as to their relative swiftness, and turning-points and other conditions, how it is better for each of them thus to act and be acted upon as they are. For I could never have thought that when he asserted that they were ordered by mind he would ascribe any other cause to them, except that it was best for them to be just as they are.

‘I thought therefore that in assigning its cause to each of them severally, and to all in common, he would further explain what was best for each and what was the common good of all. And I would not have sold my expectations for a great deal, but I seized the books very eagerly, and began to read as fast as I could, in order that I might know as soon as possible what was best and what worse. How glorious then the hope, my friend, from which I was driven away, when, as I went on reading, I saw a man making no use of mind, nor alleging any (real) causes for the ordering of things, but treating as causes a parcel of airs and ethers and waters, and many other absurdities.

‘And he seemed to me to be very much in the same case as if one were to say that whatever Socrates does he does by mind, and then, on attempting to state the causes of each of my actions, should say first of all that the reasons of my sitting here now are these, that my body is composed of bones and muscles, and the bones are hard and have joints separate one from another, while the muscles are capable of contraction and relaxation, surrounding the bones as do also the flesh and skin which hold them together. When therefore the bones are lifted in their sockets, the muscles by their relaxation and contraction make me able, I suppose, now to bend my limbs, and this is the cause why I am sitting here with my knees bent.

Again, with regard to my conversing with you, it is as if he were to state other causes, such as these, a set of sounds, and airs, and hearings, and ten thousand other things of this kind, but should neglect to mention the true causes, namely, that since the Athenians thought it better to condemn me, for that reason I too in my turn have thought it better to sit here, and more just to remain and undergo my sentence, whatever they may have ordered.

‘For, by the Dog! I think these muscles and these bones would long ago have been near Megara or Boeotia, carried thither by their opinion of what is best, did I not think it more just and more noble to undergo any sentence which the state may appoint, instead of taking to flight like a runaway.

‘But to call such things as these causes is extremely absurd: if however any one were to say that without having such things, bones and muscles and all else that I have, I should not be able to do what I thought right, he would speak truly; but to say that these are the causes of my doing what I do, and that I do so by mind, but not by choice of what is best, would be a great and extreme carelessness of speech.’

Then he adds: [1]

‘And for this reason one man by surrounding the earth with a vortex makes it to be kept steady forsooth by the heaven, while another sets the air as a support to the earth as if it were a broad kneading-trough. But the power by which things are now set in the best possible way for them to have been placed, this they neither investigate, nor think that there is any superhuman force in it, but imagine that they might at some time discover an Atlas stronger and more immortal than this, and more capable of holding all things together, and suppose that “the good and binding” does in reality bind and hold together nothing at all.’

So much says Socrates of the opinion of Anaxagoras. Now Anaxagoras was succeeded by Archelaus both in the school and in opinion, and Socrates is said to have been a disciple of Archelaus. Other physical philosophers, however, as Xenophanes and Pythagoras, who nourished at the same time with Anaxagoras, discussed the imperishable nature of God and the immortality of the soul. And from these afterwards arose the sects of Greek philosophy, some of whom followed these, and some followed others, and certain of them also invented opinions of their own. Again then Plutarch writes of their suppositions concerning gods in this same manner: [2]

[1] 752 d 4 Plato, Phaedo,99 B

[2] 753 b 2 Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum,p. 880

Chapter 16

[PLUTARCH] ‘SOME of the philosophers, as Diagoras of Melos, and Theodoras of Cyrene, and Euemerus of Tegea, altogether deny that there are any gods’. There is an allusion also to Euemerus in the Iambic poems of Callimachus of Cyrene. Euripides also, the tragic poet, though he was loth to withdraw the veil through fear of the Areopagus, yet gave a glimpse of this. For he brought Sisyphus forward as the patron of this opinion, and advocated his judgement.’

After these he brings in Anaxagoras again, stating that he was the first who formed right thoughts about God. And this is how he speaks: [1]

‘But Anaxagoras says that in the beginning the bodies were motionless, but the mind of God distributed them in order, and produced the generations of the universe. Plato, however, supposed that the primordial bodies were not motionless, but were moving in a disorderly way: wherefore, says he, God having ordained that order is better than disorder, made an orderly distribution of them.’

To which he adds:

‘They therefore are both in error, because they represented God as having regard to human affairs, and arranging the world for this purpose: for the living Being which is blessed and immortal, supplied with all good things, and incapable of any misfortune, being wholly occupied with the maintenance of its own happiness and immortality, has no regard for human affairs. But he would be a miserable being if he carried burdens like a labourer or artisan, and was full of cares about the constitution of the world.

‘And again the god of whom they speak either was not existing throughout that former age when the primary bodies were motionless, or when they were moving in disorderly fashion, or else he was either asleep, or awake, or neither of these. We can neither admit the first, for every god is eternal; nor the second, for if God was sleeping from eternity He was dead; for an eternal sleep is death. But surely God is incapable of sleep; for the immortality of God and that which is akin to death are far apart.

‘If then God was awake, either He was in want of something to complete His happiness, or He was complete in blessedness. And neither according to the first case is God blessed, for that which is wanting in happiness is not blessed: nor according to the second case; for being deficient in nothing, any actions He might attempt must be void of purpose. And if God exists, and if human affairs are administered by His care, how conies it that the counterfeit is prosperous, and the worthy suffers adversity?

‘For Agamemnon, who was both

“A valiant warrior and a virtuous king,” [2]

was overpowered and treacherously murdered by an adulterer and adulteress. Also his kinsman Hercules, after purging away many of the plagues by which human life is infested, was treacherously murdered with a poisoned robe by Deianira.

‘Thales held that god is the mind of the world; Anaximander that the stars are celestial gods; Democritus that god is like a sphere amid fire, which is the soul of the world.

‘Pythagoras held that of first principles the monad is god: and the good, which is the nature of the One, is the mind itself. But the unlimited duad is a daemon and the evil, and it is surrounded by the multitude of matter and the visible world.’

Now after these, hear what were the opinions held by those of more recent time: [3]

‘Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all this variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passible.

‘Aristotle held that the Most High God is a separate species, and rides upon the sphere of the universe, which is an etherial body, the fifth essence so-called by him. And when this had been divided into spheres, which though connected in their nature are separated by reason, he thinks that each of the spheres is a living being compounded of body and soul, of which the body is etherial, and moves in a circular orbit, while the soul, being itself motionless reason, is actually the cause of the motion.

‘The Stoics set forth an intelligent god, an artistic fire, proceeding methodically to generate a world, which comprises all the seminal laws, in accordance with which things are severally produced according to fate: also a spirit, which pervades the whole world, but receives different names according to the changes of the matter through which it has passed.

‘They regard as a god the world, and the stars, and the earth, but mind which is highest of all they place in the ether.

‘Epicurus held that the gods are of human shape, but all to be discerned by reason because of the fineness of the particles in the nature of their forms. The same philosopher added four other natures generically imperishable, namely the atoms, the vacuum, the infinite, the similarities, which are called homoeomeriae and elements.’

Such are the dissensions and blasphemies concerning God of the physical philosophers, among whom, as is proved by this narrative, Pythagoras, and Anaxa-goras, and Plato, and Socrates were the first who made mind and God preside over the world. These then are shown to have been in their times very children, as compared with the times at which the remotest events in Hebrew antiquity are fixed by history.

Accordingly among all the Greeks, and those who long ago introduced the polytheistic superstition among both the Phoenicians and Egyptians, the knowledge of the God of the universe was not very ancient, but the first of the Greeks to publish it were Anaxagoras and his school. Moreover the doctrines of the polytheistic superstition prevailed over all nations; but they contained, as it seems, not the true theology, but that which the Egyptians and Phoenicians, as was testified, were the very first to establish.

And this was a theology which by no means treated of gods, nor of any divine powers, but of men who had already been long lying among the dead, as was shown long since by our word of truth. Come then, let us take up our argument again. Since among the physical philosophers some were for bringing all things down to the senses, while others drew all in the contrary direction, as Xenophanes of Colophon, and Parmenides the Eleatic, who made nought of the senses, asserting that there could be no comprehension of things sensible, and that we must therefore trust to reason alone, let us examine the objections which have been urged against them.

[1] 753 e 9 ibid. p. 881

[2] 754 c 1 Hom Il.iii. 179

[3] d 7Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum,i. 7 (Diels, Doxogr.p. 304)

Chapter 17

[ARISTOCLES] [1] ‘BUT there came others uttering language opposed to these. For they think we ought to put down the senses and their presentations, and trust only to reason. For such were formerly the statements of Xenophanes and Parmenides and Zenon and Melissus, and afterwards of Stilpo and the Megarics. Whence these maintain that “being” is one, and that the “other” does not exist, and that nothing is generated, and nothing perishes, nor is moved at all.

‘The fuller argument then against these we shall learn in our course of philosophy; at present, however, we must say as much as this. We should argue, that though reason is the most divine of our faculties, yet nevertheless we have need also of sense, just as we have of the body. And it is evidently the nature of sense also to be true: for it is not possible that the sentient subject should not be in some way affected, and being affected he must know the affection: therefore sensation also is a kind of knowledge.

‘Moreover if sensation is a kind of affection, and everything that is affected is affected by something, that which acts must certainly be other than that which is acted on. So that first there would be the so-called “other,” as for instance, the colour and the sound; and then the existing thing will not be one: nor moreover will it be motionless, for sensation is a motion.

‘And in this way every one wishes to have his senses in a natural state, inasmuch as he trusts, I suppose, to sound senses rather than to diseased. With good reason therefore a strong love of our senses is infused in us. No one certainly, unless mad, would choose ever to lose a single sense, that so he might gain all other good things.

‘Those then who found fault with the senses, if at least they were persualded that it was useless to have them, ought to have said just what Pandarus says in Homer about his own bow,

“Then may a stranger’s sword cut off my head, If with these hands I shatter not and burn The bow that thus hath failed me at my need,” [2]

and immediately after to have destroyed all their senses: for thus one would have believed them as teaching by deed that they had no need of them.

‘But now this is the very greatest absurdity; for though in their words they declare their senses to be useless, in their deeds they continue to make the fullest use of them.

‘Melissus in fact wishing to show why none of these things which are apparent and visible really exists, demonstrates it by the phenomena themselves. He says in fact: “For if earth exists, and water, and air, and fire, and iron, and gold, and the living and the dead, and black and white, and all the other things which men say are real, and if we see and hear rightly, then ‘being’ also ought to be such as it at first seemed to us to be, and not to change, nor become other, but each, thing ought always to be just such as it is. But now we say that we see, and hear, and understand aright: yet it seems to us that the hot becomes cold, and the cold hot, and the hard soft, and the soft hard.”

‘But when he used to say these and many other such things one might very reasonably have asked him, Well then, was it not by sensation you learned that what is hot now becomes cold afterwards? And in like manner concerning the other instances. For just as I said, it would be found that he abolishes and convicts the senses because he most fully believes them.

‘But in fact the arguments of this kind have already been subjected to nearly sufficient correction: they have certainly become obsolete, as if they had never been uttered at all. Now indeed we may say boldly that those philosophers take the right course who adopt both the senses and the reason for acquiring the knowledge of things.’

Such then were the followers of Xenophanes, who is said to have flourished at the same time with Pythagoras and Anaxagoras. Now a hearer of Xenophanes was Parmenides, and of Parmenides Melissus, of him Zeno, of him Leucippus, of him Democritus, of him Protagoras and Nessas, and of Nessas Metrodorus, of him Diogenes, of him Anaxarchus, and a disciple of Anaxarchus was Pyrrho, from whom arose the school of those who were surnamed Sceptics. And as these also laid it down that no conception of anything was possible either by sense or by reason, but suspended their judgement in all cases, we may learn how they were refuted by those who held an opposite opinion, from the book before mentioned, speaking word for word as follows: [3]

[1] 758 b 1 Aristocles, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

[2] 757 a 4 Hom. Il.v. 314-216 (Lord Derby)

[3] 758 c 1 Aristocles, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 18

“BEFORE all things it is necessary to make a thorough examination of our own knowledge; for if it is our nature to know nothing there is no further need to inquire about other things.

‘Some then there were even of the ancients who spoke this language, and who have been opposed by Aristotle. Pyrrho indeed, of Elis, spoke strongly in this sense, but has not himself left anything in writing. But his disciple Timon says that the man who means to be happy must look to these three things: first, what are the natural qualities of things; secondly, in what way we should be disposed towards them; and lastly, what advantage there will be to those who are so disposed.

‘The things themselves then, he professes to show, are equally indifferent, and unstable, and indeterminate, and therefore neither our senses nor our opinions are either true or false. For this reason then we must not trust them, but be without opinions, and without bias, and without wavering, saying of every single thing that it no more is than is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not.

‘To those indeed who are thus disposed the result, Timon says, will be first speechlessness, and then imperturbability, but Aene-sidemus says pleasure.

‘These then are the chief points of their arguments: and now let us consider whether they are right in what they say. Since therefore they say that all things are equally indifferent, and bid us for this reason attach ourselves to none, nor hold any opinion, I think one may reasonably ask them, whether those who think things differ are in error or not. For if they are in error, surely they cannot be right in their supposition. So they will be compelled to say that there are some who have false opinions about things, and they themselves therefore must be those who speak the truth: and so there must be truth and falsehood. But if we the many are not in error in thinking that things differ, what do they mean by rebuking us? For they must be in error themselves in maintaining that they do not differ.

‘Moreover if we should even grant to them that all things are equally indifferent, it is evident that even they themselves would not differ from the multitude. What then would their wisdom, be? And why does Timon abuse all other persons, and sing the praises of Pyrrho only?

‘Yet, further, if all things are equally indifferent and we ought therefore to have no opinion, there would be no difference even in these cases, I mean in the differing or not differing, and the having or not having an opinion. For why should things of this kind be rather than not be? Or, as Timon says, why “yes,” and why “no,” and why the very “Why?” itself? It is manifest therefore that inquiry is done away: so let them cease from troubling. For at present there is no method in their madness, while, in the very act of admonishing us to have no opinion, they at the same time bid us to form an opinion, and in saying that men ought to make no statement they make a statement themselves: and though they require you to agree with no one, they command you to believe themselves: and then though they say they know nothing, they reprove us all, as if they knew very well.

‘And those who assert that all things are uncertain must do one of two things, either be silent, or speak and state something. If then they should hold their peace, it is evident that against such there would be no argument. But if they should make a statement, anyhow and by all means they must say that something either is or is not, just as they certainly now say that all things are to all men matters not of knowledge but of customary opinion, and that nothing can be known.

‘The man therefore who maintains this either makes the matter clear, and it is possible to understand it as spoken, or it is impossible. But if he does not make it clear, there can be absolutely no arguing in this case either with such a man. But if he should make his meaning clear, he must certainly either state what is indefinite or what is definite: and if indefinite, neither in this case would there be any arguing with him, for of the indefinite there can be no knowledge. But if the statements, or any one of them whatever, be definite, the man who states this defines something and decides. How then can all things be unknowable and indeterminate? But should he say that the same thing both is and is not, in the first place the same thing will be both true and false, and next he will both say a thing and not say it, and by use of speech will destroy speech, and moreover, while acknowledging that he speaks falsely, says that we ought to believe him.

‘Now it is worth inquiring whence they learned what they say, that all things are uncertain. For they ought to know beforehand what certainty is: thus at all events they would be able to say that things have not this quality of certainty. First they ought to know affirmation, and then negation. But if they are ignorant of the nature of certainty, neither can they know what uncertainty is.

‘When indeed Aenesidemus in his Outlinegoes through the nine moods (in all of which he has attempted to prove the uncertainty of things), which are we to say, that he speaks with knowledge of them or without knowledge? For he says that there is a difference in animals, and in ourselves, and in states, and in the modes of life, and customs, and laws: he says also that our senses are feeble, and that the external hindrances to knwoledge are many, such as distances, magnitudes, and motions: and further, the difference of condition in men young and old, and waking and sleeping, and healthy and sick: and nothing that we perceive is simple and unmixed; for all things are confused, and spoken in a relative sense.

‘But when he was making these and other such fine speeches, one would have liked, I say, to ask hirn whether he was stating with full knowledge that this is the condition of things, or without knowledge. For if he did not know, how could we believe him? But if he knew, he was vastly silly for declaring at the same time that all things are uncertain, and yet saying that he knew so much.

‘Moreover whenever they go through such details, they are only making a sort of induction, showing what is the nature of the phenomena and of the particulars: and a process of this kind both is, and is called, a proof. If therefore they assent to it, it is evident that they form an opinion: and if they disbelieve it, neither should we choose to give heed to them.

‘Timon moreover in the Pythonrelates a story at great length, how he met Pyrrho walking towards Delphi past the temple of Amphiaraus, and what they talked about to each other. Might not then any one who stood beside him while writing this reasonably say, Why trouble yourself, poor fellow, in writing this, and relating what you do not know? For why rather did you meet him than not meet him, and talk with him rather than not talk?

‘And this same wonderful Pyrrho, did he know the reason why he was walking to see the Pythian games? Or was he wandering, like a madman, along the road? And when he began to find fault with mankind and their ignorance, are we to say that he spoke truth or not, and that Timon was affected in a certain way and agreed with his sayings, or did not heed them? For if he was not persuaded, how did he pass from a choral dancer to a philosopher, and continue to be an admirer of Pyrrho? But if he agreed with what was said, he must be an absurd person for taking to philosophy himself but forbidding us to do so.

‘And one must simply wonder what is the meaning to them of Timon’s lampoons and railings against all men, and the tedious Rudimentsof Aenesidemus and all the like multitude of words. For if they have written these with an idea that they would render us better, and therefore think it right to confute us all, that so we may cease to talk nonsense, it is evidently their wish that we should know the truth, and assume that things are such as Pyrrho maintains. So if we were to be persuaded by them we should change from worse to better, by forming the more advantageous judgements, and approving those who gave the better advice.

‘How then could things possibly be equally indifferent and indeterminate? And how could we avoid giving assent and forming opinions? And if there is no use in arguments, why do they trouble us? Or why does Timon say,

“No other mortal could with Pyrrho vie”? [1]

For one would not admire Pyrrho any more than the notorious Coroebus or Meletides, who are thought to excel in stupidity.

‘We ought, however, to take also the following matters into consideration. For what sort of citizen, or judge, or counsellor, or friend, or, in a word, what sort of man would such an one be? Or what evil deeds would not he dare, who held that nothing is really evil, or disgraceful, or just or unjust? For one could not say even this, that such men are afraid of the laws and their penalties; for how should they, seeing that, as they themselves say, they are incapable of feeling or of trouble?

‘Timon indeed even says this of Pyrrho:

‘’O what a man I knew, void of conceit, Daunted by none, who whether known to fame Or nameless o’er the fickle nations rule, This way and that weighed down by passion’s force, Opinion false, and legislation vain.” [2]

‘When, however, they utter this wise saw, that one ought to live in accordance with nature and with customs, and yet not to assent to anything, they are too silly. For they require one to assent to this at least, if to nothing else, and to assume that it is so. But why ought one, rather than ought not, to follow nature and customs, if forsooth we know nothing, and have no means whereby to judge?

‘It is altogether a silly thing, when they say, that just as cathartic drugs purge out themselves together with the excrements, in like manner the argument which maintains that all things are uncertain together with everything else destroys itself also. For supposing it to refute itself, they who use it must talk nonsense. It were better therefore for them to hold their peace, and not open their mouth at all,

‘But in truth there is no similarity between the cathartic drug and their argument. For the drug is secreted and does not remain in the body: the argument, however, must be there in men’s souls, as being always the same and gaining their belief, for it can be only this that makes them incapable of assent.

‘But that it is not possible for a man to have no opinions, one may learn in the following manner. For it is impossible that he who perceives by sense does not perceive: now perception by sense is a kind of knowledge. And that he also believes his sensation is evident to all: for when he wishes to see more exactly, he wipes his eyes, and comes nearer, and shades them.

‘Moreover we know that we feel pleasure and pain: for it is not possible for one who is being burned or cut to be ignorant of it. And who would not say that acts of memory surely and of recollection are accompanied by an assumption? But what need one say about common concepts, that such a thing is a man, and again concerning sciences and arts? For there would be none of these, were it not our nature to make assumptions. But for my part I pass over all other arguments. Whether, however, we believe, or whether we disbelieve the arguments used by them, in every way it is an absolute necessity to form an opinion.

‘It is manifest then that it is impossible to study philosophy in this fashion; and that it is also unnatural and contrary to the laws, we may perceive as follows. For if on the other hand things were in reality of this kind, what would remain but that we must live as if asleep, in a random and senseless fashion? So that our lawgivers, and generals, and educators must all be talking nonsense. To me, however, it seems that all the rest of mankind are living in a natural way, but only those who talk this nonsense are puffed up with conceit, or rather are gone stark mad.

‘Not least, however, one may learn this from the following case. Antigonus, for instance, of Carystus, who lived about the same times and wrote their biography, says that Pyrrho being pursued by a dog escaped up a tree, and, when laughed at by those who stood by, said that it was difficult to put off the man. And when his sister Philiste was to offer a sacrifice, and then one of her friends promised what was necessary for the sacrifice and did not provide it, but Pyrrho bought it, and was angry, upon his friend saying that his acts were not in accord with his words nor worthy of his impassivity, he replied, In the case of a woman certainly we ought not to make proof of it. Nevertheless his friend might fairly have answered, If there is any good in these arguments of yours, your impassivity is useless in the case even of a woman, or a dog, and in all cases.

‘But it is right to ascertain both who they were that admired him, and whom he himself admired. Pyrrho then was a disciple of one Anaxarchus, and was at first a painter, and not very successful at that; next, after reading the books of Democritus, he neither found anything useful there nor wrote anything good himself, but spake evil of all, both gods and men. But afterwards wrapping himself up in this conceit, and calling himself free from conceit, he left nothing in writing.

‘A disciple of his was Timon of Phlius, who at first was a dancer in the chorus at the theatres, but having afterwards fallen in with Pyrrho he composed offensive and vulgar parodies, in which he has reviled all who ever studied philosophy. For this was the man who wrote the Silli,and said:

“Mankind how poor and base, born but to eat, Your life made up of shame, and strife, and woe.” [3]

And again:

‘’Men are but bags with vain opinions filled.” [4]

‘When nobody took notice of them any more than if they had never been born, a certain Aenesidemus began just yesterday to stir up this nonsense again at Alexandria in Egypt. And these are just the men who were thought to be the mightiest of those who had trodden this path.

‘It is evident then that no one in his right mind would approve such a sect, or course of argument, or whatever and however any one likes to call it. For I think for my part that we ought not to call it philosophy at all, since it destroys the very first principles of philosophy.’

These then are the arguments against those who are supposed to follow Pyrrho in philosophy. And near akin to them would be the answers to be urged against those who follow Aristippus of Cyrene, in saying that only the feelings are conceptional. Now Aristippus was a companion of Socrates, and was the founder of the so-called Cyrenaic sect, from which Epicurus has taken occasion for his exposition of man’s proper end. Aristippus was extremely luxurious in his mode of life, and fond of pleasure; he did not, however, openly discourse on the end, but virtually used to say that the substance of happiness lay in pleasures. For by always making pleasure the subject of his discourses he led those who attended him to suspect him of meaning that to live pleasantly was the end of man.

Among his other hearers was his own daughter Arete, who having borne a son named him Aristippus, and he from having been introduced by her to philosophical studies was called his mother’s pupil (mhtrodi/daktoj).He quite plainly defined the end to be the life of pleasure, ranking as pleasure that which lies in motion. For he said that there are three states affecting our temperament: one, in which we feel pain, like a storm at sea; another, in which we feel pleasure, that may be likened to a gentle undulation, for pleasure is a gentle movement, comparable to a favourable breeze; and the third is an intermediate state, in which we feel neither pain nor pleasure, which is similar to a calm. So of these feelings only, he said, we have the sensation. Now against this sect the following objections have been urged (by Aristocles). [5]

[1] 761 d 1 Timon, Fragments,1.126 (Mullach, i. p. 95)

[2] 761 d 13 ibid. 1. 123

[3] 763 c 6 Timon, Fragments, l. 12

[4] c 9 ibid. 1. 14

[5] 764 c 1 Aristocles, Fragment4

Chapter 19

‘NEXT in order will be those who say that the feelings alone are conceptional, and this was asserted by some of the Cyrenaics. For they, as if oppressed by a kind of torpor, maintained that they knew nothing at all unless some one standing by struck and pricked them; for when burned or cut, they said, they knew that they felt something, but whether what burned them was fire, or what cut them iron, they could not tell.

‘Men then who talk thus one might immediately ask, whether they at all events know this that they suffer and feel something. For if they do not know, neither could they say that they know only the feeling: if on the other hand they know, the feelings cannot be the only things conceptional. For “I am being burned” was a statement, and not a feeling.

‘Moreover these three things must necessarily subsist together, the suffering itself, and that which causes it, and that which suffers. The man therefore who perceives the suffering must certainly by sensation feel the sufferer. For surely he will not know that some one is being warmed, it may be, without knowing whether it is himself or his neighbour; and whether now or last year, and whether at Athens or in Egypt, whether alive or dead, and moreover whether a man or a stone.

‘Therefore he will also know by what he suffers: for men know one another, and roads, and cities, and their food. Artisans again know their own tools, and physicians and sailors prognosticate what is going to happen, and dogs discover the tracks of wild beasts.

‘Moreover the man who suffers anything certainly perceives it either as something affecting himself or as another’s suffering. Whence therefore will he be able to say that this is pleasure, and that pain? Or that he felt something by taste, or sight, or hearing? And by tasting with his tongue, and seeing with his eyes, and hearing with his ears? Or how do they know that it is right to choose this, and avoid that? But supposing them to know none of these things, they will have no impulse nor desire; and so would not be living beings. For they are ridiculous, whenever they say that these things have happened to them, but that they do not know how or in what manner. For such as these could not even say whether they are human beings, nor whether they are alive, nor, therefore, whether they say and declare anything.

‘What discussion then can there be with such men as these? One may wonder, however, if they know not whether they are upon earth or in heaven; and wonder still more, if they do not know, though they profess to study this kind of philosophy, whether four are more than three, and how many one and two make. For being what they are they cannot even say how many fingers they have on their hands, nor whether each of them is one or more.

‘So they would not even know their own name, nor their country, nor Aristippus: neither therefore whom they love or hate, nor what things they desire. Nor, if they were to laugh or cry, would they be able to say, that is laughable, and that painful. It is evident therefore that we do not even know what we are now saying. Such men therefore as these would be no better than gnats or flies, though even those animals know what is natural and unnatural.’

Although there are endless arguments that one might use against men in this state of mind, yet these are sufficient. The next thing is to join them in examining those who have taken the opposite road, and decided that we ought to believe the bodily senses in everything, among whom are Metrodorus of Chios, and Protagoras of Abdera.

Metrodorus then was said to have been a hearer of Democritus, and to have declared ‘plenum’ and ‘vacuum’ to be first principles, of which the former was ‘being,’ and the latter ‘not-being.’ So in writing about nature he employed an introduction of this kind,[1] ‘None of us knows anything, not even this, whether we know or do not know’: an introduction which gave a mischievous impulse to Pyrrho who came afterwards. Then he went on to say that ‘all things are just what any one may think them.’

And as to Protagoras it is reported that he was called an atheist. In fact he, too, in writing about the gods used this sort of introduction: [2]

‘So as to gods I know not either that they exist, nor what their nature is: for there are many things that hinder me from knowing each of these points.’

This man the Athenians punished by banishment, and burned his books publicly in the middle of the marketplace. Since then these men asserted that we must believe our senses only, let us look at the arguments urged against them (by Aristocles). [3]

[1] 765 d 12 Diogenes Laertius, ix. 10

[2] 766 a 6 ibid. ix. 51

[3] 766 b 1 Aristocles, Fragment5

Chapter 20

‘Now there have been men who maintained that we must believe only sense and its presentations. Some indeed say that even Homer intimates this kind of doctrine by declaring that Ocean is the first principle, as though all things were in flux. But of those known to us, Metrodorus of Chios seems to make the same statement; Protagoras of Abdera not only seems, but expressly states this.

‘For he said that “the Man is the measure of all things, of existing things, that they exist, of non-existent things, that they do not exist: for as things appear to each person, such they also are; and of the rest we can affirm nothing positively.”

‘Now in answer to them one may say what Plato says in the Theaetetus:[1] in the first place, why in the world, if such forsooth is the nature of things, did he assert that “the Man” is the measure of truth and not a pig or a dog-headed ape? But next, how did they mean that themselves were wise, if forsooth every one is the measure of truth to himself? Or how do they refute other men, if that which appears to each is true? And how is it that we are ignorant of some things, though we often perceive them by sensation, just as when we hear barbarians speaking?

‘Moreover the man who has seen anything, and then remembers it, knows it, though he is no longer sensible of it. And if he should shut one eye and see with the other, he will evidently be both knowing and not knowing the same thing.

‘And in addition to this, if that which appears to each is also true, but what they say does not appear true to us, it must also be true that the Man is not the measure of all things.

‘Moreover artists are superior to the unskilled, and experts to the inexperienced, and for this reason a pilot, or a physician, or a general foresees better what is about to happen.

‘These men too absolutely destroy the degrees of the more or less, and the necessary and contingent, and the natural and unnatural. And thus the same thing would both be and not be; for nothing hinders the same thing from appearing to some to be, and to others not to be. And the same thing would be both a man and a block: for sometimes the same thing appears to one a man and to another a block.

‘Every speech too would be true, but also for this reason false: and counsellors and judges would not have anything to do. And what is most terrible, the same persons will be both good and bad, and vice and virtue the same thing. Many other instances also of this kind one might mention; but in fact there is no need of more arguments against those who think that they have no mind nor reason.’

Then next he adds:

‘But since there are even now some who say that every sensation and every presentation is true, let us say a few words about them also. For these seem to be afraid lest, if they should say that some sensations are false, they should not have their criterion and their canon sure and trustworthy: but they fail to see that, if this be so, they should lose no time in declaring that all opinions also are true; for it is natural to us to judge by them also of many things: and nevertheless they maintain that some opinions are true and some false.

‘And then if one were to examine he would see that none even of the other criteria are always and thoroughly free from error; as for instance I mean a balance, or a turning-lathe, or anything of this kind: but each of them in one condition is sound and in another bad; and when men use it in this way, it tells true, but in that way tells false. Moreover if every sensation were true, they ought not to differ so much. For they are different when near and far off, and in the sick and the strong, and in the skilled and unskilled, and prudent and senseless. And of course it would be altogether absurd to say that the sensations of the mad are true, and of those who see amiss, and hear amiss. For the statement that he who sees amiss either sees or does not see would be silly: for one would answer, that he sees indeed, but not aright.

‘When, however, they say that sensation being devoid of reason neither adds anything nor takes away, it is evident that they fail to see the obstacles: for in the case of the oar in the water, and in pictures, and numberless other things, it is the sense that deceives. Wherefore in such cases we all lay the blame not on our mind, but on the presentation: for the argument refutes itself when it maintains that every presentation is true. For at all events it declares the falsity of ours, which causes us to think that not every presentation is true. The result then for them is to say that every presentation is both true and false.

‘And they are altogether wrong in maintaining that things really are just such as they may seem to us: for on the contrary they appear such as they are by nature, and we do not make them to be so, but are ourselves affected in a certain way by them. Since if we were to imagine puppies or young kids, as painters and sculptors do, it would be ridiculous to assert straightway that they existed, and therefore to represent them to ourselves as standing ready at hand.’

From what has been said then it is evident that they do not speak rightly who assert that every sensation and every presentation is true. But in fact, though this is so, Epicurus again, starting from the School of Aristippus, made all things depend on pleasure and sense, defining the feelings alone to be conceptional, and pleasure the end of all good.

Now some say that Epicurus had no teacher, but read the writings of the ancients; others say that he was a hearer of Xenocrates, and afterwards of Nausiphanes also, who had been a disciple of Pyrrho. Let us see then what are the arguments which have been urged against him also. [2]

[1] 766 d 1 Plato, Theaetetus, 161 C, 166 C

[2] 768 d 4 Aristocles, Fr. 6

Chapter 21

[ARISTOCLES] ‘SINCE knowledge is of two kinds, the one of things external, and the other of what we can choose or avoid, some say that as the principle and criterion of choosing and avoiding we have pleasure and pain: at least the Epicureans now still say something of this kind: it is necessary therefore to consider these points also.

‘For my part then I am so far from saying that feeling is the principle and canon of things good and evil, that I think a criterion is needed for feeling itself. For though it proves its own existence, something else is wanted to judge of its nature. For though the sensation tells whether the feeling is our own or another’s, it is reason that tells whether it is to be chosen or avoided.

‘They say indeed that they do not themselves welcome every pleasure, and shun every pain. And this is a very natural result. For the criteria prove both themselves and the things which they judge: feeling, however, proves itself only. And that this is so, they bear witness themselves. For although they maintain that every pleasure is a good and every pain an evil, nevertheless they do not say that we ought always to choose the former and avoid the latter, for they are measured by quantity and not by quality.

‘It is evident therefore that nothing else than reason, judges the quantity: for it is reason that gives the judgement, “It is better to endure this or that pain that so we may enjoy greater pleasures,” and this, “It is expedient to abstain from this or that pleasure, in order that we may not suffer more grievous pains,” and all cases of this kind.

‘On the whole, sensations and presentations seem to be, as it were, mirrors and images of things: but feelings and pleasures and pains to be changes and alterations in ourselves. And thus in sensation and in forming presentations we look to the external objects, but in experiencing pleasure and pain we turn our attention to ourselves only. For our sensations are caused by the external objects, and as their character may be, such also are the presentations which they produce: but our feelings take this or that character because of ourselves, and according to our state.

‘Wherefore these appear sometimes pleasant and sometimes unpleasant, and sometimes more and sometimes less. And this being so, we shall find, if we should choose to examine, that the best assumptions of the principles of knowledge are made by those who take into consideration both the senses and the mind.

‘While the senses are like the toils and nets and other hunting implements of this kind, the mind and the reason are like the hounds that track and pursue the prey. Better philosophers, however, than even these we must consider those to be who neither make use of their senses at random, nor associate their feelings in the discernment of truth. Else it would be a monstrous thing for beings endowed with man’s nature to forsake the most divine judgement of the mind and entrust themselves to irrational pleasures and pains.’

Chapter 22

So much, from the writings of Aristocles.

[PLATO] [1] ‘Let us then judge each of the three separately in relation to Pleasure and to Mind: for we must see to which of these two we are to assign each of them as more akin.

‘You are speaking of Beauty, and Truth, and Moderation?

‘Yes: but take Truth first, Protarchus, and then look at three things, Mind, and Truth, and Pleasure, and after taking long time for deliberation make answer to yourself whether Pleasure or Mind is more akin to Truth.

‘But what need of time? For I think they differ widely. Pleasure is of all things most full of false pretensions; and in the pleasures of love, the greatest as they are thought, even perjury, as they say, is forgiven by the gods, its votaries being regarded, like children, as possessing not even the smallest share of Reason; while Reason is either the same thing as Truth, or of all things most like it and most true.

‘Will you not then next consider Moderation in the same way, whether Pleasure possesses more of it than Wisdom, or Wisdom more than Pleasure?

‘An easy question this again that you propose. For I think one would find nothing in the world of a more immoderate nature than Pleasure and delight, nor any single thing more full of moderation than Reason and Science.

‘You say well; yet go on to speak of the third point. Has Reason a larger share of Beauty than Pleasure has, so that Reason is more beautiful than Pleasure, or the contrary?

‘Is it not the fact, Socrates, that no one ever yet whether waking or dreaming either saw or imagined Wisdom and Reason to be unseemly in any way or in any case, either past, present, or to come?

‘Right.

‘But surely when we see any one indulging in Pleasures, and those too the greatest, the sight either of the ridicule or of the extreme disgrace that follows upon them makes us ashamed ourselves, and we put them out of sight and conceal them as much as possible, consigning all such things to night, as unfit for the light to look upon.

‘In every way then, Protarchus, you will assert, both by messengers to the absent and by word of mouth to those present, that Pleasure is not the first of possessions nor yet the second, but the first is concerned with Measure, and Moderation, and opportuneness, and whatever qualities of this kind must be regarded as having acquired the eternal nature.

‘So it appears from what you now say.

‘The second is concerned with Symmetry and Beauty and Perfection and Sufficiency, and all qualities which are of this family.

‘It seems so, certainly.

‘If then, as I foretell, you assume as the third class mind and wisdom, you will not go far astray from the truth.

‘Perhaps so.

‘Shall we not say then that the fourth class, in addition to these three, are what we assumed to belong to the soul itself, sciences, and arts, and right opinions as they were called, inasmuch as they are more akin to the good than to Pleasure?

‘Very likely.

‘In the fifth place then pleasures which we assumed in our definition to be unmixed with pain, and called them pure cognitions of the soul itself, but consequent on the sensations.

‘Perhaps.

‘And, as Orpheus says,

“In the sixth age still the sweet voice of song.” [2]

But our discourse also seems to have been brought to an end at the sixth trial. And nothing is left for us after this except to put the crown as it were upon what we have said.

‘Yes, that is proper.

‘Come then, as the third libation to Zeus Soter, let us with solemn asseveration go over the same argument.

‘What argument?

‘Philebus proposed to us that the good is pleasure universally and absolutely.

‘By the third libation, Socrates, it seems that you meant just now that we must take up again the argument from the beginning.

‘Yes. But let us listen to what follows. On my part when I perceived what I have now been stating, and was indignant at the argument employed by Philebus, and not by him only but often by thousands of others, I said that Mind was far nobler than Pleasure, and better for human life.

‘It was so.

‘Yes, but, suspecting that there were many other good things, I said that if any of these should be found better than both the former, I would fight it out for the second prize on the side of Mind against Pleasure, and Pleasure would be deprived even of the second prize.

‘You did indeed say so.

‘And presently it was most satisfactorily shown that neither of these was sufficient.

‘Most true.

‘So in this argument both Reason and Pleasure had been entirely set aside, as being neither of them the absolute good, since they lacked sufficiency, and the power of adequacy and perfection.

‘Quite right.

‘But something else having been found better than either of them, Mind has now again been shown to be ten thousand times closer and more akin than Pleasure to the nature of the conqueror.

‘Of course.

‘So then the power of Pleasure will be fifth in the award, as our argument has now declared.

‘It seems so.

‘But not first, no, not even if all oxen and horses and other beasts together should assert it by their pursuit of enjoyment, though the multitude believing them, as soothsayers believe birds, judge pleasures to be most powerful to give us a happy life, and think that the lusts of animals are more valid witnesses than the words of those who from time to time have prophesied by inspiration of the philosophic Muse.

‘Now at last, Socrates, we all say that you have spoken most truly.’

So writes Plato. But I am also going to set before you a few passages of Dionysius, a bishop who professed the Christian philosophy, from his work On Nature,in answer to Epicurus. And do thou take and read his own words, which are as follows: [3]

[1] 770 b 1 Plato, Philebus,65 B

[2] 771 c 7Hermann, Orphica, Fr.xiii

[3] 772 d 1 Dionysius of Alexandria, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 23

[DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA] ‘Is the universe one connected whole, as it seems to us and to the wisest of the Greeks, such as Plato and Pythagoras and the Stoics and Heracleitus? Or two, as some one may have supposed, or even many and infinite in number, as it seemed to some others, who by many aberrations of thought and various applications of terms have attempted minutely to divide the substance of the universe, and suppose it to be infinite, and uncreated, and undesigned.

‘For some who gave the name “atoms” to certain imperishable and most minute bodies infinite in number, and assumed a void space of boundless extent, say that these atoms being borne on at random in the void, and accidentally colliding with each other through an irregular drift, become entangled, because they are of many shapes and catch hold of each other, and thus produce the world and all things in it, or rather worlds infinite in number.

‘Epicurus and Democritus were of this opinion: but they disagreed in so far as the former supposed all atoms to be extremely small and therefore imperceptible, while Democritus supposed that there were also some very large atoms. Both, however, affirm that there are atoms, and that they are so called because of their impenetrable hardness.

‘But others change the name of the atoms, and say that they are bodies which have no parts, but are themselves parts of the universe, out of which in their indivisible state all things are composed, and into which they are resolved. And they say that it was Diodorus who invented the name (τὰ ἀμερῆ) of these bodies without parts. But Heracleides, it is said, gave them a different Dame, and called them “weights,” and from him Asclepiades the physician inherited the name.’

After these statements he proceeds to overthrow the doctrine by many arguments, but especially by those which follow: [1]

[1] 773 d 1 Dionysius of Alexandria, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius, § 2

Chapter 24

‘How are we to bear with them when they assert that the wise and therefore beautiful works of creation are accidental coincidences? Works, of which each as it came into being by itself, and likewise all of them taken together, were seen to be good by Him who commanded them to be made. For the Scripture says, “And God saw all things that He had made, and behold, they were very good.” [1]

‘Nay, they will not even be taught by the small and familiar examples lying at their feet, from which they might learn that no useful and beneficial work is made without a special purpose, or by mere accident, but is perfected by handiwork for its proper service: but when it begins to fall off and become useless and unserviceable, then it is dissolved and dispersed in an indefinite and casual way, inasmuch as the wisdom by whose care it was constructed no longer manages nor directs it.

‘For a cloak is not woven by the warp being arranged without a weaver, or the woof intertwined of its own accord; but if it be worn out, the tattered rags are cast away. A house too or a city is built up not by receiving some stones self-deposited at the foundations, and others jumping up to the higher courses, but the builder brings the well-fitted stones and lays them in their place: but when the building is overthrown, however it may occur, each stone falls down and is lost.

‘Also while a ship is being built, the keel does not lay itself, and the mast set itself up amidships, and each of the other timbers of itself take any chance position;[2] nor do the so-called hundred pieces of the wagon fit themselves together each in any vacant place it finds: but the carpenter in either case brings them together fitly.

‘But should the ship go to pieces at sea, or the wagon in its course on land, the timbers are scattered wherever it may chance, in the one case by the waves, and in the other by the violent driving. Thus it would befit them to say that their atoms, as remaining idle, and not made by hands, and of no use, are driven at random. Be it for them to see the invisible atoms, and understand the unintelligible, unlike him who confesses that this had been manifested to him by God saying to God Himself, “Mine eyes did see Thy unperfected work.” [3]

‘But when they say that even what they assert to be finely-woven textures made out of atoms are wrought by them spontaneously without wisdom and without perception, who can endure to hear of the atoms as workmen, though they are inferior in wisdom even to the spider which spins its web out of itself?’

[1] 773 d 6 Gen. i. 31

[2] 774 b 3 Cf. Hesiod, Works and Days,454

[3] 774 c 6 Ps. cxxxix. 16

Chapter 25

‘OR who can endure to hear that this great house, which consists of heaven and earth, and, because of the great and manifold wisdom displayed upon it, is called the Cosmos, has been set in order by atoms drifting with no order at all, and that disorder has thus become order?

‘Or how believe that movements and courses well regulated are produced from an irregular drift? Or that the all-harmonious quiring of the heavenly bodies derives its concord from tuneless and inharmonious instruments?

‘Also if there be but one and the same substance of all atoms, and the same imperishable nature, excepting, as they say, their magnitudes and shapes, how is it that some bodies are divine, and incorruptible, and eternal, or at least, as they would say, secular according to him who so named them, both visible and invisible, visible as the sun, and moon, and stars, and earth and water, and invisible as gods, and daemons, and souls? For that these exist, they cannot, even if they would, deny.

‘And the most long-lived are animals and plants; animals, in the class of birds, as they say, eagles, and ravens, and the phoenix; and among land animals, stags, and elephants, and serpents; but among aquatic animals, whales: and among trees, palms, and oaks, and perseae; and of trees some are evergreen, of which some one who had counted them said there were fourteen, and some flower for a season, and shed their leaves: but the greatest part both of plants and animals die early and are short-lived, and man among them, as a certain holy Scripture said of him, “Man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live.” [1]

‘But they will say that variations in the bonds which connect the atoms are the causes of the difference in duration. For some things are said to be packed close and fastened tightly together by them, so that they have become close textures extremely difficult to unloose, while in others the combination of the atoms has been weak and loose in a greater or less degree, so that either quickly or after a long time they separate from their orderly arrangement: and some things are made up of atoms of a certain nature shaped in a certain way, and others of different kinds of atoms differently arranged.

‘Who is it then that distinguishes the classes, and collects them, and spreads them abroad, and arranges some in this way for a sun, and others in that way to produce the moon, and brings together the several kinds according to their fitness for the light of each separate star? For neither would the solar atoms, of such a number and kind as they are, and in such wise united, ever have condescended to the formation of a moon, nor would the combinations of the lunar atoms ever have become a sun. Nay, nor would Arcturus, bright though he is, ever boast of possessing the atoms of the morning star, nor the Pleiades those of Orion. For it was a fine distinction drawn by Paul when he said, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.” [2]

‘And if their combination, as of things without life, took place unconsciously, they required a skilful artificer: and if their conjunction was involuntary and of necessity, as in things without reason, then some wise leader of the flock presided over their gathering. But if they have been willingly confined to the performance of a voluntary work, some marvellous architect took the lead in apportioning their work; or acted as a general who, loving order, does not leave his army in confusion and all mixed up together, but arranges the cavalry in one place, and the heavy-armed infantry separately, and the javelin-men by themselves, and the archers apart, and the slingers in the proper place, that those of like arms might fight side by side.

‘But if they think this example a jest because I make a comparison between large bodies and very small, we will turn to the very smallest.’

Then he adds next to this:

‘But if there were neither word, nor choice, nor order of a ruler laid upon them, but they by themselves directing themselves through the great throng of the stream, and passing out through the great tumult of their collisions, were brought together like to like not by the guidance of God, as the poet says,[3] but ran together and gathered in groups recognizing their own kin, then wonderful surely would be this democracy of the atoms, friends welcoming and embracing one another, and hastening to settle in one common home; while some of them rounded themselves off of their own accord into that mighty luminary the sun, in order to make day, and others flamed up into many pyramids perhaps of stars, in order to crown the whole heaven; while others are ranged around, perchance to make it firm, and throw an arch over the ether for the luminaries to ascend, and that the confederacies of the common atoms may choose their own abodes, and portion out the heaven into habitations and stations for themselves.’

Then after some other passages he says:

‘But these improvident men, so far from discerning what is invisible, do not see even what is plainly visible. For they seem not even to observe the regular risings and settings either of the other bodies, or the most conspicuous, those of the sun, nor to make use of the aids bestowed through them upon mankind, the day lighted up for work, and the night overshadowing for rest. For “man,” says the Scripture, “will go forth to his work and to his labour until the evening.” [4]

‘Nay, they do not even observe that other revolution of the sun, in which he completes determinate times and convenient seasons and solstices recurring in undeviating order, being guided by the atoms of which he consists. But though these miserable men, the righteous, however, as they believe, be unwilling to admit it, yet “Great is the Lord that made him, and at His word he hasteneth his course.” [5]

‘For do atoms, O ye blind, bring you winter and rains, that the earth may send up food for you and all the living creatures thereon? And do they lead on the summer, that ye may also receive the fruits of the trees for enjoyment? And why then do ye not worship the atoms, and offer sacrifice to the guardians of your fruits? Ungrateful surely, for not consecrating to them even small first-fruits of the abundant gifts which ye receive from them.’

And after a short interval he says:

‘But the stars, that mixed democracy of many tribes, constituted by the wandering atoms ever scattering themselves abroad, marked off regions for themselves by agreement, just as if they had instituted a colony or a community, without any founder or master presiding over them; and the border-laws towards neighbouring nations they faithfully and peacefully observe, not encroaching beyond the boundaries which they have occupied from the beginning, just as if they had laws established by these royal atoms.

‘Yet these do not rule over them: for how could they, that are non-existent? But listen to the oracles of God:[6] “In the judgement of the Lord are His works from the beginning; and from the making of them He disposed the parts thereof. He garnished His works for ever, and the beginnings of them unto their generations.”’

And after a few sentences he says:

‘Or what phalanx ever marched across the level ground in such good order, none running on ahead, none falling out of rank, none blocking the way, nor lagging behind his company, as in even ranks and shield to shield the stars move ever onward, that continuous, undivided, unconfused, unhindered host?

‘Nevertheless, by inclinations and sidelong deviations, certain obscure changes of their course occur. And yet those who have given attention to these matters always watch for the right times and foresee the places from which they each rise. Let then the anatomists of the atoms, and dividers of the indivisible, and compounders of the uncompounded, and definers of the infinite, tell us whence comes the simultaneous circular revolution and periodical return of the heavenly bodies, wherein it is not merely one single conglomeration of atoms that has been thus casually hurled out as from a sling, but all this great circular choir moving evenly in rhythm, and whirling round together. And whence comes it, that this vast multitude of fellow travellers without arrangement, without purpose, and without knowledge of each other, have returned together? Rightly did the prophet class it among things impossible and unexampled that even two strangers should run together: “Shall two,” he says, “walk together at all, except they have known each other?’” [7]

After speaking thus, and adding numberless other remarks to these, he next discusses the question at length by arguments drawn from the particular elements of the universe, and from the living beings of all kinds included in them, and moreover from the nature of man. And by adding yet a few of these arguments to those which have been mentioned, I shall bring the present subject to an end.

[1] 775 c 5 Job xiv. 1

[2] 776 a 4 1 Cor. xv. 41

[3] 776 c 7 Homer, Od.xvii. 218

[4] 777 a 7 Ps. ciii. 23

[5] 777 b 5 Ecclesiasticus xliii. 5

[6] 777 d 5 ibid. xvi. 26, 27

[7] 778 b 6 Amos iii. 3

Chapter 26

‘ALSO, they neither understand themselves nor their own circumstances. For if any of the founders of this impious doctrine reconsidered who and whence he is, he would come to his senses as feeling conscious of himself, and would say, not to the atoms, but to his Father and Maker, “Thy hands fashioned me, and made me,” [1] and like that writer he would have described still further the wonderful manner of his formation: “Hast Thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews? Thou hast granted me life and favour, and Thy guardianship hath preserved my spirit.” [2]

‘For how many and of what sort were the atoms which the father of Epicurus poured forth from himself, when he was begetting Epicurus? And when deposited in his mother’s womb, how did they coalesce, and take shape, and form, and motion, and growth? And how did that small drop, after calling together the atoms of Epicurus in abundance, make some of them into skin and flesh for a covering, and how was it raised erect by others turned into bone, and by others bound together with a contexture of sinews?

‘And how did it adapt the many other limbs, and organs, and entrails, and instruments of sense, some within and some without, by which the body was quickened into life? For among these no idle nor useless part was added, no, not even the meanest, neither hair, nor nails, but all contribute, some to the benefit of the constitution, and others to the beauty of the appearance.

‘For Providence is careful not only of usefulness, but also of beauty. For while the hair of the head is a protection and a covering for all, the beard is a comely ornament for the philosopher. The nature also of the whole human body Providence composed of parts, all of which were necessary, and invested all the members with their mutual connexion, and measured out from the whole their due supply.

‘As to the most important of these members, it is evident even to the simple from their experience what force they have: there is the supreme power of the head, and around the brain, as enthroned in the citadel, is the attendant guard of the senses: the eyes going on in advance, the ears bringing back reports, the taste, as it were, collecting provisions, the smell tracing out and examining, and the touch arranging everything that is subject to it. (For at present we shall only run over in a summary manner a few of the works of the all-wise Providence, intending soon, if God permit, to complete the task more carefully, when we are directing our efforts against him who is thought more learned.)

‘Then there is the ministry of the hands, by which all kinds of workmanship and inventive arts are perfected, separately endowed with their particular facilities for co-operation in one and the same work, the strength of the shoulders in . bearing burdens, the grasp of the fingers, the joints of the elbows both turning inward towards the body and bending outwards, that they may be able both to draw things in and thrust them off. The service of the feet, by which the whole terrestrial creation comes under our power, the land to tread on, the sea to sail, the rivers to cross, and communication of all things with all. The belly, a store-room of food, meting out from itself in due measure the provisions for all the members associated with it, and ejecting what is superfluous: and all the other parts whereby the administration of the human constitution has been manifestly contrived, and of which the wise and foolish alike possess the use but not the knowledge.

‘For the wise refer the administration to whatever deity they suppose to be most perfect in all knowledge and most beneficent towards themselves, being convinced that it is the work of superior wisdom and power truly divine; while the others inconsiderately refer the most marvellous work of beauty to a chance meeting and coincidence of the atoms.

‘Now though the still more effectual consideration of these subjects, and the arrangement of the internal parts of the body, have been accurately investigated by physicians, who in their astonishment made a god of nature, yet let us hereafter make a re-examination as well as we may be able, even though it be superficial.

‘Now in a general and summary way I ask who made this whole tabernacle such as it is, lofty, erect, of fine proportion, keenly sensitive, graceful in motion, strong in action, fit for every kind of work? The irrational multitude of atoms, say they. Why, they could not come together and mould an image of clay, nor polish a statue of marble, nor produce by casting an idol of silver or gold; but men have been the inventors of arts and manufactures of these materials for representing the body.

‘And if representations and pictures could not be made without intelligence, how can the real originals of the same have been spontaneous accidents?

‘Whence too have soul, and mind, and reason been implanted in the philosopher? Did he beg them from the atoms which have no soul, nor mind, nor reason, and did each of them inspire him with some thought and doctrine?

‘And was the wisdom of man brought to perfection by the atoms, in the same way as Hesiod’s fable says that Pandora was by the gods? [3] Will the Greeks also cease to say that all poetry, and all music, and astronomy, and geometry, and the other sciences are inventions and instructions of the gods, and have the Atomic Muses alone been skilful and wise in all things? For the race of gods constructed by Epicurus out of atoms is banished from their infinite worlds of order, and driven out into the infinite chaos.’

[1] 778 d 3 Job x. 8, Ps. cxix. 73

[2] 778 d 5 Job x. 10

[3] 780 d 7 Hesiod, Works and Days,60 ff.

Chapter 27

‘BUT to work, and to administer, to do good and to show forethought, and all such actions are burdensome perhaps to the idle and foolish, and to the feeble and wicked, among whom Epicurus enrolled himself by entertaining such thoughts of the gods; but to the earnest, and able, and wise, and prudent, such as philosophers ought to be (how much more the gods?), not only are these things not unpleasant and arduous, but even most delightful, and above all else most welcome; for to them carelessness and delay in performing any good action is judged to be a disgrace, as a poet admonishes them with his advice:

“Nor aught until the morrow to delay,” [1]

and with the threat in addition:

“He who puts off his work Must ever wrestle with malignant fates.” [2]

‘We too are more solemnly instructed by a prophet, who says that virtuous actions are truly worthy of God, and that he who cares little for them is accursed: for he says, “Cursed be he that doeth the works of the Lord carelessly.” [3]

‘Then too those who have not learned an art, and can only pursue it imperfectly because the effort is unusual and the work unpractised, find a weariness in their attempts: but those who are making progress, and still more those who are perfect, delight in the easy accomplishment of their pursuits, and would rather choose to complete what they usually practise, and to finish their work, than to possess all the things which men reckon good.

‘For instance, Democritus himself, as the story goes, used to say that he would rather discover one single law of causation than receive the kingdom of Persia, and this, although he was vainly seeking causes where no cause was, as one who started from a false principle and an erroneous hypothesis, and did not discern the root and the necessity common to the nature of all things, but regarded the contemplation of senseless and random contingencies as the highest wisdom, and set up chance as the mistress and queen of things universal and things divine, and declared that all things took place in accordance therewith, but banished it from the life of man, and convicted those who worshipped it as senseless. For example, in the beginning of his Suggestionshe says: “Men formed an image of chance as an excuse for their own folly: for chance is by nature antagonistic to judgement: and this worst enemy of wisdom they said ruled over it; or rather they utterly overthrow and annihilate this latter, and set up the other in its place: for they praise not wisdom as fortunate, but fortune as most wise.” [4]

‘Whereas therefore the masters of those works which are beneficial to life take pride in the help which they render to their fellow men, and desire praise and fame for the works in which they labour for their good, some in providing food, others as pilots, some as physicians, and some as statesmen, philosophers proudly boast of their efforts to instruct mankind.

‘Or will Epicurus or Democritus dare to say that they distress themselves by their pursuit of philosophy? Nay, there is no other gladness of heart that they would prefer to this. For even though they think that good consists in pleasure, yet they will be ashamed to say that philosophy is not more pleasant to them.

‘But as to the gods of whom their poets sing as “Givers of good things,” [5] these philosophers with mocking reverence say, The gods are neither givers nor partakers of any good things. In what way then do they show evidence of the existence of gods, if they neither see them present and doing something, as those who in admiration of the sun and moon and stars said that they were called gods (θεούς) because of their running (θεειν),nor assign to them any work of creation or arrangement, that they might call them gods from setting(θεῖναι),that is making(for in this respect in truth the Creator and Artificer of the universe alone is God), nor exhibit any administration, or judgement, or favour of theirs towards mankind, that we should owe them fear or honour, and therefore worship them?

‘Or did Epicurus peep out from the world, and pass beyond the compass of the heavens, or go out through some secret gates known only to himself, and behold the gods dwelling in the void, and deem them and their abundant luxury blessed? And did he thence become a devotee of pleasure, and an admirer of their life in the void, and so exhort all who are to be made like unto those gods to participate in this blessing, commending as a happy banqueting hall for them, not heaven or Olympus, as the poets did, but the void, and setting before them their ambrosia made out of the atoms, and pledging them in nectar from the same?

‘And moreover he inserts in his own books countless oaths and adjurations addressed to those who are nothing to us, swearing continually “No, by Zeus,” and “Yes, by Zeus,” and adjuring his readers and opponents in argument “in the name of the gods,” having, I suppose, no fear himself of perjury nor trying to frighten them, but uttering this as an empty, and false, and idle, and unmeaning appendage to his speeches, just as he might hawk and spit, and turn his face, and wave his hand. Such an unintelligible and empty piece of acting on his part was his mentioning the name of the gods.

‘This however was evident, that after the death of Socrates he was afraid of the Athenians, and that he might not seem to be what he really was, an atheist, he played the charlatan and painted for them some empty shadows of unsubstantial gods. For he neither looked up to heaven with eyes of intelligence, that he might hear the clear voice from above, which the attentive observer did hear, and testified that “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth the work of His hands,” [6] nor did he with his understanding look upon the ground, for he would have learned that “The earth is full of the mercy of the Lord,” [7] and that “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” [8] For the Scripture says, “After this also the Lord looked upon the earth, and filled it with His blessings. With the soul of every living thing He covered the face thereof.”’ [9]

‘And if they are not utterly blind, let them survey the vast and varied multitude of living beings, land and water animals, and birds, and let them take note how true has been the testimony of the Lord in the judgement which He passed on all His works, “And all appeared good according to His command.” ‘ [10]

These arguments I have culled from a large number framed against Epicurus by Dionysius, the bishop, our contemporary. But now it is time to pass on to Aristotle, and to the sect of the Stoic philosophers, and to review the remaining opinions of the wonderful sect of physicists, that so we may present to the censorious our defence for having withdrawn from them also.

[Footnotes placed at the end and numbered]

[1] 781 c 3 Hesiod, ibid. 408

[2] 781 c 5 Hesiod, ibid. 411

[3] 781 c 9 Jer. xlviii. 10

[4] 782 a 6 Democritus, Ethical Fragments,l.14 (Mullach, i. p. 340)

[5] 782 c 6 Homer, Od.viii. 325

[6] 783 d 1 Ps. xix. 1

[7] d 4 Ps. xxxii. 5

[8] d 5 Ps. xxiv. 1

[9] d 6 Ecclesiasticus xvi. 29, 30

[10] d 13 Cf. Gen. i. 31

Book 15

Introduction

PREFACE CONCERNING THE WHOLE SUBJECT

I THOUGHT it important in the beginning of the Preparation for the Gospelto refute the polytheistic error of all the nations, in order to commend and excuse our separation from them, which we have made with good reason and judgement.

Therefore before all else in the first three Books, I thoroughly examined not only the fables concerning their gods which have been turned into ridicule by their own theologians and poets, but also the solemn and secret physical theories of these latter, which have been transported by their grand philosophy high up to heaven and to the various parts of the world; although their theologians themselves declared that there was no need at all to talk gravely on these matters.

We must therefore carefully observe that the oldest of their theologians were proved on the highest testimony to have no special knowledge of the history, but to rely solely on the fables. Hence naturally in all cities and villages, according to the narratives of these ancient authors, initiatory rites and mysteries of the gods corresponding to the earlier mythical tales have been handed down by tradition; so that even to the present time the marriages of their gods and their procreation of children, their lamentations and their drunkenness, the wanderings of some, the amours of others, their anger, and their different disasters and adventures of all kinds, are traditionally received in accordance with the notices recorded by the most ancient authors, in their initiatory rites, and in their hymns, and in the songs composed in honour of their gods.

But nevertheless, as a work of supererogation, I also brought out to light the refinements of these later authors themselves which they had pompously exhibited in physical explanations, and the subtleties of the sophists and philosophers. Moreover, as to the account of the renowned oracles, and the false opinion concerning fate so celebrated among the multitude, these I laid bare by evidence as clear as day in other three books following next after the first three; and for the proof against them I made use not only of my own dialectic efforts, but also especially of the sayings of the Greek philosophers themselves.

Passing on thence to the oracles of the Hebrews, I showed, in the same number of books again, by what reasonings we accepted the dogmatic theology contained in them, and the universal history taught by them and confirmed by the testimony of the Greeks themselves.

Next in order I refuted the method of the Greeks, and clearly showed how they had been helped in all things by Barbarians, and that they bring forward no serious learning of their own, making also a comparative table of the times in which the celebrated Greeks and the Hebrew prophets lived. Again in the next three books I showed the agreement of the best-esteemed philosophers of the Greeks with the opinions of the Hebrews, and again made their own utterances my witnesses.

Moreover in the book preceding this I clearly detected those Greek philosophers who differ from our opinions as being at variance not with us only but also with their own countrymen, and as having been overthrown by their own disciples. Throughout all these discussions I show to my readers that the judgement of my own mind is impartial, and by the very facts and deeds, so to say, I have brought forward my proofs, that with no want of consideration, but with well-judged and sound reasoning, we have chosen the philosophy and religion of the Hebrews, which is both ancient and true, in preference to that of the Greeks, which result was also confirmed by the comparison of the statements of the Greeks.

As we have been deferring up to the present time our final discourse hereon, which is the fifteenth Book of the treatise in hand, we will now make up what is lacking to the discussions which we have travelled through, by still further dragging into light the solemn doctrines of the fine philosophy of the Greeks, and laying bare before the eyes of all the useless learning therein. And before all things we shall show that not from ignorance of the things which they admire, but from contempt of the unprofitable study therein we have cared very little for them, and devoted our own souls to the practice of things far better.

When therefore by God’s help this book shall have received the seal of truth, my work on the Preparationshall here be brought to a close; and passing on to the more complete argument of the Demonstration of the Gospel,I shall connect the commencement of my second treatise with the consideration of the remaining charge brought against us.

Now the fault alleged against us was this, that though we honoured the oracles of the Hebrews above those of our own country, we did not emulate and choose a life like that of the Jews. Against that charge I shall, with the help of God, endeavour to make answer after the completion of my present discourse. For in this way I think that the second part being connected in one bond, as it were, with the first, will unite and complete the general purpose of the whole discussion.

As to our present task, however, in the preceding Books we have seen the philosophy of Plato sometimes agreeing with the doctrines of the Hebrews, and sometimes at variance with them, wherein it has been proved to disagree even with its own favourite dogmas: while as to the doctrines of the other philosophers, the physicists, as they are called, and those of the Platonic succession, and of Xenophanes and Parmenides, moreover of Pyrrho, and those who introduce the ‘suspension of judgement,’ and all the rest, whose opinions have been refuted in the preceding discourse, we have seen that they stand in opposition alike to the doctrines of the Hebrews and of Plato and to the truth itself, and moreover have received their refutation by means of their own weapons.

It is time then to look down, as it were, from a raised stage upon the other vain conceit of the Aristotelian and Stoic philosophers, and also to survey all the remaining physical systems of the supercilious tribe, that we may learn the grand doctrines taught among them, and on the other hand the objections urged against them by those of their own side.

For in this way our decision to withdraw from these also will be freed from all reasonable blame, for that we have preferred the truth and piety found among those who have been regarded as Barbarians to all the wisdom of the Greeks, not in ignorance of their fine doctrines, but by a well examined and thoroughly tested judgement. . To begin with Aristotle. Other authors, and among them philosophers not otherwise undistinguished, have defamed his personal life. But for my part I cannot willingly endure even to hear the man evil spoken of by his own friends. Wherefore I shall the rather set forth the defence urged on his behalf in the works of Aristocles the Peripatetic, who in his seventh book On Philosophywrites of him as follows:

Chapter 2

[ARISTOCLES] [1] ‘FOR how is it possible that, as Epicurus says in his Epistle concerning moral habits,when a young man he squandered his patrimony, and afterwards, was forced into military service, and being unsuccessful in this had recourse to selling drugs, then, after Plato’s walk had been thrown open to all, joined himself to him?

‘Or how could any one accept what Timaeus of Tauromenium says in his Histories,that when advanced in years he kept the doors of an obscure surgery, or any others?

‘Or who would believe what Aristoxenus the musician says in his Life of Plato? For he states that during his wandering and long absence from home certain strangers rose up against him and built a Peripatos in opposition to him. Some therefore think that he says this in reference to Aristotle, whereas Aristoxenus always speaks of Aristotle with reverence.

‘One may also say with reason that the memoirs by Alexinus the Eristic are ridiculous. For he makes Alexander when a boy converse with his father Philip, and pour contempt upon Aristotle’s doctrines, while approving Nicagoras, who was surnamed Hermes.

‘Eubulides, also, in his book against Aristotle manifestly lies, first in bringing forward some frigid poems as written by others concerning his marriage and his intimacy with Hermias, and secondly in asserting that he offended Philip, and did not come to visit Plato when dying, and that he had corrupted his writings.

‘As to the accusation of Demochares against the philosophers, why need we mention it? For he has reviled not Aristotle only, but all the rest as well. Moreover, any one glancing at the calumnies themselves would say that the man talks nonsense. For he says that there have been discovered letters of Aristotle against the Athenian state, and that he betrayed Stageira, his native city, to the Macedonians; and further, that, when Olynthus was destroyed, at the place where the booty was sold he pointed out to Philip the most wealthy of the Olynthians.

‘Foolish also are the calumnies which have been brought against him by Cephisodorus, the disciple of Isocrates, saying that he was luxurious and a gourmand, and other things of this kind.

‘But all are surpassed in folly .by the statements of Lycon, who says that he is himself a Pythagorean. For he affirms that Aristotle offered to his wife after death a sacrifice such as the Athenians offer to Demeter, and that he used to bathe in warm oil, and then sell it: and that when he was starting for Chalcis, the custom-house officers found in the vessel seventy-five brass plates.

‘These are nearly all the chief detractors of Aristotle: of whom some lived at the same time with him, and others a little later, but all were Sophists, and Eristics, and Rhetoricians, whose very names and books are more dead than their bodies. As to those who came after them, and then repeated their statements, we may put them aside altogether, and especially those who have not even read their books, but invent for themselves, of which kind are those who say that he had three hundred dishes: for nobody could be found among his contemporaries, except Lycon, who has said any such thing about him. He, however, has said, as I mentioned before, that there were seventy-five plates found.

‘But not only from the dates and from the persons who have reviled him might one infer that all the things that have been stated are false, but also from the fact that they do not all bring the same charges, but each says some things of his own: in which if there was any one word of truth, he deserved surely to have been put to death by his contemporaries not once only but ten thousand times.

‘It is manifest therefore that it has happened to Aristotle, as to many others, to be envied by the Sophists of his time, both for his friendships with kings, and for his superiority in argument. But those who are right-minded must look not only to the detractors, but also to those who praise and emulate him: for these will be found much more in number and in worth.

‘Now all the other stories are manifestly invented: but credit seems to be given to these two things for which some blame him; one, that he married Pythias, who was by birth the sister, and by adoption the daughter, of Hermias, to flatter him. For instance Theocritus of Chios wrote an epigram of this kind:[2]

“To Hermias, eunuch and Eubulus’ slave, This empty tomb by empty sage was rais’d, Who left the groves of Academe, and dwelt By Borborus’ streams, his ravenous maw to fill.”

‘The other charge was that Aristotle was ungrateful to Plato.

‘Now among many authors who have written of Hermias and Aristotle’s friendship with him, the chief is Apellicon, and any one after reading his books will soon cease to speak evil of them.

‘But with regard to his marriage to Pythias he has himself made sufficient defence in his Epistles to Antipater.For after the death of Hermias he married her because of his affection for him, she being also a modest and good woman, but in misfortune by reason of the calamities which had overtaken her brother.’

Then afterwards he says:

‘But after the death of Pythias, the daughter of Hermias, Aristotle married Herpyllis of Stageira, by whom a son Nicomachus was born to him. And he, it is said, was brought up as an orphan by Theophrastus, and when a very young man was killed in war.’

But enough of these extracts from the aforesaid book of Aristocles: for it is time now to consider the dogmatic philosophy of Aristotle.

[1] 791 b 1 Aristocles, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius.

[2] 793 a 6 Theocritus of Chios, Bergk, Poet. Lyr.p. 676

Chapter 3

WHEREAS Moses and the Hebrew prophets laid it down that the perfection of a happy life is the knowledge of the God of all the world and friendship with Him accomplished by piety, and taught that true piety is the pleasing God by every virtue (because this is the source of blessings, for all things depend on God only, and all are procured from Him for the friends of God), and whereas Plato gives definitions agreeing with these, and declares virtue to be the perfection of happiness, Aristotle took the other path, and says that no one can be happy otherwise than through bodily pleasure and abundance of outward means, without which even virtue cannot profit. How the friends of Plato opposed him and refuted the falseness of his opinion, we may learn from what follows: [1]

[1] 794 c 1 Atticus, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius.

Chapter 4

[ATTICUS] ‘FOR whereas by the common judgement of philosophers Philosophy as a whole makes promise of human happiness, and is divided into three parts according to the distribution which makes up the universe, the Peripatetic will be seen to be so far from teaching herein any of the doctrines of Plato, that, though there are many who differ from Plato, he will himself be shown to be his strongest opponent.

‘And in the first place he departed from Plato on the point of universal and chief importance by failing to keep the measure of happiness, and not admitting that for this virtue is sufficient; but having missed the power that is in virtue, he thought that it needed the goods of fortune, in order to gain happiness with their help; but if it were to be left by itself, he complained that it was a powerless thing incapable of attaining to happiness.

‘Now this is not the time for showing how ignoble and mistaken was his opinion both on this and on the other points: but I think it is manifest, that whereas the object aimed at and the happiness are not equal nor identical according to Plato and according to Aristotle, but the one is ever crying aloud and proclaiming that the most righteous is the most happy man, while the other does not admit that happiness is a consequence of virtue, unless it be fortunate also in birth and beauty and other things, and so

“To war he came, decked, like a girl, with gold,” [1]

according to the difference of the end the philosophy leading thereto must also be different.

‘For a man who walks only on one way which naturally leads to something that is petty and low, cannot reach to greater things that are set on high.

“See’st thou where yonder hill stands up aloft Rugged with overhanging cliffs? There sits The bird that lightly mocks thy feeble threat.” [2]

‘Up to this lofty hill that shrewd and crafty beast is not able to ascend: but in order that the fox may come close to the eagle’s brood, either they must meet with some ill luck and fall to the ground through the destruction of their own nest, or the fox herself must grow what it is not her nature to grow,

“and circle on light wings,”

and so soaring from the earth fly up to the lofty hill. But as long as each remains on his own level, there can be no communion between things of earth and the offspring of heaven.’

After other statements he adds:

‘Since then this is the case, and since Plato’s endeavour is to draw the souls of the youths upward to the divine, and in this manner he makes them the friends of virtue and of honour, and persuades them to despise all else, tell us, O Peripatetic, how wilt thou teach these things? How wilt thou guide the lovers of Plato to them? Where in thy sect is so lofty a height of argument as to acquire the spirit of the Aloadae and seek the path to heaven, which they thought might be made by piling up mountains, a thing which, as Plato says, is to be done by removing “the objects of human ambition.” [3]

‘What help then canst thou give the young men towards this end? And whence find any argument as an active ally of virtue? From what letters of Aristotle? From whom of his followers? Out of what writings? I give thee leave even to forge, if thou wilt, only let it be something spirited. But in fact thou hast neither anything to say, nor would any of the leaders of thy sect permit thee.

‘At all events the treatises of Aristotle on these subjects, entitled Eudemianand Nicomachianand the Great Ethics,have a petty, and low, and vulgar idea of virtue, and no better than an ordinary and uneducated man might have, or a lad, or a woman. For the diadem, so to speak, and the kingly sceptre, which virtue received from Zeus, and holds inalienable,

“For ne’er his promise shall deceive, or fail, Or be recalled, if with a nod confirmed,” [4]

this they dare to take away from her.

‘For they do not allow her to make men happy, but set her on a level with wealth, and glory, and birth, and health, and beauty, and all the other possessions which are common to vice. For as the presence of any whatsoever of these without virtue suffices not to render the possessor happy, so without these virtue, according to the same system, is not able to give happiness to its possessor.

‘Is not then the dignity of virtue dethroned and cast down? Certainly: yet they say virtue is far superior to all the other good things. Of what avail is this? For they say also that health is better than wealth: but it is a fault common to all, that apart each from other they suffice not for happiness.

‘If ever therefore any one, starting from these doctrines and this sect, should teach that he who seeks all that is good for man in the soul alone is happy, they say that he never mounts the wheel, nor could he who is oppressed by “misfortunes such as Priam’s” [5] possibly be happy and blessed.

‘But it is not unlikely that the possessor of virtue may fall into some such misfortunes. Hereupon it follows, that happiness neither results from every condition to the possessors of virtue, nor remains always with them if it does come.

“Of leaves one generation by the wind Is scattered on the earth; but others soon The teeming forest clothe. … So with our race, these nourish, those decay.” [6]

Thy similitude, O poet, is still narrow and timid:

“The Spring-tide comes again.”

It is a long time that intervenes, and in which nothing grows. If thou would’st give an exact similitude of the mortality and decay of the human race, compare it with Aristotle’s happiness. This springs up and passes away more lightly than the leaves, not continuing through the circling year, nor within the year, nor within a month, but in the very day, the very hour, it both springs up and perishes.

‘And many are the causes which destroy it, and all of them results of chance: for there are the body’s “various dooms,” [7] and these are myriads, and there is poverty, and disgrace, and all things of this kind; and against none of these are dear virtue’s resources sufficient of themselves to give help; for she is without strength to ward off misery or to preserve happiness.

‘In what way then can any one who has been reared in these doctrines and delighted with them either himself assent to the teaching of Plato, or ever confirm others in it? For it is not possible that any one starting from these principles should accept those other Herculean and divine dogmas, that virtue is a strong and noble thing, and never fails to give happiness, nor is ever deprived of it: but though poverty and disease and infamy and tortures and pitch and the cross, yea, though all the disasters of tragedy come in together like a flood, still the righteous man is happy and blessed.[8]

‘In fact, as with the tongue of the most loud-voiced herald, he proclaims the most righteous man, just as some victorious athlete, saying that he is the happiest of all men, who reaps the fruit of happiness from righteousness itself. Distinguish then, if you will, and variously distribute good things in threefold, fourfold, or manifold order; for this is nothing to the point before us; you will never by them bring us near to Plato.

‘For what, if among good things, some, as you say, are worthy of honour, as the gods; and some worthy to be praised, as the virtues; and some are powers, as riches and strength; and others are beneficial, as the healing arts? Or what, if you distribute them with less division, and say that of good things some are ends, and some are not ends, and call those ends, for the sake of which the others are taken, and not ends those which are taken for the sake of others?

‘Or what, if one were taught, that some are absolutely good, and others not good for all? Or that some are goods of the soul, and others of the body, and others external? Or again, that of goods, some are powers, and others dispositions and habits, and others actions; and some ends, and some matter, and some instruments? And if one learn from thee to divide the good according to the ten categories, what are these lessons to the judgement of Plato?

‘For as long as you on the one hand, either equivocally or as you please, speak of the good things of virtue, and combine with it certain other things as essential to happiness, thus robbing virtue of its sufficiency, while Plato on the other hand gets from virtue itself what is complete for happiness and seeks for the other things only as a superfluity, there can be on this point nothing common between you. You want one set of arguments, Plato’s friends want others. ’For as

“Lions and men no safe alliance form, Nor wolves and lambs in friendly mind agree,” [9]

so between Plato and Aristotle there is no friendship in regard to the very chief and paramount doctrine of happiness. For if they have no evil thoughts one towards the other, yet it is evident that their statements concerning what is important on this point are diametrically opposite.’

[1] 795 a 1 Hom. Il. ii. 872

[2] 795 a 7 Archilochus, Fr.vi

[3] 795 d 2 Plato, Phaedrus,349 D

[4] 796 a 3 Hom. Il.i. 526 (Lord Derby)

[5] 796 c 1 Cf. Aristotle, Nicom. Ethics,VII. xiii. 3

[6] 796 c 7 Hom. Il.vi. 147-9

[7] 797 a 1 Cf. Hom. Il.xii. 326

[8] 797 b 3 Cf. Plato, Republic,ii. 361; x. 613 A

[9] 798 a 7 Hom. Il.xxii. 262

Chapter 5

AGAIN, whereas Moses and the Hebrew prophets, and Plato moreover in agreement with them on this point, have very clearly treated the doctrine of the universal providence, Aristotle stays the divine power at the moon, and marks off the remaining portions of the world from God’s government: and on this ground also he is refuted by the aforesaid author, who discusses the matter as follows: [1]

‘Whereas, further, the most important and essential of the things that contribute to happiness is the belief in providence, which more than aught else guides human life aright, unless at least we are to remain ignorant

“Whether by justice or by crooked wiles Mankind from earth may scale the lofty height,” [2]

Plato makes all things connected with God, and dependent on God, for he says that “He, holding the beginning and the middle and the end of all things, passes onward in a straight course to the accomplishment of His purpose.” [3] And again he says, that “He is good, and goodness can never have any jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, He makes all things as good as possible, bringing them out of disorder into order.” [4] And while He cares for all things, and orders all as well as possible, He has taken thought for mankind also.’

And after a few words:

‘Thus speaks Plato. But he who puts aside this divine nature, and cuts off the soul’s hope of hereafter, and destroys reverence before superior Beings in the present life, what communion has he with Plato? Or how could he exhort men to what Plato desires, and confirm his sayings? For on the contrary he surely would appear as the helper and ally of those who wish to do injustice. For every one who is human and constrained by human desires, if he despise the gods and think they are nothing to him, inasmuch as in life he dwells far away from them, and after death exists no more, will come prepared to gratify his lusts.

‘For it is not impossible to feel assurance of being undetected in wrong-doing, if indeed it be necessary to avoid detection by men: it is not necessary, however, on every occasion even to seek to avoid detection, where a man has power to overmaster those who have discovered him. So the disbelief in providence is a ready way to wrong-doing.

‘For a very worthy person indeed is he, who after holding out pleasure to us as a good, and granting us security from the gods, still thinks to provide a plan to prevent wrong-doing. He acts like a physician who, having neglected to give help while the sick man was yet alive, attempts after death to devise certain contrivances for curing the dead man.

‘In a similar manner to him the Peripatetic acts. For it is not so much the eagerness for the pleasure, as the disbelief that the deity cares, that encourages wrong-doing. What then, some one may say, do you put Aristotle in the same class with Epicurus?

‘Why certainly, at least in relation to the point before us. For what difference does it make to us, whether you banish deity from the world and leave us no communion therewith, or shut up the gods in the world and remove them from all share in the affairs of earth? For in both cases the indifference of the gods towards men is equal, and equal also the security of wrong-doers from fear of the gods. And as to our deriving any benefit from them while they remain in heaven, in the first place this is common also to things without reason or life, and further, in this way, even according to Epicurus, men get help from the gods, ‘They say, for instance, that the better emanations from them become the causes of great blessings to those who partake of them. But neither Epicurus nor Aristotle can rightly be reckoned on the side of providence. For if according to Epicurus providence disappears, although the gods according to him employ the utmost solicitude for the preservation of their own goods, so must providence disappear according to Aristotle also, even if the heavenly motions are arranged in a certain order and array.

‘For we seek a providence that has an interest for us, and in such that man has no share who has admitted that neither daemons, nor heroes, nor any souls at all can live on hereafter.

‘But therein Epicurus, in my judgement, seems to have acted more modestly: for as if he despaired of the gods being able to abstain from the care of mankind if they came in contact with them, he transferred them, as it were, to a foreign country, and settled them somewhere outside the world, excusing them from the charge of inhumanity by the removal, and by their separation from all things.

‘But this our super-excellent discoverer of nature, and accurate judge of things divine, after putting human affairs under the very eyes of the gods yet left them uncared for and unregarded, being administered by some force of nature, and not by divine reason. Wherefore he himself cannot fairly escape that other charge which some imagine against Epicurus, that it was not according to his judgement, but through fear of men, that he allotted room in the universe to the gods, just like a spectator’s place in a theatre.

‘And they regard it as a proof of. the man’s opinion, that he deprived the gods of their activity towards us, from which alone a just confidence in their existence was likely to be derived. For this same thing is done by Aristotle also; for by his both putting them far off and giving over the proof to sight only, an operation too feeble to judge of things at so great a distance, it may readily be thought that from shame he admits the existence of gods there.

‘For as he neither left anything outside the world, nor gave his gods access to things on earth, he was compelled either to confess himself altogether an atheist, or to preserve the appearance of allowing gods to remain, by banishing his gods to some such place as that. But Epicurus, by excusing the higher powers from diligent care because of the want of communication, seems to throw a decent veil over his disbelief in the gods.’

Such are the remarks of Atticus against Aristotle’s repudiation of the doctrine of providence. The same author further adds to what has been quoted the following remarks, aiming at the same philosopher’s unwillingness to admit that the world was created.

[1] c 9 Atticus, Fr.iii

[2] d 3 Pindar, Fr. Incert.129 (Boeckh)

[3] d 6 Plato, Laws,iv. 715 E

[4] d 8 ibid. Timaeus,29 E

Chapter 6

WHEREAS again Moses decided that the world was created, and set up God as Maker and Creator over the universe, and whereas Plato’s philosophy taught the same doctrines as Moses, Aristotle, having travelled the contrary course on this point also, is refuted by the aforesaid author writing as follows word for word:

‘In the first place then Plato speculating upon the origin of the world, and considering that every one must necessarily seek after this great and very beneficial doctrine of Providence, and having reasoned out the conclusion that the uncreated has no need either of a maker or of a guardian for its well-being, in order that he might not deprive the world of providence, denied that it was uncreated.

‘And we pray that we may not at this point he opposed by those of our own household, who choose to think that according to Plato also the world is uncreated. For they are bound in justice to pardon us, if in reference to Plato’s opinions we believe what he himself, being a Greek, has discoursed to us Greeks in clear and distinct language.

‘’For God,” says he, “having found the whole visible world not at rest, but moving in an irregular and disorderly manner, brought it out of disorder into order, because He thought that this was altogether better than the other.” [1] And still more plainly he shows that he did not adopt creation in an enigmatic way, nor yet for need of clearness, in the discourse which he has made the Father of all hold upon this point after the creation of the universe.

“For,” says he, “since ye have come into being, (and he is speaking to the gods) though ye are not altogether immortal nor indissoluble, nevertheless ye shall certainly not be dissolved, since ye have gained my will.” [2]

‘But, as I was saying, with those who talk to us at home, as being our friends, we will discuss the matter in a friendly way and quietly with gentle arguments. For Aristotle seems to have brought them also over, as haying been unable to resist his attack upon the doctrine, and unwilling to impute to Plato what seemed to have been detected as a fallacy.

‘But according to our hearing, whereas Plato claims for the world that it is the noblest work made by the noblest of Creators, and invests the Maker of all with a power by which He made the world which did not previously exist, and haying made it, will if He please preserve it ever in safety, and whereas according to him the world is in this way supposed to be created and imperishable, who among the Peripatetics gives us any confirmation of these doctrines?

‘We must gently admonish their ally, that it is not absolutely necessary that whatever has been created must also perish, nor conversely that what will never perish must necessarily be uncreated. For we must neither admit that the sole cause of the imperishable is derived from its being uncreated, nor must we leave the passing of the created to destruction as admitting no remedy.

‘Whence then are we to get any help on these points from the doctrines of Aristotle, a man who pursues the argument on these subjects, not indirectly, nor merely as stating his own opinion, but sets himself in direct opposition to Plato, and both brings the created under a necessity of perishing, and says that what is imperishable maintains its imperishable condition only from the fact of not having been created, nor even leaves any power in God, which He can use to do any good. For what has never existed before now, this, he says, never can come into existence.

‘And so far is he from supporting Plato’s doctrine by these statements, that he has ere now frightened some even of Plato’s zealous disciples by what he said, and led them to reject his doctrine, because they were not able to perceive, that although, according to the nature of things alone without the will and power of God, neither the created is imperishable nor the imperishable created.

‘Yet when one has established as the chief cause that which proceeds from God, one must take this as guide in all things, and show it to be a cause on no point inferior to any others. For it is ridiculous that, because a thing has come into existence, it must therefore perish, and yet not perish, if God so wills; ridiculous also that, because a thing is uncreated, it has strength to escape from perishing, and yet that the will of God is insufficient to keep any created thing from perishing.

‘The builder is able to set up a house not yet existent, and a man can make a statue not previously existent, and another frames a ship out of unwrought timber and gives it over to those who want it, and all the other artificers, who pursue the constructive arts, have this power to bring some non-existent thing into existence; and shall the universal King and Chief Artificer not so much as share the power of a human artificer, but be left by us without any share in creation? Not so, if at least we be able in any small degree to form an estimate of a divine cause.

‘But though competent to create and to will what is excellent, (for He is good, and the good feels no envy about anything), is He yet unable to preserve and guard what He has made? [3] Yet surely even the other artificers are competent to do both. The builder, for instance, and the shipwright not only build new ships and houses, but are able also to repair those which are wearing away from time, substituting in them other parts in place of those which have been damaged.

‘So that surely so much as this must be conceded to God also. For how can He who is able to make a whole thing be unable to make it in part? So then why need it be made new, if one who is a maker in general is also to preserve his beautiful work against every accident? For to be willing to undo what was well made is the part of an evil one.

‘But there is no stronger bond for the preservation of things created than the will of God. Or, while many things which shared in the zeal and will of man, as nations and cities and works, after existing an enormous time still remain when he who willed them is no more, shall the things which have had a share in God’s purpose, and have been made for Him and by Him,—shall these then pass away and no longer remain while their Maker is still present?

‘What cause can have done violence to the purpose of God? Can it be the necessity proceeding from the things created themselves? But this by accepting the orderly arrangement confessed itself overcome by God. But can it be some cause from without acting in antagonism to God? Yet neither does anysuch cause exist, nor is it right to make God inferior to any in matters in which He has before prevailed and made order, unless indeed we altogether forget that we are discoursing about the greatest and most divine power.

‘But enough, for perhaps we are carried away by zeal into this argument concerning the truth. One thing is plain which we set forth, that they can be no teachers concerning the creation of the world who do not allow it any creation at all.’

Further, concerning the fifth essence in bodies introduced by Aristotle we must quote the following statements:

[1] 801 d 3 Plato, Timaeus,30 A

[2] d 10 ibid. 41 B

[3] 803 b 7 Plato, Timaeus,29 F

Chapter 7

‘For instance, with regard to the so-called elements, which are the primary constituents of bodies, Plato, like those before him, following the clear evidence concerning them, said that they were these four which are generally acknowledged, namely, fire, earth, air, and water, and that all other things are produced from their combinations and changes. But Aristotle, as it seems, hoped to appear extraordinarily wise, if he could add another body, and counted in with the four visible bodies the fifth essence: and he thus made a very brilliant and bountiful use of nature, but failed to observe that in physical inquiry one must not lay down laws, but search out nature’s own facts.

‘To the proof then that the primary natures of bodies are four, which is what the Platonists want, the Peripatetic would not only give no help, but would even be almost its only opponent. For instance, when we say that every body is either hot or cold, or moist or dry, or soft or hard, or light or heavy, or rare or dense, and when we find that there can be nothing else to partake of any of these conditions besides the four elements,—for if anything is hot, it is either fire or air; and if cold, either water or earth; and if dry, fire or earth; and if moist, water or air; and if soft, air or fire; and if hard, water or earth; and light and rare, as for instance, fire and air; and heavy and dense, as water and earth;—and when from all the other simple forces we perceive that there cannot be any other body besides these, this man alone opposes us, asserting that there can be a body which partakes not of these, a body, that is, neither heavy nor light, neither soft nor hard, neither moist nor dry, almost calling it a body that is not a body. For though he has left it the name, he has taken away all the forces by means of which it naturally becomes a body.

‘Either, therefore, he will withdraw us from Plato’s opinion by persuading us of his own statements, or by confirming those of Plato he will himself withdraw from his own opinions. So that in no way is he of any use in regard to Plato’s doctrines.

‘Further, Plato will have it that all bodies, inasmuch as they are regarded as formed upon one similar kind of matter, turn and change one into another. But Aristotle claims absolutely an essence in all other things which is impassible, and imperishable, and unchangeable, lest forsooth he should seem to be the inventor of something contemptible: yet he says nothing at all extraordinary and original, but transfers Plato’s fine intuitions in other matters to such as are unsuitable, just like some of the more modern sculptors.

‘For they too, when they have copied the head of one statue, and the breast of another, and the waist of another, sometimes put together things which do not suit each other, and persuade themselves that they have made something original: and indeed the whole, which any one would blame as being unsymmetrical, is their own; but the contributions which are brought together in it, and have some beauty, are not theirs.

‘In like manner also Aristotle hearing from Plato that there is a certain essence intelligible in itself abstractedly, and incorporeal colourless and intangible, neither coming into being, nor perishing, nor turning, nor changing, but always existing in the same conditions and manner, and hearing again at another time of the things in heaven that being divine and imperishable and impassible they are yet bodies, he combined out of both and stuck together things not at all congruous: for from the one he took the property of body, and from the others the property of impassibility, and so framed an impassible body.

‘In the case then of the statues, even if the combination of the different parts was not beautiful, it was at least not impossible to be made. For instance, even Homer shows us such combinations, for he says,

“In eyes and head Like Zeus the Lord of thunder, with the girth Of Ares, and Poseidon’s brawny chest.” [1]

But the body could never be impassible: for being combined with a passible and changeable nature, it must necessarily suffer with its yokefellow. And if there were anything impassible, it must be separated and free from that which suffers; so that it would be without the matter, and when separated from that it must necessarily be acknowledged to be incorporeal.’

Further, let us give our attention to these other points in which he proves that Aristotle is at variance with Plato. [2]

[1] 806 a 1 Hom. Il.ii. 478

[2] c 1 Atticus, Fr.vi

Chapter 8

‘THEN these are followed by many points in which they are at variance. For the one says that the things in heaven have most of their character from fire, while the other says that the heavenly bodies have nothing to do with fire.[1] And Plato says that God kindled light in the second circle from the earth in order that it might as much as possible illumine the whole heaven, such being his declaration concerning the sun.[2] But the other, not willing that the sun should be fire, and knowing that light is pure fire, or something of fire, does not allow that light is kindled round the sun.

‘Further, the one, attributing formal immortality to all the heavenly bodies, says that there take place certain secretions from them and equivalent accessions; and he is compelled to say this, in regard to the secretions, by the rays of the sun and the heat produced in the efflux from him; and, in regard to the accessions, by the equality in his apparent magnitude: for the bodies would not appear equal if they received nothing in place of what they emit: ‘but Aristotle maintains that they continue altogether the same in substance, without either any secretion from them or any accretion.

‘Further, the one, in addition to the common motion of the heavenly bodies, in which all move in the spheres to which they are confined, both the fixed stars and the planets, gives them another motion also, which indeed happens to be otherwise most admirable, and congenial to the nature of their body; for as they are spherical, naturally each would have a spherical motion of rotation: but the other deprives them of this motion also, which they perform as liviag beings, and leaves them only the motion which results from other bodies surrounding them, as if they were without life.

‘Moreover he says that the appearance presented to us by the stars as if they were in motion is an affection of the feebleness and quivering, as it were, of our sight, and is not a reality: as if Plato derived his belief in their motion from this appearance, and not from the reason which teaches that as each of these is a living being, and has both soul and body, it must necessarily have its own proper motion (for every body whose motion is from without is lifeless, but that which is moved from within and of itself is animated); and when moved, as being divine, it must move with the most beautiful motion, and since motion in a circle is the most beautiful, it must move in this way.

‘And the truth of the sensation would be in part confirmed by the testimony of reason; it was not, however, this sensation that caused the belief in the motion. With regard to the motion of the whole, he could not contradict Plato’s assertion that it takes place in a circle, for he was overpowered by the clear evidence: yet here also this fine invention of the new body gave him room for dissent.

‘For whereas Plato attributed the circular motion to the soul, inasmuch as there were four bodies and all naturally moved in a simple and straight course, fire towards the outside, and earth towards the centre, and the others towards the intervening space, Aristotle, as assigning a different motion to each different body, so also assigned the circular as a sort of bodily motion to his fifth body, easily deceiving himself in all.

‘For to bodies which move in a straight line their heaviness or lightness supplied a source of motion; but the fifth body, partaking neither of heaviness nor lightness, was rather a cause of immobility, and not of motion in a circle.

‘For if to bodies that move in a straight line the cause of their motion is not their shape, but the inclination of their weight, a body, not only when placed in the centre of any like body, will have no inclination in any direction, but, also, when set in a circle round any kind of body whatever, will have no cause of inclination towards anything,

“Move they to right towards the rising sun, Or move to left,” [3]

whether forward or backward.

‘Further, when other bodies have been thrust out of their proper places, the rebound towards these gives them a motion again of themselves; but as that fifth body never departs from its own localities, it ought to remain at rest.

‘And with regard to the other bodies, when this fifth is put out of the question, it is evident that Aristotle out of contentiousness does not agree with Plato. For Plato had inquired whether body, is heavy by nature or light by nature, and, since it was evident that these terms are used according to the relation towards up and down, he had considered whether there is by nature any up and down or not, and had exactly shown that according to the affinities of the bodies to their places, the direction towards which they severally tended would be called “down,” and the other direction from which each would draw back be called “up.” And “heavy” and “light” he disposed according to the same relation, and further proved that neither their centre nor their circumference is rightly called “up” or “down.” But Aristotle makes objection, thinking that he must overthrow the other’s doctrines on every side, and urges us to call that which tends to the centre “heavy,” and that which tends to the circumference “light,” and the place in the centre he calls “down,” and the circumference “up.” ’

Thus widely do they differ from each other in regard to the world, and its constituents, and the heavenly bodies. Such are the opinions of these two. But Moses and the oracles of the Hebrews trouble themselves about none of these things; and with good reason, because it was thought that those who busied themselves about these matters gained no benefit in regard to the right conduct of life.

[1] c 2 Cf. Plato, Timaeus,40 A

[2] c 5 ibid. 39 B

[3] 808 a 1 Homer, Il.xii. 239

Chapter 9

‘Now concerning the soul what need we say? For this is evident not only to philosophers but also to nearly all ordinary persons, that Plato allows the soul to be immortal, and has written many discourses concerning this, showing in many various ways that the soul is immortal.

‘Great also has been the emulation of the zealous followers of Plato’s teaching in defence both of Plato and of his doctrine; for this is almost the one thing that holds his whole school together.

‘For the hypothesis of his ethical doctrines was a consequence of the immortality of the soul, since it was through the divine nature of the soul that virtue was enabled to maintain its grandeur and lustre and high spirit; in nature also it was in consequence of the soul’s direction that all things gained the possibility of being well ordered.

‘”For soul,” he says, “as a whole has the care of all soulless being, and traverses all heaven, appearing at different times in different forms.” [1]

Moreover, science also and wisdom have been made by Plato dependent on the immortality of the soul. [2] For all kinds of learning are recollections, and he thinks that in no other way can inquiry and learning, out of which science springs, be maintained.

‘Now if the soul is not immortal, neither is recollection, and if not this, then neither learning. Whereas therefore all the doctrines of Plato are absolutely attached to and dependent on the divine nature of the soul and its immortality, he who does not admit this overthrows Plato’s whole philosophy.

‘Who then first attempted to oppose the proofs, and rob the soul of immortality and all its other power? Who else, I say, before Aristotle? For of the rest some allowed that it has a continued existence, and others, if not granting so much as this, yet assigned to the soul a certain power and movement and works and actions in the body.

‘But the more Plato tried to magnify the importance of the soul, declaring it to be the beginning of creation, and the pupil of God, and the power presiding over all things, so much the more contentiously did Aristotle seek to destroy and to dishonour it, and prove the soul to be almost nothing.

‘For he said that it was neither spirit, nor fire, nor body at all, nay, nor yet an incorporeal thing such as to be self-governed and to have motion, nor even so much as to be in the body without motion, and, so to say, soulless. For see how he ventured, or even was forced, so far as to rob the soul of its primary motions, deliberation, thought, expectation, remembrance, reasoning!

‘For this secretary, as they say, of nature says that these are not movements of the soul. Surely this man may be quite trusted to have understood anything about the things outside him, who has made so great a mistake about his own soul, as not even to understand that it thinks! For it is not the soul, he says, but the man that performs each of these acts, while the soul is motionless.

‘Dicaearchus therefore following him, and being able to discern the consequence, took away the whole substance of the soul. It is manifest indeed that the soul is a thing invisible and concealed, so that, through the clear evidence at least of our senses, we could not grant its existence: but though concealed, its motions seem to compel us to acknowledge that the soul is an existent thing.

‘For almost every one seems to understand that the following are acts of the soul: to deliberate, to consider, and to think in any way whatever. For when we behold the body and its powers, and reflect that actions of this kind are not proper to the body, we grant the existence within us of something else which deliberates, and that this is the soul. Since from what other source came our belief concerning soul?

‘If therefore any one take away these acts which are the chief evidences of the soul, and assign them to something else, he has neither left us any evidence of its existence, nor any purpose for which it would seem to be of use. What help therefore can he who would have the soul to be immortal derive from him that deals death to the soul? And what is the explanation of the manner of its motion, according to which we call it self-moved, to be obtained from those who attribute to it no motion at all?

‘True; but in regard to the immortality of the mind some one may say that Aristotle agrees with Plato. For though he will not admit the whole soul to be immortal, yet he acknowledges the mind at least to be divine and imperishable. What therefore the mind is in its essence and its nature, whence it comes, and from what source it separates itself and enters into man’s nature, and whither it departs again, himself alone may know; if at least he understands anything that he says about the mind, and is not avoiding the proof by wrapping up the difficulty of the matter in the obscurity of his language, and, just like the cuttle-fish, making it difficult to catch him by means of the darkness he creates. ‘But even in these matters he is altogether at variance with Plato. For the one says that mind cannot subsist without a soul, while the other separates the mind from the soul. And immortality the one gives to it in partnership with the soul, as being otherwise impossible; but the other says that this survives in the mind alone when separated from the soul. And that the soul goes forth from the body he would not allow, because this thought pleased Plato: but he insisted that the mind is severed from the soul, because Plato judged such a thing as this impossible.’

These are the statements of Atticus: and I will add to them the views of Plotinus also, expressed in the following manner: [3]

[1] 809 b 3 Plato, Phaedrus,346 B

[2] 809 b 5 Plato, Phaedo,72 E

[3] 811 b 1 Plotinus, Ennead.iv. lib. 2: a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 10

[PLOTINUS] ‘THE manner in which “entelecheia” is used in speaking of the soul may be considered in the following way. The soul, they say, holds in the combination the place of form,in relation to the body when alive as matter:but it is the formnot of every body, nor of body as such, but as physical, organic, and potentially alive.

‘If therefore it is like that with which it has been compared, it is as the formof a statue to the bronze: and if the body is divided, the soul must be divided into parts with it, and if any part is cut off from the body, a portion of the soul is with the part cut off; and the supposed withdrawal of the soul in sleep does not take place, since the entelechy must be inseparable from that to which it belongs; but in reality there is no such thing as sleep.

‘Moreover if there is an entelechy, there can be no opposition between reason and desires, but the whole must be affected throughout in one and the same way, without any self-discord. But sensations may possibly exist only contingently, while perceptions cannot: wherefore they themselves also introduce the mind as another soul, and suppose it immortal.

‘The reasoning soul therefore must be an entelechy, if we must use this term, in some other way than this. Nor will the sensitive soul, since this also retains the impressions of the sensible objects when absent, retain them without the body’s aid: otherwise, they will be in it just like forms and images: but if they were therein in this manner, it would be impossible to receive them otherwise (than with the body’s aid). Therefore, it is not an entelechy as being inseparable.

‘Moreover that which desires not meats or drinks, but other than bodily things, is not itself an inseparable entelechy.

‘Then there would remain the vegetative principle, which would seem to admit a doubt, whether it be in this way an inseparable entelechy. Yet even this seems not to be so. For if the beginning of every plant is at the root, and the rest of the body grows round the root and the lower parts in many plants, it is evident that the soul forsakes the other parts and is collected in some one: it is not then in the whole as an inseparable entelechy. For again, before the plant grows the soul is in a little germ: if therefore it both comes from a larger plant into a small germ, and from a small germ into a whole plant, what is to hinder its being also wholly separated? And how, being also indivisible can it become a divisible entelechy of a divisible body?

‘Also the same soul from one animal becomes another: how then could the soul of the former become the soul of the next, if it were the entelechy of one? And this is evident from the animals which change into other animals. The soul then has not its existence from being the “form” of anything, but is an essence, not receiving its existence in consequence of its abode in a body, but existing before it belonged to this, so that in an animal the body will not generate the soul.

‘What then is its essence? And if it is neither body, nor an affection of body, but action and production and many such things are both in it and from it, being an essence in addition to its bodies, what is its nature? Must it not manifestly be what we call real essence? For all that is bodily may be said to be generation but not substance, becoming and perishing, and never really being, but preserved by participation with being, so far as it may partake thereof.’

Now since we have related the opinions of Plotinus, it will not be out of place to observe what Porphyry also has said in his books against Boëthus On the Soul. [1]

[1] 812 d 4 Porphyry against Boëthus On the Saul,a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 11

[PORPHYRY] ‘IN answer to him who called the soul an entelechy, and supposed it, though utterly motionless, to be a cause of motion, we must ask what is the source of the strong excitements of the animal who understands nothing of what he sees and utters, though his soul discerns what is future and not yet present, and moves according to the same? Whence also in the constitution of the animal come the acts of the soul as of a living thing, acts of deliberation, inquiry, and will, which are movements of the soul and not of the body?’

Then presently he adds:

‘To liken the soul to weight or bodily properties uniform and immovable, by which either the motion or the quality of the subject-matter is determined, was the part of a man who either willingly or unwillingly had utterly lost sight of the dignity of the soul, and had in no way discerned that by the presence of the soul the animal’s body is made alive, as by the presence of fire the water placed close to it, though cold in itself, is made hot; and by the rising of the sun the air, which is dark without his shining, is made full of light.

‘Yet neither was the heat of the water previously the fire nor the fire’s heat; nor was the light of the atmosphere that light which is inherent in the sun: and in the same way the animation of the body, which seems like the weight or the quality in the body, is not that soul which was located in the body and through which also the body partook of a certain breath of life.’

Then afterwards he adds:

‘So then all the other statements which others have made concerning the soul bring disgrace upon us. For must it not be a disgraceful doctrine which makes the soul the entelechy of the physical organic body? And is not that a shameful doctrine, which represents it as having somehow a breath or intelligent fire, kindled or quenched by the cooling, and, as it were, dipping in the air around it, and which makes it a collection of atoms, or represents it as wholly engendered of the body? ‘

This is what in The Lawsthe author represented as the impious doctrine of impious men.[1] All such statements then are full of shame: but, says he, no one would be ashamed for him who calls it a self-moved substance.

[1] 813 d 2 Cf. Plato, Laws,x. pp. 885, 900, 907

Chapter 12

[ATTICUS] ‘FURTHER, when Plato says that the soul pervading all parts arranges all in order, and is that whereby the other philosophers would admit that all things are so arranged, and that nature is nothing else than soul, and evidently not an irrational soul, and when from this Plato gathers that all things take place according to providence, since they take place according to nature, in none of these opinions does Aristotle agree with us.

‘For he does not admit that nature is soul, and earthly things ordered by one nature: for he says that for each several thing there are also different causes. For of the things in heaven which ‘always remain in the same relations and conditions he supposes fate to be the cause: and of sublunary things, nature; and of human affairs, prudence, and forethought, and soul, showing indeed nicety in such distinctions, but not discerning the necessary truth.

‘For if there were not some one animate power pervading the whole, and binding and holding all things together, the whole could not be either reasonably or beautifully arranged. It was a proof then of the same blindness, to hope that a city could ever continue in well-being without unity, and to believe that one could in argument preserve this universe in perfect beauty, such it appears, without having bound and compacted it together by participation in some one common principle.

‘And something of this kind, he says, it is that arranges the several parts, such as to be a principle of motion, but he will not admit that this is soul; though Plato nevertheless shows that in all things that are moved the source and fountain of their motion is the soul. And that which would be the work of a rational and wise soul, to make nothing without a purpose, this he attributes to nature, but gives nature no share in the name of soul; as if things were derived not from powers but from names.’

Chapter 13

‘BUT the chief point and power of Plato’s system, his theory of ideas, has been discredited, and abused, and insulted in every way, as far as it was in Aristotle’s power. For as he was unable to conceive that things of a grand, divine, and transcendent nature require a certain kindred power for their recognition, and trusted to his own meagre and petty shrewdness, which was able to make its way through things terrestrial, and discern the truth in them, but was not capable of beholding the plain of absolute truth, he made himself the rule and judge of things above him,[1] and denied the existence of any peculiar natures such as Plato affirmed, but dared to call the highest of all realities triflings and chatterings and nonsense.

‘Rather is the supreme and final speculation of Plato’s philosophy that which treats of this intelligible and eternal being of the ideas, wherein verily the utmost toil and stress is set before the soul. For a most happy man is he, who has shared in the effort and attained the end, while he who has failed from want of power to obtain an insight is left without any share at all of happiness.

‘And for this reason Plato too strives earnestly in every way to show the strength of these ideal natures. For he says that it is not possible either rightly to assign a cause of anything whatsoever, except by participation in the ideas, or to have knowledge of any truth except by reference to these: nay not even a particle of reason would any have, unless they should acknowledge the existence of these ideas.

‘They again who have decided to maintain the doctrines of Plato lay the chief stress of their arguments on this point, and quite necessarily. For nothing is left of the Platonic system, if one will not grant them on Plato’s behalf these primary and i principal natures. For it is in these that he is especially superior to all other men.

‘For as he conceived God in relation to these ideas as Father of all, and Creator, and Lord, and Guardian; and as from men’s works he recognized that the artist formed a previous conception of that which he was about to make, and then afterwards adapted the likeness to the conception thus formed in the case of the things made; in the same way therefore Plato comprehended at a glance that God’s conceptions, the patterns of the things made, are earlier than the things themselves, being incorporeal and intelligible, ever existing in the same conditions and modes, themselves the highest and first beings, and in part the causes to all the rest of their being just such as they severally are, according to their likeness to them; and seeing that they are not easy to be discerned, nor yet able to be clearly expressed in speech, Plato himself treated of these subjects as far as it was possible to represent them in speech or thought, and to prepare those who were to follow after him; and having arranged his whole philosophy to this end, he asserts that with these ideas and the perception of them are concerned the wisdom and the science, whereby the proper end of man and the life of blessedness are attained.’

So far speaks Atticus. I might have quoted yet more than this from his book which I have mentioned: let us be satisfied, however, with what has been set forth, and pass on next to the sect of the Stoics. Among the hearers then of Socrates was one Antisthenes, a man like Heracleitus in spirit, who said that madness was better than pleasure, and therefore used to advise his friends never to stretch out a finger for the sake of pleasure.

And a disciple of his was Diogenes the ‘dog,’ who seemed to entertain most brutelike ideas, and attracted many followers. He was succeeded by Crates, and a disciple of Crates was Zeno of Cittium, who was established as founder of the sect of the Stoic philosophers.

Zeno was succeeded by Cleanthes, and Cleanthes by Chrysippus, and he by the second Zeno, and the rest in order. All these are said to have been especially devoted both to hard living and to dialectic. The doctrines then of their philosophy are somewhat as follows.

[1] 815 b 1 Cf. Plato, Phaedrus,248 B

Chapter 14

[ARISTOCLES] [1] ‘THEY say, like Heracleitus, that the element of the existing world is fire, and that the original principles of fire are matter and god, as Plato says. But the former says that both principles, the active and the passive, are corporeal, while the latter says that the first active cause is incorporeal.

‘Then, moreover, they say that at certain predestined and definite times the whole world is consumed by fire, and afterwards reorganized again. The primordial fire, however, is as it were just a seed, containing the reasons and the causes of all things past, present, and future: and that the combination and sequence of these constitute fate, and knowledge, and truth, and law of all being, from which there is no escape or avoidance. And in this way all things in the world are admirably arranged, just as in any well-ordered state.’

[1] 816 d 1 Aristocles, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius: cf. Diels, Doxographi Graeci,p. 464, n. 9 .

Chapter 15

[ARIUS DIDYMUS] ‘THE whole ordered world (κόσμος) with all its parts they call god, and say that he is one alone, and finite, and living, and eternal, and god: for all bodies are contained in him, and in him there is no vacuum. For the name order (κόσμος)is applied to the quality of all substance as well as to that which has an arrangement of like kind consequent on the ordering (διακόσμηνσιν).

‘Wherefore according to the former rendering they say that the world is eternal, but as to its orderly arrangement created and subject to change at infinite periods past and future.

‘And the quality of all being is an eternal world and god; the name world (κόσμος)also means the system compounded of heaven, and the air, and earth, and sea, and the natures contained in them; and again the name world means the dwelling-place of gods and men, and of all things made for their sake.

‘For in the same way as the name city has two meanings, the dwelling-place, and the system resulting from the combination of residents and citizens, so also the world is, as it were, a city composed of gods and men, in which the gods hold the rule, and the men are subject.

‘There is, however, a community between them, because they partake of reason, which is nature’s law: and for their sakes all other things have been made. From which things it follows that we must suppose that the god who administers the whole takes thought for mankind, being beneficent, and kind, and friendly to; man, and just, and possessed of all virtues.

‘For this reason indeed the world is also called Zeus, since he is the cause of our life (ζῆν): and inasmuch as from eternity he administers all things unchangeably by connected (εἰρομένῳ)reason, he is also called Fate (εἱμαρμένην): and Adrasteia, because nothing can escape him (ἀποδιδράσκειν)and Providence, because, he arranges things severally for good.

‘Cleanthes would have the sun to be the ruling power of the world, because it is the greatest of the heavenly bodies, and contributes most to the administration of the whole by making the day and the year and the other seasons.

‘Some, however, of the sect thought that the earth was the ruling power of the world. But Chrysippus thought it was the ether, the clearest and purest as being most mobile of all things, and carrying round the whole course of the world.’

Let this extract then suffice from the Epitomeof Arius Didymus. But with reference to the opinion of the Stoics concerning God it is sufficient to quote the words of Porphyry in the answer which he wrote to Boëthus On the Soul,in the form following: [1]

[1] 818 c 1 Porphyry, On the Soul,in answer to Boëthus

Chapter 16

[PORPHYRY] ‘THEY do not hesitate to call God an intelligent fire and allow Him to be eternal, and to say that He destroys and devours all things, being such a fire as that which is known to us, and to contradict Aristotle who deprecates saying that the ether consists of fire of this kind.

‘But if they are asked how such a fire lasts so long, though they do not say that it is fire of another kind, yet after describing it as of such a nature, and claiming credence for their own assertion, they add on to this unreasonable belief that it is also an eternal fire, though they assume that even this etherial fire is partially quenched and rekindled. But why should one spend time in pursuing any further their blindness in regard to their own doctrines, and their indolence and contempt for the doctrines of the ancients?’

Chapter 17

[NUMENIUS] [1] ‘BUT what then is “being “? Is it these four elements, earth and fire and the other two intermediate natures? Are then these the real beings, either collectively, or any one of them singly? But how can they be, since they are both created and destroyed again, for we may see them proceeding one out of another, and interchanging, and subsisting neither as elements nor as compounds? These cannot thus be a body with true being.

‘But though not these, yet it is possible that matter may have true being? But for matter also this is utterly impossible, through want of power to continue. For matter is a running and swiftly changing stream, in depth, and breadth, and length undefined and endless.’

And presently he adds:

‘So it is well stated in the argument that, if matter is infinite, it is undefined; and, if undefined, irrational; and, if irrational, it cannot be known. But as it cannot be known it must necessarily be without order, as things arranged in order must certainly be easy to be known: and what is without order, is not stable: and whatever is not stable cannot have true being.

‘Now this was the very point on which we agreed among ourselves before, that it is not permissible for all these things to be associated with true being. I should wish this to be the opinion of all men, be it at all events mine. I deny, therefore, that either matter in itself, or material bodies are true being.

‘What then? Have we any thing else besides these elements in the nature of the universe? Yes, certainly. And this is not at all a subtle thing to express, if we would together try to discuss the following point first in the case of ourselves.

‘For since bodies are in their own nature inanimate and dead, carried hither and thither, and not abiding in one stay, have they not need of something to hold them together? Most certainly. And if they should fail to find this, would they continue? Certainly not. What is there then to hold them? If on the one hand this also were a body, I think that being liable to be dissolved and dispersed it would need a Zeus Soter to sustain it. If, however, it must be freed from what bodies suffer, in order that after they have been generated it may be able to avert their destruction, and hold them together, to me it seems that there is nothing else left, except only the incorporeal. For of all natures this alone is stable, and compact, and not at all corporeal. At all events it is neither created, nor increased, nor subject to any other kind of motion, and for these reasons the incorporeal was rightly judged worthy to take precedence.’

[1] 819 a 1 Numenius, a Fragment preserved by Eusebius

Chapter 18

[ARIUS DIDYMUS] ‘But the oldest of this sect are of opinion that all things are changed into ether, when at certain very long periods all are resolved into an ethereal fire.’

And afterwards he adds:

‘But from this it is manifest that Chrysippus has not accepted this confusion in reference to substance (for that was impossible), but only that which was meant as equivalent to change. For the term destruction is not properly understood of the great destruction of the world which takes place in long periods by those who hold the doctrine of the dissolution of the universe into fire, which they call conflagration, but they use the term destruction (fqora&n)as equivalent to change in the course of nature.

‘For it is held by the Stoic philosophers that the universal substance changes into fire, as into a seed, and coming back again, from this completes its organization, such as it was before. And this is the doctrine which was accepted by the first and oldest leaders of the sect, Zeno, and Cleanthes, and Chrysippus. For the Zeno who was the disciple and successor of Chrysippus in the School is said to have doubted about the conflagration of the universe.’

Chapter 19

‘THE common reason having advanced so far, and a common nature having become greater and fuller, and having at last dried up all things and absorbed them into itself, finds itself in the universal substance, having gone back to the condition first mentioned, and to that resurrection which makes the Great Year, in which takes place the restitution from itself alone to itself again.

‘And when it has returned, because of an arrangement such as that from which it began to make a similar organization, it according to reason follows the same course again, so that such periods go on from eternity and never cease. For it is not possible for all things to have a cause of their beginning, nor of that which administers them. For under things created there must lie a substance of a nature to receive all the changes, and the power that out of it created them. For as there is in our case a certain kind of creative nature, there must of necessity be something of the same kind in the world also, something uncreated, for there cannot be a beginning of creation in the case of this nature: and in the same way as it is uncreated, it is also impossible for it to be destroyed, either by itself, or by anything external that would destroy it.

Chapter 20

‘THE seed, says Zeno, which man emits is breath combined with moisture, a portion and fragment of soul, and a blending of the parents’ seed, and a concrete mixture of the various parts of the soul. For this, having the same laws as the universe, when emitted into the womb is caught up by another breath, and made a portion of the female’s soul and grows into one with it, and being there stirred and kindled by it grows in secret, continually receiving additions to the moisture and increasing of itself.’

And a little further on he adds:

‘With regard to the soul, Cleanthes, in setting forth the doctrines of Zeno for comparison with the other physicists, says that Zeno calls the soul an exhalation endowed with sensation, just as Heracleitus does. For wishing to make it clear that there is a perpetual production of intelligent souls by exhalation, he compared them to rivers, speaking as follows: “Though men step into the same rivers, the waters that from time to time flow over them are different”: and souls likewise are exhaled from moisture.

‘So then Zeno, like Heracleitus, represents the soul as an exhalation. And he says that it is sensitive for the reason that the ruling part is capable of being impressed through the senses from real and substantial objects, and receiving their impressions. For these are special properties of soul.’

After other remarks he adds:

‘And they say that there is a soul in the universe, which they call ether, and air surrounding the laud and sea, and exhalations from them; and that to this soul are attached all the other souls, both those in animals, and those in the surrounding air; for the souls of the dead still continue.

‘Some say that the soul of the universe is eternal, but that the others at death are absorbed into union with it: and that every soul has in it a certain ruling faculty, which is life, and sensation, and appetite.’

And a little further on he proceeds:

‘They say that the soul is created and perishable, but does not perish immediately when freed from the body, but abides for some time by itself; the soul of the good until the resolution of all things into fire, but the soul of the foolish for certain periods of time.

‘But the continued existence of souls they thus describe, that we ourselves on becoming souls continue to exist, having been separated from the body and changed into the smaller substance of the soul. But the souls of the foolish and of irrational animals perish together with their bodies.’

Such are the doctrines of the Stoic philosophy collected out of the Epitomaeof Arius Didymus. But in answer to their absurd opinion about the soul, it is sufficient to quote the refutations briefly stated in the following words in Longinus, one of our own age: [1]

[1] 822 d 1 Longinus, Fr.vii

Chapter 21

[LONGINUS] ‘To speak briefly, it seems to me that all who represented the soul as a body have strayed, one after another, far away from right reasoning. For how is it at all admissible to assume that what is proper to the soul is similar to any of the elements? Or how refer it to the compounds and mixtures, which occurring in many ways are of a nature to generate forms of countless other bodies, in which, if not continuously, at all events at intervals one may see the cause of the elements, and the advance of the primary elements towards the secondary and tertiary compounds? But of properties pertaining to the soul not a trace nor a sign is found in bodies, not even if one should strive, like Epicurus and Chrysippus, to turn every stone, and examine every power of body for an origin of the functions of the soul.

‘For what help would the subtilty of the breath give us for sensible presentations and reasonings? Or why has the shape of the atoms so great power above all else and such facility of change, as to beget wisdom, whenever it is mixed up in the moulding of another body? I think indeed that not even if one chanced to be one of Hephaestus’ tripods and handmaidens, of whom the former, Homer says, went self-moved to the assembly,[1] and the latter helped their master in his work, and lacked none of the advantages which living beings possess, much less those of the fortuitous motes, … and on the other hand it is like the stones upon the sea-shore, in regard to being able to do anything remarkable towards producing sensation. For one might justly be indignant with Zeno and Cleanthes for arguing so very contemptuously about the soul, and saying both alike that the soul is an exhalation of the solid body. For what, in heaven’s name, is there at all in common between an exhalation and a soul? And how is it possible for them, if they think that both our nature and that of other animals is like this, to be able to preserve either sensible presentations and remembrances permanently, or, on the other hand, instincts and desires of things conducive to understanding? Shall we then indeed degrade the gods also, and Him who pervades all things alike in earth and heaven, into an exhalation, and smoke, and such nonsense as this? And shall we not feel ashamed even towards the poets, who although they have not an exact understanding of the gods, nevertheless partly from the common conception of mankind, and partly from inspiration of the Muses, which is of a nature to stir them hereto, have spoken more honourably concerning them, and not called them exhalations, or airs, or breaths, and such nonsense?’

This is what Longinus tells you. But listen to Plotinus also, aiming against the same sect such remarks as follow: [2]

[1] 823 b 6 Hom. Il.xviii. 376

[2] 824 a 1 Plotinus, Ennead.iv. 7, p. 456 (Volkmann)

Chapter 22

[PLOTINUS] ‘Now whether each of us is immortal, or wholly perishes, or whether parts of him will pass into dissolution and destruction, while parts remain for ever, which are the man himself, this one may learn as follows, by examining it in the natural way.

‘In the first place, man cannot be a simple thing, but he has in him a soul, and has also a body whether as our instrument, or as attached to us in any other way; at all events let them be thus distinguished, and let us examine closely the nature and essence of each.

‘The body then, being itself compound, cannot, from the reason of the thing, be permanent; and our senses perceive it dissolving, and wasting, and suffering all kinds of decay, while each of the parts in it follows its own course, and one wastes another away, and changes into another, and destroys it; and this especially when the soul, which harmonizes them, is not present with the atoms.

‘And even if each be isolated in coming into existence, it is not one, since it admits of separation into form and matter, of which even simple bodies must be constituted; moreover having also magnitude, inasmuch as they are bodies, and can be divided and broken into small fragments, in this way also they would be liable to destruction.

‘So if this is part of ourselves, we are not altogether immortal: but if it is an instrument, it must be of the nature described, as having been given only for a certain time. But the dominant part, even the man himself, would be either like the form in relation to the body as matter, or like the agent in relation to an instrument. And in either way the soul is the self.

‘Of what nature then is this? Either it is body, and must certainly be soluble, for every body is compound. Or if it were not body, but of some other nature, this also we must examine either in the same way or some other. And first we must consider into what this body, which they say is soul, must be resolved.

‘For since life is an inseparable property of soul, this body which is the soul, if it consisted of two or more bodies, must either in each of the two or in every one have life innate, or one must have it and the other not, or neither have it. If then the life were attached to one of them only, this itself would be soul.

‘What then would a body be, which derived life from itself? For fire, and air, and water, and earth, are without life from. themselves: and to whichever of these soul is attached, the life which this one enjoys is adventitious. But besides these there are no other bodies. And by those who think that there are elements different from these, they were not said to be souls but bodies, and not to have life. But if, though none of them has life, the assemblage of them is said to have produced life, this is absurd.

‘If, however, each has life, even one is sufficient: but rather it is impossible that a collection of bodies should produce life, and things unintelligent beget intelligence. Moreover they will not assert that these are produced by any and every mode of combination. There must then be the power that is to arrange, and the cause of the combination: so that this would hold the place of a soul.

‘For there would not be even a simple body, to say nothing of a composite body, in the world of being, if there were not a soul in the universe; since it is the accession of reason to matter that makes body, and reason can come from no other source than soul.; ‘If any one should deny this, and say that a soul is made by a concurrence of atoms or indivisibles, he would be refuted by its oneness and community of feeling, and by analogy, since there can be no unity that does not extend throughout the whole, nor can a common feeling come from bodies which are without feeling and incapable of union; but the soul is conscious of feeling; also from things which have no parts there can come neither body nor magnitude.

‘Moreover supposing the body to be simple, if they say that all that is material has no life of itself (for matter has no qualities), but that what is classed as the form (εἶδος)adds the life—then, if they say that this form is the essence, only the one of these and not the union of both will be the soul; and on the other hand, there is no body, for even this is not produced from mere matter, or else we must resolve it again in the same manner.

‘But if they say that the form is an affection of the matter, but not the essence, they will have to state the source from which this affection and the life have come into the matter. For certainly the matter does not give itself form, nor infuse into itself a soul. There must, then, be something which provides life, whether it be provided for the matter or for any of the bodies, and this must be outside and beyond any bodily nature. Since otherwise there would not even be any body, as there would be no animal force.

‘For its own nature is in flux and motion, and if all were bodies they would perish very speedily, even though the name soul should be given to one of them: for it would be affected in the same way as the other bodies, they all having the same matter. Or rather nothing would ever come into being, but all things would remain as matter, if there were nothing to give it form.

‘But perhaps even matter would not exist at all, but this universe would be dissolved, if any one should entrust it to a combination of body, giving it in mere name the rank of soul, though it is only air and breath that is most easily dispersed, and has no unity of itself. For since all bodies are capable of division, how can any one who makes this universe depend on any of them, fail to make it unintelligent and moved at random?

‘For what order, or reason, or mind can there be in breath which needs a soul to give it order? But granted the existence of a soul, all these are subservient to it for the constitution of a world and of every living thing, a different power from each contributing to the whole: whereas if there be no soul present in the universals, they will not merely be without order, but will be nothing at all.

‘These men are also themselves led by the truth to testify that there must be something prior to bodies and superior to them, a species of soul, since they suppose that breath is endowed with mind and that fire is intelligent, as without fire and breath the better part cannot exist in the actual world, but seeks a place where it may be settled; whereas they ought to be seeking where to settle the bodies, as it seems these must be settled in powers of the soul.

‘But if they assume that life and soul are nothing besides breath, what becomes of their much boasted phrase “in a certain state,” in which they take refuge when compelled to assume some active nature besides bodies? If then they say that not every breath is soul, because countless breaths are inanimate, but the breath that is “in a certain state,” they must say that this “certain state,” and this condition, is either something real or nothing.

‘But if they say it is nothing, there will be breath only, and the “certain state” a mere name: and so it will result in their saying that nothing else exists but matter, and that soul, and god, and all things are a mere name, and that matter alone exists. But if the “state” is something real and additional to the substratum and the matter, existing in matter but itself immaterial because it is not compounded again out of matter, it must be not body, but a kind of reason, and a different nature.

‘Moreover from the following considerations it is not less evidently impossible that the soul should be a body of any kind whatever. For then it must be either hot or cold, either hard or soft, and liquid or solid, and black or white, with all other bodily qualities differing in different bodies. And if it is hot, it will only give heat, if cold it will only chill, and the additional presence of lightness will make things light, and of heaviness heavy, and blackness will make black, and whiteness white.

‘For it is no property of fire to chill, nor of cold to make hot. But the soul both produces different effects in different animals, and also contrary effects in the same animal; making some parts solid and others liquid, and some thick and others thin, black and white, light and heavy. Yet it ought to have produced only one effect according to the quality of the body in colour and other respects: but in fact it produces many.

‘And how then will they explain the fact that the motions are diverse instead of one, since every body has one motion only? If they allege choice as cause of some motions, natural laws of others, so far they are right: but choice is not a property of body, nor laws, at least if they are different, while the body is one and simple, and has no participation in any such law, except what has been given to it by that which caused it to be hot or cold.

‘Also the power of causing growth in periods of time and up to this or that measurer—whence can the body itself get this? For it is natural to it to be increased, but to have no power in itself of causing increase, except in as far as it may be taken into service as a mass of matter by the power which by means of it effects the increase. Even if the soul were a body and caused increase, it must also be itself increased by an addition evidently of similar body, if it is to advance equally with that which receives increase from it. And the addition will either be soul, or soulless body.

‘And if soul, how and whence does it come in, and how is it added? But if the addition is soulless, how is it to become animated, and to agree with what was there before, and be one with it, and share the same opinions with the first soul? Will not rather this soul, as a stranger, be in ignorance of what the other knows; and just as with the other mass of our body, one part will pass away from it, and another be added, and nothing will be the same?

‘How then are our remembrances formed? And how our knowledge of our own selves, if we have never the same soul? Moreover if it is body, and the nature of body is that, when divided into several parts, each of the parts is not the same as the whole, and if a soul is of a certain size, then whatever is less than that will not be soul, just as everything of a certain size by any subtraction changes from being what it was.

‘But if anything possessing magnitude should remain the same in quality when diminished in bulk, it is altered as body and as quantity, but may retain its sameness in quality as being different from quantity.

‘What then will they say, who assert that the soul is body?

‘First as to each part of the soul that is in the same body, is each a soul such as the whole is?

‘And so again the part of each part? Magnitude then contributed nothing to its essence; yet it ought to have done so, as there was, a certain fixed quantity; and it was whole in many different places, which cannot be the case with body, that the same should be whole in many places, and the part be the same as the whole.

‘But if they say that each of the parts is not a soul, they will have a soul consisting of soulless parts. And further still, if the magnitude of each soul be limited in each direction, then if it become either less or greater it will not be a soul.

‘Whenever therefore from one connexion and the same seed twin children are begotten, or even many, as in the case of the other animals, the seed being parted into several places, where each is a whole, does not this teach those who are willing to learn, that where the part is the same as the whole, this whole in its own essence transcends the quantitative existence, and must itself be without quantity? For thus it will remain the same when quantity is withdrawn, inasmuch as it is independent of quantity and bulk, as its essence is something different therefrom. The soul therefore and its laws are independent of quantity.

‘But that, if the soul were body, there would be neither sensation nor thought, nor knowledge, nor virtues, nor anything noble, is evident from the following reasons. Whatever is to perceive anything by sensation must itself be one, and must apprehend everything by the same sentient power; even if there should be many impressions that enter through many organs of sensation, or many qualities of one thing, and even if through one sense there should enter a complex object, such as a face.

‘For there are not different powers that perceive the nostril and the eye, but the same perceives all at once. And if one impression comes through the eyes, and another through hearing, there must be some one power which both reach: or how could one say that these are different, if the sensations did not reach the same sentient power at the same time? This, therefore, must be as it were a centre, and lines converging from the circumference of the circle must convey the sensations from all sides to it, and the percipient power of this kind must be really and truly one.

‘For if this were to be extended, and the sensations were to strike upon both extremities, as it were, of a line, either they must run together again to one and the same point, as the centre, or to some other: and each different point will have a sensation of one of the two objects, just as if I were to perceive one object and you another.

‘And if the sensible object be one, as a face, it will be contracted into one, as is evidently the case; for contraction takes place in the very pupils of the eyes (otherwise how could very large objects be seen through them?): so that there is a still further contraction in passing on to the ruling faculty, in such a way that indivisible notions are produced. And this faculty will be indivisible, or, if it were a magnitude, the perceptions would share its divisibility, so that one part (of the soul) would perceive one part (of the object), and another another, and nothing in us would perceive the sensible object as a whole.

‘But in fact the whole sentient is one: for how could it be divided? For there can be no correspondence of equal to equal, because the ruling faculty cannot be equal to each and every sensible object. Into how many parts then shall the division be made? Or shall it be divided into as many parts as the number of varieties in the object of sense that enters? And so then each of those parts of the soul will also perceive by its subdivisions, or the parts of the subdivisions will have no perception; but that is impossible. And if any part perceive all the object, since magnitude by its nature is infinitely divisible, the result will be that each man will also have infinite sensations for each sensible object, infinite images, as it were, of the same thing in our ruling faculty.

‘Moreover if the sentient be body, the sensation cannot take place otherwise than as seals impressed on wax from signet-rings, whether the sensations be impressed upon the blood or upon the breath. If then the impressions are made as in liquid bodies, which is probable, they will become confused, just as if made on water, and there will be no remembrance of them.

‘But if the impressions remain, either it is impossible for others to be imprinted while the former occupy the place, so that there will be no other sensations: or if others are made, the former will be obliterated, so that the remembrance will come to nothing. But if it is possible to remember, and to receive sensations one upon another, without hindrance from the earlier, it is impossible for the soul to be body.

‘And the same may also be seen from the sensation of pain. When a man is said to have a pain in his finger, the pain of course is about the finger, but the sensation of the pain, they must evidently admit, arises in the ruling faculty. While the suffering part therefore is different, the ruling faculty perceives the (animal) spirit, and the whole soul shares the same feeling.

‘How then does this result? By transmission, they will say, the animal spirit about the finger having first suffered, and imparted the suffering to the next, and this to another, until it arrived at the ruling faculty.

‘Necessarily, therefore, if the first had a sensation of pain, there must be another sensation for the second, if the sensation came by way of transmission, and another also for the third, and the sensation of one single pain must become many and infinite, and afterwards the ruling faculty must perceive all these sensations and its own in addition to them.

‘But the truth is, that each of them is not a sensation of the pain in the finger, but that which is next to the finger is a feeling that the wrist is in pain, and the third is a feeling that another part farther up is in pain, and so there are many pains: and the ruling faculty does not perceive the pain in the finger, but the pain close to itself, and knows only this, and dismisses the others, not understanding that it is the finger which is in pain.

‘If, therefore, it is not possible for the sensation of such a pain to be produced by transmission, nor possible that in the body as being a mass, when one part suffers, another part should be noticed (for in every magnitude one part and another part are different), we must suppose the sentient power to be of such a nature as to be everywhere identical with itself. But to effect this is the property of a different kind of being from body.

‘That it would not be possible even to think, if the soul were any kind of body, is to be shown from the following reasons. For if the meaning of sensation is, that the soul apprehends the objects of sense by making use of body, it cannot be that thought also means perception by means of body, or else it will be the same as sensation.

‘If, therefore, thought is apprehension without the aid of body, much rather must the thinking faculty not be body, since sensation is of sensibles, but thought of intelligibles. But if they will not admit this, at all events there must be both thoughts of some intelligibles, and apprehensions of things without magnitude.

‘How, then, if it be magnitude will it conceive in thought that which is not magnitude, or by that which is divisible conceive that which is not divisible? Will it be by some indivisible part of itself? But if so, the thinking faculty will not be body. For there is certainly no need of the whole in order to touch; for any one part is sufficient.

‘If, therefore, they should admit, as is true, that the first notions are those of the things which are most entirely free from body, that is of absolutes, the intelligent faculty can form notions only as being or becoming free from body. But if they should say that the notions are of forms embodied in matter, yet they are only formed by abstraction from the bodies, the mind making the abstraction.

‘For certainly the abstraction of circle, and triangle, and line, and point has nothing to do with flesh, or matter at all. In such an operation, therefore, we must separate the soul itself also from body: it must not therefore itself be body. I suppose too that beauty and justice are things without magnitude, and therefore the conception of them also. So that as they occur the soul will receive them with its indivisible faculty, and they will abide in it as indivisibles.

‘Also if the soul be corporeal how can prudence, justice, fortitude, and other virtues belong to it? For then temperance, or justice, or fortitude must be some kind of breath, or of blood; unless perhaps fortitude were the uneasiness of the breath, and temperance its right temperature, and beauty a certain elegance in forms, because of which, when we see them, we call men goodly and beautiful in body.

‘To be strong and beautiful in form might indeed be suitable to breath; but what does breath want of prudence? Nay; but, on the contrary, it wants to find enjoyment in embraces and caresses, wherein it will either be warmed, or will desire a moderate coolness, or attach itself to things soft, and tender, and smooth. But for assigning to each thing its due worth, what would it care?

‘And is it because they are eternal that the soul fastens upon the conceptions of virtue, and the other objects of the intellect, or does virtue begin to exist in one, and must it perish again? But then who creates it, and whence? For thus there would again remain that former question. It must be, then, because they are eternal and abiding, such as are the conceptions of geometry: and, if eternal and abiding, not corporeal. Therefore also the soul in which they are to exist must be of this same nature; it must not then be corporeal; for everything of the nature of body is non-abiding and transient.

‘If, from seeing the operations of bodies, in imparting heat and cold, and thrusting, and weighing down, they put the soul in this class, as if seating it in a place of activity,—then in the first place they are ignorant that even these bodies work these effects by means of the incorporeal powers contained in them, and then that these are not the powers which we claim as belonging to the soul; but the powers of thought, sensation, reasoning, desiring, managing wisely and well, all require another kind of essence.

‘So by transferring the powers of the incorporeal to the corporeal, they leave none for the former. And that bodies can only produce their effects by means of incorporeal powers is evident from the following reasons. For it will be admitted that quality is one thing and quantity another, and that every body has quantity, and yet not every body has quality, as for example mere matter. But if they admit this, they must admit that quality, being different from quantity, is different from body.

‘For if it have not quantity, how can it be body, since every body has quantity? Moreover, as was said somewhere above, if every body on being divided, and every mass, ceases to be what it was, but when the body is cut small the same quality remains entire in every part,—if for example, the sweetness of honey is none the less sweetness in every drop,—sweetness cannot be a body. The same is true of all the other qualities.

‘Then further, if the powers were bodies, the strong powers must necessarily be great masses, and those which can effect but little, small masses. But if when the masses are great the powers are small, and a few very small masses have the greatest powers, their efficacy must be attributed to something else than magnitude, therefore to something without magnitude. ‘The fact too that matter, being as they say body, is itself the same, but produces different effects when it has qualities added to it,—does not this make it evident that the things added are actually rational powers and incorporeal? And let them not reply that, when breath or blood has departed, the animals die. For it is impossible to exist without many other things besides these, and yet the soul can be none of them. Moreover neither breath nor blood extends through all parts, but soul does.

‘Further, if the soul being body had pervaded every part, it would also have been mixed, in the same way as the mixture takes place in all other bodies. But if the mixture of the bodies leaves none of the components in actual existence, neither will the soul retain an actual existence in the bodies, but only potential, having lost its existence as soul. Just as if sweet and bitter be mingled, the sweet no longer exists. And so we have no soul.

‘And the fact that, being body, it is mingled with body, the whole throughout the whole, so that wherever either may be there the other is also, both having a mass equal to the whole, and that no increase has taken place by the addition of the other,—this will leave nothing that it does not divide. For the mixture is not made in large portions alternately (for so they say it would be a juxta-position), but having passed through the whole, the addition being superimposed upon the less (a thing impossible, that the less should be found equal to the greater)—but nevertheless having so passed through, it divides the whole in every part.

‘Therefore if this occurs at any point whatever, and there be no body between, which has not been cut, the body must have been divided into points, which is impossible; and if the division be carried on to infinity (for whatever particle of body you take, it may be divided), the infinities will have not only a potential but an actual existence. Therefore it is not possible that body should wholly pervade the whole: but the soul does pervade the whole: therefore it is incorporeal.

‘As to their saying that the same breath is an earlier nature, and when it has come into a cool place (ψυχρῷ)and been sharpened, it becomes soul (ψυχή), being made finer in the cool,—this certainly is absurd; for many animals are born in warm places, and have a soul that has not been cooled. But at all events they say that there is an earlier nature of the soul produced by external contingencies. The result, therefore, is that they make the inferior first, and before this another still less, which they call habit (ἕξις). And the mind comes last, as produced of course from the soul; or if mind is before all things, they ought to make soul next, then vegetative nature; and the later always the worse, if it is a merely natural product.

‘If, therefore, even God in respect of His mind is regarded by them as later, and as generated, His intelligence also being adscititious, it would be possible that neither soul, nor mind, nor God should exist. For if the potential could exist without the previous existence of the actual, and of mind, it would never attain to actuality. For what would there be to bring it on, if there exist not besides itself something prior? But if it is to bring itself into actuality (which is absurd), yet at least in so bringing itself forward it must have something to look to, which must exist not potentially but actually.

‘And yet if the potential is to have the power of always remaining the same, it will of itself have attained to actuality, and this latter will be better than that which has only potentiality, as being a state desired by it. The better therefore will be the prior, both as having a different nature from body, and as always actually existent: mind, therefore, and soul are prior to mere nature; soul, therefore, does not exist as breath, nor yet as body. However, though other arguments might be stated, and have been stated by others, showing that it is not body, yet even what I have now said is sufficient.

‘But since it is of a different nature, we must inquire what this nature is. Is it then, though different from body, yet something belonging to body, as it were a harmony? For although the Pythagoreans used this word “harmony” in a different way, they supposed that it was something of the same kind as the harmony on the strings of the lyre.

‘For as when the strings of the lyre have been stretched tight there conies a certain kind of effect upon them, which is called harmony, in the same way also in our body, when a mixture is made of unlike elements, they thought that a mixture of a certain quality produces both life and soul, which is the effect upon the mixture. But many arguments have ere now been urged against this opinion to show that it is impossible.

‘For it has been argued that the soul is the prior element, but the harmony subsequent: and that the former rules and presides over the body, and in many ways contends with it, but could not do so if it were a harmony: and that the one is an essence, but the harmony is not an essence: and that the mixture of the bodily elements, of which we consist, if it be in due proportion, would mean health: also that in each part differently compounded there would be a different soul, so that there would be many souls: and, as the chief argument, that prior to this present soul there must be another soul to produce this harmony, as in the case of musical instruments there is the musician, who puts the harmony into the strings, having in himself the reasoning faculty in accordance with which he will modulate it.

‘For neither in that case will the strings of themselves, nor in this case the bodily particles be able to bring themselves into harmony. And speaking generally, these philosophers also make animated things out of inanimate, and things casually brought out of disorder into order, and instead of order from the soul they make the soul itself to have received its subsistence from the self-made order. But this cannot possibly take place either in the single parts or in the wholes. The soul, therefore, is not a harmony.’

These extracts are taken from the work of Plotinus against the opinion of the Stoics concerning the soul, who say that it is corporeal. But since I have set forth sufficiently for a summary statement the arguments against Aristotle and the Peripatetics, and those against the sect of the Stoics, it is time to go back again and survey the wonderful physical theories of all their noble philosophers together, seeing especially that all the Greeks in common believed in and worshipped as visible gods the Sun, and Moon, and the rest of the luminaries, and the other elements of the world, and have transferred the fabulous and nonsensical tales about their polytheistic error by more seemly physical explanations to the primary elements and the divisions of the whole world.

Wherefore I think it necessary for me also to collect their opinions on these subjects, and to review their disputes and their vain conceit.

These matters also I will quote from the work of Plutarch, in which he collected the opinions thereon of all the philosophers both ancient and modern, writing in the following manner: [1]

CHAPTER XXIII—OF THE SUN.

[PLUTARCH] ‘ANAXIMANDER: that there is a circle twenty-eight times as large as the Earth, having its circumference like a chariot-wheel, hollow, and full of fire, and partly showing the fire through an opening, as through a bellows-pipe: and this is the Sun.

‘Xenophanes: it is formed from the sparks which are seen to be collected from watery vapour, and which compose the Sun out of burning clouds.

‘The Stoics: a flame out of the sea, endowed with intelligence.

‘Plato: out of an immense fire.

‘Anaxagoras, Democritus, Metrodorus: a fiery mass of metal or stone.

‘Aristotle: a globe of the fifth corporeal element.

‘Philolaus the Pythagorean: a disk as of glass, which receives the reflected radiance of the fire in the cosmos, and transmits the light to us; so that the Sun’s fiery appearance in the heaven is like the light which comes to us dispersed by reflexion from the mirror: for this light also we call the Sun, being as it were an image of an image.

‘Empedocles: there are two Suns; the one archetypal, a fire in the other hemisphere of the cosmos, which, has filled that hemisphere, being always opposite to its own reflected light; and the other which we see is the reflected light in this other hemisphere which is filled with air mixed with heat, formed by reflexion from the spherical surface of the Earth and failing upon the crystalline Sun, and carried round with the motion of the fiery Sun: but to express it more shortly, the Sun is the reflexion of the fire that surrounds the Earth.

‘Epicurus: a compact mass of earth, resembling pumice or sponge in its pores, and kindled by the fire.’

CHAPTER XXIV—OF THE SUN’S MAGNITUDE.

‘ANAXIMANDER: the Sun itself is equal to the Earth, but the orbit from which it breathes out its fire, and by which it is carried round, is twenty-seven times as large as the Earth.

‘Anaxagoras: many times as large as Peloponnesus.

‘Heracleitus: the breadth of a man’s foot.

‘Epicurus again says that the aforesaid descriptions are all possible: or else that it is of the same size as it appears, or a little greater or less.’

CHAPTER XXV—OF THE SHAPE OF THE SUN.

‘ANAXIMENES: the Sun is flat like a plate.

‘Heracleitus: like a boat, concave.

‘The Stoics: spherical, like the universe and the stars.

‘Epicurus: the aforesaid descriptions are all possible.’

Such is their Sun, the mighty god of all things visible in heaven. But Moses and the Hebrew oracles waste no labour on any of these matters.

CHAPTER XXVI—OF THE MOON.

‘ANAXIMANDER: it is a circle nineteen times as large as the Earth, full of fire, as in the case of the Sun, and is eclipsed in consequence of the rotation of its disk. And it is like a chariot wheel, having its circumference hollow, and full of fire, with only one vent.

‘Xenophanes: a cloud condensed.

‘The Stoics: a mixture of fire and air. ‘Plato: of earth for the more part.

‘Anaxagoras, Democritus: a fiery solid, having in itself plains, and mountains, and ravines.

‘Heracleitus: earth surrounded with mist. ‘Pythagoras: a mirror-like body.’

CHAPTER XXVII—OF THE MOON’S MAGNITUDE.

‘THE Stoics represent it as larger than the Earth, as they also say of the Sun.

‘Parmenides: equal to the Sun, for it is illumined from it.’

CHAPTER XXVIII—OF THE MOON’S SHAPE.

‘THE Stoics: it is spherical, as the Sun.

‘Heracleitus: like a boat.

‘Empedocles: like a disk (or quoit).

‘Others like a cylinder.’

CHAPTER XXIX—OF THE MOON’S ILLUMINATION.

‘ANAXIMANDER: it has light of its own, but somewhat scanty.

‘Antiphon: the Moon shines by its own light; but the portion of it which is partially hidden is obscured by the Sun’s light falling upon it, as it is the nature of the stronger fire to obscure the weaker: which happens also with the other heavenly bodies.

‘Thales and his followers: the Moon is illumined from the Sun.

‘Heracleitus: the Sun and Moon are affected in the same way: for the heavenly bodies being boat-like in shape, and receiving the products of the watery evaporation, become luminous in appearance; the Sun more brilliantly, because it moves in a purer atmosphere, but the Moon moving in a turbid atmosphere therefore also appears more dim.’

CHAPTER XXX—WHAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PLANETS AND FIXED STARS?

[2] ‘THALES: the heavenly bodies are of earth, but on fire.

‘Empedocles: of fire, from the fiery element, which the air contained in itself and thrust out at the first separation of the elements.

‘Anaxagoras: the surrounding atmosphere is in its substance fire, but by the energy of its revolution catches up stones from the earth, and having set them on fire has made stars of them.;

‘Diogenes: the heavenly bodies are porous like pumice, and are the breathing-holes of the universe. But again the same author thinks that they are stones, which, though at first invisible, often fall upon the Earth and are extinguished, just as the stony meteor which fell in a fiery form at Aegospotamoi.

‘Empedocles: the fixed stars are fastened to the crystalline sphere, but the planets are free.

‘Plato: for the most part they are of fire, but partake also of the other elements as a cement.

‘Xenophanes: they consist of clouds on fire, but are extinguished every day, and re-kindled in the night, just like live coals: for their risings and settings are their kindlings and quenchings.

‘Heracleides and the Pythagoreans think that each of the stars is a world, including an Earth, and an atmosphere and an ether in the infinite space. These doctrines are introduced in the Orphic Hymns, for they make each star a world.

‘Epicurus rejects none of these opinions, but adheres to his “possible.”’

CHAPTER XXXI—OF THE SHAPE OF THE STARS.

‘THE Stoics: the stars are spherical, like the universe, Sun; and Moon.

‘Cleanthes: conical.

‘Anaximenes: like studs fastened in the crystalline sphere.

‘But some say that they are plates of fire, as it were pictures.’

Such are the discoveries of the wonderful philosophers concerning what they call visible gods. But learn also from the same Plutarch’s voice, what decisions they have pronounced concerning the universe: [3]

CHAPTER XXXII—HOW THE WORLD WAS CONSTRUCTED.

‘THE world, therefore, has been fashioned in a rounded form, in the following manner. As the corporeal atoms have an undesigned and fortuitous motion, and move continuously and very swiftly, many of them were collected together, and from this cause had great variety of shapes and sizes.

‘And when these were all gathered in the same place, all the larger and heaviest settled down: but as many as were small, and round, and smooth, and easily moved, were thrust out in the collision of the bodies, and carried up on high.

‘When, therefore, the propelling force ceased to carry them upward, and the propulsion no longer tended towards the height, while on the other hand they were prevented from sinking downward, they were compressed into the places which were able to admit them; and these were the places around them.

‘So the multitude of the bodies were turned round towards these places, and becoming intermingled one with another in the turning they generated the heaven. But the atoms retaining the same natural tendency, and being of various kinds, as I have said, were thrust out towards the upper region, and produced the nature of the stars.

‘But the multitude of the bodies which were exhaled kept striking upon the air and thrusting it away; and the air in its motion being turned into wind and encompassing the stars carried them round with it, and maintained the revolution which they now have on high. Afterwards out of the particles which settled down the Earth was produced, and out of those which were carried upward the heaven, and fire, and air.

‘And as there was still much matter included in the Earth, which became condensed in consequence of the blows from the winds and the currents from the stars, all of its shape that was formed by minute particles was further compressed, and generated the watery element.

‘And this having a fluid tendency was carried down into the hollow places which were able to receive and hold it; or the water settled down of itself and gradually hollowed out the places below it.’

Suchis their wonderful cosmogony! And with, this is connected much other disputation, as they started questions about problems of all kinds; whether we ought to regard the universe as one or many; and the cosmos as one or more; and whether it has a soul, and is administered by a divine providence, or the contrary: also whether it is imperishable or perishable; and from what source it is sustained; and from what kind of material God began to make the world: also concerning the order of the world;and what is the cause of its inclination; also concerning what is outside the circumference of the world; and which is the right and which the left side of the world; also concerning the heaven, and, besides all this, concerning daemons and heroes; and about matter, and about ideas: about the arrangement of the universe: yet more, about the course and motion of the stars: and besides this, from what source the stars derive their light: also about the so-called Dioscuri, and the eclipses of the Sun and Moon, and her aspect, and why she has an earthlike appearance; also concerning her distances; and moreover concerning the years.

Now all these questions have been treated in numberless ways by the philosophers of whom we speak, but since Plutarch collected them in a few concise words, by bringing together the opinions of them all and their contradictions, I think it will not be unprofitable to us if they are presented with a view to their rejection on reasonable grounds. For since they stood in diametrical opposition one to another, and stirred up battles and wars against each other, and nothing better, each with jealous strife of words confuting their neighbours’ opinions, must not every one admit that our hesitation on these subjects has been reasonable and safe?

Next in order to the aforesaid subjects I will add all their disquisitions upon matters nearer to the Earth; concerning the figure of the Earth, and its position and inclination: also concerning the sea; that so you may know that the noble sages differed not only about things high and lofty, but that they have disagreed also in matters terrestrial. And to increase yet more your admiration of this wisdom of the wise, I will add also all the controversies they waged about the soul and the ruling faculty therein, unable as they were to discover what their own nature was. But now let us go back to the first of the aforesaid subjects.

CHAPTER XXXIII—WHETHER THE ALL IS ONE.

[4] ‘THE Stoics then represented the world as one, which they also affirmed to be the All, including the corporeal elements.

‘But Empedocles said that, though the world was one, yet it was not the All, but only a small part of the All, and the rest useless matter.

‘Plato derives his opinion that the world is one, and the All one, by inference from three arguments: from the notion that it will not be perfect, unless it comprehends all things; that it will not be like its pattern, unless it be unique; that it will not be indestructible, if there be anything outside it. But in answer to Plato it must be said, that the world is not perfect, for it does not include all things; for man also is perfect, but does not include all things: and there are many examples, as in the case of statues, and houses, and pictures: and how can it be perfect, if it is possible for anything to revolve outside it? And indestructible it is not, and cannot be, since it is created.

‘But Metrodorus says it is as absurd that there should be but one world generated in infinite space, as that there should be but one head of corn in a great plain: and that the world is one of an infinite multitude is manifest from the infinity of causes. For if the world is finite, while the causes from which the world has come are all infinite, the number of worlds must be infinite. For where they all have been causes, there must also be effects: and causes they are, whether the atoms or the elements.’

CHAPTER XXXIV—WHETHER THE WORLD HAS A SOUL, AND IS ADMINISTERED BY PROVIDENCE.

[5] ‘THE others all say that it has a soul, and is administered by providence.

‘But Democritus and Epicurus, and all who are for bringing in the atoms and vacuum, say that it neither has a soul, nor is administered by providence, but by some irrational kind of nature.

‘Aristotle says that, as a whole and throughout, it has neither a soul, nor reason, nor intelligence, nor is it administered by providence. For while the heavenly regions partake of all these properties, because they include spheres which are endowed with a soul and life, the terrestrial regions have none of them, but share in the orderly arrangement by accident and not directly.’

CHAPTER XXXV—WHETHER THE WORLD IS IMPERISHABLE.

‘PYTHAGORAS, and Plato, and the Stoics say that the world was created by God; and that, so far as it depends on its nature, it is perishable, because it is perceptible by sense through being corporeal; nevertheless it will not be destroyed, through the providence and support of God.

‘Epicurus says that it is perishable, because created, like an animal or a plant.

‘Xenophanes: the world is uncreated, and eternal, and imperishable.

‘Aristotle: the part of the world beneath the Moon may be affected by change, and the things terrestrial therein are doomed to perish.’

CHAPTER XXXVI—FROM WHAT SOURCE THE WORLD IS SUSTAINED.

‘ARISTOTLE: if the world receives sustenance, it will also perish; but in fact it needs no sustenance, and therefore is also eternal.

‘Plato: the world supplies its own sustenance out of its waste, by a change.

‘Philolaus: the decay is twofold, sometimes by fire fallen from heaven, and sometimes from the water of the Moon being thrown off by the revolution of its atmosphere: and the exhalations from these are the sustenance of the world.’

CHAPTER XXXVII—FROM WHAT MATERIAL FIRST GOD BEGAN TO FORM THE WORLD.

‘THE physicists say that the creation of the world began from Earth, as from a centre; and the centre is the beginning of a sphere.

‘Pythagoras: from fire, and the fifth element.

‘Empedocles: the ether was first separated, and next the fire, and after it the Earth, out of which, when very closely compressed by the rush of the sphere, the water gushed up, and the air was formed from it by evaporation. Then the heaven was produced from the ether, and the Sun from the fire: and the terrestrial parts were formed by condensation out of the other elements.

‘Plato: the world was made visible according to the pattern of the intelligible world: and of the visible world first the soul, and after this the corporeal element, first the part produced from fire and earth, and secondly that from water and air.

‘Pythagoras says that, whereas there are five solid figures which are also called mathematical, out of the cube the earth was produced; out of the pyramid the fire; out of the octahedron the air; out of the eicosahedron the water; and out of the dodecahedron the sphere of the universe.

‘And herein again Plato follows Pythagoras.’

CHAPTER XXXVIII—OF THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE WORLD.

‘PARMENIDES: there are wreaths twisted round one upon the other, one of the rare matter, and the other of the dense; and between them others of light and darkness mixed; and that which surrounds them all like a wall is solid.

‘Leucippus and Democritus extend a tunic and a membrane in a circle round the world.

‘Epicurus: the boundary of some worlds is thin, and of others dense: and of these part are in motion, and part immovable.

‘Plato: fire first, then ether, after that air, next water, and earth last: but sometimes he combines the ether with the fire.

‘Aristotle: first impassible ether, that is a fifth body; after that passibles, fire, air, water, and earth last. Of these the celestial portions have the circular motion assigned to them: and of the portions ranged beneath them the light have the upward, and the heavy the downward motion.

‘Empedocles: the places of the elements are not entirely fixed and limited, but they all in a certain way partake one of another.’

CHAPTER XXXIX—WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF THE INCLINATION OF THE WORLD.

‘DIOGENES, Anaxagoras: after the world was established, and had brought forth the living beings out of the earth, the world was somehow spontaneously inclined towards its southern side, perhaps from design, in order that some parts of the world might be uninhabitable and some habitable, in consequence of cold, and torrid heat, and a temperate climate.

‘Empedocles: when the air yielded to the impulse of the Sun, the polar Bears became inclined, and the northern regions were elevated, and the southern depressed, and the whole world accordingly.’

CHAPTER XL—OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD, WHETHER IT IS A VACUUM.

‘THE Pythagoreans: outside the world there is a vacuum, into and out of which the world breathes.

‘The Stoics: infinite (vacuum), into which the world is also dissolved by the conflagration.

‘Poseidonius: not infinite, but sufficiently large for the dissolution.

‘Plato, Aristotle: no vacuum either outside the world or inside.’

CHAPTER XLI—WHICH ARE THE RIGHT AND WHICH THE LEFT SIDES OF THE WORLD.

‘PYTHAGORAS, Plato, Aristotle: the right parts of the world are the eastern, from which the motion begins, and the left are the western.

‘Empedocles: the right is the region of the summer solstice, and the left the region of the winter solstice.’

CHAPTER XLII—OF THE HEAVEN; WHAT IS ITS SUBSTANCE.

‘ANAXIMENES: it is the circumference of the outer zone.

‘Empedocles: the heaven is solid, formed from air compressed by fire into a crystallized form, and encompassing the whole elements of fire and air in each of the hemispheres.

CHAPTER XLIII—OF DAEMONS AND HEROES.

[6] ‘IN connexion with the discourse concerning gods we must inquire into that which concerns daemons and heroes.

‘Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, the Stoics: daemons are beings of the nature of souls: heroes also are souls which have been separated from their bodies; and the good souls are good daemons, and the bad souls evil daemons.

‘But Epicurus admits none of these opinions.’

CHAPTER XLIV—OF MATTER.

‘Matter is the substratum to generation and decay and the other changes.

‘The Schools of Thales and Pythagoras, and the Stoics: matter is wholly and thoroughly subject to change and alteration and flux.

‘The School of Democritus: the primary elements are impassible, namely, the atom, the vacuum, and the incorporeal.

‘Aristotle and Plato say that matter is corporeal, without form, specific character, shape, or quality, so far as it depends on its own nature, but receptive of the specific forms, as it were a nurse, and a mould, and a matrix. But those who say that matter is water, or fire, or air, or earth, no longer speak of it as without form, but as body: while those who say that it is the indivisible bodies and atoms, do regard it as without form.’

CHAPTER XLV—OF THE IDEA.

‘AN “idea” is an incorporeal entity (οὐσία),subsisting itself, and by itself, but giving its image to portions of formless matter, and becoming the cause of their manifestation.

‘Socrates and Plato suppose the ideas to be separable from the matter, subsisting in the thoughts and in the presentations of god, that is, of the mind.

‘Aristotle allowed the specific forms and ideas to remain, not however as separate from the matter, having freed himself from the notion of its being done by god.

‘The Stoic followers of Zeno said that the ideas are thoughts of our own.’

CHAPTER XLVI—OF THE ORDER OF THE STARS.

‘XENOCRATES thinks that the stars move on one superficies.

‘The other Stoics that some are before others in height and depth.

[7] ‘Democritus puts the fixed stars first, and next to these the planets, after which the Sun, the Day-star, the Moon.

‘Plato next to the position of the fixed stars sets first the planet called Phaenon, that is Saturn: second Phaethon, that is Jupiter; third the Fiery, Mars; fourth the Day-star, Venus; fifth Stilbon, Mercury; sixth the Sun; seventh the Moon.

‘Of the Mathematicians some agree with Plato, but some put the Sun in the centre of all.

‘Anaximander, and Metrodorus of Chios, and Crates think that the Sun is placed highest of all, next to him the Moon, and beneath them the fixed stars and planets.’

CHAPTER XLVII—OF THE COURSE AND MOTION OF THE STARS.

‘ANAXAGORAS, Democritus, Cleanthes: all the fixed stars pass from east to west.

‘Alcmaeon and the Mathematicians: the planets move in an opposite direction to the fixed stars; for theirs is the contrary course from west to east.

‘Anaximander: they are borne along by the circles and spheres on which they are each set.

‘Anaximenes: the stars do not revolve beneath the Earth, but around it.

‘Plato and the Mathematicians: the Sun, the Day-star, and Stilbon (Venus and Mercury) have equal orbits.’

CHAPTER XLVIII—WHENCE THE STARS RECEIVE THEIR LIGHT.

‘METEODORUS: the fixed stars are all illumined by the Sun.

‘Heracleitus and the Stoics: the stars are fed from the exhalation of the Earth.

‘Aristotle: the heavenly bodies have no need of nourishment; for they are not perishable but eternal.

‘Plato: there is a common nourishment of the whole world and of the stars from themselves.’

CHAPTER XLIX—OF THE SO-CALLED DIOSCURI.

‘XENOPHANES: what appear like stars upon the ships are little clouds which shine in consequence of a certain kind of motion.

‘Metrodorus: they are flashes from the eyes which look at them with fear and amazement.’

CHAPTER L—OF AN ECLIPSE OF THE SUN.

‘THALES was the first who said that the Sun is eclipsed from the Moon (which is of an earthy nature) coming perpendicularly under it; and that by reflexion in a mirror she is seen situated beneath the Sun’s disk.

‘Anaximander: from the closing of the orifice of the breathing-hole of the Sun’s fire.

‘Heracleitus: in consequence of the turning of the boat-like figure, so that the concavity is above, and the convexity below facing our eyes.

‘Xenophanes: by extinction, and then again there rises another Sun in the east. But he has incidentally mentioned an eclipse of the Sun lasting over the whole month, and again a total eclipse, so that the day seemed like night.

‘Some say that it is a condensation of the invisible clouds coming over the Sun’s disk.

‘Aristarchus sets the Sun among the fixed stars, and makes the Moon move round the Sun’s orbit, and the Sun’s disk to be overshadowed in consequence of these inclinations.

‘Xenophanes: there are many suns and moons, corresponding to the climes, and sections, and zones of the Earth: and at a certain season the Sun’s disk falls into some section of the Earth which is not inhabited by us, and thus, as if stepping into a hole, suffers eclipse. But the same author says that the Sun goes forward into infinity, but seems to revolve because of its distance.’

CHAPTER LI—OF AN ECLIPSE OF THE MOON.

‘ANAXIMANDER: from the closing of the orifice of its circumference.

‘Berossus: because of the turning of the dark side towards us.

‘Heracleitus: because of the turning of the boat-like figure.

‘Of the Pythagoreans some say that it is an outshining and obstruction by our Earth or the counter-earth: but the more recent say that it is in consequence of the spreading of a flame which is gradually kindled in an orderly manner, until it produces the complete full moon, and decreases again in like manner until the conjunction, at which it is entirely extinguished.

‘Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Mathematicians agree that it effects its monthly obscurations by travelling round with the Sun and sharing its illumination; but the eclipses by falling into the shadow of the Earth when that comes between the two luminaries, or rather when it obstructs the light from the Moon.’

CHAPTER LII—OF THE MOON’S ASPECT, AND WHY IT HAS AN EARTHLIKE APPEARANCE.

‘THE Pythagoreans say that the Moon has an earthlike appearance, because it is inhabited like our Earth, but by larger animals and more beautiful plants. For the animals upon it are fifteen times as large, and emit no bodily secretion; and that the day is longer in the same proportion.

‘Anaxagoras: on account of an unevenness in the mixture, because of its being both cold and earthy: for the misty part is mingled with the fiery, whence the Moon is also said to shine with false light.

‘The Stoics: because of the admixture of air in its substance its composition is not pure.’

CHAPTER LIII—OF THE MOON’S DISTANCES.

‘EMPEDOCLES: the Moon is distant from the Sun twice as far as from the Earth.

‘The Mathematical School: eighteen times as far.

‘Eratosthenes: the Sun’s distance from the Earth is four millions and eighty thousand stades: but the Moon’s distance from the Earth seven hundred and eighty thousand stades.’

CHAPTER LIV—OF YEARS.

‘A YEAR of Saturn is a period of thirty years: of Jupiter twelve; of Mars two; of the Sun twelve months; and the same for Mercury and Venus, for they run an equal course. But the Moon’s is thirty days: for this is the complete month from first appearance to conjunction.

‘The Great Yearsome suppose to consist in a period of eight years, but others in nineteen years, and others in fifty-nine. Heracleitus makes it consist of eighteen thousand solar years: Diogenes of three hundred and sixty-five years, as many as the year has days according to Heracleitus: but others of seven thousand, seven hundred, and seventy-seven years.’

So widely do the aforesaid persons differ from each other in regard to things in the heavens above. But now look also at their opinions about the Earth.

CHAPTER LV—OF THE EARTH.

‘THALES and his followers say that the Earth is one.

‘Hicetas the Pythagorean says that there are two, this and the antipodal earth.

‘The Stoics: the Earth is one, and finite.

‘Xenophanes: from the lower part its roots reach into infinity, and it is composed of air and fire.

‘Metrodorus: the Earth is the deposit and sediment of the water, and the Sun of the air.’

CHAPTER LVI—OF THE FIGURE OF THE EARTH.

‘THALES and the Stoics: the Earth is spherical.

‘Anaximander: it is like a stone pillar supporting the surfaces.

‘Anaximenes: like a table.

‘Leucippus: like a kettle-drum.

‘Democritus: like a disk in its extension, but hollow in the middle.’

CHAPTER LVII—OF THE POSITION OF THE EARTH.

‘THE followers of Thales say the Earth is the centre.

‘Xenophanes: the Earth first, for its roots reach into infinity.

‘Philolaus the Pythagorean: first, fire in the centre; for this is the hearth of the universe: second, the antipodal Earth, and third, the Earth which we inhabit, opposite to the antipodal both in situation and revolution; in consequence of which the inhabitants of the antipodal Earth are not seen by those in this Earth.

‘Parmenides was the first to mark off the inhabited parts of the Earth under the two tropical zones.’

CHAPTER LVIII—OF THE EARTH’S MOTION.

[8] ‘ALL the others say that the Earth is at rest.

‘But Philolaus the Pythagorean says that it revolves round the fire in an oblique circle, in like manner as the Sun and Moon.

‘Heracleides of Pontus, and Ecphantus the Pythagorean make the Earth move, not however by change of place, but by rotation, turning like a wheel on an axle, from west to east, about its own centre.

‘Democritus: at first the Earth used to change its place, owing to its smallness and lightness; but as in the course of time it grew dense and heavy, it became stationary.’

After the utterance of these different opinions by the noble philosophers concerning the Earth, hear now what they say of the Sea.

CHAPTER LIX—OF THE SEA, HOW IT WAS COMPOSED, AND WHY IT IS SALT.

[9] ‘ANAXIMANDER says that the Sea is the remnant of the original moisture, the greater part of which was dried up by the fire, and the remainder changed through its burning heat.

‘Anaxagoras: when the water, which in the beginning was a stagnant lake, was burnt up by the Sun’s revolution, and the greasy part evaporated, the remainder subsided into saltness and bitterness.

‘Empedocles: the Sea is the sweat of the Earth when scorched by the Sun, because of the increased condensation.

‘Antiphon: the sweat of the hot part, from which the included moisture was separated, turned salt by being boiled down, which happens always in the case of sweat.

‘Metrodorus: from being drained through the earth it has partaken of its density, just as liquids which are strained through ashes.

‘Plato and his followers: of the elementary water the part formed out of air, being condensed by cooling, became sweet; but the part formed from earth, being evaporated by heat and burning, became salt.’

So much, then, concerning the Sea. But as to those who professed to give physiological explanations about the whole world, and things celestial and ethereal, and the conception of the universe, how little they knew even of their own nature, you may learn from their discordant utterances on these points also, as follows.

CHAPTER LX—OF THE PARTS OF THE SOUL.

[10] ‘PYTHAGORAS, Plato: in the first analysis the Soul has two parts; for it has one part rational and another irrational. But in close and exact consideration, its parts are three: for they distinguish the irrational into the irascible and the appetitive.

‘The Stoics: it is composed of eight parts; five senses, sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch; and a sixth, speech; a seventh, generation; and an eighth, the actual ruling principle, from which proceeds the extension of all these through their proper organs, in a similar manner to the tentacles of the polypus.

‘Democritus, Epicurus: the Soul consists of two parts, its rational faculty being settled in the breast, and the irrational diffused over the whole complexity of the body.

‘But Democritus thought that all things, even dead bodies, naturally partake of a certain kind of soul, because in an obscure way they have some warmth and sensation, though the greater part is dissipated.’

CHAPTER LXI—OF THE EXILING FACULTY.

‘PLATO, Democritus: it is in the head as a whole.

‘Straton: between the eyebrows.

‘Erasistratus: about the membrane of the brain, which he calls the epicranis.

‘Herophilus: in the cavity of the brain, which is also its base.

‘Parmenides: in the breast as a whole.

‘Epicurus, and all the Stoics: in the heart as a whole.

‘Diogenes: in the arterial cavity of the heart, which is full of breath.

‘Empedocles in the composition of the blood.

‘Others in the membrane of the pericardium: and others in the diaphragm. Some of the more recent philosophers say that it reaches through from the head to the diaphragm.

‘Pythagoras: the vital power is around the heart; but the rational , and intelligent faculty in the region of the head.’

So far, then, as to their opinions on these matters. Do you not think therefore that with judgement and reason we have justly kept aloof from the unprofitable and erroneous and vain labour of them all, and do not busy ourselves at all about the said subjects (for we do not see the utility of them, nor any tendency to benefit and gain good for mankind), but cling solely to piety towards God the creator of all things, and by a life of temperance, and all godly behaviour according to virtue, strive to live in a manner pleasing to Him who is God over all?

But if even you from malice and envy hesitate to admit our true testimony, you shall be again anticipated by Socrates, the wisest of all Greeks, who has truthfully declared his votes in our favour. Those meteorological babblers, for instance, he used to expose in their folly, and say that they were no better than madmen, expressly convicting them not merely of striving after things unattainable, but also of wasting time about things useless and unprofitable to man’s life. And this shall be testified to you by our former witness Xenophon, one of the best-known of the companions of Socrates, who writes as follows in his Memorabilia:[11]

[1] 830 a 6 Plutarch, On the Opinions of Philosophers,889 F

[2] 838 d 4 Plutarch, 888 D

[3] 830 d 6 Plutarch, 878 C

[4] 841 d 2 Plutarch, 879 A

[5] 842 b 7 ibid 886 D

[6] 845 c 2 Plutarch, 882 B

[7] 846 c 2 Plutarch, 889 A

[8] 850 c 4 Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum,896 A

[9] 861 a 1 ibid. 896 F

[10] d 3 Plutarch, ibid. 898 E .

[11] 853 c 1 Xenophon, Memorabilia of Socrates,I. i. 11

Chapter 62

[XENOPHON] ‘No one ever yet saw Socrates do or heard him say anything impious or unholy. For he did not discourse about the nature of the universe or the other subjects, like most of them, speculating upon the condition of the cosmos, as the Sophists call it, and by what forces of necessity the celestial phenomena severally are produced: rather he used to expose the foolishness of those who troubled themselves about such things.

‘And the first point he used to consider in regard to them was, whether they go on to study such matters, because they think that they have already an adequate knowledge of human affairs, or deem that they are doing their proper work in neglecting human interests and speculating on the divine.

‘And he used to wonder that they did not clearly see that it is impossible for men to discover these things, since even those who pride themselves most highly on the discussion of these matters do not agree in opinion with each other, but are just like madmen in their mutual feelings.

‘For as among madmen some have no fear even of things fearful, while others are afraid where no fear is; so some of these think it. no shame to say or do anything and everything even in a crowd, while others think it not right even to go out among men: and some honour neither temple, nor altar, nor anything else belonging to the gods, while others worship any casual stocks and stones and wild beasts. Also of those who study anxiously the nature of the universe some think that “being” is only one, others that it is infinite in multitude: some too think that all things are in perpetual motion, and others that nothing can ever be moved: and some that all things are being generated and perishing, but others that nothing could ever be generated or perish.

‘He also used to ask the following questions about them: whereas those who study human affairs think that whatever they have learned they will be able to practise both for themselves and for whomsoever they may wish, do those who search after things divine think in like manner that when they know by what forces of necessity phenomena are severally produced, they will be able whenever they please to make winds and rains and seasons, and whatever else of this kind they may need? Or, without even hoping for anything of this sort, are they satisfied merely to know how such phenomena are severally produced?

‘Such, then, was the nature of his remarks about those who busied themselves with these matters: but he himself was always discoursing of human interests, inquiring what was, pious, what impious; what noble, what base; what just, what unjust; what sanity, what madness.’

These, then, were the opinions of Socrates. And next after him Aristippus of Cyrene, and then later Ariston of Chios, undertook to maintain that morals were the only proper subject of philosophy; for these inquiries were practicable and useful, but the discussions about nature were quite the contrary, neither being comprehensible, nor having any use, even if they were clearly understood.

For it would be no advantage to us, not even if soaring higher in the air than Perseus,

‘O’er ocean’s wave, and o’er the Pleiades,’

we could with our very eyes survey the whole world, and the nature of all ‘beings,’ of whatever kind that is.

For we certainly shall not be on that account wiser, or more just or brave or temperate, nay, not even strong, or beautiful, or rich, without which advantages happiness is impossible.

Wherefore Socrates was right in saying that of existing things some are above us, and others nothing to us: for the secrets of nature are above us, and the conditions after death nothing to us, but the affairs of human life alone concern us.

And thus, he said, he also dismissed the physical theories of Anaxagoras and Archelaus, and studied only

‘Whate’er of good or ill our homes have known.’ [1]

And he thought besides that their physical discussions were not merely difficult and even impossible, but also impious and opposed to the laws. For some maintained that gods do not exist at all, and others, that the Infinite, or Being, or the One, are gods, and anything rather than those who are generally acknowledged.

Their dissension again, he said, was very great: for some represented the All as infinite, and others as finite; and some maintained that all things are in motion, and others that nothing at all moves.

Moreover the following words of Timon of Phlius in his Silliseem to me the best of all on these very subjects:

‘Say then, who urged them to the fatal strife? Echo’s attendant rout: who filled with wrath Against the silent, sent upon mankind A fell disease of talk, and many died.’ [2]

Do you see how at last these noble sages scoff at each other? For instance, the same author, besides what I have quoted, describes their mutual jealousy and their battles and quarrels in the following style:

‘There baneful Discord stalks with senseless shriek, Of murderous Strife the sister and ally, Who, blindly stumbling round, anon her head, With ponderous weight set firm, uplifts to hope.’ [3]

Since, however, we have now exhibited the dissension and fighting of these sages among themselves, and since the wholly superfluous, and unintelligible, and to us utterly unnecessary study and learning of all the other subjects in which the tribes of philosophers still take pride, have been refuted not by our demonstrations but by their own; nay more, since we have also plainly set forth the reason why we have rejected their doctrines and preferred the Hebrew oracles, let us at this point conclude our treatise on The Preparation for the Gospel; but the more complete treatise on The Demonstration of the Gospelit now remains for us to consider from a different basis of argument, which the question still needs for those who are to deal with its teaching.

It remains, therefore, to make answer to those of the circumcision who find fault with us, as to why we, being foreigners and aliens, make use of their books, which, as they would say, do not belong to us at all; or why, if we gladly accept their oracles, we do not also render our life conformable to their law.

[Footnotes moved to end and numbered]

[1] 855 a 3 Homer, Od.iv. 392

[2] b 6 Timon, Fr.9 (Mullach I. p. 84); cf. Clem. Alex., Strom.V. 325 Sylb., Homer, Il.i. 8-10

[3] c 5 Timon, Fr.5; cf. Homer, Il.iv. 440-3

Colophon

Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel)
by Eusebius of Caesarea.

This edition was produced by
Royal Archives.

The cover features
Landscape with Moses and the Burning Bush
by Domenichino (Italian, 1581–1641), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, which is in the public domain.

The text is set in Palatino and Georgia. Polytonic Greek is set in SIL Gentium.

The first edition of this ebook was released on
August 16, 2026.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright

Book 1

- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10. Theology of the Phoenicians

Book 2

- Preface
- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8

Book 3

- Preface
- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2. The Same Subject
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 17

Book 4

- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 17
- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 20
- Chapter 21
- Chapter 22
- Chapter 23

Book 5

- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 17
- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 20
- Chapter 21
- Chapter 22
- Chapter 23
- Chapter 24
- Chapter 25
- Chapter 26
- Chapter 27
- Chapter 28
- Chapter 29
- Chapter 30
- Chapter 31
- Chapter 32
- Chapter 33
- Chapter 34
- Chapter 35
- Chapter 36

Book 6

- Preface
- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5. They Utter Lying Prophecies
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11

Book 7

- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14. Aristobulus on the Same
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16. On the Adverse Powers
- Chapter 17
- Chapter 18. Philo on the Soul
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 20
- Chapter 21. Philo on the Same
- Chapter 22

Book 8

- Preface
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14

Book 9

- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4. Hecataeus Concerning the Jews
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 17
- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 20. Philo on the Same
- Chapter 21. Demetrius Concerning Jacob
- Chapter 22. Theodotus Concerning the Same
- Chapter 23. Artapanus Concerning Joseph
- Chapter 24. Philo Concerning Joseph
- Chapter 25. Aristeas Concerning Job
- Chapter 26. Eupolemus Concerning Moses
- Chapter 27. Artapanus Concerning the Same
- Chapter 28. Ezekiel Concerning the Same
- Chapter 29. Demetrius Concerning the Same
- Chapter 30
- Chapter 31
- Chapter 33
- Chapter 35. Timochares Concerning Jerusalem
- Chapter 36
- Chapter 37
- Chapter 38. Aristeas Concerning the Same
- Chapter 39
- Chapter 40

- Chapter 41. Abydenus Concerning Nabuchodonosor

- Chapter 42

Book 10

- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10. From Africanus
- Chapter 11. From Tatian
- Chapter 12. From Clement
- Chapter 13. From Josephus
- Chapter 14

Book 11

- Introduction
- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14. On the Second Cause
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 17. Plotinus on the Same
- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 20
- Chapter 21
- Chapter 22. Numenius on the Good
- Chapter 23
- Chapter 24
- Chapter 25. Clement on the Same
- Chapter 26
- Chapter 27
- Chapter 28. Porphyry on the Same
- Chapter 29
- Chapter 30
- Chapter 31
- Chapter 32
- Chapter 33
- Chapter 34
- Chapter 35
- Chapter 36
- Chapter 37
- Chapter 38

Book 12

- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 17
- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 20
- Chapter 21
- Chapter 22
- Chapter 23
- Chapter 24
- Chapter 25
- Chapter 26
- Chapter 27
- Chapter 28
- Chapter 29
- Chapter 30
- Chapter 31
- Chapter 32
- Chapter 33
- Chapter 34
- Chapter 35. Of Riches and Poverty
- Chapter 36. Of Honour to Parents
- Chapter 37. Of Purchasing Slaves
- Chapter 38
- Chapter 39
- Chapter 40. Of Thieves
- Chapter 41. Of Slaying a Thief
- Chapter 42
- Chapter 43
- Chapter 44
- Chapter 45. Further Concerning the Same
- Chapter 46. Further Concerning the Same
- Chapter 47
- Chapter 48
- Chapter 49
- Chapter 50
- Chapter 51
- Chapter 52

Book 13

- Preface
- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 17
- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 21

Book 14

- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 17
- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 20
- Chapter 21
- Chapter 22
- Chapter 23
- Chapter 24
- Chapter 25
- Chapter 26
- Chapter 27

Book 15

- Introduction
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 17
- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 20
- Chapter 21
- Chapter 22
- Chapter 62

Colophon