{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_62858/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_62858","id":"gutenberg_62858","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62858","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Ethics -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Selected Essays of Plutarch\n\n\n\n\n                      SELECTED ESSAYS OF PLUTARCH\n\n                                VOL. II\n\n                      TRANSLATED WITH INTRODUCTION\n\n                                   BY\n\n                             A. O. PRICKARD\n\n       \u2018But the Author in whom he delighted most was Plutarch, of\n     whose works he was lucky enough to possess the worthier half;\n    if the other had perished Plutarch would not have been a popular\n   writer, but he would have held a higher place in the estimation of\n        the judicious.\u2019\u2014SOUTHEY, _The Doctor_, chapter vi, p. 1.\n\n                                 OXFORD\n                         AT THE CLARENDON PRESS\n                                  1918\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nThis volume covers about one-eighth part of the miscellaneous works of\nPlutarch known as the _Moralia_, much the same quantity as is contained\nin Professor Tucker\u2019s volume of this series which appeared in 1913. All\nthe pieces now offered are in the form of dialogue, except the short\ntreatise _On Superstition_, which seemed to justify its inclusion by a\ncertain affinity of thought.\n\nThe text followed is that of Wyttenbach, issued by the Clarendon Press\nin 1795-1800, or rather a text compounded of the Greek text there\nprinted, his own critical notes and revision of the old Latin version,\nhis commentary, where one exists, and his posthumous Index of Greek\nwords used by Plutarch (1830). A few corrections by C. F. Hermann,\nEmperius, Madvig, and other scholars, have been introduced, for many of\nwhich I am indebted, in the first place, as I have acknowledged more\nparticularly, to M. G. N. Bernardakis, the accomplished editor of the\n_Moralia_ in the Teubner series (1888-96). A very few fresh corrections,\nmostly on obvious points, have been admitted.\n\nThe notes at the foot of the page are intended to show all deviations\nfrom Wyttenbach\u2019s text, so constituted, or to give references to the\nauthors of passages quoted by Plutarch; there may be a few exceptions,\nwhere an illustrative reference or an obvious explanation is given. For\nthe plays and fragments of the Tragic Poets reference is made to\nDindorf\u2019s _Poetae Scenici_; for Pindar and other lyric poets, to Bergk\u2019s\n_Poetae Lyrici Graeci_ (ed. 1900); for the fragments of Heraclitus, to\nBywater\u2019s _Heracliti Ephesii reliquiae_ (Oxford, 1877); those of other\nearly philosophers will be found in their places in Diels\u2019\n_Vorsokratiker_ (1903) or other collections.\n\nTo four of the dialogues I have with some reluctance prefixed a short\nrunning analysis. It is always a pity to anticipate what the author puts\nclearly before us;[1] but there is here a real practical difficulty,\neven for a careful reader, in being sure who is the speaker for the time\nbeing; and as he is often introduced by the pronouns \u2018I\u2019 or \u2018he\u2019, no\ntypographical device quite serves. The other dialogues seem to explain\nthemselves sufficiently. There is no attempt to supply a commentary; but\nit is hoped that the full index of proper names (which are very\nnumerous) will enable a reader to distinguish those as to whom it is\nworth his while to inquire further from those who are only of passing\ninterest. I have given here a good many references to other works of\nPlutarch, but more may usefully be sought, for instance in such an index\nas is appended to Clough\u2019s edition of the _Lives_.\n\nI may perhaps be allowed to mention that the dialogue _On the Face which\nappears on the Orb of the Moon_ was translated by me, and tentatively\npublished in 1911, with the hope of obtaining some helpful criticism.\nHaving received several kind notices, and in particular a very full one\nin _Hermathena_ by Dr. L. G. Purser, to which I am deeply indebted, I\nhave now ventured to reproduce this dialogue in somewhat fuller form\nthan the others, and to retain some of my original notes. I should add\nthat I have no competence to deal with any scientific matters as such. I\nhave added two longer notes on special points of interest.\n\nSir Thomas Browne, writing in 1681-2 to his son Edward who was by way of\ntranslating the _Lives_ of Plutarch, and in fact accomplished two of\nthem, assumes that he will in the main follow Amyot\u2019s version, which\nNorth had followed absolutely, and suggests that, with some corrections\nand the removal of obsolete words, North\u2019s work might still serve\n\u2018especially with gentlemen, who if the expression bee playne looke not\ninto criticisme\u2019. \u2018If you have the Greek Plutarke,\u2019 he writes, \u2018have\nalso the Latin adjoyned unto it, so you may consult either upon\noccasion, though you apply yourself to translate out of French, and the\nEnglish translation may be sometimes helpful.\u2019 Very likely an acceptable\nversion of the _Moralia_ might now be produced out of Amyot and Philemon\nHolland, a racy and scholarly translator from the Greek, with the\noriginal and the old Latin at hand for reference. But Dr. Edward Browne\nwas a physician, of little leisure and of delicate health, and it might\nhardly be respectful to Plutarch to adopt this procedure now; indeed it\nseems to recall that of \u2018the dog\u2019 in the proverb, who \u2018drinks from the\nNile\u2019, running as he drinks, always with an eye on the crocodiles.\nHowever this may be, some indulgence may fairly be claimed by a\ntranslator of an author, who, however straight-forward himself, abounds\nin allusion and latent quotation, and also in difficulties of text not\nof his own making, and upon whom no commentary exists. I will mention,\nfor the sake of clearness, two instances as to which I have troubled\nmyself and, I fear, others a good deal:\n\nIn the dialogue _On the Genius of Socrates_, chap. iii, end (577 A), the\nspeaker says that his brother Epaminondas is keeping out of the\npatriotic enterprise in hand, on the ground that the more hot-headed\nmembers of the party will not stop short of a general massacre and the\nmurder of many of the leading citizens.\n\nI have followed the Latin version in so rendering the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. But I have felt some\ndoubt\u2014needlessly, I think\u2014whether the Greek participle would bear this\nmeaning, and also whether the sense so given is strong and suitable.\nWyttenbach felt doubts too, for in his posthumous _Index_, s.v. \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9,\nthe rendering given is \u2018hostes vel amici\u2019, i.e. \u2018friends or foes\u2019. The\nsense is excellent, but seems hardly to be in the Greek; probably it was\na mere query or jotting. The Teubner editor prints \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, i.e. \u2018those with whom they had private differences\u2019, giving\nCobet\u2019s name for the last two words. I have not been able to trace the\nreference in Cobet, but in _Novae Lectiones_, p. 565, he examines\ninstances where he thinks that \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 should be supplied or suppressed, as\nthe case may be, before compounds of \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac. The sense seems good, but too\nspecial to be introduced into a text without cogent evidence, since,\nonce given currency, it is difficult for a future critic to go back upon\nit. Meanwhile, in Wyttenbach\u2019s note on ii, 75 A, he collects many\ninstances where \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 is used by Plutarch for \u2018the enemy\u2019, \u2018the\nother party\u2019, and \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd may have grown out of \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\nwith \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd repeated. I have thought it the more peaceable course to\npreserve the old rendering. I only quote this instance, which is of no\ngreat importance but is of some, as one where a _Variorum_ editor would\nhave stated at length and evaluated the possible alternatives. That a\ntranslator should do so is perhaps a case of \u2018putting the cart before\nthe horse\u2019.\n\nThe other instance is one of real interest, where the problem is perhaps\ninsoluble upon our present knowledge. In the long dialogue _On the\nCessation of the Oracles_, c. 20 (420 c.), where Cleombrotus has been\npressing a view that there may be daemons with a long, but yet a\nlimited, term of existence, against the Epicureans, whose own strange\ntheory of _Eidola_ he derides, Ammonius replies in words which appear\nthus in the Latin:\n\n\u2018Recte, inquit, mihi pronunciare videtur Theophrastus, quid enim obstat\nquin sententiam gravissimam et philosophiae convenientissimam recipiamus\ndicentis: opinionem de Daemonibus, si reiciatur, multa eorum simul\nabolere quae fieri possunt demonstratione autem carent; _sin admittatur\nmulta secum trahere impossibilia et quae non exstiterint_.\u2019\n\nAmyot and others write \u2018Cleombrotus\u2019 for \u2018Theophrastus\u2019, a change which,\nin view of Plutarch\u2019s carelessness as to personal names, seems not\nunlikely, and helps a little. No doubt Theophrastus is quoted, but his\nname need not have been mentioned, and may have been brought into the\ntext in the wrong place. The absurdity of the words which I have given\nin italics seems evident, and I have returned to a suggestion of\nXylander,[2] by introducing a negative before \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac, assuming that\nTheophrastus is quoted, not for any opinion about daemons, but for a\ncanon of what is logically \u2018probable\u2019. More subtle solutions are\nsuggested, which could not be discussed here properly: the question\nseems too intricate to be settled by a translator as he goes on his way.\nWe really want to know what Theophrastus said.\n\nThe remarks on the absence of a commentary do not apply to the dialogue\non _Instances of Delay in Divine Punishment_, fully annotated by\nWyttenbach in 1772, nor to the essay _On Superstition_ and the greater\npart of _The E at Delphi_, which are dealt with in his continuous\ncommentary. Nor should I omit to mention the great help afforded by\nKepler\u2019s notes on the _Face in the Moon_ and his scholarly translation.\n\nThe large number of poetical quotations in Plutarch often stop a\ntranslator\u2019s hand. Wherever it is possible, I have turned to standard\nversions: for Homer to that of Worsley completed by Conington, for\nPindar\u2019s extant Odes to that of Bishop George Moberly, which it has been\nan especial pleasure to use; for some lines of the _Cyclops_ of\nEuripides I have been fortunate enough to draw upon Shelley. There\nremain a good many fragments, some of them of real poetical quality, and\nsome jingling oracles and the like; for the latter doggerel is the\nproper vehicle, for the former the best attainable doggerel must serve.\nThe range of Plutarch\u2019s poetical quotations seems strangely limited\nconsidering their number. All are Greek, and most from the older poets;\nindeed, with the exception of a few from the New Comedy, nearly all\nmight have been used by Plato. Those from the Tragedians are always to\nthe point, but he does not appear to care from which of the three he is\nborrowing.[3] Homer and Hesiod always bring a welcome flavour of an\nolder world. Perhaps Pindar is the poet whom he quotes with most hearty\nappreciation. Though he has given us many new poetical fragments, he\nintroduces us to few, if any, new poets. Of Bacchylides there are only\ntwo slight quotations in all Plutarch\u2019s works. A single reference to a\npassage of Horace is all that shows a knowledge of the existence of\nRoman poetry.\n\nSouthey\u2019s comparison between the _Moralia_ and the _Lives_ need not be\npressed; it is the scholar\u2019s preference for the rare, which is his by\nprivilege, over the popular. But it is well to realize, as it is easy to\ndo with the help of indices, that the author\u2019s hand is one in both. It\nis agreed that the _Lives_ belong to Plutarch\u2019s later years, and were\nwritten at Chaeroneia, under the limitations of his own library; the\nseveral books appeared at intervals, of what length we cannot say.[4]\nThe few indications of date mentioned in the introductions to the\ndialogues now before us suggest the later part of Vespasian\u2019s reign or\nthe years nearly following it, say from A.D. 80 on. The dialogue on the\n_Instances of Delay in Divine Punishment_ from its simpler psychology\nand demonology, and perhaps from some crudity in style, suggests a date\nearlier than that of some of the others. Dr. Max Adler, in his lucid and\nlearned dissertation, has established the close connexion between the\n_Face in the Moon_ and the _Cessation of the Oracles_, and thinks the\nformer to have been the earlier, and to have been utilized for the\nlatter piece.[5]\n\nMontaigne, who knew his Plutarch up and down, has said that he is one of\nthe authors whom he likes to take after the manner of the Danaids,[6]\nwhich may be described as a method of \u2018dip and waste\u2019. You may dip\nanywhere, as you may into the pages of _The Doctor_, and be sure of\nfinding something which you would wish to remember; but you may also\nfind, on re-reading the same passage, that you have not remembered it at\nall, so that the waste is continual. The freshness need not be impaired\nby a little more system; indeed it would be enhanced, at least for the\ndialogues, for this reason, that they all represent real conversations\nbetween real persons, and it is worth our while to put together our\nimpressions about each. The fullest materials for such an attempt will\nbe found in the _Symposiacs_ or dialogues over wine.[7]\n\nThe _Symposiacs_ are arranged in nine books, each of which contains ten\nconversations of unequal length, but all short, except the last which\nhas fifteen. On the other hand nine, viz. four of the fourth book and\nfive of the last, are missing, only the titles being preserved. All the\nbooks are dedicated to Sossius Senecio, who was consul first in A.D. 99;\nand as there is no reference to the dignity, we may perhaps infer that\nall were written before that year.[8] There is not a single reference in\nall the nine books to any public or personal event which might help us\nto a date. We hear of the \u2018year\u2019 of officials of the Greek games, of\nPlutarch\u2019s return from a visit to Alexandria, and of a marriage in his\nfamily, which Sossius Senecio attended, but we cannot follow these\nclues.[9] Many of the discussions are about wine and wine-parties; in\nothers the range of subject is very wide, from \u2018What Plato meant by\nsaying, if he did say, that God geometrizes\u2019 to \u2018Whether the table\nshould be cleared after dinner\u2019, or \u2018Why truffles grow after thunder\u2019. A\ngood many are on medical subjects; in one of them the promising problem,\n\u2018Whether new diseases can arise, and from what causes\u2019, is well argued.\nThe physicians present show a full knowledge of the Natural History\nfound in the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus, and the laymen seem to\nargue with them on equal terms. There is little or no pleasantry about\nprofessional habits, the fees or the pedantry, except that in one party\na physician is host, and sets on the table an inordinately good dinner,\nwhile certain young men of severe habits put him to a great deal of\ntrouble to produce some cheese to eat with their dry bread.[10]\n\nIn the first dialogue of the First Book the question is raised, \u2018Whether\nphilosophy may be discussed over wine\u2019. The answer appears to be \u2018Why\nnot?\u2019 but probably none of the following dialogues would be called\n\u2018philosophical\u2019 by philosophers. Plutarch loved a vigorous set-to, with\nno quarter given, \u2018nothing for hate, but all for honour\u2019, as much as did\nMontaigne.[11] But he felt deeply about the matters at issue between\nStoics and Epicureans, the two schools which mattered. Believing himself\nin a Providence, kindly and particular, associated by him with the\nApollo of Delphi, he disliked equally the Epicurean who flouted a\nProvidence, and the Stoic who lowered it by his pedantry and\ncontradictions. He would not have a scene over the wine. Even in the\ndaylight dialogues now before us, the cynic \u2018Planetiades\u2019 is skilfully\nbowed out before there is trouble, and \u2018Epicurus\u2019 takes himself off\nbefore the reported discussion begins, leaving the company surprised\nrather than angry.\n\nThe titles of the five lost dialogues of the last book (the others of\nthat book being all on literary subjects) are curious. Three are\nconnected with music; and I should have the permission of those who have\nkindly helped me here to say that there is about Greek music a\nconsiderable region of dim penumbra. Another raises a question discussed\nin the _De Facie_ and answered there out of Aristotle and Posidonius, as\nto the eclipses of sun and moon. Another is on the problem \u2018Whether the\ntotal number of the stars is more probably even than odd\u2019. The speakers\n(for a fragment is preserved) are quite aware that a game of\nodd-and-even on such a scale might seem childish. It need not be so, if\nthe treatment were like that of the _Arenarius_ of Archimedes (all the\nbetter if in his Doric); it would then have contained some long numbers\nand some stiff reasoning. Of one thing we may be sure, that if Lamprias,\nwho is much to the fore in the Ninth Book, took a part, he was ready\nwith a received view, framed on the spot.\n\nM. Bernardakis[12] (who quotes a letter from M. Wessely) tells us that\nin the Paris E there is a blank space here of 2-\u00bc leaves, but that in\nthe old Vienna MS., no. 148 (which contains the _Symposiacs_ only),\nthree whole pages have been cut out, leaving a gap between what remains\nof the sixth dialogue and the fragment of the twelfth. Former editions\nhad printed continuously, and our gratitude is due to M. Bernardakis for\nhis restitution of the fragment to its proper place. The inference\nappears to be that the Vienna MS. is here the parent, though why the\nfragment stops short where it does is not clear. Probably the scribe was\ndaunted by the technical language, and either left a blank space to be\nfilled up by some one of greater experience, or so spoilt his sheets by\nerrors and erasures that it was better to cut them out. Some such cause\nhas been conjectured for the many gaps left in E, occurring where the\nsubject-matter is difficult.\n\nSome ninety different persons are mentioned by name as taking part in\nthe _Symposiac Dialogues_, and if we allow for the lost pieces, there\nmust have been at least a hundred. These may be arranged in groups:\nPlutarch and his family\u2014his grandfather, father, brothers, sons,\nsons-in-law\u2014the doctors (8), the grammarians (5), and so on. Many of\nthese reappear in the dialogues now before us, and much may be gained in\ndistinctness of personality by following out the references given.[13]\nAmmonius, Plutarch\u2019s teacher in the Platonic philosophy, comes out as a\nmasterful person, and a past-master in the art of tactful arrangement of\na debate. Theon (\u2018Our Comrade\u2019, an appellation given to some half-dozen\nothers), to be distinguished from \u2018Theon the Grammarian\u2019, is a close and\nmuch trusted family friend. Very few Roman names appear, but Sossius\nSenecio, Mestrius Florus, and one or two others, must have been\nintimates.\n\nNone of the conversations in the _Symposiacs_ turn upon points which\nwere Plutarch\u2019s interest when he wrote the _Lives_; the study of\ncharacter in stirring times, of the reaction of circumstances upon\ncharacter and of character upon circumstances, of the insoluble problem\nwhich is always solving itself, as to \u2018Virtue\u2019 on the one hand and\n\u2018Fortune\u2019 on the other, determining success. The elaborate introduction\nto the _Genius of Socrates_, put side by side with that to the _Life of\nPericles_, shows that the author wished to turn from subjects which made\ngood talk over wine in hours of leisure, to others of a more virile\nstamp. The most convenient hypothesis would be that the success of the\n_Symposiacs_ suggested to the author to try his hand on more elaborate\ndialogue, and that, still later on, he settled to the _Lives_ in the\nspirit, not of an historian, but of an artist, filling his canvas with\nthemes inspired by that great art, Virtue. The lost _Life of\nEpaminondas_, his favourite hero, would have told us a great deal about\nthe artist himself. It was not Plutarch\u2019s habit to sum up in such\nbrilliant character sketches as stand out in other historians: this has\nbeen done for Epaminondas, on broad and generous lines, by Sir Walter\nRaleigh, and before him, not less generously, by Montaigne; and much\nmaterial will be found scattered among Plutarch\u2019s other _Lives_.\n\nSuch an hypothesis can only be ventured in the broadest outline, for no\none date covers all the _Lives_ or all the _Dialogues_, and some of the\nfacts are perplexing. In the _Second Pythian Dialogue_ Diogenianus\nappears as a very young man, and is introduced as the son of a father\nknown to the company; and Diogenianus of Pergamum takes part in several\nof the _Symposiacs_, but there is no mention of a son old enough to be\nbrought with him. On the other hand, Boethus in the same dialogue is \u2018on\nhis way to the camp of the Epicureans\u2019; in one of the _Symposiacs_ he is\n\u2018an Epicurean\u2019 simply. In the last book of the _Symposiacs_ Theon\u2019s sons\ncome in, but we do not hear of him elsewhere as a father of grown-up\nsons.\n\nThe dialogue _On the Face which appears on the Orb of the Moon_ is\nunique as showing the interest taken by men of good general education in\nscientific subjects in the first century of our era, and as evidence of\nthe point to which the natural sciences had then attained. Professional\nscience may be said to have been almost limited to the province of the\nmathematician and his congeners. Natural History was part of the general\noutfit of the \u2018Philosophers\u2019, and there was no idea of the \u2018Conquest of\nNature\u2019 for the relief of man\u2019s estate, unless by the engineer or the\nphysician. With these limitations, the progress made may strike some\nmodern readers as surprisingly great, and a good example may be found in\nthe very precise knowledge of Hipparchus and Ptolemy of the delicate\nphenomena of the moon\u2019s movements. We are tempted to ask whether, if\nGreeks had not settled these problems, which men of no other ancient\nrace attacked scientifically, they would have been settled to this day.\nTo come down to a humbler matter: if the properties of the conic\nsections had not been discovered by Apollonius and his predecessors,\nwould they stand in their place, probably a modest one, on a modern\nsyllabus, and, meanwhile, could the mechanical arts have progressed\nwithout them? And the conic sections are simple things compared with the\nlines, surfaces, and solids determined once for all by Archimedes.\nArchimedes was a mathematician by the grace of Nature, and an engineer\nby the order of a prince; and the conic sections themselves were\nexamined, not from any practical interest in the cone, but because they\nwere found to furnish instances of the curves which might facilitate the\nline of inquiry, suggested by Plato with such amazing foresight, as a\nhalf-way house towards a solution of Apollo\u2019s problem.[14] Of course\nthis can only be stated as a question\u2014not a rhetorical question\u2014and must\nbe left on the knees of the gods. The general subject is discussed in D.\nRuhnken\u2019s admirable _De Graecia artium ac doctrinarum inventrice_, an\ninaugural lecture delivered at Leyden in 1757 (just thirty years after\nNewton\u2019s death).\n\nA few lines about the scholar to whose prolonged labours upon Plutarch\nwe owe so much are only his due. Daniel Wyttenbach was born at Bern,\nwhere his father was a divine of good Swiss family, in 1746. He studied\nat Marburg and G\u00f6ttingen, and passed to Holland, filling professorial\nchairs at Amsterdam, and, from 1798, at Leyden. In Holland he was the\ncolleague and intimate friend of Valckenaer (1715-85) and David Ruhnken\n(1723-98), himself by birth a German. By their advice, he turned from a\nmeditated edition of the Emperor Julian\u2019s works to Plutarch. The two\nadvisers were not quite at one, and Wyttenbach seemed to crouch between\ntwo burdens\u2014Valckenaer wished him to produce a final edition of some one\nwork, Ruhnken (who would gladly have faced the task himself if he had\nbeen a younger man) preferred that he should not stop short of all\nPlutarch. In 1772 he produced his learned and complete commentary on the\n_De sera numinum Vindicta_. About this time the Delegates of the Oxford\nPress were anxious to produce a worthy edition of a great classic; and\nin 1788 Thomas Burgess, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, afterwards\nBishop of St. Davids and of Salisbury, visited Holland and sought an\nintroduction to Wyttenbach, with whom an arrangement was concluded in\nthe autumn of that year. The issue of the volumes of text, with critical\nnotes and revised Latin version, began in 1795 and went on steadily till\n1797; but there was much delay and many searchings of heart over the\nlast volume, containing the fragments, the dispatch of which was\nhindered by the state of war and the occupation of Holland by foreign\ntroops. It was at last discovered in 1800 in the port of Hamburg, and\nappears to have reached Oxford in that year. The first two volumes of\nthe commentary, to page 242 C, had preceded it in 1798, and were also\npublished in 1800. The last volume must have proceeded slowly, for it\nhad only reached 392 D, near the end of the _E at Delphi_, when, on\nJanuary 12, 1807, it was interrupted by an explosion due to the careless\nuse of fire on a barge loaded with gunpowder. The effects of the\nconflagration which followed are visible in Leyden to this day. The\ndisaster was ill-timed for us, for the commentary stops just short of a\npassage of great interest (see p. 75). Wyttenbach bore this trouble,\nwhich he has graphically described in several letters, and also those\ncaused by ill health and narrowed means, with much fortitude. He died in\n1820, and the last volume of the commentary was sent to Oxford and\npublished in 1821, followed by the two volumes of the _Index\nGraecitatis_ in 1830. He was a most amiable man, and the letters which\npassed between him and Ruhnken have much charm of feeling and\nexpression. Both wrote in admirable Latin; Wyttenbach\u2019s style is always\nfluent and picturesque, but has certain idiosyncrasies, which may delay\nan English reader.[15]\n\nOf older scholars who had dealt with Plutarch, by far the most important\nwas Turnebus[16] (1512-65). Of Xylander (W. Holzmann, 1532-76), who\nproduced the Latin translation, the basis of his own commentary, and a\nGreek text, Wyttenbach writes with much respect and sympathy, as he does\nalso of Reiske (1716-74), his own contemporary, who, however, was not\nquite adequately equipped, in point of material or of critical\njudgement.\n\nI should like to express my deep sense of the loss caused to classical\nscholarship by the lamented death of Herbert Richards. I have more than\nonce referred to his critical notes on the _Moralia_, which have been\nappearing lately in the _Classical Review_: many of the finer points of\nGreek idiom do not concern a translator, but there are several most\nvaluable suggestions and criticisms which I have felt confidence in\nadopting.\n\nA still more personal loss, which intimately concerns this volume, is\nthat of Ingram Bywater. He had promised a revision of it in its passage\nthrough the press; and his vigilance as a Curator as well as his\njealousy for the severer traditions of scholarship, apart from his\npersonal kindness, would, I know, have made it a searching one. He did\nnot specially care for English translation, and his own masterly version\nof the _Poetics_ of Aristotle is prefaced by something like a protest.\nNor did he feel much sympathy with what he would call the \u2018Realien\u2019. On\nthe realities of life no one had a saner or better informed judgement.\nFor natural science and its representatives he cherished a genuine\nrespect; and perhaps none of the tributes to his memory would have\ntouched him more than one which was paid in the pages of _Nature_ by an\nold colleague and friend of the Exeter College days. But he had a\ncertain shyness of the intrusion of arguments based, say, upon geometry\nor music, into problems of language already sufficiently perplexed. How\ngenerously his noble library and his own stores of wisdom were thrown\nopen to those who sought them is known to many, as it is to myself.\n\nYet another great loss to me has been that of the Rev. David Thomas,\nRector of Garsington, in Oxfordshire, a veteran mathematician, my near\nneighbour and most kindly and helpful referee during many years.\n\nI cannot send out even so small a volume without a word of gratitude for\naffectionate and lifelong help received from John Wordsworth, Bishop of\nSalisbury 1885-1911. His own enduring contribution to secular\nscholarship was made in 1874, and holds its place in the judgement of\nLatin scholars. He was always shouldering new burdens, the last being\nthe mastering, for a definite purpose of friendship and public duty, of\nthe language and history of Sweden. But his great stores of books and of\nknowledge were always in order, and always made available to others. He\nwould often preface any opinion of his own by \u2018My father used to think\nhighly\u2019 of such a book or such a person; and it was always well to be\nreminded of that true scholar and most courteous gentleman of an older\nday.\n\nI owe much, for help and advice, to living friends whom I should like to\nthank, but may not. But I must be allowed to acknowledge, in no\nconventional spirit, the great care bestowed on these pages by the\nReader for the Delegates of the Press, who has entered into difficulties\nof matter as well as of language as few scholars can be expected to have\nthe patience to do.[17]\n\nThe style of Plutarch has not received much favour with scholars. He\nuses too many words, and writes in cumbrous sentences, and the words\noften seem ill-shapen. But it has merits which are acknowledged by all\nthose who have dwelt much upon him. His style is a very honest one; at\nthe end of the longest sentence it is always found that he has said\nsomething worth saying, and that no word can be retrenched as mere\nverbiage. And he is so much in earnest that he often reaches an\neloquence, which burns, perhaps, with a dull glow, but which cannot be\nquite lost in any translation. Indeed the modern languages have\nsometimes an advantage in the fact that they do not possess\ncounterparts, as long and as elaborate, of the terms used in the\noriginal. Of the first, and the best, of Plutarch\u2019s translators,\nMontaigne[18] has written an opinion, to which it should be added that,\nin the judgement of very capable persons, Amyot[19] was a scholar of\nreal knowledge and penetration, though he is sometimes content to\nparaphrase:\n\n\u2018Ie donne avecque raison, ce me semble, la palme \u00e0 Iacques Amyot sur\ntouts nos escrivains fran\u00e7ois, non seulement pour la na\u00effvet\u00e9 et puret\u00e9\ndu langage, en quoy il surpasse touts aultres, ny pour la constance d\u2019un\nsi long travail, ny pour la profondeur de son s\u00e7avoir, ayant peu\ndevelopper si heureusement un aucteur si espineux et ferr\u00e9 (car on m\u2019en\ndira ce qu\u2019on vouldra, ie n\u2019entends rien au grec, mais ie veois un sens\nsi bien ioinct et entretenu partout en sa traduction, que, ou il a\ncertainement entendu l\u2019imagination vraye de l\u2019aucteur, ou ayant, par\nlongue conversation, plant\u00e9 vifvement dans son ame une generale idee de\ncelle de Plutarque, il ne luy a au moins rien prest\u00e9 qui le desmente ou\nqui le desdie); mais, sur tout, ie luy s\u00e7ais bon gr\u00e9 d\u2019avoir seu trier\net choisir un livre si digne et si \u00e0 propos pour en faire present \u00e0 son\npais.\u2019\n\nSince this Preface was written, early in 1916, a study of Plutarch,\nwhich should be of great value to his readers, has appeared in the _De\nPlutarcho scriptore et philosopho_, by Professor J. J. Hartman of\nLeyden. Professor Hartman is an enthusiast, and his book covers all the\nworks of Plutarch, the _Moralia_ and the _Lives_, their relations to one\nanother and to the author\u2019s career. He is of opinion that the _Lives_\nwere taken in hand after all, or nearly all, the writings included in\nthe _Moralia_ were completed, and then appeared in rapid succession of\nbooks. He observes that many of the pieces of the _Moralia_ suggest the\ndate A.D. 107; the _Symposiacs_ he places somewhat later. Two\nconclusions, of much importance as coming from so serious a student, may\nbe stated: the Christian teaching had never come into Plutarch\u2019s hearing\n(p. 114, &c.), and there is no suggestion of any tendency to Oriental or\nNeoplatonic thought; Plutarch was the best living authority on Plato and\nhis works, and aimed at being the Plato of his own day (pp. 389, 680,\n&c.).\n\nA large list of critical comments is appended to the general notice of\neach work. Professor Hartman takes as his basis the Teubner edition, and\npays a well-merited tribute to the care and skill of M. Bernardakis (p.\n237, &c.). His usual complaint is that the editor has lacked the\nboldness to incorporate in the text ingenious emendations which he\nmentions in notes. I had myself felt somewhat differently as to all\nunsupported emendations, though I am glad to repeat my sense of the\ngreat usefulness of the edition, my debt to which goes much beyond what\nI have expressly acknowledged.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  \u2018Tout abreg\u00e9 sur un bon livre est un sot abreg\u00e9.\u2019\u2014_Montaigne_, iii. 8.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Xylander reads \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd, but \u03bf\u1f50 before \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac seems simpler, and makes\n  better logic.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  See, e. g., p. 266.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  On this point, and on Plutarch\u2019s life generally, see the buoyant and\n  chivalrous pages of the late Mr. George Wyndham\u2019s introduction to\n  North\u2019s _Lives_ in the _Tudor Translations_.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  See pp. 54, 253. I have searched such numbers of the _Dissertations_\n  as appear to have reached this country from Vienna since 1910, without\n  coming upon the continuation of Dr. Adler\u2019s argument. It will be of\n  great interest when it comes to hand, but could not adequately be\n  discussed here.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  \u2018O\u00f9 je puyse comme les Dana\u00efdes, remplissant et versant sans\n  cesse.\u2019\u2014i. 25.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  The _Symposiacs_ were specially favourite reading of Archbishop\n  Trench, whose bright little volume of _Lectures_ is perhaps the best\n  introduction for English readers to the _Moralia_.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  The same argument might perhaps be applied to the _Lives_, even as far\n  as that of Dion, but there is no elaborate dedication there.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Dr. Mahaffy has acutely pointed out that the tract _De Tranquillitate\n  animi_ must have been written before the accession of Titus in A. D.\n  79, because it contains a remark (467 E) that no Roman Emperor had yet\n  been succeeded by his son. It is this sort of evidence of a date which\n  we seek, but do not find, in the _Symposiacs_.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Some of Plutarch\u2019s characters exemplify the \u2018sternness of the\n  judgements of youth\u2019, as the younger Diogenianus.\u2014See p. 94.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  See Vol. I, p. 25.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  See his Preface in Vol. I, p. xlii.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  M. Chenevi\u00e8re\u2019s study mentioned on p. 53 is very helpful but not\n  easily accessible.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  See p. 14; see also _Apollonius of Perga_, by Sir Thomas Heath,\n  F.R.S., Introd., p. xxi.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  \u2018Forte\u2019 is always used where we expect \u2018fortasse\u2019, and \u2018nisi\u2019 often\n  for \u2018si non\u2019.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Adrien Turn\u0115bus (i. q. Toranebus?) was a native of Les Andelys (Eure),\n  near Rouen, and the name is said to be of local origin. Montaigne, who\n  knew him personally, always writes Turnebus; the later form Turn\u00e8be\n  seems to be due to false analogy.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  I may now name Mr. Walter Sumner Gibson, M.A. of Balliol College,\n  formerly an assistant-master at Charterhouse, who died on the 20th\n  January, 1918, having in recent years acted as a Reader to the\n  Clarendon Press.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  1514-93.\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n             On the Genius of Socrates                    1\n\n             Three Pythian Dialogues                     52\n\n             I. On the \u2018E\u2019 at Delphi                     57\n\n             II. Why the Pythia does not now give        79\n             Oracles in Verse\n\n             III. On the Cessation of the Oracles       112\n\n             On the Instances of Delay in Divine        171\n             Punishment\n\n             From the Dialogue \u2018On the Soul\u2019            214\n\n             On Superstition                            219\n\n             Appendix: A Short Discourse of             236\n             Superstition. By John Smith\n\n             On the Face which appears on the Orb of    246\n             the Moon\n\n             Notes                                      309\n\n             Note on the Myths in Plutarch              313\n\n             Note on the Plurality of Worlds and the    318\n             Five Regular Solids\n\n             Index                                      321\n\n\n\n\n                       ON THE GENIUS OF SOCRATES\n\n\n                              INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe Dialogue on _The Genius of Socrates_, to follow the familiar Latin\ntitle, is in the main a detailed and spirited account of a gallant\nexploit, the recovery of the Cadmeia, or citadel of Thebes,\ntreacherously taken by the Spartans, with the aid of the Theban\noligarchs, two years before. The recovery was effected in the winter of\n379-378 B.C. by a party of Theban patriots, returning from exile in\nAthens, led by Pelopidas. The discussions as to the real meaning of the\n\u2018daemonic Sign\u2019 of Socrates form interludes which fill in the hours of\nwaiting, and serve to relieve the tension of the narrative. It is as\nthough Ulysses were heard discoursing to Menelaus within the Wooden\nHorse on the personality of Pallas Athene, with Helen prowling around\noutside. There is nothing strained or dramatic, in any disparaging\nsense, in speculation thus rubbing shoulders with action. The simplicity\nand good faith of the speakers, and the attractive personality of\nEpaminondas, forbid any suspicion of affectation. Thus the Dialogue\nserves a double purpose: it redeems the character of the leading\nThebans, and of Pelopidas in particular, from the habitual disparagement\nof Xenophon and others; and it redeems the intellectual character of the\nBoeotians from the reproach against which the most brilliant of Greek\npoets, himself a son of Thebes, protests, \u2018Swine of Boeotia\u2019. For the\nchief speaker on the Socratic question is Simmias, and Cebes is present,\nThebans whose names are for ever associated with the last hours of the\nAthenian Master; and the story is brightened by glimpses into the home\nof Epaminondas, and by hallowed memories of the Pythagorean brotherhood.\n\nEarly in 382 B.C. the Spartans had dispatched a force against Olynthus,\nthe first division under Eudamidas, the second under his brother\nPhoebidas. The latter lingered under the walls of Thebes; and, whether\nled by personal ambition, or receiving secret orders from home, allowed\nhimself to intrigue with the oligarchical leaders, who, though their\nparty was not in power, were strong enough to be represented on the\nboard of Polemarchs by Leontides, another, or the other, being Ismenias.\nGuided by Leontides, the Spartans, one hot summer day, seized the\nCadmeia; Leontides arrested his colleague Ismenias, and caused Archias\nto be made Polemarch in his place. The popular leaders, some four\nhundred in number, took refuge in Athens. The Spartans disclaimed the\naction of Phoebidas, who was fined and superseded; and appropriated its\nresults, strengthening the garrison of the Cadmeia. A commission of\njudges from the confederate states was appointed by Sparta to try\nIsmenias on a vague charge of Medizing; he was condemned and executed.\nOf the two Polemarchs, Archias was a man of pleasure, Leontides one of\nsevere private life, but an unscrupulous party leader. He caused the\nlives of the refugees in Athens to be attempted, successfully in at\nleast one case, that of Androcleidas. Of the patriots, Pelopidas, who\nhad been formally exiled, was the leading spirit; Epaminondas, who\nremained at home, held back for good reasons which are stated in the\ncourse of the Dialogue (p. 9). One of the most useful confederates was\nPhyllidas; he had himself, when on a visit to Athens, suggested the\nenterprise, but he managed to retain the confidence of the party now in\npossession of Thebes, and held the office of Secretary to the\nPolemarchs.\n\nThese facts are assumed to be familiar to his hearers by Capheisias,\nbrother of Epaminondas, who had himself joined the liberators without\nany scruples, and later on had been sent to Athens on an embassy. His\nstory of the sequel is told to a mixed company of Athenians and Thebans.\nIt is a perfectly clear one, and needs no comment.\n\nThe facts are again told by Plutarch in his _Life of Pelopidas_. The\n_Lives_ were the work of his later years; and the present Dialogue, with\nits fuller detail and more varied colouring, is an earlier attempt to\ndraw an historical picture, a work of art which will bear the close\ninspection of those who love to hear of virtue, or valour, in action.\n\nThe events are also narrated by Xenophon, who, from his usual\nLacedaemonian and anti-Theban bias, omits all mention of Pelopidas.\nThirlwall has preferred to base his account upon Plutarch; Grote follows\nXenophon, but with a strong protest against his narrowness.\n\nThe conduct of Sparta justifies the allegation made by the Athenians in\n416 B.C., \u2018that in her political transactions she measured honour by\ninclination and justice by expediency\u2019 (Thuc. 5, 105). The most scathing\nverdict upon it is delivered by Xenophon himself, who pauses in his\nnarrative to point the moral, that the fall and degradation of Sparta\nbegan from this turning-point:\n\n\u2018It would be possible to mention many other instances, from Greek and\nforeign history, proving that the Gods do not fail to notice the authors\nof impious and wicked deeds; at present I shall only mention the case\nbefore us. The Lacedaemonians, who had sworn that they would leave the\ncities independent, and then seized the Acropolis of Thebes, were\npunished entirely by those whom they had wronged, having previously been\nbeaten by no man then living. The Theban citizens who had introduced\nthem into the citadel, and who wished the city to be subject to the\nLacedaemonians that they themselves might enjoy absolute power, lost\ntheir supremacy, which seven exiles were enough to overthrow.\u2019\n\nThese remarks are in the spirit of the Greek Tragedians, who love to\nbring into strong light an act or situation of pride and insolence as\nthe turning-point from prosperity to ruin. Thucydides, as is pointed out\nby Grote in the masterly pages which end his fifty-sixth chapter, has\nbrought the cynical injustice of the Athenians towards Melos into\nglaring prominence in order to prepare his readers for the disastrous\nsequel.\n\nThe problem of the true nature of the \u2018Divine Sign\u2019 of Socrates is one\nof great interest and some mystery. The Latin word \u2018Genius\u2019, the\nattendant spirit who makes each of us what he is, in fact, his self, is\nfamiliar to us from Horace:\n\n               _The Genius, guardian of each child of earth,\n               Born when we\u2019re born and dying when we die._\n\n               (_Epist._ 2, 2, 187.)\n\nThe conception is thoroughly Greek, and may be paralleled abundantly\nfrom Plato as well as from Plutarch himself and contemporary writers.\nBut it is really misapplied here, and is in fact a mistranslation, since\nthe word used by Plato and Xenophon as well as by Plutarch is invariably\nnot the daemon, but the neuter adjective, \u2018the daemonic sc. Sign\u2019. The\npassages of Plato and Xenophon are collected in the late James Riddell\u2019s\nedition of the _Apology_ of Plato.[20] It is to be observed that in all\nthe genuine works of Plato the operation of the Sign is negative and\ndeterrent, in Xenophon it is sometimes positive and hortatory. The\nreader should consult the articles on Socrates by Professor Henry\nJackson in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. Professor Jackson is inclined\nto think that the evidence points to some abnormal condition of the\nsense of hearing, and there are expressions in this Dialogue of Plutarch\nwhich seem to bear out such a view. Apuleius\u2019 treatise _On the God of\nSocrates_ (which St. Augustine tells us that he would have entitled _On\nthe daemon of Socrates_ if he had dared) tells us much which is of\ninterest about the daemons, but not very much about Socrates. He\ncontributes, however, the pertinent remark that the Sign, according to\nSocrates himself, was not \u2018a voice\u2019, but \u2018a sort of voice\u2019.\n\nThere is no indication of the date of composition of this Dialogue.\n\nNot many points of topography arise. The Cadmeia stood on a low hill or\nplateau rising from north to south on the eastern side of the Dirce\nstream and reaching a height of some 200 feet, now occupied by the\nmodern town. The market-place was north-east of this, near the river\nIsmenus. Of the seven famous gates the returning exiles may probably\nhave entered by the Electran, the one assailed by Capaneus in Aeschylus\u2019\nstory (_Seven against Thebes_, 423).\n\n\n                       A DIALOGUE HELD AT ATHENS\n\n\n[Sidenote: 573] CONTAINING AN ACCOUNT OF THE RETURN OF THE THEBAN\nEXILES, 379 B.C.\n\n\n                                SPEAKERS\n\n    CAPHEISIAS, a Theban (brother of Epaminondas), who tells the story\n       of the return.\n    TIMOTHEUS., Athenian\n    ARCHIDAMUS., Athenian\n    THE SONS OF ARCHINUS., Athenian\n    LYSITHEIDES., Athenian\n    OTHER FRIENDS.\n\n\nI. _Archidamus._ I once heard a painter, Capheisias, say a [Sidenote: B]\nstriking thing about the different people who come to view pictures,\nwhich he put as a simile. Spectators with no technical knowledge, he\nsaid, are like those who greet a large company in the mass; others, who\npossess fine taste and a love of art, resemble those who have a personal\nword for all comers. The former get only a general view of the works\nbefore them, which is never accurate; the latter discuss each piece\ncritically and in detail, and no point of execution, good or bad,\nescapes inspection and remark. Now I think that it is just the same with\nthe [Sidenote: C] actions of real life. Duller minds are satisfied if\nthey learn from history the summary account of what occurred and its\noutcome; lovers of what is honourable and beautiful take keener delight\nin hearing all particulars of the performances inspired by that great\nArt Virtue. To the actual result, Fortune has much to say; but he who\ndwells on causes and particulars sees Virtue at odds with circumstance,\nacts of rational daring done in the face of danger, and calculation\nmeeting opportunity and passion. Take it that we belong to the second\nclass. Begin at the beginning of the enterprise, and give us all the\nincidents and [Sidenote: D] all the speeches which were no doubt\ndelivered in your presence; and believe that I would not have hesitated\nto go to Thebes on purpose to hear the story, but that the Athenians are\nalready beginning to think me too much of a Boeotian.\n\n_Capheisias._ Indeed, Archidamus, since you are so kind as to press for\nthe whole story, it would be my duty to make it, as Pindar[21] says, \u2018a\ncall before all business\u2019 to come here to tell it; but as we are brought\nhere on an embassy, and have nothing to do until we receive the answers\nof the people, I feel that any reluctance or embarrassment on my part\ntowards so kind and good a friend might well wake up the old reproach\nagainst the Boeotians that they hate discussion. It was already fading\n[Sidenote: E] away, thanks to your Socrates; but our own care for\nLysis,[22] of blessed memory, showed us true enthusiasts. But see whom\nwe have present: is it convenient to them to listen to so long a story\nand to so many speeches? The narrative is not a short one, since you\nyourself bid me include the speeches.\n\n_Archidamus._ You do not know these friends, Capheisias? No, but you\nshould; sons of good fathers who were good friends to your people. This\nis Lysitheides, nephew of Thrasybulus; [Sidenote: F] this is Timotheus,\nConon\u2019s son; these are the sons of Archinus; the others are all of our\nbrotherhood; so your story finds a friendly and congenial audience.\n\n_Capheisias._ That is well. But what should you think a good point for\nme to start from, in view of what you know already?\n\n_Archidamus._ We know fairly well, Capheisias, how things were at Thebes\nbefore the return of the exiles. We had heard at Athens how Archias and\nLeontides persuaded Phoebidas to [Sidenote: 576] seize the Cadmeia\nduring a truce; how they expelled some of the citizens and terrorized\nothers, and seized office for themselves in defiance of law. We were the\npersonal hosts here of Melon and Pelopidas, and constantly in their\ncompany so long as they were in exile. Again, we had heard how the\nLacedaemonians fined Phoebidas for seizing the Cadmeia, removed him from\nthe command against Olynthus, and then replaced him at Thebes by\nLysanoridas and two others, and kept a stronger garrison than before in\nthe Citadel. We were aware, too, how Ismenias met an unworthy death,\nsince, immediately after his trial, Gorgidas wrote the whole account in\na letter to the [Sidenote: B] exiles here. Thus it remains for you to\ntell us about the actual return of our friends and the capture of the\ntyrants.\n\nII. _Capheisias._ Well then, Archidamus, during those days, all of us\nwho were concerned in the movement were accustomed to meet for\nconference when necessary in the house of Simmias, who was recovering\nfrom a wound in the leg; ostensibly passing the time in philosophical\ntalk, into which, as a blind, we often drew Archias and Leontides, men\nnot altogether strangers to [Sidenote: C] such discussion. For Simmias\nhad spent much time abroad, and wandered among men of other lands, and\nhad shortly before this returned to Thebes full of all sorts of stories\nand outlandish accounts. These stories Archias used to enjoy when he\nchanced to have leisure, taking his seat with the young men, and liking\nus to pass the time in talk rather than attend to their proceedings. On\nthe day upon which the exiles were to reach the walls at dusk, a man\ncame in from here, sent by Pherenicus, known to none of our party except\nCharon; he proceeded to explain that the younger exiles, twelve in\nnumber, had taken hounds to hunt the Cithaeron country, intending to\nreach Thebes towards evening. He had been sent, he said, in advance\n[Sidenote: D] to tell us this, and to find out who was to provide the\nhouse for their concealment on arrival, so that they might have notice\nand go straight to it. While we were puzzling it over, Charon agreed to\nprovide his own house. So the man settled to return to the exiles as\nfast as he could.\n\nIII. Here the prophet Theocritus pressed my hand hard, and looking at\nCharon, who was walking in front, said: \u2018This man is no philosopher,\nCapheisias; he has received no extraordinary training, as Epaminondas\nyour brother has; yet you see how he is naturally drawn by the laws\ntowards the nobler [Sidenote: E] course, volunteering to encounter the\ngreatest danger for our country\u2019s sake. Whereas Epaminondas, who claims\nto have been trained to virtue above all Boeotians, is dull and\nspiritless;[23] what better opportunity than this will he ever have to\nbring into play his fine gifts and training?\u2019 I said: \u2018Not so fast,\n[Sidenote: F] Theocritus the eager! We are carrying out what we\nourselves resolved; but Epaminondas, failing to persuade us to drop the\nplan, as he thinks would be best, naturally resists when invited to a\ncourse of action which he dislikes and disapproves. Suppose a physician\nundertook to cure a disease without the use of knife or fire: you would\nnot be using him fairly, to my thinking, if you compelled him to cut or\nburn.[24] Very well; my brother, as you know, will not have any citizen\ndie without a trial, yet is eager to work with those who wish to free\nthe city from internal bloodshed and slaughter. As, however, he fails to\nconvince the majority, and as we have embarked on this course, he bids\nyou let him stand out, clear and guiltless of murder, and free to watch\nopportunities; when justice and expediency [Sidenote: 577] meet, he will\nstrike in. He feels that, work once begun, there will be no limitations;\nperhaps Pherenicus and Pelopidas will turn their attack against the\ngreatest criminals, but Eumolpidas and Samidas, men of fire and passion,\nwhen night puts power in their hands, will not sheathe their swords\nbefore they have filled the city with murder from end to end, and\ndispatched many of our leading men.\n\nIV. While I was thus conversing with Theocritus, Galaxidorus kept trying\nto check us;[25] Archias was near, and Lysanoridas the Spartan, both\nwalking quickly from the Cadmeia, [Sidenote: B] apparently towards the\nsame point as ourselves. So we broke off; Archias called Theocritus, and\ndrew him towards Lysanoridas; then he talked a long time with them\napart, having changed his direction a little towards the Amphion. Thus\nwe were in an agony: had some hint or information reached them, upon\nwhich they were questioning Theocritus? In the meanwhile Phyllidas, whom\nyou know, Archidamus, and who was at that time acting as clerk to\nArchias and the Polemarchs, and knew of the expected arrival of the\nexiles,[26] being privy to our scheme, pressed my hand as it was his way\nto do, and went on with bantering talk for every one\u2019s benefit, about\nthe gymnasia and the wrestling; then, having drawn me some distance from\nthe others, he began to ask me about the exiles, and whether [Sidenote:\nC] they were keeping to their day. When I said that they were, he\ncontinued: \u2018Then I have done right in preparing for to-day the party at\nwhich I mean to entertain Archias, and to deliver him into their hand in\nhis cups.\u2019 \u2018Better than right, Phyllidas!\u2019 I said; \u2018and do you try to\ncollect all or as many as you can of our enemies to the same place.\u2019\n\u2018That is not easy;\u2019 said he, \u2018indeed, it is impossible; for Archias,\nexpecting that a certain lady of high rank will come there to meet him,\ndoes not wish Leontides to be present. We must therefore mark [Sidenote:\nD] them down to separate houses. If Archias and Leontides are once\ncaptured, I think that the others will take themselves off, or else will\nremain quiet, glad to close with any offer of safety.\u2019 \u2018We will do so,\u2019\nI said, \u2018but what can Theocritus have to talk about with these people?\u2019\n\u2018I cannot answer clearly or from knowledge,\u2019 said Phyllidas, \u2018but I\nheard portents mentioned and prophecies disastrous to Sparta.\u2019\n[27][Meanwhile Theocritus rejoined us, and] Pheidolaus of Haliartus came\nup and said, \u2018Simmias wants you to wait hereabouts a little. He is\ncloseted with Leontides, interceding for Amphitheus to get his sentence\nof death commuted, if possible, to exile.\u2019\n\nV. \u2018The very man!\u2019 said Theocritus. \u2018You might [Sidenote: E] have come\non purpose, for I was longing to hear what the discoveries were, and\nabout the general appearance of the tomb of Alcmena in your country when\nit was opened, if you were really present yourself when Agesilaus sent\nand removed the remains to Sparta.\u2019 Pheidolaus answered: \u2018I was not\npresent; and vexed and indignant I was with my citizens for leaving me\nout. However, no vestige of a body was found, only a bracelet of brass,\nnot a large one, and two earthenware jars containing [Sidenote: F] earth\nwhich had become solid as stone. Above the tomb lay a brass plate, with\nmany letters wonderful for their great antiquity; they afforded no\nintelligible sense, though they came out clear to the eye when the brass\nwas washed. The characters were of a peculiar and barbaric type, most\nclosely resembling the Egyptian; and Agesilaus accordingly, as they\nsaid, sent copies to the king of Egypt, asking him to show them to the\npriests, on the chance of their understanding them. However, Simmias\nmay, perhaps, have something to tell you about all this, as he was at\nthat time in Egypt, and philosophy [Sidenote: 578] brought him much into\nthe society of the priests. But the people of Haliartus believe that the\ngreat scarcity of crops and the advance of the lake were not accidental,\nbut were an angry visitation because they allowed the tomb to be dug\nopen.\u2019 After a short pause Theocritus went on: \u2018Nor yet are the\nLacedaemonians themselves clear of the wrath of heaven, as is shown by\nthe portents about which Lysanoridas was lately conferring with us. He\nis now off to Haliartus to fill in the [Sidenote: B] tomb again and to\noffer libations to Alcmena and Aleus, of course in accordance with some\noracle, not knowing who Aleus was. When he comes back from there he\nintends to investigate the tomb of Dirce, which is unknown to the\nThebans, except those who have acted as Hipparchs. The outgoing\nmagistrate takes his successor in office, with no one else present, and\nshows it him at night; they perform certain fireless rites over the\ntomb, carefully obliterate all traces, and go off under cover of\ndarkness by separate ways. And much chance, I think, they will have of\nfinding it, Pheidolaus! For most of those who have served legally as\nHipparchs are now in exile; I might say all, except [Sidenote: C]\nGorgidas and Plato, whom they fear too much to examine. But the present\nmagistrates receive the spear and the seal in the Cadmeia, and know\nabsolutely nothing.\u2019\n\nVI. While Theocritus was saying this, Leontides was going out with his\nfriends. We entered, and began to pay our compliments to Simmias, who\nwas sitting on the couch, having been unsuccessful in his petition, I\nthink, for he seemed wrapped in thought and much annoyed. Looking hard\nat us all, \u2018Hercules!\u2019 [Sidenote: D] he said, \u2018what savage barbarous\nmanners! How right, and more than right, old Thales was, when he came\nhome from a long absence abroad, and his friends asked what was his\nrarest discovery, \u201cAn aged tyrant\u201d, he said! For every one, even if he\nhave not been personally wronged, is disgusted at mere oppression, and\nharshness, and so is an enemy to lawless irresponsible dynasties. Well,\nthe God will see to this, perhaps; now, Capheisias, about your newcomer,\ndo you know who he is?\u2019 \u2018I do not know\u2019, said I, \u2018whom you mean.\u2019 \u2018Yet\nLeontides tells us\u2019, he said, \u2018that a man has been seen by the tomb of\nLysis, rising to go when night was done. His retinue and [Sidenote: E]\nequipment were stately. He had bivouacked there on a rough bed, for\npiles of agnus castus and tamarisk were visible, and also remains of\nburnt sacrifices and libations of milk. At dawn he asked those who met\nhim whether he should find the sons of Polymnis in the country.\u2019 \u2018But\nwho can the stranger be?\u2019 I said; \u2018from what you tell us it must be some\nuncommon person, one in no private station.\u2019\n\nVII. \u2018Certainly not\u2019, said Pheidolaus. \u2018However, when he comes we will\nsee to his reception. Now, as to those characters, Simmias, about which\nwe were puzzling just now. If you know more than we do, tell us; for it\nis said that the Egyptian priests have made out the letters on the plate\nwhich Agesilaus [Sidenote: F] took from us when he opened the tomb of\nAlcmena.\u2019 Simmias remembered at once. \u2018I know nothing of that plate,\nPheidolaus;\u2019 he said, \u2018but Agenoridas the Spartan brought a number of\ncharacters from Agesilaus to Memphis, to Chonuphis the prophet, with\nwhom Plato and I and Hellopion of Peparethus were staying to enjoy\nPhilosophy together. He had been sent by the king, who desired\nChonuphis, if he could make anything out of the inscription, to\ninterpret and return it quickly. After spending three days in\nretirement, reading up characters from all countries in ancient books,\nhe wrote his answer to the king. [Sidenote: 579] He explained to us that\nthis inscription directs the holding of a competition in honour of the\nMuses. The characters belonged to the system of the reign of Proteus,\nthe one learnt by Hercules the son of Amphitryon. The God therein\ndirects and charges the Greeks to observe a time of peace and leisure,\nspending it in continuous philosophical debate, with the help of the\nMuses and of Reason, for the decision of points relating to Justice, all\narms being laid aside. We thought at the time that what Chonuphis said\nwas good, and we thought so still more when, in our journey from Egypt\nround Caria, we met certain Delians [Sidenote: B] who begged Plato, as a\ngeometrician, to solve the problem propounded in a mysterious oracle of\nthe God. The oracle was this: \u201cThe Delians and the other Greeks shall\nhave respite from their present ills when they have doubled the altar at\nDelos.\u201d The Delians were unable to guess the meaning, and, moreover, had\nbrought themselves into a ludicrous difficulty about the construction of\nthe altar. They had doubled each of the four sides,[28] and so\nunconsciously produced a solid figure eight times greater than the\noriginal, in ignorance of the factor which must be applied to the side,\nin order to double the solid. [Sidenote: C] So they appealed to Plato\nfor help in the difficulty. Plato, remembering the Egyptian, said that\nthe God was rallying the Greeks on their neglect of liberal studies,\nmocking our ignorance, and commanding us to take up geometry in real\nearnest; that it required no slight or dim-sighted intellect, but a\nfirst-rate training in linear geometry, to find two mean proportionals,\nthe only method by which a solid in the form of a cube can be doubled,\nif all its dimensions are to be increased uniformly. Eudoxus of Cnidos,\nhe said, or Helicon of Cyzicus, would work this out for them.[29]\nHowever, in his opinion, the God did not desire this; he was enjoining\nall the Greeks to cease from war [Sidenote: D] and trouble and devote\nthemselves to the Muses, to soften their passions by discussions and\nMathematics, and to associate profitably with one another.\u2019\n\nVIII. While Simmias was speaking, our father Polymnis came in upon us.\nHe sat down by Simmias and said: \u2018Epaminondas invites you and all\npresent, if you have no more pressing engagement, to wait hereabouts; he\nwants to introduce to you the stranger, a man noble himself, and brought\nhere by a noble and generous errand. He comes from the Pythagoreans of\n[Sidenote: E] Italy, to pour offerings on the tomb of old Lysis, in\naccordance, as he says, with certain dreams and clear visions. He brings\na large sum in gold, thinking that Epaminondas ought to be reimbursed\nfor the care of Lysis in his old age, and on this he insists most\nkeenly, though we neither ask nor wish assistance for our poverty.\u2019\nSimmias was pleased: \u2018A really wonderful man,\u2019 he said, \u2018and worthy of\nPhilosophy; but what is the reason that he has not come straight to us?\u2019\n\u2018He passed the night, I think,\u2019 said he, \u2018near the tomb of Lysis;\nEpaminondas [Sidenote: F] was to take him on to the Ismenus to bathe,\nand then they will come on to us here. Before he met us, he had made his\nnight\u2019s lodging near the tomb, intending to take up the remains and\nconvey them to Italy, unless prevented by some divine warning in the\nnight.\u2019 Having said this, my father was silent.\n\nIX. Then Galaxidorus spoke: \u2018Hercules! how hard it is to find a man\nquite free from vanity and superstition! Some are caught by these\nweaknesses against their will, owing to want of experience or of\nstrength. Others, in order to appear singular and to be taken for\nfriends of the Gods, bring the divine into all they do, making dreams\nand portents and such stuff a pretext for anything that enters their\nhead. Now, to men in public [Sidenote: 580] stations, who are compelled\nto adapt their lives to a self-willed and petulant multitude, this may\nhave its advantage; superstition is a bit wherewith to check a populace,\nand direct it to what is expedient. But to Philosophy such posturing is\nunbecoming in itself, and, moreover, it contradicts her professions; she\nundertakes to teach all that is good and expedient by the reason, and\nthen, as though in despite of reason, goes back upon the Gods and away\nfrom the first principles of action; and, dishonouring demonstration, in\nwhich her own excellence is supposed to lie, turns to prophecies and\nvisions seen in dreams, [Sidenote: B] things in which the weakest often\nhave as great success as the strongest. This, I think, Simmias, is why\nyour Socrates embraced a system of intellectual training which bore a\nmore philosophical stamp, choosing that simple artless type as being\nliberal and most friendly to truth; and casting to the winds for the\nsophists, as a mere smoke from Philosophy, all pretentious nonsense.\u2019\nTheocritus broke in: \u2018What, Galaxidorus, and has Meletus persuaded even\nyou too that Socrates despised [Sidenote: C] what was divine, for that\nwas the charge which he actually brought before the Athenians?\u2019 \u2018What\nwas divine\u2014no;\u2019 he said, \u2018but he received Philosophy from Pythagoras and\nEmpedocles full of visions and myths and superstitions, and deeply\ndipped in mysteries; and trained her to look at facts, and be sensible,\nand pursue truth in soberness of reason.\u2019\n\nX. \u2018Granted;\u2019 said Theocritus, \u2018but as to the Divine Sign of Socrates,\ngood friend, are we to call it a falsity or what? To me, nothing\nrecorded about Pythagoras seems to go so far towards the prophetic and\ndivine. For, in plain words, as Homer has drawn Athena to Odysseus\n\n               _In all his toils a presence and a stay_,[30]\n\neven so, apparently, did the spirit attach to Socrates, from the first,\na sort of vision to go before and guide his steps in life, which alone\n\n                _Passing before him shed a light around_[31]\n\n[Sidenote: D] in matters of uncertainty, too hard for the wit of man to\nsolve; upon these the spirit used often to converse with him, adding a\ndivine touch to his own resolutions. For more, and more important,\ninstances you must ask Simmias and the other companions of Socrates. But\nI was myself present, having come to stay with Euthyphron the prophet,\nwhen Socrates, as you remember, Simmias, was going up to the Symbolum\nand the house of Andocides, asking some question as he walked and\nplayfully cross-examining Euthyphron. Suddenly he stopped and closed his\nlips tightly[32] and was wrapt in thought for some time. Then he turned\nback and took the way through the [Sidenote: E] Trunkmakers\u2019 Street, and\ntried to recall those of our friends who were already in advance, saying\nthat the Sign was upon him. Most of them turned in a body, amongst whom\nwas I, keeping close to Euthyphron. But some young members of the party,\nno doubt to put the Sign of Socrates to the test, held on, and drew into\ntheir number Charillus the flute-player, who had come to Athens with\nmyself, staying with Cebes. Now as they were going through the street of\nthe Statuaries near the Law Courts, they were met by a whole herd of\nswine loaded with mud and hustling one another by press of numbers.\nThere was no [Sidenote: F] getting out of the way; on they charged,\nupsetting some, bespattering others. At any rate, Charillus came home\nwith his clothes full of mud and his legs too, so that we always laugh\nwhen we remember Socrates and his Sign, and wonder that this divine\npresence of his should never fail him or forget.\u2019\n\nXI. Then Galaxidorus said: \u2018Do you think then, Theocritus, that the Sign\nof Socrates possessed a special and extraordinary power, not that some\nfragment of the ready wit which we all share determined him by an\nempiric process, turning the scale of his reasoning in cases which were\nuncertain and incalculable? For as a single weight does not by itself\nincline the balance, but, if added to one scale when the weights are\neven, sinks the whole of that one on its own side, so [Sidenote: 581] a\ncry, or any such feather-weight sign, will fit[33] a mind already\nweighted, and draw it into action; and when two trains of thought are in\nconflict, it reinforces one, and solves the difficulty by removing the\nequality, so that there is a movement and an inclination.\u2019 My father\nbroke in: \u2018Well, but I have myself heard, Galaxidorus, from a certain\nMegarian, who had it from Terpsion, that the Sign of Socrates was a\nsneeze, proceeding either from himself or from other persons; if some\none else sneezed on his [Sidenote: B] right, whether behind or in front,\nit encouraged him to the action; if on the left, it warned him off it.\nOf his own sneezings there was one kind which confirmed his purpose when\nhe was still intending to act; another stopped him when he was already\nacting and checked his impulse. The wonder to me is that if he made use\nof a sneeze he did not so call it to his companions, but was in the\nhabit of saying that what checked or commanded him was a Divine Sign.\nFor that would be like vanity and idle boasting, not like truth and\nsimplicity, in which lay, as we suppose, his greatness and his\nsuperiority to men in general, to be disturbed by a sound from outside\nor a casual sneeze, and so be diverted from acting, and give up what he\nhad resolved. [Sidenote: C] Now the impulses of Socrates, on the other\nhand, show firmness and intensity in every direction, as though issuing\nfrom a right and powerful judgement and principle. Thus for a man to\nremain in voluntary poverty all his life, when he might have had plenty,\nand the givers would have been pleased and thankful, and never to swerve\nfrom Philosophy in the face of all those hindrances; and at last, when\nthe zeal and ingenuity of his friends had made his way easy to safety\nand retreat, not to be bent by their entreaties, nor yield to the near\napproach of [Sidenote: D] death\u2014all this is not like a man whose\njudgement might be changed by random voices or sneezings; it is like one\nled to what is noble by some greater and more sovereign authority. I\nhear also that he foretold to some of his friends the disaster which\nbefell the power of Athens in Sicily. At a still earlier time,\nPyrilampes, the son of Antiphon, when taken prisoner in the pursuit near\nDelium, after having received from us a javelin wound, as soon as he had\nheard from those who had arrived from Athens to arrange the truce that\nSocrates had returned home in safety by The Gullies[34] with Alcibiades\nand Laches, often called upon him by name, and often on friends and\ncomrades of [Sidenote: E] his own who had fled with him by way of\nParnes, and been slain by our cavalry; they had disobeyed the Sign of\nSocrates, he said, in turning from the battle by a different way instead\nof following his lead. This, I think, Simmias too must have heard.\u2019\n\u2018Often,\u2019 said Simmias, \u2018and from many persons. For there was no little\nnoise at Athens about the Sign of Socrates in consequence.\u2019\n\nXII. \u2018Well, then, Simmias,\u2019 said Pheidolaus, \u2018are we to allow\nGalaxidorus in his jesting way to bring down this great fact of\ndivination to sneezings and cries, which plenty of common [Sidenote: F]\nignorant persons apply to trifles in mere sport, whereas, when grave\ndangers overtake them, or more serious business, we may quote\nEuripides:[35]\n\n             _These follies have a truce when steel is near_\u2018?\n\nGalaxidorus said: \u2018I am quite ready to listen to Simmias on this\nsubject, Pheidolaus, if he has himself heard Socrates speak about it,\nand to join you in believing; but as for all that you and Polymnis have\nmentioned, it is not hard to refute it. For as in medicine a throb or a\npimple is a small matter, but is the indication of what is not small;\nand as to a pilot the cry of a bird from the open sea, or the scudding\nof a thin film of cloud, [Sidenote: 582] signifies wind and rougher\nseas, so to a prophetic soul a sneeze or a voice is nothing great in\nitself, but is the sign of a great conjuncture. There is no art in which\nit is thought contemptible to forecast great things by small, many\nthings through few. Suppose a man ignorant of the meaning of letters\nwere to see a few insignificant-looking characters, and to refuse to\nbelieve that one who knew grammar could, by their help, repeat the story\nof great wars between old-world peoples, and foundings of cities, and\nwhat kings did or suffered, and then were to say [Sidenote: B] that a\nvoice, or something like a voice, revealed and repeated each of these\nthings to that historian, a pleasant laugh would come over your face, my\nfriend, at the ignorance of that man. Now, consider, may it not be so\nwith us? In our ignorance of the meaning of different things by which\nthe prophetic art hits the coming event, are we simple enough to rebel\nif a man of intellect uses them to reveal something not yet evident, and\nsays, moreover, that a Divine Sign, not a sneeze or a voice, directs him\nto the facts? For now I turn to you, Polymnis, who wonder that Socrates,\na man who did so very much to make Philosophy human by simplicity and\nabsence of cant, should [Sidenote: C] have named his Sign, not a sneeze\nor a voice, but, in full tragic phrase, his Divine Sign. I, on the\ncontrary, should be surprised if a man so excellent in Dialectic and\nmastery of terms had said that the sneeze and not the Divine Sign gave\nhim the intimation. As if a man were to say that he had been wounded \u201cby\nthe javelin\u201d, not \u201cby the thrower with his javelin\u201d, or, again, that the\nweight had been measured \u201cby the balance\u201d, not \u201cby the weigher with his\nbalance\u201d. For the work is not the work of the tool but of the owner of\nthe tool which he uses for the work; and the Sign is a kind of tool used\nby the signifying power. But, as I said, if Simmias should have anything\nto tell us we must listen, for his knowledge is more exact.\u2019\n\nXIII. Then Theocritus said: \u2018Yes, but first let us see [Sidenote: D] who\nthese persons are who are coming in; or, rather, it is surely\nEpaminondas bringing the stranger to us.\u2019 We looked towards the doors,\nand saw Epaminondas leading the way, then Ismenidorus, Bacchylidas, and\nMelissus the flute-player, all of them our friends and confederates;\nthen the stranger followed, a man of much nobility of mien, but with a\ngentle and kindly character apparent beneath it, and dressed in a grave\nfashion. He took his seat by Simmias, my brother next to me, and the\nrest as they found places. Then, when there was silence, Simmias called\non my brother: \u2018Well, Epaminondas, how are we to address our friend? Who\nand what is he, and [Sidenote: E] whence? That is the usual formula for\nbeginning an introduction and an acquaintance.\u2019[36] Epaminondas replied:\n\u2018Theanor is his name, Simmias, and his family is of Crotona, where he\nbelongs to the local school of Philosophy and does no discredit to the\ngreat fame of Pythagoras; he has just taken the long journey from Italy\nhere, to confirm noble doctrines by noble acts.\u2019 The stranger broke in:\n\u2018Indeed, Epaminondas, you are now hindering the noblest of all actions.\nFor if to confer a benefit on friends be noble, it is no shame to\nreceive [Sidenote: F] one from them. A favour needs one to receive, no\nless than one to bestow it; both must join to ensure a noble result. It\nis like a ball well delivered; to allow it to drop idle to the ground is\nto shame it. Now what mark is there for a ball, so agreeable for the\nthrower to hit and so distressing to miss, as a man at whom one aims a\nfavour when he well deserves it? But in the one case the mark stands\nstill, and he who misses has himself to thank; in the other, he who\nexcuses himself and swerves aside does a wrong to the favour which never\nreaches its goal. You have yourself heard fully from me the reasons of\nmy voyage here; but I should like to go through the story [Sidenote:\n583] as fully to those now present, and let them be judges between us.\n\n\u2018When the Pythagoreans had been overpowered by faction in the different\ncities, and their brotherhoods expelled, and when the party of Cylon had\npiled up a fire round a house in Metapontum in which those still settled\nthere were holding a meeting, and had dispatched all those in the place\nexcept Philolaus and Lysis, who were still young, and were strong enough\nand active enough to push through the fire, Philolaus escaped thence to\nLucania and joined in safety the rest of our friends, who were by this\ntime rallying and holding their own against the Cylonians. Where Lysis\nwas, no one knew for a long time; however, Gorgias of Leontini, sailing\nback from [Sidenote: B] Greece to Sicily, brought certain news to\nArcesus and his friends that he had met Lysis, who was staying near\nThebes. Arcesus longed to see the man, and was eager to sail straight\noff himself; but being quite disabled by age and infirmity, gave orders\nto bring Lysis alive to Italy if possible, or his remains if he should\nhave died. Then came wars, revolutions, and periods of tyranny which\nmade it impossible for the friends to perform the task in his lifetime.\nBut when the spirit of Lysis, now dead, had shown us clearly of his end,\nand well informed persons told us of all the care and entertainment\nwhich he had [Sidenote: C] received from your family, Polymnis; how\nrichly his age had been cared for in a poor house, and how he had been\nadopted as father to your sons before his blessed end came, I was sent\nout, a young man and alone, to represent many of my elders who have\nmoney and wish to offer it to those who have not, in return for favour\nand friendship richly bestowed. Lysis lies where you have honourably\nlaid him; yet the honour of that tomb is greater when recompense is made\nfor it to friends by friends dear and close.\u2019\n\nXIV. While the stranger was speaking thus, my father wept a long while\nover the memory of Lysis, but my brother [Sidenote: D] with his usual\ngentle smile said to me: \u2018What is it to be, Capheisias? Are we to\nsurrender poverty to riches, and to say nothing?\u2019 \u2018No! no!\u2019 said I, \u2018the\ndear \u201cgood nurse of young manhood\u201d[37]\u2014to her rescue! it is your turn to\nspeak.\u2019 \u2018See, father;\u2019 he said, \u2018that was the only side on which I used\nto fear that our house might be captured by money. I mean through\nCapheisias and his person, which needs beautiful clothes that he may\nmake a brave show before all his admiring friends, and needs food of the\nbest, and plenty of it, that he may have strength for the gymnasia and\nwrestling matches. Now that he does not betray poverty, or throw off our\nancestral poverty like a coat of paint, but, boy though he is, goes\nproudly [Sidenote: E] in thrift, and is content with what we have, to\nwhat possible use could we put money? Shall we plate our armour, say,\nwith gold, and make the shield gay with purple and gold together, as\nNicias of Athens did?[38] Shall we buy you, father, a Milesian cloak, or\na dress with a purple border for mother? You know, we are not likely to\nspend the present on our table, or to feast ourselves more sumptuously,\nas having admitted a guest of such importance as wealth.\u2019 \u2018Away with it,\nboy!\u2019 said my father, \u2018never may I see our life new-modelled like that!\u2019\n[Sidenote: F] \u2018No,\u2019 my brother went on, \u2018nor will we sit idle at home\nand guard our wealth; that would be a \u201cboonless boon\u201d[39] indeed, and a\ngetting with no honour to it.\u2019 \u2018Of course\u2019, said our father. \u2018You know,\u2019\nEpaminondas went on, \u2018when Jason, the Thessalian Tagus, lately sent a\nlarge sum of money here to us and begged us to take it, he thought me\nsomething of a boor when I answered that he was making the first move in\nwrong and robbery, when a lover of monarchy like himself tempted with\nmoney a private citizen of a free self-governed state. From you, Sir, I\naccept your generous intention, and admire it [Sidenote: 584] more than\nI can say; it is beautiful and philosophical too; but you are bringing\nmedicines to friends who are not sick! Suppose that you had heard that\nwe were attacked in war, and had sailed with arms and ammunition to help\nus, and on arrival had found that all was friendliness and peace; you\nwould not think it necessary to hand over the stores and leave them\nwhere they were not needed. Even so, you have come to be our ally\nagainst poverty, thinking that we were pinched by her, but there is none\nso easy to be endured as she, our dear fellow-lodger. [Sidenote: B] So\nno need for money or arms against her who vexes us not. Take back this\nmessage to your brotherhood: that they themselves use their wealth most\nnobly, but that there are friends here who make noble use of poverty:\nand that, as to the entertainment of Lysis and his burial, Lysis has\npaid the score in full for himself, not least by teaching us not to fret\nat poverty.\u2019\n\nXV. Theanor broke in: \u2018Then, if it is ignoble to fret at poverty, is it\nnot eccentric to fear and shun wealth?\u2019 \u2018Eccentric it is if it is\nrejected on no rational grounds, but in order to pose or because of\ninsipid taste or affectation of some kind.\u2019 \u2018But what rational grounds\u2019,\nhe said, \u2018could bar the getting of wealth by good and honest means,\nEpaminondas? Or rather\u2014and surrender more gently than you did to the\nThessalian in [Sidenote: C] answering our questions about these\nmatters\u2014tell me whether you think that the giving of money may sometimes\nbe right, but the receiving never; or that givers and receivers alike\nare in all cases wrong?\u2019 \u2018No, no!\u2019 said Epaminondas, \u2018I hold that, as\nwith everything else, so with wealth; there is a giving and a getting\nwhich are ugly, and a giving and a getting which are fine.\u2019 \u2018Then,\u2019 said\nTheanor, \u2018when a man gives readily and heartily what he owes, is not\nthat beautiful?\u2019 He assented. \u2018But when one receives what another\nbeautifully gives, is not the taking beautiful? Or could there be a\nfairer taking of [Sidenote: D] money than when it comes from one who\ngives fairly?\u2019 \u2018There could not\u2019, he said. \u2018Then of two friends,\nEpaminondas,\u2019 said he, \u2018if one is to give, it looks as if the other must\ntake. For in battles one must swerve away from a marksman in the enemy\u2019s\nranks; in the conflict of benefits it is not fair to avoid or thrust\naside the friend who nobly gives. For, if poverty is no affliction, yet\nwealth, on its side, is not a thing to be flouted and refused like\nthat.\u2019 \u2018It is not,\u2019 said Epaminondas, \u2018but there is a case where the\ngift which may be nobly offered remains more honoured and more noble if\nit is refused. Look at it with us in this way: you will allow that there\nare many desires, and desires of many things; some inborn, as we call\nthem, which grow up about the body and are directed towards its\nnecessary pleasures; others adventitious, grounded on mere fancies, but\n[Sidenote: E] gaining strength and power by time and use, where there is\nvicious education, and often dragging down the soul more forcibly than\ndo those which are necessary. Now, by habits and training, men have\nbefore now succeeded in drawing off and subjecting to reason, in great\nmeasure, the innate affections. But the whole force of discipline, my\nfriend, must be brought to bear against those which are adventitious and\nextraordinary; we must work them out, and hack them off, and use\nrestraints and checks to school them to reason. For if thirst and hunger\nare forced out by rational resistance in the matter of food and\n[Sidenote: F] drink, far easier surely is it to stunt, and in the end to\nannihilate, love of wealth and love of glory by refusing and prohibiting\nthe things at which they aim. Do you not agree?\u2019 The stranger assented.\n\u2018Then, do you see a distinction\u2019, Epaminondas went on, \u2018between training\nand the intended result of the training? Thus the result of athletic\nexercise would be the contest against a competitor for the crown;\ntraining would be the preparation of the body for this contest of the\ngymnasia. So with virtue, do you allow that there are two things, the\nresult and the training?\u2019 The stranger assented. \u2018Now then,\u2019 Epaminondas\nresumed, \u2018tell me first with respect to temperance; do you take\nabstinence from base and lawless pleasures [Sidenote: 585] to be a\ntraining, or rather a result and a proof of training?\u2019 \u2018A result and a\nproof\u2019, he said. \u2018But it is a training or study in temperance\u2014is it\nnot?\u2014which still draws all of you on when you go to the gymnasia and\nhave stirred up your desires for food, as though they were wild beasts,\nand then stand for a long time over bright tables with a variety of\ndishes, and at last pass the good cheer for your servants to enjoy,\noffering to your own now chastened appetites only what is plain and\nsimple, since abstinence from pleasures in things allowed is a training\nfor the soul against pleasures which are forbidden?\u2019 \u2018No doubt\u2019, he\nsaid. \u2018Then there is, friend, a way of training ourselves for [Sidenote:\nB] justice against the love of wealth and money; I do not mean never to\nenter our neighbour\u2019s premises by night and steal his goods, and never\nto take his clothes at the bath; nor yet if a man does not betray\ncountry and friends for money is he training himself against\ncovetousness (since here, perhaps, the law comes in and fear, to hinder\ngreediness from doing acts of wrong). No, the man who often and\nvoluntarily sets himself aloof from gains which are just and are allowed\nby law is training and habituating himself in advance to keep his\ndistance from every gain which is unrighteous and forbidden. For as,\nwhen it encounters great pleasures which are also strange and hurtful,\nthe mind cannot avoid a flutter unless it has often despised [Sidenote:\nC] permitted enjoyments, so to pass by vicious gains and great\nadvancement when they come within reach is not easy, unless from a great\nway off the love of gain has been fettered and chastened; whereas, if it\nhas been brought up to gain, and there has been no check on its license,\nit makes a riotous growth towards all iniquity, and only with the\ngreatest effort is it withheld from grasping an advantage. But if a man\ndoes not surrender himself to the favours of friends or to the bounties\nof kings, but has said no even to an inheritance which Fortune offers,\nand has put far off that love of wealth which springs up to meet a\ntreasure as it comes into sight, he finds that covetousness rises up\nagainst him no longer, nor tempts him to what is wrong, nor disturbs his\nunderstanding. He is gentle, and possesses himself for noble uses; he\nhas great thoughts and [Sidenote: D] shares with his soul the noblest\nsecrets. We, Capheisias and I, are lovers of such men, dear Simmias, and\nwe entreat the stranger to allow us so to train ourselves in poverty\nthat we may reach virtue such as that.\u2019\n\nXVI. My brother finished his argument, and then Simmias nodded his head\ntwo or three times. \u2018A great man,\u2019 he said, \u2018a great man is Epaminondas,\nand thanks to Polymnis here for that, who procured for his sons from the\nfirst the best training in Philosophy. However, with regard to this\nquestion, Sir, do you and they settle it between you. Now about Lysis,\nif we [Sidenote: E] may be allowed to hear. Do you mean to move him from\nhis tomb and to transfer him to Italy; or will you allow him to remain\nhere with us, where he shall find kind and friendly fellow-lodgers when\nour time comes?\u2019 Theanor smiled on him: \u2018Lysis appears, Simmias, to love\nthis country, in which by the good offices of Epaminondas he has wanted\nnothing that is honourable. For there is a certain holy rite connected\nwith our Pythagorean burials, which if we lack we do not seem to attain\nour full and blessed consummation. So when we knew from dreams of the\ndeath of Lysis (we distinguish by a certain sign which is revealed in\nsleep whether an appearance belongs [Sidenote: F] to a dead person or a\nliving), this thought came over many of us: so Lysis has been buried in\nanother land with strange rites; he must be moved here to us, that he\nmay share in all that is customary. Coming with such an intention, and\nguided straight to the tomb by people of the place, I was pouring\nlibations just at evening time, and calling on the soul of Lysis to\nreturn and declare solemnly how we ought to act. The night went on and I\nsaw nothing, but thought I heard a voice: \u201cStir not what is best\nunstirred; the body of Lysis has been buried with holy rites by friends;\nhis soul has already been parted from it and dismissed to another birth,\nwith another spirit for its partner.\u201d Accordingly, when I met\nEpaminondas at dawn [Sidenote: 586] and heard the manner in which he\nburied Lysis, I recognized that he had been well trained by that great\nteacher, even to the rules which must not be spoken, and had enjoyed the\nguidance in life from the same spirit as he, unless I fail to guess the\npilot aright from the course steered. For \u201cwide are the tracks\u201d[40] of\nour lives, and few there are of them by which the spirits lead men.\u2019\nWhen Theanor had said this, he looked closely at Epaminondas, as though\nscrutinizing him afresh without and within.\n\n[Sidenote: B] XVII. In the meantime the surgeon came up and loosened\nSimmias\u2019 bandage, intending to dress the limb. But Phyllidas came in\nupon us with Hippostheneidas, and bidding me, and also Charon and\nTheocritus, rise and follow him, led us to a corner of the colonnade,\nhis face showing great agitation. To my question, \u2018Any news, Phyllidas?\u2019\nhe answered, \u2018No news to me; I knew and told you all the time how weak\nHippostheneidas was, and implored you not to admit him as an associate\nof our enterprise.\u2019 We were dismayed at this, and Hippostheneidas said:\n\u2018In Heaven\u2019s name, Phyllidas, do not say that; do not take rashness to\nbe courage, and thereby ruin us and the city too; [Sidenote: C] but\nallow the men to make their own return in safety if it is so appointed.\u2019\nPhyllidas was nettled: \u2018Tell me, Hippostheneidas,\u2019 he said, \u2018how many do\nyou think share the inner secrets of our plan?\u2019 \u2018Not less than thirty,\nto my knowledge\u2019, he said. \u2018Very well,\u2019 said Phyllidas, \u2018there is all\nthat number, and you have taken on your single self to annul and check\nthe plan on which all had resolved, you sent a mounted messenger to the\nmen when already on their road, bidding them turn back and not press on\nto-day, when most of the arrangements for their return have settled\nthemselves without us.\u2019 When Phyllidas had said this we were all much\ndisturbed, but Charon fastened [Sidenote: D] his eyes very severely on\nHippostheneidas: \u2018Villain!\u2019 he said, \u2018what have you done to us?\u2019\n\u2018Nothing terrible,\u2019 answered Hippostheneidas, \u2018if you will drop your\nharsh tone and listen to the calculations of a man of your own age, with\ngrey hairs like yourself. If we have resolved to give our countrymen an\nexhibition of a courage which loves danger, and a spirit which makes\nlittle of life, then there is much of the day still before us,\nPhyllidas; let us not wait for the evening, but march at once against\nthe tyrants, our swords in our hands\u2014let us slay, let us die, let us\nnever spare ourselves! But say we find no difficulty in this, whether of\naction or of endurance, yet to rescue Thebes [Sidenote: E] from an armed\nforce, when encompassed by so many enemies, and to expel the Spartan\ngarrison at a cost of two or three lives, is not easy; for Phyllidas has\nnever prepared so much strong liquor for his parties and receptions that\nall the fifteen hundred men of Archias\u2019 bodyguard will be made drunk;\nyet, even if we get rid of him, Herippidas is on for night duty and\nsober, and Arcesus too. This being so, why hurry to bring home friends\nand relatives to manifest destruction, and that when the very fact of\ntheir return is not unknown to the enemy? Or why have [Sidenote: F] the\nThespians been ordered to be under arms for these two days past, and\nready whenever the Spartan officers call? Again, I hear that Amphitheus\nis to be examined and put to death to-day, whenever Archias returns. Are\nnot these strong signs that our action is not unmarked? Is it not best\nto pause, not for a long time, but long enough to make the auspices\nright? For the prophets declare, that in sacrificing the ox to Demeter,\nthey found that the entrails prognosticated much commotion and public\ndanger. Again, and this needs the greatest caution on your part, Charon,\nyesterday Hypatodorus son of Erianthes walked back with me from the\nfarm, quite a good and friendly [Sidenote: 587] person, but certainly\nnot in our secrets. \u201cCharon is your friend, Hippostheneidas,\u201d he said,\n\u201cbut I do not know him well; tell him, if you think good, to be on his\nguard against a certain danger revealed in a very strange and\ndisagreeable dream. Last night I thought that his house was in pangs as\nof labour, and that he and the friends who shared his anxiety prayed and\nstood around it, while it moaned and uttered inarticulate sounds. At\nlast the fire flared out strong and terrible from within, so that most\nof the city was caught by the blaze, but the Cadmeia was only wrapped in\nsmoke, the fire not spreading [Sidenote: B] up to it.\u201d The vision which\nthe man described was something like this, Charon; I was alarmed at the\ntime, and much more so when I heard to-day that the exiles are to be put\nup at your house; I am now in an agony lest we may be bringing a load of\ntroubles upon ourselves, yet not doing any harm worth mentioning to the\nenemies, but simply stirring them up. For I reckon the city to be on our\nside, the Cadmeia with them, as it certainly is.\u2019\n\nXVIII. Theocritus broke in, stopping Charon who wanted to say something\nto Hippostheneidas: \u2018Well, Hippostheneidas, [Sidenote: C] nothing has\never struck me as so encouraging for action (although I have myself\nalways found my sacrifices favourable for the exiles), as this vision;\nstrong, clear light over the city, rising, you tell us, out of a\nfriendly house; the head-quarters of our enemies wrapped in black smoke,\nwhich always imports, at the best, tears and confusion; then\ninarticulate utterances proceeding from our side, so that, even if any\none were to attempt to inform against us, only an indistinct rumour and\nblind suspicion can attach to our enterprise, which will have succeeded\nby the time it is evident. That the priests should find sacrifices\nunfavourable is natural; officials and victim belong to those in power,\nnot to the people.\u2019 While Theocritus was still speaking, I turned to\nHippostheneidas: \u2018What messenger did you send [Sidenote: D] out to them?\nUnless you have allowed a very long start we will give chase.\u2019 \u2018I do not\nknow,\u2019 he said, \u2018for I must tell you the truth, Capheisias, whether you\ncould possibly overtake the man; he has the best horse in Thebes. The\nman is known to you; he is head groom in Melon\u2019s chariot stables, and\nthrough Melon knows our enterprise from its beginning.\u2019 Meanwhile I had\nespied the man, and said, \u2018Hippostheneidas, do you not mean Chlidon, who\nwon the single-horse race in last year\u2019s Heraea?\u2019 \u2018That is the man\u2019, he\nsaid. \u2018And who is that,\u2019 I said, \u2018standing this long time at the outer\ngates, and looking in at us?\u2019 Then Hippostheneidas turned: \u2018Chlidon,\u2019 he\n[Sidenote: E] said, \u2018yes, by Hercules, I fear something has gone very\nwrong.\u2019 Meanwhile, the man saw that we were observing him, and drew up\nquietly from the door. Hippostheneidas gave him a nod and bade him speak\nout to all present. \u2018I know these gentlemen, Hippostheneidas, perfectly\nwell; and finding you neither at home nor in the market-place, I guessed\nthat you had come to them, so I took the shortest way here, that you may\nall know [Sidenote: F] everything which has happened. When you ordered\nme to use all speed and meet the party in the hill country, I went home\nto get my horse; but when I asked for the bridle, my wife could not give\nit me, but stayed a long time in the store room. She searched and turned\nout everything inside, and after fooling me to her heart\u2019s content, at\nlast confessed that she had lent the bridle to our neighbour the evening\nbefore, his wife having come in to ask for one. I was angry and used\nstrong words to her, upon which she took to horrible imprecations\u2014\u201cA bad\njourney [Sidenote: 588] and a bad return to you all!\u201d May Heaven throw\nit all back upon herself, by Zeus, yes! At last, in my anger, I got as\nfar as blows; then a crowd of neighbours and women ran up; I have\nbehaved shamefully and have been treated no better, and have just\nmanaged to make my way to you, that you may send some one else to the\nexiles, for I am fairly off my head by this time and feel badly upset.\u2019\n\nXIX. We now experienced a strange revulsion of feeling. A little before\nwe were chafing at the check we had received; now that the crisis was\nupon us short and sharp, and no delay possible, we found ourselves\npassing into an anguish of alarm. However, I said a word of greeting and\nencouragement to Hippostheneidas, to the effect that the very Gods were\ncalling us [Sidenote: B] on to action. After this Phyllidas went out to\narrange for his party, and to get Archias plunged straight into his\ndrink, Charon to see to his house, while Theocritus and I returned to\nSimmias on the chance of getting a word with Epaminondas.\n\nXX. However, they were far on in an inquiry of no mean import, Heaven\nknows, but one which Galaxidorus and Pheidolaus had started a little\nearlier, the problem of the real nature [Sidenote: C] and potency of the\nDivine Sign of Socrates, so called. What Simmias said in reply to the\nargument of Galaxidorus we did not hear; but he went on to say that he\nhad himself once asked Socrates on the subject, and failed to get an\nanswer, and so had never asked again; but that he had often been with\nhim when he gave his opinion that those who claim intercourse with the\ndivine by way of vision are impostors, whereas he attended to those who\nprofessed to hear a voice, and put serious questions to them. Hence it\nbegan to occur to us, as we were discussing the matter among ourselves,\nto suspect that the Divine Sign of Socrates might possibly be no vision\nbut a special sense for [Sidenote: D] sounds or words, with which he had\ncontact in some strange manner; just as in sleep there is no voice\nheard, but fancies and notions as to particular words reach the\nsleepers, who then think that they hear people talking. Only sleepers\nreceive such conceptions in a real dream because of the tranquillity and\ncalm of the body in sleep, whereas in waking moments the soul can hardly\nattend to greater powers, being so choked by thronging emotions and\ndistracting needs that they are unable to listen and to give their\nattention to clear revelations. But the mind of Socrates, pure and\npassionless, and intermingling itself but [Sidenote: E] little with the\nbody for necessary purposes, was fine and light of touch, and quickly\nchanged under any impression. The impression we may conjecture to have\nbeen no voice, but the utterance of a spirit, which without vocal sound\nreached the perceiving mind by the revelation itself. For voice is like\na blow upon the soul, which perforce admits its utterance by way of the\nears, whenever we converse with one another. But the mind of a stronger\nbeing leads the gifted soul, touching it with the thing thought, and no\nblow is needed. To such a being soul yields as it relaxes or tightens\nthe impulses, which are never [Sidenote: F] violent, as when there are\npassions to resist, but supple and pliant like reins which give. There\nis nothing wonderful in this; as we see great cargo-vessels turned about\nby little helms, and, again, potters\u2019 wheels whirling round in even\nrevolution at the light touch of a hand. These are things without a soul\nno doubt, yet so constructed as to run swiftly and smoothly, and\ntherefore to yield to a motive force when a touch is given. But the soul\nof a man, being strained by countless impulses, as by cords, is far the\neasiest of all machines to turn, if it be touched rationally; it accepts\nthe touch of thought, and moves as thought directs. For here the\npassions and impulses are stretched towards the [Sidenote: 589] thinking\nprinciple and end in it; if that principle be stirred they receive a\npull, and in turn draw and strain the man. And thus we are allowed to\nlearn how great is the power of a thought. For bones, which have no\nsensation, and nerves and fleshy parts charged with humours, and the\nwhole resultant mass in its ponderous quiescence, do yet, as soon as the\nsoul sets something a going in thought and directs its impulse towards\nit, rise up, alert and tense, a whole which moves to action in all its\nmembers, as though it had wings. But it is hard, nay, perhaps,\naltogether beyond our powers, to take in at one glance the [Sidenote: B]\nsystem of excitation, complex strain, and divine prompting, whereby the\nsoul, after conceiving a thought, draws on the mass of the body by the\nimpulses which it gives.[41] Yet whereas a word thus intellectually\napprehended excites the soul, while no sort of voice is heard and no\naction takes place, even so we need not, I think, find it hard to\nbelieve that mind may be led by a stronger mind and a more divine soul\nexternal to itself, having contact with it after its kind, as word with\nword or light with reflection. For in actual fact we recognize the\nthoughts of one another by groping as it were in darkness with the\nassistance of voice; whereas the thoughts of spirits have light, they\nshine upon men capable of receiving them, they need not verbs [Sidenote:\nC] or nouns, those symbols whereby men in their intercourse with men see\nresemblances and images of the things thought, yet never apprehend the\nthings themselves, save only those upon whom, as we have said, there\nshines from within a peculiar and spiritual light. And yet what we see\nhappen in the case of the voice may partly reassure the incredulous. The\nair is impressed with articulate sounds, it becomes all word and voice,\nand brings the meaning home to the soul of the hearer. Therefore we need\nnot wonder if, in regard to this special mode of thought also, the air\nis sensitive to the touch of higher beings, and is so modified as to\nconvey to the mind of godlike and extraordinary men the thought of him\nwho thought it. For as the strokes of miners[42] are caught on brazen\nshields because of the reverberation, [Sidenote: D] when they rise from\nbelow ground and fall upon them, whereas falling on any other surface\nthey are indistinct and pass to nothing, even so the words of spirits\npass through all Nature, but only sound for those who possess the soul\nin untroubled calm, holy and spiritual men as we emphatically call them.\nThe view of most people is that spiritual visitations come to men in\nsleep; that they should be similarly stirred when awake and in their\nfull faculties they think marvellous and beyond belief. As though a\nmusician were thought to use his lyre when the strings are let down, and\nnot to touch or use it when it is strung up and tuned! They do not see\nthe cause, their [Sidenote: E] own inner tunelessness and discord, from\nwhich Socrates our friend had been set free, as the oracle given to his\nfather when he was yet a boy declared. For it bade him allow his son to\ndo whatever came into his mind; not to force nor direct his goings, but\nto let his impulse have free play, only to pray for him to Zeus Agoraios\nand to the Muses, but for all else not to meddle with Socrates; meaning\nno doubt that he had within him a guide for [Sidenote: F] his life who\nwas better than ten thousand teachers and directors.\n\nXXI. This, Pheidolaus, is what has occurred to me to think about the\nDivine Sign of Socrates, in his lifetime and since his death, dismissing\nwith contempt those who have suggested voices or sneezings or anything\nof that sort. But what I have heard Timarchus of Chaeroneia relate on\nthis head it may perhaps be better to pass over in silence, as more like\nmyth than history. \u2018Not at all;\u2019 said Theocritus, \u2018let us have it all.\nEven myth touches truth, not too closely, perhaps, but it does touch it\nat points. But first, who was this Timarchus? Explain, for I do not know\nhim.\u2019 \u2018Naturally, Theocritus,\u2019 [Sidenote: 590] said Simmias, \u2018for he\ndied quite young, having begged that he might be buried near Lamprocles,\nthe son of Socrates, who had died a few days before, his own friend and\ncontemporary. He then greatly wished to know what was really meant by\nthe Divine Sign of Socrates, and so, like a generous youth fresh to the\ntaste of Philosophy, having taken no one but Cebes and myself into his\nplan, went down into the cave of Trophonius, after performing the usual\nrites of the oracle. Two nights and one day he remained below; and when\nmost people had given him up, and his family was mourning for [Sidenote:\nB] him, at early dawn he came up very radiant. He knelt to the God, then\nmade his way at once through the crowd, and related to us many wonderful\nthings which he had seen and heard.\n\nXXII. \u2018He said that, when he descended into the oracular chamber, he\nfirst found himself in a great darkness; then, after a prayer, lay a\nlong while not very clearly conscious whether he was awake or dreaming;\nonly he fancied that his head received a blow, while a dull noise fell\non his ears, and then the sutures parted and allowed his soul to issue\nforth. As it passed upwards, rejoicing to mingle with the pure\ntransparent air, it appeared [Sidenote: C] first to draw a long deep\nbreath, after its narrow compression, and to become larger than before,\nlike a sail as it is filled out. Then he heard dimly a whirring noise\noverhead out of which came a sweet voice. He looked up and saw land\nnowhere, only islands shining with lambent fire, from time to time\nchanging colour with one another, as though it were a coat of dye, while\nthe light became spangled in the transition. They appeared to be\ncountless in number and in size enormous, not all equal but all alike\ncircular. He thought that as these moved around there was an answering\nhum of the air, for the gentleness of [Sidenote: D] that voice which was\nharmonized out of all corresponded to the smoothness of the motion.\nThrough the midst of the islands a sea or lake was interfused, all\nshining with the colours as they were commingled over its grey surface.\nSome few islands floated in a straight course and were conveyed across\nthe current; many others were drawn on by the flood, being almost\nsubmerged. The sea was of great depth in some parts towards the south,\nbut [northwards[43]] there were very shallow reaches, and it often swept\nover places and then left them dry, having no strong [Sidenote: E] ebb.\nThe colour was in places pure as that of the open sea, in others turbid\nand marsh-like. As the islands passed through the surf they never came\nround to their starting-point again or described a circle, but slightly\nvaried the points of impact, thus describing a continuous spiral as they\nwent round. The sea was inclined to the approximate middle and highest\npart of the encompassing firmament by a little less than eight-ninths of\nthe whole, as it appeared to him. It had two openings which [Sidenote:\nF] received rivers of fire pouring in from opposite sides, so that it\nwas lashed into foam, and its grey surface was turned to white. This he\nsaw, delighted at the spectacle; but as he turned his eyes downwards,\nthere appeared a chasm, vast and round as though hewn out of a sphere;\nit was strangely terrible and deep and full of utter darkness, not in\nrepose but often agitated and surging up; from which were heard roarings\ninnumerable and groanings of beasts, and wailings of innumerable\ninfants, and with these mingled cries of men and women, dim sounds of\nall sorts, and turmoils sent up indistinctly from the distant depth,\n[Sidenote: 591] to his no small consternation. Time passed, and an\nunseen person said to him, \u201cTimarchus, what do you wish to learn?\u201d\n\u201cEverything,\u201d he replied, \u201cfor all is wonderful.\u201d \u201cWe\u201d, the voice said,\n\u201chave little to do with the regions above, they belong to other Gods;\nbut the province of Persephone which we administer, being one of the\nfour which Styx bounds, you may survey if you will.\u201d To his question,\n\u201cWhat is Styx?\u201d \u201cA way to Hades,\u201d was the reply, \u201cand it passes right\nopposite, parting the light at its very vertex, but reaching up, as you\nsee, from Hades below; where it touches the light in its revolution\n[Sidenote: B] it marks off the remotest region of all. Now, there are\nfour first principles of all things, the first of life, the second of\nmotion, the third of birth, the fourth of death. The first is linked to\nthe second by Unity, in the Unseen: the second to the third by Mind, in\nthe sun: the third to the fourth by Nature, in the moon. Over each of\nthese combinations a Fate, daughter of Necessity, presides, and holds\nthe keys; of the first Atropus, of the second, Clotho, of the one\nbelonging to the moon Lachesis, and the turning-point of birth is there.\nFor the other islands contain Gods, but the moon, which belongs to\n[Sidenote: C] earthly spirits, only avoids Styx by a slight elevation,\nand is caught once in one hundred and seventy-seven secondary\nmeasures[44]. As Styx moves upon her, the souls cry aloud in terror; for\nmany slip from off her and are caught by Hades. Others the moon bears\nupwards from below, as they turn towards her; and for these death\ncoincides with the moment of birth, those excepted which are guilty and\nimpure, and which are not allowed to approach her while she lightens and\nbellows fearfully; mourning for their own fate they slip away and are\nborne downwards for another birth, as you see.\u201d \u201cBut I see [Sidenote: D]\nnothing,\u201d said Timarchus, \u201csave many stars quivering around the gulf,\nothers sinking into it, others, again, darting up from below.\u201d \u201cThen you\nsee the spirits themselves,\u201d the voice said, \u201cthough you do not know it.\nIt is thus: every soul partakes of mind, there is none irrational or\nmindless; but so much of soul as is mingled with flesh and with\naffections is altered and turned towards the irrational by its sense of\npleasures and pains. But the mode of mingling is not the same for every\nsoul. Some are merged entirely into body, and are disturbed by passions\nthroughout their whole being during life. Others [Sidenote: E] are in\npart mixed up with it, but leave outside their purest part, which is not\ndrawn in, but is like a life-buoy which floats on the surface, and\ntouches the head of one who has sunk into the depth, the soul clinging\naround it and being kept upright, while so much of it is supported as\nobeys and is not overmastered by the affections. The part which is borne\nbelow the surface within the body is called soul. That which is left\nfree from dissolution most persons call mind, taking it to be something\ninside themselves, resembling the reflected images in mirrors; but those\nwho are rightly informed know that it is outside themselves and address\nit as spirit. The stars, Timarchus,\u201d the voice went on, \u201cwhich you see\nextinguished, you are to [Sidenote: F] think of as souls entirely merged\nin bodies; those which give light again and shine from below upwards,\nshaking off, as though it were mud, a sort of gloom and dimness, are\nthose which sail up again out of their bodies after death; those which\nare parted upwards are spirits, and belong to men who are said to have\nunderstanding. Try to see clearly in each the bond by which it coheres\nwith soul.\u201d Hearing this, he paid closer attention himself, and saw the\nstars tossing about, some less, some more, as we see the corks which\nmark out nets in the sea move over its surface; but some, like the\nshuttles used in [Sidenote: 592] weaving, in entangled and irregular\nfigures, not able to settle the motion into a straight line. The voice\nsaid that those who kept a straight and orderly movement were men whose\nsouls had been well broken in by fair nurture and training, and did not\nallow their irrational part to be too harsh and rough. Those which often\ninclined upwards and downwards in an irregular and confused manner, like\nhorses plunging off from a halter, were [Sidenote: B] fighting against\nthe yoke with tempers disobedient and ill-trained for want of education;\nsometimes getting the mastery and swerving round to the right; again\nbent by passions and drawn on to share in sins, then again resisting and\nputting force upon them. The coupling bond, like a curb set on the\nirrational part of the soul whenever it resists, brings on repentance,\nas we call it, for sins, and shame for all lawless and intemperate\npleasures, being really a pain and a stroke inflicted by it on the soul\nwhen it is bitted by that which masters and rules it, until at length,\nbeing thus punished, it becomes obedient to the rein [Sidenote: C] and\nfamiliar with it, and then, like a tame creature, without blow or pain,\nunderstands the spirit quickly by signs and hints. These then are led,\nlate in the day and by slow degrees, to their duty. Out of those who are\ndocile and obedient to their spirit from the first birth, is formed the\nprophetic and inspired class, to which belonged the soul of\nHermodorus[45] of Clazomenae, of which you have surely heard; how it\nwould leave the body entirely and wander over a wide range by night and\nby day, and [Sidenote: D] then come back again, having been present\nwhere many things were said and done far off, until the enemy found the\nbody, which his wife had betrayed, left at home deserted by its soul,\nand burnt it. Now this part is not true; the soul used not to go out\nfrom the body; but by always yielding to the spirit, and slackening the\ncoupling-band, he gave it constant liberty to range around, so that it\nsaw and heard and reported many things from the world outside. But those\nwho destroyed the body while he was asleep are paying the penalty in\nTartarus unto [Sidenote: E] this day. All this, young man, you shall\nknow more clearly in the third month from this; now begone!\u201d When the\nvoice ceased, Timarchus wished to turn round, he said, and see who the\nspeaker was; but his head again ached violently, as though forcibly\ncompressed, and he could no longer hear or perceive anything passing\nabout him; afterwards, however, he came to [Sidenote: F] by degrees, and\nsaw that he was lying in the cave of Trophonius, near the entrance where\nhe had originally sunk down.\n\nXXIII. \u2018Such was the tale of Timarchus. When he died, having returned to\nAthens in the third month after hearing the voice, and when, in our\nwonder, we told Socrates of the story, he blamed us for not reporting it\nwhile Timarchus was still alive, since he would gladly have heard it\nmore clearly from himself, and have questioned him further. There,\nTheocritus, you have all, tale and theory both. But perhaps we ought to\ninvite the stranger to join our inquiry; the subject comes nearly home\nto inspired men.\u2019 \u2018Well, but\u2019, the stranger answered, \u2018Epaminondas, who\nputs out from the same port, is not contributing his opinion.\u2019 Our\nfather smiled: \u2018That is just his character, Sir. Silent and cautious in\nspeaking, but a glutton for learning and listening. That is why\nSpintharus of Tarentum, after spending no little time with him here, is\nalways saying, as you know, that he never met [Sidenote: 593] any man of\nhis own standing who knew more or who spoke less. So pray let us have\nall your own thoughts on the subject.\u2019\n\nXXIV. \u2018Then, for my part,\u2019 said Theanor, \u2018I think that the story of\nTimarchus ought to be dedicated to the God, as holy and inviolable. But\nit will be strange to me if any shall be found to discredit what Simmias\ntells us about the matter; thus, while they designate swans, serpents,\ndogs and horses as sacred, refusing to believe that men may be godlike\nand friends of God, yet holding that God is not a friend of birds but a\nfriend of man. As, then, a man who loves horses does not care equally\nfor all individuals which make the class, but always picks out and\nseparates [Sidenote: B] some excellent member of the class, and trains\nhim by himself and feeds him and loves him beyond others; so it is with\nourselves; the higher powers extract, if the word may pass, the best out\nof the herd, and deem them worthy of a very special training, directing\ntheir course, not by reins nor by halters, but by reason, through signs\nutterly incomprehensible to the general herd. Why, most dogs do not\nunderstand the signals used in hunting, nor most horses those used in\nthe man\u00e8ge; but those who have learned know at once from a whistle or a\nchirrup what they are required to do, and easily take the right\nposition. Homer clearly knows the distinction [Sidenote: C] to which I\nrefer. Some of his prophets he calls \u201creaders of dreams\u201d and \u201cpriests\u201d,\nothers understand the conversation of the Gods themselves, he thinks, by\nsympathy, and signify the future to us. For instance:\n\n        _Thus they conferred: but Helenus, Priam\u2019s son,\n        That scheme, which pleased them, in his heart divined._[46]\n\nAnd again:\n\n           _So the everlasting voice I have heard and known._[47]\n\nThe mind of kings and generals is made known to outsiders through the\nsenses, by special beacons or proclamation, or calls on the trumpet; and\nso the divine message reaches few of us in and [Sidenote: D] through\nitself, and that rarely; for ordinary men signals are employed and these\nare the groundwork of what we call divination. The Gods, then, regulate\nlife only for a few, for those whom they wish to make blessed in a\nsingle degree, and truly divine; but souls released from coming to the\nbirth, and now for ever at rest from a body, and dismissed into freedom,\nare spirits who care for men, in Hesiod\u2019s sense. For as athletes, when\nage has brought them an end of training, do not wholly lose the spirit\nof competition or of care for the body, but delight to see others in\npractice, and cheer them on and run beside them, so [Sidenote: E] those\nwho have ceased from the struggles of life, made spirits because of the\nexcellence of their soul, do not utterly despise our earthly affairs,\nour discussions and our interests: they have a kindly feeling for those\ntraining with the same end before them, they share their eagerness for\nvirtue, encourage them, and join them in their bursts, whenever they see\nthem running with hope near at hand and already within touch. For the\nspirit does not help [Sidenote: F] all men as they come. It is as with\nswimmers upon the sea; spectators on the shore merely gaze in silence on\nthose who are out in the open, drifting far from land; whereas they run\nalong the beach towards those who are already nearing it, they dash in\nto meet them, and with hand, and voice, and endeavour, hasten to the\nrescue. Such, Simmias, is the way of a spirit; while we are dipped\nbeneath the tides of life, changing body for body, like relays on a\nroad, he allows us to struggle out for ourselves, to be brave and\npatient, to try by our own virtue to reach the harbour in safety. But\nwhen any soul through a myriad of births has striven once and again a\nlong-drawn strife well and stoutly, and when, with the cycle now\nwellnigh complete, it [Sidenote: 594] takes the risks, and sets its hope\nhigh, as it nears the landing-place, and presses upwards with sweat and\nendeavour, the God thinks it no wrong that its own spirit should go to\nthe help of such a soul, but lets zeal go free, and the Gods are zealous\nto encourage and to save, one this soul and one that. The soul hearkens\nbecause it is so near, and it is saved; but if it does not hearken the\nspirit leaves it, and its happy chance is gone.\u2019\n\nXXV. As he finished, Epaminondas looked at me. \u2018It is nearly your time,\nCapheisias, to go to the gymnasium and not fail your comrades; we will\ntake care of Theanor, and break up [Sidenote: B] our conference whenever\nhe likes.\u2019 \u2018Let us do so,\u2019 I said, \u2018but I think Theocritus here wants a\nfew words with you while Galaxidorus and I are present.\u2019 \u2018By all means\u2019,\nsaid he; he rose and led the way to the angle of the portico. We stood\nround and tried to encourage him to join the scheme. He answered that he\nperfectly well knew the day of the return of the exiles, and had\narranged with Gorgidas as to all that was necessary for our friends, but\nthat he refused to take the life of any citizen without trial, unless\nthere were an urgent necessity; also, looking to the body of the\nThebans, it was specially convenient that there should be some person\nwith hands clean [Sidenote: C] and beyond suspicion, when the time\nshould come to advise the people for the best. We agreed, and he\nreturned at once to Simmias and his party. We went down to the gymnasium\nand met our friends, and, pairing off for wrestling matches, exchanged\ninformation and plans for action. We saw also Archias and Philippus,\nanointed and starting for the supper. For Phyllidas, [Sidenote: D]\nfearing that they might put Amphitheus to death first, called on Archias\nimmediately after he had escorted Lysanoridas, and by suggesting hopes\nthat the lady he desired to meet would come to the place, persuaded him\nto turn his mind to having a good time with the usual companions of his\nrevels.\n\nXXVI. It was now getting late, and the cold was intense, as the wind had\ngot up. Most people had therefore made for their homes more quickly than\nusual. We had fallen in with Damocleidas, Pelopidas, and Theopompus, and\nwere taking them with us, as others took others of the exiles. For the\nparty had broken up immediately after crossing Cithaeron; and the bitter\n[Sidenote: E] weather allowed them to muffle up their faces and pass\nthrough the city in security. Some of them were met by a lightning flash\non the right without thunder, as they entered through the gates; and the\nsign seemed favourable for safety and glory, with a bright issue to\nfollow and no danger.\n\nXXVII. So when we were all inside, two short of fifty, while Theocritus\nwas sacrificing by himself in an outbuilding, there was a loud knocking\nat the door; and presently some one came in to say that two servants of\nArchias, sent on an urgent message to Charon, were knocking at the\ncourtyard gate and calling for it to [Sidenote: F] be opened, and were\nangry at the slowness of the response. Charon was much disturbed, and\ngave orders to open to them at once, while he himself went to meet them,\nthe crown on his head showing that he had sacrificed and was at his\nwine, and asked the messengers what they wanted. One of them replied:\n\u2018Archias and Philippus sent us, you are to come to them as quickly as\nyou can.\u2019 When Charon asked, \u2018What is the reason of this hasty summons,\nand is there anything new?\u2019 \u2018We know nothing further,\u2019 answered the\nmessenger, \u2018but what shall we tell them?\u2019 \u2018This, by Zeus,\u2019 said Charon,\n\u2018that as soon as I have put off this crown and got my cloak, I will\nfollow you. For, if I go straight off with you, there will be an alarm;\npeople will think that I am in [Sidenote: 595] custody.\u2019 \u2018Do so,\u2019 they\nsaid, \u2018for we too have orders to convey from the magistrates to the\nguard of the lower city.\u2019 So they went off. When Charon came in and told\nus this, we were all aghast, thinking we had been betrayed. Most of us\nwere inclined to suspect Hippostheneidas; he had tried to hinder the\nreturn by sending Chlidon, and when that failed and the dread moment was\nupon us, he had used his plausible tongue to betray the scheme, out of\nfear; for he did not come with the rest into the house, but the whole\nimpression he gave us was of a coward and turncoat. However, we all\nthought that Charon ought to go, and obey the [Sidenote: B] summons of\nthe magistrates. He ordered his son to come in, the handsomest boy in\nThebes, Archidamus, and the most painstaking in his gymnastics; barely\nfifteen, but in strength and size far above others of his age.\n\u2018Gentlemen,\u2019 he said, \u2018he is my only one, and, as you know, I love him\ndearly; I place him in your hands, and charge you in the name of the\nGods, and in the name of the spirits, if I should appear a traitor to\nyour cause, slay him, and spare us not. For the rest, my gallant\nfriends, set yourselves to meet the event; do not give in like shabby\ncowards, or allow this scum to slay your bodies; defend yourselves, keep\nyour souls [Sidenote: C] above defeat, they are our country\u2019s!\u2019 As\nCharon said this, we were wondering at his spirit and noble heart,\nthough indignant at his idea of suspicion on our part, and bade him take\nthe boy away. \u2018More than that, Charon,\u2019 said Pelopidas, \u2018we think that\nyou have not been well advised in that you have not already removed your\nson to another house. What need for him to run our risks if taken with\nus? You must send him away even now, so that, if anything happen to us,\none noble nursling may be left to be our avenger on the tyrants.\u2019 \u2018Not\nso;\u2019 said Charon, \u2018here he shall stay and share your risks; for, even in\nhis interest, it is not [Sidenote: D] good that he should fall into the\nenemy\u2019s hands. But you, my boy, be daring beyond your years, taste the\nstruggles which must come, take risks with our many brave countrymen in\nthe cause of freedom and valour; much hope still is left, and I think\nthat a God is surely watching over us in our contest for the right.\u2019\n\nXXVIII. Tears came to many of us, Archidamus, at the words of Charon.\nDry-eyed himself and unmoved, he placed his son in the hands of\nPelopidas, and made his way through the doors with a word of greeting\nand encouragement for each of us. Even more would you have admired the\nbright and fearless bearing of the boy himself in the peril. Like\nNeoptolemus,[48] he showed no [Sidenote: E] paleness or alarm, but drew\nthe sword of Pelopidas and seemed to study it. In the meantime,\nDiotonus, a friend of Cephisodorus, came in to us, sword in hand, and\nwearing a steel breastplate under his clothes; and when we told him of\nCharon being sent for by Archias, blamed us for losing time, and\nimplored us to go straight to the houses, where we should be upon them\nbefore they were ready; failing that, it would be better, he said, to go\nout into the open and form our parties there out of the scattered and\nuncombined units, rather than shut ourselves up in a chamber [Sidenote:\nF] and wait like a swarm of bees to be cut out by the enemy. The prophet\nTheocritus added his urgent appeal; his victims showed a clear and good\nresult, and assured him of safety.\n\nXXIX. While we were arming and making arrangements, Charon reappeared,\nhis face radiant. Smiling as he looked at us, he bade us take heart;\nthere was no danger and the business was moving on. \u2018Archias\u2019, he said,\n\u2018and Philippus, when they heard [Sidenote: 596] that I had obeyed their\nsummons, were already heavy with drink, sodden alike in body and mind;\nit was all they could do to stand upon their feet and move out towards\nthe door. When Archias said: \u201cCharon, we hear that exiles have passed\ninto the city and are being concealed\u201d, I was not a little troubled.\n\u201cWhere are they said to be?\u201d I asked, \u201cand who are they?\u201d \u201cWe do not\nknow,\u201d replied Archias, \u201cand therefore ordered you to come, on the\nchance that you might have heard something more certain.\u201d I took a\nmoment to recover my senses, as if after a blow, and began to put things\ntogether. The information given could be no substantial story; the plot\nhad not been betrayed by any of those privy to it; for the tyrants could\nnot be in ignorance as to [Sidenote: B] the house if their information\ncame from any person with real knowledge; it must be merely a suspicion\nor some indefinite rumour circulating in the city which had reached\nthem. So I answered: \u201cI remember that in the lifetime of Androcleidas\nthere were often reports of the kind floating idly about and causing us\nannoyance. But at the present time, Archias,\u201d I went on, \u201cI have heard\nnothing of the sort; however, I will inquire into the story, if you so\ndesire, and, if I hear anything worth attention, you shall not fail to\nknow.\u201d \u201cBy all means,\u201d said Phyllidas, \u201clook well into this matter and\nleave no stone unturned. What is to prevent us? We must think nothing\nbeneath our notice, but must take all precautions and pay attention.\nForethought is good; safety is good!\u201d As he said [Sidenote: C] this, he\ntook Archias by the arm and led him off into the house where they are\ndrinking. \u2018Now, friends,\u2019 he went on, \u2018no delay for us, a prayer to the\nGods, and forth we go!\u2019 When Charon had said this, we spent a while in\nprayer and mutual encouragement.\n\nXXX. It was now the hour at which people are mostly at supper; the wind\nwas still rising and drove beneath it snow with drizzle, so that the\nnarrow streets were quite empty as we made our way through them. The\nparty told off against Leontides and Hypates, who lived near one\nanother, went out cloaked and carrying no arms but a sword apiece (among\n[Sidenote: D] these were Pelopidas, Damocleidas, and Cephisodorus).\nCharon, Melon, and the rest who were to attack Archias, wore\nhalf-cuirasses, and thick wreaths, some of firwood, some of pine. Some\nwere in women\u2019s tunics, which gave the effect of a drinking procession\nwith women. But our ill-fortune, Archidamus, which set all the weakness\nand ignorance of the enemy on a level with all our daring and\npreparation, and chequered our action from the outset with perilous\nepisodes like a stage play, met us at [Sidenote: E] the moment of\naction, and sharp and terrible was the crisis with its dramatic\nsurprise. Charon, having satisfied Archias and Philippus, had returned\nhome and was putting us through our parts, when there came a letter from\nthis city; it was from Archias the priest to Archias of Thebes, an old\nfriend and guest, it would seem, with full news of the return and plot\nof the exiles, of the house [Sidenote: F] to which they had repaired,\nand of those who were acting with them. Archias was by this time\ndrenched with wine, and excited about the expected arrival of the\nladies; he took the letter, but when the bearer said that it was\naddressed to him about certain urgent business: \u201cThen urgent business\nto-morrow!\u201d he said, and thrust the letter under his head cushion; then\nhe asked for a cup, kept calling for wine, the whole time ordering\nPhyllidas to go out to the door and see whether the women were near.\n\nXXXI. As they had beguiled their drinking with this hope, we joined the\ncompany, and pushing our way through the servants to the banqueting hall\nstood a short time at the door looking [Sidenote: 597] at each of the\nparty. Our crowns and dress and make-up, while apologizing for our\npresence, caused a silence: but as soon as Melon rushed first up the\nhall, his hand upon his sword-hilt, Cabirichus, the appointed president,\nplucked him by the arm as he passed, and shouted out, \u2018Phyllidas, is not\nthis Melon?\u2019 Melon shook off his grasp, drawing his sword as he did so,\nthen, rushing upon Archias as with difficulty he found his feet, struck\nand struck till he had killed him. Philippus received a neck wound from\nCharon; he tried to defend himself with the drinking-cups [Sidenote: B]\nwhich were near his hand, but Lysitheus threw him off the couch to the\nground and slew him. We tried to pacify Cabirichus, imploring him not to\nassist the tyrants, but to join in our country\u2019s deliverance,\nremembering that he was a holy person and consecrated to the Gods for\nher sake. As, however, from the wine he had taken, it was not easy to\ncarry his thoughts to the proper course, while he stood excited and\nconfused, and kept presenting the point of his spear (customarily worn\nby our magistrates at all times), I myself seized it at the middle and\nswung it over his head, crying to him to let go and save himself, or he\nwould be wounded. But Theopompus, standing near him [Sidenote: C] on the\nright, struck him with his sword, and said: \u2018Lie there with those whom\nthou hast been flattering; never mayest thou wear a crown in a free\nThebes, nor sacrifice any longer to the Gods, in whose names thou hast\noften called down curses on our country, and prayers for her enemies!\u2019\nWhen Cabirichus was down, Theocritus, who was with us, snatched the\nsacred spear out of the wound; and we slew a few of the servants who\nventured on resistance, while we shut up in the hall those who behaved\nquietly, not wishing them to slip away and spread news of what had\nhappened, before we knew whether things had gone [Sidenote: D] well with\nour comrades also.\n\nXXXII. Their history was this. Pelopidas and his party quietly\napproached the courtyard door of Leontides, and told the servant who\nanswered their knock that they had come from Athens with letters for\nLeontides from Callistratus. When he had given the message and received\norders to open, and had removed the bar and set the door a little ajar,\nthey burst in in a body, upset the man, and charged on through the court\nto the bedroom of Leontides. His suspicions carrying him at once to the\ntruth he drew his dagger and rushed to defend himself; an unjust and\ntyrannical man he was, but of sturdy courage and a [Sidenote: E]\npowerful fighter. However, he did not make up his mind to throw down the\ntorch and close with the attacking party in the dark; but in the light,\nand in their full view, as soon as they began to open the door, he smote\nCephisodorus on the groin, and closed with Pelopidas next, shouting\nloudly all the time to call the attendants. These were held in check by\nSamidas\u2019 party, not venturing to come to blows with some of the best\nknown and bravest men in Thebes. Pelopidas and Leontides had to fight it\n[Sidenote: F] out; it was a sword duel in the doorway of the chamber, a\nnarrow one, in the middle of which lay Cephisodorus, fallen and dying,\nso that the others could not come in to the rescue. At last our man,\nhaving received a slight wound in the head and having given many, and\nthrown Leontides down, ran him through over the still warm body of\nCephisodorus. The latter saw the enemy falling, and placed his hand in\nthat of Pelopidas, saluted the others, and cheerfully breathed his last.\nLeaving them, they turned against Hypates, and the door having been\nopened to them there, in the same way, they cut him down while trying to\nescape over a roof to the neighbours.\n\n[Sidenote: 598] XXXIII. Thence they hastened towards us, joining us\noutside, near the Polystyle. After mutual greetings and talk, we\nproceeded to the prison. Phyllidas called the head jailer out and said:\n\u2018Archias and Philippus order you to bring Amphitheus to them at once.\u2019\nHe, remarking the strangeness of the hour, and that Phyllidas did not\nseem composed as he spoke to him, but hot from the struggle and excited,\nsaw through our artifice: \u2018When did the Polemarchs send for a prisoner\nat such an hour, [Sidenote: B] Phyllidas,\u2019 he asked, \u2018and when by you?\nWhat password do you bring?\u2019 As he was speaking, Phyllidas, who carried\na cavalry lance, drove it through his ribs and brought the scoundrel to\nthe ground, where he was trampled and spat upon the next day by a number\nof women. We burst open the doors of the prison, and called on the\nprisoners by name; first Amphitheus, then our acquaintances among the\nothers. As they recognized the voices they leapt up from their pallet\nbeds, dragging their chains, while those whose feet were fast in the\nstocks stretched out their hands, shouting and imploring us not to leave\nthem behind. As these were being released, many of those who lived near\ncame up, perceiving [Sidenote: C] what was going on and delighting in\nit. The women, as soon as each heard about her own relation, dropped\nBoeotian habits, and ran out to one another, asking questions from the\nmen who met them. Those who found their own fathers or husbands\nfollowed, and no one tried to hinder them, for all who met them were\ndeeply affected by pity for the men, and by the tears and prayers of\nmodest women.\n\nXXXIV. While things were thus, learning that Epaminondas [Sidenote: D]\nand Gorgidas were already forgathering with our friends near the temple\nof Athena, I took my way to join them. Many loyal citizens had already\narrived, and more kept pouring in. When I had told them in detail the\nstory of what had happened, and while I was imploring them to rally to\nthe market-place, all agreed to summon the citizens at once \u2018For\nLiberty!\u2019 The crowds now forming up found arms to their hand in the\nwarehouses full of spoils from all lands and in the factories of the\nswordmakers living near. Hippostheneidas had also arrived with friends\nand servants, bringing the trumpeters, who had, as it happened, been\nquartered in the town for the feast of Hercules. All at once they began\nto sound calls, some in the market-place, [Sidenote: E] others\nelsewhere, from every direction, to cause a panic among the other side,\nand make them think that the rising was general. Some lighted smoky\nfires[49] and so escaped to the Cadmeia, drawing with them also the\naristocrats, so called, who were accustomed to pass the night on the low\nground near the fortress. Those who were above, seeing this disorderly\nand confused stream of incomers, and ourselves about the market-place,\nno quiet anywhere, but indistinct noise and bustle rising up to them\nfrom all quarters, never made up their minds to come down, though there\nwere some five thousand of them. They [Sidenote: F] thoroughly lost\ntheir heads in the danger, and Lysanoridas was a mere excuse: they\nprofessed to wait for his return, which was due that day. In\nconsequence, he was afterwards sentenced to a heavy fine by the\nLacedaemonian senate. Herippidas and Arcesus were arrested at Corinth\nlater on and put to death. The Cadmeia was evacuated by them and\nsurrendered to us under treaty, and the garrison withdrawn.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  See, however, an article by Mr. R. F. Macnaghten in the _Classical\n  Review_ of September 1914 (vol. 28, p. 185 foll.).\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  _Isthm._ 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  So C. F. Hermann (ap. Ed. Teub.) for \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Here several words of the text have been lost.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Many words have been lost (three separate lacunae).\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Reading \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd for \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  Supplying \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, as Ed. Teub.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  Many words are here lost, to the general effect of those in the\n  brackets.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  i. e. each of the four sides of each of the six faces. The Greek word\n  for \u2018side\u2019 and \u2018face\u2019 is the same.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  This problem (mentioned by Plutarch also in the _E at Delphi_, see p.\n  63) was in fact solved by Menaechmus, a pupil of Eudoxus, through\n  Conic Sections, and also by Archytas, whose method is much more\n  elaborate. See Preface, p. xiv.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  _Il._ 10, 279; _Od._ 13, 300-1.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  _Il._ 20, 95.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 for the MSS. reading \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 (Reiske).\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  \u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f24 (Ed. Teub.), for \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, is attractive, but it seems\n  better not to anticipate the word.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 is K. O. M\u00fcller\u2019s reading for \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 of the MSS.\n  See Wordsworth\u2019s _Athens and Attica_, p. 9.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Fr. 284 (the well-known fragment of the _Autolycus_ about Athletes) l.\n  22.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Cp. _Od._ 1, 170, &c.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  _Od._ 1, 27.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  See _Life of Nicias_, c. 3.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Aeschylus, _Prometheus_, 545.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Cp. Bacchylides, Fr. 37 (_Life of Numa_, c. 4): \u2018Broad is the road\u2019,\n  i. e. \u2018there is room for divergent opinions.\u2019\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Compare _Life of Coriolanus_, c. 32, p. 229, with this difficult\n  passage.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Of the participle so translated only the termination remains. Reiske\u2019s\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd well completes this fine image.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  This word is not in the Greek text.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  See note on the Myths of Plutarch, p. 315.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Lucian (Musc. Encom. c. 7) tells the same story of Hermodorus.\n  Plutarch has probably made a slip, as elsewhere, in names. See p. 99.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  _Il._ 7, 44-5.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  l. 53.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  i. e. in the Wooden Horse, _Od._ 11, 526-32.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Perhaps rather \u2018the Laconizing party\u2019, as the Teubner editor suggests.\n\n\n\n\n                        THREE PYTHIAN DIALOGUES\n\n\n                              INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe three Dialogues of Plutarch entitled:\n\n    I. On the E at Delphi,\n\n    II. Why the Pythia does not now give her Oracles in Verse,\n\n    III. On the cessation of the Oracles,\n\nmay be conveniently treated as a group, and assumed to be a collection\nof those \u2018Pythian Dialogues\u2019 which the author sent to his friend\nSerapion. I and II certainly are so, III has a separate dedication.\nOther Dialogues, e. g. that on _Delays in Divine Punishment_, are also\nrecords of conversations which took place at Delphi; but these three are\nconcerned with questions suggested by the temple and prophetic office of\nApollo, as to which they give much curious information. If they leave us\nunsatisfied as to matters of still deeper interest, and tell us nothing\nabout the policy of Delphi in the Persian wars, the counsel given to\nOrestes, which is fiercely controversial matter, or the popular feeling\ntowards the oracle represented in the _Ion_ of Euripides, this is only\nwhat we learn to put up with in reading Greek books. Indeed it is of a\npiece with the purposes imputed to Apollo himself, who sets us problems\nbut does not supply their solution. \u2018The king whose oracle is in Delphi\nneither tells nor conceals, but signifies.\u2019\n\nWe have few indications of date, or of mutual relations between the\nthree Dialogues. I is based upon the author\u2019s recollection of a\nconversation which took place \u2018a long time ago\u2019, about A. D. 66, the\ndate of Nero\u2019s visit to Greece. A principal speaker is Ammonius the\nPeripatetic philosopher of Lamprae, Plutarch\u2019s instructor, who also\nspeaks, with the same authority, in III. In II, Serapion, the Athenian\npoet, to whom the collection is dedicated in I, takes a leading part.\nTheon, a literary friend, who appears frequently in the _Symposiacs_ and\nin the _Face in the Moon_ comes into I and II. An interesting person is\nDemetrius of Tarsus, another literary friend, who, in III, has just\nreturned from Britain, and who has been probably identified with\n\u2018Demetrius the Scribe\u2019, named on two bronze tablets found at York, and\nnow in the York Museum (see _Hermes_, vol. 46, p. 156). The year of\nCallistratus at Delphi, which marks the date of III, is conjecturally\nfixed as A. D. 83-4 (see Pontow in _Philologus_ for 1895, and cp.\n_Sympos._ vii. 5). As Agricola\u2019s term of office ended in A. D. 84 or 85,\nDemetrius may have served under him. The general tranquillity of the\nworld depicted in III hardly gives us much to build upon.\n\nIn I Plutarch and his brother Lamprias are both speakers. Lamprias\nappears in his usual character, a good companion, light-hearted and\nreckless; Plutarch speaks gravely and at length, and the debate is\nclosed by Ammonius. In III Lamprias, Plutarch not being named, speaks\ngravely throughout, and, on the suggestion of Ammonius, closes the\ndebate. In II, neither brother is named, and the last speaker is Theon.\n\nIn the Symposiac Dialogues one or other brother is usually present,\nsometimes both. In the _Face in the Moon_ Lamprias alone takes part, and\nhe acts as moderator.\n\nIt is not easy to interpret these facts. M. Gr\u00e9ard concludes that\nLamprias died early. If so, was the name, which was borne by the\ngrandfather and by one of the sons, transferred, for literary purposes,\nto Plutarch himself? M. Chenevi\u00e8re, in his pleasant essay on Plutarch\u2019s\nfriends (a Latin prize dissertation) suggests that, under whatever name,\nthe leading speaker always conveys Plutarch\u2019s own views.\n\nCertain topics recur in this series of Dialogues. Thus the problem as to\nthe meaning of the E at Delphi, which is the main subject of I, is\nglanced at, with some impatience, by Philippus the historian in III.\n\nThe identification of Apollo with the sun, dismissed at the end of I as\na mere beautiful fancy, is questioned again in III and allowed to stand\nover as unsettled. It is touched upon in II, c. 12.\n\nThe hypothesis of a plurality of worlds, brought forward by Plutarch in\nI. c. 11, with special reference to the views of Plato in the _Timaeus_,\nreappears, again in connexion with the five regular solids, in III.\n\nIt may be noticed that Plutarch was not, at the date of the conversation\nnarrated in I, a priest of the temple (see c. 16).\n\nMuch of the matter of III reappears, with little variety of substance,\nin the _Face in the Moon_, the attack on Aristotle\u2019s theory of the\ndistribution of matter in the one corresponding to that upon the Stoics\nin the other, and the accounts of the imprisonment of Cronus by his son\n(or Briareus) being almost identical. It is probable that in both\nPlutarch has drawn immediately upon Posidonius, and through him from\nXenocrates and others. The question is discussed with great thoroughness\nby Dr. Max Adler (_Dissertationes Vindobonenses_, 1910).\n\nThe situation of Delphi is one of extraordinary beauty, as well as\ninterest:\n\n    Some few miles north-east of the ancient site of Cirrha the\n    mountainous range of Parnassus shoots out two little spurs towards\n    the sea, thus locking on three sides an inclined valley, as the\n    tiers of an ancient circus embrace the arena below. Upon the fourth\n    side a small river runs, by name the Pleistus, which has forced its\n    way between the eastern spur and Mount Cirphius, directly south and\n    opposite; crosses laterally at the foot of the glen; then, sweeping\n    round in a shining curve, before many leagues unites its waters to\n    the bay. The descending slope that forms the amphitheatre is broken\n    by ridges into three terraces, such as the traveller is wont to see\n    in hilly countries. On the highest rose the sanctuary; below was the\n    town and the cultivated hollow which poets called the Vale of\n    Delphi; above all towered the ridges of Parnassus itself,[50] sheer\n    walls of rock, rising inland towards the summit of the chain,\n    desolate, grand, and picturesque. Those who stood above the level of\n    the temple, and turned their gaze toward the south-west, might\n    perhaps have looked far over to the smiling gulf of Corinth, an\n    unbroken prospect of well-watered fields. Upon their left was the\n    famous plane-tree, and the spring of Castalia, whose stream, leaping\n    down between two rocks, out of a huge cleft that divided them, lost\n    itself in a dell below, till it fell finally into the Pleistus; and\n    mounting the rough ascent, just beyond the little torrent, might be\n    seen the sacred way, which, issuing from the same gorge as the\n    Pleistus, rounded the flank of the promontory of rock and climbed up\n    its warm side. Few are the shadows that pass over the valley;\n    through the long day the southern sun beats down on it, and the\n    brilliancy of the sky is immortalized in the name which the\n    inhabitants conferred upon the hills about, of Phaedriades, or\n    shining cliffs.\n\n    But the property of the temple was not bounded by the extent of the\n    _view_. Above, on the heights, as far as Ligorea and Tithorea, both\n    Doric villages\u2014towards the west, beyond the Stadium, and the hill on\n    which it nestled, to Amphissa and the pasturages along its\n    stream\u2014all was part of the Ager Apollinis, sacred to the god and to\n    his priests for ever.\n\n    From the Arnold Prize Essay for 1859, by Charles (afterwards Lord)\n    Bowen.\n\nThe topographical and archaeological facts to be gathered from\nauthorities prior to modern excavations are collected by Dr. J. H.\nMiddleton in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ for 1888. The results of\nthe subsequent work of the French excavators, directed by M. Homolle,\nmay conveniently be studied in Dr. J. G. Frazer\u2019s Commentary on\nPausanias, Book 10, where the history of the successive temples is\nfollowed out. The dimensions of the temple itself, which stood on a\nrocky plateau or terrace, were about 197 feet by 72 feet. The Sacred Way\nran round the temple, and close to it on its northern and western sides,\nand was followed by the party described by Plutarch in the second of the\nthree Dialogues (c. 17) in order to reach the southern steps.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  8,000 feet above the sea. The Phaedriades rose to about 800 feet.\n\n\n\n\n                                   I\n                          ON THE \u2018E\u2019 AT DELPHI\n\n\n    (In the Pronaos of the temple at Delphi the visitor was confronted\n    by certain inscriptions (\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1): \u2018Know thyself\u2019\u2014\u2018Nothing too\n    much\u2019\u2014\u2018Go bail and woe is at hand\u2019\u2014all exhortations to wisdom or\n    prudence (Plato, _Charmides_, 163-4). To these is to be added, on\n    the sole authority of Plutarch\u2019s Dialogue, the letter E, pronounced\n    EI.)\n\nTHE SPEAKERS\n\n          AMMONIUS, the Platonist philosopher, Plutarch\u2019s teacher.\n          LAMPRIAS, Plutarch\u2019s brother.\n          PLUTARCH.\n          THEON, a literary friend.\n          EUSTROPHUS, an Athenian.\n          NICANDER, a priest of the temple.\n\nChap. 1. Dedication to Serapion at Athens. I am sending you, as an\ninstalment, some of my Pythian Dialogues. What is the problem put before\nus by Apollo under the form of the letter E? I had always avoided the\nquestion, but here is a report of a conversation with some visitors, of\nwhom Ammonius was one, in, or soon after, the year A. D. 66, when Nero\ncame to Greece.\n\n2. AMMONIUS was arguing that Apollo propounds subjects for philosophical\ninquiry in the ordinances and emblems of his temple, not least in this\nletter E.\n\n3. LAMPRIAS quoted the traditional account, that the Wise Men, who were\nproperly five, not seven, met here, and, after discussion, set up the\nletter E, as a numeral, for a protest against the intrusion of a sixth\nand seventh into their company. The ancient wooden E is still called\nthat of the Wise Men.\n\n4. AMMONIUS smiled, knowing Lamprias to be capable of improvising a\n\u2018traditional view\u2019. One of the company mentioned a Chaldaean visitor,\nwho had lately talked much nonsense about the number seven. The\nofficials of the temple know no view except that the letter is\nsignificant as a word (\u2018if\u2019 or \u2018whether\u2019).\n\n5. NICANDER confirmed this. \u2018If\u2019 is used with us in the formula of\nquestions put to the god, or, as \u2018if only\u2019, in prayers.\n\n6. THEON puts in a plea for \u2018Dialectic\u2019, i.e. Logic. \u2018If\u2019 is the\nconjunction which holds together the conjunctive proposition or\nsyllogism, the special prerogative of _human_ intellect. Hercules, in\nhis early days, mocked at Logic and the E, and then removed the tripod\nby force.\n\n7. EUSTROPHUS: \u2018Bravo, Theon, a Hercules, all but the lion\u2019s skin!\u2019 He\nappeals to the devotees of Mathematics to say a word for the\narithmetical virtues of the number five (a thrust at Plutarch himself,\nwho had yet to learn Academic moderation in his zeal for Mathematics).\n\n8-16. PLUTARCH _loq._:\n\n8. Yes, five has virtues: 5 = 2 + 3, the first even added to the first\nodd. It is called \u2018Marriage\u2019. After multiplication it reproduces itself,\nand so symbolizes the \u2018Conflagration\u2019 and \u2018Renovation\u2019 of Heraclitus\n(and the Stoics),\n\n9. Which relate to the legends of Apollo and also of Dionysus.\n\n10. Five, when multiplied, gives alternately five itself and the perfect\nten. It is also essential in harmonies.\n\n11. Plato holds that, _if_ there are more worlds than one, there _may_\nbe five, and no more. Aristotle that there is one world composed of five\nelements, the five regular solids.\n\n12. The five senses are related to the five elements and the five\nsolids.\n\n13. We must not forget Homer, and his five-fold division of the\nuniverse. But, going back: Four dimensions (point, line, plane, solid)\nare all very well. But animate being requires a fifth.\n\n14. The true derivation is not 2 + 3 = 5 but 1 + 4 i.e., unity (which is\nitself really a square) _plus_ the first square.\n\n15. There are five modes of being (see the _Sophist_, and _Philebus_ of\nPlato). Some early inquirer saw this, and set up _two_ E\u2019s.\n\n16. I ask the initiated whether five has not a special virtue in their\nmysteries. (\u2018Yes,\u2019 from NICANDER, \u2018but it is a secret.\u2019) Well I must\nwait till I become a priest myself.\n\n17. AMMONIUS, though in sympathy with Mathematics, deprecates too much\nexactness. There is much to be said for the number seven. But the \u2018E\u2019 is\nreally something different from all the suggestions. The God greets his\nvisitors with \u2018Know Thyself.\u2019 They answer, THOU ART.\n\n18. _We_ \u2018are\u2019 not at all, but always change from state to state, and so\n(says Heraclitus) does all Nature.\n\n19. In true being is no past, present, or future; our common speech\nconfesses to our not being.\n\n20. But God IS, and is rightly addressed as \u2018Thou Art\u2019 or \u2018Thou Art\nOne\u2019.\n\n21. The identification of Apollo with the sun is a beautiful attempt to\ngrasp the spiritual through the sensible. Not so the stories of his\nchange into fire, and the like, which are better ascribed to some daemon\nthan to the God. \u2018Know Thyself\u2019 calls us back from these lofty\nspeculations: \u2018Man, know thy nature and its limitations!\u2019\n\n\n                          ON THE \u2018E\u2019 AT DELPHI\n\n\nI. A day or two ago, dear Serapion, I met with some [Sidenote: 384 D]\nrather good lines, addressed, Dicaearchus thinks, to Archelaus by\nEuripides:[51]\n\n               _No gifts, my wealthy friend, from humble me;\n               You\u2019ll think me fool, or think I did but beg._\n\nHe who out of his narrow store offers trifles to men of great\npossessions, confers no favour; no one believes that he gives something\nfor nothing, and he gets credit for a jealous and ungenerous temper. Now\nsurely as money presents fall far [Sidenote: E] below those of\nliterature and learning, so there is beauty in giving these, and beauty\nin claiming a return in kind. At any rate, I am sending to you, and so\nto my friends down there, some of our Pythian Dialogues, as a sort of\nfirst-fruits; and, in doing so, confess that I expect others from you,\nand more and better ones, since you enjoy a great city and abundant\nleisure, with many books and discussions of every sort. Well then, our\nkind Apollo, in the oracles which he gives his consultants, seems to\n[Sidenote: F] solve the problems of life and to find a remedy, while\nproblems of the intellect he actually suggests and propounds to the born\nlove of wisdom in the soul, thus implanting an appetite which leads to\ntruth. Among many other instances, this is made clear as to the\nconsecration of the letter \u2018E\u2019. We may well guess that it was not by\nchance, or by lot, that, alone among [Sidenote: 385] the letters, it\nreceived pre-eminence in the God\u2019s house, and took rank as a sacred\noffering and a show object. No, the officials of the God in early times,\nwhen they came to speculate, either saw in it a special and\nextraordinary virtue, or found it a symbol for something else of serious\nimportance, and so adopted it. I had often myself avoided the question\nand quietly declined it when raised in the school. However, I was lately\nsurprised by my sons in earnest discussion with certain strangers, who\nwere just starting from Delphi; it was not decent to put them off with\nexcuses, they were so anxious to receive some [Sidenote: B] account. We\nsat down near the temple, and I began to raise questions with myself,\nand to put others to them; and the place, and what they said, reminded\nme of a discussion which we heard a long time ago from Ammonius and\nothers, at the time of Nero\u2019s visit, when the same problem had been\nstarted here in the same way.\n\nII. That the God is no less philosopher than he is prophet appeared to\nall to come out directly from the exposition which Ammonius gave us of\neach of his names. He is \u2018Pythian\u2019 (The Inquirer) to those who are\nbeginning to learn and to inquire; \u2018Delian\u2019 (The Clear One) and\n\u2018Phanaean\u2019 to those who are already getting something clear and a\nglimmering of [Sidenote: C] the truth; \u2018Ismenian\u2019 (The Knowing) to those\nwho possess the knowledge; \u2018Leschenorian\u2019 (God of Discourse) when they\nare in active enjoyment of dialectical and philosophic intercourse. \u2018Now\nsince\u2019, he continued, \u2018Philosophy embraces inquiry, wonder, and doubt,\nit seems natural that most of the things relating to the God should have\nbeen hidden away in riddles, and should require some account of their\npurpose, and an explanation of cause. For instance, in the case of the\nundying fire, why the only woods used here are pine for burning and\nlaurel for fumigation; again, why two Fates are here installed, whereas\ntheir number is everywhere else taken as three; why no woman is allowed\nto approach the place of the oracles; questions about the tripod, and\nthe rest. These problems, [Sidenote: D] when suggested to persons not\naltogether wanting in reason and soul, lure them on, and challenge them\nto inquire, to listen, and to discuss. Look again at those inscriptions,\nKNOW THYSELF and NOTHING TOO MUCH; how many philosophic inquiries have\nthey provoked! What a multitude of arguments has sprung up out of each,\nas from a seed! Not one of them I think is more fruitful in this way\nthan the subject of our present inquiry.\u2019\n\nIII. When Ammonius had said this, my brother Lamprias spoke: \u2018After all,\nthe account which we have heard of the matter is simple enough and quite\nshort. They say that the famous Wise Men, also called by some\n\u201cSophists\u201d, were [Sidenote: E] properly only five, Chilon, Thales,\nSolon, Bias, and Pittacus. But Cleobulus, tyrant of Lindos, and, later\non, Periander of Corinth, men with no wisdom or virtue in them, but\nforcing public opinion by influence, friends, and favours, thrust\nthemselves into the list of the wise, and disseminated through Greece\nmaxims and sayings resembling the utterances of the five. Then the five\nwere vexed, but did not choose to expose the imposture, or to have an\nopen quarrel on the matter of title, and to fight it out with such\npowerful persons. They met here [Sidenote: F] by themselves; and after\ndiscussing the matter, dedicated the letter which is fifth in the\nalphabet, and also as a numeral signifies five, thus making their own\nprotest before the God, that they were five, discarding and rejecting\nthe seventh and the sixth, as having no part or lot with themselves.\nThat this account is not beside the mark may be recognized by any one\nwho has heard the officials of the temple naming the golden \u201cE\u201d as that\nof Livia the wife of Caesar, the brazen one as that [Sidenote: 386] of\nthe Athenians, whereas the original and oldest letter, which is of wood,\nis to this day called that \u201cOf the Wise Men\u201d, as having been the\noffering of all in common, not of anyone of them.\u2019\n\nIV. Ammonius gave a quiet smile; he had a suspicion that Lamprias had\nbeen giving us a view of his own, making up history and legend at\ndiscretion. Some one else said that it was like the nonsense which they\nhad heard from the Chaldaean stranger a day or so before; that there\nwere seven letters which were vowels, seven stars that have an\nindependent motion and [Sidenote: B] are unattached to the heavens;\nmoreover that \u2018E\u2019 is the second vowel from the beginning, and the sun\nthe second planet, after the moon, and that all Greeks, or nearly all,\nidentify Apollo with the sun.\n\n\u2018But all that\u2019, he said, \u2018is pernicious nonsense. Lamprias, however,\nhas, probably without knowing it, made a move[52] which stirs up all who\nhave to do with the temple against his view. What he told us was unknown\nto any of the Delphians; they used to give the regular guides\u2019 account,\nthat neither the appearance nor the sound of the letter has any\nsignificance, but only the name.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: C] V. \u2018No, the Delphic Officials\u2019, said Nicander the priest,\nspeaking for them, \u2018believe that it is a vehicle, a form assumed by the\npetition addressed to the God; it has a leading place in the questions\nof those who consult him, and inquire, _If_ they shall conquer; _If_\nthey shall marry; _If_ it is advisable to sail; _If_ to farm; _If_ to\ntravel. The God in his wisdom would bow out the dialecticians when they\nthink that nothing practical comes of the \u201c_If_\u201d part with its clause\nattached; he admits as practical, in his sense of the word, all\nquestions so attached. Then, since it is our personal concern to\nquestion him as prophet, but [Sidenote: D] a general concern to pray to\nhim as God, they hold that the letter embraces the virtue of prayer no\nless than that of inquiry; \u201cO, If I might!\u201d says every one who prays, as\nArchilochus,[53]\n\n        If _it might be mine, prevailing, Neobule\u2019s hand to touch_!\n\nWhen _If-so-be_ is used, the latter part is dragged in (compare\nSophron\u2019s \u201cBereaved of children, I trow\u201d, or Homer\u2019s \u201cAs I will break\nthy might, I trow\u201d[54]). But _If_ gives the sense of prayer\nsufficiently.\u2019\n\nVI. When Nicander had finished, our friend Theon, whom I am sure you\nknow, asked Ammonius whether Dialectic might [Sidenote: E] speak freely,\nafter the insulting remarks to which she had been treated. Ammonius told\nhim to speak out on her behalf. \u2018That the God is a master of Dialectic,\u2019\nTheon said, \u2018is shown clearly by most of his oracles; for you will grant\nthat the solution of puzzles belongs to the same person as their\ninvention. Again, as Plato used to say, when a response was given that\nthe altar at Delos should be doubled,[55] a matter requiring the most\nadvanced geometry, the God was not merely enjoining this, but was also\nputting his strong command upon the Greeks to practise geometry. Just\nso, when the God puts out ambiguous [Sidenote: F] oracles, he is\nexalting and establishing Dialectic, as essential to the right\nunderstanding of himself. You will grant again, that in Dialectic this\nconjunctive particle has great force, because it formulates the most\nlogical of all sentences. This is certainly the \u201cconjunctive\u201d, seeing\nthat the other animals know the existence of things, but man alone has\nbeen gifted by nature with the power of observing and discerning their\nsequence. That \u201cit is day\u201d and \u201cit is light\u201d we may take it that wolves\nand dogs and birds perceive. But \u201cif it is day it is light\u201d, is\n[Sidenote: 387] intelligible only to man; he alone can apprehend\nantecedent and consequent, the enunciation of each and their connexion,\ntheir mutual relation and difference, and it is in these that all\ndemonstration has its first and governing principle. Since then\nPhilosophy is concerned with truth, and the light of truth is\ndemonstration, and the principle of demonstration is the conjunctive\nproposition, the faculty which includes and produces this was rightly\nconsecrated by the wise men to that [Sidenote: B] God who is above all\nthings a lover of truth. Also, the God is a prophet, and prophetic art\ndeals with that future which is to come out of things present or things\npast. Nothing comes into being without a cause, nothing is known\nbeforehand without a reason. Things which come into being follow things\nwhich have been, things which are to be follow things which now are\ncoming into being, all bound in one continuous chain of evolution.\nTherefore he who knows how to link causes together into one, and combine\nthem into a natural process, can also declare beforehand things\n\n          _Which are, which shall be, and which were of old._[56]\n\nHomer did well in putting the present first, the future next, and the\npast last. Inference starts with the present, and works [Sidenote: C] by\nthe force of the conjunction: \u201cIf this is, that was its antecedent\u201d, \u201cIf\nthis is, that will be.\u201d As we have said, the technical and logical\nrequirement is knowledge of consequence; sense supplies the minor\npremiss. Hence, though it may perhaps seem a petty thing to say, I will\nnot shrink from it; the real tripod of truth is the logical process\nwhich assumes the relation of consequent to antecedent, then introduces\nthe fact, and so establishes the conclusion. If the Pythian God really\nfinds pleasure in music, and in the voices of swans, and the [Sidenote:\nD] tones of the lyre, what wonder is it that as a friend to Dialectic,\nhe should welcome and love that part of speech which he sees\nphilosophers use more, and more often, than any other. So Hercules, when\nhe had not yet loosed Prometheus, nor yet conversed with the sophists\nChiron and Atlas, but was young and just a Boeotian, first abolished\nDialectic, made a mock at the \u201c_If the first then the second_\u201d[57], and\nbethought him to remove the tripod by force, and to try conclusions with\nthe God for his art. At any rate, as time went on, he also appears to\n[Sidenote: E] have become a great prophet and a great dialectician.\u2019\n\nVII. When Theon had done, I think it was Eustrophus of Athens who\naddressed us: \u2018Do you see with what a will Theon backs Dialectic? He has\nonly to put on the lion\u2019s skin! Now then for you who put down under\nnumber all things in one mass, all natures and principles divine as well\nas human, and take it to be leader and lord in all that is beautiful and\nhonourable! It is no time for you to keep quiet; offer to the God a\nfirst-fruits of your dear Mathematics, if you think that \u201cE\u201d rises above\n[Sidenote: F] the other letters, not in its own right by power or shape,\nor by its meaning as a word, but as the honoured symbol of an absolutely\ngreat and sovereign number, the \u201cPempad\u201d, from which the Wise Men took\ntheir verb \u201cto count\u201d.\u2019 Eustrophus was not jesting when he said this to\nus; he said it because I was at the time passionately devoted to\nMathematics, though soon to find the value of the maxim, \u2018NOTHING TOO\nMUCH\u2018, having joined the Academy.\n\nVIII. So I said that Eustrophus\u2019 solution of the problem by number was\nexcellent. \u2018For since,\u2019 I continued, \u2018when all number is divided into\neven and odd, unity alone is in its effect [Sidenote: 388] common to\nboth, and therefore, if added to an odd number makes it even, and vice\nversa; and since even numbers start with two, odd numbers with three,\nand five is produced by combination of these, it has rightly received\nhonour as the product of first principles, and it has further been\ncalled \u201cMarriage\u201d, because even resembles the female, odd the male. For\nwhen we divide the several numbers into equal segments, the even parts\nasunder perfectly, and leaves inside a sort of recipient principle or\nspace; if the odd is treated in the same way, a middle part is always\nleft [Sidenote: B] over, which is generative. Hence the odd is the more\ngenerative, and when brought into combination invariably prevails; in no\ncombination does it give an even result, but in all cases an odd.\nMoreover, when each is applied to itself and added, the difference is\nshown. Even with even never gives odd, or passes out of its proper\nnature; it wants the strength to produce anything different. Odd numbers\nwith odd yield even numbers in [Sidenote: C] plenty because of their\nunfailing fertility. The other powers of numbers and their distinctions\ncannot be now pursued in detail. However, the Pythagoreans called five\n\u201cMarriage\u201d, as produced by the union of the first male number and the\nfirst female. From another point of view it has been called \u201cNature\u201d,\nbecause when multiplied into itself it ends at last in itself. For as\nNature takes a grain of wheat, and in the intermediate stages of growth\ngives forms and shapes in abundance, through which she brings her work\nto perfection, and, after them all, shows us again a grain of wheat,\nthus restoring the beginning in the end of the whole process, so it is\nwith numbers. When other numbers are multiplied into themselves, they\nend in different numbers after being squared; only those formed\n[Sidenote: D] of five or of six recover and preserve themselves every\ntime. Thus six times six gives thirty-six, five times five twenty-five.\nAnd again, a number formed of six does this only once, in the single\ncase of being squared. Five has the same property in multiplication, and\nalso a special property of its own when added to itself; it produces\nalternately itself or ten, and that to infinity. For this number mimics\nthe principle which orders all things. As Heraclitus[58] tells us that\nNature successively produces the universe out of herself and herself out\nof the universe, bartering \u201cfire for things and things for fire, as\ngoods for gold [Sidenote: E] and gold for goods\u201d, even so it is with the\nPempad. In union with itself, it does not by its nature produce anything\nimperfect or foreign. All its changes are defined; it either produces\nitself or the Decad, either the homogeneous or the perfect.\n\nIX. \u2018Then if any one ask \u201cWhat is all this to Apollo?\u201d[59] Much, we will\nanswer, not to Apollo only but also to Dionysus, who has no less to do\nwith Delphi than has Apollo. Now we [Sidenote: F] hear theologians\nsaying or singing, in poems or in plain prose, that the God subsists\nindestructible and eternal, and that, by force of some appointed plan\nand method, he passes through changes of his person; at one time he sets\nfire to Nature and so makes all like unto all, at another passes through\nall phases of difference\u2014shapes, sufferings, powers\u2014at the present time,\nfor instance, he becomes \u201cCosmos\u201d, and that is his most familiar name.\nThe wiser people disguise from the vulgar the change [Sidenote: 389]\ninto fire, and call him \u201cApollo[60]\u201d from his isolation, \u201cPhoebus[61]\u201d\nfrom his undefiled purity. As for his passage and distribution into\nwaves and water, and earth, and stars, and nascent plants and animals,\nthey hint at the actual change undergone as a rending and dismemberment,\nbut name the God himself Dionysus or Zagreus or Nyctelius or Isodaites.\nDeaths too and vanishings do they construct, passages out of life and\nnew births, all riddles and tales to match the changes mentioned. So\nthey sing to Dionysus dithyrambic strains, charged with sufferings and a\nchange wherein are wanderings and dismemberment. [Sidenote: B]\n\n    _In mingled cries_ (says Aeschylus)[62] _the dithyramb should ring,\n    With Dionysus revelling, its King._\n\n\u2018But Apollo has the Paean, a set and sober music. Apollo is ever ageless\nand young; Dionysus has many forms and many shapes as represented in\npaintings and sculpture, which attribute to Apollo smoothness and order\nand a gravity with no admixture, to Dionysus a blend of sport and\nsauciness with seriousness and frenzy:\n\n                      _God that sett\u2019st maiden\u2019s blood\n                      Dancing in frenzied mood,\n                      Blooming with pageantry!\n                          Evoe! we cry._\n\n\u2018So do they summon him, rightly catching the character of either change.\nBut since the periods of change are not equal, that [Sidenote: C] called\n\u201csatiety\u201d being longer, that of \u201cstint\u201d shorter, they here preserve a\nproportion, and use the Paean with their sacrifice for the rest of the\nyear, but at the beginning of winter awake the dithyramb, and stop the\nPaean, and invoke this God instead of the other, supposing that this\nratio of three to one is that of the \u201cArrangement\u201d to the\n\u201cConflagration\u201d.[63]\n\nX. \u2018But perhaps this has been drawn out at too great length for the\npresent opportunity. This much is clear, that they do associate the\nPempad with the God, as it now produces its own [Sidenote: D] self like\nfire, and again produces the Decad out of itself like the universe. Now\ntake music, which the God favours so highly, are we not to suppose that\nthis number has its share here?\n\n\u2018Most of the science of harmonies, to put it in a word, is concerned\nwith consonances. That these are five and no more is proved by reason,\nas against the man who is all for strings and holes, and wants to\nexplore these points irrationally by the senses; they all have their\norigin in numerical ratios. The ratio of the fourth is four to three, of\nthe fifth three to two, of the octave two to one, of the octave and\nfifth three to one, of the double octave four to one. The additional\nconsonance which writers of [Sidenote: E] harmony introduce under the\nname of octave and fourth, does not merit admission, being\nextra-metrical; to admit it would be to indulge the irrational side of\nour sense of hearing, and to violate reason, or law. Passing by then\nfive arrangements of tetrachords, and the first five \u201ctones\u201d, or\n\u201ctropes\u201d, or \u201charmonies\u201d, whichever name is right, by variations of\nwhich, made higher or lower, the remaining scales, high and low, are\nproduced, is it not true that, though intervals are many, indeed\ninfinite, the principles of melody are five only, quarter tone,\n[Sidenote: F] half tone, tone, tone and a half, double tone? In sounds\nno other interval of high and low, be it smaller or greater, can be used\nfor melody.\n\nXI. \u2018Passing over many similar points, I will\u2019, I said, \u2018produce\nPlato,[64] who, in discussing the question of a single universe, says\nthat if there are others besides ours, and it is not alone, then the\nwhole number of them is five and no more; not but that, if ours is the\nonly universe in being, as Aristotle[65] also thinks, even this one is\nin a fashion composite and formed out of five; one of earth, one of\nwater, a third of fire, and a fourth of air, [Sidenote: 390] while the\nfifth is called heaven or light or air, or by others \u201cfifth substance\u201d,\nto which alone of all bodies circular motion is natural, not due to\nforce or other accidental cause. Therefore it is that Plato, observing\nthe five perfect figures of Nature\u2014Pyramid, Cube, Octahedron,\nEicosahedron, and Dodecahedron\u2014assigned them to the elements, each to\neach.\n\nXII. \u2018There are some who appropriate to the same elements our own\nsenses, also five in number. Touch, as they see, is [Sidenote: B]\nresistent and earthy. Taste takes in properties by moisture in the\nthings tasted. Air when struck becomes audible voice or sound. There\nremain two: smell, the object of our olfactory sense, is an exhalation\nengendered by heat, and so resembles fire; sight is akin to air and\nlight, which give it a luminous passage, so there is a commixture of\nboth which is sympathetic. Besides these, the animal has no other sense,\nand the universe no other substance, which is simple and not blended. A\nmarvellous [Sidenote: C] apportionment of the five to the five!\u2019\n\nXIII. Here, I think, I paused, and after an interval I went on: \u2018What\nhas happened to us, Eustrophus? We have almost forgotten Homer,[66] as\nif he had not been the first to divide the universe into five parts,\nassigning the three in the middle to the three Gods, while he left\ncommon and unapportioned the two extremes, Olympus and earth, one the\nlimit of what is below, the other of what is above. \u201cWe must cry back\u201d,\nas Euripides says.[67] Now those who exalt the number four as the basis\nof the [Sidenote: D] genesis of every body, make out a fairly good case.\nFor every solid body possesses length, breadth, and depth; but length\npresupposes a point as an unit; the line is called length without\nbreadth, and is length; the movement of a line in breadth produces a\nplane surface, and that is three; add depth, and we get to a solid with\nfour factors. Any one can see that the number four carries Nature up to\nthis point, that is, to the formation of a complete body, which may be\ntouched, weighed, or struck; there it has left her, wanting in what is\ngreatest. [Sidenote: E] For that which has no soul is, in plain terms,\norphaned and incomplete and fit for nothing, unless it be employed by\nsoul. But the movement or disposition which sets soul therein\u2014a change\nintroducing a fifth factor\u2014restores to Nature her completeness, its\nrational basis is as much more commanding than that of the Tetrad as the\nanimal is above the inanimate. Further, the symmetry and potency of the\nwhole five prevails, so as not to allow the animate to form classes\nwithout limit, but gives five types for all living things. There are\nGods, we know, and [Sidenote: F] daemons, and heroes, and after these,\nfourth in all, the race of men: fifth, and last, the irrational order of\nbrutes. Again, if you make a natural division of the soul itself, the\nfirst and least distinct principle is that of growth; second is that of\nsense, then comes appetite, then the spirited part; when it has reached\nthe power of reasoning and perfected its nature, it stays at rest in the\nfifth stage as its upper limit.\n\nXIV. \u2018Now as this number five has powers so many and so great, its\norigin is also noble: not the process already described, out of the\nnumbers two and three, but that given by the combination of the first\nprinciple of number with the first square. The first principle is unity,\nthe first square is four; from these [Sidenote: 391] as from idea and\nlimited substance, comes five. Or, if it be really correct, as some\nhold, to reckon unity as a square, being a power of itself and working\nout to itself, then the Pempad is formed out of the first two squares,\nand so has not missed noble birth and that the highest.\n\nXV. \u2018My most important point\u2019, I went on, \u2018may, I fear, bear hardly on\nPlato, just as he said that Anaxagoras \u201cwas hardly used by the name\nSelene\u201d, when he had wished to appropriate the theory of her\nillumination, really a very old one. Are not [Sidenote: B] these Plato\u2019s\nwords, in the _Cratylus_?\u2018[68] \u2018They certainly are,\u2019 said Eustrophus,\n\u2018but I fail to see the resemblance.\u2019 \u2018Very well then; you know, I\nsuppose, that in the \u201c_Sophist_\u201d[69] he proves that the supreme\nprinciples are five: being, identity, difference, and after these, as\nfourth and fifth, movement and position. But in the _Philebus_[70] he\ndivides on a different plan. He distinguishes the unlimited and the\nlimited, from whose combination comes the origin of all being. The cause\nof combination he takes to be a fourth. The fifth, whereby things so\nmingled are again parted and distinguished, he has left to us to guess.\nI [Sidenote: C] conjecture that those on the one list are figures of\nthose on the other; to being corresponds that which becomes, to motion\nthe unlimited; to position the limited, to identity the combining\nprinciple, to difference that which distinguishes. But if the two sets\nare different, yet, on one view as on the other, there would be five\nclasses, and five modes of difference. Some early inquirer, it will\nsurely be said, saw into this before Plato, and consecrated two \u201cE\u2019s\u201d to\nthe God, as a manifestation and symbol of the number of all things. But\nfurther, having perceived that the good also takes shape under five\nheads, firstly [Sidenote: D] moderation, secondly symmetry, thirdly\nmind, fourthly the sciences and arts and true opinions which relate to\nsoul, fifthly every pleasure which is pure and unmingled with what\ncauses pain, he there leaves off, merely suggesting the Orphic verse,\n\n               _In the sixth order let the strain be stayed!_\n\nXVI. \u2018Having said so much\u2019, I went on, \u2018to you all, I will sing one\nshort stave to Nicander and \u201chis cunning men\u201d.[71]\n\n\u2018On the sixth day of the new moon, when the Pythia is introduced into\nthe Prytaneum by one person, the first of your three castings of lot is\na single one, namely the five: the three [Sidenote: E] against the two.\u2019\n\u2018It is so,\u2019 said Nicander, \u2018but the reason may not be disclosed to\nothers.\u2019 \u2018Then,\u2019 I answered with a smile, \u2018until such time as we become\npriests, and the God allows us to know the truth, this much and no more\nshall be added to what we have to say about the Pempad.\u2019 Such, so far as\nI remember, was the end of our account of the arithmetical or\nmathematical reasons for extolling the letter \u2018E\u2019.\n\nXVII. Ammonius, as one who himself gave Mathematics no mean place in\nPhilosophy, was pleased at the course the conversation was taking, and\nsaid: \u2018It is not worth our while to answer our young friends with too\nabsolute accuracy on these points; I will only observe that any one of\nthe numbers will provide not a few points for those who choose to sing\nits praises. [Sidenote: F] Why speak about the others? Apollo\u2019s holy\n\u201cSeven\u201d will take up all one day before we have exhausted its powers.\nAre we then to show the Seven Wise Men at odds with common usage, and\n\u201cthe time which runs\u201d[72], and to suppose that they ousted the \u201cSeven\u201d\nfrom its pre-eminence before the God, and consecrated the \u201cFive\u201d as\nperhaps more appropriate?\n\n\u2018My own view is that the letter signifies neither number, nor [Sidenote:\n392] order, nor conjunction, nor any other omitted part of speech; it is\na complete and self-operating mode of addressing the God; the word once\nspoken brings the speaker into apprehension of his power. The God, as it\nwere, addresses each of us, as he enters, with his \u201cKNOW THYSELF\u201d, which\nis at least as good as \u201cHail\u201d. We answer the God back with \u201cEI\u201d (Thou\nArt), rendering to him the designation which is true and has no lie in\nit, and alone belongs to him, and to no other, that of BEING.\n\nXVIII. \u2018For we have, really, no part in real being; all mortal nature is\nin a middle state between becoming and perishing, and presents but an\nappearance, a faint unstable image, of itself. If you strain the\nintellect, and wish to grasp this, it [Sidenote: B] is as with water;\ncompress it too much and force it violently into one space as it tries\nto flow through, and you destroy the enveloping substance; even so when\nthe reason tries to follow out too closely the clear truth about each\nparticular thing in a world of phase and change, it is foiled, and rests\neither on the becoming of that thing or on its perishing; it cannot\napprehend anything which abides or really is. \u201cIt is impossible to go\ninto the same river twice\u201d, said Heraclitus;[73] no more can you grasp\nmortal being twice, so as to hold it. So sharp and so swift is change;\nit scatters and brings together again, nay not again, no nor afterwards;\neven while it is being formed it fails, [Sidenote: C] it approaches, and\nit is gone. Hence becoming never ends in being, for the process never\nleaves off, or is stayed. From seed it produces, in its constant\nchanges, an embryo, then an infant, then a child; in due order a boy, a\nyoung man; then a man, an elderly man, an old man; it undoes the former\nbecomings and the age which has been, to make those which come after.\nYet we fear (how absurdly!) a single death, we who have died so many\ndeaths, and yet are dying. For it is not only that, as Heraclitus[74]\nwould say, \u201cdeath of fire is birth of air\u201d, and \u201cdeath of air is birth\nof water\u201d; the thing is much clearer in [Sidenote: D] our own selves.\nThe man in his strength is destroyed when the old man comes into being,\nthe young man was destroyed for the man in his strength to be, so the\nboy for the young man, the babe for the boy. He of yesterday has died\ninto him of to-day; he of to-day is dying into him of to-morrow. No one\nabides, no one is; we that come into being are many, while matter is\ndriven around, and then glides away, about some one appearance and a\ncommon mould. Else how is it, if we remain the same, that the things in\nwhich we find pleasure now are different from those of a former time;\nthat we love, hate, admire, and censure [Sidenote: E] different things;\nthat our words are different and our feelings; that our look, our bodily\nform, our intellect are not the same now as then? If a man does not\nchange, these various conditions are unnatural; if he does change, he is\nnot the same man. But if he is not the same man, he is not at all; his\nso-called being is simply change and new birth of man out of man. In our\nignorance of what being is, sense falsely tells us that what appears is.\n\nXIX. \u2018What then really is? That which is eternal, was never brought into\nbeing, is never destroyed, to which no time ever brings change. Time is\na thing which moves and takes the fashion of moving matter, which ever\nflows or is a sort of leaky vessel which holds destruction and becoming.\nOf time we use the words \u201cafterwards\u201d, \u201cbefore\u201d, \u201cshall be\u201d, and\n[Sidenote: F] \u201chas been\u201d, each on its face an avowal of not being. For,\nin this question of being, to say of a thing which has not yet come into\nbeing, or which has already ceased from being, that \u201cit is\u201d, is silly\nand absurd. When we strain to the uttermost our apprehension of time,\nand say \u201cit is at hand\u201d, \u201cit is here\u201d, or \u201cnow\u201d, a rational development\nof the argument brings it all to nothing. \u201cNow\u201d is squeezed out into the\nfuture or into the past, as though we should try to see a point, which\nof necessity passes away to right or left. But if the case be the\n[Sidenote: 393] same with Nature, which is measured, as with time which\nmeasures, nothing in it abides or really is. All things are coming into\nbeing, or being destroyed, even while we measure them by time. Hence it\nis not permissible, even in speaking of that which is, to say that \u201cit\nwas\u201d, or \u201cit shall be\u201d; these all are inclinations, transitions,\npassages, for of permanent being there is none in Nature.\n\nXX. \u2018But the God IS, we are bound to assert; he is, with reference to no\ntime but to that age wherein is no movement, or time, or duration; to\nwhich nothing is prior or subsequent; no future, no past, no elder, no\nyounger, which by one long \u201cnow\u201d has made the \u201calways\u201d perfect. Only\nwith reference to this that which really is, is; it has not come into\nbeing, it is [Sidenote: B] not yet to be, it did not begin, it will not\ncease. Thus then we ought to hail him in worship, and thus to address\nhim as \u201cThou Art\u201d, aye, or in the very words of some of the old people,\n\u201cEi Hen\u201d, \u201cThou art one thing\u201d.[75] For the Divine is not many things,\nin the sense in which each one of us is made up of ten thousand\ndifferent and successive states, a scrap-heap of units, a mob of\nindividuals. No, that which is must be one, as that which is one is.\nVariety, any difference in being, passes to one side to produce that\nwhich is not. Therefore the first [Sidenote: C] of the names of the God\nis right, and the second, and the third. \u201cApollo\u201d (Not-many) denies\nplurality and excludes multitude. Ie\u00efus means one and one only; Phoebus,\nwe know, is a word by which the ancients expressed that which is clean\nand pure, even as to this day the Thessalians, when their priests pass\ntheir solemn days in strict seclusion outside the temple, apply to them\na verb formed from Phoebus. Now The One is transparent and pure,\npollution comes by commixture of this with that, just as Homer,[76] you\nremember, says of ivory dyed red that it is stained, and dyers say of\nmingled pigments that they are [Sidenote: D] destroyed, and call the\nprocess \u201cdestruction\u201d. Therefore it is the property of that which is\nindestructible and pure to be one and without admixture.\n\nXXI. \u2018There are those who think that Apollo and the sun are the same; we\nhail them and love them for the fair name they give, and it is fitting\nto do so; for they associate their idea of the God with that which they\nhonour and desire more than all other things which they know. But now\nthat we see them dreaming of the God in the fairest of nightly visions,\nlet us rise and encourage them to mount yet higher, to contemplate him\nin a dream of the day, and to see his own being. Let them pay honour\nalso to the image of him and worship the principle of increase which is\nabout it; so far as what is of sense can lead to what is of mind, a\nmoving body to that which abides, it allows presentments and appearances\nof his kind and blessed [Sidenote: E] self to shine through after a\nfashion. But as to transitions and changes in himself, that he now\ndischarges fire, and so is drawn up, as they put it, or again presses\ndown and strains himself into earth and sea, winds and animals, and all\nthe strange passages into animals and also plants, piety forbids us so\nmuch as to hear them. Otherwise the God will be a greater trifler than\nthe boy in Homer,[77] for ever playing with the universe the game which\nthe boy plays with a pile of sand, which is heaped together and sucked\naway under his hand; moulding the universe when there is none, and again\ndestroying it when it has come into being. The opposite principle which\nwe find in the [Sidenote: F] universe, whatever its origin, is that\nwhich binds being together and prevails over the corporeal weakness\ntending to destruction. To my thinking the word \u201cEI\u201d is confronted with\nthis false view, and testifies to the God that THOU ART, meaning that no\nshift or change has place in him, but that such things belong [Sidenote:\n394] to some other God, or rather to some Spirit set over Nature in its\nperishing and becoming, whether to effect either process or to undergo\nit. This appears from the names, in themselves opposite and\ncontradictory. He is called Apollo, another is called Pluto; he is\nDelius, the other Aidoneus; he is Phoebus, the other \u201cSkotios\u201d; by his\nside are the Muses, and Memory, with the other are Oblivion and Silence;\nhe is Theorius and Phanaeus, the other is \u201cKing of dim Night and\nineffectual Sleep\u201d.[78] The other is [Sidenote: B]\n\n                _Of all the Gods to men the direst foe._[79]\n\nWhereas of him Pindar[80] has pleasantly said:\n\n          _Well tried and mildest found, to men who live and die._\n\nso Euripides[81] was right:\n\n                     _Draughts to the dead out-poured,\n                     Songs which our bright-haired lord\n                     Apollo hath abhorred._\n\nAnd still earlier Stesichorus:[82]\n\n                    _Jest and song Apollo owns,\n                    Let Hades keep his woes and groans._\n\nSophocles again,[83] in his actual assignment of instruments to each, is\nquite clear, thus:\n\n              _Nor harp nor lyre to wailing strains is dear_,\n\nfor it was quite late, indeed only the other day, that the flute\n[Sidenote: C] ventured to let itself speak \u201con themes of joy\u201d; in early\ntimes it trailed along in mourning, nor was its service therein much\nesteemed or very cheerful; then there came a general confusion. It was\nspecially by mingling things which were of Gods with those which were of\ndaemons that the distinction of the instruments was lost. Anyhow, the\nphrase \u201cKNOW THYSELF\u201d seems to stand in a sort of antithesis to the\nletter \u201cE\u201d, and yet, again, to accord with it. The letter is an appeal,\na cry raised in awe and worship to the God, as being throughout all\neternity; the phrase is a reminder to mortal man of his own nature and\nof his weakness.\u2019\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Fr. 960.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  i.e. at draughts, with a play on words.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Fr. 71.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  _Il._ 17, 29.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  See p. 14.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  _Il._ 1, 70.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  So Emperius, whose reading is that of the Paris MS. E. (See Paton _in\n  loco_.)\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Fr. 22.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  A reference to the complaint with which the first attempts of\n  Aeschylus and others to give literary form to the popular hymns in\n  honour of Dionysus were greeted.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  i.e. \u2018not many\u2019.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  See p. 76.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  Fr. 392.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  Terms used by Heraclitus (Fr. 24), adapted by the Stoics for the\n  periodic conflagration and renewal of the universe.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  _Timaeus_, 31 A and 55 E foll.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  _De Caelo_, 1, 8-9, 276 a 18.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  _Il._ 15, 190.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  See _Iph. Aul._ 865 and _Herc. Fur._ 1221.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  P. 409 A.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  Pp. 255-6.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  P. 23 D and p. 66 C.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Cp. Pindar\u2019s:\n\n                 _All vocal to the hearing of the wise,\n                 All voiceless to the herd._\u2014_Ol._ 2, 152-3.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  From Simonides, a favourite phrase with Plutarch.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Fr. 41.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  Fr. 25.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  See on this remarkable passage E. Norden, _Agnostos Theos_, p. 231 f.,\n  and the view of H. Diels, communicated to him. I have followed Norden\n  in reading \u03b5\u1f36, \u1f24 (he suggests with hesitation \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) (and so\n  Paton and Diels). Diels thinks that \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af may cover later\n  philosophers such as Xenophanes.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  _Il._ 4, 141.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  _Il._ 15, 362.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  Pindar (probably from a Threnos).\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  _Il._ 9, 158.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Fr. 149.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  _Suppl._ 975.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  Fr. 50.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  Fr. 728, probably from the _Thamyras_.\n\n\n\n\n                                   II\n           WHY THE PYTHIA DOES NOT NOW GIVE ORACLES IN VERSE\n\n\nTHE SPEAKERS\n\n\n                            A. Introductory\n\n\n                BASILOCLES, a citizen of Delphi.\n                PHILINUS, a friend (perhaps also of Delphi).\n\n\n              B. Philinus narrates a Conversation between\n\n\n    PHILINUS.\n    DIOGENIANUS, a young visitor from Pergamum, son of a friend of the\n       same name.\n    THEON, a literary friend.\n    SERAPION, the Athenian poet.\n    BOETHUS, a geometrician, almost a convinced Epicurean.\n    TWO GUIDES of the temple of Delphi.\n\n\n1. PHILINUS, coming out of the temple, explains to BASILOCLES why his\nparty has been so long in making the round of the sights. It included an\nintelligent and inquisitive visitor, the younger Diogenianus, of\nPergamum. He continues:\u2014\n\n2. DIOGENIANUS raised a point about the tint of the Corinthian bronze.\nTHEON interposed with a story:\n\n3. And discussed the properties of olive oil, which produces a crust on\nmetals. He refers to Aristotle\u2019s view (which cannot be traced in his\nextant works).\n\n4. He suggested special properties in the air of Delphi\u2014density and\nrarity\u2014and quotes Homer for the combination of such opposites.\n\n5. A verse inscription catching the eye of DIOGENIANUS caused him to ask\nwhy the verses of oracles are so poor. SERAPION suggested that perhaps\nour standard ought to be revised by that of the God. BOETHUS told a\nstory about Pauson the painter. He added that there is no excuse in the\nsubject-matter, witness Serapion, who wrote excellent poetry on dry\nscience!\n\n6. SERAPION agreed that our standards are wrong\u2014they lack severity.\nPleasure was cast out, once for all, from the seat of the Sibyl.\n\n7. THEON disclaimed the false theory of inspiration. The verses are not\nthe God\u2019s, he only gives the impulse. But there is no pleasing the\nEpicureans, whether the prophetess uses verse or prose. DIOGENIANUS\nprotested against levity on a subject of profound interest to all\nGreeks. THEON asked that the question might be reserved, and the round\ncontinued.\n\n8. Instances from Hiero\u2019s statue, and others, of the jealous care of\nProvidence for human affairs. BOETHUS thought Chance, or Spontaneity,\nsufficient to account for all, and was answered by PHILINUS, who\ncontinued,\n\n9. And referred to the history of the first Sibyl. BOETHUS mocked, and\nwas met by DIOGENIANUS with instances of prophecies verified,\n\n10. Which BOETHUS would explain as successful guesses.\n\n11. SERAPION called for a distinction to be made between prophecies made\nin general terms, and those which go into details.\n\n12. DIOGENIANUS asked the emblematic import of the frogs on the\nCorinthian brazen bowl. SERAPION suggested a reference to the Sun rising\nout of water. PHILINUS here detected an intrusion of the Stoic\n\u2018Conflagration\u2019 into the discussion. A casual remark raised the question\nof the identity of the sun with Phoebus. \u2018They are as different\u2019, said\nDIOGENIANUS, \u2018as the sun and the moon, only the sun has permanently\neclipsed the God, the sensible, the spiritual.\u2019\n\n13. SERAPION asked a question which the guides had already answered: \u2018No\nwonder if they are bewildered by our high-flown talk.\u2019\n\n14. The statue of Rhodope, the courtesan, called forth a stern protest\nfrom DIOGENIANUS.\n\n15. THEON, on an appeal from SERAPION, pointed out the greater scandal\nof offerings made by Greeks for victories over Greeks.\n\n16. One of the GUIDES reminded the company of the story of Croesus and\nthe baker-woman.\n\n17. DIOGENIANUS begged that, instead of more anecdotes, the original\nquestion might be discussed: \u2018Why has the use of verse in oracular\nanswers been discontinued?\u2019 The company seated itself in a new position,\nand BOETHUS genially remarked on its appropriateness, the place of\norigin of the heroic metre.\n\n18. SERAPION congratulated him on his improved tone, and PHILINUS\nagreed. Philosophers have dropped verse, yet we do not infer that\nPhilosophy has died out. PHILINUS agreed.\n\n19-end. THEON spoke to the original question.\n\n19. He mentioned ancient oracles delivered in prose,\n\n20. And modern oracles given in verse.\n\n21. To sum up: Soul is the instrument of the God, body of soul; the\nresult must partake in the infirmity of body. The cases of reflecting\nmirrors, and of the moon. Thus there are two separate emotions in the\nprophetess\u2014inspiration and Nature.\n\n22. Homeric instances of the choice of human instruments\u2014Story of\nBattus.\n\n23. Of the ancient oracles (1) many were delivered in prose, (2) the\nfashion of the times was for verse (cp. c. 18).\n\n24. It is better that oracles should be given in current coin, not in\nthe depreciated coin of verse. History of poetical usage.\n\n25. In old times obscurity was thought dignified, now it provokes\nimpatience; and it has become vulgarized through charlatans.\n\n26. When cities and statesmen used to consult the oracle on questions of\nhigh policy, circumlocution was necessary.\n\n27. Again, verse was a great help to memory, when intricate advice was\ngiven, as to Battus.\n\n28. In these days of general rest, only homely questions are asked, and\nare best answered in homely prose.\n\n29. Yet we fear lest the credit acquired in three thousand years by the\nstraight concise answers of the oracle should be lost! We gush out with\nwealth, as the mythical Galaesus with milk. I am proud to have had some\nhand in this.\n\n30. People who regret the old obscurity and bombast are like children\nwho admire a rainbow more than the sun which makes it.\n\n    In Theon\u2019s long concluding speech (c. 19, p. 403 A to the end) he is\n    no doubt expressing Plutarch\u2019s own views. But the literary\n    references and the touch of levity are quite in Theon\u2019s style; \u2018my\n    young friend\u2019, in c. 20, recalls the same phrase in c. 3. Later on,\n    Plutarch is, as Wyttenbach has observed, indicated by \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\n    \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Professor Hartman (see Preface, p. xx) states\n    his conviction that Theon was an older friend of Plutarch and his\n    predecessor in the priesthood (pp. 166 and 617). In a Dialogue in\n    which the Epicureans are attacked (_Non posse suaviter_, p. 1088 D)\n    a long speech clearly belonging to Theon is introduced by the words\n    \u2018I (Plutarch) said\u2019. This slip is probably due to the author. (See,\n    on the general subject, Mr. John Oakesmith\u2019s note on p. 149 of The\n    Religion of Plutarch.)\n\n\n           WHY THE PYTHIA DOES NOT NOW GIVE ORACLES IN VERSE\n\n\n[Sidenote: 394 D] _Basilocles._ The shades of evening, Philinus, while\nyou are conducting the stranger round the votive gifts! Here am I,\n[Sidenote: E] fairly tired out in waiting for you.\n\n_Philinus._ Yes, Basilocles, we made slow progress, sowing arguments as\nwe went and reaping them too; battle and war were beneath them, as they\nsprang and sprouted in our faces, like the \u2018sown men\u2019 of old.\n\n_Basilocles._ Then shall I have to call in some one else of your\n[Sidenote: F] company, or will you oblige us with the whole story? What\nwere the arguments, and who were the speakers?\n\n_Philinus._ I shall have to do that myself, Basilocles, it seems, for\nyou will not easily meet with any of the others in the town; I saw most\nof them going back to the Corycium and the Lycuria with the stranger.\n\n_Basilocles._ A good sight-seer this stranger, and a mighty good\nlistener!\n\n_Philinus._ Say rather a good scholar and a good learner. Not that these\nare his most admirable points; there is a gentleness [Sidenote: 395]\nwhich is full of charm; and then his readiness to do battle and to raise\nsensible points: nothing captious or hard in his way of taking the\nanswers. After a very short time in his company you would have to say\n\u2018good father, good child\u2019, for you know that Diogenianus was one of the\nvery best.\n\n_Basilocles._ I never saw him myself, but I have met many who spoke with\nwarm approval of his talk and his character, and in just the same terms\nabout this young man. But how did the argument begin, and what started\nit?\n\nII. _Philinus._ The guides were going through their lectures, as\nprepared, showing no regard for our entreaties that they would cut short\ntheir periods and skip most of the inscriptions. The stranger was but\nmoderately interested in the form and workmanship of the different\nstatues; it appears that he has [Sidenote: B] seen many beautiful\nobjects of art. What he did admire was the lustre on the bronze, unlike\nrust or deposit, but rather resembling a coat of deep shining blue, so\nmuch so, that it rather well became the sea-captains, with whom the\nround had begun, standing up out of the deep so naively with the true\nsea tint. \u2018Now was there\u2019, he asked, \u2018some receipt of pharmacy known to\nthe old artists in brass like that method of tempering swords of which\nwe read? It was forgotten in time, and then bronze had a truce from\nworks of war. As to the Corinthian bronze, that came by its beautiful\ncolour accidentally, not through art. A fire spread over a house in\nwhich were stored some gold and silver and a large quantity of bronze.\nThe whole was fused into one stream of metal, which took its name\n[Sidenote: C] from the bronze, as the largest ingredient.\u2019 Theon broke\nin: \u2018We have heard a different story, with a spice of mischief in it. A\nCorinthian bronze-worker found a chest containing much gold. Fearing\ndiscovery, he chipped it off little by little, and quietly mixed the\nbits with the bronze; the result was a marvellous blend, which he sold\nat a high price, as people were delighted with the beauty of the colour.\nHowever, the one story is as mythical as the other; what we may suppose\nis that some method was known of mixing and preparing, much as now they\nmix gold with silver, and get a peculiar and rare effect, [Sidenote: D]\nwhich to me appears a sickly pallor and a loss of colour with no beauty\nin it.\u2019\n\nIII. \u2018What has been the cause, then,\u2019 said Diogenianus, \u2018do you think,\nof the colour of the bronze here?\u2019 \u2018Here is a case\u2019, said Theon, \u2018in\nwhich, of the first and most natural elements which are or ever will be,\nfire, earth, air, water, none approaches or touches the bronze, save air\nonly: clearly then, air is the agent; from its constant presence and\ncontact the bronze gets its exceptional quality, or perhaps\n\n               _Thus much you knew before Theognis was_,[84]\n\nas the comic poet has it; but what you want to learn is the [Sidenote:\nE] nature of air, and the property in virtue of which its repeated\ncontact has coloured the bronze.\u2019 Diogenianus said that it was. \u2018And I\ntoo,\u2019 Theon continued, \u2018my young friend, let us follow the quest\ntogether; and first, if you will agree, ask why olive oil produces a\nmore copious rust on the metal than other liquids; it does not, of\ncourse, actually make the deposit, being pure and uncontaminated when it\nis applied.\u2019 \u2018Certainly not;\u2019 said the young man, \u2018the real cause\nappears to me to be something different; the oil is fine, pure, and\ntransparent, so the rust when it meets it is specially evident, whereas\nwith other liquids it becomes invisible.\u2019 \u2018Excellent,\u2019 said Theon, \u2018my\n[Sidenote: F] young friend, that is prettily put. But consider also, if\nyou please, the cause given by Aristotle.\u2019 \u2018I do please\u2019, he said.\n\u2018Aristotle says that the rust, when it comes over other liquids, passes\ninvisibly through and is dispersed, because the particles are irregular\nand fine, whereas in the density of oil it is held up and permanently\ncondensed. If, then, we can frame some such hypothesis for ourselves, we\nshall not be wholly at a loss for a spell to charm away this\ndifficulty.\u2019\n\nIV. We encouraged him and agreed, so he (Theon) went [Sidenote: 396] on\nto say that the air of Delphi is thick and close of texture, with a\ntenseness caused by reflection from the hills and their resistance, but\nis also fine and biting, as seems to be proved by the facts of digestion\nof food. The tenuity allows it to enter the bronze, and to scrape up\nfrom it much solid rust, which rust again is held up and compressed,\nbecause the density of the air does not allow it a passage through; but\nthe deposit breaks out, because it is so copious, and takes on a rich\nbright colour on the surface. We applauded this, but the stranger\nremarked that either hypothesis alone was sufficient for the argument.\n\u2018The fineness\u2019, [Sidenote: B] he went on, \u2018will be found to be in\ncontradiction to the density of which you speak, but there is no\nnecessity to assume it. The bronze, as it ages, exhales or throws off\nthe rust by its own inherent action; the density holds together and\nsolidifies the rust, and makes it apparent because of its quantity.\u2019\nTheon broke in: \u2018What is to prevent, Sir, the same thing being both fine\nand dense, as silks or fine linen stuffs, of which Homer says\n\n      _And from the close-spun weft the trickling oil will fall_,[85]\n\nwhere he indicates the minute and delicate workmanship of the fabric by\nthe fact that the oil would not remain, but trickled [Sidenote: C] or\nglided off, the fineness at once and the density refusing it a passage.\nAnd, again, the scraping up of the rust is not the only purpose served\nby the tenuity of the air; it also makes the colour itself pleasanter to\nthe eye and brighter, it mingles light and lustre with the blue.\u2019\n\nV. Here there was an interval of silence; the guides were again getting\ntheir speeches in hand. A certain oracle given in verse was mentioned\u2014I\nthink it was one about the reign of Aegon the Argive\u2014when Diogenianus\nobserved that he had often been surprised at the badness and common\nquality of the verses in which the oracles are delivered. Yet the God is\nChoirmaster of the Muses, and eloquent language is no less [Sidenote: D]\nhis function than beauty of ode or tune, and he should have a voice far\nabove that of Homer and Hesiod in verse. Here we have most of the\noracles saturated with bad taste and poverty of metre and diction. Then\nSerapion, the poet, who was with us from Athens, said: \u2018Then do we\nreally believe that these verses are the God\u2019s, yet venture to say that\nthey fall behind Homer and Hesiod in beauty? Shall we not rather take\nthem for all that is best and most beautiful in poetry, and revise our\njudgement of them prejudiced by familiarity with a bad standard?\u2019\nBoethus, the geometer\u2014you know the man, [Sidenote: E] already on his way\nto the camp of Epicurus\u2014broke in: \u2018Have you ever heard the story of\nPauson the painter?\u2019 \u2018Not I\u2019, said Serapion. \u2018Well, it is worth hearing.\nIt appears that he had contracted to paint a horse rolling, and painted\nhim galloping. The owner was indignant; so Pauson laughed and turned the\ncanvas upside down, with the result that the lower parts became the\nupper, and there was the horse rolling, not galloping. So [Sidenote: F]\nit is, Bion tells us, with certain syllogisms when converted. Thus some\nwill tell us not that the oracles are quite beautiful because they are\nthe God\u2019s, but that they are not the God\u2019s because they are bad! That\npoint may be left unsettled. But that the verses used in the oracles are\nbad poetry,\u2019 he went on, \u2018is made clear also in your judgement, my dear\nSerapion, is it not so? For you write poems which are philosophical and\nsevere as to matter, but in force and grace and diction more like the\nwork of Homer and Hesiod than the utterances of the Pythia.\u2019\n\nVI. Then Serapion: \u2018Yes, we are sick, Boethus, sick in ears and in eyes;\nluxury and softness have accustomed us to think things beautiful as they\nare more sweet, and to call them so. Soon we shall actually be finding\nfault with the Pythia because [Sidenote: 397] she does not speak with a\nmore thrilling voice than Glauce the singing-girl, or use costly\nointments, or put on purple robes to go down into the sanctuary, or burn\non her censer cassia, mastic, and frankincense, but only bay leaves and\nbarley meal. Do you not see\u2019, he went on, \u2018what grace the songs of\nSappho have, how they charm and soothe the hearers, while the Sibyl\n\u201cwith raving mouth\u201d, as Heraclitus says, \u201cutters words with no laughter,\nno adornment, no spices\u201d,[86] yet makes her voice carry to ten thousand\nyears, because of the God. And Pindar[87] tells us that Cadmus heard\nfrom the God \u201cright music\u201d, not [Sidenote: B] sweet music, or delicate\nmusic, or twittering music. What is passionless and pure gives no\nadmission to pleasure; she was cast out in this very place, together\nwith pain,[88] and the most of her has dribbled away, it seems, into the\nears of men.\u2019\n\nVII. When Serapion had done, Theon smiled. \u2018Serapion\u2019, he said, \u2018has\npaid his usual tribute to his own proclivities, making capital out of\nthe turn which the conversation had taken about pain and pleasure! But\nfor us, Boethus, even if these verses are inferior to Homer, let us\nnever suppose that the God has composed them; he only gives the initial\nimpulse according to the capacity of each prophetess. Why, suppose the\nanswers had [Sidenote: C] to be written, not spoken. I do not think we\nshould suppose that the letters were made by the God, and find fault\nwith the calligraphy as below royal standard. The strain is not the\nGod\u2019s, but the woman\u2019s, and so with the voice and the phrasing and the\nmetre; he only provides the fantasies, and puts light into her soul to\nilluminate the future; for that is what inspiration is. To put it\nplainly, there is no escaping you prophets of Epicurus\u2014yes, you too,\nBoethus, are drifting that way\u2014you blame those old prophetesses because\nthey used bad poetry, and you also blame those of to-day because they\nspeak their answers in [Sidenote: D] prose, and use the first words\nwhich come, that they may not be overhauled by you for headless, hollow,\ncrop-tailed lines.\u2019 Then Diogenianus: \u2018Do not jest, in Heaven\u2019s name,\nno! but help us to solve the problem which is common to us all. There is\nnot a Greek[89] living who is not in search of a rational account of the\nfact that the oracle has ceased to use verse, epic or other.\u2019 Theon\ninterrupted: \u2018At the present moment, my young friend, we seem to be\ndoing a shabby turn by the guides, taking the bread out of their mouths.\nSuffer them first to do [Sidenote: E] their office, afterwards you shall\ndiscuss in peace whatever you wish.\u2019\n\nVIII. Our round had now brought us in front of the statue of Hiero, the\ntyrant. Most of the stories the stranger knew well, but he\ngood-naturedly lent his ear to them. At last, when he heard that a\ncertain bronze pillar given by Hiero, which had been standing upright,\nfell of its own accord on the very day when Hiero died at Syracuse, he\nshowed surprise. I set myself to remember similar instances, such as the\nnotable one of Hiero the Spartan, how before his death at Leuctra the\neyes fell out [Sidenote: F] of his statue, and the gold stars\ndisappeared which Lysander had dedicated after the naval battle of\nAegospotami. Then the stone statue of Lysander himself broke out into\nsuch a growth of weeds and grass that the face was hidden. At the time\nof the Athenian disaster at Syracuse, the golden berries kept dropping\noff from the palm trees, and crows chipped the shield on the figure of\nPallas. Again, the crown of the Cnidians, which Philomelus, tyrant of\nPhocis, had given to Pharsalia the dancing [Sidenote: 398] girl, caused\nher death, as she was playing near the temple of Apollo in Metapontum,\nafter she had removed from Greece into Italy. The young men made a rush\nat the crown, and in their struggle to get it from one another, tore the\nwoman to pieces. Now Aristotle used to say that no one but Homer made\n\u2018words which stir, because of their energy\u2019.[90] But I would say that\nthere have been votive offerings sent here which have movement in a high\ndegree, and help the God\u2019s foreknowledge to signify things; that none of\nthem is void or without feeling, but all are full of Divinity. \u2018Very\ngood!\u2019 said Boethus; \u2018so it is not enough to shut the God into a mortal\nbody once every month. We will also knead him into every morsel of stone\nand brass, to [Sidenote: B] show that we do not choose to hold Fortune,\nor Spontaneity, a sufficient author of such occurrences.\u2019 \u2018Then in your\nopinion\u2019, I said, \u2018each of the occurrences looks like Fortune or\nSpontaneity; and it seems probable to you that the atoms glided forth,\nand were dispersed, and swerved, not sooner and not later, but at the\nprecise moment when each of the dedicators was to fare worse or better.\nEpicurus helps you now by what he said or wrote three hundred years ago;\nbut the God, unless [Sidenote: C] he take and shut himself up in all\nthings, and be mingled with all, could not, you think, initiate\nmovement, or cause change of condition in anything which is!\u2019\n\nIX. Such was my answer to Boethus, and to the same effect about the\nSibyl and her utterances. For when we stood near the rock by the Council\nChamber, on which the first Sibyl is said to have been seated on her\narrival from Helicon, where she had been brought up by the Muses (though\nothers say that she came from the Maleans, and was the daughter of Lamia\nthe daughter of Poseidon), Serapion remembered the verses in which she\nhymned herself; how she will never cease from [Sidenote: D] prophesying,\neven after death, but will herself go round in the moon, being turned\ninto what we call the \u2018bright face\u2019, while her breath is mingled with\nthe air and borne about in rumours and voices for ever and ever; and her\nbody within the earth suffers change, so that from it spring grass and\nweeds, the pasture of sacred cattle, which have all colour, shapes, and\nqualities in their inward parts whereby men obtain forecasts of future\nthings. Here Boethus made his derision still more evident. [Sidenote: E]\nThe stranger observed that, although these things have a mythical\nappearance, yet the prophecies are attested by many overturnings and\nremovals of Greek cities, inroads of barbarian hordes, and upsettings of\ndynasties. \u2018These still recent troubles at Cumae and Dicaearchia[91],\nwere they not chanted long ago in the songs of the Sibyl, so that Time\nwas only discharging his debts in the fires which have burst out of the\nmountain, the boiling seas, the masses of burning rocks[92] tossed aloft\nby the winds, the ruin of cities many and great, so that if you visit\nthem in broad daylight you cannot get a clear idea of the site, the\nground being covered with confused ruins? It is [Sidenote: F] hard to\nbelieve that such things have happened, much harder to predict them\nwithout divine power.\u2019\n\nX. \u2018My good Sir,\u2019 said Boethus, \u2018what does happen in Nature which is not\nTime paying his debts? Of all the strange unexpected things, by land or\nsea, among cities and men, is there any which some one might not\nforetell, and then, after it has happened, find himself right? Yet this\nis hardly foretelling at all; it is telling, rather it is tossing or\nscattering words into the infinite, with no principle in them. They\nwander about, often Fortune meets them and throws in with them, but it\nis all spontaneous. It is one thing, I think, when what has been\nforetold happens, quite another when what will happen is foretold. Any\nstatement made about things then non-existent contains intrinsic error,\nit has no right to await the confirmation [Sidenote: 399] which comes\nfrom spontaneous happening; nor is it any true proof of having foretold\nwith knowledge that the thing happened after it was foretold, for\nInfinity brings all things. No, the \u201cgood guesser\u201d, whom the proverb[93]\nhas announced to be the best prophet, is like a man who hunts on the\ntrail of the future, by the help of the plausible. These Sibyls and\nBacises threw into the sea, that is, into time, without having any real\nclue, nouns and verbs about troubles and occurrences of every\ndescription. Some of these prophecies came about, but they were lies;\nand what is now pronounced is a lie like them, even if, later on, it\nshould happen to turn out true.\u2019 [Sidenote: B]\n\nXI. When Boethus had finished, Serapion spoke: \u2018The case is quite fairly\nput by Boethus against prophecies so indefinitely worded as those he\nmentions, with no basis of circumstance: \u201cIf victory has been foretold\nto a general, he has conquered. If the destruction of a city, it is\nlost.\u201d But where not only the thing which is to happen is stated, but\nalso the how, the when, after what event, with whose help, then it is\nnot a guess at things which will perhaps be, but a clear prediction of\nthings which will certainly be. Here are the lines[94] with reference to\nthe lameness of Agesilaus: [Sidenote: C]\n\n             _Sure though thy feet, proud Sparta, have a care,\n             A lame king\u2019s reign may see thee trip\u2014Beware!\n             Troubles unlooked for long shall vex thy shore,\n             And rolling Time his tide of carnage pour._\n\nAnd then those about the island[95] which the sea cast up off Thera and\nTherasia, and also about Philip and his war with the Romans:\n\n             _When Trojan race the victory shall win\n             From Punic foe, lo! wonders shall begin;\n             Unearthly fires from out the sea shall flash,\n             Whirlwinds toss stones aloft, and thunders crash,\n             An isle unnamed, unknown, shall stand upright,\n             The worse shall beat the stronger in the fight._\n\nWhat happened within a short time\u2014that the Romans mastered the\nCarthaginians, and brought the war with Philip to a finish, [Sidenote:\nD] that Philip met the Aetolians and Romans in battle and was defeated,\nand, lastly, that an island rose out of the depths of the sea, with much\nfire and boiling waves\u2014could not all be set down to chance and\nspontaneous occurrence. Why, the order emphasizes the foreknowledge, and\nso does the time predicted to the Romans, some five hundred years before\nthe event, as that in which they were to be at war with all the races at\nonce, which meant the war with the slaves after their revolt. In all\nthis nothing is unascertainable, the story is not left in dim light to\n[Sidenote: E] be groped out with reference to Fortune \u201cin Infinity\u201d, it\ngives many securities, and is open to trial, it points the road which\nthe destined event is to tread. For I do not think that any one will say\nthat the agreement with the details as foretold was accidental.\nOtherwise, what prevents some one else from saying that Epicurus did not\nwrite his _Leading Principles_ for our use, Boethus, but that the\nletters fell together by chance and just spontaneously, and so the book\nwas finished off?\u2019\n\nXII. While we were talking thus, we were moving forward. [Sidenote: F]\nIn the store-house of the Corinthians we were looking at the golden palm\ntree, the only remnant of their offerings, when the frogs and\nwater-snakes embossed round the roots caused much surprise to\nDiogenianus, and, for the matter of that, to us. For the palm tree is\nnot, like many others, a marshy or water-loving plant, nor have frogs\nanything specially to do with the Corinthians. Thus they must be a\nsymbolical or canting device of that city, just as the men of Selinus\nare said to have dedicated a golden plant of parsley (selinon), and\nthose of Tenedos the axe, because of the crabs found round the place\nwhich they [Sidenote: 400] call Asterium, the only ones, it appears,\nwith the brand of an axe on the shell. Yet the God himself is supposed\nto have a partiality for crows and swans and wolves and hawks, for\nanything rather than beasts like crabs. Serapion observed that the\nartist intended a veiled hint at the sun drawing his aliment and origin\nfrom exhalations out of moist places, whether he had it from Homer,\n\n             _Leaving the beauteous lake, the great sun scaled\n             The brazen sky_,[96]\n\nor whether he had seen the sun painted by the Egyptians as a newly-born\nchild seated on a lotus. I laughed: \u2018Where have you got to again, my\ngood Sir,\u2019 I said, \u2018thrusting the [Sidenote: B] Porch in here, and\nquietly slipping into our discussion their \u201cConflagrations\u201d and\n\u201cExhalations\u201d? Thessalian women fetch the sun and the moon down to us,\nbut you are assuming that they are first born and then watered out of\nearth and its waters. Plato[97] dubbed man \u201ca heavenly plant\u201d, rearing\nhimself up from a root on high, namely, his head; but you laugh down\nEmpedocles when he tells us how the sun, having been brought into being\nby reflection of heavenly light around the earth\n\n                   _Beams back upon Olympus undismayed!_\n\nYet, on your own showing, the sun is a creature or plant of the marshes,\nnaturalized by you in the country of frogs or [Sidenote: C]\nwater-snakes. However, all this may be reserved for the Stoics and their\ntragedies; here we have the incidental works of the artists, and let us\nexamine them incidentally. In many respects they are clever people, but\nthey have not in all cases avoided coldness and elaboration. Just as the\nman who designed Apollo with the cock in his hand meant to suggest the\nearly morning hour when dawn is coming, so here the frogs may be taken\nfor a symbol of the spring season when the sun begins to have power over\nthe air and to break up winter; always supposing [Sidenote: D] that,\nwith you, we are to reckon Apollo and the sun one God, not two.\u2019 \u2018What?\u2019\nsaid Serapion, \u2018do you not agree? Do you hold the sun to be different\nfrom Apollo?\u2019 \u2018As different as the moon from the sun;\u2019 I replied, \u2018only\nshe does not hide the sun often or from all the world,[98] whereas the\nsun has made, we may almost say, all the world ignorant of Apollo,\ndiverting thought by sensation, to the apparent from the real.\u2019\n\nXIII. Next Serapion asked the guides the real reason why they call the\nchamber not after Cypselus, the Dedicator, but [Sidenote: E] after the\nCorinthians. When they were silent, being, as I privately believe, at a\nloss for a reason, I laughed, and said: \u2018What can these men possibly\nknow or remember, utterly dazed as they must be by our high celestial\ntalk? Why, it was only just now that we heard them saying that, after\nthe tyranny was overthrown, the Corinthians wished to inscribe the\ngolden statue at Pisa, and also this treasure-house, with the name of\nthe city. So the Delphians granted it as a right, and agreed; but the\nCorinthians passed a vote to exclude the Eleians, who had shown jealousy\nof them, from the Isthmian meetings, and from that time to [Sidenote: F]\nthis there has been no competitor from Elis. The murder of the\nMolionidae by Hercules near Cleonae has nothing to do with the exclusion\nof the Eleians, though some think that it has. On the contrary, it would\nhave been for them to exclude the Corinthians if that had been the cause\nof collision.\u2019 Such were my remarks.\n\nXIV. When we passed the chamber of the Acanthians and Brasidas, the\nguide showed us a place where iron obelisks to Rhodopis the courtesan\nonce used to stand. Diogenianus showed annoyance: \u2018So it was left for\nthe same state\u2019, he said, [Sidenote: 401] \u2018to find a place for Rhodopis\nto deposit the tithes of her earnings, and to put Aesop, her fellow\nservant, to death!\u2019 \u2018Bless you, friend,\u2019 said Serapion, \u2018why so vexed at\nthat? Carry your eyes upwards, and behold among the generals and kings\nthe golden Mnesarete, which Crates called a standing trophy of the\nlewdness of the Greeks.\u2019 The young man looked: \u2018Was it then about Phryne\nthat Crates said that?\u2019 \u2018Yes, it was,\u2019 said Serapion, \u2018her name was\nMnesarete, but she took on that of Phryne (toad) as a nickname because\nof her yellow skin. Many names, it would seem, are concealed by these\nnicknames. There was Polyxena, mother of Alexander, afterwards said to\nhave been called Myrtale and Olympias and Stratonice. Then Eumetis\n[Sidenote: B] of Rhodes is to this day called by most people Cleobuline,\nafter her father; and Herophile of Erythrae, when she showed a prophetic\ngift, was addressed as Sibylla. You will hear the grammarians telling us\nthat Leda has been named Mnesinoe, and Orestes Achaeus. But how do you\npropose\u2019, he went on, looking hard at Theon, \u2018to get rid of the charge\nas to Phryne?\u2019\n\nXV. Theon smiled quietly: \u2018In this way:\u2019 he said, \u2018by a cross charge\nagainst you for raking up the pettiest of the [Sidenote: C] Greek\nmisdoings. For as Socrates,[99] when entertained in the house of\nCallias, makes war upon the ointment only, but looks on at all the\ndancing and tumbling and kisses and buffoonery, and holds his tongue, so\nyou, it seems to me, want to exclude from the temple a poor woman who\nmade an unworthy use of her charms; but when you see the God encompassed\nby first-fruits and tithes of murders, wars, and raids, and his temple\nloaded with Greek spoils and booty, you show no disgust; you have no\npity for the Greeks when you read on the beautiful offerings such deeply\ndisgraceful inscriptions as \u201cBrasidas and the Acanthians from the\nAthenians\u201d, \u201cAthenians from [Sidenote: D] Corinthians\u201d, \u201cPhocians from\nThessalians\u201d, \u201cOrneatans from Sicyonians\u201d, \u201cAmphictyones from Phocians\u201d.\nSo Praxiteles, it seems, was the one person who offended Crates by\nfinding[100] room for his mistress to stand here, whereas Crates ought\nto have commended him for placing beside those golden kings a golden\ncourtesan, a strong rebuke to wealth as having nothing wonderful or\nworshipful about it. It would be good if kings [Sidenote: E] and rulers\nwere to set up in the God\u2019s house offerings to Justice Temperance,\nMagnanimity, not to golden and delicate Abundance, in which the very\nfoulest lives have their share.\u2019\n\nXVI. \u2018You are forgetting to mention\u2019, said one or other of the guides,\n\u2018how Croesus had a golden figure of the baker-woman made, and dedicated\nit here.\u2019 \u2018Yes,\u2019 said Theon, \u2018but that was not to flout the temple with\nhis luxury of wealth, but for a good and righteous cause. The story\nis[101] that Alyattes, father of Croesus, married a second wife, and\nbrought up a fresh family. This woman made a plot against Croesus; she\ngave poison to the baker and told her to knead a loaf with it and serve\n[Sidenote: F] to Croesus. The baker told Croesus secretly, and set the\nloaf before the wife\u2019s children. And so, when Croesus became king, he\nrequited the baker-woman\u2019s service in a way which made the God a\nwitness, and moreover did a good turn to him. Hence\u2019, he said, \u2018it is\nquite proper to honour and love any such offering from cities as that of\nthe Opuntians. When the Phocian tyrants had melted up many of the gold\nand silver offerings and struck coined money, which they distributed\namong the cities, the Opuntians collected all the silver they could\nfind, and sent a large jar to be consecrated here to the God. I commend\nthe [Sidenote: 402] Myrinaeans also, and the Apollonians, who sent\nhither sheaves of gold, and even more highly the Eretrians and\nMagnesians, who endowed the God with firstfruits of men, as being the\ngiver of crops and also ancestral, racial, humane. Whereas I blame the\nMegarians, because they were almost alone in setting up the God holding\na lance; this was after the battle in which they defeated and expelled\nthe Athenians when holding their city, after the Persian wars. Later on,\nhowever, they offered to him a golden harp-quill, attaching it, as it\nappears, to Scythinus, [Sidenote: B] who says of the lyre:\n\n                               _which the son of Zeus\n       Wears, the comely God Apollo, gathering first and last in one,\n       And he holds a golden harp-quill flashing as the very sun._\u2019\n\nXVII. Serapion wanted to put In some further remark on this, when the\nstranger said: \u2018It is delightful to listen to such speeches as we have\nheard, but I feel myself obliged to claim fulfilment of the original\npromise, that we should hear the cause which has made the Pythia cease\nto prophesy in epic or other verse. So, if it be your pleasure, let us\nleave to another time the remainder of the sights, sit down where we\nare, and hear about that. For it is this more than anything else which\nmilitates against the credibility of the oracle; it must be one of two\nthings, either the Pythia does not get near the spot where the Divinity\nis, or the current is altogether exhausted, and [Sidenote: C] the power\nhas failed.\u2019 Accordingly, we went round and seated ourselves on the\nsouthern plinth of the temple, in view of the temple of Earth and the\nfountain, which made Boethus at once observe that the very place where\nthe problem was raised lent itself to the stranger\u2019s case. For here was\na temple of the Muses where the exhalation rises from the fountain; from\nwhich they drew the water used for the lustrations, as Simonides[102]\nhas it:\n\n                     _Whence is drawn for holy washings\n                     Water of the Muses bright._\n\nAnd again, in a rather more elaborate strain, the same poet [Sidenote:\nD] addressing Clio:\n\n       _Holy patron of our washings, Goddess sought with many a vow,\n       By no golden robe encumbered, hear thy servants drawing now\n       Water, fragrant and delightful, from ambrosial depths below._\n\nSo Eudoxus was wrong in believing those who have made out that this was\ncalled \u2018Water of Styx\u2019. But they installed the Muses as assessors in\nprophecy and guardians of the place, by the fountain and the temple of\nEarth where the oracle used to be, because the responses were given in\nmetre and in lyric strains. And some say further that the heroic metre\nwas heard for the [Sidenote: E] first time here:\n\n    _Bring in your feathers, ye birds, ye bees, bring wax at his\n       bidding._\n\nThe God was in need, and dignity was waived![103]\n\nXVIII. \u2018More reasonable, that, Boethus,\u2019 said Serapion, \u2018and more in\ntune with the Muses. For we ought not to fight against the God, nor to\nremove, along with his prophecy, his Providence and Godhead also, but\nrather to seek fresh solutions for apparent contradictions, and never to\nsurrender the reverent belief of our fathers.\u2019 \u2018Excellent Serapion!\u2019 I\nsaid, \u2018you are right. We were not abandoning Philosophy, as cleared out\nof the way and done for, because once upon a time philosophers\n[Sidenote: F] put out their dogmas and theories in verse, as Orpheus,\nHesiod, Parmenides, Empedocles, Thales, whereas later on they gave it\nup, and have now all given it up\u2014except you! In your hands Poetry is\nreturning home to Philosophy, and clear and noble is the strain in which\nshe rallies our young people. Astronomy again: she was not lowered in\nthe hands of Aristarchus, Timocharis, Aristyllus, Hipparchus, all\nwriting in prose, whereas Eudoxus, [Sidenote: 403] Hesiod, and Thales\nused metre, if we assume that Thales really wrote the _Astronomy_\nattributed to him. Pindar actually expresses surprise at the neglect, in\nhis own day, of a mode of melody....[104] There is nothing out of the\nway or absurd in seeking out the causes of such changes; but to remove\narts and faculties altogether, whenever there is disturbance or\nvariation in their details, is not fair.\u2019\n\nXIX. \u2018And yet\u2019, interposed Theon, \u2018those instances have involved really\ngreat variations and novelties, whereas of the [Sidenote: B] oracles\ngiven here we know of many in prose even in old days, and those on no\ntrifling matters. When the Lacedaemonians, as Thucydides[105] has told\nus in his history, consulted the God about their war with the Athenians,\nhe promised them victory and mastery, and that \u201che himself will help\nthem, invited or uninvited.\u201d And again, that, if they did not restore\nPleistoanax[106], they shall plough with a silver share.[107] When the\nAthenians consulted him about their expedition in Sicily, he directed\nthem to bring the priestess of Erythrae to Athens; now the woman\u2019s name\nwas Peace. When Deinomenes the Siceliot inquired about his sons, the\nanswer was that all three should [Sidenote: C] reign as tyrants. \u201cAnd\nthe worse for them, O Master Apollo\u201d, rejoined Deinomenes. \u201cThat too\u201d,\nadded the God, \u201cto form part of the answer.\u201d You know that Gelo had the\ndropsy and Hiero the stone, while they reigned; Thrasybulus, the third,\nwas involved in revolutions and wars and soon lost his throne. Then\nProcles, tyrant of Epidaurus, after putting many others to death in\ncruel and unlawful ways, at last killed Timarchus, who had come to him\nfrom Athens with money, after receiving him with hospitality and\nkindness; he thrust his body into a crate and flung it out to sea. This\nhe did by the hands of Cleander of Aegina, no one else knew. Afterwards,\nwhen [Sidenote: D] himself in trouble, he sent his brother Cleotimus, to\nconsult the oracle secretly about his own exile and retirement. The God\nanswered that he granted exile to Procles, and retirement either to the\nplace where he had ordered his Aeginetan friend to lodge the crate, or\nwhere the stag sheds his horn. The tyrant understood the God to bid him\nfling himself into the sea, or bury himself underground (for the stag\nburies his horn deep out of sight, when it falls off). He waited a short\ntime, then, when his affairs became desperate, went into exile. But the\nfriends of Timarchus caught and slew him, and cast out the corpse into\nthe sea. [Sidenote: E] Now comes the strongest instance: the statutes by\nwhich Lycurgus regulated the Lacedaemonian constitution were given to\nhim in prose. So Alyrius, Herodotus, Philochorus, and Ister, the men who\nmost zealously set about collecting metrical prophecies, have written\ndown oracular responses which were not in metre, and Theopompus, who was\nexceptionally interested [Sidenote: F] about the oracle, has\nadministered a vigorous rebuke to those who do not hold that the Pythia\nprophesied in metre in those days; yet, when he wanted to prove the\npoint, he has found an exceedingly small number of such answers, which\nshows that the others, even at that early time, were put forth in prose.\n\nXX. \u2018Some oracles, however, still run into metres, one of which has made\n\u201cnecessary business\u201d[108] a household word. There is in Phocis a temple\nof \u201cHercules Woman-Hater\u201d, where the practice is for the consecrated\npriest not to associate with a woman during his year. So they appoint\ncomparatively old men to the priesthood. However, not very long ago, a\nyoung man of good character, but ambitious, who was in love with\n[Sidenote: 404] a girl, accepted the office. At first he put constraint\non himself and avoided her; but one day, when he was resting after wine\nand dancing, she burst in, and he yielded. Then, in his fear and\nconfusion, he fled to the oracle, and proceeded to ask the God about his\noffence, and whether it admitted of excuse or expiation. He received\nthis reply:\n\n                 _All needful business doth the God allow._\n\nAll the same, if it be granted that nothing is prophesied in our own\nday, otherwise than in metre, the difficulty will be so much greater\nabout the ancients, who sometimes employed metre for the responses,\nsometimes not. There is nothing strange, my [Sidenote: B] young friend,\nin either one or the other, so long as we hold sound, pure views about\nthe God, and do not suppose that it is himself who formerly used to\ncompose the verses, or who now suggests the answers to the Pythia,\nspeaking as it were from under a mask.\n\nXXI. \u2018However, it is worth our while to pursue this inquiry at greater\nlength another time. For the present, let us remember our results, which\nare briefly these: Body uses many instruments, soul uses body and its\nparts, soul has been brought into being as the instrument of God. The\nexcellence of an instrument is to imitate most closely the power which\nuses it, with all its [Sidenote: C] own natural power, and to reproduce\nthe effect of his essential thought, but to exhibit it, not pure and\npassionless and free from error, as it was in the creative artist, but\nwith a large admixture of foreign element. For in itself it is invisible\nto us, but appearing \u201cother\u201d and through another medium it is saturated\nwith the nature of that medium. I pass over wax and gold and silver and\ncopper, and all other varieties of moulded substance, which take on one\ncommon form of impressed likeness, but add to the copy, each its own\ndistinct speciality. I pass over the myriad distortions of images and\nreflections from a single form in [Sidenote: D] mirrors, plane, hollow,\nor convex. For nothing seems better to reproduce the type, no instrument\nmore obediently to use its own nature, than the moon. Yet taking from\nthe sun his bright and fiery rays, she does not transmit them so to us;\nmingled with herself they change colour and also take on a different\npower; the heat has wholly disappeared, and the light fails from\nweakness before it reaches us. I think you know the saying found in\nHeraclitus, that \u201cThe King whose seat is at [Sidenote: E] Delphi, speaks\nnot, nor conceals, but signifies.\u201d[109] Take and add then to what is\nhere so well said, the conception that the God of this place employs the\nPythia for the hearing as the sun employs the moon for the seeing. He\nshows and reveals his own thoughts, but shows them mingled in their\npassage through a mortal body, and a soul which cannot remain at rest or\npresent itself to the exciting power unexcited and inwardly composed,\nbut which boils and surges and is involved in the stirrings and\ntroublesome passions from within. As whirlpools do not keep [Sidenote:\nF] a steady hold on bodies borne round and round and also downwards,\nsince an outer force carries them round, but they sink down of their own\nnature, so that there is a compound spiral movement, of a confused and\ndistorted kind, even so what we call inspiration seems to be a mixture\nof two impulses, and the soul is stirred by two forces, one of which it\nis a passive recipient, one from its own nature. We see that inanimate\nand stationary bodies cannot be used or forced contrary to their own\nnature, that a cylinder cannot be moved as if it were a sphere or a\ncube, that a lyre cannot be played like a flute or a trumpet like a\nharp, but that the artistic use of a thing is no other than the natural\nuse. Is it possible then that the animate and self-moving, which has\nboth impulse and reason, can be treated in any other way than is\nagreeable to the habit, force, or natural condition which [Sidenote:\n405] is already existent within it? Can an unmusical mind be excited\nlike a musical, an unlettered mind by literature, a mind untrained in\nreasoning, whether speculative or disciplinary, by logic? It is not to\nbe spoken of.\n\nXXII. \u2018Again, Homer is my witness: he assumes[110] that nothing, so to\nspeak, is brought about without a God; he does not, however, describe\nthe God as using all things for all ends, but according to the art or\nfaculty which each possesses. For do you not see, dear Diogenianus, that\nAthena, when she wants to persuade the Achaeans, calls in Odysseus;[111]\nwhen to wreck the truce, she looks for Pandarus;[112] when to rout the\nTrojans, she [Sidenote: B] approaches Diomede?[113] Why? because Diomede\nis a sturdy man and a fighter, Pandarus an archer and a fool, Odysseus a\nclever speaker and a sensible man. For Homer was not of the same mind as\nPindar[114], if Pindar it was who wrote\n\n              _Sail on a crate, if God so choose \u2018twill swim._\n\nHe knew that different faculties and natural gifts are appointed for\ndifferent ends; each is moved in its own way, even if the moving force\nbe one for all. As then the force cannot move that which walks so as to\nmake it fly, nor that which lisps to speak clearly, nor the thin voice\nto be melodious\u2014why, Battus himself was sent as colonist of Libya to get\nhis voice, because he was a lisper, with a thin voice, but withal a\nkingly, statesman-like, [Sidenote: C] prudent man\u2014, even so it is\nimpossible for one who has no letters and knows no verse to talk like a\npoet. And so she who now serves the God has been born as respectably as\nany man here, and has lived as good and orderly a life; but having been\nreared in the house of small farmer folk, she brings nothing with her\nfrom art or from any practice or faculty whatsoever, as she goes down\ninto the sanctuary. As Xenophon[115] thinks that the bride should step\ninto her husband\u2019s home having seen as little as may be, and heard as\nlittle, so she, ignorant and untried in almost all things, and a true\nvirgin in soul, is associated with [Sidenote: D] the God. Yet we, who\nthink that the God, when he \u201csignifies\u201d, uses the cries of herons and\nwrens and ravens, and never ask that they, as the messengers and heralds\nof the God, should put things into clear rational phrases, do\nnevertheless ask that the Pythia should use a voice and style as though\nfrom the Thymele, not unembellished and plain, but with metre and\nelevation, and trills, and verbal metaphors, and a flute accompaniment!\n\nXXIII. \u2018What shall we say then about her older predecessors? Not one\nthing, I think, but several. In the first place, [Sidenote: E] as has\nbeen already said, they, too, for the most part, used to give the\nresponses in prose. In the second place, those times produced\ntemperaments and natural conditions which offered an easy and convenient\nchannel for the stream of poetry, to which were at once superadded, in\none and another, an eagerness, an impulse, a preparation of soul, all\nresulting in a readiness which needed but a slight initial movement from\nwithout to give the imagination a turn. So it was that not only were\nastronomers and philosophers drawn, as Philinus says, in their several\ndirections, but also, when men were mellow with wine and sentiment, some\nundercurrent of pity or joy would come, and they would [Sidenote: F]\nglide into a song-like voice; drinking parties were filled with amorous\nstrains and songs, books with poems in writing. When Euripides\nwrote:[116]\n\n                                  _Love can teach, he makes\n                A poet of a stranger to the Muse_,\n\nhe did not mean that Love implants a faculty for poetry or music; the\nfaculty is there already, but Love stirs and warms what was latent and\nidle. Or are we to say, Sir Stranger, that no one now loves, that Love\nhas gone by the heels, because there is none who, to quote Pindar,[117]\n\n                     _Scatters with easy grace\n                     The vocal shafts of love and joy._\n\n[Sidenote: 406] That is absurd. Loves there are and many of them, and\nthey master men; but when they associate with souls which have no\nnatural turn for music, they drop the flute and the lyre, yet are vocal\nstill and fiery through and through, as much as of old. It is an\nunhallowed thing to say, and an unfair, that the Academy was loveless,\nor the choir of Socrates and Plato; yet, while we have their love\ndialogues to read, they have left no poems. Why not declare at once that\nSappho was the only woman who [Sidenote: B] ever loved, if you are to\nsay that Sibylla alone had the gift of prophecy, or Aristonica, and the\nothers who delivered themselves in verse? Wine, as Chaeremon[118] used\nto say,\n\n              _Is mingled with the moods of them that drink_,\n\nand the prophetic inspiration, like that of love, uses the faculty which\nis subjected to it, and stirs its recipients according to the nature of\neach.\n\nXXIV. \u2018Not but that, if we look also into the subject of the God and his\nforeknowledge, we shall see that the change has taken place for the\nbetter. For the use of language is like exchange in coined money. Here\nalso it is familiarity which gives currency, the purchasing power varies\nwith the times. There was a day when metres, tunes, odes were the coins\nof language in use; all History and Philosophy, in a word, every\n[Sidenote: C] feeling and action which called for a more solemn\nutterance, were drawn to poetry and music. It is not only that now but\nfew understand, and they with effort, whereas then all the world were\nlisteners, and all felt pleasure in what was sung,\n\n                                              _who fats his flock,\n          Who ploughs the soil, who snares the wing\u00e8d game_,\n\nas Pindar[119] has it. More than that, there was an aptitude for poetry,\nmost men used the lyre and the ode to rebuke, to encourage, to frame\nmyths and proverbs; also hymns to the Gods, prayers, thanksgivings, were\ncomposed in metre and song, as genius or practice enabled them to do.\nAnd so it was with prophecy; the God did not grudge it ornament and\ngrace, or drive from hence into disgrace the honoured Muse of the\ntripod; [Sidenote: D] he rather led her on, awakening and welcoming\npoetic natures; he gave them visions from himself, he lent his aid to\ndraw out pomp and eloquence as being fitting and admirable things. Then\nthere was a change in human life, affecting men both in fortune and in\ngenius. Expediency banished what was superfluous, top-knots of gold were\ndropped, rich robes discarded; probably too clustering curls were shorn\noff, and the buskin discontinued. It was not a bad training, to set the\nbeauty of [Sidenote: E] frugality against that of profusion, to account\nwhat was plain and simple a better ornament than the pompous and\nelaborate. So it was with language, it changed with the times, and\nshared the general break-up. History got down from its coach, and\ndropped metre. Truth was best sifted out from Myth in prose; Philosophy\nwelcomed clearness, and found it better to instruct than to astonish, so\nshe pursued her inquiry in plain language. The God made the Pythia leave\noff calling her own fellow townsmen \u201cfire-burners\u201d, the Spartans\n\u201cserpent-eaters\u201d, [Sidenote: F] men \u201cmountaineers\u201d, rivers\n\u201cmountain-drainers\u201d. He cleared the oracles of epic verses, unusual\nwords, circumlocutions, and vagueness, and so prepared the way to\nconverse with his consultants just as laws converse with states, as\nkings address subjects, as disciples hear their masters speak, so\nframing language as to be intelligible and convincing.\n\nXXV. \u2018For it should be clearly understood that the God is, in the words\nof Sophocles,[120]\n\n                 _Unto the wise a riddling prophet aye,\n                 To silly souls a teacher plain and brief._\n\n[Sidenote: 407] The same turn of things which brought clearness brought\nalso a new standard of belief; it shared the general change. Whereas of\nold that which was not familiar or common, but, in plain words,\ncontorted and over-phrased, was ascribed by the many to an implied\nDivinity, and received with awe and reverence; in later times men were\ncontent to learn things clearly and easily with no pomp or artifice;\nthey began to find fault with the poetical setting of the oracles, not\nonly as a hindrance to the perception of truth, because it mingled\nindistinctness and [Sidenote: B] shadow with the meaning, but also\nbecause by this time they were getting to mistrust metaphors, riddles,\nand ambiguities, as so many holes or hiding-places provided for him who\nshould trip in his prophecy, that he might step into them and secure his\nretreat. You might have heard it told by many, how certain persons with\na turn for poetry still sit about the place of oracles, waiting to catch\nthe utterances, and then weaving verses, metres, rhythms, according to\noccasion, as a sort of vehicle. As to your Onomacrituses, and\nHerodotuses, and Cinaethons,[121] and the censures which they brought\nupon the oracles, by importing tragedy and pomp where they were out of\nplace, I let the charge pass, and do not admit it. Most, [Sidenote: C]\nhowever, of the discredit which attached so copiously to poetry came\nfrom the gang of soothsayers and scamps who strolled around the\nceremonies of the Great Mother and of Serapis, with their mummeries and\ntricks, turning verses out of their own heads, or taking them at random\nfrom handbooks, for servant boys and silly girls, such as are best\nattracted by metre and a poetic cast of words; from all which causes\npoetry seemed to put herself at the service of cheats, and jugglers, and\nlying prophets, and was lost to truth and to the tripod.\n\nXXVI. \u2018Thus I should not be surprised to find that the old people\nsometimes required a certain ambiguity, circumlocution, [Sidenote: D]\nindistinctness. For it was not then a case of \u201cA\u201d approaching the oracle\nwith a question, if you please, about the purchase of a slave, or \u201cB\u201d\nabout business; powerful states, haughty kings and tyrants, would\nconsult the God on public affairs, men whom it did not answer the\nofficials of his temple to vex and provoke by letting them hear what\nthey did not wish to hear. For the God does not obey Euripides,[122] who\nsets up as a lawgiver with\n\n                               _Phoebus, none but he,\n                       May give men prophecies._\n\n[Sidenote: E] He uses mortal men as ministers and prophets, whom it is\nhis duty to make his care, and to protect, lest they perish at the hands\nof the bad while serving him. He does not then choose to conceal the\ntruth; what he used to do was to give a twist to its manifestation,\nwhich, like a beam of light, is refracted more than once in its passage,\nand is parted into many rays as it becomes poetry, and so to remove\nwhatever in it was harsh and hard. Tyrants might thus be left in\nignorance, and enemies not be forewarned. For them he threw a veil in\nthe innuendoes [Sidenote: F] and ambiguities which hid the meaning from\nothers, but did not elude the intelligence of the actual consultants who\ngave their whole mind to the answers. Hence, now that things have\nchanged, it is sheer folly to criticize and find fault with the God,\nbecause he thinks right to give his aid no longer in the same manner but\nin another.\n\nXXVII. \u2018Another thing is this: Language receives no greater advantage\nfrom a poetical form than this, that a meaning which is wrapped and\nbound in metre is more easily remembered and grasped. Now in those days\nmuch memory was required. Many things used to be explained orally; local\nindications, the times when things were to be done, rites of Gods across\nthe seas, secret burying-places of heroes, hard to be discovered by\nthose setting off for lands far from Greece. You know about Chius\n[Sidenote: 408] and Cretinus, and Nesichus, and Phalanthus, and many\nother leaders of expeditions, how many clues they needed to find the\nproper place appointed to each for settlement, while some of them missed\nthe way, as did Battus.[123] He thought that he would be turned out, not\nunderstanding what the place was to which he had been sent; then he came\na second time loudly complaining. Then the God answered:\n\n    _Thou that hast never been there, if thou know\u2019st Libya the\n       sheepland\n    Better than I that have been, then wonderful wise is thy wisdom._\n\nSo he sent him out again. Then Lysander entirely failed to make out the\nhill Orchalides,[124] otherwise called Alopecus, and the river Hoplites,\n\n      _Also the dragon, earthborn, in craftiness coming behind thee_,\n\nand was defeated in battle and slain in those very spots by [Sidenote:\nB] Neochorus, a man of Haliartus, who bore a shield with the device of a\nserpent. There are many such answers given to the old people, all hard\nto grasp and remember, which I need not give you at length, since you\nknow them.\n\nXXVIII. \u2018Our present settled condition, out of which the questions now\nput to the God arise, I welcome and accept. There is great peace and\ntranquillity, war has been made to cease, there are no wanderings in\nexile, no revolutions, no tyrannies, no other plagues or ills in Greece\nasking for potent and extraordinary remedies. But when there is nothing\ncomplicated or mysterious, or dangerous, only questions on petty\n[Sidenote: C] popular matters, like school themes, \u201cwhether I should\nmarry\u201d, \u201cwhether I should sail\u201d, \u201cwhether I should lend\u201d, and the most\nserious responses given to states are concerning harvests and\ncattle-breeding and public health, to clothe these in metre, to devise\ncircumlocutions, to introduce strange words on questions calling for a\nplain, concise answer, is what an ambitious sophist might do, bedizening\nthe oracle for his own glory. But the Pythia is a lady in herself, and\nwhen she descends thither and is in the presence of the God, she cares\nfor truth rather than for [Sidenote: D] glory, or for the praise or\nblame of men.\n\nXXIX. \u2018So perhaps ought we too to feel. As it is, in a sort of agony of\nfear, lest the place should lose its reputation of three thousand years,\nand a few persons should think lightly of it and cease to visit the\noracle, for all the world as if it were a sophist\u2019s school, we\napologize, and make up reasons and theories about things which we\nneither know nor ought to know. We smooth the critic down, and try to\npersuade him, whereas we ought to bid him be gone\u2014\n\n             _He shall first suffer in a loss not light_\u2014[125]\n\n[Sidenote: E] if that is the view which he takes of the God. Thus, while\nyou welcome and admire what the Wise Men of old have written up: \u201cKnow\nthyself\u201d, and \u201cNothing too much\u201d, not least because of the brevity which\nincludes in a small compass a close hammer-beaten sense, you blame the\noracles because they mostly use concise, plain, direct phrases. It is\nwith sayings like those of the Wise Men as with streams compressed into\na narrow channel; there is no distinctness or transparency to the eye of\nthe mind, but if you look into what has been written or said about them\nby those who have wished to learn the full meaning of each, you\n[Sidenote: F] will not easily find longer treatises elsewhere. The\nlanguage of the Pythia illustrates what mathematicians mean by calling a\nstraight line the shortest between the same points; it makes no bending,\nor curve, or doubling or ambiguity; it lies straight towards truth, it\ntakes risks,[126] its good faith is open to examination, and it has\nnever yet been found wrong; it has filled the shrine [Sidenote: 409]\nwith offerings from Barbarians and Greeks, and has beautified it with\nnoble buildings and Amphictyonic fittings. Why, you see for yourselves\nmany buildings added which were not here formerly, many restored which\nwere ruinous or destroyed. As new trees spring up by the side of those\nin vigorous bearing, so the Pylaea flourishes together with Delphi and\nis fed upon the same meat; the plenty of the one causes the other to\ntake on shapeliness and figure and a beauty of temples, and halls of\nmeeting and fountains of water, such as it never had in the thousand\nyears before. Now those who dwell about Galaxius [Sidenote: B] in\nBoeotia felt the manifest presence of the God in the abundance and more\nthan abundance of milk:\n\n                    _From all the kine and every flock,\n                    Plenteous as water from the rock,\n                    Came welling, gurgling on its way\n                        The milk that day.\n                    Hot foot they hied them to the task,\n                    To fill the pail, to fill the cask;\n                    No beechen bowl or crock of clay,\n                    No pot or pan had holiday;\n                    Wine-skin or flagon, none might stay\n                        Within, that day._[127]\n\nBut to us he gives tokens brighter and stronger and more evident than\nthese, in having, after the days of drought, of desertion and poverty,\nbrought us plenty, splendour, and reputation. True, I am well pleased\nwith myself for anything which my own [Sidenote: C] zeal or service may\nhave contributed to this result in support of Polycrates and Petraeus,\nwell pleased too with him who has been our leader in this policy, to\nwhose thought and planning most of the improvements are due; but it is\nwholly impossible that so great, so vast a change could have been\neffected in this short time by merely human care, with no God present\nhere or lending his Divinity to the place of the oracle.\n\nXXX. \u2018But as in those days there were some who found fault with the\nresponses for obliquity and want of clearness, so now there are those\nwho criticize them as too simple, which is childishness indeed and rank\nstupidity! For as children show more glee and satisfaction at the sight\nof rainbows or haloes or comets than in that of the sun or of the moon,\nso do these [Sidenote: D] people regret the riddles, allegories, and\nmetaphors which are so many modes of refraction of prophetic art in a\nmortal and fanciful medium. And if they do not fully inquire into the\ncause of the change, they go away having passed judgement against the\nGod, rather than against ourselves or themselves, for having a power of\nthought which is too feeble to attain to his counsels.\u2019\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Again quoted by Plutarch, p. 777 C.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  _Od._ 7, 107.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Fr. 7.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  In a lost \u2018Hymn\u2019, Fr. 32.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  See H. Richards in _Classical Review_, vol. 29, p. 233.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  Reading \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd as Ed. Teub. fr. Stegmann.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  _Rhet._ 3, 11.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Puteoli.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd (J. H. W. Strijd in _Class. Rev._ vol. 28, p.\n  218).\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  Quoted by Menander, Fr. 243 (Meineke).\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  Quoted also in the _Life of Agesilaus_, c. 3, p. 597.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Palaea Kaumene, a volcanic island ejected in 196 B. C. See Tozer\u2019s\n  _Islands of the Aegean_, p. 97 foll.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  _Od._ 3, 1.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  _Tim._ 90.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  See p. 283.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  Xen. _Sympos._ c. 2.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Reading \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 for \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2 with Emperius (ap. Ed. Teub.).\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  See Herod. 1, 51.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Fr. 44.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  Here the text is defective.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Here the text is defective.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  I, 118.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  MSS. have \u2018Pausanias\u2019.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  These words are supplied from the text of Thucydides, 5, 10.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  The word \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd is suggested by the Teubner Editor.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Fr. 11.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  _Od._ 2, 372.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  _Il._ 2, 169 foll.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  _Il._ 4, 86 foll.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  _Il._ 5, beg.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  The MSS. have \u2018Pandarus\u2019, but \u2018Pindar\u2019 is a likely correction. Yet\n  Plutarch cannot have supposed Pindar to have written this iambic line.\n  It is quoted by Aristophanes, _Peace_, 699, in connexion with the\n  stinginess of Sophocles _or_ Simonides, and the scholiast quotes from\n  Pindar a censure of that vice in a poet: so some confusion is\n  possible.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  _Oeconom._ 7, 4 foll.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  In the _Stheneboea_.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  _Isthm._ 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  Fr. 16 (Nauck).\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  _Isthm._ 1, 69.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  Fr. 707.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  So Cobet (for Cinesons).\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  _Phoen._ 958.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  See Herod. 4, 155 foll. and Pind. _Pyth._ 4. There is something amiss\n  with Plutarch\u2019s text here.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  See his _Life_, c. 29.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  _Od._ 2, 190.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  See additional note on p. 312.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  Fragm. adespota, 90.\n\n\n\n\n                                  III\n                    ON THE CESSATION OF THE ORACLES\n\n\nA DIALOGUE INSCRIBED TO TERENTIUS PRISCUS\n\n\nTHE SPEAKERS\n\n    LAMPRIAS, Plutarch\u2019s brother.\n    CLEOMBROTUS, of Lacedaemon, a scientific traveller, and a\n       theologian, who had been up the Red Sea, and, lately, to Ammon.\n    DIDYMUS, a Cynic philosopher.\n    PHILIPPUS, an historian.\n    DEMETRIUS, a \u2018grammarian\u2019 of Tarsus, now returning from Britain.\n    AMMONIUS, the philosopher.\n    HERACLEON, of Megara, a young man.\n\nTIME: A little before the Pythian games of Callistratus\u2019 year, perhaps\nA. D. 83-4.\n\n1 and 2. CLEOMBROTUS mentions the undying lamp flame at Ammon, said to\nrequire less oil each year, a proof that the years are growing shorter.\n\n3. DEMETRIUS thinks the cause inadequate and CLEOMBROTUS mentions other\ninstances of important phenomena due to insignificant causes.\n\n4. AMMONIUS points out that all the heavenly bodies are involved in the\nhypothesis, and suggests other causes, as changes in temperature or in\nthe quality of the oil.\n\n5. LAMPRIAS invites Cleombrotus to tell the company about the oracle of\nAmmon. DEMETRIUS suggests, as a subject nearer home, the failure of the\noracles in Boeotia (except those in the neighbourhood of Lebadeia).\n\n6. We were passing out of the temple, and were near the Hall of the\nCnidians, where HERACLEON and our other friends were waiting for us, in\nsilence. On a request from DEMETRIUS they agree to join in our\ndiscussion.\n\n7. DIDYMUS the Cynic (\u2018Planetiades\u2019) makes an angry protest: the wonder\nbeing that Providence itself had not deserted this bad world long ago.\nHeracleon and LAMPRIAS humour him, and he leaves the place quietly.\n\n8. AMMONIUS addresses Lamprias: \u2018I too deprecate the tone of Didymus.\nStill we may recognize other causes, besides providential action, for\nthe cessation of the oracles, e.g. the depopulation of Greece and\nspecially of Boeotia.\u2019\n\n9. LAMPRIAS: \u2018We may believe in Gods, yet hold that their works may be\ninterrupted by specific causes. It is not necessary that the God should\npersonally operate in his oracles.\u2019\n\n10. CLEOMBROTUS agreed, but observed that the hypothesis was much\nrelieved by assuming the existence of daemons, a middle order between\nGods and men, and not immortal,\n\n11. But long-lived\u2014say 9,720 years (as Hesiod)\u2014\u2018What?\u2019 interrupted\nDEMETRIUS; \u2018Hesiod was leading up to the Stoic \u201cConflagration\u201d!\u2019\n\n12. CLEOMBROTUS refuses to split straws as to the duration of a daemon\u2019s\nlife; the point is that there are such things as daemons.\n\n13. The daemons have been compared (by Xenocrates) to an isosceles\ntriangle (Gods to an equilateral, men to a scalene). Or again to the\nmoon, which is half earth, half star.\n\n14. Instances of daemonic rites,\n\n15. And daemonic stories, wrongly attributed to Gods, as that of Delphi\n(PHILIPPUS shows surprise) and the flight of Apollo.\n\n16. HERACLEON (first addressing PHILIPPUS) allows that daemons, not\nGods, may be concerned with oracles, but then they must be sinless\nbeings\u2014CLEOMBROTUS: \u201cSinless daemons\u2014if so, they would no longer be\ndaemons\u201d:\n\n17. And quotes stories to prove that daemons may be faulty, and one as\nto the death of Pan to prove that they may be mortal.\n\n18. DEMETRIUS confirms this from his experiences in and about Britain.\n\n19. CLEOMBROTUS compares the Stoic view of Gods who are perishable with\nthe Epicurean \u2018Infinity\u2019.\n\n20. AMMONIUS defends Empedocles\u2019 view of faulty daemons against the\nEpicureans, who held that, if faulty, they must be short-lived. As the\nEpicureans are not represented, he calls on Cleombrotus to continue his\nargument for the migration of daemons.\n\n21. CLEOMBROTUS, first referring to Plato, has a story of an oriental\nrecluse, whom he had met about the Red Sea. He knew all the Delphi\nlegend, and referred it to the struggles of daemons, who took on the\nnames of the Gods to whom they were severally attached.\n\n22. \u2018But how does Plato come in?\u2019 asked HERACLEON. \u2018Because\u2019, replied\nCLEOMBROTUS, \u2018Plato allowed a possibility of more worlds than one, up to\nfive; the recluse asserted (giving no proof) that there were exactly one\nhundred and eighty-three worlds.\u2019\n\n23. \u2018The impostor!\u2019 says LAMPRIAS; \u2018that view is purely Greek, and was\nput into a book by one Petron of Himera long ago.\u2019 HERACLEON and\nDEMETRIUS exchange remarks about Plato\u2019s views on a plurality of worlds,\nand agree to refer the matter to LAMPRIAS, who offers to give a cursory\naccount, the discussion then to revert to the original question.\n\n[24-end. Lamprias is the speaker, with an interposition by Ammonius in\nc. 33 and again in c. 46, and by Demetrius, who answers a question in c.\n45, and some shorter ones.]\n\n24. LAMPRIAS _loq._: It is _a priori_ likely that this world is not a\nsole creation.\n\n25. There need be no fear of interference from outside, of world with\nworld. Aristotle\u2019s view of the arrangement of matter stated,\n\n26. And considered.\n\n27. The idea of a middle point is applicable to each world severally,\nnot to the confederation of worlds.\n\n28. The case of the \u2018stone outside the world\u2019 (the moon?), which some\nregard as no part of our earth, and therefore not bound to move towards\nit. The paradoxical views of Chrysippus.\n\n29. The Stoic difficulty as to Zeus or Providence in the plural met. Why\nnot a choir of such powers, free to range from part to part of the\nuniverse?\n\n30. Such a view of deities sociable and free to communicate with each\nother is the grander one.\n\n31. (PHILIPPUS asks to have the bearing of the number five and the five\nsolid figures on Plato\u2019s scheme explained.)\n\n32. LAMPRIAS: The matter is thus explained by Theodorus of Soli:[128]\nThere are five and no more solid figures having all the faces and all\nthe solid angles in each equal. These are\u2014\n\n(_a_) The Pyramid (Tetrahedron) with four faces, each an equilateral\ntriangle, and four solid angles,\n\n(_b_) The Cube, six faces, each a square, and eight solid angles,\n\n(_c_) The Octahedron, eight faces, each an equilateral triangle, and six\nsolid angles,\n\n(_d_) The Dodecahedron, twelve faces, each a regular pentagon, and\ntwenty solid angles,\n\n(_e_) The Eicosahedron, twenty faces, each an equilateral triangle, and\ntwelve solid angles.\n\n[It follows that (_d_) having more, and blunter, solid angles than any,\nmost nearly approximates to the Sphere. (And, in fact, if the content of\nthe Sphere be 100, that of (_d_) is 66\u00b75, that of (_e_) only 60\u00b75, that\nof (_c_) 36\u00b775, and so on). Plato (_Timaeus_, pp. 53-5, where see\nArcher-Hind) shows that each equilateral triangle may easily be broken\ninto six \u2018primary scalenes\u2019, i. e. triangles with angles 90\u00b0, 60\u00b0, 30\u00b0,\nwhich again will reproduce themselves _ad infinitum_ (Euclid, 6, 8).\nHence, if a universe be constructed out of (_a_) or (_c_) or (_e_) or\ntheir plane faces, or of all of these, it can, in case of dissolution,\nbe reconstructed. This does not apply to the Cube, the faces of which,\nhowever, yield isosceles right-angled triangles, also available as\n\u2018constituents\u2019 in infinite number, nor yet to (_d_) which is therefore\nreserved for another purpose, as to which see Burnet (_Early Greek\nPhilosophers_, c. 7, sect. 148).]\n\nThe solid figures may be used to construct five different worlds, or\nomitting (_d_) for the four \u2018elements\u2019 (fire, &c.).\n\n33. AMMONIUS criticizes; he points out that the difficulty about the\nfigure (_d_) has been ignored.\n\n34. LAMPRIAS drops the subject for the present, and turns to the five\ncategories of being in the _Sophistes_ and _Philebus_. It is reasonable\nto assume that the physical universe may correspond.\n\n35. Consider the Pythagorean first principles of number and the origin\nof the number five out of the first odd and the first even.\n\n36. Five senses, five fingers, five planets (the sun with the two inner\nplanets taken as one).\n\n37. The relation of the five solid figures to Plato\u2019s theory of creation\nfurther considered. But we are on slippery ground here.\n\n38. LAMPRIAS is invited to return to the original question, as to the\noracles and the migration of daemons.\n\n39. LAMPRIAS resumes:\n\nWhy should the prophetic gift be associated with daemons, i.e. souls\nwhich have left the body, rather than with those still in the flesh,\nthough it may be more energetic after death? Compare the processes of\nMemory.\n\n40. Divination touches on the future through bodily conditions assisted\nby emanations and the like.\n\n41. The special virtues of certain vapours or streams, as the Cydnus at\nTarsus.\n\n42. The story of the first discovery of the Adytum of Delphi by the\nshepherd Coretas. There must be sympathy of soul with prophecy, as of\nthe eye with light. The identification of Apollo with the sun.\n\n43. The local prophetic currents may shift their place about, as rivers\nand lakes are known to do.\n\n44. Physical commotions, especially earthquakes, may be expected to\ncause such shiftings.\n\n45. DEMETRIUS has been too long away from home to answer as to the\nCydnus, but he tells a story about the oracle of Mopsus, which had\nconvinced a sceptical magistrate.\n\n46. AMMONIUS and PHILIPPUS have points to raise. That of the latter is\nas to the identity of the sun with Apollo, and is allowed to stand over.\nAMMONIUS protests against the ascription of all prophecy to material\ncauses, but wishes to hear the view of LAMPRIAS.\n\n47. LAMPRIAS observes that Plato had made a similar protest against\nAnaxagoras. _Both_ sets of causes must be recognized.\n\n48. And so in the case of prophetic utterances.\n\n49. The actual procedure of Delphi, and the tests applied to the victim,\njustified.\n\n50. The influences to which the prophetess is subject.\n\n51. Story of a prophetess who was wrongly pressed when the conditions\nwere adverse. The force of the exhalation affects different persons\ndifferently. It is essentially daemonic, but not exempt from change or\ndecay.\n\n52. The subject is difficult, and must remain open to discussion, as\nalso the question raised by Philippus about Apollo and the sun.\n\n\n                    ON THE CESSATION OF THE ORACLES\n\n\nI. There is a story, Terentius Priscus, that certain eagles [Sidenote:\n409] or swans, in flight from the extremities of earth to its middle\n[Sidenote: F] point, met at Delphi near the Navel, as we call it; that\nlater on Epimenides of Phaestus came to examine into the story in the\nGod\u2019s house, and, receiving an indistinct and ambiguous response, wrote\n\n               _No central boss there is of land or sea,\n               The Gods may know one, but from man \u2019tis hid._\n\nAs for the inquirer, he was properly punished by the God for putting an\nold story to the proof as though fingering a picture. [Sidenote: 410]\n\nII. However, shortly before the Pythian games of Callistratus\u2019 year, it\nhappened that two holy men, travelling from opposite ends of the\ninhabited globe, met at Delphi; Demetrius the grammarian, on his\nhomeward voyage from Britain to Tarsus, and Cleombrotus the\nLacedaemonian, who had wandered much in Egypt and about the land of the\nTroglodytes, and had sailed far up the Red Sea, not for commerce, but\nbecause he loved sights and information. Possessing a competence, and\nbeing indifferent to having more, he would use his leisure [Sidenote: B]\nin such ways, putting together facts as material for a Philosophy which\nwas to end in what he himself called Theology. Having lately been at the\ntemple of Ammon, he made it clear that he was far from admiring its\ngeneral arrangements, but he told us a story worthy of serious interest\nas related by the priests, about the lamp which is never extinguished.\nThey say that it consumes less oil each successive year, and claim this\nas a proof of an inequality in the years which makes each less in\nduration [Sidenote: C] than its predecessor. Of course, the shorter the\nperiod the less the consumption.\n\nIII. All present found this wonderful, and Demetrius observed that it\nwas quite absurd to hunt out such great results from trifles; not, as\nAlcaeus puts it, to take the claw and paint the lion from it, but with a\nwick and a lamp to shift the whole order of the heavens, and make a\nclean sweep of Mathematics. \u2018Nothing of that sort will disturb those\ngentlemen;\u2019 said Cleombrotus, \u2018they will never give in to the\nmathematicians on the point of accuracy; they would think it easier for\nthem to be wrong in their time about movements and periods so [Sidenote:\nD] very remote, than for themselves to be wrong in measuring the oil,\nwhen they had their attention jealously fixed all the time on so strange\na phenomenon. Besides, Demetrius, not to allow small things as\nindications of great ones would be to stop the way against many arts;\nmany proofs will be put out of account, and many predictions. Yet you\ngrammarians prove a fact of no less importance than that the heroes of\nold shaved with the razor, because you meet with the word \u201crazor\u201d in\nHomer,[129] and again, that they lent money at interest, because he has\n\n                 _Since of a debt there owing I have need,\n                 Long-standing and not small_,[130]\n\nwhere the word for \u201cto owe\u201d imports increase! Again, when [Sidenote: E]\nhe calls night \u201cswift\u201d,[131] you fasten lovingly on the word, and\nactually say that it implies that the shadow is conical, as thrown by a\nspherical body. Then Medicine tells us that an abundance of spiders\nprognosticates a summer of pestilence, and so does a crow\u2019s-foot on the\nfig leaves in spring. Who is going to allow this, unless he grants that\nsmall things may be indications of great ones? Who will endure that the\nmagnitude of the sun should be measured by \u201chalf-gallon or half-pint\u201d,\nor that the acute angle made on the sundial here by the gnomon with the\nsurface should be a measure of the elevation of the [Sidenote: F]\nvisible poles above the horizon? Such, at any rate, were the accounts to\nbe heard from the prophets down there, so that we must have some other\nanswer to give if we wish to keep for the sun his constitutional order\nwithout deviation.\u2019\n\nIV. \u2018Not for the sun only,\u2019 cried Ammonius the philosopher, who was\npresent, \u2018but for the whole heavens! For his passage from solstice to\nsolstice must of necessity be curtailed and not [Sidenote: 411] cover so\nlarge a portion of the firmament as mathematicians say, its southern\nparts constantly shrinking towards the more northerly. Our summer, too,\nmust become shorter, and its temperature colder, as his course curves\ninwards, and he covers wider parallels among the tropical\nconstellations. Again, the gnomons at Syene must cease to throw no\nshadow at the summer solstice; many fixed stars would be found to have\nclosed in, some of them touching others and being mingled with them as\nthe interval disappeared. If, on the other hand, they shall [Sidenote:\nB] assert that the other bodies remain as they are, the sun alone being\nirregular in his movements, they will be unable to state the cause which\naccelerates him alone out of so many bodies, and will throw most of the\nphenomena into confusion, those of the moon entirely, so that there will\nbe no need of measures of oil to prove the difference; eclipses will\nprove it, when the sun comes into contact with the moon more frequently,\nand the moon with the earth\u2019s shadow. The rest is clear, and there is no\nneed to unravel any further the imposture of the theory.\u2019 \u2018For all\nthat,\u2019 said Cleombrotus, \u2018I saw the measures with my own eyes, for they\nshowed me several; that of the current year [Sidenote: C] fell\nconsiderably short of the oldest.\u2019 Ammonius rejoined: \u2018Then it has\nescaped all the others who keep up unextinguished fires, and preserve\nthem for a number of years which we may call infinite. Assume, however,\nthat what is said is true; is it not better to take the cause to be\natmospheric chills or moisture, which might probably weaken the fire so\nthat it would not consume or need so much fuel; on the other hand, times\nof dryness or heat? Before now I have heard it said of fire that it\nburns better and with more strength in winter, being [Sidenote: D]\ncontracted and condensed by the cold, whereas in hot times it loses\npower, and becomes attenuated and feeble; again, that in sunlight it is\nless efficient, attacking the fuel sluggishly and consuming it more\nslowly. Most likely of all, the true cause may be in the oil. There is\nno improbability in thinking that it was in old days unsubstantial and\nwatery, being produced from a young plant, but afterwards, when well\nmatured and condensed, it had more force and better nutritive power in\nan equal quantity. I am supposing that we are bound to save this\nhypothesis for the servants of Ammon, absurd and unnatural as it is.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: E] V. When Ammonius had done, \u2018Rather\u2019, said I, \u2018tell us all\nabout the oracle, Cleombrotus; for the old reputation of the divine\npower there was great, nowadays it seems to be somewhat dwindling.\u2019 As\nCleombrotus was silent, and cast his eyes downwards, Demetrius said:\n\u2018There is no need to raise questions about what is happening there, when\nwe see the growing enfeeblement of the oracles nearer home, I might\nrather say the cessation of all save one or two; the question is from\nwhat cause has their power thus passed away? Why mention others, when\nBoeotia, in old times full of voices with her oracles, has now been\nquite deserted, as though by sources of [Sidenote: F] water, and a great\ndrought of prophecy has possessed the land? Nowhere, except round\nLebadeia, has Boeotia anything to give to those who wish to draw water\nfrom prophetic art; for the rest, silence or utter desertion is the\norder. Yet in the times of the Persian wars it was in no less repute\nthan that of [Sidenote: 412] Amphiaraus, and Mys, as it would seem,\ntried both.[132] So the prophet of the Ptoan Oracle, in former times\naccustomed to use Aeolian, uttered a response in the tongue of the\nBarbarians, which none of the local persons present understood, but Mys\nalone; however, the Barbarian caught the inspiration, and the injunction\ndid not need to be translated into Greek. As to the slave sent to the\nshrine of Amphiaraus, he seemed to see in his sleep a minister of the\nGod, who first spoke to turn him out telling him that the God was not\npresent, then used his hands to push him, and, when he persisted, took a\ngreat stone and smote him on the head. This was all a [Sidenote: B]\nprediction in act of what was to come about; for Mardonius was defeated\nby the Greeks under no king but a regent and a lieutenant of a king, and\nhe fell struck by a stone,[133] just as the Lydian appeared in his sleep\nto be struck. At that time the oracle at Tegyrae was flourishing; there\nthey say that the God was born, and of the streams which flow past it\none, as some tell, is called the \u201cPalm\u201d, the other the \u201cOlive\u201d to this\nday. Again, in the Persian wars, when Echecrates was prophet, the God\npromised victory and might in war to [Sidenote: C] the Greeks. Then in\nthe Peloponnesian war, when the Delians had been turned out of their\nisland, it is said that an oracle was brought from Delphi, ordering them\nto discover the place where Apollo was born, and to perform certain\nsacrifices there. When they were in wonder and perplexity at the idea\nthat the God had not been born among them but elsewhere, the Pythia\nadded that a crow should reveal to them the spot. They went away and\nreached Chaeroneia, where they heard the landlord of the inn conversing\nwith certain strangers on their way to Tegyrae about the oracle. These\nstrangers, on leaving, addressed the woman in saying farewell as Corone\n(Crow). Then they [Sidenote: D] understood the oracle, and having\nsacrificed at Tegyrae, managed shortly to effect their return. There\nhave been more recent manifestations at these prophetic shrines, but now\nthey have failed; so that it may well be worth while here, in the home\nof the Pythian, to discuss the cause of the change.\u2019\n\nVI. By this time we were away from the temple, and had reached the doors\nof the Hall of the Cnidians. Passing inside, we saw the friends for whom\nwe were making, seated and waiting for us. There was a general stillness\nbecause of the hour; people were anointing themselves or watching the\nathletes. Then Demetrius, with a quiet smile, said: \u2018Shall [Sidenote: E]\nI tell a story, or shall I speak the truth? My belief is that you have\nno problem in hand worth a thought; I see you seated much at your ease,\nwith relaxation on your faces.\u2018 \u2018Oh yes;\u2019 broke in the Megarian\nHeracleon, \u2018we are not inquiring whether the verb \u201cto throw\u201d loses a\nlambda in the future, nor as to the positive forms of \u201cworse\u201d, \u201cbetter\u201d,\n\u201cworst\u201d, [Sidenote: F] \u201cbest\u201d. Those are the questions, those and others\nlike them, which bring frowns and wrinkles! All others we may examine\nlike philosophers, with brows steady, and quietly, not looking death and\ndaggers at the company.\u2019 \u2018Then take us as we are,\u2019 said Demetrius, \u2018and\nwith us the subject upon which we have actually fallen, one which is\nproper to the place, and concerns us all for the God\u2019s sake. And mind!\nno wrinkled eyebrows when you attack it!\u2019\n\nVII. We mingled our companies and sate down in and out [Sidenote: 413]\nof each other, and Demetrius had propounded the subject, when up sprang\nthe Cynic Didymus, by nickname Planetiades, struck the ground two or\nthree times and shouted out: \u2018Oho! Oho! a mighty difficult subject,\nwhich needs much inquiry, you have brought us! A wonder indeed that,\nwith so much wickedness poured over the earth, not only \u201cModesty and\nSense of Justice\u201d, to quote Hesiod,[134] have deserted human life, but\nDivine Providence, too, has packed up its oracles and is gone from\neverywhere. I throw out the opposite problem for you to discuss. Why\nhave they not ceased long ago? Why has not Hercules or some other God\nwithdrawn the tripod, [Sidenote: B] filled every day with foul ungodly\nquestions, propounded to the God by some as if he were a sophist whom\nthey were to catch out, by others to ask about treasures or inheritances\nor marriages which law forbids. The result is that Pythagoras is proved\nmighty wrong when he said that men are always at their best when they\napproach the Gods.[135] Accordingly, things which it were decent to\ncloak and deny in the presence of an older man, diseases and affections\nof the soul, these they lay bare and open before the God!\u2019 He wanted to\ngo on, but Heracleon plucked at his cloak, and I, almost his greatest\n[Sidenote: C] intimate present, said: \u2018Dear Planetiades, leave off\nprovoking the God. He is easy to be entreated and gentle:\n\n                 _Mildest to mortal men pronounced to be_,\n\nas Pindar[136] says. And whether he be sun, or lord and father of the\nsun, lord and father beyond all that is visible, it is not likely that\nhe should deem us modern men unworthy of a voice from himself, being to\nthem the cause of birth and nurture and being and thinking. It is not\nseemly, either, that Providence, our thoughtful kindly mother, who\nproduces and maintains all things for us, should remember our misdeeds\nin one matter only\u2014prophecy, and should take away what she [Sidenote: D]\noriginally gave. As if in those old days there were not more bad men\nbecause men were more, when oracles were set up in so many parts of the\ninhabited world! Come here, and sit down again! Swear a Pythian truce\nwith wickedness, whom you are chastising in word every day; join us in\nseeking some other cause for the alleged failure of the oracles.\u2019 My\nwords had some effect; Planetiades went away by the doors and in\nsilence.\n\nVIII. There was a short interval of quiet, then Ammonius [Sidenote: E]\naddressed me. \u2018Lamprias,\u2019 he said, \u2018take care what we are doing, and\ngive your mind to the discussion, lest we find ourselves making out that\nthe God is no true cause. He who thinks that the cessation of the\noracles is due to something other than the will of a God, suggests the\nthought that they come into being and exist, not because of the God, but\nin some other way. For if prophecy be the work of a God, there is no\ngreater or stronger power to remove and abolish it. Now the argument of\nPlanetiades displeased me in many points, especially as to the\ninconsistency which he makes out in the God, at one time [Sidenote: F]\nturning away from vice and disowning it, at another admitting it; as\nthough a king or tyrant were to shut out bad men at one door, and admit\nthem to interviews by another. Start with the operation most proper to\nthe Gods, which is great, yet never excessive, always sufficient in\nitself; and tell me that [Sidenote: 414] Hellas has had the largest\nshare in the general depopulation caused by former revolutions and wars\nover the whole perhaps of the inhabited globe, and could now scarcely\nprovide all round three thousand hoplites, the number which the single\nstate of Megara sent out to Plataea.[137] Why, for the God to have left\nmany places of his oracle would be merely to expose the desolation of\nGreece. Then I will put myself in your hands for ingenuity. For who\nwould get the good if there were an oracle at Tegyrae as there formerly\nwas, or near Ptoum, where it is a day\u2019s work to meet one man minding his\nflocks. This very spot, most venerable of all and most renowned \u201cfor\ntime and fame\u201d, was for a long time made desert and unapproachable by a\nsavage beast, a female dragon as the story goes; but this is to invert\nthe facts of its lying idle; the [Sidenote: B] wilderness invited the\nbeast, the beast did not make the wilderness. But when, in the good\npleasure of the God, Hellas revived in her cities, and the place had men\nin plenty, two prophetesses were employed, who were lowered in turn, and\na third was appointed to relieve. Now there is only one, and we do not\ncomplain, for she is enough for those who need her. So we have no cause\nto blame the God; the prophetic establishment now subsisting suffices\nfor all, and sends away all with what they want. Agamemnon used to\nemploy seven heralds, yet [Sidenote: C] scarcely could control the\nnumerous assembly, whereas in a few days you will see in the theatre\nhere that a single voice reaches all present, and even so it is with\nprophecy; then it used more voices to reach more persons, now we should\nfairly wonder at the God if he allowed his prophecy to flow to waste\nlike water, or like the rocks to find an echo for the voices of\nshepherds and their flocks.\u2019\n\nIX. When Ammonius had said this, and I remained silent, Cleombrotus\naddressed me: \u2018Have you now granted\u2019, he said, [Sidenote: D] \u2018that the\nGod makes and also destroys the oracles?\u2019 \u2018By no means\u2019, I said. \u2018I\nmaintain that no prophetic shrine or oracle is destroyed by the God\u2019s\nagency. It is as with many other things which he makes or provides;\nNature brings in destruction and negation; or rather Matter, which is\nnegation, unweaves and breaks up that which is brought into being by the\nmore powerful cause. Even so I think there are times of obscuration and\nwithdrawal of prophetic forces. The God gives many fair things to men,\nbut gives nothing immortal, so that, in the words of Sophocles:[138]\n\n               _The works of Gods may die, but not the Gods._\n\nI say that their essence and their power must be sought in [Sidenote: E]\nNature and in Matter, the origin being rightly reserved to the God. It\nwould be simple and childish to suppose that the God himself creeps into\nthe bodies of the prophets and speaks from there, using as instruments\ntheir mouths and voices, like those ventriloquists once called\n\u201cEurycleis\u201d, now \u201cPythones\u201d. He who mixes up the God with mortal needs\ndoes not spare [Sidenote: F] his majesty nor preserve the dignity and\nthe greatness of his excellence.\u2019\n\nX. Then Cleombrotus: \u2018You are right. Yet it is hard to grasp and to\ndefine how, and up to what point, we may make use of Providence; and\ntherefore those who make the God the cause of nothing at all, and also\nthose who make him the common cause of all, go wide of moderation and\ndecency. It is well said, on the one hand, that Plato, in discovering\nthe element which underlies created qualities, now called \u201cMatter\u201d or\n\u201cNature\u201d, relieved philosophers from perplexities [Sidenote: 415] many\nand great. It seems to me, on the other, that those who have inserted\nthe class of daemons between Gods and men, to draw and knit together the\nfellowship of the two orders after a fashion, have cleared away more\nperplexities and greater; whether the view belongs to Zoroaster and the\nMagi, or comes from Thrace and Orpheus, or from Egypt, or from Phrygia,\nas we conjecture from seeing in both those countries many elements of\ndeath and mourning in the rites celebrated there, mingled with those of\ninitiation. Among the Greeks, Homer appears still to use both names\nindifferently, and sometimes [Sidenote: B] to call the Gods daemons.\nHesiod first clearly and distinctly laid down four classes of reasonable\nbeings, Gods, then daemons, then heroes, last of all men; and here he\nappears to admit transition, the golden race of men passing into daemons\nmany and great, the demigods at last into heroes.[139] Others make out a\nchange for bodies and souls alike. As water is seen to be produced out\nof earth, air from water, and fire from air, and the substance is borne\nupwards, even so the better souls receive their change from men into\nheroes, from heroes into daemons. From the daemons again, a few in a\nlong course of time, upborne [Sidenote: C] through virtue, become full\npartakers of divine nature. To some it happens not to have control of\nthemselves; so they subside and again enter mortal bodies, and endure a\nlife as dim and unillumined as an exhalation.\n\nXI. \u2018Hesiod thinks that in certain periods of time the daemons die.\nSpeaking in the person of the Na\u00efd he darkly indicates the time:\n\n         _Full ages nine of men that live their prime\n         Lives the hoarse crow, four crows the stag outlives,\n         Three stags the ancient raven, ravens nine\n         The phoenix, but the phoenix, ten times told,\n         We fair-haired nymphs, daughters of Zeus most dread._[140]\n\n[Sidenote: D] Those who take the word \u201cage\u201d wrong bring this to a very\nlarge total; it means a year, so that the sum comes out nine thousand\nseven hundred and twenty for the years of life of the daemons. Most\nmathematicians think it to be less; not even Pindar[141] has called it\ngreater, when he tells us that the nymphs live\n\n                 _Their term appointed even as the trees_,\n\nand therefore names them Hamadryads.\u2019 He was still [Sidenote: E]\nspeaking when Demetrius broke in: \u2018What was that, Cleombrotus? The year\ncalled an \u201cage of man\u201d? Human life, whether \u201cat its prime\u201d or, as\nsome[142] read \u201cin its old age\u201d is not of that length. Those who read\n\u201cat its prime\u201d, follow Heraclitus[143] in taking \u201can age\u201d to be thirty\nyears, the time in which the parent sees his offspring a parent. Those\nwho read \u201cin its old age\u201d instead of \u201cat its prime\u201d give a hundred and\neight years to the \u201cage\u201d, taking the middle term of human life to be\nfifty-four, the number made up of unity, the two first surfaces, the two\nfirst squares and the two [Sidenote: F] first cubes,[144] the number\ntaken by Plato[145] in his \u201cGeneration of the Soul\u201d. Hesiod\u2019s whole\nstory seems to have been framed with a veiled reference to the\n\u201cConflagration\u201d, when all things moist will probably disappear and with\nthem the Nymphs,\n\n                _Who in fair glades their habitation have\n                By river sources and in grassy meads._\u2018[146]\n\nXII. Then Cleombrotus: \u2018I hear of this from many, and now I see the\nStoic \u201cConflagration\u201d, which already spreads over the verses of\nHeraclitus and Orpheus, catching those of Hesiod [Sidenote: 416] too! I\nhave no patience with this \u201cWorld-Conflagration\u201d, and then the\nimpossibility of the thing! When one can remember the periods, as it is\neasiest to do with the crow and the hind, one sees how exaggeration\npasses in. The year has within itself the beginning and the end\n\n              _Of all things which the circling seasons bear,\n              And parent earth_,[147]\n\nso there is nothing against usage in calling it an \u201cage of man\u201d. You\nallow yourselves, I believe, that Hesiod means human life by \u201cthe age\u201d.\nIs it not so?\u2019 Demetrius agreed. \u2018Well, [Sidenote: B] but this is also\nclear,\u2019 said Cleombrotus, \u2018that the same words are often used for the\nmeasure and the things measured, as pint, quart, gallon, bushel. As then\nwe call unity a number, being the smallest measure of number and its\norigin, so he has called our first measure of human life by the same\nword as the thing measured\u2014\u201can age\u201d. The numbers which the others invent\nhave none of the clarity or distinctness usual in numbers. As to the\nnine thousand seven hundred and twenty, it has come about by taking the\nsum of the first four numbers, starting with [Sidenote: C] unity, and\nmultiplying it by four, or four by ten.[148] Thus we get forty in either\nway, which, when five times multiplied [triangle-wise][149] by three,\ngave the number proposed. But about these matters there need be no\ndifference between us and Demetrius. Whether the time be longer or\nshorter, determinate or not, in which the soul of a daemon shifts and\nthe life of a demigod, the point will have been proved, before any judge\nhe chooses, on the evidence of wise and ancient witnesses, that there\nare certain natures on the borderland between Gods and men, subject to\nmortal affections and enforced changes, who may rightly receive our\nworship according to the custom of our fathers, and be thought of as\ndaemons and called so.\n\nXIII. \u2018Xenocrates, the companion of Plato, used triangles [Sidenote: D]\nin illustration of the doctrine; he compared the equilateral to a divine\nnature, the scalene to a mortal, and the isosceles to a daemonic; the\nfirst equal in all relations, the second unequal in all, the third equal\nin some, unequal in others, like the daemonic nature with its mortal\npassions and divine power. Nature has put forward images, which our\nsense can perceive, visible likenesses; the sun and the stars standing\nfor Gods, flashes and comets and meteors for mortal men, an image which\nEuripides[150] drew in the lines: [Sidenote: E]\n\n            _In all his bloom, like to a falling star\n            His light was quenched, his spirit passed, to air._\n\nBut there is a being which is mixed, and really an imitation of the\ndaemons, the moon. Men, seeing her circumference so much in accord with\nthat order of beings, the manifest wanings and waxings and phases which\nshe undergoes, have called her, some an earthlike star, others an\nOlympian earth, others \u201cthe portion of Hecate\u201d, who belongs at once to\nheaven and earth. As, then, if one were to remove the lower air,\nwithdrawing all [Sidenote: F] between earth and moon, an empty\nunconnected space would be left, and the unity and continuity of the\nwhole dissolved, even so those who refuse to leave us the daemons break\noff all intercourse and mutual dealing between Gods and men, by removing\nthat order in Nature which could \u201cinterpret\u201d, in Plato\u2019s[151] words, and\n\u201cminister\u201d, or else they compel us to mingle all things into one mass,\nforcing the God into human passions and business, and drawing him down\nto our needs, [Sidenote: 417] as Thessalian witches are said to draw the\nmoon. Only their imposture found credit with women, when Aglaonice the\ndaughter of Hegetor, who knew her astronomy, chose an eclipse of the\nmoon, and then pretended to do magic and draw her down. But as for us,\nlet us never listen when we are told that there are prophecies with no\ndivine agency, or rites and orgiastic services which the Gods do not\nheed; nor on the other hand suppose that the God is in and out and\npresent there, taking part in the business. Let us leave all this to\nthose [Sidenote: B] rightful ministers of the Gods, their ushers or\nclerks. Let us hold that there are daemons who watch the performance of\nrites, and inspire the mysteries, while others go about to avenge crimes\nof insolence and pride, and to others Hesiod[152] has given a venerable\nname,\n\n                                             _of wealth\n               The saintly givers; such their kingly trust_.\n\nObserve that to do so is kingly. For there are, as among men, so among\ndaemons, degrees of excellence, and in some subsists still some slight,\nfaint, almost excremental remnant of passion and absence of reason; in\nothers this is strong and hard to do away, its traces and symbols being\nin many places preserved and sporadically found in sacrifices and rites\nand tales of wonder. [Sidenote: C]\n\nXIV. \u2018Now as to the mystic rites, in which the most evident and\ntransparent indication may be had of the truth about daemons, \u201cpeace be\nupon my lips\u201d, as Herodotus[153] says. Feasts and sacrifices, days\nsinister and gloomy, so to call them, when are meals of raw flesh, and\nrendings and fastings and beaten breasts, and in many places unholy\nspells over the sacrifices:\n\n    _Whoopings wild, and cries of frenzy, necks together tossed in\n       air_,[154]\n\nall these, I would say, belong to no God, but are modes of appeasement\nand soothing to avert bad daemons. The human sacrifices which used to be\nperformed were neither asked for nor accepted by Gods, we cannot believe\nit; yet kings and [Sidenote: D] captains would not have endured to give\nup their own children by way of initiating the rites, or to cut their\nthroats, without a purpose; it was to soothe and satisfy the heavy\ndispleasure of beings cruel and hard to be moved, or in some cases their\nfrantic low passions, worthy of tyrants, when bodily approach was\nimpossible or not desired. As Hercules besieged the town of Oechalia for\nthe sake of a maiden, so strong and violent daemons, requiring in vain a\nhuman soul still enveloped in the body, bring pestilences to cities and\nsterility of land, and stir up wars and seditions, until they succeed in\ngetting that on which their affection is set. Some have fared otherwise;\n[Sidenote: E] thus in a long stay in Crete I came to know of an absurd\nfestival observed there: the headless form of a man is shown, and you\nare told that this was Molus, father of Meriones, who assaulted a maiden\nand was found without a head.\n\nXV. \u2018Now all the crimes of violence, all the wanderings of Gods, all\ntales of hiding, banishment, servitude, which are [Sidenote: F] said or\nsung in myth or hymn, are adventures which happened not to Gods but to\ndaemons, and are recorded to show their excellence or power;\nAeschylus[155] was wrong when he wrote\n\n                 _Apollo pure, the God exil\u2019d from heav\u2019n_,\n\nand so was the Admetus in Sophocles[156] wrong:\n\n              _Mine was the cock who called him to the mill._\n\nWidest of the truth of all are the theologians of Delphi, who, thinking\nthat a battle once took place here between the God and a serpent for the\npossession of the oracle, allow poets and speech-writers contending in\nthe theatres to tell these stories, [Sidenote: 418] expressly belying\ntheir own most sacred rites.\u2019 Philippus, the historian, who chanced to\nbe present, here expressed surprise, and asked: \u2018What rites such\ncompetitors belied?\u2019 \u2018Those relating to the oracle,\u2019 was the reply,\n\u2018whereby the city, admitting to initiation those from here to Tempe has\nnow banished all Greeks dwelling beyond Thermopylae.[157] For the booth\nset up afresh every nine years near the court of the temple is not like\nany den or serpent\u2019s haunt, but is an imitation of the dwelling of a\ntyrant or king. And the assault made upon it in silence through what\nthey call \u201cDolon\u2019s Way\u201d, by [Sidenote: B] which the Aeolidae bring the\nboy, both of whose parents are living, with lighted torches, put fire to\nthe booth, overturn the table, and then flee through the gates of the\ntemple without turning back; and lastly the wanderings of the boy and\nhis servile offices, and the purification rites at Tempe, all convey a\nsuspicion of some great crime of shocking audacity. For it is quite\nabsurd, my friend, that Apollo, after killing a beast, should flee to\nthe extremities of Greece in quest of purification, and then should pour\nlibations there and do all which men do to [Sidenote: C] appease and\nsoften the wrath of daemons (fiends and avengers as they are called,\nbecause they pursue the memories of old unforgotten stains). The story\nwhich I once heard about that flight and removal is strangely absurd and\nsurprising; but if there be any truth in it, let us never believe that\nwhat passed about the oracle in these old times was any trifling or\nordinary matter. However, fearing to seem to do what Empedocles\ndescribes:\n\n        _Stringing sundry myths, nor ever keeping to a single path_,\n\nI will ask you to allow me to affix the proper conclusion to my first\ntale, for we have just reached it. Many have said it before [Sidenote:\nD] us; let us dare to say it now. When the daemons who have to do with\noracles and prophecies fail, all such things fail too, and lose their\nforce if the daemons flee or shift their place; then, if they return\nafter an interval, the things speak aloud, like instruments of music\nwhen those who can play them are present to play.\u2019\n\nXVI. When Cleombrotus had finished, Heracleon spoke: \u2018There is no\nprofane or uninitiated person present, no one who holds views about the\nGods discordant with our own; but let us keep jealous watch on\nourselves, Philippus, lest without our own knowledge we assume strange\nand even monstrous [Sidenote: E] hypotheses.\u2019 \u2018Well said,\u2019 answered\nPhilippus, \u2018but what shocks you specially in what Cleombrotus is\nadvancing?\u2019 \u2018That the oracles should be administered,\u2019 said Heracleon,\n\u2018not by Gods, who may well be quit of earthly concerns, but by daemons,\nassistants of the God, seems to me a not unfair assumption; but then to\npluck, I had almost said by the handful, out of the verses of\nEmpedocles, sins, infatuations, and God-inflicted wanderings, and to\nfasten them upon these daemons, and to suppose that in the end they die\nlike men, this I do think a somewhat bold and barbarian view.\u2019 Here\nCleombrotus [Sidenote: F] asked Philippus who and whence the young man\nwas, and, after learning his name and city, said: \u2018No, Heracleon, it is\nby no means \u201cwithout our own knowledge\u201d that we have reached strange\npropositions; but in discussing great matters it is not possible to\nattain what is probable in opinion without starting from great\npremisses. But you, though you do not know it yourself, are taking back\nwhat you grant. You allow that there are daemons; but when you require\nthat they should not be faulty [Sidenote: 419] nor yet mortal, it is no\nlonger daemons that you retain. For in what do they differ from Gods if\nas to their being they are immortal, and as to virtue are passionless\nand impeccable?\u2019\n\nXVII. As Heracleon remained silent and in deep thought, he went on:\n\u2018Faulty daemons come to us not from Empedocles only, but from Plato and\nXenocrates and Chrysippus; yes, and Democritus,[158] when he prays to\nmeet \u201cfair-falling phantoms\u201d, shows that he knew of others which were\ndisagreeable, with definitely vicious intentions and impulses. As to\ndeath in such beings, I have heard a story from a man who was no fool or\n[Sidenote: B] romancer. Some of you have heard Aemilianus the orator;\nEpitherses was his father, my fellow-townsman and teacher in grammar. He\nsaid that he was once on a voyage to Italy, and embarked on board a ship\ncarrying cargo and many passengers. It was already evening when the\nbreeze died down off the Echinades Islands; and the ship drifted till it\nwas near Paxi. Most on board were awake, and many still drinking after\nsupper. Suddenly a voice was heard from the island of Paxi; some one was\ncalling Thamus in a loud voice, so that they all wondered. [Sidenote: C]\nThamus was an Egyptian pilot, not even known by name to many of the\npassengers. Twice he was called, and remained silent; the third time he\npaid attention to the caller, who raised his voice and said: \u201cWhen you\nreach the Palodes, tell them that Great Pan is dead.\u201d Hearing this,\nEpitherses said, all were in consternation, and began discussing with\none another whether \u201cit were better to do as was ordered, or to refuse\nto meddle and to let it be. They decided in the end that, if there were\na breeze, Thamus should sail past quietly, but if there should be calm\nabout the place, he should hail, and report. When he was off the\nPalodes, as there was neither wind nor wave, [Sidenote: D] Thamus at the\nhelm looked to land and repeated the words he had heard: \u201cGreat Pan is\ndead.\u201d He had no sooner done this than a great groaning was heard,\nproceeding not from one but from many, mingled with cries of wonder. As\nthere were many present, the story was soon spread in Rome, and Thamus\nwas sent for by Tiberius Caesar, who so entirely credited the story,\nthat he caused inquiry to be made about Pan. The scholars, of whom there\nwere many round him, conjectured that he was the son born of Hermes and\nPenelope.\u2019[159] (Philippus [Sidenote: E] was able to produce several\nwitnesses from the company who had heard the old Aemilianus.)\n\nXVIII. Demetrius told us that, among the islands near Britain, many were\ndeserted and lay scattered (Sporades), some of them bearing the names of\ndaemons and demigods. He himself, by the Emperor\u2019s command, made a\nvoyage of inquiry and observation to the nearest of the deserted\nislands, which had a few inhabitants, all sacred persons and never\nmolested by the Britons. Just after his arrival, there was a great\nconfusion in the atmosphere, many portents from the sky with gusts of\nwind and fiery blasts. When these calmed [Sidenote: F] down, the\nislanders said that \u2018one of the mightier ones has ceased to be.\u2019 For as\na lamp when lighted, so they explained, has no unpleasant effect, but\nwhen extinguished is disagreeable to many people, so it is with great\nsouls: their kindling into life is easy and free from pain; their\nextinction and death often breed winds and tempests, \u2018such as you see\nnow\u2019, and infect the air with pestilence and sickness. They added that\nthere is one island in particular where Cronus is a prisoner, being\nguarded in his sleep by Briareus; for sleep has been devised to be a\nchain to bind him, and there are many daemons about him as satellites\nand attendants.[160]\n\nXIX. Cleombrotus spoke next: \u2018I have stories of the same [Sidenote: 420]\nkind which I might tell; but it is enough for our hypothesis that there\nis nothing which actually contradicts it or makes such things\nimpossible. Yet we know\u2019, he continued, \u2018that the Stoics not only hold\nthe view which I am advancing with [Sidenote: B] reference to daemons,\nbut also recognize one out of the great multitude of Gods who is eternal\nand immortal; the others, they think, have come into being, and will\nperish. From the flouts and laughter of the Epicureans, which they\nventure to employ against Providence also, calling it a mere myth, we\nhave nothing to fear. We maintain that their \u201cInfinity\u201d is a myth; so\nmany worlds, not one of which is governed by divine reason, all produced\nspontaneously, and so subsisting. If it be permissible to laugh in\nspeaking of Philosophy, we may laugh at the dumb, blind, soulless images\nwhich they shepherd during countless cycles of years, to reappear and\nanon return in all directions, some issuing from bodies still living,\nsome [Sidenote: C] from those long ago burned or rotted. Thus they drag\ninto physiology cyphers and shadows; yet if one asserts that daemons\nexist not in physical nature only, but as matter of theory, able to\nremain in being for long periods of time, they show irritation.\u2019\n\nXX. When these views had been stated, Ammonius spoke: \u2018I think\u2019, he\nsaid, \u2018the dictum of Theophrastus was right. For what prevents our\naccepting a view which is dignified and highly philosophical? To\ndisallow it is to reject many things possible but incapable of positive\nproof; to allow it is not[161] necessarily to import many which are\nimpossible and [Sidenote: D] baseless. However, the only argument which\nI have heard the Epicureans employ against the daemons as introduced by\nEmpedocles, that, if they are faulty and liable to sins, they cannot be\nblessed beings and long-lived, because vice implies much blindness and a\nliability to destructive accidents, is a foolish one. For, on this\nshowing, Epicurus will be a worse man than Gorgias the sophist, and\nMetrodorus than Alexis the writer of comedies. For Alexis lived twice as\nlong as Metrodorus, and Gorgias more than a third as long again as\nEpicurus. It is in another sense that we call virtue strong and\n[Sidenote: E] vice weak, not with regard to the duration or dissolution\nof body. Look at the lower animals: many which are sluggish in limb and\ndull in spirit, loose or disorderly in habits, live longer terms than\nthe sensible and ingenious. Hence the Epicureans do wrong in ascribing\nthe immortality of God to the caution and resistance which he opposes to\ndestructive forces. No, the immunity from suffering and death should be\nlaid in the nature of the blessed being, and should imply no trouble on\nhis part. Perhaps, however, it is inconsiderate to argue against persons\nnot present. It is now for Cleombrotus to resume his [Sidenote: F]\nargument lately interrupted, about the migration and exile of the\ndaemons.\u2019\n\nXXI. Then Cleombrotus: \u2018Very well; I shall be surprised, however, if it\ndoes not appear to you much stranger than what we have already said. Yet\nits basis lies in Nature, and Plato struck the note, not stating his\nview in plain terms, but as an obscure theory, cautiously throwing out a\nhint in enigmatical form; for all which even he has been met with a\ngreat outcry [Sidenote: 421] from the other philosophers. Now since we\nare here with a bowl in our midst of mingled myths and theories\u2014and\nwhere should a man meet with kinder listeners before whom to try\ntheories as foreign coins are tried?\u2014I do not hesitate to give you the\nbenefit of the story of a certain outlandish man. It was after many\nwanderings and after paying heavy search fees, that I found him at last\nwith difficulty, and enjoyed his conversation and kindly welcome. It was\nnear the Red Sea, where once every year he associated with men, spending\nthe rest of his time, as he used to say, with nomad nymphs and deities.\nHe was the handsomest man I ever saw, and kept free from sickness\n[Sidenote: B] of any sort, treating himself once a month with the\nmedicinal and bitter fruit of a grass. He was practised in the use of\nmany tongues; to me he would mostly use a Doric, which was very nearly a\nsong. While he was speaking, there was a fragrance in all the place from\nthe sweet breath passing out of his mouth. His general learning and\ninformation were with him all the time; but one day in every year he was\ninspired with prophecy, and would then go down to the sea and foretell\nthe future; potentates and secretaries of kings would come to visit him\nand then go away. He used to refer prophecy to daemons; [Sidenote: C] he\npaid the greatest attention to Delphi, and there were none of the\nstories told of Dionysus, or of the rites performed here, of which he\nhad not heard. But he would say that all those stories belonged to\nmighty sufferings of daemons, and among them this of the Python; only\nthat his slayer was not exiled for nine years nor to Tempe, but was\nturned out into another universe, returning thence after nine\nrevolutions of the Great Year, purified and \u201cPhoebus\u201d indeed, to resume\npossession of the oracle, which had been guarded in the meanwhile by\nThemis. That the stories of the Typhons and Titans were [Sidenote: D]\nsimilar; there had been battles of daemons against daemons, followed by\nbanishment of the defeated or expiation of offenders by a God, for\ninstance, Typhon is said to have sinned against Osiris, and Cronus\nagainst Uranus; deities whose honours have become dim or been altogether\nforgotten since they were removed to another universe. Thus I hear that\nthe Solymi, who dwell near the Lycians, hold Cronus in special honour;\nbut when he had slain their princes, Arsalus, Dryus, and Trosobius, he\nwas banished and removed (whither they cannot say). So he passed out of\naccount, but Arsalus and his fellows are called \u201cstern Gods\u201d, and the\nLycians publicly [Sidenote: E] and in private make execrations in their\nnames. Many stories like these may be had out of theological\ncollections.\u2019 \u2018But if we call certain daemons by the recognized names of\nGods,\u2019 the stranger said, \u2018it should be no wonder, for to whatever God\neach has been assigned, to share his power and honour, after him he\nlikes to be called; even as among ourselves one is \u201cof Zeus\u201d, one \u201cof\nAthena\u201d, one \u201cof Apollo,\u201d one \u201cof Dionysus\u201d, one \u201cof Hermes\u201d; only some\nhave by accident been rightly called, most have received names quite\ninappropriate, [Sidenote: F] misapplied names of Gods.\u2019\n\nXXII. Here Cleombrotus paused. All present found his story a marvellous\none, but Heracleon asked how it bore upon Plato, and in what sense he\nhad given the note. \u2018You perfectly remember\u2019, said Cleombrotus, \u2018that he\nrejected, on the face of it, an infinity of worlds, but felt a\ndifficulty as to [Sidenote: 422] a limited number, and was ready to go\nup to five,[162] thus conceding probability to those who assume one\nworld for each element, but himself keeping to one. This appears to be\npeculiar to Plato, the other philosophers[163] regarding with horror any\nplurality, because, if you do not limit matter to one world, when you\npass outside unity you arrive at once at an unlimited and perplexing\ninfinity.\u2019 \u2018But did your stranger\u2019, I asked, \u2018limit the number of worlds\nas Plato does, or did you neglect to find this out when you were with\nhim?\u2019 \u2018Was it [Sidenote: B] likely,\u2019 said Cleombrotus, \u2018when he\ngraciously put himself at my disposal? On these points, if on nothing\nelse, I was, of course, an attentive and eager listener. What he said\nwas that there is not an infinite number of worlds, nor yet one, nor yet\nfive, but one hundred and eighty-three, arranged in a triangle with\nsixty worlds in each side. Of the three left over, each is placed at one\nangle. Each world keeps a light touch on its neighbours while they\nrevolve as in a dance. The area inside the triangle is the common hearth\nof all, and is called the \u201cPlain of Truth\u201d, and within it the formulae,\nand ideas, and patterns, [Sidenote: C] of things which have been and\nthings which are, lie undisturbed. Eternity is around them, and from it,\nlike a stream drawn off from it, Time passes to the worlds. Once in ten\nthousand years human souls, if they have lived good lives, are allowed\nto see and inspect this sight; and the best of the initiations performed\nhere are a dream of that review and that initiation. In our\nphilosophical discourses we are working on the memory of the fair things\nwhich are seen there, or else our discourse is vain. This\u2019, he said, \u2018is\nthe tale I heard from him; he spoke as a man does in the mystery of an\ninitiation, and offered no demonstration or evidence.\u2019\n\nXXIII. I turned to Demetrius: \u2018How\u2019, I said, \u2018do the [Sidenote: D] lines\nabout the Suitors run, where they wondered to see Ulysses handling the\nbow?\u2019 When he had remembered them, \u2018Just\u2019, I said, \u2018what it comes into\nmy head to say about your stranger:\n\n              _Surely the rogue some pilfering expert is_[164]\n\nin doctrines and theories from everywhere. He had travelled widely in\nletters, and he was no Barbarian, but a Greek steeped deeply in Greek\nlearning. The number of his worlds proves it against him, for it is not\nEgyptian nor yet Indian, but Dorian of Sicily, and comes from a man of\nHimera named Petron. [Sidenote: E] His own pamphlet I never read and I\ndo not know whether it is extant; but Hippys of Rhegium, mentioned by\nPhanias of Eresus, records it as his view or theory that there are one\nhundred and eighty-three worlds all in touch with one another \u201cby\nelements\u201d, whatever that may mean; he gives no further explanation or\nproof of any sort.\u2019 \u2018What proof could there be\u2019, broke in Demetrius, \u2018in\nmatters of that sort, where Plato, without a word to make it reasonable\nor likely, simply laid down his theory?\u2019 \u2018And yet\u2019, said Heracleon,\n[Sidenote: F] \u2018we hear you grammarians referring the view to Homer,[165]\non the ground that he distributes the whole into five worlds, Heaven,\nWater, Air, Earth, Olympus. Two of these he leaves \u201ccommon\u201d, namely,\nEarth with all the lower portion of the whole, Olympus with all the\nupper. The three in the middle have been allotted to the three Gods. So\nalso Plato,[166] apparently assigning to the different aspects of the\nwhole the bodily forms [Sidenote: 423] and figures which are the most\nbeautiful and the first, spoke of five worlds, one each for earth,\nwater, air, fire, but kept for last that which includes the others, the\nworld of the Dodecahedron, an expansible and versatile body, and\nassigned to it the figure which suits the psychical periods and\nmovements.\u2019 Demetrius said: \u2018Why not let sleeping Homers lie for the\npresent? We have had enough of myths. But as to Plato, he is very far\nfrom calling the five different aspects of the world five worlds; and,\nwhere he is combating those who assume an infinite number, states his\nown opinion that this is the only one, and is the sole creation of God\nand beloved by him, brought into being [Sidenote: B] out of the\ncorporeal whole, entire, complete, and self-sufficing. Hence it may\nappear strange that he should himself state the truth, yet supply to\nothers the fundamental principle of a view which is improbable and\nirrational. To give up the defence of a single world was in a sort to\ngrant the assumption of the infinity of the whole. To make the definite\nnumber of worlds five, neither more nor less, was quite against reason\nand removed from all probability. Unless\u2019, he added, turning to me, \u2018you\nhave anything to say?\u2019 \u2018It seems to me\u2019, I said, \u2018to come to this, that\nyou have now dropped our discussion about oracles, as concluded, and are\ntaking up a fresh one of equal [Sidenote: C] importance.\u2019 \u2018We have not\ndropped the old one,\u2019 said Demetrius, \u2018only we do not decline the new\nwhen it fastens on us. For we do not mean to linger upon it, only to\ntouch on it sufficiently to ask how far it is probable; then we will\nreturn to the original subject.\u2019\n\nXXIV. \u2018In the first place then,\u2019 I said, \u2018the reasons which prevent the\nmaking of an infinite number of worlds do not prevent the making of more\nworlds than one. It is possible that both prophecy and a Providence may\nfind place in several worlds, and that the intrusion of Chance may be\nvery small, while most things, and those the greatest, observe order in\n[Sidenote: D] their origin and their transition, none of which\nsuppositions is consistent with Infinity. In the next place, it is most\nconsonant with reason that God should not have made the world a sole\ncreation and left it to itself. For, being perfectly good, he is lacking\nin no virtue, least of all in the virtues of Justice and Friendliness,\nfor these are most beautiful and becoming Gods. Now it is the nature of\nGod to have nothing which is idle or without use. Therefore there are\nother Gods and worlds outside, towards which he exercises the social\nvirtues; for Justice, or Gratitude, or Benevolence, cannot be exercised\ntowards himself or any part of himself, it must be towards [Sidenote: E]\nothers. So it is not likely that this world should toss about in the\ninfinite void without friends, without neighbours, without\ncommunication; since we see Nature herself wrapping up individuals in\nclasses and species, as though in jars or seed-vessels. There is nothing\nin the whole list of things which has not some common formula, nor can\nanything be called by a distinctive name which does not possess,\ngenerically or individually, certain qualities.[167] But the world is\nnot spoken of as possessing generic qualities; it has qualities then as\nan individual, which distinguish it from others akin to and resembling\nitself. For [Sidenote: F] if there is not in the world such a thing as\none man, one horse, one star, one God, one daemon, what is to prevent\nthere being in Nature not one world, but several? If any one says that\nNature has one earth and one sea, he fails to see the obvious fact of\nsimilar parts. For we divide earth into parts, all with one common name,\nand sea likewise. But a part of the world is no longer a world; it is\ncomposed of parts naturally different.\n\nXXV. \u2018Again, the chief fear which has led some to use [Sidenote: 424] up\nthe whole of matter on our world, that nothing may be left outside to\ndisturb its coherence by resistance or thrusts, is a needless one. For\nsuppose several worlds, to each of which is apportioned its own being,\nand matter definitely measured and limited, then nothing will be left\noutside without place or formation, like an extruded remnant, to put\npressure from without. For the law which has control of the matter\nallotted to each world will not allow anything to be thrust out and\nwander to strike upon another world, or anything from another to strike\nits own, because Nature admits neither quantity without limit, nor\nmovement without law and arrangement. [Sidenote: B] Or, even if any\nstream be drawn off and pass from worlds to other worlds, it must needs\nbe homogeneous and kindly, mingling itself mildly with all, as the stars\nwhen they blend their rays. And the worlds themselves must have delight,\nas they gaze on one another in friendliness, and must also provide for\nthe Gods in each, who are many and good, times of intercourse and common\ncheerfulness. There is nothing impossible in all this, no fairy tale and\nno paradox; unless, mark me, the views of Aristotle[168] are to bring it\ninto suspicion on physical grounds. For if each body has its own place,\nas he says it has, earth must necessarily move towards the centre\n[Sidenote: C] from every side, and the water rest upon it, underlying\nthe lighter elements because of its weight. If, then, there are many\nworlds, the result will be that earth is in many places above fire and\nair, and in many below them; and the same with air and water too, which\nwill be here in natural places, there in unnatural. Which being\nimpossible, as he thinks, there must neither be two worlds nor more than\ntwo, but this one only, composed of all matter, and established\naccording to Nature and to the several qualities of matter.\n\nXXVI. \u2018However, all this is more plausible than true. Look at it in this\nway,\u2019 I went on, \u2018dear Demetrius: when [Sidenote: D] he says that some\nbodies move downward towards the middle, others upwards from the middle,\nothers around the middle, with reference to what does he take the\nmiddle? Not to the void surely, for on his view there is none. But in\nthe view of those who allow a void, it has no middle, just as it has no\nfirst or last, for these are limits, but the infinite has no limits. Or\nif a man were to force himself, by sheer thinking, to conceive any\nmiddle point in an infinite void, what is the resulting difference in\nthe movements of the different bodies towards it? Bodies have no force\nin the void, nor yet have bodies any choice or impulse to make them aim\nat the middle and tend towards it from all sides. Besides, where there\nare bodies with [Sidenote: E] no soul, and a place which is incorporeal\nand without difference of parts, it is as impossible to conceive of any\nmovement towards it arising out of themselves, as of any attraction upon\nthem arising out of it. It remains that the middle is spoken of not in a\nlocal sense but in a corporeal. For granted that this world has unity of\nstructure with many dissimilar elements, the different parts have\nnecessarily different movements towards different objects. This is clear\nfrom the consideration [Sidenote: F] that different elements, where\ntheir substance is transferred, change their places at the same time;\nrarefaction distributes in a circular movement the matter raised upwards\nfrom the middle; consolidation and condensation press matter downward\ntowards the middle and force it together.\n\nXXVII. \u2018On this subject more words are needless here. Whatever you\nassume to be the effective cause of these vicissitudes and changes, it\nwill hold each world together within itself. Each world has earth and\nsea, each has a middle point [Sidenote: 425] of its own, its own\nvicissitudes and changes of the bodies upon it, and a nature and a force\nwhich preserve everything and keep it in its place. As for what is\noutside, whether it be nothing or an infinite void, it presents no\nmiddle point, as we have said; while, if there be many worlds, each has\na middle point of its own, and therefore a special movement of bodies to\nor from or about that middle (to follow the distinction made by these\nthinkers). To insist that, where there are many middle points, weights\npress from all sides to one, is as though we should insist that, whereas\nthere are many men, the blood from all should flow together into a\nsingle vein, and the brains of all be enveloped in a single pia mater;\nand to make it a grievance [Sidenote: B] that all hard bodies in nature\nshould not be together in one place, and all rarefied bodies in another.\nThat would be preposterous, and equally so to complain that wholes\nshould have their parts disposed in their natural order within each of\nthem. It might be absurd to call that a world which has a moon low\ndown[169] within it, like a man with his brain lodged in his ankles or\nhis heart in his temples. But to make several independent worlds, and\nthen to differentiate the parts in sets to follow their wholes, and so\ndivide them, is not absurd. Earth, [Sidenote: C] sea, and heaven will be\nin their natural and proper arrangement within each. Above, below,\naround, middle have no relation to another world or to the outside, each\nworld has them all in and for itself.\n\nXXVIII. \u2018As to the \u201cstone\u201d which some assume to be outside the world, it\nis not easy to form a conception of it, either as at rest or in motion.\nFor how is it either to remain at rest, being weighty, or to move\ntowards the world, like other heavy bodies, being no part of it nor\nreckoned in with its substance? Earth embraced in another world, and\nattached to it, need cause [Sidenote: D] no difficulty, when it does not\npart from the whole because of its weight, and shift hitherwards, since\nwe see the natural strain by which each of the parts is held in its\nplace. For if we look, not to the world but outside it, to get our\nconception of \u201cbelow\u201d and \u201cabove\u201d, we shall find ourselves in the same\ndifficulties as Epicurus, who made all his atoms move to places under\nour feet, as though either the void had feet, or infinite space\npermitted us to conceive of \u201cabove\u201d or \u201cbelow\u201d within itself! Hence,\nagain, we must feel surprise at Chrysippus, or indeed be quite at a loss\nas to what possessed him to say that the world has been settled \u201cin the\nmiddle\u201d, and that its substance, having occupied this middle place from\nall eternity, [Sidenote: E] works therewith for permanence and in fact\nfor indestructibility. These are his words in the Fourth Book of his\nwork on \u201c_Things Possible_\u201d, where he falsely dreams of a middle of the\ninfinite, and assigns, still more preposterously, to that non-existent\nmiddle the cause of the stability of the world; and yet he had often\nsaid in other works, that substance is controlled and maintained by the\nmovements towards and away from its own middle point.\n\nXXIX. \u2018Then as to the other arguments of the Stoics, who can find them\nalarming? They ask how we are to keep one Destiny and one Providence if\nthere are many worlds, and whether we shall not have many \u201cDi\u00e8s\u201d and\nmany \u201cZen\u00e8s\u201d. [Sidenote: F] In the first place, if it is absurd that we\nshould have Zeus in the plural number, surely their scheme will be far\nmore absurd; for they make, in the revolutions of infinite worlds, sun,\nmoon, Apollo, Artemis, Poseidon, all multiplied to infinity. Then, what\nmakes it necessary that there should be many \u201cDi\u00e8s\u201d, if there are more\nworlds than one, rather than one principal God the emperor of the whole,\npossessing intelligence and reason, sovereign in each world, such a one\nas he who is called with us lord and father of all? Or what is to\nprevent all worlds [Sidenote: 426] from being subject to the Destiny and\nProvidence of Zeus, and that he should overlook and control each in\nturn, supplying to each the principles, the seeds, the formulae of all\nwhich is brought about? It cannot be that here we often have a single\nbody composed of diverse bodies, as an assembly, an army, a choir, each\nof whose component bodies has life, thought, apprehension (and this is\nthe view of Chrysippus), and yet that it should be impossible that in\nthe Whole there should be ten worlds or fifty, or a hundred, all based\non a common [Sidenote: B] formula, and ranged under a single principle.\nNay, such a disposition is altogether worthy of Gods. We have not to\nmake them sovereigns of a hive out of which they never pass; to guard,\nnor to enclose or imprison them in matter, which is what the Stoics do\nwhen they make the Gods atmospheric phases, or powers of the waters or\nthe fire, infused therein, brought into being with their world and again\nburnt up with it, not leaving them unattached or free, as charioteers or\nsteersmen might be; but rather, as statues are nailed or soldered to\ntheir bases, shut into the corporeal and clamped thereto, to share with\nit till there come destruction and general dissolution and change.\n\nXXX. \u2018Yet the other theory is loftier and more magnificent, [Sidenote:\nC] that the Gods are masterless and self-controlled, as the Tyndaridae\nwhen they help sailors in storm.\n\n                   _They visit them, the waves they bind\n                   By soothing pow\u2019r, and tame the wind_,\n\nnot going on board themselves to share the peril, but appearing from\nabove and delivering men; even so the Gods visit the worlds, now one and\nnow another; drawn on by joy as they contemplate, and steering each in\nits natural course. [Sidenote: D] For the Zeus of Homer[170] had not\nvery far to carry his eye from Troy to the parts of Thrace, and the\nwandering tribes about the Ister; but the real Zeus has beautiful\npassages and becoming to himself among worlds more than one, not looking\nout upon an infinite void, nor having his mind intent upon himself and\nnothing else (as was the view of some), but surveying many works of Gods\nand men, and movements and periodic orbits of stars. The divine nature\nis no foe to changes, but takes much delight in them, if we may judge\nfrom the bodies which [Sidenote: E] appear in the heavens, their changes\nand periods. Now Infinity is altogether without feeling or reason; it\nhas no room to admit a God, all goes by chance and spontaneously. But\nthe Providence which cares for worlds defined and limited in number\nappears to me to involve nothing less dignified or more laborious than\nthat which has entered a single body, and attached itself thereto, to\nrefashion or shape it anew in infinite particulars.\u2019\n\nXXXI. Having said so much, I paused. Philippus, after a short interval,\nwent on: \u2018Whether the truth about these [Sidenote: F] things be so, or\nnot, I could not, for my own part, assert with confidence. But if we are\nto force the God outside one world, why make him the artificer of five\nworlds and no more; and what is the bearing of that number on the\nplurality of worlds? I would rather be informed on this point than as to\nthe inner meaning of the consecration of the letter \u201cE\u201d in this place.\nThat letter is neither triangle, nor square, nor \u201cperfect\u201d, nor cubic,\nnor has it any other apparent elegance for those who love and admire\nsuch things. The process out of the elements, at which the Master\nobscurely hinted, is hard to grasp [Sidenote: 427] in every respect, and\nshows none of that probability which must have drawn him on to say that\nit is likely that out of five solid bodies having equal angles and equal\nfaces and enclosed by figures of equal area, when set into matter, the\nsame number of perfect worlds was at once produced.\u2019\n\nXXXII. \u2018Yes,\u2019 said I, \u2018yet Theodorus of Soli seems to treat the argument\nvery fairly, in expounding the Mathematics of Plato. This is his method:\nthe Pyramid, the Octahedron, the Eicosahedron and the Dodecahedron, the\nsolid figures which Plato ranks first, are all beautiful because of the\nsymmetry and equality of their formulae; nothing better than these or\nequal to them has been left over for Nature to compose [Sidenote: B] or\nto frame. They have not, however, all been constructed on a single plan,\nnor have all a similar origin. The Pyramid is the finest and smallest,\nthe largest and the one of most parts is the Dodecahedron; of the\nremaining two the Eicosahedron is more than double the Octahedron in\nnumber of triangles.[171] It follows that it is impossible for all to\ntake their origin at once from one and the same matter. For those which\nare fine and small, and more simple in their structures, must be the\nfirst to obey him who stirs and fashions the mass; they must sooner\ncohere and be completed than those whose parts are abundant, and the\nfigures complex, and their construction more laborious, [Sidenote: C] as\nthe Dodecahedron. It follows that the Pyramid is the only primal body,\nand that none of the others is so; they are left behind by Nature in the\nbecoming. For this strange result there is, however, a remedy, the\ndivision and distribution of matter into five worlds. Here the Pyramid\n(for it first formed substance), there the Octahedron, in a third world\nthe Eicosahedron. But from the figure which first took substance in each\nthe rest will take their origin, all change arising by concretion or\ndissolution of parts, as Plato himself shows.[172] He goes thoroughly\ninto nearly all the cases, but for us a brief survey will suffice. Since\nair is formed when fire is extinguished, and when rarefied [Sidenote: D]\nagain yields fire out of itself, we must observe what happens to the\nseeds of either element, and the changes. The seeds of fire[173] are the\nPyramid with its twenty-four primary triangles; the seeds of air are the\nOctahedron with its forty-eight. Therefore one element of air is formed\nby the commixture and coherence of two of fire; and one of air is\nexchanged into two of [Sidenote: E] fire, or by close pressure into\nitself passes away into the form of water. Thus, universally, that which\nis first formed readily allows the others to come into being by\ntransmutation. It is not the case that one is first; different elements\nin different structures give the initial and prerogative movement into\nbeing, yet the common name is kept throughout.\u2019\n\nXXXIII. \u2018Bravo, Theodorus!\u2019 said Ammonius; \u2018he has worked out his task\nwith spirit. Yet I shall be surprised if he is not found to be using\nassumptions which are mutually destructive. He wants to have it that all\nfive solids do not attain their structure together, the finest and\neasiest of [Sidenote: F] composition always breaking first into being.\nThen, as though following upon this, and not conflicting with it, he\nlays it down that it is not all matter which admits the finest and\nsimplest element first, but that sometimes the heavy and complex objects\nare the first to emerge out of matter. But to pass over this, whereas it\nis assumed that there are five primal bodies, and therefore an equal\nnumber of worlds, he makes out probability for four only; he has\ndiscarded the Cube as if playing at [Sidenote: 428] counters, since\nNature does not adapt it to pass into the others or them into itself,\nbecause the triangles are not of the same kind. In the other cases the\nbasis of formation is the semi-(equilateral) triangle; to the Cube the\nright-angled isosceles is peculiar, which is incapable of converging\ntowards the others or joining with them to form one solid angle. If\nthen, there are five bodies and five worlds, and in each the primary\nbelongs to some one, then where the Cube has been the first to come into\nbeing, the rest will be nowhere, for it is unable to change into any of\nthem. I pass by the fact that they make the element of the Dodecahedron\nalso a different thing from that scalene [Sidenote: B] out of which\nPlato constructs the Pyramid, the Octahedron, and the Eicosahedron. And\nso\u2019, added Ammonius, with a laugh, \u2018you must either resolve these\ndifficulties, or give us something of your own about the common\nproblem.\u2019\n\nXXXIV. \u2018I have nothing more probable to offer, at least at the moment;\u2019\nI said, \u2018yet perhaps it is better to show cause for one\u2019s own view than\nfor that of others. I say then, going back to the beginning, that if we\nassume two natures, one sensible, liable to changes of becoming and\nperishing, and to various movements at different times, the other\nessential, intellectual, always behaving alike under the same\nconditions, it is strange, friend, that the intellectual should admit of\ndistinction and division within itself, while with regard to that which\nis bodily, and subject to affections, there should be trouble and\n[Sidenote: C] dissatisfaction if we refuse to leave it one,\nself-coherent and self-convergent, but separate and part it. Surely it\nis rather the permanent and divine which should hold together and\nshrink, as far as may be, from all dissection and analysis. Yet the\nforce of \u201cthe Other\u201d has gripped them, and has worked greater\ndivergences than those of place in things intellectual, I mean those\nmade by Reason and Idea. Hence Plato,[174] opposing those who make out\nthe Whole to be one, tells us of Being, and the [Sidenote: D] Same, and\nthe Different, and, besides all these, of Movement and Rest. Given then\nthese five, it would not be wonderful if these five corporeal elements\nhave been made by Nature copies and images of them severally, none free\nfrom admixture or transparent, but each element so far as it could best\nparticipate in each principle. Thus the Cube is clearly a body congenial\nto Rest, because of the stability and firmness of its surfaces. No one\ncan fail to detect the fire-like, active character of the Pyramid in the\nfineness of its sides and the sharpness of its angles. The nature of the\nDodecahedron, which embraces [Sidenote: E] the other figures, might well\nbe taken for an image of Being in relation to all that is corporeal. Of\nthe remaining two, the Eicosahedron is found most to partake of the idea\nof the Different, the Octahedron of that of the Same. Therefore the\nlatter represented air, which holds all being in one constant form, the\nformer water, which when mixed assumes new qualities the most numerous.\nIf then Nature requires throughout equality before the law, it is\nprobable that worlds have been created neither more nor less in number\nthan the patterns, in order that each pattern in each world may hold\nthat primacy and power which it has had in the composition of the\nelementary bodies.\n\n[Sidenote: F] XXXV. \u2018So much for that! May it reassure any one who is\nsurprised at our dividing the natural processes of becoming and mutation\ninto so many classes! Now comes another point, which I will ask you all\nto consider with me. Of the ultimate first principles, by which I mean\nunity and the undelimited two, the latter, as the element of all\nshapelessness and disorder, has been called Infinity; but unity by its\nnature limits and arrests what is void and irrational and undetermined\nin [Sidenote: 429] Infinity, and imparts shape, and fits it to receive\nand endure that definition of things apprehended by the senses which is\nimplied in counting. These principles appear first in connexion with\nnumber; but I would rather say, universally, that plurality is not\nnumber until unity supervenes, as form upon matter, and cuts off from\nundetermined Infinity, more on this side, less on that. For plurality in\neach case only becomes number when it is determined by unity. Again, if\nunity be struck off, the undetermined two throws all into a confusion\nwithout balance or limit or measure. Now since form is not a withdrawal\n[Sidenote: B] of underlying matter but is shape and order thereof, both\nprinciples must necessarily be found in number, and hence arises the\nfirst and greatest difference or dissimilarity. The undetermined\nprinciple is the constructive cause of the even, the better one of the\nodd. Two is the first of the even numbers, three of the odd; out of them\ncomes five, in its composition common to both lists, in its effect, odd.\nFor when the sensible and corporeal was to be divided into several\nparts, in virtue of the inherent cogency of the Other, their number must\nnot be the first even nor yet the first odd, but the third, that formed\nout of these, so that it may take its origin from both [Sidenote: C]\nprinciples, that which constructs the even and that which constructs the\nodd; for neither could possibly be separated from the other; each\npossesses the nature and power of a principle. Both principles then\nbeing paired, the better one checked the indeterminate when it was\ndividing up the corporeal; and prevailed; when matter was being\ndistributed between the two it set unity in the middle, and did not\nallow an equal division of the whole. So a plurality of worlds has been\nbrought into being by the \u201cOther\u201d quality in the undetermined, and by\ndifference; but that plurality is odd, made so by the operation of \u201cthe\nSame\u201d and \u201cthe Determinate\u201d, and odd in such a sense that Nature was not\nallowed to advance beyond what was best. For if the unity had been\nwithout admixture [Sidenote: D] and pure, matter would have been exempt\nfrom any breaking up whatever; but as it has been mingled with the\ndiscriminative power of the two, separation and division were so far\naccepted; but there it stopped, the even overcome by the odd.\n\nXXXVI. \u2018Hence again the ancients were accustomed to use the words \u201cto\ntake fives\u201d for to count. I think, too, that the word for \u201call\u201d\n(_panta_) has been logically formed as though from \u201cfive\u201d (_pente_)\nbecause the number five is composed of the first numbers. For the others\nwhen multiplied by other numbers come out to a product different from\nthemselves; but five if taken an even number of times gives a perfect\nten, if an odd, it reproduces itself. I pass over the facts [Sidenote:\nE] that five is composed of the first two squares, one and four, and\nthat its own square is equal to the sum of the two before it, forming\nwith them the most beautiful of right-angled triangles, and that it is\nthe first number to give sesquiplicate ratio. For perhaps they are not\ngermane to the subject before us. This, however, is more germane, that\nthe number five has a divisory virtue, and Nature divides most things by\nfive. In [Sidenote: F] ourselves are five senses, and there are five\nparts of the soul, those of growth, sense, appetite, passion, reason. We\nhave five fingers on each hand; seed is most fertile when it parts into\nfive (no instance has been recorded of a woman bearing more than five at\na birth); Rhea is said in Egyptian mythology to have given birth to five\nGods,[175] a veiled reference to the production of the five worlds out\nof one matter. Turning to the universe, the surface of earth is divided\ninto five zones, and the Heavens are divided by five circles, two\nArctic, two [Sidenote: 430] Tropic, one in the middle, the Equinoctial.\nFive are the orbits of the planets, if we take those of the sun and\nVenus and Mercury as one. Lastly, the universe has been composed in the\nEnharmonic Scale, just as our melody is made up of the arrangement of\nfive Tetrachords, lowest, middle, conjunct, disjunct, highest. And the\nintervals are five: diesis, semitone, tone, tone and a half, double\ntone. Thus it seems that Nature loves to make all things on the\nprinciple of five, rather than, as Aristotle[176] used to say, of the\nSphere.\n\nXXXVII. \u2018What is the real reason, some one will ask, why Plato[177]\nreferred the number of five for his worlds to the five solid figures,\nsaying that \u201cGod used the fifth formation on the universe to mark it\nout\u201d? In the sequel, when he raises the [Sidenote: B] problem of\nplurality of worlds, whether we should properly speak of one or of five\nas naturally existing, he shows clearly that the suggestion came from\nthe solids. If, then, we are to adjust what is actually probable to his\nconception, let us consider that difference in movement must in each\ncase follow difference in the solids and their shapes, as Plato[178]\nhimself teaches, when he [Sidenote: C] shows that what is rarefied or\ncondensed suffers a change of place simultaneously with alteration of\nsubstance. If from air fire be formed, the Octahedron being resolved and\nbroken up into Pyramids, or again if air from fire, when compressed and\nthrust into an Octahedron, it is impossible that either should remain\nwhere it was before; they fly off rapidly to another place, forcing a\nway out and battling with whatever resists and presses upon them. The\nresult is shown still more clearly by an illustration from grain \u201ctossed\nand winnowed by the fans and implements used for cleaning corn\u201d;\nPlato[179] says that [Sidenote: D] in like manner the elements toss\nmatter about and are tossed by it; like approaches like, different\nobjects take different places, before the whole comes out finally\nmarshalled. Thus then, matter being what any universe must be from which\nGod is absent, the first five properties, each with its own tendency, at\nonce began to move apart, not being entirely or purely separated,\nbecause, when all things were mixed up together, the vanquished\nparticles always followed their conquerors, in despite of Nature. Hence\nthey produced in the kinds of bodies, as they were borne in different\ndirections, parts and divisions as many as themselves: one not of pure\nfire but [Sidenote: E] resembling fire, one not of unmixed air but\nresembling air, one not of earth simple and absolute but resembling\nearth. Most general was the association of air with water, because they\npassed out saturated with the many other classes. For God did not\nseparate nor disperse being; but taking it up dispersed by its own\noperation and borne about in so many streams of disorder, he ordered and\ndisposed it in symmetry and proportion. [Sidenote: F] Then he set reason\nin each to be a governor and guardian, and created as many worlds as\nthere were kinds of primal bodies. Let so much then be inscribed to\nPlato for Ammonius\u2019 sake. For myself, I could never speak with\nconfidence as to the number of worlds and affirm that there are so many:\nbut I think the view that there are more than one, yet not an indefinite\nbut a limited number, as reasonable as either of the other views, when I\nsee how scattered and divided matter naturally is, that it does not\nabide in one place, nor yet [Sidenote: 431] is suffered by reason to\npass into Infinity. Here, if anywhere, let us remember the Academy rule,\nand clear ourselves of excessive credulity, and treading on this\nslippery ground when reasoning about Infinity, only make sure that we\nkeep our footing.\u2019\n\nXXXVIII. When I had finished, \u2018Lamprias gives us sound advice\u2019, said\nDemetrius. \u2018The Gods by many forms\u2014not \u201cof sophistries\u201d, as it is in\nEuripides,[180] but of things\u2014deceive us, when we dare to pronounce\nopinions about these [Sidenote: B] great matters as if we knew. But \u201cwe\nmust cry back\u201d, to quote the same authority,[181] to the assumption from\nwhich our argument started. The statement that the oracles, when the\ndaemons move off and desert them, lie idle and speechless, like musical\ninstruments with none to play on them, raises another and a greater\nquestion as to the cause and power whereby they make the prophets and\nprophetesses subject to fits of inspiration and fancy. For it is\nimpossible to allege the desertion as a cause of the silence unless we\nare first satisfied in what sense they preside and by their presence\nmake the oracle active and vocal.\u2019 \u2018What?\u2019 rejoined Ammonius, \u2018do you\nsuppose that the daemons are anything but souls which move around, as\nHesiod[182] says \u201cgarmented in mist\u201d? In my view, as man differs from\nman when he plays tragedy or [Sidenote: C] plays comedy, so soul differs\nfrom soul after it has fashioned for itself a body convenient to its\npresent life. It is not then irrational or even wonderful that souls\nmeeting souls should create within them fancies of that which is to be,\njust as we convey to one another, not only through voice, but often by\nwritten signs, by a touch, a glance, many intimations of things past,\nand forewarnings of things future. Or perhaps you have something\ndifferent to tell us, Lamprias? For a rumour reached us lately that you\nhad held a long discussion on these subjects with strangers at Lebadeia;\nbut our informant [Sidenote: D] did not clearly remember any of it.\u2019 \u2018Do\nnot be surprised at that,\u2019 I said, \u2018for there were many interruptions\nand much was going on, because it was a day of consultation and\nsacrifice, which made our conversation fragmentary and intermittent.\u2019\n\u2018But now\u2019, said Ammonius, \u2018you have listeners with full leisure, and\neager to inquire and to be told. There is no question of rivalry or\nfaction, and you see what a frank full hearing has been accorded to\nevery view.\u2019\n\nXXXIX. The others joined in encouraging me, and after a few minutes of\nsilence I went on: \u2018I must begin by saying [Sidenote: E] that it so\nhappens that you, Ammonius, have given me a sort of opening for bringing\nforward now what I then said. For if the souls which have been separated\nfrom the body or have never had commerce with one at all, are daemons as\nyou say, and God-like Hesiod[183] also:\n\n        _Holy visitants of Earth and guardians sure of mortal men_,\n\non what principle do we deprive souls while in their bodies of that\nfaculty whereby the daemons know and declare beforehand things to be? It\nis not likely that any power or new part accrues to souls when they\nleave the body, which they did not possess before. Rather, they always\nhave it, but in a weak degree while they are intermingled with the body;\nit is sometimes quite invisible and veiled, sometimes weak and dim, and,\nas with those who see through a mist or who try to move in a marshy\nplace, inoperative and dull, demanding much attention to the virtue that\nis in them, and much pains to raise and remove and purify the\nobstructing veil. The sun when he chases the clouds away does not then\nbecome bright; he is bright always, [Sidenote: 432] but to us through\nthe mist his light appears dim and struggling. Even so the soul does not\nassume the prophetic power when it passes out of the body as out of a\ncloud; it has it even now, but is blinded by its close admixture with\nthe mortal state. We should not be surprised or incredulous, if only\nbecause we see the great energy which Memory, as we call the faculty in\nthe soul which answers to prophecy, exhibits, in preserving and\nprotecting things that are past, or rather things that now are,[184]\nsince of things past none is or has substance; all things [Sidenote: B]\ncome into being and at the same time perish, all actions, words, and\nfeelings, as time like a river bears each along. But this faculty of the\nsoul, I know not how, gets a grasp of them, and invests with appearance\nand being that which is not present. The oracle given to the Thessalians\nabout Arne[185] bade them attend to\n\n              _That which a deaf man hears, a blind man sees._\n\nBut Memory is the hearing of things to which the ear is deaf, the seeing\nof things to which the eye is blind. Wherefore, as I said, it is no\nmarvel that, as it grasps things which no longer are, so it should\nanticipate things which have not yet come into being. For these touch it\nmore nearly, and with these it has sympathy; it confronts the future and\nattaches itself [Sidenote: C] thereto, whereas it is quit of things past\nand finished, saving only to remember them.\n\nXL. \u2018Having then this inborn power yet dimmed and hardly appearing,\nsouls nevertheless break out and are uplifted, in dreams some of them or\nwhen nearing initiation, as the body becomes pure, and takes on a\ntemperature, so to speak, which is suitable, or whether it be that the\nrational and intellectual part is relaxed and discharged from the\npresent things, and so with the irrational and imaginative they reach\ntowards futurity. That line of Euripides[186] is not true:\n\n                _The best of prophets he who guesses well._\n\nNo, the prophet is the sensible man, he who follows the rational part of\nhis soul in the road where it leads him with probability. Divination,\nlike a scroll with no writing or method, in itself [Sidenote: D]\nindeterminate, but capable of receiving fancies and presentiments by the\nfeelings, gets touch with the future, yet not by inference, when it\npasses most completely outside the present. It passes out through such a\ntemperament and disposition of the body as produce a change called by us\ninspiration. Often the body attains this disposition of itself; but the\nearth sends up many streams of many potencies, some which bring trances,\ndiseases, or death, others beneficial, mild, and serviceable, as is\nproved on those who chance upon them. Of all the currents the stream, or\nbreath, of prophecy is most divine and holy, [Sidenote: E] whether it be\ndrawn from the air direct, or come mingled with the moisture of a\nspring; for when absorbed into the body it produces in souls a\ntemperament unfamiliar and strange, the special quality of which it is\nhard to state in clear words, though reason suggests many conjectures.\nProbably, by heat and dispersion, it opens certain passages to admit\nimaginings of the future, just as the fumes of wine bring many other\nstirrings, and unveil words and thoughts which were stored away and\nunheeded, [Sidenote: F]\n\n                     _For in the wine-god\u2019s votary\u2019s mood,\n                 As in the madman\u2019s, lies much prophecy_,\n\nsays Euripides;[187] when the soul, warmed and set on fire, rejects the\ncaution which human prudence brings, to avert inspiration, as it so\noften does, and to quench it.\n\nXLI. \u2018After all, it might be not unreasonably asserted that a dryness\nintroduced with the heat subtilizes the current and makes it ethereal\nand pure. \u201cBest a dry soul\u201d, says Heraclitus;[188] moisture not only\ndulls sight and hearing, but if it [Sidenote: 433] touch a mirror or\nraises[189] a mist upon it, takes away brightness and lustre. As the\nopposite to this, it is not impossible that, by a sort of chilling and\ncondensation of the breath of air, the organ of prognostication is made\ntense and keen, like steel out of the bath. Or again, as tin when melted\nin with copper, itself rarefied and full of apertures, welds it together\nand condenses it, and yet in the result makes it brighter to the eye and\npurer, so there is nothing to prevent the prophetic exhalation,\n[Sidenote: B] wherein is something congenial and akin to souls, from\nfilling up their rarefied places, and inserting itself, and pressing all\ntogether. For certain things are congenial and proper to certain other\nthings; thus an infusion of the bean into the dyer\u2019s bath seems to\nassist its efficacy for purple, of nitre for saffron.\n\n                 _Scarlet is mingled for the pearly weft_,\n\nsays Empedocles. But about Cydnus, and the sacred sword of Apollo at\nTarsus, we used to hear the story from you, dear Demetrius, how Cydnus\ncleans that steel best, and no other water suits the sword. And again,\nat Olympia, water from [Sidenote: C] Alpheus is poured on the ashes to\nmake them adhere to the altar in a mass, and the water of no other river\nwhich has been found has the power of cementing the ash.\n\nXLII. \u2018It is not to be wondered at, then, that of the many streams which\nthe earth sends up, these alone affect souls with inspiration and give\nthem imagination of the future. Certainly legend agrees with reason as\nto this. In this very place it is related that the prophetic virtue was\nfirst made manifest by the accidental falling into it of a shepherd, who\nthereupon uttered sounds as of one inspired. These passed at first\nunheeded by those present; but afterwards, when the things which the man\nforetold had happened, there was astonishment. The most learned of the\nDelphians even mention [Sidenote: D] the man\u2019s name, which was Coretas.\nI am, however, myself strongly of opinion that a soul acquires a\ntemperature congruous with the prophetic current, such as the eye has\nwith light sympathetic to it. Though the eye possesses the power of\nseeing, this cannot act without light; and the prophetic organ of the\nsoul needs, as the eye does, a congenial medium to help in kindling its\nflame, or whetting its edge. Hence most of the older generations used to\nthink that Apollo and the sun were one and the same God, while those who\nknew and honoured that beautiful and wise proportion, \u201cas body to soul,\nso sight [Sidenote: E] to intellect, so light to truth\u201d, would add the\nconjecture \u201cso the power of the sun to the nature of Apollo\u201d, declaring\nthe sun to be his offspring and scion, the ever becoming of the ever\nsubsisting. For the sun kindles and enhances and helps to excite the\nvisual power of the sense, as the God that of prophecy in the soul.\n\nXLIII. \u2018It was natural, however, that those who take the view that they\nare one and the same God should have dedicated this oracle to Apollo and\nEarth in common, thinking that the sun produces in the earth the\ndisposition and temperament from which come the prophetic exhalations\nout of her. We [Sidenote: F] then, like Hesiod,[190] who understood the\nmatter better than some philosophers, when he called her\n\n                          _Unshaken base of all_,\n\nconsider her to be eternal and imperishable. But of the powers which are\nabout her it is to be expected that some should fail here, and others\ncome into being there, and that there should be shiftings from place to\nplace, and cross-currents, and that such cycles should often revolve\nwithin her if we take time as a whole; and the phenomena point to such\nan inference. For in the case of lakes and rivers, and still more\nfrequently in that of hot springs, there have been failure and entire\ndisappearance in some places, in others a retreat so to call it, and an\nabsorption; [Sidenote: 434] then they reappear at intervals of time in\nthe same places, or bubble up in their neighbourhood. Again, we hear of\nmines where the ore has been exhausted and then renewed, as in the\nsilver mines of Attica, and the copper lodes of Euboea, out of which the\nchilled sword-blades used to be manufactured, as Aeschylus[191] has said\n\n              _Th\u2019 Euboean blade, self-tempered, in his hand._\n\nThen there is the rock at Carystus where it is only lately that the\nyield of delicate thread-like filaments of mineral has ceased. I think\nsome of you will remember having seen towels, and nets, and caps made of\nthese, which were non-inflammable. [Sidenote: B] Any which were soiled\nby use were placed in a flame out of which they came bright and clear.\nNow there has been an entire disappearance of these, and scarcely a few\nfibres or thin filaments run in streaks about the mines.\n\nXLIV. \u2018Yet Aristotle[192] holds that exhalation is the operative cause\nwithin the earth of all these things, that is, of the natural effects\nwhich necessarily fail, shift place, and break out concomitantly. The\nsame view must be taken of prophetic currents; the power which they have\nis not perennial nor ageless, it is liable to changes. Probably they are\nextinguished by excessive storms of rain, and dispersed by thunderbolts\n[Sidenote: C] falling upon them; above all, when the earth is shaken,\nand subsidence or conglomeration takes place in her depths, the\nexhalations are shifted or wholly lost to view; thus the effects of the\ngreat earthquake which actually overturned the town are said to be\npermanent here. In Orchomenus they say that there was a pestilence in\nwhich many men perished, and that the oracle of Teiresias then wholly\nfailed, and remains to this day idle and voiceless. If the like happened\nalso to those in Cilicia, as we hear it did, there is no one, Demetrius,\nwho could tell us about it more clearly than you.\u2019\n\nXLV. Demetrius said: \u2018I cannot say how things are now, for it is a long\ntime since I left home, as you know; the [Sidenote: D] oracle of Mopsus\nwas in full force when I was there, and also that of Amphilochus. I can\ntell you of a very remarkable thing which happened to that of Mopsus, in\nmy presence. The propraetor of Cilicia was himself still of two minds\nabout religious questions; from the weakness of his scepticism, I\nimagine, for his general character was violent and bad; but he had about\nhim certain Epicureans, professed mockers at all such things on the\nstrength of their fine physiology. He sent in a freedman, equipping him\nlike a spy going into an enemy\u2019s land, with sealed tablets inside which\nwas written the question, but no one knew what it was. The man spent a\nnight in the [Sidenote: E] sanctuary, as the custom was, and went to\nsleep. The following day he reported a dream, which was this. He thought\nthat a handsome man stood over him, and said the one word \u201cBlack\u201d,\nnothing more, and went straight away. This appeared to us strange, and\ncaused much perplexity. However, that propraetor was struck with\nconsternation, and worshipped; then he opened the tablets and showed us\nthis question written inside: \u201cShall I sacrifice a white bull or a\nblack?\u201d Even the Epicureans [Sidenote: F] were confounded at this, and\nhe himself completed his sacrifice, and ever afterwards held Mopsus in\nreverence.\u2019\n\nXLVI. After saying this, Demetrius was silent. As I wished to bring the\ndiscussion to a head, I glanced again at Philippus and Ammonius, who\nwere sitting together. They appeared to me to wish to exchange some\nremarks, and again paused. Then Ammonius spoke: \u2018Philippus has also\nsomething to say on our past discussion; his own view, as that of most\npeople, is that Apollo is not a different God from the sun, but the\nsame. [Sidenote: 435] My own difficulty is a greater one, and turns on\ngreater matters. Just now we managed to let the argument take its own\nway with due solemnity, to transfer prophetic art simply from Gods to\ndaemons. But now it seems to me that we are thrusting the latter out in\ntheir turn, chasing them hence from oracle and tripod, and resolving the\norigin\u2014I would rather say the existence and power\u2014of prophecy into\nwinds, and vapours, and exhalations. What we have heard about\ntemperatures, and [Sidenote: B] heatings and sharpenings, withdraws no\ndoubt the credit from the Gods, but thereby suggests the inference as to\ncause which the Cyclops in Euripides[193] draws:\n\n            _The earth by force, whether it will or no,\n            Bringing forth grass, fattens my flocks and hinds._\n\nOnly he says that he does not sacrifice to Gods,\n\n                                             _but to myself,\n               And this great belly first of deities_,\n\nwhereas we sacrifice and pray to get our oracles; and why do we do it,\nif souls carry within themselves a power of prophecy, which power is\nstirred up by temperature of some sort in air or breeze? And then the\ncondition of the priestesses, what does [Sidenote: C] that mean, and the\nrefusal to respond unless the whole victim from the hoof-joint up be set\nquivering when it is sprinkled? For it is not enough, as in other\nsacrifices, for it to shake the head, the shivering must be in all the\nparts, and with a tremulous sound; otherwise they tell you that the\noracle is not giving responses, and do not bring in the Pythia. Now, if\nthey ascribe the cause mainly to a God or daemon, it is reasonable to do\nand think thus, but on your view it is not reasonable. For the\nexhalation, if it be there, will produce the transport whether the\nsacrifice quiver or not, and will affect the soul, [Sidenote: D] not\nonly of the Pythia, but equally of any chance comer who has physical\ncontact with it. Thus it is mere folly to employ one woman only for the\noracles, and to take trouble to keep her chaste and holy all her life.\nFor that Coretas who fell in, as the Delphians tell you, and was the\nfirst to make evident the virtue of the place, was in no respect\ndifferent, as I think, from the other goatherds and shepherds, always\nsupposing that this is not a story and an idle fiction, which I think it\nis. Then, when I reckon up the great benefits of which this oracle has\nbeen the cause to the Greeks, in wars, in the founding of cities, in\n[Sidenote: E] times of pestilence and of failure of crops, I think it\ndreadful to ascribe its discovery and origin, not to God and Providence,\nbut to Chance and automatic causes. It is this point\u2019, he added, \u2018that I\nwant Lamprias to argue; will you not wait?\u2019 \u2018Indeed I will,\u2019 said\nPhilippus, \u2018and so will the others, the discussion has stirred us all.\u2019\n\nXLVII. I turned to him. \u2018Stirred us, Philippus? It has confounded me, to\nthink that before so large and so grave a company I should seem so to\nforget my years as with a show of plausible rhetoric to upset and\ndisturb any view about religion which is established in truth and\nholiness. I will [Sidenote: F] defend myself by producing Plato, as\nwitness and advocate in one. Plato[194] found fault with old Anaxagoras\nbecause he attached himself too much to physical causes, and because, in\nhis constant pursuit of the working of necessary law in all which\naffects bodies, he dismissed the better causes or principles, the Final\nand the Efficient. He himself, first of the philosophers or more than\nany of them, went into both sets, attributing to God the origin of all\nthings which are according to reason, but [Sidenote: 436] refusing to\ndeprive matter of the causes necessary for their production; he\nrecognized that in some such way the whole sensible universe is\norganized, yet is not pure nor free from admixture, but has its origin\nin matter involved with reason. Now look at this first in the case of\nthe artists. Take, for instance, the famous base or stand, called by\nHerodotus[195] \u201ccup-stand\u201d, of the bowl here; it had its physical\ncauses, iron, steel, fire to soften and water to temper it, without all\nwhich the object could not possibly be produced; but the more potent\nprinciple [Sidenote: B] which stirred the others and was working through\nthem, was furnished to it by Art and Reason. Now the name of the maker\nor artificer has been inscribed on these several figures or works of\nimitation:\n\n                _Here Polygnotus, son of Aglaophon,\n                The Thasian, painted towering Ilion\u2019s sack._\n\nYou may see it for yourself. But without pigments crushed and compounded\nit would be impossible to present such a composition to the eye. Does\nthen the man who seeks to grasp the physical principle, investigating\nand laying down the effects and [Sidenote: C] the changes of a mixture\nof Sinopic red earth with yellow, or Melian gray with black, rob the\npainter of his glory? Or he who follows out the processes of tempering\nor softening steel, how it is weakened by fire and submits itself to be\ndrawn and hammered, then, plunged into fresh water and compressed and\ndensified by the cold, because of the softness and rarefication induced\nby the fire, acquires temper and consistence\u2014\u201cthe iron\u2019s might\u201d\nHomer[196] calls it\u2014does he any the less preserve for the artist his\npart in the causation? I think not! There [Sidenote: D] are those who\ncriticize the properties of medical appliances; they do not overthrow\nthe art of Medicine. As, for the matter of that, Plato[197] in proving\nthat we see by means of the flash of our eyes mingling with that of the\nsun, and hear by the pulsations of the air, did not rule out the fact\nthat we have received our sight and our hearing in accordance with\nReason and Providence.\n\nXLVIII. \u2018The whole matter, as I maintain, stands thus. All becoming has\ntwo causes, of which the most ancient theologians and poets chose to\nturn their attention to the stronger only, pronouncing over all things\nthe universal refrain:\n\n          _Zeus first, Zeus middle, all things are of Zeus_,[198]\n\nwhile they never approached the necessary or physical causes. Their\nsuccessors, called physicists, did the very reverse; they [Sidenote: E]\nstrayed away from that beautiful and divine principle, and refer\neverything to bodies, and pulsations, and changes, and temperaments.\nHence the systems of both are deficient; they have ignored or neglected,\nthe latter the person through whom and the agent by whom, the former the\nthings from which and the means through which. He who first distinctly\ngrasped both, and attached by necessary law the subject affected to the\nrational Maker and Mover, relieves us as well as himself from any charge\nof contempt or detraction. We do not make [Sidenote: F] prophecy a\ngodless or irrational thing, when we assign to it for its matter the\nsoul of man, and for its instrument, or harp-quill, the inspiring\ncurrent and the exhalation. For, in the first place, the earth which\nbreeds the exhalations, and the sun who gives to earth all power of\ntemperature or of change, are reckoned Gods in the traditions of our\nfathers. Further, in leaving daemons to preside over and guard this\ntemperature, as though it were a melody, to relax the strings in due\ncourse [Sidenote: 437] or to tighten, to clear away that excess of\necstasy and agitation which it causes in the worshippers, and to leave\nexcitement a painless and harmless compound, we shall not be thought to\ndo what is irrational or impossible.\n\nXLIX. \u2018Nor can we allow that in offering the previous sacrifice, or\ncrowning the victim, or pouring on it lustral draughts, we do anything\nrepugnant to this view. For when the priests and holy men sacrifice the\nvictim, and sprinkle it, and watch its movement and its trembling, they\ndo not profess to get from it an intimation of anything but the one fact\nthat the God is giving answers. For the thing offered in sacrifice must\nbe pure both in body and in soul, and free from any injury or taint. As\nto body, it is not very difficult to make [Sidenote: B] out visible\nproof; the test of soul is to offer corn to the bulls, pease to the\nhe-goats; an animal which refuses is reckoned out of health. For the\nshe-goat it is cold water; a soul in a normal state cannot be apathetic\nand motionless under the sprinkling. For my own part, even if it be\ncertain that trembling is a sign that the God is ready to give\nresponses, the contrary that he [Sidenote: C] is not, I see no\ndisastrous consequence. As I said before, every natural force produces\nits result better or worse according to season; if the right season is\nescaping us, it is to be expected that the God should signify the fact.\n\nL. \u2018I think, further, that the exhalation is not always the same, it has\ntimes of relaxation and of intensity. In proof, I can bring forward\nwitnesses, many of them strangers, and all the members of the temple\nstaff. For the room in which they place consultants of the God, is, at\nintervals, which are not frequent or fixed, but come as it may happen,\nfilled with fragrance and a sweet gale, such as the most costly spices\nmight emit, which are thrown up, as out of a well, from the sanctuary.\n[Sidenote: D] We may suppose that they burst out by the action of heat\nor of some other force within. Or, if this does not seem to you\nconvincing, you will at least grant that the Pythia herself appears to\nshow at different times different states and moods of that part of the\nsoul which is in contact with the current, and does not present\nthroughout one temperament, like a melody which never changes. Many\nconscious troubles and excitements, more which are unnoticed, seize her\nbody and stream on into the soul; and when she is charged with these, it\nis better for her not to go in, not to present herself to the God when\nshe is not perfectly pure, like an instrument well strung and tuneful,\nbut is passionate and disordered. Wine does not always affect [Sidenote:\nE] the hard drinker in the same way, nor the flute one susceptible to\nits music; the same men are stirred to tipsy revelling, now less now\nmore, according to difference of temperament. The imaginative part of\nthe soul seems, more than any other, to be controlled by variations in\nthe body, and to change with it. This is clearly shown by dreams;\nsometimes we find ourselves among many visions of every sort in our\nsleep, at others again there is a perfect calm and relief from such\nillusions. We know [Sidenote: F] ourselves Cleon here of Daulia, who\nsays that in the many years which he has lived he has never once seen a\ndream-vision. In an older generation the same is recorded of Thrasymedes\nof Heraea. The cause is bodily temperament, just as, on the other side,\nthere is that of melancholic persons, all dreams and phantoms; although\nthese are supposed to have the gift of dreaming right, for their\nimagination turns them this way or that, [Sidenote: 438] just as those\nwho shoot often, often hit.\n\nLI. \u2018When then the imaginative and prophetic faculty of the soul is\nattempered to the current as to a drug, the inspiration must be brought\nabout in the persons who are to prophesy, when not, not; otherwise the\nresult will be a distortion by no means free from trouble and\ndisturbance, as we know was the case with the Pythia who lately died. A\ndeputation came from abroad to consult the God; the victim remained\nmotionless and impassive under the first sprinkling, then the priests in\n[Sidenote: B] excess of zeal persisted, and at last it did give in when\ndrenched with their shower-bath. What happened to the Pythia?\nUnwillingly and with no alacrity, they say, she went down into the\nvault. In her very first answers she made it clear by the hoarseness of\nher voice that she could not bear up; she was like a ship driven by the\nwind, filled with a dumb bad spirit. At last she became all agitation;\nwith a terrible cry she made towards the door of exit, and dashed\nagainst it, so that not only the members of the deputation fled, but\nalso the prophet Nicander and the holy persons present. However, after a\nshort [Sidenote: C] time, they went in and recovered her. She was then\nin her senses, and lived on for a few days. For these reasons, they keep\nthe person of the Pythia free from intercourse, and from any sort of\ncommunication or contact with strangers; and they take the signs before\nproceeding to the oracle, thinking that it is quite clear to the God\nwhen she has the temperament and condition which will allow her to\nundergo the inspiration with impunity. For the force of the exhaled air\ndoes not affect all persons, nor the same persons always in the same\nway; it only provides fuel, a foundation, as has been explained, for\n[Sidenote: D] those who are fit to be subjected to the change. It is\nessentially divine and daemonic, not however exempt from failure, or\ndestruction, or age, nor is it capable of enduring through that infinite\nspace of time in which all things between moon and earth are exhausted,\naccording to our theory. Some go on to say that the things also which\nare above the moon do not endure, but fail in presence of the eternal\ninfinite, and suffer abrupt changes and new births.\n\nLII. \u2018These things\u2019, I continued, \u2018I commend to your repeated\nconsideration, and my own, as offering many openings for objection and\nmany suggestions of an opposite view, which the present opportunity does\nnot allow us to follow out in their [Sidenote: E] entirety. Let them\nstand over then, and also the problem raised by Philippus about the sun\nand Apollo.\u2019\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  Whose account is, for convenience, somewhat recast and amplified. The\n  fact is understated. \u2018There cannot be more than five solids, each of\n  which has all its faces with the same number of sides, and all its\n  solid angles formed with the same number of plane angles.\u2019 Todhunter,\n  _Spherical Trigonometry_, c. 151.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  _Il._ 10, 173, and Leaf\u2019s note.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  _Od._ 3, 367-8.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  _Il._ 10, 394. See p. 265.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  Herodotus, 8, 133-5. I have followed W.\u2019s reconstruction.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  See _Life of Aristides_, c. 19.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  _W. and D._ 199.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  See p. 231.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  Fr. 149: see above, p. 77.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  Herod. 9, 28 (and see ib. c. 21).\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  Fr. 729. Cp. _O. C._ 607.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  The words \u2018and here\u2014heroes\u2019 have been supplied from a quotation in\n  Eusebius, _Praep. Evan._ 5, 4.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  From a fragment, Gaisford, _Poetae Minores_, ii, p. 489 (cp. Ausonius,\n  _Id._ 18; and Sir T. Browne, _Vulgar Errors_, 3, 9).\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  Fr. 165.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  As Ausonius, loc. cit.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  Fr. 87.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  1 + 2 \u00d7 1 + 3 \u00d7 1 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 2^3 + 3^3 = 54.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  See _Timaeus_, 35.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  _Il._ 20, 8-9.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  See Heraclitus, Fr. 34.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  Inserting, with Mezirius, \u1f22 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 before \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  The meaning is simply that 40 \u00d7 3^5 = 9720, and \u2018triangle-wise\u2019 seems\n  irrelevant.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  Fr. 961 (from the _Phaethon_).\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  _Sympos._ 202 F.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  _W. and D._ 125. Cp. Plato, _Crat._ 397.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  2, 171.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  Pindar, Fr. 208 (cp. _Sympos._ 7, 5, 4).\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  _Suppl._ 214.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  Fr. 730.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  See additional note, p. 312.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  Cp. _Life of Timoleon_, c. 1.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  Cp. Herod. 2, 145.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  See p. 54.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  Reading \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac (\u2018nihil secum trahit impossibile\u2019. Xylander). See\n  Preface, p. vi.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  _Timaeus_, 55.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  As Aristotle, _De Caelo_, I, 8, 276 a 18.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  _Od._ 21, 397.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  _Il._ 15, 189.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  _Tim._ 31 A, 55 C.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  Reading, with Madvig (partly anticipated by Emperius) ... \u1f43 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd ...\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  See e. g. _De Caelo_, 1, 6, 275 b 29, and Burnet, _Early Greek\n  Philosophy_, p. 397 note; see also p. 270 foll.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  Inserting \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, with Meziriac.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  _Il._ 13, 1 foll.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  See p. 115.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  _Tim._ 55 E, foll.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  There is a play on the words for \u2018fire\u2019, \u2018Pyramid\u2019.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  _Soph._ 249 B.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  _Is. et Osir._ c. 12.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  _De Caelo_, 2, 4, 286 b 10.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  _Tim._ 55 C.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  _Tim._ 57 C.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  _Tim._ 52 E.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  Fr. 925.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  See p. 70.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  _W. and D._ 124.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  _W. and D._ 122.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. Cp. Plato, _Philebus_, 33, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n  \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  See Thuc. 1, 12.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  Fr. 963.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  _Bacchae_, 297-8.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  Fr. 75.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  The text is corrupt, but probably contained \u1f41\u03bc\u03af\u03c7\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd. Cp. Plato,\n  _Sympos._ 736 A.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  _Theogon._ 117.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  Fr. 371.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  _Meteor._ 1, 3, 340 b 29.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  _Cyclops_, I. 332-3 (Shelley\u2019s tr.).\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  _Phaedo_, 97 C.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  1, 25, where the work is ascribed to Glaucus.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  _Od._ 9, 393.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  _Rep._ 6, 18, 507 C.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  Cp. Plato, _Laws_, 716 E.\n\n\n\n\n                       ON THE INSTANCES OF DELAY\n                          IN DIVINE PUNISHMENT\n\n\n                              INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe Dialogue on _Delay in Divine Punishment_ stands somewhat apart from\nthe others. It deals gravely with grave matters, the ways of Providence\nwith man, and the \u2018last things\u2019. The method is ingenious and\nsatisfactory. An Epicurean, after scoffing at Providence in a manner\nwhich deeply offends the company, leaves them abruptly. We are reminded\nof the departure of the Cynic Didymus at Delphi (p. 124), and of the\nimmortal episode of Thrasymachus in the First Book of the _Republic_ of\nPlato. The small family party which remains, Plutarch, his brother\nTimon, his son-in-law Patrocleas, and an intimate friend Olympicus, take\nup the points suggested by the attack, not contentiously, or in the\nlanguage of the Schools, but with a view to ascertain whether there is\nanything in them which concerns reasonable men. The friends successively\nraise these points: the slowness of the Gods in punishing, and their\npurposes in the delay; the justice of visiting the sins of parents upon\nchildren, or of a city upon a new generation of citizens; the\npersistence of the soul after physical death here. In all cases it is\nPlutarch who supplies the answer, whereas, in the other long Dialogues,\nthere is some distribution of parts and an interplay of character. In\nthe tone of the dissertations, which is sustained, and little relieved\nby humour, the piece most nearly resembles the essay _On Superstition_.\nPlutarch\u2019s argument is marked by truly academic caution, and an\nadmission of man\u2019s ignorance and limitations, which might have come from\nthe pen of Bishop Butler.\n\nWhen Plutarch has sufficiently established \u2018to demonstration\u2019 the\n\u2018probability\u2019 of his position, he adds, at the urgent desire of the\ncompany, a myth, which he had already offered to produce. The \u2018myth\u2019 is\na device of which Plato has many examples, intended to give symmetry to\nthe Dialogue, \u2018that it may not go about without a head\u2019. But it is more\nthan a literary device; it is a satisfaction of the desire for something\npoetical and constructive which mere Dialectic can never feed. The myth\nabout Thespesius here must be compared with that of Timarchus in the\n_Genius of Socrates_ and with the traveller\u2019s tale of the Island of\nCronus in the _Face in the Moon_.[199] Of Platonic myths, we are first\nreminded of that of Er, which closes the _Republic_, and raises to a\nhigher plane the question whether the just man or the unjust has the\nbest of it. There are necessarily strong points of resemblance to the\nmagnificent judgement myth of the _Gorgias_, and much of the imagery\nrecalls the _Phaedo_. The _Timaeus_ is not perhaps so conspicuously\nbefore Plutarch\u2019s mind here as it is in other works. While there is so\nmuch which can be referred to Plato, there is nothing to suggest that\nPlutarch set himself to make a patchwork out of the stores of his\nretentive memory, still less that he sought to imitate the master from\nwhose genius his industrious and curious mind lay poles apart. His\nhonesty and his common-sense forbade any such attempt.\n\nIt is fortunate that we possess a fragment (redeemed for Plutarch by\nWyttenbach) of a Dialogue with the same speakers, and perhaps intended\nto follow immediately, in which, as though in \u2018calculated contrast\u2019,\nwrites M. Gr\u00e9ard (p. 292), to the grim details contained in the Dialogue\nbefore us, we have a delightful picture of what awaits the just beyond\nthe grave, the truly \u2018initiate\u2019. As all the questions discussed in the\nmain Dialogue are raised in old Greek writers, Homer, Pindar, the\nTragedians, supplemented by the philosophers, and the myth, in its stern\nimagery, is on all fours, for instance, with the _Eumenides_ of\nAeschylus, so the comfortable vision of the initiate in the fragment is\nanticipated by Greeks who wrote four hundred or five hundred years\nbefore. Thus we have the lines of the _Frogs_ of Aristophanes (154\nfoll., tr. G. Murray):\n\n                _Then you will find a breath about your ears\n                Of Music, and a light about your eyes\n                Most beautiful\u2014like this\u2014and myrtle groves,\n                And joyous throngs of women and of men,\n                And clapping of glad hands._\n\nAnd the still more famous picture of Pindar (_Ol._ 2, 68-74, tr. G.\nMoberly):\n\n               _But who in Godlike strife\n           Have dared to keep their secret souls from sin,\n               Thrice tried in either life,\n           E\u2019en to old Saturn\u2019s tower their bright way win.\n               There with melodious din\n               Light breezes, East and West,\n           Fan with soft breath the Islets of the Blest;\n               And golden flowerets breathe,\n               Some from the Island-trees,\n               Some floating on the ambient seas,\n           With which their twin\u00e8d arms and brows they wreathe._\n\nPerhaps it would hardly be untrue to say that the whole of Plutarch\u2019s\ndaring speculation owes its origin to the words of Heraclitus, with\nwhich the fragment closes, as to the surprises which await man after\ndeath.\n\nThere is one distinct note of date, in the Sibylline prophecy quoted in\nc. 22, that the emperor of that day should die in his bed. Vespasian,\nwho was doubtless meant, died in June, A.D. 79, and the great eruption\nof Vesuvius (by which, however, Puteoli does not appear to have suffered\nspecially) took place in August of the same year. The Dialogue must have\nbeen written later than these events. On the whole, if we may venture a\nconjecture where all is uncertain, we may perhaps suppose it to have\nfollowed the _Symposiacs_ at a comparatively short interval, and to have\nbeen an early attempt to apply the method of dialogue to elaborate\ndiscussion of great themes. It has characteristics of its own which\nenable us to understand how Erasmus (_Adagia_)[200] felt doubts as to\nits genuineness, though we have the confident assurance of Wyttenbach\nthat there is Plutarch\u2019s seal upon it.\n\nReaders should consult Mr. Oakesmith\u2019s pages on this work (_The Religion\nof Plutarch_, pp. 103 foll.), and, on the myth, Bishop Westcott\u2019s Essay\non _The Myths of Plato_ (reprinted in _History of Religious Thought in\nthe West_), or Professor J. A. Stewart on _The Myths of Plato_.\n\n\n             ON THE INSTANCES OF DELAY IN DIVINE PUNISHMENT\n\n\nA DIALOGUE\n\n\nTHE SPEAKERS\n\n\n                 PATROCLEAS, Plutarch\u2019s son-in-law.\n                 PLUTARCH.\n                 TIMON, Plutarch\u2019s brother.\n                 OLYMPICUS, a friend (see _Sympos._ 3, 6).\n\nI. Having spoken to this effect, Quintus, before any one [Sidenote: 548\nB] replied\u2014we had just reached the far end of the colonnade\u2014Epicurus\ntook himself off. We stopped our walk for a while, in silent surprise at\nthe oddness of the man, then glanced at one another, turned back, and\nresumed it. Patrocleas was the first to speak: \u2018Which is it to be,\u2019 he\nsaid, \u2018are you for dropping the inquiry, or shall we answer the argument\nas though the speaker of it were present, though he is not present?\u2019\nTimon interposed: \u2018Well, suppose he had thrown a spear and gone away, it\nwould not do quietly to let it lie. Brasidas,[201] we are [Sidenote: C]\ngiven to believe, drew the spear out of his wound, and with it struck\nand slew the thrower. Now perhaps it is no business of ours to punish\nthose who have discharged a monstrous or a false argument at us; enough\nif we eject it from ourselves before it has taken hold.\u2019 \u2018Then what is\nit\u2019, I asked, \u2018which has moved you most, in what he said? for there were\na number of things, a disorderly mass, which the man drew from all\nquarters, to let them off against Divine Providence in his rage and\nfury.\u2019\n\nII. Then Patrocleas: \u2018The slowness and procrastination of Divine Justice\nin the punishment of wicked men appears to [Sidenote: D] me especially\nterrible. At the present moment, after what we have just heard, I seem\nto come \u201call fresh and new\u201d to this (Epicurean) view; but long ago I\nused to feel indignant when I heard Euripides[202] telling how\n\n                 _The Gods delay, the Gods are ever slow._\n\nYet it does not become the God to be slack in anything, least of all in\ndealing with wicked men; they are never slack or procrastinating in\nevil-doing, but are borne on by the passions at racing speed into their\niniquities. Again, \u201cVengeance, when [Sidenote: E] it follows most\nclosely upon the wrongs,\u201d to use the words of Thucydides,[203] at once\nblocks the road against those who are in the fullest enjoyment of\nsuccessful vice. No debt so surely as the debt of justice, if left\nunpaid till the morrow, at once depresses the person wronged by\nenfeebling his hopes, and enhances the boldness and self-trust of the\nmiscreant; whereas the punishments which meet audacious acts promptly\nare checks against future offences, and have a sovereign virtue to\nencourage the sufferers. Thus I often feel distressed when I recall the\nsaying [Sidenote: F] of Bias. It appears that he told a certain wicked\nman that he had no fear of his escaping retribution, he did fear that he\nhimself might not be there to see. What did the Messenians gain by the\npunishment of Aristocrates, when they had been already slain? He had\nlost the battle at the Trench[204] by treachery, reigned over the\nArcadians for more than twenty years undiscovered, and was at last found\nout and punished, but the Messenians were no more. What consolation to\nthe Orchomenians, who had lost children, friends, and kinsmen through\nthe treason of Lyciscus, was the disease which fastened upon him long\nyears afterwards, and devoured his body? He had once and again dipped\nboth feet into the river, with prayers and imprecations [Sidenote: 549]\nas he wetted them, that they might rot away if he had done any wrong or\ntreachery. At Athens, when the corpses of the \u201cAccursed\u201d were thrown\nout, and set beyond the frontier, it was not possible even for the\nchildren\u2019s children of the victims to see it done. Hence it is strange\nthat Euripides[205] should have used such thoughts as these to deter men\nfrom wickedness:\n\n            _Justice shall never strike thee to the heart\u2014\n            Fear not her footfall\u2014no, nor any man\n            That does the wrong; with silent foot and slow,\n            When the day comes, she\u2019ll stalk the sinners down._\n\n[Sidenote: B] The very phrases\u2014are they not?\u2014which bad men might use to\ngive themselves encouragement and assurance to set hand to lawless acts,\nsince they show injustice yielding her harvest ripe and ready, and\npunishment lagging late and far behind the enjoyment.\u2019\n\nIII. When Patrocleas had done, Olympicus spoke next: \u2018Take another\npoint, Patrocleas; what a grave absurdity these delays and hesitations\non the part of Heaven involve! The slowness takes away all assurance of\na Providence; and when misfortune comes to bad men, not on the heels of\neach wicked [Sidenote: C] deed, but later on, they set it down to\nmischance, and call it a calamity, not a punishment; they do not profit\nby it, they are annoyed at the things which befall them, but do not\nrepent of the things which they have done. It is so with a horse; the\ntouch of whip or spur which follows immediately on a stumble or blunder\nsets him up and brings him to his duty; whereas tugs and checks and\nratings later on, after an interval, seem to him to have some purpose\nwhich is not education, they irritate, but do not school him. And so\nwith vice; if punishment [Sidenote: D] from switch or rein follow every\ntrip and tumble, vice will have the best chance of becoming thoughtful\nand lowly, and getting the fear of God, as of a Judge who stands over\nmen in their acts and their passions, and does not wait till the day\nafter to-morrow. Whereas, the Justice which moves calmly, \u201cwith a slow\nfoot\u201d, as Euripides put it, and falls upon the wicked \u201cwhen the day\ncomes\u201d, resembles an automaton rather than a Providence, in her vague,\nprocrastinating, unmethodical procedure. Thus I do not see what use\nthere is in those \u201cmills of the Gods\u201d which [Sidenote: E] \u201cgrind\nslowly\u201d, we are told,[206] for they make the form of Justice dim, and\nthe fears of the wicked evanescent.\u2019\n\nIV. When all this had been said, and while I was deep in thought, Timon\nsaid: \u2018Shall I intervene and with my own hand add the crowning stone of\ndifficulty to our argument, or shall I allow it first to win through for\nitself against what we have already heard?\u2019 \u2018What need\u2019, I said, \u2018to let\nin the \u201cthird wave\u201d and sluice the argument anew, if it prove unable to\nforce aside the first objections and escape them? In the first place,\nthen, we will start from our own ancestral hearth, from the [Sidenote:\nF] reserve, I mean, which the philosophers of the Academy show in\nspeaking of what is divine; and reverently clear ourself from any claim\nto speak with knowledge about these matters. It is a graver mistake than\nfor unmusical persons to discuss music, or civilians a campaign, if we\nmere men are to scrutinize the things which belong to Gods and daemons;\nthe inartistic trying to track the inner thought of the artist, by\nfanciful and random conjecture. If it is hard for a layman to guess at\nthe reasoning which led a doctor to use the knife later and not sooner,\nor to apply a lotion to-day and not yesterday, surely it is not easy for\na mortal to speak with any certainty about God, more than this\u2014that\n[Sidenote: 530] he best knows the proper time for the curative treatment\nof vice, and applies the due punishment, as a medicine, to each man\naccordingly; for vice admits of no measure common to all, the proper\ntime is not the same for every case. That the medical treatment of the\nsoul which we call \u201cRight\u201d and \u201cJustice\u201d is of all arts the greatest, we\nhave the testimony of thousands of witnesses, Pindar[207] among them. He\nacclaims the sovereign ruler of all the Gods as \u201cin art most excellent\u201d,\nbecause Justice is of his workmanship, and to her it pertains to\ndetermine the \u201cwhen\u201d and the \u201chow\u201d and the degree of punishment for\nevery offender. And Plato[208] tells us that Minos, who is a son of\nZeus, has become a learner of this art; showing that it is not possible\nfor one who has not learnt, and acquired [Sidenote: B] the knowledge, to\ngo straight in questions of right, or to apprehend the guiding\nprinciple. Even the laws which men frame are not everywhere, and on the\nface of them, reasonable; some enactments appear simply ludicrous. In\nLacedaemon, for instance, the Ephors, when they first enter office, make\nproclamation that no one is to grow a moustache, and that \u201cmen should\nobey the laws, that the laws may not be hard upon them\u201d. The Romans,\nwhen they release slaves \u201cinto freedom\u201d give them a tap with a light\nreed. When they draw a will, they make one set of persons \u201cheirs\u201d and\n\u201csell\u201d the property to others, which appears strange. Strangest of all\nis the enactment [Sidenote: C] of Solon, that the man who takes neither\nside in a party contest, but stands out, should lose the franchise. One\nmight go on to mention many legal absurdities, where the intention of\nthe lawyers and the reason of the provisions are out of our knowledge.\nThen, if human codes are so inscrutable, what wonder that, in speaking\nof the Gods, we cannot lightly lay down the principle upon which they\npunish some offenders later, some sooner?\n\nV. \u2018All this is no pretext for evading the issue; but it is a plea for\nindulgence; that the argument, having its harbour of refuge in sight,\nmay rear itself confidently from the depths to meet the difficulty. Now\nfirst consider that, as Plato[209] shows, [Sidenote: D] God sets himself\nbefore us for a pattern of all good things, and implants in those who\nare able to follow God that human virtue which is, in a sort, likeness\nto himself. For Universal Nature, while yet unorganized, found the\nbeginning of its change to a world of order in assimilation to the idea\nand excellence of God, and in a measure of participation therein. The\nsame Plato[210] tells us that Nature kindled in us the sense of sight,\nin order that the soul, by gazing in wonder at the bodies which move\nthrough heaven, may become accustomed to welcome what is shapely and\nwell ordered, to abhor ill-regulated and [Sidenote: E] roving passions,\nand to eschew, as the origin of all vice and naughtiness, whatever is\nrandom and fortuitous. For man has no greater natural enjoyment of God\nthan to imitate and pursue all that in him is fair and good, and so to\nattain to virtue. Therefore is God slow and leisurely in inflicting\npunishment on the bad, not that he fears mistake on his own part if he\npunish quickly, or any repentance; rather he is putting away from us all\nbrutish vehemence in the punishments we inflict, and teaching [Sidenote:\nF] us not to choose the moment of heat and agitation, when\n\n               _High over reason temper leaps supreme_,[211]\n\nto spring upon those who have vexed us, as though glutting a thirst or a\nhunger; but to copy his own gentleness and long-suffering, to be orderly\nand staid when we set our hand to punishment, taking Time for a\ncounsellor who will never have Repentance for his consort. For it is a\nsmaller evil, as Socrates [Sidenote: 551] used to say, to drink turbid\nwater in our greediness, when we find it by the way, than with the\nreason still muddied, full of wrath and frenzy, before it has settled\ndown and run clear, to glut ourselves in the punishment of a body which\nis of one race and tribe with our own. It is not, as Thucydides would\ntell us, the retribution following most closely on the injury received,\nbut that most remote from it, which really exacts what is its due. For\nas temper, according to Melanthius,[212]\n\n              _Does dreadful deeds, and banishes good sense_,\n\nso reason, on the contrary, employs justice and moderation, setting\npassion and temper afar. So it is that even human examples make men\ngentle, as when we hear that Plato stood long over his servant with rod\nuplifted, correcting, as he said [Sidenote: B] himself, his own temper;\nor, again, as Archytas, informed of some disorderly behaviour of his\nworkmen in the field, and feeling himself unusually irritated and harsh,\ndid nothing, but just said, as he went away, \u201cWell for you that I am\nfeeling angry.\u201d If sayings like these and anecdotes about men drain away\nwhat is rough and violent in our anger, much more when we see God, in\nwhom is no fear nor any sort of repentance, yet reserving punishment and\nabiding his time, may we well become [Sidenote: C] cautious in such\nmatters, and deem the gentleness and lofty patience which he exhibits a\ngod-like part of virtue. By his punishment he corrects a few, by the\nslowness of his punishment he helps and admonishes many.\n\nVI. \u2018Let us now turn our attention to a second point, which is this: All\nkinds of human retribution deal out pain for pain and stop there.\n\u201cSuffering for the doer\u201d[213] is their principle, and beyond it they do\nnot go. So they follow sin like a howling pack which hunts on the heels\nof the offences. Whereas God, we may suppose, when he sets his hand to\npunish a soul that is sick, [Sidenote: D] scrutinizes its passions, if\nperhaps they may be bent aside, and a way opened to repentance; he fixes\na time, in cases where the wickedness seated within is not absolute or\ninflexible. He knows how large a portion of virtue, proceeding from\nhimself, souls carry with them when they pass to birth, how powerful\nwithin the noble principle naturally is, and how ineffaceable; that it\nmay flower into vice contrary to nature, when nurture and company are\nbad and corrupting, yet is afterwards cured in some persons and recovers\nits own proper state. And so he [Sidenote: E] does not bring down\npunishment equally upon all. What is incurable he at once removes out of\nthe life and prunes away, because, happen what may, it is injurious to\nothers, most injurious of all to a man\u2019s self, to consort with\nwickedness all his time. Where the sinful principle may be supposed to\nexist through ignorance of the good rather than from deliberate\npreference for the base, he gives them time for reformation; but if they\npersist, they, too, receive punishment in full; for he has no fear, we\nmay be sure, lest they escape him at the last. Now consider how many\nchanges take place in human character and life. And this is why that in\nthem which changes is called \u201ctropos\u201d (turning) and \u201cethos\u201d (_\u0113thos_),\nbecause habit (_\u0115thos_) finds its way in so often, and masters them so\nmightily. I think [Sidenote: F] myself that the ancients called Cecrops\n\u201cdouble-shaped\u201d, not, as some say, because from a good king he became a\nvery dragon of a tyrant, but, on the contrary, because he was, to begin\nwith, perverse and terrible, and afterwards became a mild and humane\nruler. This instance may be an uncertain one, but we know of Gelon at\nany rate, and Hiero in Sicily, and Pisistratus son of Hippocrates, how\nthey won power by wickedness, but all used [Sidenote: 552] it\nvirtuously; came to rule through unlawful ways, but turned out fair and\npatriotic rulers; introduced the reign of law and of careful\nagriculture, found their subjects men of jest and gossip, and made them\nsober and industrious. Gelon, moreover, fought nobly at the head of his\npeople, won a great battle against the Carthaginians, and refused them a\npeace when they sued for one, until he had bound them in a covenant to\ngive up the practice of sacrificing their children to Cronus. Then, in\nMegalopolis, there was a tyrant Lydiadas, who changed [Sidenote: B] his\nways in the actual course of his reign, and in disgust with his own\ninjustice restored to the citizens their laws, and fell gloriously\nfighting for the country against its enemies. Suppose some one had slain\nMiltiades while tyrant in the Chersonese, as he first was, or had got a\nconviction for incest against Cimon, or had robbed Athens of\nThemistocles by a prosecution for his riotous passage through the\nmarket-place, as was done with Alcibiades later on, where would be our\nMarathons, our Eurymedons, that noble Artemisium, [Sidenote: C]\n\n                                         _where Athens\u2019 sons\n               Set firm the shining base of Liberty?_[214]\n\nFor great natures produce nothing petty; their vehemence and energy\ncannot rest for very intensity, they toss about on the surge before they\nsettle into their solid and abiding character. As then one ignorant of\nhusbandry would not welcome the prospect of a piece of land full of\nthick undergrowth and weeds, with many wild creatures on it, and streams\nof water, and deep mud; whereas, to one who has learned to use his\nsenses and to discriminate, those very things suggest strength and\nfatness and everything that is good in the soil, so it is with great\nnatures. They break out early into many strange bad growths, [Sidenote:\nD] out of which we, in our intolerance, think it our duty to cut away\nand stunt all that is rough and prickly; but the Judge who is better\nthan we and who sees the good and generous crop to come, waits for Time,\nthe fellow-worker with Reason and Virtue, and that ripeness whereby\nNature yields the proper fruit.\n\nVII. \u2018So much for this. Now do you not think that some of the Greeks are\nright in copying the Egyptian law which enacts that a pregnant woman who\nhas been condemned to death should be kept in custody until she has\nborne a child?\u2019 \u2018Certainly\u2019, they said. I went on: \u2018Next, suppose a\nperson not pregnant with children, but able, if time be given, to bring\ninto [Sidenote: E] the light of the sun some secret action or design,\neither by denouncing a hidden evil, or by becoming the promoter of a\nsalutary policy or the inventor of some needful expedient, is it not the\nbetter course to let punishment wait on convenience rather than to\ninflict it too soon? It seems to me to be so.\u2019 \u2018And to us\u2019, said\nPatrocleas. \u2018And rightly,\u2019 said I, \u2018for consider that if Dionysius had\npaid the penalty at the beginning of his reign, no Greek settler would\nhave been left in Sicily, because the Carthaginians would have\ndevastated it. So neither Apollonia, nor Anactorium, nor the Leucadian\npeninsula would have been occupied by Greeks if Periander had [Sidenote:\nF] been punished without such a long interval. I think that Cassander\nalso had a respite in order that Thebes might be re-established. Most of\nthe foreigners who helped to seize this temple crossed over with\nTimoleon into Sicily; and when they had conquered the Carthaginians, and\nput an end to the tyrannies, met deservedly miserable deaths themselves.\nSurely Heaven uses some bad men to punish others, like executioners, and\nafterwards crushes them, and this has been the case, I think, [Sidenote:\n553] with most tyrants. For as the gall of the hyaena, the refuse of the\nseal, and other products of disgusting animals, have their specific use\nin disease, so there are some who need the sharp tooth of chastisement;\non whom the God inflicts a bitter and implacable tyrant, or a harsh\nrough ruler, and only removes this torment when he has relieved and\npurged their ailment. Such a medicine was Phalaris to the Agrigentines,\nand Marius to the Romans. To the Sicyonians the God declared in plain\nterms that their state needed beadles with whips, because they had taken\nby force from the men of Cleonae a boy named Teletias, who was to be\ncrowned at the Pythian games, as being their own citizen, and torn him\nin pieces. The Sicyonians got [Sidenote: B] Orthagoras for a tyrant, and\nafter him Myron and Cleisthenes, who put an end to their bad ways, while\nthe Cleonaeans, who never found such a remedy, have come to nothing.\nListen to Homer,[215] who says somewhere\n\n                 _So sprung from meaner sire a nobler son,\n                 Skilled in all art and excellence._\n\nYet that son of Copreus has left us no brilliant or signal achievement,\nwhile the posterity of Sisyphus and Autolycus and Phlegyas burst into\nflower of glory and virtue in the persons of great kings. Pericles at\nAthens came of a house which was under a curse. Pompey the Great, at\nRome, was the son of Strabo, whose corpse the Romans cast out and\ntrampled [Sidenote: C] in their hatred. What is there strange then if\nGod acts like the farmer, who does not cut down the thistle till he has\npicked the asparagus, or like the Libyans who do not burn the dry stalks\nbefore they have collected the gum; who spares to destroy a bad and\nrough-grown root of a noble race of kings till the due fruit has issued\nfrom it? For it were better for the Phocians that Iphitus should lose\ntens of thousands of cattle and horses, or that even more gold should\nleave Delphi, and silver too, than that Ulysses should never have been\nborn, or Asclepius, or [Sidenote: D] the other brave men and mighty\nbenefactors who have come of bad and vicious lines.\n\nVIII. \u2018But do you not all think it better that punishments should fall\nin the fitting time and manner than hastily and at once? There is the\ncase of Callippus, who was slain by his friends with the very dagger\nwhich he had used to slay Dion in the guise of a friend. Again, there is\nMitys[216] of Argos, killed in a party quarrel, whose brazen statue in\nthe market-place fell on the murderer during a public performance and\nkilled him. And I think you know all about Bessus the Paeonian,\nPatrocleas, and Ariston of Oeta, the commander of foreign troops?\u2019\n[Sidenote: E] \u2018Indeed I do not,\u2019 he replied, \u2018but I want to hear.\u2019\n\u2018Ariston,\u2019 I said, \u2018with the consent of the tyrants, took down the\nornaments of Eriphyle, deposited here, and carried them off to his wife\nfor a present. Then his son, enraged with his mother for some reason,\nset fire to the house, and burnt up all who were within it. Bessus, it\nappears, slew his own father, and for a long time escaped detection.\nAfterwards, having come to some friends for supper, he put his spear\nthrough a swallows\u2019 nest and brought it down, and destroyed the young\nbirds. All present exclaimed, as well they might: \u201cMan, what has\n[Sidenote: F] possessed you to do such a monstrous thing?\u201d To which he\nreplied: \u201cHave they not been telling lies against me this long time,\nshrieking that I have killed my father?\u201d Astonished at such a speech,\nthey informed the king, an inquiry was held, and Bessus suffered.\n\nIX. \u2018So far\u2019, I said, \u2018we have been speaking, as was agreed, upon the\nassumption that some respite is really granted to wicked men. For what\nremains, you must suppose that you are listening to Hesiod,[217] laying\ndown, not with Plato[218] that punishment is [Sidenote: 554] \u201csuffering\nwhich waits on wrongdoing\u201d, but that it is a contemporary growth,\nspringing up with sin, from the same place and the same root,\n\n                 _Bad counsel to the counsellor is worst_,\n\nand\n\n             _Who plots \u2019gainst others, plots his heart away._\n\nThe corn-beetle is said to carry in herself an antidote compounded on a\nprinciple of opposites, but wickedness as it grows breeds its own pain\nand punishment, and suffers the penalty, not by and by, but in the very\nmoment of insolence. In the body, every criminal who is punished[219]\ncarries forth his own [Sidenote: B] cross; but vice fabricates for\nherself, out of herself, all the instruments of her chastisement; she\nmanufactures a terrible life, piteous and shameful, with terrors and\ncruel pains, with regrets and troubles unceasing. But there are persons\njust like children, who see evildoers on the stage crowned and\ncaparisoned, as often happens, in gold and purple, and dancing heartily;\nand gape and gaze, as though these men were happy indeed; until they are\nseen goaded and lashed, and fire issuing out of those gay and costly\nrobes. Most bad men are wrapped as in a vesture [Sidenote: C] of great\nhouses, and eminent offices and powers; and so it is unperceived that\nthey are being punished, until, before you can think, they are stabbed\nor hurled down a rock, which is not to be called punishment, but the end\nor consummation of punishment. For as Herodicus of Selymbria, who fell\ninto a hopeless decline, and, for the first time in human history,\ncombined gymnastics with medicine, made death, in Plato\u2019s[220] words, \u201ca\nlong affair for himself\u201d, and for similar invalids, so has it been with\nbad men. They thought to escape the blow at the time; the penalty comes,\nnot after more time, but over more time, and is lengthened, not\nretarded. They were not punished after they [Sidenote: D] came to old\nage, but became old under punishment. I speak of length of time in a\nsense relative to ourselves, since to the Gods any span of human life is\nas nothing. \u201cNow\u201d, instead of \u201cthirty years ago\u201d, for the torture or\nhanging of a criminal, is as though we were to speak of \u201cafternoon\u201d not\n\u201cmorning\u201d; the rather that he is confined in life, a prison where is no\nchange of place, no escape, yet many feastings the while, and business\naffairs, and gifts, and bounties, and amusements, just as men play dice\nor draughts in jail, with the rope hanging over their heads.\n\nX. \u2018Yet where are we to stop? Are we to say that prisoners [Sidenote: E]\nawaiting execution are not under punishment until the axe shall fall?\nNor he who has drunk the hemlock, and is walking about while he waits to\nfeel the heaviness in the legs which precedes the chill and stiffness of\napproaching insensibility? Yet we must say so, if we think that the last\nmoment of the punishment is the punishment, and leave out of account the\nsufferings of the intervening time, the fears, and forebodings, and\nmovements of [Sidenote: F] remorse, in which every sinner is involved.\nThis would be like saying that a fish when he has swallowed the hook has\nnot been caught until he has been roasted by the cook, or at least\nsliced up, before our eyes. Every man is in the grasp of Justice when he\nhas done a wrong, he has nibbled away the sweets of Injustice which are\nthe bait; but he has the hook of conscience sticking there and, as it\npays him out,[221]\n\n              _Like spear-struck thunny makes the ocean boil._\n\nFor the forwardness and the audacity of vice of which we hear [Sidenote:\n555] are strong and ready till the crimes are committed, then passion\nfails them like a dying breeze, and leaves them weak and abject, a prey\nto every fear and superstition. Thus the dream of Clytaemnestra in\nStesichorus[222] is fashioned true to the reality of what happens. It\nwas like this:\n\n              _She thought a serpent came on her, his crest\n              Dabbled with gore, and, lo, from out it peered,\n              Child of the race of Pleisthenes, the King._\n\nFor phantoms of dreams, and visions of midday, and oracles, and\nthunderbolts, and whatever has the appearance of being caused by a God,\nbring storms and terrors upon those who are in such a mood. So it is\ntold that Apollodorus, in his sleep, saw [Sidenote: B] himself being\nflayed by Scythians and then boiled, and that his heart murmured out of\nthe cauldron the words, \u201cI am the cause of this to thee.\u201d And, again, he\nsaw his daughters all on fire, and running around him with their bodies\nburning. Then Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus, a little before his death,\nsaw Aphrodite throwing blood at his face out of a sort of bowl. The\nfriends of Ptolemy \u201cThunderbolt\u201d[223] beheld him called to justice by\nSeleucus before a jury of vultures and wolves, and [Sidenote: C] dealing\nout large helpings of flesh to his enemies. Pausanias had wickedly sent\nfor Cleonice at Byzantium, a maiden of free birth, that he might enjoy\nher person in the night, then, as she approached, he killed her out of\nsome panic or suspicion; and he would often see her in his dreams,\nsaying to him:\n\n              _To judgement go; man\u2019s lust works woe to man._\n\nWhen the phantom never ceased to trouble him, he sailed, as it appears,\nto Heracleia, where is the Place of Summons of Souls, and with soothing\nrites and libations set himself to call up the soul of the girl; she\nappeared to him and told him that he \u201cwill cease from his troubles when\nhe reaches Lacedaemon\u201d; and, directly he got there, he died.[224]\n\nXI. \u2018Then, if nothing remains for the soul after death, but [Sidenote:\nD] death is a limit beyond which is neither grace nor punishment, we\nshould rather say that bad men who are punished quickly, and who die\noff, are used gently and indulgently by Heaven. For if it could be held\nthat there is no other evil for the bad while life and time last, yet\neven so, when injustice is tried and proved an unfruitful, thankless\nbusiness, which yields no return for many and great struggles, the mere\nsense of these upsets the soul. You will remember the story of\nLysimachus, how, under [Sidenote: E] great stress of thirst, he\nsurrendered himself and his power to the Getae, and, when now their\nprisoner, said as he drank: \u201cWretch that I am, for so brief a pleasure\nto have lost so great a kingdom!\u201d And yet to resist the physical\ncompulsion of appetite is very hard. But when a man, by grasping at\nmoney, or in envy of political reputation and power, or for the pleasure\nof some union, has wrought a lawless dreadful deed, and afterwards, when\nthe thirst or frenzy of passion has left him, sees, as [Sidenote: F]\ntime goes on, the disgrace and terror of iniquity becoming permanent,\nwith nothing useful, or necessary, or delightful gained, then is it not\nnatural that he should often reckon up and feel how hollow is the glory,\nhow ignoble and thankless the pleasure, for which he has upset all that\nis greatest and noblest in human codes of right, and filled his own life\nwith shame and confusion? Simonides[225] used to say in jest that he\nfound the chest of silver always full, but that of gratitude empty; and\nso bad men, when they look into the wickedness within them, find that,\nthrough the pleasure which has a short-lived return, it is [Sidenote:\n556] left void of hope, but filled to the brim with fears and pains and\njoyless memory, with suspicion of the future, and distrust of the\npresent. So Ino on the stage,[226] when she is repenting of what she has\ndone:\n\n              _Say, maidens, how may I start clear, and dwell\n              Here in the house of Athamas, as though\n              I had done nothing of the deeds I did?_\n\nSuch thoughts we may suppose that the soul of every bad man rakes up\nwithin itself, while it calculates how it may escape [Sidenote: B] from\nthe memory of its misdoings, and cast out conscience, and become pure,\nand lead another life as from the beginning. There is no confidence,\nnothing free from caprice, nothing permanent or solid, in the designs of\nwickedness, unless, save the mark! we are to call wicked-doers\nphilosophers of a sort! But where love of wealth or pleasure, as of\ngreat prizes, and envy undiluted, are lodged by the side of hate and\nill-temper, there, if you look deep, you will find superstition seated,\nand softness to meet toil, and cowardice to meet death, and a rapid\nshifting of impulses, and a vain-gloriousness which comes of arrogance.\nThey fear those who censure them, and equally fear those who [Sidenote:\nC] praise, as being victims whom they have deceived, and who are the\nbitterest enemies of the bad, just because they praise so heartily those\nwhom they take to be good. For hardness in vice, as in bad steel, is\nunsound, its rigidity is soon broken. Hence more and more, as time goes\non, they discover their own condition; they are vexed and discontented,\nand spurn their own life away. We see that a bad man, when he has\nrestored a pledge, or gone bail for an acquaintance, or given a\npatriotic subscription or a contribution which brings him glory and\ncredit, is immediately seized with repentance, and grieves at [Sidenote:\nD] what he has done, so shifty and unsettled is his judgement. We see\nothers when applauded in the theatre at once groaning inwardly, as\nambition subsides into greed of money. And did not, think you, those who\nsacrificed men to get a tyranny, or to advance a conspiracy, as\nApollodorus did, or who robbed their friends of money, as Glaucus the\nson of Epicydes did, repent, and hate themselves, and suffer pain at\nwhat had been done? For my own part, if I may be allowed to say so, I\nthink that the doers of unholy deeds need no God nor man to punish them;\ntheir own life is sufficient, when ruined by vice, and thrown into all\ndisorder. [Sidenote: E]\n\nXII. \u2018But keep an eye on the discussion,\u2019 I said, \u2018for it may be running\nout beyond our limits.\u2019 \u2018Perhaps it is,\u2019 said Timon, \u2018if we look on, and\nconsider the length of what remains to be said. For now I am going to\ncall up the final difficulty, as a champion who has been standing out,\nsince those which came forward first have pretty well had their round\nout. Turn to the charge so boldly thrown at the Gods by Euripides,[227]\n\n             _The parents\u2019 trips upon their offspring turned_,\n\nand take it that we too who have so far been silent adopt his\narraignment. If, on the one hand, the doers paid the penalty [Sidenote:\nF] themselves, then there is no need to punish those who did no wrong,\nseeing that justice does not allow even the doers to be punished twice\nfor the same offences. If, on the other, the Gods, out of indolence,\nhave allowed the punishment to drop, as against the wicked, and then\nexact it late in the day from the guiltless, the set-off of tardiness\nagainst injustice is all wrong. You will remember the story of what\nhappened to Aesop in this place; how he came with gold from Croesus, to\nsacrifice to the God magnificently, and make a distribution among the\nDelphians, four minae apiece. There was some angry difference, it\nappears, between him and the brotherhood; so he [Sidenote: 556]\nperformed the sacrifice, but sent the money back to Sardis, judging the\nmen unworthy of the bounty. They worked up a charge of sacrilege against\nhim, thrust him down from the rock called Hyampeia, and killed him.\nThen, in his wrath at this, the God brought sterility on their land, and\nevery form of strange disease; so that they went round the Assemblies of\nthe Greeks asking by repeated proclamation that any who chose to come\nforward should punish them on Aesop\u2019s behalf. In the third generation,\nIadmon,[228] a Samian, came, no blood relation of Aesop, but a\ndescendant of those who had bought him at Samos; and to him they paid\ncertain penalties, and [Sidenote: B] were set free from their troubles.\nFrom that time the punishment of sacrilegious criminals was transferred\nto Nauplia from Hyampeia. Not even those most devoted to Alexander,\namong whom we reckon ourselves, commend him for throwing the city of\nBranchidae into ruins, and putting its inhabitants to the sword, because\nof the treacherous surrender by their forefathers of the temple at\nMiletus. Then Agathocles, tyrant of Syracuse, derided with open laughter\nthe Corcyraeans who asked \u201cwhy he plundered their island?\u201d \u201cBecause, of\ncourse,\u201d he said, \u201cyour fathers sheltered Ulysses.\u201d And, in like manner,\nwhen the Ithacans complained of his soldiers taking their sheep, \u201cWhy,\n[Sidenote: C] your king\u201d, he said, \u201ccame to us, and blinded the shepherd\ntoo!\u201d[229] Now is it not even more monstrous of Apollo to destroy the\nPheneatae[230] of the present day, by blocking the pit which took their\nwater, and deluging all their land, because, a thousand years ago, as\nthe story goes, Hercules snatched away the prophetic tripod and brought\nit to Pheneus? And what of his promise to the Sybarites of release from\ntheir troubles when they should have propitiated the wrath of the\nLeucadian Hera \u201cby three destructions\u201d? Again, it is not long since the\n[Sidenote: D] Locrians have ceased to send those maidens to Troy,\n\n           _Who with no trailing robes, feet bared, as slaves,\n           At early dawn must sweep Athene\u2019s fane,\n           No veils, though grievous eld were drawing near_,[231]\n\nbecause of the misbehaviour of Ajax. Where do you find the\nreasonableness and justice here? Certainly we do not praise the\nThracians, because they still brand their own wives to avenge Orpheus,\nor the Barbarians living about the Eridanus for wearing black, in\nmourning for Phaethon as they say. It would have been still more\nridiculous, I think, if the men living when Phaethon perished thought\nnothing about it, and then those [Sidenote: E] born five generations or\nten generations after the sad occurrence began to change into mourning\nclothes for him! Yet there is nothing but stupidity in that, nothing\nterrible or beyond cure; but the angers of the Gods pass underground at\nthe time, like certain rivers, then afterwards breakout to injure quite\ndifferent persons, and bring the direst ruin at the last. What reason is\nthere in that?\u2019\n\nXIII. At the first check, I, in terror lest he should go back to the\nbeginning and introduce more and greater cases of [Sidenote: F] anomaly,\nat once proceeded to ask him: \u2018Come,\u2019 I said, \u2018do you take all these\nthings for true?\u2019 \u2018Suppose that they are not all true, but that some\nare, do you not think that the same perplexity comes in?\u2019 \u2018Perhaps\u2019,\nsaid I, \u2018it is as with persons in a violent fever, who feel the same\nheat, or nearly the same, whether they are wrapped in one cloak or in\nmany, yet we must give some relief by removing the excess. If you will\nnot allow this, drop the point (though to my thinking, most of the\ninstances look like myths and inventions); but call to mind the recent\nTheoxenia, and that \u201cfair portion\u201d which is set aside and [Sidenote:\n558] assigned by proclamation to the descendants of Pindar, and how\nimpressive that seemed and how pleasant. Who could fail to find pleasure\nin that graceful honour, so Greek and so frankly of the old world,\nunless he be one whose\n\n                        _Black heart of adamant\n                        Was wrought in chilly fire_,\n\nin Pindar\u2019s[232] own words? Then I pass over\u2019, I said, \u2018the similar\nproclamation made at Sparta, in the words,\n\n                       _After the Lesbian bard_,[233]\n\nin honoured memory of old Terpander, for the case is the same. But I\nappeal to you, who claim, as I understand, precedence among the\nBoeotians as Opheltiadae, and among the Phocians [Sidenote: B] because\nof Daiphantus; and who stood by me formerly, when, speaking in support\nof the claim of the Lycormae and Satilaeans through their ancestor to\nreceive the honour and wear the crown due to the Heraclidae, I argued\nthat those sprung of Hercules had the strongest right to be confirmed in\nthe honours and prizes, because their ancestor received no worthy prize\nor return for his good deeds to the Greeks.\u2019 \u2018And a noble contention it\nwas,\u2019 he said, \u2018and worthy indeed of Philosophy!\u2019 \u2018Then pray drop\u2019, I\nsaid, \u2018that vehement tone in your arraignment, and do not make it any\ngrievance that some born of bad or vicious ancestors are punished; or\nelse never rejoice or applaud in the other case, when noble birth is\nhonoured. For [Sidenote: C] if the gratitude due to virtue is to be kept\nactive for the benefit of the family, it is logical and right also that\nthe punishment for crimes should never be exhausted or fail, but should\nrun a parallel course, so that payment should follow deserts under\neither head. Any one who finds pleasure in seeing honour done to the\ndescendants of Cimon at Athens, but makes it a grievance that those of\nLachares or Ariston are banished, is too soft and too careless, or, as I\nwould rather say, is quarrelsome and captious in all his attitude to\nHeaven. He challenges, if the children of an unjust and evil man appear\nto prosper, and he challenges if the families of the bad are abased or\nextinguished; he blames [Sidenote: D] the God equally if the children of\na good father are in trouble, or of a bad one.\n\nXIV. \u2018There,\u2019 I said, \u2018let all this serve for so many dykes or barriers\nagainst those bitter and aggressive assailants! Now, let us go back, and\npick up the end of the thread in this dark place with its windings and\nwanderings; I mean our argument about the God. Let us guide ourselves\nwith quiet caution towards what is likely and reasonable, since\ncertainty and truth are beyond us, even as to our own actions. For\ninstance, why do we order the children of persons who have died of\nconsumption [Sidenote: E] or dropsy to sit with both feet dipped into\nwater until the corpse is consumed? The idea seems to be that, if this\nis done, the disease does not shift its seat or approach them. Or again,\nwhy is it that, if one goat have taken the herb eryngium[234] into her\nmouth, the whole flock halts until the goatherd comes and takes it out?\nAnd there are other occult properties, with ways, whether of contact or\nof dissemination, by which they pass, with incredible speed and over\nincredible intervals, through one to another. Yet we find intervals of\ntime wonderful, but [Sidenote: F] not those of place; although it is\nreally more wonderful that a disease which began in Aethiopia[235]\ninfected Athens, where Pericles died and Thucydides took it, than that,\nwhen Delphians and Sybarites had been wicked, the punishment circled\nround to attack their children. There is correspondence of forces from\nlast to first, and there are connecting links, the cause of which,\nunknown, it may be, to us, produces in silence its proper effect.[236]\n\nXV. \u2018Not but that the public visitations of cities by the wrath of\nHeaven can be readily accounted for on the score of [Sidenote: 559]\njustice. A city is a thing one and continuous, like an animal, which\ndoes not cease to be itself in the changes due to growth, nor become, as\ntime goes on, different from what it was; it is always consentaneous and\nat one with itself, and awaits all the consequences, whether censure or\ngratitude, of what it does or did, so long as the association, which\nmakes it one and complex, preserves its unity. To divide it, according\nto time, into many cities, or, rather, into an infinite number of them,\nis like making many men out of one, because he is now elderly, was\nformerly younger, and, still further back, was a boy. Or [Sidenote: B]\nrather, the whole idea is like those tricks of Epicharmus out of which\nthe \u201cIncreasing Fallacy\u201d of the Sophists sprang. The man who formerly\nreceived the loan does not own it now, for he has become a different\nperson. The man who was asked to dinner yesterday, comes an unbidden\nguest to-day, for he is some one else. Yet the stages of growth produce\ngreater variations in each one of ourselves than they do in cities as\nwholes. Any one who had seen Athens thirty years ago would recognize it\nto-day; manners, movements, amusements, business, popular gratitude, and\nresentments, all quite as of old. Whereas a man would hardly be\nrecognized in figure by friend or relation who should meet him after an\ninterval, while the changes in character so easily produced by\nanything\u2014a word, an [Sidenote: C] exertion, a feeling, a law\u2014produce an\neffect of strangeness and novelty even to one always in his company. Yet\nhe is spoken of as one man from birth to the end; and we insist that a\ncity, which remains the same in exactly the same sense, is liable for\nthe reproaches incurred by ancestors, by the same title as it claims\ntheir reputation and power. Otherwise we shall have everything, before\nwe know it, in the river of Heraclitus,[237] which he says a man cannot\nenter twice, because Nature disturbs and alters all things in her own\nchanges.\n\nXVI. \u2018But if a city is a thing one and continuous, I take it that a\nfamily also depends from a single origin which assures [Sidenote: D] a\ncertain pervading force of association. An offspring is never separated\nfrom its begetter, as is a piece of man\u2019s handicraft; it has been made\nout of him, not by him; thus it has in itself some permanent portion of\nhim, and whether it be punished or honoured, receives what is its due.\nIf it were not that I might seem to trifle, I would say that graver\ninjustice was done to the statue of Cassander when it was melted down by\nthe Athenians, and to the corpse of Dionysius when it was thrust out\nbeyond the frontier by the Syracusans, than to the descendants of those\nmen in the punishments which they received. For there is nothing of the\nnature of Cassander in the statue, and the soul [Sidenote: E] of\nDionysius has quitted the corpse; whereas in Nisaeus, and Apollocrates,\nand Antipater and Philip, and similarly in the other sons of bad men,\nthe determining part of their parents is inborn in them, and is there;\nit is not quiescent or inactive, since by it they live and are\nnourished, are directed, and think. There is nothing strange or\nremarkable if, being of them, they have what was theirs. In a word, as\nin Medicine, what is [Sidenote: F] serviceable is also just. It is\nridiculous to talk of the injustice of cauterizing the thumb when the\npain is in the hip, or scarifying the region of the stomach for a tumour\ninside the liver, or of oiling the ends of the horns of cattle, if there\nis softening of the hoofs. So it is with punishments; to think that\nthere is any other justice than what heals the mischief, or to be\nindignant if the treatment be applied to one set of persons through\nanother set (as in opening a vein to relieve weak eyes) is to see\nnothing beyond the range of sense, to fail [Sidenote: 560] to remember\nthat a schoolmaster who chastises one boy teaches a lesson to many boys,\nand that a general who executes one man in ten, brings all to their\nduty. And thus not only one part through another part, but also soul\nthrough soul receives certain dispositions, be they of deterioration or\namendment, in a truer sense than body through body. In the case of body,\nthe affection arising must be the same, and the alteration produced must\nbe the same; whereas soul is led by its own imaginings in the way of\nassurance or fear, and so becomes permanently worse or else better.\u2019\n\nXVII. While I was still speaking, Olympicus broke in: \u2018It seems to me\u2019,\nhe said, \u2018that your argument relies on a great [Sidenote: B] fundamental\nassumption\u2014the permanence of the soul.\u2019 \u2018Subject to your consent, it\ndoes,\u2019 I replied, \u2018or rather to your consent already given; for, from\nthe initial supposition that God dispenses to us according to our\ndeserts, the discussion has proceeded to its present stage.\u2019 \u2018Then\u2019, he\nsaid, \u2018you think that, because the Gods survey and administer all our\naffairs, it follows that our souls are either wholly imperishable, or,\npermanent for a certain time after death.\u2019 \u2018Oh no! good friend,\u2019 I said,\n\u2018but the God is so petty, so important a trifler, that, dealing with men\nlike us, who have nothing in us divine or like him in any way, or\npersistent, or solid, but who wither away altogether \u201clike leaves\u201d, as\nHomer[238] said, and [Sidenote: C] perish within a short span, he makes\nus of so great account! That would be like the gardens of Adonis which\nwomen nurse and tend in crockery pots; souls of a day springing up\nwithin a pampered flesh wherein no strong living root finds room, and\nthen at once snuffed out on the first pretext. But, if you will, let the\nother Gods be, and look at our own God here. Knowing that the souls of\nthose who die perish at once, like mists or smoke-wreaths exhaled from\nthe bodies, does he, think you, require men to bring so many\npropitiations for the departed, [Sidenote: D] and such great honours to\nthe dead, deceiving and tricking his believers? For myself, I will never\ngive up the permanence of the soul, unless some one like Hercules shall\ncome, and remove the tripod of the Pythia, and lay waste the place of\nthe oracles. But in our own time so long as many such prophecies are\ngiven as once were delivered to Corax the Naxian, it is nothing less\nthan impious to condemn the soul to death.\u2019 Here Patrocleas asked: \u2018But\nwhat was the prophecy delivered, and who was this Corax? The fact and\nthe name are equally strange to [Sidenote: E] me.\u2019 \u2018Not at all,\u2019 I said,\n\u2018the fault is mine for using a by-name instead of the real one. The man\nwho killed Archilochus in battle was called Calondas, it appears; Corax\nwas a by-name given to him. Turned out, at first, by the Pythia, as\nhaving slain a man sacred to the Muses, then, having put in a plea of\njustification, accompanied by prayers and supplications, he was ordered\nto go to the \u201cdwelling of Tettix\u201d and propitiate the soul of\nArchilochus. This place was Taenarus; for thither, they say, Tettix the\nCretan went with an expedition, and there he founded a city, and dwelt\nnear the \u201cPlace of the [Sidenote: F] Passage of Souls\u201d. So, when the\nSpartans had been ordered to propitiate the soul of Pausanias, the\n\u201cConductors of Souls\u201d were sent for out of Italy, and, after having done\nsacrifice, ousted the ghost from the temple.\n\nXVIII. \u2018Thus\u2019, I continued, \u2018the argument which assures the Providence\nof God and also the permanence of the human soul, is one only; it is\nimpossible to remove either and to keep the other. But if the soul\nexists after death, it becomes more probable that a requital is made to\nit in full both of honours [Sidenote: 561] and of punishments. Like an\nathlete, it is engaged in a contest during life; the contest done, it\nthen receives in its own self all its due. However, what rewards or what\nchastisements it there receives in its own self, are nothing to us that\nare alive, they are disbelieved or are unmarked. But those which pass\nthrough children or family are manifest to those who are here, and turn\naway many bad men and pull them up short. But to prove that there is no\nmore disgraceful and grievous punishment than for a man to see his own\ndescendants suffering on his account; and that when the soul of an\noffender against piety or law looks after death, and sees, not the\noverthrow of statues or [Sidenote: B] memorials effaced, but sons or\nfriends or kinsmen involved in great misfortunes, all because of itself,\nand paying its penalties, it could not be content, no, not for all the\nhonours which are given to Zeus, to become a second time unjust and\nprofligate, I can tell you a story which I have lately heard; yet I\nhesitate lest it may appear to you a myth, so I confine myself to\nshowing the probability.\u2019 \u2018On no account!\u2019 said Olympicus, \u2018give us the\nwhole of that story too.\u2019 As the others made the same petition, \u2018Let me\nmake good\u2019, said I, \u2018the probability of the view, then we will start the\nmyth, if myth indeed it be.\n\nXIX. \u2018Now Bion says that it would be more ridiculous [Sidenote: C] if\nGod were to punish the sons of wicked men, than for a doctor to drug a\ndescendant or a son for the disease of a grandfather or a father. But\nthe cases are dissimilar in one respect, though closely alike in\nanother. The treatment of one person does not relieve another from\ndisease; no patient with eye disease or fever was ever the better for\nseeing an ointment or a plaster applied to another. The punishments of\nthe wicked are exhibited to all, because the effect of the reasonable\noperation of justice is to restrain some through the punishment of\nothers. But the point of resemblance between the parallel adduced\n[Sidenote: D] by Bion and our problem he failed to observe; it is this:\nwhen a man has fallen into a sickness which is bad but not incurable,\nand afterwards through intemperance and self-indulgence has surrendered\nhis body to the malady and has died of it, then, if there be a son, not\nevidently diseased but only with a tendency to the same disease, a\nphysician, or relative, or trainer, or a kind master who has learnt the\nstate of the case, will put him upon a strict diet and remove made\ndishes and drinks and women, and use regular courses of physic, and\nharden his body by exercises, and will thus disperse and expel the\nsymptoms, and [Sidenote: E] not allow the little seed of a great trouble\nto reach any size. Is not that the tone which we adopt, entreating sons\nof fathers or mothers with a tendency to diseases to pay attention to\nthemselves, and to watch out, and not be careless, but to get rid at\nonce of the first beginnings in the system, taking them in time while\nthey are easy to move and loosely seated?\u2019 \u2018It is indeed\u2019, they said.\n\u2018Then we are doing nothing out of place, but a necessary act, one which\nis useful and not ludicrous, when we introduce the sons of epileptic or\nbilious or gouty sires to gymnastic exercise, diet, and drugs, not when\nthey are [Sidenote: F] suffering from a disease but in order that they\nmay not take it; for a body which proceeds out of a vitiated body\ndeserves no punishment but rather medical care and watching; if any one\nin his cowardice and softness chooses to miscall that punishment,\nbecause it removes pleasures and applies the sharp prick of pain and\ntrial, we have nothing more to say to him. Now then, does a body, the\nissue of a faulty body, deserve treatment and care, and yet we must\nendure to see the likeness of a kinsman\u2019s [Sidenote: 562] vice springing\nup within a young character, and making its growth there, and to wait\nuntil it be spread over his system and manifest itself in his passions,\n\n                          _And show the evil fruit\n                          Of mind awry_,\n\nas Pindar[239] says?\n\nXX. \u2018Or is the God in this to be less wise than Hesiod,[240] who exhorts\nand charges:\n\n            _Ne\u2019er after gloomy burial, of life\n            Sow thou the seed, but fresh from heavenly feasts_,\n\nmeaning that the act of generation admits not only of vice and virtue,\nbut also of grief and joy and the rest, and therefore he would bring men\ncheerful and pleasant and open-hearted to the task? But the other matter\ndoes not come out of Hesiod, nor is it the effect of human wisdom, but\nof the God, [Sidenote: B] to see through likenesses and differences of\ntemperament, before they stand revealed by a plunge through the passions\ninto great crimes. For the cubs of bears while still tiny, and the young\nof wolves and apes, show at once the character of their kind, there is\nno disguise or pretence; but the nature of man is plunged at once into\ncustoms and rules and laws, and often conceals the bad points and\nimitates the good, so that the inborn stain of vice is entirely effaced\nand removed, or else is undetected for a long time; it assumes a sheath\nor cloke of [Sidenote: C] cleverness, which we fail to see through. We\nperceive the wickedness with an effort each time that the blow or prick\nof the several misdoings touches us. In a word, we think that men become\nunjust when they commit an injustice, become intemperate when they do a\nviolence, become cowardly when they run away. It is as though we should\nthink that the scorpion grows a sting when he strikes, or vipers their\nvenom when they bite, which would be simple indeed! Take any single bad\nman, he does not become bad when he appears bad; he has the vice from\nthe first, but it comes out as he gets opportunity and power, the thief,\nof thieving, the born tyrant, of forcing the laws. But God, by his own\nnature, apprehends [Sidenote: D] soul better than body; and we may be\nsure that he is neither ignorant of the disposition and nature of each,\nnor waits to punish violence of the hands, or insolence of the tongue,\nor profligacy of the body. For he has himself suffered no wrong; is not\nangry with the robber because he has met with violence, does not hate\nthe profligate because he has been assaulted; but, as a remedial\nmeasure, he often chastises the man whose tendency is to adulterous\ncrime, or to greed, or to injustice, thus destroying vice before it has\ntaken hold, as he might an epilepsy.\n\nXXI. \u2018Yet we were indignant a little while ago, that the wicked are\npunished so late and so slowly. And now we complain [Sidenote: E]\nbecause God sometimes cuts short the habit and disposition before any\nwrong is done, not knowing that the thing to come is often worse and\nmore alarming than the thing done, what is hidden than what is apparent,\nand unable to calculate the reasons why it is better to leave some alone\neven after they have committed an offence, and to be beforehand with\nothers who are still meditating one; exactly as drugs are of no use for\ncertain persons when sick, but are of service to others who are not\nactually sick, but are in a state still more dangerous. [Sidenote: F] So\nit is not always a case of\n\n               _The parents trip upon their offspring turned\n               By Heav\u2019n\u2019s high hand._[241]\n\nIf a good son be born of a bad sire, as a healthy child of a sickly\nparent, he is relieved from the penalty of race, saved by adoption out\nof vice. But the young man who throws back to the likeness of a tainted\nrace ought, surely, to take to the debts on his inheritance, that is, to\nthe punishment due to wickedness. Antigonus was not punished because of\nDemetrius, nor\u2014to go back to the heroes of old\u2014Phyleus for Augeas, nor\nNestor [Sidenote: 563] for Neleus. These all came of bad sires, but were\ngood. But where natural disposition has embraced and adopted the family\nfailing, in those cases Justice pursues and visits to the uttermost the\nlikeness in vice. For as warts and spots and moles of parents disappear\nin their children, but return on the persons of grandchildren; as again\na Greek woman had borne a black child, and when charged with adultery,\ndiscovered that she was of Ethiopian parentage in the fourth degree; and\nas, yet again, out of the sons of Nisibeus, lately dead, who was\nreported to be related to the \u201cSown Men\u201d of Thebes, one reproduced\n[Sidenote: B] the mark of a spear on his body\u2014family likeness\nre-emerging from the depths, after such long intervals\u2014, even so it is\noften the case that characteristics and affections of the soul are\nconcealed and submerged in the early generations, but afterwards break\nout again in later individuals, and Nature restores the familiar type,\nfor vice or for virtue.\u2019\n\nXXII. When I had spoken thus I remained silent. Olympicus laughed\nquietly, and said: \u2018We are not applauding you, lest we should seem to be\nletting you off the myth, as though the demonstration of your view were\nsufficient without it; when we have heard it, we will give judgement.\u2019\nSo I went on to tell them: \u2018Thespesius of Soli, a kinsman and friend of\nthat Protogenes who has been with us here, after an early life\n[Sidenote: C] of great profligacy, quickly ran through his fortune,\nchanged his ways perforce, and took to the pursuit of wealth; when he\nhad the usual experience of the profligates who do not keep their wives\nwhen they have them, but cast them away and try wrongfully to get their\nfavours when united to other men. He stopped at nothing disgraceful if\nit led to enjoyment or gain, and in a short time got together an\ninconsiderable fortune and a mighty reputation for evil. What hit him\nhardest was an answer [Sidenote: D] delivered to him by the oracle of\nAmphilochus. It appears that he had sent to ask the God \u201cwhether he will\ndo better the rest of his life?\u201d[242] The answer was that he \u201cwill live\nbetter when he has died\u201d. And sure enough this, in a way, so fell out\nnot long afterwards. He fell over from a high place, upon his head;\nthere was no wound, but he appeared to die of the mere blow, and on the\nthird day, at the very time of the funeral, revived. He quickly\nrecovered his strength, and came to himself, and the change of life\nwhich followed was incredible. For the Cilicians know of no man more\nfair in all business relations, or more holy in religious duties, so\nformidable a foe or so faithful a friend. [Sidenote: E] Hence those who\nwere brought into contact with him were very curious to hear the cause\nof the difference, thinking that a character so completely remodelled\nmust have been the result of no trifling experience. And so it truly\nwas, according to the story related by him to Protogenes, and other\nequally considerate friends. For, when sentience left his body, he felt\naffected by a change, as a helmsman might do when first plunged\noverboard into the depth of the sea; then, recovering a little, he\nseemed to himself to breathe all over and to look around, while his soul\nopened like one great eye. But he saw [Sidenote: F] nothing of what he\nhad been seeing before, only stars of vast size, at infinite distances\nfrom one another, each emitting a ray of marvellous colour and of a\ntonic force, so that the soul, riding smoothly on the light, as though\nover a calm sea, was carried easily and quickly in every direction.\nPassing over most of the sights he saw, he said that the souls of those\nwho die make a flame-like bubble where the air parts as they rise\n[Sidenote: 564] from below, then the bubble quickly bursts, and they\nemerge with human form but light in bulk, with a movement which is not\nthe same for all. Some bound forth with marvellous agility, and dart\nupwards in a straight line, while others whirl round together like\nspindles, now with an upward tendency, now a downward, borne on by a\nmingled confused agitation, which after a very long time, and then with\ndifficulty, is reduced to calm. Most of them he did not recognize, but\nseeing two or three persons of his acquaintance, he tried to approach\nthem and speak. They would not hear him, and [Sidenote: B] appeared not\nto be themselves, but to be distraught and scared out of their senses,\nshunning all sight or touch, while they roamed about, first by\nthemselves; then they would meet and embrace others in like case, and\nwhirl round in random indefinite figures of every sort, uttering\nunmeaning sounds, like cries of battle mingled with those of lamentation\nand terror. Others above, on the extremity of the firmament, were\ncheerful to behold, often drawing near to one another in kindness, and\nturning away from those other turbid souls; and they would signify, as\nit seemed, their annoyance by [Sidenote: C] out drawing close together,\nbut joy and affability by opening and dispersing. There he saw, he said,\nthe soul of a kinsman, but not very certainly, for the man had died\nwhile he was himself a child. However, the soul drew towards him, and\nsaid, \u201cHail Thespesius!\u201d He was surprised at this, and said that his\nname was not Thespesius, but Aridaeus. \u201cFormerly so,\u201d was the reply,\n\u201cbut from now Thespesius. For you are not really dead, but, by some\nappointment of Heaven, have come hither with your sentient part, the\nrest of your soul is left within the body, as a light anchor. Let this\nbe a sign to you now and hereafter; the souls of the dead make no\nshadow, and their eyes do not [Sidenote: D] blink.\u201d[243] When Thespesius\nheard this, he drew himself together in deeper thought, and as he gazed,\nhe saw a sort of dim and shadowy line which wavered as he moved, while\nthe others were transparent within, all set around with brightness, yet\nnot all equally. Some were like the full moon at her purest, and emitted\none smooth, continuous, uniform colour; over others there ran scales, so\nto call them, or slender weals; others were quite dappled and strange to\nlook upon, branded with black spots like those on serpents; others again\nshowed open blunted scars. Then [Sidenote: E] the kinsman of Thespesius\n(for nothing forbids us to designate the souls in this way by the names\nof men) began to explain it all to him, as thus: \u201cAdrasteia, daughter of\nZeus and Necessity, has been appointed to punish all crimes in the\nhighest place; no criminal has there ever yet been, so small or so\ngreat, as to pass unseen or to escape by his might. But there are three\nmodes of punishment, and each mode has its proper guardian minister.\nSome men are punished, at once in the body and through their body, and\nthese swift Retribution handles; her [Sidenote: F] method is a gentle\none, and passes over many crimes which ask for expiation. Those whose\ncure is a heavier matter are passed after death to Justice by the\ndaemon. The wholly incurable Justice rejects; and these the third, and\nthe fiercest, of the satellites of Adrasteia, whose name is Erinnys,\nchases, as they wander and try to escape in all directions; and it is\npitiful and cruel how she brings them all to nothing and plunges them\ninto the gulf which is beyond speech or sight. As to the [Sidenote: 565]\nother two modes of justification,\u201d he went on, \u201cthat which is wrought by\nRetribution during life resembles the usage of barbarian countries. For\nas in Persia they pluck off and scourge the robes and the hats of men\nunder punishment, while their owners implore them to stop, so\npunishments through money or upon the person get no close grip, they do\nnot fasten on the vice itself, but are mostly for appearance and appeal\nto the senses. But whoever makes his way here from earth unchastened and\nunpurged, Justice firmly seizes him, with his soul naked and manifest,\nhaving no place into which to skulk, [Sidenote: B] that he may hide and\nveil his wickedness, but eyed from all sides, and by all, and all over.\nAnd first she shows him to good parents, if such he has, or to\nancestors, a contemptible and unworthy sight. If these are all bad, he\nsees them punished and is seen by them, and so is justified during a\nlong time, while each of his passions is dislodged by pains and toils,\nwhich as much exceed in greatness and intensity those which are through\nthe flesh, as a day dream may be clearer than that which comes in sleep.\nScars and weals left by particular passions[244] are more [Sidenote: C]\npersistent in some men than in others. And look\u201d, he said, \u201cat those\nmotley colours upon the souls, which come from every source. There is\nthe dusky, dirty red, which is the smear made by meanness and greed; the\nfiery blood-red of cruelty and harshness. Where you see the bluish grey,\nthere intemperance in pleasures has been rubbed away, and a heavy work\nit was; malice and envying have been there to inject that violet beneath\nthe skin, as cuttle-fishes their ink. For down on earth vice brings out\nthe colours, while the soul is turned about by the passions and turns\nthe body, but here, when these have been smoothed away, the final result\nof purgation, and chastisement is this, that the soul becomes radiant\nall over [Sidenote: D] and of one hue. But as long as the colours are in\nit, there are certain reversions to passion, with throbbings and a\npulsation which in some is faint and easily passes off, in others makes\nvigorous resistance. Of these souls, some, being chastised again and\nagain, attain their fitting habit and disposition; others are\ntransferred into the bodies of beasts by masterful ignorance and the\npassionate love of pleasure;[245] for ignorance, through weakness of the\nreasoning part and inactivity of the speculative, inclines on its\npractical side towards generation; while the love of pleasure, requiring\nan instrument for intemperance, [Sidenote: E] craves to unite the\ndesires with their satisfaction, and to have share in corporeal\nexcitement, since here is nothing save a sort of ineffectual shadow, and\na dream of pleasure without its fulfilment.\u201d Having said this, he began\nto lead him on, moving rapidly yet covering, as it seemed, a space of\ninfinite extent with unfaltering ease, borne upwards on the rays of\nlight, as though by wings, until he reached a great chasm which yawned\ndownwards. There he was deserted by the supporting force, and saw the\nother souls in the same case. Packing together, like birds, and borne\ndown and around, they [Sidenote: F] circled about the chasm, which they\ndid not venture to cross outright. You might see it within, resembling\nthe caves of Bacchus, dressed in wood and greenery, and gay with\nblossoms of flowers of every sort; and it exhaled a mild and gentle\nbreeze which wafted odours of marvellous delight, and produced such an\natmosphere as wine throws off for its votaries; for the souls feasted on\nthe fragrant smells and were relaxed into mutual kindliness. All around\na bacchic humour prevailed, and laughter, and every joy which the Muses\ncan give where men sport and are merry. By this way, he said, Dionysus\nwent up to the Gods, and [Sidenote: 566] afterwards brought Semele; it\nis called \u201cthe Place of Lethe\u201d. Here he did not allow Thespesius to\nlinger, even though he would, but kept drawing him away by force,\nexplaining to him as he did so that the sentient mind becomes wasted and\nsodden by pleasure, while the irrational and corporeal part is watered\nand pampered and suggests recollection of the body, and, from that\nrecollection, a yearning and desire which makes for generation\n(genesis), so named because it is a leaning towards earth\n(Ge-neusis)[246] when the soul is weighed down by moisture. Having\ntravelled another journey as long as the first, he seemed to be gazing\ninto a mighty bowl, with rivers discharging into [Sidenote: B] it, one\nwhiter than foam of the sea, or snowflakes, another with the purple\nflush of the rainbow, others tinged with different hues. From a distance\neach showed its proper ray, but as he drew near the rim became\ninvisible, and the colouring was dulled, and the more brilliant hues\ndeserted the bowl, leaving only the whiteness. And there he saw three\ndaemons seated close together in a triangle, mingling the streams in\ncertain measures. Now the soul-conductor of Thespesius told him that\nthus far Orpheus advanced, when he was questing [Sidenote: C] for the\nsoul of his wife, and, from not rightly remembering, put out an untrue\naccount among men, namely that \u201cthere was an oracle at Delphi, held by\nApollo and Night in common, whereas Night has nothing in common with\nApollo. Really,\u201d he said, \u201cthis oracle is shared by Night and the moon,\nhaving nowhere an earthly bound, or a single habitation, but roaming\nover men everywhere in dreams and phantoms. From here it is that dreams,\nwhich are mingled, as you see, with what is deceitful and embroidered,\nget so much simplicity and truth as they scatter abroad. The oracle of\nApollo\u201d, he continued, [Sidenote: D] \u201cyou have not seen, nor will you\never be able to see it, for the earthly element of the soul does not\nmount upwards or allow that; it is attached closely to the body and\nbends downwards.\u201d And as he spoke, he led him on, and he tried to show\nhim the light coming, as he said, from the tripod, resting on Parnassus\nbetween the breasts of Themis. Earnestly desiring to see, he saw nothing\nfor the brightness. But he heard, as he passed, a woman\u2019s shrill voice\nchanting in verse many things, among them the time of his own death. The\ndaemon told him that the voice was that of the Sibyl,[247] who was\nsinging about things to be, as she was carried round on the face of the\nmoon. He [Sidenote: E] desired to hear more, but was thrust off by the\nwhirling of the moon to the opposite side, as though caught in the\neddies, and only heard scraps, one of which was about Mount Vesuvius and\nthe future destruction by fire of Dicaearcheia, and a fragment of song\nabout the emperor of that day, how that\n\n                                      _so good a man\n              Shall die upon his bed, and end his reign._[248]\n\nAfter that, they turned to the sight of those under punishment. At first\nthey met only with repulsive and piteous spectacles. Afterwards, when\nThespesius found friends and relations and intimates, whom he could\nnever have conceived of as punished, enduring sore sufferings and\npenalties both ignominious and [Sidenote: F] painful, and pitying\nthemselves to him and weeping aloud; and at last saw his own father\nemerging from a certain pit, all over brands and scars, reaching out his\nhand towards his son and not permitted to be silent, but compelled by\nthe warders to confess his infamous conduct to some strangers who had\ncome with gold\u2014how he had poisoned them, and had escaped detection there\non earth, but had been convicted here, how he had already suffered part,\nand was now led to suffer the remainder\u2014, then he did not dare to\nsupplicate [Sidenote: 567] or to entreat for his father, so great was\nhis consternation and horror. Wishing to turn about and flee, he saw no\nlonger that gracious and familiar guide, but was thrust forward by\nothers of terrible visage, because it was necessary that he should go\nthrough it all. There he beheld the shadows of those who had been\nnotoriously wicked, and who had been punished on the spot, not savagely\nhandled as were the former ones, because[249] their trouble was in the\nirrational seat of the passions. [Sidenote: B] But those who had passed\nthrough life under a veil or cloak of the appearance of virtue, were\ncompelled by others, who stood around, laboriously and painfully to turn\ntheir soul inside out, writhing and bending themselves back unnaturally,\nas the scolopendrae[250] of the sea, when they have gorged the hook,\nturn themselves inside out. Others they would flay, and fold the skin\nback, to show how scarred and mottled they were beneath it, because the\nvice was seated in the rational and directing part. Other souls he said\nthat he saw intertwined like vipers, by twos or threes or more together,\ngnawing one another out of spite and rancour for what they had suffered\n[Sidenote: C] in life, or done. And there were lakes lying side by side,\none of boiling gold, one of lead, exceeding cold, and one of iron, which\nwas rough. Over these stood daemons, as it might be smiths, with tongs,\npicking up by turns the souls of those whose wickedness came of greed\nand grasping, and plunging them in. When they had become all fiery and\ntransparent in the burning gold, they were thrust into the bath of lead;\nand when frozen till they became hard as hailstones, they were shifted\non to the iron, and there they became hideously black, [Sidenote: D] and\nwere broken up and crushed, so hard and brittle were they, and their\nshapes were changed. Then they were conveyed, just as they were, back to\nthe gold, enduring dire pains in the transition. Most pitiful of all, he\nsaid, was the case of those who seemed already quit of Justice and then\nwere seized up anew. These were the souls whose penalty had come round\nto any descendants or children. For whenever any one of these last came\nup and met them, he would fall upon them in anger, and shout aloud, and\nshow the marks of his sufferings, reviling and pursuing, while the\nparent soul sought to flee and hide [Sidenote: E] itself, but could not;\nfor the torturers would run swiftly after and bring them to Justice, and\nforce them through all from the beginning, while they bewailed\nthemselves because they knew the punishment before them. And there were\nsome, he said, to whom a number of their offspring were attached,\nclinging to them just like bees or bats, and jibbering in wrathful\nrecollection of what they had suffered on account of their parents. Last\nof all, while he was looking at the souls returning to a second\nbirth\u2014how they were violently bent and transformed into animals of every\nsort by the executioners of this task, [Sidenote: F] who used certain\nimplements and blows, here squeezing together the limbs entire, here\ntwisting them aside, here planing them away and getting rid of them\naltogether, to fit into other characters and other lives\u2014, there\nappeared among these the soul of Nero, already in torment, and pierced\nwith red-hot nails. For it the executioners had prepared the form of a\nviper, as Pindar describes it, wherein the beast is to be conceived, and\nlive, after having devoured its own mother. And then, he said, there\nshone out a great light, and from the light came a voice commanding them\nto shift Nero to some other milder species, and to fashion a beast to\nsing around marshes and pools, for that he had paid the penalty of his\ncrimes; and moreover some benefit was due to him from the Gods, because\nhe had freed [Sidenote: 568] the best and most God-loving race, that of\nHellas. Up to this point, Thespesius had been, he said, a spectator. But\nas he was about to return, he suffered a horrible fear. For a woman of\nmarvellous form and stature seized hold of him: \u201cCome here, fellow!\u201d she\nsaid, \u201cthat thou mayest have a better memory of these things.\u201d Then she\nbrought near him a rod, such as painters use, red-hot, but another woman\nprevented her. He, sucked up by a sudden violent wind, as out of a\nblow-pipe, fell on to his own body, and just opened his eyes on the edge\nof the tomb.\u2019\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  See p. 313.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  On the proverb \u2018Post Lesbium Cantorem\u2019.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  i. e. in the battle of Amphipolis. See Thuc. 5, 10 and Plut. _Life of\n  Nicias_, c. 9.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  _Orestes_, 420.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  3, 38.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  See Pausanias, 4, 17.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  Fr. 969.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  The author of this famous line is unknown.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  Fr. 57.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  _Minos_, 319 C.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  No specific passage can be identified with the words in the text. For\n  the sequel cp. _Timaeus_, 30 A.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  Cp. _Rep._ 6, 508 A.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  See p. 181 n. 1.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  This line is a continuation of the quotation from Melanthius above.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  Cp. Aesch. _Cho._ 313, &c.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  Quoted several times as from Pindar (see Fr. 77), but perhaps rather\n  Simonides.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  _Il._ 15, 641.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  Cp. Aristot. _Poet._ c. 9.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  _W. and D._ 266, 265.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  _Laws_, 5, 728 C.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  i.e. under Roman law. See Smith\u2019s _Dict. Ant._, _s.v._ Crux.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  _Rep._ 406 B.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  See H. Richards in _Class. Rev._ vol. 29, p. 235, and, for the\n  quotation, the _Life of Lucullus_, c. 1.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Fr. 42, and see Jebb\u2019s Introd. to the _Electra_ of Sophocles.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  See _Life of Aristides_, c. 6. also Dion Chrys. _Orat._ 64.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  See _Life of Cimon_, c. 6.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  Again quoted, _De Curiosit._ 520 A.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  Eur. _Ino_, Fr. 403.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  Fr. 970.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  See Herod. 2, 134.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  i. e. Polyphemus. See _Od._ 9, 375 foll.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  See Herod. 66, 74, and Pausan. 4, 252, and 8, 18.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  From an unknown poet; Euphorion and Arctinus are suggested.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  Fr. 123.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  Hence a proverb applied to what was second-rate.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  Arist. _H. A._ 9, 3, 610 b 29.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  See Thuc. 2, 48; also _Plague and Pestilence in Literature and Art_,\n  by Raymond Crawfurd, M.D., chap. 2 and Appendix.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  Cp. Plato, _Laws_, 4, 715 A.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  Fr. 41.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  _Il._ 6, 146.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  Fr. 211.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  _W. and D._ 735-6.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  Eur. Fr. 970.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  I have transposed the verbs as suggested in Wyttenbach\u2019s Commentary.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  Cp. Dante, _Purg._ 3, 19 foll. The idea is Pythagorean (see _Quaest.\n  Graec._ 40, p. 300).\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  Cp. Plato, _Gorg._ 524 D.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  See H. Richards in _Class. Rev._, vol. 29, p. 236.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  Cp. p. 215, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  Cp. p. 89.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  Probably a Sibylline verse. See Suetonius, _Life of Vespasian_.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  Reading \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ae with C. F. Hermann.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  Cp. Aristot. _Hist. Anim._ 2, 14, 505 b 13, and 10, 37, 621 a 6.\n\n\n\n\n                    FROM THE DIALOGUE \u2018ON THE SOUL\u2019\n                               A FRAGMENT\n\n\n[Preserved by Stobaeus, _Florileg._ 119.[251]]\n\n\nI. When Timon had spoken thus, Patrocleas replied: \u2018Your argument is as\nforcible as it is ancient, yet there are difficulties. For if the\ndoctrine of immortality is so very old, how is it that the fear of death\nis \u201coldest of terrors\u201d[252]? Unless, of course, it is this which has\nengendered all other terrors. For there is nothing \u201cfresh or new\u201d in our\nmourning for the dead, or in the use of those sad sinister forms of\nspeech, \u201cPoor man!\u201d \u201cUnfortunate man!\u201d\u2019\n\nII. \u2018But there\u2019, said Timon, \u2018we shall find a confusion of ideas between\nwhat perishes and what does not. Now when we speak of the dead as having\n\u201cpassed away\u201d and being \u201cgone\u201d, there is clearly no suggestion of\nanything actually harsh, only of a change or transition of some sort.\nWhere that change takes place for those who undergo it, and whether it\nbe for worse or better, let us consider by looking into the other words\nused. Our actual word for death[253], in the first place, does not\nappear to point to a movement downward, or beneath the earth, but rather\nto a mounting upward towards God of that which passes. Thus we may\nreasonably suppose that the soul darts out and runs upward, as though a\nbent spring had been released, when the body breathes it out, and itself\ndraws an upward vital breath. Next, look at the opposite of death, which\nis generation; this word, on the contrary, expresses a tendency\ndownward, an inclination to earth[254] of that which at the time of\ndeath again speeds upward. Hence, too, we call our natal day by a name\nwhich means a beginning of evils and of great troubles.[255] Perhaps we\nshall see the same thing even more clearly from another set of words. A\nman when he dies is said to be \u201creleased\u201d, and death called a\n\u201crelease\u201d\u2014if you ask the question \u201cfrom what?\u201d, a release from\nbody[256]\u2014for body is called d\u0115mas, because the soul is kept in bondage\nin it, contrary to nature, nothing being forcibly detained in a place\nwhich is natural to it. A further play upon this \u201cbondage\u201d and \u201cforce\u201d\ngives the word \u201clife\u201d, as Homer,[257] I think, uses Hesperus for the\nfeminine \u201cevening\u201d, and so, in contrast to \u201clife\u201d, the dead is said to\ncome to his rest, released from a great and unnatural stress. So with\nthe change and reconstitution of the soul into the Whole; we say that it\nhas perished when it has made its way thither; while here it does not\nknow this unless at the actual approach of death, when it undergoes such\nan experience as those do who are initiated into great mysteries. Thus\ndeath and initiation closely correspond, word to word,[258] and thing to\nthing. At first there are wanderings, and laborious circuits, and\njourneyings through the dark, full of misgivings where there is no\nconsummation; then, before the very end, come terrors of every kind,\nshivers, and trembling, and sweat, and amazement. After this, a\nwonderful light meets the wanderer; he is admitted into pure meadow\nlands, where are voices, and dances, and the majesty of holy sounds and\nsacred visions. Here the newly initiate, all rites completed, is at\nlarge; he walks at large like the dedicated victim with a crown on his\nhead, and joins in high revelry; he converses with pure and holy men,\nand surveys the uninitiate unpurified crowd here below in the dirt and\ndarkness, trampled by its own feet and packed together; through fear of\ndeath remaining in its ills, because it does not believe in the\nblessings which are beyond. For that the conjunction of soul with body,\nand its imprisonment, are against nature, you may clearly see from\nthis.\u2019\n\nIII. \u2018From what?\u2019 said Patrocleas. \u2018From the fact that of all our\nexperiences sleep is the most agreeable. First, it always extinguishes\nany perception of pain, because its pleasure is mingled with so much\nthat is familiar, secondly, it overpowers all other appetites, even the\nmost vehement. For even those who are devoted to the body become\ndisinclined for pleasure when sleep comes on, and when they slumber\nreject loving embraces. Why dwell on this? When sleep takes possession,\nit excludes even the pleasure which comes from learning, and discussion,\nand philosophic thought, as though a smooth deep stream swept the soul\nalong. All pleasure, perhaps, is by its essence and nature a respite\nfrom pain, but of sleep this is absolutely true. For, though nothing\nexciting or delightful should approach from without, yet we feel\npleasure in a sound sleep; sleep seems to remove a condition of toil and\nhardness. And that condition is no other than that which binds soul to\nbody. In sleep the soul is separated, and speeds upward, and is gathered\nunto itself after having been strained to fit the body, and dispersed\namong the senses. Yet some assert that, on the contrary, sleep immingles\nsoul with body. They are wrong. The body bears its witness the other\nway, by its lack of sensation, its coldness, and heaviness, and pallor\nproving that the soul leaves it in death, and shifts its quarters in\nsleep. This produces the pleasure; it is a release and respite for the\nsoul, as though it laid down a burthen which it must again resume and\nshoulder. For when it dies it runs away from the body for good; when it\nis asleep, it plays truant. Therefore death is sometimes accompanied by\npains, sleep always by pleasure; in the former case the bond is snapped\naltogether, in the latter it gives, and is slackened, and becomes\neasier, as the senses are loosened like parting knots, and the strain\nwhich ties soul to body is gone.\u2019\n\nIV. \u2018Then how is it\u2019, said Patrocleas, \u2018that we do not feel discomfort\nor pain from being awake?\u2019 \u2018How is it\u2019, said Timon, \u2018that when the hair\nis cut, the head feels lightness and relief, yet there was no sense of\noppression at all while the hair was long? Or that men released from\nbonds feel pleasure, yet there is no pain when the chains are on? Or why\nis there a stir of applause when light is brought suddenly into a\nbanquet, yet its absence did not appear to cause pain or trouble to the\neye? There is one cause, my friend, in all these cases; that gradual\nhabituation made the unnatural familiar to the sense, so that it felt\nabsolutely no distress then, but felt pleasure when there was release\nand a restoration to nature. The strangeness is seen at once when the\nproper condition comes, the presence of what pained and pressed by\ncontrast with the pleasure. It is exactly so with the soul: during its\nassociation with mortal passions, and parts, and organs, that which is\nunnatural and strange produces no apparent pressure because of that long\nfamiliarity; yet when discharged from the activities of the body, it\nfeels ease, and relief, and pleasure. By them it is distressed, and\nabout these it toils, and from these it craves leisure and rest. For all\nthat concerns its own natural activities\u2014observation, reasoning, memory,\nspeculation\u2014it is unwearied and insatiable. Satiety is nothing but a\nweariness of pleasure, when soul feels with body. To its own pleasures\nsoul never cries \u201cEnough\u201d; but while it is involved in body, it is in\nthe plight of Ulysses.[259] As he clung to the fig-tree, and hugged it,\nnot from love of the tree, but fearing Charybdis down below, so soul\nclings to body and embraces it, from no goodwill to it or gratitude, but\nin horror of the uncertainty of death,\n\n                _For life the gods conceal from mortal men_,\n\nsays the wise Hesiod.[260] They have not strained soul to body by fleshy\nbonds, one bond they have contrived and one encompassing device, the\nuncertainty of what comes after death, and our slowness to believe;\nsince, \u201cif the soul were persuaded\u201d, as Heraclitus[261] says, \u201cof all\nthe things which await men when they have died, no force would keep it\nback.\u201d\u2019\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  Where it is ascribed to Themistius. It was reclaimed for Plutarch by\n  Wyttenbach in the Preface to his edition of the _De Sera Numinum\n  Vindicta_\u2014Leiden 1772.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  In the Dialogue (_Ne suaviter quidem_, c. 26) in which the Epicureans\n  are attacked, the \u2018hope of eternal existence\u2019 or \u2018desire to be\u2019, is\n  spoken of as the \u2018oldest and greatest of loves\u2019.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u2014\u03b3\u1fc6, \u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Cp. p. 210, l. 6.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u2014\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b8\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  Reading \u1f02\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c1\u1fc3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 for \u1f02\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. See the\n  Lex.-Plat. _s.v._ \u1f14\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  e.g. _Od._ 1, 423.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd\u2014\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  _Od._ 12, 432 foll.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  _W. and D._ 42.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  Fr. 122.\n\n\n\n\n                            ON SUPERSTITION\n\n\n                              INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe drift of Plutarch\u2019s remarkable Treatise on Superstition is well\ngiven in the opening words of Bacon\u2019s famous Essay: \u2018It were better to\nhave no opinion of God at all than such an opinion as is unworthy of\nhim. For the one is unbelief, the other is contumely, and certainly\nsuperstition is the reproach of the Deity.\u2019 The word\u2014the same which, in\nits adjective, St. Paul applies, almost in a good sense, to the\nAthenians of his day[262]\u2014is correctly defined by Theophrastus, in his\n\u2018character\u2019 of the superstitious man, as timidity with regard to the\nsupernatural, and this timidity at once passes into cowardice. There is\nin this treatise a fighting spirit and a directness of attack unusual in\nPlutarch, who mostly speaks with academic balance about conflicting\nschools of thought. Thus it has been suggested that one or other of his\nwritings against the Epicureans may be intended to supply the required\nstudy \u2018On Atheism\u2019. There are many passages in the _Lives_ and also in\nthe _Moralia_ where the author is seen to mediate between credulity and\nscepticism, superstition and atheism; usually showing a tendency to \u2018the\nmore benign extreme\u2019; there is more to be lost by an undue hardening of\nthe intellect than by a wise hospitality to beliefs and ideas which lie\nbeyond strict proof. Here the attack is one-sided and uncompromising. At\nthe end of the treatise true piety is exhibited as a middle path between\nsuperstition and atheism. This is not to be understood of a quantitative\nexcess or defect. Piety in excess may induce a habit which deserves the\nname of superstition, such as has been the fair butt of satirists in all\nages, and of humorists like Theophrastus. But Plutarch is thinking not\nof excess, but of perversion, a piety directed to wrong powers, or to\npowers conceived of in the wrong way. There is a striking instance in\nthe _Life of Pelopidas_ (c. 21), when some of the prophets invited that\ngreat soldier to obey the warning of a dream by slaying his daughter,\nfor which there were ancient precedents. \u2018But some on the other side\nurged, that such a barbarous and impious oblation could not be pleasing\nto any superior beings; that Typhons and Giants did not preside over the\nworld, but the general father of Gods and men; that it was absurd to\nimagine any Divinities or powers delighted in slaughter or sacrifices of\nmen; or, if there were any such, they were to be neglected, as weak and\nunable to assist; such unreasonable and cruel desires could only proceed\nfrom, and live in, weak and depraved minds.\u2019\n\nThe situation is saved by the good sense of the augur Theocritus, the\nsame who plays a quaint and gallant part in the enterprise described in\n_The Genius of Socrates_; and a chestnut colt takes the place of the\ndaughter. And there is no doubt on which side of the argument Plutarch\u2019s\nsympathies lie.\n\nAn admirable running commentary on Plutarch\u2019s treatise is supplied by\nthe _Discourse on Superstition_ of John Smith, the Cambridge Platonist\n(1618-52), here printed as an Appendix to it. Like Bacon, John Smith has\nwritten also a _Discourse on Atheism_, from which it may be sufficient\nfor the present purpose to quote the words of the Son of Sirach appended\nas his conclusion:\n\n\u2018O Lord, Father and God of my life, give me not a proud look, but turn\naway from thy servants a Giant-like minde\u2019 (Ecclus. 23, 4).\n\nSee, for this whole treatise, Dr. Oakesmith\u2019s Chapter IX, pp. 179 foll.\n\n\n\n\n                            ON SUPERSTITION\n\n\n[Sidenote: 164 E] The stream of ignorance and of misconception about the\nGods passed, from the very first, into two channels; one branch flowed,\nas it were, over stony places, and has produced atheism in hard\ncharacters, the other over moist ground, and this has produced\nsuperstition in the tender ones. Now any error of judgement, especially\non such matters, is a vicious thing, but if passion be added it is more\nvicious. For all passion is \u2018deceit accompanied by inflammation\u2019; and as\ndislocations are more [Sidenote: F] serious when there is also a wound,\nso are distortions of the soul when there is passion. A man thinks that\natoms and a void are the first principles of the universe; the\nconception is a false one, but does not produce ulceration or spasm, or\ntormenting pain. Another conceives of wealth as the greatest [Sidenote:\n165] good; this falsity has poison in it, preys on his soul, deranges\nit, allows him no sleep, fills him with stinging torments, thrusts him\ndown steep places, strangles him, takes away all confidence of speech.\nAgain, some think that virtue is a corporeal thing, and vice also; this\nis a gross piece of ignorance perhaps, but not worthy of lament or\ngroans. But where there are such judgements and conceptions as these:\n\n                 _Alas, poor Virtue! so thou art but words,\n                 And as a thing I was pursuing thee_[263]\u2014\n\ndropping, he means, the injustice which makes money, and the\nintemperance which is parent of all pleasure\u2014, these it is worth our\nwhile to pity and to resent also, because their presence [Sidenote: B]\nin the soul breeds diseases and passions in numbers, very worms and\nvermin.\n\nII. And so it is with the subjects of our present discourse. Atheism,\nwhich is a faulty judgement that there is nothing blessed or\nimperishable, seems to work round through disbelief in the Divine to\nactual apathy; its object in not acknowledging Gods is that it may not\nfear them. Superstition is shown by its very name to be a state of\nopinion charged with emotion and productive of such fear as debases and\ncrushes the man; he thinks that there are Gods, but that they are\n[Sidenote: C] grievous and hurtful. The atheist appears to be unmoved at\nthe mention of the Divine; the superstitious is moved, but in a wrong\nand perverted sense. Ignorance has produced in the one disbelief of the\npower which is helping him, in the other a superadded idea that it is\nhurting. Hence atheism is theory gone wrong, superstition is ingrained\nfeeling, the outcome of false theory.\n\nIII. Now all diseases and affections of the soul are discreditable, but\nthere is in some of them a gaiety, a loftiness, a distinction, which\ncome of a light heart; we may say that none of these is wanting in a\nstrong active impulse. Only there is this common charge to be laid\nagainst every such affection, that by stress of the active impulse it\nforces and [Sidenote: D] constrains the reason. Fear alone, as deficient\nin daring as it is in reason, keeps the irrational part inoperative,\nwithout resource or shift. Hence it has been called by two names,\n\u2018Deima\u2019 and \u2018Tarbos\u2019,[264] because it at once constricts and vexes the\nsoul. But of all fears that which comes of superstition is most\ninoperative, and most resourceless. The man who never sails fears not\nthe sea, nor the non-combatant, war; the home-keeping man fears no\nrobbers, the poor no informers, the plain citizen no envy, the dweller\namong the Gauls[265] no earthquake, among the Ethiopians no thunder. The\nman who fears the Gods fears everything, land, sea; air, sky; darkness,\nlight; sound, silence; to dream, to wake. Slaves forget [Sidenote: E]\ntheir masters while they sleep, sleep eases the prisoner\u2019s chain; angry\nwounds, ulcers that raven and prey upon the flesh, and agonizing pains,\nall stand aloof from men that sleep:\n\n            _Dear soothing sleep, that com\u2019st to succour pains,\n            How sweet is thy approach in this my need._[266]\n\nSuperstition does not allow a man to say this; she alone has no truce\nwith sleep, and suffers not the soul to breathe awhile, and [Sidenote:\nF] take courage, and thrust away its bitter heavy thoughts about the\nGod. The sleep of the superstitious is a land of the ungodly, where\nblood-curdling visions, and monstrous whirling phantoms, and sure\npenalties are awake; the unhappy soul is hunted by dreams out of every\nspell of sleep it has, lashed and punished by itself, as though by some\nother, and receives injunctions horrible and revolting. Then when they\nhave risen out of sleep, they do not scorn it all, or laugh it down, or\nperceive that none of the things which vexed them was real, but, escaped\nfrom the shadow of an illusion with no harm in it, they fall upon a\nvision of the day and deceive themselves outright, and spend [Sidenote:\n166] money to vex their souls, meeting with quacks and charlatans who\ntell them:\n\n                  _If nightly vision fright thy sleep,\n                  Or hags their hellish revel keep_,[267]\n\ncall in the wise woman, and take a dip into the sea, then sit on the\nground, and remain so a whole day.\n\n           _Ah! Greeks, what ills outlandish have ye found_,[268]\n\nnamely, by superstition\u2014dabbling in mud, plunges into filth, keepings of\nSabbaths, falling on the face, foul attitudes, weird prostrations. Those\nwho were concerned to keep music regular used to enjoin on singers to\nthe harp to sing \u2018with [Sidenote: B] mouth aright\u2019. But we require that\nmen should pray to the gods with mouth aright and just; not to consider\nwhether the tongue of the victim be clean and correct, while they\ndistort their own and foul it with absurd outlandish words and phrases,\nand transgress against the divine rule of piety as our fathers knew it.\nThe man in the comedy has a passage which puts it happily to those who\nplate their bedsteads with gold and silver:\n\n               _The one free gift of gods to mortals, sleep,\n               Why make it for thyself a costly boon?_[269]\n\n[Sidenote: C] So we may say to the superstitious man, that the Gods gave\nsleep for oblivion of troubles and a respite from them; why make it for\nthyself a cell of punishment, a chamber of abiding torment, whence the\nmiserable soul cannot run away unto any other sleep? Heraclitus[270]\nsays that \u2018waking men have one world common to all, but in sleep each\nbetakes him to a world of his own.\u2019 The superstitious has no world, no,\nnot a common world, since neither while he is awake does he enjoy his\nreason, nor when he sleeps is he set free from his tormentor; reason\never drowses, and fear is ever awake; there is no escape, nor change of\nplace.\n\nIV. Polycrates was a terrible tyrant in Samos, Periander [Sidenote: D]\nat Corinth, yet no one continued to fear them when he had removed to a\nfree and democratic state. But when a man fears the sovereignty of the\nGods as a grim inexorable tyranny, whither shall he migrate, where find\nexile, what sort of land can he find where no Gods are, or of sea? Into\nwhat portion of the world wilt thou creep and hide thyself, and believe,\nthou miserable creature, that thou hast escaped from God? There is a law\nwhich allows even slaves, if they have despaired of liberty, to petition\nto be sold, and so change to a milder master. Superstition allows no\nexchange of Gods, nor is it possible to find a God who shall not be\nterrible to him who fears those of his country and his clan, who shivers\nat the \u2018Preservers\u2019 and trembles in alarm before the beneficent beings\nfrom whom we ask wealth, plenty, peace, concord, a successful [Sidenote:\nE] issue for our best of words and works. And then these men reckon\nslavery a misfortune, and say:\n\n             _A dire mishap it is, for man or maid,\n             To pass to service of some ill-starred lord._[271]\n\nYet how much more dire is it, think you, for them to pass to lords from\nwhom is no flight, or running away, no shifting. The slave has an altar\nto flee unto, even for robbers many temples are inviolable, and\nfugitives in war, if they lay hold of shrine or temple, take courage.\nThe superstitious shudders in alarm at those very things beyond all\nothers, wherein those who fear the worst find hope. Never drag the\nsuperstitious man from temples; within them is punishment and\nretribution [Sidenote: F] for him. Why more words? \u2018Death is the limit\nof life to all mankind.\u2019[272] Yes, but even death is no limit to\nsuperstition; superstition crosses the boundaries to the other side, and\nmakes fear endure longer than life. It attaches to death the\napprehension of undying ills, and when it ceases from troubles, it\n[Sidenote: 167] thinks to enter upon troubles which never cease. Gates\nare opened for it into a very depth of Hades, rivers of fire and streams\nwhich flow out of Styx mingle their floods; darkness itself is spread\nwith phantoms manifold, obtruding cruel visions and pitiful voices;\nthere are judges and tormentors, and chasms and abysses which teem with\nmyriad evil things. Thus has superstition, that God-banned fear of Gods,\nmade that inevitable to itself by anticipation, of which it had escaped\nthe suffering in act.[273]\n\nV. None of these horrors attaches to atheism. Yet its ignorance is\ndistressing; it is a great misfortune to a soul [Sidenote: B] to see so\nwrong and grope so blindly about such great matters, because the light\nis extinguished of the brightest and most availing out of many eyes when\nthe perception of God is lost. But to the opinion now before us there\ndoes attach from the very first, as we have already said, an emotional\nelement, cankering, perturbing, and slavish. Plato[274] says that music,\nwhose work it is to make men\u2019s lives harmonious and rhythmical, was\ngiven to them by Gods, not for wanton tickling of the ears, but to clear\nthe revolutions and harmonies of the soul from the disturbing impulses\nwhich rove within the body, such as most often run riot, where the Muse\nis not or the Grace, [Sidenote: C] and do violence and mar the tune; to\nbring them to order, to roll them smooth, to lead them aright, and\nsettle them.\n\n             _But they whom Zeus not loves_ (says Pindar)[275]\n             _Turn to the sound a dim disdainful ear\n             What time the Muses\u2019 voice they hear._\n\nYes, they grow savage and rebellious, as the tigers, they say, are\nmaddened and troubled at the sound of the drum, and at last tear\nthemselves to pieces. A lesser evil then it is for those who, through\ndeafness and a dulled ear, are apathetic and insensible to music.\nTiresias was unfortunate that he could not see his children and familiar\nfriends, but far worse was the [Sidenote: D] case of Athamas and of\nAgave, who saw them as lions and stags. Better, I think, it was for\nHercules in his madness not to see his sons, or feel their presence,\nthan to treat his dearest ones as enemies.\n\nVI. What then? Comparing the feeling of the atheists with that of the\nsuperstitious, do we not find a similar difference? The former see no\nGods at all, the latter think that they exist as evil beings. The former\nneglect them, the latter imagine that to be terrible which is kind, that\ntyrannical which is fatherly, loving care to be injury, the\n\u2018unapproachable\u2019[276] to be savage and brutal. Then, trusting to\ncoppersmiths, or marble workers, or modellers in wax, they fashion the\nforms of the Gods in human shape, and these they mould and frame and\nworship; while [Sidenote: E] they despise philosophers and men who know\nlife, if they point them to the majesty of God consisting with goodness,\nand magnanimity, and patience, and solicitude. Thus in the former the\nresult is insensibility and want of belief in all that is fair and\nhelpful, in the latter confusion and fear in the presence of help. In a\nword, atheism is an apathy for the Divine which fails to perceive the\ngood, superstition is an excess of feeling which suspects that the good\nis evil. They fear the Gods, and they flee to the Gods for refuge; they\nflatter and they revile them; they invoke and they censure them. It is\nman\u2019s common lot not to succeed always or in all. [Sidenote: F]\n\n                    _They, from sickness free and age,\n                    Quit of toils, the deep-voiced rage\n                    Of Acheron for ay have left behind_,\n\nas Pindar[277] says; but human sufferings and doings flow in a mingled\nstream of vicissitude, now this way, now that.\n\nVII. Now look with me at the atheist, first when things cross his\nwishes, and consider his attitude. If he is a decent, quiet person, he\ntakes what comes in silence, and provides his own means of succour and\nconsolation. If he be impatient and querulous, he directs all his\ncomplainings against Fortune, and [Sidenote: 168] the way things happen;\nhe cries out that nothing goes by justice or as Providence ordains, all\nis confused and jumbled up; the tangled web of human life is unpicked.\nNot so the superstitious: if the ill which has befallen him be the\nveriest trifle, still he sits down and builds on to his annoyance a pile\nof troubles, grievous and great and inextricable, heaping up for himself\nfears, dreads, suspicions, worries, a victim to every sort of groaning\nand lamentation; for he blames not man, nor fortune, nor [Sidenote: B]\noccasion, nor himself, but for all the God. From that quarter comes\npouring upon him, he says, a Heaven-sent stream of woe; he is punished\nthus by the Gods not because he is unfortunate, but because he is\nspecially hated by them, all that he suffers is his own proper deserts.\nThen the atheist, when he is sick, reckons up his own surfeitings,\ncarouses, irregularities in diet, or over-fatigues, or unaccustomed\nchanges of climate or place. Or, again, if he have met with political\nreverses, become unpopular or discredited in high quarters, he seeks for\nthe cause in himself or his party.\n\n    _Where my transgression? or what have I done? what duty\n       omitted?_[278]\n\nBut to the superstitious every infirmity of his body, every [Sidenote:\nC] loss of money, any death of a child, foul weather and failures in\npolitics, are reckoned for blows from the God and assaults of the fiend.\nHence he does not even take courage to help himself, to get rid of the\ntrouble, or to remedy it, or make resistance, lest he should seem to be\nfighting the Gods, and resisting when punished. So the doctor is thrust\nout of the sick man\u2019s chamber, and the mourner\u2019s door is closed against\nthe sage who comes to comfort and advise. \u2018Man,\u2019 he says, \u2018let me take\nmy punishment, as the miscreant that I am, an accursed [Sidenote: D]\nobject of hate to Gods and daemons.\u2019 It is open to a man who has no\nconviction that there are Gods, when suffering from some great grief and\ntrouble, to wipe away a tear, to cut his hair, to put off his mourning.\nHow are you going to address the superstitious in like case, wherein to\nbring him help? He sits outside, clothed in sackcloth, or with filthy\nrags hanging about him, as often as not rolling naked in the mud, while\nhe recites errors and misdoings of his own, how he ate this, or drank\nthat, or walked on a road which the spirit did not allow. At the very\nbest, if he have taken superstition in a mild form, he sits in the house\nfumigating and purifying himself. The old women \u2018make a peg of him\u2019, as\nBion says, and on it they hang\u2014whatever [Sidenote: E] they choose to\nbring!\n\nVIII. They say that Tiribazus, when arrested by the Persians, drew his\nscimitar, being a powerful man, and fought for his life; then, when they\nloudly protested that the arrest was by the king\u2019s orders, at once\ndropped his point, and held out his hands to be tied. Is not this just\nwhat happens in the case before us? Other men make a fight against\nmischances and thrust all aside, that they may devise ways of escape and\nevade what is unwelcome to themselves. But the superstitious man listens\nto nobody, and addresses himself thus: \u2018Poor wretch, [Sidenote: F] thy\nsufferings come from Providence, and by the order of the God.\u2019 So he\nflings away all hope, gives himself up, flies, obstructs those who try\nto help him. Many tolerable troubles are made deadly by various\nsuperstitions. Midas[279] of old, as we are to believe, dispirited and\ndistressed by certain dreams, was so miserable that he sought a\nvoluntary death by drinking bulls\u2019 blood. Aristodemus, king of the\nMessenians, during the war with the Lacedaemonians, when dogs were\nhowling like wolves, and rye grass sprouting around his ancestral\nhearth, in utter despair at the extinction of all his hopes, cut his own\nthroat. Perhaps it would have been better for Nicias[280], the Athenian\n[Sidenote: 169] general, to find the same release from superstition as\nMidas or Aristodemus, and not, in his terror of the shadow when the moon\nwas eclipsed, to sit still under blockade, and afterwards, when forty\nthousand had been slaughtered or taken alive, to be taken prisoner and\ndie ingloriously. For there is nothing so terrible when the earth blocks\nthe way, or when its shadow meets the moon in due cycle of revolutions;\nwhat is terrible is that a man should plunge[281] into the darkness of\nsuperstition, [Sidenote: B] and that its dark shadow should confound a\nman\u2019s reason and make it blind in matters where reason is most needed.\n\n     _Glaucus, see! the waves already from the depth of ocean stirred,\n     And a cloud is piling upwards, right above the Gyrean point,\n     Certain presage of foul weather._[282]\n\nWhen the helmsman sees this, he prays that he may escape out of the\nperil, and calls on the Gods that save; but, while he prays, his hand is\non the tiller, and he lowers the yard-arm,\n\n    _Furls his mainsail, and from billows black as Erebus he\n       flees._[283]\n\nHesiod[284] tells the farmer to pray to Zeus below the earth and holy\nArtemis before he ploughs or sows, but to hold on to [Sidenote: C] the\nplough-handle as he prays. Homer[285] tells us that Ajax, before meeting\nHector in single combat, commanded the Greeks to pray for him to the\nGods; then, while they were praying, he was arming. Agamemnon, when he\nhad given orders to the fighters:\n\n             _Let each his spear set, and prepare his shield_,\n\nthen begs of Zeus:\n\n           _Grant that this hand make Priam\u2019s halls a heap._[286]\n\nFor God is the hope of valour, not the subterfuge of cowardice. The\nJews, on the other hand, because it was a sabbath, sat on in uncleansed\nclothes, while their enemies planted their ladders and took the walls,\nnever rising to their feet, as though entangled in the one vast draw-net\nof their superstition.[287]\n\nIX. Such then is superstition in disagreeable matters and on [Sidenote:\nD] what we call critical occasions, but it has no advantage, even in\nwhat is more pleasant, over atheism. Nothing is more pleasant to men\nthan feasts, temple banquets, initiations, orgies, prayers to the Gods,\nand solemn supplications. See the atheist there, laughing in a wild\nsardonic peal at the proceedings, probably with a quiet aside to his\nintimates, that those who think this all done for the Gods are crazed\nand possessed; but that is the worst that can be said of him. The\nsuperstitious man wants to be cheerful and enjoy himself, but he cannot.\n\n             _Rife too the city is with heavy reek\n             Of victims slain, and rife with divers cries,\n             The wail for healing and the moan for death._[288]\n\n[Sidenote: E] So is the soul of the superstitious. With the crown on his\nhead he grows pale; while he sacrifices he shudders; he prays with a\nquivering voice and offers incense with hands that shake; he shows all\nthrough that Pythagoras[289] talks nonsense when he says: \u2018We reach our\nbest when we draw near to the Gods.\u2019 For it is then that the\nsuperstitious are at their miserable worst; the halls and temples of the\nGods which they approach are for them dens of bears, lairs of serpents,\ncaverns of monsters of the sea!\n\nX. Hence it comes upon me as a surprise when men say that [Sidenote: F]\natheism is impiety, but that superstition is not. Yet Anaxagoras had to\nanswer a charge of impiety for saying that the sun is a stone, whereas\nno one has called the Cimmerians impious for thinking that there is no\nsun at all. What do you say? Is the man who recognizes no Gods a profane\nperson, and does not he, who takes them for such beings as the\nsuperstitious think, hold a far more profane creed? I know that I would\nrather men said about me that there is not, and never has come\n[Sidenote: 170] into existence, a Plutarch, than that there is a man\nPlutarch unstable, shifty, readily provoked, revengeful over accidents,\naggrieved at trifles; who, if you leave him out of your supper party, if\nyou are busy and do not come to the door, if you pass him without a\ngreeting, will cling to your flesh like a leech and gnaw it, or will\ncatch your child, and thrash him to pieces, or will turn some beast, if\nhe keep one, into your crops, and ruin the harvest. When Timotheus was\nsinging of Artemis at Athens in the words:\n\n               _Wanderer, frenzied one, wild and inebriate!_\n\n[Sidenote: B] Cinesias the composer rose from his place with \u2018Such a\ndaughter be thine!\u2019 Yet the like of this, and worse things too, do the\nsuperstitious hold about Artemis:\n\n                    _She would burn a hanging woman,\n                    She a mother in her pangs;\n                    She would bring pollution to you\n                    From the chamber of a corpse.\n                    In the crossways swoop upon you,\n                    Fix on you a murderer\u2019s shame._[290]\n\nNor will their views about Apollo, or Hera, or Aphrodite be a whit more\ndecent, they fear and tremble at them all. Yet what was there in Niobe\u2019s\nblasphemy about Latona, compared to what [Sidenote: C] superstition has\npersuaded fools to believe about that goddess, how she felt herself\ninsulted and actually shot down the poor woman\u2019s\n\n          _Six daughters, beauteous all, six blooming sons_,[291]\n\nso greedy of calamities for another woman, so implacable! For if the\nGoddess had really been full of wrath and resentment of wickedness, and\nfelt aggrieved at insults to herself, disposed to resent, rather than to\nsmile at human folly and ignorance, why then she ought to have shot down\nthose who lyingly imputed to her such savage bitterness, in speech or\nbooks. Certainly we denounce the bitterness of Hecuba as savage and\nbeastly: [Sidenote: D]\n\n                 _In whose mid-liver I my teeth would set,\n                 And cling and gnaw._[292]\n\nBut of the Syrian Goddess superstitious men believe that if one eats\nsprats or anchovies, she munches his shins, fills his body with sores,\nand rots his liver.[293]\n\nXI. How then? Is it impious to say bad things about the Gods, but not\nimpious to think them? Or is it the thought of the blasphemer which\nmakes his voice amiss? We men scout abusive language as the outward sign\nof ill-feeling. We reckon for enemies those who speak ill of us because\nwe think that they also think ill. Now you see the sort of things which\nthe superstitious think about the Gods; they take them to be capricious,\n[Sidenote: E] faithless, shifty, revengeful, cruel, vexed about trifles,\nall reasons why the superstitious must perforce hate and fear the Gods.\nOf course he does, when he thinks that they have been, and will be\nagain, authors of his greatest ills. But if he hates and fears the Gods,\nhe is their enemy. Yet he worships, and sacrifices, and sits before\ntheir shrines. And no wonder; men salute tyrants also, and court them,\nand set up their figures in gold. But \u2018in silence\u2019 they hate them,\n\u2018wagging the head\u2019.[294] Hermolaus remained Alexander\u2019s courtier,\nPausanias served on Philip\u2019s [Sidenote: F] bodyguard, Chaereas on that\nof Caligula; but each of them would say while he attended on his master\n\n          _Sure thou shouldst rue it if my arm were strong._[295]\n\nThe atheist thinks there are no Gods, the superstitious wishes that\nthere were none; he believes against his will, for he fears to\ndisbelieve. And yet, as Tantalus would gladly slip from beneath the\nstone swinging over his head, so is it with the superstitious and his\nfear, a pressure no less sore. He would reckon the atheist\u2019s mood a\nblessed one, for there is freedom in it. As things are, the atheist is\nquite clear of superstition; the superstitious is at heart an atheist,\nonly too weak to believe what he wishes to believe about the Gods.\n\n[Sidenote: 171] XII. Again, the atheist is in no sense responsible for\nsuperstition, whereas superstition provides atheism with a principle\nwhich brings it into being, and then an apology for its existence which\nis neither true nor honest, but is in a sense colourable. For it is not\nbecause they find anything to blame in sky, or stars, or seasons, or\ncycles of the moon, or movements of the sun around the earth, \u2018those\nartificers of day and night\u2019,[296] or espy confusion and disorder in the\nbreeding of animals or the increase of fruits, that they condemn the\nuniverse to godlessness. No! Superstition and its ridiculous doings and\nemotions, words, [Sidenote: B] gestures, juggleries, sorceries,\ncoursings around and beatings of cymbals, purifications which are\nimpure, and cleansings which are filthy, weird illegal punishments and\ndegradations at temples\u2014these give certain persons a pretext for saying\nthat better no Gods than Gods, if Gods accept such things and take\npleasure in them, Gods so violent, so petty, so sore about trifles.\n\nXIII. Were it not better then for those Gauls[297] and Scythians to have\nhad no notion at all about Gods, neither imagination nor record of them,\nthan to think that there are Gods who take [Sidenote: C] pleasure in the\nblood of slaughtered men and who accept that as the supreme form of\nsolemn sacrifice? What? Were it not an advantage to the Carthaginians to\nhave had a Critias or a Diagoras for their first lawgiver and to\nrecognize neither God nor daemon, than to offer such sacrifices as they\ndid offer to Cronus?[298] It was not the case which Empedocles puts\nagainst those who sacrifice animals:\n\n      _Father, uplifting his son, not marking the change of the body,\n      Prays as he takes the dear life, poor fool._\n\nKnowing and recognizing their own children, they used to sacrifice\nthem\u2014nay, the childless would buy children from poor parents and cut\ntheir throats as though they were lambs or chickens\u2014, and the mother\nwould stand by dry-eyed and with [Sidenote: D] never a groan. If she\nshould groan or weep, she would have to lose the merit, and the child\nwas sacrificed all the same, while the whole space in front of the\nshrine was filled with the rattle of drums and the din of fifes, in\norder that the sound of the wailing might be drowned. Suppose that\nTyphons, say, or Giants, had turned out the Gods and were our rulers, in\nwhat sacrifices but these would they delight, or what other solemnities\nwould they require? Amestris,[299] wife of Xerxes, buried twelve men\nalive, as her own offering to Hades, who, as Plato[300] tells us, is\n[Sidenote: E] kind and wise and detains souls by persuasion and reason,\nand so has been named \u2018Hades\u2019. Xenophanes,[301] the natural philosopher,\nwhen he saw the Egyptians beating their breasts and wailing at their\nfeasts, gave them a home lesson: \u2018If these are Gods, do not mourn them;\nif men, why sacrifice to them?\n\nXIV. There is no sort of disease so capricious and so varied in\nemotions, such a medley of opposite, or rather conflicting, opinions, as\nis that of superstition. We must flee from it then, but as safety and\nadvantage point, not like men who run for their lives from robbers or\nbeasts or fire, never looking round or using their heads, and plunge\ninto pathless wastes with pits and [Sidenote: F] precipices. For that is\nhow some flee from superstition and plunge into a rough and flinty\natheism, overleaping Piety seated in the middle space.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  Polybius (6, 56) points to \u2018Deisidaimonia\u2019 as the force which has held\n  the Roman Commonwealth together, and kept the Romans honest.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  See Nauck, p. 910 (Hercules speaks).\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b1\u2014\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9: \u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  Cf. Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ 3, 7.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  Eur. _Or._ 211-12.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  Nauck, p. 910, Fragm. 375 (probably from Aeschylus).\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  Eur. _Tro._ 759.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  Meineke 4, p. 670.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  Fr. 95.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  Nauck, Fragm. adespota, 376.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  Dem. _de Cor._, s. 97.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  A difficult passage. I follow W.\u2019s suggested restoration.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  _Tim._ 47 C, &c.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  _Pyth._ 1, 25.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  Or perhaps \u2018that which knows no wrath\u2019.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  Fr. 143, quoted twice elsewhere by Plutarch.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  Pythag. _Carm. Aur._ 42.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  See _Life of T. Q. Flamin._ c. 20.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  _Life of Nicias_, c. 23. Thuc. 7, 50, 86.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  i.e. as the moon plunges into the shadow of the earth. See p. 269.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  Archilochus, Fr. 54, Bergk.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  Nauck, Fragm. adespota, 377.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  _W. and D._ 465 foll.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  _Il._ 7, 193 foll.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  _Il._ 2, 382, 414.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  1 Maccab. 2, 32 foll.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  Soph. _O. T._ 4.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  See p. 123.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  In the main from Wyttenbach\u2019s reconstruction of this desperate\n  passage.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  _Il._ 24, 604.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  _Il._ 24, 212.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  Cp. Menander, Fragm. of _Demiurgus_, Meineke 4, p. 102.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  Soph. _Ant._ 291.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  _Il._ 22, 20.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  Plat. _Tim._ 40 E.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  See Strabo, 4, c. 4.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  Cp. p. 183.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n  Herod. 7, 114.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  _Crat._ 403 A, 404 B.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  Cp. Arist. _Rhet._ 2, 23, 27, 1400 b 5, where the Eleatae are named.\n\n\n\n\n                                APPENDIX\n                   A SHORT DISCOURSE OF SUPERSTITION\n\n\n                             By JOHN SMITH\n\n\n                 THE CONTENTS OF THE ENSUING DISCOURSE\n\n\n_The true Notion_ of Superstition _well express\u2019d by_ \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1,\ni.e. _an over-timorous and dreadful apprehension of the Deity._\n\n_A false opinion of the Deity the true cause and rise of_ Superstition.\n\nSuperstition _is most incident to such as Converse not with the Goodness\nof God, or are conscious to themselves of their own unlikeness to him._\n\n_Right apprehensions of God beget in man a Nobleness and Freedome of\nSoul._\n\nSuperstition, _though it looks upon God as an angry Deity, yet it counts\nhim easily pleas\u2019d with flattering Worship._\n\n_Apprehensions of a Deity and Guilt meeting together are apt to excite\nFear._\n\n_Hypocrites to spare their Sins seek out waies to compound with God._\n\n_Servile and Superstitious Fear is encreased by Ignorance of the certain\nCauses of Terrible Effects in Nature, &c., as also by frightful\nApparitions of Ghosts and Spectres._\n\n_A further Consideration of_ Superstition _as a Composition of Fear and\nFlattery._\n\n_A fuller Definition of_ Superstition, _according to the Sense of the\nAncients._\n\nSuperstition _doth not alwaies appear in the same Form, but passes from\none Form to another, and sometimes shrouds it self under Forms seemingly\nSpiritual and more refined._\n\n\n                            Of Superstition\n\n\nHaving now done with what we propounded as a _Preface_ to our following\n_Discourses_, we should now come to treat of the _main Heads and\nPrinciples of Religion_. But before we doe that, perhaps it may not be\namiss to enquire into some of those _Anti-Deities_ that are set up\nagainst it, the chief whereof are ATHEISM and SUPERSTITION; which indeed\nmay seeme to comprehend in them all kind of Apostasy and Praevarication\nfrom Religion. We shall not be over-curious to pry into such foule and\nrotten carkasses as these are too narrowly, or to make any subtile\nanatomy of them; but rather enquire a litle into the Original and\nImmediate Causes of them; because it may be they may be nearer of kin\nthen we ordinarily are aware of, while we see their Complexions to be so\nvastly different the one from the other.\n\nAnd first of all for SUPERSTITION (to lay aside our Vulgar notion of it\nwhich much mistakes it) it is the same with that Temper of Mind which\nthe Greeks call \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, (for so Tully frequently translates that\nword, though not so fitly and emphatically as he hath done some others:)\nIt imports _an overtimorous and dreadfull apprehension of the Deity_;\nand therefore with _Hesychius_ \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 and \u03a6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u0390\u03b1 are all one,\nand \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd is by him expounded \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, _an Idolater, and also one that is very prompt to\nworship the Gods, but withall fearfull of them_. And therefore _the true\nCause and Rise of Superstition_ is indeed nothing else but _a false\nopinion_ of the Deity, that renders him dreadfull and terrible, as being\nrigorous and imperious; that which represents him as austere and apt to\nbe angry, but yet impotent, and easy to be appeased again by some\n_flattering devotions_, especially if performed with sanctimonious\nshewes and a solemn sadness of Mind. And I wish that that Picture of God\nwhich some Christians have drawn of him, wherein Sowreness and\nArbitrariness appear so much, doth not too much resemble it. According\nto this sense, Plutarch hath well defined it in his book \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 in this manner, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f30\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, _a strong passionate Opinion, and\nsuch a Supposition as is productive of a fear debasing and terrifying a\nman with the representation of the Gods as grievous and hurtfull to\nMankind_.\n\nSuch men as these converse not with the _Goodness_ of God, and therefore\nthey are apt to attribute their impotent passions and peevishness of\nSpirit to him. Or it may be because some secret advertisements of their\nConsciences tell them how _unlike_ they themselves are _to God_, and how\nthey have provoked him; they are apt to be as much displeased with him\nas too troublesome to them, as they think he is displeased with them.\nThey are apt to count this Divine Supremacy as but a piece of tyranny\nthat by its Soveraign Will makes too great encroachments upon their\nLiberties, and that which will eat up all their Right and Property; and\ntherefore are lavishly afraid of him, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _fearing Heaven\u2019s Monarchy as a\nsevere and churlish Tyranny from which they cannot absolve themselves_,\nas the same Author speaks: and therefore he thus discloseth the private\nwhisperings of their minds, \u1f85\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, &c., _the broad\ngates of hell are opened, the rivers of fire and Stygian inundations run\ndown as a swelling flood, there is thick darkness crowded together,\ndreadfull and gastly Sights of Ghosts screeching and howling, Judges and\ntormentors, deep gulfes and Abysses full of infinite miseries_. Thus he.\nThe Prophet _Esay_ gives us this Epitome of their thoughts, chap. 33:\n_The Sinners in Zion_ are afraid, fearfulness hath surprized the\nhypocrites: who shall dwell with the devouring fire? who shall dwell\nwith everlasting burnings? Though I should not dislike these dreadful\nand astonishing thoughts of future torment, which I doubt even good men\nmay have cause to press home upon their own spirits, while they find\nIngenuity less active, the more to restrain sinne; yet I think it little\ncommends God, and as little benefits us, to fetch all this horror and\nastonishment from the Contemplations of a Deity, which should alwayes be\nthe most serene and lovely: our apprehensions of the Deity should be\nsuch as might _ennoble_ our Spirits, and not _debase_ them. A right\nknowledge of God would beget a _freedome_ and _Liberty_ of Soul within\nus, and not _servility_; \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, as Plutarch hath well observ\u2019d; our thoughts of a Deity should\nbreed in us hopes of Vertue, and not gender to a spirit of bondage.\n\nBut that we may pass on. Because this unnaturall resemblance of God as\nan angry Deity in impure minds, should it blaze too furiously, like the\nBasilisk would kill with its looks; therefore these Painters use their\nbest arts a little to sweeten it, and render it less unpleasing. And\nthose that fancy God to be most hasty and apt to be displeased, yet are\nready also to imagine him so impotently mutable, that his favour may be\nwon again with their uncouth devotions, that he will be taken with their\nformall praises, and being thirsty after glory and praise and solemn\naddresses, may, by their pompous furnishing out all these for him, be\nwon to a good liking of them: and thus they represent him to themselves\nas Lucian, in his _De Sacrificiis_ [c. I] speaks too truly, though it\nmay be too profanely, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f25\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. And therefore _Superstition_ will alwaies abound in these\nthings whereby this Deity of their own, made after the similitude of\nmen, may be most gratified, slavishly crouching to it. We will take a\nview of it in the words of _Plutarch_, though what refers to the JEWS,\nif it respects more their rites than their Manners, may seem to contain\ntoo hasty a censure of them. _Superstition_ brings in \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u1fe5\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, _wallowings in the dust, tumblings in the mire,\nobservations of Sabbaths, prosternations, uncouth gestures, and strange\nrites of worship_. Superstition is very apt to think that Heaven may be\nbribed with such false-hearted devotions; as Porphyrie, _Lib._ 2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, hath well explained it by this, that it is \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, _an apprehension that a man may corrupt and bribe the\nDeity_; which (as he there observes) was the Cause of all those bloudy\nsacrifices and of some inhumane ones among the Heathen men, imagining\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd like him in the Prophet that\nthought by the fruit of his body and the firstlings of his flock to\nexpiate the sinne of his Soul. _Micah_ 6.\n\nBut it may be we may seeme all this while to have made too Tragicall a\nDescription of _Superstition_; and indeed one Author whom we have all\nthis while had recourse to, seemes to have set it forth, as anciently\nPainters were wont to doe those pieces in which they would demonstrate\nmost their own skill; they would not content themselves with the shape\nof one Body onely, but borrowed severall parts from severall Bodies as\nmight most fit their design and fill up the picture of that they desired\nchiefly to represent. _Superstition_ it may be looks not so foul and\ndeformed in every Soul that is dyed with it, as he hath there set it\nforth, nor doth it every where spread it self alike: this \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 that\nshrowds it self under the name of _Religion_, wil _variously_ discover\nit self as it is seated in Minds of a _various_ temper, and meets with\n_variety of matter_ to exercise it self about.\n\nWe shall therefore a little further inquire into it, and what the\nJudgments of the soberest men anciently were of it; the rather that a\nlearned Author of our own seems unwilling to own that Notion of it which\nwe have hitherto out of _Plutarch_ and others contended for; who though\nhe have freed it from that gloss which the late Ages have put upon it,\nyet he may seem to have too strictly confined it to a Cowardly Worship\nof the ancient Gentile Daemons, as if _Superstition and Polytheism_ were\nindeed the same thing, whereas _Polytheism_ or _Daemon-worship_ is but\none branch of it, which was partly observed by the learned _Casaubon_ in\nhis Notes upon that Chapter of _Theophrastus_ \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, when\nit is described to be \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which he thus\ninterprets, Theophrastus _voce_ \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd _et Deos et Daemones complexus\nest, et quicquid divinitatis esse particeps malesana putavit\nantiquitas_. And in this sense it was truly observed by _Petronius\nArbiter_,\n\n                     _Primus in orbe Deos fecit Timor_\u2014\n\nThe whole progeny of the ancient Daemons, at least in the Minds of the\nVulgar, sprung out of _Fear_, and were supported by it: though\nnotwithstanding, this Fear, when in a Being void of all true sense of\nDivine goodness, hath not escaped the censure of _Superstition_ in\n_Varro\u2019s_ judgment, whose Maxim it was, as S. _Austin_ tells us, _Deum a\nreligioso vereri, a superstitioso timeri_: which distinction _Servius_\nseems to have made use of in his Comment upon _Virgil_, _Aeneid_ 6,\nwhere the Poet describing the torments of the wicked in hell, he runs\nout into an Allegoricall exposition of all, it may be too much in favour\nof _Lucretius_, whom he there magnifies. His words are these, _Ipse\netiam Lucretius dicit per eos super quos jamjam casurus imminet lapis_,\nSuperstitiosos _significare, qui inaniter semper verentur, et de Diis et\nC\u0153lo et locis superioribus male opinantur; nam_ Religiosi _sunt qui per\nreverentiam timent_.\n\nBut that we may the more fully unfold the _Nature_ of this \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, and\nthe effects of it, which are not alwaies of one sort, we shall first\npremise something concerning the Rise of it.\n\nThe _Common Notions_ of a Deity, strongly rooted in Mens Souls, and\nmeeting with the Apprehensions of _Guiltiness_, are very apt to excite\nthe _Servile_ fear: and when men love their own filthy lusts, that they\nmay spare them, they are presently apt to contrive some other waies of\nappeasing the Deity and compounding with it. Unhallowed minds, that have\nno inward foundation of true Holiness to fix themselves upon, are easily\nshaken and tossed from all inward peace and tranquillity; and as the\nthoughts of some Supreme power above them seize upon them, so they are\nstruck with the lightning thereof into inward affrightments, which are\nfurther encreas\u2019d by a vulgar observation of those strange, stupendious,\nand terrifying Effects in Nature, whereof they can give no certain\nreason, as Earthquakes, Thundrings, and Lightnings, blazing Comets and\nother Meteors of a like Nature, which are apt to terrifie those\nespecially who are already unsetled and Chased with an inward sense of\nguilt, and, as Seneca speaks, _inevitabilem metum ut supra nos aliquid\ntimeremus incutiunt_. _Petronius Arbiter_ hath well described this\nbusiness for us,\n\n             _Primus in orbe Deos fecit Timor, ardua c\u0153lo\n             Fulmina cum caderent, discussaque moenia flammis,\n             Atque ictus flagraret Athos_\u2014\n\nFrom hence it was that the _Libri fulgurales_ of the _Romanes_, and\nother such volumes of _Superstition_, swelled so much, and that the\n_pulvinaria Deorum_ were so often frequented, as will easily appear to\nany one a little conversant in _Livy_, who everywhere sets forth this\nDevotion so largely, as if he himself had been too passionately in love\nwith it.\n\nAnd though as the _Events_ in Nature began sometimes to be found out\nbetter by a discovery of their immediate Natural Causes, so some\nparticular pieces of Superstitious Customs were antiquated and grown out\nof date (as is well observ\u2019d concerning those _Charms_ and _Februations_\nanciently in use upon the appearing of an Eclipse, and some others) yet\noften affrights and horrours were not so easily abated, while they were\nunacquainted with the Deity, and with the other mysterious events in\nNature, which begot those Furies and unlucky Empusas \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, in the weak minds of men. To all which we may adde\nthe frequent _Spectres_ and frightfull _Apparitions_ of Ghosts and\n_Mormos_: all which extorted such a kind of Worship from them as was\nmost correspondent to such Causes of it. And those Rites and Ceremonies\nwhich were begotten by Superstition, were again the unhappy Nurses of\nit, such as are well described by _Plutarch_ in his _De defect.\nOracul._, \u1f19\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1\u03af, \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, &c. _Feasts and Sacrifices, as likewise observations of\nunlucky and fatall dayes, celebrated with eating of raw things,\nlacerations, fastings, and howlings, and many times filthy Speeches in\ntheir sacred rites_, and frantick behaviour.\n\nBut as we insinuated before, This Root of _Superstition_ diversely\nbranched forth it self, sometimes into _Magick_ and _Exorcismes_, other\ntimes into P\u00e6danticall Rites and idle observations of _Things_ and\n_Times_, as _Theophrastus_ hath largely set them forth in his Tract \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2: in others it displayed itself in inventing as many _new\nDeities_ as there were severall Causes from whence their affrights\nproceeded, and finding out many \u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 appropriate to them, as\nsupposing they ought to be worshipt _cum sacro horrore_. And hence it is\nthat we hear of those inhumane and Diabolicall sacrifices called\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, frequent among the old Heathens (as among many others\n_Porphyry_ in his _De abstinentia_ hath abundantly related) and of those\ndead mens bones which our Ecclesiastick writers tell us were found in\ntheir Temples at the demolishing of them. Sometimes it would express\nitself in a prodigall way of sacrificing, for which _Ammianus\nMarcellinus_ (an heathen Writer, but yet one who seems to have been well\npleased with the simplicity and integrity of Christian Religion) taxeth\n_Julian_ the Emperor for Superstition. _Iulianus, Superstitiosus magis\nquam legitimus sacrorum observator, innumeras sine parsimonia pecudes\nmactans, ut \u00e6stimaretur, si revertisset de Parthis, boves iam\ndefuturos_: like that Marcus Caesar, of whom he relates this common\nproverb, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b2\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u1ff3\u03c9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9, \u1f04\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2, \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1. Besides many other ways might be named wherein _Superstition_\nmight occasionally shew it self.\n\nAll which may best be understood, if we consider it a little in that\nComposition of _Fear_ and _Flattery_ which before we intimated: and\nindeed _Flattery_ is most incident to _base_ and _slavish_ minds; and\nwhen the fear and jealousy of a Deity disquiet a wanton dalliance with\nsin, and disturb the filthy pleasure of Vice, then this fawning and\ncrouching disposition will find out devices to quiet an angry conscience\nwithin, and an offended God without, (though as men grow more expert in\nthis cunning, these fears may in some degree abate). This the ancient\nPhilosophy hath well taken notice of, and therefore well defin\u2019d\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 by \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, and useth these terms promiscuously. Thus we\nfind Max. Tyrius in his Dissert. 4 concerning the difference between a\n_Friend_ and a _Flatterer_. \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c2, \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03be \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd. \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc7, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. The sense whereof is this, _The Pious man is\nGod\u2019s friend, the Superstitious is a flatterer of God: and indeed most\nhappy and blest is the condition of the Pious man, God\u2019s friend, but\nright miserable and sad is the state of the Superstitious. The Pious\nman, emboldened by a good Conscience and encouraged by the sense of his\nintegrity, comes to God without fear and dread: but the Superstitious\nbeing sunk and deprest through the sense of his own wickedness, comes\nnot without much fear, being void of all hope and confidence, and\ndreading the Gods as so many Tyrants._ Thus _Plato_ also sets forth this\n_Superstitious_ temper, though he mentions it not under that name, but\nwe may know it by a property he gives of it, viz.: _to colloque with\nHeaven_, Lib. 10, _de Legibus_, where he distinguisheth of Three kinds\nof Tempers in reference to the Deity, which he then calls \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7, which\nare, _Totall Atheism_, which he saies never abides with any man till his\nOld age; and _Partial Atheism_, which is a Negation of Providence; and a\nThird, which is a perswasion concerning the Gods \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, _that they are easily won by sacrifices and prayers_,\nwhich he after explaines thus, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1, &c., _that with gifts unjust men may find acceptance\nwith them_. And this Discourse of _Plato\u2019s_ upon these three kinds of\nIrreligious \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7 _Simplicius_ seems to have respect to in his comment\nupon _Epictetus_, cap. 38, which treats about _Right Opinions_ in\nReligion; and there having pursued the two former of them, he thus\nstates the latter, which he calls \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u0390\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd as well as the other two,\nas a conceit \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _quod muneribus et donariis et stirpis distributione a\nsententia deducuntur_, such men making account by their devotions to\ndraw the Deity to themselves, and winning the favour of Heaven, to\nprocure such an indulgence to their lusts as no sober man on earth would\ngive them; they in the meanwhile not considering \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3, that\n_Repentance, Supplications, and Prayers, &c., ought to draw us nearer to\nGod, not God nearer to us; as in a ship, by fastning a Cable to a firm\nRock, we intend not to draw the Rock to the Ship, but the Ship to the\nRock_. Which last passage of his is therefore the more worthy to be\ntaken notice of, as holding out so large an Extent that this Irreligious\ntemper is of, and of how subtil a Nature. This fond and gross dealing\nwith the Deity was that which made the scoffing _Lucian_ so much sport,\nwho in his Treatise _De Sacrificiis_ tells a number of stories how the\nDaemons loved to be feasted, and when and how they were entertained,\nwith such devotions which are rather used Magically as Charms and Spells\nfor such as use them, to defend themselves against those Evils which\ntheir own Fears are apt perpetually to muster up, and to endeavour by\nbribery to purchase Heaven\u2019s favour and indulgence, as _Juvenal_ speaks\nof the Superstitious Aegyptian,\n\n                _Illius lacrimae mentitaque munera pr\u00e6stant\n                Ut veniam culpae non abnuat, ansere magno\n                Scilicet et tenui popano corruptus Osiris._\n\nThough all this while I would not be understood to condemn too severely\nall servile fear of God, if it tend to make men avoid true wickedness,\nbut that which settles upon these lees of Formality.\n\nTo conclude, Were I to define _Superstition_ more generally according to\nthe ancient sense of it, I would call it _Such an apprehension of God in\nthe thoughts of men, as renders him grievous and burdensome to them, and\nso destroys all free and cheerfull converse with him; begetting in the\nstead thereof a forc\u2019d and jejune devotion, void of inward Life and\nLove._ It is that which discovers itself _P\u00e6dantically_ in the worship\nof the Deity, in anything that makes up but onely the _Body_ or _outward\nVesture_ of Religion; though then it may make a mighty bluster; and\nbecause it comprehends not the true Divine good that ariseth to the\nSouls of men from an _internall frame_ of Religion, it is therefore apt\nto think that all its _insipid devotions_ are as so many _Presents_\noffered to the Deity and _gratifications_ of him. How _variously_\nSuperstition can discover and manifest itself, we have intimated before:\nTo which I shall only adde this, That we are not so well rid of\n_Superstition_, as some imagine when they have expell\u2019d it out of their\nChurches, expunged it out of their Books and Writings, or cast it out of\ntheir Tongues, by making Innovations in names (wherein they sometimes\nimitate those old _Caunii_ that _Herodotus_ speaks of, who that they\nmight banish all the forrein Gods that had stollen in among them, took\ntheir procession through all their Country, beating and scourging the\nAire along as they went;) No, for all this, _Superstition_ may enter\ninto our chambers, and creep into our closets, it may twine about our\nsecret Devotions, and actuate our Formes of belief and Orthodox\nopinions, when it hath no place else to shroud itself or hide its head\nin; we may think to flatter the Deity by these, and to bribe it with\nthem, when we are grown weary of more pompous solemnities: nay it may\nmix it self with a seeming Faith in Christ; as I doubt it doth now in\ntoo many, who laying aside all sober and serious care of true Piety,\nthink it sufficient to offer up their Saviour, his Active and Passive\nRighteousness, to a severe and rigid Justice, to make expiation for\nthose sins they can be willing to allow themselves in.\n\n\n\n\n            ON THE FACE WHICH APPEARS ON THE ORB OF THE MOON\n                               A DIALOGUE\n\n\n                              INTRODUCTION\n\n\nPlutarch\u2019s Dialogue on _The Face in the Moon_ is not a scientific\ntreatise, and its author would have disclaimed any intention of writing\nto advance science. It is discussion for the sake of discussion, the\n\u2018good talk\u2019 of which Plutarch wished that Athens should have no\nmonopoly, any more than she had when the Boeotian Simmias and Cebes were\namong the trusted friends of Socrates, or, later, when \u2018plain living and\nhigh thinking\u2019 could be exhibited in lofty perfection in the Theban home\nof Epaminondas. A mixed company, which includes an astronomer, another\nmathematician, a literary man, and professed philosophers (there is no\nEpicurean here), with Lamprias, Plutarch\u2019s brother, for president,\ndiscusses the movements and physical nature of the moon, from many\npoints of view. Reference is made throughout to a previous discussion at\nwhich Lamprias, and Lucius, another of the speakers, had been present,\nwhen a person called \u2018Our Comrade\u2019 had dealt faithfully with the\nPeripatetic view, endorsed by the Stoics, that the moon is not of\nsubstance like our earth, but is a fiery or starlike body. This\ndiscussion had wandered into mystical theories as to the moon\u2019s office\nin the birth and death of human souls, and her connexion with \u2018daemons\u2019.\nSylla has joined the present company with a myth to relate bearing on\nthese deep subjects, which had come to him at Carthage as a traveller\u2019s\ntale. Its production is delayed until the end of the Dialogue, which it\ncloses after the manner of a Platonic myth; the phrases with which it is\nopened and dismissed may be compared with those of the _Gorgias_. This\ndouble device, of referring part of the matter to a former conversation\n(as the _E at Delphi_ is a recollection of an old discourse by\nAmmonius), and part to a new and strange tale, skilfully relieves this\nelaborate Dialogue. Some difficulty is caused by the imperfect, or\ndoubtful, condition of the text of the opening chapter, as no complete\nexplanation seems to be given as to the place or time of the former\ndiscussion. Probably this abruptness is intentional, but the text\nrequires careful attention.\n\nPerhaps this Dialogue throws more light on the views about the solar\nsystem accepted or under discussion in the first century of our era than\na scientific treatise could have done. No reference is made to the great\nastronomical work of Ptolemy, which belongs to the second century, and\nclosed most questions until the sixteenth. The estimate, e.g. of the\nmoon\u2019s distance (56 earth\u2019s radii) is not Ptolemy\u2019s (59). Some of the\ngeographical details, as that of the Caspian Sea, seem to show that\nPtolemy\u2019s geographical work was not known to the Author.\n\nIt may be useful to enumerate some of the simpler of the accepted views\nabout the heavens :\n\n(1) That the earth is a Sphere was known to Pythagoras and allowed by\nPlato (_Phaedo_ 110 B), and affirmed by Aristotle, _De Caelo_, 2, 14,\n297 b 18. The moon, and, according to Aristotle, the stars, are also\nspherical.\n\n(2) That the moon derived her light from the sun was a discovery due to\nAnaxagoras (fifth century B.C.).\n\n(3) The true cause of eclipses was known to the Pythagoreans, and is\nstated by Aristotle, and, with more precision, by Posidonius.\n\n(4) The inclination of the equator to the sun\u2019s path is stated by\nOenopides of Chios (a little after Anaxagoras).\n\n(5) That the moon revolves round the earth at a moderate distance is\nstated by Empedocles.\n\n(6) The other planets (including the sun) revolve round the earth at a\ndistance vastly less than that of the fixed stars. (No actual estimate\nof the distances or sizes is given even by Ptolemy, who is not able to\nstate a parallax for any, or an angular diameter.)\n\n(7) That the planets share in the (apparent) daily motion of the stars,\nand also have an (apparent) motion of their own in the reverse direction\nwas held by Pythagoras.\n\nAll these refer to physical facts and can be stated without the use of\nmathematical language, though many of the discoverers were expert\nmathematicians. Gradually, and certainly from the time of the great\nastronomer Hipparchus (about 130 B.C.), attention came to be fixed upon\nthe accurate mathematical interpretation of observed _apparent_ facts;\nin a favourite phrase, the object was \u2018to save the phenomena\u2019,\nirrespective of physical and actual fact.\n\nIn the case of the moon, the two lines of inquiry are less sharply\ndivided than in that of other bodies. Very correct statements as to her\nsize and distance from the earth may be gathered from Plutarch\u2019s\nDialogue. A guess is even hazarded that she is lighter than the earth,\nbulk for bulk, because of the action of fire in the past.\n\nThe mathematical account of the movements of the moon has its history.\nAs we have seen, it was early realized that she revolved round and near\nthe earth in a circular orbit. Soon it appeared that there were\nirregularities in this movement. The \u2018First Anomaly\u2019, a difference of\nspeed observed at different parts of the orbit, was well understood by\nHipparchus. It could be expressed, so as to \u2018save the phenomena\u2019, by\neither of two methods, both resting on the assumption that no curve\nexcept a circle was admissible, and both superseding the ingenious but\ncumbrous arrangement of \u2018concentric Spheres\u2019 known to Aristotle. One was\nthat of \u2018movable eccentrics\u2019, where the orbit of the planet was round a\npoint outside the earth, itself shifting. The other, which prevailed,\nand was finally adopted by Ptolemy, was that of epicycles, circles\ndescribed round points in the primary orbit, by means of which the\nplanet\u2019s motion could be retarded or quickened at will, and its position\nmodified. By this device, the visible _movement_ could be, and was,\nrecorded with great accuracy, but sometimes at the expense of physical\ntruth. Thus the epicyclic arrangement for the moon\u2019s orbit involved, if\nclosely looked into, the consequence that her distance from us at\nnearest must be half that at the farthest, and her angular diameter\ndouble! Kepler, after the work of a lifetime (1571-1630), discovered the\ncause of this \u2018anomaly\u2019 in the shape of the orbit, which is elliptical,\nnot circular, and substituted \u2018eccentricity\u2019 for \u2018anomaly\u2019 as the\nkey-word. Newton (1642-1727) proved that a body revolving round another\n_must_ move in an ellipse, with the larger body at one focus. Thus the\nwheel had come full circle, and physical and mathematical inquiry met\nafter two thousand years of separation. The \u2018Second Anomaly\u2019 due to the\naction of the sun (the \u2018Evection\u2019) was indicated by Hipparchus, worked\nout as a phenomenon by Ptolemy, and its physical cause explained by\nNewton. The inclination of the moon\u2019s path to the sun\u2019s was known to\nHipparchus as 5\u00b0, and the recession of her nodes was familiar to him. A\nthird anomaly now known as \u2018Variation\u2019 is instructive because its\ndiscovery has been claimed for an Arabian astronomer of about A.D. 1000.\nAfter an exhaustive discussion during the last century (1836-71), it\nseems to be proved that the claim rested upon a mistake, and that the\nsole credit is due to Tycho Brahe (see Dreyer, p. 252). In fact,\nwhatever in astronomy does not belong to modern science is Greek, after\nallowing for what the Greeks may have learnt in early ages from\nChaldaeans or Egyptians. The Romans contributed nothing, the Indians\nlearnt much from scientific men who accompanied Alexander, and used it\nskilfully, but did not advance it. And the modern makes a really\ncontinuous whole with the ancient Greeks, for it is not only astronomy\nwhich should be considered, but the essential preliminaries, such as the\nstudy of the Conic Sections, which, in its geometrical form, is purely\nGreek.\n\nOne authority to whom Plutarch twice refers by name requires special\nmention. This was Aristarchus of Samos, who belongs to the middle or\nlater part of the third century B.C. He is the author of a work on \u2018The\nSizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon\u2019 which is extant. It was well\nedited by Wallis for the Oxford Press in 1688, and more recently (1913)\nand in a modern form, by Sir Thomas Heath, F.R.S., who has prefixed an\ninvaluable history of astronomy prior to Aristarchus. The book is\nrigorously mathematical, and contains six \u2018hypotheses\u2019, and eighteen\npropositions deduced from them. The second of the hypotheses, \u2018That the\nearth is in the relation of a point and centre to the sphere in which\nthe moon moves\u2019, is quoted by Plutarch, apparently as being accepted by\nHipparchus. The sixth, \u2018That the moon subtends one-fifteenth part of a\nsign of the Zodiac (i. e. 2\u00b0)\u2018, raises a curious point which is fully\nconsidered by Sir T. Heath. That Aristarchus should at any time have\nthus exaggerated (multiplied by four) a measurement which seems open to\nsome sort of simple observation, and have based good work upon it, seems\nvery strange, firstly, because he must have considered the matter,\n(since he is aware that the same figure may stand for sun and moon);\nand, secondly, because Archimedes (287-212 B.C.), whose knowledge and\ngood faith are beyond question, says that \u2018Aristarchus discovered that\nthe sun appeared to be about one seven hundred and twentieth part of the\ncircle of the Zodiac (30\u00b4)\u2018, which is roughly correct.[302]\n\nThe fourth hypothesis runs: \u2018That when the moon appears to us halved,\nits distance from the sun is then less than a quadrant by one-thirtieth\nof a quadrant (i.e. is 87\u00b0).\u2019 From this is directly deduced (Hypothesis\n6 is not here used) Prop. 7, an elaborate proof that \u2018the distance of\nthe sun from the earth is greater than eighteen times, but less than\ntwenty times, the distance of the moon from the earth\u2019, quoted by\nPlutarch in c. 10. The fact assumed does not appear to be open to\nobservation; perhaps Aristarchus, or a predecessor, arrived at it by\ncomparing the average times taken by the moon over the first and second\nquarters of her orbit. The true (theoretical) figure is 89\u00b0 50\u00b4. The\nsequel is very interesting. Hipparchus, a century later, adopted the\nresult in calculating the parallax of the sun, which he found to be 3\u00b4\nof arc (more than twenty times too much). This was adopted by Ptolemy in\nthe second century A.D., and remained the official estimate until nearly\nA.D. 1700, though both Hipparchus and Kepler had protested, the latter\nstating as his opinion that the parallax could not be greater than one\nminute of arc, or the distance less than twelve millions of miles.\nShortly before A.D. 1700 improved knowledge of the orbit and distances\nof Mars enabled the sun\u2019s parallax to be reduced to 9-1/2 seconds of\narc, and his distance stated at eighty-seven millions of miles, which is\nnot very inadequate. It was a great achievement of Aristarchus, though\nhe led the world into error, to state a reasoned figure at all, and to\nthink in such mighty units.\n\nHis cosmical speculation is even more daring. It is known to us from\nthis Dialogue (c. 6) and also from Archimedes, who records it in his\n(extant) _Arenarius_ without comment. Aristarchus proposed to \u2018disturb\nthe hearth of the universe\u2019 by his hypothesis that the heaven of the\nstars is fixed, while the earth has a daily motion on her axis and an\nannual motion round the sun. It was a brilliant intuition, possible in\nan age of comparatively simple knowledge, which could not easily have\nbeen advanced when the complexity of the several orbits was increasingly\nrealized (see Dreyer, pp. 147-8). Dr. Dreyer (p. 145) makes the\ninteresting suggestion that Aristarchus took the idea from some early\nform of the system of \u2018movable eccentrics\u2019, and, further (p. 157), that\nif that system had prevailed against that of epicycles, it must have\nflashed, sooner or later, upon some bright mind, that there was one\neccentric point, namely, one in the sun, central to the orbits of all\nthe planets.\n\nIt is to be observed that \u2018Heraclides of Pontus\u2019 (at one time a pupil of\nPlato\u2019s) discovered the movement of the two inner planets round the sun.\nIt is possible (as contended by Sciaparelli) that he believed all the\nplanets to move round the sun, and the sun round the earth, in fact\nanticipated Tycho Brahe. Further, there is a statement that he\nanticipated Aristarchus as to the movement of the earth; but Sir T.\nHeath, who examines the evidence very fully, concludes that the evidence\nhas been misread. Aristarchus certainly contended for the diurnal\nrotation of the earth, but this was rejected by Hipparchus and passed\nout of account for many centuries.\n\nThe history of the emergence of the heliocentric theory has a curiously\nclose counterpart in that of the circulation of the blood. Harvey\ncommunicated his discovery to the College of Physicians on April 17,\n1616, but he had kept it back for twelve years out of deference to the\ngreat and deserved authority of Galen, which it was dangerous to\ndispute, as Copernicus held back his \u2018Treatise of Revolutions\u2019 for\nthirty years, because it was very dangerous, even for the nephew of a\nBishop, himself the Canon of a cathedral far north of the Alps, to\nquestion the findings of Ptolemy. \u2018Yet for years the profession had been\nin latent possession of a knowledge of the circulation. Indeed a good\ncase has been made out for Hippocrates, in whose works occur some\nremarkably suggestive sentences\u2019 (see _The Growth of Truth_, the\nHarveian Oration of 1906, by Sir William Osler, M.D., F.R.S.). Bacon,\nwho \u2018writes philosophy like a Lord Chancellor\u2019\u2014i.e. seeks to eliminate\nerror from facts stated, and then to apply the law (see De Morgan,\n_Bundle of Paradoxes_, p. 50)\u2014, would have none of the Copernican\nhypothesis. Nor would Sir Thomas Browne, though he preferred Dr.\nHarvey\u2019s discovery \u2018to that of America\u2019. But truth will out, at her own\ntime and through the ministers of her choice.\n\nBehind the horseplay of the Stoics and Academics, on the subject of the\ncentre of the universe and the laws which light and heavy bodies obey,\nthere seems to lie some real groping after a general cosmic law, such as\ngravitation. Thus the earth and the moon draw bodies, each from its own\nsurface to its own centre, and if the earth draws the moon, it is as a\npart of herself, once ejected and now reclaimed.\n\nThere is no direct evidence of the time or place when this Dialogue is\nsupposed to take place, nor of the date of its composition. Much of the\nmatter is common to it with the Dialogue _On the cessation of the\nOracles_, one passage of which has been thought (by Adler) to be an\nextract from it. Lamprias takes the principal place in both, and\nPlutarch is not present, at least under his own name. The solar eclipse\nmentioned in c. 19 as recent would give a clue if it could be\nidentified. Ginzel (_Spezieller Kanon_) has selected three for special\nconsideration, viz., those of April 30, A.D. 59, March 20, A.D. 71, and\nJanuary 5, A.D. 75. By the kindness of J. K. Fotheringham, Esq.,\nD.Litt., Fellow of Magdalen College, who has made the laborious\ncomputation, I am able to state the respective magnitude of these\neclipses at Chaeroneia as 11\u00b708, 11\u00b782, 10\u00b738 (totality = 12). Thus\nGinzel\u2019s preference for No. 2 is confirmed; it was there a large partial\neclipse, and the time of greatest phase was 11 hours 4\u00b71 minutes local\nsolar time. Several stars would become visible, 66/67 of the sun\u2019s\ndiameter being obscured; a few might be visible during No. 1, none\nduring No. 3.\n\n\n                        PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE\n\n\n1. SEXTIUS SYLLA, the Carthaginian, mentioned in the _Life of Romulus_\n(c. 15) as \u2018a man wanting neither learning nor ingenuity\u2019, who had\nsupplied Plutarch with a piece of archaeological information. Elsewhere\n(_De cohib. ira_, c. 1) he is addressed as \u2018O most eager Sylla!\u2019 In\nanother Dialogue he declines to be led into a discussion on all\ncosmology by answering the question \u2018whether the egg or the bird comes\nfirst?\u2019 (_Sympos._ 2, 3).\n\nHe has a story, or myth, to tell about the moon, which he is impatient\nto begin. This story, which he had heard from a friend in Carthage, is\nmainly geographical in interest. The details remind us of those quoted\nfrom Pytheas about his journeys to Britain and the Northern Seas. The\nwhole conception of the globe is clearly earlier than that of Ptolemy\n(see especially as to the Caspian Sea, c. 26). The myth also introduces\nus to the worship of Cronus as practised at Carthage, and connects it\nwith the wonders of the moon, and her place in the heavenly system.\n\nIn c. 17 SYLLA raises a good point, about the half-moon, which was being\npassed over.\n\n2. LAMPRIAS, a brother, probably an elder brother, of Plutarch directs\nthe course of the conversation, and himself expounds the Academic view,\nreferring to Lucius for his recollections of a recent discussion at\nwhich both had been present, when the Stoic doctrines on physics had\nbeen criticized.\n\nIn some of the Symposiacs and other dialogues Lamprias takes a similar\nplace; in others both brothers take part. Lamprias probably died early.\n\n\u2018Evidently a character, a good trencherman, as became a Boeotian, one\nwho on occasion could dance the Pyrrhic war dance, who loved well a\nscoff and a jest ... and who, if he thrust himself somewhat brusquely\ninto discussions which are going forward, was quite able to justify the\nintrusion.\u2019\u2014Archbishop Trench.\n\n3. APOLLONIDES, astronomer and geometrician; perhaps the latter would be\nthe more correct designation. In another Dialogue (_Sympos._ 3, 4) a\n\u2018tactician\u2019 of the name appears.\n\nAs Apollonius, the great mathematician (living about 200 B.C.) was also\na geometrician who contributed to astronomical theory, not himself an\nastronomer, it seems likely that the name Apollonides has been coined by\nPlutarch for \u2018one of the clan of Apollonius\u2019, i. e. a young professor of\ngeometry. Apollondes is treated rather brusquely by Lamprias, certainly\nwith less respect than Menelaus. He seems to have cast in his lot with\nthe Stoics in their physical opinions.\n\n4. ARISTOTLE, a Peripatetic. Perhaps the name was given to him to mark\nthe School to which he belonged. In the Dialogue _On the Delays in\nDivine Punishment_ an \u2018Epicurus\u2019 is a representative Epicurean.\n\n5. PHARNACES, a Stoic, who sturdily supports his physical creed against\nall comers.\n\n6. LUCIUS, an Etruscan pupil of Moderatus the Pythagorean, spoken of in\none place (_Sympos._ 8, 7 and 8) as \u2018Lucius our comrade\u2019. He is\nelsewhere reticent as to the inner Pythagorean teaching, but is\ncourteous and ready to discuss \u2018what is probable and reasonable\u2019.\n\nKepler is inclined to complain of his professorial tone and\nlongwindedness in the present Dialogue. This is hardly fair, as he is\nfor the most part reporting a set discourse heard elsewhere, and that by\nrequest. Lamprias has to give him time to remember the points (c. 7). In\nc. 5 he asks that justice may be done to the Stoics. He associates\nhimself with the Academics on physical matters.\n\n7. THEON (see Preface, p. xii), represents literature (as he does in\nother Dialogues, notably in that on the _E at Delphi_). He is a welcome\nfoil to the more severe disputants. In c. 24 he interrupts by moving the\nprevious question\u2014\u2018Why a moon at all?\u2019 and is congratulated on the\ncheerful turn which he has given to the discussion. Theon may sometimes\nrecall to readers of Jules Verne\u2019s pleasant _Voyage autour de la lune_\nthe sallies of Michel Ardan the poet.\n\n8. MENELAUS, a distinguished astronomer who lived and observed at\nAlexandria. Observations of his, which include some taken in the first\nyear of Trajan, A.D. 98, are recorded by Ptolemy (_Magna Syntaxis_, 7,\n3, p. 170) and other writers.\n\n\n                                ANALYSIS\n\n\n[The opening chapters are lost. There must have been an introduction of\nthe speakers, with some explanation as to time and place, a reference to\na set discussion at which some of the speakers had been present, and a\npromise of Sylla to narrate a myth, bearing upon the moon and her\nmarkings, which he had heard in Carthage. This conversation had taken a\nturn, prematurely as SYLLA thinks, towards the mythical or supernatural\naspects of the moon.] But see note (1) on p. 309.\n\nc. 1. It is agreed that the current scientific or quasi-scientific views\non the markings of the moon\u2019s face shall be first considered, then the\nsupernatural.\n\ncc. 2-4. LAMPRIAS mentions\n\n(i) The view that the markings are due to weakness of human eyesight.\nThis is easily refuted.\n\n(ii) The view of Clearchus, the Peripatetic, that they are caused by\nreflexion of the ocean on the moon\u2019s face. But ocean is continuous, the\nmarkings are broken; they are seen from all parts of the earth,\nincluding ocean itself (and the earth is not a mere point in space, but\nhas dimensions of its own); and, thirdly, they are not seen on any other\nheavenly body.\n\nc. 3. The mention of Clearchus brings up the view, adopted from him by\nthe Stoics, that the moon is not a solid or earth-like body, but is fire\nor air, like the stars. This view had been severely handled in the\nformer conference.\n\nc. 6. PHARNACES complains that the Academics always criticize, never\nsubmit to be criticized. Let them first answer for their own paradox in\nconfusing \u2018up\u2019 and \u2018down\u2019, if they place a heavy body, such as the moon\nis now said to be, above. LUCIUS retorts: \u2018Why not the moon as well as\nthe earth, a larger body, yet poised in space?\u2019 PHARNACES is\nunconvinced.\n\ncc. 7-15. To give Lucius time to remember his points, LAMPRIAS reviews\nthe absurd consequences from the Stoic tenet that all weights converge\ntowards the centre of our earth. Why should not every heavy body, not\nearth only, attract its parts towards its own centre? Again, if the moon\nis a light fiery body, how do we find her placed near the earth and\nimmeasurably far from the sun, planets, and stars? How can we assume\nthat earth is the middle point of the Whole, that is, of Infinity?\nLastly, allow that the Moon, if a heavy body, is out of her natural\nplace. Yet why not? She may have been removed by force from the place\nnaturally assigned to her to one which was better. Here the tone of the\nspeaker rises as he lays down, often following the thought and the words\nof Plato\u2019s _Timaeus_, the theory of creative \u2018Necessity\u2019 and \u2018The\nBetter\u2019.\n\nc. 16. LUCIUS is now ready to speak, but ARISTOTLE intervenes with a\nreference to the view, held by his namesake, that the stars are composed\nof something essentially different from the four elements, and that\ntheir motion is naturally circular, not up or down. LUCIUS points out\nthat it is degrading to the moon to call her a star, being inferior to\nthe stars in lustre and speed, and deriving her light from the sun. For\nthis, the view of Anaxagoras and of Empedocles, is the only one\nconsistent with her phases as we see them (not that quoted from\nPosidonius the Stoic).\n\ncc. 17, 18. To an inquiry from SYLLA whether the difficulty of the\nhalf-moon (i. e. how does reflexion, being at equal angles, then carry\nsunlight to the earth, and not off into space beyond us?) had been met,\nLucius answers that it had. The answer given was: (i) Reflexion at equal\nangles is not a law universally admitted or true; (ii) there may be\ncross lights and a complex illumination; (iii) it may be shown by a\ndiagram, though this could not be done at the time (such a diagram is\nsupplied by Kepler), that some rays would reach the earth; (iv) the\ndifficulty arises at other phases also. He repeats the argument drawn\nfrom the phases as we see them; and ends with an analogy: Sunlight acts\non the moon as it does on the earth, not as on the air; therefore the\nmoon resembles earth rather than air.\n\nc. 19. This is well received, and LUCIUS refers (a second analogy) to\nsolar eclipses, and in particular to a recent one, to show that the\nmoon, like the earth, can intercept the sun\u2019s light, and is therefore,\nlike it, a solid body. The fact that the track of the shadow is narrow\nin a solar eclipse is explained.\n\nc. 20. LUCIUS continues his report, and describes in detail what happens\nin a lunar eclipse. If the moon, he concludes, were fiery and luminous,\nwe should only see her at eclipse times, i. e. at intervals, normally of\nsix months, occasionally of five.\n\nc. 21. PHARNACES and APOLLONIDES both rise to speak. APOLLONIDES raises\na verbal point about the word \u2018shadow\u2019; PHARNACES observes that the moon\ndoes show a blurred and fiery appearance during an eclipse, to which\nLAMPRIAS replies by enumerating the successive colours of the moon\u2019s\nface during eclipse, that proper to herself being dark and earth-like,\nnot fiery. He concludes that the moon is like our earth, with a surface\nbroken into heights and gullies, which are the cause of the markings.\n\nc. 22. APOLLONIDES objects that there can be no clefts on the moon with\nsides high enough to cast such shadows. LAMPRIAS replies that it is the\ndistance and position of the light which matter, not the size of objects\nwhich break it;\n\nc. 23. And goes on himself to supply a stronger objection\u2014that we do not\nsee the sun\u2019s image in the moon\u2014and the answer. This is twofold: (_a_)\ngeneral, the two cases differ in all details; (_b_) personal to those\nwho, like himself, believe the moon to be an earth, and to have a rough\nsurface. Why should we see the sun mirrored in the moon, and not\nterrestrial objects or stars?\n\nc. 24. Sylla\u2019s myth is now called for, and the company sits down to hear\nit. But THEON interposes: Can the moon have inhabitants or support any\nlife, animal or vegetable? If not, how is she \u2018an earth\u2019, and what is\nher use?\n\nc. 25. Theon\u2019s sally is taken in good part, and gravely answered at some\nlength by LAMPRIAS.\n\nc. 26. The mention of life on the moon calls up SYLLA, who again feels\nthat he has been anticipated. He begins his myth, heard from a stranger\nmet in Carthage, who had himself made the northward voyage and returned.\nOnce in every thirty years (or year of the planet Saturn) an expedition\nis sent out from Carthage to certain islands in the Northern Atlantic\nwhere Cronus (Saturn) reigns in banishment. The stranger had charged\nSylla to pay special honour to the moon,\n\ncc. 27-29. instructing him as to the functions of Persephone in bringing\nabout the second death\u2014the separation of mind from soul\u2014which takes\nplace on the moon, and the genesis of \u2018daemons\u2019,\n\nc. 30. to whom are assigned certain functions on earth. SYLLA commends\nthe myth to his hearers.\n\n\n\n\n                       OF THE FACE WHICH APPEARS\n                         ON THE ORB OF THE MOON\n\n\nI. Here Sylla said:[303] \u2018All this belongs to my story, and comes\n[Sidenote: 920 B] out of it. But I should like to ask in the first place\nwhether you really backed on to those views about the moon\u2019s face which\nare in every one\u2019s hand and on every one\u2019s lips.\u2019 \u2018Of course we did,\u2019 I\nanswered, \u2018it was just the difficulty which we found in these which\nthrust us off upon the others. In chronic diseases, patients grow weary\nof the common remedies and plans of treatment, and turn to rites and\ncharms and dreams. Just so in obscure and perplexing enquiries, when the\ncommon, received, familiar accounts are not convincing, [Sidenote: C] we\ncannot but try those which lie further afield; we must not despise them,\nbut simply repeat to ourselves the spells which the old people used, and\nuse all means to elicit the truth.\n\nII. \u2018To begin, you see the absurdity of calling the figure which appears\nin the moon an affection of our eyesight, too weak to resist the\nbrightness, or, as we say, dazzled; and of not observing that this ought\nrather to happen when we look at the sun, who meets us with his fierce\nstrong strokes. Empedocles has a pretty line giving the difference\nbetween the two:\n\n            _The sun\u2019s keen shafts, and moon with kindly beams._\n\nThus he describes the attractive, cheerful, painless quality of her\nlight. Further, the reason is given why men of dim and weak eyesight do\nnot see any distinct figure in the moon; [Sidenote: D] her orb shines\nfull and smooth to them, whereas strong-sighted persons get more\ndetails, and distinguish the features impressed there with clearer sense\nof contrast. Surely the reverse should happen if it were a weakness and\naffection of the eye which produced the image; the weaker the organ the\nclearer should be the appearance. The very irregularity of the surface\nis sufficient to refute this theory; this image is not one of continuous\nand confluent shadow, but is well sketched in the words of Agesianax:\n[Sidenote: E]\n\n              _All round as fire she shines, but in her midst,\n              Bluer than cyanus, lo, a maiden\u2019s eye,\n              Her tender brow, her face in counterpart._\n\nFor the shadowy parts really pass beneath the bright ones which they\nencircle, and in turn press and are cut off by them; thus light and\nshade are interwoven throughout, and the face-form [Sidenote: F] is\ndelineated to the life. The argument was thought to meet your Clearchus\nalso, Aristotle, no less unanswerably; for yours he is, and an intimate\nof your namesake of old, although he perverted many doctrines of the\nPath.\u2019\n\nIII. Here Apollonides interposed to ask what the view of Clearchus was.\n\u2018No man\u2019, I said, \u2018has less good right than you to ignorance of a\ndoctrine which starts from geometry, [Sidenote: 921] as from its native\nhearth. Clearchus says that the face, as we call it, is made up of\nimages of the great ocean mirrored in the moon. For our sight[304] being\nreflected back from many points, is able to touch objects which are not\nin its direct line; and the full moon is of all mirrors the most\nbeautiful and the purest in uniformity and lustre. As then you geometers\nthink that the rainbow is seen in the cloud when it has acquired a moist\nand smooth consistence, because our vision is reflected on to the\nsun,[305] so Clearchus held that the outer ocean is seen [Sidenote: B]\nin the moon, not where it really is, but in the place from which\nreflexion carried our sight into contact with it and its dazzle.\nAgesianax has another passage:\n\n               _Or ocean\u2019s wave that foams right opposite,\n               Be mirrored like a sheet of fire and flame._\u2019\n\nIV. This pleased Apollonides. \u2018What a fresh way of putting a view; that\nwas a bold man, and there was poetry in him. But how did the refutation\nproceed on your side?\u2019 \u2018In this way\u2019, I answered. \u2018First, the outer\nocean is uniform, a sea with one continuous stream, whereas the\nappearance of the dark places in the moon is not uniform; there are\nisthmuses, so to call them, where the brightness parts and [Sidenote: C]\ndefines the shadow; each region is marked off and has its proper\nboundary, and so the places where light and shade meet assume the\nappearance of height and depth, and represent very naturally human eyes\nand lips. Either, therefore, we must assume that there are more oceans\nthan one, parted by real isthmuses and mainlands, which is absurd and\nuntrue; or, if there is only one, it is impossible to believe that its\nimage could appear thus broken up. Now comes a question which it is\nsafer to ask in your presence than it is to state an answer. Given that\nthe habitable world is \u201cequal in breadth and length\u201d,[306] is it\npossible that the view of the sea as a whole, thus reflected from the\nmoon, [Sidenote: D] should reach those sailing upon the great sea\nitself, yes, or living on it as the Britons do, and this even if the\nearth does, as you said that it does, occupy a point central to the\nsphere in which the moon moves?[307] This\u2019, I continued, \u2018is a matter\nfor you to consider, but the reflexion of vision from the moon is a\nfurther question which it is not for you to decide, nor yet for\nHipparchus. I know, my dear friend [that Hipparchus is a very great\nastronomer], but many people do not accept his view on the physical\nnature of vision, since it is probably a sympathetic [Sidenote: E]\nblending and commixture, rather than a succession of strokes and recoils\nsuch as Epicurus devised for his atoms. Nor will you find Clearchus\nready to assume with you that the moon is a weighty and solid body. Yet\n\u201can ethereal and luminous star\u201d, to use your words, ought to break and\ndivert the vision, so there is no question of reflexion. Lastly, if any\none requires us to do so, we will put the question, how is it that only\none face is seen, the sea mirrored on the moon, and none in any of all\n[Sidenote: F] the other stars? Yet reason demands that our vision should\nbe thus affected in the case of all or of none. But now,\u2019 I said,\nturning to Lucius, \u2018remind us which of our points was mentioned first.\u2019\n\nV. \u2018No;\u2019 said Lucius, \u2018to avoid the appearance of merely insulting\nPharnaces, if we pass over the Stoic view without a word of greeting, do\ngive some answer to Clearchus, and his assumption that the moon is a\nmere mixture of air and mild fire, that the air grows dark on its\nsurface, as a ripple courses over a calm sea, and so the appearance of a\nface is produced.\u2019\n\n\u2018It is kind of you, Lucius,\u2019 I said, \u2018to clothe this absurdity in\nsounding terms. That is not how our comrade dealt with it. He said the\ntruth, that it is a slap in the face to the moon when they fill her with\nsmuts and blacks, addressing her in one breath [Sidenote: 922] as\nArtemis and Athena,[308] and in the very same describing a caked\ncompound of murky air and charcoal fire, with no kindling or light of\nits own, a nondescript body smoking and charred like those thunderbolts\nwhich poets[309] address as \u201clightless\u201d and \u201csooty\u201d. That a charcoal\nfire, such as this school makes out the moon to be, has no stability or\nconsistence at all, unless [Sidenote: B] it find solid fuel at once to\nsupport and to feed it, is a point not so clearly seen by some\nphilosophers as it is by those who tell us in jest that Hephaestus has\nbeen called lame because fire progresses no better without wood than\nlame people without a stick! If then the moon is fire, whence has it all\nthis air inside it? For this upper region, always in circular motion,\nbelongs not to air but to some nobler substance, which has the property\nof refining and kindling all things. If air has been generated, how is\nit that it has not been vaporized by the fire and passed away into some\nother form, but is preserved near fire all this time, like a nail fitted\ninto the same place and wedged there for ever? If it is rare and\ndiffused, [Sidenote: C] it should not remain stable, but be displaced.\nOn the other hand, it cannot subsist in a solidified form, because it is\nmingled with fire, and has neither moisture with it nor earth, the only\nagents by which air can be compacted. Again, rapid motion fires the air\nwhich is contained in stones, and even in cold lead, much more then that\nwhich is in fire, when whirled round with such velocity. For they are\ndispleased with Empedocles, when he describes the moon as a mass of air\nfrozen like hail and enclosed within her globe of fire. Yet they\nthemselves hold that the moon is a globe of fire which encloses air\nvariously distributed, and this though they do not allow that she has\n[Sidenote: D] clefts in herself, or depths and hollows (for which those\nwho make her an earth-like body find room), but clearly suppose that the\nair lies upon her convex surface. That it should do so is absurd in\npoint of stability, and impossible in view of what we see at full moon;\nfor we ought not to be able to distinguish black parts and shadow then;\neither all should be dull and shrouded, or all should shine out together\nwhen the moon is caught by the sun. For look at our earth; the air which\nlies in her depths and hollows, where no ray penetrates, remains in\nshadow unilluminated; that which is outside, diffused over the earth,\nhas light and brilliant colouring, because from its rarity it easily\nmingles, and takes up any quality or influence. [Sidenote: E] By light,\nin particular, if merely touched, or, in your words, grazed, it is\nchanged all through and illumined. This is at once an excellent ally to\nthose who thrust the air into depths and gullies on the moon, and also\nquite disposes of you, who strangely compound her globe of air and fire.\nFor it is impossible [Sidenote: F] that shadow should be left on her\nsurface when the sun touches with his light all that part of the moon\nwhich is framed within our own field of vision.\u2019\n\nVI. Here Pharnaces, while I was still speaking, broke in: \u2018Round it goes\nagain, the old scene-shifter of the Academy brought out against us; they\namuse themselves with arguing against other people, but in no case\nsubmit to be examined on their own views, they treat their opponents as\napologists, not accusers. I can speak for myself at any rate; you are\nnot going to draw me on to-day to answer your charges against the\nStoics, unless we first get an account of your conduct in turning the\nuniverse upside down.\u2019 Lucius smiled: \u2018Yes, my friend,\u2019 he said, \u2018only\ndo not threaten us with the writ of heresy, such as Cleanthes used to\nthink that the Greeks should have [Sidenote: 923] had served upon\nAristarchus of Samos, for shifting the hearth of the universe, because\nthat great man attempted \u201cto save phenomena\u201d with his hypothesis that\nthe heavens are stationary, while our earth moves round in an oblique\norbit, at the same time whirling about her own axis. We Academics have\nno view of our own finding, but do tell me this\u2014why are those, who\nassume that the moon is an earth, turning things upside down, any more\nthan you, who fix the earth where she is, suspended in mid air, a body\nconsiderably larger than the moon? [Sidenote: B] At least mathematicians\ntell us so, calculating the magnitude of the obscuring body from what\ntakes place in eclipses, and from the passages of the moon through the\nshadow. For the shadow of the earth is less as it extends, because the\nilluminating body is greater, and its upper extremity is fine and\nnarrow, as even Homer,[310] they say, did not fail to notice. He called\nnight \u201cpointed\u201d because of the sharpness of the shadow. Such, at any\nrate, is the body by which the moon is caught in her eclipses, and yet\nshe barely gets clear by a passage equal to three of her own diameters.\nJust consider how many moons go to make an earth, if the earth cast a\nshadow as broad, at its shortest, as three moons. Yet you have fears for\nthe moon lest she should tumble, while as for our earth, Aeschylus[311]\nhas perhaps satisfied you that Atlas [Sidenote: C]\n\n            _Stands, and the pillar which parts Heaven and Earth\n            His shoulders prop, no load for arms t\u2019 embrace._\n\nThen, you think that under the moon there runs light air, quite\ninadequate to support a solid mass, while the earth, in Pindar\u2019s[312]\nwords, is compassed \u201cby pillars set on adamant\u201d. And this is why\nPharnaces has no fear on his own account of the earth\u2019s falling, but\npities those who lie under the orbit of the moon, Ethiopians, say, or\nTaprobanes, on whom so great a weight might fall! Yet the moon has that\nwhich helps her against falling, in her very speed and the swing of her\npassage round, as objects placed in slings are hindered from falling by\nthe [Sidenote: D] whirl of the rotation. For everything is borne on in\nits own natural direction unless this is changed by some other force.\nTherefore the moon is not drawn down by her weight, since that tendency\nis counteracted by her circular movement. Perhaps it would be more\nreasonable to wonder if she were entirely at rest as the earth is, and\nunmoved. As things are, the moon has a powerful cause to prevent her\nfrom being borne down upon us; but the earth, being destitute of any\nother movement, might naturally be moved[313] by its own weight; being\nheavier than the moon not merely in proportion to its greater bulk,\n[Sidenote: E] but because the moon has been rendered lighter by heat and\nconflagration. It would actually seem that the moon, if she is a fire,\nis in need of earth, a solid substance whereon she moves and to which\nshe clings, so feeding and keeping up the force of her flame. For it is\nimpossible to conceive fire as maintained without fuel. But you Stoics\nsay that our earth stands firm without foundation or root.\u2019 \u2018Of course,\u2019\nsaid Pharnaces, \u2018it keeps its proper and natural place, namely the\nessential middle point, that place around which all weights press and\n[Sidenote: F] bear, converging towards it from all sides. But all the\nupper region, even if it receive any earth-like body thrown up with\nforce, immediately thrusts it out hitherward, or rather lets it go, to\nbe borne down by its own momentum.\u2019\n\nVII. At this point, wishing Lucius to have time to refresh his memory, I\ncalled on Theon: \u2018Theon, which of the tragic poets has said that\nphysicians\n\n                 _Purge bitter bile with bitter remedies?_\u2019\n\nTheon answered that it was Sophocles.[314] \u2018And physicians must be\nallowed to do so,\u2019 I said, \u2018we cannot help it. But philosophers must not\nbe listened to, if they choose to meet paradoxes with paradoxes, and,\nwhen contending against strange views, to invent views which are more\nstrange and wonderful still. [Sidenote: 924] Here are these Stoics with\ntheir \u201ctendency towards the middle\u201d! Is there any paradox which is not\nimplicit there? That our earth, with all those depths and heights and\ninequalities, is a Sphere? That there are people at our antipodes who\nlive like timber-worms or lizards, their lower limbs turned upper-most\nas they plant them on earth? That we ourselves do not keep perpendicular\nas we move, but remain on the slant, swerving like drunkards? That\nmasses of a thousand talents\u2019 weight, borne through the depth of the\nearth, stop when they reach the middle point, though nothing meets or\nresists them; or, if mere momentum carry them down beyond the middle\npoint, they wheel round and turn back of themselves? That [Sidenote: B]\nsegments of beams[315] sawn off at the surface of the earth on either\nside, do not move downwards all the way, but as they fall upon the\nsurface receive equal thrusts from the outside inwards and are jammed\naround the middle? That water rushing violently downwards, if it should\nreach this middle point\u2014an incorporeal point as they say\u2014would stand\nbalanced around it for a pivot, swinging with an oscillation which never\nstops and never can be stopped? Some of these a man could not force\nhimself [Sidenote: C] to present to his intellect as possible, even if\nuntrue! This is to make\n\n             _Up down, down up, where Topsy-Turvy reigns_,[316]\n\nall from us to the centre down, and all below the centre becoming up in\nits turn! So that if a man, by the \u201csympathy\u201d of earth, were to stand\nwith the central point of his own body touching the centre, he would\nhave his head up and his feet up too! And if he were to dig into the\nspace beyond, the down part of his body would bend upwards, and the soil\nwould be dug out from above to below; and if another man could be\nconceived meeting him, the feet of both would be said to be up, and\nwould really become so!\n\nVIII. \u2018Such are the monstrous paradoxes which they shoulder and trail\nalong, no mere wallet, Heaven help us! but [Sidenote: D] a conjurer\u2019s\nstock-in-trade and show-booth; and then they call other men triflers,\nbecause they place the moon, being an earth, up above, and not where the\nmiddle point is. And yet if every weighty body converges to the same\npoint with all its parts, the earth will claim the heavy objects, not so\nmuch because she is middle of the whole, as because they are parts of\nherself; and the inclination of falling bodies will testify, [Sidenote:\nE] not to any property of earth[317], as middle of the universe, but\nrather to a community and fellowship between earth and her own parts,\nonce ejected, now borne back to her. For as the sun draws into himself\nthe parts of which he has been composed, so earth receives the stone as\nbelonging to her, and drawn down towards herself; and thus each of such\nobjects becomes united with her in time and grows into herself. If there\nis any body neither assigned originally to the earth, nor torn away from\nit, [Sidenote: F] but having somehow a substance and nature of its own,\nsuch as they would describe the moon to be, what is there to prevent its\nexisting separately, self-centred, pressed together and compacted by its\nown parts? For it is not proved that earth is the middle of the\nuniverse, and, further, the way in which bodies here are collected and\ndrawn together towards the earth suggests the manner in which bodies\nwhich have fallen together on to the moon may reasonably be supposed to\nkeep their place with reference to her. Why the man who forces all\nearth-like and heavy objects into one place, and makes them parts of one\nbody, does not apply the same law of coercion to light bodies, I cannot\nsee, instead of allowing all those fiery structures to exist apart; nor\nwhy he does not collect all the stars into the same place, and hold\ndistinctly that there must be a body common to all upward-borne and\nfiery units.\n\n[Sidenote: 925] IX. \u2018But you and your friends, dear Apollonides, say\nthat the sun is countless millions of stades distant from the highest\ncircle, and that Phosphor next to him, and Stilbon, and the other\nplanets, move in a region below the fixed stars and at great intervals\nfrom one another; and yet you think that the universe provides within\nitself no interval in space for heavy and earth-like bodies. You see\nthat it is ridiculous to call the moon no earth because she stands apart\nfrom the region below, and then to call her a star while we see her\nthrust so many [Sidenote: B] myriads of stades away from the upper\ncircle as though sunk into an abyss. She is lower than the stars by a\ndistance which we cannot state in words, since numbers fail you\nmathematicians when you try to reckon it, but she touches the earth in a\nsense and revolves close to it,\n\n                _Like to the nave of a wagon, she glances_,\n\nsays Empedocles,[318]\n\n                               _which near the mid axle...._\n\nFor she often fails to clear even the shadow of earth, rising but\nlittle,[319] because the illuminating body is so vast. But so nearly\ndoes she seem to graze the earth and to be almost in its embrace as she\ncircles round, that she is shut off from the sun by it unless [Sidenote:\nC] she rises enough to clear that shaded, terrestrial region, dark as\nnight, which is the appanage of earth. Therefore I think we may say with\nconfidence that the moon is within the precincts of earth when we see\nher blocked by earth\u2019s extremities.\n\nX. \u2018Now leave the other fixed stars and planets, and consider the\nconclusion proved by Aristarchus in his _Magnitudes and Distances_;[320]\nthat the distance of the sun is to the distance of the moon from us in a\nratio greater than eighteen to one, [Sidenote: D] less than twenty to\none. Yet the highest estimate of the distance of the moon from us makes\nit fifty-six times the earth\u2019s radius, and that is, even on a moderate\nmeasurement, forty thousand stades. Upon this basis, the distance of the\nsun from the moon works out to more than forty million three hundred\nthousand stades. So far has she been settled from the sun because of her\nweight, and so nearly has she approached the earth, that, if we are to\ndistribute estates according to localities, the \u201cportion and inheritance\nof the earth\u201d invites the moon to join her, and the moon has a next\nclaim to chattels and persons [Sidenote: E] on earth, in right of\nkinship and vicinity. And I think that we are not doing wrong in this,\nthat while we assign so great and profound an interval to what we call\nthe upper bodies, we also leave to bodies below as much room for\ncirculation as the breadth from earth to moon. For he who confines the\nword \u201cupper\u201d to the extreme circumference of heaven, and calls all the\nrest \u201clower\u201d, goes too far, and on the other hand he who circumscribes\n\u201cbelow\u201d to earth, or rather to her centre, is preposterous. On this side\nand on that the necessary interval must be granted,[321] since the\nvastness of the universe permits. Against the claim that everything\nafter we leave the earth is \u201cup\u201d and poised on high, sounds the\ncounterclaim that everything [Sidenote: F] after we leave the circle of\nthe fixed stars is \u201cdown\u201d!\n\nXI. \u2018Look at the question broadly. In what sense is the earth \u201cmiddle\u201d,\nand middle of what? For the Whole is infinite; now the Infinite has\nneither beginning nor limit, so it ought not to have a middle; for a\nmiddle is in a sense itself a limit, but infinity is a negation of\nlimits. It is amusing to hear a man labour to prove that the earth is\nthe middle of the universe, not of the Whole, forgetting that the\nuniverse itself lies under the same difficulties; for the Whole, in its\n[Sidenote: 926] turn, left no middle for the universe. \u201cHearthless and\nhomeless\u201d[322] it is borne over an infinite void towards nothing which\nit can call its own; or, if it find some other cause for remaining, it\nstands still, not because of the nature of the place. Much the same can\nbe conjectured about the earth and the moon; if one stands here unshaken\nwhile the other moves, it is in virtue of a difference of soul rather\nthan of place and of nature. Apart from all this, has not one important\npoint escaped them? If anything, however great, which is outside the\ncentre of the earth is \u201cup\u201d, then no part of the universe is \u201cdown\u201d.\nEarth is \u201cup\u201d, and so are the things on the earth, absolutely [Sidenote:\nB] every body lying or standing about the earth becomes \u201cup\u201d; one thing\nalone is \u201cdown\u201d, that incorporeal point which has of necessity to resist\nthe pressure of the whole universe, if \u201cdown\u201d is naturally opposed to\n\u201cup\u201d. Nor is this absurdity the only one. Weights lose the cause of\ntheir downward tendency and motion here, since there is no body below\ntowards which they move. That the incorporeal should have so great a\nforce as to direct all things towards itself, or hold them together\nabout itself, is not probable, nor do they mean this. No! it is found on\nall grounds[323] to be irrational, and against the facts, that \u201cup\u201d\nshould be the whole universe, and \u201cdown\u201d nothing but an incorporeal and\nindivisible limit. The other view is reasonable, which we state thus,\nthat a large space, possessing breadth, is apportioned both to \u201cthe\nabove\u201d and to \u201cthe below\u201d.\n\nXII. \u2018However, let us assume, if you choose, that it is [Sidenote: C]\ncontrary to nature that earth-like bodies should have their motions in\nheaven; and now let us look quietly, with no heroics, at the inference,\nwhich is this, not that the moon is not an earth, but that she is an\nearth not in its natural place. So the fire of Aetna is fire\nunderground, which is contrary to nature, yet is fire; and air enclosed\nin bladders is light and volatile by nature, but has come perforce into\na place unnatural to it. And the soul, the soul itself,\u2019 I went on, \u2018has\nit not been imprisoned in the body contrary to nature, a swift, and, as\nyou hold, a fiery soul in a slow, cold body, the invisible within the\nsensible? Are we therefore to say that soul in body is nothing, and not\nrather that Reason, that divine thing, has been made subject to weight\nand density, that one which ranges all heaven [Sidenote: D] and earth\nand sea in a moment\u2019s flight has passed into flesh and sinews, marrow\nand humours, wherein is the origin of countless passions?[324] Your Lord\nZeus, is he not, so long as he preserves his own nature, one great\ncontinuous fire? Yet we see him brought down, and bent, and fashioned,\nassuming, and ready to assume, any and every complexion of change. Look\nwell to it, my friend, whether when you shift all things [Sidenote: E]\nabout, and remove each to its \u201cnatural\u201d place, you are not devising a\nsystem to dissolve the universe and introducing Empedoclean strife, or\nrather stirring up the old Titans against Nature, in your eagerness to\nsee once more the dreadful disorder and dissonance of the myth? All that\nis heavy in a place by itself, and all that is light in another,\n\n             _Where neither sun\u2019s bright face is separate seen,\n             Nor earth\u2019s rough brood, nor ocean any more_,\n\n[Sidenote: F] as Empedocles says! Earth had nothing to do with heat,\nwater with wind; nothing heavy was found above, nothing light below;\nwithout commixture, without affection were the principles of all things,\nmere units, each desiring no intercourse with each or partnership,\nperforming their separate scornful motions in mutual flight and\naversion, a state of things which must always be, as Plato[325] teaches,\nwhere God is absent, the state of bodies deserted by intelligence and\nsoul. So it was until the day when Providence brought Desire into\nNature, and [Sidenote: 927] Friendship was engendered there, and\nAphrodite, and Eros, as Empedocles tells us and Parmenides too and\nHesiod,[326] so that things might change their places, and receive\nfaculties from one another in turn, and, from being bound under stress,\nand forced, some to be in motion some to rest, might all begin to give\nin to the Better, instead of the Natural, and shift their places and so\nproduce harmony and communion of the Whole.\n\nXIII. \u2018For if it be true that no other part of the universe departed\nfrom Nature, but that each rests in its natural place, not needing any\ntransposition or rearrangement, and never from the first having needed\nany, I am at a loss to know what there is for Providence to do, or of\nwhat Zeus, \u201cin art most excellent\u201d,[327] is the maker and the\nartist-father. There would [Sidenote: B] be no need of tactics in an\narmy if each soldier knew of himself how to take and keep place and post\nat the proper time; nor of gardeners or builders if the water of its own\nnature is to flow over the parts which need it, and moisten them, or if\nbricks and beams should of themselves adopt the movements and\ninclinations which are natural, and arrange themselves in their fitting\nplaces. If such a theory strike out Providence [Sidenote: C] altogether,\nand if it be God\u2019s own attribute to order and discriminate things, what\nmarvel is it that Nature has been so disposed and partitioned that fire\nis here and stars there, and again that earth is planted where it is and\nthe moon above, each held by a firmer bond than that of Nature, the bond\nof Reason? Since, if all things are to observe natural tendencies, and\nto move each according to its nature, let the sun no longer go round in\na circle, nor Phosphorus, nor any of the other stars, because it is the\nnature of light and fiery bodies to move upwards, not in a circle! But\nif Nature admits of such local variation as that fire, here seen to\nascend, yet when it reaches heaven, joins in the general rotation, what\nmarvel if heavy [Sidenote: D] and earthlike bodies too, when placed\nthere, assume another kind of motion, mastered by the circumambient\nelement? For it is not according to Nature that light things lose their\nupward tendency in heaven, and yet heaven cannot prevail over those\nwhich are heavy and incline downwards. No, heaven at some time had power\nto rearrange both these and those, and turned the nature of each to what\nwas better.\n\nXIV. \u2018However, if we are at last to have done with notions enslaved to\nusage,[328] and to state fearlessly what appears to be true, it is\nprobable that no part of a whole has any order, or position, or movement\nof its own which can be described in absolute terms as natural. But when\neach body places itself at the disposal of that on account of which it\nhas come into being, [Sidenote: E] and in relation to which it naturally\nexists or has been created, to move as is useful and convenient to it,\nactively and passively and in all its own states conforming to the\nconservation, beauty, or power of that other, then, I hold, its place,\nmovements and disposition are according to Nature. In man certainly, who\nhas, if anything has, come into being according to Nature, [Sidenote: F]\nthe heavy and earth-like parts are found above, mostly about the head,\nthe hot and fiery in the middle regions; of the teeth one set grows from\nabove, the other from below, yet neither contrary to Nature; nor can it\nbe said of the fire in him that when it is above and flashes in his eyes\nit is natural, but when it is in stomach or heart, unnatural; each has\nbeen arranged as is proper and convenient.\n\n              _Mark well the tortoise and the trumpet-shell_,\n\nsays Empedocles, and, we may add, the nature of every shell-fish, and\n\n               _Earth uppermost, flesh under thou shalt see._\n\nYet the stony substance does not squeeze or crush the growth[329]\n[Sidenote: 928] within, nor again does the heat fly off and be lost\nbecause of its lightness; they are mingled and co-ordinated according to\nthe nature of each.\n\nXV. \u2018And so it is probably with the universe, if it be indeed a living\nstructure; in many places it contains earth, in many others fire, water,\nand wind, which are not forced out under stress, but arranged on a\nrational system. Take the eye; it is not where it is in the body owing\nto pressure acting on its light substance, nor has the heart fallen or\nslipped down [Sidenote: B] into the region of the chest because of its\nweight; each is arranged where it is because it was better so. Let us\nnot then suppose that it is otherwise with the parts of the universe;\nthat earth lies here where it has fallen of its own weight, that the\nsun, as Metrodorus of Chios used to think, has been pressed out into the\nupper region because of his lightness, like a bladder, or that the other\nstars have reached the places which they now hold as if they had been\nweighed in a balance and kicked the beam. No, the rational principle\nprevailed; and some, like eyes to give light, are inserted into the face\nof the Whole and revolve; the sun acts as a heart, and sheds and\ndistributes out of himself heat and light, as it were blood and breath.\n[Sidenote: C] Earth and sea are to the universe, according to Nature,\nwhat stomach and bladder are to the animal. The moon, lying between sun\nand earth, as the liver or some other soft organ between heart and\nstomach, distributes here the gentle warmth from above, while she\nreturns to us, digested, purified, and refined in her own sphere, the\nexhalations of earth. Whether her earth-like solid substance contributes\nto any other useful purposes, we cannot say. We do know that universally\nthe Better prevails over the law of Stress. How can the view of the\nStoics lead us to any probable result? That view is, that the luminous\nand subtle part of the atmosphere has by its rarity formed the\n[Sidenote: D] sky, the dense and consolidated part stars, and that, of\nthe stars, the moon is the dullest and the grossest. However, we may see\nwith our eyes that the moon is not entirely separated from the\natmosphere, but moves within a great belt of it, having beneath itself a\nwind-swept region, where bodies are whirled, and amongst them comets.\nThus these bodies have not been placed in the scales according to the\nweight or lightness of each, but have been arranged upon a different\nsystem.\u2019\n\nXVI. This said, as I was passing the turn to Lucius, the [Sidenote: E]\nargument now reaching the stage of demonstration, Aristotle said with a\nsmile: \u2018I protest that you have addressed your whole reply to those who\nassume that the moon herself is half fire, and who say of all bodies in\ncommon that they have an inclination of their own, some an upward one,\nsome a downward. If there is a single person who holds that the stars\nmove in a circle according to Nature, and are of a substance widely\n[Sidenote: F] different from the four elements, it has not occurred to\nour memory, even by accident; so that I am out of the discussion, and\nyou also, Lucius.\u2019 \u2018No, no, good friend\u2019, said Lucius. \u2018As to the other\nstars, and the heaven in general, when your school asserts that they\nhave a nature which is pure and transparent, and removed from all\nchanges caused by passion, and when they introduce a circle of\neternal[330] and never-ending revolution, perhaps no one would\ncontradict you, at least for the present, although there are countless\ndifficulties. But when the theory comes down and touches the moon, it no\nlonger retains in her case the \u201cfreedom from passion\u201d and the beauty of\nform of that body. Leaving out of account her other irregularities and\npoints of difference, this very face which appears upon her has come\nthere either from some passion proper to herself or by admixture of some\nother substance. [Sidenote: 929] Indeed, mixture implies some passion,\nsince there is a loss of its own purity when a body is forcibly filled\nwith what is inferior to itself. Consider her own torpor and dullness of\nspeed, and her heat, so faint and ineffectual, wherein, as Ion[331]\nsays\u2014\n\n                       _The black grape ripens not_;\n\nto what are we to assign this, but to weakness in herself and passion,\nif passion can have place in an eternal and Olympian body? It comes to\nthis, dear Aristotle; look on her as earth, and she appears a very\nbeautiful object, venerable and highly adorned; but as star, or light,\nor any divine or heavenly body, I fear she may be found wanting in\nshapeliness and grace, and do no credit to her beautiful name, if out of\nall the multitude in heaven she alone goes round begging light of\nothers, as Parmenides says, [Sidenote: B]\n\n              _For ever peering toward the sun\u2019s bright rays._\n\nNow when our comrade, in his dissertation, was expounding the\nproposition of Anaxagoras, that \u201cthe sun places the brightness in the\nmoon\u201d, he was highly applauded. But I am not going to speak of things\nwhich I learned from you or with you, I will gladly pass on to the\nremaining points. It is then probable that the moon is illuminated not\nas glass or crystal by the sunlight shining in and through her, nor yet\nby way of accumulation of light and rays, as torches when they multiply\ntheir light. For then we should have full moon at the beginning of the\nmonth just as much as at the middle, if she does not conceal or block\nthe sun, but allows him[332] to pass through [Sidenote: C] because of\nher rarity, or if he, by way of commixture, shines upon the light around\nher and helps to kindle it with his own. For it is not possible to\nallege any bending or swerving aside on her part at the time of her\nconjunction, as we can when she is at the half, or is gibbous or\ncrescent. Being then \u201cplumb opposite\u201d, as Democritus puts it, to her\nilluminant, she receives and admits the sun, so that we should expect to\nsee her shining herself and also allowing him to shine through her. Now\nshe is very far from doing this; she is herself invisible at those\ntimes, and she often hides him out of our sight.\n\n                          _So from above for men_,\n\nas Empedocles says, [Sidenote: D]\n\n            _She quenched his beams, shrouding a slice of earth\n            Wide as the compass of the glancing moon_;\n\nas though his light had fallen, not upon another star, but upon night\nand darkness.\n\n\u2018The view of Posidonius, that it is because of the depth of the moon\u2019s\nbody that the light of the sun is not passed through to us, is wrong on\nthe face of it. For the air, which is unlimited, and has a depth many\ntimes that of the moon, is filled throughout with sunlight and\nbrightness. There is left then that of Empedocles, that the illumination\nwhich we get from the moon [Sidenote: E] arises in some way from the\nreflexion of the sun as he falls upon her. Hence her light reaches us\nwithout heat or lustre, whereas we should expect both if there were a\nkindling by him or a commixture of lights. But as voices return an echo\nweaker than the original sound, and missiles which glance off strike\nwith weaker impact,\n\n             _E\u2019en so the ray which smote the moon\u2019s white orb_\n\nreaches us in a feeble and exhausted stream, because the force is\ndispersed in the reflexion.\u2019\n\nXVII. Here Sylla broke in: \u2018All these things no doubt [Sidenote: F] have\ntheir probabilities; but the strongest point on the other side was\neither explained away or it escaped our comrade\u2019s attention; which was\nit?\u2019\n\n\u2018What do you mean?\u2019 said Lucius. \u2018The problem of the half-moon, I\nsuppose?\u2019\n\n\u2018Precisely,\u2019 said Sylla, \u2018for as all reflexion takes place at equal\nangles, there is some reason in saying that when the moon is in\nmid-heaven at half-moon, the light is not carried from her on to the\nearth, but glances off beyond it; for the sun, being [Sidenote: 930] on\nthe horizon, touches the moon with his rays, which will therefore, being\nreflected at equal angles, fall on the further side and beyond us, and\nwill not send the light here; or else there will be a great distortion\nand variation in the angle, which is impossible.\u2019\n\n\u2018I assure you\u2019, said Lucius, \u2018that point was mentioned also;\u2019 and here\nhe glanced at Menelaus the mathematician, as he went on: \u2018I am ashamed,\ndear Menelaus,\u2019 he said, \u2018in your presence to upset a mathematical\nassumption which is laid down as fundamental in all the Optics of\nMirrors. But I feel obliged to say\u2019, he continued, \u2018that the law which\nrequires reflexion in all cases to be at equal angles is neither\nself-evident [Sidenote: B] nor admitted. It is impugned in the instance\nof convex mirrors, when magnified images are reflected to the one point\nof sight. It is impugned also in that of double mirrors, when they are\ninclined towards one another so that there is an angle between them, and\neach surface returns a double image from one face, four images in all,\ntwo on the right, two on the left, two from the outer parts of the\nsurfaces, two dimmer ones deep within the mirrors.[333] Plato[334] gives\nthe cause why this takes place. He has told [Sidenote: C] us that if the\nmirrors be raised on either side, there is a gradual shifting of the\nvisual reflexion as it passes from one side to the other. If then some\nimages proceed directly to us, while others glance to the opposite side\nof the mirrors, and are returned thence to us, it is impossible that\nreflexion in all cases takes place at equal angles. They observe[335]\nthat these images meet in one point, and further claim that the law of\nequal angles is disproved by the streams of light which actually proceed\nfrom the moon to the earth, holding the fact to be [Sidenote: D] far\nmore convincing than the law. However, if we are so far to indulge the\nbeloved geometry as to make her a present of this law, in the first\nplace it may be expected to hold of mirrors which have been made\naccurately smooth. But the moon has many irregularities and rough parts,\nso that the rays proceeding from a large body, when they fall on\nconsiderable eminences, are exposed to counter-illuminations and\nreciprocal dispersion; the cross-light is reflected, involved, and\naccumulated as though it reached us from a number of mirrors. In the\nnext place, even if we allow that the reflexions are produced at equal\n[Sidenote: E] angles upon the actual surface of the moon, yet, when the\ndistance is so great, it is not impossible that the rays may be broken\nin their passage, or glance around, so that the light reaches us in one\ncomposite stream. Some go further, and show by a figure that many lights\ndischarge their rays along a line inclined to the hypothenuse; but it\nwas not possible to construct the diagram while speaking, especially\nbefore a large audience.[336]\n\nXVIII. \u2018Upon the whole question,\u2019 he went on, \u2018I am at a loss to see how\nthey bring up the half-moon against us; the point fails equally upon her\ngibbous and crescent phases. For if the moon were a mass of air or fire\nwhich the sun illuminated, [Sidenote: F] he would not have left half her\nsphere always in shadow and darkness as seen by us; but even if he\ntouched her in his circuit only in a small point, the proper consequence\nwould follow, she would be affected all through, and her entire\nsubstance changed by the light penetrating everywhere with ease. When\nwine touches water on its extreme surface, or a drop of blood falls into\nliquid, the whole is discoloured at once, and turned to crimson. But the\nair itself, we are told, is not filled with sunshine by emanations or\nbeams actually mingling with it, but by a change and alteration caused\nby something like a prick or touch. Now, how can they suppose that when\nstar touches star or light light, it does not mingle with or alter the\nsubstance throughout, but only illuminates [Sidenote: 931] those points\nwhich it touches superficially? The circular orbit of the sun as he\npasses about the moon, which sometimes coincides with the line dividing\nher visible and invisible parts, and at other times rises to right\nangles with that line so as to cut those parts in two, and in turn be\ncut by her, produces her gibbous and crescent phases by the varying\ninclination and position of the bright part relatively to that in\nshadow. This proves beyond all question that the illumination is contact\nnot commixture, not accumulation of light but its circumfusion. But the\nfact that she is not only illuminated herself but also sends [Sidenote:\nB] on the image of her brightness to us, allows us to insist the more\nconfidently on our theory of her substance. For reflexions do not take\nplace on a rarefied body, or one formed of subtle particles, nor is it\neasy to conceive light rebounding from light, or fire from fire; the\nbody which is to produce recoil and reflexion must be heavy and dense,\nthat there may be impact upon it and resilience from it. To the sun\nhimself the air certainly allows a passage, offering no obstructions or\nresistance; whereas if timber, stones, or woven stuffs be placed to meet\nhis light many cross rays are caused, and there is illumination all\n[Sidenote: C] round them. We see the same thing in the way his light\nreaches the earth. The earth does not pass his ray into a depth as water\ndoes, nor yet throughout her whole substance as air does. Just as his\norbit passes round the moon, gradually cutting off a certain portion of\nher, so a similar orbit passes round the earth, illuminating a similar\npart of it and leaving another unilluminated, for the part of either\nbody which receives light appears to be a little larger than a\nhemisphere. Allow me to speak geometrically in terms of proportion. Here\nare three bodies approached by the sun\u2019s light, earth, moon, air; we see\nthat the moon is illuminated like the earth, not like the air; but\nbodies naturally affected in the same way by the same must be themselves\nsimilar.\u2019\n\nXIX. When all had applauded Lucius, \u2018Bravo!\u2019 said I, [Sidenote: D] \u2018a\nbeautiful proportion fitted to a beautiful theory; for you must not be\ndefrauded of your own.\u2019 \u2018In that case,\u2019 he said, with a smile, \u2018I must\nemploy proportion a second time, in order that we may prove the moon\nlike the earth, not only as being affected in the same way by the same\nbody, but also as producing the same effect on the same. Grant me that\nno one of the phenomena relating to the sun is so like another as an\neclipse to a sunset, remembering that recent concurrence[337] of sun and\nmoon, which, beginning just after noon, showed us [Sidenote: E] plainly\nmany stars in all parts of the heavens, and produced a chill in the\ntemperature like that of twilight. If you have forgotten it, Theon here\nwill bring up Mimnermus and Cydias, and Archilochus, and Stesichorus and\nPindar[338] besides, all bewailing at eclipse time \u201cthe brightest star\nstolen from the sky\u201d [Sidenote: F] and \u201cnight with us at midday\u201d,\nspeaking of the ray of the sun as \u201ca track of darkness\u201d and, besides all\nthese, Homer[339] saying that the faces of men are \u201cbound in night and\ngloom\u201d and \u201cthe sun is perished out of the heaven\u201d, i.e. around the\nmoon, and how this occurs according to Nature, \u201cwhen one moon perishes\nand one is born\u201d. The remaining points have been reduced, I think, by\nthe accuracy of mathematical methods to the one[340] certain principle\nthat night is the shadow of earth, whereas an eclipse of the sun is the\nshadow of the moon when it falls within our vision. When the sun sets he\nis blocked from our sight by the earth; when he is eclipsed, by the\nmoon. [Sidenote: 932] In both cases there is overshadowing; in his\nsetting it is caused by the earth, in his eclipses by the moon, her\nshadow intercepting our vision. From all this it is easy to draw out a\ntheory as to what happens. If the effect is similar, the agents are\nsimilar; for the same effects upon the same body must be due to the same\nagents. If the darkness of eclipses is not so profound, and does not\naffect the atmosphere so forcibly, let us not be surprised; the bodies\nwhich cause respectively night and eclipse are similar in nature, but\nunequal in size. The Egyptians, I believe, say that the moon\u2019s bulk is\none two-and-seventieth part of the earth\u2019s, Anaxagoras made her as large\nas Peloponnesus; but [Sidenote: B] Aristarchus[341] proves that the\ndiameter of the earth bears to that of the moon a ratio which is less\nthan sixty to nineteen, and greater than a hundred and eight to\nforty-three. Hence the earth because of its size removes the sun\nentirely from our sight, the obstruction is great and lasts all night;\nwhereas if the moon sometimes hides the sun entirely, yet the eclipse\ndoes not last long and has no breadth; but a certain brightness is\napparent around the rim, which does not allow the shadow to be deep and\nabsolute. Aristotle,[342] I mean the ancient philosopher, after giving\nother reasons why the moon is more [Sidenote: C] often visibly eclipsed\nthan the sun, adds this further one, that the sun is eclipsed by the\ninterposition of the moon,[343] [the moon by that of the earth and of\nother bodies also.] But Posidonius gives this definition of what occurs:\nan eclipse of the sun is a concurrence of the shadow of the moon with\nour vision[344] ... for there is no eclipse, except to those whose view\nof the sun can be intercepted by the shadow of the moon. In allowing\nthat the shadow of the moon reaches to us, I do not know what he has\nleft himself to say. There can be no shadow of a star; shadow means\nabsence of light, and it is the nature of light to remove shadow, not to\ncause it.\n\nXX. \u2018But tell me\u2019, he went on, \u2018what proof was mentioned [Sidenote: D]\nnext?\u2019 \u2018That the moon was eclipsed in the same way\u2019, I said. \u2018Thank you\nfor reminding me\u2019, he said. \u2018But now am I to turn at once to the\nargument, assuming that you are satisfied, and allow that the moon is\neclipsed when she is caught in the shadow, or do you wish me to set out\na studied proof, with all the steps in order?\u2019 \u2018By all means,\u2019 said\nTheon, \u2018let us have the proof in full. For my own part, I still somehow\nneed to be convinced; [Sidenote: E] I have only heard it put thus, that\nwhen the three bodies, earth, sun, and moon, come into one straight line\neclipses occur, the earth removing the sun from the moon, or the moon\nthe sun from the earth; that is, the sun is eclipsed when the moon, the\nmoon when the earth, is in the middle of the three, the first case\nhappening at her conjunction, the second at the half-month.\u2019\n\nLucius replied: \u2018These are perhaps the most important points mentioned;\nbut first, if you will, take the additional argument drawn from the\nshape of the shadow. This is a cone, such as is caused by a large\nspherical body of fire or light overlapping a smaller body also\nspherical. Hence in eclipses the lines which mark off the dark portions\nof the moon from the bright give circular sections. For when one round\nbody approaches [Sidenote: F] another, the lines of mutual intersection\nare invariably circular like the bodies themselves. In the second place,\nI think you are aware that the first parts of the moon to be eclipsed\nare those towards the East, of the sun those towards the West,\n[Sidenote: 933] and the shadow of the earth moves from East to West,\nthat of[345] the moon on the contrary to the East. This is made clear to\nthe senses by the phenomena, which may be explained quite shortly. They\ngo to confirm our view of the cause of the eclipse. For since the sun is\neclipsed by being overtaken, the moon by meeting the body which causes\nthe eclipse,[346] it is likely, or rather it is necessary, that the sun\nshould be overtaken from behind, the moon from the front, the\nobstruction beginning from the first point of contact with the\nobstructing body. The moon comes up with the sun from the West as she\nraces against him, the earth from the East because it is moving from the\nopposite direction. As a third point, I will ask you to [Sidenote: B]\nnotice the duration and the magnitude of her eclipses. If she is\neclipsed when high up and far from the earth, she is hidden for a short\ntime; if near the earth and low down when the same thing happens to her,\nshe is firmly held and emerges slowly out of the shadow; and yet when\nshe is low her speed is greatest, when high it is least. The cause of\nthe difference lies in the shadow; for being broadest about the base,\nlike all cones, and tapering gradually, it ends in a sharp, fine head.\nHence, if the moon be low when she meets the shadow, she is caught in\nthe largest circles of the cone, and crosses its most profound and\ndarkest part; if high, she dips as into a shallow pond, because the\nshadow is thin, and quickly makes her way out. [Sidenote: C] I omit the\npoints of detail mentioned as to bases and permeations, which can also\nbe rationally explained as far as the subject-matter allows. I go back\nto the theory put before us founded on our senses. We see that fire\nshines through more visibly and more brightly out of a place in shadow,\nwhether because of the density of the darkened air, which does not allow\nit to stream off and be dispersed, but holds its substance compressed\nwhere it is, or whether this is an affection of our senses; as hot\nthings are hotter when contrasted with cold, and pleasures are more\nintense by contrast with pains, so bright things stand out more clearly\nby the side of dark, setting the imagination on the alert by the\ncontrast. The former cause appears the more [Sidenote: D] probable, for\nin the light of the sun everything in the nature of fire not only loses\nits brightness, but is outmatched and becomes inactive and blunted,\nsince the sun\u2019s heat scatters and dissipates its power. If then the moon\npossess a faint, feeble fire, being a star of somewhat turbid substance,\nas the Stoics themselves say, none of the effects which she now exhibits\nought to follow, but the opposite in all respects; she ought to appear\nwhen she is now hidden, and be hidden when she now appears; be hidden,\nthat is, all the time while she is dimmed by the surrounding [Sidenote:\nE] atmosphere, but shine brightly out at intervals of six months, or\noccasionally at intervals of five, when she passes under the shadow of\nthe earth. (For of the 465 full moons at eclipse intervals, 404 give\nperiods of six months, the remainder periods of five.) At such intervals\nthen the moon ought to appear shining brightly in the shadow. But, as a\nfact, she is eclipsed and loses her light in the shadow, and recovers it\nwhen she has cleared the shadow; also she is often seen by day, which\nshows that she is anything but a fiery or starlike body.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: F] XXI. When Lucius had said this, Pharnaces and Apollonides\nsprang forward together to oppose. Apollonides made way to Pharnaces,\nwho observed that this is a very strong proof that the moon is a star or\nfire; for she does not disappear entirely in eclipses, but shows through\nwith a grim ashy hue peculiar to herself. Apollonides objected to the\nword \u2018shadow\u2019, a term always applied by mathematicians to a region which\nis not [Sidenote: 934] lighted, whereas the heavens admit of no shadow.\n\u2018This objection\u2019, I said, \u2018is contentious, and addressed to the name,\nnot to the thing in any physical or mathematical sense. If any one\nshould prefer to call the region blocked by the earth not \u201cshadow\u201d, but\n\u201can unlighted place\u201d, it is still necessarily true that the moon when it\nreaches that region is darkened. It is merely childish\u2019, I went on, \u2018not\nto allow that the shadow of the earth reaches it, since we know that the\nshadow of the moon, falling upon the sight and reaching to the earth,\ncauses an [Sidenote: B] eclipse of the sun. I will now turn to you,\nPharnaces. That ashy charred colour in the moon, which you say is\npeculiar to her, belongs to a body which has density and depth. For no\nremnant or trace of flame will remain in rarefied bodies, nor can\nburning matter come into existence, without a substantial body, deep\nenough to allow of ignition and to maintain it, as Homer[347] has\nsomewhere said:\n\n          _When fire\u2019s red flower was flown, and spent the flames,\n          Which smoothed the embers._\n\nFor burning matter is evidently not fire but a body submitted to fire,\nand altered by it, which fire is attached to a solid stable mass and is\npermanent there, whereas flames are the kindling [Sidenote: C] and\nstreaming away of rarefied fuel which is quickly dissolved because it is\nweak.\n\n\u2018Thus no such clear proof could exist that the moon is earth-like and\ndense, as this cinder-like colour, if it really were her own proper\ncolour. But it is not so, dear Pharnaces; in the course of an eclipse\nshe goes through many changes of complexion, and scientific men divide\nthese accordingly by time and hour. If she is eclipsed at early evening,\nshe appears strangely black till three and a half hours have elapsed; if\nat midnight, she emits that red and flame-like hue over her surface\nwhich we know; after seven and a half hours the redness begins to be\nremoved, and at last towards dawn she takes a bluish or light-grey hue,\n[Sidenote: D] which is the real reason why poets and Empedocles invoke\nher as \u201cgrey-eyed\u201d. Now, people who see the moon assume so many hues as\nshe passes through the shadow do wrong in fastening upon one, the\ncinder-like, which may be called the one most foreign to her, being\nrather an admixture and remnant of light which shines round her through\nthe shadows, than her own peculiar complexion, which is black and\nearth-like. But whereas we see on our earth that places in shadow which\nare near purple or scarlet cloths, or near lakes, or rivers open to the\nsun, partake in the brilliance of these colours and offer many varied\nsplendours because of the reflexions, what wonder [Sidenote: E] if a\ngreat stream of shadow, falling upon a celestial sea of light, not\nstable or calm but agitated by myriads of stars and admitting of\ncombinations and changes of every kind, presents to us different colours\nat different times impressed on it by the moon? For a star or a fire\ncould not show when in shadow as black or grey or blue. But our hills\nand plains and seas are coursed over by many-coloured shapes coming from\nthe sun and [Sidenote: F] by shadows also and mists, resembling the hues\nproduced by white light over a painter\u2019s pigments. For those seen on the\nsea Homer has endeavoured to find such names as he could, as \u201cviolet\u201d\nfor the sea, and \u201cwine-dark\u201d and again \u201cpurple wave\u201d, and elsewhere\n\u201cgrey sea\u201d and \u201cwhite calm\u201d. But the varying colours which appear on\nland at different times he has passed over as being infinite in number.\nNow, it is not likely that the moon has one surface as the sea has, but\nrather that she resembles in substance the earth, of which Socrates[348]\n[Sidenote: 935] of old used to tell the legend, whether he hinted at the\nmoon, or meant some other body. For it is nothing incredible or\nwonderful if, having nothing corrupt or muddy in her, but enjoying light\nfrom heaven, and being stored with a heat not burning or furious, but\nmild and harmless and natural, she possesses regions of marvellous\nbeauty, hills clear as flame, and belts of purple, her gold and silver\nnot dispersed within her depths, but flowering forth on the plains in\nplenty, or set [Sidenote: B] around smooth eminences. Now, if a varying\nview of these reaches us from time to time through the shadow, owing to\nsome change and shifting of the surrounding air, surely the moon does\nnot lose her honour or her fame, nor yet her Divinity, when she is held\nby men to be holy earth of a sort and not, as the Stoics say, fire which\nis turbid, mere dregs of fire. Fire is honoured in barbarous fashions by\nthe Medes and Assyrians, who fear what injures them, and pay observance\nor rites of propitiation to that, rather than to what they revere. But\nthe name of earth, we know, is dear and honourable to every Greek, we\nreverence her as our fathers did, like any other God. But, being men, we\nare very far from thinking of the moon, that [Sidenote: C] Olympian\nearth, as a body without soul or mind, having no share in things which\nwe duly offer as first-fruits to the Gods, taught by usage to pay them a\nreturn for the goods they give us, and by Nature to reverence that which\nis above ourselves in virtue and power and honour. Let us not then think\nthat we offend in holding that she is an earth, and that this her\nvisible face, just like our earth with its great gulfs, is folded back\ninto great depths and clefts containing water or murky air, which the\nlight of the sun fails to penetrate or touch, but is obscured, and sends\nback its reflexion here in shattered fragments.\u2019\n\nXXII. Here Apollonides broke in: \u2018Then in the name of [Sidenote: D] the\nmoon herself,\u2019 he said, \u2018do you think it possible that shadows are\nthrown there by any clefts or gullies, and from thence reach our sight,\nor do you not calculate what follows, and am I to tell you? Pray hear me\nout, though you know it all. The diameter of the moon shows an apparent\nbreadth of twelve fingers at her mean distance from us. Now, each of\nthose black shadowy objects appears larger than half a finger, and is\ntherefore more than a twenty-fourth part of the diameter. [Sidenote: E]\nVery well; if we were to assume the circumference of the moon to be only\nthirty thousand stades, and the diameter ten thousand, on that\nassumption each of these shadowy objects on her would be not less than\nfive hundred stades. Now, consider first whether it be possible for the\nmoon to have depths and eminences sufficient to cause a shadow of that\nsize. Next, if they are so large, how is it that we do not see them?\u2019\n\nAt this, I smiled on him and said, \u2018Well done, Apollonides, to have\nfound out such a demonstration! By it you will prove that you and I too\nare greater than the Aloades[349] of old, not [Sidenote: F] at any time\nof day, however, but in early morning for choice, and late afternoon;\nwhen the sun makes our shadows prodigious, and thereby presents to our\nsense the splendid inference, that if the shadow thrown be great, the\nobject which throws it is enormous. Neither of us, I am sure, has ever\nbeen in Lemnos, but we have both heard the familiar line,[350]\n\n              _Athos the Lemnian heifer\u2019s flank shall shade._\n\nFor the shadow of the cliff falls, it seems, on a certain brazen\n[Sidenote: 936] heifer over a stretch of sea of not less than seven\nhundred stades. Will you think then that the height which casts the\nshadow is the cause, forgetting that distance of the light from objects\nmakes their shadows many times longer? Now consider the sun at his\ngreatest distance from the moon, when she is at the full, and shows the\nfeatures of the face most expressly because of the depth of the shadow;\nit is the mere distance of the light which has made the shadow large,\nnot the size of the several [Sidenote: B] irregularities on the moon.\nAgain, in full day the extreme brightness of the sun\u2019s rays does not\nallow the tops of mountains to be seen, but deep and hollow places\nappear from a long distance, as also do those in shadow. There is\nnothing strange then if it is not possible to see precisely how the moon\ntoo is caught by the light, and illuminated, and yet if we do see by\ncontrast where the parts in shadow lie near the bright parts.\n\nXXIII. \u2018But here\u2019, said I, \u2018is a better point to disprove the alleged\nreflexion from the moon; it is found that those who stand in reflected\nrays, not only see the illuminated but also the illuminating body. For\ninstance, when light from water [Sidenote: C] leaps on to a wall, and\nthe eye is placed in the spot so illuminated by reflexion, it sees the\nthree objects, the reflected rays, the water which caused the reflexion,\nand the sun himself, from whom proceeds the light so falling on the\nwater and reflected. All this being granted and apparent, people require\nthose who contend that the earth receives the moon\u2019s light by reflexion,\nto point out the sun appearing in the moon at night, as he appears in\nthe water by day when he is reflected off it. Then, as he does not so\nappear, they suppose that the illumination is caused by some process\nother than reflexion, and that, failing reflexion, [Sidenote: D] the\nmoon is no earth.\u2019\n\n\u2018What answer then is to be given to them?\u2019 said Apollonides, \u2018for the\ndifficulty about reflexion seems to apply equally to us.\u2019 \u2018Equally no\ndoubt in one sense,\u2019 I answered, \u2018but in another sense not at all so.\nFirst look at the details of the simile, how \u201ctopsy turvy\u201d[351] it is,\nrivers flowing up stream! The water is below and on earth, the moon is\nabove the earth and poised aloft. So the angles of reflexion are\ndifferently formed; in the one case the apex is above in the moon, in\nthe other below on the earth. They should not then require that mirrors\nshould produce every image and like reflexions at any distance, since\n[Sidenote: E] they are fighting against clear fact. But from those like\nourselves who seek to show that the moon is not a fine smooth substance\nlike water, but heavy and earth-like, it is strange to ask for a visible\nappearance of the sun in her. Why, milk does not return such mirrored\nimages, nor produce optical reflexion, the reason being the unevenness\nand roughness of its parts. How can the moon possibly send back the\nvision off [Sidenote: F] herself as the smoother mirrors do? We know\nthat even in these, if any scratch or speck or roughness is found at the\npoint from which the vision is naturally reflected it is obscured; the\nblemishes are seen, but they do not return the light. A man who requires\nthat she should either turn our vision back to the sun, or else not\nreflect the sun from herself to us, is a humorist; he wants our eye to\nbe the sun, the image light, man heaven! That the reflexion of the sun\u2019s\nlight conveyed to the moon with the impact of his intense brilliance\nshould be borne back to us is reasonable enough, whereas our sight is\nweak and slight and merely fractional. What wonder if it deliver a\nstroke which has no resilience, or, if it does rebound, no continuity,\nbut is broken up and fails, having no store of light to make up for\ndispersion about the rough and uneven [Sidenote: 937] places. For it is\nnot impossible that the reflexion should rebound to the sun from water\nand other mirrors, being still strong and near its point of origin;\nwhereas from the moon, even if there are glancings of a sort, yet they\nwill be weak and dim, and will fail by the way because of the long\ndistance. Another point: concave mirrors return the reflected light in\ngreater strength than the original, and thus often produce [Sidenote: B]\nflames; convex and spherical mirrors one which is weak and dim, because\nthe pressure is not returned from all parts of the surface. You have\nseen, no doubt, how when two rainbows appear, one cloud enfolding\nanother, the enveloping bow shows the colours dim and indistinct, for\nthe outer cloud lying further from the eye does not return the reflexion\nin strength or intensity. But enough! Whereas the light of the sun\nreflected from the moon loses its heat entirely, and only a scanty and\nineffectual remnant of its brilliance reaches us, do you really think it\npossible that when sight has the double course to travel, [Sidenote: C]\nany remnant whatever should reach the sun from the moon? No! say I. Look\nfor yourselves\u2019, I went on. \u2018If the effects of the water and of the moon\non our sight were the same, the full moon ought to show us images of\nearth and plants and men and stars, as other mirrors do. If, on the\nother hand, our vision is never carried back on to these objects,\nwhether because of its own feebleness or of the roughness of the moon\u2019s\nsurface, then let us never demand that it should be carried by reflexion\non to the sun.\n\nXXIV. \u2018We have now\u2019, I said, \u2018reported all that was said then, and has\nnot escaped our memory. It is time to call on Sylla, or rather to claim\nhis story, as he was allowed to be a listener on terms. So, if it meet\nyour approval, let us cease our walk, and take our places on the benches\nand give him a seated [Sidenote: D] audience.\u2019 This was at once agreed,\nand we had taken our seats, when Theon said: \u2018I want as much as any of\nyou, Lamprias, to hear what is now to be said, but first I should like\nto hear about the alleged dwellers in the moon, not whether there are\nany such, I mean, but whether there can be; for if the thing is\nimpossible, then it is also absurd that the moon should be an earth; it\nwill appear that she has been created for no end or use, if she bears no\nfruit, offers no abode to human beings, no existence, no livelihood, the\nvery things for which we say that she has been created, in Plato\u2019s[352]\nwords, \u201cour nurse, and of [Sidenote: E] day and night the unswerving\nguardian and maker\u201d. You see that many things are said about this, some\nin jest, some seriously. For instance, that the moon hangs poised over\nthe heads of those who dwell beneath her, as if they were so many\nTantali; while as for those who dwell on her, they are lashed on like\nIxions by the tremendous speed. Yet hers is not a single motion, but, as\n[Sidenote: F] it is somewhere put, she is a Goddess of the Three Ways.\nShe moves in longitude over the Zodiac, in latitude, and in depth; one\nmovement is revolution, another a spiral, the third is strangely named\n\u201cAnomaly\u201d by scientific men, although there is nothing irregular or\nconfused to be seen in her returns to her stations. Therefore it is no\nwonder if a lion[353] did once fall on to Peloponnesus, owing to the\nvelocity; the wonder is that we do not see every day\n\n            _Fallings of men, lives trampled to the dust_,[354]\n\nmen tumbling off through the air and turning somersaults. Yet [Sidenote:\n938] it is ridiculous to raise a discussion about their remaining there,\nif they can neither come into being nor subsist at all. When we see\nEgyptians and Troglodytes, over whose heads the sun stands for the space\nof one brief day at the solstice and then passes on, all but shrivelled\nup by the dryness of the air around them, is it likely, I ask you, that\npeople in the moon can endure twelve summers in each year, the sun\nstanding plumb straight above them at every full moon? Then as to winds\nand clouds and [Sidenote: B] showers, without which plants can neither\nreceive nor maintain existence, it is out of the question to conceive of\ntheir being formed, because the surrounding atmosphere is too hot and\ntoo rare. For even here the highest mountain tops do not get our fierce\nand conflicting storms, the air being already in turmoil from its\nlightness escapes any such condensation. Or are we really to say that,\nas Athena dropped a little nectar and ambrosia into Achilles\u2019 mouth when\nhe was refusing nourishment, even so the moon, who is called and who is\nAthena,[355] feeds man by sending up ambrosia day by day, in which form\nold Pherecydes [Sidenote: C] thinks that the Gods take food! For as to\nthat Indian root, of which Megasthenes tells us that men, who neither\neat nor drink but are without mouths,[356] burn a little, and make a\nsmoke, and are nourished by the smells, how is it to be found growing\nthere if there is no rain on the moon?\u2019\n\nXXV. When Theon had finished: \u2018Well and kindly done,\u2019 I said, \u2018to unbend\nour brows by your witty argument; it makes us bold in reply, since we\nhave no very harsh or severe criticism to expect. It is a true saying\nthat there is little to choose between those who are vehemently\nconvinced in such matters and those who are vehemently offended at them\nand incredulous, and will not look quietly into the possibilities. To\nbegin, supposing that men do not inhabit the moon, it does not follow\n[Sidenote: D] that she has come into being just for nothing. Why, our\nearth, as we see, is not in active use or inhabited in her whole extent;\nbut a small part of her only, mere promontories or peninsulas which\nemerge from the abyss, is fertile in animals and plants; of the other\nparts, some are desert and unfruitful owing to storms and droughts,\nwhile most are sunk under the ocean. But you, lover and admirer of\nAristarchus that you are, do not attend to Crates and his reading:\n\n             _Ocean, the birth and being of us all,\n             Both men and Gods, covers the most of earth._[357]\n\n\u2018However, this is a long way from saying that all has been brought into\nbeing for nothing. The sea sends up soft exhalations, [Sidenote: E] and\ndelightful breezes in midsummer heat; from the uninhabited and icebound\nland snows quietly melt which open and fertilize all; earth stands in\nthe midst, in Plato\u2019s[358] words, \u201cunswerving guardian and maker of day\nand night\u201d. Nothing then prevents the moon too, though barren of animal\nlife, from allowing the light around her to be reflected and to stream\n[Sidenote: F] about, and the rays of the stars to flow together and to\nbe united within her; thus she combines and digests the vapours\nproceeding from earth, and at the same time gets rid of what is\nscorching and violent in the sun\u2019s heat. And here we will make bold to\nyield a point to ancient legend, and to say that she has been held to be\nArtemis, a maiden and no mother, but in other ways helpful and\nserviceable. For, surely, nothing which has been said, dear Theon,\nproves it to be impossible that she is inhabited in the way alleged. For\nher revolution is one very gentle and calm; which smoothes the air, and\nduly [Sidenote: 939] blends and distributes it, so that there is no fear\nof those who have lived there falling or slipping off her. If not this,\nneither are the changes and variety of her orbit due to anomaly or\nconfusion, but astronomers make us see a marvellous order and progress\nin it all, as they confine her within circles which roll around other\ncircles, according to some not herself stirring, according to others\nmoving gently and evenly and with uniform speeds. For these circles and\nrevolutions, and their relations to one another, and to us, work out\nwith very great accuracy the phenomena of her varying height and depth\nand her [Sidenote: B] passages in latitude as well as in longitude. As\nto the great heat and continuous charring caused by the sun, you will no\nlonger fear these if you will set against the [eleven][359] summer\nconjunctions the full-moons, and the continuity of the change, which\ndoes not allow extremes to last long, tempering both extremes, and\nproducing a convenient temperature, while between the two the\ninhabitants enjoy a climate nearly resembling our spring. In the next\nplace, the sun sends down to us, and drives home through her thick and\nresisting atmosphere, heat fed [Sidenote: C] by exhalations; but there a\nfine and transparent air scatters and distributes the stream of light,\nwhich has no body or fuel beneath it. As to woods and crops, here where\nwe live they are nourished by rains, but in other places, as far up as\nround your Thebes and Syene, the earth drinks water which comes out of\nherself, not from rain; it enjoys winds and dews, and would not, I\nthink, thank us for comparing it in fruitfulness with our own, even\nwhere the rainfall is heaviest. With us, plants of the same order, if\nseverely pinched by winter frosts, [Sidenote: D] bring forth much\nexcellent fruit, while in Libya, and with you in Egypt, they bear cold\nvery badly and shrink from the winters. Again, while Gedrosia, and\nTroglodytis which reaches down to ocean, are unproductive and treeless\nin all parts because of the drought, yet, in the adjacent and\nsurrounding sea, plants grow to a marvellous size and luxuriate in its\ndepths; some of these called \u201colive-trees\u201d, some \u201claurels\u201d, some \u201chair\nof Isis\u201d. But the \u201clove-come-back\u201d as it is called, if taken out of the\nearth, not only lives when hung up for as long as you please, but also\nsprouts. Some are sown close on [Sidenote: E] to winter, some in the\nheight of summer, sesame or millet for instance; thyme or centaury, if\nsown in a good rich soil and watered, changes its qualities and\nstrength; both rejoice in drought and reach their proper growth in it.\nBut if, as is said, like most Arabian plants, they do not endure even\ndews, but fade and perish when moistened, what wonder, I ask, if roots\nand seeds and trees grow on the moon which need no rains or snows, but\nare fitted by Nature for a light and summer-like atmosphere? Why, again,\nmay it not be probable that breezes ascend warmed by the moon and by the\nwhirl of her revolution, and that she is accompanied by quiet breezes,\nwhich shed dews and moisture around, and when [Sidenote: F] distributed\nsuffice for the grown plants, her own climate being neither fiery nor\ndried up, but mild and engendering moisture. For no touch of dryness\nreaches us from her, but many effects of moisture and fertility, as\nincrease of plants, putrefaction of flesh, turning of wine to flatness,\nsoftening of wood, easy delivery to women. I am afraid of stirring\nPharnaces to the fray [Sidenote: 940] again, now that he is quiet, if I\nenumerate as cases of restoring moisture the tides of the ocean (as his\nown school describes them), and the fillings of gulfs when their flood\nis augmented by the moon. So I will rather turn to you, dear Theon, for\nyou told us in explaining these words of Alcman,[360]\n\n               _Dew feeds them, born of Zeus and Lady Moon_,\n\nthat here he calls the atmosphere Zeus, and says that it is liquefied\nand turned into dew by the moon. Probably, my friend, her nature is\nopposite to the sun\u2019s, since not only does he naturally consolidate and\ndry things which she softens and [Sidenote: B] disperses, but she also\nliquefies and cools his heat, as it falls upon her from him, and mingles\nwith herself. Certainly they are in error who hold that the moon is a\nfiery and charred body; and those who require for animals there all the\nthings which they have here, seem to lack eyes for the inequalities of\nNature, since it is possible to find greater and more numerous\ndivergencies and dissimilarities between animals and animals than\nbetween them and the inanimate world. And grant that men without mouths\nand nourished on smells are not to be found\u2014I do not [Sidenote: C] think\nthey are\u2014, but the potency which Ammonius himself used to expound to us\nhas been hinted at by Hesiod[361] in the line\n\n                     _Nor yet in mallow and in asphodel\n                     How great the virtue._\n\nBut Epimenides made it plain in actual experience, teaching that Nature\nalways keeps the fire of life in the animal with but little fuel, for if\nit get as much as the size of an olive, it needs no more sustenance. Now\nmen in the moon, if men there be, are compactly framed, we may believe,\nand capable of being nourished on what they get; for the moon herself\nthey say, [Sidenote: D] like the sun who is a fiery body many times\nlarger than the earth, is nourished on the humours coming from the\nearth, as are the other stars too in their infinite numbers. Light, like\nthem, and simple in their needs, may we conceive those animals to be\nwhich the upper region produces. We do not see such animals, nor yet do\nwe see that they require a different region, nature, climate. Supposing\nthat we were unable to approach the sea or touch it, but merely caught\nviews of it in the distance, [Sidenote: E] and were told that its water\nis bitter and undrinkable and briny, and then some one said that it\nsupports in its depths many great animals with all sorts of shapes, and\nis full of monsters, to all of whom water is as air to us, he would seem\nto be making up a parcel of fairy tales; just so is it with us, it\nseems, and such is our attitude towards the moon, when we refuse to\nbelieve that she has men dwelling on her. Her inhabitants, I think, must\nwonder still more greatly at this earth, a sort of sediment and slime of\nthe universe appearing through damps, and mists, and clouds, a place\nunlighted, low, motionless; and must ask whether it breeds and supports\nanimals with motion, respiration [Sidenote: F] and warmth. And if they\nshould anyhow have a chance of hearing those lines of Homer:[362]\n\n                _Grim mouldy regions which e\u2019en Gods abhor_,\n\nand\u2014\n\n           _\u2018Neath hell so far as earth below high heaven_,[363]\n\nthey will say they are written about a place exactly such as this, and\nthat Hades is a colony planted here, and Tartarus, and that there is\nonly one earth\u2014the moon\u2014being midway between the upper regions and these\nlower ones.\u2019\n\nXXVI. I had scarcely finished speaking when Sylla broke in: \u2018Stop,\nLamprias, and shut the door on your oratory, lest you run my myth\naground before you know it, and make confusion of my drama, which\nrequires another stage and a different setting. Now, I am only its\nactor, but I will first, if you see no objection, name the poet,\nbeginning in Homer\u2019s[364] words: [Sidenote: 941]\n\n                 _Far o\u2019er the brine an isle Ogygian lies_,\n\ndistant from Britain five days\u2019 sail to the West. There are three other\nislands equidistant from Britain and from one another, in the general\ndirection of the sun\u2019s summer setting. The natives have a story that in\none of these Cronus has been [Sidenote: B] confined by Zeus, but that\nhe, having a son for gaoler,[365] has been settled beyond those islands\nand the sea, which they call the Gulf of Cronus. To the great continent\nby which the ocean is fringed is a voyage of about five thousand stades,\nmade in row-boats, from Ogygia, of less from the other islands, the sea\nbeing slow of passage and full of mud because of the number of streams\nwhich the great mainland discharges, forming alluvial tracts and making\nthe sea heavy like land, whence an opinion prevailed that it was\nactually frozen. The coasts of the mainland are inhabited by Greeks\nliving around a bay as large as the Maeotic, with its mouth nearly\nopposite that of the Caspian [Sidenote: C] Sea. These Greeks speak of\nthemselves as continental, and of those who inhabit our land as\nislanders, because it is washed all round by the sea. They think that\nthose who came with Hercules and were left behind by him, mingled later\non with the subjects of Cronus, and rekindled, so to speak, the Hellenic\nlife which was becoming extinguished and overborne by barbarian\nlanguages, laws, and ways of life, and so it again became strong and\nvigorous. Thus the first honours are paid to Hercules, the second to\nCronus. When the star of Cronus, called by us the Shining One, by them,\nas he told us, the Night Watcher, has reached Taurus again after an\ninterval of thirty years, having for a long time before made preparation\nfor [Sidenote: D] the sacrifice and the voyage, they send forth men\nchosen by lot in as many ships as are required, putting on board all the\nsupplies and stuff for the great rowing voyage before them, and for a\nlong sojourn in a strange land. They put out, and naturally do not all\nfare alike; but those who come safely out of the perils of the sea land\nfirst on the outlying islands, which are inhabited by Greeks, and day\nafter day, for thirty days, see the sun hidden for less than one hour.\nThis is the night, with a darkness which is slight and of a twilight\nhue, and has a light over it from the West. There they spend ninety\ndays, [Sidenote: E] meeting with honourable and kindly treatment, and\nbeing addressed as holy persons, after which they pass on, now with help\nfrom the winds. There are no inhabitants except themselves, and those\nwho have been sent before them. For those who have joined in the service\nof the God for thirty years are allowed to sail back home, but most\nprefer to settle quietly in the place where they are, some because they\nhave grown used to it, some because all things are there in plenty\nwithout pain or trouble, while their life is passed in sacrifices and\nfestivals, or given to literature or Philosophy. For the natural beauty\n[Sidenote: F] of the isle is wonderful, and the mildness of the\nenvironing air. Some, when they are of a mind to sail away, are actually\nprevented by the God, who manifests himself to them as to familiars and\nfriends, not in dreams only or by signs, for many meet with shapes and\nvoices of spirits, openly seen and heard. Cronus himself sleeps within a\ndeep cave resting on rock which looks like gold, this sleep being\ndevised for him by Zeus in place of chains. Birds fly in at the topmost\npart of the rock, and bear him ambrosia, and the whole island is\npervaded by the fragrance shed from the rock as out of a well. The\nspirits of whom we hear serve and care for Cronus, having been his\ncomrades in [Sidenote: 942] the time when he was really king over Gods\nand men. Many are the utterances which they give forth of their own\nprophetic power, but the greatest and most important they announce when\nthey come down as dreams of Cronus; for the things which Zeus\npremeditates, Cronus dreams, when sleep has stayed[366] the Titanic\nmotions and stirrings of the soul within him, and that which is royal\nand divine alone remains, pure and unalloyed. [Sidenote: B]\n\n\u2018Now the stranger, having been received here, as he told us, and serving\nthe God at his leisure, attained as much skill in astronomy as is\nattainable by the most advanced geometry; of other Philosophy he applied\nhimself to the physical branches. Then, having a strange desire and\nyearning to see \u201cthe Great Island\u201d (for so it appears they call our\nworld), when the thirty years were passed, and the relief parties\narrived from home, he said farewell to his friends and sailed forth,\ncarrying a complete equipment of all kinds, and abundant store of\nprovision for the way in golden beakers. All the adventures which befell\nhim, and all the men whose lands he visited, how he met with [Sidenote:\nC] holy writings and was initiated into all the mysteries, it would take\nmore than one day to enumerate as he did, well and carefully and with\nall details. Listen now to those which concern our present discussion.\nHe spent a very long time in Carthage.[367]... He there discovered\ncertain sacred parchments which had been secretly withdrawn when the\nolder city was destroyed, and had lain a long time in the earth\nunnoticed; and he said that of all the Gods who appear to us we ought\nspecially to honour the moon with all our substance (and so he charged\nme to do), because she was most potent in our life.\n\nXXVII. \u2018When I marvelled at this, and asked for clearer [Sidenote: D]\nstatements, he went on: \u201cMany tales, Sylla, are told among the Greeks\nabout the Gods, but not all are well told. For instance, about Demeter\nand Cora, they are right in their names, but wrong in supposing that\nthey both belong to the same region; for the latter is on earth, and has\npower over earthly things, the former is in the moon and is concerned\nwith things of the moon. The moon has been called both Cora and\nPersephone, Persephone because she gives light, Cora because we also use\nthe same Greek word for the pupil of the eye, in which the image of the\nbeholder flashes back, as the sunbeam is seen in the moon. In the\nstories told about [Sidenote: E] their wanderings and the search there\nis an element of truth. They yearn for one another when parted, and\noften embrace in shadow. And what is told of Cora, that she is sometimes\nin heaven and in light, and again in night and darkness, is no untruth,\nonly time has brought error into the numbers; for it is not during six\nmonths, but at intervals of six months, [Sidenote: F] that we see her\nreceived by the earth, as by a mother, in the shadow, and more rarely at\nintervals of five months; for to leave Hades is impossible to her, who\nis herself a \u2018bound of Hades\u2019, as Homer[368] well hints in the words,\n\n               _Now to Elysian plains, earth\u2019s utmost bound._\n\nFor where the shadow of the earth rests in its passage, there Homer\nplaced the limit and boundary of earth. To that limit comes no man that\nis bad or impure, but the good after death are conveyed thither, and\npass a most easy life, not, however, one blessed or divine until the\nsecond death.\u201d\u2018\n\nXXVIII. \u2018But what is that, Sylla?\u2019 \u2018Ask me not of these things, for I am\ngoing to tell you fully myself. The common [Sidenote: 943] view that man\nis a composite creature is correct, but it is not correct that he is\ncomposed of two parts only. For they suppose that mind is in some sense\na part of soul, which is as great a mistake as to think that soul is a\npart of body; mind is as much better a thing and more divine than soul,\nas soul is than body. Now the union of soul with body makes up the\npassion or emotion, the further union with mind produces reason; the\nformer is the origin of pleasure and pain, the latter of virtue and\nvice. When these three principles have been compacted, the earth\ncontributes body to the birth of man, the moon soul, the sun reason,\njust as he contributes her light to the moon. The death which we die is\nof two kinds; the one [Sidenote: B] makes man two out of three, the\nother makes him one out of two; the one takes place in the earth which\nis the realm of Demeter, and is initiation unto her,[369] so that the\nAthenians used in ancient times to call the dead \u201cDemetrians\u201d, the other\nis in the moon, and is of Persephone; Hermes is the associate on earth\nof the one, of the other in heaven. Demeter parts soul from body quickly\nand with force; Persephone parts mind from soul gently and very slowly,\nand therefore has been called[370] \u201cOf the Birth to Unity\u201d, for the best\npart of man is left in oneness, when separated by her. Each process\nhappens according to [Sidenote: C] Nature, as thus: It is appointed that\nevery soul, irrational or rational, when it has quitted the body, should\nwander in the region between earth and moon, but not all for an equal\ntime; unjust and unchaste souls pay penalties for their wrongdoings; but\nthe good must for a certain appointed time, sufficient to purge away and\nblow to the winds, as noxious exhalations, defilements from the body,\nwhich is their vicious cause, be in that mildest part of the air which\nthey call \u201cThe Meadows of Hades\u201d; then they return as from long and\ndistant exile back to their country, they taste [Sidenote: D] such joy\nas men feel here who are initiated, joy mingled with much amazement and\ntrouble, yet also with a hope which is each man\u2019s own. For many who are\nalready grasping at the moon she pushes off and washes away, and some\neven of those souls which are already there and are turning round to\nlook below are seen to be plunged again into the abyss. But those which\nhave passed above, and have found firm footing, first go round like\nvictors wreathed with crowns of feathers called \u201ccrowns of constancy\u201d,\nbecause they kept the irrational part of the soul obedient to the curb\nof reason, and well ordered in life. Then with countenance like a\nsunbeam, and soul borne lightly upwards by fire, as here, namely that of\nthe air about [Sidenote: E] the moon, they receive tone and force from\nit, as iron takes an edge in its bath; for that which is still volatile\nand diffuse is strengthened and becomes firm and transparent, so that\nthey are nourished by such vapour as meets them, and well did\nHeraclitus[371] say that \u201cSouls feed on smell in Hades.\u201d\n\nXXIX. First they look on the moon herself, her size, her beauty, and her\nnature, which is not single or unmixed, but as it were a composition of\nearth and star. For as the earth has become soft by being mixed with air\nand moisture, and as the blood infused into the flesh produces\nsensibility, so the moon, they say, being mingled with air through all\nher depth, is endowed with soul and with fertility, and at the same time\n[Sidenote: F] receives a balance, lightness set against weight. Even so\nthe universe itself, duly framed together of things having some an\nupward tendency, some a downward, is freed from all movement of place.\nThis Xenocrates apprehended, it would seem, by some divine reasoning,\nhaving received the suggestion from Plato. For it is Plato[372] who\nshowed that every star has been compounded of earth and fire by means of\nintermediate natures given in proportion, since nothing reaches the\nsenses into which earth and light do not enter. But Xenocrates says that\nthe stars and the sun are compounded out of fire and the [Sidenote: 944]\nfirst density, the moon out of the second density and her own air, and\nearth out of water, fire, and the third density; and that as an\nuniversal law, neither the dense alone nor the rarefied alone is capable\nof receiving soul. So much then for the substance of the moon. But her\nbreadth and bulk are not what geometricians say, but many times greater.\nThe reason why she but seldom measures the shadow of the earth with\n[three of] her own diameters, is not its smallness, but her heat,\nwhereby she increases her speed that she may swiftly pass through and\nbeyond the dark region, bearing from out it the souls of the good, as\nthey hasten and cry aloud, for being in the shadow they no longer hear\nthe harmony of heaven. At the same [Sidenote: B] time there are borne up\nfrom below through the shadow the souls of those who are to be punished,\nwith wailing and loud cries. Hence comes the widespread custom of\nclanking vessels of brass during eclipses, with a din and a clatter to\nreach the souls. Also the face, as we call it, terrifies them, when they\nare near, so grim and weird is it to their sight. Really it is nothing\nof the kind; but as our earth has gulfs deep and great, one here which\nstreams inwards towards us from the Pillars of Hercules, [Sidenote: C]\noutwards the Caspian, and those about the Red Sea, even such are those\ndepths and hollows of the moon. The largest of them they call the Gulf\nof Hecate, where the souls endure and exact retribution for all the\nthings which they have suffered or done ever since they became spirits;\ntwo of them are long, through which the souls pass, now to the parts of\nthe moon which are turned toward heaven, now back to the side next to\nearth. The parts of the moon toward heaven are called \u201cthe Elysian\nplain\u201d, those toward earth \u201cthe plain of Persephone Antichthon\u201d.\n\nXXX. \u2018However, the spirits do not pass all their time upon her, they\ncome down here to superintend oracles, take part [Sidenote: D] in the\nhighest rites of initiation and mysteries, become guardian avengers of\nwrongdoing, and shine forth as saving lights in war and on the sea. In\nthese functions, whatever they do in a way which is not right, from\nanger or to win unrighteous favour, or in jealousy, they suffer for it,\nbeing thrust down to earth again and imprisoned in human bodies. From\nthe better of them, the attendants of Cronus said that they are\nthemselves sprung, as in earlier times the Dactyli of Ida, the\nCorybantes [Sidenote: E] in Phrygia, the Trophoniades in Udora of\nBoeotia, and countless others in many parts of the inhabited world;\nwhose temples and houses and appellations remain to this day. Some there\nare whose powers are failing because they have passed to another place\nby an honourable exchange. This happens to some sooner, to others later,\nwhen mind has been separated from soul; the separation comes by love for\nthe image which is in the sun; through it there shines upon them that\ndesirable, beautiful, divine, and blessed presence for which all Nature\nyearns, yet in different ways. For it is through love of the sun that\nthe moon [Sidenote: F] herself makes her circuit, and has her meetings\nwith him to receive from him all fertility. That Nature which is the\nsoul remains on the moon, preserving traces and dreams of the former\nlife, and of it you may take it that it has been rightly said:\n\n            _Winged as a dream the soul takes flight away._[373]\n\nNot at the first, and not when it is quit of the body does this happen\nto it, but afterwards when it becomes deserted and solitary, set free\nfrom mind. Of all that Homer has told us I think that there is nothing\nmore divine than where he speaks of those in Hades:\n\n            _Next was I ware of mighty Hercules,\n            His ghost\u2014himself among the immortals dwells._[374]\n\nFor the self of each of us is not courage, nor fear, nor desire, any\nmore than it is a parcel of flesh and of humours; it is that whereby we\nunderstand and think. The soul being shaped by [Sidenote: 945] the mind\nand itself shaping the body and encompassing it upon all sides, stamps\nits form upon it, so that even if it is separated from both for a long\ntime, yet it possesses the likeness and the stamp, and is rightly called\nan image. Of these, the moon, as has been said, is the element, for they\nare resolved into her just as are the bodies of the dead into earth; the\ntemperate speedily, those who embraced a life of quiet and Philosophy;\nfor, having been set free by mind, and having no further use for the\npassions, they wither away. But of the ambitious, [Sidenote: B] and\nactive, and sensuous, and passionate, some are distracted as though in\nsleep, dreaming out their memories of life, as the soul of Endymion; but\nwhen their restless and susceptible nature starts them out of the moon\nand draws them to another birth, she does not suffer it, but draws them\nback and soothes them. For no trifling matter is it, nor quiet, nor\nconventional, when in the absence of mind, they get them a body by\npassionate endeavour; Tityi and Typhones, and that Typhon who seized\nDelphi and confounded the oracle there by insolence and force, came of\nsuch souls as these, deserted by reason, and left to the [Sidenote: C]\nwild wanderings of their emotional part. But in course of time the moon\nreceives even these unto herself and brings them to order; then, when\nthe sun again sows mind, she receives it with vital power and makes new\nsouls, and, thirdly, earth provides a body; for earth gives nothing\nafter death of what she received for birth; the sun receives nothing,\nsave that he receives back the mind which he gives, but the moon both\nreceives and gives, and compounds, and distributes in diverse functions;\nshe who compounds has Ilithyia for her name, she who distributes,\nArtemis. And of the three Fates Atropus has her station about the sun\nand gives the first impulse of generation; Clotho moving about the moon\ncombines and mingles, lastly Lachesis, upon the earth, lends her hand,\nand she has most to do with Fortune; for that which is without soul is\npowerless in itself and is affected by others, mind is free from\naffection and sovereign; soul a compound and a middle [Sidenote: D]\nterm, has, like the moon, been formed by the God, a blend and mixture of\nthings above and things below, and thus bears the same relation to the\nsun which the earth does to the moon.\u2019\n\n\u2018Such\u2019, said Sylla, \u2018is the story which I heard the stranger relate, but\nhe had it from the chamberlains and ministers of Cronus, as he himself\nused to say. But you and your friends, Lamprias, may take the story in\nwhat way you will.\u2019\n\n\n\n\n                                 NOTES\n\n\n(1) c. 1, 920 B. The opening of the Dialogue is abrupt; compare that of\n\u2018On the Instances of Delay in Divine Punishment\u2019. Many of the Symposiacs\nopen as abruptly, and there a former conversation is sometimes resumed\nby the same speakers. It seems not impossible that there had been a\nprevious Dialogue on the Face in the Moon, and, again, that the \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 preceded the _De Sera numinum Vindicta_.\n\nWyttenbach reads \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bc\u1ff7 for the MSS. \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bc\u1ff7, but suggests \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, which seems better. Sylla is not the author, but the depository,\nof the myth.\n\nFor \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03b9 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 he reads \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9 ...\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. The past indicative is required by the \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd which follows, the reference being to the previous discussion\n(see Introduction). The combination \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ae or \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9 is a frequent one.\nIf \u03b4\u03ae was altered to \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6, the further alteration of the verb would\nfollow. Sylla\u2019s language is nautical, as in c. 26, \u2018Did you really stop\nrowing, and back-water on to the received views?\u2019\n\n(2) c. 3. 921 A. _For our sight._ \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 is an old correction for \u1f34\u03c4\u03c5\u03c2 of\nthe MSS., and is required by the context.\n\n(3) c. 4. 921 C. _Equal in breadth and length._ Empedocles (Fr. 17, 20)\nhas a line\n\n               \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f34\u03c3\u03b7 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5.\n\nThis poetical quotation is introduced to indicate that the world is not\na mere point, but has sensible dimensions. In literal truth, the\nhabitable world was held to be twice as long as it was wide (i. e. N. to\nS.).\n\nThe words as to the earth occupying \u2018a point central to the sphere (i.\ne. orbit) of the moon\u2019 are quoted from the Second Hypothesis of\nAristarchus (see Introduction). It has been proposed (by Dr. Max Adler)\nto substitute the name of Clearchus for that of Hipparchus. But the\nquarrel of Lamprias is not with philosophers but with astronomers and\nmathematicians, represented by Apollonides and Menelaus. The greatest of\nthem is of absolute authority as to angles of reflexion, &c., not so\nwhen he propounds a physical theory of vision, which many find\nunsatisfactory. For the theory itself see the quasi-Plutarchean _De\nPlacitis_, 4, 13.\n\nFor the words \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bc\u1fbd (omitted in the translation),\nTurnebus proposed \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b5 \u039b\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, which is very attractive as to\nthe letters, but impossible, unless the text be wholly reconstructed,\nbecause Lamprias is himself the speaker.\n\nFor discrepancies between the mathematically correct theory of reflexion\nand its physical application see chapters 17 and 23.\n\n(4) c. 7, 924 B. _That segments of beams...._ The sense intended by the\ntranslation is this: A beam is sawn into two segments on the earth\u2019s\nsurface. The two segments, which at first are separated by a short\ninterval, move simultaneously towards the earth\u2019s centre, but in\nconverging, not parallel, lines, and jam each other long before they\nreach it. (This is suggested by Aristotle, _de Caelo_, 2, 14, 296 b 18.)\n\nFor \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 Dr. Purser suggests \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, which I have\nrendered; \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (Aristoph. Lysis. 1003), \u2018to crouch aside\u2019, seems\npossible.\n\n(5) c. 9, 925 B. Perhaps the line of Empedocles may run \u1f05\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f61\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76 (L. C. P.) \u03c7\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7 \u1f84\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n(6) c. 10, 925 E. The MSS. have \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd, for which Madvig (_Adv. Crit._, vol. i, p. 665) makes the\nadmirable correction: \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03c5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n(7) c. 14, 927 F. _The growth within._ I read \u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, which is\nsometimes confused with \u1f15\u03be\u03b9\u03bd. Cp. Ar. _Eth. N._ 3, 14, 149 b 4.\n\n(8) c. 19, 932 C. [_the moon ... bodies also_]. The words in brackets\nhave been supplied from the substance of the passage of Aristotle\nmentioned in the footnote.\n\n(9) c. 19, 932 C. Posidonius\u2019 definition is introduced because it\ncontains an admission that the moon casts a shadow, and is therefore an\nearthlike, not a starlike, body. It has been proposed to alter \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2\ninto \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1fb7, and the construction with \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 could be justified by\nPlatonic examples (see R. Kunze in _Rhein. Mus._ vol. 64, p. 635), but\nthe assumed corruption is improbable. E appears[375] to read \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 not \u1f27\u03c2;\nthe clause introduced by the relative seems to contain a limitation of\nthe phenomenon to \u2018those who experience the obscuration\u2019, i.e. those in\nthe track of the shadow over the earth\u2019s surface. In this case, the\nwords may either have come from a marginal gloss on \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, or\nshould be transposed with those words, as suggested by Dr. Purser. This\nwill be consistent with the account of a solar eclipse given by\nCleomedes (2, 3, p. 172), doubtless after Posidonius; it is not \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, whereas an eclipse of the moon\nis \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, irrespective of the place of the terrestrial\nobserver.\n\n(10) c. 24, 937 F. _A lion._ Kepler suggests that there was an old\nconfusion between \u03bb\u1fd6\u03c2, a lion, and \u03bb\u1fb6\u03c2, a stone.\n\n(11) c. 24, 938 C. _without mouths._ The MSS. have \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, but\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 is an old correction adopted by W. Pliny, _N. H._ 7, 2, 25,\nquotes Megasthenes for a mouthless people living near the sources of the\nGanges. See also M\u00fcller, _Fragm. Hist. Graec._ 2, 427 (Adler). For the\nnotion of living by smell cp. Heraclitus (Fr. 38).\n\n(12) c. 26, 941 A. This interesting passage should be read by the side\nof _De Defectu Oraculorum_, c. 18, p. 19 F (p. 135 above), which has a\nclose verbal resemblance, and is perhaps extracted from it (Adler).\nBriareus may have been named in the full text here, as the son of\nCronus. In Hesiod, _Theogon._ 147, he is the son of Uranus, and so\nEustathius on Hom. _Il._ 1, 403, but a little later on Eustathius\nmentions Cronus as his father on the authority of Arrian. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\n\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 of the MSS. is difficult. Adler would read \u0392\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f23\u03bd \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff3\u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Dr. Purser points out that the\nStraits of Gibraltar were first called the Pillars of Cronus, afterwards\nthe Pillars of Briareus, and lastly the Pillars of Hercules (_Schol. ad\nDionys. Perieg._ 64 in M\u00fcller\u2019s _Fragm. Hist. Gr._ 3, 640).\n\nI have followed the reading of Emperius \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff3\u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, but without\nmuch confidence. Cronus could not well, as Dr. Purser points out, have\nbeen _in_ one of the islands, and also _beyond_ it.\n\n(13) c. 26, 942 C. I venture to suggest that the text may have run\nsomething as follows:\n\n\u03a0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f45\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\n\nThe long sojourn of the stranger in Carthage would be explained if he\nowned mines there.\n\nIn the sequel \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd may perhaps stand for \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd and \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 for\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n408 F (p. 110, l. 19). \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. If\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2 stands, it should rather mean \u2018liable to take good faith (like\nan infection)\u2018, a very common use of the adjective and its adverb in\nPlutarch. See e. g. 661 B, 631 C. This seems rather a forced oxymoron\nhere. Wyttenbach doubted, and Madvig proposed \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2, a word said\nto be found in Themistius.\n\nOn the passage see J. H. W. Strijd in _Class. Rev._, xxviii, p. 219.\n\n\n                        Supplemental Notes 1918\n\n\n418 A (p. 132, above). ... \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (\u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5) \u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03a4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03a0\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03a4\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nI have followed Amyot, whose version is perhaps more intelligible than\nthe Latin, but involves the change of \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 to \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 (Turnebus) and the\ntransposition of Tempe and Thermopylae. If \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 can be retained, the\nreference will be to Dionysus and Apollo, the two gods connected with\nthe sanctuary (pp. 67, 138, &c.) and the purgation of the latter at\nTempe, commemorated by periodical rites. \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 appears to correspond\nmore closely to \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 above.\n\n926 C-D (pp. 271-2). \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd,\n\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f25\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. For \u03b4\u03b9\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd W.\nproposes \u03b4\u03b9\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. I have, with great hesitation, followed\nHerwerden\u2019s \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (Emperius \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1), as the substantive\nagrees with the participle, but the whole passage is difficult. \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 seems to be out of place (can \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc stand for something\nequivalent to \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 or to Madvig\u2019s \u1f00\u03b8\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc)?\n\nIn the paper mentioned on p. 54 Dr. Max Adler adduces an interesting\npassage from Maximus Tyrius (diss. 22, 6) closely parallel to this, as\nproving that Plutarch was drawing upon Posidonius. The participle\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 occurs.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  In c. 22 Apollonides is made to state the angular diameter of the moon\n  at 12 \u2018fingers\u2019, i. e. one degree.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  See Note (1), p. 309.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  See Note (2), p. 309.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  Arist. _Probl._ 12, 3.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  See Note (3), p. 309.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  See Aristarchus, _Magnitudes and Distances_, Hypothesis 2.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  See the Homeric _Hymn to Hermes_, 99-100, where the moon is the\n  daughter of Pallas (\u2018the Pallantean orb sublime\u2019, Shelley), cp. p.\n  294.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  As Homer, _Od._ 23, 330; 24, 539; Hesiod, _Theog._ 515.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  e. g. _Il._ 10, 394. Cp. Heraclides Ponticus, 15.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  _P. V._ 349.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  Fr. 88.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  W. reads \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (E has \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd), but renders by \u2018cieri\u2019.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  Fr. 733.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  See note (4), p. 310.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  Professor Henry Jackson has pointed out that the words form a\n  hexameter line. For the Greek word see p. 291. Its introduction here\n  is due to M. Bernardakis.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  Reading \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7, with Madvig.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  See note (5), p. 310.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n  \u03b1\u1f30\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 MSS.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n  Prop. 7.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n  See note (6), p. 310.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n  Cf. _Il._ 9, 63.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n  Reading \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 (Emperius, ap. Ed. Teub.), for \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n  See additional note, p. 312.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n  See e. g. _Tim._ 32 C.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n  _Theog._ 120, 195.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n  Pindar, Fr. 57: see p. 179.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n  Reading \u1f15\u03be\u03b5\u03b9, with Emperius.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n  See note (7), p. 310.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n  Reading \u1f80\u1f31\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, with Emperius.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n  Ion Chius, Fr. 57 (Nauck).\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n  Reading \u03b4\u03b9\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, with Madvig.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n  I have followed the paraphrase of the Greek words suggested by\n  Wyttenbach. For the physical facts see Ganot\u2019s _Physics_, 516.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n  _Timaeus_, 46 A-C (Plato does not discuss plane folding mirrors).\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n  Reading \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd for \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n  Kepler has supplied such a diagram (in his translation, p. 131).\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n  See p. 253.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n  Pindar, Fr. 107. Paean 9 (see _Oxy. Pap._ 1908, 841).\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n  _Od._ 20, 352 and 357; 14, 162; 19, 307.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n  Reading \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03bd for \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n  Prop. 17.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n  _De Caelo_, 2, 13, 293 b 20.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n  See note (8), p. 310.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n  See note (9), p. 310.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n  Reading \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 with Mr. W. R. Paton, see _Class. Rev._ vol.\n  26, p. 269.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n  Strictly speaking, both cases are of \u2018overtaking\u2019, but the results\n  follow as stated.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n  _Il._ 9, 212.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n  See Plato, _Phaedo_, 110 B-C.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n  _Od._ 311.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n  Soph. (_Lemnians_), Fr. 348.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n  \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd is due here to Meineke, ap. Ed. Teub., see p. 267.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n  _Tim._ 40 B.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n  See note (10), p. 311.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n  Aesch. _Suppl._ 937.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n  See p. 262 and note.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n  See n. (11), p. 311.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n  _Il._ 14, 246. The second line appears to have been added by Crates\n  and is not in our texts.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n  _Tim._ 40 C.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n  Kepler would read \u2018twelve\u2019.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n  Fr. 48.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n  _W. and D._ 41.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n  _Il._ 20, 64.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n  _Il._ 8, 16.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n  _Od._ 7, 244.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n  See n. (13), p. 311.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n  Reading \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f70\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3, with Madvig.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n  See n. (14), p. 312.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n  _Od._ 9, 563.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n  i. e. the words \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd are allied, see p. 215.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n  Plato, _Tim._ 31 B and end.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n  Fr. 38.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n  _Tim._ 31 B.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n  _Od._ 11, 222.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n  _Od._ 11, 600.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n  From a note made in 1910, which cannot at present (1916) be verified.\n\n\n\n\n                     NOTE ON THE MYTHS IN PLUTARCH\n\n\nThe three \u2018myths\u2019 which are found in these Dialogues are all avowedly\nPlatonic; they are introduced and dismissed in Platonic formulae, and\nmuch of the imagery is drawn from Plato. Yet the treatment is Plutarch\u2019s\nown, and the style, though dignified and elevated after his fashion,\nnever suggests an imitation of Plato which could only be parody. New\nmatter is brought in, mostly gleaned from the astronomy of his day. The\nmovements of the heavenly bodies have been an inspiration to later poets\nof verse and prose:\n\n                 _Minerva breathes on me, Apollo guides,\n                 And the nine Muses point me to the Bears._\n\nTo Plutarch the subject was rather one of earnest curiosity, as he turns\nto account the details and their theological application, read by him in\nthe philosophers of, or nearly of, his own age.\n\nThe purpose of the Platonic myth is to carry the argument beyond and\nabove the region of logic and analysis, into that of poetry and\nconstructive truth, upon matters where strict proof was impossible. The\nreader may be referred to Bishop Westcott\u2019s Essay on _Religious Thought\nin the West_, and to Professor J. A. Stewart\u2019s book on _The Myths of\nPlato_.\n\n(1) It will be convenient to look first into the myth of Thespesius in\nPlutarch\u2019s Dialogue _On the Instances of Delay in Divine Punishment_\n(see pp. 205-13 of this book). The motive is identical with that of the\nmyth of Er in the _Republic_, yet with a difference. Plato gives us an\nexperience from the world beyond death, granted to one who had been\ntaken for dead during several days, in order to carry to a higher plane\nhis argument for the victory here and hereafter of Justice over\nInjustice. Plutarch, as a moral teacher and \u2018physician of souls\u2019,\nconcerned to restore individuals who have fallen, and to keep the\nfalling on their feet, gives us the picture of \u2018The Rake Reformed\u2019,\ntaking an extreme instance of a vicious character restored to sanity by\nglimpses of penalties and of bliss beyond this life, in order to deter\nand encourage others under temptation. The name Aridaeus, changed to\nThespesius, \u2018The Divine\u2019, as an earnest of the reformation, reminds us\nof Ardiaeus the tyrant, in Plato. The language naturally falls into that\nof the Judgement-myth in the _Gorgias_. It is introduced by a similar\nform of words:\n\n\u2018Now listen while I tell you a very beautiful story (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) which you I\nthink will call a myth (\u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2), for all that I am about to say I wish to\nbe regarded as true\u2019 (Plato).\n\n\u2018I can tell you a story which I have lately heard, yet I hesitate lest\nit may appear to you a myth.... Let me first make good the \u201cprobability\u201d\nof my view, then we will start the myth, if myth indeed it be\u2019\n(Plutarch).\n\nThe details in Plutarch are fuller and grimmer, and the language, though\nsolemn, lacks the stately reticence of Plato. We are often reminded of\nwords and thoughts in the _Eumenides_ of Aeschylus. The celestial\nimagery is vague, and does not seem to suggest any special source more\nmodern than Plato. It has a general resemblance to a passage in the\n_Phaedo_ (c. 58, p. 109 D, E).\n\n\u2018We, dwelling in a hollow of the Earth, think that we dwell upon the\nEarth itself; and the air we call Heaven, and think that it is that\nHeaven wherein are the courses of the stars: whereas, by reason of\nweakness and sluggishness, we cannot go forth out of the air; but if a\nman could journey to the edge thereof, or having gotten wings could fly\nup, it would come to pass that even as fishes here which rise out of the\nsea do behold the things here, he, looking out, would behold the things\nthere, and if his strength could endure the sight thereof, would see\nthat there are the True Heaven, and the True Light, and the True Earth\u2019\n(Tr. J. A. Stewart).\n\nThe daemons are only mentioned as Ministers or Ushers in the\nafter-world; there is no threefold division of the man into body, soul,\nand mind, only one into body and soul; there is one reference to Delphi\nand its oracle, where a popular belief that Night and Apollo were\npartners is corrected. An attentive reading will bring out a resemblance\nof words and phrases to those familiar to us in the Sixth Book of the\n_Aeneid_, the subject of E. Norden\u2019s fruitful and convincing study.\n\n(2) The beautiful story of Timarchus, the young friend of Socrates\u2019 son,\nwho passed into a trance in the cave of Trophonius, and saw things of\nthe unseen world which were to be fully revealed to him three months\nlater, i. e. in actual death, comes into the Dialogue _On the Genius of\nSocrates_ (pp. 36-40) to explain the special correspondence during life\nbetween the God and those gifted souls who possess mind, and become\ndaemons or spirits after death. Here the three-fold division into body,\nsoul, and mind (see p. 303) is maintained. A practical application of\nthe myth is drawn by Theanor, the young Pythagorean visitor.\n\nAs the supposed Dialogue takes place in B. C. 378, we do not expect to\nfind in it the astronomy of Plutarch\u2019s day, though he would not have\nshrunk from any anachronism. The general imagery is again that of the\n_Phaedo_, but there is a sea on which circular bodies, the stars which\nare men\u2019s souls, float. The current which bears them is circular, yet\nnot completely circular, not ending in the point where it started, but\ndescribing a continuous spiral (just as the moon does with reference to\nthe earth\u2019s path). This sea is inclined to the middle and highest point\nof the firmament by \u2018a little less than eight-ninths of the whole\u2019. This\nis puzzling; it may suggest the inclination of the ecliptic to the\nequator, or, again, that of the Milky Way to the ecliptic. Doubtless\nsome explanation will be forthcoming. An interesting detail is \u2018Styx, a\nway to Hades\u2019, clearly the shadow in a lunar eclipse, since the moon\n\u2018only avoids Styx by a slight elevation, and is caught once in one\nhundred and seventy-seven secondary measures\u2019, the exact number of\nperiods of twenty-four hours contained in six lunar months, the normal\ninterval between two eclipses (see p. 286). \u2018Secondary measures\u2019 is a\ncurious expression, since Plutarch elsewhere (Plat. Quaest. 3, p. 1006\nE) calls periods of a day and a night \u2018the primary measures\u2019. It seems\nnot impossible that \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 here has replaced some word which the\nscribe could not make out, such as \u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. We have the four\nprinciples of birth and death, as in the _Face in the Moon_; only there\nClotho takes the moon for her sphere of office, and Lachesis the earth,\nhere Lachesis takes the moon, Clotho the sun, Atropus the \u2018unseen\u2019.\nNeither list agrees with the assignment of functions by Xenocrates (see\nthe end of Dr. M. Adler\u2019s Dissertation mentioned below).\n\n(3) Sylla\u2019s tale in the _Face in the Moon_ (pp. 299-308), a traveller\u2019s\nstory picked up in Carthage from one of those curious characters found\non the outer margin of the Greek world in whom Plutarch delighted, is\nbrought in with admirable dramatic fitness, shown in Sylla\u2019s eagerness\nto produce it at the very outset, in the preparation for it by the\nskirmish between Theon and Lamprias, and in the vivacity of the\nnarrative. It is dismissed with a Platonic formula:\n\n\u2018Such is the story which I heard the stranger relate.... But you and\nyour friends, Lamprias, may take the story in what way you will.\u2019\nCompare: \u2018I am persuaded, O Callicles, that these things that are told\nare true.... Perchance this shall seem to you an old wife\u2019s fable, and\nthou wilt despise it: well mightest thou despise it, if by searching we\ncould find out aught better and truer\u2019 (_Gorgias_, 526 D, 527 A). The\nastronomy of the myth is in the main that of the preceding Dialogue, and\nSylla shows considerable familiarity with Plato and also with\nXenocrates. It is perhaps noticeable how little interest Plutarch shows\nin geographical detail, contenting himself with such vague and\nantiquated views as sufficed for a setting to the story. He appears not\nto name Pytheas at all in the _Lives_, and only once (on a question of\nthe tides) in the _Moralia_.\n\nThe whole Dialogue has been the subject of a careful study by Dr. Max\nAdler of Vienna (_Dissertationes Vindobonenses_, 1910). Without entering\ninto his general view of the structure, we may observe that Dr. Adler\nseems to be very successful in establishing the close connexion between\nit and the Dialogue _On the Cessation of the Oracles_, which he is\nprobably right\u2014though he reserves the proofs\u2014in regarding as based upon\nit, and later in date. This comes out especially in the passages about\nthe captivity of Cronus (cp. p. 301 with pp. 135-6), and the argument\nabout \u2018the Middle\u2019 (cp. p. 270 with p. 144). He produces a happy\nquotation from Maximus Tyrius to establish beyond doubt that the source\nof an important passage about mind (pp. 271-2) was in Posidonius. His\ngeneral conclusion as to the myth, is that it too is in the main from\nPosidonius, and that when Plutarch draws upon Xenocrates, it is through\nPosidonius. The latter appears to have been a writer of great industry\nand encyclopaedic learning, quoted as an authority on matters of\nhistory, physical geography, and what we should now call anthropology;\nnot an original force in Philosophy, but successful in reconciling\nsystems and making them available for human needs; one the aim of whose\nlife-work was, in the words of one of his most recent exponents, _to\nmake men at home in the universe_ (_Stoics and Sceptics_, by Edwyn\nBevan, p. 98).\n\nAny one who will read Sylla\u2019s myth, with a good map of the moon\u2019s\nsurface before him, will be able to locate for himself the \u2018Gulf of\nHecate\u2019, and the long valleys leading to the Elysian plains, which, on\nher side remote from earth, enjoy diffused sunlight. There need be no\nidea of shafts or tunnels driven through the solid body of the moon.\n\nCicero\u2019s _Dream of Scipio_, written more than a century before\nPlutarch\u2019s Dialogue, and also drawn from Posidonius, will be found an\nadmirable companion piece, enforcing, in language of singular beauty and\nelevation, those duties to country and ancestors which find inadequate\nexpression in the Greek thought of the first century of our era.\n\n\n\n\n      NOTE ON THE PLURALITY OF WORLDS AND THE FIVE REGULAR SOLIDS\n\n\nThe opinion that our World, or universe, is not the only one in the\nWhole, is attributed, in general terms, to many of the early Greek\nphilosophers, notably to Anaximander. The exact meaning of a \u2018Cosmos\u2019,\nin this connexion, is perhaps not easy to fix. Aristotle is clear that\nthe circle of the fixed stars is one and constant, but the author of the\nStoical treatise on the Cosmos, found among his works, takes stars to be\na part of the (one) Cosmos. An earth, such as ours with her atmosphere\nand moon, is essential, and a sun, or access to sunlight, and perhaps\nsome planets. In the _Dream of Scipio_ our solar system, with the earth\nin its centre, is described with great distinctness as a unit in space.\nThe planets are always regarded as luminous points, stars somewhat out\nof place (see p. 268), possessing no definite magnitude or solid\nsubstance.\n\nIn theory the number of Cosmi might be infinite, but a shrinking from\nthe vague \u2018Infinity\u2019, in later times associated with the Epicureans, led\nPlato, for instance, to restrict the number to a possible five. That he\nbased this number upon that of the five regular solids may seem\nfanciful, but the solid angles and forms observed in crystals might\nreasonably suggest the hypothesis that the ultimate constituents of the\ncrust of the earth would be found in the most perfect solid structures\nknown to theory. In theory there is much that is attractive in these\nfive solids. To one coming fresh from a study of Plane Polygonal\nFigures, which exist in infinite number, and, when regular, approximate\nmore and more closely to the Plane Circle, it comes as a surprise to\nfind that, in the next higher degree, the number of solid bodies so\napproximating to the Sphere is five only. Again, it seems almost a\nparadox that, of these five, the nearest approximation to the Sphere is\nattained, not by the body with twenty fine faces, but by that which\nshews only twelve, and those comparatively blunted and unshapely\n(pentagons). It was perhaps from such considerations that the\nDodecahedron was held of special importance by the Pythagoreans. Plato\u2019s\nstudy of the several faces of these solids, as available for\nconstruction or reconstruction of a world, leaves nothing to be desired,\nassuming that a solid body can be built out of plane figures, an\nassumption which appears to belong to the same habit of thought as that\nwhich makes the point the square of unity, and the lineal measure\ncorresponding to the number two the first rectangle. As the pentagon\ndefies the analysis available for the equilateral triangle or for the\nsquare, the Dodecahedron remains over, a model or pattern of a\nstitch-work world, as viewed from outside (_Phaedo_ 110 B and _Timaeus_\n55 C; see also Burnet\u2019s _Early Greek Philosophy_, p. 341 foll.). It may\nnot be amiss to be reminded that Kepler, mathematician as well as\nastronomer, spent many toilsome years in the endeavour to arrange the\nmembers of our solar system upon a plan based on the five solids. \u2018If\nKepler went out \u201cto seek his father\u2019s asses\u201d, he found a kingdom, for it\nwas in the course of these speculations, and through them, that he\ndiscovered not only his own \u201cThird Law\u201d, but also the truth, overlooked\nby Copernicus, that the orbit of each planet lies in a plane which\npasses through the centre of the sun.\u2019 (Dreyer, _Planetary Systems_, p.\n410.)\n\nThe discussion of the plurality of worlds, in the modern sense, begins\nwith the very attractive work of Fontenelle, brought out, in its\noriginal form, in 1686, a year before Newton\u2019s _Principia_, being a\nseries of conversations between the Author and a witty and accomplished\nMarquise, as to the habitability of the several members of the solar\nsystem. The argument which followed is distinguished by many great\nnames, those of Newton himself, Bentley, Huyghens, the Herschels, Dr.\nChalmers, till it was brought to a head in the middle of the nineteenth\ncentury by Dr. Whewell and Sir David Brewster, writing respectively\nagainst and for the hypothesis. The subject was then one (as readers of\nAnthony Trollope will remember) upon which any one might be called upon\nto take a side in a London drawing-room. In more recent times interest\nhas been concentrated upon Mars, who now possesses the distinction of\nhaving two satellites. We are only concerned to invite the reader to\ncompare the religious argument addressed to the Stoics by Plutarch (p.\n142 foll.) with the religious argument drawn by Dr. Chalmers and Sir\nDavid Brewster from the enrichment of the providential scheme for man\nupon our earth which would follow the conception of other earths\ntenanted by other beings perhaps of a higher order.\n\nBut it is natural that any such speculation should begin with the moon,\nand in fact we find the question of her habitability discussed by Theon\nand by Lamprias (pp. 293-9). With the later treatises on this subject,\nbeginning with Lucian\u2019s witty flight of fancy, we are not concerned. But\nan exception must be made for the very able works of Savinien de Cyrano,\nknown to us as Cyrano de Bergerac, whose _Histoire comique des \u00c9tats et\nEmpires de la Lune_ appeared, probably, in 1650, and was followed by a\nsimilar work about the sun. Cyrano appears to be familiar with Plutarch:\nthus he meets in the moon the \u2018daemon of Socrates\u2019, who has also been\nthe tutelary spirit of Epaminondas, of Cato of Utica, and of Brutus. The\nidea (due in the first place to Heraclitus) of being fed on smells, is\nworked out with much vivacity. But with so original and daring a writer,\nit is not quite easy to settle how much is due to any hint from others\nand how much to himself. A modern reader will not need to be reminded\nthat Cyrano was not a person of whom it was wise to give an outspoken\nopinion in his lifetime. But I had wished to speak with nothing but\nrespect of a man of real learning and genius, who, from whatever cause,\ndid not bring to perfection any work worthy of himself.\n\nSee, on the general subject, an Essay by the late Professor Henry J. S.\nSmith in _Oxford Essays_, 1855.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX\n     OF PERSONS AND PLACES MENTIONED BY PLUTARCH IN THESE DIALOGUES\n\n\n\u00b6 In this Index the Greek spelling of ei (Lat. \u012b) has been usually\nretained.\n\nAll dates are B. C. unless otherwise stated.\n\nThe dates are often approximate and conventional.\n\nOther numerals refer to pages of this volume.\n\nFor the speakers in each Dialogue see that Dialogue _passim_ and the\nIntroductions.\n\n(The \u2018Three Pythian Dialogues\u2019 are quoted under that designation See p.\n52.)\n\n A.\n\n Academy, Academic, the School founded by Plato in \u2018the most beautiful\n    suburb of Athens\u2019 (Thuc. ii. 34), 65, 104, 178, 264.\n\n Acanthus, Acanthian, a town of the Chalcidice, 94, 95.\n\n Achaeans, 102.\n\n Achaeus, 95.\n\n Ach\u0115ron, a river of the lower world, 227.\n\n Achilles, 294.\n\n Adm\u0113tus, king of Pherae in Thessaly, and husband of Alcestis, 132.\n\n Ad\u014dnis (\u2018Gardens of Adonis\u2019 were cut flowers planted in pots), 199.\n\n Adrasteia, a name for Nemesis, \u2018the unescapable\u2019, 207.\n\n Aeg\u012bna, an island in the Saronic Gulf, opposite to Athens, 99.\n\n Aegon, 85.\n\n Aegos Potami, a river, and in later times a town, in the Chersonese,\n    famous for the sea-battle of 405, in which Lysander defeated the\n    Athenian fleet, 88.\n\n Aemili\u0101nus, a rhetorician, 134, 135.\n\n Aeolian, 121.\n\n Aeol\u012ddae, 132.\n\n Aeschylus, tragic poet of Athens, (525-456), 67, 132, 162, 265.\n\n Aesop of Samos, writer of fables (fl. 570), a freedman of Iadmon of\n    Samos, 94, 192.\n\n Aetna, Mount, in Sicily, 271.\n\n Aetolians, 92.\n\n Agamemnon, 125, 230.\n\n Agath\u014fcl\u0113s, 193.\n\n Ag\u0101v\u0113, daughter of Cadmus, and mother of Pentheus, 226.\n\n Agenor\u012ddas, 13.\n\n Agesianax (or Hegesianax), a poet, probably of Alexandria, third\n    century, 260, 261.\n\n Agesila\u00fcs II, the lame king of Sparta, reigned 398-361 (see his _Life_)\n    11, 13, 91.\n\n Aglaon\u012bc\u0113, 130.\n\n Agla\u014fphon, 166.\n\n Agrigentum (Acragas), a town on the south coast of Sicily, 184.\n\n A\u00efdoneus (Hades), 77.\n\n Ajax, 193, 230.\n\n Alcaeus, of Lesbos, lyric poet (fl. 600), 118.\n\n Alcibi\u0103des 450-404, Athenian politician, 19, 183.\n\n Alcman, lyric poet of Sparta (fl. 630), 297.\n\n Alcm\u0113na, wife of Amphitryon and mother of Hercules; (on her sanctuary,\n    in a grove near Thebes, see Pausan. ix. 16. 4), 11, 12, 13.\n\n Al\u0115\u00fcs, 12.\n\n Alexander, the Great, 95, 192, 233.\n\n Alexis, of Thurii, poet of the so-called \u2018Middle Attic Comedy\u2019, fourth\n    century, 137.\n\n Alo\u0103des, Otus and Ephialtes, giant sons of Iphimedeia, wife of Aloeus\n    (_Od._ xi. 307 foll., and _Il._ v. 385), 289.\n\n Alop\u0115cus, 109.\n\n Alph\u0113\u00fcs, a river of Arcadia and Elis, 160.\n\n Alyattes, king of Lydia and father of Croesus (d. 560), 96.\n\n Alyrius, 100.\n\n Am\u0113stris, 235.\n\n Ammon, the temple of Zeus Ammon in an oasis of the Libyan Desert to the\n    N.W. of Egypt, 117, 120.\n\n Ammonius, an Athenian philosopher of the first century A. D., the\n    instructor of Plutarch. A speaker in the First and Third Pythian\n    Dialogues. _See also_ 298, and cp. Sympos. 3, 1, 2; 8, 3; 9, 1, 2,\n    5, 14; and _Life of Themistocles_, end.\n\n Amphiara\u00fcs of Argos, prince and seer, who accompanied the Seven\n    Chieftains against Thebes, and was swallowed up by the earth there,\n    121.\n\n Amphictyons, \u2018Dwellers around\u2019, whose council met at Thermopylae and at\n    Pylaea, a suburb of Delphi, 95, 110.\n\n Amphil\u014fchus, son of Amphiara\u00fcs, worshipped at Malli in Cilicia, 163,\n    205.\n\n Amph\u012bon, the district of Thebes between the rivers Strophia and Ismenus\n    (Pausan. ix. 16 and 17), 10.\n\n Amphipolis, a town of Macedon on the Strymon, taken by Brasidas in 424,\n    175 _n._\n\n Amphithe\u00fcs, a Theban patriot, imprisoned by the Polemarchs, 11, 29, 43,\n    50.\n\n Amphitryon, father of Hercules, 13.\n\n Anactorium, a town and promontory of Acarnania, 184.\n\n Anaxagoras, 499-427, a philosopher of Clazomenae in Ionia, 71, 165,\n    231, 277, 283.\n\n Andoc\u012ddes, 16.\n\n Androcleidas, a Theban patriot, assassinated when a refugee in Athens,\n    46.\n\n Antichthon, 306.\n\n Antig\u014fnus, younger son of Demetrius Sot\u0113r, king of Syria (d. 125), 204.\n\n Antipater, son of Cassander, king of Macedon, succeeded his brother\n    Philip, and was himself murdered, 198.\n\n Antiphon, 18.\n\n Aphrodit\u0113, goddess of love, 189, 232, 272.\n\n Apollo, 59, 62, 67, 68, 73, 76, 77, 78, 88, 93, 94, 96, 99, 121, 132,\n    146, 160, 161, 170, 193, 210, 232.\n\n Apollocrates, son of Dionysius the younger, of Syracuse (d. 354), 198.\n\n Apollod\u014drus, tyrant of Cassandria (Potidaea) from 379, 189, 191.\n\n Apollonia, a town in Illyria founded from Corinth, 184.\n\n Apollonia, a town in Pisidia, 96.\n\n Apollonides, a speaker in the _Face in the Moon_. \u1f41 \u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (_Sympos._\n    3, 4).\n\n Arabia, 297.\n\n Arcadia, Arcadians, 176.\n\n Arc\u0115sus, Lacedaemonian Harmost, 29, 51.\n\n Arc\u0115sus, of Sicily, 22.\n\n Archela\u00fcs, king of Macedon, 413-399, friend and host of Euripides, 59.\n\n Archias, of Athens, the priest, 47.\n\n Archias, of Thebes. A member of the oligarchical party, and made a\n    Polemarch by Sparta, 8, 10, 29, 32, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50.\n\n Archid\u0101mus, an Athenian, 6, 7, 8, 44, 45, 47.\n\n Archil\u014fchus, 714-676, of Paros, lyric and iambic poet, 63, 199, 230,\n    282.\n\n Arch\u012bnus, 7.\n\n Arch\u0233tas of Tarentum, mathematician and statesman, fl. 300 (see _Life\n    of Marcellus_, c. 14), 14 _n._, 181.\n\n Argos, Argive, 85, 186.\n\n Aridaeus, 206.\n\n Aristarchus of Samos, astronomer and physicist (310-230), 98, 264, 269,\n    283.\n\n Aristarchus, critic, of Samothrace and Alexandria (fl. 156), 295.\n\n Aristocr\u0103tes, king of Arcadia (stoned to death 668), 176.\n\n Aristod\u0113mus, king of Messenia (d. 723), 229, 230.\n\n Ariston, 186, 195.\n\n Ariston\u012bca, 104.\n\n Aristotle, 384-322, founder of the Peripatetic School at Athens, 69,\n    84, 88, 143, 162, 283, 318.\n\n Aristotle (see p. 255), a Peripatetic, who takes part in the Dialogue\n    on the _Face in the Moon_.\n\n Aristyllus, an astronomer (fl. 233), 98.\n\n Arn\u0113, a town in Thessaly, 158.\n\n Ars\u0103lus, 138, 139.\n\n Art\u0115mis, 146, 230, 232, 262, 295, 308.\n\n Artemisium, on the north coast of Euboea, where the Greek fleet\n    defeated that of Xerxes in 480, 183.\n\n Asclepius (Aesculapius), 185.\n\n Assyrians, 288.\n\n Asterium, 92.\n\n Ath\u0103mas, 190, 226.\n\n Athena (Pallas Athene), 16, 50, 102, 139, 193, 262, 294.\n\n Athens, Athenian, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 23, 40, 47, 49, 62, 65, 88, 95, 96,\n    99, 177, 183, 185, 195, 196, 197, 229, 303.\n\n Atlas, a giant son of Iap\u0115tus and brother of Prometheus, identified\n    with a mountain in NW. Africa, 65, 265.\n\n Atr\u014fpus, 37, 308, 315.\n\n Att\u012dca, 162.\n\n Augeas, king of the Epeans; slain for bad faith by Hercules, and\n    succeeded by Phyleus, 204.\n\n Ausonius, a Latin poet of Bordeaux (A.D. 310-90), 127 _n._\n\n Autolycus, son of Hermes, and grandfather of Ulysses, famed for his\n    cunning, 185.\n\n\n B.\n\n Bacchus, 209.\n\n Bacchyl\u012ddas, 20.\n\n Bacis, an ancient Boeotian seer, connected in story with the Corycian\n    cave, 90.\n\n Bakerwoman, the, 96.\n\n Basilocles, a speaker in the introductory part of the Second Pythian\n    Dialogue.\n\n Battus, of Thera, founder of Cyrene (see Herod. 4, 150 foll.), 103,\n    108.\n\n Bessus, 186.\n\n Bias, sixth century; of Pri\u0113n\u0113 in Ionia; one of the Seven Wise Men, 61.\n\n Bion, a Scythian philosopher and wit of the third century, 86, 201,\n    229.\n\n Boeotia, 7, 9, 50, 65, 120, 194, 306.\n\n Bo\u0113thus, a young geometrician and Epicurean (probably an Athenian), a\n    speaker in the Second Pythian Dialogue (cp. _Sympos._ 5, 1 and 8,\n    3).\n\n Branch\u012ddae, 193.\n\n Bras\u012ddas, the Spartan general (d. 422), 94, 95, 175.\n\n Bri\u0103reus, 135, cf. 299.\n\n Britain, Briton, 117, 133, 261, 299.\n\n Byzantium, 189.\n\n\n C.\n\n Cabir\u012dchus, 48.\n\n Cadmeia, the citadel of Thebes, 8, 10, 12, 30, 51.\n\n Cadmus, the founder of Thebes, 87.\n\n Caesar, the Emperor Augustus (63-A.D. 14), 62.\n\n Calig\u016dla, 233.\n\n Callias, a rich Athenian, see the _Symposium_ of Xenophon and the\n    _Protagoras_ of Plato, 95.\n\n Callippus, 185.\n\n Callistr\u0103tus, of Athens, 49.\n\n Callistratus, archon of Delphi, 117.\n\n Calondas, 199.\n\n Capheisias, of Thebes, son of Polymnis and brother of Epaminondas; the\n    chief speaker in the First Pythian Dialogue.\n\n Caria, 13.\n\n Carthage, Carthaginian, 91, 183, 184, 302, 316.\n\n Carystus, on the S. coast of Euboea, noted for its marble and asbestos,\n    162.\n\n Caspian Sea, supposed until Ptolemy to be an inlet of Ocean, though\n    Herodotus describes it as an inland water (1, 202-3), 300, 305.\n\n Cassander, 354-297, king of Macedon, began the restoration of Thebes in\n    315: 184, 197.\n\n C\u0115b\u0113s, of Thebes, a companion of Socrates (see the _Critias_ and\n    _Phaedo_ of Plato), 17, 35.\n\n Cecrops, 182.\n\n Cephisod\u014drus, 45, 47, 49.\n\n Chaereas, 233.\n\n Chaer\u0113mon, an Athenian tragic poet (fl. 380), 104.\n\n Chaeroneia, in Boeotia, on the borders of Phocis; Plutarch\u2019s native\n    town, 35, 121.\n\n Chaldaeans, 62.\n\n Charillus, 17.\n\n Charon, a Theban patriot, 8, 9, 28, 29, 30, 32, 44, 45, 47.\n\n Charybdis, 218.\n\n Cheiron, the Centaur, instructor of Achilles, 65.\n\n Chersonese, the Thracian, 183.\n\n Chilon, one of the Seven Wise Men, 61.\n\n Chios, 275.\n\n Chius, 108.\n\n Chlidon, 31, 44.\n\n Cleanthes, a Stoic philosopher, b. 300, at Assos in the Troad, 264.\n\n Clearchus, a Peripatetic philosopher of Soli, pupil of Aristotle, 260,\n    262.\n\n Chon\u016bphis, 13.\n\n Chrysippus (280-207), the Stoic philosopher, born at Soli in Cilicia,\n    134, 146, 147.\n\n Cilicia, 163, 205.\n\n Cimmerians, 231.\n\n Cimon, 183, 195.\n\n Cinaethon, 107.\n\n Cin\u0113sias, dithyrambic poet of Athens (fl. 400), 232.\n\n Cithaeron, the mountain range between Attica and Boeotia, 8, 43.\n\n Clazom\u0115nae, a city in Ionia, 39.\n\n Cleander, of Aegina, 99.\n\n Cleisth\u0115nes, of Sicyon, 185.\n\n Cleobul\u012bn\u0113, 95.\n\n Cleob\u016blus, tyrant of Lindus in Rhodes, sixth century. One of the Seven\n    Wise Men, 61.\n\n Cleombr\u014ftus, of Lacedaemon, a speaker in the Third Pythian Dialogue.\n\n Cleon, of Daulia, 169.\n\n Cle\u014dnae, a city in the Peloponnesus, 94, 185.\n\n Cleon\u012bc\u0113, 189.\n\n Cleot\u012bmus, 99.\n\n Clio, the Muse of History, 97.\n\n Clotho, one of the Fates, 37, 308, 315.\n\n Clytaemn\u0113stra, 188.\n\n Cnidus, a city of Caria, 14, 88, 122.\n\n Conon, 7.\n\n Copreus, 185.\n\n Cora (Persephone), daughter of Demeter, 302.\n\n Corax, 199.\n\n Corc\u0233ra, Corcyrean, 193.\n\n Cor\u0113tas, 161, 165.\n\n Corinth, 51, 61, 83, 92, 94, 95, 224.\n\n Cor\u014dn\u0113 (Crow), 122.\n\n Corybantes, priests of Cybele, 306.\n\n Corycium, the Corycian cave, on the slopes of Parnassus, 7-1/2 miles\n    NE. of Delphi, and 3,500 feet above it (Pausanias x. 32, 2), 82.\n\n Cosmos, i. e. Apollo, 67.\n\n Crates, a Cynic philosopher (fl. 328), 94, 95.\n\n Crates, a critic, of Pergamos (born at Mallus in Cilicia, fl. 155),\n    295.\n\n _Cratylus_, a Dialogue of Plato, on etymology, 71.\n\n Crete, 131, 200.\n\n Cret\u012bnus, 108.\n\n Critias, of Carthage, 234.\n\n Croesus, king of Lydia, d. 540 (see Herod. 1-3), 96, 192.\n\n Cr\u014fnus (Saturn), father of Zeus, 135, 138, 183, 235, 299, 300, 301,\n    306, 308.\n\n Crot\u014dna, a Greek colony in southern Italy, 21.\n\n _Cyclops_, a satyric play of Euripides, 164;\n   and see 193.\n\n Cydias, an early poet, 282.\n\n Cydnus, a river of Cilicia, 160.\n\n Cylon, Cylonians, 21, 22.\n\n Cym\u00e9 (Cumae), a city on the coast of Campania, 90.\n\n Cyps\u0115lus, of Corinth, tyrant 655-625, father of Periander, 94.\n\n Cyz\u012dcus, a city of Mysia, 14.\n\n\n D.\n\n Dactyli, workers in iron, &c., of Mt. Ida in Phrygia, 306.\n\n Da\u00efphantus, 194.\n\n Damocleidas, 43, 47.\n\n Daulia, a town of Phocis, 169.\n\n Deinom\u0115nes, of Syracuse, 99.\n\n Delium in Boeotia, battle of, 424 (see _Life of Alcibiades_, c. 7, and\n    Plato, _Apol._ 28, and _Sympos._ 221 A).\n\n D\u0113los, an island in the Aegean, sacred to Apollo, 13, 14, 60, 63, 77,\n    121.\n\n Delphi, 60, 62, 67, 85, 94, 101, 110, 117, 121, 132, 138, 161, 165,\n    185, 192, 196, 210, 307.\n\n D\u0113m\u0113t\u0113r, 29, 302, 303.\n\n Demetrius, a speaker in the Third Pythian Dialogue.\n\n Demetrius, king of Macedon 294-287 (Poliorc\u0113t\u0113s), 204.\n\n Democr\u012dtus, a philosopher, of Abd\u0113ra in Thrace (460-361), 134, 277.\n\n Diag\u014fras, of Melos, a disciple of Democritus (fl. 420), 234.\n\n Di\u00ebs (plural of Zeus), 146.\n\n Dicaearcheia, the old name of Pute\u014fli, a city on the coast of Campania,\n    90, 211.\n\n Dicaearchus, a Peripatetic philosopher and writer on questions of\n    literary history, contemporary with Aristotle, 59.\n\n\n Didymus, a Cynic philosopher (nicknamed Planeti\u0103des), takes part in the\n    opening of the Third Pythian Dialogue.\n\n Diogenianus, a speaker in the Second Pythian Dialogue. For his father,\n    of the same name, cp. _Sympos._ 7, 7 and 8, 1, 2, 9.\n\n Di\u014fmede, 102.\n\n Dion of Syracuse (d. 356), see his _Life_, by Plutarch, 186.\n\n Dionysius, the Elder, 430-367, tyrant of Syracuse, 184, 197.\n\n Dion\u0233sus (or Bacchus), the wine-god, born at Thebes, 67, 68, 138, 139,\n    209.\n\n Diot\u014fnus, 45.\n\n Dirc\u0113, daughter of Helios, wife of Lycus, whose sons by Antiope,\n    Amphion and Zethus, slew her and threw her body into a well at\n    Thebes. The Fountain of Dirce was near the Crenaean Gate, 12.\n   R. Dirce was the westernmost of the three Theban streams.\n\n Dolon, 132.\n\n Dorian, Doric, 138, 140.\n\n Dryus, 138.\n\n\n E.\n\n Earth (temple of, at Delphi), 97.\n\n Echecr\u0103t\u0113s, a \u2018prophet\u2019 of Tegyra, 121.\n\n Echin\u0103d\u0115s, islands off the coast of Acarnania, 134.\n\n Egypt, Egyptian, 11, 13, 14, 93, 117, 126, 140, 154, 184, 235, 283,\n    293, 296.\n\n Elis, Elean, a state of the Peloponnesus, 94.\n\n Ellopion, 13.\n\n Elysian, 302, 306, 317.\n\n Empedocles of Agrigentum, philosopher and poet (fl. 444), 16, 93, 98,\n    133, 134, 137, 235, 259, 263, 269, 272, 274, 278, 287.\n\n Endymion, 307.\n\n Epameinondas, son of Polymnis, brother of Capheisias, and friend of\n    Pelopidas (fell at Mantineia 362), 1, 6, 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24,\n    25, 27, 28, 32, 40, 43, 50.\n\n Epicharmus, of Cos and Syracuse, writer of philosophical comedies\n    (540-450), 196.\n\n Epic\u016brus, of Samos, 342-270, philosopher and founder of the School of\n    \u2018The Garden\u2019 at Athens, and Epicureans, 86, 87, 89, 92, 136, 137,\n    146, 163, 262.\n   A modern \u2018Epicurus\u2019 is introduced into the Dialogue on the _Delays in\n      Divine Punishment_, but leaves before its beginning.\n\n Epic\u0233d\u0113s, 191.\n\n Epidaurus, a town and state next to Argolis, 99.\n\n Epimen\u012ddes, of Phaestus in Crete, a poet and prophet (fl. 600), 117,\n    298.\n\n Epitherses, 134.\n\n Er\u0115bus, 230.\n\n Er\u0115sus, a city of Lesbos, 140.\n\n Eretria, a city on the west coast of Euboea, 96.\n\n Erianthes, 29.\n\n Erid\u0103nus, the river Po, 193.\n\n Erinnys, the, 207.\n\n Eriph\u0233l\u0113, 186.\n\n Er\u014ds (Love), 272.\n\n Erythrae, an Ionian city, 95, 99.\n\n Ethiopia, 196, 204, 222, 265.\n\n Euboea, 162.\n\n Eudoxus, of Cnidus, 408-355, astronomer and mathematician, and founder\n    of the School of Cyzicus, 14, 97, 98.\n\n Eum\u0113tis, 95.\n\n Eumolp\u012ddas, 10.\n\n Euripides, 485 (or 480)-405, the Athenian tragedian, 59, 70, 78, 104,\n    107, 129, 156, 159, 160, 164, 176, 177, 178, 192.\n\n Eurycleis, 126.\n\n Eurym\u0115don, a river in Pamphylia; in 469 Cimon defeated the Persians on\n    its banks, 183.\n\n Eustr\u014fphus, a speaker in the First Pythian Dialogue.\n\n Euthyphron, a disciple of Socrates (see the Dialogue of Plato which\n    bears his name), 16, 17.\n\n\n F.\n\n Fates, the, 37, 61, 308.\n\n Fortune, 89, 90.\n\n\n G.\n\n Galaxid\u014drus, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 32, 43.\n\n Galaxius, in Boeotia, 110.\n\n Gauls, 222, 234.\n\n Gedrosia, a district on the Indus and Indian Ocean (SE. part of\n    Beloochistan), 296.\n\n Gelon, tyrant of Syracuse (d. 478), 99, 182.\n\n Getae, 190.\n\n Giants, 235.\n\n Glauc\u00e9, 87.\n\n Glaucus, 191, 230.\n\n Gorgias, of Leontini, 480-398, teacher of rhetoric (see the _Gorgias_\n    of Plato), 22, 137.\n\n Gorg\u012ddas, 8, 12, 43, 50.\n\n Great Mother, the (Cybele), 107.\n\n Great Year, the, 138.\n\n Guides, the, of the temple and treasures of Delphi, apparently two in\n    number, 83, 85, 88, 94, 96.\n   Cp. _Sympos._ 5, 3, and 8, 4.\n\n Gullies, the (cp. Rhetiste), 19.\n\n Gyrean, cape, 230.\n\n\n H.\n\n H\u0101d\u0113s, 37, 38, 225, 235, 299, 302, 304, 307.\n\n Haliartus, a town of Boeotia on Lake Copa\u00efs, 15 miles NW. of Thebes,\n    11, 12, 109.\n\n Hamadryads, 127.\n\n Hec\u0103te, 130, 305, 317.\n\n Hector, 230.\n\n Hec\u016dba, 130, 233.\n\n Heg\u0113tor, 130.\n\n Hel\u0115nus, son of Priam, a prophet, 41.\n\n Hel\u012dcon, of Cyzicus, mathematician and astronomer, mentioned in\n    Plutarch\u2019s _Life of Dion_, as having foretold a solar eclipse, 14.\n\n Hel\u012dcon, a mountain (5,000 ft.) in Boeotia, 89.\n\n Hellas (Greece), 124, 125, 300.\n\n Hephaestus, the lame god of fire (see _Il._ 1. 590), 263.\n\n H\u0113ra, 193, 232.\n\n Heracleia, probably a town in Phrygia, 189.\n\n Heracleidae, 195.\n\n Heracleitus, philosopher of Ephesus (end of sixth century), 73, 74, 87,\n    101, 127, 197, 218, 224, 304.\n\n Heraea, the, a festival at Thebes, 31.\n\n Heraea, a town of Arcadia, 169.\n\n Heracleon, of Megara, a speaker in the Third Pythian Dialogue.\n\n Hercules (Heracl\u0113s), 13, 51, 65, 94, 100, 123, 131, 185, 193, 195, 199,\n    226, 300, 307.\n\n Herc\u016dl\u0113s, Pillars of, 305.\n\n Heripp\u012ddas, 29, 51.\n\n Hermes, 135, 139, 303.\n\n Hermod\u014drus, 39.\n\n Hermola\u00fcs, 233.\n\n Herod\u012dcus, 187.\n\n Herod\u014ftus, the historian, of Halicarnassus (484-408), 100, 131, 166.\n\n Heroph\u012dl\u00e9, 95.\n\n Hesiod, the ancient Boeotian poet, eighth century, 42, 86, 98, 123,\n    126, 127, 128, 130, 156, 157, 161, 186, 202, 218, 230, 272, 298.\n\n Hesperus (the Evening Star, or planet Venus), 154, 215, 268, 273.\n\n Hi\u0115ro, of Syracuse, brother of Gelon (d. 467). A munificent benefactor\n    of Delphi, 88, 99, 182.\n\n Hi\u0115ro, the Lacedaemonian (killed in the battle of Leuctra 371), 88.\n\n Him\u0115ra, a town of Sicily, 140.\n\n Hipparchus, the astronomer, of Rhodes and Alexandria, native of Nicaea\n    in Bithynia (fl. from 160), 98, 261.\n\n Hipparchus (son of Pisistratus), 189.\n\n Hippocr\u0103tes, 182.\n\n Hippostheneidas, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 44, 51.\n\n Hippys, of Rhegium, an early Greek historian, 140.\n\n Homer, 41, 63, 70, 76, 77, 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 102, 126, 141, 148, 166,\n    199, 215, 230, 265, 282, 286, 288, 299, 302, 303, 307.\n\n Hopl\u012btes, river in Boeotia, 109.\n\n Hyampeia, one of two cliffs above Thebes, 192.\n\n Hyp\u0103tes, 47, 49.\n\n Hypatod\u014drus, 29.\n\n\n I.\n\n Iadm\u014dn, 192.\n\n Ida, Mt., in Phrygia, 306.\n\n I\u00ea\u00efus, \u2018invoked with the cry i\u0113! (or i\u0113 paion!),\u2018 i. e. Apollo, 76.\n\n Ilithyia, 308.\n\n Ilium (Troy), 166.\n\n Indian, 140.\n\n Ino, daughter of Cadmus and wife of Athamas, a tragic heroine, 190.\n\n Ion Chius, a writer of plays, and anecdotist (fl. 450), 276.\n\n Iph\u012dtus, killed by Hercules, who had stolen the oxen of his father\n    Eurytus, 185.\n\n Isis, 296.\n\n Ismenian, a name of Apollo, 60.\n\n Ismenias, a Theban of the popular party and Polemarch, arrested by\n    Leontides, tried by a commission appointed by Sparta, on a charge of\n    \u2018medizing\u2019, and executed (see _Life of Pelopidas_), 8.\n\n Ismenid\u014drus, 20.\n\n Ism\u0113nus, the principal (most easterly) river of Thebes, 15.\n\n Isodait\u00e9s, \u2018equal divider,\u2019 a name of Dionysus, 67.\n\n Ister, a Greek historian, or antiquarian, 100.\n\n Ister, the Danube, 148.\n\n Isthmus (of Corinth), Isthmian, 94.\n\n Italy, 15, 21, 27, 88, 200.\n\n Ithaca, 193\u00b7\n\n Ix\u012bon, 293.\n\n\n J.\n\n Jason, Tagus of Thessaly (d. 370), known as \u2018Prometheus\u2019; (see Plutarch\n    _On getting advantage from enemies_, c. 6, p. 89 C, and Xenophon,\n    _Hellenica_, 2, 3, 18) 23.\n\n Jews, 231.\n\n\n L.\n\n Lacedaemon, 51, 98, 99, 117, 179, 189, 229.\n\n Lach\u0103r\u0113s, an Athenian demagogue (fl. 296), 195.\n\n Lach\u0113s, Athenian general; fell at Mantineia, 418. A Dialogue of Plato\n    bears his name, 19.\n\n Lach\u0115sis, one of the Fates, 37, 308, 315.\n\n Lamia, 89.\n\n Lamprias, Plutarch\u2019s brother (also the name of his grandfather); a\n    speaker in the First and Third Pythian Dialogues and in the _Face in\n    the Moon_. Cp. _Sympos._ 2, 2; 4, 5; 9, 15.\n\n Lamprocles, 35.\n\n Lat\u014dna, 232.\n\n Law Courts, the, 17.\n\n Lebadeia, near the western frontier of Boeotia, the seat of the oracle\n    of Trophonius, 120, 157.\n\n L\u0113da, daughter of Thestius, and mother of Helen and Clytaemn\u0113stra,\n    Castor, and Polydeuces, 95.\n\n Lemnos, 290.\n\n Leont\u012ddes, one of the polemarchs at Thebes, 8, 10, 11, 12, 47, 49.\n\n Leont\u012bni, a city of Sicily, 22.\n\n Lesbos, 194.\n\n Leschenorian, 60.\n\n L\u0113th\u0113 (\u2018Oblivion\u2019), 209.\n\n Leucas, Leucadia, 184, 193.\n\n Leuctra, a village of Boeotia, between Thespiae and Plataea (famous for\n    the battle between the Spartans and Thebans in 371), 88.\n\n Libya (Africa), 103, 108, 185, 296.\n\n Lindos, a town on the eastern coast of Rhodes, 61.\n\n Livia, the empress, wife of Augustus, and mother, by her first\n    marriage, of Tiberius (d. A. D. 29), 62.\n\n Locris, 193.\n\n Lucania, 22.\n\n Lucius, a speaker in the Dialogue on the _Face in the Moon_.\n\n Lycians, 138, 139.\n\n Lyciscus, 177.\n\n Lycormae, 195.\n\n Lycurgus, the Spartan lawgiver, ninth century, 99.\n\n Lycuria (an ancient name for the summit of Parnassus), a village near\n    the Corycian cave, 82.\n\n Lydia, 121.\n\n Lydi\u0103das, 183.\n\n Lysander, the Spartan naval commander who finished the Peloponnesian\n    war. He fell in battle against the Thebans, 395, at Haliartus (see\n    his _Life_, c. 29): 109.\n\n Lysanor\u012ddas, 8, 10, 12, 43, 51.\n\n Lysim\u0103chus, 189.\n\n Lysis, a Pythagorean teacher, driven from Italy to Thebes, where he\n    died, 7, 13, 15, 21, 24, 27.\n\n Lysitheides, 7.\n\n Lysithe\u00fcs, 48.\n\n\n M.\n\n Maeotic Bay (Sea of Azov), 300.\n\n Magi, the, 126.\n\n Magnesia, district of Thessaly, 96.\n\n Malis, 89.\n\n Mar\u0103thon, on the east coast of Attica (famous for the battle of 490),\n    183.\n\n Mardonius, the Persian general (defeated and killed at Plataea, 479),\n    121.\n\n Marius, 184.\n\n Medes, 288.\n\n Megalop\u014flis, the chief town of Arcadia, 183.\n\n Meg\u0103ra, a city on the Saronic gulf, 18, 96, 122, 124.\n\n Megasth\u0115n\u0113s, a Greek writer on India (fl. 300), 294.\n\n Melanthius, an Athenian tragic poet (fl. 420), 181.\n\n Mel\u0113tus, one of the three accusers of Socrates, a poet, 16.\n\n Melissus, 20.\n\n M\u0115lon, 8, 30, 47, 48.\n\n Melos, an island in the Aegean, 166.\n\n Memphis, a city of Egypt, on the Nile, 13.\n\n Menaechmus, 14 _n._\n\n Menela\u00fcs, a speaker in the Dialogue on the _Face in the Moon_.\n\n Mercury (the planet), 154, cp. 268.\n\n Meri\u014fn\u0113s, 131.\n\n Messenians, 176, 229.\n\n Metapontium (Metapontum), a Greek city in Southern Italy, 21, 88.\n\n M\u0113trod\u014drus, of Chios, a disciple of Democritus (fl. 330), 137, 275.\n\n Midas, a mythical king of Phrygia, 229.\n\n Mil\u0113tus, a city of Caria, 23, 193.\n\n Milti\u0103des, son of Cimon, the victor of Marathon, 183.\n\n Mimnermus, elegiac poet, of Smyrna and Colophon (fl. 600), 282.\n\n Minos, son of Zeus, king of Crete, and afterwards a judge in Hades,\n    179.\n\n Mitys, of Argos, 186.\n\n Mnesar\u0115t\u0113 (Phryne), 94, 95.\n\n Mnesino\u0113, 95.\n\n Molion\u012ddae, the sons of Actor, by Molione, 94.\n\n Molus, 131.\n\n Mopsus, founder of Mallos in Cilicia, where he had an oracle, 163.\n\n Muses, the, 35, 86, 97, 98, 199, 226.\n\n Myr\u012dna, an Aeolian town on the west coast of Mysia, 96.\n\n Myron, 185.\n\n Myrt\u0103l\u0113, 95.\n\n Mys, a Carian, employed by Mardonius to consult the oracles in Greece,\n    121.\n\n\n N.\n\n N\u0101\u00efd, the, 127.\n\n Nauplia, the port of Argos, 192.\n\n Navel, the, at Delphi, 117.\n\n Naxos, an island in the Aegean, 199.\n\n Neleus, father of Nestor, 204.\n\n Neob\u016bl\u0113, 63.\n\n Neoch\u014drus, 109.\n\n Neoptol\u0115mus, son of Achilles, 45.\n\n Nero, A. D. 37-68. The Roman Emperor. He visited Greece (the province\n    of Achaia) in A. D. 67, and proclaimed its freedom at the Isthmian\n    games: 60, 213.\n\n Nes\u012dchus, 108.\n\n Nestor, 204.\n\n Nicander, a priest of the temple at Delphi, 62, 63, 72, 170.\n\n Nicias, the Athenian general (d. 414 at Syracuse, see his _Life_), 23,\n    229.\n\n Night, 210.\n\n Night-watcher (Nycturus), the, an early name for the planet Cronus\n    (Saturn), 300.\n\n Ni\u014fb\u0113, 232.\n\n Nisaeus, 197.\n\n Nisibe\u00fcs, 204.\n\n Nyctelius, \u2018nightly\u2019; used as a name of Dionysus, 67.\n\n\n O.\n\n Odysseus (Ulysses), 16, 102.\n\n Oechalia, a town in Euboea (according to the story followed by\n    Sophocles) taken by Hercules, 131.\n\n Oeta, a mountain range in Thessaly, 186.\n\n Ogygia, the name given by Homer to the island of Calypso (_Od._ 1, 50,\n    &c.), 299.\n\n Olympia, in Elis, 160.\n\n Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, 95.\n\n Olympicus, a speaker in the Dialogue on the _Delays in Divine\n    Punishment_.\n\n Olympus, a mountain (9,754 ft.) between Thessaly and Macedon, the seat\n    of Zeus, 70, 93.\n\n Olynthus, a town in the Chalcidice (taken by Sparta 379), 8.\n\n Onomacr\u012dtus, an Athenian poet and antiquarian (520-485), 107.\n\n Ophelti\u0103dae, 194.\n\n Opus, Opuntian, a Locrian town, 96.\n\n Orchal\u012ddes, 109.\n\n Orchom\u0115nus, a city of Boeotia, 163, 176.\n\n Orestes, son of Agamemnon and Clytaemn\u0113stra, 95.\n\n Orneae, a town in Argolis, 95.\n\n Orpheus, of Thrace, a minstrel, 98, 126, 193, 210.\n\n Orphic, 72.\n\n Orthag\u014fras, 185.\n\n Os\u012bris, an Egyptian deity, 138.\n\n\n P.\n\n Paeonia, a district of Thrace, 186.\n\n Pallas (Athene); her image at Athens (Palladium) was believed to have\n    been brought from Troy by Diomede. Another Palladium stood on the\n    Acropolis (Pausanias i. 28-9): 88.\n\n Pal\u014dd\u0115s, the, 134, 135.\n\n Pan, 134, 135.\n\n Pand\u0103rus, a Lycian archer, 102.\n\n Parmen\u012ddes, of Elea in Italy, a philosopher (b. 513), 98, 272, 277.\n\n Parnassus, the mountain (8,000 ft.) above Delphi, the highest point of\n    a range of the same name, 210.\n\n Parn\u0113s, a mountain range near the northern frontier of Attica, 19.\n\n Path, the, the Peripatetic School, 260.\n\n Patrocleas; Plutarch\u2019s son-in-law, a speaker in the Dialogues on the\n    _Delays in Divine Punishment_ and on _The Soul_. Cp. _Sympos._ 2, 9;\n    5, 7; 7, 2.\n\n Pausanias, (1) Spartan statesman and general (d. 470), 99 _n._, 189,\n    200;\n   (2) the slayer of Philip of Macedon, 233.\n\n Pauson, a Greek painter of the fourth century. Aristotle (_Poet._ c. 2)\n    speaks of his style as that of caricature: 86.\n\n Paxi, two islands south of Corcyra, 134.\n\n Peace (a woman\u2019s name), 99.\n\n Peisistr\u0103tus, tyrant of Athens, (d. 527), 182, 189.\n\n Pelop\u012ddas, Theban general and friend of Epaminondas; fell at\n    Cynoscephalae 364 (see his _Life_), 8, 43, 45, 47, 49.\n\n Peloponnesus, 121, 283, 293.\n\n Penelope, 135.\n\n Pepar\u0113thus, an island in the Aegean, off Thessaly, 13.\n\n Periander, tyrant of Corinth from 625; one of the Seven Wise Men, 61,\n    184, 224.\n\n Pericles, Athenian statesman (d. 429), 185, 196.\n\n Perseph\u014fn\u0113, 37, 303, 306.\n\n Persia, 96, 121, 208, 229.\n\n Petraeus, of Delphi, 111.\n\n Petron, 140.\n\n Phaestus, in Crete, 117.\n\n Pha\u0115thon, a son of the Sun, 193.\n\n Phalanthus, a Lacedaemonian, founder of Tarentum (about 708), 108.\n\n Phal\u0103ris, tyrant of Agrigentum from 570: 184.\n\n Phanaean, 60, 77.\n\n Phanias, of Er\u0115sus in Lesbos, a Peripatetic philosopher, and pupil of\n    Aristotle, who wrote also on history, 140.\n\n Pharn\u0103ces (see p. 255), a Stoic, speaker in the Dialogue on the _Face\n    in the Moon_.\n\n Pharsalia, 88.\n\n Pheidola\u00fcs, of Haliartus, 11, 12, 13, 19, 32, 35.\n\n Phene\u0101tae, 193.\n\n Phen\u0115\u00fcs, a town in Arcadia, 193.\n\n Pherec\u0233d\u0113s, a learned man of Syros (fl. 544), 294.\n\n Pheren\u012bcus, 8, 10.\n\n Phil\u0113bus, a late Dialogue of Plato, on _Pleasure_, 71.\n\n Phil\u012bnus, a speaker in the Second Pythian Dialogue. Cp. _Sympos._ 1, 6;\n    4, 1; 5, 10; 8, 7.\n\n Philip of Macedon (d. 336), 233.\n\n Philip, son of Cassander, king of Macedon (d. 296), 198.\n\n Philip V, 237-179, king of Macedon, 91, 92.\n\n Philippus, historian (of Prusa?), a speaker in the Third Pythian\n    Dialogue. Cp. _Sympos._ 7, 8.\n\n Philippus, of Thebes, 43, 44, 48, 50.\n\n Philoch\u014frus of Athens, antiquarian and writer on legend (d. 260), 100.\n\n Philola\u00fcs, an early Pythagorean, 22.\n\n Philom\u0113lus, 88.\n\n Phl\u0115gyas, of Orchomenus, a mythical hero, slain for impiety, 185.\n\n Phocis, Phocians, 88, 95, 96, 100, 185, 194.\n\n Phoeb\u012ddas, a Spartan general, who treacherously seized the Cadmeia in\n    382: 8.\n\n Phoebus, \u2018The Bright\u2019, an appellation of Apollo, 67, 76, 107, 138.\n\n _Phoenissae_, a play of Euripides, 107 n.\n\n Phosphor, Phosphorus (the planet Venus), 154, 268, 273.\n\n Phrygia, 126, 306.\n\n Phryn\u0113, 95.\n\n Phyleus, 204.\n\n Phyll\u012ddas, 10, 11, 28, 29, 32, 43, 48, 50.\n\n Pillars of Hercules (on the Straits of Gibraltar), 305.\n\n Pindar, the Theban lyric poet (518-438), 7, 72 _n._, 77, 87, 98, 102\n    _n._, 104, 105, 108 _n._, 123, 127, 131 _n._, 179, 194, 202, 226,\n    227, 265, 273, 282.\n\n Pisa, a town in, or adjoining, Elis, 94.\n\n Pitt\u0103cus (652-569), patriot, and sole-ruler (\u2018aesymnete\u2019) of Mytil\u0113n\u0113,\n    one of the Seven Wise Men, 61.\n\n Planeti\u0103des (see Didymus).\n\n Plataea, a city of Boeotia on the Asopus, near the frontier of Attica,\n    124.\n\n Plato, of Athens, 430-347, founder of the Academy, 13, 14, 63, 72, 104,\n    126, 129, 134, 137, 156, 181, 318, 319;\n   _Cratylus_, 71, 130, 235;\n   _Laws_, 186;\n   _Minos_, 179;\n   _Phaedo_, 165;\n   _Republic_, 167, 187;\n   _Sophistes_, 151;\n   _Symposium_, 130;\n   _Timaeus_, 69, 128, 139, 141, 149, 154, 155, 180, 226, 272, 279, 293,\n      295, 305.\n\n Plato, of Thebes, 12.\n\n Pleisth\u0115nes, son of Atreus and father of Agamemnon (but there are\n    variations in the story), 188.\n\n Pleisto\u0103nax, a king of Sparta (d. 408), 99.\n\n Plutarch, introduced only into the Dialogues on the _\u2018E\u2019 at Delphi_\n    (First Pythian Dialogue) and on the _Delays in Divine Punishment_,\n    232.\n\n Pluto, 77.\n\n Polycr\u0103tes, of Delphi, 111.\n\n Polycr\u0103tes, of Samos, 224.\n\n Polygn\u014dtus, of Thasos, painter, chiefly of Homeric subjects at Athens\n    and Delphi (fl. 450), 166.\n\n Polymnis, of Thebes, father of Epaminondas and Capheisias, 13, 14, 19,\n    20, 22, 27.\n\n Polystyle (e mute), the, 50.\n\n Polyx\u0115na, 95.\n\n Pompey the Great (d. 48), 185.\n\n Porch, the, the Stoic School at Athens, 93.\n\n Poseidon, 89, 146.\n\n Poseidonius, of Apamea in Syria, a Stoic philosopher who taught Cicero,\n    278, 283, 316, 317.\n\n Praxit\u0115les, the Athenian sculptor (fl. 364), 95.\n\n Priam, 41, 230.\n\n Procles, tyrant of Epidaurus and father-in-law of Periander, seventh\n    century, 99.\n\n Prom\u0113theus, son of the Titan Iap\u0115tus, 65.\n\n Pr\u014dteus, a mythical king of Egypt (Herod. 2, 112), 13.\n\n Protog\u0115nes, 205.\n\n Prytaneum, the, 72.\n\n Ptolemaeus (\u2018Ceraunus\u2019, the Thunderbolt), king of Macedon (d. 280),\n    189.\n\n Pt\u014d\u00fcm, a mountain on the eastern side of the Copa\u00efc lake, with a\n    sanctuary of Apollo, 121, 124.\n\n Punic, 91.\n\n Pylaea, a suburb of Delphi, 110.\n\n Pyrilamp\u0113s, a kinsman of Plato, 18.\n\n Pythagoras, of Samos, sixth century, philosopher and traveller, 14, 16,\n    21, 27, 66, 123, 228 _n._, 231.\n\n Pythia, the, 72, 86, 100, 101, 103, 106, 110, 121, 164, 165, 169, 170,\n    199.\n\n Pythian, 59, 60, 64, 117, 122, 123, 185.\n\n Python, the serpent slain by Apollo, 138.\n\n Pyth\u014dn\u0115s (ventriloquists), 126.\n\n\n Q.\n\n Quintus, the friend to whom the Dialogue on the _Delays in Divine\n    Punishment_ is inscribed, also that on _Love between Brothers_, 175.\n\n\n R.\n\n Red Sea (Mare Erythraeum). Before Ptolemy, the term was used loosely to\n    include the Persian Gulf, &c.: 117, 138, 305.\n\n Rhea, 154.\n\n Rhegium, a Greek town in South Italy, 140.\n\n Rhetiste (cp. the _Gullies_), 19.\n\n Rhodes, 95.\n\n Rhod\u014dpis (see Herodotus ii. 134-5), 94.\n\n Rome, 91, 92, 135, 179, 184, 185.\n\n\n S.\n\n Sam\u012ddas, 49.\n\n Samos, an island in the Aegean, 192, 224.\n\n Sappho, the great woman lyric poet, a Lesbian, of the seventh century,\n    87, 104.\n\n Sardis, the capital of Lydia, 192.\n\n Satilaeans, 194.\n\n Scythians, 189, 234.\n\n Scyth\u012bnus, of Teos, an iambic poet of unknown date, 96.\n\n Seleucus, king of Syria, assassinated by Ptolemy Ceraunus in 280: 189.\n\n Sel\u012bnus, a Greek colony on the S.W. coast of Sicily, 92.\n\n Selymbria, a town of Thrace, on the Propontis, 187.\n\n Sem\u0115l\u0113, the mother of Dionysus (Bacchus), 209.\n\n Serapion, or Sarapion, an Athenian poet, to whom the First Pythian\n    Dialogue is inscribed, and a speaker in the Second.\n\n Ser\u0101pis, an Egyptian deity, 107.\n\n Shining-One, the, a name for the planet Cronus (Saturn), 300.\n\n Sibylla, the Sibyl, the name of an early prophetess of Delphi; in later\n    times an official title, also applied to other prophetic women,\n    localized in various countries, 87, 89, 90, 95, 104, 211.\n\n Siceliot, of the Greek colonies in Sicily, 99.\n\n Sicily, 18, 99, 140, 184.\n\n Sicyon, on the south shore of the Corinthian gulf, 95, 184.\n\n Simmias, a Theban, a companion of Socrates, and (with Cebes) present at\n    his death (see the _Crito_ and _Phaedo_ of Plato), 8, 11, 12, 13,\n    14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 27, 32, 41, 42, 43.\n\n Simon\u012dd\u0113s of Ceos, a lyric poet (556-467), 97, 190.\n\n Sisyphus, a knavish king of Corinth; some accounts make him father of\n    Odysseus: 185.\n\n Skotios, \u2018of darkness\u2019, i. e. Hades (Pluto), 77.\n\n Socrates, of Athens (d. 399), 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 32, 35, 40, 95,\n    104, 180, 288.\n\n Soli, a city of Cilicia, 149, 205.\n\n Solon, 638-558, the Athenian law-giver; one of the \u2018Seven Wise Men\u2019,\n    61, 179.\n\n Solymi, a people of Lycia, 138.\n\n _Sophist\u00e9s_, a Dialogue of Plato\u2019s later period, 71.\n\n Sophists, the, 196.\n\n Sophocles, 495-405, tragic poet of Athens, 78, 103 _n._, 106, 125, 132,\n    266, 290 _n._\n\n S\u014dphr\u014dn (latter part of fifth century), a mime-writer of Syracuse, 63.\n\n Sparta, 11, 29, 88, 91, 106, 194, 200.\n\n Sparti, the, \u2018sown men\u2019, the armed men who sprang up out of the ground\n    at Thebes, when Cadmus sowed the dragon\u2019s teeth, 82.\n\n Spinth\u0103rus, 40.\n\n Spor\u0103des, the, a group of islands, off Britain, 135.\n\n Statuaries, street of the, 17.\n\n Stesich\u014frus (Tisias), 632-560, lyric poet of Himera in Sicily, 78, 188,\n    282.\n\n _Stheneboea_, a play of Euripides, 104 _n._\n\n Stilbon (the planet Mercury), 154, 268.\n\n Stoics, the, 136, 146, 147, 264, 266, 285.\n\n Strabo, cognomen of the father of Pompey the Great, 185.\n\n Straton\u012bc\u0113, 95.\n\n Styx, 37, 38, 97, 225.\n\n Suitors, the, i.e. of Penelope, 140.\n\n Sybaris, a Greek town of Lucania in South Italy, 193, 196.\n\n Sy\u0113n\u0113 (Assouan), taken by Eratosthenes to be directly under the sun at\n    the summer solstice, 119, 296.\n\n Sylla, a speaker in the Dialogue on the _Face in the Moon_.\n\n Symb\u014flum, the, 16.\n\n Syracuse, 88, 193, 197.\n\n Syrian goddess (Cybele?), 233.\n\n\n T.\n\n Taen\u0103rus, a cape and town in the south of Laconia, 199.\n\n Tant\u0103lus, 234, 293.\n\n Taprob\u0103ne (Ceylon), 265.\n\n Tarentum, a town in S. Italy, 40.\n\n Tarsus, in Cilicia, 117, 160.\n\n Tart\u0103rus, the penal region of the lower world, 40, 299.\n\n Tegyra, a village of Boeotia, near Orchomenus, 121, 122, 124.\n\n Teiresias, a blind prophet, of Thebes, 163, 226.\n\n Teletias, 185.\n\n Temp\u0113, the gorge between Olympus and Ossa in Thessaly, through which\n    the river Pen\u0113us flows, 132, 138.\n\n Ten\u0115dos, an island off the coast of the Troad, 92.\n\n Terentius Priscus, the friend to whom the Third Pythian Dialogue is\n    inscribed, 117.\n\n Terpander, of Lesbos, the father of Greek music (fl. 700), 194.\n\n Terpsion, of Megara, a disciple of Socrates (see the _Theaetetus_ of\n    Plato), 18.\n\n Tettix, 199, 200.\n\n Thal\u0113s, of Miletus (seventh and sixth centuries), an early philosopher,\n    one of the Seven Wise Men, 12, 61, 98.\n\n Thamus, 134, 135.\n\n Thasos, an island in the Aegean off Thrace, 166.\n\n The\u0101n\u014dr, a young Pythagorean, who came to Thebes from Crotona, as a\n    deputation, 21, 24, 27, 28, 40, 43, 315.\n\n Thebes, the Boeotian, 7, 8, 12, 22, 29, 30, 43, 44, 47, 48, 184.\n\n Thebes, the Egyptian, 296.\n\n Th\u0115mis, the goddess of Justice, for some time in charge of the oracle\n    at Delphi, 138, 211.\n\n Themistocles, Athenian statesman (514-449), 183.\n\n Theocr\u012dtus, of Thebes, \u2018the prophet\u2019, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 28,\n    30, 32, 35, 40, 43, 44, 49;\n   see _Life of Pelopidas_, c. 22.\n\n Theod\u014drus, of Soli, in Cilicia, a mathematician, 149, 150.\n\n Theognis, of Megara, elegiac and gnomic poet (570-490), 84.\n\n Theon, of Hyampolis, a family friend of Plutarch, a speaker in the\n    First and Second Pythian Dialogues, and in the _Face in the Moon_.\n    Cp. _Sympos._ 1, 4; 4, 3; 8, 6, and the Dialogue _Non posse\n    suaviter_, where the Epicureans are attacked.\n\n Theophrastus, born at Er\u0115sus, a philosopher of Athens, Aristotle\u2019s\n    successor, 136.\n\n Theopompus, a Theban patriot, 43, 48.\n\n Theopompus, of Chios, historian (d. 305), 100.\n\n The\u014drius, a designation of Apollo, 77.\n\n Theoxenia, the, 194.\n\n Thera, Therasia, islands off Crete, 91.\n\n Thermopylae, the coast pass between Thessaly and Locris, famous for the\n    defence of Leonidas in 480: 132.\n\n Thespesius (Aridaeus), 205, 206, 209, 210, 211, 213, 313, 314.\n\n Thespiae, a town of Boeotia, 29.\n\n Thessaly, 23, 24, 93, 95, 130, 158.\n\n Thrace, 126, 148, 193.\n\n Thrasyb\u016blus, of Athens, 7.\n\n Thrasyb\u016blus, tyrant of Syracuse after Hiero (467), 99.\n\n Thrasym\u0113d\u0113s, 169.\n\n Thucydides, the Athenian historian (d. 401), 98, 158 _n._, 176, 181,\n    196.\n\n Thunderbolt (Ceraunus), Ptolemy, king of Macedon (d. 280), 189.\n\n Thym\u0115l\u0113, the altar of Dionysus in the theatre, 103.\n\n Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar, B. C. 42-37 A. D. (Emperor from A. D.\n    14), 135.\n\n Timarchus, of Athens, 99.\n\n Timarchus, of Chaeroneia, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 172, 314.\n\n Timoch\u0103ris, 98.\n\n Timoleon, ruler of Syracuse (d. 357), 184: see his _Life_.\n\n Timon, Plutarch\u2019s brother, a speaker in the Dialogues on the _Delays in\n    Divine Punishment_ and on the _Soul_. Cp. _Sympos._ 1, 2, and 2, 5;\n    and _On Love between Brothers_, c. 16.\n\n Timothe\u00fcs, an Athenian, 7.\n\n Timothe\u00fcs, of Miletus, musician and poet (446-357), 232.\n\n Tiribazus, satrap of western Armenia (d. 385), 229.\n\n Titans, giant sons of Uranus, 138, 272, 301.\n\n Tityus, a giant of Euboea, 307.\n\n Trench, battle at, 176.\n\n Troglodytes, cave-dwellers, about the Red Sea, &c., 117, 293, 296.\n\n Trophoni\u0103des, 306.\n\n Trophonius, tutelary hero of Lebadeia and its oracle, 35, 40, 315.\n\n Trosobius, 138.\n\n Troy, 91, 102, 148.\n\n Trunkmakers\u2019 street, 17.\n\n Tyndar\u012ddae, Castor and Polydeuc\u0113s (Pollux), 147.\n\n Typhons, 138, 235, 307.\n\n\n U.\n\n Ud\u014dra, 306.\n\n Ulysses (Odysseus), 16, 140, 185, 193, 217.\n\n Ur\u0103nus (\u2018Heaven\u2019), the father of Cronus, 138.\n\n\n V.\n\n Venus (the planet), 154, 268.\n\n Vespasian, 211 _n._\n\n Vesuvius, 211.\n\n\n W.\n\n Wise Men of Greece, the (see the _Dinner-Party of the Seven Sages_ by\n    Plutarch, translated by Professor Tucker in this series), 6, 110.\n\n\n X.\n\n Xenocr\u0103tes, of Chalc\u0113don, 396-314, a philosopher, associate of Plato,\n    129, 134, 305, 315, 316.\n\n Xenoph\u0103n\u0113s, philosopher of Colophon, fourth century, 235.\n\n Xenophon, Athenian general and historian (d. about 359), 103.\n\n Xerxes, 235.\n\n\n Z.\n\n Zagreus, a name of the mystic Dionysus, 67.\n\n Z\u0113n\u0115s (plural of Zeus), 146.\n\n Zeus, 96, 127, 139, 147, 148, 167, 179, 200, 226, 230, 272, 273, 297,\n    299, 301.\n\n Zeus Agoraios, 35.\n\n Zodiac, the, 293.\n\n Zones, the, 154.\n\n Zoroaster, Persian sage, of uncertain date, 126.\n\nPrinted in England at the Oxford University Press\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Typographical errors were silently corrected.\n    \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n      when a predominant form was found in this book.\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Text that was in bold face is enclosed by equals signs (=bold=).\n    \u25cb Page references printed in the margin of the book have been moved\n      into the paragraphs near where they appear, contained in square\n      brackets, and begun with the word \u201cSidenote\u201d.\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"Selected Essays of Plutarch, Vol. II.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":124357}