{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_63300/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_63300","id":"gutenberg_63300","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/63300","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Ethics, Ancient","Philosophers -- Greece -- Biography","Philosophy, Ancient","Pythagoras","Pythagoras and Pythagorean school"],"text":"IAMBLICHUS\u2019\n LIFE OF PYTHAGORAS,\n OR\n PYTHAGORIC LIFE.\n\n\n ACCOMPANIED BY\n FRAGMENTS OF THE ETHICAL WRITINGS\n OF CERTAIN PYTHAGOREANS IN THE DORIC DIALECT;\n AND A\n _Collection of Pythagoric Sentences_\n FROM STOB\u00c6US AND OTHERS,\n WHICH ARE OMITTED BY GALE IN HIS\n OPUSCULA MYTHOLOGICA,\n AND HAVE NOT BEEN NOTICED BY ANY EDITOR.\n\n TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK.\n\n BY THOMAS TAYLOR.\n\n\n Approach ye genuine philosophic few,\n The Pythagoric Life belongs to you:\n But far, far off ye vulgar herd profane;\n For Wisdom\u2019s voice is heard by you in vain:\n And you, Mind\u2019s lowest link, and darksome end,\n Good Rulers, Customs, Laws, alone can mend.\n\n [Illustration: IAMBLICVS PH. PYTHAGORIC]\n\n [Illustration: LONDON:\n PRINTED BY A. J. VALPY,\n TOOKE\u2019S COURT, CHANCERY LANE;\n AND SOLD BY THE AUTHOR,\n 9, MANOR PLACE, WALWORTH.\n 1818.]\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n The Life, &c.\n Chap. I 1\n Chap. II 2\n Chap. III 9\n Chap. IV 12\n Chap. V 13\n Chap. VI 18\n Chap. VII 21\n Chap. VIII 23\n Chap. IX 28\n Chap. X 32\n Chap. XI 34\n Chap. XII 38\n Chap. XIII 40\n Chap. XIV 41\n Chap. XV 43\n Chap. XVI 48\n Chap. XVII 50\n Chap. XVIII 56\n Chap. XIX 66\n Chap. XX 69\n Chap. XXI 71\n Chap. XXII 73\n Chap. XXIII 75\n Chap. XXIV 77\n Chap. XXV 80\n Chap. XXVI 83\n Chap. XXVII 89\n Chap. XXVIII 97\n Chap. XXIX 114\n Chap. XXX 122\n Chap. XXXI 135\n Chap. XXXII 151\n Chap. XXXIII 162\n Chap. XXXIV 170\n Chap. XXXV 176\n Chap. XXXVI 188\n Fragments of the Ethical Writings of Certain Pythagoreans 193\n From Hippodamus, the Thurian, in his Treatise on Felicity 195\n From Euryphamus, in his Treatise Concerning Human Life 202\n From Hipparchus, in his Treatise On Tranquillity 207\n From Archytas, in his Treatise Concerning the Good and Happy\n Man 212\n From Theages, in his Treatise On the Virtues 222\n From Metopus, in his Treatise Concerning Virtue 227\n From Clinias 231\n From Theages, in his Treatise On the Virtues 233\n From the Treatise of Archytas On Ethical Erudition 242\n From Archytas, in his Treatise On the Good and Happy Man 244\n From Crito, in his Treatise On Prudence and Prosperity 245\n From Archytas, in his Treatise On the Good and Happy Man 250\n From Archytas, in his Treatise On Disciplines 252\n From Polus, in his Treatise On Justice 254\n Pythagoric Ethical Sentences from Stob\u00e6us, which are omitted\n in the Opuscula Mythologica, &c. of Gale 259\n Select Sentences of Sextus the Pythagorean 268\n Pythagoric Sentences, from the Protreptics of Iamblichus 278\n Additional Notes 281\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nWhen it is considered that Pythagoras was the father of philosophy,\nauthentic memoirs of his life cannot fail to be uncommonly interesting\nto every lover of wisdom, and particularly to those who reverence the\ndoctrines of Plato, the most genuine and the best of all his disciples.\nAnd that the following memoirs of Pythagoras by Iamblichus are\nauthentic, is acknowledged by all the critics, as they are for the most\npart obviously derived from sources of very high antiquity; and where\nthe sources are unknown, there is every reason to believe, from the\ngreat worth and respectability of the biographer, that the information\nis perfectly accurate and true.\n\nOf the biographer, indeed, Iamblichus, it is well known to every tyro in\nPlatonism that he was dignified by all the Platonists that succeeded him\nwith the epithet of _divine_; and after the encomium passed on him by\nthe acute Emperor Julian, \u201c_that he was posterior indeed in time, but\nnot in genius, to Plato_,\u201d[1] all further praise of him would be as\nunnecessary, as the defamation of him by certain modern critics is\ncontemptible and idle. For these _homonculi_ looking solely to his\ndeficiency in point of style, and not to the magnitude of his intellect,\nperceive only his little blemishes, but have not even a glimpse of his\nsurpassing excellence. They minutely notice the motes that are scattered\nin the sunbeams of his genius, but they feel not its invigorating\nwarmth, they see not its dazzling radiance.\n\nOf this very extraordinary man there is a life extant by Eunapius, the\nsubstance of which I have given in my History of the Restoration of the\nPlatonic Theology, and to which I refer the English reader. At present I\nshall only select from that work the following biographical particulars\nrespecting our Iamblichus: He was descended of a family equally\nillustrious, fortunate, and rich. His country was Chalcis, a city of\nSyria, which was called C\u0153le. He associated with Anatolius who was the\nsecond to Porphyry, but he far excelled him in his attainments, and\nascended to the very summit of philosophy. But after he had been for\nsome time connected with Anatolius, and most probably found him\ninsufficient to satisfy the vast desires of his soul, he applied himself\nto Porphyry, to whom (says Eunapius) he was in nothing inferior, except\nin the structure and power of composition. For his writings were not so\nelegant and graceful as those of Porphyry: they were neither agreeable,\nnor perspicuous; nor free from impurity of diction. And though they were\nnot entirely involved in obscurity, and perfectly faulty; yet as Plato\nformerly said of Xenocrates, he did not sacrifice to the _Mercurial\nGraces_. Hence he is far from detaining the reader with delight, who\nmerely regards his diction; but will rather avert and dull his\nattention, and frustrate his expectation. However, though the surface of\nhis conceptions is not covered with the flowers of elocution, yet the\ndepth of them is admirable, and his genius is truly sublime. And\nadmitting his style to abound in general with those defects, which have\nbeen noticed by the critics, yet it appears to me that the decision of\nthe anonymous Greek writer respecting his Answer to the Epistle of\nPorphyry,[2] is more or less applicable to all his other works. For he\nsays, \u2018that his diction in that Answer is concise and definite, and that\nhis conceptions are full of efficacy, are elegant, and divine.\u2019[3]\n\nIamblichus shared in an eminent degree the favor of divinity, on account\nof his cultivation of justice; and obtained a numerous multitude of\nassociates and disciples, who came from all parts of the world, for the\npurpose of participating the streams of wisdom, which so plentifully\nflowed from the sacred fountain of his wonderful mind. Among these was\nSopater the Syrian,[4] who was most skilful both in speaking and\nwriting; Eustathius the Cappadocian; and of the Greeks, Theodorus and\nEuphrasius. All these were excellent for their virtues and attainments,\nas well as many other of his disciples, who were not much inferior to\nthe former in eloquence; so that it seems wonderful how Iamblichus could\nattend to all of them, with such gentleness of manners and benignity of\ndisposition as he continually displayed.\n\nHe performed some few particulars relative to the veneration of divinity\nby himself, without his associates and disciples; but was inseparable\nfrom his familiars in most of his operations. He imitated in his diet\nthe frugal simplicity of the most ancient times; and during his repast,\nexhilarated those who were present by his behaviour, and filled them as\nwith nectar by the sweetness of his discourse.\n\nA celebrated philosopher named Alypius, who was deeply skilled in\ndialectic, was contemporary with Iamblichus, but was of such a\ndiminutive stature, that he exhibited the appearance of a pigmy.\nHowever, his great abilities amply compensated for this trifling defect.\nFor his body might be said to be consumed into soul; just as the great\nPlato says, that divine bodies, unlike those that are mortal, are\nsituated in souls. Thus also it might be asserted of Alypius, that he\nhad migrated into soul, and that he was contained and governed by a\nnature superior to man. This Alypius had many followers, but his mode of\nphilosophizing was confined to private conference and disputation,\nwithout committing any of his dogmas to writing. Hence his disciples\ngladly applied themselves to Iamblichus, desirous to draw abundantly\nfrom the exuberant streams of his inexhaustible mind. The fame therefore\nof each continually increasing, they once accidentally met like two\nrefulgent stars, and were surrounded by so great a crowd of auditors,\nthat it resembled some mighty mus\u00e6um. While Iamblichus on this occasion\nwaited rather to be interrogated, than to propose a question himself,\nAlypius, contrary to the expectation of every one, relinquishing\nphilosophical discussions, and seeing himself surrounded with a theatre\nof men, turned to Iamblichus, and said to him: \u201cTell me, O philosopher,\nis either the rich man unjust, or the heir of the unjust man? For in\nthis case there is no medium.\u201d But Iamblichus hating the acuteness of\nthe question, replied: \u201cO most wonderful of all men, this manner of\nconsidering, whether some one excels in externals, is foreign from our\nmethod of philosophizing; since we inquire whether a man abounds in the\nvirtue which it is proper for him to possess, and which is adapted to a\nphilosopher.\u201d After he had said this he departed, and at the same time\nall the surrounding multitude was immediately dispersed. But Iamblichus,\nwhen he was alone, admired the acuteness of the question, and often\nprivately resorted to Alypius, whom he very much applauded for his\nacumen and sagacity; so that after his decease, he wrote his life. This\nAlypius was an Alexandrian by birth, and died in his own country, worn\nout with age: and after him Iamblichus,[5] leaving behind him many roots\nand fountains of philosophy; which through the cultivation of succeeding\nPlatonists, produced a fair variety of vigorous branches, and copious\nstreams.\n\nFor an account of the theological writings of Iamblichus, I refer the\nreader to my above-mentioned History of the Restoration of the Platonic\nTheology; and for accurate critical information concerning all his\nworks, to the Bibliotheca Gr\u00e6ca of Fabricius.\n\nOf the following work, the life of Pythagoras, it is necessary to\nobserve that the original has been transmitted to us in a very imperfect\nstate, partly from the numerous verbal errors of the text, partly from\nthe want of connexion in the things that are narrated, and partly from\nmany particulars being related in different places, in the very same\nwords; so that the conjecture of Kuster, one of the German editors of\nthis work is highly probable, that it had not received the last hand of\nIamblichus, but that others formed this treatise from the confused\nmaterials which they found among his Manuscripts, after his death.\nNotwithstanding all its defects, however, it is, as I have before\nobserved, a most interesting work; and the benefits are inestimable,\nwhich the dissemination of it is calculated to produce. And as two of\nthe most celebrated critics among the Germans, Kuster and Kiessling,\nhave given two splendid editions of this work, it is evident they must\nhave been deeply impressed with a conviction of its value and\nimportance.\n\nAs to the Pythagoric Ethical Fragments, all eulogy of them is\nsuperfluous, when it is considered that, independently of their being\nwritten by very early Pythagoreans, they were some of the sources from\nwhich Aristotle himself derived his consummate knowledge of morality, as\nwill be at once evident by comparing his Nicomachean Ethics with these\nfragments.\n\nWith respect to the collection of Pythagoric Sentences in this volume,\nit is almost needless to observe that they are incomparably excellent;\nand it is deeply to be regretted that the Greek original of the\nSentences of Sextus[6] being lost, the fraudulent Latin version of them\nby the Presbyter Ruffinus alone remains. I call it a fraudulent version,\nbecause Ruffinus, wishing to persuade the reader that these Sentences\nwere written by a bishop of the name of Sixtus, has in many places\nperverted and contaminated the meaning of the original. In the\nselection, however, which I have made from these Sentences, I have\nendeavoured, and I trust not in vain, to give the genuine sense of\nSextus, unmingled with the barbarous and polluted interpolations of\nRuffinus. If the English reader has my translation of the Sentences of\nDemophilus, and Mr. Bridgman\u2019s translation of the Golden Sentences of\nDemocrates, and the Similitudes of Demophilus,[7] he will then be\npossessed of all the Pythagoric Sentences that are extant, those alone\nof Sextus excepted, which I have not translated, in consequence of the\nvery impure and spurious state, in which they at present exist.\n\nI deem it also requisite to observe, that the Pythagoric life which is\nhere delineated, is a specimen of the greatest perfection in virtue and\nwisdom, which can be obtained by man in the present state. Hence, it\nexhibits piety unadulterated with folly, moral virtue uncontaminated\nwith vice, science unmingled with sophistry, dignity of mind and manners\nunaccompanied with pride, a sublime magnificence in theory, without any\ndegradation in practice, and a vigor of intellect, which elevates its\npossessor to the vision of divinity, and thus deifies while it exalts.\n\nThe original of the engraving of the head of Iamblichus in the\ntitle-page, is to be found at the end of a little volume consisting of\nLatin translations of Iamblichus De Mysteriis, Proclus On the First\nAlcibiades of Plato, &c. &c. &c. 18mo. Genev. 1607. This engraving was\nadded because it appeared to me to be probable that the original was\ncopied from an ancient gem. And as it is not impossible that it was, if\nit is not genuine, it is at least ornamental.\n\n\n\n\n THE LIFE,\n _&c._\n\n\n CHAP. I.\n\nSince it is usual with all men of sound understandings, to call on\ndivinity, when entering on any philosophic discussion, it is certainly\nmuch more appropriate to do this in the consideration of that philosophy\nwhich justly receives its denomination from the divine Pythagoras. For\nas it derives its origin from the Gods, it cannot be apprehended without\ntheir inspiring aid. To which we may also add, that the beauty and\nmagnitude of it so greatly surpasses human power, that it is impossible\nto survey it by a sudden view; but then alone can any one gradually\ncollect some portion of this philosophy, when, the Gods being his\nleaders, he quietly approaches to it. On all these accounts, therefore,\nhaving invoked the Gods as our leaders, and converting both ourselves\nand our discussion to them, we shall acquiesce in whatever they may\ncommand us to do. We shall not, however, make any apology for this sect\nhaving been neglected for a long time, nor for its being concealed by\nforeign disciplines, and certain arcane symbols, nor for having been\nobscured by false and spurious writings, nor for many other such-like\ndifficulties by which it has been impeded. For the will of the Gods is\nsufficient for us, in conjunction with which it is possible to sustain\nthings still more arduous than these. But after the Gods, we shall unite\nourselves as to a leader, to the prince and father of this divine\nphilosophy; of whose origin and country we must rise a little higher in\nour investigation.\n\n\n CHAP. II.\n\nIt is said, therefore, that Anc\u00e6us who dwelt in Samos in Cephallenia,\nwas begot by Jupiter, whether he derived the fame of such an honorable\ndescent through virtue, or through a certain greatness of soul. He\nsurpassed, however, the rest of the Cephallenians in wisdom and renown.\nThis Anc\u00e6us, therefore, was ordered by the Pythian oracle to form a\ncolony from Arcadia and Thessaly; and that besides this, taking with him\nsome of the inhabitants of Athens, Epidaurus, and Chalcis, and placing\nhimself at their head, he should render an island habitable, which from\nthe virtue of the soil and land should be called Melamphyllos;[8] and\nthat he should call the city Samos, on account of Same in Cephallenia.\nThe oracle, therefore, which was given to him, was as follows: \u201cI order\nyou, Anc\u00e6us, to colonise the marine island Samos instead of Same, and to\ncall it Phyllas.\u201d But that a colony was collected from these places, is\nnot only indicated by the honors and sacrifices of the Gods, transferred\ninto those regions together with the inhabitants, but also by the\nkindred families that dwell there, and the associations of the Samians\nwith each other.\n\nIt is said, therefore, that Mnesarchus and Pytha\u00efs, who were the parents\nof Pythagoras, descended from the family and alliance of this Anc\u00e6us,\nwho founded the colony. In consequence, however, of this nobility of\nbirth being celebrated by the citizens, a certain Samian poet says, that\nPythagoras was the son of Apollo. For thus he sings,\n\n Pytha\u00efs, fairest of the Samian tribe,\n Bore from th\u2019embraces of the God of day\n Renown\u2019d Pythagoras, the friend of Jove.\n\nIt is worth while, however, to relate how this report became so\nprevalent. The Pythian oracle then had predicted to this Mnesarchus (who\ncame to Delphi for the purposes of merchandize, with his wife not yet\napparently pregnant, and who inquired of the God concerning the event of\nhis voyage to Syria) that his voyage would be lucrative and most\nconformable to his wishes, but that his wife was now pregnant, and would\nbring forth a son surpassing in beauty and wisdom all that ever lived,\nand who would be of the greatest advantage to the human race in every\nthing pertaining to the life of man. But, when Mnesarchus considered\nwith himself, that the God, without being interrogated concerning his\nson, had informed him by an oracle, that he would possess an illustrious\nprerogative, and a gift truly divine, he immediately named his wife\nPytha\u00efs, from her son and the Delphic prophet, instead of Parthenis,\nwhich was her former appellation; and he called the infant, who was soon\nafter born at Sidon in Ph\u0153nicia, Pythagoras; signifying by this\nappellation, that such an offspring was predicted to him by the Pythian\nApollo. For we must not regard the assertions of Epimenides, Eudoxus,\nand Xenocrates, who suspect that Apollo at that time, becoming connected\nwith Parthenis, and causing her to be pregnant from not being so, had in\nconsequence of this predicted concerning Pythagoras, by the Delphic\nprophet: for this is by no means to be admitted.[9] Indeed, no one can\ndoubt that the soul of Pythagoras was sent to mankind from the empire of\nApollo, either being an attendant on the God, of co-arranged with him in\nsome other more familiar way: for this may be inferred both from his\nbirth, and the all-various wisdom of his soul. And thus much concerning\nthe nativity of Pythagoras.\n\nBut after his father Mnesarchus had returned from Syria to Samos, with\ngreat wealth, which he had collected from a prosperous navigation, he\nbuilt a temple to Apollo, with the inscription of Pythius; and took care\nto have his son nourished with various and the best disciplines, at one\ntime by Creophilus, at another by Pherecydes the Syrian, and at another\nby almost all those who presided over sacred concerns, to whom he\nearnestly recommended Pythagoras, that he might be as much as possible\nsufficiently instructed in divine concerns. He, however, was educated in\nsuch a manner, as to be fortunately the most beautiful and godlike of\nall those that have been celebrated in the annals of history. On the\ndeath of his father, likewise, though he was still but a youth, his\naspect was most venerable, and his habits most temperate, so that he was\neven reverenced and honored by elderly men; and converted the attention\nof all who saw and heard him speak, on himself, and appeared to be an\nadmirable person to every one who beheld him. Hence it was reasonably\nasserted by many, that he was the son of a God. But he being\ncorroborated by renown of this kind, by the education which he had\nreceived from his infancy, and by his natural deiform appearance, in a\nstill greater degree evinced that he deserved his present prerogatives.\nHe was also adorned by piety and disciplines, by a mode of living\ntranscendency good, by firmness of soul, and by a body in due subjection\nto the mandates of reason. In all his words and actions, he discovered\nan inimitable quiet and serenity, not being subdued at any time by\nanger, or laughter, or emulation, or contention, or any other\nperturbation or precipitation of conduct; but he dwelt at Samos like\nsome beneficent d\u00e6mon. Hence, while he was yet a youth, his great renown\nhaving reached Thales at Miletus, and Bias at Priene, men illustrious\nfor their wisdom, it also extended to the neighbouring cities. To all\nwhich we may add, that the youth was every where celebrated as the\n_long-haired Samian_, and was reverenced by the multitude as one under\nthe influence of divine inspiration. But after he had attained the\neighteenth year of his age, about the period when the tyranny of\nPolicrates first made its appearance, foreseeing that under such a\ngovernment he might receive some impediment in his studies, which\nengrossed the whole of his attention, he departed privately by night\nwith one Hermodamas (whose surname was Creophilus, and who was the\ngrandson of him who had formerly been the host, friend, and preceptor in\nall things of Homer the poet,) to Pherecydes, to Anaximander the natural\nphilosopher, and to Thales at Miletus. He likewise alternately\nassociated with each of these philosophers, in such a manner, that they\nall loved him, admired his natural endowments, and made him a partaker\nof their doctrines. Indeed, after Thales had gladly admitted him to his\nintimate confidence, he admired the great difference between him and\nother young men, whom Pythagoras left far behind in every\naccomplishment. And besides this, Thales increased the reputation\nPythagoras had already acquired, by communicating to him such\ndisciplines as he was able to impart: and, apologizing for his old age,\nand the imbecility of his body, he exhorted him to sail into Egypt, and\nassociate with the Memphian and Diospolitan[10] priests. For he\nconfessed that his own reputation for wisdom, was derived from the\ninstructions of these priests; but that he was neither naturally, nor by\nexercise, endued with those excellent prerogatives, which were so\nvisibly displayed in the person of Pythagoras. Thales, therefore, gladly\nannounced to him, from all these circumstances, that he would become the\nwisest and most divine of all men, if he associated with these Egyptian\npriests.\n\n\n CHAP. III.\n\nPythagoras, therefore, having been benefited by Thales in other\nrespects, and especially having learned from him to be sparing of his\ntime; for the sake of this he entirely abstained from wine and animal\nfood, and still prior to these from voracity, and confined himself to\nsuch nutriment as was slender and easy of digestion. In consequence of\nthis, his sleep was short, his soul vigilant and pure, and his body\nconfirmed in a state of perfect and invariable health. In possession of\nsuch advantages, therefore, he sailed to Sidon, being persuaded that\nthis was his natural country, and also properly conceiving that he might\neasily pass from thence into Egypt. Here he conversed with the prophets\nwho were the descendants of Mochus the physiologist, and with others,\nand also with the Ph\u0153nician hierophants. He was likewise initiated in\nall the mysteries of Byblus and Tyre, and in the sacred operations which\nare performed in many parts of Syria; not engaging in a thing of this\nkind for the sake of superstition, as some one may be led to suppose,\nbut much rather from a love and desire of contemplation, and from an\nanxiety that nothing might escape his observation which deserved to be\nlearnt in the arcana or mysteries of the Gods. Having been previously\ninstructed therefore in the mysteries of the Ph\u0153nicians, which were\nderived like a colony and a progeny from the sacred rites in Egypt, and\nhoping from this circumstance that he should be a partaker of more\nbeautiful, divine, and genuine monuments of erudition in Egypt; joyfully\ncalling to mind also the admonitions of his preceptor Thales, he\nimmediately embarked for Egypt, through the means of some Egyptian\nsailors, who very opportunely at that time landed on the Ph\u0153nician coast\nunder mount Carmelus, in whose temple Pythagoras, separated from all\nsociety, for the most part dwelt. But the sailors gladly received him,\nforeseeing that they should acquire great gain by exposing him to sale.\nBut when, during the voyage, they perceived with what continence and\nvenerable gravity he conducted himself, in conformity to the mode of\nliving he had adopted, they were more benevolently disposed towards him.\nObserving, likewise, that there was something greater than what pertains\nto human nature in the modesty of the youth, they called to mind how\nunexpectedly he had appeared to them on their landing, when from the\nsummit of mount Carmelus, which they knew was more sacred than other\nmountains, and inaccessible to the vulgar, he leisurely descended\nwithout looking back, or suffering any delay from precipices or opposing\nstones; and that when he came to the boat, he said nothing more than,\n\u201cAre you bound for Egypt?\u201d And farther, that on their answering in the\naffirmative, he ascended the ship and sate silent the whole time of the\nvoyage, in that part of the vessel where he was not likely to incommode\nthe occupations of the sailors. But Pythagoras remained in one and the\nsame unmoved state for two nights and three days, neither partaking of\nfood, nor drink, nor sleep, unless perhaps as he sate in that firm and\ntranquil condition, he might sleep for a short time unobserved by all\nthe sailors. To which we may add, that when the sailors considered how,\ncontrary to their expectations, their voyage had been continued and\nuninterrupted, as if some deity had been present; putting all these\nthings together, they concluded that a divine d\u00e6mon had in reality\npassed over with them from Syria into Egypt. Hence, speaking both to\nPythagoras and to each other with greater decorum and gentleness than\nbefore, they completed, through a most tranquil sea, the remainder of\ntheir voyage, and at length happily landed on the Egyptian coast. Here\nthe sailors reverently assisted him in descending from the ship; and\nafter they had placed him on the purest sand, they raised a certain\ntemporary altar before him, and heaping on it from their present\nabundance the fruits of trees, and presenting him as it were with the\nfirst fruits of their freight, they departed from thence, and hastened\nto their destined port. But Pythagoras, whose body through such long\nfasting was become weaker, did not oppose the sailors in assisting him\nto descend from the ship, and immediately on their departure eat as much\nof the fruits as was requisite to restore his decayed strength. From\nthence also he arrived safe at the neighbouring lands, constantly\npreserving the same tranquillity and modesty of behaviour.\n\n\n CHAP. IV.\n\nBut here, while he frequented all the Egyptian temples with the greatest\ndiligence and with accurate investigation, he was both admired and loved\nby the priests and prophets with whom he associated. And having learnt\nwith the greatest solicitude every particular, he did not neglect to\nhear of any transaction that was celebrated in his own time, or of any\nman famous for his wisdom, or any mystery in whatever manner it might be\nperformed; nor did he omit to visit any place in which he thought\nsomething more excellent might be found. On this account he went to all\nthe priests, by whom he was furnished with the wisdom which each\npossessed. He spent therefore two and twenty years in Egypt, in the\nadyta of temples, astronomizing and geometrizing, and was initiated, not\nin a superficial or casual manner, in all the mysteries of the Gods,\ntill at length being taken captive by the soldiers of Cambyses, he was\nbrought to Babylon. Here he gladly associated with the Magi, was\ninstructed by them in their venerable knowledge, and learnt from them\nthe most perfect worship of the Gods. Through their assistance likewise,\nhe arrived at the summit of arithmetic, music, and other disciplines;\nand after associating with them twelve years, he returned to Samos about\nthe fifty-sixth year of his age.\n\n\n CHAP. V.\n\nOn his return to Samos, however, being known by some of the more aged\ninhabitants, he was not less admired than before. For he appeared to\nthem to be more beautiful and wise, and to possess a divine gracefulness\nin a more eminent degree. Hence, he was publicly called upon by his\ncountry to benefit all men, by imparting to them what he knew. Nor was\nhe averse to this request, but endeavoured to introduce the symbolical\nmode of teaching, in a way perfectly similar to the documents by which\nhe had been instructed in Egypt; though the Samians did not very much\nadmit this mode of tuition, and did not adhere to him with that\naccording aptitude which was requisite. Though no one therefore attended\nto him, and no one was genuinely desirous of those disciplines which he\nendeavoured by all means to introduce among the Greeks, yet he neither\ndespised nor neglected Samos, because it was his country, and therefore\nwished to give his fellow-citizens a taste of the sweetness of the\nmathematical disciplines, though they were unwilling to be instructed in\nthem. With a view to this, therefore, he employed the following method\nand artifice. Happening to observe a certain youth, who was a great\nlover of gymnastic and other corporeal exercises, but otherwise poor and\nin difficult circumstances, playing at ball in the Gymnasium with great\naptness and facility, he thought the young man might easily be persuaded\nto attend to him, if he was sufficiently supplied with the necessaries\nof life, and freed from the care of procuring them. As soon as the\nyouth, therefore, left the bath, Pythagoras called him to him, and\npromised that he would furnish him with every thing requisite to the\nsupport of his bodily exercise, on condition that he would receive from\nhim gradually and easily, but continually, so that he might not be\nburthened by receiving them at once, certain disciplines, which he said\nhe had learnt from the Barbarians in his youth, but which now began to\ndesert him through forgetfulness and the incursions of old age. But the\nyoung man immediately acceded to the conditions, through the hope of\nhaving necessary support. Pythagoras, therefore, endeavoured to instruct\nhim in the disciplines of arithmetic and geometry, forming each of his\ndemonstrations in an abacus, and giving the youth three oboli as a\nreward for every figure which he learnt. This also he continued to do\nfor a long time, exciting him to the geometrical theory by the desire of\nhonour; diligently, and in the best order, giving him (as we have said)\nthree oboli for every figure which he apprehended. But when the wise man\nobserved that the elegance, sweetness, and connexion of these\ndisciplines, to which the youth had been led in a certain orderly path,\nhad so captivated him that he would not neglect their pursuit though he\nshould suffer the extremity of want, he pretended poverty, and an\ninability of giving him three oboli any longer. But the youth on hearing\nthis replied, \u201cI am able without these to learn and receive your\ndisciplines.\u201d Pythagoras then said, \u201cBut I have not the means of\nprocuring sufficient nutriment for myself.\u201d As it is requisite,\ntherefore, to labour in order to procure daily necessaries and mortal\nfood, it would not be proper that his attention should be distracted by\nthe abacus, and by stupid and vain pursuits. The youth, however,\nvehemently abhorring the thought of discontinuing his studies, replied:\n\u201cI will in future provide for you, and repay your kindness in a way\nresembling that of the stork: for I in my turn will give you three oboli\nfor every figure.\u201d And from this time he was so captivated by these\ndisciplines, that he alone, of all the Samians, migrated from his\ncountry with Pythagoras, having the same name with him, but being the\nson of Eratocles. There are said to be three books of this Samian On\nAthletics, in which he orders the Athlet\u00e6 to feed on flesh instead of\ndry figs; which books are very improperly ascribed by some to Pythagoras\nthe son of Mnesarchus. It is likewise said, that about the same time\nPythagoras was admired at Delos, when he approached to the bloodless\naltar, as it is called, of the father Apollo, and worshipped it. After\nwhich he went to all the oracles. He likewise dwelt for some time in\nCrete and Sparta, for the purpose of becoming acquainted with their\nlaws; and, having been an auditor and learner of all these, he returned\nhome in order to investigate what he had omitted. And in the first\nplace, indeed, he established a school in the city, which is even now\ncalled the semicircle of Pythagoras; and in which the Samians now\nconsult about public affairs, conceiving it right to investigate things\njust and advantageous in that place which he had constructed who paid\nattention to the welfare of all men. He also formed a cavern out of the\ncity, adapted to his philosophy, in which he spent the greatest part\nboth of the day and night; employing himself in the investigation of\nthings useful in disciplines, framing intellectual conceptions after the\nsame manner as Minos the son of Jupiter. Indeed, he so much surpassed\nthose who afterwards employed his disciplines, that they conceived\nmagnificently of themselves, from the knowledge of theorems of small\nimportance; but Pythagoras gave completion to the science of the\ncelestial orbs, and unfolded the whole of it by arithmetical and\ngeometrical demonstrations. He is, however, to be admired in a still\ngreater degree for what he afterwards accomplished. For when now\nphilosophy had received a great accession, he was admired by all Greece,\nand the best of those who philosophized came to Samos on his account, in\norder that they might participate of his erudition. The citizens\nlikewise employed him in all their embassies, and compelled him to unite\nwith them in the administration of public affairs. However, as he easily\nsaw the difficulty of complying with the laws of his country, and at the\nsame time remaining at home and philosophizing, and considered that all\nphilosophers before him had passed their life in foreign countries, he\ndetermined to neglect all political occupations; induced to this,\naccording to the testimony of others, by the negligence of the Samians\nin what relates to education, and went into Italy, conceiving that place\nto be his proper country, in which men well disposed towards learning\nwere to be found in the greatest abundance. And such was the success of\nhis journey, that on his arrival at Crotona, which was the noblest city\nin Italy, he had many followers, amounting, as it is said, to the number\nof six hundred, who were not only excited by his discourses to the study\nof philosophy, but also to an amicable division of the goods of life in\ncommon; from whence they acquired the appellation of _C\u0153nobit\u00e6_.\n\n\n CHAP. VI.\n\nAnd these indeed were such as philosophized. But the greatest part of\nhis disciples consisted of auditors whom they call _Acusmatici_, who on\nhis first arrival in Italy, according to Nicomachus, being captivated by\none popular oration alone, exceeded two thousand in number. These, with\ntheir wives and children, being collected into one very large and common\nauditory, called Homaco\u00efon, and which for its magnitude resembled a\ncity, founded a place which was universally called Magna Gr\u00e6cia. This\ngreat multitude of people likewise, receiving laws and mandates from\nPythagoras as so many divine precepts, and without which they engaged in\nno occupation, dwelt together with the greatest general concord,\ncelebrated and ranked by their neighbours among the number of the\nblessed. At the same time, as we have already observed, they shared\ntheir possessions in common. Such also was their reverence for\nPythagoras, that they numbered him with the Gods, as a certain\nbeneficent and most philanthropic d\u00e6mon. And some indeed celebrated him\nas the Pythian, but others as the Hyperborean Apollo. Some again\nconsidered him as P\u00e6on, but others as one of the d\u00e6mons that inhabit the\nmoon; and others celebrated him as one of the Olympian Gods,[11] who, in\norder to benefit and correct the mortal life, appeared to the men of\nthose times in a human form, in order that he might extend to them the\nsalutary light of felicity and philosophy. And indeed a greater good\nnever came, nor ever will come to mankind, than that which was imparted\nby the Gods through this Pythagoras. Hence, even now the proverb of _the\nlong-haired Samian_, is applied to the most venerable man. But Aristotle\nrelates, in his Treatise On the Pythagoric Philosophy, that such a\ndivision as the following was preserved by the Pythagoreans among their\nprincipal arcana; viz. that of rational animals one kind is a God,\nanother man, and another such as Pythagoras. And indeed they very\nreasonably apprehended him to be a being of this kind, through whom a\nright conception and conformable to things themselves was introduced of\nGods, heroes, and d\u00e6mons; of the world, the all-various motion of the\nspheres and stars, their oppositions, eclipses, and inequalities, their\neccentricities and epicycles; of all the natures contained in the\nheavens and the earth, together with those that have an intermediate\nsubsistence, whether apparent or occult. Nor was there anything (in all\nthis variety of information) at all contrary to the phenomena, or the\nconceptions of intellect. To which we may add, that all such\ndisciplines, theories, and scientific investigations, as truly\ninvigorate the eye of the soul, and purify the intellect from the\nblindness introduced by studies of a different kind, so as to enable it\nto perceive the true principles and causes of the universe, were\nunfolded by Pythagoras to the Greeks. But besides all this, the best\npolity, popular concord, community of possessions among friends, the\nworship of the gods, piety to the dead, legislation, erudition, silence,\nabstinence from animals, continence, temperance, sagacity, divinity, and\nin one word, whatever is anxiously sought after by the lovers of\nlearning, was brought to light by Pythagoras. On all these accounts,\ntherefore, as I have just now said, he was (every where) so\ntranscendently admired.\n\n\n CHAP. VII.\n\nIt remains therefore after this, that we should relate how he travelled,\nwhat places he first visited, what discourses he made, on what subjects,\nand to whom they were addressed; for thus we shall easily apprehend the\nnature of his association with the men of that time. It is said then,\nthat as soon as he came to Italy and Sicily, which cities he understood\nhad oppressed each other with slavery, partly at some distant period of\npast time, and partly at a recent period, he inspired the inhabitants\nwith a love of liberty, and through the means of his auditors, restored\nto independence and liberated Crotona, Sybaris, Catanes, Rhegium,\nHim\u00e6ra, Agrigentum, Tauromenas, and some other cities, for whom also he\nestablished laws, through Charondas the Catan\u00e6an, and Zaleucus the\nLocrian, by whom they became florishing cities, and afforded an example\nworthy of imitation, for a long time, to the neighbouring kingdoms. He\nalso entirely subverted sedition, discord, and party zeal, not only from\nhis familiars, and their posterity, for many generations, as we are\ninformed by history, but, in short, from all the cities in Italy and\nSicily, which were at that time disturbed with intestine and external\ncontentions. For the following apothegm was always employed by him in\nevery place, whether in the company of a multitude or a few, which was\nsimilar to the persuasive oracle of a God, and was an epitome and\nsummary as it were of his own opinions; that we should avoid and\namputate by every possible artifice, by fire and sword, and all-various\ncontrivances, from the body, disease; from the soul, ignorance; from the\nbelly, luxury; from a city, sedition; from a house, discord; and at the\nsame time, from all things, immoderation: through which, with a most\nfatherly affection, he reminded each of his disciples of the most\nexcellent dogmas. Such therefore was the common form of his life at that\ntime, both in words and actions. If, however, it be requisite to make a\nmore particular relation of what he did and said, it must be observed,\nthat he came to Italy in the sixty-second Olympiad, at which time\nEryxidas of Chalcis conquered in the stadium. But immediately on his\narrival he became conspicuous and illustrious, in the same manner as\nbefore, when he sailed to Delos. For there, when he performed his\nadorations at the bloodless altar of the father Apollo, he was admired\nby the inhabitants of the island.\n\n\n CHAP. VIII.\n\nAt that time also, when he was journeying from Sybaris to Crotona, he\nmet near the shore with some fishermen, who were then drawing their nets\nheavily laden with fishes from the deep, and told them he knew the exact\nnumber of the fish they had caught. But the fishermen promising they\nwould perform whatever he should order them to do, if the event\ncorresponded with his prediction, he ordered them, after they had\naccurately numbered the fish, to return them alive to the sea: and what\nis yet more wonderful, not one of the fish died while he stood on the\nshore, though they had been detained from the water a considerable time.\nHaving therefore paid the fishermen the price of their fish, he departed\nfor Crotona. But they every where divulged the fact, and having learnt\nhis name from some children, they told it to all men. Hence those that\nheard of this affair were desirous of seeing the stranger, and what they\ndesired was easily obtained. But they were astonished on surveying his\ncountenance, and conjectured him to be such a man as he was in reality.\nA few days also after this, he entered the Gymnasium, and being\nsurrounded with a crowd of young men, he is said to have delivered an\noration to them, in which he incited them to pay attention to their\nelders, evincing that in the world, in life, in cities, and in nature,\nthat which has a precedency is more honorable than that which is\nconsequent in time. As for instance, that the east is more honorable\nthan the west; the morning than the evening; the beginning than the end;\nand generation than corruption. In a similar manner he observed, that\nnatives were more honorable than strangers, and the leaders of colonies\nthan the builders of cities: and universally Gods than d\u00e6mons; d\u00e6mons\nthan demigods; and heroes than men. Of these likewise he observed, that\nthe authors of generation are more honorable than their progeny. He said\nthese things, however, for the sake of proving by induction, that\nchildren should very much esteem their parents, to whom he asserted they\nowed as many thanks as a dead man would owe to him who should be able to\nbring him back again into light. Afterwards, he observed, that it was\nindeed just to love those above all others, and never to give them pain,\nwho first benefited us, and in the greatest degree. But parents alone\nbenefit their children prior to their birth, and are the causes to their\noffspring of all their upright conduct; and that when children show\nthemselves to be in no respect inferior to their parents in beneficence\ntowards them, it is not possible for them in this respect to err. For it\nis reasonable to suppose, that the Gods will pardon those who honor\ntheir parent in no less a degree than the divinities themselves; since\nwe learnt from our parents to honor divinity. Hence Homer also added the\nsame appellation to the king of the Gods; for he denominates him the\nfather of Gods and mortals. Many other mythologists also have delivered\nto us, that the kings of the Gods have been ambitious to vindicate to\nthemselves that excessive love which subsists through marriage, in\nchildren towards their parents. And that on this account, they have at\nthe same time introduced the hypothesis of father and mother among the\nGods,[12] the former indeed generating Minerva, but the latter Vulcan,\nwho are of a nature contrary to each other, in order that what is most\nremote may participate of friendship.\n\nAll his auditors likewise having granted that the judgment of the\nimmortals is most valid, he said he would demonstrate to the Crotonians,\nby the example of Hercules the founder of the colony brought to Crotona,\nthat it is necessary to be voluntarily obedient to the mandates of\nparents, as they knew from tradition that the God himself had undertaken\nsuch great labors in consequence of obeying the commands of one older\nthan himself, and being victorious in what he had undertaken to\naccomplish, had instituted in honor of his father the Olympic games. He\nalso showed them that they should associate with each other in such a\nmanner, as never to be in a state of hostility to their friends, but to\nbecome most rapidly friends to their enemies; and that they should\nexhibit in modesty of behaviour to their elders, the benevolent\ndisposition of children towards their parents; but in their philanthropy\nto others, fraternal love and regard.\n\nIn the next place, he spoke concerning temperance, and said, that the\njuvenile age should make trial of its nature, this being the period in\nwhich the desires are in the most florishing state. Afterwards, he\nexhorted them to consider, that this alone among the virtues was adapted\nto a boy and a virgin, to a woman, and to the order of those of a more\nadvanced age; and that it was especially accommodated to the younger\npart of the community. He also added, that this virtue alone\ncomprehended the goods both of body and soul, as it preserved the health\nand also the desire of the most excellent studies. But this is evident\nfrom the opposite. For when the Barbarians and Greeks warred on each\nother about Troy, each of them fell into the most dreadful calamities,\nthrough the incontinence of one man, partly in the war itself, and\npartly in returning to their native land. And divinity ordained that the\npunishment of injustice alone should endure for a thousand and ten\nyears, predicting by an oracle the capture of Troy, and ordering that\nvirgins should be annually sent by the Locrians into the temple of\nTrojan Minerva. Pythagoras also exhorted young men to the cultivation of\nlearning, calling on them to observe how absurd it would be that they\nshould judge the reasoning power to be the most laudable of all things,\nand should consult about other things through this, and yet bestow no\ntime nor labour in the exercise of it; though the attention which is\npaid to the body, resembles depraved friends, and rapidly fails; but\nerudition, like worthy and good men, endures till death, and for some\npersons procures immortal renown after death. These and other\nobservations of the like kind, were made by Pythagoras, partly from\nhistory, and partly from [philosophic] dogmas, in which he showed that\nerudition is a natural excellence of disposition common to those in each\ngenus, who rank in the first class of human nature. For the discoveries\nof these, become erudition to others. But this is naturally so worthy of\npursuit, that with respect to other laudable objects of attainment, it\nis not possible to partake of some of them through another person, such\nas strength, beauty, health, and fortitude; and others are no longer\npossessed by him who imparts them to another, such as wealth, dominion,\nand many other things which we shall omit to mention. It is possible,\nhowever, for erudition to be received by another, without in the least\ndiminishing that which the giver possesses. In a similar manner also,\nsome goods cannot be possessed by men; but we are capable of being\ninstructed, according to our own proper and deliberate choice. And in\nthe next place, he who being thus instructed, engages in the\nadministration of the affairs of his country, does not do this from\nimpudence, but from erudition. For by education nearly men differ from\nwild beasts, the Greeks from the Barbarians, those that are free from\nslaves, and philosophers from the vulgar. And in short, those that have\nerudition possess such a transcendency with respect to those that have\nnot, that seven men have been found from one city, and in one Olympiad,\nthat were swifter than others in the course; and in the whole of the\nhabitable part of the globe, those that excelled in wisdom were also\nseven in number. But in the following times in which Pythagoras lived,\nhe alone surpassed all others in philosophy. For he called himself by\nthis name [viz. a philosopher], instead of a wise man.\n\n\n CHAP. IX.\n\nAnd this indeed is what he said to the young men in the Gymnasium. But\nwhen they had told their parents what they had heard, a thousand men\nhaving called Pythagoras into the senate-house, and praised him for what\nhe had said to their sons, desired him, if he had any thing advantageous\nto say to the Crotonians, to unfold it to those who were the leaders of\nthe administration. He was also the first that advised them to build a\ntemple to the Muses, in order that they might preserve the existing\nconcord. For he observed that all these divinities were called by one\ncommon name, [the Muses,] that they subsisted in conjunction with each\nother, especially rejoiced in common honors, and in short, that there\nwas always one and the same choir of the Muses. He likewise farther\nobserved, that they comprehended in themselves symphony, harmony, rythm,\nand all things which procure concord. They also evince that their power\ndoes not alone extend to the most beautiful theorems, but likewise to\nthe symphony and harmony of things. In the next place, he said it was\nnecessary they should apprehend that they received their country from\nthe multitude of the citizens, as a common deposit. Hence, it was\nrequisite they should so govern it, that they might faithfully transmit\nit to their posterity, as an hereditary possession. And that this would\nfirmly be effected, if they were equal in all things to the citizens,\nand surpassed them in nothing else than justice. For men knowing that\nevery place requires justice, have asserted in fables that Themis has\nthe same order with Jupiter, that Dice, i. e. justice, is seated by\nPluto, and that Law is established in cities; in order that he who does\nnot act justly in things which his rank in society requires him to\nperform, may at the same time appear to be unjust towards the whole\nworld. He added, it was proper that the senators should not make use of\nany of the Gods for the purpose of an oath, but that their language\nshould be such as to render them worthy of belief even without oaths.\nAnd likewise, that they should so manage their own domestic affairs, as\nto make the government of them the object of their deliberate choice.\nThat they should also be genuinely disposed towards their own offspring,\nas being the only animals that have a sensation of this conception. And\nthat they should so associate with a wife the companion of life, as to\nbe mindful that other compacts are engraved in tables and pillars, but\nthose with wives are inserted in children. That they should likewise\nendeavour to be beloved by their offspring, not through nature, of which\nthey were not the causes, but through deliberate choice: for this is\nvoluntary beneficence.\n\nHe further observed, that they should be careful not to have connexion\nwith any but their wives, in order that the wives may not bastardize the\nrace through the neglect and vicious conduct of the husbands. That they\nshould also consider, that they received their wives from the Vestal\nhearth with libations, and brought them home as if they were suppliants,\nin the presence of the Gods themselves. And that by orderly conduct and\ntemperance, they should become examples both to their own families, and\nto the city in which they live. That besides this, they should take care\nto prevent every one from acting viciously, lest offenders not fearing\nthe punishment of the laws, should be concealed; and reverencing\nbeautiful and worthy manners, they should be impelled to justice. He\nalso exhorted them to expel sluggishness from all their actions; for he\nsaid that opportunity was the only good in every action. But he defined\nthe divulsion of parents and children from each other, to be the\ngreatest of injuries. And said, that he ought to be considered as the\nmost excellent man, who is able to foresee what will be advantageous to\nhimself; but that he ranks as the next in excellence, who understands\nwhat is useful from things which happen to others. But that he is the\nworst of men who waits for the perception of what is best, till he is\nhimself afflicted. He likewise said, that those who wish to be honored,\nwill not err if they imitate those that are crowned in the course: for\nthese do not injure their antagonists, but are alone desirous that they\nthemselves may obtain the victory. Thus also it is fit that those who\nengage in the administration of public affairs, should not be offended\nwith those that contradict them, but should benefit such as are obedient\nto them. He likewise exhorted every one who aspired after true glory, to\nbe such in reality as he wished to appear to be to others: for counsel\nis not so sacred a thing as praise; since the former is only useful\namong men, but the latter is for the most part referred to the Gods. And\nafter all this he added, that their city happened to be founded by\nHercules, at that time when he drove the oxen through Italy, having been\ninjured by Lacinius; and when giving assistance by night to Croton, he\nslew him through ignorance, conceiving him to be an enemy. After which,\nHercules promised that a city should be built about the sepulchre of\nCroton, and should be called from him Crotona, when he himself became a\npartaker of immortality. Hence Pythagoras said, it was fit that they\nshould justly return thanks for the benefit they had received. But the\nCrotonians, on hearing this, built a temple to the Muses, and dismissed\nthe harlots which they were accustomed to have. They also requested\nPythagoras to discourse to the boys in the temple of Pythian Apollo, and\nto the women in the temple of Juno.\n\n\n CHAP. X.\n\nPythagoras, therefore, complying with their wish, is said to have given\nthe boys the following advice: That they should neither revile any one,\nnor take vengeance on those that reviled. He likewise exhorted them to\npay diligent attention to learning, which derives its appellation from\ntheir age. He added, that it was easy for a modest youth to preserve\nprobity through the whole of life; but that it was difficult for one to\naccomplish this, who was not naturally well disposed at that age; or\nrather it is impossible that he who begins his course from a bad\nimpulse, should run well to the end. Besides this, he observed that boys\nwere most dear to divinity, and hence in times of great drought, they\nwere sent by cities to implore rain from the Gods, in consequence of the\npersuasion that divinity is especially attentive to children; though\nsuch as are permitted to be continually conversant with sacred\nceremonies, scarcely obtain purification in perfection. From this cause\nalso, the most philanthropic of the Gods, Apollo and Love, are\nuniversally represented in pictures as having the age of boys. It is\nlikewise acknowledged, that some of the games in which the conquerors\nare crowned, were instituted on account of boys; the Pythian, indeed, in\nconsequence of the serpent Python being slain by a boy; but the Nemean\nand Isthmian, on account of the death of Archemorus and Melicerta.\nBesides what has been said likewise, while the city of Crotona was\nbuilding, Apollo promised to the founder, that he would give him a\nprogeny, if he brought a colony into Italy; from which inferring that\nApollo providentially attended to the propagation of them, and that all\nthe Gods paid attention to every age, they ought to render themselves\nworthy of their friendship. He added, that they should exercise\nthemselves in hearing, in order that they may be able to speak. And\nfarther still, that as soon as they have entered into the path in which\nthey intend to proceed to old age, they should follow the steps of those\nthat preceded them, and never contradict those that are older than\nthemselves. For thus hereafter, they will justly think it right that\nneither should they be injured by their juniors. On account of these\nexhortations, it must be confessed that he deserved not to be called by\nhis own name, but that all men should denominate him divine.\n\n\n CHAP. XI.\n\nBut to the women he is said to have discoursed concerning sacrifices as\nfollows: In the first place indeed, as they would wish that another\nperson who intended to pray for them, should be worthy and good, because\nthe Gods attend to such as these; thus also it is requisite that they\nshould in the highest degree esteem equity and modesty, in order that\nthe Gods may be readily disposed to hear their prayers. In the next\nplace, they should offer to the Gods such things as they have produced\nwith their own hands, and should bring them to the altars without the\nassistance of servants, such as cakes, honey-combs, and frankincense.\nBut that they should not worship divinity with blood and dead bodies,\nnor offer many things at one time, as if they never meant to sacrifice\nagain. With respect also to their association with men, he exhorted them\nto consider that their parents granted to the female nature, that they\nshould love their husbands in a greater degree than those who were the\nsources of their existence. That in consequence of this, they would do\nwell either not to oppose their husbands, or to think that they have\nthen vanquished, when they submit to them. Farther still, in the same\nassembly also, Pythagoras is said to have made that celebrated\nobservation, that it is holy for a woman, after having been connected\nwith her husband, to perform sacred rites on the same day; but that this\nis never holy, after she has been connected with any other man. He also\nexhorted the women to use words of good omen through the whole of life,\nand to endeavor that others may predict good things of them. He likewise\nadmonished them not to destroy popular renown, nor to blame the writers\nof fables, who surveying the justice of women, from their accommodating\nothers with garments and ornaments, without a witness, when it is\nnecessary for some other person to use them, and that neither litigation\nnor contradiction are produced from this confidence,\u2014have feigned, that\nthree women used but one eye in common, on account of the facility of\ntheir communion with each other. He farther observed, that he who is\ncalled the wisest of all others, and who gave arrangement to the human\nvoice, and in short, was the inventor of names, whether he was a God or\na d\u00e6mon, or a certain divine man,[13] perceiving that the genus of women\nis most adapted to piety, gave to each of their ages the appellation of\nsome God. Hence he called an unmarried woman _Core_, i. e. Proserpine;\nbut a bride, _Nympha_; the woman who has brought forth children,\n_Mater_; and a grandmother, according to the Doric dialect, _Maia_. In\nconformity to which also, the oracles in Dodona and at Delphi, are\nunfolded in to light through a woman. But through this praise pertaining\nto piety, Pythagoras is said to have produced so great a change in\nfemale attire, that the women no longer dared to clothe themselves with\ncostly garments, but consecrated many myriads of their vestments in the\ntemple of Juno. The effect also of this discourse is said to have been\nsuch, that about the region of the Crotonians the fidelity of the\nhusband to the wife was universally celebrated; [imitating in this\nrespect] Ulysses, who would not receive immortality from Calypso, on\ncondition that he should abandon Penelope. Pythagoras therefore also\nobserved, that it remained for the women to exhibit their probity to\ntheir husbands, in order that they might be equally celebrated with\nUlysses. In short, it is recorded that through the above-mentioned\ndiscourses, Pythagoras obtained no moderate honor and esteem, both in\nthe city of the Crotonians and throughout Italy.\n\n\n CHAP. XII.\n\nIt is also said, that Pythagoras was the first who called himself a\nphilosopher; this not being a new name, but previously instructing us in\na useful manner in a thing appropriate to the name. For he said that the\nentrance of men into the present life, resembled the progression of a\ncrowd to some public spectacle. For there men of every description\nassemble with different views; one hastening to sell his wares for the\nsake of money and gain; but another that he may acquire renown by\nexhibiting the strength of his body; and there is also a third class of\nmen, and those the most liberal, who assemble for the sake of surveying\nthe places, the beautiful works of art, the specimens of valor, and the\nliterary productions which are usually exhibited on such occasions. Thus\nalso in the present life, men of all-various pursuits are collected\ntogether in one and the same place. For some are influenced by the\ndesire of riches and luxury; others by the love of power and dominion;\nand others are possessed with an insane ambition for glory. But the most\npure and unadulterated character, is that of the man who gives himself\nto the contemplation of the most beautiful things, and whom it is proper\nto call a philosopher.[14] He adds, that the survey of all heaven, and\nof the stars that revolve in it, is indeed beautiful, when the order of\nthem is considered. For they derive this beauty and order by the\nparticipation of the first and the intelligible essence. But that first\nessence is the nature of number and reasons [i. e. productive\nprinciples,] which pervades through all things, and according to which\nall these [celestial bodies] are elegantly arranged, and fitly adorned.\nAnd wisdom indeed, truly so called, is a certain science which is\nconversant with the first beautiful objects,[15] and these divine,\nundecaying, and possessing an invariable sameness of subsistence; by the\nparticipation of which other things also may be called beautiful. But\nphilosophy is the appetition of a thing of this kind. The attention\ntherefore to erudition is likewise beautiful, which Pythagoras extended,\nin order to effect the correction of mankind.\n\n\n CHAP. XIII.\n\nMoreover, if we may believe in so many ancient and credible historians\nas have written concerning him, the words of Pythagoras contained\nsomething of a recalling and admonitory nature, which extended as far as\nto irrational animals; by which it may be inferred that learning\npredominates in those endued with intellect, since it tames even wild\nbeasts, and those which are considered to be deprived of reason. For it\nis said that Pythagoras detained the Daunian bear which had most\nseverely injured the inhabitants, and that having gently stroked it with\nhis hand for a long time, fed it with maze and acorns, and compelled it\nby an oath no longer to touch any living thing, he dismissed it. But the\nbear immediately after hid herself in the mountains and woods, and was\nnever seen from that time to attack any irrational animal. Perceiving\nlikewise an ox at Tarentum feeding in a pasture, and eating among other\nthings green beans, he advised the herdsman to tell the ox to abstain\nfrom the beans. The herdsman, however, laughed at him, and said that he\ndid not understand the language of oxen, but if Pythagoras did, it was\nin vain to advise him to speak to the ox, but fit that he himself should\nadvise the animal to abstain from such food. Pythagoras therefore,\napproaching to the ear of the ox, and whispering in it for a long time,\nnot only caused him then to refrain from beans, but it is said that he\nnever after tasted them. This ox also lived for a long time at Tarentum\nnear the temple of Juno, where it remained when it was old, and was\ncalled the sacred ox of Pythagoras. It was also fed by those that came\nto it with human food. When likewise he happened to be conversing with\nhis familiars about birds, symbols, and prodigies, and was observing\nthat all these are the messengers of the Gods, sent by them to those men\nwho are truly dear to the Gods, he is said to have brought down an eagle\nthat was flying over Olympia, and after gently stroking, to have\ndismissed it. Through these things, therefore, and other things similar\nto these, he demonstrated that he possessed the same dominion as\nOrpheus, over savage animals, and that he allured and detained them by\nthe power of voice proceeding from the mouth.\n\n\n CHAP. XIV.\n\nWith him likewise the best principle originated of a guardian attention\nto the concerns of men, and which ought to be pre-assumed by those who\nintend to learn the truth about other things. For he reminded many of\nhis familiars, by most clear and evident indications, of the former life\nwhich their soul lived, before it was bound to this body, and\ndemonstrated by indubitable arguments, that he had been Euphorbus the\nson of Panthus, who conquered Patroclus. And he especially praised the\nfollowing funeral Homeric verses pertaining to himself, sung them most\nelegantly to the lyre, and frequently repeated them.\n\n \u201cThe shining circlets of his golden hair,\n Which ev\u2019n the Graces might be proud to wear,\n Instarr\u2019d with gems and gold, bestrow the shore\n With dust dishonor\u2019d, and deform\u2019d with gore.\n As the young olive in some sylvan scene,\n Crown\u2019d by fresh fountains with eternal green,\n Lifts the gay head, in snowy flowrets fair,\n And plays and dances to the gentle air;\n When lo! a whirlwind from high heav\u2019n invades\n The tender plant, and withers all its shades;\n It lies uprooted from its genial bed,\n A lovely ruin now defac\u2019d and dead.\n Thus young, thus beautiful, Euphorbus lay,\n While the fierce Spartan tore his arms away.\u201d[16]\n\nBut what is related about the shield of this Phrygian Euphorbus, being\ndedicated among other Trojan spoils to Argive Juno, we shall omit, as\nbeing of a very popular nature. That, however, which he wished to\nindicate through all these particulars is this, that he knew the former\nlives which he had lived, and that from hence he commenced his\nprovidential attention to others, reminding them of their former life.\n\n\n CHAP. XV.\n\nConceiving, however, that the first attention which should be paid to\nmen, is that which takes place through the senses; as when some one\nperceives beautiful figures and forms, or hears beautiful rythms and\nmelodies, he established that to be the first erudition which subsists\nthrough music, and also through certain melodies and rythms, from which\nthe remedies of human manners and passions are obtained, together with\nthose harmonies of the powers of the soul which it possessed from the\nfirst. He likewise devised medicines calculated to repress and expel the\ndiseases both of bodies and souls. And by Jupiter that which deserves to\nbe mentioned above all these particulars is this, that he arranged and\nadapted for his disciples what are called apparatus and contrectations,\ndivinely contriving mixtures of certain diatonic, chromatic, and\neuharmonic melodies, through which he easily transferred and circularly\nled the passions of the soul into a contrary direction, when they had\nrecently and in an irrational and clandestine manner been formed; such\nas sorrow, rage, and pity, absurd emulation and fear, all-various\ndesires, angers, and appetites, pride, supineness, and vehemence. For he\ncorrected each of these by the rule of virtue, attempering them through\nappropriate melodies, as through certain salutary medicines. In the\nevening, likewise, when his disciples were retiring to sleep, he\nliberated them by these means from diurnal perturbations and tumults,\nand purified their intellective power from the influxive and effluxive\nwaves of a corporeal nature; rendered their sleep quiet, and their\ndreams pleasing and prophetic. But when they again rose from their bed,\nhe freed them from nocturnal heaviness, relaxation and torpor, through\ncertain peculiar songs and modulations, produced either by simply\nstriking the lyre, or employing the voice. Pythagoras, however, did not\nprocure for himself a thing of this kind through instruments or the\nvoice, but employing a certain ineffable divinity, and which it is\ndifficult to apprehend, he extended his ears, and fixed his intellect in\nthe sublime symphonies of the world, he alone hearing and understanding,\nas it appears, the universal harmony and consonance of the spheres, and\nthe stars that are moved through them, and which produce a fuller and\nmore intense melody than any thing effected by mortal sounds.[17] This\nmelody also was the result of dissimilar and variously differing sounds,\ncelerities, magnitudes, and intervals, arranged with reference to each\nother in a certain most musical ratio, and thus producing a most gentle,\nand at the same time variously beautiful motion and convolution. Being\ntherefore irrigated as it were with this melody, having the reason of\nhis intellect well arranged through it, and as I may say, exercised, he\ndetermined to exhibit certain images of these things to his disciples as\nmuch as possible, especially producing an imitation of them through\ninstruments, and through the mere voice alone. For he conceived that by\nhim alone, of all the inhabitants of the earth, the mundane sounds were\nunderstood and heard, and this from a natural fountain itself and root.\nHe therefore thought himself worthy to be taught, and to learn something\nabout the celestial orbs, and to be assimilated to them by desire and\nimitation, as being the only one on the earth adapted to this by the\nconformation of his body, through the d\u00e6moniacal power that inspired\nhim. But he apprehended that other men ought to be satisfied in looking\nto him, and the gifts he possessed, and in being benefited and corrected\nthrough images and examples, in consequence of their inability to\ncomprehend truly the first and genuine archetypes of things. Just,\nindeed, as to those who are incapable of looking intently at the sun,\nthrough the transcendent splendor of his rays, we contrive to exhibit\nthe eclipses of that luminary, either in the profundity of still water,\nor through melted pitch, or through some darkly-splendid mirror; sparing\nthe imbecility of their eyes, and devising a method of representing a\ncertain repercussive light, though less intense than its archetype, to\nthose who are delighted with a thing of this kind. Empedocles also\nappears to have obscurely signified this about Pythagoras, and the\nillustrious and divinely-gifted conformation of his body above that of\nother men, when he says:\n\n\u201cThere was a man among them [i. e. among the Pythagoreans] who was\ntranscendent in knowledge, who possessed the most ample stores of\nintellectual wealth, and who was in the most eminent degree the adjutor\nof the works of the wise. For when he extended all the powers of his\nintellect, he easily beheld every thing, as far as to ten or twenty ages\nof the human race.\u201d\n\nFor the words _transcendent_, and _he beheld every thing_, and _the\nwealth of intellect_, and the like, especially exhibit the illustrious\nnature of the conformation of his mind and body, and its superior\naccuracy in seeing, and hearing, and in intellectual perception.\n\n\n CHAP. XVI.\n\nThis adaptation therefore of souls was procured by him through music.\nBut another purification of the dianoetic part,[18] and at the same time\nof the whole soul, through all-various studies, was effected by him as\nfollows: He conceived generally that labor should be employed about\ndisciplines and studies, and ordained like a legislator, trials of the\nmost various nature, punishments, and restraints by fire and sword, for\ninnate intemperance, and an inexhaustible avidity of possessing; which\nhe who is depraved can neither suffer nor sustain. Besides these things\nalso, he ordered his familiars to abstain from all animals, and farther\nstill from certain foods, which are hostile to the reasoning power, and\nimpede its genuine energies. He likewise enjoined them continence of\nspeech, and perfect silence, exercising them for many years in the\nsubjugation of the tongue, and in a strenuous and assiduous\ninvestigation and resumption of the most difficult theorems. Hence also,\nhe ordered them to abstain from wine, to be sparing in their food, to\nsleep little, and to have an unstudied contempt of, and hostility to\nglory, wealth, and the like: to have an unfeigned reverence of those to\nwhom reverence is due, a genuine similitude and benevolence to those of\nthe same age with themselves, and an attention and incitation towards\ntheir juniors, free from all envy. With respect to the amity also which\nsubsists in all things towards all, whether it be that of Gods towards\nmen through piety and scientific theory, or of dogmas towards each\nother, or universally of the soul towards the body, and of the rational\ntowards the irrational part, through philosophy, and the theory\npertaining to it; or whether it be that of men to each other, of\ncitizens indeed through sound legislation, but of strangers through a\ncorrect physiology; or of the husband to the wife, or of brothers and\nkindred, through unperverted communion; or whether, in short, it be of\nall things towards all, and still farther, of certain irrational animals\nthrough justice, and a physical connexion and association; or whether it\nbe the pacification and conciliation of the body which is of itself\nmortal, and of its latent contrary powers, through health, and a diet\nand temperance conformable to this, in imitation of the salubrious\ncondition of the mundane elements;\u2014of the appellation of all these,\nwhich are summarily comprehended in one and the same name, that of\nfriendship, Pythagoras is acknowledged to have been the inventor and\nlegislator. And, in short, he was the cause to his disciples of the most\nappropriate converse with the Gods, both when they were awake and when\nasleep; a thing which never takes place in a soul disturbed by anger, or\npain, or pleasure, or, by Jupiter, by any other base desire, or defiled\nby ignorance, which is more unholy and noxious than all these. By all\nthese inventions, therefore, he divinely healed and purified the soul,\nresuscitated and saved its divine part, and conducted to the\nintelligible its divine eye, which, as Plato says, is better worth\nsaving than ten thousand corporeal eyes; for by looking through this\nalone, when it is strengthened and clarified by appropriate aids, the\ntruth pertaining to all beings is perceived. Referring therefore to\nthis, Pythagoras purified the dianoetic power of the soul. Such also was\nthe form with him of erudition, and these were the things to which he\ndirected his view.\n\n\n CHAP. XVII.\n\nAs he therefore thus prepared his disciples for erudition, he did not\nimmediately receive into the number of his associates those who came to\nhim for that purpose, till he had made trial of, and judiciously\nexamined them. Hence in the first place he inquired after what manner\nthey associated with their parents, and the rest of their relatives. In\nthe next place he surveyed their unseasonable laughter, their silence,\nand their speaking when it was not proper; and farther still, what their\ndesires were, with whom they associated, how they conversed with them,\nin what they especially employed their leisure time in the day, and what\nwere the subjects of their joy and grief. He likewise surveyed, their\nform, their mode of walking, and the whole motion of their body.\nPhysiognomically also considering the natural indications of their\nframe, he made them to be manifest signs of the unapparent manners of\nthe soul. When, therefore, he had thus made trial of some one, he\nsuffered him to be neglected for three years, in the mean time observing\nhow he was disposed with respect to stability, and a true love of\nlearning, and if he was sufficiently prepared with reference to glory,\nso as to despise [popular] honor. After this, he ordered those who came\nto him to observe a quinquennial silence, in order that he might\nexperimentally know how they were affected as to continence of speech,\nthe subjugation of the tongue being the most difficult of all victories;\nas those have unfolded to us who instituted the mysteries. During this\n[probationary] time, however, the property of each was disposed of in\ncommon, and was committed to the care of those appointed for this\npurpose, who were called politicians, economizers, and legislators. And\nwith respect to these probationers, those who appeared to be worthy to\nparticipate of his dogmas, from the judgment he had formed of them from\ntheir life and the modesty of their behaviour, after the quinquennial\nsilence, then became _Esoterics_, and both heard and saw Pythagoras\nhimself within the veil. For prior to this they participated of his\nwords through the hearing alone, beyond the veil, without at all seeing\nhim, giving for a long time a specimen of their peculiar manners. But if\nthey were rejected they received the double of the wealth which they\nbrought, and a tomb was raised to them as if they were dead by the\n_homaco\u00ef_; for thus all the disciples of the man were called. And if\nthey happened to meet with them afterwards, they behaved to them as if\nthey were other persons, but said that they were dead, whom they had\nmodelled by education, in the expectation that they would become truly\ngood men by the disciplines they would learn. They also were of opinion\nthat those who were more slow in the acquisition of knowledge, were\nbadly organized, and, as I may say, imperfect and barren. If, however,\nafter Pythagoras had physiognomically considered their form, their mode\nof walking, and every other motion, and the state of their body, and he\nhad conceived good hope respecting them; after likewise the quinquennial\nsilence, and the orgies and initiations from so many disciplines,\ntogether with the ablutions of the soul, and so many and such great\npurifications produced from such various theorems, through which the\nsagacity and sanctity of the soul is perfectly ingenerated; if, after\nall this, some one was found to be still sluggish and of a dull\nintellect, they raised to such a one in the school a certain pillar and\nmonument, (as they are said to have done to Perialus the Thurian, and\nCylon the prince of the Sybarites, who were rejected by them) expelled\nhim from the _Homaco\u00efon_ or auditory, loading him with a great quantity\nof silver and gold. For these were deposited by them in common, and were\ncommitted to the care of certain persons adapted to this purpose, and\nwho were called Economics, from the office which they bore. And if\nafterwards they happened to meet with such a one, they conceived him to\nbe any other person, than him who according to them was dead. Hence also\nLysis, blaming a certain person named Hipparchus, because he had\ncommunicated the doctrines of the Pythagoreans to the profane, and to\nthose who acceded to them without disciplines and theory, says as\nfollows:\n\n\u201cIt is reported that you philosophize to every one you may happen to\nmeet, and publicly, which Pythagoras did not think fit to do. And these\nthings, indeed, O Hipparchus, you learnt with diligent assiduity, but\nyou have not preserved them; having tasted, O excellent man, of Sicilian\ndelicacies, which you ought not to have tasted a second time. If,\ntherefore, you abandon these, I shall rejoice; but if not, you will be\ndead in my opinion. For it will be pious to call to mind the divine and\nhuman precepts of Pythagoras, and not to make the goods of wisdom common\nto those, who have not even in a dream their soul purified. For it is\nnot lawful to extend to every casual person, things which were obtained\nwith such great labors, and such diligent assiduity, nor to divulge the\nmysteries of the Eleusinian Goddesses to the profane. For those who do\neither of these, are equally unjust and impious. But it will be well to\nconsider what a great length of time we consumed in wiping away the\nstains which had insinuated themselves into our breasts, till, after the\nlapse of some years, we became fit recipients of the doctrines of\nPythagoras. For as dyers previously purify garments, and then fix in the\ncolors with which they wish them to be imbued, in order that the dye may\nnot be washed away, and may never become evanescent; after the same\nmanner also that divine man prepared the souls of those that were lovers\nof philosophy, so that they might not deceive him in any of those\nbeautiful and good qualities which he hoped they would possess. For he\ndid not impart spurious doctrines, nor snares, in which most of the\nsophists, who are at leisure for no good purpose, entangle young men;\nbut he possessed a scientific knowledge of things human and divine.\nThese men, however, making his doctrine a pretext, perform many dreadful\ndeeds, ensnaring youth not in a becoming nor yet in a casual way. Hence\nthey render their auditors noxious and precipitate. For they infuse\ntheorems and divine doctrines into confused and turbid manners. Just as\nif some one should pour pure and clear water into a deep well full of\nmud; for he would disturb the mud, and destroy the clear water. The same\nthing likewise takes place between those who teach and those who are\ntaught after this manner. For dense thickets and which are full of\nbriars surround the intellect and heart of those who have not been\npurely initiated in disciplines, obscure the mild, tranquil, and\nreasoning power of the soul, and openly impede the intellective part\nfrom becoming increased and elevated. It is requisite likewise to call\nintemperance and avarice the mothers of these thickets; both which are\nnaturally prolific. From intemperance, therefore, unlawful marriages,\n[unjust] desires, corruptions, intoxication, preternatural pleasures,\nand certain vehement appetites blossom forth, and which impel their\npossessors into profundities and precipices. For now desires have\ncompelled some not to abstain either from their mothers or their\ndaughters, and violating law, their country, city, and king, with their\nhands as it were bound behind them, they are violently dragged along\nlike slaves to extreme destruction. But from avarice germinate rapine,\nrobbery, parricide, sacrilege, sorcery, and such other evils at are the\nsisters of these. In the first place, therefore, it is necessary to\npurify the woods in which these passions have fixed their abode, with\nfire and sword, and all the machines of disciplines; and having\nliberated the reasoning power from such mighty evils, we may then\nimplant in and deliver to it something useful and good.\u201d So great and so\nnecessary was the attention which, according to Pythagoras, ought to be\npaid to disciplines prior to philosophy. He likewise ordained that a\nsingular honor, and the most accurate investigation, should be given to\nthe teaching and participation of his dogmas, as he judiciously examined\nthe conceptions of those that came to him, by various documents, and ten\nthousand forms of scientific theory.\n\n\n CHAP. XVIII.\n\nAfter this we must narrate how, when he had admitted certain persons to\nbe his disciples, he distributed them into different classes according\nto their respective merits. For it was not fit that all of them should\nequally participate of the same things, as they were naturally\ndissimilar; nor was it indeed right that some should participate of all\nthe most honorable auditions, but others of none, or should not at all\npartake of them. For this would be uncommunicative and unjust. While\ntherefore he imparted a convenient portion of his discourses to each, he\nbenefited as much as possible all of them, and preserved the proportion\nof justice, by making each a partaker of the auditions according to his\ndesert. Hence, in conformity to this method, he called some of them\nPythagoreans, but others Pythagorists; just as we denominate some men\nAttics, but others Atticists. Having therefore thus aptly divided their\nnames, some of them he considered to be genuine, but he ordained that\nothers should show themselves to be the emulators of these. He ordered\ntherefore that with the Pythagoreans possessions should be shared in\ncommon, and that they should always live together; but that each of the\nothers should possess his own property apart from the rest, and that\nassembling together in the same place, they should mutually be at\nleisure for the same pursuits. And thus each of these modes was derived\nfrom Pythagoras, and transmitted to his successors. Again, there were\nalso with the Pythagoreans two forms of philosophy; for there were\nlikewise two genera of those that pursued it, the Acusmatici, and the\nMathematici. Of these however the Mathematici are acknowledged to be\nPythagoreans by the rest; but the Mathematici do not admit that the\nAcusmatici are so, or that they derived their instruction from\nPythagoras, but from Hippasus. And with respect to Hippasus, some say\nthat he was a Crotonian, but others a Metapontine. But the philosophy of\nthe Acusmatici consists in auditions unaccompanied with demonstrations\nand a reasoning process; because it merely orders a thing to be done in\na certain way, and that they should endeavour to preserve such other\nthings as were said by him, as so many divine dogmas. They however\nprofess that they will not speak of them, and that they are not to be\nspoken of; but they conceive those of their sect to be the best\nfurnished with wisdom, who retained what they had heard more than\nothers. But all these auditions are divided into three species. For some\nof them indeed signify what a thing is; others what it _especially_ is;\nbut others, what ought, or what ought not, to be done. The auditions\ntherefore which signify what a thing is, are such as, What are the\nislands of the blessed? The sun and moon. What is the oracle at Delphi?\nThe tetractys. What is harmony? That in which the Syrens subsist.[19]\nBut the auditions which signify what a thing _especially_ is, are such\nas, What is the most just thing? To sacrifice. What is the wisest thing?\nNumber.[20] But the next to this in wisdom, is that which gives names to\nthings. What is the wisest of the things that are with us, [i. e. which\npertain to human concerns]? Medicine. What is the most beautiful?\nHarmony. What is the most powerful? Mental decision. What is the most\nexcellent? Felicity. What is that which is most truly asserted? That men\nare depraved. Hence they say that Pythagoras praised the Salaminian poet\nHippodomas, because he sings:\n\n Tell, O ye Gods! the source from whence you came,\n Say whence, O men! thus evil you became?\n\nThese therefore, and such as these, are the auditions of this kind. For\neach of these shows what a thing _especially_ is. This however is the\nsame with what is called the wisdom of the seven wise men. For they\ninvestigated, not what is _simply_ good, but what is _especially_ so;\nnor what is difficult, but what is _most_ difficult; viz. for a man to\nknow himself. Nor did they investigate what is easy, but what is _most_\neasy; viz. to do what you are accustomed to do. For it seems that such\nauditions as the above, are conformable but posterior in time to such\nwisdom as that of the seven wise men; since they were prior to\nPythagoras. The auditions likewise, respecting what should or should not\nbe done, were such as, That it is necessary to beget children. For it is\nnecessary to leave those that may worship the Gods after us. That it is\nrequisite to put the shoe on the right foot first. That it is not proper\nto walk in the public ways, nor to dip in a sprinkling vessel, nor to be\nwashed in a bath. For in all these it is immanifest, whether those who\nuse them are pure. Others also of this kind are the following: Do not\nassist a man in laying a burden down; for it is not proper to be the\ncause of not laboring; but assist him in taking it up. Do not draw near\nto a woman for the sake of begetting children, if she has gold. Speak\nnot about Pythagoric[21] concerns without light. Perform libations to\nthe Gods, from the handle of the cup, for the sake of an auspicious\nomen, and in order that you may not drink from the same part [from which\nyou poured out the liquor.] Wear not the image of God in a ring, in\norder that it may not be defiled. For it is a resemblance which ought to\nbe placed in the house. It is not right to use a woman ill; for she is a\nsuppliant. On this account also we bring her from the Vestal hearth, and\ntake her by the right hand. Nor is it proper to sacrifice a white cock;\nfor this also is a suppliant, and is sacred to the moon. Hence likewise\nit announces the hours. To him who asks for counsel, give no other\nadvice than that which is the best: for counsel is a sacred thing.\nLabors are good; but pleasures are in every respect bad. For as we came\ninto the present life for the purpose of punishment, it is necessary\nthat we should be punished. It is proper to sacrifice, and to enter\ntemples unshod. In going to a temple, it is not proper to turn out of\nthe way; for divinity should not be worshipped in a careless manner. It\nis good to sustain, and to have wounds in the breast; but it is bad to\nhave them behind. The soul of man alone does not enter into those\nanimals, which it is lawful to kill. Hence it is proper to eat those\nanimals alone which it is fit to slay, but no other animal whatever. And\nsuch were the auditions of this kind.\n\nThe most extended however were those concerning sacrifices, how they\nought to be performed at all other times, and likewise when migrating\nfrom the present life; and concerning sepulture, and in what manner it\nis proper to be buried. Of some of these therefore the reason is to be\nassigned why they are ordered; such for instance as, it is necessary to\nbeget children, for the sake of leaving another that may worship the\nGods instead of yourself. But of others no reason is to be assigned. And\nof some indeed, the reasons are assumed proximately; but of others,\nremotely; such as, that bread is not to be broken, because it\ncontributes to the judgment in Hades. The probable reasons however,\nwhich are added about things of this kind, are not Pythagoric, but were\ndevised by some who philosophized differently from the Pythagoreans, and\nwho endeavoured to adapt probability to what was said. Thus for\ninstance, with respect to what has been just now mentioned, why bread is\nnot to be broken, some say that it is not proper to dissolve that which\ncongregates. For formerly all those that were friends, assembled in a\nbarbaric manner to one piece of bread. But others say, that it is not\nproper, in the beginning of an undertaking, to produce an omen of this\nkind by breaking and diminishing. Moreover, all such precepts as define\nwhat is to be done, or what is not to be done, refer to divinity as\ntheir end; and every life is co-arranged so as to _follow God_. This\nalso is the principle and the doctrine of philosophy. For men act\nridiculously in searching for good any where else than from the Gods.\nAnd when they do so, it is just as if some one, in a country governed by\na king, should reverence one of the citizens who is a magistrate, and\nneglect him who is the ruler of all of them. For the Pythagoreans\nthought that such men as we have just mentioned, performed a thing of\nthis kind. For since God is, and is the lord of all things, it is\nuniversally acknowledged that good is to be requested of him. For all\nmen impart good to those whom they love, and to those with whom they are\ndelighted; but they give the contrary to good to those to whom they are\ncontrarily disposed. And such indeed is the wisdom of these precepts.\n\nThere was, however, a certain person named Hippomedon, an \u00c6gean, a\nPythagorean and one of the Acusmatici, who asserted that Pythagoras gave\nthe reasons and demonstrations of all these precepts, but that in\nconsequence of their being delivered to many, and these such as were of\na more sluggish genius, the demonstrations were taken away, but the\nproblems themselves were left. Those however of the Pythagoreans that\nare called _Mathematici_, acknowledge that these reasons and\ndemonstrations were added by Pythagoras, and they say still more than\nthis, and contend that their assertions are true, but affirm that the\nfollowing circumstance was the cause of the dissimilitude. Pythagoras,\nsay they, came from Ionia and Samos, during the tyranny of Polycrates,\nItaly being then in a florishing condition; and the first men in the\ncity became his associates. But, to the more elderly of these, and who\nwere not at leisure [for philosophy], in consequence of being occupied\nby political affairs, the discourse of Pythagoras was not accompanied\nwith a reasoning process, because it would have been difficult for them\nto apprehend his meaning through disciplines and demonstrations; and he\nconceived they would nevertheless be benefited by knowing what ought to\nbe done, though they were destitute of the knowledge of the _why_: just\nas those who are under the care of physicians, obtain their health,\nthough they do not hear the reason of every thing which is to be done to\nthem. But with the younger part of his associates, and who were able\nboth to act and learn,\u2014with these he conversed through demonstration and\ndisciplines. These therefore are the assertions of the Mathematici, but\nthe former, of the Acusmatici. With respect to Hippasus however\nespecially, they assert that he was one of the Pythagoreans, but that in\nconsequence of having divulged and described the method of forming a\nsphere from twelve pentagons,[22] he perished in the sea, as an impious\nperson, but obtained the renown of having made the discovery. In\nreality, however, this as well as every thing else pertaining to\ngeometry, was the invention of _that man_; for thus without mentioning\nhis name, they denominate Pythagoras. But the Pythagoreans say, that\ngeometry was divulged from the following circumstance: A certain\nPythagorean happened to lose the wealth which he possessed; and in\nconsequence of this misfortune, he was permitted to enrich himself from\ngeometry. But geometry was called by Pythagoras _Historia_. And thus\nmuch concerning the difference of each mode of philosophising, and the\nclasses of the auditors of Pythagoras. For those who heard him either\nwithin or without the veil, and those who heard him accompanied with\nseeing, or without seeing him, and who are divided into interior and\nexterior auditors, were no other than these. And it is requisite to\narrange under these, the political, economic and legislative\nPythagoreans.\n\n\n CHAP. XIX.\n\nUniversally, however, it deserves to be known, that Pythagoras\ndiscovered many paths of erudition, and that he delivered an appropriate\nportion of wisdom conformable to the proper nature and power of each; of\nwhich the following is the greatest argument. When Abaris, the Scythian,\ncame from the Hyperboreans, unskilled and uninitiated in the Grecian\nlearning, and was then of an advanced age, Pythagoras did not introduce\nhim to erudition through various theorems, but instead of silence,\nauscultation for so long a time, and other trials, he immediately\nconsidered him adapted to be an auditor of his dogmas, and instructed\nhim in the shortest way in his treatise On Nature, and in another\ntreatise On the Gods. For Abaris came from the Hyperboreans, being a\npriest of the Apollo who is there worshipped, an elderly man, and most\nwise in sacred concerns; but at that time he was returning from Greece\nto his own country, in order that he might consecrate to the God in his\ntemple among the Hyperboreans, the gold which he had collected. Passing\ntherefore through Italy, and seeing Pythagoras, he especially\nassimilated him to the God of whom he was the priest. And believing that\nhe was no other than the God himself, and that no man resembled him, but\nthat he was truly Apollo, both from the venerable indications which he\nsaw about him, and from those which the priest had known before, he gave\nPythagoras a dart which he took with him when he left the temple, as a\nthing that would be useful to him in the difficulties that would befal\nhim in so long a journey. For he was carried by it, in passing through\ninaccessible places, such as rivers, lakes, marshes, mountains, and the\nlike, and performed through it, as it is said, lustrations, and expelled\npestilence and winds from the cities that requested him to liberate them\nfrom these evils. We are informed, therefore, that Laced\u00e6mon, after\nhaving been purified by him, was no longer infested with pestilence,\nthough prior to this it had frequently fallen into this evil, through\nthe baneful nature of the place in which it was built, the mountains of\nTaygetus producing a suffocating heat, by being situated above the city,\nin the same manner as Cnossus in Crete. And many other similar\nparticulars are related of the power of Abaris. Pythagoras, however,\nreceiving the dart, and neither being astonished at the novelty of the\nthing, nor asking the reason why it was given to him, but as if he was\nin reality a God himself, taking Abaris aside, he showed him his golden\nthigh, as an indication that he was not [wholly] deceived [in the\nopinion he had formed of him;] and having enumerated to him the several\nparticulars that were deposited in the temple, he gave him sufficient\nreason to believe that he had not badly conjectured [in assimilating him\nto Apollo]. Pythagoras also added, that he came [into the regions of\nmortality] for the purpose of remedying and benefiting the condition of\nmankind, and that on this account he had assumed a human form, lest men\nbeing disturbed by the novelty of his transcendency, should avoid the\ndiscipline which he possessed. He likewise exhorted Abaris to remain in\nthat place, and to unite with him in correcting [the lives and manners]\nof those with whom they might meet; but to share the gold which he had\ncollected, in common with his associates, who were led by reason to\nconfirm by their deeds the dogma, _that the possessions of friends are\ncommon_. Thus, therefore, Pythagoras unfolded to Abaris, who remained\nwith him, as we have just now said, physiology and theology in a\ncompendious way; and instead of divination by the entrails of beasts, he\ndelivered to him the art of prognosticating through numbers, conceiving\nthat this was purer, more divine, and more adapted to the celestial\nnumbers of the Gods. He delivered also to Abaris other studies which\nwere adapted to him. That we may return, however, to that for the sake\nof which the present treatise was written, Pythagoras endeavoured to\ncorrect and amend different persons, according to the nature and power\nof each. All such particulars therefore as these, have neither been\ntransmitted to the knowledge of men, nor is it easy to narrate all that\nhas been transmitted to us concerning him.\n\n\n CHAP. XX.\n\nWe shall however exhibit a few specimens, and those the most celebrated,\nof the Pythagoric discipline, and also the monuments of the studies in\nwhich those men engaged. In the first place, therefore, Pythagoras in\nmaking trial [of the aptitude of those that came to him] considered\nwhether they could _echemuthein_, i. e. whether they were able to\nrefrain from speaking (for this was the word which he used), and\nsurveyed whether they could conceal in silence and preserve what they\nhad learnt and heard. In the next place, he observed whether they were\nmodest. For he was much more anxious that they should be silent than\nthat they should speak. He likewise directed his attention to every\nother particular; such, as whether they were astonished by the energies\nof any immoderate passion or desire. Nor did he in a superficial manner\nconsider how they were affected with respect to anger or desire, or\nwhether they were contentious or ambitious, or how they were disposed\nwith reference to friendship or strife. And if on his surveying all\nthese particulars accurately, they appeared to him to be endued with\nworthy manners, then he directed his attention to their facility in\nlearning and their memory. And in the first place, indeed he considered\nwhether they were able to follow what was said, with rapidity and\nperspicuity; but in the next place, whether a certain love and\ntemperance attended them towards the disciplines which they were taught.\nFor he surveyed how they were naturally disposed with respect to\ngentleness. But he called this _catartysis_, i. e. _elegance of\nmanners_. And he considered ferocity as hostile to such a mode of\neducation. For impudence, shamelessness, intemperance, slothfulness,\nslowness in learning, unrestrained licentiousness, disgrace, and the\nlike, are the attendants on savage manners; but the contraries on\ngentleness and mildness. He considered these things, therefore, in\nmaking trial of those that came to him, and in these he exercised the\nlearners. And those that were adapted to receive the goods of the wisdom\nhe possessed, he admitted to be his disciples, and thus endeavoured to\nelevate them to scientific knowledge. But if he perceived that any one\nof them was unadapted, he expelled him as one of another tribe, and a\nstranger.\n\nIn the next place, I shall speak of the studies which he delivered\nthrough the whole of the day to his associates. For those who committed\nthemselves to the guidance of his doctrine, acted in the following\nmanner: they performed their morning walks alone, and in places in which\nthere happened to be an appropriate solitude and quiet, and where there\nwere temples and groves, and other things adapted to give delight. For\nthey thought it was not proper to converse with any one, till they had\nrendered their own soul sedate, and had co-harmonised the reasoning\npower. For they apprehended it to be a thing of a turbulent nature to\nmingle in a crowd as soon as they rose from bed. On this account all the\nPythagoreans always selected for themselves the most sacred places. But\nafter their morning walk they associated with each other, and especially\nin temples, or if this was not possible, in places that resembled them.\nThis time, likewise, they employed in the discussion of doctrines and\ndisciplines, and in the correction of their manners.\n\n\n CHAP. XXI.\n\nAfter an association of this kind, they turned their attention to the\nhealth of the body. Most of them, however, used unction and the course;\nbut a less number employed themselves in wrestling in gardens and\ngroves; others in leaping with leaden weights in their hands, or in\npantomime gesticulations, with a view to the strength of this body,\nstudiously selecting for this purpose opposite exercises. Their dinner\nconsisted of bread and honey or the honey-comb; but they did not drink\nwine during the day. They also employed the time after dinner in the\npolitical economy pertaining to strangers and guests, conformably to the\nmandate of the laws. For they wished to transact all business of this\nkind in the hours after dinner. But when it was evening they again\nbetook themselves to walking; yet not singly as in the morning walk, but\nin parties of two or three, calling to mind as they walked, the\ndisciplines they had learnt, and exercising themselves in beautiful\nstudies. After they had walked, they made use of the bath; and having\nwashed themselves, they assembled in the place where they eat together,\nand which contained no more than ten who met for this purpose. These,\nhowever, being collected together, libations and sacrifices were\nperformed with fumigations and frankincense. After this they went to\nsupper, which they finished before the setting of the sun. But they made\nuse of wine and maze, and bread, and every kind of food that is eaten\nwith bread, and likewise raw and boiled herbs. The flesh also of such\nanimals was placed before them as it was lawful to immolate; but they\nrarely fed on fish: for this nutriment was not, for certain causes,\nuseful to them. In a similar manner also they were of opinion, that the\nanimal which is not naturally noxious to the human race, should neither\nbe injured nor slain. But after this supper libations were performed,\nand these were succeeded by readings. It was the custom however with\nthem for the youngest to read, and the eldest ordered what was to be\nread, and after what manner. But when they were about to depart, the\ncup-bearer poured out a libation for them; and the libation being\nperformed, the eldest announced to them the following precepts: That a\nmild and fruitful plant should neither be injured nor corrupted, nor in\na similar manner, any animal which is not noxious to the human race. And\nfarther still, that it is necessary to speak piously and form proper\nconceptions of the divine, d\u00e6moniacal, and heroic genera; and in a\nsimilar manner, of parents and benefactors. That it is proper likewise\nto give assistance to law, and to be hostile to illegality. But these\nthings being said, each departed to his own place of abode. They also\nwore a white and pure garment. And in a similar manner they lay on pure\nand white beds, the coverlets of which were made of thread; for they did\nnot use woollen coverlets. With respect to hunting they did not approve\nof it, and therefore did not employ themselves in an exercise of this\nkind. Such therefore were the precepts which were daily delivered to the\ndisciples of Pythagoras, with respect to nutriment and their mode of\nliving.\n\n\n CHAP. XXII.\n\nAnother mode also of erudition is transmitted to us, which was effected\nthrough Pythagoric precepts, and sentences which extended to human life\nand human opinions; a few of which out of many I shall narrate. One of\nthese therefore contains an exhortation to remove contention and strife\nfrom true friendship, and especially from all friendship, if possible.\nBut if this is not possible, at least to expel it from paternal\nfriendship, and universally from that which subsists with elders and\nbenefactors. For to contend pervicaciously with such as these, anger or\nsome other similar passion intervening, is not to preserve, [but\ndestroy] the existing friendship. But they say it is necessary that the\nsmallest lacerations and ulcerations should take place in friendships.\nAnd that this will be effected, if both the friends know how to yield\nand subdue their anger, and especially the younger of the two, and who\nbelongs to some one of the above-mentioned orders. They likewise thought\nit necessary that the corrections and admonitions which they called\n_p\u00e6dartases_, and which the elder employed towards the younger, should\nbe made with much suavity of manners and great caution; and also that\nmuch solicitude and appropriation should be exhibited in admonitions.\nFor thus the admonition will become decorous and beneficial. They\nlikewise say that faith should never be separated from friendship,\nneither seriously nor in jest. For it is no longer easy for the existing\nfriendship to remain in a sane condition, when falsehood once insinuates\nitself into the manners of those who assert themselves to be friends.\nAnd again they say, that friendship is not to be rejected on account of\nmisfortune, or any other imbecility which happens to human life; but\nthat the only laudable rejection of a friend and of friendship, is that\nwhich takes place through great and incurable vice. Such therefore was\nthe form of correction with the Pythagoreans through sentences, and\nwhich extended to all the virtues, and to the whole of life.\n\n\n CHAP. XXIII.\n\nThe mode however of teaching through symbols, was considered by\nPythagoras as most necessary. For this form of erudition was cultivated\nby nearly all the Greeks, as being most ancient. But it was\ntranscendently honored by the Egyptians, and adopted by them in the most\ndiversified manner. Conformably to this, therefore, it will be found,\nthat great attention was paid to it by Pythagoras, if any one clearly\nunfolds the significations and arcane conceptions of the Pythagoric\nsymbols, and thus developes the great rectitude and truth they contain,\nand liberates them from their enigmatic form. For they are adapted\naccording to a simple and uniform doctrine, to the great geniuses of\nthese philosophers, and deify in a manner which surpasses human\nconception. For those who came from this school, and especially the most\nancient Pythagoreans, and also those young men who were the disciples of\nPythagoras when he was an old man, viz. Philolaus[23] and Eurytus,\nCharondas and Zaleucus, and Brysson, the elder Archytas also, and\nArist\u00e6us, Lysis and Empedocles, Zanolxis and Epimenides, Milo and\nLeucippus, Alcm\u00e6on, Hippasus and Thymaridas, and all of that age,\nconsisting of a multitude of learned men, and who were above measure\nexcellent,\u2014all these adopted this mode of teaching, in their discourses\nwith each other, and in their commentaries and annotations. Their\nwritings also, and all the books which they published, _most of which\nhave been preserved even to our time_,[24] were not composed by them in\na popular and vulgar diction, and in a manner usual with all other\nwriters, so as to be immediately understood, but in such a way as not to\nbe easily apprehended by those that read them. For they adopted that\ntaciturnity which was instituted by Pythagoras as a law, in concealing\nafter an arcane mode, divine mysteries from the uninitiated, and\nobscuring their writings and conferences with each other. Hence he who\nselecting these symbols does not unfold their meaning by an apposite\nexposition, will cause those who may happen to meet with them to\nconsider them as ridiculous and inane, and as full of nugacity and\ngarrulity. When, however, they are unfolded in a way conformable to\nthese symbols, and become obvious and clear even to the multitude,\ninstead of being obscure and dark, then they will be found to be\nanalogous to prophetic sayings, and to the oracles of the Pythian\nApollo. They will then also exhibit an admirable meaning, and will\nproduce a divine afflatus in those who unite intellect with erudition.\nNor will it be improper to mention a few of them, in order that this\nmode of discipline may become more perspicuous: Enter not into a temple\nnegligently, nor in short adore carelessly, not even though you should\nstand at the very doors themselves. Sacrifice and adore unshod.\nDeclining from the public ways, walk in unfrequented paths. Speak not\nabout Pythagoric concerns without light. And such are the outlines of\nthe mode adopted by Pythagoras of teaching through symbols.\n\n\n CHAP. XXIV.\n\nSince, however, nutriment greatly contributes to the best discipline,\nwhen it is properly used, and in an orderly manner, let us consider what\nPythagoras also instituted as a law about this. Universally, therefore,\nhe rejected all such food as is flatulent, and the cause of\nperturbation, but he approved of the nutriment contrary to this, and\nordered it to be used, viz. such food as composes and compresses the\nhabit of the body. Hence, likewise, he thought that millet was a plant\nadapted to nutrition. But he altogether rejected such food as is foreign\nto the Gods; because it withdraws us from familiarity with the Gods.\nAgain, according to another mode also, he ordered his disciples to\nabstain from such food as is reckoned sacred, as being worthy of honor,\nand not to be appropriated to common and human utility. He likewise\nexhorted them to abstain from such things as are an impediment to\nprophesy, or to the purity and chastity of the soul, or to the habit of\ntemperance, or of virtue. And lastly, he rejected all such things as are\nadverse to sanctity, and which obscure and disturb the other purities of\nthe soul, and the phantasms which occur in sleep. These things therefore\nhe instituted as laws in common about nutriment.\n\nSeparately, however, he forbade the most contemplative of philosophers,\nand who have arrived at the summit of philosophic attainments, the use\nof superfluous and unjust food, and ordered them never to eat any thing\nanimated, nor in short, to drink wine, nor to sacrifice animals to the\nGods, nor by any means to injure animals, but to preserve most\nsolicitously justice towards them. And he himself lived after this\nmanner, abstaining from animal food, and adoring altars undefiled with\nblood. He was likewise careful in preventing others from destroying\nanimals that are of a kindred nature with us, and rather corrected and\ninstructed savage animals through words and deeds, than injured them\nthrough punishment. And farther still, he also injoined those\npoliticians that were legislators to abstain from animals. For as they\nwished to act in the highest degree justly, it is certainly necessary\nthat they should not injure any kindred animal. Since, how could they\npersuade others to act justly, if they themselves were detected in\nindulging an insatiable avidity by partaking of animals that are allied\nto us? For through the communion of life and the same elements, and the\nmixture subsisting from these, they are as it were conjoined to us by a\nfraternal alliance. He permitted, however, others whose life was not\nentirely purified, sacred and philosophic, to eat of certain animals;\nand for these he appointed a definite time of abstinence. These\ntherefore, he ordered not to eat the heart, nor the brain; and from the\neating of these he entirely prohibited all the Pythagoreans. For these\nparts are of a ruling nature, and are as it were certain ladders and\nseats of wisdom and life. But other[25] things were considered by him as\nsacred on account of the nature of a divine reason. Thus he exhorted his\ndisciples to abstain from mallows, because this plant is the first\nmessenger and signal of the sympathy of celestial with terrestrial\nnatures. Thus, too, he ordered them to abstain from the fish melanurus;\nfor it is sacred to the terrestrial Gods. And also not to receive the\nfish erythinus, through other such like causes. He likewise exhorted\nthem to abstain from beans, on account of many sacred and physical\ncauses, and also such causes as pertain to the soul. And he established\nas laws other precepts similar to these, beginning through nutriment to\nlead men to virtue.\n\n\n CHAP. XXV.\n\nPythagoras was likewise of opinion that music contributed greatly to\nhealth, if it was used in an appropriate manner. For he was accustomed\nto employ a purification of this kind, but not in a careless way. And he\ncalled the medicine which is obtained through music by the name of\npurification. But he employed such a melody as this about the vernal\nseason. For he placed in the middle a certain person who played on the\nlyre, and seated in a circle round him those who were able to sing. And\nthus, when the person in the centre struck the lyre, those that\nsurrounded him sung certain p\u00e6ans, through which they were seen to be\ndelighted, and to become elegant and orderly in their manners. But at\nanother time they used music in the place of medicine. And there are\ncertain melodies devised as remedies against the passions of the soul,\nand also against despondency and lamentation,[26] which Pythagoras\ninvented as things that afford the greatest assistance in these\nmaladies. And again, he employed other melodies against rage and anger,\nand against every aberration of the soul. There is also another kind of\nmodulation invented as a remedy against desires. He likewise used\ndancing; but employed the lyre as an instrument for this purpose. For he\nconceived that the pipe was calculated to excite insolence, was a\ntheatrical instrument, and had by no means a liberal sound.[27] Select\nverses also of Homer and Hesiod were used by him, for the purpose of\ncorrecting the soul. Among the deeds of Pythagoras likewise, it is said,\nthat once through the spondaic song of a piper, he extinguished the rage\nof a Tauromenian lad, who had been feasting by night, and intended to\nburn the vestibule of his mistress, in consequence of seeing her coming\nfrom the house of his rival. For the lad was inflamed and excited [to\nthis rash attempt] by a Phrygian song; which however Pythagoras most\nrapidly suppressed. But Pythagoras, as he was astronomizing, happened to\nmeet with the Phrygian piper at an unseasonable time of night, and\npersuaded him to change his Phrygian for a spondaic song; through which\nthe fury of the lad being immediately repressed, he returned home in an\norderly manner, though a little before this, he could not be in the\nleast restrained, nor would in short, bear any admonition; and even\nstupidly insulted Pythagoras when he met him. When a certain youth also\nrushed with a drawn sword on Anchitus, the host of Empedocles, because,\nbeing a judge, he had publicly condemned his father to death, and would\nhave slain him as a homicide, Empedocles changed the intention of the\nyouth, by singing to his lyre that verse of Homer,\n\n Nepenthe, without gall, o\u2019er every ill\n Oblivion spreads;\u2014\u2014[28]\n\nand thus snatched his host Anchitus from death, and the youth from the\ncrime of homicide. It is also related that the youth from that time\nbecame the most celebrated of the disciples of Pythagoras. Farther\nstill, the whole Pythagoric school produced by certain appropriate\nsongs, what they called _exartysis_ or adaptation, _synarmoge_ or\nelegance of manners, and _epaphe_ or contact, usefully conducting the\ndispositions of the soul to passions contrary to those which it before\npossessed. For when they went to bed they purified the reasoning power\nfrom the perturbations and noises to which it had been exposed during\nthe day, by certain odes and peculiar songs, and by this means procured\nfor themselves tranquil sleep, and few and good dreams. But when they\nrose from bed, they again liberated themselves from the torpor and\nheaviness of sleep, by songs of another kind. Sometimes, also, by\nmusical sounds alone, unaccompanied with words, they healed the passions\nof the soul and certain diseases, enchanting, as they say, in reality.\nAnd it is probable that from hence this name _epode_, i. e. enchantment,\ncame to be generally used. After this manner, therefore, Pythagoras\nthrough music produced the most beneficial correction of human manners\nand lives.\n\n\n CHAP. XXVI.\n\nSince, however, we are narrating the wisdom employed by Pythagoras in\ninstructing his disciples, it will not be unappropriate to relate that\nwhich is proximate in a following order to this, viz. how he invented\nthe harmonic science, and harmonic ratios. But for this purpose we must\nbegin a little higher. Intently considering once, and reasoning with\nhimself, whether it would be possible to devise a certain instrumental\nassistance to the hearing, which should be firm and unerring, such as\nthe sight obtains through the compass and the rule, or, by Jupiter,\nthrough a dioptric instrument; or such as the touch obtains through the\nbalance, or the contrivance of measures;\u2014thus considering, as he was\nwalking near a brazier\u2019s shop, he heard from a certain divine casualty\nthe hammers beating out a piece of iron on an anvil, and producing\nsounds that accorded with each other, one combination only excepted. But\nhe recognized in those sounds, the diapason, the diapente, and the\ndiatessaron, harmony. He saw, however, that the sound which was between\nthe diatessaron and the diapente was itself by itself dissonant, yet,\nnevertheless, gave completion to that which was the greater sound among\nthem. Being delighted, therefore, to find that the thing which he was\nanxious to discover had succeeded to his wishes by divine assistance, he\nwent into the brazier\u2019s shop, and found by various experiments, that the\ndifference of sound arose from the magnitude of the hammers, but not\nfrom the force of the strokes, nor from the figure of the hammers, nor\nfrom the transposition of the iron which was beaten. When, therefore, he\nhad accurately examined the weights and the equal counterpoise of the\nhammers, he returned home, and fixed one stake diagonally to the walls,\nlest if there were many, a certain difference should arise from this\ncircumstance, or in short, lest the peculiar nature of each of the\nstakes should cause a suspicion of mutation. Afterwards, from this stake\nhe suspended four chords consisting of the same materials, and of the\nsame magnitude and thickness, and likewise equally twisted. To the\nextremity of each chord also he tied a weight. And when he had so\ncontrived, that the chords were perfectly equal to each other in length,\nhe afterwards alternately struck two chords at once, and found the\nbefore-mentioned symphonies, viz. a different symphony in a different\ncombination. For he discovered that the chord which was stretched by the\ngreatest weight, produced, when compared with that which was stretched\nby the smallest, the symphony diapason. But the former of these weights\nwas twelve pounds, and the latter six. And, therefore, being in a duple\nratio, it exhibited the consonance diapason; which the weights\nthemselves rendered apparent. But again, he found that the chord from\nwhich the greatest weight was suspended compared with that from which\nthe weight next to the smallest depended, and which weight was eight\npounds, produced the symphony diapente. Hence he discovered that this\nsymphony is in a sesquialter ratio, in which ratio also the weights were\nto each other. And he found that the chord which was stretched by the\ngreatest weight, produced, when compared with that which was next to it\nin weight, and was nine pounds, the symphony diatessaron, analogously to\nthe weights. This ratio, therefore, he discovered to be sesquitertian;\nbut that of the chord from which a weight of nine pounds was suspended,\nto the chord which had the smallest weight [or six pounds,] to be\nsesquialter. For 9 is to 6 in a sesquialter ratio. In like manner, the\nchord next to that from which the smallest weight depended, was to that\nwhich had the smallest weight, in a sesquitertian ratio, [for it was the\nratio of 8 to 6,] but to the chord which had the greatest weight, in a\nsesquialter ratio [for such is the ratio of 12 to 8.] Hence, that which\nis between the diapente and the diatessaron, and by which the diapente\nexceeds the diatessaron, is proved to be in an epogdoan ratio, or that\nof 9 to 8. But either way it may be proved that the diapason is a system\nconsisting of the diapente in conjunction with the diatessaron, just as\nthe duple ratio consists of the sesquialter and sesquitertian, as for\ninstance, 12, 8, and 6; or conversely, of the diatessaron and the\ndiapente, as in the duple ratio of the sesquitertian and sesquialter\nratios, as for instance 12, 9, and 6. After this manner, therefore, and\nin this order, having conformed both his hand and his hearing to the\nsuspended weights, and having established according to them the ratio of\nthe habitudes, he transferred by an easy artifice the common suspension\nof the chords from the diagonal stake to the limen of the instrument,\nwhich he called _chordotonon_. But he produced by the aid of pegs a\ntension of the chords analogous to that effected by the weights.\n\nEmploying this method, therefore, as a basis, and as it were an\ninfallible rule, he afterwards extended the experiment to various\ninstruments; viz. to the pulsation of patell\u00e6 or pans, to pipes and\nreeds, to monochords, triangles, and the like. And in all these he found\nan immutable concord with the ratio of numbers. But he denominated the\nsound which participates of the number 6 _hypate_: that which\nparticipates of the number 8 and is sesquitertian, _mese_; that which\nparticipates of the number 9, but is more acute by a tone than mese, he\ncalled _paramese_, and _epogdous_; but that which participates of the\ndodecad, _nete_. Having also filled up the middle spaces with analogous\nsounds according to the diatonic genus, he formed an octochord from\nsymphonious numbers, viz. from the double, the sesquialter, the\nsesquitertian, and from the difference of these, the epogdous. And thus\nhe discovered the [harmonic] progression, which tends by a certain\nphysical necessity from the most grave [i. e. flat] to the most acute\nsound, according to this diatonic genus. For from the diatonic, he\nrendered the chromatic and enharmonic genus perspicuous, as we shall\nsome time or other show when we treat of music. This diatonic genus,\nhowever, appears to have such physical gradations and progressions as\nthe following; viz. a semitone, a tone, and then a tone; and this is the\ndiatessaron, being a system consisting of two tones, and of what is\ncalled a semitone. Afterwards, another tone being assumed, viz. the one\nwhich is intermediate, the diapente is produced, which is a system\nconsisting of three tones and a semitone. In the next place to this is\nthe system of a semitone, a tone, and a tone, forming another\ndiatessaron, i. e. another sesquitertian ratio. So that in the more\nancient heptachord indeed, all the sounds, from the most grave, which\nare with respect to each other fourths, produce every where with each\nother the symphony diatessaron; the semitone receiving by transition,\nthe first, middle, and third place, according to the tetrachord. In the\nPythagoric octachord, however, which by conjunction is a system of the\ntetrachord and pentachord, but if disjoined is a system of two\ntetrachords separated from each other, the progression is from the most\ngrave sound. Hence all the sounds that are by their distance from each\nother fifths, produce with each other the symphony diapente; the\nsemitone successively proceeding into four places, viz. the first,\nsecond, third, and fourth. After this manner, therefore, it is said that\nmusic was discovered by Pythagoras. And having reduced it to a system,\nhe delivered it to his disciples as subservient to every thing that is\nmost beautiful.[29]\n\n\n CHAP. XXVII.\n\nMany also of the political actions of his followers are [deservedly]\npraised. For it is reported that the Crotonians being once impelled to\nmake sumptuous funerals and interments, some one of them said to the\npeople, that he had heard Pythagoras when he was discoursing about\ndivine natures observe, that the Olympian Gods attended to the\ndispositions of those that sacrificed, and not to the multitude of the\nsacrifices; but that, on the contrary, the terrestrial Gods, as being\nallotted the government of things less important, rejoiced in banquets\nand lamentations, and farther still, in continual libations, in\ndelicacies, and in celebrating funerals with great expense. Whence, on\naccount of his wish to receive, Pluto is called Hades. He suffers,\ntherefore, those that slenderly honor him to remain for a longer time in\nthe upper world; but he always draws down some one of those who are\ndisposed to spend profusely in funeral solemnities, in order that he may\nobtain the honors which take place in commemoration of the dead. In\nconsequence of this advice, the Crotonians that heard it were of\nopinion, that if they conducted themselves moderately in misfortunes,\nthey would preserve their own salvation; but that if they were\nimmoderate in their expenses, they would all of them die prematurely. A\ncertain person also having been made an arbitrator in an affair in which\nthere was no witness, led each of the litigants to a certain monument,\nand said to one of them, the man who is buried in this monument was\ntranscendently equitable; in consequence of which the other litigant\nprayed that the dead man might obtain much good; but the former said\nthat the defunct was not at all better for the prayers of his opponent.\nPythagoras, therefore, condemned what the former litigant said, but\nasserted that he who praised the dead man for his worth, had done that\nwhich would be of no small importance in his claim to belief. At another\ntime, in a cause of great moment, he decided that one of the two who had\nagreed to settle the affair by arbitration, should pay four talents, but\nthat the other should receive two. Afterwards, he condemned the\ndefendant to pay three talents; and thus he appeared to have given a\ntalent to each of them. Two persons also had fraudulently deposited a\ngarment with a woman who belonged to a court of justice, and told her\nshe was not to give it to either of them unless both were present. Some\ntime after, for the purpose of circumvention, one of them received the\ncommon deposit, and said that it was with the consent of the other. But\nthe other, who had not been present [when the garment was returned],\nacted the part of a sycophant, and related the compact that was made at\nthe beginning, to the magistrates. A certain Pythagorean, however,\ntaking up the affair said, that the woman had acted conformably to the\ncompact, as both parties had been present. Two other persons also\nappeared to have a strong friendship for each other, but had fallen into\na silent suspicion through a flatterer of one of them, who told him that\nhis wife had been corrupted by the other. It so happened however, that a\nPythagorean came into a brazier\u2019s shop, where he who conceived himself\nto be injured, was showing to the artist a sword which he had given him\nto sharpen, and was indignant with him because it was not sufficiently\nsharp. The Pythagorean, therefore, suspecting that the sword was\nintended to be used against him who was accused of adultery, said, This\nsword is sharper than all things except calumny. This being said, caused\nthe man to consider with himself [what it was he intended to do], and\nnot rashly to sin against his friend who was within, and who had been\npreviously called [by him in order that he might kill him]. A zone also\nthat had golden ornaments having fallen [at the feet] of a certain\nstranger in the temple of Esculapius, and the laws forbidding any one to\ntake up that which had fallen on the ground, a Pythagorean advised the\nstranger, who was indignant at this prohibition, to take away the golden\nornaments which had not fallen to the ground, but to leave the zone,\nbecause this was on the ground.[30] That circumstance, likewise, which\nby the ignorant is transferred to other places, is said to have happened\nin Crotona, viz. that during a public spectacle, some cranes flew over\nthe theatre, and one of those who had sailed into the port, said to the\nperson who sat near him, Do you see the witnesses? which being heard by\na certain Pythagorean, he brought them into the court, consisting of a\nthousand magistrates, where being examined, it was found that they had\nthrown certain boys into the sea, and that they called the cranes who\nflew over the ship [at the time,] witnesses of the deed. When likewise\ncertain persons who had recently become disciples of Pythagoras were at\nvariance with each other, he who was the junior of the two came to the\nother and said to him, that there was no occasion to refer the affair to\na third person, but that it rested with them to commit their anger to\noblivion. He, therefore, to whom these words were addressed, replied\nthat he was very much pleased in other respects with what had been said,\nbut that he was ashamed that, being the elder, he had not first said the\nsame thing to the other [who was the junior]. We might here also narrate\nwhat is said of Phinthias and Damon,[31] of Plato and Archytas, and\nlikewise of Clinias and Prorus.[32] Omitting, however, these [for the\npresent], we shall mention what is related of Eubulus the Messenian, who\nwhen he was sailing homeward, and was taken captive by the Tyrrhenians,\nwas recognized by Nausitheus a Tyrrhenian and also a Pythagorean,\nbecause he was one of the disciples of Pythagoras, and was taken by him\nfrom the pirates, and brought with great safety to Messena. When the\nCarthaginians, also, were about to send more than five thousand soldiers\ninto a desert island, Miltiades the Carthaginian, perceiving among them\nthe Argive Possiden (both of them being Pythagoreans), went to him, and\nnot manifesting what he intended to do, advised him to return to his\nnative country, with all possible celerity, and having placed him in a\nship that was then sailing near the shore, supplied him with what was\nnecessary for his voyage, and thus saved the man from the dangers [to\nwhich he was exposed]. In short, he who should relate all that has taken\nplace among the Pythagoreans in their associations with each other,\nwould by the length of his narration exceed the proper quantity and the\noccasion of his treatise.\n\nI shall therefore rather pass on to show, that some of the Pythagoreans\nwere political characters, and adapted to govern. For they were\nguardians of the laws, and ruled over certain Italian cities, unfolding\nto them, and counselling them to adopt the most excellent measures, but\nabstaining from public revenues. And though they were greatly\ncalumniated, yet at the same time the probity of the Pythagoreans, and\nthe wish of the cities themselves prevailed, so that they were desired\nby them to administer their political concerns. But at this time the\nmost beautiful of polities appear to have existed in Italy and in\nSicily. For Charondas the Catanean, who appears to have been one of the\nbest legislators, was a Pythagorean; as were also the Locrians Zaleucus\nand Timares, who were celebrated for their legislation. Those also who\nestablished the Rheginic polities, that polity which is called\nGymnasiarchic, and that which is denominated from Theocles, are said to\nhave been Pythagoreans. Phytius likewise, Theocles, Elecaon, and\nAristocrates, excelled among the Pythagoreans in their studies and\nmanners, which also the cities in those places adopted at those times.\nIn short, it is asserted that Pythagoras was the inventor of the whole\nof political erudition, when he said that nothing is pure among things\nthat have an existence; but that earth participates of fire, fire of\nair, air of water, and water of spirit. And in a similar manner the\nbeautiful participates of the deformed, the just of the unjust, and\nother things conformably to these. From this hypothesis, however, the\nreasoning tends to either part. He also said, that there are two motions\nof the body and the soul; the one being irrational, but the other the\neffect of deliberate choice. That three certain lines also constitute\npolities, the extremes of which mutually touch each other, and produce\none right angle; so that one of them has the nature of the\nsesquitertian; another that of the diapente; and the third is a medium\nbetween the other two.[33] But when we consider by a reasoning process\nthe coincidences of the lines with each other, and also of the places\nunder these, we shall find that they represent the best image of a\npolity. Plato has made the glory of this invention his own; for he\nclearly says in his Republic, \u201cthat the sesquitertian progeny conjoined\nwith the pentad produces two harmonies.\u201d[34] It is also said, that\nPythagoras cultivated the moderation of the passions, and mediocrity,\nand that by the conjunction of a certain precedaneous good, he rendered\nthe life of each of his disciples happy. And in short, it is said that\nhe discovered the choice of our good, and of the works adapted to our\nnature. It is likewise narrated of him, that he withdrew the Crotonians\nfrom harlots, and universally from an association with women that were\nnot affianced. For the wives of the Crotonians came to Theano the wife\nof Brontinus, one of the Pythagoreans, a woman of a wise and excellent\nsoul, (and who was the author of that beautiful and admirable saying,\n\u201cthat it is lawful for a woman to sacrifice on the very day in which she\nhas risen from the embraces of her husband,\u201d which some ascribe to\nTheano the wife of Pythagoras) the Crotonian wives came therefore to\nher, and entreated her to persuade Pythagoras to discourse to them on\nthe continence which was due from them to their husbands. This she\npromised to do; and Pythagoras having accordingly made an oration to the\nCrotonians, which had the desired effect, the incontinence which then\nprevailed was entirely destroyed. It is further related likewise, that\nwhen ambassadors came to the city of the Crotonians from Sybaris, for\nthe purpose of demanding the exiles, Pythagoras beholding one of the\nambassadors, who with his own hand had slain one of his friends, made\nhim no answer. But when the man interrogated him, and wished to converse\nwith him, Pythagoras said, that it was not lawful to discourse with\nhomicides. Whence also by certain persons he was thought to be Apollo.\nAll these particulars, therefore, and such as we have a little before\nmentioned concerning the destruction of tyrants, and the liberation of\nthe cities of Italy and Sicily, and many other circumstances, are\nindications of the benefits conferred on mankind by Pythagoras in\npolitical concerns.\n\n\n CHAP. XXVIII.\n\nThat which follows after this, we shall no longer discuss generally, but\ndirect our attention particularly to the works resulting from the\nvirtues of Pythagoras. And we shall begin in the first place from the\nGods, as it is usual to do, and endeavour to exhibit his piety, and the\nadmirable works which he performed. Let this, therefore, be one specimen\nof his piety, which also we have before mentioned, that he knew what his\nsoul was, and whence it came into the body, and also its former lives,\nand that of these things he gave most evident indications. After this\nalso, let the following be another specimen; that once passing over the\nriver Nessus with many of his associates, he spoke to it, and the river\nin a distinct and clear voice, in the hearing of all his followers,\nanswered, _Hail Pythagoras!_ Farther still, nearly all historians of his\nlife confidently assert, that in one and the same day he was present at\nMetapontum in Italy, and Tauromenium in Sicily, and discoursed in common\nwith his disciples in both places, though these cities are separated\nfrom each other by many stadia both by land and sea, and cannot be\npassed through in a great number of days. The report, also, is very much\ndisseminated, that he showed his golden thigh to the Hyperborean Abaris,\nwho said that he resembled the Apollo among the Hyperboreans, and of\nwhom Abaris was the priest; and that he did this in order that Abaris\nmight apprehend this to be true, and that he was not deceived in his\nopinion. Ten thousand other more divine and more admirable particulars\nlikewise are uniformly and unanimously related of _the man_: such as\ninfallible predictions of earthquakes, rapid expulsions of pestilence\nand violent winds, instantaneous cessations of the effusion of hail, and\na tranquillization of the waves of rivers and seas, in order that his\ndisciples might easily pass over them. Of which things also, Empedocles\nthe Agrigentine, Epimenides the Cretan, and Abaris the Hyperborean,\nreceiving the power of effecting, performed certain miracles of this\nkind in many places. Their deeds, however, are manifest. To which we may\nadd, that Empedocles was surnamed _an expeller of winds_; Epimenides,\n_an expiator_; and Abaris, _a walker on air_; because being carried on\nthe dart which was given to him by the Hyperborean Apollo, he passed\nover rivers and seas and inaccessible places, like one walking on the\nair. Certain persons likewise are of opinion, that Pythagoras did the\nsame thing, when in the same day he discoursed with his disciples at\nMetapontum and Tauromenium. It is also said, that he predicted there\nwould be an earthquake from the water of a well which he had tasted; and\nthat a ship which was sailing with a prosperous wind, would be merged in\nthe sea. And let these, indeed, be the indications of his piety.\n\nAgain, however, assuming a more elevated exordium, I am desirous to\nexhibit the principles of the worship of the Gods, which Pythagoras and\nhis followers established; viz. that all such particulars as they define\nwith respect to doing or not doing a thing, have for the mark at which\nthey aim, a consent with divinity. This also is with them the principle,\n[of piety] and their whole life is arranged with a view _to follow God_.\nThe language, too, of their philosophy is this, that men act\nridiculously in exploring good from any other source than the Gods; and\nthat their conduct in this respect resembles that of a man, who in a\ncountry governed by a king should reverence one of the magistrates in\nthe city, and neglect him who is the ruler of all of them. For they were\nof opinion that such was the conduct of mankind. For since God is, and\nis the Lord of all things, it is universally acknowledged that good is\nto be requested of him. For all men impart good to those whom they love,\nand to those with whom they are delighted; but they give the contrary to\ngood, to those to whom they are contrarily disposed. It is evident,\ntherefore, that those things are to be done, in which God delights. It\nis, however, not easy for a man to know what these are, unless he\nobtains this knowledge from one who has heard God, or has heard God\nhimself, or procures it through divine art. Hence also, the Pythagoreans\nwere studious of divination. For this alone is an interpretation of the\nbenevolence of the Gods. And in short, he will conceive an employment of\nthis kind to be worthy of regard, who believes that there are Gods; but\nhe who thinks that either of these is folly, will also be of opinion\nthat both are foolish. Many of the mandates, however, of the\nPythagoreans were introduced from the mysteries; for they did not\nconceive them to be the productions of arrogance, but to originate from\na certain divinity. And in a similar manner, all the Pythagoreans\nbelieve such things as are mythologically related of Aristeas the\nProconesian, and Abaris the Hyperborean, and other particulars of a like\nnature. For they consider every thing of this kind to be credible; and\nof many [such] things they make trial themselves. They also frequently\nrecollect such-like particulars as appear to be fabulous, as not\ndisbelieving in any thing which may be referred to divinity. A certain\nperson therefore relates, that Eurytus said, that a shepherd feeding his\nsheep near the tomb of Philolaus, heard some one singing. But the person\nto whom this was related, did not at all disbelieve the narration, but\nasked what kind of harmony it was? Both of them, however, were\nPythagoreans, and Eurytus was the disciple of Philolaus. It is likewise\nsaid, that a certain person told Pythagoras, that he appeared to himself\nonce to converse with his father who was dead, and that he asked\nPythagoras what this indicated? Pythagoras replied, that it indicated\nnothing; but that he had in reality conversed with his father. As\ntherefore, said he, nothing is signified by my now discoursing with you,\nso neither is any thing signified by your conversing with your father.\nHence, in all particulars of this kind, they did not think that they\nwere stupid, but those that disbelieved in them. For they did not\nconceive that some things are possible to the Gods, but others\nimpossible, as those fancy who reason sophistically; but they believed\nthat all things are possible to the Gods. And this very assertion is the\nbeginning of the verses, which they ascribe to Linus, and which are as\nfollow:\n\n All things may be the objects of our hope,\n Since nothing hopeless any where is found:\n All things with ease Divinity effects,\n And nought can frustrate his almighty power.\n\nBut they thought that their opinions deserved to be believed, because he\nwho first promulgated them, was not any casual person, but a God. For\nthis was one of their questions; What was Pythagoras? For they say that\nhe was the Hyperborean Apollo; of which this was an indication, that\nrising up in the Olympic games, he showed his golden thigh; and also\nthat he received the Hyperborean Abaris as his guest; and was presented\nby him with the dart on which he rode through the air. But it is said\nthat Abaris came from the Hyperborean regions, in order that he might\ncollect gold for the temple, and that he predicted a pestilence. He also\ndwelt in temples, and was never seen either to eat or drink. It is\nlikewise said, that rites which purify from evil are performed by the\nLaced\u00e6monians, and that on this account Laced\u00e6mon was never infested\nwith pestilence. Pythagoras, therefore, caused this Abaris to\nacknowledge [that he was more than man,] receiving from him at the same\ntime the golden dart, without which it was not possible for him to find\nhis way. In Metapontum also, certain persons praying that they might\nobtain what a ship contained that was then sailing into port, Pythagoras\nsaid to them, You will then have a dead body. In Sybaris, too, he caught\na deadly serpent and dismissed it. In a similar manner likewise in\nTyrrhenia, he caught a small serpent, whose bite was fatal. But in\nCrotona a white eagle, it is said, suffered Pythagoras to stroke it. A\ncertain person also wishing to hear him discourse, he said that he could\nnot, till some sign appeared. And after this a white bear was seen in\nCauconia; the death of which he predicted to one who was about to tell\nhim that it was dead. He likewise reminded Myllias the Crotonian that he\nhad been Midas the son of Gordius. And Myllias passed over to the\ncontinent of Asia, in order to perform at the sepulchre [of Midas] those\nrites which had been enjoined him by Pythagoras. It is likewise said,\nthat the person who bought his house, and who dug up that which had been\nburied in it, did not dare to tell any one what he saw [on this\noccasion]. But instead of suffering for this offence, he was seized at\nCrotona for sacrilege, and put to death. For he took away a golden beard\nwhich had fallen from a statue. These things therefore, and others of\nthe like kind, are related by the Pythagoreans, in order to render their\nopinions worthy of belief. And as these are acknowledged to be true, and\nit is impossible they should have happened to one man, they consequently\nthink it is clear, that what is related of Pythagoras, should be\nreceived as pertaining to a being superior to man, and not to a mere\nman. This also is the meaning of their enigmatical assertion, that _man,\nbird, and another third thing, are bipeds_. For the third thing is\nPythagoras. Such, therefore, was Pythagoras on account of his piety, and\nsuch he was truly thought to be.\n\nWith respect to oaths, however, all the Pythagoreans religiously observe\nthem, being mindful of the Pythagoric precept,\n\n First to th\u2019 immortal Gods thy homage pay,\n As they by law are orderly dispos\u2019d;\n And reverence thy oath, but honor next\n Th\u2019 illustrious heroes.\n\nHence a certain Pythagorean, being compelled by law to take an oath, yet\nin order that he might preserve a Pythagoric dogma, though he would have\nsworn religiously, chose instead of swearing to pay three talents, this\nbeing the fine which he was condemned to pay to the defendant. That\nPythagoras however thought that nothing was from chance and fortune, but\nthat all events happened conformably to divine providence, and\nespecially to good and pious men, is confirmed by what is related by\nAndrocydes in his treatise on Pythagoric Symbols, of Thymaridas the\nTarentine, and a Pythagorean. For when through a certain circumstance he\nwas about to sail from his own country, and his friends who were present\nwere embracing him, and bidding him farewell, some one said to him, when\nhe had now ascended into the ship, May such things happen to you from\nthe Gods, O Thymaridas, as are conformable to your wishes! But he\nreplied, predict better things; for I should rather wish that such\nthings may happen to me as are conformable to the will of the Gods. For\nhe thought it was more scientific and equitable, not to resist or be\nindignant with divine providence. If, therefore, any one wishes to learn\nwhat were the sources whence these men derived so much piety, it must be\nsaid, that a perspicuous paradigm of the Pythagoric theology according\nto numbers, is in a certain respect to be found in the writings of\nOrpheus. Nor is it to be doubted, that Pythagoras receiving auxiliaries\nfrom Orpheus, composed his treatise Concerning the Gods, which on this\naccount also he inscribed the Sacred Discourse, because it contains the\nflower of the most mystical place in Orpheus; whether this work was in\nreality written by Pythagoras, as by most authors it is said to have\nbeen, or as some of the Pythagoric school who are both learned and\nworthy of belief assert, was composed by Telauges; being taken by him\nfrom the commentaries which were left by Pythagoras himself to his\ndaughter Damo, the sister of Telauges, and which it is said after her\ndeath were given to Bitale the daughter of Damo, and to Telauges the son\nof Pythagoras, and the husband of Bitale, when he was of a mature age.\nFor when Pythagoras died, he was left very young with his mother Theano.\nIn this Sacred Discourse also, or treatise concerning the Gods (for it\nhas both these inscriptions), who it was that delivered to Pythagoras\nwhat is there said concerning the Gods, is rendered manifest. For it\nsays: \u201c_that Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchus was instructed in what\npertains to the Gods, when he celebrated orgies in the Thracian\nLibethra, being initiated in them by Aglaophemus; and that Orpheus the\nson of Calliope, having learnt wisdom from his mother in the mountain\nPang\u00e6us, said, that the eternal essence of number is the most\nprovidential principle of the universe, of heaven and earth, and the\nintermediate nature; and farther still, that it is the root of the\npermanency of divine natures, of Gods and d\u00e6mons_.\u201d[35] From these\nthings, therefore, it is evident that he learnt from the Orphic writers\nthat the essence of the Gods is defined by number. _Through the same\nnumbers also, he produced an admirable fore-knowledge and worship of the\nGods, both which are especially most allied to numbers._ This, however,\nmay be known from hence; for it is necessary to adduce a certain fact,\nin order to procure belief of what is said. When Abaris performed sacred\nrites in his accustomed manner, he procured a fore-knowledge of future\nevents, which is studiously cultivated by all the Barbarians, through\nsacrificing animals, and especially birds; for they are of opinion that\nthe viscera of such animals are subservient to a more accurate\ninspection. Pythagoras, therefore, not wishing to suppress his ardent\npursuit of truth, but to impart it to him through a certain safer way,\nand without blood and slaughter, and also because he thought that a cock\nwas sacred to the sun, _furnished him with a consummate knowledge of all\ntruth, as it is said, through the arithmetical science_. He also\nobtained from piety, faith concerning the Gods. For Pythagoras always\nproclaimed, that nothing admirable pertaining to the Gods or divine\ndogmas should be disbelieved, because the Gods are able to accomplish\nall things. And the divine dogmas in which it is requisite to believe,\nare those which Pythagoras delivered. Thus, therefore, the Pythagoreans\nbelieved in, and assumed the things about which they dogmatised, because\nthey were not the progeny of false opinion. Hence Eurytus the Crotonian,\nthe auditor of Philolaus said, that a shepherd feeding his sheep near\nthe tomb of Philolaus, heard some one singing. But the person to whom\nthis was related, did not at all disbelieve the narration, but asked\nwhat kind of harmony it was. Pythagoras himself, also, being asked by a\ncertain person what was indicated by seeming in sleep to converse with\nhis father who was dead, answered that it indicated nothing. For\nneither, said he, is any thing portended by your speaking with me.\n\nPythagoras likewise used pure and white garments, and in a similar\nmanner white and pure coverlids; for he did not use those that were made\nof wool. And this custom he also delivered to his auditors. In speaking\nalso of the natures superior to man, he employed honorable appellations,\nand words of good omen, and upon every occasion made mention of and\nreverenced the Gods; so that while at supper, he performed libations to\nthe divinities, and ordered his disciples to celebrate with hymns the\nbeings that are above us, every day. He paid attention likewise to\nrumors and omens, prophecies and lots, and in short, to all casual\ncircumstances. Moreover, he sacrificed to the Gods with millet, cakes,\nhoney-combs, and other fumigations. But he did not sacrifice animals,\nnor did any one of the contemplative philosophers. His other disciples,\nhowever, viz. the acusmatici, and the politici, were ordered by him to\nsacrifice animals, such as a cock, or a lamb, or some other animal\nrecently born, but not frequently. At the same time they were prohibited\nfrom sacrificing oxen. This also is an indication of the honor which he\npaid to the Gods, that he exhorted his disciples never to employ the\nnames of the Gods uselessly in swearing. On which account also Syllus,\none of the Pythagoreans in Crotona, paid a fine for not swearing, though\nhe could have sworn without violating truth. An oath too such as the\nfollowing is ascribed to the Pythagoreans, as they were unwilling,\nthrough reverence, to name Pythagoras; just as they very much abstained\nfrom using the names of the Gods. But they manifested the man through\nthe invention of the tetractys,\n\n I swear by him who the tetractys found,\n Whence all our wisdom springs, and which contains\n Perennial Nature\u2019s fountain, cause, and root.\n\nAnd, in short, it is said that Pythagoras was emulous of the Orphic mode\nof writing and [piety of] disposition; and that he honored the Gods in a\nway similar to that of Orpheus, placing them in images and in brass, not\nconjoined to our forms, but to divine receptacles;[36] because they\ncomprehend and provide for all things; and have a nature and morphe\nsimilar to the universe. He also promulgated purifications, and\ninitiations as they are called, which contain the most accurate\nknowledge of the Gods. And farther still, it is said, that he was the\nauthor of a compound divine philosophy and worship of the Gods; having\nlearnt indeed some things from the followers of Orpheus, but others from\nthe Egyptian priests; some from the Chald\u00e6ans and Magi; some from the\nmysteries performed in Eleusis, in Imbrus, Samothracia, and Delos; and\nsome also from those which are performed by the Celt\u00e6, and in Iberia. It\nis also said that the Sacred Discourse of Pythagoras is extant among the\nLatins, and is read not to all, nor by all of them, but by those who are\npromptly disposed to learn what is excellent, and apply themselves to\nnothing base. He likewise ordained that men should make libations\nthrice, and observed that Apollo delivered oracles from the tripod,\nbecause the triad is the first number. That sacrifices also should be\nmade to Venus on the sixth day, because this number is the first that\npartakes of every number, and, when divided in every possible way,\nreceives the power of the numbers subtracted and of those that remain.\nBut that it is necessary to sacrifice to Hercules on the eighth day of\nthe month from the beginning, looking in so doing to his being born in\nthe seventh month. He further asserted, that it was necessary that he\nwho entered a temple should be clothed with a pure garment, and in which\nno one had slept; because sleep in the same manner as the black and the\nbrown, is an indication of sluggishness; but purity is a sign of\nequality and justice in reasoning. He also ordered, that if blood should\nbe found involuntarily spilt in a temple, a lustration should be made,\neither in a golden vessel, or with the water of the sea; the former of\nthese [i. e. gold] being the most beautiful of things, and a measure by\nwhich the price of all things is regulated; but the latter as he\nconceived being the progeny of a moist nature, and the nutriment of the\nfirst and more common matter. He likewise said, that it was not proper\nto bring forth children in a temple; because it is not holy that in a\ntemple the divine part of the soul should be bound to the body. He\nfurther ordained, that on a festive day neither the hair should be cut,\nnor the nails paired; not thinking it fit that we should leave the\nservice of the Gods for the purpose of increasing our good. He also\nsaid, that a louse ought not to be killed in a temple; conceiving that a\ndivine power ought not to participate of any thing superfluous and\ncorruptible. But that the Gods should be honored with cedar, laurel,\ncypress, oak, and myrtle; and that the body should not be purified with\nthese, nor should any of them be divided by the teeth. He likewise\nordained, that what is boiled should not be roasted; signifying by this\nthat mildness is not in want of anger. But he would not suffer the\nbodies of the dead to be burned; following in this the Magi, being\nunwilling that any thing divine should communicate with a mortal nature.\nHe likewise thought it was holy for the dead to be carried out in white\ngarments; obscurely signifying by this the simple and first nature,\naccording to number and the principle of all things. But above all\nthings he ordained, that an oath should be taken religiously; since that\nwhich is behind is long.[37] And he said, that it is much more holy to\nbe injured than to kill a man: for judgment is deposited in Hades, where\nthe soul and its essence, and the first nature of things are [properly]\nestimated. Farther still, he ordered that sepulchral chests [i. e.\nbiers] should not be made of cypress, because the sceptre of Jupiter was\nmade of this wood, or for some other mystic reason. He likewise ordained\nthat libations should be performed before the table of Jupiter the\nSaviour, and of Hercules and the Dioscuri; in so doing celebrating\nJupiter as the presiding cause and leader of this nutriment; Hercules,\nas the power of nature; and the Dioscuri, as the symphony of all things.\nBut he said, that libations should not be offered with closed eyes. For\nhe did not think it fit, that any thing beautiful should be undertaken\nwith shame and bashfulness. Moreover, when it thundered, he ordained\nthat the earth should be touched, in remembrance of the generation of\nthings. But he ordered that temples should be entered from places on the\nright hand, and that they should be departed out of from the left hand.\nFor he asserted that the right hand is the principle of what is called\nthe odd number, and is divine; but that the left hand is a symbol of the\neven number, and of that which is dissolved. And such is the mode which\nhe is said to have adopted in the cultivation of piety. But other\nparticulars which we have omitted concerning it, may be conjectured from\nwhat has been said. So that I shall cease to speak further on this\nsubject.\n\n\n CHAP. XXIX.\n\nOf his wisdom, however, the commentaries written by the Pythagoreans\nafford, in short, the greatest indication; for they adhere to truth in\nevery thing, and are more concise than all other compositions, so that\nthey savour of the ancient elegance of style, and the conclusions are\nexquisitely deduced with divine science. They are also replete with the\nmost condensed conceptions, and are in other respects various and\ndiversified both in the form and the matter. At one and the same time\nlikewise, they are transcendently excellent, and without any deficiency\nin the diction, and are in an eminent degree full of clear and\nindubitable arguments, accompanied with scientific demonstration, and as\nit is said, the most perfect syllogism; as he will find to be the case,\nwho, proceeding in such paths as are fit, does not negligently peruse\nthem. This science, therefore, concerning intelligible natures and the\nGods, Pythagoras delivers in his writings from a supernal origin.\nAfterwards, he teaches the whole of physics, and unfolds completely\nethical philosophy and logic. He likewise delivers all-various\ndisciplines, and the most excellent sciences. And in short there is\nnothing pertaining to human knowledge which is not accurately discussed\nin these writings. If therefore it is acknowledged, that of the\n[Pythagoric] writings which are now in circulation, some were written by\nPythagoras himself, but others consist of what he was heard to say, and\non this account are anonymous, but are referred to Pythagoras as their\nauthor;\u2014if this be the case, it is evident that he was abundantly\nskilled in all wisdom. But it is said that he very much applied himself\nto geometry among the Egyptians. For with the Egyptians there are many\ngeometrical problems; since it is necessary that from remote periods,\nand from the time of the Gods themselves,[38] on account of the\nincrements and decrements of the Nile, those that were skilful should\nhave measured all the Egyptian land which they cultivated. Hence also\ngeometry derived its name. Neither did they negligently investigate the\ntheory of the celestial orbs, in which likewise Pythagoras was skilled.\nMoreover, all the theorems about lines appear to have been derived from\nthence. For it is said that what pertains to computation and numbers,\nwas discovered in Ph\u0153nicia. For some persons refer the theorems about\nthe celestial bodies to the Egyptians and Chaldeans in common. It is\nsaid therefore, that Pythagoras having received and increased all these\n[theories,] imparted the sciences, and at the same time demonstrated\nthem to his auditors with perspicuity and elegance. And he was the first\nindeed that denominated philosophy, and said that it was the desire, and\nas it were love of wisdom. But he defined wisdom to be the science of\nthe truth which is in beings. And he said that beings are immaterial and\neternal natures, and alone possess an efficacious power, such as\nincorporeal essences. But that the rest of things are only homonymously\nbeings, and are so denominated through the participation of real beings,\nand such are corporeal and material forms, which are generated and\ncorrupted, and never truly are. And that wisdom is the science of things\nwhich are properly beings, but not of such as are homonymously so. For\ncorporeal natures are neither the objects of science nor admit of a\nstable knowledge, since they are infinite and incomprehensible by\nscience, and are as it were, non-beings, when compared with universals,\nand are incapable of being properly circumscribed by definition. It is\nimpossible however to conceive that there should be science of things\nwhich are not naturally the objects of science. Hence it is not probable\nthat there will be a desire of science which has no subsistence, but\nrather that desire will be extended to things which are properly beings,\nwhich exist with invariable permanency, and are always consubsistent\nwith a true appellation. For it happens that the perception of things\nwhich are homonymously beings, and which are never truly what they seem\nto be, follows the apprehension of real beings; just as the knowledge of\nparticulars follows the science of universals. For he who knows\nuniversals properly, says Archytas, will also have a clear perception of\nthe nature of particulars. Hence things which have an existence are not\nalone, nor only-begotten, nor simple, but they are seen to be various\nand multiform. For some of them are intelligible and incorporeal\nnatures, and which are denominated beings; but others are corporeal and\nfall under the perception of sense, and by participation communicate\nwith that which has a real existence. Concerning all these therefore, he\ndelivered the most appropriate sciences, and left nothing [pertaining to\nthem] uninvestigated. _He likewise unfolded to men those sciences which\nare common_ [_to all disciplines_,] as for instance the demonstrative,\nthe definitive, and that which consists in dividing, as may be known\nfrom the Pythagoric commentaries. He was also accustomed to pour forth\nsentences resembling Oracles to his familiars in a symbolical manner,\nand which in the greatest brevity of words contained the most abundant\nand multifarious meaning, like the Pythian Apollo through certain\noracles, or like nature herself through seeds small in bulk, the former\nexhibiting conceptions, and the latter effects, innumerable in\nmultitude, and difficult to be understood. Of this kind is the sentence,\n_The beginning is the half of the whole_, which is an apothegm of\nPythagoras himself. But not only in the present hemistich, but in others\nof a similar nature, the most divine Pythagoras has concealed the sparks\nof truth; depositing as in a treasury for those who are capable of being\nenkindled by them, and with a certain brevity of diction, an extension\nof theory most ample and difficult to be comprehended, as in the\nfollowing hemistich:\n\n All things accord in number:\n\nwhich he very frequently uttered to all his disciples. Or again,\n_Friendship is equality; equality is friendship_. Or in the word\n_cosmos_, i. e. _the world_; or by Jupiter, in the word _philosophy_, or\nin the so much celebrated word _tetractys_. All these and many other\ninventions of the like kind, were devised by Pythagoras for the benefit\nand amendment of his associates; and they were considered by those that\nunderstood them to be so venerable, and so much the progeny of divine\ninspiration, that the following was adopted as an oath by those that\ndwelt together in the common auditory:\n\n I swear by him who the tetractys found,\n And to our race reveal\u2019d; the cause and root,\n And fount of ever-flowing Nature.\n\nThis therefore was the form of his wisdom which is so admirable.\n\nIt is also said, that of the sciences which the Pythagoreans honored,\nmusic, medicine and divination, were not among the least. But they were\nhabitually silent and prompt to hear, and he who was able to hear [in a\nproper manner] was praised by them. Of medicine, however, they\nespecially embraced the di\u00e6tetic species, and in the exercise of this\nwere most accurate. And in the first place, indeed, they endeavoured to\nlearn the indications of symmetry, of labor, food, and repose. In the\nnext place, with respect to the preparation of food, they were nearly\nthe first who attempted to employ themselves in it, and to define the\nmode in which it should be performed. The Pythagoreans likewise employed\ncataplasms more frequently than their predecessors; but they in a less\ndegree approved of medicated ointments. These however they principally\nused in the cure of ulcerations. But incisions and burnings they\nadmitted the least of all things. Some diseases also they cured by\nincantations. Pythagoras, however, thought that music greatly\ncontributed to health, if it was used in a proper manner. The\nPythagoreans likewise employed select sentences of Homer and Hesiod for\nthe amendment of souls. But they thought it was necessary to retain and\npreserve in the memory things which they had learnt and heard; and that\nit was requisite to be furnished with disciplines and auditions, to as\ngreat an extent as there was an ability of learning and remembering; the\nformer of these being the power by which knowledge is obtained, but the\nlatter, the power by which it is preserved. Hence, they very much\nhonored the memory, abundantly exercised, and paid great attention to\nit. In learning too, they did not dismiss what they were taught, till\nthey had firmly comprehended the first rudiments of it; and they\nrecalled to their memory what they had daily heard, after the following\nmanner: A Pythagorean never rose from his bed till he had first\nrecollected the transactions of the former day; and he accomplished this\nby endeavouring to remember what he first said, or heard, or ordered his\ndomestics to do when he was rising, or what was the second and third\nthing which he said, heard, or commanded to be done. And the same method\nwas adopted with respect to the remainder of the day. For again, he\nendeavoured to recollect who was the first person that he met, on\nleaving his house, or who was the second; and with whom he in the first,\nor second, or third place discoursed. And after the same manner he\nproceeded in other things. For he endeavoured to resume in his memory\nall the events of the whole day, and in the very same order in which\neach of them happened to take place. But if they had sufficient leisure\nafter rising from sleep, they tried after the same manner to recollect\nthe events of the third preceding day. And thus they endeavoured to\nexercise the memory to a great extent. For there is not any thing which\nis of greater importance with respect to science, experience and wisdom,\nthan the ability of remembering. From these studies therefore, it\nhappened that all Italy was filled with philosophers, and this place,\nwhich before was unknown, was afterwards on account of Pythagoras called\nMagna Gr\u00e6cia. Hence also it contained many philosophers, poets, and\nlegislators. For the rhetorical arts, demonstrative reasonings, and the\nlaws written by them, were transferred from Italy to Greece. Those\nlikewise who make mention of physics, adduce as the principal\nphysiologists Empedocles and the Elean Parmenides. Those too, who wish\nto cite sentences, pertaining to the conduct of human life, adduce for\nthis purpose the conceptions of Epicharmus. And nearly all philosophers\nmake use of these. Thus much therefore concerning the wisdom of\nPythagoras, how in a certain respect he very much impelled all his\nauditors to the pursuit of it, as far as they were adapted to its\nparticipation, and how perfectly it was delivered by him.\n\n\n CHAP. XXX.\n\nWith respect to justice, however, we shall learn in the best manner, how\nhe cultivated and delivered it to mankind, if we survey it from its\nfirst principle, and from what first causes it germinates, and also\ndirect our attention to the first cause of injustice. For thus we shall\ndiscover how he avoided the latter, and what methods he adopted in order\nthat the former might be properly ingenerated in the soul. The principle\nof justice therefore, is the common and the equal, through which, in a\nway most nearly approximating to one body and one soul, all men may be\nco-passive, and may call the same thing mine and thine; as is also\ntestified by Plato, who learnt this from the Pythagoreans. This\ntherefore, Pythagoras effected in the best manner, exterminating every\nthing private in manners, but increasing that which is common as far as\nto ultimate possessions, which are the causes of sedition and tumult.\nFor all things [with his disciples] were common and the same to all, and\nno one possessed any thing private. And he indeed, who approved of this\ncommunion, used common possessions in the most just manner; but he who\ndid not, received his own property, which he brought to the common\nstock, with an addition to it, and departed. And thus he established\njustice in the best manner, from the first principle of it.\n\nIn the next place, therefore, association with men introduces justice;\nbut alienation, and a contempt of the common genus, produce injustice.\nWishing therefore to insert this familiarity from afar in men, he also\nordained that his disciples should extend it to animals of the same\ngenus, and commanded them to consider these as their familiars and\nfriends; so as neither to injure, nor slay, nor eat any one of them. He\ntherefore who associates men with animals, because they consist of the\nsame elements as we do, and participate with us of a more common life,\nwill in a much greater degree establish fellowship with those who\npartake of a soul of the same species, and also of a rational soul. From\nthis also it is evident that he introduced justice produced from the\nmost proper principle. Since likewise the want of riches, sometimes\ncompels many to do something contrary to justice, he well foresaw that\nthis would be the case, and through economy procured for himself liberal\nexpenses, and what was just in sufficient abundance. For again, a just\narrangement of domestic concerns is the principle of all good order in\ncities. For cities are constituted from houses. It is said therefore,\nthat Pythagoras himself was the heir of the property of Alc\u00e6us, who died\nafter performing an embassy to the Laced\u00e6monians, but that\nnotwithstanding this, he was no less admired for his economy than for\nhis philosophy. When also he was married, he so educated the daughter\nthat was born to him, and who was afterwards married to Meno the\nCrotonian, that when she was a virgin she was the leader of choirs, but\nwhen a wife she held the first place among those that approached to\naltars. It is likewise said, that the Metapontines preserving the\nremembrance of Pythagoras after his time, made his house a temple of\nCeres, but the street in which he lived a museum.\n\nBecause also insolence, luxury, and a contempt of the laws, frequently\nimpel men to injustice, on this account he daily exhorted his disciples\nto give assistance to law, and to be hostile to illegality. Hence he\nmade such a division as the following: that what is called luxury, is\nthe first evil that usually glides into houses and cities; that the\nsecond is insolence; and the third destruction. That hence luxury should\nby all possible means be excluded and expelled [from every house and\ncity,] and that men should be accustomed from their birth to a temperate\nand manly life. He farther added, that it is requisite to be purified\nfrom all malediction, whether it be that which is lamentable, or that\nwhich excites hostility, and whether it be of a reviling, or insolent,\nor scurrilous nature.\n\nBesides these, likewise, he established another most beautiful species\nof justice, viz. the legislative; which orders indeed what ought to be\ndone; but forbids what ought not to be done. This species, however, is\nmore excellent than the judicial form of justice. For it resembles\nmedicine which heals those that are diseased. It differs from it however\nin this, that it does not suffer disease to commence, but pays attention\nfrom afar to the health of the soul. This therefore being the case, the\nbest of all legislators came from the school of Pythagoras: in the first\nplace, indeed, Charondas the Catan\u00e6an; and in the next place, Zaleucus\nand Timaratus, who wrote laws for the Locrians. Besides these likewise\nthere were The\u00e6tetus and Helicaon, Aristocrates, and Phytius, who became\nthe legislators of the Rhegini. All these likewise obtained from their\ncitizens honors similar to those of the Gods. For Pythagoras did not act\nlike Heraclitus, who said that he would write laws for the Ephesians,\nand also petulantly[39] said, that in those laws he would order the\ncitizens to hang themselves. But Pythagoras endeavoured to establish\nlaws, with great benevolence and political science. Why however is it\nrequisite to admire these men? For Zamolxis being a Thracian, and the\nslave of Pythagoras, after he had heard the discourses of Pythagoras,\nhaving obtained his liberty, and returned to Get\u00e6, gave laws to them, as\nwe have before observed in the beginning of this work, and exhorted the\ncitizens to fortitude, _having persuaded them that the soul is immortal.\nHence even at present, all the Galat\u00e6, and Trallians, and many others of\nthe Barbarians, persuade their children that the soul cannot be\ndestroyed; but that it remains after death, and that death is not to be\nfeared, but danger is to be encountered with a firm and manly mind._\nHaving therefore instructed the Get\u00e6 in these things, and written laws\nfor them, he was considered by them as the greatest of the Gods.\n\nFarther still, he apprehended that the dominion of the Gods was most\nefficacious to the establishment of justice, and supernally from this he\nconstituted a polity and laws, and also justice. It will not however be\nforeign to the purpose, to add particularly the manner in which he\nthought we ought to conceive of divinity; viz. that we should conceive\nthat he exists, and that he is so disposed towards the human race, that\nbe inspects and does not neglect it. And this conception which the\nPythagoreans derived from Pythagoras, they apprehended to be of great\nutility. For we require an inspection of this kind, which we do not in\nany thing think fit to resist. But such as this is the inspective\ngovernment of divinity. Fop if a divine nature is a thing of this kind,\nit deserves to have the empire of the universe. For it was rightly said\nby the Pythagoreans, that man is an animal [so far as pertains to his\nirrational part,] naturally insolent, and various, according to\nimpulses, desires, and the rest of the passions. He requires therefore\ntranscendent inspection and government of this kind, from which a\ncertain castigation and order may be derived. Hence they thought that\nevery one being conscious of the variety of his nature, should never he\nforgetful of piety towards, and the worship of divinity; but should\nalways place him before the eye of the mind, as inspecting and\ndiligently observing the conduct of mankind. But after divinity and the\nd\u00e6moniacal nature, they thought that every one should pay the greatest\nattention to his parents and the laws, and should be obedient to them,\nnot feignedly, but faithfully. And universally, they thought it\nnecessary to believe, that nothing is a greater evil than anarchy; since\nthe human race is not naturally adapted to be saved, when no one rules\nover it.\n\nThese men also thought it right to adhere to the customs and legal\ninstitutes of their ancestors, even though they should be somewhat\ninferior to other customs and laws. For to fly from the existing laws,\nand to be studious of innovation, is by no means profitable and\nsalutary. Pythagoras therefore gave many other specimens of piety to the\nGods, evincing that his life was conformable to his doctrines. Nor will\nit be foreign to the purpose to mention one of them, which may serve to\nelucidate the rest. But I will relate what Pythagoras said and did\nrelative to the embassy from Sybaris to Crotona, about demanding the\nreturn of the exiles. For some of his associates were slain by order of\nthe ambassadors, one of whom slew a part of them with his own hands; but\nanother was the son of one of those who had excited the sedition, and\nwho died through disease. When the Crotonians therefore were\ndeliberating how they should act in this affair, Pythagoras said to his\ndisciples, that he was not willing the Crotonians should be so greatly\ndiscordant in this affair, and that in his opinion, the ambassadors\nshould not even lead victims to the altars, much less ought they to drag\nsuppliants [i. e. the exiles] from them. But when the Sybarites came to\nhim with their complaints, and the man who had slain some of his\nassociates with his own hands, was defending his conduct, Pythagoras\nsaid, that he should not answer [an homicide]. Hence, some persons\naccused him of asserting that he was Apollo, because prior to this some\none having asked him about a certain object of inquiry, why the thing\nwas so; he in his turn asked the interrogator, if he would think fit to\ninquire of Apollo when he was delivering oracles to him, why he\ndelivered them? But to another of the ambassadors who appeared to him to\nderide his school, in which he taught the return of souls to the\nsupernal realms, and who said that he would give him an epistle to his\nfather, as he was about to descend into Hades, and exhorted him to bring\nanother letter in answer, from his father, when he returned; Pythagoras\nreplied, that he was not about to descend into the abode of the impious,\nwhere he clearly knew that murderers were punished. But the ambassadors\nreviling him, he proceeded to the sea, many persons following him, and\nthere sprinkled himself with marine water. Some one however of the\nCrotonian counsellors, after reviling the rest of the ambassadors,\nobserved that he understood they had defamed Pythagoras, whom not even a\nbrute would dare to blaspheme, though all animals should again utter the\nsame voice as men, which fables report they did in the beginning of\nthings.\n\nPythagoras likewise discovered another method of restraining men from\ninjustice, through the judgment of souls, truly knowing indeed that this\nmethod may be taught, and also knowing that it is useful to the\nsuppression of justice through fear. He asserted therefore, that it is\nmuch better to be injured than to kill a man; for that judgment is\ndeposited in Hades, where the soul, and its essence, and the first\nnature of beings, are properly estimated. Being desirous, however, to\nexhibit in things unequal, without symmetry and infinite, a definite,\nequal, and commensurate justice, and to show how it ought to be\nexercised, he said, that justice resembles that figure, which is the\nonly one among geometrical diagrams, that having indeed infinite\ncompositions of figures, but dissimilarly disposed with reference to\neach other, yet has equal demonstrations of power.[40] Since also, there\nis a certain justice in making use of another person, such a mode of it\nas the following, is said to have been delivered by the Pythagoreans: Of\nassociations with others, one kind is seasonable, but another is\nunseasonable. These likewise are distinguished from each other by\ndifference of age, desert, the familiarity of alliance, and of\nbeneficence, and whatever else there may be of the like kind in the\ndifferent associations of men with each other. For there is a species of\nassociation, viz. of a younger with a younger person, which does not\nappear to be unseasonable; but that of a younger with an elderly person\nis unseasonable. For no species of anger, or threatening, or boldness,\nis becoming in a younger towards an elderly man, but all unseasonable\nconduct of this kind should be cautiously avoided. A similar reasoning\nlikewise should be adopted with respect to desert. For it is neither\ndecorous, nor seasonable, to use an unrestrained freedom of speech, or\nto adopt any of the above-mentioned modes of conduct, towards a man who\nhas arrived at the true dignity of consummate virtue. Conformably to\nthis also, was what he said respecting the association with parents, and\nlikewise with benefactors. He added, that there is a certain various and\nmultiform use of an opportune time. For of those that are enraged and\nangry, some are so seasonably, but others unseasonably. And again, of\nthose that aspire after, desire, and are impelled to any thing\nappetible, an opportune time is the attendant on some, and an\nunseasonable time on others. And the same thing may be said concerning\nother passions and actions, dispositions, associations, and meetings. He\nfarther observed, that an opportune time is _to a certain extent_, to be\ntaught, and also, that what happens contrary to expectation, is capable\nof receiving an artificial discussion; but that when it is considered\nuniversally and simply, none of the above-mentioned particulars pertain\nto it. Nearly, however, such things are the attendants on it, as follow\nthe nature of opportune time, viz. what is called the florid, the\nbecoming, the adapted, and whatever else there may be homogeneous to\nthese. He likewise asserted, that principle [or the beginning] is in the\nuniverse unity, and is the most honorable of things; and that in a\nsimilar manner it is so in science, in experience, and in generation.\nAnd again, that the number two is most honorable in a house, in a city,\nin a camp, and in all such like systems. But that the nature of\nprinciple is difficult to be surveyed and apprehended in all the\nabove-mentioned particulars. For in sciences, it is not the province of\nany casual understanding to learn and judge, by well surveying the parts\nof things, what the nature is of the principle of these. He added, that\nit makes a great difference, and that there is danger with respect to\nthe knowledge of the whole of things, when principle is not rightly\nassumed. For none, in short, of the consequent conclusions can be sane,\nwhen the true principle is unknown. The same thing may also be said\nrespecting a principle of another kind. For neither can a house, or a\ncity, be well instituted, unless each has a true ruler, who governs\nthose that voluntarily submit to him. For it is necessary that in both\nthese the governor should be willing to rule, and the governed to obey.\nJust as with respect to disciplines, when they are taught with proper\neffect, it is necessary that there should be a concurrence in the will\nboth of the teacher and learner. For if there is a resistance on the\npart of either, the proposed work will never be accomplished in a proper\nmanner. Thus therefore, he proved, that it was beautiful to be persuaded\nby rulers, and to be obedient to preceptors. But he exhibited the\nfollowing as the greatest argument through deeds, of the truth of his\nobservations. He went from Italy to Delos, to Pherecydes the Syrian, who\nhad been his preceptor, in order that he might afford him some\nassistance, as he was then afflicted with what is called the morbus\npedicularis, and he carefully attended him to the time of his death, and\npiously performed whatever rites were due to his dead preceptor. So\ndiligent was he in the discharge of his duties to him from whom he had\nreceived instruction.\n\nMoreover, with respect to compacts and the veracity pertaining to them,\nPythagoras so prepared his disciples for the observance of them, that,\nas it is said, Lysis having once performed his adorations in the temple\nof Juno, met, as he was departing from it, about the vestibules with\nEuryphamus the Syracusan, who was one of his fellow disciples, and was\nthen entering into the temple. Euryphamus therefore desiring Lysis to\nwait for him, till he also had adored the Goddess, Lysis sat down on a\nstone seat which was placed there. Euryphamus however having finished\nhis adoration, and becoming absorbed in certain profound conceptions,\nforgot his appointment, and went out of the temple through another gate.\nBut Lysis waited for him without quitting his seat, the remainder of\nthat day and the following night, and also the greater part of the next\nday. And perhaps he would have staid there for a still longer time,\nunless Euryphamus on the following day, had heard in the auditory, that\nLysis was wanted by his associates. Recollecting therefore his compact,\nhe came to Lysis, and liberated him from his engagement, at the same\ntime telling him the cause of his forgetfulness, and added, \u201cSome God\nproduced in me this oblivion, as a trial of your firmness in preserving\nyour compacts.\u201d Pythagoras likewise ordained abstinence from animal\nfood, for many other reasons, and likewise because it is productive of\npeace. For those who are accustomed to abominate the slaughter of\nanimals as iniquitous and preternatural, will think it to be much more\nunlawful to kill a man, or engage in war. But war is the leader and\nlegislator of slaughter. For by this it is increased, and becomes strong\nand powerful. Not to step also above the beam of the balance, is an\nexhortation to justice, announcing, that whatever is just should be\ncultivated, as will be shown when we discuss the Pythagoric symbols. It\nappears therefore, through all these particulars, that Pythagoras paid\ngreat attention to the exercise of justice, and to the delivery of it to\nmankind, both in deeds and in words.\n\n\n CHAP. XXXI.\n\nIt follows, in the next place, that we should speak of temperance, and\nshow how it was cultivated by Pythagoras, and how he delivered it to his\nassociates. We have already therefore narrated the common precepts\nconcerning it, in which it is said that every thing incommensurate\nshould be cut off with fire and sword. The abstinence also from animal\nfood, is a precept of the same species; and likewise from certain foods\ncalculated to produce intemperance, and impeding the vigilance and\ngenuine energies of the reasoning power. Farther still, to this species\nthe precept belongs, that sumptuous food should indeed be introduced in\nbanquets, but should [shortly after] be sent away, and given to the\nservants, being placed on the table merely for the sake of punishing the\ndesires. Likewise, that no liberal and ingenuous woman should wear gold,\nbut only harlots. And again, the exercise of taciturnity, and perfect\nsilence, for the purpose of governing the tongue. Likewise a strenuous\nand assiduous resumption and investigation of the most difficult\ntheorems. But on account of all these, we must refer to the same virtue\n[i. e. to temperance,] abstinence from wine; paucity of food and sleep;\nan inartificial contempt of renown, wealth, and the like; a sincere\nreverence towards those to whom reverence is due, but an unfeigned\nsimilitude of behaviour and benevolence towards those of the same age;\nan animadversion and exhortation of those that are younger, without\nenvy; and every thing else of the like kind.\n\nThe temperance also of those men, and how Pythagoras taught this virtue,\nmay be learnt from what Hippobotus and Neanthes narrate of Myllias and\nTimycha who were Pythagoreans. For they say that Dionysius the tyrant\ncould not obtain the friendship of any one of the Pythagoreans, though\nhe did every thing to accomplish his purpose; for they had observed, and\ncarefully avoided his monarchical disposition. He sent therefore to the\nPythagoreans, a troop of thirty soldiers, under the command of Eurymenes\nthe Syracusan, who was the brother of Dion, in order that by treachery\ntheir accustomed migration from Tarentum to Metapontum, might be\nopportunely effected for his purpose. For it was usual with them to\nchange their abode at different seasons of the year, and they chose such\nplaces as were adapted to this migration. In Phal\u00e6 therefore, a craggy\npart of Tarentum, through which the Pythagoreans must necessarily pass\nin their journey, Eurymenes insidiously concealed his troop, and when\nthe Pythagoreans, expecting no such thing, came to that place about the\nmiddle of the day, the soldiers rushed upon them with shouts, after the\nmanner of robbers. But the Pythagoreans being disturbed and terrified at\nan attack so unexpected, and at the superior number of their enemies\n(for the whole number of the Pythagoreans was but ten), and considering\nalso that they must be taken captive, as they were without arms, and had\nto contend with men who were variously armed,\u2014they found that their only\nsafety was in flight, and they did not conceive that this was foreign to\nvirtue. For they knew that fortitude, according to the decision of right\nreason, is the science of things which are to be avoided and endured.\nAnd this they now obtained. For those who were with Eurymenes, being\nheavy-armed, would have abandoned the pursuit of the Pythagoreans, if\nthe latter in their flight had not arrived at a certain field sown with\nbeans, and which were in a sufficiently florishing condition. Not being\nwilling therefore to violate the dogma which ordered them not to touch\nbeans, they stood still, and from necessity attacked their pursuers with\nstones and sticks, and whatever else they happened to meet with, till\nthey had slain some, and wounded many of them. All the Pythagoreans\nhowever, were at length slain by the spearmen, nor would any one of them\nsuffer himself to be taken captive, but preferred death to this,\nconformably to the mandates of their sect.\n\nEurymenes therefore, and his soldiers, were beyond measure disturbed on\nfinding that they should not be able to bring one of the Pythagoreans\nalive to Dionysius, though they were sent by him for this purpose alone.\nHence, having piled earth on the slain, and buried them in that place in\na common sepulchre, they turned their steps homeward. As they were\nreturning, however, they happened to meet with Myllias the Crotonian,\nand his wife Timycha the Laced\u00e6monian, whom the other Pythagoreans had\nleft behind, because Timycha being pregnant, was now in her sixth[41]\nmonth, and on this account walked leisurely. These therefore, the\nsoldiers gladly made captive, and led them to the tyrant, paying every\nattention to them, in order that they might be brought to him safe. But\nthe tyrant having learnt what had happened, was greatly dejected, and\nsaid to the two Pythagoreans, You shall obtain from me honors\ntranscending all others in dignity, if you will consent to reign in\nconjunction with me. All his offers however being rejected by Myllias\nand Timycha; If then, said he, you will only teach me one thing, I will\ndismiss you with a sufficiently safe guard. Myllias therefore asking him\nwhat it was he wished to learn; Dionysius replied, It is this, why your\ncompanions chose rather to die, than to tread on beans? But Myllias\nimmediately answered, My companions indeed submitted to death, in order\nthat they might not tread upon beans, but I would rather tread on them,\nthan tell you the cause of this. Dionysius therefore, being astonished\nat this answer, ordered him to be forcibly taken away, but commanded\nTimycha to be tortured: for he thought, that as she was a woman,\npregnant, and deprived of her husband, she would easily tell him what he\nwanted to know, through fear of the torments. The heroic woman, however,\ngrinding her tongue with her teeth, bit it off, and spit it at the\ntyrant; evincing by this, that though her sex being vanquished by the\ntorments might be compelled to disclose something which ought to be\nconcealed in silence, yet the member subservient to the developement of\nit, should be entirely cut off. So much difficulty did they make in\nadmitting foreign friendships, even though they should happen to be\nroyal.\n\nSimilar to these also, were the precepts concerning silence, and which\ntended to the exercise of temperance. For the subjugation of the tongue,\nis of all other continence the most difficult. The persuading likewise\nthe Crotonians to abstain from the profane and spurious association with\nharlots, pertains to the same virtue. And besides this, the correction\nthrough music, by means of which Pythagoras restored a young man to\ntemperance, who had become furious through love. The exhortation also,\nwhich leads from lascivious insolence, must be referred to the same\nvirtue. And these things Pythagoras delivered to the Pythagoreans, he\nhimself being the cause of them. For they so attended to their bodies,\nthat they might always remain in the same condition, and not at one time\nbe lean, but at another, abounding in flesh. For they considered this to\nbe an indication of an anomalous life. In a similar manner also with\nrespect to the mind, they were careful that they might not be at one\ntime cheerful, and at another sad, but that they might be mildly joyful\nwith uniformity. But they expelled rage, despondency, and perturbation.\n_And it was a precept with them, that no human casualties ought to be\nunexpected by those who are endued with intellect, but that they should\nexpect every thing may happen which it is not in their power to\nprevent._ But if at any time they were in a rage, or oppressed with\nsorrow, or any thing else of this kind, they separated themselves from\nthe rest of their associates, and each by himself alone, endeavoured to\ndigest and heal the passion.\n\nThis also is said of the Pythagoreans, that no one of them when angry,\neither punished a servant, or admonished any free man, but each of them\nwaited till his mind was restored to its former [tranquil] condition.\nBut they called _to admonish_, _p\u00e6dartan_. For they accomplished this\nwaiting by employing silence and quiet. Hence Spintharus relates of\nArchytas the Tarentine, that returning after a certain time from the war\nwhich the city of Tarentum waged against the Messenians, to inspect some\nland which belonged to him, and finding that the bailiff and the other\nservants, had not paid proper attention to the cultivation of it, but\nhad greatly neglected it, being enraged, he was so indignant, that he\ntold his servants it was well for them he was angry; since, if this had\nnot happened, they would not have escaped the punishment due to so great\nan offence. Spintharus likewise says that a similar thing is related of\nClinias. For he also deferred all admonitions and punishments, till his\nmind was restored to tranquillity.\n\nIt is farther related of the Pythagoreans, that they expelled from\nthemselves lamentation, weeping, and every thing else of this kind; and\nthat neither gain, nor desire, nor anger, nor ambition, nor any thing of\na similar nature, became the cause of dissension among them; but that\nall the Pythagoreans were so disposed towards each other, as a worthy\nfather is towards his offspring. This also is a beautiful circumstance,\nthat they referred every thing to Pythagoras, and called it by his name,\nand that they did not ascribe to themselves the glory of their own\ninventions, except very rarely. For there are very few whose works are\nacknowledged to be their own. The accuracy too, with which they\npreserved their writings is admirable. For in so many ages, no one\nappears to have met with any of the commentaries of the Pythagoreans,\nprior to the time of Philolaus. But he first published those three\ncelebrated books, which Dion the Syracusan is said to have bought, at\nthe request of Plato, for a hundred mina. For Philolaus had fallen into\na certain great and severe poverty; and from his alliance to the\nPythagoreans, was a partaker of their writings.\n\nWith respect also to opinion,[42] it is related that they spoke of it as\nfollows: That it is the province of a stupid man to pay attention to the\nopinion of every one, and especially to that of the multitude. Far it\nbelongs to a few only to apprehend and opine rightly; since it is\nevident that this pertains to the intelligent alone. But they are few.\nIt is manifest therefore, that a power of this kind does not extend\nitself to the multitude. But it is also stupid to despise the opinion of\nevery one. For it will happen that he who is so disposed will be\nunlearned and incorrigible. It is however necessary that he who is\ndestitute of science should learn those things of which he is ignorant,\nand has no scientific knowledge. And it is likewise necessary that the\nlearner should pay attention to the opinion of him who possesses\nscience, and is able to teach. And universally, it is necessary that\nthose young men who wish to be saved, should attend to the opinion of\ntheir elders, and of those who have lived well. But in the whole of\nhuman life there are certain ages (denominated by them as it is said\n_endedasmen\u00e6_) which it is not in the power of any casual person to\nconnect with each other. For they are expelled by each other, unless\nsome one conducts a man from his birth, in a beautiful and upright\nmanner. It is necessary therefore, when a child is educated well, and is\nformed to temperance and fortitude, that a great part of his education\nshould be given to the age of adolescence [which is that of a lad]. In a\nsimilar manner also, when a lad is formed to temperance and fortitude,\nit is necessary that a great part of his education should be transferred\nto the age of manhood. For that which happens to the multitude is absurd\nand ridiculous. For they fancy it is requisite that boys should be\norderly and temperate, and should abstain from every thing which appears\nto be troublesome and indecorous; but that when they have arrived at\nadolescency, they may for the most part do whatever they please. Hence\nthere is nearly a conflux of both kinds of errors into this age. For\nlads commit many faults which are both puerile and virile. For, in\nshort, to avoid every kind of sedulity and order, and to pursue every\nspecies of sport, and puerile intemperance and insolence, are most\nadapted to the age of a boy. Such a disposition therefore as this, is\nderived from the puerile into the following age. But the genus of strong\ndesires, and of different species of ambition, and in a similar manner\nthe remaining impulses and dispositions, when they are of a severe and\nturbulent nature, are derived from the virile age into that of\nadolescency. Hence this of all the ages demands the greatest attention.\nAnd universally, no man ought to be suffered to do whatever he pleases,\nbut it is always necessary that there should be a certain inspection,\nand a legal and elegantly-formed government, to which each of the\ncitizens is obedient. For the animal, when left to itself and neglected,\nrapidly degenerates into vice and depravity.\n\nIt is likewise said, that the Pythagoreans frequently inquired and\ndoubted why we accustom boys to take their food in an orderly and\ncommensurate manner, and show them that order and symmetry are\nbeautiful; but that the contraries to these, disorder and\nincommensuration, are base; and that he who is given to wine and is\ninsatiable, is held in great disgrace. For if no one of these is useful\nto us when we have arrived at the age of virility, it was in vain that\nwe were accustomed, when boys, to an order of this kind. And there is\nalso the same reason concerning the other manners [to which we are\naccustomed when boys]. This, therefore, is not seen to happen in other\nanimals which are disciplined by men; but immediately from the first, a\nwhelp and a colt are accustomed to, and learn those things which it is\nrequisite for them to do when they have arrived at the perfection of\ntheir nature. And universally, it is said that the Pythagoreans exhorted\nboth those they happened to meet, and their familiars, to avoid pleasure\nas a thing that required the greatest caution. For nothing so much\ndeceives us, or precipitates us into error, as this passion. In short,\nas it seems, they contended that we should never do any thing with a\nview to pleasure as the end. For this scope is, for the most part,\nindecorous and noxious. _But they asserted, that especially looking to\nthe beautiful and decorous, we should do whatever is to be done._[43]\nAnd that in the second place we should look to the advantageous and the\nuseful. These things, however, require no casual judgment.\n\nWith respect to what is called desire, these men are said to have\nasserted as follows: That _desire indeed, itself, is a certain tendency,\nimpulse, and appetite of the soul, in order to be filled with something,\nor to enjoy something present, or to be disposed according to some\nsensitive energy_; but that there is also a desire of the contraries to\nthese, and this is a desire of the evacuation and absence, and of having\nno sensible perception of certain things. That this passion likewise is\nvarious, and is nearly the most multifarious of all those that pertain\nto man. But that many human desires are adscititious, and procured by\nmen themselves. Hence this passion requires the greatest attention, and\nno casual care and corporeal exercise. For that the body when empty\nshould desire food, is natural: and again, it is also natural, that when\nfilled, it should desire an appropriate evacuation. But to desire\nsuperfluous nutriment, or superfluous and luxurious garments or\ncoverlids, or habitations, is adscititious. They also reasoned in the\nsame manner concerning furniture, vessels, servants, and cattle\nsubservient to food. And universally, with respect to human passions,\nthey are nearly things of such a kind, as to be nowhere permanent, but\nto proceed to infinity. Hence attention should be paid to youth from the\nearliest period, in order that they may aspire after such things as are\nproper, may avoid vain and superfluous desires, and thus be undisturbed\nby, and purified from, such-like appetites, and may despise those who\nare objects of contempt, because they are bound to [all-various]\ndesires. But it must be especially observed, that vain, noxious,\nsuperfluous, and insolent desires subsist with those who have the\ngreatest power. For there is not any thing so absurd, which the soul of\nsuch boys, men, and women, does not incite them to perform. In short,\nthe variety of food which is assumed, is most manifold. For there are an\ninfinite number of fruits, and an infinite multitude of roots, which the\nhuman race uses for food. It likewise uses all-various kinds of flesh;\nand it is difficult to find any terrestrial, aerial, or aquatic animal,\nwhich it does not taste. It also employs all-various contrivances in the\npreparation of these, and manifold mixtures of juices. Hence it properly\nfollows that the human tribe is insane and multiform, according to the\nmotion of the soul, for each kind of food that is introduced into the\nbody, becomes the cause of a certain peculiar disposition.\n\nWe however perceive that some things become immediately the cause of a\ngreat change in quality, as is evident in wine. For when it is drank\nabundantly, it makes men at first more cheerful, but afterwards more\ninsane and indecorous. But men are ignorant of those things which do not\nexhibit a power of this kind; though every thing that is eaten is the\ncause of a certain peculiar disposition. Hence it requires great wisdom,\nto be able to know and perceive, what kind and what quantity of food\nought to be used. This science, however, was at first unfolded by Apollo\nand P\u00e6on; but afterwards by Esculapius and his followers.\n\nWith respect to generation also, the Pythagoreans are said to have made\nthe following observations. In the first place, they thought it\nnecessary to guard against what is called untimely [offspring]. For\nneither untimely plants, nor animals, are good; but prior to their\nbearing fruit, it is necessary that a certain time should intervene, in\norder that seeds and fruit may be produced from strong and perfect\nbodies. It is requisite, therefore, that boys and virgins should be\naccustomed to labors and exercises, and appropriate endurance, and that\nfood should be given to them adapted to a life of labor, temperance, and\nendurance. But there are many things of this kind in human life, which\nit is better to learn at a late period, and among these is the use of\nvenery. It is necessary, therefore, that a boy should be so educated, as\nnot to seek after such a connexion as this, within the twentieth year of\nhis age. But when he arrives at this age, he should use venery rarely.\nThis however will be the case, if he thinks that a good habit of body is\nan honorable and beautiful thing. For intemperance and a good habit of\nbody, are not very much adapted to subsist together in the same person.\nIt is also said, that those laws were praised by the Pythagoreans, which\nexisted prior to their time in Grecian cities, and which prohibited the\nhaving connexion with a woman who is a mother, or a daughter, or a\nsister, either in a temple, or in a public place. For it is beautiful\nand advantageous that there should be numerous impediments to this\nenergy. These men also apprehended, as it seems, that preternatural\ngenerations, and those which are effected in conjunction with wanton\ninsolence, should be entirely prevented from taking place; but that\nthose should be suffered to remain, which are according to nature, and\nsubsist with temperance, and which take place in the chaste and legal\nprocreation of children.\n\nThey likewise were of opinion that great providential attention should\nbe paid by those who beget children, to the future progeny. The first,\ntherefore, and the greatest care which should be taken by him who\napplies himself to the procreation of children is, that he lives\ntemperately and healthfully, that he neither fills himself with food\nunseasonably, nor uses such aliments as may render the habits of the\nbody worse than they were, and above all things, that he avoids\nintoxication. For they thought that depraved seed was produced from a\nbad, discordant, and turbid temperament. And universally they were of\nopinion, that none but an indolent and inconsiderate person would\nattempt to produce an animal, and lead it into existence, without\nproviding with all possible diligence that its ingress into being and\nlife might be most elegant and pleasing. For those that are lovers of\ndogs, pay every possible attention to the generation of whelps, in order\nthat they may be produced from such things as are proper, and when it is\nproper, and in such a way as is proper, and thus may become a good\noffspring. The same attention also is paid by those who are lovers of\nbirds. And it is evident that others also who are studious about the\nprocreation of generous animals, endeavour by all possible means, that\nthe generation of them may not be in vain. It would be absurd therefore\nthat men should pay no attention to their own offspring, but should both\nbeget them casually and with perfect carelessness, and, after they are\nbegotten, nourish and educate them with extreme negligence. For this is\nthe most powerful and most manifest cause of the vice and depravity of\nthe greater part of mankind. For with the multitude the procreation of\nchildren is undertaken in a beastly and rash manner. And such were the\nassertions, and such the doctrine of these men, which they verified both\nin words and deeds, respecting temperance; these precepts having been\noriginally received by them from Pythagoras himself, like certain\noracles delivered by the Pythian Apollo.\n\n\n CHAP. XXXII.\n\nWith respect to fortitude, however, many of the particulars which have\nbeen already related, appropriately pertain to it; such as the admirable\ndeeds of Timycha, and of those Pythagoreans who chose to die rather than\ntransgress the decisions of Pythagoras concerning beans, and other\nthings conformable to such-like pursuits. Such also are the deeds which\nPythagoras himself generously accomplished, when he travelled everywhere\nalone, and underwent immense labors and dangers, choosing to leave his\ncountry, and dwell among strangers. Likewise, when he dissolved\ntyrannies, gave an orderly arrangement to confused polities, and\nemancipated cities. When also he caused illegality to cease, and impeded\nthe operations of insolent and tyrannical men; exhibiting himself a\nbenignant leader to the just and mild, but expelling savage and\nlicentious men from his association, and refusing even to give them an\nanswer; gladly, indeed, giving assistance to the former, but with all\nhis might resisting the latter. Many instances therefore of these things\nmight be adduced, and of upright actions frequently performed by him.\nBut the greatest of all these, is what he said and did to Phalaris, with\nan invincible freedom of speech. For when he was detained in captivity\nby Phalaris, the most cruel of tyrants, a wise man of the Hyperborean\nrace, whose name was Abaris, was his associate, who came to him for the\nsake of conversing with him, and asked him many questions, and\nespecially such as were of a sacred nature, respecting statues and the\nmost holy worship, the providence of the Gods, celestial and terrestrial\nnatures, and many other things of a similar kind. But Pythagoras, being\nunder the influence of divine inspiration, answered Abaris vehemently,\nand with all truth and persuasion, so as to convince those that heard\nhim. Then, however, Phalaris was inflamed with anger against Abaris,\nbecause he praised Pythagoras, and was ferociously disposed towards\nPythagoras himself. He also dared to utter blasphemies against the Gods\nthemselves, and such as he was accustomed to pour forth. But Abaris gave\nPythagoras thanks for what he said; and after this, learnt from him that\n_all things are suspended from and governed by the heavens; which he\nevinced to be the case from many other things, and also from the energy\nof sacred rites_. And Abaris was so far from thinking that Pythagoras,\nwho taught these things, was an enchanter, that he beyond measure\nadmired him as if he had been a God. To these things, however, Phalaris\nreplied by endeavouring to subvert divination, and openly denying the\nefficacy of the things which are performed in sacred rites. But Abaris\ntransferred the discourse from these particulars to such as are clearly\napparent to all men; and endeavoured to persuade him that there is a\ndivine providence, from those circumstances which transcend all human\nhope and power, whether they are immense wars, or incurable diseases, or\nthe corruption of fruits, or the incursions of pestilence, or certain\nother things of the like kind, which are most difficult to be borne, and\ndeplorable, arising from the beneficent energies of certain d\u00e6moniacal\nand divine powers.[44]\n\nPhalaris, however, shamelessly and audaciously opposed what was said.\nAgain therefore Pythagoras, suspecting that Phalaris intended to put him\nto death, but at the same time knowing that he was not destined to die\nby Phalaris, began to address him with great freedom of speech. For\nlooking to Abaris he said, that a transition was naturally adapted to\ntake place from the heavens to aerial and terrestrial beings. And again,\nhe showed that all things follow the heavens, from instances most known\nto all men. He likewise indubitably demonstrated, that the\n[deliberative] power of the soul possesses freedom of will. And\nproceeding still farther, he amply discussed the perfect energy of\nreason and intellect. Afterwards also, with his [usual] freedom of\nspeech, he spoke concerning tyranny, and all the prerogatives of\nfortune, and concerning injustice and human avarice, and solidly taught\nhim that all these are of no worth. In the next place, he gave him a\ndivine admonition concerning the most excellent life, and earnestly\nentered on a comparison of it with the most depraved life. He likewise\nmost clearly unfolded to him, how the soul, and its powers and passions,\nsubsist; _and, what is the most beautiful thing of all, demonstrated to\nhim that the Gods are not the causes of evils, and that diseases, and\nsuch things as are the calamities of the body, are the seals of\nintemperance_; reprehending at the same time mythologists and poets for\nwhat they have badly said in fables [on this subject]. Confuting\nPhalaris also, he admonished him, and exhibited to him through works\nwhat the power of heaven is, and the magnitude of that power; and proved\nto him by many arguments, that legal punishment is reasonably\nestablished. He likewise clearly showed him what the difference is\nbetween men and other animals; and scientifically discussed internal and\nexternal speech. He also perfectly demonstrated the nature of intellect,\nand of the knowledge which descends from it; together with many other\nethical dogmas consequent to these things.\n\nFarther still, he instructed him in what is most beneficial among the\nthings that are useful in life; and in the mildest manner adapted\nadmonitions harmonising with these; adding at the same time prohibitions\nof what ought not to be done. And that which is the greatest of all, he\nunfolded to him the distinction between the productions of fate, and\nthose of intellect, and also the difference between what is done by\ndestiny, and what is done by fate. He likewise wisely discussed many\nthings concerning d\u00e6mons, and the immortality of the soul. These things\nhowever pertain to another treatise. But those particulars are more\nappropriate to our present purpose which belong to the cultivation of\nfortitude. For if, when situated in the midst of dreadful circumstances,\nPythagoras appears to have philosophised with firmness of decision, if\non all sides he resisted and repelled fortune, and strenuously endured\nits attacks, and if he employed the greatest freedom of speech towards\nhim who brought his life into danger, it is evident that he perfectly\ndespised those things which are thought to be dreadful, and that he\nconsidered them as undeserving of notice. If also, when he expected\naccording to appearances to be put to death, he entirely despised this,\nand was not moved by the expectation of it, it is evident that he was\nperfectly free from the dread of death.[45]\n\nHe performed however what is still more generous than this, by effecting\nthe dissolution of tyranny, restraining the tyrant when he was about to\nbring the most deplorable calamities on mankind, and liberating Sicily\nfrom the most cruel and imperious power. But that it was Pythagoras who\naccomplished this, is evident from the oracles of Apollo, in which it is\npredicted that the domination of Phalaris would then be dissolved, when\nthose that were governed by him should become better men, and be more\nconcordant with each other; such as they then became, when Pythagoras\nwas present with them, through the doctrines and instruction which he\nimparted to them. A greater proof however of the truth of this, is\nderived from the time in which it happened. For on the very same day in\nwhich Phalaris put Pythagoras and Abaris in danger of death, he himself\nwas slain by stratagem. That also which happened to Epimenides may be an\nargument of the truth of these things. For as he, who was the disciple\nof Pythagoras, when certain persons intended to destroy him, invoked the\nFuries, and the avenging Gods, and by so doing caused all those that\nattempted his life, to destroy each other;\u2014thus also Pythagoras, who\ngave assistance to mankind, after the manner and with the fortitude of\nHercules, for the benefit of men, punished and occasioned the death of\nhim who had acted in an insolent and disorderly manner towards others;\nand this through the oracles themselves of Apollo, to the series of\nwhich divinity both he and Epimenides spontaneously belonged from their\nvery birth. And thus far, indeed, we have thought it requisite to\nmention this admirable and strenuous deed, the effect of his fortitude.\n\nWe shall however adduce another example of it, viz. the salvation of\nlegitimate opinion; for, preserving this, he performed that which\nappeared to him to be just, and which was dictated by right reason, not\nbeing diverted from his intention either by pleasure, or labor, or any\nother passion, or danger. His disciples also chose to die rather than\ntransgress his mandates. And when they were exposed to all-various\nfortunes, they preserved invariably the same manners. When also they\nwere involved in ten thousand calamities, they never deviated from his\nprecepts. But it was a never-failing exhortation with them, always to\ngive assistance to law, but to be hostile to illegality, and to be\naccustomed from their birth to a life of temperance and fortitude, in\norder to restrain and repel luxury. They had also certain melodies which\nwere devised by them, as remedies against the passions of the soul, and\nlikewise against despondency and lamentation, which Pythagoras invented,\nas affording the greatest assistance in these maladies. And again, they\nemployed other melodies against rage and anger, through which they gave\nintension and remission to these passions, till they reduced them to\nmoderation, and rendered them commensurate with fortitude. _That,\nhowever, which afforded them the greatest support in generous endurance,\nwas the persuasion that no human casualties ought to be unexpected by\nmen who are in the possession of intellect, but that all things ought to\nbe expected by them, over which they have no absolute power._\n\nMoreover, if at any time they happened to be angry, or sorrowful, they\nimmediately separated themselves from the rest of their associates, and\neach by himself alone strenuously endeavoured to digest and heal the\npassion [by which he was oppressed]. They also conceived generally, that\nlabor should be employed about disciplines and studies, and that they\nshould be severely exercised in trials of the most various nature, in\npunishments and restraints by fire and sword, in order to be liberated\nfrom innate intemperance, and an inexhaustible avidity of possessing;\nand that for this purpose, no labors, nor any endurance should be\nspared. In order to accomplish this likewise, they generously exercised\nabstinence from all animals, and besides this, from certain other kinds\nof food. Hence also arose their detention of speech, and their perfect\nsilence as preparatory to the subjugation of the tongue; in which for\nmany years they exercised their fortitude. To which also may be added,\ntheir strenuous and assiduous investigation and resumption of the most\ndifficult theorems; and on account of these things, their abstinence\nfrom wine, their paucity of food and sleep, and their contempt of glory,\nwealth, and the like. And in conjunction with all these particulars,\nthey extended themselves to fortitude.\n\nIt is likewise said, that these men expelled lamentations and tears, and\nevery thing else of this kind. They also abstained from entreaty, from\nsupplication, and from all such illiberal adulation, as being effeminate\nand abject.[46] To the same conception likewise the peculiarity of their\nmanners must be referred, and that all of them perpetually preserved\namong their arcana, the most principal dogmas in which their discipline\nwas chiefly contained, keeping them with the greatest silence from being\ndivulged to strangers, committing them unwritten to the memory, and\ntransmitting them orally to their successors, as if they were the\nmysteries of the Gods. Hence it happened, that nothing of their\nphilosophy worth mentioning, was made public, and that though for a long\ntime it had been taught and learnt, it was alone known within their\nwalls. But to those out of their walls, and as I may say, to the\nprofane, if they happened to be present, these men spoke obscurely to\neach other through symbols, of which the celebrated precepts that are\nnow in circulation retain a vestige; such as, Dig not fire with a sword,\nand other symbols of the like kind, which, taken literally, resemble the\ntales of old women; but when unfolded, impart a certain admirable and\nvenerable benefit to those that receive them.\n\nThe precept, however, which is of the greatest efficacy of all others to\nthe attainment of fortitude, is that which has for its most principal\nscope the being defended and liberated from those bonds which detain the\nintellect in captivity from infancy, and without which no one can learn\nor perceive any thing sane or true, through whatever sense he may\nenergize. For according to the Pythagoreans,\n\n \u2019Tis mind that all things sees and hears;\n What else exists is deaf and blind.\n\nBut the precept which is next to this in efficacy is that which exhorts\nto be beyond measure studious of purifying the intellect, and by various\nmethods adapting it through mathematical orgies to receive something\ndivinely beneficial, so as neither to fear a separation from body, nor,\nwhen led to incorporeal natures, to be forced to turn away the eyes,\nthrough their most refulgent splendor,[47] nor to be converted to those\npassions which nail and fasten the soul to the body. And, in short,\nwhich urges the soul to be untamed by all those passions which are the\nprogeny of the realms of generation, and which draw it to an inferior\ncondition of being. For the exercise and ascent through all these, is\nthe study of the most perfect fortitude. And such are the instances\nadduced by us of the fortitude of Pythagoras, and the Pythagoreans.\n\n\n CHAP. XXXIII.\n\nWith respect to the amity, however, which subsists in all things towards\nall, Pythagoras delivered it in the clearest manner. And, the amity of\nthe Gods indeed towards men, he unfolded through piety and scientific\ncultivation; but that of dogmas towards each other, and universally of\nthe soul towards the body, and of the rational towards the species of\nthe irrational part, through philosophy, and the theory pertaining to\nit. With respect to the amity of men also towards each other; that of\ncitizens he delivered through sane legislation, but that of strangers\nthrough a correct physiology; and that between man and wife, or\nchildren, or brothers, and kindred, through unperverted communion. In\nshort, he unfolded the friendship of all things towards all, and still\nfarther, of certain irrational animals, through justice and a physical\nconnexion and association. But the pacification and conciliation of the\nbody, which is of itself mortal, and of its latent contrary powers, he\nunfolded through health, and a diet and temperance conformable to this,\nin imitation of the salubrious condition of the mundane elements. In all\nthese, however, Pythagoras is acknowledged to have been the inventor and\nlegislator of the summary comprehension of them in one and the same\nname, which is that of friendship. And indeed he delivered such an\nadmirable friendship to his associates, that even now those who are\nbenevolent in the extreme towards each other, are said to belong to the\nPythagoreans. It is necessary therefore to narrate the discipline of\nPythagoras respecting these things, and the precepts which he used\ntowards his disciples.\n\nThese men, then, exhorted others to remove from true friendship, contest\nand contention, and if possible, indeed, from all friendship; but if\nnot, at least from that which is parental, and universally from that\nwhich pertains to seniors and benefactors. For to strive or contend with\nsuch as these, in consequence of anger intervening, or some other\nsuch-like passion, is not the salvation of the existing friendship. But\nthey said it is requisite that there should be the least possible scars\nand ulcers in friendships; and that this will be the case, if those that\nare friends know how to soften and subdue anger. If both indeed know\nthis, or rather the younger of the two, and who ranks in some one of the\nabove-mentioned orders [their friendship will be more easily preserved].\nThey also were of opinion, that corrections and admonitions, which they\ncalled _p\u00e6dartases_, should take place from the elder to the younger\nwith much suavity and caution; and likewise, that much sedulous and\nappropriate attention should be manifested in admonitions. For thus they\nwill be decorous and beneficial. They also said, that confidence should\nnever be separated from friendship, neither seriously nor even in jest.\nFor it is no longer easy for the existing friendship to be in a sane\ncondition, when falsehood once insinuates itself into the manners of\nthose that acknowledge themselves to be friends. Again, according to\nthem, friendship should not be abandoned on account of misfortune, or\nany other imbecility to which human life is incident; but they said,\nthat the only approvable rejection of a friend and friendship, is that\nwhich arises from great and incorrigible vice. Likewise, that hatred\nshould not be voluntarily entertained against those who are not\nperfectly bad; but that if it is once formed, it should be generously\nand strenuously retained, unless the object of it changes his manners,\nso as to become a better man. That the hostility also should not consist\nin words, but in deeds; And that this war is legitimate and holy, when\nit is conducted in such a way as it becomes one man to contend with\nanother.\n\nThey likewise said, that we should never, to the utmost of our power,\nbecome the cause of dissension; but that we should as much as possible\navoid the source of it. That in the friendship also, which is intended\nto be pure, the greater part of the things pertaining to it ought to be\ndefinite and legitimate. And that these should be properly\ndistinguished, and should not be casual; and moreover, that we should be\ncareful that our conversation may never be negligently and casually\nperformed, but with modesty, benevolence, and good order. Also, that no\npassion, such as desire, or anger, be rashly excited, and in a bad and\nerroneous manner. And the same thing must be said of the remaining\npassions and dispositions.\n\nMoreover, that they did not decline foreign friendships carelessly, but\nthat they avoided and guarded against them, with the greatest sedulity;\nand also, that they rigidly preserved friendship towards each other for\nmany ages, may be inferred from what Aristoxenus in his treatise On the\nPythagoric life, says he heard from Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily,\nwhen having fallen from monarchy he taught grammar at Corinth. For\nAristoxenus says as follows: \u201cThese men as much as possible prohibited\nlamentations and tears, and every thing of this kind; and in a similar\nmanner adulation, entreaty, supplication, and the like. Dionysius,\ntherefore, having fallen from his tyranny and come to Corinth, narrated\nto us the particulars concerning Phintias and Damon the Pythagoreans;\nand these were respecting the one being sponsor for the death of the\nother. But the mode of the suretyship was as follows: He said that\ncertain persons, who were familiar with him, had frequently made mention\nof the Pythagoreans, defaming and reviling them, calling them arrogant,\nand asserting that their gravity, their pretended fidelity, and apathy\nwould be laid aside, if any one should cause them to fall into [some\ngreat] calamity. Certain persons however contradicting this, and\ncontention arising on the subject, recourse was had to artifice, and one\nof the accusers of Phintias said before him, that he evidently conspired\nwith certain others against the life of Dionysius. This also was\ntestified by some that were present, and the charges against Phintias\nappeared to be very probable. Phintias therefore was astonished at the\naccusation. But when Dionysius had unequivocally said, that he had\naccurately explored all these particulars, and that it was necessary\nthat he should die, Phintias replied, that if it appeared requisite to\nhim that this should take place, he requested that he would grant him\nthe remainder of the day, in order that he might settle his own affairs,\nand also those of Damon. For those men lived together, and had all\nthings in common. Phintias, however, being the elder, the management of\nthe domestic concerns was for the most part undertaken by him. He\nrequested therefore, that Dionysius would suffer him to depart for this\npurpose, and he would appoint Damon for his surety. Dionysius therefore\nsaid that he wondered at the request, and that he asked him whether\nthere was any man who was willing to become security for the death of\nanother. But Phintias asserting that there was, Damon was sent for, who,\non hearing what had happened, said that he would become the sponsor, and\nthat he would remain there till Phintias returned. Dionysius therefore\nsaid, that he was immediately astonished at these circumstances; but\nthat they who at first introduced the experiment, derided Damon as one\nwho would be caught, and said sneeringly that he would be the vicarious\nstag. When therefore it was near sunset, Phintias came to die; at which\nall that were present were astonished and subdued. But Dionysius said,\nthat having embraced and kissed the men, he requested that they would\nreceive him as the third into their friendship. They however would by no\nmeans consent to a thing of this kind, though he entreated them to\ncomply with his request.\u201d And these things are related by Aristoxenus,\nwho received them from Dionysius himself.\n\nIt is also said, that the Pythagoreans endeavoured to perform the\noffices of friendship to those of their sect, though they were unknown\nto, and had never been seen by each other, when they had received a\ncertain indication of the participation of the same doctrines; so that\nfrom such friendly offices the assertion may be credited, that worthy\nmen, even though they should dwell in the most remote parts of the\nearth, are mutually friends, and this before they become known to and\nsalute each other. It is said therefore, that a certain Pythagorean,\ntravelling through a long and solitary road on foot, came to an inn; and\nthere, from labor and other all-various causes, fell into a long and\nsevere disease, so as to be at length in want of the necessaries of\nlife. The inn-keeper, however, whether from commiseration of the man, or\nfrom benevolence, supplied him with every thing that was requisite,\nneither sparing for this purpose any assistance or expense. But the\nPythagorean falling a victim to the disease, wrote a certain symbol,\nbefore he died, in a table, and desired the inn-keeper, if he should\nhappen to die, to suspend the table near the road, and observe whether\nany passenger read the symbol. For that person, said he, will repay you\nwhat you have spent on me, and will also thank you for your kindness.\nThe inn-keeper, therefore, after the death of the Pythagorean, having\nburied, and paid the requisite attention to his body, had neither any\nhopes of being repaid, nor of receiving any recompense from some one who\nmight read the table. At the same time, however, being surprised at the\nrequest of the Pythagorean, he was induced to expose the writing in the\npublic road. A long time after, therefore, a certain Pythagorean passing\nthat way, having understood the symbol, and learnt who it was that\nplaced the table there, and having also investigated every particular,\npaid the inn-keeper a much greater sum of money than he had disbursed.\n\nIt is likewise related of Clinias the Tarentine, that when he had learnt\nthat Prorus the Cyren\u00e6an, who was zealously addicted to the Pythagorean\ndoctrines, was in danger of losing all his property, he sailed to\nCyrene, after having collected a sum of money, and restored the affairs\nof Prorus to a better condition, not only incurring, in so doing, a\ndiminution of his own property, but despising the peril which he was\nexposed to in the voyage. After the same manner also, Thestor\nPosidoniates, having learnt from report alone, that Thymaridas Parius\nthe Pythagorean had fallen into poverty, from the possession of great\nwealth, is said to have sailed to Parus, after having collected a large\nsum of money, and thus reinstated Thymaridas in property. These\ntherefore are beautiful instances of friendship. _The decisions,\nhowever, of the Pythagoreans respecting the communion of divine goods,\nthe concord of intellect, and things pertaining to a divine soul, are\nmuch more admirable than the above examples. For they perpetually\nexhorted each other, not to divulse the God within them. Hence all the\nendeavour of their friendship both in deeds and words, was directed to a\ncertain divine mixture, to a union with divinity, and to a communion\nwith intellect and a divine soul._ But it is not possible to find any\nthing better than this, either in what is uttered by words, or performed\nby deeds. For I am of opinion, that all the goods of friendship are\ncomprehended in this. Hence, as we have collected in this, as in a\nsummit, all the prerogatives of the Pythagoric friendship, we shall omit\nto say any thing further about it.\n\n\n CHAP. XXXIV.\n\nSince, however, we have thus generally, and with arrangement, discussed\nwhat pertains to Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans; let us after this\nnarrate such scattered particulars relative to this subject, as do not\nfall under the above-mentioned order. It is said, therefore, that each\nof the Greeks who joined himself to this community of the Pythagoreans,\nwas ordered to use his native language. For they did not approve of the\nuse of a foreign tongue. Foreigners also united themselves to the\nPythagoric sect, viz. the Messenians, the Lucani, Picentini, and the\nRomans. And Metrodorus the son of Thyrsus who was the father of\nEpicharmus,[48] and who transferred the greater part of his doctrine to\nmedicine, says in explaining the writings of his father to his brother,\nthat Epicharmus, and prior to him Pythagoras, conceived that the best\ndialect, as well as the best harmony of music, is the Doric; that the\nIonic and the \u00c6olic participate of the chromatic harmony; but that the\nAttic dialect is replete with this in a still greater degree. They were\nalso of opinion, that the Doric dialect, which consists of vocal\nletters, is enharmonic.\n\nFables likewise bear testimony to the antiquity of this dialect. For in\nthese it is said that Nereus married Doris the daughter of Ocean; by\nwhom he had fifty daughters, one of which was the mother of Achilles.\nMetrodorus also says, that according to some, Hellen was the offspring\nof Deucalion, who was the son of Prometheus and Pyrrha the daughter of\nEpimetheus; and that from him came Dorus, and \u00c6olus. He farther\nobserves, that he learnt from the sacred rites of the Babylonians, that\nHellen was the offspring of Jupiter, and that the sons of Hellen were\nDorus, Xuthus, and \u00c6olus; with which narrations Herodotus also accords.\nIt is difficult, however, for those in more recent times to know\naccurately, in particulars so ancient, which of these narrations is to\nbe preferred. But it may be collected from each of these histories, that\nthe Doric dialect is acknowledged to be the most ancient; that the \u00c6olic\nis next to this, which received its name from \u00c6olus; and that the Ionic\nranks as the third, which derived its appellation from Ion the son of\nXuthus. The Attic is the fourth, which was denominated from Creusa, the\ndaughter of Erectheus, and is posterior to the former dialects by three\ngenerations, as it existed about the time of the Thracians, and the rape\nof Orithyia, as is evident from the testimony of most histories. Orpheus\nalso, who is the most ancient of the poets, used the Doric dialect.\n\nOf medicine, however, they especially embraced the di\u00e6tetic species, and\nin the exercise of this were most accurate. And in the first place,\nindeed, they endeavoured to learn the indications of symmetry, of labor,\nfood, and repose. In the next place, with respect to the preparation of\nfood, they were nearly the first who attempted to employ themselves in\nit, and to define the mode in which it should be performed. The\nPythagoreans likewise employed cataplasms, more frequently than their\npredecessors; but they in a less degree approved of medicated ointments.\nThese, however, they principally used in the cure of ulcerations. But\nincisions and burnings they admitted the least of all things. Some\ndiseases also they cured by incantations. But they are said to have\nobjected to those who expose disciplines to sale; who open their souls\nlike the gates of an inn to every man that approaches to them; and who,\nif they do not thus find buyers, diffuse themselves through cities, and,\nin short, hire gymnasia and require a reward from young men for those\nthings which are without price. Pythagoras, however, concealed the\nmeaning of much that was said by him, in order that those who were\ngenuinely instructed might clearly be partakers of it; but that others,\nas Homer says of Tantalus, might be pained in the midst of what they\nheard, in consequence of receiving no delight from thence.\n\nI think also, it was said by the Pythagoreans, respecting those who\nteach for the sake of reward, that they show themselves to be worse than\nstatuaries, or those artists who perform their work sitting. For these,\nwhen some one orders them to make a statue of Hermes, search for wood\nadapted to the reception of the proper form; but those pretend that they\ncan readily produce the works of virtue from every nature.[49] The\nPythagoreans likewise said, that it is more necessary to pay attention\nto philosophy, than to parents and agriculture; for it is owing to the\nlatter, indeed, that we live; but philosophers and preceptors are the\ncauses of our living well, and becoming wise, in consequence of having\ndiscovered the right mode of discipline and instruction. Nor did they\nthink fit either to speak or write in such a way, that their conceptions\nmight be obvious to any casual persons; but Pythagoras is said to have\ntaught this in the first place to those that came to him, that, being\npurified from all incontinence, they should preserve in silence the\ndoctrines they had heard. It is said, therefore, that he who first\ndivulged the theory of commensurable and incommensurable quantities, to\nthose who were unworthy to receive it, was so hated by the Pythagoreans\nthat they not only expelled him from their common association, and from\nliving with them, but also constructed a tomb for him, as one who had\nmigrated from the human and passed into a another life. Others also say,\nthat the Divine Power was indignant with those who divulged the dogmas\nof Pythagoras: for that he perished in the sea, as an impious person,\nwho rendered manifest the composition of the _icostagonus_; viz. who\ndelivered the method of inscribing in a sphere the dodecaedron, which is\none of what are called the five solid figures. But according to others,\nthis happened to him who unfolded the doctrine of irrational and\nincommensurable quantities.[50] Moreover, all the Pythagoric discipline\nwas symbolic, and resembled enigmas and riddles, consisting of\napothegms, in consequence of imitating antiquity in its character; just\nas the truly divine and Pythian oracles appear to be in a certain\nrespect difficult to be understood and explained, to those who\ncarelessly receive the answers which they give. Such therefore, and so\nmany are the indications respecting Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans,\nwhich may be collected from what is disseminated about them.\n\n\n CHAP. XXXV.\n\nThere were, however, certain persons who were hostile to these men, and\nrose against them. That stratagems therefore were employed to destroy\nthem, during the absence of Pythagoras, is universally acknowledged; but\nthose that have written on this subject, differ in their account of the\njourney which he then undertook. For some say that he went to Pherecydes\nthe Syrian, but others to Metapontum. Many causes, however, of the\nstratagems are enumerated. And one of them, which is said to have\noriginated from the men called Cylonians, was as follows: Cylon the\nCrotonian held the first place among the citizens for birth, renown, and\nwealth; but otherwise, he was a severe, violent, and turbulent man, and\nof tyrannical manners. He had, however, the greatest desire of being\nmade a partaker of the Pythagoric life, and having applied himself to\nPythagoras, who was now an elderly man,[51] for this purpose, was\nrejected by him on account of the above-mentioned causes. In consequence\nof this, therefore, he and his friends exercised violent hostilities\nagainst Pythagoras and his disciples. So vehement likewise and\nimmoderate[52] was the ambition of Cylon, and of those who arranged\nthemselves on his side, that it extended itself to the very last of the\nPythagoreans. Pythagoras, therefore, for this cause went to Metapontum,\nand there is said to have terminated his life. But those who were called\nthe Cylonians continued to form stratagems against the Pythagoreans, and\nto exhibit indications of all possible malevolence. Nevertheless, for a\ncertain time the probity of the Pythagoreans subdued [this enmity,] and\nalso the decision of the cities themselves, so that they were willing\nthat their political concerns should be managed by the Pythagoreans\n[alone]. At length, however, the Cylonians became so hostile to the\nmen,[53] that setting fire to the house of Milo in which the\nPythagoreans were seated, and were consulting about warlike concerns;\nthey burnt all the men except two, Archippus and Lysis. For these being\nin perfect vigour, and most robust, escaped out of the house. But this\ntaking place, and no mention being made by the multitude of the calamity\nwhich had happened, the Pythagoreans ceased to pay any further attention\nto the affairs of government. This however happened through two causes,\nthrough the negligence of the cities (for they were not at all affected\nby so great a calamity taking place) and through the loss of those men\nwho were most qualified to govern. But of the two Pythagoreans that were\nsaved, and both of whom were Tarentines, Archippus indeed returned to\nTarentum; but Lysis hating the negligence [of the cities] went into\nGreece, and dwelt in the Achaia of Peloponnesus. Afterwards, he migrated\nto Thebes, being stimulated by a certain ardent desire [of retreating\nthither]; and _there he had for his auditor Epaminondas who called Lysis\nhis father_. There also Lysis terminated his life. But the rest of the\nPythagoreans, except Archytas of Tarentum, departed from Italy, and\nbeing collected together in Rhegium, there dwelt with each other. The\nmost celebrated of them, however, were Phanto, Echecrates, Polymnastus,\nand Diocles, who were Phlyasians; and Xenophilus Chalcidensis of Thrace.\nBut in the course of time, when the administration of public affairs\nproceeded into a worse condition, these Pythagoreans nevertheless\npreserved their pristine manners and disciplines, though the sect began\nto fail, till it generously perished. These things, therefore, are\nnarrated by Aristoxenus.\n\nNicomachus, however, in other respects accords with Aristoxenus, but as\nto the journey of Pythagoras, he says that this stratagem took place,\nwhile Pythagoras was at Delos. For he went there, in order to give\nassistance to his preceptor Pherecydes the Syrian who was then afflicted\nwith the morbus pedicularis, and when he died, performed the necessary\nfuneral rites. Then, therefore, those who had been rejected by the\nPythagoreans, and to whom monuments had been raised, as if they were\ndead, attacked them, and committed all of them to the flames.\nAfterwards, they were overwhelmed by the Italians with stones, and\nthrown out of the house unburied. At that time, therefore, it happened\nthat science failed together with those who possessed scientific\nknowledge, because till that period, it was preserved by them in their\nbreasts as something arcane and ineffable. But such things only as were\ndifficult to be understood, and which were not unfolded, were preserved\nin the memory of those who did not belong to the Pythagorean sect; a few\nthings excepted, which certain Pythagoreans, who happened at that time\nto be in foreign lands, preserved as certain sparks of science very\nobscure and of difficult investigation. These also, being left by\nthemselves, and not moderately dejected by the calamity, were scattered\nin different places, and no longer endured to have any communion with\nthe rest of mankind. But they lived alone in solitary places, wherever\nthey happened to meet with them; and each greatly preferred an\nassociation with himself to that with any other person.\n\nFearing, however, lest the name of philosophy should be entirely\nexterminated from mankind, and that they should on this account incur\nthe indignation of the Gods, by suffering so great a gift of theirs to\nperish, they made an arrangement of certain commentaries and symbols,\nand likewise, collected together the writings of the more ancient\nPythagoreans, and of such things as they remembered. These, each left at\nhis death to his son, or daughter, or wife, with a strict injunction not\nto give them to any one out of the family. This mandate therefore, was\nfor a long time observed, and was transmitted in succession to their\nposterity,\n\nSince, however, Apollonius dissents in a certain place respecting these\nparticulars, and adds many things which we have not mentioned, we shall\nalso insert his narration of the stratagem employed against the\nPythagoreans. He says, therefore, that the envy of others attended\nPythagoras from his childhood. For as long as he conversed with all that\ncame to him, he was pleasing to them; but when he associated with his\ndisciples alone, the favourable opinion which the multitude entertained\nof him was diminished. And they permitted him indeed, to pay more\nattention to strangers than to themselves; but they were indignant at\nhis preferring some of their fellow-citizens before others, and they\napprehended that his disciples assembled together with intentions\nhostile to them. In the next place, as the young men that were indignant\nwith him were of high rank, and surpassed others in wealth, and when\nthey arrived at a proper age, not only held the first honors in their\nown families, but also managed the affairs of the city in common, they\nformed a large body of men (for they were more than three hundred in\nnumber) and in consequence of this there was but a small part of the\ncity, which was not conversant with the same manners and the same\npursuits as they were.\n\nMoreover, as long as the Crotonians continued in their own country, and\nPythagoras dwelt with them, that form of government remained which had\nbeen established when the city was founded, but which was not pleasing\nto the people, and therefore induced them to seek an occasion of\nproducing a change. When therefore Sybaris was captured, and the land\ntaken in the war was not divided by lot, according to the desire of the\nmultitude, their silent hatred of the Pythagoreans burst forth, and the\npopulace separated themselves from them. But the leaders of this\ndissension were those that were most near to the Pythagoreans, both by\nalliance and familiarity. The cause however of the discord was this,\nthat many of the actions of the Pythagoreans offended these leaders, as\nwell as casual persons, because these actions had something peculiar in\nthem when compared with those of others. But in the greatest of these\nactions they conceived that disgrace befel themselves alone.\n\nFarther still, no one of the Pythagoreans called Pythagoras by his name,\nbut while he was alive, when they wished to denote him, they called him\n_divine_; and after his death they denominated him _that man_; just as\nHomer represents Eum\u00e6us when he makes mention of Ulysses, saying,\n\n Him, tho\u2019 he\u2019s absent, yet I fear, O guest,\n To name; such is the greatness of my love and care.\n\nConformably likewise to the precepts of their master, the Pythagoreans\nalways rose from bed before the rising of the sun; and never wore a ring\nin which the image of God was engraved. They also carefully observed to\nadore the rising sun, and avoided wearing a ring of the above mentioned\ndescription, lest they should have it about them at funerals, or in some\nimpure place. In a similar manner, they were attentive to the mandate of\nPythagoras, not to do any thing without previous deliberation and\ndisquisition; but to form a plan in the morning of what ought to be done\n[in the course of the day,] and at night to call to mind the actions of\nthe day, by this means at one and the same time exploring their conduct,\nand exercising their memory. Thus too, they observed the precept, that\nif any one of their associates appointed to meet them at a certain\nplace, they should stay there till he came through the day and the\nnight; in this again, the Pythagoreans being accustomed to remember what\nwas said, and not to speak casually. In short Pythagoras ordered them to\nbe attentive to order and method as long as they lived, and not to\nblaspheme at the time of death, but to die with propitious words, such\nas are used by those who are sailing out of port into the Adriatic\nsea.[54]\n\nThe kindred of the Pythagoreans however, were indignant that the\nPythagoreans gave their right hand to those of their own sect alone,\ntheir parents excepted; and that they shared their possessions with each\nother in common, but excluded their relations from this fellowship, as\nif they were strangers. These, therefore, becoming the sources of the\ndissension, the rest readily fell into hostility against the\nPythagoreans. Hippasus, also, Diodorus and Theages said at the same\ntime, that every citizen ought to be a partaker of the magistracy and\nthe assembly, and that the rulers should give an account of their\nconduct, to those who were elected by lot for this purpose from the\nmultitude. But the Pythagoreans, Alcimachus, Dimachus, Meton and\nDemocedes opposed this, and persevered in prohibiting the dissolution of\nthe polity derived from their ancestors. Those however, who patronized\nthe multitude, subdued the other party. The multitude therefore, being\nassembled together, Cylon and Ninon who were rhetoricians accused the\nPythagoreans. And of these, one belonged to the class of the rich, but\nthe other was a plebeian. They also divided their harangues between\nthemselves. But of these harangues, the longer being delivered by Cylon,\nNinon concluded, pretending that he had explored the arcana of the\nPythagoreans, and that he had connected and committed to writing such\nparticulars as were especially calculated to criminate the Pythagoreans,\nand giving a book to ascribe, he ordered him to read it. But the book\nwas inscribed _the Sacred Discourse_. And the following is a specimen of\nwhat it contained: Friends are to be venerated in the same manner as the\nGods; but others are to be treated as brutes. This very sentence also is\nascribed to Pythagoras by his disciples, and is by them expressed in\nverse as follows:\n\n He like the blessed Gods his friends rever\u2019d,\n But reckon\u2019d others men of no account.\n\nHomer, too, especially deserves to be praised for calling a king _the\nshepherd of the people_. For being a friend to that government in which\nthe rulers are few, he evinced by this epithet that the rest of men are\ncattle. To beans it is requisite to be hostile, as being the leaders of\ndecision by lot; for by these men were allotted the administration of\naffairs. Again, empire should be the object of desire: for they proclaim\nthat it is better to be one day a bull, than to be an ox for ever. That\nthe legal institutes of others are laudable; but that they should be\nexhorted to use those which are known to themselves. In one word, Ninon\nshowed that their philosophy was a conspiracy against the multitude, and\ntherefore exhorted them not to hear the counsellors, but to consider\nthat they would never have been admitted into the assembly, if the\ncouncil of the Pythagoreans had been approved by the session of a\nthousand men; so that it was not fit to suffer those to speak, who\nprevented to the utmost of their power others from being heard. He\nobserved, therefore, that they should consider the right hand which was\nrejected by the Pythagoreans, as hostile to them, when they gave their\nsuffrages by an extension of the hands, or calculated the number of the\nvotes. That they should also consider it to be a disgraceful\ncircumstance, that they who conquered thirty myriads of men at the river\nTracis, should be vanquished by a thousandth part of the same number\nthrough sedition in the city itself. In short Ninon so exasperated his\nhearers by his calumnies, that in a few days after, a great multitude\nassembled together intending to attack the Pythagoreans as they were\nsacrificing to the Muses in a house near to the temple of Apollo. The\nPythagoreans, however, foreseeing that this would take place, fled to an\ninn; but Democedes, with those that had arrived at puberty, withdrew to\nPlatea. And those that had dissolved the laws made a decree in which\nthey accused Democedes of compelling the younger part of the community\nto the possession of empire, and proclaimed by a cryer that thirty\ntalents should be given to any one who destroyed him. An engagement also\ntaking place, and Theages having vanquished Democedes in that contest,\nthey distributed to him the thirty talents which the city had promised.\nBut as the city, and the whole region were involved in many evils, the\nexiles were brought to judgment, and the power of decision being given\nto three cities, viz. to the Tarentines, Metapontines, and the\nCaulonians, those that were sent by them to determine the cause were\ncorrupted by money, as we learn from the chronicles of the Crotonians.\nHence the Crotonians condemned by their own decision those that were\naccused, to exile. In consequence, too, of this decision, and the\nauthority which it conferred on them, they expelled all those from the\ncity, who were dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs, and at\nthe same time banished all their families, asserting that it was not fit\nto be impious, and that children ought not to be divulsed from their\nparents. They likewise abolished loans, and made the land to be\nundivided.[55]\n\nMany years after this, when Dinarchus and his associates were slain in\nanother battle, and Litagus also was dead, who had been the greatest\nleader of the seditious, a certain pity and repentance induced the\ncitizens to recall those Pythagoreans that were left, from exile. For\nthis purpose, they sent ambassadors from Achaia, and through them became\namicable with the exiles, and consecrated their oaths at Delphi. But the\nPythagoreans who returned from exile were about sixty in number, except\nthose who were of a more advanced age, among which were some who applied\nthemselves to medicine, and restored health to those that were sick by a\ncertain diet; of which method of cure they were themselves the authors.\nIt happened however, that those Pythagoreans who were saved, and who\nwere particularly celebrated by the multitude, at that time in which it\nwas said to the lawless, _This is not the condition of things which was\nunder Ninon_;\u2014these same Pythagoreans having left the city in order to\nprocure assistance against the Thurians who invaded the country,\nperished in battle, mutually defending each other. But the city was so\nchanged into a contrary opinion [of the Pythagoreans,] that besides the\npraise which it bestowed on them, it apprehended that it would gratify\nthe Muses in a still greater degree, if it performed a public sacrifice\nin the temple of the Muses, which at the request of the Pythagoreans,\nthey had before constructed in honor of those Goddesses, And thus much\nconcerning the attack which was made on the Pythagoreans.\n\n\n CHAP. XXXVI.\n\nThe successor, however, of Pythagoras, is acknowledged by all men to\nhave been Arist\u00e6us, the son of Damophon the Crotonian, who existing at\nthe same time as Pythagoras, was seven ages prior to Plato. Arist\u00e6us\nlikewise, was not only thought worthy to succeed Pythagoras in his\nschool, but also to educate his children, and marry his wife Theano,\nbecause he was eminently skilled in the Pythagoric dogmas. For\nPythagoras himself is said to have taught in his school, forty years\nwanting one, and to have lived nearly one hundred years. But Arist\u00e6us,\nwhen much advanced in years, relinquished the school; and after him\nMnesarchus succeeded, who was the son of Pythagoras. Bulagoras succeeded\nMnesarchus, in whose time it happened that the city of the Crotonians\nwas plundered. Gartydas the Crotonian succeeded Bulagoras, on his return\nfrom a journey which he had undertaken prior to the war. Nevertheless on\naccount of the calamity of his country, he suffered so much anxiety, as\nto die prematurely through grief. But it was the custom with the rest of\nthe Pythagoreans, when they became very old, to liberate themselves from\nthe body as from a prison.\n\nMoreover, some time after, Aresas Lucanus, being saved through certain\nstrangers, undertook the management of the school; and to him came\nDiodorus Aspendius, who was received into the school, on account of the\npaucity of the Pythagoreans it contained. And in Heraclea, indeed, were\nClinias and Philolaus; but at Metapontum, Theorides and Eurytus; and at\nTarentum Archytas. It is also said that Epicharmus was one of the\nforeign auditors; but that he was not one of the school. Having however\narrived at Syracuse, he abstained from philosophizing openly, on account\nof the tyranny of Hiero. But he inserted the conceptions of the men in\nmetre, and published in comedies the occult dogmas of Pythagoras.\n\nOf all the Pythagoreans, however, it is probable that many are unknown\nand anonymous. But the following are the names of those that are known\nand celebrated: Of the Crotonians, Hippostratus, Dymas, \u00c6gon, \u00c6mon,\nSillus, Cleosthenes, Agelas, Episylus, Phyciadas, Ecphantus, Tim\u00e6us,\nButhius, Eratus, Itm\u00e6us, Rhodippus, Bryas, Evandrus, Myllias, Antimedon,\nAgeas, Leophron, Agylus, Onatus, Hipposthenes, Cleophron, Alcm\u00e6on,\nDamocles, Milon, Menon. Of the Metapontines, Brontinus, Parmiseus,\nOrestadas, Leon, Damarmenus, \u00c6neas, Chilas, Melisias, Aristeas, Laphion,\nEvandrus, Agesidamus, Xenocades, Euryphemus, Aristomenes, Agesarchus,\nAlceas, Xenophantes, Thraseus, Arytus, Epiphron, Eiriscus, Megistias,\nLeocydes, Thrasymedes, Euphemus, Procles, Antimenes, Lacritus,\nDamotages, Pyrrho, Rhexibius, Alopecus, Astylus, Dacidas, Aliochus,\nLacrates, Glycinus. Of the Agrigentines, Empedocles. Of the Eleat\u00e6,\nParmenides. Of the Tarentines, Philolaus, Eurytus, Archytas, Theodorus,\nAristippus, Lycon, Hesti\u00e6us, Polemarchus, Asteas, Clinias, Cleon,\nEurymedon, Arceas, Clinagoras, Archippus, Zopyrus, Euthynus, Dic\u00e6archus,\nPhilonidas, Phrontidas, Lysis, Lysibius, Dinocrates, Echecrates,\nPaction, Acusiladas, Icmus, Pisicrates, Clearatus.\n\nOf the Leontines, Phrynichus, Smichias, Aristoclidas, Clinias,\nAbroteles, Pisyrrhydus, Bryas, Evandrus, Archemachus, Mimnomachus,\nAchmonidas, Dicas, Carophantidas. Of the Sybarites, Metopus, Hippasus,\nProxenus, Evanor, Deanax, Menestor, Diocles, Empedus, Timasius,\nPolem\u00e6us, Ev\u00e6us, Tyrsenus. Of the Carthaginians, Miltiades, Anthen,\nOdius, Leocritus. Of the Parians, \u00c6etius, Ph\u00e6necles, Dexitheus,\nAlcimachus, Dinarchus, Meton, Tim\u00e6us, Timesianax, Am\u00e6rus, Thymaridas. Of\nthe Locrians, Gyptius, Xenon, Philodamus, Evetes, Adicus, Sthenonidas,\nSosistratus, Euthynus, Zaleucus, Timares. Of the Posidonians, Athamas,\nSimus, Proxenus, Cranous, Myes, Bathylaus, Ph\u00e6don. Of the Lucani,\nOcellus and Occillus who were brothers, Oresandrus, Cerambus, Dardaneus,\nMalion. Of the \u00c6geans, Hippomedon, Timosthenes, Euelthon, Thrasydamus,\nCrito, Polyctor. Of the Lacones, Autocharidas, Cleanor, Eurycrates. Of\nthe Hyperboreans, Abaris. Of the Rheginenses, Aristides, Demosthenes,\nAristocrates, Phytius, Helicaon, Mnesibulus, Hipparchides, Athosion,\nEuthycles, Opsimus. Of the Selinuntians, Calais. Of the Syracusans,\nLeptines, Phintias, Damon. Of the Samians, Melissus, Lacon, Archippus,\nGlorippus, Heloris, Hippon, Of the Caulonienses, Callibrotus, Dicon,\nNastas, Drymon, Xentas. Of the Phliasians, Diocles, Echecrates,\nPolymnastus, Phanton. Of the Sicyonians, Poliades, Demon, Sostratius,\nSosthenes. Of the Cyren\u00e6ans, Prorus, Melanippus, Aristangelus,\nTheodorus. Of the Cyziceni, Pythodorus, Hipposthenes, Butherus,\nXenophilus. Of the Catan\u00e6i, Charondas, Lysiades. Of the Corinthians,\nChrysippus. Of the Tyrrhenians, Nausitheus. Of the Athenians, Neocritus.\nAnd of Pontus, Lyramnus. In all, two hundred and eighteen. [And these,\nindeed, are not all the Pythagoreans, but of all of them they are the\nmost famous.[56]]\n\nBut the most illustrious Pythagorean women are Timycha, the wife of\nMyllias the Crotonian. Philtis, the daughter of Theophrius the\nCrotonian, Byndacis, the sister of Ocellus and Occillus, Lucanians.\nChilonis, the daughter of Chilon the Laced\u00e6monian. Cratesiclea the\nLaced\u00e6monian, the wife of Cleanor the Laced\u00e6monian. Theano, the wife of\nBrontinus of Metapontum. Mya, the wife of Milon the Crotonian. Lasthenia\nthe Arcadian. Abrotelia, the daughter of Abroteles the Tarentine.\nEchecratia the Phliasian. Tyrsenis, the Sybarite. Pisirrhonde, the\nTarentine. Nisleadusa, the Laced\u00e6monian. Bryo, the Argive. Babelyma, the\nArgive. And Cle\u00e6chma, the sister of Autocharidas the Laced\u00e6monian. In\nall seventeen.\n\n\n\n\n FRAGMENTS\n OF THE\n ETHICAL WRITINGS\n OF CERTAIN\n PYTHAGOREANS.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n HIPPODAMUS, THE THURIAN,\n IN HIS TREATISE\n ON FELICITY.\n\n\nOf animals, some are the recipients of felicity, but others are\nincapable of receiving it. And those animals, indeed, are receptive of\nit that have reason. For felicity cannot subsist without virtue; and\nvirtue is first ingenerated in that which possesses reason. But those\nanimals are incapable of receiving felicity, that are destitute of\nreason. For neither can that which is deprived of sight, receive the\nwork or the virtue of sight; nor can that which is destitute of reason,\nbe the recipient of the work, or the virtue of that which possesses\nreason. With respect to felicity, however, and virtue, the former is as\na work, but the latter as a certain art, to that which possesses reason.\nBut of animals which possess reason, some are self-perfect, and these\nare such as are perfect through themselves, and are indigent of nothing\nexternal, either to their existence, or to their existing well and\nbeautifully. And such, indeed, is God. Those animals, however, are not\nself-perfect, which are not perfect through themselves, but are in want\nof external causes to their perfection. And man is an animal of this\nkind. Of animals, therefore, which are not self-perfect, some indeed are\nperfect, but others are not perfect. And those indeed are perfect which\nderive their subsistence both from their own [proper] causes, and from\nexternal causes. And they derive it indeed from their own causes,\nbecause they obtain from thence both an excellent nature and deliberate\nchoice; but from external causes, because they receive from thence\nequitable legislation and good rulers. But the animals which are not\nperfect, are either such as participate of neither of these, or of some\none of these, or whose souls are entirely depraved. And such will the\nman be who is of a description different from the above.\n\nMoreover, of perfect men there are two differences. For some of them are\nnaturally perfect; but others are perfect according to life. And those\nindeed alone that are good, are naturally perfect. But these are such as\npossess virtue. For the virtue of the nature of every thing is a summit\nand perfection. Thus the virtue of the eye is the summit and perfection\nof the nature of the eye. But the virtue of man is the summit and\nperfection of the nature of man. Those also are perfect according to\nlife, who are not only good, but happy. For felicity, indeed, is the\nperfection of human life. But human, life is a system of actions: and:\nfelicity gives completion to the actions. Virtue also and fortune give\ncompletion to actions; virtue, indeed, according to use; but good\nfortune according to prosperity. God therefore is neither good through\nlearning virtue from any one, nor is he happy through being attended by\ngood fortune. For he is good by nature, and happy by nature, and always\nwas and will be, and will never cease to be, such; since he is\nincorruptible, and naturally good. But man is neither happy nor good by\nnature, but requires discipline and providential care. And in order to\nbecome good, indeed; he requires virtue; but in order to become happy,\ngood fortune. On this account, human felicity summarily consists of\nthese two things, viz. of praise, and the predication of beatitude. Of\npraise indeed, from virtue; but of the predication of beatitude, from\nprosperity. It possesses virtue therefore, through a divine destiny, but\nprosperity through a mortal allotment. But mortal are suspended from\ndivine concerns, and terrestrial from such as are celestial. Things\nsubordinate, also, are suspended from such as are more excellent. And on\nthis account, the good man who follows the Gods is happy; but he who\nfollows mortal natures is miserable. For to him who possesses wisdom,\nprosperity is good and useful. It is good, indeed, through his knowledge\nof the use of it; but it is useful, through his co-operating with\nactions. It is beautiful, therefore, when prosperity is present with\nintellect, and when sailing as it were with a prosperous wind, actions\nare performed looking to virtue; just as a pilot looks to the motions of\nthe stars. For thus, he who does this will not only follow God, but will\nalso co-arrange human with divine good.\n\nThis also is evident, that [human] life becomes different from\ndisposition and action. But it is necessary that the disposition should\nbe either worthy or depraved; and that action should be attended either\nwith felicity or misery. And a worthy disposition, indeed, participates\nof virtue; but a bad one of vice. With respect to actions, also, those\nthat are prosperous are attended with felicity; (for they derive their\ncompletion through looking to reason) but those that are unfortunate,\nare attended with misery; for they are frustrated of the end. Hence, it\nis not only necessary to learn virtue, but also to possess and use it,\neither for security, or increase, [of property when it is too little]\nor, which is the greatest thing of all, for the emendation of families\nand cities. For it is not only necessary to have the possession of\nthings beautiful, but also the use of them. All these things, however,\nwill take place, when a man lives in a city that uses equitable laws.\nAnd these, indeed, I say, are what is called the horn of Amalthea. For\nall things are contained in equitable legislation. And without this, the\ngreatest good of human nature can neither be effected, nor, when\neffected, be increased and become permanent. For this comprehends in\nitself virtue, and the tendency to virtue; because excellent natures are\ngenerated according to it. Manners, likewise, studies, and laws, subsist\nthrough this in the most excellent condition; and besides these,\nrightly-deciding reason, and piety and sanctity towards the most\nhonorable natures. So that it is necessary that he who is to be happy,\nand whose life is to be prosperous, should live and die in a country\ngoverned by equitable laws, relinquishing all illegality. At the same\ntime what has been said is attended with necessity. For man is a part of\nsociety, and hence from the same reasoning, will become entire and\nperfect, if he not only associates with others, but associates in a\nbecoming manner. For some things are naturally adapted to subsist in\nmany things, and not in one thing; others in one thing, and not in many;\nbut others both in many, and in one thing, and on this account in one\nthing, because in many. For harmony, indeed, and symphony and number,\nare naturally adapted to be ingenerated in many things. For nothing\nwhich makes a whole from these parts, is sufficient to itself.[57] But\nacuteness of seeing and hearing, and swiftness of feet, subsist in one\nthing alone. Felicity, however, and the virtue of soul, subsist both in\none thing and in many, in a whole, and in the universe. And on this\naccount they subsist in one thing, because they also subsist in many:\nand they subsist in many, because they are inherent in a whole and in\nthe universe. For the orderly distribution of the whole nature of things\nmethodically arranges each particular. And the orderly distribution of\nparticulars gives completion to the whole of things and to the universe.\nBut this follows from the whole being naturally prior to the part, and\nnot the part to the whole. For if the world was not, neither the sun nor\nthe moon would exist, nor the planets, nor the fixed stars. But the\nworld existing, each of these also exists.\n\nThe truth of this also may be seen in the nature itself of animals. For\nif animal had no existence, there would neither be eye, nor mouth, nor\near. But animal existing, each of these likewise exists. As the whole,\nhowever, is to the part, so is the virtue of the whole to the virtue of\nthe part. For harmony not existing, and a divine inspection of mundane\naffairs, things which are adorned would no longer be able to remain in\nan excellent condition. And equitable legislation not existing in a\ncity, it is not possible for a citizen to be good or happy. Health,\nlikewise, not existing in the animal, it is not possible for the foot or\nthe hand to be strong and healthy. For harmony indeed is the virtue of\nthe world; equitable legislation is the virtue of a city; and health and\nstrength are the virtue of the body. Each of the parts likewise in these\nthings is co-arranged on account of the whole and the universe. For the\neyes see on account of the whole body. And the other parts and members\nare co-arranged for the sake of the whole [body] and the universe.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n EURYPHAMUS,\n IN HIS TREATISE\n CONCERNING HUMAN LIFE.\n\n\nThe perfect life of man falls short indeed of the life of God, because\nit is not self-perfect, but surpasses that of irrational animals,\nbecause it participates of virtue and felicity. For neither is God in\nwant of external causes; since being naturally good and happy, he is\nperfect from himself; nor any irrational animal. For brutes being\ndestitute of reason, they are also destitute of the sciences pertaining\nto actions. But the nature of man partly consists of his own proper\ndeliberate choice, and partly is in want of the assistance derived from\ndivinity. For that which is capable of being fashioned by reason, which\nhas an intellectual perception of things beautiful and base, can erectly\nextend itself from earth, and look to heaven, and can perceive with the\neye of intellect the highest Gods,\u2014that which is capable of all this,\nparticipates likewise of assistance from the Gods. But in consequence of\npossessing will, deliberate choice, and a principle of such a kind in\nitself as enables it to study virtue, and to be agitated by the storms\nof vice, to follow, and also to apostatize from the Gods,\u2014it is likewise\nable to be moved by itself. Hence it is a partaker of praise and blame,\nhonor and ignominy, partly from the Gods and partly from men, according\nas it zealously applies itself either to virtue or vice. For the whole\nreason of the thing is as follows: Divinity introduced man into the\nworld as a most exquisite animal, to be reciprocally honored with\nhimself, and _as the eye of the orderly distribution of things_. Hence\nalso man gave names to things, becoming himself the character of them.\nHe likewise invented letters, procuring through these a treasury of\nmemory. And he imitated the established order of the universe,\nco-harmonizing by judicial proceedings and laws the communion of cities.\nFor no work is performed by men more decorous to the world, or more\nworthy of the notice of the Gods, than the apt constitution of a city\ngoverned by good laws, and an orderly distribution of laws and a polity.\nFor though each man himself by himself is nothing, and is not himself by\nhimself sufficient to lead a life conformable to the common concord, and\napt composition of a polity, yet he is well adapted to the whole and to\nthe perfect system of society. For the life of man is the image of a\nlyre accurately [harmonized,] and in every respect perfect. For every\nlyre requires these three things, apparatus, apt composition, and a\ncertain musical contrectation. And apparatus indeed, is a preparation of\nall the appropriate parts; viz. of the chords, and of the instruments\nwhich co-operate with the well-sounding and striking of the lyre. But\nthe apt composition is the commixture of the sounds with each other. And\nthe musical contrectation is the motion of these conformably to the apt\ncomposition. Thus also human life requires these same three things.\nApparatus, indeed, which is the completion of the parts of life. But the\nparts of life are the goods of the body, of riches, renown, and friends.\nThe apt composition is the co-arrangement of these according to virtue\nand the laws. And the musical contrectation is the commixture of these\nconformably to virtue and the laws; virtue sailing with a prosperous\nwind, and having nothing externally resisting it. For felicity does not\nconsist in being driven from the purpose of voluntary intentions, but in\nobtaining them; nor in virtue being without attendants and ministrant\naids; but in completely possessing its own proper powers which are\nadapted to actions. For man is not self-perfect, but imperfect. And he\nbecomes perfect, partly from himself, and partly from an external cause.\nHe is likewise perfect, either according to nature, or according to\nlife. And he is perfect indeed according to nature, if he becomes a good\nman. For the virtue of each thing is the summit and perfection of the\nnature of that thing. Thus the virtue[58] of the eyes is the summit and\nperfection of the nature of the eyes; and this is also true of the\nvirtue of the ears. Thus too, the virtue of man is the summit and\nperfection of the nature of man. But man is perfect according to life,\nwhen he becomes happy. For felicity is the perfection and completion of\nhuman goods. Hence, again, virtue and prosperity become the parts of the\nlife of man. And virtue, indeed, is a part of him so far as he is soul,\nbut prosperity so far as he is connected with body. But both are parts\nof him so far as he is an animal. For it is the province of virtue to\nuse in a becoming manner the goods which are conformable to nature; but\nof prosperity to impart the use of them. And the former, indeed, imparts\ndeliberate choice and right reason; but the latter, energies and\nactions. For to wish what is beautiful in conduct and to endure things\nof a dreadful nature, is the proper business of virtue. But it is the\nwork of prosperity to render deliberate choice successful, and to cause\nactions to arrive at the [desired] end. For the general conquers in\nconjunction with virtue and good fortune. The pilot sails well in\nconjunction with art and prosperous winds. The eye sees well in\nconjunction with acuteness of vision[59] and light. And the life of man\nbecomes most excellent through virtue itself, and prosperity.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n HIPPARCHUS,\n IN HIS TREATISE\n ON TRANQUILLITY.\n\n\nSince men live but for a very short period, if their life is compared\nwith the whole of time, they will make a most beautiful journey as it\nwere, if they pass through life with tranquillity. This however they\nwill possess in the most eminent degree, if they accurately and\nscientifically know themselves, viz. if they know that they are mortal\nand of a fleshly nature, and that they have a body which is corruptible\nand can be easily injured, and which is exposed to every thing most\ngrievous and severe, even to their latest breath. And in the first\nplace, let us direct our attention to those things which happen to the\nbody; and these are pleurisy, inflammation of the lungs, phrensy, gout,\nstranguary, dysentery, lethargy, epilepsy, putrid ulcers, and ten\nthousand other diseases. But the diseases which happen to the soul are\nmuch greater and more dire than these. For all the iniquitous, evil,\nillegal, and impious conduct in the life of man, originates from the\npassions of the soul. For through preternatural immoderate desires many\nhave become subject to unrestrained impulses, and have not refrained\nfrom the most unholy pleasures, arising from being connected with\ndaughters or even mothers. Many also have been induced to destroy their\nfathers, and their own offspring. But what occasion is there to be\nprolix in narrating externally impending evils, such as excessive rain,\ndrought, violent heat and cold; so that frequently from the anomalous\nstate of the air, pestilence and famine are produced, and all-various\ncalamities, and whole cities become desolate? Since therefore many\nsuch-like calamities are impendent, we should neither be elevated by the\npossession of corporeal goods, which may rapidly be consumed by the\nincursions of a small fever, nor with what are conceived to be\nprosperous external circumstances, which frequently in their own nature\nperish more rapidly than they accede. For all these are uncertain and\nunstable, and are found to have their existence in many and various\nmutations; and no one of them is permanent, or immutable, or stable, or\nindivisible. Hence well considering these things, and also being\npersuaded, that if what is present and is imparted to us, is able to\nremain for the smallest portion of time, it is as much as we ought to\nexpect; we shall then live in tranquillity and with hilarity, generously\nbearing whatever may befal us.\n\nNow, however, many previously conceiving in imagination, that all that\nis present with, and imparted to them by nature and fortune, is better\nthan it is, and not thinking it to be such as it is in reality, but such\nas it is able to become when it has arrived at the summit of excellence,\nthey burden the soul with many great, nefarious, and stupid evils, when\nthey are suddenly deprived of [these evanescent goods]. And thus it\nhappens to them that they lead a most bitter and miserable life. But\nthis takes place in the loss of riches, or the death of friends or\nchildren, or in the privation of certain other things, which are\nconceived by them to be most honorable possessions. Afterwards, weeping\nand lamenting, they assert of themselves, that they alone are most\nunfortunate and miserable, not remembering that these things have\nhappened, and even now happen, to many others; nor are they able to\nunderstand the life of those that are now in existence, and of those\nthat have lived in former times, nor to see in what great calamities and\nwaves of evils, many of the present time are, and of the past have been\ninvolved. Considering with ourselves therefore, that many having lost\ntheir property, have afterwards on account of this very loss been saved,\nsince hereafter they might either have fallen into the hands of robbers,\nor into the power of a tyrant; that many also who have loved certain\npersons, and have been benevolently disposed towards them in the\nextreme, have afterwards greatly hated them;\u2014considering all these\nthings, which have been delivered to us by history, and likewise\nlearning that many have been destroyed by their children, and by those\nthat they have most dearly loved; and comparing our own life with that\nof those who have been more unhappy than we have been, and taking into\naccount human casualties [in general] and not only such as happen to\nourselves, we shall pass through life with greater tranquillity. For it\nis not lawful that he who is himself a man, should think the calamities\nof others easy to be borne, and not his own, since he sees that the\nwhole of life is naturally exposed to many calamities. Those however,\nthat weep and lament, besides not being able to recover what they have\nlost, or recal to life those that are dead, impel the soul to greater\nperturbations, in consequence of its being filled with much depravity.\nIt is requisite therefore, that, being washed and purified, we should by\nall possible contrivances wipe away our inveterate stains by the\nreasonings of philosophy. But we shall accomplish this by adhering to\nprudence and temperance, being satisfied with our present circumstances,\nand not aspiring after many things. For men who procure for themselves a\ngreat abundance [of external goods], do not consider that the enjoyment\nof them terminates with the present life. We ought therefore to use the\ngoods that are present; and by the assistance of the beautiful and\nvenerable things of which philosophy is the source, we shall be\nliberated from the insatiable desire of depraved possessions.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n ARCHYTAS,\n IN HIS TREATISE CONCERNING\n THE GOOD AND HAPPY MAN.\n\n\nIn the first place, it is requisite to know this, that the good man is\nnot immediately happy from necessity; but that this is the case with the\nman who is both happy and good. For the happy man obtains both praise\nand the predication of blessedness; but the good man far as he is good\nobtains praise alone. The praise also arises from virtue; but the\npredication of blessedness from good fortune. And the worthy man,\nindeed, becomes such from the goods which he possesses; but the happy\nman is sometimes deprived of his felicity. For the power of virtue is\nperfectly free, but that of felicity is subject to restraint. For\nlong-continued diseases of the body, and deprivations of the senses,\ncause the florishing condition of felicity to waste away. God, however,\ndiffers from a good man in this, that God indeed not only possesses\nvirtue genuine and purified from every mortal passion, but his power\nalso is unwearied and unrestrained, as being adapted to the most\nvenerable and magnificent production of eternal works. Man indeed, by\nthe mortal condition of his nature, not only enjoys this power and this\nvirtue in a less degree; but sometimes through the want of symmetry[60]\nin the goods which he possesses, or through powerful custom, or a\ndepraved nature, or through many other causes, he is unable to possess\nin the extreme a good which is perfectly true.\n\nSince therefore of goods, some are eligible for their own sakes, and not\nfor the sake of another thing; but others are eligible for the sake of\nsomething else, and not on their own account; there is also a certain\nthird species of goods, which is eligible both on its own account, and\nfor the sake of another thing. What, therefore, is the good which is\neligible on its own account, and not for the sake of something else? It\nis evident that it is felicity. For we aspire after other things for the\nsake of this, but we do not desire this for the sake of any thing else.\nAgain, what are those goods which we desire indeed for the sake of\nsomething else, but which we do not desire on their own account? It is\nevident they are such things as are useful, and pre-eligible goods,\nwhich become the causes of our obtaining things which are eligible [on\ntheir own account]; such as corporeal labors, exercise, and frictions\nwhich are employed for the sake of a good habit of body; and also\nreading, meditation, and study, which are undertaken for the sake of\nthings beautiful and virtue. But what are the things which are eligible\non their own account, and also for the sake of something else? They are\nsuch things as the virtues, and the habits of them, deliberate choice\nand actions, and whatever adheres to that which is really beautiful.\nHence, that indeed which is eligible on its own account, and not on\naccount of something else, is a solitary good and one. But that which is\neligible for its own sake, and for the sake of another thing, is triply\ndivided. For one part of it indeed subsists about the soul; another\nabout the body; and another pertains to externals. And that which is\nabout the soul, consists of the virtues of the soul; that which is about\nthe body, of the virtues of the body; and that which pertains to\nexternals, consists of friends, glory, honor, and wealth. There is\nlikewise a similar reasoning with respect to that which is eligible on\naccount of something else. For one part of it indeed is effective of the\ngoods of the soul; another part of it, of the goods of the body; and\nthat which pertains to externals is the cause of wealth, glory, honor,\nand friendship.\n\nThat virtue however happens to be eligible for its own sake, is evident\nfrom the following considerations. For if things which are naturally\nsubordinate, I mean the goods of the body, are eligible for their own\nsakes, but the soul is better than the body, it is evident that we love\nthe goods of the soul on their own account, and not for the sake of the\nconsequences with which they are attended.\n\nThere are likewise three definite times of human life; one of\nprosperity; another of adversity; and a third subsisting between these.\nSince therefore, he is a good man who possesses and uses virtue; but he\nuses it according to three seasons; for he uses it either in adversity,\nor in prosperity, or in the time between these; and in adversity indeed\nhe is unhappy, but in prosperity happy, and in the middle condition, he\nis not happy [though he is not miserable];\u2014this being the case, it is\nevident that felicity is nothing else than the use of virtue in\nprosperity. We now speak, however, of the felicity of man. But man is\nnot soul alone, but is likewise body. For the animal which consists of\nboth, and that which is constituted from things of this kind is man. For\nthough the body is naturally adapted to be the instrument of the soul,\nyet this as well as the soul is a part of man [so far as he is an\nanimal.[61]] Hence of goods also, some are the goods of man, but others,\nof the parts of man. And the good of man, indeed, is felicity. But of\nthe parts of man, the good of the soul is prudence, fortitude, justice,\nand temperance. And the good of the body is beauty, health, a good\ncorporeal habit, and excellence of sensation. With respect to externals\nhowever, wealth, glory, honor, and nobility, are naturally adapted to be\nattendant on man, and to follow precedaneous goods. The less, also, are\nministrant to the greater goods. Thus friendship, glory, and wealth, are\nministrant both to the body and the soul; but health, strength, and\nexcellence of sensation, are subservient to the soul; and prudence [i.\ne. wisdom] and justice are ministrant to the intellect of the soul.\n_Intellect, however, is the satellite of Deity._ For God is the most\nexcellent, and the leader and ruler of all things. And for the sake of\nthese, it is necessary that other goods should be present. For the\ngeneral, indeed, is the leader of the army; the pilot, of the ship; God,\nof the world; and intellect, of soul. But prudence is the leader of the\nfelicity pertaining to life. For prudence is nothing else than the\nscience of the felicity which respects human life, or the science of the\ngoods which naturally pertain to man.\n\nAnd the felicity, indeed, and life of God are most excellent; but the\nfelicity of man consists of science, and virtue, and in the third place\nof prosperity[62] corporalized. But I mean by science, the wisdom\npertaining to things divine and demoniacal; and by prudence, the wisdom\npertaining to human concerns, and the affairs of life. For it is\nrequisite to call the virtues which employ reasonings and\ndemonstrations, sciences. But it is fit to denominate virtue ethical,\nand the best habit of the irrational part of the soul, according to\nwhich we are said to possess certain qualities pertaining to manners;\nviz. by which we are called liberal, just, and temperate. But it is\nrequisite to call prosperity, the preter-rational presence of goods, [or\na supply of goods without the assistance of reason,] and which is not\neffected on account of it. Since therefore virtue and science are in our\npower, but prosperity is not; and since also felicity consists in the\ncontemplation and performance of things [truly] beautiful; but\ncontemplations and actions, when they are not prosperous, are attended\nwith ministrant offices and necessity, but when they proceed in the\nright path, produce delight and felicity; and these things are effected\nin prosperity;\u2014this being the case, it is evident that _felicity is\nnothing else than the use of virtue in prosperity_. Hence the good man\nis disposed with respect to prosperity, in the same manner as he who has\nan excellent and robust body. For such a one is able to endure heat and\ncold, to raise a great burden, and to sustain easily many other\nmolestations.\n\nSince therefore felicity is the use of virtue in prosperity, we must\nspeak concerning virtue and prosperity, and in the first place\nconcerning prosperity. For of goods, some indeed do not admit of excess,\nand this is the case with virtue. For there is not any virtue which is\nexcessive, nor any worthy man who is beyond measure good. For virtue has\nthe fit and becoming for a rule, and is the habit of the decorous in\npractical concerns. But prosperity receives excess and diminution. And\nwhen it is excessive indeed, it generates certain vices, and removes a\nman from his natural habit; so that he frequently through this opposes\nthe constitution of virtue. And this is not only the case with\nprosperity, but many other causes likewise may effect the same thing.\nFor it is by no means proper to wonder, that some of those who play on\nthe pipe should be arrogant men, who, bidding farewell to truth, ensnare\nby a certain false imagination those who are unskilled in music; and to\ndisbelieve that a thing of this kind does not take place in virtue. For\nthe more venerable a thing is, so much the more numerous are those that\npretend to the possession of it. For there are many things which distort\nthe habit and form of virtue; some of which are insidious arts and\naffectation; others are kindred physical passions, which sometimes\nproduce an indecorum[63] contrary to the true disposition [of virtue.]\nThis also is effected through manners in which men have been nurtured\nfor a long time; and it not unfrequently happens that it is produced\nthrough youth or old age, and through prosperity or adversity; and by\nother very numerous ways. Hence, we ought never to wonder, if sometimes\na distorted judgment is formed of all things, the true disposition being\nchanged.[64] Thus we see that the most excellent carpenter frequently\nerrs in the works which are the subjects of his art; and this is also\nthe case with the general, the pilot, the painter, and in short, with\nall artists. And yet at the same time we do not deprive them of the\nhabit which they possess. For as we do not rank among bad men him who at\ncertain times acts intemperately, or unjustly, or timidly; so neither do\nwe place him in the class of good men, who does something right in\nthings pertaining to temperance, or justice, or fortitude. But it must\nbe said that the conduct of bad men in things of this kind is casually\nright, and that good men [sometimes] err. A true judgment however [in\nthese instances] is to be formed, not by looking to a certain occasion,\nor to a certain extent of time, but to the whole of life. But as\nindigence and excess are injurious to the body, yet excess and what are\ncalled superfluities, are naturally adapted to produce greater diseases\n[than those caused by indigence]; thus also prosperity or adversity\ninjure the soul, when they unseasonably happen; yet that which is called\nby all men prosperity, is naturally adapted to produce greater diseases\n[than adversity], since it intoxicates like wine the reasoning power of\ngood men.\n\nHence it is more difficult to bear prosperity in a becoming manner than\nadversity. For all men when they continue in adversity, are seen for the\nmost part to be moderate and orderly in their manners; but in prosperity\nthey are brave, magnificent, and magnanimous [when they bear it in a\nbecoming manner]. For adversity has the power of contracting and\ndepressing the soul; but prosperity, on the contrary, elevates and\nexpands it. Hence all those that are unfortunate, are in their manners\ncautious and prudent; but those that are fortunate are insolent and\nconfident. But the boundary of prosperity, is that which a good man\nwould deliberately choose to co-operate with him in his own proper\nactions; just as the [proper] magnitude of a ship, and the [proper]\nmagnitude of a rudder, are such as will enable a good pilot to sail over\na great extent of sea, and to accomplish a great voyage. An excess of\nprosperity, however, is not naturally adapted to be vanquished by, but\nto vanquish the soul. For as a [very] splendid light causes an\nobscuration of sight in the eyes; thus also excessive prosperity darkens\nthe intellect of the soul. And thus much may suffice concerning\nprosperity.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n THEAGES,\n IN HIS TREATISE\n ON THE VIRTUES.\n\n\nThe order of the soul subsists in such a way, that one part of it is the\nreasoning power, another is anger, and another is desire. And the\nreasoning power, indeed, has dominion over knowledge; anger over\nimpetus; and desire intrepidly rules over the appetitions of the soul.\nWhen therefore these three parts pass into one, and exhibit one\nappropriate composition, then virtue and concord are produced in the\nsoul. But when they are divulsed from each other by sedition, then vice\nand discord are produced in the soul. It is necessary, however, that\nvirtue should have these three things, viz. reason, power, and\ndeliberate choice. The virtue, therefore, of the reasoning power of the\nsoul is prudence; for it is a habit of judging and contemplating. But\nthe virtue of the irascible part, is fortitude; for it is a habit of\nresisting, and enduring things of a dreadful nature. And the virtue of\nthe epithymetic or appetitive part is temperance; for it is a moderation\nand detention of the pleasures which arise through the body. But the\nvirtue of the whole soul is justice. For men indeed become bad, either\nthrough vice, or through incontinence, or through a natural ferocity.\nBut they injure each other, either through gain, or through pleasure, or\nthrough ambition. Vice, therefore, more appropriately belongs to the\nreasoning part of the soul. For prudence indeed is similar to art; but\nvice to pernicious art. For it invents contrivances for the purpose of\nacting unjustly. But incontinence rather pertains to the appetitive part\nof the soul. For continence consists in subduing, and incontinence in\nnot subduing pleasures. And ferocity pertains to the irascible part of\nthe soul. For when some one, through acting ill from desire, is\ngratified not as a man should be, but as a wild beast, then a thing of\nthis kind is denominated ferocity. The effects also of these\ndispositions are consequent to the things for the sake of which they are\nperformed. For avarice is consequent to vice; but vice is consequent to\nthe reasoning part of the soul. And ambition, indeed, follows from the\nirascible part; and this becoming excessive, generates ferocity. Again,\npleasure pertains to the appetitive part; but this being sought after\nmore vehemently, generates incontinence. Hence, since the acting\nunjustly is produced from so many causes, it is evident that acting\njustly is effected through an equal number of causes. For virtue,\nindeed, is naturally beneficent and profitable; but vice is productive\nof evil, and is noxious.\n\nSince, however, of the parts of the soul, one is the leader, but the\nother follows, and the virtues and the vices subsist about these, and in\nthese; it is evident that with respect to the virtues also, some are\nleaders, others are followers, and others, are composed from these. And\nthe leaders, indeed, are such as prudence; but the followers are such as\nfortitude and temperance; and the composites from these, are such as\njustice. The passions, however, are the matter of virtue; for the\nvirtues subsist about, and in these. But of the passions, one is\nvoluntary, but another is involuntary. And the voluntary, indeed, is\npleasure; but the involuntary is pain. Men also, who have the political\nvirtues, give intension and remission to these, co-harmonizing the other\nparts of the soul, to that part which possesses reason. But the boundary\nof this co-adaptation, is for intellect not to be prevented from\naccomplishing its proper work, either by indigence, or excess. For that\nwhich is less excellent, is co-arranged for the sake of that which is\nmore excellent. Thus in the world, every part that is always passive,\nsubsists for the sake of that which is always moved. And in the\nconjunction of animals, the female subsists for the sake of the male.\nFor the latter sows, generating a soul; but the former alone imparts\nmatter to that which is generated. In the soul however, the irrational\nsubsists for the sake of the rational part. For anger and desire are\nco-arranged in subserviency to the first part of the soul; the former as\na certain satellite, and guardian of the body; but the latter as a\ndispensator and provident curator of necessary wants. But intellect\nbeing established in the highest summit of the body, and having a\nprospect in that which is on all sides splendid and transparent,[65]\ninvestigates the wisdom of [real] beings. And this is the work of it\naccording to nature, viz. having investigated, and obtained the\npossession [of truth] to follow those beings who are more excellent and\nmore honorable than itself. For _the knowledge of things divine and most\nhonorable, is the principle, cause, and rule of human blessedness_.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n METOPUS,\n IN HIS TREATISE\n CONCERNING VIRTUE.\n\n\nThe virtue of man is the perfection of the nature of man. For every\nbeing becomes perfect, and arrives at the summit of excellence according\nto the proper nature of its virtue. Thus the virtue of a horse, is that\nwhich leads the nature of a horse to its summit. And the same reasoning\nis applicable to the several parts of a thing. Thus the virtue of the\neyes is acuteness of vision: and this in the nature of the eyes is the\nsummit. The virtue of the ears also, is acuteness of hearing: and this\nis the summit of the nature of the ears. Thus too, the virtue of the\nfeet is swiftness: and this is the summit of the nature of the feet. It\nis necessary however, that every virtue should have these three things,\nreason, power, and deliberate choice; reason indeed, by which it judges\nand contemplates; power, by which it prohibits and vanquishes; and\ndeliberate choice, by which it loves and delights in [what is proper].\nTo judge therefore, and contemplate, pertain to the dianoetic part of\nthe soul; but to prohibit and vanquish are the peculiarity of the\nirrational[66] part of the soul; and to love and delight in what is\nproper, pertain to both the rational and irrational parts. For\ndeliberate choice consists of dianoia [or the discursive energy of\nreason] and appetite. Dianoia therefore, belongs to the rational, but\nappetite to the irrational part of the soul. The multitude however, of\nall the virtues, may be perceived from the parts of the soul; and in a\nsimilar manner the generation and nature of virtue. For of the parts of\nthe soul, there are two that rank as the first, viz. the rational and\nthe irrational parts. And the rational part indeed, is that by which we\njudge and contemplate; but the irrational part is that by which we are\nimpelled and desire. These however, are either concordant or discordant\nwith each other. But the contest and dissonance between them, are\nproduced through excess and defect. It is evident therefore, that when\nthe rational vanquishes the irrational part of the soul, endurance and\ncontinence are produced; and that when the former leads, and the latter\nfollows, and both accord with each other, then virtue is generated.\nHence, endurance and continence are generated accompanied with pain; but\nendurance resists pain, and continence pleasure. Incontinence however,\nand effeminacy, neither resist nor vanquish [pleasure]. And on this\naccount it happens that men fly from good through pain, but reject it\nthrough pleasure. Praise likewise, and blame, and every thing beautiful\nin human conduct are produced in these parts of the soul. And in short,\nthe nature of virtue derives its subsistence after this manner.\n\nThe species however, and the parts of it, may be surveyed as follows:\nSince there are two parts of the soul, the rational and the irrational;\nthe latter is divided into the irascible and appetitive. And the\nrational part, indeed, is that by which we judge and contemplate; but\nthe irrational part is that by which we are impelled and desire. And of\nthis, that which is as it were adapted to defend us, and revenge\nincidental molestations, is denominated the irascible part; but that\nwhich is as it were orectic of, and desires to preserve the proper\nconstitution of the body, is the appetitive part. It is evident\ntherefore, that the multitude of the virtues, their differences, and\ntheir peculiarities, follow conformably to these parts of the soul.\n\n\n\n\n FROM CLINIAS.\n\n\nEvery virtue is perfected, as was shown by us in the beginning, from\nreason, deliberate choice, and power. Each of these, however, is not by\nitself a part of virtue, but the cause of it. Such therefore, as have\nthe intellective and gnostic part of virtue,[67] are denominated skilful\nand intelligent; but such as have the ethical and pre-elective part of\nit, are denominated useful and equitable.[68] Since however, man is\nnaturally adapted to act unjustly from exciting causes; and these are\nthree, the love of pleasure in corporeal enjoyments; avarice, in the\naccumulation of wealth; and ambition, in surpassing those that are equal\nand similar to him;\u2014this being the case, it is necessary to know, that\nit is possible to oppose to these such things as procure fear, shame,\nand desire in men; viz. fear through the laws, shame through the Gods,\nand desire through the energies of reason. Hence, it is necessary that\nyouth should be taught from the first to honor the Gods and the laws.\nFor from these, it will be manifest, that every human work, and every\nkind of human life, by the participation of sanctity and piety, will\nsail prosperously [over the sea of generation].\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n THEAGES,\n IN HIS TREATISE\n ON THE VIRTUES.\n\n\nThe principles of all virtue are three; knowledge, power, and deliberate\nchoice. And knowledge indeed, is that by which we contemplate and form a\njudgment of things; power is as it were a certain strength of the\nnature[69] from which we derive our subsistence, and is that which gives\nstability to our actions; and deliberate choice is as it were certain\nhands of the soul by which we are impelled to, and lay hold on the\nobjects of our choice. The order of the soul also subsists as follows:\nOne part of it is the reasoning power, another part is anger, and\nanother is desire. And the reasoning power indeed, is that which has\ndominion over knowledge; anger is that which rules over the ardent\nimpulses of the soul; and desire is that which willingly rules over\nappetite. When therefore, these three pass into one, so as to exhibit\none co-adaptation, then virtue and concord are produced in the soul; but\nwhen they are seditious, and divulsed from each other, then vice and\ndiscord are generated in the soul. And when the reasoning power prevails\nover the irrational parts of the soul, then endurance and continence are\nproduced; endurance indeed, in the retention of pains; but continence in\nthe abstinence from pleasures. But when the irrational parts of the soul\nprevail over the reasoning power, then effeminacy and incontinence are\nproduced; effeminacy indeed, in flying from pain; but incontinence, in\nthe being vanquished by pleasures. When however, the better part of the\nsoul governs, but the less excellent part is governed; and the former\nleads, but the latter follows, and both consent, and are concordant with\neach other, then virtue and every good are generated in the whole soul.\nWhen likewise the appetitive follows the reasoning part of the soul,\nthen temperance is produced; but when this is the case with the\nirascible part, fortitude is produced; and when it takes place in all\nthe parts of the soul, then justice is the result. For justice is that\nwhich separates all the vices and all the virtues of the soul from each\nother. And justice is a certain established order of the apt conjunction\nof the parts of the soul, and perfect and supreme virtue. For every good\nis contained in this; but the other goods of the soul cannot subsist\nwithout this. Hence justice possesses great strength both among Gods and\nmen. For this virtue contains the bond by which the whole and the\nuniverse are held together, and also by which Gods and men are\nconnected. Justice therefore, is said to be Themis among the celestial,\nbut Dice among the terrestrial Gods; and Law among men. These assertions\nhowever, are indications and symbols, that justice is the supreme\nvirtue. Hence virtue, when it consists in contemplating and judging, is\ncalled prudence; when in sustaining things of a dreadful nature, it is\ndenominated fortitude; when in restraining pleasure, temperance; and\nwhen in abstaining from gain, and from injuring our neighbours, justice.\n\nMoreover, the arrangement of virtue according to right reason, and the\ntransgression of it contrary to right reason, produce [in the former\ncase] a tendency to the decorous as the final mark, and [in the latter]\nthe frustration of it. The decorous however, is that which ought to be.\nBut this does not require either addition or ablation; since it is that\nwhich it is requisite to be. But of the indecorous there are two\nspecies; one of which is excess, and the other defect. And excess\nindeed, is more, but deficiency is less, than is decorous. Virtue also,\nis a certain habit of the decorous. Hence it is directly, both a summit\nand a medium. For thus, things that are decorous are both media and\nsummits. They are media indeed, because they fall between excess and\ndeficiency; but they are summits, because they do not require either\naddition or ablation. For they are the very things themselves which they\nought to be.\n\nSince however, the virtue of manners is conversant with the passions,\nbut of the passions pleasure and pain are supreme, it is evident that\nvirtue does not consist in extirpating the passions of the soul,\npleasure and pain, but in co-harmonizing them. For neither does health,\nwhich is a certain apt mixture of the powers of the body, consist in\nexpelling the cold and the hot, the moist and the dry; but in these\nbeing [appropriately] mingled together. For it is as it were, a certain\nsymmetry of these. Thus too, in music, concord does not consist in\nexpelling the sharp and the flat; but when these are co-harmonized, then\nconcord is produced, and dissonance is exterminated. In a similar\nmanner, the hot and the cold, the moist and the dry, being harmoniously\nmingled together, health is produced, and disease destroyed. But when\nanger, and desire are co-harmonized, the vices and the [other] passions\nare extirpated, and the virtues and manners are ingenerated. Deliberate\nchoice however, in beautiful conduct, is the greatest peculiarity of the\nvirtue of manners. For it is possible to use reason and power without\nvirtue; but it is not possible to use deliberate choice without it. For\ndeliberate choice indicates the dignity of manners. Hence also, the\nreasoning power subduing _by force_ anger and desire, produces\ncontinence and endurance. And again, when the reasoning power is\nviolently dethroned by the irrational parts, then incontinence and\neffeminacy are produced. Such dispositions however, of the soul as\nthese, are half-perfect virtues, and half-perfect vices. For the\nreasoning power of the soul is [according to its natural subsistence] in\na healthy, but the irrational parts are in a diseased condition. And so\nfar indeed, as anger and desire are governed and led by the rational\npart of the soul, continence and endurance become virtues; but so far as\nthis is effected by violence, and not voluntarily, they become vices.\nFor it is necessary that virtue should perform such things as are fit,\nnot with pain, but with pleasure. Again, so far as anger and desire\ngovern the reasoning power, effeminacy and incontinence are produced,\nwhich are certain vices. But so far, as they gratify the passions with\npain, knowing that they are erroneous, in consequence of the eye of the\nsoul being sane,\u2014so far as this is the case, they are not vices. Hence,\nit is evident that virtue must necessarily perform what is fit\nvoluntarily; that which is involuntary indeed, not being without pain\nand fear; and that which is voluntary, not subsisting without pleasure\nand delight.\n\nBy division also it will at the same time be found that this is the\ncase. For knowledge and the perception of things, are the province of\nthe rational part of the soul; but power pertains to the irrational\npart. For not to be able to resist pain, or to vanquish pleasure, is the\npeculiarity of the irrational part of the soul. But deliberate choice\nsubsists in both these, viz. in the rational; and also in the irrational\npart. For it consists of dianoia and appetite; of which, dianoia indeed,\npertains to the rational, but appetite to the irrational part. Hence\nevery virtue consists in a co-adaptation of the parts of the soul; and\nboth will and deliberate choice, entirely subsist in virtue.\n\nUniversally therefore, virtue is a certain co-adaptation of the\nirrational parts of the soul to the rational part. Virtue however, is\nproduced through pleasure and pain receiving the boundary of that which\nis fit. For true virtue is nothing else than the habit of that which is\nfit. But the fit, or the decorous, is that which ought to be; and the\nunfit, or indecorous, is that which ought not to be. Of the indecorous\nhowever, there are two species, viz. excess and defect. And excess\nindeed, is more than is fit; but defect is less than is fit. But since\nthe fit is that which ought to be, it is both a summit and a middle. It\nis a summit indeed, because it neither requires ablation, nor addition;\nbut it is a middle, because it subsists between excess and defect. The\nfit, however, and the unfit, are to each other as the equal and the\nunequal that which is arranged, and that which is without arrangement;\nand both the two former and the two latter are finite and infinite.[70]\nOn this account, the parts of the unequal are referred to the middle,\nbut not to each other. For the angle is called obtuse which is greater\nthan a right angle; but that is called acute, which is less than a right\nangle. The right line also [in a circle] is greater, which surpasses\nthat which is drawn from the center. And the day is longer indeed, which\nexceeds that of the equinox. Diseases, likewise, of the body are\ngenerated, through the body becoming more hot or more cold [than is\nproper]. For that which is more hot [than is fit] exceeds moderation;\nand that which is more cold [than is fit] is below mediocrity. The soul\nalso, and such things as pertain to it, have this disposition and\nanalogy. For audacity indeed, is an excess of the decorous in the\nendurance of things of a dreadful nature; but timidity is a deficiency\nof the, decorous. And prodigality is an excess of what is fit in the\nexpenditure of money; but illiberality is a deficiency in this. And rage\nindeed, is an excess of the decorous in the impulse of the irascible\npart of the soul; but insensibility is a deficiency of this. The same\nreasoning likewise applies to the opposition of the other dispositions\nof the soul. It is necessary however, that virtue, since it is a habit\nof the decorous, and a medium of the passions, should neither be\n[wholly] impassive, nor immoderately passive. For impassivity indeed,\ncauses the soul to be unimpelled, and to be without an enthusiastic\ntendency to the beautiful in conduct; but immoderate passivity causes it\nto be full of perturbation, and inconsiderate. It is necessary\ntherefore, that passion should so present itself to the view, in virtue,\nas shadow and outline in a picture. For the animated and the delicate,\nand that which imitates the truth, in conjunction with goodness of\ncolors, are especially effected in a picture through these [i. e.\nthrough shadow and outline]. But the passions of the soul are animated\nby the natural incitation and enthusiasm of virtue. For virtue is\ngenerated from the passions, and when generated, again subsists together\nwith them; just as that which is well harmonized consists of the sharp\nand the flat, that which is well mingled consists of the hot and the\ncold, and that which is in equilibrium derives its equality of weight\nfrom the heavy and the light. It is not therefore necessary to take away\nthe passions of the soul; for neither would this be profitable; but it\nis requisite that they should be co-harmonized with the rational part,\nin conjunction with fitness and mediocrity.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n THE TREATISE OF\n ARCHYTAS\n ON ETHICAL ERUDITION.\n\n\nI say that virtue will be found sufficient to the avoidance of\ninfelicity, and vice to the non-attainment of felicity, if we\njudiciously consider the habits [by which these are produced]. For it is\nnecessary that the bad man should always be miserable; whether he is in\naffluence, for he employs it badly; or whether he is in penury; just as\nthe blind man, whether he has light, and the most splendid visible\nobject before him, or whether he is in the dark [is always necessarily\nwithout sight]. But the good man is not always happy; for felicity does\nnot consist in the possession, but in the use of virtue. For neither\ndoes he who has sight always see; for he will not see, if he is without\nlight. Life, however, is divided into two paths; one of which is more\narduous, and in which the patient Ulysses walked; but the other is more\nfree from molestation, and is that in which Nestor proceeded. I say\ntherefore that virtue desires the latter, but is able to proceed in the\nformer of these paths. The nature however of felicity proclaims it to be\na desirable and stable life, because it gives perfection to the decision\nof the soul. Hence the virtuous man who does not obtain such a life as\nthis, is not indeed happy, nor yet entirely miserable. No one therefore\nwill dare to say that the good man should be exempt from disease, and\npain, and sorrow. For as we leave certain painful things to the body, so\nlikewise we must permit them to be present with the soul. The sorrows,\nhowever, of fools are most irrational; but those of wise men proceed\nonly as far as reason, which gives limitation to things, permits.\nMoreover, the boast of apathy dissolves the generosity of virtue, when\nit opposes itself to things of an indifferent nature, and not to evils\nsuch as death, and pain, and poverty. For things which are not evils are\neasily vanquished. We should therefore exercise ourselves in the\nmediocrity of the passions, as we shall then equally avoid\ninsensibility, and too much passivity, and shall not speak higher of our\nnature than we ought.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n ARCHYTAS,\n IN HIS TREATISE ON\n THE GOOD AND HAPPY MAN.\n\n\nI say then that the good man is one who uses in a beautiful manner great\nthings and opportunities. He likewise is able to bear well both\nprosperity and adversity. In beautiful and honorable circumstances also,\nhe becomes worthy of the condition in which he is placed; and when his\nfortune is changed, receives it in a proper manner. In short, on all\noccasions, he contends well from contingencies that may arise. Nor does\nhe only thus prepare himself [for whatever may happen], but likewise\nthose who confide in and contend together with him.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n CRITO,\n IN HIS TREATISE ON\n PRUDENCE AND PROSPERITY.\n\n\nPrudence and prosperity subsist, with reference to each other, as\nfollows: Prudence indeed is effable and possesses reason; for it is\nsomething orderly and definite. But prosperity is ineffable and\nirrational; for it is something disorderly and indefinite. And prudence,\nindeed, is prior, but prosperity is posterior in beginning and in power.\nFor the former is naturally adapted to govern and define; but the latter\nto be governed and defined. Moreover, both prudence and prosperity\nreceive co-adaptation, since they concur in one and the same thing. For\nit is always necessary that the thing which bounds and co-arranges,\nshould have a nature which is effable and participates of reason; but\nthat the thing which is bounded and co-arranged, should be naturally\nineffable and irrational. For the reason of the nature of the infinite\nand of that which bounds, thus subsists in all things. For infinites are\nalways naturally disposed to be bounded and co-arranged by things which\npossess reason and prudence, since the former have the order of matter\nand essence with relation to the latter. But finites are co-arranged and\nbounded from themselves, since they have the order of cause, and of that\nwhich is energetic.\n\nThe co-adaptation, however, of these natures in different things,\nproduces a great and various difference of co-adapted substances. For in\nthe comprehension of the whole of things, the co-adaptation of both the\nnatures, i. e. of the nature which is always moved, and of that which is\nalways passive, is the world. For it is not possible for the whole and\nthe universe to be otherwise saved, than by that which is generated\nbeing co-adapted to that which is divine, and that which is always\npassive to that which is always moved.[71] In man, likewise, the\nco-adaptation of the irrational to the rational part of the soul, is\nvirtue. For it is not possible in these, when there is sedition in both\nthe parts, that virtue should have a subsistence. In a city also, the\nco-adaptation of the governors to the governed, produces strength and\nconcord. For to govern is the peculiarity of the better nature; but to\nbe governed, is easier to the subordinate [than to the more excellent]\nnature. And strength and concord are common to both. There is, however,\nthe same mode of adaptation in the universe and in a family: for\nallurements[72] and erudition concur with reason in one and the same\nthing; and likewise pains and pleasures, prosperity and adversity. For\nthe life of man requires intension and remission, sorrow and gladness,\nprosperity and adversity. For some things are able to collect and retain\nthe intellect to industry and wisdom; but others impart relaxation and\ndelight, and thus render the intellect vigorous and prompt to action. If\nhowever one of these prevails in life, then the life of man becomes of\none part, and verges to one part, tending either to sorrow and\ndifficulty, or to remission and levity. But the co-adaptation of all\nthese ought to subsist with reference to prudence. For this separates\nand distinguishes[73] bound and infinity in actions. Hence prudence is\nthe leader and mother of the other virtues. For all of them are\nco-harmonized and co-arranged with reference to the reason and law of\nthis virtue. And now my discussion of this subject is terminated. For\nthe irrational and the effable are in all things. And the latter defines\nand bounds; but the former is defined and bounded. That, however, which\nconsists of both these, is the apt composition of the whole and the\nuniverse.\n\n\nThe following beautiful fragment of Crito on Prudence, is from the\n Physical Eclogues of Stob\u00e6us, p. 198, and is omitted by Gale in\n his Collection of Pythagoric Ethical Fragments in Opusc. Mythol.\n &c.\n\n\nGod fashioned man in such a way as to render it manifest, that he is not\nthrough the want of power, or of deliberate choice, incapable of being\nimpelled to what is beautiful in conduct. For he implanted in him a\nprinciple of such a kind as to comprehend at one and the same time the\npossible and the pre-eligible; so that man might be the cause of power,\nand the possession of good, but God of impulse and incitation according\nto right reason. On this account also, he made him tend to heaven, gave\nhim an intellective power, and implanted in him a sight called\nintellect, which is capable of beholding God. For it is not possible\nwithout God to discover that which is best and most beautiful, nor\nwithout intellect to see God, since every mortal nature is established\nin conjunction with a kindred privation of intellect. This however is\nnot imparted to it by God, but by the essence of generation, and by that\nimpulse of the soul which is without deliberate choice.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n ARCHYTAS,\n IN HIS TREATISE ON\n THE GOOD AND HAPPY MAN.\n\n\nThe prudent [i. e. the wise] man will especially become so as follows:\nIn the first place, being naturally sagacious, possessing a good memory,\nand being a lover of labor, he should exercise his dianoetic power\nimmediately from his youth in reasonings and disciplines, and in\naccurate theories, and adhere to genuine philosophy. But after this he\nshould acquire knowledge and experience in what pertains to the Gods,\nthe laws, and human lives. For there are two things from which the\ndisposition of prudence is produced; one of which consists in obtaining\na mathematical and gnostic habit; but the other, in a man perceiving by\nhimself many theorems and things, and understanding other things through\na certain different mode. For neither is he sufficient to the possession\nof prudence, who immediately from his youth has exercised his dianoetic\npower in reasonings and disciplines; nor he who being destitute of\nthese, has heard and has been conversant with a multitude of things. But\nthe latter will have his dianoetic power blind, through judging of\nparticulars; and the former through always surveying universals. For as\nin computations the amount of the whole is obtained by the addition of\nthe parts, thus also in things, reason is able to delineate the theory\nof universals; but experience has the power of forming a judgment of\nparticulars.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n ARCHYTAS,\n IN HIS TREATISE\n ON DISCIPLINES.\n\n\nIt is necessary that you should become scientific, either by learning\nfrom another person, or by discovering yourself the things of which you\nhave a scientific knowledge. If, therefore, you learn from another\nperson, that which you learn is foreign; but what you discover yourself\nis through yourself, and is your own. Moreover, if you investigate,\ndiscovery will be easy, and soon obtained; but if you do not know how to\ninvestigate, discovery will be to you impossible. And [right] reasoning\nindeed, when discovered, causes sedition to cease, and increases\nconcord. For through this the inexhaustible desire of possessing is\nsuppressed, and equality prevails; since by this we obtain what is just\nin contracts. Hence, on account of this, the poor receive from those who\nare able to give; and the rich give to those that are in want, both of\nthem believing that through this they shall obtain the equal. This\nhowever will be a rule and an impediment to those that act unjustly,\nviz. that men who possess scientific knowledge will appease their anger,\nprior to the commission of an injury, being persuaded that the\nperpetrators of it will not be concealed when it is committed; but that\nthose who do not possess scientific knowledge, becoming manifest in the\ncommission of an injury, will be restrained from acting unjustly.\n\n\n\n\n FROM\n POLUS,\n IN HIS TREATISE\n ON JUSTICE.\n\n\nIt appears to me that the justice which subsists among men, may be\ncalled the mother and the nurse of the other virtues. For without this a\nman can neither be temperate, nor brave, nor prudent. For it is the\nharmony and peace, in conjunction with elegance, of the whole soul. The\nstrength however of this virtue will become more manifest, if we direct\nour attention to the other habits. For they have a partial utility, and\nwhich is referred to one thing; but this is referred to whole systems,\nand to a multitude. In the world therefore, it conducts the whole\ngovernment of things, and is providence, harmony, and Dice, by the\ndecree of a certain genus of Gods. But in a city it is justly called\npeace, and equitable legislation. And in a house, it is the concord\nbetween the husband and wife; the benevolence of the servant towards the\nmaster; and the anxious care of the master for the welfare of the\nservant. In the body likewise, which is the first and dearest thing to\nall animals, [so far as they are animals,] it is the health and\nintireness of all the parts. But in the soul, it is the wisdom, which\namong men subsists from science and justice. If therefore, this virtue\nthus disciplines and saves both the whole and the parts [of every thing]\nrendering things concordant and familiar with each other, how is it\npossible it should not be called by the decision of all men, the mother\nand the nurse of all things?\n\n\nThe following fragments also, from the Treatise of Archytas on Wisdom,\n are preserved by Iamblichus, in the 3rd Chapter of his\n Protreptics, or Exhortations to Philosophy.\n\n\n\u201cArchytas therefore, in the beginning of his Treatise on Wisdom, exhorts\nto the possession of it as follows:\n\n1. \u201cWisdom as much excels in all human affairs as the sight does the\n[other] corporeal senses, intellect the soul, and the sun the stars. For\nthe sight is the most far-darting, and the most multiform of all the\nsenses; intellect is the supreme part of the soul, judging by reason and\ndiano\u00efa what is fit, and existing as the sight and power of the most\nhonorable things; and the sun is the eye and soul of things which have a\nnatural subsistence. For through it all things become visible, are\ngenerated, and rise into existence.[74] Deriving also their roots, and\nbeing generated from thence, they are nourished, increased and excited\nby it in conjunction with sense.\n\n2. \u201cMan was generated by far the wisest of all [terrestrial] animals.\nFor he is able to contemplate the things which exist, and to obtain from\nall things science and wisdom. To which also it may be added, that\ndivinity has engraved and exhibited in him the system of universal\nreason, in which all the forms of things in existence are distributed,\nand the significations of nouns and verbs. For a place is assigned for\nthe sounds of the voice, viz. the pharynx, the mouth, and the nostrils.\nBut as man was generated the instrument of the sounds, through which\nnouns and verbs are signified, so likewise of the conceptions which are\nbeheld in the things that have an existence. And this appears to me to\nbe the work of wisdom, for the accomplishment of which man was generated\nand constituted, and received organs and powers from divinity.\n\n3. \u201cMan was generated and constituted, for the purpose of contemplating\nthe reason of the whole of nature, and in order that, being himself the\nwork of wisdom, he might survey the wisdom of the things which\nexist.\u2014For if the reason of man is contemplative of the reason of the\nwhole of nature, and the wisdom also of man perceives and contemplates\nthe wisdom of the things in existence,\u2014this being acknowledged, it is at\nthe same time demonstrated, that man is a part of universal reason, and\nof the whole of the intellectual nature.\n\n4. \u201cWisdom is not conversant with a certain definite existing thing, but\nis simply conversant with all the things that exist. And it is\nrequisite, that it should not first investigate the principles of\nitself, but the common principles of all beings. For wisdom so subsists\nwith reference to all beings, that it is the province of it to know and\ncontemplate the universal accidents of all things. And on this account\nwisdom discovers the principles of all beings.\n\n5. \u201cWhoever, therefore, is able to analyze all the genera which are\ncontained under one and the same principle, and again to compose and\ncon-numerate them, he appears to me to be the wisest of men, and to\npossess the most perfect veracity. Farther still, he will also have\ndiscovered a beautiful place of survey, from which it will be possible\nto behold divinity, and all things that are in co-ordination with, and\nsuccessive to him, subsisting separately, or distinct from each\nother.[75] Having likewise entered this most ample road, being impelled\nin a right direction by intellect, and having arrived at the end of his\ncourse, he will have conjoined beginnings with ends, and will know that\nGod is the principle, middle, and end, of all things which are\naccomplished according to justice and right reason.\u201d[76]\n\n\n\n\n PYTHAGORIC ETHICAL SENTENCES\n FROM\n STOB\u00c6US,\n _Which are omitted in the Opuscula Mythologica, &c. of Gale._\n\n\nDo not even _think_ of doing what ought not to be done.\n\nChoose rather to be strong in soul than in body.\n\nBe persuaded that things of a laborious nature contribute more than\npleasures to virtue.\n\nEvery passion of the soul is most hostile to its salvation.\n\nIt is difficult to walk at one and the same time in many paths of\nlife.[77]\n\nPythagoras said, it is requisite to choose the most excellent life; for\ncustom will make it pleasant. Wealth is an infirm anchor, glory is still\nmore infirm; and in a similar manner the body, dominion, and honor. For\nall these are imbecile and powerless. What then are powerful anchors?\nPrudence, magnanimity, fortitude. These no tempest can shake. This is\nthe law of God, that virtue is the only thing that is strong; and that\nevery thing else is a trifle.\n\nAll the parts of human life, in the same manner as those of a statue,\nought to be beautiful.\n\nA statue indeed standing on its basis, but a worthy man on the subject\nof his deliberate choice, ought to be immovable.\n\nFrankincense ought to be given to the Gods, but praise to good men.\n\nIt is requisite to defend those who are unjustly accused of having acted\ninjuriously, but to praise those who excel in a certain good.\n\nNeither will the horse be judged to be generous, that is sumptuously\nadorned, but the horse whose nature is illustrious; nor is the man\nworthy who possesses great wealth, but he whose soul is generous.\n\nWhen the wise man opens his mouth, the beauties of his soul present\nthemselves to the view, like the statues in a temple.[78]\n\nRemind yourself that all men assert that wisdom is the greatest good,\nbut that there are few who strenuously endeavour to obtain this greatest\ngood.[79] Pythagoras.\n\nBe sober, and remember to be disposed to believe; for these are the\nnerves of wisdom. Epicharmus.\n\nIt is better to live lying on the grass, confiding in divinity and\nyourself, than to lie on a golden bed with perturbation.\n\nYou will not be in want of any thing, which it is in the power of\nFortune to give and take away.[80]\n\nDespise all those things, which when liberated from the body you will\nnot want; and exercising yourself in those things of which when\nliberated from the body you will be in want, invoke the Gods to become\nyour helpers.[81]\n\nNeither is it possible to conceal fire in a garment, nor a base\ndeviation from rectitude in time.\n\nWind indeed increases fire, but custom love.[82]\n\nThose alone are dear to divinity, who are hostile to injustice.[83]\n\nThose things which the body necessarily requires, are easily to be\nprocured by all men, without labor and molestation; but those things to\nthe attainment of which labor and molestation are requisite, are objects\nof desire, not to the body, but to depraved opinion. Aristoxenus Pythag.\nStob. p. 132.\n\nOf desire also, he [i. e. Pythagoras] said as follows: This passion is\nvarious, laborious, and very multiform. Of desires however, some are\nacquired and adventitious, but others are connascent. But he defined\ndesire itself to be a certain tendency and impulse of the soul, and an\nappetite of a plenitude or presence of sense, or of an emptiness and\nabsence of it, and of non-perception. He also said, that there are three\nmost known species of erroneous and depraved desire, viz. the\nindecorous, the incommensurate, and the unseasonable. For desire is\neither immediately indecorous, troublesome, and illiberal; or it is not\nabsolutely so, but is more vehement and lasting than is fit. Or in the\nthird place, it is impelled when it is not proper; and to objects to\nwhich it ought not to tend. Ex Aristoxeni Pythag. Sententiis. Stob. p.\n132.\n\nEndeavour not to conceal your errors by words, but to remedy them by\nreproofs. Pythagoras. Stob. p. 146.\n\nIt is not so difficult to err, as not to reprove him who errs.\nPythagoras. Stob. p. 147.\n\nAs a bodily disease cannot be healed, if it is concealed, or praised;\nthus also, neither can a remedy be applied to a diseased soul, which is\nbadly guarded and protected. Pythagoras. Stob. p. 147.\n\nThe grace of freedom of speech, like beauty in season, is productive of\ngreater delight.\n\nIt is not proper either to have a blunt sword, or to use freedom of\nspeech ineffectually.\n\nNeither is the sun to be taken from the world, nor freedom of speech\nfrom erudition.\n\nAs it is possible for one who is clothed with a sordid robe, to have a\ngood habit of body; thus also he whose life is poor may possess freedom\nof speech.[84]\n\nBe rather delighted with those that reprove, than with those that\nflatter you; but avoid flatterers, as worse than enemies. Pythagoras.\nStob. p. 149.\n\nThe life of the avaricious resembles a funeral banquet. For though it\nhas all things [requisite to a feast,] yet no one present rejoices.\nStob. p. 155.[85]\n\nAcquire continence as the greatest strength and wealth. Pythagoras.\nStob. p. 156.\n\n\u201cNot frequently man from man,\u201d is one of the exhortations of Pythagoras;\nby which he obscurely signifies, that it is not proper to be frequently\nengaged in venereal connexions. Stob. p. 156.\n\nIt is impossible that he can be free who is a slave to his passions.\nPythagoras. Stob. 165.\n\nPythagoras said, that intoxication is the meditation of insanity. Stob.\np. 165.\n\nPythagoras being asked, how a lover of wine might be cured of\nintoxication, answered, if he frequently surveys what his actions were\nwhen he was intoxicated. Stob. p. 165.\n\nPythagoras said, that it was either requisite to be silent, or to say\nsomething better than silence. Stob. p. 215.\n\nLet it be more eligible to you to throw a stone in vain, than to utter\nan idle word. Pythagoras. Stob. p. 215.\n\nDo not say a few things in many words, but much in a few words.\nPythagoras. Stob. p. 216.\n\nGenius is to men either a good or an evil d\u00e6mon. Epicharmus. Stob. p.\n220.\n\nPythagoras being asked, how a man ought to conduct himself towards his\ncountry, when it had acted iniquitously with respect to him, replied, as\nto a mother. Stob. p. 227.\n\nTravelling teaches a man frugality, and the way in which he may be\nsufficient to himself. For bread made of milk and flower, and a bed of\ngrass, are the sweetest remedies of hunger and labor.\n\nTo the wise man every land is eligible as a place of residence; for the\nwhole world is the country of the worthy soul.[86] Stob. p. 231.\n\nPythagoras said, that luxury entered into cities in the first place,\nafterwards satiety, then lascivious insolence, and after all these\ndestruction. Stob. p. 247.\n\nPythagoras said, that of cities that was the best, which contained\nworthy men. Stob. p. 247.\n\nDo those things which you judge to be beautiful, though in doing them\nyou should be without renown. For the rabble is a bad judge of a good\nthing. [Despise therefore the reprehension of those whose praise you\ndespise.] Demophilus. Stob. p. 310.[87]\n\nThose that do not punish bad men, wish that good men may be injured.\nPythagoras. Stob. p. 321.\n\nIt is not possible for a horse to be governed without a bridle, or\nriches without prudence. Pythagoras. Stob. p. 513.\n\nIt is the same thing to think greatly of yourself in prosperity, as to\ncontend in the race in a slippery road. Stob. p. 563.\n\nThere is not any gate of wealth so secure, which the opportunity of\nFortune may not open. Stob. p. 563.[88]\n\nExpel by reasoning the unrestrained grief of a torpid soul. Stob. p.\n572.\n\nIt is the province of a wise man to bear poverty with equanimity. Stob.\np. 572.[89]\n\nSpare your life, lest you consume it with sorrow and care. Pythagoras.\nStob. p. 616.\n\nNor will I be silent as to this particular, that it appeared both to\nPlato and Pythagoras, that old age was not to be considered with\nreference to an egress from the present life, but to the beginning of a\nblessed life. From Phavorinus on Old Age. Stob. p. 585.\n\n\nThe two following extracts are from Clemens Alexandrinus in Stromat.\n lib. 3. p. 413.\n\n\nThe ancient theologists and priests testify that the soul is conjoined\nto the body through a certain punishment, and that it is buried in this\nbody as in a sepulchre. Philolaus.\n\nWhatever we see when awake is death; and when asleep, a dream.\nPythagoras.\n\n\n\n\n SELECT SENTENCES\n OF\n SEXTUS THE PYTHAGOREAN.\n\n\nTo neglect things of the smallest consequence, is not the least thing in\nhuman life.\n\nThe wise man, and the despiser of wealth, resembles God.\n\nDo not investigate the name of God, because you will not find it. For\nevery thing which is called by a name, receives its appellation from\nthat which is more worthy than itself,[90] so that it is one person that\ncalls, and another that hears. Who is it, therefore, that has given a\nname to God? God, however, is not a name to God, but an indication of\nwhat we conceive of him.\n\nGod is a light incapable of receiving its contrary [darkness.]\n\nYou have in yourself something similar to God, and therefore use\nyourself as the temple of God, on account of that which in you resembles\nGod.\n\nHonor God above all things, that he may rule over you.\n\nWhatever you honor above all things, that which you so honor will have\ndominion over you. But if you give yourself to the domination of God,\nyou will thus have dominion over all things.\n\nThe greatest honor which can be paid to God, is to know and imitate him.\n\nThere is not any thing, indeed, which wholly resembles God; nevertheless\nthe imitation of him as much as possible by an inferior nature is\ngrateful to him.\n\nGod, indeed, is not in want of any thing, but the wise man is in want of\nGod alone. He, therefore, who is in want but of few things, and those\nnecessary, emulates him who is in want of nothing.\n\nEndeavour to be great in the estimation of divinity, but among men avoid\nenvy.\n\nThe wise man whose estimation with men was but small while he was\nliving, will be renowned when he is dead.\n\nConsider all the time to be lost to you in which you do not think of\ndivinity.\n\nA good intellect is the choir of divinity.\n\nA bad intellect is the choir of evil d\u00e6mons.\n\nHonor that which is just, on this very account that it is just.\n\nYou will not be concealed from divinity when you act unjustly, nor even\nwhen you think of acting so.\n\nThe foundation of piety is continence; but the summit of piety is the\nlove of God.\n\nWish that what is expedient and not what is pleasing may happen to you.\n\nSuch as you wish your neighbour to be to you, such also be you to your\nneighbours.\n\nThat which God gives you, no one can take away.\n\nNeither do nor even think of that which you are not willing God should\nknow.\n\nBefore you do any thing think of God, that his light may precede your\nenergies.\n\nThe soul is illuminated by the recollection of deity.\n\nThe use of all animals as food is indifferent, but it is more rational\nto abstain from them.\n\nGod is not the author of any evil.\n\nYou should not possess more than the use of the body requires.\n\nPossess those things which no one can take from you.\n\nBear that which is necessary, as it is necessary.\n\nAsk those things of God which it is worthy of God to bestow.\n\nThe reason which is in you, is the light of your life.\n\nAsk those things of God, which you cannot receive from man.\n\nWish that those things which labor ought to precede, may be possessed by\nyou after labor.\n\nBe not anxious to please the multitude.\n\nIt is not proper to despise those things of which we shall be in want\nafter the dissolution[91] of the body.\n\nYou should not ask of divinity that which, when you have obtained, you\nwill not perpetually possess.\n\nAccustom your soul after [it has conceived all that is great of]\ndivinity, to conceive something great of itself.\n\nEsteem nothing to be precious, which a bad man may take from you.\n\nHe is dear to divinity, who considers those things alone to be precious,\nwhich are esteemed to be so by divinity.\n\nEvery thing which is more than necessary to man, is hostile to him.\n\nHe who loves that which is not expedient, will not love that which is\nexpedient.\n\nThe intellect of the wise man is always with divinity.\n\nGod dwells in the intellect of the wise man.\n\nEvery desire is insatiable, and therefore is always in want.\n\nThe wise man is always similar to himself.\n\nThe knowledge and imitation of divinity, are alone sufficient to\nbeatitude.\n\nUse lying as poison.\n\nNothing is so peculiar to wisdom as truth.\n\nWhen you preside over men, remember that divinity also presides over\nyou.\n\nBe persuaded that the end of life, is to live conformably to divinity.\n\nDepraved affections are the beginnings of sorrows.\n\nAn evil disposition is the disease of the soul; but injustice and\nimpiety are the death of it.\n\nUse all men in such a way, as if you were the common curator of all\nthings after God.\n\nHe who uses mankind badly, uses himself badly.\n\nWish that you may be able to benefit your enemies.\n\nEndure all things, in order that you may live conformably to God.\n\nBy honoring a wise man, you will honor yourself.\n\nIn all your actions place God before your eyes.[92]\n\nYou are permitted to refuse matrimony, in order that you may live\nincessantly adhering to God.[93] If, however, as one knowing the battle,\nyou are willing to fight, take a wife, and beget children.\n\nTo live, indeed, is not in our power, but to live rightly is.\n\nBe unwilling to admit accusations against the man who is studious of\nwisdom.\n\nIf you wish to live with hilarity, be unwilling to do many things. For\nin a multitude of actions you will be minor.\n\nEvery cup should be sweet to you which extinguishes thirst.\n\nFly from intoxication as you would from insanity.\n\nNo good originates from the body.\n\nThink that you suffer a great punishment when you obtain the object of\ncorporeal desire; for the attainment of such objects never satisfies\ndesire.\n\nInvoke God as a witness to whatever you do.\n\nThe bad man does not think there is a providence.\n\nAssert that which possesses wisdom in you, to be the [true] man.[94]\n\nThe wise man participates of God.\n\nWhere that which is wise in you resides, there also is your good.\n\nThat which is not noxious to the soul, is not noxious to man.\n\nHe who unjustly expels a wise man from the body, confers a benefit on\nhim by his iniquity. For he thus becomes liberated as it were, from\nbonds.\n\nThe fear of death renders a man sad through the ignorance of his soul.\n\nYou will not possess intellect, till you understand that you have it.\n\nThink that your body is the garment of your soul; and therefore preserve\nit pure.\n\nImpure d\u00e6mons vindicate to themselves the impure soul.\n\nSpeak not of God to every man.\n\nIt is dangerous, and the danger is not small, to speak of God even\nthings which are true.\n\nA true assertion respecting God, is an assertion of God.\n\nYou should not dare to speak of God to the multitude.\n\nHe does not know God who does not worship him.\n\nThe man who is worthy of God is also a God among men.\n\nIt is better to have nothing, than to possess much and impart it to no\none.\n\nHe who thinks that there is a God, and that nothing is taken care of by\nhim, differs in no respect from him who does not believe that there is a\nGod.\n\nHe honors God in the best manner who renders his intellect as much as\npossible similar to God.\n\nIf you injure no one, you will fear no one.\n\nNo one is wise who looks downward to the earth.\n\nTo lie is to deceive in life, and to be deceived.\n\nRecognise what God is, and what that is in you which recognises God.\n\nIt is not death, but a bad life, that destroys the soul.\n\nIf you know him by whom you were made, you will know yourself.\n\nIt is not possible for a man to live conformable to divinity, unless he\nacts modestly, well, and justly.\n\nDivine wisdom is true science.\n\nYou should not dare to speak of God to an impure soul.\n\nThe wise man follows God, and God follows the soul of the wise man.\n\nA king rejoices in those whom he governs, and therefore God rejoices in\nthe wise man. He who governs likewise, is inseparable from those whom he\ngoverns; and therefore God is inseparable from the soul of the wise man,\nwhich he defends and governs.\n\nThe wise man is governed by God, and on this account is blessed.\n\nA scientific knowledge of God causes a man to use few words.\n\nTo use many words when speaking of God, produces an ignorance of God.\n\nThe man who possesses a knowledge of God, will not be very ambitious.\n\nThe erudite,[95] chaste, and wise soul, is the prophet of the truth of\nGod.\n\nAccustom yourself always to look to Divinity.\n\nA wise intellect is the mirror of God.\n\n\n\n\n PYTHAGORIC SENTENCES,\n FROM THE\n PROTREPTICS OF IAMBLICHUS.[96]\n\n\nAs we live through soul, it must be said that by the virtue of this we\nlive well; just as because we see through the eyes, we see well through\nthe virtue of these.\n\nIt must not be thought that gold can be injured by rust, or virtue by\nbaseness.\n\nWe should betake ourselves to virtue as to an inviolable temple, in\norder that we may not be exposed to any ignoble insolence of soul with\nrespect to our communion with, and continuance in life.\n\nWe should confide in Virtue as in a chaste wife; but trust to Fortune as\nto an inconstant mistress.\n\nIt is better that virtue should be received accompanied with poverty,\nthan wealth with violence; and frugality with health, than veracity with\ndisease.\n\nAn abundance of nutriment is noxious to the body; but the body is\npreserved when the soul is disposed in a becoming manner.\n\nIt is equally dangerous to give a sword to a madman, and power to a\ndepraved man.\n\nAs it is better for a part of the body which contains purulent matter to\nbe burnt, than to continue in the state in which it is, thus also it is\nbetter for a depraved man to die than to live.\n\nThe theorems of philosophy are to be enjoyed as much as possible, as if\nthey were ambrosia and nectar. For the pleasure arising from them is\ngenuine, incorruptible, and divine. They are also capable of producing\nmagnanimity; and though they cannot make us eternal beings, yet they\nenable us to obtain a scientific knowledge of eternal natures.\n\nIf vigor of sensation is considered by us to be an eligible thing, we\nshould much more strenuously endeavour to obtain prudence; for it is as\nit were the sensitive vigor of the practical intellect which we contain.\nAnd as through the former we are not deceived in sensible perceptions,\nso through the latter we avoid false reasoning in practical affairs.\n\nWe shall venerate Divinity in a proper manner, if we render the\nintellect that is in us pure from all vice, as from a certain stain.\n\nA temple, indeed, should be adorned with gifts, but the soul with\ndisciplines.\n\nAs the lesser mysteries are to be delivered before the greater, thus\nalso discipline must precede philosophy.\n\nThe fruits of the earth, indeed, are annually imparted, but the fruits\nof philosophy at every part of the year.\n\nAs land is especially to be attended to by him who wishes to obtain from\nit the most excellent fruit, thus also the greatest attention should be\npaid to the soul, in order that it may produce fruit worthy of its\nnature.\n\n\n\n\n ADDITIONAL NOTES.\n\n\n\n\n ADDITIONAL NOTES.\n\n\nP. 50. _Better worth saving than ten thousand corporeal eyes._\n\nIamblichus here alludes to what Plato says in the seventh book of his\nRepublic, respecting the mathematical disciplines. For he there says,\n\u201cthat the soul through these disciplines has an organ purified and\nenlightened, which is blinded and buried by studies of another kind, an\norgan better worth saving than ten thousand eyes, since truth becomes\nvisible through this alone.\u201d\n\nP. 58. _That in which the Sirens subsist._\n\n\u201cThe divine Plato, (says Proclus in his MS. Scholia on the Cratylus,)\nknew that there are three kinds of Sirens; the _celestial_, which is\nunder the government of Jupiter; _that which produces generation_, and\nis under the government of Neptune; and _that which is cathartic_, and\nis under the government of Pluto. It is common to all these to incline\nall things through an harmonic motion to their ruling Gods. Hence, when\nthe soul is in the heavens, the Sirens are desirous of uniting it to the\ndivine life which florishes there. But it is proper that souls living in\ngeneration should sail beyond them, like the Homeric Ulysses, that they\nmay not be allured by generation, of which the sea is an image. And when\nsouls are in Hades, the Sirens are desirous of uniting them through\nintellectual conceptions to Pluto. So that Plato knew that in the\nkingdom of Hades there are Gods, d\u00e6mons, and souls, who dance as it were\nround Pluto, allured by the Sirens that dwell there.\u201d See more\nconcerning the Sirens in my translation of Proclus on the Theology of\nPlato, Book the 6th.\n\nP. 60. _That it is requisite to put the shoe on the right foot first._\n\nThis audition is taken from what forms the 12th Symbol in the\nProtreptics of Iamblichus, and is as follows: \u201cWhen stretching forth\nyour feet to have your sandals put on, first extend your right foot; but\nwhen about to use a foot bath, first extend your left foot.\u201d \u201cThis\nSymbol, (says Iamblichus,) exhorts to practical prudence, admonishing us\nto place worthy actions about us as right-handed; but entirely to lay\naside and throw away such as are base, as being left-handed.\u201d\n\nP. 60. _That it is not proper to walk in the public ways._\n\nThis is the 5th Symbol in the Protreptics of Iamblichus, but is there\ndifferently expressed: for it is, \u201cDeclining from the public ways, walk\nin unfrequented paths.\u201d On which Iamblichus observes: \u201cI think that this\nSymbol also contributes to the same thing as the preceding, [which is,\n\u2018Disbelieve, nothing wonderful concerning the Gods, nor concerning\ndivine dogmas\u2019]. For this exhorts us to abandon a popular and merely\nhuman life; but thinks fit that we should pursue a separate and divine\nlife. It also signifies that it is necessary to look above common\nopinions; but very much to esteem such as are private and arcane; and\nthat we should despise merely human delight; but ardently pursue that\nfelicitous mode of conduct which adheres to the divine will. It likewise\nexhorts us to dismiss human manners as popular, and to exchange for\nthese the religious cultivation of the Gods, as transcending a popular\nlife.\u201d\n\nP. 61. _Do not assist a man in laying a burden down._\n\nThis in the Protreptics is the 11th Symbol, and is explained by\nIamblichus as follows: \u201cThis Symbol exhorts to fortitude; for whoever\ntakes up a burden, signifies that he undertakes an action of labor and\nenergy; but he who lays one down, of rest and remission. So that the\nSymbol has the following meaning; Do not become either to yourself or\nanother the cause of an indolent and effeminate mode of conduct; for\nevery useful thing is acquired by labor. But the Pythagoreans celebrate\nthis Symbol as Herculean, thus denominating it from the labors of\nHercules. For during his association with men, he frequently returned\nfrom fire and every thing dreadful, indignantly rejecting indolence. For\nrectitude of conduct is produced from acting and operating, but not from\nsluggishness.\u201d\n\nP. 61. _Do not draw near to a woman for the sake of begetting children,\n if she has gold._\n\nIn the Protreptics of Iamblichus (Symbol 35.) this is expressed as\nfollows: \u201cDraw not near to that which has gold, in order to produce\nchildren.\u201d On which Iamblichus observes: \u201cThe Symbol does not here speak\nof a woman, but of that sect and philosophy which has much of the\ncorporeal in it, and a gravitating tendency downwards. For gold is the\nheaviest of all things in the earth, and pursues a tendency to the\nmiddle, which is the peculiarity of corporeal weight. But the term to\n_draw near_, not only signifies to be connected with, but always to\napproach towards, and to be seated near another.\u201d\n\nP. 61. _Speak not about Pythagoric concerns without light._\n\nThis is the 13th Symbol in the Protreptics, and is thus explained by\nIamblichus: \u201cThis Symbol exhorts to the possession of intellectual\nprudence. For this is similar to the light of the soul, to which being\nindefinite it gives bound, and leads, as it were, from darkness into\nlight. It is proper, therefore, to place intellect as the leader of\nevery thing beautiful in life, but especially in Pythagoric dogmas; for\nthese cannot be known without light.\u201d\n\nP. 61. _Wear not the image of God in a ring._\n\nThis in the Protreptics is the 24th Symbol; but instead of _wear_, it is\nthere _inscribe_. But Iamblichus\u2019 explanation of it is as follows: \u201cThis\nSymbol conformably to the foregoing conception, employs the following\nexhortation: Philosophize, and before every thing consider the Gods as\nhaving an incorporeal subsistence. For this is the most principal root\nof the Pythagoric dogmas, from which nearly all of them are suspended,\nand by which they are strengthened even to the end. Do not therefore\nthink that the Gods use such forms as are corporeal, or that they are\nreceived by a material subject, and by body as a material bond, like\nother animals. But the engravings in rings exhibit the bond which\nsubsists through the ring, its corporeal nature and sensible form, and\nthe view as it were of some partial animal, which becomes apparent\nthrough the engraving; from which especially we should separate the\ngenus of the Gods, as being eternal and intelligible, and always\nsubsisting according to the same and in a similar manner, as we have\nparticularly, most fully, and scientifically shown in our treatise\nconcerning the Gods.\u201d[97]\n\nP. 61. _Nor is it proper to sacrifice a white cock; for this also is a\n suppliant, and is sacred to the moon._\n\nIn the Protreptics, the 18th Symbol is partly the same with, and partly\ndifferent from this. For it is, \u201cNourish a cock; but sacrifice it not;\nfor it is sacred to the sun and the moon.\u201d And Iamblichus explains it as\nfollows: \u201cThis Symbol advises us to nourish and strengthen the body and\nnot neglect it, dissolving and destroying the mighty tokens of the\nunion, connexion, sympathy, and consent of the world. So that it exhorts\nus to engage in the contemplation and philosophy of the universe. For\nthough the truth concerning the universe is naturally occult, and\nsufficiently difficult of investigation, it must, however, at the same\ntime, be inquired into and investigated by man, and especially through\nphilosophy. For it is truly impossible to be discovered through any\nother pursuit. But philosophy receiving certain sparks, and as it were\nviatica, from nature, excites and expands them into magnitude, rendering\nthem more conspicuous through the disciplines which it possesses. Hence,\ntherefore, we should philosophize.\u201d\n\nP. 61. _It is proper to sacrifice, and to enter temples, unshod._\n\nThis in the Protreptics is the 3rd Symbol; but is thus enunciated by\nIamblichus, \u201cSacrifice and adore unshod.\u201d On which Iamblichus observes:\n\u201cThis Symbol signifies that we ought to worship the Gods, and acquire a\nknowledge of them in an orderly and modest manner, and in a way not\nsurpassing our condition on the earth. It also signifies that, in\nworshipping them, and acquiring this knowledge, we should be free from\nbonds, and properly liberated. But the Symbol exhorts that sacrifice and\nadoration should be performed not only in the body, but also in the\nenergies of the soul; so that these energies may neither be detained by\npassions, nor by the imbecility of the body, nor by generation, with\nwhich we are externally surrounded. But every thing pertaining to us\nshould be properly liberated, and prepared, for the participation of the\nGods.\u201d\n\nP. 77. _Enter not into a temple negligently, nor, in short, adore\n carelessly, not even though you should stand at the very doors\n themselves._\n\nThis in the Protreptics is the 2nd Symbol, and is explained by\nIamblichus as follows: \u201cIf the similar is friendly and allied to the\nsimilar, it is evident that since the Gods have a most principal essence\namong wholes, we ought to make the worship of them a principal object.\nBut he who does this for the sake of any thing else, gives a secondary\nrank to that which takes the precedency of all things, and subverts the\nwhole order of religious worship and knowledge. Besides, it is not\nproper to rank illustrious goods in the subordinate condition of human\nutility, nor to place our concerns in the order of an end, but things\nmore excellent, whether they be works or conceptions, in the condition\nof an appendage.\u201d\n\nP. 79. _These, therefore, he ordered not to eat the heart._\n\nThis is the 30th Symbol in the Protreptics, and is thus explained by\nIamblichus: \u201cThis Symbol signifies that it is not proper to divulse the\nunion and consent of the universe. And still further, it signifies this,\nBe not envious, but philanthropic, and communicative: and from this it\nexhorts us to philosophize. For philosophy alone among the sciences and\narts, is neither pained with the goods of others, nor rejoices in the\nevils of neighbours, these being allied and familiar by nature, subject\nto the like passions, and exposed to one common fortune. It likewise\nevinces that the future is equally unlooked for by all men. Hence, it\nexhorts us to sympathy and mutual love, and to be truly communicative,\nas it becomes rational animals.\u201d\n\nP. 79. _Nor the brain._\n\nThis is the 31st Symbol in the Protreptics, and which Iamblichus thus\nexplains: \u201cThis Symbol also resembles the former: for the brain is the\nruling instrument of intellectual prudence. The Symbol, therefore,\nobscurely signifies that we ought not to dilacerate nor mangle things\nand dogmas, which have been the objects of judicious deliberation. But\nthese will be such as have been the subject of intellectual\nconsideration, becoming thus equal to objects of a scientific nature.\nFor things of this kind are to be surveyed, not through the instruments\nof the irrational form of the soul, such as the heart and the liver; but\nthrough the pure rational nature. Hence, to dilacerate these by\nopposition, is inconsiderate folly; but the Symbol rather exhorts us to\nvenerate the fountain of intelligence, and the most proximate organ of\nintellectual perception, through which we shall possess contemplation,\nscience, and wisdom; and by which we shall truly philosophize, and\nneither confound nor obscure the vestiges which philosophy produces.\u201d\n\nP. 79. _To abstain from mallows, &c._\n\nThe 38th Symbol in the Protreptics is: \u201cTransplant mallows in your\ngarden, but eat them not.\u201d On which Iamblichus observes as follows:\n\u201cThis Symbol obscurely signifies that plants of this kind turn with the\nsun, and it thinks fit that this should be noticed by us. It also adds,\n_transplant_, that is to say, observe its nature, its tendency towards,\nand sympathy with, the sun; but rest not satisfied, nor dwelt upon this,\nbut transfer, and as it were transplant your conception to kindred\nplants and pot-herbs, and also to animals which are not kindred, to\nstones and rivers, and, in short, to natures of every kind. For you will\nfind them to be prolific and multiform, and admirably abundant; and this\nto one who begins from the mallows, as from a root and principle, is\nsignificant of the union and consent of the world. Not only, therefore,\ndo not destroy or obliterate observations of this kind; but increase and\nmultiply them as if they were transplanted.\u201d\n\nP. 80. _Thus too he ordered them to abstain from the fish\n Melanurus._[98]\n\nThe 6th Symbol in the Protreptics is, \u201cAbstain from melanurus; for it\nbelongs to the terrestrial Gods.\u201d And this, according to Iamblichus,\nadmonishes us to embrace the celestial journey, to conjoin ourselves to\nthe intellectual Gods, to become separated from a material nature, and\nto be led as it were in a circular profession to an immaterial and pure\nlife. It further exhorts us to adopt the most excellent worship of the\nGods, and especially that which pertains to the primary[99] Gods.\n\nP. 80. _And also not to receive the fish Erythynus._\n\nThis in the Protreptics is the 33rd Symbol, and which Iamblichus thus\nexplains: \u201cThis Symbol seems to be merely referred to the etymology of\nthe name. Receive not an unblushing and impudent man; nor on the\ncontrary one stupidly astonished, and who in every thing blushes, and is\nhumble in the extreme, through the imbecility of his intellect and\nreasoning power. Hence this also is understood, Be not yourself such a\none.\u201d\n\nP. 80. _He likewise exhorted them to abstain from beans._\n\nIn the Protreptics this is the 37th Symbol; and Iamblichus has not\ndeveloped for us the more mystical signification of this symbol. For he\nonly says that \u201cit admonishes us to beware of every thing which is\ncorruptive of our converse with the Gods and divine prophecy.\u201d But\nAristotle appears to have assigned the true mystical reason why the\nPythagoreans abstained from beans. For he says, (apud Laert.) \u201cthat\nPythagoras considered beans as a symbol of generation [i. e. of the\nwhole of a visible and corporeal nature,] which subsists according to a\nright line, and is without inflection; because a bean alone of almost\nall spermatic plants, is perforated through the whole of it, and is not\nobstructed by any intervening joints.\u201d Hence he adds, \u201cit resembles the\ngates of Hades.\u201d For these are perpetually open without any impediment\nto souls descending into generation. The exhortation, therefore, to\nabstain from beans, is equivalent to admonishing us to beware of a\ncontinued and perpetual descent into the realms of generation. Hence the\ntrue meaning of the following celebrated lines in Virgil;\n\n \u2014\u2014facilis descensus Averno.\n Noctes atque dies patet atri janua Ditis:\n Sed revocare gradum, superasque evadere ad auras,\n Hoc opus, hic labor est.\n\ni. e.\n\n The gates of Hell are open night and day,\n Smooth the descent, and easy is the way;\n But to return, and view the cheerful skies,\n In this, the mighty task and labor lies.\n Dryden.\n\nP. 98. _Such as infallible predictions of earthquakes, rapid expulsions\n of pestilence, &c. &c._\n\nSince Pythagoras, as Iamblichus informs us, p. 9. was initiated in all\nthe mysteries of Byblus and Tyre, in the sacred operations of the\nSyrians, and in the mysteries of the Ph\u0153nicians, and also (p. 12.) that\nhe spent two and twenty years in the adyta of temples in Egypt,\nassociated with the Magi in Babylon, and was instructed by them in their\nvenerable knowledge;\u2014it is not at all wonderful that he was skilled in\nmagic or theurgy, and was therefore able to perform things which surpass\n_merely human power_, and which appear to be perfectly incredible to the\nvulgar. For \u201cmagic,\u201d (as we learn from Psellus in his MS. treatise on\nD\u00e6mons) \u201cformed the last part of the sacerdotal science.\u201d He farther\nlikewise informs us, \u201cthat magic investigates the nature, power, and\nquality of every thing sublunary; viz. of the elements and their parts,\nof animals, all-various plants, and their fruits, of stones, and herbs:\nand in short, it explores the essence and power of every thing. From\nhence, therefore, it produces its effects. And it forms statues which\nprocure health, makes all-various figures, and things which become the\ninstruments of disease. If asserts too, that eagles and dragons\ncontribute to health; but that cats, dogs, and crows, are symbols of\nvigilance, to which therefore they contribute. But for the fashioning of\ncertain parts, wax and clay are used. Often, too, celestial fire is made\nto appear through magic; and then statues laugh, and lamps are\nspontaneously enkindled.\u201d See the original in the Notes to my Pausanias,\np. 325. And that theurgy was employed by the ancients in their\nmysteries, I have fully proved in my treatise On the Eleusinian and\nBacchic Mysteries.[100]\n\nConformably to this, Plato also in the First Alcibiades says, that the\nmagic of Zoroaster consisted in the worship of the Gods, on which\npassage, I shall present the reader with what I have said, in the first\nvolume of my Plato, p. 63, as it will enable him to see that the theurgy\nof the ancients is founded in a theory equally scientific and sublime.\n\n\u201cThe following account of magic by Proclus, originally formed, as it\nappears to me, a part of the Commentary written by him on the present\npassage. For the MS. Commentary of Proclus, which is extant on this\ndialogue, does not extend to more than a third part of it; and this\nDissertation on Magic, which is only extant in Latin, was published by\nFicinus the translator, immediately after his Excerpta from this\nCommentary. So that it seems highly probable, that the manuscript from\nwhich Ficinus translated his Excerpta, was much more perfect, than that\nwhich has been preserved to us, in consequence of containing this\naccount of the magic of the ancients.\n\n\u201cIn the same manner as lovers gradually advance from that beauty which\nis apparent in sensible forms, to that which is divine; so the ancient\npriests, when they considered that there is a certain alliance and\nsympathy in natural things to each other, and of things manifest to\noccult powers, and discovered that all things subsist in all, they\nfabricated a sacred science from this mutual sympathy and similarity.\nThus they recognized things supreme in such as are subordinate, and the\nsubordinate in the supreme: in the celestial regions, terrene properties\nsubsisting in a causal and celestial manner; and in earth celestial\nproperties, but according to a terrene condition. For how shall we\naccount for those plants called heliotropes, that is, attendants on the\nsun, moving in correspondence with the revolution of its orb, but\nselenitropes, or attendants on the moon, turning in exact conformity to\nher motion? It is because all things pray, and hymn the leaders of their\nrespective orders; but some intellectually, and others rationally; some\nin a natural, and others after a sensible manner. Hence the sun-flower,\nas far as it is able, moves in a circular dance towards the sun; so that\nif any one could hear the pulsation made by its circuit in the air, he\nwould perceive something composed by a sound of this kind, in honor of\nits king, such as a plant is capable of framing. Hence, too, we may\nbehold the sun and moon in the earth, but according to a terrene\nquality; but in the celestial regions, all plants, and stones, and\nanimals, possessing an intellectual life according to a celestial\nnature. Now the ancients, having contemplated this mutual sympathy of\nthings, applied for occult purposes, both celestial and terrene natures,\nby means of which, through a certain similitude, they deduced divine\nvirtues into this inferior abode. For, indeed, similitude itself is a\nsufficient cause of binding things together in union and consent. Thus,\nif a piece of paper is heated, and afterwards placed near a lamp, though\nit does not touch the fire, the paper will be suddenly inflamed, and the\nflame will descend from the superior to the inferior parts. This heated\npaper we may compare, to a certain relation of inferiors to superiors;\nand its approximation to the lamp, to the opportune use of things\naccording to time, place, and matter. But the procession of fire into\nthe paper, aptly represents the presence of divine light, to that nature\nwhich is capable of its reception. Lastly, the inflammation of the paper\nmay be compared to the deification of mortals, and to the illumination\nof material natures, which are afterwards carried upwards like the\nenkindled paper, from a certain participation of divine seed.\n\n\u201cAgain, the lotus, before the rising of the sun, folds its leaves into\nitself, but gradually expands them on its rising: unfolding them in\nproportion to the sun\u2019s ascent to the zenith; but as gradually\ncontracting them, as that luminary descends to the west. Hence this\nplant, by the expansion and contraction of its leaves, appears no less\nto honor the sun, than men by the gesture of their eye-lids, and the\nmotion of their lips. But this imitation and certain participation of\nsupernal light, is not only visible in plants, which possess nothing\nmore than a vestige of life, but likewise in particular stones. Thus the\nsun-stone, by its golden rays, imitates those of the sun; but the stone\ncalled the eye of heaven, or of the sun, has a figure similar to the\npupil of an eye, and a ray shines from the middle of the pupil. Thus too\nthe lunar stone, which has a figure similar to the moon when horned, by\na certain change of itself, follows the lunar motion. Lastly, the stone\ncalled helioselenus, i. e. of the sun and moon, imitates, after a\nmanner, the congress of those luminaries, which it images by its color.\nSo that all things are full of divine natures; terrestrial natures\nreceiving the plenitude of such as are celestial, but celestial of\nsupercelestial essences;[101] while every order of things proceeds\ngradually in a beautiful descent from the highest to the lowest. For\nwhatever particulars are collected into one above the order of things,\nare afterwards dilated in descending, various souls being distributed\nunder their various ruling divinities.\n\n\u201cIn the next place, there are many solar animals, such as lions and\ncocks, which participate, according to their nature, of a certain solar\ndivinity; whence it is wonderful how much inferiors yield to superiors\nin the same order, though they do not yield in magnitude and power.\nHence it is said, that a cock is very much feared, and as it were\nreverenced, by a lion; the reason of which we cannot assign from matter\nor sense, but from the contemplation alone of a supernal order. For thus\nwe shall find that the presence of the solar virtue accords more with a\ncock than with a lion. This will be evident from considering that the\ncock, as it were, with certain hymns, applauds and calls to the rising\nsun, when he bends his course to us from the antipodes; and that solar\nangels sometimes appear in forms of this kind, who though they are\nwithout shape, yet present themselves to us who are connected with\nshape, in some sensible form. Sometimes too there are d\u00e6mons with a\nleonine front, who, when a cock is placed before them, unless they are\nof a solar order, suddenly disappear; and this, because those natures\nwhich have an inferior rank in the same order, always reverence their\nsuperiors; just as many, on beholding the images of divine men, are\naccustomed, from the very view, to be fearful of perpetrating any thing\nbase.\n\n\u201cIn fine, some things turn round correspondent to the revolutions of the\nsun, as the plants which we have mentioned, and others after a manner\nimitate the solar rays, as the palm and the date; some the fiery nature\nof the sun, as the laurel; and others a different property. For, indeed,\nwe may perceive that the properties which are collected in the sun, are\nevery where distributed to subsequent natures constituted in a solar\norder; that is, to angels, d\u00e6mons, souls, animals, plants, and stones.\nHence the authors of the ancient priesthood discovered from things\napparent, the worship of superior powers, while they mingled some things\nand purified others. They mingled many things indeed together, because\nthey saw that some simple substances possessed a divine property (though\nnot taken singly) sufficient to call down that particular power, of\nwhich they were participants. Hence, by the mingling of many things\ntogether, they attracted upon us a supernal influx; and by the\ncomposition of one thing from many, they produced an assimilation to\nthat one which is above many; and composed statues from the mixture of\nvarious substances conspiring in sympathy and consent. Besides this,\nthey collected composite odours, by a divine art, into one,\ncomprehending a multitude of powers, and symbolizing with the unity of a\ndivine essence; considering that division debilitates each of these, but\nthat mingling them together, restores them to the idea of their\nexemplar.\n\n\u201cBut sometimes one herb, or one stone, is sufficient to a divine\noperation. Thus, a thistle is sufficient to procure the sudden\nappearance of some superior power; but a laurel, raccinum, (or a thorny\nkind of sprig) the land and sea onion, the coral, the diamond, and the\njasper, operate as a safeguard. The heart of a mole is subservient to\ndivination, but sulphur and marine water to purification. Hence, the\nancient priests, by the mutual relation and sympathy of things to each\nother, collected their virtues into one, but expelled them by repugnancy\nand antipathy; purifying when it was requisite with sulphur and bitumen,\nand sprinkling with marine water. For sulphur purifies, from the\nsharpness of its odour; but marine water, on account of its fiery\nportion. Besides this, in the worship of the Gods, they offered animals,\nand other substances congruous to their nature; and received, in the\nfirst place, the powers of d\u00e6mons, as proximate to natural substances\nand operations; and by these natural substances they convoked into their\npresence those powers to which they approached. Afterwards, they\nproceeded from d\u00e6mons to the powers and energies of the Gods; partly,\nindeed, from d\u00e6moniacal instruction, but partly by their own industry,\ninterpreting convenient symbols, and ascending to a proper intelligence\nof the Gods. And lastly, laying aside natural substances and their\noperations, they received themselves into the communion and fellowship\nof the Gods.\u201d\n\nIt will doubtless be objected by most of the present period, who believe\nin nothing beyond the information of their senses, that plants, animals,\nand stones, no longer possess those wonderful sympathetic powers, which\nare mentioned by Proclus in the above extract. In answer to any such\nobjector, whose _little_ soul, (in the language of the Emperor Julian)\nis indeed acute, but sees nothing with a vision healthy and sound, it\nmust be said, that this is not at all wonderful at a period, when, as\nthe author of the Asclepian dialogue justly observes, \u201cthere is a\nlamentable departure of divinity from man, when nothing worthy of\nheaven, or celestial concerns, is heard or believed, and when every\ndivine voice is by a _necessary_ silence dumb.\u201d[102] But to the\nphilosophic reader, it must be observed, that as in the realms of\ngeneration, or in other words, the sublunary region, wholes, viz. the\nspheres of the different elements, remain perpetually according to\nnature; but their parts are sometimes according, and sometimes contrary\nto nature; this must also be true of the parts of the earth. When those\ncirculations therefore take place, during which the parts of the earth\nsubsist according to nature, and which are justly called, by Plato,\nfertile periods, the powers of plants, animals, and stones, magically\nsympathize with superior natures, in consequence of a more abundant\nparticipation of them, through a greater degree of aptitude to receive,\nand alliance to the participated powers. But during those circulations,\nin which the parts of the earth subsist contrary to nature, as at\npresent, and which Plato calls barren periods, the powers of plants,\nanimals, and stones, no longer possess a magic sympathy, and\nconsequently are no longer capable of producing magical operations.\n\nP. 106. _The eternal essence of number is the most providential\n principle of the universe_, &c.\n\nThe following account of the manner in which the Pythagoreans\nphilosophized about numbers, is extracted from my Theoretic Arithmetic,\nand the information contained in it is principally derived from the\ngreat Syrianus.\n\n\u201cThe Pythagoreans, turning from the vulgar paths, and delivering their\nphilosophy in secret to those alone who were worthy to receive it,\nexhibited it to others through mathematical names. Hence, they called\nforms, numbers, as things which are the first separated from impartible\nunion; for the natures which are above forms, are also above\nseparation.[103] The all-perfect multitude of forms, therefore, they\nobscurely signified through the duad; but they indicated the first\nformal principles by the monad and duad, as not being numbers; and also\nby the first triad and tetrad, as being the first numbers, the one being\nodd, and the other even, from which by addition the decad is generated;\nfor the sum of 1, 2, 3, and 4, is ten. But after numbers, in secondary\nand multifarious lives, introducing geometrical prior to physical\nmagnitudes; these also they referred to numbers, as to formal causes and\nthe principles of these; referring the point indeed, as being\nimpartible, to the monad; but a line, as the first interval, to the\nduad; and again, a superficies, as having a more abundant interval, to\nthe triad; and a solid to the tetrad. They also called, as is evident\nfrom the testimony of Aristotle, the first length the duad; for it is\nnot simply length, but the _first_ length, in order that by this they\nmight signify _cause_. In a similar manner also, they denominated the\n_first_ breadth, the triad; and the _first_ depth the tetrad. They also\nreferred to formal principles all psychical knowledge. And intellectual\nknowledge indeed, as being contracted according to impartible union,\nthey referred to the monad; but scientific knowledge, as being evolved,\nand as proceeding from cause to the thing caused, yet through the\ninerratic, and always through the same things, they referred to the\nduad; and opinion to the triad, because the power of it is not always\ndirected to the same thing, but at one time inclines to the true, and at\nanother to the false. And they referred sense to the tetrad, because it\nhas an apprehension of bodies; for in the duad, indeed, there is one\ninterval from one monad to the other; but in the triad there are two\nintervals from any one monad to the rest; and in the tetrad there are\nthree. They referred, therefore, to principles every thing knowable,\nviz. beings, and the gnostic powers of these. But they divided beings\nnot according to breadth, but according to depth; into intelligibles,\nobjects of science, objects of opinion, and sensibles. In a similar\nmanner, also, they divided knowledge into intellect, science, opinion,\nand sense. The extremity, therefore, of the intelligible triad, or\nanimal itself, as it is called by Plato in the Tim\u00e6us, is assumed from\nthe division of the objects of knowledge, manifesting the intelligible\norder, in which forms themselves, viz. the first forms and the\nprinciples of these, are contained, viz. the idea of the one itself, of\nthe first length, which is the duad itself, and also the ideas of the\nfirst breadth and the first depth; (for in common the term _first_ is\nadapted to all of them), viz. to the triad itself, and the tetrad\nitself.\n\n\u201cAgain, the Pythagoreans and Plato did not denominate idea from one\nthing, and ideal number from another. But since the assertion is\neminently true, that all things are similar to number, it is evident\nthat number, and especially every ideal number, was denominated on\naccount of its paradigmatic peculiarity. If any one, however, wishes to\napprehend this from the appellation itself, it is easy to infer that\nidea was so called, from rendering as it were its participants similar\nto itself, and imparting to them _form_, _order_, _beauty_, and _unity_;\nand this in consequence of always preserving the same form, expanding\nits own power to the infinity of particulars, and investing with the\nsame species its eternal participants. _Number_ also, since it imparts\nproportion and elegant arrangement to all things, was allotted this\nappellation. For the ancients, says Syrianus,[104] call to _adapt_ or\n_compose_ \u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 _arsai_, whence is derived \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _arithmos number_.\nHence \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd anarsion among the Greeks signifies _incomposite_. Hence\ntoo, those Grecian sayings, _you will adapt the balance_, _they placed\nnumber together with them_, and also _number and friendship_. From all\nwhich number was called by the Greeks _arithmos_, as that which measures\nand orderly arranges all things, and unites them in amicable league.\n\n\u201cFarther still, some of the Pythagoreans discoursed about inseparable\nnumbers alone, i. e. numbers which are inseparable from mundane natures,\nbut others about such as have a subsistence separate from the universe,\nin which as paradigms they saw those numbers are contained, which are\nperfected by nature. But others, making a distinction between the two,\nunfolded their doctrine in a more clear and perfect manner. If it be\nrequisite, however, to speak concerning the difference of these monads,\nand their privation of difference, we must say that the monads which\nsubsist in quantity, are by no means to be extended to essential\nnumbers; but when we call essential numbers monads, we must assert that\nall of them mutually differ from each other by _difference_ itself, and\nthat they possess a privation of difference from _sameness_. It is\nevident also, that those which are in the same order, are contained\nthrough mutual comparison, in _sameness_ rather than in difference, but\nthat those which are in different orders are conversant with much\ndiversity, through the dominion of _difference_.\n\n\u201cAgain, the Pythagoreans asserted that nature produces sensibles by\nnumbers; but then these numbers were not mathematical but physical; and\nas they spoke symbolically, it is not improbable that they demonstrated\nevery property of sensibles by mathematical names. However, says\nSyrianus, to ascribe to them a knowledge of sensible numbers alone, is\nnot only ridiculous, but highly impious. For they received indeed, from\nthe theology of Orpheus, the principles of intelligible and intellectual\nnumbers, they assigned them an abundant progression, and extended their\ndominion as far as to sensibles themselves.\u201d\n\nAgain, their conceptions about mathematical and physical number, were as\nfollow:\n\n\u201cAs in every thing, according to the doctrine of Aristotle, one thing\ncorresponds to matter, and another to form, in any number, as for\ninstance the pentad, its five monads, and in short its quantity, and the\nnumber which is the subject of participation, are derived from the duad\nitself; but its form, i. e. the pentad itself, is from the monad; for\nevery form is a monad, and unites its subject quantity. The pentad\nitself, therefore, which is a monad, proceeds from the principal monad,\nforms its subject quantity, which is itself formless, and connects it to\nits own form. For there are two principles of mathematical numbers in\nour souls: the monad, which comprehends in itself all the forms of\nnumbers, and corresponds to the monad in intellectual natures; and the\nduad, which is a certain generative principle of infinite power, and\nwhich on this account, as being the image of the never-failing and\nintelligible duad, is called indefinite. While this proceeds to all\nthings, it is not deserted in its course by the monad, but that which\nproceeds from the monad continually distinguishes and forms boundless\nquantity, gives a specific distinction to all its orderly progressions,\nand incessantly adorns them with forms. And as in mundane natures, there\nis neither any thing formless, nor any vacuum among the species of\nthings, so likewise in mathematical number, neither is any quantity left\ninnumerable; for thus the forming power of the monad would be vanquished\nby the indefinite duad, nor does any medium intervene between the\nconsequent numbers, and the well-disposed energy of the monad.\n\n\u201cNeither, therefore, does the pentad consist of substance and accident,\nas a white man; nor of genus and difference, as man of animal and biped;\nnor of five monads mutually touching each other, like a bundle of wood;\nnor of things mingled, like a drink made from wine and honey; nor of\nthings sustaining position, as stones by their position complete the\nhouse; nor lastly, as things numerable, for these are nothing else than\nparticulars. But it does not follow that numbers themselves, because\nthey consist of indivisible monads, have nothing else besides monads,\n(for the multitude of points in continued quantity is an indivisible\nmultitude, yet it is not on this account that there is a completion of\nsomething else from the points themselves); but this takes place because\nthere is something in them which corresponds to matter, and something\nwhich corresponds to form. Lastly, when we unite the triad with the\ntetrad, we say that we make seven. The assertion, however, is not true:\nfor monads conjoined with monads, produce indeed the subject of the\nnumber 7, but nothing more. Who then imparts the heptadic form to these\nmonads? Who is it also that gives the form of a bed to a certain number\nof pieces of wood? Shall we not say that the soul of the carpenter, from\nthe art which he possesses, fashions the wood, so as to receive the form\nof a bed, and that the numerative soul, from possessing in herself a\nmonad which has the relation of a principle, gives form and subsistence\nto all numbers? But in this only consists the difference, that the\ncarpenter\u2019s art is not naturally inherent in us, and requires manual\noperation, because it is conversant with sensible matter; but the\nnumerative art is naturally present with us, and is therefore possessed\nby all men, and has an intellectual matter which it instantaneously\ninvests with form. And this is that which deceives the multitude, who\nthink that the heptad is nothing besides seven monads. For the\nimagination of the vulgar, unless it first sees a thing unadorned,\nafterwards the supervening energy of the adorner, and lastly, above all\nthe thing itself, perfect and formed, cannot be persuaded that it has\ntwo natures, one formless, the other formal, and still further, that\nwhich beyond these imparts form; but asserts, that the subject is one,\nand without generation. Hence, perhaps, the ancient theologists and\nPlato ascribed temporal generations to things without generation, and to\nthings which are perpetually adorned, and regularly disposed, privation\nof order and ornament, the erroneous and the boundless, that they might\nlead men to the knowledge of a formal and effective cause. It is,\ntherefore, by no means wonderful, that though seven sensible monads are\nnever without the heptad, these should be distinguished by science, and\nthat the former should have the relation of a subject, and be analogous\nto matter, but the latter should correspond to species and form.\n\n\u201cAgain, as when water is changed into air, the water does not become\nair, or the subject of air, but that which was the subject of water\nbecomes the subject of air, so when one number unites itself with\nanother, as for instance the triad with the duad, the species or forms\nof the two numbers are not mingled, except in their immaterial reasons\n(or productive principles), in which at the same time that they are\nseparate, they are not impeded from being united, but the quantities of\nthe two numbers which are placed together, become the subject of the\npentad. The triad, therefore, is one, and also the tetrad, even in\nmathematical numbers: for though in the ennead or number nine, you may\nconceive a first, second, and third triad, yet you see one thing thrice\nassumed; and in short, in the ennead there is nothing but the form of\nthe ennead in the quantity of nine monads. But if you mentally separate\nits subject, (for form is impartible) you will immediately invest it\nwith forms corresponding to its division; for our soul cannot endure to\nsee that which is formless, unadorned, especially as she possesses the\npower of investing it with ornament.\n\n\u201cSince also separate numbers possess a demiurgic or fabricative power,\nwhich mathematical numbers imitate, the sensible world likewise contains\nimages of those numbers by which it is adorned; so that all things are\nin all, but in an appropriate manner in each. The sensible world,\ntherefore, subsists from immaterial and energetic reasons, and from more\nancient causes. But those who do not admit that nature herself is full\nof productive powers, lest they should be obliged to double things\nthemselves, these wonder how from things void of magnitude and gravity,\nmagnitude and gravity are composed; though they are never composed from\nthings of this kind which are void of gravity and magnitude, as from\nparts. But magnitude is generated from essentially impartible elements;\nsince form and matter are the elements of bodies; and still much more is\nit generated from those truer causes which are considered in demiurgic\nreasons and forms. Is it not therefore necessary that all dimensions,\nand all moving masses, must from these receive their generation? For\neither bodies are unbegotten, like incorporeal natures; or of things\nwith interval, things without interval are the causes; of partibles\nimpartibles; and of sensibles and contraries, things insensible and void\nof contact: and we must assent to those who assert that things\npossessing magnitude are thus generated from impartibles. Hence the\nPythagorean Eurytus, and his followers, beholding the images of things\nthemselves in numbers, rightly attributed certain numbers to certain\nthings, according to their peculiarity. In consequence of this, he said\nthat a particular number is the boundary of this plant, and again,\nanother number of this animal; just as of a triangle 6 is the boundary,\nof a square 9, and of a cube 8. As the musician, too, harmonizes his\nlyre through mathematical numbers, so nature through her own natural\nnumbers, orderly arranges, and modulates her productions.\n\n\u201cIndeed, that numbers are participated by the heavens, and that there is\na solar number, and also a lunar number, is manifest according to the\nadage, even to the blind. For the restitutions of the heavenly bodies to\ntheir pristine state (\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2) would not always be effected\nthrough the same things, and in the same manner, unless one and the same\nnumber bad dominion in each. Yet all these contribute to the procession\nof the celestial spheres, and are contained by their perfect number. But\nthere is also a certain natural number belonging to every animal. For\nthings of the same species would not be distinguished by organs after\nthe same manner, nor would they arrive at puberty and old age about the\nsame time, or generate, nor would the f\u0153tus be nourished or increase,\naccording to regular periods, unless they were detained by the same\nmeasure of nature. According to the best of the Pythagoreans also, Plato\nhimself, number is the cause of better and worse generations. Hence\nthough the Pythagoreans sometimes speak of the squares and cubes of\nnatural numbers, they do not make them to be monadic, such as the number\n9, and the number 27; but they signify through these names, from\nsimilitude, the progression of natural numbers into, and dominion about,\ngenerations. In like manner, though they call them equal or double, they\nexhibit the dominion and symphony of ideas in these numbers. Hence\ndifferent things do not use the same number, so far as they are\ndifferent, nor do the same things use a different number, so far as they\nare the same.\n\n\u201cIn short, physical numbers are material forms divided about the subject\nwhich receives them. But material powers are the sources of connexion\nand modification to bodies. For form is one thing, and the power\nproceeding from it another. For form itself is indeed impartible and\nessential; but being extended, and becoming bulky, it emits from itself,\nas if it were a blast, material powers which are certain qualities.\nThus, for instance, in fire, the form and essence of it is impartible,\nand is truly the image of the cause of fire: for in partible natures,\nthe impartible has a subsistence. But from form which is impartible in\nfire, and which subsists in it as number, an extension of it accompanied\nwith interval takes place about matter, from which the powers of fire\nare emitted, such as heat, or refrigeration, or moisture, or something\nelse of the like kind. And these qualities are indeed essential, but are\nby no means the essence of fire. For essences do not proceed from\nqualities, nor are essence and power the same thing. But the essential\nevery where precedes power. And from this being one the multitude of\npowers proceeds, and the distributed from that which is undistributed;\njust as many energies are the progeny of one power.\u201d\n\nP. 107. _For Pythagoras always proclaimed, that nothing admirable\n pertaining to the Gods or divine dogmas, should be disbelieved._\n\nThis in the Protreptics forms the fourth symbol, and is thus explained\nby Iamblichus:\u2014\u201cThis dogma sufficiently venerates and unfolds the\ntranscendency of the Gods, affording us a viaticum, and recalling to our\nmemory that we ought not to estimate divine power from our judgment. But\nit is likely that some things should appear difficult and impossible to\nus, in consequence of our corporeal subsistence, and from our being\nconversant with generation and corruption; from our having a momentary\nexistence; from being subject to a variety of diseases; from the\nsmallness of our habitation; from our gravitating tendency to the\nmiddle; from our somnolency, indigence and repletion; from our want of\ncounsel and our imbecility; from the impediments of our soul, and a\nvariety of other circumstances, although our nature possesses many\nillustrious prerogatives. At the same time however we perfectly fall\nshort of the Gods, and neither possess the same power with them, nor\nequal virtue. This symbol therefore in a particular manner introduces\nthe knowledge of the Gods, as beings who are able to effect all things.\nOn this account it exhorts us to disbelieve nothing concerning the Gods.\nIt also adds, nor about divine dogmas; viz. those belonging to the\nPythagoric philosophy. For these being secured by disciplines and\nscientific theory, are alone true and free from falsehood, being\ncorroborated by all-various demonstration, accompanied with necessity.\nThe same symbol, also, is capable of exhorting us to the science\nconcerning the Gods: for it urges us to acquire a science of that kind,\nthrough which we shall be in no respect deficient in things asserted\nabout the Gods. It is also able to exhort the same things concerning\ndivine dogmas, and a disciplinative progression. For disciplines alone\ngive eyes to, and produce light about, all things, in him who intends to\nconsider and survey them. For from the participation of disciplines, one\nthing before all others is effected, viz. a belief in the nature,\nessence, and power of the Gods, and also in those Pythagoric dogmas,\nwhich appear to be prodigious to such as have not been introduced to,\nand are uninitiated in, disciplines; So that the precept _disbelieve\nnot_ is equivalent to _participate_ and _acquire_ those things through\nwhich you will not disbelieve; that is to say, acquire disciplines and\nscientific demonstrations.\u201d\n\nP. 88. _After this manner therefore it is said that music was discovered\n by Pythagoras._\n\nThe following particulars relative to music are added for the purpose of\nelucidating what is said about it in this chapter.\n\n\u201cTake two brazen chords, such as are used in harps; for those chords\nwhich are made from the intestines of sheep are for the most part either\nfalse or obnoxious to the change of the air,\n\n [Illustration: A\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014B\n C\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014D\n |\n E]\n\n\u201cLet these chords be perfectly equal, and equally stretched, so as to be\nin unison, i. e. so that there may be only one sound, though there are\ntwo strings. But it is requisite that they should be placed upon some\noblong and polished rule. The ancients called this rule an harmonic\nrule, or also a monochord, by which instrument all consonances and\ndissonances, and likewise musical intervals, were tried. Let now one of\nthese chords be bisected in E. Afterwards under the point E place what\nis vulgarly called the _tactus_, but which was denominated by the\nancients, from its figure, a hemisphere. The tactus, therefore, being\nplaced under E, press there the chord, so that one half of it only, as\nfor instance ED, may be wholly struck and resound. Having therefore\nstruck each of the chords at the same time, viz. the whole of AB, and\nthe half ED, so that they may resound at one and the same time, you will\nhear the sweetest of all consonances, composed from the sound of the\nwhole chord AB, and the sound of the half ED. This consonance the\nancients called diapason, i. e. _through all_ [the chords], because in\nthe musical instruments of the ancients, the two extreme chords, i. e.\nthe most grave, and the most acute of all the chords, contained this\nconsonance; so that, from the gravest chord having made a transition\nthrough all the chords to the supreme and most acute of all, they would\nhear this sweetest consonance. It was, likewise, said to be in a duple\nratio of the proportion of one sound to the other. For the sound of the\nchord AB is doubly greater or more grave than the sound of the half ED.\nFor as sounding bodies are to each other, so are their sounds. But the\nchord AB is the double of ED. This, however, is now commonly called the\noctave, because from the first sound, and that the gravest, which is\ncalled _ut_, as far as to that sound which corresponds to it in the\nconsonance diapason, there are these eight sounds, _ut_, _re_, _mi_,\n_fa_, _sol_, _re_, _mi_, _fa_. And of these the first ut, and the last\n_fa_, which is the eighth, produce the consonance diapason, or the\ndouble, or the octave.\n\n\n\u201cAgain, let the same chord CD be divided into three equal parts in the\npoints F, G.\n\n [Illustration: A\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014B\n C\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014D\n | |\n F G]\n\n\u201cFD, therefore, will be two-thirds as well of the whole CD as of the\nwhole AB. Let the tactus now be placed in F, and let AB and FD be struck\nat the same time, and a consonance very sweet and perfect will indeed be\nheard, yet not so sweet as the diapason. This the ancients called\ndiapente (i. e. through five chords), because the first and the fifth\nchord produce this consonance. But according to proportion it is called\nsesquialter, because the chord AB is sesquialter to FD, and consequently\nthe sounds of these chords also are in the same ratio. But sesquialter\nratio is when the greater quantity AB contains the less FD once, and the\nhalf of it besides. It is, indeed, commonly called the fifth, because it\nis composed from the first sound _ut_, and the fifth, _sol_.\n\n\n\u201cAgain, let the same chord be cut into four equal parts in the points H,\nE, I,\n\n [Illustration: A\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014B\n C\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014D\n | | | | | | | | |\n K L H F M N E G I]\n\n\u201cso that the chord HD, may be three-fourths of the whole CD. The tactus,\ntherefore, being placed in H, let AB and HD be struck at one and the\nsame time, and a consonance will be heard, indeed, yet more imperfect\nthan the preceding two. This was called by the ancients diatessaron, i.\ne. through four chords or sounds, for a similar reason to that by which\nthe former were denominated. With reference, however, to the ratio of\nthe chords and sounds, it is called sesquitertian, because the greater\nAB contains the less once, and a third part of it besides. But it is now\ncommonly called a fourth, because it is found between the first sound\n_ut_, and the fourth _fa_. If now the point F be added in the preceding\nfigure, and at one and the same time two chords HD and FD are compared\nin arithmetical ratios, we shall find that the greater HD will have to\nthe less FD a sesquioctave[105] ratio, and the sound of the greater HD\nto the less FD will have the same ratio, i. e. in modern terms, that\nbetween _fa_ and _sol_ there is a sesquioctave ratio. But if these two\nsounds are heard together, they will be discordant to the ear. Again,\nthe distance between these sounds _fa_, _sol_, or between the chords HD\nand FD, or between the two harmonic intervals HD and FD, the ratio of\nwhich was sesquioctave, was called by the ancients a tone. Afterwards\nthey divided the whole of CD into nine equal parts, the first of which\nis divided in K, so that the whole CD may have to the remainder KD,\nwhich contains eight of those parts, a sesquioctave ratio. This, in like\nmanner, will be the interval of a tone, the first sound of which, i. e,\nof the whole CD, is now called _ut_, but the second sound of the rest of\nthe chord KD is called _re_. Afterwards they in a similar manner divided\nthe remainder KD into nine parts, the first part of which is marked in\nthe point L. And for the same reason between the chord KD and the chord\nKD, and their sounds, there will be a sesquioctave ratio. The sound of\nthe chord LD is now called _mi_; but the interval which remains between\nthe chord LD and the chord HD has not a sesquioctave ratio, but less\nthan it almost by half, and therefore an interval of this kind was\ncalled a semitone, and also diesis or a division. But that interval\nwhich remains between the points F and E they divided after the same\nmanner, as the space between C and H was divided, and they again found\nthe same sounds. Let those divisions be marked by the points M and N;\nand here, also, between N and E, or between _mi_ and _fa_, there is in\nlike manner another semitone. These eight sounds, therefore, are _ut_,\n_re_, _mi_, _fa_, _sol_, _re_, _mi_, _fa_, which compose the whole\ndiapason. For as we have before observed, between _ut_ and the last _fa_\nis the consonance diapason, or between the chord CD or AB, and the chord\nED. But from the intervals which are between the sounds there are two\nsemitones, viz. one between _mi_ and _fa_, denoted by the letters L, N,\nand the other between the last _mi_ and _fa_, denoted by the letters N,\nE. The remaining five intervals are entire tones. It must, also, be\nobserved, that from _ut_ to the first _sol_ is the consonance diapente,\nwhich contains three tonic intervals, and one semitone; nevertheless in\nall there are five sounds, _ut_, _re_, _mi_, _fa_, _sol_.\n\n\u201cAgain, from _sol_ to the last _fa_ there are four sounds, _sol_, _re_,\n_mi_, _fa_, which are perfectly similar to the first four, _ut_, _re_,\n_mi_, _fa_. Nevertheless these are more grave, but those are more acute.\nAnd as from _ut_ to the first _fa_ is the diatessaron, so likewise from\n_sol_ to the last _fa_ is another diatessaron, from which, in the last\nplace, it must be observed, it follows that the two consonances\ndiatessaron and diapente constitute the whole diapason; or that the\ndiapason is divided into one diatessaron, and one diapente. For from\n_ut_ to _sol_ is the diapente, but from _sol_ to the last _fa_ is the\ndiatessaron. This will also be the case if we should say that from _ut_\nto the first _fa_ is the diatessaron, as is evident from the division of\nthe chord; but from the first _fa_ to the last _fa_ is the diapente, as\nis evident from the four intervals of the chord, three of which are\ntones, and the remaining interval is a semitone, which also in the other\ndiapente were contained between _ut_ and _sol_.\n\n\u201cNow again, let the tactus be placed in I; but I is the fourth part of\nthe whole CD. Let, also, AB and ID be struck at one and the same time,\nand the sweetest consonance, called bisdiapason, will be produced; which\nis so denominated, because it is composed from two diapasons, of which\nthe first is between AB or CD, and ED, but the second is between ED and\nID; for the ratio of these is double as well as of those. The ratio,\nalso, of the bisdiapason is quadruple, as is evident from the division;\nand is commonly called a fifteenth, because from the first _ut_ to this\nsound, which is also denominated _fa_, there would be fifteen sounds, if\nthe interval EI were divided after the same manner as the first CE is\ndivided.\n\n\u201cFarther still, let GD be a third part of the whole CD, and let the\ntactus be placed in G. Then at one and the same time let AB and GD be\nstruck, and a sweet consonance will be heard, which is called\ndiapasondiapente, because it is composed from one diapason contained by\nthe interval CE, or the two chords CD, ED, and one diapente, contained\nby the interval EG, or the chords ED, GD. For the chord ED is\nsesquialter to the chord GD; which ratio constitutes the nature of the\ndiapente. The proportion, also, of this consonance is triple. For the\nchord AB or CD is triple of GD; and it is commonly called the twelfth,\nbecause between _ut_ and _sol_, denoted by the letter G, there would be\ntwelve sounds, if the interval EG received its divisions. From all which\nit is manifest by the experience of the ear, that there are altogether\nfive consonances, three simple, the diapason, the diapente, and the\ndiatessaron; but two composite, the bisdiapason, and the\ndiapasondiapente.\u201d\n\nIn the last place, it is necessary to observe that those ancient Greeks\ndifferently denominated these sounds, _ut_, _re_, &c. For the first,\ni. e. the gravest sound or chord, which is now called _ut_, they,\ndenominated hypate, and the others in the following order:\n\n Ut, Hypate, i. e. Principalis.\n Re, Parhypate, \u2014 Postprincipalis.\n Mi, Lychanos, \u2014 Index.\n Fa, Mese, \u2014 Media.\n Sol, Paramese, \u2014 Postmedia.\n Re, Trite, \u2014 Tertia.\n Mi, Paranete, \u2014 Antepenultima.\n Fa, Nete, \u2014 Ultima, vel suprema.\n\nP. 109. _I swear by him who the tetractys found._\n\nThe tetrad was called by the Pythagoreans every number, because it\ncomprehends in itself all the numbers as far as to the decad, and the\ndecad itself; for the sum of 1, 2, 3, and 4, is 10. Hence both the decad\nand the tetrad were said by them to be every number; the decad indeed in\nenergy, but the tetrad in capacity. The sum likewise of these four\nnumbers was said by them to constitute the tetractys, in which all\nharmonic ratios are included. For 4 to 1, which is a quadruple ratio,\nforms the symphony bisdiapason; the ratio of 3 to 2, which is\nsesquialter, forms the symphony diapente; 4 to 3, which is\nsesquitertian, the symphony diatessaron; and 2 to 1, which is a duple\nratio, forms the diapason.\n\nIn consequence, however, of the great veneration paid to the tetractys\nby the Pythagoreans, it will be proper to give it a more ample\ndiscussion, and for this purpose to show from Theo of Smyrna,[106] how\nmany tetractys there are: \u201cThe tetractys,\u201d says he, \u201cwas not only\nprincipally honored by the Pythagoreans, because all symphonies are\nfound to exist within it, but also because it appears to contain the\nnature of all things.\u201d Hence the following was their oath: \u201cNot by him\nwho delivered to our soul the tetractys, which contains the fountain and\nroot of everlasting nature.\u201d But by him who delivered the tetractys they\nmean Pythagoras; for the doctrine concerning it appears to have been his\ninvention. The above-mentioned tetractys, therefore, is seen in the\ncomposition of the first numbers 1. 2. 3. 4. But the second tetractys\narises from the increase by multiplication of even and odd numbers\nbeginning from the monad.\n\nOf these, the monad is assumed as the first, because, as we have before\nobserved, it is the principle of all even, odd, and evenly-odd numbers,\nand the nature of it is simple. But the three successive numbers receive\ntheir composition according to the even and the odd; because every\nnumber is not alone even, nor alone odd. Hence the even and the odd\nreceive two tetractys, according to multiplication; the even indeed, in\na duple ratio; for 2 is the first of even numbers, and increases from\nthe monad by duplication. But the odd number is increased in a triple\nratio; for 3 is the first of odd numbers, and is itself increased from\nthe monad by triplication. Hence the monad is common to both these,\nbeing itself even and odd. The second number, however, in even and\ndouble numbers is 2; but in odd and triple numbers 3. The third among\neven numbers is 4; but among odd numbers is 9. And the fourth among even\nnumbers is 8; but among odd numbers is 27.\n\n { 1. 2. 4. 8. }\n { 1. 3. 9. 27. }\n\nIn these numbers the more perfect ratios of symphonies are found; and in\nthese also a tone is comprehended. The monad, however, contains the\nproductive principle of a point. But the second numbers 2 and 3 contain\nthe principle of a side, since they are incomposite, and first, are\nmeasured by the monad, and naturally measure a right line. The third\nterms are 4 and 9, which are in power a square superficies, since they\nare equally equal. And the fourth terms 8 and 27 being equally equally\nequal, are in power a cube. Hence from these numbers, and this\ntetractys, the increase takes place from a point to a solid. For a side\nfollows after a point, a superficies after a side, and a solid after a\nsuperficies. In these numbers also, Plato in the Tim\u00e6us constitutes the\nsoul. But the last of these seven numbers, i. e. 27, is equal to all the\nnumbers that precede it; for 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 8 + 9 = 27. There are,\ntherefore, two tetractys of numbers, one of which subsists by addition,\nbut the other by multiplication, and they comprehend musical,\ngeometrical, and arithmetical ratios, from which also the harmony of the\nuniverse consists.\n\nBut the third tetractys is that which according to the same analogy or\nproportion comprehends the nature of all magnitude. For what the monad\nwas in the former tetractys, that a point is in this. What the numbers 2\nand 3, which are in power a side, were in the former tetractys, that the\nextended species of a line, the circular and the right, are in this; the\nright line indeed subsisting in conformity to the even number, since it\nis terminated[107] by two points; but the circular in conformity to the\nodd number, because it is comprehended by one line which has no end. But\nwhat in the former tetractys the square numbers 4 and 9 were, that the\ntwo-fold species of planes, the rectilinear and the circular, are in\nthis. And what the cube numbers 8 and 27 were in the former, the one\nbeing an even, but the other an odd number, that the two solids, one of\nwhich has a hollow superficies, as the sphere and the cylinder, but the\nother a plane superficies, as the cube and pyramid, are in this\ntetractys. Hence, this is the third tetractys, which gives completion to\nevery magnitude, from a point, a line, a superficies, and a solid.\n\nThe fourth tetractys is of the simple bodies fire, air, water, and\nearth, which have an analogy according to numbers. For what the monad\nwas in the first tetractys, that fire is in this. But the duad is air,\nthe triad is water, and the tetrad is earth. For such is the nature of\nthe elements according to tenuity and density of parts. Hence fire has\nto air the ratio of 1 to 2; but to water, the ratio of 1 to 3; and to\nearth, the ratio of 1 to 4. In other respects also they are analogous to\neach other.\n\nThe fifth tetractys is of the figures of the simple bodies. For the\npyramid, indeed, is the figure of fire; the octaedron, of air; the\nicosaedron, of water; and the cube, of earth.\n\nThe sixth tetractys is of things rising into existence through the\nvegetative life. And the seed, indeed, is analogous to the monad and a\npoint. But if it increases in length it is analogous to the duad and a\nline; if in breadth, to the triad and a superficies; but if in\nthickness, to the tetrad and a solid.\n\nThe seventh tetractys is of communities; of which the principle indeed,\nand as it were monad, is man; the duad is a house; the triad a street;\nand the tetrad a city. For a nation consists of these. And these indeed\nare the material and sensible tetractys.\n\nThe eighth tetractys consists of the powers which form a judgment of\nthings material and sensible, and which are of a certain intelligible\nnature. And these are, intellect, science, opinion, and sense. And\nintellect, indeed, corresponds in its essence to the monad; but science\nto the duad; for science is the science of a certain thing. Opinion\nsubsists between science and ignorance; but sense is as the tetrad. For\nthe touch which is common to all the senses being fourfold, all the\nsenses energize according to contact.\n\nThe ninth tetractys is that from which the animal is composed, the soul\nand the body. For the parts of the soul, indeed, are the rational, the\nirascible, and the epithymetic, or that which desires external good; and\nthe fourth is the body in which the soul subsists.\n\nThe tenth tetractys is of the seasons of the year, through which all\nthings rise into existence, viz. the spring, the summer, the autumn, and\nthe winter.\n\nAnd the eleventh is of the ages of man, viz. of the infant, the lad, the\nman, and the old man.\n\nHence there are eleven tetractys. The first is that which subsists\naccording to the composition of numbers. The second, according to the\nmultiplication of numbers. The third subsists according to magnitude.\nThe fourth is of the simple bodies. The fifth is of figures. The sixth\nis of things rising into existence through the vegetative life. The\nseventh is of communities. The eighth is the judicial power. The ninth\nis of the parts of the animal. The tenth is of the seasons of the year.\nAnd the eleventh is of the ages of man. All of them however are\nproportional to each other. For what the monad is in the first and\nsecond tetractys, that a point is in the third; fire in the fourth; a\npyramid in the fifth; seed in the sixth; man in the seventh; intellect\nin the eighth; and so of the rest. Thus, for instance, the first\ntetractys is 1. 2. 3. 4. The second is the monad, a side, a square, and\na cube. The third is a point, a line, a superficies, and a solid. The\nfourth is fire, air, water, earth. The fifth the pyramid, the octaedron,\nthe icosaedron, and the cube. The sixth, seed, length, breadth and\ndepth. The seventh, man, a house, a street, a city. The eighth,\nintellect, science, opinion, sense. The ninth, the rational, the\nirascible, and the epithymetic parts, and the body. The tenth, the\nspring, summer, autumn, winter. The eleventh, the infant, the lad, the\nman, and the old man.\n\nThe world also, which is composed from these tetractys, is perfect,\nbeing elegantly arranged in geometrical, harmonical, and arithmetical\nproportion; comprehending every power, all the nature of number, every\nmagnitude, and every simple and composite body. But it is perfect,\nbecause all things are the parts of it, but it is not itself the part of\nany thing. Hence, the Pythagoreans are said to have first used the\nbefore-mentioned oath, and also the assertion that \u201call things are\nassimilated to number.\u201d\n\nP. 111. _This number is the first that partakes of every number, and\n when divided in every possible way, receives the power of the\n numbers subtracted, and of those that remain._\n\nBecause 6 consists of 1, 2 and 3, the two first of which are the\nprinciples of all number, and also because 2 and 3 are the first even\nand odd, which are the sources of all the species of numbers; the number\n6 may be said to partake of every number. In what Iamblichus afterwards\nadds, I suppose he alludes to 6 being a perfect number and therefore\nequal to all its parts.\n\nP. 134. _Not to step above the beam of the balance._\n\nThis is the 14th Symbol in the Protreptics of Iamblichus, whose\nexplanation of it is as follows: \u201cThis symbol exhorts us to the exercise\nof justice, to the honoring equality and moderation in an admirable\ndegree, and to the knowledge of justice as the most perfect virtue, to\nwhich the other virtues give completion, and without which none of the\nrest are of any advantage. It also admonishes us, that it is proper to\nknow this virtue not in a careless manner, but through theorems and\nscientific demonstrations. But this knowledge is the business of no\nother art and science than the Pythagoric philosophy alone, which in a\ntranscendent degree honors disciplines before every thing else.\u201d\n\nThe following extract also from my Theoretic Arithmetic, (p. 194.), will\nin a still greater degree elucidate this symbol. The information\ncontained in it is derived from the anonymous author of a very valuable\nwork entitled \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u0391\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 _Theologumena Arithmetic\u00e6_, and\nwhich has lately been reprinted at Leipsic, \u201cThe Pythagoreans called the\npentad providence and justice, because it equalizes things unequal,\njustice being a medium between excess and defect, just as 5 is the\nmiddle of all the numbers that are equally distant from it on both sides\nas far as to the decad, some of which it surpasses, and by others is\nsurpassed, as may be seen in the following arrangement:\n\n 1. 4. 7.\n 2. 5. 8.\n 3. 6. 9.\n\n\u201cFor here, as in the middle of the beam of a balance, 5 does not depart\nfrom the line of the equilibrium, while one scale is raised, and the\nother is depressed.\n\n\u201cIn the following arrangement also, viz. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, it\nwill be found that the sum of the numbers which are posterior, is triple\nthe sum of those that are prior to 5; for 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 30; but 1 + 2\n+ 3 + 4 = 10. If therefore the numbers on each side of 5 represent the\nbeam of a balance, 5 being the tongue of it, when a weight depresses the\nbeam, an obtuse angle is produced by the depressed part with the tongue,\nand an acute angle by the elevated part of the beam. Hence it is worse\nto do than to suffer an injury: and the authors of the injury verge\ndownward as it were to the infernal regions; but the injured tend upward\nas it were to the Gods, imploring the divine assistance. Hence the\nmeaning of the Pythagoric symbol is obvious, \u201cPass not above the beam of\nthe balance.\u201d Since however injustice pertains to inequality, in order\nto correct this, equalization is requisite, that the beam of the balance\nmay remain on both sides without obliquity. But equalization is effected\nby addition and subtraction. Thus if 4 is added to 5, and 4 is also\ntaken from 5, the number 9 will be produced on one side, and 1 on the\nother, each of which is equally distant from 5. Thus too, if 3 is added\nto 5, and is also subtracted from it, on the one side 8 will be\nproduced, and on the other 2. If 2 is added to 5, and likewise taken\nfrom it, 7 and 3 will be produced. And by adding 1 to 5, and subtracting\n3 from it, 6 and 4 will be the result; in all which instances, the\nnumbers produced are equidistant from 5, and the sum of each couple is\nequal to 10.\u201d\n\nP. 161. _Such as dig not fire with a sword._\n\nThis is the 9th Symbol in the Protreptics, and is thus explained by\nIamblichus. \u201cThis symbol exhorts to prudence. For it excites in us an\nappropriate conception with respect to the propriety of not opposing\nsharp words to a man full of fire and wrath, nor contending with him.\nFor frequently by words you will agitate and disturb an ignorant man,\nand will yourself suffer things dreadful and unpleasant.\u201d Heraclitus\nalso testifies to the truth of this symbol. For he says, \u201cIt is\ndifficult to fight with anger: for whatever is necessary to be done\nredeems the soul.\u201d And this he says truly. For many, by gratifying\nanger, have changed the condition of their soul, and have made death\npreferable to life. But by governing the tongue, and being quiet,\nfriendship is produced from strife, the fire of anger being\nextinguished; and you yourself will not appear to be destitute of\nintellect.\u201d\n\nP. 200. _But this follows from the whole being naturally prior to the\n part, and not the part to the whole._\n\nFor whole co-subverts, but is not co-subverted by part: since if whole\nis taken away, part also is taken away; but the contrary does not\nfollow.\n\nP. 231. _Such therefore as hope the intellective and gnostic part of\n virtue, are denominated skilful and intelligent; but such as have\n the ethical and pre-elective part of it, are denominated useful\n and equitable._\n\nThe following account of the virtues is extracted from the Notes to my\nTranslation of the Ph\u00e6do of Plato: The first of the virtues are the\nphysical, which are common to brutes, being mingled with the\ntemperaments, and for the most part contrary to each other; or rather\npertaining to the animal. Or it may be said that they are illuminations\nfrom reason, when not impeded by a certain bad temperament: or that they\nare the result of energies in a former life. Of these Plato speaks in\nthe Politicus and the Laws. The ethical virtues, which are above these,\nare ingenerated by custom and a certain right opinion, and are the\nvirtues of children when well educated. These virtues also are to be\nfound in some brute animals. They likewise transcend the temperaments,\nand on this account are not contrary to each other. These virtues Plato\ndelivers in the Laws. They pertain however at the same time both to\nreason and the irrational nature. In the third rank above these are the\npolitical virtues, which pertain to reason alone; for they are\nscientific. But they are the virtues of reason adorning the irrational\npart as its instrument; through prudence adorning the gnostic, through\nfortitude the irascible, and through temperance the epithymetic power,\n(or the power which is the source of desire;) but adorning all the parts\nof the irrational nature through justice. And of these virtues Plato\nspeaks much in the Republic. These virtues too follow each other. Above\nthese are the cathartic virtues, which pertain to reason alone,\nwithdrawing from other things to itself, throwing aside the instruments\nof sense as vain, repressing also the energies through these\ninstruments, and liberating the soul from the bonds of generation. Plato\nparticularly unfolds these virtues in the Ph\u00e6do. Prior to these however\nare the theoretic virtues, which pertain to the soul, introducing itself\nto natures superior to itself, not only gnostically, as some one may be\ninduced to think from the name, but also orectically: for it hastens to\nbecome, as it were, intellect instead of soul; and intellect possesses\nboth desire and knowledge. These virtues are the converse of the\npolitical: for as the latter energize about things subordinate according\nto reason, so the former about things more excellent according to\nintellect. These virtues Plato delivers in the The\u00e6tetus.\n\nAccording to Plotinus, there is also another gradation of the virtues\nbesides these, viz, the paradigmatic. For, as our eye, when it is first\nilluminated by the solar light, is different from that which\nilluminates, as being illuminated, but afterwards is in a certain\nrespect united and conjoined with it, and becomes, as it were,\nsolar-form; so also our soul at first indeed is illuminated by\nintellect, and energizes according to the theoretic virtues, but\nafterwards becomes, as it were, that which is illuminated, and energizes\nuniformly according to the paradigmatic virtues. And it is the business\nindeed of philosophy to make us intellect; but of theurgy to unite us to\nintelligibles, so that we may energize paradigmatically. And as when\npossessing the physical virtues, we know mundane bodies (for the\nsubjects to virtues of this kind are bodies); so from possessing the\nethical virtues, we know the fate of the Universe, because fate is\nconversant with irrational lives. For the rational soul is not under\nfate; and the ethical virtues are irrational, because they pertain to\nthe irrational part. According to the political virtues we know mundane\naffairs, and according to the cathartic supermundane; but as possessing\nthe theoretic we know intellectual, and from the paradigmatic\nintelligible natures. Temperance also pertains to the ethical virtues;\njustice to the political, on account of compacts; fortitude to the\ncathartic, through not verging to matter; and prudence to the theoretic.\nObserve too, that Plato in the Ph\u00e6do calls the physical virtues servile,\nbecause they may subsist in servile souls; but he calls the ethical\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 _adumbrations_, because their possessors only know _that_\nthe energies of such virtues are right, but do not know _why_ they are\nso. It is well observed too here, by Olympiodorus, that Plato calls the\ncathartic and theoretic virtues, those which are in reality true\nvirtues. He also separates them in another way, viz. that the political\nare not telestic, i. e. do not pertain to mystic ceremonies, but that\nthe cathartic and theoretic are telestic. Hence, Olympiodorus adds, the\ncathartic virtues are denominated from the purification which is used in\nthe mysteries; but the theoretic from perceiving things divine. On this\naccount he accords with the Orphic verses, that\n\n The soul that uninitiated dies,\n Plung\u2019d in the blackest mire in Hades lies.\n\nFor initiation is the divinely-inspired energy of the virtues.\nOlympiodorus also further observes, that by the thyrsus-bearers, Plato\nmeans those that energize according to the political virtues, but by the\nBacchuses those that exercise the cathartic virtues. For we are bound in\nmatter as Titans, through the great partibility of our nature; but we\nrise from the dark mire as Bacchuses. Hence we become more prophetic at\nthe time of death: and Bacchus is the inspective guardian of death,\nbecause he is likewise of every thing pertaining to the Bacchic sacred\nrites.\n\nAll the virtues likewise exhibit their proper characters, these being\nevery where common, but subsisting appropriately in each. For the\ncharacteristic property of fortitude is the not declining to things\nsubordinate; of temperance, a conversion from an inferior nature; of\njustice, a proper energy, and which is adapted to being; and of\nprudence, the election and selection of things good and evil.\nOlympiodorus farther observes, that all the virtues are in the Gods. For\nmany Gods, says he, are adorned with their appellations; and all\ngoodness originates from the Gods. Likewise, prior, to things which\nsometimes participate the virtues, as is our case, it is necessary there\nshould be natures which always participate them. In what order,\ntherefore, do the virtues appear? Shall we say in the psychical? For\nvirtue is the perfection of the soul; and election and pre-election are\nthe energies and projections of the soul. Hence the Chald\u00e6an oracles\nconjoin fontal virtue with fontal soul, or in other words, with soul\nsubsisting according to cause. But may it not also be said, that the\nvirtues naturally wish to give an orderly arrangement to that which is\ndisordered? If this be admitted, they will originate from the demiurgic\norder. How then will they be cathartic there? May we not say,\nOlympiodorus adds, that through the cathartic virtues considered\naccording to their causal subsistence in Jupiter the demiurgus, he is\nenabled to abide in his accustomed mode, as Plato says in the Tim\u00e6us?\nAnd farther still, according to ancient theologists, he ascends to the\ntower of Saturn, who is a _pure_ intellect.\n\nAs this distribution of the virtues, however, is at present no less\nnovel than important, the following discussion of them from the \u0391\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, or Auxiliaries to Intelligibles, of Porphyry, is added\nfor the sake of the genuinely philosophic reader:\n\n\u201cThere is one kind of virtues pertaining to the political character, and\nanother to the man who tends to contemplation, and on this account is\ncalled theoretic, and is now a beholder. And there are also other\nvirtues pertaining to intellect, so far as it is intellect, and separate\nfrom soul. The virtues indeed of the political character, and which\nconsist in the moderation of the passions, are characterised by\nfollowing and being obedient to the reasoning about that which is\nbecoming in actions. Hence, looking to an innoxious converse with\nneighbours, they are denominated, from the aggregation of fellowship,\npolitical. And prudence indeed subsists about the reasoning part;\nfortitude about the irascible part; temperance, in the consent and\nsymphony of the epithymetic with the reasoning part; and justice in each\nof these performing its proper employment with respect to governing and\nbeing governed. But the virtues of him who proceeds to the contemplative\nlife, consist in a departure from terrestrial concerns. Hence also, they\nare called purifications, being surveyed in the refraining from\ncorporeal actions, and avoiding sympathies with the body. For these are\nthe virtues of the soul elevating itself to true being. The political\nvirtues, therefore, adorn the mortal man, and are the forerunners of\npurifications. For it is necessary that he who is adorned by these,\nshould abstain from doing any thing precedaneously in conjunction with\nbody. Hence in purifications, not to opine with body, but to energize\nalone, gives subsistence to prudence; which derives its perfection\nthrough energizing intellectually with purity. But not to be similarly\npassive with the body, constitutes temperance. Not to fear a departure\nfrom body as into something void, and nonentity, gives subsistence to\nfortitude. But when reason and intellect are the leaders, and there is\nno resistance [from the irrational part,] justice is produced. The\ndisposition therefore, according to the political virtues, is surveyed\nin the moderation of the passions; having for its end to live as man\nconformable to nature. But the disposition according to the theoretic\nvirtues, is beheld in apathy;[108] the end of which is a similitude to\nGod.\n\n\u201cSince, however, of purification one kind consists in purifying, but\nanother pertains to those that are purified, the cathartic virtues are\nsurveyed according to both these significations of purification; for\nthey purify the soul, and are present with purification. For the end of\npurification is to become pure. But since purification, and the being\npurified, are an ablation of every thing foreign, the good resulting\nfrom them will be different from that which purifies; so that if that\nwhich is purified was good prior to the impurity with which it is\ndefiled, purification is sufficient. That, however, which remains after\npurification, is good, and not purification. The nature of the soul also\nwas not good, but is that which is able to partake of good, and is\nboniform. For if this were not the case, it would not have become\nsituated in evil. The good, therefore, of the soul consists in being\nunited to its generator; but its evil, in an association with things\nsubordinate to itself. Its evil also is two-fold; the one arising from\nan association with terrestrial natures; but the other from doing this\nwith an excess of the passions. Hence all the political virtues, which\nliberate the soul from one evil, may be denominated virtues, and are\nhonorable. But the cathartic are more honorable, and liberate it from\nevil, so far as it is soul. It is necessary, therefore, that the soul\nwhen purified should associate with its generator. Hence the virtue of\nit after its conversion consists in a scientific knowledge of [true]\nbeing; but this will not be the case unless conversion, precedes.\n\n\u201cThere is therefore another genus of virtues after the cathartic and\npolitical, and which are the virtues of the soul energizing\nintellectually. And here, indeed, wisdom and prudence consist in the\ncontemplation of those things which intellect possesses. But justice\nconsists in performing what is appropriate in a conformity to, and\nenergizing according to intellect. Temperance is an inward conversion of\nthe soul to intellect. And fortitude is apathy; according to a\nsimilitude of that to which the soul looks, and which is naturally\nimpassive. These virtues also, in the same manner as the others,\nalternately follow each other.\n\n\u201cThe fourth species of the virtues, is that of the paradigms subsisting\nin intellect; which are more excellent than the psychical virtues, and\nexist as the paradigms of these; the virtues of the soul being the\nsimilitudes of them. And intellect indeed is that in which all things\nsubsist at once as paradigms. Here, therefore, prudence is science; but\nintellect that knows [all things] is wisdom. Temperance is that which is\nconverted to itself. The proper work of intellect, is the performance of\nits appropriate duty, [and this is justice[109]]. But fortitude is\nsameness, and the abiding with purity in itself, through an abundance of\npower. There are therefore four genera of virtues; of which, indeed,\nsome pertain to intellect, concur with the essence of it, and are\nparadigmatic. Others pertain to soul now looking to intellect, and being\nfilled from it. Others belong to the soul of man, purifying itself, and\nbecoming purified from the body, and the irrational passions. And others\nare the virtues of the soul of man, adorning the man, through giving\nmeasure and bound to the irrational nature, and producing moderation in\nthe passions. And he, indeed, who has the greater virtues has also\nnecessarily the less; but the contrary is not true, that he who has the\nless has also the greater virtues. Nor will he who possesses the\ngreater, energize precedaneously according to the less, but only so far\nas the necessities of the mortal nature require. The scope also of the\nvirtues, is, as we have said, generically different in the different\nvirtues. For the scope of the political virtues, is to give measure to\nthe passions in their practical energies according to nature. But the\nscope of the cathartic virtues, is entirely to obliterate the\nremembrance of the passions. And the scope of the rest subsists\nanalogously to what has been before said. Hence, he who energizes\naccording to the practical virtues, is a _worthy_ man: but he who\nenergizes according to the cathartic virtues, is _a d\u00e6moniacal man_, or\nis also _a good d\u00e6mon_. He who energizes according to the intellectual\nvirtues alone, is _a God_. But he who energizes according to the\nparadigmatic virtues, _is the father of the Gods_. We, therefore, ought\nespecially to pay attention to the cathartic virtues, since we may\nobtain these in the present life. But through these, the ascent is to\nthe more honorable virtues. Hence it is requisite to survey to what\ndegree purification may be extended. For it is a separation from body,\nand from the passive motion of the irrational part. But how this may so\neffected, and to what extent, must now be said.\n\n\u201cIn the first place, indeed, it is necessary that he who intends to\nacquire this purification, should, as the foundation and basis of it,\nknow himself to be a soul bound in a foreign thing, and in a different\nessence. In the second place, as that which is raised from this\nfoundation, he should collect himself from the body, and as it different\nplaces, so as to be disposed in a manner perfectly impassive with\nrespect to the body. For he who energizes uninterruptedly according to\nsense, though he may not do this with an adhering affection, and the\nenjoyment resulting from pleasure, yet at the same time his attention is\ndissipated about the body, in consequence of becoming through sense[110]\nin contact with it. But we are addicted to the pleasures or pains of\nsensibles, in conjunction with a promptitude, and converging sympathy;\nfrom which disposition it is requisite to be purified. _This, however,\nwill be effected by admitting necessary pleasures, and the sensations of\nthem, merely as remedies, or as a liberation from pain, in order that\n[the rational part] may not be impeded [in its energies._] Pain also\nmust be taken away. But if this is not possible, it must be mildly\ndiminished. And it will be diminished, if the soul is not co-passive\nwith it. Anger, likewise, must as much as possible be taken away; and\nmust by no means be premeditated. But if it cannot be entirely removed,\ndeliberate choice must not be mingled with it, but the unpremeditated\nmotion must be the impulse of the irrational part. _That however which\nis unpremeditated is imbecile and small._ All fear, likewise, must be\nexpelled. For he who acquires this purification, will fear nothing.\nHere, however, if it should take place, it will be unpremeditated. Anger\ntherefore and fear must be used for the purpose of admonition. But the\ndesire of every thing base must be exterminated. Such a one also, so far\nas he is a cathartic philosopher, will not desire meats and drinks.\nNeither must there be the unpremeditated in natural venereal connexions;\n_but if this should take place, it must only be as far as to that\nprecipitate imagination which energizes in sleep_. In short, the\nintellectual soul itself of the purified man, must be liberated from all\nthese [corporeal propensities.] He must likewise endeavour that what is\nmoved to the irrational nature of corporeal passions, may be moved\nwithout sympathy, and without animadversion; so that the motions\nthemselves may be immediately dissolved, through their vicinity to the\nreasoning power. This, however, will not take place while the\npurification is proceeding to its perfection; but will happen to those\nin whom reason rules without opposition. Hence in these, the inferior\npart will so venerate reason, that it will be indignant if it is at all\nmoved, in consequence of not being quiet when its master is present, and\nwill reprove itself for its imbecility. These, however, are yet only\nmoderations of the passions, but at length terminate in apathy, for when\nco-passivity is entirely exterminated, then apathy is present with him\nwho is purified from it. For passion becomes moved, when reason imparts\nexcitation, through verging [to the irrational nature.]\u201d\n\nP. 279. _The theorems of philosophy are to be enjoyed, as much as\n possible, as if they were ambrosia and nectar, &c. &c._\n\nThis Sentence in the original of Arcerius is as follows: \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b7\u03b4\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7 \u03b1\u00ef\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b1\u00ef\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nIn the edition of the Protreptics by Kiessling, which I did not see,\ntill the greater part of this work was printed, \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd is substituted\nfor \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, but in my opinion very erroneously; and this German\neditor, from not perceiving the necessity of reading \u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\n\u03b1\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b7\u03b4\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba. \u03bb. instead of retaining the\nreading of Arcerius, has made nonsense of this part of the Sentence. For\nhis version of it is: \u201cNam et sincera est eorum dulcedo, et divinam\nnaturam, animum magnum efficere possunt.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1]\u039f\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u0399\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba. \u03bb. Julian. Orat. IV.\n\n Thus too the celebrated Bullialdus, in his Notes on Theo of Smyrna,\n speaks of Iamblichus as a man of a most acute genius.\n\n[2]There is a Greek and Latin edition of this admirable work by Gale,\n under the title of Iamblichus De Mysteriis.\n\n[3]\u0391\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd, \u03ba. \u03bb. See the\n Testimonies prefixed by Gale to his edition of the above-mentioned\n work.\n\n[4]This Sopater succeeded Plotinus in his philosophical school.\n\n[5]The exact time of Iamblichus\u2019 death is unknown. It is however certain\n that it was during the reign of Constantine; and according to the\n accurate Fabricius, prior to the year of Christ 333. Vid. Biblioth.\n Gr\u00e6c. Tom. IV. p. 283.\n\n[6]This Sextus is probably the same that Seneca so greatly extols, and\n from whom he derives many of those admirable sentences with which\n his works abound. Vid. Senec\u00e6 Epistolas, 59, 64, 98, et lib. 2 de\n Ir\u00e2, c. 36, et lib. 3. c. 36.\n\n[7]All these were published in one vol. 12mo. by Mr. Bridgman, under the\n title of Translations from the Greek, in the year 1804, and well\n deserve to be perused by the liberal reader.\n\n[8]i. e. Having black leaves.\n\n[9]i. e. It must not be admitted, that Apollo was actually connected\n with Pytha\u00efs; for this would be absurd in the extreme; but the\n assertion of Epimenides, Eudoxus, and Xenocrates must be considered\n as one of those mythological narrations in which heroes are said to\n have Gods for their fathers, or Goddesses for their mothers, and the\n true meaning of it is as follows: According to the ancient theology,\n between those perpetual attendants of a divine nature called\n _essential_ heroes, who are impassive and pure, and the bulk of\n human souls who descend to earth with passivity and impurity, it is\n necessary there should be an order of human souls who descend with\n impassivity and purity. For as there is no vacuum either in\n incorporeal or corporeal natures, it is necessary that the last link\n of a superior order, should coalesce with the summit of one\n proximately inferior. These souls were called by the ancients,\n _terrestrial_ heroes, on account of their high degree of proximity\n and alliance to such as are essentially heroes. Hercules, Theseus,\n Pythagoras, Plato, &c. were souls of this kind, who descended into\n mortality both to benefit other souls, and in compliance with that\n necessity by which all natures inferior to the perpetual attendants\n of the Gods are at times obliged to descend.\n\n But as, according to the arcana of ancient theology, every God\n beginning from on high produces his proper series as far as to the\n last of things, and this series comprehends many essences different\n from each other, such as D\u00e6moniacal, Heroical, Nymphical, and the\n like; the lowest powers of these orders, have a great communion and\n physical sympathy with the human race, and contribute to the\n perfection of all their natural operations, and particularly to\n their procreations. \u201cHence\u201d (says Proclus in MSS. Schol. in Crat.)\n \u201cit often appears, that _heroes_ are generated from the mixture of\n these powers with mankind; for those that possess a certain\n prerogative above human nature, are properly denominated _heroes_.\u201d\n He adds: \u201cNot only a d\u00e6moniacal genus of this kind sympathizes\n physically with men, but other kinds sympathize with other natures,\n as Nymphs with trees, others with fountains, and others with stags\n or serpents.\u201d\n\n Olympiodorus, in his life of Plato, observes of that philosopher,\n \u201cThat an Apolloniacal spectre is said to have had connexion with\n Perictione his mother, and that appearing in the night to his father\n Aristo, it commanded him not to sleep with Perictione during the\n time of her pregnancy; which mandate Aristo obeyed.\u201d The like\n account of the divine origin of Plato, is also given by Apuleius,\n Plutarch, and Hesychius.\n\n[10]i. e. The priests of Jupiter.\n\n[11]From what has been said in the note, p. 4, respecting the divine\n origin of Pythagoras, it follows that he was a _terrestrial hero_\n belonging to the series of Apollo. Thus too the Esculapius who once\n lived on the earth, and was the inventor of medicine, proceeded,\n according to the ancient mythology, from the God Esculapius, who\n subsists in Apollo, just as the hero Bacchus proceeded from the\n Bacchus who subsists in Jupiter. Hence the Emperor Julian (apud\n Cyril.) says of Esculapius: \u201cI had almost forgotten the greatest of\n the gifts of Jupiter and the Sun, but I have very properly reserved\n it to the last. For it is not peculiar to us only, but is common\n also, I think, to our kindred the Greeks. For Jupiter, in\n intelligibles, generated from himself Esculapius; but he was\n unfolded into light on the earth, through the prolific light of the\n sun. He therefore, proceeding from heaven to the earth, appeared\n uniformly in a human shape about Epidaurus. But thence becoming\n multiplied in his progressions, he extended his saving right hand to\n all the earth. He came to Pergamus, to Ionia, to Tarentum, and\n afterwards to Rome. Thence he went to the island Co, afterwards to\n \u00c6gas, and at length to wherever there is land and sea. Nor did we\n individually, but collectively, experience his beneficence. And at\n one and the same time, he corrected souls that were wandering in\n error, and bodies that were infirm.\u201d\n\n[12]Those Gods, according to the Orphic theology, that contain in\n themselves the first principle of stability, sameness, and being,\n and who also were the suppliers of conversion to all things, are of\n a male characteristic; but those that are the causes of all-various\n progressions, separations, and measures of life, are of a feminine\n peculiarity.\n\n[13]This inventor of names was called by the Egyptians Theuth, as we are\n informed by Plato in the Philebus and Ph\u00e6drus; in the latter of\n which dialogues, Socrates says: \u201cI have heard, that about Naucratis\n in Egypt, there was one of the ancient Gods of the Egyptians, to\n whom a bird was sacred, which they call Ibis; but the name of the\n d\u00e6mon himself was Theuth. According to tradition, this God first\n discovered number and the art of reckoning, geometry and astronomy,\n the games of chess and hazard, and likewise letters.\u201d On this\n passage I observe as follows, in Vol. 3. of my translation of Plato:\n The genus of disciplines belonging to Mercury, contains gymnastic,\n music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and the art of speaking and\n writing. This God, as he is the source of invention, is called the\n son of Maia; because _investigation_, which is implied by _Maia_,\n produces _invention_: and as unfolding the will of Jupiter, who is\n an intellectual God, he is the cause of mathesis or discipline. He\n first subsists in Jupiter, the artificer of the world; next among\n the supermundane Gods; in the third place, among the liberated Gods;\n fourthly, in the planet Mercury; fifthly, in the Mercurial order of\n d\u00e6mons; sixthly, in human souls, who are the attendants of this God;\n and in the seventh degree, his properties subsist in certain\n animals, such as the ibis, the ape, and sagacious dogs. The\n narration of Socrates in this place, is both allegorical and\n anagogic or reductory. Naucratis is a region of Egypt eminently\n subject to the influence of Mercury, though the whole of Egypt is\n allotted to this divinity. Likewise, in this city a man once\n florished full of the Mercurial power, because his soul formerly\n existed in the heavens of the Mercurial order. But he was first\n called Theuth, that is, Mercury, and a God, because his soul\n subsisted according to the perfect similitude of this divinity. But\n afterwards a d\u00e6mon, because from the God Mercury, through a\n Mercurial d\u00e6mon, gifts of this kind are transmitted to a Mercurial\n soul.\n\n[14]Iamblichus derived this very beautiful passage from Heraclides\n Ponticus, as is evident from Cicero, Tusc. Qu\u00e6st. lib. v. 3. who\n relates the same thing of Pythagoras, from the aforesaid author.\n\n[15]i. e. With intelligibles properly so called.\n\n[16]Iliad, lib. 17. The translation by Pope.\n\n[17]\u201cThe Pythagoreans,\u201d says Simplicius, in his Commentary on the 2d\n book of Aristotle\u2019s treatise On the Heavens, said, \u201cthat an harmonic\n sound was produced from the motion of the celestial bodies, and they\n scientifically collected this from the analogy of their intervals;\n since not only the ratios of the sun and moon, of Venus and Mercury,\n but also of the other stars, were discovered by them.\u201d Simplicius\n adds, \u201cPerhaps the objection of Aristotle to this assertion of the\n Pythagoreans, may be solved according to the philosophy of those\n men, as follows:\n\n \u201cAll things are not commensurate with each other, nor is every thing\n sensible to every thing, even in the sublunary region. This is\n evident from dogs who scent animals at a great distance, and which\n are not smelt by men. How much more, therefore, in things which are\n separated by so great an interval as those which are incorruptible\n from the corruptible, and celestial from terrestrial natures, is it\n true to say, that the sound of divine bodies is not audible by\n terrestrial ears? But if any one like Pythagoras, who is reported to\n have heard this harmony, should have his terrestrial body exempt\n from him, and his luminous and celestial vehicle[17a] and the senses\n which it contains purified, either through a good allotment, or\n through probity of life, or through a perfection arising from sacred\n operations, such a one will perceive things invisible to others, and\n will hear things inaudible by others. With respect to divine and\n immaterial bodies, however, if any sound is produced by them, it is\n neither percussive nor destructive, but it excites the powers and\n energies of sublunary sounds, and perfects the sense which is\n co-ordinate with them. It has also a certain analogy to the sound\n which concurs with the motion of terrestrial bodies. But the sound\n which is with us in consequence of the sonorific nature of the air,\n is a certain energy of the motion of their impassive sound. If,\n then, air is not passive there, it is evident that neither will the\n sound which is there be passive. Pythagoras, however, seems to have\n said that he heard the celestial harmony, as understanding the\n harmonic proportions in numbers, of the heavenly bodies, and that\n which is audible in them. Some one, however, may very properly doubt\n why the stars are seen by our visive sense, but the sound of them is\n not heard by our ears? To this we reply that neither do we see the\n stars themselves; for we do not see their magnitudes, or their\n figures, or their surpassing beauty. Neither do we see the motion\n through which the sound is produced; but we see as it were such an\n illumination of them, as that of the light of the sun about the\n earth, the sun himself not being seen by us. Perhaps too, neither\n will it be wonderful, that the visive sense, as being more\n immaterial, subsisting rather according to energy than according to\n passion, and very much transcending the other senses, should be\n thought worthy to receive the splendor and illumination of the\n celestial bodies, but that the other senses should not be adapted\n for this purpose. Of these, however, and such like particulars, if\n any one can assign more probable causes, let him be considered as a\n friend, and not as an enemy.\u201d\n\n[17a]The soul has three vehicles, one etherial, another aerial, and the\n third this terrestrial body. The first, which is luminous and\n celestial, is connate with the essence of the soul, and in which\n alone it resides in a state of bliss in the stars. In the second, it\n suffers the punishment of its sins after death. And from the third\n it becomes an inhabitant of earth.\n\n[18]i. e. Of the discursive energy of reason, or that part of the soul\n that reasons scientifically, deriving the principles of its\n reasoning from intellect.\n\n[19]Kuster, one of the editors of this Life of Pythagoras, not\n perceiving that these auditions are both questions and answers, has\n made them to be questions only, and in consequence of this was\n completely at a loss to conceive the meaning of \u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b7\n \u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, \u03b5\u03bd \u1fc3 \u03b1\u03b9 \u03a3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. Hence, he thinks it should be, \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b7\n \u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1fc3 \u03b7\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9 \u03a3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2; but is not satisfied with this reading\n after all. Something I have no doubt is wanting; but the sense of\n the passage is, I conceive, that which is given in the above\n translation.\n\n[20]\u201cPythagoras,\u201d (says Proclus in MSS. Schol. in Cratylum,) \u201cbeing\n asked what was the wisest of things, said it was number; and being\n asked what was the next in wisdom, said, he who gave names to\n things. But by number, he obscurely signified the intelligible\n order, which comprehends the multitude of intellectual forms: for\n there that which is the first, and properly number, subsists after\n the superessential one.[20a] This likewise supplies the measures of\n essence to all beings, in which also true wisdom, and knowledge\n which is of itself, and which is converted to and perfects itself,\n subsist. And as there the intelligible, intellect, and intelligence,\n are the same, so there also number and wisdom are the same. But by\n the founder of names, he obscurely signified the soul, which indeed\n subsists from intellect, and is not things themselves like the first\n intellect, but possesses the images and essential transitive reasons\n of them as statues of beings. Being, therefore, is imparted to all\n things from intellect, which knows itself and is replete with\n wisdom; but that they are denominated is from soul, which imitates\n intellect. Pythagoras therefore said, that it was not the business\n of any casual person to fabricate names, but of one looking to\n intellect and the nature of things.\u201d\n\n[20a]i. e. Number according to cause, which subsists at the extremity of\n the intelligible order. For number according to hyparxis or essence,\n subsists at the summit of the order which is intelligible and at the\n same time intellectual. See the 3d book of my translation of Proclus\n on the Theology of Plato.\n\n[21]The words \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd are omitted in the original, but from the\n Protrept. of Iamblichus evidently ought to be inserted.\n\n[22]The same thing is said by the Pythagoreans to have befallen the\n person who first divulged the theory of incommensurable quantities.\n See the first scholium on the 10th book of Euclid\u2019s Elements, in\n Commandine\u2019s edition, fol. 1572.\n\n[23]Iamblichus, in this list of Pythagoreans, must not be supposed to\n enumerate those only who were contemporary with Pythagoras: since,\n if he did, he contradicts what he says of Philolaus in Chap. 31.\n viz. \u201cthat he was many ages posterior to Pythagoras;\u201d but those in\n general who came from the school of Pythagoras, and were his most\n celebrated disciples.\n\n[24]From this passage it is evident that Iamblichus had many sources of\n information, which are unknown to modern critics; and this\n circumstance alone ought to check their pedagogical impertinence.\n\n[25]For \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 here I read, conformably to the version of Obrechtus, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1.\n\n[26]For \u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 here, I read \u03bf\u03b4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2; as I do not see what morsus has\n to do with this place. Obrechtus has in his version \u201cpectorisque\n morsus;\u201d but I have no doubt _lamentations_ is the proper word,\n which aptly associates with despondency.\n\n[27]\u201cWell-instituted polities,\u201d (says Proclus in MS. Comment. in\n Alcibiad. prior.) \u201care averse to the art of playing on\n wind-instruments; and therefore neither does Plato admit it. The\n cause of this is the variety of this instrument, the pipe, which\n shows that the art which uses it should be avoided. For instruments\n called Panarmonia, and those consisting of many strings, are\n imitations of pipes. For every hole of the pipe emits, as they say,\n three sounds at least; but if the cavity above the holes be opened,\n then each hole will emit more than three sounds.\u201d\n\n[28]Odyss. lib. 4.\n\n[29]Iamblichus derived what he has said in this chapter about music,\n from Nicomachus.\n\n[30]The first part of this sentence in the original is \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd \u0391\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff3 \u0396\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, and in translating\n it I have followed the version of Obrechtus, because it appeared to\n me to convey the meaning of Iamblichus, though the translation is\n certainly forced, and not such as the natural construction of the\n words will admit. The translation of Arcerius is, \u201cCum hospes quidam\n in \u00e6de \u00c6sculapii f\u0153minam zonam auream habentem ejecisset;\u201d and this\n is perfectly conformable to the natural construction of the words,\n but then it is void of sense.\n\n[31]This history is copiously narrated in chap. 33.\n\n[32]See chap. 33.\n\n[33]These lines are as the numbers 4, 3, 2. For 4 to 3 is sesquitertian,\n 3 to 2 is sesquialter, and 2 is an arithmetical medium between 4 and\n 3.\n\n[34]For an explanation of this assertion of Plato in the Republic, see\n my Theoretic Arithmetic.\n\n[35]\u201cThe Pythagoreans,\u201d (says Syrianus in Aristot. Metaphys. lib. 13.)\n \u201creceived from the theology of Orpheus, the principles of\n intelligible and intellectual numbers, they assigned them an\n abundant progression, and extended their dominion as far as to\n sensibles themselves.\u201d Hence that proverb was peculiar to the\n Pythagoreans, that _all things are assimilated to number_.\n Pythagoras, therefore, in the Sacred Discourse, clearly says, that\n \u201cnumber is the ruler of forms and ideas, and is the cause of Gods\n and d\u00e6mons.\u201d He also supposes, that \u201cto the most ancient and\n artificially ruling deity, number is the canon, the artificial\n reason, the intellect also, and the most undeviating balance of the\n composition and generation of all things.\u201d \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b5\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1ff3, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Syrianus adds, \u201cBut Philolaus declared that number is the\n governing and self-begotten bond of the eternal permanency of\n mundane natures.\u201d \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5, \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bf\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u1fc3\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. \u201cAnd\n Hippasus, and all those who were destined to a quinquennial silence,\n called number the judicial instrument of the maker of the universe,\n and the first paradigm of mundane fabrication.\u201d \u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u0399\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ca\u03b1\u03c2. \u201cBut how is it possible they could have spoken\n thus sublimely of number, unless they had considered it as\n possessing an essence separate from sensible, and a transcendency\n fabricative, and at the same time paradigmatic?\u201d\n\n[36]i. e. To spheres; Iamblichus indicating by this, that Pythagoras as\n well as Orpheus considered a spherical figure as the most\n appropriate image of divinity. For the universe is spherical; and,\n as Iamblichus afterwards observes, the Gods have a nature and\n _morphe_ similar to the universe; _morphe_, as we learn from\n Simplicius, pertaining to the color, figure, and magnitude of\n superficies. Keissling, having no conception of this meaning, and\n supposing the whole passage to be corrupt, has made nonsense of it\n by his alterations. For according to his version, Pythagoras, after\n the manner of Orpheus, worshipped the Gods not bound to a human\n form, but _to divine numbers_. For instead of \u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 he reads\n \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. But divine numbers both according to Orpheus and\n Pythagoras are the Gods themselves.\n\n[37]i. e. Futurity is long; Pythagoras signifying by this, that those\n who do not take an oath religiously, will be punished in some future\n period, if they are not at present.\n\n[38]i. e. From the time in which the Gods are fabulously said to have\n reigned in Egypt.\n\n[39]I wonder that the learned Obrechtus should translate \u03b7\u03b2\u03b7\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, _cum\n omni juventute sua_. Had his translation, which is on the whole very\n excellent, been reviewed by English or Scotch critics, they would\n have immediately said from this circumstance, that he did not\n understand Greek.\n\n[40]Iamblichus here alludes to a right-angled triangle, and the\n Pythagoric theorem of 47. 1 of Euclid. For the square described on\n the longest side is equal to the two squares described on the two\n other sides. The longest side therefore is said by geometricians to\n be equal in power to the powers of the other sides. This however\n Kiessling not understanding, says, \u201cthat power is the space\n contained between the concurring lines of figures, and is the area\n of the triangle.\u201d \u201c\u0394\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 idem est, quod \u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, spatium, quod\n infra concurrentes lineas figurarum continetur, area trigoni.\u201d But\n Kiessling, though a good verbalist, is a bad geometrician, and no\n philosopher.\n\n[41]In the original \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd _the tenth month_; but as it very seldom\n happens that a woman is in a state of pregnancy more than nine\n months, it appears to me that for \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd we should read \u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd _the\n sixth month_, as in the above translation.\n\n[42]Obrechtus by translating \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 in this place, \u201cDe fama et\n gloria,\u201d has evidently mistaken the meaning of Iamblichus.\n\n[43]The wise and magnanimous Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics and\n Stoics, among the ancients, looked to virtue as its own reward, and\n performed what is right, because it is right to do so. And though\n they firmly believed in the immortality of the soul, their conduct\n was not at all influenced by the hope of future reward. This great\n truth indeed, that virtue brings with it its own recompense, is\n almost at present obsolete; and it is no unusual thing to hear a\n man, when afflicted, exclaiming with Methodistical cant,\n\n \u201cThe many troubles that I meet,\n In getting to a Mercy-seat!\u201d\n\n[44]These energies are called beneficent, because they are of a\n purifying character. Hence Plato in the Tim\u00e6us says, that a deluge\n is the consequence of the Gods _purifying_ the earth by water.\n\n[45]Iamblichus a little before informs us, that Pythagoras suspected\n that Phalaris intended to put him to death, but at the same time\n knew that he was not destined to die by Phalaris. This being the\n case therefore, Pythagoras has no claim to fortitude in this\n instance, in being free from the fear of death. But he has great\n claim to it, when it is considered that he was in the power of a\n tyrant who might have caused him to suffer tortures worse than\n death.\n\n[46]i. e. _Humble_ (\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.) With the Pythagoreans, therefore,\n humility was no virtue, though in modern times it is considered to\n be the greatest of the virtues. With Aristotle likewise it is no\n virtue; for in his Nicomachean Ethics he says, \u201cthat all humble men\n are flatterers, and all flatterers are humble.\u201d\n\n[47]See the Cave of Plato, in the 7th book of his Republic.\n\n[48]The original is, \u039c\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf \u0398\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, which\n Obrechtus erroneously translates, \u201cMetrodorus Epicharmi filius\n Thyrsi nepos.\u201d\n\n[49]This observation applies also to those of the present day, who, from\n a profound ignorance of human nature, attempt to enlighten by\n education the _lowest_ class of mankind. For this, as I have\n elsewhere observed, is an attempt to break the golden chain of\n beings, to disorganise society, and to render the vulgar\n dissatisfied with the servile situations in which God and nature\n intended them to be placed. See p. 73. of the introduction to my\n translation of Select Works of Plotinus.\n\n[50]This also is asserted, as I have before observed, in the Scholia on\n the 10th book of Commandine\u2019s edition of Euclid\u2019s Elements, p. 122.\n\n[51]Obrechtus has omitted to translate the words \u03b7\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n \u201cbeing now an elderly man.\u201d\n\n[52]In the original \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, which Obrechtus very erroneously translates\n _impotens_.\n\n[53]i. e. To the Pythagoreans.\n\n[54]The whole of this paragraph, the greater part of which is a\n repetition of what has been said elsewhere, does not certainly\n belong to this place.\n\n[55]In the original, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, which Obrechtus\n erroneously translates, \u201cet agrorum divisionem introduxerunt.\u201d\n\n[56]The words within the brackets are from a Latin Manuscript, which was\n in the possession of Fabricius.\n\n[57]In the original, \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\n \u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. This Canter erroneously translates, \u201cQuandoquidem horum nulla\n pars totum queat constituere.\u201d And Gale has noticed the error.\n\n[58]Gale says in his notes, that after \u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd he adds \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, but he\n should evidently have added \u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1, as in the above translation.\n\n[59]In the original \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u1fb3 \u03bf\u03be\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u1fb3, which Canter very defectively\n translates, _videndi facultate_.\n\n[60]For \u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd here, I read \u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[61]i. e. So far as he is considered as energizing in conjunction with\n the body; but so far as he has an energy independent of the body,\n viz. so far as he is a rational soul, the body is not to be\n considered as a part of his essence. And the energy of the rational\n soul by itself alone, without any assistance from the corporeal\n organs, constitutes the true man, into the definition of which body\n does not enter.\n\n[62]Canter, in his version of these Pythagoric fragments, uniformly\n translates \u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03b1 _felicitas_, contrary to the obvious meaning of\n the word, as is evident in this, and many other passages. It is also\n directly contrary to what Aristotle says in cap. 13. lib. 7. of his\n Nicomachean Ethics: \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u1fb3, \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u00b7 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\n \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, \u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9. i. e. \u201cBecause felicity requires\n fortune, it appears to some persons that prosperity is the same with\n felicity. This however is not the case; since prosperity, when it is\n excessive, is an impediment to felicity.\u201d But Canter did not, I\n believe, pretend to have any knowledge of philosophy: and Gale, who\n did, has not corrected him in this and many other places in which he\n has erred through the want of this knowledge. Gale however, though\n verbally learned, was but a garrulous smatterer in philosophy, as is\n evident from his notes on Iamblichus de Mysteriis.\n\n[63]For \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd here, I read \u03b1\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[64]In the original, \u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u2019\n \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, which Canter erroneously translates as follows:\n \u201cQuocirca mirandum non est, si cuncta nonnunquam, ver\u00e2 affectione\n mutat\u00e2, aliter eveniunt.\u201d Nor is the error noticed by Gale.\n\n[65]i. e. In the etherial vehicle of the soul, which when the soul\n energizes intellectually is spherical, and is moved circularly. This\n vehicle also is \u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, or luciform, throughout diaphanous, and\n of a star-like nature. Hence Marcus Antoninus beautifully observes:\n \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, (lege \u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2) \u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc3, \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc3. Lib. II. i. e. \u201cThe sphere\n of the soul is then luciform, when the soul is neither extended to\n any thing [external] nor inwardly concurs with it, nor is depressed\n by it, but is illuminated with a light by which she sees the truth\n of all things, and the truth that is in herself.\u201d\n\n[66]M. Meibomius observes, that Canter did not see that \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9 should\n be written in this place for \u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03c9. Canter however was right in\n retaining \u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03c9. For the dianoetic is the same with the logistic\n part of the soul; and it is evident that a part of the soul\n different from the dianoetic is here intended to be signified.\n Besides, as Aristotle shows in his Nicomachean Ethics, when the\n irrational becomes obedient to the rational part of the soul, the\n former then prohibits and vanquishes base appetites in conjunction\n with the latter.\n\n[67]viz. Such as have the theoretic virtues.\n\n[68]i. e. Such as have the ethical and political virtues.\n\n[69]The original is, \u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, \u1fb3\n \u03c5\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. This sentence in its\n present state is certainly unintelligible. For \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 therefore, I\n read \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, and then the sense will be as in the above translation.\n The version of Canter is certainly absurd; for it is, \u201cFacultas\n tanquam robur et caus\u00e6, quo ferimus, et in rebus permanemus.\u201d And\n Gale, as usual, takes no notice of the absurdity.\n\n[70]viz., The equal and that which is arranged, belong to the order of\n bound, and the unequal and that which is without arrangement, to the\n order of infinity. And bound and infinity are the two great\n principles of things after the ineffable cause of all. See the third\n book of my translation of Proclus, On the Theology of Plato.\n\n[71]viz. The salvation of the universe arises from the co-adaptation of\n the sublunary region to the heavens.\n\n[72]In the Greek \u03b5\u03c0\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2; on which Gale observes, \u201cForte \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, nisi\n aliud subsit mysterium.\u201d But it appears to me that there is no\n occasion to substitute any other word for \u03b5\u03c0\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2. For in the\n education of youth, it is certainly requisite to unite allurement\n with erudition. And the substitution of \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, _ignorance_, is\n monstrous.\n\n[73]In the original \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, instead of which Gale\n proposes to read \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b1\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1, which still leaves the\n sentence involved in obscurity. But if for \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 we read\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 as in the above translation, the meaning is clear.\n\n[74]For \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in this place, I read \u03c6\u03c5\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[75]Neither of the Latin translators North and Arcerius have understood\n this passage, and therefore have erroneously translated it. For the\n original is: \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1. This North translates: \u201cAtque omnia in rerum serie\n et ordine ab illo separata.\u201d But Arcerius: \u201cAtque omnia qu\u00e6 sunt in\n natur\u00e6 cognatione ordineque ab illo separata.\u201d By the things however\n co-ordinate with, and successive to God, Archytas means the other\n Gods, who, though subordinate to the supreme, yet in consequence of\n partaking of the same nature, are said to be co-ordinate with him.\n Gale, likewise, did not perceive the error of the Latin translators.\n\n[76]Plato says this of God in his Laws.\n\n[77]The above sentences are from Stob\u00e6i Sententi\u00e6, p. 3. (the edition\n that of 1609,) and are ascribed to Pythagoras.\n\n[78]The above seven sentences are to be found in p. 4. of Stob\u00e6us, and\n as it appears to me are erroneously ascribed to Socrates. For I\n conceive them to have been written either by Democrates or\n Demophilus.\n\n[79]Stob. p. 48.\n\n[80]Hence the dogma of the Stoics derived its origin, that the wise man\n is independent of Fortune.\n\n[81]Stob. p. 65. These three sentences are ascribed to Pythagoras.\n\n[82]Stob. p. 80. These two sentences are ascribed to Socrates, but I\n have no doubt originally formed a part of the sentences of\n Demophilus.\n\n[83]Stob. p. 104. This sentence is ascribed to Democritus in Stob\u00e6us,\n but has doubtless either Democrates or Demophilus for its author.\n\n[84]Stob. p. 147. The above four sentences, are in Stob\u00e6us ascribed to\n Socrates; but I refer them either to Democrates or Demophilus.\n\n[85]This sentence in Stob\u00e6us is ascribed to Socrates, as is also the one\n which immediately precedes it, viz. \u201cThe wealth of the avaricious\n man, like the sun descending under the earth, delights no living\n thing.\u201d But as this sentence is to be found among the Similitudes of\n Demophilus, there can be no doubt of the other belonging to the same\n work.\n\n[86]This and the preceding sentence, are in Stob\u00e6us ascribed to\n Democritus, but I attribute them to Democrates or Demophilus.\n\n[87]This sentence in Stob\u00e6us is ascribed to Pythagoras, but, excepting\n the part within the brackets, is to be found among the sentences of\n Demophilus.\n\n[88]This sentence in Stob\u00e6us, is ascribed to Democritus, and that\n immediately preceding it, to Socrates; but I ascribe both of them to\n Democrates, or Demophilus.\n\n[89]This and the preceding sentences, together with two other sentences\n that accompany them, are in Stob\u00e6us ascribed to Democritus; but as\n the other two are to be found in the Collection of Democrates, there\n can be no doubt that all of them are from the same author.\n\n[90]For as every cause of existence to a thing, is better than that\n thing, so far as the one is cause and the other effect; thus also\n that which gives a name to any thing is better than the thing named,\n so far as it is named, i. e. so far as pertains to its possession of\n a name. For the nominator is the cause, and the name the effect.\n\n[91]In the Latin it is \u201cpost _dispositionem_ corporis.\u201d But for\n _dispositionem_ it is evidently necessary to read _dissolutionem_.\n\n[92]This is conformable to the well-known Pythagoric precept, \u201cFollow\n God.\u201d\n\n[93]\u201cWe can by no other means,\u201d (says Porphyry De Abstinen. lib. I.)\n \u201cobtain the true end of a contemplative, intellectual life than by\n _adhering_ to God, if I may be allowed the expression, as if\n fastened by a nail, at the same time being torn away and separated\n from body and corporeal delights; having procured safety from our\n deeds, and not from the mere attention to words.\u201d\n\n[94]But intellect is the recipient of wisdom, and therefore intellect is\n the true man. This also is asserted by Aristotle.\n\n[95]In the Latin _fidelis_; but as Ruffinus, the Latin translator of\n these sentences, frequently adulterates the true meaning of Sextus,\n by substituting one word for another, I have no doubt that in this\n sentence the original was \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 _eruditus_, and not \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n _fidelis_. My reason for so thinking is, that in one of the\n sentences of Demophilus it is said, \u201cthat the life of _ignorant_ men\n is a disgrace,\u201d \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; and this in the\n sentences of Sextus is, \u201cHominum _infidelium_ vita, opprobrium est.\u201d\n If, therefore, Ruffinus translates \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, _infidelium_, there is\n every reason to suppose that he would translate \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n _fidelis_.\n\n[96]Several of these sentences as published by Arcerius, are in a very\n defective state; but which, as the learned reader will perceive, I\n have endeavoured to amend in my translation of them.\n\n[97]This work is unfortunately lost.\n\n[98]According to \u00c6lian and Suidas also, _melanurus_ is a fish; but as\n the word signifies that which has a black termination, it is very\n appropriately used as a symbol of a material nature.\n\n[99]viz. Those Gods that are characterized by the _intelligible_, and\n _intellect_. See my translation of Proclus, On the Theology of\n Plato.\n\n[100]See the second edition of this work in Nos. 15 and 16 of the\n Pamphleteer.\n\n[101]i. e. Natures which are not connected with body.\n\n[102]See an extract of some length, and of the greatest importance, from\n this dialogue, in my translation of Select Works of Plotinus, p.\n 553, &c.\n\n[103]Forms subsist at the extremity of the intelligible triad, which\n triad consists of _being_, _life_, and _intellect_. But being and\n life, with all they contain, subsist here involved in impartible\n union. See my Proclus on the Theology of Plato.\n\n[104]In Aristot. Metaphys. Lib. 13.\n\n[105]Because \u00be is to \u2154 as 9 to 8.\n\n[106]In Mathemat. p. 147.\n\n[107]Instead of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, it is necessary to read \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; the\n necessity of which emendation, I wonder the learned Bullialdus did\n not observe.\n\n[108]This philosophic apathy is not, as is stupidly supposed by most of\n the present day, insensibility, but a perfect subjugation of the\n passions to reason.\n\n[109]The words \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7 are omitted in the original. But it is\n evident from Plotinus, that they ought to be inserted.\n\n[110]Instead of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd here, it is necessary to read \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n\n THE END.\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\n\u2014Silently corrected a few typos.\n\n\u2014Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook\n is public-domain in the country of publication.\n\n\u2014Added a Table of Contents based on the chapter headings in the text.\n\n\u2014In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by\n _underscores_.","title":"Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras, or Pythagoric Life: Accompanied by Fragments of the Ethical Writings of certain Pythagoreans in the Doric dialect; and a collection of Pythagoric Sentences from Stobaeus and others, which are omitted by Gale in his Opuscula Mythologica, and have not been noticed by any editor","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":80547}