{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_65478/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_65478","id":"gutenberg_65478","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65478","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian heresies -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600","Occultism","Philosophy, Ancient"],"text":"TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE\n\n GENERAL EDITORS: W. J. SPARROW-SIMPSON, D.D.,\n W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D.\n\n SERIES I\n GREEK TEXTS\n\n PHILOSOPHUMENA\n OR THE\n REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES\n\n\n\n\n PHILOSOPHUMENA\n OR THE\n REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES\n\n FORMERLY ATTRIBUTED TO ORIGEN, BUT\n NOW TO HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP AND\n MARTYR, WHO FLOURISHED\n ABOUT 220 A.D.\n\n TRANSLATED FROM THE TEXT OF CRUICE\n BY\n F. LEGGE, F.S.A.\n\n VOL. I.\n\n LONDON\n SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING\n CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE\n NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n 1921\n\n\n\n\n PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY\n RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,\n PARIS GARDEN, STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1,\n AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n INTRODUCTION 1-30\n\n 1. THE TEXT, ITS DISCOVERY, PUBLICATION AND\n EDITIONS 1\n\n 2. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK 5\n\n 3. THE CREDIBILITY OF HIPPOLYTUS 8\n\n 4. THE COMPOSITION OF THE WORK 11\n\n 5. THE STYLE OF THE WORK 23\n\n 6. THE VALUE OF THE WORK 28\n\n\n BOOK I: THE PHILOSOPHERS 31-64\n\n PRO\u00c6MIUM 32\n\n THALES 35\n\n PYTHAGORAS 36\n\n EMPEDOCLES 40\n\n HERACLITUS 41\n\n ANAXIMANDER 42\n\n ANAXIMENES 43\n\n ANAXAGORAS 44\n\n ARCHELAUS 46\n\n PARMENIDES 47\n\n LEUCIPPUS 48\n\n DEMOCRITUS 48\n\n XENOPHANES 49\n\n ECPHANTUS 50\n\n HIPPO 50\n\n SOCRATES 51\n\n PLATO 51\n\n ARISTOTLE 55\n\n THE STOICS 57\n\n EPICURUS 58\n\n THE ACADEMICS 59\n\n THE BRACHMANS AMONG THE INDIANS 60\n\n THE DRUIDS AMONG THE CELTS 61\n\n HESIOD 62\n\n\n BOOK II ? 65\n\n\n BOOK III ? 65\n\n\n BOOK IV: THE DIVINERS AND MAGICIANS 67-117\n\n 1. OF ASTROLOGERS 67\n\n 2. OF MATHEMATICIANS 83\n\n 3. OF DIVINATION BY METOPOSCOPY 87\n\n 4. THE MAGICIANS 92\n\n 5. RECAPITULATION 103\n\n 6. OF DIVINATION BY ASTRONOMY 107\n\n 7. OF THE ARITHMETICAL ART 114\n\n\n BOOK V: THE OPHITE HERESIES 118-180\n\n 1. NAASSENES 118\n\n 2. PERAT\u00c6 146\n\n 3. THE SETHIANI 160\n\n 4. JUSTINUS 169\n\n\n\n\n PHILOSOPHUMENA\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\n 1. THE TEXT, ITS DISCOVERY, PUBLICATION AND EDITIONS\n\nThe story of the discovery of the book here translated so resembles\na romance as to appear like a flower in the dry and dusty field\nof patristic lore. A short treatise called _Philosophumena_, or\n\u201cPhilosophizings,\u201d had long been known, four early copies of it being\nin existence in the Papal and other libraries of Rome, Florence and\nTurin. The superscriptions of these texts and a note in the margin of\none of them caused the treatise to be attributed to Origen, and its\n_Edito princeps_ is that published in 1701 at Leipzig by Fabricius\nwith notes by the learned Gronovius. As will be seen later, it is by\nitself of no great importance to modern scholars, as it throws no new\nlight on the history or nature of Greek philosophy, while it is mainly\ncompiled from some of those epitomes of philosophic opinion current in\nthe early centuries of our era, of which the works of Diogenes Laertius\nand Aetius are the best known. In the year 1840, however, Myno\u00efdes\nMynas, a learned Greek, was sent by Abel Villemain, then Minister of\nPublic Instruction in the Government of Louis Philippe, on a voyage of\ndiscovery to the monasteries of Mt. Athos, whence he returned with,\namong other things, the MS. of the last seven books contained in these\nvolumes. This proved on investigation to be Books IV to X inclusive of\nthe original work of which the text published by Fabricius was Book\nI, and therefore left only Books II and III to be accounted for. The\npagination of the MS. shows that the two missing books never formed\npart of it; but the author\u2019s remarks at the end of Books I and IX,\nand the beginning of Books V and X[1] lead one to conclude that if\nthey ever existed they must have dealt with the Mysteries and secret\nrites of the Egyptians, or rather of the Alexandrian Greeks,[2]\nwith the theologies and cosmogonies of the Persians and Chald\u00e6ans,\nand with the magical practices and incantations of the Babylonians.\nDeeply interesting as these would have been from the arch\u00e6ological and\nanthropological standpoint, we perhaps need not deplore their loss\novermuch. The few references made to them in the remainder of the work\ngo to show that here too the author had no very profound acquaintance\nwith, or first-hand knowledge of, his subject, and that the scanty\ninformation that he had succeeded in collecting regarding it was only\nthrown in by him as an additional support for his main thesis. This\nlast, which is steadily kept in view throughout the book, is that the\npeculiar tenets and practices of the Gnostics and other heretics of his\ntime were not derived from any misinterpretation of the Scriptures,\nbut were a sort of amalgam of those current among the heathen with the\nopinions held by the philosophers[3] as to the origin of all things.\n\nThe same reproach of scanty information cannot be brought against the\nbooks discovered by Mynas. Book IV, four pages at the beginning of\nwhich have perished, deals with the arts of divination as practised by\nthe arithmomancers, astrologers, magicians and other charlatans who\ninfested Rome in the first three centuries of our era; and the author\u2019s\naccount, which the corruption of the text makes rather difficult to\nfollow, yet gives us a new and unexpected insight into the impostures\nand juggleries by which they managed to bewilder their dupes. Books V\nto IX deal in detail with the opinions of the heretics themselves, and\ndiffer from the accounts of earlier heresiologists by quoting at some\nlength from the once extensive Gnostic literature, of which well-nigh\nthe whole has been lost to us.[4] Thus, our author gives us excerpts\nfrom a work called the _Great Announcement_, attributed by him to Simon\nMagus, from another called _Proastii_ used by the sect of the Perat\u00e6,\nfrom the _Paraphrase of Seth_ in favour with the Sethiani, from the\n_Baruch_ of one Justinus, a heresiarch hitherto unknown to us, and from\na work by an anonymous writer belonging to the Naassenes or Ophites,\nwhich is mainly a Gnostic explanation of the hymns used in the worship\nof Cybele.[5] Besides these, there are long extracts from Basilidian\nand Valentinian works which may be by the founders of those sects, and\nwhich certainly give us a more extended insight into their doctrines\nthan we before possessed; while Book X contains what purports to be a\nsummary of the whole work.\n\nThis, however, does not exhaust the new information put at our disposal\nby Mynas\u2019 discovery. In the course of an account of the heresy of\nNoetus, who refused to admit any difference between the First and\nSecond Persons of the Trinity, our author suddenly develops a violent\nattack on one Callistus, a high officer of the Church, whom he\ndescribes as a runaway slave who had made away with his master\u2019s money,\nhad stolen that deposited with him by widows and others belonging to\nthe Church, and had been condemned to the mines by the Prefect of\nthe City, to be released only by the grace of Commodus\u2019 concubine,\nMarcia.[6] He further accuses Callistus of leaning towards the heresy\nof Noetus, and of encouraging laxity of manners in the Church by\npermitting the marriage and re-marriage of bishops and priests, and\nconcubinage among the unmarried women. The heaviness of this charge\nlies in the fact that this Callistus can hardly be any other than\nthe Saint and Martyr of that name, who succeeded Zephyrinus in the\nChair of St. Peter about the year 218, and whose name is familiar\nto all visitors to modern Rome from the cemetery which still bears\nit, and over which the work before us says he had been set by his\npredecessor.[7] The explanation of these charges will be discussed when\nwe consider the authorship of the book, but for the present it may be\nnoticed that they throw an entirely unexpected light upon the inner\nhistory of the Primitive Church.\n\nThese facts, however, were not immediately patent. The MS., written as\nappears from the colophon by one Michael in an extremely crabbed hand\nof the fourteenth century, is full of erasures and interlineations,\nand has several serious lacun\u00e6.[8] Hence it would probably have\nremained unnoticed in the Biblioth\u00e8que Royale of Paris to which it was\nconsigned, had it not there met the eye of B\u00e9nigne Emmanuel Miller, a\nFrench scholar and arch\u00e6ologist who had devoted his life to the study\nand decipherment of ancient Greek MSS. By his care and the generosity\nof the University Press, the MS. was transcribed and published in\n1851 at Oxford, but without either Introduction or explanatory notes,\nalthough the suggested emendations in the text were all carefully\nnoted at the foot of every page.[9] These omissions were repaired\nby the German scholars F. G. Schneidewin and Ludwig Duncker, who in\n1856-1859 published at G\u00f6ttingen an amended text with full critical\nand explanatory notes, and a Latin version.[10] The completion of this\npublication was delayed by the death of Schneidewin, which occurred\nbefore he had time to go further than Book VII, and was followed by the\nappearance at Paris in 1860 of a similar text and translation by the\nAbb\u00e9 Cruice, then Rector of a college at Rome, who had given, as he\ntells us in his _Prolegomena_, many years to the study of the work.[11]\nAs his edition embodies all the best features of that of Duncker and\nSchneidewin, together with the fruits of much good and careful work of\nhis own, and a Latin version incomparably superior in clearness and\nterseness to the German editors\u2019, it is the one mainly used in the\nfollowing pages. An English translation by the Rev. J. H. Macmahon, the\ntranslator for Bohn\u2019s series of a great part of the works of Aristotle,\nalso appeared in 1868 in Messrs. Clark\u2019s _Ante-Nicene Library_. Little\nfault can be found with it on the score of verbal accuracy; but fifty\nyears ago the relics of Gnosticism had not received the attention that\nhas since been bestowed upon them, and the translator, perhaps in\nconsequence, did little to help the general reader to an understanding\nof the author\u2019s meaning.\n\n\n 2. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK\n\nEven before Mynas\u2019 discovery, doubts had been cast on the attribution\nof the _Philosophumena_ to Origen. The fact that the author in his\n_Pro\u00e6mium_ speaks of himself as a successor of the Apostles, a sharer\nin the grace of high priesthood, and a guardian of the Church,[12] had\nalready led several learned writers in the eighteenth century to point\nout that Origen, who was never even a bishop, could not possibly be the\nauthor, and Epiphanius, Didymus of Alexandria, and Aetius were among\nthe names to which it was assigned. Immediately upon the publication\nof Miller\u2019s text, this controversy was revived, and naturally became\ncoloured by the religious and political opinions of its protagonists.\nJacobi in a German theological journal was the first to declare that it\nmust have been written by Hippolytus, a contemporary of Callistus,[13]\nand this proved to be like the letting out of waters. The dogma of\nPapal Infallibility was already in the air, and the opportunity was at\nonce seized by the Baron von Bunsen, then Prussian Ambassador at the\nCourt of St. James\u2019, to do what he could to defeat its promulgation. In\nhis _Hippolytus and his Age_ (1852), he asserted his belief in Jacobi\u2019s\ntheory, and drew from the abuse of Callistus in Book IX of the newly\ndiscovered text, the conclusion that even in the third century the\nPrimacy of the Bishops of Rome was effectively denied. The celebrated\nChristopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, followed with a scholarly\nstudy in which, while rejecting von Bunsen\u2019s conclusion, he admitted\nhis main premises; and Dr. D\u00f6llinger, who was later to prove the chief\nopponent of Papal claims, appeared a little later with a work on the\nsame side. Against these were to be found none who ventured to defend\nthe supposed authorship of Origen, but many who did not believe that\nthe work was rightly attributed to Hippolytus. Among the Germans,\nFessler and Baur pronounced for Caius, a presbyter to whom Photius\nin the ninth century gave the curious title of \u201cBishop of Gentiles,\u201d\nas author; of the Italians, de Rossi assigned it to Tertullian\nand Armellini to Novatian; of the French, the Abb\u00e9 Jallabert in a\ndoctoral thesis voted for Tertullian; while Cruice, who was afterwards\nto translate the work, thought its author must be either Caius or\nTertullian.[14] Fortunately there is now no reason to re-open the\ncontroversy, which one may conclude has come to an end by the death of\nLipsius, the last serious opponent of the Hippolytan authorship. Mgr.\nDuchesne, who may in such a matter be supposed to speak with the voice\nof the majority of the learned of his own communion, in his _Histoire\nAncienne de l\u2019\u00c9glise_[15] accepts the view that Hippolytus was the\nauthor of the _Philosophumena_, and thinks that he became reconciled\nto the Church under the persecution of Maximin.[16] We may, therefore,\ntake it that Hippolytus\u2019 authorship is now admitted on all sides.\n\nA few words must be said as to what is known of this Hippolytus. A\nSaint and Martyr of that name appears in the Roman Calendar, and a\nseated statue of him was discovered in Rome in the sixteenth century\ninscribed on the back of the chair with a list of works, one of which\nis claimed in our text as written by its author.[17] He is first\nmentioned by Eusebius, who describes him as the \u201cBishop of another\nChurch\u201d than that of Bostra, of which he has been speaking;[18]\nthen by Theodoret, who calls him the \u201choly Hippolytus, bishop and\nmartyr\u201d;[19] and finally by Prudentius, who says that he became a\nNovatianist, but on his way to martyrdom returned to the bosom of\nthe Church and entreated his followers to do the same.[20] We have\nmany writings, mostly fragmentary, attributed to him, including among\nothers one on the Paschal cycle which is referred to on the statue\njust mentioned, a tract against Noetus used later by Epiphanius, and\nothers on Antichrist, Daniel, and the Apocalypse, all of which show\na markedly chiliastic tendency. In the MSS. in which some of these\noccur, he is spoken of as \u201cBishop of Rome,\u201d and this seems to have been\nhis usual title among Greek writers, although he is in other places\ncalled \u201cArchbishop,\u201d and by other titles. From these and other facts,\nD\u00f6llinger comes to the conclusion that he was really an anti-pope\nor schismatic bishop who set himself up against the authority of\nCallistus, and this, too, is accepted by Mgr. Duchesne, who agrees\nwith D\u00f6llinger that the schism created by him lasted through the\nprimacies of Callistus\u2019 successors, Urbanus and Pontianus, and only\nceased when this last was exiled together with Hippolytus to the mines\nof Sardinia.[21] Though the evidence on which this is based is not\nvery strong, it is a very reasonable account of the whole matter;\nand it becomes more probable if we choose to believe--for which,\nhowever, there is no distinct evidence--that Hippolytus was the head\nof the Greek-speaking community of Christians at Rome, while his enemy\nCallistus presided over the more numerous Latins. In that case, the\nschism would be more likely to be forgotten in time of persecution,\nand would have less chance of survival than the more serious ones of\na later age; while it would satisfactorily account for the conduct of\nthe Imperial authorities in sending the heads of both communities into\npenal servitude at the same time. By doing so, Maximin or his pagan\nadvisers doubtless considered they were dealing the yet adolescent\nChurch a double blow.\n\n\n 3. THE CREDIBILITY OF HIPPOLYTUS\n\nAssuming, then, that our author was Hippolytus, schismatic Bishop\nof Rome from about 218 to 235, we must next see what faith is to be\nattached to his statements. This question was first raised by the\nlate Dr. George Salmon, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, who was\nthroughout his life a zealous student of Gnosticism and of the history\nof the Church during the early centuries. While working through\nour text he was so struck by the repetition in the account of four\ndifferent sects of the simile about the magnet drawing iron to itself\nand the amber the straws, as to excogitate a theory that Hippolytus\nmust have been imposed upon by a forger who had sold him a number of\ndocuments purporting to be the secret books of the heretics, but in\nreality written by the forger himself.[22] This theory was afterwards\nadopted by the late Heinrich St\u00e4helin, who published a treatise\nin which he attempted to show in the laborious German way, by a\ncomparison of nearly all the different passages in it which present\nany similarity of diction, that the whole document was suspect.[23]\nThe different passages on which he relies will be dealt with in the\nnotes as they occur, and it may be sufficient to mention here the\nopinion of M. Eug\u00e8ne de Faye, the latest writer on the point, that the\ntheory of Salmon and St\u00e4helin goes a long way beyond the facts.[24]\nAs M. de Faye points out, the different documents quoted in the work\ndiffer so greatly from one another both in style and contents, that\nto have invented or concocted them would have required a forger of\nalmost superhuman skill and learning. To which it may be added that\nthe mere repetition of the phrases that St\u00e4helin has collated with\nsuch diligence would be the very thing that the least skilful forger\nwould most studiously avoid, and that it could hardly fail to put\nthe most credulous purchaser on his guard. It is also the case that\nsome at least of the phrases of whose repetition Salmon and St\u00e4helin\ncomplain can be shown to have come, not from the Gnostic author quoted,\nbut from Hippolytus himself, and that others are to be found in the\nGnostic works which have come down to us in Coptic dress.[25] These\nCoptic documents, as the present writer has shown elsewhere,[26] are\nso intimately linked together that all must be taken to have issued\nfrom the same school. They could not have been known to Hippolytus or\nhe would certainly have quoted them in the work before us; nor to the\nsupposed forger, or he would have made greater use of them. We must,\ntherefore, suppose that, in the passages which they and our text have\nin common, both they and it are drawing from a common source which can\nhardly be anything else than the genuine writings of earlier heretics.\nWe must, therefore, agree with M. de Faye that the Salmon-St\u00e4helin\ntheory of forgery must be rejected.\n\nIf, however, we turn from this to such statements of Hippolytus as\nwe can check from other sources, we find many reasons for doubting\nnot indeed the good faith of him or his informants, but the accuracy\nof one or other of them. Thus, in his account of the tenets of the\nphilosophers, he repeatedly alters or misunderstands his authorities,\nas when he says that Thales supposed water to be the end as it had\nbeen the beginning of the Universe,[27] or that \u201cZaratas,\u201d as he calls\nZoroaster, said that light was the father and darkness the mother of\nbeings,[28] which statements are directly at variance with what we\nknow otherwise of the opinions of these teachers. So, too, in Book I,\nhe makes Empedocles say that all things consist of fire, and will be\nresolved into fire, while in Book VII, he says that Empedocles declared\nthe elements of the cosmos to be six in number, whereof fire, one\nof the two instruments which alter and arrange it, is only one.[29]\nAgain, in Book IX, he says that he has already expounded the opinions\nof Heraclitus, and then sets to work to describe as his a perfectly\ndifferent set of tenets from that which he has assigned to him in Book\nI; while in Book X he ascribes to Heraclitus yet another opinion.[30]\nOr we may take as an example the system of arithmomancy or divination\nby the \u201cPythagorean number\u201d whereby, he says, its professors claim to\npredict the winner of a contest by juggling with the numerical values\nof the letters in the competitors\u2019 names, and then gives instances,\nsome of which do and others do not work out according to the rule\nhe lays down. So, too, in his unacknowledged quotations from Sextus\nEmpiricus, he so garbles his text as to make it unintelligible to us\nwere we not able to restore it from Sextus\u2019 own words. So, again, in\nhis account of the sleight-of-hand and other stage tricks, whereby he\nsays, no doubt with truth, the magicians used to deceive those who\nconsulted them, his account is so carelessly written or copied that\nit is only by means of much reading between the lines that it can\nbe understood, and even then it recounts many more marvels than it\nexplains.[31] Some of this inaccuracy may possibly be due to mistakes\nin copying and re-copying by scribes who did not understand what they\nwere writing; but when all is said there is left a sum of blunders\nwhich can only be attributed to great carelessness on the part of the\nauthor. Yet, as if to show that he could take pains if he liked, the\nquotations from Scripture are on the whole correctly transcribed and\nshow very few variations from the received versions. Consequently when\nsuch variations do occur (they are noted later whenever met with), we\nmust suppose them to be not the work of Hippolytus, but of the heretics\nfrom whom he quotes, who must, therefore, have taken liberties with\nthe New Testament similar to those of Marcion. Where, also, he copies\nIren\u00e6us with or without acknowledgment, his copy is extremely faithful,\nand agrees with the Latin version of the model more closely than the\nGreek of Epiphanius. It would seem, therefore, that our author\u2019s\nstatements, although in no sense unworthy of belief, yet require\nin many cases strict examination before they can be unhesitatingly\naccepted.[32]\n\n\n 4. THE COMPOSITION OF THE WORK\n\nIn these circumstances, and in view of the manifest discrepancies\nbetween statements in the earlier part of the text and what purports to\nbe their repetition in the later, the question has naturally arisen as\nto whether the document before us was written for publication in its\npresent form. It is never referred to or quoted by name by any later\nauthor, and although the argument from silence has generally proved\na broken reed in such cases, there are here some circumstances which\nseem to give it unusual strength. It was certainly no reluctance to\ncall in evidence the work of a schismatic or heretical writer which\nled to the work being ignored, for Epiphanius, a century and a half\nlater, classes Hippolytus with Iren\u00e6us and Clement of Alexandria as one\nfrom whose writings he has obtained information,[33] and Theodoret,\nwhile making use still later of certain passages which coincide with\ngreat closeness with some in Book X of our text,[34] admits, as has\nbeen said, Hippolytus\u2019 claim to both episcopacy and martyrdom. But the\npassages in Theodoret which seem to show borrowing from Hippolytus,\nalthough possibly, are not necessarily from the work before us. The\nauthor of this tells us in Book I that he has \u201caforetime\u201d[35] expounded\nthe tenets of the heretics \u201cwithin measure,\u201d and without revealing all\ntheir mysteries, and it might, therefore, be from some such earlier\nwork that both Epiphanius and Theodoret have borrowed. Some writers,\nincluding Salmon,[36] have thought that this earlier work of our author\nis to be found in the anonymous tractate _Adversus Omnes H\u00e6reses_\nusually appended to Tertullian\u2019s works.[37] Yet this tractate, which is\nextremely short, contains nothing that can be twisted into the words\ncommon to our text and to Theodoret, and we might, therefore, assert\nwith confidence that it was from our text that Theodoret copied them\nbut for the fact that he nowhere indicates their origin. This might be\nonly another case of the unacknowledged borrowing much in fashion in\nhis time, were it not that Theodoret has already spoken of Hippolytus\nin the eulogistic terms quoted above, and would therefore, one would\nthink, have been glad to give as his informant such respectable\nauthority. As he did not do so, we may perhaps accept the conclusion\ndrawn by Cruice with much skill in a study published shortly after the\nappearance of Miller\u2019s text,[38] and say with him that Theodoret did\nnot know that the passages in question were to be found in any work of\nHippolytus. In this case, as the statements in Book IX forbid us to\nsuppose that our text was published anonymously or pseudonymously, the\nnatural inference is that both Hippolytus and Theodoret drew from a\ncommon source.\n\nWhat this source was likely to have been there can be little doubt.\nOur author speaks more than once of \u201cthe blessed elder Iren\u00e6us,\u201d who\nhas, he says, refuted the heretic Marcus with much vigour, and he\nimplies that the energy and power displayed by Iren\u00e6us in such matters\nhave shortened his own work with regard to the Valentinian school\ngenerally.[39] Photius, also, writing as has been said in the ninth\ncentury, mentions a work of Hippolytus against heresies admittedly\nowing much to Iren\u00e6us\u2019 instruction. The passage runs thus:--\n\n \u201cA booklet of Hippolytus has been read. Now Hippolytus was a\n disciple of Iren\u00e6us. But it (i. e. the booklet) was the compilation\n against 32 heresies making (the) Dositheans the beginning (of them)\n and comprising (those) up to Noetus and the Noetians. And he says\n that these heresies were subjected to refutations by Iren\u00e6us in\n conversation[40] (or in lectures). Of which refutations making also\n a synopsis, he says he compiled this book. The phrasing however is\n clear, reverent and unaffected, although he does not observe the Attic\n style. But he says some other things lacking in accuracy, and that the\n Epistle to the Hebrews was not by the Apostle Paul.\u201d\n\nThese words have been held by Salmon and others to describe the\ntractate _Adversus Omnes H\u00e6reses_. Yet this tractate contains not\nthirty-two heresies, but twenty-seven, and begins with Simon Magus to\nend with the Praxeas against whom Tertullian wrote. It also notices\nanother heretic named Blastus, who, like Praxeas, is mentioned neither\nby Iren\u00e6us nor by our author, nor does it say anything about Noetus or\nthe Apostle Paul. It does indeed mention at the outset \u201cDositheus the\nSamaritan,\u201d but only to say that the author proposes to keep silence\nconcerning both him and the Jews, and \u201cto turn to those who have wished\nto make heresy from the Gospel,\u201d the very first of whom, he says, is\nSimon Magus.[41] As for refutations, the tractate contains nothing\nresembling one, which has forced the supporters of the theory to assume\nthat they were omitted for brevity\u2019s sake. Nor does it in the least\nagree with our text in its description of the tenets and practices of\nheresies which the two documents treat of in common, such as Simon,\nBasilides, the Sethiani and others, and the differences are too great\nto be accounted for by supposing that the author of the later text was\nmerely incorporating in it newer information.[42]\n\nOn the other hand, Photius\u2019 description agrees fairly well with our\ntext, which contains thirty-one heresies all told, or thirty-two if we\ninclude, as the author asks us to do, that imputed by him to Callistus.\nOf these, that of Noetus is the twenty-eighth, and is followed by those\nof the Elchesaites, Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees only. These four\nlast are all much earlier in date than any mentioned in the rest of the\nwork, and three of them appeared to the author of the tractate last\nquoted as not heresies at all, while the fourth is not described by\nhim, and there is no reason immediately apparent why in any case they\nshould be put after and not before the post-Christian ones. The early\npart of the summary of Jewish beliefs in Book X is torn away, and may\nhave contained a notice of Dositheus, whose name occurs in Eusebius and\nother writers,[43] as a predecessor of Simon Magus and one who did not\nbelieve in the inspiration of the Jewish Prophets. The natural place\nin chronological order for these Jewish and Samaritan sects would,\ntherefore, be at the head rather than at the tail of the list, and if\nwe may venture to put them there and to restore to the catalogue the\nname of Dositheus, we should have our thirty-two heresies, beginning\nwith Dositheus and ending with Noetus. We will return later to the\nreason why Photius should call our text a Biblidarion or \u201cbooklet.\u201d\n\nAre there now any reasons for thinking that our text is founded on\nsuch a synopsis of lectures as Photius says Hippolytus made? A fairly\ncogent one is the inconvenient and awkward division of the books, which\noften seem as if they had been arranged to occupy equal periods of time\nin delivery. Another is the unnecessary and tedious introductions and\nrecapitulations with which the descriptions of particular philosophies,\ncharlatanic practices, and heresies begin and end, and which seem as\nif they were only put in for the sake of arresting or holding the\nattention of an audience addressed verbally. Thus, in the account of\nSimon Magus\u2019 heresy, our author begins with a long-winded story of\na Libyan who taught parrots to proclaim his own divinity, the only\nbearing of which upon the story of Simon is that Hippolytus asserts,\nlike Justin Martyr, that Simon wished his followers to take him for\nthe Supreme Being.[44] So, too, he begins the succeeding book with the\nage-worn tale of Ulysses and the Sirens[45] by way of introduction to\nthe tenets of Basilides, with which it has no connection whatever.\nThis was evidently intended to attract the attention of an audience so\nas to induce them to give more heed to the somewhat intricate details\nwhich follow. In other cases, he puts at the beginning or end of a\nbook a more or less detailed summary of those which preceded it, lest,\nas he states in one instance, his hearers should have forgotten what\nhe has before said.[46] These are the usual artifices of a lecturer,\nbut a more salient example is perhaps those ends of chapters giving\nindications of what is to follow immediately, which can hardly be\nanything else than announcements in advance of the subject of the next\nlecture. Thus, at the end of Book I, he promises to explain the mystic\nrites[47]--a promise which is for us unfulfilled in the absence of\nBooks II and III; at the end of Book IV, he tells us that he will deal\nwith the disciples of Simon and Valentinus[48]; at that of Book VII,\nthat he will do the same with the Docet\u00e6[49]; and at that of Book VIII\nthat he will \u201cpass on\u201d to the heresy of Noetus.[50] In none of these\ncases does he more than mention the first of the heresies to be treated\nof in the succeeding book, which the reader could find out for himself\nby turning over the page, or rather by casting his eye a little further\ndown the roll.\n\nAgain, there are repetitions in our text excusable in a lecturer who\ndoes not, if he is wise, expect his hearers to have at their fingers\u2019\nends all that he has said in former lectures, and who may even find\nthat he can best root things in their memory by saying them over and\nover again; but quite unpardonable in a writer who can refer his\nreaders more profitably to his former statements. Yet, we find our\nauthor in Book I giving us the supposed teaching of Pythagoras as to\nthe monad being a male member, the dyad a female and so on up to the\ndecad, which is supposed to be perfect.[51] This is gone through all\nover again in Book IV with reference to the art of arithmetic[52]\nand again in Book VI where it is made a sort of shoeing-horn to the\nValentinian heresy[53]. The same may be said of the \u201cCategories\u201d or\naccidents of substance which Hippolytus in one place attributes to\nPythagoras, but which are identical with those set out by Aristotle\nin the _Organon_. He gives them rightly to Aristotle in Book I, but\nmakes them the invention of the Pythagoreans in Book VI only to return\nthem to Aristotle in Book VII.[54] Here again is a mistake such as a\nlecturer might make by a slip of the tongue, but not a writer with any\npretensions to care or seriousness.\n\nBeyond this, there is some little direct evidence of a lecture origin\nfor our text. In his comments on the system of Justinus, which he\nconnects with the Ophites, our author says: \u201cThough I have met with\nmany heresies, O beloved, I have met with none viler in evil than\nthis.\u201d The word \u201cbeloved\u201d is here in the plural, and would be the\nphrase used by a Greek-speaking person in a lecture to a class or group\nof disciples or catechumens.[55] I do not think there is any instance\nof its use in a _book_. In another place he says that his \u201cdiscourse\u201d\nhas proved useful, not only for refuting heretics, but for combating\nthe prevalent belief in astrology;[56] and although the word might be\nemployed by other authors with regard to writings, yet it is not likely\nto have been used in that sense by Hippolytus, who everywhere possible\nrefers to his former \u201cbooks.\u201d There is, therefore, a good deal of\nreason for supposing that some part of this work first saw the light as\nspoken and not as written words.\n\nWhat this part is may be difficult to define with great exactness;\nbut there are abundant signs that the work as we have it was not\nwritten all at one time. In Book I, the author expresses his intention\nof assigning every heresy to the speculations of some particular\nphilosopher or philosophic school.[57] So far from doing so, however,\nhe only compares Valentinus with Pythagoras and Plato, Basilides\nwith Aristotle, Cerdo and Marcion with Empedocles, Hermogenes with\nSocrates, and Noetus with Heraclitus, leaving all the Ophite teachers,\nSatornilus, Carpocrates, Cerinthus and other founders of schools\nwithout a single philosopher attached to them. At the end of Book\nIV, moreover, he draws attention more than once to certain supposed\nresemblances in the views linked with the name of Pythagoras, to those\nunderlying the nomenclature of the Simonian and Valentinian heresies,\nand concludes with the words that he must proceed to the doctrines of\nthese last.[58] Before he does so, however, Book V is interposed and\nis entirely taken up with the Ophites, or worshippers of the Serpent,\nto whom he does not attempt to assign a philosophic origin. In Book\nVI he carries out his promise in Book IV by going at length into the\ndoctrines of Simon, Valentinus and the followers of this last, and\nin Book VII he takes us in like manner through those of Basilides,\nMenander, Marcion and his successors, Carpocrates, Cerinthus and many\nothers of the less-known heresiarchs. Book VIII deals in the same way\nwith a sect that he calls the Docet\u00e6, Monoimus the Arabian, Tatian,\nHermogenes and some others. In the case of the Ophite teachers, Simon,\nand Basilides, he gives us, as has been said, extracts from documents\nwhich are entirely new to us, and were certainly not used by Iren\u00e6us,\nwhile he adds to the list of heresies described by his predecessor,\nthe sects of the Docet\u00e6, Monoimus and the Quartodecimans. In all the\nother heresies so far, he follows Iren\u00e6us\u2019 account almost word for\nword, and with such closeness as enables us to restore in great part\nthe missing Greek text of that Father. With Book IX, however, there\ncomes a change. Mindful of the intention expressed in Book I, he here\nbegins with a summary of the teaching of Heraclitus the Obscure, which\nno one has yet professed to understand, and then sets to work to\ndeduce from it the heresy of Noetus. This gives him the opportunity\nfor the virulent attack on his rival Callistus, to whom he ascribes a\nmodification of Noetus\u2019 heresy, and he next, as has been said, plunges\ninto a description of the sect of the Elchesaites, then only lately\ncome to Rome, and quotes from Josephus without acknowledgment and with\nsome garbling the account by this last of the division of the Jews into\nthe three sects of Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Noetus\u2019 heresy\nwas what was known as Patripassian, from its involving the admission\nthat the Father suffered upon the Cross, and although he manages to see\nGnostic elements in that of the Elchesaites, there can be little doubt\nthat these last-named \u201cheretics,\u201d whose main tenet was the prescription\nof frequent baptism for all sins and diseases, were connected with the\npre-Christian sect of Hemerobaptists, Mogtasilah or \u201cWashers\u201d who are\nat once pre-Christian, and still to be found near the Tigris between\nBaghdad and Basra. Why he should have added to these the doctrines of\nthe Jews is uncertain, as the obvious place for this would have been,\nas has been said, at the beginning of the volume:[59] but a possible\nexplanation is that he was here resuming a course of instruction by\nlectures that he had before abandoned, and was therefore in some sort\nobliged to spin it out to a certain length.\n\nBook X seems at first sight likely to solve many of the questions\nwhich every reader who has got so far is compelled to ask. It begins,\nin accordance with the habit just noted, with the statement that the\nauthor has now worked through \u201cthe Labyrinth of Heresies\u201d and that the\nteachings of truth are to be found neither in the philosophies of the\nGreeks, the secret mysteries of the Egyptians, the formulas of the\nChald\u00e6ans or astrologers, nor the ravings of Babylonian magic.[60]\nThis links it with fair closeness to the reference in Book IV to the\nideas of the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Chald\u00e6ans, only the\nfirst-named nation being here omitted from the text. It then goes on\nto say that \u201chaving brought together the opinions[61] of all the wise\nmen among the _Greeks_ in four books and those of the heresiarchs in\nfive,\u201d he will make a summary of them. It will be noted that this\nis in complete contradiction to the supposition that the missing\nBooks II and III contained the doctrines of the Babylonians, as he\nnow says that they comprised those of the Greeks only. The summary\nwhich follows might have been expected to make this confusion clear,\nbut unfortunately it does nothing of the kind. It does indeed give\nso good an abstract of what has been said in Books V to IX inclusive\nregarding the chief heresiarchs, that in one or two places it enables\nus to correct doubtful phrases and to fill in gaps left in earlier\nbooks. There is omitted from the summary, however, all mention of the\nheresies of Marcus, Satornilus, Menander, Carpocrates, the Nicolaitans,\nDocet\u00e6, Quartodecimans, Encratites and the Jewish sects, and the list\nof omissions will probably be thought too long to be accounted for\non the ground of mere carelessness. But when the summarizer deals\nwith the earlier books, the discrepancy between the summary and the\ndocuments summarized is much more startling. Among the philosophers, he\nomits to summarize the opinions of Pythagoras, Empedocles, Ecphantus,\nHippo, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Academics, Brachmans,\nor Druids, while he does mention those of Hippasus, Ocellus Lucanus,\nHeraclides of Pontus and Asclepiades, who were not named in any of\nthe texts of Book I which have come down to us. As for the tenets\nand practices of the Persians, Egyptians and others, supposed on the\nstrength of the statement at the beginning of Book V to have been\nnarrated in Books II and III, nothing further is here said concerning\nthem, and, by the little table of contents with which Book X like the\nothers is prefaced, it will appear that nothing was intended to be\nsaid. For this last omission it might be possible to assign plausible\nreasons if it stood alone; but when it is coupled with the variations\nbetween summary and original as regards Book I, the only inference that\nmeets all the facts is that the summarizer did not have the first four\nbooks under his eyes.\n\nThis has led some critics to conclude that the summary is by another\nhand. There is nothing in the literary manners of the age to compel us\nto reject this supposition, and similar cases have been quoted. The\nevidence of style is, however, against it, and it is unlikely that\nif the summarizer were any other person than Hippolytus, he would\nhave taken up Hippolytus\u2019 personal quarrel against Callistus. Yet in\nthe text of Book X before us the charge of heresy against Callistus\nis repeated, although perhaps with less asperity than in Book IX,\nthe accusations against his morals being omitted. Nor is it easy to\ndissociate from Hippolytus the really eloquent appeal to men of all\nnations to escape the terrors of Tartarus and gain an immortality of\nbliss by becoming converted to the Doctrine of Truth with which the\nBook ends, after an excursion into Hebrew Chronology, a subject which\nalways had great fascination for Hippolytus. Although the matter is not\nbeyond doubt, it would appear, therefore, that the summary, like the\nrest of the book, is by Hippolytus\u2019 own hand.\n\nIn these circumstances there is but one theory that in the opinion\nof the present writer will reconcile all the conflicting facts. This\nis that the foundation of our text _is_ the synopsis that Hippolytus\nmade, as Photius tells us, after receiving instruction from Iren\u00e6us;\nthat those notes were, as Hippolytus himself says, \u201cset forth\u201d by him\npossibly in the form of lectures, equally possibly in writing, but in\nany case a long time before our text was compiled; and that when his\nrivalry with Callistus became acute, he thought of republishing these\ndiscourses and bringing them up to date by adding to them the Noetian\nand other non-Gnostic heresies which were then making headway among the\nChristian community, together with the facts about the divinatory and\nmagical tricks which had come to his knowledge during his long stay in\nRome. We may next conjecture that, after the greater part of his book\nwas written, chance threw in his way the documents belonging to the\nNaassene and other Ophite sects, which went back to the earliest days\nof Christianity and were probably in Hippolytus\u2019 time on the verge\nof extinction.[62] He had before determined to omit these sects as\nof slight importance,[63] but now perceiving the interest of the new\ndocuments, he hastily incorporated them in his book immediately after\nhis account of the magicians, so that they might appear as what he with\nsome truth said they were, to wit, the fount and source of all later\nGnosticism. To do this, he had to displace the account of the Jewish\nand Samaritan sects with which all the heresiologists of the time\nthought it necessary to begin their histories. He probably felt the\nless reluctance in doing so, because the usual mention of these sects\nas \u201cheresies\u201d in some sort contradicted his pet theory, which was that\nthe Gnostic tenets were not a mere perversion of Christian teaching,\nbut were derived from philosophic theories of the creation of things,\nand from the mystic rites.\n\nNext let us suppose that at the close of his life, when he was perhaps\nhiding from Maximin\u2019s inquisitors, or even when he was at the Sardinian\nmines, he thought of preserving his work for posterity by re-writing\nit--such copies as he had left behind him in Rome having been doubtless\nseized by the Imperial authorities.[64] Not having the material that he\nhad before used then at his disposal, he had to make the best summary\nthat he could from memory, and in the course of this found that the\ncontents of the Books I, II, and III--the material for which he had\ndrawn in the first instance from Iren\u00e6us--had more or less escaped\nhim. He was probably able to recall some part of Book I by the help of\nheathen works like those of Diogenes Laertius, Aetius, or perhaps that\nAlcinous whose summary of Plato\u2019s doctrines seem to have been formerly\nused by him.[65] The Ophite and other Gnostic heresies he remembers\nsufficiently to make his summary of their doctrines more easy,\nalthough he omits from the list heresiarchs like Marcus, Satornilus\nand Menander, about whom he had never had any exclusive information,\nand he now puts Justinus after instead of before Basilides. Finally,\nhe remembered the Jewish sects which he had once intended to include,\nand being perhaps able to command, even in the mines, the work of a\nRomanized but unconverted Jew like Josephus, took from it such facts as\nseemed useful for his purpose as an introduction to the chronological\nspeculation which had once formed his favourite study. With this\nsummary as his guide he continued, it may be, to warn the companions in\nadversity to whom he tells us he had \u201cbecome an adviser,\u201d against the\nperils of heresy, and to appeal to his unconverted listeners with what\nhis former translator calls not unfitly \u201ca noble specimen of patristic\neloquence.\u201d That he died in the mines is most probable, not only from\nhis advanced age at the time of exile and the consequent unlikelihood\nthat he would be able to withstand the pestilential climate, but also\nfrom the record of his body having been \u201cdeposited\u201d in the Catacombs\non the same day with that of his fellow-Pope and martyr Pontianus.[66]\nYet the persecution of Maximin, though sharp, was short, and on the\ndeath of the tyrant after a reign of barely three years, there is no\nreason why the transcript of Book X should not have reached Rome, where\nthere is some reason to think it was known from its opening words as\n\u201cthe Labyrinth.\u201d Later it was probably appended to Books IV to IX of\nHippolytus\u2019 better known work, and the whole copied for the use of\nthose officials who had to enquire into heresy. To them, Books II and\nIII would be useless, and they probably thought it inexpedient to\nperpetuate any greater knowledge than was necessary for their better\nsuppression, of the unclean mysteries of either pagan or Gnostic. As\nfor Book I, besides being harmless, it had possibly by that time become\ntoo firmly connected with the name of Origen for its attribution to\nthis other sufferer in the Maximinian persecution to be disturbed in\nlater times.\n\nIt only remains to see how this theory fits in with the remarks of\nPhotius given above. It is fairly evident that Photius is speaking\nfrom recollection only, and that the words do not suggest that\nhe had Hippolytus\u2019 actual work before him when writing, while he\nthroughout speaks of it in the past tense as one might speak of a\ndocument which has long since perished, although some memory of its\ncontents have been preserved. If this were so, we might be prepared\nto take Photius\u2019 description as not necessarily accurate in every\ndetail; yet, as we have it, it is almost a perfect description of\nour text. The 32 heresies, as we have shown above, appear in our\ntext as in Photius\u2019 document. Our text contains not only the large\nexcerpts from Iren\u00e6us which we might expect from Photius\u2019 account\nof its inception, but also the \u201crefutations\u201d which do not appear in\nthe _Adversus Omnes H\u00e6reses_. It extends \u201cup to,\u201d as Photius says,\nNoetus and the Noetians, and although it does not contain any mention\nof Dositheus or the Dositheans, this may have been given in the part\nwhich has been cut out of Book X.[67] If that were the case, or if\nPhotius has made any mistake in the matter, as one might easily do\nwhen we consider that all the early heresiologies begin with Jewish\nand Samaritan sects, the only real discrepancy between our text and\nPhotius\u2019 description of Hippolytus\u2019 work is in the matter of length.\nBut it is by no means certain that Photius ever saw the whole work\nput together, and it is plain that he had never seen or had forgotten\nthe first four books dealing with the philosophers, the mysteries and\nthe charlatans. Without these, and without the summary, Books V to IX\ndo not work out to more than 70,000 words in all, and this might well\nseem a mere \u201cbooklet\u201d to a man then engaged in the compilation of his\nhuge _Bibliotheca_. Whether, then, Hippolytus did or did not reduce\nto writing the exposition of heresies which he made in his youth, it\nseems probable that all certain trace of this exposition is lost. It is\ncertainly not to be recognized in pseudo-Tertullian\u2019s _Adversus Omnes\nH\u00e6reses_, and the work of Hippolytus recorded by Photius was probably a\ncopy of our text in a more or less complete form.\n\n\n 5. THE STYLE OF THE WORK\n\nPhotius\u2019 remark that Hippolytus did not keep to the Attic style is an\nunderstatement of the case with regard to our text. Jacobi, its first\ncritic, was so struck by the number of \u201cLatinisms\u201d that he found in it\nas to conjecture that it is nothing but a Greek translation of a Latin\noriginal.[68] This is so unlikely as to be well-nigh impossible if\nHippolytus were indeed the author; and no motive for such translation\ncan be imagined unless it were made at a fairly late period. In that\ncase, we should expect to find it full of words and expressions used\nonly in Byzantine times when the Greek language had become debased by\nSlav and Oriental admixtures. This, however, is not the case with our\ntext, and only one distinctly Byzantine phrase has rewarded a careful\nsearch.[69] On the other hand neologisms are not rare, especially in\nBook X,[70] and everything goes to show the truth of Cruice\u2019s remark\nthat the author was evidently not a trained writer. This is by no means\ninconsistent with the theory that the whole work is by Hippolytus,\nand is the more probable if we conclude that it was originally spoken\ninstead of written.\n\nThis is confirmed when we look into the construction of the author\u2019s\nsentences. They are drawn out by a succession of relative clauses\nto an extent very rare among even late Greek writers, more than one\nsentence covering 20 or 30 lines of the printed page without a full\nstop, while the usual rules as to the place and order of the words\nare often neglected. Another peculiarity of style is the constant\npiling up of several similes or tropes where only one would suffice,\nwhich is very distinctly marked in the passages whenever the author\nis speaking for long in his own person and without quoting the words\nof another. In all these we seem to be listening to the words of a\nfluent but rather laborious orator. Thus in Book I he compares the\njoy that he expects to find in his work to that of an athlete gaining\nthe crown, of a merchant selling his goods after a long voyage, of a\nhusbandsman with his hardly won crops, and of a despised prophet seeing\nhis predictions fulfilled.[71] So in Book V, after mentioning a book\nby Orpheus called _Bacchica_ otherwise unknown, he goes on to speak of\n\u201cthe mystic rite of Celeus and Triptolemus and Demeter and Core and\nDionysus in Eleusis,\u201d[72] when any practised writer would have said the\nEleusinian mysteries simply. A similar piling up of imagery is found in\nBook VIII, where he speaks of the seed of the fig-tree as \u201ca refuge for\nthe terror-stricken, a shelter for the naked, a veil for modesty, and\nthe sought-for produce to which the Lord came in search of fruit three\ntimes and found none.\u201d[73] But it is naturally in the phrases of the\npastoral address with which Book X ends that the most salient examples\noccur. Thus, the unconverted are told that by being instructed in the\nknowledge of the true God, they will escape the imminent menace of the\njudgment fire, and the unillumined vision of gloomy Tartarus, and the\nburning of the everlasting shore of the Gehenna of fire, and the eye of\nthe Tartaruchian angels in eternal punishment, and the worm that ever\ncoils as if for food round the body whence it was bred,[74]--or, as he\nmight have said in one word, the horrors of hell.\n\nLess distinctive than this, although equally noticeable, is the play\nof words which is here frequently employed. This is not unknown among\nother ecclesiastical writers of the time, and seems to have struck\nCharles Kingsley when, fresh from a perusal of St. Augustine, he\ndescribes him as \u201cby a sheer mistranslation\u201d twisting one of the Psalms\nto mean what it never meant in the writer\u2019s mind, and what it never\ncould mean, and then punning on the Latin version.[75] Hippolytus\nwhen writing in his own person makes but moderate use of this figure.\nSometimes he does so legitimately enough, as when he speaks of the\nGnostics initiating a convert into their systems and delivering to him\n\u201cthe perfection of wickedness\u201d--the word used for perfection having the\nmystic or technical meaning of initiation as well as the more ordinary\none of completion[76]; or when he says that the measurements of stellar\ndistances by Ptolemy have led to the construction of measureless\n\u201cheresies.\u201d[77] At others he consciously puns on the double meaning of\na word, as when he says that those who venture upon orgies are not far\nfrom the wrath (\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae) of God.[78] Sometimes, again, he is led away by\na merely accidental similarity of sounds as when he tries to connect\nthe name of the Docet\u00e6, which he knows is taken from \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u201cto seem,\u201d\nwith \u201cthe _beam_ (\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2) in the eye\u201d of the Sermon on the Mount.[79] He\nmakes a second and more obvious pun on the same word later when he says\nthat the Docet\u00e6 do more than _seem_ to be mad; but he is most shameless\nwhen he derives \u201cprophet\u201d from \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd instead of \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9[80]--a\nperversion which one can hardly imagine entering into the head of any\none with the most modest acquaintance with Greek grammar.\n\nBut these puns, bad as they are, are venial compared with some of\nthe authors from whom he quotes. None can equal in this respect the\nefforts of the Naassene author, whose plays upon words and audacious\nderivations might put to the blush those in the _Cratylus_. Adamas and\nAdam, Corybas and \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03ae (the head), Geryon and \u0393\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd (\u201cflowing\nfrom earth\u201d), Mesopotamia and \u201ca river from the middle,\u201d Papas and\n\u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b5 (\u201cCease! cease!\u201d), \u0391\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (\u201cgoat herd\u201d) and \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\n(\u201cever turning\u201d), _naas_ (\u201cserpent\u201d) and \u03bd\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2 (\u201ctemple\u201d), Euphrates\nand \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 (\u201che rejoices\u201d) are but a few of the terrible puns he\nperpetrates.[81] The Peratic author is more sober in this respect,\nand yet he, or perhaps Hippolytus for him, derives the name of the\nsect from \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd (\u201cto pass beyond\u201d),[82] although Theodoret with\nmore plausibility would take it from the nationality of its teacher\nEuphrates the Peratic or Mede; and the chapter on the Sethians does\nnot contain a single pun. Yet that on Justinus makes up for this by\nderiving the name of the god Priapus from \u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9, a word made\nup for the occasion.[83] \u201cThe great Gnostics of Hadrian\u2019s time,\u201d\nviz.:--Basilides, Marcion and Valentinus, seem to have had souls above\nsuch puerilities; but the Docetic author resumes the habit with a\nspecially daring parallel between \u0392\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (\u201ca bush\u201d) and \u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (Hera\u2019s\nrobe or \u201cmist\u201d)[84] and Monoimus the Arab follows suit with a sort\nof jingle between the Decalogue and the \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 or ten plagues\nof Egypt, which would hardly have occurred to any one without the\nSemitic taste for assonance.[85] Of the less-quoted writers there is\nno occasion to speak, because there are either no extracts from their\nworks given in our text or they are too short for us to judge from them\nwhether they, too, were given to punning.\n\nApart from such comparatively small matters, however, the difference in\nstyle between the several Gnostic writers here quoted is well marked.\nNothing can be more singular at first sight than the way in which the\nNaassene author expresses himself. It seems to the reader on the first\nperusal of his lucubrations as if the writer had made up his mind to\nfollow no train of thought beyond the limits of a single sentence.\nBeginning with the idea of the First Man, which we find running like\na thread through so many Eastern creeds, from that of the Cabalists\namong the Jews to the Manich\u00e6ans who perhaps took it directly from\nits primitive source in Babylon,[86] he immediately turns from this\nto declare the tripartite division of the universe and everything it\ncontains, including the souls and natures of men, and to inculcate the\nstrictest asceticism. Yet all this is written round, so to speak, a\nhymn to Attis which he declares relates to the Mysteries of the Mother\nwith several allusions to the most secret rites of the Eleusinian\nDemeter and, as it would appear, of those of the Greek Isis. The\nPeratic author, on the other hand, also teaches a tripartite division\nof things and souls, but draws his proofs not from the same mystic\nsources as the Naassene but from what Hippolytus declares to be the\nsystem of the astrologers. This system, which is not even hinted at in\nany avowedly astrological work, is that the stars are the cause of all\nthat happens here below, and that we can only escape from their sway\ninto one of the two worlds lying above ours by the help of Christ, here\ncalled the Perfect Serpent, existing as an intermediary between the\nFather of All and Matter. Yet this doctrine, which we can also read\nwithout much forcing of the text into the rhapsody of the Naassene, is\nstated with all the precision and sobriety of a scientific proposition,\nand is as entirely free from the fervour and breathlessness of the\nlast-named writer as it is from his perpetual allusions to the Greek\nand especially to the Alexandrian and Anatolian mythology.[87] Both\nthese again are perfectly different in style from the \u201cSethian\u201d author\nfrom whom Hippolytus gives us long extracts, and who seems to have\ntrusted mainly to an imagery which is entirely opposed to all Western\nconventions of modesty.[88] Yet all three aver the strongest belief\nin the Divinity and Divine Mission of Jesus, whom they identify with\nthe Good Serpent, which was according to many modern authors the chief\nmaterial object of adoration in every heathen temple in Asia Minor.[89]\nThey are, therefore, rightly numbered by Hippolytus among the Ophite\nheresies, and seem to be founded upon traditions current throughout\nWestern Asia which even now are not perhaps quite extinct. Yet each of\nthe three authors quoted in our text writes in a perfectly different\nstyle from his two fellow heresiarchs, and this alone is sufficient to\nremove all doubt as to the genuineness of the document.\n\nThese three Ophite chapters are taken first because in our text they\nbegin the heresiology strictly so called.[90] As has been said, the\npresent writer believes them to be an interpolation made at the last\nmoment by the author, and by no means the most valuable, though they\nare perhaps the most curious part of the book. They resemble much,\nhowever, in thought the quotations in our text attributed to Simon\nMagus, and although the ideas apparent in them differ in material\npoints, yet there seems to be between the two sets of documents a\nkind of family likeness in the occasional use of bombastic language\nand unclean imagery. But when we turn from these to the extracts from\nthe works attributed to Valentinus and Basilides which Hippolytus\ngives us, a change is immediately apparent. Here we have dignity of\nlanguage corresponding to dignity of thought, and in the case of\nValentinus especially the diction is quite equal to the passages from\nthe discourses of that most eloquent heretic quoted by Clement of\nAlexandria. We feel on reading them that we have indeed travelled from\nthe Orontes to the Tiber, and the difference in style should by itself\nconvince the most sceptical critic at once of the good faith of our\ncareless author and of the authenticity of the sources from which he\nhas collected his information.\n\n\n 6. THE VALUE OF THE WORK\n\nWhat interest has a work such as this of Hippolytus for us at the\npresent day? In the first place it preserves for us many precious\nrelics of a literature which before its discovery seemed lost for ever.\nThe pagan hymn to Attis and the Gnostic one on the Divine Mission\nof Jesus, both appearing in Book V, are finds of the highest value\nfor the study of the religious beliefs of the early centuries of our\nEra, and with these go many fragments of hardly less importance,\nincluding the Pindaric ode in the same book. Not less useful or less\nunexpected are the revelations in the same book of the true meaning\nof the syncretistic worship of Attis and Cybele, and the disclosure\nhere made of the supreme mystery of the Eleusinian rites, which we now\nknow for the first time culminated in the representation of a divine\nmarriage and of the subsequent birth of an infant god, coupled with the\nsymbolical display of an \u201cear of corn reaped in silence.\u201d For the study\nof classical antiquity as well as for the science of religions such\nfacts are of the highest value.\n\nBut all this will for most of us yield in interest to the picture\nwhich our text gives us of the struggles of Christianity against its\nexternal and internal foes during the first three centuries. So far\nfrom this period having been one of quiet growth and development for\nthe infant Church, we see her in Hippolytus\u2019 pages exposed not only to\nfierce if sporadic persecution from pagan emperors, but also to the\nsteady and persistent rivalry of scores of competing schools led by\nsome of the greatest minds of the age, and all combining some of the\nmain tenets of Christianity with the relics of heathenism. We now know,\ntoo, that she was not always able to present an unbroken front to these\nviolent or insidious assailants. In the highest seats of the Church,\nas we now learn for the first time, there were divisions on matters of\nfaith which anticipated in some measure those which nearly rent her\nin twain after the promulgation of the Creed of Nic\u00e6a. Such a schism\nas that between the churches of Hippolytus and Callistus must have\ngiven many an opportunity to those foes who were in some sort of her\nown household; while round the contest, like the irregular auxiliaries\nof a regular army, swarmed a crowd of wonder-workers, diviners, and\nother exploiters of the public credulity, of whose doings we have\nbefore gained some insight from writers like Lucian and Apuleius, but\nwhose methods and practices are for the first time fully described by\nHippolytus.\n\nThe conversion of the whole Empire under Constantine broke once for all\nthe power of these enemies of the Church. Schisms were still to occur,\nbut grievous as they were, they happily proved impotent to destroy the\nessential unity of Christendom. The heathen faiths and the Gnostic\nsects derived from them were soon to wither like plants that had no\nroot, and both they and the charlatans whose doings our author details\nwere relentlessly hunted down by the State which had once given them\nshelter: while if the means used for this purpose were not such as the\npurer Christian ethics would now approve, we must remember that these\nmeans would probably have proved ineffective had not Christian teaching\nalready destroyed the hold of these older beliefs on the seething\npopulations of the Empire. That the adolescent Church should thus have\nbeen enabled to triumph over all her enemies may seem to many a better\nproof of her divine guidance than the miraculous powers once attributed\nto her. We may not all of us be able to believe that a rainstorm put\nout the fire on which Thekla was to be burned alive, or that the\ncrocodiles in the tank in the arena into which she was cast were struck\nby lightning and floated to the surface dead.[91] Still less can we\ncredit that the portraits of St. Theodore and other military saints\nleft their place in the palace of the Queen of Persia and walked about\nin human form.[92] Such stories are for the most of us either pious\nfables composed for edification or half-forgotten records of natural\nevents seen through the mist of exaggeration and misrepresentation\ncommon in the Oriental mind. But that the Church which began like a\ngrain of mustard seed should in so short a time come to overshadow the\nwhole civilized world may well seem when we consider the difficulties\nin her way a greater miracle than any of those recorded in the\nApocryphal Gospels and Acts; and the full extent of these difficulties\nwe should not have known save for Mynas\u2019 discovery of our text.\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: pp. 63, 117, 119; Vol. II, 148, 150 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Hippolytus, like all Greek writers of his age, must have\nbeen entirely ignorant of the Egyptian religion of Pharaonic times,\nwhich was then extinct. The only \u201cEgyptian\u201d Mysteries of which he could\nhave known anything were those of the Alexandrian Triad, Osiris, Isis,\nand Horus, for which see the translator\u2019s _Forerunners and Rivals of\nChristianity_, Cambridge, 1915, I, c. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The pre-Christian origins of Gnosticism and its relations\nwith Christianity are fully dealt with in the work quoted in the last\nnote.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Save for a few sentences quoted in patristic writings,\nthe only extant Gnostic works are the Coptic collection in the British\nMuseum and the Bodleian at Oxford, known as the _Pistis Sophia_ and the\nBruce Papyrus respectively. There are said to be some other fragments\nof Coptic MSS. of Gnostic origin in Berlin which have not yet been\npublished.]\n\n[Footnote 5: An account by the present writer of this worship in Roman\ntimes is given in the _Journal_ of the Royal Asiatic Society for\nOctober 1917, pp. 695 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 6: II, pp. 125 ff. _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 7: II, p. 124 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 8: The facsimile of a page of the MS. is given in Bishop\nWordsworth\u2019s _Hippolytus and the Church of Rome_, London, 1880.]\n\n[Footnote 9: B. E. Miller, _Origenis Philosophumena sive Omnium\nH\u00e6resium Refutatio_, Oxford, 1851.]\n\n[Footnote 10: L. Duncker and F. G. Schneidewin, _Philosophumena_, etc.\nG\u00f6ttingen, 1856-1859.]\n\n[Footnote 11: P. M. Cruice, _Philosophumena_, etc. Paris, 1860.]\n\n[Footnote 12: p. 34 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Deutsche Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Christliche Wissenschaft und\nChristliches Leben_, 1852.]\n\n[Footnote 14: References to nearly all the contributions to this\ncontroversy are correctly given in the Prolegomena to Cruice\u2019s edition,\npp. x ff. An English translation of Dr. D\u00f6llinger\u2019s _Hippolytus und\nKallistus_ was published by Plummer, Edinburgh, 1876, and brings the\ncontroversy up to date. Cf. also the Bibliography in Salmon\u2019s article\n\u201cHippolytus Romanus\u201d in Smith and Wace\u2019s _Dictionary of Christian\nBiography_ (hereafter quoted as _D.C.B._).]\n\n[Footnote 15: See the English translation: _Early History of the\nChristian Church_, London, 1909, I, pp. 227 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 16: This is confirmed by Dom. Chapman in the _Catholic\nEncyclopedia_, _s. vv._ \u201cHippolytus,\u201d \u201cCallistus.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 17: The statue and its inscription are also reproduced by\nBishop Wordsworth in the work above quoted.]\n\n[Footnote 18: _Hist. Eccles._, VI, c. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Haer. Fab._, III, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Peristeph II._ For the chronological difficulty that\nthis involves see Salmon, _D.C.B._, _s.v._ \u201cHippolytus Romanus.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 21: Duchesne, _op. cit._, p. 233.]\n\n[Footnote 22: \u201cThe Cross-references in the Philosophumena,\u201d\n_Hermathena_, Dublin, No. XI, 1885, pp. 389 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 23: \u201cDie Gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts\u201d in Gebhardt and\nHarnack\u2019s _Texte und Untersuchungen_, VI, (1890).]\n\n[Footnote 24: _Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9tude du Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1903, p.\n68; _Gnostiques et Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1913, p. 167.]\n\n[Footnote 25: The theory that all existing things come from an\n\u201cindivisible point\u201d which our text gives as that of Simon Magus and\nof Basilides reappears in the Bruce Papyrus. Basilides\u2019 remark about\nonly 1 in 1000 and 2 in 10,000 being fit for the higher mysteries\nis repeated _verbatim_ in the _Pistis Sophia_, p. 354, Copt. Cf.\n_Forerunners_, II, 172, 292, n. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 26: _Scottish Review_, Vol. XXII, No. 43 (July 1893).]\n\n[Footnote 27: p. 35 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 28: p. 39 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 29: p. 41; II, p. 83 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 30: II, pp. 119, 151 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 31: For the arithmomancy see p. 83 ff. _infra_; the\nborrowings from Sextus begin on p. 70, the tricks of the magicians on\np. 92. For other mistakes, see the quotation about the Furies in II,\np. 23, which he ascribes to Pythagoras, but which is certainly from\nHeraclitus (as Plutarch tells us), and the Categories of Aristotle\nwhich a few pages earlier are also assigned to Pythagoras. His\ntreatment of Josephus will be dealt with in its place.]\n\n[Footnote 32: This is especially the case with the story of Callistus,\nas to which see II, pp. 124 ff. _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 33: _Haer._ xxxi., p. 205, Oehler.]\n\n[Footnote 34: _Haeret. fab._ I, 17-24.]\n\n[Footnote 35: \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 36: In _D.C.B._, _art. cit. supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 37: See Oehler\u2019s edition of Tertullian\u2019s works, II, 751\nff. The parallel passages are set out in convenient form in Bishop\nWordsworth\u2019s book before quoted.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _\u00c9tudes sur de nouveaux documents historiques emprunt\u00e9s \u00e0\nl\u2019ouvrage r\u00e9cemment d\u00e9couvert des Philosophumena_, Paris, 1853.]\n\n[Footnote 39: II, pp. 43, 47 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 40: \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0395\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. For the whole quotation, see\nPhotius, _Bibliotheca_, 121 (Bekker\u2019s ed.).]\n\n[Footnote 41: Tertullian (Oehler\u2019s ed.), II, 751. St. Jerome in quoting\nthis passage says the heretics have mangled the Gospel.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Thus the tractate makes Simon Magus call his Helena\nSophia, and says that Basilides named his Supreme God Abraxas. It knows\nnothing of the God-who-is-not and the three Sonhoods of our text:\nand it gives an entirely different account of the Sethians, whom it\ncalls Sethit\u00e6, and says that they identified Christ with Seth. In this\nheresy, too, it introduces Sophia, and makes her the author of the\nFlood.]\n\n[Footnote 43: Euseb., _Hist. Eccles._ IV, c. 22. He is quoting\nHegesippus. See also Origen _contra Celsum_, VI, c. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 44: II, p. 3 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 45: II, pp. 61 ff. _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 46: pp. 103, 119; II, pp. 1, 57, 148, 149 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 47: p. 66 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 48: p. 117 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 49: II, p. 97 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 50: II, p. 116 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 51: p. 37 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 52: p. 115 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 53: II, p. 20. In II, p. 49, it is mentioned in connection\nwith the heresy of Marcus, and on p. 104 the same theory is attributed\nto the \u201cEgyptians.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 54: p. 66; II, pp. 21, 64 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 55: \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, p. 113 and p. 180 _infra_. It also occurs on p.\n125 of Vol. II in the same connection.]\n\n[Footnote 56: \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, pp. 107 and 120 _infra_. He uses the word in the\nsame sense on p. 113.]\n\n[Footnote 57: p. 35 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 58: p. 117 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Pseudo-Hieronymus, Isidorus Hispalensis, and Honorius\nAugustodunensis, like Epiphanius, begin their catalogues of heresies\nwith the Jewish and Samaritan sects. Philastrius leads off with the\nOphites and Sethians whom he declares to be pre-Christian, and then\ngoes on to Dositheus, and the Jewish \u201cheresies\u201d before coming to Simon\nMagus. Pseudo-Augustine and Pr\u00e6destinatus begin with Simon Magus and\ninclude no pre-Christian sects. See Oehler, _Corpus H\u00e6reseologicus_,\nBerlin, 1866, t. i.]\n\n[Footnote 60: II, p. 150 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 61: \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, p. _cit_.]\n\n[Footnote 62: So Origen, _Cont. Cels._, VI, 24, speaks of \u201cthe very\ninsignificant sect called Ophites.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 63: II, p. 116 _infra_, where he says that he did not think\nthem worth refuting.]\n\n[Footnote 64: For the search made both by pagan and Christian\ninquisitors for their opponents\u2019 books, see _Forerunners_, II, 12.]\n\n[Footnote 65: See n. on p. 51 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 66: Cf. Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. \u201cHippolytus Romanus.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 67: Hippolytus\u2019 denial of the Pauline authorship of the\nEpistle to the Hebrews probably appeared in some work other than\nour text. Or it may have been cut out by the scribe as offensive to\northodoxy.]\n\n[Footnote 68: A flagrant case is to be found in p. 81 Cr. where \u03a0 (P)\nhas, according to Schneidewin, been written for R, a mistake that\ncould only be made by one used to Roman letters. Cf. _Serpens_ and\n_serviens_, p. 487 Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 69: \u1f00\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 for \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57, p. 453 Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 70: _e. g._ \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae (p. 9 Cr.), \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 (p. 86),\n\u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 (p. 103), \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 153), \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 176),\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 370), \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 (p. 489), \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (p.\n500), \u1f00\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 511), \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 523).]\n\n[Footnote 71: p. 35 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 72: p. 166 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 73: II, p. 99 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 74: II, pp. 177 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 75: See Augustine\u2019s sermon in _Hypatia_.]\n\n[Footnote 76: p. 33 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 77: p. 83 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 78: II, p. 2 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 79: II, p. 99 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 80: II, p. 175 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 81: See pp. 122, 133, 134, 135, 137, 142, 143 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 82: p. 154 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 83: p. 178 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 84: II, p. 102.]\n\n[Footnote 85: II, p. 109.]\n\n[Footnote 86: See _Forerunners_, I, lxi ff.]\n\n[Footnote 87: This applies to the chief Peratic author quoted. The long\ncatalogue connecting personages in the Greek mythology with particular\nstars is, as is said later, by another hand, and is introduced by a\nbombastic utterance like that attributed to Simon Magus.]\n\n[Footnote 88: Hippolytus attributes it to the Orphics; but see de Faye\nfor another explanation.]\n\n[Footnote 89: _Forerunners_, II, 49.]\n\n[Footnote 90: Justinus is left out of the account because he does\nnot seem to have been an Ophite at all. The Serpent in his system is\nentirely evil, and therefore not an object of worship, and his sect is\nprobably much later than the other three in the same book.]\n\n[Footnote 91: _Acts of Paul and Thekla_, _passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 92: E. A. T. Wallis Budge, _Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in\nDialect of Upper Egypt_, London, 1915, pp. 579 ff.]\n\n\n\n\n BOOK I[1]\n\n THE PHILOSOPHERS\n\n\n[Sidenote: p. 1, Cruice.] These are the contents[2] of the First Part[3]\nof the Refutation of all Heresies;\n\nWhat were the tenets of the natural philosophers and who these were;\nand what those of the ethicists and who these were; and what those of\nthe dialecticians and who the dialecticians were.\n\nNow the natural philosophers mentioned are Thales, Pythagoras,\nEmpedocles, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus,\nParmenides, Leucippus, Democritus, Xenophanes, Ecphantus, and\n[Sidenote: p. 2.] Hippo. The ethicists are Socrates, pupil of Archelaus\nthe physicist and Plato, pupil of Socrates. These mingled together the\nthree kinds of philosophy. The dialecticians are Aristotle, pupil of\nPlato and the founder of dialectics, and the Stoics Chrysippus and Zeno.\n\nEpicurus, however, maintained an opinion almost exactly contrary\nto all these. So did Pyrrho the Academic[4] who asserts the\nincomprehensibility of all things. There are also the Brachmans[5]\namong the Indians, the Druids among the Celts, and Hesiod.\n\n\n (PRO\u00c6MIUM)\n\nNo fable made famous by the Greeks is to be neglected. For even those\nopinions of theirs which lack consistency are believed through the\nextravagant madness of the heretics, who, from hiding in silence their\nown unspeakable mysteries, are supposed by many to worship God. Whose\nopinions also we aforetime set forth within measure, not displaying\nthem in detail but refuting them in the rough,[6] as we did not hold it\nfit to bring their unspeakable deeds [Sidenote: p. 3.] to light. This\nwe did that, as we set forth their tenets by hints only, they, becoming\nashamed lest by telling outright their secrets we should prove them\nto be godless, might abate somewhat from their unreasoned purpose and\nunlawful enterprise.[7] But since I see that they have not been put to\nshame by our clemency, and have not considered God\u2019s long-suffering\nunder their blasphemies, I am forced, in order that they may either\nbe shamed into repentance, or remaining as they are may be rightly\njudged, to proceed to show their ineffable mysteries which they impart\nto those candidates for initiation who are thoroughly trustworthy.\nYet they do not previously avow them, unless they have enslaved such\na one by keeping him long in suspense and preparing him by blasphemy\nagainst the true God,[8] and they see him longing for the jugglery of\nthe disclosure. And then, when they have proved him to be bound fast\nby iniquity,[9] they initiate him and impart to him the perfection\nof evil things,[10] first binding him by oath neither to tell nor to\nimpart them to any one unless he too has been enslaved in the same\nway. Yet from him to whom they have been only communicated, no oath is\n[Sidenote: p. 4.] longer necessary. For whoso has submitted to learn\nand to receive their final mysteries will by the act itself and by\nhis own conscience be bound not to utter them to others. For were he\nto declare to any man such an offence, he would neither be reckoned\nlonger among men, nor thought worthy any more to behold the light.\nWhich things also are such an offence that even the dumb animals do not\nattempt them, as we shall say in its place.[11] But since the argument\ncompels us to enter into the case very deeply, we do not think fit to\nhold our peace, but setting forth in detail the opinions of all, we\nshall keep silence on none. And it seems good to us to spare no labour\neven if thereby the tale be lengthened. For we shall leave behind us\nno small help to the life of men against further error, when all see\nclearly the hidden and unspeakable orgies of which the heretics are\nthe stewards and which they impart only to the initiated. But none\nother will refute these things than the Holy Spirit handed down in the\nChurch which the Apostles having first received did distribute to those\nwho rightly believed. Whose successors we chance to be and partakers\nof the same grace of high priesthood[12] and of [Sidenote: p. 5.]\nteaching and accounted guardians of the Church. Wherefore we close not\nour eyes nor abstain from straight speech; but neither do we tire in\nworking with our whole soul and body worthily to return worthy service\nto the beneficent God. Nor do we make full return save that we slacken\nnot in that which is entrusted to us; but we fill full the measures\nof our opportunity and without envy communicate to all whatsoever the\nHoly Spirit shall provide. Thus we not only bring into the open by\nrefutation the affairs of the enemy;[13] but also whatever the truth\nhas received by the Father\u2019s grace and ministered to men. These things\nwe preach[14] as one who is not ashamed, both interpreting them by\ndiscourse and making them to bear witness by writings.\n\nIn order then, as we have said by anticipation, that we may show these\nmen to be godless alike in purpose, character and deed, and from what\nsource their schemes have come--and because they have in their attempts\ntaken nothing from the Holy Scriptures, nor is it from guarding the\nsuccession of any saint that they have been hurried into [Sidenote: p.\n6.] these things, but their theories[15] take their origin from the\nwisdom of the Greeks, from philosophizing opinions,[16] from would-be\nmysteries and from wandering astrologers--it seems then proper that we\nfirst set forth the tenets of the philosophers of the Greeks and point\nout to our readers[17] which of them are the oldest and most reverent\ntowards the Divinity.[18] Then, that we should match[19] each heresy\nwith a particular opinion so as to show how the protagonist of the\nheresy, meeting with these schemes, gained advantage by seizing their\nprinciples and being driven on from them to worse things constructed\nhis own system.[20] Now the undertaking is full of toil and requires\nmuch research. But we shall not be found wanting. For at the last\nit will give us much joy, as with the athlete who has won the crown\nwith much labour, or the merchant who has gained profit after great\ntossing of the sea, or the husbandman who gets the benefit of his\ncrops from the sweat of his brow, or the prophet who after reproaches\nand insults sees his predictions come to pass.[21] We will therefore\nbegin by declaring which of the Greeks first made demonstration of\nnatural philosophy. For of them especially have the protagonists of\nthe heretics become the plagiarists, as we [Sidenote: p. 7.] shall\nafterwards show by setting them side by side. And when we have restored\nto each of these pioneers his own, we shall put the heresiarchs beside\nthem naked and unseemly.[22]\n\n\n 1. _Thales._\n\nIt is said that Thales the Milesian, one of the seven sages, was\nthe first to take in hand natural philosophy.[23] He said that the\nbeginning and end of the universe was water;[24] for that from its\nsolidification and redissolution all things have been constructed and\nthat all are borne about by it. And that from it also come earthquakes\nand the turnings about of the stars and the motions of the winds.[25]\nAnd that all things are formed and flow in accordance with the nature\nof the first cause of generation; but that the Divinity is that which\nhas neither beginning nor end.[26] Thales, having devoted himself to\nthe system of the stars and to an enquiry into them, became for the\nGreeks the first who was responsible for this branch of learning.\nAnd he, gazing upon the heavens and saying that he was apprehending\n[Sidenote: p. 8.] with care the things above, fell into a well;\nwhereupon a certain servant maid of the name of Thratta[27] laughed at\nhim and said: \u201cWhile intent on beholding things in heaven, he does not\nsee what is at his feet.\u201d And he lived about the time of Cr\u0153sus.\n\n\n 2. _Pythagoras._\n\nAnd not far from this time there flourished another philosophy founded\nby Pythagoras, who some say was a Samian. They call it the Italic\nbecause Pythagoras, fleeing from Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos,\ntook up his abode in a city of Italy and there spent his life. Whose\nsuccessors in the school did not differ much from him in judgment. And\nhe, after having enquired into physics, combined with it astronomy,\ngeometry and music.[28] And thus he showed that unity is God,[29] and\nafter curiously studying the nature of number, he said that the cosmos\nmakes melody and was put together by harmony, and he first reduced\nthe movement of the seven stars[30] to rhythm and melody. Wondering,\nhowever, at the arrangement of the universals,[31] he [Sidenote: p. 9.]\nexpected his disciples to keep silence as to the first things learned\nby them, as if they were myst\u00e6 of the universe coming into the cosmos.\nThereafter when it seemed that they had partaken sufficiently of the\nschooling of the discourses, and could themselves philosophize about\nstars and Nature, he, having judged them purified, bade them speak.\nHe divided the disciples into two classes, and called these Esoterics\nand those Exoterics. To the first-named he entrusted the more complete\nteaching, to the others the more restricted. He applied himself[32]\nto magic[33] also, as they say, and himself invented a philosophy of\nthe origin of Nature,[34] based upon certain numbers and measures,\nsaying that the origin of the arithmetical philosophy comprised this\nmethod by synthesis. The first number became a principle which is\none, illimitable, incomprehensible, and contains within itself all\nthe numbers that can come to infinity by multiplication.[35] But the\nfirst unit was by hypothesis the origin of numbers, the which is a\nmale monad begetting like a father all the other numbers. In the\nsecond place is the dyad, a female number, and the same is called even\nby [Sidenote: p. 10.] the arithmeticians. In the third place is the\ntriad, a male number, and it has been called odd by the arithmeticians\u2019\ndecree. After all these is the tetrad, a female number, and this is\nalso called even, because it is female. Therefore all the numbers\nderived from the genus[36] (now the illimitable genus is \u201cnumber\u201d)\nare four, from which was constructed, according to them, the perfect\nnumber, the decad. For the 1, 2, 3, 4 become 10 if for each number\nits appropriate name be substantially kept.[37] This decad Pythagoras\nsaid was a sacred Tetractys, a source of everlasting Nature containing\nroots within itself, and that from the same number all the numbers have\ntheir beginning. For the 11 and the 12 and the rest share the beginning\nof their being from the 10. The four divisions of the same decad, the\nperfect number, are called number, monad,[38] square[39] and cube. The\nconjunctions and minglings of [Sidenote: p. 11.] which make for the\nbirth of increase and complete naturally the fruitful number. For when\nthe square is multiplied[40] by itself, it becomes a square squared;\nwhen into the cube, the square cubed; when the cube is multiplied by\nthe cube, it becomes a cube cubed. So that all the numbers from which\ncomes the birth of things which are, are seven; to wit: number, monad,\nsquare, cube, square of square, cube of square and cube of cube.\n\nHe declared also that the soul is immortal and that there is a change\nfrom one body to another.[41] Wherefore he said that he himself had\nbeen before Trojan times Aethalides,[42] and that in the Trojan era\nhe was Euphorbus, and after that Hermotimus the Samian, after which\nPyrrho of Delos, and fifthly Pythagoras. But Diodorus the Eretrian\nand Aristoxenus the writer on music[43] say that Pythagoras went to\nvisit Zaratas[44] the Chald\u00e6an; and Zaratas explained to him that\nthere are from the beginning two causes of things that are, a father\nand mother: and that the father is light and the mother, darkness: and\nthe divisions of the light are hot, dry, light (in weight) and swift;\nbut those of the darkness cold, moist, heavy and slow. From these the\n[Sidenote: p. 12.] whole cosmos was constructed, to wit: from a female\nand a male; and that the nature of the cosmos[45] is according to\nmusical harmony, wherefore the sun makes his journey rhythmically. And\nabout the things which come into being from the earth and cosmos, they\nsay Zaratas spoke thus: there are two demons,[46] a heavenly one and\nan earthly. Of these the earthly one sent on high a thing born from\nthe earth which is water; but that the heavenly fire partook of the\nair, hot and cold. Wherefore, he says, none of these things destroys\nor pollutes the soul, for the same are the substance of all. And it is\nsaid that Pythagoras ordered that beans should not be eaten, because\nZaratas said that at the beginning and formation of all things when\nthe earth was still being constructed and put together, the bean was\nproduced. And he says that a proof of this is, that if one chews a bean\nto pulp and puts it in the sun for some time (for this plays a direct\npart in the matter), it will give out the smell of human seed. And he\nsays that another proof is even clearer. If when the bean is in flower,\nwe take the bean [Sidenote: p. 13.] and its blossom, put it into a jar,\nanoint this, bury it in earth, and in a few days dig it up, we shall\nsee it at first having the form of a woman\u2019s _pudenda_ and afterwards\non close examination a child\u2019s head growing with it.\n\nPythagoras perished at Crotona in Italy having been burned along with\nhis disciples. And he had this custom that when any one came to him\nas a disciple, he had to sell his possessions and deposit the money\nunder seal with Pythagoras, and remain silent sometimes for three and\nsometimes for five years while he was learning. But on being again set\nfree, he mixed with the others and remained a disciple and took his\nmeals along with them. But if he did not, he took back what belonged to\nhim and was cast out. Now the Esoterics were called Pythagoreans and\nthe others Pythagorists. And of his disciples who escaped the burning\nwere Lysis and Archippus and Zamolxis, Pythagoras\u2019 house-slave, who\nis said to have taught the Druids among the Celts to cultivate the\nPythagorean philosophy. And they say that Pythagoras learned numbers\nand measures from the Egyptians, and being struck with the plausible,\nimposing and with difficulty disclosed wisdom of the priests,\n[Sidenote: p. 14.] he imitated them also in enjoining silence and,\nlodging his disciples in cells, made them lead a solitary life.[47]\n\n\n 3. _About Empedocles._\n\nBut Empedocles, born after these men, also said many things about the\nnature of demons, and how they being very many go about managing things\nupon the earth. He said that the beginning of the universe was Strife\nand Friendship and that the intellectual fire of the monad is God,\nand that all things were constructed from fire and will be resolved\ninto fire.[48] In which opinion the Stoics also nearly agree, since\nthey expect an ecpyrosis. But most of all he accepted the change into\ndifferent bodies, saying:\n\n \u201cFor truly a boy I became, and a maiden,\n And bush, and bird of prey, and fish,\n A wanderer from the salt sea.\u201d[49]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 15.] He declared that all souls transmigrated into all\nliving things.[50] For Pythagoras the teacher of these men said\nhe himself had been Euphorbus who fought at Ilion, and claimed to\nrecognize the shield.[51] This of Empedocles.\n\n\n 4. _About Heraclitus._\n\nBut Heraclitus of Ephesus, a physicist, bewailed all things,\naccusing the ignorance of all life and of all men, and pitying the\nlife of mortals. For he claimed that he knew all things and other\nmen nothing.[52] And he also made statements nearly in accord with\nEmpedocles, as he said that Discord and Friendship were the beginning\nof all things, and that the intellectual fire was God and that all\nthings were borne in upon one another and did not stand still. And\nlike Empedocles he said that every place of ours was filled with evil\nthings, and that these come as far as the moon extending from the\nplace surrounding the earth, but go no further, since the whole place\nabove the moon is very pure.[53] Thus, too, it seemed to Heraclitus.\n[Sidenote: p. 16.] And after these came other physicists whose opinions\nwe do not think it needful to declare as they are in no way incongruous\nwith those aforesaid. But since the school was by no means small,\nand many physicists afterwards sprang from these, all discoursing in\ndifferent fashion on the nature of the universe, it seems also fit to\nus, now that we have set forth the philosophy derived from Pythagoras,\nto return in order of succession to the opinions of those who adhered\nto Thales, and after recounting the same to come to the ethical\nand logical philosophies, whereof Socrates founded the ethical and\nAristotle the dialectic.\n\n\n 5. _About Anaximander._\n\nNow Anaximander was a hearer of Thales. He was Anaximander of Miletus,\nson of Praxiades.[54] He said that the beginning of the things that are\nwas a certain nature of the Boundless from which came into being the\nheavens and the ordered worlds[55] within them. And that this principle\nis eternal and grows not old and encompasses all the ordered worlds.\nAnd he says time is limited by birth, [Sidenote: p. 17.] substance,[56]\nand death. He said that the Boundless is a principle and element of the\nthings that are and was the first to call it by the name of principle.\nBut that there is an eternal movement towards Him wherein it happens\nthat the heavens are born. And that the earth is a heavenly body[57]\nsupported by nothing, but remaining in its place by reason of its equal\ndistance from everything. And that its form is a watery cylinder[58]\nlike a stone pillar; and that we tread on one of its surfaces, but that\nthere is another opposite to it. And that the stars are a circle of\nfire distinct from the fire in the cosmos, but surrounded by air. And\nthat certain fiery exhalations exist in those places where the stars\nappear, and by the obstruction of these exhalations come the eclipses.\nAnd that the moon appears sometimes waxing and sometimes waning through\nthe obstruction or closing of her paths. And that the circle of the sun\nis 27 times greater than that of the moon and that the sun is in the\nhighest place in the heavens and the circles of the fixed [Sidenote:\np. 18.] stars in the lowest. And that the animals came into being in\nmoisture evaporated by the sun. And that mankind was at the beginning\nvery like another animal, to wit, a fish. And that winds come from the\nseparation and condensation of the subtler atoms of the air[59] and\nrain from the earth giving back under the sun\u2019s heat what it gets from\nthe clouds,[60] and lightnings from the severance of the clouds by\nthe winds falling upon them. He was born in the 3rd year of the 42nd\nOlympiad.[61]\n\n\n 6. _About Anaximenes._\n\nAnaximenes, who was also a Milesian, the son of Eurystratus, said that\nthe beginning was a boundless air from which what was, is, and shall\nbe and gods and divine things came into being, while the rest came\nfrom their descendants. But that the condition of the air is such that\nwhen it is all over alike[62] it is invisible to the eye, but it is\nmade perceptible by cold and heat, by damp and by motion. And that\nit is ever-moving, for whatever is changeable[63] changes not unless\nit be moved. For it appears different when condensed and rarefied.\nFor when it diffuses into greater rarity fire is produced; but when\nagain halfway [Sidenote: p. 19.] condensed into air, a cloud is formed\nfrom the air\u2019s compression; and when still further condensed, water,\nand when condensed to the full, earth; and when to the very highest\ndegree, stones. And that consequently the great rulers of formation\nare contraries, to wit, heat and cold. And that the earth is a flat\nsurface borne up on the air in the same way as the sun and moon and\nthe other stars.[64] For all fiery things are carried through the air\nlaterally.[65] And that the stars are produced from the earth by reason\nof the mist which rises from it and which when rarefied becomes fire,\nand from this ascending fire[66] the stars are constructed. And that\nthere are earth-like natures in the stars\u2019 place carried about with\nthem. But he says that the stars do not move under the earth, as others\nassume, but round the earth[67] as a cap is turned on one\u2019s head, and\nthat the sun is hidden, not because it is under the earth, but because\nit is hidden by the earth\u2019s higher parts, and by reason of its greater\ndistance from us. And because of their great distance, the stars give\nout no heat. And that [Sidenote: p. 20.] winds are produced when the\nair after condensation escapes rarefied; but that when it collects and\nis thus condensed[68] to the full, it becomes clouds and thus changes\ninto water. Also that hail is produced when the water brought down\nfrom the clouds is frozen; and snow when the same clouds are wetter\nwhen freezing. And lightning come when the clouds are forced apart\nby the strength of the winds; for when thus driven apart, there is a\nbrilliant and fiery flash. Also that a rainbow is produced by the solar\nrays falling upon solidified air, and an earthquake from the earth\u2019s\nincreasing in size by heating and cooling. This then Anaximenes. He\nflourished about the 1st year of the 58th Olympiad.[69]\n\n\n 7. _About Anaxagoras._\n\nAfter him was Anaxagoras of Clazomene, son of Hegesibulus. He said\nthat the beginning of the universe was mind and matter, mind being the\ncreator and matter that which came unto being.[70] For that when all\nthings were together, mind came and arranged them. He says, however,\nthat the material principles are boundless, even the smallest of them.\nAnd that all things partake of movement, being [Sidenote: p. 21.] moved\nby mind, and that like things come together. And that the things in\nheaven were set in order by their circular motion.[71] That therefore\nwhat was dense and moist and dark and cold and everything heavy came\ntogether in the middle, and from the compacting of this the earth was\nestablished;[72] but that the opposites, to wit, the hot, the brilliant\nand the light were drawn off to the distant \u00e6ther. Also that the earth\nis fat in shape and remains suspended[73] through its great size, and\nfrom there being no void and because the air which is strongest bears\n(up) the upheld earth. And that the sea exists from the moisture on\nthe earth and the waters in it evaporating and then condensing in a\nhollow place;[74] and that the sea is supposed to have come into being\nby this and from the rivers flowing into it. And the rivers, too, are\nestablished by the rains and the waters within the earth; for the earth\nis hollow and holds water in its cavities. But that the Nile increases\nin summer when the snows from the northern parts are carried down into\nit. And that the sun and moon and all the stars are burning stones and\nare [Sidenote: p. 22.] carried about by the rotation of the \u00e6ther.\nAnd that below the stars are the sun and moon and certain bodies not\nseen by us whirled round together. And that the heat of the stars is\nnot felt by us because of their great distance from the earth; but yet\ntheir heat is not like that of the sun from their occupying a colder\nregion. Also that the moon is below the sun and nearer to us; and that\nthe size of the sun is greater than that of the Peloponnesus. And that\nthe moon has no light of her own, but only one from the sun. And that\nthe revolution of the stars takes place under the earth. Also that the\nmoon is eclipsed when the earth stands in her way, and sometimes the\nstars which are below the moon,[75] and the sun when the moon stands\nin his way during new moons. And that both the sun and moon make\nturnings (solstices) when driven back by the air; but that the moon\nturns often through not being able to master the cold. He was the first\nto determine the facts about eclipses and renewals of light.[76] And\nhe said that the moon was like the earth and had within it plains and\nravines. And that the Milky Way was the reflection of the light of the\nstars which are not lighted up by the sun. And that the shooting stars\n[Sidenote: p. 23.] are as it were sparks which glance off from the\nmovement of the pole. And that winds are produced by the rarefaction\nof the air by the sun and by their drying up as they get towards the\npole and are borne away from it. And that thunderstorms are produced by\nheat falling upon the clouds. And that earthquakes come from the upper\nair falling upon that under the earth; for when this last is moved,\nthe earth upheld by it is shaken. And that animals at the beginning\nwere produced from water, but thereafter from one another, and that\nmales are born when the seed secreted from the right parts of the body\nadheres to the right parts of the womb and females when the opposite\noccurs. He flourished in the 1st year of the 88th Olympiad, about which\ntime they say Plato was born.[77] They say also that Anaxagoras came to\nhave a knowledge of the future.\n\n\n 8. _About Archelaus._\n\nArchelaus was of Athenian race and the son of Apollodorus. He like\nAnaxagoras asserted the mixed nature of matter and agreed with him as\nto the beginning of things. But he said that a certain mixture[78]\nwas directly inherent in mind, and that the source of movement is the\nseparation from one another of heat and cold and that the [Sidenote: p.\n24.] heat is moved and the cold remains undisturbed. Also that water\nwhen heated flows to the middle of the universe wherein heated air\nand earth are produced, of which one is borne aloft while the other\nremains below. And that the earth remains fixed and exists because of\nthis and abides in the middle of the universe, of which, so to speak,\nit forms no part and which is delivered from the conflagration.[79] The\nfirst result of which burning is the nature of the stars, the greatest\nwhereof is the sun and the second the moon while of the others some are\ngreater and some smaller. And he says that the heaven is arched over\nus[80] and has made the air transparent and the earth dry. For that\nat first it was a pool; since it was lofty at the horizon, but hollow\nin the middle. And he brings forward as a proof of this hollowness,\nthat the sun does not rise and set at the same time for all parts as\nmust happen if the earth were level. And as to animals, he says that\nthe earth first became heated in the lower part when the hot and cold\nmingled and man[81] and the other animals appeared. And all things were\nunlike [Sidenote: p. 25.] one another and had the same diet, being\nnourished on mud. And this endured for a little, but at last generation\nfrom one another arose, and man became distinct from the other animals\nand set up chiefs, laws, arts, cities and the rest. And he says that\nmind is inborn in all animals alike. For that every body is supplied\nwith[82] mind, some more slowly and some quicker than the others.\n\nNatural philosophy lasted then from Thales up to Archelaus. Of this\nlast Socrates was a hearer. But there are also many others putting\nforward different tenets concerning the Divine and the nature of the\nuniverse, whose opinions if we wished to set them all out would take\na great mass of books. But it would be best, after having recalled by\nname those of them who are, so to speak, the chorus-leaders of all who\nphilosophized in later times and who have furnished starting-points for\nsystems, to hasten on to what follows.[83]\n\n\n 9. _About Parmenides._\n\n[Sidenote: p. 26.] For truly Parmenides also supposed the universe to be\neternal and ungenerated and spherical in form.[84] Nor did he avoid the\ncommon opinion making fire and earth the principles of the universe,\nthe earth as matter, but the fire as cause and creator. [He said that\nthe ordered world would be destroyed, but in what way, he did not\nsay.][85] But he said that the universe was eternal and ungenerated and\nspherical in form and all over alike, bearing no impress and immoveable\nand with definite limits.\n\n\n 10. _About Leucippus._\n\nBut Leucippus, a companion of Zeno, did not keep to the same opinion\n(as Parmenides), but says that all things are boundless and ever-moving\nand that birth and change are unceasing. And he says that fulness and\nthe void are elements. And he says also that the ordered worlds came\ninto being thus: when many bodies were crowded together [Sidenote:\np. 27.] and flowed from the ambient[86] into a great void, on coming\ninto contact with one another, those of like fashion and similar form\ncoalesced, and from their intertwining yet others were generated\nand increased and diminished by a certain necessity. But what that\nnecessity may be he did not define.\n\n\n 11. _About Democritus._\n\nBut Democritus was an acquaintance of Leucippus. This was Democritus of\nAbdera, son of Damasippus,[87] who met with many Gymnosophists among\nthe Indians and with priests and astrologers[88] in Egypt and with\nMagi in Babylon. But he speaks like Leucippus about elements, to wit,\nfulness and void, saying that the full is that which is but the void\nthat which is not, and he said this because things are ever moving in\nthe void. He said also that the ordered worlds are boundless and differ\nin size, and that in some there is neither sun nor moon, but that in\nothers both are greater than with us, and in yet others more in number.\n[Sidenote: p. 28.] And that the intervals between the ordered worlds\nare unequal, here more and there less, and that some increase, others\nflourish and others decay, and here they come into being and there they\nare eclipsed.[89] But that they are destroyed by colliding with one\nanother. And that some ordered worlds are bare of animals and plants\nand of all water. And that in our cosmos the earth came into being\nfirst of the stars and that the moon is the lowest of the stars, and\nthen comes the sun and then the fixed stars: but that the planets are\nnot all at the same height. And he laughed at everything, as if all\nthings among men deserved laughter.\n\n\n 12. _About Xenophanes._\n\nBut Xenophanes of Colophon was the son of Orthomenes.[90] He survived\nuntil the time of Cyrus. He first declared the incomprehensibility of\nall things,[91] saying thus:\n\n Although anyone should speak most definitely\n He nevertheless does not know, and it is a guess[92] which occurs\n about all things.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 29.] But he says that nothing is generated, or\nperishes or is moved, and that the universe which is one is beyond\nchange. But he says that God is eternal, and one and alike on every\nside, and finite and spherical in form, and conscious[93] in all\nHis parts. And that the sun is born every day from the gathering\ntogether of small particles of fire and that the earth is boundless\nand surrounded neither by air nor by heaven. And that there are\nboundless (innumerable) suns and moons and that all things are from\nthe earth. He said that the sea is salt because of the many compounds\nwhich together flow into it. But Metrodorus said it was thanks to its\ntrickling through the earth that the sea becomes salt. And Xenophanes\nopines that there was once a mixture of earth with the sea, and that\nin time it was freed from moisture, asserting in proof of this that\nshells are found in the centre of the land and on mountains, and that\nin the stone-quarries of Syracuse were found the impress of a fish\nand of seals, and in Paros the cast of an anchor below the surface of\nthe rock[94] and in Malta layers of all sea-things. And he says that\nthese came when all things were of old time buried in mud, and that the\nimpress of them dried in the mud; but [Sidenote: p. 30.] that all men\nwere destroyed when the earth being cast into the sea became mud, and\nthat it again began to bring forth and that this catastrophe happened\nto all the ordered worlds.[95]\n\n\n 13. _About Ecphantus._\n\nA certain Ecphantus, a Syracusan, said that a true knowledge of the\nthings that are could not be got. But he defines, as he thinks,\nthat the first bodies are indivisible and that there are three\ndifferences[96] between them, to wit, size, shape and power. And the\nnumber of them is limited and not boundless; but that these bodies are\nmoved neither by weight nor by impact, but by a divine power which he\ncalls [Sidenote: p. 31.] Nous and Psyche. Now the pattern of this is\nthe cosmos, wherefore it has become spherical in form by Divine power.\nAnd that the earth in the midst of the cosmos is moved round its own\ncentre from west to east.[97]\n\n\n 14. _About Hippo._\n\nBut Hippo of Rhegium[98] said that the principles were cold, like\nwater, and heat, like fire. And that the fire came from the water, and,\novercoming the power of its parent, constructed the cosmos. But he said\nthat the soul was sometimes brain and sometimes water; for the seed\nalso seems to us to be from moisture and from it he says the soul is\nborn.\n\nThese things, then, we seem to have sufficiently set forth. Wherefore,\nas we have now separately run through the opinions of the physicists,\nit seems fitting that we return to Socrates and Plato, who most\nespecially preferred (the study of) ethics.\n\n\n 15. _About Socrates._\n\nNow Socrates became a hearer of Archelaus the physicist, and giving\ngreat honour to the maxim \u201cKnow thyself\u201d and having established a large\nschool, held Plato to be the most competent of all his disciples.\nHe left no writings [Sidenote: p. 32.] behind him; but Plato being\nimpressed with all his wisdom[99] established the teaching combining\nphysics, ethics and dialectics. But what Plato laid down is this:--\n\n\n 16. _About Plato._\n\nPlato makes the principles of the universe to be God, matter and (the)\nmodel. He says that God is the maker and orderer of this universe and\nits Providence.[100] That matter is that which underlies all things,\nwhich matter he calls a recipient and a nurse.[101] From which, after\nit had been set in order, came the four elements of which the cosmos is\nconstructed, to wit, fire, air, earth and water,[102] whence in turn\nall the other so-called compound things, viz., animals and plants have\nbeen constructed. But the model is the thought of God which Plato also\ncalls _ideas_, to which giving heed as to an image in the soul,[103]\nGod fashioned[104] all [Sidenote: p. 33.] things. He said that God was\nwithout body or form and could only be comprehended by wise men; but\nthat matter is potentially body, but not yet actively. For that being\nitself without form or quality, it receives forms and qualities to\nbecome body.[105] That matter, therefore, is a principle and the same\nis coeval with God, and the cosmos is unbegotten. For, he says, it\nconstructed itself out of itself.[106] And in all ways it is like the\nunbegotten and is imperishable. But in so far as body[107] is assumed\nto be composed of many qualities and ideas, it is so far begotten and\nperishable. But some Platonists mixed together the two opinions making\nup some such parable as this: to wit, that, as a wagon can remain\nundestroyed for ever if repaired part by part, as even though the parts\nperish every time, the wagon remains complete; so, the cosmos, although\nit perish part by part, is yet reconstructed and compensated for the\nparts taken away, and remains eternal.\n\nSome again say that Plato declared God to be one, unbegotten and\nimperishable, as he says in the _Laws_:--\u201cGod, [Sidenote: p. 34.]\ntherefore, as the old story goes, holds the beginning and end and\nmiddle of all things that are.\u201d[108] Thus he shows Him to be one\nthrough His containing all things. But others say that Plato thought\nthat there are many gods without limitation[109] when he said, \u201cGod\nof gods, of whom I am the fashioner and father.\u201d[110] And yet others\nthat he thinks them subject to limitation when he says: \u201cGreat Zeus,\nindeed, driving his winged chariot in heaven;\u201d[111] and when he gives\nthe pedigree[112] of the children of Uranos and G\u00ea. Others again that\nhe maintained the gods to be originated and that because they were\noriginated they ought to perish utterly, but that by the will of God\nthey remain imperishable as he says in the passage before quoted, \u201cGod\nof gods, of whom I am the fashioner and father, and who are formed\nby my will indissoluble.\u201d So that if He wished them to be dissolved,\ndissolved they would easily be. But he accepts the nature of demons,\nand says some are good, and some bad.\n\nAnd some say that he declared the soul to be unoriginated and\nimperishable[113] when he says: \u201cAll soul is immortal for that which is\never moving is immortal,\u201d and when he shows that it is self-moving and\nthe beginning of movement. But others say that he makes it originated\nbut imperishable[114] through God\u2019s will; and yet others composite and\noriginated and perishable. For he also supposes that [Sidenote: p.\n35.] there is a mixing-bowl for it,[115] and that it has a splendid\nbody, but that everything originated must of necessity perish. But\nthose who say that the soul is immortal are partly corroborated by\nthose words wherein he says that there are judgments after death, and\ncourts of justice in the house of Hades, and that the good meet with\na good reward and that the wicked are subjected to punishments.[116]\nSome therefore say that he also admits a change of bodies and the\ntransfer of different pre-determined souls into other bodies according\nto the merit of each; and that after certain definite peregrinations\nthey are again sent into this ordered world to give themselves another\ntrial of their own choice. Others, however, say not, but that they\nobtain a place according to each one\u2019s deserts. And they call to\nwitness that he says some souls are with Zeus, but that others of\ngood men are going round with other gods, and that others abide in\neverlasting punishments, (that is), so many as in this life have\nwrought evil and unjust deeds.[117] And they say that he declared\nsome conditions to be [Sidenote: p. 36.] without intermediates, some\nwith intermediates and some to be intermediates. Waking and sleep are\nwithout intermediates and so are all states like these. But there are\nthose with intermediates like good and bad; and intermediates like\ngrey which is between black and white or some other colour.[118] And\nthey say that he declares the things concerning the soul to be alone\nsupremely good, but those of the body or external to it to be no longer\nsupremely good, but only said to be so. And that these last are very\noften named intermediates also; for they can be used both well and\nill. He says therefore that the virtues are extremes as to honour, but\nmeans as to substance.[119] For there is nothing more honourable than\nvirtue; but that which goes beyond or falls short of these virtues ends\nin vice. For instance, he says that these are the four virtues, to wit,\nPrudence, Temperance, Justice, and Fortitude, and that there follow on\neach of these two vices of excess and deficiency respectively. Thus on\nPrudence follow thoughtlessness by deficiency and cunning by excess; on\nTemperance, intemperance by deficiency and sluggishness by excess; on\nJustice, over-modesty by deficiency and greediness by excess; and on\nFortitude, [Sidenote: p. 37.] cowardice by deficiency and foolhardiness\nby excess.[120] And these virtues when inborn in a man operate for\nhis perfection and give him happiness. But he says that happiness is\nlikeness to God as far as possible. And that any one is like God when\nhe becomes holy and just with intention. For this he supposes to be the\naim of the highest wisdom and virtue.[121] But he says that the virtues\nfollow one another in turn and are of one kind, and never oppose one\nanother; but that the vices are many-shaped and sometimes follow and\nsometimes oppose one another.[122]\n\nHe says, again, that there is destiny, not indeed that all things\nare according to destiny, but that we have some choice, as he says\nin these words: \u201cThe blame is on the chooser: God is blameless,\u201d and\nagain, \u201cThis is a law of Adrasteia.\u201d And if he thus affirms the part\nof destiny, he knew also that something was in our choice.[123] But he\nsays that transgressions are involuntary. For to the most beautiful\nthing in us, which is the soul, none would admit something evil, that\nis, injustice; but that by ignorance and mistaking the good, thinking\nto do something fine, they [Sidenote: p. 38.] arrive at the evil.[124]\nAnd his explanation on this is most clear in the _Republic_, where\nhe says: \u201cAnd again do you dare to say that vice is disgraceful and\nhateful to God? How then does any one choose such an evil? He does\nit, you would say, who is overcome by the pleasures (of sense).\nTherefore this also is an involuntary action, if to overcome be a\nvoluntary one. So that from all reasoning, reason proves injustice\nto be involuntary.\u201d But some one objects to him about this: \u201cWhy\nthen are men punished if they transgress involuntarily?\u201d He answers:\n\u201cSo that they may be the more speedily freed from vice by undergoing\ncorrection.\u201d[125] For that to undergo correction is not bad but good,\nif thereby comes purification from vices, and that the rest of mankind\nhearing of it will not transgress, but will be on their guard against\nsuch error.[126] He says, however, that the nature of evil comes not by\nGod nor has it any special nature of its own; but it comes into being\nby contrariety and by following upon the good, either as excess or\ndeficiency as we have before said about the virtues.[127] Now Plato,\nas [Sidenote: p. 39.] we have said above, bringing together the three\ndivisions of general philosophy, thus philosophized.\n\n\n 17. _About Aristotle._\n\nAristotle, who was a hearer of this last, turned philosophy into a\nscience and reasoned more strictly, affirming that the elements of\nall things are substance and accident.[128] He said that there is\none substance underlying all things, but nine accidents, which are\nQuantity, Quality, Relation, the Where, the When, Possession, Position,\nAction and Passion. And that therefore Substance was such as God, man\nand every one of the things which can fall under the like definition:\nbut that as regards the accidents, Quality is seen in expressions like\nwhite or black; Quantity in \u201c2 cubits or 3 cubits long or broad\u201d;\nRelation in \u201cfather\u201d or \u201cson\u201d; the Where in such as \u201cAthens\u201d or\n\u201cMegara\u201d; the When in such as \u201cin the Xth Olympiad\u201d; for Possession\nin such as \u201cto have acquired wealth\u201d; Action in such as \u201cto write and\ngenerally to do anything\u201d; and Passion in such as \u201cto be struck.\u201d He\nalso assumes that some things have means and that others have not, as\nwe have said also about Plato. [Sidenote: p. 40.] And he is in accord\nwith Plato about most things save in the opinion about the soul. For\nPlato thinks it immortal; but Aristotle that it remains behind after\nthis life and that it is lost in the fifth Body which is assumed to\nexist along with the other four, to wit, fire, earth, water and air,\nbut is more subtle than they and like a spirit.[129] Again whereas\nPlato said that the only good things were those which concerned the\nsoul and that these sufficed for happiness, Aristotle brings in a triad\nof benefits and says that the sage is not perfect unless there are\nat his command the good things of the body and those external to it.\nWhich things are Beauty, Strength, Keenness of Sense and Completeness;\nwhile the externals are Wealth, High Birth, Glory, Power, Peace, and\nFriendship; but that the inner things about the soul are, as Plato\nthought: Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude.[130] Also\nAristotle says that evil things exist, and come by contrariety to the\ngood, and are below the place about the moon, but not above it.\n\nAgain, he says that the soul of the whole ordered world is eternal,\nbut that the soul of man vanishes as we have said [Sidenote: p. 41.]\nabove. Now, he philosophized while delivering discourses in the Lyceum;\nbut Zeno in the Painted Porch. And Zeno\u2019s followers got their name\nfrom the place, _i. e._ they were called Stoics from the Stoa; but\nthose of Aristotle from their mode of study. For their enquiries were\nconducted while walking about in the Lyceum, wherefore they were called\nPeripatetics. This then Aristotle.[131]\n\n\n 18. _About the Stoics._\n\nThe Stoics themselves also added to philosophy by the increased use of\nsyllogisms,[132] and included it nearly all in definitions, Chrysippus\nand Zeno being here agreed in opinion. Who also supposed that God\nwas the beginning of all things, and was the purest body, and that\nHis providence extends through all things.[133] They say positively,\nhowever, that existence is everywhere according to destiny using some\nsuch simile as this: viz. that, as a dog tied to a cart, if he wishes\nto follow it, is both drawn along by it and follows of his own accord,\ndoing at the same time [Sidenote: p. 42.] what he wills and what he\nmust by a compulsion like that of destiny.[134] But if he does not wish\nto follow he is wholly compelled. And they say that it is the same\nindeed with men. For even if they do not wish to follow, they will be\nwholly compelled to come to what has been foredoomed. And they say\nthat the soul remains after death, and that it is a body[135] and is\nborn from the cooling of the air of the ambient, whence it is called\nPsyche.[136] But they admit that there is a change of bodies for Souls\nwhich have been marked out for it.[137] And they expect that there will\nbe a conflagration and purification of this cosmos, some saying that\nit will be total but others partial, and that it will be purified part\nby part. And they call this approximate destruction and the birth of\nanother cosmos therefrom, _catharsis_.[138] And they suppose that all\nthings are bodies, and that one body passes through another; but that\nthere is a resurrection[139] and that all things are filled full and\nthat there is no void. Thus also the Stoics.\n\n\n 19. _About Epicurus._\n\n[Sidenote: p. 43.] But Epicurus held an opinion almost the opposite\nof all others. He supposed that the beginnings of the universals\nwere atoms and a void; that the void was as it were the place of the\nthings that will be; but that the atoms were matter, from which all\nthings are. And that from the concourse of the atoms both God and all\nthe elements came into being and that in them were all animals and\nother things, so that nothing is produced or constructed unless it be\nfrom the atoms. And he said that the atoms were the most subtle of\nthings, and that in them there could be no point, nor mark nor any\ndivision whatever; wherefore he called them atoms.[140] And although\nhe admits God to be eternal and imperishable, he says that he cares\nfor no one and that in short there is no providence nor destiny, but\nall things come into being automatically. For God is seated in the\nmetacosmic spaces, as he calls them. For he held that there was a\ncertain dwelling-place of God outside the cosmos called the metacosmia,\nand that He [Sidenote: p. 44] took His pleasure and rested in supreme\ndelight; and that He neither had anything to do Himself nor provided\nfor others. In consequence of which Epicurus made a theory about wise\nmen, saying that the end of all wisdom is pleasure. But different\npeople take the name of pleasure differently. For some understood by it\nthe desires, but others the pleasure that comes by virtue. But he held\nthat the souls of men were destroyed with their bodies as they are born\nwith them. For that these souls are blood, which having come forth or\nbeing changed, the whole man is destroyed. Whence it follows that there\nare no judgments nor courts of justice in the House of Hades, so that\nwhatever any one may do in this life and escapes notice, he is in no\nway called to account for it.[141] Thus then Epicurus.\n\n\n 20. _About (the) Academics._\n\nBut another sect of philosophers was called Academic, [Sidenote: p.\n45.] from their holding their discussions in the Academy, whose founder\nwas Pyrrho, after whom they were called Pyrrhonian philosophers. He\nfirst introduced the dogma of the incomprehensibility of all things, so\nthat he might argue on either side of the question, but assert nothing\ndogmatically. For he said that there is nothing grasped by the mind\nor perceived by the senses which is true, but that it only appears to\nmen to be so. And that all substance is flowing and changing and never\nremains in the same state. Now some of the Academics say that we ought\nnot to make dogmatic assertions about the principle of anything, but\nsimply argue about it and let it be; while others favoured more the\n\u201cno preference\u201d[142] adage, saying that fire was not fire rather than\nanything else. For they did not assert what it is, but only what sort\nof a thing it is.[143]\n\n\n 21. _About (the) Brachmans among the Indians._\n\nThe Indians have also a sect of philosophizers in the Brachmans[144]\nwho propose to themselves an independent life and abstain from all\nthings which have had life and from [Sidenote: p. 46.] meats prepared\nby fire. They are content with fruits[145] but do not gather even\nthese, but live on those fallen on the earth and drink the water of the\nriver Tagabena.[146] But they spend their lives naked, saying that the\nbody has been made by God as a garment to the soul. They say that God\nis light; not such light as one sees, nor like the sun and fire, but\nthat it is to them the Divine Word, not that which is articulated, but\nthat which comes from knowledge, whereby the hidden mysteries of nature\nare seen by the wise. But this light which they say is (the) Word, the\nGod, they declare that they themselves as Brachmans alone know, because\nthey alone put away vain thinking which is the last tunic of the soul.\nThey scorn death; but are ever naming God in their own tongue, as we\nhave said above, and send up hymns to Him. But neither are there women\namong them, nor do they beget children.[147] Those, however, who have\ndesired a life like theirs, after they [Sidenote: p. 47.] have crossed\nover to the opposite bank of the river,[148] remain there always and\nnever return; but they also are called Brachmans. Yet they do not\npass their life in the same way; for there are women in the country,\nfrom whom those dwelling there are begotten and beget. But they say\nthat this Word, which they style God, is corporeal, girt with the\nbody outside Himself, as if one should wear a garment of sheepskins;\nbut that the body which is worn, when taken off, appears visible to\nthe eye.[149] But the Brachmans declare that there is war in the body\nworn by them [and they consider their body full of warring elements]\nagainst which body as if arrayed against foes, they fight as we have\nbefore made plain. And they say that all men are captives to their own\ncongenital enemies, to wit, the belly and genitals, greediness, wrath,\njoy, grief, desire and the like. But that he alone goes to God who has\ntriumphed[150] over these. Wherefore the Brachmans make Dandamis, to\nwhom Alexander of Macedon paid a visit, divine[151] as one who had won\nthe war in the body. But they accuse Calanus of having impiously fallen\naway from their philosophy. But the Brachmans putting away the body,\nlike [Sidenote: p. 48.] fish who have leaped from the water into pure\nair, behold the Sun.[152]\n\n\n 22. _About the Druids among the Celts._\n\nThe Druids among the Celts enquired with the greatest minuteness into\nthe Pythagorean philosophy, Zamolxis, Pythagoras\u2019 slave, a Thracian\nby race, being for them the author of this discipline. He after\nPythagoras\u2019 death travelled into their country and became as far as\nthey were concerned the founder of this philosophy.[153] The Celts\nglorify the Druids as prophets and as knowing the future because\nthey foretell to them some things by the ciphers and numbers of the\nPythagoric art. On the principles of which same art we shall not be\nsilent, since some men have ventured to introduce heresies constructed\nfrom them. Druids, however, also make use of magic arts.\n\n\n [Sidenote: p. 49.] 23. _About Hesiod._[154]\n\nBut Hesiod the poet says that he, too, heard thus from the Muses about\nNature. The Muses, however, are the daughters of Zeus. For Zeus having\nfrom excess of desire companied with Mnemosyne for nine days and nights\nconsecutively, she conceived these nine in her single womb, receiving\none every night. Now Hesiod invokes the nine Muses from Pieria, that is\nfrom Olympus, and prays them to teach him:[155]\n\n \u201cHow first the gods and earth became;\n The rivers and th\u2019 immeasureable sea\n High-raging in its foam: the glittering stars;\n The wide-impending heaven; ...\n Say how their treasures,[156] how their honours each\n Allotted shared: how first they held abode\n On many-caved Olympus:--this declare\n [Sidenote: p. 50.] Ye Muses! dwellers of the heavenly mount\n From the beginning; say who first arose?\n\n \u201cFirst Chaos was, next ample-bosomed Earth,\n The seat eternal and immoveable\n Of deathless gods, who still the Olympian height\n Snow-topt inhabit. Third in hollow depth\n Of the vast ground, expanded wide above\n The gloomy Tartarus, Love then arose\n Most beauteous of immortals: he at once\n Of every god and every mortal man\n Unnerves the limbs; dissolves the wiser breast\n By reason steel\u2019d, and quells the very soul.\n\n \u201cFrom Chaos, Erebus and sable Night...\n From Night arose the Sunshine and the Day[157]\n Whom she with dark embrace of Erebus\n Commingling bore.\n\n \u201cHer first-born Earth produced\n Of like immensity,[158] the starry Heaven:\n That he might sheltering compass her around\n On every side, and be for evermore\n To the blest gods a mansion unremoved.\n\n \u201cNext the high hills arose, the pleasant haunts\n Of goddess-nymphs, who dwell among the glens\n Of mountains. With no aid of tender love\n [Sidenote: p. 51.] Gave she to birth the sterile Sea, high-swol\u2019n\n In raging foam; and Heaven-embraced, anon\n She teemed with Ocean, rolling in deep whirls\n His vast abyss of waters\n\n \u201cCr\u0153us then,\n C\u0153us, Hyperion and I\u00e4petus,\n Themis and Thea rose; Mnemosyne\n And Rhea; Ph\u0153be diademed with gold,\n And love-inspiring Tethys; and of these,\n Youngest in birth, the wily Kronos came,\n The sternest of her sons; and he abhorred\n The sire that gave him life\n\n \u201cThen brought she forth\n The Cyclops haughty of spirit.\u201d\n\nAnd he enumerates all the other Giants descended from Kronos. But last\nhe tells how Zeus was born from Rhea.\n\nAll these men, then, declared, as we have set forth, their opinions\nabout the nature and birth of the universe. But they all, departing\nfrom the Divine for lower things, busied themselves about the substance\nof the things that are. So that when struck with the grandeurs of\ncreation and thinking that these were the Divine, each of them\npreferred before the rest a different part of what was created. But\nthey discovered not the God and fashioner of them.\n\nThe opinions therefore of those among the Greeks who [Sidenote: p. 52.]\nhave undertaken to philosophize, I think I have sufficiently set forth.\nStarting from which opinions the heretics have made the attempts we\nshall shortly narrate. It seems fitting, however, that we, first making\npublic the mystic rites,[159] should also declare whatever things\ncertain men have superfluously fancied about stars or magnitudes; for\ntruly those who have taken their starting-points from these notions are\ndeemed by the many to speak prodigies. Thereafter, we shall make plain\nconsecutively the vain opinions[160] invented by them.[161]\n\n\n END OF BOOK I\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: As has been said in the Introduction (p. 1 _supra_) four\nearly codices of the First Book exist, the texts being known from the\nlibraries where they are to be found as the Medicean, the Turin, the\nOttobonian and the Barberine respectively. That published by Miller\nwas a copy of the Medicean codex already put into print by Fabricius,\nbut was carefully worked over by Roeper, Scott and others who like\nGronovius, Wolf and Delarue, collated it with the other three codices.\nThe different readings are, I think, all noted by Cruice in his edition\nof 1860, but are not of great importance, and I have only noticed them\nhere when they make any serious change in the meaning of the passage.\nHermann Diels has again revised the text in his _Doxographi Gr\u00e6ci_,\nBerlin, 1879, with a result that Salmon (_D.C.B._ s. v. \u201cHippolytus\nRomanus\u201d) declares to be \u201cthoroughly satisfactory,\u201d and the reading\nof this part of our text may now, perhaps, be regarded as settled.\nOnly the opening and concluding paragraphs are of much value for our\npresent purpose, the account of philosophic opinions which lies between\nbeing, as has been already said, a compilation of compilations, and\nnot distinguished by any special insight into the ideas of the authors\nsummarized, with the works of most of whom Hippolytus had probably but\nslight acquaintance. An exception should perhaps be made in the case\nof Aristotle, as it is probable that Hippolytus, like other students\nof his time, was trained in Aristotle\u2019s dialectic and analytic system\nfor the purpose of disputation. But this will be better discussed in\nconnection with Book VII.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5.\nThis formula is repeated at the head of Books V-X with the alteration\nof the number only.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The word missing after \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3 was probably \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9, the\nonly likely word which would agree with the feminine adjective. It\nwould be appropriate enough if the theory of the division of the work\ninto spoken lectures be correct. The French and German editors alike\ntranslate _in libro primo_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: There seems no reason for numbering Pyrrho of Elis among\nthe members of the Academy, Old or New. Diogenes Laertius, from whose\naccount of his doctrines Hippolytus seems to have derived the dogma of\nincomprehensibility which he here attributes to Pyrrho, makes him the\nfounder of the Sceptics. He was a contemporary of Alexander the Great,\nand probably died before Arcesilaus founded the New Academy in 280 B.C.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Mr. Macmahon here reads \u201cBrahmins.\u201d Their habits appear\nmore like those of Yogis or Sanyasis.]\n\n[Footnote 6: \u1f01\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2: in contradistinction to \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd just above.]\n\n[Footnote 7: \u1f00\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. The Turin MS.\ntransposes the adjectives.]\n\n[Footnote 8: \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u0342\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd. The phrase is used frequently\nhereafter, particularly in Book X.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Cf. the \u201cbond of iniquity\u201d in St. Peter\u2019s speech to Simon\nMagus, Acts viii. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 10: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd being a mystic word for\nfinal or complete initiation.]\n\n[Footnote 11: \u1f03 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b1 \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb. Schneidewin and Cruice both read\n\u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, Roeper \u03b5\u1f30 simply, others \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9. The first seems the best\nreading; but none of the suggestions is quite satisfactory. The promise\nto say what it was that even the dumb animals would not have done is\nunfulfilled. It cannot have involved any theological question, but\nprobably refers to the obscene sacrament of the _Pistis Sophia_, the\nBruce Papyrus and Huysmans\u2019 _L\u00e0-Bas_. Yet Hippolytus does not again\nrefer to it, and of all the heretics in our text, the Simonians are the\nonly ones accused of celebrating it, even by Epiphanius.]\n\n[Footnote 12: \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1. A neologism. This is the passage relied upon\nto show that our author was a bishop].\n\n[Footnote 13: \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 = foreign. Cruice has _aliena_. But it is\nhere evidently contrasted with the \u201cthings of the truth\u201d in the next\nsentence.]\n\n[Footnote 14: \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 15: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, lit., \u201cmatters of opinion.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 16: \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. The context shows that here,\nand probably elsewhere in the book, the phrase is used contemptuously.]\n\n[Footnote 17: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. As in Polybius, the word can be\ntranslated in this sense throughout. Yet as meaning \u201cthose who fall in\nwith this\u201d it is as applicable to spoken as to written words.]\n\n[Footnote 18: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. Both here and in Book X our author shows a\npreference for this phrase instead of the more usual \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 19: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9.]\n\n[Footnote 20: \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 21: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. Note the piling up of similes\nnatural in a _spoken_ peroration.]\n\n[Footnote 22: \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, _nudos et turpes_, Cr. Stripped of\noriginality seems to be the threat intended.]\n\n[Footnote 23: \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd. What we should now call Physics.]\n\n[Footnote 24: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd is the phrase here and elsewhere used for the\nuniverse or \u201cwhole\u201d of Nature, and includes Chaos or unformed Matter.\nThe \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 or ordered world is only part of the universe. Diog. Laert.,\nI, _vit. Thales_, c. 6, says merely that Thales thought water to be\nthe \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae or beginning of all things. As this is confirmed by all other\nGreek writers who have quoted him, we may take the further statement\nhere attributed to him as the mistake of Hippolytus or of the compiler\nhe is copying.]\n\n[Footnote 25: \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd in text. Roeper suggests \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u201cstars.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 26: So Clement of Alexandria, _Stromateis_, V, c. 14, and\nDiog. Laert., I. _vit. cit._, c. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Diog. Laert., I, _vit. cit._, c. 8, makes his derider an\nold woman. \u0398\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1 is not a proper name, but means a Thracian woman, as\nHippolytus should have known.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Roeper adds \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd, apparently in view of the\nspeculations about the monad.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Aristotle in his _Metaphysica_, Bk. I, c. 5, attributes\nthe first use of this dogma to Xenophanes.]\n\n[Footnote 30: By these are meant the planets, including therein the Sun\nand Moon. Cf. Sextus Empiricus, _Adversus Astrologos_, p. 343 (Cod.)\n_passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 31: \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b1 = entities which must needs differ from one\nanother in kind. The phrase is thus used by Plato, Aristotle and all\nthe neo-Platonic writers.]\n\n[Footnote 32: \u1f10\u03c6\u03ae\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, _attigit_, Cr. Frequent in Pindar.]\n\n[Footnote 33: So Timon in the _Silli_, as quoted by Diog. Laert., VIII,\n_vit. Pyth._, c. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 34: \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd. The Barberine MS. has \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd,\nevidently inserted by some scribe who connected it with the absurd\nsystem of metoposcopy described in Book IV.]\n\n[Footnote 35: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, _multitudine_, Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 36: For definitions and examples of this term see Aristot.,\n_Metaphys._, IV. c. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 37: I cannot trace Hippolytus\u2019 authority for attributing\nthese neo-Pythagorean puerilities to Pythagoras himself. Diog. Laert.,\nAristotle and the rest represent him as saying only that the monad\nwas the beginning of everything, and that from this and the undefined\ndyad numbers proceed. The general reader may be recommended to Mr.\nAlfred Williams Benn\u2019s statement in _The Philosophy of Greece_ (Lond.,\n1898), pp. 78 ff. that \u201cthe Greeks did not think of numbers as pure\nabstractions, but in the most literal sense as figures, that is to say,\nlimited portions of space.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 38: Macmahon thinks \u201cnumber\u201d and \u201cmonad\u201d should here be\ntransposed, as Pythagoras considered according to him the monad as \u201cthe\nhighest generalization of number and a conception in abstraction.\u201d\nYet the monad was not the highest abstraction of current (Greek)\nphilosophy. See Edwin Hatch, _Influence of Greek Ideas upon the\nChristian Church_ (Hibbert Lectures), Lond., 1890, p. 255.]\n\n[Footnote 39: \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 is here used like our own mathematical expression\n\u201cpower.\u201d Why Hippolytus should associate it especially with the power\nof 2 does not appear. By Greek mathematicians it seems rather to be\napplied to the square root.]\n\n[Footnote 40: \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7, _involvit_, Cr. It cannot here mean \u201ccubed.\u201d\nAnother mistake occurs in the same sentence, where it is said that the\nsquare multiplied by the cube is a cube. The sentence is fortunately\nrepeated with the needful correction in Book IV, p. 116 _infra_.\nMacmahon gives the proper notation as (a\u00b2)\u00b2 = a\u2074, (a\u00b2)\u00b3 = a\u2076,\n(a\u00b3)\u00b3 = a\u2079.]\n\n[Footnote 41: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. The phrase which is here correctly\nused throughout, but which has somehow slipped into English as\nmetempsychosis.]\n\n[Footnote 42: So Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Pyth._, c. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 43: Diodorus of Eretria is not otherwise known, Aristoxenus\nis mentioned by Cicero, _Qu\u00e6st. Tusculan._, I, 18, as a writer on music.]\n\n[Footnote 44: That is, of course, Zoroaster. The account here given\nof his doctrines does not agree with what we know of them from other\nsources. The minimum date for his activity (700 B.C.) makes it\nimpossible for him to have been a contemporary of Pythagoras. See the\ntranslator\u2019s _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, I, p. 126; II,\np. 232.]\n\n[Footnote 45: Reading with Roeper \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76. Cruice has \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70, \u201cthat the cosmos is a nature according to,\u201d etc.]\n\n[Footnote 46: \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, spirits or d\u00e6mons in the Greek sense, not\nnecessarily evil. But Aetius, _de Placit. Philosoph. ap._ Diels\n_Doxogr._ 306, makes Pythagoras use the word as equivalent to \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd.\nCf. pp. 52, 92 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Hippolytus like nearly every other writer of his time\nhere confuses the Egyptians with the Alexandrian Greeks. It was these\nlast and not the subjects of the Pharaohs who were given to mathematics\nand geometry, of which sciences they laid the foundations on which\nwe have since built. Certain devotees of the Alexandrian god Serapis\nalso shut themselves up in cells of the Serapeum, which they could\nhardly have done in any temple in Pharaonic times. See _Forerunners_,\nI, 79. Hippolytus gives a much more elaborate and detailed account of\nPythagorean teaching in Book VI, II, pp. 20 ff. _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Heraclit._, c. 6, attributes\nthis opinion to Heraclitus.]\n\n[Footnote 49: This verse appears in Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit.\nEmpedocles_, c. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 50: So Diog. Laert., _ubi. cit._]\n\n[Footnote 51: This sentence seems to have got out of place. It should\nprobably follow that on Lysis and Archippus, etc., on the last page.\nThe story of the shield is told by Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Pyth._, c.\n4, and by Ovid, _Metamorph._, XV, 162 ff. For more about Empedocles see\nBook VII, II, pp. 82 ff. _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Diog. Laert., VIII, _vit. Heraclit._, from whom\nHippolytus is probably quoting, says that in his boyhood, Heraclitus\nused to say, he knew nothing, in his manhood everything. Has Hippolytus\ngarbled this?]\n\n[Footnote 53: There is nothing of this in what Hippolytus, Diogenes\nLaertius or any other author extant gives as Empedocles\u2019 opinions. \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac seems to be equivalent to \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, as suggested in n. on p. 39\n_supra_. Hippolytus returns to Heraclitus\u2019 opinions in Book IX, II, pp.\n119 ff. _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 54: So Diog. Laert., II, _vit. Anaximander_, c. 1,\n_verbatim_.]\n\n[Footnote 55: \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9. He therefore believed in a plurality of worlds.]\n\n[Footnote 56: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. It may here mean essence or being. A good\ndiscussion of the changes in the meaning of the word and its\nsuccessors, \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, is to be found in Hatch, _op.\ncit._, pp. 275-278.]\n\n[Footnote 57: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, a phenomenon in the heavens, but also something\nhung up or suspended.]\n\n[Footnote 58: \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, used by Theophrastus for logs of timber.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Lit., \u201cfrom the separation of the finest atoms of the air\nand from their movement when crowded together.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 60: So Roeper. Cruice agrees.]\n\n[Footnote 61: A. W. Benn, _op. cit._, p. 51, gives a readable account\nof Anaximander\u2019s speculations in physics. Diels, _op. cit._, pp. 132,\n133 shows in an excellently clear conspectus of parallel passages the\ndifferent authors from whom Hippolytus took the statements in our text\nregarding the Ionians. The majority are to be found in Simplicius\u2019\ncommentaries on Aristotle, Simplicius\u2019 source being, according to\nDiels, the fragments of Theophrastus\u2019 book on physics. Next in order\ncome Plutarch\u2019s _Stromata_ and Aetius\u2019 _De Placitis Philosophorum_,\nmany passages being common to both.]\n\n[Footnote 62: \u1f41\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _aequabilis_, Cr., \u201chomogeneous.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 63: Lit., \u201cwhatever changes.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 64: Planets. See n. on p. 36 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 65: \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Cruice translates _ob latitudinem_, Macmahon\n\u201cthrough expanse of space.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 66: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. See n. on p. 42 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 67: So Diog. Laert., II, _vit. Anaxim._, c. 1. This is the\nfeature of Anaximenes\u2019 teaching which seems to have most impressed the\nGreeks.]\n\n[Footnote 68: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, puts Anaximander in the 58th\nOlympiad (548 B.C.) and Anaximenes in the 63rd. This is more probable\nthan the dates in our text. For Anaximenes\u2019 sources, mostly Aetius and\nTheophrastus, see Diels\u2019 conspectus mentioned in n. on p. 43 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 70: \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, _fieri materiam_, Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 71: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Macmahon says \u201corbicular,\u201d but\nit means if anything centripetal and centrifugal, as appears in next\nsentence.]\n\n[Footnote 72: \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Hippolytus seems most frequently to use the\nword in this sense.]\n\n[Footnote 73: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. See n. on p. 42 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 74: \u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 ... \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. I propose to fill the lacuna with \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bb\u1ff3.\nFor a description of this cavity see the _Ph\u00e6do_ of Plato, c. 138. I do\nnot understand Roeper\u2019s suggested emendation as given by Cruice.]\n\n[Footnote 75: There must be some mistake here. He has just said that\nthe sun and moon are below the stars.]\n\n[Footnote 76: \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, _illuminationes_, Cr. So Macmahon. It clearly\nmeans here \u201cshinings forth again,\u201d or \u201clightings up.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 77: Diog. Laert. quotes from Apollodorus\u2019 _Chronica_ that\nAnaxagoras died in the 1st year of the 78th Olympiad, or ten years\nbefore Plato\u2019s birth. For Hippolytus\u2019 sources for his teaching, mainly\nDiog. Laert., Aetius and Theophrastus, see Diels, _ubi cit._]\n\n[Footnote 78: \u03bc\u1fd6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, not \u03bc\u1fd6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2. But of what could the creative mind be\ncompounded before anything else had come into being?]\n\n[Footnote 79: \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Does he mean the heated air, and why\nshould the earth form no part of the universe? Something is probably\nomitted here.]\n\n[Footnote 80: \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, _de super incumbere_, Cr., \u201cinclined at an\nangle,\u201d Macmahon. Evidently Archelaus imagined a concave heaven fitting\nover the earth like a dish cover or an upturned boat or coracle. This\nwas the Babylonian theory. Cf. Maspero, _Hist. anc^{nne} de l\u2019Orient\nclassique_, Paris, 1895, I, p. 543, and illustration. Many of the\nIonian ideas about physics doubtless come from the same source.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Reading, as Cruice suggests, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 for \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1. So Diog. Laert., II, _vit. Archel._, c. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 82: \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _uti_, Cr., \u201cemployed,\u201d Macmahon.]\n\n[Footnote 83: A fair specimen of Hippolytus\u2019 verbose and inflated\nstyle.]\n\n[Footnote 84: No other philosopher has yet been quoted as saying that\nthe earth was spherical.]\n\n[Footnote 85: This sentence is said to have been interpolated.]\n\n[Footnote 86: \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cfrom the surrounding (\u00e6ther).\u201d An\nexpression much used by writers on astrology and generally translated\n\u201cambient.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 87: Diog. Laert., IX, _vit. Dem._, c. 1, says either\nDamasippus or Hegesistratus or Athenocritus.]\n\n[Footnote 88: It is doubtful whether astrology was known in Egypt\nbefore the Alexandrian age. Diog. Laert., _vit. cit._, quotes from\nAntisthenes that Democritus studied mathematics there, and astrology\nwas looked on by the Romans as a branch of mathematics. Cf. Sextus\nEmpiricus, _ubi cit., supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 89: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 90: So Apollodorus. Diog. Laert., IX, _vit. Xenophan._, c. 1,\nsays of Dexius.]\n\n[Footnote 91: Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, says Sotion of Alexandria is\nthe authority for this, but that he was mistaken. Hippolytus says later\nin Book I (p. 59 _infra_) that Pyrrho was the first to assert the\nincomprehensibility of everything. If, as Sotion asserted, Xenophanes\nwas a contemporary of Anaximander, he must have died two centuries\nbefore Pyrrho was born.]\n\n[Footnote 92: \u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _sed in omnibus opinio est_,\nCr. Yet \u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 is surely a \u201cguess.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 93: \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 94: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5, \u201cdeep down in the stone.\u201d Perhaps\nthe earliest mention of fossils.]\n\n[Footnote 95: Is this a survival of the Babylonian legends of the\nFlood?]\n\n[Footnote 96: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03c2, _differentias_, Cr. Perhaps \u201calternations.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 97: The whole of this section on Ecphantus is corrupt. He is\nnot alluded to again in the book.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Hippo is mentioned by Iamblichus in his life of\nPythagoras.]\n\n[Footnote 99: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cbeen sealed with,\u201d or \u201ccopied.\u201d Cf. Diog.\nLaert., II, _vit._ _Socrates_, c. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 100: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. The \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd of the line above\nshows that Plato did not mean that the forethought extended to other\nworlds than this.]\n\n[Footnote 101: This expression, like many others in this epitome of\nPlato\u2019s doctrines, is found in the \u0395\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae of\nAlcinous, who flourished in Roman times. The best edition still seems\nto be Bishop Fell\u2019s, Oxford, 1667. Alcinous\u2019 work was, as will appear,\nthe main source from which Hippolytus drew his account of Plato\u2019s\ndoctrines.]\n\n[Footnote 102: Alcinous, _op. cit._, c. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 103: _Ibid._, cc. 9, 12.]\n\n[Footnote 104: \u1f10\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9. Not created _ex nihilo_, but made out of\nexisting material as an architect makes a house.]\n\n[Footnote 105: Alcinous, _op. cit._, cc. 8, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 106: \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. So Cruice. Macmahon reads\nwith Roeper \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 for \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u201cthe world was made out of it\u201d (_i. e._\nmatter).]\n\n[Footnote 107: The body of the cosmos is evidently meant. Cf. Alcinous,\nc. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 108: _de Legg._, IV, 7.]\n\n[Footnote 109: \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 110: _Tim\u00e6us_, c. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 111: _Ph\u00e6drus_, c. 166.]\n\n[Footnote 112: \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fc7.]\n\n[Footnote 113: Alcinous, c. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 114: _Ph\u00e6drus_, cc. 51, 52.]\n\n[Footnote 115: For this see the _Tim\u00e6us_, c. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 116: This sentence is corrupt throughout, and there are at\nleast three readings which can be given to it. I have taken that which\nmakes the smallest alteration in Cruice\u2019s text.]\n\n[Footnote 117: _Ph\u00e6do_, c. 43.]\n\n[Footnote 118: I do not think this can be found in any writings of\nPlato that have come down to us. Hippolytus probably took it from\nAristotle, to whom he also attributes it; but I cannot find it in this\nwriter either. A passage in Arist., _Nicomachean Ethics_, Book II, c.\n6, is the nearest to it.]\n\n[Footnote 119: So Alcinous, c. 29. The other statements in this\nsentence seem to be Aristotle\u2019s rather than Plato\u2019s. Cf. Diog. Laert.,\nV, _vit. Arist._, c. 13, where he describes the good things of the\nsoul, the body and of external things respectively.]\n\n[Footnote 120: Alcinous, cc. 28, 29.]\n\n[Footnote 121: _Ibid._, c. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 122: _Ibid._, c. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 123: _Ibid._, c. 26. The passage about the choice [of virtue]\nis in the _Republic_, X, 617 C. Hippolytus had evidently not read the\noriginal, which says that according as a man does or does not choose\nvirtue, so he will have more or less of it.]\n\n[Footnote 124: Alcinous, c. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 125: This passage is not in the _Republic_, but in the\n_Clitopho_, as to Plato\u2019s authorship of which there are doubts. Cruice\nquotes the Greek text from Roeper in a note on p. 38 of his text.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Alcinous, c. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 127: _Ibid._, c. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 128: \u201cSubstance\u201d (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1) and \u201caccident\u201d (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2)\nare defined by Aristotle in the _Metaphysica_, Bk. IV, cc. 8, 9\nrespectively. The definitions in no way bear the interpretation that\nHippolytus here puts on them. In the _Categories_, which, whether by\nAristotle or not, are not referred to by him in any of his extant\nworks, it is said (c. 4) that \u201cof things in complex enunciated, each\nsignifies _either_ Substance or Quantity, or Quality or Relation, or\nWhere or When, or Position, or Possession, or Action, or Passion.\u201d It\nis from this that Hippolytus probably took the statement in our text.\nThe illustrations are in part found in _Metaphysica_, c. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 129: The famous \u201cQuintessence.\u201d So Aetius, _De Plac. Phil._,\nBk. I, c. 1, \u00a7 38. But see Diog. Laert. in next note.]\n\n[Footnote 130: This is practically _verbatim_ from Diog. Laert., V,\n_vit. Arist._, c. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 131: Hippolytus gives as is usual with him a more detailed\naccount of Aristotle\u2019s doctrines on these points later. (See Book VII,\nII, pp. 62 ff. _infra_.) He there admits that he cannot say exactly\nwhat was Aristotle\u2019s doctrine about the soul. He also refers to books\nof Aristotle on Providence and the like which, _teste_ Cruice, no\nlonger exist. Cf. Macmahon\u2019s note on same page (p. 272 of Clark\u2019s\nedition).]\n\n[Footnote 132: \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b7\u1f54\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n_Syllogistic\u00e6 artis expolitione philosophiam locupletarunt._]\n\n[Footnote 133: Prof. Arnold in his lucid book on _Roman Stoicism_\n(Cambridge, 1911, p. 219, n. 4) quotes this as a genuine Stoic\ndoctrine. But Diog. Laert., VII, _vit. Zeno_, c. 68, represents Zeno,\nCleanthes, Chrysippus, Archedemus and Posidonius as agreeing that\nprinciples and elements differ from one another in being respectively\nindestructible and destroyed, and because elements are bodies while\nprinciples have none. For the Stoic idea of God, see _op. cit._, c. 70.\nSo Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_, Bk. I, cc. 8, 18, makes Zeno say that\nthe cosmos is God, but in the _Academics_, II, 41 that Aether is the\nSupreme God, with which doctrine, he says, nearly all Stoics agree.\nPerhaps Hippolytus is here quoting Clement of Alexandria, _Stromateis_,\nVI, 71, who says that the Stoics dare to make the God of all things\n\u201ca corporeal spirit.\u201d For the Stoic doctrine of Providence, see Diog.\nLaert., _vit. Zeno_, c. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 134: \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. \u03a4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is the recognized expression for free will.\nNote the difference between \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7, \u201ccompulsion,\u201d and \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7,\n\u201cdestiny.\u201d For the Stoic doctrine of Fate, see Diog. Laert., _vit.\ncit._, c. 74.]\n\n[Footnote 135: Diog. Laert., _ubi cit._, c. 84.]\n\n[Footnote 136: From \u03c8\u1fe6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, \u201ccooling\u201d--a bad pun.]\n\n[Footnote 137: It is extremely doubtful whether the metempsychosis ever\nformed part of Stoic doctrine.]\n\n[Footnote 138: Zeno and Cleanthes both accepted the ecpyrosis. See\nDiog. Laert., _ubi cit._, c. 70. The same author says that Pan\u00e6tius\nsaid that the cosmos was imperishable.]\n\n[Footnote 139: \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, _corpusque per corpus\nmigrare_, Cr. Macmahon inserts a \u201cnot\u201d in the sentence, but without\nauthority. The Stoic resurrection assumed that in the new world created\nout of the ashes of the old, individuals would take the same place as\nin this last. See Arnold, _op. cit._, p. 193 for authorities.]\n\n[Footnote 140: \u1f00\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u201cthat cannot be cut.\u201d The rest of this sentence\nis taken from Diog. Laert., X, _vit. Epicur._, c. 24, and is quoted\nthere from Epicurus\u2019 treatise on Nature.]\n\n[Footnote 141: With the exception of the Deity\u2019s seat in the\nintercosmic spaces and the idea that the souls of men consist of blood,\nall the above opinions of Epicurus are to be found in Diog. Laert., X,\n_vit. Epic._]\n\n[Footnote 142: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cnot rather.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 143: See n. on p. 49 _supra_. The doctrines here given are\nthose of the Sceptics, and are to be found in Diog. Laert., IX, _vit.\nPyrrho_, c. 79 ff. and in Sextus Empiricus, _Hyp. Pyrrho_, I, 209 ff.\nDiog. Laert. quotes from Ascanius of Abdera that Pyrrho introduced the\ndogma of incomprehensibility, and Hippolytus seems to have copied this\nwithout noticing that he has said the same thing about Xenophanes.]\n\n[Footnote 144: Diog. Laert., I, _Prooem._, c. 1, mentions both\nGymnosophists and Druids, but if he ever gave any account of their\nteaching it must be in the part of the book which is lost. Clem. Alex.,\n_Stromateis_, I, c. 15, describes the two classes of Gymnosophists\nas Sarman\u00e6 and Brachmans. The Sarman\u00e6 or Saman\u00e6i (Shamans?) seem the\nnearer of the two to the Brachmans of our text.]\n\n[Footnote 145: \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03b9, hard-shelled fruit such as acorns or\nchestnuts.]\n\n[Footnote 146: Roeper suggests the Ganges.]\n\n[Footnote 147: Megasthenes, for whom see Strabo V, 712, differs from\nHippolytus in making the abstinence of the Gymnosophists endure for\nthirty-seven years only.]\n\n[Footnote 148: Nothing has yet been said about any bank.]\n\n[Footnote 149: The whole of this sentence is corrupt. Macmahon\nfollowing Roeper would read: \u201cThis discourse whom they name God they\naffirm to be incorporeal, but enveloped in a body outside himself, just\nas if one carried a covering of sheepskin to have it seen; but having\nstripped off the body in which he is enveloped, he no longer appears\nvisibly to the naked eye.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 150: \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, lit., \u201craised a trophy.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 151: \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9. Eusebius, _Pr\u00e6p. Ev._, uses the word in this\nsense. For the Dandamis and Calanus stories, see Arrian, _Anabasis_,\nBk. VII, cc. 2, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 152: This is quite unintelligible as it stands. It probably\nmeans that the Brachmans worship the light of which the Sun is the\ngarment, and that they think they are united with it when temporarily\nfreed from the body. Is he confusing them on the one hand with the\nYogis, whose burial trick is referred to later in connection with Simon\nMagus, and on the other with some Zoroastrian or fire-worshipping sect\nof Central Asia?]\n\n[Footnote 153: \u1f43\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. Does the \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 mean Galatia, whose inhabitants were Celts\nby origin? Hippolytus has probably copied the sentence without\nunderstanding it.]\n\n[Footnote 154: Hesiod is treated by Aristotle, _Metaphysica_, Bk.\nII, c. 15, as one who philosophizes, which perhaps accounts for the\nintroduction of his name here.]\n\n[Footnote 155: \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, _ut se edocerent_, Cr. So Macmahon. The\ncontext, however, plainly requires that it is Hesiod and not the Muse\nwho is to be taught. The rendering of poetry into prose is seldom\nsatisfactory, so I have ventured to give here the version of Elton,\nwhich is as close to the original as it is poetic in form.]\n\n[Footnote 156: \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.]\n\n[Footnote 157: \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f29\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7. One would prefer to keep the word\n\u201cAether,\u201d which is hardly \u201csunshine.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 158: \u1f36\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc7.]\n\n[Footnote 159: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70. The expression generally used for Mysteries\nsuch as those of Eleusis. Either he employs it here to include the\ntricks of the magicians described in Book IV, or he did not mean to\ndescribe these last when the sentence was written, but to go instead\nstraight from the astrologers to the heresies. The last alternative\nseems the more probable.]\n\n[Footnote 160: \u1f00\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6, _infirmas_, Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 161: The main question which arises on this First Book of our\ntext is, What were the sources from which Hippolytus drew the opinions\nhe here summarizes? Diels, who has taken much pains over the matter,\nthinks that his chief source was the epitome that Sotion of Alexandria\nmade from Heraclides. As we have seen, however, Diogenes Laertius is\nresponsible for a fair number of Hippolytus\u2019 statements, especially\nconcerning the opinions of those to whom he gives little space. Certain\nphrases seem taken directly from Theophrastus or from whatever author\nit was that Simplicius used in his commentaries on Aristotle, and the\nlikeness between Alcinous\u2019 summary of Plato\u2019s doctrines and those of\nour author is too close to be accidental. It therefore seems most\nprobable that Hippolytus did not confine himself to any one source, but\nborrowed from several. This would, after all, be the natural course for\na lecturer as distinguished from a writer to adopt, and goes some way\ntherefore towards confirming the theory as to the origin of the book\nstated in the Introduction.]\n\n\n\n\n BOOKS II AND III\n\n\n(These are entirely missing, no trace of them having been found\nattached to any of the four codices of Book I or to the present text of\nBooks IV to X. We know that such books must have once existed, as at\nthe end of Book IV (p. 117 _infra_) the author tells us that all the\nfamous opinions of earthly philosophy have been included by him in the\npreceding _four_ books, of which as has been said only Books I and IV\nhave come down to us.\n\nOur only ground for conjecture as to the contents of Books II and III\nis to be found in Hippolytus\u2019 statement at the end of Book I, that he\nwill _first_ make public the mystic rites[1] and then the fancies of\ncertain philosophers as to stars and magnitudes. As the promise in the\nlast words of the sentence seems to be fulfilled in Book IV, where he\ngives not only the method of the astrologers of his time, but also the\ncalculations of the Greek astronomers as to the relative distances of\nthe heavenly bodies, it may be presumed that this was preceded and not\nfollowed by a description of the Mysteries more elaborate and fuller\nthan the casual allusions to them which appear in Book V. So, too, in\nChap. 5 of the same Book IV, which he himself describes in the heading\nas a \u201cRecapitulation\u201d of what has gone before, he refers to certain\ndogmas of the Persians and the Babylonians as to the nature of God,\nwhich have certainly not been mentioned in any other part of the book\nwhich has come down to us. So, again, at the beginning of Book X, which\npurports to be a summary of the whole work, he tells us that having now\ngone through the \u201clabyrinth of heresies,\u201d it will be shown that the\nTruth is not derived from \u201cthe wisdom (philosophy) of the Greeks, the\nsecret mysteries of the Egyptians,[2] the fallacies of the astrologers,\nor the demon-inspired ravings of the Babylonians.\u201d The Greek philosophy\nand astrological fallacies are dealt with at sufficient length in Books\nI and IV respectively, but nothing of importance is said in these or\nelsewhere in the work as to the mysteries of the \u201cEgyptians,\u201d by whom\nhe probably means the worshippers of the Alexandrian divinities, and\nnothing at all as to Babylonian demonolatry or magic. It is quite\ntrue that he follows this up immediately by the statement that he\nhas included the tenets of all the wise men among the _Greeks_ in\nfour books, and the doctrines of the heretics in five; but it has\nbeen explained in the Introduction (pp. 18 ff. _supra_) that there\nare reasons why the summarizer\u2019s recollection of the earlier books\nmay not be verbally accurate, nor does he say that the description\nof the philosophic and heretical teachings exhausted the contents\nof the first four books. On the whole, therefore, Cruice appears to\nbe justified in his conclusion that the missing books contained an\naccount of the \u201cEgyptian\u201d Mysteries and of \u201cthe sacred sciences of the\nBabylonians.\u201d)[3]\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 ... \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 3: M. Adh\u00e9mar d\u2019Al\u00e8s in his work _La Th\u00e9ologie de St.\nHippolyte_, Paris, 1906, argues that the existing text of Book\nIV contains large fragments of the missing Books II and III. His\nargument is chiefly founded on the supposed excessive length of Book\nIV, although as a fact Book V is in Cruice\u2019s pagination some 20\npages longer than this and Book VI, 10. Apart from this, it seems\nvery doubtful if any author would describe the arithmomantic and\narithmetical nonsense in Book IV as either \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac or \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1,\nand it is certain that he cannot be alluding, when he speaks of the\n\u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd(\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af)\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, to the\njugglery in the same book, which he there attributes not to the agency\nof demons but to the tricks of charlatans.]\n\n\n\n\n BOOK IV\n\n DIVINERS AND MAGICIANS\n\n\n(The first pages of this book have been torn away from the MS., and we\nare therefore deprived of the small Table of Contents which the author\nhas prefixed to the other seven. From the headings of the various\nchapters it may be reproduced in substance thus:--\n\n1. The \u201cChald\u00e6ans\u201d or Astrologers, and the celestial measurements of\nthe Greek astronomers.\n\n2. The Mathematicians or those who profess to divine by the numerical\nequivalents of the letters in proper names.\n\n3. The Metoposcopists or those who connect the form of the body and the\ndisposition of the mind with the Zodiacal sign rising at birth.\n\n4. The Magicians and the tricks by which they read sealed letters,\nperform divinations, produce apparitions of gods and demons, and work\nother wonders.\n\n5. Recapitulation of the ideas of Greek and Barbarian on the nature of\nGod, and the views of the \u201cEgyptians\u201d or neo-Pythagoreans as to the\nmysteries of number.\n\n6. The star-diviners or those who find religious meaning in the\ngrouping of the constellations as described by Aratus.\n\n7. The Pythagorean doctrine of number and its relation to the heresies\nof Simon Magus and Valentinus.)\n\n\n [Sidenote: p. 53.] [1. _About Astrologers_.[1]]\n\n... (And they (_i. e._ the Chald\u00e6ans) declare there are \u201cterms\u201d[2]\nof the stars in each zodiacal sign extending from one given part)[3]\nto [another given part in which some particular star has most power.\nAbout which there is no mere chance difference] among them [as appears\nfrom their tables]. But they say that the stars are guarded[4] [when\nthey are midway between two other stars] in zodiacal succession.\nFor instance, if [a certain star should occupy the first part] of a\nzodiacal sign and another [the last parts, and a third those of the\nmiddle, the one in the middle is said to be guarded] by those occupying\nthe parts at the extremities. [And they say that the stars behold\none another and are in accord with one another] when they appear\ntriangularly or quadrangularly. Now those form a triangular [Sidenote:\np. 54.] figure[5] and behold one another which have an interval of\nthree zodiacal signs between them and a square those which have one of\ntwo signs....\n\n([6]Such then seems to be the character of the Chald\u00e6an method. And\nin that which has been handed down it remains easy to understand and\nfollow the contradictions noted. And some indeed try to teach a rougher\nway as if earthly things have no sympathy[7] at all with the heavenly\nones. For thus they say, that the ambient[8] is not united as is the\nhuman body, so that according to the condition) of the head the lower\nparts [suffer with it and the head with the lower] parts, and earthly\nthings should suffer along with those above the moon. But there is a\ncertain difference and want of sympathy between them as they have not\none and [the] same unity.\n\n2. Making use of these statements, Euphrates the Peratic and\nAkembes the Carystian[9] and the rest of the band of these people,\nmiscalling the word of Truth, declare that there is a war of \u00e6ons and\na falling-away of good powers to the bad, calling them Toparchs and\nProastii[10] and many other names. All which heresy undertaken by them,\nI shall set forth and refute when we come to the discussion concerning\nthem. But now, lest any one should deem trustworthy and unfailing\nthe rules laid down[11] by the Chald\u00e6ans [Sidenote: p. 55.] for the\nastrological art, we shall not shrink from briefly setting forth their\nrefutation and pointing out that their art is vain and rather deceives\nand destroys the soul which may hope for vain things than helps it. In\nwhich matters we do not hold out any expertness in the art, but only\nthat drawn from knowledge of the practical words.[12] Those who, having\nbeen trained in this science, become pupils of the Chald\u00e6ans and who\nhaving changed the names only, have imparted mysteries as if they were\nstrange and wonderful to men, have constructed a heresy out of this.\nBut since they consider the astrologers\u2019 art a mighty one and making\nuse of the witness of the Chald\u00e6ans wish to get their own systems\nbelieved because of them, we shall now prove that the astrological art\nas it appears to-day is unfounded, and then that the Peratic heresy is\nto be put aside as a branch growing from a root which does not hold.[13]\n\n3.[14] Now the beginning and as it were the basis of the affair\nis the establishment of the horoscope. From this the rest of the\ncardinal points, and the cadents and succeedents and the trines and\nthe squares[15] and the configuration of the stars in them are known,\nfrom all which things the predictions [Sidenote: p. 56.] are made.\nWherefore if the horoscope be taken away, of necessity neither the\nmidheaven nor the descendant nor the anti-meridian is known. But the\nwhole Chaldaic system vanishes if these are not disclosed. [And how\nthe zodiacal sign ascending is to be discovered is taught in divers\nways. For in order that this may be apprehended, it is necessary first\nof all that the birth of the child falling under consideration be\ncarefully taken, and secondly that the signalling of the time[16] be\nunerring, and thirdly that the rising in the heaven of the ascending\nsign be observed with the greatest care. For at the birth[17] the\nrising of the sign ascending in the heaven must be closely watched,\nsince the Chald\u00e6ans determining that which ascends, on its rising make\nthat disposition of the stars which they call the Theme,[18] from\nwhich they declare their predictions. But neither is it possible to\ntake the birth of those falling under consideration, as I shall show,\nnor is the time established [Sidenote: p. 57.] unerringly, nor is the\nascending sign ascertained with care. How baseless the system of the\nChald\u00e6ans is, we will now say. It is necessary before determining\nthe birth of those falling under consideration, to inquire whether\nthey take it from the deposition of the seed and its conception or\nfrom the bringing forth. And if we should attempt to take it from the\nconception, the accurate account of this is hard to grasp, the time\nbeing short and naturally so. For we cannot say whether conception\ntakes place simultaneously with the transfer of the seed or not. For\nthis may happen as quick as thought, as the tallow put into heated\npots sticks fast at once, or it may take place after some time.[19]\nFor there being a distance from the mouth of the womb to the other\nextremity, where conceptions are said by doctors to take place, it\nis natural that nature depositing the seed should take some time to\naccomplish this distance. Therefore the Chald\u00e6ans being ignorant of\nthe exact length of time will never discover exactly the time of\nconception, the seed being sometimes [Sidenote: p. 58.] shot straight\nforward and falling in those places of the womb fitted by nature for\nconception, and sometimes falling broadcast to be only brought into\nplace by the power of the womb itself. And it cannot be known when the\nfirst of these things happens and when the second, nor how much time is\nspent in one sort of conception and how much in the other. But if we\nare ignorant of these things, the accurate discovery of the nature of\nthe conception vanishes.[20] Nor if, as some physiologists say, seed\nbeing first seethed and altered in the womb then goes forward to its\ngaping vessels as the seeds of the earth go to the earth; why then,\nthose who do not know the length of time taken by this change will not\nknow either the moment of conception. And again, as women differ from\none another in energy and other causes of action in other parts of the\nbody, so do they differ in the energy of the womb, some conceiving\nquicker and others slower. And this is not unexpected, since if we\ncompare them, they are seen now to be good conceivers and now not at\nall so. This being so, it is impossible to say with exactness when the\nseed deposited is secured, so that from this time the Chald\u00e6ans may\nestablish the horoscope[21] of the birth.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 59.] 4. For this reason it is impossible to establish the\nhoroscope from the conception; nor can it be done from the bringing\nforth. For in the first place, it is very hard to say when the bringing\nforth is: whether it is when the child begins to incline towards the\nfresh air or when it projects a little, or when it is brought down\naltogether to the ground. But in none of these cases is it possible\nto define the time of birth accurately.[22] For from presence of mind\nand suitableness of body, and through preference of places and the\nexpertness of the midwife and endless other causes, the time is not\nalways the same when, the membranes being ruptured, the infant inclines\nforward, or when [Sidenote: p. 60.] it projects a little, or when it\nfalls to the ground. But it is different with different women. Which,\nagain, the Chald\u00e6ans being unable to measure definitely and accurately,\nthey are prevented from determining as they should the hour of the\nbringing forth.\n\nThat the Chald\u00e6ans, therefore, while asserting that they know the\nsign ascending at the time of birth, do not know it, is plain from\nthe facts. And that there is no means either of unerringly observing\nthe time,[23] is easy to be judged. For when they say that the person\nsitting by the woman in labour at the bringing forth signifies the\nsame to the Chald\u00e6an who is looking upon the stars from a high place\nby means of the gong,[24] and that this last gazing upon the heaven\nnotes down the sign then rising, we shall show that as the bringing\nforth happens at no defined time,[25] it is not possible either to\nsignify the same by the gong. For even if it be granted that the actual\nbringing forth can be ascertained, yet the time cannot be signified\naccurately. For the sound of the gong, being capable of divisions\nby perception into much and more time,[26] it happens that it is\n[Sidenote: p. 61.] carried (late) to the high place. And the proof of\nthis is what is noticed when trees are felled a long way off.[27] For\nthe sound of the stroke is heard a pretty long time after the fall of\nthe axe, so as to reach the listener later. And from this cause it\nis impossible for the Chald\u00e6ans to obtain accurately the time of the\nrising sign and that which is in truth on the ascendant.[28] And indeed\nnot only does more time pass after the birth before he who sits beside\nthe woman in labour, strikes the gong, and again after the stroke\nbefore it is heard by him upon the high place, but also before he can\nlook about and see in which sign is the moon and in which is each of\nthe other stars. It seems inevitable then that there must be a great\nchange in the disposition of the stars,[29] [from the movement of the\nPole being whirled along with indescribable swiftness] before the\nhour of him who has been born as it is seen in heaven can be observed\ncarefully.[30]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 62.] 5. Thus the art according to the Chald\u00e6ans has been\nshown to be baseless. But if any one should fancy that by enquiries,\nthe geniture[31] of the enquirer is to be learned, we may know that\nnot in this way either can it be arrived at with certainty. For if\nsuch great care in the practice of the art is necessary, and yet as we\nhave shown they do not arrive at accuracy, how can an unskilled person\ntake accurately the time of birth, so that the Chald\u00e6an on learning\nit may set up the horoscope truthfully?[32] But neither by inspection\nof the horizon will the star ascending appear the same everywhere,\nbut sometimes the cadent sign will be considered the ascendant and\nsometimes the succeedent, according as the coming in view of the places\nis higher or lower. So that in this respect the prediction will not\nappear accurate, many people being born all over the world at the same\nhour, while every observer will see the stars differently.\n\nBut vain also is the customary taking of the time by water-jars.[33]\nFor the pierced jar will not give the same flow when full as when\nnearly empty, while according to [Sidenote: p. 63.] the theory of these\npeople the Pole itself is borne along in one impulse with equal speed.\nBut if they answer to this that they do not take the time accurately\nbut as it chances in common use,[34] they will be refuted merely by\nthe starry influences themselves.[35] For those who have been born\nat the same time have not lived the same life; but some for example\nhave reigned as kings while others have grown old in chains. None at\nany rate of the many throughout the inhabited world at the same time\nas Alexander of Macedon were like unto him, and none to Plato the\nphilosopher. So that if the Chald\u00e6an observes carefully the time in\ncommon use, he will not be able to say[36] if he who is born at that\ntime will be fortunate. For many at any rate born at that time, will be\nunfortunate, so that the likeness between the genitures is vain.\n\nHaving therefore refuted in so many different ways the vain speculation\nof the Chald\u00e6ans, we shall not omit this, that their prognostications\nlead to impossibility. For if he who is born under the point of\nSagittarius\u2019 arrow must be slain, as the astrologers[37] say, how\nwas it that so many [Sidenote: p. 64.] barbarians who fought against\nthe Greeks at Marathon or Salamis were killed at the same time? For\nthere was not at any rate the same horoscope for all. And again, if\nhe who is born under the urn of Aquarius will be shipwrecked, how was\nit that some of the Greeks returning from Troy were sunk together in\nthe furrows of the Eub\u0153an sea? For it is incredible that all these\ndiffering much from one another in age should all have been born under\nAquarius\u2019 urn. For it cannot be said often that because of one who was\ndestined to perish by sea, all those in the ship should be destroyed\nalong with him. For why should the destiny of this one prevail over\nthat of all, and yet that not all should be saved because of one who\nwas destined to die on land?\n\n6. But since also they make a theory about the influence of the\nzodiacal signs to which they say the things brought forth are likened,\nwe shall not omit this. For example, they say that he who is born\nunder Leo will be courageous,[38] and he who is born under Virgo\nstraight-haired, pale-complexioned, [Sidenote: p. 65.] childless\nand bashful. But these things and those like them deserve laughter\nrather than serious consideration.[39] For according to them an\nEthiopian can be born under Virgo, and if so they allow he will be\nwhite, straight-haired and the rest. But I imagine that the ancients\ngave the names of the lower animals to the stars rather because of\narbitrariness[40] than from natural likeness of shape. For what\nlikeness to a bear have the seven stars which stand separate from one\nanother? Or to the head of a dragon those five of which Aratus says:--\n\n Two hold the temples, two the eyes, and one beneath\n Marks the chin point of the monster dread.--\n (Aratus, _Phainomena_, vv. 56, 57.)\n\n7. That these things are not worthy of so much labour is thus proved\nto the right-thinkers aforesaid, and to those who give no heed to the\ninflated talk of the Chald\u00e6ans, who with assurance of indemnity make\nkings to disappear [Sidenote: p. 66.] and incite private persons to\ndare great deeds.[41] But if he who has given way to evil fails, he\nwho has been deceived does not become a teacher to all whose minds\nthe Chald\u00e6ans wish to lead endlessly astray by their failures. For\nthey constrain the minds of their pupils when they say that the same\nconfiguration of the stars cannot occur otherwise than by the return\nof the Great Year in 7777 years.[42] How then can human observation\nagree[43] in so many ages upon one geniture? And this not once but many\ntimes, since the destruction of the cosmos as some say will interrupt\nthe observation, or its gradual transformation will cause to disappear\nentirely the continuity of historical tradition.[44]] The Chaldaic art\nmust be refuted by more arguments, although we have been recalling\nit to memory on account of other matters and not for its own sake.\nBut since we have before said that we will omit none of the opinions\ncurrent among the Gentiles,[45] by reason of the many-voiced craft of\nthe heresies, let us see what they say also who have [Sidenote: p. 67.]\ndared to speculate about magnitudes. Who, recognizing the variety of\nthe work of most of them, when another has been utterly deceived in a\ndifferent manner and has been yet held in high esteem, have dared to\nsay something yet more grandiose than he, so that they may be yet more\nglorified by those who have already glorified their petty frauds. These\nmen postulate circles and triangular and square measures doubly and\ntriply.[46] There is much theory about this, but it is not necessary\nfor what lies before us.\n\n8. I reckon it enough therefore to declare the marvels described by\nthem. Wherefore I shall employ their epitomes,[47] as they call them,\nand then turn to other things. They say this:[48] he who fashioned the\nuniverse, gave rule to the revolution of the Same and Like, for that\nalone he left undivided; but the inner motion he divided 6 times and\nmade 7 unequal circles divided by intervals in ratios of 2 and 3, 3\nof each, and bade the circles revolve in directions opposite to one\nanother--3 of them to revolve at equal pace, and 4 with a velocity\nunlike that of the 3, but in [Sidenote: p. 68.] due proportion.[49] And\nhe says that rule was given to the orbit of the 7, not only because it\nembraces the orbit of the Other, _i. e._, the Wanderers; but because\nit has so much rule, _i. e._, so much power, that it carries along\nwith it the Wanderers to the opposite positions, bearing them from\nWest to East and from East to West by its own strength. And he says\nthat the same orbit was allowed to be one and undivided, first because\nthe orbits of all the fixed stars are equal in time and not divided\ninto greater and lesser times.[50] And next because they all have the\nsame appearance,[51] which is that of the outermost orbit, while the\nWanderers are divided into more and different kinds of movements and\ninto unequal distances from the Earth. And he says that the Other orbit\nhas been cut in 6 places into 7 circles according to ratio.[52] For as\nmany cuts as there are of each, so many segments are there _plus_ a\nmonad. For example if one cut be made,[53] there are 2 segments; if 2\ncuts, 3 segments; and so, if a thing be cut 6 times there [Sidenote:\np. 69.] will be 7 segments. And he says that the intervals between\nthem are arranged alternately in ratios of 2 and 3, 3 of each, which\nhe has proved with regard to the constitution of the soul also, as to\nthe 7 numbers. For 3 among them, viz., 2, 4, 8, are doubles from the\nmonad onwards and 3 of them, viz., 3, 9, 27 [triples][54].... But the\ndiameter of the Earth is 80,008 stadia and its perimeter 250,543.[55]\nAnd the distance from the Earth\u2019s surface to the circle of the Moon,\nAristarchus of Samos writes as ...[56] stadia but Apollonius as\n5,000,000 and Archimedes as 5,544,130. And Archimedes says that from\nthe Moon\u2019s circle to that of the Sun is 50,262,065 stadia; from this\nto the circle of Aphrodite 20,272,065; and from this to the circle of\nHermes 50,817,165; and from the same to the circle of [Sidenote: p.\n70.] the Fiery One[57] 40,541,108; and from this to the circle of Zeus\n20,275,065; but from this to the circle of Kronos, 40,372,065; and from\nthis to the Zodiac and the last periphery 20,082,005 stadia.\n\n9. The differences from one another of the circles and the spheres\nin height are also given by Archimedes. He takes the perimeter of\nthe Zodiac at 447,310,000 stadia, so that a straight line from the\ncentre of the Earth to its extreme surface is the sixth part of the\nsaid number, and from the surface of the Earth on which we walk to\nthe Zodiac is exactly one-sixth of the said number less 40,000 stadia\nwhich is the distance from the centre of the Earth to its surface.\nAnd from the circle of Kronos to the Earth, he says, the interval is\n2,226,912,711 stadia; and from the [Sidenote: p. 71.] circle of the\nFiery One to the Earth, 132,418,581; and from the Sun to the Earth,\n121,604,454; from the Shining One to the Earth, 526,882,259; and from\nAphrodite to the Earth, 50,815,160.[58]\n\n10. And about the Moon we have before spoken. The distances and\ndepths[59] of the spheres are thus given by Archimedes, but Hipparchus\nspeaks differently about them, and Apollonius the mathematician\ndifferently again. But it is enough for us in following the Platonic\ntheory to think of the intervals between the Wanderers as in ratios\nof 2 and 3. For thus is kept alive the theory of the harmonious\nconstruction of the universe in accordant ratios[60] by the same\ndistances. But the numbers set out by Archimedes and the ratios quoted\nby the others concerning the distances, if they are not in accordant\nratios, that is in those called by [Sidenote: p. 72.] Plato twofold\nand threefold, but are found to be outside the chords,[61] would not\nkeep alive the theory of the harmonious construction of the universe.\nFor it is neither probable nor possible that their distances should\nhave no ratio to one another, that is, should be outside the chords\nand enharmonic scales. Except perhaps the Moon alone, from her waning\nand the shadows of the Earth, as to which planet alone you may trust\nArchimedes, that is to say for the distance of the Moon from the Earth.\nAnd it will be easy for those who accept this calculation to ascertain\nthe number and the other distances according to the Platonic method\nby doubling and tripling as Plato demands.[62] If then, according to\nArchimedes, the Moon is distant from the Earth 5,544,130 stadia, it\nwill be easy by increasing these numbers in ratios of 2 and 3 to find\nher distance from the rest by taking one fraction of the number of\nstadia by which the Moon is distant from the Earth.\n\nBut since the rest of the numbers stated by Archimedes about the\ndistance of the Wanderers are not in accordant ratios, it is easy to\nknow how they stand in regard to one [Sidenote: p. 73.] another and in\nwhat ratios they have been observed to be. But that the same are not in\nharmony and accord[63] when they are parts of the cosmos established\nby harmony is impossible. So then, as the first number (of stadia)\nby which the Moon is distant from the Earth is 5,544,130, the second\nnumber by which the Sun is distant from the Moon being 50,262,065, it\nis in ratio more than ninefold; and the number of the interval above\nthis being 20,272,065 is in ratio less than one-half. And the number of\nthe interval above this being 50,815,108 is in ratio more than twofold.\nAnd the number of the interval above this being 40,541,108 is in ratio\nmore than one and a quarter.[64] And the number of the interval above\nthis being 20,275,065 is in ratio more than half. And the number of\nthe highest interval above this being 40,372,065 is in ratio less than\ntwofold.[65]\n\n11. These same ratios indeed--the more than ninefold, [Sidenote: p.\n74.] less than half, more than twofold, less than one and a quarter,\nmore than half, less than half and less than twofold are outside all\nharmonies and from them no enharmonic nor accordant system can come to\npass. But the whole cosmos and its parts throughout are put together in\nan enharmonic and accordant manner. But the enharmonic and accordant\nratios are kept alive as we have said before by the twofold and\nthreefold intervals. If then we deem Archimedes worthy of faith on the\ndistance given above, _i. e._, that from the Moon to the Earth, it is\neasy to find the rest by increasing it in the ratios of 2 and 3. Let\nthe distance from the Earth to the Moon be, according to Archimedes,\n5,544,130 stadia. The double of this will be the number of stadia by\nwhich the Sun is distant from the Moon, viz., 11,088,260. But from\nthe Earth the Sun is distant 16,632,390 stadia and Aphrodite indeed\nfrom the Sun--16,632,390 stadia, but from the Earth 33,264,780. Ares\nindeed is distant from Aphrodite 22,176,520 stadia but from the Earth\n105,338,470. But Zeus is distant from Ares 44,353,040 stadia, but from\n[Sidenote: p. 75] the Earth 149,691,510. Kronos is distant from Zeus\n40,691,510 stadia, but from the Earth 293,383,020.[66]\n\n12. Who will not wonder at so much activity of mind produced by so\ngreat labour? It seems that this Ptolemy[67] who busies himself with\nthese matters is not without his use to me. This only grieves me that\nas one but lately born he was not serviceable to the sons of the\ngiants,[68] who, being ignorant of these measurements, thought they\nwere near high heaven and began to make a useless tower. Had he been at\nhand to explain these measurements to them they would not have ventured\non the foolishness. But if any one thinks he can disbelieve this let\nhim take the measurements and be convinced; for one cannot have for\nthe unbelieving a more manifold proof than this. O puffing-up of\nvainly-toiling soul and unbelieving belief, when Ptolemy is considered\nwise in everything by those trained in the like wisdom![69]\n\n13. Certain men in part intent on these things as judging [Sidenote:\np. 76.] them mighty and worthy of argument have constructed\nmeasureless[70] and boundless heresies. Among whom is one\nColarbasus,[71] who undertakes to set forth religion by measures and\nnumbers. And there are others whom we shall likewise point out when\nwe begin to speak of those who give heed to Pythagorean reckoning as\nif it were powerful and neglect the true philosophy for numbers and\nelements, thus making vain divinations. Collecting whose words, certain\nmen have led astray the uneducated, pretending to know the future and\nwhen they chance to divine one thing aright are not ashamed of their\nmany failures, but make a boast of their one success. Nor shall I pass\nover their unwise wisdom, but when I have set forth their attempts to\nestablish a religion from these sources, I shall refute them as being\ndisciples of a school inconsistent and full of trickery.\n\n\n 2. _Of Mathematicians._[72]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 77.] Those then who fancy that they can divine by means\nof ciphers[73] and numbers, elements[74] and names, make the foundation\nof their attempted system to be this. They pretend that every number\nhas a root:--in the thousands as many units as there are thousands.\nFor example, the root of 6000 is 6 units, of 7000, 7 units, of 8000,\n8 units, and with the rest in the same way. In the hundreds as many\nhundreds as there are, so the same number of units is the root of them.\nFor example, in 700 there are 7 hundreds: 7 units is their root. In 600\nthere are 6 hundreds: 6 units is their root. In the same way in the\ndecads: of 80 the root is 8 units, of 40, 4 units, of 10, 1 unit. In\nthe units, the units themselves are the root; for instance, the unit\nof the 9 is 9, of the 8, 8, of the 7, 7. Thus then must we do with the\ncomponent parts [of names]. For each element is arranged according to\nsome number. For example, the Nu consists of 50 units; but of 50 units\nthe root is 5, and of the letter [Sidenote: p. 78.] Nu the root is 5.\nLet it be granted that from the name we may take certain[75] of its\nroots. For example, from the name Agamemnon there comes from the Alpha\none unit, from the Gamma 3 units, from the other Alpha 1 unit, from the\nMu 4 units, from the Epsilon 5 units, from the Mu 4 units, from the Nu\n5 units, from the Omega 8 units, from the Nu 5 units, which together in\none row will be 1, 3, 1, 4, 5, 4, 5, 8, 5. These added together make 36\nunits. Again they take the roots of these and they become 3 for the 30,\nbut 6 itself for the 6. Then the 3 and the 6 added together make 9, but\nthe root of 9 is 9. Therefore the name Agamemnon ends in the root 9.\n\nLet the same be done with another name, viz., Hector. The name Hector\ncontains five elements, Epsilon, Kappa, Tau, Omega and Rho.[76] The\nroots of these are 5, 2, 3, 8, 1; these added together make 19 units.\nAgain, the root of the 10 is 1, of the 9, 9, which added together make\n10. The root of the 10 is one unit. Therefore the name of Hector when\ncounted up[77] has made as its root one unit.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 79.] But it is easier to work this way. Divide by 9 the\nroots ascertained from the elements, as we have just found 19 units\nfrom the name Hector, and read the remaining root. For example, if I\ndivide the 19 by 9, there remains a unit, for twice 9 is 18, and the\nremainder is a unit. For if I subtract 18 from the 19, the remainder\nis a unit. Again, of the name Patroclus[78] these numbers 8, 1, 3, 1,\n7, 2, 3, 7, 2 are the roots; added together they make 34 units. The\nremainder of these units is 7, viz., 3 from the 30 and 4 from the 4.\nTherefore 7 units are the root of the name Patroclus. Those then who\nreckon by the rule of 9 take the 9th part of the number collected from\nthe roots and describe the remainder as the sum of the roots; but those\nwho reckon by the rule of 7 take the 7th part. For example, in the name\nPatroclus the aggregate of the roots is 34 units. This divided into\nsevens makes 4 sevens, which are 28; the [Sidenote: p. 80.] remainder\nis 6 units. He says that by the rule of 7, 6 is the root of the name\nPatroclus.[79] If, however, it be 43, the 7th part, he says, is 42, for\n7 times 6 is 42, and the remainder is 1. Therefore the root from the\n43 by the rule of 7 becomes a unit. But we must take notice of what\nhappens if the given number when divided has no remainder,[80] as for\nexample, if from one name, after adding together the roots, I find, _e.\ng._, 36 units. But 36 divided by 9 is exactly 4 enneads (for 9 times\n4 is 36 and nothing over). Thus, he says the 9 itself is plainly the\nroot. If again we divide the number 45 we find 9 and no remainder (for\n9 times 5 is 45 and nothing over), in such cases we say the root is 9.\nAnd in the same way with the rule of 7: if, _e. g._, we divide 28 by\n7 we shall have nothing over (for 7 times 4 is 28 and nothing left),\n[and] they say the root is 7. Yet when he reckons up the names and\nfinds the same letter twice, he counts it only once. For example, the\nname [Sidenote: p. 81.] Patroclus has the Alpha twice and the Omicron\ntwice,[81] therefore he counts the Alpha only once and the Omicron only\nonce. According to this, then, the roots will be 8, 3, 1, 7, 2, 3, 2,\nand added together make 27,[82] and the root of the name by the rule of\n9 will be the 9 itself and by that of 7, 6.\n\nIn the same way Sarpedon, when counted, makes by the rule of 9, 2\nunits; but Patroclus makes 9: Patroclus conquers. For when one number\nis odd and the other even, the odd conquers if it be the greater. But\nagain if there were an 8, which is even, and a 5, which is odd, the 8\nconquers, for it is greater. But if there are two numbers, for example,\nboth even or both odd, the lesser conquers. But how does Sarpedon by\nthe rule of 9 make 2 units? The element Omega is omitted; for when\nthere are in a name the elements Omega and Eta, they omit the Omega\n[Sidenote: p. 82.] and use one element. For they say that they both\nhave the same power, but are not to be counted twice, as has been said\nabove. Again, Ajax (\u0391\u1f34\u03b1\u03c2)[83] makes 4 units, and Hector by the rule of\n9 only one. But the 4 is even while the unit is odd. And since we have\nsaid that in such cases the greater conquers, Ajax is the victor. Take\nagain Alexandros[84] and Menelaus. Alexandros has an individual[85]\nname [Paris]. The name Paris makes by the rule of 9, 4; Menelaus by the\nsame rule 9, and the 9 conquers the 4. For it has been said that when\none is odd and the other even, the greater conquers, but when both are\neven or both odd, the lesser. Take again Amycus and Polydeuces. Amycus\nmakes by the rule of 9, 2 units, and Polydeuces 7: Polydeuces conquers.\nAjax and Odysseus contended together in the funereal games. Ajax makes\nby the rule of 9, 4 units, and Odysseus by the same rule 8.[86] Is\nthere not (here) then some epithet of Odysseus and not his individual\nname, for he conquered? According to the numbers Ajax conquers, but\ntradition says Odysseus. Or take again Achilles and Hector. Achilles by\nthe rule of 9 makes 4; [Sidenote: p. 83.] Hector 1; Achilles conquers.\nTake again Achilles and Asterop\u00e6us. Achilles makes 4, Asterop\u00e6us 3;[87]\nAchilles conquers. Take again Euphorbus and Menelaus. Menelaus has 9\nunits, Euphorbus 8; Menelaus conquers.\n\nBut some say that by the rule of 7, they use only the vowels, and\nothers that they put the vowels, semi-vowels and consonants by\nthemselves, and interpret each column separately. But yet others do not\nuse the usual numbers, but different ones. Thus, for example, they will\nnot have Pi to have as a root 8 units, but 5 and the element Xi as a\nroot 4 units; and turning about every way, they discover nothing sane.\nWhen, however, certain competitors contend a second time,[88] they take\naway the first element, and when a third, the two first elements of\neach, and counting up the rest, they interpret them.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 84.] 2. I should think that the design of the\narithmeticians has been plainly set forth, who deem that by numbers\nand names they can judge life. And I notice that, as they have time\nto spare and have been trained in counting, they have wished by means\nof the art handed down to them by children to proclaim themselves\nwell-approved diviners, and, measuring the letters topsy-turvy, have\nstrayed into nonsense. For when they fail to hit the mark, they say in\npropounding the difficulty that the name in question is not a family\nname but an epithet; as also they plead as a subterfuge in the case\nof Ajax and Odysseus. Who that founds his tenets on this wonderful\nphilosophy and wishes to be called heresiarch, will not be glorified?\n\n\n 3. _Of Divination by Metoposcopy._[89]\n\n1. But since there is another and more profound art among the all-wise\ninvestigators of the Greeks, whose disciples the heretics profess\nthemselves because of the use they make of their opinions for their\nown designs, as we shall show before long, we shall not keep silence\nabout this. This is the divination or rather madness by metoposcopy.\n[Sidenote: p. 85.] There are those who refer to the stars the forms of\nthe types and patterns[90] and natures of men, summing them up by their\nbirths under certain stars. This is what they say: Those born under\nAries will be like this, to wit, long-headed, red-haired, with eyebrows\njoined together, narrow forehead, sea-green eyes, hanging cheeks, long\nnose, expanded nostrils, thin lips, pointed chin, and wide mouth. They\nwill partake, he says, of such a disposition as this: forethinking,\nversatile, cowardly, provident, easy-going, gentle, inquisitive,\nconcealing their desires, equipped for everything, ruling more by\njudgment than by strength, laughing at the present, skilled writers,\nfaithful, lovers of strife, provoking to controversy, given to desire,\nlovers of boys, understanding, turning from their own homes, displeased\n[Sidenote: p. 86.] with everything, litigious, madmen in their cups,\ncontemptuous, casting away somewhat every year, useful in friendship by\ntheir goodness. Most often they die in a foreign land.[91]\n\n2. Those born under Taurus will be of this type: round-headed,\ncoarse-haired, with broad forehead, oblong eyes and great eyebrows\nif dark; if fair, thin veins, sanguine complexion, large and heavy\neyelids, great ears, round mouth, thick nose, widely-open nostrils,\nthick lips. They are strong in their upper limbs, but are sluggish from\nthe hips downwards from their birth. The same are of a disposition\npleasing, understanding, naturally clever, religious, just, rustical,\nagreeable, laborious[92] after twelve years old, easily irritated,\nleisurely. Their appetite is small, they are quickly satisfied, wishing\nfor many things, provident, thrifty towards themselves, liberal towards\nothers; as a class they are sorrowful, useless in friendship, useful\nbecause of their minds, enduring ills.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 87.] 3. The type of these under Gemini: red-faced, not\ntoo tall in stature, even-limbed, eyes black and beady,[93] cheeks\ndrawn downwards, coarse mouth, eyebrows joined together. They rule\nall that they have, are rich at the last, niggardly, thrifty of their\nown, profuse in the affairs of Venus, reasonable, musical, cheats. The\nsame are said (by other writers) to be of this disposition: learned,\nunderstanding, inquisitive, self-assertive, given to desire, thrifty\nwith their own, liberal, gentle, prudent, crafty, wishing for many\nthings, calculators, litigious, untimely, not lucky. They are beloved\nby women, are traders, but not very useful in friendship.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 88.] 4. The type of those under Cancer: not great in\nstature, blue-black hair, reddish complexion, small mouth, round\nhead, narrow forehead, greenish eyes, sufficiently beautiful, limbs\nslightly irregular. Their disposition: evil, crafty, skilled in plots,\ninsatiable, thrifty, ungraced, servile, unhelpful, forgetful. They\nneither give back what is another\u2019s nor demand back their own; useful\nin friendship.\n\n5. The type of those under Leo: round head, reddish hair, large\nwrinkled forehead, thick ears, stiff-necked, partly bald, fiery\ncomplexion, green-gray eyes, large jaws, coarse mouth, heavy upper\nlimbs, great breast, lower parts small. Their disposition is:\nself-assertive, immoderate, self-pleasers, wrathful, courageous,\nscornful, arrogant, never deliberating, no talkers, indolent, addicted\nto custom, given up to the things of Venus, fornicators, shameless,\nwanting in faith, importunate for favour, audacious, niggardly,\nrapacious, celebrated, helpful to the community, useless in friendship.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 89.] 6. The type of those under Virgo: with fair\ncountenance, eyes not great but charming, with dark eyebrows close\ntogether, vivacious and swimming.[94] But they are slight in body,\nfair to see, with hair beautifully thick, large forehead, prominent\nnose. Their disposition is: quick at learning, moderate, thoughtful,\nplayful, erudite, slow of speech, planning many things, importunate for\nfavour, observing all things and naturally good disciples. They master\nwhat they learn, are moderate, contemptuous, lovers of boys, addicted\nto custom, of great soul, scornful, careless of affairs giving heed\nto teaching, better in others\u2019 affairs than in their own; useful for\nfriendship.\n\n7. The type of those under Libra: with thin bristling hair, reddish\nand not very long, narrow wrinkled forehead, beautiful eyebrows close\ntogether, fair eyes with black pupils, broad but small ears, bent head,\nwide mouth. Their disposition is: understanding, honouring the gods,\ntalkative to one another, traders, laborious, not keeping [Sidenote: p.\n90.] what they get, cheats, not loving to take pains in business,[95]\ntruthful, free of tongue, doers of good, unlearned, cheats, addicted\nto custom, careless, unsafe to treat unjustly.[96] They are scornful,\nderisive, sharp, illustrious, eavesdroppers, and nothing succeeds with\nthem. Useful for friendship.\n\n8. The type of those under Scorpio: with maidenly countenance, well\nshaped and pale,[97] dark hair, well-formed eyes, forehead not wide and\npointed nose, ears small and close (to the head), wrinkled forehead,\nscanty eyebrows, drawn-in cheeks. Their disposition is: crafty,\nsedulous, cheats, imparting their own plans to none, double-souled,\nill-doers, contemptuous, given to fornication, gentle, quick at\nlearning. Useless for friendship.\n\n9. The type of those under Sagittarius: great in stature, square\nforehead, medium eyebrows joined together, hair [Sidenote: p. 91.]\nabundant, bristling and reddish. Their disposition is: gracious as\nthose who have been well brought up, simple, doers of good, lovers\nof boys, addicted to custom, laborious, loving and beloved, cheerful\nin their cups, clean, passionate, careless, wicked, useless for\nfriendship, scornful, great-souled, insolent, somewhat servile,[98]\nuseful to the community.\n\n10. The type of those under Capricorn: with reddish body, bristling,\ngreyish hair,[99] round mouth, eyes like an eagle, eyebrows close\ntogether, smooth forehead, inclined to baldness, the lower parts of the\nbody the stronger. Their disposition is: lovers of wisdom, scornful and\nlaughing at the present, passionate, forgiving, beautiful, doers of\ngood, lovers of musical practice, angry in their cups, jocose, addicted\nto custom, talkers, lovers of boys, cheerful, friendly, beloved,\nprovokers of strife, useful to the community.\n\n11. The type of those under Aquarius: square in stature, small mouth,\nnarrow small, fierce eyes. (Their disposition) is: commanding,\nungracious, sharp, seeking the easy path, [Sidenote: p. 92.] useful for\nfriendship and to the community. Yet they live on chance affairs and\nlose their means of gain. Their disposition is:[100] reserved, modest,\naddicted to custom, fornicators, niggards, painstaking in business,\nturbulent, clean, well-disposed, beautiful, with great eyebrows. Often\nthey are in small circumstances and work at (several) different trades.\nIf they do good to any, no one gives them thanks.\n\n12. The type of those under Pisces: medium stature, with narrow\nforeheads like fishes, thick hair. They often become grey quickly.\nTheir disposition is: great-souled, simple, passionate, thrifty,\ntalkative. They will be sleepy at an early age, they want to do\nbusiness by themselves, illustrious, venturesome, envious, litigious,\nchanging their place of abode, beloved, fond of dancing.[101] Useful\nfor friendship.\n\n13. Since we have set forth their wonderful wisdom, and have not\nconcealed their much-laboured art of divination by intelligence,[102]\nneither shall we be silent on the folly into [Sidenote: p. 93.] which\ntheir mistakes in these matters lead them. For how feeble are they in\nfinding a parallel between the names of the stars and the forms and\ndispositions of men? For we know that those who at the outset chanced\nupon the stars, naming them according to their own fancy, called them\nby names for the purpose of easily and clearly recognizing them. For\nwhat likeness is there in these names to the appearance of the Zodiacal\nsigns, or what similar nature of working and activity, so that any one\nborn under Leo should be thought courageous,[103] or he who is born\nunder Virgo moderate, or under Cancer bad, and those under[104]....\n\n\n 4. _The Magicians._[105]\n\n(The gap here caused by the mutilation of the MS. was probably filled\nby a description of the mode of divination by enquiry of a spirit or\nd\u00e6mon which was generally made in writing, as Lucian describes in\nhis account of the imposture of Alexander of Abonoteichos. The MS.\nproceeds.)\n\n... And he (_i. e._, the magician) taking some paper, orders the\nenquirer to write down what it is he wishes to enquire of the\nd\u00e6mons.[106] Then he having folded up the paper and given it to the\nboy,[107] sends it away to be burned so that the smoke carrying the\nletters may go hence to the d\u00e6mons. But while the boy is doing what\nhe is commanded, he first tears off equal parts of the paper, and on\nsome other parts [Sidenote: p. 94.] of it, he pretends that the d\u00e6mons\nwrite in Hebrew letters. Then having offered up the Egyptian magicians\u2019\nincense called Cyphi,[108] he scatters these pieces of paper over the\noffering. But what the enquirer may have chanced to write having been\nput on the coals is burned. Then, seeming to be inspired by a god, the\nmagician rushes into the inner chamber[109] with a loud and discordant\ncry unintelligible to all. But he bids all present to enter and cry\naloud, invoking Phr\u0113n[110] or some other d\u00e6mon. When the spectators\nhave entered and are standing by, he flings the boy on a couch and\nreads to him many things, sometimes in the Greek tongue, sometimes\nin the Hebrew, which are the incantations usual among magicians. And\nhaving made libation, he begins the sacrifice. And he having put\ncopperas[111] in the libation bowl[112] and when the drug is dissolved\nsprinkling with it the paper which had forsooth been discharged of\nwriting, he compels the hidden and concealed letters again to come to\nlight, whereby he learns what the enquirer has written.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 95.] And if one writes with copperas and fumigates it\nwith a powdered gall-nut, the hidden letters will become clear. Also if\none writes (with milk) and the paper is burned and the ash sprinkled\non the letters written with the milk, they will be manifest.[113] And\nurine and garum[114] also and juice of the spurge and of the fig will\nhave the same effect.\n\nBut when he has thus learned the enquiry, he thinks beforehand in what\nfashion he need reply. Then he bids the spectators come inside bearing\nlaurel-branches and shaking them[115] and crying aloud invocations to\nthe d\u00e6mon Phr\u0113n. For truly it is fitting that he should be invoked\nby them and worthy that they should demand from d\u00e6mons what they do not\nwish to provide on their own account, seeing that they have lost their\nbrains.[116] But the confusion of the noise and the riot prevents them\nfollowing what the magician is thought to do in secret. What this is,\nit is time to say.\n\nNow it is very dark at this point. For he says that it is impossible\nfor mortal nature to behold the things of the gods, for it is enough\nto talk with them. But having made the boy lie down on his face, with\ntwo of those little writing tablets on which are written in Hebrew\nletters [Sidenote: p. 96.] forsooth[117] such things as names of\nd\u00e6mons, on each side of him, he says (the god) will convey the rest\ninto the boy\u2019s ears. But this is necessary to him, in order that he\nmay apply to the boy\u2019s ears a certain implement whereby he can signify\nto him all that he wishes. And first he rings[118] (a gong) so that\nthe boy may be frightened, and secondly he makes a humming noise, and\nthen thirdly he speaks through the implement what he wishes the boy to\nsay, and watches carefully the effect of the act. Thereafter he makes\nthe spectators keep silence, but bids the boy repeat what he has heard\nfrom the d\u00e6mons. But the implement which is applied to the ears is a\nnatural one, to wit, the wind-pipe of the long-necked cranes or storks\nor swans. If none of these is at hand, the art has other means at its\ndisposal. [Sidenote: p. 97.] For certain brass pipes, fitting one into\nthe other and ending in a point are well suited to the purpose through\nwhich anything the magician wishes may be spoken into the ears. And\nthese things the boy hearing utters when bidden in a fearful way, as if\nthey were spoken by d\u00e6mons. And if one wraps a wet hide round a rod and\nhaving dried it and bringing the edges together fastens them closely,\nand then taking out the rod, makes the hide into the form of a pipe, it\nhas the same effect. And if none of these things is at hand, he takes a\nbook and, drawing out from the inside as much as he requires, pulls it\nout lengthways and acts in the same way.[119]\n\nBut if he knows beforehand that any one present will ask a question,\nhe is better prepared for everything. And if he has learned the\nquestion beforehand he writes it out with the drug (aforesaid) and\nas being prepared is thought more adept for having skilfully written\nwhat was about to be asked. But if he does not know, he guesses at it,\nand exhibits some roundabout phrase of double and various meaning,\nso that the answer of the oracle being meaningless will do for many\nthings at the beginning, but at the end of the events will be thought\na prediction of what has happened. [Sidenote: p. 98.] Then having\nfilled a bowl with water, he puts at the bottom of it the paper with\napparently nothing written on it, but at the same time putting in\nthe copperas. For thus there floats to the surface the paper bearing\nthe answer which he has written. To the boy also there often come\nfearful fancies; for truly the magician strikes blows in abundance to\nterrify him. For, again casting incense into the fire, he acts in this\nfashion. Having covered a lump of the so-called quarried salts[120]\nwith Tyrrhenian wax and cutting in halves the lump of incense, he puts\nbetween them a lump of the salt and again sticking them together throws\nthem on the burning coals and so leaves them. But when the incense is\nburnt, the salts leaping up produce an illusion as if some strange\nand wonderful thing were happening. But indigo black[121] put in the\nincense produces a blood-red flame as we have before said.[122] And\nhe makes a liquid like blood by mixing wax with rouge and as I have\nsaid, putting the wax in the incense. And he makes the coals to move by\nputting under them stypteria[123] cut in pieces, and when it melts and\nswells up like bubbles, the coals are moved.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 99.] 2. And they exhibit eggs different (from natural\nones) in this way. Having bored a hole in the apex at each end and\nhaving extracted the white, and again plunged the egg in boiling water,\nput in either red earth from Sinope[124] or writing ink. But stop up\nthe holes with pounded eggshell made into a paste with the juice of a\nfig.\n\n3. This is the way they make sheep cut off their own heads. Secretly\nanointing the sheep\u2019s throat with a caustic drug, he fixes near the\nbeast a sword and leaves it there. But the sheep, being anxious to\nscratch himself, leans (heavily) on the knife, rubs himself along it,\nkills himself and must needs almost cut off his head. And the drug is\nbryony and marsh salt and squills in equal parts mixed together. So\nthat he may not be seen to have the drug with him, he carries a horn\nbox made double, the visible part of which holds frankincense and the\ninvisible the drug. And he also puts quicksilver into the ears of the\nanimal that is to die. But this is a death-dealing drug.\n\n4. But if one stops up the ears of goats with salve, they say they will\nshortly die because prevented from breathing. [Sidenote: p. 100.] For\nthey say that this is with them the way in which the intaken air is\nbreathed forth. And they say that a ram dies if one should bend him\nbackwards against the sun.[125] But they make a house catch fire by\nanointing it with the ichor of a certain animal called dactylus;[126]\nand this is very useful because of sea-water. And there is a sea-foam\nheated in an earthen jar with sweet substances, which if you apply to\nit a lighted lamp catches fire and is inflamed, but does not burn at\nall if poured on the head. But if you sprinkle it with melted gum, it\ncatches fire much better; and it does better still if you also add\nsulphur to it.\n\n5. Thunder is produced in very many ways. For very many large stones\nrolled from a height over wooden planks and falling upon sheets of\nbrass make a noise very like thunder. And they coil a slender cord\nround the thin [Sidenote: p. 101.] board on which the wool-carders\npress cloth, and then spin the board by whisking away the string when\nthe whirring of it makes the sound of thunder. These tricks they play\nthus; but there are others which I shall set forth which those who\nplay them also consider great. Putting a cauldron full of pitch upon\nburning coals, when it boils they plunge their hands in it and are not\nburned; and further they tread with naked feet upon coals of fire and\nare not burned. And also putting a pyramid of stone upon the altar,\nthey make it burn and from its mouth it pours forth much smoke and\nfire. Then laying a linen cloth upon a pan of water and casting upon it\nmany burning coals, the linen remains unburnt. And having made darkness\nin the house, the magician claims to make gods or d\u00e6mons enter in,\nand if one somehow asks that Esculapius shall be displayed he makes\ninvocation, saying thus:--\n\n \u201cApollo\u2019s son, once dead and again undying!\n I call on thee to come as a helper to my libations.\n [Sidenote: p. 102.] Who erst the myriad tribes of fleeting dead\n In the ever-mournful caves of wide Tartarus\n Swimming the stream hard to cross and the rising tide,\n Fatal to all mortal men alike,\n Or wailing by the shore and bemoaning inexorable things\n These thyself did rescue from gloomy Persephoneia.\n Whether thou dost haunt the seat of holy Thrace\n Or lovely Pergamum or beyond these Ionian Epidaurus\n Hither, O blessed one, the prince of magicians calls thee to be\n present here.\u201d[127]\n\n6. But when he has made an end of this mockery a fiery Esculapius\nappears on the floor. Then having put in the midst a bowl of\nwater,[128] he invokes all the gods and they are at hand. For if the\nspectator lean over and gaze into the bowl, he will see all the gods\nand Artemis leading on [Sidenote: p. 103.] her baying hounds. But we\nshall not hesitate to tell the story of these things and how they\nundertake them. For the magician plunges his hands in the cauldron\nof pitch which appears to be boiling; but he throws into it vinegar\nand soda[129] and moist pitch and heats the cauldron gently. And\nthe vinegar having mingled with the soda, on getting a little hot,\nmoves the pitch so as to bring bubbles to the surface and gives the\nappearance of boiling only. But the magician has washed his hands\nmany times in sea-water, thanks to which it does not burn him much if\nit be really boiling. And if he has after washing them anointed his\nhands with myrtle-juice and soda and myrrh[130] mixed with vinegar\nhe is not burned (at all). But the feet are not burned if he anoints\nthem with icthyokolla and salamander.[131] And this is the true cause\nof the pyramid flaming like a torch, although it is of stone. A paste\nof Cretan earth[132] is moulded into the shape of a pyramid,--but the\ncolour is like a milk-white stone,--in this fashion. He has soaked\nthe piece of earth in much oil, has put it on the coals, and when\nheated, has again soaked it and heated it a second and third time and\nmany a time afterwards, whereby he so prepares [Sidenote: p. 104.]\nit that it will burn even if plunged in water; for it holds much\noil within itself. But the altar catches fire when the magician is\nmaking libation, because it contains freshly-burned lime instead of\nashes and finely-powdered frankincense and much ... and of ... of\nanointed torches and self-flowing and hollow nutshells having fire\nwithin them.[133] But he also sends forth smoke from his mouth after\na brief delay by putting fire into a nutshell and wrapping it in tow\nand blowing it in his mouth.[134] The linen cloth laid on the bowl of\nwater whereon he puts the coals is not burned, because of the sea-water\nunderneath, and its being itself steeped in sea-water and then anointed\nwith white of egg and a solution of alum. And if also one mixes with\nthis the juice of evergreens and vinegar and a long time beforehand\nanoint it copiously with these, after being dipped in the drug it\nremains altogether incombustible.[135]\n\n7. Since then we have briefly set forth what can be done with the\nteachings which they suppose to be secret, we have [Sidenote: p.\n105.] displayed their easy system according to Gnosis.[136] Nor do we\nwish to keep silence as to this necessary point, that is, how they\nunseal letters and again restore them with the same seals (apparently\nintact). Melting pitch, resin, sulphur and also bitumen in equal parts,\nand moulding it into the form of a seal impression, they keep it by\nthem. But when the opportunity for unsealing a letter[137] arrives,\nthey moisten the tongue with oil, lick the seal, and warming the drug\nbefore a slow fire press the seal upon it and leave it there until\nit is altogether set, when they use it after the manner of a signet.\nBut they say also that wax with pine resin has the same effect and\nso also 2 parts of mastic with 1 of bitumen. And sulphur alone does\nfairly well and powdered gypsum diluted with water and gum.[138] This\ncertainly does most beautifully for sealing molten lead. And the effect\nof [Sidenote: p. 106.] Tyrrhenian wax and shavings of resin and pitch,\nbitumen, mastic and powdered marble in equal parts all melted together,\nis better than that of the other (compounds) of which I have spoken,\nbut that of the gypsum is no worse. Thus then they undertake to break\nthe seals when seeking to learn what is written within them. These\ncontrivances I shrank from setting out in the book,[139] seeing that\nsome ill-doer taking hints from them[140] might attempt (to practise)\nthem. But now the care of many young men capable of salvation has\npersuaded me to teach and declare them for the sake of protection\n(against them). For as one person will use them for the teaching of\nevil, so another by learning them will be protected (against them) and\nthe very magicians, corruptors of life as they are, will be ashamed\nto practise the art. But learning that the same (tricks) have been\ntaught beforehand, they will perhaps be hindered in their perverse\nfoolishness. In order, however, that the seal may not be broken in this\nway, let any one seal with swine\u2019s fat and mix hairs with the wax.[141]\n\n8. Nor shall I be silent about their lecanomancy[142] which is an\nimposture. For having prepared some closed chamber [Sidenote: p. 107.]\nand having painted its ceiling with cyanus, they put into it for the\npurpose certain utensils of cyanus[143] and fix them upright. But in\nthe midst a bowl filled with water is set on the earth, which with the\nreflection of the cyanus falling upon it shows like the sky. But there\nis a certain hidden opening in the floor over which is set the bowl,\nthe bottom of which is glass, but is itself made of stone. But there is\nunderneath a secret chamber in which those in the farce[144] assembling\npresent the dressed-up forms of the gods and d\u00e6mons which the magician\nwishes to display. Beholding whom from above the deceived person\nis confounded by the magicians\u2019 trickery and for the rest believes\neverything which (the officiator) tells him. And (this last) makes\n(the figure of) the d\u00e6mon burn by drawing on the wall the figure he\nwishes, and then secretly anointing it with a drug compounded in this\nway ...[145] with Laconian and Zacynthian bitumen. Then as if inspired\nby Ph\u0153bus, he brings the lamp near the wall, and the drug having caught\nlight is on fire.\n\nBut he manages that a fiery Hecate should appear to be flying through\nthe air thus: Having hidden an accomplice in what place he wills, and\ntaking the dupes on one side, he prevails on them by saying that he\nwill show them the [Sidenote: p. 108.] fiery d\u00e6mon riding through the\nair. To whom he announces that when they see the flame in the air,\nthey must quickly save their eyes by falling down and hiding their\nfaces until he shall call them. And having thus instructed them, on a\nmoonless night, he declaims these verses:--\n\n Infernal and earthly and heavenly Bombo,[146] come.\n Goddess of waysides, of cross-roads, lightbearer, nightwalker,\n Hater of the light, lover and companion of the night,\n Who rejoicest in the baying of hounds and in purple blood;\n Who dost stalk among corpses and the tombs of the dead\n Thirsty for blood, who bringest fear to mortals\n Gorgo and Mormo and Mene and many-formed one.\n Come thou propitious to our libations![147]\n\n9. While he speaks thus, fire is seen borne through the air, and the\nspectators terrified by the strangeness of the sight, cover their eyes\nand cast themselves in silence on the earth. But the greatness of the\nart contains this device. [Sidenote: p. 109.] The accomplice, hidden as\nI have said, when he hears the incantation drawing to a close, holding\na hawk or kite wrapped about with tow, sets fire to it and lets it go.\nAnd the bird scared by the flame is carried into the height and makes\nvery speedy flight. Seeing which, the fools hide themselves as if they\nhad beheld something divine. But the winged one whirled about by the\nfire, is borne whither it may chance and burns down now houses and now\nfarm-buildings. Such is the prescience of the magicians.\n\n10. But they show the moon and stars appearing on the ceiling in this\nway. Having previously arranged in the centre part of the ceiling a\nmirror, and having placed a bowl filled with water in a corresponding\nposition in the middle of the earthen floor, but a lamp showing\ndimly[148] has been placed between them and above the bowl, he thus\nproduces the appearance of the moon from the reflection by means of the\nmirror. But often the magician hangs aloft[149] near the ceiling a drum\non end, the same being kept covered by the accomplice by some cloth so\nthat it may not show before its time; and a lamp having been put behind\nit, when he makes the agreed signal to the accomplice, the last-named\ntakes away so much of the [Sidenote: p. 110.] covering as will give a\ncounterfeit of the moon in her form at that time.[150] But he anoints\nthe transparent parts of the drum with cinnabar and gum....[151] And\nhaving cut off the neck and bottom of a glass flask, he puts a lamp\nwithin and places around it somewhat of the things necessary for the\nfigures shining through, which one of the accomplices has concealed on\nhigh. After receiving the signal, this last lets fall the contrivances\nfrom the receptacle hung aloft, so that the moon appears to have been\nsent down from heaven. And the like effect is produced by means of\njars in glass-like forms.[152] And it is by means of the jar that the\ntrick is played within doors. For an altar having been set up, the\njar containing a lighted lamp stands behind it; but there being many\nmore lamps (about), this nowise appears. When therefore the enchanter\ninvokes the moon, he orders all the lamps to be put out, but one is\nleft dim and then the light from the jar is reflected on to the ceiling\nand gives the illusion of the moon to the spectators, the [Sidenote:\np. 111.] mouth of the jar being kept covered for the time which seems\nto be required that the image of the crescent moon may be shown on the\nceiling.\n\n11. But the scales of fishes or of the \u201chippurus\u201d[153] make stars seem\nto be when they are moistened with water and gum and stuck upon the\nceiling here and there.\n\n12. And they create the illusion of an earthquake, so that everything\nappears to be moving, ichneumon\u2019s dung being burned upon coal with\nmagnetic iron ore[154]....\n\n13. But they display a liver appearing to bear an inscription. On his\nleft hand (the magician) writes what he wishes, adapting it to the\nenquiry, and the letters are written with nut-galls and strong vinegar.\nThen taking up the liver, which rests in his left hand, he makes some\ndelay, and it receives the impression and is thought to have been\ninscribed.\n\n14. And having placed a skull on the earth, they make it speak in\nthis fashion. It is made out of the omentum of [Sidenote: p. 112.] an\nox,[155] moulded with Tyrrhenian wax and gypsum and when it is made\nand covered with the membrane, it shows the semblance of a skull. The\nwhich seems to speak by the use of the implement and in the way we have\nbefore explained in the case of the boys. Having prepared the wind-pipe\nof a crane or some such long-necked bird and putting it secretly into\nthe skull, the accomplice speaks what (the magician) wishes. And when\nhe wants it to vanish, he appears to offer incense and putting round it\na quantity of coals the wax receiving the heat of which melts, and thus\nthe skull is thought to have become invisible.[156]\n\n15. These and ten thousand such are the works of the magicians, which,\nby the suitableness of the verses and of the belief-inspiring acts\nperformed, beguile the fancy of the thoughtless. The heresiarchs struck\nwith the arts of these (magicians) imitate them, handing down some of\ntheir doctrines in secrecy and darkness, but paraphrasing others as if\nthey were their own. Thanks to this, as we wish to remind the public,\nwe have been the more anxious to leave behind us no place for those\nwho wish to go astray. But we have been led away not without reason\ninto certain secrets of the magicians which were not [Sidenote: p.\n113.] altogether necessary for the subject,[157] but which were thought\nuseful as a safeguard against the rascally and inconsistent art of\nthe magicians. Since, now, as far as one can guess,[158] we have set\nforth the opinions of all, having bestowed much care on making it clear\nthat the things which the heresiarchs have introduced into religion as\nnew are vain and spurious, and probably are not even among themselves\nthought worthy of discussion, it seems proper to us to recall briefly\nand summarily what has been before said.\n\n\n 5. _Recapitulation._\n\n1. Among all the philosophers and theologists[159] who are enquiring\ninto the matter throughout the inhabited world, there is no agreement\nconcerning God, as to what He is or whence (He came).[160] For some\nsay that He is fire, some spirit, some water, others earth. But every\none of these elements contains something inferior and some of them\nare defeated by the others. But this has happened to the world\u2019s\nsages, which indeed is plain to those who think, [Sidenote: p. 114.]\nthat in view of the greatness of creation, they are puzzled as to the\nsubstance of the things which are, deeming them too great for it to\nbe possible for them to have received birth from another. Nor yet do\nthey represent the universe itself taken collectively[161] to be God.\nBut in speculation about God every one thought of something which he\npreferred among visible things as the Cause. And thus gazing upon the\nthings produced by God and on those which are least in comparison with\nHis exceeding greatness, but not being capable of extending their mind\nto the real God, they declared these things to be divine.\n\nThe Persians, however, deeming that they were further within the truth\n(than the rest) said that God was a shining light comprised in air. But\nthe Babylonians said that darkness was God, which appears to be the\nsequence of the other opinion; for day follows night and night day.[162]\n\n2. But the Egyptians, deeming themselves older than all, have subjected\nthe power of God to ciphers,[163] and calculating the intervals of the\nfates by Divine inspiration[164] said that God [Sidenote: p. 115.] was\na monad both indivisible and itself begetting itself, and that from\nthis (monad) all things were made. For it, they say, being unbegotten,\nbegets the numbers after it; for example, the monad added to itself\nbegets the dyad, and added in the like way the triad and tetrad up\nto the decad, which is the beginning and the end of the numbers. So\nthat the monad becomes the first and tenth through the decad being of\nequal power and being reckoned as a monad, and the same being decupled\nbecomes a hecatontad and again is a monad, and the hecatontad when\ndecupled will make a chiliad, and it again will be a monad. And thus\nalso the chiliads if decupled will complete the myriad and likewise\nwill be a monad. But the numbers akin to the monad by indivisible\ncomparison are ascertained to be 3, 5, 7, 9.[165] There is, however,\nalso a more natural affinity of another number with the monad which\nis that by the operation of the spiral of 6 circles[166] of the dyad\naccording to the [Sidenote: p. 116.] even placing and separation of\nthe numbers. But the kindred number is of the 4 and 8. And these\nreceiving added virtue from numbers of the monad, advanced up to the\nfour elements, I mean spirit and fire, water and earth. And having\ncreated from these the masculo-feminine cosmos,[167] he prepared and\narranged two elements in the upper hemisphere, (to wit) spirit and\nfire, and he called this the beneficent hemisphere of the monad and\nthe ascending and the masculine. For the monad, being subtle, flies to\nthe most subtle and purest part of the \u00e6ther. The two other elements\nbeing denser, he assigns to the dyad (to wit) earth and water, and he\ncalls this the descending hemisphere and feminine and maleficent. And\nagain the two upper elements when compounded with themselves have in\nthemselves the male and the female for the fruitfulness and increase of\nthe universals. And the fire is masculine, but the spirit feminine: and\nagain the water is masculine and the earth feminine.[168] And thus from\nthe beginning the fire lived with the spirit and the water with the\nearth. For as the power of the spirit is the fire, so also (the power)\nof the earth is the water....\n\n[Sidenote: p. 117.] And the same elements counted and resolved by\nsubtraction of the enneads,[169] properly end some in the male number,\nothers in the female. But again the ennead is subtracted for this\ncause, because the 360 degrees of the whole circle consist of enneads,\nand hence the 4 quarters of the cosmos are (each) circumscribed by\n90 complete degrees. But the light is associated with the monad and\nthe darkness with the dyad, and naturally life with the light and\ndeath with the dyad, and justice with life and injustice with death.\nWhence everything engendered among the male numbers is benefic,\nand (everything engendered) among the female numbers is malefic.\nFor example, they reckon that the monad--so that we may begin from\nthis--becomes 361, which ends in a monad, the ennead(s) being\nsubtracted. Reckon in the same way: the dyad becomes 605; subtract\nthe enneads, it ends in a dyad and each is (thus) carried back to its\nown.[170]\n\n3. With the monad, then, as it is benefic, there are [Sidenote: p.\n118.] associated names which end in the uneven number,[171] and they\nsay that they are ascending and male and benefic when observed; but\nthat those which end in an even number are considered descending and\nfemale and malefic. For they say that nature consists of opposites,\nto wit, good and bad, as right and left, light and darkness, night\nand day, life and death. And they say this besides: that they have\ncalculated the name of God and that it results in a pentad [or in an\nennead],[172] which is uneven and which written down and wrapped about\nthe sick works cures. And thus a certain plant (whose name) ends in\nthis number when tied on in the same way is effective by the like\nreckoning of the number. But a doctor also cures the sick by a like\ncalculation. But if the calculation be contrary, he does not make cures\neasily. Those who give heed to these numbers count all numbers like it\nwhich have the same meaning, some [Sidenote: p. 119.] according to the\nvowels alone, others according to the total of the numbers.[173] Such\nis the wisdom of the Egyptians, whereby, while glorifying the Divine,\nthey think they understand it.\n\n\n 6. _Of the Divination by Astronomy._[174]\n\nWe seem then to have set forth these things also sufficiently. But\nsince I consider that not one tenet of this earthy and grovelling\nwisdom has been passed over, I perceive that our care with regard to\nthe same things has not been useless. For we see that our discourse\nhas been of great use not only for the refutation of heresies, but\nalso against those who magnify these things.[175] Those who happen to\nnotice the manifold care taken by us will both wonder at our zeal and\nwill neither despise our painstaking nor denounce Christians as fools\nwhen they see what themselves have foolishly believed. And besides\nthis, the discourse will timely instruct those lovers of learning who\ngive heed to the truth, making them more wise to easily overthrow those\nwho have dared to mislead them--for they will have learned not only\nthe principles of the heresies, but also the so-called opinions of the\n[Sidenote: p. 120.] sages. Not being unacquainted with which, they\nwill not be confused by them as are the unlearned, nor misled by some\nwho exercise a certain power, but will keep a watch upon those who go\nastray.\n\n2. Having therefore sufficiently set forth (our) opinions, it remains\nfor us to proceed to the subject aforesaid, when, after we have\nproved what we arranged concerning the heresies, and have forced the\nheresiarchs to restore to everyone his own, we shall exhibit (these\nheresiarchs) stripped (of all originality) and by denouncing the\nfolly of their dupes we shall persuade them to return again to the\nprecious haven of the truth. But in order that what has been said may\nappear more clearly to the readers,[176] it seems to us well to state\nthe conclusions of Aratus as to the disposition of the stars in the\nheaven. For there are some who by likening them to the words of the\nScriptures turn them into allegories and seek to divert the minds of\nthose who listen to them by leading them with persuasive words whither\nthey wish, and pointing out to them strange marvels like those of the\ntransfers to the stars[177] alleged by them. They who while gazing upon\nthe outlandish wonder are caught by their admiration for trifles are\nlike the bird called the owl,[178] [Sidenote: p. 121.] whose example\nit will be well to narrate in view of what follows. Now this animal\npresents no very different appearance from that of the eagle whether in\nsize or shape; but it is caught in this way. The bird-catcher, when he\nsees a flock alighting anywhere, claps his hands, pretends to dance,\nand thus gradually draws near to the birds; but they, struck by the\nunwonted sight, become blind to everything else. Others of the party,\nhowever, who are ready on the ground coming behind the birds easily\ncapture them while they are staring at the dancer. Wherefore I ask that\nno one who is struck by the wonders of whose who interpret the heaven\nshall be taken in like the owl. For the dancing and nonsense of such\n(interpreters) is trickery and not truth. Now Aratus speaks thus:--\n\n \u201cMany and like are they, going hither and thither,\n Daily they wheel in heaven always and ever [that is, all the stars]\n Yet none changes his abode[179] ever so little: but with perfect\n exactness\n Ever the Pole is fixed, and holds the earth in the midst of all\n As equipoise of all, and around it leads Heaven itself.\u201d--\n (Aratus, _Ph\u00e6n._, vv. 45, 46.)\n\n[Sidenote: p. 122.] 3. He says that the stars in heaven are \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2,\nthat is, turning,[180] because of their going about ceaselessly from\nEast to West and from West to East in a spherical figure. But he says\nthere is coiled round the Bears themselves, like the stream of some\nriver, a great marvel of a terrible dragon, and this it is, he says,\nthat the Devil in the (Book of) Job says to God: \u201cI have been walking\nto and fro under heaven and going round about,\u201d[181] that is, turning\nhither and thither and inspecting what is happening. For they consider\nthat the Dragon is set below the Arctic Pole, from this highest pole\ngazing upon all things and beholding all things, so that none of those\nthat are done shall escape him. For though all the stars in the heaven\ncan set, this Pole alone never sets, but rising high above the horizon\ninspects all things and beholds all things, and nothing of what is\ndone, he says, can escape him.\n\n \u201cWhere (most)\n Settings and risings mingle with one another.\u201d--\n (Aratus, _Ph\u00e6n._, v. 61.)\n\n[Sidenote: p. 123.] he says, indeed, that his head is set. For over\nagainst the rising and setting of the two hemispheres lies the head\nof Draco, so that, he says, nothing escapes him immediately either\nof things in the West or of things in the East, but the Beast knows\nall things at once. And there over against the very head of Draco is\nthe form of a man made visible by reason of the stars, which Aratus\ncalls \u201ca wearied image,\u201d and like one in toil; but he names it the\n\u201cKneeler.\u201d[182] Now Aratus says that he does not know what this toil\nis and this marvel which turns in heaven. But the heretics, wishing\nto found their own tenets on the story of the stars, and giving their\nminds very carefully to these things, say that the Kneeler is Adam, as\nMoses said, according to the decree of God guarding the head of the\nDragon and the Dragon (guarding) his heel.[183] For thus says Aratus:--\n\n \u201cHolding the sole of the right foot of winding Draco.\u201d--\n (_Ph\u00e6n._, vv. 63-65.)\n\n4. But he says there are placed on either side of him (I mean the\nKneeler) Lyra and Corona; but that he bends the knee and stretches\nforth both hands as if making confession [Sidenote: p. 124.] of\nsin.[184] And that the lyre is a musical instrument fashioned by the\nLogos in extreme infancy. But that Hermes is called among the Greeks\nLogos. And Aratus says about the fashioning of the lyre:--\n\n \u201cwhich, while he was yet in his cradle\n Hermes bored and said it was to be called lyre.\u201d--\n (_Ph\u00e6n._, v. 268.)\n\nIt is seven-stringed, and indicates by its seven strings the entire\nharmony and constitution with which the cosmos is suitably provided.\nFor in six days the earth came into being and there was rest on the\nseventh. If, then, he says,[185] Adam making confession and guarding\nthe head of the Beast according to God\u2019s decree, will imitate the lyre,\nthat is, will follow the word of God, which is to obey the Law, he will\nattain the Crown lying beside it. But if he takes no heed, he will be\ncarried downwards along with the Beast below him, and will have his\nlot, he says, with the Beast. But the Kneeler seems to stretch forth\nhis hands on either side and here to grasp the Lyre and there the Crown\n[and this is to make confession],[186] [Sidenote: p. 125.] as is to be\nseen from the very posture. But the Crown is plotted against and at\nthe same time drawn away by another Beast, Draco the Less, who is the\noffspring of the one which is guarded by the foot of the Kneeler. But\n(another) man stands firmly grasping with both hands the Serpent, and\ndraws him backwards from the Crown, and does not permit the Beast to\nforcibly seize it. Him Aratus calls Serpent-holder,[187] because he\nrestrains the rage of the Serpent striving to come at the Crown. But\nhe, he says, who in the shape of man forbids the Beast to come at the\nCrown is Logos, who has mercy upon him who is plotted against by Draco\nand his offspring at once.\n\nAnd these Bears, he says, are two hebdomads, being made up of seven\nstars each, and are images of the two creations. For the First\nCreation, he says, is that according to Adam in his labours who is seen\nas the Kneeler. But the Second Creation is that according to Christ\nwhereby we are born [Sidenote: p. 126.] again. He is the Serpent-holder\nfighting the Beast and preventing him from coming at the Crown prepared\nfor man. But Helica[188] is the Great Bear, he says, the symbol of the\ngreat creation, whereby Greeks sail, that is by which they are taught,\nand borne onwards by the waves of life they follow it, such a creation\nbeing a certain revolution[189] or schooling or wisdom, leading back\nagain those who follow such (to the point whence they started). For\nthe name Helica seems to be a certain turning and circling back to the\nsame position. But there is also another Lesser Bear, as it were an\nimage of the Second Creation created by God. For few, he says, are they\nwho travel by this narrow way. For they say that Cynosura is narrow,\nby which, Aratus says, the Sidonians navigate.[190] But Aratus in turn\nsays the Sidonians are Ph\u0153nicians on account of the wisdom of the\nPh\u0153nicians being wonderful. But they say that the Greeks are Ph\u0153nicians\nwho removed from the Red Sea to the land [Sidenote: p. 127.] where\nthey now dwell. For thus it seemed to Herodotus.[191] But this Bear he\nsays is Cynosura, the Second Creation, the small, the narrow way and\nnot Helica. For she leads not backwards, but guides those who follow\nher forwards to the straight way, being the (tail) of the dog. For the\nLogos is the Dog (Cyon) who at the same time guards and protects the\nsheep against the plans of the wolves, and also chases the wild beasts\nfrom creation and slays them, and who begets all things. For Cyon, they\nsay, indeed means the begetter.[192] Hence, they say, Aratus, speaking\nof the rising of Canis, says thus:--\n\n \u201cBut when the Dog rises, no longer do the crops play false.\u201d--\n (_Ph\u00e6n._ v. 332.)\n\nThis is what he means: Plants that have been planted in the earth up\nto the rising of the Dog-star take no root, but yet grow leaves and\nappear to beholders as if they will bear fruit and are alive, but have\nno life from the root in them. But when the rising of the Dog-star\noccurs, the living plants are distinguished by Canis from the dead,\nfor [Sidenote: p. 128.] he withers entirely those which have not taken\nroot. This Cyon, he says then, being a certain Divine Logos has been\nestablished judge of quick and dead, and as Cyon is seen to be the star\nof the plants, so the Logos, he says, is for the heavenly plants, that\nis for men. For some such cause as this, then, the Second Creation\nCynosura stands in heaven as the image of the rational[193] creature.\nBut between the two creations Draco is extended below, hindering the\nthings of the great creation from coming to the lesser, and watching\nthose things which are fixed in the great creation like the Kneeler\nlest they see how and in what way every one is fixed in the little\ncreation. But Draco is himself watched as to the head, he says, by\nOphiuchus. The same, he says, is fixed as an image in heaven, being a\ncertain philosophy for those who can see.\n\nBut if this is not clear, through another image, he says, creation\nteaches us to philosophize, about which Aratus speaks thus:--\n\n \u201cNor of Ionian[194] Cepheus are we the miserable race.\u201d--\n (_Ph\u00e6n._ v. 353.)\n\n[Sidenote: p. 129.] But near Draco, he says, are Cepheus and Cassiopeia\nand Andromeda and Perseus, great letters of[195] the creation to\nthose who can see. For he says that Cepheus is Adam, Cassiopeia Eve,\nAndromeda the soul of both, Perseus the winged offspring of Zeus and\nCetus the plotting Beast. Not to any other of these comes Perseus the\nslayer of the Beast, but to Andromeda alone. From which Beast, he\nsays, the Logos Perseus, taking her to himself, delivers Andromeda\nwho had been given in chains to the Beast. But Perseus is the winged\naxis which extends to both poles through the middle of the earth and\nmakes the cosmos revolve. But the spirit which is in the Cosmos is\nCycnus,[196] the bird which is near the Bears, a musical animal, symbol\nof the Divine Spirit, because only when it is near the limits of life,\nits nature is to sing, and, as one escaping with good hope from this\nevil creation it sends up songs of praise to God. But crabs and bulls\nand lions and rams and goats and kids [Sidenote: p. 130.] and all the\nother animals who are named in heaven on account of the stars are, he\nsays, images and paradigms whence the changeable nature receives the\npatterns[197] and becomes full of such animals.[198]\n\nMaking use of these discourses, they think to deceive as many as\ngive heed to the astrologers, seeking therefrom to set up a religion\nwhich appears very different from their assumptions.[199] Wherefore,\nO beloved,[200] let us shun the trifle-admiring way of the owl. For\nthese things and those like them are dancing and not truth. For the\nstars do not reveal these things; but men on their own account and for\nthe better distinguishing of certain stars (from the rest) gave them\nnames so that they might be a mark to them. For what likeness have\nthe stars strewn about the heaven to a bear, or a lion, or kids, or\na water-carrier, or Cepheus, or Andromeda, or to the Shades named in\nHades--for many of these persons and the names of the stars alike came\ninto existence long after the stars themselves--so that the [Sidenote:\np. 131.] heretics being struck with the wonder should thus labour by\nsuch discourses to establish their own doctrines?[201]\n\n\n 7. _Of the Arithmetical Art._[202]\n\nSeeing, however, that nearly all heresy has discovered by the art of\narithmetic measures of hebdomads and certain projections of \u00c6ons, each\ntearing the art to pieces in different ways and only changing the\nnames,--but of these (men) Pythagoras came to be teacher who first\ntransmitted to the Greeks such numbers from Egypt--it seems good not\nto pass over this, but after briefly pointing it out to proceed to\nthe demonstration of the objects of our enquiries. These men were\narithmeticians and geometricians to whom especially it seems Pythagoras\nfirst supplied the principles (of their arts). And they took the first\nbeginnings (of things), discovered apparently by reason alone, from\nthe numbers which can always proceed to infinity by multiplication and\nthe figures (produced by it). For the beginning of geometry, as may\nbe seen, is an indivisible point; but from that point the generation\nof the infinite figures from [Sidenote: p. 132.] the point[203] is\ndiscovered by the art. For the point when extended[204] in length\nbecomes after extension a line having a point as its limit:[205] and a\nline when extended in breadth produces a superficies and the limits of\nthe superficies are lines: and a superficies extended in depth becomes\na (solid) body:[206] and when this solid is in existence, the nature\nof the great body is thus wholly founded from the smallest point. And\nthis is what Simon says thus: \u201cThe little will be great, being as it\nwere a point; but the great will be boundless,\u201d[207] in imitation of\nthat geometrical point. But the beginning of arithmetic, which includes\nby combination philosophy, is[208] a number which is boundless and\nincomprehensible, containing within itself all the numbers capable\nof coming to infinity by multitude. But the beginning of the numbers\nbecomes by hypostasis the first monad, which is a male unit begetting\nas does a father all the other numbers. Second comes the dyad, a female\nnumber, and the same is called even by the arithmeticians. Third comes\nthe triad, a male number; this also has been ordained to be called odd\nby the arithmeticians. After all these comes the tetrad, [Sidenote: p.\n133.] a female number, and this same is also called even, because it is\nfemale. Therefore all the numbers taken from the genus are four--but\nthe boundless genus is number--wherefrom is constructed their perfect\nnumber, the decad. For 1, 2, 3, 4 become 10, as has before been shown,\nif the name which is proper to each of the numbers be substantially\nkept. This is the sacred Tetractys according to Pythagoras which\ncontains within itself the roots of eternal nature, that is, all the\nother numbers. For the 11, 12 and the rest take the principle of birth\nfrom the 10. Of this decad, the perfect number, the four parts are\ncalled: number, monad, square and cube. The conjunctions and minglings\nof which are for the birth of increase, they completing naturally the\nfruitful number. For when this square is multiplied into itself, it\nbecomes a square squared; but when a square into a cube, it becomes a\nsquare cubed; but when a cube into a cube, it becomes a cube cubed. So\nthat all the numbers are seven, in order that the birth of the existing\nnumbers [Sidenote: p. 134.] may come from a hebdomad, which is number,\nmonad, square, cube, square of a square, cube of a square, cube of a\ncube.\n\nOf this hebdomad Simon and Valentinus, having altered the names,\nrecount prodigies, hastening to base upon it their own systems.[209]\nFor Simon calls (it) thus: Mind, Thought, Name, Voice, Reasoning,\nDesire and He who has Stood, Stands and will Stand: and Valentinus:\nMind, Truth, Word, Life, Man, Church and the Father who is counted with\nthem. According to these (ideas) of those trained in the arithmetic\nphilosophy, which they admired as something unknowable by the crowd,\nand in pursuance of them, they constructed the heresies excogitated by\nthem.\n\nNow there are some also who try to construct hebdomads from the healing\nart, being struck by the dissection of the brain, saying that the\nsubstance, power of paternity, and divinity of the universe can be\nlearned from its constitution. [Sidenote: p. 135.] For the brain, being\nthe ruling part of the whole body rests calm and unmoved, containing\nwithin itself the breath.[210] Now such a story is not incredible, but\na long way from their attempted theory. For the brain when dissected\nhas within it what is called the chamber, on each side of which are the\nmembranes which they call wings, gently moved by the breath, and again\ndriving the breath into the cerebellum.[211] And the breath, passing\nthrough a certain reed-like vein, travels to the pineal gland.[212]\nNear this lies the mouth of the cerebellum which receives the breath\npassing through and gives it up to the so-called spinal marrow.[213]\nFrom this the whole body gets a share of pneumatic (force), all the\narteries being dependent like branches on this vein, the extremity of\nwhich finishes in the genital veins. Whence also the seeds proceeding\nfrom the brain through the loins are secreted. But the shape of the\ncerebellum is like the head of a dragon; concerning which there is much\ntalk among those of the Gnosis falsely so called, as we have shown. But\nthere are other six pairs (of vessels) growing from the brain, which\nmaking their way round the head and finishing within it, connect the\nbodies together. But the [Sidenote: p. 136.] seventh (goes) from the\ncerebellum to the lower parts of the rest of the body, as we have said.\n\nAnd about this there is much talk since Simon and Valentinus have found\nin it hints which they have taken, although they do not admit it,\nbeing first cheats and then heretics. Since then it seems that we have\nsufficiently set out these things, and that all the apparent dogmas\nof earthly philosophy have been included in (these) four books,[214]\nit seems fitting to proceed to their disciples or rather to their\nplagiarists.\n\n\n THE FOURTH BOOK OF PHILOSOPHUMENA[215]\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: This is the beginning of the Mt. Athos MS., the first\npages having disappeared. With regard to the first chapter \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, Cruice, following therein Miller, points out that nearly\nthe whole of it has been taken from Book V with the same title of\nSextus Empiricus\u2019 work, \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, and also that the copying\nis so faulty that to make sense it is necessary to restore the text\nin many places from that of Sextus. Sextus\u2019 book begins, as did\ndoubtless that of Hippolytus, with a description of the divisions of\nthe zodiac, the cardinal points (Ascendant, Mid-heaven, Descendant,\nand Anti-Meridian), the cadent and succeedent houses, the use of\nthe clepsydra or water-clock, the planets and their \u201cdignities,\u201d\n\u201cexaltations\u201d and \u201cfalls,\u201d and finally, their \u201cterms,\u201d with a\ndescription of which our text begins. It is, perhaps, a pity that\nMiller did not restore the whole of the missing part from Sextus\nEmpiricus; but the last-named author is not very clear, and the reader\nwho wishes to go further into the matter and to acquire some knowledge\nof astrological jargon is recommended to consult also James Wilson\u2019s\n_Complete Dictionary of Astrology_, reprinted at Boston, U.S.A., in\n1885, or, if he prefers a more learned work, M. Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq\u2019s\n_L\u2019Astrologie Grecque_, Paris, 1899. But it may be said here that\nthe astrologers of the early centuries made their predictions from a\n\u201ctheme,\u201d or geniture, which was in effect a map of the heavens at the\nmoment of birth, and showed the ecliptic or sun\u2019s path through the\nzodiacal signs divided into twelve \u201chouses,\u201d to each of which a certain\nsignificance was attached. The foundation of this was the horoscope or\nsign rising above the horizon at the birth, from which they were able\nto calculate the other three cardinal points given above, the cadent\nhouses being those four which go just before the cardinal points and\nthe four succeedents those which follow after them. The places of the\nplanets, including in that term the sun and moon, in the ecliptic were\nthen calculated and their symbols placed in the houses indicated. From\nthis figure the judgment or prediction was made, but a great mass of\nabsurd and contradictory tradition existed as to the influence of the\nplanets on the life, fortune, and disposition of the native, which\nwas supposed to depend largely on their places in the theme both in\nrelation to the earth and to each other.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _op. cit._, p. 206, rightly defines\nthese terms as fractions of signs separated by internal boundaries\nand distributed in each sign among the five planets. Cf. J. Firmicus\nMaternus, _Matheseos_, II, 6, and Cicero, _De Divinatione_, 40. Wilson,\n_op. cit_., s.h.v., says they are certain degrees in a sign, supposed\nto possess the power of altering the nature of a planet to that of the\nplanet in the term of which it is posited. All the authors quoted say\nthat the astrologers could not agree upon the extent or position of\nthe various \u201cterms,\u201d and that in particular the \u201cChald\u00e6ans\u201d and the\n\u201cEgyptians\u201d were hopelessly at variance upon the point.]\n\n[Footnote 3: In the translation I have distinguished Miller\u2019s additions\nto the text from Sextus Empiricus\u2019 by enclosing them in square\nbrackets, reserving the round brackets for my own additions from the\nsame source, which I have purposely made as few as possible. So with\nother alterations.]\n\n[Footnote 4: \u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _lit._, \u201chave spear-bearers.\u201d \u201cStars\u201d in\nSextus Empiricus nearly always means planets.]\n\n[Footnote 5: This is the famous \u201ctrine\u201d figure or aspect of modern\nastrologers. Its influence is supposed to be good; that of the square\nnext described, the reverse.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Hippolytus here omits a long disquisition by Sextus on the\nposition of the planets and the Chald\u00e6an system. Where the text resumes\nthe quotation it is in such a way as to alter the sense completely;\nwherefore I have restored the sentence preceding from Sextus.]\n\n[Footnote 7: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u201csuffer with.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 8: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. The term used by astrologers to denote\nthe whole \u00e6ther surrounding the stars or, in other words, the whole\ndisposition of the heavens. \u201cAmbient\u201d is its equivalent in modern\nastrology.]\n\n[Footnote 9: This is an anticipation of the Peratic heresy to which a\nchapter in Book V (pp. 146 ff. _infra_) is devoted. \u1f08\u03ba\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u1f74\u03c2 is there\nspelt \u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03b2\u1f74\u03c2, but \u1f08\u03ba\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u1f74\u03c2 is restored in Book X and is copied by\nTheodoret. \u201cPeratic\u201d is thought by Salmon (_D.C.B._, s.h.v.) to mean\n\u201cMede.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 10: \u201cToparch\u201d means simply \u201cruler of a place.\u201d Proastius\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) generally the dweller in a suburb. Here it probably means\nthe powers in some part of the heavens which is near to a place or\nconstellation without actually forming part of it.]\n\n[Footnote 11: \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1. Cf. \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2, \u201cin the established\nmanner,\u201d Callistratus, _Ecphr._, 897.]\n\n[Footnote 12: \u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, or, perhaps, \u201cof the systems used.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 13: \u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, _lit._, \u201cnot holding together,\u201d punningly used\nas epithet for both the art and the heresy.]\n\n[Footnote 14: What follows to the concluding paragraph of Chap. 7 is\ntaken nearly _verbatim_ from Sextus Empiricus.]\n\n[Footnote 15: For these terms see n. on p. 67 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 16: \u1f61\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd seems here put for \u1f61\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd = _horologium_,\nor clock.]\n\n[Footnote 17: \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, \u201cthe bringing-forth\u201d is the word used by Sextus\nthroughout. As Sextus was a medical man it is probably the technical\nterm corresponding to our \u201cparturition.\u201d Miller reads \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 which\ndoes not seem appropriate.]\n\n[Footnote 18: \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1. See n. on p. 67 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 19: I have here followed Sextus\u2019 division of the sentence.\nCruice translates \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c1, _farina aqua subacta_, for which I can see no\njustification. Macmahon here follows him.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Restoring from Sextus \u03bf\u1f34\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 for \u1f26\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 21: \u1f61\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cthe ascending sign.\u201d So Sextus.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Restoring from Sextus \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 for \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3; \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 for \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1f72\u03c2 and omitting \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 23: See n. on p. 74 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Sextus has described earlier (p. 342, Fabricius) the\nwhole process of warning the astrologer of the moment of birth by\nstriking a metal disc, which I have called \u201cgong.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 25: \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 26: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _majori et longiori temporis spatio ad aurium sensum\ndividatur_, Cr.; \u201cwith proportionate delay,\u201d Macmahon. I do not\nunderstand how either his or Cruice\u2019s construction is arrived at.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Sextus has \u201con the hills.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 28: \u1f61\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 might mean \u201cwhich marks the hour.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 29: \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 30: _quam diligenter observari possit in coelo nativitas_,\nCr., (before) \u201cthe nativity can be carefully observed in the sky.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 31: \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. The word in Greek astrological works has the\nsame meaning as \u201cgeniture\u201d or \u201cnativity\u201d in modern astrological jargon.\nIdentical with \u201ctheme.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 32: The whole of this sentence is corrupt, and the scribe\nwas probably taking down something from Sextus which was read to him\nwithout his understanding it. I have given what seems to be the sense\nof the passage.]\n\n[Footnote 33: \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, Sextus (p. 342, Fabr.), has described the\nclepsydra or water-clock and its defects as a measurer of time.]\n\n[Footnote 34: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 35: \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. A technical expression for the results\nor influence on sublunary things of the position of the heavenly\nbodies. Cf. Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _op. cit._, p. 328, n. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Sextus adds \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2, \u201cpositively.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 37: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af. The only passage in our text where\nHippolytus uses the word in this sense. He seems to have taken it from\nSextus\u2019 title \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 38: A play of words upon \u039b\u03ad\u03c9 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 39: \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2. Hippolytus inserts an unnecessary \u03bf\u1f50 before the\nword. See Sextus, p. 355.]\n\n[Footnote 40: \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, _gratia consuetudinis_, Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Does this refer to Otho\u2019s encouragement by the astrologer\nPtolemy to rebel against Galba? See Tacitus, _Hist._, I, 22. The\nsentence does not appear in Sextus.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Sextus says 9977 years.]\n\n[Footnote 43: \u03c6\u03b8\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u201carrive at concurrence with.\u201d Sextus\nanswers the question in the negative.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Here the quotations from Sextus end.]\n\n[Footnote 45: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u201camong the nations.\u201d A curious expression in\nthe mouth of a Greek, although natural to a Jew.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Is this an allusion to trigonometry? The rest of the\nsentence, as will presently be seen, refers to Plato\u2019s _Tim\u00e6us_. Cf.\nalso _Tim\u00e6us the Locrian_, c. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 47: \u0394\u03b9\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. An indication that\nHippolytus\u2019 knowledge of Plato was not first-hand.]\n\n[Footnote 48: The passage which follows is from the _Tim\u00e6us_, XII,\nwhere Plato describes how the World-maker set in motion two concentric\ncircles revolving different ways, the external called the Same and\nLike, and the internal the Other, or Different.]\n\n[Footnote 49: This seems to be generally accepted as Plato\u2019s meaning.\nJowett says the three are the orbits of the Sun, Venus and Mercury, the\nfour those of the Moon, Saturn, Mars and Jupiter. The Wanderers are of\ncourse the planets.]\n\n[Footnote 50: _i. e._, swifter and slower.]\n\n[Footnote 51: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Perhaps the following extract from the pseudo-Tim\u00e6us the\nLocrian, now generally accepted as a summary of the second century, may\nmake this clearer. After explaining that the cosmos and its parts are\ndivided into \u201cthe Same\u201d and \u201cthe Different,\u201d he says: \u201cThe first of\nthese leads from without all that are within them, along the general\nmovement from East to West. But the latter, belonging to the Different,\nlead from within the parts that are carried along from West to East,\nand are self-moved, and they are whirled round and along, as it may\nhappen, by the movement of the Same which possesses in the Cosmos\na superior power. Now the movement of the Different, being divided\naccording to a harmonical proportion, takes the form of 7 circles,\u201d and\nhe then goes on to describe the orbits of the planets.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Lit., \u201cif one section be severed.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 54: Cf. Plato, _Tim\u00e6us_, c. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 55: A palpable mistake. As Cruice points out, if the Earth\u2019s\ndiameter is as said in the text, its perimeter must be 251,768\nstadia, which is not far from the 252,000 stadia assigned to it by\nEratosthenes.]\n\n[Footnote 56: Lacun\u00e6 in both these sentences.]\n\n[Footnote 57: The common Greek name for the planet Ares or Mars (\u2642).]\n\n[Footnote 58: All these numbers are hopelessly corrupt in the text and\nthe scribe varies the notation repeatedly. I have given the figures as\nfinally settled by Cruice and his predecessors. The Shining One is the\nplanet Hermes or Mercury (\u263f).]\n\n[Footnote 59: \u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7, \u201cdepths\u201d; rather height if we consider the orbits\nof the planets as concentric and fitting into one another like\njugglers\u2019 caps or the skins of an onion.]\n\n[Footnote 60: \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. Cruice would read \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 for \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\non the strength of what Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, II, 20, says about\nPythagoras having taught that the intervals between the planets\u2019 orbits\nwere musical tones. He seems to mean the gamut or chromatic scale as\ncontrasted with the enharmonic.]\n\n[Footnote 61: See last note.]\n\n[Footnote 62: See note on p. 81 _infra_ as to what this doubling and\ntripling means.]\n\n[Footnote 63: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3.]\n\n[Footnote 64: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1ff3, _superquarta_, Cr., 1 + \u00bc; see Liddell and\nScott, quoting Nicomachus Gerasenus Arithmeticus.]\n\n[Footnote 65: It is not easy to see from this confused statement\nwhether it is the system of Plato or Archimedes at which Hippolytus\nis aiming. The one, however, that it most resembles is that of\nthe neo-Pythagoreans, of which the following table is given in M.\nBigourdan\u2019s excellent work on _L\u2019Astronomie: Evolution des Id\u00e9es et des\nM\u00e9thodes_, Paris 1911, p. 49:--\n\n Planets \u2641 \u263d \u263f \u2640 \u2609 \u2642 \u2643 \u2644 Fixed\n stars\n Interval { in tones 1 \u00bd \u00bd 1\u00bd 1 \u00bd \u00bd \u00bd\n { in thousands of } 126 63 63 189 126 63 63 63\n { stadia }\n Absolute distances }\n in thousands } 0 126 189 252 441 567 630 693 756\n of stadia }\n]\n\n[Footnote 66: The object of all these figures is apparently to prove\nthat those of Archimedes are wrong and that the Platonic theory--said,\none does not know with what truth, to have been inherited from\nPythagoras, viz., that the intervals between the orbits of the\ndifferent bodies of the cosmos are arranged like the notes on a\nmusical scale--is to be preferred. This was perhaps to be expected\nfrom a Churchman as favouring the doctrine of creation by design. It\nis difficult at first sight to see how the figures in the text bear\nout Hippolytus\u2019 contention, inasmuch as the distances here given of\nthe seven planets (including therein the Sun and Moon) from the Earth\nproceed in an irregular kind of arithmetical progression ranging from\none to fifty-four, the distance from the Earth to the Moon which\nHippolytus accepts from Archimedes as correct being taken as unity.\nThus, let us call this unit of distance _x_, and we have the table\nwhich follows:--\n\n\n TABLE I (_of distances_)\n\n Distance of Earth (\u2641) from \u263d = 5,544,130 stadia or _x_\n \u201c \u201d \u201c \u2609 = 16,632,390 \u201d 3_x_\n \u201c \u201d \u201c \u2640 = 33,264,780 \u201d 6_x_\n \u201c \u201d \u201c \u263f = 55,441,300 \u201d 10_x_\n \u201c \u201d \u201c \u2642 = 105,338,470 \u201d 19_x_\n \u201c \u201d \u201c \u2643 = 149,691,510 \u201d 27_x_\n \u201c \u201d \u201c \u2644 = 299,383,020 \u201d 54_x_\n\nBut let us take the figures given in the text for the intervals between\nthe Earth and the seven \u201cplanets\u201d arranged in the same order, and again\ntaking the Earth to Moon distance as unity, we have:--\n\n\n TABLE II (_of intervals_)\n\n Interval between \u2641 and \u263d = 5,554,130 stadia or _x_\n \u201c \u201d \u263d \u201c \u2609 = 11,088,260 \u201d 2_x_\n \u201c \u201d \u2609 \u201c \u2640 = 16,632,390 \u201d 3_x_\n \u201c \u201d \u2640 \u201c \u263f = 22,176,520 \u201d 4_x_(2\u00b2)\n \u201c \u201d \u263f \u201c \u2642 = 49,897,170 \u201d 9_x_(3\u00b2)\n \u201c \u201d \u2642 \u201c \u2643 = 44,353,040 \u201d 8_x_(2\u00b3)\n \u201c \u201d \u2643 \u201c \u2644 = 149,691,510 \u201d 27_x_(3\u00b3)\n\nThis agrees almost entirely with the theory which M. Bigourdan in the\nwork mentioned in the last note has worked out as the Platonic theory\nof the distances of the different planets from the Earth, \u201cthe supposed\ncentre of their movements\u201d (p. 228). Thus:--\n\n Planets \u263d \u2609 \u2640 \u263f \u2642 \u2643 \u2644\n Distances 1 2 3 4 8 9 27\n\nwhich distances are, in his own words, \u201cles termes enchev\u00eatr\u00e9s de deux\nprogressions g\u00e9om\u00e9triques ayant respectivement pour raison 2 et 3,\nsavoir 1, 2, 4, 8--1, 3, 9, 27; on voit que l\u2019unit\u00e9 est, comme chez\nPythagore, la distance de la Terre \u00e0 la Lune.\u201d This conclusion is\namply borne out by Hippolytus\u2019 figures, which, as given in Table II\nabove, show a regular progression from 2 and 3 to 2\u00b2 and 3\u00b2, then\nto 2\u00b3 and 3\u00b3, which explains what our author means by increasing\nthe Earth to the Moon distance, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. The\nonly discrepancy between this and M. Bigourdan\u2019s table is that he has\ntransposed the distances between \u263f--\u2642 and \u2642--\u2644 respectively; but as\nI do not know the details of the calculation on which he bases his\nfigures, I am unable to say whether the mistake is his or Hippolytus\u2019.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Are we to conclude from this that these last calculations\nare those of Claudius Ptolemy, the author of the _Almagest_? He has\ncertainly not been mentioned before, but his fame was so great that\nHippolytus may have been certain that the allusion would be understood\nby his audience. Ptolemy lived, perhaps, into the last quarter of the\nsecond century.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Genesis vi. 4. The subject seems to have had irresistible\nfascination for Christian converts of Asiatic blood, whether orthodox\nor heretic. Manes also wrote a book upon the Giants, cf. Kessler,\n_Mani_, Berlin, 1899, pp. 191 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Hippolytus seems to have been entirely ignorant that\nthe calculations he derides were anything but mere guesswork. They\nwere not only singularly accurate considering the imperfection of the\nobservations at the disposal of their author, but have also been of\nthe greatest use to science as laying the foundation of all future\nastronomy.]\n\n[Footnote 70: \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Another pun on their _measurements_.]\n\n[Footnote 71: Nothing definite is known of this Colarbasus or his\nsupposed astrological heresy. The accounts given of him by Iren\u00e6us\nand Epiphanius describe him as holding tenets identical with those of\nMarcus. Hort, following Baur, believes that he never existed, and that\nhis name is simply a Greek corruption of _Qol arba_, \u201cthe Voice of the\nFour.\u201d See _D.C.B._, s.h.v.]\n\n[Footnote 72: \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd. The article is omitted; but he\nmust mean the students and not the study. This is curious, because\nMathematicus in the Rome of Hippolytus must have meant astrologer and\nnothing else, and what follows has nothing to do with astrology. Rather\nis it what was called in the Renaissance Arithmomancy. Cruice refers\nus to Athanasius Kircher\u2019s _Arithmologia_ on the subject. Cornelius\nAgrippa, _De vanitate et incertitudine Scientiarum_, writes of it as \u201cThe\nPythagorean lot,\u201d and it is described in Gaspar Peucer\u2019s _De pr\u00e6cipuis\nDivinationum generibus_, 1604.]\n\n[Footnote 73: \u03c8\u1fc6\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, lit., pebbles, _i. e._ counters.]\n\n[Footnote 74: \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1: letters as the component parts or elements of\nwords.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Reading with the text \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 for Cruice\u2019s \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70.]\n\n[Footnote 76: In the text the Kappa and Tau are written at full length,\nthe other numbers in the usual Greek notation, a proof that the scribe\nwas here writing from dictation and not copying MS.]\n\n[Footnote 77: \u03c8\u03b7\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 78: The name is spelt \u03a0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 79: So that the \u201croot\u201d may be either 7 or 6 according as you\nuse the \u201crule of 9\u201d or of 7. A _reductio ad absurdum_.]\n\n[Footnote 80: \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3, \u201cis even or complete.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 81: I omit the Rho, which in the Codex precedes the Alpha.\nCruice suggests it is put for \u03a0.]\n\n[Footnote 82: They do not, but make 26. Cruice adds an Alpha between\nthe 8 and the 3: but in any case the rule just enunciated is broken by\nthe reckoning in of two 2\u2019s.]\n\n[Footnote 83: \u0391\u1f34\u03b1\u03c2. \u0391 = 1, \u03b9 = 10 = 1, \u03b1 = 1 (omitted), \u03c2 = 200 = 2. 1\n+ 1 + 2 = 4.]\n\n[Footnote 84: The Homeric name for Paris.]\n\n[Footnote 85: \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 as opposed to \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1, a name\ntransferred from one to another, or family name.]\n\n[Footnote 86: Not 8 but 4. \u03bf = 70 = 7, \u03b4 = 4, \u03c5 = 400 = 4, \u03c3 = 200 = 2,\n\u03b5 = 5 (with duplicate omitted) = 22, which divided by 9 leaves 4, or by\n7, only 1. The next sentence and a similar remark at the last sentence\nbut one of the chapter are probably by a commentator or scribe and have\nslipped into the text by accident. Oddly enough, nothing is said as to\nwhat happens if the \u201croots\u201d are equal, as they seem to be in this case.]\n\n[Footnote 87: Another mistake. \u0391 = 1, \u03c3 = 200 = 2, \u03c4 = 300 = 3, \u03b5 =\n5, \u03c1 = 100 = 1, \u03bf = 70 = 7, \u03c0 = 80 = 8, \u03b9 = 10 = 1 (with duplicates\nomitted) = 28, which divided by 9 leaves 1, or by 7, 0 = 7.]\n\n[Footnote 88: \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. _Quum vero quidam\niterum decertant de numeris_, Cr. But the allusion is almost certainly\nto two charioteers or combatants meeting in successive contests. Half\nthe divination and magic of the early centuries refers to the affairs\nof the circus, and the text has nothing about _de numeris_.]\n\n[Footnote 89: Lit., inspection of the forehead (or face), or what\nLavater called physiognomy. The word was known to Ben Jonson, who uses\nit in his _Alchymist_. \u201cBy a rule, Captain. In metoposcopy, which I do\nwork by. A certain star in the forehead which you see not,\u201d etc.]\n\n[Footnote 90: \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 91: I have not thought it worth while to set down the\nvarious readings suggested by the different editors and translators\nfor these \u201cforms and qualities.\u201d The whole of this chapter is taken\nfrom Ptolemy\u2019s _Tetrabiblos_, and was corrupted by every copyist. The\ncommon type suggested with eyebrows meeting over the nose is plainly\nAlexandrian, as we know from the portraits on mummy-cases in Ptolemaic\ntimes.]\n\n[Footnote 92: \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76. The dictionaries give \u201cgrave-digger,\u201d which\nmakes no sense.]\n\n[Footnote 93: \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u201ceyes black as if\noiled.\u201d Not a bad description of the eyes of a certain type of\nLevantine.]\n\n[Footnote 94: The text has \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, which must refer to the eyes.]\n\n[Footnote 95: Yet he twice calls them \u03c8\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, or \u201ccheats.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 96: Miller thinks this last characteristic interpolated.]\n\n[Footnote 97: Reading \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff7 for \u1f00\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff7, \u201csalt,\u201d which seems impossible.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Reading \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 for \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 99: Is any one born with grey hair?]\n\n[Footnote 100: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. A similar phrase has just occurred\nunder the same sign: a proof of the utter corruption of the text.]\n\n[Footnote 101: \u1f40\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af in codex. Probably a mistake for \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, \u201cuseful to the community.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 102: \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; probably a sarcasm.]\n\n[Footnote 103: It is hardly necessary to point out the futility of this\nastrology, its base being the theory that the earth is the centre of\nthe universe. Nearly all the characteristics given above have, however,\nless to do with the stars than with those supposed to distinguish the\ndifferent animals named. This is really sympathetic magic, or what was\nlater called \u201cthe signatures of things.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 104: A lacuna in the text here extending to the opening words\nof the next chapter.]\n\n[Footnote 105: Richard Ganschinietz, in a study on _Hippolytus\u2019 Capitel\ngegen die Magier_ appearing in Gebhardt\u2019s and Harnack\u2019s _Texte und\nUntersuchungen_, dritte Reihe Bd. 9, Leipzig, 1913, says it is not\ndoubtful that Hippolytus took this chapter from Celsus\u2019 book \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, which he discovers in Origen\u2019s work against the last-named\nauthor. He assumes that Lucian of Samosata in his \u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22\n\u03a8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 borrowed from the same source.]\n\n[Footnote 106: \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, _a demonibus_, Cr. But the word \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd is\nhardly ever used in classic or N.T. Greek for a devil or evil spirit,\ngenerally called \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. \u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd here and elsewhere in this chapter\nplainly means a god of lesser rank or spirit. Cf. Plutarch _de Is. et\nOs._, cc. 25-30.]\n\n[Footnote 107: \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f76, the magician\u2019s assistant necessary in all\noperations requiring confederacy or hypnotism.]\n\n[Footnote 108: For the composition of this see Plutarch, _op. cit._, c.\n81.]\n\n[Footnote 109: \u1f41 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03c2. Often used for the women\u2019s chamber or\ngynaeceum.]\n\n[Footnote 110: Clearly the Egyptian sun-god Ra or R\u00ea, the Phi in front\nbeing the Coptic definite article. It is a curious instance of the\nundying nature of any superstition that in the magical ceremonies of\nthe extant Parisian sect of Vintrasists, Ammon-Ra, the Theban form of\nthis god, is invoked apparently with some idea that he is a devil. See\nJules Bois\u2019 _Le Satanisme et la Magie_, Paris, 1895.]\n\n[Footnote 111: \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, sulphate of iron, which, mixed with tincture\nor decoction of nut-galls, makes writing ink. Our own word copperas is\nan exact translation.]\n\n[Footnote 112: \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7. A broad flat pan used for sacrificial purposes.]\n\n[Footnote 113: There is some muddle here, probably due to Hippolytus\nnot having any practical acquaintance with the tricks described. The\nsmoke of nut-galls would hardly make the writing visible. On the other\nhand, letters written in milk will turn brown if exposed to the fire\nwithout the application of any ash.]\n\n[Footnote 114: A sauce made of brine and small fish.]\n\n[Footnote 115: See the roughly-drawn vignettes usual in magic papyri,\n_e. g._ Parthey, _Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri_, Berlin, 1866, p. 155;\nKarl Wessely, _Griechische Zauberpapyri von Paris und London_, Vienna,\n1888, p. 118.]\n\n[Footnote 116: \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. One of Hippolytus\u2019 puns.]\n\n[Footnote 117: Hebrew was used in these ceremonies, because they were\nlargely in the hands of the Jews. See _Forerunners and Rivals of\nChristianity_, II, pp. 33, 34, for references.]\n\n[Footnote 118: \u1f20\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6. Particularly appropriate to the striking of a\nmetal disc.]\n\n[Footnote 119: The book of course was a long roll of parchment, the\ninner coils of which could be drawn out as described.]\n\n[Footnote 120: \u1f40\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd. Cruice translates fossil salts. Does he\nmean rock-salt?]\n\n[Footnote 121: \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f30\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd. Either indigo dye or pepper. Cayenne\npepper put in the flame might have a startling effect on the audience.]\n\n[Footnote 122: Where?]\n\n[Footnote 123: Said to be an astringent earth made from rock-alum, and\ncontaining both alum and vitriol. Known to Hippocrates.]\n\n[Footnote 124: Red lead or vermilion? The idea seems to be to frighten\nthe dupe by the supposed prodigy of a hen laying eggs which have red or\nblack inside them instead of white.]\n\n[Footnote 125: Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, VIII, c. 75, says the sheep is\ncompelled when it feeds to turn away from the sun by reason of the\nweakness of its head. This is probably the story which Hippolytus or\nthe author has exaggerated. Something is omitted from the text.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Seal or porpoise oil?]\n\n[Footnote 127: Hymns like these are to be found in the two collections\nof magic papyri quoted in n. on p. 93 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 128: He tells us how this trick is performed on p. 100\n_infra_. Lecanomancy or divination by the bowl was generally performed\nby means of a hypnotized boy, as described in Lane\u2019s _Modern\nEgyptians_. This, however, is a more elaborate process dependent on\nfraud.]\n\n[Footnote 129: Reading \u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd for \u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. It was common in Egypt, and\nsaltpetre would not have the same effect, which seems to depend on the\nexpulsion of carbonic acid.]\n\n[Footnote 130: \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd\u03b7. Cruice suggests \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c6\u03b7, a mixture of wax and\npitch, which hardly seems indicated. Storax is the ointment recommended\nby eighteenth-century conjurers. Water is all that is needful.]\n\n[Footnote 131: \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1. Presumably fish-glue. Macmahon suggests\nisinglass. The salamander, the use of which is to be sought in\nsympathetic magic, was no doubt calcined and used in powder.\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cmillipede\u201d and \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u201chart\u2019s tongue fern\u201d are\nthe alternative readings suggested. Fern-oil is said to be good for\nburns.]\n\n[Footnote 132: Probably chalk or gypsum.]\n\n[Footnote 133: \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd. \u039a\u03ae\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 here evidently means\nany sort of nut-shell. But how can it be \u201cself-flowing\u201d? Miller\u2019s\nsuggested \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd makes no better sense.]\n\n[Footnote 134: The lion-headed figure of the Mithraic worship is shown\nthus setting light to an altar in Cumont\u2019s _Textes et Monuments de\nMithra_, II, p. 196, fig. 22. A similar figure with an opening at the\nback of the head to admit the \u201cwind-pipe\u201d described in the text shows\nhow this was effected. See the same author\u2019s _Les Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_,\nBrussels, 1913, p. 235, figs. 26, 27.]\n\n[Footnote 135: The solution of alum would be effective without any\nother ingredients.]\n\n[Footnote 136: That is, not by guesswork. Another pun.]\n\n[Footnote 137: The letter was of course in the form of a writing-tablet\nbound about with silk or cord, to which the seal was attached.]\n\n[Footnote 138: This would make something like plaster of Paris.]\n\n[Footnote 139: This book or the former one. Lucian describes the same\nprocess in his _Alexander_, which he dedicates to Celsus; _v._ n. on p.\n92 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 140: \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd, \u201ctaking them as starting-points.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 141: Cruice suggests that this sentence has either got out of\nplace or is an addition by an annotator. Probably an afterthought of\nHippolytus\u2019.]\n\n[Footnote 142: See n. on p. 97 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 143: \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. A dark-blue substance which some think steel,\nothers lapis lazuli.]\n\n[Footnote 144: \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cplayfellows.\u201d Here, as elsewhere in the\ntext, accomplices or confederates.]\n\n[Footnote 145: Several words missing here, perhaps by intention. It\nwould be interesting to know if the \u201cdrug\u201d was any preparation of\nphosphorus.]\n\n[Footnote 146: Should be Baubo, a synonym of Hecate in the hymn to that\ngoddess published by Miller, _M\u00e9langes de Litt. Grecque_, Paris, 1868,\npp. 442 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 147: Most of the epithets and names here used are to be\nfound in the hymn quoted in the last note. The goddess is there\nidentified not only with Artemis and Persephone, but with the Sumerian\nEris-ki-gal, lady of hell.]\n\n[Footnote 148: A sort of magic lantern? \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, which I have\ntranslated mirror, _might_ be a lens. One is said to have been found in\nAssyria.]\n\n[Footnote 149: \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. Better, perhaps, \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 150: Full moon, or half, or quarter, as the case may be.]\n\n[Footnote 151: Schneidewin seems to be right in suggesting a lacuna\nhere.]\n\n[Footnote 152: \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. Schneidewin suggests \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\nunreasonably. Many alabaster jars are nearly transparent.]\n\n[Footnote 153: Cf. Aristotle, _De Hist. Animal._, V, 10, 2. Said to be\n_Coryph\u00e6na hippurus_.]\n\n[Footnote 154: The hiatus leaves us in doubt how this operated. Perhaps\nit liberated free ammonia.]\n\n[Footnote 155: Reading \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 instead of, with Cruice,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03ce\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u201cfilled with clay.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 156: \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2, \u201cunapparent.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 157: \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. An admission that this chapter was an\nafterthought.]\n\n[Footnote 158: \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, _ut patet_, Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 159: \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9. It does not mean \u201ctheologians\u201d in our sense,\nbut narrator of stories about the gods. Orpheus is always considered a\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 160: \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2. Not, as Cruice translates, _quale_, which would\nbe better expressed by the \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03bd of Aristotle.]\n\n[Footnote 161: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78.]\n\n[Footnote 162: It is fairly certain that Hippolytus in this\n\u201cRecapitulation\u201d must here be summarizing the missing Books II and III.\nHe has said nothing in any part of the work that has come down to us\nabout the Persian theology, and in Book I he calls Zaratas or Zoroaster\na Chald\u00e6an and not a Persian.]\n\n[Footnote 163: \u03c8\u03ae\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 are supplied by Schneidewin in the\nplace of three words rubbed out.]\n\n[Footnote 164: Reading with Schneidewin \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd for \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\nfor \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 165: By indivisible comparison (\u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) he seems to imply\nthat these numbers cannot be divided except by 1. Hence Cruice would\nomit 9 as being divisible by 3. Perhaps he means \u201clike indivisibility.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 166: Cruice suggests that this was an astronomical instrument\nand quotes Cl. Ptolemy, _Harmon._, I, 2, in support.]\n\n[Footnote 167: Why should the cosmos be masculo-feminine? The\nValentinians said the same thing about their Sophia, who was, as I have\nsaid elsewhere (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, Oct. 1917), a\npersonification of the Earth. The idea seems to go back to Sumerian\ntimes. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, 45, n. 1, and Mr. S. Langdon, _Tammuz and\nIshtar_, Oxford, 1914, pp. 7, 43 and 115.]\n\n[Footnote 168: The worshippers of the Greek Isis declared Isis to be\nthe earth and Osiris water. See _Forerunners_, I, 73, for references.\nIf Hippolytus is here recapitulating Books II and III, it is probable\nthat the lacuna was occupied with some reference to the Alexandrian\ndeities and their connection with the arithmetical speculations of the\nNeo-Pythagoreans. Could this be substantiated, we should not need to\nlook further for the origin of the Simonian and Valentinian heresies.]\n\n[Footnote 169: \u03c8\u03b7\u03c6\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u1f70\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, _supputata et diversa_, Cr.\nThe process seems to be that called earlier (p. 85 _supra_) the rule of\n9.]\n\n[Footnote 170: 361 \u00f7 9 = 40 + 1; 605 \u00f7 9 = 67 + 2.]\n\n[Footnote 171: \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, lit., \u201cunyoked.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 172: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 here appears in the text apparently as an\nalternative reading. Cruice suggests \u201cwith an ennead deducted.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 173: Meaning that some reckon the numerical value of all the\nletters in a name, others that of the vowels only.]\n\n[Footnote 174: What follows has nothing to do with divination, but\ntreats of the celestial map as a symbolical representation of the\nChristian scheme of salvation. Hippolytus condemns the notion as a\n\u201cheresy,\u201d but if so, its place ought to be in Book V. It is doubtful\nfrom what author or teacher he derived his account of it; but all the\nquotations from Aratus\u2019 _Ph\u00e6nomena_ which he gives are to be found in\nCicero, _De Natura Deorum_, 41, where they make, as they do not here, a\nconnected story.]\n\n[Footnote 175: One of the passages favouring the conjecture that the\nbook was originally in the form of lectures.]\n\n[Footnote 176: \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, _legentibus_, Cr. It may just as\neasily mean \u201cthose who come across this.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 177: \u201cCatasterisms\u201d was the technical term for these\ntransfers, of which the _Coma Berenices_ is the best-known example. Cf.\nBouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _op. cit._, p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 178: The long-eared owl (_strix otus_). According to \u00c6lian it\nhad a reputation for stupidity, and was therefore a type of the easy\ndupe, Athen\u00e6us, _Deipnosophist\u00e6_, IX, 44, 45, tells a similar story to\nthat in the text about the bustard.]\n\n[Footnote 179: Reading \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 for \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 180: \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, _volventes_, Cr. An attempt to pun on \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\nthe Pole.]\n\n[Footnote 181: Job i. 7. The Book of Job according to some writers\ncomes from an Essene school, which may give us some clue to the origin\nof these ideas. The Enochian literature to which the same tendency\nis assigned is full of speculations about the heavenly bodies. See\n_Forerunners_, I, p. 159, for references.]\n\n[Footnote 182: \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Aratus calls this constellation \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Cicero _Engonasis_, Ovid _Genunixus_, Vitruvius,\nManilius and J. Firmicus Maternus, _Ingeniculus_.]\n\n[Footnote 183: A perversion of the \u201cit shall bruise thy head and thou\nshall bruise his heel,\u201d of Genesis iii. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 184: From his attitude the Kneeler resembles the figure\nof Atlas supporting the world, who as Omophorus plays a great part\nin Manich\u00e6an mythology. Cumont derives this from a Babylonian\noriginal, for which and his connection with Mithraic cosmogony see his\n_Recherches sur le Manich\u00e9isme_, Brussels, 1908, I, p. 70, figs. 1 and\n2. The constellation is now known as Hercules.]\n\n[Footnote 185: Hippolytus here evidently quotes not from Aratus, but\nfrom some unnamed Gnostic or heretic writer, whom Cruice thinks must\nhave been a Jew. Yet he was plainly a Christian, as appears from his\nremarks about the \u201cSecond Creation.\u201d An Ebionite writer might have\npreserved many Essene superstitions.]\n\n[Footnote 186: Cruice, following Roeper, says these words have slipped\nin from an earlier page.]\n\n[Footnote 187: \u1f40\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. The \u201cOphiuchus huge\u201d of Milton or Anguitenens.]\n\n[Footnote 188: \u1f19\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03b7. So Aratus and Apollonius Rhodius. Said to be so\ncalled from its perpetually revolving. Cruice remarks on this sentence\nthat it does not seem to have been written by a Greek, and quotes\nEpiphanius as to the addiction of the Pharisees to astrology. But see\nlast note but one.]\n\n[Footnote 189: \u1f11\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03b7. A pun quite in Hippolytus\u2019 manner.]\n\n[Footnote 190: \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd ... \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Cruice and Macmahon alike\ntranslate this \u201ctowards which,\u201d but Aratus clearly means \u201csteer by\u201d\nboth here and earlier.]\n\n[Footnote 191: Herodotus I, 1. He does not say, however, that the\nGreeks were Ph\u0153nicians.]\n\n[Footnote 192: Rather the conceiver, from \u03ba\u03cd\u03c9, to conceive. \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9 is\nused of the mother by Aristotle, _De Gen. Animal._, 3, 5, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 193: \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 194: Reading \u0399\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 for Cruice\u2019s \u1f38\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf. The text is said\nto have \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u0390\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf.]\n\n[Footnote 195: \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, elementa, Cr. But I think the allusion is to\nthe story they contain for those who can read them.]\n\n[Footnote 196: The Swan.]\n\n[Footnote 197: \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 198: If Hippolytus\u2019 words are here correctly transcribed, the\n\u201cheretic\u201d quoted seems to have two inconsistent ideas about the stars.\nOne is that the constellations are types or allegories of what takes\nplace in man\u2019s soul; the other, that they are the patterns after which\nthe creatures of this world were made. This last is Mithraic rather\nthan Christian.]\n\n[Footnote 199: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, _ab horum cogitationibus_, Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 200: \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af. The word generally used in a _sermon_.]\n\n[Footnote 201: This also reads like a peroration.]\n\n[Footnote 202: In this chapter Hippolytus for the first time sets\nhimself seriously to prove the thesis which he has before asserted, _i.\ne._, that all the Gnostic systems are derived from the teachings of the\nGreek philosophers. His mode of doing so is to compare the elaborate\nsystems of Aeons or emanations of deity imagined by heresiarchs\nlike Simon Magus and Valentinus to the views attributed by him to\nPythagoras which make all nature to spring from one indivisible point.\nWhether Pythagoras ever held such views may be doubted and we have no\nmeans of checking Hippolytus\u2019 always loose statements on this point;\nbut something like them appears in the _Theaetetus_ of Plato where\narithmetic and geometry seem to be connected by talk about oblong as\nwell as square numbers and the construction of solids from them. If\nwe imagine with the Greeks (see n. on p. 37 _supra_) that numbers are\nnot abstract things, but actual portions of space, there is indeed a\nstrong likeness between the ideas of the later Platonists as to the\nconstruction of the world by means of numbers and those attributed to\nthe Gnostic teachers as to its emanation from God. Whether these last\nreally held the views thus attributed to them is another matter. Cf.\n_Forerunners_, II, pp. 99, 100.]\n\n[Footnote 203: \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 seems to be repeated needlessly.]\n\n[Footnote 204: \u1fe5\u03c5\u1f72\u03bd, \u201cflowing out.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 205: \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. Surely it has two limits--a point\nat each end.]\n\n[Footnote 206: \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1. In the next sentence he uses the proper word\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 207: This is, I suppose, quoted from the \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\nattributed to Simon, as he speaks afterwards (II, p. 9 _infra_) of the\nsmall becoming great, \u201cas it is written in the _Apophasis_, if it ...\ncome into being from the indivisible point. But the great will be in\nthe boundless \u00e6on,\u201d etc.]\n\n[Footnote 208: What follows from this point down to the end of the\nparagraph is an almost verbatim transcript of the passage in Book I\n(pp. 37 ff. _supra_), where it is given as the teaching of Pythagoras.\nThe only substantial differences are: that hypostasis is written for\nhypothesis in the second sentence of the passage; the Tetractys is no\nlonger said to be the \u201csource\u201d of eternal nature; and the 11, 12, etc.,\nare now said to take, and not \u201cshare\u201d their beginning from the 10.]\n\n[Footnote 209: \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, _suis dogmatibus\nfundamentum posuerunt_, Cr.]\n\n[Footnote 210: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. Cruice translates this by _spiritum_, and is\nfollowed by Macmahon. I think, however, he means the breath, it being\nthe idea of the ancients that the arteries were air-vessels.]\n\n[Footnote 211: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 212: \u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 213: \u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 214: It is at any rate plain from this that the missing Books\nII and III at one time existed.]\n\n[Footnote 215: These words appear in the MS. at the foot of this Book.]\n\n\n\n\n BOOK V\n\n THE OPHITE HERESIES\n\n\n[Sidenote: p. 137.] 1. These are the contents of the 5th (book) of the\nRefutation of all Heresies.\n\n2. What the Naassenes say who call themselves Gnostics, and that they\nprofess those opinions which the philosophers of the Greeks and the\ntransmitters of the Mysteries first laid down, starting wherefrom they\nhave constructed heresies.\n\n3. And what things the Perat\u00e6 imagine, and that their doctrine is not\nframed from the Holy Scriptures but from the astrological (art).\n\n4. What is the system according to the Sithians, and that they have\npatched together their doctrine by plagiarizing from those wise men\naccording to the Greeks, (to wit) Mus\u00e6us and Linus and Orpheus.\n\n5. What Justinus imagined and that his doctrine is not framed from\nthe Holy Scriptures, but from the marvellous tales of Herodotus the\nhistoriographer.\n\n\n 1. _Naassenes._[1]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 138.] 6. I consider that the tenets concerning the Divine\nand the fashioning of the cosmos (held by) all those who are deemed\nphilosophers by Greeks and Barbarians have been very painfully set\nforth in the four books before this. Whose curious arts I have not\nneglected, so that I have undertaken for the readers no chance labour,\nexhorting many to love of learning and certainty of knowledge about the\ntruth. Now therefore there remains to hasten on to the refutation of\nthe heresies, with which intent[2] also we have set forth the things\naforesaid. From which philosophers the heresiarchs have taken hints in\ncommon[3] and patching like cobblers the mistakes of the ancients on to\ntheir own thoughts, have offered them as new to those they can deceive,\nas we shall prove in (the books) which follow. For the rest, it is time\nto approach the subjects laid down before, but to begin with those who\nhave dared to sing the praises of the Serpent, who is in fact the cause\nof the error, through certain systems invented by his action. Therefore\n[Sidenote: p. 139.] the priests and chiefs of the doctrine were the\nfirst who were called Naassenes, being thus named in the Hebrew tongue:\nfor the Serpent is called Naas.[4] Afterwards they called themselves\nGnostics alleging that they alone knew the depths.[5] Separating\nthemselves from which persons, many men have made the heresy, which is\nreally one, a much divided affair, describing the same things according\nto varying opinions, as this discourse will argue as it proceeds.\n\nThese men worship as the beginning of all things, according to\ntheir own statement, a Man and a Son of Man. But this Man is\nmasculo-feminine[6] and is called by them Adamas;[7] and hymns to him\nare many and various. And [Sidenote: p. 140.] the hymns, to cut it\nshort, are repeated by them somehow like this:--\n\n\u201cFrom thee a father, and through thee a mother, the two deathless\nnames, parents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, Man of great\nname!\u201d[8]\n\nBut they divide him like Geryon into three parts. For there is of\nhim, they say, the intellectual (part), the psychic and the earthly;\nand they consider that the knowledge of him is the beginning of the\ncapacity to know God, speaking thus: \u201cThe beginning of perfection\nis the knowledge of man, but the knowledge of God is completed\nperfection.\u201d But all these things, he says, the intellectual, and the\npsychic and the earthly, proceeded and came down together into one\nman, Jesus who was born of Mary;[9] and there spoke together, he says,\nin the same way, these three men each of them from his own substance\nto his own. For there are three kinds of universals[10] according to\nthem (to wit) the angelic,[11] the psychic and the earthly; and three\nchurches, the angelic, the psychic and the earthly; but their names\nare: Chosen, Called, Captive.[12]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 141.] 7. These are the heads of the very many discourses\nwhich they say James the brother of the Lord handed down to\nMariamne.[13] So then, that the impious may no longer speak falsely\neither of Mariamne, or of James, or of his Saviour, we will come to\nthe Mysteries, whence comes their fable, both the Barbarian and the\nGreek, and we shall see how these men collecting together the hidden\nand ineffable mysteries of the nations[14] and speaking falsely of\nChrist, lead astray those who have not seen the Gentiles\u2019 secret rites.\nFor since the Man Adamas is their foundation, and they say there\nhas been written of him \u201cWho shall declare his [Sidenote: p. 142.]\ngeneration?\u201d[15] learn ye how, taking from the nations in turn the\nundiscoverable and distinguished[16] generation of the Man, they apply\nthis to Christ.\n\n \u201cFor earth, say the Greeks, was the first to give forth man, thus\n bearing a goodly gift. For she wished to be the mother not of plants\n without feeling and wild beasts without sense, but of a gentle and\n God-loving animal. But hard it is, he says, to discover whether\n Alalcomeneus of the Boeotians came forth upon the [Sidenote: p. 143.]\n Cephisian shore as the first of men, or whether (the first men) were\n the Id\u00e6an Curetes, a divine race, or the Phrygian Corybantes whom the\n Sun saw first shooting up like trees, or whether Arcadia brought forth\n Pelasgus earlier than the Moon, or Eleusis Diaulus dweller in the\n Rarian field, or Lemnos gave birth to Cabirus, fair child of ineffable\n orgies, or Pallene to Alcyon, eldest of the Giants. But the Libyans\n say Iarbas the first-born crept forth from the parched field to pluck\n Zeus\u2019 sweet acorn. So also, he says that the Nile of the Egyptians,\n making fat the mud which unto this day begets life, gave forth living\n bodies made flesh with moist heat.\u201d[17]\n\nBut the Assyrians say that fish-eating[18] Oannes (the first man) was\nborn among them and the Chald\u00e6ans (say the same thing about) Adam; and\nthey assert that he was the man whom the earth brought forth alone, and\nthat he lay breathless, motionless (and) unmoved like unto a statue\nbeing the image of him on high who is praised in song as the man\nAdamas; but that he was produced by many [Sidenote: p. 144.] powers\nabout whom in turn there is much talk.[19]\n\nIn order then that the Great Man[20] on high, from whom, as they say,\n\u201cevery fatherhood[21] named on earth and in the heavens\u201d is framed,\nmight be completely held fast, there was given to him also a soul, so\nthat through the soul he might suffer, and that the enslaved \u201cimage\nof the great and most beautiful and Perfect Man\u201d--for thus they call\nhim--might be punished.[22] Wherefore again they ask what is the soul\nand of what kind is its nature that coming to the man and moving[23]\nhim it should enslave and punish the image of the Perfect Man. But they\nask this, not from the Scriptures, but from the mystic rites. And they\nsay that the soul is very hard to find and to comprehend, since it does\nnot stay in the same shape or form, nor is it always in one and the\nsame state, so that one might describe it by a type or comprehend it in\nsubstance.[24] But these various changes of the soul they hold to be\nset down in the Gospel inscribed to the Egyptians.\n\nThey doubt then, as do all other men of the nations, whether the\nsoul is from the pre-existent, or from the self-begotten, [Sidenote:\np. 145.] or from the poured-forth Chaos.[25] And first they betake\nthemselves to the mysteries of the Assyrians[26] to understand the\ntriple division of the Man; for the Assyrians were the first to think\nthe soul tripartite and yet one. For every nature, they say, longs\nfor the soul, but each in a different way. For soul is the cause of\nall things that are, and all things which are nourished and increase,\nhe says, require soul. For nothing like nurture or increase, he says,\ncan occur unless soul be present. And even the stones, he says, are\nanimated,[27] for they have the power of increase, and no increase\ncan come without nourishment. For by addition increase the things\nwhich increase and the addition is the nourishment of that which is\nnourished.[28] Therefore every nature he says, of things in heaven, and\non earth, and below the earth, longs for a soul. But the Assyrians call\nsuch a thing[29] Adonis or Endymion or (Attis); and when it is invoked\nas Adonis Aphrodite loves and longs after the soul of such name. And\nAphrodite is generation[30] according to them. But when Persephone\nor Core loves Adonis[31] there is a certain mortal soul separated\nfrom Aphrodite [Sidenote: p. 146.] (that is from generation).[32]\nAnd if Selene should come to desire of Endymion[33] and to love of\nhis beauty, the nature of the sublime ones, he says, also requires\nsoul. But if, he says, the Mother of the Gods castrate Attis,[34] and\nshe holds this loved one, the blessed nature of the hypercosmic and\neternal ones on high recalls to her, he says, the masculine power of\nthe soul.[35] For, says he, the Man is masculo-feminine. According to\nthis argument of theirs, then, the so-called[36] intercourse of woman\nwith man is by (the teaching of) their school shown to be an utterly\nwicked and defiling thing. For Attis is castrated, he says, that is, he\nhas changed over from the earthly parts of the lower creation to the\neternal substance on high, where, he says, there is neither male nor\nfemale,[37] but a new creature,[38] a new Man, who is masculo-feminine.\nWhat they mean by \u201con high\u201d I will show in its appropriate place when\nI come to it. But they say it bears witness to what they say that\nRhea is not simply one (goddess) but, so to speak, the [Sidenote: p.\n147.] whole creature.[39] And this they say is made quite clear by the\nsaying:--\u201cFor the invisible things of Him from the creation of the\nworld are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made by\nHim, in truth, His eternal power and godhead, so that they are without\nexcuse. Since when they knew Him as God, they glorified Him not as\nGod, neither were thankful, but foolishness deceived their hearts. For\nthinking themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of\nthe incorruptible God into the likenesses of an image of corruptible\nman and of birds and of fourfooted and creeping things. Wherefore God\ngave them up to passions of dishonour. For even their women changed\ntheir natural use to that which is against nature.\u201d[40] And what the\nnatural use is according to them, we shall see later. \u201cLikewise, also\nthe males leaving the natural use of the female burned in their lust\none toward another males among males working unseemliness.\u201d[41] But\nunseemliness is according to them the first and blessed and unformed\nsubstance which is the cause of all the forms of [Sidenote: p. 148.]\nthings which are formed. \u201cAnd receiving in themselves the recompense\nof their error which is meet.\u201d[42] For in these words, which Paul has\nspoken, they say is comprised their whole secret and the ineffable\nmystery of the blessed pleasure. For the promise of baptism[43] is not\nanything else according to them than the leading to unfading pleasure\nhim who is baptized according to them in living water and anointed with\nsilent[44] ointment.\n\nAnd they say that not only do the mysteries of the Assyrians bear\nwitness to their saying, but also those of the Phrygians concerning the\nblessed nature, hitherto hidden and yet at the same time displayed, of\nthose who were and are and shall be, which, he says, is the kingdom of\nthe heavens sought for within man.[45] Concerning which nature they\nhave explicitly made tradition in the Gospel inscribed according to\nThomas,[46] saying thus: \u201cWhoso seeks me shall find me in children from\nseven years (upwards). For there in the fourteenth year I who am hidden\n[Sidenote: p. 149.] am made manifest.\u201d This, however, is the saying\nnot of Christ but of Hippocrates, who says: \u201cAt seven years old, a boy\nis half a father.\u201d Whence they who place the primordial nature of the\nuniversals in the primordial seed having heard the Hippocratian (adage)\nthat a boy of seven years old is half a father, say that in fourteen\nyears according to Thomas it will be manifest. This is their ineffable\nand mystical saying.[47]\n\nThey say then that the Egyptians, who are admitted to be the most\nancient of all men after the Phrygians and the first at once to impart\nto all men the initiations and secret rites[48] of the gods, and to\nhave proclaimed forms and activities, have the holy and august and for\nthose who are not initiated unutterable mysteries of Isis. And these\nare nothing else than the _pudendum_ of Osiris which was snatched away\nand sought for by her of the seven stoles and black [Sidenote: p. 150.]\ngarments.[49] But they say Osiris is water. And the seven-stoled nature\nwhich has about it and is equipped with seven ethereal stoles--for\nthus they allegorically call the wandering stars--is like mutable\ngeneration[50] and shows that the creation is transformed by the\nIneffable and Unportrayable[51] and Incomprehensible and Formless One.\nAnd this is what is said in the Scripture: \u201cThe just shall fall seven\ntimes and rise again.\u201d[52] For these falls, he says, are the turnings\nabout of the stars when moved by him who moves all things. They say,\nthen, about the substance of the seed which is the cause of all things\nthat are, that it belongs to none of these but begets and creates all\nthings that are, speaking thus: \u201cI become what I wish, and I am what I\nam; wherefore I say that it is the immoveable that moves all things.\nFor it remains what it is, creating all things and nothing comes into\nbeing from begotten things.\u201d[53] He says that this alone is good and\nthat it is of this that the Saviour spoke when he said: \u201cWhy callest\nthou me good? There is one good, my Father who is in the heavens, Who\nmakes the sun to rise upon the just and the unjust, and [Sidenote: p.\n151.] rains upon the holy and the sinners.\u201d[54] And who are the holy\nupon whom He rains and who the sinful we shall see with other things\nlater on. And this is the great secret and the unknowable mystery\nconcealed and revealed by the Egyptians. For Osiris, he says, is in\nthe temple in front of Isis, whose _pudendum_ stands exposed looking\nupwards from below, and wearing as a crown all its fruits of begotten\nthings.[55] And they say not only does such a thing stand in the most\nholy temples, but is made known to all like a light not set under a\nbushel but placed on a candlestick making [Sidenote: p. 152.] its\nannouncement on the housetops in all the streets and highways and near\nall dwellings being set before them as some limit and term.[56] For\nthey call this the bringer of luck, not knowing what they say.\n\nAnd this mystery the Greeks who have taken it over from the Egyptians\nkeep unto this day. For we see, he says, the (images) of Hermes in\nsuch a form honoured among them. And they say that they especially\nhonour Cyllenius the Eloquent. For Hermes is the Word who, being the\ninterpreter and fashioner[57] of what has been, is, and will be, stands\nhonoured among them carved into some such form which is the _pudendum_\nof a man straining from the things below to those on high. And that\nthis--that is, such a Hermes--is, he says, a leader of souls and a\nsender forth of them, and a cause of souls, did not escape the poets of\nthe nations who speak thus:--\n\n \u201cCyllenian Hermes called forth the souls\n Of the suitors.\u201d--\n (Homer, _Odyssey_, XXIV, 1.)\n\n[Sidenote: p. 153.] Not of the suitors of Penelope, he says, O unhappy\nones, but of those awakened from sleep and recalled to consciousness\n\n \u201cFrom such honour and from such enduring bliss.\u201d--\n (Empedocles, 355, St\u00fcrz.)\n\nthat is, from the blessed Man on high or from the arch-man Adamas, as\nthey think, they have been brought down here into the form of clay that\nthey may be made slaves to the fashioner of this creation, Jaldabaoth,\na fiery god, a fourth number.[58] For thus they call the demiurge and\nfather of the world of form.\n\n \u201cBut he holds in his hands the rod\n Fair and golden, wherewith he lulls to sleep the eyes of men,\n Whomso he will, while others he awakens from sleep.\u201d--\n (_Odyssey_, XXIV, 3 ff.)\n\nThis, he says, is he who has authority over life and death of whom he\nsays it is written: \u201cThou shalt rule them with a rod of iron.\u201d[59]\nBut the poet wishing to adorn the incomprehensible [Sidenote: p.\n154.] (part)[60] of the blessed nature of the Word, makes his rod\nnot iron but golden. And he charms to sleep the eyes of the dead, he\nsays, and again awakens those sleepers who are stirred out of sleep\nand become suitors. Of these, he says, the Scripture spoke: \u201cAwake\nthou that sleepest, and arise and Christ shall shine upon thee.\u201d[61]\nThis is the Christ, he says, who in all begotten things is the Son\nof Man, impressed (with the image) by the Logos of whom no image can\nbe made.[62] This, he says, is the great and unspeakable mystery of\nthe Eleusinians \u201c_Hye Cye_\u201d[63] seeing that all things are set under\nhim, and this is the saying: \u201cTheir sound went forth into all the\nearth,\u201d[64] just as\n\n \u201cHermes waved the rod and they followed gibbering.\u201d--\n (Homer, _Odyssey_, XXIV, 5-7.)\n\nstill meaning the souls as the poet shows, saying figuratively:--\n\n \u201cAnd even as bats flit gibbering in the secret recesses\n Of a wondrous cave when one has fallen down out of the rock\n From the cluster....\u201d--\n (_Ibid._, XXIV, 9 _seq._)\n\n[Sidenote: p. 155.] Out of the rock, he says, is said of Adamas. This,\nhe says, is Adamas, \u201cthe corner-stone which has become the head of the\ncorner.\u201d[65] For in the head is the impressed brain of the substance\nfrom which every fatherhood is impressed.[66] \u201cWhich Adamas,\u201d he says,\n\u201cI place at the foundation of Zion.\u201d[67] Allegorically, he says, he\nmeans the image of the Man. But that Adamas is placed within the\nteeth, as Homer says, \u201cthe hedge of teeth,\u201d[68] that is, the wall and\nstockade within which is the inner man, who has fallen from Adamas the\narch-man[69] on high who is (the rock) \u201ccut without cutting hands\u201d[70]\nand brought down into the image of oblivion,[71] the earthly and\nclayey. And he says that the souls follow him, the Word, gibbering.\n\n Even so the souls gibbered as they fared together,\n But he went before,\n\nthat is, he led them,\n\n \u201cGracious Hermes led them adown the dark ways.\u201d--\n (_Odyssey_, XXIV, 9 ff.)\n\n[Sidenote: p. 156.] that is, he says, into eternal countries remote\nfrom all evil. For whence, says he, did they come?\n\n \u201cBy Ocean\u2019s flood they came and the Leucadian cliff\n And by the Sun\u2019s gates and the land of dreams.\u201d--\n (_Odyssey_, _ubi cit._)\n\nThis he says is Ocean, \u201csource of gods and source of men\u201d[72] ever\nebbing and flowing now forth and now back. But when he says Ocean flows\nforth there is birth of men, but when back to the wall and stockade\nand the Leucadian rock there is birth of gods. This he says is that\nwhich is written: \u201cI have said ye are all gods and sons of the Highest;\nif you hasten to flee from Egypt and win across the Red Sea into the\ndesert,\u201d that is from the mixture below to the Jerusalem above who is\nthe Mother of (all) living. \u201cBut if ye return again to Egypt,\u201d that is\nto the mixture below, [Sidenote: p. 157.] \u201cye shall die as men.\u201d[73]\nFor deathly, says he, is all birth below, but deathless that which is\nborn above; for it is born of water alone and the spirit, spiritual\nnot fleshly. This, he says, is that which is written: \u201cThat which\nis born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit\nis spirit.\u201d[74] This is, according to them, the spiritual birth.\nThis, he says, is the great Jordan which flowing forth prevented the\nsons of Israel from coming out of the land of Egypt--or rather, from\nthe mixture below; for Egypt is the body according to them--until\nJoshua[75] turned it and made it flow back towards its source.\n\n8. Following up these and such-like (words) the most wonderful Gnostics\nhaving invented a new art of grammar[76] imagine that their own prophet\nHomer unspeakably[77] foreshowed[78] these things and they mock at\nthose who not being initiated in the Holy Scriptures are led together\ninto such designs. But they say: whoso says all things were framed from\none, errs; but whoso says from three speaks the truth and gives an\nexposition of (the things of) the universe. For one, he says, is the\nblessed nature of the Blessed Man above, Adamas, and one is the mortal\n(nature), [Sidenote: p. 158.] below, and one is the kingless race\nbegotten on high, where, he says, is Mariam the sought-for one, and\nJothor the great wise one, and Sephora the seer,[79] and Moses whose\ngeneration was not in Egypt--for there were children born to him in\nMidian--and this, he says, was not forgotten by the poets:--\n\n \u201cIn three lots were all things divided and each drew a domain of\n his own.\u201d--(_Iliad_, XV, 169.)\n\nFor sublime things, he says, must needs be spoken, but they are spoken\neverywhere, lest \u201chearing they should not hear and seeing they should\nsee not.\u201d[80] For if, he says, the sublime things were not spoken, the\ncosmos could not have been framed. These are the three ponderous words:\nCaulacau, Saulasau, Zeesar.[81] Caulacau the one on high, [Sidenote:\np. 159.] Adamas, Saulasau, the mortal nature below, Zeesar the Jordan\nwhich flows back on its source. This is, he says, the masculo-feminine\nMan who is in all things, whom the ignorant call the triple-bodied\nGeryon--as if Geryon were \u201cflowing from Earth\u201d[82]--and the Greeks\nusually \u201cthe heavenly horn of M\u00ean\u201d[83] because he has mingled and\ncompounded all things with all. \u201cFor all things, he says, were made\nthrough him and apart from him not one thing was made. That which was\nin him is life.\u201d[84] This, he says is the life, the unspeakable family\nof perfect men which was not known to the former generation. But the\n\u201cnothing\u201d which came into being apart from him is the world of form;\nfor it came without him by the 3rd and 4th.[85] This, he says, is the\ncup Condy in which the king drinking, divineth. This, he says, is that\nwhich was hidden among the fair grains of Benjamin. And the Greeks also\nsay the same with raving lips:--\n\n \u201cBring water, bring wine, O boy\n Intoxicate me, plunge me into sleep.\n The cup tells me\n [Sidenote: p. 160.] What I must become.\u201d[86]--\n (_Anacreon_, XXVI, 25, 26.)\n\nIt was enough, he says, that only this should be known to men that\nAnacreon\u2019s cup spoke mutely an unspeakable mystery. For mute, he says,\nwas Anacreon\u2019s cup which says Anacreon, tells him with mute speech what\nhe must become, that is spiritual not fleshly, if he hears the hidden\nmystery in silence. And this is the water in those fair nuptials which\nJesus changed by making wine. This, he says, is the mighty and true\nbeginning of the signs which Jesus did in Cana in Galilee and made\nknown the kingdom of the heavens. This, he says, is the kingdom of the\nheavens within us, as a treasure as the leaven hidden within three\nmeasures of meal.[87]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 161.] This is, he says, the great and unspeakable mystery\nof the Samothracians which is allowed to be known to us alone who are\nperfect. For the Samothracians explicitly hand down in the mysteries\ncelebrated by them that Adam is the Arch-man. And in the temple of\nthe Samothracians stand two statues of naked men having both hands\nstretched forth to heaven and their _pudenda_ turned upwards like that\nof Hermes on (Mt.) Cyllene. But the aforesaid statues are the images\nof the Arch-man and of the re-born spiritual one in all things of one\nsubstance[88] with that man. This, he says, is what was spoken by the\nSaviour: \u201cUnless ye drink my blood and eat my flesh, ye shall not\nenter into the kingdom of the heavens; but even though, He says, ye\ndrink the cup which I drink when I go forth you will not be able to\nenter there.\u201d[89] For He knew, he says, from which nature each of His\ndisciples was, and that each of them was compelled to come to his own\nspecial nature. For from the twelve tribes, he says, He chose twelve\n[Sidenote: p. 162.] disciples,[90] and by them He spake to every tribe.\nWhence, he says, all could not have heard the preachings of the twelve\ndisciples, nor, had they heard them could they have been received. For\nthe things which are not according to[91] nature are with them natural.\n\nThis, he says, the Thracians who dwell about Mt. H\u00e6mus and like them\nthe Phrygians call Corybas,[92] because although he takes the beginning\nof his descent from the head on high and from the Unportrayable one and\npasses through all the sources of underlying things, we know not how\nand in what fashion he comes. This, he says, is the saying: \u201cWe have\nheard his voice, but we have not seen his shape.\u201d[93] For, he says, the\nvoice of him who is set apart and has been impressed with the image[94]\nis heard, but no one has seen what is the shape which has come down\nfrom on high from the Unportrayable One. But it is in the earthly form\nand no one is aware of it. This, he says, is the God who dwells in the\nflood according to the Psalter and \u201cwho speaks aloud and cries from\nmany waters.\u201d[95] \u201cMany waters,\u201d he says, is the manifold generation of\nmortal men, wherefrom he shouts and cries [Sidenote: p. 163.] aloud to\nthe Unportrayable Man: \u201cDeliver my only begotten from the lions!\u201d[96]\nIn answer to this, he says, is the saying: \u201cThou art my son, O Israel.\nFear not. If thou passest through the rivers they shall not overwhelm\nthee; if through the fire, it shall not burn thee.\u201d[97] By rivers is\nmeant, he says, the moist essence of generation, and by fire the rage\nand desire for generation. \u201cThou art mine. Be not afraid.\u201d And again\nhe speaks: \u201cIf a mother forget her children and pities them not nor\ngives them suck, yet will I not forget thee.\u201d[98] Adamas, he says,\nspeaks to his own men: \u201cBut although a woman shall forget these things,\nyet will I not forget you. I have graven you on my hands.\u201d[99] But\nconcerning his ascension, that is, the being born again, that he may\nbe born spiritual, not fleshly, he says, the Scripture speaks: \u201cLift\nup the gates, ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and\nthe [Sidenote: p. 164.] King of Glory shall enter in.\u201d[100] That is\nthe wonder of wonders. \u201cFor who,\u201d he says, \u201cis this King of Glory? A\nworm and not a man, a reproach of man and an object of contempt for the\npeople. This is the King of Glory, he who is mighty in battle.\u201d[101]\nBut he means the war which is in the body, because the (outward) form\nis made from warring elements, he says, as it is written: \u201cRemember the\nwar which is in the body.\u201d[102] The same entrance and the same gate,\nhe says, Jacob saw when journeying to Mesopotamia--for Mesopotamia,\nhe says, is the flow of the great Ocean flowing forth from the middle\npart[103] of the Perfect Man--and he wondered at the heavenly gate,\nsaying: \u201cHow terrible is this place! It is none other than the house\nof God, and this is the gate of Heaven.\u201d[104] Wherefore, he says, the\nsaying of Jesus: \u201cI am the true gate.\u201d[105] Now He who says this is,\nhe says, the Perfect [Sidenote: p. 165.] Man who has been impressed\nabove (with the image) of the Unportrayable one. Therefore he says, the\nperfect man will not be saved unless born again by entering in through\nthis gate.\n\nBut this same one, he says, the Phrygians[106] call also Papas, because\nhe set at rest that which had been moved irregularly and discordantly\nbefore his coming. For the name of Papa, he says, is (taken from) all\nthings in heaven, on earth, and below the earth, saying: \u201cMake to\ncease! make to cease![107] the discord of the cosmos and make peace for\nthose that are afar off,\u201d[108] that is, for the material and earthly,\nand also \u201cfor those that are anigh,\u201d that is, for the spiritual and\nunderstanding perfect men. But the Phrygians say that the same one is\nalso a \u201ccorpse,\u201d having been buried in the body as in a monument or\ntomb.[109] This, he says, is the saying: \u201cYe are whited sepulchres\nfilled within with dead men\u2019s bones,\u201d[110] that is, there is not within\nyou the living Man. And again, he says, \u201cthe dead shall leap forth\nfrom their graves,\u201d[111] that is, the spiritual man, not the fleshly,\nshall be born again from the bodies of the earthly. This, he says, is\nthe resurrection which comes through the [Sidenote: p. 166.] gate of\nthe heavens, through which if they do not enter, all remain dead. And\nthe same Phrygians, he says again, say that this same one is by reason\nof the change a god. For he becomes God when he arises from the dead\nand enters into heaven through the same gate. This gate, he says, Paul\nthe Apostle knew, having set it ajar in mystery and declaring that he\n\u201cwas caught up by an angel and came unto a second and third heaven into\nParadise itself and beheld what he beheld, and heard ineffable words\nwhich it is not lawful for man to utter.\u201d[112] These are, he says,\nthe mysteries called ineffable by all \u201cwhich (we also speak) not in\nthe words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit,\ncomparing spiritual things with spiritual; but the natural[113] man\nreceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness\nunto him\u201d;[114] and these, he says, are the ineffable mysteries of the\nSpirit which we alone behold. Concerning them, he says, the Saviour\nspake: \u201cNo man shall come unto me unless my heavenly Father draw some\none (unto me).\u201d[115] For very hard it is, he says, to receive and take\nthis great and ineffable mystery. And [Sidenote: p. 167.] again, he\nsays, the Saviour spake: \u201cNot every one who sayeth unto me, Lord! Lord!\nshall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who doeth the will\nof my Father who is in the heavens.\u201d[116] Of which (will) he says, they\nmust be doers and not hearers only to enter into the kingdom of the\nheavens. And again, says he, He spake: \u201cThe publicans and the harlots\ngo before you into the kingdom of the heavens.\u201d[117] For the publicans,\nhe says, are those who receive the taxes of market-wares, and we are\nthe tax-gatherers \u201cupon whom the ends of the \u00e6ons have come down.\u201d[118]\nFor the \u201cends,\u201d he says, are the seeds sown in the cosmos by the\nUnportrayable One,[119] whereby the whole cosmos is completed;[120]\nfor by them also it began to be. And this, he says, is the saying:\n\u201cThe sower went forth to sow, and some (seed) fell on the wayside and\nwas trodden under foot, and some upon stony (parts) and sprang up;\nand because it had no root, he says, it withered and died. But some\nfell, he says, upon the fair and goodly earth and brought forth some\na hundredfold, and some sixty and some thirty. [Sidenote: p. 168.] He\nthat hath ears to hear, let him hear.\u201d[121] This is, he says, that no\none becomes a hearer of these mysteries save only the perfect Gnostics.\nThis, he says, is the fair and goodly earth of which Moses spake: \u201cI\nwill bring you to a fair and goodly land, to a land flowing with milk\nand honey.\u201d[122] This, he says, is the honey and the milk, tasting\nwhich the perfect become kingless and partakers of the fulness.[123]\nThe same, he says, is the Pleroma, whereby all things that are begotten\nby the unbegotten have come into being and are filled.\n\nBut the same one is called by the Phrygians \u201cunfruitful.\u201d For he is\nunfruitful when he is fleshly and performs the desire of the flesh.\nThis, he says, is the saying: \u201cEvery tree which bringeth not forth\ngood fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.\u201d[124] For these fruits,\nhe says, are only the rational, the living man who enter by the third\ngate.[125] They say, indeed: \u201cYe who eat dead things and make living\nones, what will ye make if ye eat living things?\u201d[126] For they say\nthat words[127] and thoughts and men are living things cast down by\nthat Unportrayable One into the form [Sidenote: p. 169.] below. This,\nhe says, is what he means: \u201cThrow not your holy things to the dogs nor\npearls to the swine,\u201d[128] saying that the intercourse of woman with\nman is the work of dogs and swine.\n\nBut this same one, he says, the Phrygians call goatherd, not because,\nhe says, he feeds goats and he-goats, as the psychic man calls\nthem, but because, he says, he is Aipolos, that is, he who is ever\nrevolving[129] and turning about and driving the whole cosmos in its\ncircumvolution. For to revolve is to turn about and to change the\nposition of things, whence, he says, the two centres of the heaven men\ncall Poles. And the poet says:--\n\n \u201cWhat unerring ancient of the sea turns hither\n The Immortal Egyptian Proteus.\u201d--\n (_Odyssey_, IV, 384.)\n\nHe[130] is not betrayed (by Eidothea), he says, but turns himself\nabout, as it were, and goes to and fro. He says, too, that cities\nwherein we dwell are called \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, because [Sidenote: p. 170.] we turn\nand go about in them. Thus, he says, the Phrygians call him Aipolos,\nwho turns everything always in every direction and changes it into\nwhat it should be. But the Phrygians also call the same one \u201cof many\nfruits,\u201d because (the Naassene writer) says, \u201cthe children of the\ndesolate are more in number than those of her who has a husband\u201d;[131]\nthat is, the deathless things which are born again and ever remain are\nmany, if few are those which are born (once); but all the things of\nthe flesh, he says, are corruptible, even if those which are born are\nmany. Wherefore, he says, Rachel mourned for her children and would\nnot be comforted when mourning over them, for she knew, he says, that\nthey were not.[132] And Jeremiah wails for the Jerusalem below, not the\ncity in Ph\u0153nicia,[133] but the mortal generation below. For Jeremiah,\nhe says, also knew the Perfect Man who has been born again of water and\nthe spirit and is not fleshly. The same Jeremiah indeed said: \u201cHe is a\nman, and who shall know him?\u201d[134] Thus, he says, the knowledge of the\nPerfect Man is very deep and hard to comprehend. For the beginning of\nperfection, he says, is the knowledge of man; but the knowledge of God\nis completed perfection.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 171.] The Phrygians also say, however, that he is a\n\u201cgreen ear of corn reaped\u201d; and following the Phrygians, the Athenians\nwhen initiating (any one) into the Eleusinian (Mysteries) also show\nto those who have been made epopts the mighty and wonderful and most\nperfect mystery for an epopt[135] there--a green ear of corn reaped\nin silence.[136] And this ear of corn is also for the Athenians the\ngreat and perfect spark of light from the Unportrayable One; just as\nthe hierophant himself, not indeed castrated like Attis, but rendered a\neunuch by hemlock, and cut off from all fleshly generation, celebrating\nby night at Eleusis the great and ineffable mysteries beside a huge\nfire, cries aloud and makes proclamation, saying: \u201cAugust Brimo has\nbrought forth a holy son, Brimos,\u201d that is, the strong (has given\nbirth) to the strong.[137] For august is, he says, the generation which\nis spiritual or heavenly or sublime, and strong is that which is thus\ngenerated. For the mystery is called Eleusis or Anacterion: \u201cEleusis,\u201d\nhe says, because we spiritual ones [Sidenote: p. 172.] came on high\nrushing from the Adamas below.[138] For _eleusesthai_, he says is to\ncome, but _anactoreion_ the return on high. This, he says, is what they\nwho have been initiated into the mysteries of the Eleusinians say. But\nit is a regulation that those who have been initiated into the Lesser\nMysteries should moreover be initiated into the Great. For greater\ndestinies obtain greater portions.[139] But the Lesser Mysteries, he\nsays, are those of Persephone below and of the way leading thither,\nwhich is wide and broad and bears the dead to Persephone, and the poet\nsays:--\n\n \u201cBut under her is a straight and rugged road\n Hollow and muddy, but the best to lead\n To the delightful grove of much-reverenced Aphrodite.\u201d[140]\n\nThese, he says, are the Lesser Mysteries, those of fleshly generation,\nafter being initiated into which men ought to [Sidenote: p. 173.]\ncease (from the small) and be initiated into the great and heavenly\nones. For those who have obtained greater destinies, he says, receive\ngreater portions. For this, he says, is the gate of heaven and this the\nhouse of God where the good God dwells alone,[141] into which will not\nenter, he says, any unpurified, any psychic or fleshly one; but it is\nkept for the spiritual only, where those who are must cast aside[142]\ntheir garments and all become bridegrooms, having come to maturity\nthrough the virgin spirit.[143] For this is the virgin who bears in her\nwomb and conceives and gives birth to a son not psychic or corporeal,\nbut the blessed Aeon of Aeons. Concerning these things, he says, the\nSaviour expressly spake: \u201cNarrow and straitened is the way that leads\nto life and few are those who enter into it; but wide and broad is the\nway leading to destruction and many are they who pass along it.\u201d[144]\n\n9. But the Phrygians further say that the Father of the [Sidenote:\np. 174.] universals is Amygdalus, not a tree, he says, but that\npre-existent almond[145] which containing within itself the perfect\nfruit (and) as if pulsating and stirring in the depth, tore asunder\nits breasts and gave birth to its own invisible and unnameable and\nineffable boy of whom we are speaking.[146] For \u201cAmyxai\u201d is as if to\nburst and cut asunder,[147] as he says, in the case of inflamed bodies\nhaving within them any gathering, the surgeons who cut them open call\nthem \u201camychas.\u201d Thus, he says, the Phrygians call the almond from whom\nthe invisible one proceeded and was born, and through whom all things\ncame into being and apart from whom nothing came into being.\n\nBut the Phrygians say that he who was thence born is a piper, because\nthat which was born is a melodious spirit. For God, he says, is a\nSpirit, wherefore neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall\nthe true worshippers prostrate themselves, but in spirit.[148] For\nspiritual, he says, is the prostration of the perfect, not fleshly. But\nthe Spirit, he says, (is) there where both the Father and the Son are\nnamed, being [Sidenote: p. 175.] there born from this (Son and from)\nthe Father.[149] This, he says, is the many-named, myriad-eyed[150]\nincomprehensible One for whom every nature yearns, but each in a\ndifferent way. This, he says, is the Word[151] of God, which is, he\nsays, the word of announcement of the great Power. Wherefore it will be\nsealed and hidden and concealed, lying in the habitation wherein the\nroot of the universals[152] is established, that is[153] (the root) of\nAeons, Powers, Thoughts, Gods, Angels, Emissary Spirits, things which\nare, things which are not, things begotten, things unbegotten, things\nincomprehensible, things comprehensible, years, months, days, hours\n(and) of an Indivisible Point,[154] from which what is least begins to\nincrease successively. The Point, he says, being nothing and consisting\nof nothing (and) being indivisible will become of itself a certain\nmagnitude incomprehensible by thought.[155] It, he says, is the kingdom\nof the heavens, the grain of mustard seed, the Indivisible Point\ninherent to the body which none knoweth, he says, save the spiritual\nalone. This, he says, is the saying: \u201cThere are no tongues nor speech\nwhere their voice is not [Sidenote: p. 176.] heard.\u201d[156]\n\nThus they hastily declare that the things which are said and are\ndone by all men are to be understood in their way, imagining that\nall things become spiritual. Whence they also say that not even they\nwho exhibit (in the) theatres say or do anything not comprehended in\nadvance.[157] So for example, he says, when the populace have assembled\nin the theatres[158] some one makes entrance clad in a notable robe\nbearing a cithara and singing to it. Thus he speaks chanting the Great\nMysteries[159] (but) not knowing what he is saying:--\n\n \u201cWhether thou art the offspring of Kronos, or of blessed Zeus,\n Or of mighty Rhea, Hail Attis, the sad mutilation of Rhea.[160]\n The Assyrians call thee the much-longed-for Adonis,\n [Sidenote: p. 177.] Egypt names thee Osiris, heavenly horn of\n the Moon.[161]\n The Greeks Sophia,[162] the Samothracians, the revered Adamna,\n The Thessalians, Corybas, and the Phrygians\n Sometimes Papas, now the dead, or a god,\n Or the unfruitful one, or goatherd,\n Or the green ear of corn reaped,\n Or he to whom the flowering almond-tree gave birth\n As a pipe-playing man.\u201d[163]\n\nThis, he says, is the many-formed Attis to whom they sing praises,\nsaying:--\n\n \u201cI will hymn Attis, son of Rhea, not making quiver with a buzzing\n sound, nor with the cadence of the Id\u00e6an Curetes\u2019 flutes, but I will\n mingle (with the hymn) the Ph\u0153bun music of the lyre. Evohe, Evan, for\n (thou art) Bacchus, (thou art) Pan, (thou art the) shepherd of white\n stars.\u201d\n\nFor such and such-like words they frequent the so-called Mysteries of\nthe great Mother, thinking especially that by means of what is enacted\nthere, they perceive the whole mystery. For they get no advantage from\nwhat is acted there except that they are not castrated. They merely\nperfect the work of the castrated;[164] for they give most pointed and\ncareful instructions to abstain as if castrated from intercourse with\nwomen. But the rest of the work as [Sidenote: p. 178.] we have said\nmany times, they perform like the castrated.\n\nBut they worship none other than the Naas, calling themselves\nNaassenes. But Naas is the serpent, from whom he says, all temples\nunder heaven are called _naos_ from the Naas; and that to that Naas\nalone is dedicated every holy place and every initiation and every\nmystery, and generally that no initiation can be found under heaven\nin which there is not a _naos_ and the Naas within it, whence it has\ncome to be called a _naos_. But they say that the serpent is the watery\nsubstance, as did Thales of Miletos[165] and that no being, in short,\nof immortals or mortals, of those with souls or of those without souls,\ncan be made without him. And that all things are set under him, and\nthat he is good and contains all things within him as in the horn of\nthe one-horned bull[166] (so as) to contribute beauty and bloom to all\nthings according to their own nature and kind, as if he had passed\nthrough all \u201cas if he went forth from Edem and cut himself into four\nheads.\u201d[167]\n\nBut this Edem, they say, is the brain, as it were bound [Sidenote: p.\n179.] and enlaced in the surrounding coverings as in the heavens; and\nthey consider man as far as the head alone to be Paradise. Therefore\n\u201cthe river that came forth from Eden\u201d--that is from the brain--they\nthink \u201cis separated into four heads and the name of the first river is\ncalled Phison; this it is which encompasses all the land of Havilat.\nThere is gold and the gold of that land is good, and there is bdellium\nand the onyx stone.\u201d[168] This, he says, (is the) eye, bearing witness\nby its honour (among the other features) and its colours to the\nsaying: \u201cBut the name of the second river is Gihon; this it is which\nencompasses all the land of Ethiopia.\u201d This, he says, is the hearing,\nbeing somewhat like a labyrinth. \u201cAnd the name of the third is Tigris;\nthis it is which goes about over against the Assyrians.\u201d This, he says,\nis the smell which makes use of the swiftest current of the flood.\nAnd it goes about over against the Assyrians because in inspiration\nthe breath drawn in from the outer air is sharper and stronger than\nthe respired breath. For this is the nature of respiration. \u201cThe\nfourth river is Euphrates.\u201d This they say, is the mouth, which is the\nseat of prayer and the entrance of food, [Sidenote: p. 180.] which\ngladdens[169] and nourishes and characterizes[170] the spiritual\nperfect man. This, he says, is the water above the firmament concerning\nwhich, he says, the Saviour spake: \u201cIf thou knewest who it is that asks\nthou would have asked of him, and he would have given thee to drink\nliving rushing water.\u201d[171] To this water, he says, comes every nature\nto choose its own substances,[172] and from this water goes forth to\nevery nature that which is proper to it, he says, more (certainly) than\niron to the magnet, gold to the spine of the sea-falcon and husks to\namber.[173] But if anyone, he says, is blind from birth, and has not\nbeheld the true light which lightens every man who cometh into the\nworld,[174] let him recover his sight again through us, and behold how\nas it were through some Paradise full of all plants and seeds, the\nwater flows among them. Let him see, too, that from one and the same\nwater the olive-tree chooses and draws to itself oil, and the vine\nwine, and each of the other plants (that which is) according to its\nkind.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 181.] But that Man, he says, is without honour in the\nworld, and much honoured [in heaven, being betrayed] by those who know\nnot to those who know him not, and accounted like a drop which falleth\nfrom a vessel.[175] But we are, he says, the spiritual who have chosen\nout of the living water, the Euphrates flowing through the midst of\nBabylon, that which is ours, entering in through the true gate which\nis Jesus the blessed. And we alone of all men are Christians, whom the\nmystery in the third gate has made perfect, and have been anointed[176]\nthere with silent ointment from the horn like David and not from the\nearthen vessel, he says, like Saul,[177] who abode with the evil spirit\nof fleshly desire.\n\n10. These things, then, we have set forth as a few out of many: for\nthe undertakings of folly which are nonsensical and madlike are\ninnumerable. But since we have expounded to the best of our ability\ntheir unknowable gnosis, we have thought it right to add this also.\nThis psalm has been concocted by them, whereby they seem to hymn all\nthe [Sidenote: p. 182.] mysteries of their error thus:--[178]\n\n The generic law of the universe was the primordial mind;\n But the second was the poured-forth light[179] of the First-born:\n And the third toiling soul received the Law as its portion.\n Whence clothed in watery shape,\n The loved one subject to toil (and) death,\n [Sidenote: p. 183.] Now having lordship, she beholds the light,\n Now cast forth to piteous state, she weeps.\n Now she weeps (and now) rejoices;\n Now laments (and now) is judged;\n Now is judged (and now) is dying.\n Now no outlet is left or she wandering\n The labyrinth of woes has entered.[180]\n But Jesus said: Father, behold!\n A strife of woes upon Earth\n From thy breath has fallen,\n But she seeks to flee malignant chaos.\n And knows not how to win through it,\n For this cause send me, O Father,\n [Sidenote: p. 184.] Holding seals I will go down,\n Through entire \u00e6ons I will pass,\n All mysteries I will disclose;\n The forms of the gods I will display;\n The secrets of the holy way\n Called Gnosis, I will hand down.\n\nThese things the Naassenes attempt, calling themselves Gnostics.[181]\nBut since the error is many-headed and truly of diverse shape like\nthe fabled Hydra, we, having struck off its heads at one blow by\nrefutation, (and) using the rod of Truth, will utterly destroy the\nbeast. For the remaining heresies differ little from this, they all\nbeing linked together by one spirit of error. But since they by\nchanging the words and the names wish the heads of the serpent to be\nmany, we shall not thus fail to refute them thoroughly as they will.\n\n\n [Sidenote: p. 185.] 2. _Perat\u00e6._[182]\n\n12. There is also indeed a certain other (heresy), the Peratic, the\nblasphemy of whose (followers) against Christ has for many years evaded\n(us). Whose secret mysteries it now seems fitting for us to bring into\nthe open. They suppose the cosmos to be one, divided into three parts.\nBut of this triple division, one part according to them is, as it were,\na single principle like a great source[183] which may be [Sidenote:\np. 186.] cut by the mind into boundless sections. And the first and\nchiefest section according to them is the triad and (the one part of\nit)[184] is called Perfect Good and Fatherly Greatness.[185] But the\nsecond part of this triad of theirs is, as it were, a certain boundless\nmultitude of powers which have come into being from themselves, while\nthe third is (the world of) form. And the first is unbegotten and is\ngood; and the second is good (and) self-begotten, while the third is\nbegotten.[186] Whence they say expressly that there are three Gods,\nthree _logoi_, three minds, and three men. For they assign to each\npart of the world of the divided divisibility, gods and _logoi_ and\nminds and men and the rest. But they say that from on high, from the\nunbegottenness and the first section of the cosmos, when the cosmos\nhad already been brought to completion, there came down through causes\nwhich we shall declare later[187] in the days of Herod a certain\ntriple-bodied and triple-powered[188] man called Christ, containing\nwithin Himself all the compounds[189] and powers from [Sidenote: p.\n187.] the three parts of the cosmos. And this, he says is the saying:\n\u201cThe whole Pleroma was pleased to dwell within Him bodily and the whole\ngodhead\u201d of the Triad thus divided \u201cis in Him.\u201d[190] For, he says that\nthere were brought down from the two overlying worlds, (to wit) the\nunbegotten and the self-begotten, unto this world in which we are,\nseeds of all powers. But what is the manner of their descent we shall\nsee later.[191] Then he says that Christ was brought down from on high\nfrom the unbegottenness so that through His descent all the threefold\ndivisions should be saved. For the things, he says, brought down below\nshall ascend through Him; but those which take counsel together against\nthose brought down from above shall be banished and after they have\nbeen punished shall be rooted out. This, he says, is the saying: \u201cThe\nSon of Man came not into the world to destroy the world, but that\nthe world through Him might be saved.\u201d[192] He calls \u201cthe world,\u201d he\nsays, the two overlying portions, (to wit) the unbegotten and the\nself-begotten. When the Scripture says: \u201cLest ye be judged with the\nworld,\u201d[193] he says, it means the third part of the cosmos (to wit)\nthat of form. For the third part [Sidenote: p. 188.] which he calls\nthe world must be destroyed, but the two overlying ones preserved from\ndestruction.[194]\n\n13. Let us first learn, then, how they who have taken this teaching\nfrom the astrologers insult Christ, working destruction for those\nwho follow them in such error. For the astrologers, having declared\nthe cosmos to be one, divided it[195] into the twelve fixed parts of\nthe Zodiacal signs, and call the cosmos of the fixed Zodiacal signs\none unwandering world. But the other, they say, is the world of the\nplanets alike in power and in position and in number which exists as\nfar as the Moon.[196] And that one world receives from the other a\ncertain power and communion, and that things below partake of things\nabove. But so that what is said shall be made plain, I will use in\npart the very words of the astrologers,[197] recalling to the readers\nwhat was said before in the place where we set forth the whole art of\nastrology. Their doctrines then are these: From the emanation of the\nstars the genitures of things below are influenced. For the Chald\u00e6ans,\nscrutinizing [Sidenote: p. 189.] the heavens with great care, said\nthat (the seven stars) account for the active causes of everything\nwhich happens to us; but that the degrees of the Zodiacal circle work\nwith them. (Then they divide the Zodiacal circle into) 12 parts, and\neach Zodiacal sign into 30 degrees and each degree into 60 minutes;\nfor these they call the least and the undivided. And they call some of\nthe Zodiacal signs male and others female, some bicorporal and others\nnot, some tropical and others firm. Then there are male or female\naccording as they have a nature co-operating in the begetting of males\n(or females). Moved by which, I think[198] the Pythagoricians[199] call\nthe monad male, the dyad female, and the triad again male and in like\nmanner the rest of the odd and even numbers. And some dividing each\nsign into dodecatemories employ [Sidenote: p. 190.] nearly the same\nplan. For example, in Aries they call the first dodecatemory Aries and\nmasculine, its second Taurus and feminine, and its third Gemini and\nmasculine, and so on with the other parts. And they say that Gemini\nand Sagittarius which stands opposite to it and Virgo and Pisces are\nbicorporal signs, but the others not. And in like manner, those signs\nare tropical in which the Sun turns about and makes the turnings of\nthe ambient, as, for example, the sign Aries and its opposite Libra,\nCapricorn and Cancer. For in Aries, the spring turning occurs, in\nCapricorn the winter, in Cancer the summer and in Libra the autumn.\nThese things also and the system concerning them we have briefly set\nforth in the book before this, whence the lover of learning can learn\nhow Euphrates the Peratic and Celbes the Carystian, the founders of\nthe heresy, altering only the names, have really set down like things,\nhaving also paid immoderate attention to the art. [Sidenote: p. 191.]\nFor the astrologers also say that there are \u201cterms\u201d of the stars in\nwhich they deem the ruling stars to have greater power. For example\nin some (they do evil), but in others good, of which they call these\nmalefic and those benefic. And they say that (the Planets) behold one\nanother and are in harmony with one another as they appear in trine\n(or square). Now the stars beholding one another are figured in trine\nwhen they have a space of three signs between them, but in square if\nthey have two. And as in the man the lower parts suffer with the head\nand the head suffers with the lower parts, thus do the things on earth\n[Sidenote: p. 192.] with those above the Moon. But (yet) there is a\ncertain difference and want of sympathy between them since they have\nnot one and the same unity.\n\nThis alliance and difference of the stars, although a Chald\u00e6an\n(doctrine), those of whom we have spoken before have taken as their\nown and have falsified the name of truth. (For they) announce as the\nutterance of Christ a strife of aeons and a falling-away of good powers\nto the bad, and proclaim reconciliations of good and wicked.[200]\nThen they invoke Toparchs and Proastii,[201] making for themselves\nalso very many other names which are not obvious but systematize\nunsystematically the whole idea of the astrologers about the stars. As\nthey have thus laid the foundation of an enormous error they shall be\ncompletely refuted by our appropriate arrangement. For I shall set side\nby side with the aforesaid Chaldaic art of the astrologers some of the\ndoctrines of the Peratics, from which comparison it will be [Sidenote:\np. 193.] understood how the words of the Peratics are avowedly those of\nthe astrologers, but not of Christ.\n\n14. It seems well then to use for comparison a certain one of the\nbooks[202] magnified by them wherein it is said: \u201cI am a voice of\nawaking from sleep in the aeon of the night, (and) now I begin to\nlay bare the power from Chaos. The power is the mud of the abyss,\nwhich raises the mire of the imperishable watery void, the whole\npower of the convulsion, pale as water, ever-moving, bearing with\nit the stationary, holding back those that tremble, setting free\nthose that approach, relieving those that sigh, bringing down those\nthat increase, a faithful steward of the traces of the winds, taking\nadvantage of the things thrown up by the [Sidenote: p. 194.] twelve\neyes of the Law,[203] showing a seal to the power which arranges by\nitself the onrushing unseen water which is called Thalassa.[204]\nIgnorance has called this power Kronos guarded with chains since he\nbound together the maze of the dense and cloudy and unknown and dark\nTartarus. There are born after the image of this (power) Cepheus,\nPrometheus, Iapetus.[205] (The) power to whom Thalassa is entrusted is\nmasculo-feminine, who traces back the hissing (water) from the twelve\nmouths of the twelve pipes and after preparing distributes it. (This\npower) is small and reduces the boisterous restraining rising (of the\nsea) and seals up the ways of her paths, so that nothing should declare\nwar or suffer change. The Typhonic daughter of this (power) is the\nfaithful guard of all sorts of waters. Her name is Chorzar. Ignorance\ncalls her Poseid\u00f4n, after whose likeness came Glaucus, Melicertes,\nI\u00f6,[206] Nebro\u00eb. He that is encircled with the 12-angled pyramid[207]\nand darkens the gate into the pyramid [Sidenote: p. 195.] with divers\ncolours and perfects the whole blackness[208]--this one is called\nCore[209] whose 5 ministers are: first Ou, 2nd Aoai, 3rd Ou\u00f4, 4th\nOu\u00f6ab, 5th ... Other faithful stewards there are of his toparchy of\nday and night who rest in their authority. Ignorance has called them\nthe wandering stars on which hangs perishable birth. Steward of the\nrising of the wind[210] is Carphasemocheir (and second) Eccabaccara,\nbut ignorance calls these Curetes. (The) third ruler of the winds is\nAriel[211] after whose image came \u00c6olus (and) Briares. And ruler of\nthe 12-houred night (is) Soclas[212] whom ignorance has called Osiris.\nAfter his likeness there were born Admetus, Medea, Hellen, Aethusa.\nRuler of the 12-houred day-time is Euno. He is steward of the rising\nof the first-blessed[213] and \u00e6therial (goddess) whom ignorance calls\nIsis. The sign of this (ruler) is the Dog-star[214] after whose image\nwere born Ptolemy son of Arsino\u00eb, Didyme, Cleopatra, Olympias. (The)\nright hand power of God is she whom [Sidenote: p. 196.] ignorance\ncalls Rhea, after whose image were born Attis, Mygdon,[215] Oenone.\nThe left-hand power has authority over nurture whom ignorance calls\nDemeter. Her name is Bena. After the likeness of this (god) were born\nCeleus, Triptolemus, Misyr,[216] Praxidice. (The) right-hand power\nhas authority over seasons. Ignorance calls this (god) Mena after\nwhose image were born, Bumegas,[217] Ostanes, Hermes Trismegistus,\nCurites, Zodarion, Petosiris, Berosos, Astrampsychos, Zoroaster. (The)\nleft-hand power of fire. Ignorance calls him Heph\u00e6stus after whose\nimage were born Erichthonius, Achilleus, Capaneus, Ph\u00e6thon, Meleager,\nTydeus, Enceladus, Raphael, Suriel,[218] Omphale. Three middle powers\nsuspended in air (are) causes of birth. Ignorance calls them Fates,\nafter whose image were born (the) house of Priam, (the) house of Laius,\nIno, Autono\u00eb, Agave, Athamas, Procne (the) Danaids, the Peliades. A\nmasculo-feminine power there is ever childlike, who grows not old,\n(the) cause of beauty, of pleasure, of prime, of yearning, of desire,\nwhom ignorance calls Eros, after whose [Sidenote: p. 197.] image were\nborn Paris, Narcissus, Ganymede, Endymion, Tithonus, Icarius, Leda,\nAmymon\u00ea, Thetis, (the) Hesperides, Jason, Leander, Hero.\u201d These are the\nProastii up to Aether. For thus he inscribes the book.\n\n15. The heresy of the Perat\u00e6, it has been made easily apparent to\nall, has been adapted from the (art) of the astrologers with a change\nof names alone. And their other books include the same method, if\nany one cared to go through them. For, as I have said, they think\nthe unbegotten and overlying things to be the causes of birth of the\nbegotten, and that our world, which they call that of form, came into\nbeing by emanation, and that all those stars together which are beheld\nin the heaven become the causes of birth in this world, they changing\ntheir names as is to be seen from a comparison of the Proastii. And\nsecondly after the same fashion indeed, as they say that the world came\ninto being from the emanation of her[219] on high, thus they say that\nthings here have their birth and death and are governed [Sidenote: p.\n198.] by the emanation from the stars. Since then the astrologers know\nthe Ascendant and Mid-heaven and the Descendant and the Anti-meridian,\nand as the stars sometimes move differently from the perpetual turning\nof the universe, and at other times there are other succeedents to\nthe cardinal point and (other) cadents from the cardinal points, (the\nPerat\u00e6) treating the ordinance of the astrologers as an allegory,\npicture the cardinal points as it were God and monad and lord of all\ngeneration, and the succeedent as the left hand and the cadent the\nright. When therefore any one reading their writings finds a power\nspoken of by them as right or left, let him refer to the centre, the\nsucceedent and the cadent, and he will clearly perceive that their\nwhole system of practice has been established on astrological teaching.\n\n16. But they call themselves Perat\u00e6, thinking that nothing which has\nits foundations in generation can escape the fate determined from\nbirth for the begotten. For if anything, he says, is begotten it\nalso perishes wholly, as it seemed also [Sidenote: p. 199.] to the\nSibyl.[220] But, he says, we alone who know the compulsion of birth and\nthe paths whereby man enters into the world and have been carefully\ninstructed--we alone can pass through[221] and escape destruction.\nBut water, he says, is destruction, and never, he says, did the world\nperish quicker than by water. But the water which rolls around the\nProastii is, they say, Kronos. For such a power, he says, is of the\ncolour of water and this power, that is Kronos, none of those who have\nbeen founded in generation can escape. For Kronos is set as a cause\nover every birth so that it shall be subject to destruction[222] and no\nbirth could occur in which Kronos is not an impediment. This, he says\nis what the poets say and the gods (themselves) also fear:--\n\n Let earth be witness thereto and wide heaven above\n And the water of Styx that flows below.\n The greatest of oaths and most terrible to the blessed gods.--\n (Homer, _Odyssey_, vv. 184 ff.)\n\nBut not only do the poets say this, he says, but also the wisest of the\nGreeks, whereof Heraclitus is one, who says, [Sidenote: p. 200.] \u201cFor\nwater becomes death to souls.\u201d[223]\n\nThis death (the Peratic) says seizes the Egyptians in the Red Sea\nwith their chariots. And all the ignorant, he says, are Egyptians and\nthis he says is the going out from Egypt (that is) from the body. For\nthey think the body little Egypt (and) that it crosses over the Red\nSea, that is, the water of destruction which is Kronos, and that it\nis beyond the Red Sea, that is birth, and comes into the desert, that\nis, outside generation where are together the gods of destruction and\nthe god of salvation. But the gods of destruction, he says, are the\nstars which bring upon those coming into being the necessity of mutable\ngeneration. These, he said, Moses called the serpents of the desert\nwhich bite and cause to perish those who think they have crossed the\nRed Sea. Therefore, he says, to those sons of Israel who were bitten\nin the desert, Moses displayed the true and perfect serpent, those who\nbelieved on which were not bitten in the desert, [Sidenote: p. 201.]\nthat is, by the Powers. None then, he says, can save and set free those\nbrought forth from the land of Egypt, that is, from the body and from\nthis world, save only the perfect serpent, the full of the full.[224]\nHe who hopes on this, he says, is not destroyed by the serpents of\nthe desert, that is, by the gods of generation. It is written, he\nsays, in a book of Moses.[225] This serpent, he says, is the Power\nwhich followed Moses, the rod which was turned into a serpent. And the\nserpents of the magicians who withstood the power of Moses in Egypt\nwere the gods of destruction; but the rod of Moses overthrew them all\nand caused them to perish.\n\nThis universal serpent, he says, is the wise word of Eve. This, he\nsays, is the mystery of Edem, this the river flowing out of Edem,\nthis the mark which was set on Cain so that all that found him should\nnot kill him. This, he says, is (that) Cain whose sacrifice was not\naccepted by the god of this world; but he accepted the bloody sacrifice\nof Abel, for the lord of this world delights in blood.[226] He it is,\nhe says, who in the last days appeared in man\u2019s shape in the [Sidenote:\np. 202.] time of Herod, born after the image of Joseph who was sold\nfrom the hand of his brethren and to whom alone belonged the coat\nof many colours. This, he says, is he after the image of Esau whose\ngarment was blessed when he was not present, who did not receive,\nhe says, the blind man\u2019s blessing, but became rich elsewhere taking\nnothing from the blind one, whose face Jacob saw as a man might see\nthe face of God. Concerning whom he says, it is written that: \u201cNebrod\nwas a giant hunting before the Lord.\u201d[227] There are, he says, as\nmany counterparts of him as there were serpents seen in the desert\nbiting the sons of Israel, from which that perfect one that Moses set\nup delivered those that were bitten. This, he says, is the saying:\n\u201cAnd as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of\nMan be lifted up.\u201d[228] After his likeness was the brazen serpent in\nthe desert which Moses set up. The similitude of this alone is always\nseen in the heaven in light. This he says is the mighty beginning\nabout which it is written. About this he says is the saying: \u201cIn the\nbeginning was the Word and the Word was with God and [Sidenote: p.\n203.] the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things\nwere made by Him and without Him nothing was. That which was in Him was\nlife.\u201d[229] And in Him, he says, Eve came into being (and) Eve is life.\nShe, he says is Eve, mother of all living[230] (the) nature common (to\nall), that is, to gods, angels, immortals, mortals, irrational beings,\nand rational ones; for, he says, \u201cto all\u201d speaking collectively. And if\nthe eyes of any are blessed, he says, he will see when he looks upward\nto heaven the fair image of the serpent in the great summit[231] of\nheaven turning about and becoming the source of all movement of all\npresent things. And (the beholder) will know that without Him there is\nnothing framed of heavenly or of earthly things or of things below the\nearth--neither night, nor moon, nor fruits, nor generation, nor wealth,\nnor wayfaring, nor generally is there anything of things which are that\nHe does not point out. In this, he says, is the great wonder beheld in\nthe heavens by those who can see.\n\nFor against this summit (that is) the head which is the most difficult\nof all things to be believed by those who know it not,\n\n [Sidenote: p. 204.] \u201cThe setting and rising mingle with one\n another.\u201d--\n (Aratus, _Phain._, v. 62.)\n\nThis it is concerning which ignorance speaks:--\n\n \u201cThe Dragon winds, great wonder of dread portent.\u201d--\n (_Ibid._, v. 46.)\n\nand on either side of him Corona and Lyra are ranged and above, by the\nvery top of his head, a piteous man, the Kneeler, is seen\n\n \u201cHolding the sole of the right foot of winding Draco.\u201d--\n (_Ibid._, v. 70.)\n\nAnd in the rear of the Kneeler is the imperfect serpent grasped with\nboth hands by Ophiuchus and prevented from touching the Crown lying by\nthe Perfect Serpent.[232]\n\n17. This is the variegated wisdom of the Peratic heresy, which is\ndifficult to describe completely, it being so tangled through having\nbeen framed from the art of astrology. So far as it was possible,\ntherefore, we have set forth all its force in few words. But in order\nto expound their whole mind in epitome we think it right to add\nthis: According to them the universe is Father, Son and Matter.[233]\n[Sidenote: p. 205.] Of these three every one contains within himself\nboundless powers. Now midway between Matter and the Father sits the\nSon, the Word, the Serpent, ever moving himself towards the immoveable\nFather and towards Matter (which itself) is moved. And sometimes he\nturns himself towards the Father and receives the powers in his own\nperson,[234] and when he has thus received them he turns towards\nMatter; and Matter being without quality and formless takes pattern\nfrom the forms[235] which the Son has taken as patterns from the\nFather. But the Son takes pattern from the Father unspeakably and\nsilently and unchangeably, that is, as Moses says the colours of\nthe (sheep) that longed,[236] flowed from the rods set up in the\ndrinking-places. In such a way also did the powers flow from the Son\nto Matter according to the yearning of the power which (flowed) from\nthe rods upon the things conceived. But the difference and unlikeness\nof the colours which flowed from the rods through the waters into the\nsheep is, he says, the difference of corruptible and incorruptible\nbirth. Or rather, as a painter while taking nothing from the animals\n(he paints), yet transfers with his pencil to the drawing-tablet all\ntheir forms, thus the Son by his own power transfers to Matter the\n[Sidenote: p. 206.] types[237] of the Father. All things that are here\nare therefore the Father\u2019s types and nothing else. For if any one, he\nsays has strength enough to comprehend from the things here that he\nis a type from the Father on high transferred hither and made into a\nbody, as in the conception from the rod, he becomes white,[238] (and)\nwholly of one substance[239] with the Father who is in the heavens,\nand returns thither. But if he does not light upon this doctrine, nor\ndiscover the necessity of birth, like an abortion brought forth in a\nnight he perishes in a night. Therefore, says he, when the Saviour\nspeaks of \u201cYour Father who is in heaven\u201d[240] He means him from whom\nthe Son takes the types and transfers them hither. And when He says\n\u201cYour father is a manslayer from the beginning\u201d[241] he means the Ruler\nand Fashioner of Matter who receiving the types distributed by the\nSon has produced children here. Who is a manslayer from the beginning\nbecause his work makes for corruption and death.[242] None therefore,\nhe says, can be saved nor [Sidenote: p. 207.] return (on high) save by\nthe Son who is the Serpent. For as he brought from on high the Father\u2019s\ntypes, so he again carries up from here those of them who have been\nawakened and have become types of the Father, transferring them thither\nfrom here as hypostatized from the Unhypostatized[243] One. This, he\nsays, is the saying \u201cI am the Door.\u201d But he transfers them, he says (as\nthe light of vision)[244] to those whose eyelids are closed, as the\nnaphtha draws everywhere the fire to itself--or rather as the magnet\nthe iron but nothing else, or as the sea-hawk\u2019s spine the gold but\nnothing else, or as again (as) the chaff is drawn by the amber.[245]\nThus, he says, the perfect and consubstantial race which has been made\nthe image[246] (of the Father) but nought else is again led from the\nworld by the Serpent, just as it was sent down here by him.\n\nFor the proof of this they bring forward the anatomy of the brain,\nlikening the cerebrum to the Father from its immobility, and the\ncerebellum to the Son from its being moved and existing in serpent\nform. Which (last) they imagine ineffably and without giving any sign\nto attract [Sidenote: p. 208.] through the pineal gland the spiritual\nand life-giving substance emanating from the Blessed One.[247]\nReceiving which the cerebellum, as the Son silently transfers the forms\nto Matter, spreads abroad the seeds and genera of things born after\nthe flesh, to the spinal marrow. By the use of this simile, they seem\nto introduce cleverly their ineffable mysteries handed down in silence\nwhich it is not lawful for us to utter. Nevertheless they will easily\nbe comprehended from what I have said.\n\n18. But since I think I have set forth clearly the Peratic heresy\nand by many words have made plain what had escaped (notice), and\nsince it has mixed up everything with everything concealing its own\npeculiar poison, it seems right to proceed no further with the charge,\nthe opinions laid down by them being sufficient accusation against\nthem.[248]\n\n\n 3. _The Sethiani._\n\n[Sidenote: p. 209.] 19. Let us see then what the Sethians say.[249]\nThey are of opinion[250] that there are three definite principles of\nthe universals, and that each of the principles contains boundless\npowers. But what they mean by powers let him judge who hears them speak\nthus: Everything which you understand by your mind or which you pass by\nunthought of, is formed by nature to become each of these principles,\nas in the soul of man every art which is taught. For example, he says,\nthat a boy will become a piper if he spend some time with a piper,\nor a geometrician if he does so with a geometrician, or a grammarian\nwith a grammarian, or a carpenter with a carpenter, and to one in\nclose contact with other trades it will happen in the same way. But\nthe substance of the principles, he says, are light and darkness; and\nbetween them there is uncontaminated spirit. But the spirit which is\nset between the darkness below and the light on high, is not breath\nlike a gust of wind or some little [Sidenote: p. 210.] breeze which can\nbe perceived, but resembles some faint perfume of balsam or of incense\nartificially compounded, as a power penetrating by force of a fragrance\ninconceivable and better than can be said in speech. But since the\nlight is above and the darkness below and the spirit as has been said\nbetween them, the light naturally shines like a ray of the sun on high\non the underlying darkness, and again the fragrance of the spirit\nhaving the middle place spreads abroad and is borne in all directions,\nas we observe the fragrance of the incense burnt in the fire carried\neverywhere. And such being the power of the triply divided, the power\nof the spirit and of the light together is in the darkness which is\nranged below them. But the darkness is a fearful water, into which the\nlight with the spirit is drawn down and transformed into such a nature\n(as the water).[251] And the darkness is not witless, but prudent\ncompletely, and knows that if the light be taken from the darkness, the\ndarkness remains desolate, viewless, without light, [Sidenote: p. 211.]\npowerless, idle, and strengthless. Wherefore with all its sense and wit\nit is forced to detain within itself the brilliance and spark of the\nlight with the fragrance of the spirit. And an image of their nature\nis to be seen in the face of man, (to wit) the pupil of the eye dark\nfrom the underlying fluids, (and) lighted up by (the) spirit. As then\nthe darkness seeks after the brilliance, that it may hold the spark as\na slave and may see, so do the light and the spirit seek after their\nown power, and make haste to raise up and take back to themselves their\npowers which have been mingled with the underlying dark and fearful\nwater.[252] But all the powers of the three principles being everywhere\nboundless in number are each of them wise and understanding as regards\nits own substance, and the countless multitude of them being wise and\nunderstanding, whenever they remain by themselves are all at rest.\nBut if one power draws near to another, the unlikeness of (the things\nin) juxtaposition effects a certain movement and activity formed from\nthe movement, by the coming together and juxtaposition of the meeting\n[Sidenote: p. 212.] powers. For the coming together of the powers comes\nto pass like some impression of a seal struck by close conjunction\nfor the sealing of the substances brought up (to it).[253] Since then\nthe powers of the three principles are boundless in number and the\nconjunctions of the boundless powers (also) boundless, there must\nneeds be produced images of boundless seals. Now these images are the\nforms[254] of the different animals.\n\nFrom the first great conjunction then of the three principles came into\nbeing a certain great form of a seal, (to wit) heaven and earth. And\nheaven and earth are planned very like a matrix having the navel[255]\nin the midst. And if, he says, one wishes to have this design under his\neyes, let him examine with skill the pregnant womb of any animal he\npleases, and he will discover the type of heaven and earth and of all\nthose things between which lie unchangeably below. And the appearance\nof heaven and earth became by the first conjunction such as to be like\na womb. But again between heaven and earth boundless conjunctions of\npowers have occurred. And each conjunction wrought and stamped[256]\nnothing else than a seal of [Sidenote: p. 213.] heaven and earth like a\nwomb. But within this (the earth) there grew from the boundless seals\nboundless multitudes of different animals. And into all this infinity\nwhich is under heaven there was scattered and distributed among the\ndifferent animals, together with the light, the fragrance of the spirit\nfrom on high.\n\nThen there came into being from the water the first-born[257] principle\n(to wit) a wind violent and turbulent and the cause of all generation.\nFor making some agitation in the waters it raises waves in them. But\nthe motion of the waves as if it were some impregnating impulse is\na beginning of generation of man or beast when it is driven onward\nswollen by the impulse of the spirit. But when this wave has been\nraised from the water and made pregnant in the natural way, and has\nreceived within itself the feminine power of reproduction, it retains\nthe light scattered from on high together with the fragrance of the\nspirit--that [Sidenote: p. 214.] is mind given shape in the different\nspecies.[258] Which (mind) is a perfect God, who is brought down from\nthe unbegotten light on high and from the spirit into man\u2019s nature as\ninto a temple, by the force of nature and the movement of the wind. It\nhas been engendered from the water (and) commingled and mixed with the\nbodies as if it were (the) salt of the things which are and a light\nof the darkness struggling to be freed from the bodies and not able\nto find deliverance and its way out. For some smallest spark from the\nlight (has been mingled) with the fragrance from above (_i. e._ from\nthe spirit), like a ray (making composition of things dissolved and)\nsolution of things compounded as, he says, is said in a psalm.[259]\nTherefore every thought and care of the light on high is how and in\nwhat way the mind may be set free from the death of the wicked and dark\nbody (and) from the Father of that which is below, who is the wind\nwhich raised the waves in agitation and disorder [Sidenote: p. 215.]\nand has begotten Nous his own perfect son, not being his own (son) as\nto substance.[260] For he was a ray from on high from that perfect\nlight overpowered in the dark and fearful bitter and polluted water,\nwhich (ray) is the shining spirit borne above the water. When then the\nwaves (raised from the) waters [have received within themselves the\nfeminine power of reproduction, they detain in[261]] the different\nspecies, like some womb, (the light) scattered (from on high), (with\nthe fragrance of the spirit) as is seen in all animals.\n\nBut the wind at once violent and turbulent is borne along like the\nhissing of a serpent. First then from the wind, that is from the\nserpent, came the principle of generation in the way aforesaid,[262]\nall things having received the principle of generation at the same\ntime. When then the light and the spirit were received into the\nunpurified [Sidenote: p. 216.] and much suffering disordered womb,\nthe serpent, the wind of the darkness, the first-born of the waters\nentering in, begets man, and the unpurified womb neither loves nor\nrecognizes any other form (but the serpent\u2019s).[263] Then the perfect\nWord of the light on high, having been made like the beast, the\nserpent, entered into the unpurified womb, beguiling it by its likeness\nto the beast, so that it might loose the bands which encircle the\nPerfect Mind which was begotten in the impurity of the womb by the\nfirst-born of the water, (to wit) the serpent, the beast. This, he\nsays, is the form of the slave[264] and this the need for the descent\nof the Word of God into the womb of a Virgin. But it is not enough,\nhe says, that the Perfect Man, the Word, has entered into the womb of\na virgin and has loosed the pangs which were in that darkness. But\nin truth after entering into the foul mysteries of the womb, He was\nwashed[265] and drank of the cup of living bubbling water, which he\nmust needs drink who was about to do off the slave-like form and do on\na heavenly garment.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 217.] 20. This is what the champions of the Sethianian\ndoctrines say, to put it shortly. But their system is made up of\nsayings by physicists and of words spoken in respect of other matters,\nwhich they transfer to their own system and explain as we have said.\nAnd they say that Moses also supported their theory when he said\n\u201cDarkness, gloom and whirlwind.\u201d These, he says, are the three words.\nOr when he says that there were three born in Paradise, Adam, Eve (and\nthe) Serpent; or when he says three (others), Cain, Abel (and) Seth;\nand yet again three, Shem, Ham (and) Japhet; or when he speaks of three\npatriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, (and) Jacob; or when he says that there\nexisted three days before the Sun and Moon; or when he says that there\nare three laws (the) prohibitive, (the) permissive and the punitive.\nAnd a prohibitive law is: \u201cFrom every tree in Paradise thou mayest eat\nthe fruit, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, eat not.\u201d But\nin this saying: \u201cGo forth from thine own land, and from thy kindred and\n(thou shalt come) hither into a land which I shall show thee.\u201d This\nlaw he says is permissive for he who chooses may go forth and he who\nchooses may remain. But the law is punitive which says \u201cThou shalt not\ncommit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder\u201d--for to\neach of these sins there is a penalty.[266]\n\n[Sidenote: p. 218.] But the whole teaching of their system is taken\nfrom the ancient theologists Mus\u00e6us, Linus and he who most especially\nmakes known the initiations and mysteries (to wit), Orpheus. For their\ndiscourse about the womb is also that of Orpheus; and the phallus,\nwhich is virility, is thus explicitly mentioned in the _Bacchica_ of\nOrpheus.[267] And these things were made the subject of initiation\nand were handed down to men, before the initiatory rite of Celeus,\nTriptolemus, Demeter, Core and Dionysos in Eleusis, at Phlium in\nAttica. For earlier than the Eleusinian Mysteries are the secret rites\nof the so-called Great (Mother) in Phlium. For there is in that (town)\na porch, and on the porch to this day is engraved the representation\nof all the words spoken (in them). [Sidenote: p. 219.] Many things are\nengraved on that porch concerning which Plutarch also makes discourse\nin his ten books against Empedocles. And on the doors is engraved a\ncertain old man grey-haired, winged, having his _pudendum_ stretched\nforth, pursuing a fleeing woman of a blue colour. And there is written\nover the old man \u201cPhaos ruentes\u201d and over the woman \u201cPere\u0113phicola.\u201d\nBut \u201cphaos ruentes\u201d seems to be the light according to the theory of\nthe Sethians and the \u201cphicola\u201d the dark water, while between them is at\nan interval the harmony of the spirit. And the name of \u201cPhaos ruentes\u201d\ndenotes the rushing below of the light as they say from on high. So\nthat we may reasonably say that the Sethians celebrate among themselves\n(rites) in some degree akin to the Phliasian Mysteries of the Great\n(Mother).[268] And to the triple division of things the poet seems to\nbear witness when he says:--\n\n \u201cAnd in three lots were all things divided\n And each drew his own domain.\u201d--\n (Homer, _Il._, XV, 189.[269])\n\nthat is each of the threefold divisions has taken power. [Sidenote: p.\n220.] And, as for the underlying dark water below, that the light has\nplunged into it and that the spark borne down (into it) ought to be\nrestored and taken on high from it, the all-wise Sethians seem to have\nhere borrowed from Homer when he says:--\n\n \u201cLet earth be witness and wide heaven above\n And the water of Styx that flows below\n The greatest oath and most terrible to the blessed gods.\u201d[270]--\n (_Il._ XV, 36-38.)\n\nThat is, the gods, according to Homer, think water something ill-omened\nand frightful, wherefore the theory of the Sethians says it is\nfrightful to the Nous.\n\n21. This is what they say and other things like it in endless writings.\nAnd they persuade those who are their disciples to read the theory of\nComposition and Mixture[271] which is studied by many others and by\nAndronicus the Peripatetic. The Sethians then say that the theory about\nComposition and Mixture is to be framed after this fashion: The light\nray from on high has been compounded and the [Sidenote: p. 221.] very\nsmall spark has been lightly mingled[272] in the dark waters below, and\n(these two) have united and exist in one mass as one odour (results)\nfrom the many kinds of incense on the fire. And the expert who has\nas his test an acute sense of smell ought to delicately distinguish\nfrom the sole smell of the incense the different kinds of it set on\nthe fire; as (for example) if it be storax and myrrh and frankincense\nor if anything else be mixed with it. And they make use of other\ncomparisons, as when they say that if brass has been mixed with gold, a\ncertain process[273] has been discovered which separates the gold from\nthe brass. And in like manner if tin or brass or anything of the same\nkind be found mixed with silver, these by some better process of alloy\nare also separated. But even now any one distinguishes water mixed\nwith wine. Thus, he says, if all things are mingled together they are\ndistinguished. And truly, he says, learn from the animals. For when the\nanimal is dead each (of its parts) is separated (from the rest) and\nthus when dissolved, the animal disappears. This he says is the saying:\n\u201cI come not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword\u201d[274]--that is\nto cut in twain and separate the things [Sidenote: p. 222.] which have\nbeen compounded together. For each of the compounds is cut in twain and\nseparated when it lights on its proper place. For as there is one place\nof composition for all the animals, so there has been set up one place\nof dissolution, which no man knoweth, he says, save only we who are\nborn again, spiritual not fleshly, whose citizenship is in the heavens\nabove.\n\nWith these insinuations they corrupt their hearers, both when they\nmisuse words, turning good sayings into bad as they wish, and when they\nconceal their own iniquity by what comparisons they choose. All things\nthen, he says, which are compounds have their own peculiar place and\nrun towards their own kindred things as the iron to the magnet, the\nstraw to the amber, and the gold to the sea-hawk\u2019s spine.[275] And thus\nthe (ray) of light which was mingled with the water having received\nfrom teaching and learning (the knowledge of) its own proper place\nhastens to the Word come from on high in slave-like form and becomes\nwith the Word a Word where the Word is, more (quickly) than the iron\n(flies) to the magnet.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 223.] And that these things are so, he says, and that\nall compounded things are separated at their proper places, learn\n(thus):--There is among the Persians in the city Ampa near the Tigris\na well, and near this well and above it has been built a cistern\nhaving three outlets. From which well if one draws, and takes up in a\njar what is drawn from the well whatever it is and pours it into the\ncistern hard by; when it comes to the outlets and is received from each\noutlet in one vessel, it separates itself. And in the first outlet is\nexhibited an incrustation[276] of salt, and in the second bitumen,\nand in the third oil. But the oil is black, as he says Herodotus also\nrecounts,[277] has a heavy odour and the Persians call it _rhadinace_.\nThis simile of the well, say the Sethians, suffices for the truth of\ntheir proposition better than all that has been said above.\n\n22. The opinion of the Sethians seems to us to have been made tolerably\nplain. But if any one wishes to learn the whole of their system let him\nread the book inscribed _Paraphrase (of) Seth_; for all their secrets\nhe will find there enshrined.[278] But since we have set forth the\nthings of the [Sidenote: p. 224.] Sethians[279] let us see also what\nJustinus thinks.\n\n\n 4. _Justinus._[280]\n\n23. Justinus, being utterly opposed to every teaching of the Holy\nScriptures, and also to the writing or speech[281] of the blessed\nEvangelists, since the Word taught his disciples saying: \u201cGo not into\nthe way of the Gentiles\u201d[282]--which is plainly: Give no heed to the\nvain teaching of the Gentiles--seeks to bring back his hearers to\nthe marvel-mongering of the Greeks and what is taught by it. He sets\nout word for word and in detail the fabulous tales of the Greeks,\nbut neither teaches first hand[283] nor hands down his own complete\nmystery unless he has bound the dupe by an oath. Thereafter he explains\nthe myth for the purpose of winning souls,[284] so that those who\nread the numberless follies of the books shall have the fables as\nconsolation[285]--as if one tramping along a road and coming across an\ninn should see fit to rest--and so that when they have again turned to\nthe [Sidenote: p. 225.] full study of the things read, they may not\ndetest them until, being led on by the rush of the crowd, they have\nplunged into the offence artfully contrived by him, having first bound\nthem by fearful oaths neither to utter nor to abandon his teaching and\ncompelling them to accept it. Thus he delivers to them the mysteries\nimpiously sought out by him, using as aforesaid the Greek myths and\npartly corrupted books according to what they indicate of the aforesaid\nheresies. For they all, drawn by one spirit, are led into a deep\npit (of error) but each narrates and mythologizes the same things\ndifferently. But they all call themselves especially Gnostics, as if\nthey alone had drunk in the knowledge of the perfect and good.\n\n24. But swear, says Justinus, if you wish to know the things \u201cwhich\neye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart\nof man,\u201d[286] (that is) Him who is good above all things, the Highest,\nto keep the ineffable secrets of the teaching. For our Father also,\nwhen he saw the Good One and was perfected by him, kept silence as\nto [Sidenote: p. 226.] the secrets[287] and swore as it is written:\n\u201cThe Lord sware and will not repent.\u201d[288] Having then thus sealed up\nthese (secrets), he turns their minds to many myths through a quantity\n(of books), and thus leads to the Good One, perfecting the myst\u00e6 by\nunspoken mysteries. But we shall not travel through more (of his\nworks). We shall give as a sample the ineffable things from one book\nof his, it being one which he clearly thinks of high repute. It is\ninscribed _Baruch_.[289] We shall disclose one myth set forth in it by\nhim out of many, it being also in Herodotus. Having transformed[290]\nthis, he tells it to his hearers as new, the whole system of his\nteaching being made up out of it.\n\n25. Now Herodotus[291] says that Heracles when driving Geryon\u2019s oxen\nfrom Erytheia[292] came to Scythia and being wearied by the way lay\ndown to sleep in some desert place for a short time. While he was\nasleep his horse disappeared, mounted on which he had made his long\njourney.[293] On waking he made search over most of the desert in the\nattempt to find his horse. He entirely misses the horse, [Sidenote: p.\n227.] but finding a certain semi-virgin girl[294] in the desert, he\nasks her if she had seen the horse anywhere. The girl said that she had\nseen it, but would not at first show it to him unless Heracles would go\nwith her to have connection with her. But Herodotus says that the upper\npart of the girl as far as the groin was that of a virgin, but that the\nwhole body below the groin had in some sort the frightful appearance of\na viper. But Heracles, being in a hurry to find his horse yielded to\nthe beast. For he knew her and made her pregnant, and foretold to her\nafter connection that she had in her womb three sons by him who would\nbe famous.[295] And he bade her when they were born to give them the\nnames Agathyrsus, Gelonus, and Scytha. And taking the horse from the\nbeast-like girl as his reward, he went away with his oxen. But after\nthis, there is a long story in Herodotus.[296] Let us dismiss it at\npresent. But we will explain something of what Justinus teaches when\nhe turns this myth into (one of) the generation of the things of the\nuniverse.\n\n26. This he says: There were three unbegotten principles of the\nuniversals,[297] two male and one female. And [Sidenote: p. 228.] of\nthe male, one is called the Good One, he alone being thus called, and\nhe has foreknowledge of the universals. And the second is the Father\nof all begotten things, not having foreknowledge and being (unknowable\nand)[298] invisible. But the female is without foreknowledge,\npassionate, two-minded, two-bodied, in all things resembling Herodotus\u2019\nmyth, a virgin to the groin and a viper below, as says Justinus.\nAnd this maiden is called Edem and Israel. These, he says, are the\nprinciples of the universals, their roots and sources, by which all\nthings came into being, beside which nothing was. Then the Father\nwithout foreknowledge, beholding the semi-virgin, who was Edem, came\nto desire of her. This Father, he says, is called Elohim.[299] Not\nless did Edem desire Elohim, and desire brought them together into\none favour of love. And the Father from such congress begot on Edem\ntwelve angels of his own. And the names of these angels of the Father\nare: Michael, Amen, Baruch, Gabriel, Esadd\u00e6us.[300]... And the names\nof the angels of the Mother which Edem created are likewise set down.\nThese are: Babel, Achamoth, Naas, Bel, Belias, [Sidenote: p. 229.]\nSatan, Sa\u00eal, Adonaios, Kavithan, Pharaoh, Karkamenos, Lathen.[301] Of\nthese twenty-four angels the paternal ones join with the Father and do\neverything in accordance with his will, but the maternal angels (side)\nwith the Mother, Edem. And he says that Paradise is the multitude of\nthese angels taken together; concerning which Moses says: \u201cGod planted\na Paradise in Edem towards the East,\u201d[302] that is, towards the face\nof Edem that Edem might ever behold Paradise, that is, the angels.\nAnd the angels of this Paradise are allegorically called trees,[303]\nand Baruch, the third angel of the Father, is the Tree of Life, and\nNaas, the third angel of the Mother is the Tree of Knowledge of Good\nand Evil.[304] For thus, he says, the (words) of Moses ought to be\ninterpreted, saying: Moses declared them covertly, because all do not\ncome to the truth.\n\nBut he says also when Paradise was produced from the mutual pleasure of\nElohim and Edem, the angels of Elohim taking (dust) from the fairest\nearth, that is, not from the beast-like parts of Edem, but from the\nman-like and cultivated regions of the earth above the groin, create\nman. But from the beast-like parts, he says, the wild beasts and\n[Sidenote: p. 230.] other animals are produced. Now they made man\nas a symbol of their[305] unity and good-will and placed in him the\npowers of each, Edem (supplying) the soul and Elohim the spirit.[306]\nAnd there thus came into being a certain seal, as it were and actual\nmemorial of love and an everlasting sign of the marriage of Elohim and\nEdem, (to wit) a man who is Adam. And in like manner also, Eve came\ninto being as Moses has written, an image and a sign and a seal to be\nfor ever preserved of Edem. And there was likewise placed in Eve the\nimage, a soul from Edem but a spirit from Elohim. And commands were\ngiven to them, \u201cIncrease and multiply and replenish the earth,\u201d[307]\nthat is Edem, for so he would have it written. For the whole of her own\npower Edem brought to Elohim as it were some dowry in marriage. Whence,\nhe says, in imitation of that first marriage, women unto this day bring\nfreely to their husbands in obedience to a certain divine and ancestral\nlaw (a dowry) which is that of Edem to Elohim.\n\nBut when heaven and earth and the things which were therein had been\ncreated as it is written by Moses, the twelve angels of the Mother were\ndivided into four authorities and each quarter, he says, is called\na river, (to wit) Phison and Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates, as Moses\nsays: [Sidenote: p. 231.] These twelve angels visiting the four parts\nencompass and arrange the world, having a certain satrapial[308] power\nover the world by the authority of Edem. But they abide not always in\ntheir own places, but as it were in a circular dance, they go about\nexchanging place for place, and at certain times and intervals giving\nup the places assigned to them. When Phison has rule over the places,\nfamine, distress and affliction come to pass in that part of the world,\nfor miserly is the array of these angels. And in like manner in each of\nthe quarters according to the nature and power of each, come evil times\nand troops of diseases. And evermore the flow of evil according to the\nrule of the quarters, as if they were rivers, by the will of Edem goes\nunceasingly about the world.\n\nBut from some such cause as this did the necessity of evil come\nabout.[309] When Elohim had built and fashioned [Sidenote: p. 232.] the\nworld from mutual pleasure, he wished to go up to the highest parts\nof heaven and to see whether any of the things of creation lacked\naught. And he took his own angels with him, for he was (by nature) one\nwho bears upward, and left below Edem, for she being earth did not\nwish to follow her spouse on high. Then Elohim coming to the upper\nlimit of heaven and beholding a light better than that which himself\nhad fashioned, said: \u201cOpen unto me the gates that I may enter in and\nacknowledge the Lord: For I thought that I was the Lord.\u201d[310] And a\nvoice from the light answered him, saying: \u201cThis is the gate of the\nLord (and) the just enter through it.\u201d And straightway the gate was\nopened, and the Father entered without his angels into the presence of\nthe Good One and saw \u201cwhat eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it\nentered into the heart of man.\u201d Then the Good One says to him, \u201cSit\nthou on my right hand.\u201d[311] But the Father says to the Good One:\n\u201cSuffer me, O Lord, to overturn the world which I have made; for my\nspirit is bound in men and I wish to recover it.\u201d Then says the Good\nOne to him: \u201cWhile with me thou canst do no evil; for thou and Edem\nmade the world from mutual pleasure. Let therefore Edem hold creation\n[Sidenote: p. 233.] while she will;[312] but do thou abide with me.\u201d\nThen Edem knowing that she had been abandoned by Elohim was grieved,\nand sat beside her own angels and adorned herself gloriously lest haply\nElohim coming to desire of her should descend to her.\n\nBut since Elohim being ruled by the Good One did not come down to Edem,\nshe gave command to Babel, who is Aphrodite, to bring about fornication\nand dissolutions of marriage among men, in order that as she was\nseparated from Elohim, so also might the (spirit) of Elohim which is in\nmen be tortured, (and) grieved by such separations and might suffer the\nsame things as she did on being abandoned. And Edem gave great power to\nher third angel Naas,[313] that he might punish with all punishments\nthe spirit of Elohim which is in men, so that through the spirit Elohim\nmight be punished for having left his spouse contrary to their vows.\nThe Father Elohim seeing this sent forth his third angel Baruch to the\nhelp of the spirit which is in men. [Sidenote: p. 234.] Then Baruch\ncame again and stood in the midst of the angels--for the angels are\nParadise in the midst of which he stood--and gave commandment to the\nman: \u201cFrom every tree which is in Paradise freely eat, but from (the\ntree) of Knowledge of Good and Evil eat not,\u201d[314] which tree is Naas.\nThat is to say: Obey the eleven other angels of Edem for the eleven\nhave passions, but have no transgression. But Naas had transgression,\nfor he went in unto Eve and beguiled her and committed adultery with\nher, which is a breach of the Law. And he went in also unto Adam and\nused him as a boy which is also a breach of the Law.[315] Thence came\nadultery and sodomy.\n\nFrom that time vices bore sway over men, and the good things came from\na single source, the Father. For he, having gone up to the presence\nof the Good One showed the way to those who wished to go on high; but\nhis having withdrawn from Edem made a source of ills to the spirit of\n[Sidenote: p. 235.] the Father which is in men. Therefore Baruch was\nsent to Moses, and through him spoke to the sons of Israel that he\nmight turn them towards the Good One. But the third[316] (angel Naas)\nby means of the soul which came from Edem to Moses as also to all men,\ndarkened the commandments of Baruch and made them listen to his own.\nTherefore the soul is arrayed against the spirit and the spirit against\nthe soul.[317] For the soul is Edem and the spirit Elohim, each of\nthem being in all mankind, both females and males. Again after this,\nBaruch was sent to the Prophets, so that by their means the spirit\nwhich dwells in man might hearken and flee from Edem and the device\nof wickedness[318] as the Father Elohim had fled. And in like manner\nand by the same contrivance, Naas by the soul which inhabits man along\nwith the spirit of the Father seduced the Prophets, and they were all\nled astray and did not follow the words of Baruch which Elohim had\ncommanded.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 236.] In the sequel, Elohim chose Heracles as a prophet\nout of the uncircumcision and sent him that he might fight against the\ntwelve angels of the creation of the wicked ones. These are the twelve\ncontests of Heracles which he fought in their order from the first to\nthe last against the lion, the bear, the wild boar,[319] and the rest.\nFor these are the names of the nations which have been changed, they\nsay, by the action of the angels of the Mother. But when he seemed\nto have prevailed, Omphale, who is Babel or Aphrodite[320] becomes\nconnected with him and leads astray Heracles, strips him of his power\n(which is) the commands of Baruch which Elohim commanded, and puts\nother clothes on him, her own robe, which is the power of Edem who is\nbelow. And thus the power of prophecy[321] of Heracles and his works\nbecome imperfect.\n\nLast of all in the days of Herod the king, Baruch is again sent below\nby Elohim and coming to Nazareth finds Jesus, the son of Joseph and\nMary,[322] a boy of twelve years old, feeding sheep, and teaches Him\nall things from the beginning which came about from Edem and Elohim and\nthe things [Sidenote: p. 237.] which shall be hereafter, and he said:\n\u201cAll the prophets before thee were led astray. Strive, therefore, O\nJesus, Son of Man, that thou be not led astray, but preach this word\nunto men. And proclaim to them the things touching the Father and the\nGood One, and go on high to the Good One and sit there with Elohim the\nFather of us all.\u201d And Jesus hearkened to the angel, saying: \u201cLord, I\nwill do all (these) things,\u201d and He preached. Then Naas wished to lead\nastray this one also (but Jesus did not wish to hearken to him)[323]\nfor He remained faithful to Baruch. Then Naas, angered because he could\nnot lead Him astray, made Him to be crucified. But He, leaving the body\nof Edem on the Cross, went on high to the Good One. But He said to\nEdem: \u201cWoman, receive thy Son,\u201d[324] that is the natural and earthly\nman, and commending[325] the spirit into the hands of the Father went\non high to the presence of the Good One.\n\nBut the Good One is Priapus, who before anything was, was created.\nWhence he is called Priapus because he previously made[326] all\nthings. Wherefore he says he is set up before every temple[327] being\nhonoured by the whole creation and in the streets bears the blossoms\nof creation on his head, that is the fruits of creation of which he\nis the [Sidenote: p. 238.] cause having first made the creation which\nbefore did not exist. When therefore you hear men say that a swan came\nupon Leda and begot children from her, the swan is Elohim and Leda is\nEdem. And when men say that an eagle came upon Ganymede, the eagle is\nNaas and Ganymede is Adam. And when they say that the gold came upon\nDanae and begot children from her, the gold is Elohim and Danae is\nEdem. And likewise they making parallels in the same way teach all such\nwords as bring in myths. When then the Prophets say: \u201cHear O Heaven and\ngive ear O Earth, the Lord has spoken,\u201d[328] Heaven means, he says,\nthe spirit which is in man from Elohim and Earth the soul which is in\nman (together) with the spirit, and the Lord means Baruch, and Israel,\nEdem. For Edem is also called Israel the spouse of Elohim. \u201cIsrael,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cknew me not; for if she had known that I was with the Good\nOne, she would not have punished the spirit which is in man through the\nFather\u2019s ignorance.\u201d\n\n27. Afterwards ... is written also the oath in the first [Sidenote: p.\n239.] book which is inscribed Baruch which those swear who are about to\nhear these mysteries and to be perfected[329] by the Good One. Which\noath, he says, our Father Elohim swore when in the presence of the\nGood One and having sworn did not repent, touching which, he says, it\nis written: \u201cThe Lord sware and did not repent.\u201d This is that oath:\n\u201cI swear by Him who is above all, the Good One, to preserve these\nmysteries and to utter them to none, nor to turn away from the Good\nOne to creation.\u201d And when he has sworn that oath he enters into the\npresence of the Good One and sees \u201cwhat eye hath not seen nor ear heard\nand it has not entered into the heart of man,\u201d and he drinks from the\nliving water, which is their font, as they think, the well of living,\nsparkling water. For there is a distinction, he says, between water and\nwater; and there is the water below the firmament of the bad creation,\nwherein are baptized[330] the earthly and natural men, and there is the\nliving water [Sidenote: p. 240.] above the firmament of the Good One\nin which Elohim was baptized and having been baptized did not repent.\nAnd when the prophet declares, he says, to take unto himself a wife of\nwhoredom because the earth whoring has committed whoredom from behind\nthe Lord,[331] that is Edem from Elohim. In these words, he says, the\nprophet speaks clearly the whole mystery, but he was not hearkened to\nby the wickedness of Naas. In that same fashion also they hand down\nother prophetic sayings in many books. But pre-eminent among them is\nthe book inscribed Baruch in which he who reads will know the whole\nmanagement of their myth.\n\nNow, though I have met with many heresies, beloved, I have met with\nnone worse than this. But truly, as the saying is, we ought, imitating\nhis Heracles, to cleanse the Augean dunghill or rather trench, having\nfallen into which his followers will never be washed clean nor indeed\nbe able to come up out of it.\n\n28. Since then we have set forth the designs of Justinus the Gnostic\nfalsely so called, it seems fitting to set forth also [Sidenote: p.\n241.] in the succeeding books the tenets of the heresies which follow\nhim[332] and to leave none of them unrefuted; the things said by them\nbeing quite sufficient when exposed to make an example of them, if and\nonly their hidden and unspeakable (mysteries) would leap to light into\nwhich the senseless are hardly and with much toil initiated.[333] Let\nus see now what Simon says.\n\n\n END OF VOL. I.\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: In this chapter, Hippolytus treats of what is probably a\nlate form of the Ophite heresy, certainly one of the first to enter\ninto rivalry with the Catholic Church. For its doctrines and practices,\nthe reader must be referred to the chapter on the Ophites in the\ntranslator\u2019s _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, vol. II; but\nit may be said here that it seems to have sprung from a combination\nof the corrupt Judaism then practised in Asia Minor with the Pagan\nmyths or legends prevalent all over Western Asia, which may some day\nbe traced back to the Sumerians and the earliest civilization of which\nwe have any record. Yet the Ophites admitted the truth of the Gospel\nnarrative, and asserted the existence of a Supreme Being endowed with\nthe attributes of both sexes and manifesting Himself to man by means\nof a Deity called His son, who was nevertheless identified with both\nthe masculine and feminine aspects of his Father. This triad, which the\nOphites called the First Man, the Second Man, and the First Woman or\nHoly Spirit, they represented as creating the planetary worlds as well\nas the \u201cworld of form,\u201d by the intermediary of an inferior power called\nSophia or Wisdom and her son Jaldabaoth, who is expressly stated to be\nthe God of the Jews.\n\nAll this we knew before the discovery of our text from the statements\nof heresiologists like St. Iren\u00e6us and Epiphanius; but Hippolytus goes\nfurther than any other author by connecting these Ophite theories with\nthe worship of the Mother of the Gods or Cybele, the form under which\nthe triune deity of Western Asia was best known in Europe. The unnamed\nNaassene or Ophite author from whom he quotes without intermission\nthroughout the chapter, seems to have got hold of a hymn to Attis used\nin the festivals of Cybele, in which Attis is, after the syncretistic\nfashion of post-Alexandrian paganism, identified with the Syrian\nAdonis, the Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Dionysos and Hermes, and the\nSamothracian or Cabiric gods Adamna and Corybas; and the chapter is in\nsubstance a commentary on this hymn, the order of the lines of which\nit follows closely. This commentary tries to explain or \u201cinterpret\u201d\nthe different myths there referred to by passages from the Old and New\nTestaments and from the Greek poets dragged in against their manifest\nsense and in the wildest fashion. Most of these supposed allusions,\nindeed, can only be justified by the most outrageous play upon words,\nand it may be truly said that not a single one of them when naturally\nconstrued bears the slightest reference to the matter in hand. Yet\nthey serve not only to elucidate the Ophite beliefs, but give, as it\nwere accidentally, much information as to the scenes enacted in the\nEleusinian and other heathen mysteries which was before lacking. The\nauthor also quotes two hymns used apparently in the Ophite worship\nwhich are not only the sole relics of a once extensive literature, but\nare a great deal better evidence as to Gnostic tenets than his own\nloose and equivocal statements.\n\nAs the legend of Attis and Cybele may not be familiar to all, it may\nbe well to give a brief abstract of it as found in Pausanias, Diodorus\nSiculus, Ovid, and the Christian writer Arnobius. Cybele, called also\nAgdistis, Rhea, G\u00ea, or the Great Mother, was said to have been born\nfrom a rock accidentally fecundated by Zeus. On her first appearance\nshe was hermaphrodite, but on the gods depriving her of her virility\nit passed into an almond-tree. The fruit of this was plucked by the\nvirgin daughter of the river Sangarios, who, placing it in her bosom,\nbecame by it the mother of Attis, fairest of mankind. Attis at his\nbirth was exposed on the river-bank, but was rescued, brought up as a\ngoatherd, and was later chosen as a husband by the king\u2019s daughter. At\nthe marriage feast, Cybele, fired by jealousy, broke into the palace\nand, according to one version of the story, emasculated Attis who died\nof the hurt. Then Cybele repented and prayed to Zeus to restore him to\nlife, which prayer was granted by making him a god. The ceremonies of\nthe Megalesia celebrating the Death and Resurrection of Attis as held\nin Rome during the late Republic and early Empire, and their likeness\nto the Easter rites of the Christian Church are described in the\n_Journal_ of the Royal Asiatic Society for October 1917.]\n\n[Footnote 2: (\u03bf\u1f57) \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cthanks to which.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 3: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2, a phrase frequent in Plato.]\n\n[Footnote 4: \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1]\n\n[Footnote 5: Cf. Rev. ii. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 6: \u1f00\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Cruice thinks the name derived from the Adam Cadmon of the\nJewish Cabala. But Adamas \u201cthe unsubdued\u201d is an epithet of Hades who\nwas equated with Dionysos, the analogue of Attis. Cf. Iren\u00e6us, I, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Salmon and St\u00e4helin in maintaining their theory that\nHippolytus\u2019 documents were contemporary forgeries make the point that\nsomething like this hymn is repeated later in the account of Monoimus\nthe Arabian\u2019s heresy. The likeness is not very close. Cf. II, p. 107\n_infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Origen (_cont. Celsum_, VI, 30) says the Ophites used to\ncurse the name of Christ. Hence Origen cannot be the author of the\n_Philosophumena_.]\n\n[Footnote 10: \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b1. I am doubtful whether he is here using the word\nin its philosophic or Aristotelian sense as \u201centities necessarily\ndiffering from one another in kind,\u201d or as \u201cthings of the universe.\u201d On\nthe whole the former construction seems here to be right.]\n\n[Footnote 11: \u201cThat which has been sent\u201d?]\n\n[Footnote 12: Doubtless as being still confined in matter.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Both Origen and Celsus knew of this Mariamne, after whom\na sect is said to have been named. See Orig. _cont. Cels._, VI, 30.]\n\n[Footnote 14: \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd. The usual expression for Gentiles or Goyim.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Isa. liii. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 16: \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. Miller reads \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd: \u201cundistinguished.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 17: This hymn is in metre and is said to be from a lost\nPindaric ode. It has been restored by Bergk, the restoration being\ngiven in the notes to Cruice\u2019s text, p. 142, and it was translated into\nEnglish verse by the late Professor Conington. Cf. _Forerunners_, II,\np. 54, n. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 18: \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. Doubtless a mistake for \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. The\nOannes of Berossus\u2019 story wore a fish on his back.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Adam the protoplast according to the Ophites (_Iren\u00e6us_,\nI, xviii, p. 197, Harvey) and Epiphanius (_H\u00e6r._ xxxvii, c. 4, p. 501,\nOehler) was made by Jaldabaoth and his six sons. The same story was\ncurrent among the followers of Saturninus (_Iren\u00e6us_, I, xviii, p. 197,\nHarvey) and other Gnostic sects, who agree with the text as to his\nhelplessness when first created, and its cause.]\n\n[Footnote 20: So in the Bruce Papyrus, \u201cJe\u00fb,\u201d which name I have\nsuggested is an abbreviation of Jehovah, is called \u201cthe great Man, King\nof the great Aeon of light.\u201d See _Forerunners_, II, 193.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Eph. iii. 15. Cf. the address of Jesus to His Father in\nthe last document of the _Pistis Sophia_, _Forerunners_, II, p. 180, n.\n4.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Why is he to be punished? In the Manich\u00e6an story (for\nwhich see _Forerunners_, II, pp. 292 ff.) the First Man is taken\nprisoner by the powers of darkness. Both this and that in the text are\ndoubtless survivals of some legend current throughout Western Asia at\na very early date. Cf. Bousset\u2019s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, Leipzig,\n1907, c. 4, _Der Urmensch_.]\n\n[Footnote 23: So the cryptogram in the _Pistis Sophia_ professes to\ngive \u201cthe word by which the Perfect Man is moved.\u201d _Forerunners_, II,\n188, n. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 24: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1: perhaps \u201cessence\u201d or \u201cbeing.\u201d It is the word for\nwhich _hypostasis_ was later substituted according to Hatch. See his\n_Hibbert Lectures_, pp. 269 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 25: So Miller, Cruice, and Schneidewin. I should be inclined\nto read \u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2, \u201clight,\u201d as in the Naassene hymn at the end of this\nchapter. No Gnostic sect can have taught that the soul came from Chaos.]\n\n[Footnote 26: This, as always at this period, means \u201cSyrians.\u201d See\nMaury, _Rev. Arch\u00e9ol._, lviii, p. 242.]\n\n[Footnote 27: \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9. He is punning on the likeness between this and\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, \u201csoul.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 28: And between \u201cnourished\u201d and \u201creared.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 29: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. Not \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae. At this point the author\nbegins his commentary on the Hymn of the Mysteries of Cybele, for which\nsee p. 141 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 30: \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, perhaps \u201cbirth.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 31: An allusion to the myth which makes Aphrodite and\nPersephone share the company of Adonis between them.]\n\n[Footnote 32: These words are added in the margin.]\n\n[Footnote 33: A prominent feature in the imposture of Alexander of\nAbonoteichus. See Lucian\u2019s _Pseudomantis_, _passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 34: In the better-known story Attis castrates himself; but\nthis version explains the allusion in the hymn on p. 141 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 35: _i. e._ restores to her the virility of which they had\ndeprived her when she was hermaphrodite. See n. on p. 119 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 36: \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7. Miller and Schneidewin read \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7,\n\u201copen,\u201d or \u201cdisplayed.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 37: Gal. iii. 28. So Clemens Romanus, _Ep._ ii. 12; Clem.\nAlex. _Strom._, III, 13. Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 378 (Copt).]\n\n[Footnote 38: 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 39: _i. e._ masculo-feminine. That Rhea, Cybele and G\u00ea are\nbut different names of the earth-goddess, see Maury, _R\u00e8l. de la Gr\u00e8ce\nAntique_, I, 78 ff. For their androgyne character, see _J.R.A.S._ for\nOct. 1917.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Rom. i. 20 ff. The text omits several sentences to be\nfound in the A.V.]\n\n[Footnote 41: _Ibid._, v. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 42: _Ibid._, v. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 43: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, _pollicetur iis qui lavantur_, Cr.\nBut \u201cthe font\u201d is the regular patristic expression for the rite.]\n\n[Footnote 44: The text has \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3, \u201cother,\u201d which makes no sense. Cruice,\nfollowing Schneidewin, alters it to \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3 on the strength of p. 144\n_infra_, and renders it _ineffabilis_; but \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 cannot mean anything\nbut \u201cdumb\u201d or \u201csilent.\u201d That baptism in the early heretical sects was\nfollowed by a \u201cchrism\u201d or anointing, see _Forerunners_, II, 129, n. 2;\n_ibid._, 192.]\n\n[Footnote 45: Luke xvii. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 46: This does not appear in the severely expurgated fragments\nof the Gospel of Thomas which have come down to us. Epiphanius (_H\u00e6r._\nxxxvii.) includes this gospel in a list of works especially favoured by\nthe Ophites.]\n\n[Footnote 47: \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, Cr. _disciplina_, Macmahon, \u201cLogos.\u201d But see\nArnold, _Roman Stoicism_, p. 161.]\n\n[Footnote 48: \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1. In Hippolytus it always has this meaning.]\n\n[Footnote 49: Isis. See _Forerunners_, I, p. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 50: \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. The expression is repeated in the\naccount of Simon Magus\u2019 heresy (II, p. 13 _infra_) and refers to the\ntransmigration of souls.]\n\n[Footnote 51: \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cHe of whom no image can be made.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 52: Prov. xxiv. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Some qualification like \u201coriginally\u201d or \u201cat the\nbeginning\u201d seems wanting. Cf. Arnold, _op. cit._, n. on p. 58 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 54: Matt. v. 45.]\n\n[Footnote 55: He has apparently mistaken Min of Coptos or Nesi-Amsu\nfor Osiris who is, I think, never represented thus. At Denderah, he is\nsupine.]\n\n[Footnote 56: The \u201cterms\u201d of Hermes which Alcibiades and his friends\nmutilated.]\n\n[Footnote 57: \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2. Here as always the \u201carchitect,\u201d or he who\ncreates not _ex nihilo_, but from existing material.]\n\n[Footnote 58: For this name which is said by all the early\nheresiologists to mean \u201cthe God of the Jews,\u201d see _Forerunners_, II,\n46, n. 3. He is called a \u201cfiery God\u201d apparently from Deut. iv. 24, and\na fourth number, either because in the Ophite theogony he comes next\nafter the Supreme Triad of Father, Son, and Mother or, more probably,\nfrom his name covering the Tetragrammaton, or name of God in four\nletters.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Ps. ii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 60: Cr. supplies \u201cvirtutem\u201d; but the adjective is in the\nneuter.]\n\n[Footnote 61: Eph. v. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 62: \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5. These\nexpressions repeated up to the end of the chapter are most difficult\nto render in English. The allusion is clearly to a coin stamped\nwith the image of a king. Afterwards I translate \u1f00\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 by\n\u201cunportrayable,\u201d for brevity\u2019s sake.]\n\n[Footnote 63: The famous words which tradition assigns to the\nEleusinian Mysteries. One version is \u201cRain! conceive!\u201d and probably\nrefers to the fecundation or tillage of the earth. Cf. Plutarch, _de\nIs. et Os._, c. xxxiv.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Rom. x. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 65: Ps. cxviii. 22. Cf. Isa. xxviii. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 66: See n. on p. 123 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Isa. xxviii. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Something is here omitted before \u1f40\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Cf. _Iliad_,\nIV, 350.]\n\n[Footnote 69: \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, a curious expression meaning evidently First\nMan. It appears nowhere but in this chapter of the _Philosophumena_.]\n\n[Footnote 70: Dan. ii. 45, \u201ccut from the mountain without hands.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 71: The Power called Adon\u00e6us or Adon-ai by the Ophites is\nalso addressed as \u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7, \u201coblivion,\u201d in the \u201cdefence\u201d made to him\nby the ascending soul. See Origen, _cont Cels._ VI, c. 30 ff. or\n_Forerunners_, II, 72.]\n\n[Footnote 72: A compound of _Iliad_, XIV, 201 and 246.]\n\n[Footnote 73: Ps. lxxxii. 6; Luke vi. 35; John x. 34; Gal. iv. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 74: John iii, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Joshua iii, 16.]\n\n[Footnote 76: So the Cabbalists call one of their word-juggling\nprocesses _gematria_, which is said to be a corruption of \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 77: \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, _i. e._, \u201cby implication,\u201d or \u201cnot in words.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 78: Play upon \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 and \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 79: Mariam was Moses\u2019 aunt, Sephora his wife, and Jothor\nSephora\u2019s father, according to some fragments of Ezekiel quoted by\nEusebius. So Cruice.]\n\n[Footnote 80: Matt. xiii. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Isa. xxviii, 10. In A. V., \u201cPrecept upon precept; line\nupon line; here a little, there a little.\u201d Iren\u00e6us (I, xix, 3, I, p.\n201, Harvey) says, Caulacau is the name in which the Saviour descended\naccording to Basilides, and the word seems to have been used in this\nsense by other Gnostic sects, See _Forerunners_, II, 94, n. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 82: \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1!]\n\n[Footnote 83: A direct quotation from the Hymn of the Great Mysteries\ngiven later, p. 141 _infra_. Also a pun between \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9 and \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 84: John 1. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 85: Sophia, the third person of the Ophite Triad and\nJaldabaoth her son.]\n\n[Footnote 86: Something omitted after \u201ccup.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 87: \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1. A Jewish measure equivalent to 1\u00bd _modius_.\nCf. Matt. xiii. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 88: The famous \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 89: A compound of John vi. 53 and Mk. x. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 90: \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2, \u201cdisciples,\u201d not apostles.]\n\n[Footnote 91: The \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 may mean either \u201cagainst\u201d or \u201caccording to\u201d\nnature.]\n\n[Footnote 92: For this Corybas and his murder by his two brothers see\nClem. Alex. _Protrept._, II. A pun here follows between Corybas and\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03ae, \u201chead.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 93: John v. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 94: \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 95: Ps. xxix. 3, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 96: Ps. xxii. 20, A. V., \u201cMy darling from the power of the\ndog.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 97: Isa. xci. 8; xliii. 1, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 98: _Ibid._, xlix. 15; slightly altered.]\n\n[Footnote 99: _Ibid._, xlix. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 100: Ps. xxiv. 7. A. V. omits \u201crulers\u201d or archons.]\n\n[Footnote 101: Ps. xxiv. 8; xxii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 102: Job xl. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 103: A pun like that on Geryon or Corybas.]\n\n[Footnote 104: Gen. xxviii. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 105: John x. 7, 9, \u201cI am the door.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 106: _i. e._ the worshippers of Cybele. For Attis\u2019 name of\nPappas, see Graillot, _Le Culte de Cyb\u00e8le_, p. 15. It seems to mean\n\u201cFather.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 107: \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b5!!!]\n\n[Footnote 108: Eph. ii. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 109: This was an Orphic doctrine. See _Forerunners_, I, 127,\nn. 1 for authorities.]\n\n[Footnote 110: Matt. xxiii. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 111: 1 Cor. xv. 52.]\n\n[Footnote 112: 2 Cor. xii. 3, 4. A. V. omits \u201csecond heaven\u201d and the\nsights seen.]\n\n[Footnote 113: \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. The \u201cnatural man\u201d of the A. V.]\n\n[Footnote 114: 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 115: John vi. 44, \u201cdraw _him_ unto me.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 116: Matt. vii. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 117: Matt. xxi. 31, \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 118: 1 Cor. x. 11. A pun on \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7, \u201ctaxes,\u201d and \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7, \u201cends.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 119: Cf. the Stoic doctrine of \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, Arnold,\n_Roman Stoicism_, p. 161.]\n\n[Footnote 120: Lit., \u201cbrought to an end.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 121: A condensation of Matt. xiii. 3-9.]\n\n[Footnote 122: Deut. xxxi. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 123: _i. e._ become united with the Godhead. The\nnewly-baptized were given milk and honey. Cf. Hatch, _Hibbert\nLectures_, above quoted, p. 300.]\n\n[Footnote 124: Matt. iii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 125: This \u201cthird gate\u201d is evidently baptism. For the reason\nsee _Forerunners_, II, p. 73, n. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 126: This seems to be a quotation from the Naassene author.]\n\n[Footnote 127: Perhaps an allusion to the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af.]\n\n[Footnote 128: Matt. vii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 129: The derivation to be tolerable should be *\u1f00\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2!]\n\n[Footnote 130: _i. e._ Proteus.]\n\n[Footnote 131: Gal. iv. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 132: Jerem. xxxi. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 133: The mistake in geography shows that Hippolytus was not a\nJew.]\n\n[Footnote 134: Jerem. xviii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 135: \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd ... \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 136: This is in effect the first real information we have as\nto the final secret of the Eleusinian Mysteries.]\n\n[Footnote 137: Hesychius also translates Brimos by \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 138: Hades or Pluto.]\n\n[Footnote 139: Schleiermacher attributes this saying to Heraclitus.]\n\n[Footnote 140: Meineke (_ap._ Cr.) attributes these lines to\nParmenides.]\n\n[Footnote 141: Cf. Justinus later, p. 175 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 142: Schneidewin and Cruice both read \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u201creceive\u201d\n(their vestures) for \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 143: Cr. translates \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _exuta virilitate_; but\nit seems to be a participle of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c9 = \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c9. The idea that the\nGnostic _pneumatics_ or spirituals would finally be united in marriage\nwith the angels or \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af was current in Gnosticism. See\n_Forerunners_, II, 110. The \u201cvirgin spirit\u201d was probably that Barbelo\nwhom Iren\u00e6us, I, 26, 1 f. (pp. 221 ff., Harvey), describes under that\nname as reverenced by the \u201cBarbeliotae or Naassenes\u201d; in any case,\nprobably, some analogue of the earth-goddess, ever bringing forth and\nyet ever a virgin.]\n\n[Footnote 144: Matt. vii. 13, 14. The A. V. has \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 for\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 145: See n. on p. 119 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 146: _i. e._ Attis.]\n\n[Footnote 147: \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9 is rather to \u201cscratch,\u201d or \u201cscarify,\u201d than as in\nthe text.]\n\n[Footnote 148: Cf. John iv. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 149: Cruice\u2019s restoration. Schneidewin\u2019s would read: \u201cThe\nSpirit is there where also the Father is named, and the Son is there\nborn from the Father.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 150: Cf. Ezekiel x. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 151: \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, not \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 152: Here we see the interpretation put by Hippolytus an the\nAristotelian \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 153: \u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9. The whole of this sentence singularly\nresembles that in the _Great Announcement_ ascribed to Simon Magus, for\nwhich see II, p. 12 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 154: This idea of the Indivisible Point, which recurs in\nseveral Gnostic writings, including those of Simon and Basilides, seems\nfounded on the mathematical axiom that the line and therefore all solid\nbodies spring from the point, which itself has \u201cneither parts nor\nmagnitude.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 155: \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3. This also is used by Simon as the equivalent of\n\u1f1c\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 156: Ps. xix. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 157: \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, Cr., _sine numine quidquam_; Macmahon,\n\u201cwithout premeditation.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 158: Performances in the theatres formed part of the\nMegalesia or Festival of the Great Mother.]\n\n[Footnote 159: I should be inclined to read \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1,\n\u201cMysteries of the Great Mother.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 160: An allusion to the variant of the Cybele legend which\nmakes her the emasculator of Attis.]\n\n[Footnote 161: So Conington, who translated the hymns into English\nverse, and Schneidewin. Hippolytus, however, evidently gave this\ninvocation to the Greeks. See p. 132 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 162: \u03b4\u2019 \u1f40\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, according to Schneidewin\u2019s restoration (for\nwhich see p. 176 Cr.), seems better sense, if we can suppose that the\nSabazian serpent was so called.]\n\n[Footnote 163: The whole hymn with the next fragment is given as\nrestored to metrical form where quoted in last note.]\n\n[Footnote 164: That is of the _Galli_, or eunuch-priests of Attis and\nCybele.]\n\n[Footnote 165: Thales only said, so far as we know, that water was the\nbeginning of all things.]\n\n[Footnote 166: The cornucopia: horn of the goat (not bull) Amalthea\nseems to have been intended. I see no likeness between this and the\npassage in Deut. xxxiii. 17, to which Macmahon refers it.]\n\n[Footnote 167: Gen. ii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 168: This and the three following quotations are from Gen.\nii. 10-14 and follow the Septuagint version.]\n\n[Footnote 169: Play upon Euphrates and \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, \u201crejoices.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 170: \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9. \u201cStamps\u201d would be more correct, but\nsingularly incongruous with water.]\n\n[Footnote 171: John iv. 10. No substantial difference from A. V.]\n\n[Footnote 172: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, but not in the theological sense.]\n\n[Footnote 173: This simile, repeated often later, has been the chief\nsupport of Salmon and St\u00e4helin\u2019s forgery theory. Yet Clement of\nAlexandria (Book VII, c. 2, _Stromateis_) also uses it, and the turning\nof swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning-hooks appears in\nMicah iv. 3, as well as in Isaiah ii. 4, without arguing a common\norigin.]\n\n[Footnote 174: John 1. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 175: Isa. xl. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 176: Play upon \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u201canointed,\u201d and \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af.]\n\n[Footnote 177: 1 Sam. x. 1; xvi. 13, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 178: The hymn which follows is so corrupt that Schneidewin\ndeclared it beyond hope of restoration. Miller shows that the original\nmetre was anap\u00e6stic, the number of feet diminishing regularly from\n6 to 4. He likens this to that of the hymns of Synesius and the\n_Tragopodagra_ of Lucian.]\n\n[Footnote 179: Reading \u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 for \u03c7\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 180: This seems to correspond with the Ophite description of\nSophia or the third Person of their Triad in Chaos. Cf. Iren\u00e6us, I, 28.]\n\n[Footnote 181: The source of this chapter on the Naassenes is so\nfar undiscoverable. Contrary to his usual practice, Hippolytus here\nmentions the name of no heretical author as he does in the following\nchapters of this Book. It is probable, therefore, that he may have\ntaken down his account of \u201cNaassene\u201d doctrines from the lips of some\nconvert, which would account for the extreme wildness of the quotations\nand to the incoherence with which he jumps about from one subject to\nanother. This would also account for the heresy here described being\nfar more Christian in tone than the other forms of Ophitism which\nfollow it in the text, and the quotations from Scripture, especially\nthe N.T., being more numerous and on the whole more apposite than\nin the succeeding chapters. The style, such as it is, is maintained\nthroughout and its continuity should perhaps forbid us to see in it a\nplurality of authors. Little prominence in it is given to the Serpent\nwhich gives its name to the sect, although it is here said that he is\ngood, and this seems to point to the Naassene being more familiar with\nthe Western than with the Eastern forms of Cybele-worship.]\n\n[Footnote 182: No mention of this sect is made by Iren\u00e6us or\nEpiphanius, and Theodoret\u2019s statements concerning it correspond so\nclosely with those of our text as to make it certain either that\nthey were drawn from it or that both he and Hippolytus drew from a\ncommon source. Yet Clement of Alexandria knew of the Peratics (see\n_Stromateis_ VII, 16), and Origen (_cont. Cels._ VI, 28) speaks of\nthe Ophites generally as boasting Euphrates as their founder. The\nname given to them in our text is said by Clement (_ubi cit._) to\nbe a place-name, and the better opinion seems to be that it means\n\u201cMede\u201d or one who lives on the further side of the Euphrates. The main\npoint of their doctrine seems to be the great prominence given in\nit to the Serpent, whom they call the Son, and make an intermediate\npower between the Father of All and Matter. In this they are perhaps\nfollowing the lead of some of the Gr\u00e6co-Oriental worships like that of\nSabazius, one of the many forms of Attis, or that of Dionysos whose\nsymbol was the serpent. The proof of their doctrines, however, they\nsought for not, like the Naassenes, in the mystic rites, but in a kind\nof astral theology which looked for religious truths in the grouping\nof the stars; and it was in pursuit of this that they identified the\nSaviour Serpent with the constellation Draco. Yet they were ostensibly\nChristians, being apparently perfectly willing to accept the historical\nChrist as their great intermediary. Their attitude to Judaism is\nmore difficult to grasp because, while they quoted freely from the\nOld Testament, they apparently considered its God as an evil, or at\nall events, an unnecessarily harsh, power, in which they anticipated\nManes and probably Marcion. Had we more of their writings we should\nprobably find in them the embodiment of a good deal of early Babylonian\ntradition, to which most of these astrological heresies paid great\nattention.]\n\n[Footnote 183: \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae.]\n\n[Footnote 184: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f13\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Cruice thinks these words should be\nadded here instead of in the description of the \u201cgreat source\u201d just\nabove. See Book X, II, p. 481 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 185: Probably \u201cGreat Father.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 186: This is entirely contradictory of Hippolytus\u2019 own\nstatement later of their doctrine that the universe consists of Father,\nSon, and Matter. \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, for which \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is substituted a\npage later, is the last epithet to be applied to a _son_. Is it a\nmistake for \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201conly begotten?\u201d For the three worlds, see\nthe Naassene author also, p. 121 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 187: The cause assigned a little later is the salvation of\nthe _three_ worlds.]\n\n[Footnote 188: \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 probably means with powers from all three\nworlds. The phrase is frequent in the _Pistis Sophia_.]\n\n[Footnote 189: \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, _concretiones_, Cr. and Macmahon. It might\nmean \u201cdecrees\u201d and is used in the Septuagint version of Daniel for\n\u201cinterpretations\u201d of dreams.]\n\n[Footnote 190: Coloss. i. 19, and ii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 191: From the starry influences?]\n\n[Footnote 192: John iii. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 193: 1. Cor. xi. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 194: But see n. 4 on last page and text three sentences\nearlier.]\n\n[Footnote 195: It was not the world, but the Zodiac that the\nastrologers divided into dodecatemories. See Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq,\n_L\u2019Astrologie Gr._, _passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 196: There must be some mistake here. The planetary world,\naccording to the astronomy of the time, only began at the Moon.]\n\n[Footnote 197: The words which follow, down to the end of this\nparagraph, with the exception of one sentence, are taken, not from the\nastrologers, but from the opponent Sextus Empiricus. They correspond\nto pp. 339 ff. of the Leipzig edition of Sextus and the restorations\nfrom this are shown by round brackets. The whole passage doubtless once\nformed the beginning of Book IV of our text, the opening words of which\nthey repeat. For the probable cause of this needless repetition see the\nIntroduction, p. 20 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 198: Sextus\u2019 comment, not Hippolytus\u2019.]\n\n[Footnote 199: The personal followers of Pythagoras were called\nPythagorics, those who later gave a general assent to his doctrines\nPythagoreans.]\n\n[Footnote 200: An echo of a tradition which seems widespread in Asia.\nIn the _Pistis Sophia_ it is said that half the signs of the Zodiac\nrebelled against the order to give up \u201cthe purity of their light\u201d and\njoined the wicked Adamas, while the other half remained faithful under\nthe rule of Jabraoth. Cf. Rev. xii. 7, and the Babylonian legend of the\nassault of the seven evil spirits on the Moon.]\n\n[Footnote 201: \u201cToparch\u201d = ruler of a place. Proastius, \u201csuburban,\u201d or\na dweller in the environs of a town. It here probably means the ruler\nof a part of the heavens near or under the influence of a planet.]\n\n[Footnote 202: The bombastic phrases which follow seem to have been\nmuch corrupted and to have been translated from some language other\nthan Greek. \u039d\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f51\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 are not, I think, met with\nelsewhere, and the genders are much confused throughout the whole\nquotation, Poseidon being made a female deity and Isis a male one.\nThe more outlandish names have some likeness to the \u201cMunichuaphor,\u201d\n\u201cChremaor,\u201d etc., of the _Pistis Sophia_. There seems some logical\nconnection between the name of the powers and those born under them,\nthe lovers being assigned to Eros, and so on.]\n\n[Footnote 203: Cruice points out that \u201ceyes\u201d are here probably written\nfor \u201cwells,\u201d the Hebrew for both being the same, and refers us to the\ntwelve wells of Elim in Exod. xv. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 204: Schneidewin here quotes from Berossos the well-known\npassage about the woman Omoroca, Thalatth, or Thalassa, who presided\nover the chaos of waters and its monstrous inhabitants. See Cory\u2019s\n_Ancient Fragments_, p. 25. The name has been generally taken to cover\nthat of Tiamat whom Bel-Merodach defeated. See Rogers, _Religion of\nBabylonia and Assyria_, p. 107.]\n\n[Footnote 205: All Titans, like Kronos himself.]\n\n[Footnote 206: Macmahon reads here Ino, but this name appears later.]\n\n[Footnote 207: There is some confusion here. The Platonists, following\nPhilolaos, attributed singular properties to the twelve-angled figure\nmade out of pentagons and declared it to have been the model after\nwhich the Zodiac was made.]\n\n[Footnote 208: \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2. It seems to be a translation of the Latin\n_nocticolor_.]\n\n[Footnote 209: So the Codex. Schneidewin and Cruice would read \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\nbut that name has already occurred.]\n\n[Footnote 210: Here again Schneidewin would read \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cstar\u201d; but\nthe next sentence makes it plain that it is the wind which is meant.]\n\n[Footnote 211: Ariel is in one of the later documents of the _Pistis\nSophia_ made one of the torturers in hell.]\n\n[Footnote 212: Probably Saclan or Asaqlan whom the Manich\u00e6ans made the\nSon of the King of Darkness and the husband of the Nebrod or Nebroe\nmentioned above.]\n\n[Footnote 213: \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. Macmahon translates it the \u201cstar\nProtocamarus,\u201d for which I can see no authority. It seems to me to be\nan inversion of \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cfirst-best,\u201d very likely to happen in\nturning a Semitic language into Greek and back again.]\n\n[Footnote 214: The dogstar, Sothis, or Sirius, was identified with\nIsis.]\n\n[Footnote 215: \u039c\u03cd\u03b3\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd. In a magic spell, Pluto, who has many analogies\nwith Attis, is saluted as \u201cHuesemigadon,\u201d perhaps \u201cHye, Cye, Mygdon.\u201d\nHas this Mygdon any analogy with _amygdalon_ the almond?]\n\n[Footnote 216: Qy. Mise, the hermaphrodite Dionysos?]\n\n[Footnote 217: \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cgreat ox\u201d? All the other names which follow\nare those of magicians or diviners.]\n\n[Footnote 218: Two of the seven \u201cangels of the presence.\u201d Their\nappearance in a list mainly of Greek heroes is inexplicable.]\n\n[Footnote 219: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9. Perhaps we should insert \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u201cthe Power\non High.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 220: See _Sibyll. Orac._, III. But the Sibyl says the exact\nopposite. Cf. Charles, _Apocrypha and Psuedepigrapha of the O.T._, II,\n377.]\n\n[Footnote 221: \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. The derivation is too much even for Theodoret,\nwho says that the name of the sect is taken from \u201cEuphrates the\nPeratic\u201d (or Mede).]\n\n[Footnote 222: So modern astrologers make him the \u201cgreater malefic.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 223: A fragment from Heraclitus according to Schleiermacher.]\n\n[Footnote 224: So the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks repeatedly of \u201cthe Pleroma\nof all Pleromas.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 225: Many magical books bore the name of Moses. See\n_Forerunners_, II, 46, and n.]\n\n[Footnote 226: Is this why one Ophite sect was called the Cainites? The\nhostility here shown to the God of the Jews is common to many other\nsects such as that of Saturninus, of Marcion and later of Manes. Cf.\n_Forerunners_, II, under these names.]\n\n[Footnote 227: Gen. x. 9. Nimrod, who is sometimes identified with the\nhero Gilgames, plays a large part in all this Eastern tradition.]\n\n[Footnote 228: John iii. 13, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 229: _Ibid._, i. 1-4.]\n\n[Footnote 230: For this identification of Eve with the Mother of Life\nor Great Goddess of Asia, see _Forerunners_, II, 300, and n.]\n\n[Footnote 231: \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd. Cruice and Macmahon both read \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, \u201cbeginning,\u201d\nbut see \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd later.]\n\n[Footnote 232: All this is, of course, quite different to the meaning\nassigned to these stars by the unnamed heretics of Book IV.]\n\n[Footnote 233: If we could be sure that Hippolytus was here summarizing\nfairly Ophite doctrines, it would appear that the Ophites rejected the\nPlatonic theory that matter was essentially evil. What is here said\npresents a curious likeness to Stoic doctrines of the universe, as of\nman\u2019s being. Hippolytus, however, never quotes a Stoic author and seems\nthroughout to ignore Stoicism save in Book I.]\n\n[Footnote 234: \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd. The word used to denote the \u201ccharacter\u201d or\npart or a person on the stage.]\n\n[Footnote 235: \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9. So throughout this passage.]\n\n[Footnote 236: Gen. xxx. 37 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 237: \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2. See n. on p. 143 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 238: Not \u201cring-straked\u201d like Jacob\u2019s sheep.]\n\n[Footnote 239: \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 240: Matt. vii. 11. Note the change of \u201cYour\u201d for \u201cOur.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 241: John viii. 44.]\n\n[Footnote 242: Here again he dwells upon the supposed evil nature of\nthe Demiurge.]\n\n[Footnote 243: Or as Macmahon translates, \u201cthe substantial from the\nUnsubstantial one.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 244: A lacuna in the text is thus filled by Cruice.]\n\n[Footnote 245: Again this simile is not necessarily by the Peratic\nauthor, but seems to be introduced by Hippolytus. For the supposed\nconduct of naphtha in the presence of fire, see Plutarch, _vit Alex._]\n\n[Footnote 246: \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. A different metaphor from the \u201ctype.\u201d\nWe shall meet with this one frequently in the work attributed to Simon\nMagus.]\n\n[Footnote 247: The text has \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. Here Schneidewin agrees\nthat the proper reading is \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, there being no reason why any\n\u201clife-giving substance\u201d should exist in the brain-pan. He thus confirms\nthe reading in n. on p. 152 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 248: This chapter on the Perat\u00e6 is evidently drawn from more\nsources than one. The author\u2019s first statement of their doctrines,\nwhich occupies pp. 146-149 _supra_, represents probably his first\nimpression of them and contains at least one glaring contradiction,\nduly noted in its place. Then comes a long extract from Sextus\nEmpiricus which is to all appearance a repetition of the earliest part\nof Book IV, only pardonable if it be allowed that the present Book\nwas delivered in lecture form. There follows a quotation longer and\nmore sustained than any other in the whole work from a Peratic book\nwhich he says was called _Proastii_, with a bombastic prelude much\nresembling the language of Simon Magus\u2019 _Great Announcement_ in Book\nVI, followed by a catalogue of starry \u201cinfluences\u201d which reads much as\nif it were taken from some astrological manual. There follows in its\nturn a dissertation on the Ophite Serpent showing how this object of\ntheir adoration, identified with the Brazen Serpent of Exodus, was made\nto prefigure or typify in the most incongruous manner many personages\nin the Old and New Testaments, including Christ Himself. After this he\nannounces an \u201cepitome\u201d of the Peratic doctrine which turns out to be\nperfectly different from anything before said, divides the universe,\nwhich he has previously said the Peratics divided into unbegotten,\nself-begotten and begotten, into a new triad of Father, Son (_i. e._\nSerpent), and Matter, and gives a fairly consistent statement of the\nPeratic scheme of salvation based on this hypothesis. One can only\nsuppose here that this last is an afterthought added when revising the\nbook and inspired by some fresh evidence of Peratic beliefs probably\ncoloured by Stoic or Marcionite doctrine. In those parts of the chapter\nwhich appear to have been taken from genuinely Peratic sources, the\nreference to some Western Asiatic tradition concerning cosmogony and\nthe protoplasts and differing considerably from the narrative of\nGenesis, is plainly apparent.]\n\n[Footnote 249: This chapter is the most difficult of the whole book\nto account for, with the doubtful exception of the much later one\non the Docet\u00e6. A sect of Sethians is mentioned by Iren\u00e6us, who does\nnot attempt to separate their doctrines from those of the Ophites.\nPseudo-Tertullian in his tractate _Against All Heresies_ also connects\nwith the Ophites a sect called Sethites or Sethoites, the main dogma he\nattributes to them being an attempt to identify Christ with the Seth\nof Genesis. Epiphanius follows this last author in this identification\nand calls them Sethians, but does not expressly connect them with\nthe Ophites, makes them an Egyptian sect, and does not attribute to\nthem serpent-worship. The sectaries of this chapter are called in the\nrubric Sithiani, altered to S\u0113thiani in the Summary of Book X, and\nthe name is not necessarily connected with that of the Patriarch. In\nthe Bruce Papyrus, a Power, good but subordinate to the Supreme God,\nis mentioned, called \u201cthe Sitheus,\u201d which may possibly, by analogy\nwith the late-Egyptian Si-Osiris and Si-Ammon, be construed \u201cSon of\nGod.\u201d Of their doctrines little can be made from Hippolytus\u2019 brief but\nconfused description. Their division of the cosmos into three parts\ndoes not seem to differ much from that of the Perat\u00e6, although they\nmake a sharper distinction than this last between the world of light\nand that of darkness, which has led Salmon (_D.C.B._ s.v., Ophites) to\nconjecture for them a Zoroastrian origin. This is unlikely, and more\nattention is due to Hippolytus\u2019 own statement that they derived their\ndoctrines from Mus\u00e6us, Linus, and Orpheus. In _Forerunners_ it is\nsought to show that the Orphic teaching was one of the foundations on\nwhich the fabric of Gnosticism was reared, and the image of the earth\nas a matrix was certainly familiar to the Greeks, who made Delphi its\n\u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 or navel. Hence the imagery of the text, offensive as it is\nto our ideas, would not have been so to them, and Epiphanius (_H\u00e6r._,\nXXXVIII, p. 510, Oehl.) knew of several writings, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f59\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, or\nthe Womb, which he says the sister sect of Cainites called the maker\nof heaven and earth. In this case, we need not take the story in the\ntext about the generation by the bad or good serpent as necessarily\nreferring to the Incarnation. One of the scenes in the Mysteries of\nAttis-Sabazius, and perhaps of those of Eleusis also, seems to have\nshown the seduction by Zeus in serpent-form of his virgin daughter\nPersephone and the birth therefrom of the Saviour Dionysos who was but\nhis father re-born. This story of the fecundation of the earth-goddess\nby a higher power in serpent shape seems to have been present in all\nthe religions of Western Asia, and was therefore extremely likely to be\ncaught hold of by an early form of Gnosticism. In no other respect does\nthis so-called \u201cSethian\u201d heresy seem to have anything in common with\nChristianity, and it may therefore represent a pre-Christian form of\nOphitism. The serpent in it is, perhaps, neither bad nor good.]\n\n[Footnote 250: \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6, \u201cit seems to them.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 251: Cruice and Macmahon both translate this \u201cinto the same\nnature with the spirit.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 252: This anxiety of the higher powers to redeem from matter\ndarkness or chaos, the scintilla of their own being which has slipped\ninto it, is the theme of all Gnosticism from the Ophites to the _Pistis\nSophia_ and the Manich\u00e6an writings. See _Forerunners_, II, _passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 253: Or \u201cthe substances brought up to the sealer.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 254: \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9. And so throughout.]\n\n[Footnote 255: Schneidewin, Cruice, and Macmahon would here and\nelsewhere read \u1f41 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2. But see the next sentence about pregnancy.]\n\n[Footnote 256: \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u201cstruck off.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 257: \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. The others were \u201cunbegotten\u201d like the\nhighest world of the Perat\u00e6 and Naassenes.]\n\n[Footnote 258: \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 259: Is this Ps. xxix. 3, 10 already quoted by the Naassene\nauthor? Cf. p. 133 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 260: This idea of a divine son superior to his father is\ncommon to the whole Orphic cosmogony and leads to the dethroning of\nUranus by Kronos, Kronos by Zeus and finally of Zeus by Dionysos. It is\nmet with again in Basilides (see Book VII _infra_).]\n\n[Footnote 261: A lacuna here which Cruice thus fills.]\n\n[Footnote 262: This has not been previously described. Is the narrative\nof the Fall alluded to?]\n\n[Footnote 263: Cruice and Macmahon would translate \u201cany other than\nman\u2019s.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 264: Phil. ii. 7. The only quotation from the N.T. other than\nthat from Matt. used by the Sethians, if it be not, as I believe it is,\nthe interpolation of Hippolytus.]\n\n[Footnote 265: \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf. Yet it may refer to baptism which preceded\ninitiation in nearly all the secret rites of the Pagan gods. Cf.\n_Forerunners_, 1, c. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 266: The whole of this paragraph reads like an interpolation,\nor rather as something which had got out of its place. The statement\nabout the physicists is directly at variance with the opening of the\nnext which attributes the Sethian teaching to the Orphics. The triads\nhe quotes are all of three \u201cgood\u201d powers and therefore would belong\nmuch more appropriately to the system of the Perat\u00e6. The quotation from\nDeut. iv. 11, he attributes to several other heresiarchs.]\n\n[Footnote 267: The codex has \u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 for \u1f41 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 which is\nSchneidewin\u2019s emendation. No book attributed to Orpheus called\n\u201cBacchica\u201d has come down to us, but the Rape of Persephone was a\nfavourite theme with Orphic poets. Cf. Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, pp. 209-219.]\n\n[Footnote 268: This is not improbable; but Hippolytus gives us no\nevidence that this is the case, as Plutarch, from whom he quotes,\ncertainly did not connect the frescoes of Phlium in the Peloponnesus\n(not Attica as he says) with the Sethians, nor does the light in their\nstory _desire_ the water.]\n\n[Footnote 269: This too is a stock quotation which has already done\nduty for the Naassene author. Cf. p. 131 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 270: So has this with the \u201cPeratic.\u201d Cf. p. 154 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 271: \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03bc\u03af\u03be\u03b9\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 272: \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u1fd6\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 273: \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7.]\n\n[Footnote 274: Matt. x. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 275: This again seems to be Hippolytus\u2019 own repetition of a\nsimile which he met with in the Naassene author and which so pleased\nhim that he made use of it in his account of the Peratic heresy as well\nas here. Cf. pp. 144 and 159 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 276: \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n[Footnote 277: Herodotus VI, 20, mentions the City of Ampe, but says\nnothing there about the well which is described in c. 119 as at\nArdericca in Cissia.]\n\n[Footnote 278: The title of the book is given in the text as \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03a3\u03ae\u03b8, which is a well-nigh impossible phrase.]\n\n[Footnote 279: On the whole it may be said that this is the most\nsuspect of all the chapters in the _Philosophumena_, and that, if ever\nHippolytus was deceived into purchasing forged documents according to\nSalmon and St\u00e4helin\u2019s theory, one of them appears here. Much of it\nis mere verbiage as when, after having identified Mind or Nous with\nthe fragrance of the spirit, he again explains that it is a ray of\nlight sent from the perfect light, or when he explains the difference\nbetween the three different kinds of law. The quotations too are\nseldom new, nearly all of them appearing in other chapters and are,\nif it were possible, more than usually inapposite, while almost the\nonly new one is inaccurate. The sentence about the Paraphrase (of)\nSeth, if that is the actual title of the book, does not suggest that\nHippolytus is quoting from that work, nor does the phrase, \u201che says,\u201d\noccur with anything like the frequency of its use in _e. g._, the\nNaassene chapter. On the whole, then, it seems probable that in this\nHippolytus was not copying or extracting from any written document,\nbut was writing down, to the best of his recollection the statements\nof some convert who professed to be able to reveal its teaching. It is\nsignificant in this respect that when the summary in Book X had to be\nmade, the summarizer makes no attempt to abbreviate the statement of\nthe supposed tenets of the Sethians, but merely copies out the part of\nthe chapter in which they are described, entirely omitting the stories\nof the frescoed porch at Phlium and the oil-well at Ampa.]\n\n[Footnote 280: Nothing is known of this Justinus, whose name is not\nmentioned by any other patristic writer, and there is no sure means of\nfixing his date. Macmahon, relying apparently on the last sentence of\nthe chapter, would make him a predecessor of Simon Magus, and therefore\ncontemporary with the Apostles\u2019 first preaching. This is extremely\nunlikely, and Salmon on the other hand (_D.C.B._, s.v., \u201cJustinus the\nGnostic\u201d) considers his heresy should be referred to \u201cthe latest stage\nof Gnosticism\u201d which, if taken literally, would make it long posterior\nto Hippolytus. The source of his doctrine is equally obscure; for\nalthough Hippolytus classes him with the Ophites, the serpent in his\nsystem is certainly not good and plays as hostile a part towards man\nas the serpent of Genesis, while his supreme Triad of the Good Being,\nan intermediate power ignorant of the existence of his superior, and\nthe Earth, differs in all essential respects from the Ophite Trinity\nof the First and Second Man and First Woman. Yet the names of the\nworld-creating angels and devils here given, bear a singular likeness\nto those which Theodore bar Kh\u00f4ni in his _Book of Scholia_ attributes\nto the Ophites and also to those mentioned by Origen as appearing on\nthe Ophite Diagram. On the other hand, there are many likenesses not\nonly of ideas but of language between the system of Justinus and that\nof Marcion, who also taught the existence of a Supreme and Benevolent\nGod and of a lower one, harsh, but just, who was the unwitting author\nof the evil which is in the world. This, indeed, leaves out of the\naccount the third or female power; but an Armenian account of Marcion\u2019s\ndoctrines attributes to him belief in a female power also, called\nHyle or Matter and the spouse of the Just God of the Law, with whom\nher relations are pretty much as described in the text. Justinus,\nhowever, was not like Marcion a believing Christian; for he makes his\nSaviour the son of Joseph and Mary and the mere mouthpiece of the\nsubaltern angel Baruch, while his account of the Crucifixion differs\nmaterially from that of Marcion. The obscene stories he tells about the\nprotoplasts also appear in much later Manich\u00e6an documents and seem to\nbe drawn from the Babylonian tradition of which the loves of the angels\nin the Book of Enoch are probably also a survival. It is therefore not\nimprobable that Justinus, the Book of Enoch, the Ophites, and perhaps\nMarcion, alike derived their tenets on these points from heathen myths\nof the marriage of Heaven and Earth, which may possibly be traced back\nto early Babylonian theories of cosmogony. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, cc. 8\nand 11, _passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 281: Hippolytus, like the Gnostic writers, seems to know of\nan oral as well as a written tradition from the Evangelists.]\n\n[Footnote 282: Matt. x. 5. In the A.V. as here, \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7, \u201cthe nations.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 283: \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 or \u201cat first teaches.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 284: \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd. The reader must again be reminded that\nwhile the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae of the Greeks was what we should call \u201cmind,\u201d the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\nis spirit, answering more to our word \u201csoul.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 285: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a play upon \u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 286: 1 Cor. ii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 287: Lit., \u201cguarded the secrets of silence.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 288: Ps. cx. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 289: \u201cThe Blessed.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 290: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, \u201cgiven it another form.\u201d As a fact,\nJustinus\u2019 quotation from Herodotus is singularly accurate, save as\nafterwards noted.]\n\n[Footnote 291: Herodotus, IV, 8-10.]\n\n[Footnote 292: An island near Cadiz. The codex has \u1f18\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2, \u201cthe Red\nSea.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 293: In Herodotus it is mares and a chariot.]\n\n[Footnote 294: \u03bc\u03b9\u03be\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. A neologism.]\n\n[Footnote 295: In Herodotus the prophecy is given by the girl.]\n\n[Footnote 296: To explain the origin of the Scythian nation.]\n\n[Footnote 297: Or perhaps, as above, \u201cthe things of the universe.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 298: Supplied from the summary in Book X. So the _Pistis\nSophia_ has a Power never otherwise described but not benevolent who is\ncalled \u201cthe great unseen Forefather,\u201d and seems to rule over material\nthings.]\n\n[Footnote 299: There is nothing to show that Hippolytus or Justinus\nknew this to be a plural.]\n\n[Footnote 300: Seven names are missing from the text. Of the five\ngiven, Michael, Amen and Gabriel are given in the chapter on the\nOphites in Theodore bar Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s _Book of Scholia_ as the first angels\ncreated by God, the name of Baruch being replaced by that of \u201cthe\ngreat Yah.\u201d \u201cEsadd\u00e6us\u201d is probably El Shaddai, who is said in the same\nbook to be the angel sent to give the Law to the Jews and to have\ntreacherously persuaded them to worship himself.]\n\n[Footnote 301: Of these twelve names, Babel is written in bar Kh\u00f4ni\nas Babylon and said to be masculo-feminine, Achamoth is the Hebrew\n\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05ea, Chochmah, Sophia, or Wisdom whom most Gnostics called the Mother\nof Life, Naas is the Serpent as is explained in the chapter on the\nNaassenes, Bel, Baal or the Chald\u00e6an Bel, for Belias we should probably\nread Beliar, the devil of works like the _Ascensio Isaiae_, Kavithan\nshould probably be Leviathan, Adonaios is the Hebrew Adonai, or the\nLord, while Sael, Karkamenos and Lathen cannot be identified. Pharaoh\nand \u201cSamiel,\u201d a homonym of Satan, appear in bar Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s list of angels\nwho rule one or other of the ten heavens, and Adonaios and Leviathan in\nthe Ophite Diagram described by Celsus. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, pp. 70\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 302: Gen. ii. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 303: So a Chinese Manich\u00e6an treatise lately discovered (see\n_Forerunners_, II, p. 352) speaks of demons inhabiting the soul as\n\u201ctrees.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 304: \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., \u201cthe Tree _of seeing_\nKnowledge,\u201d etc.]\n\n[Footnote 305: The context shows that it is the unity, etc., of Elohim\nand Edem that is referred to.]\n\n[Footnote 306: Cf. n. on p. 177 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 307: Gen. i. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 308: Macmahon, \u201cviceregal\u201d; but the \u201csatrap\u201d shows from which\ncountry the story comes.]\n\n[Footnote 309: Thus the Armenian version of Marcion\u2019s theology (for\nwhich see _Forerunners_, II, p. 217, n. 2) makes the \u201cGod of the Law\u2019s\u201d\nwithdrawal from Hyle or Matter, and his retirement to a higher heaven,\nthe cause of all man\u2019s woes.]\n\n[Footnote 310: Cf. Ps. cxvii. 19, 20; but the likeness is not exact.]\n\n[Footnote 311: Ps. cx. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 312: Lit., \u201cuntil she wishes it not.\u201d]\n\n[Footnote 313: \u201cSerpent.\u201d See n. on p. 173 _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 314: Gen. ii. 16, 17.]\n\n[Footnote 315: That these stories about the protoplasts endured into\nManich\u00e6an times, see M. Cumont\u2019s _La Cosmogonie Manich\u00e9enne_, Appendix\nI.]\n\n[Footnote 316: Here again a power is referred to by its number instead\nof its name, as with the Naassene author.]\n\n[Footnote 317: Gal. v. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 318: \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd, _malam fictionem_, Cr. Yet we\nhave been told nothing of any deceit by Edem towards her partner.]\n\n[Footnote 319: The Ophite Diagram, and bar Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s authority both\nfigure the powers hostile to man as taking the shapes of these animals.]\n\n[Footnote 320: So one of the latest documents of the _Pistis Sophia_\ncalls the planet Aphrodite by a _place_-name, which in that case is\nBubastis.]\n\n[Footnote 321: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1.]\n\n[Footnote 322: If these words are to be taken literally, Justinus\nwas the only heretic of early date who denied His divinity, and this\nwould distinguish him finally from Marcion. But the words are not\ninconsistent with the Adoptionist view.]\n\n[Footnote 323: These words are Miller\u2019s suggestion.]\n\n[Footnote 324: John xix. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 325: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. So Luke xxiii. 46.]\n\n[Footnote 326: \u1f10\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5. The derivation is absurd and the word if\nit had any meaning would be something like \u201cmade like a saw.\u201d \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9\nwould make the pun at which he seems to have been striving.]\n\n[Footnote 327: This was not the case, the statues of Priapus being\nplaced in gardens. The whole passage seems to have been interpolated by\nsome one ignorant of Greek and of Greek customs or mythology.]\n\n[Footnote 328: Isa. i. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 329: \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 or \u201cinitiated.\u201d In any case a mystical word.]\n\n[Footnote 330: Lit., \u201cwashed\u201d; but the context shows that it is baptism\nwhich is in question. It played an important part not only in all these\nheretical sects but in heathen \u201cmysteries\u201d like those of Isis and\nMithras.]\n\n[Footnote 331: Hosea i. 2. The A.V. has \u201c_departing_ from the Lord.\u201d\nHere we have Edem clearly identified with the Earth goddess which is\nthe key to the whole of Justinus\u2019 story.]\n\n[Footnote 332: \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd. Macmahon,\nfollowing Cruice, translates as above. It may well be, however, that\nthe \u201cheresies which follow\u201d only mean which follow in the book.]\n\n[Footnote 333: There is no reason to doubt Hippolytus\u2019 assertion that\nthis chapter is compiled from a book called _Baruch_ in which Justinus\nset forth his own doctrines. The narrative therein is, unlike that of\nthe earlier chapters, perfectly coherent and plain, and the author\u2019s\nuse of the historical present gives it a dramatic form which is lacking\nfrom the _oratio obliqua_ formerly employed. Solecisms like the\nomission of the article are also rare, and the very long sentences in\nwhich Hippolytus seems to have delighted do not appear except in those\npassages where he is speaking in his own person. Whether from this or\nfrom some other cause, moreover, the transcription of it seems to have\ngiven less difficulty to the scribe Michael than some of the other\nchapters, and there is therefore far less need to constantly restore\nthe text as in the case of the quotations from Sextus Empiricus. On the\nwhole, therefore, we may assume that, as we have it, it is a genuine\nsummary of Justinus\u2019 doctrines taken from a work by his own hand.]\n\n\n\n\n PUBLICATIONS\n\n OF THE\n\n S. P. C. K.\n\n BOOKS FOR\n STUDENTS\n AND\n OTHERS\n\n SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING\n CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE\n\n LONDON: _Central Offices_: 6 ST. MARTIN\u2019S PLACE, W.C. 2\n _Book Shops_: 64 NEW BOND STREET, W. 1\n 43 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C. 4\n\n BRIGHTON: 129 NORTH STREET. BATH: 39 GAY STREET\n\n _And of all Booksellers._\n\n _New York_: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n\n\n\n\n BOOKS FOR STUDENTS\n\n\n _Translations of Early Documents_\n\n A Series of texts important for the study of Christian origins. Under\n the Joint Editorship of the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D., and the\n Rev. Canon G. H. BOX, M.A.\n\n _The object of this Series is to provide short, cheap, and handy\n textbooks for students, either working by themselves or in classes.\n The aim is to furnish in translations important texts unencumbered by\n commentary or elaborate notes, which can be had in larger works._\n\n\n EXTRACTS FROM PRESS NOTICES.\n\n=The Times Literary Supplement= says: \u201cThese Jewish Apocalypses have a\ndirect relation to the thought and religious ideals which confronted\nprimitive Christianity in Palestine, and not only for their own sakes,\nbut for their influence on the New Testament and Apostolic Christianity\nthey deserve careful attention. Handbooks at once so scholarly and so\nreadable will be welcomed by all interested in Christian origins.\u201d\n\n=The Church Quarterly Review= says: \u201cTo the theological student who is\nanxious to know something of the circumstances and thought of the time\nduring which Christianity grew up, and of the Jewish environment of the\nteaching of our Lord and the Apostles, there is no class of books more\nvaluable than the later Jewish Apocrypha.\u201d\n\n=The Church Times= says: \u201cThe names of the Editors are a guarantee of\ntrustworthy and expert scholarship, and their work has been admirably\nperformed.\u201d\n\n=The Tablet= says: \u201cA valuable series ... well brought out and should\nprove useful to students.\u201d\n\n=Catholic Book Notes= says: \u201cThe S.P.C.K. is to be congratulated on its\nvarious series of cheap and useful books for students.\u201d\n\n=The Journal of the Society of Oriental Research (U.S.A.)= says: \u201cThe\nS.P.C.K. have again made the whole body of students, interested in\nthings Jewish and Early Christian, their debtors ... their splendid\nwork in this series.\u201d\n\n=The Living Church (U.S.A.)= says: \u201cTo praise this project too highly\nis an impossibility. Everyone has felt the need of such a series of\nhandy and inexpensive translations of these documents and ... we are\nassured of excellent results.\u201d\n\n\n _Translations of Early Documents_\n\n\n FIRST SERIES--Palestinian-Jewish and Cognate Texts (Pre-Rabbinic)\n\n\n1. Jewish Documents of the Time of Ezra\n\n Translated from the Aramaic by A. E. COWLEY, Litt.D., Sub-Librarian of\n the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 4_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n2. The Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus)\n\n By the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D., Vicar of St. Alban\u2019s, Bedford\n Park, W.; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n3. The Book of Enoch\n\n By the Rev. R. H. CHARLES, D.D., Canon of Westminster. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n4. The Book of Jubilees\n\n By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 4_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n5. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs\n\n By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n6. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon\n\n By the Rev. G. H. BOX, M.A., Rector of Sutton, Beds., Hon. Canon of\n St. Albans.\n\n\n7. The Ascension of Isaiah\n\n By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 10 in one volume. 4_s._\n 6_d._ net.\n\n\n8. The Apocalypse of Ezra (ii. Esdras)\n\n By the Rev. Canon BOX. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n9. The Apocalypse of Baruch\n\n By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 12 in one volume. 3_s._\n 6_d._ net.\n\n\n10. The Apocalypse of Abraham\n\n By the Rev. Canon BOX. Together with No. 7 in one volume. 4_s._ 6_d._\n net.\n\n\n11. The Testaments of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob\n\n By the Rev. Canon BOX and S. GASELEE.\n\n\n12. The Assumption of Moses\n\n By Rev. W. J. FERRAR, M.A., Vicar of Holy Trinity, East Finchley. With\n No. 9 in one volume. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n13. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo\n\n By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D., F.B.A., Hon. Litt.D., Dublin, Hon. LL.D., St.\n Andrews, Provost of King\u2019s College, Cambridge. 8_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n14. The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament\n\n By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D. 5_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n SECOND SERIES--Hellenistic-Jewish Texts\n\n\n1. The Wisdom of Solomon\n\n By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n2. The Sibylline Oracles (Books iii-v)\n\n By the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Vicar of Christ Church, Lancaster Gate,\n W.; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n3. The Letter of Aristeas\n\n By H. ST. JOHN THACKERAY, M.A., King\u2019s College, Cambridge. 3_s._ 6_d._\n net.\n\n\n4. Selections from Philo\n\n\n5. Selections from Josephus\n\n By H. ST. J. THACKERAY, M.A. 5_s._ net.\n\n\n6. The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees\n\n By the Rev. C. W. EMMET, B.D., Vicar of West Hendred, Berks. 3_s._\n 6_d._ net.\n\n\n7. The Book of Joseph and Asenath\n\n Translated from the Greek text by E. W. BROOKS. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n THIRD SERIES--Palestinian-Jewish and Cognate Texts (Rabbinic)\n\n [1]=1. The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Pirke Aboth).= Translated\n from the Hebrew by W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 5_s._ net.\n\n [1]=2. Berakhoth.= By the Rev. A. LUKYN WILLIAMS, D.D.\n\n [1]=3. Yoma.= By the Rev. Canon BOX.\n\n [1]=4. Shabbath.= By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D.\n\n [1]=5. Tractate Sanhedrin. Mishnah and Tosefta.= The Judicial\n procedure of the Jews as codified towards the end of the second\n century A.D. Translated from the Hebrew, with brief Annotations, by\n the Rev. HERBERT DANBY, M.A., Sub-Warden of St. Deiniol\u2019s Library,\n Hawarden. 6_s._ net.\n\n [The special importance of this consists in the light thrown by it on\n the trial of our Lord.]\n\n [1]=6. Kimhi\u2019s Commentary on the Psalms (Book I, Selections).= By the\n Rev. R. G. FINCH, B.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =7. Tamid=\n\n =8. Aboda Zara=\n\n =9. Middoth=\n\n =10. Sopherim=\n\n =11. Megilla=\n\n =12. Sukka=\n\n =13. Taanith=\n\n =14. Megillath Taanith=\n\n\n Jewish Literature and Christian Origins:\n\n =Vol. I. The Apocalyptic Literature.=\n\n =Vol. II. A Short Survey of the Literature of Rabbinical and Medi\u00e6val\n Judaism.=\n\n By W. O. E. OESTERLEY, M.A., D.D., and G. H. BOX, M.A., D.D. 12_s._\n 6_d._ net.\n\n\n The Uncanonical Jewish Books\n\n A Short Introduction to the Apocrypha and the Jewish Writings 200\n B.C.-A.D. 100. By WILLIAM JOHN FERRAR, M.A., Vicar of East Finchley.\n 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n A popularisation of the work of specialists upon these books, which\n have attracted so much attention.\n\n\n\n\n _Translations of Christian Literature_\n\n General Editors:\n\n W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D.; W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D.\n\nA number of translations from the Fathers have already been published\nby the S.P.C.K, under the title \u201cEarly Church Classics.\u201d It is now\nproposed to enlarge this series to include texts which are neither\n\u201cearly\u201d nor necessarily \u201cclassics.\u201d The divisions at present proposed\nare given below. Volumes belonging to the original series are marked\nwith an asterisk.\n\n =The Month= says: \u201cThe cheap and useful series.\u201d\n\n =The Church Times= says: \u201cThe splendid series.\u201d\n\n =Studies= says: \u201cFor the intelligent student of Church history who\n cannot afford to be a specialist ... such books abound in information\n and suggestion.\u201d\n\n\n SERIES I.--GREEK TEXTS.\n\n =Dionysius the Areopagite: The Divine Names and the Mystical\n Theology.= By C. E. ROLT. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =The Library of Photius.= By J. H. FREESE, M.A. In 6 Vols. Vol. I.\n 10_s._ net.\n\n =The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes.= By T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 7_s._\n 6_d._ net.\n\n [1]=The Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome.= By the Rt. Rev. J. A.\n F. GREGG, D.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.\n\n [1]=Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man that is being saved?=\n By P. M. BARNARD, B.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.\n\n [1]=St. Chrysostom: On the Priesthood.= By T. A. MOXON. 2_s._ 6_d._\n net.\n\n =The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles.= By C. BIGG, D.D. Revised by the\n Right Rev. A. J. MACLEAN, D.D.\n\n [1]=The Epistle to Diognetus.= By the Rt. Rev. L. B. RADFORD, D.D.\n 2_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =St. Dionysius of Alexandria.= By C. L. FELTOE, D.D. 4_s._ net.\n\n [1]=The Epistle of the Gallican Churches: Lugdunum and Vienna.= With\n an Appendix containing Tertullian\u2019s Address to Martyrs and the Passion\n of St. Perpetua. By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.\n\n [1]=St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Catechetical Oration.= By the Ven. J. H.\n SRAWLEY, D.D. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n [1]=St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of St. Macrina.= By W. K. LOWTHER\n CLARKE, B.D. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.\n\n =Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen the Teacher): the Address of Gregory to\n Origen, with Origen\u2019s Letter to Gregory.= By W. METCALFE, B.D. 3_s._\n 6_d._ net. _Re-issue._\n\n [1]=The Shepherd of Hermas.= By C. TAYLOR, D.D. 2 vols. 2_s._ 6_d._\n each net.\n\n =Eusebius: The Proof of the Gospel.= By W. J. FERRAR, 2 vols.\n\n =Hippolytus: Philosophumena.= By F. LEGGE. 2 vols.\n\n =The Epistles of St. Ignatius.= By the Ven. J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D. 4_s._\n net.\n\n [1]=St. Irenaeus: Against the Heresies.= By F. R. M. HITCHCOCK, D.D. 2\n vols. 2_s._ 6_d._ each net.\n\n =Palladius: The Lausiac History.= By W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D. 5_s._\n net.\n\n =Palladius: The Life of St. Chrysostom.= By H. MOORE.\n\n [1]=St. Polycarp.= By B. JACKSON. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.\n\n =St. Macarius: Fifty Spiritual Homilies.= By A. J. MASON, D.D.\n\n\n SERIES II.--LATIN TEXTS.\n\n =Tertullian\u2019s Treatises concerning Prayer, concerning Baptism.= By A.\n SOUTER, D.Litt. 3_s._ net.\n\n =Tertullian against Praxeas.= By A. SOUTER, D.Litt. 5_s._ net.\n\n =Tertullian concerning the Resurrection of the Flesh.= By A. SOUTER,\n D.Litt.\n\n =Novatian on the Trinity.= By H. MOORE. 6_s._ net.\n\n [1]=St. Augustine: The City of God.= By F. R. M. HITCHCOCK, D.D. 2_s._\n net.\n\n [1]=St. Cyprian: The Lord\u2019s Prayer.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 2_s._ net.\n\n =Minucius Felix: The Octavius.= By J. H. FREESE. 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n [1]=Tertullian: On the Testimony of the Soul and On the Prescription\n of Heretics.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n [1]=St. Vincent of Lerins: The Commonitory.= By T. H. BINDLEY, D.D.\n 2_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =St. Bernard: Concerning Grace and Free Will.= By W. WATKIN WILLIAMS.\n\n =The Life of Otto: Apostle of Pomerania, 1060-1139.= By CHARLES H.\n ROBINSON, D.D.\n\n\n SERIES III.--LITURGICAL TEXTS.\n\n EDITED BY C. L. FELTOE, D.D.\n\n =St. Ambrose: On the Mysteries and on the Sacraments.= By T. THOMPSON,\n B.D., and J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D. 4_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n [1]=The Apostolic Constitution and Cognate Documents, with special\n reference to their Liturgical elements.= By DE LACY O\u2019LEARY, D.D.\n 1_s._ 9_d._ net.\n\n [1]=The Liturgy of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitution,\n commonly called the Clementine Liturgy.= By R. H. CRESSWELL. 2_s._ net.\n\n =The Pilgrimage of Etheria.= By M. L. MCCLURE. 6_s._ net.\n\n [1]=Bishop Sarapion\u2019s Prayer-Book.= By the Rt. Rev. J. WORDSWORTH,\n D.D. 2_s._ net.\n\n =The Swedish Rite.= Vol. I., by E. E. YELVERTON.\n Vol. II., by J. H. SWINSTEAD, D.D.\n\n\n SERIES IV.--ORIENTAL TEXTS.\n\n =The Ethiopic Didascalia.= By J. M. HARDEN, B.D. 9_s._ net.\n\n =The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus (Armenian).= By J. A. ROBINSON,\n D.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n SERIES V.--LIVES OF THE CELTIC SAINTS.\n\n EDITED BY ELEANOR HULL.\n\n =St. Malachy of Armagh (St. Bernard).= By H. J. LAWLOR, D.D. 12_s._\n net.\n\n =St. Ciaran of Clonmacnois.= By R. A. S. MACALISTER.\n\n =St. Patrick: Life and Works.= By N. J. D. WHITE, D.D. 6_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n SERIES VI.--SELECT PASSAGES.\n\n =Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church.= Vol. I. To A.D.\n 313. Edited by B. J. KIDD, D.D. 7_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n SERIES VII.--MODERN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.\n\n =Lives of the Serbian Saints.= By VOYESLAV YANICH, DD., and C. P.\n HANKEY, M.A.\n\n\n _Handbooks of Christian Literature_\n\n =The Letters of St. Augustine.= By the Rev. Canon W. J. SPARROW\n SIMPSON, D.D. Cloth boards, 10_s._ net.\n\n =The Early Christian Books. A Short Introduction to Christian\n Literature to the Middle of the Second Century.= By W. JOHN FERRAR,\n M.A., Vicar of East Finchley. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scripture. A Study in the\n Literature of the First Five Centuries.= By GEORGE DUNCAN BARRY, B.D.\n Cloth boards, 4_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =The Eucharistic Office of the Book of Common Prayer.= By the Rev.\n LESLIE WRIGHT, M.A., B.D. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n _Helps for Students of History_\n\nEdited by C. JOHNSON, M.A., H. W. V. TEMPERLEY, M.A. and J. P. WHITNEY,\nD.D., D.C.L.\n\n 1. =Episcopal Registers of England and Wales.= By R. C. FOWLER, B.A.,\n F.S.A. 6_d._ net.\n\n 2. =Municipal Records.= By F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A. 6_d._ net.\n\n 3. =Medieval Reckonings of Time.= By REGINALD L. POOLE, LL.D., Litt.D.\n 6_d._ net.\n\n 4. =The Public Record Office.= By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6_d._ net.\n\n 5. =The Care of Documents.= By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6_d._ net.\n\n 6. =The Logic of History.= By C. G. CRUMP. 8_d._ net.\n\n 7. =Documents in the Public Record Office, Dublin.= By R. H. MURRAY,\n Litt.D. 8_d._ net.\n\n 8. =The French Wars of Religion.= By ARTHUR A. TILLEY, M.A. 6_d._ net.\n\n\nBy Sir A. W. WARD, Litt.D., F.B.A.\n\n 9. =The Period of Congresses--I. Introductory.= 8_d._ net.\n\n 10. =The Period of Congresses--II. Vienna and the Second Peace of\n Paris.= 1_s._ net.\n\n 11. =The Period of Congresses--III. Aix-la-Chapelle to Verona.= 1_s._\n net.\n\n Nos. 9, 10, and 11 in one volume, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n 12. =Securities of Peace: A Retrospect (1848-1914).= Paper, 2_s._ net;\n cloth, 3_s._ net.\n\n * * * * *\n\n 13. =The French Renaissance.= By A. A. TILLEY, M.A. 8_d._ net.\n\n 14. =Hints on the Study of English Economic History.= By W. CUNNINGHAM,\n D.D., F.B.A., F.S.A. 8_d._ net.\n\n 15. =Parish History and Records.= By A. HAMILTON THOMPSON, M.A., F.S.A.\n 8_d._ net.\n\n 16. =A Short Introduction to the Study of Colonial History.= By A. P.\n NEWTON, M.A., D.Litt. 6_d._ net.\n\n 17. =The Wanderings and Homes of Manuscripts.= By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D.,\n F.B.A. Paper, 2_s._; cloth, 3_s._ net.\n\n 18. =Ecclesiastical Records.= By the Rev. CLAUDE JENKINS, M.A.,\n Librarian of Lambeth Palace. 1_s._ 9_d._ net.\n\n 19. =An Introduction to the History of American Diplomacy.= By\n CARL RUSSELL FISH, Ph.D., Professor of American History, Wisconsin\n University. 1_s._ net.\n\n 20. =Hints on Translation from Latin into English.= By ALEXANDER\n SOUTER, D.Litt. 6_d._ net.\n\n 21. =Hints on the Study of Latin (A.D. 125-750).= By ALEXANDER SOUTER,\n D.Litt. 8_d._ net.\n\n 22. =Report of the Historical MSS. Commission.= By R. A. ROBERTS,\n F.R.Hist.S. 2_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n 23. =A Guide to Franciscan Studies.= By A. G. LITTLE. 1_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n 24. =A Guide to the History of Education.= By JOHN WILLIAM ADAMSON,\n Professor of Education in the University of London. 8_d._ net.\n\n 25. =Introduction to the Study of Russian History.= By W. F. REDDAWAY.\n 6_d._ net.\n\n 26. =Monuments of English Municipal Life.= By W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D.,\n F.B.A. 1_s._ net.\n\n 27. =La Guyenne Pendant la Domination Anglaise, 1152-1453.= Esquisse\n d\u2019une Bibliographie M\u00e9thodique par CHARLES B\u00c9MONT. 1_s._ 4_d._ net.\n\n 28. =The Historical Criticism of Documents.= By R. L. MARSHALL, M.A.,\n LL.D. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.\n\n 29. =The French Revolution.= By G. P. GOOCH. 8_d._ net.\n\n 30. =Seals.= By H. S. KINGSFORD. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.\n\n 31. =A Student\u2019s Guide to the Manuscripts of the British Museum.= By\n JULIUS P. GILSON, M.A. 1_s._ net.\n\n 32. =A Short Guide to some Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity\n College, Dublin.= By ROBERT H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._ 9_d._\n\n 33. =Ireland, 1494-1603.= By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._\n\n 34. =Ireland, 1603-1714.= By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._\n\n 35. =Ireland, 1714-1829.= By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. 1_s._\n\n 36. =Coins and Medals.= By G. F. HILL, M.A., F.B.A. 1_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n 37. =The Latin Orient.= By WILLIAM MILLER, M.A. 1_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n 38. =The Turkish Restoration in Greece, 1718-1797.= By WILLIAM MILLER,\n M.A. 1_s._ 3_d._ net.\n\n\n _The Story of the English Towns_\n\nPopular but Scholarly Histories of English Towns, for the general\nreader, but suitable also for use in schools. With Maps, Plans, and\nIllustrations. Cloth boards. 4_s._ net.\n\n =Birmingham.= By J. H. B. MASTERMAN.\n =Harrogate and Knaresborough.= By J. S. FLETCHER.\n =Leeds.= By J. S. FLETCHER.\n =Nottingham.= By E. L. GUILFORD, M.A.\n =Peterborough.= By K. and R. E. ROBERTS.\n =Plymouth.= By A. L. SALMON.\n =Pontefract.= By J. S. FLETCHER.\n =St. Albans.= By W. PAGE, F.S.A.\n =Sheffield.= By J. S. FLETCHER.\n =Westminster.= By H. F. WESTLAKE, M.A., F.S.A.\n\n _In the Press_--\n\n =The City of London.= By P. H. DITCHFIELD.\n =Bath= =Halifax= =Hastings=, =etc.=\n\n\n _Studies in Church History_\n\n =Some Eighteenth-Century Churchmen: Glimpses of English Church Life\n in the Eighteenth Century.= By G. LACEY MAY, M.A. With several\n Illustrations. Cloth boards. 9_s._ net.\n\n =Christian Monasticism in Egypt to the Close of the Fourth Century.=\n By W. H. MACKEAN, D.D. Cloth boards. 8_s._ net.\n\n =The Venerable Bede. His Life and Writings.= By the Right Rev. G. F.\n BROWNE, D.D. With Illustrations. Cloth boards, 10_s._ net.\n\n =The Reformation in Ireland. A Study of Ecclesiastical Legislation.=\n By HENRY HOLLOWAY, M.A., B.D. Cloth boards, 7_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =The Emperor Julian. An Essay on His Relations with the Christian\n Religion.= By EDWARD J. MARTIN, B.D. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =The Importance of Women in Anglo-Saxon Times; The Cultus of St. Peter\n and St. Paul, and other Addresses.= By the Right Rev. G. F. BROWNE,\n D.D. With two Illustrations. Cloth boards, 7_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =Essays Liturgical and Historical.= By J. WICKHAM LEGG, D.Litt.,\n F.S.A. Cloth boards, 5_s._ net.\n\n =French Catholics in the Nineteenth Century.= By the Rev. W. J.\n SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D. Cloth, 5_s._ net.\n\n =An Abbot of V\u00e9zelay.= By ROSE GRAHAM, F.R.Hist.S. With eight\n Illustrations. Cloth boards, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n\n _Texts for Students_\n\nGeneral Editors: CAROLINE A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit.; H. J. WHITE, D.D.; J. P.\nWHITNEY, D.D., D.C.L.\n\n 1. =Select Passages from Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius=,\n illustrative of Christianity in the First Century. Arranged by H. J.\n WHITE, D.D. 3_d._ net.\n\n 2. =Selections from Matthew Paris.= By C. A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit. Paper\n cover, 9_d._ net.\n\n 3. =Selections from Giraldus Cambrensis.= By C. A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit.\n Paper cover, 9_d._ net.\n\n 4. =Libri Sancti Patricii.= The Latin Writings of St. Patrick, etc.\n Edited by NEWPORT J. D. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 6_d._ net.\n\n 5. =A Translation of the Latin Writings of St. Patrick.= By NEWPORT J.\n D. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 6_d._ net.\n\n 6. =Selections from the Vulgate.= Paper cover, 9_d._ net.\n\n 7. =The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome.= 6_d._ net.\n\n 8. =Select Extracts from Chronicles and Records relating to English\n Towns in the Middle Ages.= Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and\n Glossary, by F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A., LL.D. Paper cover, 9_d._ net.\n\n 9. =The Inscription on the Stele of M\u00e9\u0161a.= Commonly called the Moabite\n Stone. The text in Moabite and Hebrew, with translation by the Rev. H.\n F. B. COMPSTON, M.A. Paper cover, 6_d._ net.\n\n 10. =The Epistles of St. Ignatius.= Edited by T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 1_s._\n net.\n\n 11. =Christian Inscriptions.= By H. P. V. NUNN, M.A. With two\n Illustrations. 1_s._ net.\n\n 12. =Selections from the \u201cHistoria Rerum Anglicarum\u201d of William of\n Newburgh.= 1_s._ 3_d._ net.\n\n 13. =The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.= By T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 4_d._\n net.\n\n 14. =The Epistle of Barnabas.= Edited by T. W. CRAFER, D.D. 6_d._ net.\n\n 15. =The Code of Hammurabi.= By PERCY HANDCOCK, M.A. 1_s._ net.\n\n 16. =Selections from the Tell El-Amarna Letters.= By PERCY HANDCOCK,\n M.A. 4_d._ net.\n\n 17. =Select Passages Illustrating Commercial and Diplomatic Relations\n between England and Russia.= By A. WEINER, M.A., F.R.Hist.S. 1_s._\n 6_d._ net.\n\n 18. =The Early History of the Slavonic Settlements in Dalmatia,\n Croatia and Serbia.= By J. B. BURY, F.B.A. 2_s._ net.\n\n 19. =Select Extracts Illustrating Florentine Life in the Thirteenth\n and Fourteenth Centuries.= By E. G. ROPER, B.A. 1_s._ net.\n\n 20. =Select Extracts Illustrating Florentine Life in the Fifteenth\n Century.= By ESTHER G. ROPER, B.A. 1_s._ net.\n\n 21. =Itinerarium Regis Ricardi.= By M. T. STEAD. 1_s._ 9_d._\n\n 22. =The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.= Edited by T.\n W. CRAFER, D.D. 6_d._ net.\n\n 23. =Select Extracts Illustrating Sports and Pastimes in the Middle\n Ages.= By E. L. GUILFORD, M.A. 1_s._ 9_d._\n\n 24. =Babylonian Flood Stories.= By P. HANDCOCK, M.A.\n\n 25. =Babylonian Penitential Psalms.= By P. HANDCOCK, M.A.\n\n =Documents Illustrating Irish History in the Sixteenth Century.= 4\n Vols. By CONSTANTIA MAXWELL.\n\n\n _Pioneers of Progress_\n\nMEN OF SCIENCE: Edited by S. CHAPMAN, M.A., D.Sc. Each with a Portrait.\nPaper cover, =1s. 3d.=; cloth, =2s.= net.\n\n\n =Galileo.= By W. W. BRYANT, F.R.A.S.\n\n =Michael Faraday.= By J. A. CROWTHER, D.Sc.\n\n =Alfred Russel Wallace. The Story of a Great Discoverer.= By LANCELOT\n T. HOGBEN, B.A., B.Sc.\n\n =Joseph Priestley.= By D. H. PEACOCK, B.A., M.Sc., F.I.C.\n\n =Joseph Dalton Hooker, O.M., G.C.S.I., C.B., F.R.S., M.D., etc.= By\n Professor F. O. BOWER, Sc.D., F.R.S.\n\n =Herschel.= By the Rev. HECTOR MACPHERSON, M.A., F.R.A.S., F.R.S.E.\n\n =Archimedes.= By Sir THOMAS L. HEATH, K.C.B., F.R.S.\n\n =The Copernicus of Antiquity (Aristarchus of Samos).= By Sir THOMAS L.\n HEATH, K.C.B., F.R.S.\n\n =John Dalton.= By L. J. NEVILLE-POLLEY, B.Sc.\n\n =Kepler.= By W. W. BRYANT.\n\n\n EMPIRE BUILDERS:\n\nEdited by A. P. NEWTON, M.A., D.Litt., B.Sc., and W. BASIL WORSFOLD,\nM.A.\n\nWith Portrait. 7\u00bc \u00d7 5. Paper cover, 1_s._ 3_d._; cloth, 2_s._ net.\n\n =Sir Francis Drake.= By WALTER J. HARTE, M.A.\n\n =Sir Robert Sandeman.= By A. L. P. TUCKER.\n\n\n WOMEN: Edited by ETHEL M. BARTON.\n\nWith Illustrations. Paper cover, 2_s._ 6_d._; cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =Florence Nightingale.= By E. F. HALL.\n\n =Dorothea Beale.= By ELIZABETH H. SHILLITO, B.A.\n\n =Elsie Inglis.= By EVA SHAW MCLAREN.\n\n [1.10.20.\n\n\n_Printed in Great Britain by R. Clay & Sons, Ltd., London and Bungay._\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n[Footnote 1: It is proposed to publish these texts first by way of\nexperiment. If the Series should so far prove successful the others\nwill follow. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are now ready.]\n\n\n Transcriber's Notes\n\nThe notes in the left and right margins, indicating page numbers in the\noriginal Greek, have been converted to e.g. [Sidenote: p.216] in this\nversion. Obvious typographical errors and variable spelling were\ncorrected. The following corrections have been made to the text:\n\n Page Original New\n -------------------------------------------\n 5 leben Leben\n 12 recemmet r\u00e9cemment\n 25 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n 33 \u1f05 \u1f03\n 45 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7\n 45 \u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n 45 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n 45 \u03ba\u03bf\u1f76\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bb\u1ff3\n 57 \u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n 62 \u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n 63 \u039b\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1 \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1\n 63 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n 66 \u03b4\u1f30 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019\n 68 Mathescos Matheseos\n 69 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1f36\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n 69 \u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\n 71 sabacta subacta\n 72 \u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n 73 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f30\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n 75 \u03bf\u03af \u03bf\u1f31\n 80 Ide\u00e9s Id\u00e9es\n 80 \u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3\n 82 guess-work guesswork\n 83 Scientarum Scientiarum\n 85 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u1fc4 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3\n 87 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03be\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n 92 Kapital Capitel\n 98 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n 98 \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n 99 after-thought afterthought\n 103 windpipe wind-pipe\n 106 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03be\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n 109 \u2019\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n 110 Manich\u00e9isine Manich\u00e9isme\n 111 positon position\n 113 \u0399\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf \u1f38\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf\n 113 \u2019\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2\n 120 St\u00e4helein St\u00e4helin\n 120 \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2\n 125 Ibia Ibid\n 125 Ge G\u00ea\n 128 theogomy theogony\n 133 \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f01\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n 143 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\n 147 begotten. begotten?\n 147 \u1f15\u03bd \u1f13\u03bd\n 152 Dogstar Dog-star\n 153 Midheaven Mid-heaven\n 163 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n 166 Musaeus Mus\u00e6us\n 170 \u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u1f70\n 180 \u1f11\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2\n 180 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n 180 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\n 180 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd","title":"Philosophumena; or, The refutation of all heresies, Volume I","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":81313}