{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_69174/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_69174","id":"gutenberg_69174","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69174","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Poetry","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Poetry -- History and criticism","Pythagoras and Pythagorean school"],"text":"_By Fabre d\u2019Olivet_\n\n\nHermeneutic Interpretation\n\nThe Golden Verses of Pythagoras\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: FABRE D\u2019OLIVET\n\nAfter a miniature by Augustin\n\n1799]\n\n\n\n\nThe Golden Verses of\n\nPythagoras\n\n\nExplained and Translated into French and\n\nPreceded by a Discourse upon the\n\nEssence and Form of Poetry\n\nAmong the Principal\n\nPeoples of the Earth\n\n\nBy\n\nFabre d\u2019Olivet\n\n\nDone into English by\n\nNay\u00e1n Louise Redfield\n\n\n\u039c\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd k\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\n\n\nG. P. Putnam\u2019s Sons\n\nNew York and London\n\nThe Knickerbocker Press\n\n1917\n\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1917\n\nBY\n\nNAY\u00c1N LOUISE REDFIELD\n\n\n\n\n_To the Travellers who have turned their Faces to the Dawn and their\nSteps toward the Eternal Hills is offered this rich Fruit of Wisdom,\nthat, through it, they may achieve the Understanding of Knowledge._\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR\u2019S FOREWORD\n\n\nIn this twentieth century, the sacred books of the ancients are\nundoubtedly better understood than they were even by their\ncontemporaries, for their authors, by the greatness of their genius,\nare as much nearer to us, as they were distant from them. At the close\nof the eighteenth century, the light which came from the illimitable\nmind of Fabre d\u2019Olivet shone with solitary splendour and was destined\nto be seen by only a few devoted followers. But history shows that a\ngreat inspirer always appears at the beginning of every great epoch,\nand however small the number of his disciples, these disciples with\ntheir pupils form the magnetic chain which, according to Plato,\ncarries his thought out into the world.\n\nFabre d\u2019Olivet, born at Ganges, Bas-Languedoc, Dec. 8, 1768, was\ndistinguished even in his own day not only for the extent of his\nlearning but for the rectitude of his judgment and the sublimity of\nhis conceptions. If one can infer from the all too scarce records\navailable since the calamitous fire which destroyed so many of his\nvalued manuscripts, he evidently suffered keenly from the fetters of\nmortality, and sought with unfailing fervour what Porphyry so aptly\ncalled the \u201cOlympia of the Soul.\u201d\n\nSaint Yves d\u2019Alveydre, writing of him in _La France vraie_, says, that\nit was in 1790, while in Germany, he received his Pythagorean\ninitiation, the profound imprint of which marked all his later\nproductions. After returning to Paris he applied himself to\nphilological and philosophical studies undisturbed by the terrible\nrevolutionary storm. In obscure seclusion he amassed, to quote S\u00e9dir,\n\u201ca disconcerting erudition.\u201d He became familiar with all the Semitic\ntongues and dialects, the Aryan languages, and even penetrated the\nsecrets of the Chinese hieroglyphics.\n\nIt was during these ten years of retirement that he wrote his\n_Examinations of the Golden Verses_ which were not published until\n1813, with its dedication to the Section of Literature of the Imperial\nInstitute of France. It is known that the _Golden Verses of\nPythagoras_ were originally transcribed by Lysis and that it is to\nHierocles we owe the version which has come down to us. Fabre d\u2019Olivet\nhas translated them into French verse, the style of which he calls\n_eumolpique_, that is, subject to measure and harmonious cadence but\nfree from rhyme, with alternate masculine and feminine terminations.\nIn the _Essence and Form of Poetry_ which precedes the Golden Verses,\nhe illustrates this melodious style, in applying it to the opening\nlines of some of the well-known classics, and to others not so\nwell-known.\n\nThese Golden Verses, so remarkable for their moral elevation, present\nthe most beautiful monument of antiquity raised in honour of Wisdom.\nThey formed the _credo_ of the adepts and initiates. In his recondite\nExaminations, Fabre d\u2019Olivet has drawn the metaphysical correlation of\nProvidence, Destiny, and the Will of Man, in which combined action\nDestiny reigns over the past, the Will of Man over the future, and\nProvidence over the present, which, always existing, may be called\nEternal. One will find this given at greater length in his\n_Hermeneutic Interpretation of the Origin of the Social State of Man\nand the Destiny of the Adamic Race_: admirable work of this little\nknown theosophist, \u201cto give him the name he loved best to hold,\u201d says\nPierre Leroux in _De l\u2019Humanit\u00e9_.\n\nThe inequality of human conditions, upon which depend the social and\npolitical questions, forms one of the vital subjects of these esoteric\nteachings. He has also endeavoured to explain the true opinion of\nPythagoras concerning metempsychosis which was his sacred dogma, and\nsaid that the dogma of transmigration of souls, received by all\npeoples and revealed in the ancient mysteries, has been absolutely\ndisfigured in what the moderns have called metempsychosis.\n\nHis strange death, which occurred March 25, 1825, is mentioned by des\nEssarts in _Les Hi\u00e9rophantes_, and other authorities including Pierre\nLeroux, have asserted that he died at the foot of his altar.\n\n                                          NAY\u00c1N LOUISE REDFIELD.\n\nHARTFORD, CONN., October, 1916.\n\n\n\n\nThe Golden Verses of Pythagoras\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE UPON THE ESSENCE AND FORM OF POETRY\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE UPON THE ESSENCE AND FORM OF POETRY[1]\n\n\n_Messieurs_:\n\nBefore publishing the translation of the _Golden Verses of\nPythagoras_, such as I have made it, in French verse which I have\ndesignated by the expression _eumolpique_,[2] I would have liked to be\nable to submit it to you and thus be enlightened by your counsels or\nsustained by your approbation; but academic laws and usages, whose\njustice I have felt, have prevented my enjoying this advantage. The\ninnovation, however, which I have endeavoured to make in French poetry\nand the new explanation which I have tried to give of one of the most\ncelebrated pieces of Greek poetry, have seemed to me to hold too\nclosely to your labours and to enter too deeply into your literary\nprovinces, for me to believe myself able to dispense with calling your\nattention to them. I crave your indulgence, if in the demonstration of\na just deference to your judgment I involuntarily neglect certain\nformalities; and I beg you to judge the purity of my intentions.\n\nI claim not to be a poet; I had even long ago renounced the art of\nverse, but notwithstanding that, I am now presenting myself in the\npoetic career to solicit the hazardous success of an innovation! Is it\nthe love of glory which inspires in me this temerity, which dazzles me\ntoday as my autumn advances, whereas it was unable to move me when the\neffervescence of my springtime ought to have doubled its strength? No:\nhowever flattering the wreaths that you award to talent, they would\nnot concern me; and if an interest, as new as powerful, had not\ninduced me to address you, I would keep silent. This interest,\n_Messieurs_, is that which science itself inspires in me, and the\ndesire, perhaps inconsiderate but commendable, of co-operating with my\nlimited ability for the development of a language whose literary and\nmoral influence, emerging from the bourns of Europe and the present\ncentury, ought to invade the world and become universal like the\nrenown of the hero who extends his conquests with those of the empire\nwhose foundations he has laid.\n\nI feel, _Messieurs_, that I should explain my thought. My assertion,\nwell founded as it may be, appears none the less extraordinary, and I\nam bound to admit this. The disfavour which is attached to all new\nideas, to all innovations, the just defiance that they inspire, the\nelement of ridicule that springs from their downfall, would have\narrested my audacity, if I had had audacity alone, and if the worthy\nambition of effecting a general good had not raised me above a\nparticular evil which might have resulted for me. Besides I have\ncounted upon the judicious good-will of the two illustrious Academies\nto which I am addressing myself: I have thought that they would\ndistinguish in the verse which I am presenting for their examination,\nboth as a means of execution in French poetry and as a means of\ntranslation in ancient and foreign poetry, the real utility that they\ncan offer, of the fortuitous beauty which they lack, and which a more\ncapable hand would have been able to give them; I flatter myself, at\nlength, that they would grant to the end, without prejudice, the\nattention which is necessary, and that if they refused an entire\napprobation to my efforts, they would at least render justice to my\nzeal and commend the motives which have made me attempt them.\n\n\n\u00a7 I\n\nWhen, after the revival of letters in Europe, Chancellor Bacon,\nlegislator of thought, sketched with bold strokes the tree of human\nknowledge, and brought back each branch of science to that of the\nmoral faculties upon which it depends, he did not fail to observe\nsagaciously that it was necessary to distinguish in poetry two things,\nits essence and its form[3]: its essence as pertaining wholly to the\nimagination, and composing by itself alone one of the principal\nbranches of science[4]; its form, as making part of the grammar, and\nentering thus into the domain of philosophy and into the rational\nfaculty of the understanding.[5] This celebrated man had borrowed this\nidea from a man much older and more celebrated than himself, Plato.\nAccording to this admirable philosopher, poetry is either a simple\ntalent, an art which one uses to give to his own ideas a particular\nform, or it is a divine inspiration by means of which one clothes in\nthe human language and transmits to men the ideas of the gods.[6] It\nis because, never having felt sufficiently this important distinction\nand having confused two ideas that ought to be separated, the essence\nand the form of poetry, which are as the soul and body of this\nscience, that so many men among the modern nations proclaimed\nthemselves poets, whereas they were, in strict truth, only clever\nversifiers. For it does not suffice, as Plato again said, to have\npoetic talent, it does not suffice to make verse and even good verse,\nto be called a poet[7]; it is necessary to possess that divine\nenthusiasm, that inspiration which elevates the soul, enlightens it,\ntransports it, as it were, to intellectual regions and causes it to\ndraw from its source the very essence of this science.\n\nHow they delude themselves, those who, habitually deceived, foolishly\nimagine that the lofty fame of Orpheus, Homer, Pindar, \u00c6schylus, or\nSophocles and the immortality which they enjoy, belongs only to the\nplan of their works, to the harmony of their verse, and to the happy\nuse of their talent! These flattering appearances which constitute the\nform of their poetry would have disappeared long ago, they would have\nbecome broken, like fragile vases, upon the torrent of centuries, if\nthe intelligence which animated them had not eternalized their\nduration. But this secret intelligence does not reside, as certain\nother superficial readers persuade themselves, being still deceived,\nin the simple interest that the characters _mise en sc\u00e8ne_ inspire;\nthis interest, which results from their contrast and from the shock of\nthe passions, is another sort of form, more hidden, and less frail,\nthan the former, it is true, but as variable generally and subject to\nthe great revolution of customs, laws, and usages. True poetry does\nnot depend upon that; it depends upon the primordial ideas which the\ngenius of the poet in his exaltation has seized in the intellectual\nnature, and which his talent has shown afterwards in the elementary\nnature, thus adapting the simulacra of physical things to the movement\ninspired by the soul, instead of adapting this movement to those same\nsimulacra, as those who write history. This is what Bacon, the modern\nphilosopher whom I have already cited, has felt so perfectly.[8] He\nsays:\n\n     As the sentient world is inferior to the human soul, it is\n     for poetry to give to this nature what reality has refused\n     it, lending to it the faculties of the intellectual world;\n     and as the acts and events which make the subject of true\n     history have not that grandeur and that sublimity for which\n     the human soul seeks, it is necessary that poetry create\n     acts and events greater and more heroic. All must be\n     increased and embellished by its voice and receive from it a\n     new existence; it is necessary even that virtue shine with\n     an _\u00e9clat_ more pure; that the veil which covers truth be\n     lifted from its eyes and that the course of Providence,\n     better discerned, be allowed to penetrate into the most\n     secret causes of events.\n\nThe philosopher who expressed thus his thought regarding the essence\nof poetry, was far from believing, as the vulgar have always believed,\nand as certain modern writers have wished to convince the savants,[9]\nthat, of the two parts of poetry, the positive form might be the only\ngenuine; that is to say, that they do not by any means consider that\nthe human characters put upon the stage by the poets whom I have just\nnamed, were historic characters. Bacon understood well that Achilles,\nAgamemnon, Ulysses, Castor and Pollux, Helen, Iphigenia, \u0152dipus,\nPh\u00e6dra, etc., are somewhat more than they appear to be, and that their\nvirtues or their vices, their heroic actions, even their crimes,\ncelebrated by poetry, contain a profound meaning wherein lie buried\nthe mysteries of religion and the secrets of philosophy.[10]\n\nIt belongs only to the men to whom poetry is known by its exterior\nforms alone and who have never penetrated as far as its essence, to\nimagine that a small city of Asia, unknown to all Asia, around which\nthe King of kings of Greece waited in vain for ten years to avenge the\nhonour of his brother betrayed by his wife, should be able during\nthree thousand years to occupy the greatest minds of Europe, on\naccount of a quarrel which was raised in the tenth year of the siege,\nbetween this King of kings and a petty prince of his army, angry and\nsulky, named Achilles. It is only permitted to the phlegmatic\nchronologists, whom the muses have never visited in their studies, to\nseek seriously to fix the year and the day when this quarrel took\nplace. A man, strongly imbued with the spirit of Homer or of\nSophocles, would never see in Ulysses a real man, a king who,\nreturning to his isle after long wanderings, kills in cold blood a\ncrowd of lovers of his wife and rests confident of the conjugal\nfidelity of that spouse abandoned for twenty years, and whom he had\nwon in the course,[11] although, according to the most common reports,\nshe was delivered of a son in his absence[12]; nor in \u0152dipus, another\nking, who, without knowing it, without wishing it, always innocent,\nkills his father, espouses his mother and, driven to parricide and\nincest by an irresistible destiny, tears out his eyes and condemns\nhimself to wander over the earth, to be a frightful example of\ncelestial wrath. The platitudes and ridicule of the deed related by\nHomer, and the horror which resulted from that presented on the stage\nby Sophocles, are sufficient evidence against their reality. If the\npoem of the one and the tragedy of the other do not conceal, under the\ncoarse exterior which covers them, a secret fire which acts unknown to\nthe reader, never would a sane man tolerate a presentation, on the one\nside, of vice changed into virtue, and on the other, virtue changed\ninto vice, and the gods operating this strange metamorphosis against\nall the laws of natural justice. He would throw aside the book with\ndisgust, or, agreeing with the judicious reflection of an ancient\nGreek writer, exclaim with him[13]:\n\n     If Homer had merely thought with respect to the gods what he\n     said, he would have been an impious, sacrilegious man, a\n     veritable Salmoneus, a second Tantalus; but let us guard\n     against doing him this wrong, or taking for guides those\n     who, misunderstanding the allegorical genius of this great\n     poet, and hesitating before the outer court of his\n     mysterious poetry, have never succeeded in understanding the\n     sublime philosophy which is enclosed therein.\n\n\nYou are not, _Messieurs_, of those designated by Heraclides in the\nwords I have just quoted. Members of these celebrated Academies where\nHomer and Sophocles have found so many admirers, defenders, and\nillustrious disciples, you can easily admit that I see in these great\nmen more than ordinary poets, that I place their glory elsewhere than\nin their talent, and that I say, particularly of Homer, that his most\njust claims to immortality are less in the form than in the essence of\nhis poetry, because a form, however admirable it may be, passes and\nyields to time which destroys it, whereas the essence or the spirit\nwhich animates it, immutable as the Divinity from which it emanates by\ninspiration, resists all vicissitudes and seems to increase in vigour\nand _\u00e9clat_, in proportion as the centuries passing away reveal its\nforce and serve as evidence of its celestial origin. I flatter myself\nthat my sentiments in this regard are not foreign to yours and that\nthe successors of Corneille, Racine, and Boileau hear with pleasure\nthese eulogies given to the creator of epop\u0153ia, to the founders of\ndramatic art, and agree with me in regarding them as particular organs\nof the Divinity, the instruments chosen for the instruction and\ncivilization of men.\n\nIf you deign, _Messieurs_, to follow the development of my ideas with\nas much attention as indulgence, you already know that what I call the\nessence or spirit of poetry, and which, following upon the steps of\nthe founder of the Academy and of the regenerator of the sciences of\nEurope, I distinguish from its form, is no other thing than the\nallegorical genius, immediate production of the inspiration; you also\nunderstand that I mean by inspiration, the infusion of this same\ngenius into the soul which, having power only in the intellectual\nnature, is manifested in action by passing into the elementary nature\nby means of the inner labour of the poet who invests it with a\nsentient form according to his talent; you perceive finally, how,\nfollowing this simple theory, I explain the words of Plato, and how I\nconceive that the inspired poet transmits to men the ideas of the\ngods. I have no need I think of telling you that I make an enormous\ndifference between this divine inspiration which exalts the soul and\nfills it with a real enthusiasm, and that sort of inner movement or\ndisorder which the vulgar also call inspiration, which in its greatest\nperfection is only passion excited by the love of glory, united with a\nhabit of verse making, which constitutes the talent, and in its\nimperfection is only a disordered passion called by Boileau, an ardour\nfor rhyming. These two kinds of inspiration in no wise resemble each\nother; their effects are as different as their causes, their\nproductions as different as their sources. The one, issuing from the\nintellectual nature, has its immutability: it is the same in all time,\namong all peoples, and in the heart of all men who receive it; it\nalone produces genius: its first manifestation is very rare, but its\nsecond manifestation is less so, as I will show later on. The other\ninspiration, inherent in sentient nature, born of passion, varies with\nthe whim of men and things, and takes on the hue of the customs and\nthe times; it can bring forth talent or at least modify it, and when\nit is seconded by a great facility, can go to the extent of feigning\ngenius but never farther: its real domain is the mind. Its possession\nis not very rare even in its perfection. One can sometimes find it\nunited with the true inspiration, first as in Homer, or second as in\nVergil; and then the form which it unceasingly works over, joining its\nsentient beauties to the intellectual beauties of genius, creates the\nmonuments of science.\n\nIt may be that the development which I have just given of my ideas on\nthe essence of poetry will appear new, although I must acknowledge\nthat in reality they are not. I am addressing men who are too\nenlightened to ignore what the ancients have said in this respect.\nHeraclides, whom I have already cited, is not the only one who has\ngiven this impression. Strabo assures positively that ancient poetry\nwas only the language of allegory,[14] and he refutes Eratosthenes who\npretended that the aim of Homer was only to amuse and please. In this\nhe is in accord with Denys of Halicarnassus who avows that the\nmysteries of nature and the most sublime conceptions of morals have\nbeen covered with the veil of allegory.[15] Phurnutus goes farther: he\ndeclares that the allegories used by Hesiod and by Homer do not differ\nfrom those which other foreign poets have used before them.[16]\nDamascius said as much of the poems of Orpheus,[17] and Plutarch\nconfirms it in a passage which has been preserved to us by\nEusebius.[18]\n\nIn the first ages of Greece, poetry, consecrated to the service of the\naltars, left the enclosures of the temples only for the instruction of\nthe people: it was as a sacred language in which the priests,\nentrusted with presiding at the mysteries of religion, interpreted the\nwill of the gods. The oracles, dogmas, moral precepts, religious and\ncivil laws, teachings of all sorts concerning the labours of the body,\nthe operations of the mind, in fact all that which was regarded as an\nemanation, an order, or a favour from the Divinity, all was written in\nverse. To this sacred language was given the name _Poetry_, that is to\nsay, the Language of the Gods: a symbolic name which accords with it\nperfectly, since it expressed at the same time its origin and its\nusage.[19] It was said to have come from Thrace,[20] and the one who\nhad invented it and caused its first accents to be heard was called\nOlen.[21] Now these are again two symbolic names perfectly adapted to\nthe idea that one had of this divine science: it was descended from\n_Thrace_, that is to say, from the Ethereal Space; it was _Olen_ who\nhad invented it, that is to say, the Universal Being.[22] To\nunderstand these three etymologies which can be regarded as the\nfundamental points of the history of poetry, it is necessary to\nremember, first, that the Ph\u0153nicians, at the epoch when they covered\nnot only Greece but the coasts of the rest of Europe with their\ncolonies, brought there their language, and gave their names to the\ncountries of which they had taken possession; secondly, that these\nnames drawn almost always from objects symbolic of their cult,\nconstituted for these countries a sort of sacred geography, which\nGreece above all others, was faithful in preserving.[23] It was thus\n(for there is nothing under the sun which cannot find either its model\nor its copy) when the Europeans took possession of America and\ncolonized it, and carried to those regions their diverse dialects and\ncovered it with names drawn from the mysteries of Christianity. One\nought therefore, when one wishes to understand the ancient names of\nthe countries of Greece, those of their heroic personages, those of\nthe mysterious subjects of their cult, to have recourse to the\nPh\u0153nician dialect which although lost to us can easily be restored\nwith the aid of Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic.\n\nI do not intend, _Messieurs_, to fatigue you with proofs of these\netymologies which are not in reality the subject of my discourse. I am\ncontent to place them on the margin for the satisfaction of the\ncurious. Thus I shall make use of them later, when occasion demands.\nBut to return to Thrace, this country was always considered by the\nGreeks as the place peculiar to their gods and the centre of their\ncult; the divine country, _par excellence_. All the names that it has\nborne in different dialects and which in the course of time have\nbecome concentrated in particular regions, have been synonyms of\ntheirs. Thus, Get\u00e6, M\u0153sia, Dacia, all signify the country of the\ngods.[24] Strabo, in speaking of the Get\u00e6, said that these peoples\nrecognized a sovereign pontiff to whom they gave the title of God, the\ndignity of which existed still in his time.[25] This sovereign pontiff\nresided upon a mountain that d\u2019Anville believes he has recognized,\nbetween Moldavia and Transylvania. The Thracians had also a sovereign\npontiff instituted in the same manner as that of the Get\u00e6, and\nresiding likewise upon a sacred mountain.[26] It was, no doubt, from\nthe heights of these mountains that the divine oracles, the laws and\nteachings which the great pontiffs had composed in verse, were at\nfirst spread throughout Greece; so that it might be said, literally as\nwell as figuratively, that poetry, revered as the language of the\ngods, production of an Eternal Being, descended from the ethereal\nabode and was propagated upon earth for the instruction and delight of\nmortals. It appears to me very certain that the temple of Delphi,\nerected upon the famous mountain of Parnassus, differed not\nessentially at first from those of Thrace; and what confirms me in\nthis idea is that, according to an ancient tradition, it was Olen who,\ncoming out from Lycia, that is to say from the light, caused all\nGreece to recognize the cult of Apollo and Diana; composed the hymns\nwhich were chanted at Delos in honour of these two divinities and\nestablished the temple of Delphi of which he was the first\npontiff.[27] Thus the temple of Delphi rivalled those of Thrace. Its\nfoundation, doubtless due to some innovator priest, was attributed by\na poetic metaphor to the divinity which had inspired it. At that time\na schism arose and two cults were formed, that of the Thracians\nconsecrated to Bacchus and Ceres, or Dionysus the divine spirit, and\nDemeter the earth-mother[28]; and that of the Greeks, properly\nspeaking, consecrated to the sun and the moon, adored under the names\nof Apollo and Diana. It is to this schism that one should ascribe the\nfamous dispute which was raised, it is said, between Bacchus and\nApollo concerning the possession of the tripod of Delphi.[29] The\npoetic fable woven from this subject was made to preserve the\nremembrance of the moral incident and not of the physical event; for\nat this remote epoch, when verse only was written, history, ever\nallegorical, treated only of moral and providential matters,\ndisdaining all physical details deemed little worthy of occupying the\nmemory of men.\n\nHowever that may be, it appears certain, notwithstanding this schism,\nthat the cult of the Thracians dominated Greece for a long time. The\nnew source of poetry opened at Delphi and on Mount Parnassus, destined\nin time to become so celebrated, remained at first somewhat unknown.\nIt is worthy of observation that Hesiod, born in the village of Ascra,\na short distance from Delphi, makes no mention either of the oracle or\nof the temple of Apollo. All that he said of this city, which he named\nPytho, has reference to the stone which Saturn had swallowed,\nbelieving to devour his son.[30] Homer does not mention this Pytho in\nthe _Iliad_; he mentions in the _Odyssey_ an oracle delivered by\nApollo upon Parnassus. For a long time, the peoples of Greece,\naccustomed to receive from the ancient mountains of Thrace both their\noracles and their instructions, turned toward that country and\nneglected the new sacred mount. This is why the most ancient\ntraditions place in Thrace, with the supremacy of cult and\nsacerdotalism, the cradle of the most famous poets and that of the\nMuses who had inspired them: Orpheus, Mus\u00e6us, Thamyris, and Eumolpus\nwere Thracians. Pieria, where the Muses were born, was a mountain of\nThrace; and when, at length, it was a question of rendering to the\ngods a severe and orthodox cult, it was said that it was necessary\nto imitate the Thracians, or, as one would say in French,\n_thraciser_.[31]\n\nBesides it must be observed, that at the epoch when the temple of\nDelphi was founded, the new cult, presented to the Greeks under the\nname of the universal Olen, tended to unite Apollo and Diana, or the\nsun and the moon, under the same symbolic figure, and to make of it\nonly one and the same object of adoration, under the name of\n_\u0152tolinos_, that is to say, _Sun-moon_.[32] It was proclaimed that the\nmiddle of the earth, its paternal and maternal umbilicus, was found\nplaced exactly on the spot where the new sacred city was built, which\nwas called for this mystical reason Delphi.[33] But it seems that the\nuniversality of this \u0152tolinos was never well understood by the Greeks,\nwho, in their minds, united only with difficulty that which custom and\ntheir senses had taught them to separate. Moreover one can well\nconjecture that, as in all religious schisms, a host of difficulties\nand contradictory opinions were raised. If I can believe the\nsacerdotal traditions of India, that I encounter, the greatest\ndifficulty was, not knowing which sex dominated in this mysterious\nbeing whose essence was composed of the sun and moon and whose\nhermaphroditic umbilicus was possessed in Delphi. This insoluble\nquestion had more than once divided mankind and stained the earth with\nblood. But here is not the place to touch upon one of the most\nimportant and most singular facts of the history of man. I have\nalready deviated too much from my subject, and I return to it asking\npardon of my judges for this necessary digression.\n\n\n\u00a7 II\n\nPoetry, transported with the seat of religion from the mountains of\nThrace to those of Phocis, lost there, as did religion, its primitive\nunity. Not only did each sovereign pontiff use it to spread his\ndogmas, but the opposed sects born of the rending of the cult, vying\nwith each other, took possession of it. These sects, quite numerous,\npersonified by the allegorical genius which presided over poetry, and\nwhich, as I have said, constituted its essence, were confused with the\nmind which animated them and were considered as a particular being.\nThence, so many of the demi-gods, and the celebrated heroes, from whom\nthe Greek tribes pretended to have descended; thence, so many of the\nfamous poets to whom were attributed a mass of works that emanated\nfrom the same sanctuary, or were composed for the support of the same\ndoctrine. For it is well to remember that the allegorical history of\nthese remote times, written in a different spirit from the positive\nhistory which has succeeded it, resembled it in no way, and that it is\nin having confused them that so many grave errors have arisen. It is a\nvery important observation that I again make here. This history,\nconfided to the memory of men or preserved among the sacerdotal\narchives of the temples in detached fragments of poetry, considered\nthings only from the moral side, was never occupied with individuals,\nbut saw only the masses; that is to say, peoples, corporations, sects,\ndoctrines, even arts and sciences, as so many particular beings that\nit designated by a generic name. It is not that these masses were\nunable to have a chief to direct their movements, but this chief,\nregarded as the instrument of a certain mind, was neglected by history\nwhich attached itself to the mind only. One chief succeeded another\nwithout allegorical history making the least mention of it. The\nadventures of all were accumulated upon the head of one alone. It was\nthe moral thing whose course was examined, whose birth, progress, or\ndownfall was described. The succession of things replaced that of\nindividuals. Positive history, which ours has become, follows a method\nentirely different. The individuals are everything for it: it notes\nwith scrupulous exactitude dates and facts which the other scorns. I\ndo not pronounce upon their common merit. The moderns would mock that\nallegorical manner of the ancients, if they could believe it possible,\nas I am persuaded the ancients would have mocked the method of the\nmoderns, had they been able to foresee its possibility in the future.\nHow approve of what is unknown? Man approves of only what he likes; he\nalways believes he knows all that he ought to like.\n\nI can say, after having repeated this observation, that the poet\nLinus, who is regarded as the author of all the melancholy chants of\nthe ancient world, represents nothing less than lunar poetry detached\nfrom the doctrine of \u0152tolinos, of which I have spoken, and considered\nas schismatic by the Thracians; I can also say, that the poet Amphion,\nwhose chants were, on the contrary, so powerful and so virile,\ntypifies the orthodox solar poetry, opposed by these same Thracians;\nwhereas the prophet Thamyris, who, it is said, celebrated in such\nstately verse the creation of the world and the war of the Titans,[34]\nrepresents quite plainly the universal doctrine of Olen,\nre-established by his followers. The name of Amphion signifies the\northodox or national voice of Greece; that of Thamyris, the twin\nlights of the gods.[35] One feels, accordingly, that the evils which\ncame to Linus and to Thamyris, one of whom was killed by Hercules,[36]\nand the other deprived of sight by the Muses,[37] are, in reality,\nonly some sort of criticism or unfortunate incident sustained by the\ndoctrines which they represented, on account of the opposition of the\nThracians. What I have said concerning Linus, Amphion, and Thamyris,\ncan be applied to the greater part of the poets who preceded Homer,\nand Fabricius names seventy of these[38]; one could also extend it to\nOrpheus, but only on a certain side; for although it may be very true,\nthat no positive detail is possessed regarding the character of the\ncelebrated man, founder or propagator of the doctrine which has borne\nthis name; although it may be very true, that all that concerns his\nbirth, his life, and his death is completely unknown, it is none the\nless certain that this man has existed, that he has been actually the\nhead of a very extended sect, and that the allegorical fables which\nremain to us on this subject depict, more particularly than they have\ndone with any other, the course of his thoughts and the success of his\ninstitutions.\n\nOrpheus belongs, on the one side, to anterior times, and on the other,\nto times merely ancient. The epoch when he appeared is the line of\ndemarcation between pure allegory and mixed allegory, the intelligible\nand the sentient. He taught how to ally the rational faculty with the\nimaginative faculty. The science which was a long time after called\n_philosophy_, originated with him. He laid its first basis.\n\nOne should guard against believing, following in the footsteps of\ncertain historians deceived by the meaning of allegorical fables, that\nwhen Orpheus appeared, Greece, still barbarous, offered only the\ntraces of a civilization hardly outlined, or that the ferocious\nanimals, tamed by the charm of his poetry, should represent, in\neffect, the inhabitants of this beautiful country. Men capable of\nreceiving a cult so brilliant as that of Orpheus, a doctrine so pure,\nand mysteries so profound; men who possessed a language so formed, so\nnoble, so harmonious as that which served that inspired man to compose\nhis hymns, were far from being ignorant and savage to this degree. It\nis not true, as has been said and repeated without examination, that\npoetry had its birth in the forests, in regions rough and wild, nor\nabove all, that it may be the concomitant of the infancy of the\nnations and the first stammerings of the human mind. Poetry, on the\ncontrary, having attained its perfection, indicates always a long\nexistence among the peoples, a civilization very advanced and all the\nsplendour of a virile age. The sanctuary of the temple is its true\ncradle. Glance over the savage world and see if the Iroquois or the\nSamoyeds have a poetry. Have the peoples who were found in their\ninfancy in the isles of the Pacific shown you hymns like those of\nOrpheus, epic monuments like the poems of Homer? Is it not known that\nthe Tartars who have subjugated Asia, those proud Manchus who today\nreign over China, have never been able to derive from their language,\nrebellious to all kinds of melody and rhythm, a single verse,[39]\nalthough since their conquests they have felt and appreciated the\ncharms of this art?[40]\n\nBears and lions, tamed and brought nearer together by Orphic poetry,\nhave no reference to men, but to things: they are the symbols of rival\nsects which, imbibing their hatred at the very foot of the altars,\ndiffused it over all that surrounded them and filled Greece with\ntroubles.\n\nFor a long time this country was a prey to the double scourge of\nreligious and political anarchy. In detaching herself from the cult of\nthe metropolis, she also detached herself from its government. Once a\ncolony of the Ph\u0153nicians, she had thrown off their yoke, not however\nspontaneously and _en masse_, but gradually, over and over again; so\nthat there were twenty rival temples, twenty rival cities, twenty\npetty peoples divided by rite, by civil interest, and by the ambition\nof the priests and princes who governed them. The Thracians, remaining\nfaithful to the ancient laws, were styled superstitious or enslaved,\nwhereas the innovators and the insurgents were considered, by the\nThracians and often by themselves, schismatics and rebels. Ph\u0153nicia\nhad vainly wished to oppose this general desertion. Asia came to\nexperience the most terrible shocks. India, which had long held the\nsceptre there, was buried for fifteen hundred years in her\n_Kali-youg_, or her age of darkness, and offered only the shadow of\nher ancient splendour.[41] For fifteen centuries she had lost her\nunity by the extinction of her imperial dynasties. Many rival kingdoms\nwere formed,[42] whose constant quarrels had left them neither the\nleisure nor the possibility of watching over and supporting their\ncolonies from afar. The gradual lowering of the Mediterranean, and the\nalluvial deposit of the shores of Egypt raising the Isthmus of\nSuez,[43] had cut off all communication between this sea and the Red\nSea, and, by barriers difficult to surmount, separated the primitive\nPh\u0153nicians, established upon the shores of the Indian Ocean, from\nthose of Palestine.[44] The meridional Arabs were separated from the\nseptentrional, and both had broken with the Indians to whom they had\nformerly belonged.[45] Tibet had adopted a particular cult and form of\ngovernment.[46] Persia had been subject to the empire of the\nAssyrians.[47] At last the political ties which united all these\nstates, and which once formed only a vast group under the domination\nof the Indian monarchs, had become relaxed or broken on all sides.\nEgypt, long subject to the Philistines, known under the name of\nShepherds, came at length to drive them out, and emerging from her\nlethargy prepared herself to seize the influence which Asia had\nallowed to escape.[48] Already the most warlike of her kings, Sethos,\nhad extended his empire over both Libya and Arabia; Ph\u0153nicia and\nAssyria had been subjugated; he had entered triumphant into Babylon\nand was seated upon the throne of Belus.[49] He would not have\nhesitated to attempt the conquest of Greece, if he had been able as\neasily to lead his army there; but it was difficult for him to create\na marine force, and above all to overcome the invincible repugnance\nthat the Egyptians had for the sea.[50] Obliged to employ the\nPh\u0153nicians, his ancient enemies, he was able to draw from them only\nmediocre service. In spite of these obstacles and the stubborn\nresistance of the Greeks, he succeeded nevertheless in making some\nconquests and forming some partial settlements. Athens, so celebrated\nlater, was one of the principal ones.[51]\n\nThese events, these revolutions, calamitous in appearance, were in\nreality to produce great benefits. Greece, already impregnated with\nthe learning of the Ph\u0153nicians, which she had obtained and elaborated,\nafterward received that of the Egyptians and elaborated it still\nfurther. A man born in the heart of Thrace, but carried in his\nchildhood into Egypt through the desire for knowledge,[52] returned to\nhis country with one of the Egyptian colonies, to kindle there the new\nlight. He was initiated into all the mysteries of religion and\nscience: he surpassed, said Pausanias, all those who had preceded him,\nby the beauty of his verse, the sublimity of his chants, and the\nprofoundness of his knowledge in the art of healing and of appeasing\nthe gods.[53] This was Orpheus: he took this name from that of his\ndoctrine[54] which aimed to cure and to save by knowledge.\n\nI should greatly overstep the limits that I have prescribed for this\ndiscourse if I should recall in detail all that Greece owed to this\ncelebrated man. The mythological tradition has consecrated in a\nbrilliant allegory the efforts which he made to restore to men the\ntruth which they had lost. His love for Eurydice, so much sung by the\npoets, is but the symbol of the divine science for which he\nlonged.[55] The name of this mysterious spouse, whom he vainly wished\nto return to the light, signified only the doctrine of the true\nscience, the teaching of what is beautiful and veritable, by which he\ntried to enrich the earth. But man cannot look upon the face of truth\nbefore attaining the intellectual light, without losing it; if he dare\nto contemplate it in the darkness of his reason, it vanishes. This is\nwhat the fable, which everyone knows, of Eurydice, found and lost,\nsignifies.\n\nOrpheus, who felt by his own experience, perhaps, the great\ndisadvantage that he had here, of presenting the truth to men before\nthey might be in condition to receive it, instituted the divine\nmysteries; an admirable school where the initiate, conducted from one\ndegree to another, slowly prepared and tried, received the share of\nlight in proportion to the strength of his intelligence, and gently\nenlightened, without risk of being dazzled, attained to virtue,\nwisdom, and truth. There has been but one opinion in antiquity\nconcerning the utility of the mysteries, before dissolution had\nstained its precincts and corrupted its aim. All the sages, even\nSocrates, have praised this institution,[56] the honour of which has\nbeen constantly attributed to Orpheus.[57] It is not improbable that\nthis sage had found the model in Egypt and that he himself had been\ninitiated, as Moses[58] and Pythagoras[59] had been before and after\nhim; but in this case an imitation was equivalent to a creation.\n\nI have said that after the appearance of Orpheus, poetry had lost its\nunity: as divided as the cult, it had sustained its vicissitudes.\nEntirely theosophical in its principle, and calm as the Divinity which\ninspired it, it had taken in the midst of the opposed sects a\npassionate character which it had not had previously. The priests, who\nused it to uphold their opinions, had found, instead of the real\ninspiration, that sort of physical exaltation which results from the\nfire of passions, whose movement and fleeting splendour entrance the\nvulgar. Vying with each other they had brought forth a mass of\ntheological systems, had multiplied the allegorical fables concerning\nthe universe, and had drowned, as it were, the unity of the Divinity\nin the vain and minute distinction of its infinite faculties; and as\neach composed in his own dialect and in pursuance of his own caprice,\neach devised unceasingly new names for the same beings, according as\nthey believed they caught a glimpse of a certain new virtue in these\nbeings that another had not expressed, it came to pass that not only\nwere the gods multiplied by the distinction of their faculties, but\nstill more by the diversity of names employed in expressing them. Very\nsoon there was not a city nor a town in Greece, that did not have, or\nat least believed that it had, its own particular god. If one had\ncarefully examined this prodigious number of divinities, one would\nhave clearly seen that they could be reduced, by elimination, to a\nsmall number and would finally end by being mingled in a sole\nUniversal Being; but that was very difficult for people, flattered,\nmoreover, by a system which compared the condition of the gods with\ntheirs, and offered them thus, protectors and patrons so much the more\naccessible as they were less occupied and less powerful.[60] Vainly,\ntherefore, the Egyptian colony established at Athens presented to the\nadoration of this people imbued with the prejudice of polytheism, the\nsovereign of the gods under the title of the Most-High[61]; the\nveneration of this people was turned wholly towards Minerva, who\nbecame its patron under the name of Athena,[62] as Juno was that of\nArgos,[63] Ceres, that of Eleusis, Phigalia, Methydrium,[64] etc.\n\nOrpheus, instructed as was Moses, in the sanctuaries of Egypt, had the\nsame ideas as the legislator of the Hebrews upon the unity of God, but\nthe different circumstances in which he found himself placed did not\npermit him to divulge this dogma; he reserved this for making it the\nbasis of his mysteries, and continued, in the meantime, to personify\nin his poetry the attributes of the Divinity. His institutions, drawn\nfrom the same source, founded upon the same truths, received the\nimprint of his character and that of the people to whom he had\ndestined them. As those of Moses were severe and, if one must admit,\nharsh in form, enemies of the sciences and arts, so those of Orpheus\nwere brilliant, fitted to seduce the minds, favourable to all the\ndevelopments of the imagination. It was beneath the allurements of\npleasure, of joy, and of _f\u00eates_, that he concealed the utility of his\nlessons and the depth of his doctrine. Nothing was more full of pomp\nthan the celebration of its mysteries. Whatever majesty, force, and\ngrace, poetry, music, and painting had, was used to excite the\nenthusiasm of the initiate.[65] He found no pretext advantageous\nenough, no form beautiful enough, no charm powerful enough to interest\nthe hearts and attract them toward the sublime truths which he\nproclaimed. These truths, whose force the early Christians have\nrecognized,[66] went much further than those of which Moses had been\nthe interpreter; they seemed to anticipate the times. Not only did he\nteach of the unity of God,[67] and give the most sublime ideas of this\nunfathomable Being[68]; not only did he explain the birth of the\nUniverse and the origin of things[69]; but he represented this unique\nGod under the emblem of a mysterious Trinity endowed with three\nnames[70]; he spoke of the dogma which Plato announced a long time\nafter concerning the Logos, or the Divine Word; and, according to\nMacrobius, taught even its incarnation or its union with matter, its\ndeath or its division in the world of sense, its resurrection or its\ntransfiguration, and finally its return to the original Unity.[71]\n\nThis inspired man, by exalting in Man the imagination, that admirable\nfaculty which makes the charm of life, fettered the passions which\ntrouble its serenity. Through him his disciples enjoyed the enthusiasm\nof the fine arts and he insisted that their customs should be pure and\nsimple.[72] The _r\u00e9gime_ that he prescribed for them was that which\nPythagoras introduced later[73]. One of the most pleasing rewards\nwhich he offered to their endeavours, the very aim of their initiation\ninto his mysteries, was, putting themselves in communion with the\ngods[74]; freeing themselves from the cycle of generations, purifying\ntheir soul, and rendering it worthy of projecting itself, after the\ndownfall of its corporal covering toward its primal abode, to the\nrealms of light and happiness.[75]\n\nDespite my resolution to be brief, I cannot resist the pleasure of\nspeaking at greater length of Orpheus, and of recalling, as is my\ncustom, things which, appearing today wholly foreign to my subject,\nnevertheless, when examined from my viewpoint, belong to it. Poetry\nwas not at all in its origin what it became later, a simple\naccomplishment, regarded by those who profess to be savants as even\nrather frivolous[76]; it was the language of the gods, _par\nexcellence_, that of the prophets, the ministers of the altars, the\npreceptors and the legislators of the world. I rejoice to repeat this\ntruth, after rendering homage to Orpheus, to this admirable man, to\nwhom Europe owes the _\u00e9clat_ with which she has shone and with which\nshe will shine a long time. Orpheus has been the real creator of\npoetry and of music,[77] the father of mythology, of morals, and of\nphilosophy: it is he who has served as model for Hesiod and Homer, who\nhas illumined the footsteps of Pythagoras and Plato.\n\nAfter having wisely accommodated the outward ceremonies to the minds\nof the people whom he wished to instruct, Orpheus divided his doctrine\ninto two parts, the one vulgar, and the other mysterious and secret,\nfollowing in this the method of the Egyptians, whose disciple he had\nbeen[78]; then, turning his attention to poetry, and seeing into what\nchaos this science had fallen and the confusion that had been made of\ndivine and profane things, he judiciously separated it into two\nprincipal branches, which he assigned, the one to theology, the other\nto natural philosophy. It can be said that he gave in each the precept\nand the example. As sublime a theosophist as he was profound as a\nphilosopher, he composed an immense quantity of theosophical and\nphilosophical verses upon all sorts of subjects. Time has destroyed\nnearly all of them; but their memory has been perpetuated. Among the\nworks of Orpheus that were cited by the ancients and whose loss must\nbe deplored, were found, on the subject of theosophy, _The Holy Word_\nor _The Sacred Logos_,[79] by which Pythagoras and Plato profited\nmuch; the _Theogony_, which preceded that of Hesiod more than five\ncenturies; _The Initiations to the Mysteries of the Mother of the\nGods_,[80] and _The Ritual of the Sacrifices_, wherein he had\nrecorded, undoubtedly, the divers parts of his doctrine[81]: on the\nsubject of philosophy, a celebrated cosmogony was found,[82] in which\nan astronomical system was developed that would be an honour to our\ncentury, touching the plurality of the worlds, the station of the sun\nat the centre of the universe, and the habitation of the stars.[83]\nThese extraordinary works emanated from the same genius who had\nwritten in verse upon grammar, music, natural history, upon the\nantiquities of the many isles of Greece, upon the interpretation of\nsigns and prodigies, and a mass of other subjects, the details of\nwhich one can see in the commencement of the Argonautica of\nOnomacritus, which is attributed to him.\n\nBut at the same time that Orpheus opened thus to his successor two\nvery distinct careers, theosophical and philosophical, he did not\nentirely neglect the other parts of this science: his hymns and his\nodes assigned him to a distinguished rank among the lyric poets; his\n_D\u00e9m\u00e9tr\u00e9\u00efde_ presaged the beauties of Epop\u0153ia, and the representations\nfull of pomp, that he introduced into his mysteries, gave birth to\nGreek Melop\u0153ia whence sprang dramatic art. He can therefore be\nregarded, not only as the precursor of Hesiod and Epimenides, but even\nas that of Homer, \u00c6schylus, and Pindar. I do not pretend, in saying\nthis, to take away anything from the glory of these celebrated men:\nthe one who indicates a course, yields to the one who executes it: now\nthis, especially, is what Homer did.\n\n\n\u00a7 III\n\nHomer was not the first epic poet in the order of time, but in the\norder of things. Before him many poets were skilled in Epop\u0153ia; but no\none had known the nature of this kind of poetry[84]; no one had united\nthe opposed qualities which were necessary. There existed at this\nepoch a multitude of allegorical fables which had emanated at divers\ntimes from different sanctuaries. These fables, committed at first to\nmemory, had been collected in several sets of works which were called\ncycles.[85] There were allegorical, mythological, and epic cycles.[86]\nWe know from certain precious texts of the ancients, that these sorts\nof collections opened generally with the description of Chaos, with\nthe marriage of Heaven and Earth; contained the genealogy of the Gods\nand the combats of the Giants; included the expedition of the\nArgonauts, the famous wars of Thebes and of Troy; extended as far as\nthe arrival of Ulysses at Ithaca, and terminated with the death of\nthis hero, caused by his son Telegonus.[87] The poets who, before\nHomer, had drawn from these cycles the subject of their works, not\nhaving penetrated as far as the allegorical sense, lacking\ninspiration, or being found incapable of rendering it, lacking talent,\nhad produced only cold inanimate copies, deprived of movement and\ngrace. They had not, however, omitted any of the exploits of Hercules\nor of Theseus, nor any of the incidents of the sieges of Thebes or\nTroy; and their muse, quite lifeless, fatigued the readers without\ninteresting or instructing them.[88] Homer came. He, in his turn,\nglanced over this pile of sacerdotal traditions, and raising himself\nby the force of his genius alone to the intellectual principle which\nhad conceived them, he grasped the _ensemble_, and felt all its\npossibilities. The faculties of his soul and the precious gifts which\nhe had received from nature had made him one of those rare men who\npresent themselves, at long intervals, upon the scene of the world to\nenlighten it, shining in the depths of centuries and serving as\ntorches for mankind. In whatever clime, in whatever career destiny had\nplaced him, he would have been the foremost. Ever the same, whether\nunder the thatched roof or upon the throne, as great in Egypt as in\nGreece, in the Occident as in the Orient of Asia, everywhere he had\ncommanded admiration. Some centuries earlier this same attribute might\nhave been seen in Krishna or in Orpheus, some centuries later, in\nPythagoras or in Cyrus. Great men are always great by their own\ngreatness. Incidents which depend upon chance can only modify. Homer\nwas destined to poetry by favourable circumstances. Born upon the\nborders of the river Meles, of an indigent mother, without shelter and\nwithout kindred, he owed, to a schoolmaster of Smyrna who adopted him,\nhis early existence and his early instructions. He was at first called\nMelesigenes, from the place of his birth.[89] Pupil of Phemius, he\nreceived from his benevolent preceptor, simple but pure ideas, which\nthe activity of his soul developed, which his genius increased,\nuniversalized, and brought to their perfection. His education, begun\nwith an assiduous and sedentary study, was perfected through\nobservation. He undertook long journeys for the sole purpose of\ninstructing himself. The political conditions, contrary to every other\nproject, favoured him.\n\nGreece, after having shaken off the yoke of the Ph\u0153nicians and having\nbecome the friend of Egypt rather than her subject, commenced to reap\nthe fruits of the beautiful institutions that she had received from\nOrpheus. Powerful metropolises arose in the heart of this country,\nlong regarded as a simple colony of Asia, and her native strength\nbeing progressively augmented by the habit of liberty, she had need of\nextending herself abroad.[90] Rich with the increase of population,\nshe had reacted upon her ancient metropolis, had taken possession of a\ngreat number of cities on the opposite shores of Asia, and had\ncolonized them.[91] Ph\u0153nicia humiliated, torn by internal\ndissensions,[92] tossed between the power of the Assyrians and that of\nthe Egyptians,[93] saw this same Greece that she had civilized and to\nwhom she had given her gods, her laws, and even the letters of her\nalphabet, ignore, deny her benefits,[94] take up arms against her,\ncarry away her colonies from the shores of Italy and of Sicily, and\nbecoming mistress of the islands of the Archipelago, tear from her her\nsole remaining hope, the empire of the sea.[95] The people of Rhodes\nwere overpowered.\n\nHomer, of Greek nationality although born in Asia, profited by these\nadvantages. He set sail in a vessel, whose patron, Mentes of Leucas,\nwas his friend, wandered over all the possessions of Greece, visited\nEgypt,[96] and came to settle at Tyre. This was the ancient metropolis\nof Greece, the source and sacred repository of her mythological\ntraditions. It was there, in this same temple of the Master of the\nUniverse,[97] where twelve centuries before Sanchoniathon had come to\nstudy the antiquities of the world,[98] that Homer was able to go back\nto the origin of Greek cult and fathom the most hidden meanings of its\nmysteries[99]; it was there that he chose the first and noblest\nsubject of his chants, that which constitutes the fable of the\n_Iliad_.[100] If one must believe in the very singular accounts which\ntime has preserved to us, thanks to the blind zeal of certain\nChristians who have treated them as heresies, this Helen, whose name\napplied to the moon signifies the resplendent, this woman whom Paris\ncarried away from her spouse Menelaus, is nothing else than the symbol\nof the human soul,[101] torn by the principle of generation from that\nof thought, on account of which the moral and physical passions\ndeclare war. But it would be taking me too far away from my subject,\nexamining in detail what might be the meaning of the allegories of\nHomer. My plan has not been to investigate this meaning in particular,\nbut to show that it exists in general. Upon this point I have not only\nthe rational proof which results from the concatenation of my ideas,\nbut also proof of the fact, which is furnished to me by the\ntestimonials of the ancients. These testimonials are recognized at\nevery step, in the works of the philosophers and chiefly in those of\nthe Stoics. Only a very superficial erudition is necessary to be\nconvinced of this.[102] But I ought to make an observation, and this\nobservation will be somewhat novel: it is that, the poetic inspiration\nbeing once received by the poet and his soul finding itself\ntransported into the intelligible world, all the ideas which then come\nto him are universal and in consequence allegorical. So that nothing\ntrue may exist outside of unity, and as everything that is true is one\nand homogeneous, it is found that, although the poet gives to his\nideas a form determined in the sentient world, this form agrees with a\nmultitude of things which, being distinct in their species, are not so\nin their genus. This is why Homer has been the man of all men, the\ntype of all types, the faithful mirror,[103] wherein all ideas\nbecoming reflected have appeared to be created. Lycurgus read his\nworks, and saw there a model of his legislation.[104] Pericles and\nAlcibiades had need of his counsels; they had recourse to him as a\nmodel of statesmen.[105] He was for Plato the first of the\nphilosophers, and for Alexander the greatest of kings; and what is\nmore extraordinary still, even the sectarians, divided among\nthemselves, were united in him. The Stoics spoke only of this great\npoet as a rigid follower of the Porch[106]; at the Academy he was\nconsidered as the creator of dialectics; at the Lyceum, the disciples\nof Aristotle cited him as a zealous dogmatist[107]; finally, the\nEpicureans saw in him only a man calm and pure, who, satisfied with\nthat tranquil life where one is wholly possessed by it, seeks nothing\nmore.[108] The temples, which devout enthusiasm consecrated to him,\nwere the rendezvous for mankind.[109] Such is the appanage of\nuniversal ideas: they are as the Divinity which inspires them, all in\nall, and all in the least parts.\n\nIf, at the distance where I am placed, I should dare, traversing the\ntorrent of ages and opinions, draw near to Homer and read the soul of\nthis immortal man, I would say, after having grasped in its entirety\nthe allegorical genius which makes the essence of poetry, in seeking\nto give to his universal ideas a particular form, that his intention\nwas to personify and paint the passions, and that it was from this\nthat epop\u0153ia had birth. I have not sufficient documents to attest\npositively that the word by which one characterizes this kind of\npoetry after Homer, did not exist before him; but I have sufficient to\nrepeat that no one had as yet recognized its real nature.[110] The\npoems of Corinna, of Dares, or of Dictys, were only simple extracts\nfrom the mythological cycles, rude copies from certain theosophical\nfragments denuded of life; Homer was the first who caused the _Voice\nof Impulse_, that is to say Epop\u0153ia, to be understood[111]: that kind\nof poetry which results from intellectual inspiration united to the\nenthusiasm of the passions.\n\nIn order to attain to the perfection of this kind of poetry, it is\nnecessary to unite to the imaginative faculty which feeds the genius,\nthe reason which regulates the impulse, and the enthusiasm which\ninflames the mind and supplies the talent. Homer united them in the\nmost eminent degree. Thus he possessed the first inspiration and the\ncomplete science, as much in its essence as in its form; for the\npoetic form is always dependent upon talent.\n\nThis form was then highly favourable to genius. The Greek verse,\nmeasured by musical rhythm and filled with a happy blending of long\nand short syllables, had long since shaken off the servile yoke of\nrhyme. Now, by rhythm was understood the number and respective\nduration of the time of which a verse was composed.[112] A long\nsyllable was equal to a time divided in two instants, and equivalent\nto two short syllables. A foot was what we name today a measure. The\nfoot contained two times, made up of two long, or of one long and two\nshort syllables. The verse most commonly used was the hexameter, that\nis, that in which the extent was measured by six rhythmic feet and of\nwhich the whole duration was twelve times. Thus poetry received only\nthe laws of rhythm; it was a kind of music whose particular harmony,\nfree in its course, was subject only to measure.\n\nI have never found any authentic evidence that the Greeks had ever\nused the rhyme in their verse. It is stated, however, that they have\nnot differed from other nations in this respect. Voltaire said so but\nwithout proof.[113] What is most certain is that, taking the word\n_epos_,[114] a verse, in its most restricted acceptance, expressing a\nturn, a turning around again, the early poets constructed their verse\nin form of furrows, going from right to left and returning from left\nto right.[115] Happily this _bizarrerie_ did not last long. If the\nGreek verses had thus turned one upon another, or if the rhyme had\nforced them to proceed in couplets bent beneath a servile yoke, Homer\nwould not have created the Epop\u0153ia, or these frivolous obstacles would\nhave vanished before him. His genius, incapable of enduring chains,\nwould have refused to clothe itself in a form capable of stifling it.\nBut this celebrated man would no doubt have changed it; one can judge\nby the energetic manner with which he attacked that which he found in\nuse. The Greek language, which preserved still in his time something\nof the Ph\u0153nician stiffness and the Celtic roughness, obliged to adapt\nitself to all the movements of his imagination, became the most\nflexible and the most harmonious dialect of the earth. One is\nastonished, in reading his works, at the boldness of his\ncomposition.[116] One sees him without the least effort, bending words\nat his pleasure, lengthening them, shortening them to produce\nsomething new, reviving those no longer in use, uniting them,\nseparating them, disposing of them in an unaccustomed order, forcing\nthem to adapt themselves everywhere to the harmony that he wishes to\ndepict, to sentiments of elevation, of pleasure or terror, that he\nwishes to inspire.\n\nThus genius, dominating form, creates master-pieces; form, on the\ncontrary, commanding genius, produces only works of the mind. I must\nsay finally and no longer veil from the attention of my judges, the\naim of this discourse: whenever rhyme exists in the poetic form, it\nrenders the form inflexible, it brings upon it only the effort of\ntalent and renders that of intellectual inspiration useless. Never\nwill the people who rhyme their verses attain to the height of poetic\nperfection; never will real epop\u0153ia flourish in their breasts. They\nwill hear neither the accents inspired by Orpheus, nor the stirring\nand impassioned harmonies of Homer. Far from drawing the allegorical\ngenius at its source and receiving the first inspiration, it will not\neven recognize the second one. Its poets will polish painfully certain\nimpassioned or descriptive verses, and will call beautiful the works\nwhich will only be well done. A rapid glance over the poetic condition\nof the earth will prove what I have advanced. But I ought to explain\nbeforehand what I understand by first and second inspiration; the\nmoment has arrived for holding to the promise that I made at the\nbeginning of this discourse.\n\n\n\u00a7 IV\n\nYou recall, _Messieurs_, that wishing, with Chancellor Bacon, to\ndistinguish the essence and the form of Poetry, I have taken my text\nfrom the works of Plato. It is again from this man, justly called\ndivine even by his rivals, from the founder of the Academy, that I\nhave borrowed the germ of my idea. This philosopher compares the\neffect which the real poets have upon those who hear them, with the\nmagnetic stone which not only attracts rings of iron, but communicates\nto them also the virtue of attracting other rings.[117]\n\nIn order to appreciate well the force of this thought, and to follow\nall the inferences, it is necessary to state a truth _de facto_:\nnamely, that the men destined by Providence to regenerate the world,\nin whatever manner it may be, to open any sort of a career, are\nextremely rare. Nature, docile to the impulse which she has received\nof bringing all to perfection by means of time, elaborates slowly the\nelements of their genius, places them at great distances upon the\nearth, and makes them appear at epochs very far removed one from the\nother. It is necessary that these events, which determine these men\ntoward an end, should be brought about in advance; that the physical\nconditions in which they are born coincide with the inspiration which\nattends them; and therefore everything prepares, everything protects,\neverything serves the providential design. These men, thus scattered\nover the earth, come among nations to form them, to give them laws, to\nenlighten and to instruct them. They are the beacon-lights of mankind;\nthese are those to whom I attribute the first inspiration. This\ninspiration is immediate; it emanates from the first principle of all\nintelligence, in the same manner, to use the comparison of Plato, that\nthe magnetic force which animates the loadstone, emanates from its\ncause. It is profoundly hidden from our eyes: it is this which fires\nthe genius of a theosophist such as Thoth, Orpheus, and Zoroaster; the\ngenius of a theocrat, such as Krishna, Moses, or Mohammed; the genius\nof a philosopher, such as Kong-Tse, Pythagoras, or Socrates; the\ngenius of a poet, such as Homer or Valmiki; and of a triumphant hero,\nsuch as Cyrus, Alexander, or Napoleon.\n\nThose who follow in the footprints of these primordial men, who allow\nthemselves to be impressed by their genius, receive what I call the\nsecond inspiration. They can still be great men; for those who assist\nthem are very great; they can also communicate the inspiration, for it\nacts in them with an exuberant force. Let us confine ourselves to the\npoetic inspiration and listen to the voice of Plato:\n\n     The Muse inspires the poets directly, and these,\n     communicating to others their enthusiasm, form a chain of\n     inspired men. It is by means of this chain that the Divinity\n     attracts the souls of men, and moves them at his pleasure,\n     causing his virtue to pass from link to link, from the first\n     inspired poet to the last of his readers or his\n     rhapsodists.[118]\n\nIt is by means of this magnetic chain that one can, in another sphere\nof movement, explain this truth so well known, that great kings make\ngreat men; it is also in this manner that one can understand how a\nmonarch, called to found a vast empire, makes his will penetrate all\nhearts, take possession of all souls, and propagating his valour more\nand more, electrify his army and fill it with a multitude of heroes.\n\nHomer received therefore a first inspiration; he was created to become\nthe poetic motive of Europe, the principle of a magnetized chain\nwhich, appropriating unceasingly new links, was to cover Europe with\nits numberless extensions. His first conquests were in Greece. His\nverses, carried from city to city by actors known under the name of\nrhapsodists,[119] excited the keenest enthusiasm; they passed soon\nfrom mouth to mouth, fixed the attention of legislators, were the\nornament of the most brilliant f\u00eates,[120] and became everywhere the\nbasis of public instruction.[121] The secret flame which they\nconcealed, becoming developed in young souls, warmed there the\nparticular germ which they possessed, and according to their divers\nspecie and the fertility of the soil, brought forth many talents.[122]\nThe poets who were found endowed with a genius vast enough to receive\nthe second inspiration in its entirety, imitated their model and\nraised themselves to epop\u0153ia. Antimachus and Dic\u00e6ogenes are\nnoticeable, the one for his Theba\u00efs, and the other for his cyprien\nverses.[123] Those to whom nature had given passions more gentle than\nviolent, more touching than vehement, inclinations more rustic than\nbellicose, whose souls contained more sensitiveness than elevation,\nwere led to copy certain isolated groups of this vast tableau, and\nplacing them, following their tastes, in the palace or in the thatched\ncottage, caused accents of joy or of sorrow, the plaints of heroes or\nthe sports of shepherds to be heard, and thus created elegy, eclogue,\nor idyl.[124] Others, on the contrary, whose too vehement enthusiasm\nshortened the duration of it, whose keen fiery passions had left\nlittle empire for reason, who allowed themselves to be drawn easily\ntoward the object of which they were momentarily captive, created the\node, dithyramb, or song, according to the nature of their genius and\nthe object of their passion. These were more numerous than all the\nothers together, and the women who were here distinguished, rivalled\nand even surpassed the men; Corinna and Myrtis did not yield either to\nStesi[`c]horus,[125] or to Pindar; Sappho and Telesilla effaced Alc\u00e6us\nand Anacreon.[126]\n\nIt is said that the art with which Homer had put into action gods and\nmen, had opposed heaven and earth, and depicted the combats of the\npassions; this art, being joined to the manner in which the\nrhapsodists declaimed his poems[127] by alternately relieving one\nanother, and covering themselves with garments of different colours\nadapted to the situation, had insensibly given rise to dramatic style\nand to theatrical representation.[128] This, true in a sense, has need\nof a distinction: it will serve at the same time to throw light upon\nwhat I am about to say.\n\nOne should remember that the intellectual and rational poetry, or\ntheosophical and philosophical, illustrated by Orpheus and which Homer\nhad united with the enthusiasm of the passions in order to constitute\nepop\u0153ia, although separated from the latter, existed none the less.\nWhereas the disciples of Homer, or the Homerid\u00e6,[129] spread\nthemselves abroad and took possession of the laic or profane world,\nthe religious and learned world was always occupied by the disciples\nof Orpheus, called Eumolpid\u00e6.[130] The hierophants and philosophers\ncontinued to write as formerly upon theology and natural philosophy.\nThere appeared from time to time theogonies and cosmological\nsystems,[131] dionysiacs, heraclides,[132] oracles, treatises on\nnature and moral apologues, which bore no relation to epop\u0153ia. The\nhymns or p\u00e6ans which had emanated from the sanctuaries in honour of\nthe Divinity, had in no wise resembled either the odes or the\ndithyrambs of the lyric poets[133]: as much as the former were\nvehement and passionate, so much the latter affected to be calm and\nmajestic. There existed therefore, at this epoch, two kinds of poetry,\nequally beautiful when they had attained their respective perfection:\nEumolpique Poetry and Epic Poetry: the first, intellectual and\nrational; the other, intellectual and passionate.\n\nHowever, the divine mysteries, hidden from the profane, manifested to\nthe initiates in the ceremonies and symbolic fables, had not as yet\nissued from the sanctuaries: it had been nearly a thousand years since\nthey had been instituted by Orpheus[134] when suddenly one saw for the\nfirst time certain of these fables and these ceremonies ridiculously\ntravestied, transpiring among the people and serving them for\namusement. The f\u00eates of Dionysus, celebrated in the times of vintage,\ngave place to this sort of profanation. The grape-gatherers, besmeared\nwith lees, giving way in the intoxication of wine to an indiscreet\nenthusiasm, began to utter aloud from their wagons the allegories that\nthey had learned in their rural initiations. These allegories, which\nneither the actors nor the spectators had comprehended in reality,\nappeared, nevertheless, piquant to both through the malicious\ninterpretations which they gave them.[135] Such were the feeble\nbeginnings of dramatic art in Greece[136]; there was born the\nprofanation of the Orphic mysteries, in the same manner that one\nsee sit reborn among us, by the profanation of the Christian\nmysteries.[137] But this art was already old in Asia when it sprang up\nin Europe. I have already said that there was in the secret\ncelebration of the mysteries, veritable dramatic representations.\nThese mystic ceremonies, copied from those which had taken place in\nthe celebration of the Egyptian mysteries, had been brought into Egypt\nby the Indian priests at a very remote epoch when the empire of\nHindustan had extended over this country. This communication, which\nwas made from one people to another, has been demonstrated to the\npoint of evidence by the learned researches of the academicians of\nCalcutta, Jones, Wilford, and Wilkin,[138] who have proved what Bacon\nhad previously said in speaking of the Greek traditions, \u201cthat it was\nonly a very light air which, passing by means of an ancient people\ninto the flutes of Greece, had been modulated by them into sounds more\nsweet, more harmonious, and more conformable to the climate and to\ntheir brilliant imagination.\u201d\n\nA singular coincidence, _Messieurs_, which will not escape your\nsagacity, is that dramatic art, whose origin is lost in India in the\nnight of time, has likewise had its birth in the mysteries of\nreligion. It is during the _Ram-Jatra_, a f\u00eate celebrated annually in\nhonour of Rama, the same as Dionysus of the Greeks, or Bacchus of the\nLatins, that one still sees theatrical representations which have\nserved as models for the more regular works that have been made in the\ncourse of time.[139] These representations, which run through nearly\nall the exploits of Rama and through the victory that this beneficent\ngod gained over Rawhan, the principle of evil, are mingled with chants\nand recitations exactly as were those of the ancient Greeks. You\nunderstand, _Messieurs_, that the first efforts of tragedy were to\ncelebrate the conquests of Bacchus and his triumph, of which that of\nApollo over the serpent Python, celebrated by the Pythian games, was\nthe emblem.[140] Those of the Indians who appear to have preserved the\nmost ancient traditions, since the sacred books were written in the\nPali language, considered as anterior to the Sanskrit by some savants,\nthe Burmans, have from time immemorial recorded the mysteries of Rama\nin scenic dramas which are still performed in public on the f\u00eate day\nof this god.[141] I do not consider it amiss to mention here that the\nname of Rama, which in Sanskrit signifies that which is dazzling and\nbeautiful, that which is sublime and protective, has had the same\nsignification in Ph\u0153nician,[142] and that it is from this same name to\nwhich is joined a demonstrative article common to Aramaic, Chaldean,\nand Syriac, that the word drama[143] is formed, and which being\nadopted by the Greek tongue, has passed afterwards into the Latin\ntongue and into ours. This word has expressed an action, because, in\ntruth, it depicts one in the mysteries and besides its primitive root\nrefers to regular movement in general.\n\nBut as my purpose is not to follow at present dramatic art in all its\nramifications and as it suffices me to have indicated clearly the\norigin, I return to Greece.\n\nThe spectacle of which I have spoken, effect of a Bacchic enthusiasm,\nand at first abandoned to the caprice of certain rustic grape-gatherers\nwhose indiscretions did not appear formidable, struck so forcibly by\nits novelty and produced such a marvellous effect upon the people,\nthat it was not long before certain men of most cultivated minds were\nseen desirous of taking part either from liking or from interest.\nThespis and Susarion appeared at the same time and each seized,\naccording to his character, one the noble and serious side and the\nother the ridiculous and amusing side of the mythological fables;\ndividing thus from its birth, dramatic art and distinguishing it by\ntwo kinds, tragedy and comedy: that is, the lofty and austere chant,\nand the joyous and lascivious chant.[144][145]\n\nIn the meantime, the governments, until then quite indifferent to\nthese rustic amusements, warned that certain liberties permitted by\nThespis were becoming too flagrant, began to see the profanations\nwhich had resulted, and of which the Eumolpid\u00e6 had no doubt pointed\nout the consequences.[146] They tried to prevent them, and Solon even\nmade a law regarding this subject[147]; but it was too late: the\npeople attracted in crowds to these representations, all informal as\nthey were, rendered useless the foresight of the legislator. It was\nnecessary to yield to the torrent and, being unable to arrest it, to\nstrive at least to restrain it within just limits. A clear field was\nleft open for the good that it was able to do, in fertilizing the new\nideas, and severe rules were opposed to check whatever dangers its\ninvasions might have for religion and for customs. The dramatic\nwriters were permitted to draw the subject of their pieces from the\nsource of the mysteries, but it was forbidden them, under penalty of\ndeath, to divulge the sense. \u00c6schylus, first of the dramatic poets,\nhaving involuntarily violated this law, ran the risk of losing his\nlife.[148] Discriminating judges were established to pronounce upon\nthe excellency of the works offered in the competition, and one was\nvery careful not to abandon oneself at first to the passionate\nacclamations of the people, and the approbations or disapprobations of\nthe maxims which were therein contained.[1] These judges, proficient\nin the knowledge of music and of poetry, had to listen in silence\nuntil the end, and maintain all in order and decency. Plato attributes\nto the desuetude into which this law fell, and to the absolute\ndominion which the people assumed over the theatre, the first\ndecadence of the art and its entire corruption.\n\n\u00c6schylus, whom I have just named, was the true creator of dramatic\nart. Strong with the inspiration which he had received from\nHomer,[150] he transported into tragedy the style of epop\u0153ia, and\nanimated it with a music grave and simple.[151] Not content with the\nmoral beauties with which his genius embellished it, he wished that\nmusic, painting, and dancing might lend their aid and contribute to\nthe illusion of the senses. He caused a theatre to be built where the\nmost ingenious devices, the most magnificent decorations displayed\ntheir magic effects.[152] One saw in the tragedy of Prometheus, the\nearth trembling, clouds of dust rising in the air; one heard the\nwhistling of wind, the crash of thunder; one was dazzled by the\nlightnings.[153] Old Ocean appeared upon the waves, and Mercury came\nfrom the heights of heaven to announce the commands of Jupiter. In the\ntragedy of the Eumenides, these infernal divinities appeared upon the\nscene to the number of fifty, clothed in black robes; blood-stained,\nthe head bristling with serpents, holding in one hand a torch and in\nthe other a lash.[154] They replied to the shade of Clytemnestra, who\ninvoked them, by a choir of music so frightful, that a general terror\nhaving struck the assembly, certain of the women experienced premature\npains of confinement.[155]\n\nOne feels, after this, that Greek tragedy had in its theatrical forms,\nmuch in common with our modern operas; but what eminently\ndistinguishes it is that, having come forth complete from the depths\nof the sanctuaries, it possessed a moral sense which the initiates\nunderstood. This is what put it above anything that we might be able\nto conceive today; what gave it an inestimable price. Whereas the\nvulgar, dazzled only by the pomp of the spectacle, allured by the\nbeauty of the verse and the music, enjoyed merely a fleeting\ngratification, the wise tasted a pleasure more pure and more durable,\nby receiving the truth in their hearts even from the deceitful\ndelusions of the senses. This pleasure was as much greater as the\ninspiration of the poet had been more perfect, and as he had succeeded\nbetter in making the allegorical spirit felt, without betraying the\nveil which covered it.\n\n\u00c6schylus went further in comprehension of the subject than any of his\nsuccessors. His plans were of an extreme simplicity. He deviated\nlittle from the mythological tradition.[156] All his efforts tended\nonly to give light to their teachings, to penetrate into their hidden\nbeauties. The characters of his heroes, strongly drawn, sustained them\nat heights where Homer had placed them. He caused terror to pass\nbefore them that they might be frightened.[157] His aim was to lead\nthem to virtue by terror, and to inspire the soul with a force capable\nof resisting alike the intoxications of prosperity and the\ndiscouragements of poverty.\n\nSophocles and Euripides followed closely \u00c6schylus and surpassed him in\ncertain portions of the art; the first, even triumphed over him in the\neyes of the multitude[158]; but the small number of sages, faithful to\nthe true principles, regarded him always as the father of\ntragedy.[159] One can admit that Sophocles was more perfect in the\nconduct of his plans, in the regularity of his style[160]; that\nEuripides was more natural and more tender, more skilful in arousing\ninterest, in stirring the passions[161]; but these perfections,\nresulting from the form, had not been acquired without the very\nessence of drama being altered; that is to say, without the\nallegorical genius which had presided at the composition of the fables\nthat the poets had always drawn from the religious mysteries,\nsuffering many deviations, which rendered it often unrecognizable\nthrough the foreign adornments with which it was burdened. Sophocles\nand above all Euripides, by devoting themselves to perfecting the\nform, really harmed therefore the principle of the art and hastened\nits corruption. If the laws which had at first been promulgated\nagainst those who in treating of the tragic subjects vilified the\nmysterious sense had been executed, Euripides would not have been\nallowed to depict so many heroes degraded by adversity, so many\nprincesses led astray by love, so many scenes of shame, of scandal,\nand of crime[162]; but the people, already degraded and bordering upon\ncorruption, allowed themselves to be drawn along by these dangerous\ntableaux and hastened half-way to meet the poisoned cup which was\noffered to them.\n\nIt must candidly be admitted, that it is to the very charm of these\ntableaux, to the talent with which Euripides understood how to colour\nthem, that the decadence of Athenian manners and the first harm done\nto the purity of religion must be attributed. The theatre, having\nbecome the school of the passions, and offering to the soul no\nspiritual nourishment, opened a door through which doubt, contempt,\nand derision for the mysteries, the most sacrilegious audacity, and\nutter forgetfulness of the Divinity, insinuated themselves even unto\nthe sanctuaries. \u00c6schylus had represented in his heroes, supernatural\npersonages[163]; Sophocles painted simple heroes, and Euripides,\ncharacters often less than men.[164] Now these personages were, in the\neyes of the people, either children of the gods, or the gods\nthemselves. What idea could be formed then of their weaknesses, of\ntheir crimes, of their odious or ridiculous conduct, particularly when\nthese weaknesses or these crimes were no longer represented as\nallegories from which it was necessary to seek the meaning, but as\nhistorical events or frivolous plays of the imagination? The people,\naccording to the degree of their intelligence, became either impious\nor superstitious; the savants professed to doubt all, and the\ninfluential men, by feigning to believe all, regarded all parties with\nan equal indifference. This is exactly what happened. The mysteries\nbecame corrupt because one was accustomed to regard them as corrupt;\nand the people became intolerant and fanatical, each one cringing with\nfear, lest he be judged what he really was, namely, impious.\n\nSuch was the effect of dramatic art in Greece. This effect, at first\nimperceptible, became manifest to the eyes of the sages, when the\npeople became the dictators of the theatre and ignored the judges\nnamed to pronounce upon the works of the poets; When the poets,\njealous of obtaining the approval of the multitude, consulted its\ntaste rather than truth, its versatile passions rather than reason,\nand sacrificed to its caprices the laws of honesty and excellence.[164]\n\nAs soon as tragedy, disparaging the mysteries of the fables had\ntransformed them into historical facts, it needed only a step to raise\nhistorical facts to the rank of subjects of tragedy. Phrynichus was,\nit is said, the first who had this audacity. He produced in the\ntheatre, the _Conquest of Miletus_.[166] The people of Athens, with a\nwhimsicality which is characteristic of them, condemned the poet to a\nvery heavy fine, for having disobeyed the law and crowned him because\nof the tears which they shed at the representation of his work. But\nthis was not enough, confounding thus reality and allegory; soon,\nsacred and profane things were mingled by forging without any kind of\nmoral aim, subjects wholly false and fantastic. The poet Agathon, who\nwas the author of this new profanation had been the friend of\nEuripides.[167] He proved thus that he knew nothing of the essence of\ndramatic poetry and makes it doubtful whether Euripides knew it any\nbetter.\n\nThus, in the space of less than two centuries, tragedy, borne upon the\ncar of Thespis, elevated by \u00c6schylus to a nobler theatre, carried to\nthe highest degree of splendour by Sophocles, had already become\nweakened in the hands of Euripides, had lost the memory of its\ncelestial origin with Agathon, and abandoned to the caprices of a\npopulace as imperious as ignorant, inclined toward a rapid\ndegeneration.[168] Comedy less reserved did not have a happier\ndestiny. After having hurled its first darts upon the heroes and\ndemi-gods of Greece, having taken possession of certain very unguarded\nallegories, to turn even the gods to ridicule[169]; after having\nderided Prometheus and Triptolemus, Bacchus and the Bacchantes, after\nhaving made sport of heaven and earth, of the golden age and the\nseasons[170]; it attacked men in general and in particular, ridiculed\ntheir absurdities, pursued their vices, real or imaginary, and\ndelivered them both unsparingly, without pity, to derision and\ncontempt.[171] Epicharmus, who gave certain rules to the indecent\nfarces of Susarion, was followed by Magnes, Cratinus, Eupolis, and a\ncrowd of other comic poets, until Aristophanes whose bitter satires no\nlonger finding sufficient influence in certain obscure ridicules,\napplied themselves to disparaging science and virtue, and twenty years\nbeforehand, prepared and envenomed the hemlock by which Socrates was\npoisoned. It is true that some time after, Menander tried to reform\nthis terrible abuse and gave to comedy a form less revolting; but he\nwas only able to do so by detaching it completely from its origin,\nthat is to say, by severing it from all that it had preserved,\nintellectually and allegorically, and reducing it to the\nrepresentation of certain tableaux and certain events of the social\nlife.\n\nIn going back, as I have just done, to the origin of poetic science in\norder to distinguish first, its essence from its form and afterwards,\nto follow its diverse developments, in genus and in kind, I have\nrelated many things and cited a great number of subjects with which\nyou are familiar; but you will no doubt excuse, _Messieurs_, these\nnumerous reminiscences and citations, in reflecting that although but\nlittle necessary for you, they were infinitely so for me, since\npresenting myself in the lists and wishing to give an added form to\nthis science which belongs to you, I must prove to you that I have at\nleast studied it profoundly.\n\n\n\u00a7 V\n\nNow, summing up what I have said, it will be found that poetry,\nentirely intellectual in its origin and destined only to be the\nlanguage of the gods, owed its first developments in Greece to\nOrpheus, its second to Homer, and its last to \u00c6schylus. These three\ncreative men, seizing the different germs of this science still\nshrouded in their formless rudiments, warmed them with the fire of\ntheir genius and according to the particular inspiration of each, led\nthem to the perfection of which they were susceptible. All three of\nthem were the object of a first inspiration, although influenced one\nby the other, and were able to communicate the magnetic power to new\ndisciples. Orpheus possessor of intellectual and rational poetry,\nconstituted that which I call _Eumolp\u0153ia_, which, being divided into\ntheosophy and philosophy, produces all the works which treat of the\nDivinity, of the Universe, of Nature, and of Man in general.[172]\nHomer, in joining to this spiritual poetry the enthusiasm of the\npassions, created Epop\u0153ia, whose magnificent genus envelops a\nmultitude of specie, where the intellectual faculty and passion\ndominate with more or less energy under the influence of imagination.\nHomer rendered sentient that which was intelligible and particularized\nthat which Orpheus had left universal: \u00c6schylus, trying to bring into\naction what these two divine men had left with potentiality, formed\nthe idea of dramatic or active poetry, in which he claimed to include\nwhatever Eumolp\u0153ia and Epop\u0153ia had in common, that was moral,\nallegorical, and passionate. He would have succeeded, perhaps, and\nthen would have produced the most perfect work of thought, passion,\nand action possible for men, conceived by genius and executed by\ntalent; but Greece, exhausted by the abundant harvest obtained by\nOrpheus and Homer, lacked the sap to give nourishment to this new\nplant. Corrupted in its germ, this plant degenerated rapidly,\ndeteriorated, and put forth only a vain show of branches without\nelevation and without virtue. The heroes of Thermopyl\u00e6 succumbed under\nthe burden of their laurels. Given over to a foolish arrogance, they\ncovered with an unjust contempt their preceptors and their fathers;\nthey persecuted, they assassinated their defenders and their sages\nand, base tyrants of the theatre, they prepared themselves to bow the\nhead beneath the yoke of the king of Macedonia.\n\nThis king, victor at Ch\u00e6ronea, became arbiter of Greece, and his son,\nprovidential instrument of the ascendancy which Europe was to have\nover Asia, crossing the Hellespont at the head of an army that his\ngenius alone rendered formidable, overthrew the empire of Cyrus and\nstood for a moment upon its d\u00e9bris: I say for a moment, because it was\nnot here that the new empire was to be established: Europe had still\nobeyed; she was one day to command. Rome was already, in the thought\nof the future, the culminating point of the earth. A few centuries\nsufficed for this city, then unknown,[173] to attain to the height of\nglory. Emerging from her obscurity, conquering Pyrrhus, dominating\nItaly, combating and overthrowing Carthage, conquering Greece, and\ntrampling under foot twenty diadems borne by the successors of\nAlexander, was for this ambitious Republic the work of a few\ncenturies. But it is not true, although certain men whose virtue was\nnot enlightened by the torch of experience may have been able to say\nit; it is not true that a republic, already perplexed in governing\nitself, can govern the world. It requires an empire, and this empire\nis created.\n\nC\u00e6sar laid its foundation, Augustus strengthened it. The sciences and\narts, brought to Rome from the heart of Greece, came out then from\ntheir lethargy and flourished with a new _\u00e9clat_. Poetry, especially,\nfound numberless admirers. Vergil, strongly attracted by the magnetic\nflame of Homer, dared to tread in his light, overthrew all the\nobstacles that time had raised, and drawing near to this divine model,\nreceived from him the second inspiration without intermediary and\nwithout rival. Ovid, less determined, hovering between Orpheus and\nHomer, succeeded, however, in uniting the second inspiration of the\none to the third inspiration of the other, and left in his book of\n_Metamorphoses_ a monument not less brilliant and more inimitable than\nthe _\u00c6neid_. Horace, little satisfied with succeeding Pindar, sought\nand found the means of uniting to the enthusiasm of the passions the\ncalm of rational poetry, and, establishing himself a legislator of\nParnassus, dictated laws to the poets, or jeered at the absurdities of\nmen.\n\nThis poetry of reason had long since fallen into desuetude. The false\nmovement that dramatic poetry had taken in Greece, the contempt that\nit had come to inspire for gods and men, had reacted upon it. The\nphilosophers, disdaining a science which, by its own admission, was\nfounded upon falsehood, had driven it from their writings. As much as\nthey searched for it, when they believed it an emanation of the\nDivinity, so much had they fled from it since they had come to see in\nit only the vain production of an insensate delirium. Here is an\nobservation, _Messieurs_, somewhat new, with which I may engage your\nattention: the first comedies appeared five hundred and eighty years\nbefore our era, which was about twenty years after Pherecydes wrote\nthe first work in prose.[174] This philosopher doubtless, did not\nbelieve that a language prostituted to the burlesque parodies of\nSusarion should be useful further to the meditations of the sages. It\nis not, however, that at long intervals certain philosophers such as\nEmpedocles, Parmenides, and many others of their disciples, have not\nwritten in verse[175]; but the remains of the ancient usage soon gave\nway, especially when Plato had embellished prose with the charm of his\ncaptivating eloquence. Before this philosopher, Herodotus had read in\nthe assembly of the Olympic games an history of Greece connected with\nthat of the greater part of the neighbouring nations.[176] This work,\nwritten in a fluent style, clear and persuasive, had so enchanted the\nGreeks, that they had given to the nine books which he composed, the\nnames of the nine Muses. Nevertheless, an observation which will not\nbe wholly foreign here, is, that the admission of prose in philosophy,\ninstead of rational poetry, produced a style of work hitherto unknown,\nand of which the moderns made much; I am speaking of positive history.\nBefore this epoch, history written in verse was, as I have said,\nallegorical and figurative, and was occupied only with the masses\nwithout respect to individuals. Thus the evil which resulted on the\none side, from the degradation experienced by poetry in one of its\nbranches, was balanced by the good which was promised on the other,\nfrom the purification of prose for the advancement of exact knowledge.\n\nBut returning to what I said just now on the subject of rational\npoetry, joined by the Romans to the passionate part of that science, I\nwill say that this union created a new style, of which Horace was the\noriginator: this was the didactic style. This style ought not to be\nconfused with rational poetry, of which Hesiod has made use in his\npoem of _Works and Days_, and which pertains to Eumolp\u0153ia; nor with\npure rational poetry, such as one finds in the writings of Parmenides\nand Empedocles: it is a sort of poetry which, attaching itself to form\nalone, depends much upon dramatic art. The didactic, satirical, or\nsimply descriptive poet is similar to an actor on the stage declaiming\na long monologue. Rational poetry was welcomed at Rome, and drawn from\nthe long oblivion into which it had fallen, by Lucretius who, being\ninspired by the works of Leucippus and of Epicurus[177] wrote a book\nupon the nature of things, which has never been as yet well\ncomprehended or well translated, the language not being understood.\n\nComedy, reformed by Menander, was again improved by Plautus and by\nTerence who acquired much reputation in this style; as to dramatic art\nin itself, it remained in its inertia. The Romans having the same gods\nand nearly the same mythology as the Greeks, were neither sufficiently\nelevated in intelligence to reinstate this art and make of it the\nmasterpiece of the human mind; nor sufficiently advanced in exact\nknowledge to change wholly its forms and make of it, as we have, a new\nart, whence allegory and the moral part of Eumolp\u0153ia have been\ncompletely banished. But what the Romans were unable to do for\ndramatic art, they unfortunately were able to do for Epop\u0153ia. Certain\nwriters, able versifiers, but absolutely deprived of intellectual\ninspiration, incapable of distinguishing in poetry the essence from\nthe form, following what the degenerated theatre and the inspired\ndeclamations of Euhemerus[178] had taught them, imagined foolishly\nthat the gods and heroes of antiquity having been only men stronger\nand more powerful than the others, mythology was only a crude\ncollection of historic facts disfigured, and Epop\u0153ia only an emphatic\ndiscourse upon these same facts.[179] Thereupon they believed that it\nwas only a question of taking any historic subject whatever, and\nrelating it in verse with certain embellishments, to create an epic\npoem. Lucan and Silius Italicus, in choosing, the one the misfortunes\nof Pompey, and the other the victories of Hannibal, considered\nthemselves superior to Homer or Vergil, as much as they supposed Rome\nor Carthage superior to Ilium. But a just posterity, notwithstanding\nthe prejudices of their panegyrists, has put them in their place. It\nhas considered them merely the inventors of a kind of bastard poetry,\nwhich might be called historic poetry. This poetry, entirely separated\nfrom Eumolp\u0153ia, whose moral essence it is unable to realize, preserves\nonly the material and physical forms of true Epop\u0153ia. It is a body\nwithout soul, which is moved by a mechanical mainspring applied by a\nskilful workman.\n\nAs to the poetic form in itself, its only point of variance with the\nGreeks and Romans was that of elegance. The verses written in the same\nmanner, depended likewise upon a fixed number of time or of feet\nregulated by musical rhythm. If rhyme had been admitted there in the\nfirst ages, it had been excluded early enough so that there remained\nno longer the least trace of it. The Latin tongue, very far from the\nGreek in flexibility, variety, and harmony, for a long time treated\nwith contempt by the Greeks who, regarding it as a barbarous dialect,\nonly learned it with repugnance[180]; the Latin tongue, I say,\nunpleasing, obscure, not even supporting the mediocrity of ordinary\nelocution, became, through the laborious efforts of its writers, a\ntongue which in the works of Vergil, for example, attained such a\nperfection, that it came to be doubted, owing to the grace, the\njustice, and the force of its expression, whether the author of the\n_\u00c6neid_ did not surpass the author of the _Iliad_. Such is the empire\nof forms. They alone make problematical that which, in its essence,\nshould not be subject to the least discussion.\n\nBut at last the Roman Eagle, after having soared some time in the\nuniverse and covered with his extended wings the most beautiful\ncountries of Europe, Asia, and Africa, fatigued by its own triumphs,\nsank down again, allowed its power to be divided, and from the summit\nof this same Capitol, whence it had for such a long time hurled its\nthunderbolts, saw the vultures of the North divide among them its\nspoils. The mythological religion, misunderstood in its principles,\nattacked in its forms, given over to the corruption of things and men,\nhad disappeared to give place to a new religion, which born in\nobscurity, was raised imperceptibly from the ranks of the humblest\ncitizens to the imperial throne. Constantine, who in embracing the\nChristian cult had consolidated that religious revolution, believed\nhimself able to bring about another in politics, by transferring the\nseat of his empire to the Bosphorus. Historians have often blamed this\nlast movement; but they have not seen that Providence, in inspiring\nthis division of the empire, foresaw that the darkness of ignorance\nrolling with the waves of the barbarians was about to extend as far as\nRome, and that it would be necessary to concentrate at one point a\npart of the learning, in order to save it from the general ruin.\nWhereas the Empire of the Occident, assailed on all sides by the\nhordes from the North, was overthrown, torn, divided into numberless\nsmall sovereignties whose extent was often limited to the donjon where\nthe sovereign resided; the Empire of the Orient sustained the weight\nof the hordes from the South, nourished continually in its midst\ncertain men, guardians of the sacred fire of science, and did not fall\nuntil more than nine centuries later; and learning, commencing its\nrevival in the Occident, put minds in condition there, to appreciate\nthe models which were about to be presented to them and rendered them\ncapable of receiving their inspiration.\n\nIt was a very remarkable epoch, _Messieurs_, which saw grouped about\nit in the space of less than a half century and coincident with the\ndownfall of the Empire of the Orient, the use of gunpowder, of the\ncompass, of the telescope in the Occident; the invention of engraving\nupon copper, that of movable characters for printing, the extension of\ncommerce and navigation by the passage around the cape of Storms, and\nfinally the discovery of America. It was a very extraordinary century,\nin which were born Mohammed II. and Lorenzo de\u2019 Medici, Vasco da Gama\nand Christopher Columbus, Theodoros Gaza and Pico della Mirandola,\nLeonardo da Vinci and Bojardo, Leo X. and Luther. After the invasion\nof the barbarians, Christian Europe had lost its political unity: it\nwas as a great republic whose divided members, struggling continuously\none against the other, tearing by turn a shadow of supremacy, were the\nrealms, the pontifical or laic principalities, the republics, the free\nand commercial cities. The two chiefs of this gigantic and badly\norganized body, the German Emperor and the Pope, bishop of Rome, were\nvested only with a grandeur of opinion; their real power was void:\nthey were nothing more, in fact, than that which they appeared in\nform. Since Charlemagne, who, in a century of darkness enlightened\nwith his own genius, had had the force to grasp the _d\u00e9bris_ of the\nempire, uniting them in his hand and giving them a momentary\nexistence, it had not had an emperor. The vain efforts of Hildebrand\nand of Charles V. had served only at different times and under\ndifferent conditions to demonstrate their impotence. It was reserved\nfor a much greater man to dominate Europe regenerated by violent\nshocks, and to show to the universe the legitimate successor of\nAugustus wreathed with the imperial crown.\n\nBut without in any way anticipating time, without even leaving our\nsubject which is poetry, let us continue to follow the developments of\nthis science.\n\nThe original poets of Greece and Rome, brought into Italy by the\nsavants whom the taking of Constantinople forced to go back towards\nthe Occident of Europe, brought there an unexpected brilliancy, which,\nwith the ancient germs deeply buried in its midst, soon awakened\ncertain new germs that the peculiar circumstances had also brought\nthere. In explaining what these germs were, I am giving occasion for\nthinkers to make certain reflections, and critics to form certain\nsingular conjectures upon works hitherto badly judged.\n\nIt is necessary at first, that I repeat a truth which I have already\nsaid: that intellectual nature is always one and the same, whereas\nphysical nature varies, changes unceasingly with time and place, and\nis modified in a thousand ways according to circumstances. Now, it is\nthis latter nature which gives the form, that is to say, which renders\nsentient and particular that which the former gives to it as universal\nand intelligible; so that its aptitude more or less great, in\nreceiving and in working upon the intelligence, can make the things\nwhich are more homogeneous in their principle appear more dissimilar\nin their effect. I will give a proof. Whilst the most profound\nobscurity covered Europe, whilst ignorance spread on all sides its\nbaleful veils, there were found, however, at long intervals, certain\nprivileged men, who, raising themselves above these thick vapours,\ncame to grasp certain faint glimmerings of the light shining always\nabove them. These men possessors of such rare gifts, would have indeed\nwished to communicate them to their contemporaries, but if they\nimprudently opened their mouths, the blind and fanatic horde which\nsurrounded them cried out forthwith against the heretic, the magician,\nthe sorcerer, and conducted them to torture as the price of their\nlessons.[181] After several sorry examples, these men, having become\nprudent, assumed the part of silence by retiring into monasteries or\nhermitages, studying Nature there in quietude, and profiting alone by\ntheir discoveries. If certain ones still dared to speak, it was by\nborrowing the style of religion, or history, diverting from the\nordinary sense certain ideas received, explaining themselves by\nenigmas, or by figures, which, when necessary, they were able to\nexplain as they wished.\n\nAmong this number was a man of strong imagination and of a genius\nreally poetic, who, having grasped certain truths of nature, and\njudging it proper not to divulge them, took the expedient of enclosing\nthem in a book which he entitled: _Les Faits et Gestes de\nCharles-Magne_. This extraordinary man who has, in these modern times,\nobtained an ascendancy greater than one could ever have imagined,\nsince he is the vital source whence have come all the orders, all the\ninstitutions of chivalry with which Europe has been inundated; this\nman, I say, was a monk of _Saint-Andr\u00e9 de Vienne_, living from the\ntenth to the eleventh century and perhaps a little before.[182] The\nbook that he composed had a success as much the more prodigious as it\nwas misunderstood, and such was the ignorance not only of the people,\nbut even of the clergy, that the most palpable fictions were taken for\nrealities. There are historians even who pretend that the council of\nRheims, celebrated in 1119, declared this work authentic[183]; and\nthence came the habit of attributing it to Archbishop Turpin. However\nthat may be, it is to the allegorical history of Charlemagne, to that\nof his twelve paladins, called peers of France, to that of the four\nsons of Aymon and of Chevalier Bayard, to that of Renaud, Roland,\nRichard, and the other heroes of the _biblioth\u00e8que bleue_, for a long\ntime our only _bibliotheca_, that we owe a new style of poetry, called\nRomanesque, on account of the Romance tongue in which it had\nbirth.[184] This style is to the _eumolpique_ style, as a wild\noffshoot, growing laboriously in an arid and bramble-covered land, is\nto a cultivated tree which rises majestically in the heart of a\nfertile country.\n\nIt was with the chivalrous ideas, inspired by the book of the monk of\nSaint Andr\u00e9, that the first poetic ideas were brought forth in France.\nThe Oscan troubadours seizing these first glimmerings of genius, threw\nthemselves with enthusiasm into a career which offered at the same\ntime pleasures, glory, and the gifts of fortune.[185] They sang of the\nfair, of gallants and of kings; but their verses, monotonous enough\nwhen a real passion did not animate them, hardly reached above eulogy\nor satire. But little capable of feeling the moral beauties of poetry,\nthey stopped at form. The rhyme for them was everything. For them the\nsupreme talent was only rhyming much and with difficulty. One could\nnot imagine to what lengths they went in this style. Not content with\nrestricting themselves to follow the same rhyme throughout the entire\ncourse of the poem, they sometimes doubled it at the end of each\nverse, rhyming by echo, or else they made an initial rhyme.[186] These\nobstacles becoming multiplied stifled their muse in its cradle. All\nthat art owed to these first modern poets was limited to a sort of\nsong, gay and sprightly, ordinarily a parody upon a more serious\nsubject, and which, because it was quite frequently sung with an air\nof the dance accompanied by the _vielle_ or _hurdy-gurdy_, their\nfavourite instrument, was called _vau-de-vielle_, or as is pronounced\ntoday, vaudeville.[187]\n\nThe Italians and Spaniards, who received from the Oscan troubadours\ntheir first impulse toward poetry, would have been perhaps as limited\nas they, to composing amorous sonnets, madrigals or, at the most,\ncertain vehement _sylves_,[188] if the Greeks, driven from their\ncountry by the conquests of Mohammed II., had not brought them the\nworks of the ancients as I have already said. These works, explained\nin the _chaire publique_, due to the munificence of the Medicis,\nstruck particularly the Italians: not however by exciting their poets\nto take them as models; the turn of their mind and the form of their\npoetry, similar in everything to that of the troubadours, were opposed\ntoo obviously here; but by giving them that sort of emulation which,\nwithout copying the others, makes one strive to equal them. At this\nepoch the book of the monk of St. Andr\u00e9, attributed as I have said to\nArchbishop Turpin, already more than four centuries old, was known by\nall Europe, whether by itself, or whether by the numberless imitations\nof which it had been the subject. Not only France, Spain, Italy, but\nalso England and Germany were inundated with a mass of romances and\nballads, wherein were pictured the knights of the court of Charlemagne\nand those of the Round Table.[1189] All these works were written in\nverse, and the greater part, particularly those composed by the\ntroubadours or their disciples, intended to be sung, were cut into\nstrophes. Those of the imitator poets, who had had the force to go\nback to the allegorical sense of their model, had only developed and\nenriched it with their own knowledge; the others, following their\nvarious methods of considering it, had chosen subjects real and\nhistorical, or indeed had followed ingenuously without aim or plan,\nthe impulse of their vagabond imagination. In France could be seen\nrepresented by the side of the stories of Tristan, of Lancelot, of the\nGrail, and of Ogier-le-Danois, that of Alexander the Great and of the\nBible, that of the Seven Sages and of Judas Maccabeus, that of the\nHistory of the Normands and the Bretons, and finally that of the Rose,\nthe most famous of all. A certain Guilhaume had published a\nphilosophical romance upon the nature of beasts.[190]\n\nAlready the Italian poets, after having received from the troubadours\nthe form of their verses and that of their works, had surpassed their\nmasters and had caused them to be forgotten. Petrarch in the sonnet\nand Dante in the _sirvente_ assumed all the glory of their models, and\nleft not any for the successors[191]; already even Bojardo and some\nothers had attempted, with the example of Homer, to bring back to the\nunity of epop\u0153ia, the incongruous and fantastic scenes of the romance,\nwhen Ariosto appeared. This man, gifted with a keen and brilliant\nimagination, and possessor of a matchless talent, executed what no one\nelse had been able to do before him; he was neither inspired by Homer,\nnor by Vergil; he copied no one. He learned from them only to raise\nhimself to the poetic source, to see it where it was and to draw from\nit his genius. Then he received a first inspiration and became the\ncreator of a particular style of poetry which may be called romantic.\nUndoubtedly this style is greatly inferior to epop\u0153ia; but after all\nit is original: its beauties as well as its faults belong to him.\n\nAlmost the same moment when Ariosto enriched Europe with his new\npoetry, Camo\u00ebns wished to naturalize it in Portugal; but the _m\u00e9lange_\nof Vergil and Lucan that he essayed to make, betrayed his lack of\nunderstanding and he did not succeed. I mention it only that you may\nobserve, _Messieurs_, that the form adopted by the Portuguese poet is\nexactly the same as the one which Ariosto, his predecessors and his\nsuccessors, have followed in Italy: it is that of the troubadours. The\npoems of each are long ballads, intersected by strophes of eight lines\nof alternate rhymes which, succeeding one another with the same\nmeasure, can be sung from one end to the other, with an appropriate\nair, and which in fact, as J. J. Rousseau has very well remarked, were\nsung frequently. In these poems, the essence is in accord with the\nform, and it is this that makes their regularity. It is not the\nepop\u0153ia of Homer drawn from the Orphic source, it is the romantic\npoetry of Ariosto, an issue of the fictions attributed to Archbishop\nTurpin, which is associated with the verses of the troubadours. These\nverses subjected to rhyme are incapable in any tongue of attaining the\nsublime heights of Eumolp\u0153ia or of Epop\u0153ia.\n\nThe French poets soon proved it, when coming to understand the works\nof Homer and Vergil, they thought themselves able to imitate them by\nmaking use of the same poetic forms by which the authors of _Perceval_\nor _Berthe-au-grand-pied_ had profited. It was all to no purpose that\nthey worked these forms, striking them upon the anvil, polishing them,\nthey remained inflexible. Ronsard was the first who made the fatal\nexperiment; and after him a crowd of careless persons came to run\naground upon the same reef. These forms always called up the spirit\nwith which they were born; the melancholy and unceasing sound,\nsonorous with their rhymes in couplets or alternate, had something\nsoporific which caused the soul to dream and which allured it in spite\nof itself, not into the sublime regions of allegory where the genius\nof Eumolp\u0153ia was nourished, but into vague spaces of fictions, where,\nunder a thousand whimsical forms the romantic mind evaporates.\nDoubtless one would have been able, in France, to limit the Italian\npoets, as had been done in Spain and Portugal; but besides, as it\nwould have been necessary to confine itself to the second inspiration\nin a style already secondary, the spirit of the nation, sufficiently\nwell represented by that of Ronsard, foreseeing from afar its high\ndestinies, wished to command the summit of Parnassus, before having\ndiscovered the first paths.\n\nThe disasters of the first epic poets did not discourage their\nsuccessors; vying with each other they sought to make amends; but\ninstead of seeing the obstacle where it really was, that is to say, in\nthe incompatible alliance of the essence of Epop\u0153ia with the form of\nromance, they imagined that lack of talent alone had been prejudicial\nto the success of their predecessors. Consequently they devoted\nthemselves to work with an indefatigable ardour, polishing and\nrepolishing the rhyme, tearing to pieces and revising twenty times\ntheir works, and finally bringing the form to the highest perfection\nthat they were able to attain. The century of Louis XIV., so fertile\nin able versifiers, in profound rhymers, saw, however, the dawn of\nEpic poems only as a signal of their failure. Chapelain had,\nnevertheless, shown talent before his catastrophe; wishing to interest\nthe French nation, he had chosen in its history the sole epic subject\nwhich he found there. Why had he not succeeded? This point was\nconsidered, and the truth still lacking, they went on to imagine that\nthe fault was inherent in the French tongue, and that it was no longer\ncapable of rising to the heights of Epop\u0153ia: deplorable error, which\nfor a long time has been harmful to the development of a tongue\ndestined to become universal and to carry to future centuries the\ndiscoveries of past ones.\n\nRonsard had felt the difficulty most. Accustomed as he was to read\nGreek and Latin works in the original, he had seen clearly that what\nprevented the French tongue from following their poetic movement was\nparticularly the restraint of the rhyme; he had even sought to free it\nfrom this servitude, endeavouring to make the French verses scan\naccording to the ancient rhythm; but, in another way he had not\nappreciated the genius of that tongue which refused to follow this\nrhythm. Jodelle, Ba\u00eff, Passerat, Desportes, Henri-Etienne, and certain\nother savants, have made at different times the same attempt, and\nalways without results.[192] Each tongue has its own character which\nit is necessary to know; ours has not at all the musical prosody of\nthe Greek and Latin; its syllables are not determined, long and short,\nby the simple duration of time, but by the different accentuation and\ninflection of the voice. Among our writers the one who has best\nunderstood the nature of this prosody is certainly the abb\u00e9 d\u2019Olivet:\nhe declared firstly that he did not believe it possible to make French\nverses measured by rhythm; and secondly, that even in the case where\nthis might be possible, he did not see how this rhythm could be\nconformable to that of the Greeks and Latins.[193]\n\nI am absolutely of his opinion on these two points; I am furthermore,\n_en partie_, on what he says of the rhyme. I know as he, that it is\nnot an invention of the barbarous ages; I know even more, that it is\nthe luxurious production of a very enlightened age; I must say that it\nhas brought forth thousands of beautiful verses, that it is often to\nthe poet like a strange genius which comes to the assistance of his\nown.[194] God forbid that I pretend to separate it from French verse\nof which it is a charm. Rhyme is necessary, even indispensable, to\nromantic poetry and to all that is derived from it; and songs,\nballads, vaudevilles, sylves of whatever sort they may be, whatever\nform, whatever length they may have, cannot pass away. It adds an\ninfinite grace to all that is sung or recited with the chivalrous\nsentiment. Even the lyric style receives from it a romantic harmony\nwhich accords with it. All the secondary styles admit of this. It can,\nup to a certain point, embellish descriptive verse, soften didactic\nverse, add to the melancholy of the elegy, to the grace of the idyl;\nit can at last become the ornament of dramatic art such as we\npossess\u2015\u2015that is to say, chivalrous and impassioned; but as to real\nEumolp\u0153ia and Epop\u0153ia\u2015\u2015that is to say, as to what concerns\nintellectual and rational poetry, pure or mingled with the enthusiasm\nof the passions; prophetic verses or hymns, emanated from the Divinity\nor destined to be raised to it; philosophical verse adapted to the\nnature of things and developing the diverse moral and physical\nsystems; epic verses uniting talent to allegorical genius and joining\ntogether the intelligible world to the sentient world; with all these,\nrhyme is incompatible. As much as it delights in works of the mind\njust so much is it rejected by genius. Fiction harmonizes with it,\nallegory is opposed to it. It is chivalrous and not heroic; agreeable,\nbrilliant, clever, melancholy, sentimental, but it could never be\neither profound or sublime.\n\nLet us clear this up with the light of experience, and now that we can\ndo it to good purpose, let us make a rapid survey of the poetic\ncondition of the principal nations of the earth.\n\n\n\u00a7 VI\n\nThe Greeks and the Romans, as guilty of ingratitude as of injustice,\nhave styled Asia barbarous, without thinking that they thus outraged\ntheir Mother, the one from whom both had their origin and their first\ninstructions. Europe, more impartial today, begins to feel as she\nshould toward this ancient and noble country, and rendering to her\nvenerable scars a filial respect, does not judge her according to her\npresent weakness, but according to the vigour that she possessed in\nthe age of her strength, and of which her magnificent productions\nstill bear the imprint. A philosophical observer, academician of\nCalcutta, turning an investigating eye upon that part of the\nterrestrial continent, has recognized there five principal nations,\namong which that of the Indians holds the first rank; the others are\nthose of the Chinese, Tartars, Persians, and Arabs.[195] According to\nthis able writer, primitive India should be considered as a sort of\nluminous focus which, concentrating at a very remote epoch the\nlearning acquired by an earlier people, has reflected it, and has\ndispersed the rays upon the neighbouring nations.[196] She has been\nthe source of Egyptian, Greek, and Latin theogony; she has furnished\nthe philosophical dogmas with which the first poets of Thrace and\nIonia have adorned the beauties of Eumolp\u0153ia and Epop\u0153ia; it is she\nwho has polished the Persians, Chaldeans, Arabs, and Ethiopians; and\nwho by her numerous colonies has entertained relations with the\nChinese, Japanese, Scandinavians, Celts, Etruscans, and even with the\nPeruvians of the other hemisphere.[197]\n\nIf one listens to the discourse of those who have been much inclined\nto study the savant language of the Indians, Sanskrit, he will be\npersuaded that it is the most perfect language that man has ever\nspoken. Nothing, according to them, can surpass its riches, its\nfertility, its admirable structure; it is the source of the most\npoetic conceptions and the mother of all the dialects which are in use\nfrom the Persian Gulf to the waters of China.[198] It is certain that\nif anything can prove to the eyes of savants the maternal rights that\nthis tongue claims over all the others, it is the astonishing variety\nof its poetry: what other peoples possess in detail, it possesses _in\ntoto_. It is there that Eumolp\u0153ia, Epop\u0153ia, and Dramatic Art shine\nwith native _\u00e9clat_: it is there that poetry divine and rational,\npoetry allegorical and passionate, poetry stirring and even romantic,\nfind their cradle. There, all forms are admitted, all kinds of verse\nreceived. The _Vedas_, pre-eminently sacred books, are, like the Koran\nof Mohammed, written in cadenced prose.[199] The _Pouranas_, which\ncontain the theosophy and philosophy of the Brahmans, their system\nconcerning Nature, their ideas upon morals and upon natural\nphilosophy, are composed in philosophical verse not rhymed; they are\nattributed to Vyasa, the Orpheus of the Indians. Valmiki, who is their\nHomer, has displayed in the _Ramayana_ an epop\u0153ia magnificent and\nsublime to the highest degree; the dramas, which they call Nataks,\nare, according to their style, rhymed and not rhymed: Bheret is\nconsidered as their inventor; Kalidasa as their perfecter.[200] The\nother kinds of poetry are all rhymed; their number is immense; their\nvariety infinite. Nothing equals the industry and delicacy of the\nIndian rhymers in this style. The Arabs all skilful as they were, the\nOscan troubadours whose rhyme was their sole merit, have never\napproached their models.[201] Thus, not only does one find among the\nIndians the measured verse of the Greeks and Romans, not only does one\nsee there rhythms unknown to these two peoples, but one recognizes\nalso there our rhyme with combinations of which we have no idea.\n\nI ought to make an important observation here: it is, that whereas\nIndia, mistress of Asia, held the sceptre of the earth, she still\nrecognized only the eumolp\u0153ia of the _Vedas_ and the _Pouranas_, only\nthe epop\u0153ia of _Maha-Bharata_ and the _Ramayana_; her poetry was the\nlanguage of the gods and she gave herself the name of _Ponya-Rhoumi_,\nLand of Virtues. It was only when a long prosperity had enervated her,\nthat the love for novelty, the caprice of fashion and perhaps, as it\nhappened in Greece, the deviation of the theatre, caused her to seek\nfor beauties foreign to veritable poetry. It is not a rare thing to\npass the point of perfection when one has attained it. The astonishing\nflexibility of Sanskrit, the abundance of its final consonants opens a\ndouble means for corruption. Poets multiplied words believing to\nmultiply ideas; they doubled rhymes; they tripled them in the same\nverse believing to increase proportionably its harmony. Their\nimagination bending before an inspiring genius became vagabond; they\nthought to rise to the sublime, and fell into the bombastic. At last,\nknowing no longer how to give emphasis and importance to their\nextravagant thoughts, they created words of such length that, in order\nto contain them, it was necessary to forge verses of four _c\u00e6suras_ of\nnineteen syllables each.[202]\n\nIt was, therefore, at the epoch of the decadence of the Indian Empire,\nthat rhyme usurped poetry. It would be difficult today to say whether\nit was an innovation or a simple renovation. However it may be, it is\nprobable that it passed rapidly from the ruling nation to subject\nnations where it was diversely welcomed according to the language and\nparticular mind of each people.\n\nIf one can believe the annals of the Indians, China was one of their\ncolonies for a long time schismatic and rebellious.[203] If one can\nlend faith to the most ancient tradition of the Chinese, they form\nfrom time immemorial a body of autochthonous people.[204] The\ndiscussion of this historic difficulty would be out of place here.\nSuffice it to say, that the Chinese having commenced by having rhymed\nverses, and preserving by character and by religion, with an\ninviolable respect, the ancient usages, have never had but a mediocre\npoetry, absolutely foreign to epop\u0153ia.[205] Their principal sacred\nbooks, called _Kings_, are composed of symbolic or hieroglyphic\ncharacters, forming by groups sorts of tableaux, of profound and often\nsublime conception, but bereft of what we would call eloquence of\nlanguage. These are mute images, incommunicable by means of the voice,\nand which the reader must consider with the eyes and meditate long\nupon in order to comprehend them.\n\nThe Tartars who reign today in China and who are distinguished from\nthe others by the epithet of Manchus, although possessors of a formed\ntongue whose richness certain authors praise,[206] have not any kind\nof poetry as I have already remarked.[207] The other Tartars were\nhardly more advanced before being placed by their conquests within\nreach of the learning of the vanquished people. The Turks had no\nalphabetical characters. The Huns were ignorant even of its existence.\nThe proud vanquisher of Asia, Genghis Khan did not find, according to\nthe best historians, a single man among the Mongolians capable of\nwriting his despatches. The alphabet of fourteen letters that the\nU\u00efgurian Tartars possess, appears to have been given them by the\nancient Persians,[208] from whom they also received the little that\nthey knew of poetry.\n\nThese Persians, today imitators of the Arabs, were in very remote\ntimes disciples of the Indians. Their sacred tongue then called Zend,\nin which are written the fragments that remain to us of Zoroaster, was\na dialect of Sanskrit.[209] These fragments that we owe to the\nindefatigable zeal of Anquetil Duperron, appear to be written, as the\nVedas, or as all the sacred books of India, in cadenced prose. After\nthe _Zend-Avesta_, the most famous book among the Parsees is the\n_Boun-Dehesh_, written in Pehlevi, and containing the cosmogony of\nZoroaster. Pehlevi, which is derived from Chaldaic Nabat\u00e6an, indicates\na translation,[210] and testifies that Persia had already passed from\nunder the dominion of India to that of Assyria. But when, thanks to\nthe conquests of Cyrus, Persia had become free and mistress of Asia,\nPehlevi, which recalled its ancient servitude, was banished from the\ncourt by Bahman-Espandiar, whom we call Artaxerxes Longimanus.[211]\nThe Parsee replaced it; this last dialect, modified by Greek under the\nsuccessors of Alexander, mixed with many Tartar words under the\nParthian kings, polished by the Sassanid\u00e6, usurped at last by the\nArabs and subjected to the intolerant influence of Islamism, had no\nlonger its own character: it has taken, in the modern Persian, all the\nmovements of the Arabic, notwithstanding its slight analogy with\nit[212]; following its example, it has concentrated all the beauties\nof poetry in rhyme and since then it has had neither Eumolp\u0153ia nor\nEpop\u0153ia.\n\nAs to the Arab, no one is ignorant of the degree to which he is a\nslave to rhyme. Already, by a sufficiently happy conjecture, a French\nwriter had made the first use of rhyme in France coincide with the\nirruption of the Moors into Europe at the beginning of the eighth\ncentury.[213] He has said that Provence had been the door by which\nthis novelty was introduced into France. However difficult it may\nappear of proving rigorously this assertion, lacking monuments, it\ncannot, however, be denied that it may be very probable, above all\nconsidering what influence the Arabs exercised upon the sciences and\narts in the south of France after they had penetrated through Spain.\nNow, there is no country on earth where the poetry that I have called\nromantic has been cultivated with more constancy and success than in\nArabia; rhyme, if she has received it from India, was naturalized\nthere by long usage, in such a way as to appear to have had birth\nthere. If it must be said, the Arab tongue seems more apt at receiving\nit than the Sanskrit. Rhyme seems more requisite to poetry there, on\naccount of the great quantity and inflexibility of the monosyllables,\nwhich joining together only with much difficulty to form the numerous\nand rhythmic combinations, had need of its assistance to soften their\nharshness and to supply the harmony which they lacked.\n\nNeverthless, whatever may be the pretension of Arabia to the invention\nof rhyme, and even to that of romantic poetry, one cannot be\nprevented, when one possesses without prejudice and to a certain\nextent the distinguishing character of the Asiatic languages, from\nseeing that there are proofs in the Arabic itself which give evidence\nin favour of India. Such is, for example, the word _Diwan_,[214] by\nwhich the Arabs designate the collection of their ancient\npoetries.[215] This word, which is attached to the Sanskrit expression\n_Dewa_ or _Diwa_, designates all that is divine, celestial; all that\nemanates from the Universal Intelligence[216]: it is the poetry of the\nGreeks, the language of the gods, or the voice of the Universal Being\nof the Egyptians and the Ph\u0153nicians.\n\nHowever, the Arabic _Diwan_\u2015\u2015that is to say, the poetic collection of\nthat nation, goes back to most ancient times. One finds in it verses\nattributed to the first Hebrew patriarchs and even to Adam[217]; for\nsince the introduction of Islamism, the cosmogony of Moses has become\nthat of the Mussulmans, as it has been ours since the establishment of\nChristianity. It is there, in this _diwan_, that the most authentic\ntraditions are preserved: they are all in verse and resemble greatly,\nas to form and doubtless as to substance, that which the monk of St.\nAndr\u00e9 has transmitted to us through the court of Charlemagne. It is\nthe same chivalrous spirit and the same romantic fictions. The Persian\npoet Firdausi appears to have followed similar traditions\nconcerning the ancient kings of Iran, in his famous poem entitled\n_Shah-Namah_.[218] The wonders which reign in these traditions have\nbeen transmitted no doubt by the Arabs, with the artifice of rhyme:\nboth have the same spirit. The protecting fairies of the knights, the\ngiant persecutors of ladies, the enchanters, the magic, and all those\nillusions are the fruits of that brilliant and dreamy imagination\nwhich characterizes the modern Orientals. We have enthusiastically\nenjoyed them in the depths of the barbarity where we were plunged; we\nhave allowed ourselves to be drawn by the charms of rhyme, like\nchildren in the cradle, whom their nurses put to sleep by the\nmonotonous sound of a lullaby. Escaped from that state of languor, and\nstruck at last with a gleam of real intelligence, we have compared\nGreece and Arabia, the songs of epop\u0153ia and those of the ballads; we\nhave blushed at our choice; we have wished to change it; but owing to\nthe captivating form always more or less the substance, we have only\nsucceeded in making mixtures more or less happy, according to the\nsecondary mode that we follow.\n\nRhyme, brought into Europe by the Arabs more than a thousand years\nago, spread by degrees among all nations, in such a way that when one\nwishes to examine its origin with accuracy, one no longer knows\nwhether it is indigenous there or exotic. One finds on all sides only\nrhymed verses. The Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, French, Germans of\nall dialects, Hollanders, Danes, Swedes and Norwegians, all\nrhyme.[219] The modern Greeks themselves have forgotten their ancient\nrhythm in order to assume our style.[220] If anything could, however,\nmake one doubt that rhyme may be natural to Europe, it is that ancient\nScandinavian, in which are written the precious fragments which have\ncome down to us concerning the mythological cult of the Celts, our\nancestors, does not rhyme; also it rises often to the sublimity of\nEumolp\u0153ia.[221] This observation, which makes us reject Arabia, will\ntake us back to India, if we consider that there is plausible\npresumption in believing that the Ph\u0153nicians and the Egyptians who had\nso much intercourse with the Arabs, did not rhyme, since the sacred\nbook of the Hebrews, the _Sepher_, that we call the _Bible_, and which\nappears to have issued from the Egyptian sanctuaries, is written in\ncadenced rhyme, as the _Zend-Avesta_ of the Parsees and the _Vedas_ of\nthe Indians.[222]\n\nThe outline that I have just sketched confirms, _Messieurs_, what I\nhave wished to prove to you and which is the subject of this\ndiscourse, the distinction that should be made between the essence and\nthe form of poetry, and the reciprocal influence that should be\nrecognized between these two parts of the science. You have seen that\nwherever rhyme has dominated exclusively, as in Asia among the\nChinese, Arabians, Persians; as in Europe among all the modern\npeoples, it has excluded epop\u0153ia and has replaced allegorical genius\nby the spirit of romantic fictions; you have seen that wherever\neumolpique poetry has wished to appear, whether moral or rational,\ntheosophical or philosophical, it has been obliged to have recourse to\na particular prose, when the form of poetry has resisted it, as has\nhappened in China for the _Kings_, in Persia for the _Zend-Avesta_, in\nArabia for the _Koran_; you have seen that wherever poetry has been\npreserved purely rhythmical, as in Greece and with the Romans, it has\nadmitted eumolp\u0153ia and epop\u0153ia without mixture; and finally, that\nwherever the two forms meet each other with all their modifications,\nas in India, it gives way in turn to all the different kinds,\nintellectual and rational, epic, dramatic, and romantic.\n\nNow, what Hindustan was for Asia, France should be for Europe. The\nFrench tongue, as the Sanskrit, should tend towards universality; it\nshould be enriched with all the learning acquired in the past\ncenturies, so as to transmit it to future generations. Destined to\nfloat upon the _d\u00e9bris_ of a hundred different dialects, it ought to\nbe able to save from the shipwreck of time all their beauties and all\ntheir remarkable productions. Nevertheless, how will it be done, if\nits poetic forms are not open to the spirit of all the poetries, if\nits movement, arrested by obstacles cannot equal that of the tongues\nwhich have preceded it in the same career? By what means, I ask you,\nwill it succeed to the universal dominion of Sanskrit, if, dragging\nalways after it the frivolous jingling of Arabic sounds, it cannot\neven succeed to the partial domination of Greek or Latin? Must it be\nnecessary then that it betray its high destinies, and that the\nprovidential decree which founds the European empire, exempt it from\nthe glory which it promises to the French name?\n\nI have told you, _Messieurs_, in beginning this discourse, that it was\nin the interest of science alone, that I entered this career: it is\nassuredly not by my poor poetic talent that I have aspired to the\nhonour of occupying your attention; but by a generous instinct, which,\nmaking me ignore many of the considerations which might have arrested\nme, has persuaded me that I could be useful. I have dared to conceive\nthe possibility of composing, in French, eumolpique verse, which might\nneither be measured by musical rhythm foreign to our tongue, nor\nenchained by rhyme opposed to all intellectual and rational movement,\nand which however might have neither the harshness, nor the discord of\nthat which has been called, up to this time, blank verse.\n\nMany French writers have tried to make verse deprived of rhyme. Some\nhave sought to imitate the measures of the ancients, others have\nsatisfied themselves with copying certain moderns who do not rhyme.\nEach of them has misunderstood the essential character of his tongue.\nVossius alone appears to have foreseen the principles without\ndeveloping them, when he has said that French verse might be\nconsidered as having only one foot.[223] This is exactly true in\nexamining rhythm only in itself, and giving to each hemistich the name\nof time: but if one considers this one foot, whether hexameter or\npentameter, as formed of two times equal or unequal, it is perceived\nthat it participates, through its final, in two natures: the one\nstrong and forceful, that we name masculine; the other soft and\nlanguid, that we call feminine. Therefore, French verse having but one\nrhythmic foot, differs, however, in the style of this foot and can be\nconsidered in two relations. Let us take for example the hexameter\nverse. The rhythmic foot which constitutes it is composed of two equal\ntimes distinguished by the c\u00e6sura, the last of which is masculine or\nfeminine: Masculine, as in:\n\n  Rome, l\u2019unique objet de mon ressentiment!\n  Rome, \u00e0 qui vient ton bras d\u2019immoler mon amant!\n\nFeminine, as in:\n\n  Rome qui t\u2019a vu na\u00eetre et que ton c\u0153ur adore!\n  Rome enfin que je hais parce qu\u2019elle t\u2019honore!\n\nIn rhymed verses, such as these I have just cited, two feet of the\nsame kind are obliged to follow one another on account of the rhyme\nwhich links them; they then form but one whole and, proceeding abreast\nwithout being separated, they injure by their forced mass the rapidity\nof expression and flight of thought. If a third foot of the same kind\noccur with the other two feet, rhyming together, it would have to\nrhyme with them to prevent an insupportable discordance, which is not\ntolerated; a fourth or a fifth foot would submit to the same law, so\nthat, if the poet wished to fill his piece with masculine verses\nalone, it would be necessary that he should make them proceed upon a\nsingle rhyme, as the Arabs do today and as our early troubadours did,\nfollowing their example. The French poet can vary his rhyme only by\nvarying the style of his verses and by mingling alternately together\nthe masculine and feminine finals.\n\nAs these two kinds of finals are dissimilar without being opposed,\nthey may be brought together without the need of rhyming; their\nmeeting, far from being disagreeable is, on the contrary, only\npleasing; two finals of the same kind, whether masculine or feminine,\ncan never clash without causing the same sound\u2015\u2015that is, without\nrhyming; but it is not thus with the finals of different kinds, since\nthe rhyme is impossible in this case. So that, to make what I call\neumolpique verses, it suffices to avoid the meeting of finals of the\nsame kind, whose impact necessitates the rhyme, by making one kind\nsucceed another continually, and opposing alternately the masculine\nand feminine, the mingling of which is irrelevant to eumolp\u0153ia. Here\nis all the mechanism of my verses: they are fluent as to form; as to\nthe essence which is expedient for them\u2015\u2015that is another thing: for it\nis rarely encountered.\n\nThose who have made blank verse in French have spoken justly of it\nwith the greatest contempt; these verses, miserable as to substance,\nwithout poetic fire, written as the flattest prose, lacking movement\nand grace, had, furthermore, the insupportable fault of not\nrecognizing the genius of the French tongue, by making finals of the\nsame kind clash constantly, and by not distinguishing that which is\ncalled rhyme from that which repels it.\n\nNow that I have made as clear as possible my motives and my means,\nthere remains only, _Messieurs_, for me to submit to your judgment the\ntranslation that I have made, in eumolpique verse, of the piece of\nGreek poetry which comprises the doctrine of Pythagoras in seventy-one\nlines called, _par excellence_, Golden Verses. This piece, venerable\nby its antiquity and by the celebrated philosopher whose name it\nbears, belonging to eumolp\u0153ia, without any mixture of passion, is\nsufficiently known to savants so that I need not speak about what\nconcerns its particular merit. This would mean, moreover, a matter of\nsome explanations. At any rate, I believe it advisable before passing\nto this final subject, to give you certain examples of the use of my\nverses as applied to epop\u0153ia, so that you may judge, since they are in\nhands as incapable as mine, what they might become when used by men of\nsuperior genius and talent. I will choose, for this purpose, the\nexposition and invocation of the principal epic poems of Europe, in\norder to have a fixed subject for comparison. I will translate line by\nline, and will imitate, as well as is possible for me, the movement\nand harmony of the poet that I may have before me. This labour, which\nI hope will not be without some interest for the illustrious\nacademicians whom I am addressing, will furnish me the occasion of\nshowing by certain characteristic traits the genius of the language\nand poetry of the different modern peoples of Europe; and I will\nterminate thus the outline that I have sketched touching the poetic\nconditions of the principal nations of the earth.\n\n\n\u00a7 VII\n\nI am beginning with the creator of epop\u0153ia, with Homer. It is easy to\nsee by the manner in which this divine man blends, from the opening\nlines of the _Iliad_, the exposition and invocation, that, full of a\ncelestial inspiration that he was the first to receive, he seeks to\npour forth the superabundant fire which consumes him, and to throw\ninto the soul of his hearer the impassioned enthusiasm which masters\nand controls his own. The following lines will suffice to make known\nthe subject of a work which fills twenty-four cantos.\n\n  D\u00e9esse! viens chanter la col\u00e8re d\u2019Achille,\n  Fatale, et pour les Grecs si fertile en malheurs,\n  Qui, d\u2019avance, aux enfers, pr\u00e9cipitant en foule\n  Les \u00e2mes des h\u00e9ros, livra leurs corps sanglants\n  Aux dogues affam\u00e9s: ainsi Jupiter m\u00eame\n  Le voulut, quand la haine eut divis\u00e9 les c\u0153urs\n  Du roi des rois Atride et du divin Achille.\n    Lequel des Immortels provoqua ce courroux?\n  Apollon irrit\u00e9, qui, pour punir Atride,\n  Ravagea son arm\u00e9e: et les peuples mourraient!\n\n\n  O Goddess! sing the wrath of Peleus\u2019 son,\n  Achilles; sing the deadly wrath that brought\n  Woes numberless upon the Greeks, and swept\n  To Hades many a valiant soul, and gave\n  Their limbs a prey to dogs and birds of air,\u2015\u2015\n  For so had Jove appointed,\u2015\u2015from the time\n  When the two chiefs, Atrides, King of men,\n  And great Achilles, parted first as foes.\n    Which of the gods put strife between the chiefs,\n  That they should thus contend? Latona\u2019s son\n  And Jove\u2019s. Incensed against the king, he bade\n  A deadly pestilence appear among\n  The army, and the men were perishing.\n                                       BRYANT.\n\n\n  \u039c\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70, \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b7\u03ca\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c9 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bf\u03c2,\n  \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f23 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u2019 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5\u2019 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd,\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f30\u03c6\u03b8\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f0c\u03ca\u03b4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u0390\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd\n  \u1f21\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03bb\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c7\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u03bf\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 (\u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae),\n  \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\n  \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\n    \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c6\u03c9\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9;\n  \u039b\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2. \u1f49 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03ca \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\n  \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f66\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1f76.\n\nI dispense with making any reflection upon the charm of the original\nverses and upon the admirable sentiment which terminates them. It\nwould be a very strange thing not to be impressed by the beauties of\nthis poetry. Let us pass on to Vergil.\n\nEven though I should not say it, it would suffice now to compare the\nGreek poet with the Latin poet, in order to perceive that the latter\nreceived only a second inspiration, transmitted by the inspiring power\nof the former. Vergil, less ardent, more tender, more correct, admits\nat once the luminous distinction; far from blending the exposition and\ninvocation, he separates them, affects a tone more simple, promises\nlittle, exposes with timidity the subject of his poem, summons his\nMuse, and seems to persuade it, even less than the reader, to be\nfavourable to him. He employs these lines:\n\n  Je chante les combats, et ce H\u00e9ros troyen,\n  Qui, fuyant Ilion aborda l\u2019Italie\n  Le premier: sur la terre errant, et sur les mers,\n  En butte aux traits cruels de Junon irrit\u00e9e,\n  Il souffrit mille maux; avant qu\u2019il \u00e9tabl\u00eet\n  Ses Dieux chez les Latins, et fond\u00e2t une ville,\n  Berceau d\u2019Albe, de Rome et de ses hauts remparts.\n    Muse! rappelle-moi quels motifs de vengeance\n  Excitaient la D\u00e9esse, et pourquoi son courroux\n  S\u2019obstinait \u00e0 poursuive un H\u00e9ros magnanime?\n  Tant de haine entre-t-elle au c\u0153ur des Immortels!\n\n\n  Arms and the man I sing, who first,\n  By fate of Ilium realm amerced,\n  To fair Italia onward bore,\n  And landed on Lavinium\u2019s shore:\u2015\u2015\n  Long tossing earth and ocean o\u2019er,\n  By violence of heaven, to sate\n  Fell Juno\u2019s unforgetting hate:\n  Much laboured too in battle-field,\n  Striving his city\u2019s walls to build,\n    And give his Gods a home:\n  Thence come the hardy Latin brood,\n  The ancient sires of Alba\u2019s blood,\n    And lofty-rampired Rome.\n  Say, Muse, for godhead how disdained,\n  Or wherefore worth, Heaven\u2019s queen constrained\n  That soul of piety so long\n  To turn the wheel, to cope with wrong.\n  Can heavenly natures nourish hate\n  So fierce, so blindly passionate?\n                                       CONINGTON.\n\n\n  Arma virumque cano, Troj\u00e6 qui primus ab oris\n  Italiam, fato profugus, Lavinaque venit\n  Litora, multum ille et terris jactatus et alto\n  Vi super\u00fbm, s\u00e6v\u00e6 memorem Junonis ob iram,\n  Multa quoque et bello passus, dum conderet urbem\n  Inferretque deos Latio: genus unde Latinum,\n  Albanique patres atque alt\u00e6 m\u0153nia Rom\u00e6.\n    Musa, mihi causas memora, quo numine l\u00e6so,\n  Quidve dolens, regina de\u00fbm tot volvere casus\n  Insignem pietate virum, tot adire labores\n  Impulerit. Tant\u00e6ne animis c\u0153lestibus ir\u00e6?\n\n\nIt can be observed that Vergil, although he places himself foremost\nand although he says, _I sing_, begins nevertheless in a manner much\nless animated, much less sure than the Greek poet, who, transported\nbeyond himself, seems to impose upon his Muse the subject of his\nsongs, interrogates her, and then inspired by her, responds. The Latin\npoet finishes, like his model, with a sentence; but it is easy to feel\nthat this apostrophe,\n\n  Can heavenly natures nourish hate\n  So fierce, so blindly passionate?\n\nalthough very beautiful, contains less depth, less feeling, and holds\nless intimately to the subject than this sublime reflection:\n\n  ... and the men were perishing!\n\nSomeone has said that Vergil had imitated in his exposition the\ncommencement of the _Odyssey_ of Homer; this is a mistake. One finds\nalways in the exposition of the _Odyssey_ the real character of a\nfirst inspiration blended with the invocation, although more calm and\nless alluring than in the _Iliad_. Here is the translation:\n\n    Du plus sage H\u00e9ros, Muse, dis les traverses\n  Sans nombre, apr\u00e8s qu\u2019il eut triomph\u00e9 d\u2019Ilion:\n  Rapelle les cit\u00e9s, les peuples, les usages,\n  Qu\u2019il connut, et les mers o\u00f9 longtemps il erra:\n  \u00c0 quels soins d\u00e9vorants, \u00e0 quels maux l\u2019expos\u00e8rent\n  L\u2019amour de la patrie et noble d\u00e9sir\n  D\u2019y mener ses guerriers! Vain d\u00e9sir: ils os\u00e8rent,\n  Insens\u00e9s! du Soleil d\u00e9vorer les troupeaux;\n  Et ce Dieu, du retour leur ravit la journ\u00e9e.\n  Fais-nous part de ces faits, fille de Jupiter.\n\n\n  Tell me, O Muse, of that sagacious man\n  Who, having overthrown the sacred town\n  Of Ilium, wandered far and visited\n  The capitals of many nations, learned\n  The customs of their dwellers and endured\n  Great suffering on the deep; his life was oft\n  In peril, as he laboured to bring back\n  His comrades to their homes. He saved them not,\n  Though earnestly he strove; they perished all,\n  Through their own folly; for they banqueted,\n  Madmen! upon the oxen of the Sun,\u2015\u2015\n  The all-o\u2019erlooking Sun, who cut them off\n  From their return. O Goddess, virgin-child\n  Of Jove, relate some part of this to me.\n                                       BRYANT.\n\n\n  \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5, \u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n  \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u00b7\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f45 \u03b3\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5\u03b1 \u1f43\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd,\n  \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f25\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f67\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f31\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u00b7\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf,\n  \u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f59\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f28\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\n  \u1f24\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1.\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\nThe talent of Homer shows itself completely in the _Odyssey_; it\ndominates the genius there, so to speak, as much as the genius had\ndominated it in the _Iliad_. The fire which animates the _Iliad_ has\nbeen, with reason, compared to that of the sun arrived at the height\nof its course, and the splendour which shines in the _Odyssey_ to that\nwith which the occident is coloured on the evening of a fine day.\nPerhaps if we had his _Thebaid_, we would see those brilliant lights\nwhich accompany the aurora, developed there, and then we would possess\nin all its shades this immortal genius who depicted all nature.\n\nThere are people who, feeling by a sort of intuition that Homer had\nbeen created the poetic incentive of Europe, even as I have said, and\njudging on the other hand that Ariosto had made an epic poem, are\nconvinced that the Italian poet had copied the Greek; but this is not\nso. Ariosto, who has made only a romanesque poem, has not received the\ninspiration of Homer; he has simply followed the fictions attributed\nto Archbishop Turpin and clothing them with forms borrowed from the\nArabs by the troubadours makes himself creator in this secondary\nstyle. The rhyme is as essential to it as it is harmful to veritable\nepop\u0153ia; this is why the eumolpique verses never conform to it in the\nslightest degree. To apply them to it, is to make serious what is by\nnature gay, it is to give a character of force and of truth to what is\nonly light, airy, and fantastic. I am about, however, to translate the\nbeginning of his poem, in order to furnish, by the shocking disparity\nwhich exists between the romantic essence of his poetry and the epic\nform that I here adapt, a new proof of what I have said.\n\n    Je veux chanter les Dames, les Guerriers,\n  L\u2019amour, l\u2019honneur, et les jeux et les armes,\n  Durant ces temps o\u00f9 les fiers Sarrasins,\n  Des mers d\u2019Afrique, abord\u00e8rent en France,\n  Pour seconder les fureurs d\u2019Agramant,\n  Le jeune roi, dont l\u2019orgueilleuse audace\n  Pensait venger la mort du vieux Trojan,\n  Sur l\u2019empereur des Romains, Charlemagne.\n\n    Je veux aussi raconter de Roland,\n  Chose inou\u00efe, autant en vers qu\u2019en prose;\n  Dire l\u2019amour qui rendit furieux\n  Ce paladin, auparavant si sage;\n  Si toutefois celle qui m\u2019a charm\u00e9,\n  Qui va minant ma raison d\u2019heure en heure,\n  M\u2019en laisse assez pour remplir dignement\n  Mon entreprise et tenir ma promesse.\n\n\n    Of Loves and Ladies, Knights and Arms, I sing,\n  Of Courtesies, and many a Daring Feat;\n  And from those ancient days my story bring,\n  When Moors from Afric passed in hostile fleet,\n  And ravaged France, with Agramant their King,\n  Flushed with his youthful rage and furious heat;\n  Who on King Charles\u2019, the Roman emperor\u2019s head\n  Had vowed due vengeance for Troyano dead.\n\n    In the same strain of Roland will I tell\n  Things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme,\n  On whom strange madness and rank fury fell,\n  A man esteemed so wise in former time;\n  If she, who to like cruel pass has well\n  Nigh brought my feeble wit which fain would climb\n  And hourly wastes my sense, concede me skill\n  And strength my daring promise to fulfil.\n                                       W. R. ROSE.\n\n\n    Le donne, i cavalier, l\u2019arme, gl\u2019amori\n  Le cortes\u00ede, l\u2019audaci imprese io canto,\n  Che furo al tempo che passaro i Mori\n  D\u2019Africa il mare, e in Francia nocquer tanto,\n  Seguendo l\u2019ire e i giovenil furori\n  D\u2019Agramante lor re, che si di\u00e8 vanto\n  Di vendicar la morte di Troiano\n  Sopra re Carlo imperator romano.\n\n    Dir\u00f2 d\u2019Orlando in un medesmo tratto\n  Cosa non detta in prosa mai, n\u00e8 in rima;\n  Che per amor venne in furore e matto,\n  D\u2019uom che si saggio era stimato prima:\n  Se da colei che tal quasi m\u2019ha fatto\n  Che\u2019l poco ingegno ad or ad or mi lima,\n  Me ne sar\u00e0 per\u00f2 tanto concesso,\n  Che mi basti a finir quanto ho promesso.\n\n\nIt is very easy to see, in reading these two strophes, that there\nexists in the exposition no sort of resemblance either with that of\nHomer, or with that of Vergil. It is a third style, wholly foreign to\nthe other two. Homer mingling the exposition and the invocation,\ncommands his Muse to sing what she inspires in him; Vergil\ndistinguishing one from the other, prays his Muse to acquaint him with\nwhat he is about to sing; whereas Ariosto, announcing simply the\nsubject of his songs, makes no invocation. It is evident that he\nrelies upon himself, and that in the style that he adopts he\nunderstands very well that he has no other Muse, no other guide than\nhis imagination. His subject is in accord with his manner of treating\nit. If one wishes to reflect upon this decisive point, one will feel\nand realize, for the first time perhaps, why in the opinion of all the\nworld concerning two works from the same hand, _La Pucelle_ and _La\nHenriade_, the one is a poem, whereas the other, composed with a far\ngreater pretension, is not. Voltaire, in imitating Ariosto in a\nsubject that he has rendered romanesque and frivolous, has received\nthe second inspiration; but in imitating Lucan in an historic subject\nhe received nothing, for Lucan, creator of a mixed style, had no\ninspiration that he could communicate.\n\nI have said what I thought of Camoens: it is useless to quote the\nexposition of his poem that has nothing remarkable, particularly since\nTasso has so far surpassed him.\n\nTasso was worthy of receiving a veritable inspiration. His lofty\ngenius, his pure and brilliant imagination brought him nearer to\nVergil than to Ariosto; and if he had been inspired even through the\nLatin poet, he would have shown Europe what the magnetic power of\nHomer was, although acting only in its third degree. But the\nprejudices of education working in him even without his knowledge, and\nthe influence that chivalresque poetry had attained in Italy, did not\npermit him either to forsake entirely the chronicles of Archbishop\nTurpin, or above all, to make any changes in the consecrated form. All\nthat he could do in a most grave and serious historical subject was to\nmix a little allegorical genius with a great deal of romanesque\nfiction; so that, becoming inspired at the same time with Ariosto,\nLucan, and Vergil, he made a mixed work, which, under the form of a\nlengthy song, contained the essence of epop\u0153ia, of history, and of\nromance. This work is one of the most entertaining poems that one can\nread; the only one perhaps which a translation in prose can harm but\nlittle. The inequality of its texture takes away nothing from the\ninterest that it inspires. It pleases, but it does not instruct. If\nthe eumolpique lines were applied to it throughout, it would not\nsustain them; for it is in substance only a very beautiful ballad;\nnevertheless, here and there are found parts which could become\nsublime. His exposition, imitating Vergil, reveals them very well.\nThey are as follows:\n\n    Je chante les combats pieux, et le Guerrier\n  Qui d\u00e9livra du Christ la tombe renomm\u00e9e.\n  Combien il d\u00e9ploya de g\u00e9nie et d\u2019ardeur!\n  Combien il supporta de maux dans cette guerre!\n  Vainement les enfers s\u2019arm\u00e8rent; vainement\n  Les peuples de l\u2019Asie aux Africains s\u2019unirent:\n  Favoris\u00e9 du Ciel, sous ses drapeaux sacr\u00e9s,\n  Vainqueur, il ramena ses compagnons fid\u00e8les.\n\n    Divine Muse! \u00f4 toi dont le front radieux\n  Ne ceint point sur le Pinde un laurier p\u00e9rissable,\n  Mais qui, parmi les ch\u0153urs des habitants du Ciel,\n  Chantes, le front orn\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9toiles immortelles,\n  Viens, inspire \u00e0 mon sein tes c\u00e9lestes ardeurs;\n  Fais briller dans mes vers tes clart\u00e9s, et pardonne\n  Si, parant quelquefois l\u2019aust\u00e8re v\u00e9rit\u00e9,\n  Je m\u00eale \u00e0 tes attraits des gr\u00e2ces \u00e9trang\u00e8res.\n\n\n    I sing the pious arms and Chief, who freed\n  The Sepulchre of Christ from thrall profane:\n  Much did he toil in thought, and much in deed;\n  Much in the glorious enterprise sustain;\n  And Hell in vain opposed him; and in vain\n  Afric and Asia to the rescue pour\u2019d\n  Their mingled tribes;\u2015\u2015Heaven recompensed his pain,\n  And from all fruitless sallies of the sword,\n  True to the Red-Cross flag his wandering friends restored.\n\n    O thou, the Muse, that not with fading palms\n  Circlest thy brows on Pindus, but among\n  The Angels warbling their celestial psalms,\n  Hast for the coronal a golden throng\n  Of everlasting stars! make thou my song\n  Lucid and pure; breathe thou the flame divine\n  Into my bosom; and forgive the wrong,\n  If with grave truth light fiction I combine,\n  And sometimes grace my page with other flowers than thine!\n                                      WIFFEN.\n\n\n    Canto l\u2019armi pietose, e\u2019l Capitano\n  Che\u2019l gran sepolcro liber\u00f2 di Christo:\n  Molto egli opr\u00f2 col senno e con la mano;\n  Molto soffri nel glorioso acquisto:\n  E invano l\u2019Inferno a lui s\u2019oppose, e invano\n  S\u2019arm\u00f2 d\u2019Asia, e d\u00ec Libia il popol misto;\n  Ch\u00e8 il Ciel di\u00e8 favore, e sotto ai santi\n  Segni ridusse i suoi compagni erranti.\n\n    O Musa, tu, che di caduchi allori\n  Non circondi la fronte in Elicona\n  Ma su nel Ciel infra i beati cori,\n  Hai di stelle immortali aurea corona,\n  Tu spira al petto mio celesti ardori,\n  Tu rischiara il mio canto, e tu perdona,\n  S\u2019intesso fregi al ver, s\u2019adorno in parte\n  D\u2019altri diletti, che de\u2019 tuoi, le carte.\n\nThe captivating enthusiasm of Homer, the majestic simplicity of Vergil\nare not there; there is a sweetness of expression, a purity of imagery\nwhich please. This might be greater, but then the melancholy of the\nromance would exclude it and the reader would demand the full force of\nepop\u0153ia.\n\nBesides, the Italians have tried, over and over again, to vary the\nform of their verses; some have wished to measure them by musical\nrhythm; others have contented themselves with making blank verse. They\nhave neither succeeded completely nor failed completely. Their\nlanguage sweet and musical lacks force whether in good or in evil. Its\nwords might indeed, strictly speaking, be composed of long and short\nsyllables; but as they terminate, nearly all, in the soft and languid\nstyle that we call feminine, it results, therefore, that in the\nmeasured verses the poets lack the long syllables to constitute the\nlast foot and to form the spondee; and that in the blank verse they\nare obliged to terminate them all in the same style; so that with the\nmeasure they create only lame verses, and without the rhyme they make\nthem all equally languid.[224]\n\nI recall having sometimes read French writers who, not having\ninvestigated the character of their tongue, have reproached it for its\nfeminine syllables and have believed that their concurrence was\nharmful to its force and its harmony. These writers have scarcely\nconsidered what this language would be, deprived of its feminine\nsounds. For with the little force that it would gain on one side, it\nwould acquire such a harshness on the other, that it would be\nimpossible to draw from it four consecutive lines that would be\nendurable. If all its finals were masculine, and if nothing could\nchange it otherwise, it would be necessary to renounce poetry, or like\nthe Arabs, be resolved to compose whole poems in the same rhyme.\n\nWe have just seen that the lack of masculine finals takes away all\nenergy from the Italian tongue; a contrary defect would deprive the\nFrench of this _m\u00e9lange_ of sweetness and force which makes it the\n_premi\u00e8re langue_ of Europe. The English language is lacking in\nprecisely what the writers of whom I have spoken desired eliminated\nfrom the French, without foreseeing the grave disadvantages of their\ndesire: it has no feminine finals[225]; also it is in everything the\nopposite of the Italian. It is true that it possesses great energy,\ngreat boldness of expression, and a grammatical liberty which goes to\nthe full extent; but deprived of sweetness and softness, it is, if I\nmay say it, like those brittle metals whose strength is in stiffness,\nand which is broken when one would make them flexible. The poverty of\nits rhymes, denuded for the most part of accuracy of accent and of\nharmony in consonants, has for a long time engaged the English poets\nin making blank verse; and it must be admitted that, notwithstanding\nthe defect inherent in their tongue and which consists, as I have just\nsaid, in the absolute lack of feminine finals, they have succeeded in\nthis better than any of the poets of other nations. These lines, all\nimperfect in their harmony, are however, as to form, the only\neumolpique verse that they could make. Shakespeare felt it and made\nuse of it in his tragedies.\n\nShakespeare with the creative genius with which nature had endowed\nhim, would have borne dramatic art to its perfection in these modern\ntimes, if circumstances had been as favourable to him as they were\nadverse. Emulator of \u00c6schylus, he might have equalled and perhaps\nsurpassed him, if he had had at his disposal a mine so rich, so\nbrilliant as that of the mysteries of Orpheus; if he had made use of a\nlanguage so harmonious, if his taste had been able to be refined at\nthe school of Pindar or of Homer. At the epoch of his birth, Europe\nscarcely emerged from the gloom of barbarism; the theatre, given over\nto ridiculous mountebanks, profaned in indecent farces the\nincomprehensible mysteries of the Christian religion, and the English\ntongue, still crude and unformed, had not succeeded in amalgamating in\none single body the opposed dialects of which it was successively\nformed. In spite of these obstacles, Shakespeare stamped upon England\na movement of which Europe felt the influence. Raised by the sole\nforce of his genius to the essence of dramatic poetry, he dared to\nseek for his subjects in the mythology of Odin, and put upon the\nstage, in _Hamlet_ and in _Macbeth_, tableaux of the highest\ncharacter.[226] Like \u00c6schylus he conducted one to virtue by terror;\nbut unfortunately the taste of the spectators, upon which he was\nforced to model his, led him to degrade his tableaux by grotesque\nfigures: the English people were not sufficiently advanced to\ncomprehend the moral end of the tragedy. They must be amused; and\nShakespeare succeeded only at the expense of the beauties of the art.\nHistoric facts and trivial scenes replaced the mysterious and sublime\nsubjects.\n\nIn London, the dramatic muse was turbulent and licentious; as in\nMadrid it had been chivalrous and gallant. Everywhere the theatre had\nto accommodate itself to the taste of the people. The first regular\ntragedy which Pierre Corneille composed in France was derived from a\nSpanish ballad. Madrid at that time gave the tone to Europe. It needed\nmuch of the time and all the prosperity of Louis XIV. to throw off the\nunseasonable ascendancy that this proud nation had assumed over public\nopinion.[227] Notwithstanding the efforts of Corneille, of Racine, and\nof Moli\u00e8re, the Th\u00e9\u00e2tre Fran\u00e7ais retained always the romanesque tone\nthat it had originally received. All that these three men could do\nwas, by lofty sentiments, by purity of forms, by regularity of the\ncustoms and characters, to pass over what was, in reality, defective.\nThey came thus to give to modern dramatic art all the perfection of\nwhich it was susceptible. Shakespeare had been in London the successor\nof \u00c6schylus; Corneille received in France the inspiration of\nSophocles; Racine, that of Euripides; and Moli\u00e8re united as in a sheaf\nthe spirit of Menander, of Terence, and of Plautus.\n\nWhen I compare Shakespeare with \u00c6schylus, I want to make it clearly\nunderstood that I regard him as the regenerator of the theatre in\nEurope, and superior to Corneille and Racine as to dramatic essence,\nalthough he may be assuredly much inferior to them as to form.\n\u00c6schylus, in Greek, was inspired by Homer; while, on the contrary, it\nwas Shakespeare who inspired Milton. It is known that _Paradise Lost_\nwas at first conceived as the subject of a tragedy, and that it was\nonly after reflection that the English poet saw therein the material\nfor an epic poem. I will tell later on, in speaking of the _Messiah_\nof Klopstock, what has prevented these two subjects, which appear\nequally epics, from attaining wholly to the majesty of epop\u0153ia. As\nmany of the motives that I have to offer apply to the two works, I\nwill thus avoid useless repetition. I shall begin by translating the\nexposition and invocation of Milton, by imitating its movement and its\nharmony, as I have done with the other poets.\n\n    De l\u2019homme, viens chanter la disgr\u00e2ce, et la fruit\n  De cet arbre fatal, dont le go\u00fbt homicide\n  Livra le Monde au crime, \u00e0 la mort, aux malheurs,\n  Et nous ravit Eden, jusqu\u2019au moment qu\u2019un Homme\n  Plus grand, par son tr\u00e9pas, racheta le s\u00e9jour\n  Du bonheur: viens, \u00f4 Muse! \u00f4 toi qui, sur la cime\n  Se Sina\u00ef, d\u2019Oreb, en secret inspiras\n  La Berger d\u2019Isra\u00ebl, quand d\u2019une voix sacr\u00e9e\n  Il enseignait comment et la terre et des cieux\n  Sortirent du Chaos! ou bien, si tu pr\u00e9f\u00e8res\n  Les sommets de Sion, les bords du Silo\u00eb,\n  Qui, pr\u00e8s du Temple saint, roule ses flots, \u00f4 Muse!\n  Viens prot\u00e9ger de l\u00e0 mes chants audacieux,\n  Mes chants qui, surpassant d\u2019un essor non timide,\n  Les monts Aoniens, vont raconter des faits\n  Que n\u2019ont point encor dits la prose ni la rime.\n\n\n    Of Man\u2019s first disobedience, and the fruit\n  Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste\n  Brought death into the world, and all our woe,\n  With loss of Eden, till one greater Man\n  Restore us and regain the blissful seat,\n  Sing, heavenly Muse, that, on the secret top\n  Of Oreb or of Sinai, didst inspire\n  That shepherd, who first taught the chosen seed,\n  In the beginning how the heavens and earth\n  Rose out of chaos; or if Sion hill\n  Delight thee more, and Siloa\u2019s brook that flow\u2019d\n  Fast by the oracle of God; I thence\n  Invoke thy aid to my adventurous song,\n  That with no middle flight intends to soar\n  Above the Aonian mount, while it pursues\n  Things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme.\n\n\nThis invocation is manifestly in imitation of Homer, from whom Milton\nhas received the second inspiration without the intermediary\u2015\u2015Vergil.\nOne can observe in the English poet the same movement and almost as\nmuch force as in the Greek poet, but much less clarity, precision, and\nparticularly harmony. Nearly all of these defects pertain to his\nsubject and his tongue. Circumstances were not favourable to Milton.\nHis lines could not have been better with the elements that he was\nforced to employ. All imperfect as they are, they are worth much more\nthan those of Klopstock; for at least they are in the character of his\ntongue, whereas those of the German poet are not. Milton is satisfied\nwith throwing off the yoke of rhyme, and has made eumolpique lines of\none foot only, measured by ten syllables. Their defect, inherent in\nthe English idiom, consists, as I have said, in having all the lines\nbearing equally the masculine final, jarring continually one with the\nother. Klopstock has aspired to make, in German, verses measured by\nthe musical rhythm of the Greeks; but he has not perceived that he\ntook as long and short, in his tongue, syllables which were not such\nin musical rhythm, but by accent and prosody, which is quite\ndifferent. The German tongue, composed of contracted words and\nconsequently bristling with consonants, bears no resemblance to the\nGreek, whose words, abounding in vowels, were, on the contrary, made\nclear by their elongation. The rhythmic lines of Klopstock are\nmaterially a third longer than those of Homer, although the German\npoet has aspired to build them on an equal measure.[228] Their\nrhythmic harmony, if it exists there, is absolutely factitious; it is\na pedantic imitation and nothing more. In order to make the movement\nof these lines understood in French, and to copy as closely as\npossible their harmony, it is necessary to compose lines of two\nc\u00e6suras, or what amounts to the same, to employ constantly a line and\na half to represent a single one. Here are the first fourteen lines\nwhich contain the exposition and invocation of the Messiah:\n\n  Des coupables humains, c\u00e9l\u00e8bre, Ame immortelle, l\u2019heureuse\n       d\u00e9livrance,\n  Que sur terre envoy\u00e9 le Messie accomplit dans son humanit\u00e9:\n  Dis comment il rendit les fils du premier homme \u00e0 leur Auteur\n       c\u00e9leste;\n  Souffrant et mis \u00e0 mort, enfin glorifi\u00e9. Ainsi s\u2019ex\u00e9cuta\n  Le d\u00e9cret \u00e9ternel. En vain Satan rebelle opposa son audace\n  A ce Fils du Tr\u00e8s-Haut; et Judas vainement s\u2019\u00e9leva contre lui:\n  R\u00e9conciliateur et R\u00e9dempteur supr\u00eame, il consomma son \u0153uvre.\n  Mais quoi, noble action! que Dieu seul en son c\u0153ur mis\u00e9ricordieux,\n  Conna\u00eet, la Po\u00e9sie, en son exil terrestre, pourra-t-elle te suivre?\n  Non, Esprit cr\u00e9ateur, c\u2019est \u00e0 toi, devant qui je m\u2019incline en\n       tremblant,\n  A rapprocher de moi cette action divine, \u00e0 toi-m\u00eame semblable.\n  Viens donc, conduis-la-moi dans l\u2019\u00e9tat immortel de toute sa beaut\u00e9;\n  Remplis-la de ton feu, toi que, sondant l\u2019ab\u00eeme du Tr\u00e8s-Haut, peux\n       de l\u2019homme\n  Issu de la poussi\u00e8re, et fragile et mortel, te faire un temple saint.\n\n\n  My Soul, degenerate man\u2019s redemption sing,\n  Which the Messiah in his human state\n  On earth accomplished, by which, suffering slain\n  And glorify\u2019d, unto the Love of God\n  The progeny of Adam he restored.\n  Such was the everlasting Will divine,\n  Th\u2019 infernal Fiend opposed him, Judah stood\n  In opposition proud; but vain their rage:\n  He did the deed, he wrought out man\u2019s salvation.\n    Yet, wondrous Deed, which th\u2019 all-compassionate\n  Jehovah alone completely comprehends,\n  May Poesy presume from her remote\n  Obscurity to venture on thy theme?\n  Creative Spirit, in whose presence here\n  I humbly\u2019 adore, her efforts consecrate,\n  Conduct her steps and lead her, me to meet,\n  Of transport full, with glorious charms endow\u2019d\n  And power immortal, imitating Thee.\n                                       (EGESTORFF.)\n\n\n  Sing, unserterbliche Seele, der s\u00fcndigen Menschen Erl\u00f6sung,\n  Die der Messias auf Erden, in seiner Menscheit vollendet;\n  Und durch die er Adams Geschlecht zu der Liebe der Gottheit,\n  Leidend, get\u00f6dtet und verherlichet, weider erh\u00f6het hat.\n  Also geschah des Ewigen Wille. Vergebens erhub sich\n  Satan gegen der g\u00f6ttlichen Sohn; umsonst stand Juda\n  Gegen ihn auf; er that\u2019s, und wollbrachte die grosse Vers\u00f6hnung.\n  Aber, o That, die allein der Albarmherzige kennet,\n  Darf aus dunckler Ferne sich auch dir nahen die Dichtkunst?\n  Weihe sie, Geist, Sch\u00f6pfer, vor dem ich hier still anbete,\n  F\u00fchre sie mir, als deine Nachahmerin, voiler Entz\u00fcckung,\n  Voll unsterblicher Kraft, in verkl\u00e4rter Sch\u00f6nheit, entgegen.\n  R\u00fcste mit deinem Feuer sie, du, der die Tiefen des Gottheit\n  Schaut und den Menschen, aus Staube gemacht, zum Tempel sich heiligt!\n\n\nIt is evident that in this exposition the movement of Homer has been\nunited by Klopstock to the ideas of Tasso. The German poet claims\nnevertheless the originality, and believes that he himself was called\nto enjoy the first inspiration. In order that this high aspiration\nmight have been realized, a mass of learning very difficult to find\nwould have been necessary. I will explain briefly this idea. I believe\nthat the one who, disdaining to follow in the footsteps of Homer or of\nVergil, would wish to open another road to epop\u0153ia, should be well\nacquainted with the ground over which he ventures to trace it, and the\ngoal toward which he aspires to conduct it; I think he should make\nhimself master of his subject so that nothing might remain obscure or\nunknown to him; so that if he should choose either the downfall of\nMan, as Milton, or his rehabilitation, after the example of Klopstock,\nhe would be able to acquaint himself with the inner meaning of these\nmysteries, to explain all the conditions, to comprehend the beginning\nand the end, and, raising himself to the intellectual nature where\nthey had birth, to spread light upon physical nature. This is the\nfirst attainment that I deem indispensable to the epic poet; I say\nthat he should understand what he would sing. Homer knew what Ilium\nwas, what Ithaca was; he could explain to himself the nature of\nAchilles and Helen, of Penelope and Ulysses; consequently he could\ndepict them. I do not wish to investigate here whether Milton has\nunderstood in the same manner the beginning of the World and the\nnature of Satan; nor whether Klopstock has well understood the mystery\nof the incarnation of the Messiah. I only say that if they have not\nunderstood these things, they cannot sing them in a manner really\nepic.\n\nA defect which is common to these two poets, and which is even\nnoticeable in the _Jerusalem Delivered_ of Tasso, is, that everything\nwhich does not pertain to the part of the celebrated hero, is by its\nimpure, unfaithful, impious nature, governed by the Principle of evil,\nand as such consigned to eternal damnation. An insurmountable barrier\nseparates the personages and makes them not alone enemies, but\nopposed, as much as good and evil, light and darkness. However, the\npassions act unknown even to the poet; the reader is hurried along, he\nforgets the fatal line of demarcation, and is deceived into becoming\ninterested in Satan, into finding great, beautiful, and terrible, this\nenemy of mankind; he trusts in Armida, he is moved by her troubles,\nand seconds with his vows those of a notorious magician, instrument of\nthe Infernal Spirit. Matters go not thus with Homer. The Greeks see in\nthe Trojans, enemies, and not reprobates. Paris is culpable but not\nimpious. Hector is a hero in whom one can be interested without shame,\nand the interest that one devotes to him reflects upon Achilles and\ncan even be increased. The gods are divided; but Venus and Juno,\nMinerva and Mars, Vulcan and Neptune are of a like nature; and\nalthough divided in the epic action, they are none the less venerated\nby both parties, equal among each other and all equally subject to\nJupiter, who excites or checks their resentment. I know not whether\nany one has already made this observation; but be that as it may, it\nis very important. One can attain to the sublimity of epop\u0153ia only if\nlike Homer one knows how to oppose the Powers which serve the hero\nwith the Powers which persecute him. For if everything which serves\nthe hero is good, holy, and sacred, and everything which is harmful to\nhim wicked, impious, and reprobate, I do not see the glory of his\ntriumph.\n\nThe principal defect in Milton\u2019s poem is that his hero succumbs,\nalthough he has to combat only the evil things within himself, whilst\neverything which is good protects him: the poem of Klopstock does not\nhold the reader\u2019s interest, because the perils of his hero are\nillusory and as soon as he is represented as God, and when he himself\nknows his divinity, his downfall is absolutely impossible.\n\nBut it is too much to dwell upon points of criticism which do not\nbelong to my subject. I have touched upon them only slightly so that\nyou may feel, _Messieurs_, notwithstanding the pretensions of three\nrival peoples, that the epic career remains none the less wholly open\nto the French nation. Some out-of-the-way paths have been traced here\nand there; but no poet since Vergil, has left the imprint of his steps\nupon the true path. The moment is perhaps at hand for gathering the\npalms that time has ripened. Must this century, great in prodigies,\nremain without an impassioned and enchanting voice to sing of them?\nAssuredly not. Whoever may be the poet whose genius raises itself to\nthis noble task, I have wished from afar to lend him my feeble\nsupport; for I have often enough repeated, that talent alone will\naspire to this in vain. Epop\u0153ia will only be the portion of the one\nwho thoroughly understands the essence of poetry and who is able to\napply to it a proper form. I have penetrated this essence as far as\nhas been possible for me, and I have revealed my ideas, _Messieurs_,\nas clearly as the insufficiency of my means has permitted. I trust\nthat their development may have appeared satisfactory and useful to\nyou; I trust equally that the new form which I offer you merits your\nattention. I have applied it before you, to ideas, to intentions and\nto very different harmonies: it adapts itself here, for of itself it\nis nothing. Subject wholly to poetic essence, it receives therefrom\nall its lustre. If the ideas that it would render have grandeur and\nsublimity, it will easily become grand and sublime; but nothing would\nbe poorer and more void, than that it should serve trivial thoughts or\nthat it should conceal an absolute want of ideas. Do not imagine,\n_Messieurs_, that the absence of rhyme makes easy the French verse; it\nis precisely this absence which makes the great difficulty: for there\nis not then the means of writing without thinking. One can, with the\naid of talent and practice, compose pleasing rhymed verse, without a\ngreat expenditure of ideas; the enormous quantity that is made today\nproves that it is not very difficult. The elegance of form supplies\nthe sterility of substance. But this form becomes at last worn out;\nthe rhymes are not inexhaustible; one word attracts another, forces it\nto unite with it, making understood the sounds that one has heard a\nthousand times, repeating the pictures which are everywhere; one\nrepeats unceasingly the same things: the enjambment which gives so\nmuch grace to the Greek and Latin verse and without which real epic\nimpulse cannot exist, is opposed to the rhyme and destroys it. You can\nsee, _Messieurs_, that it constitutes one of the principal qualities\nof eumolpique verse; nothing here constrains the enthusiasm of the\npoet.\n\nAfter some impassioned verses that I have believed necessary for you\nto hear, I shall now pass on to verses, philosophical and devoid of\npassion, which form the subject of this writing and to which I desire\nabove all to call your attention.\n\n\n\n\n  THE GOLDEN VERSES OF PYTHAGORAS\n\n\n\n\n  \u03a4\u1fba \u03a4\u1fc0\u03a9\u0342\u039d \u03a0\u03a5\u0398\u0391\u0393\u039f\u03a4\u03a1\u0395\u038a\u03a9\u039d \u1f1c\u03a0\u0397 \u03a4\u1fba \u03a7\u03a1\u03a5\u03a3\u0386\n\n\n  \u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u0391\u03a3\u039a\u0395\u03a5\u0397.[229]\n\n  \u0391\u0398\u0391\u039d\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u03a3 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u0394\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n  \u03a4\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u2019 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03c9\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c5\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n  \u03a4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5 \u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n\n  \u039a\u0386\u0398\u0391\u03a1\u03a3\u0399\u03a3.[230]\n\n  \u03a4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n  \u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n  \u03a0\u03c1\u1fb3\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f36\u03ba\u03b5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03c9\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9.\n  \u039c\u1f74\u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f35\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2,\n  \u1f4c\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9.\n  \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9. \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u00b7\n  \u0393\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5,\n  \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03a0\u03c1\u03ae\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5,\n  \u039c\u1f74\u03c4\u2019 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fc3. \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf \u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n    \u0395\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5, \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5.\n  \u039c\u1f74\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u00b7\n  \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9.\n  \u03a7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n  \u1f4d\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n  \u1f6f\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5, \u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9.\n  \u1f38\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc4\u00b7 \u1f6d\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c5.\n  \u039f\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n    \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76\n  \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u2019, \u1f67\u03bd \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bf, \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2\n  \u0395\u1f34\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. \u03a8\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f24\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n  \u03a0\u03c1\u1fb4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u2019\u00b7 \u1f4b \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9.\n  \u039c\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u1fc3, \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff3\n  \u03a0\u03c1\u1fc6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u1f74\u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f45, \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03ad\u03bb\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9.\n  \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n  \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2.\n  \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f05 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3.\n\n    \u03a0\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\n  \u1f4d\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7c\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c0\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n    \u1f48\u03c5\u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae.\n  \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\n  \u03a0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03c4\u03cc \u03b4\u2019, \u1f43 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c3\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.\n  \u0395\u1f30\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f04\u03b8\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n  \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03cc \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\n  \u039c\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b1\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd.\n  \u039c\u1f74 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n  \u03a0\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u2019, \u1f05 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ac\u03c8\u1fc3\u00b7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n\n  \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u0395\u0391\u038c\u03a4\u0397\u03a3.[231]\n\n    \u039c\u1f74\u03b4\u2019 \u1f55\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n  \u03a0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u00b7\n  \u03a0\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03bd; \u03c4\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b5\u03be\u03b1; \u03c4\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7;\n  \u1f08\u03c1\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03be\u03b9\u03b8\u03b9\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\n  \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bf\u00b7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72, \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5.\n  \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c1\u1fb7\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5.\n  \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n  \u039d\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fb7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7a\u03bd,\n  \u03a0\u03b1\u03b3\u1f70\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. \u03a4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2,\n  \u0393\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b7 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03a3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f97 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f97 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n  \u0393\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b4\u2019, \u1f23 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76, \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u1f6d\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03b5\u03bb\u03c0\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n  \u0393\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03a4\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n  \u039f\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9.\n  \u03a4\u03bf\u03af\u03b7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03bb\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u1f0c\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n  \u039b\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u1f74 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\n  \u03a3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f23\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n    \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u1f24 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n  \u1f2c \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n  \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u039f\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1.\n  \u1faf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c3\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f67\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9,\n  \u1f18\u03be\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n  \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f67\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2,\n  \u1f1c\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c5 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1,\n  \u1f29\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\n  \u1f2a\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3\u03c2,\n  \u1f1c\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f04\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n\n\n\n  Vers Dor\u00e9s des Pythagoriciens\n\n\n  PR\u00c9PARATION\n\n  Rends aux Dieux immortels le cult consacr\u00e9;\n  Garde ensuite ta foi: R\u00e9v\u00e8re la m\u00e9moire\n  Des H\u00e9ros bienfaiteurs, des Esprits demi-Dieux.\n\n\n  PURIFICATION\n\n    Sois bon fils, fr\u00e8re juste, \u00e9poux tendre et bon p\u00e8re.\n  Choisis pour ton ami, l\u2019ami de la vertu;\n  C\u00e8de \u00e0 ses doux conseils, instruis-toi par sa vie,\n  Et pour un tort l\u00e9ger ne le quitter jamais;\n  Si tu le peux du moins: car une loi s\u00e9v\u00e8re\n  Attache la Puissance \u00e0 la N\u00e9cessit\u00e9.\n  Il t\u2019est donn\u00e9 pourtant de combattre et se vaincre\n  Tes folles passions: apprends \u00e0 les dompter.\n  Sois sobre, actif et chaste; \u00e9vite la col\u00e8re.\n  En public, en secret ne te permets jamais\n  Rien de mal; surtout respecte-toi toi-m\u00eame.\n\n    Ne parle et n\u2019agis point sans avoir r\u00e9fl\u00e9chi.\n  Sois juste. Souviens-toi qu\u2019un pouvoir invincible\n  Ordonne de mourir; que les biens, les honneurs\n  Facilement acquis, sont faciles \u00e0 perdre.\n  Et quant aux maux qu\u2019entra\u00eene avec soi le Destin,\n  Juge-les ce qu\u2019ils sont: supporte-les; et t\u00e2che,\n  Autant que tu pourras, d\u2019en adoucir les traits:\n  Les Dieux, aux plus cruels, n\u2019ont pas livr\u00e9 les sages.\n\n    Comme la V\u00e9rit\u00e9, l\u2019Erreur a ses amants:\n  Le philosophe approuve, ou bl\u00e2me avec prudence;\n  Et si Erreur triomphe, il s\u2019\u00e9loigne; il attend.\n  Ecoute, et grave bien en ton c\u0153ur mes paroles:\n  Ferme l\u2019\u0153il et l\u2019oreille \u00e0 la pr\u00e9vention;\n  Crains l\u2019exemple d\u2019autrui; pense d\u2019apr\u00e8s toi-m\u00eame;\n  Consulte, d\u00e9lib\u00e8re, et choisis librement.\n  Laisse les fous agir et sans but et sans cause.\n  Tu dois dans le pr\u00e9sent, contempler l\u2019avenir.\n\n    Ce que tu ne sais pas, ne pr\u00e9tends point le faire.\n  Instruis-toi: tout s\u2019accorde \u00e0 la constance, au temps.\n\n  Veille sur ta sant\u00e9: dispense avec mesure,\n  Au corps les aliments, \u00e0 l\u2019esprit le repos.\n  Trop ou trop peu de soins sont \u00e0 fuir; car l\u2019envie,\n  A l\u2019un et l\u2019autre exc\u00e8s, s\u2019attache \u00e9galement.\n  Le luxe et l\u2019avarice ont des suites semblables.\n  Il faut choisir en tout, un milieu juste et bon.\n\n\n  PERFECTION\n\n    Que jamais le sommeil ne ferme ta paupi\u00e8re,\n  Sans t\u2019\u00eatre demand\u00e9: Qu\u2019ai-je omis? qu\u2019ai-je fait?\n  Si c\u2019est mal, abstiens-toi; si c\u2019est bien, pers\u00e9v\u00e8re.\n  M\u00e9dite mes conseils; aime-les; suis-les tous:\n  Aux divines vertus ils sauront te conduire.\n  J\u2019en jure par celui qui grava dans nos c\u0153urs,\n  La T\u00e9trade sacr\u00e9e, immense et pur symbole,\n  Source de la Nature, et mod\u00e8le des Dieux.\n  Mais qu\u2019avant, ton \u00e2me, \u00e0 son devoir fid\u00e8le,\n  Invoque avec ferveur ces Dieux, dont les secours\n  Peuvent seuls achever tes \u0153uvres commenc\u00e9es.\n  Instruit par eux, alors rien ne t\u2019abusera:\n  Des \u00eatres diff\u00e9rents tu sonderas l\u2019essence;\n  Tu conna\u00eetras de Tout le principe et la fin.\n  Tu sauras, si le Ciel le veut, que la Nature,\n  Semblable en toute chose, est la m\u00eame en tout lieu:\n  En sorte qu\u2019\u00e9clair\u00e9 sur tes droits v\u00e9ritables,\n  Ton c\u0153ur de vains d\u00e9sirs ne se repa\u00eetra plus.\n  Tu verras que les maux qui d\u00e9vorent les hommes,\n  Sont le fruit de leur choix; et que ces malheureux\n  Cherchent loin d\u2019eux biens dont ils portent la source.\n  Peu savent \u00eatre heureux: jouets des passions,\n  Tour \u00e0 tour ballot\u00e9s par des vagues contraires,\n  Sur une mer sans rive, ils roulent, aveugl\u00e9s,\n  Sans pouvoir r\u00e9sister ni c\u00e9der \u00e0 l\u2019orage.\n    Dieu! vous les sauveriez en d\u00e9sillant leurs yeux.\u2026\n  Mais non: c\u2019est aux humains, dont la race est divine,\n  A discerner l\u2019Erreur, \u00e0 voir la V\u00e9rit\u00e9.\n  La Nature les sert. Toi qui l\u2019as p\u00e9n\u00e9tr\u00e9e,\n  Homme sage, homme heureux, respire dans le port.\n  Mais observe mes lois, en t\u2019abstenant des choses\n  Que ton \u00e2me doit craindre, en les distinguant bien;\n  En laissant sur le corps r\u00e9gner l\u2019intelligence:\n  Afin que, t\u2019\u00e9levant dans l\u2019Ether radieux,\n  Au sein des Immortels, tu sois un Dieu toi-m\u00eame!\n\n\n\n\n  EXAMINATIONS OF THE GOLDEN VERSES:\n    EXPLANATIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS\n\n\n\n\n  EXAMINATIONS OF THE GOLDEN VERSES:\n    EXPLANATIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS\n\n\n1. THE GOLDEN VERSES OF THE PYTHAGOREANS\n\nThe ancients had the habit of comparing with gold all that they deemed\nwithout defects and pre-eminently beautiful: thus, by the _Golden Age_\nthey understood, the age of virtues and of happiness; and by the\n_Golden Verses_, the verses wherein was concealed the most pure\ndoctrine.[232] They constantly attributed these Verses to Pythagoras,\nnot that they believed that this philosopher had himself composed\nthem, but because they knew that his disciple, whose work they were,\nhad revealed the exact doctrine of his master and had based them all\nupon maxims issued from his mouth.[233] This disciple, commendable\nthrough his learning, and especially through his devotion to the\nprecepts of Pythagoras, was called Lysis.[234] After the death of this\nphilosopher and while his enemies, momentarily triumphant, had raised\nat Crotona and at Metaponte that terrible persecution which cost the\nlives of so great a number of Pythagoreans, crushed beneath the\n_d\u00e9bris_ of their burned school, or constrained to die of hunger in\nthe temple of the Muses,[235] Lysis, happily escaped from these\ndisasters, retired into Greece, where, wishing to spread the sect of\nPythagoras, to whose principles calumnies had been attached, he felt\nit necessary to set up a sort of formulary which would contain the\nbasis of morals and the principal rules of conduct given by this\ncelebrated man. It is to this generous movement that we owe the\nphilosophical verses that I have essayed to translate into French.\nThese verses, called _golden_ for the reason I have given, contain the\nsentiments of Pythagoras and are all that remain to us, really\nauthentic, concerning one of the greatest men of antiquity. Hierocles,\nwho has transmitted them to us with a long and masterly Commentary,\nassures us that they do not contain, as one might believe, the\nsentiment of one in particular, but the doctrine of all the sacred\ncorps of Pythagoreans and the voice of all the assemblies.[236] He\nadds that there existed a law which prescribed that each one, every\nmorning upon rising and every evening upon retiring, should read these\nverses as the oracles of the Pythagorean school. One sees, in reality,\nby many passages from Cicero, Horace, Seneca, and other writers worthy\nof belief, that this law was still vigorously executed in their\ntime.[237] We know by the testimony of Galen in his treatise on _The\nUnderstanding and the Cure of the Maladies of the Soul_, that he\nhimself read every day, morning and evening, the Verses of Pythagoras;\nand that, after having read them, he recited them by heart. However, I\nmust not neglect to say that Lysis, who is the author of them,\nobtained so much celebrity in Greece that he was honoured as the\nmaster and friend of Epaminondas.[238] If his name has not been\nattached to this work, it is because at the epoch when he wrote it,\nthe ancient custom still existed of considering things and not\nindividuals: it was with the doctrine of Pythagoras that one was\nconcerned, and not with the talent of Lysis which had made it known.\nThe disciples of a great man had no other name than his. All their\nworks were attributed to him. This is an observation sufficiently\nimportant to make and which explains how Vyasa in India, Hermes in\nEgypt, Orpheus in Greece, have been the supposed authors of such a\nmultitude of books that the lives of many men would not even suffice\nto read them.\n\nIn my translation, I have followed the Greek text, such as is cited at\nthe head of the Commentary of Hierocles, commentated on by the son of\nCasaubon, and interpreted into Latin by J. Curterius; London edition,\n1673. This work, like all those which remain to us of the ancients,\nhas been the subject of a great many critical and grammatical\ndiscussions: in the first place one must before everything else be\nassured of the material part. This part is today as authentic and as\ncorrect as it is possible to be, and although there exists still,\nseveral different readings, they are of too little importance for me\nto dwell upon. It is not my affair and besides, _chacun doit faire son\nm\u00e9tier_. That of the grammarian has ended where it ought to end. For\nhow can man ever expect to advance if he never is willing to try some\nnew thing which is offered. I shall not therefore make any criticizing\nremarks concerning the text, for I consider this text sufficiently\nexamined; neither will I make any notes concerning the Commentaries,\nproperly so-called, on these seventy-one lines, for I think it is\nsufficient having those of Hierocles, of Vitus Amerbachius, Theodore\nMarcilius, Henri Brem, Michel Neander, Jean Straselius, Guilhaume\nDiezius, Magnus-Daniel Omeis, Andr\u00e9 Dacier, etc. As I stated, I shall\nmake examinations rather than commentaries, and I will give, regarding\nthe inner meaning of the Verses, all the explanations that I believe\nuseful for their complete development.\n\n\n  PREPARATION\n\n  2. _Render to the Immortal Gods the consecrated cult;\n      Guard then thy faith_:\n\nPythagoras, of whom a modern savant, otherwise most estimable, has\nrather throughtlessly reproached with being a fanatical and\nsuperstitious man,[239] begins his teaching, nevertheless, by laying\ndown a principle of universal tolerance. He commands his disciples to\nfollow the cult established by the laws, whatever this cult may be,\nand to adore the gods of their country, what ever these gods may be;\nenjoining them only, to guard afterwards their faith\u2015\u2015that is, to\nremain inwardly faithful to his doctrine, and never to divulge the\nmysteries. Lysis, in writing these opening lines, adroitly conceals\nherein a double meaning. By the first he commended, as I have said,\ntolerance and reserve for the Pythagorean, and, following the example\nof the Egyptian priests, established two doctrines, the one apparent\nand vulgar, conformable to the law; the other mysterious and secret,\nanalogous to the faith; by the second meaning, he reassures the\nsuspicious people of Greece, who, according to the slanders which were\nin circulation might have feared that the new sect would attack the\nsanctity of their gods. This tolerance on the one hand, and this\nreserve on the other, were no more than what they would be today. The\nChristian Religion, exclusive and severe, has changed all our ideas in\nthis respect: by admitting only one sole doctrine in one unique\nchurch, this religion has necessarily confused tolerance with\nindifference or coldness, and reserve with heresy or hypocrisy; but in\nthe spirit of polytheism these same things take on another colour. A\nChristian philosopher could not, without perjuring himself and\ncommitting a frightful impiety, bend the knee in China before\n_Kong-Tse_, nor offer incense to _Chang-Ty_ nor to _Tien_; he could\nneither render, in India, homage to _Krishna_, nor present himself at\nBenares as a worshipper of _Vishnu_; he could not even, although\nrecognizing the same God as the Jews and Mussulmans, take part in\ntheir ceremonies, or what is still more, worship this God with the\nArians, the Lutherans, or Calvinists, if he were a Catholic. This\nbelongs to the very essence of his cult. A Pythagorean philosopher did\nnot recognize in the least these formidable barriers, which hem in the\nnations, as it were, isolate them, and make them worse than enemies.\nThe gods of the people were in his eyes the same gods, and his\ncosmopolitan dogmas condemned no one to eternal damnation. From one\nend of the earth to the other he could cause incense to rise from the\naltar of the Divinity, under whatever name, under whatever form it\nmight be worshipped, and render to it the public cult established by\nthe law. And this is the reason. Polytheism was not in their opinion\nwhat it has become in ours, an impious and gross idolatry, a cult\ninspired by the infernal adversary to seduce men and to claim for\nitself the honours which are due only to the Divinity; it was a\nparticularization of the Universal Being, a personification of its\nattributes and its faculties. Before Moses, none of the theocratic\nlegislators had thought it well to present for the adoration of the\npeople, the Supreme God, unique and uncreated in His unfathomable\nuniversality. The Indian Brahmans, who can be considered as the living\ntypes of all the sages and of all the pontiffs of the world, never\npermit themselves, even in this day when their great age has effaced\nthe traces of their ancient science, to utter the name of God,\nprinciple of All.[240] They are content to meditate upon its essence\nin silence and to offer sacrifices to its sublimest emanations. The\nChinese sages act the same with regard to the Primal Cause, that must\nbe neither named nor defined[241]; the followers of Zoroaster, who\nbelieve that the two universal principles of good and evil, Ormuzd and\nAhriman, emanate from this ineffable Cause, are content to designate\nit under the name of Eternity.[242] The Egyptians, so celebrated for\ntheir wisdom, the extent of their learning, and the multitude of their\ndivine symbols, honoured with silence the God, principle and source of\nall things[243]; they never spoke of it, regarding it as inaccessible\nto all the researches of man; and Orpheus, their disciple, first\nauthor of the brilliant mythology of the Greeks, Orpheus, who seemed\nto announce the soul of the World as creator of this same God from\nwhich it emanated, said plainly:\n\n     \u201cI never see this Being surrounded with a cloud.\u201d[244]\n\nMoses, as I have said, was the first who made a public dogma of the\nunity of God, and who divulged what, up to that time had been buried\nin the seclusion of the sanctuaries; for the principal tenets of the\nmysteries, those upon which reposed all others, were the Unity of God\nand the homogeneity of Nature.[245] It is true that Moses, in making\nthis disclosure, permitted no definition, no reflection, either upon\nthe essence or upon the nature of this unique Being; this is very\nremarkable. Before him, in all the known world, and after him (save in\nJudea where more than one cloud still darkened the idea of divine\nUnity, until the establishment of Christianity), the Divinity was\nconsidered by the theosophists of all nations, under two relations:\nprimarily as unique, secondarily as infinite; as unique, preserved\nunder the seal of silence to the contemplation and meditation of the\nsages; as infinite, delivered to the veneration and invocation of the\npeople. Now the unity of God resides in His essence so that the vulgar\ncan never in any way either conceive or understand. His infinity\nconsists in His perfections, His faculties, His attributes, of which\nthe vulgar can, according to the measure of their understanding, grasp\nsome feeble emanations, and draw nearer to Him by detaching them from\nthe universality\u2015\u2015that is, by particularizing and personifying them.\nThis is the particularization and the personification which\nconstitutes, as I have said, polytheism. The mass of gods which result\nfrom it, is as infinite as the Divinity itself whence it had birth.\nEach nation, each people, each city adopts at its liking, those of the\ndivine faculties which are best suited to its character and its\nrequirements. These faculties, represented by simulacra, become so\nmany particular gods whose variety of names augments the number still\nfurther. Nothing can limit this immense theogony, since the Primal\nCause whence it emanates has not done so. The vulgar, lured by the\nobjects which strike the senses, can become idolatrous, and he does\nordinarily; he can even distinguish these objects of his adoration,\none from another, and believe that there really exist as many gods as\nstatues; but the sage, the philosopher, the most ordinary man of\nletters does not fall into this error. He knows, with Plutarch, that\ndifferent places and names do not make different gods; that the Greeks\nand Barbarians, the nations of the North and those of the South, adore\nthe same Divinity[246] he restores easily that infinity of attributes\nto the unity of the essence, and as the honoured remnants of the\nancient Sramanas, the priests of the Burmans, still do today, he\nworships God, whatever may be the altar, the temple, and the place\nwhere he finds himself.[247]\n\nThis is what was done by the disciples of Pythagoras, according to the\ncommandment of their master; they saw in the gods of the nations, the\nattributes of the Ineffable Being which were forbidden them to name;\nthey augmented ostensibly and without the slightest reluctance, the\nnumber of these attributes of which they recognized the Infinite\nCause; they gave homage to the cult consecrated by the law and brought\nthem all back secretly to the Unity which was the object of their\nfaith.\n\n\n              3. \u2026 _Revere the memory\n     Of the Illustrious Heroes, of Spirits demi-Gods.\u2026_\n\nPythagoras considered the Universe as an animated All, whose members\nwere the divine Intelligences, each ranked according to its\nperfections, in its proper sphere.[248] He it was who first designated\nthis All, by the Greek word _Kosmos_, in order to express the beauty,\norder, and regularity which reigned there[249]; the Latins translated\nthis word by _Mundus_, from which has come the French word _monde_. It\nis from Unity considered as principle of the world, that the name\nUniverse which we give to it is derived. Pythagoras establishes Unity\nas the principle of all things and said that from this Unity sprang an\ninfinite Duality.[250] The essence of this Unity, and the manner in\nwhich the Duality that emanated from it was finally brought back\nagain, were the most profound mysteries of his doctrine; the subject\nsacred to the faith of his disciples and the fundamental points which\nwere forbidden them to reveal. Their explanation was never made in\nwriting; those who appeared worthy of learning them were content to be\ntaught them by word of mouth.[251] When one was forced, by the\nconcatenation of ideas, to mention them in the books of the sect,\nsymbols and ciphers were used, and the language of Numbers employed;\nand these books, all obscure as they were, were still concealed with\nthe greatest care; by all manner of means they were guarded against\nfalling into profane hands.[252] I cannot enter into the discussion of\nthe famous symbol of Pythagoras, _one_ and _two_, without exceeding\nvery much the limits that I have set down in these examinations[253];\nlet it suffice for me to say, that as he designated God by 1, and\nMatter by 2, he expressed the Universe by the number 12, which results\nin the union of the other two. This number is formed by the\nmultiplication of 3 by 4: that is to say, that this philosopher\nconceived the Universal world as composed of three particular worlds,\nwhich, being linked one with the other by means of the four elementary\nmodifications, were developed in twelve concentric spheres.[254] The\nineffable Being which filled these twelve spheres without being\nunderstood by any one, was God. Pythagoras gave to It, truth for soul\nand light for body.[255] The Intelligence which peopled the three\nworlds were, firstly, the immortal gods properly so-called; secondly,\nthe glorified heroes; thirdly, the terrestial demons. The immortal\ngods, direct emanations of the uncreated Being and manifestation of\nIts infinite faculties, were thus named because they could not depart\nfrom the divine life\u2015\u2015that is, they could never fall away from their\nFather into oblivion, wandering in the darkness of ignorance and of\nimpiety; whereas the souls of men, which produced, according to their\ndegree of purity, glorified heroes and terrestrial demons, were able\nto depart sometimes from the divine life by voluntary drawing away\nfrom God; because the death of the intellectual essence, according to\nPythagoras and imitated in this by Plato, was only ignorance and\nimpiety.[256] It must be observed that in my translation I have not\nrendered the Greek word \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 by the word _demons_, but by that of\n_spirits_, on account of the evil meaning that Christianity has\nattached to it, as I explained in a preceding note.[257]\n\nThis application of the number 12 to the Universe is not at all an\narbitrary invention of Pythagoras; it was common to the Chaldeans, to\nthe Egyptians from whom he had received it, and to the principal\npeoples of the earth[258]: it gave rise to the institution of the\nzodiac, whose division into twelve asterisms has been found everywhere\nexistent from time immemorial.[259] The distinction of the three\nworlds and their development into a number, more or less great, of\nconcentric spheres inhabited by intelligences of different degrees of\npurity, were also known before Pythagoras, who in this only spread the\ndoctrine which he had received at Tyre, at Memphis, and at\nBabylon.[260] This doctrine was that of the Indians. One finds still\ntoday among the Burmans, the division of all the created beings\nestablished in three classes, each of which contains a certain number\nof species, from the material beings to the spiritual, from the\nsentient to the intelligible.[261] The Brahmans, who count fifteen\nspheres in the universe,[262] appear to unite the three primordial\nworlds with the twelve concentric spheres which result from their\ndevelopment. Zoroaster, who admitted the dogma of the three worlds,\nlimited the inferior world to the vortex of the moon. There, according\nto him, the empire of evil and of matter comes to an end.[263] This\nidea thus conceived has been general; it was that of all the ancient\nphilosophers[264]; and what is very remarkable, is that it has been\nadopted by the Christian theosophists who certainly were not\nsufficiently learned to act through imitation.[265] The followers of\nBasil, those of Valentine, and all the gnostics have imbibed from this\nsource the system of emanations which has enjoyed such a great renown\nin the school of Alexandria. According to this system, the Absolute\nUnity, or God, was conceived as the spiritual Soul of the Universe,\nthe Principle of existence, the Light of lights; it was believed that\nthis creative Unity, inaccessible to the understanding even, produced\nby emanation a diffusion of light which, proceeding from the centre to\nthe circumference, losing insensibly its splendour and its purity in\nproportion as it receded from its source, ended by being absorbed in\nthe confines of darkness; so that its divergent rays, becoming less\nand less spiritual and, moreover, repulsed by the darkness, were\ncondensed in commingling with it, and, taking a material shape, formed\nall the kinds of beings that the world contains. Thus was admitted,\nbetween the Supreme Being and man, an incalculable chain of\nintermediary beings whose perfections decreased proportionably with\ntheir alienation from the Creative Principle. All the philosophers and\nall the sectarians who admired this spiritual hierarchy considered,\nunder the relations peculiar to them, the different beings of which it\nwas composed. The Persian magians who saw there genii, more or less\nperfect, gave them names relative to their perfections, and later made\nuse of these same names to evoke them: from this came the Persian\nmagic, which the Jews, having received by tradition during their\ncaptivity in Babylon, called _Kabbala_.[266] This magic became mixed\nwith astrology among the Chaldeans, who regarded the stars as animated\nbeings belonging to the universal chain of divine emanations; in\nEgypt, it became linked with the mysteries of Nature, and was enclosed\nin the sanctuaries, where it was taught by the priests under the\nsafeguard of symbols and hieroglyphics. Pythagoras, in conceiving this\nspiritual hierarchy as a geometrical progression, considered the\nbeings which compose it under harmonious relations, and based, by\nanalogy, the laws of the universe upon those of music. He called the\nmovement of the celestial spheres, harmony, and made use of numbers to\nexpress the faculties of different beings, their relations and their\ninfluences. Hierocles mentions a sacred book attributed to this\nphilosopher, in which he called the divinity, the Number of\nnumbers.[267] Plato, who, some centuries later, regarded these same\nbeings as ideas and types, sought to penetrate their nature and to\nsubjugate them by dialectics and the force of thought. Synesius, who\nunited the doctrine of Pythagoras to that of Plato, sometimes called\nGod, the Number of numbers, and sometimes the Idea of ideas.[268] The\ngnostics gave to the intermediary beings the name of Eons.[269] This\nname, which signifies, in Egyptian, a principle of the will, being\ndeveloped by an inherent, plastic faculty, is applied in Greek to a\nterm of infinite duration.[270] One finds in Hermes Trismegistus the\norigin of this change of meaning. This ancient sage remarks that the\ntwo faculties, the two virtues of God, are the understanding and the\nsoul, and that the two virtues of the Eon are perpetuity and\nimmortality. The essence of God, he said again, is the good and the\nbeautiful, beatitude and wisdom; the essence of Eon, is being always\nthe same.[271] But, not content with assimilating beings of the\ncelestial hierarchy to ideas, to numbers, or to the plastic principle\nof the will, there were philosophers who preferred to designate them\nby the name of Words. Plutarch said on one occasion that words, ideas,\nand divine emanations reside in heaven and in the stars.[272] Philo\ngives in more than one instance the name of word to angels; and\nClement of Alexandria relates that the Valentinians often called their\nEons thus.[273] According to Beausobre, the philosophers and\ntheologians, seeking for terms in which to express incorporal\nsubstances, designated them by some one of their attributes or by some\none of their operations, naming them _Spirits_, on account of the\nsubtlety of their substance; _Intelligences_, on account of the\nthought; _Words_, on account of the reason; _Angels_, on account of\ntheir services; _Eons_, on account of their manner of subsisting,\nalways equal, without change and without alteration.[274] Pythagoras\ncalled them Gods, Heroes, Demons,[275] relative to their respective\nelevation and the harmonious position of the three worlds which they\ninhabit. This cosmogonic ternary joined with Creative Unity,\nconstitutes the famous Quaternary, or Sacred Tetrad, the subject of\nwhich will be taken up further on.\n\n\nPURIFICATION\n\n4. _Be a good son, just brother, spouse tender, and good father._\n\nThe aim of the doctrine of Pythagoras was to enlighten men, to purify\nthem of their vices, to deliver them from their errors, and to restore\nthem to virtue and to truth; and after having caused them to pass\nthrough all the degrees of the understanding and intelligence, to\nrender them like unto the immortal gods.\n\nThis philosopher had for this purpose divided his doctrine into two\nparts: the purgative part and the unitive part. Through the first, man\nbecame purified of his uncleanness, emerged from the darkness of\nignorance, and attained to virtue: through the second, he used his\nacquired virtue to become united to the Divinity through whose means\nhe arrived at perfection. These two parts are found quite distinct in\nthe Golden Verses. Hierocles, who has clearly grasped them, speaks of\nit in the beginning of his _Commentaries_ and designates them by two\nwords which contain, he said, all the doctrine of Pythagoras,\n_Purification_ and _Perfection_.[276] The Magians and the Chaldeans,\nall of whose principles Pythagoras had adopted, were agreed on this\npoint, and in order to express their idea, made use of a parabolical\nphrase very celebrated among them. \u201cWe consume,\u201d they said, \u201cthe\nrefuse of matter by the fire of divine love.\u201d[277] An anonymous author\nwho has written an history of Pythagoras, preserved by Photius, said\nthat the disciples of this great man taught that one perfects oneself\nin three ways: in communing with the gods, in doing good in imitation\nof the gods, and in departing from this life to rejoin the gods.[278]\nThe first of these ways is contained in the first three lines of the\nGolden Verses which concern the cult rendered, according to the law\nand according to the faith, to the Gods, to the glorified Heroes, and\nto the Spirits. The second, that is, the Purification, begins at the\nfourth line which makes the subject of this Examination. The third,\nthat is, the union with the Divinity, or Perfection, begins at the\nfortieth line of my translation:\n\n     Let not sleep e\u2019er close thy tired eyes.\n\nThus the division that I have believed ought to be made of this short\npoem is not at all arbitrary, as one sees the judicious Bayle had\nremarked it before me.[279]\n\nIt is worthy of observation, that Pythagoras begins the purgative part\nof his doctrine by commending the observance of natural duties, and\nthat he places in the rank of primary virtues, filial piety, paternal\nand conjugal love. Thus this admirable philosopher made it his first\ncare to strengthen the ties of blood and make them cherished and\nsacred; he exhorts respect to children, tenderness to parents, and\nunion to all the members of the family; he follows thus the profound\nsentiment which Nature inspires in all sentient beings, very different\nin this from certain legislators, blinded by false politics, who, in\norder to conduct men to I know not what power and what imaginary\nwelfare, have wished, on the contrary, to break those ties, annihilate\nthose relationships of father, son, and brother, to concentrate, they\nsaid, upon a being of reason called Country the affection that the\nsoul divides among those objects of its first love.[280] If the\nlegislators had cared to reflect a moment, they would have seen that\nthere existed no country for the one who had no father, and that the\nrespect and love that a man in his virile age feels for the place of\nhis birth, holds its principle and receives its force from those same\nsentiments that he felt in his infancy for his mother. Every effect\nproclaims a cause; every edifice rests upon a foundation: the real\ncause of love of country is maternal love; the sole foundations of the\nsocial edifice are paternal power and filial respect. From this sole\npower issues that of the prince, who, in every well-organized state,\nbeing considered as father of the people, has right to the obedience\nand respect of his children.\n\nI am going to make here a singular comparison which I beg the reader\nto observe. Moses, instructed in the same school as Pythagoras, after\nhaving announced the Unity of God in the famous Decalogue which\ncontains the summary of his law, and having commanded its adoration to\nhis people, announces for the first virtue, filial piety[281];\n\u201cHonour,\u201d he said, \u201cthy father and thy mother, that thy days may be\nmultiplied in this country of Adam, that Jh\u00f4ah, thy Gods, has given\nthee.\u201d[282]\n\nThe theocratic legislator of the Hebrews in making this commandment\nplaces recompense by the side of precept: he declares formally that\nthe exercise of filial piety draws with it a long existence. Now, it\nmust be remarked that Moses being content with enclosing in his\ndoctrine the sole purgative part, doubtless judging his people not in\na condition to support the unitive part, spoke to them nowhere of the\nimmortality which is its consequence; contenting himself with\npromising the joys of temporal blessings, among which he carefully\nplaced in the first rank a long life. Experience has proved, relative\nto people in general, that Moses spoke with a profound understanding\nof the causes which prolong the duration of empires. Filial piety is\nthe national virtue of the Chinese, the sacred foundation upon which\nreposes the social edifice of the greatest and the most ancient people\nof the world.[283] This virtue has been to China, for more than four\nthousand years, what love of country was to Sparta or to Rome. Sparta\nand Rome have fallen notwithstanding the sort of fanaticism with which\ntheir children were animated, and the Chinese Empire which existed two\nthousand years before their foundation, still exists two thousand\nyears after their downfall. If China has been able to preserve herself\nin the midst of the flux and reflux of a thousand revolutions, to save\nherself from her own wrecks, to triumph over her own defects, and to\nsubjugate even her conquerors, she owes it to this virtue which,\nraising itself from the humblest citizen to the Son of heaven seated\nupon the imperial throne, animates all the hearts with a sacred fire,\nof which Nature herself provides the nourishment and eternalizes the\nduration. The Emperor is the father of the state; two hundred million\nmen, who regard themselves as his children, compose his immense\nfamily; what human effort could overthrow this colossus?[284]\n\n\n     5. _Choose for thy friend, the friend of virtue;\n         Yield to his gentle counsels, profit by his life,\n         And for a trifling grievance never leave him_;\n\nAfter the duties which have their source directly in Nature,\nPythagoras commends to his disciples those which proceed from the\nsocial state; friendship follows immediately filial piety, paternal\nand fraternal love; but this philosopher makes a distinction full of\nmeaning: he ordains to honour one\u2019s relations; he says to choose one\u2019s\nfriends. This is why: it is Nature that presides at our birth, that\ngives us a father, a mother, brothers, sisters, relations of kinship,\na position upon the earth, and a place in society; all this depends\nnot upon us: all this, according to the vulgar, is the work of hazard;\nbut according to the Pythagorean philosopher these are the\nconsequences of an anterior order, severe and irresistible, called\nFortune or Necessity. Pythagoras opposed to this restrained nature, a\nfree Nature, which, acting upon forced things as upon brute matter,\nmodifies them and draws as it wills, good or bad results. This second\nnature was called Power or Will: it is this which rules the life of\nman, and which directs his conduct according to the elements furnished\nhim by the first. Necessity and Power are, according to Pythagoras,\nthe two opposed motives of the sublunary world where man is relegated.\nThese two motives draw their force from a superior cause that the\nancients named _Nemesis_, the fundamental decree,[285] that we name\n_Providence_. Thus then, Pythagoras recognized, relative to man,\nthings constrained and things free, according as they depend upon\nNecessity or the Will: he ranked filial piety in the first and\nfriendship in the second. Man not being free to give himself parents\nof his choice, must honour them such as they are, and fulfil in regard\nto them all the duties of nature, whatever wrong they might do towards\nhim; but as nothing constrains him from giving his friendship, he need\ngive it only to the one who shows himself worthy of it by his\nattachment to virtue.\n\nLet us observe an important point. In China where filial piety is\nregarded as the root of all virtues and the first source of\ninstruction,[286] the exercise of the duties which it imposes admits\nof no exception. As the legislator teaches there that the greatest\ncrime is to lack in filial piety, he infers that he who has been a\ngood son will be a good father and that thus nothing will break the\nsocial tie[287]; for he first establishes this virtue which embraces\nall, from the emperor to the lowliest of his subjects, and that it is\nfor the peoples what the regularity of the celestial movements is for\nthe ethereal space: but in Italy and in Greece where Pythagoras\nestablished his dogmas, it would have been dangerous for him to give\nthe same extension, since this virtue not being that of the State,\nwould necessarily involve abuses in the paternal authority, already\nexcessive among certain peoples. That is the reason the disciples of\nthis philosopher, in distinguishing between forced and voluntary\nactions, judged wisely that it would be necessary to apply here the\ndistinction: therefore they urged to honour one\u2019s father and mother\nand to obey them in all that concerns the body and mundane things, but\nwithout abandoning one\u2019s soul to them[288]; for the divine law\ndeclares free what has not been received from them and delivers it\nfrom their power. Pythagoras furthermore had favoured this opinion by\nsaying, that after having chosen a friend from among the men most\ncommended for their virtues, it was necessary to learn by his actions\nand to be guided by his discourse: which testified to the lofty idea\nthat he had of friendship. \u201cFriends,\u201d he said, \u201care like companions of\ntravel who reciprocally assist each other to persevere in the path of\nthe noblest life.[289]\u201d It is to him that we owe that beautiful\nexpression, so often quoted, so little felt by the generality of men,\nand which a victorious king, Alexander the Great, felt so keenly and\nexpressed so felicitously by the following: \u201cMy friend is another\nmyself.\u201d[290] It is also from him that Aristotle had borrowed that\nbeautiful definition: \u201cThe real friend is one soul that lives in two\nbodies.\u201d[291] The founder of the Lyceum, in giving such a definition\nof friendship, spoke rather by theory than by practice, he who\nreasoning one day upon friendship, cried ingenuously: \u201cOh, my friends!\nthere are no friends.\u201d[292]\n\nYet Pythagoras did not conceive friendship as a simple individual\naffection, but as an universal benevolence which should be extended to\nall men in general, and to all good people.[293] At that time he gave\nto this virtue the name of philanthropy. It is the virtue which, under\nthe name of charity, serves as foundation for the Christian religion.\nJesus offers it to his disciples immediately after divine love, and as\nequal to piety.[294] Zoroaster places it after sincerity[295]; he\nwished that man might be pure in thought, speech, and action; that he\nmight speak the truth, and that he might do good to all men. Kong-Tse\nas well as Pythagoras commended it after filial piety.[296] \u201cAll\nmorals,\u201d he said, \u201ccan be reduced to the observation of three\nfundamental laws, of the relations between sovereigns and subjects,\nbetween parents and children, between husbands and wives; and to the\nstrict practice of the five capital virtues, of which the first is\nhumanity, that is to say, that universal charity, that expansion of\nthe soul which binds man to man without distinction.\u201d\n\n\n     6. _If thou canst at least: for a most rigid law\n         Binds Power to Necessity._\n\nHere is the proof of what I said just now, that Pythagoras recognized\ntwo motives of human actions, the first, issuing from a constrained\nnature, called Necessity; the second emanating from a free nature,\ncalled Power, and both dependent upon an implied primordial law. This\ndoctrine was that of the ancient Egyptians, among whom Pythagoras had\nimbibed it. \u201cMan is mortal with reference to the body,\u201d they said,\n\u201cbut he is immortal with reference to the soul which constitutes\nessential man. As immortal he has authority over all things; but\nrelative to the material and mortal part of himself, he is subject to\ndestiny.\u201d[297]\n\nOne can see by these few words that the ancient sages did not give to\nDestiny the universal influence that certain philosophers and\nparticularly the Stoics gave to it later on; but they considered it\nonly as exercising its empire over matter. It is necessary to believe\nthat since the followers of the Porch had defined it as a chain of\ncauses, by virtue of which the past has taken place, the present\nexists, and the future is to be realized[298]; or still better, as the\nrule of the law by which the Universe is governed[299]; one must\nbelieve, I say, that these philosophers confounded Destiny with\nProvidence, and did not distinguish the effect from its cause, since\nthese definitions conform only with the fundamental law of which\ndestiny is but an emanation. This confusion of words had to produce\nand in fact did produce, among the Stoics, an inversion of ideas which\nwas the most unfortunate result[300]; for, as they established,\naccording to their system, a chain of good and evil that nothing could\neither alter or break, one easily inferred that the Universe being\nsubject to the attraction of a blind fatality, all actions are here\nnecessarily determined in advance, forced, and thereafter indifferent\nin themselves; so that good and evil, virtue and vice, are vain words,\nthings whose existence is purely ideal and relative.\n\nThe Stoics would have evaded these calamitous results if, like\nPythagoras, they had admitted the two motives of which I have spoken,\nNecessity and Power; and if, far from instituting Necessity alone as\nabsolute master of the Universe, under the name of Destiny or\nFatality, they had seen it balanced by the Power of the Will, and\nsubject to the Providential Cause whence all emanates. The disciples\nof Plato would also have evaded many errors, if they had clearly\nunderstood this concatenation of the two opposed principles, from\nwhich results universal equilibrium; but following certain false\ninterpretations of the doctrine of their master regarding the soul of\nmatter, they had imagined that this soul was no other than Necessity\nby which it is ruled[301]; so that, according to them, this soul being\ninherent in matter, and bad in itself, gave to Evil a necessary\nexistence: a dogma quite formidable, since it makes the world to be\nconsidered as the theatre of a struggle without beginning or end,\nbetween Providence, principle of Good, and the soul of matter,\nprinciple of Evil. The greatest mistake of the Platonists, exactly\ncontrary to that of the Stoics, was in having confused the free power\nof the Will with the divine Providence, in having instituted it for\nthe principle of good and thus being put in position of maintaining\nthat there are two souls in the world, a beneficent one, God, and a\nmalefic one, Matter. This system, approved of by many celebrated men\nof antiquity and which Beausobre assures was the most widely\nreceived,[302] offers, as I have observed, the very great disadvantage\nof giving to Evil a necessary existence, that is to say, an\nindependent and eternal existence. Now, Bayle has very well proved, by\nattacking this system through that of Manes, that two opposed\nPrinciples cannot exist equally eternal and independent of one\nanother, because the clearest ideas of order teach us that a Being\nwhich exists by itself, which is necessary, which is eternal, must be\nunique, infinite, all-powerful, and endowed with all manner of\nperfections.[303]\n\nBut it is not at all certain that Plato may have had the idea that his\ndisciples have attributed to him, since far from considering matter as\nan independent and necessary being, animated by a soul essentially\nbad, he seems even to doubt its existence, going so far as to regard\nit as pure nothingness, and calls the bodies which are formed of it,\nequivocal beings holding the medium between what is always existing\nand what does not exist at all[304]; he affirms sometimes that matter\nhas been created and sometimes that it has not been[305]; and thus\nfalls into contradictions of which his enemies have taken advantage.\nPlutarch, who has clearly seen it, excuses them by saying that this\ngreat philosopher has fallen into these contradictions designedly, in\norder to conceal some mystery; a mind constructed like his not being\nmade to affirm two opposites in the same sense.[306] The mystery that\nPlato wished to conceal, as he makes it sufficiently understood,[307]\nwas the origin of Evil. He himself declares that he has never revealed\nand that he never will reveal, in writing, his real sentiments in this\nrespect. Thus what Chalcidius and after him Andr\u00e9 Dacier have given\nconcerning the doctrine of Plato are only conjectures or very remote\ninferences drawn from certain of his dogmas. One has often made use of\nthis means, with regard to celebrated men whose writings one comments\nupon and particularly when one has certain reasons for presenting\none\u2019s ideas _sous un c\u00f4t\u00e9_ which outlines or which favours an opinion\neither favourable or unfavourable. It is this which happened more to\nManes than to any other; his doctrine concerning the two Principles\nhas been greatly calumniated, and without knowing just what he meant\nby them, one hastened to condemn him without investigating what he had\nsaid; adopting as axioms that he had laid down, inferences the most\nbizarre and most ridiculous that his enemies had drawn from certain\nequivocal phrases.[308] What persuades me to make this observation, is\nbecause it has been proved that Manes had indeed admitted two opposed\nPrinciples of Good and Evil, eternal independents, and holding of\nthemselves their proper and absolute existence, since it is easy to\nsee that Zoroaster, whose doctrine he had principally imitated, had\nnot admitted them as such, but as equally issued from a superior\nCause, concerning the essence of which he was silent.[309] I am very\nmuch inclined to believe that the Christian doctors who have\ntransmitted to us the ideas of this mighty heresiarch, blinded by\ntheir hatred or by their ignorance, have travestied them as I find\nthat the Platonist philosophers, bewildered by their own opinions,\nhave entirely disfigured those of the illustrious founder of the\nAcademy. The errors of both have been, taking for absolute beings,\nwhat Zoroaster and Pythagoras, Plato or Manes, had put down as\nemanations, results, forces, or even the simple abstractions of the\nunderstanding. Thus Ormuzd and Ahriman, Power and Necessity, the Same\nand the Other, Light and Darkness, are, in reality, only the same\nthings diversely expressed, diversely sensed, but always drawn from\nthe same origin and subject to the same fundamental Cause of the\nUniverse.\n\nIt is not true therefore, as Chalcidius has stated, that Pythagoras\nmay have demonstrated that evil exists necessarily,[310] because\nmatter is evil in itself. Pythagoras never said that matter might be\nan absolute being whose essence might be composed of evil. Hierocles,\nwho had studied the doctrine of this great man and that of Plato, has\ndenied that either the one or the other had ever declared matter as a\nbeing existing by itself. He has proved, on the contrary, that Plato\ntaught, following the steps of Pythagoras, that the World was produced\nfrom Nothing, and that his followers were mistaken when they thought\nthat he admitted an uncreated matter.[311] Power and Necessity\n(mentioned in the lines at the head of this Examination) are not, as\nhas been believed, the absolute source of good and evil. Necessity is\nnot more evil in itself than Power is not good; it is from the usage\nthat man is called to make of them, and from their employment which is\nindicated by wisdom or ignorance, virtue or vice, that results Good or\nEvil. This has been felt by Homer who has expressed it in an admirable\nallegory, by representing the god of gods himself, Jupiter, opening\nindifferently the sources of good and evil upon the universe.\n\n     Beside Jove\u2019s threshold stand two casks of gifts for man.\n     One cask contains the evil, one the good,...[312]\n\nThose who have rejected this thought of Homer have not reflected\nenough upon the prerogatives of poetry, which are to particularize\nwhat is universal and to represent as done what is to be done. Good\nand Evil do not emanate from Jupiter in action, but in potentiality,\nthat is to say, that the same thing represented by Jupiter or the\nUniversal Principle of the Will and the Intelligence, becomes good or\nevil, according as it is determined by the particular operation of\neach individual principle of the Will and the Intelligence.[313] Now,\nman is to the Being called Jupiter by Homer, as the particular is to\nthe Universal.[314]\n\n\n     7. _Still it is given thee to fight and overcome\n         Thy foolish passions: learn thou to subdue them._\n\nIt seems that Lysis, foreseeing the wrong inductions that would be\ndrawn from what he had said, and as if he had a presentiment that one\nwould not fail to generalize the influence of Necessity upon the\nactions of men, may have wished beforehand to oppose himself to the\ndestructive dogma of fatality, by establishing the empire of the Will\nover the passions. This is in the doctrine of Pythagoras the real\nfoundation of the liberty of man: for, according to this philosopher,\nno one is free, only he who knows how to master himself,[315] and the\nyoke of the passions is much heavier and more difficult to throw off\nthan that of the most cruel tyrants. Pythagoras, however, did not,\naccording to Hierocles, prescribe destroying the passions, as the\nStoics taught in late times; but only to watch over them and repress\nexcess in them, because all excess is vicious.[316] He regarded the\npassions as useful to man, and although produced in principle by\nNecessity, and given by an irresistible destiny, as nevertheless\nsubmissive in their use to the free power of the Will. Plato had well\nrealized this truth and had forcibly indicated it in many passages of\nhis works: one finds it chiefly in the second dialogue of Hippias,\nwhere this philosopher shows, evidently without seeming to have the\ndesign, that man good or bad, virtuous or criminal, truthful or false,\nis only such by the power of his will, and that the passion which\ncarries him to virtue or to vice, to truth or falsehood, is nothing in\nitself; so that no man is bad, only by the faculty which he has of\nbeing good; nor good, only by the faculty which he has of being bad.\n\nBut has man the faculty of being good or bad at his pleasure, and is\nhe not irresistibly drawn toward vice or virtue? This is a question\nwhich has tried all the great thinkers of the earth, and which\naccording to circumstances has caused storms of more or less violence.\nIt is necessary, however, to give close attention to one thing, which\nis, that before the establishment of Christianity and the admission of\noriginal sin as fundamental dogma of religion, no founder of sect, no\ncelebrated philosopher had positively denied the free will, nor had\ntaught ostensibly that man may be necessarily determined to Evil or to\nGood and predestined from all time to vice or virtue, to wickedness or\neternal happiness. It is indeed true that this cruel fatality seemed\noften to follow from their principles as an inevitable consequence,\nand that their adversaries reproached them with it; but nearly all\nrejected it as an insult, or a false interpretation of their system.\nThe first who gave place to this accusation, in ancient times, was a\ncertain Moschus, a Ph\u0153nician philosopher, who, according to Strabo,\nlived before the epoch in which the war of Troy is said to have taken\nplace, that is to say, about twelve or thirteen centuries before our\nera.[317] This philosopher detaching himself from the theosophical\ndoctrine, the only one known at that time, and having sought the\nreason of things in the things themselves, can be considered as the\nreal founder of Natural Philosophy: he was the first who made\nabstraction from the Divinity, and from the intelligence, and assumed\nthat the Universe existing by itself was composed of indivisible\nparticles, which, endowed with figures and diverse movements, produced\nby their fortuitous combinations an infinite series of beings,\ngenerating, destroying, and renewing themselves unceasingly. These\nparticles, which the Greeks named _atoms_,[318] on account of their\nindivisibility, constituted the particular system which still bears\nthis name. Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus adopted it, adding to\nit their own ideas; and Lucretius having naturalized it among the\nRomans, favoured its passage down to these modern times, when the\ngreater part of our philosophers have done nothing but renovate it\nunder other forms.[319] Assuredly there is no system whence the fatal\nnecessity of all things issues more inevitably than from that of\natoms; also it is certain that Democritus was accused of admitting a\ncompulsory destiny,[320] although, like Leibnitz, he admitted to each\natom an animated and sentient nature.[321] It is not known if he\nreplied to this accusation; but there are certain proofs that\nEpicurus, who had less right than he to reject it, since he regarded\natoms as absolutely inanimate,[322] rejected it nevertheless, and not\nwishing to admit a dogma subversive of all morals, he declared himself\nagainst it, and taught the liberty of man.[323]\n\nA singular thing is, that this fatality which appears attached to the\nsystem of atoms, whence the materialist promoters, true to their\nprinciple, banished the influence of Divine Providence,[324] followed\nstill more naturally from the opposed system, wherein the spiritualist\nphilosophers admitted this Providence to the full extent of its power.\nAccording to this last system, a sole and same spiritual substance\nfilled the Universe, and by its diverse modifications produced there\nall the phenomena by which the senses are affected. Parmenides,\nMelissus, and Zeno of Elea, who adopted it, sustained it with great\nsuccess: they asserted that matter was only pure illusion, that there\nis nothing in things, that bodies and all their variations are only\npure appearances, and that therefore nothing really exists outside of\nspirit.[325] Zeno of Elea particularly, who denied the existence of\nmovement, brought against this existence some objections very\ndifficult to remove.[326] The Stoic philosophers became more or less\nstrongly attached to this opinion. Chrysippus, one of the firmest\npillars of the Porch, taught that God is the soul of the world, and\nthe world, the universal extension of that soul. He said that by\nJupiter, should be understood, the eternal law, the fatal necessity,\nthe immutable truth of all future things.[327] Now, it is evident that\nif, in accordance with the energetic expression of Seneca, this unique\nprinciple of the Universe has ordained once to obey always its own\ncommand,[328] the Stoics were not able to escape from the reproach\nthat was directed toward them, of admitting the most absolute\nfatality, since the soul of man being, according to them, only a\nportion of the Divinity, its actions could have no other cause than\nGod Himself who had willed them.[329] Nevertheless Chrysippus rejected\nthe reproach in the same manner as did Epicurus; he always sustained\nthe liberty of man, notwithstanding the irresistible force that he\nadmitted in the unique Cause[330]; and what seemed a manifest\ncontradiction, he taught that the soul sins only by the impulse of its\nown will, and therefore that the blame of its errors should not be put\nupon destiny.[331]\n\nBut it suffices to reflect a moment upon the nature of the principles\nset down by Epicurus, by Chrysippus, and by all those who have\npreceded them or followed them in their divergent opinions, to see\nthat the inferences drawn by their adversaries were just, and that\nthey could not refute them without contradicting themselves.[332]\nEvery time that one has claimed to found the Universe upon the\nexistence of a sole material or spiritual nature, and to make proceed\nfrom this sole nature the explanation of all phenomena, one has become\nexposed and always will be, to insurmountable difficulties. It is\nalways in asking what the origin of Good and Evil is, that all the\nsystems of this sort have been irresistibly overthrown, from Moschus,\nLeucippus, and Epicurus, down to Spinoza and Leibnitz; from\nParmenides, Zeno of Elea, and Chrysippus, down to Berkeley and Kant.\nFor, let there be no misunderstanding, the solution of the problem\nconcerning free will depends upon preliminary knowledge of the origin\nof evil, so that one cannot reply plainly to this question: Whence\ncomes Evil? Neither can one reply to this one: Is man free? And that\none be not still further deceived here, the knowledge of the origin of\nevil, if it has been acquired, has never been openly divulged: it has\nbeen profoundly buried with that of the Unity of God in the ancient\nmysteries and has never emerged except enveloped in a triple veil. The\ninitiates imposed upon themselves a rigid silence concerning what they\ncalled the _sufferings of God_[333]: his death, his descent into the\ninfernal regions, and his resurrection.[334] They knew that the\nserpent was, in general, the symbol of evil, and that it was under\nthis form that the Python had fought with and been slain by\nApollo.[335] The theosophists have not made a public dogma of the\nUnity of God, precisely on account of the explanation that it would be\nnecessary to give to the origin of good and evil; for without this\nexplanation, the dogma in itself would have been incomprehensible.\nMoses realized it perfectly, and in the plan which he had conceived of\nstriking the people whose legislator he was, with a character as\nextraordinary as indelible, by founding his cult upon the publicity of\na dogma hidden, until that time in the depths of the sanctuaries and\nreserved for the initiates alone, he did not hesitate to divulge what\nhe knew pertaining to the creation of the world and the origin of\nevil. It is true that the manner in which he gave it, under a\nsimplicity and apparent clarity, concealed a profundity and obscurity\nalmost unfathomable; but the form which he gave to this formidable\nmystery sufficed to support, in the opinion of the vulgar, the Unity\nof God and this was all that he wished to do.\n\nNow it is the essence of theosophy to be dogmatic, and that of natural\nphilosophy to be skeptical; the theosophist speaks by faith, the\nphysicist speaks by reason; the doctrine of the one excludes the\ndiscussion that the system of the other admits and even necessitates.\nUp to that time, theosophy dominating upon the earth had taught the\ninfluence of the will, and the tradition which was preserved in it\namong all the nations of the earth during an incalculable succession\nof centuries gave it the force of demonstration. Among the Indians,\nKrishna; among the Persians, Zoroaster; in China, Kong-Tse; in Egypt,\nThoth; among the Greeks, Orpheus; even Odin, among the Scandinavians;\neverywhere the lawgivers of the people had linked the liberty of man\nwith the consoling dogma of Divine Providence.[336] The peoples\naccustomed to worship in polytheism the Divine Infinity and not its\nUnity, did not find it strange to be guided, protected, and watched\nover on the one side, whereas they remained, on the other, free in\ntheir movements; and they did not trouble themselves to find the\nsource of good and evil since they saw it in the objects of their\ncult, in these same gods, the greater part of whom being neither\nessentially good nor essentially bad were reputed to inspire in them\nthe virtues or the vices which, gathered freely by them, rendered them\nworthy of recompense or chastisement.[337] But when Natural Philosophy\nappeared, the face of things was changed. The natural philosophers,\nsubstituting the observation of nature and experience for mental\ncontemplation and the inspiration of theosophists, thought that they\ncould make sentient what was intelligible, and promised to prove by\nfact and reasoning whatever up to that time had had only proofs of\nsentiment and analogy. They brought to light the great mystery of\nUniversal Unity, and transforming this Intellectual Unity into\ncorporal substance placed it in water,[338] in infinite space,[339] in\nthe air,[340] in the fire,[341] whence they draw in turn the essential\nand formal existence of all things. The one, attached to the school of\nIonia, established as fundamental maxim, that there is but one\nprinciple of all; and the other, attached to that of Elea, started\nfrom this axiom that nothing is made from nothing.[342] The former\nsought the _how_, and the latter the _why_ of things; and all were\nunited in saying that there is no effect without cause. Their\ndifferent systems, based upon the principles of reasoning which seemed\nincontestable, and supported by a series of imposing conclusions, had,\nat first, a prodigious success; but this _\u00e9clat_ paled considerably\nwhen soon the disciples of Pythagoras, and a little later those of\nSocrates and Plato, having received from their masters the\ntheosophical tradition, stopped these sophistical physicists in the\nmidst of their triumphs, and, asking them the cause of physical and of\nmoral evil, proved to them that they knew nothing of it; and that, in\nwhatever fashion they might deduce it by their system, they could not\navoid establishing an absolute fatality, destructive to the liberty of\nman, which by depriving it of morality of actions, by confounding vice\nand virtue, ignorance and wisdom, made of the Universe no more than a\nfrightful chaos. In vain these had thrust back the reproach and\nclaimed that the inference was false; their adversaries pursuing them\non their own ground cried out to them: If the principle that you admit\nis good, whence comes it that men are wicked and miserable?[343] If\nthis unique principle is bad, whence emerge goodness and virtue?[344]\nIf nature is the expression of this sole principle, how is it not\nconstant and why does its government sow goodness and evil?[345] The\nmaterialists had recourse vainly to a certain deviation in atoms,[346]\nand the spiritualists, to a certain adjuvant cause quite similar to\nefficacious grace[347]; the theosophists would never have renounced\nthem if they had not enclosed them in a syllogistic circle, by making\nthem admit, sometimes that the unique and all-powerful Principle\ncannot think of everything,[348] sometimes that vice is useful and\nthat without it there would be no virtue[349]; paradoxes of which they\nhad no trouble demonstrating the absurdity and the revolting\ninferences.[350]\n\nTake a survey of all the nations of the world, peruse all the books\nthat you please, and you will find the liberty of man, the free will\nof his actions, the influence of his will over his passions, only in\nthe theosophical tradition. Wherever you see physical or metaphysical\nsystems, doctrines of whatever kind they may be, founded upon a sole\nprinciple of the material or spiritual Universe, you can conclude\nboldly that absolute fatality results from it and that their authors\nfind themselves in need of making two things one: or of explaining the\norigin of good and evil, which is impossible; or of establishing the\nfree will _a priori_, which is a manifest contradiction of their\nreasonings. If you care to penetrate into metaphysical depths, examine\nthis decisive point upon this matter. Moses founded his cult upon the\nUnity of God and he explained the origin of evil; but he found himself\nforced by the very nature of this formidable mystery to envelop his\nexplanation with such a veil, that it remained impenetrable for all\nthose who had not received the traditional revelation; so that the\nliberty of man existed in his cult only by favour of theosophical\ntradition, and that it became weaker and disappeared entirely from it\nwith this same tradition, the two opposed sects of the Pharisees and\nSadducees which divided the cult prove this.[351] The former, attached\nto the tradition and allegorizing the text of the _Sepher_,[352]\nadmitted the free will[353]; the others, on the contrary, rejecting it\nand following the literal meaning, established an irresistible destiny\nto which all was subjected. The most orthodox Hebrews, and those even\nwho passed as seers or prophets of the nation, had no difficulty in\nattributing to God the cause of Evil.[354] They were obviously\nauthorized by the history of the downfall of the first man, and by the\ndogma of original sin, which they took according to the meaning\nattached to it by the vulgar. It also happened, after the\nestablishment of Christianity and of Islamism, that this dogma,\nreceived by both cults in all its extent and in all its literal\nobscurity, has necessarily drawn with it predestination, which is, in\nother words, only the fatality of the ancients. Mohammed, more\nenthusiast than learned, and stronger in imagination than in\nreasoning, has not hesitated a moment, admitting it as an inevitable\nresult of the Unity of God, which he announced after Moses.[355] It is\ntrue that a few Christian doctors, when they have been capable of\nperceiving the inferences in it have denied this predestination, and\nhave wished, either by allegorizing the dogma of original sin, as\nOrigen, or rejecting it wholly, as Pelagius, to establish the free\nwill and the power of the will; but it is easy to see, in reading the\nhistory of the church, that the most rigid Christians, such as Saint\nAugustine and the ecclesiastical authority itself, have always upheld\npredestination as proceeding necessarily from the divine Prescience\nand from the All-Powerful, without which there is no Unity. The length\nof this examination forces me to suspend the proofs that I was going\nto give regarding this last assertion; but further on I will return to\nit.\n\n\n     8. _Be sober, diligent, and chaste; avoid all wrath.\n         In public or in secret ne\u2019er permit thou\n         Any evil; and above all else respect thyself._\n\nPythagoras considered man under three principal modifications, like\nthe Universe; and this is why he gave to man the name of the microcosm\nor the small world.[356] Nothing was more common among the ancient\nnations than to compare the Universe to a grand man, and man, to a\nsmall Universe.[357] The Universe, considered as a grand and animated\nAll, composed of intelligence, soul and body, was called Pan or\nPhanes.[358][359] Man, or microcosm, was composed in the same way but\nin an inverse manner, of body, soul, and intelligence; and each of\nthese three parts was, in its turn, considered under three\nmodifications, so that the ternary ruling in the whole ruled equally\nin the least of its subdivisions. Each ternary, from that which\nembraced Immensity, to that which constituted the weakest individual\nwas, according to Pythagoras, included in an absolute or relative\nUnity, and formed thus, as I have already said, the Quaternary or\nSacred Tetrad of the Pythagoreans. This Quaternary was universal or\nparticular. Pythagoras was not, however, the inventor of this\ndoctrine: it was spread from China to the depths of Scandinavia.[360]\nOne finds it likewise expressed in the oracles of Zoroaster.[361]\n\n     In the Universe a Ternary shines forth,\n     And the Monad is its principle.\n\nThus, according to this doctrine, Man, considered as a relative unity\ncontained in the absolute Unity of the Grand All, presents himself as\nthe universal ternary, under three principal modifications, of body,\nsoul, and spirit or intelligence. The soul, considered as the seat of\nthe passions, is presented in its turn, under the three faculties of\nthe rational, irascible or appetent soul. Now, in the opinion of\nPythagoras, the vice of the appetent faculty of the soul is\nintemperance or avarice; that of the irascible faculty is cowardice;\nand that of the rational faculty is folly. The vice which reaches\nthese three faculties is injustice. In order to avoid these vices, the\nphilosopher commends four principal virtues to his disciples:\ntemperance for the appetent faculty, courage for the irascible\nfaculty, prudence for the rational faculty, and for these three\nfaculties together, justice, which he regards as the most perfect\nvirtue of the soul.[362] I say the soul, because the body and the\nintelligence, being equally developed by means of three faculties\ninstinctive or spiritual, as well as the soul, were susceptible of the\nvices and the virtues which were peculiar to them.\n\n\n     9. _Speak not nor act before thou hast reflected;\n         Be just._\n\nBy the preceding lines, Lysis, speaking in the name of Pythagoras, had\ncommended temperance and diligence; he had prescribed particularly\nwatching over the irascible faculty, and moderating its excesses; by\nthese, he indicates the peculiar character of prudence which is\nreflection and he imposes the obligation of being just, by binding, as\nit were, the most energetic idea of justice with that of death, as may\nbe seen in the subsequent lines:\n\n\n     10. \u2026 _Remember that a power invincible\n         Ordains to die_; \u2026\n\nThat is to say, remember thou that the fatal necessity to which thou\nart subjected in reference to the material and mortal part of thyself,\naccording to the sentence of the ancient sages,[363] will strike thee\nparticularly in the objects of thy cupidity, of thy intemperance, in\nthe things which will have excited thy folly, or flattered thy\ncowardice; remember thou that death will break the frail instruments\nof thy wrath, will extinguish the firebrands that it will have\nlighted; remember thou finally,\n\n\n     11. \u2026 _That riches and the honours\n         Easily acquired, are easy thus to lose._\n\nBe just: injustice has often easy triumphs; but what remains after\ndeath of the riches that it has procured? Nothing but the bitter\nremembrance of their loss, and the nakedness of a shameful vice\nuncovered and reduced to impotency.\n\nI have proceeded rapidly in the explanation of the foregoing lines,\nbecause the morals which they contain, founded upon the proofs of\nsentiment, are not susceptible of receiving others. I do not know if\nthis simple reflection has already been made, but in any case it ought\nto draw with it one more complicated, and serve to find the reason for\nthe surprising harmony which reigns, and which has always reigned,\namong all the peoples of the earth upon the subject of morals. Man has\nbeen allowed to disagree upon subjects of reasoning and opinion, to\ndiffer in a thousand ways in those of taste, to dispute upon the forms\nof cult, the dogmas of teachings, the bases of science, to build an\ninfinity of psychological and physical systems; but Man has never been\nable, without belying his own conscience, to deny the truth and\nuniversality of morals. Temperance, prudence, courage, and justice,\nhave always been considered as virtues, and avarice, folly, cowardice,\nand injustice, as vices; and this, without the least discussion. Never\nhas any legislator said that it was necessary to be a bad son, a bad\nfriend, a bad citizen, envious, ungrateful, perjured. The men most\nbeset with these vices have always hated them in others, have\nconcealed them at home, and their very hypocrisy has been a new homage\nrendered to morals.\n\nIf certain sectarians, blinded by a false zeal and furthermore\nsystematically ignorant and intolerant, have circulated that the cults\ndiffering from theirs lacked morals, or received impure ones, it is\nbecause they either misunderstood the true principles of morals, or\nthey calumniated them; principles are the same everywhere; only their\napplication is more or less rigid and their consequences are more or\nless well applied in accordance with the times, the places, and the\nmen. The Christians extol, and with reason, the purity and the\nsanctity of their morals; but if it must be told them with frankness\nthey have nothing in their sacred books that cannot be found as\nforcibly expressed in the sacred books of other nations, and often\neven, in the opinion of impartial travellers, one has seen it much\nbetter practised. For example, the beautiful maxim touching upon the\npardon of offences[364] is found complete in the _Zend-Avesta_. It is\nwritten: \u201cO God! greater than all that which is great! if a man\nprovoke you by his thoughts, by his speech, or by his actions, if he\nhumbles himself before you, pardon him; even so, if a man provoke me\nby his thoughts by his speech or by his actions may I pardon\nhim.\u201d[365] One finds in the same book, the precept on charity, such as\nis practised among the Mussulmans, and that of agriculture placed in\nthe rank of virtues, as among the Chinese. \u201cThe King whom you love,\nwhat desire you that he shall do, Ormuzd? Do you desire that, like\nunto you, he shall nourish the poor?\u201d[366] \u201cThe purest point of the\nlaw is to sow the land. He who sows the grain and does it with\npurity is as great before me as he who celebrates ten thousand\nadorations.\u2026\u201d[367] \u201cRender the earth fertile, cover it with flowers\nand with fruits; multiply the springs in the places where there is no\ngrass.\u201d[368] This same maxim of the pardon of offences and those which\ndecree to return good for evil, and to do unto others what we would\nthat they should do unto us, is found in many of the Oriental\nwritings. One reads in the distichs of Hafiz this beautiful passage:\n\n     Learn of the sea-shell to love thine enemy, and to fill with\n     pearls the hand thrust out to harm thee. Be not less\n     generous than the hard rock; make resplendent with precious\n     stones, the arm which rends thy side. Mark thou yonder tree\n     assailed by a shower of stones; upon those who throw them it\n     lets fall only delicious fruits or perfumed flowers. The\n     voice of all nature calls aloud to us: shall man be the only\n     one refusing to heal the hand which is wounded in striking\n     him? To bless the one who offends him?[369]\n\nThe evangelical precept paraphrased by Hafiz is found in substance in\na discourse of Lysias; it is clearly expressed by Thales and Pittacus;\nKong-Tse taught it in the same words as Jesus; finally one finds in\nthe _Arya_, written more than three centuries before our era, these\nlines which seem made expressly to inculcate the maxim and depict the\ndeath of the righteous man:\n\n     The duty of a good man, even at the moment of his\n     destruction, consists not only in forgiving but even in a\n     desire of benefiting his destroyer; as the Sandal-tree, in\n     the instant of its overthrow sheds perfume on the ax which\n     fells; and he would triumph in repeating the verse of Sadi\n     who represents a return of good for good as a slight\n     reciprocity, but says to the virtuous man, \u201cconfer benefits\n     on him who has injured thee.\u201d[370]\n\nInterrogate the peoples from the Boreal pole to the extremities of\nAsia, and ask them what they think of virtue: they will respond to\nyou, as Zeno, that it is all that is good and beautiful; the\nScandinavians, disciples of Odin, will show you the _H\u00e2vam\u00e2l_[371],\nsublime discourse of their ancient legislator, wherein hospitality,\ncharity, justice, and courage are expressly commended to them: You\nwill know by tradition that the Celts had the sacred verses of their\nDruids, wherein piety, justice, and valour were celebrated as national\nvirtues[372]; you will see in the books preserved under the name of\nHermes[373] that the Egyptians followed the same idea regarding morals\nas the Indians their ancient preceptors; and these ideas, preserved\nstill in the _Dharma-Shastra_,[374] will strike you in the _Kings_ of\nthe Chinese. It is there, in those sacred books whose origin is lost\nin the night of time,[375] that you will find at their source the most\nsublime maxims of Fo-Hi, Krishna, Thoth, Zoroaster, Pythagoras,\nSocrates, and Jesus. Morals, I repeat, are everywhere the same;\ntherefore it is not upon its written principles that one should judge\nof the perfection of the cult, as has been done without reflection,\nbut upon their practical application. This application, whence results\nthe national spirit, depends upon the purity of the religious dogmas,\nupon the sublimity of the mysteries, and upon their more or less great\naffinity with the Universal Truth which is the soul, apparent or\nhidden, of all religion.\n\n\n     12. _As to the evils which Destiny involves,\n          Judge them what they are; endure them all and strive,\n          As much as thou art able, to modify the traits.\n          The Gods, to the most cruel, have not exposed the sage._\n\nI have said that Pythagoras acknowledged two motives of human actions,\nthe power of the Will and the necessity of Destiny, and that he\nsubjected both to one fundamental law called Providence from which\nthey emanated alike. The first of these motives was free, and the\nsecond constrained: so that man found himself placed between two\nopposed, but not injurious natures, indifferently good or bad,\naccording as he understood the use of them. The power of the Will was\nexercised upon the things to be done, or upon the future; the\nnecessity of Destiny, upon the things done, or upon the past: and the\none nourished the other unceasingly, by working upon the materials\nwhich they reciprocally furnished each other; for according to this\nadmirable philosopher, it is of the past that the future is born, of\nthe future that the past is formed, and of the union of both that is\nengendered the always existing present, from which they draw alike\ntheir origin: a most profound idea that the Stoics had adopted.[376]\nThus, following this doctrine, liberty rules in the future, necessity\nin the past, and Providence over the present. Nothing that exists\nhappens by chance but by the union of the fundamental and providential\nlaw with the human will which follows or transgresses it, by operating\nupon necessity.[377] The harmony of the Will and Providence\nconstitutes Good; Evil is born of their opposition. Man has received\nthree forces adapted to each of the three modifications of his being,\nto be guided in the course that he should pursue on earth and all\nthree enchained to his Will. The first, attached to the body, is\ninstinct; the second, devoted to the soul, is virtue; the third,\nappertaining to intelligence, is science or wisdom. These three\nforces, indifferent in themselves, take this name only through the\ngood usage that the Will makes of it; for, through bad usage they\ndegenerate into brutishness, vice, and ignorance. Instinct perceives\nthe physical good or evil resulting from sensation; virtue recognizes\nthe moral good or evil existing in sentiment; science judges the\nintelligible good or evil which springs from assent. In sensation,\ngood or evil is called pleasure or pain; in sentiment, love or hate;\nin assent, truth or error. Sensation, sentiment, and assent, dwelling\nin the body, in the soul, and in the spirit, form a ternary, which\nbecoming developed under favour of a relative unity constitutes the\nhuman quaternary, or Man considered abstractly. The three affections\nwhich compose this ternary act and react upon one another, and become\nmutually enlightened or obscured; and the unity which binds them, that\nis to say, Man, is perfected or depraved, according as it tends to\nbecome blended with the Universal Unity or to become distinguished\nfrom it. The means that this ternary has of becoming blended with it,\nor of becoming distinguished from it, of approaching near or of\ndrawing away from it, resides wholly in its Will, which, through the\nuse that it makes of the instruments furnished it by the body, soul,\nand mind, becomes instinctive or stupefied; is made virtuous or\nvicious, wise or ignorant, and places itself in condition to perceive\nwith more or less energy, to understand and to judge with more or less\nrectitude what there is of goodness, excellence, and justice in\nsensation, sentiment, or assent; to distinguish, with more or less\nforce and knowledge, good and evil; and not to be deceived at last in\nwhat is really pleasure or pain, love or hatred, truth or error.\n\nIndeed one feels that the metaphysical doctrine that I have just\nbriefly set forth is nowhere found so clearly expressed, and therefore\nI do not need to support it with any direct authority. It is only by\nadopting the principles set down in the Golden Verses and by\nmeditating a long time upon what has been written by Pythagoras that\none is able to conceive the _ensemble_. The disciples of this\nphilosopher having been extremely discreet and often obscure, one can\nonly well appreciate the opinions of their master by throwing light\nupon them with those of the Platonists and Stoics, who have adopted\nand spread them without any reserve.[378]\n\nMan, such as I have just depicted him, according to the idea that\nPythagoras had conceived, placed under the dominion of Providence\nbetween the past and the future, endowed with a free will by his\nessence, and being carried along toward virtue or vice with its own\nmovement, Man, I say, should understand the source of the evils that\nhe necessarily experiences; and far from accusing this same Providence\nwhich dispenses good and evil to each according to his merit and his\nanterior actions, can blame only himself if he suffers, through an\ninevitable consequence of his past mistakes.[379] For Pythagoras\nadmitted many successive existences,[380] and maintained that the\npresent, which strikes us, and the future, which menaces us, are only\nthe expression of the past which has been our work in anterior times.\nHe said that the greater part of men lose, in returning to life, the\nremembrance of these past existences; but that, concerning himself, he\nhad, by a particular favour of the gods, preserved the memory of\nthem.[381] Thus according to his doctrine, this fatal Necessity, of\nwhich man unceasingly complains, has been created by himself through\nthe use of his will; he traverses, in proportion as he advances in\ntime, the road that he has already traced for himself; and according\nas he has modified it by good or evil, as he sows so to speak, his\nvirtues or his vices, he will find it again more smooth or laborious,\nwhen the time will come to traverse it anew.\n\nThese are the dogmas by means of which Pythagoras established the\nnecessity of Destiny, without harming the power of the Will, and left\nto Providence its universal empire, without being obliged either to\nattribute to it the origin of evil, as those who admitted only one\nprinciple of things, or to give to evil an absolute existence, as\nthose who admitted two principles. In this, he was in accordance with\nthe ancient doctrine which was followed by the oracles of the\ngods.[382] The Pythagoreans, however, did not regard pain, that is to\nsay, whatever afflicts the body in its mortal life, as veritable\nevils; they called veritable evils only sins, vices, and errors into\nwhich one falls voluntarily. In their opinion, the physical and\ninevitable evils being illustrated by the presence of virtue, could be\ntransformed into blessings and become distinguished and enviable.[383]\nThese last evils, dependent upon necessity, Lysis commended to be\njudged for what they were; that is, to consider as an inevitable\nconsequence of some mistake, as the chastisement or remedy for some\nvice; and therefore to endure them, and far from irritating them\nfurther by impatience and anger, on the contrary to modify them by the\nresignation and acquiescence of the will to the judgment of\nProvidence. He does not forbid, as one sees in the lines cited,\nassuaging them by lawful means; on the contrary, he desires that the\nsage should apply himself to diverting them if possible, and healing\nthem. Thus this philosopher did not fall into the excess with which\nthe Stoics have been justly reproached.[384] He considered pain evil,\nnot that it was of the same nature as vice, but because its nature, a\npurgative for vice, makes it a necessary consequence. Plato adopted\nthis idea, and made all the inferences felt with his customary\neloquence.[385]\n\nAs to what Lysis said, always following Pythagoras, that the sage was\nnever exposed to the crudest evils, this can be understood as\nHierocles has understood it, in a simple and natural manner, or in a\nmore mysterious manner as I stated. It is evident at once, in\nfollowing the inferences of the principles which have been given, that\nthe sage is not, in reality, subject to the severest evils, since, not\naggravating by his emotions those which the necessity of destiny\ninflict upon him, and bearing them with resignation, he alleviates\nthem; living happy, even in the midst of misfortune, in the firm hope\nthat these evils will no more trouble his days, and certain that the\ndivine blessings which are reserved for virtue, await him in another\nlife.[386] Hierocles, after having revealed this first manner of\nexplaining the verse in question, touches lightly upon the second, in\nsaying that the Will of man can have an influence on Providence, when,\nacting in a lofty soul, it is assisted by succour from heaven and\noperates with it.[387] This was a part of the doctrine taught in the\nmysteries, whose divulgence to the profane was forbidden. According to\nthis doctrine, of which sufficiently strong traces can be recognized\nin Plato,[388] the Will, exerting itself by faith, was able to\nsubjugate Necessity itself, to command Nature, and to work miracles.\nIt was the principle upon which was founded the magic of the disciples\nof Zoroaster.[389] Jesus saying parabolically, that by means of faith\none could remove mountains,[390] only spoke according to the\ntheosophical traditions known to all the sages. \u201cThe uprightness of\nthe heart and faith triumphs over all obstacles,\u201d said Kong-Tse[391];\n\u201call men can render themselves equal to the sages and to the heroes\nwhose memory the nations revere,\u201d said Meng-Tse; \u201cit is never the\npower which is lacking, it is the will; provided one desire, one\nsucceeds.\u201d[392] These ideas of the Chinese theosophists are found in\nthe writings of the Indians,[393] and even in those of some Europeans\nwho, as I have already observed, had not enough erudition to be\nimitators. \u201cThe greater the will,\u201d said Boehme, \u201cthe greater the being\nand the more powerfully inspired.\u201d[394] \u201cWill and liberty are the same\nthing.\u201d[395] \u201cIt is the source of light, the magic which makes\nsomething from nothing.\u201d[396]\n\n     \u201cThe Will which goes resolutely forward is faith; it models\n     its own form in spirit and overcomes all things; by it, a\n     soul receives the power of carrying its influence in another\n     soul, and of penetrating its most intimate essences. When it\n     acts with God it can overthrow mountains, break the rocks,\n     confound the plots of the impious, and breathe upon them\n     disorder and dismay; it can effect all prodigies, command\n     the heavens, the sea, and enchain death itself: it\n     subjugates all. Nothing can be named that cannot be\n     commanded in the name of the Eternal. The soul which\n     executes these great things only imitates the prophets and\n     the saints, Moses, Jesus, and the apostles. All the elect\n     have a similar power. Evil disappears before them. Nothing\n     can harm the one in whom God dwells.\u201d[397]\n\nIt is in departing from this doctrine, taught as I have said in the\nmysteries, that certain gnostics of the Alexandrian school assert that\nevils never attended the true sages, if there were found men who might\nhave been so in reality; for Providence, image of divine justice,\nwould never allow the innocent to suffer and be punished. Basil, who\nwas one of those who supported this Platonic opinion,[398] was sharply\nreprimanded by the orthodox Christians, who treated him as a heretic,\nquoting to him the example of the martyrs. Basil replied that the\nmartyrs were not entirely innocent, because there is no man exempt\nfrom faults; that God punishes in them, either evil desires, actual\nand secret sins, or sins that the soul had committed in a previous\nexistence; and as they did not fail to oppose him again with the\nexample of Jesus, who, although fully innocent, had, however, suffered\nthe torture of the cross, Basil answered without hesitation that God\nhad been just, in his opinion, and that Jesus, being man, was no more\nthan another exempt from sin.[399]\n\n\n     13. _Even as Truth, does Error have its lovers;\n          With prudence the Philosopher approves or blames;\n          If Error triumph, he departs and waits._\n\nIt is sufficiently known that Pythagoras was the first who used the\nword Philosopher to designate _a friend of wisdom._[400] Before him,\nthe word _Sophos_, sage, was used. It is therefore with intention that\nI have made it enter into my translation, although it may not be\nliterally in the text. The portrayal that Lysis gives of the\nphilosopher represents everything in moderation and in that just mean,\nwhere the celebrated Kong-Tse placed also the perfection of the\nsage.[401] He commended to him tolerance for the opinions of others,\ninstilling in him that, as truth and error have likewise their\nfollowers, one must not be flattered into thinking that one can\nenlighten all men, nor bring them to accept the same sentiments and to\nprofess the same doctrine. Pythagoras had, following his custom,\nexpressed these same ideas by symbolic phrases: \u201cExceed not the\nbalance,\u201d he had said, \u201cstir not the fire with the sword, all\nmaterials are not fitting to make a statue of Mercury.\u201d That is to\nsay, avoid all excess; depart not from the golden mean which is the\nappanage of the philosopher; propagate not your doctrine by violent\nmeans; use not the sword in the cause of God and the truth; confide\nnot science to a corrupt soul; or as Jesus forcibly said: \u201cGive not\nthat which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before\nswine\u201d[402]; for all men are not equally fitted to receive science, to\nbecome models of wisdom, nor to reflect the image of God.\n\nPythagoras, it must be said, had not always entertained these\nsentiments. While he was young and while he still burned unconsciously\nwith the fire of passions, he abandoned himself to a blind and\nvehement zeal. An excess of enthusiasm and of divine love had thrown\nhim into intolerance and perhaps he would have become persecutor, if,\nlike Mohammed, he had had the weapons at hand. An incident opened his\neyes. As he had contracted the habit of treating his disciples very\nseverely, and as he generally censured men for their vices with much\nasperity, it happened one day that a youth, whose mistakes he had\npublicly exposed and whom he had upbraided with bitterest reproaches,\nconceived such despair that he killed himself. The philosopher never\nthought of this evil of which he had been the cause without violent\ngrief; he meditated deeply, and made from this incident reflections\nwhich served him the remainder of his life. He realized, as he\nenergetically expressed it, that one must not stir the fire with the\nsword. One can, in this regard, compare him with Kong-Tse and\nSocrates. The other theosophists have not always shown the same\nmoderation. Krishna, the most tolerant among them had nevertheless\nsaid, abandoning himself to thoughtless enthusiasm: \u201cWisdom consists\nin being wholly for Me \u2026 in freedom from love of self \u2026 in loosening\nall bonds of attachment for one\u2019s children, wife, and home \u2026 in\nrendering to God alone a steadfast cult \u2026 disdaining and fleeing from\nthe society of men\u201d[403]: words remarkable for the connection that\nthey have with those of Jesus: \u201cIf any man come to me and hate not his\nfather, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters,\nyea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.\u201d[404] Zoroaster\nseemed to authorize persecution, saying in an outburst of indignation:\n\u201cHe who does evil, destroy him; rise up against all those who are\ncruel.\u2026 Smite with strength the proud Turanian who afflicts and\ntorments the just.\u201d[405] One knows to what pitch of wrath Moses was\nkindled against the Midianites and the other peoples who resisted\nhim,[406] notwithstanding that he had announced, in a calmer moment,\nthe God of Israel as a God merciful and gracious, long-suffering and\nabundant in goodness and truth.[407] Mohammed, as passionate as Moses,\nand strongly resembling the legislator of the Hebrews by his ability\nand firmness, has fallen into the same excess. He has often depicted,\nas cruel and inexorable, this same God whom he invokes at the head of\nall of his writings, as very good, very just, and very clement.[408]\nThis proves how rare a thing it is to remain in the golden mean so\ncommended by Kong-Tse and Pythagoras, how difficult it is for any\npupil to resist the lure of the passions to stifle utterly their\nvoice, in order to hear only the voice of the divine inspiration.\nReflecting upon the discrepancies of the great men whom I have just\ncited, one cannot refrain from thinking with Basil, that, in effect,\nthere are no men on earth veritably wise and without sin[409]; above\nall when one considers that Jesus expressed himself in the same\ndetails as Krishna, Zoroaster, and Moses; and that he who had exhorted\nus in one passage to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate\nus, and to pray even for those who persecute and calumniate us,[410]\nmenaces with fire from heaven the cities that recognize him not,[411]\nand elsewhere it is written: \u201cDo not think that I came to send peace\nupon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword\u201d[412]; \u201cFor there\nshall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two,\nand two against three. The father shall be divided against the son,\nand the son against the father, the mother against the daughter, and\nthe daughter against the mother.\u201d[413] \u201cHe that is not with me, is\nagainst me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.\u201d[414]\n\n\n     14. _Listen, and in thine heart engrave my words;\n          Keep closed both eye and ear \u2019gainst prejudice;\n          Of others the example fear; think for thyself._\n\nLysis continues, in the name of Pythagoras, to trace for the\nphilosopher the course that he must follow in the first part of his\ndoctrine, which is the Purification. After having commended to him\nmoderation and prudence in all things, having exhorted him to be as\nslow to censure as to approve, he seeks to put him on guard against\nprejudices and the routine of example, which are, in reality, the\ngreatest obstacles that are encountered by science and truth. This is\nwhat Bacon, the regenerator of philosophy in modern Europe, so keenly\nfelt, as I have already cited with praise at the opening of this work.\nThis excellent observer, to whom we owe our freedom from scholastic\nleading-strings whose ignorance had stifled for us the name of\nAristotle, having formed the difficult enterprise of disencumbering\nand, as it were, clearing the air belonging to the human\nunderstanding, in order to put it in a condition to receive an edifice\nless barbarous, remarked, that one would never attain to establishing\nthere the foundation of true science, if one did not first labour to\nset aside prejudices.[415] He displayed all his forces against these\nformidable enemies of human perfectibility, and if he did not\noverthrow them all, at least he indicated them in such a manner as to\nmake it easier to recognize and destroy them. The prejudices which\nobsess the human understanding and which he calls idols, are,\naccording to him, of four kinds: these are the idols of the tribe; the\nidols of the den; the idols of society; and the idols of theories. The\nfirst are inherent in human nature; the second are those of each\nindividual; the third result from the equivocal definitions attached\nto words; the fourth and the most numerous are those that man receives\nfrom his teachers and from the doctrines which are current.[416] The\nlast are the most tenacious and the most difficult to conquer. It\nseems even impossible wholly to resist them. The man who aspires to\nthe perilous glory of improving the human mind, finds himself placed\nbetween two formidable dangers, which, like those of Sylla and\nCharybdis, threaten alternately to break his frail bark: upon one is\nirresistible routine, upon the other proud innovation. There is danger\nalike from both sides. He can save himself only by favour of the\ngolden mean, so commended by all the sages and so rarely followed even\nby them.\n\nThis golden mean must needs be very difficult to hold in the course of\nlife, since Kong-Tse himself, who has made it all his study, has\nlacked it in the most important part of his doctrine, in that\nconcerning human perfectibility. Imbued unknowingly with the\nprejudices of his nation, he has seen nothing beyond the doctrine of\nthe ancients and has not believed that anything might be added\nthereunto.[417] Instead of pushing the mind of the Chinese forward\ntoward the goal where nature unceasingly tends, which is the\nperfection of all things, he has, on the contrary, thrown it backward\nand, inspiring it with a fanatical respect for works of the past, has\nprevented it from meditating upon anything great for the future.[418]\nFilial piety itself, pushed, to excess changed to a blind imitation,\nhas also augmented the evil. So that the greatest people of the world,\nthe richest in principles of all kinds, not daring to draw from these\nsame principles any development, through fear of profaning them,\ncontinually on their knees before a sterile antiquity, have remained\nstationary, whereas all around is progression; and for nearly four\nthousand years have really not advanced a step more towards the\ncivilization and perfection of the arts and sciences.\n\nThe side on which Bacon has departed from the _juste milieu_ has been\nprecisely the opposite from that which prevented Kong-Tse from\nremaining there. The Chinese theosophist had been led astray by his\nexcessive veneration for antiquity and the English philosopher, by his\nprofound disdain for it. Warned against the doctrine of Aristotle,\nBacon has extended his prejudice to everything that came from the\nancients. Rejecting in a moment the labour of thirty centuries and the\nfruit of the meditation of the greatest geniuses, he has wished to\nadmit nothing beyond what experience could confirm in his eyes.[419]\nLogic to him has seemed useless for the invention of the\nsciences.[420] He has abandoned the syllogism, as an instrument too\ngross to penetrate the depths of nature.[421] He has thought that it\ncould be of no avail either in expression of words or in the ideas\nwhich flow from it.[422] He has believed the abstract principles\ndeprived of all foundation; and with the same hand with which he\nfights these false ideas he has fought the results of these\nprinciples, in which he has unfortunately found much less\nresistance.[423] Filled with contempt for the philosophy of the\nGreeks, he has denied that it had produced anything either useful or\ngood[424]; so that after having banished the natural philosophy of\nAristotle, which he called a jumble of dialectic terms,[425] he has\nseen in the metaphysics of Plato only a dangerous and depraved\nphilosophy, and in the theosophy of Pythagoras only a gross and\nshocking superstition.[426] Here indeed is a case of returning again\nto the idea of Basil, and of exclaiming with him, that no man is\nwithout sin. Kong-Tse has been unquestionably one of the greatest men\nwho has honoured the earth, and Bacon one of the most judicious\nphilosophers of Europe; both have, however, committed grave mistakes\nwhose effect is more or less felt by posterity: the former, filling\nthe Chinese _literati_ with an exaggerated respect for antiquity, has\nmade of it an immobile and almost inert mass, that Providence, in\norder to obtain certain necessary movements, has had to strike many\ntimes with the terrible scourge of revolutions; the latter, inspiring,\non the contrary, a thoughtless contempt for everything that came from\nthe ancients, demanding the proof of their principles, the reason for\ntheir dogmas, subjecting all to the light of experience, has broken\nthe scientific body, has deprived it of unity, and has transformed the\nassemblage of thinkers into a tumultuous anarchy from whose irregular\nmovement has sprung enough violent storms. If Bacon had been able to\neffect in Europe the same influence that Kong-Tse had effected in\nChina, he would have drawn philosophy into materialism and absolute\nempiricism. Happily the remedy is born of the evil itself. The lack of\nunity has taken away all force from the anarchical colossus. Each\nsupposing to be in the right, no one was. A hundred systems raised one\nupon the other clashed and were broken in turn. Experience, invoked by\nall parties, has taken all colours and its opposed judgments were\nself-destructive.\n\nIf, after having called attention to the mistakes of these great men,\nI dared to hazard my opinion upon the point where both of them have\nfailed, I would say that they have confused the principles of the\nsciences with their developments; it must be so, by drawing the\nprinciples from the past, as Kong-Tse; by allowing the developments to\nact throughout the future, as Bacon. Principles hold to the Necessity\nof things; they are immutable in themselves; finite, inaccessible to\nthe senses, they are proved by reason: their developments proceed from\nthe power of the Will; these developments are free, indefinite; they\naffect the senses and are demonstrated by experience. Never is the\ndevelopment of a principle finished in the past, as Kong-Tse believed;\nnever is a principle created in the future, as Bacon imagined. The\ndevelopment of a principle produces another principle, but always in\nthe past; and as soon as this new principle is laid down, it is\nuniversal and beyond the reach of experience. Man knows that this\nprinciple exists, but he knows not how. If he knew, he would be able\nto create it at his pleasure; which does not belong to his nature.\n\nMan develops, perfects, or depraves, but he creates nothing. The\nscientific golden mean commended by Pythagoras, consists therefore, in\nseizing the principles of the sciences where they are and developing\nthem freely without being constrained or driven by any false ideas. As\nto that which concerns morals, it is forcibly enough expressed by all\nthat has preceded.\n\nThe man who recognizes his dignity, says Hierocles, is incapable of\nbeing prejudiced or seduced by anything.[427] Temperance and force are\nthe two incorruptible guardians of the soul: they prevent it from\nyielding to the allurements of things pleasing and being frightened by\nthe horrors of things dreadful. Death suffered in a good cause is\nillustrious and glorious.\n\n\n     15. _Consult, deliberate, and freely choose._\n\nIn explaining this line from a moral standpoint as Hierocles has done,\none readily feels that to deliberate and choose in that which relates\nto moral conduct, consists in seeking for what is good or evil in an\naction, and in attaching oneself to it or fleeing from it, without\nletting oneself be drawn along by the lure of pleasure or the fear of\npain.[428] But if one penetrates still deeper into the meaning of this\nline, it is seen that it proceeds from principles previously laid down\nregarding the necessity of Destiny and the power of the Will; and that\nPythagoras neglected no opportunity for making his disciples feel\nthat, although forced by Destiny to find themselves in such or such a\ncondition, they remained free to weigh the consequences of their\naction, and to decide themselves upon the part that they ought to\ntake. The following lines are, as it were, the corollary of his\ncounsel.\n\n\n     16. _Let fools act aimlessly and without cause,\n          Thou shouldst, in the present, contemplate the future._\n\nThat is to say, thou shouldst consider what will be the results of\nsuch or such action and think that these results, dependent upon thy\nwill (while the action remains in suspense and free, while they are\nyet to be born), will become the domain of Necessity the very instant\nwhen the action will be executed, and increasing in the past, once\nthey shall have had birth, will co\u00f6perate in forming the plan of a new\nfuture.\n\nI beg the reader, interested in these sorts of comparisons, to reflect\na moment upon the idea of Pythagoras. He will find here the veritable\nsource of the astrological science of the ancients. Doubtless he is\nnot ignorant of what an extended influence this science exercised\nalready upon the face of the globe. The Egyptians, Chaldeans,\nPh\u0153nicians, did not separate it from that which regulated the cult of\nthe gods.[429] Their temples were but an abridged image of the\nUniverse, and the tower which served as an observatory was raised at\nthe side of the sacrificial altar. The Peruvians followed, in this\nrespect, the same usages as the Greeks and Romans.[430] Everywhere the\ngrand Pontiff united the science of genethlialogy or astrology with\nthe priesthood, and concealed with care the principles of this science\nwithin the precincts of the sanctuary.[431] It was a Secret of State\namong the Etruscans and at Rome,[432] as it still is in China and\nJapan.[433] The Brahmans did not confide its elements except to those\nwhom they deemed worthy to be initiated.[434] For one need only lay\naside an instant the bandage of prejudice to see that an Universal\nscience, linked throughout to what men recognize as the most holy, can\nnot be the product of folly and stupidity, as has been reiterated a\nhundred times by a host of moralists. All antiquity is certainly\nneither foolish nor stupid, and the sciences it cultivated were\nsupported by principles which, for us today, being wholly unknown,\nhave none the less existed. Pythagoras, if we give attention here,\nrevealed to us those of genethlialogy and of all the sciences of\ndivination which relate thereunto.\n\nLet us observe this closely. The future is composed of the past\u2015\u2015that\nis to say, that the route that man traverses in time, and that he\nmodifies by means of the power of his will, he has already traversed\nand modified; in the same manner, using a practical illustration, that\nthe earth describing its annual orbit around the sun, according to the\nmodern system, traverses the same spaces and sees unfold around it\nalmost the same aspects: so that, following anew a route that he has\ntraced for himself, man would be able not only to recognize the\nimprints of his steps, but to foresee the objects that he is about to\nencounter, since he has already seen them, if his memory preserved the\nimage, and if this image was not effaced by the necessary consequence\nof his nature and the providential laws which rule him. Such is the\ndoctrine of Pythagoras as I have already revealed.[435] It was that of\nthe mysteries and of all the sages of antiquity. Origen, who has\nopposed it, attributes it to the Egyptians, to the Pythagoreans, and\nto the disciples of Plato. It was contained in the sacred books of the\nChaldeans, cited by Syncellus, under the title of _livres\ng\u00e9niques_.[436] Seneca and Synesius have supported it as wholly in\naccordance with the spirit of the initiations.[437] What the ancients\ncalled the _great year_, was a consequence of this doctrine; for it\nwas taught in the mysteries, that the Universe itself traversed, after\na sequence of incalculable centuries, the same revolutions that it had\nalready traversed, and brought around in the vast unfolding of its\nconcentric spheres, as much for it as for the worlds which compose it,\nthe succession of the four ages, the duration of which, relative to\nthe nature of each being, immense for the Universal Man, is limited in\nthe individual to what is called infancy, youth, manhood, and old age,\nand is represented on the earth by the fleeting seasons of spring,\nsummer, autumn, and winter. This great year, thus conceived, has been\ncommon to all the peoples of the earth.[438] Cicero has plainly seen\nthat it constituted the veritable basis of genethlialogy or the\nastrological science.[439] Indeed if the future is composed of the\npast\u2015\u2015that is, a thing already made, upon which the present is\ngradually unfolded as upon the circumference of a circle which has\nneither beginning nor end, it is evident that one can succeed, up to a\ncertain point, to recognize it, whether by means of remembrance, by\nexamining in the past, the picture of the whole revolution; or by\nmeans of prevision carrying the moral sight, more or less far, upon\nthe route through which the Universe is passing. These two methods\nhave grave disadvantages. The first appears even impossible. For what\nis the duration of the great year? What is the immense period, which,\ncontaining the circle of all possible aspects and of all corresponding\neffects, as Cicero supposes, is able, by observations made and set\ndown in the genethliatic archives, to foresee, at the second\nrevolution, the return of the events which were already linked there\nand which must be reproduced?[440] Plato exacts, for the perfection of\nthis great year, that the movement of the fixed stars, which\nconstitutes what we call the precession of the equinoxes, should\ncoincide with the particular movement of the celestial bodies, so as\nto bring back the heavens to the fixed point of its primitive\nposition.[441] The Brahmans carry the greatest duration of this\nimmense period, which they name _Kalpa_, to 4,320,000,000 of years,\nand its mean duration, which they name _Maha-Youg_, to 4,320,000.[442]\nThe Chinese appear to restrict it to 432,000 years,[443] and in this\nthey agree with the Chaldeans; but when one reduces it again to a\ntwelfth of this number, with the Egyptians, that is, to the sole\nrevolution of the fixed stars, which they made, according to\nHipparchus, 36,000 years, and which we make no more than 25,867,\naccording to modern calculations,[444] we feel indeed that we would be\nstill very far from having a series of observations capable of making\nus foresee the return of the same events, and that we could not\nconceive even, how men could ever attain to its mastery. As to the\nsecond method, which consists, as I have said, in carrying forward the\nmoral sight upon the route which one has before him, I have no need to\nobserve that it can be only very conjectural and very uncertain, since\nit depends upon a faculty which man has never possessed except as a\nspecial favour of Providence.\n\nThe principle by which it is claimed that the future is only a return\nof the past, did not therefore suffice to recognize even the plan of\nit; a second principle is necessary, and this principle, openly\nannounced in the Golden Verses, as we shall see farther on, was that\nby which it was established that Nature is everywhere alike, and,\nconsequently, that its action, being uniform in the smallest sphere as\nin the greatest, in the highest as in the lowest, can be inferred from\nboth, and pronounced by analogy. This principle proceeded from the\nancient dogma concerning the animation of the Universe, as much in\ngeneral as in particular: a dogma consecrated among all nations, and\nfollowing which it was taught that not only the Great All, but the\ninnumerable worlds which are like its members, the heavens and the\nheaven of heavens, the stars and all the beings who people them even\nto the plants and metals, are penetrated by the same Soul and moved by\nthe same Spirit.[445] Stanley attributes this dogma to the\nChaldeans,[446] Kircher to the Egyptians,[447] and the wise Rabbi\nMaimonides traces it back to the Sab\u00e6ans.[448] Saumaise has attributed\nto them the origin of astrological science,[449] and he is correct in\none point. But of what use is it to consider the movement of the\nheavens and the respective position of the stars belonging to the same\nsphere as the earth, in order to form the genethliatical theme of the\nempires of nations, cities, and even of simple individuals, and\nconclude from the point of departure in the temporal route of\nexistence, the aim of this route and the fortunate or unfortunate\nevents with which they should be sown, if one had not established,\nprimarily, that this route, being only some portion of an existing\nsphere and already traversed, it belonged thus to the domain of\nNecessity and could be known; and, secondarily, that the analogical\n_rapport_ ruling between the sentient sphere that one examined and the\nintelligible sphere that one could not perceive, authorized drawing\ninferences from both and even deciding from the general to the\nparticular? For, believing that the stars have an actual and direct\ninfluence upon the destiny of peoples and of men, and that they even\ndetermine this destiny by their good or evil aspects, is an idea as\nfalse as ridiculous, born of the darkness of modern times, and that is\nnot found among the ancients, even among the most ignorant masses. The\ngenethliatical science is supported by principles less absurd. These\nprinciples, drawn from the mysteries, were, as I have explained, that\nthe future is a return of the past and that nature is everywhere the\nsame.\n\nIt is from the union of these two principles that resulted\ngenethlialogy, or the science by which the point of departure being\nknown in any sphere whatever, they believed they had discovered, by\nthe aspect and direction of the stars, the portion of this sphere\nwhich must immediately follow this point. But this union, outside of\nthe enormous difficulty that it presented, still involved in its\nexecution very dangerous consequences. This is why they concealed in\nthe sanctuaries the science which was its object, and made of religion\na secret and state affair. The prevision of the future, supposing it\npossible as the ancients did, is not, in effect, a science that one\nshould abandon to the vulgar, who, being unable to acquire previously\nthe learning necessary, and having but rarely the wisdom which\nregulates its use, risked debasing it, or making use of it wrongfully.\nFurthermore, the pontiffs, who were in sole charge, initiated in the\ngreat mysteries and possessing the _ensemble_ of the doctrine, knew\nvery well that the future, such even as they could hope to understand\nit in the perfection of the science, was never aught but a doubtful\nfuture, a sort of canvas upon which the power of the Will might\nexercise itself freely, in such a manner that, although the matter\nmight be determined beforehand, its form was not, and that such an\nimminent event could be suspended, evaded, or changed by a co\u00f6peration\nof the acts of the will, inaccessible to all prevision. This is what\nwas said with such profoundness by Tiresias, the most famous\nhierophant of Greece and whom Homer called the only sage,[450] these\nwords so often quoted and so little understood: \u201cWhatever I may see\nwill come to pass, or it will not come to pass\u201d[451]; that is to say,\nThe event that I see is in the necessity of Destiny and it will come\nto pass, unless it is changed by the power of the Will; in which case\nit will not come to pass.\n\n\n     17. _That which thou dost not know, pretend not that thou dost.\n          Instruct thyself: for time and patience favour all._\n\nLysis has enclosed in these two lines the summary of the doctrine of\nPythagoras regarding science: according to this philosopher, all\nscience consists of knowing how to distinguish what one does not know\nand of desiring to learn that of which one knows nothing.[452]\nSocrates had adopted this idea, as simple as profound; and Plato has\nconsecrated several of his dialogues to its development.[453]\n\nBut the distinction between what one does not know and the desire to\nlearn that of which one is ignorant, is a thing much rarer than one\nimagines. It is the golden mean of science, as difficult to possess as\nthat of virtue, and without which it is, however, impossible to know\noneself. For, without knowledge of oneself, how can one acquire\nknowledge of others? How judge them if one cannot be one\u2019s own judge?\nPursue this reasoning. It is evident that one can know only what one\nhas learned from others, or what one has found from oneself: in order\nto have learned from others, one must have wished to receive lessons;\nin order to have found, one must have wished to seek; but one cannot\nreasonably desire to learn or to seek only for what one believes one\ndoes not know. If one imposes upon oneself this important point, and\nif one imagines oneself knowing that of which one is ignorant, one\nmust judge it wholly useless to learn or to seek, and then ignorance\nis incurable: it is madness to style oneself doctor concerning things\nthat one has neither learned nor sought after, and of which one can\nconsequently have no knowledge. It is Plato who has made this\nirresistible reasoning, and who has drawn this conclusion: that all\nthe mistakes that man commits come from that sort of ignorance which\nmakes him believe that he knows what he does not know.[454]\n\nFrom time immemorial this sort of ignorance has been quite\nconsiderable; but I believe that it will never again show itself to\nthe extent it did among us some centuries ago. Men hardly free from\nthe mire of barbarism, without being given the time either to acquire\nor to seek after any true knowledge of antiquity, have offered\nthemselves boldly as its judges and have declared that the great men\nwho have made it illustrious were either ignorant, imposters,\nfanatics, or fools. Here, I see musicians who seriously assure me that\nthe Greeks were rustics in the way of music; that all that can be said\nof the wonders effected by this art is idle talk, and that we have not\na village fiddler who could not produce as much effect as Orpheus,\nTerpander, or Timotheus, if he had similar auditors.[455] There, are\nthe critics who tell me with the same phlegmatic air that the Greeks\nof the time of Homer knew neither how to read nor how to write; that\nthis poet himself, assuming that he really existed, did not know the\nletters of the alphabet[456]; but that his existence is a fancy,[457]\nand that the works attributed to him are the crude productions of\ncertain plagiarist rhapsodists.[458] Further on I see, to complete the\nsingularity, a research worker who finds, doubtless to the support of\nall this, that the first editor of the poems of Homer, the virile\nlegislator of Sparta, Lycurgus in short, was a man ignorant and\nunlettered, knowing neither how to read nor write[459]: quite an\noriginal idea and a comparison wholly bizarre, between the author and\nthe editor of the _Iliad_! But this is nothing. Here is an archbishop\nof Thessalonica, who, animated by a righteous indignation, declared\nthat Homer may have been an instrument of the devil,[460] and that one\nmay be damned in reading him. That one shrugs the shoulders at the\nallegories of this poet, that one finds them not in the least\ninteresting, that one falls asleep even, let all that pass; but to be\ndamned! I have said that Bacon, drawn along unfortunately by that\nfatal prejudice which makes one judge without understanding, had\ncalumniated the philosophy of the Greeks; his numerous disciples have\neven surpassed him upon this point. Condillac, the _coryph\u00e9e_ of\nmodern empiricism, has seen in Plato only delirious metaphysics\nunworthy of occupying his time, and in Zeno only logic deprived of\nreasoning and principles. I would that Condillac, so great an amateur\nof analysis, had endeavoured to analyse the metaphysics of the one and\nthe logic of the other, to prove to me that he understood at least\nwhat he found so unworthy of taking up his time; but that was the\nthing about which he thought the least. Open whatever book you will;\nif the authors are theologians, they will say to you that Socrates,\nPythagoras, Zoroaster, Kong-Tse or Confucius, as they call him, are\npagans,[461] whose damnation is, if not certain, at least very\nprobable; they will treat their theosophy with the most profound\ncontempt: if they are physicists, they will assure you that Thales,\nLeucippus, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Aristotle,\nand the others are miserable dreamers; they will jeer at their\nsystems: if they are astronomers, they will laugh at their astronomy:\nif they are naturalists, chemists, botanists, they will make jest of\ntheir methods, and will take into consideration their credulity, their\nstupidity, their bad faith, the numerous wonders that they no longer\nunderstand in Aristotle and in Pliny. None will take the trouble to\nprove their assertions; but, like people blinded by passion and\nignorance, they state as fact what is in question, or putting their\nown ideas in place of those that they do not understand they will\ncreate phantoms for the sake of fighting them. Never going back to the\nprinciples of anything, stopping only at forms, adopting without\nexamination the commonest notions, they will commit on all sides the\nsame mistake that they have committed with respect to the\ngenethliatical science, the principles of which I have shown in my\nlast Examination; and confounding this science of the ancients with\nthe astrology of the moderns, they will consider in the same light\nTiresias and Nostradamus, and will see no difference between the\noracle of Ammon, or of Delphi, and the lucky chance of the most paltry\nfortune-teller.\n\nHowever, I do not pretend to say that all the modern savants indulge,\nin this same manner, in presumption and false notions with regard to\nantiquity; there have been many honourable exceptions among them: even\nthose have been found who, drawn beyond the golden mean, by the\nnecessity of effecting a useful reform or of establishing a new\nsystem, have returned there as soon as their passion or their interest\nhave no longer commanded them. Such for example is Bacon, to whom\nphilosophy has owed enough great favours to forget certain incidental\nprejudices; for I am, furthermore, far from attributing to him the\nerrors of his disciples. Bacon, at the risk of contradicting himself,\nyielding to the sentiment of truth, although he subjected all to the\nlight of experience, admitted, however, positive and real universals,\nwhich, by his method are wholly inexplicable.[462] Forgetting what he\nhad said of Plato in one book, he declared in another: that this\nphilosopher, endowed with a sublime genius, turning his attention upon\nall nature and contemplating all things from a lofty elevation, had\nseen very clearly, in his doctrine of ideas, what the veritable\nobjects of science are.[463] Finally recognizing the principles of\nphysics and the _ensemble_ of things as the foremost to be considered,\nhe made astrological science, which he likened to astronomy, depend\nupon it, in such a manner as to show that he did not confound it with\nvulgar astrology. This philosopher found that before his time,\nastronomy, well enough founded upon phenomena, utterly lacked\nsoundness, and that astrology had lost its true principles. To be sure\nhe agreed with astronomy presenting the exterior of celestial\nphenomena, that is to say, the number, situation, movement, and\nperiods of the stars; but he accused it of lacking in understanding of\nthe physical reasons of these phenomena. He believed that a single\ntheory which contents itself with appearances is a very easy thing,\nand that one can imagine an infinity of speculations of this sort;\nalso he wished that the science of astronomy might be further\nadvanced.\n\n     Instead of revealing the reasons of celestial phenomena [he\n     said], one is occupied only with observations and\n     mathematical demonstrations; for these observations and\n     these demonstrations can indeed furnish certain ingenious\n     hypotheses to settle all that in one\u2019s mind, and to make an\n     idea of this assemblage, but not to know precisely how and\n     why all this is actually in nature: they indicate, at the\n     most, the apparent movements, the artificial assemblage, the\n     arbitrary combination of all these phenomena, but not the\n     veritable causes and the reality of things: and as to this\n     subject [he continues], it is with very little judgment that\n     astronomy is ranked among the mathematical sciences; this\n     classification derogates from its dignity.[464]\n\nRegarding astrological science, Bacon wished that it might be\nregenerated completely by bringing it back to its real principles,\nthat is to say, that one should reject all that the vulgar had added\nthereto, both narrow and superstitious, preserving only the grand\nrevolutions of the ancients. These ideas, as is quite obvious, are not\nat all in accord with those that his disciples have adopted since;\nalso the greater part of them refrain from citing similar passages.\n\n\n     18. _Neglect not thy health \u2026_\n\nI had at first the intention of making here some allusion to the\nmanner in which Pythagoras and the ancient sages considered medicine;\nand I had wished to reveal their principles, quite different from\nthose of the moderns; but I have realized that an object so important\nrequires developments that this work would not allow and I have left\nthem for a time more opportune, and for a work more suitable. Moreover\nthe line of Lysis has no need of explanation; it is clear. This\nphilosopher commends each one to guard his health, to keep it by\ntemperance and moderation, and if it becomes impaired, to put himself\nin condition of not confiding to another the care of its\nre-establishment. This precept was sufficiently understood by the\nancients for it to have become a sort of proverb.\n\nThe Emperor Tiberius, who made it a rule of conduct, said that a man\nof thirty years or more who called or even consulted a physician was\nan ignoramus.[465] It is true that Tiberius did not add to the precept\nthe exercise of the temperance that Lysis did not forget to commend in\nthe following lines, also he lived only seventy-eight years,\nnotwithstanding the strength of his constitution promised him a much\nlonger life. Hippocrates of Cos, the father of medicine in Greece and\nstrongly attached to the doctrine of Pythagoras, lived one hundred and\nfour years; Xenophile, Apollonius, Tyan\u00e6us, Demonax, and many other\nPythagorean philosophers lived to one hundred and six and one-hundred\nand ten years; and Pythagoras himself, although violently persecuted\ntowards the end of his life, attained to nearly ninety-nine years\naccording to some and even to the century mark according to\nothers.[466]\n\n\n     19. \u2026 _Dispense with moderation,\n            Food to the body, and to the mind repose_,\n\nThe body, being the instrument of the soul, Pythagoras desired that\none should take reasonable and necessary care of it in order to hold\nit always in condition to execute the behests of the soul. He regarded\nits preservation as a part of the purgative virtue.[467]\n\n\n    20. _Too much attention or too little shun; for envy\n         Thus, to either excess is alike attached._\n\nThe philosopher, firm in his principle of _juste milieu_, wished that\nhis disciples should avoid excess in all things, and that they should\nnot draw attention to themselves by an unusual way of living. It was a\nwidespread opinion among the ancients, that envy, shameful for the one\nwho felt it and dangerous for the one who inspired it, had fatal\nconsequences for both.[468] For envy is attached to all that tends to\ndistinguish men too ostensibly. Thus, notwithstanding all that has\nbeen published of the extraordinary rules and severe abstinences that\nPythagoras imposed upon his disciples and that he made them observe,\nit appears indubitable that they were only established after his\ndeath, and that his interpreters, being deceived regarding the\nmysterious meaning of these symbols, take in the literal sense, what\nhe had said in the figurative. The philosopher blamed only the excess,\nand permitted besides, a moderate usage of all the foods to which men\nwere accustomed. Even the beans, for which his disciples later\nconceived so much abhorrence, were eaten frequently.[469] He did not\nforbid absolutely either wine, or meat, or even fish, whatever may\nhave been asserted at different times[470]; though, indeed, those of\nhis disciples who aspired to the highest perfection abstained from\nthem[471]; he represented drunkenness and intemperance only as odious\nvices that should be avoided.[472] He had no scruples about drinking a\nlittle wine himself, and of tasting the meats set before him at\ntable,[473] in order to show that he did not regard them as impure,\nnotwithstanding he preferred the vegetable _r\u00e9gime_ to all others and\nthat, for the most part, he restricted himself to it from choice.[474]\nFurther on I will return to the mystic meaning of the symbols, by\nwhich he had the appearance of forbidding the use of certain foods and\nabove all beans.\n\n\n     21. _Luxury and avarice have similar results.\n          One must choose in all things a mean just and good._\n\nLysis terminates the purgative part of the doctrine of Pythagoras with\nthe trait which characterizes it in general and in particular; he has\nshown the golden mean in virtue and in science; he has commended it in\nconduct, he states in full and says openly that extremes meet; that\nluxury and avarice differ not in their effects, and that philosophy\nconsists in avoiding excess in everything. Hierocles adds that, to be\nhappy, one must know how, where, when, and how much to take; and that\nhe who is ignorant of these just limits is always unhappy and he\nproves it as follows:\n\n     Voluptuousness [he said] is necessarily the effect of an\n     action: now, if the action is good the voluptuousness\n     remains; if it is evil the voluptuousness passes and is\n     corrupted. When one does a shameful thing with pleasure, the\n     pleasure passes and the shame remains. When one does an\n     excellent thing with great trouble and labour the pain\n     passes and the excellence alone remains. Whence it follows\n     necessarily, that the evil life is also bitter and produces\n     as much sorrow and chagrin as the good life is sweet and\n     procures joy and contentment.[475]\n\n\u201cAs the flame of a torch tends always upward whichever way one turns\nit,\u201d said the Indian sages, \u201cthus the man whose heart is afire with\nvirtue, whatever accident befalls him, directs himself always toward\nthe end that wisdom indicates.\u201d[476]\n\n\u201cMisfortune follows vice, and happiness virtue,\u201d said the Chinese, \u201cas\nthe echo follows the voice and the shadow him who moves.\u201d[477]\n\n     O virtue! divine virtue! [exclaims Kong-Tse[478]] a\n     celestial power presents thee to us, an interior force\n     conducts us toward thee; happy the mortal in whom thou\n     dwellest! he strikes the goal without effort, a single\n     glance suffices for him to penetrate the truth. His heart\n     becomes the sanctuary of peace and his very inclinations\n     protect his innocence. It is granted to the sage only, to\n     attain to so desirable a state. He who aspires to this must\n     resolve upon the good and attach himself strongly to it; he\n     must apply himself to the study of himself, interrogate\n     nature, examine all things carefully, meditate upon them and\n     allow nothing to pass unfathomed. Let him develop the\n     faculties of his soul, let him think with force, let him put\n     energy and firmness into his actions. Alas! how many men\n     there are who seek virtue and science, and who stop in the\n     middle of their course, because the goal keeps them waiting!\n     My studies, they say, leave me with all my ignorance, all my\n     doubts; my efforts, my labours enlarge neither my views nor\n     my sagacity; the same clouds hover over my understanding and\n     obscure it; I feel my forces abandoning me and my will\n     giving way beneath the weight of the obstacle. No matter;\n     guard yourself against discouragement; that which others\n     have been able to attain at the first attempt, you may be\n     able at the hundredth; that which they have done at the\n     hundredth, you will do at the thousandth.[479]\n\n\nPERFECTION\n\n     22. _Let not sleep e\u2019er close thy tired eyes,\n          Without thou ask thyself; What have I omitted, and what\n            done?_\n\nLysis, after having indicated the route by which Pythagoras conducted\nhis disciples to virtue, goes on to teach them the use that this\nphilosopher wished them to make of this celestial gift, once they had\nmastered it. Up to this point it is confined in the purgative part of\nthe doctrine of his teacher; he now passes to the unitive part, that\nis to say, to that which has as object the uniting of man to the\nDivinity, by rendering him more and more like unto the model of all\nperfection and of all wisdom, which is God. The sole instrument\ncapable of operating this union has been placed at his disposition by\nmeans of the good usage that he has made of his will: it is virtue\nwhich must serve him at present to attain truth. Now, Truth is the\nultimate goal of perfection: there is nothing beyond it and nothing\nthis side of it but error; light springs from it; it is the soul of\nGod, according to Pythagoras,[480] and God himself, according to the\nlegislator of the Indians.[481]\n\nThe first precept that Pythagoras gave to his disciples on entering\nthe course of perfection tended to turn their thoughts upon\nthemselves, to bring them to interrogate their actions, their\nthoughts, their discourse, to question the motives, to reflect in\nshort upon their exterior movements and seek thus to know themselves.\nKnowledge of self was the most important knowledge of all, that which\nmust conduct them to all others. I will not weary my readers by adding\nanything to what I have already said pertaining to the importance of\nthis knowledge, and the extreme value set upon it by the ancients.\nThey know unquestionably that the morals of Socrates and the\nphilosophy of Plato were only the development of it and that an\ninscription in the temple of Greece, that of Delphi, commended it,\nafter that of the golden mean, as the very teaching of the God whom\nthey worshipped there[482]: _Nothing in excess, and know Thyself_,\ncontained in few words the doctrine of the sages, and presented for\ntheir meditation the principles upon which reposed virtue and wisdom\nwhich is its consequence. Nothing further was necessary to electrify\nthe soul of Heraclitus and to develop the germs of genius, which until\nthe moment when he read these two sentences were buried in a cold\ninertia.\n\nI will not pause therefore to prove the necessity of a knowledge\nwithout which all other is but doubt and presumption. I will only\nexamine, in a brief digression, if this knowledge is possible. Plato,\nas I have said, made the whole edifice of his doctrine rest upon it;\nhe taught, according to Socrates, that ignorance of one\u2019s self\ninvolves all ignorance, all mistakes, all vices, and all misfortunes;\nwhereas knowledge of one\u2019s self, on the contrary, draws all virtue and\nall goodness[483]: so that it cannot be doubted that this knowledge\nmight be considered possible, since its impossibility merely\nquestioned would render its system null and void. However, as Socrates\nhad said that he knew nothing, in order to distinguish himself from\nthe sophists of his day who pretended to know everything; as Plato had\nconstantly used in his teachings that sort of dialectic which,\nproceeding toward truth by doubt, consists in defining things for what\nthey are, knowing their essence, distinguishing those which are real\nfrom those which are only illusory; and above all as the favourite\nmaxim of these two philosophers had been that it was necessary to\nrenounce all manner of prejudices, not pretending to know that of\nwhich one is ignorant, and giving assent only to clear and evident\ntruths; it came to pass that the disciples of these great men, having\nlost sight of the real spirit of their doctrine, took the means for\nthe end; and imagining that the perfection of wisdom was in the doubt\nwhich leads to it, established as fundamental maxim, that the wise man\nought neither to affirm nor deny anything; but to hold his assent\nsuspended between the _pro_ and _con_ of each thing.[484] Arcesilaus,\nwho declared himself the chief of this revolution, was a man of vast\nintellect, endowed with much physical and moral means, an imposing\npresence, and very eloquent,[485] but imbued with that secret terror\nwhich prevents concentrating upon the things that one regards as\nsacred and forbidden; audacious and almost impious to all outward\nappearance, he was, in reality, timid and superstitious.[486]\nImpressed with the inadequacy of his researches to discover the\ncertainty of certain principles, his vanity had persuaded him that\nthis certainty was undiscoverable, since he, Arcesilaus, did not find\nit; and his superstition acting in accord with his vanity, he finally\nbelieved that the ignorance of man is an effect of the will of God;\nand that, according to the meaning of a passage from Hesiod that he\ncited unceasingly, the Divinity has spread an impenetrable veil\nbetween it and the human understanding.[487] Also he named the effect\nof this ignorance, _Acatalepsy_, that is to say incomprehensibility,\nor impossibility to raise the veil.[488] His disciples in great\nnumbers adopted this incomprehensibility and applied it to all sorts\nof subjects; now denying, then affirming the same thing; placing a\nprinciple, and overthrowing it the next moment; becoming entangled\nthemselves in captious arguments in order to prove that they knew\nnothing, and making for themselves the calamitous glory of ignoring\ngood and evil, and of being unable to distinguish virtue from\nvice.[489] Dismal effect of an early error! Arcesilaus became the\nconvincing proof of what I have repeated touching the golden mean and\nthe similitude of extremes: once having left the path of truth, he\nbecame through weakness and through superstition the head of a crowd\nof audacious atheists, who, after having called in question the\nprinciples upon which logic and morals repose, placed there those of\nreligion and overthrew them. Vainly he essayed to arrest the movement\nof which he had been the cause by establishing two doctrines: the one\npublic, wherein he taught skepticism; the other secret, wherein he\nmaintained dogmatism[490]: the time was no longer favourable for this\ndistinction. All that he gained was to let another usurp the glory and\nto give his name to the new sect of doubters. It was Pyrrho who had\nthis honour. This man, of a character as firm as impassive, to whom\nliving or dying was a matter of indifference, who preferred nothing to\nsomething, whom a precipice opening beneath his feet would be unable\nto swerve from his path, gathered under his colours all those who made\na philosophical profession of doubting everything, of recognizing\nnowhere the character of truth, and he gave them a sort of doctrine\nwherein wisdom was placed in the most complete uncertainty, felicity\nin the most absolute inertia, and genius in the art of stifling all\nkinds of genius by the accumulation of contradictory reasonings.[491]\nPyrrho had much contempt for men, as was obvious from the doctrine\nwhich he gave them. He had constantly on his lips this line of Homer:\n\u201cEven as are the generations of leaves such are those likewise of\nmen.\u201d[492]\n\nI pause a moment here, in order that the reader may observe, that\nalthough the thought of Hesiod, concerning the veil that the gods had\nspread between them and men, and which gave rise to Arcesilaus\nestablishing his acatalepsy, had originated in India,[493] it had\nnever had the same results there; and this, because the Brahmans, in\nteaching that this veil existed and that it even bewildered the vulgar\nby a series of illusory phenomena, have never said that it was\nimpossible to raise it; because this might have been an attack on the\npower of the will of man and its perfectibility, to which they put no\nlimit. We shall see further on that such was also the idea of\nPythagoras. Let us return to the Skeptics.\n\nThe writer to whom we owe a comparative history of the systems of\nphilosophy, written with thought and impartiality, has felt keenly\nthat skepticism ought to be considered under two relations: as\nskepticism of criticism and reform, necessary to correct the\npresumption of the human mind and to destroy its prejudices; as\nskepticism absolute and determined, which confounds in a common\nproscription both truth and error.[494] The first, of which Socrates\ngave the example, and which Bacon and Descartes have revived, is a\nsort of intellectual remedy that Providence prepares for healing one\nof the most fatal maladies of the human mind, that kind of\npresumptuous ignorance which makes one believe that he knows that\nwhich he does not know: the second, which is only the excess and abuse\nof the first, is this same remedy transformed into poison by an\naberration of the human reason which transports it beyond the\ncircumstances which invoke its action, and employs it to devour itself\nand to exhaust in their source all the causes which cooperate in the\nprogress of human understanding.[495] Arcesilaus was the first to\nintroduce it into the Academy by exaggerating the maxims of Socrates,\nand Pyrrho made a special system of destruction in it, under the name\nof _Pyrrhonism_. This system, welcomed in Greece, soon infected it\nwith its venom, notwithstanding the vigorous resistance of Zeno the\nStoic, whom Providence had raised up to oppose its ravages.[496]\nCarried to Rome by Carneades, the head of the third academy, it\nalarmed with its maxims subversive of public morals, Cato the Censor,\nwho confounding it with philosophy conceived for it an implacable\nhatred.[497] This rigid republican, hearing Carneades speak against\njustice, denying the existence of virtues, attacking the Divine\nProvidence, and questioning the fundamental verities of religion, held\nin contempt a science which could bring forth such arguments.[498] He\nurged the return of the Greek philosophy, so that the Roman youth\nmight not be imbued with its errors; but the evil was done. The\ndestructive germs that Carneades had left, fermented secretly in the\nheart of the State, developed under the first favourable conditions,\nincreased and produced at last that formidable colossus, which, after\ntaking possession of the public mind, having obscured the most\nenlightened ideas of good and evil, annihilated religion, and\ndelivered the Republic to disorder, civil wars, and destruction; and\nraising itself again with the Roman Empire, withering the principles\nof the life it had received, necessitated the institution of a new\ncult and thus was exposed to the incursion of foreign errors and the\narms of the barbarians. This colossus, victim of its own fury, after\nhaving torn and devoured itself was buried beneath the shams that it\nhad heaped up; Ignorance seated upon its _d\u00e9bris_ governed Europe,\nuntil Bacon and Descartes came and resuscitating, as much as was\npossible for them the Socratic skepticism, endeavoured by its means to\nturn minds toward the research of truth. But they might not have done\nso well, had they not also awakened certain remnants of Pyrrhonic\nskepticism, which, being sustained with their passions and their\nprejudices, soon resulted in bewildering their disciples. This new\nskepticism, na\u00efve in Montaigne, dogmatic in Hobbes, disguised in\nLocke, masterly in Bayle, paradoxical but seductive in the greater\nnumber of the eighteenth-century writers, hidden now beneath the\nsurface of what is called Experimental philosophy, lures the mind on\ntoward a sort of empirical routine, and unceasingly denying the past,\ndiscouraging the future, aims by all kinds of means to retard the\nprogress of the human mind. It is no more even the character of truth;\nand the proof of this character that the modern skeptics demand _ad\ninfinitum_,[499] is the demonstration of the very possibility of\nunderstanding this character and of proving it: a new subtlety that\nthey have deduced from the unfruitful efforts that certain thinkers\nhave made recently in Germany, to give to the possibility of the\nknowledge of self, a basis which they have not given.\n\nI will relate in my next Examination, what has hindered these savants\nfrom finding this basis. I must, before terminating this one, show to\nmy readers how I believe one can distinguish the two kinds of\nskepticism of which I have just spoken. A simple question put to a\nskeptic philosopher will indicate whether he belongs to the school of\nSocrates or Pyrrho. He must before entering into any discussion reply\nclearly to this demand: Do you admit of any difference whatever\nbetween that which is and that which is not? If the skeptic belongs to\nthe school of Socrates, he will necessarily admit a difference and he\nwill explain it, which will make him recognized at once. If on the\ncontrary, he belongs to that of Pyrrho, he will respond in one of\nthree ways: either that he admits a difference, or that he admits\nnone, or that he does not know whether one exists. If he admits it\nwithout explaining it, he is beaten; if he does not admit it, he falls\ninto absurdity; if he pretends not to distinguish it, he becomes\nfoolish and ridiculous.\n\nHe is beaten, if he admits a difference between that which is and that\nwhich is not; because that difference, admitted, proves the existence\nof being; the existence of being proves that of the skeptic who\nreplies; and that existence proved, proves all the others, whether one\nconsiders them in him, or outside of him, which is the same thing for\nthe moment.\n\nHe falls into absurdity, if he does not admit any difference between\nthat which is and that which is not, for then one can prove to him\nthat 1 is equal to 0, and that the part is as great as the whole.\n\nHe becomes foolish and ridiculous, if he dares to say that he does not\nknow whether a difference really exists between that which is, and\nthat which is not; for then one asks him what he did at the age of six\nmonths, at one year, two years, two weeks ago, yesterday? Whatever he\nreplies, he will become the object of ridicule.\n\nBehold the Pyrrhonian beaten, that is to say, the one who professes to\ndoubt everything; since a single acknowledged difference bringing him\nirresistibly to a certainty, and since one certainty militates against\nall the others, there is no further doubt; and since, doubting no\nfurther, it is only a question then of knowing what he ought, or ought\nnot to doubt: this is the true character of the skeptic of the\nSocratic School.\n\n\n     23. _Abstain thou if \u2019tis evil; persevere if good._\n\nBut although one may bring the absolute skeptic to agree that a\ndifference between good and evil can indeed exist, as he is forced to\nagree that one does exist between that which is and that which is not,\njust as I have demonstrated in my preceding Examination; would he not\nbe right in saying, that to know in general, that good and evil can\ndiffer and consequently exist separately, does not prevent confounding\nthem in particular; and that he can doubt that man may be able to make\nthe distinction, until one may have proved to him that not alone their\nknowledge, but that some sort of knowledge is possible? Assuredly,\nthis is pushing doubt very far. One could dispense with replying to\nthis, since the skeptic already interrogated concerning the difference\nexisting between what is and what is not has been forced to admit it\nand to acquire thus some sort of knowledge of being; but let us forget\nthis, in order to examine why the savants of Germany have inadequately\nremoved a difficulty which they have imposed upon themselves.\n\nIt is Kant, one of the ablest minds that Europe has produced since the\nextinction of learning, who, resolved to terminate with a single blow\nthe struggle springing up unceasingly between dogmatism and\nskepticism, has been the first to form the bold project of creating a\nscience which should determine, _a priori_, the possibility, the\nprinciples, and the limits of all knowledge.[500] This science, which\nhe named _Critical Philosophy_, or method of judgment,[501] he has\ndeveloped in several works of considerable length and very difficult\nof comprehension. I do not intend here to make an explanation of this\nscience; for this labour, out of place in these Examinations, would\ncarry me too far. My intention is only to show the point wherein it\nhas given way, and how it has furnished new weapons for the skeptics,\nin not holding well to the promise that it had made of determining the\nprinciple of knowledge. Therefore, I will suppose the doctrine of Kant\nunderstood or partially so. Several works, circulated somewhat\nextensively in France, have unravelled it sufficiently to the\nsavants.[502] I will only say what the authors of these works have\nbeen unable to say, and this will be the general result of the\nimpression that the study of this doctrine has made upon me: it is\nthat Kant, who pretends to found all his doctrine upon principles, _a\npriori_, abstraction being made of all the underlying notions of\nexperience, and who, rising into an ideal sphere there to consider\nreason in an absolute way, independent of its effects so as to deduce\nfrom it a theory transcendental and purely intelligible, concerning\nthe principle of knowledge, has done precisely the opposite from what\nhe wished to do; for not finding what he sought, he has found what he\nhas not sought, that is to say, the essence of matter. Let the\ndisciples of this philosophy give attention to what I say. I have\nknown several systems of philosophy and I have put considerable force\ninto penetrating them; but I can affirm that there exists not a single\none upon the face of the earth, wherein the primitive matter of which\nthe Universe is composed may be characterized by traits as striking as\nin that of Kant. I believe it impossible either to understand it\nbetter or to depict it better. He uses neither figures, nor symbols;\nhe tells what he sees with a candour which would have been appalling\nto Pythagoras and Plato; for what the Koenigsberg professor advances\nconcerning both the existence and the non-existence of this\nmatter,[503] and of its intuitive reality, and of its phenomenal\nillusion, and of its essential forms, time and space, and of the\nlabour that the mind exercises upon this equivocal being, which,\nalways being engendered, never, however, exists; all this, taught in\nthe mysteries, was only clearly revealed to the initiate. Listen a\nmoment to what has transpired in India: it is the fundamental axiom of\nthe _Vedantic_ school, the illustrious disciples of Vyasa and of\nSankar\u00e2ch\u00e2rya, an axiom in accordance with the dogmas of the sacred\nbooks.\n\n     Matter exists [say these philosophers], but not of an\n     existence such as is imagined by the vulgar; it exists but\n     it has no essence independent of intellectual perceptions;\n     for existence and perceptibility are, in this case,\n     convertible terms. The sage knows that appearances and their\n     exterior sensations are purely illusory and that they would\n     vanish into nothingness, if the Divine energy which alone\n     sustains them was for an instant suspended.[504]\n\nI beg the disciples of Kant to give attention to this passage, and to\nremember what Plato has said of the same, that, sometimes matter\nexists and sometimes it does not exist[505]; as Justin the martyr, and\nCyril of Alexandria have reproached him for it; and as Plutarch and\nChalcidius have strongly remarked it,[506] in seeking to excuse this\napparent contradiction.\n\nLet us endeavour now to call attention to the point where Kant is led\nastray. This point, in the philosophical course that this savant meant\nto pursue, seemed at first of very slight importance; but the\ndeviation that it causes, although small and almost imperceptible at\nthe first instant, determines none the less a divergent line, which,\nturning aside more and more from the right line proportionably as it\nis prolonged, is found to strike at an enormous distance from the mark\nwhere Kant hoped it would arrive. This deviating point\u2015\u2015who would have\nbelieved it\u2015\u2015is found in the misinterpretation and the misapplication\nof a word. All the attention of the reader is required here. What I am\nabout to say, in demonstrating the error of the German philosopher,\nwill serve to supplement all that I have said pertaining to the\ndoctrine of Pythagoras.\n\nKant, whether through imitation of the ancient philosophers or through\nthe effect of his own learning which had made him desirous of knowing\nthe truth, has considered man under three principal modifications\nwhich he calls faculties. In my twelfth Examination I have said that\nsuch was the doctrine of Pythagoras. Plato, who followed in everything\nthe metaphysics of this great genius, distinguished in Man as in the\nUniverse, the body, soul, and spirit; and placed, in each of the\nmodifications of the particular or universal unity which constituted\nthem, the analogous faculties which, becoming developed in their turn,\ngave birth to three new modifications whose productive unity they\nbecame[507]; so that each ternary is represented in its development,\nunder the image of the triple Ternary, and formed by its union with\nthe Unity, first the Quaternary and afterwards the Decade.[508] Now\nthe German philosopher, without explaining the principle which led him\nto consider man under three principal faculties, states them; without\nsaying to what particular modification he attributes them, that is,\nwithout foreseeing if these faculties are physical, animistic or\nintellectual; if they belong to the body, to the soul, or to the mind:\na first mistake which leads him to a second of which I am about to\nspeak.\n\nIn order to express these three facilities, Kant makes use of three\nwords taken from his own tongue and concerning the meaning of which it\nis well to fix our attention. He has named the first of these\nfaculties _Empfindlichkeit_, the second, _Verstand_, and the third,\n_Vernunft_. These three words are excellent; it is only a question of\nclearly understanding and explaining them.\n\nThe word _Empfindlichkeit_ expresses that sort of faculty which\nconsists in collecting from without, feeling from within, and finding\ngood or bad.[509] It has been very well rendered in French by the word\n_sensibilit\u00e9_.\n\nThe word _Verstand_ designates that sort of faculty which consists in\nreaching afar, being carried from a central point to all other points\nof the circumference to seize them.[510] It has been quite well\nrendered in French by the word _entendement_.\n\nThe word _Vernunft_ is applied to that sort of faculty, which consists\nin choosing at a distance, in wishing, in selecting, in electing that\nwhich is good.[511] It is expressed by the word _raison_; but this\nexpresses it very poorly, whatever may be the real meaning given it by\nKant.\n\nThis philosopher ought to have realized more fully the origin of this\nword and he should have made a more just application; then his system\nwould have taken another direction and he would have attained his\ngoal. He would have made us see, and he would have seen himself, the\nreality, namely, _intelligence_ and not reason.\n\nOne can easily see that the faculty which Kant designates by the word\n_Empfindlichkeit_, sense perception, belongs to the physical part of\nman; and that which he expresses by the word _Verstand_, the\nunderstanding, resides in his animistic part; but one cannot see at\nall that what he names _Vernunft_, and which he continually confounds\nwith reason, may be able in any manner to dominate in his intellectual\npart. For this, it would be necessary that he should consider it under\nthe relation of the intelligence; which he has not done. It is very\ntrue that he has wished to place it constantly in the mind, by\nrepresenting the three faculties of which man is composed as a sort of\nhierarchy, of which sense perception occupies the base, understanding\nthe centre, and reason the summit; or as one of his translators said,\nimagining this hierarchy under the emblem of an empire, of which sense\nperception constitutes the subjects, understanding the agents or\nministers, and reason the sovereign or legislator.[512] I cannot\nconceive how Kant, by giving the word _Vernunft_, the meaning of the\nLatin word _ratio_, has been able to say that it is the highest degree\nof the activity of a mind which has the power of all its liberty, and\nthe consciousness of all its strength[513]: there is nothing more\nfalse. Reason does not exist in liberty, but on the contrary, in\nnecessity. Its movement, which is geometric, is always forced: it is\nan inference from the point of departure, and nothing more. Let us\nexamine this carefully. The Latin word _ratio_, whose meaning Kant has\nvisibly followed, has never translated exactly the Greek word _logos_,\nin the sense of _word_; and if the Greek philosophers have substituted\nsometimes the _logos_ for _nous_, or the word for the intelligence, by\ntaking the effect for the cause, it is wrong when the Romans have\ntried to imitate them, by using _ratio_, in place of _mens_, or\n_intelligentia_. In this they have proved their ignorance and have\ndisclosed the calamitous ravages that skepticism had already made\namong them. The word _ratio_ springs from the root _ra_ or _rat_,\nwhich in all the tongues where it has been received, has carried the\nidea of a _ray_, a straight line drawn from one point to another.[514]\nThus reason, far from being free as Kant has pretended, is what is the\nmost constrained in nature: it is a geometric line, always subject to\nthe point whence it emanates, and forced to strike the point toward\nwhich it is directed under penalty of ceasing to be itself; that is to\nsay, of ceasing to be straight. Now, reason not being free in its\ncourse, is neither good nor bad in itself; it is always analogous to\nthe principle of which it is the inference. Its nature is to go\nstraight; its perfection is nothing else. One goes straight in every\nway, in every direction, high, low, to right, to left; one reasons\ncorrectly in truth as in error, in vice as in virtue: all depends upon\nthe principle from which one sets out, and upon the manner in which\none looks at things. Reason does not give this principle; it is no\nmore master of the end which it goes to attain, than the straight line\ndrawn upon the ground is master of the point toward which it tends.\nThis end and this point are determined beforehand, by the position of\nthe reasoner or by geometry.\n\nReason exists alike in the three great human modifications, although\nits principal seat is in the soul, according to Plato.[515] There is a\nphysical reason acting in the instinct, a moral reason acting in the\nsoul, and an intellectual reason acting in the mind. When a hungry dog\nbrings to his master a piece of game without touching it, he obeys an\ninstinctive reason which makes him sacrifice the pleasure of\ngratifying his appetite, to the pain of receiving the blow of a stick.\nWhen a man dies at his post instead of abandoning it, he follows a\nmoral reason which makes him prefer the glory of dying to the shame of\nliving. When a philosopher admits the immortality of the soul, he\nlistens to an intellectual reason which shows him the impossibility of\nits annihilation. All this, nevertheless, takes place only so far as\nthe dog, the man, and the philosopher admit the real principles; for\nif they admitted false principles, their reasons, although equally\nwell deduced, would conduct them to opposed results; and the piece of\ngame would be eaten, the post would be abandoned, and the immortality\nof the soul would be denied.\n\nOne ought to feel now the mistake of Kant in all its extent. This\nphilosopher having confounded one of the principal modifications of\nman, his intelligence,[516] whose seat is in the soul, with one of his\nsecondary faculties, his reason, finds himself, in raising this reason\noutside of its place and giving it a dominance that it has not,\nousting entirely the spiritual part; so that meditating constantly in\nthe median part of his being, which he believed to be the superior,\nand descending, he found matter, understood it perfectly, and missed\nabsolutely the spirit. What he assumed was, it was nothing else than\nthe understanding, a neuter faculty placed between sense perception\nwhich is purely passive, and the intelligence which is wholly active.\nHe had the weakness to fix his thought here and thenceforth was lost.\nReason which he invoked to teach him to distinguish, in his ideas, the\npart which is furnished by the spirit, from that which is given by\nobjects, was only able to show him the straight line that it described\nin his understanding. This line being buried in matter instead of\nrising in intelligible regions, taught him that everything that did\nnot correspond to a possible experience could not furnish him the\nsubject of a positive knowledge, and thus all the great questions upon\nthe existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the origin of the\nUniverse; all that pertains to theosophy, to cosmology; in short, all\nthat which is intelligible, cannot take place in the order of his\nunderstanding.[517] This catastrophe, quite inevitable as it was, was\nnone the less poignant. It was odd to see a man who seemed to promise\nto establish the possibility and the principles of all knowledge upon\nan incontestable basis, announce coldly that God, the Universe, and\nthe Soul could not be subjects there, and soon discover, pushed by the\nforce of his reasoning, that even the reality of physical subjects by\nwhich the senses are affected is only phenomenal, that one can in no\nway know what they are, but only what they appear to be[518]; and that\neven one\u2019s own Self, considered as a subject, is also for one only a\nphenomenon, an appearance, concerning the intimate essence of which\none can learn nothing.[519] Kant felt indeed the terrible\ncontradiction into which he had fallen; but instead of retracing\ncourageously his steps, and seeking above reason for the principles of\nknowledge that it did not possess, he continued his descending\nmovement which he called transcendental, and finally discovered\nbeneath this _pure Reason_, a certain _practical Reason_, to which he\nconfided the destinies of the greatest subjects with which man can be\noccupied: God, nature, and himself. This practical reason, which is no\nother than _common sense_, ought, according to him, to bring man to\nbelieve what is not given him to know,[520] and to engage him, through\nthe need of his own felicity, to follow the paths of virtue, and to\nadmit the system of recompense which proceeds from the existence of\nGod and the immortality of the soul. Thus, this common sense, already\ninvoked to aid the existence of the physical subjects which Berkeley\nreduced to nothingness, was called, under another name, to sustain\nthat of the spiritual beings which Kant admitted baffling the action\nof his pure reason; but this faculty, vainly proposed by\nShaftesbury,[521] by Hutcheson,[522] by Reid,[523] by Oswald,[524] by\nthe celebrated Pascal himself,[525] to give a support to the first\ntruths, and to furnish the principles of our moral and physical\nknowledge; this faculty, I say, whose seat is in the instinct, has\nbeen easily challenged as incompetent to pronounce upon the subjects\nwhich are outside the jurisdiction of its judgments; for it has been\nkeenly felt that it was abandoning these subjects to the prejudices of\nthe vulgar, to their erroneous opinions, to their blind passions; and\nthat practical philosophy or common sense, acting in each man\naccording to the extent of his views, would only embarrass relative\ntruths and would create as many principles as individuals. Furthermore\nwas it not to run counter to common sense itself, to submit\nintelligence and reason to it? Was it not subverting Nature, and, as\nit were, causing light to spring upward from below, seeking in the\nparticular, the law which rules the Universal?\n\nThe skeptics who saw all these things triumphed, but their triumph\nonly proved their weakness; for Reason, by which they demonstrated\nnothingness, is the sole weapon of which they can make use. This\nfaculty overthrown in Kant, leaves them powerless, and delivers them\ndefenceless to the irresistible axioms that the intelligence places _a\npriori_ upon the primordial truths and the fundamental principles of\nthe Universe, even as the sequel of these Examinations will\ndemonstrate.\n\n\n     24. _Meditate upon my counsels, love them; follow them:\n          To the divine virtues will they know how to lead thee._\n\nI have spoken at considerable length of the skeptics; but I have\nbelieved it necessary in explaining a dogmatic work, whose _esprit_ is\nwholly opposed to that of skepticism. When Lysis wrote in Greece,\nthere had been no one as yet who doubted either the existence of the\ngods, or that of the Universe, or made the distinction between good\nand evil, virtue and vice. Arcesilaus and Pyrrho were not born, and\nthe clouds that they raised afterwards concerning these great subjects\nof the meditation of the sages were not even suspected. The minds had\ninclined rather toward credulity than toward doubt; toward\nsuperstition than toward atheism; it was more necessary to limit their\ncuriosity than to excite their indifference. At that epoch, the\nphilosophers enveloped the truth with veils, and rendered the avenues\nof science difficult, so that the vulgar might not profane them. They\nknew what had been too long forgotten: that all kinds of wood are not\nfitting to make a Mercury. Also their writers were obscure and\nsententious: in order to dishearten, not those who might be able to\ndoubt, but those who were not in a condition to comprehend.\n\nToday, as the minds are changed, it is of more importance to attract\nthose who are able to receive the truth, than to keep at a distance\nthose who are unable to receive it; the latter, separating themselves,\nare persuaded that they either possess it or have no need of it. I\nhave given the history of skepticism; I have shown its origin and the\nsorry effects of its absolute and disordered influence; not in order\nto bring back the skeptics of the profession, but to endeavour to\nprevent the men who are still drifting in uncertainty from becoming\nso. I have essayed to show them by the example of one of the greatest\nreasoners of Germany, by the example of Kant, that reason alone, with\nwhatever talents it may be accompanied, cannot fail to lead them to\nnothingness. I have made them see that this faculty so lauded is\nnothing of itself. I am content with the example of the Koenigsberg\nprofessor; but had I not feared prolixities, I would have added the\nexample of Berkeley and that of Spinoza. The varied catastrophes of\nthese three savants form a striking contrast. Kant, following step by\nstep his pure Reason, comes to see that the knowledge of intelligible\nthings is impossible and finds matter; Berkeley, led by the same\nreason, proves that the existence of matter is illusory, and that all\nis spirit; Spinoza, drawing irresistible arguments from this same\nfaculty, shows that there exists and can exist only one sole substance\nand that therefore spirit and matter are but one. And do not think\nthat, armed with reason alone, you can combat separately Spinoza,\nBerkeley, or Kant: their contradictory systems will clash in vain;\nthey will triumph over you and will push you into the dark and\nbottomless abyss of skepticism.\n\nNow, how can this be done? I have told you: it is because man is not a\nsimple being. Fix this truth firmly. Man is triple; and it is\naccording as his volitive unity operates in one or the other of his\nmodifications that he is led on to see, in such or such a way. Plato\nhas said it, following Pythagoras, and I say it to you not only\nfollowing Pythagoras and Plato, but following all the sages and all\nthe theosophists of the world. Plato places in the superior and\nspiritual modification, composed of the _same_, that is to say of the\nindivisible substance of the universe, the _hegemonicon_,[526] or the\nintellectual assent; in the inferior and material modification,\ncomposed of the _other_ or the _diverse_, that is to say, of the\ndivisible substance, the _physicon_,[527] or the physical sense\nperception; in the median modification or the soul, properly speaking,\ncomposed of essence, that is to say, of the most subtle parts of\nmatter elaborated by the spirit, the _logicon_,[528] or the moral,\nlogical, or reasonable sentiment. One finds in Plutarch the _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_\nof the doctrine of a philosopher named Sylla, who, admitting, as did\nPlato, that man is composed of spirit, soul, and body, said that the\nbody drew its origin from the earth, the soul from the moon, and the\nspirit from the sun.[529] But without disturbing ourselves for the\npresent, with the origin of these three parts, since assuredly the\nearth, the moon, and the sun, which this philosopher has assigned them\nfor principles, are things very difficult to understand in themselves,\nlet us be content with knowing, as I have already said, that these\nthree great modifications which form the human Quaternary manifest\nthemselves by sensation, sentiment, and assent, and develop the\nprincipal faculties of the instinct, the understanding, and the\nintelligence. The instinct is the seat of common sense; the\nunderstanding is that of reason; and the intelligence, that of\nsagacity or wisdom. Men can never acquire any science, any real\nknowledge, if the assent is not determined by favour of the\nintelligence which elects the principle and places it with sagacity;\nfor one can really know or understand only that to which the\nintelligence has given consent. All the results that the\nunderstanding, deprived of intelligence, can procure by means of\nreason are only opinions, those of these results which are rigorously\ndemonstrated in the manner of the geometricians are identities; common\nsense transported even into the understanding can give only notions,\nthe certainty of which, however founded it may be upon experience, can\nnever surpass that of physical sensation, whose transient and limited\nauthority is of no weight in the assent of intelligible truths.\n\nLet us venture now to divulge a secret of the mysteries to which\nPythagoras made allusion when he said: that not all kinds of wood are\nfitting to make a Mercury; and notwithstanding the vulgar prejudice\nwhich is opposed to this truth, let us affirm that animistic equality\namong men is a chimera. I feel that here I am about to clash greatly\nwith theological ideas and to put myself in opposition to many\nbrilliant paradoxes that modern philosophers, more virtuous than wise,\nhave raised and sustained with more talent and reason than sagacity;\nbut the force of my subject draws me on and since I am explaining the\ndoctrine of Pythagoras, it is indeed necessary that I should say why\nLysis, after having examined and commended in detail all the human\nvirtues in the purgative part of his teachings, begins again a new\ninstruction in the unitive part and promises to lead one to divine\nvirtues. This important distinction that he makes between these two\nkinds of virtues has been made by Plato, Aristotle, Galen, and many\nothers of the philosophers of antiquity.[530] One of them, Macrobius,\nto whom we owe the knowledge and explanation of many of the mystic\nsecrets, which, notwithstanding the extreme care exercised to conceal\nthem, were rumoured outside of the sanctuaries, has made a comparison\nbetween the degrees of the initiation and those that one admits in the\nexercise of the virtues; and he enumerates four.[531] This number,\nwhich is related to the universal Quaternary, has been the most\nconstantly followed, although it may have varied, however, from three\nto seven. The number _three_ was regarded by the ancients as the\nprinciple of nature, and the number _seven_ as its end.[532] The\nprincipal degrees of initiation were, to the number of three, as the\ngrades of the apprentice, companion, and master are in Free Masonry\ntoday. From this comes the epithet of Triple, given to the mysterious\nHecate, and even to Mithra, considered as the emblem of mystic\nknowledge.[533] Sometimes three secondary degrees were added to the\nthree principal ones and were terminated by an extraordinary\nrevelation, which raising the initiate to the rank of _Epopt_, or seer\n_par excellence_, gave him the true signification of the degrees\nthrough which he had already passed[534]; showed him nature\nunveiled,[535] and admitted him to the contemplation of divine\nknowledge.[536] It was for the Epopt alone that the last veil fell,\nand the sacred vestment which covered the statue of the Goddess was\nremoved. This manifestation, called Epiphany, shed the most brilliant\nlight upon the darkness which until then had surrounded the initiate.\nIt was prepared, said the historians, by frightful tableaux with\nalternatives of both terror and hope.[537] The grade of Elect has\nreplaced that of Epopt among the Free Masons, without in any sense\noffering the same results. The forms are indeed nearly preserved; but\nthe substance has disappeared. The Epopt of Eleusis, Samothrace, or\nHierapolis was regarded as the foremost of men, the favourite of the\ngods, and the possessor of celestial treasures; the sun shone, in his\nsight, with a purer brightness; and the sublime virtue that he had\nacquired in the tests, more and more difficult, and the lessons more\nand more lofty, gave him the faculty of discerning good and evil,\ntruth and error, and of making a free choice between them.[538]\n\nBut if the various grades of initiation expressed symbolically the\ndifferent degrees of virtue to which men in general can attain, the\ntests that one was made to pass through at each new grade, made known\nin particular, whether the man who presented himself to obtain it, was\nworthy or unworthy. These tests were at first sufficiently easy; but\nthey became increasingly difficult to such an extent that the life of\nthe new member was frequently in danger. One would know in that way to\nwhat sort of man this life belonged, and verify by the crucible of\nterror and of suffering, the temper of the soul and the claim of his\nright to the truth. It is known that Pythagoras owed to his extreme\npatience and to the courage with which he surmounted all the\nobstacles, his initiation into the Egyptian mysteries.[5539] Those who\nattained as he did the last degree of initiation were very rare; the\ngreater number went no further than the second grade and very few\nattained the third. Lessons proportionate to their strength and to\nthose of the faculties that had been recognized as dominating in them\nwere given; for this is the essential point in this Examination, one\nlearned in the sanctuaries to divide the mass of humanity into three\ngreat classes, dominated by a fourth more elevated, according to the\nrelations that were established between the faculties of men and the\nparts of the Universe to which they corresponded. In the first were\nranged the material or instinctive men; in the second, the animistic,\nand in the third, the intellectual men. Thus all men were by no means\nconsidered as equal among them. The pretended equality which was made\non the exterior was mere compliance to the errors of the vulgar, who,\nhaving seized the authority in most of the cities of Greece and Italy,\nforced the truth to conceal an exposure which would have injured it.\nThe Christian cult, raised upon the extinction of all enlightenment,\nnourished in the hearts of slaves and lowly citizens, sanctified in\nthe course of time a precedent favourable to its growth. Those,\nhowever, among the Christians who were called gnostics,[540] on\naccount of the particular knowledge that they possessed, and\nespecially the Valentinians who boasted that they had preserved the\nknowledge of the initiation, wished to make a public dogma of the\nsecret of the mysteries in this respect, pretending that the\ncorruption of men being only the effect of their ignorance and of\ntheir earthly attachment, it was only necessary in order to save them,\nto enlighten them regarding their condition and their original\ndestination[541]; but the orthodox ones, who felt the danger into\nwhich this doctrine was drawing them, condemned the authors as\nheretics.\n\nThis condemnation, which satisfied the pride of the vulgar, did not\nprevent the small number of sages remaining silent, faithful to the\ntruth. It is only necessary to open one\u2019s eyes, and detaching them a\nmoment from Judea, to see that the dogma of inequality among men had\nserved as basis for the civil and religious laws of all the peoples of\nthe earth, from the orient of Asia to the occidental limits of Africa\nand Europe. Everywhere, four great established divisions under the\nname of Castes, recalled the four principal degrees of initiation and\nretraced upon humanity _en masse_, the Universal Quaternary. Egypt\nhad, in this respect, in very ancient times, given example to\nGreece[542]; for this Greece, so proud of her liberty, or rather of\nher turbulent anarchy, had been at first subjected to the common\ndivision, even as it is seen in Aristotle and Strabo.[543] The\nChaldeans were, relative to the peoples of Assyria,[544] only what the\nMagi were among the Persians,[545] the Druids among the Gauls,[546]\nand the Brahmans among the Indians. It is quite well known that this\nlast people, the Brahmans, constitute the foremost and highest of the\nfour castes of which the whole nation is composed. The allegorical\norigin that religion gives to these castes proves clearly the analogy\nof which I have spoken. The following is what is found relative to\nthis in one of the Shastras. \u201cAt the first creation by Brahma, the\nBrahmans sprang from his mouth; the Kshatrys issued from his arms; the\nVaisyas from his thighs, and the Soudras from his feet.\u201d It is said in\nanother of these books containing the cosmogony of the Banians, that\nthe first man, called Pourou, having had four sons named Brahma,\nKshetri, Vaisa, and Souderi, God designated them to be chiefs of the\nfour tribes which he himself instituted.[547] The sacred books of the\nBurmans, which appear anterior to those of the other Indian nations,\nestablish the same division. The Rahans, who fill the sacerdotal\noffices among these peoples, teach a doctrine conformable to that of\nthe mysteries. They say that inequality among men is a necessary\nconsequence of their past virtues or past vices, and that they are\nborn in a nation more or less enlightened, in a caste, in a family,\nmore or less illustrious, according to their previous conduct.[548]\nThis is very close to the thought of Pythagoras; but no one has\nexpressed it with greater force and clearness than Kong-Tse. I think I\nhave no need to say that these two sages did not copy each other. The\nassent that they gave to the same idea had its source elsewhere than\nin sterile imitation.\n\nThe Chinese people, from time immemorial, have been divided into four\ngreat classes, relative to the rank that men occupy in society,\nfollowing the functions that they execute therein,[549] very nearly as\ndo the Indians: but this division, that long custom has rendered\npurely political, is looked upon very differently by the philosophers.\nMan, according to them, constitutes one of the three productive powers\nwhich compose the median trinity of the Universe; for they consider\nthe Universe, or the great All, as the expression of a triple Trinity\nenveloped and dominated by the primordial Unity: which constitutes for\nthem a decade instead of a Quaternary. This third power called _Yin_,\nthat is to say, mankind, is subdivided into three principal classes,\nwhich by means of the intermediary classes admitted by Kong-Tse,\nproduces the five classes spoken of by this sage.\n\n     The first class, the most numerous, comprises [he said] that\n     multitude of men who act only by a sort of imitative\n     _instinct_, doing today what they did yesterday, in order to\n     recommence tomorrow what they have done today; and who,\n     incapable of discerning in the distance the real and\n     substantial advantages, the interest of highest importance,\n     extract easily a little profit, a base interest in the\n     pettiest things, and have enough adroitness to procure them.\n     These men have an _understanding_ as the others but this\n     understanding goes no further than the _senses_; they see\n     and hear only through the eyes and the ears of their bodies.\n     Such are the people.\n\n     The second class is composed [according to the same sage] of\n     men instructed in the sciences, in letters and in the\n     liberal arts. These men have an object in view in whatever\n     they undertake, and know the different means by which the\n     end can be accomplished; they have not penetrated into the\n     essence of things, but they know them well enough to speak\n     of them with ease and to give lessons to others; whether\n     they speak or whether they act, they can give _reason_ for\n     what they say or what they do, comparing subjects among them\n     and drawing just inferences concerning what is harmful or\n     profitable: these are the artists, the _literati_, who are\n     occupied with things wherein _reasoning_ must enter. This\n     class can have an influence on customs and even on the\n     government.\n\n     The third class [continues Kong-Tse] comprises those who in\n     their speech, in their actions, and in the whole of their\n     conduct, never deviate from what is prescribed by _right\n     reason_; who do good without any pretension whatsoever; but\n     only because it is good; who never vary, and show themselves\n     the same in adversity as in fortune. These men speak when it\n     is necessary to speak, and are silent when it is necessary\n     to be silent. They are not satisfied with drawing the\n     sciences from the diverse channels destined to transmit\n     them, but go back to the source. These are the philosophers.\n\n     Those who never digress from the fixed and immutable rule\n     which they have traced out for themselves, who, with utmost\n     exactness and a constancy always the same, fulfill to the\n     very least, their obligations, who fight their passions,\n     observe themselves unceasingly, and prevent vices from\n     developing; those finally, who speak no word which is not\n     measured and that may not be useful for instruction, and who\n     fear neither trouble nor labour in order to make _virtue_\n     prosper in themselves and in others, constitute the fourth\n     class, which is that of virtuous men.\n\n     The fifth class, finally [adds Kong-Tse], which is the\n     loftiest and sublimest, comprises the extraordinary men, who\n     unite in their persons the qualities of the spirit and\n     heart, perfected by the blessed habit of fulfilling\n     voluntarily and joyfully, what nature and morals impose\n     jointly upon reasonable beings living in society.\n     Imperturbable in their mode of life, like unto the sun and\n     the moon, the heavens and the earth, they never cease their\n     beneficent operations; they act by _intelligence_ and as\n     _spirits_ see without being seen. This class, very few in\n     number, can be called that of the Perfect ones, the\n     Saints.[550]\n\nI have transcribed what has just been read without changing a single\nword. If the reader has given to this extract the attention that it\nmerits, he will have seen the doctrine of Pythagoras such as I have\nrevealed and the important distinction between Instinct, Reason, and\nIntelligence such as I have established; he will have seen the dogma\nof the mysteries concerning the animistic inequality of men, of which\nI have spoken, and will have easily recognized, in the right reason\nwhich constitutes the third class according to the Chinese\ntheosophist, the pure reason which has directed the German philosopher\nin the establishment of critical philosophy. This right reason, being\nquite near to human virtues, is still very far from Wisdom which alone\nleads to Truth. Nevertheless it can reach there, for nothing is\nimpossible for the Will of man, even as I have quite forcibly\nstated[551]; but it would be necessary for that, to make acquisition\nof the divine virtues, and in the same manner that one is raised from\ninstinct to understanding by purification, to pass from understanding\nto intelligence by perfection. Lysis offers the means: it is by\nknowledge of oneself that he promises to lead one to this desired end;\nhe assures it, he invokes the name of Pythagoras himself:\n\n\n     25. _I swear it by the one who in our hearts engraved\n          The sacred Tetrad, symbol immense and pure,\n          Source of Nature and model of the Gods._\n\nDrawn on by my subject, I have forgotten to say that, according to\nPorphyry, there is lacking in the Golden Verses as given by Hierocles,\ntwo lines which ought to be placed immediately before those which open\nthe unitive part of the doctrine of Pythagoras called _perfection_;\nthese are[552]:\n\n     \u03a0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f55\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2,\n     \u0395\u1f56 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f24\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n     On the moment of awakening, consider calmly\n     What are thy duties, and what thou shouldst accomplish.\n\nThese lines, which express the general outline of this last part, are\nremarkable, and one cannot conceive how Hierocles could have\noverlooked or neglected them. Although, it is true, they add nothing\nin the literal sense, they say much, however, in the figurative sense;\nthey serve as proof of the division of this poem, which Hierocles\nhimself has adopted without explanation. Lysis indicates quite\nstrongly that he is about to pass on to a new teaching: he calls the\nattention of the disciple of Pythagoras to the new career which is\nopened before him, and to the means of traversing it and of attaining\nto the divine virtues which must crown it. This means is the knowledge\nof oneself, as I have said. This knowledge, so commended by the\nancient sages, so exalted by them, which must open the avenues of all\nthe others and deliver to them the key of the mysteries of nature and\nthe doors of the Universe; this knowledge, I say, could not be exposed\nunveiled at the epoch when Pythagoras lived, on account of the secrets\nthat it would of necessity betray. Likewise this philosopher had the\nhabit of proclaiming it under the emblem of the sacred Tetrad or of\nthe Quaternary. This is why Lysis, in invoking the name of his master,\ndesignates it on this occasion with the most striking characteristic\nof his doctrine. \u201cI swear,\u201d he said, \u201cby the one who has revealed to\nour soul the knowledge of the Tetrad, that source of eternal Nature\u201d:\nthat is to say, I swear by the one who, teaching our soul to know\nitself, has put it in condition to know all nature of which it is the\nabridged image.\n\nIn many of my preceding Examinations I have already explained what\nshould be understood by this celebrated Tetrad, and here would perhaps\nbe the time to reveal its constitutive principles; but this revelation\nwould lead me too far. It would be necessary in order to do this, to\nenter into details of the arithmological doctrine of Pythagoras which,\nlacking preliminary data, would become fatiguing and unintelligible.\nThe language of Numbers of which this philosopher made use, following\nthe example of the ancient sages, seems today entirely lost. The\nfragments which have come down to us serve rather to prove its\nexistence than to give any light upon its elements; for those who have\ncomposed these fragments wrote in a language that they supposed\nunderstood, in the same manner as our modern writers when they employ\nalgebraic terms. It would be ridiculous if one wished before having\nacquired any notion concerning the value and use of the algebraic\nsigns, to explain a problem contained in these signs. This is,\nhowever, what has often been done relative to the language of Numbers.\nOne has pretended, not only to explain it before having learned it,\nbut even to write of it, and has by so doing rendered it the most\nlamentable thing in the world. The savants seeing it thus travestied\nhave justly scorned it; as their contempt was not unreasonable they\nhave made it reflect, by the same language upon the ancients who have\nemployed it. They have acted in this as in many other things; they\nthemselves creating the stupidity of ancient sciences and saying\nafterwards: antiquity was stupid.\n\nOne day I shall try, if I find the time and the necessary facilities,\nto give the true elements of the arithmological science of Pythagoras\nand I will show that this science was for intelligible things what\nalgebra has become among us for physical things; but I shall only do\nso after having revealed what the true principles of music are; for\notherwise I should run the risk of not being understood.\n\nWithout perplexing ourselves, therefore, with the constitutive\nprinciples of the Pythagorean Quaternary, let us content ourselves\nwith knowing that it was the general emblem of anything moving by\nitself and manifesting by its facultative modifications; for according\nto Pythagoras, 1 and 2 represent the hidden principles of things; 3,\ntheir faculties, and 4, their proper essence. These four numbers\nwhich, united by addition produce the number 10, constituted the\nBeing, as much universal as particular; so that the Quaternary, which\nis as its virtue, could become the emblem of all beings, since there\nis none which may not recognize the principles, and which does not\nmanifest itself by faculties more or less perfect, and which may not\nenjoy an existence universal or relative; but the being to which\nPythagoras applied it most commonly was Man. Man, as I have said,\nmanifests himself as does the Universe, under the three principal\nmodifications of body, soul, and spirit. The unknown principles of\nthis first Ternary are what Plato calls the _same_, and the _other_,\nthe _indivisible_ and the _divisible_. The indivisible principle gives\nthe spirit; the divisible the body; and the soul has birth from this\nlast principle elaborated by the first.[553] Such was the doctrine of\nPythagoras which was borrowed by Plato. It had been that of the\nEgyptians, as can be seen in the works which remain to us under the\nname of Hermes. Synesius, who had been initiated into their mysteries,\nsaid particularly, that human souls emanated from two sources: the one\nluminous, which flows from heaven on high; the other tenebrous, which\nsprings from the earth in the abysmal depths of which it finds its\norigin.[554] The early Christians, faithful to theosophical tradition,\nfollowed the same teaching; they established a great difference\nbetween the spirit and the soul. They considered the soul as an issue\nof the material principle, and in consequence being neither\nenlightened nor virtuous in itself. The spirit, said Basil, is a gift\nof God: it is the soul of the soul, as it were; it is united to the\nsoul; it enlightens it, it rescues it from earth and raises it to\nheaven.[555] Beausobre, who relates these words, observes that this\nsentiment was common to several Fathers of the primitive church,\nparticularly to Tatian.[556]\n\nI have spoken often of this first Ternary, and even of the triple\nfaculties which are attached to each of its modifications; but as I\nhave done many times, I believe it useful to present here the\n_ensemble_, so as to have the opportunity of uniting, under the same\nviewpoint, the volitive unity, from which results the human\nQuaternary, in general, and in the particular being, which is man.\n\nThe three faculties which, as I have said, distinguish each of the\nthree human modifications are: sense perception for the body,\nsentiment for the soul, and assent for the spirit. These three\nfaculties develop instinct, understanding, and intelligence, which\nproduce by a common reaction, common sense, reason, and sagacity.\n\nInstinct, placed at the lowest degree of the ontological hierarchy, is\nabsolutely passive; intelligence, raised to the summit, is entirely\nactive, and understanding placed in the centre, is neuter. Sense\nperception perceives the sensations, sentiment conceives the ideas,\nassent elects the thoughts; perception, conception, election are modes\nof acting, of the instinct, the understanding, and the intelligence.\nThe understanding is the seat of all the passions that the instinct\nfeeds continually, excites, and tends to make unruly; and that the\nintelligence purifies, tempers, and seeks always to put in harmony.\nThe instinct, reacted upon by the understanding, becomes common sense:\nit perceives notions more or less clearly, following more or less, the\ninfluence that it accords to the understanding. The understanding,\nreacted upon by the intelligence, becomes reason: it conceives of\nopinions so much the more just, as its passions are the more calm.\nReason cannot by its own movement attain to wisdom and find truth,\nbecause being placed in the middle of a sphere and forced from there,\nit describes, from the centre to the circumference, a ray always\nstraight and subordinate to the point of departure; it has against it\ninfinity, that is to say, that truth being one, and residing in a\nsingle point of the circumference, it cannot be the subject of reason,\nonly as far as it is known beforehand, and as reason is placed in the\ndirection convenient for its encounter. Intelligence, which can only\nput reason in this direction by the assent that it gives at the point\nof departure, would never know this point only by wisdom which is the\nfruit of inspiration: now, inspiration is the mode of acting of the\nwill, which joining itself to the triple Ternary, as I have just\ndescribed, constitutes the human ontological Quaternary. It is the\nwill which envelops the primordial Ternary in its unity, and which\ndetermines the action of each of its faculties according to its own\nmode without the will it would have no existence. The three faculties\nby which the volitive unity is manifested in the triple Ternary, are\nmemory, judgment, and imagination. These three faculties, acting in a\nhomogeneous unity, have neither height nor depth and do not affect one\nof the modifications of the being, any more than another; they are all\nwherever the will is, and the will operates freely in the intelligence\nor in the understanding; in the understanding or in the instinct:\nwhere it wills to be there it is; its faculties follow it everywhere.\nI say that it is wherever it wills to be when the being is wholly\ndeveloped; for following the course of Nature, it is first in the\ninstinct and only passes into the understanding and into the\nintelligence successively and in proportion as the animistic and\nspiritual faculties are developed. But in order that this development\nmay take place, the will must determine it; for without the will there\nis no movement. Be assured of this. Without the operation of the will,\nthe soul is inert and the spirit sterile. This is the origin of that\ninequality among men of which I have spoken. When the will does not\ndisengage itself from matter, it constitutes instinctive men; when it\nis concentrated in the understanding, it produces animistic men; when\nit acts in the spirit, it creates intellectual men. Its perfect\nharmony in the primordial Ternary, and its action more or less\nenergetic in the uniformity of their faculties, equally developed,\nconstitute the extraordinary men endowed with sublime genius; but the\nmen of this fourth class which represents the autopsy of the\nmysteries,[557] are extremely rare. Often it suffices for a powerful\nwill, acting either in the understanding or in the intelligence and\nconcentrating wholly there, to astonish men by the strength of\nreasoning and outbursts of wisdom, which draws the name of genius\nwithout being wholly merited. Recently there has been seen in Germany\nthe most extraordinary reasoning, in Kant, failing in its aim through\nlack of intelligence; one has seen in the same country the most\nexalted intelligence, in Boehme, giving way for want of reason. There\nhave been in all times and among all nations men similar to Boehme and\nto Kant. These men have erred through not knowing themselves; they\nhave erred, through a lack of harmony that they might have been able\nto acquire, if they had taken the time to perfect themselves; they\nhave erred, but their very error attests the force of their will. A\nweak will, operating either in the understanding or in the\nintelligence, makes only sensible men and men of intellect. This same\nwill acting in the instinct produces artful men; and if it is strong\nand violently concentrated through its original attraction in this\ncorporal faculty, it constitutes men dangerous to society, miscreants,\nand treacherous brigands.\n\nAfter having applied the Pythagorean Quaternary to Man, and having\nshown the intimate composition of this Being, image of the Universe,\naccording to the doctrine of the ancients, I ought perhaps to use all\nthe means in my power, in order to demonstrate with what facility the\nphysical and metaphysical phenomena which result from their combined\naction can be deduced; but such an undertaking would necessarily draw\nme into details foreign to these examinations. I must again put off\nthis point as I have put off many others; I will take them up in\nanother work, if the savants and the thinkers to whom I address myself\napprove the motive which has put the pen in my hand.\n\n\n     26. _But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,\n          Invoke these Gods with fervour, they whose aid,\n          Thy work begun, alone can terminate._\n\nAll the cults established upon the face of the earth have made a\nreligious duty of prayer. This alone would prove, if it were\nnecessary, what I have advanced concerning the theosophical dogma of\nthe volitive liberty of man; for if man were not free in his actions,\nand if an irresistible fatality led him on to misfortune and to crime,\nwhat use would be invoking the gods, imploring their assistance,\nbegging them to turn aside from him the evils which must inevitably\noverwhelm him? If, as Epicurus taught, an impenetrable barrier\nseparated gods and men; if these gods, absorbed in their beatitude and\ntheir impassive immortality, were such strangers to the evils of\nhumanity that they neither troubled to alleviate them nor to prevent\nthem, for what purpose then the incense burning at the foot of their\naltars?[558]\n\nIt was, he said, on account of the excellence of their nature that he\nhonoured them thus, and not from any motive of hope or fear, not\nexpecting any good from them and not dreading any evil.[559] What\nmiserable sophism! How could Epicurus say such a thing before having\nexplained clearly and without amphibology, what the origin of good and\nevil is, so as to prove that the gods indeed do not cooperate either\nfor the augmentation of the one, or the diminution of the other? But\nEpicurus had never dreamed of giving this explanation. However little\nhe might have considered it, he would have seen that in whatever\nfashion he had given it, it would have overthrown the doctrine of\natoms; for a sole principle, whatever it may be, cannot produce at the\nsame time good and evil. Nevertheless, if he has not explained this\norigin, and if he has not shown in a peremptory way that we are in a\nsphere where absolute evil reigns, and that consequently we can have\nno sort of communication with that wherein good resides, it will\nremain always evident that if we are not in such a sphere, and if we\npossess a portion of good, this good must come to us from the sphere\nwherein absolute good has its source. Now, this sphere is precisely\nthat in which Epicurus places the gods.[560] But, perhaps, a defender\nof Epicurus will say, the good that we possess comes to us only once\nfrom the divine sphere and thenceforth it comes to us no more. This is\ncontrary to the most intimate and most general notion that we have of\nthe Divinity, to that of its immutability upon which Epicurus himself\nleans most, and from which it results that the gods could never be\nwhat they have been, nor do what they have done.\n\nIn one word, just as well as in a thousand, any maker of a system is\nobliged to do one of two things, either to declare himself what the\norigin is of good and evil, or to admit _a priori_ the theosophical\ndogma of the liberty of man. Epicurus knew this, and although this\ndogma might ruin his system completely, he preferred to admit it than\nexpose himself to give an explanation beyond his capability and beyond\nthat of all men. But if man is free, he can be counselled; if he can\nbe counselled, it is evident that he can, even that he must, demand\ncounsel. This is the rational principle of prayer. Now, common sense\nis the asking for counsel wiser than its own, and sagacity shows in\nthe Gods the source of wisdom.\n\nEpicurus, nevertheless, denied the intervention of divine Providence\nand pretended that the Gods, absorbed in their supreme felicity, do\nnot mingle in any affair.[561] A single question, simple and na\u00efve,\nwould overthrow this assertion destitute of proofs, and besides,\ninconsistent with the conduct of Greek philosophy; but I prefer to\nleave this question to Bayle, who has expended much logic in\nsustaining this point. This French philosopher, under pretext of\nmaking Epicurus dispute with a polytheistic priest, advances against\nProvidence an argument which he believes irresistible, and which is,\nindeed, one of the most subtle that one could possibly advance. \u201cAre\nthe gods satisfied with their administration or are they dissatisfied?\nBe mindful,\u201d he says, \u201cof my dilemma: if they are satisfied with what\ncomes to pass under their providence, they are pleased with evil; if\nthey are dissatisfied, they are unhappy.\u201d[562] The manner in which\nBayle throws himself into the midst of the question, without examining\nthe principles of it, denounces him as a skeptic; it is necessary\ntherefore to use against him the weapons that I have given against\nskepticism; that is, to bring him back abruptly to the principles, by\ninterrogating him before replying to him. It is necessary to ask him,\nif he admits a difference between that which is and that which is not?\nHe is forced to admit it, as I have said; for in whatever region of\nhimself his will takes refuge, whether it exercises its judgment in\nthe instinct, in the understanding or in the intelligence, you will\npursue it in him opposing, in the first case, the axiom of common\nsense: nothing is made from nothing; in the second, that of reason:\nthat which is, is; in the last, that of sagacity: everything has its\nopposite and can have only one. Nothing is made from nothing therefore\nthat which is not, can never produce that which is. That which is, is;\ntherefore, that which is not, is not that which is. Everything has its\nopposite and can have only one; therefore the absolute opposite of\nthat which is, is that which is not. If the skeptic refuses himself\nthe evidence of common sense, of reason and of sagacity united, he\nlies to his conscience, or he is mad and then one must leave him.\n\nThe difference admitted between that which is and that which is not,\nproceeds therefore against Bayle, or against those who resemble him;\nask them if man is a prey to absolute evil, whether physical or moral?\nThey will reply to you, no; for they will feel that if they should\nrespond otherwise, you would prove to them that not having the faculty\nof making a difference between good and evil, nor of comparing them\ntogether, they could never draw from this comparison their strongest\nargument against Providence. They will, therefore, reply that man is\nnot a prey to absolute evil, but to a very great relative evil; as\ngreat as they wish. You, nevertheless continue thus: if man is not a\nprey to absolute evil, he might be, since it would suffice for this to\ntake away the sum of good which mitigates the evil, and which the\ndifference, previously established between that which is and that\nwhich is not, teaches to distinguish. Now, this sum of good, whence\ncomes it? Who dispenses it? Who? If the skeptics are silent, affirm\nfor them that it emanates from the gods themselves and that Providence\nis the dispenser. Then reply to their dilemma, and say that the gods\nare content with their administration and that they have reason to be,\nsince by it they procure a sum of good increasing more and more, for\nthe beings which without Providence would never know it; and that\ntheir Providence, which has mitigated evil from its origin, mitigates\nit still and will mitigate it to its end; and if the astonished\nskeptics object that Providence takes a great deal of time to make\nwhat should be made in an instant, reply to them that it is not a\nquestion of knowing how nor why it makes things, but only that it\nmakes them; which is proved by the overthrow of their dilemma; and\nwhich, after all, is saying with more reason in this circumstance than\nin any other, that time has nothing to do with the affair, since it is\nnothing to Providence, although for us it may be much.\n\nAnd if, continuing to draw inferences from your reasoning, the\nskeptics say to you that, according to the continual effusion of good\nwhich you establish, the sum ought to be daily augmented, whilst that\nof evil, diminishing in the same proportion, ought at last to\ndisappear wholly, which they cannot believe; reply, that the\ninferences of a reasoning which confounds theirs are at their\ndisposal; that they can deduce from them as much as they wish; without\nengaging you, for that matter, to discuss the extent of their view,\neither in the past, or in the future, because each one has his own;\nthat, besides, you owe it to truth to teach them that the dogma, by\nmeans of which you have ruined the laborious structure of their logic,\nis no other than a theosophical tradition, universally received from\none end of the earth to the other, as it is easy to prove to them.\n\nOpen the sacred books of the Chinese, the Burmans, Indians, and\nPersians, you will find there the unequivocal traces of this dogma.\nHere, it is Providence represented under the traits of a celestial\nvirgin, who, sent by the Supreme Being, furnished arms to combat and\nto subjugate the genius of evil, and to bring to perfection everything\nthat it had corrupted.[563] There, it is the Universe itself and the\nWorlds which compose it, which are signalized as the instrument\nemployed by this same Providence to attain this end.[564] Such was the\nsecret doctrine of the mysteries.[565] Good and Evil were represented\nin the sanctuaries under the emblems of light and darkness: the\nformidable spectacle of the combat between these two opposed\nprinciples was given there to the initiate; and after many scenes of\nterror, the most obscure night was insensibly succeeded by the purest\nand most brilliant day.[566] It was exactly this that Zoroaster had\npublicly taught.\n\n     Ormuzd [said this theosophist] knew by his sovereign science\n     that at first he could in no way influence Ahriman; but that\n     afterwards he united with him and that at last he finished\n     by subjugating him and changing him to such a degree that\n     the Universe existed without evil for a duration of\n     centuries.[567] When the end of the world comes [he said in\n     another place] the wickedest of the infernal spirits will be\n     pure, excellent, celestial: yes [he adds], he will become\n     celestial, this liar, this evil doer; he will become holy,\n     celestial, excellent, this cruel one: vice itself, breathing\n     only virtue, will make long offerings of praise to Ormuzd\n     before all the world.[568]\n\nThese words are the more remarkable when one considers that the dogma\nrelating to the downfall of the rebellious angel has passed from the\ncosmogony of the Parsees into that of the Hebrews, and that it is upon\nthis dogma alone, imperfectly interpreted by the vulgar, that the\ncontradictory doctrine of the eternity of evil and the torments that\nfollow it, have been founded. This doctrine, but little understood,\nhas been sharply attacked.[569] Simon, very inappropriately surnamed\nthe _Magician_, forced St. Peter himself, disputing with him, to\nacknowledge that the Hebraic writings had said nothing positive on\nthis subject.[570] This is certain. These writings, interpreted as\nthey have been by the Hellenic Jews and given out under the name of\n_Version of the Septuagint_, shed no light upon this important\npoint; but it is well to know that these interpreters have designedly\nconcealed this light, in order not to divulge the meaning of their\nsacred book. If one understood thoroughly the language of Moses, one\nwould see that, far from setting aside the theosophical traditions\nwhich he had received in Egypt, this theocratic legislator remained\nconstantly faithful to them. The passage in his Sepher where he speaks\nof the annihilation of Evil, in the meaning of Zoroaster, is in\nchapter iii., v. 15, of the part vulgarly called _Genesis_, as I hope\none day to show.[571] But without entering at this time, into the\ndiscussion where the real translation of this passage would lead me,\nlet it suffice to say that the early Christians were very far from\nadmitting the eternity of evil; for without speaking of Manes and his\nnumerous followers who shared the opinion of Zoroaster,[572] those who\nare versed in these sorts of matters know that Origen taught that\ntorments will not be eternal, and that demons, instructed by\nchastisement, will be converted at last and will obtain their\npardon.[573] He was followed in this by a great number of learned men,\nby the evidence of Beausobre who quotes, on this subject, the example\nof a philosopher of Edessa, who maintained that after the consummation\nof the ages, all creatures would become consubstantial with God.[574]\n\nOne thing worthy of notice is that Zoroaster, who has made prayer one\nof the principal dogmas of his religion, has been imitated in this by\nMohammed, who, unknowingly, perhaps, has borrowed a great number of\nthings from this ancient legislator of the Parsees. It is presumable\nthat the followers of Manes, having retired to Arabia, were\nresponsible for these borrowings, by the opinions that they circulated\nthere. But, it must be frankly stated, this dogma, quite in its place\nin the _Zend-Avesta_, does not appear so consistent in the _Koran_,\nfor, of what use is it in a cult where the predestination of men,\nnecessitated by the Prescient and All-Powerful Divine, delivers\nirresistibly the greatest part of them to an eternal damnation, on\naccount of the original stain imprinted upon mankind by the sin of the\nfirst man? One cannot be prevented, in reflecting upon this manifest\ncontradiction, from believing that the theosophical tradition\npertaining to the free will of man, and the influencing action of\nProvidence operating the progressive augmentation of good and the\ngradual diminution of evil, announced openly by Zoroaster, must have\nacted secretly in the mind of the theocratic legislator of Arabia. If\nit had not been thus, the prayers that he ordered as one of the first\nand most essential duties of the religion, would have been without\nobject.\n\nAccording to the doctrine of Pythagoras revealed by Hierocles, two\nthings agree in the efficacy of prayer: the voluntary movement of our\nsoul, and aid from heaven. The first of these things is that which\nseeks goodness; and the other that which shows it. Prayer is a medium\nbetween our quest and the celestial gift. One seeks, one prays in\nvain, if one adds not prayer to research and research to prayer.\nVirtue is an emanation from God; it is like a reflected image of the\nDivinity, the resemblance of which alone constitutes the good and the\nbeautiful. The soul which is attached to this admirable type of all\nperfection is aroused to prayer by its inclination to virtue, and it\naugments this inclination by the effusion of the goodness which it\nreceives by means of prayer; so that it does precisely what it demands\nand demands what it does.[575] Socrates was not far from the doctrine\nof Pythagoras in this respect; he added only, that prayer exacted much\nprecaution and prudence, lest, without perceiving it, one demand of\nGod great evils, in thinking to ask great blessings.\n\n     The sage [he said] knows what he ought to say or do; the\n     fool is ignorant of it; the one implores in prayer, what can\n     be really useful to him; the other desires often things\n     which, being granted him, become for him the source of\n     greatest misfortunes. The prudent man [he adds], however\n     little he may doubt himself, ought to resign himself to\n     Providence who knows better than he, the consequences that\n     things must have.\n\nThis is why Socrates cited as a model of sense and reason this prayer\nof an ancient poet:\n\n     Grant us good whether prayed for or unsought by us;\n     But that which we ask amiss, do thou avert.[576]\n\nThe prayer was, as I have said, one of the principal dogmas of the\nreligion of Zoroaster[577]: the Persians also had the greatest\nconfidence therein. Like the Chaldeans, they founded all magical power\nupon its efficacy. They still possess today certain kinds of prayers\nfor conjuring maladies and driving away demons. These prayers, which\nthey name _tavids_, are written upon strips of paper and carried after\nthe manner of talismans.[578] It is quite well-known that the modern\nJews use them in the same way. In this they imitate, as in innumerable\nother things, the ancient Egyptians whose secret doctrine Moses has\ntransmitted to them.[579] The early Christians were inclined to\ntheosophical ideas on this subject. Origen explains it clearly in\nspeaking of the virtue attached to certain names invoked by the\nEgyptian sages and the most enlightened of the magians of Persia.[580]\nSynesius, the famous Bishop of Ptolema\u00efs, initiated into the\nmysteries, declares that the science, by means of which one linked the\nintelligible essences to sentient forms, by the invocation of spirits,\nwas neither vain nor criminal, but on the contrary quite innocent and\nfounded upon the nature of things.[581] Pythagoras was accused of\nmagic. Ignorance and weakness of mind have always charged science with\nthis banal accusation.[582] This philosopher, rightly placed in the\nrank of the ablest physicians of Greece,[583] was, according to his\nmost devoted disciples, neither of the number of the gods, nor even of\nthose of the divine heroes; he was a man whom virtue and wisdom had\nadorned with a likeness to the gods, by the complete purifying of his\nunderstanding which had been effected through contemplation and\nprayer.[584] This is what Lysis expressed by the following lines:\n\n\n     27. _Instructed by them, naught shall then deceive thee;\n          Of diverse beings thou shalt sound the essence;\n          And thou shalt know the principle and end of All._\n\nThat is to say, that the true disciple of Pythagoras, placed _en\nrapport_ with the gods through contemplation, arrived at the highest\ndegree of perfection, called in the mysteries, autopsy; saw fall\nbefore him the false veil which until then had hidden Truth, and\ncontemplated Nature in its remotest sources. It is necessary, in order\nto attain to this sublime degree, that the intelligence, penetrated by\nthe divine ray of inspiration, should fill the understanding with a\nlight intense enough to dissipate all the illusions of the senses, to\nexalt the soul and release it wholly from things material. Thus it was\nexplained by Socrates and Plato.[585] These philosophers and their\nnumerous disciples put no limit to the advantages of autopsy, or\ntheophany, as they sometimes named this highest degree of the telestic\nscience. They believed that the contemplation of God could be carried\nso far during this same life, that the soul became not only united to\nthis Being of beings, but that it was mingled and blended with it.\nPlotinus boasted having experienced the joy of this beatific vision\nfour times, according to Porphyry, who himself claimed to have been\nhonoured with it at the age of sixty-eight.[586] The great aim of the\nmysteries was to teach the initiates the possibility of this union of\nman with God, and to indicate to them the means. All initiations, all\nmythological doctrines, tended only to alleviate the soul of the\nweight of material things, to purify it, so that, desirous of\nspiritual welfare, and being projected beyond the circle of\ngenerations, it could rise to the source of its existence.[587] If one\nexamines carefully the different cults which still dominate upon\nearth, one will see that they have not been animated by any other\nspirit. The knowledge of the Being of beings has been offered\neverywhere as the aim of wisdom; its similitude, as the crown of\nperfection; and its enjoyment, as the object of all desires and the\ngoal of all efforts. The enumeration of its infinite faculties has\nvaried; but when one has dared fix one\u2019s attention upon the unity of\nits essence, one has always defined it as has Pythagoras: the\nprinciple and the end of all things.\n\n     The Spirit whence proceed the created beings [say the\n     Brahmans], by which they live after being emanated from it,\n     toward which they aspire, and in which they are finally\n     absorbed, this Spirit is that, to the knowledge of which\n     thou shouldst aspire, the Great Being.[588]\u2015\u2015The Universe is\n     one of its forms.[589]\u2015\u2015It is the Being of beings: without\n     form, without quality, without passion; immense,\n     incomprehensible, infinite, indivisible, incorporal,\n     irresistible: no intelligence can conceive of its operations\n     and its will suffices to move all intelligences.[590]\u2015\u2015It is\n     the Truth and the Science which never perish.[591]\u2015\u2015Its\n     wisdom, its power, and its plan, are as an immense and\n     limitless sea which no being is in condition either to\n     traverse or to fathom. There is no other God than it. The\n     Universe is filled with its immensity. It is the principle\n     of all things without having principles.[592] God is\n     one,[593] eternal, like unto a perfect sphere which has\n     neither beginning nor end. He rules and governs all that\n     exists by a general providence, resultant of fixed and\n     determined principles. Man ought not to seek to penetrate\n     the nature or the essence of this Ineffable Being: such a\n     research is vain and criminal.\u2015\u2015\n\nThus do the Hindu sages express themselves in sundry places. They\ncommend aspiring to the knowledge of the Being of beings, making\noneself worthy to be absorbed in its bosom; and forbid, at the same\ntime, seeking to penetrate its nature. I have already said that such\nwas the doctrine of the mysteries. I am about to add an important\nreflection in order to cast some light upon a doctrine which, at first\nglance, appears contradictory.\n\nMan, who aspires by the inner movement of his will, to attain to the\nhighest degree of human perfection, and who, by the purification of\nhis understanding, and the acquisition of celestial virtues, puts\nhimself in a state to receive the truth, must observe that the higher\nhe rises in the intelligible sphere, the nearer he approaches to the\nunfathomable Being whose contemplation must make his happiness, the\nless he can communicate the knowledge of it to others; for truth,\ncoming to him under intelligible forms more and more universalized,\ncan never be contained in the rational or sentient forms that he might\ngive it. Here is the point where many mystic contemplators have gone\nastray. As they had never adequately fathomed the triple modification\nof their being, and as they had not known the intimate composition of\nthe human Quaternary, they were ignorant of the manner in which the\ntransformation of ideas was made, as much in the ascendant progression\nas in the descendant progression; so that, confusing continually\nunderstanding and intelligence, and making no difference between the\nproducts of their will according as it acted in one or the other of\nits modifications, they often showed the opposite of what they\nintended to show; and instead of the seers that they might, perhaps,\nhave been, they became visionaries. I could give a great many examples\nof these aberrations; but I will limit myself to a single one, because\nthe man who furnishes it for me, immeasurably great on the side of\nintelligence, lacked understanding and felt keenly himself, the\nweakness of his reason. This man, whose audacious gaze has penetrated\nas far as the divine sanctuary, is a German shoemaker of obscure\nbirth, called Jacob Boehme. The rusticity of his mind, the roughness\nof his character, and more than all that, the force and the number of\nhis prejudices, render his works almost unintelligible and therefore\nrepel the savants. But when one has the patience and talent necessary\nto separate the pure gold from its dross and from its alloy, one can\nfind there things which are nowhere else. These things, which present\nthemselves nearly always under the oddest and most absurd forms, have\ntaken them by passing from his intelligence to his instinct, without\nhis reason having had the force to oppose itself. This is how he\nartlessly expresses this transformation of ideas: \u201cNow that I have\nraised myself so high, I dare not look back for fear that giddiness\nmay seize me \u2026 for as long as I ascend, I am convinced of my impulse;\nbut it is not the same when I turn my head and when I wish to descend;\nthen I am troubled, I am bewildered, it seems to me that I shall\nfall.\u201d[594] And in truth he fell so rapidly that he did not perceive,\neither the terrible disparity between his ideas and his expressions,\nnor the manifest contradictions into which his prejudices had drawn\nhim.\n\nThese grave disadvantages, which do not strike the vulgar, were\nperfectly understood and appreciated by the sages. The institutors of\nthe mysteries were not ignorant of them and it is for this that they\nhad imposed the most absolute silence upon the initiates and\nparticularly upon the epopts, to whom they gave their highest\nteachings. They made them feel readily that intelligible things can\nonly become sentient by being transformed, and that this\ntransformation requires a talent and an authority even, which cannot\nbe the appanage of all men.\n\nI am now at the close of my reflection. The diverse cults established\nupon earth are but the transformations of ideas; that is to say,\nparticular forms of religion, by means of which a theocratic\nlegislator or theosophic sage renders sentient that which is\nintelligible, and puts within reach of all men what, without these\nforms, would have been only within reach of a very small number; now,\nthese transformations can only be effected in three ways, according to\nthe three faculties of the human Ternary; the fourth, which concerns\nits Quaternary or its relative unity, being impossible. I beg the\nreader to recall what I have said, touching the intimate composition\nand movement of this Quaternary, and grant me a little attention.\n\nThe aim of all the cults being to conduct to the knowledge of the\nDivinity, they differ only by the route that they travel in its\nattainment, and this route depends always upon the manner in which the\nDivinity has been considered by the founder of the cult. If this\nfounder has considered it in his intelligence, he has seen the\nDivinity in its universal modifications, and, therefore, triple, as\nthe Universe; if he has considered it in his understanding, he has\nseen it in its creative principles, and, therefore, double as Nature;\nif he has considered it in his instinct, he has seen it in its\nfaculties and its attributes, and, therefore, infinite, as Matter; if\nhe has considered it, finally, in its proper volitive unity, acting at\nonce in its three modifications, he has seen this same Divinity\naccording to the force and movement of his thought, either in its\nabsolute essence or in its universal essence; that is, One in its\ncause, or One in its effects. Examine closely what I have said and see\nif there exists a single cult upon the face of the earth that you may\nnot connect with one of the kinds whose origin I have indicated.\n\nI have said that the Divinity, considered in the human intelligence,\nis shown under the emblem of the universal Ternary; hence all the\ncults which are dominated by three principal gods as in India,[595] in\nGreece and in Italy,[596] three principal modifications in the same\nGod, as in China,[597] in Japan, in Tibet and among the considerable\nfollowers of Fo-Hi or Buddha.[598] This cult, which has been called\nthat of the _Tritheists_, is one of the most widespread on earth, and\none which has mingled most easily with the others. It pleases the\nimagination and gives to wisdom great power to rise to intelligible\ntruths.\n\nI have said that the Divinity, considered in the human understanding,\nis manifest under the emblem of two natural principles: hence, all the\ncults wherein two opposed beings appear, as in the cult of Zoroaster.\nThis cult, which is rarely encountered as pure as among the ancient\nPersians, or among the followers of Manes, mingles readily with\ntritheism and even polytheism: it was quite recognizable in Egypt and\namong the Scandinavians, and much more involved among the Indians,\nGreeks, and Latins. This cult could be considered as a natural\n_Diarchy_, and those who follow it, _Diarchists_. Judgment and reason\nconform very well in it; one also sees ordinarily, profound reasoners\nand skeptics, inclining there _nolens volens_.[599] Its abuse leads to\natheism; but it offers great means, when one knows how to make good\nuse of it, to penetrate the essence of things and succeed to the\nexplanation of natural phenomena.\n\nAgain I say, that the Divinity considered in the instinct is presented\nunder the emblem of material infinity: hence, all cults where, by a\ncontrary movement, the intelligible becomes sentient and the sentient\nintelligible; as when the attributes and faculties of the Divinity are\nparticularized and personified, and as the agents of Nature, the parts\nof the Universe and the individual beings themselves, are deified.\nThis cult, to which I have given the name of _Polytheism_, is\neverywhere, under different forms and under different names, the\nportion of the vulgar. More or less apparent it insinuates itself in\nthe midst of the other two, multiplies the images of the intellectual\nmodifications and the natural principles, and whatever attentions the\ntheosophists bring to forestall its invasion, end by stifling utterly\nthe spirit of it beneath the material covering which envelops them.\nThis cult, the cradle of all religions, with which the other two can\nnever entirely dispense, which nourishes and lives in their life, is\nalso the tomb. It pleases singularly that faculty of man which is\ndeveloped first, sense perception; it aids the development of instinct\nand can, by the sole medium of common sense, lead to the knowledge of\nthe natural principles. Its abuse precipitates peoples into idolatry\nand superstition; its good use arouses the talents and gives birth to\nheroic virtues. One becomes artist or hero through the exaltation of\nPolytheism; savant or philosopher through that of Diarchy; and sage or\ntheosophist through that of Tritheism. These three cults, whether pure\nor variously mixed, are the only ones in which transformation may be\npossible; that is to say, which may be clothed in ostensible forms and\nenclosed in any sort of ritual. The fourth cult, which is founded upon\nthe absolute unity of God, is not transformable. This is the reason.\n\nThe Divinity considered in the volitive unity of man, acting at the\nsame time in its principal faculties, is manifested finally, in its\nabsolute essence, or in its universal essence; One in its cause, or\nOne in its effects: thence, not only all public cults, but all secret\nmysteries, all doctrines mystic and contemplative; for how can that\nwhich has no likeness to anything be represented? How render sentient\nthat which is beyond all intelligence? What expressions will be\nconsistent with that which is inexpressible, with that which is more\nineffable than silence itself? What temples will one raise to that\nwhich is incomprehensible, inaccessible, unfathomable? The\ntheosophists and sages have realized these difficulties; they have\nseen that it was necessary to suppress all discourse, to set aside all\nsimulacra: to renounce all enclosures, to annihilate finally all\nsentient objects or to be exposed to give false ideas of the absolute\nessence of a Being that neither time nor space can contain. Many have\ndared the undertaking. One knows, in delving into ages long since\npast, that the ancient Magians of Persia erected no temple and set up\nno statue.[600] The Druids acted in the same manner.[601] The former\ninvoked the Principle of all things upon the summits of mountains; the\nlatter, in the depths of the forests. Both deemed it unworthy of the\ndivine Majesty to enclose it within precincts and to represent it by a\nmaterial image.[602] It even appears that the early Romans shared this\nopinion.[603] But this cult, entirely intellectual and destitute of\nforms, could not subsist long. Perceptible objects were needed by the\npeople, on which they might place their ideas. These objects, even in\nspite of the legislator who sought to proscribe them, insinuated\nthemselves.[604] Images, statues, temples were multiplied\nnotwithstanding the laws which prohibited them. At that time if the\ncult did not undergo a salutary reform, it was changed, either into a\ngross anthropomorphism, or into an absolute materialism: that is to\nsay, that a man of the people being unable to rise to the divine\nUnity, drew it down to his level; and the savant, being unable to\ncomprehend it and believing nevertheless to grasp it, confused it with\nNature.\n\nIt was to evade this inevitable catastrophe that the sages and\ntheosophists had, as I have said, made a mystery of the Unity of God,\nand had concealed it in the inmost recesses of the sanctuaries. It was\nonly after many trials, and not until the initiate was judged worthy\nto be admitted to the sublime degree of autopsy, that the last veil\nwas lifted to his gaze, and the principle and end of all things, the\nBeing of beings, in all its unfathomable Unity, was delivered to his\ncontemplation.[605]\n\n\n     28. _If Heaven wills it, thou shalt know that Nature,\n          Alike in everything, is the same in every place._\n\nI have already said that the homogeneity of Nature was, with the unity\nof God, one of the greatest secrets of the mysteries. Pythagoras\nfounded this homogeneity upon the unity of the spirit by which it is\npenetrated and from which, according to him, all our souls draw their\norigin.[606] This dogma which he had received from the Chaldeans and\nfrom the priests of Egypt was admitted by all the sages of antiquity,\nas is proved at great length by Stanley and the astute Beausobre.[607]\nThese sages established a harmony, a perfect analogy between heaven\nand earth, the intelligible and the sentient, the indivisible\nsubstance and the divisible substance; in such a manner that that\nwhich took place in one of the regions of the Universe or of the\nmodifications of the primordial Ternary was the exact image of that\nwhich took place in the other. This idea is found very forcibly\nrevealed by the ancient Thoth, called _Hermes Trismegistus_,[608] by\nthe Greeks, in the table of Emerald which is attributed to him.\n\n     In truth, and without fiction, in truth, in truth, I say to\n     you, that things inferior are like unto the superior; both\n     unite their invincible forces to produce one sole thing, the\n     most marvellous of all, and as all things are emanated by\n     the will of one unique God, thus all things whatsoever must\n     be engendered by this sole thing,\u2015\u2015by a disposition of\n     Universal nature.[609]\n\nI must say, however, that it is upon the homogeneity of Nature that\nwere founded in the principle all the so-called occult sciences of\nwhich the principal four, relating to the human Quaternary, were\nTheurgy, Astrology, Magic, and Chemistry.[610] I have already spoken\nof the astrological science, and I have given sufficient evidence of\nwhat I think regarding the ridiculous and petty ideas concerning it\nthat the modems have conceived. I will refrain from speaking of the\nother three, on account of the prolixities into which the discussions\nthat they would provoke might lure me. In another work I will\nendeavour to show that the principles upon which they were supported\ndiffered greatly from those which superstition and blind credulity\nhave given them in times of ignorance; and that the sciences taught to\nthe initiates in the ancient sanctuaries, under the names of Theurgy,\nMagic, or Chemistry, differed much from what the vulgar have\nunderstood in later times by the same words.\n\n\n     29. _So that, as to thy true rights enlightened,\n          Thine heart shall no more feed on vain desires._\n\nThat is to say, that the disciple of Pythagoras, having attained\nthrough knowledge of himself to that of truth, ought to judge sanely\nof the possibility or impossibility of things, and to find in wisdom\nitself that just mean which he has found in virtue and in science.\nEqually distant from that blind credulity which admits and seeks\nwithout reflection the things most incompatible with the laws of\nNature, and from that presumptuous ignorance which rejects and denies\nwithout examination all those things which issue from the narrow\ncircle of its empirical notions; he should understand with exactness\nthe limits and the forces of Nature, know instantly what is contained\ntherein or what exceeds them, and not form any vow, any project, or\nany enterprise beyond his power.\n\n\n     30. _Thou shalt see that the evils which devour men\n          Are of their choice the fruit.\u2026_\n\nUndoubtedly one of the most important things for man to understand is\nthe nearest cause of his evils, so that, ceasing from murmuring\nagainst Providence, he may blame only himself for the misfortunes of\nwhich he is the proper artisan. Ignorance, always weak and\npresumptuous, concealing its own mistakes, holds responsible, with\ntheir consequences, the things which are most foreign there: thus the\nchild which hurts itself, threatens with his voice and strikes with\nhis hand the wall against which he has stumbled. Of all errors this is\nthe most common. Likewise he acknowledges with as much difficulty his\nown wrongs as he accuses with ease those of others. This baleful habit\nof imputing to Providence the evils which afflict humanity has\nfurnished, as we have seen, the strongest arguments to the skeptics to\nattack its influence, and to undermine thus in its foundation the very\nexistence of the Divinity. All peoples have been guilty of this[611];\nbut the moderns are, as I believe, the only ones who coldly and\nwithout passion, in order to sustain certain opinions that they have\nembraced, have raised systematically their ignorance concerning the\ncause of evil, and made an irresistible fatality proceed from the\nAll-Powerful and divine Prescience, which drawing man on to vice and\nmisfortune, damns him by force; and by a consequence determined by the\nwill of God, delivers him to eternal sufferings.[612] Such were those\namong the Christians of the fifth century, who were named\nPredestinarians on account of their terrible system. Their opinion, it\nis true, was condemned by the councils of Arles and Lyon[613]; but\nthey declared that the church fell into inconsistency, since the\nsentiment in this respect, being exactly conformable with that which\nSaint Augustine had advanced against the Pelagians, this church could\nnot condemn the one without condemning the other and therefore,\nwithout deciding in favour of the opposed doctrine which they had\nalready condemned. It is certain that the Predestinarians were right\non this last point, as well as Gotescalc, Baius, and Jansenius, who,\nwith the book of Saint Augustine in hand, proved it later on, by\ncausing in this church, at different times, troubles more or less\nviolent on the subject.\n\nThis is the moment to complete the proofs of what I advanced in my\nSeventh Examination, that the liberty of man can be established only\nby the sole theosophical tradition, and the assent that all the sages\nof the earth have given to it; and that there is no doctrine, which,\nbecoming separated, does not abandon the Universe to the irresistible\nimpulse of an absolute fatality. I have shown sufficiently the\nemptiness of all the cosmogonical systems, whether their authors have\nfounded them upon a sole principle or upon two, upon spirit or upon\nmatter; I have sufficiently indicated the danger that would have\nensued from divulging the secret dogma of divine Unity, since this\ndisclosure drew with it the necessity of explaining the origin of Good\nand Evil, which was impossible; I have cited the example of Moses, and\nI have demonstrated as a decisive point in this matter that those of\nhis followers who rejected the oral tradition of this great man, to\nattach themselves to the literal meaning only of his Sepher, fell into\nfatalism and were led to make God himself the author of Evil; finally\nI have announced that Christianity and Islamism, issuing alike from\nthe Mosaic doctrine, have not been able to evade the dogma of\npredestination: this dogma, although often repulsed by the Christian\nand Mussulman doctors, alarmed at its consequences, is shown, none the\nless, from the facts. The Koran which teaches it openly exempts me\nfrom other proofs in defence of the Mussulmans. Let us turn to the\nChristians.\n\nIt is certain that one of the greatest men of the primitive church,\nOrigen, perceiving to what consequences the explanation of the origin\nof Evil led, by the way in which it was vulgarly understood, according\nto the literal translation of the Sepher of Moses, undertook to bring\nall back to allegory, recalling Christianity being born to the\ntheosophical tradition pertaining to the free will of man[614]; but\nhis books, wherein he exposed this tradition according to the doctrine\nof Pythagoras and Plato,[615] were burned as heretical, by the order\nof Pope Gelasius.[616] The church at that time paid little attention\nto the blow dealt by Origen, occupied as it was with examining the\nprincipal dogmas of incarnation, of the divinity of Jesus, of the\nconsubstantiality of the Word, of the Unity of its person and the\nduality of its nature; but when, following the energetic expression of\nPlucquet, the flame of conflagration had passed over all these\nopinions, and when the waves of blood had drenched the ashes, it was\nnecessary to offer new food for its activity. An English monk named\nPelagius,[617] born with an ardent and impetuous mind, was the\nforemost to attack this thorny question of the liberty of man, and,\nwishing to establish it, was led to deny original sin.\n\n     Man [he said] is free to do good or evil: he who tries to\n     lay the blame of his vices on the weakness of nature, is\n     unjust: for what is sin, in general? Is it a thing that one\n     may evade, or not? If one cannot evade it, there is no evil\n     in committing it and then it does not exist: if one can\n     evade it, it must be evil to commit it and therefore it\n     exists: its very existence is born of the free will, and\n     proves it.[618] The dogma of original sin [continued\n     Pelagius] is absurd and unjust to God; for a creature which\n     does not exist would not be an accomplice of a bad action;\n     and it outrages divine justice, to say that God punishes him\n     as guilty of this action.[619] Man [added Pelagius] has\n     therefore a real power of doing good and evil, and he is\n     free in these two respects. But the liberty of doing a thing\n     supposes necessarily the union of all causes and of all\n     conditions requisite for doing that thing; and one is not\n     free regarding an effect, every time that one of the causes\n     or conditions naturally exigent for producing this effect is\n     lacking. Therefore, to have the liberty of seeing the\n     subjects, it is necessary not only that the sense of sight\n     be well developed, but also that the subjects be\n     discriminated, and placed at an equitable distance.[620]\n\nThis far, the doctrine of Pelagius was wholly similar to that of\nPythagoras, as explained by Hierocles[621]; but it differs from it\nafterwards, in what the English monk asserted, that since man is born\nwith the liberty of doing good and evil, he receives from nature and\nunites in him all the conditions and all the causes naturally\nnecessary for good and evil; which robs him of his most beautiful\nprerogative,\u2015\u2015perfectibility; whereas Pythagoras held, on the\ncontrary, that these causes and these effects were only accorded to\nthose who, on their part, concurred in acquiring them, and who, by the\nwork that they have done for themselves in seeking to know themselves,\nhave succeeded in possessing them more and more perfectly.\n\nHowever mitigated the doctrine of Pelagius might be, it appeared still\nto accord too much with free will and was condemned by the\necclesiastical authorities, who declared, through the medium of\nseveral councils, that man can do nothing of himself without the aid\nof grace. Saint Augustine, who had been the soul of these councils,\npressed by the disciple of Pelagius to explain the nature of this\ngrace and to say how God accorded it to one man rather than to another\nwithout being induced by the difference of their merits, replied that\nman being in the _masse de perdition_, and God having no need of them,\nand being furthermore independent and all-powerful, he gave grace to\nwhom he willed, without the one to whom he did not give it having the\nright to complain; everything coming to pass as a result of his will,\nwhich had foreseen all and determined all.[622] Assuredly one could\nnot establish more forcibly the necessity of all things, nor submit\nmen to a sterner fatality, since the want of grace deprived them, not\nonly of virtue in the fleeting course of this life, but delivered them\nwithout hope to the torments of an eternal hell. But Saint Augustine,\nwho obeyed a severe and consistent reason, felt very well that he\ncould not speak otherwise, without renouncing the dogma of original\nsin and overthrowing the foundation of Christianity. All the rigid\nChristians, all those who, at different times, have undertaken to\nrestore Christianity to its constitutive principles, have thought as\nSaint Augustine, and although the church, alarmed at the terrible\ninferences that were drawn from the canonical doctrine, may have\nessayed to temper it, by condemning, as I have said, the\nPredestinarians and by approving of the persecutions directed against\nGotescalc; and, at the time when Luther drew in his reform a great\npart of Christendom toward the dogma of predestination, this did not\nprevent Baius, who remained faithful to orthodoxy, from preaching the\nsame dogma; nor Calvin, soon after, from adding new lights to what\nLuther had left doubtful, and Jansenius, finally, corroborating what\nBaius had only outlined, from raising in the very midst of the church\nthat formidable faction which all the united efforts of the Pope and\nthe Jesuits have been unable to convict of erring in the doctrine of\nSaint Augustine, which it has sustained with a force worthy of a\nbetter cause.\n\nAccording to Calvin, who of all of them expresses himself most\nclearly, the soul of man, all of whose faculties are infected with\nsin, lacks force to resist the temptation which lures him on toward\nevil. The liberty of which he prides himself is a chimera; he\nconfounds the free with the voluntary, and believes that he chooses\nfreely because there is no constraint, and that he wills to do the\nevil that he does.[623] Thus following the doctrine of this reformer,\nman, dominated by his vicious passions, can produce of himself only\nwicked actions; and it is to draw him from this state of corruption\nand impotence that it was necessary that God should send his son upon\nearth to redeem him and to atone for him; so that it is from the\nabsence of liberty in man that Calvin draws his strongest proofs of\nthe coming of Christ: \u201cFor,\u201d he said, \u201cif man had been free, and if he\nhad been able to save himself, it would not have been needful that God\nshould offer up his Son in sacrifice.\u201d[624]\n\nThis last argument seems irresistible. Besides when the Jesuits had\naccused Calvin and his followers of making God the author of sin, and\nof destroying thus all idea of the Divinity[625] they knew better than\nto say how it can be otherwise accomplished. They would not have been\nable, without doing a thing impossible for them\u2015\u2015that is, without\ngiving the origin of evil. The difficulty of this explanation, which\nMoses, even as I have said, has enveloped with a triple veil, has in\nno wise escaped the fathers of the primitive church. They have well\nfelt that it was the important point whereon depended the solution of\nall other questions. But how can one attempt even the explanation? The\nmost enlightened among them had agreed that it is an abyss of nature\nthat one would not know how to fathom.[626]\n\n     31. \u2026 _that these unfortunates\n            Seek afar the goodness whose source within they bear_.\n\nThe source of all goodness is wisdom, and wisdom begins with the\nknowledge of oneself. Without this knowledge, one aspires in vain to\nreal goodness. But how is it obtainable? If you interrogate Plato upon\nthis important point, he will respond to you, that it is in going back\nto the essence of things\u2015\u2015that is to say, in considering that which\nconstitutes man in himself. \u201cA workman, you will say to this\nphilosopher, is not the same thing as the instrument which he uses;\nthe one who plays the lyre differs from the lyre upon which he plays.\nYou will readily agree to this, and the philosopher, pursuing his\nreasoning, will add: And the eyes with which this musician reads his\nmusic, and the hands with which he holds his lyre, are they not also\ninstruments? Can you deny, if the eyes, if the hands are instruments,\nthat the whole body may likewise be an instrument, different from the\nbeing who makes use of it and who commands?\u201d Unquestionably no, and\nyou will comprehend sufficiently that this being, by which man is\nreally man, is the soul, the knowledge of which you ought to seek.\n\u201cFor,\u201d Plato will also tell you, \u201che who knows his body, only knows\nthat it is his, and is not himself. To know his body as a physician or\nas a sculptor, is an art, to know his soul, as a sage, is a science\nand the greatest of all sciences.\u201d[627]\n\nFrom the knowledge of himself man passes to that of God; and it is in\nfixing this model of all perfection that he succeeds in delivering\nhimself from the evils which he has attracted by his own choice.[628]\nHis deliverance depends, according to Pythagoras, upon virtue and upon\ntruth.[629] The virtue, that he acquires by purification, tempers and\ndirects the passions; the truth, which he attains by his union with\nthe Being of beings, dissipates the darkness with which his\nintelligence is obsessed; and both of them, acting jointly in him,\ngive him the divine form, according as he is disposed to receive it,\nand guide him to supreme felicity.[630] But how difficult to obtain\nthis desired goal!\n\n\n     32. _For few know happiness: playthings of the passions,\n          Hither, thither tossed by adverse waves,\n          Upon a shoreless sea, they blinded roll,\n          Unable to resist or to the tempest yield._\n\nLysis shows in these lines what are the greatest obstacles to the\nhappiness of man. They are the passions: not the passions in\nthemselves, but the evil effects that they produce by the disordered\nmovement that the understanding allows them to take. It is to this\nthat the attention must be directed so that one should not fall into\nthe error of the Stoics. Pythagoras, as I have said, did not command\nhis disciples to destroy their passions, but to moderate their ardour,\nand to guide them well. \u201cThe passions,\u201d said this philosopher, \u201care\ngiven to be aids to reason; it is necessary that they be its servants\nand not its masters.\u201d This is a truth that the Platonists and even the\nPeripatetics have recognized, by the evidence of Hierocles.[631] Thus\nPythagoras regarded the passions as instruments of which the\nunderstanding makes use in raising the intellectual edifice. A man\nutterly deprived of them would resemble a mass inert and immovable in\nthe course of life; it is true that he might be able not to become\ndepraved, but then he could not enjoy his noblest advantage, which is\nperfectibility. Reason is established in the understanding to hold\nsway over the passions; it must command them with absolute\nsovereignty, and make them tend towards the end that wisdom indicates.\nIf it should not recognize the laws that intelligence gives it, and\nif, presumptuously, it wishes, instead of acting according to given\nprinciples, to lay down principles itself, it falls into excess, and\nmakes man superstitious or skeptic, fanatic or atheist; if, on the\ncontrary, it receives laws from the passions that it ought to rule,\nand if weak it allows itself to be subjugated by them, it falls into\nerror and renders man stupid or mad, brutish in vice, or audacious in\ncrime. There are no true reasonings except those admitted by wisdom;\nthe false reasonings must be considered as the cries of an insensate\nsoul, given over to the movements of an anarchical reason which the\npassions confuse and blind.[632]\n\nPythagoras considered man as holding the mean between things\nintellectual and sentient, the lowest of the superior beings and the\nhighest of the inferior, free to move either toward the heights or the\ndepths, by means of his passions, which bring into action the\nascending or descending movement that his will possesses with\npotentiality; sometimes being united with the immortals and, through\nhis return to virtue, recovering the lot which is his own, and other\ntimes plunging again into mortal kind and through transgression of the\ndivine laws finding himself fallen from his dignity.[633] This\nopinion, which had been that of all the sages who had preceded\nPythagoras, has been that of all the sages who have followed him, even\nof those among the Christian theosophists whose religious prejudices\nhave removed them farthest from his doctrine. I shall not stop to give\nthe proofs of its antiquity; they are to be found everywhere, and\nwould be superfluous. Thomas Burnet, having vainly sought for the\norigin without being able to discover it, decided that it was\nnecessary that it should descend from heaven.[634] It is certain that\none can only with difficulty explain how a man without erudition, like\nBoehme, never having received this opinion from anyone, has been able\nto explain it so clearly. \u201cWhen one sees man existing,\u201d says this\ntheosophist, \u201cone can say: Here all Eternity is manifested in one\nimage.\u201d[635]\n\n     The abode of this being is an intermediate point between\n     heaven and hell, love and anger; that, of the things to\n     which he is attached, becomes his kind.\u2026 If he inclines\n     toward the celestial nature, he assumes a celestial form,\n     and the human form becomes infernal if he inclines toward\n     hell; for as the mind is, so is the body. In whatever way\n     the mind projects itself, it shadows forth its body with a\n     similar form and a similar source.[636]\n\nIt is upon this principle, which one finds still everywhere diversely\nexpressed, that the dogma of the transmigration of souls is founded.\nThis dogma, explained in the ancient mysteries,[637] and received by\nall peoples,[638] has been to such an extent disfigured in what the\nmoderns have called _Metempsychosis_, that it would be necessary to\nexceed considerably the limits of these Examinations in order to give\nan explanation which could be understood. Later I will endeavour to\nexpose my sentiment upon this mystery, when I treat of Theurgy and\nother occult sciences to which it is allied.\n\n\n     33. _God! Thou couldst save them by opening their eyes._\n\nLysis here approaches openly one of the greatest difficulties of\nnature, that which in all time has furnished to the skeptics and to\nthe atheists the weapons that they have believed most formidable.\nHierocles has not concealed it in his Commentaries, and he expresses\nit in these terms: \u201cIf God is able to bring back all men to virtue and\nto happiness, and if he does not will to do so, is God therefore\nunjust and wicked? Or if he wills to bring them back and if he is\nunable, is God therefore weak and impotent?\u201d[639] Long before\nHierocles, Epicurus seized upon this argument to support his system,\nand had extended it without augmenting its force. His design had been\nto prove by its means that, according as he had advanced it, God does\nnot interfere with the things of this world, and that there is,\nconsequently, no Providence.[640] Lactantius, thinking that he was\nanswering this, has quoted from Epicurus and has afforded Bayle, the\nmost learned and the most formidable of modern skeptics, the occasion\nfor demonstrating that, until now, this terrible argument had remained\nunrefuted notwithstanding all the efforts made for its overthrow.\n\nThis indefatigable reasoner said:\n\n     The evil exists; man is wicked and unhappy: everything\n     proves this sad truth. History is, properly speaking, only a\n     miscellany of the crimes and adversities of mankind.\n     However, at intervals, there have been seen shining some\n     examples of virtue and happiness. There is, therefore, a\n     mixture of evils and of moral and physical goodness.\u2026 Now,\n     if man is the work of a sole principle, sovereignly good,\n     sovereignly holy, sovereignly potential, how is he exposed\n     to the maladies of cold, heat, hunger, thirst, pain, and\n     sorrow? How has he so many wicked inclinations? How does he\n     commit so many crimes? Can the sovereign sanctity produce a\n     criminal creature? Can the sovereign bounty produce an\n     unfortunate creature?[641]\n\nBayle, content with his anti-providential declaration, believes that\nhe has triumphed over all the dogmatists of the world; but whilst he\nrecovers his breath, observe that he admits a mixture of good and\nevil, and allow him to continue.\n\n\u201cOrigen,\u201d he said, \u201casserts that evil has come from the wicked use of\nthe free will. And why has God allowed man to have so pernicious a\nfree will?\u201d \u201cBecause,\u201d Origen answers, \u201can intelligent creature who\nhad not enjoyed free will would have been immutable and immortal as\nGod.\u201d What pitiable reason! Is it that the glorified souls, the\nsaints, are equal to God, being predestined to good, and deprived of\nwhat is called _free will_, which, according to Saint Augustine, is\nonly the possibility of evil when the divine grace does not incline\nman towards the good?[642]\n\nBayle, after several outbursts of this sort, finishes by declaring\nthat the way in which evil is introduced under the rule of a sovereign\nbeing, infinitely good, infinitely potential, infinitely holy, is not\nonly inexplicable but even incomprehensible.[643] Bayle is right on\nthis point; also I have always said, in the course of this work, that\nthe origin of evil, comprehensible or not, could never be divulged.\nBut the matter of the origin of evil is not the question here. Bayle\nwas too good a reasoner not to have felt it, not to have seen that the\nargument of Epicurus, and all the elocution with which he furnished\nit, did not bear upon the cause of evil itself, but upon its effects;\nwhich is quite different. Epicurus did not demand that the origin of\nevil be explained to him, but the local existence of its effects\u2015\u2015that\nis to say, one should state clearly to him, that if God was able and\nwilling to take away the evil from the world, or to prevent it from\npenetrating there, why he did not do so. When any one\u2019s house is the\nprey of flames, one is not so insensate as to be concerned with\nknowing what the essence of the fire is, and why it burns in general,\nbut why it burns in particular; and why, being able to extinguish it,\none has not done so. Bayle, I repeat, was too clever a logician not to\nhave perceived this. This distinction was too simple to have escaped\nhim; but seeing that its very simplicity had concealed it from the\ndoctors of the Christian church, he was content to affect an ignorance\nof it to his adversaries, to have the pleasure, so precious to a\nskeptic such as he, of seeing them one after another exhaust\nthemselves upon the argument of Epicurus:\n\n     God, whether he wills to take away evil, and can not;\n     whether he can and does not will to; whether he does not\n     will it nor can; whether he wills it and can. If he wills it\n     and can not, he is weak; which does not accord with God. If\n     he can and does not will it, he is wicked; which accords\n     with him no better. If he does not will it nor can, he is\n     wicked and weak, which could not be. If he can and wills it,\n     that which alone is worthy of his divinity, whence then come\n     the evils? Or why does he not take them away?[644]\n\nLactantius, to whom Bayle owed his argument, had thought to overthrow\nit, by saying that God, being able to take away evil, did not will it;\nso as to give to men, by its means, wisdom and virtue.[645] But the\nskeptic philosopher had no trouble to prove that this answer was worth\nnothing, and that the doctrine that it contained was monstrous; since\nit was certain that God was able to give wisdom and virtue without the\nmeans of evil; since he had even given them, following the belief of\nLactantius himself, and that it was because he had renounced them that\nman had become subject to evil. Saint Basil was no more fortunate than\nLactantius. Vainly he asserted that the free will, whence results\nevil, had been established by God himself in the design that this\nAll-powerful Being had for being loved and freely served. Bayle,\nattacking him in his own faith, asked him, if God is loved and served\nby force in Paradise, where the glorified souls do not enjoy the fatal\nprivilege of being able to sin.[646] And with the same blow with which\nhe struck him, he brought down Malebranche who had said the same\nthing.[647] The downfall of Malebranche, and the desire to avenge him,\nbestirred in vain a crowd of audacious metaphysicians. Bayle pierced\nthem one after another with the weapons of Epicurus, whose steel they\ndid not know, and died with the glory of their having said the\ngreatest piece of stupidity which could be said upon a like matter:\nnamely, that it was possible that God might prescribe another end, in\ncreating the world, than to make his creatures happy.[648]\n\nThe death of Bayle did not extinguish the ardour that his works had\nexcited. Leibnitz, justly displeased with all that had been said,\nthought he could answer the skeptic philosopher better; and raising\nhimself with a great force of genius to that pristine moment when God\nformed the decree of producing the world, he represented the Being of\nbeings choosing among an infinity of worlds, all possible, all present\nat his thought, the actual world, as most conformable to his\nattributes, the most worthy of him, the best finally, the most capable\nof attaining to the greatest and most excellent end that this\nall-perfect Being may have been able to purpose.[649] But what is this\nmagnificent and worthy end which the Divinity has chosen, this goal\nwhich not alone constitutes the actual world such as it is, but which\nalso presents it to the mind, according to the system of Leibnitz, as\nthe best of possible worlds? This philosopher does not know.\n\n     We are not able [he said] to penetrate it, for we are too\n     limited for this; we can only infer, by reasoning with the\n     insight that God has given us, that his bounty only has been\n     able to purpose, by creating the greatest possible number of\n     intelligent creatures, by endowing them with as much\n     knowledge, happiness, and beauty as the Universe might admit\n     without going away from the immutable order established by\n     his wisdom.[650]\n\nUp to this point, the system of Leibnitz sustained itself, and was\nable even to lead to a relative truth; but its work was not\naccomplished. It was necessary to explain, following the demand of\nEpicurus so much repeated by Bayle, how in this immutable order\nestablished by the divine Wisdom in this best of worlds, that physical\nand moral evil make felt such severe effects. The German philosopher,\ninstead of stopping at these effects, and stating the primordial\ncause, inaccessible to his researches, still scorned it, as had all\nthe adversaries of Bayle, and asserted that physical and moral evils\nwere necessary to maintain this immutable order, and entered into the\nplan of this best of worlds. Fatal assertion which overthrew his\nsystem instantly: for, how dares one to say that evil is necessary,\nand above all necessary not only in what is best, but in what is the\nbest possible!\n\nNow, whatever may be the primordial cause of Evil, concerning which I\ncan not nor do I wish to explain myself, until the triple veil,\nextended over this formidable mystery by Moses, may have been raised,\nI will say, according to the doctrine of Pythagoras and Plato, that\nits effects can be neither necessary, nor irresistible since they are\nnot immutable and I will reply to the much-lauded argument of\nEpicurus, that by this very thing they are neither necessary nor\nirresistible; God can and will remove them and he does remove them.\n\nAnd if certain disciples of Bayle, astonished by a reply so bold and\nso new, asked me when and how God works so great a benefit, of which\nthey have perceived no traces, I will say to them: by time and by\nmeans of perfectibility. Time is the instrument of Providence;\nperfectibility, the plan of its work; Nature, the object of its\nlabour; and Good, its result. You know, and Bayle himself agrees, that\nthere exists a mixture of good and evil: and I repeat to you here what\nI have already said[651]; and I maintain that this good emanates from\nProvidence, and is its work, and replaces in the sphere where it has\nbeen transported, an equivalent amount of evil which it has transmuted\ninto good; I maintain that this good continues augmenting itself\nunceasingly and the evil which corresponds to it, diminishing in an\nequal proportion; I maintain finally that, having left absolute evil\nand having arrived at the point where you now are, you will arrive by\nthe same road and by the same means, that is, by favour of time and of\nperfectibility, from the point where you are to absolute Good, the\ncrown of perfection. This is the answer to your question, When and how\ndoes God take away evils? Still if you claim you cannot see any of\nthis, I will reply that it is not for you, arguing with the weakness\nof your view, to deny the progress of Providence, you whose imperfect\nsenses mistake all the time even the subjects within your range, and\nfor whom the extremes are touching so forcibly, that it is impossible\nfor you to distinguish upon the same dial the movement of the needle\nwhich traverses it in a cycle, from the movement of that which\ntraverses it in less than a second; one of these needles appearing to\nyou immobile and the other not existing for you.[652]\n\nIf you deny what I affirm, bring other proofs of your denial than your\nweakness and cease, from the little corner where Nature has placed\nyou, presuming to judge its immensity. Still if you lack negative\nproofs, wait a moment more, and you shall have from me affirmative\nproofs. But if, going back, and wishing to sustain the argument of\nEpicurus which is giving way, you believe that you will succeed by\nsaying that this philosopher had not asked, in the case where God was\nable and willed to remove evils, how he removed them, but why he did\nnot remove them; I will reply to you that this question is a pure\nsophism; that the how is implicitly contained in the why, to which I\nhave replied in affirming that God, being able and willing to remove\nevils, removes them. And if you recall an objection that I have\nalready overthrown concerning the manner in which he removes them, and\nthat bringing you to judge of his ways, you would assume that he ought\nto remove them, not in a lapse of time so long that you would be\nunconscious of it, but in the twinkling of an eye; I would reply that\nthis way would be to you quite as imperceptible as the other; and that\nfurthermore, that which you demand exists, since the lapse of time of\nwhich you complain, however long it may appear to you, is less than\nthe twinkling of an eye for the Being of beings who employs it, being\nabsolutely _nihil_ compared to Eternity. And from there I will take\noccasion to tell you that evil, in the way in which it is manifest in\nthe world, being a sort of malady, God, who alone can cure it, knows\nalso the sole remedy which may be applicable to it and that this sole\nremedy is time.\n\nIt seems to me that however little attention you may have given to\nwhat I have just said, you ought to be tempted to pass on from the\nknowledge of the remedy to that of the malady; but it is in vain that\nyou would demand of me an explanation concerning its nature. This\nexplanation is not necessary to overthrow the argument of Epicurus and\nthat is all that I have wished to do. The rest depends upon you and I\ncan only repeat with Lysis:\n\n     \u201cGod! Thou couldst save them by opening their eyes.\u201d\n\n\n     34. _But no: \u2019tis for the humans of a race divine,\n          To discern Error, and to see the Truth._\n\nHierocles who, as I have said, has not concealed the difficulty which\nis contained in these lines, has raised it, by making evident that it\ndepends upon the free will of man, and by putting a limit upon the\nevils which he attracts to himself by his own choice. His reasoning\ncoinciding with mine can be reduced to these few words. The sole\nremedy for evil, whatever may be the cause, is time. Providence,\nminister of the Most High, employs this remedy; and by means of\nperfectibility which results from it, brings back all to good. But the\naptitude of the maladies for receiving it acts in proportion to this\nremedy. Time, always the same, and always _nihil_ for the Divinity is,\nhowever, shortened or lengthened for men, according as their will\ncoincides with the providential action or differs therefrom. They have\nonly to desire good, and time which fatigues them will be lightened.\nBut what if they desire evil always, will time therefore not be\nfinished? Will the evils therefore have no limit? Is it that the will\nof man is so inflexible that God may not turn it towards the good? The\nwill of man is free beyond doubt; and its essence, immutable as the\nDivinity whence it emanates, knows not how to be changed, but nothing\nis impossible for God. The change which is effected in it, without\nwhich its immutability may in no wise be altered, is the miracle of\nthe All-Powerful. It is a result of its own liberty, and if I dare to\nsay it, takes place by the coincidence of two movements, whose impulse\nis given by Providence; by the first, it shows to the will, goodness;\nby the second, it puts it in a fitting position to meet this same\ngoodness.\n\n\n     35. _Nature serves them.\u2026_\n\nLysis expresses it thus: Nature, by the homogeneity which, as I have\nstated, constitutes its essence, teaches men to see beyond the range\nof their senses, transports them by analogy from one region to another\nand develops their ideas. The perfectibility which is manifested\nthrough the grace of time is called perfection; for the more a thing\nis perfected the more perfect it becomes. The man who perceives this\nis struck by it, and if he reflect he finds truth, as I have openly\nstated, and to which Lysis was content with making allusion, on\naccount of the secret of the mysteries that he was forced to respect.\n\nIt is this perfectibility manifested in Nature, which gives the\naffirmative proofs that I have promised, touching the way in which\nProvidence removes with time the evils which afflict men. These are\nthe proofs _de facto_. They cannot be challenged without absurdity. I\nknow well that there have been men who, studying Nature within four\nwalls, and considering its operations through the extremely narrow\nprism of their ideas, have denied that anything might be perfectible,\nand have asserted that the Universe was immobile because they have not\nseen it move; but there does not exist today a genuine observer, a\nnaturalist whose learning is founded upon Nature, who does not\ninvalidate the decision of these pretended savants, and who does not\nput perfectibility in the rank of the most rigorously demonstrated\ntruths.\n\nI shall not quote the ancients on a subject where their authority\nwould be challenged; I shall even limit myself, to evade prolixities,\nto a small number of striking passages among the moderns. Leibnitz,\nwho ought less than any other to admit perfectibility, since he had\nfounded his system upon the existence of the best of worlds possible,\nhas, however, recognized it in Nature, in advancing that all the\nchanges which are operated there are the consequence of both; that\neverything tends toward its improvement, and that therefore the\npresent is already teeming with the future.[653] Buffon, inclining\nstrongly toward the system of atoms, ought also to be much opposed,\nand yet he has been unable to see that Nature, in general, tends far\nmore toward life than toward death, and that it seems to be seeking to\norganize bodies as much as is possible.[654] The school of Kant has\npushed the system of perfectibility as far as it could go. Schelling,\nthe disciple of most consequence of this celebrated man, has followed\nthe development of Nature with a force of thought which has perhaps\npassed the mark. The former, has ventured to say that Nature is a sort\nof Divinity in germ, which tends to apotheosis, and is prepared for\nexistence with God, by the reign of Chaos, and by that of\nProvidence.[655] But those are only speculative opinions. Here are\nopinions founded upon facts.\n\nAs soon as one considers the Earth observingly, the naturalists say,\none perceives striking traces of the revolutions that it has sustained\nin anterior times.[656]\n\n     The continents have not always been what they are today, the\n     waters of the globe have not always been distributed in the\n     same manner. The ocean changes insensibly its bed,\n     undermines the lands, divides them, rushes over some, and\n     leaves others dry. The islands have not always been islands.\n     The continents have been peopled, with living and vegetating\n     beings, before the present disposition of the waters upon\n     the globe.[657]\n\nThese observations confirm what Pythagoras and the ancient sages\nhave taught upon this subject[658]:\n\n     Besides [these same naturalists continue], the greater part\n     of the fossil bones that have been assembled and compared\n     are those of animals different from any of the species\n     actually known; has the kingdom of life therefore changed?\n     This one cannot refuse to believe.[659] As Nature proceeds\n     unceasingly from the simple to the composite, it is probable\n     that the most imperfect animals should have been created\n     before the tribes, higher in the scale of life. It even\n     seems that each of the animal classes indicates a sort of\n     suspension in the creative power, an intermission, an era of\n     repose, during which Nature prepared in silence the germs of\n     life which should come to light in the course of the cycles.\n     One might thus enumerate the epochs of living Nature, epochs\n     remote in the night of ages and which have been obliged to\n     precede the formation of mankind. A time may have been when\n     the insect, the shell, the unclean reptile, did not\n     recognize the master in the Universe and were placed at the\n     head of the organized bodies.[660]\n\nThese observers add:\n\n     It is certain that most perfect beings come from less\n     perfect, and that they are obliged to be perfected in the\n     sequence of generations. All animals tend towards man; all\n     vegetables aspire to animality; minerals seek to draw nearer\n     to the vegetable.\u2026 It is evident that Nature, having created\n     a series of plants and animals, and having stopped at man\n     who forms the superior extremity, has assembled in him all\n     the vital faculties that it had distributed among the\n     inferior races.[661]\n\nThese are the ideas of Leibnitz. This celebrated man had said: \u201cMen\nhold to animals; these to plants, and those to fossils. It is\nnecessary that all the natural orders form only one sole chain, in\nwhich the different classes hold strictly as if they were its\nlinks.\u201d[662] Several philosophers have adopted them,[663] but none\nhave expressed them with more order and energy than the author of the\narticle _Nature_, in _Le Nouveau Dictionnaire d\u2019Histoire naturelle_.\n\n     All animals, all plants are only the modifications of an\n     animal, of a vegetable origin.\u2026 Man is the knot which unites\n     the Divinity to matter, which links heaven and earth. This\n     ray of wisdom and intelligence which shines in his thoughts\n     is reflected upon all Nature. It is the chain of\n     communication between all beings. All the series of animals\n     [he adds in another place] present only a long degradation\n     from the proper nature of man. The monkey, considered either\n     in his exterior form or in his interior organization,\n     resembles only a degraded man; and the same suggestion of\n     degradation is observed in passing from monkeys to\n     quadrupeds; so that the primitive trend of the organization\n     is recognized in all, and the principal viscera, the\n     principal members are identical there.[664]\n\n     Who knows [observes elsewhere the same writer] who knows if\n     in the eternal night of time the sceptre of the world will\n     not pass from the hands of man into those of a being more\n     worthy of bearing it and more perfect? Perhaps the race of\n     negroes, today secondary in the human specie, has already\n     been queen of the earth before the white race was created.\u2026\n     If Nature has successively accorded the empire to the\n     species that it creates more and more perfect, why should\n     she cease today.\u2026 The negro, already king of animals, has\n     fallen beneath the yoke of the European; will the latter bow\n     the head in his turn before a race more powerful and more\n     intelligent when it enters into the plans of Nature to\n     ordain his existence? Where will his creation stop? Who will\n     place the limits of his power? God alone raises it and it is\n     His all-powerful hand which governs.[665]\n\nThese striking passages full of forceful ideas, which appear new, and\nwhich would merit being better known, contain only a small part of the\nthings taught in the ancient mysteries, as I shall perhaps demonstrate\nlater.\n\n\n    36.         \u2026 _Thou who fathomed it.\n        O wise and happy man, rest in its haven.\n        But observe my laws, abstaining from the things\n        Which thy soul must fear, distinguishing them well;\n        Letting intelligence o\u2019er thy body reign._\n\nLysis, speaking always in the name of Pythagoras, addressed himself to\nthose of the disciples of this theosophist, who had reached the\nhighest degree of perfection, or autopsy, and the felicity of their\nwelfare. I have said often enough in the course of these Examinations,\nwhat should be understood by this last degree, so that I need not\nrefer to it here. I shall not even pause upon what has reference to\nthe symbolic teachings of Pythagoras, the formularies and dietetics\nthat he gave to his disciples, and the abstinences that he prescribed\nfor them, my design being to give incidentally a particular\nexplanation of it, for the purpose of not further prolonging this\nvolume. It is well known that all of the eminent men, as many among\nthe ancients as among the moderns, all the savants commendable for\ntheir labours or their learning, are agreed in regarding the precepts\nof Pythagoras as symbolical, that is, as containing figuratively, a\nvery different meaning from that which they would seem to offer\nliterally.[666] It was the custom of the Egyptian priests from whom he\nhad imbibed them,[667] to conceal their doctrine beneath an outer\ncovering of parables and allegories.[668] The world was, in their\neyes, a vast enigma, whose mysteries, clothed in a style equally\nenigmatical, ought never to be openly divulged.[669] These priests had\nthree kinds of characters, and three ways of expressing and depicting\ntheir thoughts. The first manner of writing and of speaking was clear\nand simple; the second, figurative; and the third, symbolic. In the\nfirst, they employed characters used by all peoples and took the words\nin their literal meaning; in the second, they used hieroglyphic\ncharacters, and took the words in an indirect and metaphorical\nmeaning; finally in the third, they made use of phrases with double\nmeaning of historic and astronomical fables, or of simple\nallegories.[670] The _chef-d\u2019\u0153uvre_ of the sacerdotal art was uniting\nthese three ways, and enclosing under the appearance of a clear and\nsimple style, the vulgar, figurative, and symbolic meaning. Pythagoras\nhas sought this kind of perfection in his precepts and often he has\nsucceeded; but the one of all the theosophists instructed in the\nsanctuaries of Thebes or of Memphis, who has pushed farthest, this\nmarvellous art, is beyond doubt Moses. The first part of his Sepher,\nvulgarly called _Genesis_, and that should be called by its original\nname of _Bereshith_, is in this style, the most admirable work, the\nmost astounding feat of strength that is possible for a man to\nconceive and execute. This book, which contains all the science of the\nancient Egyptians, is still to be translated and will only be\ntranslated when one will put oneself in a condition to understand the\nlanguage in which it has primitively been composed.\n\n\n     37. _So that, ascending into radiant Ether,\n          Midst the Immortals, thou shalt be thyself a God._\n\nHere, said Hierocles, in terminating his commentaries, is the blissful\nend of all efforts: here, according to Plato, is the hope which\nenkindles, which sustains the ardour of him who fights in the career\nof virtue: here, the inestimable prize which awaits him.[671] It was\nthe great object of the mysteries, and so to speak, the great work of\ninitiation.[672] The initiate, said Sophocles, is not only happy\nduring his life, but even after his death he can promise himself an\neternal felicity.[673] His soul purified by virtue, said Pindar,\nunfolds in those blessed regions where reigns an eternal\nspringtime.[674] It goes on, said Socrates, attracted by the celestial\nelement which has the greatest affinity with its nature, to become\nunited with the immortal Gods and to share their glory and their\nimmortality.[675] This deification was, according to Pythagoras, the\nwork of divine love; it was reserved for him who had acquired truth\nthrough his intellectual faculties, virtue through his animistic\nfaculties, and purity through his instinctive faculties. This purity,\nafter the end of his material body, shone forth and made itself known\nin the form of a luminous body, that the soul had been given during\nits confinement in its gloomy body; for as I finish these\nExaminations, I am seizing the only occasion which may still be\npresented of saying that, this philosopher taught that the soul has a\nbody which is given according to his good or bad nature, by the inner\nlabour of his faculties. He called this body the subtle chariot of the\nsoul, and said that the mortal body is only the gross exterior. He\nadds, \u201cThe care of the soul and its luminous body is, in practicing\nvirtue, in embracing truth and abstaining from all impure\nthings.\u201d[676]\n\nThis is the veritable aim of the symbolic abstinences that he\nprescribes, even as Lysis insinuates moreover quite clearly in the\nlines which make the subject of my preceding Examination, when he said\nthat it is necessary to abstain from the things which are injurious to\nthe development of the soul and to distinguish clearly these things.\n\nFurthermore, Pythagoras believed that there existed celestial goodness\nproportionate to each degree of virtue, and that there is for the\nsouls, different ranks according to the luminous body with which they\nare clothed. The supreme happiness, according to him, belongs only to\nthe soul which has learned how to recover itself, by its intimate\nunion with the intelligence, whose essence, changing its nature, has\nbecome entirely spiritual. It is necessary that this soul be raised to\nthe knowledge of universal truths, and that it should have found, as\nfar as it is possible for it, the Principle and the end of all things.\nThen having attained to this high degree of perfection, being drawn\ninto this immutable region whose ethereal element is no more subjected\nto the descending movement of generation, it can be united by its\nknowledge to the Universal All, and reflect in all its being the\nineffable light with which the Being of beings, God Himself, fills\nunceasingly the Immensity.\n\n\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [1] Address\u00e9 \u00e0 la Classe de la Langue et de la Litt\u00e9rature\n     fran\u00e7aises, et \u00e0 celle d\u2019Histoire et de Litt\u00e9rature ancienne\n     de l\u2019Institut imp\u00e9rial de France.\n\n     [2] This expression will be explained in the progress of the\n     discourse.\n\n     [3] _De Dignit. et Increment. Scient._, l. ii., c. 13.\n\n     [4] _Ibid._, l. ii., c. 1.\n\n     [5] _Ibid._, l. vi., c. 1.\n\n     [6] Plat., _Dial. Ion._ Aristotle, who was often opposed to\n     Plato, did not dare to be on this point. He agrees that\n     verse alone does not constitute poetry, and that the History\n     of Herodotus, put into verse, would never be other than\n     history.\n\n     [7] _Ibid._\n\n     [8] _De Dignit. et Increment. Scient._, l. ii., c. 13.\n\n     [9] Leclerc, known by the multitude of his works; l\u2019abb\u00e9\n     Bannier, Warburton, etc.\n\n     [10] _De Dignit. et Increment. Scient._, l. ii., c. 13.\n     Court de G\u00e9belin cites Chancellor Bacon as one of the first\n     defenders of allegory. (_G\u00e9nie all\u00e9g._)\n\n     [11] Pausanias, l. iii., p. 93.\n\n     [12] Acron, _In Epist. Horat._, i., 2. Certain authors say\n     that Penelope had conceived this son when Mercury disguised\n     as a goat had forced her virginity. (Lucian, _Dialog.\n     Deor._, t. i., p. 176.)\n\n     [13] H\u00e9raclides, entre les petits mythologues.\n\n     [14] _Geogr._, l. i.\n\n     [15] _Antiq. rom._, l. ii.\n\n     [16] In his book entitled \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, ch. 17.\n\n     [17] In his book entitled \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, ch. 3. Court\n     de G\u00e9belin cites these works. (_G\u00e9nie all\u00e9g._)\n\n     [18] _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, l. iii., c. 1.\n\n     [19] Court de G\u00e9belin, _G\u00e9nie all\u00e9g._, p. 149.\n\n     [20] Strabo positively assures it. See Bannier, _Mythol._,\n     ii., p. 252.\n\n     [21] Bailly, _Essai sur les Fables_, ch. 14. Pausanias, l.\n     ix., p. 302.\n\n     [22] _Poetry_, in Greek \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, derived from the Ph\u0153nician\n     \u05e4\u05d0\u05d4 (_phohe_), mouth, voice, language, discourse; and from\n     \u05d9\u05e9 (_ish_), a superior being, a principle being, figuratively\n     God. This last word, spread throughout Europe, is found with\n     certain change of vowels and of aspirates, very common in\n     the Oriental dialects; in the Etruscan \u00c6s, _\u00c6sar_, in the\n     Gallic \u00c6s, in the Basque _As_, and in the Scandinavian\n     _Ase_; the Copts still say _Os_, the lord, and the Greeks\n     have preserved it in \u0391\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1, the immutable Being, Destiny, and\n     in \u1f04\u03b6\u03c9, I adore, and \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9, I revere.\n\n     _Thrace_, in Greek \u03b8\u03c1\u1fb4\u03ba\u03b7, derived from the Ph\u0153nician \u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2\n     (_rakiwha_), which signifies the _ethereal space_, or, as\n     one translates the Hebrew word which corresponds to it, the\n     _firmament_. This word is preceded in the Dorian \u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u1fb4, by\n     the letter \u03b8, _th_, a kind of article which the Oriental\n     grammarians range among the _h\u00e9mantique_ letters placed at\n     the beginning of words to modify the sense, or to render it\n     more emphatic.\n\n     _Olen_, in Greek \u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd, is derived from the Ph\u0153nician \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05df\n     (_wh\u00f4lon_), and is applied in the greater part of the\n     Oriental dialects to all that which is infinite, eternal,\n     universal, whether in time or space. I ought to mention as\n     an interesting thing and but little known by mythologists,\n     that it is from the word \u05d0\u05e4 (_ab_ or _ap_) joined to that of\n     _wh\u00f4lon_, that one formed _ap-wh\u00f4lon_, Apollon; namely, the\n     Father universal, infinite, eternal. This is why the\n     invention of Poetry is attributed to Olen or to Apollo. It\n     is the same mythological personage represented by the sun.\n     According to an ancient tradition, Olen was native of Lycia,\n     that is to say, of the light; for this is the meaning of the\n     Greek word \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03b7.\n\n     [23] Strabo has judiciously observed that in Greece all the\n     technical words were foreign. (_Voyez_ Bailly, _Essai sur\n     les Fables_, ch. 14, p. 136.)\n\n     [24] The Get\u00e6, in Greek \u0393\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, were, according to \u00c6lius\n     Spartianus, and according to the author of _le Monde\n     primitif_ (t. ix., p. 49), the same peoples as the Goths.\n     Their country called Get\u00e6, which should be pronounced\n     _Gh\u0153tie_, comes from the word _Goth_, which signifies God in\n     most of the idioms of the north of Europe. The name of the\n     Dacians is only a softening of that of the Thracians in a\n     different dialect.\n\n     M\u0153sia, in Greek \u039c\u03bf\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, is, in Ph\u0153nician, the interpretation\n     of the name given to Thrace. The latter means, as we have\n     seen, _ethereal space_, and the former signifies _divine\n     abode_, being composed from the word \u05d0\u05f3\u05e9 (_a\u00efsh_), whose\n     rendering I have already given, before which is found placed\n     the letter \u05de (M), one of the _h\u00e9mantiques_, which according\n     to the best grammarians serves to express the proper place,\n     the means, the local manifestation of a thing.\n\n     [25] _Voyez_ Court de G\u00e9belin, _Monde primitif_, t. ix., p. 49.\n\n     [26] This mountain was called K\u00f4-Kaj\u00f4n, according to\n     d\u2019Anville. This learned geographer has clearly seen that\n     this name was the same as that of Caucasus, a generic name\n     given to all the sacred mountains. It is known that\n     _Caucasus_ was for the Persians, what Mount Merou had been\n     for the Indians and what Mount Parnassus became afterwards\n     for the Greeks, the central place of their cult. The\n     Tibetans have also their sacred mountain distinct from that\n     of the Indians, upon which still resides the God-Priest, or\n     immortal Man, similar to that of the Get\u00e6. (_M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad.\n     des Inscript._, t. xxv., p. 45.)\n\n     [27] Bailly, _Essai sur les Fables_, ch. 14. Conf\u00e9rez avec\n     H\u00e9rodote, l. iv.; et Pausanias, l. ix., p. 302, l. x., p.\n     320.\n\n     [28] _Dionysus_, in Greek \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, comes from the word\n     \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2, irregular genitive of \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, the living God, and of\n     \u039d\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2, mind or understanding. The Ph\u0153nician roots of these\n     words are \u05e9\u200e, \u200e \u05d9\u05e9\u200e, \u200eor \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 (_ash_, _ish_, or _a\u00efsh_), Unique\n     Being, and \u05e0\u05d5 (_n\u00f4_) the motive principle, the movement.\n     These two roots, contracted, form the word _N\u00f4os_, which\n     signifies literally the principle of being, and\n     figuratively, the understanding.\n\n     _Demeter_, in Greek \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, comes from the ancient Greek\n     \u0394\u03b7\u03bc, _the earth_, united to the word \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, _mother_. The\n     Ph\u0153nician roots are \u05d3\u05de (_dam_) and \u05de\u05d8 (_m\u00f4t_), the former\n     expressing all that which is formed by aggregation of\n     similar parts; and the latter, all that which varies the\n     form and gives it generative movement.\n\n     [29] Bailly, _Essai sur les Fables_, ch. 15. Court de\n     G\u00e9belin expressly says, that the sacred mountain of Thrace\n     was consecrated to Bacchus. _Monde prim._, t. ix., p. 49.\n     Now, it is generally known that Parnassus of the Greeks was\n     consecrated to Apollo.\n\n     [30] _Theog._, v. 500.\n\n     [31] The Greek word \u0398\u03c1\u1fb4\u03ba\u03b7, Thrace, in passing into the\n     Ionian dialect \u0398\u03c1\u1fc4\u03be, has furnished the following\n     expressions: \u03b8\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, a devotee, \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, devotion,\n     \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03cd\u03c9, I adore with devotion. These words, diverted from\n     their real sense and used ironically after the cult of\n     Thrace had yielded to that of Delphi, were applied to ideas\n     of superstition and even of fanaticism. The point of\n     considering the Thracians as schismatics was even reached,\n     and the word \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 composed to express a heresy, a\n     cult particular to those who practised it, and separated\n     from orthodoxy.\n\n     [32] \u0152tolinos is composed, by contraction, of two words\n     which appear to belong to one of the Thracian dialects.\n     _\u0152to-Kyros_ signifies the ruling sun, among the Scythians,\n     according to Herodotus (l. iv., 59). _Helena_ signified the\n     moon, among the Dorians. It is from this last word, deprived\n     of its article _he_, that the Latins have made _Luna_.\n\n     [33] Court de G\u00e9belin, _Monde primit._, t. viii., p. 190.\n     Pausanias, l. x. Conf\u00e9rez avec \u00c6schyl. _In Choephori_, v.\n     1036; Eurip., _In Orest._, v. 1330; Plat.,, _De Rep._, l.\n     iv., etc.\n\n     [34] Plut., _De Music._ Tzetzes, _Chiliads_, vii.; _Hist._,\n     108.\n\n     [35] _Amphion_, in Greek \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, comes from the Ph\u0153nician\n     words \u05d0\u05de (_am_), a mother-nation, a metropolis, \u05e4\u05d9 (_phi_),\n     a mouth, a voice, and \u05d9\u05d5\u05df (_J\u00f4n_), Greece. Thence the Greeks\n     have derived \u1f48\u03bc\u03c6\u03ae, a _mother-voice_, that is, orthodox,\n     legal, upon which all should be regulated.\n\n     _Thamyris_, in Greek \u0398\u03ac\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, is composed of the Ph\u0153nician\n     words \u05ea\u05d0\u05de (_tham_), twin, \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 (_aur_), light, \u05d9\u05e9 (_ish_), of\n     the being.\n\n     [36] Plut., _De Music._\n\n     [37] Diod. Sicul., l. iii., 35. Pausan., _In B\u0153ot._, p. 585.\n\n     [38] _Bibliotheca Gr\u00e6ca_, p. 4.\n\n     [39] Duhalde, t. iv., _in-fol._, p. 65. These Tartars had no\n     idea of poetry before their conquest of China; also they\n     imagined that it was only in China where the rules of this\n     science had been formulated, and that the rest of the world\n     resembled them.\n\n     [40] Kien-long, one of the descendants of Kang-hi, has made\n     good verse in Chinese. This prince has composed an historical\n     poem on the conquest of the Eleuth, or _Oloth_ people, who,\n     after having been a long time tributary to China, revolted.\n     (_M\u00e9m. concernant les Chin._, t. i., p. 329.)\n\n     [41] The commencement of the Indian Kali-youg is placed 3101\n     or 3102 years before our era. Fr\u00e9ret has fixed it, in his\n     chronological researches, at January 16, 3102, a half hour\n     before the winter solstice, in the colure of which was then\n     found the first star of Aries. The Brahmans say that this\n     age of darkness and uncleanness must endure 432,000 years.\n     _Kali_ signifies in Sanskrit, all that which is black,\n     shadowy, material, bad. From there, the Latin word _caligo_;\n     and the French word _galimatias_; the last part of this word\n     comes from the Greek word \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, a discourse, which is\n     itself derived from the Ph\u0153nician \u05de\u05d5\u05d8 (_mot_ or _myt_),\n     which expresses all that moves, stirs up; a motion, a word,\n     etc.\n\n     [42] _Asiat. Research._, t. ii., p. 140. The Brahmans say\n     that their imperial dynasties, pontifical as well as laic,\n     or solar and lunar, became extinguished a thousand years\n     after the beginning of the _Kali-youg_, about 2000 B.C. It\n     was at this epoch that India was divided into many\n     independent sovereignties and that a powerful reformer of\n     the cult appeared in Magadha, who took the surname of\n     _Buddha_.\n\n     [43] Herod., l. ii. This historian said that in the early\n     times all Egypt was a morass, with the exception of the\n     country of Thebes; that nothing was seen of the land, which\n     one saw there at the epoch in which he was writing, beyond\n     Lake M\u0153ris; and that going up the river, during a seven\n     days\u2019 journey, all seemed a vast sea. This same writer said\n     in the beginning of book i., and this is very remarkable,\n     that the Ph\u0153nicians had entered from the Red Sea into the\n     Mediterranean, to establish themselves upon its shores,\n     which they would have been unable to do if the Isthmus of\n     Suez had existed. See what Aristotle says on this subject,\n     _Meteorolog._, l. i., c. 14.\n\n     [44] _Asiat. Research._, t. iii., p. 321. The excerpts that\n     Wilford has made from the _Pourana_, entitled _Scanda_, the\n     God of War, prove that the _Palis_, called Philistines, on\n     account of their same country, _Palis-sthan_, going out from\n     India, established themselves upon the Persian Gulf and,\n     under the name of Ph\u0153nicians, came afterwards along the\n     coast of Yemen, on the borders of the Red Sea, whence they\n     passed into the Mediterranean Sea, as Herodotus said,\n     according to the Persian traditions. This coincidence is of\n     great historical interest.\n\n     [45] Niebuhr, _Descript. de l\u2019Arab._, p. 164. Two powerful\n     tribes became divided in Arabia at this epoch: that of the\n     Himyarites, who possessed the meridional part, or Yemen, and\n     that of the Koreishites, who occupied the septentrional\n     part, or Hejaz. The capital of the Himyarites was called\n     _Dhofar_; their kings took the title of _Tobba_ and enjoyed\n     an hereditary power. The Koreishites possessed the sacred\n     city of Arabia, Mecca, where was found the ancient temple\n     still venerated today by the Mussulmans.\n\n     [46] _Asiat. Research._, t. iii., p. ii.\n\n     [47] Diodorus Siculus, l. ii., 12. Strabo, l. xvi. Suidas,\n     art. _Semiramis_.\n\n     [48] Phot., _Cod._, 44. Ex. Diodor., l. xl. Syncell., p. 61.\n     Joseph., _Contr. Apion_.\n\n     [49] H\u00e9rod., l. ii. Diod. Siculus, l. i., \u00a7 2.\n\n     [50] Diodor. Sicul., l. i., \u00a7 2. Delille-de-Salles, _Hist.\n     des Homm._, Egypte, t. iii., p. 178.\n\n     [51] Plat., in _Tim. Dial._ Theopomp. _apud_ Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p.\n     Evan._, l. x., c. 10. Diod. Sicul., l. i., _initio_.\n\n     [52] Diodor. Sicul., l. i., _initio_.\n\n     [53] Pausan., _B\u0153ot._, p. 768.\n\n     [54] This word is Egyptian and Ph\u0153nician alike. It is\n     composed of the words \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 (_aur_), light, and \u05e8\u05e4\u05d0 (_roph\u0153_),\n     cure, salvation.\n\n     [55] Eurydice, in Greek \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7, comes from the Ph\u0153nician\n     words \u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 (_rohe_), vision, clearness, evidence, and \u05d3\u05da\n     (_dich_), that which demonstrates or teaches: these two\n     words are preceded by the Greek adverb \u03b5\u1f56, which expresses\n     all that is good, happy, and perfect in its kind.\n\n     [56] Plat., _In Ph\u00e6don. Ibid._, _In Panegyr._ Aristot.,\n     _Rhet._, l. ii., c. 24. Isocr., _Paneg._ Cicero, _De Leg._,\n     l. ii. Plutar., _De Isid._ Paus., _In Phoc._, etc.\n\n     [57] Th\u00e9odoret, _Therapeut._\n\n     [58] Philo, _De Vit\u00e2 Mosis_, l. i.\n\n     [59] Jamblic., _De Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, c. 2. Apul., _Florid._,\n     ii. Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. viii.\n\n     [60] _Voyage du jeune Anacharsis_, t. i., _Introd._, p. 7.\n\n     [61] Meurs., _De Relig. Athen._, l. i., c. 9.\n\n     [62] Apollon., l. iii., p. 237.\n\n     [63] Hygin., _Fabl._, 143.\n\n     [64] Pausan., _Arcad._, p. 266, 268, etc.\n\n     [65] Strabo, l. x; Meurs., _Eleus._, c. 21 _et seq._; Paus.,\n     _Ath._, c. 28; Fulgent., _Myth._, l. i.; Philostr., _In\n     Apollon._, l. ii.; Athen., l. xi.; Procl., _In Tim.\n     Comment._, l. v.\n\n     [66] Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, l. xiii., c. 12.\n\n     [67] The unity of God is taught in an Orphic hymn of\n     which Justin, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril, and\n     Theodore have preserved fragments. (_Orphei Hymn. Edente\n     Eschenbach._, p. 242.)\n\n     [68] Clem. Alex., _Admon. ad Gent._, p. 48; _ibid._,\n     _Strom._, l. v., p. 607.\n\n     [69] Apoll., _Arg._, l. i., v. 496; Clem. Alex., _Strom._,\n     l. iv., p. 475.\n\n     [70] Thimoth\u00e9e, cit\u00e9 par Bannier, _Mythol._, i., p. 104.\n\n     [71] Macrobius, _Somm. Scip._, l. i., c. 12.\n\n     [72] Eurip., _Hippol._, v. 948.\n\n     [73] Plat., _De Leg._, l. vi.; Jambl., _De Vit\u00e2 Pythag._\n\n     [74] _Acad. des Insc._, t. v., p. 117.\n\n     [75] Procl., _In Tim._, l. v., p. 330; Cicero, _Somm.\n     Scip._, c. 2, 3, 4, 6.\n\n     [76] Montesquieu and Buffon have been the greatest\n     adversaries of poetry, they were very eloquent in prose; but\n     that does not prevent one from applying to them, as did\n     Voltaire, the words of Montaigne: \u201cWe cannot attain it, let\n     us avenge ourselves by slandering it.\u201d\n\n     [77] Horat., _De Arte po\u00e9t._; Strab., l. x.\n\n     [78] Origen, _Contr. Cels._, l. i., p. 12; Dacier, _Vie de\n     Pythagore_.\n\n     [79] \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n     [80] \u0398\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n     [81] Fabric., _Bibl. gr\u00e6c._, p. 120, 129.\n\n     [82] Apollon, _Argon._, l. i., v. 496.\n\n     [83] Plutar., _De Placit. philos._, c. 13; Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p.\n     Evang._, l. xv., c. 30; Stobeus, _Eclog. phys._, 54. Proclus\n     quotes the verses of Orpheus on this subject, _In Tim._, l.\n     iv., p. 283. Voyez _La Biblioth. gr\u00e6c._ de Fabricius, p. 132.\n\n     [84] Fabric., _Bibliot. gr\u00e6c._, p. 4, 22, 26, 30, etc.;\n     _Voyag. d\u2019Anach._, ch. 80.\n\n     [85] From the Greek word \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2: as one would say _circuit_,\n     the circular envelopment of a thing.\n\n     [86] Court de G\u00e9belin, _G\u00e9n. all\u00e9g._, p. 119.\n\n     [87] Casaubon, _In Athen._, p. 301; Fabric., _Bibl. gr\u00e6c._\n     l. i., c. 17; _Voyag. d\u2019Anach._, ch. 80; Proclus, cit\u00e9 par\n     Court de G\u00e9belin, _ibid._\n\n     [88] Arist., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 8, 16, 25, etc.\n\n     [89] It is needless for me to observe that the birthplace of\n     Homer has been the object of a host of discussions as much\n     among the ancients as among the moderns. My plan here is not\n     to put down again _en probl\u00e8me_, nor to examine anew the\n     things which have been a hundred times discussed and that I\n     have sufficiently examined. I have chosen, from the midst of\n     all the divergent opinions born of these discussions, that\n     which has appeared to me the most probable, which agrees\n     best with known facts, and which is connected better with\n     the analytical thread of my ideas. I advise my readers to do\n     the same. It is neither the birthplace of Homer nor the name\n     of his parents that is the important matter: it is his\n     genius that must be fathomed. Those who would, however,\n     satisfy their curiosity regarding these subjects foreign to\n     my researches, will find in _La Biblioth\u00e8que grecque de\n     Fabricius_, and in the book by L\u00e9on Allatius entitled _De\n     Patri\u00e2 Homeri_, enough material for all the systems they may\n     wish to build. They will find there twenty-six different\n     locations wherein they can, at their pleasure, place the\n     cradle of the poet. The seven most famous places indicated\n     in a Greek verse by Aulus Gellius are, Smyrna, Rhodes,\n     Colophon, Salamis, Chios, Argos, and Athens. The nineteen\n     indicated by divers authors, are Pylos, Chios, Cyprus,\n     Clazomen\u00e6, Babylon, Cum\u00e6, Egypt, Italy, Crete, Ithaca,\n     Mycen\u00e6, Phrygia, M\u00e6onia, Lucania, Lydia, Syria, Thessaly,\n     and finally Troy, and even Rome.\n\n     However, the tradition which I have followed, in considering\n     Homer as born not far from Smyrna, upon the borders of the\n     river Meles, is not only the most probable but the most\n     generally followed; it has in its favour Pindar; the first\n     anonymous Life of Homer; the Life of this poet by Proclus;\n     Cicero, in his oration for Archias; Eustathius in his\n     _Prol\u00e9gom\u00e9nes sur l\u2019Iliade_; Aristotle, _Po\u00e9tique_, l. iii.;\n     Aulus Gellius, Martial, and Suidas. It is known that Smyrna,\n     jealous of consecrating the glory that it attributed to\n     itself, of having given birth to Homer, erected to this\n     great genius a temple with quadrangular portico, and showed\n     for a long time, near the source of the Meles, a grotto,\n     where a contemporaneous tradition supposes that he had\n     composed his first works. Voyez _La Vie d\u2019Hom\u00e8re_, par\n     Delille-de-Sales, p. 49, et les ouvrages qu\u2019il cite: _Voyage\n     de Chandeler_, t. i., p. 162, et _Voyages pittoresques de\n     Choiseul-Gouffier_, p. 200.\n\n     [90] H\u00e9rod., l. v., 42; Thucyd., l. i., 12.\n\n     [91] _Marbres de Paros_, _Epoq._ 28; H\u00e9rod., l. i., 142,\n     145, 149; Plat., _De Leg._, l. v.; Strab., l. xiv.; Pausan.,\n     l. vii., 2; \u00c6lian., _Var. Histor._, l. viii., c. 5;\n     Sainte-Croix, _De l\u2019\u00e9tat des Colon, des anc. Peuples_, p.\n     65; Bourgainville, _Dissert. sur les M\u00e9trop. et les Colon._,\n     p. 18; Spanheim, _Pr\u00e6st._, num. p. 580.\n\n     [92] _Bible_, Chron. ii., ch. 12 _et suiv._\n\n     [93] _Ibid._, Chron. ii., ch. 32 et 36.\n\n     [94] Pausanias, _passim_.\n\n     [95] Strab., l. xiv.; Polyb., l. v.; Aulu-Gell., l. vii., c.\n     3; Meurs., _In Rhod._, l. i., c. 18 et 21; _Hist. univ. des\n     Anglais_, in-8\u1d52, t. ii., p. 493.\n\n     [96] Diod. Sicul., l. i., 2.\n\n     [97] In Ph\u0153nician \u05de\u05dc\u05da\u05be\u05d0\u05ea\u05e2 (_Melich-\u00e6rtz_), in Greek\n     \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2: a name given to the Divinity whom the Thracians\n     called _Hercules_, the Lord of the Universe: from \u05d4\u05e8\u05e8 or \u05e9\u05e8\u05e8\n     (_harr_ or _shar_), excellence, dominance, sovereignty; and\n     \u05db\u05dc (_col._), All. Notice that the Teutonic roots are not\n     very different from the Ph\u0153nician: _Herr_ signifies lord,\n     and _alles_, all; so that _Herr-alles_ is, with the\n     exception of the guttural inflection which is effaced, the\n     same word as that of _Hercules_, used by the Thracians and\n     the Etruscans. The Greeks have made a transposition of\n     letters in \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 (_Heracles_) so as to evade the guttural\n     harshness without entirely losing it.\n\n     [98] Goguet, _Origine des Lois et des Arts_, t. i., p. 359.\n\n     [99] _Voyez_ Epiphane, _H\u00e6res_, xxvi., _et conf\u00e9rez avec_\n     Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich._, t. ii., p. 328.\n\n     [100] I have followed the tradition most analogous to the\n     development of my ideas; but I am aware that, upon this\n     point, as upon many others, I have only to choose. The\n     historic fact, in that which relates to the sacerdotal\n     archives which Homer consulted in composing his poems, is\n     everywhere the same _au fond_; but the accessory details\n     vary greatly according to the writers who relate them. For\n     example, one reads in a small fragment attributed to\n     Antipater of Sidon and preserved in Greece Anthology, that\n     Homer, born at Thebes in Egypt, drew his epic subjects from\n     the archives of the temple of Isis; from another source,\n     Ptolemy _Ephestion_, cited by Photius, that the Greek poet\n     had received from a priest of Memphis, named _Thamit\u00e8s_, the\n     original writings of an inspired damsel, named _Phancy_.\n     Strabo, without mentioning any place in particular, said in\n     general, speaking of the long journeys of Homer, that this\n     poet went everywhere to consult the religious archives and\n     the oracles preserved in the temples; and Diodorus of Sicily\n     gives evidence sometimes that he borrowed many things from a\n     sibyl by the name of _Manto_, daughter of Tiresias; and\n     sometimes that he appropriated the verse of a pythoness of\n     Delphi, named Daphne. All these contradictory details prove,\n     in reality, the truth; for whether it be from Thebes,\n     Memphis, Tyre, Delphi, or elsewhere that Homer drew the\n     subject of his chants, matters not with the subject which\n     occupies me: the important point, serving as proof of my\n     assertions, is, that they have been, in fact, drawn from a\n     sanctuary; and what has determined me to choose Tyre rather\n     than Thebes or Memphis, is that Tyre was the first mother\n     city of Greece.\n\n     [101] I have said in the above that the name of _Helena_ or\n     _Selena_ was that of the moon in Greek. The root of this\n     word is alike Celtic and Ph\u0153nician. One finds it in Teutonic\n     _hell_, which signifies clear, luminous, and in Hebrew \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc\n     (_h\u00eall_), which contains the same sense of splendour, glory,\n     and elevation. One still says in German _heilig_, holy, and\n     _selig_, blessed; also _selle_, soul, and _sellen_, souls.\n     And this is worthy of the closest attention, particularly\n     when one reflects that, following the doctrine of the\n     ancients, the moon _helen\u00ea_ or _selen\u00ea_ was regarded as the\n     reservoir of the souls of those who descend from heaven to\n     pass into bodies by means of generation, and, purged by the\n     fire of life, escape from earth to ascend to heaven. See,\n     concerning this doctrine, Plutarch (_De Facie in Orb.\n     Lun._), and confer with Beausobre (_Histoire du Manich._, t,\n     ii., p. 311). The name of _Paris_, in Greek \u03a0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, comes\n     from the Ph\u0153nician words \u05d1\u05e8 or \u05e4\u05e8 (_bar_ or _phar_), all\n     generation, propagation, extension, and \u05d9\u05e9 (_ish_), the\n     Being-principle.\n\n     The name of _Menelaus_, in Greek \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2, comes from the\n     Ph\u0153nician words \u05de\u05df (_men_), all that which determines,\n     regulates, or defines a thing, properly, the _rational\n     faculty_, the reason, the measure, in Latin _mens_,\n     _mensura_; and \u05d0\u05d5\u05e9 (_a\u00f4sh_), the Being-principle acting,\n     before which is placed the prefix \u05dc (_l_), to express the\n     genitive case, in this manner, \u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05be\u05dc\u05be\u05d0\u05d5\u05e9 (_meneh-l-a\u00f4sh_),\n     the rational faculty or regulator of the being in general,\n     and man in particular: for \u05d0\u05e9‏, ‏\u05d0\u05d5\u05e9‏,\n     ‏\u05d0\u05e9‏, ‏\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 (_ash_, _a\u00f4sh_, _ish_, _a\u00eesh_),\n     signifies equally _fire_, _principle_, _being_, and _man_.\n     The etymology of these three words can, as one sees, throw\n     great light upon the fable of the _Iliad_. Here is another\n     remarkable point on this subject. Homer has never used, to\n     designate the Greeks, the name of _Hellenes_, that is to\n     say, the respondents, or the lunars: it was in his time\n     quite a new name, which the confederated Greeks had taken to\n     resist foreign attack; it is only in the _Odyssey_, and when\n     he is already old, that he employs the name _Hellas_ to\n     designate Greece. The name which he gives constantly to this\n     country, is that of Achaia (\u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u0390\u03b1), and he opposes it to\n     that of Troy (\u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u03af\u03b1): now, Achaia signifies the strong, the\n     igneous, the spiritual; and _Troy_, the terrestrial, the\n     gross. The Ph\u0153nician roots are \u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 (_eh\u00f4i_), the exhaling\n     force of fire, and \u05d8\u05e8\u05d5 (_tr\u00f4_) the balancing power of the\n     earth. Refer, in this regard, to Court de G\u00e9belin (_Mond.\n     prim._, t. vi., p. 64). Pomponius Sabinus, in his\n     _Commentaires sur l\u2019En\u00e9\u00efde_, said that the name of the city\n     of Troy signified a sow, and he adds that the Trojans had\n     for an ensign a sow embroidered in gold.\n\n     As to the word _Ilion_, which was the sacred name of Troy,\n     it is very easy to recognize the name of the material\n     principle, called \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7 (_ul\u00e8_) by the Greeks and _ylis_ by\n     the Egyptians. Iamblichus speaks of it at great length in\n     his _Book on the Mysteries_ (\u00a7 7), as the principle from\n     which all has birth: this was also the opinion of Porphyry\n     (Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, l. ix., c. 9 and 11).\n\n     [102] Metrodorus of Lampsacus cited by Tatian (_Adver.\n     Gent._, \u00a7 37). Plato, _In Alcibiad._, ii., Cronius,\n     Porphyry, Phurnutus, Iamblichus, cited by Court de G\u00e9belin,\n     _G\u00e9nie all\u00e9g._, p. 36, 43; Plato, _In Ion._; Cicero, _De\n     Natur. Deor._, l. ii.; Strabo, l. i.; Origen, _Contr. Cels._\n     Among the moderns can be counted Bacon, Blackwell, Basnage,\n     Bergier, and Court de G\u00e9belin himself, who has given a list\n     of eighty writers who have this opinion.\n\n     [103] Dionys. Halic., _De Comp. verb._, t. v., c. 16, 26;\n     Quintil., l. x., c. 1; Longin., _De Sublim._, c. 13; \u00c6lian.,\n     _Var. Hist._, l. viii., c. 2; Plat., _Alcibiad._, i.\n\n     [104] Plat., _In Vit\u00e2 Lycurg._\n\n     [105] Allat., _De Patr. Homer._, c. 5; Meurs., _In Pisist._,\n     c. 9 et 12; Plat., _In Hipparc._\n\n     [106] Senec., _Epist._, 117.\n\n     [107] _Ibidem_, 88.\n\n     [108] Dionys. Halic., _In Vit\u00e2 Homer._; Eustath., _In\n     Iliad_, l. i.\n\n     [109] Strabo, l. xiv., p. 646.\n\n     [110] Arist., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 2, cit. par Barth., _Voyag.\n     d\u2019Anach._, t. vii., c. 80, p. 44.\n\n     [111] The word _Epop\u0153ia_ is taken from the Greek \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf-\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2\n     which designates alike a poet and an epic poem. It is\n     derived from the Ph\u0153nician words \u05d0\u05e4\u05d0 (_apho_) an impassioned\n     transport, a vortex, an impulse, an enthusiasm; and \u05e4\u05d0\u05d4\n     (_phohe_), a mouth, a discourse. One can observe that the\n     Latin word _versus_, which is applied also to a thing which\n     turns, which is borne along, and to a poetic verse,\n     translates exactly the Greek word \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, whose root \u05d0\u05d5\u05e3\n     (_a\u00f4ph_) expresses a _vortex_. The Hebrew \u05d0\u05d5\u05e4\u05df (_a\u00f4phon_)\n     signifies properly a _wheel_.\n\n     [112] See in the collection of Meibomius, Aristides,\n     Quintilianus, and _Les M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad. des Belles-Lettres_,\n     t. v., p. 152.\n\n     [113] Voltaire, _Dict. philos._, art. RIME.\n\n     [114] Refer to what I have already said in last footnote p.\n     40.\n\n     [115] Fr\u00e9ret said that the verses of the poet Eumelus\n     engraven upon the arch of the Cypselid\u00e6 were thus\n     represented. Voyez sa _Dissert. sur l\u2019Art de l\u2019Equitation_.\n     Il cite Pausanias, l. v., p. 419.\n\n     [116] Court de G\u00e9belin, _Mond. primit._, t. ix., p. 222.\n     Conf\u00e9rez avec Aristotle, _Po\u00ebt._, p. 20, 21, 22.\n\n     [117] Plat., _Dial. Ion_.\n\n     [118] Plat., _ut supr\u00e0_.\n\n     [119] \u00c6lian., _Var. Hist_., l. xiii., c. 14; Diog. La\u00ebrt.,\n     _In Solon._, l. i., \u00a7 57.\n\n     [120] Plat., _In Hipparc._; Pausan, l. vii., c. 26; Cicer.,\n     _De Orat._, l. iii.\n\n     [121] Eustath., _In Iliad._, l. i., p. 145; l. ii., p. 263.\n\n     [122] Dionys. Halic., _De Comp. verb._, t. v., c. 16 et 24;\n     Quintil., _Instit._, l. x., c. 1.\n\n     [123] Athen., l. xv., c. 8; Aristot., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 16;\n     \u00c6lian., _Var. Hist._, c. 15.\n\n     [124] Barthel., _Voyag. d\u2019Anarchar._, t. vii., ch. 80, p.\n     46, 52.\n\n     [125] It can be seen that I have placed in the word\n     Stesi[`c]horus, an _accent grave_ over the consonant _c_,\n     and it will be noticed that I have used it thus with respect\n     to many similar words. It is a habit I have contracted in\n     writing, so as to distinguish, in this manner, the double\n     consonant _ch_, in the foreign words, or in their\n     derivatives, when it should take the guttural inflexion, in\n     place of the hissing inflexion which we ordinarily give to\n     it. Thus I accent the _[`c]_ in _Chio_, _[`c]h\u0153ur_,\n     _[`c]horus_, _\u00e9[`c]ho_, _[`c]hlorose_, _[`c]hiragre_,\n     _[`c]hronique_, etc.; to indicate that these words should be\n     pronounced _Khio_, _kh\u0153ur_, _khorus_, _\u00e9kho_, _khlorose_,\n     _khiragre_, _khronique_, with the aspirate sound of _k_, and\n     not with that of the hissing _c_, as in _Chypre_, _chaume_,\n     _\u00e9chope_, _chaire_, etc. This accentuation has appeared to\n     me necessary, especially when one is obliged to transcribe\n     in modern characters many foreign words which, lacking\n     usage, one knows not, at first, how to pronounce. It is,\n     after all, a slight innovation in orthography, which I leave\n     to the decision of the grammarians. I only say that it will\n     be very difficult for them, without this accent, or any\n     other sign which might be used, to know how one should\n     pronounce with a different inflexion, _A[`c]ha\u00efe_ and\n     _Ach\u00e9en_; _Achille_ and _A[`c]hille\u00efde; Ach\u00earon_ and\n     _a[`c]h\u00e9rontique_; _Bac[`c]hus_ and _bachique_, etc.\n\n     [126] Vossius, _De Inst. po\u00ebt._, l. iii., c. 15; Aristot.,\n     _Rhet._, l. ii., 23; Max. Tyr. _Orat._, viii., p. 86.\n\n     [127] \u00c6lian., _Var. Hist._, l. xiii., c. 14, Court de\n     G\u00e9belin, _Mond. prim._, t. viii., p. 202.\n\n     [128] Plat., _In The\u00e6t._; _ibid._, _De Republ._, l. x.;\n     Arist., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 4, etc.\n\n     [129] The name of Homerid\u00e6, given at first to all the\n     disciples of Homer, was afterwards usurped by certain\n     inhabitants of Chios who called themselves his descendants\n     (Strab., l. xiv.; Isocr., _Hellen. encom._). Also I should\n     state here that the name of Homer, \u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, was never of\n     Greek origin and has not signified, as has been said,\n     _blind_. The initial letter O is not a negation, but an\n     article added to the Ph\u0153nician word \u05de\u05e8\u05d0 (_m\u0153ra_), which\n     signifies, properly speaking, a centre of light, and\n     figuratively, a master, a doctor.\n\n     [130] The surname Eumolpid\u00e6, given to the hierophants,\n     successors of Orpheus, comes from the word \u0395\u1f54\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, by\n     which is designated the style of poetry of this divine man.\n     It signifies _the perfect voice_. It is derived from the\n     Ph\u0153nician words \u05de\u05dc\u05d0 (_mola_), perfected, and \u05e4\u05d0\u05d4 (_phoh_),\n     mouth, voice, discourse. The adverb \u1f14\u03c5, which precedes it,\n     expresses whatever is beautiful, holy, perfect.\n\n     [131] Fabric., _Bibl. Gr\u00e6c._, p. 36, 105, 240, 469,\n     _passim_; Arist., _Probl._, xix., 28; Meurs., _Bibl. Gr\u00e6c._,\n     c. i.\n\n     [132] Arist., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 8.\n\n     [133] Porphyre, _In Vit\u00e2 Pythagor._, p. 21; Clem. Alex., l.\n     vi., p. 658; Plato, _De Leg._, l. iii.; Plutar., _De\n     Music._, p. 1141; Poll., l. iv., c. 9.\n\n     [134] I have placed the epoch of Orpheus, which coincides\n     with that of the arrival of the Egyptian colony conducted\n     into Greece by Cecrops, at 1582 B.C., according to the\n     marbles of Paros.\n\n     [135] Schol. Aristoph., _In Nub._, v. 295.\n\n     [136] Athen., l. ii., c. 3.\n\n     [137] Voyez _L\u2019Hist. du Th\u00e9\u00e2tre Fran\u00e7ais_ de Fontenelle.\n     Voici les titres des premi\u00e8res pi\u00e8ces repr\u00e9sent\u00e9es dans le\n     cours du XIV\u1d49 si\u00e8cle: _L\u2019Assomption de la glorieuse Vierge\n     Marie_, myst\u00e8re \u00e0 38 personnages; _Le Myst\u00e8re de la Sainte\n     Hostie_, \u00e0 26 personn.; _Le Myst\u00e8re de Monseigneur S. Pierre\n     et S. Paul_, \u00e0 100 personn.; _Les Myst\u00e8res de la Conception\n     de la Passion, de la R\u00e9surrection de Notre Seigneur J. C._;\n     etc.\n\n     [138] See _Asiatic Researches_, v. iii., p. 427-431, and\n     465-467. Also _Grammar of the Bengal Language_, preface, p. v.\n\n     [139] See _Interesting Historical Events_, by Holwell, ch. 7.\n\n     [140] Aristot., _Probl._, 15, c. 19; Pausan., l. i., c. 7.\n\n     [141] See _Asiatic Researches_, vol. vi., p. 300-308.\n\n     [142] Rama is, in Sanskrit, the name of that which is\n     dazzling, elevated, white, sublime, protective, beautiful,\n     excellent. This word has exactly the same sense in the\n     Ph\u0153nician \u05e8\u05de (_ram_). Its primitive root, which is\n     universalized by the _h\u00e9mantique_ letter \u05de (_m_), is \u05e8\u05d0\n     (_ra_), which has reference to the harmonic movement of\n     good, of light, and of sight. The name of the adversary of\n     Rama, _Rawhan_, is formed from the root \u05e8\u05e2 (_rawh_) which\n     expresses, on the contrary, the disordered movement of evil\n     and of fire, and which, becoming united with the\n     augmentative syllable \u05d5\u05df (_\u00f4n_), depicts whatever ravages\n     and ruins; this is the signification which it has in\n     Sanskrit.\n\n     [143] From the word \u05e8\u05de\u05d0 (_rama_) is formed in Ph\u0153nician the\n     word \u05d3\u05e8\u05de\u05d0 (_drama_) by the adjunction of the demonstrative\n     article \u05d3 (_d\u2019_); that is to say, a thing which comes from\n     Rama: an action well ordered, beautiful, sublime, etc.\n     Notice that the Greek verb \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, _to act_, whence is drawn\n     very inappropriately the word \u03b4\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bc\u03b1, is always attached to\n     the same root \u05e8\u05d0 (_ra_) which is that of harmonic movement.\n\n     [144] Athen., l. ii., c. 3; Arist., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 3, 4, 5.\n\n     [145] _Tragedy_, in Greek \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1, comes from the words\n     \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03c2, austere, severe, lofty, and \u1f60\u03b4\u03ae chant.\n\n     _Comedy_, in Greek \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1, is derived from the words \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2,\n     joyful, lascivious, and \u1f60\u03b4\u03ae, chant.\n\n     It is unnecessary for me to say that the etymologists who\n     have seen in _tragedy_ a song of the goat, because \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n     signifies a goat in Greek, have misunderstood the simplest\n     laws of etymology. \u03a4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 signifies a goat only by metaphor,\n     because of the roughness and heights which this animal loves\n     to climb; as _caper_, in Latin, holds to the same root as\n     _caput_; and _ch\u00e8vre_, in French, to the same root as\n     _chef_, for a similar reason.\n\n     [146] Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. i., \u00a7 59.\n\n     [147] Plutar. _In Solon_.\n\n     [148] Arist., _De Mor._, l. iii., c. 2; \u00c6lian., _Var.\n     Hist._, l. v., c. 19; Clem. Alex., _Strom._, l. ii., c. 14.\n\n     [149] Plato, _De Legib._,l. iii.\n\n     [150] Athen., l. viii., c. 8.\n\n     [151] Plutar., _De Music_.\n\n     [152] Horat., _De Art. po\u00ebt_, v. 279; Vitrav., _In Prefac._,\n     l. vii., p. 124.\n\n     [153] \u00c6schylus, _In Prometh._, Act I., Sc. 1, et Act. V.,\n     Sc. ult.\n\n     [154] \u00c6schylus, _In Eumenid._, Act V., Sc. 3.\n\n     [155] Aristoph. _In Plut._, v. 423; Pausan., l. i., c. 28;\n     _Vit\u00e2 \u00c6schyl. apud._, Stanley, p. 702.\n\n     [156] Dionys. Chrys., _Orat._, l. ii.\n\n     [157] Aristoph., _In Ran._; Philostr., _In Vit\u00e2 Apollon_, l.\n     vi., c. ii.\n\n     [158] Plutar., _In Cimon._; Athen., l. viii., c. 8.\n\n     [159] Philostr., _In Vit\u00e2 Apoll._, l. vi., c. ii.\n\n     [160] Schol., _In Vit\u00e2 Sophocl._; Suidas, _In_ \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb.;\n     Plutar., _De Profect. Vit\u00e6_.\n\n     [161] Aristot., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 25.\n\n     [162] Aristoph., _In Ran._, v. 874 et 1075.\n\n     [163] Philostr., _Vit\u00e2 Apoll._, l. ii., c. 2; l. iv., c. 16;\n     l. vi., c. 11; _Vit\u00e2 \u00c6schyl. apud_, Robort., p. 11.\n\n     [164] Aristoph., _In Ran._; Aristot., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 25.\n\n     [165] Plato, _De Legib._, l. ii. et iii.\n\n     [166] H\u00e9rodot., l. vi., 21; Corsin., _Fast. attic._, t.\n     iii., p. 172; Aristot., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 9.\n\n     [167] Aristot., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 9.\n\n     [168] Susarion appeared 580 B.C., and Thespis some years\n     after. The latter produced his tragedy of Alcestis in 536\n     B.C.; and the condemnation of Socrates occurred in 399 B.C.\n     So that only 181 years elapsed between the initial\n     presentation of comedy and the death of this philosopher.\n\n     [169] Aristot., _De Po\u00ebt._, c. 3.\n\n     [170] Aristoph, _In Pac._, v. 740; Schol., _ibid._;\n     Epicharm., _In Nupt. Heb._ apud Athen., l. iii., p. 85.\n\n     [171] Plat., _In Argum._; Aristoph. p. xi.; Schol., _De\n     Com\u0153d._; _ibid._, p.xii.\n\n     [172] Thence arises the epithet of _Eumolpique_ that I give\n     to the verses which form the subject of this work.\n\n     [173] The proof that Rome was scarcely known in Greece, at\n     the epoch of Alexander, is that the historian Theopompus,\n     accused by all critics of too much prolixity, has said only\n     a single word concerning this city, to announce that she had\n     been taken by the Gauls (Pliny, l. iii., c. 5). Bayle\n     observes with much sagacity, that however little Rome had\n     been known at that time, she would not have failed to\n     furnish the subject of a long digression for this historian,\n     who would have delighted much in it. (_Dict. crit._, art.\n     THEOPOMPUS, rem. E.)\n\n     [174] Diogen. La\u00ebrt., l. i., \u00a7 116. Pliny, l. v., c. 29.\n     Suidas, _In_ \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n     [175] Degerando, _Hist. des Syst\u00eam. de Phil._, t. i., p.\n     128, \u00e0 la note.\n\n     [176] Dionys. Halic., _De Thucid. Judic._\n\n     [177] The real founder of the Atomic system such as has been\n     adopted by Lucretius (_De Rerum Natura_, l. i.), was\n     Moschus, Ph\u0153nician philosopher whose works threw light upon\n     those of Leucippus (Posidonius cit\u00e9 par Strabon, l. xvi.,\n     Sext. Empiric., _Adv. mathem._, p. 367). This system well\n     understood, does not differ from that of the monads, of\n     which Leibnitz was the inventor.\n\n     [178] Fr\u00e9ret, _Mytholog. ou Religion des Grecs_.\n\n     [179] Voltaire, who has adopted this error, has founded it\n     upon the signification of the word _Epos_, which he has\n     connected with that of Discourse (_Dictionn. philos._ au mot\n     EPOP\u00c9E). But he is mistaken. The Greek word \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 is\n     translated accurately by _versus_. Thence the verb \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, to\n     follow in the tracks, to turn, to go, in the same sense.\n\n     [180] The Greeks looked upon the Latin authors and artists\n     as paupers enriched by their spoils; also they learned their\n     language only when forced to do so. The most celebrated\n     writers by whom Rome was glorified, were rarely cited by\n     them. Longinus, who took an example of the sublime in Moses,\n     did not seek a single one either in Horace or in Vergil; he\n     did not even mention their names. It was the same with other\n     critics. Plutarch spoke of Cicero as a statesman; he quoted\n     many of his clever sayings, but he refrained from comparing\n     him with Demosthenes as an orator. He excuses himself on\n     account of having so little knowledge of the Latin tongue,\n     he who had lived so long in Rome! Emperor Julian, who has\n     written only in Greek, cites only Greek authors and not one\n     Latin.\n\n     [181] _Voyez_ l\u2019ouvrage de Naud\u00e9, intitul\u00e9: _Apologie des\n     hommes accus\u00e9s de magie_. Le nombre de ces hommes est\n     tr\u00e8s-consid\u00e9rable.\n\n     [182] Allard, _Bibl. du Dauphin\u00e9_, \u00e0 la fin.\n\n     [183] Duplessis-Mornai, _Myst\u00e8re d\u2019iniquit\u00e9_, p. 279.\n\n     [184] This Ballad tongue, or rather Romance, was a mixture\n     of corrupt Latin, Teutonic, and ancient Gallic. It was\n     called thus, in order to distinguish it from the pure Latin\n     and French. The principal dialects of the Romance tongue\n     were the _langue d\u2019oc_, spoken in the south of France, and\n     the _longue d\u2019o\u00efl_, spoken in the north. It is from the\n     _langue d\u2019o\u00efl_ that the French descend. The _langue d\u2019oc_,\n     prevailing with the troubadours who cultivated it,\n     disappeared with them in the fourteenth century and was lost\n     in numberless obscure provincial dialects. Voyez _Le\n     Troubadour_, po\u00e9sies occitaniques, \u00e0 la Dissert., vol. i.\n\n     [185] Fontenelle, _Hist. du Th\u00e9\u00e2tre Fran\u00e7ais_.\n\n     [186] Voyez Sainte-Palaye, _M\u00e9m. sur l\u2019ancienne Cheval._;\n     Millot, _Hist. des Troubad._ Disc. pr\u00e9lim., on ce que j\u2019ai\n     dit moi-m\u00eame dans le _Troubadour_, comme ci-dessus.\n\n     [187] It is necessary to observe that _vau_ or _val_, _bau_\n     or _bal_, according to the dialect, signifies equally a\n     dance, a ball, and a folly, a fool. The Ph\u0153nician, root \u05e8\u05e2\n     (_whal_) expresses all that is elevated, exalted. The French\n     words _bal_, _vol_, _fol_, are here derived.\n\n     [188] The sonnets are of Oscan origin. The word _son_\n     signifies a song in the ancient _langue d\u2019oc_. The word\n     _sonnet_ is applied to a little song, pleasing and of an\n     affected form.\n\n     The madrigals are of Spanish origin as their name\n     sufficiently proves. The word _gala_ signifies in Spanish a\n     kind of favour, an honour rendered, a gallantry, a present.\n     Thus _Madrid-gala_ arises from a gallantry in the Madrid\n     fashion.\n\n     The sylves, called _sirves_ or _sirventes_ by the\n     troubadours, were kinds of serious poems, ordinarily\n     satirical. These words come from the Latin _sylva_ which,\n     according to Quintilius, is said of a piece of verse recited\n     _ex-tempore_ (l. x., c. 3).\n\n     [189] _Voyez_ Laborde, _Essai sur la Musique_, t. i., p.\n     112, et t. ii., p. 168. On trouve, de la page 149 \u00e0 la page\n     232 de ce m\u00eame volume, un catalogue de tous les anciens\n     romanciers fran\u00e7ais. On peut voir, pour les Italiens,\n     Crescembini, _Della Volgar Po\u00ebsia_.\n\n     [190] See Laborde. It is believed that this Guilhaume,\n     bishop of Paris, is the author of the hieroglyphic figures\n     which adorn the portal of Notre-Dame, and that they have\n     some connection with the hermetic science. (_Biblioth. des\n     Phil. Chim._, t. iv. Saint-Foix, Essai _sur Paris_.)\n\n     [191] Perhaps one is astonished to see that I give the name\n     of _sirventes_, or sylves, to that which is commonly called\n     the poems of Dante; but in order to understand me, it is\n     necessary to consider that these poems, composed of stanzas\n     of three verses joined in couplets, are properly only long\n     songs on a serious subject, which agrees with the _sirvente_.\n     The poems of Bojardo, of Ariosto, of Tasso, are, as to form,\n     only long ballads. They are poems because of the unity\n     which, notwithstanding the innumerable episodes with which\n     they are filled, constitutes the principal subject.\n\n     [192] Pasquier, _Hist. et Recherch. des Antiq._, l. vii.,\n     ch. 12. Henri-Etienne, _Pr\u00e9cellence du Lang. Fran\u00e7._, p. 12.\n     D\u2019Olivet, _Prosod._, art. i., \u00a7 2. Delisle-de-Salles, _Hist.\n     de la Trag._, t. i., p. 154, \u00e0 la note.\n\n     [193] D\u2019Olivet, _Prosod._, art. V., \u00a7 1.\n\n     [194] _Ibidem._\n\n     [195] William Jones, _Asiatic Researches_, vol. i.\n\n     [196] _Ibid._, vol. i., p. 425.\n\n     [197] William Jones, _Asiatic Researches_, vol. i., p. 430.\n\n     [198] Wilkin\u2019s _Notes on the Hitopadesa_, p. 249. Halled\u2019s\n     _Grammar_, in the preface. The same, _Code of the Gentoo-Laws_.\n     _Asiat. Research._, vol. i., p. 423.\n\n     [199] _Asiat. Research._, vol. i., p. 346. Also in same\n     work, vol. i., p. 430.\n\n     [200] W. Jones has put into English a Natak entitled\n     _Sakuntala_ or _The Fatal Ring_, of which the French\n     translation has been made by Brugni\u00e8res. Paris, 1803, chez\n     Treuttel et W\u00fcrtz.\n\n     [201] See _Asiat. Research._, vol. iii., p. 42, 47, 86, 185,\n     etc.\n\n     [202] _Asiat. Research._, vol. i., p. 279, 357 et 360.\n\n     [203] _Institut. of Hindus-Laws._ W. Jones, _Works_, t.\n     iii., p. 51. _Asiat. Research._, vol. ii., p. 368.\n\n     [204] _Hist. g\u00e9n\u00e9r. de la Chine_, t. i., p. 19. _M\u00e9m.\n     concern. les Chinois_, t. i., p. 9, 104, 160. _Chou-King._\n     Ch. _Yu-Kong_, etc., Duhalde, t. i., p. 266. _M\u00e9m.\n     concern._, etc., t. xiii., p. 190.\n\n     [205] The _She-King_, which contains the most ancient poetry\n     of the Chinese, is only a collection of odes and songs, of\n     sylves, upon different historical and moral subjects. (_M\u00e9m.\n     concer. les Chinois_, t. i., p. 51, et t. ii., p. 80.)\n     Besides, the Chinese had known rhyme for more than four\n     thousand years. (_Ibid._, t. viii., p. 133-185.).\n\n     [206] Le P. Parennin says that the language of the Manchus\n     has an enormous quantity of words which express, in the most\n     concise and most picturesque manner, what ordinary languages\n     can do only by aid of numerous epithets or periphrases.\n     (Duhalde, _in-fol._, t. iv., p. 65.)\n\n     [207] _Ci-dessus_, p. 31.\n\n     [208] _Voyez_ la traduction fran\u00e7aise des _Rech. asiatiq._,\n     t. ii., p. 49, notes _a_ et _b_.\n\n     [209] _Voyez_ ce que dit de Zend, Anquetil Duperron,\n     et l\u2019exemple qu\u2019il donne de cette ancienne langue.\n     _Zend-Avesta_, t. i.\n\n     [210] D\u2019Herbelot, _Bibl. orient._, p. 54. _Asiat.\n     Research._, t. ii., p. 51.\n\n     [211] Anquetil Duperron, _Zend-Avesta_, t. i.\n\n     [212] _Asiat. Research._, t. ii., p. 51.\n\n     [213] L\u2019abb\u00e9 Massieu, _Histor. de la Po\u00e9sie fran\u00e7._, p. 82.\n\n     [214] In Arabic \u062f\u064a\u0648\u0627\u0646 (_diwan_). \u05df\u200e\u05d0\u200e\u05d5\u200e\u05d9\u200e\u05d3\n\n     [215] D\u2019Herbelot, _Bibl. orient._, au mot DIVAN. _Asiat.\n     Research._, t. ii., p. 13.\n\n     [216] It must be remarked that the word _Diw_, which is also\n     Persian, was alike applied in Persia to the Divine\n     Intelligence, before Zoroaster had changed the signification\n     of it by the establishment of a new doctrine, which,\n     replacing the _Diws_ by the _Iseds_, deprived them of the\n     dominion of Heaven, and represented them as demons of the\n     earth. See Anquetil Duperron, _Vendidad-Sad\u00e8_, p. 133,\n     _Boun-Dehesh._, p. 355. It is thus that Christianity has\n     changed the sense of the Greek word \u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd (Demon), and\n     rendered it synonymous with the devil; whereas it signified\n     in its principle, divine spirit and genius.\n\n     [217] _Asiat. Research._, t. ii., p. 13.\n\n     [218] _Voyez_ Anquetil Duperron, _Zend-Avesta_, t. iii., p.\n     527 et suiv. _Voyez_ aussi un ouvrage allemand de Wahl, sur\n     l\u2019\u00e9tat de la Perse: _Pragmatische-Geografische und Statische\n     Schilderung_ \u2026 etc. Leipzig, 1795, t. i., p. 198 \u00e0 204.\n\n     [219] Voyez plusieurs de leurs chansons rapport\u00e9es par\n     Laborde, _Essai sur la Musique_, t. ii., p. 398.\n\n     [220] Laborde, _ibid._, t. i., p. 425.\n\n     [221] I will give, later on, a strophe from _Voluspa_, a\n     Scandinavian ode of _eumolpique_ style, very beautiful, and\n     of which I will, perhaps, one day make an entire\n     translation.\n\n     [222] It was said long ago that a great number of rhymed\n     verses were found in the Bible, and Voltaire even has cited\n     a ridiculous example in his _Dictionnaire philosophique_\n     (art. RIME): but it seems to me that before concerning\n     oneself so much as one still does, whether the Hebraic text\n     of the _Sepher_ is in prose or in verse, whether or not one\n     finds there rhymed verses after the manner of the Arabs, or\n     measured after the manner of the Greeks, it would be well to\n     observe whether one understands this text. The language of\n     Moses has been lost entirely for more than two thousand four\n     hundred years, and unless it be restored with an aptitude,\n     force, and constancy which is nowadays unusual, I doubt\n     whether it will be known exactly what the legislator of the\n     Hebrews has said regarding the principles of the Universe,\n     the origin of the earth, and the birth and vicissitudes of\n     the beings who people it. These subjects are, however, worth\n     the pains if one would reflect upon them; I cannot prevent\n     myself from thinking that it would be more fitting to be\n     occupied with the meaning of the words, than their\n     arrangements by long and short syllables, by regular or\n     alternate rhymes, which is of no importance whatever.\n\n     [223] Vossius, _De Poematum cantu et viribus rhythmi_; cit\u00e9\n     par J. J. Rousseau, _Dictionnaire de Musique_, art. RYTHME.\n\n     [224] Nearly all of the Italian words terminate with one of\n     four vowels, _a_, _e_, _i_, _o_, without accent: it is very\n     rare that the vowels are accentuated, as the vowel _\u00f9_. When\n     this occurs as in _cit\u00e0_, _perch\u00e8_, _d\u00ec_, _far\u00f2_, etc.,\n     then, only, is the final masculine. Now here is what one of\n     their best rhythmic poets, named Tolom\u00e8o, gives as an\n     hexameter verse:\n\n          _Questa, per affeto, tenerissima lettera mando\n           A te_ \u2026\n\n     To make this line exact, one feels that the word _mando_,\n     which terminates it, should be composed of two longs, that\n     is to say, that it should be written _mand\u00f2_, which could\n     not be without altering the sense entirely. Marchetti has\n     translated into blank verse the Latin poem of Lucretius. I\n     will quote the opening lines. Here is evident the softness\n     to which I take exception and which prevents them from being\n     really eumolpique, according to the sense that I have\n     attached to this word.\n\n          _Alma figlia di Giove, inclita madre\n           Del gran germe d\u2019Enea, Venere bella,\n           Degli uomini piacere e degli Dei:\n           Tu, che sotto il volubili e lucenti\n           Segni del cielo, il mar profundo, e tutta\n           D\u2019animai d\u2019ogni specie orni la terra:_\n           ... etc.\n\n     [225] One must not believe that the mute _e_ with which many\n     English words terminate represents the French feminine\n     final, expressed by the same vowel. This mute _e_ is in\n     reality mute in English; ordinarily it is only used to give\n     a more open sound to the vowel which precedes it, as in\n     _tale_, _scene_, _bone_, _pure_, _fire_. Besides it is never\n     taken into account, either in the measure or in the prosody\n     of the lines. Thus these two lines of Dryden rhyme exactly:\n\n         \u201cNow scarce the Trojan fleet with sails and oars\n          Had left behind the fair Sicilian shores.\u2026\u201d\n                                        _\u00c6neid_, b. i., v. 50.\n\n     It is the same in these of Addison:\n\n         \u201cTune ev\u2019ry string and ev\u2019ry tongue,\n          Be thou the Muse and subject of our song.\u2026\u201d\n                                   _St. Cecilia\u2019s Day_, i., 10.\n\n     or these from Goldsmith:\n\n         \u201cHow often have I loiter\u2019d o\u2019er thy green,\n          Where humble happiness endeared each scene.\u201d\n                                  _The Deserted Village_, i., 7.\n\n     [226] There remains to us of this poetry the very precious\n     fragments contained in the _Edda_ and in _Voluspa_. The\n     _Edda_, whose name signifies great-grandmother, is a\n     collection, fairly ample, of Scandinavian traditions.\n     _Voluspa_ is a sort of Sibylline book, or cosmogonic oracle,\n     as its name indicates. I am convinced that if the poets of\n     the north, the Danes, Swedes, and Germans, had oftener drawn\n     their subjects from these indigenous sources, they would\n     have succeeded better than by going to Greece to seek them\n     upon the summits of Parnassus. The mythology of Odin,\n     descended from the Rhip\u00e6an mountains, suits them better than\n     that of the Greeks, whose tongue furthermore is not\n     conformable here. When one makes the moon and the wife (_der\n     Mond_, _das Weib_) of masculine and neuter gender; when one\n     makes the sun, the air, time, love (_die Sonne_, _die Luft_,\n     _die Zeit_, _die Liebe_) of feminine gender, one ought\n     wisely to renounce the allegories of Parnassus. It was on\n     account of the sex given to the sun and the moon that the\n     schism arose, of which I have spoken, in explaining the\n     origin of the temple of Delphi.\n\n     The Scandinavian allegories, however, that I consider a\n     _d\u00e9bris_ of Thracian allegories, furnishing subjects of a\n     very different character from those of the Greeks and\n     Latins, might have varied the poetry of Europe and prevented\n     the Arabesque fiction from holding there so much ascendancy.\n     The Scandinavian verses, being without rhyme, hold moreover,\n     to eumolp\u0153ia. The following is a strophe from _Voluspa_:\n\n         \u201cAvant que le temps f\u00fbt, Ymir avait \u00e9t\u00e9;\n          Ni la mer, ni nes vents n\u2019existaient pas encore;\n          Il n\u2019\u00e9tait de terre, il n\u2019\u00e9tait point de ciel:\n          Tout n\u2019\u00e9tait qu\u2019un ab\u00eeme immense, sans verdure.\u201d\n\n         \u201cIn the beginning, when naught was, there\n          Was neither sand nor sea nor the cold waves,\n          Nor was earth to be seen nor heaven above.\n          There was a Yawning Chasm [chaos] but grass nowhere.\u2026\u201d\n\n         _\u00c1r vas aida pat-es ekki vas;\n          vasa sandr n\u00e9 s\u00e6r n\u00e9 svalar unnir,\n          i\u0153r[x]o fansk \u00e6va n\u00e9 upp-himinn;\n          Gap vas Ginnunga, enn gras ekki,_ \u2026\n\n     Voyez Mallet, _Monuments celtiques_, p. 135; et pour le\n     texte, le po\u00ebme m\u00eame de la Voluspa, _in Edda islandorum_,\n     Mallet para\u00eet avoir suivi un texte erron\u00e9.\n\n     As to the Gallic poetry of the Scotch bards, that Macpherson\n     has made known to us under the name of _Ossian_, much is\n     needed that they may have a sufficient degree of\n     authenticity for them to be cited as models, and placed\n     parallel with those of Homer, as has been done without\n     reflection. These poems, although resting for the greater\n     part upon a true basis, are very far from being veritable as\n     to form. The Scotch bards, like the Oscan troubadours, must\n     be restored and often entirely remade, if they are to be\n     read. Macpherson, in composing his _Ossian_, has followed\n     certain ancient traditions, has put together certain\n     scattered fragments; but has taken great liberties with all\n     the rest. He was, besides, a man endowed with creative\n     genius and he might have been able to attain to epop\u0153ia if\n     he had been better informed. His lack of knowledge has left\n     a void in his work which demonstrates its falsity. There\n     is no mythology, no allegory, no cult in _Ossian_. There\n     are some historic or romanesque facts joined to long\n     descriptions; it is a style more emphatic than figurative,\n     more bizarre than original. Macpherson, in neglecting all\n     kinds of mythological and religious ideas, in even mocking\n     here and there the _stone of power_ of the Scandinavians,\n     has shown that he was ignorant of two important things: the\n     one, that the allegorical or religious genius constitutes\n     the essence of poetry; the other, that Scotland was at a\n     very ancient period the hearth of this same genius whose\n     interpreters were the druids, bards, and scalds. He should\n     have known that, far from being without religion, the\n     Caledonians possessed in the heart of their mountains, the\n     Gallic Parnassus, the sacred mountain of the Occidental\n     isles; and that when the antique cult began to decline in\n     Gaul, it was in Albion, reckoned among the holy isles by\n     even the Indians, that the druids went to study. Voyez\n     _Les Commentaires de C\u00e9sar_, iv., 20; _L\u2019Introduction de\n     l\u2019histoire de Danemark_, par Mallet; _L\u2019Histoire des\n     Celtes_, par Pelloutier; et enfin les _Recherches\n     asiatiques_ (_Asiat. Research._), t. vi., p. 490 et 502.\n\n     In order to seize the occasion of applying eumolpique lines\n     to a greater number of subjects, I am going to quote a sort\n     of exposition of Ossian, the only one I believe, which is\n     found in his poems; because Macpherson, for more originality,\n     neglected nearly always to announce the subject of his\n     songs. I will not give the text, because the English\n     translation whence I obtained it does not give it. It\n     concerns the battle of Lora. After a kind of exordium\n     addressed to the son of the stranger, dweller of the silent\n     cavern, Ossian said to him:\n\n            Le chant pla\u00eet-il \u00e0 ton oreille?\n          Ecoute le r\u00e9cit du combat de Lora.\n          Il est bien ancien, ce combat! Le tumulte\n          Des armes, et les cris furieux des guerriers,\n            Sont couverts par un long silence;\n            Ils sont \u00e9teints depuis longtemps:\n          Ainsi sur des rochers retentissants, la foudre\n            Roule, gronde, \u00e9clate et n\u2019est plus;\n          Le soleil repara\u00eet, et la cime brillante\n          Des coteaux verdoyants, sourit \u00e0 ses rayons.\n\n          Son of the secret cell! dost thou delight in songs?\n          Hear the battle of Lora.\n          The sound of its steel is long since past.\n          So thunder on the darkened hill roars, and is no more.\n          The sun returns with his silent beams,\n          The glittering rocks, and green heads of the mountains\n            smile.\n\n     This example serves to prove that eumolpique lines might\n     easily adapt themselves to the dithyramb.\n\n     [227] The tragedy of the _Cid_, given by Pierre Corneille in\n     1626, upon which were based the grandeur and dominant\n     character of the Th\u00e9\u00e2tre Fran\u00e7ais, as well as the renown of\n     the author, is taken from a Spanish ballad very celebrated\n     in Spain. The Cid, who is the hero of it, lived towards the\n     close of the eleventh century. He was a type of the paladins\n     and knights errant of the romanesque traditions. He enjoyed\n     a wide reputation and attained a high degree of fortune.\n     _Voyez_ Monte-Mayor, _Diana_, l. ii.; et Voltaire, _Essai\n     sur les M\u0153urs_, t. iii., st\u00e9r\u00e9otype, p. 86.\n\n     In the course of the sixteenth century, the Spanish held a\n     marked superiority over the other peoples: their tongue was\n     spoken at Paris, Vienna, Milan, Turin. Their customs, their\n     manners of thought and of writing, subjugated the minds of\n     the Italians, and from Charles V. to the commencement of the\n     reign of Philip III., Spain enjoyed an importance that the\n     other peoples never had. _Voyez_ Robertson, _Introduction \u00e0\n     l\u2019Histoire de Charles-Quint_.\n\n     It would be necessary to overstep considerably the ordinary\n     limits of a footnote, if I should explain how it happens\n     that Spain has lost this supremacy acquired by her, and why\n     her tongue, the only one capable of rivalling and perhaps\n     effacing the French, has yielded to it in all ways, and by\n     which it was eclipsed. This explanation would demand for\n     itself alone a very lengthy work. Among the writers who have\n     sought for the cause of the decadence of the Spanish\n     monarchy, some have believed to discover it in the increase\n     of its wealth, others, in the too great extent of its\n     colonies, and the greater part, in the spirit of its\n     government and its superstitious cult. They have all thought\n     that the tribunal of the Inquisition alone was capable of\n     arresting the impulse of genius and of stifling the\n     development of learning. In this they have taken effects for\n     causes, and consequences for principles. They have not seen\n     that the spirit of the government and the cult is always not\n     the motive, but the result of the national spirit, and that\n     the wealth and the colonies, indifferent in themselves, are\n     only instruments that this spirit employs for good or evil,\n     according to its character. I can only indicate the first\n     cause which has prevented Spain from reaching the\n     culminating point which France is very near to attaining.\n     This cause is pride. Whilst Europe, enveloped in darkness,\n     was, so to speak, in the fermentation of ignorance, Spain,\n     conquered by the Arabs, received a germ of science which,\n     developing with rapidity, produced a precocious fruit,\n     brilliant, but like hot-house fruit lacking internal force\n     and generative vigour. This premature production having\n     raised Spain abruptly above the other European nations,\n     inspired in her that pride, that excessive _amour propre_,\n     which, making her treat with contempt all that did not\n     belong to her, hindered her from making any change in her\n     usual customs, carried her with complacency in her mistakes,\n     and when other peoples came to bring forth fruits in their\n     season, corrupted hers and stamped her with a stationary\n     movement, which becoming necessarily retrogressive, must\n     ruin her, and did ruin her.\n\n     [228] In comparing the first lines of Homer with those of\n     Klopstock, it is seen that the Greek contains 29 letters, 18\n     of which are vowels; and the German 48 letters, 31 of which\n     are consonants. It is difficult with such disparity in the\n     elements to make the harmony the same.\n\n     [229] GOLDEN VERSES OF THE PYTHAGOREANS (1)\n\n     PREPARATION\n\n     Render to the Immortal Gods the consecrated cult;\n     Guard then thy faith (2): Revere the memory\n     Of the Illustrious Heroes, of Spirits demi-Gods (3).\n\n\n     [230] PURIFICATION\n\n       Be a good son, just brother, spouse tender and good\n         father (4)\n     Choose for thy friend, the friend of virtue;\n     Yield to his gentle counsels, profit by his life,\n     And for a trifling grievance never leave him (5);\n     If thou canst at least: for a most rigid law\n     Binds Power to Necessity (6).\n     Still it is given thee to fight and overcome\n     Thy foolish passions: learn thou to subdue them (7).\n     Be sober, diligent, and chaste; avoid all wrath.\n     In public or in secret ne\u2019er permit thou\n     Any evil; and above all else respect thyself (8).\n\n       Speak not nor act before thou hast reflected.\n     Be just (9). Remember that a power invincible\n     Ordains to die (10); that riches and the honours\n     Easily acquired, are easy thus to lose (11).\n     As to the evils which Destiny involves,\n     Judge them what they are: endure them all and strive,\n     As much as thou art able, to modify the traits:\n     The Gods, to the most cruel, have not exposed the Sage (12).\n\n       Even as Truth, does Error have its lovers:\n     With prudence the Philosopher approves or blames;\n     If Error triumph, he departs and waits (13).\n     Listen and in thine heart engrave my words;\n     Keep closed thine eye and ear \u2019gainst prejudice;\n     Of others the example fear; think always for thyself (14):\n     Consult, deliberate, and freely choose (15).\n     Let fools act aimlessly and without cause.\n     Thou shouldst, in the present, contemplate the future (16).\n\n       That which thou dost not know, pretend not that thou dost.\n     Instruct thyself: for time and patience favour all (17).\n     Neglect not thy health (18): dispense with moderation,\n     Food to the body and to the mind repose (19).\n     Too much attention or too little shun; for envy\n     Thus, to either excess is alike attached (20).\n     Luxury and avarice have similar results.\n     One must choose in all things a mean just and good (21).\n\n     [231] PERFECTION\n\n       Let not sleep e\u2019er close thy tired eyes\n     Without thou ask thyself: What have I omitted and what done? (22).\n     Abstain thou if \u2019tis evil; persevere if good (23).\n     Meditate upon my counsels; love them; follow them;\n     To the divine virtues will they know how to lead thee (24).\n     I swear it by the one who in our hearts engraved\n     The sacred Tetrad, symbol immense and pure,\n     Source of Nature and model of the Gods (25).\n     But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,\n     Invoke these Gods with fervour, they whose aid,\n     Thy work begun, alone can terminate (26).\n     Instructed by them, naught shall then deceive thee:\n     Of diverse beings thou shalt sound the essence;\n     And thou shalt know the principle and end of All (27).\n     If Heaven wills it, thou shalt know that Nature,\n     Alike in everything, is the same in every place (28):\n     So that, as to thy true rights enlightened,\n     Thine heart shall no more feed on vain desires (29).\n     Thou shalt see that the evils which devour men\n     Are of their choice the fruit (30); that these unfortunates\n     Seek afar the goodness whose source within they bear (31).\n     For few know happiness: playthings of the passions,\n     Hither, thither tossed by adverse waves,\n     Upon a shoreless sea, they blinded roll,\n     Unable to resist or to the tempest yield (32).\n\n       God! Thou couldst save them by opening their eyes (33).\n     But no: \u2019tis for the humans of a race divine\n     To discern Error and to see the Truth (34).\n     Nature serves them (35). Thou who fathomed it,\n     O wise and happy man, rest in its haven.\n     But observe my laws, abstaining from the things\n     Which thy soul must fear, distinguishing them well;\n     Letting intelligence o\u2019er thy body reign (36);\n     So that, ascending into radiant Ether,\n     Midst the Immortals, thou shalt be thyself a God.\n\n     [232] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Comment. in Aur. Carmin. Proem._\n\n     [233] Fabric., _Bibl. gr\u00e6c._, p. 460; Dacier, _Remarq. sur\n     les Comm. d\u2019Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s_.\n\n     [234] Jamblic., _De Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, c. 30 et 33; Plutarch,\n     _De Gen. Socrat._\n\n     [235] Plutarch, _De Repug. sto\u00efc._; Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. viii.,\n     \u00a7 39; Polyb., l. ii.; Justin., l. xx., c. 4; Vossius, _De\n     Phil. sect._, c. 6.\n\n     [236] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._, v. 71.\n\n     [237] _Voyez_ Dacier, _Rem. sur le Comment. d\u2019Hi\u00e9rocl._\n\n     [238] Plut., _De Gen. Socr._; \u00c6lian., _Var. Hist._, l. ii.,\n     c. 7.\n\n     [239] Bacon, _Novum Organum, Aph._, 65 et 71.\n\n     [240] _Asiat. Res._, t. iii., p. 371 \u00e0 374.\n\n     [241] _M\u00e9m. concern. les Chin._, t. ii., p. 26.\n\n     [242] _Eulma Esclam. Note du Boun-Dehesh_, p. 344.\n\n     [243] Porphyr., _De Antr. Nymph._, p. 126.\n\n     [244] \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f41\u03c1\u03ac\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. _Voyez_\n     Dacier, dans ses _Remarques sur les Comment. d\u2019Hi\u00e9rocl._\n\n     [245] _Vit\u00e2 Pythagor._; Phot., _Cod._, 259; Macrob., _Somn.\n     Scip._, l. i., c. 6, l. ii., c. 12; August., _De Civit.\n     Dei_, l. iv., c. 9 et 11; Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, l. iii.,\n     c. 9; Lactant., _De Fals. Relig._, l. i., c. 6 et 7; Plot.,\n     _Ennead._, iii., l. ii.\n\n     [246] Plutar., _De Isid. et Osirid._, p. 377.\n\n     [247] The priests of the Burmans, called _Rahans_, but whose\n     generic name is that of _Sramana_, whence came to them that\n     of Sramaneras, which the ancients gave them, carry the\n     spirit of tolerance as far as possible. They visit with the\n     same devotion pagodas, mosques, and churches; never does one\n     see them being persecuted, nor persecuting others in the\n     cause of religion. The Brahmans, Mussulmans, and Christians\n     occupy important posts among them without their being\n     scandalized. They regard all men as brothers. (_Asiat._\n     _Research._, t. vi., pp. 274-279). The Brahmans are of the\n     same mind. One reads these wonderful words in the _Bhaghavad\n     Gita_: \u201cA great diversity of cults, similar as to substance\n     but varying in forms, are manifested by the will of the\n     Supreme Being. Some follow one cult, others attach\n     themselves to another: all of these worshippers are purified\n     from their offences by their particular cult.\u2026 God is the\n     gift of charity, God is the offering, God is the fire upon\n     the altar; it is God even, who makes the sacrifice, and God\n     will be obtained by him who makes God the sole object of his\n     labours.\u201d (_Lect._ iv.)\n\n     [248] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._, v. 1.\n\n     [249] The Greek word \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 expresses a thing put in order,\n     arranged according to a fixed and regular principle. Its\n     primitive root is in the Ph\u0153nician \u05d0\u05d5\u05e9 (_a\u00f4sh_) a principle\n     Being, _the fire_. The Latin word _mundus_ renders the Greek\n     sense very imperfectly. It signifies exactly, that which is\n     made neat and clean by means of water. Its nearest root is\n     _unda_, and its remotest root is found in the Ph\u0153nician \u05d0\u05d5\u05d3\n     (_a\u00f4d_), an emanation, a vapour, a source. One can see,\n     according to this etymology, that the Greeks drew the idea\n     of order and beauty from fire, and the Latins from water.\n\n     [250] Diogen. La\u00ebrt., l. viii., \u00a7 25; Plutar., _De Decret.\n     philos._, ii., c. 6; Sext. Empir., _Adv. Math._, x., \u00a7 249;\n     Stob., _Eccl. phys._, p. 468.\n\n     [251] Plutar., _In Numa_.\n\n     [252] Jambl., _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, c. 28, 32 et 35.\n\n     [253] \u0395\u03bd, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf. The symbol of Fo-Hi, so celebrated among the\n     Chinese, is the same and is expressed by a whole line \u2015\u2015 1,\n     and a broken line - - 2. I shall make myself better\n     understood upon this subject, in speaking as I intend to do\n     upon music and upon what the ancients understood by the\n     language of Numbers.\n\n     [254] _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._; Phot., _Bibl. Codex_, 259.\n\n     [255] _Vie de Pythag._ par Dacier.\n\n     [256] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aurea Carmin._, v. 1.\n\n     [257] Ci-devant, p. 81.\n\n     [258] Tim\u00e9e de Locres, ch. 3; _Edit. de Batteux_, \u00a7 8; Diod.\n     Sicul., l. ii., p. 83; Herod., l. ii., c. 4; Hyde, _De vet.\n     Pers. Relig._, c. 19; Plato, _In Tim._, _In Ph\u00e6d._, _In\n     Legib._, etc.\n\n     [259] Bailly, _Hist. de l\u2019Astr. anc._, l. iii., \u00a7 10.\n\n     [260] Pythagoras, at an early age, was taken to Tyre by\n     Mnesarchus, his father, in order to study there the doctrine\n     of the Ph\u0153nicians; later he visited Egypt, Arabia, and\n     Babylon, in which last city he remained twelve years. It was\n     while there that he had frequent conferences concerning the\n     principle of things with a very learned magian whom Porphyry\n     names Zabratos; Plutarch, Zaratas; and Theodoret, Zaradas.\n     (Porphyr., _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._) Plutarch is inclined to believe\n     that this magian is the same as Zardusht, or Zoroaster, and\n     the chronology is not here entirely contrary. (Plutar., _De\n     Procreat. anim._; Hyde, _De Relig. vet. Pers._, c. 24, o.\n     309 et c. 31, p. 379.)\n\n     [261] _Asiat. Research._, t. vi., p. 174.\n\n     [262] Holwell\u2019s, _Histor. Interest. Events_, ch. iv., \u00a7 5.\n\n     [263] Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich._, t. i., p. 164.\n\n     [264] Macrob., _Somn. Scip._, l. i., c. 11.\n\n     [265] B\u00f6hme, _Les Six Points_, ch. 2.\n\n     [266] The word \u05e7\u05d1\u05dc signifies, in Hebrew, Arabic, and\n     Chaldean, that which is anterior, that which one receives\n     from the ancients by tradition.\n\n     [267] _Aurea Carm._, v. 48.\n\n     [268] Synes, _Hymn._, iii., v. 174; _Hymn._, iv., v. 68.\n\n     [269] Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich._, t. i., p. 572.\n\n     [270] The word _Eon_, in Greek \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd, is derived from the\n     Egyptian or Ph\u0153nician \u05d0\u05d9 (_a\u00ef_), a principle of will, a\n     central point of development, and \u05d9\u05d5\u05df (_ion_), the\n     generative faculty. This last word has signified, in a\n     restricted sense, a dove, and has been the symbol of Venus.\n     It is the famous _Yoni_ of the Indians and even the _Yn_ of\n     the Chinese: that is to say, the plastic nature of the\n     Universe. From there, the name of _Ionia_, given to Greece.\n\n     [271] Herm. Trism\u00e9g., c. 11.\n\n     [272] Plutar. cit\u00e9 par le p\u00e8re Petau. _Notes in Synes_, p. 42.\n\n     [273] Clem. Alex., _Eclog. Theod._, \u00a7 30.\n\n     [274] _Hist. du Manich._, t. i., p. 572.\n\n     [275] Gods, Heroes, and Demons signify in the Greek words\n     \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f2d\u03c1\u03c9\u03b5\u03c2, \u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, whence they are derived, the\n     Principle-Beings attained to perfection; the ruling\n     Principle-Beings; Terrestrial Existences. The word \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is\n     formed from the word \u05d0\u05d5\u05e9 (_a\u00f4s_), a Principle-Being,\n     preceded by the _hemantique_ letter \u05ea (\u03b8, _th_), which is\n     the sign of perfection. The word  \u1f2d\u03c1\u03c9\u03b5\u03c2 is composed of the\n     same word \u05d0\u05d5\u05e9 (_a\u00f4s_), preceded by the word \u05d4\u05e8\u05e8 (_herr_),\n     expressing all that rules. The word \u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd comes from the\n     ancient word \u0394\u1fc6\u03bc, land, united with the word \u1f64\u03bd, existence.\n\n     [276] \u039a\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n     [277] Lil. Greg. Gyral., _Pythag. Symb. Interpret._, p. 92.\n\n     [278] _Apud Phot. Cod._, 249.\n\n     [279] _Dict. Crit._, art. PYTHAGORAS, rem. Q.\n\n     [280] Not long since, a man rather well organized mentally,\n     but very slightly enlightened by the true science, brought\n     out a book entitled _Ruverabhoni_, in which, heaping up all\n     the ancient and modern sophisms pronounced against the\n     social organization founded upon the establishment of the\n     family, he aspired to change the instinct of nature, in this\n     respect, and to found _true happiness_ upon the _d\u00e9bris_ of\n     all the ties of blood, of all the affections of the soul,\n     and of all the duties of consanguinity.\n\n     [281] As I give the same meaning as did Moses and not that\n     of the _Septuagint_ copied by the _Vulgate_, I transcribe\n     here the original text, so that those who understand Hebrew\n     may see that I have not deviated from it.\n\n     \u05db\u05d1\u05d3 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05da \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d0\u05de\u05da \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05df \u05d9\u05d0\u05e8 \u05db\u05d5\u05df \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05da \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05be\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da \u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05da\n\n     _Exodus_, ch. 20, v. 12.\n\n     [282] _This country of Adam_, in Hebrew \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4 (_ha-adamah_),\n     _adam\u00e9enne_. This word, which has been vulgarly translated\n     by _the Earth_, signifies it only by metaphor. Its proper\n     sense, which is very difficult to grasp, depends always on\n     that which is attached to the name of Adam, whence it is\n     derived. _Jh\u00f4ah_, in Hebrew \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 , pronounced very\n     improperly _Jehovah_, on account of a defective punctuation\n     of the Masoretes, is the proper name of GOD. This name was\n     formed by Moses in a manner as ingenious as sublime, by\n     means of the contraction of the three tenses of the verb \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\n     (_h\u00f4eh_), to be. It signifies exactly _will be-being-been_;\n     that which is, was, and shall be. One renders it well enough\n     by _Eternal_. It is Eternity, or the Time-without-Limit of\n     Zoroaster. This name is quite generally followed, as it is\n     here, with the words \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05da (_\u00c6loh\u00ee-cha_), thy Gods, in order\n     to express that the Unity contained in Jh\u00f4ah, comprehends\n     the infinity of the gods, and takes the place of it with the\n     people of Israel.\n\n     [283] _M\u00e9moires concern. les Chinois_, t. iv., p. 7.\n\n     [284] _M\u00e9m. concern. les Chinois_, ibid.\n\n     [285] Nemesis, in Greek \u039d\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, is derived from the\n     Ph\u0153nician words \u05e0\u05d0\u05de (_nam_ or _n\u00e6m_), expressing every\n     judgment, every order, every decree announced by word of\n     mouth; and \u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 (_\u00e6shish_), all that serves for principle,\n     as foundation. This last word has root \u05d0\u05e9 (_as_, _os_, or\n     _\u00e6s_).\n\n     [286] _Hiao-King_, ou _Livre de la Pi\u00e9t\u00e9 filiale_.\n\n     [287] Kong-Tz\u00e9e, dans le _Hiao-King_ qui contient sa\n     doctrine.\n\n     [288] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Comment. Aurea. carmin._, v. 5.\n\n     [289] Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, _ibid._, v. 7.\n\n     [290] Porphyr., _in Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, p. 37.\n\n     [291] Dacier, _Vie de Pythag._\n\n     [292] Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. v., \u00a7 21.\n\n     [293] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aurea. carm._, v. 8.\n\n     [294] _Evang. de S. Math._, ch. 22.\n\n     [295] _Zend-Avesta_, 30\u1d49 _h\u00e2_, p. 164; _ibid._, 34\u1d49 _h\u00e2_, p.\n     174; _ibid._, 72\u1d49 _h\u00e2_, p. 258.\n\n     [296] _Vie de Confucius_, p. 139.\n\n     [297] Herm. Trismeg., _In P\u0153mand._\n\n     [298] Senac., _De Sen._, vi., 2.\n\n     [299] Aul. Gell., l. vi., c. 2.\n\n     [300] Plutar., _De repugn. Sto\u00efc. de Fato._\n\n     [301] Chalcidius, _in Tim._, not. 295, p. 387.\n\n     [302] _Hist. du Manich._, t. ii., l. v., ch. 6, p. 250.\n\n     [303] _Dict. crit._, MANICHEENS, rem. D.\n\n     [304] Cic\u00e9ron, _Tuscul._, l. i.; Clem. Alex., _Strom._, l.\n     v., p. 501.\n\n     [305] Justin., _Cohort ad Gent._, p. 6; Cyrill., _Contr.\n     Julien_; Fabric., _Bibl. gr\u00e6c._, t. i., p. 472.\n\n     [306] Plutar., _De Procr. anim._\n\n     [307] Plat., _Epist._, 2 et 7, t. iii., p. 312, 313, 341,\n     etc.\n\n     [308] _Voyez_ l\u2019excellent ouvrage de Beausobre \u00e0 ce sujet,\n     _L\u2019Histoire du Manich\u00e9isme_.\n\n     [309] When Zoroaster spoke of this Cause, he gave it the\n     name of _Time without Limit_, following the translation of\n     Anquetil Duperron. This Cause does not still appear absolute\n     in the doctrine of this theosophist; because in a passage of\n     the _Zend-Avesta_, where in contemplation of the Supreme\n     Being, producer of Ormuzd, he calls this Being, _the Being\n     absorbed in excellence_, and says that Fire, acting from the\n     beginning, is the principle of union between this Being and\n     Ormuzd (36\u1d49 _h\u00e2 du Vendidad Sad\u00e9_, p. 180, 19\u1d49 _fargard_, p.\n     415). One finds in another book, called _Sharistha_, that\n     when this Supreme Being organized the matter of the\n     Universe, he projected his Will in the form of a resplendent\n     light (_Apud_ Hyde, c. 22, p. 298).\n\n     [310] _In Tim._, not. 295.\n\n     [311] _Voyez_ Photius, _Cod._, 251. Plotin, Porphyre,\n     Jamblique, Proclus et Symplicius ont \u00e9t\u00e9 du m\u00eame sentiment\n     qu\u2019 Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, ainsi que le dit le savant Fabricius, _Bibl.\n     gr\u00e6c._, t. i., p. 472.\n\n     [312] _Iliad, L. ult._, v. 663.\n\n     [313] Cic\u00e9r., _de Natur. Deor._, l. i., c. 15.\n\n     [314] Cic\u00e9r., _de Fato_, c. 17.\n\n     [315] _Axi\u00f4mes de Pythagore conserv\u00e9s par Stob\u00e9e_, Serm. 6.\n\n     [316] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. carm._, v. 10 et 11.\n\n     [317] Strab., 1. xvi., p. 512; Sext. Empir., _Adv. Mathem._,\n     p. 367.\n\n     [318] _Atom_, in Greek \u1f04\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, is formed from the word\n     \u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, _a part_, to which is joined the _a_ privative.\n\n     [319] Huet, _Cens. Phil. Cartesian._, c. 8, p. 213. If one\n     carefully examines the systems of Descartes, Leibnitz, and\n     Newton, one will see that, after all, they are reduced\n     either to atoms, or to inherent forces which move them.\n\n     [320] Cic\u00e9r., _de Fato_, c. 17.\n\n     [321] August., _Epist._, 56.\n\n     [322] August., _Epist._, 56.\n\n     [323] Cic\u00e9r., _de Nat. Deor._, l. i., c. 19; _Qu\u00e6st. Acad._,\n     l. iv., c. 13; _de Fato_, c. 9.\n\n     [324] Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. x., \u00a7123; Cic\u00e9r., _de Nat. Deor._, l.\n     i., c. 30.\n\n     [325] Senec., _Epist._, 88; Sext. Empir., _Adv. Math._, l.\n     vii., c. 2; Arist., _M\u00e9taphys._, l. iii., c. 4.\n\n     [326] Arist., _Physic._, l. vi., c. 9; _voyez_ Bayle, _Dict.\n     crit._, art. ZENON, rem. F.\n\n     [327] Cic\u00e9r., _de Natur. Deor._, l. i., c. 15.\n\n     [328] _Semel jussit, semper paret_, Seneca has said. \u201cThe\n     laws which God has prescribed for Himself,\u201d he adds, \u201cHe\n     will never revoke, because they have been dictated by His\n     own perfections; and that the same plan, the same design\n     having pleased Him once, pleases Him eternally\u201d (Senec.,\n     _Pr\u00e6f. ad Qu\u00e6st. nat._).\n\n     [329] Cicer., _De Fato_, cap. 17.\n\n     [330] Cicer., _ibid._, c. 9.\n\n     [331] Aul. Gell., l. vi., c. 2.\n\n     [332] Cicer., _De Nat. Deor._, l. i., c. 9; Plutar., _De\n     repug. Sto\u00efc._; Diogenian. _Apud._; Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._,\n     l. vi., c. 8.\n\n     [333] Herodot., _Euterp._, \u00a7 171; Julian Firm., _De Error,\n     prof._, p. 45.\n\n     [334] Meurs., _Gr\u00e6c. Feriat._, l. i.; Plutar., _In\n     Alcibiad._; Porphyr., _De Abst._, l. ii., \u00a7 36; Euseb.,\n     _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, l. i., c. 1; Schol. Apoll., l. i., v. 917;\n     Pausan., _Corinth_, p. 73.\n\n     [335] Porphyr., _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, p. 10.\n\n     [336] The doctrine of Krishna is found especially recorded\n     in the _Bhaghavad Gita_, one of the Pouranas most esteemed\n     by the Brahmans; in the _Zend-Avesta_ and in the\n     _Boun-Dehesh_, that of Zoroaster. The Chinese have the\n     _Tchun-Tsieou_ of Kong-Tse, historic monument raised to the\n     glory of Providence; in the _P\u0153mander_ and _\u00c6sculapius_, the\n     ideas of Thoth. The book of Synesius upon Providence\n     contains the dogmas of the Mysteries. Finally one can\n     consult in the course of the _Edda_, the sublime discourse\n     of Odin, entitled _Havam\u00e2l_. The basis of all these works is\n     the same.\n\n     [337] This, as I observed in my Second Examination, should\n     be understood only by the vulgar. The savant and the\n     initiate easily restored to Unity this infinity of gods, and\n     understood or sought the origin of evil, without the\n     knowledge of which, divine Unity is inexplicable.\n\n     [338] Tal\u00e8s, cit\u00e9 par Platon, _De Republ._, l. x.; Aristot.,\n     _Metaph._, l. iii.; Cicer., _Acad. Qu\u00e6st._, iv., c. 37.\n\n     [339] Anaximandre, cit\u00e9 par Aristot., _Phys._, l. i.; Sext.\n     Empir., _Pyrr._, iii.\n\n     [340] Anaxim\u00e8ne, cit\u00e9 par Arist., _Metaph._, l. i., c. 3;\n     Plutar., _De Placit. Phil._, i., 3.\n\n     [341] H\u00e9raclite, cit\u00e9 par Platon, _The\u00e6tet._; Arist.,\n     _Metaph._, l. i., c. 6; Sext. Empir., _Adv. Math._, l. vii.\n\n     [342] De G\u00e9rando, _Hist. des Syst. de Phil._, t. iii., p.\n     283; Arist., _Metaph._, l. i., c. 6; Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. ix.,\n     c. 19.\n\n     [343] Cicer., _De Nat. Deor._, l. i., c. 9.\n\n     [344] Bo\u00ebt., _De Consol._, l. i., prosa 4.\n\n     [345] Plutar., _Adv. Sto\u00efc._, p. 1075.\n\n     [346] Cicer., _De Fato_, c. 10; Lucret., l. ii., v. 216,\n     251, 284.\n\n     [347] Cicer., _De Fato_, c. 9 et 17; Diogenian., _Apud._;\n     Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evan._, l. vi., c. 8.\n\n     [348] Cicer., _De Natur. Deor._, l. iii., c. 38 et 39.\n\n     [349] Aul. Gell., l. vi., c. 1.\n\n     [350] Plutar., _Adv. Sto\u00efc._\n\n     [351] The name given to the sect of the Pharisees signifies,\n     in general, that which is enlightened, illumined, glorified,\n     illustrious. It is derived from the root \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 (_aor_), the\n     light, governed by the article \u05e4\u05d4 (_phe_), which expresses\n     the emphasis; thence \u05e4\u05d0\u05e8 (_ph\u00e6r_), an aureola, a tiara, and\n     \u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05dd (_pharethmim_), men illustrious, sublime. The name\n     given to the sect of the Sadducees is derived from the\n     word \u05e9\u05d3 (_shad_) which, expressing all diffusion, all\n     propagation, is applied to productive nature in general, and\n     in particular to a mammal, its symbol among the Egyptians;\n     it signifies properly the Physicists, or the Naturalists.\n\n     [352] The original name of the Book of Moses is \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\n     (_sepher_); the name of the _Bible_, that we attribute to\n     it, is derived from the Greek \u0392\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, adopted by the\n     so-called translators of the Septuagint.\n\n     [353] Joseph., _Antiq._, l. xii., c. 22; l. xiii., c. 9 et\n     23; l. xvii., c. 3; Budd, _Introd. ad Phil. Hebr._; Basnage,\n     _Histoire des Juifs_, t. i.\n\n     [354] This is founded upon a great number of passages, of\n     which it will suffice to cite the following. One finds in\n     Amos, ch. iii., v. 6: \u201cShall there be evil in a city which\n     the Lord hath not done?\u201d And in Ezekiel, ch. xxi., v. 3:\n     \u201cAnd say to the land of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God:\n     Behold, I come against thee, and I will draw forth my sword\n     out of its sheath, and will cut off in thee the just, and\n     the wicked \u2026 against all flesh, from the south even to the\n     north.\u2026 That all flesh may know that I the Lord have drawn\n     my sword.\u201d\n\n     [355] Mohammed said of himself, that he possessed no\n     heavenly treasures, that he was ignorant of the mysteries,\n     that he could say nothing of the essence of the soul\n     (_Koran_, ch. 6 and 17); and as he admitted the literal text\n     of the _Sepher_, he could not do otherwise than announce\n     predestination. \u201cGod,\u201d he said, \u201cholds in his hands the keys\n     of the future. He alone knows it.\u2026 The nations know not how\n     to retard or to hasten the moment of their downfall\u201d\n     (_Koran_, ch. 6 and 23).\n\n     [356] _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._; Photius, _Bibl. Cod._, 259.\n\n     [357] Kircher, _\u0152dip._, t. i., p. 411; _Edda Island Fabl._;\n     Macrob., _Saturn._, l. i., c. 20.\n\n     [358] Plotin, _Ennead._, iii., 1. 2; Euseb., _Pr\u0153p. Evan._,\n     l. iii., c. 9; Macrob., _Somn. Schip._, l. ii., c. 12; Marc.\n     Aurell., l. iv., c. 34.\n\n     [359] Pan, in Greek \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd, signifies the All, and Phanes is\n     derived from the Ph\u0153nician word \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9 (_\u00e2nesh_), man, preceded\n     by the emphatic article \u05e4 (_ph_). It must be observed that\n     these two names spring from the same root \u05d0\u05df (_\u00e2n_), which,\n     figuratively, expresses the sphere of activity, and\n     literally, the limitation of the being, its body, its\n     capacity. Hence \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 (_\u00e2ni_), me, and \u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 (_aniha_), a\n     vessel.\n\n     [360] _M\u00e9m. concern. les Chinois_, t. ii., p. 174 et suiv.;\n     _Edda Island_; Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich._, t. ii., p.\n     784; B\u0153hme, _De la triple Vie de l\u2019Homme_, c. ix., \u00a7 35 et\n     suiv.\n\n     [361] \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f27\u03c2 \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9.\n                                              Zoroast. _Oracul._\n\n     [362] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aurea Carmin._, v. 14.\n\n     [363] Herm\u00e8s, _In P\u0153mander._\n\n     [364] _Evang. St. Math._, ch. 18.\n\n     [365] _Vendidad Sad\u00e9_, p. 89.\n\n     [366] 34\u1d49 _h\u00e2_, p. 174.\n\n     [367] 3\u1d49 _fargard._, p. 284.\n\n     [368] _Jeshts Sad\u00e8s_, p. 151.\n\n     [369] Hafiz, cit\u00e9 par les auteurs _Des Recherches\n           asiatiques_, t. iv., p. 167.\n\n     [370] _L\u2019Arya_, cit\u00e9 comme ci-dessus:\n\n          \u201cL\u2019homme de bien, paisable au moment qu\u2019il expire,\n           Tourne sur ses bourreaux un \u0153il religieux,\n           Et b\u00e9nit jusqu\u2019au bras qui cause son martyre:\n           Tel l\u2019arbre de Sandal que frappe un furieux,\n           Couvre de ses parfums le fer qui le dechire.\u201d\n\n     [371] _Edda Island; H\u00e2vam\u00e2l_.\n\n     [372] Diogen. La\u00ebrt., _In Pr\u0153m._, p. 5.\n\n     [373] _P\u0153mander_ et _Asclepius_.\n\n     [374] This is the vast collection of Brahmanic morals. One\n     finds there many of the lines repeated word for word in the\n     Sepher of Moses.\n\n     [375] In them, antiquity goes back three thousand years\n     before our era. There is mention of an eclipse of the sun,\n     verified for the year 2155 B.C.\n\n     [376] Senec., _De Sen._, l. vi., c. 2.\n\n     [377] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. carmin._, v. 18.\n\n     [378] Jamblic., _De Vit\u00e2 Pythag._; Porphyr., ibid., _et de\n     Abstin.; Vit\u00e2 Pythag. apud_; Phot., Cod., 259; Diog. La\u00ebrt.,\n     _In Pythag._, l. viii.; Hierocl., _Comment. in Aur. Carm._;\n     ibid., _De Provident._; Philost., _In Vit\u00e2 Apollon_;\n     Plutar., _De Placit. philos._; ibid., _De Procreat. anim._;\n     Apul., _In Florid._; Macrob., _In Saturn._, et _Somn. Scip._;\n     Fabric., _Bibl. gr\u00e6c. in Pythag._; Clem. Alex., _Strom._,\n     passim., etc.\n\n     [379] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._, v. 14; Phot., _Cod._, 242 et\n     214.\n\n     [380] Diog. La\u00ebrt., _In Pythag._; ibid., _In Emped._\n\n     [381] Hi\u00e9rocl., Pont. _apud_ Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. viii., \u00a7 4.\n\n     [382] Maximus Tyrius has made a dissertation upon the origin\n     of Evil, in which he asserts that the prophetic oracles,\n     having been consulted on this subject, responded by these\n     two lines from Homer:\n\n         \u201cWe accuse the gods of our evils, while we ourselves\n          By our own errors, are responsible for them.\u201d\n\n     [383] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._, v. 18.\n\n     [384] Plutar., _De Repugn. Sto\u00efc._\n\n     [385] _In Gorgi._ et _Phileb._\n\n     [386] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carmin._, v., 18.\n\n     [387] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carmin._, v. 18, 49 et 62.\n\n     [388] _In Ph\u00e9don_; _In Hipp._, ii.; _In The\u00e6t._; _De Rep._,\n     l. iv., etc.\n\n     [389] Hyde, _De Relig. Vet. Pers._, p. 298.\n\n     [390] _Evan. S. Math._, ch. xvii., v. 19.\n\n     [391] _Vie de Kong-Tz\u00e9e_ (_Confucius_), p. 324.\n\n     [392] Meng-Tz\u00e9e, cit\u00e9 par Duhalde, t. ii., p. 334.\n\n     [393] Krishna, _Bhagavad-Gita_, lect. ii.\n\n     [394] _XL Questions sur l\u2019Ame_ (_Viertzig Fragen von der\n     Sellen Orstand, Essentz, Wesen, Natur und Eigenschafft_,\n     etc. Amsterdam, 1682). Quest. 1.\n\n     [395] _Ibid._\n\n     [396] _IX Textes_, text. 1 et 2.\n\n     [397] _XL Questions_, quest. 6.\n\n     [398] Plato, _In Theag._\n\n     [399] Clem. Alex., _Strom._, l. iv., p. 506; Beausobre,\n     _Hist. du Manich._, t. ii., p. 28.\n\n     [400] This is the signification of the Greek word \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n     [401] Dans le _Tchong-Yong_, ou le Principe central,\n     immuable, appel\u00e9 _Le Livre de la grande Science_.\n\n     [402] _Evan. S. Math._, ch. vii., v. 6.\n\n     [403] _Bhagavad-Gita_, lect. 8 et 13.\n\n     [404] _Evang. S. Luc._, ch. xiv., v. 26.\n\n     [405] 50\u1d49 _h\u00e2 Zend-Avesta_, p. 217; 45\u1d49 _h\u00e2_, _ibid._, p. 197.\n\n     [406] _Nombres_, ch. xxxi.; _Deut\u00e9ronome_, ch. iii., xx., etc.\n\n     [407] _Exode_, ch. xxxiv., v. 6.\n\n     [408] _Koran_, i., ch. 4, 22, 23, 24, 25, 50, etc.\n\n     [409] _Voyez_ la fin du dernier Examen.\n\n     [410] _S. Math._, ch. v., v. 44.\n\n     [411] _Ibid._, ch. xii., v. 20, etc.\n\n     [412] _Ibid._, ch. x., v. 34.\n\n     [413] _S. Luc_, ch. xii., v. 52, 53.\n\n     [414] _S. Math._, ch. xii., v. 30.\n\n     [415] Bacon, _Novum Organum_.\n\n     [416] _Novum Organ._, _Aphor._, 38 _et seq._\n\n     [417] Voyez _La Vie de Kong-Tz\u00e9e_ et le _Ta-Hio_, cit\u00e9 dans\n     les _M\u00e9m. concern. les Chinois_, t. i., p. 432.\n\n     [418] _M\u00e9m. concern. les Chin._, t. iv., p. 286.\n\n     [419] _Novum Organum in Pr\u00e6f. et Aph._, 1.\n\n     [420] _Ibid._, _Aph._, 11.\n\n     [421] _Ibid._, _Aph._, 13.\n\n     [422] _Ibid._, _Aph._, 14 et 15.\n\n     [423] _Ibid._, _Aph._, 38 _et seq._\n\n     [424] _Novum Organum in Pr\u00e6f. et Aph._, 73.\n\n     [425] _Ibid._, _Aph._, 63.\n\n     [426] _Ibid._, _Aph._, 65.\n\n     [427] _Aurea Carm._, v. 25.\n\n     [428] _Aurea Carm._, v. 27.\n\n     [429] Hermes, _In Asclepio_; Porphyr., _De Antr. Nymph._, p.\n     106; Origen, _Contr. Cels._, 1. vi., p. 298; Hyd., _De Vet.\n     Pers. Relig._, p. 16; Jamblic., _De Myster-Egypt._, c. 37.\n\n     [430] _Hist. des Voyag._, t. lii., p. 72; Divd., 1. iv., c.\n     79; Plutar., _In Vit\u00e2 Num._\n\n     [431] Boulanger, _Antiq. d\u00e9voil._, l. iii., ch. 5, \u00a7 3.\n\n     [432] _M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad. des Insc._, t. i., p. 67; Tit.-Liv.,\n     _Decad._, I, l. ix.; Aul. Gell., l. vi., c. 9.\n\n     [433] Duhald., t. ii., p. 578; t. iii., p. 336, 342; Const.\n     d\u2019Orville, t. i., p. 3.\n\n     [434] Philostr., _In Vit\u00e2 Apoll._, l. iii., c. 13.\n\n     [435] Dans mon 21\u1d49 Examen, o\u00f9 j\u2019ai cit\u00e9 particuli\u00e8rement\n     Diog\u00e8ne La\u00ebrce, l. viii., \u00a7 4.\n\n     [436] Syncell., p. 35.\n\n     [437] Senec., _Qu\u00e6st. Nat._, l. iii., c. 30; Synes., _De\n     Provid._, l. ii., _sub fin._\n\n     [438] Plato, _In Tim._; Ovid, _Metam._, l. xv., fab. v.;\n     Senec., _Epist._, 35; Macrob., _In Somn. Scip._, l. ii., c.\n     2; _Hist. des Voyages_, t. xii., p. 529; Dupuis, _Orig. des\n     Cultes_, l. v., _in_ 12, p. 474; Bailly, _Hist. de l\u2019Astr.\n     Anc._, l. ix., \u00a7 15.\n\n     [439] Ciceron, _De Divin._, l. ii., c. 97.\n\n     [440] Cicer., _De Natur. Deor._, l. ii., c. 20; ibid., _De\n     Divin._, l. ii., c. 97.\n\n     [441] Plato, _In Tim._\n\n     [442] _Soury\u00e2-Siddhanta._\n\n     [443] _Asiat. Research._, t. ii., p. 378.\n\n     [444] Biot., _Astr. Phys._, ch. xiv., p. 291.\n\n     [445] _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._; Phot., _Bibl. Cod._, 259; Plato, _In\n     Tim._; Macrob., _In Somn. Scip._; Virg., _\u00c6neid_, l. vi., v.\n     724; Sevius, _Comm._, _ibid._; Cicer., _De Nat. Deor._, l.\n     i., c. 5, 11, 14, et 15; Diog. La\u00ebrt., _In Zon._; Batteux,\n     _Causes premi\u00e8res_, t. ii., p. 116; Beausob., _Hist. du\n     Manich._, t. ii., l. vi., c. 6, \u00a7 14.\n\n     [446] Stanley, _De Phil. Chald._, p. 1123.\n\n     [447] Kircher, _\u00c6dip._, t. i., p. 172, et t. ii., p. 200.\n\n     [448] Maimon., _More Nevoch._, i., part., c. 70.\n\n     [449] Salmas, _Ann. Climat._, Pr\u00e6f., p. 32.\n\n     [450] Homer, _Odyss._, K. v. 494; Diodor. Sic., l. v., c. 6;\n     Plin., l. vii., c. 56; Plutar., _De Oracul. Defect._, p.\n     434.\n\n     [451] Horat., _Sat._, v., l. ii., v. 59.\n\n     [452] Hierocl., _In Aurea Carm._, v. 31.\n\n     [453] _Alcibiad._, i. et ii.; _Lach\u00e8s_, etc.\n\n     [454] _In Alcibiad._, i.\n\n     [455] _Voyez_ Burette, _M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad. des Belles-Lett._,\n     t. v.; Laborde, _Essai sur la Musique_, t. i., introd., p.\n     20.\n\n     Our painters have hardly treated Greek painting better; and\n     perhaps if the Pythian Apollo and the Chaste Venus had not\n     again astonished Europe, but had disappeared as did the\n     masterpieces of Polygnotus and of Zeuxis, the modern\n     sculptors would have said that the ancients failed as much\n     in pattern as in colouring.\n\n     [456] Wood, _Essai sur le G\u00e9nie orig. d\u2019Hom\u00e8re_, p. 220.\n\n     [457] Bryant, cit\u00e9 par Desalles, _Hist. d\u2019Hom\u00e8re_, p. 18.\n\n     [458] Wolf et Klotz, cit\u00e9s par le m\u00eame. _Ibid._, p. 36 et 117.\n\n     [459] Paw, _Recherches sur les Grecs_, t. ii., p. 355.\n\n     [460] C\u2019est un certain Gr\u00e9goire, cit\u00e9 par Leo Allazi, dans\n     son Livre _de Patri\u00e2 Homeri_.\n                         Voltaire, _Dict. philos._, art. EPOP\u00c9E.\n\n     [461] The name of _Pagan_ is an injurious and ignoble term\n     derived from the Latin _Paganus_, which signifies a rustic,\n     a peasant. When Christianity had entirely triumphed over\n     Greek and Roman polytheism, and when by the order of the\n     Emperor Theodosius, the last temple dedicated to the gods of\n     the nations had been destroyed in the cities, it was\n     found that the people in the country still persisted a\n     considerable time in the ancient cult, which caused them and\n     all their imitators to be called derisively _Pagans_. This\n     appellation, which could suit the Greeks and Romans in the\n     fifth century who refused to submit to the dominating\n     religion in the Empire, is false and ridiculous when one\n     extends it to other times, and to other peoples. It cannot\n     be said without at once offending chronology and common\n     sense, that the Romans or Greeks of the time of C\u00e6sar, of\n     Alexander, or of Pericles; the Persians, Arabs, Egyptians,\n     Indians, the Chinese, ancient or modern, were _Pagans_; that\n     is to say, peasants disobedient to the laws of Theodosius.\n     These are polytheists, monotheists, mythologists, whatever\n     one wishes, idolaters perhaps, but not _Pagans_.\n\n     [462] _Novum Organ._, aph. 48.\n\n     [463] _De Dign. et Increm. Science_, l. iii., c. 4.\n\n     [464] _Ut supra._\n\n     [465] Bacon, _de la Vie et de la Mort_; Sueton., _in\n     Tiber._, \u00a7 66.\n\n     [466] Diogen. La\u00ebrt., _in Pythag._\n\n     [467] Hierocles, _Aur. Carm._, v. 33.\n\n     [468] Bacon assures, following the ancients, that the\n     envious eye is dangerous and that it has been observed that\n     after great triumphs, illustrious personages having been the\n     object of an envious eye have found themselves ill-disposed\n     for some days following (_Sylva Sylvarum_, \u00a7 944).\n\n     [469] Aul. Gell., l. iv., c. 11.\n\n     [470] Athen., l. vii., c. 16; Jambl., _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, c. 30.\n\n     [471] Jambl., _ibid._, c. 24.\n\n     [472] Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. viii., \u00a7 9; Clem. Alex., _P\u00e6d._, l. ii.,\n      p. 170.\n\n     [473] Jambl., _ibid._, c. 21; Porphyre, _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, p.\n     37; Athen., l. x., p. 418; Aul. Gell., l. iv., c. 11.\n\n     [474] Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. viii., \u00a7 19.\n\n     [475] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._, v. 32.\n\n     [476] _Proverbes du Brahme Barthrovhari._\n\n     [477] _Chou-King_, ch. _Yu-Mo._\n\n     [478] On trouve ce passages dans le _Tchong-Yong_, ou Livre\n     du Juste-Milieu; ouvrage tr\u00e8s c\u00e9l\u00e8bre parmi les Chinois.\n\n     [479] A la pers\u00e9v\u00e9rance il n\u2019est rien qui r\u00e9siste:\n           Quelques soient ses desseins, si le Sage y persiste,\n           Nul obstacle si grand dont il ne vienne \u00e0 bout:\n           La constance et le temps sont les ma\u00eetres de tout.\n\n     [480] Porphyr., _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, p. 27.\n\n     [481] _Institutes of Manu_, ch. 1, v. 5.\n\n     [482] X\u00e9nophon, _M\u00e9m._, l. iv., p. 796; Plat., _in Alcib._,\n     i.; _ibid._, _in Charm._; Pausan., l. x.; Plin., l. vii.,\n     c. 32.\n\n     [483] _In Alcibiad._, i.\n\n     [484] Cic\u00e9r., _Acad. Qu\u00e6st._, l. iv., c. 24; Sext. Empir.,\n     _Hypotyp._, l. i., c. 4 et 12.\n\n     [485] Diog. La\u00ebrt., l. iv., \u00a7 10; Cicer., _Acad. Qu\u00e6st._, l.\n     iv., c. 18.\n\n     [486] Desland, _Hist. Critiq. de la Philosoph._, t. ii.,\n     p. 258.\n\n     [487] Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evan._, l. xiv., c. 4.\n\n     [488] The Greek word is derived from the verb \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to\n     cover with a veil.\n\n     [489] Bayle, _Dict. crit._, art. ARC\u00c9SILAS.\n\n     [490] Sextus Empiricus, who was not a man to advance\n     anything thoughtlessly, alleges that Arcesilaus was only a\n     skeptic in semblance and that the doubts which he proposed\n     to his listeners had no other aim than that of seeing if\n     they had enough genius to understand the dogmas of Plato.\n     When he found a disciple who evinced the necessary force of\n     mind, he initiated him into the true doctrine of the Academy\n     (_Pyrrh. hypotyp._, l. i., c. 33).\n\n     [491] Sext. Empir., _Pyrrh. hypotyp._, l. i., c. 4, 12, 15;\n     l. ii., c. 4, etc.\n\n     [492] \u03bf\u1f35\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ae, \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. _Iliad_, l.\n     vi., v. 146.\n\n     [493] The Brahmans call the illusion which results from this\n     veil _maya_. According to them, there is only the Supreme\n     Being who really and absolutely exists; all the rest is\n     _maya_, that is to say, phenomenal, even the trinity formed\n     by Brahma, Vishnu, and Rudra.\n\n     [494] De G\u00e9rando, _Hist. comp. des Syst\u00e8mes de philos._, t.\n     iii., p. 360.\n\n     [495] De G\u00e9rando, _Hist. comp. des Syst\u00e8mes de philos._, t.\n     iii., p. 361.\n\n     [496] Zeno having been thrown by a storm into the port of\n     Pir\u00e6us at Athens, all his life regarded this accident as a\n     blessing from Providence, which had enabled him to devote\n     himself to philosophy and to obey the voice of an oracle\n     which had ordered him to assume \u201cthe colour of the dead\u201d;\n     that is, to devote himself to the study of the ancients and\n     to sustain their doctrine.\n\n     [497] Plutarch, _in Catone majore_.\n\n     [498] Plutarch, _ibid._; Cic\u00e9r., _de Rep._, l. ii.; Apud\n     Nonium _voce_ Calumnia. Lactant. l. v., c. 14.\n\n     [499] C\u2019\u00e9tait \u00e0 quoi se bornaient les sceptiques anciens.\n     _Voyez_ Sextus Empiricus, _Pyrrh. hypotyp._, l. i., c. 15,\n     et l. ii., c. 4, 12, etc., cit\u00e9 par De G\u00e9rando, _Hist. Comp.\n     des Syst._, t. iii., p. 395.\n\n     [500] _Kritik der Reinen Vernunft_ (Critique de la Raison\n     pure), s. 6.\n\n     [501] Du mot grec \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, _celui qui est apt \u00e0 juger_.\n\n     [502] _L\u2019Histoire compar\u00e9e des Syst\u00e8mes de Philos._, par De\n     G\u00e9rando, et des _M\u00e9langes de Phil._, par Ancillon de Berlin.\n     These two writers, whatever one may say, have analysed very\n     well the logical part of Kantism, and have penetrated,\n     especially the former, into the rational part, as far as it\n     was possible, for men who write upon the system of a\n     philosopher without adopting the principles and making\n     themselves his followers.\n\n     [503] _Krit. der Reinen Vernunft_; \u00e7\u00e0 et l\u00e0, en plusieurs\n     endroits.\n\n     [504] This is taken from the _Vedanta_, a metaphysical\n     treatise attributed to Vyasa and commented upon by\n     Sankar\u00e2ch\u00e2rya.\n\n     [505] Justin, _Cohort. ad Gent._, p. 6; Cyrill., _Contr.\n     Julian_.\n\n     [506] Plutar., _de Procr. anim._; Chalcid., _in Tim._, n.\n     293.\n\n     [507] Plato, _in Tim._; ibid., _in Theet._; ibid., _de\n     Rep._, l. iv. Conf\u00e9rez avec Proclus, _Comment. in Tim._, l.\n     i.; Marc-Aurel., l. iv., l. ix., et l. x.; et Beausobre,\n     _Hist. du Manich._, t. ii., p. 175, etc.\n\n     [508] The idea of making the quaternary spring from the\n     unity, and the decade from the quaternary is expressed\n     literally in the following lines of Pythagoras, preserved by\n     Proclus:\n\n          \u2026 \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2\n          \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f14\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f35\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n          \u03a4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u2019 \u1f11\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f23 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n          \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ad\u03b1, \u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd,\n          \u1f0c\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd\u00b7\n\n          The Monad, of Number is the sacred source;\n          From it Number emanates and holds the virtues\n          With which shines the Tetrad, Universal Mother,\n          Which produces all things and conceals in its depths\n          The immortal Decade, honoured in all places.\n\n     [509] The nearest root of this word is _find_, whence is\n     derived _finden_, to find; its remote root is _hand_, the\n     seat of touch, whence comes _finger_, that which feels; its\n     primitive root is \u05d0\u05d3 or \u05d9\u05d3 (_\u00e2d_ or _id_), the hand in\n     Ph\u0153nician. This last root, becoming nasal at the final and\n     aspirate at the initial, has produced _hand_; _fang_, a\n     capture, and _find_, a discovery. The syllable _emp_, which\n     precedes the root _find_, expresses the movement which lifts\n     up from below; _lich_ designates that which disqualifies by\n     identity, and _keit_, that which substantiates.\n\n     [510] The root of this word is _stand_, a fixed thing, a\n     state; its remote root is _stat_, that which is permanent.\n     Its primitive root is \u05e9\u05d3\u05d3 (_shdad_), firmness, force,\n     constancy. The initial syllable _ver_ expresses the movement\n     which carries far away, which transports from the place\n     where one is, to that where one is not.\n\n     [511] The nearest root of this word, as well as its remote\n     root, has disappeared from the modern German, where one\n     finds only its derivatives. Its primitive root is in the\n     Latin word _opt_, whence comes _opto_, I choose: and\n     _optime_, best. This root is attached to the Ph\u0153nician \u05e2\u05d9\u05e3\n     (_wh\u00f4ph_), anything which is raised above another thing. It\n     becomes nasal in the German word and has changed the _ph_ to\n     _ft_. From it is derived the Saxon, English, Belgian, and\n     Danish word _up_, which expresses the movement of everything\n     which tends above. Also from it, the German word _luft_,\n     air, and the English word _aloft_, that which is elevated.\n     The preposition _ver_ has taken the final _n_, placing it\n     before _unft_, as it carries it constantly in its analogue\n     _fern_, that which is distant. Likewise one says\n     _fernglass_, a telescope with which one sees at a distance.\n\n     [512] De G\u00e9rando, _Hist. des Syst\u00e8mes de Philos._, t. ii.,\n     p. 193.\n\n     [513] _Krit. der Rein. Vernunft_, s. 24.\n\n     [514] In the Oriental languages \u05e8\u05d5 (_rou_) indicates the\n     visual ray, and \u05e8\u05d3 (_rad_), all movement which is determined\n     upon a straight line. This root, accompanied by a guttural\n     inflection, is called _recht_, in German, and _right_ in\n     English and Saxon. The Latins made of it _rectum_, that\n     which is straight. In French _rature_ and _rateau_. The\n     Teutons, taking right in a figurative sense, have drawn from\n     this same root, _rath_, a council, and _richter_, a judge.\n\n     [515] _In Tim._, cit\u00e9 par Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich._, t.\n     ii., p. 174.\n\n     [516] The word intelligence, in Latin _intelligentia_, is\n     formed of two words, _inter eligere_ or _elicere_, to\n     choose, to attract to self interiorly, and by sympathy. The\n     etymology of the word expresses exactly the use of the\n     faculty.\n\n     [517] _Kritik der Reinen Vernunft_, s. 662, 731; De G\u00e9rando,\n     _Hist. des Syst\u00e8m._, t. ii., p. 230.\n\n     [518] _Krit. der Reinen Vernunft_, s. 306, 518, 527, etc.\n\n     [519] _Ibid._, s. 135, 137. 399. etc.\n\n     [520] _Kritik der praktischen Vernunft_ (Critique de la\n     Raison pratique), s. 5, 22, 219, 233, etc.\n\n     [521] _Characteristics_, London, 1737.\n\n     [522] _A System of Moral Philosophy_, t. i., ch. 4.\n\n     [523] _Enquiry into the Human Mind, on the Principle of\n     Common Sense._\n\n     [524] _An Appeal to Common Sense_, etc., Edinburgh, 1765.\n\n     [525] _Pens\u00e9es_, \u00a7 21.\n\n     [526] In Greek \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, that which dominates and\n     rules, that which is intelligible.\n\n     [527] In Greek \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, that which pertains to generative\n     nature, that which is physical, and sentient.\n\n     [528] In Greek \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, that which pertains to reasonable\n     nature, that which is logical, the thing which proves that\n     another thing is. _Voyez_ Platon, _in Tim._, et conf\u00e9rez\n     avec Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich._, t. ii., p. 174.\n\n     [529] Plutar., _de Facie in Orb. lun._, p. 943.\n\n     [530] The first kind of virtue is called \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7, human,\n     and the second \u1f21\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1, heroic and divine. Attention\n     should be given to these epithets which are related to the\n     three principal faculties of man. Aristot., _ad Nicom._, l.\n     vii., c. 1; Plato, _in The\u00e6tet._; Gallien, _in Cognit et\n     Curat. morb. anim._, l. i., c. 3, et 6; Theod. Marcil, _in\n     Aur. Carmin._\n\n     [531] _In Somn. Scip._, c. 8.\n\n     [532] Aristot., _de C\u00e6lo et Mundo_, l. i.; Philo, _de Mund.\n     opific._.\n\n     [533] Pausan., _in Corinth._, p. 72; Tzetz., _in Schol._\n\n     [534] Suidas, _in_ \u0395\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0; Harpocr., _ibid_.\n\n     [535] Clem. Alex., l. v., p. 582.\n\n     [536] Psellus, _Ad Oracul. Zoroastr._\n\n     [537] Meurs. Eleus., c. 12; Dion. Chrysost., _Orat._ xii.\n\n     [538] Sophocl. _apud_ Plutar., _De Audiend. Poet. Schol._;\n     Aristoph., _De Pace._\n\n     [539] Porphyr., _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, p. 5.\n\n     [540] \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, _savant_.\n\n     [541] Epiph., l. i.; Plucquet, _Dictionn. des H\u00e9r\u00e9sies_, t.\n     ii., p. 72.\n\n     [542] Diod. Sicul., l. i.; Herodot., l. ii.\n\n     [543] Aristot., _Polit._, l. ii.; Strab., l. viii.\n\n     [544] _Voyez_ DANIEL, et conf\u00e9rez avec Court de G\u00e9belin,\n     _Monde primitif_, t. viii., p. 9.\n\n     [545] _Zend-Avesta_, 14\u1d49 _h\u00e2_, p. 127.\n\n     [546] Pomp. Mela, iii., c. 2; C\u00e9sar, l. vi., c. 14;\n     Pelloutier, _Hist. des Celtes_, l. iv., ch. 1, \u00a7 27 et 30.\n\n     [547] The first _Shastra_ is entitled _Djatimala_. I am\n     ignorant of the title of the other, that I cite from Henry\n     Lord: _Discovery of the Banian Religion_, in Church,\n     _Collect._, vol. vi.\n\n     [548] _Asiat. Research._, tom. vi., p. 254.\n\n     [549] _M\u00e9moir. concern. les Chin._, t. ii., p. 174 _et suiv._\n\n     [550] _Vie de Kong-Tz\u00e9e_, p. 237 et suiv.\n\n     [551] _Voyez_ le 12\u1d49 Examen.\n\n     [552] Porphyr., _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._\n\n     [553] Plato, _ut supr\u00e0._\n\n     [554] Synes., _De Provident._, c. 5.\n\n     [555] Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich._, t. ii., p. 33.\n\n     [556] Tatian, _Orat. contr. Gr\u00e6c._, p. 152.\n\n     [557] Plato, _In Gorgia_; ibid., _In Ph\u00e6d._; ibid., _De\n     Rep._, l. vii.; August., _De Civit. Dei_, l. iii., c. 1, et\n     l. x., c. 29.\n\n     [558] Diogen. La\u00ebrt., l. x., \u00a7 123; Cicero, _De Nat. Deor._,\n     l. i., c. 30.\n\n     [559] Cicer., _ibid._, c. 8 _et seq._\n\n     [560] Cicer., _ut supr\u00e0._\n\n     [561] Diogen. La\u00ebrt., l. x., \u00a7 123.\n\n     [562] _Dict. critiq._, art. EPICURE, rem. T.\n\n     [563] _M\u00e9m. concern. les Chin._, t. i., p. 102 et 138.\n\n     [564] _Asiat. Research._, vol. vi., p. 215. _Voyez_ les\n     Pouranas intitul\u00e9s, _Bhagavad-Vedam_ et _Bhagavad-Gita_, et\n     conf\u00e9rez avec les _Recherches asiatiq._, t. v., p. 350 _et\n     suiv._, et avec l\u2019ouvrage de Holwell (_Interest. Hist.\n     Events_), ch. 4, \u00a7 5, etc.\n\n     [565] Cicer., cit\u00e9 par S. August., _Contr. Pelag._, l. iv.;\n     Pindar, _Olymp._, ii., v. 122.\n\n     [566] Meurs., _Eleus._, c. 11; Dion. Chrysost., _Orat._ 12.\n\n     [567] _Boun-Dehesh_, p. 347.\n\n     [568] _Vendidad-Sad\u00e9_, 30\u1d49 _h\u00e2_.\n\n     [569] _Homil. Clement._, xix., \u00a7 4, p. 744.\n\n     [570] _Ibid._, cit\u00e9 par Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich._, t.\n     i., p. 38.\n\n     [571] It is necessary before all, to restore the language of\n     Moses, lost, as I have said, for more than twenty-four\n     centuries; it must be restored with the aid of Greek and\n     Latin which chain it to the illusory versions; it is\n     necessary to go back to its original source and find its\n     true roots: this enormous work that I have undertaken, I\n     have accomplished.\n\n     [572] Fortun. _apud_ August., _Disput._, ii.; August.,\n     _Contr. Faust._, l. xxi., c. _ult._\n\n     [573] Orig\u00e8ne, cit\u00e9 par Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich._, t.\n     ii., v., ch. 6.\n\n     [574] Beausobre, _ibid._, t. ii., p. 346.\n\n     [575] Hierocl., _Aur. Carmin._, v. 49 et 50.\n\n     [576] Plat., _In_ II. _Alcibiad._\n\n          \u201cAccordez-moi, grands Dieux, ce qui m\u2019est n\u00e9cessaire,\n           Soit que je pense ou non \u00e0 vous le demander;\n           Et si de mes d\u00e9sirs l\u2019objet m\u2019\u00e9tait contraire,\n           Daignez, grands Dieux, daignez ne pas me l\u2019accorder.\u201d\n\n     [577] _Vendidad-Sad\u00ea_, 68\u1d49 _h\u00e2_, p. 242.\n\n     [578] _Zend-Avesta, Jeshts-Sad\u00e9s_, p. 113.\n\n     [579] Herm\u00e8s, _In Asclep._, c. 9.\n\n     [580] Origen., _Contr. Cels._, l. i., p. 19.\n\n     [581] Synes., _De Insomn._, p. 134 _et seq._; Niceph. Greg.,\n     _Schol. in Synes._, p. 360 _et seq._\n\n     [582] Voyez Naud\u00e9, _Apolog. des grands Hommes accus\u00e9s de\n     Magie._\n\n     [583] Corn. Cels., _De Re Medic._, l. i., _Pr\u00e6f._\n\n     [584] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._, v. 48 et 49, et _ibid._, v. 46.\n\n     [585] Plat., _In Georgi\u00e2, In Ph\u00e6d._; Ibid., _De Rep._, l.\n     vii.; August., _De Civit. Dei_, l. iii., c. 1 et l. x.,\n     c. 29.\n\n     [586] _Acad. des Inscript._, t. xxxi., p. 319.\n\n     [587] Procl., _In Tim._, l. v., p. 330; Cicer., _Somn.\n     Scip._, c. 2, 3, 4, et 6; Hierocl., _In Aur. Carm._, v. 70.\n\n     [588] _Veda_, cit\u00e9 par W. Jones, _Asiat. Resear._, t. iv.,\n     p. 173.\n\n     [589] _Premier Pour\u00e2na_, intitul\u00e9 _Matsya_.\n\n     [590] _Boushznda-Ramayan._\n\n     [591] _Institut. of Menou_, ch. 1, v. 1.\n\n     [592] _Shanda-Pour\u00e2na._\n\n     [593] _Ekhamesha._\n\n     [594] _Aurore naissante (Morgens r\u00f6te im Aufgang: durch\n     Jacob B\u00f6hmen zu_ Amsterdam, 1682), ch. 14, \u00a7 41.\n\n     [595] Brahma, Vishnu, and Rudra.\n\n     [596] Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto.\n\n     [597] In the _Tao-te-King_ of Lao-Tse, a work which has held\n     a high reputation among the numerous followers of this\n     theosophist, one finds that the absolute, universal Being\n     which he declares can neither be named, nor defined, is\n     triple. \u201cThe first,\u201d he said, \u201chas engendered the second;\n     the two have produced the third; and the three have made all\n     things. That which the mind perceives and the eye cannot see\n     is named _Y_, the absolute Unity, the central point; that\n     which the heart understands and the ear cannot hear is named\n     _Hi_, the universal Existence; that which the soul feels and\n     the hand cannot touch is named _Ouei_, the individual\n     Existence. Seek not to penetrate the depths of this Trinity;\n     its incomprehensibility comes from its Unity. This Unity,\u201d\n     adds Lao-Tse, in another passage, \u201cis named _Tao_, the\n     Truth; _Tao_ is Life; _Tao_ is to itself both rule and\n     model. It is so lofty that it cannot be attained; so\n     profound that it cannot be fathomed; so great that it\n     contains the Universe; when one looks on high one sees no\n     beginning; when one follows it in its productions, one finds\n     in it no end.\u201d\n\n     [598] One of the principal dogmas of Fo-Hi is the existence\n     of one God in three persons, whose image is man. All his\n     doctrine is limited to leading, by meditation and repression\n     of the passions, the human ternary to its perfection. This\n     ternary is composed, according to him, of _Ki_, _Tsing_, and\n     _Chen_, that is to say, of the material, animistic, and\n     spiritual principle. It is necessary that, being joined\n     together, this ternary should make but One. Then its\n     duration will have no limit and its faculties will be\n     indestructible. _Voyez_ Duhalde, t. iii., _in fol._, p. 50.\n\n     [599] This is noticeable particularly in Bayle.\n\n     [600] Herod., _In Clio_, \u00a7 131; Strab., l. xv.; Boehm.,\n     _Mores Gentium._\n\n     [601] Pelloutier, _Hist. des Celtes_, t. v., c. 3.\n\n     [602] Tacit., _De Morib. Germ._, c. 9; Lactant., _Pr\u00e6m._, p.\n     5.\n\n     [603] August., _De Civit. Dei_, l. iv., c. 31; Clem. Alex.,\n     l. i., p. 304; _Strom._\n\n     [604] Plutar., _In Vit\u00e2 Numa_; ibid., _In Mar._; Pelloutier,\n     _Hist. des Celt._, l. iv., c. i.; Lucan., _Phars._, l. iii.,\n     v. 412; Clem. Alex., _Cohort. ad Gent._, p. 57.\n\n     [605] Euseb., _Pr\u0153p. Evang._, l. xiii., c. 12; Henric.\n     Steph., _Poes. philosop._, p. 78.\n\n     [606] Porphyr., _Sent._, no. 10, p. 221; Stanl., _In\n     Pythag._, p. 775.\n\n     [607] Stanley, _De Phil. chald._, p. 1123; Beausob., _Hist.\n     du Manich._, t. ii., l. ix., c. 1, \u00a7 10.\n\n     [608] \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, thrice greatest.\n\n     [609] It is said that this famous table of Emerald was found\n     in the valley of Hebron, in a sepulchre where it was between\n     the hands of the cadaver of Thoth himself. Krigsmann, who\n     assures us that this table must have read in Ph\u0153nician and\n     not in Greek, quotes it a little differently from what one\n     reads in the ordinary versions. _Voyez Tabula Smaragdina_,\n     cit\u00e9e par Fabric., _Bibl. Gr\u00e6c._, p. 68.\n\n     [610] Herm\u00e8s, _In Asclep._, c. 9; Jambl., _De Myst. Egypt._,\n     c. 30; Maimon., _Mor. Nevoch._, part ii., c. 10; Origen,\n     _Contr. Cels._, l. i.; Beausob., _Hist. du Manich._, t. ii.,\n     p. 49.\n\n     [611] Hom\u00e8re, cit\u00e9 par Maxime de Tyr.; Pline, l. ii., c. 7;\n     BIBLE, psalm. 73 et 93; Job, c. 23; Habacuc, c. 1; Malach.,\n     c. 3; Balzac, _Socrate chr\u00e9tien_, p. 237.\n\n     [612] Plucquet, _Dict. des H\u00e9r\u00e9s._, art. PR\u00c9DESTINATIENS.\n\n     [613] Noris., _Hist. pelag._, l. ii., c. 15.\n\n     [614] Origen, _Comment. in Psalm._, p. 38 et 39.\n\n     [615] S. L\u00e9on., _Epist. Decret._, ii.; Niceph., l. xvii.,\n     c. 27.\n\n     [616] _Conc. Rom._, Gelas., t. iii.\n\n     [617] _Dict. des H\u00e9r\u00e9s._, art. P\u00c9LAGIENS.\n\n     [618] Plucquet, _comme ci-dessus_, t. ii., p. 454.\n\n     [619] Pelag., _apud_ S. August., _De Nat. et Grat._,\n     l. iii., c. 9.\n\n     [620] Pelag., _apud_ August., _De Grat. Christ._, c. 4.\n\n     [621] _Comment. in Aur. Carm._, v. 62.\n\n     [622] S. August., _De Grat. Christ._, cit\u00e9 par Plucquet,\n     _Dict. des H\u00e9r\u00e9s._, art. P\u00c9LAGIENS.\n\n     [623] Calvin, _Institut._, l. ii., c. 1 et 2.\n\n     [624] _Ibid._, t. ii.\n\n     [625] Maimbourg, _Hist. du Calvinisme_, l. i., p. 73.\n\n     [626] Origen., _Contr. Cels._, l. iv., p. 207.\n\n     [627] Plato, _In Alcibiad._, ii.\n\n     [628] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._, v. 56.\n\n     [629] Hi\u00e9rol., _In Pr\u00e6m._\n\n     [630] _Ibid._\n\n     [631] _Ut supr\u00e0_, v. 10 et 11.\n\n     [632] _Ut supr\u00e0_, v. 22 et 24.\n\n     [633] _Ut supr\u00e0_, v. 54 et 55.\n\n     [634] Burnet, _Arch\u00e6olog._, l. i., c. 14.\n\n     [635] _De la Triple Vie de l\u2019Homme_, ch. vi., \u00a7 53.\n\n     [636] _Ibid._, ch. v., \u00a7 56.\n\n     [637] Procl., _In Tim._, l. v., p. 330; Plethon, _Schol. ad.\n     Oracl. magic. Zoroast._\n\n     [638] March., _Chron. Can._, p. 258; Beausob., _Hist. du\n     Manich._, t. ii., p. 495; Huet. _Origenian_, l. ii., q. 6.\n\n     [639] _Aur. Carm._, v. 62-77.\n\n     [640] Lactant., _De Ir\u00e2 Dei_, c. 13, p. 548.\n\n     [641] _Dict. crit._, art. MANICH\u00c9ENS, rem. D.\n\n     [642] _Dict. crit._ art. MARCIONITES, rem. E et G.\n\n     [643] _Ibid._, art. PAULICIENS, rem. E.\n\n     [644] Bayle, _Dict. crit._, art. PAULICIENS, rem. E.\n\n     [645] _De Ir\u00e2 Dei_, c. 13, p. 548.\n\n     [646] Basilius, t. i., _In Homil. quod Deus non sit auctor\n     mali_, p. 369; Bayle. _Dict. crit._, art. MARCIONITES, rem.\n     E et G.\n\n     [647] _Trait\u00e9 de Morale._\n\n     [648] _R\u00e9ponse \u00e0 deux object. de M. Bayle_, par\n     Delaplacette, _in_-12, 1707.\n\n     [649] _Essai de Th\u00e9odic\u00e9e_, part iii., No. 405 _et suiv._\n\n     [650] _Essai de Th\u00e9odic\u00e9e_, part. iii., No. 405 _et suiv._\n\n     [651] Ci-dessus, 25\u1d49 Examen.\n\n     [652] _M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad. des Sciences_, ann., 1765, p. 439.\n\n     [653] Cit\u00e9 par De G\u00e9rando, _Hist. des Syst\u00e8mes_, t. ii.,\n     p. 100.\n\n     [654] _Hist. des Animaux_, _in_-4, p. 37.\n\n     [655] _System des transcendental Idalimus_, p. 441;\n     _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die speculative Physick._\n\n     [656] Buffon, _Th\u00e9orie de la Terre_; Linn\u00e9, _De Telluris\n     habitab. Increment_; Burnet, _Arch\u00e6olog._, etc.\n\n     [657] _Nouv. Dict. d\u2019Hist. nat._, art. QUADRUP\u00c8DE.\n\n     [658] Ovid., _Metamorph._, l. xv.\n\n     [659] _Nouv. Dict. d\u2019Hist. nat._, art. QUADRUP\u00c8DE.\n\n     [660] _Nouv. Dict. d\u2019Hist nat._, art. ANIMAL.\n\n     [661] _Nouv. Dict._, art. NATURE.\n\n     [662] Lettre \u00e0 Hermann.\n\n     [663] Charles Bonnet, _Contempl. de la Nat._, p. 16; Lecat.,\n     _Trait\u00e9 du Mouvement musculaire_, p. 54, art. iii.; Robinet,\n     _De la Nature_, t. iv., p. 17, etc.\n\n     [664] _Nouv. Dict._, art. QUADRUP\u00c8DE.\n\n     [665] _Nouv. Dict._, art. ANIMAL.\n\n     [666] Cicer., _De Finib._, l. v., c. 5; Aul. Gell., l. xx.,\n     c. 5; Clem. Alex., _Strom._, l. v.; Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._,\n     v. 68; Lil. Gregor. Gyrald., _Pythag. Symbol. Interpret._;\n     Dacier, _Vie de Pythag._; Barthelemi, _Voyage du Jeune\n     Anarch._, t. vi., ch. 75, etc.\n\n     [667] Jambl., _Vit\u00e2 Pythag._, c. 29, 34, et 35.\n\n     [668] Porphyr. _apud_ Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, l. iii., c. 7;\n     ibid., _De Abstinent._, l. iv., p. 308; Jambl., _De Myst.\n     Egypt._, c. 37.\n\n     [669] Clem. Alex., _Stromat._, l. v., p. 556.\n\n     [670] H\u00e9rod., l. ii., \u00a7 36; Clem. Alex., _ut supr\u00e0_; Dacier,\n     _Vie de Pythag._\n\n     [671] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._, v. 70.\n\n     [672] Procl., _In Tim._, l. v., p. 330.\n\n     [673] _Apud_ Plutar., _De Audiend. P\u0153tis._\n\n     [674] Pind., _Olymp._, iii.; _Apud_, Plutar., _Consol. ad\n     Apoll._\n\n     [675] Plat., _In Ph\u00e6don._\n\n     [676] Hi\u00e9rocl., _Aur. Carm._, v. 68.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note:\n\nWords may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent\nhyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged unless\nindicated below.\n\nWords and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like\nthis_. Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and were moved to the\nend of the book. Obvious printing errors, such as backwards, upside\ndown, or partially printed letters, were corrected. Final stops\nmissing at the end of sentences and abbreviations were added.\nDuplicate letters at line endings or page breaks were removed. Minor\nadjustments to punctuation and diacriticals were made for consistency.\n\nThe Golden Verses, midway through the book, were formated in the\noriginal on facing pages, with Greek, verso, and French, recto;\ntranslation in English was presented as footnotes. The text of the\nGreek and French was consolidated as units, the English retained as\nfootnotes. The numbers (1) through (36) in the English footnotes\nrelate to the numbered sections of the discussion of the Golden Verses\nthat follow the poem.\n\nIn footnote [125], accent grave over the letter c is noted within\nbrackets, thus: [`c].In Footnote [226], the x above the o in the third\nline of the poem verse in Icelandic is indicated as [=x]o. Anchors\nwere missing to footnotes [371], [539], and [656]; they were added\nwhere they likely belong.\n\nCorrections to Greek:\n\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03c7\u03b9\u03c2 to \u1f04\u03b3\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\n \u1f45\u03db\u03b9\u03c2 to \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n\nCorrections to Phoenician/Hebrew:\n\u05d9\u05d5\u05da to \u05d9\u05d5\u05df\nFootnote [282]  \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05be\u05d9\u05d4\u05d6\u05d4 to \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8\u05be\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4","title":"The golden verses of Pythagoras","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":95437}