{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75184/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75184","id":"gutenberg_75184","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75184","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Ethics -- Early works to 1800","Political science -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\n  Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have\n  been placed at the end of the book.\n\n  The Table of Contents was created by the Transcriber and has been\n  placed in front of the Introduction.\n\n  Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.\n\n\n\n\n                  Political and Ethical Fragments.\n\n\n\n\n                         POLITICAL FRAGMENTS\n\n                                  OF\n\n                    ARCHYTAS, CHARONDAS, ZALEUCUS,\n\n                              AND OTHER\n\n                        ANCIENT PYTHAGOREANS,\n\n                        PRESERVED BY STOB\u00c6US;\n\n                              AND ALSO,\n\n                          ETHICAL FRAGMENTS\n\n                                  OF\n\n                              Hierocles,\n\n         THE CELEBRATED COMMENTATOR ON THE GOLDEN PYTHAGORIC\n                               VERSES,\n\n                    PRESERVED BY THE SAME AUTHOR.\n\n\n                      TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK\n\n                          BY THOMAS TAYLOR.\n\n                      \u0391\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c9\u03c2\n                        \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2.\n                                           PIND. PYTH. OD. 2.\n                      Just like a cork unmerged I keep\n                      On the broad barrier of the deep.\n\n\n                              Chiswick:\n\n                      PRINTED BY C. WHITTINGHAM,\n                            COLLEGE HOUSE;\n\n              FOR THE TRANSLATOR, MANOR PLACE, WALWORTH.\n\n                                1822.\n\n\n\n\n  Table of Contents\n\n  INTRODUCTION.\n  POLITICAL FRAGMENTS OF THE PYTHAGOREANS.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF HIPPODAMUS THE THURIAN ON A REPUBLIC.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF DIOTOGENES ON SANCTITY.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF ARCHYTAS ON LAW AND JUSTICE.\n    AND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK.\n    IN ANOTHER PART ALSO OF THE SAME WORK.\n    ON THE MUTATIONS OF POLITIES, FROM THE TREATISE OF HIPPODAMUS ON\n        A POLITY.\n    FROM DIOTOGENES IN HIS TREATISE CONCERNING A KINGDOM.\n    AND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME TREATISE.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF STHENIDAS THE LOCRIAN, ON A KINGDOM.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF ECPHANTUS, THE CROTONIAN, ON A KINGDOM.\n    AND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK.\n    FROM ARCHYTAS.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF DIOTOGENES ON SANCTITY.\n    THE PREFACE OF CHARONDAS, THE CATANEAN, TO HIS TREATISE OF LAWS.\n    THE PREFACE OF ZALEUCUS, THE LOCRIAN, TO HIS LAWS.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF CALLICRATIDAS ON THE FELICITY OF FAMILIES.\n    AND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK.\n    AND AGAIN, IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF PERICTYONE ON THE DUTIES OF A WOMAN.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF PERICTYONE ON THE HARMONY OF A WOMAN.\n    ON THE REVERENCE DUE TO PARENTS. FROM THE APOPHTHEGMS OF\n        ARISTOXENUS, THE TARENTINE.\n    AND IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE SAME WORK.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF PEMPELUS ON PARENTS.\n    FROM THE TREATISE OF PHINTYS, THE DAUGHTER OF CALLICRATES, ON THE\n        TEMPERANCE OF A WOMAN.\n  ETHICAL FRAGMENTS OF HIEROCLES,\n    HOW WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS THE GODS.\n    HOW WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS OUR COUNTRY.\n    AFTER WHAT MANNER WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS OUR\n        PARENTS.\n    ON FRATERNAL LOVE.\n    ON WEDLOCK.\n    HOW WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS OUR [OTHER] KINDRED.\n    ON ECONOMICS.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe collection of PYTHAGORIC FRAGMENTS contained in this volume must\nbe considered by every one as highly valuable if their antiquity\nonly is regarded; but by the lover of genuine wisdom they will be\ndeemed inestimable, as proceeding from the school of the father of\nphilosophy.\n\nOf the greater part of the authors of these fragments little more\nthan the country in which they lived is known. But of Charondas, and\nZaleucus, those celebrated legislators, Seneca in his 90th Epistle\ninforms us that they learnt their laws in the silent and sacred\nrecess of Pythagoras. Though Seneca, however, Diodorus Siculus,\nDiogenes Laertius, Porphyry, and Iamblichus make both Charondas\nand Zaleucus to be the disciples of Pythagoras; yet Dr. Bentley,\nin his Dissertation on Phalaris, seems more disposed to think that\nthey were not Pythagoreans than that they were. At the conclusion,\nhowever, of his discussion of this subject he says, \u201cI do not assert\nany thing positively on either side of this whole debate about the\ntwo lawgivers [Charondas and Zaleucus]. I rather desire to stand a\nneuter, till the matter shall be decided by some abler hand[1].\u201d But\nthe man of intellect who reads this concession of the doctor, will\ndoubtless laugh when he finds him also asserting, \u201cThus much I am\nsure may be safely concluded, that if Zaleucus was really Pythagoras\u2019\ndisciple, the learned Mr. Dodwell\u2019s calculation must be wrong\n[respecting the age of Pythagoras]. For which is more probable,\nthat a Mr. Dodwell was mistaken in this particular, or that Diodorus\nSiculus, Laertius, Porphyry, and Iamblichus were wrong, who lived so\nmany centuries prior to him, and who were able to derive information\nso much more decisive respecting Zaleucus, through books which\nwere then extant, but which have long since utterly perished? By\nVossius[2], however, who, though he was not perhaps so great a verbal\ncritic as Bentley, was certainly a man of more intellect[3], the\nwhole of these fragments were considered as precious monuments; and\nhe wonders, and is at the same time indignant, at their not being\nmore frequently perused.\n\nOf Hierocles, the author of the ETHICAL FRAGMENTS, something more is\nknown than of the authors of the POLITICAL FRAGMENTS, through what\nis said of him by Suidas, Damascius[4], and \u00c6neas Gaz\u00e6us. For from\nthe last of these we learn that he flourished about the end of the\nfifth century of the Christian era; and from the other two, that\nhe was a Platonic philosopher of Alexandria: that his conceptions\nwere magnificent, and his genius sublime; that he was very eloquent,\nastonished his auditors by the beauty and copiousness of his\nlanguage, and contended with Plato himself in elegance of diction,\nand fertility of intellect. One of his auditors was Theosebius, a man\nof great penetration, who at different times twice heard Hierocles\norally explaining the Gorgias of Plato; and though on comparing the\nlatter with the former explanation, he found nothing in the one\nwhich might be said to be the same with what was in the other, yet\neach of them unfolded as much as possible the intention of Plato\nin that dialogue\u2014which, as Damascius well observes, was a thing of\na most singular nature, and clearly demonstrates the amplitude of\nhis conceptions. We are informed, also, by the same Theosebius, that\nHierocles once said, when expounding Plato, that the discourses of\nSocrates[5] resembled cubes, because they remained firm wherever they\nmight fall.\n\nThe following circumstance, says Suidas, evinces the fortitude and\nmagnanimity of Hierocles. On coming to Byzantium, he offended the\n_prevailers_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u039a\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9) i.e. _the Christians_[6];\nand being brought into a court of justice by them was whipped. But\nwhile the blood was flowing, he took some of it in the hollow of his\nhand, and besprinkled with it the judge, at the same time exclaiming:\n\n      Cyclops, since human flesh is thy delight,\n      Now drink this wine[7].\n\nBeing banished, most probably in consequence of this magnanimous\nbehaviour; and returning some time after to Alexandria, he gave\nphilosophical lectures to his auditors in his usual manner. Suidas\nadds, that the grandeur of the conceptions of Hierocles may be\nlearnt from the perusal of his Commentaries On the Golden Verses of\nthe Pythagoreans, and from his treatise On Providence[8]; in which\nworks it appears that he was sublimely wise in his life, but not\naccurate in his knowledge. Damascius also says, that Hierocles was\nnot at all deficient in any thing pertaining to merely human science,\nbut that he was by no means replete with _blessed conceptions_, i.e.\nwith conceptions which are the offspring of an _entheastic_, or\ndivinely inspired energy; and which are to be found in abundance in\nthe writings of Plato, Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, and Damascius\nhimself. This, indeed, will be immediately evident[9] to the man\nwho has penetrated the depth of these writings, but to the merely\nverbal critic is a circumstance involved in Cimmerian darkness.\n\n\n\n\nPOLITICAL FRAGMENTS\n\nOF THE\n\nPYTHAGOREANS.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF HIPPODAMUS THE THURIAN ON A REPUBLIC.\n\nI say that the whole of a polity is divided into three parts. And one\npart, indeed, consists of good men, who manage the public affairs.\nBut the second part consists of those who are powerful. And the third\npart is composed of those who are employed in supplying and procuring\nthe necessaries of life. I denominate, however, the first multitude\n[in a polity] that which consults [for the good of the whole]; the\nsecond, that which is auxiliary; and the third, that which pertains\nto mechanical and sordid occupations. Of these also, I say that the\ntwo first belong to those whose condition in life is liberal; but\nthe third, to those who labour to procure subsistence. And of these\nindeed, that which consults is the best; but that which is employed\nin sordid occupations is the worst; and that which is auxiliary,\nis a medium between the two. That which consults likewise [for the\ngeneral good] ought to govern; but that which is engaged in sordid\noccupations ought to be governed: and that which is auxiliary ought\nboth to govern and be governed. For that which consults for the\ngeneral good previously deliberates what ought to be done; but that\nwhich is of an auxiliary nature, so far as it is belligerent, rules\nover the whole of the mechanical tribe; but so far as it antecedently\nreceives counsel from others, is itself governed.\n\nOf these parts, however, each again receives a triple division. For\nof that which consults, one part presides, another governs, and\nanother counsels for the general good. And with respect to the part\nwhich presides, it is that which plans, contrives, and deliberates\nabout what pertains to the community, prior to the other parts, and\nafterwards refers its counsels to the senate. But the governing part\nis either that which now rules [for the first time], or which has\nbefore performed that office. And with respect to the third part,\nwhich consults for the general good, this receives the advice of the\nparts prior to itself, and confirms by its suffrages and authority\nwhatever is referred to its decision. And, in short, it is requisite\nthat those who preside should refer the affairs of the community to\nthat part which consults for the general good; but that this latter\npart should refer these affairs through the Pr\u00e6tors to the Convention.\n\nIn a similar manner also of that part which is auxiliary, powerful,\nand efficacious, one part is of a governing nature; another part is\ndefensive; and the remaining, which is the greater part, is gregal\nand military. It is the governing part, therefore, from which the\nleaders of armies, the pr\u00e6fects of cohorts, the bands of soldiers,\nand the vanguards are derived, and universally all those who rank as\nleaders. But the whole genus of the vanguards consists of those that\nare most brave, most impetuous, and most daring. And the remaining\nmultitude is gregarious and military. Of the third part, however,\nwhich is engaged in sordid occupations, and in labouring to procure\nthe necessaries of life, one part consists of husbandmen, and those\nwho are employed in the elaboration of the land; but another part\nconsists of artificers, who procure such instruments and machines\nas the occasions of life require; and another part is engaged in\nperegrinations and merchandise, and in exporting to foreign regions\nsuch things as are superabundant in the city, and importing into\nit other things from foreign countries. The systems of political\nsociety, therefore, are coarranged through so many and such like\nparts.\n\nIn the next place, it is requisite to speak of their adaptation\nand union. Since, however, the whole of political society may\nbe perfectly assimilated to a lyre, in consequence of requiring\napparatus and coaptation, and also because it is necessary that it\nshould be touched and used musically;\u2014this being the case, I have\nsufficiently spoken above about the apparatus of a polity, and\nshown from what and from how many particulars it is constituted.\nI shall now, therefore, endeavour to speak of the coaptation and\nunion of these. I say then, that political society is coadapted\nfrom the following three particulars, from disciplines, the study\nof manners [or customs], and from the laws; and that through these\nthree, man is instructed, and becomes more worthy. For disciplines\nare the sources of erudition, and cause the desires to be impelled\nto virtue. But the laws, partly detaining by fear, repell men [from\nthe commission of crimes,] and partly alluring by honours and\ngifts, excite them [to virtue]. And manners and studies fashion the\nsoul like wax, and through their continued energy impress in it\npropensities that become, as it were, natural. It is necessary,\nhowever, that these three should have an arrangement in conjunction\nwith the beautiful, the useful, and the just; and that each of these\nthree should, if possible, have all these for its final intention;\nbut if not all of them, it should at least have two or one of them\nas the mark at which it aims, in order that disciplines, manners,\nand laws may be beautiful, just, and advantageous. In the first\nplace, however, the beautiful in conduct should be preferred; in\nthe second place the just; and in the third place, the useful. And\nuniversally the endeavour should be, that through these the city may\nbecome, in the most eminent degree, consentaneous and concordant with\nits parts, and may be free from sedition and hostile contention.\nBut this will be effected, if the passions in the souls of youth\nare disciplined, and in things pleasing and painful are led to\nmediocrity, and if the possessions of men are moderate, and they\nderive their subsistence from the cultivation of the earth. And this\nwill also be accomplished, if good men rule over those that are in\nwant of virtue; skilful men over those that are deficient in skill;\nand rich men over those things that require a certain largess and\nexpenditure; and if also appropriate honours are distributed to\nthose who govern in all these in a becoming manner. But there are\nthree causes which are incitements to virtue, viz. fear, desire, and\nshame. The law, however, is able to produce fear, but custom shame:\nfor those that have been accustomed to act well, will be ashamed to\ndo any thing that is base. And disciplines are capable of producing\ndesire. For they at one and the same time assign the causes of\nthings, and attract the soul, and they especially effect this when\nthey are accompanied with exhortation. Hence it is necessary that\nthe souls of young men should be sufficiently instructed in what\npertains to senates, fellowship, and associations, both military and\npolitical, but that the tribe of elderly men should be coadapted to\nthings of this kind; since young men, indeed, require correction and\ninstruction, but elderly men are in want of benevolent associations,\nand a mode of living unattended with pain.\n\nSince, therefore, we have said, that the worthy man is perfected\nthrough three things, viz. through customs, laws, and disciplines,\nit is requisite to consider how customs or manners are usually\ncorrupted, and how they become permanent. We shall find, then, that\ncustoms are corrupted in two ways: for they are either corrupted\nthrough ourselves or through foreigners. And through ourselves,\nindeed, either through our flying from pain, or through our pursuit\nof pleasure. For in consequence of flying from pain, we do not\nendure labour; and through our pursuit of pleasure, we reject what\nis good. Labours, however, procure good for mankind; but pleasures\nevil. Hence men through pleasures, becoming incontinent and remiss,\nare rendered effeminate in their souls, and more profuse in their\nexpenses. But customs and manners are corrupted through foreigners,\nwhen a multitude of these dwelling with us, rejoice in the success\nof their emporetic employment; or when those who dwell in the\nsuburbs, being lovers of pleasure and luxury, impart their manners\nto the neighbouring inhabitants. On this account it is necessary\nthat the legislators, and prefects of the mass of the people, should\ndiligently observe whether the customs of the city are carefully\npreserved, and proceed equally through all the citizens. And farther\nstill, they should observe whether the genuine and indigenous\nmultitude, of which the polity consists, remains pure and unmingled\nwith any other nation; and whether the magnitude of possessions\nremains in the same state, and does not become excessive. For the\npossession of superfluities is accompanied by the desire of still\nmore of the superfluous. After this manner, therefore, customs ought\nto be rendered secure.\n\nWith respect to disciplines, however, the same legislators and\npr\u00e6fects should diligently inspect and examine the tribe of sophists,\nwhether they teach what is useful to the laws, to political dogmas,\nand to the peculiar economy of life. For the doctrines of the\nsophists ingenerate in the souls of men, no casual but the greatest\ninfelicity; when they dare to make innovation in any thing pertaining\neither to human or divine concerns, contrary to common conceptions;\nthan which nothing can be more pernicious either with respect to\ntruth, or security, or renown. And in addition to this, also, they\nintroduce darkness and confusion into the minds of the vulgar. But\nof this kind are all such doctrines as either teach that there is no\nGod, or if there is, that he is not so affected towards the human\nrace, as to look to it with providential attention, but deserts and\ndespises it. For doctrines of this kind produce in men folly and\ninjustice, to an extent which it is not easy to narrate. For every\nman who is full of anarchy, and who has shaken off the fear of\ndisobedience [to rulers and the laws], wantonly exults, and violates\nthe laws. Hence it is necessary to employ political and venerable\nassertions, which are adapted to the disposition of the speaker,\nand which are void of dissimulation. For thus what is said will\nexhibit the manners of the speaker. From the laws, however, security\nwill thus be necessarily introduced, if the polity is composed and\ncoarranged from every thing which is according to nature, and not\nfrom such things as are preternatural. For cities derive no advantage\nfrom a tyranny, and very little from an oligarchy. It is necessary,\ntherefore, that a kingdom should be established in the first place;\nand in the second place, an aristocracy. For a kingdom, indeed, is a\nthing imitative of God, and which is with difficulty preserved and\ndefended by the human soul. For it is rapidly changed through luxury\nand insolence. Hence it is not proper to employ it universally, but\nonly so far as it may be useful to the polity; but an aristocracy\nshould be more abundantly interwoven in it, because it consists\nof many rulers, who emulate each other, and who often alternately\ngovern. It is also entirely necessary that a democracy should be\nintroduced. For as a citizen is a part of the whole polity, it is\nrequisite that he should receive a certain reward from it[10]. But\nit is necessary that he should be sufficiently restrained. For the\nvulgar are audacious and precipitate.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF DIOTOGENES ON SANCTITY.\n\nIt is necessary that the laws should not be enclosed in houses, and\nby gates, but in the manners of the citizens. What, therefore, is the\nprinciple of every polity? The education of youth. For vines will\nnever bear useful fruit, unless they are well cultivated; nor will\nhorses ever become excellent, if colts are not properly trained.\nFor recently produced fruit receives a figure especially similar to\nthat which touches and is near to it. And men prudently attend to\nthe manner in which vines ought to be cut and taken care of; but in\nthings pertaining to the education of their own species, they conduct\nthemselves negligently and rashly; though neither vines nor wine\ngovern men, but man and the soul of man. And we commit the nurture\nof a plant, indeed, to a man of some worth, and think that he who\ntakes care of it, deserves no less than two mina; but we commit the\neducation of youth to some Illyrian or Thracian, who are men of no\nworth. The first legislators, however, as they could not render the\nmiddle class of mankind stable, adjoined [in their education] dancing\nand rhythm, which participate of motion alone and order; and besides\nthese they added sports, some of which exhorted them to fellowship,\nbut others to truth and mental acuteness. In a similar manner also\nthey instituted for those who through intoxication or repletion\nhad committed any crime, the pipe and harmony, by which they gave\nan arrangement to the mind, so that the manners being matured and\nrendered mild, they might be capable of being adorned.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF ARCHYTAS ON LAW AND JUSTICE.\n\nI say that every [political] association consists of a governor\nand the governed; and of a third thing, viz. the laws. Of laws,\nhowever, one is animated, viz. a king; but another inanimate, viz.\nwritten law. The first law, therefore, is animated[11]; and if it\nis observed, the king will be legitimate; the magistrate will be\nconsentaneous; the subject will be free; and the whole community will\nbe happy. But if both the animated and written laws are transgressed,\nthe king will be a tyrant; the magistrate unfit for his office;\nthe subject a slave; and the whole community unhappy. For actions\nform a continued series from governing, the being governed, and,\nin the third place, from subjugation. To govern, therefore, is the\nprovince of that which is more, but to be governed, of that which\nis less excellent, and to be subjugated, pertains to both these.\nFor that part of the soul which is rational governs, the part which\nis irrational is governed, and both are vanquished by the passions.\nFor virtue is produced from the apt conjunction of both these parts;\nand she leads the soul from pleasures and pains to tranquillity and\napathy[12].\n\n\nAND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK.\n\nIt will be beneficial to the community, if law is not monarchical,\nand advantageous [only] to a private individual, but if it is\ngenerally useful, and extends to every one. But it is also necessary\nthat the law should look to the whole region, and to the different\nplaces in it. For neither is the earth able to receive the same\nfruits [every where] nor the soul of every man the same virtue[13].\n\n\nIN ANOTHER PART ALSO OF THE SAME WORK.\n\nBut it is necessary that the more excellent law and the city should\nbe composed of every other polity, and should have something of a\ndemocracy, of an oligarchy, of a kingdom, and of an aristocracy;\nas is the case in Laced\u00e6mon. For the kings there are monarchs;\nthe elders form an aristocracy; the ephori an oligarchy; and the\nippagret\u00e6[14] and the young men a democracy. It is necessary,\nhowever, that law should not only be good and beautiful, but that\nit should also reciprocate in its parts: for thus it will be strong\nand stable. But when I say it should reciprocate, I mean that the\nsame magistrate should alternately govern and be governed, as in\nLaced\u00e6mon, in which there are the most equitable laws. For there the\nephori are opposed to the kings, the elders to the ephori, and the\nmedia between these are the young men, and the ippagret\u00e6; for these\nlast both incline to those rulers that excel in power, and are in\nsubjection to others.\n\nIt is necessary that the law should, in the first place, establish\nwhat pertains to the gods, to d\u00e6mons and parents, and, in short, to\nwhat is beautiful and honourable. But in the second place, it should\nestablish what pertains to things that are useful. For it is fit\nthat minor concerns should be subsequent to such as are greater. Nor\nshould the laws be contained in houses and gates, but in the manners\nof the citizens. For neither in Laced\u00e6mon, which possesses the most\nexcellent laws, is the city governed by a multitude of writings, but\nrather by the manners of the subjects. But it will be beneficial to\nthe community, if law is not monarchical, and advantageous [only]\nto a private individual, but if it is generally useful, and extends\nto every one; and if it refers punishment to disgrace and ignominy,\nand not to the loss of property. For by punishing with disgrace,\nthe citizens will endeavour in the most decorous and useful manner,\nto avoid the punishment ordained by the laws. But if the punishment\nis pecuniary, the citizens will value money immoderately, and will\nconceive it to be the greatest remedy of crimes. It will be best,\ntherefore, for the whole city to be so arranged that it may not be in\nwant of any thing external, either with respect to virtue or power,\nor any other cause. For thus the body, a family, and an army will be\nbeautifully constituted, when each of these has the cause of safety\nin itself, and does not derive it externally. And this, indeed, will\nbe the case with the body when it is strong, with a family when\nit is well composed, and with an army which neither consists of\nmercenaries, nor is unexercised. For these, when thus constituted,\nwill be far more excellent than others, and will be free indeed, and\nforeign from every thing of a servile nature; and will not, for the\npurpose of endurance, be in want of many things, but of a few, and\nthose easily procured. For thus he who is strong will not sink under\nburdens, and he who is thinly clothed will vanquish cold; since men\nare exercised by casualties and calamities. Indeed, to the man who is\ntemperate, and who has laboured much both in body and soul, all meat\nand drink will appear to be agreeable; and a bed composed of leaves\nwill be pleasant; but to him who has deliberately chosen a luxurious\nand Sybaritic life, even the apparatus of the great [or Persian]\nking would not be sufficiently pleasing. Hence it is necessary that\nthe manners and pursuits of the citizens should be deeply tinctured\nwith law: for this will cause them to be sufficient to themselves,\nand will be the means of distributing to each of them that which is\ndue to him according to his desert. For thus, also, the sun, moving\nin a circle through the zodiac, distributes to every thing on the\nearth generation, nutriment, and an appropriate portion of life;\nadministering, as if it were equitable legislation, the excellent\ntemperature of the seasons. Hence, too, Jupiter is called _Nomios_,\nor _legal_; and _Nemeios_, or the _distributor_. He, likewise, who\ndistributes nutriment to sheep, is called _Nomeus_, or a _shepherd_;\nand the songs of harpers are denominated _Nomai_. For these properly\ndispose the parts of the soul by harmony, rhythms, and measures.\n\n\nON THE MUTATIONS OF POLITIES, FROM THE TREATISE OF HIPPODAMUS ON A\nPOLITY.\n\nEvery thing mortal, by a necessity of nature, is conversant with\nmutations; some things, indeed, receiving a revolution from a worse\nto a better condition, but others from a better to a worse. For\nthings that are generated, are increased; when increased, arrive at\ntheir acme: after this become old, and at length finally perish.\nAnd things, indeed, which are generated by nature, through the same\nnature terminate in the immanifest; and again from the immanifest\naccede to mortality, through a permutation of generation; and, by a\nreciprocation of corruption, form a circular retrogression. And some\nthings, through human folly, from an ebullition of insolence and\nsatiety, when both houses and cities have been exalted to the summit\nof human felicity, and been exuberantly rich, have perished, together\nwith their much applauded possessions. Thus, also, it happens that\nevery empire is bounded by three times: by one, indeed, and that\nthe first, which comprehends in itself acquisition; by the second,\nwhich comprehends fruition; and by the last, which brings with it\ndestruction. For empires at their commencement being destitute of\nthe goods of fortune, are busied in acquisition; but afterwards\nbecoming prosperous, they perish. Such things, therefore, as are\nunder the dominion of the gods, being incorruptible, are preserved\nthrough the whole of time by incorruptible natures; but such things\nas are under the government of men, being mortal, receive from\nmortals a perpetually various mutation. For the end, indeed, of\nsatiety and lascivious insolence is destruction; but a strenuous and\nworthy life is the end of poverty and narrow circumstances. Not only\npoverty, however, but many other things bring human life to an end.\n\n\nFROM DIOTOGENES IN HIS TREATISE CONCERNING A KINGDOM.\n\nA king should be one who is most just; and he will be most just who\npays the greatest attention to the laws. For without justice no one\nwill be a king; and without law there can be no justice. For that\nwhich is just is just through law, which is the effective cause of\njustice. But a king is either animated law, or a legal ruler. And\nhence it follows that he will be most just and most observant of the\nlaws. There are, however, three peculiar employments of a king; viz.\nto lead an army, to administer justice, and to worship the gods.\nHe will, therefore, be able to lead an army properly, if he knows\nhow to carry on war in a becoming manner. But he will be skilled in\nadministering justice, and in governing all his subjects, if he has\nwell learned the nature of justice and law. And he will worship the\ngods in a pious and holy manner, if he has diligently considered the\nnature and virtue of God; so that a good king must necessarily be\na good general, judge, and priest. For these are things consequent\nand suitable to the transcendency and virtue of a king. For it is\nthe province of the pilot to preserve the ship, of the charioteer to\npreserve the chariot, and of the physician to save the sick; but it\nbelongs to a king and to a general to save those who are in danger in\nbattle. For of that of which any one is the leader, he is also the\nprovident inspector and artificer. But to be conversant with judicial\naffairs is, indeed, a universal thing; but is particularly the proper\nwork of a king; who, like a god, is a leader and protector in the\nworld. And universally, indeed, it is fit that the whole polity\nshould be coadapted to one ruler and empire; but, especially, that\nthings which have the relation of parts should accord with the same\nharmony and supreme domination. Farther still, it is the province\nof a king to oblige and benefit his subjects, but this not without,\njustice and law. And the third thing which is adapted to the dignity\nof a king is the worship of the gods. For it is necessary that what\nis most excellent should be honoured by the most excellent; and that\nwhich is the leader and ruler, by that which leads and rules. Of\nthings, therefore, which are by nature most honourable, God is the\nbest; but of things on the earth, and pertaining to men, a king is\nthe most excellent. As God also is to the world, so is a king to the\ncity [which he governs]; and as a city is to the world, so is a king\nto God. For a city, indeed, being coadapted from things which are\nmany and different, imitates the coarrangement and harmony of the\nworld; but a king who possesses an innoxious dominion, and who is\nhimself animated law, exhibits the form of God among men.\n\n\nAND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME TREATISE.\n\nHence it is necessary that a king should not be vanquished by\npleasure, but that he should vanquish it; that he should not be\nsimilar to, but far excel the multitude; and that he should not\nconceive his proper employment to consist in the pursuit of pleasure,\nbut rather in the acquisition of probity. At the same time also it is\nfit that he who has occasion to rule over others should first be able\nto govern his own passions.\n\nBut with respect to the desire of obtaining great property, it must\nbe observed, that a king ought to be wealthy in order that he may\nbenefit his friends, relieve those that are in want, and justly\npunish his enemies. For the enjoyment of prosperity in conjunction\nwith virtue is most delightful. The same thing must be said\nconcerning the transcendency of a king. For since he always surpasses\nothers in virtue, it is fit to form a judgment of his empire with\nreference to virtue, and not with reference to riches, or power, or\nhis military strength. For he possesses one of these [viz. riches]\nin common with any casual persons; another [viz. power] in common\nwith irrational animals; and the last in common with tyrants. But\nvirtue is alone the peculiarity of good men. Hence, whatever king is\ntemperate with respect to pleasures, liberal with respect to money,\nand prudent and most skilful in governing, he will be in reality\na king. The people, however, have the same analogy with respect\nto the virtues and the vices, as the parts of the human soul. For\nthe desire of accumulating more than is fit subsists about the\nirrational part of the soul: for desire is not rational[15]. But\nambition and ferocity subsist about the irascible part: for this is\nthe fervid and strenuous part of the soul. And the love of pleasure\nsubsists about the epithymetic part: for this is the effeminate and\nyielding part of the soul. But injustice, which is the most perfect\nvice, and is of a composite nature, subsists about the whole soul.\nHence it is necessary that the king should coharmonize like a lyre\nthe city that is furnished with good laws, first establishing in\nhimself the most just boundary and order of law, as knowing that\nthe proper arrangement of the people, over whom divinity has given\nhim dominion, ought to be coadapted to this boundary. It is also\nnecessary that a good king should establish becoming positions\nand habits in the delivery of public orations, conducting himself\npolitically, seriously, and earnestly, in order that he may neither\nappear to be rough to the multitude; nor may be contemptible; but\nmay be agreeable and easy in his manners. He will however obtain\nthese things, if in the first place he is venerable in his aspect and\nhis discourse, and appears to deserve the sovereign authority which\nhe possesses. But, in the second place, if he proves himself to be\nbenign from his behaviour to those whom he may happen to meet, from\nhis countenance and his beneficence. And in the third place, if he is\nformidable from his hatred of depravity, from the punishment which he\ninflicts on it, from his celerity in inflicting it, and, in short,\nfrom his skill and exercise in the art of government. For venerable\ngravity, being a thing which imitates divinity, is capable of causing\nhim to be admired and honoured by the multitude. Benignity will\nrender him pleasing and beloved. And his being formidable will cause\nhim to be terrible to and unconquered by his enemies, and magnanimous\nand confident to his friends.\n\nIt is necessary, however, that his gravity should have nothing in\nit of an abject or vulgar nature, but that it should be admirable,\nand such as becomes the dignity of empire and a sceptre. Nor should\nhe ever contend with his inferiors, or his equals, but with those\nthat are greater than himself; and he should conceive, conformably to\nthe magnitude of his empire, that those pleasures are the greatest\nwhich are derived from beautiful and great deeds, and not those which\narise from sensual gratifications; separating himself indeed from\nhuman passions, and approximating to the Gods, not through arrogance,\nbut through magnanimity and an invincible transcendency of virtue.\nHence he should invest himself with such a gracefulness and majesty\nin his aspect and his reasonings, in the conceptions of his mind,\nin the manners of his soul, and in his actions and the motions and\ngesture of his body, that those who survey him may perceive that he\nis adorned and fashioned with modesty and temperance, and a decorous\ndisposition. For a good king should convert to himself the souls\nof those that behold him, no less than the sound of a flute and\nharmony attract the attention of those that hear them. And thus much\nconcerning the venerable gravity of a king.\n\nBut I shall now endeavour to speak of his benignity. Universally,\ntherefore, every king will be benign, if he is just, equitable, and\nbeneficent. For justice is a connective and collective communion,\nand is alone that disposition of the soul which adapts itself to\nthose that are near to us. For as rhythm is to motion, and harmony\nto the voice, so is justice to communion; since it is the common\ngood of those that govern, and those that are governed, because it\ncoharmonizes political society. But equity and benignity are certain\nassessors of justice; the former indeed softening the severity of\npunishment; but the latter extending pardon to less guilty offenders.\nIt is necessary, however, that a good king should give assistance to\nthose that are in want of it, and be beneficent. But his assistance\nshould be given not in one way only, but in every possible way. And\nit is requisite to be beneficent, not looking to the magnitude of\nhonour, but to the manner and deliberate choice of him by whom honour\nis conferred. It is likewise necessary that a worthy king should\nso conduct himself towards all men as to avoid being troublesome\nto them, but especially towards men of an inferior rank and of a\nslender fortune: for these, like diseased bodies, can endure nothing\nof a troublesome nature. Good kings, indeed, have dispositions\nsimilar to those of the Gods, and which especially resemble those\nof Jupiter, the ruler of all things. For he is venerable and\nhonourable, through transcendency and magnitude of virtue. He is\nbenign, because he is beneficent, and the giver of good; and hence\nhe is said by the Ionic poet [Homer] to be the father of men and\nGods. He is also terrible and transcendent, because he punishes the\nunjust, and reigns and rules over all things. But he carries thunder\nin his hand, as a symbol of his formidable excellence. From all these\nparticulars, therefore, it is requisite to remember that a kingdom is\na God-resembling thing.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF STHENIDAS THE LOCRIAN, ON A KINGDOM.\n\nIt is requisite that a king should be a wise man: for thus he will\nbe honoured analogously to the first God, of whom also he will be an\nimitator. For this god is by nature the first king and potentate;\nbut a king is so by birth and imitation. And the former rules in the\nuniverse, and in the whole of things; but the latter in the earth.\nThe former also governs all things eternally, and has a never-failing\nlife, possessing wisdom in himself; but the latter acquires science\nthrough time. But a king will imitate the first God in the most\nexcellent manner, if he acquires magnanimity, gravity, and the want\nof but few things; exhibiting to his subjects a paternal disposition.\nFor on this account especially, the first God is conceived to be the\nfather both of Gods and men, because he is mild to every thing which\nis in subjection to him, and never ceases to govern with providential\nregard. Nor is he alone satisfied with being the maker of all things,\nbut he is the nourisher, the preceptor of every thing beautiful, and\nthe legislator to all things equally. Such also ought the king to be\nwho rules over men on the earth. Nothing however is beautiful which\nis deprived of a king and a ruler. But it is not possible for a king\nor a ruler [properly so called] to exist without wisdom and science.\nHe, therefore, who is a wise man and a king, will be an imitator, and\na legitimate minister of God.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF ECPHANTUS, THE CROTONIAN, ON A KINGDOM.\n\nThat the nature of every animal is adapted to the world, and to the\nthings contained in the world, appears to me to be evident from many\narguments. For every animal thus conspiring [into union and consent],\nand having such a colligation of its parts, it follows a series\nwhich is most excellent, and at the same time necessary, through\nthe attractive flux of the universe about it, which is effective of\nthe general ornament of the world, and the peculiar permanency of\nevery thing which it contains. Hence it is called \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 _kosmos_,\nand is the most perfect of all animals. But in its parts, which\nare many, and naturally different, a certain animal excels; both\nfrom its native alliance to the world[16], and from participating\nof divinity in a greater degree. [And in the nature, indeed, of\nthe God who is eternal, the stars called planets are comprehended,\nforming the first and the greatest series[17]]. But in the sublunary\nregion, where bodies move in a right line, the nature of demons has\nits subsistence. And in the earth, and with us, the most excellent\nnature is man; but the most divine is a king, who surpasses other\nmen in the common nature: in his tabernacle, indeed, [i.e. in his\nbody], resembling other men, as being generated from the same matter,\nbut fashioned from the best of artificers, who fabricated him, by\nusing himself as the archetype. Hence, in a certain respect, a king\nis one and alone; being the production of the supernal king, with\nwhom he is always familiar: but being beheld by his subjects in his\nkingdom as in a splendid light. For a kingdom is judged and proved\nto resemble the eagle, the most excellent of winged animals, which\nlooks undazzled at the sun. And a kingdom is, indeed, analogous\nto the sun, because it is divine; and through excess of splendour\ncannot be seen without difficulty, except by genuine eyes. For the\nnumerous splendours which surround it, and the dark vertigos which\nit produces in those who survey it, as if they had ascended into a\nforeign altitude, evinces that their eyes are spurious. But those who\ncan fitly arrive thither, on account of their familiarity with, and\nalliance to it, are able to use it properly. A kingdom, therefore, is\na thing pure, genuine, uncorrupted, and through transcendency, most\ndivine; and difficult to be acceded to by man. Hence it is necessary\nthat he who is established in it should be naturally most pure and\npellucid [in his soul], in order that he may not obscure by his\nstains that which is most splendid; as some persons defile the most\nsacred places, and the impure pollute those they may happen to meet.\nBut it is requisite that a king, who associates with men, should\nparticipate of an undefiled nature, and should know how much more\ndivine both himself and his qualifications are than other things;\nand from the exemplars to which he assimilates himself, he should\nuse both himself and his subjects in the best manner. And to other\nmen, indeed, if they are delinquents, the most holy purification is\nfor them to be assimilated to their rulers, whether law or a king\nadministers their affairs. But kings who cannot find any thing on the\nearth to imitate more excellent than their own nature, ought not to\nwander any farther in search of a paradigm, but should immediately\nbecome benefited by imitating God. For neither should any one search\nfor the world, since he exists in, and is a part of it; nor should he\nwho governs others be ignorant of him by whom he is governed. This,\nhowever, is a most abundant ornament, that nothing [in the universe]\ncan be found without a ruler.\n\nThe manners of a king also ought to be the preceptors of his\ngovernment. For thus the beauty of it will immediately shine forth,\nsince he who imitates God through virtue will be dear to him whom\nhe imitates; and much more will he be dear to his subjects. For no\none who is beloved by divinity will be hated by men; since neither\ndo the stars, nor the whole world hate God. For if they hated their\nruler and leader, they would never be obedient to him. But because\nhe governs properly, mundane affairs are well governed. I therefore,\nindeed, apprehend that the terrene king ought not to be deficient in\nany one of the virtues which pertain to the celestial king. But as\nthe former is a certain foreign and external thing, in consequence\nof proceeding to men from the heavens; so, likewise, his virtues may\nbe conceived to be the works of God, and to accede to him through\ndivinity. And if you consider the thing from the beginning, you\nwill find what I say to be true. For the terrestrial king obtains\npossession of the race of men by a communion, which is the first\nand the most necessary of all things. And this race is also the\npossession of him who governs every thing in the universe. For it\nis impossible that any thing can subsist without friendship and\ncommunion; the truth of which may be easily seen, if the accustomed\ncommunion which exists among citizens is supposed to be destroyed;\nsince this is much inferior to a divine and royal nature. For\nnatures of this kind are not oppressed by any such indigence; but,\nconformably to intellect, they supply the wants of others, and\nafford them assistance in common. For they are perfect in virtue.\nBut the friendship which is in a city, and which possesses a certain\ncommon end, imitates the concord of the universe. But without the\narrangement of magistrates no city can be inhabited. In order,\nhowever, to effect this arrangement, and to preserve the city,\nlaws are necessary, and a certain political domination, and also\na governor and the governed. But, the consequence of these things\nis, the general good, a certain concinnity, and the consent of the\nmultitude in conjunction with concordant persuasion. He, likewise,\nwho governs according to virtue, is called a king, and is so [in\nreality]; since he possesses the same friendship and communion with\nhis subjects as divinity possesses with the world, and the natures\nwhich it contains. All benevolence, however, ought to be exerted; in\nthe first place, indeed, by the king towards his subjects; but in the\nsecond place, by the subjects towards the king: and this benevolence\nshould be such as that of a parent towards his child, of a shepherd\ntowards his flock, and of law towards him who uses it.\n\nFor there is one virtue pertaining to the government, and to the life\nof men. But no one should through indigence solicit the assistance\nof others, when he is able to supply himself with what nature\nrequires. For though there is a general communion [in the city],\nyet every one should so live as to be sufficient to himself; since\nhe who is sufficient to himself does not appear to require the aid\nof any other person in his passage through life. If, therefore, it\nis necessary to lead an active life, it is evident that a king,\nthough he should also assume other things, will, nevertheless, be\nsufficient to himself. For he will have friends through his own\nvirtue; and in using these, he will not use them by any other virtue\nthan that by which he regulates his own life. For it is necessary\nthat he should follow a virtue of this kind, since he cannot procure\nany thing which is more excellent. And God, indeed, not having\neither ministers or servants[18], nor employing any mandate, and\nneither crowning nor proclaiming those that are obedient to him, or\ndisgracing those that are disobedient, thus administers so great\nan empire. But as it appears to me exhibiting himself to be most\nworthy of imitation, he inserts in all things a vehement desire of\nparticipating his nature. He is, however, good; and the communication\nof goodness, and this, with the greatest facility, is his only work.\nBut those who imitate him[19], accomplish every thing in a better\nmanner through this imitation. And the imitation of him is to every\nthing the source of sufficiency. For there is not one virtue which\nmakes things to be acceptable to God, and another which imitates\nhim; [but both these are effected by one and the same virtue].\nAnd is not our terrestrial king in a similar manner sufficient to\nhimself? For assimilating himself to one, and that the most excellent\nnature, he will beneficently endeavour to render all whom he governs\nsimilar to himself. But such as offer violence to, and compel their\nsubjects, entirely[20] destroy in every individual of the community\na promptitude to imitate [that which is most excellent]. For without\nbenevolence, it is impossible there can be assimilation; since\nbenevolence especially destroys every thing of a terrific nature. It\nis much to be wished, indeed, that human nature was not in want of\npersuasion: for persuasion is the relic of human depravity, of which\nthis temporary animal [man] is not destitute. Persuasion, indeed, is\na thing proximate to necessity; since this first of itself performs\nthose things which fly from necessity. Such beings, however, as\nspontaneously use what is beautiful and good, are not influenced by\nthe reverence of persuasion; for neither are they influenced by the\nfear of necessity.\n\nAgain, a king alone is capable of effecting this good in human\nnature, that through the imitation of what is more excellent, man may\npursue what is fit and decorous; and that those who are corrupted\nas if by intoxication, and through a bad education have fallen\ninto an oblivion of that which is more excellent, may through his\neloquence be corroborated, may have their diseased minds healed, and\nthe oblivion which dwells in them through depravity being expelled,\nmay have memory for an intimate associate, from which persuasion is\nproduced. For this, though it originates from depraved seeds, yet is\nthe source of a certain good to the inhabitants of the terrestrial\nregion, in which language supplies what is deficient (through the\nimbecility of our nature), in our converse with each other.\n\n\nAND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK.\n\nHe who has a sacred and divine conception of things, will be in\nreality a king[21]. For being persuaded by this, he will be the cause\nof all good but of no evil. And, moreover, that he will be just,\nbeing fitted for society, is evident to every one. For communion or\nassociation consists in equality, and in the distribution of it.\nAnd justice indeed precedes, but communion participates. For it is\nimpossible for a man to be unjust, and yet distribute equality;\nor that he should distribute equality, and yet not be adapted to\nassociation. But how is it possible that he who is sufficient to\nhimself should not be continent? For sumptuousness is the mother of\nincontinence, and incontinence of wanton insolence, from which so\nmany human evils are derived. But self-sufficiency is not vanquished\nby sumptuousness, nor by any thing which proceeds from it; but being\nitself a certain principle, it leads all things, but is not led by\nany thing. And to govern, indeed, is the province of God, and also of\na king (on which account, likewise, he is denominated sufficient to\nhimself); but it pertains to both, not to be governed by any one. It\nis, however, evident, that these things cannot be effected without\nprudence. And it is manifest that God is the intellectual prudence of\nthe world. For the world is connectedly contained by gracefulness,\nand a fit order of things, which cannot take place without intellect.\nNor is it possible for a king without prudence to possess these\nvirtues; I mean justice, continence, communion, and such other\nvirtues as are the sisters of these.\n\n\nFROM ARCHYTAS.\n\nThe unwritten laws of the gods were promulgated against depraved\nmanners, inflicting a severe destiny and penalty on the disobedient;\nand these unwritten laws are the fathers and leaders of those that\nare written, and of the dogmas established by men.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF DIOTOGENES ON SANCTITY.\n\nIt is proper to invoke God in the beginning both of supper and\ndinner, not because he is in want of any thing of this kind, but in\norder that the soul may be adorned by the recollection of Divinity.\nFor since we proceed from him, and participate of a divine nature, it\nis requisite that we should honour him. And since God also is just,\nit is fit that we should act justly in all things. In the next place,\nthere are four causes which terminate all things, and bring them\nto an end, viz. nature, law, art, and fortune. And nature, indeed,\nis universally the principle of all things. But of those things\nwhich from manners lead to political concord, law is the inspective\nguardian and fabricator. Of things which obtain their consummation\nthrough human prudence, art is justly said to be the mother and\nleader. And of those things which, casually and accidentally,\nsimilarly befall the worthy and the depraved, we assert fortune to\nbe the cause. For fortune does not produce any thing in measure and\nbound, in an orderly and prudent manner.\n\n\nTHE PREFACE OF CHARONDAS, THE CATANEAN, TO HIS TREATISE OF LAWS.\n\nIt is requisite that those who deliberate about, and perform any\nthing, should begin from the Gods: for it is best, as the proverb\nsays, for God to be the cause of all our deliberations and works.\nAnd, farther still, it is requisite to abstain from base actions,\nand especially on account of consulting with God. For there is no\ncommunication between God and him who is unjust. Every one, also,\nshould give assistance to himself, and should incite himself to the\nundertaking and performance of such things as are conformable to his\ndesert; since for a man to extend himself similarly to small and\ngreat undertakings appears to be too sordid and illiberal. Hence, you\nshould be very careful to avoid falling vehemently into things of an\nextended nature, and of great consequence. But, in every undertaking,\nyou should measure your own desert and power, in order that you may\nobtain honour and veneration.\n\nLet no assistance be afforded to a man or woman who has been\ncondemned by the city, nor let any one associate with such a person,\nor if he does, let him be disgraced, as being similar to him or her\nwith whom he associates. But it is proper to love men who, from\nthe previous decision of the city, are good, and to associate with\nthem; and by imitating and acquiring in reality their virtue and\nprobity, to be thus initiated in the greatest and most perfect of\nthe mysteries. For no man is perfect without virtue. And assistance\nshould be given to an injured citizen, whether he is in his own, or\nin a foreign country. But let every stranger who was venerated in\nhis own country, and conformably to the proper laws of that country,\nbe received and dismissed auspiciously and familiarly, calling to\nmind hospitable Jupiter, as a God who is established by all nations\nin common, and who is the inspective guardian of hospitality and\ninhospitality.\n\nLet more elderly men also preside over such as are younger, so\nthat the latter may be ashamed of and deterred from vice, through\nreverence and fear of the former. For in cities in which more elderly\nmen are shameless, the children and grandchildren of these are also\ndestitute of shame. But wanton insolence and injustice are the\nattendants of shamelessness and impudence. And destruction follows\nthese. Let, however, no one be impudent[22], but let every one be\nmodest and temperate; because he will thus have the Gods propitious\nto him, and will procure for himself salvation. For no vicious man is\ndear to divinity. Let every one likewise honour probity and truth,\nand hate what is base and false. For these are the indications of\nvirtue and vice. Hence it is requisite to accustom children from\ntheir youth [to worthy manners], by punishing those that are lovers\nof falsehood, but being delighted with those that are lovers of\ntruth, in order that in each that which is most beautiful, and most\nprolific of virtue, may be implanted. Each of the citizens, likewise,\nshould be more anxious to pretend to be temperate than to pretend\nto be wise: for the pretence of wisdom is a great indication of an\nignorance of probity, and is also a sign of pusillanimity. But let\nthe pretence of temperance be considered as a true claim to it. For\nno one should feign with his tongue, that he performs beautiful\ndeeds, when at the same time he is both destitute of worthy conduct\nand good intentions.\n\nIt is likewise requisite to preserve benevolence towards rulers,\nbeing obedient to and venerating them as if they were parents. For he\nwho does not conceive that this is proper will suffer the punishment\nof bad counsel from the d\u00e6mons who are the inspective guardians of\nthe seat of empire. For the rulers are the guardians of the city, and\nof the safety of the citizens.\n\nBut it is also necessary that governors should preside justly over\nthose that are governed, in the same manner as over their own\nchildren, in passing sentence on others, laying asleep hatred,\nfriendship, and anger.\n\nLet those likewise be praised and celebrated who, being themselves in\naffluence, have assisted the indigent, and let them be considered as\nthe saviours of the children and defenders of their country. And let\nthe wants of those be relieved who are poor through fortune, and not\nthrough an indolent and intemperate life. For fortune is common to\nall men, but an indolent and intemperate life is peculiar to bad men.\n\nLet it also be considered as a worthy deed, to point out any one\nwho has acted unjustly, in order that the polity may be saved,\nwhich has many guardians of its decorous arrangement. But let the\nindicator of the unjust action be considered as a pious man, though\nhis information should be respecting his most familiar acquaintance.\nFor nothing is more familiar and allied to a man than his country.\nLet, however, the indication be made, not of things done through\ninvoluntary ignorance, but of such crimes as have been committed from\na previous knowledge [of their enormity.] And if he who is detected\nshould be hostile to him by whom he is detected, let him be hated by\nall men, in order that he may suffer the punishment of ingratitude,\nthrough which he deprives himself of being cured of the greatest of\ndiseases injustice.\n\nFarther still, let a contempt of the Gods be considered as the\ngreatest of iniquities, and also injuring parents voluntarily, the\nneglecting rulers and laws, and voluntarily dishonouring justice. But\nlet him be considered as a most just and holy citizen who honours\nthese things, and indicates to the citizens and rulers those that\ndespise them.\n\nLet it be esteemed to be more venerable for a man to die for his\ncountry than, through a desire of life, to desert it, together\nwith probity. For it is better to die well than to live basely and\ndisgracefully.\n\nIt is likewise requisite to honour each of the dead, not with tears\nnor with lamentations, but with good remembrance, and with an\noblation of annual fruits. For when we grieve immoderately for those\nthat are dead, we are ungrateful to the terrestrial d\u00e6mons.\n\nLet no one curse him by whom he has been injured. For praise is more\ndivine than defamation.\n\nLet him be thought to be a better citizen who is superior to anger,\nthan him who is an offender through it.\n\nLet not him be praised but disgraced, who, in the sumptuousness of\nhis expence, surpasses temples and palaces. For let nothing private\nbe more magnificent and venerable than things of a public nature.\n\nLet him who is a slave to wealth and money be despised, as one who\nis pusillanimous and illiberal, and is astonished by sumptuous\npossessions, and let him be considered as one who leads a tragical\nlife, and whose soul is vile. For he who is magnanimous foresees with\nhimself all human concerns, and is not disturbed by any thing of this\nkind [whether prosperous or adverse], when it accedes.\n\nLet no one speak obscenely, in order that he may not in his thoughts\napproach to base deeds, and that he may not fill his soul with\nimpudence and defilement. For we call things which are decorous and\nlovely, by their proper names, and by those appellations which are\nestablished by law. But we abstain from naming things to which we are\nhostile, on account of their baseness. Let it also be considered as\nbase, to speak of a base thing.\n\nLet every one dearly love his lawful wife, and beget children from\nher. But let no one emit the seed of his children[23] into any other\nperson; nor let him illegally consume that which is honourable both\nby nature and law, and act with wanton insolence. For nature produced\nthe seed, for the sake of procreating children, and not for the sake\nof lust.\n\nBut it is requisite that a wife should be chaste, and should not\nadmit the impious connection with other men, as by so doing she will\nsubject herself to the vengeance of the d\u00e6mons, whose office it is\nto expel those to whom they are hostile from their houses, and to\nproduce hatred.\n\nLet not him be praised who gives a stepmother to his children[24],\nbut disgraced, as being the cause of domestic dissension.\n\nAnd as it is proper to observe these mandates, let him who\ntransgresses them be obnoxious to political execration.\n\nThe law also orders that these _proems_ should be known by all the\ncitizens, and should be read in festivals after the p\u00e6ans[25] by him\nwho is appointed for this purpose by the master of the feast, in\norder that the precepts may be inserted in the minds of all that hear\nthem.\n\n\nTHE PREFACE OF ZALEUCUS, THE LOCRIAN, TO HIS LAWS.\n\nIt is requisite that all those who inhabit a city and country\nshould in the first place be firmly persuaded that there are Gods,\nin consequence of directing their attention to the heavens and\nthe world, and the orderly distribution of the natures which they\ncontain. For these are not the productions either of fortune or of\nmen. It is also requisite to reverence and honour these, as the\ncauses to us of every reasonable good. It is necessary, therefore,\nthat every one should so prepare his soul that it may be free from\nevery vice; since God is not honoured by a bad man, nor is he to be\nworshiped sumptuously, nor with tragical expence, like some depraved\nman; but by virtue, and the deliberate choice of beautiful and just\ndeeds. Hence it is necessary that every one should be good to the\nutmost of his power, both in his actions and his deliberate choice,\nif he wishes to be dear to divinity, and should not fear the loss of\nmoney more than the loss of renown. And it is also requisite to call\nhim a better citizen who would rather sustain a loss of property than\nof probity and justice.\n\nLet, however, such things as the following be denounced by us\nagainst those who are not easily impelled to do what we have above\nenjoined, but whose soul is easily excited to injustice. All citizens\nof this kind, both male and female, and also those who live in the\nsame house with them, should remember that there are Gods who punish\nthe unjust, and should place before their eyes that time in which to\nevery one there will be a final liberation from life. For all such\nwill repent when they are about to die, from a remembrance of their\nunjust deeds, and from their being impelled to wish that all things\nhad been done by them justly. Hence it is necessary that every one,\nin every action, should always associate to himself this time, as\nif it were present: for thus he will especially pay attention to\nprobity and justice. But if an evil d\u00e6mon is present with any one,\nconverting him to injustice, such a one should abide in temples,\nat altars, and in sacred groves, flying from injustice as a most\nimpious and noxious mistress, and supplicating the Gods to cooperate\nwith him in turning from it. He should also accede to those men who\nare renowned for their probity, in order to hear them discourse\nabout a blessed life, and the punishment of bad men, that he may\nbe deterred from unjust deeds; but he should only dread avenging\nd\u00e6mons. Those, likewise, that dwell in the city, should honour all\nthe Gods according to the legal rites of the country, which are to\nbe considered as the most beautiful of all others. All the citizens,\ntoo, should obey the laws, reverence the rulers, and rise to them,\nand comply with their mandates. For after the Gods, d\u00e6mons, and\nheroes, proximate honours are paid by men who are intelligent, and\nwish to be saved, to parents, the laws, and the rulers. Let, however,\nno one make the city to be dearer to him than his country, since he\nwill thus excite the indignation of the Gods of the country: for such\nconduct is the beginning of treachery. And farther still, for a man\nto be deprived of his own country, and to live in a foreign land, is\na thing of a more afflictive nature, and more difficult to be borne\n[than most other misfortunes]: for nothing is more allied to us than\nour country. Nor let any one think that a citizen, whom the laws\nhave permitted to partake of the polity, should be considered by him\nas an implacable enemy; since a man who is capable of thus thinking\ncan neither govern nor judge in a proper manner, in consequence of\nhis anger predominating over his reason. Let no one, likewise, speak\nill either of the city in common, or of a citizen privately. But let\nthe guardians of the laws keep a watchful eye over offenders, in\nthe first place by admonishing them; and in the next place, if they\nare not restrained by this from acting ill, let them be careful that\nthey are punished. And with respect to the established laws, if some\none of them should appear not to be well ordained, let it be changed\ninto one that is better. But where all of them remain, let them be\n[universally] obeyed; as it is neither beautiful, nor beneficial,\nfor the established laws to be vanquished by men; though it is both\nprofitable and beautiful, to be restrained, as if vanquished, by\na more excellent law. It is requisite, however, to punish those\nwho transgress these, as machinating for the city the principle of\nthe greatest evils anarchy. But the magistrates should neither be\narrogant, nor judge insultingly, nor in passing sentence be mindful\neither of friendship or hatred, but of what is just. For thus they\nwill decide most justly, and will be worthy of the magistracy. It is\nfit, therefore, that slaves should do what is just through fear, but\nthose that are free, through shame, and for the sake of the beautiful\nin conduct. Hence it is requisite that the governors should be men of\nthis kind, in order that they may be reverenced by those whom they\ngovern. But if any one wishes to change some one of the established\nlaws, or to introduce another law, let him, with a halter about his\nneck, speak of the subject of his wishes to the people. And if it\nshall appear from the suffrages, that the law already established\nshould be dissolved, or that a new law should be introduced, let him\nnot be punished. But if it should be thought that the preexisting\nlaw is better, or that the law which is intended to be introduced is\nunjust, let him who wishes to change an old, or to introduce a new\nlaw, be executed by the halter.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF CALLICRATIDAS ON THE FELICITY OF FAMILIES.\n\nThe universe must be considered as a system of kindred communion\nor association. But every system consists of certain dissimilar\ncontraries, and is coarranged with reference to one certain thing,\nwhich is the most excellent, and also with a view to a general\nbenefit. For that which is denominated a choir, is a system of\nmusical communion, and is referred to one certain common thing, a\nconcert of voices. Farther still, the system of body about a ship\nconsists of certain dissimilar and contrary things, and is coarranged\nwith reference to one thing which is best, viz. the pilot, and also\nwith a view to a common benefit, a prosperous navigation. Thus, too,\na family, being a system of kindred communion, consists of certain\ndissimilars, which are its proper parts; and is coarranged with a\nview to one thing which is best, viz. the father of the family; and\nis referred to a common advantage, unanimity. And, in short, every\nfamily, in the same manner as a psaltery[26], requires these three\nthings, apparatus, coadaptation, and a certain contrectation, and\nmusical use. Apparatus, indeed, being the composition of all its\nparts, from which the whole, and all the system of kindred communion\nderives its completion. But of the parts of a family there are two\nfirst and greatest divisions; viz. man and possessions, the latter\nof which is the thing governed, and affords utility. Thus, also,\nthe first and greatest parts of an animal are soul and body; and\nsoul, indeed, is that which governs and uses, but the body is that\nwhich is governed, and imparts utility. And possessions, indeed,\nare the adscititious instruments of human life; but the body is the\nconnascent and allied instrument of the soul. Of those persons,\nhowever, that give completion to a family, some are consanguineous,\nbut others have an affinity to the family. And those that are\nkindred are generated from the same blood, or have the same origin\nfrom those who first disseminated the race. But those that have\nan affinity have an adscititious alliance, as commencing from the\ncommunion of wedlock. And these are either fathers or brothers,\nor maternal or paternal grandfathers, or some other of those\nrelatives that are produced by marriage. But if the good arising\nfrom friendship is also to be referred to a family (for thus it will\nbecome greater and more magnificent, not only through an abundance\nof wealth and many relations, but also through numerous friends); in\nthis case it is evident, that the family will thus become more ample,\nand that the social species of friendship is to be enumerated among\nthings which are requisite to the completion of a family. But of\npossessions some are necessary, and others are of a liberal nature.\nAnd the necessary, indeed, are those which are subservient to the\nwants of life; and the liberal are such as lead a man to an elegant\nand well arranged mode of living, so that he may not be in want of\nother things. _Such things, however, as exceed what is requisite\nto a liberal and elegant mode of life, are, at the beginning, the\nroots to men of wanton insolence, and destruction. For those that\nhave great possessions are necessarily at first inflated with pride,\nand when thus inflated become arrogant; and, being arrogant, they\nalso become fastidious, and conceive that their kindred, and those\nof the same nation and tribe with themselves, neither resemble, nor\nare equal to them. But when they are fastidious, they also become\nwantonly insolent. And the extremity and end of all wanton insolence\nis destruction._ When, therefore, in a family and city there is a\nsuperfluity of possessions, it is necessary that the legislator\nshould cut off, and, as it were, amputate the superfluities, in\nthe same manner as a good husbandman lops the too luxuriant leaves\nof trees. But of the kindred and domestic part of man there is a\ntriple species. For there is one species which governs, another\nwhich is governed, and another which gives assistance to a family\nand relatives. And the husband, indeed, governs, but the wife is\ngoverned, and the offspring of both these is an auxiliary.\n\n\nAND IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK.\n\nWith respect also to practical and rational domination, one kind is\ndespotic, another is of a guardian nature, and another is political.\nAnd the despotic, indeed, is that which governs with a view to the\nadvantage of the governor, and not of the governed. For after\nthis manner a master rules over his slaves, and a tyrant over his\nsubjects. But the guardian domination subsists for the sake of the\ngoverned, and not for the sake of those that govern. And with this\nkind of power the anointers rule over the athlet\u00e6, physicians over\nthe sick, and preceptors over their pupils. For their labours are not\ndirected to their own advantage, but to the benefit of those whom\nthey govern; those of the physician being undertaken for the sake\nof the sick, the anointers for the sake of exercising the body, and\nthose of the erudite for the sake of the inerudite. But the political\ndomination has for its end the common benefit both of the governors\nand the governed. For according to this domination, in human affairs,\nboth a family and a city are coharmonized; but in things of a divine\nnature the world is aptly composed. A family, however, and a city are\nan imitation according to analogy of the government of the world. For\ndivinity is the principle of nature, and his attention is neither\ndirected to his own advantage, nor to private, but to public good.\nAnd on this account, the world is called \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, from the orderly\ndisposition of all things which are coarranged with reference to one\nthing which is most excellent, and this is God, who is, according\nto conception, an intellectual[27] animal, incorruptible, and the\nprinciple and cause of the orderly disposition of wholes. Since,\ntherefore, the husband rules over the wife, he either rules with a\ndespotic, or with a guardian, or, in the last place, with a political\npower. But he does not rule over her with a despotic power: for he\nis diligently attentive to her welfare. Nor is his government of\nher entirely of a guardian nature: for this is itself a part of the\ncommunion [between man and wife]. It remains, therefore, that he\nrules over her with a political power, according to which both the\ngovernor and the thing governed establish [as their end] the common\nadvantage. Hence, also, wedlock is established with a view to the\ncommunion of life. Those husbands, therefore, that govern their wives\ndespotically, are hated by them; but those that govern them with a\nguardian authority are despised by them. For they appear to be, as\nit were, appendages and flatterers of their wives. But those that\ngovern them politically are both admired and beloved. And both these\nwill be effected, if he who governs exercises his power so that it\nmay be mingled with pleasure and veneration; pleasure indeed being\nproduced by his fondness, but veneration from his doing nothing of a\nvile or abject nature.\n\n\nAND AGAIN, IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME WORK.\n\nHe who wishes to marry ought to take for a wife one whose fortune is\nconformable to his own, in order that he may not contract nuptials\neither above or beneath his condition, but analogous to the property\nwhich he possesses. For those who marry a woman above their condition\nhave to contend for the mastership; for the wife, surpassing her\nhusband in wealth and lineage, wishes to rule over him; but he\nconsiders it to be unworthy of him, and preternatural to submit to\nhis wife. But those who marry a woman beneath their condition subvert\nthe dignity and splendour of their family. It is necessary, however,\non this occasion to imitate the musician, who, having learned the\nproper tone of his voice, endeavours to bring it to such a medium\nthat it may be rendered sufficiently sharp and flat, and may be\nneither broken, nor lose its intenseness. Thus, therefore, it is\nnecessary that wedlock should be coadapted to the peculiar tone of\nthe soul, so that the husband and wife may not only accord with each\nother in prosperous, but also in adverse fortune. It is requisite,\ntherefore, that the husband should be the regulator, master, and\npreceptor of his wife. The regulator, indeed, in paying diligent\nattention to her affairs; but the master, in governing and exercising\nauthority over her; and the preceptor in teaching her such things as\nit is fit for her to know. This, however, will be especially effected\nby him who, directing his attention to worthy parents, marries from\ntheir family a virgin in the flower of her youth. For such virgins\nare easily fashioned, and are docile; and are also naturally well\ndisposed to be instructed by, and to fear and love their husbands.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF PERICTYONE[28] ON THE DUTIES OF A WOMAN.\n\nIt is necessary that a woman should sufficiently possess a harmony\nfull of prudence and temperance. For it is requisite that her soul\nshould be vehemently inclined to the acquisition of virtue; so\nthat she may be just, brave, and prudent, and may be adorned with\nfrugality, and hate vainglory. For, from the possession of these\nvirtues, she will act worthily when she becomes a wife, towards\nherself, her husband, her children, and her family. Frequently,\nalso, such a woman will act beautifully towards cities, if she\nhappens to rule over cities or nations, as we see is [sometimes]\nthe case in a kingdom. If, therefore, she subdues desire and anger,\na divine harmony will be produced. Hence she will not be pursued\nby illegal loves, but she will love her husband, her children, and\nall her family. For such women as are fond of being connected with\nother men besides their husbands, become hostile to the whole of\ntheir families, both to those branches of it that are free, and\nthose that are slaves. They also machinate stratagems against their\nhusbands, and falsely represent them as the calumniators of all their\nacquaintance, in order that they alone may appear to be exceedingly\nbenevolent; and they govern their families in such a way as may be\nexpected from those that are lovers of indolence. For from such\nconduct the destruction ensues of every thing which is common to the\nhusband and wife. And thus much as to these particulars.\n\nIt is also requisite to lead the body to what is naturally moderate,\nwith respect to nutriment, clothes, bathing, anointing, dressing the\nhair, and to whatever pertains to decoration from gold and jewels.\nFor whatever of a sumptuous nature is employed by women in eating\nand drinking, in garments and trinkets, renders them disposed to\nbe guilty of every crime, and to be unjust both to their husband\u2019s\nbed, and to every other person. It is requisite, therefore, that\nthey should only satisfy hunger and thirst, and this from things\neasily procured; and that they should defend themselves from cold\nby garments of the simplest kind. But to be fed with things which\nare brought from a distant country, or which are obtained at a great\nprice, is no small vice. It is also great folly to search after\nexceedingly elegant garments, which are variegated with purple,\nor any other precious colour. For the body wishes to be neither\ncold nor naked, but to be covered for the sake of decorum, and is\nnot [externally] in want of any thing else. The opinion of men,\nhowever, in conjunction with ignorance, proceeds to inanities and\nsuperfluities. Hence a woman should neither be decorated with gold,\nnor with Indian gems, nor with the jewels of any other nation,\nnor plait her hair with abundance of art, nor be perfumed with\nArabian unguents, nor paint her face so that it may be more white\nor more red, nor give a dark tinge to her eyebrows and her eyes,\nnor artificially dye her gray hairs, nor frequently bathe. For the\nwoman who seeks after things of this kind searches for a spectator of\nfemale intemperance. For the beauty which is produced by prudence,\nand not by these particulars, pleases women that are well born.\nNor should she conceive that nobility and wealth, the being born\nin a great city, glory, and the friendship of renowned and royal\nmen, are to be ranked among things that are necessary. For if they\nhappen to be present, they should not be the cause to her of any\nmolestation; and if they should not be present, she should not regret\ntheir absence. For a prudent woman will not be prevented from living\n[properly] without these. And if those great and much admired things\nwhich we have mentioned should not be present, her soul should not\nanxiously explore, but withdraw itself from them. For in consequence\nof drawing their possessor to misfortune, they are more noxious than\nbeneficial. For to these, treachery, envy, and calumny are adjacent,\nso that such a woman cannot be free from perturbation.\n\nIt is also necessary that she should venerate the Gods through good\nhope of obtaining felicity by this veneration, and by obeying the\nlaws and sacred institutions of her country. But after the Gods,\nI say, that she should honour and venerate her parents. For these\ncooperate with the Gods in benefiting their children. Moreover, she\nought to live with her husband legally and kindly, conceiving nothing\nto be her own property, but preserving and being the guardian of his\nbed. For in the preservation of this all things are contained. It is\nlikewise requisite that she should bear every thing [in a becoming\nmanner] which may happen to her husband, whether he is unfortunate\nin his affairs, or acts erroneously through ignorance, or disease,\nor intoxication, or from having connection with other women. For\nthis last error is granted to men; but not to women, since they\nare punished for this offence. It is necessary, therefore, that\nshe should submit to the law with equanimity, and not be jealous.\nShe ought likewise to bear patiently his anger, his parsimony, and\nthe complaints which he may make of his destiny, his jealousy, and\nhis accusation of her, and whatever other faults he may inherit\nfrom nature. For all these she should cheerfully endure, conducting\nherself towards him with prudence and modesty. For a wife who is\ndear to her husband, and who truly performs her duty towards him, is\na [domestic] harmony, and loves the whole of her family, to which\nalso she conciliates the benevolence of strangers. If, however, she\nneither loves her husband nor her children, nor her servants, nor\nwishes to see any sacrifice preserved; then she becomes the leader of\nevery kind of destruction, which she likewise prays for, as being an\nenemy, and also prays for the death of her husband, as being hostile\nto him, in order that she may be connected with other men; and, in\nthe last place, she hates whatever her husband loves. But it appears\nto me that a wife will be a [domestic] harmony, if she is full of\nprudence and modesty. For then she will not only love her husband,\nbut also her children, her kindred, her servants, and the whole of\nher family, in which possessions, friends, citizens, and strangers\nare contained. She will likewise adorn the bodies of these without\nany superfluous ornaments, and will both speak and hear such things\nonly as are beautiful and good. It is also requisite that she should\nact conformably to her husband\u2019s opinion in what pertains to their\ncommon life, and be satisfied with those relatives and friends that\nmeet with his approbation. And she will conceive these things to be\npleasant and disagreeable which are thought to be so by her husband,\nunless she is entirely destitute of harmony.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF PERICTYONE ON THE HARMONY OF A WOMAN[29].\n\nParents ought not to be injured either in word or deed; but it is\nrequisite to be obedient to them, whether their rank in life is\nsmall or great. And in every allotted condition of soul and body,\nand of external circumstances, in peace, also, and war, in health\n[and sickness[30]], in riches and in poverty, in renown and ignominy,\nand whether they are of the same class with most of the community,\nor are magistrates, it is necessary to be present with, and never\nto forsake them, and almost to submit to them even when they are\ninsane. For such conduct will be wisely and cheerfully adopted by\nthose that are pious. But he who despises his parents will, both\namong the living and the dead, be condemned for this crime by the\nGods, will be hated by men, and under the earth will, together with\nthe impious, be eternally[31] punished in the same place by Justice,\nand the subterranean Gods, whose province it is to inspect things of\nthis kind. For the aspect of parents is a thing divine and beautiful,\nand a diligent observance of them is attended with a delight such\nas neither the survey of the sun, nor of all the stars which dance\nround the illuminated heavens, is capable of producing, nor any other\nspectacle, should it even be greater than this. And, it appears to\nme, that the Gods are not envious[32] when they perceive that this\ntakes place. Hence it is requisite to reverence parents both while\nthey are living, and when they are dead, and never oppose them in\nany thing they may say or do. If also they are ignorant of any thing\nthrough deception or disease, their children should console and\ninstruct, but by no means hate them on this account. For no greater\nerror and injustice can be committed by men than to act impiously\ntowards their parents.\n\n\nON THE REVERENCE DUE TO PARENTS. FROM THE APOPHTHEGMS OF ARISTOXENUS,\nTHE TARENTINE.\n\nAfter divinity and demons, the greatest attention should be paid to\nparents and the laws; not fictitiously, but in reality preparing\nourselves to an observance of, and perseverance in, the manners and\nlaws of our country, though they should be in a small degree worse\nthan those of other countries.\n\n\nAND IN THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE SAME WORK[33].\n\nBut after these things follow the honours which should be paid to\nliving parents, it being right to discharge the first, the greatest,\nand the most ancient of all debts. Every one, likewise, should think\nthat all which he possesses belongs to those who begot and nurtured\nhim, in order that he may be ministrant to their want to the utmost\nof his ability, beginning from his property; in the second place\ndischarging his debt to them from things pertaining to his body;\nand in the third place, from things pertaining to his soul; thus\nrepaying with usury the cares and pains which his now very aged\nparents bestowed on him when he was young. Through the whole of life,\nlikewise, it is requisite that he should particularly employ the most\nrespectful language in speaking to his parents; because there is a\nmost severe punishment for light and winged words; and Nemesis, the\nmessenger of Justice, is appointed to be the inspector of every thing\nof this kind. When parents, therefore, are angry, it is requisite to\nyield to them, and to appease their anger, whether it is shown in\nwords or in deeds; acknowledging that a father may reasonably be very\nmuch enraged with his son, when he thinks he has been injured by him.\nBut on the death of parents, the most decent and beautiful monuments\nshould be raised to them; not exceeding the usual magnitude, nor\nyet less than those which our ancestors erected for their parents.\nEvery year, too, attention ought to be paid to the decoration of\ntheir tombs. They should, likewise, be continually remembered and\nreverenced, and this with a moderate and appropriate expense. By\nalways acting, therefore, and living in this manner, we shall each of\nus be rewarded according to our deserts, both by the Gods and those\nnatures that are superior to us, and shall pass the greatest part of\nour life in good hope.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF PEMPELUS ON PARENTS[34].\n\nNeither divinity, nor any man who possesses the least wisdom, will\never advise any one to neglect his parents. Hence we cannot have\nany statue or temple which will be considered by divinity as more\nprecious than our fathers and grandfathers when grown feeble with\nage. For God will recompense him with benefits who honours his\nparents with gifts; since if this is not done, divinity will not pay\nany attention to the prayers of such parents for their children. The\nimages of our parents, indeed, and progenitors should be esteemed\nby us as far more venerable and divine than any inanimate images.\nFor these animated images, when they are continually adorned and\nrendered splendid with honour by us, pray for us, and implore the\ngods to bestow on us the most excellent gifts: but the contrary when\nwe despise them. Neither of these, however, is effected by inanimate\nimages. Hence he who conducts himself in a becoming manner towards\nhis parents and progenitors, and other relatives of this kind, will\npossess the most proper of all statues, and the best calculated\nto render him dear to divinity. Every one, therefore, endued with\nintellect should honour and venerate his parents, and should dread\ntheir execrations and [unfavourable] prayers, as knowing that many\nof them frequently take effect. These things, therefore, being thus\ndisposed by nature, men that are prudent and modest will consider\ntheir living aged progenitors as a treasure, to the extremity of\nlife; and if they die before they arrive at that period, they will\nbe vehemently desired by them. On the contrary, progenitors will\nbe terrible in the extreme to their depraved and stupid offspring.\nBut he who, being profane, is deaf to these assertions, will be\nconsidered by all intelligent persons as odious both to Gods and men.\n\n\nFROM THE TREATISE OF PHINTYS, THE DAUGHTER OF CALLICRATES, ON THE\nTEMPERANCE OF A WOMAN.\n\nA woman ought to be wholly good and modest; but she will never be\na character of this kind without virtue. For any virtue subsisting\nin any one thing renders that which receives it valuable. And the\nvirtue, indeed, of the eyes is sight, but of the ears hearing. Thus,\ntoo, the virtue of a horse causes it to a good horse; and the virtue\nof a man and the virtue of a woman render each of them worthy. But\nthe principal virtue of a woman is temperance; for through this\nshe will be able to honour and love her husband. Many, indeed, may\nperhaps think it does not become a woman to philosophize, as neither\nis it proper for her to ride on horseback, nor to harangue in public.\nBut I think that some things are the province of a man, others of\na woman, and that others are common both to man and woman. And,\nlikewise, that some things pertain more to a man than to a woman; but\nothers more to a woman than to a man. But the things peculiar to a\nman are, to lead an army, to govern, and to harangue in public. The\noffices peculiar to a woman are, to be the guardian of a house, to\nstay at home, and to receive and be ministrant to her husband. And\nthe virtues pertaining to both are fortitude, justice, and prudence.\nFor it is fit that both the husband and wife should have the virtues\nof the body, and in a similar manner those of the soul. And as\nhealth of body is beneficial to both, so also is health of soul.\nThe virtues, however, of the body are health, strength, vigour of\nsensation, and beauty. With respect to the virtues, also, some are\nmore adapted to be exercised and possessed by a man, but others by\na woman. For fortitude and prudence pertain more to the man than to\nthe woman, both on account of the habit of the body, and the power\nof the soul; but temperance peculiarly belongs to the woman. Hence\nit is requisite to know the number and the quality of the things\nthrough which this virtue accedes to a woman. I say, therefore,\nthat they are these five. And in the first place, she obtains this\nvirtue through sanctity and piety about the marriage bed. In the\nsecond place, through ornament pertaining to the body. In the third\nplace, through egressions from her own house. In the fourth place,\nthrough refraining from the celebration of orgies, and the mysteries\nof the mother of the Gods[35]. And in the fifth place, through being\ncautious and moderate in the sacrifices to divinity. Of these,\nhowever, the greatest and most comprehensive cause of temperance,\nis that which causes the wife to be undefiled with respect to the\nmarriage bed, and not to have connexion with any other man than her\nhusband. For in the first place, by such illegal conduct, she acts\nunjustly towards the Gods who preside over nativities, rendering them\nnot genuine but spurious adjutors of her family and kindred. In the\nsecond place, she acts unjustly towards the Gods who preside over\nnature, by whom she solemnly swore, in conjunction with her parents\nand kindred, that she would legally associate with her husband in the\ncommunion of life and the procreation of children. And in the third\nplace, she acts unjustly towards her country, by not observing its\ndecrees. To which may be added, that to offend against right in those\nthings for which the greatest punishment, death, is ordained, on\naccount of the magnitude of the crime, and to do so for the sake of\npleasure and wanton insolence, is nefarious, and most undeserving of\npardon. But the end of all insolent conduct is destruction.\n\nThis, also, ought to be considered, that no purifying remedy has been\ndiscovered for this offence, so as to render a woman thus guilty\npure and beloved by divinity. For God is most averse to pardon this\ncrime. But the best indication of the chastity of a woman towards her\nhusband is that which arises from the resemblance of her children to\ntheir father. And thus much concerning the marriage bed.\n\nWith respect, however, to the ornament of the body, it appears\nto me, that the garments of a woman should be white and simple,\nand by no means superfluous. But they will be so, if they are\nneither transparent nor variegated, nor woven from silk, but are\nnot expensive, and are of a white colour. For thus she will avoid\nexcessive ornament, luxury, and superfluous clothes; and will not\nproduce a depraved imitation in others. And, in short, she should\nnot decorate her person with gold and emeralds. For they are very\nexpensive, and exhibit pride and arrogance towards the vulgar. It\nis necessary, however, that a city which is governed by good laws,\nand is well arranged in all its parts, should accord with itself,\nand have an equable legislation; and should expel the artificers who\nmake things of this kind from the city. She should, likewise, give\na splendour to her face, not by employing adscititious and foreign\ncolour, but that which is adapted to the body, and is produced by\nwashing it with water; and adorning her person through modesty rather\nthan through art. For thus she will render both herself and her\nhusband honourable. But the lower class of women should go out of\ntheir houses, for the purpose of sacrificing to the tutelar deity of\nthe city, for the welfare of their husbands and all their family. A\nwoman, also, should depart from her house neither by twilight nor in\nthe evening, but should openly leave it when the forum is full of\npeople; accompanied by one, or at most two servants, for the sake\nof beholding a certain thing, or of buying something she may want.\nShe should also offer frugal sacrifices to the Gods, and such as are\nadapted to her ability; but she should abstain from the celebration\nof orgies, and from those sacred rites of the mother of the Gods,\nwhich are performed at home. For the common law of the city ordains\nthat these shall not be performed by women. To which may be added,\nthat these rites introduce ebriety, and mental alienation. It is\nnecessary, however, that she who is the mistress of a family, and\npresides over domestic affairs, should be temperate and undefiled.\n\n\n\n\nETHICAL FRAGMENTS\n\nOF\n\nHIEROCLES,\n\nPreserved by Stobaeus.\n\n\nHOW WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS THE GODS.\n\nSuch particulars, also, as the following, are to be previously\nassumed concerning the Gods, viz. that they are immutable, and firm\nin their decrees; so that they never change the conception of what\nappeared to them to be fit from the beginning. For there is one\nimmutability and firmness of the virtues, which it is reasonable to\nsuppose subsists transcendently with the Gods, and which imparts\na never-failing stability to their conceptions. From which it is\nevident, that there is no probability that the punishments which\ndivinity thinks proper to inflict can be remitted. For it is easy to\ninfer, that if the Gods change their decisions, and omit to punish\nhim whom they had designed to punish, the world can neither be\nbeautifully nor justly governed; nor can any probable reason for [the\nnecessity of] repentance be assigned. Poetry also appears to have\nasserted such things as the following,\u2014rashly, and without any reason:\n\n      By incense and libation, gentle vows,\n      And sacrifice and prayer, men bend the Gods,\n      When they transgress, and stray from what is right[36].\n\nAnd\n\n      For flexible are e\u2019en the Gods themselves[37].\n\nAnd in short whatever of a similar nature is to be found in poetry.\n\nNor must we omit to observe, that though the Gods are not the causes\nof evil, yet they connect certain persons with things of this kind,\nand surround those who deserve [to be afflicted] with corporeal and\nexternal detriments; not through any malignity, or because they think\nit requisite that men should struggle with difficulties, but for the\nsake of punishment. For as pestilence and drought, and besides these\nexcessive rain, earthquakes, and every thing of this kind, are for\nthe most part produced through certain other more physical causes,\nyet sometimes are effected by the Gods, when the times are such that\nthe iniquity of the multitude, publicly, and in common, requires to\nbe punished; after the same manner, also, the Gods sometimes afflict\nan individual with corporeal and external detriments, in order to\npunish him, and convert others to what is right.\n\nBut to be persuaded that the Gods are never the cause of any\nevil[38], contributes greatly, as it appears to me, to proper\nconduct towards the Gods. For evils proceed from vice alone, but\nthe Gods are of themselves the causes of good, and of whatever\nis advantageous; while, in the meantime, we do not admit their\nbeneficence, but surround ourselves with voluntary evils. Hence, on\nthis occasion, it appears to me that it is well said by the poet:\n\n      \u2014\u2014that mortals blame the Gods,\n\nas if they were the causes of their evils!\n\n          \u2014\u2014though not from Fate,\n      But for their crimes they suffer pain and woe[39].\n\nFor that God is never in any way the cause of evil may be proved by\nmany arguments; but at present we shall only adduce what Plato[40]\nsays: viz. \u201cthat as it is not the province of what is hot to\nrefrigerate, but the contrary; so neither is it the province of that\nwhich is beneficent to be noxious, but the contrary.\u201d Moreover, God\nbeing good, and immediately replete from the beginning with every\nvirtue, cannot be noxious, or the cause to any one of evil; but on\nthe contrary, must impart every good to those who are willing to\nreceive it; bestowing on us, also, such media[41] as are according\nto nature, and which are effective of what is conformable to nature.\nBut there is only one cause of evil[42].\n\n\nHOW WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS OUR COUNTRY.\n\nAfter speaking of the Gods, it is most reasonable to show, in the\nnext place, how we should conduct ourselves towards our country.\nFor, by Jupiter, our country is as it were a certain secondary God,\nand our first and greatest parent. Hence he who gave a name to the\nthing did not rashly denominate it \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, _patris_; this word being\nderived from \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, _pater_, _a father_; but pronounced with a\nfeminine termination, in order that it might be as it were a mixture\nof _father and mother_. This reason, also, proclaims that our country\nis to be honoured equally with our two parents; so that we ought\nto prefer it to either of them taken separately, and not to honour\nthe two more than it; but to pay an equal portion of respect to\neach. There is, likewise, another reason, which exhorts us to honour\nit more than our two parents conjointly; and not only to honour\nit beyond these, but also to prefer it to our wife, children, and\nfriends; and, in short, after the Gods, to all other things.\n\nAs, therefore, he is stupid who esteems one finger more than the\nfive, but he is most reasonable who prefers the five to one; for\nthe former despises what is more eligible, but the latter, in the\nfive, preserves also the one finger: after the same manner, he who\nwishes to save himself rather than his country, in addition to acting\nunlawfully, desires impossibilities. But he who prefers his country\nto himself is dear to divinity; and reasons fitly and firmly. At the\nsame time it has been observed, that though some one should not be\nconnumerated with the system [or the cooperating combination of the\nmany], but should be considered apart from it, yet it is fit that\nhe should prefer the safety of the system to his own preservation.\nFor the destruction of the city will evince that the safety of the\ncitizen entirely depends on its existence, just as the abscission of\nthe hand is attended with the destruction of one finger, as a part of\nthe hand. We may, therefore, summarily conclude, that general is not\nto be separated from private utility: but is to be considered as one\nand the same with it. For that which is advantageous to the country\nis common to each of the parts of it; since the whole without the\nparts is nothing[43]. And vice versa, that which is advantageous to\nthe citizen extends also to the city, if it is assumed as beneficial\nto the citizen. For that which is useful to a dancer, so far as he is\na dancer, will also be advantageous to the whole choir. Depositing,\ntherefore, all this reasoning in the discursive power of the soul, we\nshall receive much light from it in particulars, so that we shall\nnever omit to perform what is due from us to our country.\n\nHence, I say, it is necessary that every passion and disease of\nthe soul should be removed from him who intends to act well by his\ncountry. It is likewise requisite that a citizen should observe the\nlaws of his country as certain secondary Gods, and should render\nhimself perfect conformably to their mandate. But he who endeavours\neither to transgress, or to make any innovation in the laws, should\nbe with all possible diligence prevented from doing so, and in every\nway opposed. For a contempt of the existing laws, and preferring\nnew to ancient laws, are things by no means beneficial to a city.\nHence it is requisite that those should be restrained from giving\ntheir votes, and from precipitate innovation, who are pertinaciously\ndisposed to act in this manner. I therefore commend Zaleucus, the\nLocrian legislator, who ordained, that he who intended to introduce\na new law, should do it with a rope about his neck, in order that he\nmight be immediately strangled, unless he could change the ancient\nconstitution of the polity, to the very great advantage of the\ncommunity. _But customs, which are truly those of the country, and\nwhich, perhaps, are more ancient than the laws themselves, are to be\npreserved no less than the laws. The present customs, however, which\nare but of yesterday, and which have been so very recently introduced\ninto every city, are not to be considered as the customs of the\ncountry, [or as the institutes of ancestors]; and, perhaps, neither\nare they at all to be regarded as customs[44]._ In the next place,\nbecause custom is an unwritten law, having for its inscription a good\nlegislator, viz. the approbation of all those that use it; perhaps,\non this account, it is proximate to things which are naturally just.\n\n\nAFTER WHAT MANNER WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS OUR PARENTS.\n\nAfter speaking of the Gods and our country, what person deserves\nto be mentioned more than, or prior to our parents? Hence it is\nrequisite that we should discourse about them. He, therefore, will\nnot err who says, that they are certain secondary and terrestrial\nGods; since on account of their proximity to us, they are, if it\nbe lawful so to speak, more to be honoured by us than the Gods\nthemselves[45]. But it is necessary, previously, to assume, that the\nonly measure of gratitude towards them is a perpetual and unremitting\npromptitude to repay the benefits we have received from them; since,\nthough we should perform many things for their sake, yet they will be\nfar less than what they deserve. At the same time, also, it may be\nsaid, that these our deeds are nearly theirs, because they produced\nus by whom they are performed. As therefore, if the works of Phidias\nand of other artists should themselves produce certain other things,\nwe should not hesitate to say that these latter, also, were the works\nof the artists; thus, likewise, it may be justly said, that our\nperformances are the deeds of our parents; through whom we likewise\nderived our existence. Hence, in order that we may easily apprehend\nthe duties which we owe them, it will be requisite to have this\nsentence perpetually at hand, that our parents should be considered\nby us as the images of the Gods; and by Jupiter, as domestic Gods,\nour benefactors, kindred, creditors, lords, and most stable friends.\nFor they are most stable images of the Gods, possessing a similitude\nto them beyond the power of art to effect. For they are the guardian\nGods of the house, and live with us; and besides this, they are\nour greatest benefactors, imparting to us things of the greatest\nconsequence; and, by Jupiter, bestowing on us not only what we\npossess, but also such things as they wish to give us, and for which\nthey themselves pray. Farther still, they are likewise our nearest\nkindred, and the causes of our alliance with others. They are, also,\ncreditors of things of the most honourable nature, and only repay\nthemselves by taking what we shall be benefited by returning. For\nwhat gain can be so great to a child as piety and gratitude to his\nparents? They are most justly, too, our lords: for of what can we\nbe in a greater degree the possession, than of those through whom\nwe exist? Moreover, they are perpetual and spontaneous friends and\nauxiliaries; at all times, and in every circumstance, affording us\nassistance. Since, however, the name of parent is the most excellent\nof all the before-mentioned appellations, according to which we\nalso denominate the Gods themselves; something else must also be\nadded to this conception; viz. that children should be persuaded\nthat they dwell in their father\u2019s house, as if they were certain\nministers and priests in a temple, appointed and consecrated for this\npurpose by nature herself; who entrusted a reverential attention to\ntheir parents to their care. Since of attentive regard, therefore,\none kind pertains to the body, but another to the soul, we shall\nreadily perform what each of these requires, if we are willing to\ndo that which reason persuades us to do. But reason persuades us to\npay less attention to the body than to the soul; though attention\nto the former is necessary. We should, therefore, procure for our\nparents liberal food, and such as is adapted to the imbecility of\nold age; and besides this, a bed, sleep, unction, a bath, garments;\nand in short, all the necessaries which the body requires, that they\nmay never at any time experience the want of any of these; in thus\nacting, imitating their care about our nurture, when we were infants.\nHence, we should compel ourselves to employ a certain prophetic\nattention to them, in order to discover what they particularly desire\nof things pertaining to the body, though they should not indicate\nthe object of their wish[46]. For they divined many things respecting\nus, when we frequently signified by inarticulate and mournful sounds,\nthat we were in want of certain things, but were unable to indicate\nclearly the subjects of our wants. So that our parents, by the\nbenefits which they formerly conferred upon us, become the preceptors\nto us of what we ought to bestow on them.\n\nWith respect to the souls of our parents, we should, in the first\nplace, procure for them hilarity; which will be especially obtained,\nif we are conversant with them by night and by day, unless something\nprevents us, walking, being anointed, and living together with them.\nFor as to those who are undertaking a long journey, the converse of\ntheir families and friends is most delightful, after the manner of\nthose that accompany a solemn procession; thus, also, to parents\nwho are now verging to the grave, the sedulous and unremitting\nattention of their children is most acceptable, and most dear.\nMoreover, if at any time they should act wrong, which frequently\nhappens to be the case with many, and especially with those who have\nbeen educated in a more vulgar manner; they should be corrected\nindeed, yet not by Jupiter with reprehension, as we are accustomed\nto do to our inferiors or equals, but as it were, with exhortation;\nand not as if they had erred through ignorance, but as if they had\ncommitted an oversight, through inattention; and that if they had\nattended, they would by no means have erred. For admonitions, and\nespecially if they are vehement, are grievous to those that are\nold. Hence, it is necessary, that the remedy of their oversight\nshould be accompanied by mild exhortation, and a certain elegant\nartifice. Children, likewise, increase the joy of their parents, by\nperforming for them servile offices, such as washing their feet,\nmaking their bed, and waiting on them after the manner of servants.\nFor they are not a little delighted, when they receive necessary\nservile attentions from the most dear hands of their children, and\nmake use of their ministrant works. But parents will be especially\ngratified when their children are seen to honour those whom they love\nand very much esteem. On which account, it is fit that children\nshould affectionately love the kindred of their parents, and pay a\nproper attention to them, and in a similar manner should love the\nfriends of, and all those that are dear to their parents. And this\nbeing admitted, we shall be enabled to collect many other duties of\nchildren to their parents, which are neither small nor casual. For\nsince our parents are gratified by the attention which we pay to\nthose whom they love, but we are in a most eminent degree beloved by\nour parents, it is evident that we shall very much please them, by\npaying a proper attention to ourselves.\n\n\nON FRATERNAL LOVE.\n\nThe first admonition, therefore, is very clear, easily obtained,\nand is common to all men. For it is a sane assertion, which every\nman will consider as evident. And it is this: Act by every one,\nin the same manner as if you supposed yourself to be him, and him\nto be you[47]. For he will use a servant well who considers with\nhimself, how he would think it proper to be used by him, if he indeed\nwas the master, and himself the servant. The same thing also must\nbe said of parents with respect to children, and of children with\nrespect to parents; and, in short, of all men with respect to all.\nThis admonition, however, is transcendently adapted to the alliance\nof brothers to each other; since nothing else is necessary for him\nto admit previously, who considers how he ought to conduct himself\ntowards his brother, than promptly to assume the natural sameness of\nthe person of each of them. This, therefore, is the first admonition,\nthat a man should act towards his brother in the same way in which\nhe would think it proper that his brother should act towards him.\nBut, by Jupiter, some one may say, I do not exceed propriety in my\nmanners and am equitable, but my brother\u2019s manners are rough and\nwithout affability. Such a one, however, does not speak rightly.\nFor, in the first place, perhaps he does not speak the truth; since\nan excessive love of self is sufficient [to induce a man] to magnify\nand extol what pertains to himself, but to diminish and vilify what\npertains to others. Frequently, therefore, men of inferior worth,\nprefer themselves to others who are far more excellent characters.\nAnd, in the next place, though the brother should be in reality such\na person [as above described], I should say, prove yourself to be\na better man than he is, and you will vanquish his rusticity by\nyour beneficence. For no great thanks are due to those who conduct\nthemselves moderately towards worthy and benignant men; but to render\nhim more mild who is stupid, and whose manners are rough, is the\nwork of a man [properly so called], and deserves great applause. Nor\nis it at all impossible for the exhortation to take effect. For in\nmen of the most absurd manners, there are the seeds of a mutation to\na better condition, and of honour and love for their benefactors.\nFor are not even savage animals, and such as are naturally most\nhostile to our race, and who are taken away by violence, and at\nfirst are detained by chains, and confined in iron cages,\u2014are not\nthese afterwards rendered mild by a certain mode of treatment, and\nby daily supplying them with food? And will not the man who is a\nbrother, or even any casual person, who deserves attention in a much\ngreater degree than a brute, be changed to milder manners by proper\ntreatment, though he should not entirely forsake his rusticity? In\nour behaviour, therefore, towards every man, and in a much greater\ndegree towards a brother, we should imitate the reply of Socrates to\none who said to him, \u201cMay I die unless I am revenged on you.\u201d For\nhis answer was, \u201cMay I die, if I do not make you my friend.\u201d And\nthus much concerning these particulars.\n\nIn the next place, a man should consider that after a manner his\nbrothers are parts of him, just as my eyes are parts of me; and\nlikewise my legs, my hands, and the remaining members of my body.\nFor brothers have the same relation to a family considered as one\nthing [as the parts to the whole of the body]. As, therefore, the\neyes and the hands, if each of them should receive a peculiar soul\nand intellect, would, by every possible contrivance, pay a guardian\nattention to the remaining parts of the body, on account of the\nbefore-mentioned communion, because they could not perform their\nproper office well without the presence of the other members; thus\nalso it is requisite that we who are men, and who acknowledge that we\nhave a soul, should omit no offices which it becomes us to perform\nto our brothers. For again, brothers are more naturally adapted to\nassist each other, than are the parts of the body. For the eyes,\nindeed, being present with each other, see what is before them, and\none hand cooperates with the other which is present; but the mutual\nworks of brothers are, in a certain respect, much more multifarious.\nFor they perform things which are profitable in common, though they\nshould be at the greatest distance from each other; and they greatly\nbenefit each other, though the interval which separates them should\nbe immeasurable. In short, it must be considered, that our life\nappears to be a certain long war continued to the extent of many\nyears; and this partly through the nature of the things themselves\nwhich possess a certain opposition; and partly through the sudden\nand unexpected occurrences of fortune; but most of all through vice\nitself, which neither abstains from any violence, nor from any fraud\nand evil stratagems. Hence nature, as not being ignorant of the\npurpose for which she generated us, produced each of us accompanied,\nafter a certain manner, by an auxiliary. No one, therefore, is alone,\nnor does he derive his origin _from an oak or a rock_, but from\nparents, and in conjunction with brothers, and kindred, and other\nfamiliars. But reason affords us great assistance, conciliating to\nus strangers, and those who have no connection with us by blood,\nand procuring for us an abundance of auxiliars. On this account we\nnaturally endeavour to allure and make every one our friend. Hence it\nis a thing perfectly insane to wish to be united to those who have\nnot any thing from nature which is capable of procuring our love,\nand voluntarily to become familiar with them in the most extended\ndegree; and yet neglect those prompt auxiliars and associates which\nare supplied by nature herself, such as brothers happen to be.\n\n\nON WEDLOCK.\n\nThe discussion of wedlock is a thing most necessary. For the whole\nof our race is naturally adapted to society. But the first and most\nelementary of all associations is that which is effected by marriage.\nFor cities could not exist without a household; but the household of\nan unmarried man is truly imperfect; while, on the contrary, of him\nwho is married, it is perfect and full. Hence we have shown in our\ntreatise On Families, that a life accompanied by wedlock is to be\nprecedaneously chosen by the wise man; but a single life is not to\nbe chosen, except particular circumstances[48] require it. So that\nas it is requisite we should imitate the man of intellect where we\ncan, but marriage is with him an object of precedaneous choice; it is\nevident that it will also be proper for us, unless some circumstance\noccurs to prevent it from taking place. And this is the first reason\nwhy wedlock is most necessary.\n\nBut it seems that Nature herself, prior to the wise man, incites us\nto this, who also exhorts the wise man to marry. For she not only\nmade us gregarious, but likewise adapted to copulation, and proposed\nthe procreation of children and stability of life, as the one and\ncommon work of wedlock. But Nature justly teaches us, that a choice\nof such things as are fit should be made so as to accord with what\nshe has procured for us. Every animal, therefore, lives conformably\nto its natural constitution, and, by Jupiter, in a similar manner\nevery plant lives agreeably to the life which is imparted to it. Only\nthere is this difference between the two, that the latter do not\nemploy any reasoning, or a certain enumeration, in the selection of\nthings which they explore; as they make use of nature alone, because\nthey do not participate of soul; but animals are led to investigate\nwhat is proper for them by imaginations and exciting desires. To us,\nhowever, Nature gave reason, in order that it might survey every\nthing else, and, together with all things, or rather prior to all\nthings, might direct its attention to Nature herself, so as in an\norderly manner to tend to her as to a very splendid and stable mark,\nand choosing every thing which is consonant to her, might cause us\nto live in a becoming manner. Hence he will not err, who says that\na family is imperfect without wedlock. For it is not possible to\nconceive of a governor without the governed, nor of the governed\nwithout a governor. And this reason appears to me to be very well\ncalculated to make those ashamed who are adverse to marriage.\n\nI say, therefore, that marriage is likewise advantageous. In the\nfirst place, indeed, because it produces a truly divine fruit, the\nprocreation of children, since they will be assistants to us in all\nour actions (as partaking of our nature), while our strength is yet\nentire; and they will be good auxiliars, when we are worn out, and\noppressed with old age. They will also be the familiar associates of\nour joy in prosperity, and sympathizing participants of our sorrows\nin adversity. Farther still, besides the procreation of children, the\nassociation with a wife is advantageous. For, in the first place,\nwhen we are wearied with labours out of the house, she receives\nus with officious kindness, and recreates us by every possible\nattention. In the next place, she produces in us an oblivion of our\nmolestations. For those sorrowful circumstances of life which take\nplace in the forum, or the gymnasium, or the country, and, in short,\nall the cares and solicitudes occasioned by converse with our friends\nand familiars, do not so obviously molest us, being obscured by our\nnecessary occupations; but when we are liberated from these, return\nhome, and our mind becomes, as it were, at leisure, then these cares\nand solicitudes approach, availing themselves of this occasion,\nin order to torment us, at the time when life is destitute of\nbenevolence, and is solitary. Then, however, the wife being present\nbecomes a great solace on this occasion, by making some inquiries\nabout external affairs, or by referring to, and considering, together\nwith her husband, something about domestic concerns, and thus, by\nher unfeigned alacrity, affords him a certain exuberance of pleasure\nand delight. But it would be too prolix to enumerate particularly\nthe benefit of a wife in festivals, for the purpose of procuring\nsacrifices and victims; in the journeys of her husband, by preserving\nthe family in a stable condition, and not suffering it to be entirely\nwithout a ruler; in paying proper attention to the domestics; and\nin the aid which she affords her husband when he is afflicted with\ndisease. For it is sufficient summarily to say, that _two things are\nnecessary to all men, in order to pass through life in a becoming\nmanner, viz. the aid of kindred and sympathetic benevolence. But\nwe cannot find any thing more sympathetic than a wife, nor any\nthing more kindred than children. Both these, however, marriage\naffords._ How is it possible, therefore, that it should not be most\nadvantageous to us?\n\nI also think that a married life is beautiful. For what other thing\ncan be such an ornament to a family, as is the association of husband\nand wife? For it must not be said that sumptuous edifices, walls\ncovered with marble plaster, and piazzas adorned with stones, which\nare admired by those who are ignorant of true good, nor yet paintings\nand arched myrtle walks, nor any thing else which is the subject of\nastonishment to the stupid[49], is the ornament of a family. But the\nbeauty of a household consists in the conjunction of man and wife,\nwho are united to each other by destiny, and are consecrated to the\nGods who preside over nuptials, births, and houses, and who accord,\nindeed, with each other, and have all things in common, as far as\nto their bodies, or rather their souls themselves; who likewise\nexercise a becoming authority over their house and servants; are\nproperly solicitous about the education of their children; and pay an\nattention to the necessaries of life, which is neither excessive nor\nnegligent, but moderate and appropriate. For what can be better and\nmore excellent, as the most admirable Homer says,\n\n      Than when at home the husband and the wife\n      Unanimously live[50].\n\nOn which account I have frequently wondered at those who conceive\nthat the life with a woman is burdensome and grievous. For a wife\nis not by Jupiter either a burden or a molestation, as to them she\nappears to be; but, on the contrary, she is something light and easy\nto be borne, or rather, she possesses the power of exonerating her\nhusband from things truly troublesome and weighty. For there is not\nany thing so troublesome which will not be easily borne by a husband\nand wife when they are concordant, and are willing to endure it in\ncommon. But imprudence is truly burdensome, and difficult to be\nborne by its possessors: for through it things naturally light, and\namong others a wife, become heavy. In reality, indeed, marriage to\nmany is intolerable, not from itself, or because such an association\nas this with a woman is naturally insufferable; but when we marry\nthose whom we ought not, and, together with this, are ourselves\nentirely ignorant of life, and unprepared to take a wife in such a\nway as a free and ingenuous woman ought to be taken, then it happens\nthat this association with her becomes difficult and intolerable.\nIt is certain, indeed, that marriage is effected by the vulgar\nafter this manner. For they do not take a wife for the sake of the\nprocreation of children, and the association of life; but some are\ninduced to marry through the magnitude of the portion, others through\ntranscendency of form, and others through other such like causes;\nand by employing these bad counsellors, they pay no attention to\nthe disposition and manners of the bride, but celebrate nuptials to\ntheir own destruction, and with their doors crowned introduce to\nthemselves a tyrant instead of a wife, whom they cannot resist, and\nwith whom they are unable to contend for the chief authority. It\nis evident, therefore, that marriage through these causes, and not\nthrough itself, becomes burdensome and intolerable to many. It is\nproper, however, as it is said, neither to blame things which are\ninnoxious, nor to make our imbecility in the use of things the cause\nof complaint against them. Besides, it is also in other respects most\nabsurd, to investigate on all sides the auxiliaries of friendship,\nand procure certain friends and associates, as those who will aid\nand defend us in the difficulties of life, and yet not explore and\nendeavour to obtain that relief, defence, and assistance which are\nafforded us by nature, by the laws, and by the Gods, through a wife\nand children.\n\nWith respect to a numerous offspring, it is after a certain manner,\naccording to nature and consentaneous to marriage, that all, or the\ngreatest part of those that are born, should be nurtured. Many,\nhowever, appear to be unpersuaded by this admonition, through a\ncause not very decorous: for they are thus affected through a love\nof riches, and because they think poverty to be a transcendently\ngreat evil. In the first place, therefore, it must be considered,\nthat in procreating children, we not only beget assistants for\nourselves, nourishers of our old age, and participants with us of\nevery fortune and every circumstance that may occur in life;\u2014I say,\nwe do not beget them for ourselves alone, but in many things also for\nour parents. For the procreation of children is gratifying to them;\nbecause, if we should suffer any thing of a calamitous nature prior\nto their decease, we shall leave our children instead of ourselves,\nas the support of their old age. But it is a beautiful thing for a\ngrandfather to be conducted by the hands of his grandchildren, and to\nbe considered by them as deserving of every other attention. Hence,\nin the first place, we shall gratify our own parents, by paying\nattention to the procreation of children. And, in the next place,\nwe shall cooperate with the prayers and ardent wishes of those that\nbegot us. For they from the first were solicitous about our birth,\nconceiving that through it there would be a very extended succession\nof themselves, and that they shall leave behind them children of\nchildren, and have to pay attention to our marriage, our procreation,\nand nurture. Hence, by marrying and begetting children, we shall\naccomplish, as it were, a part of their prayers; but, by being of a\ncontrary opinion, we shall cut off the object of their deliberate\nchoice. _Moreover, it appears that every one who voluntarily, and\nwithout some prohibiting circumstance, avoids marriage, and the\nprocreation of children, accuses his parents of madness, as not\nhaving engaged in wedlock with right conceptions of things._ It is\neasy also to see, that such a one forms an incongruous opinion. For\nhow is it possible that he should not be full of dissension, who\nfinds a pleasure in living, and willingly continues in life as one\nwho was produced into existence in a becoming manner by his parents,\nand yet conceives that for him to procreate others is one among\nthe number of things which are to be rejected? In the first place,\nhowever, as we have before observed, it is requisite to consider,\nthat we do not beget children for our own sakes alone, but for those\nalso through whom we ourselves were begotten; and, in the next place,\nfor the sake of our friends and kindred. For it is gratifying to\nthese to see children which are our offspring, both on account of\nbenevolence and propinquity, and on account of security. For the\nlife of those to whom these pertain, is established as in a port by\na thing of this kind, analogously to ships, which, though greatly\nagitated by the waves of the sea, are firmly secured by many anchors.\nOn this account, the man who is a lover of his kindred, and a lover\nof his associates, will earnestly desire to marry and procreate\nchildren. We are likewise loudly called upon by our country to do\nso. For we do not beget children so much for ourselves as for our\ncountry, procuring a race that may follow us, and supplying the\ncommunity with our successors. Hence the priest should know that he\nowes priests to his city; the ruler that he owes rulers; the public\norator public orators; and, in short, the citizen that he owes\ncitizens to it. As, therefore, to a choir the perennial continuance\nof those that compose it is gratifying, and to an army the duration\nof the soldiers, so to a city is the lastingness of the citizens.\nIf, indeed, a city was a certain system of a short duration, and the\nlife of it was commensurate with the life of man, it would not be in\nwant of succession. But since it is extended to many generations,\nand if it employs a more fortunate d\u00e6mon endures for many ages, it\nis evident that it is not only necessary to direct our attention to\nthe present, but also to the future time, and not despise our natal\nsoil, and leave it desolate, but establish it in good hopes from our\nposterity.\n\n\nHOW WE OUGHT TO CONDUCT OURSELVES TOWARDS OUR [OTHER] KINDRED.\n\nThe consideration of the duties pertaining to [our other] kindred\nis consequent to the discussion of those that pertain to parents,\nbrothers, wives, and children; for the same things may, in a certain\nrespect, be said of the former as of the latter; and on this account\nmay be concisely explained. For, in short, each of us is, as it\nwere, circumscribed by many circles; some of which are less, but\nothers larger, and some comprehend, but others are comprehended,\naccording to the different and unequal habitudes with respect to\neach other. For the first, indeed, and most proximate circle is\nthat which every one describes about his own mind as a centre, in\nwhich circle the body, and whatever is assumed for the sake of the\nbody, are comprehended. For this is nearly the smallest circle, and\nalmost touches the centre itself. The second from this, and which\nis at a greater distance from the centre, but comprehends the first\ncircle, is that in which parents, brothers, wife, and children are\narranged. The third circle from the centre is that which contains\nuncles and aunts, grandfathers and grandmothers, and the children of\nbrothers and sisters. After this is the circle which comprehends\nthe remaining relatives. Next to this is that which contains the\ncommon people, then that which comprehends those of the same tribe,\nafterwards that which contains the citizens; and then two other\ncircles follow, one being the circle of those that dwell in the\nvicinity of the city, and the other, of those of the same province.\nBut the outermost and greatest circle, and which comprehends all the\nother circles, is that of the whole human race[51].\n\nThese things being thus considered, it is the province of him who\nstrives to conduct himself properly in each of these connections\nto collect, in a certain respect, the circles, as it were, to one\ncentre, and always to endeavour earnestly to transfer himself from\nthe comprehending circles to the several particulars which they\ncomprehend. It pertains, therefore, to the man who is a lover of\nkindred [to conduct himself in a becoming manner[52]] towards\nhis parents and brothers; also, according to the same analogy,\ntowards the more elderly of his relatives of both sexes, such as\ngrandfathers, uncles and aunts; towards those of the same age with\nhimself, as his cousins; and towards his juniors, as the children of\nhis cousins. Hence we have summarily shown how we ought to conduct\nourselves towards our kindred, having before taught how we should\nact towards ourselves, our parents, and brothers; and besides these,\ntowards our wife and children. To which it must be added, that\nthose who belong to the third circle must be honoured similarly to\nthese; and again, kindred similarly to those that belong to the\nthird circle. For something of benevolence must be taken away from\nthose who are more distant from us by blood; though at the same time\nwe should endeavour that an assimilation may take place between us\nand them. For this distance will become moderate, if, through the\ndiligent attention[53] which we pay to them, we cut off the length\nof the habitude towards each individual of these. We have unfolded,\ntherefore, that which is most comprehensive and important in the\nduties pertaining to kindred.\n\nIt is requisite, likewise, to add a proper measure conformably to\nthe general use of appellations, calling indeed cousins, uncles and\naunts, by the name of brothers, fathers and mothers; but of other\nkindred, to denominate some uncles, others the children of brothers\nor sisters, and others cousins, according to the difference of age,\nfor the sake of the abundant extension which there is in names.\nFor this mode of appellation will be no obscure indication of our\nsedulous attention to each of these relatives; and at the same time\nwill incite, and extend us in a greater degree, to the contraction as\nit were of the above mentioned circles. But as we have proceeded thus\nfar in our discussion, it will not be unseasonable to recall to our\nmemory the distinction with respect to parents, which we before made.\nFor in that place in which we compared mother with father, we said\nthat it was requisite to attribute more of love to a mother, and more\nof honour to a father; and conformably to this, we shall here add,\nthat it is fit to have more love for those who are connected with\nus by a maternal alliance, but to pay more honour to those who are\nrelated to us by a paternal affinity.\n\n\nON ECONOMICS.\n\nPrior to all things, it is requisite to speak of the works through\nwhich the union of a family is preserved. These, therefore, are to\nbe divided after the accustomed manner; viz. rural, forensic, and\npolitical works are to be attributed to the husband; but to the wife,\nsuch works as pertain to spinning wool, making of bread, cooking,\nand, in short, every thing of a domestic nature. Nevertheless, it\nis not fit that the one should be entirely exempt from the works\nof the other. For sometimes it will be proper when the wife is in\nthe country that she should superintend the labourers, and perform\nthe office of the master of the house; and that the husband should\nsometimes convert his attention to domestic affairs; and partly\ninquire about, and partly inspect what is doing in the house. For\nthus, what pertains to the mutual association of both will be more\nfirmly connected by their joint participation of necessary cares.\nSince, however, our discussion has extended thus far, it appears to\nme that I ought not to omit to mention manual operations; for it\nwill not be incongruous to add this also to what has been said about\nworks.\n\nWhat occasion, therefore, is there to say, that it is fit the man\nshould meddle with agricultural labours? For there are not many\nby whom this will not be admitted. But though so much luxury and\nidleness occupies the life of men of the present day, yet it is rare\nto find one who is not willing to engage in the labour of sowing\nand planting; and to be employed in other works which pertain to\nagriculture. Perhaps, however, the arguments will be much less\npersuasive, which call on the man to engage in those other works\nwhich belong to the woman. For such men as pay great attention to\nneatness and cleanliness will not conceive the spinning of wool to be\ntheir business: since, for the most part, vile diminutive men, and\nthe tribe of such as are delicate and effeminate apply themselves to\nthe elaboration of wool, through an emulation of feminine softness.\nBut it does not become a man, who is truly so called, to apply\nhimself to things of this kind; so that neither shall I, perhaps,\nadvise those to engage in such employments, who have not given\nperfectly credible indications of their virility and modesty. What,\ntherefore, should hinder the man from partaking of the works which\npertain to a woman, whose past life has been such as to free him\nfrom all suspicion of absurd and effeminate conduct? For in other\ndomestic works, is it not thought that more of them pertain to men\nthan to women? For they are more laborious, and require corporeal\nstrength, such as to grind, to knead meal, to cut wood, to draw water\nfrom a well, to transfer large vessels from one place to another; to\nshake coverlets and carpets, and every other work similar to these.\nAnd it will be sufficient, indeed, for these things to be performed\nby men. But it is also fit that some addition should be made to the\nlegitimate work of a woman, so that she may not only engage with her\nmaid servants in the spinning of wool, but may also apply herself\nto other more virile works. For it appears to me that the making of\nbread, the drawing of water [from a well], the lighting of fires, the\nmaking of beds, and every other work similar to these are the proper\nemployments of a freeborn woman. But a wife will seem much more\nbeautiful to her husband, and especially if she is young, and not yet\nworn out by the bearing of children, if she becomes his associate\nin gathering grapes, and collecting olives; and if he is verging to\nold age, she will render herself more pleasing to him, by partaking\nwith him of the labour of sowing and ploughing, and extending to him,\nwhile he is digging or planting, the instruments proper for such\nworks. For when a family is governed after this manner by the husband\nand wife, so far as pertains to necessary works, it appears to me\nthat it will be conducted in this respect in the best manner.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\nC. Whittingham, College House, Chiswick.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 273.\n\n[2] In Lib. de Philosophorum Sectis.\n\n[3] The following extract from Bentley\u2019s Eighth Sermon at Boyle\u2019s\nLectures, sufficiently shows the doctor\u2019s deficiency in intellect.\n\u201cNor do we count it any absurdity, that such a vast and immense\nuniverse should be made for the sole use of such mean and unworthy\ncreatures as the children of men. For if we consider the dignity\nof an intelligent being, and put that in the scales against brute\ninanimate matter, we may affirm, without overvaluing human nature,\nthat the soul of one virtuous and religious man is of greater worth\nand excellency than the sun and his planets, and all the stars in\nthe world.\u201d For this opinion is not only stupid and arrogant in the\nextreme, but is also contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures,\nof which the doctor was a teacher. For as I have observed in p. 13\nof the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology\nof Plato, \u201cthe stars are not called Gods by the Jewish legislator,\nas things inanimate like statues fashioned of wood or stone.\u201d This\nis evident from what is said in the book of Job, and the Psalms.\n\u201cBehold even the moon and it shineth not, yea the stars are not pure\nin his sight. How much less man that is a worm, and the son of man\nwhich is a worm?\u201d (Job, xxv. v. 5 and 6). And, \u201cWhen I consider thy\nheavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou\nhast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the\nson of man that thou visitest him.\u201d (Psalm viii. v. 3 and 4.) It is\nevident, therefore, from these passages, that the heavens and the\nstars are more excellent than man; but nothing inanimate can be more\nexcellent than that which is animated. To which may be added, that in\nthe following verse David says, that God has made man a little lower\nthan the angels. But the stars, as I have demonstrated in the above\nmentioned Introduction, were considered by Moses as angels and Gods;\nand consequently they are animated beings, and superior to man.\n\nFarther still, it is said in Psalm xi. v. 4, that \u201cthe Lord\u2019s throne\nis in heaven.\u201d And again, in Isaiah, chap. lxvi. v. 1. \u201cThus saith\nthe Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.\u201d\nIf, therefore, the heavens are the throne of Deity, they must\nevidently be deified. For nothing can come into immediate contact\nwith divinity, without being divine. Hence, says Simplicius, (in\nComment in Lib. ii. de C\u00e6lo.) \u201cThat it is connascent with the\nhuman soul to think the celestial bodies are divine, is especially\nevident from those (the Jews), who look to these bodies through\npreconceptions about divine natures. For they also say that the\nheavens are the habitation of God, and the throne of God, and are\nalone sufficient to reveal the glory and excellence of God to those\nwho are worthy; than which assertions what can be more venerable?\u201d\n\nIndeed, that the heavens are not the inanimate throne and residence\nof Deity, is also evident from the assertion in the nineteenth\nPsalm, that \u201cthe heavens declare the glory of God.\u201d For R. Moses, a\nvery learned Jew, (See Gaffarel\u2019s Unheard-of Curiosities, p. 391.)\nsays, \u201cthat the word _saphar_ to _declare_, or _set forth_, is never\nattributed to things inanimate.\u201d Hence he concludes, \u201cthat the\nheavens are not without some soul; which, says he, is no other than\nthat of those blessed intelligences who govern the stars, and dispose\nthem into such letters as God has ordained; _declaring_ unto us men,\nby means of this writing, what events we are to expect. And hence\nthis same writing is called by all the ancients, _chetab hamelachim_;\nthat is to say, _the writing of the angels_.\u201d\n\n[4] In the Fragments of his Life of Isidorus the Platonist, preserved\nby Photius. The greater part of what Suidas has said about Hierocles\nis taken from these memoirs of Isidorus.\n\n[5] The discourses of Socrates in Plato.\n\n[6] For so the Christians were called by the heathens, when the\nreligion of the latter was rapidly declining, and that of the former\nhad gained the ascendency. Thus Porphyry, in a passage preserved\nby Theodoret, (in lib. i. De Curat. Gr\u00e6c. Superst.) \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u0395\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b7\u03b4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd. i.e. \u201cFor the way which leads to the Gods is\nbound with chains of brass, and is arduous and rough, many paths of\nwhich were indeed discovered by the Barbarians; but the Greeks have\nwandered from them, and they are entirely corrupted by _those who now\nprevail_.\u201d\n\nThis passage of Porphyry, derived its origin from the following\noracle of Apollo, preserved by Eusebius:\n\n      \u0391\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd,\n      \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n      \u0391\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9,\n      \u0391\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\n      \u039f\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u039d\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7\n      \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd,\n      \u0391\u03c3\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u039b\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u0395\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nBut for \u0395\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, in the last line, I read \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, it not being at\nall reasonable to suppose that an oracle of Apollo would say that the\nHebrews knew many paths which led to the knowledge of the Gods. It is\nprobable, therefore, that either Aristobulus the Jew, well known for\ninterpolating the writings of the heathens, or the wicked Eusebius,\nas he is called by the Emperor Julian, has fraudulently substituted\nthe former word for the latter. The Oracle, with this emendation,\nwill be in English as follows:\n\n      The path by which to deity we climb\n      Is arduous, rough, ineffable, sublime;\n      And the strong massy gates, through which we pass\n      In our first course, are bound with chains of brass.\n      Those men the first who of Egyptian birth\n      Drank the fair water of Nilotic earth,\n      Disclosed by actions infinite this road,\n      And many paths to God Ph\u0153nicians show\u2019d.\n      This road the Assyrians pointed out to view,\n      And this the Lydians and Chaldeans knew.\n\nBut when Porphyry says that the Greeks have wandered from the path\nwhich leads to divinity, he alludes to their worshipping men as Gods;\nwhich, as I have shown in the Introduction to my translation of\nProclus On the Theology of Plato, is contrary to the genuine doctrine\nof the heathen religion; and was the cause of its corruption, and\nfinal extinction, among the Greeks and Romans.\n\n[7] Odyss. lib. ix. v. 347.\n\n[8] Fragments of this work are to be found in Photius. But they are\nfragments of a treatise or treatises, On _Providence, Fate, and Free\nWill_.\n\n[9] An adept in the philosophy of Plato will at once be convinced\nof the truth of this assertion, by comparing what Hierocles has\nsaid about prayer in his Commentary On the Golden Verses of the\nPythagoreans, with what is said respecting it by Iamblichus, in\nhis Treatise on the Mysteries; and by Proclus, at the beginning of\nthe second book of his Commentary On the Tim\u00e6us of Plato. See the\nIntroduction to the second Alcibiades, in Vol. 4. of my translation\nof Plato, and the Notes to my translation of Maximus Tyrius; in which\nthe reader will find what Iamblichus, Proclus, and Hierocles have\nsaid on this subject. And that he was not consummately accurate in\nhis knowledge, will be evident by comparing what he says in his above\nmentioned Commentary, about that middle order of beings denominated\n_the illustrious heroes_, with what Iamblichus and Proclus have\nmost admirably unfolded concerning them. And this will still more\nplainly appear from what he says about the celebrated _tetrad_, or\n_tetractys_ of the Pythagoreans, in p. 166, and 170, of the same\nCommentary. For in both these places, he clearly asserts, that\nthis tetrad is the same with the _Demiurgus_, or _maker_ of _the\nuniverse_. Thus, in the former of these places \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff3\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1ff3. i.e. \u201cAnd the author of these verses shows that the tetrad,\nwhich is the fountain of the perpetual orderly distribution of\nthings, is the same with the God who is the Demiurgus.\u201d And in the\nlatter passage, \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5. i.e.\n\u201cFor as we have said, the tetrad is the Demiurgus and cause of the\nwholes of the universe, being an intelligible God, the source of the\ncelestial and sensible God.\u201d The tetrad, however, or the _animal\nitself_, (\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03bd) of Plato; who, as Syrianus justly observes,\nwas the best of the Pythagoreans; subsists at the extremity of the\n_intelligible_ triad, as is most satisfactorily shown by Proclus in\nthe third book of his Treatise On the Theology, and in the fourth\nbook of his Commentary On the Tim\u00e6us of Plato. But the Demiurgus,\nas it is demonstrated by the same incomparable man, in the fifth\nbook of the former of these works, subsists at the extremity of the\n_intellectual_ triad. And between these two triads another order of\nGods exists, which is denominated _intelligible, and at the same\ntime intellectual_, as partaking of both the extremes. The English\nreader who has a genius for such speculations, will be convinced of\nthis by diligently perusing my translations of the above mentioned\nworks. Notwithstanding, however, the knowledge of Hierocles was not\nso consummately accurate on certain most abstruse theological dogmas\nas that of Iamblichus, Proclus, and Damascius, yet where ethics are\nconcerned, his notions are most correct, most admirable, and sublime.\n\n[10] Thus, too, Plato in his Laws mingles his polity from a\ndemocracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. He was, however, decidedly of\nopinion, as is evident from his Politicus, that the best form of\ngovernment is that in which either one man, who is a most excellent\ncharacter, is the supreme ruler, or a few excellent men rule\nconjointly.\n\n[11] In the original there is only \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f66\u03bd \u03bf \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, which is\nevidently defective; but by adding \u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 the sense will be\ncomplete. And in what immediately follows \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 which also is defective, Gesner adds \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 after \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1,\nbut he should doubtless have added \u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n[12] _i.e._ To a perfect subjugation of the passions to reason, and\nnot to a perfect insensibility, as is stupidly supposed by many who\ndo not understand the proper meaning of the word _apathy_, as used by\nthe Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoics.\n\n[13] The original is, I conceive, evidently defective in this place;\nfor it is, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. It appears, therefore, to me, that\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 should be added after \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2, and that for \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1 we\nshould read \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1.\n\n[14] Among the Laced\u00e6monians the three men were thus denominated, who\nwere chosen by the Ephori to preside over the equestrian order. But\nthe ephori were magistrates corresponding to the _tribunes_ of the\npeople among the Romans.\n\n[15] In the original, \u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b1 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1. But for \u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, I read\n\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd; and for \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1, it is necessary to read \u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1. For the\nvices, according to the Pythagoreans, subsist about the irrational\npart of the soul, which consists, according to them, as well as\naccording to Plato, of _anger_ and _desire_. Hence Metopus, the\nPythagorean, says: \u201cSince there are two parts of the soul, the\nrational and the irrational, the latter is divided into the irascible\nand the appetitive. And the rational part, indeed, is that by which\nwe judge and contemplate; but the irrational part is that by which we\nare impelled and desire.\u201d See my translation of Pythagoric Ethical\nFragments, at the end of my translation of Iamblichus\u2019 Life of\nPythagoras.\n\n[16] I here read, with Victorius, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7, for \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[17] This sentence within the brackets is not to be found in Stob\u00e6us.\n\n[18] i.e. God is not in want of ministers or servants to assist him\nin the government of the universe: for he produces and provides for\nall things at once by his own immediate energy. But the cooperation\nof subordinate divine powers with him is necessary to the proper\nparticipation of him by the different beings which the universe\ncontains.\n\n[19] For \u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd in this place, I read \u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[20] Instead of \u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 here, I read \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5.\n\n[21] Conformably to this, Plato also in the Politicus says: \u201cIt is\nrequisite to call him royal who possesses the royal science, whether\nhe governs or not.\u201d\n\n[22] Plato says somewhere (I think in his Laws), that a greater evil\nthan impudence cannot befall either cities or individuals.\n\n[23] _i.e._ The seed which pertains to the propagation of his\nchildren.\n\n[24] _i.e._ To his children while they live in his house under his\nprotection and are unmarried; and who are in danger through having a\nstepmother of losing that property which ought to be theirs on the\ndeath of their father.\n\n[25] P\u00e6an is a song of rejoicing, which was sung at festivals and on\nother occasions, in honour of Apollo, for having slain the serpent\nPython.\n\n[26] A kind of harp beaten with sticks.\n\n[27] In the original \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03bd a _celestial_ animal; but as\nCallicratidas is here speaking of the Demiurgus, or artificer of the\nuniverse, who is an _intellectual_ god, for \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd I read \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\nFor the Demiurgus is the maker, and not one of the celestial gods.\nBut he is called an _animal_, as being the cause of _life_ to all\nthings. Thus, too, Aristotle, in the 12th book of his Metaphysics,\nsays, \u201cthat God is an animal eternal and most excellent.\u201d\n\n[28] This Perictyone is different from her who was the mother of\nPlato.\n\n[29] In this extract no mention whatever is made of the harmony of\na woman; for it wholly consists of the duty of children to their\nparents.\n\n[30] \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u1ff3 is omitted in the original, but ought, as it appears to\nme, to be inserted.\n\n[31] It is well observed by Olympiodorus, on the Ph\u00e6do of Plato,\n\u201cthat the soul is not punished by divinity through anger but\nmedicinally; and that by eternity of punishment we must understand\npunishment commensurate with the soul\u2019s partial period; because souls\nthat have committed the greatest offences cannot be sufficiently\npurified in one period.\u201d\n\n[32] For \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in this place, which is evidently erroneous, I read\n\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[33] The whole of this extract is to be found in the fourth book\nof Plato\u2019s Laws. (See tom. viii. p. 187, and 188, of the Bipont\nedition.) But there is occasionally some little difference between\nthe text of Plato and that of Aristoxenus, as the critical reader\nwill easily discover. Neither Fabricius nor the editors of Stob\u00e6us\nhave noticed the source of this extract.\n\n[34] The whole of this extract is taken from the eleventh book of\nPlato\u2019s Laws, but what is there said is here somewhat amplified.\n\n[35] See p. 137, and 138, of my Translation of Iamblichus on the\nMysteries.\n\n[36] Iliad IX. v. 495. 6. 7.\n\n[37] Iliad IX. v. 493. Hierocles is mistaken in saying that poetry\n_rashly asserts that the Gods are flexible_. For as I have observed\nin my Notes to Iamblichus on the Mysteries, divine flexibility\nindicates in Homer, and other theological poets of antiquity,\nthat those who through depravity become unadapted to receive the\nilluminations of the Gods, when they afterwards obtain pardon of\ntheir guilt through prayers and sacrifices, again become partakers of\nthe goodness of the Gods. So that divine flexibility is a resumption\nof the participation of divine light and goodness, by those who\nthrough inaptitude were before deprived of it.\n\n[38] See on this most interesting subject, that divinity is not the\ncause of evil, my translation of the Fragments of Proclus on the\nSubsistence of Evil, at the end of my translation of his six books On\nthe Theology of Plato.\n\n[39] See Odyss. I. v. 32, 33, 34.\n\n[40] See the first book of his Republic.\n\n[41] i.e. Such things as are neither really good, nor really evil,\nbut media between these.\n\n[42] After this last sentence, the words \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7, follow in the\noriginal; which evidently show that something is wanting: as they\nare only the beginning of another sentence. This defect, however, is\nsupplied in my copy of Stob\u00e6us, (Eclog. Ethic. lib. II. p. 207), by\nsome one in manuscript, as follows: \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u03b1 (lege \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1) \u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9; and he\nhas also added the following Latin translation of these words: \u201cH\u00e6c\noportet prospicere ne per mentis c\u00e6citatem et ignorantiam h\u00e6c nobis\noccurrant.\u201d But the addition, from whatever source it was obtained,\ndoes not appear to me to be at all apposite; and therefore I conceive\nit to be spurious.\n\n[43] This is true of the whole which consists of parts, so as not to\nbe able to subsist without them. For whole has a triple substance;\nviz. it is either prior to parts, or in other words, is a whole\ncontaining parts causally; or it consists of parts; or is in a part,\nso that a part, also, becomes a whole according to participation. A\ncity, therefore, is a whole consisting of parts, any part of which\nbeing absent, diminishes the whole. See Prop. 67 of my translation of\nProclus\u2019 Elements of Theology; and the second book of my translation\nof Proclus on the Tim\u00e6us.\n\n[44] When the intelligent reader considers that Hierocles flourished\nabout the middle of the fifth century after Christ, he will\nimmediately understand what the _recent customs_ are to which\nHierocles, in the above passage, alludes. Needham, in his translation\nof this passage, either did not understand the meaning of it, or\nwilfully omitted to translate it.\n\n[45] The honours which we pay to divinity can be of no advantage to\nhim, but benefit us; but the honours which we pay to our parents are\nbeneficial to them. And in this sense, and in this only, the latter\nare to be honoured more than the former.\n\n[46] This reminds me of what Pope, no less piously than pathetically\nsays, respecting his mother, in the following most beautiful lines:\n\n      \u201cMe let the tender office long engage,\n      To rock the cradle of reposing age,\n      With lenient arts extend a mothers breath,\n      Make languor smile, and smooth the bed of death;\n      _Explore the thought, explain the asking eye_,\n      And keep awhile one parent from the sky.\u201d\n              _See his Seventh Epistle, near the end._\n\n[47] The following extract from Sir William Jones, as given by Moor\nin his Hindu Pantheon, p. 421, demonstrates the great antiquity of\nthis precept:\n\n\u201cOur divine religion has no need of such aids as many are willing to\ngive it; by asserting that the wisest men of this world were ignorant\nof the two great maxims\u2014that _we must act in respect of others as we\nshould wish them to act in respect of ourselves_\u2014and that, _instead\nof returning evil for evil, we should confer benefits on those who\ninjure us_. But the first rule is implied in a speech of Lysias, and\nexpressed in distinct phrases by Thales and Pittacus; and I have\neven seen it word for word, in the original of Confucius, which I\ncarefully compared with the Latin translation. If the conversion,\ntherefore, of the _Pandits_ and _Maulavis_, in India, shall ever be\nattempted by protestant missionaries, they must beware of asserting,\nwhile they teach the gospel, what those _Pandits_ and _Maulavis_\nwould know to be false. The former would cite the beautiful _Arya_\ncouplet, which was written at least three centuries before our era,\nand which pronounce the duty of a good man, even in the moment of\ndestruction, to consist, _not only in forgiving, but even in a desire\nof benefiting his destroyer_\u2014as _the sandal tree, in the instant of\nits overthrow, sheds perfume on the axe which fells it_. And the\nlatter would triumph, in repeating the verse of SADI, who represents\n_a return of good for good as a slight reciprocity_; but says to the\nvirtuous man, \u2018_Confer benefits on him who has injured thee_:\u2019 using\nan _Arabic_ sentence, and a maxim apparently of the ancient Arabs.\nNor would the _Mussulmans_ fail to recite four distichs of _Hafiz_,\nwho has illustrated that maxim with fanciful but elegant allusions:\u2014\n\n      \u201cLearn from yon orient shell to love thy foe,\n      And store with pearls the hand that brings thee woe:\n      Free, like yon rock, from base vindictive pride,\n      Emblaze with gems the wrist that rends thy side.\n      Mark where yon tree rewards the stony shower\n      With fruit nectarious, or the balmy flower:\n      All nature calls aloud\u2014\u2018Shall man do less\n      Than heal the smiter, and the railer bless?\u2019\u201d\n                                         _As. Res. Vol. IV._\n\n[48] viz. Such circumstances as induced Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, and\nmany other ancient philosophers, not to engage in wedlock, because\nthey found that they could give greater assistance to philosophy by\ncontinuing single; but Pythagoras and Socrates, though they rank\namong the wisest men that ever lived, did not find a married life\nincompatible with the cultivation of philosophy in the highest\nperfection possible to man. Wedlock, therefore, is never to be\navoided from any sordid and selfish motives.\n\n[49] Hence Diogenes, in perfect conformity with that dignified\nindependence of character which he so eminently possessed, and\nwhich is to be found more or less in the conduct of all the ancient\nphilosophers, when a certain wealthy and ostentatious man brought him\nto a fine house which he had built, and desired him not to spit, as\nhe perceived he begun to hawk, spit in the man\u2019s face, observing at\nthe same time, that he could not find a worse place to spit in.\n\n[50] Odyss. lib. 7, v. 183.\n\n[51] This admirable passage is so conformable to the following\nbeautiful lines in Pope\u2019s Essay on Man, that it is most probably the\nsource from whence they were derived. The lines are these:\n\n      \u201cSelf love but serves the virtuous mind to wake,\n      As the small pebble stirs the peaceful lake,\n      The centre moved, a circle straight succeeds,\n      Another still, and still another spreads,\n      Friend, parent, neighbour first it will embrace,\n      His country next, and next all human race;\n      Wide and more wide th\u2019 o\u2019erflowings of the mind,\n      Take every creature in of every kind.\u201d\n\nIn Hierocles, however, the circles are scientifically detailed;\nbut in Pope they are synoptically enumerated. Pope, too, has added\nanother circle to that which is the outermost with Hierocles, viz.\nthe circle which embraces every creature of every kind. But as\nHierocles in this fragment is only speaking of our duties to kindred,\namong which the whole human race is, in a certain respect, included,\nhe had no occasion to introduce another circle, though the Platonic\ndoctrine of benevolence is as widely extended as that of Pope.\n\nAs the selflove, however, mentioned here by our poet is of a\nvirtuous nature, and is wholly different from that selflove which is\nreprehensible, and is possessed by the vulgar, I shall present the\nreader with what Aristotle says concerning the former in the 9th book\nof his Nicomachean Ethics, as the distinction between the two is at\npresent but little known.\n\nAristotle, therefore, having observed, that the selflove of the\nmultitude leads them to distribute to themselves the greater part in\nwealth and honours, and corporeal pleasures, and that in consequence\nof vindicating to themselves more of these things than is fit, they\nare subservient to desires and passions, and the irrational part of\nthe soul, adds as follows:\n\n\u201cHe who always earnestly endeavours to act justly or temperately,\nor to act according to any other of the virtues, the most of all\nthings, and, in short, who always vindicates to himself that which\nis beautiful in conduct; such a man will never be called by any one\na lover of himself, nor will he be blamed by any one. It would seem,\nhowever, that such a man as this is, in a greater degree, a lover\nof himself; for he distributes to himself things which are most\neminently beautiful and good, is gratified in his most principal\npart [intellect], and in all things is obedient to it. But as that\nwhich is the most principal thing in a city appears to be most\neminently the city, and this is the case in every other system of\nthings; thus, also, that which is most principal in man is especially\nthe man. He, therefore, who loves this principal part of himself,\nis especially a lover of himself, and is gratified with this. That\nevery man, therefore, is principally intellect, and that the worthy\nman principally loves this is not immanifest. Hence, he will be\nespecially a lover of himself, according to a different species of\nselflove from that which is disgraceful, and differing as much from\nit as to live according to reason differs from living according\nto passion, and as much as the desire of that which is beautiful\nin conduct differs from the desire of that which appears to be\nadvantageous. Hence it is necessary that a good man should be a lover\nof himself; for he himself is benefited by acting well, and he also\nbenefits others. But it is not proper that a depraved man should be a\nlover of himself; for he will hurt both himself and his neighbours,\nin consequence of being subservient to base passions. With the\ndepraved man, therefore, there is a dissonance between what he ought\nto do and what he does; but _with the worthy man, those things which\nhe ought to do he also does_.\u201d\n\nConformably to what Aristotle asserts in this last sentence, Seneca\nalso says, \u201cSapiens nihil facit quod non debet, et nihil pr\u00e6termittit\nquod debet.\u201d i.e. \u201c_The wise man does nothing which he ought not to\ndo, and omits nothing which he ought to do._\u201d\n\n[52] There is a deficiency here in the original, which I have\nendeavoured to supply in the translation by the words in the\nbrackets. It appears to me, therefore, that the words \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2\nare wanting.\n\n[53] For \u03b5\u03bd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, in this place in the original, I read\n\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n  THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST\n\n  OF\n\n  TRANSLATIONS AND ORIGINAL WORKS\n\n  BY T. TAYLOR.\n\n\n  Translations.\n  FROM THE GREEK.\n\n\nTHE HYMNS OF ORPHEUS, 12mo. 2_s._ 6_d._ _sewn_.\n\nPLOTINUS ON THE BEAUTIFUL, 12mo. 1_s._ 6_d._ _sewn_.\n\nPROCLUS ON EUCLID, and his Elements of Theology, in which the\nprincipal Dogmas of a Theology coeval with the Universe are unfolded.\n2 vols. 4to. 2_l._ 10_s._ _boards_.\n\nFOUR DIALOGUES OF PLATO, _viz._ the Cratylus, Ph\u00e6do, Parmenides, and\nTim\u00e6us, 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._ _boards_.\n\nTHE PH\u00c6DRUS OF PLATO, 4to. 6_s._ _boards_.\n\nSALLUST ON THE GODS AND THE WORLD. 8vo. 3_s._ _boards_.\n\nTWO ORATIONS OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN, one to the Sovereign Sun, and the\nother to the Mother of the Gods. 8vo. 3_s._ _boards_.\n\nFIVE BOOKS OF PLOTINUS, _viz._ on Felicity; on the Nature and Origin\nof Evil; on Providence; on Nature. Contemplation, and _the One_; and\non the Descent of the Soul. 8vo. 5_s._ _boards_.\n\nPAUSANIAS\u2019S DESCRIPTION OF GREECE, with copious Notes, in which much\nof the Mythology of the Greeks is unfolded from genuine ancient\nsources. 3 vols. 8vo. 18_s._ _boards_.\n\nARISTOTLE\u2019S METAPHYSICS, with copious Notes, in which the Platonic\nDoctrine of Ideas is largely unfolded. 4to. 2_l._ 2_s._ _boards_.\n\nTHE DISSERTATIONS OF MAXIMUS TYRIUS. 2 vols. 12mo. 12_s._ _boards_.\n\nTHE WORKS OF PLATO, in which the Substance is given of nearly all the\nexisting Greek MSS., Commentaries and Scholia on Plato, and his most\nabstruse Dogmas are unfolded. 5 vols. 4to. 10_l._ 10_s._ _boards_.\n\nTHE WORKS OF ARISTOTLE, accompanied with copious Elucidations from\nthe best of his Greek Commentators, viz. Alexander Aphrodisiensis,\nSyrianus, Ammonius Herm\u00e6as, Priscianus, Olympiodorus, Simplicius, &c.\n9 vols. 4to. 47_l._ 5_s._ _boards_.\n\nTHE SIX BOOKS OF PROCLUS ON THE THEOLOGY OF PLATO, to which a Seventh\nBook is added by the Translator, in order to supply the deficiency of\nanother Book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since\nlost. Also Proclus\u2019s Elements of Theology. 2 vols. 4to. 5_l._ 10_s._\n_boards_.\n\nSELECT WORKS OF PLOTINUS, and Extracts from Synesius on Providence.\n8vo. 18_s._ _boards_.\n\nIAMBLICHUS\u2019 LIFE OF PYTHAGORAS, or Pythagoric Life. Accompanied by\nFragments of the Ethical Writings of certain Pythagoreans, in the\nDoric Dialect; and a Collection of Pythagoric Sentences from Stob\u00e6us\nand others, which are omitted by Gale in his Opuscula Mythologica,\nand have not been noticed by any Editor. 8vo. 14_s._ _boards_.\n\nTHE COMMENTARIES OF PROCLUS ON THE TIM\u00c6US OF PLATO. In the\ntranslation of this admirable work, which is most deservedly intitled\nA TREASURY OF ALL ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY, upwards of eleven hundred\n_necessary_ emendations of the text are given by the Translator. The\nmathematical also, as well as the philosophical reader, will find\nthese Commentaries replete with information of a most interesting\nnature, which has hitherto escaped the notice of all modern writers;\nsuch as that the Atlantic Ocean, beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, was\nmarshy and full of breakers in the time of Plato and Aristotle, owing\nto the subsidency of the Atlantic Island; that the fixed stars have\nperiodic revolutions on their axis, unknown to us; that every planet\nhas a multitude of satellites; and many other equally admirable and\ninteresting particulars. 2 vols. royal 4to. 5_l._ 5_s._ _boards_.\n\nIAMBLICHUS ON THE MYSTERIES OF THE EGYPTIANS, CHALD\u00c6ANS, AND\nASSYRIANS. 8vo. 16_s._\n\nPOLITICAL PYTHAGORIC FRAGMENTS, and ETHICAL FRAGMENTS OF HIEROCLES,\npreserved by Stob\u00e6us. 8vo. 6_s._\n\n\nFROM THE LATIN.\n\nTHE FABLE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE FROM APULEIUS, with an Introduction\nexplaining the Meaning of the Fable, and proving that it alludes to\nthe Descent of the Soul. 8vo. 5_s._ _boards_.\n\nPROCLUS ON PROVIDENCE AND FATE; Extracts from his Treatise entitled\nTen Doubts concerning Providence; and Extracts from his Treatise\non the Subsistence of Evil; as preserved in the Bibliotheca Gr. of\nFabricius. See Proclus on the Theology of Plato.\n\n\nOriginal Works.\n\nHISTORY OF THE RESTORATION OF THE PLATONIC THEOLOGY, by the genuine\nDisciples of Plato. See the second vol. of Proclus on Euclid.\n\nA DISSERTATION ON THE ELEUSINIAN AND BACCHIC MYSTERIES, in which much\nnew and important Information, relative to those most venerable and\naugust Institutions, is given from Greek Manuscripts. 8vo. 5_s._ A\nSecond Edition of this Work is printed in Nos. XV. and XVI. of the\nPAMPHLETEER.\n\nA COMPLETE COLLECTION OF ALL THE EXISTING CHALD\u00c6AN ORACLES, with\nconcise Explanations. See the third vol. of the Old Monthly Magazine;\nNos. XXXII. XXXIII. and XXXIV. of the CLASSICAL JOURNAL.\n\nA DISSERTATION ON NULLITIES AND DIVERGING SERIES, in which Nullities\nare proved to be infinitely small quantities, and the Platonic\nDoctrine of \u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03bd, or _the One_, is illustrated. See the end of the\nfirst edition of the Translation of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics.\n\nAN ANSWER to Dr. Gillies\u2019s Supplement to his Translation\nof Aristotle\u2019s Ethics and Politics, in which the _extreme_\nUnfaithfulness of that Translation is unfolded. 12mo. 2_s._ 6_d._\n_sewn_.\n\nA POETICAL PARAPHRASE on the SPEECH OF DIOTIMA ON THE BEAUTIFUL, in\nthe Banquet of Plato. See the Translation of the Fable of Cupid and\nPsyche.\n\nHYMNS. See the before-mentioned Sallust, Julian, Plotinus, and Cupid\nand Psyche.\n\nA new edition of HEDERIC\u2019S GREEK LEXICON, in which many words are\ninserted, not found in other modern Lexicons, and an Explanation is\ngiven of some words agreeably to the Platonic Philosophy. 4to. 1803.\n2_l._ 2_s._ _boards_.\n\nTHE ELEMENTS OF THE TRUE ARITHMETIC OF INFINITES, in which all the\nPropositions in the Arithmetic of Infinites invented by Dr. Wallis,\nrelative to the Summation of Infinite Series, and also the Principles\nof the Doctrine of Fluxions, are demonstrated to be false; and the\nNature of Infinitesimals is unfolded. 4to. 5_s._ _sewn_.\n\nMISCELLANIES IN PROSE AND VERSE; containing the Triumph of the\nWise Man over Fortune, according to the Doctrine of the Stoics and\nPlatonists; The Creed of the Platonic Philosopher; A Panegyric on\nSydenham, &c. &c. 12mo. 2_s._ 6_d._ _boards_.\n\nA DISSERTATION ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE, in four Books; in\nwhich his principal Physical and Metaphysical Dogmas are unfolded;\nand it is shown from indubitable evidence, that his Philosophy has\nnot been accurately known since the destruction of the Greeks. The\ninsufficiency also of the Philosophy that has been substituted by\nthe Moderns for that of Aristotle is demonstrated. This volume was\nwritten as an Introduction to the Translation of Aristotle\u2019s Works.\n4to. 5_l._ 5_s._ _boards_.\n\nTHEORETIC ARITHMETIC, in three Books; containing the Substance of all\nthat has been written on this Subject by Theo of Smyrna, Nicomachus,\nIamblichus, and B\u0153tius.\u2014Together with some remarkable particulars\nrespecting perfect, amicable, and other Numbers, which are not to\nbe found in the writings of any ancient or modern Mathematicians.\nLikewise a Specimen of the manner in which the Pythagoreans\nphilosophized about Numbers; and a Developement of their mystical and\ntheological Arithmetic, 8vo. 14_s._ _boards_.\n\nORPHIC FRAGMENTS, hitherto inedited. See No. XXXIII. of the CLASSICAL\nJOURNAL.\n\n\n\n\n  TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n  Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been\n  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within\n  the text and consultation of external sources.\n\n  Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,\n  when a predominant preference was found in the original book.\n\n  Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,\n  and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.\n\n  Pg 14: \u2018rulers that excell\u2019 replaced by \u2018rulers that excel\u2019.\n  Pg 81: \u2018to be seperated\u2019 replaced by \u2018to be separated\u2019.\n  Pg 98: \u2018external af-affairs\u2019 replaced by \u2018external affairs\u2019.\n  Footnote 51 (Pg 107): \u201cthe\u2019 o\u2019erflowings\u201d replaced by\n      \u201cth\u2019 o\u2019erflowings\u201d.\n  Catalog: \u2018EGYPTIANS, CHALDEANS\u2019 replaced by \u2018EGYPTIANS, CHALD\u00c6ANS\u2019.","title":"Political fragments of Archytas, Charondas, Zaleucus, and other ancient Pythagoreans, preserved by Stob\u00e6us : $b and also, Ethical fragments of Hierocles, the celebrated commentator on the Golden Pythagoric Verses, preserved by the same author","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":29305}